Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T02:47:09.304Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Partitive and pseudo-partitive revisited: Reflections on the status of ‘de’ in French*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 October 2008

Adrian Battye
Adrian Battye
Affiliation:
Department of Language and Linguistic Science, University of York, Heslington, York, YO1 5DD.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The radical structural distinction often proposed between pseudo-partitive (i.e. beaucoup de problèmes) and partitive (i.e. beaucoup des problèmes épineux) is argued to be the by-product of too restrictive a view of the internal structure of the noun phrase in French. A more articulated nominal phrase structure is adopted here, one which makes. use of the idea of the determiner being itself the head of a functional projection (the so-called DP-panalysis). This DP approach to partitive and pseudo-partitive configurations, it is proposed, also allows for a reappraisal of what are traditionally termed the partitive and plural indefinite article (i.e. du, de la, de l' and des).

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of French Language Studies , Volume 1 , Issue 1 , March 1991 , pp. 21 - 43
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1991

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

REFERENCES

Abney, S. (1987). The English Noun Phrase in its Sentential Aspect'. Unpublished PhD, MIT.Google Scholar
Anderson, J. (1989). Reflections on Notional Grammar. In: Atkinson, M. et al. . (eds.), Essays in Grammatical Theory and Universal Grammar, Oxford: University Press, pp. 13–36.Google Scholar
Azoulay-Vicente, A. (1989). Cas partitif et quantification à distance, Recherches linguistiques de Vincennes, 18:81–100.Google Scholar
Barwise, J. and Cooper, R. (1981). Generalized quantifiers and natural language. Language and Philosophy, 4:159–219.Google Scholar
Battye, A. (1987). Quantificatiori nominali in francese, in Cordin, P. (ed.), Ipotesi e applicazioni di teoria linguistica, Universitá di Trento, Trent, pp. 9–27.Google Scholar
Battye, A. (to appear). Aspects of quantificalion in French and related Romance varfieties, In: Smith, J. C. and Maiden, M. (eds.), The Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Belletti, A. (1988). The case of unaccusatives. Linguistic Inquiry, 19/1:1–34.Google Scholar
Borer, H. (1983). Parametric Syntax. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.Google Scholar
Burzio, L. (1986). Italian Syntax. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1986a). Knowledge of Language. New York: Praeger Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1986b). Barriers (Linguistic Inquiry Monographs, No. 13). Cambridge (Mass.): MIT Press.Google Scholar
Eguren, L. (1989). A QP analysis for Spanish Partitives. MS. Universidad Autónoma de Madrid (to appear in Payne, J. (ed.), Proceedings of the Manchester NP Colloquium. The Hague: Mouton).Google Scholar
Ewert, A. (1953). The French Language, 2nd. ed.London: Faber and Faber.Google Scholar
Georgi, A. and Longobardi, G. (1988). The Syntax of Noun Phrases. MS, Universitá di Venezia, Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa (Cambridge University Press, forthcoming).Google Scholar
Guéron, J. (1979) On the structures of ‘pseudo-partitive’ NP's. Descriptive and Applied Lingustics XII, Bulletin of the ICU Summer Institute in Linguistics, International Christian University, Tokyo.Google Scholar
Hayes, B. J. and Masom, W. F. (1892). The Tutorial Latin Grammar. London: W. B. Clive and Co.Google Scholar
Horrocks, G. and Stavrou, M. (1987). Bounding Theory and Greek syntax: evidence for WH-movement in NP. Journal of Lingustics, 23/1:79–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hudson, R. A. (1984). Word Grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Huot, H. (1981). Constructions infintives du français. Genève: Droz.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (1977). X-bar Syntax: A Study of Phrase Structure. Cambridge (Mass.): MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kayne, R. S. (1977). Syntaxe du français. Paris: Seuil.Google Scholar
King, R. and Roberge, Y. (1989). Preposition Stranding in Prince Edward Island French. MS, York University (Canada) and University of Toronto (tp appear in Probus).Google Scholar
Koren, R. (1984). Grammaire et esprit de système: l'article partitif a-t-il un pluriel? Travaux de lingustique, 11:27–40.Google Scholar
Kupferman, L. (1979). L'article partitif existe-t-il? Le Français Moderne, 47/1:1–16.Google Scholar
Léard, J-M. (1986). Le statut de de que dans le systéme morphologique du français. Modèles linguistiques, VIII/2:7–45.Google Scholar
Mountford, J. (ed.) (1938). Bradley's Arnold Latin Prose Composition. London:Londmans.Google Scholar
Milner, J-C. (1978). De la Syntaxe á l'interprétation. Paris: Seuil.Google Scholar
Obenauer, H-G. (1983). Une quantification non-canonique: la quantification à distance. Langue Française, 58:66–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Obenauer, H-G. (1984). On the identification of empty categories. The Linguistic Review, 4:151–202.Google Scholar
Payne, J. (1989). Noun phrase internal agreement and disagreement, handout for talk given at Manchester NP Colloquium.Google Scholar
Perlmutter, D. (1978). Impersonal passives and the unaccusative hypothesis. Berkeley Lingustics Society (University of California), IV:157–189.Google Scholar
Pollock, J-Y. (1988). Extraction from NP in French and English: A Case Study in Comparative Syntax. MS: Université de Haute Bretagne, Rennes II.Google Scholar
Pollock, J-Y. (1989). Opacity, Genitive Subjects and Extraction from NP in English and French, Université de Haute Bretagne, Rennes II.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberge, Y. and Vinet, M-T. (1989). La Variation dialectale en grammaire universelle. Montréal (QC): Les presses de l'Université de Montréal.Google Scholar
Selkirk, E. (1977). Some remarks on noun phrase structure. In: Culicover, et al. . (eds.), Formal Syntax. New York: Academic Press, pp. 285–316.Google Scholar
Szabolcsi, A. (1987). Functional categories in the noun phrase. In: Kenesei, I. (ed.), Approaches to Hungarian. University of Budapest, vol. II: 167–189.Google Scholar
Tesnière, L. (1965). Éléments de syntaxe structurale, 2nd ed. Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar
Tranel, B. (1987). The Sounds of French – An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilmet, M. (1974). Sur le ‘de’ inverseur. Travaux de linguistique et de littérature, XII/1: 301–323.Google Scholar
Wilmet, M. (1983). Les déterminants du nom en français: essai de synthèse. Langue Française, 57:15–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar