Les équivalences discursives et les suites préconstruites

A given predicate is defined by a set of properties which combine and which automatically generate all the sentences it allows. Among them, we note the number and the semantic class of the arguments which characterize it, the adjectival and adverbial modifiers which can be added tothe scheme of arguments as well as all the transformations which affect each of these units. The speaker is responsible for attributing to sentences the set of all the forms that language allows him to generate. What has just been said can be considered as a definition of syntax.But this situation is far from exhausting the description of a language. J. Dubois and especially Maurice Gross have devoted large-scale work to fixed expressions, that is to say, to the restrictions relating to the combinatorics usually observed around a given predicate. These studies have focused on the limitations of grammar rules as they are generally described. These two authors have drawn up lists of tens of thousands of “fixed” verbs and have highlighted the limits of this fixing. However, they made an observation without highlighting the causes of the fixing, which is a much more complex linguistic fact than this work suggests. The purpose of this article is twofold. On the one hand, it emphasizes what can be called discursive equivalences: in a given situation, the same idea can be translated by expressions which have no obvious link between them, as in: con comme la lune, con comme un balai, con comme une baleine, con comme une bite, con comme une valise. Another example: voici belle lurette, voici longtemps, voici un temps fou, voici une paille, voici une paye. It goes without saying that the speaker is not master of these expressions, because they are written in the language. This article shows that these equivalences are very numerous. On the other hand, I. Mel’čuk initiated important work on pragmatemes. Again the “regular” syntax is defective. All these cases are in fact examples of pre-constructed sequences, of which this article attempts to make a first classification. These sequences are explained by specific communication conditions as seen with these examples:a) Doubt or reluctance in the face of information that one can hardly believe:à d’autres !, à d’autres mais pas à moi !, à d’autres mais pas à nous ! b) Criticism of a work that is considered null and uninteresting:c’est de la bouillie pour les chats, c’est de la bricole, c’est de la briquette, c’est de la couille,c’est de la merde, c’est de la piquette, c’est du flan, c’est du pipeau, c’est du vent.This is long-term work, which allows us to renew certain theoretical perspectives.