Cover not available
Article published In:
Lingvisticæ Investigationes
Vol. 41:1 (2018) ► pp.87–110
Thematic section

Patterns of 1st and 3rd person marking in Oïl-Galloromance

New insights into an old problem

This article is a contribution to the long-standing discussion of subject marking in Romance. Its originality lies in its systematically considering data from Oïl-Galloromance dialects, i.e. non-pro-drop varieties, which had been ignored because they were thought to pattern like French. On the contrary, a detailed survey of the means of 1sg and 3sg.m. Marking in these dialects reveals that the obligatoriness of the subject clitics in all grammatical persons does not guarantee the absence of ambiguous marks, since cases of syncretism between these two persons were found, besides cases of marking even more redundant than in French. I then conclude that it is yet another refutation of the now generally abandoned wisdom according to which the subject pronouns exactly compensate the loss of verb endings. Moreover, the results make the pro-drop parameter and parametric theory hard to maintain, as has been observed from other microvariational studies. I also argue against a functionalist interpretation of the correlation between the different means of subject marking based on the assumption of avoidance and repair strategies underlying language change/dialectal fragmentation. My own analysis then relies on the assumption of a strong and stable typological property of accusative languages like Romance, called here the principle of recovery of the subject. The surface microvariation within (Oïl)-(Gallo)romance is simply seen as the result of non-deterministic properties of language change/dialectal fragmentation.
Keywords: Oïl-Galloromance, morphosyntax, microvariation, person marking, subject clitics
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The observed patterns of person marking
    • 2.1The methodology
    • 2.2Variants of JE and IL
      • 2.2.1Variants of JE
      • 2.2.2Variants of IL
      • 2.2.3Patterns of JE and IL
    • 2.3The 1sg and 3sg verb endings
      • 2.3.1The 1sg ending in the Eastern area
      • 2.3.2The 3sg ending in the Western area
      • 2.3.3Patterning of the 1sg and 3sg verb endings and the respective subject clitics
    • 2.4Cases of subject drop?
  • 3.Discussion: syncretism, person marking, and the ‘pro-drop parameter’
    • 3.1Syncretism?
    • 3.2The interplay between subject clitics and verbal morphology in person marking
      • 3.2.1Critique: the pro-drop parameter and the functionalist view
      • 3.2.2Microvariation between principles and idiosyncrasies
  • 4.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 27 August 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/li.00014.mas
References (58)
References
Adams, M. (1987). Parametric change: Empty subjects in old french. In D. Birdsong & J. -P. Montreuil (Eds.), Advances in Romance linguistics, Publications in Language Sciences 28, 1–16. Foris.Google Scholar
ALB=Taverdet, G. (1980). Atlas linguistique et ethnographie de la Bourgogne. 3. La maison, l’homme, la grammaire. Paris: CNRS.Google Scholar
ALCe=Dubuisson, P. (1982). Atlas linguistique et ethnographique du Centre. 3. La grammaire. Paris: CNRS.Google Scholar
ALF=Gilliéron, J. & Edmond, E. (1902–1910). Atlas linguistique de la France. Paris: Champion.Google Scholar
ALFC=Dondaine, L. (1991). Atlas linguistique et ethnographie de la Franche-Comté. 4. Grammaire, index des 4 volumes. Paris: CNRS.Google Scholar
ALLR=Lanher, J., Litaize, A. & Richard, J. (1988). Atlas linguistique et ethnographique de la Lorraine Romane. 4. Morphologie – Divers. Paris: CNRS.Google Scholar
ALO=Massignon, G. & Horiot, B. (1971–1983). Atlas linguistique et ethnographique de l’Ouest : Poitou, Aunis, Saintonge, Angoumois. Paris: CNRS.Google Scholar
ALVM=Bloch, O. (1917). Atlas linguistique des Vosges méridionales. Paris: Champion.Google Scholar
