Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T02:24:07.010Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Le redoublement des sujets en français informel québécois: une approche variationniste

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 June 2016

Julie Auger
Julie Auger*
Affiliation:
Indiana University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article deals with morphosyntactic variation. Focusing on subject doubling in Québec Colloquial French (QCF), the author argues in favor of a conception of linguistic competence which allows for variation. Various analyses which exclude variation from linguistic competence are considered and rejected, and it is concluded that the alternation between doubled and non-doubled constructions is an integral part of the linguistic competence of QCF speakers. The author then raises the question of the plausibility of an analysis which posits variable subject-verb agreement. She demonstrates that variable agreement systems are common crosslinguistically and that the analysis proposed for QCF is in consequence a quite reasonable one. Finally, an analysis is sketched within Chomsky’s Minimalist Program, showing that current linguistic theory is equipped for handling language-internal morphosyntactic variation.

Résumé

Résumé

Cet article se penche sur le problème de la variation en morphosyntaxe. À partir d’une étude de cas centrée sur le redoublement des sujets en français informel québécois (FIQ), l’auteure argumente en faveur d’une conception de la compétence linguistique qui inclut la variation linguistique. Différentes analyses qui évacuent la variation de la compétence linguistique sont considérées et rejetées et l’auteure conclut que l’alternance entre structures redoublées et non redoublées fait partie intégrante de la compétence linguistique des locuteurs du FIQ. La question de l’étrangeté d’une analyse qui propose un système d’accord grammatical variable est ensuite soulevée. Il est alors démontré que les systèmes d’accord variables sont communs dans plusieurs langues et que l’analyse proposée pour le FIQ n’est par conséquent ni exotique, ni invraisemblable. Finalement, une esquisse d’analyse dans le cadre du programme minimaliste de Chomsky établit que nous disposons présentement des outils linguistiques pour rendre compte de la variation morphosyntaxique.

Type
Articles
Information
Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique , Volume 43 , Special Issue 01 1: Grammaire et variation , March 1998 , pp. 37 - 63
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Linguistic Association 1998

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Références

Akmajian, Adrian, Demers, Richard A. et Harnish, Robert M.. 1984. Linguistics; An introduction to language and communication. 2e éd. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Anttila, Arto. 1997. Deriving variation from grammar. In Variation, change and phonological theory, sous la dir. Hinskens, de Frans, van Hout, Roeland et Wetzeis, Leo, 35–68. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Auger, Julie. 1991. Variation and syntactic theory: Agreement-marking vs. dislocation in Québec Colloquial French. Texte d’une communication présentée à NWAVE XX, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
Auger, Julie. 1994a. On the nature of subject clitics in Picard. In Issues and theory in Romance linguistics, sous la dir. Mazzola, de Michael L., 159–179. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Auger, Julie. 1994b. Pronominal clitics in Québec Colloquial French: A morphological analysis. Thèse de doctorat, University of Pennsylvania. (IRCS Research Report 94–29)Google Scholar
Auger, Julie. 1995. Les clitiques pronominaux en français parlé informel: une approche morphologique. Revue québécoise de linguistique 24(1):13–60.Google Scholar
Auger, Julie. 1996. Variation data and linguistic theory: Grammatical agreement and subject doubling. In Proceedings of the Thirteenth Eastern States Conference On Linguistics ‘96, sous la dir. Green, de Anthony D. et Motapanyane, Virginia, 1–11. Ithaca: Cornell Universitv.Google Scholar
Barlow, Michael. 1988. A situated theory of agreement. Thèse de doctorat, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Belnap, R. Kirk. 1991. Grammatical agreement variation in Cairene Arabic. Thèse de doctorat, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Bernicot, Josie. 1992. Les actes de langage chez l’enfant. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blanche, Claire. 1977. L’un chasse l’autre. Le domaine des auxiliaires. Recherches sur le français parlé. 1:100–148.Google Scholar
Bock, J. Kathryn, et Miller, Carol A.. 1991. Broken agreement. Cognitive Psychology 23:35–43.Google Scholar
Brandon, Elisabeth. 1955. La paroisse de Vermilion: moeurs, dictons, contes et légendes. Thèse de doctorat, Université Laval.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan, et Mchombo, Sam A.. 1995. The Lexical Integrity Principle: Evidence from Bantu. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 13:181–254.Google Scholar
Cameron, Richard. 1993. Ambiguous agreement, functional compensation, and nonspecific tú in the Spanish of San Juan, Puerto Rico, and Madrid, Spain. Language Variation and Change 5:305–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campion, Elizabeth. 1984. Left dislocation in Montreal French. Thèse de doctorat, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1993. A minimalist program for linguistic theory. In The view from Building 20: Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger, sous la dir. Hale, de Kenneth et Keyser, Samuel Jay, 1–52. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Clark, Eve. V. 1985. The acquisition of Romance, with special reference to French. InThe crosslinguistic study of language acquisition, Vol. 1, sous la dir. Slobin, de Dan Isaac, 687–782. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Cummins, Sarah, et Roberge, Yves. 1994. A morphosyntactic analysis of Romance clitic constructions. In Issues and theory in Romance linguistics, sous la dir. Mazzola, de Michael L., 239–257. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Deulofeu, José. 1992. Variation syntaxique: recherche d’invariants et étude des attitudes des locuteurs devant la norme. In Langages 108: Hétérogénéité et variation: Labov, un bilan, sous la dir. Gadet, de Françoise, 66–78.Google Scholar
Dufresne, Monique. 1995. Étude diachronique de la cliticisation des pronoms sujets à partir du français médiéval. Revue québécoise de linguistique 24(1):83–109.Google Scholar
Feagin, Crawford. 1979. Variation and change in Alabama English. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Grevisse, Maurice. 1980. Le bon usage. 10e édition. Paris-Gembloux: Duculot.Google Scholar
Henry, Alison. 1993. Variability and language acquisition. In Child Language Research Forum 25, sous la dir. Clark, de Eve, 280–286. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
Henry, Alison. 1995. Belfast English and standard English. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hochberg, Judith. 1986. /S/ deletion and pronoun usage in Puerto Rican Spanish. In Diversity and diachrony, sous la dir. Sankoff, de David, 199–210. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Høybye, Paul. 1944. L’accord en français contemporain. Copenhague: Høst et Søns Forlag.Google Scholar
Huot, Hélène. 1987. Morphosyntaxe du verbe français et inversion du clitique sujet. Travaux de linguistique 14/15:159–176.Google Scholar
Jaeggli, Osvaldo A. 1982. Topics in Romance syntax. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Jaeggli, Osvaldo A., et Safir, Ken J.. 1989. The nuli subject parameter and parametric theory. In The Null Subject Parameter, sous la dir. Jaeggli, de Osvaldo et Safir, Ken, 1–44. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Janda, Richard D., et Kathman, David. 1992. Shielding morphology from exploded INFL. In CLS 28: Papers from the 28th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society 1992, Vol. 2: The parasession: The cycle in linguistic theory, sous la dir. Denton, de Jeannette Marshall, Chan, Grace P. et Canakis, Costas P., 141–157. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard S. 1989. Facets of Romance past participle agreement. In Dialect variation and the theory of grammar, sous la dir. Benincà, de Paola, 85–103. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
King, Ruth, et Nadasdi, Terry. 1997. Left dislocation, number marking, and (non-) standard French. Probus 9:267–284.Google Scholar
Kroch, Anthony. 1994. Morphosyntactic variation. In CLS 30: Papers from the 30th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society, Vol. 2: The parasession on variation in linguistic theory, sous la dir. Beals, de Katharine et al., 180–201. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Labelle, Marie. 1988. Prédication et mouvement: le développement de la relative chez les enfants francophones. Thèse de doctorat, Université d’Ottawa.Google Scholar
Labelle, Marie. 1990. Predication, WH-movement, and the development of relative clauses. Language Acquisition 1:95–119.Google Scholar
Labelle, Marie, et Valois, Daniel. 1996. The status of post-verbal subjects in French child language. Probus 8:53–80.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 1972. Sociolinguistic patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 1989. The child as linguistic historian. Language Variation and Change 1: 85–97.Google Scholar
Lebel, Marie-Élaine. 1996. Les pronoms clitiques sujets en français québécois. Texte d’une communication présentée au colloque Grammaire et variation, Montréal.Google Scholar
McCloskey, James, et Haie, Ken. 1984. On the syntax of person-number inflection in Modern Irish. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 1:487–533.Google Scholar
Marázc, Lazio. 1987. On the status of the projection principle in Hungarian grammar. In Approaches to Hungarian, Vol. 2, sous la dir. Kensei, de István, 87–112. Budapest: Jate Szeged.Google Scholar
Meechan, Marjory, et Foley, Michele. 1994. On resolving disagreement: Linguistic theory and variation—There’s bridges . Language Variation and Change 6:63–85.Google Scholar
Morin, Yves-Charles. 1979. La morphophonologie des pronoms clitiques en français populaire. Cahier de linguistique 9:1–36.Google Scholar
Mougeon, Raymond, et Beniak, Edouard. 1991. Linguistic consequences of language contact and restriction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Nadasdi, Terry. 1994. Variation morphosyntaxique et langue minoritaire: le cas du français ontarien. Thèse de doctorat, University of Toronto.Google Scholar
Ossipov, Hélène. 1990. A GPSG account of doubling and dislocation in French. Thèse de doctorat, Indiana University.Google Scholar
Owens, Jonathan, et Bani-Yasin, Raslan. 1987. The lexical basis of variation in Jordanian Arabic. Linguistics 25:705–738.Google Scholar
Pollard, Carl, et Sag, Ivan A.. 1988. An information-based theory of agreement. In CLS 24: Papers from the 24th Annual Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, Part 2: Parasession on agreement in grammatical theory, sous la dir. Brentari, de Diane, Larson, Gary et MacLeod, Lynn, 236–257. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Poplack, Shana. 1988. Contrasting patterns of code-switching in two communities. In Codeswitching; Anthropological and sociolinguistic perspectives, sous la dir. Heller, de Monica, 215–244. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Roberge, Yves. 1990. The syntactic recoverability of null arguments. Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberge, Yves, et Vinet, Marie-Thérèse. 1989. La variation dialectale en grammaire universelle. Montréal: Presses de l’Université de Montréal.Google Scholar
Roberts, Ian G. 1991. The nature of subject clitics in Franco-Provençal Valdôtain. In Clitics and their hosts, sous la dir. van Riemsdijk, de Henk et Rizzi, Luigi, 303–330. Tilburg: Tilburg University.Google Scholar
Roberts, Julie, et Labov, William. 1995. Learn to talk Philadelphian: Acquisition of short-a by preschool children. Language Variation and Change 7:101–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roncari, A., et Brighenti, C.. 1940. La lingua italiana insegnata agli stranieri. Edizioni Scolastiche Mondadori.Google Scholar
Rottet, Kevin J. 1995. Language shift and language death in the Cajun French-speaking communities of Terrebonne and Lafourche parishes, Louisiana. Thèse de doctorat, Indiana University.Google Scholar
Sankoff, Gillian. 1982. Usage linguistique et grammaticalisation: les clitiques sujet en français. In La sociolinguistique dans les pays de langue romane, sous la dir. Dittmar, de Norbert et Schlieben-Lange, Brigitte, 81–85. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Sankoff, Gillian, et Thibault, Pierrette. 1980. The alternation between the auxiliaries avoir and être in Montréal French. In The social life of language, sous la dir. Sankoff, de Gillian, 311–345. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sankoff, Gillian, et Vincent, Diane. 1980. The productive use of ne in spoken Montréal French. In The social life of language, sous la dir. Sankoff, de Gillian, 295–310. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Schane, Sanford A. 1968. French phonology and morphology. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Sells, Peter, Rickford, John R. et Wasow, Thomas A.. 1996. An optimality theoretic approach to variation in negative inversion in AAVE. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 14:591–627.Google Scholar
Sobin, Nicholas. 1997. Agreement, default rales, and grammatical viruses. Linguistic Inquiry 28:318–343.Google Scholar
Speas, Margaret. 1990. Phrase structure in natural language. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Sportiche, Dominique. 1996. Clitic constructions. In Phrase structure and the lexicon, sous la dir. Rooryck, de Johan et Zaring, Laurie, 213–276. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Suñer, Margarita. 1988. The role of agreement in clitic-doubled constructions. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6:391–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suñer, Margarita. 1992. Subject clitics in the Northern Italian vernaculars and the matching hypothesis. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 10:641–672.Google Scholar
Thibault, Pierrette. 1983. Équivalence et grammaticalisation. Thèse de doctorat, Université de Montréal.Google Scholar
Vasseur, Gaston. 1969. Histoéres du viu temps. Abbeville: Imprimerie Lafosse.Google Scholar
Vasseur, Gaston. 1996. Grammaire des parlers picards du Vimeu (Somme). Abbeville: F. Paillart.Google Scholar
Vigliocco, Gabriella, Butterworth, Brian et Semenza, Carlo. 1995. Constructing subject-verb agreement in speech: The role of semantic and morphological factors. Journal of Memory and Language 34:186–215.Google Scholar
Visser, Fredericus Theodoras. 1963-1973. An historical syntax of the English language. 3 vols + 1 part. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Wald, Benji. 1979. The development of the Swahili object marker: A study of the interaction of syntax and discourse. In Syntax and semantics 12: Discourse and syntax, sous la dir. Givón, de Talmy, 505–524. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Walker, Douglas. 1995. Patterns of analogy in the Canadian French verb system. Journal of French Language Studies 5:85–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar