INTRODUCTION

 

 

The concept of scanning is a good example of the problems of metalanguage in Theory and Predicative Enunciative Operations. Indeed, if the course, as metalinguistic concept, is not always stable, it is a consensus that this determination operation is found once you refer to a class or set of possible values. This consensus is not satisfactory. When we try to look closely at the question of scanning, we realize that there are several definitions circulating more or less implicitly in the items of Culioli, definitions that do not oppose frankly, but have contradictory aspects which makes it difficult to identify the markers of course. We can take as examples the following two quotes: “The scanning unlike mining and signs, that we can (or want to) distinguish any occurrence in the field » (Culioli 1990: 121); “As for scanning, it is in a class of its own, as far as operations of individuating pertaining are concerned, although it includes modes of Scanning that relates to extraction and Pinpointing” (Culioli 1990: 183).

In the case of scanning, only, there is an inflation of defined types (some actually are synonyms). For example, here is what we found in the notes of For Linguistics seminars of Culioli (1983-1984): quantitative scanning, quality scanning, centered scanning with or without end / exit scanning with totalization, scanning with extraction, smooth scanning, rough journey, scanning with image, strict scanning, etc. And the list is still growing if we take into account other authors dealing with the same theory.

This multiplication makes us believe that there is a difference between the definition usually given (Culioli 1990: 121), which describes an operation as opposed to the extraction and signs, and the broader concept of course used here and there. This one is linked to a “plural” or felt the otherness (A dog is a mammal, rough scanning) would be consistent with the indefinite (Who came? scanning with picture), and finally would be considered as the result of a set of operations (when Culioli said “the question is a journey” (seminar Notes) does not speak of shape or marker itself, but a combination of trails within the query).

Culioli reminds us that when speaking of scanning, it is an abstract scanning, which shows that he is aware of the pitfalls of its metalanguage. With the terms “scanning”, “extraction”, “pinpointing” to refer to operations of determinations, we “see” gestures and forget fatally formal reality represented, that is much less intuitive. So, for some scanning and iteration authors, there are synonymous and means “to review a temporal field” as in the case of recurrent events. A scanning when referring to a change of location?

These facts make difficult the shaping of our work. Indeed, in addition to the multiple definitions that we will clarify, the works done on the subject are scarce and has not allowed us to spread out on it. Nevertheless, it adds even more interest to our work. In this view, our work therefore tries to define the notion of scanning. Then it will detail these tools and their contributions in terms of specificity, which gives the English language a key role, particularly in relation to the fact that English is now an “international language”. To deal with this issue, our work will be divided into two main parts; the more general is about the different concepts related to the notion of scanning, while the second will be devoted to different tools. Generally, this second part will discuss the various tools of scanning since the concepts of querying and relativity, for example, are essential. We will also see different forms of construction in scanning operations such as the expression the duration, assertion, tabulation, the concept preconstruction among others.

 

 

 

1. GENERAL

 

1. The enunciative operations

The theory of enunciative operations, which is built around the work of Antoine Culioli, has a central place within the linguistic phenomena which is the concept of operation: a reference to a statement is thought to be a reference built by operators whose markers are the trace. Hence it follows that it is not to the « world » that the statements refer to – even if ultimately this is where they will return to – this is at least if one is willing to characterize the world by its exteriority to language: for this world is not then specifically constructed by language. Hence the creation of an intermediate level between language and the world – namely the level of « referential values »- builds that forward.

To give some idea of ​​what this level holds, two examples, which are now classical, but which contain critical issues to understanding the mechanisms repositories are briefly analyzed in the following statements:

(1) John wants to marry an American.

At least in the generic interpretation, an American refers to an entity that cannot be characterized as anything other than “what the property of being an American has”: it is from this property that it is defined and it has no autonomy from the property in question (unlike the objects of the world, they have a priori more properties, if not infinite). For this reason, we call such an entity a “case”. The term case has the advantage of being a relational term: it is necessarily an instance of a concept, defined from the concept and has no other property to be occurrence of this notion. It is to such entities that statements refer to as specific interpretations (in (1), “You know, this is John”) simply resulting from any location of the first occurrence, which then possibly allows “connecting” thereof with other properties.

Referential values ​​are conceived as consisting of instances from classes. These classes are, however, not all homogeneous and static. This is indeed shown in the following statement:

(2) In a street where cats are cats, there is little fun.

In this example, the proposal cats are “cats” is what logicians treat as a “tautology” always true, trivial, and without content. But it is clear that this proposes language content. It is assumed that cats may not be cats. And it raises precisely that they are. This reveals a very important point: the nominal groups in language did not even refer as they are in subject position or predicate position. The noun phrase in subject position refers to “what is designated by cat”, which is right compatible with any property (including that of not being a cat), while the nominal group in predicative position refers to which, for the validator property, the property really has to be a cat. It follows that notion as a cat does not refer to a single class of occurrences, but several types of classes according to the syntactic structure, enunciative implementation: the structured set of these classes is what is called the “notional estate” associated with cat. This area appears to be essentially deformable: it is apparent (2) where the operation of preaching is precisely to distort virtually heterogeneous class starting to standardize on “what is really cat”. We are therefore led to account for the structure of referential values ​​to provide an extremely flexible model: set theory, too rigid, are not enough, hence the use of topology as it allows managing different types of deformability[1].

 

1.1. The enunciation

In linguistics, the saying is the individual act of making a statement, addressed to a recipient in certain circumstances.

In all communication, both oral and written, there is both a statement and a saying. The statement is the linguistic result of saying, the spoken word or the written word, while the saying is the act by which linguistic elements are oriented to language specifically and made meaningful by the speaker (and his co-enunciator, which is not a single recipient) to produce said statement, it is generally said that the statement is “said” while saying is the “tell”. To summarize, “it is the saying that made ​​the statement”.

The statement is of a material nature. Accordingly, it is grasped by one of our five senses (usually, hearing in the case of oral and vision in that of writing), and also reproducible, while first, orally, then in writing, finally, by modern technology, such as recording, analog or digital.

The saying, however, is much less material and therefore much more difficult to identify and transcribe. Are not always directly visible, it can be an investigation or a deduction, but it still eludes us, at least partially: consisting of individual and unique act, “the saying, by nature, cannot be reproduced”.

From a strictly grammatical point of view, one might think a priori that only statements relate this discipline, and therefore, the saying is irrelevant. This is not true. Indeed, first, the saying is precisely to define the boundaries of the field of morphosyntax, then, retrieval is essential to the study of certain categories, such as nouns, pronouns, adverbs.

 

1.1.1. First part: the statement[2]

A first remark concerns the definition of a sentence, this is about a statement. It is, indeed, necessary to take into account the same notion statement, insofar as it is in this context that the subject’s complement (Supplements) plays a role. Is statement a set relationship between a subject and a predicate? or Nominal Group and a Verbal Group? This question arises if we want to ask whether there is an element that is complementary to another or not, and if that is so, what is this element, since all linking implies a particular type of interaction.

 

• Predicative relationship

Considering that the predicative relation is fundamental, it must give a strict definition of what a predicative relation is. However, with such an approach, one can quickly find oneself in a circular argument because if one wonders what a predicative relationship is, the answer immediately made is that “it is the relationship that develops between a subject and a predicate”. But this assumes that we know what a subject is. On the other hand the notion even “complement” no longer seems to be necessary as constitutive part of the meaning of the statement. This definition, we know, was in Aristotle: the predicative relation is the relation in which something is predicative of a subject. Should we take the term “subject” in the sense of “The element we’re talking about”, “what we are talking about”? If so, it begs the question if you have a predicative relationship: “it’s raining” although it is difficult to argue that the speaker is talking about “it” in such a statement. It must also wonder why there is no mention of the structure of the predicate, whether it comprises a further or not.

It seems, on the other hand, some authors of predicative relationship are linked to the expression of time, if, as Aristotle also offers, the verb is adding to its own meaning to that time. In this context, the definition of the term “subject” is dependent on the predicative relationship.

Similarly, non-finite and proposals cannot be treated the same manner as regards to the syntactic functions. The very notion of “Complementation” is thereby fragilised.

 

• The Nominal Phrase – Verbal Phrase relationship

If one considers, however, that statement is the linking of Nominal Group and Verbal Group, we are facing another case of figure: that of defining what a NG and VG are. The definition is not necessarily easy, but it at least has the advantage of being built regardless of the linguistic object “statement”. This definition, on the other hand, leads us to ask ourselves what is the nature of the relationship that can be established between a noun and a verb, while the concept of relationship predicative takes for granted the concepts of “subject” and “Predicate”, and is therefore at a higher level (higher?) of housing relationship. But just the notion of “subject” is a problem. On the other hand, the link NP-VP allows considering what are the elements that constitute the NP and VP which have already addressed a conflict between a NP to be “subject” and another NP will enter the VP, the “complement”.

 

• Word order

The enunciativists working in the model Culioli[3] have adopted labels zero rank complement (Co) and additional Tier 1 (C1) to no longer use the traditional labels of “subject” and “object”. They are therefore assumed by adopting the term “complement” the Co and C1 complement somehow there is another element: the verb.

In their perspective, the Co is the starting point of the Predicative relationship, and not syntactic semantic subject / verb: the starting point is to consider the broader context of the phenomenon of “Theming”, Co is the element by which the speaker chooses to begin his statement. Previously, it is at the stage of ‘Primitive’ relationship, that is to say the level of semantic relations. These maintained relationships are those arguments with the verb. This approach is similar with that of Chomsky’s school, which considers a verb structure argumental as minimal explanation of its special meaning: the verb “walk” said the activity of an individual (a verb in an argument; can still say “intransitive” or “acting”), the verb eat says what happens between the eater and the eaten object3  (It is a verb with two arguments, we can also say transitive), the verb to say what happens between three items: a person who gives, the object which is given, and the beneficiary (a verb with three arguments).

Once the semantics determined the types of verbs, (he does not seem to be a verb with four arguments) the syntax must take over to organize the statement. The linearity constraints, shared by all oral languages ​​required marked the syntactic functions of the various elements. Languages such as English or French are marked by the word order which is the subject, that is to say, the required argument for the meaning of the verb can be put in place; what is the object, etc., and a distinction is made between:

(1) John Invited Mary; and

(2) Mary Invited John.

Languages ​​in case, meanwhile, are using endings to make the necessary distinctions. All this is quite clear to all worlds, regardless of the label adopted[4]. We are facing a problem here: NP-VP.

If the process that we have just mentioned – crossing semantic data and syntactic organization – was the only parameter to work in languages, the problem that concerns us here is not even arise.

However, due to the syntactic complexity, due to the necessary limitation for lexicon memorial reasons because of discursive parameters, the notion of “subject” sees its meaning expand[5].

 

• The choice of the subject

Considering the subject as the origin of the predicative relation arises, in fact, more general problem: this approach assumes, without saying so explicitly, that from any topic, the speaker can find a verb meaning the item he chooses as the subject predicative relationship. If the speaker chooses to speak of “Jean’s sister” who is eating an apple, he can say:

(3) the sister of John eats an apple.

But if he wants to talk about the apple, he cannot find a verb that expresses the type of trial that the Co “apple” is the cause.

(4) an apple VERB sister Jean,

It should opt for a passive construction, in the absence of proper verb and say

(5) an apple being eaten by the sister of John.

We will not elaborate here the problem of the semantic relation between active and passive sentence (problem of Co determination, aspectual interpretation, etc.), but it is about the fact whether a transformational perspective is adopted or not, the problem of limited vocabulary cannot be evacuated.

 

• Subject or Suitable additional agent

The French which is used when the passive structure is impossible for a syntactic reason sounds the following structure[6]:

(6) It is now being beaten by thugs.

(7) he is arguing with the teacher.

(8) he made fun of him by his brother.

In this case we speak of “top agent” for prepositional phrases “by thugs, by the teacher, by his brother”. The term to “complement” here is problematic because there is complementation of verb. From the point of view of semantic interpretation that is implemented necessarily follows “thugs beat somebody”. Should we say the subject in the passive structure complements the verb; definitely not.

The term “complement” comes from the general term supplements in French, they are a further attribution of place, time, etc. and they have the particularity to be given as a prepositional phrase. There was confusion between the nature and function. What blurs further the understanding of the operation is that the notion “agent” is a semantic notion while the complementary here is a syntactic concept.

The problem arises because there is a lack of differentiation between a semantic subject (notional) and a syntactic subject, which brings us back to our initial questions.

In the case of the passive construction “prototypical”, too, was a “Subject” and sometimes a “top agent”, which is the “subject” of the corresponding active sentence.

What about those names? In:

(9) Peter was rewarded by his mistress; it is assumed that the subject is Peter (or the complement of rank 0 is Peter).

We believe that the term « subject » is here to take syntactic meaning of the term: the element that gives the verb agreement, but also the element that is before the verb (to the left of the verb). One can also say that it is the subject of predicative relation since “being rewarded” is what is predicated for Peter. But the fact that there is also the statement “by his mistress”, we raise questions about the semantic role that was played in this element, it cannot play the same semantic role as the subject. Tradition has it while it is the semantic subject of « reward », that is to say in the semantic argument structure of the verb “Reward”, it is the mistress which rewards, she is the agent of the process, and Peter is the item on which the “reward” process applies. The concept of “top agent” seems to mean that the verb needs to be completed if the statement wants to make sense, as in:

(10) The vase was broken by your sister.

If this is the case, we must also say that in the active sentence, the verb needs to be complemented by a topic that makes sense. This view may sound strange being said so and therefore requires deepening. This view is strange because the vase was broken by a particular individual, it does not say anything about the process “break” with the vase being the object. The designation of the agent can bring a particular type of protest, punishment, etc., but the consequence designation is not included in the language.

The additional agent is therefore the identity of the “breaker”; the fact that there is a breaker is fully deductible from the semantics of “Break”, the ‘vase was broken’ can be considered as a statement sufficient in itself to say the state of the vessel, following some trial that the word « break » expresses. With the semantics of “Break” and the past participle, we construct a resultative state. Regarding the “subject”, it is the element that a resultative state is predicated. Theory Government and Binding, as part of the explanation offered for the travel NG, there arises a further rise of “Break”, thereby emphasizing the need to make the difference between data semantic and syntactic organization, trying to make how the interpretation is taking place:

e [x broke the vase]

It is interesting to note here the structures of French such as “he was breaking her favorite vase by his sister”, in which the adjacency relationship V-COD is kept “breaking her favorite vase”, as in the sentence active, but where the semantics about “breaking” (the agent process) is instantiated in the agent complement function [Girard, forthcoming]. With the terminology, the reference to the notion of agent brought in syntactic functions as semantic function. The term is slightly abusive to the extent that “top agent” does not always express the role of an agent, as can be seen in:

(11) The shot was heard by my brother.

(12) The show was seen by all of Paris.

Where is the difference between:

(13) John broke your blue vase.

(14) Your cat broke your blue vase.

Is the identity of the breaker given? Yes, in a sense, but what is especially said is that “John”, “cat” are involved in the process “Break”.

What can be noted in the context of our discussion is that the semantics relationship of the verb is expressed by the function « subject » (both semantic and syntactic) under the current sentence, or the concept of “additional agent” in the context of passive sentence. It emphasizes syntax over semantics, in fact, in both cases, the trial (expressed by the verb) binds two entities: one that is certain and the way in which the action occurs. With the expression of the resulting state there is a back in time, somehow, it does not need who broke the vase to say the vase is broken, or even “the vase has been broken”. It could be argued that it is the past participle which complements the subject.

We see that the notion of “complementation’”, such as “Supplement” is problematic data framing, because, perhaps, of the sense that these terms has in everyday language:

“I need some additional information on this point”.

1.1.2. Pragmatic concept of the enunciation[7]

If in an investigation it refers only to the speaker, or, in more general terms, the users of the language, we assign the investigation to the pragmatic (it does not matter for this classification that refers, in this investigation, objects designated by the terms of language or not). If we ignore the users of language and if we analyze only the expressions and their meanings, we are in the field of semantics. And so finally, we abstract meanings to analyze only the relations between the expressions, we enter the syntax. The entire science of language, consisting of three parts is mentioned as semiotics[8].

Pragmatic, as the linguist and philosopher defined it in 1942, has not changed content. It sees the language as an act that acts on the world and the others, and not simply as a means of representation. It attaches importance to both linguistic contexts (for the part of significance due to the interaction of the expressions in the chain) than extralinguistic (for the part of meaning of expressions in relation to the circumstances in which they are used). It also gives importance to the performance, whether concrete discursive achievements or general principles of communication.

The pragmatic focus on things does not directly belong to grammar rules such as the implicit and unspoken. We will consider in this paper speech acts, presupposition, the implication, the communicative interaction, and figures of speech.

 

• Speech acts and performative utterances

This is to the British philosopher John L. Austin that we owe the distinction between constative performative utterances and statements.

The constative statement, as the water boils at one hundred degrees or it rains, simply serves to inform the recipient.

The performative utterance is used to perform actions such as apologizing, making a promise, etc.: ‘Excuse me, I promise to pay you back tomorrow.’ Here are some properties of the performative utterance:

– It does not contain a statement likely to be “true” or “false”; I do not apologize is a constative statement because it contains:

– The subject of the verb is I, so, you’re apologizing whose subject is “You” is a constative statement;

– The verb is in the present tense, so I apologized that the verb is in the past tense is a constative statement;

– The verb is in the affirmative and in the active voice, so the meeting was opened with the verb in the passive voice which is a constative statement. Note that statements such as “The meeting” was called where the verb is in the passive voice and where I is absent are only shortcuts of I declare the meeting open. But exceptions exist as “it is forbidden to smoke during the course”, a performative utterance.

 

• Speech acts and illocutionary value

Austin has criticized his own theory of the performative vs. constative observing that it is often difficult to distinguish a performative utterance of a constative statement. It will rain is performative, it is a warning to anyone who goes out and who has an interest to take certain precautions, it is constative when it refers to a banal remark about the weather. It is therefore preferable, in Austin’s, to treat any statement that has a certain illocutionary value, that is to say, it is used to perform an act, whatever to category it belongs:

– “Peace is not an empty word” (a constative) is used to accomplish the act of informing;

– “You’d better take your umbrella” is used to perform the act to suggest;

– “I promise I’ll pay you tomorrow” is used to accomplish the act of promising.

The information, suggestion, promise, etc. are illocutionary values. The function of illocutionary value of a statement differs from its meaning: It’s going to rain makes sense; meaning remains the same as well when the statement serves to warn, to inform or simply that of to break the silence (purely social function).

In connection with the illocutionary concept, Austin distinguishes between three levels:

– Locutory level: it corresponds roughly to the shape and meaning of the statement;

– Illocutionary level: the function that the statement is supposed to accomplish the goal that the speaker wants to achieve;

– Perlocutory level: it is the result reached by the statement.

We can illustrate these three levels in the reported speech.

 

• Speech acts: meaning and function

We now know the differences between the meaning and function of a statement. We know that two statements of different senses can have the same function: if “it’s hot in here!” has the function to get the recipient to open the window, it has the same function as “open the window”, order sent to the same recipient. We know, finally, that the same statement with the same effect can refer to different functions: “It’s hot in here”! may aim to open the window or simply stating a fact.

But the function draws on the senses: the sense we pass to the function through interpretation. The distance between the meaning and function, that is to say, the place of performance is more or less close, as appropriate. It is great in a statement like “it’s hot in here!” used to suggest you to open the window, and is less in “In your opinion, the window should be closed”, and it is void in “Close the window!” which is an explicit performative utterance and where the meaning and function coincide.

Thus the interpretation is based on the “unspoken”, because the order to close the window is explicitly stated nowhere in the statement “it’s hot in here!” That is why when a statement is ambiguous in its function, ambiguity is often an interpretation at the level of meaning. That is also why the interpretation may be challenged more easily than the senses after the recipient has opened the window, you can always say (good or bad faith) that we did not say that someone had to open the window. Finally, one of the qualities of a law is that it is written so as to leave the least possible room for interpretation.

 

• The presupposition

The following forms:

(1) Does Akissi still drink beer?

(2) Jean-Pierre stopped smoking.

(3) I dream one day to practice as a lawyer;

presuppose respectively

(1 ‘) Akissi already drank beer.

(2 ‘) Until then Jean-Pierre smoked.

(3 ‘) I am not a lawyer.

As interpretation, the presupposition is at the implicit, however, contrary to the interpretation, the assumption is part of said somehow, the speaker of (1) – (3) states (1’) – (3), and it would be difficult to argue otherwise.

The information contained in the statement is therefore divided into two parts:

– The assumption that the information is already known by the recipient, or presented as known by him;

– Or put the “new” information.

In principle, we do not speak to say something that is already known to the caller. So what is the use of assumption? The assumption (known information) is a functional support to put (the “new” information). If I want to ask my neighbor where he bought his ginger candy, I’m not just going to watch and say “Where?”, that is new information. I must incorporate this new information which is already known “You bought candy ginger”. That is all that I will give “Where did you buy your ginger candy?”. “You bought candy ginger” provides information that my partner and I already have. What is new and useful for me is “Where?”. In a statement such as Akissi knows her husband returns from his trip today, the assumption is a functional support to the fact that Akissi knows something and asked ‘support’ about the fact that her husband returns from his trip today.

Do not confuse the opposition presupposed / laid and theme / comment. For example, “If I had money, I would have bought you a beer” assumes I did not sub that it is not really the « theme » of the statement.

Parts of the statement, the presupposition and asking would formally marked that intonation: the “will” put a higher intonation and presupposed a lower tone.

 

• The subtext

Discover the subtext in the following three statements:

(1) Although it has been applied to revise, Koffi failed his examination; presupposition Koffi has applied to revise its course;

– asked: Koffi failed his exam;

– understood: When you apply for review, you succeed in this review

(2) Karidia earns a good living, but her husband is not jealous; presupposition Karidja earns a good living;

– asked: Her husband is not jealous;

– implied: A husband whose wife earns a good living should be jealous.

(3) Dr. Akissi you have a faithful husband!

– presupposition: Dr. Akissi has a husband of a certain quality;

– asked: Husband Dr. Akissi is faithful;

– understood: For the speaker, the husband of Dr. Akissi might not be true.

The implication is one facet of the implicit, but it is different from unsaid that gives rise to the interpretation and assumption, a functional support installed.

 

• The communicative interaction

Under the influence of various considerations, ethno-sociological order, psychological and philosophical, pragmatic promotes conversation analysis with the concepts of’ “implicatures” and “conversational maxims”. Conversational implicatures correspond to anything in the speech, is of the order of innuendo and suggestion. As for conversational maxims, they rest on the principle of cooperation in which the protagonists of the conversation are expected to comply. Here, we have the conversational maxims of American philosopher H. P. Grice, quoted by S. Auroux[9]:

– quantity: (a) make sure that your contribution as informative that is required for the current needs of the conversation; (b) do not make your contribution more informative than is required

– quality: (a) does not say what you believe to be false; (b) do not say why you miss this relevant evidence;

– relation: be relevant;

– modality (a) avoid the darkness of expression; (b) avoid ambiguity, be brief (avoid unnecessary prolixity), (c) be ordered.

In short it is to contribute to the communication in the way that is required by the recognized purpose of the said communication, and timely. Implicatures result of how these rules are complied with or otherwise violated. Both sayings that produce more implicatures are the “maxim of quantity” and “Maxim” of quality. If, for example, someone is asked where one can find atieke, and if the answer is: The village of Anono is a 1 km before you, one deduces that they manufacture the atieke in Anono. But, as noted by Grice, this implicature (one’s deduction) will only be valid if the informant respects the “maxim of the relationship” and also the quantity.

 

• Figures of speech

We know that the style may take its analytical methods to various other sciences, including linguistics prominently. Applications of linguistic stylistics and literary criticism are numerous: in addition to implicit and unspoken analysis principles described above, there can be mentioned including the study of argumentative strategies, modalizations, methods of topicalization and focus.

A figure of speech is still characterized more or less largely between what may be called the literal meaning (or “literally”) and the meaning implied. A figure of speech always produces something, as appropriate, in addition to the literal meaning of the words used, or replaces it. Thus a metaphorical process going from “hawk” (bird literally) to “falcon” (figuratively in politics) by transferring the aggressive nature of raptor aggressive politics. Similarly, a metonymic process, slips “flat” flat plate literally figuratively of “flat”, put content on the plate. The same metonymic process takes us from “course”, uttered in education “courses”, where the instruction is given (the student said: “I go to school”, the student said, “I will in”). In poetry, alliteration or assonance involved in the effect of style: The famous lines of Racine

“Who are these snakes hiss on your heads?” in which the phenomenon of assonance [s] refers to snakes hissing.

The effect of style is the domain of implicit and, as such, it falls within one or more linguistic mechanisms described in the paragraphs above.

 

1.2. Theory of enunciative operations[10]

In the theory of enunciation, the creation of a statement involves language operations as preaching operations, determination, discursive operations or taking care enunciation. The operation support, powered by an enunciator, comprises applying a complex operator, designated by modus[11], on an operand designated by the dictum or predicative relation (what is said), to give results the statement. This distinction between dictum and modus does not happen at the level of observable forms but at an abstract level where the modus and the dictum are represented by logic-grammatical operations[12].

It is not only either to distinguish what is within a statement between what is objective and what is subjective, because we believe that both the dictum and the modus are a subjective representations of reality as perceived by the speaker.

Neglecting the aspectual-temporal parameters, we present the operation of talking supported by the following symbolic expression: I-SAY (modus [what is said]), where the “I-SAY” is a metalinguistic operator support, the “SAY” is a verbal utterance operator, and “I” means a metalinguistic utterance parameter description for a saying actually carried out, specified by a concrete enunciator that supports all of the utterance. In this way, the statement “Mary” will be represented by the following scheme: I-SAY (Mary comes), where the speaker performs a simple management of predicative content.

However, the speaker has the ability to support this content with a predicative displayed position vis-à-vis the truth value of one (true, false, plausible), or with a modality that focuses on the values ​​of the “necessary”, the “possible” and the “probable” setting implements more or less certainty of the facts. The enunciator is also the possibility performer supported with deontic modalities introducing intersubjective relations between the speaker and an array of other topics. Finally, appreciative terms allow the speaker of the place presented in relation to any axiology (good / bad, beautiful / ugly, etc.).

 

1.2.1. The basics[13]

The theory of enunciative operations (TOE) is to construct a grammar of the utterance. The grammar of the utterance is a grammar that is to present a language as a system that works consistently and not as a result of rules detached from each other. This gives consistency to this system which is the concept of enunciation. In the grammar of saying we are working on a set that is to say on verbal suites that are supported by an enunciator in a situation of enunciation. Enunciator and statement, supported by an enunciator, are concepts that should be defined in order to handle them adequately.

 

• The statement

A statement is what is said or written. It is the product of a number of choices. These choices are made by those who built the statement, according to:

– Itself,

– The situation in which he finds himself (time and place),

– The person to whom it is addressed,

– What it means.

A statement is a sentence: “Bintou hits his sister” is a sentence because it is hard to imagine the context in which a statement like this could be pronounced. It seems, in fact, rather: “Look! Bintou hit his sister” or “Hey! Bintou hits his sister!”. The phrase is useful to distinguish a structure that is grammatical (Bintou hits his sister) from which is not (Bintou hitting his sister) or to indicate the position or function of a component. This is why the phrase exists only in books, for illustration of a grammatical structure.

 

• The enunciator

Gueu, when speaking or writing, he decides what he means using a number of tools available in their language, the “dan”. He plays the role of what is called the speaker. It was he who identifies what he says (or writes) compared to itself and Droh to whom he addresses (who plays the role of co-enunciator), as well as compared to when he speaks.

This subject utterer is represented by S0 (curly letter, called « zero S », S as subject to zero to indicate that it takes about as original trails).

The subject-utterer (or short enunciator) should not be confused with the speaker. When Gueu speaks to Droh, he is both speaker and utterer. If Gueu wrote a story about the utterer-narrator, the story is not a speaker, because there is not a situation of phrase. But if Gueu wrote a play in which he portrays two characters, Fanta and Adjoua making a dialogue, while Fanta is both subject-enunciative and female speaker; Adjoua is both co-and co-enunciative female speaker, because they are in a play situation locution.

It should not be confused with enunciator subject – the subject of a statement (or syntactic subject) which itself is represented by S, the right letter. You sing, we will dance; now the subject-enunciator is one that is at the origin of this statement. The subject of the statement (S “right”) is “you”.

To avoid confusing subject-enunciator and a statement about the TOE often means the syntactic subject by the end of zero rank complement or C0. C0 is the element that is (in French and African languages) immediately at the left of the verb. In French, the direct object is designated by C1, additional Tier 1 and other supplements by C2, C3, etc.

 

• The view

The expression of a point of view of the speaker in relation to what he says or relative to co-utterer manifests itself in several ways:

– The speaker says what he sees using aspect: Patrick Hervé is dreaming, cursive appearance;

– He can say he is pretty sure of what he said, using a modal: “Patrick Hervé dream” is probably epistemic modality;

– It can establish a link between what occurred at an earlier time and the time of utterance: Patrick Hervé only dream during the course, the time spent;

– It may indicate that it does not express any view: Patrick Hervé dreamed all the time that lasted the course, 3rd person and simple past.

 

• The assumption by the speaker

The enunciator uses grammatical markers to express how it is:

– Compared to what he says, that is to say his point of view: It is raining now Adjamé (his view is that it is now raining Adjamé);

– And compared to the one to whom it is addressed (this is called the relationship between the subjects and subject matter S0 S, or international relations issues), Rise up and walk! (S0 (Jesus) and S (Lazarus) are linked by an order and execution).

The set of operations that the speaker makes to achieve these grammatical markers called management by an enunciator or “assertion”.

The assertion is a modality (type 1). As such, it refers to the process of care of a statement by an enunciator, but also the result of this operation, that is to say, any affirmative or negative statement. Polling is a refusal assertion: it asks the other to support the statement.

 

• Concept and concept

In its ordinary meaning, “concept” is a general and abstract mental representation of an object. The reason for this abstraction is in the will of a single term to denote objects that have common properties. In fact, these are the common properties that represent the concept. And objects “on Marie Cat”, “Dog Yao” and “cow Buchi” have common properties designated by the concept of “animal”. “The Marie Cat” or “cow Buchi » are pieces of the extralinguistic reality, and as extraction of this reality, they correspond to concepts. But « animal » which includes this set of pieces of reality is a concept.

In the TOE, we reserve the term concept to a set of properties that define a category: a category of words, a class of markers, a class of phenomena, a class of functions or class of transactions. Terms constitute a class, as well as deictic. The term concept here is specific to the language of the TOE term, the metalanguage of the TOE, so it has a metalinguistic value in the TOE.

In the TOE, the term trial is a concept that represents any event denoted by a verb. The words “eat”, “walk”, “sleep” each refers to a concept that is an event. These concepts, these events are different from each other, but they have the common property of not being physical objects as “Marie Cat” or “Dog Yao”, but are actions, events. That is why they are each appointed by the concept of trial.

 

1.2.2. Concept and notional domain

The construction of the statement can be analyzed in four stages: construction of the notional domain, construction of the lexis, construction of the predicative relation and finally construction of the statement.

 

• The notion

To take place in the utterance, the word must appear “dressed”. When you go to a contact, it says “My sheep” (or lamb or mutton) is grazing grass in the garden and never “sheep” is grazing grass in the garden. All sheep is a short term, it is the word “naked” as it appears in the dictionary. A concept is a set of physical and cultural properties. It belongs to the level of mental representations, so to the field of cognitive, an extralinguistic area.

If the word sheep is taken, everyone is a sheep, dwarf sheep in the forest for some giant sheep Sahel for others, woolly sheep in temperate zones, etc. It is common to all these beasts’ properties (“it has four legs”, “this beast”, “this is home”, etc.). That makes each of them a representative of the concept of sheep.

If we take the word play, some of them are people who play ball, other people play cards or other actors who play a play. The word play has properties that are common to all these mental representations (something that is « game »), predating the differentiation of the verb “play” the name game and properties, that is to say, prior to the assignment of playing a grammatical category.

