THE SEMANTIC ARCHITECTURE OF THE DOMAIN OF EXISTENCE IN THE FRENCH AND ENGLISH LANGUAGES

ABSRACT: In this paper we will analyse the semantic domain of EXISTENCE in the French and English languages following the Functional-Lexematic Model (Martín Mingorance 1984), which consists of four levels of lexical description: paradigmatic, syntagmatic, pragmatic, and cognitive. We will focus on the paradigmatic, syntagmatic and cognitive axes. On the paradigmatic axis the lexemes are grouped under semantic domains and dimensions elaborated on the basis of shared meaning components following Dik’s method of Stepwise Lexical Decomposition (1978b). The relevant semantic parameters are those of manner, means/instrument, place, time, and the parameter describing the nature of the subject/object. On the syntagmatic axis we specify the syntactic patterns of each lexeme following Dik’s model (1978a). Three complementation patterns govern this semantic domain: SV, SVAdjunct, and SVO (NP). On the cognitive axis we examine the connections of EXISTENCE with other domains: PERCEPTION, FEELING, ACTION, COGNITION, CHANGE, POSITION and MOVEMENT.


Introduction
EXISTENCE is one of the most basic lexical domains.In this paper we shall contrast the semantic configuration of this field in the French and English languages following the Functional-Lexematic model elaborated by Martín Mingorance (1984;1985a,b;1987a,b,c;1990).We will expound the similarities and divergences between the French and English domains of EXISTENCE on three levels: paradigmatic, syntagmatic and cognitive.

An outline of the Functional-Lexematic model
The Functional-Lexematic model integrates Coseriu 's Lexematics (1977) and Dik's Functional Grammar (1978a), and consists of four levels of lexical analysis: paradigmatic, syntagmatic, pragmatic and cognitive.
The paradigmatic axis is concerned with the semantic description of the lexemes according to the principles of opposition and functionality.The lexemes are grouped under semantic domains 1 , which are in turn divided into dimensions 2 following the postulates of Coseriu's Lexematics.Each dimension subsumes a set of semantically closed lexemes and represents an area of meaning within the general concept embodied by the domain.
The method used in the elaboration of the meaning definitions is Dik's Stepwise Lexical Decomposition (1978b), according to which each lexeme is made up of an information nucleus, the definiens, and a set of relevant features which mark the distance from the other members of the dimension and the field.The lexical unit which constitutes the act nucleus of the dimension is the archilexeme.Then, Faber and Mairal (1994: 13-14) claim that "lexical dimensions in each field are established in terms of oppositions formulated from the definitional structure of the lexical units.These oppositions characterize both the internal structure of the dimension in question as well as the lexical structure of the items that it contains.Lexical dimensions are thus directly derived from the definitional structure of lexical units".
On the syntagmatic axis we specify the syntactic patterns of the predicates in the dimension adopting Dik's predicate frames model as a notational device (1978b).The predicate frames are formal structures including these types of information: (i) The form of the predicate (ii) The syntactic category to which it belongs 1.The following semantic fields can be distinguished (Faber and Mairal 1992): EXISTENCE, MOVEMENT, POSITION, CHANGE, PERCEPTION, FEELING, COGNITION, POSSESSION, SPEECH, SOUND, and GENERAL ACTION.
2. This structural level is described by Geckeler (1977).A dimension can be thought of as a viewpoint of lexical articulation which operates in a lexical field and activates oppositions between certain lexemes within that field.
(iii) Its quantitative valency 3 , i.e. the number of arguments that the predicate requires.(iv) Its qualitative valency, i.e. the semantic functions of the arguments and the selection restrictions holding for them.(v) Meaning definition Predicate frames describe a state of affairs and specify the relationship between the predicate arguments (represented by the variable x).Each argument is characterized by a selection restriction -described in terms of binary semantic features -and fulfils a semantic function (Agent, Force, Experiencer, Goal, Recipient, etc.).
Consider the predicate frame of the verb prononcer: [(x 1 : prototyp.human) Ag (x 2 : prototyp.-concrete ε sounds, letters, words) Go ] Action This frame describes an Action (a state of affairs defined by the parameters [+control, +dynamism] and specifies the relationship between a human argument, performing the function of Agent, and an argument fulfilling the function of Goal and semantically marked as [-concrete]. The pragmatic axis deals with the meaning components that provide information about the communicative situation and about the way in which speakers perceive and evaluate the world.In this light, it is safe to affirm that most lexical models focus on descriptive meaning, neglecting subjective and connotative factors.However, in Lyons' terms (1977), words also carry social and affective meaning.
The description of the cognitive axis is based on the idea that semantic structure reflects conceptual structure 4 .Then starting from the postulate that each semantic domain represents a basic conceptual category, we can arrive at the delineation of conceptual schemata.Faber and Mairal (1998:19) define a schema in the following terms: "A schema is a modular, dynamic characterization that subsumes linguistic symbolic units obtained in a bottom-to-top fashion through the activation of lowerlevel schemata.These schemata are linguistically motivated and reflect our understanding of reality".
Modular means that a given schema includes a number of opposing subschemata.Dynamic suggests that cognitive schemata are linked to other schemata.Linguistic entails that the units which define a cognitive schema obtain from semantic structure.
The connections between cognitive schemata embody metaphoric and metonymic processes and are expressed in a semantic macronet (cf.below).

Contrastive paradigmatic analysis
The lexemes which integrate the French and English fields of EXISTENCE can be classified according to semantic parameters (cf.appendix 1).The semantic features which are relevant to the paradigmatic structure of both lexical domains are those of manner, means/instrument, time, place, and that describing the nature of the object.
The parameters of manner and means/instrument are relevant to the definitional structure of both the French and English semantic fields.
The parameter of manner is particularly relevant in the establishment of the semantic hierarchies of the verbs under the causative subdimensions Faire mourir qqn/un animal / To cause sb to die and Faire disparaître complètement qqch / To cause sth to disappear.The verbs assommer, exécuter, lyncher, étrangler, étouffer, empoisonner, lapider, fusiller and décapiter all denote different ways of killing someone/an animal, sharing with the English terms an element of manner.
In the subdimension Faire mourir qqn/un animal instrument is a meaningful feature of the lexemes égorger, poignarder and guillotiner.
On the other hand, both French and English definitions in the dimensions Exister en tant que représentation de qqch / To exist as a representation of sth are arranged in terms of means, although this parameter is more salient in English because the English dimension subsumes more verbs.
The relevance of the time and place parameters results from the way of conceptualizing existence.Something can exist in the objective world over a particular space and/or a particular period of time.
Further, the parameter of time is a structuring device within both semantic domains.Some dimensions are organized in terms of time: Exister dans le temps / To exist in time, Continuer à exister dans le temps / To continue to exist in time, and Cesser d'exister dans le temps / To stop happening.
The time parameter is most central to the definition structure of the French verbs in the dimension Continuer à exister dans le temps, whereas in the correlative English dimension this semantic pattern is made explicit in only two verbs (linger, persist).
Another correspondence between the French and English field of EXISTENCE can be pinpointed in relation with the parameter describing the nature of the subject.Below we present the lexemes of both domains where this parameter is relevant within their definition: (i) Animate entity: -Human beings: se reproduire 1 /reproduce, procréer /procreate.
-Rash/sore: erupt 2 Note that the parameter describing the nature of the subject is more basic in French.The major divergence between the French and English lexical fields concerns the semantic differentiation pattern nature/quality of the object.The parameter describing the nature of the object is salient in English, whereas that describing the quality of the object is more relevant in French.

Contrastive syntagmatic analysis
An examination of the syntactic properties of the French and English predicates of EXISTENCE reveals that they have a limited number of complementation patterns.We have pinned down the following predicate schemata (cf.above)

SV 5
The predicate frames for this syntactic pattern have the following formats: 1. [(x 1 : prototyp.living/human) Proc ] Process This frame designates a Process qualified by a Processed argument prototypically living/human.5.The linguistic symbols used for the syntactic functions of the clausal elements are S=Subject, V=Verb, O=Object.The label "Adjunct" (Quirk 1985) refers to the grammatical function of adverbial.Adjuncts can fulfil various semantic roles (place, time, manner, etc.).On the other hand, each syntactic function can have different realizations.For example, an object can be realized as a noun phrase (NP) or as a nominal clause.

[(x 1 : prototyp. living) Ag ] Action
This schema describes an Action encoding a living argument fulfilling the semantic function of Agent.
3. [(x 1 : prototyp.-concrete) Fo ] Process This predication describes a Process qualified by a Force argument which has the following selection restrictions:

SVAdjunct
The predicate frames for this government pattern have the following readings: 1. [(x 1 : prototyp.human/living) Proc (y 1 : prototyp.time, place, manner) Ti/Loc/Ma ] Process This schema designates a Process and brings to light a human/living Processed and a satellite which can perform various functions.The selection restrictions touching upon the arguments are sketched below.
Below we specify the semantic feature of the arguments: a) Force: -"Entity / object": evaporate, appear, disappear.

SVO (NP)
The predicate frames for this complementation pattern go as follows: 1. [(x 1 : prototyp.human) Ag (x 2 : prototyp.human/living) Go ] Action This schema describes an Action and specifies the relation between an Agent, prototypically human, and a Goal.
The semantic scope of the object is taken up below.
5. [(x 1 : prototyp.+concrete) (x 2 : prototyp.-concrete)] State This schema differs from the one above in the selection restriction holding for the subject argument.
-"Feeling / attitude": mean.Let us present the selection restrictions imposed upon the two arguments.

SVO (Passive)
The predicate frame for this syntactic pattern has the following reading: [(x 1 : prototyp.human) Ag (x 2 : prototyp.human/animal) Go ] Action This schema describes an Action qualified by a human Agent and a Goal argument, prototypically living.

SVO (Nominal clause)
The predicate frames for this government pattern have the following forms: 1. [(Cert e 1 : [Predβ (x 2 )] Ev ) Fo ] Process This is the predication of advenir and arriver.It designates a Process whose only argument of the predication fulfils the semantic role of Force.The complement clause encodes an Event, represented by the variable e 1 .This extensional value is in turn modified by the intension Cert (standing for Certain), which signals that the state of affairs described by the complement is assessed as being the case with no alternatives available 6 .These extensional properties are in turn modified by an intensional value.The intensional properties are codified along a Scale of Evaluation.
The combination of an extensional property and an intensional value gives rise to the complement meaning..
Thus the Force has Certain Event meaning.

[(Prob X
This is the predication of seem, appear, look as if, paraître 1 and sembler.This schema designates a State and codifies an argument extensionally characterized as a Fact, represented by the operator X 1 .This extensional value is modified by the variable Prob (standing for Probable).This means that the speaker presents the propositional content as expected although some alternatives are offered.
The complement has Probable Fact meaning.

[(x
This frame designates a State and specifies the relation between a concrete argument performing no semantic function, and a second argument extensionally marked as a Fact (X 1 ) and intensionally characterized as Certain (Cert).The complement has Certain Fact meaning.
It is the predication of mean, express, indicate / indiquer, and denote.

Contrastive cognitive analysis
The connections of EXISTENCE with other semantic fields can be formalized in a semantic macronet, where the names of domains in their primary location are written in capital letters.

EXISTENCE and PERCEPTION
The verbs under the dimensions To exist in the perception of others, To begin to exist in the perception of others / Commencer à exister dans la perception des autres, To stop existing in the perception of others / Cesser d'exister dans la perception des autres, and To cause sth to disappear / Faire disparaître complètement qqch show a deviation to VISUAL PERCEPTION.
This relation is supported by the following facts: a) The complementation patterns of several predicates are instances of perceiving something physically: SV Adjunct (Place) (1) The edge of the moon is just showing in the sky.
b) The complement meaning of some verbs is semantically marked as "something visible".It is the case of show, appear / apparaître, surface, materialize, form1, se former, surgir, disappear / disparaître, vanish, and dissipate.
c) Some French and English verbs show an extension from physical entities to abstract entities, a deviation which is typical of PERCEPTION verbs.

EXISTENCE and FEELING
The connection of EXISTENCE with FEELING is syntax-dependent in that it obtains via the selection restrictions impinging upon the subject/object argument, which is semantically characterized as "feeling": (3) Sa colère se déchaîna quand il apprit qu'on ne lui avait pas donné le poste qu'il croyait mériter.In English, the relation of EXISTENCE with FEELING can obtain indirectly.For instance, some verbs in the subdimension To cause to die are indirectly linked to FEELING in that the emphasis is not on the physical action and the result (the death of someone), but on the emotional reaction of the object.In French only two verbs (tuer, assommer) denote this idea: (4) Elle assomme tout le monde avec ses plaintes et ses reproches.
(5) If I should find out that you have done something behind my back, I'll kill you.

EXISTENCE and ACTION
Our claim about the relation of EXISTENCE with ACTION is backed up by the following facts: a) The verbs make 2 and faire, which belong to the dimensions To cause to exist and Faire exister qqn/qqch are the archilexemes of the semantic domain of ACTION.b) The predicates within all the causative dimensions (except for the dimensions To cause to die / Faire mourir qqn/un animal and To cause to disappear / Faire disparaître complètement qqch) encode an object semantically marked as "effected" (resulting from the action denoted by the verb).This semantic feature is prototypical of verbs of ACTION.c) The complement meaning of a few verbs signal a step from physical entities to mental entities.This extension coincides with that postulated for the verbs of ACTION: -Deviation to FEELING: produce 2 , engender, engendrer 2 , precipitate, occasion, induce, susciter, déchaîner.-Deviation to AUDITORY PERCEPTION: make 2 , faire.

