Les relations transphrastiques à la frontière entre la phrase et le texte

• Authors: Michele Prandi

Title variants

EN

Interclausal relations at the boundary between sentence and text

Abstracts

EN

Interclausal relations are traditionally studied within the framework of the complex sentence of endocentric subordinative form. However, there is no essential correlation between interclausal linkage and complex sentence. Interclausal relations are not meanings of subordinate clauses but conceptual relations that bridge saturated processes of equal rank. According to this premise, complex sentence is only one option for the expression of interclausal relations, along with text. Moreover, if we compare the competing structures, it turns out that the unmarked form of expression is not complex sentence but text. While a complex sentence imposes a hierarchic syntactic structure on a symmetric conceptual structure, the structure of the text and the conceptual structure of interclausal relations are isomorphic. As a marked option, the choice of complex sentence requires a specific functional motivation, which does not involve the ideation of the link itself but the communicative perspective: its function is to impose a layered communicative perspective on the connexion, which is distributed between foreground and background information.

Keywords

EN

Interclausal relations; complex sentence; text; up-bottom structures; bottom-up structures

• Publisher: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Śląskiego
• Journal: Neophilologica
• Year: 2023
• Volume: 35
• Pages: 1-22

Dates

published

2023

Contributors

author

Michele Prandi

• Università di Genova

• https://orcid.org/0000000262236946

References

• Anscombe, G. E. M. (1956(1968)). Intention. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 57, 321–332. (Réimpr. dans A. R. White (éd.), The Philosophy of Action (144–152). Oxford: Oxford University Press).
• Aristote (1959). Éthique à Nicomaque. Vrin.
• Bloomfield, L. (1933(1970)). Language. Holt, Reinehart and Winston. (Le langage. Payot).
• Chomsky, N. A. (1957(1969)). Syntactic Structures. Mouton. (Structures syntaxiques. Seuil).
• Cristofaro, S. (2003). Subordination. Oxford University Press.
• Daladier, A. (1978). Problèmes d’analyse d’un type de nominalisation en français et de certains groupes nominaux complexes. Thèse de doctorat, Université Paris VII.
• Daneš, F. (1974). Functional sentence perspective and the organization of the text. Dans F. Daneš (éd.), Papers in Functional Sentence Perspective (106–128). Mouton.
• Daneš, F. (1985). Some remarks on causal relationships in language and text. Recueil Linguistique de Bratislava 8, 151–157.
• Dik, S. C. (1997). The Theory of Functional Grammar. Part I: The Structure of the Clause, 2ème éd. Mouton De Gruyter.
• Fillmore, Ch. J. (1968). The case for case. Dans E. Bach & R. Harms (éds.), Universals in Linguistic Theory (1–88). Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
• Firbas, J. (1964). On defining the theme in functional sentence analysis. Travaux Linguistiques de Prague 1, 267–80.
• Firbas, J. (1970). On the interplay of means of FSP. Dans Actes du Xème congrès international des linguistes, Vol. II (741–745). Éditions de L’Académie de la République Socialiste de Roumanie.
• Firbas, J. (1974). Some aspects of the Czechoslovak approach to problems of FSP. Dans F. Daneš (éd.), Papers in Functional Sentence Perspective (11–37). Mouton.
• Firbas, J. (éd.) (1992). Functional Sentence Perspective in Written and Spoken Discourse. Cambridge University Press.
• Giry-Schneider, J. (1987). Les prédicats nominaux en français. Les phrases simples à verbe support. Droz.
• Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. Dans P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (éds.), Syntax and Semantics 3 (41–58). Academic Press.
• Gross, G. (1987). Les constructions converses du français. Droz.
