Cover not available
Article published In:
Romance Parsed Corpora
Edited by Christina Tortora, Beatrice Santorini and Frances Blanchette
[Linguistic Variation 18:1] 2018
► pp. 74–99
Special issue articles

Diachronic syntax based on constituency and dependency annotated corpora

Theoretical and methodological issues

| Universität Stuttgart

This contribution presents two syntactically annotated corpora of Old French, Modéliser le changement: les voies du français (MCVF) and the Syntactic Reference Corpus of Medieval French (SRCMF). The focus is on how the underlying syntactic theory (constituency vs. dependency) influences the grammar model and how this choice is reflected in the syntactic annotations of the corpora. The comparison relates to the most relevant general properties of the corpora as well as to two phenomena, null subjects and cleft constructions. Null subjects highlight possible conflicts between syntactic annotation models and syntactic theory, and the information-structural properties of cleft constructions pose a particular problem for the interpretation and annotation of historical corpora. Both phenomena are major instances of diachronic variation in French. The study is relevant for corpus users working on diachronic syntax, as well for corpus builders wishing to design a grammar model for annotation.

Keywords: Old French, syntactic annotation, grammar model, dependency, constituency, cleft constructions
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction: Syntactic annotation and variation
    • 1.1Variation in Old French
    • 1.2Parsed corpora of Old French
  • 2.Grammar models and syntactic annotation
    • 2.1Principles of structure
    • 2.2Search strategies
    • 2.3Null subjects
  • 3.Cleft constructions as a phenomenon of linguistic variation
    • 3.1Clefts and information structure
    • 3.2Types of cleft constructions
    • 3.3Clefts in diachrony
      • 3.3.1Latin
      • 3.3.2French
  • 4.Cleft constructions in the Old French corpora
    • 4.1Corpora and queries
    • 4.2Explicit cleft annotation
    • 4.3Unmarked relative clauses
    • 4.4Comparing the corpora
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 13 July 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lv.00005.ste
References
Blumenthal, Peter
1980 La syntaxe du message. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bosco, Cristina
2004 A grammatical relation system for treebank annotation. Turino, Italy: Università degli Studi di Turino dissertation.Google Scholar
Bouchard, Jacynthe, Fernande Dupuis & Monique Dufresne
2007 Un processus de focalisation en ancien français: le développement des clivées. In Milica Radišić (ed.), Actes du Congrès annuel de l’Association canadienne de linguistique (ACL) 2007, Association Canadienne de Linguistique. [URL].
Buridant, Claude
2000 Grammaire nouvelle de l’ancien français. Paris: Sedes.Google Scholar
Collins, Peter
1991 Cleft and pseudo-cleft constructions in English. London & New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Combettes, Bernard
1999 Thématisation et topicalisation: leur rôle respectif dans l’évolution du français. In Claude Guimier (ed.), La thématisation dans les langues. Actes du colloque de Caen, 9–11 octobre 1997, 231–245. Paris: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Dees, Anthonij
1987 Atlas des formes linguistiques des textes littéraires de l’ancien français. Avec le concours de M. Dekker, O. Huber et K. van Reenen-Stein. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie 212. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Dufter, Andreas
2008 On explaining the rise of c’est-clefts in French. In Ulrich Detges & Richard Waltereit (eds.), The Paradox of Grammatical Change, 31–56. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Erteschik-Shir, Nomi
2007 Information structure: the syntax-discourse interface. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Guillot, Céline, Christiane Marchello-Nizia & Alexeij Lavrentiev
2007 La Base de Français Médiéval (BFM): états et perspectives. In Pierre Kunstmann & Achim Stein (eds.), Le Nouveau Corpus d’Amsterdam. Actes de l’atelier de Lauterbad, 23–26 février 2006. Stuttgart: Steiner.Google Scholar
Gärtner, Markus, Gregor Thiele, Wolfgang Seeker, Anders Björkelund & Jonas Kuhn
2013 ICARUS – An Extensible Graphical Search Tool for Dependency Treebanks. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics 2013, [URL].
Jochimsen, Paul
1907 Beiträge zur Geschichte der deiktischen Hervorhebung eines einzelnen Satzteiles, bezw. eines Satzes mittelst c’est (…) que (qui). Kiel, Germany: Universität Kiel.Google Scholar
Krifka, Manfred
2007 Basic Notions of Information Structure. In Caroline Féry, Gisbert Fanselow & Manfred Krifka (eds.), The Notions of Information Structure, 13–55. Potsdam: Universitätsverlag Potsdam.Google Scholar
Kroch, Anthony & Ann Taylor
2000 The Penn-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Middle English (PPCME2). Department of Linguistics, University of Pennsylvania. CD-ROM, second edition, release 4 ([URL]).
Kroch, Anthony, Beatrice Santorini & Ariel Diertani
2010 The Penn-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Modern British English (PPCMBE). Department of Linguistics, University of Pennsylvania. CD-ROM, first edition, ([URL]).
2016 The Penn Parsed Corpus of Modern British English (PPCMBE2). Department of Linguistics, University of Pennsylvania. CD-ROM, second edition, release 1 ([URL]).
Kunstmann, Pierre & Achim Stein
2007 Le Nouveau Corpus d’Amsterdam. In Pierre Kunstmann & Achim Stein (eds.), Le Nouveau Corpus d’Amsterdam. Actes de l’atelier de Lauterbad, 23–26 février 2006, 9–27. Stuttgart: Steiner.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud
1994 Information structure and sentence form: topic, focus, and the mental representations of discourse referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2001 A framework for the analysis of cleft constructions. Linguistics 391. 463–516. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lerch, Eugen
1934 Historische französische Syntax. Leipzig: Reisland.Google Scholar
Lezius, Wolfgang
2002 Ein Suchwerkzeug für syntaktisch annotierte Textkorpora (German) University of Stuttgart Arbeitspapiere des Instituts für Maschinelle Sprachverarbeitung (AIMS), vol. 8, no. 4. Stuttgart: Institut für Maschinelle Sprachverarbeitung (IMS).Google Scholar
Löfstedt, Bengt
1966 Die Konstruktion ‘c’est lui qui l’a fait’ im Lateinischen. Indogermanische Forschungen 711. 253–277.Google Scholar
Marchello-Nizia, Christiane
1999 Le français en diachronie: douze siècles d’évolution. Paris: Ophrys.Google Scholar
2009 Histoire interne du français: morphosyntaxe et syntaxe. In Gerhard Ernst, Martin-Dietrich Gleßgen, Christian Schmitt & Wolfgang Schweickard (eds.), Romanische Sprachgeschichte. Ein internationales Handbuch zur Geschichte der romanischen Sprachen und ihrer Erforschung, Teilband 3: Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft, 2926–2947. Berlin & New York: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Marcus, Mitchell P., Beatrice Santorini & Mary Ann Marcinkiewicz
1993 Building a large annotated corpus of English: The Penn Treebank. Computational Linguistics 191. 313–330. Reprinted in Susan Armstrong, ed. 1994, Using large corpora. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 273–290.Google Scholar
Martineau, France
2008 Un corpus pour l’analyse de la variation et du changement linguistique. Corpus 71. [URL].
(ed.) 2009 Le corpus MCVF. Modéliser le changement: les voies du français. Ottawa: Université d’Ottawa. [URL].
Martineau, France, Constanta Diaconescu & Paul Hirschbühler
2007 Le corpus ‘Voies du français’: de l’élaboration à l’annotation. In Pierre Kunstmann & Achim Stein (eds.), Le Nouveau Corpus d’Amsterdam. Actes de l’atelier de Lauterbad, 23–26 février 2006, 121–142. Stuttgart: Steiner.Google Scholar
Mazziotta, Nicolas
2010 Building the ‘Syntactic Reference Corpus of Medieval French’ using NotaBene RDF Annotation Tool. In Proceedings of the 4th Linguistic Annotation Workshop (LAW IV), [URL].
Mazziotta, Nicolas, Beatrice Bischof, Julie Glikman & Thomas Rainsford
2012 ‘Ce’ sujet dans les ‘constructions impersonnelles’ du roman de Tristan de Béroul. L’information grammaticale 1321. 48–52. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mel’čuk, Igor A.
1988 Dependency syntax: Theory and practice. New York: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
Polguère, Alain & Igor Mel’čuk
(eds.) 2009 Dependency in linguistic description. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Prévost, Sophie & Achim Stein
(eds.) 2013 Syntactic reference corpus of Medieval French (SRCMF). Lyon & Stuttgart: ENS de Lyon; Lattice & Paris; Universität Stuttgart. [URL].
Prince, Ellen
1978 A comparison of wh-clefts and it-clefts in discourse. Language 541. 883–906. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1981 Toward a taxonomy of given/new information. In Peter Cole (ed.), Radical pragmatics, 223–254. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
1992 The ZPG letter: Subjects, definiteness, and information-status. In William Mann & Sandra Thompson (eds.), Discourse description: diverse linguistic analyses of a fund-raising text, 295–325. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya
1981 Pragmatics and linguistics: An analysis of sentence topics. Philosophica 271. 53–94.Google Scholar
Rinke, Esther & Jürgen Meisel
2009 Subject-inversion in Old French: Syntax and information structure. In Georg Kaiser & Eva-Maria Remberger (eds.), Proceedings of the Workshop ‘Null subjects, expletives, and locatives in Romance’, Arbeitspapiere Fachbereich Sprachwissenschaft 123, 93–130. Konstanz: Fachbereich Sprachwissenschaft. [URL]: 352-opus-78604.
Roberts, Craige
1998 Focus, the flow of information, and universal grammar. In Peter W. Culicover & Louise McNally (eds.), The limits of syntax, 109–160. San Diego: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rooth, Mats
1985 Association with focus. Amherst, MA: UMass dissertation.Google Scholar
Rouquier, Magali
2007 Les constructions clivées en ancien français et en moyen français. Romania 125(1–2). 167–212. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stein, Achim & Sophie Prévost
2013 Syntactic annotation of medieval texts: the Syntactic Reference Corpus of Medieval French (SRCMF). In Paul Bennett, Martin Durrell, Silke Scheible & Richard Whitt (eds.), New Methods in Historical Corpora, 275–282. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Stein, Achim et al.
(eds.) 2006 Nouveau Corpus d’Amsterdam. Corpus informatique de textes littéraires d’ancien français (ca 1150–1350), établi par Anthonij Dees (Amsterdam 1987), remanié par Achim Stein, Pierre Kunstmann et Martin-D. Gleßgen. Stuttgart: Institut für Linguistik/Romanistik. [URL].
Tesnière, Lucien
1965 Éléments de syntaxe structural, 2nde édition. Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar
Waters, Edwin G. R.
(ed.) 1974 The Anglo-Norman Voyage of St. Brendan by Benedeit. A poem of the early twelfth century. Genève: Slatkine Reprints.Google Scholar
Wehr, Barbara
2005 Focusing strategies in Old French and Old Irish. In Janne Skaffari, Matti Peikola, Ruth Carroll, Risto Hiltunen & Brita Wårvik (eds.), Opening windows on texts and discourses of the past, 354–379. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2012 Phrase clivée et phrase à copule identificationnelle en ancien français. In Barbara Wehr & Frédéric Nicolosi (eds.), Pragmatique historique et syntaxe, 289–318. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar