ILORIN JOURNAL OF
LANGUAGE
AND
LITERATURE
(IJLL)
Ilorin Journal of language and Literature is published twice a year
under the auspices of the Department of Modern European
Languages, University of Ilorin, Ilorin, Nigeria.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
On the French Adjectival Morpheme: Trice.............. 1
- Tunde Ajiboye
The Voices and Rotes of Women in East African
Literature…………………………………………….. 14
-V.U.Ola
Words and Meanings: A Study of Patterns of Semantic Change
in die English Lexicon................................... 26
— Efiirosibina Adegbija
Une Critique de la Polygamie.................................... 38
— Matiu N. Nnoruka
Dominance Configuration and language Planning in
Nigeria......................................................................... 48
— Chinyere Nwahunanya
La Structure Semanting D'une Texte: Vehi-Cosame De
Sembene Oumane...................................................... 58
- P. N. Nwajeh
The Society and Individual in Selected African Type.69
— Sam. A. Adewoye
The Semantic Status of Metaphor............................. 81
— Kayode Omole
Pidgin............................................................................ 89
— Charles Mam
Analyse Linguistique D'un Texte De Bernard Dadie "Beatrice
Du Congo" Présence Africaine................. 98
-J.K. Arogun
ON THE FRENCH ADJECTIVAL
MORPHEME: "-Trice"
TUNDE AJIBOYE
1. Adjectival Inflection in French:
In his now very familiar book, Analyse du francais parle (1972),
Sauvageot seems to open up an old wound when he attempts an analysis
of the grammatical gender of oral French. As if to remind us of the
probable limits of a systematic, all-embracing account of this important
grammatical feature, he cautions:
"L’un des problèmes les plus délicats du français parle réside dans
la détermination du genre grammatical", p. 66
("One of the -most delicate problems of spoken French is in the
determination of the grammatical gender".) translation by me.
With special reference to the gender-governed inflection
adjectives, Sauvageot's most significant contribution appears to be
observation that it is the "forme longue" of the adjective that marks
feminine gender. And there are several examples that go to justify
observation:
masculine
feminine
of
his
the
the
/iɔ͂/
/1ɔ͂g/
/ fo /
/ fos /
/ bla /
/ blas /
/VεR /
/ VεRt/
/ gRi /
/ gRiZ /
Yet, a critical examination of the behaviour of French adjectives
makes it necessary to qualify Sauvageot's observation. Or how else could
we deal reasonably with the following samples which do not show
evidence of unequal length in both genders?
/pybilk/
/pRatik/
/fatige/
/KRYEL/
—
—
—
-
/pyblik/
/pRatik/
/fatige/
/KRYEL/
2
Ilorin Journal of Language and Literature
The weight of the "written word", as it were, has also affected
on discussions on adjectival feminisation so much that a description of
this feature is often done via evidence provided by written French. This
position is perhaps best illustrated by Dubois and Juannon's approach to
the problem as contained in Grammaire et Exercises de francais.
According to them, there is a general rule governing adjectival
feminisation in French: add 'e' to the adjective in its masculine form.
Because of the apparent workability of this rule, many teachers of
French, oblivious of the oral implications of the rule get their pupils to
commit to memory "le feminin se forme en ajoutant e au masculin."
("The feminine is formed by adding e to the masculine"). While
adjectives like 'petit', 'commercial', 'national', 'joli', 'vrai', 'pointu' justify,
from the graphic point of view, the rule proposed, the difficulties that
arise when these adjectives are subjected to oral treatment, show the
limits of the applicability of the rule, however popular.
When other analyses attempt to take care of the oral medium
and its effects on rule formation, such analyses are often beset by the
danger of mixture of evidence — oral and written. Grevisse (1980)
records his awareness of such a danger in Le Bon Usage (p. 368) where
he warns:
"La langue écrite donne une idée fausse des rapports que la langue parlee
établit entre le masculin et le féminin des adjectifs.
(The written language gives a false idea of the relationships established
by the spoken language between the masculine and feminine forms of
adjectives".)
Several authors of text-books, including contemporary, ones, seem
not to have heeded the warning which, in essence, calls for a separate
study of the conditions for gender inflection of adjectives at the oral and
written levels. One significant result is that the list of the so-called
irregular cases is suspiciously long. Another effect is that a confusion of
notions such as 'consonant' and 'vowel' becomes unavoidable. In Le
Nouveau Bescherdle's Le Francois pour tous (1984), for instance, there
is this rule on page 31:
"Les adjectifs se terminant par les voyelles i, ai, u etc prennent un e au
féminin".
"Adjectives ending hi the vowels i, ai, u etc take e in the feminine". This
rule, as rightly claimed,, is satisfactory for a good category of adjectives
processed through the written medium, but it suffers severe cautions
when applied to me oral medium as it is men limited to adjectives whose
masculine "se termine par une consonne". The limitation of this
3
Ilorin Journal of Language and Literature
rule, as carefully worded as it is, is obvious as the use of 'consonant’ and
'vowel' seems not to take adequate account of the speech mediums, to
which they are being applied.. To be less clumsy, the use of toe terms
'consonant' and 'vowel' should be able to show a clear understanding of
the ambiguity status of these terms such that when perceived hi
articulately terms, they command a different perspective from when they
are conceived of as graphic symbols. In effect, some of the so-called
vowels e.g. ai, u have different meanings according to whether our
perspective is graphic or phonetic. For example, 'ai' does not exist as a
vowel sound in French, while 'u' as a letter corresponds to the sound /y/.
This is where Sauvageot's attempt to describe spoken French is a
courageous contribution to the effort towards a separate study of oral and
written French in all their ramifications:
2.00 Valdman's Contributions:
Sauvageot's conclusion regarding the delicate character of
gender-governed inflection in French must have been in recognition of an
earlier contribution by Valdman (1970) who suggests that, as an
improvement of the structuralist approach to the problem of adjective
inflection generally (i.e. in terms of number and gender), the
transformational formulation be tried. Reviewing first of all the
structuralist approach in Bloomfield's analysis of French adjective
inflection, Valdman agrees that using the feminine form as the base may
well provide a satisfactory solution to the problem of "irregularities" but
remarks the inadequacy of the model in dealing with the variations
occurring with adjectives in pre-nominal positions. In other words, the
structuralist approach has not accounted for the phonological variations
imposed by context. It is not sufficient, argues Valdman, to know that
'petite' is the feminine form from which masculine 'petit' is derived, or
that the terminal consonant III in 'petite' represents a minus-feature
characteristic of all masculine adjectives in that class. It is equally useful
to note that /petit/ could, in given contexts, signal the masculine
condition. This is particularly true of liaison contexts: 'petit ami'
/patitami/; 'petit inteiet'/petit -fitere One could add that it is not only with
pre-nominal adjectives that such minute complexities have to be
observed; the same feature is also noticeable with adjectives in
postnominal positions where the zero mark recorded for pluralisation
contrasts sharply with /z/ mark in pre-nominal contexts where liaison is
indispensable:
4
Ilorin Journal of Language and Literature
Compare:
les grands h£ros
/ le gRá eRo/
and les grands hommes
/ le gRazɔm/
A second criticism of the structuralist approach to adjective
inflection, according to Valdman, is that it fails to explain in any concrete
way why, in a given environment, the adjective should have a particular
form. While it is fairly easy to state, for example, that, for the so-called
class 1 adjectives, the final consonant is dropped, it is not at all easy,
from Bloomfield's analysis, to account for the difference in the form of
the consonants dropped in one context and that dropped in another. Why
is it that /S/ goes for /bla/ and /g/ for /'5/and not the other way round?
There is yet a third criticism. The approach "fails to explain ...
the replacement of the final consonant in the masculine singular prevowel form: /lɔ̋ by /lɔ͂k, /gRã/ by /gRãt/..." This is a clear reference to
the liaison feature in French.
Now, relying on the transformational model proposed by
Valdman himself, one could summarise the process of adjectival
feminisation as follows:
Base form + Fern.
This implies (1) that the masculine and the feminine forms are
derivable from the same deep base (2) that masculinisation is signalled
by zero. Thus, 'pursues Valdman , "the base of a French adjective is
neither masculine nor feminine, although its, representation in the
spelling is equal to the representation of the masculine singular in as
much as the latter Consists of the base + zero." (p. 614, op cit.).
Two classes of adjectives are recognised here, depending on
how they end. Class 1 adjectives are (a) those that end in mute V like:
stupide, simple, dole, pratique; (b) those that end in stable vowel: carre',
joli, (c) those that end in stable consonant: seul, clair.
Class II adjectives are those that end in latent consonant: petit,
gros, gris, gras.
Applying various rules such as elision, liaison, nasalisation,
nasal vowel adjustment, mid vowel adjustment, voicing shift rules, the
author arrives at a largely satisfactory model of analysis of what happens
when French adjectives are changing gender. The number of exceptions
is largely reduced to what he has called idiosyncratic cases such as /fɔl/
/vjεij/ /bεl/ /sεf/ favoRit/.
Ilorin Journal of Language and Literature
5
3.00 Adjectives in-trice
However, the various attempts described so far, aimed as they
are at discovering a pattern for adjective inflection in French, seem to
have left untouched or failed to adequately account for feminine
adjectives in- trice. A brief look will be given to attempts made so far to
explain the conditioning of -trice, while their major defects or
inadequacies will be highlighted. Later, we shall propose a model (based
on the structuralist tradition) which, in our view, should be able to
account more satisfactorily for the occurrence of -trice.
That -trice is a morphemic variant in French adjectival
feminisation is not in doubt. What is not clear or, at least debatable, is
how to explain its positioning and detailed process of derivation. The
various accounts provided (where there is any account) have crystallised
in one major view: that -trice is the feminine off-shoot of -teur. For
example, Martinet1 states as follows:
"Les M en-teur ont des F en-trice"
In the same way, Ferrar2 declares as follows:
"Many words in-teur have their feminine in-trice".
Examples abound as illustrative evidence:
accusateur
conservateur
corrupteur
civilisateur
centralisateur
rénovateur
évocateur
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
accusatrice
conservatrice
corruptrice
civilisatrice
centralisatrice
rénovatrice
évocatrice
This view has, nonetheless, led to much confusion, especially
among foreign students since, without a clear idea of what has
determined the morpheme boundary, they often have difficulty dealing
with forms like 'flatteur', 'menteur', 'prometteur', 'rapporteur', 'consulteur'
all of which apparently all end in -teur and therefore should admit -trice!
And when they are told that 'menteuse' goes with 'menteur', (and not
'mentrice'), •flatteuse' with 'flatteur' (not 'flattrice'*) and so on, their
distrust is hardly unjustifiable. The question now is: how do we
distinguish between the two -eur contexts, if we are persuaded that there
is something fundamentally different about them such that one context
attracts -trice and the other -euse?
6
Ilorin Journal of Language and Literature
In an attempt to solve this problem, linguists have preferred to
class the trice-attracting adjectives as derivable, form 'special' rules or
describe them categorically as irregular, therefore exceptional. This
position could be attributed to Valdman. Grammar textbook authors,
quite understandably anxious to simplify matters for their prospective
students, have come up with attractive, albeit disputable observations.
One of the most characteristic observations will be studied here. It
consists in positing that to have -trice, the stem of the adjective must not
be that of the present participle. This is not an insignificant contribution
to the gallaxy of ideas that are associated with reasoning out a pattern
for'-trice. The observation seems justified, if we compare, as Ferrar has
suggested, 'danseur — danseuse' with destructeur — destructrice.
