Cover not available

Article published In: International Journal of Corpus Linguistics: Online-First Articles

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload EPUB
authorization required

From theory to data

Testing introspective claims on synonymous French adjectives ‘prochain’ and ‘suivant’ using corpus-based methods

ORCiD logo with link | Universiti Malaya | University of Lorraine
ORCiD logo with link | Universiti Malaya
ORCiD logo with link | University of Lorraine
ORCiD logo with link | Universiti Malaya
Published online: 31 October 2025
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.24085.loo
Abstract
This paper presents a corpus-based study that evaluates variables identified introspectively by Berthonneau, A.-M. (2002). Prochain/dernier et compagnie. Les adjectifs « déictiques » à l’épreuve de l’espace ou comment circuler dans le temps, l’espace, le texte. Langue Française, 1361, 104–125. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar in relation to the alternation between two French synonymous: prochain (‘next’ or ‘upcoming’) and suivant (‘following’ or ‘next’). Employing a multifactorial and behavioural profiles approach, we explore the asymmetry in their temporal and spatial applications. Our findings highlight distinct uses with temporal nouns, whereas uses with material nouns overlap. Binomial logistic regression and multiple correspondence analysis reveal a general divide between the deictic use of prochain and the anaphoric use of suivant, corroborating Berthonneau’s descriptions. Additionally, event predictability, which Berthonneau addressed only fleetingly, significantly influences form choice, with prochain often associated with general, eventual contexts and suivant with specific, predictable events. This study contributes to the understanding of how corpus-based methods can refine existing linguistic hypotheses by illuminating the intersections and divergences between empirical and introspective research.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1Adjectives of the third type
    • 1.2Research objectives and questions
  • 2.Starting point: Berthonneau (2002)
    • 2.1Conditions on temporal nouns
    • 2.2Spatial uses of prochain and suivant
    • 2.3Salience of the referents in communicative situations
  • 3.Methodology: Corpus and statistical methods
    • 3.1Bayesian binomial logistic regression
    • 3.2Multiple correspondence Analysis for results summarisation
  • 4.Results and discussion: Logistic regression and multiple correspondence analysis
    • 4.1First divergences from Berthonneau (2002): Variables lacking statistical associations
    • 4.2Logistic regression results
      • 4.2.1Categories associated with suivant
      • 4.2.2Categories associated with prochain
    • 4.3Multiple correspondence analysis results
      • 4.3.1First dimension: Distinction between deictic prochain and anaphoric suivant
      • 4.3.2Second dimension: Distinction between occurrence predictability and eventuality
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • R packages
  • References
References (48)
R packages
Barnier, J. (2023). explor: Interactive interfaces for results exploration. R package version 0.3.10. [URL]
Dogucu, M., Johnson, A., & Ott, M. (2021). bayesrules: Datasets and supplemental functions from Bayes Rules! Book. R package 0.0.2.9000. [URL]
Gabry, J., & Mahr, T. (2022). bayesplot: Plotting for Bayesian models. R package version 1.10.0. [URL]
Goodrich, B., Gabry, J., Ali, I., & Brilleman, S. (2022). rstanarm: Bayesian applied regression modelling via Stan. R package version 2.21.3. [URL]
Hartig, F. (2022). DHARMa: Residual diagnostics for hierarchical (multi-level/mixed) regression models. R package version 0.4.6. [URL]
Le, S., Josse, J., & Husson, F. (2008). FactoMineR: An R package for multivariate analysis. Journal of Statistical Software, 25(1), 1–18. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lüdecke, D., Ben-Shachar, M., Patil, I., Waggoner, P., & Makowski, D. (2021). performance: An R package for assessment, comparison and testing of statistical models. Journal of Open Source Software, 6(60), 3139. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nenadic, O., & Greenacre, M. (2007). Correspondence Analysis in R, with two- and three-dimensional graphics: The ca package. Journal of Statistical Software, 20(3), 1–13. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Vehtari, A., Gabry, J., Magnusson, M., Yao, Y., Bürkner, P., Paananen, T., & Gelman, A. (2022). loo: Efficient leave-one-out cross-validation and WAIC for Bayesian models. R package version 2.5.1. [URL]
Wickham, H. (2011). The Split-Apply-Combine strategy for data analysis. Journal of Statistical Software, 40(1), 1–29. [URL].
(2016). ggplot2: Elegant graphics for data analysis. Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
References
Aarts, J. (1991). Intuition-based and observation-based grammars. In K. Aijmer & B. Altenberg (Eds.), English corpus linguistics, (pp. 44–63). Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Benzitoun, C., Bresson, S., Budzinski, L., Debaisieux, J. M., & Holzheimer, K. (2010). Quand un corpus rencontre un adjectif du troisième type. Étude distributionnelle de prochain. Corpus, 91, 245–264. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Berthonneau, A.-M. (2002). Prochain/dernier et compagnie. Les adjectifs « déictiques » à l’épreuve de l’espace ou comment circuler dans le temps, l’espace, le texte. Langue Française, 1361, 104–125. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1979). Language and responsibility: Based on conversations with Mitsou Ronat. Pantheon.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Debaisieux, J. M., Benzitoun, C., & Deulofeu, J. (2016). Le projet ORFÉO: Un corpus d’études pour le français contemporain. Corpus: Actes du colloque Corpus de Français Parlés et Français Parlés des Corpus, 151, 91–114. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fornacon-Wood, I., Mistry, H., Johnson-Hart, C., Faivre-Finn, C., O’Connor, J. P. B., & Price, G. J. (2021). Understanding the differences between Bayesian and frequentist statistics. International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics, 112(5), 1076–1082. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Feuillet, J. (1991). Adjectifs et adverbes, essai de classification. In C. Guimier & P. Larcher (Eds.), Travaux linguistique du Cerlico 3: Les états de l’adverbe, (pp. 35–58). Presses Universitaires de Rennes.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. (1992). “Corpus linguistics” vs. “computer-aided armchair linguistics”. In J. Svartvik (Ed.), Directions in corpus linguistics: Proceedings from a 1991 Nobel symposium on corpus linguistics, (pp. 35–66), Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Forsgren, M. (1978). La place de l’adjectif épithète en français contemporain: Étude quantitative et sémantique [The Placement of attributive adjective in contemporary French: A quantitative and semantic study]. Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gabry, J., Simpson, D., Vehtari, A., Betancourt, M. & Gelman, A. (2019). Visualization in Bayesian workflow. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 182(2), 389–402. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gelman, A., Hill, J., & Vehtari, A. (2020). Regression and other stories. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gibbs, R. W. Jr. (2006). Introspection and cognitive linguistics. Should we trust our own intuitions? Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 41, 135–151. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goes, J. (2021). L’adjectif: Une partie du discours éminemment syncatégorématique. Kalbotyra, 741, 72–87. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2022). Grand et petit, de simples antonymes? Éla. Études de linguistique appliquée, 2061, 139–153. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Greenacre, M. (2017). Correspondence analysis in practice (3rd ed.). Chapman and Hall. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gries, S. T., & Deshors, S. C. (2014). Using regressions to explore deviations between corpus data and a standard/target: two suggestions. Corpora, 9(1), 109–136. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gries, S. T., & Divjak, D. (2009). Behavioral profiles: a corpus-based approach to cognitive semantic analysis. In V. Evans & S. Pourcel (Eds.), New directions in cognitive linguistics, (pp. 57–75). Johns Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hanks, P. (2013). Lexical analysis: Norms and exploitations. The MIT Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heiden, S. (2010). The TXM platform: Building open-source textual analysis software compatible with the TEI encoding scheme. In R. Otoguro, K. Ishikawa, H. Umemoto, K. Yoshimoto, & Y. Harada (Eds.), Proceedings of the 24th Pacific Asia conference on language, information and computation, (pp. 389–398). Institute of Digital Enhancement of Cognitive Processing, Waseda University.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McEnery, T., & Hardie, A. (2012). Corpus linguistics: Method, theory and practice. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Noailly, M. (1999). L’adjectif en français [Adjective in French]. Ophrys.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Riegel, M., Pellat, J.-C., & Rioul, R. (2004). Grammaire méthodique du Français [Methodical grammar of French] (3rd ed.). Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2009). Grammaire méthodique du Français [Methodical grammar of French] (4th ed.). Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schindler, S., Drożdżowicz, A., & Brøcker, K. (Eds.) (2020). Linguistics intuitions: Evidence and method. Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schnedecker, C. (Ed.). (2002a). L’adjectifs sans qualité(s). Langue Française, 1361. [URL]
(2002b). Présentation: les adjectifs « inclassables », des adjectifs du troisième type? Langue française, 1361, 3–19. [URL]
Scontras, G. (2023). Adjective ordering across languages. Annual Review of Linguistics, 91, 357–376. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sinclair, J. M. H. (1998). The lexical item. In E. Weigand (Ed.), Contrastive lexical semantics, (pp. 1–24). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2000). Lexical grammar. Naujoji Metodologija, 241, 191–204. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Teubert, W. (2010). Our brave new world? International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 15(3), 354–358. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wasserstein, R. L., Schirm, A. L., & Lazar, N. A. (2019). Moving to a world beyond “p < 0.05”. The American Statistician, 73(sup1), 1–19. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Worlock Pope, C. (Ed.). (2010). The bootcamp discourse and beyond. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 15(3). [URL]
Wulff, S. (2003). A multifactorial corpus analysis of adjective order in English. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 8(2), 245–282. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Xu, M., Li, F., & Szmrecsanyi, B. (2024). Modeling the locative alternation in Mandarin Chinese: A corpus-based study. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 29(2), 258–285. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Yamamoto, D. (2020). L’adjectivité des épithètes antéposées sale et foutu. Travaux de Lingustique, 801, 49–61. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue