Les suffixes -age et -ment

LLF

Les suffixes -age et -mentet la sémantique des nominalisationsBernard FRADINLaboratoire de Linguistique FormelleCNRS & Université Paris Diderot-Paris [email protected]

NOMICO, 7 septembre 2012 - NANCY

LLF

Overview

2

• Introduction• Les nominalisations en -ion sont à part• Lʼimportance des constructions• Quelles corrélations sont en jeu• Les traitements précédents• Résultats et commentaires• Trouver les conditions• Proposition de traitement• Conclusion

LLF

1. Introduction. Definition

3

• A nominalization is a noun(i) which is morphologically derived from a verbal predicate,(ii) which allows one to refer in discourse to what this predicate denotes,(iii) which shares the distributional properties of prototypical nouns in the language in question

‣ RENOUVELLEMENT is a nominalization (NZN).

(1) Vous pouvez renouveller votre carte d’identité avant qu’elle soit périmée. Le renouvellement s’effectue en mairie ou dans les antennes de police. ‘You can renew your ID card before it has expired. The renewal can be done at the town hall or at the local police stations’

LLF

1. Introduction. The null hypothesis

4

• Nominalizations inherit their aspectual and argumental properties from the verb they are based on (their base- verb)(cf. Aspect Preservation Hypothesis, Fábregas & Marín 2012).

• This is true for the most part, but adjustments are necessary in some cases (Haas et al. 2008, Huyghe & Marín 2007).

LLF

1. Introduction. Multiple exponence

5

• Four distinct exponents are used to form eventive nouns in a predictable way, including conversion.

Exponent Bse-V Gloss Derived N-ade glisser ‘to slip’ glissade-age plier ‘to fold’ pliage-ance attirer ‘to attract’ attirance

-ÉE arriver ‘to arrive’ arrivée-erie tuer ‘to kill’ tuerie-is cliqueter ‘to jingle’ cliquetis

-ion fixer ‘to fix’ fixation-ment lancer ‘to throw’ lancement-ure souder ‘to weld’ soudureØ marcher ‘to walk’ marche

LLF

1. Introduction. Multiple exponence

6

• I will only consider - nominalizations with a plain suffix (conversion is left aside)- nominalizations formed on the same type of stem. This leaves aside nominalizations in -ion because this suffix is added to learned stems instead of native stems. (more on this below).

LLF

1. Introduction. Multiple meaning

7

• I shall only consider the four meanings strictly depending on the argumental and aspectual properties of the base-V

Type Paraphrase Example Gloss

Event ‘action of V’ lavage ‘washing’

Product ‘resulting object’ construction ‘building’

Means ‘what V’ emballage ‘wrapping’

State ‘fact of being Ved ’ embrouillement ‘muddle’

Manner ‘manner of V’ marche ‘gait’

Location ‘place where… V’ garage ‘garage’

Group ‘people who V’ équipage ‘crew’

Period ‘time during which… V’ hivernage ‘wintering’

LLF

1. Introduction. Distinguishing meanings

8

Eventive meaning: a NZN has an eventive meaning if it can head a subject NP of verbs such as TAKE_PLACE (2) (Godard & Jayez 1995).

(2) LE__ {AVOIR LIEU, SE_PRODUIRE}

Product meaning: (= Grimshaw’s result nominals) (i) The NZN does not pass test (2), (ii) it can be the argument of predicates denoting concrete properties e.g. FALL, MOVE, REDDEN, etc. (3).

(3) a. LE__ {TOMBER, REMUER, VERDIR…} b. LE__ ETRE {ROUGE, LISSE…}

Means meaning: the NZN may be the subject of a stative construction headed by the base-V (Fradin 2012).(4) LE__ base-V ex. L’emballage emballe. ‘the wrapping wraps’

Stative meaning: the NZN does not pass test (2), and cannot be modified by dynamic adjectives (Alexiadou 2011, cf. Vendler 1967).(5) *La ressemblance rapide de Luc et d’Ida. ‘the quick ressemblance…’

LLF

1. Introduction. Distinguishing meaning

9

• An example of each of these meanings is given in (6).