EXISTENCE and COGNITION
As advanced above, some verbs falling in the dimensions To cause to exist, To cause to begin to exist, and To cause to disappear maintain a close connection with the semantic field of COGNITION in that the semantic scope of their object argument is "intellect": -Ideas / thoughts / projects: miscarry, produce 1 , erase, obliterate.
-Laws: make 2 .This relation is reinforced syntactically.Some patterns of appear, seem, paraître1 and sembler touch upon MENTAL PERCEPTION.
The form of these government patterns goes as follows: SV

EXISTENCE and CHANGE
The complement meaning of some verbs under the dimensions To cause to exist / Faire exister and To cause to exist in time / Faire exister qqch dans le temps signals the transition from one state of affairs to another: (8) Le coup d'état a entraîné la chute du gouvernement.
(9) All this would precipitate an economic crisis.(10) The staff reduction has created a lot of problems.Further, in English the connection of EXISTENCE and CHANGE is reinforced on the syntagmatic level, as shown in the syntactic pattern of the predicate render: SVO Complement / Participle.This complement or participle denotes the state resulting from the action designated by the subject: (11) The medicine must have rendered her unconscious for a long time.

EXISTENCE and POSITION
The link of EXISTENCE and POSITION is established via two dimensionallevel schemata: To continue to exist / Continuer à exister, and To continue to exist in time / Continuer à exister dans le temps.The English lexemes in the first dimension focus on the permanence of existence, while the French verbs (rester 1 2 , demeurer and se maintenir) highlight the continuation of a state of affairs (state or situation).
On the other hand, the verbs within the dimension To continue to exist in time / Continuer à exister dans le temps lay the emphasis on permanence in time.

EXISTENCE and MOVEMENT
The connection of EXISTENCE with MOVEMENT obtains from the general configuration of the semantic domain of EXISTENCE in both French and English.The field of EXISTENCE is divided into three major dimensions: -To begin to exist / Commencer à exister -To continue to exist / Continuer à exister -To cease to exist / Cesser d'exister The relation with MOVEMENT results from the conception of existence as a movement through time.

Codification of metaphorical and metonymical processes
We observe that metaphorical and metonymical processes are relevant to the cognitive structure of the domain of EXISTENCE in English, while in French there is a poor codification of these processes.

Conclusions
In conclusion, the lexicon is not an inconsistent inventory of words, but a structured whole of semantically bound units which are grouped under semantic domains structured paradigmatically, syntagmatically, pragmatically and cognitively.
The contrastive analysis of the French and English domains of EXISTENCE has highlighted the relations of equivalence between the French and English lexemes.We can conclude that the similarities between the French and English fields of EXISTENCE are far more prominent than the divergences on the different levels of analysis: 1) On the paradigmatic level, we have noted that the same relevant differentiation parameters traverse the French and English domains.2) On the syntagmatic level, the examination of the predicate schemata encoded in the French and English fields has revealed that the verbs pattern syntactically in the same way.3) On the cognitive level, the description of the semantic links of both domains has yielded the same metaphorical projections from these fileds into others.In sum, starting from the idea that semantic structure reflects conceptual structure, we claim that the way of interpreting reality is roughly the same across culture boundaries.former: faire exister qqch en lui donnant une forme/organisation particulière.établir: faire exister qqch (une institution/loi/règle) en le mettant en application.fonder: établir qqch en fournissant parfois une somme.inaugurer: établir qqch (une pratique/un usage).instituer: établir qqch (un tribunal/un usage/une règle).instaurer: établir qqch (une institution/un régime politique/une loi/une règle/une mode).ressusciter 1 : faire exister de nouveau qqch qui avait disparu.
hang: to execute by tying a rope around their neck and taking away the support under 4. [(x 1 : prototyp.-concrete) (y 1 : prototyp.time, place) Ti / Loc ] State This predication designates a State and codifies a subject argument which has no semantic function, and a satellite which fulfils the semantic role of time or place.The selection restrictions holding upon the two arguments are described below.
(x 1 : prototyp.human) Ag (x2: prototyp.-concrete) Go ] Action Here the Goal argument is semantically marked as [-concrete].This semantic feature is further specified in the table below .
4. [(x 1 : prototyp.human) (x 2 : prototyp.-concrete)] State This is a two-place predication describing a State.The semantic scope of the complement is described below: 7. [(x 1 : prototyp.-concrete) Fo (x 2 : prototyp.-concrete) Go ] Process This frame designates a Process and specifies the relation between a Force argument and a Goal argument, both semantically characterized as [-concrete].