Suchergebnisse

Among the names traditionally considered as event names [NEV], i.e. which can serve as a nucleus for an SN subject to take place, a distinction is made between two types of N. Autonomous NEVs (e.g. concert, avalanche) are sufficient to describe events, while dependent EVOs (e.g. increase, dismantling) require additional information to identify events. The distinction between these two types of N is not the same as that proposed by Grimshaw (1990) between 'simple NOMinals event' and 'complex event NOMinals'. It is established that the distribution between autonomous and dependent EVNs is not based on strictly morphological or syntax properties, and that the semantic structure, i.e. all relevant semantic traits, is not the same for all EVs. The assumption is made that the autonomy or dependence of VNEs may be a condition for the type of event that is descored. ; Two categories of nouns denoting events [ENs], i.e. of nouns which can be the subject of avoir lieu ('take place'), can be distinguished. Autonomous ENs (e.g. concert 'concert', avalanche 'avalanche') provide a sufficient description of events, whereas dependent ENs (e.g. augmentation 'increase', démantèlement 'dismantling'), need a complement to denote events. The distinction between these two categories is not equivalent to the one proposed by Grimshaw (1990), between " simple event nominals " and " complex event nominals ". It is shown that the distribution between autonomous and dependent ENs does not rely on pure syntactic or morphological properties, and that the semantic structure, i.e. the relevant semantic features, is not the same for all ENs. Furthermore, the autonomy or dependency of ENs may determine the ontological type of events denoted by ENs. ; Among the names traditionally considered as event names [NEV], i.e. which can serve as a nucleus for an SN subject to take place, a distinction is made between two types of N. Autonomous NEVs (e.g. concert, avalanche) are sufficient to describe events, while dependent EVOs (e.g. increase, ...

Les verbes de changement d'état en français sont hétérogènes quant à leur capacité d'alterner entre constructions causative et anticausative. Alors que certains d'eux s'emploient rarement, voire jamais, comme anticausatifs (ex. légaliser), d'autres privilégient largement cette construction (ex. vieillir), et de nombreux verbes se situent entre ces deux extrêmes. Dans cet article, nous nousinterrogeons sur cette variabilité et sur ses facteurs déterminants. À partir de l'analyse de 50 verbes, nous mettons en évidence une corrélation entre le rôle sémantique du sujet dans la construction causative et la fréquence d'emploi comme anticausatif: plus le sujet dans l'emploi causatif se voit souvent assigner le rôle de Cause (par opposition à Agent et Instrument), plus le verbe s'emploie souvent comme anticausatif.