Russian verbs BYT’ and BYVAT’: existential and non‑existential meanings
Verbes russes BYT’ et BYVAT’ : significations existentielles et non existentielles
p. 139-150
Résumés
Two Russian verbs with existential meaning are compared – byt’ and byvat’. The verb byt’ “to be” is the main existential verb in Russian: collocations existential sentences and existential verbs are translated into Russian as bytijnye predloženia “existential sentences” and bytijnye glagoly “existential verbs.” The verb byt’ is ambiguous. This ambiguity has two properties. 1) It is regular, i.e. it holds not only for this word but for a group of words of a similar kind. 2) It is typologically substantiated—similar semantic shifts take place in other languages. Three meanings of this verb will be the object of attention in this paper: existence, location and movement. The verb byvat’ “to be iteratively” (formed with the help of an iterative suffix ‑yva‑ from byt’) belongs to the class of verbs of the iterative Aktionsart. But byvat’ occupies a special place in that class; in particular, it is the only one to have an analytical form of the future tense. The following explanation is given to this fact: motional byvat’ is included in the aspectual system of Russian not as an iterative of the imperfective byt’ but as an imperfective of the momentary perfective pobyvat’. No wonder that the motional byvat’ possesses all the properties of an imperfective of a momentary verb: a complete set of tense forms, iterative and general factual meaning of aspect, etc.
Sont comparés ici deux verbes russes à valeur existentielle – byt’ « être ; avoir »et byvat’ « exister ; fréquenter ». Byt’ « être ; avoir » est le verbe existentiel principal en russe : les phrases existentielles et des verbes d’existence sont désignés en russe comme bytijnye predloženia « propositions existentielles » et bytijnye glagoly « verbes existentiels ». Le verbe byt’ est ambigu. Son ambiguïté est caractérisée par deux traits. 1) Elle est régulière, i.e. ce n’est pas la propriété de ce seul mot, mais de tout un groupe de mots du même genre. 2) Elle est typologiquement fondée — des changements sémantiques similaires sont attestés dans d’autres langues. L’étude proposée décrit trois significations rendues par byt’ : l’existence, la localisation et le mouvement. Le verbe byvat’ (formé à partir de byt’ à l’aide du suffixe itératif -yva) appartient à la classe des verbes à Aktionsart d’itérativité. Cependant au sein de cette classe de verbes, byvat’ occupe une place singulière, dans la mesure où il est le seul à posséder une forme analytique du futur. Le fait reçoit l’explication suivante : dans le système aspectuel du russe, byvat’ exprime un mouvement, ce n’est pas un dérivé itératif du verbe imperfectif byt’ « être », mais c’est un imperfectif itératif dérivé à partir du perfectif instantané pobyvat. Il n’est pas étonnant que byvat’ en possède toutes les propriétés : il est doté d’un paradigme complet de formes temporelles, exprime la répétition et la valeur aspectuelle d’existence d’un fait, etc.
Entrées d’index
Mots-clés : existence, localisation, mouvement, négation, itérativité
Keywords : existence, location, movement, negation, iterativity
Texte intégral
1. Russian verb BYT’ “to be”
1The meaning of byt’ is represented—with remarkable completeness—in the dictionary of JU. Apressjan (2014) where 16 meanings of byt’ are differentiated. Three of them are the object of attention: existence, location and movement.
1.1. Existence vs location
2Existential sentence (ES) is a sentence that asserts the existence of what is denoted by its subject, see (1a). While an ordinary (i.e. non‑existential) sentence, in particular, a location sentence (LS), presupposes the existence of the referent of its subject (1b, 1с):
(1a) | Na verande est’ kreslo. |
On terrace est’ armchair. [ES] | |
(1b) | Tvoë kreslo na verande. |
Your armchair ➔ on terrace. [LS] | |
(1c) | Petja doma. |
Petja ➔ at home. [LS] |
3The main predicate in ES, as well as in LS, usually has two arguments, which I call, following Partee and Borschev1, Thing and Location.
4The following features distinguish ES from LS—at least partially:
- the present tense form of the existential byt’ is est’, see (1a), while locative byt’ has a zero present tense form, see (1b, 1c);
- in a LS the argument Thing is usually referential, while in ESs it is non‑referential, see (1a) or (2):
(2) | Est’ na svete sčastlivye ljudi. |
Est’ in the world happy people. |
5Sentence (1d) is not LS2, because:
- the argument thing is non‑referential,
- the present tense form of byt’ is est’:
(1d) | Zdes’ est’ kto‑nibud’ ? |
Here est’ anybody? |
6The opposition existence vs location is crucial for Russian, for it is claimed to be correlated with the choice of Genitive vs. Nominative subject in a negative sentence: “It is only the subject of existential sentences that is regularly marked Genitive when negation is introduced.”3 The verb byt’ behaves as many other existential verbs (such as suščestvovat’, byvat’ “exist”, rasti “grow”, proisxodit’ “occur”, etc.); see Genitive subjects in (1a’) and (2’); net = not + est’:
(1a’) | Na verande net kresla. |
On terrace net armchair [Genitive]’ [ES] | |
(2) | Net na svete sčastlivyx ljudej. |
Net in the world happy people [Genitive]’ [ES] |
7Still Genitive of negation occurs also in LSs; net = not + Ø:
(1b’) | Tvoego kresla net na verande. |
Your armchair [Genitive] NET on terrace | |
(1c’) | Peti net doma. |
Petja [Genitive] net at home. |
8It was claimed4 that for the subject of ES Genitive marking is semantically motivated, while with byt’ of location it is the result of an application of “an automatic syntactic rule.” But it was suggested5 that GenNeg construction in the context of byt’, is semantically motivated.
9As was noticed already6, GenNeg construction is regularly used in the context of perception verbs, such as nabljudat’sja “to be observed”, obnaružit’sja “to be found out”, slyšat’sja “to be heard”, donosit’sja “to reach”, otmečat’sja “to be noted”, registrirovat’sja “to be registered”, fiksirovat’ja “to be fixed”, okazat’sja “to turn out”, popadat’sja “to be fallen”, etc. Existence‑perception ambiguity is widespread, as verbs pojavit’sja “arrive”, isčeznut’ “disappear” and many others. It was suggested that GenNeg construction introduces the perceptional component into semantics of the locative byt’: in the context of the locative byt’ GenNeg construction expresses the observed location. In other words, Genitive expresses the presence of the observer in the concept of situation.
10Two different lexical meanings of byt’ are to be distinguished: locative byt’ is opposed to byt’ of movement, which excludes Genitive subject:
(3a) | Menja ne bylo (v tot moment) v Moskve. [locative byt’]. |
I [Gen] not was [Neutral] in Moscow. | |
(3b) | Ja (nikogda) ne byl v Moskve. [byt’ of movement]. |
I [Nom] not was [Masculine] in Moscow. |
11Apresjan argued7 that sentences with the locative byt’ should have the subject in the Genitive due to a rule that should be mentioned in the dictionary. Namely, a rule was postulated that substitutes Genitive for Nominative because “Nominative in this context would have destroyed the semantic connection between the affirmative and the negative sentence.” E.g., the true negative correlate of sentence (4а) is sentence (4c) and not (4b):
(4a) | Otec byl na more ➘. |
Father was on seashore [sea shore – definite, referential sea]. | |
(4b) | Otec ne byl ➘ na more. |
Father [Nom] not ➘ was [Masculine] on sea. | |
(4c) | Otca ne bylo ➘ na more. |
Father [Gen] not ➘ was [Neutral] on sea. |
12My alternative interpretation: the Genitive subject in (4c) expresses the presence of the Observer in the concept of situation; namely, the presence of the Observer at the Location where the Thing is asserted to be absent.
13In (5) the verb byt’ is used in a context where the lexical meaning of the verb is the same as in (4c) (Location) and the aspectual meaning of the imperfective is the same as in (4c) (Progressive), but the subject is in the Nominative—because the Observer is not included in the concept of situation.
(5a) | Otec byl na more, kogda načalas’ groza. |
Father [Nom] was [Masculine] on seashore when the storm began. | |
(5b) | Otec ne byl na more, kogda načalas’ groza. |
Father [Nom] not was [Masculine] on seashore when the storm began. |
14Sentence (4c) is deictic. It means, approximately, “Father was not at the seashore when I looked for him there” (= “at the moment of observation”). While sentence (5b) is not deictic: in (5b) the meaning of the Progressive is accounted for by the adverbial modifier kogda načalas’ groza “when the storm began”, which expresses the included time8. Both in (4c) and (5b) the Progressive presupposes the focalization point9.
15Genitive subject construction expresses the Observer as a participant that occupies a certain Place in the space of the situation: the Observer is present at the Location and “observes” the absence of the subject from there. Observer vs View point holder.
