Pourquoi revient-on à ses moutons ? Un regard croisé sur la valeur sémantique du retour en français et en polonais

Main Article Content

Dorota Sikora-Pouivet

Abstrakt

French verbs revenir, rentrer, retourner refer to the same kind of location situations as their Polish « doubles » wrócic/wracac. This paper analyzes their meanings through examples presented with their contextual data. Revenir and rentrer are morphologically analysable as complex lexemes derived from the corresponding venir and entrer by adding the prefix RE-. REderivation provides a semantic feature of iterativeness to these complex items. From a synchronic point of view, retourner, in the sense investigated in this article, cannot be considered anymore as RE- derived, but it lexicalizes similar values. Wracac/wrócic share some of them. Some differences in the lexical meaning of all these verbs are explained, especially by showing how they are used as pragmatic indexes inside the relation between the speaker and a reference to a location.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

Jak cytować
Sikora-Pouivet, D. (2006). Pourquoi revient-on à ses moutons ? Un regard croisé sur la valeur sémantique du retour en français et en polonais. Studia Romanica Posnaniensia, 33, 199-218. https://doi.org/10.14746/strop.2006.33.015
Dział
LINGUISTIQUE

Bibliografia

  1. Apotheloz D. (2005), RE- et les differentes manifestations de l'iterativite, Pratiąues, 125-126, p. 48-71.
  2. Apotheloz D., Pekarek Doehler S. (2003), Nomelles perspectives sur la reference : des approches informationnelles aux approches interactionnelles, Verbum XXV, 2, p. 109-136.
  3. Borill o A. (1998), L 'espace et son expression en francais, Ophrys, Paris.
  4. Donnellan K. (1978), Speaker Reference, Descriptions and Anaphora, P. Cole ćd., Pragmatics, Syntax and Semantics, 9, 47-68.
  5. Fillmor e Ch.J. (1975), Santa Cruz Lectures on Deixis : Coming and Going, Indiana University Linguistics Club.
  6. Kleiber G. (1999), Problemes de semantigue. La polysemie en guestions, Presses Universitaires du Septentrion.
  7. Langacker R.W. (1990), Concept, image and symbol. The cognitive basis of grammar, Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin - New York.
  8. MoeschI er J. (1994), Dictionnaire encyclopedigue depragmatigue, Seuil, Paris.
  9. Przybylska R. (2002), Polisemia przyimkówpolskich w świetle semantyki kognitywnej. {Polysemie des prepositions polonaises dans une perspective semantigue cognitive), Universitas, Kraków.
  10. Slobin D. (2003), Od « myśli i języka » do « myślenia dla mówienia ». Trad. O. Kubińska, W. Kubiński. Dans : E. Dąbrowska, W. Kubiński (red.). Akwizycja języka w świetle językoznawstwa kognitywnego. Wydawnictwo Universitas, Kraków, p. 361-402.
  11. Yandeloise C. (1987), La preposition d et le principe d'anticipation, Langue Francaise, 76, p. 77-111.