• Gross, G. (1993). Trois applications de la notion de verbe support. L’information grammaticale 59, 16–23.
• Gross, G. (1999). Verbes supports et conjugaison nominale. Revue d’études francophones 9, 70–92.
• Gross, G. (2012). Manuel d’analyse linguistique. Presses Universitaires du Septentrion.
• Gross, G. & Prandi, M. (2004). La finalité: fondements conceptuels et genèse linguistique. De Boeck–Duculot.
• Gross, G. & Vivès, R. (1986). Les constructions nominales et l’élaboration d’un lexique-grammaire. Langue française 69, 5–27.
• Haiman, J. (1985). Introduction. Dans J. Haiman (éd.), Iconicity in Syntax (1–7). John Benjamins.
• Haiman, J. & Thompson, S. A. (1988). Clause combining in grammar and discourse. John Benjamins.
• Halliday, M. A. K. (1970). Language structure and language function. Dans J. Lyons (éd.), New Horizons in Linguistics (140–165). Penguin Books.
• Harris, Z. (1946). From Morpheme to Utterance. Language 22, 161–183.
• Hjelmslev, L. (1943(1971)). Omkring Sprogteoriens Grundlæggelse. Bianco Lunos Bogtrykkeri. (Prolégomènes à une théorie du langage. Minuit).
• Jakobson, R. (1966). À la recherche de l’essence du langage. Diogène 51, 22–38.
• Kortmann, B. (1997). Adverbial Subordination. Mouton De Gruyter.
• Lakoff, G. (1971). Presuppositions and relative well formedness. Dans D. D. Steinberg & L. A. Jakobovits (éds), Semantics (329–340). Cambridge University Press.
• Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, I. Stanford University Press.
• Lehmann, Ch. (1988). Towards a typology of clause linkage. Dans J. Haiman & S. A. Thompson (éds), Clause Combining in Grammar and Discourse (181–225). John Benjamins.
• Lehmann, Ch. (2018). Linguistic concepts and categories in language description and comparison. Dans M. Chini & P. Cuzzolin (éds), Tipologia, acquisizione, grammaticalizzazione – Typology, Acquisition, Grammaticalization Studies. Franco Angeli.
• Longacre, R. E. (1985(2007)). Sentences as combinations of clauses. Dans T. Shopen (éd.), Language typology and syntactic description. Vol. 2. Complex constructions, 2ème éd. (235–286). Cambridge University Press.
• Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics, Vol. I. Cambridge University Press.
• Mathesius, V. (1928(1964)). On linguistic characterology with illustration from modern English. Actes du premier congrès international des linguistes, 56–63. Mouton. Réimpr. dans J. Vachek (éd.), A Prague School Reader in Linguistics (59–67). Indiana University Press.
• Matthiessen, Ch. & Thompson, S. A. (1988). The structure of discourse and ‘subordination’. Dans J. Haiman & S. Thompson (éds), Clause Combining in Grammar and Discourse (275–317). John Benjamins.
• McCawley, J. D. (1971). Where do noun phrases come from? Dans D. D. Steinberg & L. A. Jakobovits (éds), Semantics (217–231). Cambridge University Press.
• Peirce, Ch. S. (1902(1962)). Logic and Semiotic: Theory of Signs. Dans C. S. Peirce (éd.), Philosophical Writings (98–119). Dover.
• Prandi, M. (2004). The Building Blocks of Meaning. John Benjamins.
• Prandi, M. (2023). De la dimension relationnelle du lexique à la syntaxe : une frontière à retracer. Dans A. Roig & A.-G. Toutain (éds.), Concert mondial de linguistique. Mélanges offerts à Franck Neveu (91–103). ENS Éditions.
• Riegel, M., Pellat, J.-Ch. & Rioul, R. (1994). Grammaire méthodique du français. Presses Universitaires de France.
• Rorty, R. (éd.) (1967). The Linguistic Turn: Recent Essays in Philosophical Method. The University of Chicago Press.
• Saussure (de), F. (1916(1972)). Cours de linguistique générale. Payot.
• Steinitz, R. (1969). Adverbial-Syntax. Akademie Verlag.
• Strawson, P. F. (1959(1978)). Individuals. An essay in Descriptive Metaphysics. Methuen & Co.
• Tesnière, L. (1959(1966)). Éléments de syntaxe structurale, 2ème éd. Klincksieck.
• Weinrich, H. (1964). Tempus. Besprochene und erzählte Welt. Kohlhammer.
• Wells, R. (1947). Immediate constituents. Language 23, 81–117.

Identifiers

DOI

10.31261/NEO.2023.35.19

Biblioteka Nauki

31341269