(6) a. Le reniflement des porcelets l’empêchait de dormir. ‘The piglets’ sniffing prevents her from sleeping‘ b. Le classement a été chamboulé au terme de la 10e journée. ‘The classification has been turned upside down after the 10th

day (of the championship)’ c. Les matelots jetaient par dessus le bordage des poissons palpitants. Flaubert, 1877 (Frantext) ‘The sailors threw over the planks quivering fish’ d. Bordeaux a 2 200 heures d’ensoleillement par an. ‘Bordeaux has 2,200 h of sunshine yearly’

LLF

1. Introduction. Scope of the talk

10

• A sampling of 85 pairs of duplicates ending in -age, -ment, and beginning by letter E, has been investigated. Plus 38 additional pairs beginning by letter P (control).

‣ Does the interpretation of these two types of nominalisations follow tendencies or is it randomly distributed?‣ To what extent can their meaning be predicted? Do these predictions support the insights of preceding accounts?‣ How can we deal with the observed facts?

Interest of the present approach An inquiry limited to duplicates allows us to better see what matches and what diverges in the semantics of these nominalizations.

LLF

2. Why -ion NZNs must be left aside

11

• Lexeme Formation Rules suffixing -ment and -age select the Imperfect stem of the verb as the default phonological base.• Imperfect stem = 3rd stem in Bonami & Boyé (2003)

Infinitive Gloss Imperfect 3rd stem Deverbal N Glossbattre ‘to beat’ batt-ait /bat/ /bat-mã/ ‘beating’glisser ‘to slide’ gliss-ait /glis/ /glis-mã/ ‘sliding’finir ‘to finish’ finiss-ait /finis/ /finis-aʒ/ ‘finishing’

• The 3rd stem is the default inflectional stem of verbs in French.• To that extent, LFRs suffixing -ment or -age qualify as very regular.

LLF


12

• LFRs suffixing -ion instead select a verbal stem specially reserved for derivation i.e. not used in inflection: the 13th stem (Bonami et al. 2009).• In many cases, this stem is a suppletive form either inherited from Latin e.g. réduire ‘reduce’ = /redykt/ or completely idiosyncratic e.g. voir ‘see’ = /viz/ ~ vis-ion ‘vision’.• Otherwise, it is formed by regular allomorphy rules which add /at/ to the verb’s 3rd stem or /kat/ with -ifier verbs (cf. Bonami et al. 2009 and Lieber 1980 about the stem allomorphy)

Stem type Infinitive Stem 3 Stem 13 Deverbal

X former /fɔrm/ /fɔrm-at/ formation

Xifi notifier /nɔtifi/ /nɔtifi-kat/ notification

irregular réduire /redɥiz/ /redykt/ réduction

LLF


13

• As shown in the table and examples below, -ion cannot be added to verbal stem 3, whereas neither -age, nor -ment can be suffixed onto verbal stem 13.

Suffix Stem 3 Stem 13-ion *frott-ion émiss-ion-age frott-age *émiss-age

-ment frotte-ment *émisse-mentGloss ‘to rub / rubbing’ ‘to emit / emission’

(7) isolat-ion / isole-ment, isol-age ‘isolating’, fondat-ion / fonde-ment ‘foundation(s)’

• Parallel derivations on both stems are infrequent.

LLF


14

• -ion suffixation obligatorily requires verbal stem 13. When the latter does not exist, no deverbal N in -ion can be derived.

(8) format-ion ← form-er ‘to form‘ vs. *frottat-ion ← frott-er ‘to rub‘

(9) gest-ion / *gère-ment, *gér-age ‘management’, éducat-ion / *éduc-age, *éduque-ment ‘education’

• In addition, the existence of a deverbal in -ion generally bars the derivation of any deverbal in -age or -ment (9), even though stem 3 is always available as the default stem. • This is so because most Ns in -ion are adaptations of Latin nouns in -atio (they have never been derived in French).

➡ To avoid unwanted interferences with morphophonology, this study will only compare deverbal nouns based on the same stem.➡ It is then limited to deverbal duplicates in -age and -ment.

