Le schematisme et la question des formes en semantique

0:00 I am interested in the theory and modélisation in Auguste, and also in the context of the discussion. and cognitive science, and perhaps also with an interest for the ... and with an interest also for the phénoménological tradition, so for a discussion, a reproblematization of the problem of the linguistics in a perspective where it is, in a certain way, reordonnée à une idée de constitution d'un champ qui est à la fois inextricablement sémantique, idéal et perceptif, et à partir duquel, de proche en proche, toutes les étapes de la description linguistique devraient pouvoir s'ordonner. Alors, dans le titre que j'ai donné, le schématisme et la question des formes en He is there in any way that is, in opposition, for a discussion, and this term is there for abandoning, because the perspective that we have put in place with colleagues over the years, in particular with Pierre Cagliot, which I wrote in a book, which is titled, for a theory of form sémantique, And this perspective, how to say, that we take one of its sources, in a critique of what there may be of reminiscences from Kantian in a certain number of linguistics contemporary, the linguistics cognitive, which the great authors are, since the years 1980, Lingaker, Thalmy, Leckhoff at a moment, j'allais dire, compagnons de route, vandeloises, comme je pense un des plus originaux de tout cela, et d'autres encore. Donc quelle est l'idée sous-jacente à cette idée de forme sémantique, le syntagme étant quelque sorte de déposé, ce syntagme figé, qui nous était venu de François

2:30 Rastier, qu'on a nous-mêmes réélaboré à nos propres frais. Alors l'idée est la suivante, there would be a continuity, or even a community of organizations, liant intimately perception and language. This idea is not new, she was expressed for several centuries, I believe, with the grammarian Byzantin, which announced a hypothesis, which I believe is called the local hypothesis, and according to which the cases of Latin and Greek systems were supposed to send identically and indissolublement, the one part to the possibilities of mises in syntagme, and the other part to the rapport dynamic, concrete, if you will, entre guillemets, sensible, and spatially at the same. The rapport of approach and distance between agents and objects in space. So this is the ancient idea which, obviously, has given a new favor since, I would say, just from, And then, from several philomes, there was the theory of the catastrophe, and there was, completely independent, before they didn't join, through the works of Jean Petitot, the philome of the linguistics cognitive, which I mentioned earlier, and which, he started very officially, especially in the 1980s, under the impulsion of Transfuge, of the school schomsky-generativist, which is partly in the door, and we will have to call it behind them, I think. So, what is this point of view? So, this point of view of an organization between perception and language is remarkable that it allows, in my opinion, to better approach, and in the same time, to better distinguish the perception perceptive one part, the perception of the other part, and even, at the limit, of the view as perpetually enchevêtrées, in the considerate, all two together, if you will, even that distinctly, as constructions of form. So, the cognitive linguistics cognitive, as I said, have frayered the voice for 20 years. elles ont délimité au cœur du fonctionnement des langues une couche de sens qui est à la fois centrale, grammaticale, si vous voulez, et universelle selon eux, selon elles, selon la linguistique. Et cette couche de sens passerait à travers toutes les unités,

5:00 aussi bien celles dites lexicales que grammaticales, passerait à travers les constructions, d'ailleurs pour lesquelles cette hypothèse d'une sorte d'apport perceptif ou configurationnel et plus ancien, comme je le disais. This couche of sense, it is legitimate to characterize it as grammatical, of course, they are of them who are saying it, but in a new sense of the term. In other words, grammatical is in the sense where it takes the most generic conditions of the formation of the linguistics. And it takes it, in the sense of a pome sémantique, and not a pome, and not in the first place, from a consideration syntax. A second characteristic of this couche of sense, is that it is schematic in a sense which goes, in my opinion, to the philosophy of ancient science, as we will see, not explicitly in the authors, but really in the evaluation that we can do. And then, it goes together in a certain way, on could say, structurel ou configurationnel, par opposition à bien d'autres, à une indéfinité, une foultitude, une pluralité de dimensions du sens, que l'on pourrait qualifier, que ces auteurs qualifient de contenu ou de notion. Autrement dit, ces auteurs nous invitent à établir une distinction entre deux dimensions assez distinctes de la construction du sens linguistique, une dimension schématique, So, what an unit or a construction is a kind of abstract configuration that you can imagine in a form of a diagram, which is what do these authors, and these diagrams are like these types of forms extremely épurées, mises in science, on a form, which we could say topological, but already given, previously given, without any consideration adjacent. So this is the structure structure and the rest, it's all the rest. For example, if you say, he is still after me, and you analyze the proposition after, and you try to understand what is his importance to the fabrication of this enoncé, there would be something like an ordinance, which is difficult to situ,

7:30 He is always after me. In which space relational is this after? This kind of relationship of pursuit and prosecution in the same time. And what would rest in a schematism of the type of linguistics cognitive is just this scheme, spatial, but in a sense purely topological of the spatiality, not necessarily in a sense sensible of the spatiality, where the preuves sensibles would be possible, so in a sense relational pure of the spatiality, which is what the topology is trying to capture, and where there would be a certain kind of relationship with consequence. And all the rest, for example, the fact that, in saying he is after me, you can say something that he comes after me, in a list or a list of attentes, but you can also say that he is all the time after me, in a sense more familiar and popular, he does nothing but embêter, if you want. And so, this idea hierarchical, this insistence of the hierarchical in the way he is after me, ou cette insistance sur la pression, qui d'ailleurs envoie l'étymologie de après, qui est ad pressum, qui est une pression ou une presse dirigée dans une certaine direction, le ad, eh bien, tout ça, ça ne fait pas partie du schématisme. C'est les autres dimensions de sens coévoquées par toutes les unités. Donc, c'est cette idée qu'on est amené à déceler, And in the function of the units, the acoustics in particular, we are led to distinguish, if we can say, a couche purely schematical. And for example, without a doubt, here, for example, if you use the point, it is sufficient for the environment. For example, the question in question, they explain that for characterizing the chain of the bar, Well, you can see something like that. Here you can see the design you can see here. There is a dimension. It's an space topological not precise. And, however, there is a directionality analogous. In the case of standard or very prototypical space. Here, there is a line, and we can talk about verticality, perhaps, if there is something like that. But you have something like that, if you remember it, you see, it's a relationship between what the language is called the trajectory, which is the entity to repose, which is the above, above, above, above, above, and the trajectory, and this is what he calls the landmark, the

10:00 or the border, or the border, compared to which the trajectory is reported. For example, if it is in front of if you have a view point, and the view point engage the directionality of his view, and you have, the trajectory is there, and which interpose between the viewpoint and landmark. And you can imagine that behind, in a very abstract and suitable version, would also be a viewpoint, but this time, the landmark is in the middle. Behind the landmark, there is a trajectory. This is the kind of drawing that you can see. For example, you can imagine, and also if you would like to apply this kind of schéma, this is not a reason to distinguish from a priori, say, from their categorization in terms of the discourse, but suppose that it would be like Montez, you would have something, I don't know, something in this regard, I don't know very well, I've never seen the schéma, but the other time, he was also able to use a schema like this. He insisted on the fact that there was a phase that was quite vertical, and there was a phase of recouvrement. You will search for these configurations of this type, and you decide whether these configurations, in a certain way, are justified. First, you will try to see them function in all sorts of domains. They are transposable, by example. It's to say that there is a universality, at least in a time given, of the chain, of the chain, liées to the proposition of the relative, and this chain is in all the domain of the experience. For example, we can also talk about the experience On a discussion. and then you would say, with your info on the revenue that has passed this year,

12:30 and then you would say that there is a lot of information about your friends, you would say about your cheval. These examples of this show show that, and without any argument for any reason, in my opinion, there is a type of topology that would be susceptible to configure, and inform these domains very different from each other. Now, once you have opted for such a type of explanation, the link between language and space, what we could call the spatial employment units, such as the book is on the table, or the book is on the table, or the chat is on the table, etc. These jobs are considered, according to the case, as absolutely prototypical, because it is in them that you read the most easily, from a formal intuition of nature, the scheme that it will be even more abstract and topologized, so demaîtrised, to arrive at what is linguistics, Or you consider that perhaps the space is not only prototypical, for some even, it is like an installation of the sense, which would be predetermined, which would be, I would say, the acquisition of an end, the ontogenesis of an infant in his mind, and which he would find out at a certain time, in a way more explicit, if we can say, through the function of his unit linguistics. So, you can see that in this perspective, the link between language and space cannot be something occasionnel, or something contagion. It is either ontogenetic, in the case of a genetic problem, or in the case of a priori, like this, the place of election, of the search of this chain, that once you have a vessel, they will eventually be tried, I would say, tested in other dimensions, in other domains, other than those where the space is directly applied. Well, I'm going to make sure that it's very difficult, very often, to separate, to distinguish

15:00 the jobs that would be strictly spatial from others. In many jobs, the space is co-implicated, without necessarily being made in front or thématized. In others, it is very lointainment evoked. For example, naturally, for coming to the world, you are going to be But already, there is a mediation, it's a spatiality which is already mediated and which is not purely and simply localisatrice. Then, you would say, he was caught by a cravat, if there was one, and you would see that already, the part, cert, there is space, but it's especially the gestuality that counts, but not an space of configuration, or an space, I would say, cinétique or cinématique, but an space that would be made to represent the trajectories. C'est plutôt un espace dans lequel vos gestes plongent et ramassent des choses. Si vous dites qu'il a été tué par balle, évidemment l'espace est impliqué. Une balle ne peut tuer quelqu'un qu'en traversant l'espace. Vous voyez bien que la perspective spatiale recule, si je puis dire, à l'arrière-plan des effets de sens. Et ce qui compte, c'est le moyen employé. Voilà, c'est vraiment de l'instrumental à ce moment-là. So you see that, already, we have a problem, because to distinguish the jobs that we would say spatially, and examine to the loop these jobs, to detect the echelons that we look for, we have no idea very precise, because it is very rare to have a job that we could say purely spatial, revealing the purest of this rapport, the purest of this rapport between language and space, which would be a point of departure to analyze. Now, to make you feel that a little better, I will take an example of the preposition. The preposition, which has been a lot worked by all sorts of people, in particular by Pierre Cadiot, who made this book, it is very necessary, it is a pierre touch for this kind of problem. First, because of course it is a class, how to say, indispensable, under a form or another in all languages. Then, not necessarily a problem, we need a particular localization in all languages. We can say it like that, and the class of prepositions, which is quite clearly limited in many languages, how to say, indo-européenne, is perhaps less easily detectable, In other words, for example, the pre, the preposition, is not necessarily there.

17:30 Then, it does not distinguish in many languages, even Indo-European, from particular or prefix, in German or in English, in French, prefix, surabondant, sursoir, etc. You see that the sur is also not only a preposition, even a little adverbial, as I said, it comes after, this question will be examined after. We can say that it's an ellipse of a preposition group, but we can also think that it's an adverbial. So, I'm not saying that I'm going to distinguish the class of prepositions, I'm saying that we're going to put it in the intuitive class in the prepositions, which is indispensable and omnipresent, and in which there are four figures very importants. Alors on avait, alors ce qu'on sait, j'allais dire un musée, à prendre parmi les prépositions celle qui, en quelque sorte, semblerait les plus propices à une explication en termes de ce type de schématisme, c'est-à-dire de ce type de diagramme purement configurationnel dans lequel vous installez des entités séparées dans un espace topologique déjà constitué. et vous les installez, et vous qualifiez, en termes eux aussi diagrammatiques, une certaine relation de position, ou une certaine transformation de la relation de position. Alors on avait pris celle qui avait l'air d'être les défis, qui avait l'air de bien convenir à cette problématique du schématisme, et donc être des défis pour la critique qu'on voulait en faire. On avait pris par exemple la pire, je dirais en français, It's the preposition SURE. If you want, I can show you that very quickly. Well, we're going to parkour the impetus of the preposition SURE, and we're going to try a bilan. And, of course... So, we don't see anything. So, we start by, it's more or less classed by a presence quite explicit of space or by a conformation of space, which is brought by the non-see.

20:00 At first, you start with the employment which is prototypical by many people. So, the preposition has to contribute to configure simply a spatial relationship and that the predication to be sure does not make it in shape. Then, you have a kind of attachment, the contact, the positionnement, with the top-dessus-deux, which contact... Well, it looks like... Ah, yes, very good, thank you. So, already, you see that in the examples who follow, the elements of localization, who are present at a certain level quite vague, they already start to dissolve in a much more functionary, which is a very much more functionary, if you want, but a very much more localization in a way which is not clearly explicit with the little space space that everyone imagines when I say it on the table for the book. When you say that the children play on the trottoir, they descend, even if they are not mais sur une caisse posée sur le trottoir etc vous pouvez imaginer vous-même l'indéfinité des configurations concrètes qui pourraient vous amener à dire les enfants jouent sur le trottoir ok en particulier le contact n'est pas sûr ils peuvent être sur une chaise ils peuvent être sur un bon ensuite je regarde les emplois où cette fois ci on y a toujours une évocation de l'espace because the zones incriminate have a space dimension, but this space dimension is only one of their dimensions. If we say that Pierre is working on Paris, in this kind of familiar way, yes, I work on the banlieue, etc. So, Pierre is working on Paris, you see that he is representing the region north, you see that this time, it's a zonage function. On you say, grosso modo, where a certain function and some activity is indexed, you have no possibility to decide, at the moment where you say that, of a real position in an space where you could take an investigation precisely. It's rather the idea of a function zone, even if the concept is not formidable,

22:30 which is... So, there is a progression of the spatial determination in this zone. It remains, however, compatible with the idea of a topology to do with the space, I would say, of the investigation practical, which is rather an space of, I don't know, I don't know, of the relation and function of the entity. Now, we continue this, we always have this list. Now, we start to efface more and more the spatial inference. So, the space is inserted, but more and more in your, you you need to worry more and more. So, in this case, importance of modulation aspecto-temporal, by aspect, it's the point of view, the franchissement of the limits, the perspective of the limits, the fact that the process that you use, you use it to the inner of the other side, without to ignore that they extend to the other side of the side of the side of the side, and perhaps that they comport a reality. But, well, so what you say, marcher sur Rome. Well, it's clear, the idea of the reality is there, there is an effect of sense at the level of the syntax. Lisser un œil sur quelque chose, une menace planée sur la ville, juger les gens sur l'apparence, l'impôt sur le revenu, agir sur autres, compter sur ses amis. Vous voyez que là, on a complètement décroché de l'espace. On ne peut même plus dire, d'une certaine façon, que c'est une valeur d'appui, mais en disant ça, ou de fondation, il ne faut surtout pas prendre appui ou fondation dans le sens, disons, dans le registre du sensible, in the risk of practice, in the sense of immédiatism. It's all a different thing. For glowsing these dimensions of the sense, you can use these other morphemes, or multi-morphemes, or this example multi-morphemes as foundation, but you can see that at this point, you also take them in another sense what it should be explained. D'accord ? Well, the employment temporel is in the bottom. On the beginning, on the morning, it is to act on the champ. So, there it's rather a survenance-imminence with a punctualization. Alors, without that the discussion is closed by what I want to say, obviously, you have

25:00 three policies, I would say. One of the policies, it's to say It is still the spatiality, in a sense vaguely objectiv, vaguely physical, perhaps, perhaps vaguely perceptive, psychological, etc. We don't know, and I will not try to know, which is the first thing to take into consideration. And all the rest comes from an investment progress, discovered in the autogenesis, and then after that, in the Méandre des Discours, of these other dimensions. First the spatiality, then the other dimensions. There is a second policy, which is more conforming to the rest. Very often, we say that the other values are divided by a sort of transport, that is to say, the relations spatiales in other domains. This transport is called, in the sense strict, metaphore. In the second policy, more conform to the amplification of the schématism, we say that non, the use of these spatials are only more typical. But we don't want to say if they are the first, that it is in an ontogenesis or in a kind of systematicity of the language. We say simply that they are very typical, but that what counts is the Schem. and the chain is, I would say, neutre and equisistant compared to all the domain where we are going to employ. Now, we propose another approach which is first to consider that maybe, first of all, there is no unit formulae of morphemesure and if there is a unit, it is not formulae. It is not the type of formulae. It is the type of an enchevêtrement of dimensions, coalescence of dimensions, and on this, dispose of this way. And if we are so absolutely to have a unit in the morphem which would motivate all these jobs variés, we have to, a priori, to be able to to inscribe a multiplicity of dimensions, and not just those who resulted, and even, I was going to say, in the last place, as we will see, those who would come from a speciality constituted. So the idea is that These units, like all, attack the space, if I can say, that within a dynamic constitution of the space, and not within a spatiality already constituted. And as they attack the space from a dynamic constitution

27:30 which could go towards something else than the space, all sorts of dimensions s'entremêlent in this dynamic constitution. Alors, on estime, nous, que les explications spatialistes ou physiques dessus sont affaiblies par cette diversité d'emplois. On a beaucoup de mal à y croire. think simply that even in the spatiality even in the pure spatiality the relationship sure is incredibly defined in its imagery being on the genoux being on the front being on the back being on the dessin these are already configurations very variables and even for the preposition in an image of inclusion that I haven't drawn You would like to draw an image like that, and you would like to draw a sort of topology, the trajectory is inside, and then it is inside, in the topology, and then on the board in science to show that the chain has established a relationship between the captivity potential of the trajectory and the chain in which it is. And think that even that is very difficult in the case of the ordinary, to be experienced, to be in the air, to be in the air, to be in the air, to be in the car, to be in the car, to be in a bag for example, to be in the bras of someone, all this, it gives you an agency, I would say, very variable, and which are chapeau. On a du mal à penser que ces chaînes sont tout seules pour expliquer comme ce soit. Pour sûr, on recuse une explication purement spatiale ou physicaliste, déjà parce que dans ce domaine-là, il y a une telle disparité de scénographie qu'on trouve qu'il n'y a pas de raison d'en privilégier certaines par rapport à d'autres. Ensuite, on décide que l'idée, disons schématisante, topologisante, strictement topologisant, n'est pas convenable. Pourquoi ? Parce que, outre qu'on a bien du mal à imaginer transposer très souvent ces chêmes dans les domaines où la spatialité n'est pas...

30:00 d'accord, on peut dire, il travaille sur Paris, il est un peu sur le revenu, mais bon, j'estime qu'un chême un petit peu de ce genre-là, avec une valeur d'appui, comme ça, It doesn't mean anything. I want to do it. But it's not to forget that it is interpreted just from the preposition SU in French, or at least from a different language linguist, or a paraphrase linguist, which is not a language. So we propose rather to see an entremêlement non formulaire, non essentialist, if you want to, of dimensions, that one allows us to gloss with other morphemes of the language, or with other words, if you want, but with other words pris themselves in a sense not yet thematized, in a sense open and unstable. Alors, disons que, for sure, there is the idea of the contact, it's a motif of access, there is an access, if you want, of a vision. The access is very profondément intentionnel, And this access to something like a contact, even if it's not a contact, it's not possible to hear something sensible, necessarily. It's the contrary. It's an anticipation, a generic, which is linked to the unit. And this anticipation is available in the language, whether you exploit it or not. Now, obviously, it presents an aspect statique, like I said, transparent, which can serve to localize and to predict a relationship of support. But it's fundamentally a motive intention and aspect, aspect of the sense of the prefiguration of a visée, of a border, of a limit, where the visée and the approach are fundamental, so there is a phase of approach, with an ax transversal to a zone of contact, which configurer ça et il y a cette idée que le contact même s'il est nullement sensible et la zone de une zone exploitable en termes d'une espèce de perlaboration entre la phase amont et la phase aval et donc ce qui fait ce qui fait l'extrême adéquation de impôts sur le revenu de compter

32:30 sur ses amis ou bien de mettre la casserole sur le feu aussi parce que il ya clairement la casserole We can see that the alternance above is sure. We can see this quality of sure, that we can anticipate, possibly, on the exploitation of what we call contact, and then on the collaboration. If you want, you can already see this critique that we are in a journal, I would say, to formalize this homology analog to, say, a certain form of interpretation of the system kantian in which the intuitive aspects, profondément spatiaux and terporels, are, how to say, detached from the catégory level, and where, so, the structure qualitative, relational, of what exists, what is happening, and this is what we call, as we say, by the synthesis of the environment, and that, it's a disparate thing, and that the structure morphological positional of the apparaître refers to an intuition in which the case of social, it is already already synthesized before the chain of information. All this is discussed, and it's an interpretation extremely uterine of Kant, and I think that it's the one there in the head, ancienne, qui informe ces, certainement on pourrait dire que Kant n'a jamais dit ce que je viens de dire, c'est ridicule, c'est du contre-sens, mais je pense que c'est comme ça que ça fonctionne ici. Et certainement, je crois quand même qu'il y a aussi chez Kant, dans cette, disons une séparation assez forte entre l'a priori d'intuition et tout ce que l'on pourrait appeler anticipation. Autrement dit, d'une certaine façon, nous sommes amenés, contrairement à tout ce qu'a fait la technologie après le sort, à considérer que l'intuition n'est pas faite d'anticipation, que pour avoir de l'anticipation, il faut aller vers d'autres synthèses et se rapprocher de l'entendement. Pour la reproduction, on est au mieux, on est au mieux, on est au mieux. Voilà, pour la recognition, donc tout ce qui est recognition, All this which refers deeply to a categorization, whether it be linguistic or other, is not in the intuition. The intuition is vierge of anticipation in this sense. However, there is no other anticipation that in the cadre.

