Cadre théorique et méthodologique
Concepts généraux
1.1.1 Différentes approches de la localisation spatiale
The theoretical framework of our study necessitates consideration of key approaches Analyzing various approaches serves a dual purpose: to understand the historical evolution of research in this domain and to justify our chosen theoretical framework Therefore, we will explore spatial localization through formal, enunciative, and cognitive approaches.
A comprehensive overview of major morphological grammars reveals that traditional grammar addresses spatial localization through the formal categories of words Regardless of presentation variations, this tradition explicitly tackles the issue within two types of parts of speech based on the concept of Place: adverbs and prepositions of place, which are used to construct circumstantial complements.
Research by Robert Léon Wagner and Jacqueline Pinchon (1991) and Georges Mauger (1968) has explored adverbs and prepositions of place, yet their semantic analyses have primarily focused on referential meanings or semantic oppositions between locative terms Such descriptions fail to encompass all possible usages of a term or the shifts in meaning that occur in context For instance, while Mauger defined the adverb "here" as "a location close to the speaker" and "there" as "a more distant location," he overlooked the case where "there" is used to refer to "here," as illustrated in his own example: "Where is that needle? - There, at my feet."
Spatial expressions are often categorized based on their semantic location without detailed descriptions of their various uses or meanings Even "Le Bon Usage" (1993), regarded as one of the most descriptive grammars of its time, only addresses a few specific expressions, illustrating meanings and uses that are more reflective of historical French than contemporary usage The work frequently discusses the phenomenon of prepositional alternation but fails to clarify the nuanced meanings between different usages, as seen in examples like "Il s'assit dans un fauteuil."
Il trouva l'abbé sur son fauteuil de bois
Traditional grammar has overlooked the phenomenon of language structure (LS) and fails to consider the communicative context or cognitive processes that significantly influence human verbal production This approach focuses on specific usages of prepositions (e.g., "partir pour," "venir de") or is constrained by locative noun phrases (e.g., "dans la rue," "sur la place," "à la campagne") Pragmatic and conceptual elements are disregarded, leading to a treatment devoid of extralinguistic factors This raises the question of why a single linguistic context can accommodate various prepositions For instance, the structure "Je/être/Paris" can be expressed in multiple valid ways (e.g., "Je suis à Paris," "Je suis dans Paris," "Je suis sur Paris"), indicating that syntax does not dictate the choice of prepositions in this case.
Nous pouvons citer quelques représentants de ce courant comme J Courtillon
In 1999, several authors explored the concept of spatial deixis, which emphasizes the importance of specific elements in communication situations These deixis elements involve considering the roles of participants in the utterance process, as well as the spatial and temporal context of both the speaker and, potentially, the listener.
Studies following the enunciative approach to spatiality often classify spatial deictics Jeannine Courtillon distinguishes between deictic markers (such as "here" and "there") and anaphoric markers (like "inside" and "to the left") Meanwhile, Dominique Maingueneau categorizes deictics into groups, including presentatives ("here is," "there is"), pronouns ("this," "that"), adjectives ("this," "these," "that"), and adverbs ("here," "there").
Patrick Charaudeau's work (1992) offers in-depth analyses of the linguistic and pragmatic dimensions of locative forms He introduced the concept of "point of view," which helps explain the choice of spatial tools This determination of perspective allows for the differentiation of seemingly synonymous expressions For example, "hors de" and "en dehors de" both indicate that an object is located outside a reference point, yet they differ in perspective: "hors de" conveys an internal viewpoint, as in "De temps en temps, il sortait la tête hors de l'eau pour prendre une grande bouffée d'air," while "en dehors de" reflects an external viewpoint, as in "Certains préfèrent vivre en dehors de la ville."
Figure 1.1 Différence de visée entre Hors de et En dehors de
Deictic reference is established not through internal discourse units but by external, heterogeneous factors related to the communication situation, such as the speaker's viewpoint, the distance to the object being referenced, and the face-to-face interaction between interlocutors While enunciative grammar has advanced beyond traditional approaches, it has been critiqued for focusing solely on the physical aspects related to the speaker, neglecting the psychological and cultural factors that influence language use Charaudeau defines the prepositions "near" and "far" based on distance, noting that one indicates "great proximity" while the other signifies "great distance." However, a speaker's judgment of distance can vary depending on whether they consider walking or driving, meaning that the same distance might be expressed as "near" or "far," with the choice depending on the speaker's conceptual perspective rather than the actual referential distance.
Cognitive linguistics, developed since the 1980s, bridges the gap between language and cognition, highlighting the complex processes involved A key aspect of cognitive research is the hypothesis that language is not an autonomous cognitive activity but interacts with perception, action, and reasoning, as noted by J.-P Desclés (1990) Given that space is a fundamental domain of cognition, cognitive linguists prioritize it in their studies, aiming to reveal the cognitive representations and processes involved in producing and understanding linguistic expressions This approach considers the psycho-socio-cultural factors influencing a speaker's verbal production In addressing linguistic variation and translinguistic diversity, cognitive linguistics seeks to establish a semantic theory that regularizes the different meanings of a lexeme across its various uses within and between languages Consequently, cognitive linguists can explain the variation in linguistic choices among different cultures, as illustrated by Benoît Sagot (2002), who notes that while the French say, "The handle is on the door," the Finns express this as "The handle is in the door," emphasizing the visibility or invisibility of the object in context.
The expression of sign language (LS) should be regarded as a speech act within a specific communication context, functioning as both a linguistic and pragmatic parameter that incorporates extralinguistic elements Linguistic forms are not monosemic; the same form can convey different meanings depending on the communication situation Traditional grammar does not adequately address this complexity Moreover, the current focus on spatial deictics only considers the physical presence of speakers, neglecting the cognitive-semantic perspective that explains the conceptual mechanics of communicators For instance, the announcement often heard in the Paris metro, "Attention! At this station, exit to the left!" can only be fully understood through a shared experience between speakers, rather than their physical positions Here, "to the left" refers to the train's direction rather than the speaker's perspective, highlighting a functional orientation of the object rather than a physical one based on the observer.
It is essential to adopt a meaning-based grammar that describes language from the speaker's intent while also considering the syntactic constraints of sentence construction and the context of discourse This grammar must define the semantic processes corresponding to that intent and categorize the linguistic tools available for expression, excluding those that, despite their formal or functional similarities, belong to a different meaning intention This approach is situated within a cognitive, intercultural perspective of linguistics.
With the rise of cognitive linguistics, the study of how language processes spatial relationships has gained significant interest This cognitive approach highlights the evident variability among languages in their representation of this fundamental domain Each language has its unique way of segmenting and structuring space.
Cognitive research highlights the linguistic variability influenced not only by linguistic parameters but also by cultural and pragmatic constraints Linguistic representation is not merely a direct transcription of reality; rather, it is shaped through our perceptions and reconstructed by language This linguistic space undoubtedly conveys psycho-sociocultural elements of the observer, as well as their representation of relationships between objects in space Ongoing studies in cognitive linguistics will provide further insights into these dynamics.
1.1.2 Quelques recherches cognitives sur la localisation spatiale
Cognitive Linguistics, which emerged in the latter half of the 20th century, is a relatively young field compared to other linguistic approaches However, cognitive research on spatial localization is both abundant and diverse This section will outline key figures and representative studies within this domain, focusing on contributions from around the world, particularly in France and Vietnam.
Cadre méthodologique
La première partie de cette section a pour but de présenter le cadre d'analyse sur lequel s'effectuent nos descriptions et la seconde porte sur les caractéristiques de notre corpus
Our analysis framework is grounded in two specific concepts First, we will present an expanded notion of the prototype that characterizes the representative parameters of locative expressions in language Next, we will discuss the concept of spatial reference, which is critically utilized in contemporary analyses of spatial terms, while introducing our own terminology of reference strategy, developed from a discussion on Levinson's framework of reference terminology.
This article focuses on the prototype theory associated with Eleanor Rosch, Thomas Givón, and Georges Kleiber, emphasizing language's role in categorizing the real world According to Kleiber (1990), this cognitive process is fundamental to our thinking, perception, and actions For instance, a duck, penguin, sparrow, eagle, and pigeon all belong to the category "bird." The authors critically examine the classical notion of "category," which requires all members to share necessary and sufficient traits, and introduce prototype theory, where a prototype is defined as a combination of prominent features within a group This approach accounts for the blurry boundaries between categories and the atypical properties of individual members In Rosch's standard version, a prototype is the best representative of a category, with each member sharing at least one trait with it Givón and Kleiber's extended version reveals that while some members may share commonalities, others do not, and it suffices for each member to have at least one trait in common with its subcategory prototype, reflecting familial relationships within the category.
La théorie du prototype, en version standard ou étendue, suscite encore des débats Cependant, l'approche prototypique présente un certain atout comme le remarque
A key advantage of prototype theory is that it does not offer a definitive and precise definition for a word, allowing it to account for the variations in how a word is used.
Ainsi, le champ d'application de la théorie à nos jours ne se limite plus à la sémantique lexicale et la notion de prototype s'élargit davantage
Several cognitive scientists incorporate the concept of prototypes in their descriptions of linguistic units, introducing some variation We adopt the definition of prototype proposed by Laure Vieu (1991), which signifies that a prototype reflects a similarity among the majority of occurrences of a given word or expression strategy This characteristic does not need to be present in all usages or semantic configurations but must be predominant in terms of frequency Additionally, prototypes serve as a framework for exceptional cases or less frequent usages.
The concept of spatial reference is a fundamental idea in spatial studies, often referred to by various terms such as reference system, as noted by scholars like A.J Greimas, J Courté, and Eliseo Clementini.
The concept of a reference frame encompasses various interpretations, including perspective systems and spatial representations Nadia Boutechkil defines it as the structure of a scene and how spatial representations are encoded Sandra Courrèges and Bertrand Troadec describe a spatial reference frame as a coordinated system for calculating and specifying the location of objects relative to one another Additionally, W J M Levelt characterizes perspective taking as the process of abstracting spatial relations for linguistic expression.
Several typologies have been established to understand cognitive processes in spatial representation and highlight variations across different languages Notable frameworks include Jackendoff's eight types of reference, Levelt's three types, and Talmy's four types Currently, Levinson's typology, which identifies three types of frame of reference, is widely accepted in French research on spatial relations This article will present Levinson's framework, discussing its significance and limitations.
According to Stephen C Levinson (1999), frames of reference (FR) were defined in Gestalt psychology as coordinate systems that represent elements in space He emphasizes that the distinctions between frames of reference are fundamentally differences in underlying coordinate systems Levinson identifies three types of frames: intrinsic, relative, and absolute.
The intrinsic frame of reference (CR) proposed by this English sociologist highlights a binary relationship between entities known as Figure and Ground The use of spatial expressions is influenced by the culturally imposed intrinsic properties of the Ground object For instance, the "front" of an object is determined by various underlying principles: the front of a television corresponds to the screen side, the front of a church aligns with the main entrance, and the front of a car is oriented towards its direction of movement Spatial relationships are articulated based on the Ground object without considering the speaker's rotation, necessitating that the Ground possesses intrinsic properties These can include geometric attributes like shape to define sides, movement-related properties for orientation, or functional characteristics such as a building's façade representing its front However, for objects like tubes or spheres lacking geographical asymmetries or functional properties, determining axes becomes more complex and relies on alternative reference frameworks.
The relative frame of reference is observer-dependent For instance, the sentence "The cat is to the left of the tree" is ambiguous because it does not specify which side is considered the left of the tree and which is its right This ambiguity also applies to frontal forms.
The relative coordinate system (CR relatif) is based on the human body perspective, allowing for the localization of the Figure in relation to the Ground while considering the spatial properties of the observer, such as their face, gaze, shoulders, back, and head For instance, something "to the left of the tree" is also "to the left of the observer," and something "in front of the tree" is "in front of the observer," placing it "between the observer and the tree." Thus, understanding the speaker's perspective is essential for grasping the described relationship This relative framework involves a ternary relationship among the three elements in the spatial scene: Figure, Ground, and Point of View The relative system introduces a viewpoint that is context-dependent, referring either to the speaker or the listener It is termed "relative" because the relationships change if the observer rotates According to Levinson, the relative coordinate system is more complex than the intrinsic coordinate system, as intrinsic forms express binary relationships while relative forms convey ternary relationships.
The complexity of this relative system lies in the fact that locative forms are not always deictic For instance, while "The cat is to the left of the tree" indicates the cat's position from a human perspective, "The cat is behind the tree" does not imply that the cat is behind the observer Levinson suggests that these relative ternary relationships often introduce a secondary coordinate system by rotating the observer's viewpoint 180 degrees around the object, aligning the observer's face with the "face" of the tree, placing the cat in the area projected by the front of the tree Thus, the non-deictic use of "behind" can be understood in terms of "translation."
Le cadre absolu: Le CR absolu est lié à un objet naturel externe à la scène spatiale
The article discusses the application of an absolute coordinate system to an object in the environment, where the object imposes its own axes This absolute frame establishes fixed directions, independent of the speaker's rotation and the object's spatial properties, using allocentric systems without a specific viewpoint The primary direction is vertical, aligned with geographical gravity, while horizontal directions are commonly represented by cardinal terms: north, south, east, and west These concepts of north and south are abstract and rely on an understanding of cardinal points, indicating that the use of absolute reference frames involves cultural conventions Levinson highlights the diverse sources of absolute references across languages, such as monsoon patterns in Austronesian languages, river systems in Alaskan languages, mountain slopes in Tenejapan Tzeltal, and coastal features or river directions.
According to Levinson, various languages employ multiple frames of reference, which can be categorized into three distinct types He states, "there are exactly three frames of reference grammaticalized or lexicalized in language" [25:138].
The interests and limitations of the reference framework, as conceived by Levinson, will be closely examined Following this analysis, we will introduce a new concept: the reference strategy, which provides a more reliable tool for our future analyses.