French compounds

International audienceThis article focuses on compounding as a process of word formation within the theoretical framework of lexeme-based morphology. It provides a systematic analysis of the two types of compounding in French: native compounding, the main type, and neoclassical compounding, which is quite marginal. It presents the various rules: native compounds are prototypically constructed of two lex-emes and form a third one; they are predominantly endocentric; the governing constituent and the compound head, if any, is on the left and controls the semantic relations between the two constituents, whether coordinated, attribu-tive or subordinating. Neoclassical compounds are prototypically constructed of bound neoclassical elements and form adjectives; they are often exocentric; the governing constituent is on the right. Inflection in native compounds is complex. Several areas of the analysis remain unresolved, particularly regarding the boundaries between morphological/syntactic compounds

French VN lexemes: morphological compounding in HPSG

International audienceAlthough the original framework of HPSG is mostly compatible with independent theoretical claims or analyses in lexeme base morphology (Anderson 1992, Aronoff & Fudeman 2004, Beard 1995, Booij 2005, Carstairs-McCarthy 1992, Fradin 2003, Haspelmath 2002, Matthews 1991, Plag 2003, for example), so far, most morphological research in morphology has been done on inflexional phenomena (Orgun & Inkelas 2002, Bonami & Boyé 2006), and few on derivational morphology has been addressed by only a few (Koenig 1999, Riehemann 1998). Yet, we believe it is worth investigating how the formal and theoretical apparatus of HPSG deals with capturing multilevel constraints that apply in the lexeme formation of French Verb-Noun nominal compounds in French (, such as as GRILLE-PAIN, (lit. grill-bread, ‘toaster'), PERCE-OREILLE, (lit. pierce-ear, ‘earwig'), TOURNEVIS, (lit. turn-screw, ‘screwdriver'), or LÈCHEVITRINE, (lit. lick-window, ‘window-shopping'), can be captured by the formal and theoretical apparatus of HPSG. Contrary to the view what has often expressed in the pastbeen said, we argue that VN lexemes formation comes under is subject to morphological constraints rather than to but not under syntactic mechanisms. Our analysis integrates VN lexemes into a multiple-dimensional typed- hierarchy of lexemes and provides an account for of semantic generalizations involved in different types of lexeme formation (compounding, derivation, and conversion)

Les mots composés [VN] N/A du français : réflexions épistémologiques et propositions d'analyse

The aim of this PhD is the study of French [VN]N/A compounds such as porte-plume, casse-cou or tord-boyaux. These compounds constitute problematic data and have been analysed as morphological or syntactic constructions. Within a modular approach of grammar, my aim is to demonstrate the validity of a morphological analysis of these compounds and to present some of the morphological and semantic constraints to which the [VN]N/A construction is submitted.First, we present some epistemological reflections on the way [VN]N/A compounds were treated by the two main theoretical trends that distinguished morphology from syntax, namely the historical and comparative grammar of the 19th century and the post-lexicalist generative grammar of the 20th century. We try to determine the reasons why these analyses, after an interval of one hundred years, were both in favour of a syntactic treatment of these compounds even though an adequate account of the properties of these compounds cannot be given by such an analysis. On the contrary, we show that a mophological treatment of these [VN]N/A compounds is possible once the theory distinguishes an autonomous morphological component whose aim is to construct lexemes from lexemes and that the [VN]N/A compounds answer these criteria.Our demonstration is based upon an empirical description that shows that, on the one hand, the form of the verb in the [VN]N/A compounds is a theme, that is to say an uninflected form, and on the other hand, that the relation that links the two constituents of the compounds is a semantic one in which a predicate and a semantic participant are involved and not a syntactical relation in which a verb and its complement are involved.Moreover, we give other semantic properties of the [VN]N/A compounds, in particular the fact that the verb never expresses a static process and necessarily contains two semantic participants, one of which is the agent, and the constrained realisation of these participants within the compound.Finally, using these results, we examine similar constructions whose analysis turns out to be problematic.L’objet de cette thèse est l’étude des mots composés [VN]N/A du français tels que porte-plume, casse-cou ou tord-boyaux. Ces mots composés constituent des données problématiques pour l’analyse et ont été analysés comme des construits morphologiques ou syntaxiques. Le propos est de démontrer, dans le cadre d’une approche modulaire de la grammaire, la validité d’une analyse morphologique de ces composés et de présenter, selon cette perspective, certaines des contraintes morphophologiques et sémantiques qui pèsent sur la construction [VN]N/A. Nous commençons par présenter un certain nombre de réflexions épistémologiques sur la façon dont les [VN]N/A ont été traités par les deux grands courants théoriques qui ont distingués morphologie et syntaxe, la grammaire historique et comparée du 19ème siècle et la grammaire générative post-lexicaliste du 20ème siècle. Nous cherchons à déterminer les raisons pour lesquelles ces analyses ont opté, à cent ans d’intervalle, en faveur d’un traitement syntaxique de ces composés, alors qu’une telle analyse ne parvient pas à rendre compte de leurs propriétés. Nous poursuivons en montrant qu’au contraire un traitement morphologique des [VN]N/A est possible à partir du moment où la théorie distingue un composant morphologique autonome dont l’objet est de construire des lexèmes à partir de lexèmes, et que les composés répondent à ce critère. Notre démonstration se fonde sur une description empirique qui aboutit à établir d’une part que la forme du verbe des composés [VN]N/A est celle d’un thème, forme non fléchie, et d’autre part que la relation qui unit les deux éléments du composé est une relation sémantique de type prédicat/participant sémantique et non pas une relation syntaxique de type verbe/complément. Nous présentons, en outre, d’autres propriétés sémantiques de la composition [VN]N/A, notamment le fait que le verbe n’exprime jamais un procès statif et comprend nécessairement deux participants sémantiques dont l’un est Agent, et la réalisation contrainte de ces participants au sein du composé. Enfin, à la lumière de ces résultats, nous examinons des constructions apparentées mais dont l’analyse s’avère problématique

