Advertisement

Morphology

, Volume 22, Issue 3, pp 347–364 | Cite as

A constructional account of French -clé ‘key’ and Dutch sleutel- ‘key’ as in mot-clé / sleutelwoord ‘key word’

  • Dany AmiotEmail author
  • Kristel Van Goethem
Original Paper

Abstract

The article studies the status of French clé ’key‘ and Dutch sleutel ‘key’ which are recurrent in complex nouns such as mot-clé / sleutelwoord ‘keyword’, notion-clé / sleutelbegrip ‘key notion’ and figure-clé / sleutelfiguur ‘key figurè. In spite of the semantic similarities between the two elements, both occurring in similar compound-like constructions, it is shown that the degree of cohesion of N-clé and sleutel-N widely differs. More particularly, whereas sleutel forms cohesive NN compounds, clé can be observed in adjectival contexts, in the same way as its English counterpart key (e.g. un rôle absolument clé ‘an absolutely key rolè’, ce livre est absolument clé ‘this book is absolutely key’, etc.). This paradox is dealt with within the theoretical framework of Construction Grammar.

Keywords

Morphology Compounding French Dutch Construction Grammar (De)grammaticalization 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Amiot, D., & Van Goethem, K. (2010). Le statut de -clé et de sleutel- dans mot-clé / sleutelwoord: uneanalyse unifiée? In F. Neveu, V. Muni Toke, J. Durand, T. Klingler, L. Monada, & S. Prévost (Eds.), Proceedings of the Congrès mondial de Linguistique française (CMLF 2010). Paris: Institut de Linguistique Française. http://www.linguistiquefrancaise.org/index.php?option=com_article&access=standard&Itemid=129&url=/articles/cmlf/abs/2010/01/cmlf2010_000205/cmlf2010_000205.html.
  2. Arnaud P.L. (2010) Café mémoire, ingénieur béton. La néologie compositionnelle du français, morphologie, syntaxe ou calque?. In: Cabré M.T., Domènech O., Estopà R., Freixa J., Lorente M. (eds) Actes del I Congrés Internacional de Neologia de les Llengües Romàniques.. Documenta Universitaria, Barcelona, pp 307–320Google Scholar
  3. Benczes R. (2006) Creative compounding in English. John Benjamins, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  4. Bisetto A., Scalise S. (2005) The classification of compounds. Lingue e Linguaggio 4(2): 319–332Google Scholar
  5. Booij G. (2008) Composition et morphologie des constructions. In: Amiot D. (eds) La composition dans une perspective typologique.. Artois Presses Université, Arras, pp 49–73Google Scholar
  6. Booij G. (2009) Construction morphology and compounding. In: Lieber R., Štekauer P. (eds) The oxford handbook of compounding.. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 201–216Google Scholar
  7. Booij G. (2010) Construction morphology. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  8. Bybee J.L. (1985) Morphology A study of the relation between meaning and form. John Benjamins., AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  9. Carlson, G. (1977). Reference to kinds in English. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
  10. Croft W., Cruse D.A. (2004) Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  11. Denison D. (2001) Gradience and linguistic change. In: Brinton L.J. (eds) Historical linguistics 1999 Selected papers from the 14th international conference on historical linguistics.. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp 119–144Google Scholar
  12. De Smet H. (2010) The course of actualization. Manuscript, Katholieke Universiteit LeuvenGoogle Scholar
  13. Fauconnier G. (1985) Mental spaces Aspects of meaning construction in natural language. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  14. Fauconnier G., Turner M. (1996) Blending as a central process of grammar. In: Goldberg A. (eds) Conceptual structure and discourse.. CSLI Publications, Stanford, pp 113–130Google Scholar
  15. Fradin B. (2009) Compounding in French. In: Lieber R., Štekauer P. (eds) Oxford handbook on compounding.. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 417–435Google Scholar
  16. Goldberg A. (1995) Constructions A construction grammar approach to argument structure. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  17. Goldberg A. (2006) Constructions at work The nature of generalization in language. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  18. Gries S.Th. (2004) Some characteristics of English morphological blends. In: Andronis M.A., Debenport E., Pycha A., Yoshimura K. (eds) Papers from the 38th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society Vol II The Panels.. Chicago Linguistics Society, Chicago, IL, pp 201–216Google Scholar
  19. Langacker R. (1987) Foundations of Cognitive Grammar 1. Stanford University Press, StanfordGoogle Scholar
  20. Lauwers P. (2008) The nominalization of adjectives in French: From morphological conversion to categorical mismatch. Folia Linguistica 42(1–2): 135–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Legallois D. (2005) Du bon usage des expressions idiomatiques dans l’argumentation de deux modèles anglo- saxon: la Grammaire de Construction et la Grammaire des Patterns. Cahiers de l’Institut de Linguistique de Louvain 31(2–4): 109–127Google Scholar
  22. L’heureux, V. (2008). The adjectival status of ’Fun’ and ’Key’ in present-day English investigated. Manuscript, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven.Google Scholar
  23. Mathieu-Colas M. (1995) Syntaxe du trait d’union: Structures complexes. Lingvisticae Investigatione 19(1): 153–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Meesters, G. (2004). Marginale morfologie in het Nederlands: Paradigmatische samenstellingen, neoklassieke composita en splintercomposita (Studies op het gebied van de Nederlandse taalkunde). Gent: Koninklijke Academie voor Nederlandse Taal- en Letterkunde.Google Scholar
  25. Michaelis L.A. (2002) Headless constructions and coercion by construction. In: Francis E.J., Michaelis L.A. (eds) Mismatch: Form-function incongruity and the architecture of grammar.. CSLI Publications, Stanford, pp 259–310Google Scholar
  26. Noailly M. (1990) Le substantif épithète. PUF, ParisGoogle Scholar
  27. Norde M. (2009) Degrammaticalization. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Taylor J.R. (1988) Syntactic constructions as prototype categories. In: Tomasello M. (eds) The new psychology of language cognitive and functional approaches to language structure.. Mahwah, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp 177–202Google Scholar
  29. Van Goethem K. (2011) From adjective to affix in Dutch and French. The influence of word order patterns on grammaticalization. Studies in Language 35(1): 194–216Google Scholar
  30. Van Goethem, K. (submitted). Cette mesure est-elle vraiment clé? Intersective gradience of French clé ’key’. Manuscript under review for publication in Language Variation and Change.Google Scholar
  31. Van Goethem, K., & Amiot, D. (2009). Affixisation processes in Dutch and French. In Communication at the 7th Mediterranean Morphology Meeting, Nicosia, September 2009.Google Scholar
  32. Van Goethem, K., & Amiot, D. (2011), Un problème vraiment clé: Degrammaticalization of French [N+N]-compounds. Poster presentation at the 8th Mediterranean Morphology Meeting, Cagliari, September 2011.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Université Lille Nord de France (L3), UMR 8163 STLVilleneuve d’Ascq CedexFrance
  2. 2.Université Catholique de Louvain & FNRSLouvain-la-NeuveBelgium

Personalised recommendations