Cover not available

Article published In: Lingvisticæ Investigationes
Vol. 42:2 (2019) ► pp.262–297

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

Connecteurs de discours centraux et périphériques

 | National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology (AIST, Japon)
 | Université de Paris

Article language: French

Published online: 16 March 2020
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/li.00037.ber
Résumé
En nous inspirant des travaux de Haegeman, L. 2004. The syntax of adverbial clauses and its consequences for topicalisation. In M. Coene, G. De Cuyper & Y. D’hulst, Eds., Current Studies in Comparative Romance Linguistics, number 107 in APiL, p. 61–90. Antwerp University.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar, nous montrons que les conjonctions de subordination du français écrit se partitionnent en deux classes, les conjonctions centrales et périphériques, et que cette partition dépend du sens des conjonctions. Ainsi, quand dans son sens temporel est centrale comme toute conjonction temporelle, et périphérique dans son sens contrastif comme toute conjonction contrastive. Cette partition s’appuie sur différents critères syntaxiques et sémantiques déjà étudiés dans la littérature, faisant intervenir la notion de contenu (sémantique) en jeu ou projectif, ainsi que sur un critère sémantico-discursif original qui met en jeu la distinction entre l’usage intensionnel et évidentiel d’un verbe d’attitude propositionnelle ou d’un verbe de dire Hunter, J. 2016. Reports in Discourse. Dialogue & Discourse, 7(4). Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar. Ensuite, nous montrons que cette partition s’étend aux autres connecteurs de discours du français écrit, d’où la notion de connecteurs centraux et périphériques. Cette partition respecte la règle suivante: si deux connecteurs, quelle que soit leur catégorie, ont le même sens, alors ils sont tous deux centraux ou tous deux périphériques. Nous pouvons par là-même introduire une nouvelle partition des relations de discours, qui s’accorde relativement bien (mais non entièrement) avec la classification sémantique du PDTB (Prasad, R., Miltsakaki, E., Dinesh, N., Lee, A., Joshi, A., Robaldo, L. & Webber, B. 2007. The Penn Discourse Treebank 2.0 Annotation Manual. Rapport interne IRCS 203, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar) et qui est orthogonale aux autres partitions proposées dans la littérature.
Summary
Central and peripheral discourse connectives
Inspired by the work of Haegeman, L. 2004. The syntax of adverbial clauses and its consequences for topicalisation. In M. Coene, G. De Cuyper & Y. D’hulst, Eds., Current Studies in Comparative Romance Linguistics, number 107 in APiL, p. 61–90. Antwerp University.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar, we show that the subordinating conjunctions of written French can be divided into two classes, the central and peripherals ones, and that this partition depends on the meaning of the conjunctions. For example, quand (when) in its temporal sense is central as any temporal conjunction, and peripheral in its contrastive sense as any contrastive conjunction. This partition is supported by various syntactic and semantic criteria often mentioned in the literature, involving the notion of (non) at-issue semantic content, as well as by an original semantico-discursive criterion that brings into play the distinction between the intensional and evidential uses of propositional attitude verbs and reporting verbs (Hunter, J. 2016. Reports in Discourse. Dialogue & Discourse, 7(4). Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar) Next, we show that this partition extends to other discourse connectives of written French, hence the notion of central and peripheral connectives. This partition follows the following rule: if two connectives, regardless of their category, have the same meaning, then they are either both central or both peripheral. We can thus introduce a new partition of discourse relations, which agrees relatively well (but not entirely) with the semantic classification of PDTB (Prasad, R., Miltsakaki, E., Dinesh, N., Lee, A., Joshi, A., Robaldo, L. & Webber, B. 2007. The Penn Discourse Treebank 2.0 Annotation Manual. Rapport interne IRCS 203, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar) and is orthogonal to the other partitions proposed in the literature.
Article outline
  • Introduction
  • 1.Usage évidentiel des VAP
  • 1.1Évidentialité et structure discursive
  • 1.2L’hypothèse d’uniformité
  • 2.Conjonctions de subordination
    • 2.1Clivage de la subordonnée
    • 2.2Négation dans la principale
    • 2.3Modifieurs de la conjonction
    • 2.4Contenu en jeu et contenu projectif
    • 2.5VAP dans une subordonnée adverbiale
    • 2.6Récapitulatif
  • 3.Connecteurs adverbiaux
    • 3.1Clivage du connecteur adverbial
    • 3.2Interaction entre VAP et connecteurs adverbiaux
  • 4.Autres types de connecteurs
    • 4.1Prépositions
    • 4.2Conjonctions de coordination
    • 4.3Relations implicites
  • 5.Conclusion et futures recherches
  • Notes
  • Références
References (56)
Références