La querelle, au XIXe siècle, autour des mots composés du type [VN]N : quels enjeux pour la grammaire ?

Cet article a pour objet de mettre au jour selon quels critères les grammairiens du dix-neuvième siècle en viennent à reconnaître dans le premier élément des composés [VN]N, une forme conjuguée du verbe, abandonnant ainsi l’analyse traditionnelle selon laquelle les mots composés sont des construits morphologiques. Cette recherche épistémologique nous mènera  à la conclusion que l’analyse des composés [VN]N comme des construits syntaxiques tient à une morphologie conçue selon des critères réduits au directement observable, au matériellement perceptible, à une morphologie qui ne définit pas théoriquement et abstraitement ses unités.This article shows how the grammarians of the 19th century recognize the first constituent of verbal compounds [VN]N  as a conjugated verb, and how they abandon the traditionnal analysis in which compounds are morphological constructions. This epistemological research results in the conclusion that [VN]N compounds analysis as syntactical constructions depend on a morphology which is based on directly observable and materially perceptible criterions, but not on a morphology which has abstracts entities

Les noms d'événement en –age et en –ée : une différenciation fondée sur l'aspect grammatical

Cet article étudie les cas où sur la même base verbale existent aussi bien des dérivés en –age que des dérivés en –ée, souvent oubliés par les études sur les déverbaux. Prenant en compte uniquement les dérivés événementiels, nous proposons un retour sur le problème posé par l'existence des doublets N–age et N–ée en français. L'étude de la structure argumentale des bases sélectionnées par les deux règles de nominalisation met en évidence l'existence des tendances et régularités suivantes: (a) une sélection massive de la base transitive; (b) préférence générale pour certaines bases lorsqu'elles sont sélectionnées par une des deux règles : bases transitives pour –age, bases inaccusatives pour –ée. Ces résultats nous amènent reconsidérer les propositions antérieures (Dubois (1969) et Dubois-Charlier (1999), Kelling (2001) et Martin (2008)), et à proposer des solutions nouvelles au regard de leurs analyses. Nous proposons ainsi que la contribution des nominalisations se fait au niveau de la structure aspectuelle, plus précisément au niveau de l'aspect grammatical, à travers la grammaticalisation de l'opposition imperfectivité/perfectivité via les nominalisations distinctes sur une même base verbale

Sens morphologiquement construit et procédés concurrents : les noms de spécialistes en -logue et -logiste

Nous étudions les noms d’humains comme pneumologue, ou radiologiste, qui contiennent la séquence ou , qui, en première approxi­mation, constituent les exposants de deux règles morphologiques construisant les noms dont nous symbolisons la structure par Xlogue et Xlogiste. La res­semblance formelle de ces deux séquences conduit à supposer, dans un premier temps, que Xlogue et Xlogiste, quand ils ne sont pas synonymes (comme e.g. radiologue et radiologiste), possèdent les mêmes propriétés sémantico-référen­tielles : les deux types de noms en effet renvoient a priori à des spécialistes de ce à quoi réfère X. Via l’analyse minutieuse de plus de 1000 noms, en partie extraits du TLF et en partie collectés à partir du corpus frWaC, nous verrons en quoi Xlogue et Xlogiste sont sémantiquement distincts, ce qui nous amènera à débattre du statut de et , et donc à mesurer le rôle joué par la morphologie dans le calcul des propriétés sémantiques du lexique.We examine human nouns such as pneumologue, or radiologiste. These nouns include respectively the sequences and , which, at first sight, are the exponents of two Word Formation Rules that form nouns we represent by Xlogue and Xlogiste. Formal similarity between and makes us first assume that Xlogue and Xlogiste nouns either are synonyms (such as radiologue and radiologiste), or share the same semantic-referential features: both Xlogue and Xlogiste seem to denote specialists of what is referred to by X. Through a careful analysis of more than 1000 nouns, partly extracted from the French dictionary Trésor de la Langue Française, and partly collected from the frWaC corpus, we will show to what extend Xlogue and Xogiste are actually semantically different; this result will lead us to discuss the morphological status of and , and consequently to assess the role of morphology in the identification of the semantic properties of the lexicon

La suffixation en –asyon et en –é du créole guadeloupéen : deux cas de réanalyse de schémas morphologiques du français

This paper is about the creation of two suffixations in Guadeloupean Creole, the –asyon suffixation (konpòrtasyon ‘negative behavior’ ← konpòrté ‘to behave’; pwofitasyon ‘profit’ ← pwofité ‘to enjoy’) and the –é suffixation (bwanné ‘to move’ ← bwann ‘movement’; miganné ‘to mix’  ← migan ‘purée’). Guadeloupean Creole has seldom been studied from the point of view of morphology. It is considered as a full-fledged language in which 90% of the vocabulary is inherited from its superstratum or lexifier language (French). The vocabulary is inherited with some morphological schemas which become productive in Creole to form new lexemes, either on French or non-French bases. Yet, morphological schemas are not fully inherited: at the very least, they are accompanied by phonological, semantic or syntactic changes with respect to the original schema. The two Creole morphological suffixations on which this paper focus are partially inherited from French. We argue that these suffixations follow from reanalysis mechanisms of morphological schemas already known from work on morphological change, rather than from a process of grammaticalization.a) –asyon suffixation which phonologically extends the French –ion suffix by incorporating a root element; b) –é suffixation which consists of a “deinflectionalization” of the infinitive verbal suffix that becomes a derivational suffix.Our study is based on a corpus collected by a native speaker, from dictionaries and field surveys of native speakers. It is composed of 7045 lexemes of Guadeloupe Creole from all the islands. The analysis was conducted within the theoretical framework of lexematic morphology. Finally, our study allows us to take a position in the debate on the morphology of Creole languages, (i) against the claim that derivation emerges only through gradual grammaticalization and (ii) against the hypothesis of a poorer and simpler morphology of Creoles

The lexeme in descriptive and theoretical morphology

After being dominant during about a century since its invention by Baudouin de Courtenay at the end of the nineteenth century, morpheme is more and more replaced by lexeme in contemporary descriptive and theoretical morphology.  The notion of a lexeme is usually associated with the work of P. H. Matthews (1972, 1974), who characterizes it as a lexical entity abstracting over individual inflected words. Over the last three decades, the lexeme has become a cornerstone of much work in both inflectional morphology and word formation (or, as it is increasingly been called, lexeme formation). The papers in the present volume take stock of the descriptive and theoretical usefulness of the lexeme, but also adress many of the challenges met by classical lexeme-based theories of morphology

The lexeme in descriptive and theoretical morphology

After being dominant during about a century since its invention by Baudouin de Courtenay at the end of the nineteenth century, morpheme is more and more replaced by lexeme in contemporary descriptive and theoretical morphology.  The notion of a lexeme is usually associated with the work of P. H. Matthews (1972, 1974), who characterizes it as a lexical entity abstracting over individual inflected words. Over the last three decades, the lexeme has become a cornerstone of much work in both inflectional morphology and word formation (or, as it is increasingly been called, lexeme formation). The papers in the present volume take stock of the descriptive and theoretical usefulness of the lexeme, but also adress many of the challenges met by classical lexeme-based theories of morphology

The lexeme in descriptive and theoretical morphology

After being dominant during about a century since its invention by Baudouin de Courtenay at the end of the nineteenth century, morpheme is more and more replaced by lexeme in contemporary descriptive and theoretical morphology.  The notion of a lexeme is usually associated with the work of P. H. Matthews (1972, 1974), who characterizes it as a lexical entity abstracting over individual inflected words. Over the last three decades, the lexeme has become a cornerstone of much work in both inflectional morphology and word formation (or, as it is increasingly been called, lexeme formation). The papers in the present volume take stock of the descriptive and theoretical usefulness of the lexeme, but also adress many of the challenges met by classical lexeme-based theories of morphology