As a complex system of structuring the physical representation of cognitive-cultural properties, the concept may be simple or complex. It is said to be simple if it is definable, most of the time, as “what a word means”, e.g. sheep which refers to “beast cloven hooves bleating” or play that refers to the concept of process of “play”. The concept is called complex when it is constituted by the combination of several concepts, resulting from the combination of simple concepts: sheep grazing and grass.

As can be seen, a concept is not given once and for all, it is built, organized by enunciators from a set of physical and cultural properties, the result of filtering and restructuring the extralinguistic world. Moreover, the concept is the common denominator of the properties of the elements of the class it represents. This common property for sheep is a separation.

 

• The notional domain

The notion sheep can function as a representation because there is a consensus of the speakers on the one hand as to what is legitimate to call “sheep”, on the other hand it is impossible to call “sheep” without encountering incomprehension. Between the two, the area varies according to the speakers, that we might conceivably call “sheep”, which is not quite sheep area which is not really sheep. Building a notional area around a concept delineates three zones: an interior that is sheep, an exterior that is not sheep and a border that is not quite sheep but not quite non-sheep. Here is an example of dialogue, illustrating “play” on the notional domain: here, inside = be-sheep outside = be-calf, sheep border = not really, not really calf.

– Fanta, you saw the Abu Tabaski sheep?

– Talk about a sheep, but rather a calf, yes!

– Oh! not exaggerating, the go! A calf has no horns.

– A hammer does not weigh 150 kg either, Yao!

The idea belongs to the cognitive domain, the domain of mental representations and is, therefore, not directly usable linguistically. Before introducing it in a statement, it defines the concept in building the notional domain, that is to say, his domain of occurrences. Defining the notion occurrences is either essentially quantitative or essentially qualitative way.

– From a quantitative manner by locating in space and time of the occurrence that is built: there is a sheep in the park (quantitative occurrence of sheep); Abu sheep broke away from the herd (an instance of the action of “detach”, a detachment occurred).

– Qualitatively, comparing occurrences value « type » is identified or this case qualitatively differentiates this value type:

– Identification: the woman is the future of man (woman refers to the concept);

– Differentiation: the birds sing while the dogs bark (here referring to the notion of singing).

In the dialogue on Tabaski sheep, interlocutors try to establish what is « sheep », « sheep really » and called the type, the kind opposed by what is not sheep. The type has stable properties, it defines all or nothing. It is or it is not. The type has the property to exist, that is to say be made quantitative, being detected in space and time.

Now, if we consider the interior of the notional domain of sheep and say there are sheep and sheep, one more guy speaks, but a gradient called the attractor. When advertising said there is taste in taste to evoke degrees of “sweet”, she plays on the attractor. It is not defined in space and time, which is an imaginary representation constructed by the speaker to work more or less within the notional domain. The attractor is a stable point; it is a gradient that works qualitatively.

 

1.3. Types of strategy: reformulation, assertion, reported speech

1.3.1. The case of the assertion and reported speech

The problem is that there is too much modalization developed in linguistics to be needed to justify here. By 1932, Bally lays the theoretical and empirical bases. For him, thinking is responding to a representation by noting with appreciation, or the wish, with already focus on the logical and psychological aspects of the utterance. After Bally, multiple studies saying, especially in France, have pointed out, rightly, the central role of the expository device in communication and proposed frameworks increasingly sophisticated phenomenon of modalization and enunciative modalities. In terms of the argument, the problem of modalization directly concerns the logical content of the proposals and their modes of presentation by arguing about.

The phenomenon modalization supposes that the statement has, in fact, two integrated dimensions: the dictum, which refers more precisely to the logical content of the proposal and modus, as chosen by the subject for the present and often denotes an attitude or a comment of it towards the content of his words. If the dictum has a good reason for its content, the modus in which the dictum is updated offers an argumentative orientation. We know, for example, that some journalistic assertions set out on how the evidence could be put into perspective in the manner of the possibility or hypothesis, which provides recipients of these messages a space for alethic reflection. In the field of economic and political column, there are categorical statements made by journalists, then they very often reproduce the discourse of experts, they express their views on economic and political issues that not have a single interpretation. When the recent economic crisis erupted in the United States and has surprised everyone, the claims of some Brazilian media columnists on the functioning of markets, scholarships and free trade that seemed obvious previously had to be revised in the light new facts. Some positions categorically presented as the only way that can take a responsible (and liberal) economic policy had to be put into perspective, as the role of the state in the economy, for example.

When propositional content of the dictum is presented to the reader as probable or, as is often the case, as evident, this does not cause the same effects as the epistemic interpretation level is not the same. The question of enunciation and modality therefore is very important if we are interested in argumentation in concrete situations, not just in ideal situations where reasoning could simply suffice. The enunciation and modalization process is inseparable from the argument if we accept that argument is asking views of objects, real or imaginary, and to stage enunciators antithetical in speech. However, in the discourse of media information, assertion and reported speech have always an important argumentative dimension that deserves to be analyzed.

The problem of reported speech in texts is more complex than these texts often related by fragments of speech and social actors that these speeches are often converted into shares, narrated, commentary, and torn from their original contexts. They are processed to the point that we no longer see, in most cases, traces of the original speech because they are completely erased by the periphrastic and metatextual transformation.

The problem of the argumentative dimension of reported speech is directly related to how discourse of the other is processed to inform, or manipulated and formatted by this argumentative purpose. Some cases are to enumerate:

– Reported speech is used to qualify, favorably or unfavorably, the original speaker by what he said. The speech is in this case a disqualifying and problematic content, controversial and inconsistent with the doxa (a revisionist discourse, a discourse that does not conform to the various levels, what is expected of the social status of the actor, etc.).

– Reported speech is used to generate a voltage in a given context by its symbolic implication in this context (the Pope’s statement on abortion or child abuse, the statement of a politician, etc.).

– Reported speech is a shared opinion by informing about and wants to circulate (delicate and difficult to identify as intentional operation, except by a system able to prove the validity of the opinions published by a media instance)[14].

 

• The reported speech

At first the concept of reported speech seems clear: grammarians and linguists to treat this chapter entails changes compared to a speech at first supported by a narrative instance. And is promoted to a notion of grammatical exercises apprentices latinists: put in the first person, or direct style like Caesar’s speech to Gallic ambassadors… Apart typographical marks (which varied in the history) as quotes, dash interlocution the newline, etc, most of such envisaged phenomena are facts of language. The change marks the saying (person, time, place), causes deep syntactic changes, both in terms of the mood of verbs or phrases that form the system of deictic and personal pronouns. Spatial and temporal markers (noun phrases or adverbs) are also affected. The main grammars provide the list of formal brands. Traditionally, it is considered that the indirect speech is a derivative of direct speech, naively conceived as the first. A first state we have “John said: I will come tomorrow” that would be prior to a source of “John said he would come tomorrow”. Indirect speech is as subordinate, under the control of a verb Rector (verb of saying or thinking). Finally, a third state, more literary, would remove the subordinating conjunction “John answered. He would come tomorrow, but …”. This hierarchical presentation is the one that forms the basis for classroom exercises, in fact, it is often very difficult to move from one attested to its « equivalent » in direct speech or free indirect speech[15].

Therefore, in recent years, linguists tend to give the traditional presentation in question. Indeed, the idea of ​​temporal priority of direct speech, especially in the realm of fiction, seems irrelevant. Instead, it considers a narrative strategy that favors one form or another. The term discourse must of course also include the words, thoughts, ideas, desires, wishes and exclamations, which make a difficult correspondence between direct and indirect forms of this discourse. There is a large asymmetry between direct and indirect speech. In direct speech, the speech cited retains its autonomy: it can be expressed in a foreign language and does not have the phrase form (exclamation, interjection, etc.), it consists of an incomplete statement and integrates elements such as the apostrophe which is not to be transposed into indirect speech. In contrast, the indirect speech masks modalization speech quoted and must seek equivalent normalized by the verb and its complements Rector (He said with a sigh that …). On the other hand, indirect speech supports the speech cited by interpreting which can lead to paraphrases, summaries, and thus to be taken away.

Direct speech and indirect speech[16] are two strategies available to the novelist, who uses them unlimitedly. There is in this area a specific time trends having significant influences. Adam reported cases of extreme domination of dialogue, a direct style; therefore, the Hemmingway style, but also of the inquisitorial and R. Pinguet Barois of R.Martin Jean du Gard. The merger instead of dialogue and its context are characteristics of writing as diverse as Dostoevsky, Virginia Woolf, James Joyce, Albert Cohen…. Another form of integration of the narrative discourse is called free speech (or indirect style). In direct and indirect speech, the boundaries between the cited and the citing speeches are clearly indicated by formal, linguistic and / or typographic marks. In contrast, the free indirect discourse is more often characterized by the absence of brands, and it is the mark thanks to a set of signals more or less tenuous of semantics.

In short, we must refer to the article on the interior monologue, and emphasize the importance of the position of the narrator, crucial to judge the effects of reported speech and worn look of the characters and conduct of the history and place in the aesthetic approach of the author. The study of reported speech must be incorporated in the analysis of the enunciative polyphony.

 

1.3.2. The reformulation

In the words of another or one’s own is a discursive strategy found in all kinds of communications and with very different functions. The reformulation is part of a part in the structuring of speech, especially in dialogic discourse but not only on the other hand, and in all cases, it contributes to the dynamics of speech. Reformulation is rarely innocent. Rephrase it to make new and / or put it differently, we can read in dictionaries, or if the prefix -e foreshadowed has for one of its meanings that iteration make, however, remains committed to a situation saying singular necessarily unique and distinctive. The reformulation is therefore part of an individual process, at the same time it says in a new way or re-told an earlier point. Thus, the reformulation is when one well-told the already-said, and this linguistic phenomenon in particular caught the attention of the research presented in this volume.

At the beginning of the eighty years, the term reformulation is used in Germany and in France by Elisabeth Gülich[17] (Who first chose the paraphrase), and just around the same time, by Eddy Roulet[18]. The term was then part analysis of verbal interactions. Reformulation called first a locutionary act: this is the process by which the speaker begins formulation operation.

School of Geneva is also attached to the showing of the illocutionary value of reformulations, and, more recently, Corinne Rossari[19]  distinguished the paraphrastic reformulation, which establishes equivalence with the first formulation, non-paraphrastic reformulations, which operate a change of utterance perspective.

It show the diversification of disciplinary views and field of observation when it is rewritten. It alters, or corrects the already-said module reformulation at work in all types of speech, oral and written, indicating a better say, it also requires them to consider the study of the coherence of text and speech.

 

• The modality of enunciation[20]

Although they do not cover the same reality, a general confusion occurs between the stated terms and conditions of enunciation. As interpersonal process, the modality of enunciation is exerted on the speaker while statement modality is exerted on the content of the utterance. In a speech, both conditions often occur together, but “a sentence can only receive only mode of utterance, then it may have several methods of statement combined”.

Nolke suggests in turn the following definition: “In terms of saying, I hear the language elements that relate to say, to use a phrase dear to many linguists. These are the eyes of the speaker throws its enunciative activity”. Emphasizing the distinction between the terms of enunciation and the terms of the statement, adding that “if the terms of the deal saying i.e., how to relate to the statement said”[21].

There are three basic forms of modalities of enunciation, which also correspond the sentence types: assertive (declarative), interrogative and injunctive (imperative).

Maingueneau[22] added the exclamation stating that “using an exclamation variety of structures […] It is always to express a high degree”. For example, it lists several turns for the expression of content, “it is nice”:

That’s nice!, As it is nice!, Is it nice!, It is so / so nice!, What kind!, There is a kindness!, This kindness!, It is of such kindness!, What is nice!, If it is nice!, God knows / as nice!”[23].

Assertive or declarative “shows the structure of the canonical group nominal-group verbal sentence”. It serves with say and / or say a fact and contains multiple means for expression. The assertion “poses a state of things as true or false. From a syntactic point of view, it is looking like a statement that involves and expresses a subject which is the word gate markers: person, time”.

In the following example, they are assertive sentences that follow each other: “I heard a loud noise … It was 10 pm. It was night. I was in my room”.

Through questioning, the speaker expresses a request or question. Maingueneau points out another function of the interrogation, “ask someone is to be placed in the alternative answer or not to answer. It also imposes the framework within which one shall enter one’s reply”. The query is performed by the use of syntactic variants acting on the interlocutor, the presence of such questioning in the text below without attracting a waiting for an answer.

“This civilization of McDonalds, which goes hand in hand, according to sociologists, with the increase of the number of people living alone and increasing the proportion of women who work, may it have adverse health consequences? Will we soon see Fast food rhyming with arteriosclerosis, cancer, obesity or vitamin deficiency?” This is an example of which the query is used to translate the ideas of speaker / narrator about “fast food”, influence and inform the caller, that is to say, the readers of Le Monde[24]. These are rhetorical questions functioning as implicit or disguised assertions.

By the injunction, the speaker is on the speaker to influence and even change behavior thereof. Depending on the situation, the sentence can express various injunctive shades: strict order, advice, hope, prayer, polite request. The mandatory or injunctive is type usually associated with an act of intimation or injunction (“Order something to someone” in the broadest sense, prayer to the sharp order, through the board). It is characterized by the absence of a subject of the verb when it is in the imperative (Get out!). In the following example, injunctive type is used to give advice.

“Do not try to please everyone; it is impossible, being yourself prevent you from spending energy unnecessarily”.

 

2. Culioli and the linguistics of enunciation[25]

Culioli based his work on those of Benveniste, Guillaume and Jakobson, to set up a strong linguistic model when he theorized the linguistic operations.

Antoine Culioli asserted that “language understood through natural language” shall be the orientation of the linguistic analysis. Succeeding in theorizing language, and not a given system of language, is the idea. The linguist must then seek to found a systematic and rigorous analysis method and rebuild the object of the linguistic science if he/she wants to reach this objective. A theory to approach the observed phenomena must be established, this is what is called a theory of observation.  Gustave Guillaume and Emile Benveniste are the ones that paved the way towards a linguistic of discourse Antoine Culioli will follow while reconstructing the object of analysis[26]. The conceptions of De Saussure[27] and Chomsky are defied by such a way of picturing the linguistic analysis. Culioli’s theory put the utterer as the center of the analysis. According to him, language is a set of activity or operations intrinsically linked to an utterer.  The process of production shall then be considered by the analysis.  The different steps the utterer sets in motion during the uttering act compose this process of production. For Culioli, this uttering act is the siege of analyses.

For him, the utterer activated various operations and this is on which the construction of utterances relies. Also, Culioli believes in the concepts of surface and deep structure, but he sees them with reference to structuring operations.

A research team has been organized by Antoine Culioli to surround the enunciative operations matter. Consisting of philosophers, psychologists, anthropologists, linguists, mathematicians, etc. this team has as objective the accounting for the enunciative phenomena and the presentation of an accurate image of language in general (language universals).  When these explanations are finished, formalizing the regularities (and irregularities) of language are made by the scientist to reach to a mathematical programming in creating a scheme of algorithms to justify the linguistic phenomena that can be observed in all natural languages.

The scientist, in his formalization attitude, must understand which operations lies behind the surface structure, formalizing the surface means paraphrasing, and then establish a formal enunciative system.  Reducing the amount of subjectivity in the scientific accounting and assuring the transportability and malleability of the theory are the reason of such a formal system.

Culioli’s formalizing project is a project unquestionably complex. This is the reason of Culioli’s building a team of researchers with various disciplines which facilitate seizing the entire object’s dynamism. As the linguistic phenomenon is always new, in order to express the results as a quantum, it seems to be much more suitable to use a probabilistic theory. The  basis  of  several  critics  which are opposing  the  formalizing  project  of  the  linguistic  facts is this probabilistic characteristic.

For Culioli, the scientific aspect of the science of language can only be unfortunately proved by this way. The theory is made much more systematic, much more efficient and much more rigorous by this formalization. Different fields must cooperate in the formalization project, for instance, there is cooperation between the mathematician and the linguist. Yet, some fields of mathematics like algebra, geometry, topology, etc. are not automatically the origin of the tools.  For the behaviors of the linguistic phenomena, the items offered by the mathematician have to be confirmed then adapted or rejected. Some metaoperators suitable to explain the studied facts can be founded by the linguist.  The enunciative operations can also be formalized if the behavior of the quantum has been formalized by way of a probabilistic function of the wave. For Culioli’s theory, the concept of location is fundamental to the extent that, according to him, uttering means building a set of locating parameters. When a term has been specified, situated or determined, this means that it is located. A unit attains a specific value through a system of location in the theory of operations, also called theory of the lexis[28].

 

3. The definition of the scanning

If an operation is defined as the representation of a specific cognitive process (TOE “postulates that metalinguistic based on sequences of operations related to cognitive processes”[29]), a reportable invariant associated with a particular tag, the work of enunciativist linguists consists of a rational connection between on the one hand, a marker (a linguistic reality) and on the other hand, a value (a linguistic operation) establishment which regulates interpretations marker of discursive context: it is to accurately determine the language of a linguistic marking operation as material that implants this operation in the language. The basic principle is that of regionalization, operation of an invariant in a formal substrate that is the marker.

It is in this context that the concept of path presents a problem on several levels, which correspond to sets of questions:

• the point: what are the boundaries? On the one hand, the scanning is always presented as a separate transaction, a fundamental part of the right triad extraction-signs-term, but on the other hand, there may be a diffuse and indefinite closing of this transaction, that one finds more or less partially updated in a heterogeneous set of markers, such as, for example, ANY/EVERY/WH- … or even in a heterogeneous set of interpretations of statements (specific / generic statement, indefinitude concept),
• the scanning: is there a “meaning sense”? It is conceived in different ways. It can be with or without end, smooth, rough, sometimes watered. This plurality of events can be a symptom of some theoretical indecision.
• The course: is there any operation or effect foundation built from the finest operations?
• What are the methods to characterize the operation of scanning?

In the definition given in River & Groussier’s, the scanning is an operation that is, for the speaker, “successively considering all elements (of a class) without any change”. The two basic elements of any definition of this concept are detected here. On the one hand, the scanning is defined by a metaphor: trajectory. On the other hand, the transaction receives a negative definition: it is a transaction that is not carried out.

 

3.1. Definition: the scanning, a “meaning-effect”?[30]

The question before us now is that the internal consistency of the theoretical concept of scanning. This may take various forms, so much so that we sometimes put two conflicting issues:

• a necessarily invariant operation can exist if it takes different forms from each other?
• scanning is not the fundamental operation in determining which other degrees of determination is based on their origin?

On the one hand, there would be only the course in different ways, and secondly, this polymorphism would make it impossible to determine the scanning as invariant operation. It borders the aporia.

Gilbert (1993)[31] includes:

“(…) The scanning marked by Ø, A, and THE in the case of a location relative to a class of situations are operations of scanning very special. These are indeed scanning which are a form of stabilization in the generic reference to the entire class of occurrences, while the scanning is marked by ANY him by resistant to any kind of stabilization definition, since basically says that we traveled all occurrences without being able or willing to stop at no”.

This analysis raises three comments:

• the scanning is diffuse and territorialized, not precisely definable marking,
• it is polymorphic: it is only a moment in the development of extraction and generic signs, but it is a process in itself that would be updated in ANY,
• it leads to mutually contradictory case. Indeed, it is compatible with stabilization, that is to say, with the construction of an identifiable outcome, distinguishable, but it is also “fundamentally refractory” to identify this issue. What setting would be stored as different cases in the same operation?

There is the question of the outcome in the interrogative. In “What can he do”? That is the representative (the image) of the field imaginable that can be assigned to the empty place in “he () values”. That used to represent a class of occurrences among which we cannot (or, optionally, unwilling) distinguish the one that would allow validation of the predicative relation unsaturated (Culioli 1990: 164). This would involve a case of “dead-end scanning”, that is to say, a scanning that does not lead to the construction of a set, except through another case: the co-enunciator provides the solution to the constitutive process of the question (Culioli 1990: 171). The co-enunciator is built into the question as holder of the stable value that blocks the scanning, “the speaker asks others to browse all that is possible to distinguish and tell the proper value that the speaker himself is unable to distinguish” (Culioli 1990: 110).

But the question arises as to precisely say what is covered and what is player in the enunciation exchange. Does that run on the interrogator? If it is a real question, the speaker has no identified object to it: what are the occurrences it is supposed to go? If it is a rhetorical question, the speaker does not actually scan anything because it already has a clearly defined purpose: the outcome is given by the question itself. That travels the interviewee? Holder’s response (if there is one to), it does not envisage any other identified as the one it has been.

The notion of scanning in question can be applied to alternative questions like “would you like tea or coffee”? Or issues “which” indicate the formation of a restricted class (Which book do you prefer? This one or that one?). In this type of question, there is clearly a hesitation in choosing an identified in relation to other objects. In the broader issues, it seems difficult to accept that the speaker performs a path object unidentified also: indeed, how to “pass” an indeterminate object to another object completely unknown? Browsing an area means that there are differentiated within the area to go states: how to pass an object to another object with an identical first in the sense that both are equally indeterminate?

Saying “occurrences we travel a, b, c” (Culioli 1990: 110) amounts to introducing differentiation between objects in the domain covered, but without saying that there must be this differentiation for the course is done. To simulate more adequately the real activity of the subject questioning, we should say, from an example such as “What can he do?” which built the class of objects that instantiate “he does ()” that the speaker passes not to “he does (a)” to “he does (b)”, but “()” to “()”. Here we see the limitations of the analysis of the question in terms of career scanning defined as: either leads to a contradiction (the speaker “pass” for the same identical object to another object, which is impossible because moving from one object to another requires a differentiating boundaries between objects), or assume that the speaker has always at his disposal a class of differentiated objects when he asks a question, which is not true.

The issue is further complicated if one projects the assumption of the course developed from the interrogative to relative. If the notion of course the center of analysis is placed (eg Pierre Le Goffic.1994 quoted here because his study is an example of the analysis of the issue in TOE), it is possible to establish links between various structures: the end of the path is sought in the case of interrogative left free in the case of indefinite reference and held “captive” in the case of the relative with history. However, this generalization poses some problems. On the one hand, we saw that the link between interrogation course and outcome is far from clear. To navigate, you must distinguish what makes the course, by definition, impossible. On the other hand, the use of scanning in these cases overrides what distinguishes them. In the issue, the issue is not identified in terms of its own identity, which is the issue of the structure, while in the indefinite, the identity is just not relevant. In:

A child will be grateful later on for strict training (BNC)

Someone will come;

The question of the outcome does not arise precisely because the statement means that one seeks no end, no particular object to be determined. In addition, the scanning does not seem to be at the same theoretical level: in the indefinite, if course, it occurs in the extra-linguistic reference (“Child” actually refers to any child possible) while the question is intralinguistic game, it is to verbalize the identity of a particular object. Moreover, in the case of linguistic relative, does it mean the metaphor of the “captivity” of the referent? Finally, if the scanning is a critical component of the operation of relativity, why may it have related structures without wh? How can we accept that the scanning and outcome can simultaneously co-exist? If I know the history, the scanning is blocked early on, and if the scanning continues, I do not have access to an exit. How then to reconcile career and access to exit?

In the examples:

A-It removed the requirement that the Court should seek to return the parts to the financial position they would have all which had been in had their marriage not broken down. (BNC)

B-An alternative approach, will be all which adopted in this chapter, is to concentrate on the possibility of rather identifying particular divisions all which pertain to object domains and all which may not be consist with any representation or cohesive society. (BNC)

How to find a scanning that would introduce a class of objects to go? Push the hypothesis of scanning.

In (A), one might consider that the addition of the property corresponding to the relative “which” allows to distinguish between a “financial position” among all the other possibilities of the class, which would lead to signs that distinguish the preferred outcome. But if we consider: The Court will seek to return the parts to their previous financial position, the same reasoning could apply: among all possible occurrences, on a sharply at the expense of others.

In (B), the segment [All which pertain to divisions particular object domains] refers to a defined content of the relative class that differentiates these special “divisions” compared to other types of “divisions”. But the argument can again be held without relative. The reference to the concept marked by Ø necessarily involves otherness “A notional domain is still divided into two complementary values, reference is always implicitly as opposed to ‘what else’”. (Gilbert 1993: 74).

The scanning therefore acts as a foundation operation, constitutive of the statement itself, but its universality dilutes the relevance in the analysis always takes the path, implicitly or not, and is therefore not a differentiable operation, but a sort of background which will differentiate other operations determination. It is difficult in this case to speak of markers along the way, because every utterance marks this operation.

The relationship between the course related to the relative QU-/WH- and outcome also arises in the case of the nominal relative. In:

Obviously she will not read what I wrote;

We find reversed, the issue of interrogation. In the question, the speaker has at its disposal no class differentiated browse items, and the co-enunciator is supposed to hold the identity of the permanent “issue”. In the relative nominal is the speaker who is able to define the specific character of what he says, and is the co-enunciator that is private, but have always available a class objects to go.

The relationship between “scanning” and the definition of “issue” stability is still unsolved in TOE, as evidenced by the proliferation of types of courses.

(a) the scanning may be implied and be a point in the development of a more complex or explicit transaction and enroll in a marking, which is itself a large syntactic and morphological heterogeneity (any, every, may, wh-…)

(b) can be with or without an “issue”.

(c) It can be combined with a summation. This case is usually associated with the structure “Ø + plural noun”. From examples such as:

Initially only orphaned, abandoned or destitute children were cared for by the state, then those who were treated cruelly or delinquent, and today have you any child is deprived of normal home life was temporary or permanent basis (BNC);

One may wonder about the difference between an aggregation that is implicit (a) and explicit (b):

1. a) Were destitute children cared for by the state?
2. b) All destitute children were cared for by the state.

On the other hand, the related “aggregation” can be found in the determination of NP whatever the determinant condition of being in the presence of a generic statement: with A, “it is through any case that reference is made to the entire class”. (Gilbert 1993, 90) with THE, “all being identified in such case, different instances of the class will then appear more in their singularity” (Gilbert 1993: 91), but they are all considered.

Finally, one may wonder if aggregation is not an intrinsic part of the concept of scanning: NP [Ø orphaned, abandoned or destitute children] and [Have you any child is deprived of normal home life was temporary or permanent basis] are both reference to the class concerned. We consider all the individuals of the class or any of them, it ultimately results in aggregation, as no escapes the proposed statement qualification. It is in the process of aggregation that we can find differences between buildings; these differences are related to the degree of fragmentation of the class.

(d) This leads to the distinction between “smooth scanning” and “rough scanning”.

Access to the class can be analyzed in terms of individualization in greater or lesser degree. In:

It must be unusual for a publishing house to be sent a manuscript twice in effective year interval of 62 years (BNC);

Reference to an individual class is enough to refer to the whole class, while in:

Family in its old sense is disappearing from our land. (Newsweek);

We can refer to all instances of the class by evoking its defining properties (organizing center), without taking into account that differentiation may exist between occurrences: the fragmentation of the class is non-existent here, and the class is homogeneous, no differential property is relevant.

However, the relationship between these different degrees of fragmentation of a class is to be theorized. First, what are the conditions that favor enunciation in a particular type of scanning? On the other hand, the various parameters used (fragmentation, aggregation) maintain these complex relationships that prevent strict ranking.

In Gilbert (1993), it is maintained that “scanning with aggregation and smooth show some relationship, and can, in this sense, both being opposed to the rough scanning” (Gilbert 1993: 91). But, as we have previously suggested, aggregation appears as an inherent feature to the course and therefore cannot be shared between several subtypes of scanning. Indeed, access to the class or the individual or organizing center, or that reference can be made to the class directly as in:

In several places the author states that although molecular biology consists in chemical and physical processes, biological principles cannot be derived from physics and chemistry alone. (BNC);

Statement results in consideration of the class in question in its entirety, without restriction.

Finally, the distinction between “smooth scanning” and “rough scanning” seems to be the projection of the access method to the class on how to design this class.

In the examples involving stripping called generic, you can access the class in question through an individual who is only defined by its membership in the class which constructed a type characterized by the basic category properties. Once the category is constructed, we do not take into account the differentiation which may individuate instances of the class or break the class. We are not in the presence of a schematic representation of the type: “a child = a child1 + a child2 + … has childN »” which distinguishes “Child” generic specific “a child”, but the type: “a child = a = a child1 child2 = … has childN”, which allows the development of a statement such as “A child is a child”. “A woman is a woman”. In which is displayed the total differentiation between instances of a class. This differentiation also realizes other generic configurations (examples Ø S, THE …)

Again, we cannot clearly territorialize operation scanning. In contrast, we see a construction that takes other operations as they are. The generic statement, by definition, does not refer to a clearly defined one and exists in a situation of saying object, which highlights the notional category with all its occurrences, and gives the feeling that one « travels » in the class. It is the same for the question (and the nominal relative): there are (at least) one speaker from the enunciation exchange that cannot build a specific object identity. Regarding the relative contribution of qualification that can facilitate the comparison between the selected object and the others with whom he opposes, where there is once again an “effect of scanning”, even if the scanning stops at the origin of the fact that the “issue” is already determined as antecedent, as we have seen, is problematic.

 

3.2. Scanning and boundaries

The scanning acts as fundamental as operation or mining and extraction in the sense that extraction / pinpointing / scanning correspond to special treatment of the concept: the operations of determination (quantification with or without qualification) (Culioli 1990: 116), these operations are determining extraction, pinpointing and scanning.

We present here, schematically, three basic operations: the “extraction”, the “pinpointing” on one side, and the “scanning” on the other[32].

It is possible to discuss the division of the determination of clearly distinguishable operations. Indeed, if the course opposes the concept and extraction, we can also see that it shares some properties with them.

The scanning is opposed to the first extraction, the “determination operation consisting of the speaker, or to isolate one or more of a class (batch), a quantity of a class (quantifiable continuous) by marking over a situation”[33]. If we want to isolate part of a class, to differentiate it from other members of the class, it is out of the question, with the path to define a stable condition differentiated within a notional class, that this state is a case (quiet operation), an amount (dense) or a degree (compact). Other so-called route markers (WH-interrogative) also opposed the definition of a stable and defined state: they mark that the speaker does not or cannot choose an identified value that would allow him to assert a situation.

The scanning also opposed the reference to the concept: “The preaching of the underlying notional estate built (e.g. “Oil” = « which is oil » versus “what is not oil”). It is the qualitative value of the name without specifying quantity”[34], incompatible with the preaching of a particular event: “We recall that the concept is defined in intention: this means that one cannot at this stage distinguish occurrences, we are dealing with the compact, the indivisible and only properties (qualitative) then come in” (Bouscaren & Chuquet 1987: 146). The scanning is opposed to the idea since it introduces otherness in the representation, which makes it possible to build a detachable state reportable, class. In Souesme[35], “ANY implies the existence of a non-zero value”, that is to say, a case which is distinguishable in terms of their own identity, even if its features are undefined. This last remark may also apply to terms wh-interrogative in their operation. In the question, S0 asks (or pretends to ask) the existence of a non-zero value, but indefinite for it in terms of its own qualities. This non-zero existence makes possible the creation of a solution by using others in the question.

If we compare the scanning in this double extraction relation and the reference to the concept, it appears to be a double in the scanning contradictory movement:

They are both discontinued (there do not exist in the concept): it opens with the scanning to the extraction, and differentiation (no occurrences built by discontinuity are extracted). One could characterize the scanning as “undifferentiated treatment, equal number of separate units”[36], which is ironic on several levels: state, is to eliminate the indeterminacy in separate states, and the scanning is to do the opposite: here, we “undifferentiated” state, the concepts of undifferentiation and differentiation normally opposed overlap in the scanning: the units are placed as both distinct and indistinguishable from each other, the scanning has a special relationship with identification. Indeed, if it is assumed that A and B are identified with each other, we put in the same movement that they are different: the identification is an operation that involves spreading a hiatus yet considered, as in operation scanning. The scanning is therefore a case of identification, because there is distinction, but produces unidentified statements because it does not result in the isolation of a case.

