Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T08:29:45.604Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The morpho-syntactic status of ne and its effect on the syntax of imperative sentences

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 November 2013

HUGUES PÉTERS
HUGUES PÉTERS*
Affiliation:
The University of New South Wales, Australia
*
Address for correspondence: School of Humanities and Languages, The University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia e-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article argues that there is compelling evidence that French ne, even in dialects that still have this particle, is no longer negative, does not determine the scope of negation with respect to other operators, does not have properties of a head (optionality), and therefore cannot be analysed as the head of NEGP in Modern Standard French. Rather, ne should be considered as an affix merged to a Tense projection (TNSP) endowed with sub-label features of polarity. This article argues that this proposal provides a unified solution for the distributional properties of ne in finite and non-finite contexts alike. It especially provides an explanation for the structure of French negative imperatives, which are characterised by the proclisis of argument clitics (ne le prends pas ‘don't take it’), crucially linked to properties of Tense, as opposed to their enclisis in positive imperatives (prends-le ‘take it’) and in spoken registers where ne is absent (prends-le pas ‘don't take it’).

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of French Language Studies , Volume 24 , Issue 1: Negation and Clitics in French: Interaction and variation , March 2014 , pp. 49 - 81
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

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

Baker, M. (1988). Incorporation: A Theory of Grammatical Function Changing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Barra-Jover, M. (2004). Interrogatives, négatives et évolution des traits formels du verbe en français parlé. Langue Française, 141: 110–25.Google Scholar
Béjar, S. and Rezac, M. (2009). Cyclic agree. Linguistic Inquiry, 40: 35–73.Google Scholar
Belletti, A. (1990). Generalized Verb Movement. Torino: Rosenberg & Sellier.Google Scholar
Belletti, A. (1999). Italian/Romance clitics: Structure and derivation. In: van Riemsdijk, H. (ed.), Clitics in the Languages of Europe. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 543–80.Google Scholar
Bonet, E. (1994). The person-case constraint: A morphological approach. In: MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, number 22, The morphology-syntax connection. Boston, MA: MIT Press, pp. 33–52.Google Scholar
Cardinaletti, A. (2007). On different types of clitic clusters. University of Venice Working Papers in Linguistics, 17: 27–76.Google Scholar
Cardinaletti, A. and Starke, M. (1999). The typology of structural deficiency: A case study of the three classes of pronouns. In: van Riemsdijk, H. (ed.), Clitics in the Languages of Europe. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 145–233.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1995). The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (2000). Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In: Martin, R., Michaels, D. and Uriagereka, J. (eds), Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 89–155.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (2001). Derivation by phase. In: Kenstowicz, M. (ed.), Ken Hale: A Life in Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 1–52.Google Scholar
Cinque, G. (1999). Adverbs and Functional Heads. A Cross-linguistic Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Corpus de français parlé au Québec. Centre d'analyse et de traitement informatique du français québecois, Université de Sherbrooke. (Retrieved on January 10, 2013 from http://recherche.flsh.usherbrooke.ca/cfpq/).Google Scholar
Coveney, A. (1996). Variability in Spoken French. A Sociolinguistic Study of Interrogation and Negation. Exeter, UK: Elm Bank Publications.Google Scholar
Danon-Boileau, L., Morel, M. A. and Perrin, I. (1992). L'impératif en français et en anglais contemporains. Hermès, 9: 157–180.Google Scholar
Dobrovie-Sorin, C. (1983). Le sujet de l'impératif. Histoire Epistémologie Langage, 5 (1):129–34.Google Scholar
Ducrot, O. (1984). Le dire et le dit. Paris: Editions de Minuit.Google Scholar
Embick, D. and Noyer, R. (2001). Movement operations after syntax. Linguistic Inquiry, 32 (4):555–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grevisse, M. (1969). Le bon usage: Grammaire française avec des remarques sur la langue française d'aujourd'hui. Gembloux: Duculot.Google Scholar
Gross, M. (1968). Grammaire transformationnelle du français: Syntaxe du verbe. Paris: Larousse.Google Scholar
Haegeman, L. (1995). The Syntax of Negation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Halle, M. and Marantz, A. (1993). Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. In: Hale, K. and Keyser, S. J. (eds.), The View from Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 111–76.Google Scholar
Han, C. (1998). The Structure and Interpretation of Imperatives: Mood and Force in Universal Grammar. University of Pennsylvania Dissertation.Google Scholar
Han, C. (2001). Force, negation and imperatives. The Linguistic Review, 18: 289–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hauser, M. D., Chomsky, N. and Fitch, W. T. (2002). The faculty of language: Who has it, what is it, and how did it evolve? Science, 298: 1569–79.Google Scholar
Hirschbühler, P. (2001). La position des clitiques par rapport au verbe et dans l'évolution du français. Recherches Linguistiques de Vincennes, 30: 13–37.Google Scholar
