[en] This paper aims at describing the similarities between IN, THROUGH and WITH as causal prepositions making use of Culioli's concepts of occurrence, notion and locating operations (1999). (1) and (2) illustrate the specific contexts we will deal with :(1) He raised his eyebrows in/with surprise and softly sang the words of the song.(2) [...] their voices would automatically grow louder through surprise and excitement.In both examples IN, THROUGH and WITH introduce the word surprise. This paper will examine utterances in which the preposition is followed by a compact (mass) noun refering to a temporary mental state, i.e. an emotion.More accurately, our goal is to analyse the subtle semantic differences between these markers and to understand and predict the scope of their synonymy. The concepts of occurrence and locating operations in particular will help us describe the way each preposition functions. We will conclude, for example, that the locating operation involved with IN (identification) is not the same as the one involved with WITH (differentiation), and that the status of the located occurrence is different depending on the marker. This is what gives rise to the semantic difference between (3) and (4).(3) Managers can also be what [inaudible] referred to as 'stress carriers', causing stress for those around them, for example by being 'the lovable incompetent boss who sets objectives, then changes his mind, or the flip-side of that, the dictator boss who rules with fear'.(4) Gordon Brown "I ruled in fear" he says more than once.By involving distinct locating operations, IN, THROUGH and WITH construct causality differently, hence the specifi semantic profile of each marker, for example the fact that with THROUGH, the locator is construed as infelicitous. We will show that IN, THROUGH and WITH can be seen as the traces of two locating operations – identification and differenciation – that proceed differently with each marker regarding the stages of the operation and the orientation of the relationship between the locator and the located entities. The major advantage of invoking Culioli's concepts is to allow metalinguistic comparison between the markers.

[fr] Le présent article met en œuvre les concepts d'occurrence de notion et d'opération de repérage tels qu'ils sont définis par Antoine Cuiloli (1999) dans le but de rendre compte des similitudes d'emploi entre les marqueurs IN, THROUGH et WITH dans l'expression linguistique de la cause. L'emploi qui nous intéresse est illustré par les exemples (1) et (2) :(1) He raised his eyebrows in/with surprise and softly sang the words of the song.(2) [...] their voices would automatically grow louder through surprise and excitement.Dans ces deux exemples, les prépositions IN, THROUGH et WITH ont pour régime surprise. Les contextes retenus pour examen ici seront les cas dans lesquels le régime de la préposition est un terme compact renvoyant à un état mental temporaire. Cet article a pour objectif de rendre compte de nuances sémantiques fines entre IN, THROUGH et WITH et des limites à leur concurrence dans l'emploi causal décrit ci-dessus au moyen des concepts d'occurrence et d'opération de repérage. Ainsi, on pourra expliquer la concurrence existant entre IN et WITH en (1) et la non équivalence de ces marqueurs en (3) et (4) en montrant que l'orientation de l'opération de repérage n'est pas la même avec ces deux marqueurs, et que l'identité du terme repéré diffère également.(3) Managers can also be what [inaudible] referred to as 'stress carriers', causing stress for those around them, for example by being 'the lovable incompetent boss who sets objectives, then changes his mind, or the flip-side of that, the dictator boss who rules with fear'.(4) Gordon Brown "I ruled in fear" he says more than once.On montrera aussi les limites des similitudes entre IN, THROUGH et WITH, en expliquant dans quelle mesure (5) et (6) ne sont pas équivalents :(5) […] Gibbs' Arsenal team-mate Jack Wilshere withdrew through fear of exhaustion.(6) […] Iraqi police withdrew in fear of his well-organised and heavily armed fighters.La nature des opérations de repérage entre les occurrences par IN, THROUGH ou WITH génère des modes de construction de la relation causale différents, à même d'expliquer pourquoi, par exemple, le terme repère prend presque toujours une valeur anti-téléonomique avec THROUGH.Nous montrerons que les marqueurs IN, THROUGH et WITH mettent en jeu des opérations de repérage du type de l'identification et/ou de la différenciation, mais avec des articulations distinctes de la mise en relation des délimitations de ces occurrences, des étapes différentes dans le repérage et des orientations contraires de la relation. L'avantage de la représentation au moyen des outils de la TOPE est que ces opérations comparables rendent compte de la capacité des marqueurs à intervenir avec des sens proches dans certains contextes en même temps qu'elle offre le moyen de rendre compte des limites de leur interchangeabilité.