These paradoxes make people sensitive of unusual properties of language, or are they theoretical paradoxes? If it is about case of contradictions and dead ends, how to further specify the scanning, without using synonyms (“scan”) or metaphors (“Trip” occurrence in this case)?

The question of the position of the scanning in relation to other forms of determination arises more clearly when the issue of genericity is addressed. If the item is an “unsingularized”[37] reference and helps to confuse the events and occurrences between them, it is possible to link the operation of determining the minimum scanning which is also “unsingularized”. The generic interpretation due to the lack of determination, for example, « Ø bright yellow” or “Ø calculated indifference” means that it refers to “a type of attitude or yellow” (Cotte 1996: 213), a type of occurrence among others, which introduces a factor of course in such analysis. The same applies in the case of generic set (use of generic THE): “the definite article leaves prebuilt route individuals, in order to preserve what transcends the abstract class entry globally” (Cotte 1996: 217), “with the generic set the speaker grabbed outside a set of concrete individuals to abstract uniqueness”. Thus do we find a scanning element inside the same pinpointing? The generic expression certainly means an individual trait but, by definition, subsumes a set of individuals, both presented as reportable and undistinguished, which is usually marked by the scanning.

We find this entanglement operation in Gilbert (1993) where he talks about the generic interpretation Ø, A, THE: “For each of these three items, this value (generic) set implicitly involves the operation of said path, since it assumes that, in one way or another, it runs through the set of occurrences of the class associated with the proposed concept. But this operation will of course not be exactly the same in all three cases, because (…) articles Ø, A, and THE retain, beyond their possible common generic value, the specific nature of operations which they trace” (Gilbert 1993: 90). This calls for three comments: operation course can act as related reportable within other operations such as extraction or pinpointing and can respond “constructively”, that is to say, without territorialization in a reportable marker and can take various forms, which means that the operation itself is deformable and does not constitute an invariant.

It follows that the scanning may seem expensive at the theoretical level

• an operation is not the representation of a cognitive process invariant marked by a particular label,
• they are not reportable to each other because on the contrary, they can entangle. A transaction may be a time in the development of another operation: it would be, for example, a “stage scanning” in the generic pinpointing that is, overall, beyond this phase to establish its own interpretation of pinpointing. This theoretical scenario is possible, but nevertheless remains unthought in the TOE, the relationship between operations is not explained formally.

 

3.3. Characterization of the scanning operation

This “effect of scanning” is realized in the form of a metaphorical “journey”, and especially cannot rely on positive behavior: the scanning is always presented as an operation that ultimately did not take place. In the quote: “there is a scanning operation, that is to say, a journey of occurrence to occurrence, no one can stop at a stable value and guaranteed” (C2: 170), is the idea of ​​passing an undefined object to another object with the difficulty already noted: how to make a “journey” of an unknown object to another as little as defined first, and therefore cannot be distinguished? How to “move” from one point to another, if nothing can define the points? But we also see that the path is defined only negatively, as shown by a series of quotes:

“ANY marks the refusal of the speaker to choose a value from a predefined qualitative field” (Souesme 1992: 208).

“Scan all the possibilities in the field without the speaker can be attached to any”. (Souesme 1992: 210)

“ANY marks the course of the class with failure to stop on an item more than another because all agree” (Souesme 1992: 209).

“ANY indicates an operation on the class of travel or more accurately on all elements of the class without the speaker can in no favor” (Souesme 1992: 209) .

“The speaker asks others to browse possible to distinguish and tell the proper value of the speaker himself is unable to distinguish” (Culioli 1990: 110) .

“We called this scanning operation is to browse all the possible values ​​or operations in one of the squares of a relationship n places without (wanting / to) distinguish this or that of them “(Culioli 1999: 119).

It is interesting to note that the scanning acts as a kind of contrarian: instead of being a positive transaction that is to be a state of affairs, there is a scanning from operation, instead of being, that is precisely a defeat. This is linked to the fact that, for example, ANY “discusses the existence of the trial and the referent” (Cotte 1996: 222), or that the marker occurs when it is associated with the negation « in statements to resume polemically a previous statement (…)”[38]. In this perspective, we can make a difference between “I do not have a car”. Which is simply a negation of existence preaching, and “I do not have any car”. In which “the enunciator attacks distinctive properties associated with the existence of the case through them all, and reject all” (Rivière 1997: 101-2). ANY reinforces the power of negation.

This power of negation operation seems particularly interesting. It helps to account for some cases illustrated in statements such as:

Whoever had taken the decision to commit the party to armed insurrection in 1930, what was now to be called Expired in issue was whether the party had any right at all to make such decisions for itself. (BNC)

It is not here to make a “scanning” between various “rights” as a single right is mentioned: there is no “scanning” of a class, or even creation of a class of rights. ANY functions as a mark of deconstructing a previous operation: the context shows that the prebuilt is positive (someone has given the right to make certain decisions), and that the statement calls into question” (“what was now called expired into question”).

The same function of deconstruction in the interrogative, which, by definition, challenges that could be taken for granted in the previous context, the simple fact that they allow the introduction of a zero value in case of the negative. It is also found in other settings associated with “scanning” (the concessive function of MAY for example).

Without being infeodant to prior learning, the speaker, with a “marker of scanning” consider any other solution (the one that was proposed), without defining it.

 

4. Scanning: explanation of indeterminacy

Reading the seminar notes of Antoine Culioli[39], we see that the operation of the scanning, regardless of sub-categorization (smooth, rough, with output, with tabulation, etc.) is shown essentially in opposition to other types of determination operation.

Level determination affects the predicative relationship Culioli talks about in scanning (smooth or rough) as opposed to the construction of specific occurrences in examples like:

The early bird catches the worm. (Smooth scanning)

It is sometimes. . . (Rough scanning)

At another point, the course is also likened to the construction of class, in contrast to the particular case. It is described as examples:

• dogs are mammals
• any dog ​​is a mammal, commented by Culioli as follows:

“I have a career in operation since I built abstract class occurrences <be dog> i.e. what is a typical dog” (Culioli 1985: 72).

The questions called “closed” (yes-no questions) are also treated as forms of travel as opposed to the assertion. The yes-no questions are modal operations that build a focused consideration of different areas of the notional domain.

At an argumental level, we have the problem of so-called “open” questions (WH-type), where the scanning is interpreted as opposed to a reference value assignment for a given argument. The case of interrogative pronouns is also connected to the phenomena of modality, where the course is commented in opposition to the operation of “centering”:

– Where can he be?

– Where can he be well?

Culioli explains that “strong” built a center from the center attractor that makes the incompatible course.

In a 1987 article, Culioli (1990 references) explicitly present the course in contrast to the extraction and signs:

“The scanning unlike mining and signs that we can (or want to) distinguish from any occurrence in the field” (Culioli 1990: 121) like that of the nominal group, for example, comes to represent a system which is characterized by varying degrees of determination:

• Lack of commitment
• Scanning
• Extraction

The first observation that can be made when reading texts (Culioli)[40], is that it forms a representation of what the operation scanning is from its confrontation with other operations. In any case, we understand that the journey was a lack of stabilization of a value: it may be stabilizing a modal value as the assertion of a value as with argumental Wh-markers, or an occurrencial value as in the case of the specific one. Whenever there is instability, there is scanning, which leads to define the path in the negative since it apprehends substantially the opposite of what he does not.

However, it seems that there is a form of definition for the scanning in the following quote:

“The idea of ​​ scanning is related to the construction of a class of occurrences of an abstract concept. We speak of scanning of the class K. You look or not you want you can stop at a value distinguished from other values. In some cases, you cannot and you will eventually use to others, and in others, you do not want, and you’ll have a modalization without recourse to others” (Culioli 1985: 70).

We see that the first sentence informs us about the fact that the scanning is an operation whose argument must be “abstract class occurrences”. With the third sentence, we understand that the principle of this operation is to take into account (or want to) distinguish this abstract without occurrences. Finally, the idea that “we do not want or can stop a distinguished value” suggests a dynamic process, which lumped instances sequentially rather than simultaneously. The etymology already conveyed this sense as per + currere which means first “run through”. Robert and the historic Robert the French language give the following meanings: “through, in all its extended visit”, “go into all the parts of a place”, “look successively the elements of a together (for an overview); “go from one end to the other”; “to accomplish a certain way”.

This operation, which could be called “kinetic » is the scanning of a particular determination, to the extent that, because of the lack of stability that assumes that it would rather be a form of indeterminacy. Indeed, the historic Robert reminds us that “determine” first means “mark the limits, born, limit”, and figuratively, “stop, adjust, fix”. Insofar, Culioli defines the scanning as an inability or refusal to “stop a distinguished value”, the idea of ​​an “operation of indeterminacy” does not seem inappropriate to describe the scanning. This concept is involved also in the analysis of Cresset (1984)[41], Rossignol (1984)[42], Culioli (1990).

At this point, the course is opposed to two forms of identification. On the one hand, it is a form of indeterminacy to the extent that it differs from operations such as extraction and signs, which build the delineation of occurrences. On the other hand, the scanning is a form of identification, unlike the phenomena of a-determination as the absence of the marker in the case of NG or the aorist in the case of the appearance. Indeed, unlike a-determination, it always associates the journey like wh-markers, any, ever, interrogative, concessive constructions, etc. (The purpose of this article is whether this association is justified). In other theoretical approaches, the assimilation between the operation of the course and specific markers is explained in metalinguistic designation. So Jayez & Tovena (2003) speak of Free Choice Items (on the model of Negative Polarity Items), giving the idea of ​​a set of identifiable markers class.

Thus, considered in the determination system, the “journey” has an ambivalent status: it built a good determination, but by explaining the indeterminacy. For this reason, no doubt that we can design the course markers as traces of built indeterminacy.

Obviously, the uncertainty is not a sufficient criterion to define or to identify the course. However, when looking at the contexts in which the concept appears, it must be acknowledged that the metalinguistic tag “scanning way”, with its kinetic meaning and definition echoed, occurs primarily as an intuitive metaphor absence of individuation. This poses the problem of using a metalanguage end of the current language, with the risk of interference between the ordinary and technical sense. After all, one could consider the establishment of a system for determining with a non-lexical metalanguage and nevertheless provided definitions, so the model terms; we could imagine a determination of type 1, type 2, etc. Once we opt for “figurative” terminology, we must manage the inevitable relationship between current direction and technical direction. To take the example of the “quantity (QNT)”, we must always remember that “quantity” has no numerical sense it has in everyday language. And yet the “quantity” label has not been chosen at random, so that, paradoxical as it is, the more “talking” metalinguistic expressions require as much or more than the neutral expressions, the support of a definition.

In addition to the labeling of the operation, we have the problem of its association with certain types of markers. Thus, as the years go by, more and more people take the train to the TOE running, inheriting a theoretical reflection that we will tend to take for granted. The risk is to see settled implicit identifications such as “wh-/ any / ever (y) … are markers of course”, which can lead to a reversal of the situation, as the marker of which is to realize is that by which one reaches the concept.

The question is whether there are formal criteria to determine whether a given marker is a scanning operator (that is to say, a marker that would comply with the definition of Culioli quoted above) However, if it is an essentially intuitive assessment, how can we be sure that there are no plans on the marker in question that is actually popping other operation? Thus, a recognized “smooth” scanning, a “rough” journey, a journey “with (or without) output”, a scanning “with totalization”, etc. is to distinguish what are the values induced by the context in the course itself​​.

 

5. Scanning and Totalization: definition and differences[43]

Scanning and totalization are determined enunciative operations in the theory of A. Culioli. Should we treat the aggregation as if it was always associated with a scanning? An exploration of concepts which relates different roots from which the markers are totalized, of course the other Indo-European languages show that these notions are few because of interesting similarities. Most often, there are many markers totalizing operation determination with quantitative preponderance and markers scanning determination operation with qualitative preponderance. But the phenomena of tipping the balance exist by manifestations of consubstantial liability of natural languages. Thus, it can happen that a totalization marker becomes a scanning marker.

According to Culioli, in the article “Representation, referential processes and regulation”: “Scanning consists in running over the whole domain, without being willing or able to pick out one (or more) distinguished value(s)” (Culioli 1990: 182).

The scanning therefore takes on a domain, i.e. a group or class of instances whose homogeneity is formed by a separate definition QLT and at least a QNT otherness, e.g. “Those who will speak today” in:

(1) Everyone who will talk about today is familiar with the Enunciative Operations Theory.

The operation of scanning is constituted by the element iteration member’s consideration of an element, “one of those”, then “one of those who” and “one which” etc. Operation scanning is possible only on the batch.

In the same article, Culioli wrote: “Homogeneity is evinced in totalization and in genericity” (Culioli 1990: 195) and examples are given for the aggregation “I took the books and I drank coffee”. Notice that in both examples, there is no specific marker of aggregation. However, the purpose here is to examine these markers. We therefore propose instead:

(2) I took all the books

(3) I drank all the coffee.

A whole section in Lalande[44], reads: “One of the fundamental ideas of thought. It is ranked by Kant among the twelve categories of understanding, under the amount, where it is presented as a synthesis of unity and plurality (i.e. emphasis mine)”. Note that this definition is intended solely quantitative and, on the other hand, would be for (2) but not (3). Culioli introduced the concept of “consistency”, which in this case refers to the identity QLT between elements. We would add that, in this case, the marker indicates that aggregation is the entire set (2) of the class or the amount of continuous (3) is taken into account 2 times. Unlike the scanning, aggregation appears compatible with the discontinuous and continuous.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CONCLUSION

 

 

The work we have made deals with the notion of scanning, at least in part. The definitions of this concept are numerous, which could explain the paucity of work on the subject. Nevertheless, we tried to understand and detail the notion of scanning, and that mostly through the writings of Culioli.

We have tried to show that what is presented in the concept of “scanning” does not seem to be a differentiable operation but a purpose built within the entanglement of two distinct issues that are the question of identifying reference: there is a common underlying many associated scanning, and the issue of otherness constructions: there seems to be “scanning effect” when there is referential instability in the sense that the otherness is not excluded. The lack of definition of the identity of the case in question also makes it possible to take into account the possibility of other identification, which is also associated with the course.

The question is how to link these two types of questions, and also whether the metaphor of the “scanning” is able to account for these linguistic facts. We found what appeared to us as an inherent contradiction in that course which would “pass” from an instance to another, which implies a distinction between occurrences, while the scanning returns to abolish any distinction between them. This contradiction is problematic for the issue of “purpose” of scanning: on the one hand, the scanning ensures that no demarcation is possible, but on the other hand, the result still shows that it is possible to perform. In addition, the case of “scanning” is sometimes presented as a contemporary of the definition of « the purpose” and, more importantly, as a procedure for identifying this issue (the relative identifies its antecedent) where the course would basically avoid identification.

Then again, we have seen that it is difficult to clearly identify the differences between subtypes of scanning because the criteria for differentiation (totalizing, rough, and smooth) are intermingle. The question of otherness underlies this difficulty.

These difficulties (compatibility scanning / issue / degree of fragmentation) coupled with the fact that it does not seem possible to territorialize operation scanning in a series of recognizable brands, it seems to stem from the fact that what is called “scanning” in the strict sense occurs paradoxically as an operating deconstruction, which is a sign that a transaction does not occur, or occurs often. This negativity foundation makes it difficult to locate this operation in a defined marker. Is that an operation which consists in deconstructing operations? The answer to this question is, no doubt, in the details of the scanning tools, including markers themselves.

 

[1] Sarah de Vogüé, « La théorie des opérations énonciatives comme théorie de la référence », Semen [En ligne], 4 | 1989, mis en ligne le 05 juin 2008, consulté le 29 mai 2013. URL : http://semen.revues.org/6653.

[2] Girard, Geneviève. « La notion de sujet et la notion de complément », Cercles 9 (2004) : 38-52, Cercles 2004.

[3] Culioli, A. 1990. Pour une linguistique de l’énonciation. Gap : Ophrys.

[4] Lazard, G. 1994. L’Actance. Paris : Presses universitaires de France. P.15.

[5] Girard, « La notion de sujet : une notion à définir », in Le Sujet, Actes du colloque d’Aix en Provence, 2001. Paris : Bibliothèque Faits de langue, Ophrys, 29-40.

[6] Girard, « Les réseaux de sens au sein de l’énoncé », in Actes du colloque L’Interprétation, Tromsø, Octobre 2000.

[7] Tchagbalé, Z., éditeur, 1984, T.D. de linguistique, exercices et corrigés, Publications ILA n°103, Université nationale de Côte d’Ivoire.

[8] Culioli, A., 2002, Variations sur la linguistique, p. 31, note 31. Klincksieck.

[9] Auroux S., 1996, La philosophie du langage, PUF, p.334.

[10] Zakari TCHAGBALE, Des théories de la langue aux théories de la parole : Cours d’initiation à la théorie des opérations énonciatives, Université nationale de Côte d’Ivoire, 1998.

[11] BALLY C. (1932), Linguistique générale et linguistique française, Francke, Berne.

[12] DESCLES J.-P. (1990), Langages applicatifs, langues naturelles et cognition, Hermès, Paris.

[13] Culioli,  A.,  1999,  Pour  une  linguistique  de  l’énonciation.  Formalisation  et  opérations  de repérage, Tome 2, Ophrys.

[14] Wander Emediato, « L’argumentation dans le discours d’information médiatique », Argumentation et Analyse du Discours [En ligne], 7 | 2011, mis en ligne le 15 octobre 2011, Consulté le 30 mai 2013. URL : http://aad.revues.org/1209

[15] MAINGUENEAU Dominique. Eléments de linguistique pour le texte littéraire. Editions Bordas, 1986.

[16] LIPS Marguerite. Le style indirect libre. Genève, 1926.

[17] Gülich E. & Kotschi Th. (1983), « Les marqueurs de la reformulation paraphrastique », Cahiers de linguistique 5, p. 305-351.

[18] Roulet E. (1987), « Complétude interactive et connecteurs reformulatifs », Cahiers de linguistique française, n° 8, p. 111-140.

[19] Rossari C. (1994), Les opérations de reformulation : analyse du processus et des marques dans une perspective contrastive français-italien, Berne, Peter Lang.

[20] Safinaz Büyükgüzel, Modalité et subjectivité : regardet positionnement du locuteur, Université Hacettepe (Ankara), Turquie n° 4 – 2011 pp. 139-151.

[21] Nølke, H. 1993. Le regard du locuteur. Pour une linguistique des traces énonciative. Paris : Kimé.

[22] Maingueneau, D. 1999. Syntaxe du français. Paris : Hachette.

[23] Riegel, M., J.-Ch. Pellat et Rioul R. 2009. Grammaire méthodique du français. 4^ème édition, Paris : Puf.

[24] Le Monde, October 4, 1989.

[25] KOUASSI Roland Raoul & KOUADJO, Koffi Hilaire, The approach of Antoine Culioli to the theory

of the utterer, University of Cocody, Abidjan.

[26] BENVENISTE, Emile, Problèmes de linguistique générale II, Paris Gallimard, 1974.

[27] SAUSSURE, Ferdinand de, Cours de linguistique générale, Paris, Payot, 1916.

[28] J. Bouscaren et al., Introduction to a Linguistic Grammar of English : an Uttered-centered Approach, 1992, p.150.

[29] Bouscaren J, Deschamps A, Dufaye L (eds). (2001) Modalité et opérations énonciatives. Cahiers de Recherche. Tome 8 : Ophrys.

[30] Gérard MÉLIS, Peut-on différencier l’opération de parcours ? Publié en ligne le 08 juin 2006.

[31] Gilbert, E. (1993) « La Théorie des Opérations Enonciatives d’Antoine Culioli », Les Théories de la grammaire en France : Hachette.

[32] Culioli, A. (1999) Pour une linguistique de l’énonciation – Domaine notionnel. Tome 3 : Ophrys, p.46.

[33] Groussier, ML & Rivière, C. (1996) Les mots de la linguistique – lexique de linguistique énonciative : Ophrys, p.77.

[34] Bouscaren, J & Chuquet J.(1987). Grammaire et textes anglais – Guide pour l’analyse linguistique : Ophrys, p.43.

[35] Souesme, C. (1992) Grammaire anglaise en contexte, Gap & Paris : Ophrys.

[36] Lapaire,  JR, Rotgé, W. (1991) Linguistique et grammaire de l’anglais : Presses Universitaires du Mirail, p.143.

[37] Cotte, P.(1996) L’explication grammaticale des textes anglais : PUF, p.214.

[38] Rivière, C. (1997) « Qualités méconnues de ANY »  Cahiers de Recherche T7. La composante qualitative: déterminante et anaphorique : Ophrys.

[39] Culioli, A. (1985) Notes du séminaire de D.E.A. 1983-1984, éditées par le Département de Recherches Linguistiques : Université Paris VII.

[40] Culioli, A. (1999b) Pour une linguistique de l’énonciation, Tome III, Collection l’Homme Dans la Langue, Paris : Ophrys.

[41] Gresset, S. (1984) « THAT/WHICH marqueurs de relatives en anglais contemporain », in Cahiers de recherche en grammaire anglaise, tome II, p. 202-272, Gap : Ophrys.

[42] Rossignol A. (1984), « Ordre syntaxique, modalité et opérations de détermination », Cahiers CHARLES V n°6, p. 111-126, Gap : Ophrys.

[43] Marie-Line Groussier (2006). « Totalisation et parcours ». CORELA – Le parcours | Numéros thématiques.

[En ligne] Publié en ligne le 08 juin 2006.

[44] LALANDE, André, 1932, Vocabulaire technique et critique de la philosophie, Paris, Alcan.