Expletive and Referential Subject Pronouns in Medieval French 9783110373370, 9783110367478, 9783110394306

Citation preview

Michael Zimmermann Expletive and Referential Subject Pronouns in Medieval French

Linguistische Arbeiten

Edited by Klaus von Heusinger, Gereon Müller, Ingo Plag, Beatrice Primus, Elisabeth Stark and Richard Wiese

Volume 556

Michael Zimmermann

Expletive and Referential Subject Pronouns in Medieval French

DE GRUYTER

ISBN 978-3-11-037337-0 e-ISBN (PDF) 978-3-11-036747-8 e-ISBN (EPUB) 978-3-11-039430-6 ISSN 0344-6727 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A CIP catalog record for this book has been applied for at the Library of Congress. Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de. © 2014 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston Printing and binding: CPI books GmbH, Leck ♾ Printed on acid-free paper Printed in Germany www.degruyter.com

� To Katrin

Acknowledgements This book is a revised and abridged version of my doctoral dissertation defended on July 26, 2012, at the University of Konstanz. I wish to thank first of all my thesis advisor and committee member Georg A. Kaiser for having sparked my interest both in (Romance) diachronic syntax and in the challenging topic of this book, for his encouragement over the years, his support, his suggestions, and his discussions. To the two other committee members who likewise reviewed my thesis, Susann Fischer and Christoph Schwarze, as well as to the committee chairman, Josef Bayer, I extend my sincere thanks for valuable comments and suggestions. Parts of this work were presented at various conferences, workshops, departmental as well as project meetings; many thanks to the audiences and participants for their critical questions and insightful comments. I would also like to thank Katerina Palasis for help with the Modern French data, Stefano Quaglia and Teresa Rivelli for help with the Italian data as well as Maialen Iraola Azpiroz and Ana Lía Huwa de Fass for help with the Spanish data. To Melissa Ingersoll, special thanks are due for proofreading the manuscript and editing the English. I also wish to thank Klaus von Heusinger, Gereon Müller, Ingo Plag, Beatrice Primus, Elisabeth Stark, and Richard Wiese for accepting my book for publication in their series. Furthermore, I would like to express my appreciation to the anonymous reviewers for their detailed and valuable comments on an earlier version of this book. Many thanks to Lena Ebert and Daniel Gietz at de Gruyter for their patient help and support with the formatting and editing. I am grateful for the funding of part of this work through the research project A-19 ‘Evolution and variation of expletive and neuter pronouns in the Romance languages’ financed by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (German Research Foundation) as part of the Collaborative Research Centre 471 ‘Variation and evolution in the lexicon’ set up at the University of Konstanz. My deep gratitude goes to my parents Anny and Hans Werner for their endless encouragement as well as for their moral and generous financial support. Warm thanks are also due to my parents-in-law Irma and Johann for their unfailing support. Finally and most of all, I want to express my deepest gratitude and appreciation to my wife Katrin for her endless love, her firm believe in me, her unlimited patience and understanding, her continuous presence, her constant encouragement and support, for reading drafts of my work in its various stages as well as for being an invaluable help with the formatting and editing; it is to her that I dedicate this book.

Contents 1

Introduction � 1

2

The development of subject pronouns in Medieval and Classical French � 8 Overview � 8 Survey of the literature � 8 Expletive subject pronouns � 8 Preliminaries � 8 Old French � 9 Middle French � 11 Classical French � 13 Conclusion � 15 Referential subject pronouns � 16 Preliminaries � 16 Old French � 17 Middle French � 19 Classical French � 22 Conclusion � 25 A new data corpus � 26 General information � 26 Results � 29

2.0 2.1 2.1.1 2.1.1.1 2.1.1.2 2.1.1.3 2.1.1.4 2.1.1.5 2.1.2 2.1.2.1 2.1.2.2 2.1.2.3 2.1.2.4 2.1.2.5 2.2 2.2.1 2.2.2 3 3.0 3.1 3.1.1 3.1.2 3.1.3 3.1.4 3.1.5 3.2 3.2.1 3.2.2 3.2.3 3.2.4

Discussion of previous approaches to subject pronouns in Medieval French � 44 Overview � 44 Approaches to both expletive and referential subject pronouns � 44 The ‘root V2 approach’ � 44 The ‘(root and) embedded V2 approach’ � 62 The ‘clitic (and auxiliary) (root) V2 approach’ � 73 The ‘borrowing approach’ � 79 The ‘disambiguation approach’ � 84 Approaches to expletive subject pronouns � 91 The ‘analogy approach’ � 91 The ‘balance approach’ � 93 The ‘grammaticalization approach’ � 95 The ‘right dislocation approach’ � 97

X � Contents

3.3 3.3.1 3.3.2 3.3.3 3.3.4 3.4 4 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.4.1 4.4.1.1 4.4.1.2 4.4.2 4.4.3 4.5 4.5.1 4.5.2 4.5.2.1 4.5.2.2 4.5.2.3 4.5.3 4.5.4 4.6 4.7 5

Approaches to referential subject pronouns � 99 The ‘agent action approach’ � 99 The ‘differential parsing approach’ � 103 The ‘pragmatico-rhetorical approach’ � 106 The ‘inducement approach’ � 107 Conclusion � 109 An alternative approach to subject pronouns in Medieval French � 110 Overview � 110 Old and Middle French as non-null subject languages � 110 Contexts for non-expressed subject pronouns � 118 Conditions on non-expressed subject pronouns � 130 Non-expressed subject pronouns in ‘V>1’ declaratives � 136 Information-structural properties of preverbal constituents � 136 ‘V2’ declaratives � 137 ‘V>2’ declaratives � 142 Correlation of non-expressed subject pronouns with focalization � 149 Fulfillment of the conditions on non-expressed subject pronouns � 155 Non-expressed subject pronouns in ‘V1’ declaratives � 162 Focalization of the finite verb � 163 Non-focalization of the finite verb � 168 Coordination � 176 Topicalization � 178 Scene setting topicalization � 182 A special case of verbal focalization (?) � 184 Evidence for the movement of the finite verb beyond I° � 199 Variation in the non-expression of subject pronouns � 201 Conclusion � 204 Outlook: The general loss of non-expressed subject pronouns in Classical French � 206

References � 220 Index � 240

1 Introduction The typological phenomenon of non-expressed subject pronouns has constituted a major research topic in the generative literature and as such has provided an empirical basis for the Principle and Parameters approach to generative syntax (Chomsky 1981, 1986, 1993, 1995, Chomsky & Lasnik 1993). Since the seminal work of Perlmutter (1971), a two-fold major distinction between languages has been maintained: on the one hand, languages allowing for nonexpressed subject pronouns, so-called null subject or pro drop languages, and, on the other, languages not allowing for non-expressed subject pronouns, referred to as non-null subject or non-pro drop languages.1 In Modern Standard French, subject pronouns are generally expressed in finite clauses, unless the subject is expressed by a non-pronominal DP or by a pronoun other than a subject pronoun. (1) Modern Standard French a. *( Il) n’ a pas pu

entrer

dans la

ville.

he not has not could to.enter into the city

‘He could not enter the city.’ b. Et pour cacher son meurtre, *( il) fait and for

to.conceal his murder

corps du

brûler

le

he makes to.burn the

pauvre mort.

body of.the poor

dead.man

‘And to conceal his murder, he has the body of the poor dead man burnt.’ This stage of French has therefore usually been analyzed as a non-null subject language. In Old French (9th‒13th centuries) and Middle French (14th‒16th centuries), on the contrary, subject pronouns are not consistently expressed in these contexts, as illustrated in (2) and (3) by the Medieval French equivalents of the Modern Standard French sentences in (1). (2) Old French Ne pot intrer

en la

ciutat ; (saint-léger, p.166)

not could to.enter in the city

�� 1 On the impetus of this distinction, conceived of as a parametric choice, to research on language acquisition, cf. Meisel (1995, 2011).

2 � Introduction

‘He could not enter the city;’ (3) Middle French Et pour celer and for

du

son meurdre, feit

to.conceal his murder

bruler

le

cors

makes to.burn the body

pauure trépassé, … (heptaméron, p.22)

of.the poor

deceased

‘And to conceal his murder, he has the body of the poor deceased burnt, …’ The medieval stages of French are therefore generally analyzed as null subject languages. Still, these stages of French differ considerably from modern Romance null subject languages such as Italian and Spanish in the possibility of non-expressed subject pronouns. Specifically, Old and Middle French show characteristics reminiscent of non-null subject rather than null subject languages. In Italian and Spanish, considered prototypical null subject languages in the generative literature, the expression of referential subject pronouns usually follows from specific semantico-pragmatic reasons such as emphasis or contrast. In the absence of such reasons, i.e. in cases of an extremely high degree of antecedent accessibility (Givón 1983, Ariel 1990), these pronouns are generally non-expressed, and this independently of the clause type. In Old and Middle French, however, referential subject pronouns are frequently expressed when their antecedent is extremely highly accessible (Morf 1878, Foulet 1928, Franzén 1939, Price 1966, Vanelli, Renzi & Benincà 1985, Roberts 1993, Vance 1997). What is more, these stages of French stand out due to a root-embeddedasymmetry, in that these pronouns are considerably more frequently expressed in embedded than in root clauses (Morf 1878, Foulet 1928, Franzén 1939, Wagner 1974a, b, Vanelli, Renzi & Benincà 1985, Adams 1987a, b, c, Roberts 1993, Vance 1997). These characteristic traits of the medieval stages of French are illustrated in (4) by means of a comparison of an extract from a 12th century French prose text with its Italian and Spanish equivalents. (4) Old French a. Treze

anz

mist

li

reis

á

faire

sun paleis

od

thirteen years needed the king to to.make his palace with

tutes les apurtenances, all

é

puis que

il out fait

le

the near.relations and then that he had made the

temple Deu é

sun demeine paleis

temple God and his domain

desíred

a

faire,

é

nostre Seignur li

desired to to.make our

quanque il out

palace and all.that he had Lord

aparut

altre

feiz

him appeared another time

Introduction � 3

si cume il out fait so as

Italian b. Il

en Gabaón. (livre reis, p.133)

he had done in Gibeon

re,

insieme

ai

suoi parenti

stretti, impiegò

the king together with his relations near

tredici

anni

per costruire il

thirteen years to to.build the his palace

ebbe costruito il had

built

tempio del

Signore e

the temple of.the Lord

palazzo e

tutto ciò

che

Signore gli

apparve

quando

and when

il

proprio

and the own

aveva desiderato fare,

palace and all that which had Lord

needed

suo palazzo, e

un’ altra

desired

il

to.make the

volta, così come aveva fatto a

him appeared an other time so

as

had

made at

Gabaon. Gibeon

Spanish c. El rey

necesitó trece

the king needed

junto

con

años para construir su

thirteen years to

sus parientes

cercanos, y

together with his relations near

construído el built

y

templo del

otra

vez

su el

had

propio palacio

and his own

había deseado hacer,

and all that had

cuando había

and when

Señor y

the temple of.the Lord

todo que

palacio

to.build his palace

Señor le

palace

apareció

desired to.make the Lord him appeared

así como lo había hecho a Gabaón.

another time so

as

it had

done

at Gibeon

‘The king needed thirteen years to build his palace together with his near relations, and when he had built the temple of the Lord and his own palace and all what he had desired to do, the Lord appeared to him another time, just as He had done at Gibeon.’ In contrast to Italian and Spanish in which for reasons of an extremely high degree of antecedent accessibility, the third person singular masculine referential subject pronoun is consistently non-expressed in the relevant embedded clauses, this pronoun is invariably expressed in the Old French source text. Crucially, this non-restriction of the expression of referential subject pronouns to contexts of emphasis or contrast as well as the frequent expression of these pronouns in embedded clauses results in an overall high frequency of expressed referentials in Old and Middle French.

4 � Introduction

This inclination for the expression of referential subject pronouns notwithstanding, the medieval stages of French also allow for the non-expression of these pronouns in contexts of emphasis or contrast (Etienne 1895, Franzén 1939, Price 1966, Sandqvist 1976, Schøsler 1988, Jensen 1990, Buridant 2007), i.e. in the very contexts to which the expression of these pronouns is generally restricted in modern Romance null subject languages such as Italian and Spanish. This is illustrated in (5), again by means of a comparison of an extract from a 12th century French prose text with its Italian and Spanish equivalents.2 (5) Old French a. Lores s’

enfuíd Adad

then himself fled

al

rei

en Egypte […] é

Hadad in Egypt

Pharáün. Pharaün le

vint

recéut

[…], terre li

to.the king Pharaoh Pharaoh him received

dunad pur la máindre, gave

li

reseantise é

for it to.inhabit home

asist

livréisun. É

en Egypte

and came in Egypt land him

maisun, é

and house

truvad tel

de vitaille

and of food

grace vers

le

him assigned delivery and found such grace towards the

rei

que

la

súer

sa

reїne

li

dunad à mullier.

king that the sister his queen him gave

Sin

to wife

out enfant de cele, … (livre reis, p.138)

then.of.her had child of that.one

Italian b. Poi

Hadad fuggì in Egitto e

andò in Egitto dal

re

then Hadad fled to Egypt and went to Egypt to.the king

Faraone. Faraone lo

accolse,

gli

diede del

terreno su

Pharaoh Pharaoh him received him gave of.the land

cui

vivere,

un focolare, e

which to.live a

del

home

re

and a

cibo. E *( lui) entrò

of.the food and he

che *( lui) gli

king that

he

then he

e

gli

on

procurò

house and him provided

talmente

nelle

grazie del

entered that.much in.the grace of.the

diede in sposa la

sorella della

sua

him gave in wife the sister of.the his

regina. Poi *( lui) ebbe da lei queen

una casa,

had

un figlio.

of her a

child

�� 2 Note that in the Italian and Spanish sentences in (5b-c), the non-expression of referential subject pronouns is not ungrammatical per se, but excluded under the intended reading given in the translation.

Introduction � 5

Spanish c. Entonces Hadad huyó hacia Egipto y then

Hadad fled to

se

presentó

fue a Egipto y

Egypt and was in Egypt and

ante

el

rey

Faraón.

Faraón

lo

himself presented before the king Pharaoh Pharaoh him

recibió,

le

dio

tierras

para habitar, un hogar y

received him gave territories to

casa

y

lo

proveyó

de

to.live a

comida. Y *( él) fue tan del

house and him provided with food

agrado del

rey

una

home and a

que *( éste)

and he was so of.the

le

dio

la

hermana de

liking of.the king that this.one him gave the sister

su

reina

como mujer. Luego *( él) tuvo un niño

his queen as

wife

then

he had

a

con

of

ella.

child with her

‘Then Hadad fled to Egypt […] and went to Egypt to the King Pharaoh. Pharaoh received him , gave him land to inhabit, a home, and a house, and provided food for him. And he [= Hadad] found such favor with the king that he [= the King Pharaoh] gave him the sister of his queen in marriage. Then he [= Hadad] had a child from her, …’ In contrast to Italian and Spanish in which the third person singular masculine referential subject pronoun is consistently expressed in the relevant clauses to avoid ambiguity, given that the subject of these clauses is different from the subject of the preceding clause(s), this pronoun is invariably non-expressed in the Old French source text. In this regard, then, Old and Middle French differ again from modern Romance null subject languages. A final and fundamental contrast between the medieval stages of French and modern Romance null subject languages such as Italian and Spanish is that only the former allow for the expression of subject pronouns in impersonal constructions, while the latter have these pronouns consistently non-expressed in such constructions. This is illustrated in (6) by means of a comparison of an extract from a 13th century French prose text with its Italian and Spanish equivalents. (6) Old French a. Des saintuaires ne of.the relics

autant

en

covient

il mie parler,

car

not is.advisable it not to.speak for

avoit

il en cel

jour en la

vile

so.many of.them was.having it in this day in the city

conme ou as

remenant dou

in.the rest

monde. (conquête, p.138)

of.the world

6 � Introduction

Italian b. Delle

reliquie non è

necessario parlare,

perché a

of.the relics not is necessary to.speak for

quel tempo, nella this time

of the relics

resto del

at

tante

mondo.

había

es necesario

como en el

hablar,

ya

que

de

not is necessary to.speak already that of

en la

ciudad, en aquellos días, tantos

these was.having in the city as

erano

in.the rest of.the world

Spanish c. De las reliquias no ellas

ne

in.the city there of.it were.being so.many

quante nel as

città ce

resto del

in those

days so.many

mundo.

in the rest of.the world

‘Of the relics it is not necessary to speak, for there were as many of these in those days in the city as in the rest of the world.’ Crucially, expressed subject pronouns in impersonal constructions in Old and Middle French show the same distribution as expletive subject pronouns expressed in impersonal constructions in non-null subject languages such as Modern Standard French, so an analysis of these Medieval French pronouns as expletives seems to naturally suggest itself.3 Essentially, such pronouns stand out due to their semantic vacuousness and, therefore, their non-referentiality. Given that in null subject languages such as Italian and Spanish, the expression of referential subject pronouns usually follows from specific semanticopragmatic reasons, expletive subject pronouns are expected by both traditional and generative theories of grammar to be consistently non-expressed in these languages, since such pronouns cannot take on any semantico-pragmatic function. This conceptual expectation has in fact been strengthened by extensive cross-linguistic investigation (Haider 2001). Evidently, then, the expression of expletive subject pronouns in Old and Middle French is “contrary to what one might expect from a null-subject language” (Arteaga 1994:152f.). As it stands, the medieval stages of French are alone among null subject languages in allowing for the expression of pronouns characteristic of non-null subject languages

�� 3 Cf. Zimmermann (2012) for extensive discussion on and a comparison of the medieval stages of French with several Romance as well as non-Romance null subject languages and varieties with regard to the distribution of expressed subject pronouns in impersonal constructions.

Introduction � 7

only whose major feature is the morpho-syntactic requirement that a finite clause have an expressed subject, even when it is semantically vacuous. The overall aim of this book is to put forward an account of the three fundamental differences just discussed. As a preliminary, the development of the (non-)expression of expletive and referential subject pronouns in Old, Middle, and Classical, i.e. 17th century, French will be determined (chapter 2). In light of the general lack of clarity in the literature as well as of the various drawbacks of the altogether few extant studies, this development will be determined through the analysis of an extensive, newly established data corpus. On the basis of both the results of this analysis and further inquiries into the corpus, previous approaches to the (non-)expression of expletive and referential subject pronouns in the medieval stages of French will be discussed and shown to have numerous empirical shortcomings which severely undermine their plausibility (chapter 3). An alternative approach, which is principally based on the analysis of Old and Middle French as non-null subject languages, will then be presented (chapter 4). Under this analysis, the expression of referential and, more importantly, expletive subject pronouns no longer constitutes cross-linguistically uncommon and, respectively, otherwise idiosyncratic phenomena, but follows rather naturally. The non-expression of subject pronouns, licit in specific contexts in nonnull subject languages, will be shown to be restricted to configurations involving left-peripheral focalization and topicalization. Finally, an alternative approach to the general loss of non-expressed subject pronouns in Classical French will be put forward which draws on extralinguistic reasons, more precisely the interaction of two instructions campaigned for in highly influential works of language use (chapter 5).

2 The development of subject pronouns in Medieval and Classical French 2.0 Overview The present chapter first brings together observations and claims in the literature pertaining to the development of the (non-)expression of expletive and referential subject pronouns in the medieval and classical stages of French (section 2.1). Given the general lack of clarity in this regard as well as the various insufficiencies of the relevant literature, this development is eventually determined by analyzing an extensive, newly established data corpus covering these stages of French (section 2.2). Since it is generally argued that diachronically, expletives differ fundamentally from referentials in their rate of expression, in that the former are consistently less frequently expressed than the latter, the two sets of pronouns will be looked into separately, starting with expletives, both conceptually and empirically the most deeply puzzling phenomenon under investigation.

2.1 Survey of the literature 2.1.1 Expletive subject pronouns 2.1.1.1 Preliminaries The following survey (sections 2.1.1.2 – 2.1.1.4) tries to bring together the at times starkly divergent observations and claims pertaining to the (non)expression of expletive subject pronouns in Old, Middle, and Classical French. Given that the literature is almost exclusively concerned with the (non-) expression of the expletive subject pronoun il (hereafter referred to as ‘expletive IL’), generally leaving out of consideration the (non-)expression of (various variants of) the expletive subject pronoun ce (hereafter referred to as ‘expletive CE’), the subsequent survey will be exclusively concerned with the development of the (non-)expression of expletive IL.1 As most of the literature fails to com-

�� 1 As extensively discussed in Zimmermann (2012), two specific kinds of impersonal construction exceptionally allow for the expression of expletive CE, namely the impersonal construction featuring the verb venir ‘to come’ followed by either an infinitive or a DP (cf. (i) and (ii), respectively) and the impersonal construction featuring the verb être directly preceded by the adver-

Survey of the literature � 9

ment on the respective positioning of this pronoun with regard to the finite verb and does generally not differentiate between its (non-)expression in root and embedded clauses or in direct speech and narration, such distinctions will be made explicit only when one or several of these are adhered to. The following survey is appended by a conclusion (section 2.1.1.5).

2.1.1.2 Old French There is general agreement that the non-expression of expletive IL is very frequent in Old French. Specifically, it is commonly claimed that in Early Old French (9th‒10th centuries), expletive IL is always non-expressed (Gröber 1880, Horning 1880, Haase 1888, Etienne 1895, Gebhardt 1896, Darmesteter 1897b, Lerch 1931, 1934, Strohmeyer 1949, Brunot & Bruneau 1969, Moignet 1971, Zink 1987b, Raynaud de Lage 2000, Spillebout 2007). Against the background of such claims, it is usually argued that “the impersonal verbs were the very last to receive the pronoun subject, the first instances occurring long after the literary period begins” (Piatt 1898:12). These claims have, however, not gone unchallenged, in that it is asserted by some that the expression of expletive IL is already encountered in the earliest Old French texts, albeit extremely seldom (Falk 1969, Roberts 1993, Mathieu 2006a). This has been taken as an indication that the expression of expletive IL is a constant and long-standing feature of the

�� bial pronoun en ‘of it’ and introduced by the concessive expression quoi que ‘whatever’ (cf. (iii)). (i) Car puis que che vint a traison faire, … (Merlin, quoted from Kjellman 1913:211) for then that it

came to treason to.make

‘For since it came to committing treason, …’ (ii) quant ce vint l’ endemain matin when

it came the tomorrow morning

(Jehan de Paris, quoted from Wickersheimer 1925:77) ‘when tomorrow morning came’ (iii) Quoi que c’ en soit, … (registre-journal, p.155) what which it of.it be

‘Be that as it may, …’ Note that it has recently been claimed that in (impersonal) constructions with experiencer verbs in Old French, the subject position is occupied by non-nominative elements, taken to constitute quirky subjects (Mathieu 2006a, Fischer 2010). As extensively shown in Zimmermann (to be submitted b), however, these non-nominative elements do not behave syntactically like ‘canonical’ nominative subjects and do therefore not represent quirky subjects. The expression of elements in the subject position of impersonal constructions in the medieval stages of French thus seems to be exclusively restricted to expletive IL (and, exceptionally, to expletive CE).

10 � The development of subject pronouns in Medieval and Classical French colloquial / spoken language which only gradually finds its way into the written language (Asbeck 1935). As for Late(r) Old French (11th‒13th centuries), the expression of expletive IL is argued by some to be “already well established” in the latter half of the 11th century and “extended and enlarged” (Piatt 1898:47) in the first half of the 12th century, so that “[b]y the middle of the 12th century, […] il was a well established grammatical form and in quite general use in French” (Piatt 1898:50) (cf. also Köhler 1888, Etienne 1895, Darmesteter 1897a, Galichet 1973). Others, however, state that expletive IL is only seldom expressed in the 12th century (Horning 1880, Asbeck 1935, Haiman 1974, von Seefranz-Montag 1983, 1984, Jensen 1990, de Bakker 1997) and gradually imposes itself from the 13th century onwards (Raumair 1888, Franzén 1939, Gorzond 1984, Maillard 1985, 1987, Ranson 2009). In stark contrast to such claims, others maintain that in the 13th century, expletive IL is still frequently non-expressed (de Wailly 1882, Zink 1997, Revol 2005), arguably for such reasons as (i) the prolonged use of “archaisms” (Wagner 1974a:44), i.e. impersonal constructions with non-expressed expletive IL, (ii) the peculiarity of impersonal constructions “to present the process in its pure state by leaving the agent in vagueness”2 (Zink 1997:123), (iii) “the lesser usefulness of a pronoun without any referent before verbs which are easily identifiable [, given that, MZ] the marked form of the verb suffices to keep it separate”3 (Zink 1997:38), and / or (iv) “the fact that the absence of reference which characterizes this il does not go well together with its status as a tonic subject”4 (OppermannMarsaux 2006:14). Compared to its preverbal expression, the postverbal expression of expletive IL is considered a “progressive form of construction” (von Seefranz-Montag 1983:230) already encountered in the 12th century (Büchsenschütz 1907, Kattinger 1971), albeit only seldom (Kattinger 1971). Moreover, expletive IL in Old French is argued to be more frequently expressed in embedded clauses than in root clauses and more frequently in direct speech than in narration (Kattinger 1971, Arteaga & Herschensohn 2006, Dufter 2008b).

�� 2 My translation. The original reads: “[…] de présenter le procès à l’état pur, en laissant l’agent dans l’indétermination […]”. 3 My translation. The original reads: “[…] la moindre utilité d’un pronom sans référent devant des verbes aisément identifiables […] [l]a forme marquée du verbe suffit à le détacher […]”. 4 My translation. The original reads: “[…] le fait que l’absence de référence, qui caractérise ce il, s’accommode mal du statut de sujet tonique.”

Survey of the literature � 11

2.1.1.3 Middle French Unanimity is again lacking when it comes to the (non-)expression of expletive IL in Middle French. While it is by and far agreed that expletive IL is frequently non-expressed in the 14th century, the claims put forward in the literature fundamentally differ with regard to the (non-)expression of this pronoun in the 15th and 16th centuries. While some maintain that expletive IL is regularly expressed from the 15th century onward (Horning 1880, von Seefranz-Montag 1983, 1984, OppermannMarsaux 2006, Ranson 2009), others observe in their analyses of 15th century literary works that expletive IL is still often non-expressed (Tönnies 1875, Eder 1889, Wickersheimer 1925). According to the relevant indications given in the Donait françois, generally considered the oldest French grammar, expletive IL appears to be consistently expressed as early as at the beginning of the 15th century: The impersonal will have before or after it this mark il, giving il est dit [‘it is said’] and est il dit [‘is it said’], respectively. And, hence, there are marks for impersonal verbs, namely il. And be aware that when you will have wanted to form an impersonal verb, then you will take the third person of some tense which you will want and will adjoin to it these marks and then it is formed, giving il est dit [‘it is said’].5 (Swiggers 1985:249f.)

Evidently, there is a discrepancy between the relevant indications in a grammar in which the expression of expletive IL is insisted on and the literary reality which evinces that this pronoun is not consistently expressed. In fact, some contend that expletive IL is regularly expressed only from the 16th century onward (Brunot 1936, Gorzond 1984, Mathieu 2006a, Spillebout 2007). Independent evidence for such a view comes from relevant illustrations and instructions in 16th century grammars from which it appears that expletive IL is consistently expressed (Palsgrave 1530, R. Estienne 1532, Garnier 1558, Mathieu 1560, Pillot 1561, Du Vivier 1566, de la Ramée 1572, H. Estienne 1582, Bosquet 1586, Cauchie 1586). Consider by way of illustration the following unequivocal indication by Palsgrave (1530:f.104): “euery verbe uſed as imparſonal in the frenche tonge muſt nedes [my highlighting] have il, for this nominatiyve caſe lyke as our verbs imparſonalles have it”.

�� 5 My translation. The original reads: “[L]e [… ] impersonel aura devant luy ou aprés cest seigne « il », sicome « il est dit », ou ainsi « est il dit ». […] Et ainsi a l’en […] seignes des verbes impersonelz, c’est a sçavoir […] « il » […]. Et sçachéz que quant vous auréz voulu de faire du verbe impersonel, donqe vous prendréz la tierce personne de quelque temps que vous vouldréz et luy adjointrez […] ces […] seignes et doncques il est fait, sicome […] « il est dit » […]”.

12 � The development of subject pronouns in Medieval and Classical French Still, the view that in the 16th century, expletive IL is regularly expressed, has not gone unchallenged. Specifically, it has been argued that expletive IL continues to be frequently non-expressed (Loiseau 1881, Lahmeyer 1886, Etienne 1895, Darmesteter 1897a, b, Gamillscheg 1957, Seelbach 1978, Huchon 1998, Schøsler 2002), a claim which is strongly endorsed by the results of analyses of 16th century literary works (Benoist 1877, Voizard 1885, Jung 1887, Orlopp 1888, Kreutzberg 1890, Zilch 1891, Mucha 1895, Krafft 1904, Bachmann 1914, Papić 1970, Argod-Dutard 2002). The non-expression of expletive IL has been attributed to either (i) Latinisms ensuing from “a countermovement against the spread of the subject pronoun”6 (Gamillscheg 1957:117), (ii) the result of “fixed ‘subjectless’ expressions” (von Seefranz-Montag 1983:231) and / or (iii) the use of an “archaic style” (von Seefranz-Montag 1983:231) (cf. also Mucha 1895). That such reasoning may in fact be well in line with the (otherwise) consistent expression of expletive IL as reflected in the illustrations and instructions of 16th century grammars can be inferred from remarks such as the following one by Palsgrave (1530:f.135) in the context of his discussion of the impersonal construction il y a ‘there is’: “dyuerſe tymes the frenche auctours leaue out il”. Yet, there are also illustrations and instructions by 16th century grammarians which cast serious doubt on the otherwise consistent expression of expletive IL. A case in point is Cauchie (1586). Even though he elsewhere underlines that expletive IL is consistently expressed, he gives the following two illustrations of impersonal constructions in which expletive IL is, evidently contrary to all expectations, non-expressed. (1) comment va ? (Cauchie 1586:f.67) how

goes

‘How are you?’ (2) mal

vous en

evil you

prendra (Cauchie 1586:f.67)

of.it will.take

‘this will be unfortunate for you’ In even starker contrast to the illustrations and instructions of various 16th century grammarians, the relevant indications by Meigret (1888[1550]:75) reveal that the expression of expletive IL is apparently restricted to a very small number of impersonal constructions, without, however, being consistent at all: “Il is sometimes [my highlighting] preposed indeterminately to the third person �� 6 My translation. The original reads: “[…] eine Gegenbewegung gegen das Umsichgreifen des Subjektpronomens […]”.

Survey of the literature � 13

singular of the substantive verb [= être ‘to be’, MZ] and to the verb falloęr [‘to be necessary’]. The same applies to y a [‘there is’], n’y a [‘there is not’].”7

2.1.1.4 Classical French It is commonly assumed that from the 17th century onward, expletive IL is consistently expressed (Haas 1909, Brunot 1936, Hilty 1959, Maillard 1985, 1987, Arteaga 1994, de Bakker 1995, 1997, Wilmet 2007). Works by 17th century grammarians appear to corroborate this assumption (Maupas 1618, Serrier 1623, Oudin 1632, 1640, Chiflet 1659, Arnauld & Lancelot 1846 [1667], de La Touche 1696; cf. also Brunot 1936). In fact, not only is the expression of expletive IL consistent in the relevant illustrations, but it is emphasized that this pronoun must be consistently expressed, as exemplified by de La Touche’s (1696:203) indication: “Il always [my highlighting] serves as the nominative conjunctive personal pronoun with impersonal verbs, e.g. Il faut [‘one must’]; Il a neigé [‘it snowed’]; Il pleuvra [‘it will rain’].”8 Yet, instances of non-expressed expletive IL are still encountered in 17th century grammars, namely in the works by Maupas (Roberts 1993, Vance 1997) and de Vaugelas (von Seefranz-Montag 1984). A particularly telling example is the following one from Maupas (1618:63): (3) Rarement advient rarely

que

nous obmettions ces

happens that we

omit

pronoms

these pronouns

nominatifs … nominative

‘It rarely happens that we omit these nominative pronouns …’ Analyses of 17th century literary works also show that expletive IL is not yet consistently expressed (Benoist 1877, Wespy 1884, Schmidt 1885, Lahmeyer 1886, Haase 1888, 1889, Stier 1896, Darmesteter 1897b, Meyer-Lübke 1899, Gamillscheg 1957, Falk 1969, Fournier 1998, Spillebout 2007, Grevisse & Goosse 2011). The non-expression of this pronoun has again (cf. section 2.1.1.3) been ascribed to an ‘archaic’ (von Seefranz-Montag 1983:228) or ‘archaizing style’ (von Seefranz-Montag 1983:231) (cf. also Schmidt 1885, Brunot 1891, Oppermann-

�� 7 My translation. The original reads: “[I]l ęt qelqefoęs ſurpozé indetęrminé de la tierſe pęrſone ſinguliere du vęrbe ſubſtantif, ę du vęrbe falloęr: […] aoſi ęt il auant y a, n’y a […]”. 8 My translation. The original reads: “Il ſert toujours de Nominatif aux verbs imperſonnels. Exemples: Il faut […]; Il a neigé […]; Il pleuvra […]”.

14 � The development of subject pronouns in Medieval and Classical French Marsaux 2006). Given that according to most 17th century grammars, expletive IL is (otherwise) consistently expressed, such reasoning once again seems natural. Yet, it is far from clear whether expletive IL is indeed otherwise consistently expressed. As it stands, 17th century grammars also provide clear indications that the expression of this pronoun is not consistent, at least in some contexts. Intriguingly, such indications are encountered in one of the grammars in which it is elsewhere insisted on that expletive IL be consistently expressed, namely in the work of Oudin (1640). In fact, Oudin (1640:252f.) indicates that with an arguably highly restricted set of impersonal constructions, expletive IL is not consistently expressed: “Several times impersonal verbs may be formed without their particle [, i.e. expletive IL, MZ], e.g. faloir [‘to be necessary’], ʃembler [‘to seem’]: faut faire [‘one must do’], faut dire [‘one must say’]: que vous en semble ? [‘What does it seem to you?’]”9 The finding of conflicting indications in one and the same work evidently casts serious doubt on the apparently consistent expression of expletive IL as reflected in various other 17th century works, and this all the more so, since 17th century grammarians are generally considered to take up the cause of a general fixing of “a full-fledged set of literary norms” (Roberts 1993:204). That caution is indeed in order also follows from inconsistencies in 17th century grammars of, on the one hand, relevant illustrations and instructions and, on the other, the actual writing practice, as evidenced by Maupas (1618). While indicating as well as abundantly illustrating by means of the conjugation of impersonal verbs that “the nature of the impersonals is in the active voice [formed, MZ] by means of the particle il”10 (Maupas 1618:124), Maupas (1618) himself has expletive IL not consistently expressed, as evidenced in (3) above. This instance of non-expressed expletive IL with the present tense indicative form of advenir ‘to happen’ is all the more curious, since in the context of his illustration of the conjugation of impersonal verbs, Maupas (1618:124v°) gives “il advient” ‘it happens’ as the form of the present tense indicative of advenir ‘to happen’. Another, even more intriguing case in point is the discrepancy between Malherbe’s rebuke of the non-expression of expletive IL in works of others and his own writing practice. Specifically, while constantly criticizing the frequent

�� 9 My translation. The original reads: “[P]luſieurs fois les imperſonnels ſe peuuent conſruire ſans leur particule : par exemple, […] faloir, ʃembler […] ; faut faire, faut dire : que vous en semble ?” 10 My translation. The original reads: “[l]a […] nature d’imperſonnels, eſt de voix active, au moyen de cette particule il […]”.

Survey of the literature � 15

non-expression of expletive IL in his commentaries to Desportes’ poetry – a state of affairs from which one might rashly conclude that “since Malherbe the presence of il was standard practice”11 (Le Bidois & Le Bidois 1935:179) –, Malherbe has expletive IL frequently non-expressed in his own works (Holfeld 1875, Haase 1888, Kreutzberg 1890, Brunot 1891, 1936, Mucha 1895, Spillebout 2007). Evidently, this scolding is “in absolute contradiction to Malherbe’s own usage”12 (Brunot 1891:425). In light of discrepancies of this sort, it is hardly surprising that some have come to consider the expression of expletive IL in Classical French to be arbitrary: Again, one must distinguish between prescription (‘obligatory’ use of il) and writing practice (the most careful writers of the 17th century sometimes ‘forget’ to use the pronoun). Therefore, Malherbe who vigorously criticizes certain passages by Desportes in which the governor of the impersonal verb [= expletive IL, MZ] is lacking, often makes the very mistake for which he reproaches his predecessor. The case of Malherbe shows how much the usage of il is voluntary and not at all as spontaneous as the use of personal il.13 (Maillard 1987:60, fn.29)

2.1.1.5 Conclusion As follows from the preceding survey of the at times starkly divergent observations and claims in the literature (sections 2.1.1.2 – 2.1.1.4), there is a general lack of clarity with regard to the (non-)expression of expletive IL in the medieval and classical stages of French. Furthermore, the literature, both traditional and generative, on the development of the (non-)expression of this pronoun is on the whole quite scarce. In fact, there are only a small number of relevant studies (Horning 1880, Piatt 1898, Büchtemann 1912, Kjellman 1913, 1919, Falk 1969, Gorzond 1984) which prove to be of limited use only. For all suffer from various major shortcomings such as the general unreliability of old text editions (cf.

�� 11 My translation. The original reads: “[…] à partir de Malherbe […] la présence de il fut de règle […]”. 12 My translation. The original reads: “[…] en contradiction absolue avec le propre usage de Malherbe […]”. 13 My translation. The original reads: “Encore faut-il distinguer prescription (emploi “obligatoire” de il) et pratique scripturale (les écrivains les plus soigneux du XVIIè siècle “oublient” parfois d’utiliser le pronom). Ainsi Malherbe, qui critique vivement certains passages de Desportes où manque le régisseur de l’impersonnel, tombe souvent lui-même dans le “défaut” qu’il reproche à son prédecesseur [sic!]. […] le cas de Malherbe montre à quel point l’usage du il impersonnel est volontariste, et non point spontané comme l’emploi du il “personnel”.”

16 � The development of subject pronouns in Medieval and Classical French Foulet 1935, Picoche & Marchello-Nizia 2001, Elsig & Rinke 2007), the lack of clarity regarding the dating of manuscripts, and divergent results of the overall number of instances of expressed expletive IL for one and the same text. Regarding the generally short contributions on the development of the (non-) expression of expletive IL by traditional grammars as well as studies on different, yet related issues and philological works, it is often unclear on which empirical basis the respective observations and claims are founded. Besides, almost all of these contributions fail to distinguish between the pre- and postverbal positioning of expressed expletive IL, between clause types as well as between direct speech and narration. Moreover, the literature generally refrains from giving frequencies, a highly unwelcome state of affairs, as pointed out by Dill (1935:5, fn.5), albeit in a different context: In our opinion, one cannot do without exact numerical details; for if one contents oneself with asserting about a phenomenon that it is ‘seldom’ or ‘relatively frequent’ and with then giving a few examples, one is first not able to get a precise idea of the actual state of affairs and, second, one is not able to verify whether the conclusions drawn and the claims put forward actually prove right.14

Also, the literature, being (almost) exclusively concerned with the (non-) expression of expletive IL, generally leaves out of consideration the (non-) expression of expletive CE. In light of the general lack of clarity as well as of various shortcomings not only of the few extant studies, but of the literature on the whole, the determination of the development of the (non-)expression of expletive subject pronouns in Old, Middle, and Classical French is still a desideratum.

2.1.2 Referential subject pronouns 2.1.2.1 Preliminaries As far as this is possible, the following survey (sections 2.1.2.2 – 2.1.2.4) tries to bring together the multitude of mostly unanimous, yet at times starkly divergent observations and claims relating to the (non-)expression of referential subject �� 14 My translation. The original reads: “[…] [E]s kann u. E. auf genaue zahlenmäßige Angaben nicht verzichtet werden; denn wenn wir uns damit begnügen, von einer Erscheinung zu behaupten, daß sie ‚selten‘ oder ‚verhältnismäßig häufig‘ vorkomme, und sie dann mit einigen Beispielen belegen, so kann man sich erstens kein genaues Bild über den Stand der Dinge machen und zweitens die gezogenen Schlüsse und gemachten Behauptungen nicht auf ihr tatsächliches Zutreffen überprüfen.”

Survey of the literature � 17

pronouns in cases of an extremely high degree of antecedent accessibility in the medieval and classical stages of French. In doing so, this survey differs fundamentally from approaches in generative studies, in that it focuses on the development of the expression, rather than the non-expression, of these pronouns. Given the general analysis of Old and Middle French as null subject languages in which the expression of referential subject pronouns is argued to follow solely from specific semantico-pragmatic reasons such as emphasis or contrast (cf. chapter 1), it is the expression of these pronouns in the absence of such reasons which is in need of an explanation (cf. also Bauer 1995). Contrary to Foulet (1928:356) himself and the many others after him who have, however, done so only tacitly, then, the following survey answers the first of the two subsequent questions in the affirmative and the second in the negative: Under these conditions, must one apply oneself to the discovery and the listing of those instances in which the subject pronoun shows up in addition to the verb? Is it not obvious that one must rather carefully look for those cases where it does not show up?15

Despite the principal laudability of the literature to at least occasionally give frequencies of the expression of referential subject pronouns in the medieval stages of French, such frequencies will not be reported in the following survey. For their reproduction and integration would not allow for any further insights into the development under investigation, since each of these frequencies rests on different basic conditions. As was the case with the (non-)expression of expletive subject pronouns, the literature generally does not distinguish between the pre- and postverbal positioning of expressed referential subject pronouns, nor between the (non-)expression of these pronouns in root and embedded clauses or in direct speech and narration. Therefore, these distinctions will only be made explicit, when one or several of these are adhered to. Again, the following survey is appended by a conclusion (section 2.1.2.5).

2.1.2.2 Old French It is commonly claimed that in Early Old French, “the pronoun subject in general was but sparsely employed” (Piatt 1898:35) (cf. also Etienne 1895, Melander 1917, Dees 1982, Vance 1989, Schøsler 1991, Fournier 1998, Sprouse & Vance 1999). Still, there is no unanimity as to when referential subject pronouns are �� 15 My translation. The original reads: “Dans ces conditions, faut-il s’appliquer à découvrir et à énumérer les cas où le pronom sujet apparaît à côté du verbe ? N’est-il pas visible qu’il faut, au contraire, rechercher soigneusement les cas où il n’apparaît pas ?”

18 � The development of subject pronouns in Medieval and Classical French first expressed in cases of an extremely high degree of antecedent accessibility. Specifically, while some state that “[t]he use of the pronoun subject in general was a comparatively late syntactical development in French” (Piatt 1898:12) (cf. also Brugmann 1917, Zink 1997, Marchello-Nizia 2006), others maintain that referentials, whose antecedent is extremely highly accessible, are already expressed “in the course of Gallo-Romance, in the preliterary period”16 (Falk 1969:250), and frequently so in Old French (Franzén 1939, Herman 1954, Kuen 1957). Independent evidence for Falk’s view comes from comparisons of otherwise faithful 12th century interlinear French translations of Latin psalters which show that referential subject pronouns which are non-expressed in the latter are often expressed in the former (Franzén 1939, Herman 1954). In any case, it is by and large agreed that in the course of the Old French period, there is a constant increase in the frequency of the expression of these pronouns (Koschwitz 1880, Nissen 1882, Haase 1888, Piatt 1898, Richter 1903, Bachmann 1914, Lerch 1934, Ménard 1976, Jensen 1990, Fournier 1998, Schøsler 2002, Buridant 2007, Prévost 2010). As to the exact extent of this increase, however, there is again no unanimity. According to some, “by the 13th century subject realisation was much more common than it had been in earlier Old French texts” (Ingham 2005:114) (cf. also von Seefranz-Montag 1983, de Kok 1985, Vance 1989, Johnson 2000, Raynaud de Lage 2000, Ranson 2009). Others, however, claim that in “thirteenth century prose texts […] the absence of a [subject personal] pronoun […] has become the exception” (Jensen 1990:133) (cf. also Franzén 1939, Gamillscheg 1957, Lukaszewicz 1979, Mathieu 2006b). According to this view, the non-expression of referential subject pronouns is conceived of as an ‘artificial prolongation’ (Wagner 1974a) of an archaic grammar state for reasons of conventionality and conservatism. Regarding the positioning of these pronouns when expressed, the general view is that it is usually preverbal (Bartels 1886, Etienne 1895, Franzén 1939, Falk 1969, Skårup 1975, Harris 1978, de Bakker 1997, Revol 2005, OppermannMarsaux 2006, Dufter 2008b, Prévost 2010), and this mostly sentence-initially in root clauses as well as directly following the subordinating conjunction with the finite verb in second position (Büchtemann 1912, Bauer 1995, Rouquier 2006, Buridant 2007, Marchello-Nizia 2007). As for the postverbal positioning of expressed referential subject pronouns, it is asserted that in Early Old French, this positioning is only seldom encountered (Haiman 1974, Vance 1989, Posner 1994b), while in the course of the Old French period, it shows an increase in

�� 16 My translation. The original reads: “[…] au cours du galloroman, à l’époque prélittéraire […]”.

Survey of the literature � 19

frequency (Franzén 1939, Haiman 1974, Vance 1989, Sprouse & Vance 1999). Again, there is no unanimity as to the exact extent of this increase: some argue that in the 13th century, the expression of referentials in postverbal position is relatively frequent (Marzys 1970, Rohlfs 1982), while others state that it is quite rare (Vance 1989, Prévost 2010). Moreover, it is generally claimed that Old French stands out due to a rootembedded-asymmetry (cf. also chapter 1), in that the expression of referential subject pronouns is distinctly more frequent in embedded clauses (Morf 1878, Gröber 1880, Foulet 1928, Franzén 1939, Harris 1985, Vanelli, Renzi & Benincà 1985, Adams 1987a, b, c, Vance 1989, 1997, Roberts 1993, Posner 1994b, Marchello-Nizia 2006, 2007).17 Arguably, this asymmetry only holds for these pronouns when expressed in preverbal position, their postverbal positioning allegedly being a lot rarer in embedded than in root clauses (Hilgers 1910, Franzén 1939, de Bakker 1997, Vance 1997, Detges 2003). Again, this view does not go unchallenged, in that others maintain that there is no such discrepancy (Price 1966, Côté 1995). As has been contended with regard to expletive IL, referential subject pronouns have commonly been argued to be more frequently expressed in direct speech than in narration (Foulet 1935, Rodriguez Somolinos 1982, Vance 1997, Berschin, Felixberger & Goebl 2008).

2.1.2.3 Middle French It is generally concurred that in the course of the Middle French period, the frequency of the expression of referential subject pronouns shows a constant increase (Nissen 1882, Haase 1888, Körting 1896, Richter 1903, Lerch 1934, de Bakker 1995, Sprouse & Vance 1999, Picoche & Marchello-Nizia 2001, Schøsler 2002, Buridant 2007; cf., however, Brugmann 1917). Additionally, most of the literature claims that such pronouns are commonly expressed, and this consistently so by the end of this stage of French (Piatt 1898, Meyer-Lübke 1899, Lerch 1934, Adams 1987a, c, Fleischman 1991, 1992, Roberts 1993, Posner 1994b, de Bakker 1997, LaFond 2003). Still, the claims and observations put forward in the literature for the respective centuries differ significantly with regard to the extent of the expression of the pronouns under discussion.

�� 17 According to Vanelli, Renzi & Benincà (1985), referential subject pronouns are also expressed considerably more frequently in embedded clauses in the medieval stages of the following set of Romance languages: Franco-Provençal, several dialects of Occitan, the Northern Italian dialects, Raeto-Romance, Florentine.

20 � The development of subject pronouns in Medieval and Classical French Regarding the 14th century, some contend that the expression of referential subject pronouns “had become widespread” (Jensen 1990:133). Others, however, observe in their analyses of 14th century literary works that these pronouns are very frequently non-expressed (Bauer 1899, Zink 1997). As for the 15th century, there is unanimity among those analyzing literary works from this century that “the omission of the subject in all persons is still allowed for to a great extent”18 (Waldmann 1887:76) (cf. also Müller 1886, Eder 1889, Vance 1989). With respect to the 16th century, it is claimed, and this also on the basis of analyses of literary works from this century, that the expression of referential subject pronouns becomes “predominant”19 (Taddéi 2006:15) (cf. also Holfeld 1875, Roberts 1989, 1993, Marchello-Nizia 2006). This claim has, however, not gone unchallenged. In fact, others argue, likewise on the basis of analyses of 16th century literary texts, that “during the whole 16th century, one observes a great liberty of its [= the referential subject pronoun’s] use”20 (Fragonard & Kotler 1994:72) (cf. also Benoist 1877, Kreutzberg 1890, Stier 1896, Darmesteter 1897b, Bachmann 1914, Lerch 1934, von Wartburg 1946, Attal 1986, Thun 1989, Fournier 1998, Argod-Dutard 2002, Spillebout 2007). In any case, the non-expression of the pronouns under discussion is generally considered “artificial and deliberate”21 (Foulet 1936:40) and is commonly attributed to either Latinisms (Foulet 1936, von Wartburg 1946, Gamillscheg 1957, Thun 1989) or archaic style (Wespy 1884, Brunot 1891, Franzén 1939, von Seefranz-Montag 1983). This view, however, is (partly) challenged by others in light of “the presence of […] new null subject constructions” (Vance 1997:259) (cf. also Marzys 1970, Vance 1989, Roberts 1993), namely clauses starting off with the finite verb. Also, the observation that the non-expression of referential subject pronouns witnesses “an overwhelming preference for person 5 (null vous) and to some extent person 4 (null nous) in embedded V1 clauses but not elsewhere” (Vance 1997:263) challenges this view (cf. also von Wartburg 1946, Bourciez 1967, Vance 1989, Junker 1990, Roberts 1993, LaFond 2003, Taddéi 2006). Intriguingly, the indications given by 16th century grammarians are far from being consistent when it comes to the issue of the non-expression of the pro�� 18 My translation. The original reads: “[d]ie Auslassung des Subjektes aller Personen ist noch im weitesten Masse erlaubt […]”. 19 My translation. The original reads: “[…] prédominante […]”. 20 My translation. The original reads: “[…] pendant tout le XVIe siècle, on note une grande liberté dans son emploi […]”. 21 My translation. The original reads: “[…] artificiel et […] voulu.”

Survey of the literature � 21

nouns under discussion. In fact, several of these grammarians (Garnier 1558, Pillot 1561, de la Ramée 1572, H. Estienne 1582, Cauchie 1586) as well as the renowned 16th century poet de Ronsard (1565, 1585) insist on the consistent expression of these pronouns, as illustrated by the following recommendation by de Ronsard (1585:44): “the subject pronouns, such as ie [‘I’], tu [‘you’], you will not forget, if you want your charms to be perfect and in every respect wellaccomplished”22. Such indications are yet in stark contrast to (at least some of) the literary reality, a state of affairs which has not gone unnoticed by Palsgrave (1530:f.100v°) who comments on this as follows: [N]ote that for ſo moche as in maner thorough al the tenses in every verbe parſonal there be four dyſtincte wordes that ſerue onely for je [‘I’], tu [‘you (2NDP.SG)’], nous [‘we’] and vous [‘you (2NDP.PL)’], they uſe often to leave the pronowne on written, as a thyng that may eaſly be understande to be included in the perſon of the verbe, as ſy parleray primier [‘I shall thus speak first’], or conterons le demourant [‘we shall tell the rest’], and many ſuche lyke.

Another, even more intriguing case in point is that de Ronsard himself does not constantly abide by his recommendation to consistently express referentials (de Deimier 1610, Brunot 1891, Georgin 1952) which should therefore probably best be considered one of the “many rules and secrets of our poetry”23 (de Ronsard 1585:44). While insisting elsewhere on the consistent expression of referential subject pronouns, some 16th century grammarians (de la Ramée 1572, Cauchie 1586) also provide clear indications that at least in some contexts, these pronouns are frequently non-expressed. Consider by way of illustration the following remark by Cauchie (1586:93f.): The plural words of the second person which end in a particular manner, i.e. in –ez, may often lack [referential subject, MZ] pronouns, such as Ie voudroi que puiſsiez obtenir tout ce que deſirez [‘I want you to get everything you desire’]. A la mienne volonté que fuſsiez auprez de celui, à qui avez fait offer de voz beautez [‘I want you to be next to him to whom you have offered your beauties’]. The pronouns are furthermore deleted in all persons of the two numbers when the affirmed intention is rejected by negating it or when the ne-

�� 22 My translation. The original reads: “[…] pronoms primitiſz , comme ie,tu , […] tu n’oublieras […], ſi tu veux que tes carmes ſoyẽt parfaictz & de tous poinctz bien accomplis […].” 23 My translation. The original reads: “[…] beaucoup de regles & ſecretz de noſtre poëſie […].”

22 � The development of subject pronouns in Medieval and Classical French gated intention is refuted. For instance: […] il eſt revenu [‘he has returned’] non eſt [‘he has not’] [, MZ] tu ne m’as point paié [‘you did not pay me’] ſi ai [‘I did’].24

In any case, it is generally concurred that the pronouns under discussion are more frequently expressed in preverbal position (Zink 1997, Prévost 2001, 2002), even though their postverbal expression is said to be increasingly common (Haiman 1974). Moreover, the expression of these pronouns is commonly claimed to be distinctly more frequent in embedded clauses than in root clauses (Wagner 1974b, Lukaszewicz 1979, Vanelli, Renzi & Benincà 1985, Dupuis 1988, Thun 1989, Dupuis, Lemieux & Gosselin 1992, Schøsler 2002). Still, many maintain that there is even a decrease in the frequency of the expression of referential subject pronouns in embedded clauses (Loiseau 1881, Borelius 1902, Hulk 1993, Hulk & van Kemenade 1993, 1995, Sprouse & Vance 1999, OppermannMarsaux 2006) which others assert to go hand in hand with a decrease in the frequency of their expression in root clauses (Benoist 1877, Wespy 1884, Voizard 1885, von Wartburg 1946, Marzys 1970, Adams 1988b, Vance 1989, 1997, Roberts 1993). The pronouns under discussion are again claimed to be more frequently expressed in direct speech than in narration (Brunot 1891, Foulet 1936, Schøsler 1988, 2002).

2.1.2.4 Classical French As noted in section 2.1.2.3, it is commonly claimed that by the end of the Middle French period, referential subject pronouns are consistently expressed (Piatt 1898, Meyer-Lübke 1899, Lerch 1934, de Kok 1985, Adams 1987a, c, Fleischman 1991, 1992, Roberts 1993, Posner 1994b, de Bakker 1997, Sprouse & Vance 1999, Marchello-Nizia 2000). This claim seems to be substantiated by relevant illustrations and instructions in works of 17th century grammarians and poets (de Deimier 1610, Serrier 1623, Oudin 1640, de Vaugelas 1647, Chiflet 1659, de La Touche 1696). Consider by way of illustration the following instruction by Chiflet (1659:37f.): The conjunctive pronouns, being in the nominative, always [my highlighting] come before the verbs, for they are of use in their conjugation, as in je viens [‘I come’], tu viens �� 24 My translation. The original reads: “[P]lurales ʃecundæ perʃonæ uoces, quæ peculiariter deʃinunt,id est in ez pronominibus ʃæpius carere poʃʃunt […],ut Ie voudroi que puiſsiez obtenir tout ce que deſirez. A la mienne volonté que fuſsiez auprez de celui,à qui avez fait offre de voz beautez. […] Detrahuntur etiam pronomina omnibus perʃonis utriuʃq; numeri,cùm intention affirmans neganter depellitur aut intentio negans affirmatè confutatur. Exempli gratia […] il eſt revenu non eſt […] tu ne m’as point paié ſi ai […]”.

Survey of the literature � 23

[‘you.2NDP.SG come’], il vient [‘he comes’], nous venons [‘we come’], vous venez [‘you.2NDP.PL come’], ils viennent [‘they.MASC come’].25

Given, however, the existence of unequivocal indications in grammars from roughly the first quarter of the 17th century that in a restricted number of contexts, referential subject pronouns may be non-expressed (Maupas 1618, Serrier 1623, de Vaugelas 1647, Chiflet 1659), it is far from clear whether the expression of these pronouns is indeed consistent. Intriguingly, such indications are again encountered in one of the works in which elsewhere, the consistent expression of the pronouns under discussion is insisted on, namely in the work of Serrier (1623). According to Maupas (1618:63), the non-expression of referential subject pronouns, albeit generally rare, is principally possible in three contexts: It rarely happens that we omit these nominative pronouns, for our language which avoids as far as possible any ambiguity uses them to distinguish the persons of the verbs. Except for concessive responses to preceding enunciative comments. Non fay [‘I shall not do so’], Si faites [‘You.2NDP.PL shall do so’]. Likewise, we often omit them, when the conjunction is et ʃi [‘and thus’] which conjoins some appendix to a preceding sentence in which the person has been sufficiently expressed. Vous m’avez bien conʃeillé, & vous croiray une autre fois [‘You.2NDP.PL gave me good advice, and I will believe you another time’]. Jl vous reʃpecte, & si vous servira bien [‘He respects you, and he will thus serve you well’]. Often, we also omit the first and second person plural after the conjunctions et [‘and’], Auʃʃi [‘Also’], Que [‘Which’], Auʃʃique [‘As if’]. J’ay recue les letres que m’avez envoyees [‘I received the letters which you.2NDP.PL have sent me’].26

Relevant analyses of 17th century literary works also reveal that although seldom, the non-expression of these pronouns is still encountered (Nordström 1870, List 1881, Schmidt 1885, Lahmeyer 1886, Eder 1889, Potthoff 1894, Mucha 1895, de Kok 1985). It is in light of such observations that the view that referential subject pronouns are consistently expressed by the end of the Middle

�� 25 My translation. The original reads: “Les Pronoms Conjonctifs , eſtant au Nominatif, vont touſiours deuant les Verbes : car ils ſeruent à leurs conjugaiſons: comme; Ie viens,tu viens,il vient,nous venons,vous venez , ils viennent.” 26 My translation. The original reads: “Rarement advient que nous obmettions ces pronoms nominatifs, car noſtre langue, qui évite tant qu’il ſe peut, l’ambiguité , en uſe pour diſtinguer les perſonnes des verbes. Exceptez és reſponſes conceſsives des propos énonciatifs precedens. […] Non fay, Si faites. […] Item nous les obmettons ſouvent quand la conjonction & et si , conjoingnent quelque appendice à un propos precedent où la perſonne a esté ſuſſiſamment exprimee. Vous m’avez bien conʃeillé, & vous croiray une autre fois. Jl vous reʃpecte, & si vous servira bien. […] Souvent auſsi obmettons nous les premiere & ſeconde perſonnes plurieres […] après les conjonctions & , Auʃʃi, Que, Auʃʃique. J’ay recue les letters que m’avez envoyees […].”

24 � The development of subject pronouns in Medieval and Classical French French period has been challenged (Stier 1896, Darmesteter 1897b, von Seefranz-Montag 1983, Fournier 1998). The non-expression of these pronouns has again been held to constitute archaisms (Schmidt 1885, Kreutzberg 1890, Potthoff 1894, Mucha 1895, Darmesteter 1897b, Meyer-Lübke 1899, Brunot & Bruneau 1969, Spillebout 2007, Grevisse & Goosse 2011) “characterizing the burlesque and marotique style or the legal style”27 (Fournier 1998:22) or to represent fixed expressions (Meyer-Lübke 1899, Fournier 1998). Given the overall scarcity of non-expressed referentials, their restriction to a small number of contexts as well as the unequivocal illustrations and instructions of numerous 17th century grammarians and poets to consistently express these pronouns, such reasoning seems to naturally suggest itself. And this all the more so in view of relevant illuminating remarks by mid17th century grammarians (de Vaugelas 1647, Chiflet 1659). In fact, the one context given by Serrier (1623) and two out of the three contexts adduced by Maupas (1618) in which referential subject pronouns may be non-expressed are not only reprimanded, but, crucially, qualified as “antiquated language no longer in use”28 (Chiflet 1659:40). Consider by way of insightful illustration the following remark by de Vaugelas (1647:420‒422) relating to the non-expression of referential subject pronouns in the context of a coordinated finite verb of which he disapproves when the two coordinated verbs have different subjects: Several [of our good authors, MZ] overindulge in this suppression, above all those who have written twenty or twenty-five years ago [my highlighting]; for back at that time [my highlighting], it was a vice quite familiar to our writers. These authors [hereby, MZ] failed according to the very opinion of their most enthusiastic supporters. It is certain that this great man of whom I have given the examples still adopted from the old style [my highlighting] this manner of writing; for the elders [my highlighting] often suppressed this pronoun [= the referential personal pronoun, MZ], and the modern writers who wanted to adapt themselves to a model which is so much estimated copied even those things which were no longer used [my highlighting].29

�� 27 My translation. The original reads: “[…] caractérisant le style burlesque et marotique ou le style juridique […]”. 28 My translation. The original reads: “[…] antiquailles […] ne […] plus en vſage.” 29 My translation. The original reads: “[P]luſieurs abuſent de cette ſuppreſſion, ſur tout ceux qui ont eſcrit il y a vingt ou vingt-cinq ans; car en ce temps là, […] c’eſtoit vn vice aſſez familier à nos Eſcriuains. […] [C]es Autheurs ont manqué ſelon l’auis meſme de leurs plus paſſionez partiſans. Il eſt certain que ce grand homme dont i’ay rapporté les […] exemples, tenoit encore de l’ancien ſtile cette façon d’eſcrire ; car les anciens supprimoient ſouuent ce pronom, & les modernes qui ont voulu ſe former ſur vn modelle ſi eſtimé, l’ont ſuiuy meſme aux choses, qui n’eſtoient plus en vſage.”

Survey of the literature � 25

It thus appears that at least as far as the grammarians are concerned, their “toleration of the ellipsis [of referential subject pronouns, MZ] decreases in the course of the [17th, MZ] century”30 (Fournier 1998:21).

2.1.2.5 Conclusion As has become evident from the preceding survey (cf. sections 2.1.2.2 – 2.1.2.4), there is a general lack of clarity in the literature with regard to the development of the (non-)expression of referential subject pronouns in French. Moreover, the literature on this development faces by and large the same kind of insufficiencies as the literature on the development of the (non-)expression of expletive IL (cf. section 2.1.1.5). Specifically, most of the studies, carried out in the second half of the 19th century on the basis of the analysis of one or several works from either Old or Middle French, are of limited use only for reasons of such major drawbacks as the general unreliability of old text editions and / or the lack of clarity regarding the dating of manuscripts. And the contributions of the numerous traditional grammars which make the development of the (non)expression of referentials the subject of discussion as well as of the studies on different, yet related issues and philological works are mostly rather short and remain silent about their empirical basis. More generally, the literature usually refrains from differentiating between the pre- and the postverbal positioning of expressed referential subject pronouns, between root and embedded clauses as well as between direct speech and narration. Furthermore, it is usually unclear whether the non-expression of these pronouns has also been taken into consideration in the common case of the coordination of finite verbs in sentences having one and the same subject. Given, however, the absence of a fundamental change in this regard in the history of French as well as the crucial fact that the non-expression of the pronouns under discussion in this context is also characteristic of non-null subject languages other than Modern Standard French, these instances of non-expressed referentials must be left out of account. In view of the general lack of clarity as well as of the numerous insufficiencies of the relevant literature, then, the development of the (non-)expression of referential subject pronouns in the medieval and classical stages of French still remains to be determined.

�� 30 My translation. The original reads: “[…] tolérances à l’ellipse se réduisent au cours du siècle […]”.

26 � The development of subject pronouns in Medieval and Classical French

2.2 A new data corpus 2.2.1 General information In light of the general lack of clarity regarding the development of the (non-) expression of both expletive and referential subject pronouns in Old, Middle, and Classical French as well as in light of the major insufficiencies of the relevant literature, a coherent analysis of data from these stages of French is urgently needed to allow for an adequate determination of this development. As a prerequisite, it is necessary to establish an extensive data corpus covering the stages of Old, Middle, and Classical French. Such a data corpus has in fact been established on the basis of (extracts of) thirteen texts selected in accordance with the subsequent elaborate list of criteria (Zimmermann 2009; cf. also Wagner 1974b, Dees 1980, Vance 1989, Schøsler 2002, Sitaridou 2005, Elsig & Rinke 2007, Ingham 2008): – texts must be edited; – editions of texts of which several manuscript copies exist must be based on only one such manuscript copy and the dating of the latter must be (relatively) indisputable; – editions of texts must be faithful reproductions of the selected manuscripts or original editions and indicate any intervention on the part of the editors; – Old French texts must be written in Old French in general and in francien – the dialect of the Paris region, traditionally believed to have directly developed into the French standard language and recently argued to have merely served as its basis (Lodge 2002)31 – in particular to avoid (as far as possible) any sort of other regional or dialectal influence and to hereby allow for an adequate intertextual comparison; – texts must be written in an unaffected language and feature many instances of direct speech to allow, as far as possible, for a reliable reflection of the spoken language of a given time; – the intervals between the time of either the writing of the manuscripts or the publication of the original editions on which editions of texts are based must be the same, namely 50 years, to allow for a uniform depiction of any possible evolution of the morpho-syntax of the language;

�� 31 Cf. Lodge (2002) for a general overview of the discussion on the sources of the standardization of the French language and a critical assessment of the so-called ‘scripta’ hypothesis, i.e. the claim of a supra-regional written standard (inter alia Delbouille 1970, Hilty 1973, Cerquiglini 1993).

A new data corpus � 27

–

texts must have a certain length to allow for a representative and adequate determination of the morpho-syntax of the language.

Table (1) lists the thirteen texts selected in accordance with these criteria and covering a time span of almost five and half centuries and additionally gives the literary genre as well as the time of either the writing of the manuscripts or the publication of the original editions on which the selected editions of these texts are based. Tab. (1): Datings, titles, and literary genres of the selected manuscripts /original editions underlying the selected texts dating 1125‒1150 1170 1220 1290 1330‒1340 1409 1450 1450‒1475 1498‒1515 1553 1580‒1606 1623 1666

title La Chanson de Roland (= roland) Li Quatre Livre des Reis (= livre reis) L’Estoire del saint Graal (= saint graal) La conqueste de Constentinoble (= conquête) Vie de saint Louis (= saint louis) Le livre des fais du bon messire Jehan le Maingre (= livre des fais) Galien le Restoré en prose (= galien) Abregé des croniques de France (= abregé) La minute française des interrogatoires de Jeanne la Pucelle (= minute) Nouvelles (= heptaméron) Registre-Journal du Règne de Henri III (= registre-journal) Histoire comique de Francion (= francion) Le Roman bourgeois (= roman)

literary genre epic poetry religious prose epic prose historical prose historical prose historical prose epic prose historical prose historical prose fictional prose historical prose fictional prose fictional prose

Some notes on the selection of these texts are in order. The oldest text selected, roland, dates from no earlier than the second quarter of the 12th century, and this for the simple fact that the manuscript underlying the selected edition, the so-

28 � The development of subject pronouns in Medieval and Classical French called Oxford manuscript, constitutes the oldest extant longer text consistently written in French. The most recent text selected, roman, on the contrary, dates from no later than the end of the second third of the 17th century, as it is generally assumed that “[h]alfway through the 17th century, expletive il indeed has to be present” (de Bakker 1997:195) in impersonal constructions, just as referential subject pronouns have to be in personal constructions (cf. sections 2.1.1.4 and 2.1.2.4). Several of the texts selected fail to meet one or several of the criteria listed above. This is particularly true of the Old French texts selected. While the three most recent ones, livre reis, saint graal, and conquête, meet these criteria to a very large extent, the oldest one, roland, only does so to a minor degree. Admittedly, this is most unsatisfactory; yet, it cannot be helped, since Old French texts are rare (Lodge 2002). What might be considered most unwelcome in this regard is that the oldest text selected is in verse form. For as a general rule, verse texts stand out due to an at times clearly marked tendency towards affectedness, the possibility of poetic license, the maintenance of old conventions and constructions, metrical necessities as well as necessities pertaining to assonance and rhyme (Tobler 1877, Morf 1878, Foulet 1928, 1935, von Wartburg 1946, Rickard 1963, Cerquiglini 1983, Dupuis, Lemieux & Gosselin 1992, Labelle 2007). Still, the selection of such a text for the period of time preceding the last third of the 12th century cannot be helped, if this period is also to be investigated. For it is only afterwards, starting with livre reis, that prose texts in French are available. Note, however, that the selection of a verse text may well prove to be less awkward than initially thought, since even though the possibility of the highly unwelcome drawbacks elaborated on above must certainly not be denied, one must still bear in mind that “the language’s great tendencies always finally emerge”32 (Zink 1983:30, fn.2) (cf. also Thurneysen 1892, Rickard 1963, Falk 1969, Dees 1980, Adams 1987a, Schøsler 1988, Posner 1994b). Note with regard to the oldest French prose text, livre reis, that it has commonly been claimed that this text constitutes a (more or less) direct translation from Latin (Darin 1868, Nissen 1882, Asbeck 1935, Posner 1994b, Bauer 1995, Becker 2005, Marchello-Nizia 2006), evidently a major drawback. However, such a claim is contrary to fact, since livre reis in fact represents an “extremely free” (Bartels 1886:5) translation which is scarcely, if at all, influenced by Latin (Horning 1880, Gorges 1882, Piatt 1898, Franzén 1939, Herman 1954, MarchelloNizia 1995):

�� 32 My translation. The original reads: “[…] les grandes tendances de la langue finissent toujours par se dégager.”

A new data corpus � 29

Our text [= livre reis, MZ] is a fairly free translation which comments, completes, and even corrects the biblical original. Even in the passages which are relatively faithful to the Vulgate, the translator keeps his independence with regard to the language and the style. The timid and cumbersome servility which characterizes the Oxford and Cambridge Psalters is entirely absent in the Quatre Livre des Reis.33 (Herman 1954:351)

As such, the selection of this text proves to be unproblematic in this regard. It has already been hinted at above that for all of the texts selected, an extract, rather than the entire text, had been chosen. In fact, an extract of 1,500 clauses (comprising both root and embedded clauses) from each of the thirteen texts selected has been considered to allow for the capture of both a large number and a great variety of personal as well as impersonal constructions. Each of these altogether 19,500 clauses has been manually analyzed using Microsoft Excel. Note, finally, that following common usage (Rodriguez Somolinos 1982, Vance 1989, Marchello-Nizia 1995, de Bakker 1997), each of the texts selected is taken to represent a synchronic grammar of the French language. Consequently, the newly established diachronic data corpus comprises a total of thirteen consecutive grammars stretching from the second quarter of the 12th century to the second third of the 17th century – arguably an adequate basis to soundly determine the development of the (non-)expression of subject pronouns, both expletive and referential, in the medieval and classical stages of French.

2.2.2 Results Before proceeding to the presentation of the results of the analysis of the newly established data corpus, a few words are in order regarding the subject pronouns (non-)expressed in impersonal constructions. As argued in chapter 1, these pronouns represent expletives and are, from a semantic point of view, vacuous. It is therefore imperative that in the analysis of the present data corpus as well as of any other corpus, only subject pronouns entirely devoid of any semantic value be considered. Great care must thus be taken when it comes to constructions with verbs which may be construed both personally and imperso-

�� 33 My translation. The original reads: “Notre texte […] est une traduction assez libre qui commente, complète, voire même corrige l’original biblique. Même dans les passages relativement fidèles à la Vulgate, le traducteur garde son indépendance du point de vue de la langue et du style. La servilité timide et maladroite qui caractérise les Psaumes d’Oxford et de Cambridge est complètement absente des Quatre Livre des Reis.”

30 � The development of subject pronouns in Medieval and Classical French nally (cf. Zimmermann (2012) for extensive discussion) in which the finite verb is in the third person singular and the subject pronoun il is (non-)expressed. For since in addition to expletive IL and the third person masculine singular referential subject pronoun, il ‘he’, Old, Middle, and Classical French have another third person singular subject pronoun of the form il, namely one which is semantically equivalent to the demonstrative subject pronoun ce ‘this’, as shown in (4), such constructions must not be readily considered impersonal “variants” (Martinet 1975:75) (contra Piatt 1898, Kattinger 1971, Pollock 1983, Roberts 1993, Vance 1997, Prévost 2001, Cardinaletti & Roberts 2002, Arteaga & Herschensohn 2004, 2006, Marchello-Nizia 2005, Zimmermann 2009), but rather personal constructions.34 (4) Old French a. Cels qu’ il

unt

mort, ben

les

poet hom preiser :

those who they have dead well them can one to.guess

est escrit

Il

es

cartres

e

es

brefs ;

this is written in.the charters and in.the documents

(roland, p.317) ‘Those whom they killed, one may easily estimate their number: this is written down in the charters and in the documents;’ cesti serement ne feroit b. … il dit que, se Dieu plet, he said that if God pleased this oath

not would.make

�� 34 Note, incidentally, that the (non-)expression of demonstrative il, arguably still quite frequent in the 17th century (Bourciez 1967, Brunot & Bruneau 1969, Gougenheim 1969, Picoche & Marchello-Nizia 2001, Grevisse & Goosse 2011), is also a feature of Modern French (Benoist 1877, Brunot 1891, 1936, Stier 1896, Damourette & Pinchon 1934, Strohmeyer 1949, Heriau 1980, Maillard 1985, 1987, Wilmet 2007): (i) Modern French a. Il est ( im)possible. it is (im)possible

b.

‘It is (im)possible.’ quand / comme / si bon when

as

vous semble

if good you

seems

‘when / as / if you feel like it’ Generally considered a vestige of the medieval stages of French, demonstrative il in Modern French is commonly argued to be (non-)expressed in a subset of constructions in which it used to be expressed (Kreutzberg 1890, Haas 1909, Le Bidois & Le Bidois 1935, von Wartburg & Zumthor 1947, Martin & Wilmet 1980, Olsson 1986, Grevisse & Goosse 2011). Given, however, that there are at least fifty different such constructions with expressed demonstrative il, it appears that the (non-)expression of this pronoun is in fact a much more widespread phenomenon in Modern French than commonly thought.

A new data corpus � 31

il ja. (saint louis, p.178) he never

‘… he said that, if this pleased God, he would never take this oath.’ Middle French c. … que pour le

faire

entretenir,

j’ y

exposerai

that for the to.make to.stand.by I for.this will.risk

( s’ il

est besoin jusques à

if this is need

until

ma propre vie.

to my own

life

(registre-journal, p.161) ‘… that I will risk even my own life, if this becomes necessary, to see that it be stood by.’ la Dame d’ d. Or puisqu’ ainsi est, Ma Dame, dit but since

this.way is

my lady

said the lady of

honneur, il me semble que … (heptaméron, p.36) honor

it me seems

that

‘But since that is the way it is, my Lady, said the lady-in-waiting, it seems to me that …’ Classical French e. : mais je ne

les

hantois

que

le

moins qu’

but I not them was.haunting that the least that

il

m’ estoit

possible, … (francion, p.253)

this me was.being possible

‘: but I went to see them as rarely as this was possible for me, …’ In these cases, it is necessary that il, being demonstrative, be considered referential. Evidently, this well-founded approach has direct and far-reaching repercussions on the analysis of the established data corpus, in that the overall number of instances of expletive IL, both expressed and non-expressed, is considerably reduced. In order to allow for both an adequate and illustrative presentation of the results of the analysis of the newly established diachronic data corpus with regard to the (non-)expression of expletive and referential subject pronouns, the following presentation will look separately into these two sets of pronouns for the reasons outlined in section 2.0, invariably beginning with expletives. Moreover, it will take a direct bearing on a range of major issues raised now and then in the relevant literature (cf. section 2.1). Specifically, the development of the (non-)expression of these pronouns will be approached from the following perspectives: (i) overall frequency, (ii) frequency according to clause type, (iii) frequency according to (non-)direct speech, (iv) frequency according to pre- / postverbal positioning, (v) frequency according to person / number. Note that

32 � The development of subject pronouns in Medieval and Classical French all of these categories will be restricted to one specific sentence type, namely (finite) declaratives. Turning first to the overall frequency of the expression of subject pronouns, Figure (1) gives the respective results from analyzing the established data corpus with regard to expletives.

100% 94/96

90%

97/97

80% 63/80

70%

38/49

48/65

60% 34/57 50%

33/61

22/42

40% 30%

33/94 25/95

20%

18/72

10% 8/73 0%

3/47

Fig. (1):Frequency of the expression of expletive subject pronouns in declaratives35

As follows from these results, the expression of expletive subject pronouns is encountered in all of the texts selected. Crucially, these pronouns are already expressed in the manuscript underlying roland which, as pointed out in section 2.2.1, constitutes the oldest extant longer literary text consistently written in French. While relatively infrequent at the beginning of the 12th century, the expression of expletives witnesses a considerable increase in frequency from the 13th century onward. Intriguingly, this increase in frequency proves to be neither

�� 35 In order to allow for a more lucid illustration, the frequencies under discussion will be given in the form of diagrams, rather than in the form of tables. In an effort to have the former convey the same amount of information as the latter, the diagrams additionally give the absolute number of the respective set of expressed subject pronouns in boxes followed by the absolute number of both their expression and their non-expression.

A new data corpus � 33

constant nor linear. Rather, increases and decreases in the frequency of the expression of expletive subject pronouns alternate until the very end of the 15th century from which time onward the expression of these pronouns shows a constant increase. In fact, from the beginning of the 16th century onward, such pronouns are expressed in at least two out of three cases, and in the 17th century, their expression is virtually consistent. Specifically, whereas in francion, a text from the first half of the 17th century, non-expressed expletive subject pronouns are still encountered, albeit nearly vanishing to a very small number – there are in total two such instances, amounting to no more than 2.1% and thus proving to be already quite scarce –, in roman which dates from the second half of the 17th century expletives are consistently expressed.36 Figure (2) gives the respective results from analyzing the established data corpus regarding the expression of referential subject pronouns.

�� 36 In fact, there is one instance of non-expressed expletive IL, given in (i). (i) Bien lui en prit qu’ il était tard, … (roman, p.132) well him of.it took that it was.being late

‘It occurred to him that it was late, …’ Given, however, that roman is a text from the late classical period generally considered to represent Modern French and, more crucially, that as a fixed expression, (a slightly modified version of) this instance of non-expressed expletive IL persists into the modern standard language of the 20th‒21th centuries, (i) has been left out of consideration.

34 � The development of subject pronouns in Medieval and Classical French

100% 780/782

720/720

90% 445/492

629/705

80%

603/709 566/698

296/370 70% 60%

317/540

50%

311/566 224/464

40% 30%

705/1052

382/578

156/456

20% 10% 0%

Fig. (2): Frequency of the expression of referential subject pronouns in declaratives

As these results show, referential subject pronouns are frequently expressed in all of the texts selected. In effect, in the oldest text, these pronouns are expressed in one out of three cases, and in the rest of the texts in at least one out of two cases. The expression of referentials witnesses a considerable increase in frequency from the 13th century onward which is, however, neither constant nor linear, as increases and decreases in the frequency of the expression of such pronouns alternate. It is from the middle of the 16th century onward only that the expression of referential subject pronouns shows a constant increase. In the 17th century, these pronouns are virtually consistently expressed: francion which dates from the first half of the 17th century features a very small number of instances of non-expressed referentials, more precisely two instances which amount to no more than 0.3% – arguably an extremely scarce phenomenon in this period of French –; in roman, on the contrary, a text of the second half from the 17th century, such pronouns are consistently expressed. After this initial presentation, the frequency of the expression of subject pronouns will be looked into with respect to clause type. Figure (3) gives the respective results from analyzing the established data corpus regarding expletives.

A new data corpus � 35

100% 48/48 90%

46/48

21/23 80%

38/44

17/20

70%

42/49

44/44 53/53

23/27

22/29 21/31

60%

15/22

23/37 50% 10/21

21/45

40%

12/28

30%

9/26

12/38 20%

5/22

2/10 10%

2/14 6/63

0%

10/57

9/46

4/50 1/33

root declaratives

embedded declaratives

Fig. (3): Frequency of the expression of expletive subject pronouns in root and embedded declaratives

As seen in Figure (3), the expression of expletive subject pronouns stands out due to a distinct root-embedded-asymmetry in the medieval stages of French and to some minor degree also in the first half of the 17th century. It is only in the second half of the 17th century when these pronouns are consistently expressed that there is no longer any such asymmetry. Intriguingly, with the exception of two texts from the 15th century, livre des fais and abregé, the expression of expletives predominates in embedded declaratives from the first half of the 13th century onward, varying in frequency between 62.2% and 100%. In root declaratives, on the contrary, in which these pronouns are constantly less frequently expressed, their expression is predominant no earlier than from the middle of the 16th century onward and, thus, comparatively late. Figure (4) illustrates the respective results from analyzing the established data corpus regarding the expression of referential subject pronouns.

36 � The development of subject pronouns in Medieval and Classical French

100% 422/432

90%

547/576

257/278

213/242

80% 211/271

70%

50%

433/471

165/187

407/408 373/374

370/370

262/324

154/212

60%

350/350

345/354

418/434

100/138

131/183

181/277 133/227 72/133

40% 125/300 30% 20%

84/323

70/252

98/324

158/476

55/216

10% 0%

root declaratives

embedded declaratives

Fig. (4): Frequency of the expression of referential subject pronouns in root and embedded declaratives

Figure (4) exposes an intriguing characteristic of the medieval stages of French which has already been noted several times (cf. chapter 1 and section 2.1) and which has also been established with regard to the expression of expletives: a distinct and consistent root-embedded-asymmetry. In fact, while in embedded declaratives, the expression of referential subject pronouns predominates, varying in frequency between 54.1% and 97.5%, in root declaratives, these pronouns are considerably less frequently expressed and show substantial variation in the frequency of their expression during the entire period of Medieval French. In Classical French, there is no longer any such asymmetry, since in this stage of French, referential subject pronouns are (almost) consistently expressed. Turning next to the presentation of the frequency of the expression of subject pronouns in direct speech as well as in narration, Figure (5) gives the respective results from analyzing the established data corpus regarding expletives.

A new data corpus � 37

100% 1/1

5/5 90%

93/95

80%

11/13

70%

19/23 44/57

26/36

5/6 33/43

37/52

13/19

60%

53/53 44/44

50% 28/56 40% 8/21

30% 20% 10% 0%

9/23

31/86 2/8

25/95

18/71

4/28 4/45

1/11 2/36

0/1

direct speech

narration

Fig. (5): Frequency of the expression of expletive subject pronouns in direct speech and narration

As ensues from these results, there is no strict discrepancy in Old and Middle French between the expression of expletive subject pronouns in direct speech and their expression in narration. In fact, in seven texts, such pronouns are more frequently expressed in direct speech, whereas in three texts, their expression is more frequent in narration. This variation in the frequency of the expression of expletives comes to an abrupt end in the second half of the 17th century when these pronouns are consistently expressed, and this in both direct speech and narration. Figure (6) illustrates the respective results from analyzing the established data corpus regarding the expression of referential subject pronouns.

38 � The development of subject pronouns in Medieval and Classical French

100% 5/5 90%

120/130

12/13

398/446

80%

112/130

156/175

509/575

775/777

497/497 223/223

367/411 284/357

205/263

70%

78/81

5/7

470/568 96/130

160/221

60% 125/217

50%

270/448

549/877 312/533

40% 73/178

151/345 99/247

30% 83/278 20% 10% 0%

direct speech

narration

Fig. (6): Frequency of the expression of referential subject pronouns in direct speech and narration

As these results show, referential subject pronouns are more frequently expressed in direct speech than in narration in the medieval stages of French, and this at times considerably so. This situation only changes in Classical French when in both direct speech and narration, these pronouns are (virtually) consistently expressed. The frequency of the pre- / postverbal positioning of expressed subject pronouns will next be looked into. Consider in this regard Figure (7) which gives the results from analyzing the established data corpus regarding expletives.

A new data corpus � 39

0/8

0/3

100%

2/33 8/8

0/22

1/25

3/3

22/22

90%

5/34

5/33

80%

29/34

28/33

31/33

2/18

0/48

1/63

0/38

48/48

62/63

38/38

24/25

2/94 92/94

0/97 97/97

16/18

70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

preverbal position

postverbal position

Fig. (7): Frequency of expressed expletive subject pronouns in pre- and postverbal position37

It follows from these results that both in the medieval and the classical stages of French, expressed expletive subject pronouns are highly predominantly, if not exclusively, encountered in preverbal position. In fact, in six out of the thirteen texts selected, there are no instances of expressed expletives in postverbal position, and in the other seven texts selected, expressed expletives in postverbal position are relatively rare. Figure (8) gives the respective results from analyzing the established data corpus regarding expressed referential subject pronouns.

�� 37 Figures (7) and (8) give the absolute number of subject pronouns expressed in pre- and postverbal position, respectively, in boxes, followed by the total number of expressed subject pronouns. Note that this restriction to expressed subject pronouns is directly due to the fact that it is per se unclear in exactly which position(s) non-expressed subject pronouns are located (Clifford 1973, Bauer 1995, Marchello-Nizia 1995, Kaiser 2002, Rinke 2003, Vance, Donaldson & Steiner 2010, Kaiser & Zimmermann 2011), and, thus, whether they occur pre- or postverbally.

40 � The development of subject pronouns in Medieval and Classical French

1/224

100% 15/156 90% 141/156 80%

223/224

72/603 358/382

2/296

16/629

12/317

16/311

613/629

305/317

295/311

24/382

8/705

7/566

294/296 697/705 559/566

7/445 438/445

9/780

4/720

771/780

716/720

531/603

70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

preverbal position

postverbal position

Fig. (8): Frequency of expressed referential subject pronouns in pre- and postverbal position

As ensues from these results and as has just been established for expressed expletives, expressed referentials are highly predominant in preverbal position, while only relatively rare in postverbal position. Turning finally to the presentation of the frequency of the expression of subject pronouns according to their respective person and number, Table (2) gives the results of the respective analysis of the established data corpus with regard to referentials without, however, taking into consideration the actual distinctiveness of the verbal suffixes indicating person and number.

A new data corpus � 41

Tab. (2): Frequency of the expression of referential subject pronouns according to their person / number text (dating)

roland (1125‒50) livre reis (1170) saint graal (1220) conquête (1290) saint louis (1330‒40) livre des fais (1409) galien (1450) abregé (1450‒75) minute (1498‒1515) heptaméron (1553) registre-journal (1580‒1606) francion (1623) roman (1666)

# % # % # % # % # % # % # % # % # % # % # % # % # %

person / number 1SG 2SG 3SG 1PL 34/66 4/18 85/261 2/28 51.5 22.2 32.6 7.1 24/59 48/70 114/255 5/9 40.7 68.6 44.7 55.6 91/110 139/149 249/300 22/24 82.7 93.3 83 91.7 14/20 2/2 99/164 31/36 70 100 60.4 86.1 137/151 2/2 229/254 80/86 90.7 100 90.2 93 5/14 6/7 217/357 4/8 35.7 85.7 60.8 50 58/75 12/21 138/278 19/25 77.3 57.1 49.6 76 17/19 1/2 244/310 5/6 89.5 50 78.7 83.3 101/116 ― 515/838 1/1 87.1 ― 61.2 100 84/93 1/1 346/428 18/21 90.3 100 80.4 85.7 4/4 42/44 ― 308/344 95.5 ― 98.5 100 355/356 1/1 271/271 21/21 99.7 100 100 100 110/110 2/2 499/499 9/9 100 100 100 100

2PL 11/27 40.7 1/1 100 20/26 76.9 39/47 83 41/44 93.2 2/7 28.6 33/53 62.3 1/1 100 27/30 90 56/66 84.9 9/11 81.8 46/46 100 32/32 100

3PL total 20/56 156/456 35.7 34.2 32/70 224/464 45.7 48.3 82/100 603/709 82 85 197/309 382/578 63.8 66.1 140/168 629/705 83.3 89.2 83/147 317/540 56.5 58.7 51/114 311/566 44.7 54.9 28/32 296/370 87.5 80 61/67 705/1052 91.1 67 61/89 566/698 68.5 81.1 82/89 445/492 92.1 90.4 86/87 780/782 98.9 99.7 68/68 720/720 100 100

As follows from these results, the expression of referential subject pronouns in the medieval stages of French differs at times starkly with regard to their respective person and number. Intriguingly, the expression of the first and/or second person plural pronouns is constantly either most frequent or more frequent than the expression of one or several of the other pronouns. Given the marked distinctiveness of the first and second person plural verbal suffixes as opposed to the verbal suffixes of the other persons, both singular and plural, which are taken to be generally prone to phonetic erosion and analogical reorganization (cf. section 3.1.5), it appears that the respective distinctiveness of the verbal inflectional morphology does not have any (direct) bearing on the expression of referentials. Further corroboration for this view comes from the finding that the

42 � The development of subject pronouns in Medieval and Classical French first and second person plural pronouns usually differ in the frequency of their expression. In Classical French, there is (almost) no skewing whatsoever in the frequency of the expression of referential subject pronouns according to their respective person and number, as these pronouns are (virtually) consistently expressed. To summarize, the following insights into the (non-)expression of expletive and referential subject pronouns in Old, Middle, and Classical French have been gained from the analysis of the newly established diachronic data corpus: – Old and Middle French stand out due to the expression of both expletive and referential subject pronouns which from the 13th century onward, albeit not constantly so, considerably increases in frequency and becomes consistent in Classical French; – Old and Middle French are characterized by a distinct root-embeddedasymmetry, in that expletive and referential subject pronouns are considerably more frequently expressed in embedded clauses;38 – Old and Middle French constantly show a more frequent expression of referential subject pronouns in direct speech, while only occasionally so with regard to expletives; – Old, Middle, and Classical French display a high predominance of expressed subject pronouns, both expletive and referential, in preverbal position; – Old and Middle French witness stark differences in person and number with regard to the expression of referential subject pronouns and hereby seem to exclude any (direct) bearing of the distinctiveness of verbal inflectional morphology on the expression of these pronouns.

�� 38 Note that in Modern Colloquial French in which contrary to Modern Standard French, expletive IL may be non-expressed in (finite) constructions with a set of impersonal verbs, its expression is also considerably more frequent in embedded clauses, a state of affairs which may be shown to represent the continuation of the general state of affairs established for Old and Middle French; cf. Zimmermann & Kaiser (2014) for extensive discussion and a tentative approach along the lines of the one put forward in chapter 4. Note, moreover, that “in rather norm-free contexts of [abbreviated, MZ] writing” (Stark 2013:167) in Modern French such as diaries and text messages as well as in early child production, a root-embedded-asymmetry has likewise been observed, and this with regard to the expression of both expletive and referential subject pronouns (Haegeman 1990a, b, 1997, 2000, 2007, 2013, Stark 2013). This rootembedded-asymmetry is, however, strict, rather than distinct – subject pronouns are consistently expressed in embedded finite clauses – and, thus, appears to be different in nature than the one established for Old, Middle and Modern Colloquial French.

A new data corpus � 43

According to these insights, the frequency of the expression of expletive and referential subject pronouns in the medieval stages of French correlates in the following way with the major issues occasionally raised in the literature (cf. section 2.1): Tab. (3): Correlation matrix relating to the frequency of the expression of expletive and referential subject pronouns issue embedded clauses root clauses direct speech narration preverbal positioning postverbal positioning

expression of expletive and referential subject pronouns … … is favored … is disfavored + + + + + +

As follows from the correlation matrix in Table (3), the prototypical context for the expression of subject pronouns, both expletive and referential, in Old and Middle French are finite embedded clauses in direct speech in which these pronouns would be in preverbal position. Conversely, subject pronouns are typically non-expressed in these stages of French in finite root clauses in narration in which these pronouns would occur postverbally.

3 Discussion of previous approaches to subject pronouns in Medieval French 3.0 Overview On the basis of both the results from analyzing the established diachronic data corpus (cf. section 2.2.2) and further enquiries into this corpus, this chapter sets out to review the major approaches put forward in the literature to the (non-) expression of both expletive subject pronouns and referential subject pronouns in cases of an extremely high degree of antecedent accessibility in the medieval stages of French. In doing so, it will be shown that all of these approaches have various empirical shortcomings which severely undermine their plausibility. The approaches to be reviewed are in general exclusively concerned with the (non-)expression of either expletives or referentials. Given, however, that most of the approaches to the (non-)expression of the former set of pronouns have also been independently put forward in a similar, if not identical fashion to the (non-)expression of the latter set, the following review will jointly discuss these (section 3.1). Only when such joint discussion is not possible will the approaches be reviewed separately. In this regard, approaches exclusively put forward to the (non-)expression of expletives will first come under review (section 3.2), followed by approaches exclusively put forward to the (non-) expression of referentials (section 3.3). Note that all of the approaches to the (non-)expression of the expletive set of subject pronouns are exclusively concerned with expletive IL, leaving expletive CE out of consideration.

3.1 Approaches to both expletive and referential subject pronouns 3.1.1 The ‘root V2 approach’ According to the proponents of what shall in the following be referred to as the ‘root V2 approach’, expletive IL (Asbeck 1935, Franzén 1939, Haiman 1974, Skårup 1975, Adams 1987a, 1988a, 1989, Faarlund 1990, de Bakker 1995, 1997, Vance 1997, Arteaga & Herschensohn 2004, 2006, Mathieu 2009) as well as referential subject pronouns (Nissen 1882, Darmesteter 1897b, Meyer-Lübke 1899, von Wartburg 1941, 1946, Bourciez 1967, Adams 1987b, c, 1988b, Roberts 1989, 1993, Vance 1989, 1997, Fleischman 1991, 1992, Taddéi 2006) are ex-

Approaches to both expletive and referential subject pronouns � 45

pressed in first position in root declaratives to allow for the occurrence of the finite verb in second position. Many in favor of this approach hereby relate the expression of these pronouns to the widespread assumption that parallel to the Modern Germanic languages with the exception of English, Old French (and to some extent also Middle French) constitutes a verb second (V2) language (Thurneysen 1892, Strohmeyer 1929/1930, von Wartburg 1941, 1946, von SeefranzMontag 1983, 1984, Vanelli, Renzi & Benincà 1985, Adams 1987a, b, c, 1988a, b, 1989, Vance 1989, 1997, Roberts 1993, Mathieu 2006a, b, 2009), i.e. a language with an exclusively syntactic constraint requiring the finite verb to (almost) always occur in second position (Kaiser 2002). Under the ‘root V2 approach’, then, the expression of the pronouns at issue is conceived of as a last resort strategy, in that these pronouns are exclusively expressed to prevent the finite verb from otherwise occurring in first position. Note particularly with regard to expletive IL that the expression of subject pronouns is thus considered to have a “completely word-order-determined function” (von Seefranz-Montag 1984:533) which is “independent of its [= Old French] status as a null-subject language” (Arteaga 1994:144). Even though the ‘root V2 approach’ seems to be theoretically appealing, it does have numerous empirical shortcomings which severely undermine its plausibility. First, as shown by the results in Tables (1) and (2), in both Old and Middle French, the expression of expletive and referential subject pronouns is, albeit generally predominant, not exclusively restricted to the sentence-initial position with the finite verb in second position.

46 � Discussion of previous approaches to subject pronouns in Medieval French Tab. (1): Frequency of the positions of expressed expletive subject pronouns (= Expl) in root declaratives text (dating)

roland (1125‒50) livre reis (1170) saint graal (1220) conquête (1290) saint louis (1330‒40) livre des fais (1409) galien (1450) abregé (1450‒75) minute (1498‒1515) heptaméron (1553) registre-journal (1580‒1606)

position of expressed expletive subject pronouns1 3rd 4th 1st 1st 2nd Expl V Expl X2 V # 2 4 ― ― ― %

33.3

66.7

―

―

―

Σ 6 100

#

1

―

―

―

―

1

%

100

―

―

―

―

100

#

8

―

―

4

―

12

%

66.7

―

―

33.3

―

100

#

5

―

―

4

1

10

%

50

―

―

40

10

100

#

6

―

4

2

―

12

%

50

―

33.3

16.7

―

100

#

2

―

2

―

―

4

%

50

―

50

―

―

100

#

5

―

―

―

―

5

%

100

―

―

―

―

100

#

5

―

2

2

―

9

%

55.6

―

22.2

22.2

―

100

#

9

―

1

―

―

10

%

90

―

10

―

―

100

#

15

―

3

3

―

21

%

71.4

―

14.3

14.3

―

100

#

8

―

6

1

―

15

%

53.3

―

40

6.7

―

100

�� 1 Following common practice, the subsequent elements were not considered constituents and were therefore left out of consideration in the calculus: object clitic pronouns, reflexive clitic pronouns, adverbial clitic pronouns, negative clitic ne ‘not’ as well as the coordinating conjunctions car ‘for’, certes ‘certainly’, et ‘and’, mais ‘but’, ne ‘nor’, and ou ‘or’. Cf. Zimmermann & Kaiser (2010) for extensive discussion on the controversial status of ne ‘not’ and et ‘and’. 2 Following general conventions, ‘X’ designates a non-subject constituent.

Approaches to both expletive and referential subject pronouns � 47

Tab. (2): Frequency of the positions of expressed referential subject pronouns (= SP) in root declaratives text (dating)

roland (1125‒50) livre reis (1170) saint graal (1220) conquête (1290) saint louis (1330‒40) livre des fais (1409) galien (1450) abregé (1450‒75) minute (1498‒1515) heptaméron (1553) registre-journal (1580‒1606)

position of expressed referential subject pronouns 1st 3rd 4th 5th 1st 2nd SP V SP X (…) V # 59 5 6 13 1 ― %

70.2

6

7.1

15.5

1.2

―

Σ 84 100

#

52

11

6

―

1

―

70

%

74.3

15.7

8.6

―

1.4

―

100

#

84

―

28

55

13

1

181

%

46.4

―

15.5

30.3

7.2

0.6

100

#

92

1

10

15

6

1

125

%

73.6

0.8

8

12

4.8

0.8

100

#

145

―

54

11

1

―

211

%

68.7

―

25.6

5.2

0.5

―

100

#

16

2

21

13

2

1

55

%

29

3.7

38.2

23.6

3.7

1.8

100

#

62

―

24

10

2

―

98

%

63.3

―

24.5

10.2

2

―

100

#

88

2

32

8

1

―

131

%

67.2

1.5

24.4

6.1

0.8

―

100

#

101

―

53

3

1

―

158

%

63.9

―

33.6

1.9

0.6

―

100

#

74

―

51

4

4

―

133

%

55.6

―

38.4

3

3

―

100

#

57

―

35

6

2

―

100

%

57

―

35

6

2

―

100

For a more lucid illustration, consider Figures (1) and (2) which subsume the results given in Tables (1) and (2).

48 � Discussion of previous approaches to subject pronouns in Medieval French

0/1

0/5

1/1

5/5

100% 1/10

90% 9/10 80% 6/21 4/12

70%

15/21 4/9

8/12

60%

5/10

6/12

5/9 5/10

40% 30%

7/15

2/4

50% 6/12

8/15

2/4

4/6 2/6

20% 10% 0%

Expl V

other than Expl V

Fig. (1):Frequency of expressed expletive subject pronouns in sentence-initial position directly followed by the finite verb and in other configurations in root declaratives

100% 90% 80%

18/70

33/125

52/70

92/125

25/84 70%

66/211

59/84

43/131

60%

88/131 62/98

50%

97/181

40%

84/181

57/158

36/98 145/211

101/158

59/133

43/100

74/133

57/100

39/55 30% 20%

16/55

10% 0%

SP V

other than SP V

Fig. (2): Frequency of expressed referential subject pronouns in sentence-initial position directly followed by the finite verb and in other configurations in root declaratives

Approaches to both expletive and referential subject pronouns � 49

Contrary to what is predicted by the ‘root V2 approach’, expletive and referential subject pronouns are also frequently expressed (i) in sentence-initial position directly followed by some constituent(s) other than the finite verb (cf. (1a) and (2a-c)), (ii) in second position (cf. (1b) and (2d-e))), (iii) in third position (cf. (1c-d) and (2f-h)), (iv) in fourth position (cf. (1e) and (2i-l)) as well as in fifth position (cf. (2m)).3,4 (1) Expl X V … a. Il nen est dreiz quë

il seit mais

it not is right that he be

od

vos ;

any.longer with you

(roland, p.471) ‘It is not right that he stays any longer with you;’ X Expl V … b. ; por coi

il me poise

mout de cez

noveles.

for what it me depresses much of these news

(saint graal, p.301) ‘; therefore, these news depress me a lot.’ X V Expl … c. ; et pour ce and for

il miex […] que … (saint louis, p.172)

vaut

this is.worth it better

that

‘; and, therefore, it is better […] that …’ X X Expl V … d. Ma Dame, puisqu’ il vous plait my lady

voiant l’

since

it you

affection

receuoir

mon conseil,

pleases to.receive my

dont

il procéde,

advice

il me semble

seeing the affection from.which it proceeds it me seems

que … (heptaméron, p.36) that

�� 3 Note that the examples in (1) and (2) have been primarily selected from prose texts to exclude any possible metrical influence on the expression as well as the positioning of expletive and referential subject pronouns. Note, furthermore, that in the following and unless otherwise noted, sentence elements are highlighted according to the following conventions: bold = expletive / referential subject pronoun; italic = finite verb; underlined = constituents preceding expletive and referential subject pronouns; dotted line = elements preceding expletive and referential subject pronouns, but left out of consideration in the calculus (cf. footnote 1 in this section). 4 Cf. section 4.5.4 for discussion on the rarity of declaratives with the finite verb in first position directly followed by an expressed subject pronoun such as in (2e).

50 � Discussion of previous approaches to subject pronouns in Medieval French ‘My Lady, since it pleases you to have my advice, seeing the affection from which it proceeds, it seems to me that …’ X X V Expl … e. Et quant il

oïrent ce,

de la

joie qu’

il

orent ne

and when they heard this of the joy which they had

not

covient il mie parler, … (conquête, p.132) need

it not to.speak

‘And when they heard this, one need not speak of the joy they felt, …’ (2) SP X V … a. … è

jó del

and I

míen lur

durrai … (livre reis, p.120)

of.the mine them will.give

‘… and I will give them of mine …’ SP X X V … ele púis a sun païs b. … é

returnad. (livre reis, p.136)

and she then to her country returned

‘… and then she returned to her country.’ SP X X X V … il c. … é

les dous de lur

and they the two

tuchád

l’

altre

eles

si que

l’

úne

of their wings so that the one

par

en sum l’

arche

touched the other across in top the inner.sanctuary

estendírent … (livre reis, p.125) spread

‘… and they spread out their two wings, so that one wing touched the other at the top of the inner sanctuary …’ X SP V … d. Pur çó

tu

li

sulun

fras

tun

sen

çó

que

for this you him will.make according your will this that

il ad

deservid … (livre reis, p.113)

he had deserved

‘Therefore, you will do to him what he has deserved …’ V SP … e. Oliver, frere,

vos ne

dei

jo faillir ; (roland, p.357)

Oliver brother you not must I

to.fail

‘Oliver, my brother, I must not fail you;’

Approaches to both expletive and referential subject pronouns � 51

V X SP … f. ; mais ont but

esté ceulx du

party

de ça,

qui …

have been those of.the party of this who

(minute, p.141) ‘; but it was those of the other party who …’ X V SP … g. … car cestui

nos legierement retorner

feront

for this.one will.make we

folie

ou

easily

de la

to.return of the

il est entrez. » (saint graal, p.302)

folly where he is entered

‘… for we will make him here easily get out of the folly in which he got himself into.”’ X X SP V … h. … , et puis de rechief

yssoient dehors ; (livre des fais, p.96)

ilz

and then of retreat they left

outside

‘… , and then again they stormed out;’ X X X SP V … i. Et combien

que

les prebstres de la

loy judaïque

and how.much that the priests of the law Judaic

donnassent

malediction

audit

aveugle […], toutesvoys

were.giving malediction to.the.said blind

selon

verité ce

still

plus benediction, …

estoit

according truth this was.being more blessing

(abregé, p.150) ‘And even though the priests of the Judaic law were cursing the aforesaid blind […], this was still in truth more of a blessing, …’ X X V SP … j. … et certes,

se il ne

fust plus puissanz et

en pooir

and certainly if he not was more powerful and in power

et

en savoir

que […], iceste chose ne

and in knowledge than

il avoir

descoverte

peüst

this thing not would.be.able

a vos … (saint graal, p.113)

he to.have discovered to you

‘… and certainly, if he had not been more mighty both in power and in wisdom than […], he would have never been able to uncover this to you …’ X V X SP … k. Et lors

furent armez cil

des

nés … (conquête, p.166)

and then were armed those of.the ships

52 � Discussion of previous approaches to subject pronouns in Medieval French ‘And then those of the ships […] were armed.’ V X X SP … l. … , et n’

pas tenu pour courtizan celui

estoit

and not was.being not held for

disoit

le

qui

courtier this.one who

Roy. (registre-journal, p.192)

was.saying the king

‘… , and those who said ‘the King’ were not considered courtiers.’ X V X X SP … devoit, m. Si

après le

coup feru

en l’

escu,

then was.having.to after the blow struck in the shield

saillir

dehors monté

to.leap out

sus le

destrier, […] cellui …

mounted on the charger

this.one

(livre des fais, p.69) ‘Then he […] had to leap out, mounted on his charger […], after the shield was struck against.’ As shown by examples (1c) and (1e) as well as by examples (2e-g) and (2j-m), expletive and referential subject pronouns are also expressed in postverbal position. This is in stark contrast to what is predicted under the ‘root V2 approach’ according to which these two sets of pronouns are exclusively expressed preverbally, namely in sentence-initial position, to allow for the occurrence of the finite verb in second position. Crucially, the expression of these two sets of pronouns in configurations other than in sentence-initial position with the finite verb in second position is, generally speaking, a frequent phenomenon in the medieval stages of French. In fact, up to 66.7% of expressed expletives and up to 70.9% of expressed referentials are encountered in these configurations. Second, as follows from the results in Figures (3) and (4), in both Old and Middle French, expletive and referential subject pronouns are not consistently expressed in the very configuration in which under the ‘root V2 approach’, these two sets of pronouns are argued to be necessarily expressed, namely in sentence-initial position with the finite verb in second position.

Approaches to both expletive and referential subject pronouns � 53

100% 1/9

2/17

8/9

15/17

90% 80%

3/11

70% 8/11

6/15 60%

5/11

50%

6/11

5/10

9/15

5/10 40%

10/15 3/4

30%

5/15

6/8

14/19

2/8

5/19

9/11 20% 10%

1/4 2/11

0%

Expl V

ˈV1ˈ

Fig. (3): Frequency of root declaratives with expressed expletive subject pronouns in first position directly followed by the finite verb and with the finite verb in first position

100%

6/90

90%

84/90

80%

28/173

11/73

145/173

62/73

12/86 74/86

30/118

21/78

25/77

70%

88/118

60%

48/107

50%

59/107

52/77

57/78

64/156 14/30

91/192

16/30

101/192

92/156

40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

SP V

ˈV1ˈ

Fig. (4): Frequency of root declaratives with expressed referential subject pronouns in first position directly followed by the finite verb and with the finite verb in first position

54 � Discussion of previous approaches to subject pronouns in Medieval French In fact, contrary to what is predicted by the approach under review, root declaratives may well (directly) start off with the finite verb, as illustrated by examples (3a-b) and (4a-b).5,6 (3) a.

… , mais n’ but

í

óut fors

úne entréé. (livre reis, p.124)

not there had except.for one entrance

‘… , but there was only one single entrance.’ b. … et comença a plovoir et a venter and began

et

a

to to.rain and to to.be.windy and to

toner … (saint graal, p.299) to.thunder

‘… and it began to rain and to be windy and to thunder …’ (4) a.

Quistrent la

daméiséle par

searched the maiden

tute la

terre

de Israel …

through all the ground of Israel

(livre reis, p.110) ‘They searched throughout Israel for the maiden …’ ou nos voudrons ! » b. … et te metrons la and you will.put there where

we

will.want

(saint graal, p.312) ‘… and we will put you there where we want to!”’ Crucially, the non-expression of expletive and referential subject pronouns in ‘V1’ root declaratives is far from constituting a marginal phenomenon in the medieval stages of French. As the results in Figures (3) and (4) show, these two sets of pronouns are non-expressed in up to more than 80% and almost 50%, respectively, of the relevant clauses. In the configuration in which under the ‘root V2 approach’, subject pronouns are argued to be necessarily expressed, then, the expression of expletives in particular commonly proves to be the exception rather than the rule. Third, in stark contrast to what is predicted by the approach presently reviewed, at least referential subject pronouns are expressed in (directly) postver-

�� 5 Note that presently as well as in the following, the designation of the syntactic configuration under discussion in terms of verb first (‘V1’) is meant as a description, rather than as an analysis, given that it is per se unclear in exactly which position(s) the non-expressed expletive and referential subject pronouns are located (Clifford 1973, Bauer 1995, Marchello-Nizia 1995, Kaiser 2002, Rinke 2003, Vance, Donaldson & Steiner 2010, Kaiser & Zimmermann 2011). 6 On the non-constituent status of the elements preceding the finite verbs in (3a-b) and (4b), cf. footnote 1 in this section.

Approaches to both expletive and referential subject pronouns � 55

bal position in root declaratives which (directly) start off with the finite verb, as shown by examples (5a-d).7 (5) a.

Oliver, frere,

vos ne

dei

jo faillir ; (roland, p.357)8

Oliver brother you not must I

to.fail

‘Oliver, my brother, I must not fail you;’ b. Pere de pitié, Te mercy je et adour de ce father of pity you thank I

c.

que …

and adore of this which

(Zink 1997:84) ‘Pitiful father, I thank and adore you, since …’ Et ne fist il, il a voir dit, car … (Franzén 1939:149) and not made he he has truth said for

‘And he did not do so, he had said the truth, for …’ d. Respont elle: “Je le ferai.” (Skårup 1975:145) answers she

I

it will.make

‘She answers: “I will do so.”’ Albeit a rare phenomenon whose existence has been questioned or even denied (Morf 1878, Wespy 1884, Lerch 1934, Franzén 1939, Price 1961, Ruelle 1966, Skårup 1975, Attal 1986, Vance 1989, 1997, Junker 1990, de Bakker 1997, Zink 1997), it is yet again in stark contrast to what is predicted by the ‘root V2 approach’.9 Fourth, in both Old and Middle French, expletive and referential subject pronouns are also expressed in embedded declaratives (cf. Figures (3) and (4) in section 2.2.2). In fact, the expression of these two sets of pronouns is – at times considerably – more frequent in embedded clauses than in root clauses. What is more, the expression of expletives and referentials generally predominates in embedded clauses. Under the ‘root V2 approach’, these facts are unpredicted and remain, to say the least, completely unaccounted for. Fifth, the general assumption according to which in Old French (and to some extent also in Middle French), the finite verb must necessarily be in �� 7 Note that the apparent lack of examples of V1 root declaratives with expressed expletive subject pronouns in (directly) postverbal position in both the established diachronic data corpus and the literature is most probably due to the comparatively overall small(er) number of V1 root declaratives with an impersonal construction. 8 Given that in the established diachronic data corpus, only one single relevant configuration has been encountered (cf. (5a)), additional examples from the relevant literature are given to allow for an adequate illustration of the configuration under discussion. 9 Cf. Zimmermann & Kaiser (2010) on the issue of the (non-)expression of subject pronouns in this configuration.

56 � Discussion of previous approaches to subject pronouns in Medieval French second position in root declaratives does not stand up to closer examination, given the non-marginal frequency of violations of the alleged V2 constraint in the form of V>2 clauses in which various kinds of constituent(s) may precede the directly preverbal constituent.10 Before proceeding to this examination, it is indispensable to spell out what distinguishes languages with such a constraint. As follows from a consideration of the relevant traits of the Modern Germanic V2 languages, V2 languages distinguish themselves from non-V2 languages by the strictness of the requirement that the finite verb directly follow one and only one sentence-initial constituent (Roberts 1993, Kaiser 2002, Haider 2010). Examples (6a-f) illustrate this for Modern German, a V2 language (Thiersch 1978, Travis 1984, Haider 2010). (6) a.

Bruno isst

gerne

Äpfel.11

Bruno eats with.pleasure apples

‘Bruno likes eating apples.’ isst Bruno Äpfel. b. Gerne with.pleasure eats Bruno

c.

apples

‘Bruno likes eating apples.’ Äpfel isst Bruno gerne. apples eats Bruno

with.pleasure

‘Bruno likes eating apples.’ d. Wenn er Hunger hat, isst

Bruno Äpfel.

when he hunger has eats Bruno apples

e.

‘When he is hungry, Bruno eats apples.’ * Bruno Äpfel isst gerne. Bruno

f.

apples eats with.pleasure

‘Bruno likes eating apples.’ * Äpfel gerne isst

Bruno.

apples with.pleasure eats Bruno

‘Bruno likes eating apples.’ This strictness is reflected in the salient characteristic of V2 languages that exceptions to the said requirement, i.e. configurations with the finite verb in either �� 10 Cf. Kaiser (2002) and Kaiser & Zimmermann (2011) for detailed discussion on which the present discussion is based; cf. also Zimmermann (2009). 11 Note that in the examples in (6), (7), and (8) as well as in those in (13) in section 3.1.2, the highlighting of sentence elements as given in footnote 3 in the present section is slightly modified, namely as follows: bold = subject; underlined = constituents preceding the finite verb; dotted line = elements which precede the finite verb, but which are left out of consideration in the calculus (cf. footnote 1 in this section).

Approaches to both expletive and referential subject pronouns � 57

first or third position, are severely sanctioned, in that such configurations are licit only in a small number of highly marked contexts. In Modern German for instance, configurations with the finite verb in first position are limited to ‘lively narrative style’ (cf. (7a)) and cases of ‘topic drop’ (cf. (7b)), while configurations with the finite verb in third position are possible only, when the sentence-initial constituent (either a left-dislocated DP or a finite CP) is coindexed with the directly preverbal constituent in second position (cf. (7c-d)) or belongs to a small set of coordinating conjunctions (cf. (7e)) and adverbs (cf. (7f)) (Iatridou & Kroch 1992, Roberts 1993). (7) a.

Ging ich neulich went I

zu den Müllers …

recently to the Müllers’

‘I recently went to the Müllers’ …’ b. Komme gleich zurück. come

c.

instantly back

‘I’ll be back in an instant.’ [Den Bruno]i , deni kennt sie the Bruno

nicht.

him knows she not

‘She doesn’t know BRUNO.’ d. [Wenn Bruno Hunger hat]i , danni isst when Bruno hunger has

then

er Äpfel.

eats he apples

e.

‘When Bruno is hungry, then he eats apples.’ Denn Bruno kennt sie nicht.

f.

‘For Bruno does not know her.’ Nun, ich werde jetzt gehen.

for

Bruno

well I

knows her not

will now go

‘Well, I will go now.’ Until now, the positioning of the finite verb in root declaratives in the medieval stages of French has been studied on the basis of relatively small extracts from at most one or several Old French texts and one or few Middle French texts. Table (3) lists the relevant studies as well as the texts selected, their dating as given by those having carried out these studies, and their literary genre.

58 � Discussion of previous approaches to subject pronouns in Medieval French Tab. (3): Diachronic studies on the positions of the finite verb in root declaratives study

Roberts (1993)

Vance (1997)

Kaiser (2002)

texts

dating

literary genre

La Chanson de Roland Le Charroi de Nîmes

late 11th c. early 12th c.

epic poetry epic poetry

Le Roman de Tristan

early 12th c.

narrative poetry

Le Roman de Perceval

late 12th c.

epic poetry

Aucassin et Nicolette

early 13th c.

chantefable

Merlin

13th c.

epic poetry

Froissart’s Chroniques

14th c.

historical prose

Les Quinze Joyes de Mariage

14th c.

fictional prose

Le Quadrilogue Invectif

1422

allegorical prose

La Queste del Saint Graal Jehan de Saintré

ca. 1220 ca. 1456

epic prose fictional prose

Li quatre livre des reis Le premier volume de la bible en francois

1170 1494/1520

religious prose religious prose

La Bible qvi est tovte la Sainte Escriture

1570

religious prose

In order to allow for a more adequate determination of the positioning of the finite verb in root declaratives, both synchronically and diachronically, Kaiser & Zimmermann (2011) investigate this positioning on the basis of the established diachronic data corpus. Table (4) reproduces the results of this study which is fundamentally based on root declaratives with expressed subjects.12 Note that the requirement that these clauses have expressed subjects is of utmost importance, since root declaratives with non-expressed subjects are excluded in this

�� 12 Cf. footnote 1 in this section for elements which, following common practice, were not considered constituents and, consequently, not taken into consideration in the calculus. In addition, vocatives and interjections were likewise left out of consideration. Moreover, the following types of clauses were discarded for the reasons indicated: – incised clauses with a verbum dicendi showing up after a (part of a) sentence in direct speech, given that in the history of French, these clauses have the subject and the finite verb consistently inverted; – instances of subject-verb-inversion in which an embedded clause in sentence-initial position and a coreferential adverb precede the finite verb in third position (cf. (i)), given that such configurations constitute one of the very few licit exceptions to the otherwise strict V2 constraint in (Modern Germanic) V2 languages (cf. (7d) above): (i) [Quant mon non fu mis en escrit,]i sii me mena l’ amiraut dedans when my

le

name was put in writing then me

led

the admiral into

paveillon … (saint louis, p.162)

the tent

‘When my name was written down, the admiral led me into the tent …’.

Approaches to both expletive and referential subject pronouns � 59

case. As noted in footnote 5 in section 3.1.1, clauses with non-expressed subjects are purposely not considered due to the impossibility of determining the position of such subjects and, ultimately, that of the finite verb. Tab. (4): Frequency of the positions of the finite verb in root declaratives with expressed subjects text (dating) V1

roland (1125‒50) livre reis (1170) saint graal (1220) conquête (1290) saint louis (1330‒40) livre des fais (1409) galien (1450) abregé (1450‒75) minute (1498‒1515) heptaméron (1553) registre-journal (1580‒1606)

position of the finite verb V2 V2 Subj V XV

V>2

Σ

#

45

232

123

69

469

%

9.6

49.5

26.2

14.7

100

#

27

250

101

67

445

%

6.1

56.1

22.7

15.1

100

#

2

154

95

63

314

%

0.6

49

30.3

20.1

100 436

#

28

231

145

32

%

6.4

53

33.3

7.3

100

#

19

251

55

84

409

%

4.7

61.4

13.4

20.5

100

#

7

66

116

98

287

%

2.4

23

40.4

34.2

100 394

#

11

192

137

54

%

2.8

48.7

34.8

13.7

100

#

25

365

41

177

608

%

4.1

60

6.8

29.1

100

#

3

127

8

96

234

%

1.3

54.3

3.4

41

100

#

5

196

16

103

320

%

1.5

61.3

5

32.2

100

#

17

126

45

202

390

%

4.4

32.3

11.5

51.8

100

Consider for a more lucid illustration Figure (5) which incorporates the results given in Table (4) by giving the frequencies of root declaratives with the finite verb in first position, in second position (irrespective of whether the sentenceinitial constituent is the subject or not), and in at least third position.

60 � Discussion of previous approaches to subject pronouns in Medieval French

100% 90%

32/436 69/469

54/394

67/445 63/314

84/409

80% 177/608

103/320

98/287

70%

96/234 60% 202/390 50%

355/469

376/436 351/445

40%

329/394

306/409

249/314

406/608

212/320

182/287 30%

135/234 171/390

20% 10% 45/469 0%

27/445

28/436

19/409

2/314

V1

7/287

V2

11/394

25/608

3/234

5/320

17/390

V>2

Fig. (5): Frequency of the positions of the finite verb in root declaratives with expressed subjects

As follows from the results in Table (4) and Figure (4), root declaratives with the finite verb in second position generally predominate. Such clauses must, however, not be considered a homogeneous set. For only clauses with the finite verb directly preceded by some non-subject constituent are typical of V2 languages, while clauses with the subject in sentence-initial position and the finite verb in second position are typical of both V2 and non-V2 languages. What is thus crucial for the following discussion is that the kind of V2 clauses which are typical of both V2 and non-V2 languages are left out of consideration. This evidently entails a considerable reduction of the overall number of relevant V2 clauses, i.e. clauses which may in principle be considered evidence for the analysis of Old as well as Middle French as V2 languages. In addition to root declaratives in which the finite verb is in second position, there are root declaratives with the finite verb in either first or at least third position. V1 clauses cannot readily be dismissed as incompatible with the analysis of the medieval stages of French as V2 languages, since they are, albeit to a limited extent, licit in some Modern Germanic V2 languages. V>2 clauses, on the contrary, pose a serious problem to the analysis of these stages of French as V2 languages. For in stark contrast to Modern Germanic V2 languages, V>2 clauses are non-marginal in frequency in Old and Middle French. In fact, up to 51.8% of

Approaches to both expletive and referential subject pronouns � 61

all clauses have the finite verb in at least third position. More crucially, various kinds of constituent(s) may precede the directly preverbal constituent in V>2 clauses in these stages of French, namely subjects (cf. (8a-b)), direct objects, indirect objects, prepositional complements (cf. (8c-d)), predicative complements, adverbials (cf. (8a-c)) or adverbial phrases as well as embedded clauses. (8) subj-DP X X V … ele púis a sun païs a. … é

returnad … (livre reis, p.136)

and she then to her country returned

‘… and then she returned to her country …’ X subj-DP X V … b. Et après les autres si furent de créance que … and after the others so were of belief that

(conquête, p.110) ‘And after that, the others fully believed that …’ X X subj-DP V … c. Et lors, pour la and then for

a

poour que

the fear

je avoie,

which I

je commençai

was.having I started

trembler … (saint louis, p.158)

to to.shake

‘And then, for the fear which I was having, I started to shake …’ XXV… d. A Sainct Omer en cel

an

furent mors quinze

mille

at Saint Omer in this year were dead fifteen thousand

Flamens. (abregé,p.157) Flemings

‘At Saint Omer, in that year, fifteen thousand Flemings died.’ Contrary to Modern Germanic V2 languages in which V3 clauses are licit only in a small and severely restricted number of highly marked contexts, the constituents preceding the directly preverbal constituent in root declaratives in Old and Middle French are non-restricted in their occurrence in this position. Moreover, V>3 clauses such as in (8a-c) are categorically excluded in Modern Germanic V2 languages. In light of such unequivocal empirical evidence, one may thus well concur with Kaiser (2002) and Kaiser & Zimmermann (2011) that Old and Middle French are not V2 languages (cf. also Zimmermann 2009). To summarize, the ‘root V2 approach’ according to which expletive and referential subject pronouns are expressed to prevent the finite verb from other-

62 � Discussion of previous approaches to subject pronouns in Medieval French wise occurring in sentence-initial position has numerous empirical shortcomings, namely: – expletive and referential subject pronouns are not exclusively expressed in sentence-initial position with the finite verb in second position; – expletive and referential subject pronouns are not consistently expressed, when the finite verb ‘fails’ to be preceded by a (non-subject) constituent; – referential (and probably also expletive) subject pronouns are expressed in the position directly following the finite verb in sentence-initial position; – expletive and referential subject pronouns are frequently expressed in embedded declaratives; – Old and Middle French are not V2 languages. As a consequence, an approach to the (non-)expression of expletive and referential subject pronouns in terms of a strict V2 constraint in root declaratives is empirically inadequate.

3.1.2 The ‘(root and) embedded V2 approach’ The proponents of what shall in the following be referred to as the ‘(root and) embedded V2 approach’ argue (i) that expletive IL is consistently expressed to prevent the finite verb from otherwise occurring in either sentence-initial position or in the position directly following the subordinating conjunction (MeyerLübke 1899, Greving 1903, Büchsenschütz 1907, Büchtemann 1912, Gamillscheg 1957, Hilty 1959, Kattinger 1971, Ménard 1976, von Seefranz-Montag 1983, 1984) and (ii) that referential subject pronouns are expressed in the position directly following a subordinating conjunction (Borelius 1902, Herman 1954). The expression of both expletive IL and referential subject pronouns is thus once again considered a last resort strategy. It is, however, unclear under the approach presently reviewed why the occurrence of the finite verb in the position directly following the subordinate conjunction is considered illicit. For even those who adopt a V2 analysis refrain from elaborating on whether the respective stage of Medieval French is an asymmetrical V2 language such as German, Dutch, or Swedish – i.e. a language in which in root declaratives only, the finite verb (almost) always occurs in second position – or a symmetrical V2 language such as Icelandic or Yiddish – i.e. a language in which in both root and embedded declaratives, the finite verb (almost) always occurs in second position. In any case, the soundness of an approach under which the expression of expletives and

Approaches to both expletive and referential subject pronouns � 63

referentials follows yet again from a strict word order constraint is seriously weakened by various empirical flaws. Given that the approach to the (non-)expression of expletive IL presently discussed represents an ‘extended version’ of the ‘root V2 approach’ just reviewed in section 3.3.1, the empirical shortcomings noted in the discussion of the latter approach naturally also hold for the former and will thus not be readdressed. The present review will rather exclusively focus on the issue of whether it is indeed the case that in embedded declaratives in the medieval stages of French, expletive and referential subject pronouns are exclusively expressed to prevent the finite verb from otherwise occurring in the position directly following the subordinating conjunction. First, as shown by the results in Tables (5) and (6), in both Old and Middle French, the expression of the two sets of pronouns is, albeit generally predominant, not exclusively restricted to the position directly preceding the finite verb in second position.

64 � Discussion of previous approaches to subject pronouns in Medieval French Tab. (5): Frequency of the positions of expressed expletive subject pronouns in embedded declaratives text (dating)

roland (1125‒50) livre reis (1170) saint graal (1220) conquête (1290) saint louis (1330‒40) livre des fais (1409) galien (1450) abregé (1450‒75) minute (1498‒1515) heptaméron (1553) registre-journal (1580‒1606)

# %

position of expressed expletive subject pronouns 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 1st Expl V Expl X V 2 ― ― ― ― 100

―

―

―

―

Σ 2 100

#

2

―

―

―

―

2

%

100

―

―

―

―

100

#

20

―

1

1

―

22

%

91

―

4.5

4.5

―

100

#

23

―

―

―

―

23

%

100

―

―

―

―

100

#

20

―

1

―

―

21

%

95.2

―

4.8

―

―

100

#

19

―

2

―

―

21

%

91.3

―

8.7

―

―

100

#

16

―

1

―

―

17

%

94.1

―

5.9

―

―

100

#

7

―

2

―

―

9

%

77.8

―

22.2

―

―

100

#

37

―

1

―

―

38

%

97.4

―

2.6

―

―

100

#

41

―

1

―

―

42

%

97.6

―

2.4

―

―

100

#

20

―

3

―

―

23

%

87

―

13

―

―

100

Approaches to both expletive and referential subject pronouns � 65

Tab. (6): Frequency of the positions of expressed referential subject pronouns in embedded declaratives text (dating)

roland (1125‒50) livre reis (1170) saint graal (1220) conquête (1290) saint louis (1330‒40) livre des fais (1409) galien (1450) abregé (1450‒75) minute (1498‒1515) heptaméron (1553) registre-journal (1580‒1606)

# %

position of expressed referential subject pronouns 1st 1st 3rd 4th 5th 2nd SP V SP X (…) V 69 3 ― ― ― ― 95.8

4.2

―

―

―

―

Σ 72 100

#

147

6

―

―

―

―

154

%

95.5

3.9

―

―

―

―

100

#

402

14

3

―

―

―

422

%

95.3

3.3

0.7

―

―

―

100

#

249

4

1

1

1

―

257

%

96.9

1.6

0.4

0.4

0.4

―

100

#

397

―

18

1

1

―

418

%

95

―

4.3

0.2

0.2

―

100

#

250

1

11

―

―

―

262

%

95.4

0.4

4.2

―

―

―

100

#

195

―

12

―

―

―

213

%

91.6

―

5.6

―

―

―

100

#

142

―

20

―

―

―

165

%

86.1

―

12.1

―

―

―

100

#

506

―

35

―

―

―

547

%

92.5

―

6.4

―

―

―

100

#

385

―

45

1

1

―

433

%

88.9

―

10.4

0.2

0.2

―

100

#

306

―

33

1

1

―

345

%

88.7

―

9.6

0.3

0.3

―

100

For a more lucid illustration, consider Figures (6) and (7) which subsume the results given in Tables (5) and (6).

66 � Discussion of previous approaches to subject pronouns in Medieval French

0/2

0/2

2/2

2/2

0/23 1/21

100% 2/22

90%

1/38

1/42

37/38

41/42

1/17 2/21

23/23 20/21

16/17

20/22

19/21

2/9

80%

3/23 20/23

7/9

70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

Expl V

other than Expl V

Fig. (6): Frequency of expressed expletive subject pronouns directly preceding the finite verb in second position and in other configurations in embedded declaratives

100%

3/72

7/154

20/422

8/257

90%

69/72

147/154

402/422

249/257

21/418

12/262

397/418

250/262

41/547

18/213 23/165 195/213 80%

48/433

39/345

385/433

306/345

506/547 142/165

70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

SP V

other than SP V

Fig. (7): Frequency of expressed referential subject pronouns directly preceding the finite verb in second position and in other configurations in embedded declaratives

Approaches to both expletive and referential subject pronouns � 67

Contrary to what is predicted by the ‘(root and) embedded V2 approach’, expletive and referential subject pronouns are also expressed (i) in first position directly followed by some constituent(s) other than the finite verb (cf. (10a-b)), (ii) in second position (cf. (9a) and (10c-d)), (iii) in third position (cf. (9b) and (10ef)) as well as (iv) in fourth position (cf. (10g)).13 (9) X Expl V … a. … , des

quiex nouvelles elle fu

of.the which news

les foiz

que

si effree

que

toutes

she was so terrified that all

elle se

dormoit

en son lit, il li

the times that she herself was.sleeping in her bed it her

que … (saint louis, p.195f.)

sembloit

was.seeming that

‘… , at which news she was so terrified that whenever she was falling asleep, it seemed to her that …’ X V Expl … b. … que, la

ou

il

li

dormoit,

il

estoit

that there where he was.sleeping him was.being it

avis

que … (saint graal, p.298)

given.the.idea that

‘… that there where he was sleeping, it appeared to him that …’ (10) SP X V … a. … quant je par force when I

by

sui entré

en mon heritage …

force am entered in my

building

(conquête, p.140) ‘… when I entered the building by force …’ SP X X V … b. … que il neïs encuntre deables tel that he even against devil

chose truvad ki …

such thing found which

(livre reis, p.120) ‘… that he found even against the devil such a thing which …’ X SP V … c. … qe,

si

tost

come ele

that so early as

le

vient

veoir,

ele

li

tout …

she him comes to.see she him kills

(saint graal, p.307) �� 13 Cf. section 4.5.4 for discussion on the rarity of declaratives with the finite verb in first position directly followed by an expressed subject pronoun such as in (10d).

68 � Discussion of previous approaches to subject pronouns in Medieval French ‘… that as soon as it [= death] comes to see him, it kills him …’ V SP … d. … que

ne

que

ce

seroit

il me contoit.

than not would.be this which he me was.telling

(saint louis, p.194) ‘… than would be that which he told me.’ X V SP … e. … qe

voirement

il

estoit

home chaitif …

that truthfully was.being he man

unhappy

(saint graal, p.298) ‘… that he was really an unhappy man …’ X X SP V … f. … qu’ onques mauvaistié that never

je ne

vers

fis

mon pere, …

wickedness I not made towards my

father

(galien, p.131) ‘… that I was never wicked towards my father, …’ X X X SP V … g. … qu’ après la

mort

du

Roi

Henri son mari,

estant

that after the death of.the king Henri her husband being

parvenue au

maniement

et

gouvernement des

attained to.the administration and management

affaires, pour le matters for

bas aage du

the low age

fils, en moins de quinze

Roi

of.the

Charles IXè

son

of.the king Charles ninth her

ans

elle avoit

si

bien

son in less of fifteen years she was.having so well

avancé

les enfans

de la

dite

Dame Du Peron, …

promoted the children of the said lady Du Peron

(registre-journal, p.62) ‘… that after the death of her husband King Henri, when she had attained, for the minority of her son King Charles IX, the position of the administration and management of state matters, in less than fifteen years she had so much promoted the children of the aforesaid Lady Du Peron, …’ As examples (9b) as well as (10d-e) show, expletive and referential subject pronouns are also expressed in (directly) postverbal position, in stark contrast to what is predicted under the approach presently reviewed. Second, as the results in Figures (8) and (9) show, in both Old and Middle French, expletive and referential subject pronouns are not consistently ex-

Approaches to both expletive and referential subject pronouns � 69

pressed in the very configuration in which under the ‘(root and) embedded V2 approach’, the two sets of pronouns supposedly must be expressed, namely in the position directly preceding the finite verb in second position. 0/2

0/20 2/43

100% 2/22

2/25

20/22

23/25

4/41

20/20

90%

3/19

80%

7/26

70%

41/43

3/23

37/41 20/23

16/19

19/26 5/12

60% 50%

2/2

7/12

40% 30% 8/10 20% 10%

2/10

0%

Expl V

ˈV1ˈ

Fig. (8): Frequency of embedded declaratives with expressed expletive subject pronouns directly preceding the finite verb in second position and with the finite verb in first position14

�� 14 Cf. footnote 5 in section 3.1.1.

70 � Discussion of previous approaches to subject pronouns in Medieval French

0/402

3/252

6/403

100% 402/402

22/169

90%

249/252

397/403

0/142

9/259

12/207 142/142

250/259

195/207

14/520

15/400

506/520

385/400

2/308 306/308

147/169

80% 31/100 70% 69/100

60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

SP V

ˈV1ˈ

Fig. (9): Frequency of embedded declaratives with expressed referential subject pronouns directly preceding the finite verb in second position and with the finite verb in first position

In fact, contrary to what is predicted by the approach under review, embedded declaratives may well have the finite verb in first position, as examples (11a-c) and (12a-c) illustrate. (11) a.

…é

n’

éntént

pas que

m’ est afaíre. (livre reis, p.116f.)

and not understand not which me is

situation

‘… and do not know how to carry out my duties.’ b. … que cil […] le voudrent geter dedenz avec les autres, that those him wanted

dont

i

to.throw into

mout grant

avoit

with the others

plenté, …

of.whom there was.having much great plenty

c.

(saint graal, p.312) ‘… that those […] wanted to throw him into it together with the others of whom there were plenty, …’ Et l’ andemain, quant fu heure de tierce, … (conquête, p.118) and the next.day

when was hour of third

‘And the next day, when it was nine o’clock, …’ (12) a.

« Des

l’

ure que

menái les fiz

since the day that led

(livre reis, p.129)

Israel

hors de Egypte …

the sons Israel out of Egypt

Approaches to both expletive and referential subject pronouns � 71

‘Since the day I brought my people Israel out of Egypt …’ b. … é c’ est li suns que avéz oïd. (livre reis, p.112) and this is the noise that have heard

c.

‘… and this is the noise you heard.’ « Se veïssum Rollant einz qu’ if saw

il fust mort, … (roland, p.345)

Roland before that he was dead

‘“If we had seen Roland before he was dead, …’ Third, the crucial assumption underlying the ‘(root and) embedded V2 approach’, namely that in embedded declaratives in at least Old French, the finite verb must, like in a symmetrical V2 language, occur in second position does not stand up to closer examination. Consider in this regard the results from analyzing the Old French part of the established diachronic data corpus with respect to the positioning of the finite verb in embedded declaratives with expressed subjects, given in Table (7).15 Tab. (7): Frequency of the positions of the finite verb in embedded declaratives with expressed subjects text (dating)

position of the finite verb V2 V2 Subj V XV 11 114 8

V1

roland (1125‒50) livre reis (1170) saint graal (1220) conquête (1290)

# %

7.8

80.3

5.6

V>2

Σ

9

142

6.3

100

#

16

279

12

17

324

%

4.9

86.1

3.7

5.3

100 639

#

2

600

14

23

%

0.3

93.9

2.2

3.6

100

#

3

387

19

21

430

%

0.7

90

4.4

4.9

100

As follows from the results in Table (7), the kind of V2 clauses typical of V2 languages only is rare in this stage of French. In effect, such clauses are even more infrequent than V>2 clauses. Crucially, V>2 clauses allow, albeit in a much more restricted way than their root counterparts, for various kinds of constituent(s) in the position(s) preceding the directly preverbal constituent, namely subjects, �� 15 Cf. footnotes 1 and 12 in section 3.1.1 for elements which, following common practice, were not considered constituents and were therefore left out of consideration in the calculus. On the exclusion of clauses with non-expressed subject pronouns, cf. the relevant discussion in section 3.1.1.

72 � Discussion of previous approaches to subject pronouns in Medieval French both pronominal (cf. (13a)) and non-pronominal (cf. (13b)), adverbials (cf. (13c)), and prepositional complements (cf. (13d)). (13) subj-DP X V … a. ; et se il par ceste chose n’ and if he by

est perilliez …

this thing not is wrecked

(saint graal, p.328)16 ‘; and if in the wake of this he is not wrecked …’ b. Quant Deus del cel li mandat par sun angle Qu’ … when God

of.the heavens him informed by

his angel that

(roland, p.438) ‘When God, from heavens, informed him by his angel that …’ X subj-DP V … c. Si néïs

li

tels

nel

púet cumprendre, cument …

if even.not the such not.him can to.contain

(livre reis, p.130) ‘If even the latter cannot contain him, how …’ d. … , sachiez que dés ore en avant il know

vous tienent

that from now in before they not you

pour seigneur ne for

ne

how

leader

hold

pour ami, … (conquête, p.150)

nor for

friend

‘… , you must know that from now on, they do not consider you as their leader, nor as their friend, …’ In light of this state of affairs, it appears that no V2 constraint holds for embedded declaratives in Old French and that consequently, this stage of French is not a symmetric V2 language. In summary, the ‘(root and) embedded V2 approach’ according to which expletive and referential subject pronouns are expressed to prevent the finite verb from otherwise occurring in first position has various empirical flaws, namely:17 – expletive and referential subject pronouns are not exclusively expressed in first position with the finite verb in second position; – expletive and referential subject pronouns are not consistently expressed, when the finite verb fails to be preceded by a (non-subject) constituent; �� 16 Cf. footnote 11 in section 3.1.1. 17 Cf. section 3.3.1 for extensive discussion of the empirical shortcomings relating to the claim that in root declaratives, expletive IL is expressed to prevent the finite verb from otherwise occurring in sentence-initial position.

Approaches to both expletive and referential subject pronouns � 73

–

Old French is not a symmetrical V2 language.

From this it must be concluded that an approach to the (non-)expression of expletive and referential subject pronouns in terms of a strict V2 constraint in (root and) embedded declaratives is empirically inadequate.

3.1.3 The ‘clitic (and auxiliary) (root) V2 approach’ Under what shall in the following be referred to as the ‘clitic (and auxiliary) (root) V2 approach’, it is argued that expletive IL (Falk 1969, Jensen 1990) and referential subject pronouns (Gröber 1880, Nissen 1882, Darmesteter 1897b, Piatt 1898, Richter 1903, von Wartburg 1946, Bourciez 1967, Falk 1969, Ménard 1976, Jensen 1990, Zink 1997) are consistently expressed to prevent a prosodically weak / clitic object or adverbial pronoun from otherwise occurring in sentence-initial position. Expletive IL has furthermore been claimed to be also expressed in this configuration in embedded declaratives (Falk 1969, Jensen 1990) as well as to prevent an allegedly prosodically weak / clitic finite auxiliary from otherwise occurring in first position (Jensen 1990). Arguably, the approach under review draws on the Tobler-Mussafia law (Mussafia 1886, Tobler 1912) which incoporates the insight that in Old Romance, prosodically weak pronouns are banned from preceding the finite verb in first position. Despite the appeal of such a rhythmically oriented approach, its persuasiveness is challenged by several empirical inconsistencies. First, in both Old and Middle French, the expression of expletive and referential subject pronouns is not exclusively restricted to the sentence-initial position with the finite verb in second position (cf. Tables (1) and (2) as well as Figures (1) and (2) in section 3.1.1). Specifically, expletive and referential subject pronouns are expressed in sentence-initial position directly followed by some constituent(s) other than the finite verb as well as in second, third, fourth and even fifth position (cf. examples (1a-e) and (2a-m) in section 3.1.1). Also, the expression of expletives in embedded declaratives is not exclusively restricted to the position directly preceding the finite verb in second position (cf. Table (5) and Figure (6) as well as examples (9a-b) in section 3.1.2).

74 � Discussion of previous approaches to subject pronouns in Medieval French Second, as shown by the results in Figures (10) and (11), in stark contrast to what is predicted by the ‘clitic (and auxiliary) (root) V2 approach’, expletive and referential subject pronouns are also frequently expressed in Old and Middle French, when directly preceding the finite (lexical) verb, rather than the prosodically weak / clitic elements at issue, and this regardless of the position of the finite verb in the clause.

100% 90% 80%

2/8

70%

6/8

60% 50%

13/48

8/29

18/62

10/38

1/3 21/29 2/3

12/28

13/31

16/28

18/31

35/48

9/22

44/62

28/38

13/22 14/24 10/16

40% 10/24

6/16

30% 20% 10% 0%

… Expl ((clitic(s)) V(auxiliary) …

… Expl V(lexical) …

Fig. (10): Frequency of expressed expletive subject pronouns directly followed by prosodically weak / clitic elements (including reflexives and ne) and by the finite lexical verb in declaratives

Approaches to both expletive and referential subject pronouns � 75

100% 90% 80% 70% 68/154

60% 33/68

95/200

55/112

50%

64/128

44/86

54/104

86/154 35/68

105/200

57/112

64/128

42/86

50/104

40%

27/41

41/58 30%

71/96

14/41 17/58

20%

25/96

112/129

10%

17/129

0%

… SP clitic(s) V …

... SP V ...

Fig. (11): Frequency of expressed referential subject pronouns directly followed by prosodically weak / clitic elements (including reflexives and ne) and by the finite verb in root declaratives

Examples (14a-d) and (15a-b) illustrate the expression of expletive and referential subject pronouns in first position with the finite (lexical) verb in second position in declaratives and root declaratives, respectively. (14) a.

Il

si

avint

quant … (livre reis, p.138)

it happended so when

‘It thus happened when …’ b. Il a isles ci pres, que … (conquête, p.104) it has islands here near which

c.

‘There are islands nearby which …’ … qu’ il sembloit au roi,

qui […], qu’ …

that it was.seeming to.the king who

that

(saint graal, p.312) ‘… that it seemed to the king who […] that …’ d. Et quant ce vint aus lances bessier, … (conquête, p.116) and when

it came to.the lances to.lower

‘And when the lances were lowered, …’ (15) a.

Jo cornerai, I

si

l’ orrat

li

reis

Karles.

will.sound.the.horn then it will.hear the king Charles

(roland, p.330)

76 � Discussion of previous approaches to subject pronouns in Medieval French ‘I shall sound the horn, then King Charles will hear it.’ b. ‘Tu feïs grant merci á mun pere David … (livre reis, p.116) you made great grace to my

father David

‘‘You have shown great kindness to my father David …’ Third, in both Old and Middle French, expletive and referential subject pronouns are not consistently expressed in the very configuration in which under the present approach, the two sets of pronouns ostensibly must be expressed, namely when prosodically weak / clitic elements would otherwise (co)occur in first position. Consider in this regard the results in Figures (12) and (13).

1/41

100% 2/23

40/41

90% 21/23

3/14

8/43

5/27

35/43

22/27

80% 11/14

70%

4/12

10/26

8/20 8/12

60% 16/26

12/20

50% 9/14

40% 30% 20% 10%

5/14 9/11

10/12

2/11

2/12

0%

Expl (clitic(s)) V(auxiliary) …

(Clitic(s)) V(auxiliary) …

Fig. (12): Frequency of declaratives with prosodically weak / clitic elements (including reflexives and ne) directly preceded by expressed expletive subject pronouns in first position and (co)occurring themselves in first position

Approaches to both expletive and referential subject pronouns � 77

100%

3/43

4/19 80%

4/40

12/97

90%

40/43

7/35 14/59

3/11 28/35

15/19

70%

36/40

85/97

11/39

5/17 34/101

45/59 8/11

28/39

12/17 67/101

60% 50%

7/13

40%

6/13

30% 20% 10% 0%

SP clitic(s) V …

Clitic(s) V …

Fig. (13): Frequency of root declaratives with prosodically weak / clitic elements (including reflexives and ne) directly preceded by expressed referential subject pronouns in first position and (co)occurring themselves in first position

In fact, declaratives may well have the prosodically weak / clitic elements at issue (as well as, by extension, prosodically weak / clitic reflexive pronouns and negative ne ‘not’,18 given the rhythmically oriented nature of the approach under review) (co)occur in first position, as illustrated by examples (16a-c) and (17a-b). (16) clitics Vlexical … a. … , et en

y

ot

assez

de bleciez, … (conquête, p.126)

and of.them there had enough of wounded

‘… , and there were many among them who were wounded, …’ b. ‘Di çó que te plaist. ’ (livre reis, p.114) say this which you pleases

‘“Say as you please.”’

�� 18 Cf. Zimmermann & Kaiser (2010) for extensive discussion on the categorial status of the negative particle ne ‘not’.

78 � Discussion of previous approaches to subject pronouns in Medieval French

Vauxiliary … c. Et fu

devisé

que … (conquête, p.116)

and was decided that

‘And it was decided that …’ (17) a.

Et

le dist

si haut que … (saint graal, p.312)

and it said so loud that

‘And he said this so loud that …’ b. Et s’ en foï et

lessa la

cité. (conquête, p.132)

and himself of.it. fled and left the city

‘And he fled and left the city.’ Fourth, in stark contrast to what is predicted by the ‘clitic (and auxiliary) (root) V2 approach’, (at least) referential subject pronouns are expressed in (directly) postverbal position in root declaratives which start off with the finite verb preceded by one or several of the prosodically weak / clitic elements at issue, as shown by examples (5a-c) in section 3.1.1, repeated here for convenience as (18a-c). (18) a.

Oliver, frere,

vos ne

dei

jo faillir ; (roland, p.357)

Oliver brother you not must I

to.fail

‘Oliver, my brother, I must not fail you;’ b. Pere de pitié, Te mercy je et adour de ce father of pity you thank I

c.

que …

and adore of this which

(Zink 1997:84) ‘Pitiful father, I thank and adore you, since …’ Et ne fist il, il a voir dit, car … (Franzén 1939:149) and not made he he has truth said for

‘And he did not do so, he had said the truth, for …’ Fifth, at least with regard to the prosodically weak / clitic pronouns at issue, speakers of Old French have appropriate alternative means at their disposal to prevent one or several of these elements from otherwise (co)occurring in first position in declaratives (cf. also Franzén 1939, Zink 1997).19 Specifically, speakers of Old French may either make use of the prosodically strong / non-clitic form of the relevant pronoun or have the prosodically weak / clitic pronoun

�� 19 Note that it is generally assumed that the Tobler-Mussafia law holds until the end of the 12th century, i.e. during most of the period of Old French (Foulet 1928, de Kok 1985, Goldbach 2007).

Approaches to both expletive and referential subject pronouns � 79

directly follow the finite verb. This is illustrated by examples (19a-b) which each stem from a different manuscript of one and the same text. (19) a.

Et

moi doit

and me

ele

ami

clamer? (Kaiser 1992:161)

should she lover to.call

‘And should she call me her lover?’ me ele ami clamer? (Kaiser 1992:161, fn.22) b. Et doit and should me she lover to.call

‘And should she call me her lover?’ In summary, the ‘clitic (and auxiliary) (root) V2 approach’ according to which expletive and referential subject pronouns are expressed to prevent prosodically weak / clitic elements from otherwise (co)occurring in first position in declaratives has several empirical inconsistencies, namely: – expletive and referential subject pronouns are not exclusively expressed in sentence-initial position with the finite verb in second position; – expletive and referential subject pronouns are in general also frequently expressed when not (directly) followed by any prosodically weak / clitic element(s); – expletive and referential subject pronouns are not consistently expressed when one or several prosodically weak / clitic elements (co)occur in first position; – referential (and probably also expletive) subject pronouns are expressed in the position directly following the finite verb preceded by one or several prosodically weak / clitic elements in first position; – speakers of Old French have appropriate alternative means to prevent one or several prosodically weak / clitic elements from (co)occurring in first position. As a consequence, a rhythmically oriented approach to the (non-)expression of expletive and referential subject pronouns which targets prosodically weak / clitic elements is empirically inadequate.

3.1.4 The ‘borrowing approach’ According to the proponents of what shall in the following be referred to as the ‘borrowing approach’, the expression of expletive IL (Grimm & Grimm 1862, Hall 1979) as well as of referential subject pronouns (Kuen 1952, 1957, Hilty 1968, Kattinger 1971) in declaratives results from language contact with Germanic.

80 � Discussion of previous approaches to subject pronouns in Medieval French Specifically, it is argued that owing to its status as a superstrate / adstrate language from the 5th to the 10th century, the Germanic variety spoken by the Frankish invaders / occupants of Northern Gaul, which allegedly has expletives and referentials consistently expressed, induced the borrowing of the expression of these two sets of pronouns in the relevant Romance varieties. At face value, the ‘borrowing approach’ seems quite attractive, since it is an undisputed fact that the Germanic superstrate / adstrate had a considerable impact on the Romance varieties spoken in Northern Gaul in general and on what was to become the French language in particular. As it stands, the biggest impact has been on the lexical level: French is the Romance language with the most Germanic elements, it is, specifically, also the only Romance language with a Germanic name. Frankish words are encountered in all areas of life. What is indicative of a particularly wide influence is the fact that in addition to nouns which generally dominate in the context of lexical borrowing, there is also a relatively high number of adjectives and verbs.20 (Berschin, Felixberger & Goebl 2008:174f.)

Furthermore, there has been an impact on the phonological level, although its exact extent is still a matter of controversy. The most prominent and uncontroversial example is the so-called h aspiré ‘aspirate h’ (Estienne 1557, Etienne 1895, Meillet 1931, Pope 1952, Rickard 1989), “articulated until well into the 16th century as a fricative in Germanic words such as honte [‘shame’], hêtre [‘beech’], haine [‘hate’], hardi [‘bold’] and still heard in Lotharingian, Walloon, and parts of Western France”21 (Berschin, Felixberger & Goebl 2008:176). Also, there has been an impact on the semantic level (Berschin, Felixberger & Goebl 2008). Despite such unequivocal evidence for the impact of the Germanic variety spoken by the Frankish invaders / occupants on the Romance varieties spoken in Northern Gaul, the ‘borrowing approach’ is highly problematic for a number of reasons which cast serious doubt on its validity. First, in Old and Middle French, the expression of expletive and referential subject pronouns is considerably more frequent in embedded clauses (cf. Fig-

�� 20 My translation. The original reads: “Das Französische ist die romanische Sprache mit den meisten germanischen Elementen, es ist bezeichnenderweise auch die einzige romanische Sprache mit einem germanischen Namen. […] Fränkische Wörter finden sich in allen Lebensbereichen […]. Für einen besonders tiefgehenden Einfluß spricht die Tatsache, daß neben den Substantiven, die bei Wortentlehnungen generell dominieren, auch relativ viele Adjektive und Verben vertreten sind.” 21 My translation. The original reads: “[…] in germanischen Wörtern wie honte, hêtre, haine, hardi, bis ins 16. Jh. als Spirans gesprochen und im Lothringischen, Wallonischen und Teilen Westfrankreichs heute noch hörbar […].”

Approaches to both expletive and referential subject pronouns � 81

ures (3) and (4) in section 2.2.2). This is unexpected under the present approach, given its crucial underlying assumption that in the Germanic variety of the Franks, expletives and referentials are consistently expressed. Second, under the approach presently reviewed, there is a ‘chronological discrepancy’ (Hunnius 1975:76) regarding the consistent expression of expletive and referential subject pronouns in French. Contrary to what is predicted by this approach, the two sets of pronouns are not consistently expressed in French during the time of the Frankish occupation, as witnessed e.g. by the Early Old French texts Cantilène de Sainte Eulalie (end of the 9th century) and Vie de Saint Léger (very end of the 10th century) (cf. Zimmermann 2012). In fact, the expression of expletives and referentials becomes consistent in French only “after a considerable lag of time”22 (Hunnius 1975:76), namely in the second half of the 17th century (cf. Figures (1) and (2) in section 2.2.2) and, thus, around seven hundred years after the Germanic superstrate / adstrate influence ceased. In order to account for this state of affairs, one would be forced to assume under the ‘borrowing approach’ that this influence has remained “latent for centuries”23 (Hunnius 1975:76), before eventually asserting itself. Clearly, such an assumption is highly implausible. Third, regarding the (frequent) expression of referential subject pronouns, whose antecedent is extremely highly accessible, it is fairly unclear whether Old and Middle French are unique among the major Romance languages: The premise according to which Old French deviates from the major development of the Romance languages is not sufficiently verified; for the expression of the subject pronoun in Romance languages other than French has, with the exception of present-day Spanish, not yet been systematically investigated. The data from ROSENGREN 1974 for Spanish do not confirm that in Romances languages other than those of the French and parts of the Gallo-Italian and Raeto-Romance speech zone, the subject pronoun is exclusively used for emphasis.24 (Berschin, Felixberger & Goebl 2008:145f.)

As it stands, the expression of referential subject pronouns is likewise not restricted to contexts of emphasis or contrast in Brazilian Portuguese (Duarte

�� 22 My translation. The original reads: “[…] mit außerordentlicher Verzögerung […].” 23 My translation. The original reads: “[…] jahrhundertelang latent […].” 24 My translation. The original reads: “Die Prämisse […], das Altfranzösische weiche von der Hauptentwicklung der Romania ab, ist nicht ausreichend abgesichert; denn die Setzung des Subjektspronomens außerhalb des Französischen wurde – außer für das heutige Spanisch – systematisch bisher nicht untersucht. Die Daten von ROSENGREN 1974 für das Spanische bestätigen nicht […], das Subjektspronomen stehe außerhalb der französischen und Teilen der gallo-italienischen und rätoromanischen Sprachzone nur zur Hervorhebung.”

82 � Discussion of previous approaches to subject pronouns in Medieval French 1993, 2000, Tarallo 1993, Lira 1996, Meyer-Hermann 1998, Figueiredo Silva 2000, Barme 2001, Kaiser 2006, 2009) as well as in Dominican Spanish (Jiménez Sabater 1975, 1977, de Olloqui de Montenegro 1984, Toribio 1993, 2000) and in Porto Rican Spanish (Detges 2003). Crucially, at least with regard to Brazilian Portuguese and Dominican Spanish, any influence from a non-null subject language can be ruled out. Fourth, the notion of syntactic borrowing itself is dubious, particularly in the context of the expression of expletive as well as of referential subject pronouns, if not more generally so: A superstrate theory may not be considered a satisfactory account of the increasing expression of the ‘impersonal subject ‘il’’ in French. Certainly, the influence on one language system by another one is conceivable; yet, the possibility of such an influence seems to be dependent on the fulfillment of more basic prerequisites: 1) the language system on which influence is exposed must have permeable domains; 2) there must arguably be a typological cognation of the languages (it is quite unlikely that a European language adopts Chinese structures). We think that it is improbable that the expression of il in French is a result of the expression of es in German and that in the wake of language contact, this expression becomes obligatory in French. Rather than considering an account along these lines, it seems more natural to search for the reasons underlying the change of language structures within the language itself. The borrowing of words from one language by another one can be more easily verified. By way of contrast, the borrowing of syntactic structures is hardly conceivable.25 (Gorzond 1984:75f., fn.2)

�� 25 My translation. The original reads: “Eine Superstrattheorie […] kann als Erklärung der zunehmenden Setzung des ‘unpersönlichen Subjekts ‘il’ im Französischen nicht als befriedigend angesehen werden. Gewiß ist eine Beeinflussung eines Sprachsystems durch das andere denkbar, doch scheint die Grundvoraussetzung für die Möglichkeit der Beeinflussung tiefer zu liegen: 1) das zu beeinflussende sprachliche System muß durchlässige Stellen aufweisen, 2) es muß wohl eine typologische Verwandtschaft der Sprachen vorliegen (es ist recht unwahrscheinlich, daß eine europäische Sprache chinesische Strukturen aufnimmt). Den Grund für die Setzung des il im Französischen darin zu sehen, daß im Deutschen das es gesetzt wird, und daß durch den sprachlichen Kontakt diese Setzung im Französischen zwingend wird, halten wir für unwahrscheinlich. Ehe eine Erklärung dieser Art versucht wird, scheint es naheliegender, die Gründe für die Veränderung sprachlicher Strukturen in der jeweiligen Sprache selbst zu suchen. Die Übernahme von Wörtern einer Sprache in die andere ist eher nachzuweisen […]. Die Übernahme syntaktischer Strukturen ist demgegenüber schwer denkbar.”

Approaches to both expletive and referential subject pronouns � 83

That the dubiousness of the notion of syntactic borrowing is indeed warranted in the present context can be directly deduced from “a contemporary example of language contact” (Sprouse & Vance 1999:281, fn.28): Throughout the twentieth century, the use of Occitan has been on the decline. At present, there are virtually no monolingual speakers of any of the dialects and very few younger speakers. Under these circumstances, one might imagine that speakers of southern Occitan who have used French outside the home since childhood would transfer some of the properties of the French pronominal system to their own language. No such borrowing has transpired, as far as we are aware. In a transcription of folktales recorded in the Southern Occitan dialect of the Hautes-Alpes by a 90-year-old bilingual speaker in 1988 (Mariotti 1990), there are virtually no atonic overt subject pronouns. The system of Southern Occitan […] has been maintained over the entire 1000-year period for which we have evidence, despite constant contact with and significant bilingualism in French during the last 500 years. (Sprouse & Vance 1999:281, fn.28)

Fifth, even though no texts written in the Germanic variety spoken by the Frankish invaders / occupants of Northern Gaul have been preserved, so that it is not possible to determine in particular the frequency of the expression of expletive subject pronouns in this variety, it is intriguing that in texts written in Old High German, these pronouns are not consistently expressed. In fact, the frequency of the expression of such pronouns varies according to the respective type of impersonal construction (Lenerz 1985, Axel 2009). Under the natural assumption that the same also holds in the Germanic variety of the Franks, it is unclear how one language in which expletive subject pronouns are not consistently expressed may induce the expression of these pronouns in another language in which prior to this contact, such pronouns had been categorically nonexpressed. To summarize, the ‘borrowing approach’ according to which the expression of expletive and referential subject pronouns results directly from language contact with Germanic is highly problematic for a number of reasons, namely: – expletive and referential subject pronouns are considerably more frequently expressed in embedded clauses; – expletive and referential subject pronouns are consistently expressed only around seven hundred years after the end of any Germanic influence; – referential subject pronouns are frequently expressed in cases of an extremely high degree of antecedent accessibility in other (varieties of) Romance languages which neither are nor have been subject to any influence from a non-null subject language; – the notion of syntactic borrowing is dubious, at least with regard to the expression of expletive and referential subject pronouns;

84 � Discussion of previous approaches to subject pronouns in Medieval French

–

expletive subject pronouns are not consistently expressed in Old High German.

From this, one must conclude that an approach to the expression of expletive and referential subject pronouns in terms of (syntactic) borrowing in the context of language contact is highly problematic.

3.1.5 The ‘disambiguation approach’ The proponents of what shall in the following be referred to as the ‘disambiguation approach’ argue that the expression of expletive IL (Wagner & Pinchon 1962, Gorzond 1984) as well as of referential subject pronouns in cases of an extremely high degree of antecedent accessibility (Hilmer 1873, Gröber 1880, Potthoff 1894, Etienne 1895, Bachmann 1914, Clédat 1928, Foulet 1928, 1935, 1936, Sandfeld 1965, Harris 1978, Bauer 1995, Johnson 2000, Marchello-Nizia 2006, Buridant 2007, Ranson 2009; cf. already Cauchie 1586) is a result of “changed grammatical necessities”26 (Gorzond 1984:79) in the wake of the phonetic erosion and the analogical reorganization of French verbal inflectional morphology. This approach is essentially based on the general assumption that the verbal suffixes indicating person and number evolved in such a way that in most tenses, four of the six person / number suffixes have become homophonous: The deletion of the final consonants -s¸-t, -nt, and the analogical adjunction of -e, -e- to unmarked person 1 and 2 lead to an oral uniformity of four of the six inflections (persons 1, 2, 3, 6) in the present indicative and subjunctive of the first conjugation, the most widely encountered.27 (Zink 1997:52f.)

Table (8) illustrates the evolution of verbal inflectional morphology in French on the basis of the present indicative of the verb chanter ‘to sing’ belonging to the first conjugation (Foulet 1935:275‒279;292, Roberts 1993:125‒128, Kaiser 2002:97):

�� 26 My translation. The original reads: “[…] veränderten grammatischen Zwänge […]”. 27 My translation. The original reads: “L’amuïssement des consonnes finales -s, -t, -nt et l’adjonction analogique de -e, -e- aux personnes 1 et 2 non marquées conduisent […] à une uniformisation orale de quatre flexions sur six (pers. 1, 2, 3, 6) aux présents de l’indicatif et du subjonctif de la première conjugaison, la mieux représentée à beaucoup près […].”

Approaches to both expletive and referential subject pronouns � 85

Tab. (8): Evolution of verbal inflectional morphology in French

person/number 1SG

Old French pronoun stem infl. je/jo/jou/gié chant [-]

Middle French pronoun stem infl. je chant [ə]

Modern French pronoun stem infl. je chant [-]

2SG

tu

chant es

tu

chant [ə]

tu

chant [-]

3SG

il/ele

chant e(t)

il/elle

chant [ə]

il/elle

chant [-]

1PL

nos

2PL

vos

3PL

il/eles

chant ons

nous

chant [ɔ͂]

chant ez

vous

chant [e]

chant ent

il(s)/elles chant [ə]

nous on vous ils/elles

[ɔ͂] [-] chant [e]

chant

chant [-]

Under the ‘disambiguation approach’, it is essentially claimed that an adequate person / number distinction exclusively on the basis of the respective verbal suffixes becomes increasingly difficult and eventually results in “significant ambiguity” (Harris 1978:111) and that as a means to reestablish this distinction, expletive IL and referential subject pronouns are increasingly expressed. Its functional appeal notwithstanding, this approach has numerous empirical flaws which seriously weaken its soundness. First, the correlation established under the ‘disambiguation approach’ between the erosion and reorganization of verbal inflectional morphology and the expression of subject pronouns fundamentally implies “a rigorous and consistent match between the person of the verb and that of the pronoun”28 (Zink 1997:54). Yet, in Modern French varieties, this match is not as ‘rigorous and consistent’ as one might expect it to be under such an approach: Such a correlation may only be confirmed within the restricted context of the common literary language. But the dialects, just as the modern patois and even regional French, abound in expressions such as j’avons [= I.1STP.SG have.1STP.PL] / je ferons [= I.1STP.SG will.make.1STP.PL] […] which contravene this correlation.29 (Zink 1997:54)

In the ‘expressions’ at issue, the first person singular referential subject pronoun and the distinctive first person plural verbal inflectional suffix evidently

�� 28 My translation. The original reads: “[…] entre la personne du verbe et celle du pronom une concordance rigoureuse et permanente.” 29 My translation. The original reads: “[U]ne telle corrélation ne se vérifie que dans le cadre restreint de la langue littéraire commune. Mais les dialectes, comme les patois modernes et même le français régional abondent en tours du type j’avons / je ferons […] qui y contreviennent.”

86 � Discussion of previous approaches to subject pronouns in Medieval French do not match in number. Intriguingly, this is also true for the ‘common literary language’ (Zink 1997:54) of the medieval stages of French: The mismatches in person [as well as, occasionally, in number, MZ] between the pronoun and the ending in cases such as j’avons [= I.1STP.SG have.1STP.PL], j’étions [= I.1STP.SG were.being.1STP.PL], on avons [= we.3RDP.SG have.1STP.PL], nous a [= we.1STP.PL has.3RDP.SG], on ont [= we.3RDP.SG have.3RDP.PL] [are, MZ] frequent in the Middle Ages.30 (Zink 1983:30, fn.3)

Being thus a feature of both the diachrony and the modern synchrony of the French language, these ‘mismatches’ clearly “force [us, MZ] to look elsewhere for its [= the subject pronoun’s, MZ] primary function”31 (Zink 1983:30, fn.3). Second, until some time in the Middle French period (Dufresne & Dupuis 2007), one of the expletive subject pronouns as well as the third person masculine singular and plural referential subject pronouns had, when expressed, the same form, il. Despite their evident “incapacity to distinguish between singular and plural” (Foulet 1935:444f.) as well as between expletive and referential, these pronouns are nonetheless frequently expressed in Old and Early Middle French (cf. Figure (1) and Table (2) in section 2.2.2), in stark contrast to what is predicted under the ‘disambiguation approach’. Third, regarding the expression of referential subject pronouns in Old French, these are generally expressed in sentence-initial position in root declaratives with the finite verb in second position and either mais ‘but’, que in the sense of car ‘for’ or car ‘for’ itself in absolute sentence-initial position (Franzén 1939). However, when these clauses are negated by means of the negative particle ne ‘not’, referential subject pronouns are often non-expressed (Franzén 1939). This is unexpected under the ‘disambiguation approach’: The obligatory use of subject pronouns in the affirmative clauses may not be accounted for by the disorganization of the verbal desinences, for the influence exerted in this respect by verbal forms which are not very clear would also have had to be marked in the negative clauses.32 (Franzén 1939:128)

�� 30 My translation. The original reads: “[L]es discordances de personne entre le pronom et la désinence (types: j’avons, j’étions, on avons, nous a, on ont), […] fréquentes au Moyen Age […]”. 31 My translation. The original reads: “[…] obligent à chercher ailleurs sa fonction première.” 32 My translation. The original reads: “[…] l’emploi obligatoire des pronoms sujets dans les propositions affirmatives ne s’explique pas par la désorganisation des désinences verbales, car l’influence exercée à cet égard par des formes verbales peu claires aurait dû être aussi marquée dans les propositions négatives.”

Approaches to both expletive and referential subject pronouns � 87

Fourth, as pointed out by Franzén (1939:132) in the context of his analysis of a text from the 13th century with regard to the (directly) postverbal expression of referential subject pronouns, in the great majority of cases, “the form of the verb would have sufficed to give the necessary indication of the person. And even for the remaining cases, it is almost certain that the absence of the pronouns would not have rendered the sentence incomprehensible.”33 Fifth, under the ‘disambiguation approach’, expletive IL is predicted to be consistently non-expressed in constructions with inherently impersonal verbs such as avenir ‘to happen’ and pleuvoir ‘to rain’. For these verbs either categorically exclude a personal use or allow a personal use in a restricted metaphorical context only (cf. Zimmermann (2012) for extensive discussion), so that with these verbs, any kind of ambiguity is in principle ruled out. Still, this prediction is not borne out. In fact, with the two inherently impersonal verbs avenir ‘to happen’ and pleuvoir ‘to rain’, expletive IL is expressed very early on, namely in livre reis, the oldest extant French prose text dating from the last third of the 12th century (cf. also the early 12th century instance of expressed expletive IL with pleuvoir ‘to rain’ in (20) in section 3.2.2). Sixth, under the ‘disambiguation approach’, the non-expression of the first and second person plural subject pronouns is predicted “to have survived longer” (Adams 1987a:224) than the non-expression of the other referential subject pronouns, given the consistent distinctiveness of the verbal suffixes indicating first and second person plural in the history of French. This prediction is, however, not borne out. In both Old and Middle French, first and second person plural subject pronouns do not significantly differ from the other referential subject pronouns in their frequency of expression (Wagner 1974a, Adams 1987a, Schøsler 1991, Buridant 2007, Zimmermann 2012) (cf. also Table (2) in section 2.2.2). Neither of the medieval stages of French thus shows a “tendency to prefer lexical [= expressed] [pronoun, MZ] subjects with those verb forms first lending themselves to ambiguity” (Adams 1987a:225). Moreover, contrary to what is predicted under the approach presently reviewed, the non-expression of the first and second person plural subject pronouns has not persisted into Modern Standard French. Seventh, in-depth analyses of Old and Middle French texts (Franzén 1939, Ranson 2009) show that the frequency of the expression of referential subject pronouns does not correlate with the actual (non-)distinctiveness of verbal suf-

�� 33 My translation. The original reads: “[…] la forme du verbe aurait dû suffire à donner l’indication nécessaire sur la personne. Et même, pour les autres, il est à peu près certain que l’absence du pronom n’aurait pas rendu la proposition obscure.”

88 � Discussion of previous approaches to subject pronouns in Medieval French fixes indicating person and number. In stark contrast to what is predicted under the ‘disambiguation approach’, then, “the subject rate […] is not higher with ambiguous verb forms than with unambiguous ones” (Ranson 2009:43). Eighth, according to the current approach, there is a chronological discrepancy regarding the expression of expletive and referential subject pronouns (in cases of an extremely high degree of antecedent accessibility) in French. Contrary to what is predicted by this approach, the two sets of pronouns are expressed well before the erosion and reorganization of verbal inflectional morphology sets in. Specifically, while these changes are generally argued to begin to occur in the 13th century (Foulet 1935), the first (documented) instances of expressed expletives date from the beginning of the 12th century (cf. Figure (1) in section 2.2.2 and the discussion of (20) in 3.2.2) and expressed referentials are frequently encountered at the beginning of the literary period (Franzén 1939, Kuen 1952, Harris 1978, Vance 1989, Schøsler 2002, Zimmermann 2012; cf. also Figure (2) in section 2.2.2). Clearly, in a period when the verbal suffixes indicating person and number are distinct, ambiguity is not an issue, so that it remains unclear why expletives as well as referentials, whose antecedent is extremely highly accessible, are yet expressed under the ‘disambiguation approach’. Note in this regard the following remarks by Herman (1954:86) in the context of his analysis of a 12th century Old French translation of a Latin psalter which, as noted in section 2.1.2.2, stands out due to the frequent expression of referential subject pronouns which are non-expressed in the Latin text: Various examples clearly show that the use of subject pronouns did not result from a need for clarity. It is evident that the subject pronoun has nothing to do here with the need to distinguish between persons; the sense of the sentence is clear, the verbal desinences are vivid. The use of subject pronouns which is almost regular in certain positions – in fact, it is of a rare regularity in our texts – must thus not be attributed to an enhanced need for clarity in the distinction of persons. All the more so, it would be exaggerated to attribute the spreading of their use to the decomposition of verbal desinences – very vivid, in our opinion, in the 12th century.34

�� 34 My translation. The original reads: “Des exemples qu’on pourrait multiplier prouvent nettement que l’emploi des pronoms sujets n’était pas imposé par un besoin de clarté. […] Il est évident que le pronom sujet n’a rien à faire ici avec le besoin de distinguer les personnes; le sens de la phrase est claire [sic], les désinences verbales vivantes. […] L’emploi presque régulier des pronoms sujets dans certaines positions, – d’une régularité rare dans nos textes – ne doit donc pas être attribué à un besoin accru de clarté dans la distinction des personnes. A plus forte raison serait-il exagéré d’attribuer l’extension de leur emploi à la décomposition des désinences verbales – bien vivantes, à notre avis, au XIIe siècle.”

Approaches to both expletive and referential subject pronouns � 89

Ninth, while the erosion and reorganization of verbal inflectional morphology is generally considered to proceed gradually (Vance 1997, Schøsler 2002), “pro […] has not been lost in […] the gradual way that might be expected based on the gradual loss of verb endings” (Vance 1997:223). In fact, the increase in frequency of the expression of expletive and referential subject pronouns is neither constant nor linear over many centuries (cf. Figures (1) – (4) in section 2.2.2), contrary to what is predicted under the ‘disambiguation approach’. Tenth, under this approach, it is unclear why in both Old and Middle French, expletive and referential pronouns are expressed considerably more frequently in embedded clauses (cf. Figures (3) and (4) in section 2.2.2). Clearly, “the use of inflections showed no asymmetry of the sort” (Adams 1987b:2, c:3) under discussion here; and “[e]ven if we were to grant a degree of erosion [as well as of reorganization, MZ], it is implausible that it would have posed for speakers more of a problem in subordinate clauses than in main clauses” (Adams 1987a:49, c:4) (cf. also Franzén 1939, Schøsler 2002).35 Moreover, this root-embedded-asymmetry already prevails centuries before the erosion and reorganization of verbal inflectional morphology sets in (Franzén 1939, Adams 1987c; cf. also Figures (3) and (4) in section 2.2.2). Furthermore, it is until the very end of the Middle French period in which the changes in verbal inflectional morphology fully set in and eventually came into full effect that expletive and referential subject pronouns continue to be more frequently expressed in embedded clauses. Eleventh, there is a further chronological discrepancy regarding the expression of expletive and referential subject pronouns. Contrary to what is predicted by the ‘disambiguation approach’, these two sets of pronouns are not consistently expressed by the end of the 16th century when the erosion and reorganization of verbal inflectional morphology eventually came into full effect. Rather, expletives and referentials continue to be (occasionally) non-expressed until the middle of the 17th century (cf. sections 2.1.1.4 and 2.1.2.4 as well as Figures (1) and (2) in section 2.2.2). Twelfth, under the ‘disambiguation approach’, it remains unclear why in Old and Middle French, referential subject pronouns are more frequently ex-

�� 35 Note, incidentally, that the distinct root-embedded-asymmetry regarding the expression of referential subject pronouns cannot be explained away in terms of pragmatic or functional factors, since in the majority of contexts, the subject is the same in the matrix and the embedded clause, so that in principle, “[t]here is no pragmatic or functional reason to repeat a subject coreferential with a preceding subject” (Adams 1987a:46) (cf. also Adams 1987b, c).

90 � Discussion of previous approaches to subject pronouns in Medieval French pressed in direct speech than in narration, and this at times considerably so (cf. Figure (6) in section 2.2.2). Thirteenth, more fundamentally, the correlation established by the ‘disambiguation approach’ between, on the one hand, the erosion and reorganization of verbal inflectional morphology and, on the other, the (ever increasing) expression of expletive and referential subject pronouns is not a necessary one (cf. also Sprouse & Vance 1999, LaFond 2003): In principle, the variability of the morphological marking of the subject as well as of the verbal agreement is free of any constraints. As Chinese shows, the total absence of marking is completely acceptable as a functional solution. The semantic and pragmatic dimensions are apparently sufficient to fill the formal gap and to ensure communication.36 (Wanner 1993:458).

Note in this regard that there are also languages (e.g. various Northern Italian dialects and Raeto-Romance) which have redundant morphological marking, namely distinct verbal suffixes indicating person and number and consistently expressed expletive and referential subject pronouns (Vance 1997, Detges 2003). To sum up, the ‘disambiguation approach’ according to which expletive and referential subject pronouns are expressed to reestablish an adequate person / number distinction has numerous serious empirical flaws, namely: – a subset of referential subject pronouns are expressed despite a mismatch in number and / or person with verbal inflection morphology in the history of French; – a subset of expletive and referential subject pronouns are expressed despite their identity in form in Old and Early Middle French; – referential subject pronouns are expressed in a set of root declaratives only when these are assertive; – referential subject pronouns are expressed postverbally in spite of the distinctiveness of the preceding verbal inflectional morphology and contextual disambiguation; – expletive subject pronouns are expressed with inherently impersonal verbs; – referential subject pronouns are expressed despite the distinctiveness of verbal inflectional morphology in the history of French;

�� 36 My translation. The original reads: “En principe, la variabilité du marquage morphologique du sujet et de la concordance verbale est libre de contraintes. Comme le montre l’exemple du chinois, l’absence totale de marquage est tout à fait acceptable comme solution fonctionnelle. Les dimensions sémantique et pragmatique sont apparemment suffisantes pour remplir le vide formel et pour assurer la communication.”

Approaches to expletive subject pronouns � 91

– – – –

–

– –

expletive and referential subject pronouns are expressed regardless of the (non-)distinctiveness of verbal inflectional morphology; expletive and referential subject pronouns are expressed well before changes in verbal inflectional morphology set in; diachronically, the expression of expletive and referential subject pronouns shows no constant increase in frequency; expletive and referential subject pronouns are expressed considerably more frequently in embedded clauses, and this well before and a very long time after changes in verbal inflectional morphology have set in; expletive and referential subject pronouns continue to be non-expressed for several decades after the changes in verbal inflectional morphology came into full effect; referential subject pronouns are more frequently expressed in direct speech; the (phonetic) absence of verbal inflectional morphology does not necessarily entail the expression of expletive and referential subject pronouns and vice versa.

Due to these factors, one must conclude that an approach to the expression of expletive and referential subject pronouns in terms of the avoidance of morphosyntactic ambiguity is empirically inadequate. Arguably, such an approach is based on “too mechanistic a conception of language” 37 (Hilty 1968:511, fn.48) and in fact “puts the cart before the horse: parts of words are not lost when grammatical principles require them; they are lost rather when they are superfluous” (Adams 1987b:10).

3.2 Approaches to expletive subject pronouns 3.2.1 The ‘analogy approach’ Under what shall in the following be referred to as the ‘analogy approach’, the (increasing) expression of expletive IL emerges from analogy with the (ever increasing) expression of referential subject pronouns (Gröber 1880, Koschwitz 1880, Paris 1880, Gebhardt 1896, Darmesteter 1897a, b, Piatt 1898, Meyer-Lübke 1899, Sneyders de Vogel 1927, Foulet 1935, Brunot 1936, Hilty 1959, Harris 1978). Specifically, the high rate of expression of referentials is claimed to induce the �� 37 My translation. The original reads: “[…] eine allzu mechanistische Sprachauffassung […]”.

92 � Discussion of previous approaches to subject pronouns in Medieval French French language “to employ something to represent a subject” (Piatt 1898) in impersonal constructions and to “attach” (Piatt 1898) it to these. While at face value, such an approach seems to be appealing, it proves to be highly problematic for several reasons which severely undermine its plausibility. First, it remains unclear under the ‘analogy approach’ why the expression of expletive subject pronouns in Old and Middle French is considerably more frequent in embedded clauses (cf. Figure (3) in section 2.2.2). Essentially, even though this also holds for the expression of referential subject pronouns (Figure (4) in section 2.2.2), it remains a mystery under the approach presently reviewed why the need “to employ something to represent a subject” (Piatt 1898:36) is more strongly felt in embedded than in root clauses. Second, under the ‘analogy approach’, the expression of expletive subject pronouns is predicted to show a constant and distinct increase in frequency, given the crucial claims that the expression of referentials in cases of an extremely high degree of antecedent accessibility predates by far the expression of expletives (cf. section 2.1.1.2) and that consequently, referentials are already frequently expressed at the time when expletives start to be expressed. Yet, this prediction is not borne out, in that diachronically, the increase in the frequency of the expression of expletive subject pronouns is neither constant nor linear (cf. Figures (1) and (3) in section 2.2.2). Third, while in Old and Middle French, referential subject pronouns are constantly more frequently expressed in direct speech than in narration (cf. Figure (6) in section 2.2.2), and this regardless of the respective person and number of these pronouns (cf. Zimmermann 2012), such is only occasionally the case with expletives. Under the ‘analogy approach’, this state of affairs is unpredicted. To sum up, the ‘analogy approach’ according to which the (ever increasing) expression of referential subject pronouns gives rise to the (increasing) expression of expletive subject pronouns is highly problematic for several reasons, namely: – expletive (as well as referential) subject pronouns are considerably more frequently expressed in embedded clauses; – diachronically, the expression of expletive subject pronouns shows no constant increase in frequency; – unlike referential subject pronouns, expletive subject pronouns are only occasionally more frequently expressed in direct speech.

Approaches to expletive subject pronouns � 93

These factors result in an approach to the expression of the expletive set of subject pronouns in terms of analogy with the expression of the referential set of subject pronouns being highly problematic.

3.2.2 The ‘balance approach’ The proponents of what shall in the following be referred to as the ‘balance approach’ argue that the expression of expletive IL in Old French is a direct consequence of metrical necessities, namely the need to ‘balance’ (Wagner 1974a:42) a line (Morf 1878, Wagner 1974a; cf. also Büchtemann 1912, Buridant 2007). Under the approach presently reviewed, the expression of expletive IL in the oldest extant French texts which are all in verse form (cf. section 2.2.2) is thus conceived of as a sort of last resort strategy, in that expletive IL is allegedly exclusively expressed to fulfill the prevailing metrical requirements. Such an approach is, however, far from being unproblematic, since it has various empirical shortcomings which challenge its persuasiveness. First, under the ‘balance approach’, it is unclear why in Old (as well as in Middle) French, expletive subject pronouns are considerably more frequently expressed in embedded clauses (cf. Figure (3) in section 2.2.2). This is particularly true of roland which constitutes one of the Old French verse texts on which one of the proponents of the approach under review, Morf, explicitly bases his account. Given that the root-embedded-asymmetry in the expression of expletives is a characteristic trait of both Old and Middle French, it can arguably not be explained away in terms of a mere coincidence with regard to roland. Second, the ‘balance approach’ is essentially based on the assumption that expletive IL is first expressed in verse texts. In fact, the Oxford manuscript of roland, generally agreed to date from 1125‒1150, represents the first extant French literary text in which the expression of expletive IL is encountered. In stark contrast to what is predicted under the approach presently reviewed, however, an instance of expressed expletive IL, given in (20), is also encountered in a 12th century text free from any metrical requirements: the Cambridge Psalter, an interlinear Old French translation of a Latin psalter, whose manuscript dates from 1115 (Falk 1969). (20) Il

plut

sur les feluns

laz … (psaumes, p.15)

it rained on the godless snares

‘It rained onto the godless snares …’

94 � Discussion of previous approaches to subject pronouns in Medieval French Third, a key presumption of the ‘balance approach’ is that in the oldest Old French (verse) texts, the expression of expletive IL follows from extralinguistic needs (metrical requirements), rather than from syntactic needs inherent to the French language itself. Given, however, the very nature of expressed expletive subject pronouns in general, namely their semantic vacuousness and, therefore, their entirely syntactic raison d’être (cf. chapter 1), the approach under review is not only contrary to what has commonly been assumed in this regard, but also inconsistent with the results of crosslinguistic investigation showing that when expressed in a given context in a SVO language, these pronouns are in general consistently expressed in this context (Haider 2010).38 As witnessed by the instance of expressed expletive IL in a non-verse text in (20), at the time when in verse texts, the first instances of expressed expletive IL are encountered, the expression of this pronoun is already part of the grammar of the French language. For if this were not the case, it would remain mysterious why an instance of expressed expletive IL is encountered in an interlinear translation of a text in Latin in which expletive subject pronouns are consistently non-expressed. Fourth, given the crucial claim that the expression of expletive IL in the oldest Old French (verse) texts follows from extralinguistic, rather than from intralinguistic needs, it is entirely unclear under the ‘balance approach’ why and under what conditions this pronoun is expressed in prose texts. In summary, the ‘balance approach’ according to which expletive subject pronouns are expressed to prevent the violation of prevailing metrical requirements has various empirical shortcomings, namely: – expletive subject pronouns are considerably more frequently expressed in embedded clauses; – expletive subject pronouns are also expressed in a non-verse text which is contemporary to the first verse text in which the expression of these pronouns is encountered; – the expression of expletive subject pronouns follows exclusively from intralinguistic reasons; – the expression of expletive subject pronouns in prose texts remains mysterious.

�� 38 As extensively discussed in section 4.3, it is commonly assumed that just like Modern Standard French, Old French is an SVO language (Lerch 1922, Zwanenburg 1978, Vanelli, Renzi & Benincà 1985, Adams 1987a, b, c, Vance 1989, 1997, Roberts 1993, Mathieu 2006b, 2009).

Approaches to expletive subject pronouns � 95

Consequently, one must conclude that an approach to the expression of expletive subject pronouns in terms of the fulfillment of metrical requirements is empirically inadequate.

3.2.3 The ‘grammaticalization approach’ According to the proponents of what shall in the following be referred to as the ‘grammaticalization approach’, the expression of expletive IL originally follows from the frequent expression of the (morphologically identical) third person masculine singular referential subject pronoun, il ‘he’, in specific constructions (Horning 1880, Meyer-Lübke 1899, Maillard 1985, 1987, Maillard & Almeida 2000; cf. also Körting 1896). In particular, it is argued that in the presentative construction il est qui ‘there is someone who’, taken to be the forerunner of the existential construction il est ‘there is / are’, il is initially the masculine referential subject pronoun which, however, ‘soon’ (Horning 1880:268) becomes semantically bleached and, subsequently, develops into an expletive. In a similar vein, it is claimed that in constructions with ancient weather verbs allowing for a nominal subject such as ajourner ‘to become light’ and anuiter ‘to get dark’, il is originally the masculine referential subject pronoun which substitutes for a contextually present masculine DP indicating either the time of the day, such as li matins ‘the morning’, or the day itself (li jors ‘the day’), but which gradually becomes semantically bleached as a result of its ‘cutting off its umbilical cord with the context’ (Maillard & Almeida 2000:195, Maillard 1985:74, 1987:54) and eventually turns into an expletive. As a consequence of this “passage of masculine il to neuter [, i.e. expletive, MZ] il”39 (Horning 1880:267) as well as from analogy with the expression of an expletive subject pronoun in the constructions under discussion, the expression of expletive IL is argued to be increasingly ‘extended’ (Maillard 1985:74, 1987:54) to other impersonal constructions. In view of several empirical flaws, however, the validity of such an approach is seriously weakened. First, the claim that expressed il in constructions with ancient weather verbs substitutes for masculine DPs is highly implausible. In the renowned line Quant li jorz passet et il fut anoitiet ‘When the day was over and it got dark’ from the mid-12th century verse text La Vie de Saint Alexis, generally considered the first extant French literary text in which il is expressed with anuiter ‘to get dark’, “[t]he use of the neuter form of the participle […] shows the subject to be neuter” �� 39 My translation. The original reads: “[…] passage de il masculin à il neutre […]”.

96 � Discussion of previous approaches to subject pronouns in Medieval French (Piatt 1898:37). In this prominent example, then, the “attempt to show that the il is masculine fails entirely” (Piatt 1898:37). Regarding the example under discussion, Büchtemann (1912:71f.) draws attention to another possible drawback: Even though the participle anoitiet [‘got dark’] already evinces its neuter inflection by its form, Horning still insists on considering this il as masculine and referring to li jorz [‘the day’], as if the meaning was li jorz fut anoitiez [‘the day got dark’]. This account, however, runs entirely counter to the syntax of the pronouns. If il = jorz [‘day’], it would not be expressed, since the subject of the second embedded clause would be identical to that of the first one.40

Moreover, the expression of il in constructions with ancient weather verbs arguably constitutes a comparatively late phenomenon (Lukaszewicz 1979). This is unexpected under the ‘grammaticalization approach’ according to which constructions with such verbs are claimed to represent the ‘starting point’ for the eventual expression of expletive IL. Likewise, it is surprising that in the established data corpus, not one single instance of the presentative construction il est qui ‘there is someone who’ has been encountered, even though this construction is allegedly so prominent as to have eventually resulted in the expression of expletive IL. Second, under the ‘grammaticalization approach’, it remains unclear why in both Old and Middle French, the expression of expletive subject pronouns is considerably more frequent in embedded clauses (cf. Figure (3) in section 2.2.2). Third, it is likewise unclear under the approach presently reviewed why the increase in the frequency of the expression of expletive subject pronouns is neither constant nor linear over the course of many centuries (cf. Figures (1) and (3) in section 2.2.2). To summarize, the ‘grammaticalization approach’ according to which the expression of expletive IL follows from the eventual grammaticalization of the expressed third person masculine singular referential subject pronoun il ‘he’ in specific constructions and its subsequent ‘spreading’ to other impersonal constructions has several empirical flaws, namely: – the constructions argued to constitute the basis for the alleged grammaticalization of il ‘he’ seem to occur comparatively late and to be relatively scarce; �� 40 My translation. The original reads: “Trotzdem schon das Partizipium anoitiet sich durch seine Form als neutral dokumentiert […], will doch Horning das il des Verses als Maskulinum ansehen und auf li jorz beziehen, als ob es hieße: li jorz fut anoitiez. Diese Erklärung läuft aber der Syntax der Pronomina ganz zuwider. Wäre il = jorz, so würde es gar nicht gesetzt, da dann das Subjekt des zweiten Nebensatzes mit dem des ersten identisch wäre […].”

Approaches to expletive subject pronouns � 97

– –

expletive IL is considerably more frequently expressed in embedded clauses; diachronically, the expression of expletive IL shows no constant increase in frequency.

From this, it follows that an approach to the expression of expletive subject pronouns in terms of the grammaticalization of referential subject pronouns is empirically inadequate.

3.2.4 The ‘right dislocation approach’ Under what shall in the following be referred to as the ‘right dislocation approach’, it is claimed that once French allows for right dislocation, expletive IL is expressed as a ‘preparatory’ element in constructions involving right dislocation of either an embedded clause or an infinitival expression (Brugmann 1917). In light of a number of empirical inconsistencies which cast serious doubt on its soundness, such an approach is far from being unproblematic. First, personal constructions involving right dislocation have not been encountered in the Old French part of the established data corpus. This is unexpected under the ‘right dislocation approach’ which rests on the assumption that constructions involving right dislocation, both personal and impersonal ones, are a characteristic trait of Old French. Second, contrary to what is predicted under the approach presently reviewed, impersonal constructions with expressed expletive IL and either an embedded clause or an infinitival expression are not in the majority among impersonal constructions in the extract from the selected Oxford manuscript of roland. As noted in section 3.2.2, this manuscript represents the first extant French literary text in which the expression of expletive IL is encountered. In fact, only three out of the established eight impersonal constructions with expressed expletive IL feature an embedded clause which under the ‘right dislocation approach’ would be considered right-dislocated. Intriguingly, the first instance of expressed expletive IL in a non-verse text is with an impersonal construction featuring a weather verb, rather than with one of the two impersonal constructions predicted under the approach presently reviewed. Moreover, among the 65 instances of impersonal constructions with nonexpressed expletive subject pronouns in the extract from roland, there are six instances of impersonal constructions with an embedded clause (cf. (21a)) and two instances of impersonal constructions with an infinitival expression (cf. (21b)).

98 � Discussion of previous approaches to subject pronouns in Medieval French (21) a.

Tort

nos ad

harm us

fait, nen est dreiz

qu’

il s’

en

has made not is right that he himself of.it

lot, … (roland, p.372) praise

‘He harmed us, it is not right that he praises himself, …’ b. Dist l’ emperere: – Tens est del herberger ; (roland, p.461) said the emperor

time is

of.the to.put.up.tents

‘The emperor said: “It is time to put up the tents;’ Again, this is unexpected under the approach presently reviewed which is based on the crucial claim that constructions such as in (21) are the first to witness the expression of expletive IL and, consequently, represent the ‘starting point’ for its eventual expression in other impersonal constructions. Crucially, examples such as in (21) are not a peculiarity of roland, a verse text, but are encountered in all of the other Old and Middle French (prose) texts of the established data corpus, as the results in Figure (14) show.

100% 90% 8/40 80%

6/23

7/25

32/40

7/22

70%

15/22

60%

11/26

14/20

15/26

50%

7/11

40% 30% 20%

6/20

17/23

18/25

8/11

4/11 4/5

30/38

1/5

8/38

23/38 15/38

3/11

10% 0%

impersonal constructions with expressed Expl

impersonal constructions with non-expressed Expl

Fig. (14): Frequency of finite impersonal constructions with either an embedded clause or an infinitival expression and expletive IL expressed as well as non-expressed

Note that in two of the Old French texts selected as well as in three of the Middle French texts selected, constructions such as in (21) with non-expressed expletive IL in fact predominate, evidently in stark contrast to what is predicted under

Approaches to referential subject pronouns � 99

the ‘right dislocation approach’. Contrary to what is argued under this approach, then, impersonal constructions with expressed expletive IL and either an embedded clause or an infinitival expression are considerably less prominent at the time when the first instances of expressed expletive IL are encountered. Specifically, the relevant impersonal constructions are either scarce or even completely absent and the expression of expletive IL in these constructions is far from being consistent, and this throughout the medieval stages of French. Third, under the ‘right dislocation approach’, it remains unclear why in Old and Middle French, expletive subject pronouns are considerably more frequently expressed in embedded clauses (cf. Figure (3) in section 2.2.2). To sum up, the ‘right dislocation approach’ according to which expletive IL is first expressed as a ‘preparatory’ element in constructions involving right dislocation and subsequently in all other impersonal constructions has a number of empirical inconsistencies, namely: – personal constructions involving right dislocation do not seem to be a prominent feature of Old French; – impersonal constructions with expressed expletive IL and either an embedded clause or an infinitival expression are not prominent at the time when the first instances of expressed expletive IL are encountered, and throughout the medieval stages of French, expletive IL is not consistently expressed in such constructions; – expletive IL is considerably more frequently expressed in embedded clauses. From this, it follows that an approach to the expression of expletive IL in terms of the availability of constructions involving right dislocation is empirically inadequate.

3.3 Approaches to referential subject pronouns 3.3.1 The ‘agent action approach’ The proponents of what shall in the following be referred to as the ‘agent action approach’ argue that the (increasing) expression of referential subject pronouns in cases of an extremely high degree of antecedent accessibility is a direct result of an idiosyncratic syntactic “tendency to express the subject before the verb,

100 � Discussion of previous approaches to subject pronouns in Medieval French the agent before the action”41 (Franzén 1939:138) (Franzén 1939, Skårup 1975, Lukaszewicz 1979, von Seefranz-Montag 1983, Schøsler 1991, Fragonard & Kotler 1994, de Bakker 1997, Picoche & Marchello-Nizia 2001, Revol 2005, MarchelloNizia 2006, Buridant 2007): This implies not only that from a certain period onward, the non-pronominal subjects would have had a tendency to occur preferably before the verb, but also that in the case in which in Latin, the subject was not expressed, one would have increasingly expressed the pronominal subject before the verb. In order to achieve the expression of the agent before the action, these two notions evidently had to be separately expressed. The evolution towards direct order and the tendency to express subject pronouns would therefore simply be two different aspects of a single syntactic phenomenon.42 (Franzén 1939:138f.)

Even though in its history, French witnesses indeed a considerable decrease in the inversion of the subject and the finite verb (cf. Kaiser & Zimmermann 2011 for extensive discussion) as well as an increase in the expression of referential subject pronouns, such an approach has numerous empirical shortcomings which severely undermine its plausibility. First, under the approach presently reviewed which remains silent not only on why subjects tend to be increasingly expressed in (directly) preverbal position, but also on when exactly this tendency sets in, it is unclear why the expression of referential subject pronouns is considerably more frequent in embedded clauses (cf. Figure (4) in section 2.2.2). Crucially, as admitted by Franzén (1939:138), in embedded clauses, “contrary to root clauses, the direct order has been the normal order since the beginning of the literary period”43. Second, even though, as has just been noted, it is not specified at which time the alleged tendency to have the subject expressed in preverbal position sets in, it is predicted under the ‘agent action approach’ that from the moment this tendency sets in, referential subject pronouns are increasingly expressed. Yet, this prediction is only partially borne out, as it is only from the end of the �� 41 My translation. The original reads: “[…] tendance à exprimer le sujet avant le verbe, l’agent avant l’action […]”. 42 My translation. The original reads: “Cela n’implique pas seulement qu’à partir d’une certaine époque les sujets-substantifs auraient eu tendance à se placer de préférence devant le verbe, mais aussi, dans le cas où en latin on n’exprimait pas le sujet, qu’on aurait exprimé de plus en plus souvent le sujet pronominal devant le verbe. Pour arriver à exprimer l’agent avant l’action, il fallait évidemment exprimer séparément ces deux idées. La progression vers l’ordre direct et la tendance à exprimer les pronoms sujets ne seraient ainsi que deux aspects différents d’un même phénomène syntaxique.” 43 My translation. The original reads: “[…] par opposition aux principales, l’ordre direct est l’ordre normal dès le début de l’époque littéraire […]”.

Approaches to referential subject pronouns � 101

15th / beginning of the 16th century that the expression of these pronouns shows a constant increase in frequency, while earlier on, increases and decreases alternate (cf. Figures (2) and (4) in section 2.2.2). Third, under the approach presently reviewed, it is unpredicted that in Old and Middle French, the frequency of the expression of referential subject pronouns differs at times starkly with regard to the respective person and number of these pronouns (cf. Table (2) in section 2.2.2). Fourth, it remains unclear under the ‘agent action approach’ why in the medieval stages of French, referential subject pronouns are (at times considerably) more frequently expressed in direct speech than in narration (cf. Figure (5) in section 2.2.2), and this regardless of the respective person and number of these pronouns (Zimmermann 2012). Fifth, contrary to what is predicted by the approach presently reviewed, in both Old and Middle French, referential subject pronouns are, albeit in general infrequently so, also expressed in postverbal position in declaratives (cf. Figure (8) in section 2.2.2). It is important to note that in certain well-defined declarative contexts in Modern Standard French, these pronouns are likewise expressed in postverbal position (cf. Kaiser & Zimmermann 2011 for extensive discussion). Proponents of the ‘agent action approach’ try to challenge this completely unpredicted state of affairs by explaining it away as follows (cf. also Harris 1978): The inversions are maybe not as irreconcilable with our theory as they seem to be. One may consider them a vestige from Latin. Yet, as the use of subject pronouns before the verb became more and more habitual, one must have begun to accompany the verb with these words to such an extent that one made them appear with ever greater ease even in other positions.44 (Franzén 1939:139)

Yet, in light of the following reasoning elsewhere put forward by Franzén (1939:143), such interpretative attempts are inconclusive: When the [finite, MZ] verb occurred first, it expressed both the action and the agent, and the idea was not in need of completion by the subject. Put after, even immediately so, it [=

�� 44 My translation. The original reads: “Les […] inversions ne sont peut-être pas aussi irréconciliables avec notre théorie qu’elles le paraissent. On peut les regarder comme un héritage du latin. Or, à mesure que, devant le verbe, l’emploi des pronoms sujets est devenu de plus en plus habituel, on a dû se mettre à accompagner le verbe de ces mots au point de les faire apparaître avec une facilité croissante même dans d’autres positions […]”.

102 � Discussion of previous approaches to subject pronouns in Medieval French the subject pronoun, MZ] must have seemed more or less pleonastic, since the verb already expressed the subject.45

Note in this regard that referential subject pronouns are generally expressed in incised clauses inserted in direct speech in the history of French (Franzén 1939) (cf. also footnote 12 in section 3.1.1), and this usually in (directly) postverbal position. Again, this in stark contrast to what is predicted under the approach presently reviewed. Sixth, as shown by the results in Figure (15), there is no constant increase in the preverbal occurrence of non-pronominal subjects in root declaratives in the medieval stages of French, as insisted upon under the ‘agent action approach’.

100%

2/124

103/105

122/124

11/62

80%

138/158

393/459

70% 60%

162/366

50%

204/366

137/362

40/107

225/362

67/107

61/247

51/62

46/154

186/247 108/154 132/274 146/280 125/212

40%

20/158

66/459

90%

2/105

142/274

134/280 87/212

30% 20% 10% 0%

preverbal non-pronominal subjects

postverbal non-pronominal subjects

Fig. (15): Frequency of non-pronominal subjects in pre- and postverbal position in root declaratives

Note that this finding is all the more insightful, in that it is crucially claimed under the approach presently reviewed that the tendency to have non-

�� 45 My translation. The original reads: “Quand le verbe apparaissait le premier, il exprimait et l’action et l’agent, et l’idée n’avait pas besoin d’être complétée par le sujet. […] Placé après, même immédiatement, il devait paraître plus ou moins pléonastique, puisque le verbe exprimait déjà le sujet.”

Approaches to referential subject pronouns � 103

pronominal subjects increasingly precede the finite verb directly correlates with the tendency to have referential subject pronouns increasingly expressed (in preverbal position). It appears, then, that in Old and Middle French, there are no such tendencies which under the ‘agent action approach’ are taken to be two sides of the same coin. In summary, the ‘agent action approach’ according to which the expression of referential subject pronouns in cases of an extremely high degree of antecedent accessibility follows from an idiosyncratic syntactic tendency to have the (expressed) subject precede the finite verb has numerous empirical shortcomings, namely: – referential subject pronouns are considerably more frequently expressed in embedded clauses; – until the 16th century, the expression of referential subject pronouns shows no constant increase in frequency; – the expression of referential subject pronouns differs in frequency according to their respective person and number; – referential subject pronouns are more frequently expressed in direct speech; – referential subject pronouns may be expressed in postverbal position in declaratives as well as in incised clauses in all stages of French; – non-pronominal subjects show no constant increase in their preverbal occurrence in root declaratives. From these points, it follows that an approach to the increasing expression of referential subject pronouns in terms of a syntactic constraint on the sequence of the (expressed) subject and the finite verb is empirically inadequate.

3.3.2 The ‘differential parsing approach’ According to the proponents of what shall in the following be referred to as the ‘differential parsing approach’, the increasing expression in Middle French of referential subject pronouns, whose antecedent is extremely highly accessible, follows directly from the interaction of a differential rate of parsing success and a mechanism of frequency-matching (Sprouse & Vance 1999; cf. also LaFond 2003). This approach is essentially based on two major assumptions. Specifically, it is assumed that expressed referential subject pronouns are less “likely to lead to parsing failure” (Sprouse & Vance 1999:263), since the expression of these pronouns “provides a redundancy that the null pronoun fails to provide”

104 � Discussion of previous approaches to subject pronouns in Medieval French (Sprouse & Vance 1999:261). It is moreover assumed that “in the case of competing forms […] speakers seek to match the frequencies of each as they are instantiated in the ambient speech community” (Sprouse & Vance 1999:259). Crucially, the alleged differential parsing of expressed and non-expressed referential subject pronouns and the alleged frequency-matching mechanism are argued to conspire in such a way as to bring about the ever more frequent expression of these pronouns: The frequency-matching mechanism alone accounts for the decline in the frequency of null [= non-expressed] pronouns in cases of genuine competition between null and overt [= expressed] variants with the same referential properties, given the gap between other speakers’ production and a given speaker’s perception. (Sprouse & Vance 1999:264)

Its theoretical appeal notwithstanding, this approach has several empirical flaws which challenge its persuasiveness. First, contrary to what is predicted under the ‘differential parsing approach’, the expression of referential subject pronouns shows no constant increase in frequency, at least in the first half of the Middle French period (cf. Figures (2) and (4) in section 2.2.2). Second, under the approach presently reviewed, it is unpredicted that in Middle French, the frequency of the expression of referential subject pronouns differs at times starkly with regard to the respective person and number of these pronouns (cf. Table (2) in section 2.2.2), as acknowledged by Sprouse & Vance (1999) themselves. Sprouse & Vance (1999:264) try to cope with this shortcoming by additionally adopting the ‘disambiguation approach’ (cf. section 3.1.5) which, however, they reject at the same time, due to its problematic nature: A curious property of the gradual loss of null subjects is that it often affects different persons of the verb at different rates. […] The DPM [= Differential Parsing Model of Change through Competition] might lead one to anticipate such a skewing of person and number features of null subjects when the clarity of person and number features on the verb itself varies across different members of verbal paradigms. However, our model is meant to capture a richer set of phenomena than those predicted by a functional explanation of subject-pronoun usage based on verbal inflection alone. Specifically, we claim that any competition between an utterance consisting of an overt pronoun plus an ambiguous verb form and an utterance consisting of that verb form alone is subsumed under a more general parsing principle that favors overt pronouns regardless of the marking on the verb. When null and overt forms are in competition, the clarity or ambiguity of certain verb forms vis-à-vis other verb forms may lead to different rates of change in the relative frequencies between overt and null variants.

As extensively discussed earlier (cf. section 3.1.5), the ‘disambiguation approach’ has numerous empirical shortcomings and had therefore better not be

Approaches to referential subject pronouns � 105

incorporated. This also does more justice to the ‘differential parsing approach’ which hinges on the claim that “[u]nder the DPM [= Differential Parsing Model of Change through Competition], the only relevant difference between them [= overt and null pronominal subjects, MZ] is that the null subject, but not the overt subject, is more likely to lead to parsing failure” (Sprouse & Vance 1999:263). Third, under the approach presently reviewed, it remains unclear why referential subject pronouns are considerably more frequently expressed in embedded clauses (cf. Figure (4) in section 2.2.2), unless one assumes that the parsing of non-expressed referential subject pronouns have posed for speakers less of a problem in root clauses than in embedded clauses, clearly an implausible assumption. Fourth, in contrast to what is predicted under the ‘disambiguation approach’, in Middle French, referential subject pronouns are generally more frequently expressed in direct speech than in narration (cf. Figure (5) in section 2.2.2), and this regardless of the respective person and number of these pronouns (Zimmermann 2012). Given the crucial claim of a higher rate of parsing success when referentials are expressed, the approach under review fails to plausibly take account of this state of affairs. To summarize, the ‘disambiguation approach’ according to which the increasing expression of referential subject pronouns in cases of an extremely high degree of antecedent accessibility follows from a conspiracy of increased parsing success and a mechanism of frequency-matching has several empirical flaws, namely: – until the 16th century, the expression of referential subject pronouns shows no constant increase in frequency; – the expression of referential subject pronouns differs in frequency according to the respective person and number of these pronouns; – referential subject pronouns are considerably more frequently expressed in embedded clauses; – referential subject pronouns are more frequently expressed in direct speech. From this, it follows that an approach to the increasing expression of referential subject pronouns in terms of differential parsing success is empirically inadequate.

106 � Discussion of previous approaches to subject pronouns in Medieval French

3.3.3 The ‘pragmatico-rhetorical approach’ Under what shall in the following be referred to as the ‘pragmatico-rhetorical approach’ (Detges 2003), it is claimed that the increasing expression in Old French of referential subject pronouns, whose antecedent is extremely highly accessible, follows directly from pragmatico-rhetorical strategies / mechanisms indicating “a higher level of communicative responsibility”46 (Detges 2003:321). Specifically, it is argued that such strategies / mechanisms lead to both a pragmatico-rhetorical devaluation of expressed referential subject pronouns and an increase in the frequency of their expression. This development is asserted to eventually pave the way for the expression of referentials in ‘much more general contexts’ (Detges 2003:321). While this approach seems intuitively appealing, it has various empirical inconsistencies which seriously weaken its soundness. First, the ‘pragmatico-rhetorical approach’ is quite restricted, in that it mainly takes into account the increasing expression of the first person singular referential subject pronoun. Under this approach, then, the exact reasons lying behind the increasing expression of the second and, more crucially, third person referential subject pronouns, both singular and plural, are entirely unclear. Second, the central claim that the first person singular referential subject pronoun is the first to be affected by the alleged pragmatico-rhetorical devaluation and, consequently, to witness an increase in the frequency of its expression is not borne out by the facts. For this pronoun is generally either least frequently or considerably less frequently expressed than the other referential subject pronouns in both Old and Middle French (cf. Table (2) in section 2.2.2). This is especially true of the prototypical context in which under the ‘pragmaticorhetorical approach’, the alleged pragmatico-rhetorical devaluation is predicted to take place, namely in root declaratives in direct speech (Zimmermann 2012). Third, there is a chronological discrepancy regarding the expression in French of referential subject pronouns, whose antecedent is extremely highly accessible. Contrary to what is claimed under the approach presently reviewed, there is no sudden increase in the frequency of the expression of these pronouns from the end of the 12th century onward. As acknowledged by Detges (2003) himself, referential subject pronouns are already expressed in cases of an extremely high degree of antecedent accessibility several centuries earlier on, and this frequently so (cf. Figures (2) and (4) in section 2.2.2 and Zimmermann (2012)). �� 46 My translation. The original reads: “[…] un degré élevé de responsabilité communicative […]”.

Approaches to referential subject pronouns � 107

Fourth, in contrast to what is argued under the ‘pragmatico-rhetorical approach’, the expression of referential subject pronouns shows no constant increase in frequency “since the end of the 12th century”47 (Detges 2003:309) (cf. Figures (2) and (4) in section 2.2.2), and this regardless of the respective person and number of these pronouns (Zimmermann 2012). To sum up, the ‘pragmatico-rhetorical approach’ according to which the increasing expression of referential subject pronouns follows from pragmaticorhetorical strategies / mechanisms leading to the devaluation of these pronouns has various empirical inconsistencies, namely: – the increasing expression of second and third person referential subject pronouns remains unaccounted for; – the first person singular referential subject pronoun is in general less frequently expressed than other referential subject pronouns; – referential subject pronouns, whose antecedent is extremely highly accessible, are frequently expressed well before their alleged pragmaticorhetorical devaluation sets in; – until the 16th century, the expression of referential subject pronouns shows no constant increase in frequency. From this, it follows that an approach to the expression of referential subject pronouns in cases of an extremely high degree of antecedent accessibility in terms of pragmatics / rhetoric is empirically inadequate.

3.3.4 The ‘inducement approach’ The proponents of what shall in the following be referred to as the ‘inducement approach’ argue that the increasing expression of referential subject pronouns, whose antecedent is extremely highly accessible, in root declaratives in Old and Middle French follows directly from the example set by embedded declaratives in which these pronouns are allegedly consistently expressed (Vanelli, Renzi & Benincà 1985). Specifically, it is claimed that embedded declaratives constitute “the nucleus of the obligatory [subject, MZ] personal pronoun”48 (Vanelli, Renzi & Benincà 1985:165) and that the consistent expression of referentials in these clauses induces their ever increasing and eventually consistent expression in root clauses. This approach is, however, far from being unproblematic, since it �� 47 My translation. The original reads: “[…] à partir de la fin du XIIe siècle […]”. 48 My translation. The original reads: “[…] le noyau du pronom personnel obligatoire […]”.

108 � Discussion of previous approaches to subject pronouns in Medieval French has a number of empirical shortcomings which cast serious doubt on its validity. First, contrary to what is argued under the ‘inducement approach’, root clauses are generally not considered to be least prone to innovations. Specifically, it is generally root, rather than embedded, clauses, which first undergo changes and then set an example: In oral communication, root clauses are more frequent than embedded clauses, and it is the former which host the illocutionary force of the entire expression. For this reason, major grammatical changes are normally passed on from root to embedded clauses, and not vice versa.49 (Detges 2003:310)

In fact, within the theory of grammatical change, it “seems to be widely accepted that innovations first occur in root clauses, while in the context of language change, embedded clauses tend to conservatism in the context of language change”50 (Dufter 2008b:285). Second, while the expression of referential subject pronouns generally predominates in embedded clauses from Early Old French onward (Detges (2003); cf. also Figure (4) in section 2.2.2 and Zimmermann (2012)), it is not until more than eight hundred years later that these pronouns are consistently expressed in root clauses. Under the approach presently reviewed, it remains unclear why the inducement to consistently express referentials has taken such a long period of time. Third, in stark contrast to what is argued under the ‘inducement approach’, referential subject pronouns may be non-expressed in embedded clauses until the first half of the 17th century (cf. Figure (4) in section 2.2.2). It is therefore unclear how the expression of these pronouns in embedded clauses may set the example for their expression in root clauses. For what distinguishes the former clauses from the latter is the frequency of the expression of referentials, whose antecedent is extremely highly accessible, rather than their (non-)consistent expression. In summary, the ‘inducement approach’ according to which the increasing expression of referential subject pronouns in root clauses is induced by their �� 49 My translation. The original reads: “Dans la communication orale, les phrases principales sont plus fréquentes que les subordonnées, et ce sont elles qui sont les porteuses de la force illocutive de l’énoncé tout entier. Pour cette raison, les changements grammaticaux majeurs se transmettent normalement des principales aux subordonnées et non pas vice versa […].” 50 My translation. The original reads: “[…] weithin akzeptiert scheint, daß Innovationen zuerst in selbständigen Sätzen auftreten, während subordinierte Sätze im Sprachwandel zu Konservativität tendieren […].”

Conclusion � 109

consistent expression in embedded clauses has a number of empirical shortcomings, namely: – grammatical change occurs first in root clauses; – referential subject pronouns become consistently expressed in root clauses after a period of more than eight hundred years only; – referential subject pronouns are not consistently expressed in embedded clauses. From this, it follows that an approach to the expression of referential subject pronouns, whose antecedent is extremely highly accessible, in terms of the inducement in root declaratives of some state of affairs obtaining in embedded declaratives is empirically inadequate.

3.4 Conclusion As follows from the preceding discussion, neither of the major approaches put forward in the literature to the (non-)expression of both expletive subject pronouns and referential subject pronouns in cases of an extremely high degree of antecedent accessibility in the medieval stages of French stands up to closer empirical examination. In fact, approaches in terms of (i) strict syntactic and / or rhythmic word order constraints, (ii) syntactic borrowing, both from a different clause type and from a different language, (iii) verbal inflectional morphology, (iv) analogy, (v) metrical requirements, (vi) grammaticalization, (vii) syntactic transformations, (viii) parsing success, and (ix) pragmatics / rhetoric fall short of adequately capturing the reality of the (non-)expression of these two sets of pronouns as reflected in the results of the enquiries into the established diachronic data corpus. In light of the finding, then, that the plausibility of previous approaches is severely undermined by their empirical shortcomings, the two deeply puzzling phenomena under investigation still await an approach which does justice to the facts. In the next chapter, an alternative approach will be fleshed out which is essentially based on the notion that in Old and Middle French, the expression of expletives as well as of referentials, whose antecedent is extremely highly accessible, are closely related, in that they in fact represent two sides of the same coin.

4 An alternative approach to subject pronouns in Medieval French 4.0 Overview In this chapter, an alternative approach to the (non-)expression of subject pronouns, both expletive and referential, in Old and Middle French will be put forward. This approach is essentially based on the analysis of these stages of French as non-null subject languages (section 4.1). Under this analysis, the expression of subject pronouns no longer constitutes otherwise idiosyncratic and, respectively, cross-linguistically uncommon phenomena, but follows rather naturally. The contexts for non-expressed subject pronouns which at first sight appear less natural under such an analysis will then be established (section 4.2). Next, the specific structural conditions on non-expressed subject pronouns will be determined as the licensing and identification of subject pro in SpecIP by the governing finite verb (section 4.3). The information-structural properties of preverbal constituents in ‘V>1’ configurations with non-expressed subject pronouns will then be investigated (section 4.4.1). On the basis of the outcome of this investigation, it will be shown that the non-expression of subject pronouns in such configurations correlates with the left-peripheral focalization of a directly preverbal (phrasal) constituent (section 4.4.2) and hinges on the application of the Focus Criterion (section 4.4.3). The fulfillment of the specific structural conditions on non-expressed subject pronouns in ‘V1’ configurations will subsequently be determined and shown to follow from either the focalization or the topicalization of the finite verb (section 4.5). Finally, the interand intratextual variation in the frequency of non-expressed subject pronouns in Old and Middle French will be shown to be neatly captured under the present approach (section 4.6). Section 4.7 concludes the discussion by giving a general summary of this chapter.

4.1 Old and Middle French as non-null subject languages In the literature, the medieval stages of French are generally analyzed as null subject languages, since in finite clauses in which the subject is not expressed by a non-pronominal DP or a pronoun other than a subject pronoun, subject pronouns may be non-expressed (cf. chapter 1). In light of the observation that in Italian and Spanish, considered prototypical null subject languages in the

Old and Middle French as non-null subject languages � 111

generative literature, the expression of referential subject pronouns usually follows from specific semantico-pragmatic reasons such as emphasis or contrast, the natural expectation is that in Old and Middle French, referential subject pronouns are usually non-expressed when their antecedent is extremely highly accessible. Moreover, it is definitely expected that in these stages of French, expletive subject pronouns are consistently non-expressed. Yet, as both the survey of the literature on the development of the (non-)expression of these two sets of pronouns (cf. section 2.1) and the results from analyzing the established data corpus (cf. section 2.2.2) have shown, neither one of these expectations is borne out. In fact, in Old and Middle French, referential subject pronouns are frequently expressed and expletive subject pronouns non-marginally so (cf. Figure (1)).

100% 780/782 90%

97/97

445/492

629/705

80%

603/709 566/698

296/370 70%

48/65

60%

317/540 311/566

33/61

224/464

40%

38/49 63/80

705/1052

382/578 34/57

50%

30%

720/720

94/96

22/42 33/94

156/456

25/95

20%

18/72

10% 8/73 0%

3/47

expressed referential subject pronouns

expressed expletive subject pronouns

Fig. (1):Frequency of the expression of referential and expletive subject pronouns in declaratives

Foremost, it has been shown in the discussion of previous approaches that these two unexpected phenomena which are characteristic of non-null subject languages may not be accounted for independently of the status of the medieval stages of French as null subject languages (cf. chapter 3). Among the Romance null subject languages in particular and null subject languages in general, then, Old and Middle French are alone in allowing in addition to the frequent expres-

112 � An alternative approach to subject pronouns in Medieval French sion of referential subject pronouns in cases of an extremely high degree of antecedent accessibility, for the non-marginal expression of expletive subject pronouns in impersonal constructions (cf. chapter 1). One must note that the cross-linguistically uncommon and, respectively, otherwise idiosyncratic nature of these two phenomena essentially follows from the analysis of these stages of French as null subject languages. Under the alternative analysis of Old and Middle French as non-null subject languages, however, the phenomena at issue follow rather naturally. Clearly, such an unorthodox analysis which is in fact in keeping with expectations of both traditional and generative theories of grammar as well as with extensive cross-linguistic investigation (cf. chapter 1) must result from principled grounds. The results in Figure (1) above prove to be somewhat paradoxical with regard to the analysis of the medieval stages of French as (non-)null subject languages. On the one hand, it follows from these results that Old and Middle French allow for the non-expression of referential and expletive subject pronouns, a trait usually attributed to null subject languages. On the other, the results in Figure (1) clearly indicate that these stages of French also allow for the expression of referentials in cases of an extremely high degree of antecedent accessibility as well as of expletives, generally considered characteristic of nonnull subject languages only. Contrary to what has commonly been claimed in the literature, it is thus far from clear which analysis would best do justice to the medieval stages of French. As argued in the following, it is still possible to convincingly settle the issue of the status of Old and Middle French with respect to the null subject property by looking into the (non-)expression of referential and expletive subject pronouns in embedded declaratives. As extensively discussed in sections 2.1.2.2 and 2.2.2, the distinction between root and embedded declaratives is directly pertinent to the (non-)expression of these two sets of pronouns. With regard to root declaratives, it is yet again unclear which analysis would best do justice to the medieval stages of French, in that the non-expression of referentials and expletives is encountered alongside their expression (cf. Figure (2)). The state of affairs is, however, very different when it comes to embedded declaratives (cf. Figure (3)).

Old and Middle French as non-null subject languages � 113

100% 373/374 90%

370/370 53/53

46/48

80% 211/271

70%

100/138

131/183 60%

21/31

181/277

50% 10/21

40%

12/28

125/300

30% 12/38 20%

15/22

133/227

84/323

5/22

55/216 10/57

10% 6/63 0%

158/476

98/324

70/252

9/46

4/50 1/33

expressed referential subject pronouns

expressed expletive subject pronouns

Fig. (2): Frequency of the expression of referential and expletive subject pronouns in root declaratives

100% 422/432

90%

418/434 257/278

21/23

213/242

80% 262/324 70% 154/212

345/354

547/576 165/187

38/44

17/20

407/408 48/48

433/471 42/49

350/350 44/44

23/27

22/29

60% 23/37 50%

72/133 21/45

40% 30%

9/26

20% 2/10 10%

2/14

0%

expressed referential subject pronouns

expressed expletive subject pronouns

Fig. (3): Frequency of the expression of referential and expletive subject pronouns in embedded declaratives

114 � An alternative approach to subject pronouns in Medieval French As follows from the results in Figure (3), the expression of subject pronouns, both referential and expletive, generally predominates in embedded declaratives. While completely unexpected under the analysis of Old and Middle French as null subject languages, this state of affairs is a rather natural result of their alternative analysis as non-null subject languages. Regarding the status of the medieval stages of French with respect to the null subject property, then, it appears that their analysis as non-null subject languages is more in line with the data, both overall (cf. Figure (1)) and when further distinctions are applied (cf. Figures (2) and (3)).1 What is evidently in need of an explanation under this alternative approach to Old and Middle French are non-expressed referential and expletive subject pronouns. At face value, the non-expression of these two sets of pronouns seems to be peculiar for a non-null subject language, given the common view that such a language has expletives and referentials consistently expressed. Yet, it appears that this is too strict a view, in that the non-expression of these pronouns is not categorically excluded in non-null subject languages. In Modern Standard French for example, usually analyzed as a non-null subject language (cf. chapter 1), referential and expletive subject pronouns are not consistently expressed, but only generally so. In fact, there are several contexts in which these two sets of pronouns may and sometimes even must be non-expressed. Specifically, non-expressed referential and expletive subject pronouns are allowed for in the following contexts in Modern Standard French: (i) comparative clauses (Grevisse & Goosse 2011) (cf. (1a)), (ii) clauses with a leftdislocated prosodically strong / non-clitic pronoun other than of the first and second person singular (cf. (1b)), clauses with a left-dislocated prosodically strong / non-clitic pronoun modified by either seul ‘alone’ or même ‘self’ (cf. (1c)), clauses with one or several left-dislocated coordinated prosodically strong / non-clitic pronouns (cf. (1d)), clauses with a left-peripheral prosodically strong

�� 1 Cf. also Zimmermann (2009). Further evidence corroborating this analysis comes from the finding that in unaccusative impersonal constructions in Old and Middle French, the Definiteness Effect, commonly claimed to correlate with the non-null subject property (Roberts 2007), generally holds (Zimmermann to be submitted a). The analysis of Old French as a non-null subject, rather than a null subject language has also been put forward by Fischer (2009, 2010), albeit on different grounds. She motivates this alternative analysis by claiming that “Old French […] does not allow referential pro-drop” (Fischer 2010:45), but “only [...] expletive drop” (Fischer 2010:137). Clearly, the claim that Old French does not allow for the non-expression of referential subject pronouns is contrary to fact (cf. chapter 1 as well as sections 2.1.7-2.1.9 and 2.3.2), a state of affairs which severely undermines Fischer’s motivation for such an alternative analysis.

Old and Middle French as non-null subject languages � 115

/ non-clitic pronoun of the third person expressing contrastive focus (cf. (1e)) (Grevisse & Goosse 2011, Riegel, Pellat & Rioul 2014), (iii) impersonal constructions with rester ‘to remain’, suffire ‘to be sufficient’, and être avis ‘to be of the opinion’ (Mätzner 1843, Stier 1896, Lerch 1934, de Boer 1954, Figge 1970, Heriau 1980, Grevisse & Goosse 2011) (cf. (1f)), (iv) impersonal constructions involving a “rather limited” (Pollock 1979:72) class of passive verbs in specific configurations (root and embedded wh-interrogatives, wh-extracted relatives, embedded subjunctives)2 (Kayne & Pollock 1978, 2001, Pollock 1979, 1981, Heriau 1980, Kayne 1986, Legendre 1990, Friedemann 1997a, b, Taraldsen 2002, Grevisse & Goosse 2011) (cf. (1g)), (v) impersonal constructions involving a limited class of active verbs in root declaratives and interrogatives in which the relevant verbs are directly preceded by a prepositional adjunct and followed by an embedded clause introduced by the subordinating conjunction que ‘that’ (Jung 1887, Meyer-Lübke 1899, Brugmann 1917, Brunot 1936, Regula 1970, Seelbach 1978, Heriau 1980, Grevisse & Goosse 2011) (cf. (1h)), (vi) impersonal constructions showing archaic traits (Brunot 1891, Etienne 1895, Eringa 1943, Sandfeld 1965, Heriau 1980, Béguelin 2000, Grevisse & Goosse 2011) (cf. (1i)). (1) a.

Je sortis de

l’

ermitage

plus triste que ( je) n’

I left from the hermitage more sadly than I

étais

y

not there

entré. (adapted from Grevisse & Goosse 2011:264)

was.being entered

‘I left the hermitage more sadly than I had entered it.’ b. Elle, si forte, ( elle) se sentait soudain

sans

she so strong she herself was.feeling suddenly without

volonté. (adapted from Grevisse & Goosse 2011:884) will

c.

‘She, who was so strong, she suddenly felt weak-willed.’ Toi seul ( tu) peux en décider. (Riegel, Pellat & Rioul 2014:371) you alone you can

of.it to.decide

‘You alone can decide on this.’ d. Mon frère et moi ( nous) avons décidé my

brother and I

we

de nous

have decided to ourselves

associer. (Riegel, Pellat & Rioul 2014:371) to.join.forces

‘My brother and I, we decided to join forces.

�� 2 Passives such as être admis ‘to be allowed’ and être exigé ‘to be required’ additionally allow for the non-expression of expletive IL in configurations with long wh-movement (Friedemann 1997a).

116 � An alternative approach to subject pronouns in Medieval French e.

Lui (, il) s’ HE

f.

occupe

du

ménage.

he himself takes.care of.the housework

(Riegel, Pellat & Rioul 2014:370) ‘HE does the housework.’ (Il) Reste à me rendre bienfaisant. it remains to me to.make kind

(adapted from Grevisse & Goosse 2011:266) ‘It remains to make me kind.’ g. Il faut que ( il) soit mis fin à la guerre.3 it must that it be

put end to the war

(adapted from Pollock 1979:72) ‘The war must be put to an end.’ h. De là ( il) vient que nous somm es toujours fatigués. of there it comes that we

i.

are

always

(adapted from Seelbach 1978:64) ‘The result of this is that we are always tired.’ Je ne sais pas bien ce qui donna lieu I not know not well this which gave

querelle tant

( il) y

a

qu’

ils

tired

à leur

place to their

se

quarrel so.much it there has that they themselves

battirent. (adapted from Grevisse & Goosse 2011:265) fought

‘I do not know for sure what gave rise to their quarrel, but it is certain that they fought one another.’ And referential and expletive, respectively, subject pronouns are categorically non-expressed in the following contexts in Modern Standard French: (i) imperatives (Adams 1987a, b, Belletti 1999) (cf. (2a)), (ii) Stylistic Inversion in specific configurations (root declaratives, root and embedded wh-interrogatives, embedded subjunctives) (Kayne & Pollock 1978, Pollock 1985, 1986, Kayne 1986, Roberts 1993) (cf. (2b)), (iii) various personal constructions with the finite verb in the third person singular (cf. footnote 34 in section 2.2.2) (cf. (2c)), (iv) numerous impersonal constructions (Mätzner 1843, Haase 1888, Darmesteter 1897a, b, Lerch 1922, 1931, 1934, Damourette & Pichon 1934, Brunot 1936, Falk 1969, Heriau 1980, Béguelin 2000, Grevisse & Goosse 2011; cf. already Oudin 1640) (cf. (2d)).

�� 3 Note that for reasons of illustration, the -e of the subordinating conjunction que ‘that’ is not elided when directly followed by expletive IL.

Old and Middle French as non-null subject languages � 117

(2) a.

Mange [IP[DP proref ]] ! eat

‘Eat!’ b. Quand [IP[DP proexpl ] est venu Jean] ? when

c.

is come Jean

‘When did Jean come?’ quand / comme / si bon when

as

vous semble [IP[DP proref ]]

if good you

seems

‘when / as / if you feel like it’ d. Force est [IP[DP proexpl ] de constater force is

que …]

of to.observe that

‘Whether one likes it or not, one must observe that …’ Modern Standard French, generally considered “a notoriously non-pro-drop language” (Pollock 1989:381, fn.17), thus unequivocally shows that nonexpressed subject pronouns are not per se excluded in a non-null subject language, but are in principle allowed for, albeit in a restricted number of contexts.4 Crucially, then, Old and Middle French are considered non-null subject languages in which non-expressed referential and expletive subject pronouns are allowed for in certain contexts, more exactly when specific structural conditions are met. Intriguingly, this line of reasoning conforms to previous claims by the proponents of the common analysis of these stages of French as null subject languages. In fact, those in favor of such an analysis claim that unlike in modern null subject languages, the non-expression of referential (as well as of expletive) subject pronouns is not generally possible in Old and Middle French, but only under specific structural conditions (Büchtemann 1912, Foulet 1924, 1928, 1935, Franzén 1939, Skårup 1975, de Kok 1985, Vanelli, Renzi & Benincà 1985, Adams 1987a, b, c, Vance 1989, 1997, Roberts 1993, Mathieu 2006b). Under the alternative approach presently put forward, then, referential and expletive subject pronouns are argued to be consistently expressed in the me�� 4 Note that in certain written registers of Modern French in which economy considerations of different kinds prevail (diaries, text messages, short notes, telegrams, small ads, report cards), expletive and referential subject pronouns may more generally be non-expressed (Haegeman 1990a, b, 1997, 2000, 2007, 2013, Grevisse & Goosse 2011, Stark 2013, Riegel, Pellat & Rioul 2014) (cf. also footnote 38 in section 2.2.2). Note, moreover, that in Modern Colloquial French, the non-expression of expletive IL as well as of the first person singular referential subject pronoun, je ‘I’, is possible under certain conditions in (finite) constructions with a set of (im)personal verbs (cf. Zimmermann & Kaiser (2014) for extensive discussion and again footnote 38 in section 2.2.2).

118 � An alternative approach to subject pronouns in Medieval French dieval stages of French, unless specific structural conditions are met in which case the non-expression of these two sets of pronouns is in principle allowed for. Before determining these conditions, the contexts for non-expressed referentials and expletives in these stages of French will first be ascertained.

4.2 Contexts for non-expressed subject pronouns At least with regard to Old French, it is generally claimed that the nonexpression of (referential) subject pronouns “occurs most frequently in matrix V2 clauses where a nonsubject occupies initial position, yielding the surface order CV” (Vance 1997:202). It is important to note, however, that there are no diachronic studies on the non-expression of these pronouns in declaratives which are based on more than relatively small extracts from each of the stages of Medieval French and which would therefore be more comprehensive. On the basis of the established data corpus, the contexts of non-expressed subject pronouns, both expletive and referential, in declaratives will therefore be thoroughly investigated, and this with respect to the two issues commonly mentioned in the literature in this connection, namely (i) clause type and (ii) positioning of the finite verb. In this regard, the ratio of root and embedded declaratives with nonexpressed subject pronouns will first be looked into. As follows from the respective results from analyzing the established data corpus regarding non-expressed expletives, given in Figure (4), the non-expression of this set of pronouns is, as has been generally claimed with regard to Old French (cf. also section 2.1.1.2), more often encountered in root than in embedded declaratives in the medieval stages of French.

Contexts for non-expressed subject pronouns � 119

100% 90% 80%

2/28 8/65

3/20 26/28 14/61

57/65 12/44

47/61

70% 32/44 60%

17/20

7/23 24/70

16/23 46/70

17/54 6/17

4/11 7/17

37/54 11/17

7/11 10/17

50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

root declaratives

embedded declaratives

Fig. (4): Ratio of root and embedded declaratives with non-expressed expletive subject pronouns

As shown by the results in Figure (5), this is also the case with non-expressed referentials, a finding which again corroborates the general claim that in Old French, the non-expression of this set of pronouns is most often encountered in root clauses (cf. also section 2.1.2.2).

120 � An alternative approach to subject pronouns in Medieval French

100% 10/106

21/196

96/106

175/196

29/347

29/255

90% 61/300 58/240

80%

182/240

60/76 161/223

9/47

318/347

226/255 62/223

239/300 70%

16/76

22/74

38/132

52/74

94/132

38/47

60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

root declaratives

embedded declaratives

Fig. (5): Ratio of root and embedded declaratives with non-expressed referential subject pronouns

The positioning of the finite verb will next be investigated. Figure (6) gives the respective results from analyzing the established data corpus regarding nonexpressed expletives in declaratives.

Contexts for non-expressed subject pronouns � 121

0/11 1/23

100% 7/65 90%

3/70 7/61

6/44

1/20

4/54

1/17

3/28

4/17

80%

5/11

6/17 70%

11/20 31/54

60% 27/44 50%

48/65

19/23

42/61

54/70 20/28

10/17

9/17

6/11

40% 8/20 30%

19/54

20%

11/44

4/17 12/61

10%

10/65

13/70

5/28

3/23

0%

'V1'

'V2'

'V>2'

Fig. (6): Frequency of the positions of the finite verb in declaratives with non-expressed expletive subject pronouns

As follows from these results, the syntactic configuration which is by and far predominant in the medieval stages of French is the one generally argued to be predominant among the syntactic configurations with non-expressed referentials in Old French, namely clauses in which one single constituent precedes the finite verb (hereafter referred to as ‘V2’). In the syntactic configuration which usually comes second in frequency and which is particularly frequent in the second half of the 15th century and in the early and late 16th century, the finite verb is not preceded by another constituent (hereafter referred to as ‘V1’). Syntactic configurations in which the finite verb is preceded by at least two constituents (hereafter referred to as ‘V>2’) are generally infrequent. Figure (7) gives the respective results from analyzing the established data corpus regarding non-expressed referentials in declaratives.

122 � An alternative approach to subject pronouns in Medieval French

100% 90%

7/106 38/300

8/196

8/255

4/76

28/240

2/74

10/347

29/223

19/132

6/47

80% 70%

38/76

43/74

122/196

18/47 231/347

60% 186/300

165/240

50%

171/223 23/47

40%

34/76 29/74

30% 20%

86/132

225/255

93/106

66/196

106/347

76/300 27/132

47/240 10% 0%

23/223

22/255

'V2'

'V>2'

6/106

'V1'

Fig. (7): Frequency of the positions of the finite verb in declaratives with non-expressed referential subject pronouns

These results are fairly similar to those given in Figure (6) above. Specifically and as commonly claimed with regard to Old French, the syntactic configuration which usually predominates in the medieval stages of French are ‘V2’ clauses. Being particularly frequent at the end of the 13th / first half of the 14th century as well as in the second half of the 15th century and in the late 16th century, ‘V1’ clauses again come second in frequency, while ‘V>2’ clauses, being infrequent, come last in frequency. The positioning of the finite verb in declaratives with non-expressed subject pronouns will finally be looked into with respect to clause type. Figure (8) gives the respective results from analyzing the established data corpus regarding non-expressed expletives in root declaratives.

Contexts for non-expressed subject pronouns � 123

0/7 100%

2/46

1/16

2/37 1/11

3/26

7/57

90%

1/17

7/47 6/32

80% 4/11

70%

3/10 4/7

21/37 11/17

60% 40/57

50%

14/16

30/47

18/26

38/46 6/11

23/32

5/10

40%

3/7 14/37

30% 5/17 20% 10/47 10/57

10%

2/10

5/26 6/46

3/32

0%

1/16

'V1'

'V2'

'V>2'

Fig. (8): Frequency of the positions of the finite verb in root declaratives with non-expressed expletive subject pronouns

The results in Figure (8) are fairly similar to those in Figure (6) above, in that the ‘V2’ configuration, as illustrated in (3a-b), is in general predominant in Old and Middle French. (3) a.

E

d’ Oliver

li

peiset

mult forment, … (roland, p.466)5

and of Oliver him grieves very much

‘And for Oliver he grieves a lot, …’ b. Le samedi XVIIè, fut crié the Saturday 17th

gens

de guerre et

people of war

à

Paris et

enjoint

à tous

was shouted in Paris and ordered to all

hommes d’ ordonnance de se

and men

of order

rendre

of oneself to.go

à

Troies le XXVè, … (registre-journal, p.68) to Troyes the 25th ‘On Saturday 17th, it was publically announced in Paris and all soldiers and men of order were ordered to go to Troyes on the 25th, …’ �� 5 In all of the examples given in chapter 4, sentence elements are highlighted according to the following conventions: bold = expressed expletive / referential subject pronoun; italic = finite verb; underlined = constituents preceding the finite verb; dotted line = elements preceding the finite verb, but left out of consideration in the calculus (cf. footnote 1 in section 3.1.1).

124 � An alternative approach to subject pronouns in Medieval French Showing a by and large gradual increase in frequency until the beginning of the 15th century, the ‘V1’ configuration, as in (4a-b), usually comes second in frequency, while ‘V>2’ configurations, such as in (5a-b), generally come last in frequency. (4) a.

n’

; et

en

i

avoit

nule qui … (conquête, p.130)

and not of.it there was.having none which

‘; and there was none which …’ b. Et faut que je confesse, que … (heptaméron, p.24) and must that I confess that

‘And I must confess that …’ (5) a.

En l’

arche nen out él

in the ark

fors

les tables

de

not had otherwise except.for the tablets of

pierre … (livre reis, p.129) stone

‘There was nothing in the ark except the stone tablets …’ que b. Apprez la lecture desquelz, pour ce after

l’

the reading.out.loud of.these for

inquisiteur

general de la

foy

n’

this that

estoit

point

the inquisitor general of the belief not was.being not

en la

ville de Rouen […], fut

in the city of Rouen

ledit

ordonné et

appoincté

par

was ordered and commanded by

evesque que … (minute, p.81)

the.said bishop

that

‘After these had been read out, it was, since the general inquisitor for the doctrine of the faith was not in the city of Rouen […], ordered and commanded by the said bishop that …’ Consider now Figure (9) which gives the results from analyzing the established data corpus regarding the positioning of the finite verb in embedded declaratives with non-expressed expletive subject pronouns.

Contexts for non-expressed subject pronouns � 125 0/3 0/8

0/12

0/7

0/14

0/3

0/2

0/6

0/4

1/24

100%

3/3

2/17

1/7

90%

1/4 4/12

80%

2/6

70%

3/4 5/7

8/12

60%

16/24 10/17

12/14 50%

8/8

4/6 4/7

2/2

40% 30% 5/17

7/24

2/7

20% 10%

2/7

2/14

0%

0/8

0/2

'V1'

'V2'

'V>2'

Fig. (9): Frequency of the positions of the finite verb in embedded declaratives with nonexpressed expletive subject pronouns

The results in Figure (9) differ at times starkly from those in Figures (6) and (8) above. Specifically, while the ‘V2’ configuration, such as in (6a-b), generally predominates in Old and Middle French, the ‘V1’ configuration, as illustrated in (7a-b), is also occasionally predominant, and this in both of these stages of French. (6) a.

… que

míelz

semblá que

sis

oǘst

nature furméz …

that better seemed that so.them had.been nature formed

(livre reis, p.122) ‘… that it rather seemed that nature had formed them …’ pour cause de briefté n’ est ci faicte b. …, dont of.which for

reason of brevity not is here made

mencion. (abregé, p.187) mentioning

‘… which for reasons of brevity are not mentioned here.’ (7) a.

… si

ne

fust Henry son frere, … (galien, p.138)

if not was Henry his brother

‘… if it was not for Henry, his brother, …’ b. …, dont ne se faut estonner

si …

of.which not oneself must to.astonish if

126 � An alternative approach to subject pronouns in Medieval French (registre-journal, p.206) ‘…, so that one must not be surprised if …’ In contrast to these two syntactic configurations, ‘V>2’ configurations, as in (8), are extremely rare. (8) … duquel

avant

qu’

il fust engendré, a icellui

of.whom before that he was begot

pere

fut monstré tele

father was shown

Loÿs

son

to this.one Louis his

vision, … (abregé, p.136)

such.a vision

‘… of whom, before he was begot, the said Louis, his father, had a vision, …’ Turning now to the investigation of the positioning of the finite verb in root and embedded declaratives with non-expressed referentials, consider Figure (10) which gives the respective results from analyzing the established data corpus for root declaratives.

100% 90%

5/96 36/239

8/175

1/60

8/226

2/52

7/318 5/38

26/182

27/161

16/94

80% 21/52 31/60

70%

12/38

104/175

219/318

60% 50%

158/239

131/182

85/96

208/226

29/52

66/94

120/161

30%

63/175 92/318

20% 10% 0%

21/38

28/60

40%

45/239 25/182

12/94 14/161

6/96

10/226

'V1'

'V2'

'V>2'

Fig. (10): Frequency of the positions of the finite verb in root declaratives with non-expressed referential subject pronouns

Contexts for non-expressed subject pronouns � 127

The results in Figure (10) are fairly similar to those in Figure (7) above. Specifically, the ‘V2’ configuration, as illustrated in (9a-b), generally predominates in Old and Middle French. (9) a.

Quarante anz forty

regnad, … (livre reis, p.114)

years reigned

‘He reigned for forty years, …’ b. Mais a Rains, n’ en a but

point de memoire, …

in Reims not of.it has not

of memory

(minute, p.141) ‘But as for Reims, she carried no memory for it, …’ Usually coming second in frequency, the ‘V1’ configuration, such as in (10a-b), is yet again particularly frequent at the end of the 13th / first half of the 14th century, and in the second half of the 15th century as well as in the late 16th century, when this configuration is even predominant. (10) a.

Et

poez savoir

and can

que … (conquête, p.138)

to.know that

‘And you may well know that …’ b. Affermoit en oultre que … (abregé, p.171) was.affirming in further that

‘He affirmed moreover that …’ ‘V>2’ configurations, as in (11a-b), are infrequent and come last in frequency. (11) a.

… et,

qant il i

sera

mis, ja

si

tost

a nd when it there will.be put right.away then early

n’

avra

mesaise de viande qu’ … (saint graal, p.328)

not will.have grief

of meat

that

‘… and when it [= the lion] will be taken there, it will then instantly no longer suffer from lack of meat, in that …’ de ce que il fist la endroit, b. Et a brief parler and to brief to.speak of this which he did the place

sanz

faille telement y

ouvra

without lack so.much there worked

que … (livre des fais, p.96) that

‘And briefly touching on what he did in this place, he incessantly worked there in such a way that …’

128 � An alternative approach to subject pronouns in Medieval French Figure (11) gives the results from analyzing the established data corpus regarding the positioning of the finite verb in embedded declaratives with nonexpressed referentials.

2/61

100%

0/21

2/58

2/62

0/29

0/22 3/29

3/38

1/9

90% 3/16

2/10 80% 28/61 70%

17/29

12/29

34/58

60% 18/21

20/38

7/16 51/62

6/9

50%

22/22 31/61

40%

14/29

8/10 12/29 22/58

30%

15/38

6/16

20% 2/9 10%

9/62

3/21

0%

0/10

0/22

'V1'

'V2'

'V>2'

Fig. (11): Frequency of the positions of the finite verb in embedded declaratives with nonexpressed referential subject pronouns

The results in Figure (11) do not substantially differ from those in Figures (7) and (10) above, in that the ‘V2’ configuration, as illustrated in (12a-b), is usually predominant in the medieval stages of French. (12) a.

… que

fiz

li

dunás, … (livre reis, p.116)

that son him gave

‘… by giving him a son, …’ si long tems luy auoit b. … que

celée ; (heptaméron, p.31)

which so long time her was.having concealed

‘… which he had for such a long time concealed from her;’ The ‘V1’ configuration, as in (13a-b), generally comes second in frequency. This configuration is particularly frequent in the 12th century, in the middle of the 14th and 15th century as well as in the first half of the 16th century, while it is either

Contexts for non-expressed subject pronouns � 129

infrequent or not encountered at all in the second half of the 15th century as well as in the late 16th century. (13) a.

Se ˙m creïsez, … (roland, p.332) if me had.believed

‘If you had believed me, …’ que prenre b. Quant vi when

nous escouvenoit, … (saint louis, p.156)

saw that to.take us

was.being.suitable

‘When I saw that we would definitely be captured, …’ As for ‘V>2’ configurations, such as in (14a-b), these are yet again generally rare and come last in frequency. (14) a.

… que

ja

par famine ne

s’

en

iroient, …

that then for famine not themselves of.it would.leave

(saint louis, p. 196) ‘… that they would then not have to leave for reasons of famine, …’ estans rencontrés quelque fois par b. … que s’ that themselves being met

some

times through

occasion des Gentilshommes françois passans occasion

terres,

gentlemen

qui […], non seulement leur en

estate who

not only

par

ses

French passing through her

donnoit

them of.it was.giving

liberalement, … (registre-journal, p.80) generously

‘…that when on occasion, French gentlemen who were passing through her country and who […] met her, not only did she generously give it to them, …’ To summarize, the investigation of the contexts for non-expressed expletive and referential subject pronouns in the established data corpus has shown that in line with what has generally been claimed with respect to Old French, the nonexpression of these two sets of pronouns is usually far more frequent in root than in embedded declaratives in the medieval stages of French. Moreover, the syntactic configuration which usually predominates in declaratives with nonexpressed subject pronouns is the very configuration commonly argued to be predominant in root clauses in Old French, namely the ‘V2’ configuration in which the finite verb is preceded by one single constituent. Other syntactic configurations are also typically encountered, yet to varying degrees. Specifically, the ‘V1’ configuration in which the finite verb is not preceded by another consti-

130 � An alternative approach to subject pronouns in Medieval French tuent is occasionally highly frequent and, in embedded declaratives, at times even predominant, while ‘V>2’ configurations in which the finite verb is preceded by at least two constituents are generally rare, particularly in embedded declaratives.

4.3 Conditions on non-expressed subject pronouns As a further, yet brief, preliminary to the determination of the specific structural conditions on non-expressed referential and expletive subject pronouns in Old and Middle French, the fundamental issues of basic word order and sentence structure in these stages of French will in the following be shortly addressed. Regarding the issue of basic word order, the common assumption that just like its modern standard stage, the medieval stages of French are SVO will be adopted (Lerch 1922, Zwanenburg 1978, Vanelli, Renzi & Benincà 1985, Adams 1987a, b, c, Vance 1989, 1997, Roberts 1993, Mathieu 2006b, 2009). As follows from the results in Figure (12), declaratives with an expressed subject in first position directly followed by the finite verb are in fact predominant in both Old and Middle French.

Conditions on non-expressed subject pronouns � 131

100% 90%

173/972

205/1049

200/955

209/1018

80% 242/771 70% 60%

273/610

50%

337/610

529/771

250/868 755/955 618/868

844/1049

236/764 330/806

528/764

799/972 331/1007 676/1007

809/1018 366/1013 647/1013

476/806

40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

SVX

other than S V X

Fig. (12): Ratio of SVX word order and word orders other than SVX in declaratives with an expressed6 subject

Arguably, the canonical and the basic word order are the same in these stages of French, namely SVO. In addition to the assumption of an underlying SVO word order, it will be further assumed that yet again as in Modern Standard French, SVO clauses in Old and Middle French have the structure [IP SVO], as conclusively argued by Vance (1997:39f.): [T]he position of the finite verb in subject-initial clauses is [not, MZ] different in main and embedded clauses […] in O[ld]Fr[ench] [as well as in Middle French, MZ], [so, MZ] the suggestion that they have identical structural representations constitutes the null hypothesis. It is also the only solution compatible with Chomsky’s (1991) Principle of Economy of Derivations, which favors the shortest derivation consistent with the evidence. Furthermore, […] there is no current theoretical justification for treating CVS and SVX alike simply for the sake of uniformity.

Regarding the sentence structure of the medieval stages of French, a cartographic approach to the left periphery of the sentence along the lines of the one

�� 6 On the exclusion of clauses with non-expressed subject pronouns, cf. the relevant discussion in section 3.1.1.

132 � An alternative approach to subject pronouns in Medieval French originally proposed by Rizzi (1997) will be adopted. Rizzi’s approach is crucially based on the assumption that the complementizer (C) system, i.e. the left (preIP) periphery of the sentence, is not a single layer, but rather an articulated array of functional phrases, argued to act “as the interface between a propositional content (expressed by the IP) and the superordinate structure (a higher clause or, possibly, the articulation of discourse” (Rizzi 1997:283). Rizzi’s C system minimally consists of a specification of Force – located in the head of ForceP – which is accessible to higher selection and expresses “the fact that a sentence is a question, a declarative, an exclamative, a relative” (Rizzi 1997:283) etc., and a specification of Finiteness – located in the head of FinP – which selects a (non-)finite IP. Force° and Fin° are normally expressed as a syncretic, single head, unless some element bears either one of the features [+topic], i.e. expresses old information, or [+focus], i.e. bears focal stress and introduces new information. In fact, it is essentially claimed that in this case, a Topic-Focus system is activated, i.e. is present in the structure. This additional system, conceived of as a FocP surrounded by recursive TopPs, is argued to be ‘sandwiched’ in between ForceP and FinP and to host in the specifier position of the relevant phrases the (preposed) element bearing either one of the two relevant features under discussion. The articulated structure of the C system as proposed by Rizzi is given in (15). (15) [ForceP Force° {TOPIC … [TopP Top° …} [FocP Foc° {TOPIC … [TopP Top° …} [FinP Fin° [IP I° … ]]]]]]7 For reasons which will become clear and will be given later (cf. section 4.4.1), a modified version of this layered left periphery will be adopted with regard to the sentence structure of Old and Middle French, namely the one proposed by Benincà (2006), given in (16) (cf. also Kaiser & Zimmermann 2011). (16) [ForceP Force° {TOPIC … [TopP Top° …} [FocP Foc° [FinP Fin° [IP I° … ]]]]] According to this modified version, the Topic-Focus system consists solely of a pre-FocP Topic field, rather than of a pre- as well as a post-FocP Topic field, as originally suggested by Rizzi (1997).8 Following Krifka (2007), the information-

�� 7 Curly brackets are used to indicate fields. 8 Note that since for the ensuing discussion, the specific nature of these different kinds of topics is not directly relevant, I shall go neither into their classification, nor into their respective ordering. Cf. Benincà (2006) and Labelle (2007) for discussion of these issues.

Conditions on non-expressed subject pronouns � 133

structural terms ‘topic’ and ‘focus’ will subsequently be employed as follows: ‘topic’ will be used to refer to constituents which identify the entity or sets of entities “about which then information, the comment, is given” (Krifka 2007:40) and which “in many cases […] are ‘old’ in the sense of being inferable from the context” (Krifka 2007:41); ‘focus’ will be made use of to refer to some constituent which is an item of a set of alternatives for interpretation and whose “focus denotation typically feels highlighted” and “often the most important contribution in a sentence […] and […] is often also new (not mentioned previously)” (Krifka 2007:30). Regarding the Topic field and FocP, it will be further assumed, following Benincà (2006:55) and contrary to Rizzi (1997), that while the latter “hosts elements with operatorlike properties that undergo movement […] [t]opics of various kinds are, on the contrary, base generated”. An abstract illustration of the structure of a sentence with one single topic and a focus element is given in (17). (17)

ForceP Force' Force°

TopP

SpecTopP

Top' Top°

FocP

SpecFocP

Foc' Foc°

FinP Fin' Fin°

IP

SpecIP

I' I°

vP

Following Rizzi (1997), it will be assumed that when a sentence has neither (preverbal) topics nor a focus element, the Topic-Focus system is not activated, and, therefore, absent in the structure. What is more, it will be assumed with Rizzi (1997) that in this case, Force° and Fin° are expressed as a syncretic head

134 � An alternative approach to subject pronouns in Medieval French of a single composite phrase. In (18), an abstract illustration of the structure of a sentence without any (preverbal) topic and focus element is given. (18)

F(orce/in)P F(orce/in)' F(orce/in)°

IP

SpecIP

I' I°

vP

Note that under the alternative analysis of Old and Middle French as non-null subject languages, the sentence structure of these stages of French must necessarily feature a SpecIP position. Crucially, this position will be assumed to be “informationally-neutral” (Ledgeway 2007:135) and to constitute an A-position, since for reasons of the Extended Projection Principle (Chomsky 1982), it obligatorily and exclusively hosts subjects (cf. Kaiser & Zimmermann 2011). Having thus shortly addressed the fundamental issues of (basic) word order in and sentence structure of the medieval stages of French, the specific structural conditions on non-expressed referential and expletive subject pronouns in these stages of French will now be determined. In line with numerous generative null subject approaches to Old and Middle French (Vanelli, Renzi & Benincà 1985, Adams 1987a, b, c, Vance 1989, 1997, Roberts 1993, Côté 1995, de Bakker 1997, Cardinaletti & Roberts 2002, LaFond 2003, Mathieu 2006b, Vance, Donaldson & Steiner 2010), Rizzi’s (1986) proposal of the licensing conditions for non-expressed elements will be built on according to which these elements, referred to as pro in the generative literature, must be governed by a licensing head able to identify them via coindexation with the relevant features. Specifically, the general assumption will be adopted that the structural conditions on non-expressed subject pronouns in the medieval stages of French are met when subject pro is governed by a licensing head with (verbal) AGR(eement) which identifies subject pro via coindexation with its person / number features: (19) Conditions on non-expressed subject pronouns in Old and Middle French: (i) The position of subject pro must be licensed by a governing head hosting AGR. (ii) The content of subject pro is identified by coindexation with the relevant person / number features.

Conditions on non-expressed subject pronouns � 135

Under this general assumption, then, the non-expression of subject pronouns in the medieval stages of French is possible whenever the finite verb is the governing head which licenses the position of subject pro and its agreement features identify the content of subject pro, i.e. whenever “the licensing configuration [VI pro] is met” (Adams 1989:7). Given the centrality of the “language-specific condition imposed on top of Rizzi’s […] licensing condition on pro” (Vance 1997:276f.), namely the requirement that the head licensing subject pro host AGR and, thus, be the finite verb, the exact position of the finite verb in the sentence structure must yet be established. As follows from the results from analyzing the established data corpus regarding the positioning of the finite verb in declaratives with non-expressed subject pronouns (cf. section 4.2), the finite verb is encountered in syntactic configurations in which it is either in first, second, third or fourth position. From the previous assumption that the SpecIP position is “informationallyneutral” (Ledgeway 2007:135) and obligatorily and exclusively hosts subjects (cf. above), it ensues that regardless of the respective configuration in which it is encountered, the finite verb must necessarily move to some head position in the layered left periphery. This in turn implies that in ‘V>1’ configurations, all preverbal constituents likewise occur in some left-peripheral position. Given the previous assumptions regarding the sentence structure in Old and Middle French (cf. (17) above), these constituents are in fact expected to be topics and/or a focus element. As the subsequent investigation of the information-structural properties of the preverbal constituents in ‘V>1’ configurations will reveal, this expectation is indeed borne out. In fact, the directly preverbal constituent in ‘V>1’ configurations may be shown to consistently have a focus interpretation, while the constituents preceding this constituent may convincingly be argued to invariably have a topic interpretation. Moreover, the finite verb will be shown to move to Foc°, and this not only in the configurations under discussion, but also in various ‘V1’ configurations. This left-peripheral movement of the finite verb will be argued to pave the way for the possibility of the non-expression of subject pronouns, in that in the wake of such movement, the specific structural conditions on their possible non-expression are met (cf. (19)), namely the licensing and identification of subject pro in SpecIP by the governing finite verb.

136 � An alternative approach to subject pronouns in Medieval French As an abstract illustration, (20) gives the structure of a ‘V4’ root declarative.9 (20)

ForceP Force' Force°

TopP

SpecTopP

Top' Top°

TopP

SpecTopP

Top' Top°

FocP

SpecFocP

Foc' Foc°

FinP Fin' Fin°

IP

SpecIP

I' I°

XP

XP

[+topic]

[+topic]

XPk [+focus]

Vi

ti proref/expl ti

vP

ti

tk

[+finite]

4.4 Non-expressed subject pronouns in ‘V>1’ declaratives 4.4.1 Information-structural properties of preverbal constituents As noted in section 4.2, ‘V>1’ configurations represent the contexts in which non-expressed subject pronouns are generally most frequently encountered in

�� 9 Note that following Vance (1997), it will be assumed that irrespective of their (non-) expression, subject pronouns are merged in SpecIP rather than in SpecvP. Cf. Vance (1997) for extensive discussion on this issue.

Non-expressed subject pronouns in ‘V>1’ declaratives � 137

declaratives in Old and Middle French. In the following, the informationstructural properties of the constituents preceding the finite verb in such configurations will be established, and this with regard to relevant configurations given in section 4.2 for reasons of illustration which will be reproduced along with the immediate context.

4.4.1.1 ‘V2’ declaratives The information-structural interpretation of the constituent preceding the finite verb in ‘V2’ configurations will presently be looked into. Turning first to root declaratives, consider the relevant configurations in (21a-b) with non-expressed expletive and referential, respectively, subject pronouns. (21) a.

Carles

se

gist, mais doel

Charles himself lies but

d’ Oliver

li

peiset

ad

de Rollant, E

mourning has of Roland and

mult forment, … (roland, p.466)

of Oliver him grieves very much

‘Charles goes to bed, but he is in mourning for Roland, And for Oliver he grieves a lot, …’ b. Li bons reis David murút é ensevelíz fud en la cíted the good king David died

David. Quarante anz David forty

é

trente

and buried

regnad, set

anz

was in the city

regnad

en Ebron

years reigned seven years reigned in Hebron

treis

en Jerusalem. (livre reis, p.114)

and thirty three in Jerusalem

‘The good King David died and was buried in the City of David. For forty years he reigned in total; for seven years he reigned in Hebron and for thirty-three in Jerusalem.’ The situation in (21a) is as follows: Emperor Charles, after having taken revenge on the Islamic forces for the killing of his entire rearguard, orders a camp set up; when night has fallen, he retires and lies down; but because of the loss of his dear ones, he is not able to fall asleep. In fact, he is in mourning for Roland, his nephew. As follows from the relevant syntactic configuration, however, Charles is not only grieving for Roland; rather, he is likewise filled with great sadness for the loss of another dear knight, Oliver, Roland’s best friend. In the configuration at issue, then, it seems that special emphasis is on the second person for whom Charles is grieving, so that the preverbal constituent d’Oliver ‘of Oliver’ may well be considered a focus element.

138 � An alternative approach to subject pronouns in Medieval French (21b) expounds on the length of the reign of the late King David. As follows from the relevant syntactic configuration, his reign stands out due to a relatively long duration: forty years in total. Therefore, special emphasis appears to be on the impressive length of the reign of said king, so that the interpretation of the preverbal constituent quarante anz ‘forty years’ as a focus element naturally suggests itself. As expected under the present approach, the constituent directly preceding the finite verb in ‘V2’ configurations in root declaratives has one of the two information-structural interpretations principally available in the layered left periphery as given in (17) in section 4.3, namely that of focus. Leaving out of consideration for the time being the finite verb (cf. section 4.4.3) as well as coordinating conjunctions and prosodically weak / clitic elements, the root declaratives in (21a-b) above have the structure in (22). (22)

ForceP Force' Force°

FocP

SpecFocP

Foc' Foc°

FinP Fin' Fin°

IP

SpecIP

I' I°

a.

[d’Oliver]k

proexpl

[quarante anz]k [+focus]

mult tk … (roland, p.466)

[+focus]

b.

vP

proref

tk … (livre reis, p.114)

Having thus established the information-structural properties of the constituent preceding the finite verb in ‘V2’ configurations in root declaratives, these properties will now be investigated with respect to the preverbal constituent in such configurations in embedded declaratives. Consider in this regard the relevant

Non-expressed subject pronouns in ‘V>1’ declaratives � 139

configurations in (23a-b) with non-expressed expletive and referential, respectively, subject pronouns. (23) a.

Et

fist

plusieurs autres euvres proufitables, dont

and made several other works

cause

de briefté

n’

est ci

gainful

pour

of.which for

faicte mencion. (abregé, p.187)

reason of brevity not is here made mentioning

‘And he was responsible for several other important works which for reasons of brevity are not mentioned here.’ b. ; è en çó li feïs grant grace è grant mercí que and in this him made great grace and great present that

fiz

li

dunás, … (livre reis, p.116)

son him gave

‘; and you showed great grace and great kindness to him by giving him a son, …’ The situation in (23a) is the following: In the context of his note that Charles the Fifth commissioned the renowned bishop Nicole Oresme to write several works on theological matters as well as to translate several works from Latin into French, the author names and shortly expounds on a number of these, arguably the most important ones. Probably becoming aware that he has spent too much space on the works by said bishop, the author only makes reference to a number of other works on which he is not able to further expound. As follows from the relevant syntactic configuration, it is not because of their irrelevance that the author does not further expound on these works – he in fact considers these proufitables ‘important’ –, but rather since he does not want to spend more space on this side-issue. In the configuration at issue, then, it seems that the author puts special emphasis on the trivial cause for his non-continuance in naming and expounding on other important works by Nicole Oresme, so that the preverbal constituent pour cause de briefté ‘for reasons of brevity’ may well be considered a focus element. (23b) represents an address of King Solomon to God in which he underlines the kindness which God showed to Solomon’s father David. One of the greatest favors God bestowed on the latter is, according to Solomon, that God gave him a son. In effect, from the perspective of both the late father and the ruling son, the fact that one of these favors represents a fiz ‘son’ is of outmost importance, so that in the relevant syntactic configuration, this preverbal constituent evidently constitutes a focus element. In line with what has been claimed under the present approach (cf. section 4.3), the preverbal constituent in ‘V2’ configurations in embedded declaratives

140 � An alternative approach to subject pronouns in Medieval French has the same information-structural interpretation as the constituent preceding the finite verb in such configurations in root declaratives, namely that of focus. The embedded declaratives in (23a-b) above thus have the structure in (24) in which for the time being, the finite verb (cf. section 4.4.3) as well as prosodically weak / clitic elements are yet again left out of consideration. (24)

... ...

ForceP Force' Force°

FocP

SpecFocP

Foc' Foc°

FinP Fin' Fin°

IP

SpecIP

I' I°

a.

…

dont [pour cause de briefté]k

vP

proexpl

tk … (abregé, p.187)

proref

tk … (livre reis, p.116)

[+focus]

b. …

que

fizk [+focus]

The crucial finding that in declaratives with non-expressed subject pronouns and the finite verb preceded by one single constituent, this constituent is focalized has in fact been confirmed by an analysis of a large number of such clauses from each of the texts of the established data corpus.10 From this it appears that the preverbal constituent in ‘V2’ configurations in declaratives in Old and Middle French invariably represents a focus element.

�� 10 Cf. Zimmermann (2012) for extensive discussion of further relevant constructions.

Non-expressed subject pronouns in ‘V>1’ declaratives � 141

Note that this finding is in stark contrast to what has generally been argued in this regard. In fact, while in the literature addressing the informationstructural properties of the constituent preceding the finite verb in ‘V2’ configurations in the medieval stages of French, it is acknowledged that this constituent may well constitute a focus element, albeit only occasionally so (Habicht 1882, Foulet 1928, Buscherbruck 1940, Herman 1954, Brunot & Bruneau 1969, Adams 1987a, de Bakker 1997, Vance 1997, Labelle & Hirschbühler 2005, Dufter 2008b), the general view is that it represents a topic (Koch 1934, Gamillscheg 1957, Price 1961, de Kok 1985, Vanelli, Renzi & Benincà 1985, Adams 1987a, b, c, Vance 1989, 1997, Roberts 1993, de Bakker 1997, Mathieu 2006a, b, 2009). Crucially, however, the literature generally refrains from thoroughly investigating the information-structural properties of the preverbal constituent in ‘V2’ configurations, as it takes the analysis of this constituent as a topic for granted. In addition to this general offhand analysis as a topic, the stark contrast in the information-structural interpretation of the constituent preceding the finite verb in ‘V2’ configurations arguably follows from issues directly pertaining to word order and definiteness. Specifically, in declaratives with an expressed subject directly followed by the finite verb which are highly frequent in Old and Middle French (cf. Figure (12) in section 4.3), the subject most often constitutes the topic. Under the present approach, however, such clauses are analyzed as IPs (cf. section 4.3) and, thus, do not fall under the configurations presently discussed. Furthermore, the definiteness of the preverbal constituent in ‘V2’ configurations is usually taken as an unequivocal indication that this constituent represents a topic. Still, the information-structural interpretation as focus elements of instances in which the constituent at issue features either a definite, demonstrative or possessive determiner or is itself a prosodically strong / nonclitic pronoun is not categorically excluded. In fact, such an interpretation seems to be appropriate when (i) the preverbal constituent is further determined by a relative clause, the definite or demonstrative determiner then being cataphoric, rather than anaphoric (Rickard 1963, Marchello-Nizia 1995), or when (ii) this constituent is assigned contrastive, rather than new information focus (Melander 1917, Picabia 1995, Fuchs 1997). Under the present approach, the natural assumption therefore is that whenever the constituent preceding the finite verb in ‘V2’ configurations is definite, it has one of these two focus interpretations. Note, finally, that the focus interpretation, both new information and contrastive, of the constituent at issue becomes mostly only obvious if the clauses containing such configurations are not looked into in isolation, but rather in their respective contexts. The literature, however, generally refrains from doing

142 � An alternative approach to subject pronouns in Medieval French so, a state of affairs which undoubtedly also contributes to the stark contrast in the information-structural interpretation of the preverbal constituent in ‘V2’ configurations.

4.4.1.2 ‘V>2’ declaratives The information-structural interpretation of the constituents preceding the finite verb in ‘V>2’ configurations will now be looked into with special consideration of the constituent(s) preceding the directly preverbal constituent whose information-structural interpretation as a focus element has just been established (cf. section 4.4.1.1). Turning first to root declaratives, consider the relevant configurations in (25a-b) with non-expressed expletive and referential, respectively, subject pronouns. (25) a.

Ledit

evesque leur remonstra […] que […] on avoit

the.said bishop

them told

faict des articles made

la

that

sur les choses qui

one was.having

povoyent concerner

articles on the things which might

foy

catholicque ; et

the faith catholic

faict examiner

sur iceulx articles,

and on these articles one was.having

plusieurs tesmoings, ainsy que

made to.examine several witnesses so

pourra

to.concern

on avoit

veoir

par

la

on

that one

lecture

desdits

will.be.able to.see through the lecture of.the.said

articles

et

depositions des

tesmoings examinez sur

articles and statements of.the witnesses examined on

iceulx ; lesquelz articles these

which

et

depositions furent leues es

articles and statements were read in.the

presences des

dessusdits. Apprez la

presence of.the aforesaid after

desquelz, pour ce of.these for

foy

n’

que l’

inquisiteur

general de la

this that the inquisitor general of the

estoit

point en la

faith not was.being not

ordonné et

lecture

the reading.out.loud

appoincté

par ledit

ordered and commanded by

ville de Rouen […], fut

in the city of Rouen

was

evesque que …

the.said bishop

that

(minute, p.81) ‘Said bishop told them […] that […] files had been compiled on affairs relating to the Catholic faith; and on the basis of these files, several witnesses had been interrogated, as can be gathered from the lecture of said files and statements of the witnesses interrogated on the basis of

Non-expressed subject pronouns in ‘V>1’ declaratives � 143

these; these files and articles were read aloud in the presence of the aforesaid. After these had been read out, it was, since the general inquisitor for the doctrine of the faith was not in the city of Rouen […], ordered and commanded by said bishop that …’ b. … , si serons plus asseür de sa mort : metons avec then will.be more sure

lui le

lion que

nos preïsmes devant ier

him the lion which we

les roches, et, the rocks

tost

n’

qant il

took

i

entre

before yesterday between

sera

mis, ja

si

and when it there will.be put right.away then

avra

mesaise de viande qu’

early not will.have grief

devorera

of his death let.us.put with

of meat

il le

that it him

maintenant ; (saint graal, p.328)

will.devour now

‘… , then we will be even more sure of his death: let us put together with him the lion which we captured between the rocks the day before yesterday, and when it will be taken there, it will then instantly no longer suffer from lack of meat, in that it will devour him right away;’ In (25a), the situation is the following: The bishop of Beauvays, who is given the task of organizing the interrogation of Joan of Arc, explains to several clergymen the present state of affairs; in this regard, the bishop draws attention to the existence of both files documenting possible acts of heresy committed by her and respective statements by witnesses; he not only presents these documents to the others, but they are read aloud. In the relevant syntactic configuration, the first constituent, apprez la lecture desquelz ‘after these had been read out’, directly resumes the notion of reading out said documents as given in the directly preceding sentence, so that this constituent may well be deemed a topic, contrary to the directly preverbal embedded clause which unequivocally represents a focus element. In (25b), the situation is as follows: Because their king has, under the influence of a young Christian captive, converted to Christian faith, his Islamic entourage decides to make this captive pay dearly for this; vying with one another for the most cruel way for this captive to die, one of them suggests enclosing him with a hungry lion they have recently captured. In the relevant syntactic configuration, this latter notion, namely the simultaneous detention of the captive and the lion in one and the same place, is resumed by the first two constituents, namely by the embedded clause qant il i sera mis ‘when it will be taken there’ and the coreferential adverb ja ‘then’, so that these two constituents may clearly be considered topics. The directly preverbal constituent in the configura-

144 � An alternative approach to subject pronouns in Medieval French tion at issue, si tost ‘instantly’, on the contrary, appears to be a focus element, in that special emphasis seems to be given to the explicit expectation that the hunger of the lion would be stayed at once – and, more importantly, to the implicit hope that the captive would instantaneously be killed –, in that the hungry lion is not thought to dither a second over whether to kill its easy prey. As predicted under the present approach (cf. section 4.3), in ‘V>2’ configurations in root declaratives, the constituent(s) preceding the directly preverbal constituent which constitutes a focus element have the information-structural interpretation of topics. The relevant root declaratives in (25a-b) above thus have the structures in (26) and (27), respectively, in which for the time being, the finite verb (cf. section 4.4.3) as well as coordinating conjunctions and prosodically weak / clitic elements are yet again left out of consideration. (26)

ForceP Force' Force°

TopP

SpecTopP

Top' Top°

FocP

SpecFocP

Foc' Foc°

FinP Fin' Fin°

IP

SpecIP

I' I°

[apprez …]

[pour ce que …]k

[+topic]

[+focus]

proexpl

vP

tk … (minute, p.81)

Non-expressed subject pronouns in ‘V>1’ declaratives � 145

(27)

ForceP Force' Force°

TopP

SpecTopP

Top' Top°

TopP

SpecTopP

Top' Top°

FocP

SpecFocP

Foc' Foc°

FinP Fin' Fin°

IP

SpecIP

I' I°

[qant …]

ja

[si tost]k

[+topic]

[+topic]

[+focus]

vP

proref tk … (saint graal, p.328)

Having thus established the information-structural properties of the constituents preceding the directly preverbal constituent in ‘V>2’ configurations in root declaratives, these properties will next be investigated with regard to the preverbal constituents in such configurations in embedded declaratives. Consider in this regard the relevant configurations in (28a-b) with non-expressed expletive and referential, respectively, subject pronouns. (28) a.

Phelippe Dieudonné appellé le

Conquerant, fils

Philippe Dieudonné called the conqueror

Loÿs, fut né

l’

an

de l’

incarnation

son

dudit of.the.said

de nostre

Louis was born the year of the incarnation of our

Seigneur Jhesu Crist

mil

cent

soixante cinq,

lord

Jesus Christ thousand hundred sixty

duquel

avant

qu’

il

fust engendré, a icellui

of.whom before that he was begot

five

Loÿs

son

to this.one Louis his

146 � An alternative approach to subject pronouns in Medieval French père

monstré tele

fut

father was shown

vision, c’

est assavoir

such.a vision this is to.be.known

que … (abregé, p.136) that

‘Philippe Dieudonné, called the Conqueror, son of said Louis, was born in the year of the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ one thousand one hundred sixty-five, of whom, before he was begot, said Louis, his father, had a vision, namely that …’ b. … elle estoit […] revestue d’ une si roiale et héroïque she was.being had

charité,

que

of a

s’

so royal and heroic

estans rencontrés quelque fois

charity that themselves being met

par

ses

terres,

gentlemen

qui […] la

through her estate who

vouloir

prester

de l’

French

faisoient

passing

prier

de leur

her were.making to.ask of them

argent, non seulement leur en

to.want to.lend of the money

donnoit

times

occasion des Gentilshommes françois passans

through occasion

par

some

not only

them of.it

liberalement, […] mais aussi … (registre-journal, p.80)

was.giving generously

but

also

‘… she was of such a royal and heroic charity that when on occasion, French gentlemen who were passing through her country met her and made her ask to willingly lend them money, not only did she generously give it to them, but also …’ In (28a), the situation is straightforward: The descent and the date of birth of King Philippe Dieudonné are given, before the author turns to an important incident, namely the vision Philippe’s father, Louis, had had before his son was born. In the relevant syntactic configuration, the first constituent, the embedded clause avant qu’il fust engendré ‘before he was begot’, resumes the notion of the process of Philippe coming into life, and may therefore readily be considered a topic. As for the constituent directly preceding the finite verb, a icellui Loÿs son pere ‘to the said Louis, his father’, it is a focus element, since special emphasis is apparently given to the fact that it was to Louis that said vision is shown, as also reflected in the apposition son pere ‘his father’. As for the situation in (28b), it is yet again straightforward: The author expounds on the almost incredibly charitable nature of the duchess of Savoy. In the relevant syntactic configuration, an interpretation of the first constituent, the present participle construction s’estans rencontrés quelque fois par occasion des Gentilshommes françois ‘when on occasion, French gentlemen met her’, as a so-called ‘scene setting adverb’ suggests itself which is generally con-

Non-expressed subject pronouns in ‘V>1’ declaratives � 147

sidered a topic (Price 1961, Harris 1978, Buridant 1987, van Reenen & Schøsler 1995, Fournier 1997, Vance 1997, Marchello-Nizia 2000, 2006, Lahousse 2004). For just like a topic, a scene setting adverb fulfills the function of linking a given sentence to the preceding context; yet, contrary to a topic, a scene setting adverb “does not refer to some element in the preceding context, but constructs the frame of reference in which the predicative relation will be validated, the point of thematic reference on which the rest of the utterance is built”11 (Fournier 1997:122). In order to allow for a distinction between, on the one hand, topics and, on the other, scene setting adverbs, the latter will be referred to as ‘scene setting topics’. As for the constituent following this scene setting topic and directly preceding the finite verb, non seulement ‘not only’, it may clearly be considered a focus element. In line with what is argued under the present approach (cf. section 4.3), the preverbal constituents in ‘V>2’ configurations in embedded declaratives have the same information-structural interpretation as the corresponding constituents in such configurations in root declaratives. Specifically, the directly preverbal constituent represents a focus element and the constituents preceding this constituent constitute topics. The relevant embedded declaratives in (28a-b) above thus have the structure in (29) in which, for the time being, the finite verb (cf. section 4.4.3) as well as prosodically weak / clitic elements are yet again left out of consideration.

�� 11 My translation. The original reads: “[…] n’est pas anaphorique d’un élément du contexte antérieur mais construit le cadre de référence dans lequel sera validée la relation prédicative, le point de repère thématique dont part le reste de l’énoncé.”

148 � An alternative approach to subject pronouns in Medieval French (29)

... ...

ForceP Force' Force°

TopP

SpecTopP

Top' Top°

FocP

SpecFocP

Foc' Foc°

FinP Fin' Fin°

IP

SpecIP

I' I°

a.

… duquel

[avant …] [+topic]

b. …

[a icellui …]k [+focus]

que [s’estans …] [non seulement]k [+topic]

[+focus]

vP

proexpl tk … (abregé, p.136) proref tk … (registre-journal, p.80)

The crucial finding that in declaratives with non-expressed subject pronouns and the finite verb preceded by at least two constituents, the directly preverbal constituent is focalized and the constituents preceding this constituent are topicalized has been confirmed by an analysis of a large number of such clauses from each of the texts of the established data corpus.12 In fact, the informationstructural interpretation of the relevant constituents as topics is in line with what has been argued in this regard in the literature (Vanelli, Renzi & Benincà 1985, Zink 1987, Mathieu 2006a, b). Given their consistent informationstructural interpretation as either a focus element or a topic, then, the preverbal constituents in ‘V>2’ configurations in declaratives in Old and Middle French �� 12 Cf. Zimmermann (2012) for extensive discussion of further pertinent constructions.

Non-expressed subject pronouns in ‘V>1’ declaratives � 149

may well be considered to be located in the layered left periphery as given in (17) in section 4.3.

4.4.2 Correlation of non-expressed subject pronouns with focalization The issue of the fulfillment of the specific structural conditions on nonexpressed subject pronouns in Old and Middle French which under the present approach follows from the licensing and identification of subject pro in SpecIP by the governing finite verb (cf. section 4.3) will now be further looked into. Given the crucial assumption that the SpecIP position obligatorily and exclusively hosts subjects, the finite verb must necessarily move to some leftperipheral head position to meet the required licensing and identification conditions on pro, and this regardless of the respective syntactic configuration. In fact, the finite verb must move at least as far as to Fin° (cf. (17) in section 4.3). What is central to the issue of the fulfillment of the specific structural conditions on the licensing and identification of subject pro by the governing finite verb is thus the exploration of both the reasons lying behind the movement of the verb and the exact head position it eventually moves to. Clearly, these two issues represent two sides of the same coin. The present exploration heavily draws on the findings of the preceding investigations of the information-structural properties of the constituents preceding the finite verb in ‘V>1’ configurations in declaratives. As will be shown in the following, the information-structural properties of some of these constituents are crucial to the movement of the finite verb to some head position in the left periphery. As the investigation in section 4.4.1.2 has shown, left-peripheral topics are present in declaratives with non-expressed subject pronouns. One may thus consider the presence of these topics to correlate in some way with the leftperipheral movement of the finite verb. If there were indeed such a correlation, the presence of left-peripheral topics would be principally restricted to declaratives in which subject pronouns are non-expressed. It must therefore be established whether these topics are indeed subject to such a restriction. Consider in this regard the root and embedded declaratives in (30a-b) and (31a-b) in which the finite verb is directly preceded by an expressed expletive and referential, respectively, subject pronoun which is itself preceded by other constituents. (30) a.

Or

puisqu’ ainsi

now since

est, Ma Dame, dit

this.way is

my lady

il me semble que … (heptaméron, p.36) it me seems

that

la

Dame d’ honneur,

said the lady of honor

150 � An alternative approach to subject pronouns in Medieval French ‘Now, since it is like this, my Lady, said the lady-in-waiting, it seems to me that …’ b. … cil douz Sires […] te mande par moi que, se tu this kind sire

vels entrer

you commands through me

en la

haute cité

que

want to.enter in the high city which you

ton

dormant, il te

covient

that if

you

fu [sic] veïs

avant

en

were.seeing in

faire

ce

your sleeping it you is.suitable before to.make this

que … (saint graal, p.314) which

‘… this kind Sire commands you through me that if you want to enter the high city which you saw in your sleep, you must first do as …’ (31) a.

Et

lors, pour la

and then for

poour que

the fear

je avoie,

je commençai

which I was.having I

started

a trembler … (saint louis, p.158) to to.tremble

‘And then, because of the fear I had, I started to tremble …’ b. Dit oultre que ladicte voix, apprez qu’ elle l’ said moreover that the.said voice after

ouye par troys

foys,

elle congneust

eut

that she her had

que … (minute, p.93)

heard for three times she was.recognizing that

‘Moreover, she said that after having heard it three times, she recognized said voice as …’ The information-structural properties of the constituents preceding the expressed subject pronouns in (30a-b) and (31a-b) may be readily established. In fact, all of these constituents constitute topics – a finding which has been confirmed by an analysis of a large number of such clauses from each of the texts of the established data corpus and which is in line with what has generally been claimed in the literature (Dill 1935, Vanelli, Renzi & Benincà 1985, Adams 1987a, c, Vance 1989, 1997, Roberts 1993, Hulk & van Kemenade 1995, de Bakker 1997, Labelle 2007, Prévost 2010). Evidently, then, left-peripheral topics are present not only in declaratives with non-expressed subject pronouns, but, crucially, also in declaratives with expressed subject pronouns, and this non-marginally so (cf. Kaiser & Zimmermann 2011). Furthermore, in declaratives such as the relevant ones in (30a-b) and (31ab) above, the finite verb may be unequivocally shown not to move to the left periphery. In fact, if it did, one would either have inversion of the expressed subject pronoun and the finite verb – this is clearly not the case. Or one would have to assume, especially in light of the absence of subject-verb-inversion, that

Non-expressed subject pronouns in ‘V>1’ declaratives � 151

the expressed subject pronoun moves along with the finite verb to the left periphery. Such an assumption is obviously futile, since it essentially implies that expressed expletive subject pronouns which owing to their semantic vacuousness (cf. chapter 1) can be neither topicalized nor focalized are either merged into some left-peripheral SpecTopP position or move to the left-peripheral SpecFocP position. In light of these considerations, then, the presence of left-peripheral topics in declaratives does not correlate in any way with the movement of the finite verb to some head position in the left periphery and, ultimately, with the nonexpression of subject pronouns in Old and Middle French. The next point of investigation will be whether the presence of a (leftperipheral) focus element correlates in some way with the left-peripheral movement of the finite verb. As established in section 4.4, such an element is likewise present in declaratives with non-expressed subject pronouns. If there were indeed such a correlation, the presence of a (left-peripheral) focus element would be principally restricted to such declaratives. Intriguingly, this does seem to be the case, since as follows from the investigation of the informationstructural properties of the constituents preceding the expressed subject pronouns in declaratives such as the relevant ones in (30a-b) and (31a-b) above, these constituents invariably constitute (left-peripheral) topics. Arguably, then, the presence of a left-peripheral focus element is excluded for these clauses. The correlation of the presence of a (left-peripheral) focus element with the movement of the finite verb to the left periphery thus naturally suggests itself. Note that in addition to declaratives such as in (30a-b) and (31a-b) above in which a directly preverbal expressed subject pronoun is preceded by other constituents, Old and Middle French feature declaratives in which an expressed subject pronoun directly follows the finite verb which is preceded by up to two constituents. The information-structural properties of the constituents preceding the finite verb in the latter clauses which in contrast to the former are relatively infrequent have not yet been looked into and will presently be investigated. Consider in this regard the relevant root and embedded declaratives in (32a-b) and (33a-b) in which the finite verb in second or third position is directly followed by an expressed expletive and referential, respectively, subject pronoun. (32) a.

Pour la for

se

quel

chose nous devons estre

the which thing we

treuve dedans la

himself finds into

must

certeins que

s’ il

to.be certain that if he

forteresce de Damiete, il

nous

the fortress of Damiette he us

152 � An alternative approach to subject pronouns in Medieval French fera

prenre

et

mourir en sa

prison […] ; et

will.make to.take and to.die in his prison

ce

il miex,

vaut

si comme il me semble, que

this is.worth it better so as

le

façons occirre

him make

pour

and for

avant

qu’

it me seems

il nous parte

to.kill before that he us

nous

that we

des

mains. »

leave of.the hands

(saint louis, pp170; 172) ‘For this reason, it must be clear to us that if he is inside the fortress of Damiette, he will have us captured and killed in his prison […]; and because of this, then, it would be better, so it seems to me, that we have him killed, before he slips from our hands.’’ b. Endementieres que li preudom contoit […] avint que during

li

that the wise.man was.telling happened that

oïrs

et

li

escouters

plot

tant

a

Nasciens

the hearing and the listening pleased so.much to Nascien

et

tant

li

furent les paroles douces qu’

and so.much him were the words

endormi

desus la

fell.asleep on

des

rive

tant

words

aese

en son cuer

ou

il dormoit,

li

that there where he was.sleeping him

il avis

estoit

il s’

that he himself

the bank so.much at.ease in his heart

douces paroles que, la

of.the soft

soft

que

li

preudon

li

racontast toz

was.being it opinion that the wise.man him told

dis

ce

qu’

il li

avoit

all

commencié a dire.

days this which he him was.having begun

to to.say

(saint graal, p.298) ‘While the wise man was telling […], it happened that the things which he heard and listened to pleased Nascien so much and that the words were so soft to him that he fell asleep on the bank so contentedly in his heart on account of the soft words that right there where he was sleeping, it seemed to him that the wise man was still telling him of that which he had begun to say.’ (33) a.

Si

fu

la

l’

assault

grant

et

merveilleux ; ja

then was there the assault great and marvelous

y

furent arrivez

there were

les autres François

le

le

now

roy

de

arrived the other Frenchmen and the king of

Honguerie atout son grant Hungary

et

ost.

Si

dura

ainsi

tout

with his great army then lasted this.way all

jour jusques la

the day until

nuit

les

departi ;

et

se le

the night them withdraw and if the

Non-expressed subject pronouns in ‘V>1’ declaratives � 153

mareschal

y

avoit

esté des

premiers, aussi

field.marshal there was.having been of.the first

fu

il des

also

derreniers retrais, … (livre des fais, p.97)

was he of.the last

persons.withdrawing

‘Then the assault there became great and marvelous; for now the other Frenchmen and the King of Hungary with his great army had arrived there. From then on, it lasted like this all day long, until the night made them withdraw; and if the field marshal had been among the first there, likewise was he among the last to withdraw …’ b. Gloton, dist Galien, ne menasser ja tant, car Dieu Glutton said Galien not menace

et

le

bon

droit qu’

elle a

now so.much for God

nous pourroict bien aider,

and the good right which she has us

et

croys

bien que, avant

que

and believe well that before that you

vouldriez

vous que

would.want you

ce

might

well to.help

vous me aiez vaincu, me have defeated

fust a recommancer !» (galien, p.129)

that this was to to.start.again

‘Glutton, said Galien, stop this menace now, for God and the good right which she has might well help us, and I firmly believe that already before you have defeated me, you want rather that this start all over again!’’ On the basis of the immediate contexts of the relevant declaratives in (32a-b) and (33a-b), the information-structural properties of the preverbal constituents may readily be established: while the directly preverbal constituent in all of the four clauses constitutes a focus element, the constituent preceding this constituent in (33a) is clearly a topic. These findings have been confirmed by an analysis of a large number of such clauses from those of the texts of the established data corpus in which such clauses are encountered. Furthermore, the finding that in the declaratives under discussion, the constituent directly preceding the finite verb invariably represents a focus element seems to be further corroborated by parallel constructions in (written) Modern Standard French such as in (34a-b) in which the constituent preceding the finite verb in second position is generally considered a focus element (Orlopp 1888, Kuttner 1929, Lerch 1934, Buscherbruck 1940, Eringa 1943, Gamillscheg 1957, Ruelle 1966, Rohlfs 1982, Zink 1989, Grevisse & Goosse 2011).13

�� 13 Cf. Kaiser & Zimmermann (2011) for extensive discussion of such constructions and their analysis as learned vestiges of an older language stage.

154 � An alternative approach to subject pronouns in Medieval French (34) a

Plus

justes seraient-

ils

s’ ils

suggéraient que …

more just would.be they if they suggested that

(Grevisse & Goosse 2011:501) ‘They would be more just, if they suggested that …’ je remarqué dans la journée des b. Sans doute aiwithout doubt have I noticed

in

the day

préparatifs. (Eringa 1943:40) preparations

‘Without doubt, I have noticed that preparations were going on during the day.’ From the fact that in declaratives such as the relevant ones in (32a-b) and (33ab) above, the expressed subject pronoun and the finite verb are inverted, it will be concluded that the finite verb moves to some head position higher than I°, i.e. in the left periphery. Given the presence of a (left-peripheral) focus element in declaratives in which an expressed subject pronoun directly follows the finite verb, it appears that the presence of such an element does in fact not correlate with the non-expression of subject pronouns in Old and Middle French. As noted above, however, these clauses are relatively infrequent. In effect, if encountered at all, such clauses are comparatively marginal. Against this background, then, it may well be argued that the correlation holds, since the presence of a (left-peripheral) focus element is principally restricted to declaratives with non-expressed subject pronouns. Further evidence for the validity of this correlation comes from the crucial finding in section 4.4 that in ‘V>1’ declaratives, a focus element is invariably present. It thus seems to be the case that when subject pronouns are nonexpressed in declaratives with the finite verb in at least second position, a preverbal (left-peripheral) focus element is obligatorily present, while when these pronouns are expressed, such an element is generally absent. In light of these considerations, it will therefore be assumed that in Old and Middle French, the (preverbal left-peripheral) focalization of some non-subject constituent directly correlates with (the possibility of) the non-expression of subject pronouns and, as a prerequisite for this non-expression (cf. section 4.3), with the movement of the finite verb to some head position in the left periphery. Having established this correlation, both the reasons for the movement of the finite verb to the left periphery in the declaratives under discussion and the exact position to which the finite verb eventually moves, being considered two sides of the same coin, will next be explored.

Non-expressed subject pronouns in ‘V>1’ declaratives � 155

4.4.3 Fulfillment of the conditions on non-expressed subject pronouns As expounded in section 4.3, it is assumed with Benincà (2006) that while leftperipheral topics are directly merged into the respective SpecTopPs, a (leftperipheral) focus element is moved to SpecFocP. In order to motivate this movement, (the relevant part of) an implicit assumption by Rizzi (1997:282) according to whom “all kinds of movements to the left periphery must be motivated by the satisfaction of some Criterion, hence by the presence of a head entering into the required spec-head configuration with the preposed phrase” will be adopted. Specifically, it will be assumed that in Old and Middle French, the Focus Criterion as defined in (35) holds (cf. also Kaiser & Zimmermann 2011).14 (35) Focus Criterion: (i) A focus operator must be in a spec-head configuration with an X° which has the feature [+focus]. (ii) An X° which has the feature [+focus] must be in a spec-head configuration with a focus operator. According to this criterion, a focus element or operator, i.e. a constituent bearing the feature [+focus], must move to SpecFocP to check its focus feature. This movement, however, only partially fulfills the Focus Criterion as given in (35). Crucially, some head with the feature [+focus] must necessarily move to Foc° to meet the further requirement that the focus operator be in a spec-head configuration. The question then is which head element this could be. As repeatedly noted in sections 4.3 and 4.4.2, the basic assumption is that in order to fulfill the required licensing and identification conditions on subject pro in declaratives in Old and Middle French, the finite verb must move at least as far as to Fin°. Direct evidence for such an assumption comes from declaratives such as in (30a-b) and (31a-b) in section 4.4.2 in which the finite verb, following up to two constituents, directly precedes an expressed subject pronoun. In these clauses, the information-structural interpretation of the preverbal constituents as topics and focus elements as well as their respective sequence are identical to those of the constituents preceding the finite verb in ‘V>1’ declaratives in which subject pronouns are non-expressed (cf. section 4.4). This is taken as an unequivocal indication that declaratives such as in (30a-b) and (31a-b) in section 4.4.2 are structurally identical to ‘V>1’ declaratives, the only differ�� 14 Cf. Brody (1990) and Puskás (2000) for similar proposals for Hungarian.

156 � An alternative approach to subject pronouns in Medieval French ence being the expression and non-expression, respectively, of subject pronouns.15 Now, if these two sets of declaratives are indeed structurally identical, it directly follows from the set of clauses such as in (30a-b) and (31a-b) in section 4.4.2 that the inverted finite verb directly to the left of the expressed subject pronoun located in SpecIP (cf. section 4.3) must necessarily be in a position hierarchically higher than I°, i.e. at least in Fin°. In light of the well-founded claim in section 4.4.2 that the (preverbal left-peripheral) focalization of some non-subject constituent directly correlates with (the possibility of) the nonexpression of subject pronouns and, as a prerequisite for this non-expression (cf. section 4.3), with the movement of the finite verb to some head position in the left periphery, it seems to be a natural step to consider the finite verb the relevant head element which for reasons of the fulfillment of the Focus Criterion as given in (35) above must move to Foc°. That the finite verb does indeed not move to a head position higher than that of (left-peripheral) Foc° in the two sets of declaratives under discussion may in fact be deduced from the strict adjacency of the focus element and the finite verb. Having thus eventually determined the exact head position the finite verb moves to in declaratives with non-expressed as well as directly postverbal expressed subject pronouns and with the finite verb in at least second position, some words are now in order with regard to the exact reasons lying behind this movement to Foc°. As follows from the Focus Criterion in (35) above, it is essentially assumed that a focus operator in SpecFocP must be in a spec-head configuration with some head having the feature [+focus]. This head being the finite verb, a simplified version of Puskás’ (2000) more articulated account for the obligatory raising of the finite verb in Hungarian will, following Kaiser & Zimmermann (2011), be adopted with regard to Old and Middle French. According to Puskás’ (2000:68) account, “the head of the functional projection F[oc]P is endowed with a feature [+f[ocus]] signaling focus, in the same way as e.g. Agr has features for agreement”. It will in this regard be assumed that the [+focus] feature in Foc° is responsible for the movement of the finite verb to this head position, in that it attracts the finite verb. Under the present approach, then, in declaratives with the finite verb in at least second position in Old and Middle French, the specific structural condi�� 15 Note that the assumption that the two sets of declaratives are structurally identical is not undermined by the expression of subject pronouns in the set of clauses such as in (30a-b) and (31a-b) in section 4.4.2, since despite the fulfillment of the specific structural conditions on their non-expression, these pronouns may in principle be expressed. Cf. Vance (1997) and Prévost (2001, 2002, 2010) for possible accounts of the directly postverbal occurrence of expressed referential subject pronouns in Old and Middle French.

Non-expressed subject pronouns in ‘V>1’ declaratives � 157

tions on non-expressed subject pronouns, identified as the licensing and identification conditions on subject pro as given in (19) in section 4.3, are met, when for reasons of its attraction in the context of the application of the Focus Criterion, the finite verb moves to Foc°. After the exploration of both the exact head position the finite verb moves to and the exact reasons lying behind this movement in declaratives with nonexpressed as well as directly postverbal expressed subject pronouns and with the finite verb in at least second position, it will now be briefly discussed whether in these clauses, the finite verb also moves to Fin°. As follows from the present discussion, the Focus Criterion is fulfilled when some constituent bearing the feature [+focus] moves to SpecFocP to check this feature and when for reasons of attraction, the finite verb moves to Foc°, endowed with the feature [+focus]. Even though nothing hinges on this particular assumption, it seems to be a natural step to assume that in the course of its movement from I° to Foc°, the finite verb cyclically moves to Fin° for reasons of its encoding the modality and tense of the following IP and, possibly, its endowment by Foc° “with a V feature forcing movement of V to Fin” (Labelle & Hirschbühler 2005:61) (cf. also Mathieu 2006b). Having now established the exact positions the finite verb moves to in the left periphery, the structures in (22) and (24) in section 4.4.1.1 as well as in (26), (27), and (29) in section 4.4.1.2 in which the finite verb has so far been left out of consideration are reproduced in the following, this time including the finite verb.16

�� 16 Note that since it is not directly relevant for the present discussion, the issue of the merger and possible movement of prosodically weak / clitic pronouns will not be taken into account in the structural illustrations in this chapter.

158 � An alternative approach to subject pronouns in Medieval French (36)

ForceP Force' Force°

FocP

SpecFocP

Foc' Foc°

FinP

[+focus]

Fin' Fin°

IP

SpecIP

I' I°

a.

[d’Oliver]k

li peiseti

ti

proexpl

ti

ti tk mult … (roland, p.466)

ti

proref

ti

ti tk …

[+focus]

b.

[quarante anz]k regnadi [+focus]

vP

(livre reis, p.114)

Non-expressed subject pronouns in ‘V>1’ declaratives � 159

(37)

... ...

ForceP Force' Force°

FocP

SpecFocP

Foc' Foc°

FinP

[+focus]

Fin' Fin°

IP

SpecIP

I' I°

a. …

dont [pour cause n’esti de briefté]k

vP

ti proexpl

ti

ti tk … (abregé, p.187)

ti proref

ti

ti tk … (livre reis, p.116)

[+focus]

b. …

que

fizk [+focus]

li dunási

160 � An alternative approach to subject pronouns in Medieval French (38)

ForceP Force' Force°

TopP

SpecTopP

Top' Top°

FocP

SpecFocP

Foc' Foc°

FinP

[+focus]

Fin' Fin°

IP

SpecIP

I' I°

[apprez …] [pour ce que …]k futi [+topic]

[+focus]

ti proexpl

ti

vP ti tk … (minute, p.81)

Non-expressed subject pronouns in ‘V>1’ declaratives � 161

(39)

... ...

ForceP Force' Force°

TopP

SpecTopP

Top' Top°

FocP

SpecFocP

Foc' Foc°

FinP

[+focus]

Fin' Fin°

IP

SpecIP

I' I°

a. … duquel [avant …] [+topic]

b. …

[a icellui …]k futi [+focus]

que [s’estans …] [non seule- leur en [+topic] ment]k donnoiti [+focus]

ti proexpl

vP

ti ti tk … (abregé, p.136)

ti tk … ti proref ti (registre-journal, p.80)

162 � An alternative approach to subject pronouns in Medieval French (40)

ForceP Force' Force°

TopP

SpecTopP

Top' Top°

TopP

SpecTopP

Top' Top°

FocP

SpecFocP

Foc' Foc°

FinP

[+focus]

Fin' Fin°

IP

SpecIP

I' I°

[qant …]

ja

[+topic]

[+topic]

[si tost]k n’avrai [+focus]

vP

ti proref ti ti tk … (saint graal, p.328)

The present approach to the specific structural conditions on non-expressed subject pronouns in Old and Middle French currently captures a large number of declaratives in which these pronouns are non-expressed, namely those with the finite verb in at least second position (cf. section 4.2). In the next section, the issue of the fulfillment of these conditions in declaratives in which the finite verb is not preceded by another constituent will be looked into.

4.5 Non-expressed subject pronouns in ‘V1’ declaratives Under the present approach, subject pro in SpecIP in declaratives in the medieval stages of French is both licensed and identified when the finite verb moves to the left periphery. As the discussion of declaratives with ‘V>1’ configurations has shown (cf. section 4.4.3), this movement directly follows from the focalization of some non-subject constituent argued to likewise move to the left

Non-expressed subject pronouns in ‘V1’ declaratives � 163

periphery, more precisely from the Focus Criterion, claimed to hold in these stages of French. Presently, however, it is far from clear if and to what extent this approach may also capture declaratives with ‘V1’ configurations in which owing to the absence of any preverbal and, therefore, left-peripheral topic or focus element, Force° and Fin° are arguably expressed as a syncretic head of the single composite phrase F(orce/in)P (cf. section 4.3). In particular and unlike declaratives with ‘V>1’ configurations, in declaratives with ‘V1’ configurations, the movement of the finite verb to the left periphery does not directly follow from the (left-peripheral) focalization of some non-subject constituent. Note with regard to declaratives with ‘V1’ configurations that contrary to what is commonly claimed in the literature (Price 1961, Ménard 1976, von Seefranz-Montag 1983, Vanelli, Renzi & Benincà 1985, Adams 1987a, c, Vance 1989, 1997, Roberts 1993, Sitaridou 2005), such clauses are not only extant, but, as shown in section 4.2, in fact non-marginal in frequency among the syntactic configurations with non-expressed subject pronouns in Old and Middle French (cf. also Morf 1878, Lukaszewicz 1979, Ferraresi & Goldbach 2002, Prévost 2002, Marchello-Nizia 2008). Approaches to the declaratives under discussion in terms of either residual constructions of an older (non-documented) stage of French (Wespy 1884, Etienne 1895, Foulet 1928, Franzén 1939, Falk 1969, Skårup 1975, Harris 1985, Vance 1989, de Bakker 1997, Labelle & Hirschbühler 2005, Marchello-Nizia 2008) or the outcome of metrical necessities or poetic licenses (Morf 1878, Foulet 1928, Franzén 1939, Skårup 1975, Ménard 1976, Adams 1987a, 1988a, b, 1989) must clearly be dismissed, given the productivity of these declaratives in the medieval stages of French. In the remainder of this section, it will therefore be explored how in declaratives with ‘V1’ configurations, the specific structural conditions on non-expressed subject pronouns are met.

4.5.1 Focalization of the finite verb The specific structural conditions on non-expressed subject pronouns in declaratives with ‘V1’ configurations will first be explored by investigating the information-structural properties of the finite verb. Consider in this regard the relevant root and embedded declaratives in (41a-b) and (42a-b) in which expletive and referential, respectively, subject pronouns are non-expressed. (41) a.

Et

faut

que

je confesse, que … (heptaméron, p.24)

and must that I confess that

‘And I have to confess that …’

164 � An alternative approach to subject pronouns in Medieval French b. É

guarde les cumandemenz nostre Seignur é

and obey

tu

the commandments our

saveras

que

li

lord

çó

que

and this which

plarrad, … (livre reis, p.113)

you will.know which him will.please

‘And obey the commandments of our Lord and that of which you will know that it will please him, …’ (42) a.

Et

s’

en

foï

et

lessa la

cité. Et

cil

de

and himself of.it. fled and left the city and those of

la

cité

remestrent

tuit esbahi, … (conquête, p.132)

the city passed.out all scared

‘And he fled and left the city. And those of the city were all horrorstricken, …’ venuz i fust mi sire ; b. Se˙ m creïsez, if me had.believed come there would.be my sire

(roland, p.332) ‘If you had believed me, my sire would have come there;’ The situation in (41a) is the following: a storyteller has just finished his story and gives his very personal moral of it at the end of which he surprises his listeners with a confession. Evidently, this confession is not planned, but is rather a direct consequence of the fact that the storyteller allowed himself to be carried away. In the relevant syntactic configuration, then, special emphasis appears to be on the fact that the storyteller is forced to give a confession, for he is simply unable to help it, so that the finite impersonal verb faut ‘is necessary’ may well be considered focalized. In (41b), the situation is straightforward: the time is drawing near for King David to die, so he decides to give a charge to Solomon, his son. In the context of this charge, the former instructs the latter to not only keep God’s commands, but also to be obedient to him, in that Solomon is only to do what appeals to God. In the relevant syntactic configuration, then, it seems that special emphasis is on the finite impersonal verb plarrad ‘will please’ which may consequently be regarded a focus element. In (42a), the situation is as follows: when seeing the army of crusaders, Alexis, the emperor of Constantinople, commands his troops to withdraw, rather than to enter into battle; in the night, he empties his treasure-house and secretly leaves the city. As follows from the relevant syntactic configuration, Alexis cowardly flees, rather than defending Constantinople or surrendering. In the configuration at issue, then, it appears that there is special emphasis on the outrageous (cf. the following sentence) fact that Alexis flees, so that the personal finite verb foï ‘fled’ seems to represent a focus element.

Non-expressed subject pronouns in ‘V1’ declaratives � 165

As for (42b), the situation is the following: in light of the killing of almost the entire rearguard by Islamic forces, Oliver, the best friend of Roland, the commander of said rearguard, scolds him for his temerity not to have called Emperor Charles with his troops in good time to help; in fact, Oliver made this suggestion to Roland as soon as they had realized that they were in mortal danger; yet, Roland imprudently turned down this suggestion and rather preferred to provide further proof of his temerity; Oliver now reproaches Roland for not having done as he had suggested, for then they would have been able to vanquish their attackers. In the relevant syntactic configuration, special emphasis is apparently on the finite personal verb creïsez ‘had believed’, since the meaning conveyed here is clearly ‘if you had only believed me’, so that the personal finite verb may well be deemed a focus element. As follows from this investigation of the information-structural properties of the finite verb, the latter constitutes a focus element, i.e. a (head) constituent bearing the feature [+focus]. This finding is in fact in line with what has generally been claimed in the literature in this regard for Old French (Morf 1878, Thurneysen 1892, Lerch 1934, Herman 1954, Kattinger 1971, Adams 1987a, 1988a, 1989, Maillard 1987, Jensen 1990, Labelle & Hirschbühler 2005). In effect, it is commonly argued in the literature, at least with respect to this stage of French, that in declaratives with ‘V1’ configurations, the finite verb is focalized. In light of the present finding that in the declaratives under discussion, the finite verb is a focus element as well as of the crucial assumption that the finite verb must move at least as far as to Fin° to fulfill the specific structural conditions on non-expressed subject pronouns (cf. sections 4.3 and 4.4.2), it seems to be a natural step to assume that in these clauses, the finite verb moves to Foc° to check its [+focus] feature. Note that for reasons of the presence of a (leftperipheral) focus element in the declaratives presently discussed, namely the finite verb, Force° and Fin° are not expressed as a syncretic head, but rather separately head their own phrases; moreover, FocP is present in the structure. Indirect evidence for the present assumption comes from imperatives. In these, the finite verb is unequivocally focalized (Herman 1954, Adams 1987a, 1989) and (referential) subject pronouns are (generally)17 non-expressed, a state �� 17 Note that until the 16th century (Cauchie 1586, von Wartburg 1946, Vlassov 1997; contra Stier 1896, Brunot & Bruneau 1969), expressed (referential) subject pronouns are occasionally encountered in imperatives (Waldmann 1887, Bauer 1899, Richter 1903, Menshausen 1912, Foulet 1928, 1936, Franzén 1939, Kattinger 1971, Adams 1987a, Vance 1989, Marchello-Nizia 2005, 2006). As expected under the present approach, these pronouns are generally in (directly) postverbal position when the sentence starts off with the finite verb (Waldmann 1887, Menshausen 1912, Foulet 1936, Reid 1939, Zink 1987, Vance 1989, Marchello-Nizia 2006).

166 � An alternative approach to subject pronouns in Medieval French of affairs from which it may be directly inferred that the focalization of the finite verb correlates with the non-expression of (referential) subject pronouns. In light of the general claim that in imperatives, the finite verb moves to the leftperiphery (Adams 1987a, c, Belletti 1999), it seems to be a natural step to assume that imperatives and the declaratives presently discussed are structurally identical and that the non-expression of subject pronouns follows from the same reasons. Given the plausibility, then, of the present assumption that in the declaratives under discussion, the finite verb moves to Foc° to check its [+focus] feature, the question is how this can be captured by the Focus Criterion as defined in (35) in section 4.4.3. In order to meet this criterion, both a phrasal and a head element must move to FocP. In the discussion of declaratives with ‘V>1’ configurations (cf. section 4.4.3), it has been shown that a focalized phrasal non-subject constituent moves along with the finite verb to the (left-peripheral) FocP. In the declaratives presently discussed, however, the focalized finite verb is evidently alone in moving to the (left-peripheral) FocP. Despite this apparent violation of the Focus Criterion, the declaratives under discussion are grammatical. From this it will be inferred that the required spec-head configuration is in fact met and that a focus operator is necessarily present in SpecFocP. Given the absence of any lexical preverbal phrasal constituent, this focus operator is obviously non-lexical or null. It thus appears that when the finite verb is focalized, a null focus operator forms part of the enumeration and is merged into SpecFocP (cf. also Adams 1988b). In line with the present approach, the specific structural conditions on nonexpressed subject pronouns (cf. sections 4.3 and 4.4.2) are fulfilled in declaratives with the finite verb in first position such as in (41a-b) and (42a-b) above, since the finite verb moves to Foc°. The relevant root and embedded declaratives in (41a-b) and (42a-b) thus have the structures in (43) and (44) in which coordinating conjunctions are left out of consideration.

Non-expressed subject pronouns in ‘V1’ declaratives � 167

(43)

ForceP Force' Force°

FocP

SpecFocP

Foc' Foc°

FinP Fin' Fin°

IP

SpecIP

I' I°

a.

Øfocus op.

fauti

ti proexpl

ti

ti … (heptaméron, p.24)

ti proref

ti

ti …

[+focus]

b.

Øfocus op. s’en foïi [+focus]

vP

(conquête, p.132)

168 � An alternative approach to subject pronouns in Medieval French (44)

... ...

ForceP Force' Force°

FocP

SpecFocP

Foc' Foc°

FinP Fin' Fin°

IP

SpecIP

I' I°

a. …

quek Øfocus op. li plarradi

ti

proexpl

ti

ti tk … (livre reis, p.113)

ti

proref

ti

ti venuz i fust … (roland, p.332)

[+focus]

b. …

se

Øfocus op. m creïsezi [+focus]

vP

4.5.2 Non-focalization of the finite verb Even though the literature generally concurs that in declaratives with ‘V1’ configurations in Old French, the finite verb invariably represents a focus element, its information-structural interpretation is less clear when it comes to Middle French. Specifically, it has been claimed that as a result of an increase in the frequency of such clauses in Middle French (Vance 1989, 1997; cf., however, Martin & Wilmet 1980), “the contexts of V1 are different” (Adams 1988:15), in that the finite verb is no longer necessarily focalized (Adams 1988b, de Bakker 1997). This view is principally based on the observation that finite auxiliaries emerge in first position in Middle French which are semantically vacuous. Moreover, it has been argued that in this stage of French, declaratives with ‘V1’ configurations all at once generally start off with the coordinating conjunction et ‘and’ (Price 1961, Martin 1976, Attal 1986, Vance 1989, 1997, Junker 1990,

Non-expressed subject pronouns in ‘V1’ declaratives � 169

Lemieux 1992, de Bakker 1997) which has therefore been claimed to directly correlate with the non-expression of subject pronouns (Lerch 1934, Attal 1986, de Bakker 1997). As the following discussion will show, however, none of these claims stands up to closer examination. Regarding the alleged increase in the frequency of declaratives with ‘V1’ configurations in Middle French, one can observe from the results in Figures (6) as well as (8) – (9) and, respectively, Figures (7) as well as (10) – (11) in section 4.2 that while with non-expressed expletives, there is indeed such an increase, this is not the case with non-expressed referentials. At least regarding declaratives with non-expressed referentials and the finite verb in first position, then, the alleged change in the informationstructural interpretation of the finite verb appears not to be induced by an increase in the frequency of such clauses in Middle French. Furthermore, the unequivocal increase in the frequency of relevant declaratives with nonexpressed expletives does not per se imply that in Middle French, the finite verb is no longer necessarily focalized in these clauses. As for the alleged emergence of finite auxiliaries and, by extension, finite modals in declaratives with ‘V1’ configurations in Middle French, the results from analyzing the established data corpus regarding the (non-)auxiliary and (non-)modal nature of the finite verb in these clauses, given in Figures (13) and (14), show that while the finite verb is indeed frequently an auxiliary in Middle French, this is already the case in Old French.18

�� 18 Scarce instances of finite auxiliaries and modals have also been reported for Old French by Skårup (1975) who in light of the observation that all of these stem from either verse texts or translations from Latin implicitly explains such clauses away in terms of text type specific licences.

170 � An alternative approach to subject pronouns in Medieval French

100% 1/10

1/8

2/12

90%

2/19 0/19

0/10 1/3

80%

0/12

1/8

2/5

2/10 0/10 2/4

7/13

70%

7/11

4/6

60%

0/5

50%

1/3

0/4

9/10 40%

17/19

1/13

10/12

6/8

0/11

8/10 0/6

30%

3/5 2/4

20%

4/11

5/13

1/3

2/6

10% 0%

auxiliary

modal

lexical

Fig. (13): Ratio of finite auxiliaries, modals, and lexical verbs in first position in declaratives with non-expressed expletive subject pronouns19

�� 19 Note that in light of their little, if any, semantic content, the two existential verbs y avoir ‘to exist’ and être ‘to exist’ have been ranked as auxiliaries, rather than as main verbs.

Non-expressed subject pronouns in ‘V1’ declaratives � 171

100% 90% 80%

12/27

10/22 12/23

70% 31/47

72/106

46/66

58/76

60%

27/34

50%

16/23

24/29

6/6 1/23

40%

4/27 5/22

2/47

30%

5/106

1/23

6/66 0/34

20% 10/76

10/23 7/22

14/47

10%

0/6

8/76 0%

14/66

7/34

11/27

0/29 29/106

6/23

5/29

0/6

auxiliary

modal

lexical

Fig. (14): Ratio of finite auxiliaries, modals, and lexical verbs in first position in declaratives with non-expressed referential subject pronouns20

From this it follows that not only in Middle French, but also in Old French, the finite verb in declaratives with ‘V1’ configurations is not necessarily a focus element, as illustrated in (45a-b) and (46a-d) for root and embedded clauses with non-expressed expletive and referential, respectively, subject pronouns. (45) a.

Et

fu

ja

de l’

iver

grant

partie passé, …

and was already of the winter great part passed

(conquête, p.158)21 ‘And a great part of the winter had already passed, …’ b. … que vos me dioiz que vos cuideroiz que

m’ en

that you me tell what you would.think which me of.it

puisse avenir. (saint graal, p.95) can

to.happen

‘… that you tell me what you think might happen to me.’

�� 20 Note that in light of its little, if any, semantic content, the copula verb être ‘to be’ has been ranked as an auxiliary. 21 Note that in light of their absence in the established data corpus, no examples are given of finite auxiliaries in embedded clauses as well as of finite modals in root clauses.

172 � An alternative approach to subject pronouns in Medieval French (46) a.

Et

furent tuit arengié

li

uns encoste

l’

autre.

and were all stationed the one next.to the other

(conquête, p.162) ‘And they [= the ships] were all arranged, so that they were lying one next to the other.’ que … (conquête, p.138) b. Et poez savoir and can

c.

to.know that

‘And you may well know that …’ Si cume l’ as cumanded, tut issil so as

it has ordered

frái. ’ (livre reis, p.116)

all the.same will.make

‘I will do exactly as you have said.’’ d. Çó fud li laveürs ú pruveire this was the washbasin where priests

soleient

laver

quant durent

el

temple

were.being.in.the.habit to.wash when had.to the temple

celebrer. (livre reis, p.128) to.celebrate

‘This was the washbasin in which the priests used to wash, when they had to celebrate the temple.’ Essentially, an approach along the lines of the one put forward in section 4.5.1, i.e. in terms of the focalization of the finite verb, is apparently excluded when the finite verb is either an auxiliary or a modal. Moreover, such an approach is likewise not apt to capture declaratives as in (10b) and (13b) in section 4.2, reproduced in (47a-b), as well as declaratives such as in (47c-d), since in neither of these clauses, the information-structural interpretation of the finite verb as a focus element is readily apparent. (47) a.

Affermoit

en oultre

que … (abregé, p.171)

was.affirming in further that

‘He affirmed moreover that …’ b. Quant vi que prenre nous escouvenoit, … (saint louis, p.156) when

c.

saw that to.take us

was.being.suitable

‘When I saw that we would definitely be captured, …’ Dist oultre qu’ … (minute, p.87) said furthermore that

‘She said furthermore that …’ d. Siet el ceval qu’ il

cleimet Barbamusche, Plus est

mounts the horse which he calls

isnels que

esprever

në

Barbamusche

arunde ; Brochet

more is

le bien, le

fast than sparrowhawk nor swallow spurs.on it well the

Non-expressed subject pronouns in ‘V1’ declaratives � 173

frein

li

abandunet, Si

bridle him releases

vait

ferir

Engeler

de

then goes to.hit Engeler of

Guascoigne : (roland, p.280) Gascony

‘He mounts the horse which he calls Barbamusche which is faster than any sparrowhawk or swallow; he spurs it well on, slackens the bridle, then he goes and hits Engeler of Gascony:’ Evidently, then, a different approach is needed to capture the non-expression of subject pronouns in the relevant declaratives in (45) – (47) in which the information-structural interpretation of the finite verb as focalized seems to be ruled out either for reasons of its semantic vacuousness or on principled interpretative grounds. As noted earlier, it has been claimed in the literature that in Middle French, declaratives with ‘V1’ configurations generally start off all at once with the coordinating conjunction et ‘and’ which has moreover been claimed to directly correlate with the non-expression of subject pronouns. This claim may in fact be directly relevant to an approach to root declaratives such as in (45a) and (46a-b) above. Yet, as follows from the results from analyzing the established data corpus regarding the kind of elements, if any, directly preceding the finite verb in these clauses, given in Figures (15) and (16), already in Old French, the finite verb is in general frequently preceded by et ‘and’. Furthermore, in both Old and Middle French, the finite verb is also – at times frequently – preceded by other elements, especially by the negative particle ne ‘not’, and occasionally, the finite verb is not preceded by any elements at all.

174 � An alternative approach to subject pronouns in Medieval French 0/1 0/3

0/1

0/10

0/5

0/3

0/1

0/10

0/5

0/5

0/6

0/2

0/3

0/6

0/2

0/3

0/6

0/2

0/3

6/6

2/2

3/3

100% 1/10

1/7

90% 0/10

1/5 4/14

0/7

80%

4/10

2/5 0/14 2/7

70%

1/14

60% 50%

3/3

1/1

9/10 40%

4/5

30%

6/10

9/14

3/5

4/7

20% 10% 0%

0/10

0/3

0/5

et

ne

other (car, mais)

―

Fig. (15): Ratio of elements preceding the finite verb in first position in declaratives with nonexpressed expletive subject pronouns 0/28

0/10

0/6

0/63

0/28

0/13

0/10

0/6

0/63

0/28

0/13

0/10

100% 2/25 1/25

22/92

1/29

1/12

2/6

80%

4/25

1/12

1/29 7/13

70% 60%

1/12

4/29 11/63

90%

8/21

10/92

34/45

0/21 17/92

50%

28/28 52/63

40% 18/25 30%

23/29

0/45

0%

9/12

4/6 43/92

6/13

20% 10%

4/21

10/10

9/21

10/45

1/45

et

ne

other (car, mais)

―

Fig. (16): Ratio of elements preceding the finite verb in first position in declaratives with nonexpressed referential subject pronouns

Non-expressed subject pronouns in ‘V1’ declaratives � 175

Contrary to what has been claimed in the literature, then, et ‘and’ is by no means the only element to appear in absolute sentence-initial position of declaratives with ‘V1’ configurations and, more crucially, it is not an ‘innovation’ of Middle French. As for the issue of whether et ‘and’ and, by extension, ne ‘not’ (Völcker 1882, Ellinger 1886, Koopmann 1910, Büchtemann 1912, Franzén 1939, Herman 1954, Falk 1969, Skårup 1975, Lukaszewicz 1979, Hirschbühler 1995, Vance 1997) directly correlate with the non-expression of subject pronouns in root declaratives such as in (45a) and (46a-b) above, it can be shown on principled grounds that such a correlation does not hold.22 As follows from the subsequent (more or less)23 identical pairs of examples in (48a-b’) and (49a-b’), the non-expression of subject pronouns, both expletive and referential, is evidently independent of the presence of either et ‘and’ or ne ‘not’. (48) a.

Est assavoir que … (abregé, p.133) is

to.know that

‘It is to be known that …’ a’. Et est assavoir que … (abregé, p.138) and is

to.know that

‘And it is to be known that …’ b. Dist oultre qu’ … (minute, p.87) said furthermore that

‘She said furthermore that …’ b’. Et dist oultre que … (minute, p.87) and said furthermore that

‘And she said furthermore that …’ (49) a.

… , et

en

y

ot

assez

de bleciez, … (conquête, p.126)

and of.them there was enough of wounded

‘… , and many of them were wounded, …’ n’ en i avoit a’. ; et

nule qui … (conquête,

and not of.them there was.having none which

p.130 ‘; and among these, there was none which …’ b. Dist aussi que … (minute, p.95) said also that

�� 22 Note that this issue has been the subject of a long-standing debate which for lack of space cannot be gone into here. Cf. Zimmermann & Kaiser (2010) for extensive discussion. 23 Unfortunately, no identical pairs of examples have been established for ne ‘not’, so that by way of compensation, syntactically similar pairs of examples are given.

176 � An alternative approach to subject pronouns in Medieval French ‘She also said that …’ b’. ; mais ne dist point qu’ … (minute, p.141) but

not said not

that

‘; but she did not say at all that …’ Given that neither et ‘and’ nor ne ‘not’ seem to correlate with the nonexpression of subject pronouns, the categorial status of et ‘and’ and ne ‘not’ is apparently invariably that of a coordinating conjunction and a negative clitic, respectively (cf. also Zimmermann & Kaiser 2010). As it stands, then, the nonexpression of subject pronouns in all of the relevant declaratives in (45) – (47) above, for which the information-structural interpretation of the finite verb as a focus element is excluded, is in need of a different approach. To summarize, the finite verb in first position in declaratives with nonexpressed subject pronouns is evidently not invariably focalized in Old French, given that like in Middle French, the finite verb is frequently an auxiliary or can be shown on principled interpretative grounds not to constitute a focus element. What is more, there is no distinct increase in the frequency of the declaratives under discussion in Middle French, at least with non-expressed referentials. Finally, et ‘and’ which in such clauses is already frequent in Old French and far from invariably precedes the finite verb in Middle French as well as ne ‘not’ apparently do not correlate with the non-expression of subject pronouns.

4.5.2.1 Coordination Presently, root declaratives with non-expressed referential subject pronouns such as in (47d) in section 4.5.2, reproduced in (50) along with the immediately preceding context, will be discussed. (50) Un Sarrazin i a

out de

Sarraguce, De

la

citét

l’

une

Saracen there had from Saragossa from the city the one

meitét est sue : Ço half

is his

est Climborins, ki

pas ne

fuit por

hume.

this is Climborin who not not was good man

Fiance

prist de

Guenelun le

cunte, Par

oath.of.allegiance took from Guenelun the count through

amistiét

l’

en

baisat

en la

buche, Si

l’

en

friendship him of.it kissed in the mouth then him of.it

dunat sun helme

e

s’

escarbuncle. Tere Major, ço

gave his helmet and his carbuncle

metrat

a

hunte, A l’

emperere si

dit,

land elder this says

toldrat

la

curone.

will.put to shame to the emperor then will.snatch the crown

Non-expressed subject pronouns in ‘V1’ declaratives � 177

Siet

el

ceval

qu’

il

cleimet Barbamusche, Plus est isnels

Mounts the horse which he calls

que

esprever

në

Barbamusche

arunde ; Brochet

le

more is

bien, le

fast

frein

than sparrow.hawk nor swallow spurs.on it well the bridle

li

abandunet, Si

him releases

vait

ferir

Engeler de Guascoigne :

then goes to.hit Engeler of Gascony

(roland, pp279f.) ‘There was a Saracen from the city of Saragossa of which he owned half. This was Climborin who was an evil man. He took an oath of allegiance to Count Guenelun; for reasons of friendship, he kissed him on the mouth, then he gave him his helmet and his carbuncle. The land of the elders, he says, he will cover with shame and he will snatch the crown from the emperor. He mounts the horse which he calls Barbamusche which is faster than any sparrow hawk or swallow; he spurs it well on, slackens the bridle, then he goes and hits Engeler of Gascony:’ As follows from the immediately preceding context, the beginning of a laisse, i.e. a stanza of varying length in Medieval French epic poetry, the actions expressed by the finite verbs in the two relevant root declaratives with ‘V1’ configurations have one and the same agent, Climborin. An analysis of these verbs in terms of instances of (asyndetic) coordination exceeding sentence boundaries therefore seems to suggest itself. Note that this analysis is not incongruent with the approach to Old and Middle French as non-null subject languages. In fact, this kind of coordination which is arguably a stylistic device employed to convey “joint action”24 (Zink 1987a:12) is well-attested in Modern Standard French (Riegel, Pellat & Rioul 2014), usually analyzed as a non-null subject language (cf. chapter 1). Given that in the case of the coordination of finite verbs in Modern Standard French, referential subject pronouns are generally non-expressed (Grevisse & Goosse 2011), it appears that non-expressed subject pronouns in root declaratives such as in (50) above are of a different nature and do not belong to those in need of account under the present approach. Evidently, the coordination of finite verbs exceeding sentence boundaries is not restricted to asyndetically coordinated declaratives, but naturally also comprises syndetically coordinated declaratives. What is more, there are no a priori reasons why such coordinations should be restricted to lexical verbs, so that root declaratives with non-expressed referential subject pronouns such as the relevant one in (51) may likewise be considered instances of coordination.

�� 24 My translation. The original reads: “[…] un comportement d’ensemble […].”

178 � An alternative approach to subject pronouns in Medieval French (51) A in

laquelle interrogacion which

ses voix

j’ ay

trouvé en ung livre

interrogation I have found in a

luy avoyent

commandé qu’

her voices her were.having ordered

d’

homme, et

of

man

en l’

autre, j’ ay

fust

plusieurs foys

she of.it was.being several

n’

en

feist

homme. Et

ay

a

qu’

that how.much that

interroguee,

toutesfoys elle

times interrogated still

of answer

trouvé eudit

and have found

varia

trouvé que, combien

point de responce fors : Je ne

not of.it was.making not man

elle print habit

that she take clothing

and in the other I have found

elle en

que

book that

but

livre que

I

she

charge

not dress

plusieurs foys

in.the.said book that several times

ceste interrogacion. (minute, p.95)

varied to this interrogation

‘As for said interrogation, I found in one book an entry saying that her voices had ordered her to dress like a man and in another one, I found an entry saying that even though she had been asked several times, she gave no other answer but: I do not dress like a man. And I have found out that in said book, she gave different answers when interrogated.’ Given that the relevant root declaratives in (50) above and (51) are instances of (a)syndetic coordination and that, therefore, the non-expressed subject pronouns are of a fundamentally different nature than those in need of account under the present approach, root declaratives for which an analysis in terms of coordination readily suggests itself had better not be regarded ‘V1’ configurations. Clearly, this does not only imply a considerable diminution of the overall number of such configurations, but, crucially, also a diminution of declaratives with non-expressed (referential) subject pronouns in the medieval stages of French.25

4.5.2.2 Topicalization Presently, root declaratives with non-expressed referential subject pronouns such as in (47a) in section 4.5.2, reproduced in (52a) along with the immediately preceding context, will be discussed. (52) a.

Car il

soustenoit

damnablement que

for he was.maintaining damnably

�� 25 Cf., however, footnote 35 in section 4.5.3.

sans

ceste

that without this

Non-expressed subject pronouns in ‘V1’ declaratives � 179

grace, homme et grace man

femme […] de sa

and woman

povoit

deservir et

was.being.able to.win

nature […]

acquerir

la

vie

pardurable,

and to.acquire the life eternal

laquele heresie est offensive which

pure

of their simple nature

des

piteuses oreilles et

heresy is offensive to.the pitiful ears

non sans

cause. Affermoit

en oultre

and

que …

not without cause was.affirming in further that

(abregé, p.171) ‘For he damnably maintained that without this grace, one might of one’s own nature win and acquire eternal life, a heresy which is offensive to the pitiful ears, and this not without good cause. He furthermore affirmed that …’ b. Pur çó cíl de sa máisun pristrent en cunseil que for this those of his house

il

querréient

they would.search a

rei,

sil

took

úne dameiséle ki maiden

servist,

si

in council that

fust

devant le

who was.being before the

jeǘst

el

lit

le

king then.him was.serving then was.joining the bed the

rei

pur lúi

eschalfer.

Quistrent la

daméiséle par

king for him to.warm.up searched the maiden

tute

la

terre

through

de Israel, … (livre reis, p.110)

whole the ground of Israel

‘Therefore, his attendants held council and decided that they would search for a maiden who was to be before the king, to serve him, and to join the king’s bed to warm him up. They searched throughout Israel for the maiden, …’ On the basis of the immediate contexts of the relevant root declaratives in (52ab), the information-structural properties of the finite verb may readily be established. Evidently, the finite verb constitutes a topic: in (52a), the very notion of ‘making an assertion’ as expressed by the finite verb soustenoit ‘maintained’ in the directly preceding sentence is taken up in the relevant clause, albeit by a different verb, affermoit ‘affirmed’; and in (52b), the notion of ‘searching (for a maiden)’, expressed in the sentence directly preceding the relevant clause, is not only resumed, but is in fact literally repeated. Arguably, then, the finite verb in the relevant root declaratives in (52a-b) constitutes a topic, i.e. a head element bearing the feature [+topic]. Evidently, this feature must be checked in a left-peripheral Top° position. Note that this conjecture does not run counter the crucial assumption that, following Benincà (2006), left-peripheral topics are directly merged into, rather

180 � An alternative approach to subject pronouns in Medieval French than moved to, the respective SpecTopPs in the left periphery, since this assumption pertains solely to phrasal constituents. In fact, owing to the necessity to check its inflectional features in I°, the direct merger of the finite verb into a left-peripheral Top° position is excluded. Since it bears the feature [+topic], then, the finite verb in the root declaratives under discussion moves to the head of the single TopP, present in the structure due to the presence of a left-peripheral topic element, to check the feature in question. Given the crucial assumption that the finite verb must move at least as far as to Fin° to fulfill the specific structural conditions on nonexpressed subject pronouns in declaratives in Old and Middle French, namely the licensing and identification of subject pro in SpecIP (cf. sections 4.3 and 4.4.2), the non-expression of these pronouns in the root declaratives presently discussed is naturally accounted for. The relevant clauses in (52a-b) above thus have the structure in (53). (53)

ForceP Force' Force°

TopP Top' Top°

FinP

[+topic]

Fin' Fin°

IP

SpecIP

I' I°

a.

affermoiti

ti proref

ti

vP ti en oultre que … (abregé, p.171)

[+topic]

b.

quistrenti [+topic]

ti proref

ti

ti la daméiséle … (livre reis, p.110)

Non-expressed subject pronouns in ‘V1’ declaratives � 181

Clearly, the topicalization of the finite verb is not restricted to root declaratives with non-expressed referentials, but is also possible in root declaratives with non-expressed expletives such as the relevant one in (54). (54) Et

endementieres qu’

and while

li

tens

il

estoit

ilueques, si

that he was.being there

a

changier

et

a

comença

then started

oscurcir

et

comença

the weather to to.change and to to.grow.dark and started

a

plovoir

to

to.rain and to to.wind and to to.thunder and to

espartir

et

a venter et

a

fere

et

a si

toner

et

dolereus tens,

a come se

to.be.lightning and to to.make so painful weather as

li

if

mondes deüst maintenant fenir. (saint graal, p.299)

the world

must now

to.end

‘And while he was there, the weather started to change and to grow dark and it started to rain, to wind, to thunder with lightning, and to be such a horrible weather, as if the world came to an end.’ In (54), the notion of ‘starting’, expressed in the sentence directly preceding the relevant clause, is literally repeated, so that comença ‘started’ arguably constitutes a topic, i.e. a head element bearing the feature [+topic]. The specific structural conditions on non-expressed subject pronouns (cf. sections 4.3 and 4.4.2) are thus again fulfilled when the finite verb moves to the head of the single leftperipheral TopP to check this feature. The relevant root declarative in (54) above thus has the structure in (55) in which the coordinating conjunction is left out of consideration.

182 � An alternative approach to subject pronouns in Medieval French (55)

... ...

ForceP Force' Force°

TopP Top' Top°

FinP

[+topic]

Fin' Fin°

IP

SpecIP

I' I°

…

començai

ti proexpl

ti

[+topic]

vP ti a plovoir … (saint graal, p.299)

4.5.2.3 Scene setting topicalization This section discusses root declaratives with non-expressed referential subject pronouns and with the finite verb in first position being a verbum dicendi followed by either an embedded clause expressing indirect speech, such as in (47c) in section 4.5.2, reproduced in (56a) along with the immediately following context, or by a root clause expressing direct speech, as in (56b). (56) a.

Dist

oultre

qu’

elle avoit

bien ouy

dire

said furthermore that she was.having well heard to.say

a

sa

mere

que

elle avoit

d’ aultres parrains

to her mother that she was.having of other

et

marraines

que

godfathers

les dessusdits. (minute, p.87)

and godmothers than the above-named

‘She said furthermore that she had well heard her mother being told that she was having other godfathers and godmothers than the abovenamed.’ b. É dist al rei: ‘ Veire est la renuméé que óï de and said to.the king true is

the report

which heard of

Non-expressed subject pronouns in ‘V1’ declaratives � 183

teí

en ma terre

de tun

grant

sens

é

tun

bel

you in my country of your great wisdom and your fine

parler, … (livre reis, p.135) talking

‘And she said to the king: ‘The report I heard in my country about your great wisdom and your fine words is true, …’ As follows from the relevant clauses in (56a-b) as well as from an investigation of numerous similar clauses, the finite verba dicendi do not seem to contribute in any essential way to a clarification or better understanding of who exactly the speaker of the subsequent speech is. Apparently, the sole raison d’être of these verbs is the embedding of (in)direct speech. Independent evidence for this conjecture comes from the observation that such embedding is not obligatory with direct speech (Price 1961, Zink 1987a). Arguably, then, the finite verba dicendi in the root declaratives under discussion are employed for stylistic reasons. Given, then, that these verbs mainly serve as an embedding of speech, it seems to be a natural step to consider these, just like scene setting topics, “the frame of […] thematic reference on which the rest of the utterance is built”26 (Fournier 1997:122), the ‘rest of the utterance’ naturally being the (in)direct speech. In a sense, then, the finite verba dicendi seem to constitute topics, i.e. head elements bearing the feature [+topic]. As argued in section 4.5.2.2, this feature must be checked in the single left-peripheral TopP to which the finite verb moves. In the wake of this movement, subject pro in SpecIP is licensed and identified (cf. sections 4.3 and 4.4.2). The relevant root declaratives in (56a-b) above thus have the structure in (57) in which the coordinating conjunction is left out of consideration.

�� 26 My translation. The original reads: “[…] le cadre de référence […] thématique dont part le reste de l’énoncé.”

184 � An alternative approach to subject pronouns in Medieval French (57)

ForceP Force' Force°

TopP Top' Top°

FinP

[+topic]

Fin' Fin°

IP

SpecIP

I' I°

a.

ti proref

disti

ti

vP ti oultre qu’ … (minute, p.87)

[+topic]

b.

ti proref

disti

ti

ti al rei … (livre reis, p.135)

[+topic]

4.5.3 A special case of verbal focalization (?) Finally, declaratives, both root and embedded, with non-expressed referential subject pronouns and with the finite verb, either auxiliary, modal or lexical, in first position, such as in (58a-f) of which (58a-d) are a reproduction of (46a-d) in section 4.5.2 along with the immediately preceding and following context, will be discussed.27 (58) a.

… , et

chascune bataille

and every

par soi.

si

ot

sa

navie

army.corps then had its fleet.of.ships

Et

furent tuit arengié

for itself and were

li

uns encoste

l’

all stationed the one next.to the

�� 27 Note that unlike the root declaratives with non-expressed referential subject pronouns discussed in section 4.5.2.1, taken to be instances of coordination, the root declaratives discussed in this section have a subject different from the one of the preceding sentence.

Non-expressed subject pronouns in ‘V1’ declaratives � 185

autre. (conquête, p.162) other

‘… , and every army corps then had its own fleet of ships. And they [= the ships] were all arranged, so that they were lying one next to the other.’ b. ‘ Bien díz, bel sire ! Si cume l’ as cumanded, tut well says dear sire so as

issil

it has ordered

all

frái.’ (livre reis, p.116)

the.same will.make

c.

‘‘What you say is good, dear Sire! I will do exactly as you have said.’’ Ainsint s’ en alerent hebergier d’ autre part, therefore themselves of.it went

et

sejornerent ou

and stayed

plenté

de bones viandes. Et de l’

ost

food

riches palés

en grant

et

poez savoir

and can

alerent veoir

those of the army went rich

en repos et

in.the country in rest and in great

quantity of good

ceuls

païs

to.lodge of other side

que maint de

to.know that many of

Costentinoble,

et

les

to.see Constantinople and the

les autres eglyses … (conquête, pp136;138)

palaces and the other churches

‘Therefore, they went to stay elsewhere, and they stayed in the country and relaxed and had a great quantity of good food. And you may know that many of those of the army went to see Constantinople, and the rich palaces and the other churches …’ d. Çó fud li laveürs ú pruveire this was the washbasin where priests

soleient

laver

quant durent

were.being.in.the.habit to.wash when

el

temple

had.to the temple

celebrer. (livre reis, p.128) to.celebrate

e.

‘This was the washbasin in which the priests used to wash when they had to celebrate the temple.’ Je me assis a une fenestre, et un enfant delez I

myself sat.down to a

moy, et me

f.

avoit

window

and a

entour .X. ans

and was.having about

child next.to

de aage, …

ten years of age

(saint louis, p.200) ‘I sat down at a window, next to a child, and he was about ten years old, …’ Lors dit un mien scelerier […] : […] « Je m’ acorde que then said one my

abbot

I

myself agree

that

186 � An alternative approach to subject pronouns in Medieval French nous nous we

lessons touz tuer,

ourselves let

irons

si

touz en paradis ». Mez nous ne

will.go all in paradise but we

Quant vi when

que

et

prenre

et

mes joiaus

casket and my

of.it

le creumes

pas.

not it believed not

nous escouvenoit,

saw that to.take us

mon escrin my

nous en

all to.kill then we

je prins

was.being.suitable I took

et

les

getai

ou

flum,

jewels and them threw in.the river

mes reliques aussi. (saint louis, p.156)

and my

relics

also

‘Then one of my abbots said […]: […] “I think that we should let ourselves all get killed, for then we will all go to paradise.” But we did not believe him. When I saw that we would definitely be captured, I took my casket and my jewels as well as my relics and threw them all into the river.’ Regarding the relevant clauses in (58a-f), approaches along the lines of those put forward in section 4.5.1, namely in terms of the focalization of the finite verb, and section 4.5.2.2, namely in terms of the topicalization of the finite verb, seem to be excluded on either semantic or principled interpretative grounds, given the auxiliary and modal nature of the finite verb in (58a-d) as well as the apparent non-availability of its information-structural interpretation as either a focus element or a topic in (58e-f). Apparently, then, a different approach is needed to capture the non-expression of subject pronouns in these clauses in which the subject is not necessarily identical to the one in the preceding sentence and matrix clause, respectively. Intriguingly, pertinent indications regarding the embedded declaratives under discussion may be found in grammars from the 16th and 17th century (cf. sections 2.1.2.3 and 2.1.2.4). From these it follows that the non-expression of referential subject pronouns in the clauses presently discussed directly correlates with the distinctiveness of verbal inflectional morphology. Specifically, while according to Serrier (1623), the finite verb must be in the second person plural, Cauchie (1586) and Maupas (1618) claim that the finite verb may also be in the first person plural. In fact, in all of the examples given by these grammarians as well as by Chiflet (1659) by way of illustration (cf. (59a-f)), the finite verb is invariably in either the first or the second person plural whose suffixes are consistently distinctive in the history of French (cf. sections 2.2.2 and 3.1.5). (59) a.

Ie voudroi I

que

puiſsiez obtenir tout ce

que

deſirez.

would.like that be.able to.get all this which desire

Non-expressed subject pronouns in ‘V1’ declaratives � 187

A la

mienne volonté que

to the mine

avez fait

will

offer

fuſsiez auprez de celui, à qui

that be

de voz

near

of him

to whom

beautez. (Cauchie 1586:93)

have made offered of your beauties

‘I would like you to be able to get everything which you desire. I want you to be near him to whom you have made offer your beauties.’ eʃté ioyeux. (Serrier 1623:115) b. Si fuʃsiez venuz i’ Euʃʃe if were

c.

come

I would.have been happy

‘If you had come, I would have been happy.’ J’ ay recue les letres que m’ avez envoyees. I have received the letters which me have sent

(Maupas 1618:63) ‘I received the letters which you sent me.’ d. Vous voyez qu’ avons ʃoin de vous. (Maupas 1618:63) you

e.

see

that have

care of you

‘You see that we take care of you.’ Le deʃir qu’ avez de me voir (Chiflet 1659:40) the desire which have of me to.see

f.

‘The desire which you have to see me’ m’ avez eʃcrites (Chiflet 1659:40) Les lettres que the letters which me have written

‘The letters which you wrote me’ Yet, as follows from the relevant clauses in (58b), (58d), and (58f) above as well as from the results from analyzing such clauses in the established data corpus regarding the person and number of the finite verb, given in Table (1), the distinctiveness of verbal inflectional morphology, more specifically of the first or the second person plural, does not seem to have a (direct) bearing on the nonexpression of (referential) subject pronouns, and this in both Old and Middle French.

188 � An alternative approach to subject pronouns in Medieval French Tab. (1): Frequency of the non-expression of referential subject pronouns according to their person / number in embedded declaratives with an apparently non-focalized, non-topicalized finite verb in first position text (dating)

roland (1125‒50) livre reis (1170) saint graal (1220) conquête (1290) saint louis (1330‒40) livre des fais (1409) galien (1450) abregé (1450‒75) minute (1498‒1515) heptaméron (1553) registre-journal (1580‒1606)

# % # % # % # % # % # % # % # % # % # % # %

1SG 2 10 4 40 ― ― 0 0 1 33.3 0 0 0 0 ― ― 1 9.1 3 20 0 0

2SG 2 10 2 20 ― ― 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ― ― 0 0 0 0 0 0

person / number 3SG 1PL 8 4 40 20 1 0 10 0 ― ― ― ― 0 0 0 0 2 0 66.7 0 6 0 75 0 0 0 0 0 ― ― ― ― 8 0 72.7 0 1 1 66.7 66.7 0 0 0 0

2PL 2 10 1 10 ― ― 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 88.9 ― ― 2 18.2 9 60 2 100

3PL 2 10 2 20 ― ― 1 100 0 0 2 25 1 11.1 ― ― 0 0 1 66.7 0 0

Σ 20 100 10 100 ― ― 1 100 3 100 8 100 9 100 ― ― 11 100 15 100 2 100

For a more lucid illustration, consider Figure (17) which subsumes the results given in Table (1).

Non-expressed subject pronouns in ‘V1’ declaratives � 189

0/2 100% 1/9

2/2

90% 8/9

80%

5/15

70%

10/15

60% 50% 40% 14/20 30% 6/20

9/11

20% 9/10 10%

2/11 1/1

3/3

8/8

0/1

0/3

0/8

1/10 0%

1st and / or 2nd plural

other

Fig. (17): Ratio of apparently non-topicalized, non-focalized finite verbs in first position in either first and / or second person plural or in a different person and / or number in embedded declaratives with non-expressed referential subject pronouns

In fact, even in the texts from the second half of the Middle French period, the finite verb may generally also be in a person / number other than the first and second person plural. At least from the middle of the 15th century onward, then, the finite verb in the first and / or second person plural had best not be considered a necessary condition on the non-expression of referential subject pronouns in the embedded declaratives under discussion, but rather a strong tendency. Further corroboration for this view comes from embedded declaratives with non-expressed expletive subject pronouns such as in (60a) as well as in (7a) in section 4.2 and in (45b) in section 4.5.2, reproduced in (60b-c) along with the immediately preceding context, in which the finite verb in first position again does not lend itself to the information-structural interpretation as either a focus element or a topic. (60) a.

… il

eust

esté

la

occis

si

ne

fust Henry

he would.have been there killed if not was Henry

son frere, … (galien, p.138) his

brother

190 � An alternative approach to subject pronouns in Medieval French ‘… he would have been killed there, if it was not for Henry, his brother, …’ b. … je voil que vos me dioiz que vos cuideroiz que m’ I

en

want that you me tell what you would.think which me

puisse avenir. (saint graal, p.95)

of.it can

c.

to.happen

‘… I want you to tell me what you think might happen to me.’ … cil […] le voudrent geter dedenz avec les autres, those him wanted

dont

i

to.throw into

with the others

mout grant

avoit

plenté, …

of.whom there was.having much great plenty

(saint graal, p.312) ‘… those […] wanted to throw him into it together with the others of whom there were very many, …’ In light of the fair similarity of the relevant clauses in (60a-c) to those in (58b), (58d), and (58f) above as well as in (59a-f) above, it seems to be a natural step to consider the former and the latter one and the same construction, much like the relevant root clauses in (58a) – and, by extension, in (58c) and (58e) – above as well as the root clause in (45a) in section 4.5.2, reproduced in (61). (61) Et

fu

ja

de l’

iver

grant

partie passé, …

and was already of the winter great part

passed

(conquête, p.158) ‘And a great part of the winter had already passed, …’ Rather than directly correlating with the distinctiveness of verbal inflectional morphology, it appears that the non-expression of subject pronouns in the declaratives under discussion follows from what Kattinger (1971:59) calls “special stress on the verb”28, i.e. a special kind of focalization of the finite verb. Kattinger (1971) employs this wording in the context of his analysis of the finite auxiliary in first position in the embedded clause with a non-expressed referential subject pronoun in (62) which he translates as follows: “‘that you had really committed this betrayal’”29.

�� 28 My translation. The original reads: “[b]esondere Betonung des Verbums […]”. 29 My translation. The original reads: “[…] ‘daß ihr tatsächlich diesen Verrat begangen hättet’ […]”.

Non-expressed subject pronouns in ‘V1’ declaratives � 191

(62) Mais je ne but

tel

I

voudroie

a

nul fuer

not would.want at no

traïson

Qu’

eüssiez

price that would.have.had

faite. (erec, p.268)

such.a betrayal made

‘But I wanted you by no means to have committed such a betrayal.’ As this translation suggests, Kattinger evidently assumes that in the embedded clause in (62), the focalization of the finite auxiliary in the subjunctive results from special emphasis on what Grevisse & Goosse (2011:1152) call in the context of their discussion of the “fundamental value of the subjunctive”30 in French “the reality of the fact”31, i.e. the actual realization of the action, for which, however, “the speaker (or writer) does not let himself in”32. In fact, such an assumption appears to be highly plausible with regard to the embedded clause in (62): a maiden frankly declares to an insistent admirer who threatened to treacherously murder her beloved knight unless she loved him instead that she did not at all want him to actually put into action what he had announced before. In a sense, then, the finite auxiliary in the embedded clause in (62) seems to constitute a focus element, i.e. a head element bearing the feature [+focus]. As argued in section 4.5.1, this feature must be checked in the left-peripheral FocP to which the finite verb moves. In the wake of this movement, subject pro in SpecIP is licensed and identified (cf. sections 4.3 and 4.4.2). Note that for reasons of the spec-head configuration as required by the Focus Criterion, a null focus operator is merged into SpecFocP (cf. section 4.5.1). The embedded clause in (62) above thus has the structure in (63).

�� 30 My translation. The original reads: “[v]aleur fondamentale du subjonctif.” 31 My translation. The original reads: “[…] la réalité du fait.” 32 My translation. The original reads: “[…] le locuteur (ou le scripteur) ne s’engage pas sur […]”.

192 � An alternative approach to subject pronouns in Medieval French (63)

... ...

ForceP Force' Force°

FocP

SpecFocP

Foc' Foc°

FinP Fin' Fin°

IP

SpecIP

I' I°

…

qu’

Øfocus op. eüssiezi [+focus]

ti proref

ti

vP ti tel traïson faite (erec, p.268)

The plausibility of this approach to the non-expressed subject pronoun in the embedded clause in (62) above raises the question of whether such an approach also lends itself to the declaratives under discussion in this section. Evidently, the approach at issue naturally suggests itself for (embedded) clauses with the finite verb in the subjunctive, i.e. for those in (59a-b) and (60a-b) above. In fact, one may well consider the finite verb, more specifically the actual realization of the action as expressed either by the finite verb itself or by the non-finite lexical verb, focalized in these clauses, despite the doubtfulness that the action as such eventually takes place at all. Note that the initial restriction of the approach at issue to embedded clauses is due to the plain fact that in French, the “fundamental value of the subjunctive”33 (Grevisse & Goosse 2011:1152) presently discussed is available in these clauses only. Regarding the clauses under discussion in this section in which the finite verb is not in the subjunctive, both root and embedded, it will be tentatively assumed that the finite verb is also in some sense focalized. In light of the gen-

�� 33 My translation. The original reads: “[v]aleur fondamentale du subjonctif.”

Non-expressed subject pronouns in ‘V1’ declaratives � 193

eral plausibility of the crucial assumption that the finite verb must move at least as far as to Fin° to license and identify subject pro in SpecIP in declaratives in Old and Middle French (cf. sections 4.3 and 4.4.2) as well as in light of the implausibility of either the information-structural interpretation of the finite verb as a topic or its movement to the syncretic head of the single composite phrase F(orce/in)P34 in the clauses presently discussed, this seems to be a natural step. In fact, if the finite verb in the remaining declaratives under discussion in this section may conclusively be shown to likewise constitute a focus element, all declaratives with non-expressed subject pronouns in the medieval stages of French may be captured by the approach put forward in section 4.3. Turning first to declaratives with non-expressed subject pronouns and with the finite verb being a modal in the indicative, as in (58c-d) above, the natural assumption is that there is special emphasis on the modality expressed by the verb, namely on the notions of ‘ability’ or ‘possibility’ in the case of pouvoir ‘to be able to’, ‘desire’ in the case of vouloir ‘to want’, and ‘obligation’ in the case of devoir ‘to have to’. Consider by way of illustration the translations accordingly adjusted of the relevant clauses in (58c-d) above, given in (64a-b). (64) a.

Ainsint

s’

en

alerent hebergier d’ autre

therefore themselves of.it went

et

sejornerent ou

and stayed

païs

l’

food

ost et

poez savoir

and can

alerent veoir

the army went

palés

en repos et

en grant plenté

in.the country in rest and in great quantity

de bones viandes. Et of good

part,

to.lodge of other side

que

maint de ceuls

de

to.know that many of those of

Costentinoble,

et

les riches

to.see Constantinople and the rich

les autres eglyses … (conquête, pp136;138)

palaces and the other churches

‘Therefore, they went to stay elsewhere, and they stayed in the country and relaxed and had a great quantity of good food. And you may well know that many of those of the army went to see Constantinople, and the rich palaces and the other churches …’ b. Çó fud li laveürs ú pruveire this was the washbasin where priests

�� 34 Movement of the finite verb to F(orce/in)° seems to be ruled out, since under the present approach, it is assumed that this position is solely targeted in the context of either the focalization of some phrasal constituent and the finite verb, respectively, or the topicalization of the latter. Moreover, it would be entirely unclear why such movement should take place at all and, more importantly, only in the clauses discussed in this section.

194 � An alternative approach to subject pronouns in Medieval French soleient

laver

quant durent

el

temple

were.being.in.the.habit to.wash when had.to the temple

celebrer. (livre reis, p.128) to.celebrate

‘This was the washbasin in which the priests used to wash when they had the unequivocal obligation to celebrate the temple.’ In the relevant clause in (64a), special emphasis is on the possibility granted to the reader of access to further pertinent information, namely the entirely unexpected entrance of a large number of soldiers to Constantinople. As for the relevant clause in (64b), there is special emphasis on the fact that the priests were evidently obliged to celebrate said temple. Turning next to declaratives with non-expressed subject pronouns and with the finite verb being either an auxiliary or a lexical verb in the indicative, as in (58a-b), (58e-f), (59a), (59c-f), (60c), and (61) above, it will be tentatively assumed that there is special emphasis on the tense expressed by the respective verbal inflectional suffix, more particularly on the (non-)simultaneousness of the action expressed in the clause with regard to the action expressed in the preceding sentence and matrix clause, respectively. By way of illustration, consider the accordingly adjusted translations of the relevant clauses in (58a-b), (58e-f), (59a), (59c-f), (60c), and (61) above, reproduced either partially or extendedly in (65a-k). (65) a.

… , et

chascune

and every

par soi.

Et

bataille

si

ot

sa

navie

army.corps then had its fleet.of.ships

furent tuit arengié

li

uns encoste

l’

for itself and were all stationed the one next.to the

autre. (conquête, p.162) other

‘… , and every army corps then had its own fleet of ships. And they [= the ships] were presently all arranged, so that they were lying one next to the other.’ frái.’ (livre reis, p.116) b. Si cume l’ as cumanded, tut issil so as

c.

it has ordered

all the.same will.make

‘I will do exactly as you have previously said.’’ Je me assis a une fenestre, et un enfant delez I myself sat.down to a

moy, et me

avoit

and was.having about

(saint louis, p.200)

window

and a

entour .X. ans

child

de aage, …

ten years of age

next.to

Non-expressed subject pronouns in ‘V1’ declaratives � 195

‘I sat down at a window, next to a child, and he was at that time about ten years old, …’ je prins mon d. Quant vi que prenre nous escouvenoit, when saw that to.take us

escrin

et

mes joiaus

casket and my

was.being.suitable I

et

les

getai

ou

took my

flum, et

jewels and them threw in.the river and

mes reliques aussi. (saint louis, p.156) my

e.

relics also

‘The moment I saw that we would definitely be captured, I took my casket and my jewels as well as my relics and threw them all into the river.’ A la mienne volonté que fuſsiez auprez de celui, à qui to the mine

avez

fait

will

offer

that be

de voz

near

of him

to whom

beautez. (Cauchie 1586:93)

have made offered of your beauties

f.

‘I want you to be near him to whom you have previously made offer your beauties.’ recue les letres que m’ avez envoyees. J’ ay I have received the letters which me have sent

(Maupas 1618:63) ‘I received the letters which you previously sent me.’ g. Vous voyez qu’ avons ʃoin de vous. (Maupas 1618:63) you

see

that have

care of you

‘You see that we presently take care of you.’ avez de me voir (Chiflet 1659:40) h. Le deʃir qu’ the desire which have of me to.see

i.

‘The desire which you presently have to see me’ Les lettres que m’ avez eʃcrites (Chiflet 1659:40) the letters which me have written

j.

‘The letters which you previously wrote me’ Einsint fu desconfiz li emperieres Morchufles thus

was defeated the emperor

vous avez oï. […] Et you

fu

ja

conme

Mourtzouphlos as

de l’

iver

grant

partie

have heard and was already of the winter great part

passé, … (conquête, p.158) passed

‘The Emperor Mourtzouphlos had been defeated in the way you heard. […] And a great part of the winter had by this time already passed, …’ k. … cil […] le voudrent geter dedenz avec les autres, those him wanted

dont

i

avoit

to.throw into

mout grant

with the others

plenté, …

of.whom there was.having much great plenty

196 � An alternative approach to subject pronouns in Medieval French (saint graal, p.312) ‘… those […] wanted to throw him into it together with the others of whom there were presently very many …’ While in (65b) and (65e-j), special emphasis is arguably on the anteriority of the action expressed in the relevant clause with regard to the action expressed in the preceding sentence and matrix clause, respectively, in (65a), (65c-d), and (65k), there is special emphasis on the simultaneousness of these actions. To summarize, in declaratives, both root and embedded, in Old and Middle French in which subject pronouns are non-expressed and in which the finite verb in first position does not readily lend itself to the information-structural interpretation as a focus element or a topic, the finite verb may be shown to be specially focalized.35 In particular, in these clauses, special emphasis is not on the semantics of the finite verb, more precisely its stem, but rather on its mood, its modality or its tense. In the wake of the movement of the finite verb to the left-peripheral Foc° position to check its [+focus] feature, the specific structural conditions on non-expressed subject pronouns are fulfilled, namely the licensing and identification of subject pro in SpecIP (cf. sections 4.3 and 4.4.2). The relevant declaratives in the examples given in this section thus have the structure shown in (66) and (67); coordinating conjunctions are again left out of consideration.36

�� 35 As pointed out in footnote 27 in this section, the analysis tentatively put forward pertains, in addition to embedded declaratives, exclusively to root declaratives with a subject different from the one of the preceding sentence. There does, however, not seem to be any a priori reason why this analysis should not extend to (some of the) root declaratives discussed in section 4.5.2.1, considered instances of coordination, in which the finite verb of these clauses shares the subject with the finite verb of the preceding sentence. Possibly, then, some of the clauses taken as instances of coordination might rather constitute instances of the kind of focalization presently under discussion. Given the subtlety of the classification of such clauses as instances of either coordination or focalization and given the possibility of a combination of coordination and focalization, this issue will be left open. 36 Due to space limitations, not all relevant clauses are given. In particular, when the finite verb is identical in form and meaning, only one clause is given.

Non-expressed subject pronouns in ‘V1’ declaratives � 197

(66)

ForceP Force' Force°

FocP

SpecFocP

Foc' Foc°

FinP Fin' Fin°

IP

SpecIP

I' I°

a.

Øfocus op.

furent i

ti

proref

ti

ti tuit arengié … (conquête, p.162)

ti proref

ti

ti savoir que … (conquête, p.138)

ti

ti

ti entour .X. an … (saint louis, p.200)

ti

ti ja de l’iver … (conquête, p.158)

[+focus]

b.

Øfocus op.

poezi [+focus]

c.

Øfocus op.

avoiti

proref

[+focus]

d.

Øfocus op.

fui [+focus]

vP

ti proexpl

198 � An alternative approach to subject pronouns in Medieval French (67)

... ...

ForceP Force' Force°

FocP

SpecFocP

Foc' Foc°

FinP Fin' Fin°

IP

SpecIP

I' I°

a.

…

ti

proref

ti ti obtenir tout ce … (Cauchie 1586:93)

ti

proref

ti ti venuz … (Serrier 1623:115)

ti

proexpl

ti ti Henry son frere … (galien, p.138)

ti

proexpl

ti ti avenir (saint graal, p.95)

[en la- Øfocus op. pouoiti [+focus] quelle]

ti

proexpl

ti ti avoir … (livre des fais, p.105)

Øfocus op. voulezi

ti

proref

ti ti viure … (heptaméron, p.17)

ti

proref

ti ti …

qu’

Øfocus op. puiſsiezi [+focus]

b. …

si

Øfocus op. fuʃsiezi [+focus]

c.

…

si

Øfocus op. ne fusti [+focus]

d. …

que

Øfocus op. m’en puissei [+focus]

e.

…

f.

…

si

[+focus]

g. …

quant Øfocus op. durenti

(livre reis, p.128)

[+focus]

h. …

si

Øfocus op.

asi

ti

proref

ti ti cumanded … (livre reis, p.116)

ti

proref

ti ti que … (saint louis, p.156)

[+focus]

i.

…

vP

quant

Øfocus op.

vii [+focus]

Non-expressed subject pronouns in ‘V1’ declaratives � 199

j.

…

à qui

Øfocus op.

avezi

ti

proref

ti ti fait … (Cauchie 1586:93)

ti

proref

ti ti ʃoin … (Maupas 1618:63)

ti

proexpl

ti ti mout … (saint graal, p.312)

[+focus]

k. …

qu’

Øfocus op.

avonsi [+focus]

l.

…

dont

Øfocus op.

i avoiti [+focus]

4.5.4 Evidence for the movement of the finite verb beyond I° As extensively discussed in sections 4.3 and 4.4.2, it is essentially assumed that in declaratives in Old and Middle French, the specific structural conditions on non-expressed subject pronouns are fulfilled, i.e. subject pro in SpecIP is licensed and identified when the finite verb moves at least as far as to Fin°. Regarding declaratives with ‘V1’ configurations, it has therefore been claimed that with the exception of root clauses evidently constituting instances of coordination in which the non-expressed subject pronouns are of a fundamentally different nature (cf. section 4.5.2.1), the finite verb invariably moves to some leftperipheral head position. In fact, this movement of the finite verb has been shown to directly follow from its information-structural properties, i.e. its focalization and topicalization, respectively. Still, no independent evidence has so far been given to substantiate the claim that in the clauses under discussion, the finite verb does indeed move to the left periphery. With regard to declaratives with ‘V>1’ configurations, the claim that the finite verb moves to a head position hierarchically higher than I° has been independently corroborated by the existence in Old and Middle French of declaratives otherwise identical except for the expression, rather than the non-expression of subject pronouns (cf. section 4.4.2). Since these pronouns are invariably in directly postverbal position when expressed, it has been argued in light of the crucial assumption that in Old and Middle French, the SpecIPposition is an A-position which obligatorily and exclusively hosts subjects (cf. section 4.3) that the finite verb necessarily moves to some head position in the left periphery. The question thus arises whether in these stages of French, there are declaratives in which the finite verb in first position is directly followed by an expressed subject pronoun and which would thus be otherwise identical to declaratives with ‘V1’ configurations.

200 � An alternative approach to subject pronouns in Medieval French Although they are very rare – in fact, only two such clauses have been encountered in the established data corpus – (cf. section 3.1.1),37 such declaratives do indeed exist in Old and Middle French, at least with expressed referential38 subject pronouns, as illustrated in (5a-d) in section 3.1.1 for root declaratives, reproduced in (68a-d), and in (68e-f) for embedded declaratives, of which (68f) is a reproduction of (10d) in section 3.1.2. (68) a.

Oliver,

frere,

vos ne

dei

jo faillir ; (roland, p.357)

Oliver brother you not must I

to.fail

‘Oliver, my brother, I must not fail you;’ b. Pere de pitié, Te mercy je et adour de ce father of pity you thank I

c.

que …

and adore of this which

(Zink 1997:84) ‘Pitiful father, I thank and adore you, since …’ voir dit, car … (Franzén 1939:149) Et ne fist il, il a and not made he he has truth said for

‘And he did not do so, he had told the truth, for …’ d. Respont elle: “Je le ferai.” (Skårup 1975:145) answers she

e.

I

it will.make

‘She answers: “I will do so.”’ car non obstant que eust il

en soy

maintes belles

for not hindrance that had he in himself many

vertus,

il se

leva

en tel

nice

orgueil […] que …

virtues he himself got.up in such.an arrogance that

f.

(Zink 1997:83) ‘for even though he normally was a paragon of virtue, he got up with such an arrogance […] that …’ … que ne seroit ce que il me contoit. than not would.be this which he me was.telling

(saint louis, p.194) ‘… than would be that which he told me.’

�� 37 At face value, the relevant clauses in (68a-f) appear to be far more marginal than declaratives in which the finite verb in at least second position is directly followed by an expressed subject pronoun (cf. section 4.4.2). Given, however, the observation that in comparison to declaratives with ‘V>1’ configurations, declaratives with ‘V1’ configurations are in general considerably less frequent (cf. section 4.2), this finding is actually expected. 38 Cf. footnote 5 in section 3.1.1. on the issue of the apparent lack of pertinent declaratives with expressed expletive subject pronouns. Cf. also de Bakker 1997.

Variation in the non-expression of subject pronouns � 201

Regarding the information-structural properties of the finite verb in the relevant clauses in (68a-f), these in fact appear to be identical to those in declaratives with ‘V1’ configurations. Specifically, in (68b) special emphasis is on (the semantics of the verbal stem of) the finite verb mercy ‘thank’ which may therefore be considered a focus element, while in (68c-d), the finite verbs fist ‘made’, a verbum vicarium, and respont ‘answers’, a verbum dicendi, may well be deemed topics; and in (68a) and (68e-f), the modality and mood, respectively, of the finite modal in the indicative dei ‘must’, the finite lexical verb in the subjunctive eust ‘had’, and the finite copula verb in the conditional seroit ‘would.be’ seem to be focalized. Given, then, that in the relevant clauses in (68a-f) above, the informationstructural interpretation of the finite verbs as focus elements and topics is identical to the one in declaratives with ‘V1’ configurations, the former and the latter clauses are arguably structurally identical, the only difference being the expression and non-expression, respectively, of subject pronouns.39 Now, if these two sets of declaratives are indeed structurally identical, it directly follows from the relevant clauses in (68a-f) that the inverted finite verb directly to the left of the expressed (referential) subject pronoun located in SpecIP (cf. section 4.3) must necessarily be in a position hierarchically higher than I°, i.e. in the left periphery, and this evidently due to its information-structural properties.

4.6 Variation in the non-expression of subject pronouns As extensively discussed in chapter 2, the frequency of the non-expression of subject pronouns in Old and Middle French varies both intertextually and intratextually, and this synchronically and diachronically. The question thus arises whether and, if so, how the approach presently put forward may capture this inter- and intratextual variation.

�� 39 Cf. footnote 15 in section 4.4.3 on the issue of the non-obligatoriness of the non-expression of subject pronouns. Cf. Zink (1983, 1997) for a possible account of the occurrence of expressed referential subject pronouns in the position directly following the finite verb in first position in Old and Middle French. Note that the extreme scarcity of declaratives such as in (68a-f) – in fact, only a few dozen such clauses have been reported in the literature for Old and Middle French (Philippsthal 1886, Koopmann 1910, Foulet 1928, Lerch 1934, Franzén 1939, Reid 1939, Kattinger 1971, Skårup 1975, Zink 1983, 1997, Kaiser 2000) – corroborates the crucial assumption that the focalization and topicalization, respectively, of the finite verb generally correlates with the non-expression of subject pronouns (cf. sections 4.5.1 and 4.5.3 as well as sections 4.5.2.2 and 4.5.2.3).

202 � An alternative approach to subject pronouns in Medieval French Under this approach, the specific structural conditions on non-expressed subject pronouns have been argued to be fulfilled when the finite verb moves to the left periphery (cf. sections 4.3 and 4.4.2). This movement has been shown to directly correlate with the information-structural properties of the constituents moving to the left periphery: either some phrasal non-subject constituent is focalized and moves, due to the Focus Criterion (cf. section 4.4.2), along with the finite verb to FocP or the finite verb itself is focalized and topicalized, respectively, and moves to Foc° or Top°, again due to the Focus Criterion (cf. sections 4.5.1 and 4.5.3) or the checking of its [+topic] feature (cf. sections 4.5.2.2 and 4.5.2.3). Given that the focalization and topicalization of constituents in declaratives directly depend on the specific context and content of a given text as well as on the individual style of the writer, the observed synchronic and diachronic intertextual variation in the frequency of the non-expression of subject pronouns in the medieval stages of French is under the present approach both expected and naturally captured.40 As for the observed synchronic and diachronic intratextual variation, namely the observation that subject pronouns are considerably more frequently nonexpressed in root than in embedded clauses, the present approach appears to be likewise apt to capture this characteristic trait of Old and Middle French, if it is assumed with Price (1961) and Roberts (1993) that “embedded topicalization [and focalization, MZ] is more marked than matrix topicalization [and focalization, MZ], undoubtedly for functional reasons” (Roberts 1993:141), “since it is generally the root clause which expresses the most important idea of the sentence”41 (Price 1961). Independent evidence for the plausibility of such an assumption comes from the finding that in contrast to root declaratives, embedded declaratives with the finite verb in second position preceded by a nonpronominal subject, i.e. without any (left-peripheral) topicalized or focalized elements, are highly frequent in the medieval stages of French, as shown in Figure (18).

�� 40 Cf. Kaiser & Zimmermann (2011) for a similar proposal with regard to the variation in frequency observed in subject-verb-inversion in French. 41 My translation. The original reads: “[p]uisque c’est ordinairement la proposition principale qui énonce l’idée la plus importante de la phrase […]”.

Variation in the non-expression of subject pronouns � 203

100% 90%

157/166

116/126

138/152 80%

172/200 103/125

70%

137/178

92/121

101/134

118/165

138/198 60% 99/158

38/62

270/459

88/154

50% 186/362 40% 154/366

54/107 124/280

115/274

30% 18/62

20% 10%

51/247

39/212

0%

'S V' in root declaratives

'S V' in embedded declaratives

Fig. (18): Frequency of root and embedded declaratives with the finite verb in second position preceded by a non-pronominal subject

It thus seems indeed to be the case that in embedded clauses, topicalization and focalization are more marked than in root clauses and, therefore, comparatively infrequent. Given the crucial assumption under the present approach that the (left-peripheral) focalization of some constituent as well as the (left-peripheral) topicalization of the finite verb correlate with the general non-expression of subject pronouns in Old and Middle French, the distinctly low(er) frequency in the non-expression of these pronouns in embedded clauses is neatly captured. Note that under the present approach, this intratextual variation also follows, at least to some extent, from the exclusive root nature of numerous declaratives with non-expressed subject pronouns. In particular, this pertains to the kind of coordination discussed in section 4.5.2.1 in which the non-expressed subject pronouns are of a different nature as well as to the topicalization of the finite verb (cf. sections 4.5.2.2 and 4.5.2.3). To sum up, the present approach according to which the (left-peripheral) focalization of some constituent as well as the (left-peripheral) topicalization of the finite verb correlate with the general non-expression of subject pronouns allows the neat capture of the inter- and intratextual variation in the frequency of their non-expression observed for Old and Middle French. In fact, this variation may be conclusively attributed to, on the one hand, the dependency of the

204 � An alternative approach to subject pronouns in Medieval French focalization and topicalization of some constituent on the specific context, content, and individual style and, on the other, to functional and clause type specific reasons.

4.7 Conclusion An alternative approach to Old and Middle French has been put forward which is essentially based on the analysis of these stages of French as non-null subject languages. This analysis directly takes account of the frequent expression of referentials in cases of an extremely high degree of antecedent accessibility as well as of the non-marginal expression of expletives. While the expression of these two sets of pronouns follows naturally under such an analysis, their nonexpression appears to be peculiar for a non-null subject language. As witnessed by Modern Standard French, however, subject pronouns need not be consistently expressed in non-null subject languages, but only generally so. Old and Middle French have therefore been considered non-null subject languages in which non-expressed subject pronouns are allowed for under specific structural conditions, namely the licensing and identification of subject pro in SpecIP by the governing finite verb. Non-expressed subject pronouns have been shown to commonly occur in declaratives with the finite verb in second position and to be far more frequent in root than in embedded clauses. Regarding declaratives with non-expressed subject pronouns and the finite verb in at least second position, it has been ascertained that the directly preverbal constituent is focalized and that the constituents preceding this constituent are topicalized. In light of these considerations, a correlation has been established between the (preverbal left-peripheral) focalization of some non-subject constituent with (the possibility of) non-expressed subject pronouns and, necessarily, the movement of the finite verb to some head position in the left periphery. This position has been identified as Foc° to which the finite verb moves due to the Focus Criterion. As for declaratives with non-expressed subject pronouns and the finite verb in first position, the conditions on non-expressed subject pronouns have been shown to follow from either the (left-peripheral) focalization or the (left-peripheral) topicalization of the finite verb. Furthermore, numerous such clauses have been identified as instances of coordination in which the non-expressed subject pronouns are of a fundamentally different nature. The inter- and intratextual variation in the frequency of the non-expression of subject pronouns in Old and Middle French has finally been shown to be neatly captured under the present approach, namely in terms of the dependency of the focalization and topicaliza-

Conclusion � 205

tion of some constituent on the specific context, content, and individual style as well as in terms of functional and clause type specific reasons.

5 Outlook: The general loss of non-expressed subject pronouns in Classical French As expounded at various points in this book (cf. sections 2.1.1.4, 2.1.2.4, and 2.2.2), non-expressed subject pronouns, both expletive and referential, are, to varying degrees, regularly encountered in French until the first half of the 17th century, while from the second half of this century onward, subject pronouns are generally expressed. The question thus arises why after (at least) nine centuries – the oldest manuscript of the Early Old French text Cantilène de Sainte Eulalie, the first extant text consistently written in French, dates from the end of the 9th century –, non-expressed subject pronouns are no longer generally possible in the language. As shown by the respective results from analyzing the established data corpus in Figure (1) in section 4.1, reproduced as Figure (1), the general impossibility of non-expressed subject pronouns in Classical French is in fact a sudden phenomenon.

100% 780/782 90% 445/492

629/705

80%

97/97

603/709 296/370

70%

566/698 38/49 48/65

382/578

60%

317/540 33/61

224/464

40%

63/80

705/1052

34/57

50%

30%

720/720

94/96

311/566 22/42

33/94

156/456

25/95

20%

18/72

10% 8/73 0%

3/47

expressed referential subject pronouns

expressed expletive subject pronouns

Fig. (1):Frequency of the expression of referential and expletive subject pronouns in declaratives

Being a characteristic trait of the medieval stages of French, non-expressed subject pronouns are extremely scarce in the first half of the 17th century and

Outlook: The general loss of non-expressed subject pronouns in Classical French � 207

completely absent in its second half. Since under the approach put forward in chapter 4, non-expressed subject pronouns in Old and Middle French have been argued to be only allowed for when specific structural conditions are fulfilled, the question to be answered is rephrased as follows: Why are the specific structural conditions allowing for non-expressed subject pronouns suddenly no longer met from Classical French, more particularly from the middle of the 17th century, onward? A basic assumption has been that subject pronouns may be non-expressed when licensed in SpecIP by a governing head hosting AGR which identifies them via coindexation with the relevant person / number features (cf. (19) in section 4.3). In order for AGR to govern subject pro, the finite verb must move to some head position in the left periphery, more precisely to either Foc° or Top°.1 Given that the non-expression of subject pronouns is suddenly no longer possible from a certain time onward in French, the following two technical explanations naturally come to mind: (i) AGR is no longer strong and, thus, capable of identifying subject pro; (ii) the finite verb stops moving to the left-peripheral Foc° and Top° positions and is therefore no longer capable of licensing subject pro. Regarding the first explanation, it has generally been argued that AGR in Modern French is strong (Pollock 1989, 1997, Chomsky 1991, 1993, Lasnik 1995), since in contrast to Modern English in which the finite (lexical) verb does not move to I° – it occurs to the right of (non-moving) adverbs such as often and negative not (cf. (1a) and (2a)), i.e. in V°, and not to their left (cf. (1b) and (2b)), i.e. in I° –, the finite verb in Modern French moves to I°, as illustrated by the counterparts in (1a’) and (1b’) as well as in (2a’) and (2b’) which show that the finite verb necessarily occurs to the left, rather than to the right, of the (nonmoving) adverbial equivalents souvent and pas. (1) a. John often kisses Mary. (Pollock 1989:367)2 a’. * Jean souvent embrasse Marie. (Pollock 1989:367) John often

kisses

Mary

b. * John kisses often Mary. (Pollock 1989:367) b’. Jean embrasse souvent Marie. (Pollock 1989:367) John kisses

often

Mary

�� 1 Note that since movement of the finite verb solely to Fin° has been purposefully excluded (cf. section 4.5.3), it has been argued that Fin° is targeted only in the context of either the focalization of some constituent or the topicalization of the finite verb. 2 In the examples in (1) and (2), sentence elements are highlighted according to the following conventions: bold = VP adverb; italic = lexical verb.

208 � Outlook: The general loss of non-expressed subject pronouns in Classical French (2) a. John does not like a’. * Jean ( ne)3 pas aime

Mary. Marie.

John not not likes Mary

b. * John likes b’. Jean ( n’) aime

not Mary. (Pollock 1989:367) pas Marie. (Pollock 1989:367)

John not likes not Mary

The first explanation must therefore be discarded. Consequently, the second explanation seems to be the answer to the question raised above. According to this explanation, then, the general loss of non-expressed subject pronouns in Classical French follows from the fact that non-expressed subject pronouns are no longer licensed by the finite verb which for reasons yet to be determined suddenly stops moving to the left periphery. In light of the suddenness of the change in the possibility of non-expressed subject pronouns in French, one might in fact consider it a prime example of parametric change. Specifically, one might argue that this change follows directly from a resetting of the Spell-Out condition of the Focus Criterion (cf. Brody 1990) henceforth fulfilled at LF, rather than at Spell-Out.4 Under this approach, the movement to (the left-peripheral) FocP of either some focalized phrasal non-subject constituent along with the finite verb (cf. section 4.4.3) or the focalized finite verb (cf. sections 4.5.1 and 4.5.3) takes place at S-structure, i.e. Spell-Out, in Old, Middle, and Early Classical French, while from Later Classical French onward, these movements are licit only at LF, i.e. after Spell-Out. Despite its apparent elegance, this approach has two severe drawbacks: on the one hand, it remains unclear why after a period of (at least) 900 years, the Focus Criterion does not continue to be fulfilled at Spell-Out – or why the resetting of the Spell-Out condition did not occur (much) earlier on; on the other, it is entirely unclear why non-expressed subject pronouns are also no longer possible when the finite verb is topicalized (cf. sections 4.5.2.2 and 4.5.2.3). Moreover, it is far from clear under such a parametric approach why the kind of coordination of root declaratives discussed in section 4.5.2.1 in which non-expressed subject pronouns are of a different nature are in general also no longer encountered from Later Classical French onward. In light of these drawbacks, then, it �� 3 Note that while in Modern Standard French, the preverbal negative particle ne ‘not’ is consistently expressed in the context of sentential negation (usually together with the negative adverb pas ‘not’), it is generally non-expressed in this context in Modern Colloquial French (Söll 1985, Rowlett 1998, Koch & Oesterreicher 2011). 4 Cf. Kaiser & Zimmermann (2011) for a similar proposal with regard to the decrease in subjectverb-inversion in root declaratives in French.

Outlook: The general loss of non-expressed subject pronouns in Classical French � 209

seems that an approach based on intralinguistic reasons alone does not appropriately capture the change under discussion. Therefore, an approach will be adopted which is principally based on extralinguistic reasons. It has been essentially assumed that Old and Middle French are non-null subject languages (cf. section 4.1) in which non-expressed subject pronouns are possible when specific structural conditions are fulfilled, namely when subject pro in SpecIP is licensed and identified by the governing finite verb (cf. section 4.3). This has been shown to be the case only in the following two clearly identifiable contexts: (left-peripheral) focalization (of either some phrasal non-subject constituent or the finite verb) and (left-peripheral) topicalization (of the finite verb). As extensively discussed in sections 4.2, 4.4.1, 4.4.2, 4.5.1 as well as 4.5.3, non-expressed subject pronouns are most frequently encountered in the context of (left-peripheral) focalization. Note that in addition to this strategy of focalization, French has alternative strategies such as cleft and dislocation constructions (cf. Stark 1997, 2002, Dufter 2009), generally considered to increase in frequency in the history of French (Pagani-Naudet 2005, Dufter 2008a). Evidently, the more frequently such alternative strategies of focalization are made use of, the less frequently the strategy involving the movement of some phrasal non-subject constituent and / or the finite verb to (the left-peripheral) FocP is used and, consequently, the less frequently non-expressed subject pronouns may be licensed. Still, it appears that the existence of alternative strategies of focalization has only contributed to an extralinguistic pressure on the French language in the 17th century, particularly in the second half of this century, which has had a direct bearing on the non-expression of subject pronouns: the general fixing of “a full-fledged set of literary norms” (Roberts 1993:204) as directly reflected in 17th century grammars and critical works on language use (Fournier 1996, 1998, Johnson 2000, Marchello-Nizia 2006). That this fixing did indeed have a farreaching influence on the literary reality and in fact made Classical French appear “a period of crucial change in the history of French”5 (Fournier 1998:39) may be directly construed from indications that writers of the second half of the 17th century readily accepted and abided by the numerous recommendations or, rather, instructions pertaining to different fields of grammar: Pierre Corneille, with the help of his brother Thomas, revised his plays for the new edition (first published in 1661). Frequently, texts were proofread before they were published. Mme. de La Fayette asked Segrais’ advice, Pascal’s works were proofread by the gramma�� 5 My translation. The original reads: “[…] une période de mutation décisive dans l’histoire du français.”

210 � Outlook: The general loss of non-expressed subject pronouns in Classical French rians from Port-Royal, Racine turned for advice to Father Bouhours.6 (Berschin, Felixberger & Goebl 2008:235)

Among these numerous instructions, two – or rather their interaction – appear to be of direct relevance for the finding that from the middle of the 17th century onward, non-expressed subject pronouns are all of a sudden generally lost, presently considered to directly result from the non-availability of the movement of the finite verb to the left-peripheral Foc° and Top° positions: (i) the consistent expression of subject pronouns and (ii) the general adherence to SVX word order. Before turning to a discussion of their interaction, these two instructions and their implications will first be discussed. Intriguingly, the same century which suddenly witnesses the general expression of subject pronouns also witnesses in grammars and critical works on language use (de Deimier 1610, Maupas 1618, Serrier 1623, Oudin 1632, 1640, de Vaugelas 1647, Chiflet 1659, Arnauld & Lancelot 1846 [1667], de La Touche 1696; cf. also sections 2.1.1.4 and 2.1.2.4) the precise instruction to consistently express these. Consider by way of illustration the pertinent instruction regarding referential subject pronouns in Chiflet’s (1659:37f.) work entitled Essay d’une parfaite grammaire de la langue françoise ‘Attempt of a perfect grammar of the French language’, already given in section 2.1.2.4, which later on draws attention to the fact that “the impersonal verbs have the pronoun il [‘it’]”7 (Chiflet 1659:85): The conjunctive pronouns, being in the nominative, always [my highlighting] come before the verbs, for they are of use in their conjugation, as in je viens [‘I come’], tu viens [‘you.2NDP.SG come’], il vient [‘he comes’], nous venons [‘we come’], vous venez [‘you.2NDP.PL come’], ils viennent [‘they.MASC come’].8

These instructions to consistently express subject pronouns notwithstanding, highly restricted exceptions are occasionally approved of. Specifically, nonexpressed referentials are principally possible in (i) root declaratives with a

�� 6 My translation. The original reads: “Pierre Corneille überarbeitete mit Hilfe seines Bruders Thomas seine Stücke für die Neuausgabe (erstmals 1661). Vielfach wurden die Texte schon vor der Veröffentlichung zur Korrektur gegeben. Mme. de La Fayette ließ sich von Segrais beraten, Pascals Arbeiten wurden von den Grammatikern von Port-Royal durchgesehen, Racine wandte sich an den Pater Bouhours.” 7 My translation. The original reads: “[l]es Verbes Imperʃonnels […] ont le pronom Il […]”. 8 My translation. The original reads: “Les Pronoms Conjonctifs , eſtant au Nominatif, vont touſiours deuant les Verbes : car ils ſeruent à leurs conjugaiſons: comme; Ie viens,tu viens,il vient,nous venons,vous venez , ils viennent.”

Outlook: The general loss of non-expressed subject pronouns in Classical French � 211

discontinuous subject (Maupas 1618; cf. also section 2.1.2.4), in (ii) root declaratives with si ‘still’ in sentence-initial position (Maupas 1618; cf. also section 2.1.2.4) as well as in (iii) embedded declaratives (Maupas 1618, Serrier 1623; cf. also sections 2.1.2.4 and 4.5.3), while non-expressed expletives are essentially possible (iv) with the verbs falloir ‘must’ and sembler ‘to seem’ (Oudin 1640; cf. also section 2.1.1.4). Crucially, however, the works of those exceptionally approving of non-expressed subject pronouns all stem from the first half of the 17th century. In fact, each of these four highly restricted exceptions to the otherwise consistent expression of subject pronouns are disapproved of in grammars and critical works on language use dating from the end of the first half as well as from the second half of the 17th century. Regarding the first exception, de Vaugelas (1647:421f.) deems it “a vice”9, an adoption of the “old style”10 familiar to writers of the first quarter of the 17th century who have hereby “failed according to the very opinion of their most enthusiastic supporters”11 (cf. also de La Touche (1696) and section 2.1.2.4). As for the second exception, Chiflet (1659:38) explicitly points out that in such clauses, referentials are consistently expressed. The third exception which the poet de Deimier (1610:447;449) already considers an ‘imperfection’ encountered neither in “everyday speech”12 nor in ‘good’ poetry, is considered by Chiflet (1659:40) “antiquated language no longer in use”13 (cf. also section 2.1.2.4). And at least with regard to one of the two verbs falling under the fourth exception, falloir ‘must’, de La Touche (1696:203) insists on the consistent expression of expletive IL (cf. also Arnauld & Lancelot 1846 [1667]): “il [‘it’] always [my highlighting] serves as the nominative conjunctive personal pronoun with impersonal verbs, [as, MZ] e.g. [in, MZ] Il faut [‘one must’].”14 In light of the increasing strictness of the instruction to consistently express subject pronouns as well as of the eventual harsh disapproval of any exceptions, there is clearly no denying that “the toleration of the ellipsis [of subject pronouns, MZ] is in recession in the course of the [17th, MZ] century”15 (Fournier

�� 9 My translation. The original reads: “[…] vn vice […].” 10 My translation. The original reads: “[…] ancien ſtile […].” 11 My translation. The original reads: “[…] manqué ſelon l’auis meſme de leurs plus paſſionez partiſans.” 12 My translation. The original reads: “[…] commun langage […].” 13 My translation. The original reads: “[…] antiquailles […] plus en vſage.” 14 My translation. The original reads: “[i]l ſert toujours de Nominatif aux verbs imperſonnels. Exemples: Il faut […]”. 15 My translation. The original reads: “[…] les tolérances à l’ellipse se réduisent au cours du siècle”.

212 � Outlook: The general loss of non-expressed subject pronouns in Classical French 1998:21) in which “the norm is to express the subject, contrary to what was the case in the previous stage”16 (Marchello-Nizia 2006:50) of the language. Given the far-reaching influence of 17th century works with such instructions and disapprovals, it is hardly surprising that in literary texts from the 17th century, particularly from the second half of this century, subject pronouns are (virtually) consistently expressed. Regarding word order, more particularly the order of the subject and the finite verb in root declaratives, the general view is that in the course of its evolution, French shows a decrease in the inversion of expressed (non-pronominal) subjects and the finite verb and, conversely, an increase in SVX word order (Weil 1879, Wespy 1884, Franzén 1939, Skårup 1975, 1977, Jonare 1976, Martin 1978, Adams 1987a, b, c, Vance 1989, 1997, Roberts 1993, Marchello-Nizia 2006, Kaiser & Zimmermann 2011). Without going into detail,17 it is intriguing that “it is only in the 17th century that the modern order subject-verb really imposed itself as grammatical order”18 (Prévost 2001:10) (cf. also Orlopp 1888, Lerch 1922, 1934, Buscherbruck 1940, von Wartburg 1946, Clifford 1973, Posner 1994a, Fournier 1996, 1998, Marchello-Nizia 2006). Furthermore, in this same century, there is a “committed campaign of the grammarians against inversion”19 (Rogger 1956:272) of the subject and the finite verb which has occasionally been correlated in literature with the generalization of SVX word order (Orlopp 1888, Lerch 1922, 1934, Kuttner 1929, Vidos 1968): “Such a radical change in language use has scarcely occurred by itself in French. Rather, it is due to the influence of the grammarians who eliminated inversion or, more precisely, tried to eliminate it”20 (Lerch 1939:348). That there was indeed a ‘campaign’, to employ Rogger’s (1956:272) wording, against subject-verb-inversion may be inferred from pertinent instructions in grammars and critical works on language use from the second and last third of the 17th century from which it follows that in declara-

�� 16 My translation. The original reads: “[…] la norme […] est à l’expression du sujet, contrairement à ce qui se passait à l’époque antérieure.” 17 Cf. Roberts (1993), Rinke & Meisel (2009), and Kaiser & Zimmermann (2011) for possible approaches to this issue. 18 My translation. The original reads: “[…] ce n’est qu’au XVIIe siècle […] que l’ordre moderne sujet-verbe s’est vraiment imposé comme ordre grammatical.” 19 My translation. The original reads: “[…] bewußte Parole der Grammatiker […] g e g e n die Inversion […].” 20 My translation. The original reads: “Eine so einschneidende Umwandlung des Sprachgebrauchs ist […] im Französischen […] schwerlich von selbst eingetreten. Sie ist vielmehr dem Einfluss der Grammatiker […] zu verdanken, die die Inversion beseitigt haben oder, genauer, zu beseitigen suchten […]”.

Outlook: The general loss of non-expressed subject pronouns in Classical French � 213

tives, word orders other than SVX are generally disapproved of.21 Consider by way of illustration the subsequent instruction by Oudin (1640:200): “The general order which one has in the arrangement of complete sentences is always [my highlighting] to put the nominatives [= subjects, MZ] before their [finite, MZ] verbs.”22 That subjects precede the finite verb only ‘generally’, rather than consistently, is, according to Oudin (1640:202), due to “manners of speaking in which they [= expressed subject pronouns, MZ] are put after [= the finite verb, MZ], even though the sentences are not questions”23. As results from an examination of these ‘manners of speaking’, they all prove to be identical to the highly restricted instances of the inversion of the (expressed) subject pronoun and the finite verb in (written) Modern Standard French (cf. also Fournier 1996, 1998) which are generally considered learned vestiges. While also approving of these ‘manners of speaking’, de La Touche (1696:204) points out that root declaratives with other adverbs, particularly si ‘still’, in sentence-initial position and the finite verb in second position followed by an expressed subject pronoun “are no longer of good usage”24 (cf. also de Vaugelas 1647). This disapproval is all the more remarkable, in that it does not only show that the inversion of the expressed subject pronoun and the finite verb is generally no longer deemed appropriate, but, crucially, that it is novel. In effect, Maupas (1618) and Serrier (1623) still approve of this inversion, and this not only in the case of sentenceinitial si ‘still’, but also with other adverbs. The inversion of the expressed subject pronoun and the finite verb, then, “shows a considerable restriction in the grammatical consciousness and passes from ‘grace’ to ‘archaism’, from freedom to condemnation”25 (Fournier 1996:313).

�� 21 This general disapproval has been commonly argued to result from either a proclaimed striving for ‘logic’ / ‘clarity’ (Riese 1880, Habicht 1882, Wespy 1884, Stier 1896, Lerch 1922, 1934, Strohmeyer 1929/1930, Rogger 1956, Vidos 1968, Zink 1989) or a deliberate generalization of an already predominant word order (Buscherbruck 1940, von Wartburg 1946). From pertinent 17th century remarks such as by Maupas (1618) and Chiflet (1659) it follows that the striving for ‘logic’ / ‘clarity’ has been the actual driving force behind the ‘campaign’ for generalized SVX word order. 22 My translation. The original reads: “L’Ordre general qu’on tient en la diſpoſition des phraſes entieres, eſt de mettre touſiours les nominatifs deuant leurs verbs […].” 23 My translation. The original reads: “[…] des manieres de parler, ou ſans interrogation on les met apres […]”. 24 My translation. The original reads: “[…] ne ſont plus du bel uſage […]”. 25 My translation. The original reads: “[…] se restreint également sensiblement dans la conscience grammaticale […] et […] passe de la « grâce » à l’ « antiquaille », de la liberté à la condamnation.”

214 � Outlook: The general loss of non-expressed subject pronouns in Classical French Crucially, the ‘campaign’ against subject-verb-inversion as reflected by the instruction to generally adhere to SVX word order has borne fruit among 17th century writers, as the results from analyzing the established data corpus regarding the pre- and postverbal positioning of expressed (non-)pronominal subjects in root declaratives in Figure (2) show (cf. also Fournier 1998).

100% 137/140

70/71

90%

164/168

210/223

111/115

91/103 80%

75/90

138/158 393/459

48/59

109/135

410/419 122/124

51/62

70%

421/423

103/105

148/154

186/247 108/154

60% 225/362 50%

204/366

67/107 120/193 142/274

40%

134/280 87/212

30% 20% 10% 0%

non-pronominal subjects

pronominal subjects

Fig. (2): Frequency of non-pronominal and pronominal subjects in preverbal position in root declaratives

While being a characteristic trait of the Old and Middle French texts, subjectverb-inversion in root declaratives, particularly of a non-pronominal subject and the finite verb, is virtually absent in the Classical French texts. As noted above, it is assumed that the two instructions just expounded on, namely the consistent expression of subject pronouns and the general adherence to SVX word order, which in the second half of the 17th century appear to be strictly observed by writers, interact in such a way that the movement of the finite verb to the left periphery is all of a sudden no longer generally available. Under the approach put forward in chapter 4, this movement has been argued to follow from the (left-peripheral) focalization of either some phrasal nonsubject constituent or the finite verb as well as from the (left-peripheral) topicalization of the finite verb. Furthermore, this movement has been claimed to pave

Outlook: The general loss of non-expressed subject pronouns in Classical French � 215

the way for the possibility of the non-expression of subject pronouns which in all other contexts must be expressed. Now, the possibility of non-expressed subject pronouns in the contexts of focalization and topicalization is directly affected by the observance of the instruction that subject pronouns be consistently expressed. Specifically, whenever the finite verb moves to the left-peripheral Foc° and Top° positions and hereby fulfills the specific structural conditions on subject pro in SpecIP, subject pronouns must henceforth be consistently expressed, rather than nonexpressed, as has generally been the case in Old and Middle French. Given the assumption that in contexts other than (left-peripheral) focalization and (leftperipheral) topicalization, subject pronouns are necessarily expressed in these stages of French as well as the crucial finding that referentials are frequently expressed and expletives non-marginally so (cf. Figures (1), (2), and (3) in section 4.1), it appears that the observance of the instruction that subject pronouns be consistently expressed does not pose difficulties to contemporaries and has therefore been readily adopted. Independent evidence for the plausibility of this view comes from the finding that suddenly, non-expressed subject pronouns have become extremely scarce in the first half of the 17th century and are completely absent in the second half (cf. Figure (1) above). Under the approach presently put forward, then, the general expression of subject pronouns from the second half of the 17th century onward does not follow from any loss in feature strength in the wake of which AGR would no longer be capable of identifying subject pro, but rather from an extralinguistic guideline which is evidently readily observed. Yet, if it were only for this instruction, the finite verb would still move, if need be, to the left periphery.26 Crucially, however, subject-verb-inversion would necessarily ensue from this movement, and it is in this connection that the instruction to generally adhere to SVX word order comes into play. Given the finding that expressed non-pronominal subjects and expressed subject pronouns are in general predominantly and highly frequently, respectively, preverbal in Old and Middle French (cf. Figure (2) above), it seems that the observance of this instruction has likewise not posed difficulties to contemporaries who evidently have readily adopted it. Direct evidence for the plausibility of such a view comes from the finding that in Classical French, subjects, both non-

�� 26 Note, however, that with regard to the kind of coordination of root declaratives discussed in section 4.5.2.1 in which non-expressed subject pronouns are of a different nature, the instruction to consistently express subject pronouns seems to be sufficient to preclude their continued existence, at least as far as the 17th century is concerned.

216 � Outlook: The general loss of non-expressed subject pronouns in Classical French pronominal and pronominal, virtually consistently precede the finite verb (cf. again Figure (2) above). Having thus established that the two instructions under discussion are evidently strictly observed by 17th century writers, their interaction will now be looked into. When the finite verb moves to the left-peripheral Foc° and Top° positions, the instruction to consistently express subject pronouns evidently clashes with the one to generally adhere to SVX word order, since while in accordance with the former instruction, the inversion of the expressed subject and the finite verb evidently violates the latter. Note that this clash cannot be helped, since this would necessarily entail that the expressed subject moves to FocP or some TopP in the left-periphery. Given the assumptions pertaining to sentence structure of Old and Middle French (cf. section 4.3) as well as the issue of expletive subject pronouns (cf. section 4.4.2), such movement is yet excluded. Specifically, movement of the expressed subject to some left-peripheral SpecTopP position is excluded under the approach put forward in chapter 4, since it is assumed that (phrasal) topics are directly merged into the specifier position of some TopP in the left periphery; moreover, even under the assumption that (phrasal) topics are moved to, rather than directly merged into, some leftperipheral SpecTopP position, such movement of the expressed subject raises serious problems when it comes to subjects which are not necessarily topics, in particular expletives. Given that subjects are not necessarily focus elements either and that when present, a focalized non-subject constituent or a null focus operator necessarily moves to and is merged into, respectively, the leftperipheral SpecFocP position, movement of the expressed subject to this position is likewise excluded. In light of the inevitable clash of the two instructions under discussion as well as of the evidently strict observance of these instructions, it seems to be a natural step to assume that 17th century writers – and, in their wake, increasingly also speakers – resort to alternative strategies of focalization and topicalization which do not involve the movement of the finite verb to the left periphery. Regarding alternative strategies of focalization of either some phrasal nonsubject constituent or the finite verb, writers as well as speakers may, as noted earlier on, resort to cleft and dislocation constructions which in fact show an increase in frequency in the 17th century (Pagani-Naudet 2005, Dufter 2008a). In addition, writers as well as speakers may resort to a novel strategy, generally assumed to have become established in the 17th century, namely the placement of some focalized element in sentence-final position (de Boer 1926, Strohmeyer 1929/1930, 1949, Engwer 1933, Ettmayer 1936, Regula 1970, Rothenberg 1987, Heldner 1989, Posner 1994b). It thus appears that in the 17th century, the general

Outlook: The general loss of non-expressed subject pronouns in Classical French � 217

expression of (non-)pronominal subjects in (directly) preverbal position is concomitant with an increase in extant and an establishment of novel alternative strategies of focalization. Evidently, the selection of the kind of alternative strategy of focalization is dependent on the individual style of the writer / speaker. As for the topicalization of the finite verb, writers as well as speakers may resort to an alternative strategy which is well established in the language and on which they have often fallen back in the history of French, namely the use of a verbum vicarium, more precisely faire ‘to make’, which is arguably capable of indicating the topicalization of the finite verb without necessarily moving to the left-peripheral Top° position. Given that the two instructions under discussion may be readily observed by contemporaries and given that these instructions are, as reflected by the literary reality, indeed strictly observed by writers, the written linguistic reality in the 17th century is one in which, albeit somewhat artificially, subject pronouns are suddenly consistently expressed and the finite verb no longer moves to the left-peripheral Foc° and Top° positions when either some phrasal nonsubject constituent or the finite verb itself is focalized as well as when the finite verb is topicalized. From the observation that these extralinguistic guidelines have evidently become part of the grammar of French it will be concluded that they have also come to be observed in the spoken language, most probably by the (Parisian) elites, and have eventually diffused downward.27 When exclusively confronted with speakers consistently expressing subject pronouns and resorting to strategies of focalization and topicalization other than those involving the movement of the finite verb to the left periphery, i.e. in the absence of positive evidence, acquirers of French are prevented from acquiring the specific structural conditions on subject pro in SpecIP and the Focus Criterion as part of their grammar which are thus eventually lost for good. For such acquirers, who initially most probably stem from elites and who with the diffusion of the two guidelines under discussion increase in number, consistently express subject pronouns and resort to alternative strategies of focalization and topicalization not for extralinguistic, but rather for intralinguistic reasons. Under the approach presently put forward, then, the general expression of subject pronouns in literary texts from the second half of the 17th century reflects the beginning of linguistic change. In light of the possibility of non-expressed subject pronouns in certain written registers of Modern French such as diaries and text messages (cf. Haegeman 1990a, b, 1997, 2000, 2007, 2013, Stark 2013), �� 27 Cf. Lodge (2004) for extensive discussion of the spread of standardizing influences in Paris.

218 � Outlook: The general loss of non-expressed subject pronouns in Classical French one might yet be led to argue that this general expression of subject pronouns merely mirrors the establishment of a literary norm.28 Note that if this were indeed the case, one would naturally expect the non-expression of subject pronouns in these registers and in pre-17th century literary texts to be of the same nature. This expectation, however, seems not to be borne out by the facts. As noted in footnote 38 in section 2.2.2, in the registers under discussion, subject pronouns are consistently expressed in embedded clauses (Haegeman 1990a, b, 1997, 2000, 2007, 2013, Stark 2013). Intriguingly, this seems also to be the case for diaries from the 17th century, as witnessed by Parisian Marguertie Mercier’s diary-like Livre de raison (1650‒1661) (Ernst & Wolf 2005) in which unlike in root clauses (almost 4% of non-expressed subject pronouns (6 out of 158 cases)), the expression of subject pronouns is consistent in embedded clauses (117 out of 117 cases). These findings are in stark contrast to what has generally been observed for pre-17th century literary texts in which in embedded clauses, non-expressed subject pronouns are, albeit rather seldom, encountered. Moreover, according to Haegeman (1990a, b, 1997, 2000, 2007, 2013) who convincingly argues against a pro drop analysis in diaries, non-expressed subject pronouns are also excluded in certain kinds of root clauses such as declaratives with a fronted argument (cf. (3a)) as well as wh- and yes/no-interrogatives (featuring subjectverb-inversion) (cf. (3b-c)). (3) a.

Ton

livre, *( elle) pourra

your book

she

(l’) acheter.

will.be.able it to.buy

(adapted from Haegeman 2000:140)29 ‘Your book, she will be able to buy’ b. Quand reviendra-t- *( elle) à Paris ? (Haegeman 2000:140) when

c.

will.return she

to Paris

‘When will she return to Paris?’ Reviendra-t-* (elle) à Paris ? (Haegeman 2000:140) will.return she

to Paris

‘Will she return to Paris?’ This is again in stark contrast to what has generally been observed for pre-17th century literary texts, since such root clauses essentially imply subject-verb�� 28 This issue was raised by an anonymous reviewer. 29 In the examples in (3) and (4), sentence elements are highlighted according to the following conventions: bold = expressed subject pronoun; italic = finite verb; underlined = constituents preceding the finite verb; dotted line = elements preceding the finite verb, but left out of consideration in the calculus (cf. footnote 1 in section 3.1.1).

Outlook: The general loss of non-expressed subject pronouns in Classical French � 219

inversion and thus represent the prototypical contexts for the non-expression of subject pronouns in the medieval stages of French (cf. section 4.3), as witnessed by the examples in (4a-c). (4) a.

É

pres

tut le

realme

li

toldréit

fors

and almost all the kingdom him would.tear.away except.for

un lignage … (livre reis, p.138) one tribe

‘And he would tear away almost the whole kingdom, with the exception of one tribe …’ b. ‘ Purquei requires que jó li duinse Abiság de Sunám? why

c.

ask

that I

him give

Abishag of Shunem

(livre reis, p.114) ‘Why do you ask me to give him Abishag the Shunammite?’ ‘ As l’ oḯd?’, … (livre reis, p.169) have it heard

‘‘Did you hear this?’, …’ As it stands, then, the non-expression of subject pronouns in certain written registers such as diaries and text messages is different in nature from the one in pre-17th century literary texts and arguably follows from the fulfillment of conditions other than those established in chapter 4 (cf. Haegeman 1990a, b, 1997, 2000, 2007, 2013 for possible analyses). It thus appears that the general expression of subject pronouns in literary texts from the second half of the 17th century is not merely the reflection of the establishment of a literary norm, but rather represents the beginning of linguistic change. To summarize, in the wake of the interaction of two instructions campaigned for in highly influential works of 17th century grammarians and critics of language use, namely the consistent expression of subject pronouns and the general adherence to SVX word order, the movement of the finite verb to the left periphery in the contexts of (left-peripheral) focalization and topicalization has been initially abandoned by 17th century writers and, eventually, also by an increasing number of (adult) speakers. This state of affairs has in turn gradually prevented acquirers of French from acquiring the specific structural conditions on non-expressed subject pronouns as well as the Focus Criterion which have, in the long run, thus been lost for good.

References Adams, Marianne. 1987a. From Old French to the theory of pro-drop. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 5. 1‒32. Adams, Marianne. 1987b. Parametric change: Empty subjects in Old French. In David Birdsong & Jean-Pierre Montreuil (eds.), Advances in Romance linguistics (Publications in Language Sciences 28), 1‒16. Dordrecht: Foris. Adams, Marianne. 1987c. Old French, null subjects, and verb second phenomena. Los Angeles, CA: PhD dissertation. Adams, Marianne. 1988a. Les effets V2 en ancien et en moyen français. Revue Québécoise de Linguistique Théorique et Appliquée 7(3). 13‒39. Adams, Marianne. 1988b. Embedded “pro”. Proceedings of NELS (North East Linguistic Society) 18. 1‒21. Adams, Marianne. 1989. Verb second effects in Medieval French. In Carl Kirschner & Janet DeCesaris (eds.), Studies in Romance linguistics. Selected papers from the 17th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages (LSRL) (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 60), 1‒31. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Argod-Dutard, Françoise. 2002. L’écriture de Joachim du Bellay. Le discours poétique dans Les Regrets. L’orthographe et la syntaxe dans les lettres de l’auteur (Cahiers d’Humanisme et Renaissance 62). Geneva: Droz. Ariel, Mira. 1990. Accessing noun-phrase antecedents (Croom Helm Linguistics Series). London / New York: Routledge. Arnauld, Antoine & Claude Lancelot. 1846[1667]. Grammaire générale et raisonnée de Port Royal avec une introduction historique par M. A. Bailly. Paris: Hachette. Arteaga, Deborah. 1994. Impersonal constructions in Old French. In Michael Mazzola (ed.), Issues and theory in Romance linguistics. Selected papers from the Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages XXIII (LSRL), 141‒156. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press. Arteaga, Deborah & Julia Herschensohn. 2004. Case, agreement, and expletives. A parametric difference in Old French and Modern French. In Julie Auger, Joseph Clancy Clements & Barbara Vance (eds.), Contemporary approaches to Romance linguistic. Selected papers from the 33rd Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages (LSRL) (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 258), 1‒15. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: Benjamins. Arteaga, Deborah & Julia Herschensohn. 2006. Il était une fois. Diachronic development of expletives, case, and agreement from Latin to Modern French. In Randall Gess & Deborah Arteaga (eds.), Historical Romance linguistics. Retrospective and perspectives (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 274), 269‒286. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: Benjamins. Asbeck, Karl Wilhelm. 1935. Das unpersönliche Medium im Französischen. Berliner Beiträge zur Romanischen Philologie 5(2). 1‒51. Attal, Pierre. 1986. L’omission de l’article et du pronom personnel après et dans les Essais. L’Information Grammaticale 28. 18‒19. Axel, Katrin. 2009. The consolidation of verb-second in Old High German: What role did subject pronouns play? In Paola Crisma & Giuseppe Longobardi (eds.), Historical syntax and linguistic theory, 128‒143. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bachmann, Alfred. 1914. Die Sprache des François de La Noue. Borna-Leipzig: Noske.

References � 221

Bakker, Cecile de. 1995. Synchronic and diachronic variation in the French il-construction. Linguistics in the Netherlands 12. 1‒12. Bakker, Cecile de. 1997. Germanic and Romance inversion in French. A diachronic study. (HIL Dissertations 31). The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics. Barme, Stefan. 2001. Der Subjektausdruck beim Verb in phonisch-nähesprachlichen Varietäten des europäischen Portugiesisch und Brasilianischen (= FASK Publikationen des Fachbereichs Angewandte Sprach- und Kulturwissenschaft der Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz in Germersheim, Reihe A: Abhandlungen und Sammelbände 28). Frankfurt/M.: Lang. Bartels, William. 1886. Die Wortstellung in den “Quatre Livres des Rois”. Hanover: Höltje. Bauer, Brigitte L. M. 1995. The emergence and development of SVO patterning in Latin and French. Diachronic and psycholinguistic perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bauer, Fritz. 1899. Personalpronomen in Le pèlerinage de la vie humaine von Guillaume de Deguileville. Würzburg: Stürtz. Becker, Martin G. 2005. Le Corpus d’Amsterdam face à une vieille question: L’ancien français est-il une langue V2? In Claus D. Pusch, Johannes Kabatek & Wolfgang Raible (eds.), Romanistische Korpuslinguistik II / Romance corpus linguistics II. Korpora und diachrone Sprachwissenschaft / Corpora and diachronic linguistics (Scriptoralia 130), 345‒358. Tübingen: Narr. Béguelin, Marie-José. 2000. Des clauses impersonnelles aux constituants phrastiques: Quelques axes de grammaticalisation. In Patrick Seriot & Alain Berrendonner (eds.), Le paradoxe du sujet. Les propositions impersonnelles dans les langues slaves et romanes (Cahiers de l’ILSL 12), 25‒41. Lausanne: Publications Universitaires Romandes. Belletti, Adriana. 1999. Italian/Romance clitics: Structure and derivation. In Henk van Riemsdijk (ed.), Clitics in the languages of Europe (Empirical Approaches to Language Typology 20-5), 543‒579. Berlin / New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Benincà, Paola. 2006. A detailed map of the left periphery of Medieval Romance. In Raffaella Zanuttini, Héctor Campos, Elena Herburger & Paul H. Portner (eds.), Negation, tense and clausal architecture (Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics), 53‒86. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press. Benincà, Paola & Cecilia Poletto. 2004. Topic, Focus and V2: Defining the CP sublayers. In Luigi Rizzi (ed.), The structure of CP and IP. The cartography of syntactic structures, Vol. 2 (Oxford Studies in Comparative Syntax), 52‒76. New York: Oxford University Press. Benoist, Antoine. 1877. De la syntaxe française entre Palsgrave et Vaugelas. Paris: Thorin. Berschin, Helmut, Josef Felixberger & Hans Goebl. 2008. Französische Sprachgeschichte. Hildesheim: Olms, 2nd edn. Boer, Cornelis de. 1926. L’évolution des formes de l’interrogation en français. Romania 52. 307‒327. Boer, Cornelis de. 1954. Syntaxe du français moderne. Leiden: Universitaire Pers Leiden, 2nd edn. Borelius, Hilma. 1902. Étude sur l’emploi des pronoms personnels sujets en ancien français. Från Filologiska Föreningen i Lund 2. 3‒20. Bosquet, Jean. 1586. Elemens ou institutions de la langue françoise. Mons: Michel. Bourciez, Édouard. 1967. Éléments de linguistique romane. Paris: Klincksieck, 5th edn. Brody, Michael. 1990. Some remarks on the focus in Hungarian. UCL Working Papers 2. 201‒225.

222 � References Brugmann, Karl. 1917. Der Ursprung des Scheinsubjektes ‘es’ in den germanischen und den romanischen Sprachen (Berichte über die Verhandlungen der Königl. Sächsischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Leipzig: Philologisch-historische Klasse 69(5)). Leipzig: Teubner. Brunot, Ferdinand. 1891. La doctrine de Malherbe d’après son commentaire sur Desportes avec 5 planches hors texte. Paris: Masson. Brunot, Ferdinand. 1936. La pensée et la langue. Méthode, principes et plan d’une théorie nouvelle du langage appliquée au français. Paris: Masson, 3rd edn. Brunot, Ferdinand & Charles Bruneau. 1969. Précis de grammaire historique de la langue française. Paris: Masson, 3rd edn. Büchsenschütz, Carl. 1907. Die Setzung des Personalpronomens als Subjekt in der altfranzösischen Übersetzung des Wilhelm von Tyrus. Halle/S.: Kaemmerer. Büchtemann, Albert. 1912. Neutrales il im Altfranzösischen. Halle/S.: s.n. Buridant, Claude. 1987. L’ancien français à la lumière de la typologie des langues. Les résidus de l’ordre OV en ancien français et leur effacement en moyen français. Romania 108. 20‒65. Buridant, Claude. 2007. Grammaire nouvelle de l’ancien français. Paris: Sedes. Buscherbruck, Karl. 1940. Die Entwicklung der französischen Wortstellung. GermanischRomanische Monatsschrift 28. 131‒145. Cardinaletti, Anna & Ian Roberts. 2002. Clause structure and X-second. In Guglielmo Cinque (ed.), Functional structure in DP and IP. Volume 1: The cartography of syntactic structures (Oxford Studies in Comparative Syntax), 123‒166. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Cauchie (Caucius), Antoine. 1586. Grammaticae gallicae libri tres. Strasbourg: Iobinus. Cerquiglini, Bernard. 1983. Für ein neues Paradigma der historischen Linguistik: Am Beispiel des Altfranzösischen. In Bernard Cerquiglini & Hans Ulrich Gumbrecht (eds.), Der Diskurs der Literatur- und Sprachhistorie. Wissenschaftsgeschichte als Innovationsvorgabe, 449‒463. Frankfurt/M.: Suhrkamp. Cerquiglini, Bernard. 1993. La naissance du français. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 2nd edn. Chiflet, Laurent. 1659. Essay d’une parfaite grammaire de la langue françoise. Anvers: van Meurs. Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris. Chomsky, Noam. 1982. Lectures on government and binding. The Pisa lectures (Studies in Generative Grammar 9). Dordrecht: Foris, 2nd edn. Chomsky, Noam. 1986. Barriers (Linguistic Inquiry Monographs 13). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Chomsky, Noam. 1991. Some notes on economy of derivation and representation. In Robert Freidin (ed.), Principles and parameters in comparative grammar (Current Studies in Linguistics 20), 417‒454. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Chomsky, Noam. 1993. A minimalist program for linguistic theory. In Kenneth Hale & Samuel J. Keyser (eds.), The view from Building 20. Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger (Current Studies in Linguistics 24), 1‒52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The minimalist program (Current Studies in Linguistics 28). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Chomsky, Noam & Howard Lasnik. 1993. The theory of principles and parameters. In Joachim Jacobs, Arnim von Stechow, Wolfgang Sternefeld & Theo Vennemann (eds.), Syntax: An international handbook of contemporary research, vol. 1, 506‒569. Berlin: De Gruyter. Clédat, Léon. 1928. L’inversion du sujet. Revue de Philologie Française 40. 81‒99.

References � 223

Clifford, Paula M. 1973. Inversion of the subject in French narrative prose from 1500 to the present day (Publications of the Philological Society 24). Oxford: Blackwell. Côté, Marie-Hélène. 1995. Concurrence structurale, conditions d’appréhensibilité et changement syntaxique: La chute de la structure V2 en français. Canadian Journal of Linguistics / Revue Canadienne de Linguistique 40. 165‒200. Damourette, Jacques & Edouard Pichon. 1934. L’ostension. Les unipersonnels. In Jacques Damourette & Edouard Pichon (eds.), Des mots à la pensée 4: Essai de grammaire de la langue française, 463‒542. Paris: Artrey. Darmesteter, Arsène. 1897a. Cours de grammaire historique de la langue française. Deuxième partie: Morphologie. Paris: Delagrave. Darmesteter, Arsène. 1897b. Cours de grammaire historique de la langue française. Quatrième partie: Syntaxe. Paris: Delagrave. Dees, Anthonij. 1980. Variations temporelles et spatiales de l’ordre des mots en ancien et en moyen français. In Marc Wilmet (ed.), Sémantique lexicale et sémantique grammaticale en Moyen Français. Colloque organisé par le Centre d’Etudes Linguistiques et Littéraires de la Vrije Universiteit Brussel, 293‒303. Brussels: VUB. Dees, Anthonij. 1982. Nouvelles études sur l’ordre des mots en ancien français. In Quirinus I. M. Mok (ed.), Mélanges de linguistique, de littérature et de philologie médiévales offerts à J. R. Smeets, 73‒85. Leiden: s.n. Deimier, Pierre de. 1610. L’académie de l’art poétique. Paris: Bordeaulx. Delbouille, Maurice. 1970. Comment naquit la langue française? In s.n. Phonétique et linguistique romanes. Mélanges offerts à M. Georges Straka, vol. 1, 187‒199. Lyon / Strasbourg: Société de Linguistique Romane. Detges, Ulrich. 2003. Du sujet parlant au sujet grammatical. L’obligatorisation des pronoms sujets en ancien français dans une perspective pragmatique et comparative. Verbum 25(3). 307‒333. Dill, Willi. 1935. Die Wortstellung in den Cent Nouvelles Nouvelles. Bochum-Langendreer: Pöppinghaus. Duarte, Maria E. L. 1993. Do pronome nulo ao pronome pleno: A trajetória do sujeito no português do Brasil. In Ian Roberts & Mary A. Kato (eds.), Português brasileiro: Uma viagem diacrônica. Homenagem a Fernando Tarallo, 107‒128. Campinas: Editora da Unicamp. Duarte, Maria E. L. 2000. The loss of the ‘avoid pronoun’ principle in Brazilian Portuguese. In Mary A. Kato & Esmeraldo V. Negrão (eds.), Brazilian portuguese and the null subject parameter (Editionen der Iberoamericana 4), 17‒36. Frankfurt/M.: Vervuert. Dufresne, Monique & Fernande Dupuis. 2007. Expletives, number and language change. In José Camacho, Nydia Flores-Ferrán, Liliana Sánchez, Viviane Déprez & María José Cabrera (eds.), Romance Linguistics 2006. Selected papers from the 36th Linguistics Symposium on Romance Languages (LSRL) (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 287), 111‒125. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Dufter, Andreas. 2008a. On explaining the rise of c'est-clefts in French. In Ulrich Detges & Richard Waltereit (eds.), The paradox of grammatical change. Perspectives from Romance (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 293), 31‒56. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: Benjamins. Dufter, Andreas. 2008b. Subjektausdruck und Subordination bei Villehardouin. In Elisabeth Stark, Roland Schmidt-Riese & Eva Stoll (eds.), Romanische Syntax im Wandel, 285‒303. Tübingen: Narr.

224 � References Dufter, Andreas. 2009. Clefting and discourse organization. Comparing Germanic and Romance. In Andreas Dufter & Daniel Jacob (eds.), Focus and background in Romance languages (Studies in Language Companion Series 112), 83‒122. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: Benjamins. Dupuis, Fernande. 1988. Pro-drop dans les subordonnées en ancien français. Revue Québecoise de Linguistique Théorique et Appliquée 7(3). 41‒62. Dupuis, Fernande, Monique Lemieux & Daniel Gosselin. 1992. Conséquences de la sousspécification des traits de Agr dans l’identification de Pro. Language Variation and Change 3(3). 275‒299. Du Vivier (de Vivre), Gérard. 1566. Grammaire françoise. Cologne: Maternum Colinum. Eder, Hugo. 1889. Syntaktische Studien zu Alain Chartiers Prosa. Würzburg: Hertz. Ellinger, Johann. 1886. Syntax der Pronomina bei Chrestien de Troies. In Wilhelm Kukula (ed.), Fünfzehnter Jahresbericht über die K. K. Oberrealschule, in dem II. Bezirke von Wien. 3‒35. Wien: Verlag der K. K. Oberrealschule im II. Bezirke. Elsig, Martin & Esther Rinke. 2007. Les adverbes et l’inversion en ancien français. Le Nouveau Corpus d’Amsterdam soumis à l’analyse linguistique. In Pierre Kunstmann & Achim Stein (eds.), Le Nouveau Corpus d’Amsterdam. Actes de l’atelier de Lauterbad (Zeitschrift für französische Sprache und Literatur Beiheft 34), 159‒180. Stuttgart: Steiner. Engwer, Theodor. 1933. Umstellung und Endstellung des grammatischen Subjekts. Wie Sprachregeln entstehen. Zeitschrift für Französische Sprache und Literatur 57. 163‒186. Eringa, Sjoerd. 1943. Syntaxe française. Groningen: Wolters. Gerhard Ernst & Barbara Wolf. 2005. Textes français privés des XVIIe et XVIIIe siècles Teil 1‒3. CD-Rom. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Estienne, Henri. 1582. Hypomneses de gallica lingua. Geneva: Mitalier. Estienne, Robert. 1557. Traicté de la grāmaire Francoiſe. Paris: Estienne. Ettmayer, Karl. 1936. Analytische Syntax der französischen Sprache. Mit besonderer Berücksichtigung des Altfranzösischen. II. Band. Halle/S.: Niemeyer. Faarlund, Jan T. 1990. Syntactic change. Toward a theory of historical syntax (Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs 50). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Falk, Paul. 1969. Particularisme des propositions impersonnelles en ancien français. Studia Neophilologica 41. 235‒252. Ferraresi, Gisella & Maria Goldbach. 2002. V2 syntax and topicalisation in Old French. Linguistische Berichte 189. 3‒25. Figge, Udo. 1970. Le ‘pronom indéfini’ on et le ‘pronom impersonnel’ il. Actele celui de-al XIIlea Congres International de Lingvistică şi Filologie Romanică. 547‒555. Figueiredo Silva, Maria C. 2000. Main and embedded null subjects in Brazilian Portuguese. In Mary A. Kato & Esmeralda V. Negrão (eds.), Brazilian Portuguese and the Null Subject Parameter (Editionen der Iberoamericana 4), 127‒146. Frankfurt/M.: Vervuert. Fischer, Susann. 2009. Expletives, definiteness and word-order in Romance: Accounting for the differences between Spanish/Catalan and French. In María Teresa Espinal, Manuel Leonetti & Louise McNally (eds.), Proceedings of the IV Nereus International Workshop “Definiteness and DP Structure in Romance Languages” (Arbeitspapier 124), 45‒62. Konstanz: Fachbereich Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Konstanz. Fischer, Susann. 2010. Word-order change as a source of grammaticalisation (Linguistik Aktuell / Linguistics Today 157). Amsterdam: Benjamins. Fleischman, Suzanne. 1991. Discourse pragmatics and the grammar of Old French: A functional reinterpretation of si and the personal pronouns. Romance Philology 44(3). 251‒283.

References � 225

Fleischman, Suzanne. 1992. Discourse and diachrony: The rise and fall of Old French SI. In Marinel Gerritsen & Dieter Stein (eds.), Internal and external factors in syntactic change (Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs 61), 433‒473. Berlin / New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Foulet, Lucien. 1924. L’accent tonique et l’ordre des mots. Formes faibles du pronom personnel après le verbe. Romania 50. 54‒93. Foulet, Lucien. 1928. Petite syntaxe de l’ancien français (Les classiques français du moyen âge). Paris: Champion, 3rd edn. Foulet, Lucien. 1935. L’extension de la forme oblique du pronom personnel en ancien français. Romania 61. 257‒315. 401‒463. Foulet, Lucien. 1936. L’extension de la forme oblique du pronom personnel en ancien français. Romania 62. 27‒91. Fournier, Nathalie. 1996. Style et syntaxe: L’exemple de la place du sujet dans la phrase classique. Littératures Classiques 28. 311‒341. Fournier, Nathalie. 1997. La place du sujet nominal dans les phrases à complément prépositionnel initial. In Catherine Fuchs (ed.), La place du sujet en français contemporain (Champs linguistiques), 97‒132. Louvain-la-Neuve: Duculot. Fournier, Nathalie. 1998. Grammaire du français classique. Paris: Belin. Fragonard, Marie-Madeleine & Éliane Kotler. 1994. Introduction à la langue du XVIe siècle. Paris: Nathan. Franzén, Torsten. 1939. Étude sur la syntaxe des pronoms personnels sujets en ancien français. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell. Friedemann, Marc-Ariel. 1997a. Inversion stylistique et position de base du sujet. Canadian Journal of Linguistics / Revue Canadienne de Linguistique 42. 379‒413. Friedemann, Marc-Ariel. 1997b. Sujets syntaxiques. Positions, inversions et pro (Linguistique 182). Berne: Lang. Fuchs, Catherine. 1997. La place du sujet nominal dans les relatives. In Catherine Fuchs (ed.), La place du sujet en français contemporain (Champs linguistiques), 135‒178. Louvain-laNeuve: Duculot. Galichet, Georges. 1973. Grammaire structurale du français moderne. Montreal: Hurtubise H.M.H., 5th edn. Gamillscheg, Ernst. 1957. Historische französische Syntax. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Garnier, Jean. 1558. Institutio Gallicae linguae. Geneva: Crispinvs. Gebhardt, Christoph. 1896. Zur subjektlosen Konstruktion im Altfranzösischen. Zeitschrift für Romanische Philologie 20. 27‒50. Georgin, René. 1952. Guide de langue française. Paris: Bonne, new edn. Givón, Talmy. 1983. Topic continuity in discourse: An introduction. In Talmy Givón (ed.), Topic continuity in discourse: A quantitative cross-language study (Typological Studies in Language 3), 1‒42. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: Benjamins. Gorges, Konrad. 1882. Ueber Stil und Ausdruck einiger altfranzösischen [sic] Prosaübersetzungen. Halle/S.: Karras. Gorzond, Ira. 1984. Die Linguistik der unpersönlichen Ausdrücke unter besonderer Berücksichtigung des Französischen (Tübinger Beiträge zur Linguistik 241). Tübingen: Narr. Gougenheim, Georges. 1969. Système grammatical de la langue française. Paris: d’Artrey, new edn. Greving, Bernhard. 1903. Studien über die Nebensätze bei Villehardouin. Ein Beitrag zur historischen Syntax der französischen Sprache. Kiel: Vollbehr & Riepen.

226 � References Grevisse, Maurice & André Goosse. 2011. Le bon usage. Grammaire française. Bruxelles: De Boeck & Duculot, 15th edn. Grimm, Jacob & Wilhelm Grimm. 1862. Deutsches Wörterbuch, dritter Band. Leipzig: Hirzel. Gröber, Gustav. 1880. Recension von: A. Horning “Le pronom neutre il en langue d’oil, son origine, son extension”. Zeitschrift für Romanische Philologie 4. 463. Haas, Joseph. 1909. Neufranzösische Syntax (Sammlung kurzer Lehrbücher der romanischen Sprachen und Literaturen 4). Halle/S.: Niemeyer. Haase, Alfred. 1888. Französische Syntax des XVII. Jahrhunderts. Jena: Gronau. Haase, Alfred. 1889. Ergänzende Bemerkungen zur Syntax des XVII. Jahrhunderts. Zeitschrift für Neufranzösische Sprache und Literatur 11. 203‒237. Habicht, Friedrich. 1882. Beiträge zur Begründung der Stellung von Subjekt und Prädikat im Neufranzösischen. Apolda: Birkner. Haegeman, Liliane. 1990a. Non-overt subjects in diary contexts. In Joan Mascaró & Marina Nespor (eds.), Grammar in progress. Glow essays for Henk van Riemsdijk (Studies in Generative Grammar), 167‒174. Dordrecht: Foris. Haegeman, Liliane. 1990b. Understood subjects in English diaries. On the relevance of theoretical syntax for the study of register variation. Multilingua 9(2), 157‒199. Haegeman, Liliane. 1997. Register variation, truncation, and subject omission in English and in French. English Language and Linguistics 1, 233‒270. Haegeman, Liliane. 2000. Adult null subjects in non pro-drop languages. In Marc-Ariel Friedemann & Luigi Rizzi (eds.), The acquisition of syntax: Studies in comparative developmental linguistics, 129‒169. Harlow: Longman. Haegeman, Liliane. 2007. Subject omission in present-day written English. On the theoretical relevance of peripheral data. Rivista di Grammatica Generativa 32, 91‒124. Haegeman, Liliane. 2013. The syntax of registers: Diary subject omission and the privilege of the root. Lingua 130, 88‒110. Haider, Hubert. 2001. Parametrisierung in der generativen Grammatik. In Martin Haspelmath, Ekkehard König, Wulf Oesterreicher & Wolfgang Raible (eds.), Language typology and language universals. An international handbook, volume 1 (Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft 20), 283‒293. Berlin: De Gruyter. Haider, Hubert. 2010. The syntax of German (Cambridge Syntax Guides). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Haiman, John. 1974. Targets and syntactic change (Ianua Linguarum / Series Minor 186). The Hague: Mouton. Hall, Robert A., Jr. 1979. Subjectless verbs and the primacy of the predicate in Romance and Latin. Studies in diachronic, synchronic and typological linguistics 1. 317‒323. Harris, Martin. 1978. The evolution of French syntax. A comparative approach (Longman Linguistics Library 22). London: Longman. Harris, Martin. 1985. Word order in contemporary French: A functional view (Working papers in functional grammar 1). Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam. Heldner, Christina. 1989. Review article: Le sujet grammatical dans la construction impersonnelle. Quelques réflexions à propos de la thèse de Hugo Olsson. Studia Neophilologica 61(1). 89‒115. Heriau, Michel. 1980. Le verbe impersonnel en français moderne. Paris: Champion. Herman, Jószef. 1954. Recherches sur l’ordre des mots dans les plus anciens textes français en prose. Acta Linguistica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 4. 69‒94. 351‒382.

References � 227

Hilgers, Hedwig. 1910. Die Wortstellung in Samson von Nantuils altfranzösischer Bearbeitung der Proverbia Salomonis. Halle/S.: Hohmann. Hilmer, Heinrich C. 1873. Étude sur le pronom personnel français. Oldenburg: Stalling. Hilty, Gerold. 1959. “Il” impersonnel. Syntaxe historique et interprétation littéraire. Le Français Moderne 4. 241‒251. Hilty, Gerold. 1968. La Séquence de Sainte Eulalie et les origines de la langue littéraire française. Vox Romanica 27. 4‒18. Hilty, Gerold. 1973. Les origines de la langue littéraire française. Vox Romanica 32. 254‒271. Holfeld, Hermann. 1875. Über die Sprache des François de Malherbe. Posen: Decker. Horning, Adolf. 1880. Le pronom neutre il en langue d’oïl. Son origine, son extension. Romanische Studien 4(2), 229‒272. Huchon, Mireille. 1988. Le français de la renaissance (Que sais-je? 2389). Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 2nd edn. Hulk, Aafke. 1993. Residual verb-second and the licensing of functional features. Probus 5. 127‒154. Hulk, Aafke & Ans van Kemenade. 1993. Introduction. Lingua 89(3-4). 109‒115. Hulk, Aafke & Ans van Kemenade. 1995. Verb second, pro-drop, functional projections and language change. In Adrian Battye & Ian Robert (eds.), Clause structure and language change (Oxford Studies in Comparative Language), 227‒256. New York: Oxford University Press. Hunnius, Klaus. 1975. Zur Frage der syntaktischen Entlehnung. Romanische Forschungen 87(1). 64‒81. Iatridou, Sabine & Anthony Kroch. 1992. The licensing of CP-recursion and its relevance to the Germanic verb second phenomenon. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 50. 1‒24. Ingham, Richard. 2005. Adverbs and the syntax of subjects in Old French. Romania 123. 99‒122. Ingham, Richard. 2008. L’ordre syntaxique V3 aux débuts du moyen français. In Benjamin Fagard, Sophie Prévost, Bernard Combettes & Olivier Bertrand (eds.), Évolutions en français. Études de linguistique diachronique, 153‒170. Berne: Lang. Jensen, Frede. 1990. Old French and comparative Gallo-Romance syntax (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie 232). Tübingen: Niemeyer. Jiménez Sabater, Max A. 1975. Más datos sobre el español de la República Dominicana. Santo Domingo: Ediciones Intec. Jiménez Sabater, Max A. 1977. Estructuras morfosintácticas en el español dominicano: Algunas implicaciones sociolingüísticas. Ciencia y Sociedad 2(1). 5‒20. Johnson, Ken. 2000. Grammaticalization chains and French complex-inversion. In Steven N. Dworkin & Dieter Wanner (eds.), New approaches to old problems. Issues in Romance historical linguistics (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 210), 183‒198. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Jonare, Birgitta. 1976. L’inversion dans la principale non-interrogative en français contemporain (Studia Romanica Upsaliensia 16). Uppsala: Almquist & Wiksell. Jung, Friedrich. 1887. Syntax des Pronomens bei Amyot. Jena: Neuenhahn. Junker, Marie-Odile. 1990. L’effet V1: Le verbe initial en moyen français. Canadian Journal of Linguistics / Revue Canadienne de Linguistique 35(4). 351‒371. Kaiser, Georg A. 1992. Die klitischen Personalpronomina im Französischen und Portugiesischen. Eine synchronische und diachronische Analyse (Editionen der Iberoramericana III, 44). Frankfurt/M.: Vervuert.

228 � References Kaiser, Georg A. 2002. Verbstellung und Verbstellungswandel in den romanischen Sprachen (Linguistische Arbeiten 465). Tübingen: Niemeyer. Kaiser, Georg A. 2003. Syntaktische Variation und generative Syntaxtheorie. In Elisabeth Stark & Ulrich Wandruszka (eds.), Syntaxtheorien: Modelle, Methoden, Motive (Tübinger Beiträge zur Linguistik, 469), 257‒272. Tübingen: Narr. Kaiser, Georg A. 2006. Pronombres sujeto en construcciones impersonales de lenguas iberorrománicas. In Beatriz Fernández & Itziar Laka (eds.), Andolin gogoan. Essays in Honour of Professor Eguzkitza, 513‒530. Vitoria-Gasteiz: Universidad del País Vasco / Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea. Kaiser, Georg A. 2009. Losing the null subject. A contrastive study of (Brazilian) Portuguese and (Medieval) French. In Georg A. Kaiser & Eva-Maria Remberger (eds.), Proceedings of the workshop Null-subjects, Expletives and Locatives in Romance (Arbeitspapier 123), 131‒156. Konstanz: Fachbereich Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Konstanz. Kaiser, Georg A. & Michael Zimmermann. 2011. On the decrease in subject-verb inversion in French declaratives. In Esther Rinke & Tanja Kupisch (eds.), The development of grammar. Language acquisition and diachronic change. In honour of Jürgen M. Meisel (Hamburg Studies on Multilinguism 11), 355‒381. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Kattinger, Gernot. 1971. Die Verwendung des Personalpronomens als Subjekt zum Verbum dargestellt an “Erec und Enide” von Chrétien de Troyes. Erlangen-Nürnberg: Doctoral dissertation. Kayne, Richard. 1986. Connexité et inversion du sujet. In Mitsou Ronat & Daniel Couquaux (eds.), La grammaire modulaire (Propositions 16), 127‒147. Paris: Éditions de Minuit. Kayne, Richard & Jean-Yves Pollock. 1978. Stylistic inversion, successive cyclicity, and move NP in French. Linguistic Inquiry 9(4). 595‒622. Kayne, Richard & Jean-Yves Pollock. 2001. New thoughts on stylistic inversion. In Aafke Hulk & Jean-Yves Pollock (eds.), Subject inversion in Romance and the theory of universal grammar (Oxford Studies in Comparative Syntax), 107‒162. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kjellman, Hilding. 1913. La construction de l’infinitif dépendant d’une locution impersonnelle en français des origines au XVe siècle. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell. Kjellman, Hilding. 1919. La construction moderne de l’infinitif dit sujet logique en français. Étude de syntaxe historique. Uppsala: Berlings. Koch, Peter & Wulf Oesterreicher. 2011. Gesprochene Sprache in der Romania. Französisch, Italienisch, Spanisch (Romanistische Arbeitshefte 31). Berlin / New York: De Gruyter, 2nd edn. Koch, Werner. 1934. Die Stellung des Objekts im Französischen. Bochum-Langendreer: Pöppinghaus. Köhler, Gustav. 1888. Syntactische Untersuchungen über Les quatre livres des Rois. Erlangen: Jacob. Kok, Ans de. 1985. La place du pronom personnel régime conjoint en français. Une étude diachronique (Faux Titre 23). Amsterdam: Rodopi. Koopmann, Wilhelm. 1910. Die Inversion des Subjekts im Französischen. Göttingen: Kaestner. Körting, Gustav. 1896. Kleine Beiträge zur französischen Sprachgeschichte. Zeitschrift für Französische Sprache und Literatur 18(1). 255‒280. Koschwitz, Eduard. 1880. Recension von A. Horning: “Le pronom neutre il en langue d’oïl. Son origine, son extension”. Zeitschrift für Neufranzösische Sprache und Literatur 2. 417‒419. Krafft, Ludwig. 1904. Person und Numerus des Verbs im Französischen. Borna-Leipzig: Noske.

References � 229

Kreutzberg, Peter. 1890. Die Grammatik Malherbe’s nach dem “Commentaire sur Desportes“ (Wissenschaftliche Beilage zum Jahresbericht des Realgymnasiums zu Neisse, Ostern 1890). Neisse: Bär. Krifka, Manfred. 2007. Basic notions of information structure. In Caroline Féry, Gisbert Fanselow & Manfred Krifka (eds.), The notions of information structure (Interdisciplinary Studies on Information Structure 6), 13‒55. Potsdam: Universitätsverlag Potsdam. Kuen, Heinrich. 1952. Rückläufige Bewegungen in der Entwicklung der romanischen Sprachen zum analytischen Typus: Dabis – dare habes – darás. In Heinrich Kuen (ed.), Festgabe Ernst Gamillscheg zu seinem 65. Geburtstag am 28. Oktober 1952. Von Freunden und Schülern überreicht, 140‒163. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Kuen, Heinrich. 1957. Die Gewohnheit der mehrfachen Bezeichnung des Subjekts in der Romania und die Gründe ihres Aufkommens. In Günter Reichenkron (ed.), Syntactica und Stilistica. Festschrift für Ernst Gamillscheg zum 70. Geburtstag, 293‒326. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Kuttner, Max. 1929. Prinzipien der Wortstellung im Französischen. Zur französischen Negation. Bielefeld: Velhagen & Klasing. Labelle, Marie. 2007. Clausal architecture in Early Old French. Lingua 117(1). 289‒316. Labelle, Marie & Paul Hirschbühler. 2005. Changes in clausal organization and the position of clitics in Old French. In Montse Batllori, María-Lluïsa Hernanz, Carme Picallo & Francesca Roca (eds.), Grammaticalization and parametric variation, 60‒71. Oxford: Oxford University Press. LaFond, Larry. 2003. Historical changes in verb-second and null subjects from Old to Modern French. In Eric D. Holt (ed.), Optimality theory and language change (Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 56), 387‒412. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Lahmeyer, Carl. 1886. Das Pronomen in der französischen Sprache des 16ten und 17ten Jahrhunderts. Göttingen: Huth. Lahousse, Karen. 2004. La complexité de la notion de topique et l’inversion du sujet nominal. Travaux de Linguistique 47. 111‒136. Lasnik, Howard. 1995. Verbal morphology: Syntactic structures meets the minimalist program. In Héctor Campos & Paula Kempchinsky (eds.), Evolution and revolution in linguistic theory (Georgetown Studies in Romance Linguistics), 251‒275. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press. La Touche, Pierre de. 1696. L’art de bien parler françois, qui comprend tout ce qui regarde la grammaire, & les façons de parler douteuſes. Amsterdam: Desbordes. Le Bidois, Georges & Robert Le Bidois. 1935. Syntaxe du français moderne. Ses fondements historiques et psychologiques. Paris: Picard. Ledgeway, Adam. 2007. Old Neapolitan word order: Some initial observations. In Anna L. Lepschy & Arturo Tosi (eds.), Histories and dictionaries of the languages of Italy. 121‒149. Ravenna: Longo. Ledgeway, Adam. 2008. Satisfying V2 in early Romance: Merge vs. move! Linguistics 44(2). 437‒470. Legendre, Géraldine. 1990. French impersonal constructions. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 8(1). 81‒128. Lemieux, Monique. 1992. Et dans les constructions à sujet nul et à sujet postposé en moyen français. Travaux de Linguistique 25. 59‒75. Lerch, Eugen. 1922. Typen der Wortstellung. In Viktor Klemperer & Eugen Lerch (eds.), Idealistische Neuphilologie. Festschrift für Karl Vossler, 85‒106. Heidelberg: Winter.

230 � References Lerch, Eugen. 1931. Hauptprobleme der französischen Sprache. Besonderes. Braunschweig: Westermann. Lerch, Eugen. 1934. Historische französische Syntax, Band 3: Modalität. Leipzig: Reisland. List, Willy. 1881. Syntaktische Studien über Voiture. Französische Studien 1. 1‒40. Lira, Solange de Azambuja. 1996. The subject in Brazilian Portuguese. New York: Lang. Lodge, Anthony. 2002. The medieval sources of standardisation in French. In Rodney Sampson & Wendy Ayres-Bennett (eds.), Interpreting the history of French. A Festschrift for Peter Rickard on the occasion of his eightieth birthday (Faux Titre 226), 261‒296. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Lodge, Anthony. 2004. A sociolinguistic history of Parisian French. Cambridge / New York: Cambridge University Press. Loiseau, Arthur. 1881. Histoire de la langue française: Ses origines et son développement jusqu’à la fin du XVIe siècle. Paris: Thorin. Lukaszewicz, Elisabeth T. 1979. Les pronoms personnels sujets et l’impersonnel il en ancien français. Montréal, QC: McGill MA thesis. Mätzner, Eduard. 1843. Syntax der neufranzöſiſchen Sprache. Ein Beitrag zur geſchichtlichvergleichenden Sprachforſchung. Erſter Theil. Berlin: Dümmler. Maillard, Michel. 1985. L’impersonnel français de il à ça. In Jacques Chocheyras (ed.), Autour de l’impersonnel, 63‒118. Grenoble: Ellug. Maillard, Michel. 1987. Fréquence des impersonnels dans les textes d’ancien français. Recherches et Travaux 32. 51‒66. Maillard, Michel & Elisete Almeida. 2000. Un modèle nodal pour une description cohérente de l’impersonnel en français et en portugais. In Patrick Seriot & Alain Berrendonner (eds.), Le paradoxe du sujet. Les propositions impersonnelles dans les langues slaves et romanes (Cahiers de l’ILSL 12), 173‒206. Lausanne: Publications Universitaires Romandes. Marchello-Nizia, Christiane. 1995. L’évolution du français. Ordre des mots, démonstratifs, accent tonique. Paris: Colin. Marchello-Nizia, Christiane. 2000. Le décumul du “thème” dans l’évolution du français. Le Français Moderne 68. 31‒40. Marchello-Nizia, Christiane. 2005. La langue française aux XIVe et XVe siècles. Paris: Armand Colin. Marchello-Nizia, Christiane. 2006. Le français en diachronie: Douze siècles d’évolution (Collection l'essentiel français). Paris: Ophrys. Marchello-Nizia, Christiane. 2007. L’évolution de l’ordre des mots en français: Grammaticalisation ou cohérence typologique? In Michel Charolles, Nathalie Fournier, Catherine Fuchs & Florence Lefeuvre (eds.), Parcours de la phrase. Mélanges offerts à Pierre Le Goffic, 105‒117. Paris / Gap: Ophrys. Marchello-Nizia, Christiane. 2008. L’évolution de l’ordre des mots en français: Chronologie, périodisation, et réorganisation du système. In Jacques Durand, Benoît Habert & Bernard Laks (eds.), Congrès mondial de linguistique française (CMLF ’08), 103‒113. Paris: Institut de Linguistique Française. Martin, Robert. 1976. L’ordre des syntagmes dans le Jehan de Saintré. In Germán Colón & Robert Kopp (eds.), Mélanges de langues et de littératures romanes offerts à Carl Theodor Gossen, 567‒593. Berne: Francke. Martin, Robert. 1978. L’ordre des mots dans le Jehan de Saintré. In Marc Wilmet (ed.), Sémantique lexicale et sémantique grammaticale en moyen français. Actes du colloque organisé

References � 231

par le Centre d’Études Linguistiques et Littéraires de la Vrije Universiteit Brussel, 305‒333. Brussels: VUB. Martin, Robert & Marc Wilmet. 1980. Manuel du français du moyen âge 2. Syntaxe du moyen français. Bordeaux: Sobodi. Martinet, Hanne. 1975. Les variantes impersonnelles d’énoncés en français. La Linguistique 11(1). 75‒86. Marzys, Zygmunt. 1970. La place et l’expression du sujet dans le Roman de Jehan de Paris (Fin du XVe siècle). Actele celui de al XII-Lea Congres international de lingvistica si filologie romanica. 607‒614. Mathieu, Abel. 1560. Second deuis et principal propos de la langue françoise. Paris: Breton. Mathieu, Éric. 2006a. Quirky subjects in Old French. Studia Linguistica 60(3). 282‒312. Mathieu, Éric. 2006b. Stylistic fronting in Old French. Probus 18. 219‒266. Mathieu, Éric. 2009. On the Germanic properties of Old French. In Paola Crisma & Giuseppe Longobardi (eds.), Historical syntax and linguistic theory, 344‒357. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Maupas, Charles. 1618. Grammaire et syntaxe françoise. Orléans: Boynard & Nyon. Meigret, Louis. 1888[1550]. Le tretté de la grammaire françoeze. Paris: Wechel. Meillet, Antoine. 1931. Sur une période de bilinguisme en France. Comptes Rendus de l’Académie des Inscriptions 1. 29‒38. Meisel, Jürgen. 1995. Parameters in acquisition. In Paul Fletcher & Brian MacWhinney (eds.), The handbook of child language, 10‒35. Oxford / Cambridge MA: Blackwell. Meisel, Jürgen M. 2011. First and second language acquisition (Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Melander, Johan. 1917. Les formes toniques des pronoms personnels régimes après quelques particules dans l’ancien français. Studier i Modern Sprakvetenskap 6. 231‒268. Ménard, Philippe. 1976. Manuel du français du moyen âge 1. Syntaxe de l’ancien français. Bordeaux: Sobodi. Menshausen, Werner. 1912. Die Verwendung der betonten und unbetonten Formen des Personal- und Possessiv-Pronomens bei Wace, Beneeit und Crestien v. Troyes. Halle/S.: Hohmann. Moignet, Gerard. 1971. L’ordre verbe-sujet dans la Chanson de Roland. Mélanges de Philologie Romane 1. 397‒421. Morf, Heinrich. 1878. Die Wortstellung im altfranzösischen Rolandsliede. Romanische Studien 3. 199‒294. Mucha, Oscar. 1895. Über Stil und Sprache von Philippe Desportes. Hamburg: Gimmerthal. Müller, Ernst. 1886. Zur Syntax der Christine de Pisan. Greifswald: Abel. Mussafia Adolfo. 1886. Una particolarità sintattica della lingua italiana dei primi secoli. In Graziadio I. Ascoli (ed.): Miscellanea di filologia e linguistica. In memoria di Napoleone Caix e Ugo Angelo Canello, 255‒261. Florence: Successori Le Monnier. Nissen, Peter. 1882. Der Nominativ der verbundenen Personalpronomina in den ältesten französischen Sprachdenkmälern. Greifswald: Abel. Nordström, Thor. 1870. Observations sur la langue et la versification de Mathurin Regnier. Lund: Berling. Olsson, Hugo. 1986. La concurrence entre il, ce et cela (ça) comme sujet d’expressions impersonnelles en français contemporain (Umeå Studies in the Humanities 71). Umeå: Almqvist & Wiksell.

232 � References Olloqui de Montenegro, Liliana de. 1984. Un aspecto de la sintaxis: Los pronombres personales sujeto en el habla estudiantil santiaguera. Eme-Eme 12(72). 3‒17. Oppermann-Marsaux, Evelyne. 2006. Quelques remarques sur l’emploi et le non-emploi du “il impersonnel” entre le XIVe et le XVIIe siècle. L’Information Grammaticale 110. 9‒14. Orlopp, Walther. 1888. Ueber die Wortstellung bei Rabelais. Jena: Engau. Oudin, Antoine. 1632. Grammaire françoise rapportée au langage du temps. Paris: Billaine. Oudin, Antoine. 1640. Grammaire françoise rapportée au langage du temps. Paris: Sommaville, 2nd edn. Pagani-Naudet, Cendrine. 2005. Histoire d’un procédé de style: La dislocation (XIIe‒XVIIe siècles) (Babeliana 7). Paris: Champion. Palsgrave, John. 1530. Lesclarcissement de la langue Francoyſe. London: Hankyns. Papić, Marko. 1970. L’expression et la place du sujet dans Les essais de Montaigne. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. Paris, Gaston. 1880. Recension: Romanische Studien IV. Romania 9. 625‒627. Perlmutter, David M. 1971. Deep and surface structure constraints in syntax (Transantlantic Series in Linguistics). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Philippsthal, Robert. 1886. Die Wortstellung in der franzoesischen Prosa des 16. Jahrhunderts. Halle/S.: Plötz. Piatt, Herman. 1898. Neuter il in Old French. Strasbourg: Gœller. Picabia, Lélia. 1995. Structure impersonnelle et contrainte Anaphorique. In Hava B.-Z. Shyldkrot & Lucien Kupferman (eds.), Tendances récentes en linguis[t]ique française et générale, volume dédié a David Gaatone (Lingvisticæ Investigationes Supplementa 20), 323‒334. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Picoche, Jacqueline & Christiane Marchello-Nizia. 2001. Histoire de la langue française. Paris: Nathan. Pillot, Jean. 1561. Gallicae linguae institutio. Paris: Wechelus. Pollock, Jean-Yves. 1979. Réanalyse et constructions impersonnelles. Recherches Linguistiques 8. 72‒130. Pollock, Jean-Yves. 1981. On case and impersonal constructions. In Robert May & Jan Koster (eds.), Levels of syntactic representation (Studies in Generative Grammar 10), 219‒252. Dordrecht: Foris. Pollock, Jean-Yves. 1983. Accord, chaînes impersonnelles et variables. In: Lingvisticæ Investigationes 7(1). 131‒181. Pollock, Jean-Yves. 1985. On case and the syntax of infinitives in French. In Jacqueline Guéron, Hans-Georg Obenauer & Jean-Yves Pollock (eds.), Grammatical representation (Studies in Generative Grammar 22), 293‒326. Dordrecht: Foris. Pollock, Jean-Yves. 1986. Sur la syntaxe de en et le paramètre du sujet nul. In Mitsou Ronat & Daniel Couquaux (eds.), La grammaire modulaire (Propositions 16), 211‒246. Paris: Minuit. Pollock, Jean-Yves. 1989. Verb movement, universal grammar, and the structure of IP. Linguistic Inquiry 20(3). 365‒424. Pollock, Jean-Yves. 1997. Notes on clause structure. In Liliane Haegeman (ed.), Elements of grammar: Handbook in generative syntax. 189‒213. New York: Longman. Pope, Mildred K. 1952. From Latin to Modern French with especial consideration of AngloNorman: Phonology and morphology. Manchester: Manchester University Press, revised edn.

References � 233

Posner, Rebecca. 1994a. Historical linguistics, language change and the history of French. Journal of French Language Studies 4. 75‒97. Posner, Rebecca. 1994b. Third-person subjects in French: A historical view. In Marina Yaguello (ed.), Subjecthood and subjectivity: The status of the subject in linguistic theory; proceedings of the colloquium “The Status of the Subject in Linguistic Theory”, London, 19‒20 March 1993, 109‒123. Gap: Ophrys. Potthoff, Werner. 1894. La Fontaines Stil mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der syntaktischen Archaismen. Bielefeld: Velhagen & Klasing. Prévost, Sophie. 2001. La postposition du sujet en français au XVe et XVIe siècles. Analyse sémantico-pragmatique. Paris: CNRS Éditions. Prévost, Sophie. 2002. Évolution de la syntaxe du pronom personnel sujet depuis le français médiéval: La disparition d’alternances signifiantes. In Dominique Lagorgette & Pierre Larrivée (eds.), Représentations du sens linguistique (Lincom Studies in Theoretical Linguistics), 309‒329. Munich: Lincom Europa. Prévost, Sophie. 2010. Évolution de la position du sujet pronominal en français médiéval: Une approche sémantico-pragmatique. In Franck Neveu, Valelia Muni Toke, Jacques Durand, Thomas Klingler, Lorenz Mondada & Sophie Prévost (eds.), Congrès mondial de linguistique française 2010, 305‒320. Paris: Institut de Linguistique Française. Price, Glanville. 1961. Aspects de l’ordre des mots dans les “Chroniques” de Froissart. Zeitschrift für Romanische Philologie 77. 15‒48. Price, Glanville. 1966. Contribution à l’étude de la syntaxe des pronoms personnels sujets en ancien français. Romania 87. 476‒504. Puskás, Genoveva. 2000. Word order in Hungarian. The syntax of Ā-positions (Linguistik Aktuell / Linguistics Today 33). Amsterdam: Benjamins. Ramée (Ramus), Pierre de la. 1572. Grammaire. Paris: Wechel. Ranson, Diana. 2009. Variable subject expression in Old and Middle French prose texts. Romance Quarterly 56(1). 33‒45. Raumair, Arthur. 1888. Über die Syntax Heinrichs von Valenciennes. Programm der Königlichen Studien-Anstalt Aschaffenburg für das Studienjahr 1887/1888. 3‒51. Raynaud de Lage, Guy. 2000. Introduction à l’ancien français. Paris: Sedes, 2nd edn. Reenen, Pieter van & Lene Schøsler. 1993. SI “thématique”, étude de SI en ancien et en moyen français, discours direct. Actes du XXe Congrès International de Linguistique et Philologie Romanes (Zürich). 617‒628. Reenen, Pieter van & Lene Schøsler. 1995. The thematic structure of the main clause in Old French: OR versus SI. In Henning Andersen (ed.), Historical linguistics 1993. Selected papers from the 11th International Conference on Historical Linguistics (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 124), 401‒419. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Regula, Moritz. 1970. Forme, emploi et construction de l’impersonnel. Linguistica 12. 207‒218. Reid, Thomas B. W. 1939. Non, nen and ne with finite verbs in French. In s.n. Studies in French Language and Medieval Literature presented to Mildred K. Pope by Pupils, Colleagues and Friends, 305‒313. Manchester: University Press. Revol, Thierry. 2005. Introduction à l’ancien français. Paris: Colin. Richter, Elise. 1903. Zur Entwicklung der romanischen Wortstellung aus der Lateinischen. Halle/S.: Niemeyer. Rickard, Peter. 1963. The word-order object-verb-subject in Medieval French. Transactions of the Philological Society 61. 1‒39. Rickard, Peter. 1989. A history of the French language. London: Unwin Hyman, 2nd edn.

234 � References Riegel, Martin, Jean-Christophe Pellat & René Rioul. 2014. Grammaire méthodique du français. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 5th edn. Riese, Julius. 1880. Recherches sur l’usage syntaxique de Froissart. Halle/S.: Niemeyer. Rinke, Esther. 2003. On the licensing of null subjects in Old French. In Uwe Junghanns, Luka Szucsich (eds.), Syntactic structures and morphological information (Interface Explorations 7), 217‒247. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Rinke, Esther & Jürgen M. Meisel. 2009. Subject inversion in Old French: Syntax and information structure. In Georg A. Kaiser & Eva-Maria Remberger (eds.), Proceedings of the workshop Null-subjects, Expletives, and Locatives in Romance (Arbeitspapier 123), 93‒130. Konstanz: Fachbereich Sprachwissenschaft, Universität Konstanz. Rizzi, Luigi. 1986. Null objects in Italian and the theory of pro. Linguistic Inquiry 17(3). 501‒557. Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In Liliane Haegeman (ed.), Elements of grammar. Handbook in generative syntax (Kluwer International Handbooks of Linguistics 1), 281‒337. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Roberts, Ian. 1989. Case-assignment parameters and the history of French Inversion. GLOW Newsletter 22. 55‒57. Roberts, Ian. 1993. Verbs and diachronic syntax. A comparative history of English and French (Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 28). Dordrecht: Kluwer. Roberts, Ian. 2007. Introduction. The Null-Subject Parameter. In Ian Roberts (ed.), Comparative Grammar. Critical Concepts in Linguistics. Volume II. The Null Subject Parameter, 1‒44. London: Routledge. Rodríguez-Somolinos, Amalia. 1982. El sujeto en antiguo francés y en francés medio: Estudio distribucional. Revista Española de Lingüística 12(2). 281‒298. Rogger, Kaspar. 1956. Zur Inversion des Subjektes im heutigen Französisch. Zeitschrift für Romanische Philologie 72(3-4). 219‒282. Rohlfs, Gerhard. 1982. Germanische Inversion in der Romania. In Sieglinde Heinz & Ulrich Wandrusza (eds.), Fakten und Theorien. Beiträge zur romanischen und allgemeinen Sprachwissenschaft. Festschrift für Helmut Stimm zum 65. Geburtstag (Tübinger Beiträge zur Linguistik 191), 241‒244. Tübingen: Narr. Ronsard, Pierre de. 1565. Abbrege de l’art poëtique François. Paris: Buon. Ronsard, Pierre de. 1585. Art poetiqve francoys. Paris: Linocier. Rothenberg, Mira. 1987. Encore quelques remarques sur le sujet en français contemporain. In s.n. Études de littérature et linguistique françaises offertes au Prof. M Banitt, 167‒190. Tel Aviv: Publications du Département de Langue et de Littérature françaises. Rouquier, Magali. 2006. L’expression et la position des sujets pronominaux et lexicaux dans La vie de Saint Léger et La passion du Christ. L’Information Grammaticale 110. 3‒8. Rowlett, Paul. 1998. Sentential negation in French. New York / Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ruelle, Pierre. 1966. L’ordre complément direct - sujet – verbe dans la proposition énonciative indépendante. In s.n. Mélanges offerts à Monsieur Maurice Grevisse, 307‒322. Gembloux: Duculot. Sandfeld, Kristian. 1965. Syntaxe du français contemporain. Tome I: Les pronoms. Paris: Champion. Sandqvist, Sven. 1976. Études syntaxiques sur la Chronique des Ducs de Normandie par Benoît. Lund: Gleerup. Schmidt, Hermann. 1885. Das Pronomen bei Molière im Vergleich zu dem heutigen und dem altfranzösischen Sprachgebrauch. Kiel: Lipsius & Tischer.

References � 235

Schøsler, Lene. 1988. L’identification du sujet en moyen français. In Kirsten Broch Flemestad, Tove Jacobsen & Terje Selmer (eds.), Mélanges d’études médiévales offerts à Helge Nordahl à l’occasion de son soixantième anniversaire, 159‒169. Oslo: Solum. Schøsler, Lene. 1991. Les causes externes et internes des changements morpho-syntaxiques. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 23. 83‒112. Schøsler, Lene. 2002. La variation linguistique: Le cas de l’expression du sujet. In Rodney Sampson & Wendy Ayres-Bennett (eds.), Interpreting the history of French. A Festschrift for Peter Rickard on the occasion of his eightieth birthday (Faux Titre 226), 195‒212. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Seefranz-Montag, Ariane von. 1983. Syntaktische Funktionen und Wortstellungsveränderung. Die Entwicklung “subjektloser” Konstruktionen in einigen Sprachen (Studien zur Theoretischen Linguistik 3). München: Fink. Seefranz-Montag, Ariane von. 1984. ‘Subjectless’ constructions and syntactic change. In Jacek Fisiak (ed.), Historical syntax (Trends in Linguistics, Studies and Monographs 23), 521‒552. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Seelbach, Dieter. 1978. Transformationsregeln im Französischen aus der Sicht der historischen und romanischen Syntax. Heidelberg: Winter. Serrier, Jean (Serreius, Joannes). 1623. Grammatica gallica nova. Strasbourg: Zeznerus. Sitaridou, Ioanna. 2005. A corpus-based study of null-subjects in Old French and Old Occitan. In Claus D. Pusch, Johannes Kabatek & Wolfgang Raible (eds.), Romanistische Korpuslinguistik II / Romance corpus linguistics II. Korpora und diachrone Sprachwissenschaft / Corpora and diachronic linguistics (Scriptoralia 130), 359‒374. Tübingen: Narr. Skårup, Povl. 1975. Les premières zones de la proposition en ancien français. Essai de syntaxe de position. Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag. Skårup, Povl. 1977. L’inversion du sujet dans le français du XVIe siècle. (Pré-)publications 32. 32‒40. Sneyders de Vogel, Kornelis. 1927. Syntaxe historique de France. Groningen: Wolters. Söll, Ludwig. 1985. Gesprochenes und geschriebenes Französisch (Grundlagen der Romanistik 6). Berlin: Schmidt: 3rd edn. Spillebout, Gabriel. 2007. Grammaire de la langue française du XVIIe siècle. Paris: Eurédit, new edn. Sprouse, Rex & Barbara Vance. 1999. An explanation for the decline of null pronouns in certain Germanic and Romance languages. In Michel DeGraff (ed.), Language creation and language change: Creolization, diachrony, and development, 257‒284. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Stark, Elisabeth. 1997. Voranstellungsstrukturen und “topic”-Markierung im Französischen. Mit einem Ausblick auf das Italienische (Romanica Monacensia 51). Tübingen: Narr. Stark, Elisabeth. 2002. Einzelaspekt: Wortstellung und Informationsstruktur. In Ingo Kolboom, Thomas Kotschi & Edward Reichel (eds.), Handbuch Französisch: Sprache ‒ Literatur ‒ Kultur ‒ Gesellschaft; für Studium, Lehre, Praxis, 301‒309. Berlin: Schmidt. Stark, Elisabeth. 2013. Clitic subjects in French text messages. Does technical change provoke and/or reveal linguistic change. In Kirsten Jeppesen Kragh & Jan Lindschouw (eds.), Deixis and pronouns in Romance languages, 147‒169. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: Benjamins. Stier, Georg. 1896. Franzöhſche Syntax. Mit Berückſichtigung der älteren Sprache. Wolfenbüttel: Zwikler. Strohmeyer, Fritz. 1929/1930. Umstellung und Endstellung des grammatischen Subjekts: Die Erarbeitung der Grammatik an einem Beispiel aus dem Französischen. In Willy Grabert &

236 � References Paul Hartig (eds.), Schule und Wissenschaft. Ein Wegweiser zu neuzeitlichem Unterricht, 171‒178. Braunschweig: Westermann. Strohmeyer, Fritz. 1949. Französische Grammatik auf sprachhistorisch-psychologischer Grundlage. Leizig: Teubner. Swiggers, Pierre. 1985. Le Donait françois: La plus ancienne grammaire du français. Revue des Langues Romanes 89(2). 235‒251. Taddéi, Edith. 2006. Le personnel sujet dans des textes en prose du début du XVIe siècle. L’Information Grammaticale 110. 15‒21. Taraldsen, Knut Tarald. 2002. The que/qui alternation and the distribution of expletives. In Peter Svenonius (ed.): Subjects, expletives and the EPP, 29‒42. New York: Oxford University Press. Tarallo, Fernando. 1993. Diagnosticando uma gramática brasileira: O português d’aquém e d’além-mar ao final do século XIX. In Ian Roberts & Mary A. Kato (eds.), Português brasileiro. Uma viagem diacrônica. Homenagem a Fernando Tarallo, 69‒105. Campinas: Editora da Unicamp. Thiersch, Craig L. 1978. Topics in German Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation. Thun, Harald. 1989. Der Gebrauch des Subjektpronomens der 3. Person im Romanischen aus typologischer Sicht (Diachronie und moderne Synchronie). In Wolfgang Raible (ed.), Romanistik, Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung. Beiträge zum Freiburger Romanistentag 1987 (Tübinger Beiträge zur Linguistik 332), 191‒222. Thurneysen, Rudolf. 1892. Zur Stellung des Verbums im Altfranzösischen. Zeitschrift für Romanische Philologie 16. 289‒307. Tobler, Adolf. 1877. Recension von Heinrich Morf: “Die Wortstellung im altfranzösischen Rolandsliede”. Zeitschrift für Romanische Philologie 1. 144‒146. Tobler, Adolf. 1912. Recension von Jules Le Coultre: “De l’ordre des mots dans Crestien de Troyes.” Vermischte Beiträge der vermischten Beiträge zur französischen Grammatik 5. 395‒415. Tönnies, Paul. 1875. La Syntaxe de Commines. Altenburg: Geibel. Toribio, Almeida J. 1993. Parametric variation in the licensing of nominals. Ithaca: Cornell University. Toribio, Almeida J. 2000. Setting parametric limits on dialectal variation in Spanish. Lingua 10. 315‒341. Travis, Lisa deMena. 1984. Parameters and Effects of Word Order Variation. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation. Vance, Barbara S. 1989. Null subjects and syntactic change in Medieval French. Ann Arbor: UMI. Vance, Barbara. 1997. Syntactic change in Medieval French. Verb-second and null subjects (Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 41). Dordrecht: Kluwer. Vance, Barbara, Bryan Donaldson & Devan Steiner. 2010. V2 loss in Old French and Old Occitan. In Sonia Colina, Antxon Olarrea & Ana María Carvalho (eds.), Romance Linguistics 2009. Selected papers from the 39th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages (LSRL) (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 315), 301‒320. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Vanelli, Laura, Lorenzo Renzi & Paola Benincá. 1985. Typologie des pronoms sujets dans les langues romanes. Actes du XVIIe Congrès International de Linguistique et Philologie Romanes. Volume 3: Linguistique descriptive, phonétique, morphologique et lexique. 163‒176. Vaugelas, Claude F. de. 1647. Remarques sur la langue françoise. Paris: Courbe.

References � 237

Vennemann, Theo. 1974. Topics, subjects, and word order: From SXV to SVX via TVX. In John M. Anderson & Charles Jones (eds.), Historical linguistics I. Syntax, morphology, internal and comparative reconstruction 339‒376. Amsterdam: North Holland Publishing Company. Vidos, Benedetto E. 1968. Handbuch der romanischen Sprachwissenschaften. München: Hueber. Vlassov, Sergueï. 1997. La codification de l’emploi des pronoms sujets en français dans les grammaires du XVIe et du XVIIe siècle. L’Information Grammaticale 74. 43‒46. Voizard, Eugène. 1885. Étude sur la langue de Montaigne. Paris: Cerf. Völcker, Bernhard. 1882. Die Wortstellung in den ältesten französischen Sprachdenkmälern. Altenburg: Pierer. Wagner, Robert L. 1974a. L’ancien français. Points de vue, programmes. Paris: Larousse. Wagner, Robert L. 1974b. En marge d’un problème de syntaxe (L’ordre de phrase sujet + verbe). Mélanges de Philologie Romane 1. 53‒62. Wagner, Robert L. & Jacqueline Pinchon. 1962. Grammaire du français classique et moderne. Paris: Hachette. Wailly, Natalis de. 1882. Geoffroi de Ville-Hardouin. Conquête de Constantinople. Paris: FirminDidot, 3rd edn. Waldmann, Michael. 1887. Bemerkungen zur Syntax Monſtrelets. Würzburg: Wucherer. Wanner, Dieter. 1993. L’expression du sujet dans les langues romanes. In Gerold Hilty (ed.), Actes du XXe Congrès International de Linguistique et Philologie Romanes, vol. 10: Typologie, 449‒460. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Wartburg, Walther von. 1941. Les pronoms sujets en français. Revista de Filología Española 25. 465‒477. Wartburg, Walther von. 1946. Évolution et structure de la langue française (Bibliotheca Romanica 1). Tübingen: Francke. 12th edn. Wartburg, Walther von & Paul Zumthor. 1947. Précis de syntaxe du français contemporain. Berne: Francke. Weil, Henri. 1879. De l’ordre des mots dans les langues anciennes comparées aux langues modernes. Questions de grammaire générale. Paris: Vieweg. Wespy, Léon. 1884. Die historische Entwickelung der Inversion des Subjektes im Französischen und der Gebrauch derselben bei Lafontaine. Zeitschrift für Neufranzösische Sprache und Litteratur 6. 150‒209. Wickersheimer, Edith. 1925. Le roman de Jehan de Paris. Sources historiques et littéraires. Étude de la langue. Paris: Champion. Wilmet, Marc. 2007. Grammaire critique du français. Brussels: De Boeck, 4th edn. Zilch, Georg. 1891. Der Gebrauch des französischen Pronomens in der 2. Hälfte des XVI. Jahrhunderts dargestellt vornehmlich auf Grund der Schriften Estienne Pasquier’s. Heppenheim a. d. B.: Allendorf. Zimmermann, Michael. 2009. On the evolution of expletive subject pronouns in Old French. In Georg A. Kaiser & Eva-Maria Remberger (eds.), Proceedings of the workshop Null-subjects, Expletives, and Locatives in Romance (Arbeitspapier 123), 63‒92. Konstanz: Fachbereich Sprachwissenschaft, Universität Konstanz. Zimmermann, Michael. 2012. The evolution of expletive subject pronouns in French. Konstanz: Doctoral dissertation. Zimmermann, Michael. To be submitted a. Definiteness effects in French unaccusatives. Zimmermann, Michael. To be submitted b. On the (non-)existence of quirky subjects in Old French.

238 � References Zimmermann, Michael & Georg A. Kaiser. 2010. Much ado about nothing? On the categorial status of et and ne in Medieval French. Corpus 9 (La syntaxe de corpus/Corpus Syntax). 265‒290. Zimmermann, Michael & Georg A. Kaiser. 2014. On expletive subject pronoun drop in Colloquial French. Journal of French Language Studies. 107‒126. Zink, Gaston. 1983. Formes et mobilité des pronoms personnels conjoints dans le français du XIIIe siècle d’après les “Fabliaux français du Moyen Age”. L’Information Grammaticale 16. 29‒34. Zink, Gaston. 1987a. Place et expression du pronom personnel sujet dans la langue épique: Ami et Amile (XIIIè [sic] siècle). L’Information Grammaticale 35. 10‒14. Zink, Gaston. 1987b. “Quant ce vint au congient prendre”. De ce anaphorique à ce autoréférentiel en ancien français. In Sylvie Mellet (ed.), Études de linguistique générale et de linguistique latine offertes en hommage à Guy Serbat, Société pour l’Information Grammaticale, 417‒426. Louvain / Paris: Société pour l’Information Grammaticale. Zink, Gaston. 1989. L’ordre des mots dans Yvain de Chrétien de Troyes. L’Information Grammaticale 41. 16‒21. Zink, Gaston. 1997. Morphosyntaxe du pronom personnel (non réfléchi) en moyen français (XIVe‒XVe siècles). Geneva: Droz. Zwanenburg, Wiecher. 1978. L’ordre des mots en français médiéval. In Robert Martin (ed.), Études de syntaxe du moyen français, 153‒169. Metz: Centre d’Analyse Syntaxique de l’Université.

Medieval and Classical French editions consulted: abregé conquête

erec

francion galien heptaméron livre des fais

livre reis

Noël de Fribois. Abregé des croniques de France. Kathleen Daly & Gillette Labory (eds.). Paris: Champion. 2006. Josfroi de Vileharduyn. La conqueste de Costentinoble. D’après le manuscrit n°2137 de la B.N. (Travaux du C.R.A.L. 1). Nancy: Centre de Recherches et d’Applications Linguistiques, Université de Nancy II. 1978. Chrétien de Troyes. Les romans de Chrétien de Troyes. Édités d’après la copie de Guiot (Bibl. nat., fr. 794). I. Erec et Enide (Les Classiques Français du Moyen Âge). Mario Roques & René Louis (eds.). Paris: Champion. 1977. Charles Sorel. Histoire comique de Francion (Livres I à VII). Yves Giraud (ed.). Paris: Garnier-Flammarion. 1979. Galien le Restoré en prose (Nouvelle Bibliothèque du Moyen Âge). HansErich Keller & Nikki L. Kaltenbach (eds.). Paris: Champion. 1998. Marguerite de Navarre. Nouvelles. Yves Le Hir (ed.). Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. 1967. Le livre des fais du bon messire Jehan le Maingre dit Bouciquaut, Mareschal de France et Gouverneur de Jennes (Textes littéraires français). Denis Lalande (ed.). Geneva: Droz. 1985. Li Quatre Livre des Reis. Die Bücher Samuelis und der Könige in einer französischen Bearbeitung des 12. Jahrhunderts. Nach der ältesten Handschrift unter Benutzung der neu aufgefundenen Handschriften.

References � 239

minute

psaumes

registre-journal

roman roland saint graal saint-léger

saint louis

(Gesellschaft für Romanische Literatur 26). Ernst R. Curtius (ed.). Dresden: Gesellschaft für Romanische Literatur. 1911. La minute française des interrogatoires de Jeanne la Pucelle. D’après le Réquisitoire de Jean d’Estivet et les manuscrits de d’Urfé et d’Orléans (Bibliothèque elzévirienne). P. Paul Doncoeur (ed.). Melun: Argences. 1952. Le livre des psaumes. Ancienne traduction française publiée pour la première fois d’après les manuscrits de Cambridge et de Paris (Collection de documents inédits sur l’histoire de France). Francisque Michel (ed.). Paris: Imprimerie Nationale. 1876. Pierre de l’Estoile. Registre-Journal du Règne de Henri III. Tome I (1574‒1575) (Textes littéraires français). Madeleine Lazard & Gilbert Schrenck. Geneva: Droz. 1992. Furetière. Le Roman bourgeois. Marine Roy-Garibal (ed.). Paris: Flammarion. 2001. La Chanson de Roland (Documenti di Filologia 16). Cesare Segre (ed.). Milano: Ricciardi. 1971. L’Estoire del saint Graal. Tome II (Les classiques français du moyen âge). Jean-Paul Ponceau (ed.). Paris: Champion. 1997. Saint-Léger. Étude de la langue du manuscrit de Clermont-Ferrand suivie d’une édition critique du texte avec commentaire et glossaire. Joseph Linskill (ed.). Geneva: Slatkine. 1974. Joinville. Vie de saint Louis. Jacques Monfrin (ed.). Paris: Dunod. 1995.

Index Acquisition 1, 217, 219 Adstrate – influence 81 – language 80 Adverb 57, 58fn12, 143, 207, 208fn3, 213 Adverbial 61, 72,207 AGR(eement) 90, 134‒135, 156, 207, 215 Ambiguity 5, 23, 85, 87‒88, 91, 104 Analogical Reorganization 41, 84‒85, 88‒90 Analogy 91‒93, 95, 109 Anaphoric 141 Antecedent Accessibility 2‒3, 17‒18, 44, 81, 83‒84, 88, 92, 99, 103, 105-109, 111‒112, 204 Archaic 12‒13, 18, 20, 115 Archaism 10, 24, 213 Argument 218 Assonance 28 Asymmetry 2, 19, 35‒36, 42, 89, 93 Attraction 156‒157 Borrowing – lexical 80, 82 – syntactic 82‒84, 109 Brazilian Portuguese 81‒82 Cataphoric 141 Change – grammatical 25, 84, 104, 108‒109, 169, 208‒209 – language 82, 108, 212, 217, 219 – parametric 208 – in verbal inflectional morphology 88‒89, 91 Checking 155, 157, 165‒166, 179‒181, 183, 191, 196, 202 Chinese 82, 90 Clause – affirmative 86 – comparative 114 – declarative 32, 34‒36, 45‒48, 49fn4, 53‒66, 67fn13, 69‒79, 86, 90, 101‒103, 106‒107, 109, 111‒116, 118‒126, 128‒132, 135‒137, 148‒151, 153‒157,

162‒163, 165‒166, 168‒184, 186, 188‒190, 192‒194, 196, 199‒206, 208, 210‒214, 215fn26, 218 – embedded 2‒3, 9‒10, 16‒17, 19‒20, 22, 25, 29, 31, 34‒36, 42‒43, 55, 58fn12, 61‒67, 69‒73, 80, 83, 89, 91‒94, 96‒100, 103, 105, 107‒109, 112‒116, 118‒120, 122, 124‒126, 128‒131, 138‒140, 143, 145‒147, 149, 151, 163, 166, 171, 182, 184, 186, 188‒192, 196, 200, 202‒204, 211, 218 – exclamative 132 – finite 1, 7, 32, 42fn38, 43, 57, 110, 132 – imperative 116, 165‒166 – incised 58fn12, 102‒103 – interrogative 115‒116, 218 – matrix 89fn35, 118, 186, 194, 196, 202 – negative 86 – relative 115, 132, 141 – root 2, 9‒10, 16‒19, 22, 25, 29, 31, 34‒36, 42‒43, 45‒48, 53‒62, 71, 72fn17, 73, 75, 77‒78, 86, 89‒90, 92‒93, 100, 102‒103, 105‒109, 112‒113, 115‒116, 118‒120, 122‒123, 126, 129, 136‒138, 140, 142, 144‒145, 147, 149, 151, 163, 166‒167, 173, 175‒184, 190, 192, 196, 199‒200, 202‒205, 208, 210‒211, 213‒214, 218 Clause Type see Clause Coindexation 57, 134, 207 Complement – predicative 61 – prepositional 61, 72 C(omplementizer) System 132 Constituent 46fn1, 49, 54fn5, 56‒57, 58fn12, 59‒62, 67, 71‒73, 110, 121, 123fn5, 129‒130, 133, 135‒151, 153‒157, 162‒163, 165‒166, 180, 193fn34, 202‒205, 207fn1, 208‒209, 214, 216‒217, 218fn29 Construction – cleft 209, 216 – (left/right) dislocation 57, 97, 99, 114, 209, 216 – existential 95

Index � 241

– impersonal 5‒6, 8fn1, 9fn1, 10‒12, 14, 28‒30, 42fn38, 55fn7, 83, 87, 92, 95‒99, 112, 114fn1, 115‒116 – personal 28‒30, 97, 99, 116 – present participle 146 – presentative 95‒96 – residual 163 Contrast 2‒4, 17, 81, 111; see also Focus, contrastive Coordinating Conjunction 46fn1, 57, 138, 144, 166, 168, 173, 176, 181, 183, 196 Coordination 176‒178, 184fn27, 196fn35, 199, 203‒204, 208, 215fn26 – asyndetic 177‒178 – syndetic 177‒178 see also Pronoun, coordinated; Verb, coordinated Definiteness 141 – Effect 114fn1 Determiner – definite 141 – demonstrative 141 – possessive 141 Dialect – Florentine 19fn17 – Gallo-Italian 81 – Northern Italian 19fn17, 90 Direct Speech 9‒10, 16‒17, 19, 22, 25‒26, 31, 36‒38, 42‒43, 58fn12, 90‒92, 101‒103, 105‒106, 182‒183 DP 1, 8fn1, 57, 61, 72, 95, 110, 117 Dutch 62 Emphasis 2‒4, 17, 81, 111, 137‒139, 144, 146, 164‒165, 191, 193‒194, 196, 201 English 45 – Modern 207 Enumeration 166 Expletive see Pronoun, expletive, expletive CE, expletive IL Extended Projection Principle 134 Extralinguistic Guideline 215, 217 FinP 132‒133, 136, 138, 140, 144‒145, 148, 158‒162, 167‒168, 180, 182, 184, 192, 197‒198

Fixed Expression 24, 33fn36 Focalization 7, 149, 196, 209, 215‒217, 219 – finite verb 110, 163, 166, 172, 184, 186, 190‒191, 193fn34, 199, 201fn39, 202‒204, 209, 214, 216 – non-subject constituent 110, 154, 156, 162‒163, 193fn34, 202‒204, 207fn1, 209, 214, 216 FocP 132‒133, 136, 138, 140, 144‒145, 148, 158‒162, 165‒168, 191‒192, 197‒198, 202, 208‒209, 216 Focus 133 – contrastive 115, 141 – Criterion 110, 155‒157, 163, 166, 191, 202, 204, 208, 217, 219 – element 133‒135, 137‒144, 146‒148, 151, 153‒156, 163‒165, 168, 171‒172, 176, 186, 189, 191, 193, 196, 201, 216 – feature 132, 136, 138, 140, 144‒145, 148, 155‒162, 165‒168, 191‒192, 196‒199 – interpretation 135, 138‒139, 141 – new information 132, 141 – operator 155‒156, 166‒168, 191‒192, 197‒199, 216 ForceP 132‒133, 136, 138, 140, 144‒145, 148, 158‒162, 167‒168, 180, 182, 184, 192, 197‒198 F(orce/in)P 134, 163, 193 Franco-Provençal 19fn17 French – Classical 7‒8, 13‒17, 22‒26, 28‒31, 33‒39, 42, 58fn12, 81, 89, 108, 186, 206‒212, 213fn21, 214‒219 – Early Classical 208 – Early Middle 86, 90 – Early Old 9, 17‒18, 81, 108, 206 – Late Classical 208 – Late Old 10 – Lotharingian 80 – Medieval 1‒2, 4‒8, 9fn1, 15, 17, 25, 29, 30fn34, 35‒36, 38, 41, 43‒44, 52, 54, 57, 58fn12, 60, 62‒63, 82, 84, 86‒88, 90, 99‒103, 109‒112, 114, 118, 121‒122, 128‒131, 134‒135, 141, 162‒163, 177‒178, 186, 191‒193, 202, 206, 209, 212, 217‒219

242 � Index

– Middle 1‒3, 5‒7, 11‒12, 16‒17, 19‒22, 24‒26, 30‒31, 33‒35, 37, 42‒43, 45, 52, 55, 57, 58fn12, 60‒63, 68, 73‒74, 76, 80‒82, 84‒90, 92‒93, 96, 98‒107, 109‒112, 114, 117, 121‒125, 127‒132, 134‒135, 137, 140‒141, 148‒149, 151, 154‒156, 162‒163, 165fn17, 168‒169, 171, 173, 175, 177, 180, 186‒187, 189, 191‒193, 196, 199, 200‒203, 206‒209, 212, 214‒219 – Modern 30fn34, 33fn36, 42fn38, 58fn12, 80‒83, 85, 103, 117fn4, 191‒192, 207, 217 – Modern Colloquial 42fn38, 117fn4, 208fn3 – Modern Standard 1, 6, 25, 42fn38, 87, 94fn38, 101, 114, 116‒117, 131, 153, 177, 203, 208fn3, 213 – Old 1‒10, 16‒19, 25‒28, 30, 32, 34, 37, 42‒44, 45, 52, 55, 57, 58fn12, 60‒63, 68, 71‒74, 76, 78‒82, 84‒90, 92‒103, 105‒107, 109‒112, 114, 117‒119, 121‒123, 125, 127‒132, 134‒135, 137, 140‒141, 148‒149, 151, 154‒156, 162‒163, 165, 168‒169, 171, 173, 175, 177, 180, 186, 187, 191‒193, 196, 199‒203, 206‒209, 212, 214‒219 – patois 85 – regional 26, 85‒86 – Walloon 80 – written register 117fn4, 217, 219 German – Modern 56‒57, 62, 82 – Old High 83‒84 Germanic – Modern 45, 56, 58fn12, 60‒61 – variety 79‒81, 83 Grammaticalization 95‒97, 109 H Aspiré 80 Icelandic 62 Identification 110, 133‒135, 149, 155, 157, 162, 180, 183, 191, 193, 196, 199, 204, 207, 209, 215 Illocutionary Force 108 Indicative 14, 84, 193‒194, 201

Indirect Speech 31, 182‒183 Information-Structural – interpretation 137‒138, 140‒142, 144, 147, 155, 168, 172‒173, 176, 186, 189, 193, 196 – property 110, 135‒136, 138, 141, 145, 149‒151, 153, 163, 165, 179, 199, 201‒202 Interjection 58fn12 Inversion – Stylistic 116 – subject-verb 58fn12, 150, 202fn40, 212, 214‒215, 218‒219 IP 117, 131‒134, 136, 138, 140‒141, 144‒145, 148, 157‒162, 167‒168, 180, 182, 184, 192, 197‒198 Italian 2‒6, 110; see also Dialects Language – contact 79, 82‒84 – use 7, 209‒212, 219 Last Resort Strategy 45, 62, 93 Latin 18, 28, 88, 93‒94, 100‒101, 139, 169fn18 Latinism 12, 20 Left Periphery 7, 110, 114, 131‒132, 135, 138, 149, 150‒151, 154‒157, 162‒163, 165‒166, 179‒181, 183, 191, 196, 199, 201‒204, 207, 209‒210, 214‒217, 219 Licensing 110, 134‒135, 149, 155, 157, 162, 180, 183, 191, 193, 196, 199, 204, 207‒209 L(ogical)F(orm) 208 Loss – of non-expressed subject pronouns 7, 89, 104, 206, 208, 210 – of verbal-inflectional morphology 89, 215 Merger 136fn9, 151, 155, 157fn16, 166, 179‒180, 191, 216 Metrical Requirement 28, 93‒95, 109, 163 Mismatch 86, 90 Movement 115fn2, 133, 151, 155, 157fn16, 162, 166, 180, 208‒209, 214, 216 – cyclical 157 see also Verb, movement

Index � 243

Narration 9‒10, 16‒17, 19, 22, 25, 36‒38, 43, 90, 92, 101, 105 Negative Particle 77fn18, 86, 173, 208fn3 Non-Null Subject – language 1, 6‒7, 25, 82‒83, 110‒114, 117, 134, 177, 204, 209 – property 114fn1 Non-Pro Drop Language see Non-Null Subject Language Non-Referentiality see Semantic Vacuousness Non-V2 Language 56, 60 Null Subject see Pronoun, non-expressed – language 1‒2, 4‒6, 17, 45, 110‒112, 114, 117 – property 112, 114 Object – direct 61 – indirect 61 Occitan 19fn17, 83 Operator see Focus, operator Parametric Choice 1fn1 Parsing 103‒105, 109 Phonetic Erosion 41, 84‒85, 88‒90 Poetic License 28, 163 Position – A- 134, 199 – fifth 49, 73 – first 45, 49fn4, 53, 54fn5, 57, 59‒60, 67, 69‒70, 72‒73, 75‒79, 101, 130, 135, 143, 146, 166, 168‒171, 174, 176, 182, 184, 188‒190,196, 199, 201fn39, 204 – fourth 49, 67, 73, 135 – second 18, 45, 49, 52, 56‒57, 59‒60, 62‒63, 66‒67, 69‒73, 75, 79, 86, 135, 151, 153‒154, 156‒157, 162, 200fn37, 202‒204, 213 – (absolute) sentence-initial 18, 45, 48‒49, 52, 56‒57, 58fn12, 59‒60, 62, 72fn17, 73, 79, 86, 118, 131, 175, 211, 213 – third 49, 57, 58fn12, 59‒61, 67, 73, 135, 151 Pragmatico-Rhetorical 106‒107 Prepositional Adjunct 115 Principle and Parameters Approach 1 Principle of Economy of Derivations 131

Pro see Pronoun, non-expressed Pro Drop Language see Null Subject Language Pronoun 1, 10, 15, 85, 110 – adverbial 8fn1, 46fn1, 73 – atonic see prosodically weak – clitic see prosodically weak – coordinated 114 – demonstrative ce 30 – demonstrative il 30 – expletive 6‒8, 16‒17, 26, 29, 31‒37, 39, 42‒46, 48‒49, 52‒55, 61‒64, 66‒69, 72‒84, 86, 88‒97, 99, 109‒114, 116‒119, 121, 123‒ 125, 129‒130, 134, 137, 139, 142, 145, 149, 151, 163, 170‒171, 174‒175, 189, 200fn38, 204, 206, 216 – expletive CE 8, 9fn1, 16, 44 – expletive IL 8‒16, 19, 25, 28, 30, 31, 33fn36, 42fn38, 44‒45, 62‒63, 72fn17, 73, 79, 84‒85, 87, 91, 93‒99, 115fn2, 116fn3, 117fn4, 211 – expressed 3‒9, 11, 14‒26, 29‒45, 47‒49, 52‒55, 61‒70, 72‒84, 86‒97, 99‒114, 136fn9, 150‒151, 154‒157, 165fn17, 199‒201, 204, 206, 210‒219 – non-clitic see prosodically strong – non-expressed 1-5, 7‒9, 11, 13, 15‒18, 20‒21, 23‒26, 29‒31, 33‒34, 36, 39fn37, 43‒44, 54, 55fn9, 62, 68, 71fn15, 72‒73, 76, 79, 81, 83, 86‒89, 91‒92, 94, 104‒105, 108‒112, 114,115fn2, 116‒126, 128‒130, 131fn6, 134‒140, 142, 144‒145, 148‒151, 154‒163, 165‒171, 173‒178, 180‒184, 186‒194, 196‒199, 210‒204, 206‒211, 215, 217‒219 – number 30, 41‒42, 85‒87, 90, 92, 95‒96, 101, 103‒107, 114‒115, 117fn4, 188 – object 46fn1, 73 – person 30, 41‒42, 85‒87, 90, 92, 95‒96, 101, 103‒107, 114‒115, 117fn4, 188 – personal 13, 18, 24, 107, 211 – postverbal 17‒19, 22, 25, 38‒40, 43, 54‒55, 62, 67fn13, 68, 87, 90, 101, 103, 156‒157, 165fn17, 199 – preverbal 17‒19, 22, 25, 38‒40, 43, 52 – prosodically strong 78, 114, 141

244 � Index

– prosodically weak 13, 22, 46fn1, 73‒79, 83, 157fn16, 210‒211 – referential 2‒8, 16‒26, 28‒31, 33‒45, 47‒49, 52‒55, 61‒63, 65‒70, 72‒93, 95‒97, 99‒114, 116‒118, 120, 122, 123fn5, 126, 128‒130, 134, 137, 139, 142, 145, 149, 151, 163, 165‒166, 171, 174‒177, 182, 184, 186‒190, 200‒201, 204, 206, 210 – reflexive 46 fn1, 74‒77 – subject 1‒9, 12, 16‒26, 28‒41, 43‒49, 52‒55, 61‒70, 71fn15, 72‒97, 99‒114, 116‒126, 128‒130, 131fn16, 134‒137, 139‒140, 142, 145, 148‒151, 154‒157, 162‒163, 165‒166, 169‒171, 173‒178, 180‒182, 184, 186‒190, 192‒194, 196, 199‒204, 206‒219 Rhyme 28 Romance – Gallo- 18 – Medieval 19fn17 – Modern 2, 4‒5, 6fn3, 80‒81, 83, 111 – Old 73 – Raeto- 19, 81, 90 – varieties in Northern Gaul 80 Scene Setting – adverb 146‒147 – topic 147, 182‒183 Semantic – bleaching 95 – vacuousness 6‒7, 29, 94, 151, 168, 173 Semantico-Pragmatic 2, 6, 17, 111 Spanish 2‒6, 81, 110 – Dominican 82 – Porto Rican 82 Spec(ifier) – -head-configuration 155‒156, 166, 191 – of Foc (SpecFocP) 132‒133, 136, 138, 140, 144‒145, 148, 151, 155‒162, 166‒168, 191‒192, 197‒198, 216 – of I (SpecIP) 110, 133‒136, 138, 140, 144‒145, 148‒149, 156, 158‒162, 167‒168, 180, 182‒184, 191‒193, 196‒199, 201, 204, 207, 209, 215, 217

– of Top (SpecTopP) 132‒133, 136, 144‒145, 148, 151, 155, 160‒162, 180, 216 – of v (SpecvP) 136fn9 Spell-Out Condition 208 Subject – expressed 7, 58‒60, 71, 103, 130, 141, 216 – non-expressed 58‒59 – non-pronominal 71‒72, 100, 102‒103, 202‒203, 212, 214‒217 – pronominal 71‒72, 100, 105, 214‒217 – quirky 9fn1 Subjunctive 84, 115‒116, 191‒192, 201 Subordinating Conjunction 18, 62‒63, 115, 116fn3 Suffix 40‒41, 84‒85, 87‒88, 90, 186, 194 Superstrate – influence 81 – language 80 S(urface)-Structure 208 Swedish 62 Syncretic (Single) Head 132‒133, 163, 165, 193 Tobler-Mussafia Law 73, 78fn19 Topic 132‒135, 141, 143‒144, 146‒151, 153, 155, 163, 179‒181, 183, 186, 189, 193, 196, 201, 216 – drop 57 – feature 132, 136, 144‒145, 148, 160‒162, 179‒184, 202 – field 132‒133 – -Focus system 132‒133 Topicalization 7, 110, 178, 181‒182, 186, 193fn34, 199, 201fn39, 202‒204, 207fn1, 209, 214‒217, 219 TopP 132‒133, 136, 144‒145, 148, 160‒162, 180‒184, 216 V2 – asymmetrical 62 – constraint 45, 56, 58fn12, 62, 72‒73 – language 45, 56, 58fn12, 60‒62, 71‒73 – symmetrical 62, 71, 73 see also Verb, second Variation – diachronic 36, 202 – intertextual 110, 201‒204

Index � 245

– intratextual 37, 110, 201‒204 – synchronic 202 Verb – active 14, 115 – auxiliary 73‒74, 76, 78‒79, 168‒172, 176, 184, 186, 190‒191, 194 – coordinated 24 – copula 171fn20, 201 – existential 170fn19 – finite 9, 18, 20, 24‒25, 30, 45, 48‒49, 52‒63, 66‒67, 69‒75, 78‒79, 86, 100‒101, 103, 110, 116, 118, 120‒126, 128‒131, 135‒138, 140‒142, 144, 146‒151, 153-157, 162‒166, 168‒174, 176‒177, 179‒184, 186‒194, 196, 199, 200fn37, 201‒204, 207‒210, 212‒217, 218fn29, 219 – first 20, 45, 49fn4, 53‒54, 55fn7, 56‒57, 59‒60, 67fn13, 69‒73, 76‒77, 79, 110, 121‒129, 135, 162‒163, 165‒166, 168‒171, 173‒178, 182, 184, 188‒190, 196, 199, 200fn37, 201,204 – governing 110, 134‒135, 149, 204, 207, 209 – impersonal 9, 11, 13‒15, 29‒30, 42fn38, 87, 90, 164, 210‒211 – infinitive 8fn1 – inflection 41‒42, 84‒85, 88‒91, 96, 104, 109, 180, 186‒187, 190, 194 – lexical 74‒75, 77, 170‒171, 177, 184, 192, 194, 201, 207 – modal 169‒172, 184, 186, 193, 196, 201 – movement 135, 149, 151, 154, 156‒157, 162‒163, 183, 191, 193, 196, 199, 202, 204, 207fn1, 208‒210, 214‒217, 219 – number 40, 84‒86, 88, 90, 134, 187, 189, 207 – passive 115 – person 11‒12, 21, 23, 30, 40‒41, 84‒88, 90, 134, 186‒187, 189, 207 – second 18, 44‒45, 49, 52, 54‒56, 58fn12, 59‒63, 66‒67, 69‒75, 78‒79, 86, 118, 121‒123, 125‒129, 135, 137‒142, 151, 153‒154, 156‒157, 162, 200fn37, 203‒204, 213 – third 57, 58fn12, 59‒61, 135, 151 – unaccusative 114fn1

– V>1 110, 135‒136, 149, 154‒155, 162‒163, 166, 199, 200fn37 – V>2 56, 59‒61, 71, 121‒130, 142, 144‒145, 147‒148 – V>3 61 – verbum dicendi 58fn12, 182‒183, 201 – verbum vicarium 201, 217 – weather 95‒97 (Learned) Vestige 30fn34, 101, 153fn13, 213 Vocative 58fn12 VP 133‒134, 136, 138, 140, 144‒145, 148, 158‒162, 167‒168, 180, 182, 184, 192, 197‒198, 207fn2 Word Order – basic 130‒131, 134 – canonical 131 – clitic(s)V 77‒78 – ExplV 64, 66, 69, 74 – ExplXV 46, 49, 64 – SPclitic(s)V 75, 77 – SPV 47‒48, 53, 65‒66, 70, 75 – SPXV 50, 67 – SPXXV 50, 67 – SPXXXV 50 – Subj-DPXV 72 – Subj-DPXXV 61 – SubjV 59, 71 – SVO 94, 130‒131 – SVX 131, 210, 212‒216, 219 – VSP 50, 68 – VXSP 51 – VXXSP 52 – XExplV 49, 67 – XSPV 50, 67 – XSubj-DPV 72 – XSubj-DPXV 61 – XV 59, 71 – XVExpl 49, 67 – XVSP 51, 68 – XVXSP 51 – XVXXSP 52 – XXExplV 49 – XXSPV 51, 86 – XXSubj-DPV 61 – XXV 61 – XXVExpl 50

246 � Index

– XXVSP 51 – XXXSPV 51, 68

Yiddish 62