Cover not available
Part of
Existential Constructions across Languages: Forms, meanings and functions
Edited by Laure Sarda and Ludovica Lena
[Human Cognitive Processing 76] 2023
► pp. 284–300

Chapter 9
Is the French verb manquer ‘lack, miss’ a negative existential predicate?

| Université de Lille, UMR 8163 STL, France
This study treats French existential manquer ‘to lack’ as a positive predicate. I identify two syntactic constructions: a “locative alternating” one and an impersonal one (with a personal variant). I argue that the argument determiner constraints of manquer in the first construction can be explained by postulating an incorporated quantifier. The same assumption is valid for the second construction in spite of its explicit quantifier. Both constructions assert existence, but the existence in insufficient quantity (in reference to a norm), the inexistence / absence being a borderline case of insufficiency. The two constructions differ in that the second one, where manquer appears in the impersonal construction, adds to the simple idea of quantitative insufficiency the exact measure of the quantitative inferiority.
Keywords: absence, abundance, impersonal, (in)sufficiency, locative, quantifier
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Manquer in alternating constructions
    • 2.1Manquer de, and manquer à / dans
    • 2.2Manquer1 and abonder
    • 2.3Manquer1 and manquer2
    • 2.4Manquer and the notion of insufficiency
      • 2.4.1Insufficiency and norm
      • 2.4.2Existence and completeness
      • 2.4.3Vague vs precise insufficiency
  • 3.Conclusion: Manquer as a positive existential predicate and a negative abundance predicate
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
Published online: 5 July 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.76.09van
References (21)
References
Anderson, J. M. 1971. Towards a localistic theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Arnaud, A., & Lancelot, C. 1676. Grammaire générale et raisonnée. Bruxelles: Chez Eug. Henry Fricx.Google Scholar
Asnès, M., & Kupferman, L. 2008. Evénements, prédicats, arguments : quelques points de repère. Langages, 169(1), 7–33. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Benveniste, E. 1966. Problèmes de linguistique générale. Tome I. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
Carlier, A. 2011. From multum to beaucoup: between adverb and nominal determiner. In L. Tovena (Ed.), French determiners in and across time (55–87). London: College Publications.Google Scholar
Clark, E. V. 1978. Locationals: Existential, locative and possessive constructions. In J. Greenberg, C. Ferguson, & E. Moravcsik (Eds.), Syntax (86–126). Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Dowty, David. 2000. ‘The garden swarms with bees’ and the fallacy of ‘Argument Alternation’. In Y. Ravin, & C. Leacock (Eds.), Polysemy. Theoretical and computational approaches (111–128). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Ch. 1968. The Case for Case. In E. Bach, & R. Harms (Eds.), Universals in linguistic theory (1–88). New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.Google Scholar
Freeze, R. 1992. Existentials and other locatives. Language, 68(3), 553–592. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gross, M. 1967. Sur une règle de « cacophonie ». Langages, 7, 105–119. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, R. 1990. Semantic Structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
1995. Languages of the Mind. Essays on Mental Representation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kuno, S. 1971. The position of locatives in existential sentences. Linguistic Inquiry, 2, 333–378.Google Scholar
Levin, B., & Rappaport, M. 1995. Unaccusativity : at the syntax-lexical semantics interface. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
1998. Building verb meanings. In M. Butt, & W. Geuder (Eds.), The Projection of arguments: Lexical and compositional factors (97–134). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Martin, F. 2007. De-N nus indéfinis prédicatifs et prédicats incorporants. In F. Corblin, S. Ferrando, & L. Kupferman (Eds.), Indéfinis et prédication (521–534). Paris: Presses Universitaires de Paris Sorbonne.Google Scholar
Milner, J.-C. 1982. Ordres et raisons de langue. Paris: Editions du Seuil.Google Scholar
Oxford English Dictionary. 1989. Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Ruwet, N. 1972. Théorie syntaxique et syntaxe du français. Paris: Éd. du Seuil.Google Scholar
Salkoff, M. 1983. Bees are swarming in the garden: A systematic synchronic study of productivity. Language, 59(2), 288–346. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van de Velde, D. 2005. Les interprétations partitive et existentielle des indéfinis dans les phrases existentielles locatives. Travaux de Linguistique, 50, 37–52. DOI logoGoogle Scholar