Auger, J. (1995). Les clitiques pronominaux en français parlé informel : une approche morphologique. Revue québécoise de linguistique, 24(1), 21–60. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2003a). Le redoublement des sujets en picard. French Language Studies, 131, 381–404. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2003b). Les pronoms clitiques sujets en picard: une analyse au confluent de la phonologie, de la morphologie et de la syntaxe. French Language Studies, 131, 1–22. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barra, Jover M. (2007). S’il ne restait que l’induction: corpus, hypthèses diachroniques et la nature de la description grammaticale. Recherches Linguistiques de Vincennes, 361, 89–122.Google Scholar
(2009). Des variantes invisibles à la fragmentation des langues romanes. Recherches Linguistiques de Vincennes, 381, 105–137. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2012). L’évolution des marques du pluriel nominal roman à la lumière de l’occitan. In M. Barra Jover, G. Brun-Trigaud, J. -P. Dalbera, P. Sauzet & T. Scheer (Eds.), Études de linguistique gallo-romane, Sciences du Langage, 201–216. Saint-Denis: PUV.Google Scholar
T. Biberauer, A. Holmberg, I. Roberts & M. Sheehan, Eds. (2010). Parametric variation: null subjects in minimalist theory. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Culbertson, J. (2010). Convergent evidence for categorial change in French: from subject clitic to agreement marker. Language, 861, 85–132. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Cat, C. (2005). French subject clitics are not agreement markers. Lingua, 1151, 1195–1219. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2007). French dislocation without movement. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 25(3), 485–534. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diémoz, F. (2007). Morphologie et syntaxe des pronoms personnels sujets dans les parlers francoprovençaux de la Vallée d’Aoste. Number 126 in Romanica Helvetica. Tubingen: Francke.Google Scholar
Doussinet, R. (1971). Grammaire Saintongeaise. La Rochelle: Rupella.Google Scholar
Duval, M. (2009). Les homonymies des marques personnelles verbales à l’est d’oïl (1): l’indicatif présent. In H.-R. Nüesch, Ed., Galloromanica et Romanica, number 130 in Romanica Helvetica, 71–86. Tübingen/Basel: Francke.Google Scholar
Encrevé, P. (1988). La liaison avec et sans enchaînement: phonologie tridimensionnelle et usages du français. Travaux linguistiques. Paris: Seuil.Google Scholar
Gautier, M. (1993). Grammaire du poitevin-saintongeais. Mougon: Parlanjhe Geste Éditions.Google Scholar
Heap, D. (2000). La variation grammaticale en géolinguistique : les pronoms sujet en roman central. LINCOM studies in romance linguistics 11. München: LINCOM Europa.Google Scholar
Heap, D., Oliviéri, M. & Palasis, K. (2017). Clitic pronouns, In A. Dufter & E. Stark (Ed.), Manual of Romance Morphosyntax and Syntax, volume 171 of Manuals of Romance Linguistics, chapter 5, 183–229. De Gruyter: Berlin. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heycock, C. & Sundquist, J. D. (2017). Don’t rush to rehabilitate: a remark on Koeneman and Zeijlstra 2014. Linguistic Inquiry, 48(1), 173–179. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Hilty, G. (1968). La Séquence de Sainte Eulalie et les origines de la langue littéraire française. Vox Romanica, 271, 4–18.Google Scholar
Jaeggli, O. & Safir, K. (1989). The null subject parameter and parametric theory, In O. Jaeggli & K. Safir, (Eds.), The null subject parameter, volume 151 of Studies in natural language and linguistic theory, 1–44. Kluwer Academic Publishers: Dordrecht/Boston/London.Google Scholar
Koeneman, O. & Zeijlstra, H. (2014). The Rich Agreement Hypothesis Rehabilitated. Linguistic Inquiry, 45(4), 571–615. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Léonard, J. L. (1990). Variation dialectale et microcosme anthropologique: l’île de Noirmoutier (Vendée, France). PhD thesis, Université de Provence – Aix-Marseille 1.Google Scholar
Léonard, J. L. & Lautrou, M. (1984). Hypothèses pour l’étude de la variation dialectale à Noirmoutiers (Vendée). Langage et société, 301, 61–92. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Liver, R. (1999). Rätoromanisch: eine Einführung in das Bündnerromanische. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Massot, B. (2008). Français et Diglossie. Décrire la situation linguistique française contemporaine comme une diglossie : arguments morphosyntaxiques. Thèse de doctorat, Université Paris 8Saint-Denis, [URL].
(2010). Le patron diglossique de variation grammaticale en français. Langue française, 1681, 87–106. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2016). L’énigme des contraintes grammaticales sur les sujets poyaudins. In Actes du 4e Congrès Mondial de Linguistique Française. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meisner, C. (2016). La variation pluridimensionnelle: une analyse de la négation en français. Sciences pour la communication 118. Berne: Lang. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meisner, C. & Pomino, N. (2014). Synchronic variation in the expression of French negation: A distributed morphology approach. Journal of French Language Studies, 24(2), 9–28. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meunier, J. -M. (1912a). Atlas linguistique et tableaux des pronoms personnels du nivernais. Paris: Champion.Google Scholar
(1912b). Étude morphologique sur les pronoms personnels dans les parlers actuels du Nivernais. Paris: Honoré Champion.Google Scholar
Meyer-Lübke, W. (1894). Grammatik der romanischen Sprachen; 2. Romanische Formenlehre. Leipzig: Reisland.Google Scholar
Mineau, R. (1982). Les vieux parlers poitevins: histoire, phonétique, grammaire. Poitiers: Brissaud.Google Scholar
Newmeyer, F. J. (2004). Against a parameter-setting approach to typological variation. Linguistic Variation Yearbook, 4(1), 181–234. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Oliviéri, M. (2009). Syntactic parameters and reconstruction. In G. A. Kaiser & E. -M. Remberger (Eds.), Proceedings of the Workshop “Null-subjects, expletives, and locatives in Romance", Arbeitspapier 123, 27–46, Universität Konstanz: Fachbereich Sprachwissenschaft.Google Scholar
(2011). Typology or reconstruction. In J. Berns, H. Jacobs & T. Scheer (Eds.), Romance languages and linguistic theory 2009: selected papers from “Going Romance” Nice 2009, p. 239–253, Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Palasis, K. (2009). Syntaxe générative et acquisition: le sujet dans le développement du système linguistique du jeune enfant. PhD thesis, Université de Nice-Sophia Antipolis.Google Scholar
Pignon, J. (1960). L’évolution phonétique des parlers du Poitou (Vienne et Deux-Sèvres). Paris: Artrey.Google Scholar
Rizzi, L. (1982). Issues in Italian Syntax. Dordrecht: Foris. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1986). On the status of subject clitics in romance. In O. Jaeggli & C. Silva-Corvalán (Eds.), Studies in Romance Linguistics, 391–419. Dordrecht: Foris. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roberts, I. (2010). Varieties of French and the Null Subject Parameter. In T. Biberauer, A. Holmberg, I. Roberts & M. Sheehan (Eds.), Parametric variation: null subjects in minimalist theory, chapter 8, 303–327. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Savoia, L. & Manzini, R. (2005). I dialetti italiani e romanci: morfosintassi generativa. Torino: Edizioni dell’Orso.Google Scholar
Sigurðsson, H. Á. (2011). Conditions on argument drop. Linguistic Inquiry, 42(2), 267–304. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Svenson, L. -O. (1959a). Les parlers du Marais Vendéen. 1. Phonétique, morphologie et syntaxe, textes, onomastique, lexique. Göteborg: Elander.Google Scholar
(1959b). Les parlers du Marais Vendéen. 2. Atlas linguistique. Göteborg: Elander.Google Scholar
SyMiLa Project (2012–2017). Syntactic Microvariation in the Romance Languages of France (ANR Grant ANR-12-CORP-0014). [URL].
Terracher, A. -L. (1914a). Les aires morphologiques dans les parlers populaires du nord-ouest de l’Angoumois (1800–1900), volume I-II1. Paris: Honoré Champion.Google Scholar
(1914b). Les aires morphologiques dans les parlers populaires du nord-ouest de l’Angoumois (1800–1900), volume III1 (Atlas). Paris: Honoré Champion.Google Scholar
Zimmermann, M. (2014). Expletive and Referential Subject Pronouns in Medieval French. Linguistische Arbeiten 556. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zribi-Hertz, A. (1994). The syntax of nominative clitics in standard and advanced french. In G. Cinque, J. Koster, J. -Y. Pollock, L. Rizzi & R. Zanuttini (Eds.), Paths Towards Universal Grammar: Studies in Honor of Richard S. Kayne, 453–472. Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar