Agent

Origin

In Linguistic, the term of agents indicates the syntactic components imposed by the valence of some lexical classes (like the Verbe mainly, but also the Nom, the Adjectif, the Préposition…). These components take seat in the diagram actanciel , which describes the syntactic organization necessary to certain words equipped with a valence so that they are saturated . These terms must determine a lawsuit , or contained Sémantique of the Prédicat able to transform the Thème, which it indicates a process ( to rest , to work , to cough , etc) or an action ( to break , to give , to sing , etc).

The agents ensure each one in a stated a grammatical function specifies imposed by the diagram actanciel of the word considered, which imposes also their lexical class and often a semantic Trait. To the agents imposed by the lawsuit the circonstants are opposed, which are subsidiary and removable.

Each agent, in addition to its grammatical role (its function), plays a semantic part similar to those of the account:

actor : that which acts;
agent : that by which an action is accomplished;
patient object : what undergoes the action;
profit : that which receives the results of the action;
instrument : what allows the action.

One joined there the concept of Cas grammatical.

These roles should not be confused with the grammatical functions; the actor is not inevitably the subject. For example, in: the apple is eaten The agent the apple is the subject but not the actor; this nominal group plays the part of patient object (see also Diathèse).

All the lexical categories do not need agents; it is necessary that they indicate a lawsuit. Therefore the verbs of state like to be , to appear , to seem , to remain , to remain , etc, are external with the diagram actanciel. In the same way, the verbs Impersonal S like to be necessary , to rain , bruiner , to be windy , although indicating a lawsuit, do not have an agent (they are said avalent ); in the sentence: It rains There is only one lawsuit (the action to rain) but not of agent (no actor, no patient object, for example; one cannot say that * something rains another of it). These verbs can however receive a valence; in the sentence: It rains large drops Of large drops is the actor.

Lucien Tesnière studied the agent in its work much on the valence.

Sociology

The Sociologie of the translation of Bruno Latour borrows the concept of agent from the model Sémiotique of Algirdas Julien Greimas to found his design of the agents. This notion was taken again then by the Théorie of the actor-networks.

The concept of agent falls under the symmetrical project of analysis of the actions and determinations, that the agents - as beings or that things - involve by their inscriptions in situations, by their participations in the lawsuit. An agent is defined by its faculty to act to have a weight, an intensity in the course of the action . They can be as well actors as the Organization S, object S or entities metaphysics. The concept of agent thus makes it possible sociology to reconcile the human and the not-human in only one and even entity.

It is the Acteur - and not the sociologist - who determines what is agent. Consequently, the presence of agents consists of a resistance of one entity with regard to others Entité S plural or singular (see Changer company. To remake sociology , Paris, the Discovery, 2006).

Examples

Simple example

“{Jean} gives {flowers} to {Jacques} the street”

The verb to give in this sentence is trivalent ; it can be saturated by three agents, ensuring each one a role and a function:

agent 1 : Jean = actor = prone;
agent 2 : of the flowers = patient object = direct object;
agent 3 : Jacques = profit = indirect object.
circonstant : in the street ; this one is subsidiary and can be except sentence.

On generally says premium , second and third actant.

Each agent of the verb to give can be represented only by certain lexical classes (they cannot be a preposition, an adjective, an adverb, etc). For example, the sentence according to would not have aucuns direction: “* {Beau ¹} very gives {²} to {without ³}”

In the same way, agent 3 generally has the semantic feature: “{Jean ¹} gives {detergent ²} to {the washing machine ³}” This sentence is correct but has only little direction. It is necessary to include/understand the metaphorical sentence of manner or to replace to give by to put like here: “{Jean ¹} puts {detergent ²} in {the washing machine ³}”.

Trivalent verb

Although trivalent, the verb to give can, under certain conditions, to do without agents 2 and 3: {I ¹} gives {ø ²} to {the Red Cross ³}; {That ¹} gives {hunger ²} {ø ³}; {It ¹} has already given {ø ²} {ø ³}.

Verbs with complete saturation

On the contrary, certain verbs require a complete saturation. It is the case for to reach , whose valence requires obligatorily two agents: “{Jean} reaches to {the classroom}”:

Agent 1 : Jean = prone;
Agent 2 : the classroom = indirect object.

Accéder cannot do without agent 2: “* {Jean ¹} reaches {ø ²}” This sentence is not not valid because the verb is not not saturated .

Random links:

Natural American Spirit | CorelDraw | Perarolo di Cadore | 5th stage of the Turn of the Benelux countries 2006 | Zupče