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.
Abeillé, A. & D. Godard. 2002. The syntactic structure of French auxiliaries. Language 781. 404–452.
Adger, D. 2014. Variability and grammatical architecture. In C. Picallo (ed.), Linguistic variation in the minimalist framework. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Adger, D. & J. Smith. 2010. Variation in agreement: A lexical feature-based approach. Lingua 1201. 1109–1134.
Barwise, J. & R. Cooper. 1981. Generalized quantifiers and natural language. Linguistics and Philosophy 41. 159–219.
Blutner, R. 2000. Some aspects of optimality in natural language semantics. Journal of Semantics 171. 189–216.
Blutner, R., P. Hendriks & de H. Hoop. 2003. A new hypothesis on compositionality. Proceedings of ICCS 2003, 53–57.
Boersma, P. 1998. Functional Phonology. Formalizing the interaction between articulatory and perceptual drives. Ph.D. thesis, University of Amsterdam.
Boersma, P. & B. Hayes. 2001. Empirical tests of the gradual learning algorithm. Linguistic Inquiry 321. 45–86.
Boersma, P. & D. Weenik. 2014. Praat: Doing phonetics by computer. Version 5.3.80, retrieved 29 June 2014. from [URL].
Borsley, R. & B. Jones. 2005. Welsh negation and grammatical theory. University of Wales Press, Cardiff.
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.
Bresnan, J. 2007. A few lessons from typology. Linguistic Typology 111. 297–306.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Chomsky, N. 1957. Syntactic structures. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. 1965. Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. 1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge: MIT Press.
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.
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.
Daoust-Blais, D. 1975. L’influence de la négation sur certains indéfinis en français québécois. Ph.D. thesis, Université du Québec à Montréal.
de Hoop, H. & H. de Swart. 2000. Adjunct clauses in optimality theory. Revista di Linguistica/Italian Journal of Linguistics 121. 107–127.
de Swart, H. 2010. Expression and interpretation of negation: An OT Typology. Springer, Dordrecht.
de Swart, H. & I. Sag. 2002. Negation and negative concord in Romance. Linguistics & Philosophy 251. 373–415.
Déprez, V. 2002. Concordance négative, syntaxe des mots-N et variation dialectale. Cahiers de linguistique française 251. 97–117.
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.
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.
Eckert, P. 2008. Variation and the indexical field. Journal of sociolinguistics 121. 453–476.
Giannakidou, A. 2006. N-words and negative concord. In M. Everaert (ed.), Blackwell companion to syntax (Volume 31), 327–391. Blackwell.
Givón, T. 1979. On understanding grammar. Academic, New York.
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.
Grimshaw, J. 1997. Projection, heads and optimality. Linguistic inquiry 281. 373–422.
Hawkins, J. 2004. Efficiency and complexity in grammars. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hendriks, P. & de H. Hoop. 2001. Optimality theoretic semantics. Linguistics and philosophy 241. 1–32.
Horn, L. 1989. A natural history of negation. California: CSLI Publications.
Jäger, G. 2002. Some notes on the formal properties of bidirectional Optimality Theory. Journal of logic, language and information 111. 427–451.
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.
Jelinek, E. & R. Demers. 1983. The agent hierarchy and voice in some Coast Salish languages. International journal of american linguistics 491. 167–185.
Jespersen, O. 1917. Negation in English and other languages. Horst, Copenhagen.
Jespersen, O. 1933. Essentials of English grammar. Allen & Unwin, London.
Keenan, E. & B. Comrie. 1977. Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 81. 63–99.
Keenan, E. & S. Hawkins. 1987. The psychological validity of the accessibility hierarchy. In E. Keenan (ed.), Universal grammar: 15 essays. London: Croom Helm.
Keenan, E. & J. Stavi. 1986. A semantic characterization of natural language determiners. Linguistics and Philosophy 91. 253–326.
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.
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.
Kroch, A. 2000. Syntactic change. In M. Baltin & C. Collins (eds.), The handbook of contemporary syntactic theory, 699–729. Oxford: Blackwell.
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.
Labov, W. 1963. The social motivation of a sound change. Word 191. 273–309.
Labov, W. 1966. The social stratification of English in New York City. Center for Applied Linguistics, Arlington.
Laka, I. 1990. Negation in Syntax. Ph.D. thesis, MIT.
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.
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.
May, R. 1985. Logical Form. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Merchant, J. 2004. Fragments and ellipsis. Linguistics and philosophy 271. 661–738.
Montague, R. 1970. English as a formal language. In B. Visentini (ed.), Linguaggi nella societa e nella tecnica, 189–224. Milan: Edizioni di Communita.
Muller, C. 1991. La négation en français. Droz, Geneva.
Penka, D. & H. Zeijlstra. 2010. Negation and polarity: an introduction. Natural language and linguistic theory 281. 771–786.
Peters, S. & D. Westerstahl. 2006. Quantifiers in language and logic. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Pollock, J.-Y. 1989. Verb movement, universal grammar and the structure of IP. Linguistic inquiry 201. 365–424.
Poplack, S. & N. Dion. 2009. Prescription vs. praxis: The evolution of future temporal reference in French. Language 851. 557–587.
Poplack, S. & D. Turpin. 1999. Does the futur have a future in (canadian) french? Probus 111. 133–64.
Prince, A. & P. Smolensky. 1993. Optimality theory: Constraint interaction in generative grammar. Rutgers University center for cognitive science technical report, 21.
Rosenbach, A. 2002. Genitive Variation in English: Conceptual factors in synchronic and diachronic studies. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Rosenbach, A. 2005. Animacy versus weight as determinants of grammatical variation in English. Language 811. 613–644.
Sankoff, G. & D. Vincent. 1977. L’emploi productif de ne dans le français parlé à montréal. Le Français moderne 451. 243–256.
Sciullo, A.-M.D. & M. Tremblay. 1996. Configurations et interprétations: les morphèmes de la négation. Recherches linguistiques de Vincennes 251. 27–52.
Sorace, A. & F. Keller. 2005. Gradience in linguistic data. Lingua 1151. 1497–1524.
Stabler, E. 2013. Two models of minimalist, incremental syntactic analysis. Trends in cognitive science 51. 611–633.
Tagliamonte, S. 2011. Variation as a window on universals. In P. Siemund (ed.), Linguistic universals and language variation. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
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).
Thibault, P. & D. Vincent. 1990. Un corpus de français parlé: Montréal 84. Université Laval, Québec.
Thullier, J. 2012. Contraintes préférentielles et ordre des mots en français. Ph.D. thesis, Université Paris-Diderot.
Weinreich, U., W. Labov & M. Herzog. 1968. Empirical foundations for a theory of language change. University of Texas Press.
Zanuttini, R. 1997. Negation and clausal structure. A Comparative study of romance languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Zeevat, H. 2001. The asymmetry of optimality theoretic syntax and semantics. Journal of semantics 171. 243–262.
Cited by (1)
Cited by one other publication
Labelle, Marie
2017.
Negative concord in Quebec French.
Probus 0:0
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.