35:00 Not in the anticipation qualitatif. Sauf the end of the entendement, of course. The commandment of the interior of the entendement. But, well, that's the vision of the experience that goes from the tradition, specifically and the mythological, and that if we continue to talk about intuition, it's in a sense that it doesn't distinguish, finally, from the anticipation. In any case, intuition in this sense, if we can still talk about intuition, or of the chant, if you will, the chant is profoundly made in anticipation of which they are vécu in the present. This implies, actually, an epicenter of the present, and, well, I can't let it in this moment. I can't let it in this direction, I can't work with my professor, I'm not a philosopher, but I think there is something that we have to point out, that we have tried to point out a little bit better at our level, which is the sémantician, epistémologue and not really the philosopher, with Pierre Cadillot. I want to continue now on the question of movement, which is another way to attack the same problem. So, if you want... I can talk about how much time you want me to do it? You want me to do it? Okay. Well, when you look at the notion of the word of movement, what does that mean? that means that in the language there would be verbs that we would have the right or that we would have the right, which would be legitimate to class, to categorize, from, again once again, to use by excellence which would be made in the case of expression of the movement. So it could be, I don't know, because I have words like, courir, danser, entrer, sortir, partir, errer, marcher, monter, remuer, sauter, tomber, zigzaguer, etc. So, when you look at, if you look at the non-critical notion of the verb movement, you are confronted, in linguistics, to a variety of descriptions descriptors, to characterize them, to start to class them.

37:30 Now, for example, you can try to class it from a stock of spatio-tempore properties which refers to a synonymous model. And these synonymous models are already a little bit geometrised, quite constituted. I could show you this table. It doesn't mean to examine it if it is just or not. It's just to tell you what could consist of a certain tableau. We're going to arrive at something. You see that I've placed a certain number of verbs. There's a certain number of traits. With the convention that the less the traits are absent, even inverses, plus the traits are there, and then zero. the trait, it's a neutrality, On ne sait pas, en tout cas, au niveau de l'unité lexicale, en contexte, c'est impossible de trancher. Par exemple, on a bouclé très, très, il y en a juste cinq, ça n'a strictement rien à voir avec un inventaire. Progression dans l'espace, rapidité dans le déplacement, verticalité dans le déplacement, régularité, et puis une insistance sur une manière, une modalité, une instrumentalité ou autre, comme lorsque vous dites, vous différenciez les allures naturelles. Sauter, sautiller, ramper, nager, etc. Je n'ai pas bruit. Voyez ce qu'on pourrait faire. Ce genre de tableau à double d'entrée. Je ne vais vraiment pas m'attarder là-dessus cela. Je n'ai pas beaucoup d'intérêt pour ce qui m'intéresse. Bien ici. Donc, ce serait une première façon de les décrire. D'accord ? Une deuxième façon de les décrire, ce serait justement de commencer à les regarder en aspects, c'est-à-dire de regarder les phénomènes de zonage, c'est-à-dire que ces verbes pressupposent un zonage de l'espace avec des bornes, visibles ou non, et puis une manière de franchir les bornes ou de les anticiper, d'anticiper la jonction avec ces bornes. Par exemple, on peut penser que « monter » est un verbe qui incorpore une certaine and even if the phase of the movement in which you are interested and that you express with the verb is not included what it is,

40:00 it is certain that you don't place necessarily at the point of termination of this operation. But it is at a global level anticipated even if the window that you open is at the end of the process and not until the point of termination. And so you start to class following these properties aspectuelles. So at this moment, if you want, you can see that some verbs, so these verbs are temporal, and again, aspectualisers, it means that we are interested in the bornes and a certain way of looking at them, of them, of them, of them, or of them. So each verb seems to favor the one or the other temporal phase, between initial, median, and final. Initial, it would be Partir or Sortir, Médian, it would be Passer, Cheminer, Errer, Finale, it would be Arriver, Atteindre, Entrer, Rejoins. These are some examples. So, there are also other traits importants for other languages, which would be L'imminence, La Fréquence, and sometimes Urgence, in certain languages. So, you can also try to characterise the place that are supposed to be like traversed, or like the place that function as a cadre. It's not at all the same. You also have the problem of DX6. to understand what they mean to go out or to go out. There is a DX6 constitutive for you to do whatever you want. So, I have to say, again, the same argument. So these tentatives of description are necessary in a certain way. If you want to have a little bit of a fin, it is necessary to pass by that. But we estimate that they don't allow themselves to take into account de la diversité problématique des interventions de l'espace, de ces types de présence ou de constitution au sein des emplois analysés. Et en réalité, de notre point de vue, même si vous faites une théorie de la perception, une phénoménologie de la perception, c'est cette diversité des modalités de l'espace par rapport à votre perspective ou à votre attitude qu'il faudrait commencer par établir. So, our thesis is, in fact, that to be aware of this diversity of interventions of the space, it is supposed to pay attention to the quality of the action of the gestuality

42:30 which accompany all evaluation topological, or in any case, geométrica of the space. So, we will retain the idea of a permanent compromise, but not variable, of the space, with the categories, but I put it in a bit more qualitative, of type perceptive and praxeological, which can cause the spatiality in the back-plan, but who do not necessarily make an instant of the final report or focalization. And this in the same way where the movement, properly said, tends to be resolved in a change of change and action. Well, obviously, these aspects qualitative, praxeologics, and to the action and to the anticipation of the action are more easily visible in the jobs that are perceived as functionally, abstract or figurative. For example, if you want to, you would say, you would say, you would want to do a coup, you would want to do a kit, Quotre autre, je ne sais pas moi, monter la millionnaise, monter les gens les uns contre les autres. Vous voyez que dans ces emplois-là, vous commencez à voir que monter, ce n'est pas simplement un schéma ascendant suivi d'une espèce de phase de couverture. C'est quelque chose qui a lieu vraiment, c'est un procès cumulatif, séquentialisé, qui certes s'inspire toujours d'une certaine polarisation vers le haut, but which is essentially a point of termination, a process of montage. So you see that these dimensions are obviously more perceptible in this type of work. It is totally impossible to say schematical, in a sense that they are very faithful to these diagrams, and which would be a privilege of these diagrams. But we estimate that they are also operating, in many cases, in the workplace of space space. In particular, as I said earlier, it is very difficult, in many cases, to know if an employment can be purely spatial or not. Because in most cases, in most cases, we envision the space as a site liable to an action, or a perspective of action, that we have on the Earth.

