Abstract The aim of this paper is to give an answer to the problem raised by the analysis of the relation which holds between the two referents involved in an associative anaphor. By starting with restricted facts over the phenomenon, we try to show that two factors are working in the mechanism of the relation: a condition of alienation and the principle of ontological congruence . These two factors explain in a novel and stimulating fashion why the utterances: ? Pierre a expose son dernier tableau. La beaute (= la beaute du tableau) est fascinante . [Pierre exhibited his latest painting. The beauty (= the beauty of the painting) was fascinating.], ? Max entre. Les yeux (= les yeux de Max) sont hors de leur orbite . [Max comes in. The eyes (= Max's eyes) are out of their sockets] and ? Paul ouvrit la commode. Le bois (= le bois de la commode)tait polychrome. [Paul opened the chest-of-drawers. The wood (= the wood of the chest) was polychrome] are considered deviant, whereas the sequences: Paul lava la voiture, mais oublia le capot (= le capot de la voiture). [Paul washed the car but forgot the bonnet (= the bonnet of the car)] and Max entre, les yeux brillants . [Max comes in, the eyes shining] are considered well-formed.
[1]
Jef Verschueren,et al.
The pragmatic perspective
,
1987
.
[2]
G. Kleiber,et al.
Problèmes de référence : descriptions définies et noms propres
,
1981
.
[3]
Maria Luisa Zubizarreta,et al.
The definitive determiner and the inalienable constructions in French and in English
,
1992
.
[4]
Jeanette K. Gundel,et al.
28. The pragmatics of indirect anaphors
,
1987
.
[5]
B. Fradin,et al.
Anaphorisation et stereotypes nominaux
,
1984
.
[6]
Brendan McGonigle,et al.
Reasoning and Discourse Processes
,
1986
.
[7]
John A. Hawkins,et al.
A note on referent identifiability and co-presence
,
1984
.
[8]
M. Riegel.
L'adjectif attribut
,
1985
.
[9]
R. Langacker.
Foundations of cognitive grammar
,
1983
.
[10]
G. Kleiber.
Sur les (in)définis en général et les SN (in)définis en particulier
,
1995
.