Le concept de marqueur sub-lexical et la notion d'invariant sémantique

Towards an enactive lexicology: From muscle salience to signifying

“…The submorpheme does not systematically operate as a marker. Philps (2002) thus established a methodology for distinguishing words containing submorphemes linked to a concept from those not involved. To this end, he combined two approaches, synchronic (verification of meaning in discourse) and diachronic (verification of etymology).…”

“…Several specialists in different languages have proposed approaches to the lexicon that do not study words or morphemes-signs, but rather the elements located at a submorphemic level, called submorphemes: Firth (1930), Tournier (1985, Bottineau (2008Bottineau ( , 2010Bottineau ( , 2012b, forthcoming 1 and 2), Philps (2002Philps ( , 2010, Bohas-Dat (2007), Bohas (2016), and Grégoire (2012a). As early as the 17th century, this type of marker had been intuitively placed at the origin of words, to be later recorded and linked to a meaning (see Wallis 1653).…”

“…Bottineau explains more precisely that These markers are dedicated to the selection and prediction or anticipation of a sensorimotor experienceal class by which an animate subject, an inanimate object or a process / action manifests itself typically in the experience of the observer, the experiencer or the manipulator, for example the fact that a sponge projects water when twisted (sponge, provided with the same submorpheme spill, spit, spout, spray, sprinkle); These markers specify, for the community that practices the language, a predictable, typical sensorimotor experienciation class for the object, the event or the action considered by the notion. 7 It is this typically salient aspect of the sensorimotor experience with the object or the action that constitutes the notion (Philps, 2002(Philps, , 2010, also called concept (Grégoire, 2012a(Grégoire, , 2014a, to which is attached the submorpheme in question. The concept is thus constructed according to the relation that an experimenter is likely to have with the object.…”

Comment naissent les mots ?

“…Cette séquence non ordonnée {', s} se constitue en étymon, de manière tout à fait analogue à TK qui, on vient de le voir, donne en français « taquer, toquer, estoquer, triquer etc. », et sur cet étymon se développent des radicaux par redoublement ou incrémentation, tournant tous autour de l'idée de : « éloigner, repousser » (dans les radicaux les composantes de l'étymon figurent en gras) : Si, au lieu de procéder à un examen extensif de la question dans les langues du monde, on passe à l'examen détaillé d'une langue que l'on qualifiera difficilement d'exotique : l'anglais, on trouve dans l'étude de Philps (2002) (Jóhannesson, 1949 : 14). De même, en hébreu : « the palatal sounds especially are used to imitate that which is round, vaulted… it is evident that the overwhelming majority of these roots formed with g-sounds in Hebrew were created to imitate something round, vaulted, hollow, etc.…”

The submorpheme sm-, or how Arabic can help explain English

“…(Philps, 2002) 24 I could summarize this by saying that the sm-submorpheme correlates with three notional invariants: "to strike a blow", "labiality" and "nasality" (in this category I include the perception by the nose: smell, and various natural, extracorporeal phenomena which can be perceived by the olfactory organ (smoke, smoulder, etc.)). The observation which Argoud firmly establishes can be explained by an investigation into the organization of the submorphemic domain.…”