45:00 So, the thesis that we develop, is that all the verbs of movement, courir, marcher, tomber, ramper, surfer, nager, passer, plonger, etc. He has surfed on the net, he has surfed on the net. These verbs contain definitively anticipations praxéologiques qualitatives, even evaluatives, where the science, or the résorption, is organized at a level of syntagmating and on a level of abstractions which culminate more in a certain form of condensation of coalescence of qualities than in a perp or a coloration of a type schématique like that. So it invites to another theory of abstractions adaptée to this linguistic language. I'll come back to the end. I'll come back with this air perplex, I'll come back to the end. I'll come back to the end. Laissez-vous un petit peu porter, parce que ça c'est facile à comprendre. C'est ça d'ailleurs, je dirais que c'est une linguistique qui a été tuée par la facilité, la beauté de ces diagrammes. Elle est restée fascinée par ces diagrammes, et elle n'a pas vu que ces diagrammes ne signifient rien sans une perspective qui renvoyait à toute autre chose. So, of course, for example, if you want to march, there is an allure naturelle, which is, of course, which we need to do without taking into account of the fact that you want to pass from one point to another. It's rather a way to invest the space locally, and the window, in your regard, follows the march. So, the alternance of the march. But, you would say, the motor works, and it works well with your affair. So, what does it count? There is a displacement, of course, but there is a displacement in view, but more fundamental, there is regularity and good function. For jumping, for example, there is a verticality, there is a notion of an event. If it's a event, it's a event. There is a survenance. I think it's a way to arrive, a way to arrive, a way to arrive. Soudaineté, maybe surprise, non-control, in all of this, with a lot of gradations between spatiality, agentivité, there is or not an agent, eventuality and a certain metaphoricity.

47:30 tombe, d'accord, il y a de la spatialité, mais c'est aussi l'événementialité, c'est-à-dire que ce n'est pas ça. Ensuite, vous dites, la température tombe. Vous voyez que déjà, vous gardez quelque chose de la verticalité, parce que vous avez le dispositif de la traduction figurative de la tombée de la température dans le thermomètre, mais il y a aussi un vécu kinesthésique, synesthésique plutôt de la tombée, to talk about it. If you say, tombe la veste, you see that it's difficult. It's already a mode of installation in space, of manipulation of space, which is different from the pluie tombe or the pierre tombe. If you say, tombe dans les pommes, tombe amoureux, you see that that would teach a diagrammatique It is important to say that it is possible, that it indicates a direction of genericity, and that, of a certain way, it does not work alone. And even, not only it does not work alone, but in many cases, it is biffed by the employment in question. and there is nothing more of the spatiality or the verticality, if it is the condition of working the word verticality to bring it to other parages than the same verticality of the space space, to be in the pome, to be in the mouth. So, you see that... I will try to go quickly, because you see that at all, at least, even if you decide to stay in the movement, and to discard the jobs where there is not a bit of spatiality present, imagine that we would be very close to that. It is very difficult to discard the quality of the movement, what we could call the quality of the movement. Why? Because first, nothing proves that quality and extension of the movement the dimensions that we have the right to dissociate in all the phases of the perceptive montage. It's a kind of ontology of movement as a dissociation of its quality, which is very contestable. And if we do that, if we do that, why not?

50:00 Well, I'm going to follow. Very well, dissociate movement and quality of movement. When you talk about naging, ah, I nage, you talk about the book of math that you are trying to read. It is certainly not, or very few, the fact of entering a fleuve from the river to the other. It is not that at all. At the contrary, it is a certain way to barboter and to be bad at a place in a milieu which is not the other, and to have a, how to say, to react, to an avance by movements few efficaces, few ordonnés. So, you can close it as you can. In any case, you see that at this moment, the principle of generalization is not in the diagram of this type. It is in the qualitatif. I would like to separate the movement and quality for the work of spatially, but my response would be, at this moment-là, that the essential of the transposability of the unit is liable to what you call the qualitatif. So in fact, as you have understood, I am against the distinction from the origin between movement and quality. In fact, it is necessary to put in a phase of constitution of the champ where they are not distinguished. Well, I will, for example, you show what we have in an article that Pierre Cagliot wrote with Franck Levas, where the verb monter is very important. On va parcourir ça en moins de 5 minutes, et après je vais faire quelques remarques sur le type de théorie de la perception et de l'action dont on a besoin, et ce que ça implique pour l'accès monté. Alors, le cas de Monté, tout ça c'est tout à fait sur des banalités, mais enfin, vous pouvez éventuellement quel principe de classement adopter pour la variété des emplois. Un premier principe de classement, ce serait de prendre les constructions diverses. Par exemple, vous regardez les emplois prépositionnels avec sujets humains. Il y a toute une... Vous voyez que déjà, il y a toute une série. L'espace est presque toujours là. Mais vous voyez à quel point le montée en question n'a peu à voir,

52:30 ou en quelque sorte la façon de loger un chêne qui ressemblerait à ce chêne de montée suivi d'un recouvrement, There is also a movement in the bas in the haut that the fact of saising the movement in an aquatic phase. When you're in a taxi, it's not the same thing as if you're in a bicycle. It's the montant-dent that you place in an aquatic phase. You have also montant on the front, montant in the first line, montant in grade. On a pris the concept of construction. Ensuite, dans les emplois intransitifs, avec un sujet non-humain, le soleil monte à l'horizon, les brouillards montent du fleuve, il faut encore prendre conscience de ceux dont on n'a jamais conscience par soi-même, qui est cette diversité complètement imprévisible. Donc analogie physique, bruit monte en maru, les eaux montent, vous avez les échelles projetées, le prix monte, la température, l'intensification, alors ça c'est assez drôle. There are jobs that combine a certain kind of progress in the quantification, but with an intensification which is physically, psychological, relational. So it's because of the fièvre, the moutarde, the moutonnet, the tension. something that plays on a variety of records, and of course, it is so imprevisible that you can perfectly modulate it like you do in the suite of your discourse. The fact that you have said that the time goes on, is absolutely not what you are going to say after. It can be calm, it can be slow, it can be slow, you can move in all sorts of directions. And finally, the transitifs sont ceux où on retrouve plus facilement la dimension de l'assemblage, monter un escalier, une côte, monter le son ou la gamme, monter un cheval, monter une page, un dossier, un clip, etc. Bon, monter la mayonnaise, monter un mur, c'est très agréable parce qu'on y retrouve... Monter la mayonnaise est tout à fait amusant parce que, vous voyez ce qui se passe, que dans ces angles-là, il n'y avait plus, disons, ce qui est souvent un présupposé des emplois des grammatiques, you have no more such a distinction between the action, the site and the object.

