« Être Chateaubriand ou rien »
This study deals with borderline cases of the use of the so-called “modified” proper name. Here, the proper name appears in its usual form, without a determiner, but is not used to indicate the original carrier of the name. These uses are not all the same: there are at least three types. Some seem c...
Guardat en:
| Autor principal: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article ou chapitre numérique |
| Idioma: | Français |
| Publicat: |
2005
|
| Accés en línia: | Accès Université d'Orléans et IFPM Accès Université d'Orléans et IFPM |
| Sumari: | This study deals with borderline cases of the use of the so-called “modified” proper name. Here, the proper name appears in its usual form, without a determiner, but is not used to indicate the original carrier of the name. These uses are not all the same: there are at least three types. Some seem close to an antonomasia (without being one): « Être Chateaubriand ou rien » [“Be Chateaubriand or nobody”], n’est pas Molière qui veut [it isn’t anybody (who wishes) who can be Molière]. Others concern the attribution of roles: c’est Raimondi qui sera Mephisto [it’s Raimondi who will be Mephisto], and, with stress on the verb, Raimondi est Don Juan [Raimondi is Don Juan]. The interpretive effects are different for the various cases. It is shown that the syntax of these uses is not restricted to the attributive construction, and, in context, appears much freer. Moreover, the discussion bring out the fact that the contrast of value and role, usually used to describe similar phenomena, is insufficient in this case. It would be better to speak of borrowed identity. This hypothesis presupposes that the representation of the individual given by the proper name is a more abstract entity than is normally thought. |
|---|