'Whereas for 'danseur' we can isolate dans- of 'dansant', in 'destructeur,
partly because 'eur' is preceded by 'ct', we cannot neatly isolate d&rui- of
'd6truisant'.. Even in the case of menteur -menteuse, where the 't' seems
to predispose us to derive 'mentrice the fact that we could get the stem of
the present participle ment- without violence' done to the original form
would appear to strengthen the observation being considered. But further
evidence weakens this observation a great deal, as we shall soon
demonstrate.
This approach, good as it may sound, suffers from three
weaknesses. (1) It is not clear why the present participle which belongs to
a different categorical group from that of the adjective, should be an
indispensable base for deriving the inflectional variation of the latter.
Would it not have been more convincing to have the present participle
contributing to the syntactic status of the verb or other segments closely
related to the verbal group? The case of the present subjunctive which
some scholars believe to be derivable from the present participle would
tend to justify one's claim about the way in which derivation of the
imperfect from .the nous-form of the present incative, the derivation of
the future from the infinitive, etc all point to the urge to see the role being
ascribed to the present participle in -trice inflection as being, though
compelling, suspect. (2) The second weakness is the failure of the
approach to observe morphological synchrony. If the claim is that -teur
changes to -trice, by virtue of the absence of the present participle stem,
is it not possible to imagine that we are dealing not with -teur but with eur? Let us consider the following examples from that point of view:
1.
2.
3.
4.
instituteur
directeur
conducteur
moralisateur
—
—
—
—
institutrice
directrice
conductrice
moralisatrice
7
Ilorin Journal of Language and Literature
Each would end as -trice in the feminine, given the condition of absence
of the present participle stem. But when we examine what remains of the
stem, we are obliged by our experience of French to identify destruct-,
direct-, conduct-, moralisat-, for it is this identification that contributes to
our decision to see the stem as not belonging to the present participle. In
that case, our adjectival morphemic pair would be -eur -rice. Secondly,
while our .knowledge of French encourages us to reject the stem as not
resembling the present participle, it forces us at the same time to see the
stem as close to one other syntactic form in the language: verb-derived \
noun in -ion/destruction) construction, "animation," fondation;
'protection etc.
3)
The third weakness inherent in the approach is that it
emphasizes absence rather than presence of a determining feature. That is
to say that rather than explain the data either in absolute terms without
external reference or see die data as embodying a feature .Which, upon
examination, is indispensable to analysis, this approach seems to
establish a minus-feature whose structural relevance to the problem in
question, as we have attempted to show, is not too evident. Does this
approach not suggest strongly but, in a misleading way, mat the present
participle (plus or minus) is cardinal in the treatment of adjectival
inflection?
The strength of a rule lies in its ability to account for as many
cases as possible, leaving only few for idiosyncratic or historical
treatment. Looking at the minus-present-participle-stem approach from
this angle, one finds that! the behaviour of a number of adjectives spring
uncanny surprises. A good example is 'emetteur' which, in spite of the
fact that the present participle stem 6mett/ant is discernible, has
'e'mettrice' rather than 'emetteuse' in the feminine. In the spirit of the rule,
'e'mettrice' ought to be impossible since -trice-ending feminine adjectives
are supposed to be associated with the absence of the present participle
stem. Is 'e'mettrice' then an exception? If it is, what is the condition for its
exceptionality? Grevisse, attempting to ward off the danger of the rule
weakening on such a score, points out:
"Un nombre considérable d'adjectifs en-teur, dont on ne peut tirerdes
participes présents en changeant — eur en -ant (sauf exécuteur,
persécuteur dont on peut tirer exécutant, persécutant), font leur feminin
en-trice' Le Bon Usage, p. 376
("A considerable number of adjectives-in-teur, from which one cannot
derive the present participle by changing -eur into -ant (except executant,
persecutant), have their feminine in-trice.") My translation.
8
Ilorin Journal of Language and Literature
This remark which rightly makes provision for exceptions is still
ambiguous; while it is clear that from 'executer' and 'persecuter', we
could derive 'executant' and 'persecutant' respectively, it is not entirely
clear whether, for that reason, 'exucuteur' and 'persecuteur' should be
inflected 'executeuse', 'perse'cuteuse' respectively, like 'menteuse',
'trompeuse' etc or whether their exceptionality resides in their being
inflected in -trice despite their stem, since Grevisse does not indicate the
form of the processed output.3 If we are left to take a cue from the
behaviour of 'ametteur', the prediction would be that 'executeur' and
'pers6cuteur' will receive -trice inflection. In that case, the rule rather
than being strengthened by Grevisse is further weakened by two
additional counter-evidences.
4.00 The -ion nominal as model:
In order to reduce ambiguities and the list of potential
irregularities, it is proposed that the system which will be suitable for
dealing satisfactorily with -trice as an adjectival morpheme should take
into account the following hypotheses:
(a)
that the stem of the adjective is relatable to that of the nominal
in -ion;
(b)
that the adjective in question has passed through nominalisation
by deverbalisation;
(c)
that this adjective is therefore an action-adjective.
Unlike the stem of the adjective in -euse, the stem of the
adjective in -trice is to be conceived of as stemming initially from the
verb, which is nominalised. It is to this twin process that the adjective
owes its present morphological complexion. The process may not leave
an obvious mark-on the form of the stem. But when it does, the discovery
procedure is easier. Let us consider the process hi stages:
Stage 1 (Deverbalisation4/Nominalisation)
a)
corrompre
—
b)
consoler
—
c)
protégger
—
d)
interroger
—
e)
détenir
—
f)
executer
—
g)
persecuter
—
corruption
consolation
protection
interrogation
detention
execution
persecution.
9
Ilorin Journal of Language and Literature
(Notice the role of the nominaliser 't' in the nominalisation process)
Stage II (adjectivisation)
1.
Isolate -t- as nominaliser and -ion as nominal suffix.
2.
Apply the coalescence rule which allows the bound morphemes,
each reminiscent of a definite syntactic status of the adjective hi
its evolution, to be strung together.
Examples:
3.
corrup-t-ion
—
corrupt-lion
consola-t-ion
—
consola-tion
Apply permutation rule to replace -tion by -teur, as in the
following examples:
corrup-tion
—
-teur
deten-tion
—
-teur
execu-tion
—
-teur
Stage III (feminisation)
1.
feminisation rule: rewrite -teur as -trice
The whole procedure could be formalised as follows:
1.
Noun base + t + ion
2. Noun base + tion
2.
Noun base + tion
4. Noun base + teur
5.
Noun base -h teur
6. Noun base + trice
(fern, context.)
It is reasonable, to treat -teur (and therefore -trice) initially as
two bound morphemes t-eur, t-rice respectively because without -t-,
nominalisation in-ion through deverbalisation cannot occur in French.
The idea of seeing -eur as a separate morpheme from -t- is further
buttressed by the fact that in French, except for -ment, nominalisation by
suffixation generally carries a vowel — initial suffix:
—
—
—
—
age: marri-age, echaffaud-age, rod-age, us-age
ade: promen-ade, noyade
ure: us-ure, bruhire
ance: croy-ance, espe'r-ance,
If we compare the behaviour of 'menteur' with that of
'persecuteur', for example, the difference in feminine adjectival inflection
would be justified on the following grounds: that 'mentir' from which we
derive
10
Ilorin Journal of Language and Literature
'menteur' does not get nominalised through the nominaliser -t- and hence
does not realise its nominalisatipn in -ion. From 'mentir', we derive
'mensonge' and not 'mention'; but from 'persecutor' we derive
'persecution'. It is therefore valid to take the 't' in 'menteur' as being
morphologically different from the 't' in 'persecuteur', hence the difference in their inflection. The importance of the existence of the nominaliser -t- in all -ion nominalisations with latent power of adjectivisation is
made all the more glaring when it is remembered that verb forms which
undergo nominalisation are supplied with -t- where it is not already in
existence:
deten[ir]
—
déten[t]
usurp[er]
—
usurpa[t]
institu[er]
—
instituft]
observ[er]
—
obserw[t]
In summary, the adjective that will attract -trice
(1) must be a verb-derived adjective
(2) must have die nominal stem of -ion
(3) must carry in its stem a nominaliser -t- or any graphic form
that yields the same phonetic result as 't' in /jS/ contexts.
