On the interpretation of postverbal subject positions Frank

On the interpretation of postverbal subject positions
Frank Drijkoningen (Utrecht) & Brigitte Kampers-Manhe (Groningen)
This version is identical to the version published as Recherches de linguistique
française et romane d'Utrecht XX, pp. 29-43.
0. Introduction
In this paper we wish to make a short general overview of facts of French pertaining
to issues with respect to (in)definiteness effects and semantic and pragmatic
differences in postverbal positions (note 1).
The (in)definiteness effects and restrictions are relatively well-studied crosslinguistically. However, most of the analyses are based on the opposition between
impersonal constructions and ‘normal’ constructions with a preverbal subject NP. As
an example, consider the effects obtaining in the pairs Jean est arrivé / Trois
linguistes sont arrivés versus *Il est arrivé Jean / Il est arrivé trois linguistes.
Recently, the so-called counter-indefiniteness effect (originating in De Cornulier
1974, see also Kupferman 1983) has been linked to these issues by Kayne & Pollock
(1998, ms.) The counter-indefiniteness effect opposes questions like Quel gâteau a
mangé Jean? To *Quel gâteau a mangé quelqu’un? In this paper we will concentrate
on the (in)definiteness data without looking at the ‘normal’ (‘personal’) constructions.
In other words, we oppose and compare the impersonal construction to the varieties of
inversion occurring in French. In practice, we consider here: the impersonal
construction, stylistic inversion, complex inversion, subject clitic inversion and
locative inversion. Among these constructions, Stylistic Inversion will be the most
central one throughout.
Alongside this renewed interest in the definiteness effects in questions, there
have been other developments in this area. With respect to French, Kampers-Manhe
(1998) elaborates and analysis in which Focus plays a crucial part as far as Subject
Inversion is concerned in subjunctive clauses. This entails that Stylistic Inversion is
not homogeneous from a more semantic and pragmatic perspective. Proponents of
HPSG also argue for a certain breakdown of the familiar classification, also at the
non-syntactic level, see e.g. Marandin (2000b). And finally, the influence of Focus in
Stylistic Inversion is made really dominant in the framework of Optimality Theory, as
evidenced by Legendre (1998).
On the theoretical level of generative grammar, since Rizzi (1997) there have
been several proposals for the integration of notions like topic and focus in the
syntactic structure. Inspired by these functional syntactic heads, Kayne & Pollock’s
explanation of the counter-indefiniteness effect in Stylistic Inversion is based on the
use of a Topic projection. Their analysis (making use of remnant movement) is a
syntactic alternative to analyses of Stylistic Inversion that are based on multiple
separate movements (e.g. Drijkoningen 1997).
In the first section we will consider root clauses and put definiteness central.
In the second section we will discuss embedded clauses, and where we will also
consider focus.
1. Root clauses
In this section we will consider the data as to three different properties. First, as our
contribution bears on subjects, we will look at agreement. Second, we will discuss the
contrast between definites and indefinites. Recall that we focus on a comparison
between the impersonal construction and the inverted structures rather than on a
comparison with normal non-inverted structures. Finally, we will take a closer look at
indefinites, as those do not form an homogeneous class. Besides ‘ordinary’ indefinites
we have integrated the data on ne .. aucun and on generic un. Both these elements are
traditionally analyzed as indefinites, but do have special interpretative properties. The
interesting point in this paper will be that the two elements differentiate between the
constructions under discussion.
1.1. Agreement
Agreement in the impersonal construction takes place with the preverbal subject (3rd
person singular ([-feminine]), as shown in (1a/b). As shown in (1c/d) participle
agreement is included in the same rule, i.e. absent.
(1)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
Il est arrivé trois paquets.
There is arrived three packages
* Il sont arrivés trois paquets
There have arrived three packages
Il est arrivé une fille.
There is arrived a girl
* Il est arrivée une fille.
There is arrived+FEM une fille.
In Stylistic Inversion agreement takes place with the postverbal subject, as shown in
(2a/b). Participle agreement coincides, as shown in (2c/d), i.e. present.
(2)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
Où ont joué les dix enfants?
Where have played the ten children
* Où a joué les dix enfants?
Where has played the ten children
Où est allée cette fille?
Where is gone+FEM that girl
* Où est allé cette fille?
Where is gone that girl
The agreement pattern in Locative Inversion is identical to that in Stylistic Inversion,
as shown in (3).
(3)
(a)
(b)
(c)
Dans cette forêt ont vécu des singes
In that forest have lived apes
* Dans cette forêt a vécu des singes
In that forest has lived apes
Dans cette forêt ont été tués plusieurs soldats
In that forest have been killed+PLUR several soldiers
(d)
* Dans cette forêt ont été tué plusieurs soldats
In that forest have been killed several soldiers
Although agreement clearly generalizes, locative inversion and stylistic inversion are
most often kept different on the theoretical level. One of the causes is the tendency to
use indefinites in locative inversion, while stylistic inversion prefers definites. This is
the other aspect of the discussion we engage upon in this paper.
In subject clitic inversion the verb agrees with the clitic (as shown in (4)). In
complex inversion, in most cases the correct result is obtained with either one, the NP
or the clitic (as shown in (5)), because the clitic is a copy of the NP (or co-indexed).
However, there are facts that point to the relevance of the clitic. If the clitic and NP
are copies (and/or coindexed) but do not coincide with respect to phi-features, the
clitic determines the agreement. The fact are given in (6a/b) for spoken French and in
(6c/d) for written French.
(4)
(5)
(6)
Viendra-t-il
Comes+FUT+3rd person he
Jean viendra-t-il?
John comes+FUT+3rd person he
(a)
Jean et moi on devrait rester.
John and me one(we) should+3rd person singular stay
(b)
* Jean et moi on devrions rester.
John and me one(we) should+1st person plural stay
(c)
Pourquoi Jean et moi ne devrait-on pas rester?
Why John and me should+3rd person singular – one(we) not stay
(d)
* Pourquoi Jean et moi ne devrions-on pas rester?
Why John and me should+1st person plural – one(we) not stay
In sum, there are two generalizations for agreement. The first one is a generalization
across the impersonal construction and complex inversion. The second one is a
generalization across stylistic inversion and locative inversion. Regular subject clitic
inversion could fall under either one.
(7)
(A)
(B)
If there are two subjects, one ordinary and one clitic, the phi-features
of the clitic determine the agreement on the verb:
(a)
Il (clitic) est arrivé trois paquets (subject NP)
(b)
Jean et moi (subject NP) on (clitic) devrait rester
If there is only one subject, the phi-features of this NP determine the
agreement on the verb.
(a)
Où ont joué les dix enfants (subject NP)?
(b)
Dans cette forêt ont vécu des singes (subject NP).
In both the Government and Binding framework (henceforth GB) and the Head
Driven Phrase Structure Grammar (henceforth HPSG) these generalizations can be
properly explained. Generalization (7A) is explained as a more general property of
clitic in the sense that clitics are more intimately associated with the verb than the NP
(e.g. Hulk (1982) for GB and Miller (1991) for HPSG (note 2). Generalization (7B) is
explained in GB by the fact that the postverbal subject in previous stages of the
derivation has passed through the preverbal position in IP where agreement features
are dealt with, e.g. Kayne & Pollock (ms.). An extension of such an analysis also
accounts for participle agreement (e.g. Drijkoningen (1999)). In HPSG the notion of
‘first argument’ is used, related to the fact that agreement marking is dealt with
lexically (note 3).
1.2. Definites and indefinites
As has been mentioned briefly in the introduction, the standard definiteness effect is
found in the impersonal construction. The contrast is repeated in (8). As has been
mentioned above, stylistic inversion has a reverse effect, dubbed the counterindefiniteness effect. The contrast is repeated in (9).
(8)
(a)
(b)
(9)
(a)
(b)
* Il est arrivé Jean
There is arrived John
Il est arrivé quelqu’un
There is arrived someone
Quel gâteau a mangé Jean?
Which cookie has eaten John
* Quel gâteau a mangé quelqu’un?
Which cookie has eaten someone
In (8) and (9) we inserted standard indefinites. If one considers the grammaticality of
the impersonal construction as a test, an NP containing aucun (in which case ne is
cliticized to the verb) qualifies as an indefinite, as shown in (10).
(10)
(a)
(b)
Il est arrvé trois paquets.
There is arrived three packages
Il n’est arrivé aucun paquet.
There not-is arrived any package.
It is independently known (Henriette de Swart, p.c.) that aucun has a special status in
French. In practice, the translation of (10b) into English is subject to discussion, with
respect to the alternative ‘there have arrived no packages’ and/or ‘there have arrived
zero packages’ and/or ‘there hasn’t arrived any package’. We will leave this aside,
and take along aucun in our discussion, be it as a special indefinite. Its special nature
eventually has a function in this paper.
One traditionally classifies un among indefinites. However, the semantic
interpretation of un does not always lead to the standard indefinite reading. More
specifically, the indefinite article can be interpreted generically, generic un.
Surprisingly, this particular use of the indefinite article is impossible in the impersonal
construction, as shown in (11).
(11)
(a)
(b)
Une femme va chez sa mère quand elle se querelle avec son mari.
A woman goes to her mother when she has an argument with her
husband
* Il va une femme chez sa mère quand elle se querelle avec son mari.
There goes a woman to her mother when she has an argument with her
husband.
Just as with aucun, there is something special about the generic reading of the
indefinite article. The peculiarity of this reading blocks the use of the impersonal
construction, and thus forms one of the testing possibilities for the properties of
postverbal positions in inversions.
Schematically, we thus have the following basis for further discussion.
(12)
Impersonal
construction
Stylistic
Inversion
Definite
Indefinite
*
OK
OK
*
Special
aucun
OK
indef Special indef
Generic un
*
The contrast between definites and indefinites for impersonal constructions and
stylistic inversion suggest that the effects are essentially the “reverse”. The idea is
“what is possible in impersonal constructions is impossible in stylistic inversion and
what is possible in stylistic inversion is impossible in impersonal constructions”. The
term counter-indefiniteness effect captures this intuition properly. But we will show
below that it cannot be an overall “reverse” effect without further specification, due to
the data on the special indefinites.
1.3. Indefinites and indefinites
As we have just concluded, the qualification ‘indefinite’ needs some precision, and
more precisely, we have added two rather special indefinites in order to proceed with
further testing of what is possible in inverted structures.
Let us first complete the schema in (12) with the data for Stylistic Inversion.
Kayne & Pollock (ms.) cite (13a).
(13)
(a)
(b)
Quel livre ne comprend aucun linguiste?
Which book doesn’t any linguist understand
Il n’est arrivé aucun linguiste
There hasn’t arrived any linguist.
In this respect, the inverted NP of Stylistic Inversion has the same properties as the
postverbal NP in the impersonal construction, (13b). In other words, the so-called
counter-indefiniteness effect does not extend to all indefinites that are allowed in the
impersonal construction. This seems to entail that the counter-indefiniteness effect is
not simply a “reverse” effect. There is at least one set of facts that show that the
impersonal construction and stylistic inversion are identical.
Next, we add a new fact, concerning generic un.
(14)
(a)
(b)
Où va une femme quand elle se querelle avec son mari?
Where goes a woman when she has an argument with her husband
* Il va une femme chez sa mère quand elle se querelle avec son mari.
There goes a woman to her mother when she has an argument with her
husband.
These data confirm the “reverse” effect. From this perspective, generic un occupies
positions reserved for definites.
At this point, the schema in (12) has become (15).
Impersonal
construction
Stylistic
Inversion
Definite
Indefinite
*
OK
Special
aucun
OK
OK
*
OK
indef Special indef
Generic un
*
OK
Let us now take into consideration locative inversion, for which we showed above
that it pattern with stylistic inversion as far as agreement is concerned. The picture for
locative inversion is less clear, although the general tendency will be sufficiently
solid.
The two relatively standard sentences that show a relevant contrast between
definites and indefinites are given in (16).
(16)
(a)
(b)
Dans la forêt vivait un vieil ermite
In the forest lived an old hermite
?? Dans la forêt vivait le vieil ermite.
In the forest lived the old hermite.
However, additional data can cast doubt on the validity of this contrast. They are twofold. First, although quite normal indefinites like un vieil ermite are accepted, the
grammaticality strongly drops when the NP is of the type we used in the examples
above, quelqu’un.
