Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T08:47:05.915Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Prefixal agreement and impersonal ‘il’ in Spoken French: Experimental evidence

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 December 2013

JENNIFER CULBERTSON  and
GÉRALDINE LEGENDRE
JENNIFER CULBERTSON*
Affiliation:
George Mason University Johns Hopkins University
GÉRALDINE LEGENDRE
Affiliation:
Johns Hopkins University
*
Address for correspondence: Jennifer Culbertson, Program in Linguistics, George Mason University, 4400 University Drive, Fairfax, VA 22030, USA. e-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In Spoken Continental French, the subject clitic il can in some cases be dropped – for example in certain impersonal construction (e.g. faut que ‘is necessary that’). This phenomenon is of particular interest in the context of claims that this variety of French is in fact a null subject language, with subject clitics acting as agreement affixes rather than true arguments (e.g. Roberge, 1990; Auger, 1994; Culbertson, 2010, among others). Under this view, the il in impersonals (and other constructions with less than fully referential subjects) is likewise an agreement marker, which can be dropped under some circumstances. Here we report the results of a controlled acceptability judgement task designed to probe features which affect the availability of il-drop. Our findings suggest that verb frequency, subcategorisation by the verb for a quasi-argument vs. true expletive, and modal vs. non-modal status influence il-drop. We discuss implications of this variation for an analysis of subject clitics as agreement affixes in Spoken French.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of French Language Studies , Volume 24 , Issue 1: Negation and Clitics in French: Interaction and variation , March 2014 , pp. 83 - 105
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

