22 Thomas Egan
What sort of divergent constructions are used to encode ‘betweenness’? I will
mention briefly some of the more common strategies in my material. In the first
place both English and French can code the landmark in the form of a plural pos-
sessive, as in (38).
(38) a. So if someone is to blame in our relationship, it must be myself.
(BHH1TE)
b. Et donc, s’ il faut rendre quelqu’un responsable de la dégradation de nos
rapports, ce ne peut être que moi. (BHH1TF)
If a relationship pertains between two human participants, it may be construed as
being in their joint ownership. The English translator also employs a plural pos-
sessive in the Interaction example in (39a), while the French translator in (39b)
employs a reciprocal verb.
(39) a. Our intimate long-distance communications in those early days would
become so intense at times that we seemed able to give each other orgasms
telepathically. (KF1TE)
b. Pendant cette première période, il nous arrivait même d’échanger de loin
des messages intimes d’ une telle intensité que nous avions l’impression
d’atteindre à un orgasme télépathique. (KF1TF)
Reciprocal verbs like echanger in (39b) and (19b) and s’entendre in (6b) are more
common in French than in English. Another type of construction frequently found
in French has already been exemplified in (5b). Here the landmark of ‘between-
ness’, that which is conceived as being ‘between’, is encoded as the direct object of
a verb. (45b) and (46b) may serve to further exemplify this usage.
(45) a. Because there was a rhythmic creaking in the wooden floor between
Mistress Hjertrud’s bedroom and the room below. (HW2TE)
b. Parce que le plancher qui séparait la chambre de feu Madame Hjertrud et
le rez-de-chaussée avait grincé en cadence. (HW2TF)
(46) a. She has informed him of it in order to give him effective weapons in the
contest between us, to secure the outcome. (KF1TE)
b. Elle l’a mis au courant pour lui donner des armes efficaces dans le duel
qui nous oppose, pour être sûre de l’issue. (KF1TF)
Although there are certain patterns of divergent constructions that are more com-
monly chosen in the two languages for coding ‘betweenness’, there is obviously
much greater variety to be found here than in the constructions considered in
Sections 4.1 and 4.2. It would require more space than is available in the present
chapter to give a fuller picture of this variety.