LLF

3. The importance of constructions

15

• By definition, duplicates are based on the same verb. But what does "the same verb" mean?

Two concepts have to be distinguished

• Morphologically, a V is defined extensionally by its inflectional paradigm i.e. by the set of word-forms it corresponds to.

RESSORTIR1 (de): il ressort, il ressortait… ‘to go out again’RESSORTIR2 (à): il ressortit, ressortissait… ‘to come under’➡ two distinct morphological verbs (flexemes)

‣ If two units share the same set of word-forms, they constitute the one and same morphological unit (flexeme, Fradin & Kerleroux 2003)

The V as a lexical unit The V as a morphological unit

LLF


16

• Lexically, a verb is a lexeme which heads a construction.

• Construction: linguistic unit involving several distinct planes of representation (meaning, sound, syntactics), such that the linking between the elements of the planes is not strictly predictable (Goldberg 1995, Kay & Fillmore 1999, Boas 2003, Croft 2001)

(10) a. NP0 élever1 NP1 ELEVER1

λy,x,s2,e1. breed’(x, y, e1) ∧ ∃g.(result’(y, sMaturity, g, s2)) x = NP0 = AGT, y = NP1 = PAT b. NP0 élever2 NP1 ([SP de NP2[measure]]) ELEVER2

λy,x,e1. raise’(x, y, e1) ∧ ∃g.(result’(y, sHeight, g, s2)) (Beavers 2010) x = NP0 = (AGT | INS), y = NP1 = PAT, g = NP2

(11) a. Marie élève des lamas. ‘Mary breeds llamas’

b. Une pompe à vapeur élève l’eau jusqu’au bassin. ‘A steam pump raises water to the basin’

LLF


17

ELEVER1 and ELEVER2 are then two different lexemes.➡ Lexeme Formation Rules apply distinctly to them

(12) a. (L’élevage | *l’élèvement) des lamas est difficile. ‘The breeding of llamas is difficult’

b. (L’élèvement | *l’élevage) du niveau de la mer… ‘The raising of the sea level…’

This identity can be capture using a Paradigmatic Identifier (PI).A PI is a feature which specifies the inflectional paradigm a lexemeis modeled on (Bonami & Tribout 2012).- PI(RESSORTIR1) = sortir, PI(RESSORTIR2) = finir- PI(ELEVER1 ) = PI(ELEVER2) = lever

ELEVER1: il élève, il élevait… ‘he breeds, he bred’ELEVER2: il élève, il élevait… ‘he raises, raised’➡ they are the same morphological verb (flexeme)

LLF


18

Strictly speaking, true duplicates will only be those verbal lexemes‣ which share the same Paradigmatic Identifier‣ which head the same (set of) construction(s)

• For the purpose of derivational morphology, constructions are central to the extent that LFRs apply to lexemes.

➡ These conditions dramatically shrink the number of duplicates of our documentation.

ENTERRER ‘bury’, PI = parler

NP0 ENTERRER NP1[animate]L’enterrement de Victor Hugo…‘Victor Hugo’s funeral…’

NP0 ENTERRER NP1[inanimate]L’enterrage des pommes de terre…‘The planting of potatoes…’

LLF

4. Conceptualizing the correlations

19

• As for meaning distribution, the a priori possibilities for the E nominalizations are displayed in the following table

• Meaning ‘Product’ (or ‘Result’) has been discarded because there were only 3 lexemes overall exhibiting this meaning.

Type N-age N-mentA. action actionB. action stateC. action meansD. state stateE. state meansF. state actionG. means meansH. means actionI. means state

LLF


20

• The shaded cells are those for which no attested examples exist in the documentation.

• However, more precise criteria have to be introduced for some cells in order to adequately sort out the existing cases.


LLF


21

• (Aa) Restrictions on the base-V arguments make the constructions differ• (Ab) the Vs have the same PI but constitute two different lexemes.

• ‘≠’ indicates cases where the meaning is different from the four selected ones (e.g. manner, place).

Type N-age N-mentAa. action[restriction r1] action[restriction r2]

Ab. action of V1 action of V2Ac. action ≠Da. state ≠Ea. ≠ meansFa. ≠ actionGa. means ≠H. — —Ia. Ø state

LLF

5. Previous accounts

22

• They tend to conceive of the two suffixations in a dualistic way.• The data they are based upon are limited, often non-attested.• They have to face many counter-examples even though their insights have to be kept.• They pay few or no attention to meaning distribution.

• Overview of these proposals

N-age N-ment Authors1. Bse-V = tr Bse-V = itr Dubois 1962

2. NP0 = AGT NP0 ≠ AGT Kelling 2003

3. evk ⊑ ei,… , en evk ⋢ ei,… , en Martin 2007

4. Agentive causation No Agent Martin 2007

‣ 3. The denoted event (does not) belong(s) to a longer event chain.‣ 4. The denoted event is caused by an true Agent (controller).

LLF

6. Results and comments. Global observations

23

• As the table shows, not all meaning distributions are equally attested: all are with Action, only two with Means, and only one with State.

• The excluded possibilities always involve the State meaning.‣ I shall focus on Action (more numerous) and State NZNs (more puzzling)


LLF

6. Results and comments. Global observations

24

• The situation with NZNs beginning with P shows less variation.• 3 derived nouns denote a result, but no state or means meaning.

Type N-age N-mentA. action actionAc. action manner, placeB. action stateC. action meansC’ action resultD. state stateE. state meansF. state actionG. means meansH. means actionI. means state

LLF

6. Results and comments. True duplicates

25

• 32 pairs of true E duplicates denote an Action (37,64%)

• In the majority of their uses, these duplicates are strictly equivalent.

Action of V Action of V Glossébarbage ébarbement ‘deburring’ébouillantage ébouillantement ‘scalding’écharnage écharnement ‘flesh removing’échouage échouement ‘running aground’ emmagasinage emmagasinement ‘storing’émondage émondement (vx) ‘pruning’encavage encavement ‘putting Y in cellar’enfournage enfournement ‘putting Y in the oven’

enveloppage enveloppement ‘packing, surrounding’essartage essartement ‘deforesting’

LLF

6. Results and comments. True duplicates

26

• 29 pairs of true P duplicates denote an Action (76,31%)

• With the intended meaning, these duplicates are strictly equivalent.

Action of V Action of V Glosspapillonnage1,2 papillonnement1,2 ‘flitting around’papillotage2 papillotement2 ‘twinkling’pataugeage pataugement ‘splashing about’pavage pavement ‘cobbling, paving’ perchage perchement ‘perching’pétrissage pétrissement ‘kneading’picotage picotement ‘pecking, tingling’pivotage pivotement ‘swivelling’

pliage pliement ‘folding’pointillage pointillement ‘stippling’

LLF

6. Results and comments. False duplicates

27

• 9 pairs of false E duplicates denote an Action (10,50%)• Their core meaning is similar. They only differ one from another by the conditions bearing on their object (or subject) NP argument.

Action of V Action of V Glosséchafaudage échafaudement [abst] ‘scaffolding, building up’éclaircissage [plant] éclaircissement ‘clearing, explanation’encaissage [object] encaissement [money] ‘putting in box, cashing’enterrage [object] enterrement [anim] ‘burying, funeral’ étalage [spatial] étalement [temporal] ‘displaying, spreading’

(13) a. (*?L’échafaudage | l’échafaudement) de nouveaux plans… ‘The building up of new plans…’

b. L’étalage de la marchandise… | l’étalement des vacances… ‘Displaying goods… | spreading out vacation…’

LLF

6. Results and comments. Inflectional duplicates

28

• 13 pairs of nouns which are formal duplicates (i.e. duplicates only from the inflectional point of view) denote an Action (15,29%)• Since their base-V heads distinct constructions, the meaning of these nouns is different too.

Action of V1 Action of V2 Gloss

écaillage tr écaillement rfl ‘scaling, flaking’

effaçage [sign] tr effacement [abst] tr, rfl ‘erasure, obliteration’

élevage [anim] élèvement [spatial] ‘breeding, raising’

émoussage [moss] tr émoussement[obj] tr, rfl ‘moss removal, blunting’

éraflage [grape] éraflement [obj] ‘stalk removal, scratching’

(14) L’émoussage du toit… | l’émoussement de la pointe des dents de chiens ‘The roof’s moss removal…/ blunting of dogs’ teeth’

LLF

7. Discovering conditions

29

• The syntactic structure of the base-V is one of the major factors conditioning the choice of the exponent.• The reflexive verbs are mostly anticausative (Heidinger 2012)

Structure -age -ment Examples1. tr 50 % 50 % ébarber, écharner2. rfl 40 % 60 % s’écraser, s’encrasser3. itr 100 % éclaircir, éclater, perler4. tr/rfl 50 % 50 % (s’)échouer, (s’)engluer

‣ Ecoulage / écoulement, égouttage / égouttement, élevage / élèvement

(14’) a. (Pierre | la pluie) efface les marques. L’effaçage | l’effacement… b. *Les marques effacent. c. Les marques s’effacent. *L’effaçage | l’effacement…

(14’’) a. La suie encrasse les soupapes. L’encrassage | l’encrassement… b. *Les soupapes encrassent. c. Les soupapes s’encrassent. L’encrassage | l’encrassement…

LLF


30

• The properties associated with the referent of the base-V also seem to play an important role.• The preferences observed are given in the table below, where the properties form antagonistic pairs and are organized as in (15).

-age -ment Example1. specific general éborgage / éborgnement

2. concrete obj. abstract obj. échafaudage / échafaudement

3. non-human human enterrage / enterrement

4. inert object active object emballage / emballement

object | living beingspecific | general

animal | humanconcrete | abstract

inert | active

(15)

LLF


31

(16) Echafaudage de dentelles… | échafaudement théorique ‘heap of lace…; theoretical building up‘ (l’élagage | l’élaguement) des platanes | l’élaguement de la dette extérieure ‘the pruning of plane trees; the elimination of foreign debt‘ entreprise de plafonnage / le plafonnement des loyers (concrete / abstract)

(17) l’éborgnage des arbres fruitiers | l’éborgnement d’un manifestant ‘the disbuding of fruit trees; the poking out of a demonstrator’s eye‘ l’effleurage des peaux | l’effleurement de la joue (specific / general)

(18) l’enlevage des taches | l’enlèvement des journalistes ‘the removal of smears; the journalists’ kidnapping‘ sauver les abeilles de l’étouffage | éviter l’étouffement du bébé enterrage | enterrement (non-human / human)

(19) (l’écrasage | l’écrasement de la main) | l’écrasement d’un hélicoptère ‘the squashing of the hand; the crash of an helicopter’ le pliage du linge | le pliement du genou (inert / active)

LLF


32

• The controlled nature of the event by the subject’s referent is also a relevant condition, a fact that has been noted for long.

Controlled Non-controlledpianotage pianotementpicotage1 picotement2

plissage plissementécoulage écoulement

(20) a. le pianotage des doigts sur la table | le pianotement de la pluie ‘the drumming of the fingers…; the drumming of the rain’

b. le picotage des poules | un picotement dans le dos ‘the pecking of chickens | a tingling in one’s back’ c. le plissage de la jupe | le plissement hercynien ‘the skirt pleating | the Hercynian orogeny‘ d. l’écoulage d’une cuve de merlot | l’écoulement du pus

LLF

7. Discovering conditions. Stative meaning

33

(21) technique d’effilage | l’effilement des ailes ‘taper technique (for haircut); the tapering of wings’

• In case B, the stative interpretation is always correlated with a N-ment, a situation predicted to be impossible by Fábregas & Marín (2012: 61).

Action of V Fact of being V-ed Gloss

effilage effilement ‘tapering ’

entortillage, entortillement entortillement ‘twisting, entwinement’

(22) l’ébouriffage | l’ébouriffement des plumes ‘the feathers ruffling‘

• In case D (2 pairs of duplicates in the documentation), it is the only case where Ns in -age express a State.

Fact of being V-ed Fact of being V-ed Gloss

ébouriffage2 ébouriffement2 ‘tousling, ruffling’

encrassage2 encrassement2 ‘clogging up, sooting up’

LLF

7. Discovering conditions. Stative meaning

34

• In case (Ia) (4 attestations), only the N-ment exists • There is no corresponding finite form of the base-V.

X Fact of being V-ed Gloss

Ø encaissement2 ‘steepsideness’

Ø évidement ‘hollowing-out’

(23) l’évidement des os ‘the hollowing-out of bones‘ = ‘les os sont évidés‘ ‘the bones have a hole inside’

Formation of these stative NZNs• The base-V is a scalar predicate formed on verbal stem 12‣ (regular) stem 12 = stem 3 + /e/ e.g. /efile/ for EFFILER

(24) a. I(EFFILEA) ≡ λx. λs. effilé’(x, s) b. I(EFFILEMENT) ≡ λx. ∩λs. effilé’(x, s) c. I(l’effilement des ailes) = ∩λs. ∃x. effilé’(x, s) ∧ ailes’(x)

LLF

8. Proposal

35

• We are facing a contradiction:- For most of the NZNs investigated, the distribution of exponents -age and -ment is not random but correlated with a semantic distinction.- For many others however, no difference at all can be observed.

• How can we cope with this situation?

1. Lexeme Formation Rules forming nominalizations add either -age or -ment: morphology does not selects (speakers are free).2. Whenever a semantic differentiation shows up, it is expressed through the construction that the base-V heads: constructions are the locus where speakers may introduce variation.3. When a nominalization is coined, it has to comply with the constraints imposed by the existing lexicon (preferences exist).

• My tentative answer involves a three level organisation

LLF

8. Proposal

36

• Two main scenarios may occur

A. One construction only is at stake. The NZN is formed on the V heading this construction.➡ the exponent may freely vary. Preferences, if any, only depend on norm (Coseriu 1970).

encavage encavement ‘putting Y in cellar’enfournage enfournement ‘putting Y in the oven’pataugeage pataugement ‘splashing about’

pivotage pivotement ‘swivelling round’

‣ Frequent when the event denoted by the construction is alone of its type in a given domain of knowledge. This case, where more than one item corresponds to a given ‘meaning slot’, was banned by Aronoff (1976:45).

LLF

8. Proposal

37

B. Several constructions are at stake, each one exhibiting a slight variation from the others. A NZN denoting an event may be formed on each of the verbs heading these constructions.➡ the exponent may not freely vary because conditions bearing on the interpretation are triggered by these variations.

-age -ment Examplespecific general éborgnage / éborgnement

non-human human enterrage / enterrement

controlled non-controlled pourrissage / pourrissement

‣ This scenario occurs - when the NZN denotes an event,- when this event or action has to be differentiated from other events or actions in a given knowledge domain. The exponent keeps track of the construction in a way which tends to be coherent with the series of derived lexemes existing in the attested lexicon.

LLF

8. Proposal

38

When the NZN denotes a state instead of an event, constraints of a similar kind apply➡ the exponent is not free: -ment is highly prefered.

‣ Two hypotheses have to be tested in this regard (I) May an N-age denote a state if it is the unique NZN of a V? (II) From the same base-V, is it possible to derive a N-age denoting a state and a N-ment denoting an event?

LLF

Conclusion

39

‣ Undertake a more systematic inquiry on corpora and Web resources.- provide an estimation of the frequency of occurrence for each distinct derived noun involved in the pairs. - Extend the inquiry to non-duplicates nominalizations

‣ Develop an experimental approach (if possible)- see to what extent the linguistic distinctions that have been drawn are reflected in speakers’ behavior.

• Constructions have a overwhelming importance.• The insights of previous accounts are basically correct and have been incorporated in the present, more fine-grained, approach.• Duplicates denoting an action are by far the more numerous.

40

MERCI DE VOTREATTENTION

LLF

References

41

Bonami Olivier & Gilles Boyé. 2003. "Supplétion et classes flexionnelles dans la conjugaison du français". Langages 152:102-126.

Bonami Olivier, Gilles Boyé & Françoise Kerleroux. 2009. "L'allomorphie radicale et la relation flexion-construction". In Aperçus de morphologie française, Fradin B., F. Kerleroux & M. Plénat (eds). 103-125. Saint-Denis: Presses Universitaires de Vincennes.

Boas Hans C. 2003. A constructional approach to resultatives. Stanford: CSLI Publications.

Bonami Olivier & Delphine Tribout. 2012. "Underspecification and the semantics of lexeme formation". Paper read at IMM 15, February, 2012, Wien, Österreich.

Croft William. 2001. Radical Construction Grammar. Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Dubois Jean. 1962. Etude sur la dérivation suffixale en français. Paris: Nathan.

Alexiadou Artemis. 2011. "Statives and nominalizations". Recherches Linguistiques de Vincennes 40:25-52.

Aronoff Mark. 1976. Word Formation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge: The MIT Press.

Beavers John. 2010. "The structure of lexical meaning. Why semantics really matters". Language 86 4:821-864.

Coseriu Eugenio. 1970. "Sistema, norma y habla". In Teoría del lenguaje y lingüistica general. 11-113. Madrid: Editorial Gredos. Original edition, 1952.

42

Kay Paul & Charles J. Fillmore. 1999. "Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalization: The What's X doing? construction". Language 75 1:1-33.

Goldberg Adele E. 1995. Constructions. A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Huyghe Richard & Marín Rafael. 2007. "L'héritage aspectuel des noms déverbaux en français et en espagnol". Faits de langue 30:265-273.

Grimshaw Jane. 1990. Argument Structure. Cambridge (Mass.) / London: The MIT Press.

Haas Pauline, Richard Huyghe & Rafael Marín. 2008. "Du verbe au nom: calques et décalages aspectuels". In Congrès Mondial de Linguistique Française - CMLF'08, Durand J., B. Habert & B. Laks (eds). 2039-2053. Paris: Institut de Linguistique Française - EDP Sciences.

Godard Danièle & Jacques Jayez. 1995. "Types Nominaux et Anaphores: le cas des objets et des événements". Cahiers Chronos 1:41-58.

Fradin Bernard. 2012. "Les nominalisations et la lecture 'moyen'". Lexique 20:129-156.

Fradin Bernard & Françoise Kerleroux. 2003. "Troubles with lexemes". In Topics in Morphology. Selected papers from the Third Mediterranean Morphology Meeting, Booij G., J. De Cesaris, S. Scalise & A. Ralli (eds). 177-196. Barcelona: IULA-Universitat Pompeu Fabra.

Fábregas Antonio & Rafael Marín. 2012. "The role of Aktionsart in deverbal nouns: State nominalizations across languages". Journal of Linguistics 48:35-70.

Heidinger Steffen. 2012. "Spontaneity, relative frequency and the encoding of (anti)causatives: a constrastive analysis of French and Spanish". Paper read at 45th SLE annual meeting, August 29-September 1, 2012, at Stockholm University.

43

Vendler Zeno. 1967. "Verbs and Times". In Linguistics in Philosophy. 97-121. New York: Cornell University Press.

Martin Fabienne. 2007. The competition between the French suffixe -ment, -ion, -age and -erie. A semantic analysis. In Nominalisations across languages. Universität Stuttgart, 30th November - 2nd December 2007.

Lieber Rochelle. 1980. On the Organization of the Lexicon. PhD, University of New Hampshire, IULC, Bloomington.

Kiefer Ferenc. 1998. "Les substantifs déverbaux événementiels". Langages 131:56-63.

Kelling Carmen. 2003. "The Role of Agentivity for Suffix Selection". In Topics in Morphology. Selected papers from the Third Mediterranean Morphology Meeting, Booj G., J. De Cesaris, S. Scalise & A. Ralli (eds). 197-210. Barcelona: IULA-Universitat Pompeu Fabra.

Les suffixes -age et -ment

Documents

Transcript of Les suffixes -age et -ment