Arteaga, D. (1994). Impersonal constructions in Old French. In: Mazzola, M. (ed), Issues and Theory in Romance Linguistics. Selected Papers from the Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages XIII. Philadelphia: Benjamins, pp. 141–56.Google Scholar
Ashby, W. J. (1981). The loss of the negative particle ne in French: A syntactic change in progress. Language, 57.3: 674–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Auger, J. (1993). More evidence for verbal agreement-marking in colloquial French. In: Ashby, W., Mithun, M. and Perissinotto, G. (eds.), Linguistic Perspectives on the Romance Languages: selected papers from the XXI Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages. Philadelphia: Benjamins, pp. 177–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Auger, J. (1994). Pronominal clitics in Québec colloquial French: A morphological analysis. PhD dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Baayen, R. H. (2008). Analyzing Linguistic Data: A Practical Introduction to Statistics using R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bennis, H. (1986). Gaps and Dummies. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Bolinger, D. (1977). Meaning and Form. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Brandi, L. and Cordin, P. (1989). Two Italian dialects and the null subject parameter. In: Jaeggli, O. and Safir, K. (eds.), The Null Subject Parameter. Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 111–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. and Hopper, P. (2001). Frequency and the Emergence of Language Structure. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1981). Markedness and core grammar. In: Belletti, A., Brandi, L. and Rizzi, L. (eds.), Theory of Markedness in Core Grammar. Pisa: Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa, pp. 123–46.Google Scholar
Compernolle, R. A. van (2008). Morphosyntactic and phonological constraints on negative particle variation in French-language chat discourse. Language Variation and Change, 20.2: 317–39.Google Scholar
Coveney, A. (2002). Variability in Spoken French: A Sociolinguistic Study of Interrogation and Negation. Exeter: Elm Bank.Google Scholar
Coveney, A. (2005). Subject doubling in Spoken French: A sociolinguistic approach. The French Review, 79.1: 96–111.Google Scholar
Crousaz, I. D. and Shlonsky, U. (2003). The distribution of a subject clitic pronoun in a Franco-Provençal dialect and the licensing of pro. Linguistic Inquiry, 34: 413–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culbertson, J. (2010). Convergent evidence for categorial change in French: From subject clitic to agreement marker. Language, 86.1: 85–132.Google Scholar
Culbertson, J. and Legendre, G. (2008). Qu'en est-il des clitiques sujet en français oral contemporain?Proceedings of the 1er Congrès mondial de linguistique française. Paris, France.Google Scholar
Cummins, S. (1996). Meaning and Mapping. PhD dissertation, University of Toronto.Google Scholar
De Cat, C. (2007). French Dislocation. Interpretation, Syntax, Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
De Cat, C. (2004). On the impact of French subject clitics on the information structure of the sentence. In: Bok-Bennema, R., Hollebrandse, B., Kampers-Manhe, B.Sleeman, P. (eds), Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 2002, Selected papers from “Going Romance”, Groningen, 28–30 November 2002. Philadelphia: Benjamins, pp. 33–46.Google Scholar
Demuth, K. and Tremblay, A. (2008). Prosodically-conditioned variability in children's production of French determiners. Journal of Child Language, 35: 99–127.Google Scholar
Diessel, H. (2007). Frequency effects in language acquisition, language use, and diachronic change. New Ideas in Psychology, 25: 108–27.Google Scholar
Durand, J., Laks, B. and Lyche, C. (2002). La phonologie du français contemporain: usages, variétés et structure. In: Pusch, C. and Raible, W. (eds.), Romance Corpus Linguistics - Corpora and Spoken Language. Tübingen: Narr, pp. 93–106.Google Scholar
Eriksen, P., Kittila, S. and Kolehmainen, L. (2010). The linguistics of weather: Cross-linguistic patterns of meteorological expressions. Studies in Language, 34: 565–601.Google Scholar
Gilligan, G. M. (1987). A Cross-linguistic Approach to the Pro-drop Parameter. PhD. dissertation, University of Southern California.Google Scholar
Hansen, A. B. and Malderez, I. (2004). Le ne de négation en région parisienne: Une étude en temps réel. Langage and Société, 107: 5–30.Google Scholar
Hopper, P. (1987). Emergent grammar [Electronic version]. Berkeley Linguistics Society, 13:139–57. Available from: http://home.eserver.org/hopper/emergence.htmlGoogle Scholar
Hopper, P. and Traugott, E. C. (2003). Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (1983). Semantics and Cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jaeggli, O. and Safir, K. (1989). The Null Subject Parameter. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Kayne, R. (1975). French Syntax: The Transformational Cycle. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kirby, S. and Becker, M. (2007). Which it is it? The acquisition of referential and expletive it. Journal of Child Language, 34: 571–99.Google Scholar
Krug, M. (1998). String frequency: A cognitive motivating factor in coalescence, language processing and linguistic change. Journal of English Linguistics, 26: 286–320.Google Scholar
Labelle, M. 1990. Change of state and valency. Journal of Linguistics 28: 375–414.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, K. (1981). Topic, Antitopic and Verb Agreement in Non-standard French. Philadelphia: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, K. (1994). Information Structure and Sentence Form. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Legendre, G. and Sorace, A. (2010). Auxiliaries and intransitivity in French and in Romance. In: Godard, D. (ed.), Fundamental Issues in the Romance Languages. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 171–220.Google Scholar
Miller, P. (1991). Clitics and Constituents in Phrase Structure Grammar. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Nadasdi, T. (1994). Subject NP doubling, matching, and Minority French. Language Variation and Change, 7.1: 1–14.Google Scholar
Newmeyer, F. (2005). Possible and Probable Languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ouhalla, J. (1993). Subject-extraction, negation and the anti-agreement effect. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 11: 477–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palais, K. (2013). The case for diglossia: Describing the emergence of two grammars in the early acquisition of Metropolitan French. Journal of French Language Studies, 23.1: 17–35.Google Scholar
Plunkett, B. (2000). What's ‘what’ in French questions. Journal of Linguistics, 36: 511–530.Google Scholar
Poletto, C. (2000). The Higher Functional Field. Evidence from Northern Italian Dialects. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rizzi, L. (1986a). Null objects in Italian and the theory of pro. Linguistic Inquiry, 17: 501–57.Google Scholar
Rizzi, L. (1986b). On the status of subject clitics in Romance. In: Jaeggli, O., and Silva- Corvalan, C. (eds), Studies in Romance Linguistics. Dordrecht: Foris, pp. 391–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rizzi, L. (1990). Relativized Minimality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Roberge, Y. (1990). The Syntactic Recoverability of Null Arguments. Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press.Google Scholar
Ruwet, N. (1991). Syntax and the Human Experience. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Schütze, C. (1996). The Empirical Base of Linguistics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Sprouse, J. (2011). A validation of Amazon Mechanical Turk for the collection of acceptability judgments in linguistic theory. Behavior Research Methods, 43: 155–67.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Suñer, M. (1992). Subject clitics in the Northern Italian vernaculars and the matching hypothesis. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 10: 641–72.Google Scholar
Svenonius, P. (2002). Subjects, Expletives, and the EPP. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Travis, L. (1984). Parameters and effects of word order variation. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Vikner, S. (1995). Verb Movement and Expletive Subjects in the Germanic Languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zanuttini, R. (1997). Negation and Clausal Structure. A Comparative Study of Romance Languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar