Cover not available
Article published In:
Revue Romane
Vol. 50:2 (2015) ► pp.191–221

L’accord sujet-verbe en français contemporain

Une étude de cas — la/une foule

| Queen’s University Belfast

This article presents an analysis of synchronic variation and diachronic change in verbal agreement with the French noun foule. This noun, like many collective nouns in French and other languages, can show variation between singular and plural verbal agreement (la foule des habitants exulteSING de joie dans les rues vs. une foule de gens pressés s’attardentPLU). A novel combination of data, including data from sociolinguistic interviews, a gap-fill exercise, and a corpus of written French, is used to investigate this variation and change, to elucidate some of the factors that play a role in this type of agreement, and to examine the differences between this form used with the definite and indefinite determiner (la foule vs. une foule). Some theoretical issues concerning the definition of collective nouns are also addressed.

Keywords: collective noun, verbal agreement, variation and change in morphosyntax

Article language: French

Published online: 10 March 2016
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/rro.50.2.02tri
References
Aliquot-Suengas, S
(1996): Réference collective/sens collectif. La Notion de collectif à travers les noms suffixés du lexique français. Thèse doctorale, Université de Lille III.Google Scholar
Ashby, W
(1976): The loss of the negative morpheme ne in Parisian French. Lingua, 391, pp. 119–137. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1977): Interrogative forms in Parisian French. Semasia, 41, pp. 35–52.Google Scholar
(1981): The loss of the negative particle ne in French. Language, 571, pp. 674–687. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2001): Un nouveau regard sur la chute du ne en français parlé tourangeau: s’agit-il d’un changement en cours? Journal of French Language Studies, 111, pp. 1–22. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bache, C., & N. Davidsen-Nielsen
(1997): Mastering English. An advanced grammar for non-native and native speakers. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Benninger, C
(1999): De la quantité aux substantifs quantificateurs. Université de Metz, coll. « Recherches linguistiques », n° 23.Google Scholar
Berg, T
(1998): The resolution of number conflicts in English and German agreement patterns. Linguistics, 361, pp. 41–70. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blinkenberg, A
(1950): Le problème de l’accord en français moderne: essai d’une typologie, Historisk Filologiske Meddelelser 33. Ejnar Munksgaard, Copenhagen.Google Scholar
Bosque, I., & V. Demonte
(eds.) (1999): Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española. Espasa, Madrid.Google Scholar
Chambers, J.K
(1995): Sociolinguistic theory: Linguistic variation and its social significance. Blackwell, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
Corbett, G
(2000): Number. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2006): Agreement. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Coveney, A
(1996): Variability in Spoken French: A sociolinguistic study of interrogation and negation. Elm Bank, Exeter.Google Scholar
Depraetere, I
(2004): A comparative analysis of verbal concord with staff, crew and cast’ , in: B. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk (ed.): Practical applications in language and computers. Peter Lang, Frankfurt, pp. 219–228.Google Scholar
Falt, G
(1972): Tres problemas de concordancia verbal en el español moderno. Almqvist and Wiksell, Stockholm.Google Scholar
Findreng, Å
(1976): Zur Kongruenz im Person und Numerus im modernen Deutsch. Universitetsforlaget, Oslo.Google Scholar
Flaux, N
(1998): Les noms collectifs et la prédication, in: M. Forsgren, K. Jonasson & H. Kronning (éds.): Prédication, assertion, information: Actes du colloque d’Uppsala en linguistique française, 6-9 juin 1996. Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis, Studia Romanica Upsaliensia, 56, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Suède, pp. 173–183.Google Scholar
(1999): A propos des noms collectifs. Revue de Linguistique Romane, 631, pp. 471–502.Google Scholar
(2001): Le classement des noms de quantité, in: X. Blanco, P-A. Buvet et Z. Gavriilidou (éds.): Détermination et formalisation, Lingvisticæ Investigationes: Supplementa Studies in French and General Linguistics, 23, John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 151–161. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fries, U
(1981): Zur Kongruenz bei Kollektiven, in: W. Pöckl (éd.): Europäische Mehrsprachigkeit: Festschrift zum 70. Geburtstag von Mario Wandruszka. Niemeyer, Tübingen, pp. 19–27.Google Scholar
(1988): The crew have abandoned the ship: Concord with collective nouns revisited. Arbeiten aus Anglistik und Amerikanistik, 131, pp. 99–104.Google Scholar
Grevisse, M., & A. Goosse
(2008): Le bon usage: Grammaire française, 14ème édn. De Boeck, Duculot, Bruxelles.Google Scholar
Hall, D
(2008): A Sociolinguistic Study of the Regional French of Normandy. Thèse doctorale, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Haeseryn, W., K. Romijn, G. Geerts, J. De Rooij, & M. Van den Toorn
(1997): Algemene Nederlandse spraakkunst. Martinus Nijhoff, Groningen.Google Scholar
Høybye, P
(1944): L’accord en français contemporain: essai de grammaire descriptive. A.F. Høst and søn, Copenhagen.Google Scholar
Jespersen, O
(1924): The Philosophy of Grammar. University of Chicago, Chicago.Google Scholar
Joosten, F
(2006): Why club and lingerie do not belong together: a plea for redefining collectives, in: G. Kleiber, C. Schnedecker & A. Theissen (éds): La relation partie-tout, Peeters, Louvain, pp. 73–88.Google Scholar
Juul, A
(1975): On Concord of Number in Modern English. Nova, Copenhagen.Google Scholar
Kuhn, W
(1982): Kollectiva und die Technik Kollektion am Beispeil des Deutschen, in: H. Seiler & C. Lehmann (éds.): Apprehension. Das sprachliche Erfassen von Gegenständen. Teil I: Bereich und Ordnung der Phänomene, Gunter Narr, Tübingen, pp. 84–97.Google Scholar
Lammert, M
(2010): Sémantique et cognition. Les noms collectifs. Droz, Genève.Google Scholar
Lecolle, M
(1997): Étude des noms collectifs en français. Thèse de Master, Université de Toulouse le Mirail.Google Scholar
(1998): Noms collectifs et méronymie. Cahiers de grammaire, 231, pp. 41–65.Google Scholar
Leisi, E
(1975): Der Wortinhalt. Seine Struktur im Deutschen und Englischen. Quelle et Meyer, Heidelberg.Google Scholar
Levin, M
(1998a): On concord with collective nouns in English, in: A. Renouf (ed.): Explorations in Corpus Linguistics. Rodopi, Amsterdam, pp. 99–112.Google Scholar
(1998b): Concord with collective nouns in British and American English. Acta Wexionensia Humanoria, Humanities, 11, pp. 193–204.Google Scholar
(2001): Agreement with Collective Nouns in English. Lund Studies in English, 103. Almqvist et Wiksell, Stockholm.Google Scholar
Michaux, C
(1992): The collectives in French: A linguistic investigation. Lingvisticae Investigationes, 161, pp. 99–124. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mihatsch, W
(2000): Wieso ist ein Kollektivum ein Kollektivum? Zentrum und Peripherie einer Kategorie am Beispiel des Spanischen. Philologie im Netz, 131, pp. 39–72.Google Scholar
Millán Orozco, A
(1977): Anomalías en la concordancia del nombre en el español de la ciudad de México, in: J.M. Lope Blanch (ed.): Estudios sobre el español hablado en las principales ciudades de América. Publicaciones del Centro de Lingüística Hispánica, 4, Universidad Nacional Autonoma de México, Mexico City, pp. 85–104.Google Scholar
Milroy, L., & M. Gordon
(2003): Sociolinguistics: Method and interpretation. Blackwell, Oxford. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nixon, G
(1972): Corporate-concord phenomena in English. Studia Neophilologica, 441, pp. 120–126. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nuessel, F
(1984): (Dis)agreement in Spanish. Papers in Linguistics, 17, pp. 267–281. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ortega, G., & M. Morera
(1981-1982): La concordancia numérica de los colectivos: un caso de silepsis. Archivum, 31-321, pp. 645–656.Google Scholar
Persson, G
(1989): On the semantics of collective nouns in English, in: B. Odenstedt & G. Persson (eds.): Instead of Flowers: Papers in Honour of Mats Rydén on the Occasion of his Sixtieth Birthday August 27th 1989. Umeå Studies in the Humanities, 90, Acta Universitatis Umensis, pp. 179–195.Google Scholar
Pountain, C.J
(1992): Nebrija and Naturalness. Conférence presentée au Colloquium of the Medieval Hispanic Seminar , University of London, Queen Mary and Westfield College, September 1992.
Quirk, R., S. Greenbaum, G. Leech, & J. Svartvik
(1985): A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. Longman, London.Google Scholar
Riegel, M., J-C. Pellat, & R. Rioul
(1994): Grammaire méthodique du français. Presses Universitaires de France, Paris.Google Scholar
Seco, M
(2002): Diccionario de DUDAS y dificultades de la lengua española, 10ème éd., Espasa, Madrid.Google Scholar
Tristram, A
(2012): Variation and Change in Verbal Agreement with Collective Nouns in French. Thèse doctorale, University of Cambridge.Google Scholar
(2013): Diachronic change in verbal agreement patterns with la majorité. Transactions of the Philological Society, online early view 15 JUL 2013 DOI: DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2014): Variation and Change in French Morphosyntax: The Case of Collective Nouns. Legenda, Oxford. DOI logo
Tristram, A., & W. Ayres-Bennett
(2012): From negation to agreement: Revisiting the problem of sources for socio-historical linguistics. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen, 1131, pp. 365–393.Google Scholar
Vaugelas, C. Favre de
(1647): Remarques sur la langue françoise utiles à ceux qui veulent bien parler et bien escrire. Paris; repr. Slatkine Reprints, 1972, Genève.Google Scholar
Vilagines-Serra, E
(2002): Étude comparative du fonctionnement des nombres singulier et pluriel dans les langues romanes: portugais, espagnol, catalan et français. Thèse doctorale, Université de Provence Aix-Marseille I.Google Scholar
Weinreich, U., W. Labov, & M. Herzog
(1968): Empirical foundations for a theory of language change, in: W. Lehmann & Y. Malkiel (eds.): Directions for Historical Linguistics. University of Texas Press, Austin, Texas, pp. 95–195.Google Scholar