Hirschbühler, P. and Labelle, M. (1993). Le statut de (ne) pas en français contemporain. Recherches Linguistiques de Vincennes, 22: 31–58.Google Scholar
Hornstein, N. (1999). Movement and control. Linguistic Inquiry, 30 (1):69–96.Google Scholar
Jensen, B. (2003). Syntax and semantics of imperative subjects. Nordlyd: Tromso University Working Papers on Language and Linguistics, 31 (1):150–64.Google Scholar
Jespersen, O. (1917). Negation in English and Other Languages. Copenhagen: A. F. Host.Google Scholar
Kayne, R. (1975). French Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kayne, R. (1991). Romance clitics, verb movement and PRO. Linguistic Inquiry, 22 (4):647–86.Google Scholar
Kayne, R. (1992). Italian negative infinitival imperatives and clitic climbing. In: Tasmowsky, L. and Zribi-Hertz, A. (eds.), Hommages á Nicolas Ruwet. Ghent: Communication and Cognition, pp. 300–12.Google Scholar
Kayne, R. (1994). The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Laenzlinger, C. (1993). A syntactic view of Romance pronominal sequences. Probus, 5 (3):241–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laenzlinger, C. (1994). Enclitic clustering: the case of French positive imperatives. Rivista di Grammatica Generative, 19: 71–104.Google Scholar
Landau, I. (2004). The scale of finiteness and the calculus of control. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 22: 811–77.Google Scholar
Landau, I. (2006). Severing the distribution of PRO from Case. Syntax, 9 (2):153–70.Google Scholar
Massot, B. (2010). Le patron diglossique de variation grammaticale en français. Langue Française, 168: 87–106.Google Scholar
Nevins, A. (2011). Multiple agree with clitics: person complementarity vs. omnivorous number. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 29: 939–71.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, D. and Torrego, E. (2001). T-to-C movement: Causes and consequences. In: Kenstowicz, M. (ed.), Ken Hale: A Life in Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 355–426.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, D. and Torrego, E. (2007). The syntax of valuation and the interpretability of features. In: Karimi, S., Samiian, V. and Wilkins, W. (eds.), Phrasal and Clausal Architecture. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 262–94.Google Scholar
Péters, H. (1999). An alternative proposal for French sentential negation. Linguistica Atlantica, 21: 107–36.Google Scholar
Pollock, J.-Y. (1989). Verb movement, Universal Grammar and the structure of IP. Linguistic Inquiry, 22 (3):365–424.Google Scholar
Potsdam, E. (2007). Analyzing word order in the English imperative. In: van der Wurff, W. (ed.), Imperative Clauses in Generative Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 251–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richards, N. (1999). Featural cyclicity and the ordering of multiple specifiers. In: Epstein, S. and Hornstein, N. (eds.), Working Minimalism. Cambridge: MIT Press, pp. 127–58.Google Scholar
Rizzi, L. (2000). Some notes on Romance cliticization. In Comparative Syntax and Language Acquisition. London: Routledge, pp. 96–121.Google Scholar
Roberts, I. (2010). Agreement and Head Movement. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Rooryck, J. and Postma, G. (2007). On participial imperatives. In: van der Wurff, W. (ed.), Imperative Clauses in Generative Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 273–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rowlett, P. (1998). Sentential Negation in French. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rowlett, P. (2007). The Syntax of French. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ruwet, N. (1990). En et y: deux clitiques pronominaux antilogophoriques. Langages, 25: 51–80.Google Scholar
Sandfeld, K. (1978). Syntaxe du français contemporain: L'infinitif. Genève: Droz.Google Scholar
Shlonsky, U. (2004). Enclisis and proclisis. In: Rizzi, L. (ed.), The Structure of CP and IP: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, Vol.2. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 329–53.Google Scholar
Sportiche, D. (1988). A theory of floating quantifiers and its corollaries for constituent structure. Linguistic Inquiry, 19 (3):425–49.Google Scholar
Stowell, T. (1982). The tense of infinitives. Linguistic Inquiry, 13 (3):561–70.Google Scholar
Uriagereka, J. (1995). Aspects of the syntax of clitic placement in Western Romance. Linguistic Inquiry, 25: 79–123.Google Scholar
Zanuttini, R. (1991). Syntactic properties of sentential negation: A comparative study of Romance Languages. University of Pennsylvania Dissertation.Google Scholar
Zanuttini, R. (1996). The relevance of Tense for sentential negation. In: Belletti, A. and Rizzi, L. (eds.), Parameters and Functional Heads. Essays in Comparative Syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 181–208.Google Scholar
Zanuttini, R. (1997). Negation and Clausal Structure: A Comparative Study of Romance Languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Zeijlstra, H. (2006). The ban on true negative imperatives. In: Bonami, O. and Cabredo Hofherr, P. (eds.), Empirical Issues in Formal Syntax and Semantics 6:405–424. http://www.cssp.cnrs.fr/eiss6Google Scholar
Zribi-Hertz, A. (1994). The syntax of nominative clitics in standard and advanced French. Cinque, In: G., Koster, J., Pollock, J.-Y., Rizzi, L. and Zanuttini, R. (eds.), Paths towards Universal Grammar. Washington (DC): Georgetown University Press, pp. 453–72.Google Scholar
Zwicky, A. M. (1977). On Clitics. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Zwicky, A. M. and Pullum, G. (1983). Cliticization vs. inflection: English n't. Language, 59 (3):502–13.Google Scholar