55:00 They are almost confused. And when you say, montez la mayonaise, the mayonaise is dynamically on the montez, the montez is only by the transformation of the mayonaise, and the transitivity is more a transitivity which means that the mayonaise is effected by the montez, the fact of the montez, instead of simply being an exterior object and detached from the process, procès viendrait affecté dans un second temps. Donc, il y a des formes de fusion entre ce qu'on pourrait appeler les actants, qui renvoient à une autre perception du champ que la perception par entité, où, disons, serait déjà accomplie une distinction entre entité et procès. Alors, comment regrouper ça ? Voilà. Pour aller vite, si vous voulez bien. Donc, il y a une autre façon, si vous voulez de prendre conscience à toute la diversité des dimensions agglomérées dans l'entée. On peut les appeler les dimensions principales. Certainement, on peut les dépister par reprise de synonymes et en essayant de classer les synonymes par grande direction. Mais si vous voulez bien, passons. On peut s'amuser à regarder la famille morphologiquement associée, ce qu'on appelle les dérivés. Mont, montée, montagne, monture, montage, because, in general, these derivatives – these derivatives – accentuent tell dimensions par rapport à telle autre, et donc révèlent, par contraste, que cette dimension doit être distinguée, certes, mais en même temps placée en amont dans cette espèce de complexe et d'écheveau totalement videosteanien, vraiment, de montée. Et c'est là aussi – je glisse en Another critique of the schématism is that it makes croire that there is a kind of... It makes croire that we have a level univoque of the genericity where all the plasticity of the unit would be assembled, being done by ailleurs by the process of universal deformation. And so, we believe in these analyses that we consider, if you want, to Liechtenstein, who had a reason for a very categorical, taxonomic, practical, etc. of existence, the problem, the syntax of the correspondence of family is at this point,

57:30 at this level, but we believe that in a more interior of the language, abris de cette prolifération incontrôlable d'aspects et que l'on pourrait disposer d'une essence ou d'une formule ou d'un chêne, d'un eidos, qui serait explicatif dans la mesure où par après, les moyens de déformation seraient, les moyens d'utilisation seraient, disons, assignables dans chaque domaine de l'existence, dans chaque domaine pratique, dans chaque domaine théorique, etc. Well, I think that, again once again, the good abstraction for the study of the language is not an abstraction, it is called the genericity, and it is made by a condensation, by a mis-transaction of dimensions, that, say, the schematism, we don't, we are not at all that the dimensions spatial and technologically. Well, after you have, you see, a little clause of what could be this aspect of the chevourg of muté, which is indicative, simply. So, there is a gestalt, let's say, configuration, of course, with an orientation towards the O, but think already that O is not necessarily vertical. c'est déjà un morphème qui n'a pas lieu de cantonner à un ancrage purement spatial, ni même purement corporel. Donc c'est un redéploiement de cette gestale présumée, originel dans certaines problématiques, selon l'axe de l'activité orientée, organisée du sujet. Donc la notion d'assemblage, monter un kit, qui est très importante, même dans monter un escalier, you will move on to the scale of the time that you will be able to do this, it is the result of this meeting between a motive, let's say, of elevation and a motive of an organization of activity. So if you want to use it with a trace, but you don't have to do it there-dedans. These are the dimensions principally, that we could deploy geométrically in a way of the repartition of the x-minimum, for example. So, movement linéaire with anticipation of an term, Elevation, organisation, devenir agencée, par des corps séquentialisés et cumulatifs. Alors, ce ne sont que des commentaires, mais je voudrais, pour terminer, avant de terminer,

1:00:00 je voudrais prendre des verbes qui ont l'air d'être beaucoup plus configurationnels. Faire la même chose qu'on a fait avec Sûr, qui était une préposition très configurationnelle, So, two verbs, they are partir and sortir, in French. And I just want to make a certain number of things to show you the difficulty, even in these cases, to consider that the central central of partir and sortir is, in the case of sortir, an enceinte, which is the board, in a quittant, and in the case of partir, disons, la mention d'une borne amont et d'une trajectoire que vous esquissez partant de cette borne amont. Alors certes, il serait absurde de ne pas voir que c'est là, d'accord, mais bon, en deux mots, partir c'est l'étymologie. L'étymologie est une bonne heuristique dans le cas de partir et It's like that. Partir retient the motif of a detachment. Because it's the partition. Partir, first. It's a detachment on the partage. And you still have it in the nominal, départ. You can go on the start, you can go on vacation, and you can go on the start between this and this. So you can see that this double orientation of partir was in the nominal. The verb masks much more. Mais le détachement, c'est-à-dire presque la rupture, la rupture qu'il y a dans le début du partir, c'est un aspect de partir qui est important. Quand vous dites que le lièvre est parti sous nos pieds, le coup est parti, ces emplois valorisent ce pôle toujours quelque peu ergatif du détachement. C'est-à-dire que vous ne pouvez pas simplement prendre un diagramme et dire que, because there is a possibility given, with the diagram purely topological-dynamic, of a work which is done punctually. So, a punctuality, explosive, if I say, which intervient at this level, incoactive. while the sortir is very, very close, and we also see it,

1:02:30 the etymology is more complex, the sortir. There is a double principle, both of surgissement and emergence. It remains, because if you say that the photo is well sorted, the color is well sorted, the nouvelle is sorted, it has been sorted, you can always attach it, if you want, you can always attach it, if you want, the exit from the interior to the exterior has been replaced by an emergence from a font. This means that, again, there is also another way to say that the diagram of the type topological-cynetic, if you want, that we give in a perspective which would be a schématic, part of the space constituted, instead of... You can see that the sémantism, in the photo, is a sémantism which is rather a dynamic of constitution or emergence of the image on its own. So... five minutes, if you want five minutes, to pose the question of the perceptive-praxology which is adjacent to this sémantique. It is variable, but... Disons que, pour nous tenir sur le même terrain, pour tenir, bon, sur l'idée d'une constitution, d'une analogie, d'une continuité organisationnelle entre langage et perception, c'est-à-dire, vous voyez que tout ce que je viens de dire, dans beaucoup de sémantiques, c'est trivial, c'est-à-dire que beaucoup de gens, vous allez l'exemple monter, avec des systèmes de traits, penseront à des traits beaucoup plus pratiques, pratifiologiques. But those who will do that, in general, will not be in this problem of language and perception. They will be in a problem of detached, where the sémantism is not, where the construction, disons, sémantique, is described differently, which is very different than the constitution of a perceptive. We, what we want, is to, at the contrary, to keep the most long possible, this idea of a co-constitution between the two, d'une constitution analogue, homologue, placée dans des principes de continuité.

1:05:00 Ce qui implique qu'il faut élargir, évidemment, le domaine perceptif aux dimensions d'une expérience qui, évidemment, soit beaucoup plus globale, et où les anticipations praxiologiques qualitatives et, je dirais, empathiques de la perception jouent un rôle éminent, which would be very well translated if we wanted to realize it in terms of a way that would simply be ajouted to the invariants configuration, right? So, the space, which would be viewed as a milieu vide and constituted, homogenous, distinct, and the movement, which would be reduced at the period of a trajectory, are only limited in a global activity of perception and organization by the subject of the parlance. And so, to be able to treat it, we have to remove these traits of this global activity. I'm not going to do it, but I'll see you in our articles if you want. But, essentially, what we have done, is to make a montage, not synchronicity, but quite coherent, according to the historical sources, between the Ecole Gestaltis of Berlin, and then the Ecole of the Microgenese, dont Werner or Sander, in the time of Germany, of the United States, he was born in 1933, and in which the kind a bit too statically, perhaps a bit too spatialized, of the gestalt berlinoise is compensated, and enriched incredibly by the perspective of the dynamics of constitution, which means that in the present, in the experience, there are several phases of individuation. It is very important. So you will find the idea that the experience is made of anticipation, that these anticipations, vécues in the present, are not assignable to a level univoque of individuals. In particular, they do not necessarily by a clear separation between entities, sites and procès. entre une séparation claire, entre simple changement et action. Et donc, cela pointe, si vous voulez, vers une conception qui s'appelle, disons, physiognomique de la perception, et dans laquelle se glissent des modalités événementielles singulières, très, très, telles que l'excitation, violence, brusquerie, monotonie, envahissement, rupture,

1:07:30 and where the expressivity and the animatrices of entities are essential, so with a function totally empathic of this perception constitutive of objects themselves. So if you want, the concept of physiognomy, not a concept subjectivist, it is a concept that is understood at the same level of things in and by the activity of the language. And so, this envoie an idea of qualia linguistics, that is to say that the qualias have nothing to determine in the sensible, if we consider the sensible as non-idéal, and the idéal as non-linguistic. So if you speak of a chambre triste, of a smile or sexy, you can't say that, whether it's ironical or not, you can see that this is only in and in parallel but this is a very deep affinity with a concept of perception which is the type that I have said and so to finish, in two minutes I would like to highlight the three or four traits characterizing this level of the linguistics of the linguistics that I have tried to defend the mode of composition in this very much too short, excuse me, of having compressed things. This linguistics is not an abstract in the sense that we call it figurative. Why? Because, simply, we want to say by figurative non pas des développements thématiques homogènes, ressortissant à une abstraction au sens ordinaire du terme, mais qu'au contraire, elles conditionnent des développements thématiques extraordinairement disparates et hétérogènes, et parfois, évidemment, au sein de la même phrase. C'est ce qu'un double sens, c'est typiquement ça. Donc, vous coévoquez un sens figuré très souvent, c'est une coévocation de divers domaines hétérogènes de la thématique, The same Lexem co-évoque these two domains, appuyant l'un sur l'autre, perhaps. And you can see that, if you want...

1:10:00 So, it is also figurative because it is also the opposite between the sense figurative and the sense of the commandant, the diversity of jobs. So, it is non-domainable. She commande l'hétérogène aussi bien que l'homogène, donc elle est parfaitement adaptée à la pensée des tropes. Elle est non-formulaire non-essentialiste, c'est-à-dire que si on invoque une certaine forme d'unité, c'est une unité complexe non fixiste. Alors pour les grammes-mêmes, en général, on considère que vous n'avez pas le pouvoir, c'est très très difficile de faire évoluer consciemment les grammes-mêmes. Ils évoluent par la concurrence des autres, des autres candidats à la grammaticalisation, d'accord ? However, for verbs and non adjectives, you can perfectly stabilize them as an object of discourse and retrain them. So, a fortiori, this figurative figurative should not be fixed because it should be available not only as a phase in the dynamics of constitution, of entities or of signification, but also as a plan of work in the discourse. So there is no opposition between the plan of a genericity which commande the fabrication of the semantic units and the discourse. You have to be able to dispose of the discourse for the transformation. It is made of coalescence analogues to coalescence kinesthesic, and implies, if we want to rapport a theory of perception, that this theory has a place essential to anticipations praxéologiques, expressives, qualitatives. Secondly, this genericity is not abstractive, in the sense where it would be applied or instantaneously, but it is transposable. It is the notion of transposability that counts. It is not a modal, nor not multimodal. It is neither the one nor the other. This choice forced between a model, a conceptually detached from the figurative and the expressivity, and a, say, a model which would be completely wrong to the figurative, this choice is not the only choice. It is not multimodal, because it is beyond, of course, the only sensible. It is not a modal, because it is never detached from this possibility of building. Thirdly, it plays the notion of instability,

1:12:30 as well as in the network of language and in the work of the pollyant discourse. So there is no immanentism, and the dynamics of constitution must be understood which is fundamentally liable to the possibility of innovation. 4th, the abstraction is where it comes. It is opposed to a theory of abstraction by selection and poverty within a already given. You have seen what we did for sure, for sure, On a, disons que si l'on partait d'une vision où, mettons, l'assemblage et l'élévation étaient dissociés, on a été obligé de les intriquer au niveau du motif fondamental de monter. but, to renoncer to this term, because these connotations are too bad, so it is not a kind of eidos or sense commandant a region, a domain thématique, it is a condensation, as well as a schématization of dimensions. It is a direction, it is always, there is no abstraction in the language without that in the same time, a direction of differentiation and synthesis of the champs. really clearly to all the scientific guide of the schematism. Why? Because the schematism always comes from the idea of a uniform manufacture. It thinks to have found the exact level of specificity where the good abstraction would be. And you can see that there, it is completely improvised. We can absolutely not say that a generic abstraction would be something And it's there that you can think, for example, look at the pieces, the passage to the euro. I don't know, the passage to the euro, what's happening is that, at the beginning, we confonded all the pieces, and the prise of conscience of their values,

1:15:00 and perhaps also the very, very fine detail, of what's more generic than a euro, two euros, a centime euro, etc., It's really the generality of the value, and the silhouette is also... Well, there are obviously different methods, but I would say that in this case, I hesitate to say that what happens now that we distinguish much better and much more immediately, I hesitate to say that it's just an amplification of contrast. It's much more a creation of contrast, like in this experience that Jerome Brunner had made there 30 or 40 years ago, where he showed the pieces to children. I don't know how to process it, but he asked them to evaluate the size, and he showed that the difference of size of the pieces was evaluated according to the value of the children. So, you see that you have to go out of this idea of abstraction as a rule, of abstraction as a self-determination. Excuse me. On trouve dans langue à cœur, dans langue à cœur, on retrouve en plusieurs endroits, et semble-t-il, plus encore récemment, des schémas de, je ne veux pas dire de composition, de conditionnalité, mais de l'assemblage. of his paintings, his dessin, and he shows what he does. He is capable of it. This is what he gives an approach to productivity. In the sense of motivation, because he says that we can't predict the result of the composition, we can just explain, to understand that there is a systematization in this fabrication,

1:17:30 but it is a linguist who has very clearly renounced to the predictability, to the predictability of the predictability, and even to the predictability in the sense strict of the term. So it's rather the motivation composition than the composition of the sense strict. It's interesting to be in the line of the predictability of the predictability. So, to be more difficult, it seems that you can't be able to with the view of that. That you are less accessible. with the kind of problem that we have, it's difficult. Well, let's say... I think that... I'll tell you why. Because I think... First, our approach allows is not to interpret the constructions from an idea much too individuality of their constituent. It's to say that in the sémantism of Langaker, there is a strong tendency to separate, again once again, the entities from the procès and the sites. For example, if you analyze a phrase like « des camions, they enroulent beaucoup par ici », it's a discussion technique on the end of this article, on a distinction in accusative, in negative. In a phrase of this genre, but what's going on? Well, we can't say that the cars are a lot of cars, that you completely individuate the cars and that you make the author of a movement which would be appropriate. In this scheme of languages, there exists an idea of composition from different entities separate. And secondly, the idea of the idea of the movement reduced to the mobile model on a trajectory. And it is that the movement, it is a displacement, if you want. The movement is reduced to the displacement, instead of being intrinsically considered as a modality indistinct to change. So when you look at the phrase, the canyons enroulent a lot to consider that there is an unification indexing on the site. For example, if you have a river or a type of station service, and you answer a question, you know, the camions, there are a lot of people here. And so you unify the site

1:20:00 in a relatively holistic way. The camions remain a multiplicity, but a multiplicity that you do not follow along the trajectory. At the contrary, this multiplicity is, I would say, texturée by the camions, and in the same time, by the quality of the movement of these camions. And the movement is nullly attribué... How do I say... It is rather a model, I would say, of the site entirely. And the camions appear as much as the aspects of the movement that the authors of a déplacement in which would consist of the movement. So you see that... For analyzing a phrase of this kind of thing, I would say... If I make a composition of the schéma, positionnel. Je décompose, il enroule des camions, il enroule avec le an qui anaphorise des camions, beaucoup par ici, je sépare le ici comme un site, je peux faire ça. Mais je dois le faire au niveau proprement sémiotique de la constitution du signe linguistique. Mais si je décide que le sémantisme suit les nervures de cet assemblage, je fais une faute parce que je suis tenté de dire qu'il y a déjà une tête ici. It's to say that once I placed the cars, I felt that I put them in the individual and in the addition of distributive, and that, by the way, the roulement is applied distributive to each car, but it's not that the problem. The problem is that a phrase of this genre, this construction, allows you to say, to say, the process general attribution of the movement to an entity mobile, and to its deposition along a trajectory. So I'm sure that we are obligated to do this analysis at the level of linguistics, but there is no need to decide in advance that camions, it means that camions are individualized on the road, it's not that. Camions are something that serves, in the case, to qualify, it appears as an aspect of the site more or less massified that you build. So you see that if I was going to say that the first sense of the camion that I would use for my assemblage is a camion individual, for after that to dissolve progressively in a more global vision of the set,

1:22:30 maybe it would be better to consider that it is a more global texture, which are called cars, or in a certain phase more dynamic, liable movement, perhaps, but a movement which is not a trajectory, which is a model of change. So if you start by saying that roulement is a change along a trajectory, To analyze this phrase, you are forced to say that the subject which is built part of a trajectory, then it is done, and then it is no longer a kind of debate, even a debate which is not individuated, but which is divided on a continuum. You can't even say that there is a multiplicity spatiale, it is rather temporal, And it's not even, I would say, the temporality effective in which you could point out on the road all the camions that pass. It's rather a temporality, really, of the language language. It's to say, it's a series of apparitions. You series the apparitions of camions like you would be a chant by the motif. But, well, it's to respond to your question on the composition. I have a question. The first thing is, since you know which linguist is supposed to be, I would like to know which linguist you would offer, or if you consider it as well, the question is. And the second thing, how do you manage this kind of selection that there is between the supports referential and the units that you treat? I'm just going to say, just for example, the fact that a crab who works is not the same Yes, a thing that works. Yes, a thing that works. And, inversely, I can't say that. You can't say that. If you see a bird on a plane, I can't say that.

1:25:00 How to manage this kind of thing? Yes, that's right. It's also another question. Well, it's not a question. Well, it's two. Yes, the third one. My question is, If you would like to say that the schémas that you talked about, they act, they are in a mechanism of perception of the cinematography, I mean, of the movement of the camera. Okay. Well, first of all, which linguist would you like to refer? Well, we are linguists, and it's a way. In fact, our we is a we, which is a linguist, with a series of colleagues with which these ideas are widely developed. And again, I repeat, with Pierre Cadillot, who is a linguist, which is not a linguist, but a linguist. And so, all these considerations, these articles, define an option of a linguist's theory in sémantique. So that's the first question. The second question, what would there be a link between this way of analyzing, let's say, what we could call the nuclear theory, we have called it a motif, lié à toutes les unités, and then the fixation référentielle, the formation of an impression référentielle. Well, no one knows that, it is necessary to say it, I will say it all right. However, what I can tell you is that I accept to ask the question that inside, precisely, of a system in which this mises in rapport. What is more affine à cette possibilité d'une mise en rapport que de croiser, je veux dire, de façon comme un kiasse, que d'apprendre à décrire une large strata de la construction du sang à la façon d'une construction de forme, en même temps que on se repense, disons, on se réfère à une théorie phénoménologique elle-même, disons, critiquée, enfin revisité, or the construction of forms comporte aspects which are proches of the sémantism of the language even of the textuality of a sort of proto-textuality when for example you look at the theory Gurvitch of the chant thématiques it's already a sort of proto-textuality because the idea discourse of the attention in lieu

1:27:30 define attention substance substantial What we need to do is look at the process of transformation and the rules of transformation. So it's clearly a proto-textuality of the experience perceptive, including as a parcours. And so, we need to learn to, let's say, create, this is an article that we have explicit with Cadio and others, is to create a kind of idiom in the filiation of the theory of form, the theory of form is not the subject of the book, and that it can also serve on the plan of an study and enter into the language, into, let's say, an intrusion, let's say, an entrelac between language and experience, perceptive, and then, on the other side, they can serve on a much more textual, detached from the immediate concern of any experience subjective, so they can also serve as mode of description of the textuality, whether or not the fact of a subject herménotic or simply the fact of a rempli, I would say, of a certain mode of glosses of text. So, what I would like to do is to prepare better these questions, that is to create a language of theory theory, which makes this link between the two. Thirdly, it was the movement of the camera. Well, all these relations... D'autres have already said that Husson would never have come to think like he had thought there was no cinema in the same time, and so it was given a new, let's say, figure technique of this kind of constitution of the chant, and of reflexivity in relation to this constitution, or not believe it or not, I think it was under a little bit more marked than that. And so in these languages you find a lot, and a lot of languages, Alain Gaquer, it's an auteur that you have to absolutely read, it's a great work, and you find a lot of concepts, you have the glossary of his cognitive linguistics, I don't know, it's between 100 terms perhaps, and many of them are fundamentally in terms of mise en scène, and just, it's not just the diagram, and the diagram is there as if in him, he meant something.

1:30:00 I think it's a critique, it's not a big thing, but in other words, it's already deployed in the spaces constituted, and I think that this is not the right level where the géniality is in an angle. Thank you.