1.2. Mental presence vs physical presence
16The Observer may be present at the Location not physically but “in thoughts,” playing the role of the subject of consciousness and not of the subject of observation.
(6a) | Menja ne bylo doma. |
I [Gen] not was [Neutral] at home. | |
[The Observer is not at home at some moment but he is always at home mentally]. | |
(6b) | Žal’, čto meja ne bylo s vami. |
It’s a pity I [Gen] not was [Neutral] with you. | |
[The Observer is among his friends mentally; or takes the part of the Addressee]. | |
(6c) | Menja tam net. |
I [Gen] there NET]’ <NET = not + est’ (am) > | |
(6d) | *Menja zdes’ net. |
[Gen] here NET] < here = where the speaker is now>. |
1.3. Primary and secondary deixis
17The Observer is the Origo of the secondary deixis (and secondary egocentricity) while the Speaker is the Origo of the primary, or rigid egocentricity10. Apresjan suggested a test11, which reveals the Observer in the semantics of the verb pokazat’sja “appear:”
(7a) | Na doroge pokazalsja vsadnik. |
On the road appeared a rider. | |
(7b) | *Na doroge pokazalsja ja. |
*On the road appeared I’. | |
(7c) | Mne skazali, čto imennon v ètot moment na doroge pokazalsja ja. |
I was told that exactly at this moment on the road appeared I. |
18The Observer is a semantic role. The role of the Observer in the dialogical register is fulfilled by the speaker, hence the deviance in (7b). In a hypotactical context (7c), this role is fulfilled by the subject of the matrix clause, and the deviance disappears.
1.4. Secondary egocentricity test as applied to the Observer of GenNeg
(8a) | Vani net doma. |
Vanja [Gen] NET at home. | |
(8) | *Meja net doma. |
I [Gen] NET at home. [contradiction: I assert that I am not at home but I am presupposed to be at home as the Observer created by the Genitive subject]. | |
(8b’) | Ja (sejčas) ne doma. |
I (at the present moment) ➔ not at home. | |
(8c) | Vane skazali, čto menja net doma. |
Vanja was told that I [Gen] NET at home. |
19Examples demonstrating the presence of the Observer in sentences with byt’ of Location:12
(9a) | Vani nidge net. |
Vanja [Gen] nowhere NET = not Ø’ | |
= Vanja is not present at any of those places where the Observer tried to see/find him. | |
(9b) | *Vanja nigde. |
*Vanja [Nom] ➔ nowhere. | |
In fact, Vanja is a material object and he must be localized somewhere. | |
(10a) | Menja zavtra ne budet v institute. |
I [Gen] tomorrow not will be [Neutral] at institute. | |
[The utterance is addressed to those who will be at the institute tomorrow; the Addressee is the Observer]. | |
(10b) | *Menja net v offise. |
[The utterance is deviant because it presupposes the observer at the office] | |
(10c) | Ja ne v offise. |
I am not in my office. |
1.5. GenNeg construction as an evidentiality marker
(11) | ‑ Vani ne bylo v Londone. |
Vanja [Gen] not was [Neuter] in London. | |
‑ А otkuda ty èto znaeš’ ? | |
And where do you know it from ? (who knows that locutor hadn’t been in London) |
20The question is legitimate because Genitive subject expresses direct evidentiality.
21In (12), the parenthetical sledovatel’no therefore’ demonstrates that the speaker’s statement is not based on personal testimony—the speaker says what he says not because he was at Place and witnessed the absence of the subject:
(12) | My imeem pis’mo Lermontova iz Pjatigorska ot 18 ijulja, sledovatel’no, on v èto vremja ne byl v otrjade. (Viskovatyj, 1842) |
We dispose Lermontov’s letter from Pjatigorsk dated 18 of June, therefore, he [Nom] at that time not was [Masculine] in unit. |
22The Genitive of the subject is a semantically loaded grammeme. The use of Genitive in sentences with locative byt’ is not regulated by any automatic syntactic rule.
23The notion of perspectival structure13 resembles the Observer. The difference: the perspectival structure is postulated both for locative and existential sentences.
1.6. Location vs movement
24The attention to byt’ of movement was also attracted in connection with the GenNeg construction. In Padučeva’s work14 byt’ of movement (= dynamic byt’) was recognized as different from byt’ of location—because only Nominative subjects are acceptable in the context of byt’ of movement in negative sentences:
(13a) | Vanja byl v Egipte. |
Vanja [Nom] WAS in Egypt. | |
(13b) | Vanja ne byl v Egipte. |
Vanja [Nom] not WAS in Egypt. | |
(13c) | *Vani ne bylo v Egipte. |
* Vanja [Gen] not WAS [Neutral] in Egypt’ [only in the context of locative byt’, as in Example 1]. |
25Traditional dictionaries of Russian mention byt’ of movement in non‑negative sentences, but only in more or less obsolete use:
(14a) | ‑ Vy budete k nam zavtra? |
You will be to us tomorrow ? |
26But byt’ of movement is at place in a lot of sentences that correspond to the contemporary norm:
(15a) | Vrač budet [≈ pribudet ] k večeru. |
“The doctor will be [≈ will arrive ] near the evening.” | |
(15b) | Vrač byl rovno v 7 [≈ pribyl]. |
“The doctor was [≈ arrived ] near the evening.” | |
(15c) | Vanja mnogo raz byl [≈ byval ] v Egipte. |
“Vanja many times was [≈ went and returned ] in Egypt.” |
27Example (15) demonstrates that byt’ of movement is biaspectual.15 In (15a, b) byt’ is used as a verb of the perfective aspect; in (15c) it is used in the meaning of the imperfective iterative. This fact is not yet accepted in the dictionaries.16
28In (16), as well as in (15c), byt’ is interpreted as having the reversal (= back and forth) meaning of the imperfective aspect. A byl v B = “А pobyval v B” = “А began to be in B, was in B for a while and ceased to be in B:”
(16a) | Moj otec byl v Amerike. = went and returned – at least once, i.e. once or several times. |
(16b) | Moj otec ne byl v Amerike. = was not even once. |
29This meaning of the imperfective is only accessible for those imperfective verbs that have the aspectual partner—imperfectivum tantum verbs cannot have this meaning.
30Being a verb of the perfective aspect, byt’ of movement has no form of the present tense. In fact, locative byt’ has the zero form of the present tense in the affirmative sentence, but the corresponding negative form is non‑zero: net. So locative byt’ does have the form of the present tense:
(17a) | Vani [Gen] nigde ne bylo. [locative byt’, past tense]. |
(17b) | Vani [Gen] nigde net. [locative byt’, present tense] [= (9a)]. |
31While byt’ of movement has no form of the present tense—neither in an affirmative nor in a negative sentence:
(18a) | Vanja [Nom] nigde ne byl. = “Vanja went nowere” [byt’ of movement, past tense]. |
(18b) | [byt’ of movement, present tense, Progressive] |
32This fact has a simple semantic explanation—all verbs of the perfective aspect in Russian lack the present tense form. If we do not accept the fact that byt’ of movement is a verb of the perfective aspect we cannot account for this hole in its paradigm.
33Nota bene: Byt’ of movement is a momentary verb of the perfective aspect; hence, its imperfective subsistence may have only trivial meanings: iterative and general factual; no Progressive. But byt’ of movement has a defect of the paradigm that cannot be accounted for by its momentaneity. An ordinary momentary perfective verb, such as, for example, zajti “drop in” has an imperfective partner (for zajti it is zaxodit’) with the form of Present that cannot be used in the meaning of Progressive but can be used, e.g. in the habitual:
(19) | On vremja ot vremeni k nam zaxodit. |
He comes and see us from time to time. |
34The absence of the Present tense form that could have been used in the Habitual meaning cannot be explained on semantic grounds.
2. Russian verb BYVAT’ “to be iteratively”
35The verb byvat’ “to be iteratively” (formed from byt’ with the help of an iterative suffix ‑yva‑) is traditionally treated as belonging to the class of verbs of the iterative Aktionsart, which includes such verbs as xazhivat’ “come iteratively”, slyxivat’ “hear iteratively” related to the imperfective xodit’ “come”, slyshat’ “hear.” But byvat’ occupies a special place in that class.17
36According to АС 2014, there are six meanings of byvat’; two of which will be mentioned:
- byvat’ 2.2 “come from time to time”, byvat’ of movement:
Teper’ ja stal byvat’ u nix často.
Now I start BYVAT’ at their place often. - byvat’ 3.2 “happen, take place iteratively”, byvat’ of happening:
Byvajut takie slučai.
Such events happen.
