1887
Volume 41, Issue 1
  • ISSN 0378-4169
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9927
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

This article is a contribution to the long-standing discussion of subject marking in Romance. Its originality lies in its systematically considering data from Oïl-Galloromance dialects, i.e. non-pro-drop varieties, which had been ignored because they were thought to pattern like French. On the contrary, a detailed survey of the means of 1 and 3. Marking in these dialects reveals that the obligatoriness of the subject clitics in all grammatical persons does not guarantee the absence of ambiguous marks, since cases of syncretism between these two persons were found, besides cases of marking even more redundant than in French. I then conclude that it is yet another refutation of the now generally abandoned wisdom according to which the subject pronouns exactly compensate the loss of verb endings. Moreover, the results make the pro-drop parameter and parametric theory hard to maintain, as has been observed from other microvariational studies. I also argue against a functionalist interpretation of the correlation between the different means of subject marking based on the assumption of avoidance and repair strategies underlying language change/dialectal fragmentation. My own analysis then relies on the assumption of a strong and stable typological property of accusative languages like Romance, called here the principle of recovery of the subject. The surface microvariation within (Oïl)-(Gallo)romance is simply seen as the result of non-deterministic properties of language change/dialectal fragmentation.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/li.00014.mas
2018-08-27
2019-12-09
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Adams, M.
    (1987) Parametric change: Empty subjects in old french. In D. Birdsong & J. -P. Montreuil (Eds.), Advances in Romance linguistics, Publications in Language Sciences 28, 1–16. Foris.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. ALB
    ALB =  Taverdet, G. (1980) Atlas linguistique et ethnographie de la Bourgogne. 3. La maison, l’homme, la grammaire. Paris: CNRS.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. ALCe
    ALCe =  Dubuisson, P. (1982) Atlas linguistique et ethnographique du Centre. 3. La grammaire. Paris: CNRS.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. ALF
    ALF =  Gilliéron, J. & Edmond, E. (1902–1910) Atlas linguistique de la France. Paris: Champion.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. ALFC
    ALFC =  Dondaine, L. (1991) Atlas linguistique et ethnographie de la Franche-Comté. 4. Grammaire, index des 4 volumes. Paris: CNRS.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. ALLR
    ALLR =  Lanher, J. , Litaize, A. & Richard, J. (1988) Atlas linguistique et ethnographique de la Lorraine Romane. 4. Morphologie – Divers. Paris: CNRS.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. ALO
    ALO =  Massignon, G. & Horiot, B. (1971–1983) Atlas linguistique et ethnographique de l’Ouest : Poitou, Aunis, Saintonge, Angoumois. Paris: CNRS.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. ALVM
    ALVM =  Bloch, O. (1917) Atlas linguistique des Vosges méridionales. Paris: Champion.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Auger, J.
    (1995) Les clitiques pronominaux en français parlé informel : une approche morphologique. Revue québécoise de linguistique, 24(1), 21–60.10.7202/603102ar
    https://doi.org/10.7202/603102ar [Google Scholar]
  10. (2003a) Le redoublement des sujets en picard. French Language Studies, 13, 381–404.10.1017/S0959269503001200
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959269503001200 [Google Scholar]
  11. (2003b) Les pronoms clitiques sujets en picard: une analyse au confluent de la phonologie, de la morphologie et de la syntaxe. French Language Studies, 13, 1–22.10.1017/S0959269503001066
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959269503001066 [Google Scholar]
  12. Barra, Jover M.
    (2007) S’il ne restait que l’induction: corpus, hypthèses diachroniques et la nature de la description grammaticale. Recherches Linguistiques de Vincennes, 36, 89–122.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. (2009) Des variantes invisibles à la fragmentation des langues romanes. Recherches Linguistiques de Vincennes, 38, 105–137.10.4000/rlv.1784
    https://doi.org/10.4000/rlv.1784 [Google Scholar]
  14. (2012) L’évolution des marques du pluriel nominal roman à la lumière de l’occitan. In M. Barra Jover , G. Brun-Trigaud , J. -P. Dalbera , P. Sauzet & T. Scheer (Eds.), Études de linguistique gallo-romane, Sciences du Langage, 201–216. Saint-Denis: PUV.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. T. Biberauer , A. Holmberg , I. Roberts & M. Sheehan
    Eds. (2010) Parametric variation: null subjects in minimalist theory. Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Culbertson, J.
