Cover not available
Part of
Contexts of Subordination: Cognitive, typological and discourse perspectives
Edited by Laura Visapää, Jyrki Kalliokoski and Helena Sorva
[Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 249] 2014
► pp. 203–221

Subordination and the prosodic marking of punctuation in L’étranger by Albert Camus

This article examines the role of French prosody in indicating a subordinate relationship between the clauses in L’étranger (The Stranger) by Albert Camus (1942) [1998]. More precisely, this article presents different prosodic realizations of the commas that occur between subordinate clauses and main clauses. The objective of the study is to determine if this particular syntactic position constrains the possible prosodic uses of the comma in French. This analysis has been conducted using the methods adopted in instrumental phonetics. Theoretically, this analysis is based on the predictive intonation theory proposed by Mertens (1987, 2008, 2011).
Published online: 4 September 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.249.08wik
References (45)
References
Camus, Albert. 1942 [1998]. L’étranger. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
Catach, Nina. 1994 [1996]. La ponctuation. Paris: PUF.Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace. 1988. “Punctuation and the Prosody of Written Language.” Written Communication 5: 396–426. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Choi-Jonin, Injoo, and Elisabeth Delais-Roussarie. 2006. “L’association de propositions sans marque segmentale en français parlé: étude syntactico-sémantique et prosodique”. In Faits de Langues 28: “Coordination et subordination: typologie et modélisation, ed. by I. Brill, and G. Rebuschi, 83–94. Paris/Gap: Ophrys.Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth. 2000. “Prosody.” In Handbook of Pragmatics 2000, ed. by Jef 
Verschueren, Jan-Ola Östman, Jan Blommaert, and Chris Bulcaen, 1–19. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cristofaro, Sonia. 2005. Subordination. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, William. 2001. Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cruttenden, Alan. 1986 [1997]. Intonation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Delattre, Pierre. 1966. “Les dix intonations de base du français.” French ReviewOct. 1966: 1–14.Google Scholar
Di Cristo, Albert. 1998. “Intonation in French.” In Intonation Systems: A Survey of Twenty Languages, ed. by D. Hirst, and A. Di Cristo, 195–218. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Drillon, Jacques. 1991. Traité de la ponctuation française. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
Feuillet, Jack. 1990. “Place de la coordination.” L’information grammaticale 46: 4–7. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Foley, William A., and Robert D. van Valin. 1984. Functional Syntax and Universal Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fónagy, Ivan, and Judith Fónagy. 1983. “L’intonation et l’organisation du discours.” BSLP 78 (1): 161–209.Google Scholar
Gumperz, John J. 1982. Discourse Strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1992. “Contextualization Revisited.” In The Contextualization of Language, ed. by P. Auer, and A. Di Luzio, 39–53. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haiman, John. 1985. Natural Syntax: Iconicity and Erosion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 1995. “The Converb as a Cross-linguistically Valid Category.” In Converbs in Cross-Linguistic Perspective, ed. by M. Haspelmath, and E. König, 1–55. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Theoretical Prerequisites. 
Volume I. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
. 1991. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Descriptive Application. 
Volume II. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
. 2009. Investigations in Cognitive Grammar. New York: Mouton de 
Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. in this volume. “Subordination in a Dynamic Account of Grammar.”
Lehtinen, Mari. 2007. “L’interprétation prosodique des signes de ponctuation – L’exemple de la lecture radiophonique de L’Étranger d’Albert Camus.” L’information grammaticale 113: 23–31. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008. La contextualisation du discours radiophonique par des moyens prosodique. L’exemple de cinq grands philosophes français du XXe siècle. Doctoral thesis. [Mémoires de la Société Néophilologique de Helsinki LXXIV]. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique de Helsinki. Available also online at: [URL]. ISBN: 978-952-10-5173-9.Google Scholar
Lyons, John. 1968. Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics. London: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Martin, Philippe. 1987. “Prosodic and Rhythmic Structures in French.” Linguistics 25: 925–949. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mertens, Piet. 1987. L’intonation du français. De la description linguistique à la reconnaissance automatique. Doctoral thesis. Leuven: University of Leuven.Google Scholar
. 2008. “Syntaxe, prosodie et structure informationnelle: une approche prédicative pour l’analyse de l’intonation dans le discours.” Travaux de Linguistique 56 (1): 87–124. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. “Prosodie, syntaxe et discours: autour d’une approche prédictive.” In Actes d’IDP 2009 , ed. by H.-Y. Yoo, and E. Delais-Roussarie, Paris (France), September 9–11, 2009, 19–32. Published online at: [URL].
Morel, Mary-Annick, and Laurent Danon-Boileau. 1998. Grammaire de l’intonation. L’exemple du français. Paris/Gap: Ophrys.Google Scholar
Rebuschi, Georges. 2001. “Coordination et subordination. Première partie: la co-jonction restreinte.” Bulletin de la Société de linguistique de Paris XCVI (1): 23–60. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya. 1984. “Principles of Gestalt Perception in the Temporal Organization of Narrative Texts.” Linguistics 22: 779–809.Google Scholar
Riegel, Martin, Jean-Christophe Pellat, and René Rioul. 1994 [2004]. Grammaire méthodique du français. Paris: PUF.Google Scholar
Rossi, Mario. 1981. “Continuation et question.” In L’Intonation: de l’Acoustique à la Sémantique, ed. by M. Rossi, A. Di Cristo, D. Hirst, P. Martin, and Y. Nishimura, 149–178. Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar
. 1999. L’intonation, le système du français: description et modélisation. Paris/Gap: Ophrys.Google Scholar
Talmy, Leonard. 1978. “Figure and Ground in Complex Sentences.” In Universals of Human Language, Volume 4: Syntax, ed. by Joseph H. Greenberg, Charles A. Ferguson, and Edith A. Moravcsick, 625–649. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
. 2000. Toward a Cognitive Semantics. Volume I: Concept Structuring Systems. Cambridge / London: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A. 1987. ““Subordination” and Narrative Event Structure.” In Coherence and Grounding in Discourse, ed. by Russell S. Tomlin, 435–454. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tomlin, Russell S. 1985. “Foreground-Background Information and the Syntax of Subordination.” Text 5: 85–122.Google Scholar
van Valin, Robert D., and Randy J. LaPolla. 1997. Syntax. Structure, Meaning, and Function. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Védénina, Ludmilla G. 1989. Pertinence linguistique de la présentation typographique. Paris: Peeters / Selaf.Google Scholar
Wagner, Robert L., and Jaqueline Pinchon. 1991. Grammaire du français classique et moderne. Paris: Hachette.Google Scholar
Wichmann, Anne. 2000. Intonation in Text and Discourse. Beginnings, Middles and Ends. 
Harlow: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Wiklund, Mari. 2012. “La prosodie et les signes de ponctuation – une approche expérimentale.” In Actes du XVIIIe congrès des romanistes scandinaves [Romanica Gothoburgensia 69], ed. by E. Ahlstedt, K. Benson, E. Bladh, I. Söhrman, and U. Åkerström, Gothenburg (Sweden), Acta universitatis Gothoburgensis, August 9–12, 2011, 788–800. Gothenburg: GUPEA. Published online at: [URL].Google Scholar
. 2013. “Le rôle de la prosodie dans l’indication de la relation entre les propositions subordonnées circonstancielles et les propositions principales.” In Comparing and Contrasting Syntactic Structures. From Dependency to Quasi-subordination [Mémoires de la Société Néophilologique 86], ed. by E. Havu, and I. Hyvärinen, 17–44. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique de Helsinki.Google Scholar