37In Grammatika 1980, the verb byvat’ is said to be unique among the iterative verbs to have the analytical form of the future tense. It turns out that the verb byvat’ has the form of the future tense form exclusively in the paradigm of byvat’ of movement:
(20a) | Ja budu byvat’ u vas čašče. |
I shall byvat’ at your place more often’. | |
(20b) | *So vremenem ne budet byvat’ takix slučaev. |
*over time there will not byvat’ such cases. |
38The following explanation is given to this fact: byvat’ of motion exists in the aspectual system of Russian not as the iterative form of the imperfective byt’ but as the imperfective form of the momentary perfective verb pobyvat’: byvat’/pobyvat’ ≈ prosit’/poprosit’. No wonder that byvat’ of movement possesses all the properties of an imperfective of a momentary verb: a complete set of tense forms, iterative and general factual meaning of the imperfective aspect, present habitual, etc.
39Thus, byvat’ of movement means the same as byt’ of movement but has a non‑defective paradigm.
(21) | Nikogda ja ne byl na Bosfore. (Esenin) |
I never went on Bosphorus. | |
(22) | Na dalëkoj Amazonke ne byval ja nikogda. (Kipling, traduction de Maršak) |
I never went in the distant Amazonia. |
3. General
40Existential verbs are famous for their paradigm of semantic shifts. Not only existence‑possession deserves attention but existence‑location and location‑movement as well. Existence‑perception interaction stands on the agenda.18
- Genitive subject as a degenerative subject, being the object of perception.
- GenNeg as evidentiality marker.
- Why byt’ has a simple (and not analytic) form of the future tense.
- Absence of the form of present in the paradigm of byt’ of movement is explained.
- Future tense of byvat’ of movement is explained as opposed to absence of this form in the paradigms of other meanings of byvat’.
Bibliographie
Des DOI sont automatiquement ajoutés aux références bibliographiques par Bilbo, l’outil d’annotation bibliographique d’OpenEdition. Ces références bibliographiques peuvent être téléchargées dans les formats APA, Chicago et MLA.
Format
- APA
- Chicago
- MLA
Apresjan Jurij, 1974, Leksičeskaja semantika: Sinonimičeskie sredstva jazyka [Sémantique lexicale: moyens synonymiques de la langue], Nauka, Moskva, 472 p.
Аpressjan Jurij, 1995, « Deiksis v leksike i grammatike i naivnaja model’ mira » [Deixis en lexique et en grammaire et le modèle naïf du monde] in Izbrannye trudy [Travaux choisis], Jazyki russkoj kultury, Moskva.
Аpressjan Jurij, 2012, «Grammatika glagola v aktivnom slovare russkogo jazyka» [La grammaire de verbe dans un dictionnaire actif de la langue russe] in Smysly, teksty i drugie zaxvatyvajuščie sjužety. Sbornik statej v čes’, I. A., Mel’čuka, pp. 42‑59.
Apresjan Jurij, 2014, Aktivnyj slovar’ russkogo jazyka [Dictionnaire actif de la langue russe], vol. 1, Jazyki slavjanskoj kul’tury, Moskva, 408 p.
Arutjunova Nina & Širjaev Jevgenij, 1983, Russkoe predloženie. Bytijnyj tip [Proposition russe. Type existentiel.], Nauka, Moskva, 197 p.
Babby Leonard Harvey, 1980, Existential Sentences and Negation in Russian, Karoma Publishers, Ann Arbor, 180 p.
Borschev Vladimir & Partee Barbara H., 2002, “The Russian Genitive of Negation : Theme-Rheme Structure or Perspective Structure?” in Journal of Slavic Linguistics, no 1/2, vol. 10, pp. 105‑144.
Borschev Vladimir & Partee Barbara H., 2004, “The Semantics of Russian Genitive of Negation: The Nature and Role of Perspectival Structure” in Semantics and Linguistic Theory, no 14, pp. 212‑234, DOI : 10.3765/salt.v14i0.2908.
10.3765/salt.v14i0.2908 :Fillmore Charles, 1975, Santa Cruz Lectures on Deixis, Bloomington.
Ickovič Viktor, 1982, Očerki sintaksičeskoj normy [Notes sur la norme syntaxique], Nauka, Moskva, 198 p.
Levin Beth & Hovav Malka Rappaport, 1995, Unaccusativity. At the Syntax-Lexical Semantics Interface, MIT Press (coll. Linguistic Inquiry Monographs), Cambridge, 350 p.
