No abstract

We examine the phrasal vs. clausal syntactic status of French infinitives. Whereas a number of current theories assume a VP-hypothesis (contra principles and parameters theories, including the Minimalist Program), data relative to causative constructions in French are often treated as clausal constructions (the so-called ‘proposition infinitive’). The aim of this paper is to demonstrate (i) that it is possible to account for causative constructions in French according to the VP-hypothesis (e.g. in the HPSG framework); (ii) that it is in fact impossible to maintain a clausal hypothesis for causative constructions with respect to subject inversion in French. We therefore argue in favour of the VP-hypothesis for all (French) infinitives.

Résumé Dans cet article nous proposons une analyse constructionnelle des phrases interrogatives en comment dotée d’une lecture rhétorique (IRC). Au plan syntaxique, la structure interrogative présente des restrictions inhabituelles dans ses propriétés d’extraction. Au plan sémantique, l’IRC est une question partielle portant sur les conditions d’accessibilité à un monde où le noyau propositionnel de l’interrogative ( p ) est vrai, et non sur la manière d’un prédicat de p . La présence d’indices contrefactuels contraint le champ des réponses possibles et déclenche une lecture rhétorique qui véhicule l’assertion non (modalité)p . La conjonction de propositions contradictoires ( p et non (modalité)p )) provoque un conflit entre le monde des attentes du locuteur et celui dans lequel p est envisagée comme vraie ; conflit qui est le support d’attitudes émotives telles que la surprise ou l’indignation. Au plan pragmatique, les IRC sont des actes de langage complexes qui associent un commitment questionnant du locuteur à une demande adressée à l’interlocuteur de se commettre au déni de p .

No abstract

In this paper, we present a surface-based analysis of a specific type of French parenthetical adjunct clauses introduced by the adverb comme (similar to as in English). The construction we focus on belongs to the domain of reported speech, and we call it reportive-comme clause (RCC). The set of data we consider exhibits a large amount of notable properties that can only be fully explained under the assumption of constructional constraints. Therefore, following Sag (1997) and Abeillé et al. (1998), we base our approach on the central notion of "construction". We claim that RCCs are adverbial extraction contexts. We integrate them in a cross-classified typed hierarchy as a subtype of relative clauses, and a subtype of head-adjunct and head-filler phrases. Semantic specifications of RCCs are expressed with constraints on different levels. We draw a general distinction between head-modifier adjuncts and parenthetical adjuncts in order to account for the fact that parenthetical adjuncts do not contribute the referential content of the head phrase they selected for. We posit two subtypes of RCCs determined by a Direct speech (and quotative) vs. Indirect speech distribution of properties. The two sets of defining constraints allow to characterize the restricted classes of verbs possible in the different RCCs, the syntactic realization (gap or pronominal affix) of their object argument and its anaphoric semantics. This treatment constitutes a more general proposal for direct speech or quoted argument selection, which is known as a puzzling problem of the syntax-semantic interface. It innovates in presenting a formalized account of reported speech phenomena and present a typed-based classification of the semantic relations of reported speech predicates.