    (2010) Convergent evidence for categorial change in French: from subject clitic to agreement marker. Language, 86, 85–132.10.1353/lan.0.0183
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.0.0183 [Google Scholar]
  17. De Cat, C.
    (2005) French subject clitics are not agreement markers. Lingua, 115, 1195–1219.10.1016/j.lingua.2004.02.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2004.02.002 [Google Scholar]
  18. (2007) French dislocation without movement. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 25(3), 485–534.10.1007/s11049‑007‑9023‑z
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-007-9023-z [Google Scholar]
  19. Diémoz, F.
    (2007) Morphologie et syntaxe des pronoms personnels sujets dans les parlers francoprovençaux de la Vallée d’Aoste. Number 126 in Romanica Helvetica. Tubingen: Francke.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Doussinet, R.
    (1971) Grammaire Saintongeaise. La Rochelle: Rupella.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Duval, M.
    (2009) Les homonymies des marques personnelles verbales à l’est d’oïl (1): l’indicatif présent. In H.-R. Nüesch , Ed., Galloromanica et Romanica, number 130 in Romanica Helvetica, 71–86. Tübingen/Basel: Francke.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Encrevé, P.
    (1988) La liaison avec et sans enchaînement: phonologie tridimensionnelle et usages du français. Travaux linguistiques. Paris: Seuil.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Gautier, M.
    (1993) Grammaire du poitevin-saintongeais. Mougon: Parlanjhe Geste Éditions.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Heap, D.
    (2000) La variation grammaticale en géolinguistique : les pronoms sujet en roman central. LINCOM studies in romance linguistics 11. München: LINCOM Europa.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Heap, D. , Oliviéri, M. & Palasis, K.
    (2017) Clitic pronouns, In A. Dufter & E. Stark (Ed.), Manual of Romance Morphosyntax and Syntax, volume17ofManuals of Romance Linguistics, chapter 5, 183–229. De Gruyter: Berlin.10.1515/9783110377088‑005
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110377088-005 [Google Scholar]
  26. Heycock, C. & Sundquist, J. D.
    (2017) Don’t rush to rehabilitate: a remark on Koeneman and Zeijlstra 2014. Linguistic Inquiry, 48(1), 173–179. doi: 10.1162/LING_a_00239.
    https://doi.org/10.1162/LING_a_00239 [Google Scholar]
  27. Hilty, G.
    (1968) La Séquence de Sainte Eulalie et les origines de la langue littéraire française. Vox Romanica, 27, 4–18.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Jaeggli, O. & Safir, K.
    (1989) The null subject parameter and parametric theory, In O. Jaeggli & K. Safir , (Eds.), The null subject parameter, volume15ofStudies in natural language and linguistic theory, 1–44. Kluwer Academic Publishers: Dordrecht/Boston/London.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Koeneman, O. & Zeijlstra, H.
    (2014) The Rich Agreement Hypothesis Rehabilitated. Linguistic Inquiry, 45(4), 571–615.10.1162/LING_a_00167
    https://doi.org/10.1162/LING_a_00167 [Google Scholar]
  30. Léonard, J. L.
    (1990) Variation dialectale et microcosme anthropologique: l’île de Noirmoutier (Vendée, France). PhD thesis, Université de Provence – Aix-Marseille 1.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Léonard, J. L. & Lautrou, M.
    (1984) Hypothèses pour l’étude de la variation dialectale à Noirmoutiers (Vendée). Langage et société, 30, 61–92.10.3406/lsoc.1984.2010
    https://doi.org/10.3406/lsoc.1984.2010 [Google Scholar]
  32. Liver, R.
    (1999) Rätoromanisch: eine Einführung in das Bündnerromanische. Tübingen: Narr.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Massot, B.
    (2008) Français et Diglossie. Décrire la situation linguistique française contemporaine comme une diglossie : arguments morphosyntaxiques. Thèse de doctorat, Université Paris 8Saint-Denis, tel.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-00726999.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. (2010) Le patron diglossique de variation grammaticale en français. Langue française, 168, 87–106.10.3917/lf.168.0087
    https://doi.org/10.3917/lf.168.0087 [Google Scholar]
  35. (2016) L’énigme des contraintes grammaticales sur les sujets poyaudins. InActes du 4e Congrès Mondial de Linguistique Française. doi: 10.1051/shsconf/20162713005
    https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/20162713005 [Google Scholar]
  36. Meisner, C.
    (2016) La variation pluridimensionnelle: une analyse de la négation en français. Sciences pour la communication 118. Berne: Lang.10.3726/978‑3‑0352‑0347‑9
    https://doi.org/10.3726/978-3-0352-0347-9 [Google Scholar]
  37. Meisner, C. & Pomino, N.
    (2014) Synchronic variation in the expression of French negation: A distributed morphology approach. Journal of French Language Studies, 24(2), 9–28.10.1017/S0959269513000355
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959269513000355 [Google Scholar]
  38. Meunier, J. -M.
    (1912a) Atlas linguistique et tableaux des pronoms personnels du nivernais. Paris: Champion.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. (1912b) Étude morphologique sur les pronoms personnels dans les parlers actuels du Nivernais. Paris: Honoré Champion.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Meyer-Lübke, W.