Padučeva Elena, 1992, «O semantičeskom podxode k sintaksisu i genetivnom subjekte glagola byt’» [Propos de l’approche sémantique de la syntaxe et du génitif du sujet du verbe byt’] in Russian Linguistics, no 1, vol. 16, pp. 53‑63, DOI : 10.1007/BF02529538.
10.1007/BF02529538 :Padučeva Elena, 2008, “Locative and Existential Meaning of Russian Быть” in Russian Linguistics, no 3, vol. 32, pp. 147‑158, DOI : 10.1007/s11185-008-9027-2.
10.1007/s11185-008008-90279027-2 :Padučeva Elena, 2013, «Russkij glagol byt’ : upotreblenija v značenii soveršennogo vida» [Le verbe russe byt’: emplois avec la valeur de parfait] in IVth Konferencija rommissii po aspektologii Meždunarodnogo komiteta slavistov, University of Gothenburg, Göteborg, pp. 1‑6, http://lexicograph.ruslang.ru/TextPdf1/perfective_byt_Gotenborg_fin.pdf.
Perelmutter Renee, 2005, “Case Choice in Russian Genitive/Nominative Absence Constructions” in Russian Linguistics, no 3, vol. 29, pp. 319‑346, DOI : 10.1007/s11185-005-8397-y.
10.1007/s11185-005005-83978397-y :Ševeleva Marija, «Ešče raz o bespristavočnyx iterativax na–yva / iva tipa xaživat’ v istorii russkogo jazyka»[à propos des verbes non préverbés avec le suffixe -yva/-iva du type xaživat’ dans l’histoire de la langue russe] in Russkij jazyk v naučnom osveščenii, no 23, vol. 1, pp. 140‑178.
Timberlake Alan, 2004, A Reference Grammar of Russian, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 503 p.
Notes de bas de page
1 Borschev & Partee, 2004.
2 In spite of what is said in АС 2014.
3 Arutjunova, 1976, cited in Babby, 1980, p. 101.
4 Ibid.
5 In Padučeva, 1992.
6 In Ickovič, 1982.
7 Apresjan, 2012.
8 On the notion of adverbial modifier of included time as opposed to the notion of adverbial modifier of embracing time see Padučeva, 1996, p. 168.
9 Dahl, 2000.
10 The distinction is due to Fillmore, 1975.
11 In Apresjan, 1986.
12 From Padučeva, 2008.
13 In Borschev & Partee, 2004.
14 Padučeva, 1992.
15 See Padučeva, 2013.
16 In AC, 2014 byt’ is represented as a verb of imperfective aspect in all of its meanings.
17 See Ševeleva, 2012.
18 The Observer is acknowledged in the context of sentences with the locative byt’ in Timberlake, 2004, p. 304 ; Perelmutter, 2005.
Auteur
Moscow

Le texte seul est utilisable sous licence Creative Commons - Attribution - Pas d’Utilisation Commerciale - Partage dans les Mêmes Conditions 4.0 International - CC BY-NC-SA 4.0. Les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont « Tous droits réservés », sauf mention contraire.
Shakespeare a mal aux dents
(Que traduit-on quand on traduit ?)
Marie Vrinat-Nikolov et Patrick Maurus
2018
Le Façonnement des ancêtres
Dimensions sociales, rituelles et politiques de l'ancestralité
Sophie Chave-Dartoen et Stéphanie Rolland-Traina (dir.)
2019
Encyclopédie des historiographies : Afriques, Amériques, Asies
Volume 1 : sources et genres historiques (Tome 1 et Tome 2)
Nathalie Kouamé, Éric P. Meyer et Anne Viguier (dir.)
2020
S’émanciper par les armes ?
Sur la violence politique des femmes
Caroline Guibet Lafaye et Alexandra Frénod (dir.)
2019
Experts et expertise dans les mandats de la société des nations : figures, champs, outils
Philippe Bourmaud, Norig Neveu et Chantal Verdeil (dir.)
2020
La Prédication existentielle dans les langues naturelles : valeurs et repérages, structures et modalités
Tatiana Bottineau (dir.)
2020
Variation linguistique et enseignement des langues
Le cas des langues moins enseignées
Gilles Forlot et Louise Ouvrard (dir.)
2020
(Ré) Appropriations des savoirs
Acteurs, territoires, processus, enjeux
Marie Chosson, Marie-Albane de Suremain et Anne Viguier (dir.)
2021