Abeillé, A. 2002. Une Grammaire électronique du français. Paris: CNRS éditions.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2005. Les syntagmes conjoints et leurs fonctions syntaxiques. Langages, 39(160), 42–66. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Apothéloz, D. 2003. La rection dite « faible » : grammaticalisation ou différentiel de grammaticalité? Verbum, XXV(3), 241–262.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Asher, N. & Lascarides, A. 2003. Logics of Conversation. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Blanche-Benveniste, C. 1989. Constructions verbales « en incise » et rection faible des verbes. Recherches sur le français parlé, 91, 32–74.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Blanche-Benveniste, C., Bilger, M., Rouget, C., Van den Eynde, K. & Mertens, P. 1990. Le français parlé : Études grammaticales. Paris: Edition du CNRS.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bonami, O. & Godard, D. 2007. Adverbes initiaux et types de phrase en français. In A. Cuniţă, C. Lupu & L. Tasmowski (Eds.), Studii de Lingvistică şi Filologie Romanică, 50–57. Bucharest, Romania: Editura Universitāţii din Bucureşti.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Buch-Kromann, M. & Korzen, I. 2010. The Unified Annotation of Syntax and Discourse in the Copenhagen Dependency Treebanks. In Proceedings of the Fourth Linguistic Annotation Workshop, 127–131, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Charolles, M. 2005. Framing Adverbials and their Role in Discourse Cohesion : From Connection to Foward Labelling. In M. Aurnague, M. Bras, A. le Draoulec & L. Vieu (Eds.), SEM-05 Proceedings, 13–30, Biarritz.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Charolles, M. & Lamiroy, B. 2002. Syntaxe phrastique et transphrastique : du but au résultat. In H.L. Andersen & H. Nølke (Eds.), Macrosyntaxe et macrosémantique, Actes du colloque international dAarhus, 383–419, Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chierchia, G. & McConnell-Ginet, S. 1990. Meaning and Grammar : An Introduction to Semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Danlos, L. 2009. D-STAG : un formalisme d analyse automatique de discours basé sur les TAG synchrones. Revue TAL, 50(1), 111–143.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Danlos, L. & Rambow, O. 2011. Discourse Relations and Propositional Attitudes. In CID 2011 – Fourth International workshop on Constraints in Discourse.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Danlos, L., Rysova, K., Rysova, M. & Stede, M. 2018. Primary and secondary discourse connectives : definitions and lexicons. Dialogue & Discourse, 9(1), 50–78. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Debaisieux, J.-M. 2007. La distinction entre dépendance grammaticale et dépendance macrosyntaxique comme moyen de résoudre les paradoxes de la subordination. Faits de langues, 119–132.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Deloor, S. 2012. Bref aperçu historique des travaux sur la présupposition. Langages, (186), 3–20. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Desmets, M. 1998. Identification de deux constructions en comme : causalité et comparaison. Linx, 39, 89–118. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dinesh, N., Lee, A., Miltsakaki, E., Prasad, R., Joshi, A. & Webber, B. 2005. Attribution and the (Non-)Alignment of Syntactic and Discourse Arguments of Connectives. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Frontiers in Corpus Annotations II : Pie in the Sky, 29–36, Ann Arbor, Michigan: Association for Computational Linguistics. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Endo, Y. & Haegeman, L. 2019. Adverbial clauses and adverbial concord. Glossa : A Journal of General Linguistics, 4(1)(48). Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Feltracco, A., Jezek, E., Magnini, B. & Stede, M. 2016. Lico : A lexicon of Italian connectives. In Proceedings of the Third Italian Conference on Computational Linguistics (CLiC-IT 2016), Napoli, Italy. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Forbes-Riley, K., Webber, B. & Joshi, A. 2006. Computing Discourse Semantics : The Predicate-Argument Semantics of Discourse Connectives in D-LTAG. Journal of Semantics, 23(1), 55–106. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Frege, G. 1892. Über sinn und bedeutung. Zeitschrift für Philosophie und philosophische Kritik, 100(1), 25–50.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fuchs, C. & le Goffic, P. 2005. La polysémie de ‘comme’. In O. Soutet (Ed.), La polysémie, 267–292. Paris: Presses de l’Université Paris-Sorbonne.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Godard, D. 2005. Problèmes syntaxiques de la coordination et propositions récentes dans les grammaires syntagmatiques. Langages, 39(160), 3–24. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grevisse, M. & Goosse, A. 2016. Le Bon usage. De Boeck Supérieur, 16e édition.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grice, H. P. 1975. Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & L. M. Jerry (Eds.), Speech acts, volume 3 of Syntax and semantics, 41–58. Academic Press, San Diego, CA.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Haegeman, L. 2004. The syntax of adverbial clauses and its consequences for topicalisation. In M. Coene, G. De Cuyper & Y. D’hulst, Eds., Current Studies in Comparative Romance Linguistics, number 107 in APiL, p. 61–90. Antwerp University.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2006. Conditionals, factives and the left periphery. Lingua, 1161, 1651–1669. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2010. The internal syntax of adverbial clauses. Lingua, 1201, 628–648. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hardt, D. 2013. A Uniform Syntax and Discourse Structure : the Copenhagen Dependency Treebanks. Dialogue & Discourse, 4(2), 53–64. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hunter, J. 2016. Reports in Discourse. Dialogue & Discourse, 7(4). Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hunter, J. & Asher, N. 2016. Composing Discourse Parenthetical Reports. In Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 21 (SuB21), Edinburgh, UK.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hunter, J. & Danlos, L. 2014. Because We Say So. In Proceedings of the EACL 2014 Workshop on Computational Approaches to Causality in Language, 1–9, Gothenburg, Sweden: Association for Computational Linguistics. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Karttunen, L. & Peters, S. 1979. Conventional Implicature. In C.-K. Oh & D. A. Dinneen (Eds.), Syntax and semantics, volume 111, Presupposition, 1–56. Academic Press, New York, San Francisco, and London.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lakoff, R. 1971. If’s, and s and but’s about conjunction. In C. Fillmore & D. T. Langendoen (Eds.), Studies in Linguistic Semantics, 115–150. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Groupe λ-l 1975. Car, parce que, puisque. Revue Romane, 10(2), 248-280.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mann, W. C. & Thompson, S. A. 1988. Rhetorical Structure Theory : Toward a functional theory of text organization. Text, 8(3), 243–281. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mendes, A., del Rio Gayo, I., Stede, M. & Dombek, F. 2018. A lexicon of discourse markers for Portuguese. In Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2018), Miyazaki, Japan.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Piot, M. 1988. Coordination-subordination : Une définition générale. Langue française, 771, 5–18. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Potts, C. 2005. The logic ofconventional implicatures. Oxford Studies in Theoretical Linguistics. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2015. Presupposition and Implicature. In S. Lappin & C. Fox (Eds.), The Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory, 168–202. Wiley-Blackwell, second edition. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Prasad, R., Miltsakaki, E., Dinesh, N., Lee, A., Joshi, A., Robaldo, L. & Webber, B. 2007. The Penn Discourse Treebank 2.0 Annotation Manual. Rapport interne IRCS 203, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Roussarie, L. 2017. Sémantique formelle, volume 1 : Introduction à la grammaire de Montague. Berlin, Germany: Language Science Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Roze, C. 2009. Base lexicale des connecteurs discursifs du français. Master’s thesis, Université Paris Diderot, Paris, France.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Roze, C., Danlos, L. & Muller, P. 2012. LEXCONN : a French lexicon of discourse connectives. Discours – Revue de linguistique, psycholinguistique et informatique. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rysová, M. & Rysová, K. 2015. Secondary connectives in the Prague Dependency Treebank. In E. Hajičová & J. Nivre (Eds.), Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Dependency Linguistics (Depling 2015), 291–299, Uppsala, Sweden.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2018. Primary and secondary discourse connectives : Constraints and preferences. Journal of Pragmatics, 1301, 16–32. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Scheffler, T. & Stede, M. 2016. Adding semantic relations to a large-coverage connective lexicon of German. In Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2016), Portorož, Slovenia.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Simons, M. 2007. Observations on Embedding Verbs, Evidentiality, and Presupposition. Lingua, 117(6), 1034–1056. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stede, M., Scheffler, T. & Mendes, A. 2019. Connective-lex : A web-based multilingual lexical resource for connectives. Discours, 241.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tsimpli, I.-M., Papadopoulou, D. & Mylonaki, A. 2010. Temporal modification in Greek adverbial clauses : The role of aspect and negation. Lingua, 1201, 649–672. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Urmson, J. O. 1952. Parenthetical Verbs. Mind, 61(244), 480–496. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
van Dijk, T. A. 1977. Text and Context : Explorations in the Semantics and Pragmatics of Discourse. London: Longman.
Webber, B., Stone, M., Joshi, A. & Knott, A. 2003. Anaphora and Discourse Structure. Computational Linguistics, 29(4), 545–587. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zeyrek, D. & Webber, B. 2008. A discourse resource for Turkish : Annotating discourse connectives in the METU corpus. In IJCNLP, Hyderabad, India.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue