Cover not available
Article published In:
Interfaces in Romance: A constraint-based approach
Edited by Gabriela Bîlbîie
[Lingvisticæ Investigationes 43:1] 2020
► pp. 23–61

French clitic climbing as periphrasis

| Université de Paris, LLF, CNRS
| Université de Paris, LLF, CNRS
In this article, we propose a treatment of French clitic climbing as an instance of morphological periphrasis. In particular we reexamine the evidence in favour of argument composition and a flat VP structure with tense auxiliaries (Abeillé & Godard, 2002) and show (i) that the V (vs. VP) status of the complement does not strictly correlate with the possibility of clitic climbing, (ii) that transparency in bounded dependencies transcends the class of argument composition verbs, and (iii) that a flat VP structure complicates the treatment of modification and coordination. Adopting an approach in terms of periphrastic realisation along the lines of Bonami (2015), we provide a treatment of the climbing facts that does full justice to the limited mobility and their morphologically bound status (Miller, 1992) without having to rely on a flat VP structure. Finally, we show that the pronominalisation and extraction facts can be dealt with in a uniform fashion by way of constraints on canonical vs. non-canonical argument realisation.
Keywords: clitic climbing, periphrasis, French VP, flat structure, hierarchical structure
Article outline
  • 1.The classical HPSG approach: Climbing by argument composition
  • 2.Discussion
    • 2.1Dissociation between clitic climbing and VP structure
      • 2.1.1More periphrastic tenses: Futur proche and passé récent
      • 2.1.2Predicatives and passives
      • 2.1.3Fronting of lexical V
    • 2.2Bounded dependencies
    • 2.3Manner adverb placement
    • 2.4Coordination
  • 3.Periphrasis
  • 4.Analysis
    • 4.1Argument realisation
    • 4.2Inflectional morphology
    • 4.3Clitic climbing as periphrasis
    • 4.4Constraints on fronting and pronominalisation
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 16 October 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/li.00039.agu
References (50)
References
Abeillé, A. & Godard, D. 1996. La complémentation des auxiliaires français. Langages, 30(122), 32–61. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2000a. French word order and lexical weight. In R. D. Borsley, Ed., The Nature and Function of Syntactic categories, Syntax and semantics, p. 325–360. New York: Academic Press, Inc. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2000b. Varieties of ESSE in Romance languages. In D. Flickinger & A. Kathol, Eds., Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, University of California, Berkeley, 22–23 July, 2000, p. 2–22, Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
2002. The syntactic structure of French auxiliaries. Language, 78(3), 404–452. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Abeillé, A., Godard, D. & Miller, P. 1997. Les causatives en français : un cas de compétition syntaxique. Langue française, p. 62–74. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Abeillé, A., Godard, D., Miller, P. & Sag, I. A. 1998a. French bounded dependencies. In L. Dini & S. Balari, Eds., Romance in HPSG, p. 1–54. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Abeillé, A., Godard, D. & Sag, I. 1998b. Two kinds of composition in French complex predicates. In E. Hinrichs, A. Kathol & T. Nakazawa, Eds., Complex Predicates in Nonderivational Syntax, p. 1–41. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Ackerman, F. & Stump, G. T. 2004. Paradigms and periphrastic expression. In L. Sadler & A. Spencer, Eds., Projecting Morphology, p. 111–157. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Ackerman, F. & Webelhuth, G. 1998. A theory of predicates. CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Aguila-Multner, G. 2018. L’affixation pronominale sur l’auxiliaire comme exponence périphrastique. Master’s thesis, Université Paris Diderot.Google Scholar
Aguila-Multner, G. & Crysmann, B. 2019. Infinitival passives and pseudo-relatives in French: a raising account. Colloque de Syntaxe et Sémantique à Paris (CSSP). 2–4 October, Université Paris 81.Google Scholar
2020. Clitic climbing in French complex predicates: a periphrasis account. 27th International Conference on Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar. 17–19 August, Seattle/Berlin.
Bender, E. M., Flickinger, D. & Oepen, S. 2002. The Grammar Matrix: An open-source starter-kit for the rapid development of cross-linguistically consistent broad-coverage precision grammars. In J. Carroll, N. Oostdijk & R. Sutcliffe, Eds., Proceedings of the Workshop on Grammar Engineering and Evaluation at the 19th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, p. 8–14.Google Scholar
Bonami, O. 2015. Periphrasis as collocation. Morphology, 25(1), 63–110. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bonami, O. & Boyé, G. 2002. Suppletion and dependency in inflectional morphology. In The Proceedings of the HPSG’01 Conference, p. 51–70. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
2007. French pronominal clitics and the design of Paradigm Function Morphology. In Proceedings of the fifth Mediterranean Morphology Meeting, p. 291–322.Google Scholar
Bonami, O., Godard, D. & Kampers-Manhe, B. 2004. Adverb classification. In F. Corblin & H. De Swart, Eds., Handbook of French semantics, p. 143–184. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Bonami, O. & Webelhuth, G. 2013. The phrase-structural diversity of periphrasis: a lexicalist account. In M. Chumakina & G. G. Corbett, Eds., Periphrasis: The role of syntax and morphology in paradigms, p. 141–167. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Börjars, K., Vincent, N. & Chapman, C. 1997. Paradigms, periphrases and pronominal inflection: a feature-based account. In G. Booij & J. van Marle, Eds., Yearbook of Morphology 1996, p. 155–180. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bouma, G., Malouf, R. & Sag, I. A. 2001. Satisfying constraints on extraction and adjunction. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 19(1), 1–65. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brown, D., Chumakina, M., Corbett, G. G., Popova, G. & Spencer, A. 2012. Defining ‘periphrasis’: key notions. Morphology, 221, 233–275. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Calder, J. 1989. Paradigmatic morphology. In Fourth Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (EACL), p. 58–65, Manchester: Association for Computational Linguistics. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Copestake, A. 2002. Implementing typed feature structure grammars, volume 1101. Stanford: CSLI publications.Google Scholar
Copestake, A. A. & Flickinger, D. 2000. An open source grammar development environment and broad-coverage English grammar using HPSG. In Proceedings LREC 2000, Athens: ELRA/ELDA.Google Scholar
Corbett, G. 2006. Agreement. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Crysmann, B. & Bonami, O. 2013. French pronominal affixes: a challenge for theories of morphotactics. In Second American International Morphology Meeting, San Diego.Google Scholar
Dalrymple, M., Maxwell III J. T. & Zaenen, A. 1990. Modeling syntactic constraints on anaphoric binding. In Proceedings of COLING-90, p. 72–76.Google Scholar
Erbach, G. 1992. Head-driven lexical representation of idioms in HPSG. In E.-J. v. d. L. Martin Everaert, A. Schenk & R. Schreuder, Eds., Proceedings of the International Conference on Idioms, Tilburg, The Netherlands: ITK.Google Scholar
Ferraresi, A., Bernardini, S., Picci, G. & Baroni, M. 2013. frWaC.Google Scholar
Ginzburg, J. & Sag, I. A. 2000. Interrogative Investigations. The Form, Meaning, and Use of English Interrogatives. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Haider, H. 1984. Was zu haben ist und was zu sein hat. Papiere zur Linguistik, 301, 23–36.Google Scholar
Hinrichs, E. & Nakazawa, T. 1990. Subcategorization and VP structure in German. In S. Hughes & J. Salmons, Eds., Proceedings of the Third Symposium on Germanic Linguistics, Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Kayne, R. S. 1977. Syntaxe du français : le cycle transformationnel. Ed. du Seuil.Google Scholar
Koenig, J.-P. 1998. Inside-out constraints and description languages for HPSG. In A. Kathol, J.-P. Koenig & G. Webelhuth, Eds., Lexical and constructional aspects of linguistic explanation, Studies in Constraint-based Lexicalism, p. 265–279. Stanford: CSLI publications.Google Scholar
Manning, C. D. 1997. Romance complex predicates: In defence of the right-branching structure. Ms., University of Sydney.Google Scholar
Miller, P. H. 1992. Clitics and constituents in phrase structure grammar. Garland, New York.Google Scholar
Miller, P. H. & Sag, I. A. 1997. French clitic movement without clitics or movement. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 15(3), 573–639. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pollard, C. & Sag, I. A. 1994. Head-driven phrase structure grammar. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Richter, F. & Sailer, M. 2010. Phraseological clauses in constructional hpsg. In Proceedings of HPSG 2009, p. 297–317, Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Sadler, L. & Spencer, A. 2001. Syntax as an exponent of morphological features. In Yearbook of Morphology 2000, p. 71–96. Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sag, I. A. 1997. English relative clause constructions. Journal of linguistics, 33(2), 431–483. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2007. Remarks on locality. In S. Müller, Ed., Proceedings of HPSG 2007, p. 394–414, Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
2012. Sign-based construction grammar: An informal synopsis. In H. Boas & I. A. Sag, Eds., Sign-Based Construction Grammar, p. 69–202. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Soehn, J.-P. 2006. Über Bärendienste und erstaunte Bauklötze – Idiome ohne freie Lesart in der HPSG. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Soehn, J.-P. & Sailer, M. 2003. At first blush on tenterhooks. about selectional restrictions imposed by nonheads. In Proceedings of FGVienna The 8th Conference on Formal Grammar, p. 149–161.Google Scholar
Spencer, A. 2003. Periphrastic paradigms in Bulgarian. In U. Junghanns & L. Szucsich, Eds., Syntactic structures and morphological information, p. 249–282. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stump, G. 1980. An inflectional approach to French clitics. Ohio State University Working Papers in Linguistics, 241, 1–54.Google Scholar
Štichauer, P. 2019. Mixed paradigms in Italo-Romance: a case of morphologization of auxiliary selection? In S. Cruschina, A. Ledgeway & E.-M. Remberger, Eds., Italian Dialectology at the Interfaces, p. 79–100. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Verkuyl, H., Vet, C., Borillo, A., Bras, M., Le Draoulec, A., Molendijk, A., de Swart, H., Vetters, C. & Vieu, L. 2004. Tense and aspect in sentences. In F. Corblin & H. De Swart, Eds., Handbook of French semantics, p. 233–270. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Zwicky, A. M. & Pullum, G. K. 1983. Cliticization vs. inflection: English n’t. Language, p. 502–513. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (4)

Cited by four other publications

ABEILLÉ, ANNE, AOI SHIRAISHI & BARBARA HEMFORTH
2023. Voice mismatch and contrast in French Right-Node Raising. Journal of Linguistics 59:2 ► pp. 361 ff. DOI logo
Crysmann, Berthold & Ana R. Luís
2023. Endoclisis and Mesoclisis. In The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Morphology, ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Aguila-Multner, Gabrielle & Berthold Crysmann
2022. French missing object constructions. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 7:1 DOI logo
Winckel, Elodie & Anne Abeillé
2020. French subject island constraint?. Lingvisticae Investigationes 43:1 ► pp. 95 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.