Cover not available
Part of
Subjects in Constructions – Canonical and Non-Canonical
Edited by Marja-Liisa Helasvuo and Tuomas Huumo
[Constructional Approaches to Language 16] 2015
► pp. 101–139

Abstract locational subjects

Field and settings in French and English

This chapter analyzes the English and French abstract locational subjects il, ça, there, and it which refer to an ‘abstract region’ within which the entity in the complement is identified. There, it, and il describe the ‘field’, namely the conceptualizer’s scope of awareness relative to the complement content, but they operate at different levels of reality. Existential there and simple il (followed by a nominal) describe a section of basic reality, while it and complex il (followed by a clause) operate at a more analytical level of reality which includes the conceptualizer’s effort to assess or evaluate the complement content. Ça profiles the abstract setting composed of the immediate context from which the complement content is extracted for expressive purposes.
Published online: 14 January 2015
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.16.05ach
References (51)
References
Achard, Michel (1998). Representation of cognitive structures: Syntax and semantics of French sentential complements. Berlin and New-York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2000). French ça and the dynamics of reference. LACUS Forum, 1–12.Google Scholar
(2002). The meaning and distribution of French mood inflections. In Frank Brisard (Ed.), Grounding: The epistemic footing of deixis and reference (pp. 197–249). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(2009). The distribution of French intransitive predicates. Linguistics, 47(3), 513–558. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2010). Fields and settings: French il and ça impersonals in copular complement constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 21(3), 441–498. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Alonso, Susana (2008). Existentials as impersonalizing devices. Transactions of the Philological Society, 106, 180–215. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bergen, Benjamin, & Plauché, Madelaine (2005). The convergent evolution of radial constructions: French and English deictics and existentials. Cognitive Linguistics, 16, 1–42. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight (1977). Meaning and form. London and New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Breivik, Leiv, & Martínez-Insua, Ana (2008). Grammaticalization, subjectification and non-concord in English existential sentences. English Studies, 89, 351–362. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brunot, Ferdinand (1936) [1922]. La Pensée et la Langue. Paris: Masson.Google Scholar
Cadiot, Pierre (1988). De quoi ça parle? A propos de la référence de ça pronom-sujet. Le français Moderne, 65, 174–92.Google Scholar
Carlier, Anne (1996). Les Gosses ça se lève tôt le matin’: L’interprétation générique du syntagme nominal disloqué au moyen de ce ou ça. Journal of French Language Studies, 6, 133–62. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam (1981). Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Crawford, William (2005). Verb agreement and disagreement: A corpus investigation in existential There + Be constructions. Journal of English Linguistics, 33, 35–61. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Divjak, Dagmar, & Janda, Laura (2008). Ways of attenuating agency in Russian. Transactions of the Philological Society, 106, 138–179. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fauconnier, Gilles (1985). Mental spaces: Aspects of meaning construction in natural language. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, and London: Bradford.Google Scholar
Galichet, Georges (1947). Essai de Grammaire Psychologique de la Langue Française. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
Gledhill, Christopher (2003). Fundamentals of French syntax. LINCOM EUROPA.Google Scholar
Hazout, Ilan (2004). The syntax of existential constructions. Linguistic Inquiry, 35, 393–430. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Helasvuo, Marja-Liisa, & Vilkuna, Maria (2008). Impersonal is personal: Finnish perspectives. Transactions of the Philological Society, 106, 216–245. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jespersen, Otto (1924). The philosophy of grammar. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Jones, Michael A. (1996). Foundations of French syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kirsner, Robert (1979). The problem of presentative sentences in modern dutch. North-Holland Linguistic Series 43. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. (1982). Space grammar, analyzability, and the English passive. Language, 58, 22–80. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (1987a). Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol. l. Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
. (1987b). Nouns and verbs. Language, 63, 53–94. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (1990). Subjectification. Cognitive Linguistics, 1, 5–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (1991). Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol. 2: Descriptive application. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
. (1993). Grammatical traces of some “Invisible” semantic constructs. Language Sciences, 15, 323–355. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2002). The control cycle: Why grammar is a matter of life and death. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Japanese Cognitive Linguistics Association, 2, 193–220.Google Scholar
. (2004). Aspect of the grammar of finite clauses. In Michel Achard & Suzanne Kemmer (Eds.), Language, culture, and mind (pp. 535–577). Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
. (2006). Dimensions of defocusing. In Masayoshi Shibatani & Taro Kageyama (Eds.), Voice and grammatical relations; In honor of Masayoshi Shibatani (pp. 115–137). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2008). Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2009). Investigations in cognitive grammar. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lauwers, Peter (2004). La Description du Français entre la Tradition Grammaticale et la Modernité Linguistique: Etude Historiographique et Epistémologique de la Grammaire Française entre 1907 et 1948. Leuven: Peeters.Google Scholar
Martínez-Insua, Ana, & Palacios Martinez, Ignacio (2003). A corpus-based approach to non-concord in present day English existential there-constructions. English Studies, 84, 262–283. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Olsson, Hugo (1986). La Concurrence entre il, ce et cela (ça) comme Sujet d’Expressions Impersonnelles en Français Contemporain. Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell.Google Scholar
Postal, Paul, & Pullum, Geoffrey (1988). Expletive noun phrases in subcategorized positions. Linguistic Inquiry, 19, 635–670.Google Scholar
Radford, Andrew (2004). Minimalist syntax. Exploring the structure of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rowlett, Paul (2007). The syntax of French. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sansó, Andrea (2005). Semantic maps in action, a discourse-based approach to passive and impersonal constructions. In Annalisa Baicchi, Cristiano Broccias, & Andrea Sansó (Eds.), Modelling thought and constructing meaning (pp. 89–106). Milan: Angeli.Google Scholar
Séchehaye, Albert (1950). Essai sur la Structure Logique de la Langue. Paris: Champion.Google Scholar
Shibatani, Masayoshi (1985). Passive and related constructions: A prototype analysis. Language, 61, 821–848. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Siewierska, Anna (2008a). Ways of impersonalizing. Pronominal vs. verbal strategies. In Maria de los Angeles Gómez González, J. Lachlan MacKenzie, & Elsa M. González Alvarez (Eds.), Current trends in contrastive linguistics, functional and cognitive perspectives (pp. 3–26). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2008b). Impersonalization from a subject-centered vs. agent-centered perspective. Transactions of the Philological Society, 106, 115–137. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sloń, Anna (2007). The ‘impersonal’ impersonal construction in Polish. A Cognitive Grammar analysis. In Dagmar Divjak & Agata Kochańska (Eds.), Cognitive paths through the slavic domain (pp. 257–287). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Smith, Michael (1985). An analysis of German dummy subject constructions in Cognitive Grammar. In Scott DeLancey & Russell Tomlin (Eds.), Proceedings of the First Annual Meeting of the Pacific Linguistics Conference (pp. 412–425). Department of Linguistics: University of Oregon.Google Scholar
(2000). Cataphors, spaces, propositions: Cataphoric pronouns and their function. Proceedings from the Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 36(1), 483–500.Google Scholar
Williams, Edwin (1984). There-insertion. Linguistic Inquiry, 15, 131–153.Google Scholar
Wilmet, Marc (1997). Grammaire critique du français. Louvain-la-Neuve: Duculot.Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Li, Yapei & Yi-na Wang
2016. Michel Achard: Impersonals and Other Agent Defocusing Constructions in French. Cognitive Linguistics 27:2 ► pp. 299 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 24 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.