1971
DOI: 10.3406/lfr.1971.5552
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A propos des verbes pronominaux

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

1979
1979
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
4
2

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 6 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 0 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Stéfanini 1971, Ruwet 1972, Boons et al 1976 Apart from the fact that different descriptions have partly diverging classifications and labels for the different types 2 , the classification con-81 2 There is in fact a good deal of terminological and classificatory confusion in this field, especially with regard to the two last mentioned constructions: 4. is called 'neutre' by Ruwet (1972) and Boons et al (1976), 5. is called 'moyen' by Ruwet (1972), but 'à ceals two major problems. The first problem is that such a classification tends to destroy the unity of reflexivity and to make believe that reflexive constructions can be made to mean almost anything; the very unity of the se-constructions vanishes, which is sought remedied by treating the entire field of se-constructions as an exponent of the middle voice (Stéfanini 1971). But the violation of the "one form -one function" principle remains, because the different uses really do not have much in common.…”
Section: French Reflexivesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Stéfanini 1971, Ruwet 1972, Boons et al 1976 Apart from the fact that different descriptions have partly diverging classifications and labels for the different types 2 , the classification con-81 2 There is in fact a good deal of terminological and classificatory confusion in this field, especially with regard to the two last mentioned constructions: 4. is called 'neutre' by Ruwet (1972) and Boons et al (1976), 5. is called 'moyen' by Ruwet (1972), but 'à ceals two major problems. The first problem is that such a classification tends to destroy the unity of reflexivity and to make believe that reflexive constructions can be made to mean almost anything; the very unity of the se-constructions vanishes, which is sought remedied by treating the entire field of se-constructions as an exponent of the middle voice (Stéfanini 1971). But the violation of the "one form -one function" principle remains, because the different uses really do not have much in common.…”
Section: French Reflexivesmentioning
confidence: 99%