When these conditions are not satisfied, the coalescence of tand -eur which is indispensable for -trice inflection cannot occur. This is
why in the case of 'flatteur', 'prometteur', 'nienteur', 'rapporteur', the
feminine morpheme is -euse and not -trice.
Let 'us bear in mind also that the attempt here takes for granted
knowledge of the detailed process of nominalisation by deverbalisation.
Moreover, because such a detail is not germane to the solution of the
problem being discussed, it has not been considered necessary to analyse
the hidden rules behind the morphological modifications that take place
before such verbs as 'consoler', 'interroger,' 'civiliser', 'modeler',
'proteger', 'detruire' become nominalised. We should also note that the
three-step procedure: verb-noun-adjective is important to our final
/judgment on -trice for two reasons:
1.
it allows us to explain more convincingly the derivational
process associated with adjectives like 'dmetteur' which, of the
nominal — 'emetteur' taken at the level of the nominal _
'emission' alone, may be structurally difficult to explain;
2.
the quality of the adjectives as action-adjectives whose target
goes beyond the speaker is only successfully realised when
these adjectives are first related to their verbal stem.
11
protecteur
centralisateur
provocateur
perturbateur
Ilorin Journal of Language and Literature
— qui a le propre de proteger quelqu'un
— qui a te propre de centraliser quelque chose
— qui a le propre de provbquer quelqu'un on
— qui a le propre de.perturber quelqu'un/
quelque chose
Compare:
malade )
commun ) all characterised by a definition of the state of the subject
direct
) or referent only.
silencieux)
The approach proposed here raises an initial problem for
'dmetteur' which in the feminine, is realised as 'dmettrice'. If part of the
obligatory conditions for -teur -trice realisation is the presence of a
nominaliser -t- at the nominal base, the fact that 'emettre' gives
'emission* and not 'eminition' should raise some anxiety for our analysis.
Yet, when we realise that the phonetic manifestation of the nominaliser t- when followed by -ion is the same as that of-ss- in the same context;
the anxiety becomes subdued. In other words, the 'ss' of 'emission' has the
same articulatory value as -t- in the context of -ion. This would then
mean that, in principle, verbs like 'omettre', 'commettre', 'admettre' are
verbs which, thanks to nominalisation, are realised as 'omission',
'commission', 'admission* respectively, and which some day, could be
adjectivised as 'ometteur', 'commetteur', 'admetteur', even though they are
not yet attested in the language. Conclusively, only enchanteur will, by
this model, be treated by idiosyncratic rules. '
Finally, just like the case of 'enchanteur' is additional evidence
that not all surface forms in -teur may attract -true, not all cases of
nominalisation through deverbalisation and in -teur. Other possibilities
are to be kept in mind:
1) -if
recevoir
réception
réceptif
decevoir
déception
déceptif
décider
décision
deceptif
posséder
possession
possessif
2) -el
excepter
exception
exceptionnel
senser
sensation
sensationnel
3) -aire
confronter
confrontation
confrontataire
Contester
contestation
conteslataire
12
Ilorin Journal of Language and Literature
5.00 Nouns in -trice:
It should be possible to deal with nouns whose feminine is in trice in the same way as we have discussed above with respect to
adjectives. The first insight has been provided by many an author who
have put together for common study nouns and adjectives in -trice, (cf
Ferrar, op. cit). This arrangement appears justified but not entirely, as
nouns in -trice seem, in spite of surface similarities with the adjectives of
