Variation as a testing ground for grammatical theory
Variable negative concord in Montréal French
This paper addresses the contribution that corpus-based studies of syntactic variation can make to the construction, elaboration and testing of formal syntactic theories, with a particular focus on the testing dimension. In particular, I present a new empirical study of obligatory and optional asymmetric negative concord phenomena, and I show how an influential analysis for obligatory concord patterns (de Swart, 2010) can be tested using variation data through looking at the predictions that its natural probabilistic extension makes for the forms, interpretations and frequency distributions of expressions in languages in which asymmetric concord is optional. In obligatory negative concord languages like Spanish, negative indefinites, such as nadie ‘no one’, appear bare in preverbal position (i.e. in an expression like Nadie ha venido ‘No one came’), but they co-occur with the negative marker no in postverbal negative concord structures such as No he visto a nadie ‘I did not see anyone.’ (lit. ‘I did not see no one.’). Furthermore, in this language, co-occurrence between a negative marker and an n-word is either prohibited (*Nadie no ha venido), or it is obligatory (*He visto a nadie). Québec French shows a variable version of the Spanish pattern in which the negation marker optionally co-occurs with postverbal negative indefinites (J’ai (pas) vu personne ‘I saw no one’) but is prohibited with preverbal negative indefinites *Personne est pas venu (Ok: Personne est venu. ‘No one came’). I show how the predictions for Montréal French of de Swart’s analysis of Spanish can be tested (and, in this case, mostly verified) using a quantitative study of the distribution of bare and concord structures in the Montréal 84 corpus of spoken Montréal French (Thibault & Vincent, 1990) through looking at its natural extension within Boersma (1998)’s stochastic generalization of the Optimality Theory framework, which is the framework in which de Swart’s proposal is set.
References (79)
Abeillé, A. & D. Godard. 1996. La complémentation des auxiliaires en français. Langages 1221. 32–61. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Abeillé, A. & D. Godard. 2002. The syntactic structure of French auxiliaries. Language 781. 404–452. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Adger, D. 2014. Variability and grammatical architecture. In C. Picallo (ed.), Linguistic variation in the minimalist framework. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Adger, D. & J. Smith. 2010. Variation in agreement: A lexical feature-based approach. Lingua 1201. 1109–1134. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Barwise, J. & R. Cooper. 1981. Generalized quantifiers and natural language. Linguistics and Philosophy 41. 159–219. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Blutner, R. 2000. Some aspects of optimality in natural language semantics. Journal of Semantics 171. 189–216. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Blutner, R., P. Hendriks & de H. Hoop. 2003. A new hypothesis on compositionality. Proceedings of ICCS 2003, 53–57.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Boersma, P. 1998. Functional Phonology. Formalizing the interaction between articulatory and perceptual drives. Ph.D. thesis, University of Amsterdam.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Boersma, P. & B. Hayes. 2001. Empirical tests of the gradual learning algorithm. Linguistic Inquiry 321. 45–86. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Boersma, P. & D. Weenik. 2014. Praat: Doing phonetics by computer. Version 5.3.80, retrieved 29 June 2014. from [URL].![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Borsley, R. & B. Jones. 2005. Welsh negation and grammatical theory. University of Wales Press, Cardiff.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bresnan, J. 2000. Optimal syntax. In F. v. d. L. Joost Dekkers & J. van de Weijer (eds.), Optimality theory: Phonology, syntax and acquisition, 334–385. Oxford: Oxford University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bresnan, J. 2007. A few lessons from typology. Linguistic Typology 111. 297–306. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bresnan, J., A. Cueni, T. Nikitina & H. Baayen. 2007. Predicting the dative alternation. In G. Boume, I. Kraemer, & J. Zwarts (eds.), Cognitive foundations of interpretation, 69–94. Royal Netherlands Academy of Science, Amsterdam.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bresnan, J., S. Dingare & C. Manning. 2001. Soft constraints mirror hard constraints: Voice and person in English and Lummi. In M. Butt & T. King (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG01 Conference, Hong Kong.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Burnett, H., M. Tremblay & H. Blondeau. 2015. The variable grammar of Montréal French negative concord. In S. Fisher (ed.), Penn working papers in linguistics, volume 211. University of Pennsylvania.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Chambers, J. 2004. Dynamic typology and vernacular universals. In B. Kortmann (ed.), Dialectology meets typology: Dialect grammar from a cross-linguistic perspective, 127–145. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin/New York.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Chomsky, N. 1957. Syntactic structures. Cambridge: MIT Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Chomsky, N. 1965. Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge: MIT Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Chomsky, N. 1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge: MIT Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Comeau, P. 2011. A window on the past, a move towards the future: Sociolinguistic and formal perspectives on variation in Acadian French. Ph.D. thesis, York University.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Corblin, F. & L. Tovena. 2003. L’expression de la négation dans les langues romanes. In D. Godard (ed.), Les langues romanes: problèmes de la phrase simple, 279–242. Paris: CNRS Publications.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Daoust-Blais, D. 1975. L’influence de la négation sur certains indéfinis en français québécois. Ph.D. thesis, Université du Québec à Montréal.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
de Hoop, H. & H. de Swart. 2000. Adjunct clauses in optimality theory. Revista di Linguistica/Italian Journal of Linguistics 121. 107–127.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
de Swart, H. 2010. Expression and interpretation of negation: An OT Typology. Springer, Dordrecht. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
de Swart, H. & I. Sag. 2002. Negation and negative concord in Romance. Linguistics & Philosophy 251. 373–415. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Déprez, V. 2002. Concordance négative, syntaxe des mots-N et variation dialectale. Cahiers de linguistique française 251. 97–117.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Déprez, V. & F. Martineau. 2004. Pour use analyse microparametrique de la concordance négative. In F. Corblin, S. Ferrando, & L. Kupferman (eds.), Indéfinis et prédications. Presses Universitaires Paris-Sorbonne.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Deshaies, D. & E. Laforge. 1981. Le futur simple et le futur proche dans le français parlé dans la ville de québec. Langues et Linguistique 71. 21–37.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Eckert, P. 2008. Variation and the indexical field. Journal of sociolinguistics 121. 453–476. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Giannakidou, A. 2006. N-words and negative concord. In M. Everaert (ed.), Blackwell companion to syntax (Volume 31), 327–391. Blackwell. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Givón, T. 1979. On understanding grammar. Academic, New York.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Godfrey, J., E. Holliman & J. McDaniel. 1992. Switchboard: Telephone speech corpus for research and development. In Proceedings of the
International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing
, 517–520, San Francisco. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
Grimshaw, J. 1997. Projection, heads and optimality. Linguistic inquiry 281. 373–422.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hawkins, J. 2004. Efficiency and complexity in grammars. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hendriks, P. & de H. Hoop. 2001. Optimality theoretic semantics. Linguistics and philosophy 241. 1–32. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Horn, L. 1989. A natural history of negation. California: CSLI Publications.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Jäger, G. 2002. Some notes on the formal properties of bidirectional Optimality Theory. Journal of logic, language and information 111. 427–451. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Jäger, G. 2003. Learning constraint sub-hierarchies: the bidirectional gradual learning algorithm. In R. Blutner & H. Zeevat (eds.), Optimality theory and pragmatics, 217–242. Palgrave McMillan.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Jelinek, E. & R. Demers. 1983. The agent hierarchy and voice in some Coast Salish languages. International journal of american linguistics 491. 167–185. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Jespersen, O. 1917. Negation in English and other languages. Horst, Copenhagen.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Jespersen, O. 1933. Essentials of English grammar. Allen & Unwin, London.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Keenan, E. & B. Comrie. 1977. Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 81. 63–99.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Keenan, E. & S. Hawkins. 1987. The psychological validity of the accessibility hierarchy. In E. Keenan (ed.), Universal grammar: 15 essays. London: Croom Helm.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Keenan, E. & J. Stavi. 1986. A semantic characterization of natural language determiners. Linguistics and Philosophy 91. 253–326. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Keenan, E. & D. Westerstahl. 1997. Generalized quantifiers in linguistics and logic. In van J. Benthem & ter A. Meulen (eds.), Handbook of logic and language, 837–893. Amsterdam: Elsevier. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Krifka, M. 2007. Approximate interpretation of number words: A case for strategic communication. In G. Bouma, I. Kräer & J. Zwarts (eds.), Creative foundations of interpretation, 111–126. Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschapen, Amsterdam.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kroch, A. 2000. Syntactic change. In M. Baltin & C. Collins (eds.), The handbook of contemporary syntactic theory, 699–729. Oxford: Blackwell.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Labelle, M. 2010. Negative words and negation in french. In Larrivée, P. & R. Ingham (eds.), The evolution of negation: Beyond the jespersen cycle. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Labov, W. 1963. The social motivation of a sound change. Word 191. 273–309. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Labov, W. 1966. The social stratification of English in New York City. Center for Applied Linguistics, Arlington.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Laka, I. 1990. Negation in Syntax. Ph.D. thesis, MIT.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Larrivée, P. 2014. The continuity of the vernacular. In M.-B Mosegaard Hansen & J. Visconti (eds.), The Diachrony of negation, 253–256. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lemieux, M. 1985. Pas rien. In M. Lemieux & H. Cedegren (eds.), Les tendances dynamiques du français parlé à Montréal, 91–140. Office de la langue française.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
May, R. 1985. Logical Form. Cambridge: MIT Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Merchant, J. 2004. Fragments and ellipsis. Linguistics and philosophy 271. 661–738. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Montague, R. 1970. English as a formal language. In B. Visentini (ed.), Linguaggi nella societa e nella tecnica, 189–224. Milan: Edizioni di Communita.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Muller, C. 1991. La négation en français. Droz, Geneva.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Penka, D. & H. Zeijlstra. 2010. Negation and polarity: an introduction. Natural language and linguistic theory 281. 771–786. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Peters, S. & D. Westerstahl. 2006. Quantifiers in language and logic. Oxford: Oxford University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Pollock, J.-Y. 1989. Verb movement, universal grammar and the structure of IP. Linguistic inquiry 201. 365–424.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Poplack, S. & N. Dion. 2009. Prescription vs. praxis: The evolution of future temporal reference in French. Language 851. 557–587. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Poplack, S. & D. Turpin. 1999. Does the futur have a future in (canadian) french? Probus 111. 133–64. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Prince, A. & P. Smolensky. 1993. Optimality theory: Constraint interaction in generative grammar. Rutgers University center for cognitive science technical report, 21.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Rosenbach, A. 2002. Genitive Variation in English: Conceptual factors in synchronic and diachronic studies. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Rosenbach, A. 2005. Animacy versus weight as determinants of grammatical variation in English. Language 811. 613–644. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Sankoff, G. & D. Vincent. 1977. L’emploi productif de ne dans le français parlé à montréal. Le Français moderne 451. 243–256.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Sciullo, A.-M.D. & M. Tremblay. 1996. Configurations et interprétations: les morphèmes de la négation. Recherches linguistiques de Vincennes 251. 27–52.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Sorace, A. & F. Keller. 2005. Gradience in linguistic data. Lingua 1151. 1497–1524. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Stabler, E. 2013. Two models of minimalist, incremental syntactic analysis. Trends in cognitive science 51. 611–633. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Tagliamonte, S. 2011. Variation as a window on universals. In P. Siemund (ed.), Linguistic universals and language variation. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Tagliamonte, S. 2014. A comparative sociolinguistic analysis of the dative alternation. In Torres-Cacoullos, R., N. Dion & A. Lapierre (eds.), Linguistic variation: Confronting fact and theory. Routledge, London and New York (to appear).![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Thibault, P. & D. Vincent. 1990. Un corpus de français parlé: Montréal 84. Université Laval, Québec.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Thullier, J. 2012. Contraintes préférentielles et ordre des mots en français. Ph.D. thesis, Université Paris-Diderot.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Weinreich, U., W. Labov & M. Herzog. 1968. Empirical foundations for a theory of language change. University of Texas Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Zanuttini, R. 1997. Negation and clausal structure. A Comparative study of romance languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Zeevat, H. 2001. The asymmetry of optimality theoretic syntax and semantics. Journal of semantics 171. 243–262. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cited by (1)
Cited by one other publication
Labelle, Marie
2017.
Negative concord in Quebec French.
Probus 0:0
![DOI logo](//benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 8 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.