Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T20:31:03.287Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Non-discrete reference, discourse construction, and the French neuter clitic pronouns*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 October 2008

Francis Cornish
Francis Cornish
Affiliation:
School of European and Mordern Language Studies, University of Kent, Canterbury CT2 7NFEngland
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article examines a range of predicate- and proposition-anaphoric phenomena in French, chiefly involving the ‘neuter’ clitic pronouns le, y and en, from the point of view of their discourse motivation. One aim is to characterise the relatively little-studied phenomenon of ‘non-discrete’ reference in discourse. Another is to determine the extent to which the speaker\ writer can use an anaphoric expression in such a way as to ‘release’ the predicative element from within a co-occuring functionally non-perdicative expression or sequence, or to asssign a ‘third order’ entity status as a mutually validated fact to what in context has been interpreted as a predication. Such uses constitute what I am calling the ‘discourse-operator’ function which anaphoric expressions may fulfil in the appropriate discourse context. The speacker\writer's ability to use predicate anaphors in this kind of the way is constrained by the meta-discursive criterion of coherence.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of French Language Studies , Volume 1 , Issue 2 , September 1991 , pp. 123 - 138
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1991

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Ariel, M. (1990). Accessing Noun-Phrase Antecedents. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Blanche-Benveniste, C., Deulofeu, J., Stéfanini, J. and Van, den Eynden K. (1987). Pronom et syntaxe: l'approche pronominale et son application au français. Paris: Selaf.Google Scholar
Boons, J-P., Guillet, A. and Leclère, C. (1976). La Structure des phrases simples en français: constructions infinitives. Geneva\Paris: Droz.Google Scholar
Carden, G. and Miller, A. (1970). More problominalizations. Linguistic Inquiry I: 4, 555–6.Google Scholar
Carrasco, F. (1975). Remarques sur le comportement des clitiques neutres dans le système attribute de l'espagnol et du français. Revue Romane 10: 2, 293–305.Google Scholar
Cornish, F. (1986). Anaphoric Relations in English and French: a discourse perspective. London and Canberra: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Dubois, J. (1969). Grammaire structurale du français; la pharse et ses transformations. Paris: Larousse.Google Scholar
Ehlich, K. (1982). Anaphora and deixix: same, similar or different? In Jarvella, R. J. and Klein, W. (eds.) Speech, Place and Action, Chichester and New York: Wiley. pp. 315–338.Google Scholar
García, E. C. (1977). On the practical consequences of theoretical principles. Lingua, 43, 129–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garnham, A. (1987). Mental Models as Representatives of Discourse and Text. Chichester: Ellis Horwood.Google Scholar
Grevisse, M. (1962). Problèmes de langage, 2e série. Gembloux: Duculot.Google Scholar
Harmer, L. C. (1979). Uncertainties in French Grammer. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1983). Mental Models. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Martinon, P. (1927). Comment On Parle en Français. Paris: Larousse.Google Scholar
Napoli, D-J. (1989). Predication Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Otheguy, R. (1978). A semantic analysis of the difference between el\la and lo. In Suñer, M. (ed.), Contemporary Studies in Romance Linguistics. Georgetown University Press, pp. 241–257.Google Scholar
Rat, M. (1965). Grammaire française pour tous, paris: Garnier Frères.Google Scholar
Sanfeld, K. R. (1965). Syntaxe du français contemporain: I, Les Pronoms. Paris: ChampionGoogle Scholar
Watbled, J-Ph. (1990). L'auxiliaire en français: critères morphosyntaxiques, sémantiques, et pragmatiques, paper delivered at the AFLS conference on Pragmatics, University of Liverpool, 10 09 1990.Google Scholar