A
B
A
B
A
B (Corpus Tufs 2005)
Jai achet un livre, et je lui ai envoy . (Corpaix)
1sg-sbj past- art-ind , and 1sg-sbj 3sg-dtf past-
envoyer le livre
1
1
(2009)
2
Blinkenberg (1964)
Berendonner
(1995) Lemar chal (1991) Lambrecht, K. et K. Lemoine (1996) Noailly (1998)
2
Bernard (1972) Larjavaara (1998)
Blanche-Benveniste (2000) Willems (1977)
2
2
Lemar chal (1991) Creissels (2006)
2
A
B
Cherche mon briquet. Allume !
Imp. Imp.
Attrape !
Imp.
p cher des poissons ( )
Jai p ch toute ma vie.
1sg.sbj. past
Lemar chal Creissels
3
Blanche-Benven-
iste et al. (1984)
Est-ce que tu aimes ce gar on Oui, je laime.
Interro 2sg-sbj 1sg-sbj 3sg-m-acc
Est-ce que tu aimes Rodin Non, je naime pas .
Interro 2sg-sbj 1sg-sbj neg
ce gar on Hopper & Thomp-
son (1980)
individuality
le
Harris (1970) appropriate word6
allumer
6
Tu peux allumer
2sg-sbj
Cherche mon briquet. Allume !
Imp Imp !
Lordinateur, tu lallumes, (le pointeur programme se mettre )
Art-def , 2sg-sbj 3sg-m-acc
la lumi re
l ordinateur le chauffage
l ordinateur
A T l phone dabord, moi je te commande un caf .
Imp 1sg sjt 2sg datif art ind
B Jamais, je ne boirai, moi, je veux dormir.
1sg-sbj neg futur, 1sg-sbj
A Je commande quand m me.
1sg-sbj
A mais Laaba, je lui ai crit sa pr face.
1sg-sbj 3sg-dtf past
B ouais, ouais. Je sais j ai lu.
1sg-sbj 1sg-sbj past
1978
(Corpus Tufs 2005)
(Corpus Tufs 2005)
(Corpus Tufs 2005)
(Corpus Tufs 2005)
(Corpus Tufs 2005)
F19 F20 F20
F19
F20 ,,
F19
F20
F20 =
F19 =
F20
F19
F19
F20
F19
F201
F19
(Corpus Tufs 2005)
In a form Ai Xap Bi, the Xap [X Appropriate word] means not its full dictionary meaning but that
which primarily carries out the X-relation (e.g. verbe-relation) of Ai to Bi (in the present discourse).
Several words of category X may equally satisfy Ai Xap Bi ; they are then locally synonymous in re-
spect to Ai Bi.
Harris, Z.S. (1950) p.559
30
1
F07
F08
F08
F07
F08
F07
F07F07
F08
F0730 2100
F08
F07 ### [ ]
F08
F07
F07 ,,
F08
F07 1
F08
F0730
F07 ,,
F08
F07 30
F08
F07 <
F08
F07
F07
F08 1 [ ]
F07
F08
F08 ###
Le voyage, a co te ! (Corpaix)
Art-def-sg-m , pro-deic
Il pourra tapporter bien plus que moi. (Corpaix)
3 sg-m-sbj 2sg-dtf
Je ne juge pas, je condamne. (Frantext)
1sg-sbj neg neg 1sg-sbj
La religion une chose qui rassure et qui rassemble.
Art-def-sg-f art-ind-sg-f relative-sbj and relative-sbj
(Le Monde)
(Corpaix)
Il a marqu d s la premi re minute.
3sg-sbj past art-def-sg-f
(Corpaix)
Vous versez quand vous voulez.
2pl-sbj when 2pl-sbj
Larjavaara (2000)
Noailly (1998) Lambrecht, K. & K.Lemoine (1996)
Anti-passive 8
8
Mon p re construit. (Lambrecht, K. (1996))
Ma m re recevait tr s bien.
Elle est illettr e. Elle ne sait pas lire ni crire. (Corpaix)
3sg-sbj be 3sg-sbj neg neg
( )
Tu lui ouvre les toilettes. Elle consomme !
2sg-sbj 3sg-dtf art-def-pl 3sg-sbj-f
Benveniste, E. (1948)
(Nom dagent)
consommatrice ( )
Elle consomme. Elle est consommatrice.
3sg-f-sbj 3sg-f-sbj be
1, 2, 3 : sg : pl : m : f :
Art : def : ind : sub : acc : dtf :
past : futur : interro : imp : relative neg :
be :
1981
(1996)
(1978)
1990 18, 15-34
1986 15, 99-105
(2009)
(2009)
, (2010)
(1960)
AKIHIRO H. (2004) Contribution l tude de la valence verbale en fran ais contemporain, la
non-r alisation du compl ment d objet direct, Th se de doctorat soutenu lEcole Pratique des
Hautes Etudes, Paris.
BLANCHE-BENVENISTE, C. et al. (1984) Pronom et syntaxe, l approche pronominale et son ap-
plication au fran ais, Paris SELAF
BLINKENBERG, A. (1960) Le probl me de la transitivit en fran ais moderne, Essai syntactico-
s mantique, Copenhague, Munksgaard.
CREISSELS, D. (2006) Syntaxe g n rale, une introduction typologique 2, la phrase, Paris, Lavois-
ier.
DIXON, R.M.W. et Y. ALINKENVALD (ed) (2000) Changing Valeny, case studies in transitivity,
Cambridge, CUP.
FILMORE, C. (1976) The need for frame semantics within semantics, Statistical methods in lin-
guistics, 5-29.
HARRIS, Z.S. (1970) Transformational theory, Papers in structural and transformational linguis-
tics, vol.1, 533-577.
HOPPER, P. et S. Thompson (1980) Transitivity in grammar and discourse, Language vol.56, n 2,
62-118.
LAMBRECHT, K & K. LEMOINE (1996) Vers une grammaire des compl ments z ro en fran ais
parl , Travaux de Linguistique du CERLICO 9, 279-309
LARJAVAARA, M. (2000) Pr sence ou absence de l objet : limites du possible en fran ais con-
temporain, Th se, Lettres : Helsinki, Academia Scientiarum Fennicae, Humaniora.
LEMARECHAL, A. (1991) Transitivit et th orie linguistiques : mod les transitifs contre mod les
intransitifs LINX 24, Sur la transitivit dans les langues, 64-94.
LEMARECHAL, A. (1997) Z ro(s), Paris, PUF.
NOAILLY, M. (1998) Les traces de l actant objet dans l emploi absolu, Tranvaux de linguisituque
35, 39-47.
SCHOESLER L. (2000) Le statut de la forme z ro du compl ment dobjet direct en fran ais mod-
erne, Etudes Romanes 47, 105-127
YAMURA-TAKEI, M. & M. FUJIWARA (2007) Japanese native speakers intuition of Zero use, in
account by Centering Theory, (ed) M. Minami, Applying theory and research to learning Japa-
nese as a foreign language, New Castle upon Tyne, Cambridge Scholar Publishing, 213-229.
WILLEMS, D. (1977) Recherches en syntaxe verbale : quelques remarques sur la construction ab-
solue, Travaux de linguistique 5, 113-125
The purpose of this paper is to identify the differences and similarities between Japanese and
French ellipse of objects and to propose some ideas to help French learners of Japanese as a foreign
language.
We classify two kinds of ellipse: one is anaphoric type and the other is inde nite and generic
type (we call non-anaphoric type). Based on a study of spoken corpora, we observe the distribution
of these types is very different in two languages: in Japanese, about 75 % of the examples of ellipse
are anaphoric, while the result is completely opposite in French.
We think that the strong preference for non-anaphoric zero of French language explains why
French students make mistakes, omitting too often inde nite and generic objects. They have also the
tendency to use too much object pronouns where they should not.
The anaphoric ellipse in Japanese is motivated by discursive factors. When the reference of
the object is easily identi ed by anaphoric relation and that the object is not focused, it can be easily
omitted. By contrast, the anaphoric ellipse in French is subjected to syntactic and lexical restrictions
rather than discursive ones. The pronouns are necessary in this language and their omission is limited
normally to non-individuate objects.
The non-anaphoric ellipse in French is very often used to describe the habits and the charac-
ters of subjects. On this point, it can be compared to the antipassive in ergative languages. On the
other hand, this type of use is not observed so much in Japanese, without particular contexts (focus on
verbs, appropriate words in term of Harris, informal style of speech, etc.)
We have to pay attention especially to these points when we teach,
1. Lexical selection of objects in each situation
2. The constructions where the verb is more focused than the object (list of verbs, contrast of
verbs, etc.)