the same suffixation, to behave in a way fundamentally different from the
way adjectives do. Whereas it is true that the 3-step procedure is suitable
for practically all so-called action-adjectives, and that where the -teur
adjective cannot be derived from the nominal in -ion, -euse will be the
result, only a set of nouns would behave along those lines. For example,
'tuteur', 'spectacteur', 'be'ne'facteur', 'aviateur', -end in the feminine in trice but they have no clear verbal derivative, unlike 'acteur', 'promoteur',
'r£dacteur', 'examinateur', 'conspirateur', whose verbal derivatives are
'agir', 'promouvoir', 'r^diger', 'examiner', 'conspirer' respectively. Another
point to note is that whereas verbs like 'agir', 'r6diger' confirm the
possibility of -ion nouns yielding -teur/ -trice, the examples of 'examiner',
'dessiner', show that unlike the adjectival counterpart -teur/ -trice nouns
are not confined to deverbalised -ion nominals. This is to say that,
synchronically, the passage from 'examiner' to 'examinateur' is not
through 'examination' but, if anything, through examen. This tends to
suggest that the rules governing the nouns in -teur/ -trice are probably
more complex than those we have discussed so far in respect of
adjectives. A further source of similarity between the noun and the
adjective should, however, be noted. Verb-derived adjectives like
'promoteur', 'flatteur' whose nominalised variant is not in -ion have -euse
in the feminine, apparently under the same morphological conditions.
This is but an incomplete picture of the question-of determining
the specific conditions for -trice inflection in exclusively nominal
contexts.
A further and more painstaking look at the morphological
pattern of the French noun should be able to yield a result comparable hi
depth to that being advanced in respect of adjectives.
13
Ilorin Journal of Language and Literature
Notes
1.
2.
3.
4.
A. Martinet La Grammaire Fonctiomelle du Francois. Didier (1979) p. 77.
H. Ferrar: A French Reference Grammar. Oxford University Press (1967) p.
149.
My attention has just been drawn to one of the books co-authored by Grevisse
and Goose: Nouvelle Grammaire Francaise p. 93 where a position in favour of
executeuse, persecuteuse has been taken
Notice that deverbalisation is not an end in itself but a means to an end.
It is to be seen as a necessary step towards nominalisation.
Bibliography
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
9.
10.
11.
13.
14.
15.
16.
Ajiboye Tunde (1986): L'adverbe en -ment: une étude morphophonemique. Cahiers ivoirens d'Etudes Linguistiques, pp. 97-110.
Dubois J et G. Juannon (1956). Grammaire et Exercices de Francois
Larousse.
Ferrar H. (1969): A French Reference Grammar. O.U.P.
Grevisse, M. and A. Goose (1980): Nouvelle Grammaire Française.
Duculot.
Grevisse M. (1980): Le Ban Usage. Duculot (11th Edition).
Hutchinson, J.A. (1969): 'Le desordre des mots, la place de 1'adjectif
Le François dans le monde, 11: 1-2, pp. 155-183.
Martinet, Andre1 S. (1979): Grammaire fonctionndle du François.
Didlei.
Manger G. (1968): Grammaire du François d'aujourd' hui. Hachette.
Mitterrand Henri (1979): Grammaire active du François. N.B.A.
Fernand Nathan.
Mok, Q.I.M. (1968): Contribution a I'etude des categories
morphologiques du genre et du nombre dans le français parle actuel.
The Hague. Mouton. .2.
Le Nouveau Bescherelle (1984): La
Grammaire pour tous. Hatier.
Sauvageot, Andr6 (1972): Analyse du français parle. Hachette, Paris.
Schane S. (1968): French phonology and morphology. Cambridge
M.I.T. Press.
Valdman A. (1970): 'Competing models of linguistic analysis: French
adjective inflection', French Review, 18: 4, pp. 606-23.
Wagner, R.L. et J. Pinchon (1962): Grammaire du francais, Hachette.