    (1894) Grammatik der romanischen Sprachen; 2. Romanische Formenlehre. Leipzig: Reisland.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Mineau, R.
    (1982) Les vieux parlers poitevins: histoire, phonétique, grammaire. Poitiers: Brissaud.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Newmeyer, F. J.
    (2004) Against a parameter-setting approach to typological variation. Linguistic Variation Yearbook, 4(1), 181–234. doi: 10.1075/livy.4.06new
    https://doi.org/10.1075/livy.4.06new [Google Scholar]
  43. Oliviéri, M.
    (2009) Syntactic parameters and reconstruction. In G. A. Kaiser & E. -M. Remberger (Eds.), Proceedings of the Workshop “Null-subjects, expletives, and locatives in Romance", Arbeitspapier 123, 27–46, Universität Konstanz: Fachbereich Sprachwissenschaft.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. (2011) Typology or reconstruction. In J. Berns , H. Jacobs & T. Scheer (Eds.), Romance languages and linguistic theory 2009: selected papers from “Going Romance” Nice 2009, p.239–253, Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/rllt.3.14oli
    https://doi.org/10.1075/rllt.3.14oli [Google Scholar]
  45. Palasis, K.
    (2009) Syntaxe générative et acquisition: le sujet dans le développement du système linguistique du jeune enfant. PhD thesis, Université de Nice-Sophia Antipolis.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Pignon, J.
    (1960) L’évolution phonétique des parlers du Poitou (Vienne et Deux-Sèvres). Paris: Artrey.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Rizzi, L.
    (1982) Issues in Italian Syntax. Dordrecht: Foris.10.1515/9783110883718
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110883718 [Google Scholar]
  48. (1986) On the status of subject clitics in romance. In O. Jaeggli & C. Silva-Corvalán (Eds.), Studies in Romance Linguistics, 391–419. Dordrecht: Foris.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Roberts, I.
    (2010) Varieties of French and the Null Subject Parameter. In T. Biberauer , A. Holmberg , I. Roberts & M. Sheehan (Eds.), Parametric variation: null subjects in minimalist theory, chapter 8, 303–327. Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Savoia, L. & Manzini, R.
    (2005) I dialetti italiani e romanci: morfosintassi generativa. Torino: Edizioni dell’Orso.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Sigurðsson, H. Á.
    (2011) Conditions on argument drop. Linguistic Inquiry, 42(2), 267–304.10.1162/LING_a_00042
    https://doi.org/10.1162/LING_a_00042 [Google Scholar]
  52. Svenson, L. -O.
    (1959a) Les parlers du Marais Vendéen. 1. Phonétique, morphologie et syntaxe, textes, onomastique, lexique. Göteborg: Elander.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. (1959b) Les parlers du Marais Vendéen. 2. Atlas linguistique. Göteborg: Elander.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. SyMiLa Project
    SyMiLa Project (2012–2017) Syntactic Microvariation in the Romance Languages of France (ANR Grant ANR-12-CORP-0014). symila.univ-tlse2.fr.
  55. Terracher, A. -L.
    (1914a) Les aires morphologiques dans les parlers populaires du nord-ouest de l’Angoumois (1800–1900), volumeI-II. Paris: Honoré Champion.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. (1914b) Les aires morphologiques dans les parlers populaires du nord-ouest de l’Angoumois (1800–1900), volumeIII (Atlas). Paris: Honoré Champion.
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Zimmermann, M.
    (2014) Expletive and Referential Subject Pronouns in Medieval French. Linguistische Arbeiten 556. Berlin: De Gruyter.10.1515/9783110367478
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110367478 [Google Scholar]
  58. Zribi-Hertz, A.
    (1994) The syntax of nominative clitics in standard and advanced french. In G. Cinque , J. Koster , J. -Y. Pollock , L. Rizzi & R. Zanuttini (Eds.), Paths Towards Universal Grammar: Studies in Honor of Richard S. Kayne, 453–472. Georgetown University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/li.00014.mas
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/li.00014.mas
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error