(17)
(a)
(b)
?? Dans la forêt vivait quelqu’un.
In the forest lived someone.
Dans la forêt VIVAIT quelqu’un.
In the forest LIVED someone.
When uttered with a neutral phonetic pattern, (16a) is fine, but with a similar neutral
phonetic pattern (17a) is severely less acceptable. (17a) can be repaired by using a
non-neutral phonetic pattern with an accent on the verb, as in (17b). Although this fact
points at the relevance of Focus, it is unclear why this should improve the
grammaticality of the examples with quelqu’un and crucially not those with un vieil
ermite.
Second, there are some examples that do allow for definites:
(18)
(a)
(b)
Dans cette forêt vivait le vieil ermite.
In that forest lived the old hermite
Dans cette île mourut Napoléon
On that island died Napoleon.
These examples involve a deictic determiner internal to the locative PP, which
phonetically is relatively prominent. If the deictic element is omitted,
ungrammaticality ensues:
(19)
* A Ste. Hélène mourut Napoléon
Although this feasibly point at the relevance of prominent Deixis, it is unclear why
this should improve the grammaticality of these examples with definite postverbal
NPs. (note 4).
Besides these qualifications to the basic pattern in (16), which cast doubt on
the contrast, let us look at the special indefinites. They confirm the basic tendency in
(16), as shown in (20).
(20)
(a)
(b)
Dans la forêt ne vivait aucun singe.
In the forest didn’t live any ape.
* Chez sa mère vit une femme après avoir quitté son mari.
At her mother’s lives a woman after having left her husband
(20a) is on a par with the impersonal construction, while the ungrammaticality of
(20b) also shows that this construction is on a par with the impersonal construction.
Because of these data we give the contrast of (16) the benefit of the doubt, knowing
that there are additional issues to be settled in the field of the interaction of indefinites
with Focus and Deixis.
Finally, let us turn to complex inversion. Our judgments point at a
generalization with Stylistic Inversion in this respect (despite other profound syntactic
differences). They are given in (21).
(21)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
Quand Jean est-il arrivé?
When John has-he arrived
Quel livre aucun linguiste ne comprend-il?
Which book no linguist understands-he not
Pourquoi une femme n’aurait-elle pas les mêmes droits qu’un homme?
Why a woman should she not have the same rights as a man
?? Quel gâteau quelqu’un a-t-il mangé?
Which cookie someone has-he eaten
?? Où trois chats dorment-ils?
Where three cats sleep-they
At this point the schema in (15) can be completed to (22).
(22)
Impersonal
construction
Stylistic
Inversion
Locative
Inversion
Complex
Inversion
Definite
Indefinite
*
OK
Special
aucun
OK
indef Special indef
Generic un
*
OK
*
OK
OK
??
OK
OK
*
OK
??
OK
OK
1.4. Conclusions
From the overview in (22), one general observation and two generalizations emerge.
The particularity of aucun revealed by studies on negation is confirmed in
syntax. Among the NPs considered, those containing aucun are the only ones that are
insensitive to any restriction in the area of definiteness. In all postverbal positions
under consideration, NPs with aucun are straightforwardly accepted.
The first generalization is a generalization across the impersonal construction
and locative inversion: grammaticality of indefinites and impossibility of generic un,
alongside questionable grammaticality (or ungrammaticality) for indefinites. The
generalization has been elaborated elsewhere also, e.g. in Hoekstra & Mulder (1990),
who analyze existential and locative predication with one formalism.
The second generalization is a generalization across stylistic inversion and
complex inversion: grammaticality of definites and possibility of generic un,
alongside questionable grammaticality (or ungrammaticality) for indefinites. This
generalization is new, and stems basically from our judgments in (21d) and (21e)
which entail a counter-indefiniteness effect in complex inversion. We will return to
this shortly below.
It is impossible to generalize the impersonal construction and stylistic
inversion. The agreement pattern already indicated this, the definiteness criteria
confirm it. Hence, in GB syntax, the NP of the impersonal construction should occupy
a different position than the NP in stylistic inversion. The proposal by Kayne &
Pollock (ms.), generation of the NP in the standard preverbal position in structures
with stylistic inversion, captures this.
It is also impossible to generalize stylistic inversion and locative inversion
from the dominant perspective of this paper. Despite the fact that the agreement
patterns are identical, the definiteness criteria point at fundamental differences.
In discussing the counter-indefiniteness effect, Kayne & Pollock insist on the
fact that the effect obtains only with what they call ‘real indefinites’. The notion of
‘real indefinites’ can be fleshed out and made more specific in view of the data we
discussed. Proper names in Stylistic Inversion are grammatical, which is not
surprising as they are definite. NPs with aucun are also grammatical. From a
pragmatic point of view sentences like Il n’est arrivé aucun paquet do not introduce a
new entity in discourse. Rather, the sentence states that this potential new entity is not
there. So a definition of ‘real indefinites’ as ‘new entities in discourse’ is feasible.
This definition logically includes quelqu’un, introductory “par excellence”. Finally,
under this definition generic un also fits in: A generic statement does not entail the
introduction in discourse of the entity that the statement bears on.
As a consequence, a pragmatic formulation of the counter-indefiniteness effect
is: “do not pose questions about entities that you introduce in discourse while posing
the question”. In terms of file-cards, the situation depicted amounts to the following
for e.g. * Quel gâteau a mangé quelqu’un?
(23)
Make a new file card for unidentified person (quelqu’un).
As a new file card this card does not have information on it.
Now answer my question: What did this unidentified new person eat?
This pragmatic interpretation of the notion of ‘real indefinites’ can be fully linked up
a pragmatic way of reading the analysis of Kayne & Pollock. Their analysis of the
counter-indefiniteness effect is that the NP in question has to be moved to a higher
projection, Topic Phrase, and that ‘real indefinites’ cannot be topicalized. Hence, the
subject NP in Stylistic Inversion is a ‘previously introduced existing entity’.
Pragmatically speaking, the analysis states “do pose questions about entities that are
known, i.e. topics”.
We feel this analysis is on the right track. On the other hand, the pragmatic
basis of the eventual explanation looks relatively construction-independent and,
moreover, also language-independent. This intuition of the existence of a more
general property of questions comes back in our judgments above for about complex
inversion – which we repeat for convenience:
(21)
(d)
(e)
?? Quel gâteau quelqu’un a-t-il mangé?
Which cookie someone did-he eat
Où trois chats dorment-ils?
Where the cats sleep-they
On the judgment level, we find these clearly infelicitous without any context. In
starting a discourse fragment, the questions are ungrammatical. In running discourse,
however, they can be more acceptable, but then there is a strong relation with other
reading differences that have been noted in the literature, e.g. the strong reading of
prenominal indefinites, as in (24).
(24)
(a)
(b)
Trois chats dorment par ici.
Three cats are sleeping over here.
Il dort trois chats par ici.
There are sleeping three cats over here.
We can imagine a discourse in which (24a) is not properly heard, of the type:
(25)
(a)
(b)
A. Trois chats dorment xxx
Three cats sleep xxx
B: Où trois chats dorment-ils?
Where do three cats sleep
The issue is close to the possibility of ‘second occurrence’, discussed in the literature
on focus (Helen de Hoop, p.c.)
In sum, our intuition is that (21d/e) have a counter-indefiniteness effect in the
intended sense “no introduction of a new entity”, and that the grammatical instances
have standard additional effects in terms of strong readings, specific readings or
second occurrence nature – the additional effect being “the entity was already
introduced before”. The details for this approach are left open for future research
(note 5).
2. Embedded clauses
In embedded clauses, complex inversion is impossible, and will therefore be left out
of consideration. The impersonal construction is possible in embedded sentences, but
there is a general consensus that there are no special properties when compared to root
clauses; therefore the construction will not be further discussed either. Hence, locative
inversion will be discussed, as well as Stylistic Inversion. Stylistic Inversion will
comprise the bulk of the discussion.
2.1. Locative inversion
The grammaticality of locative inversion in embedded clauses is a topic of hard
judgment-oriented debate in a number of languages, e.g. for English and Dutch. The
discussion is linked to the possibility of having a locative PP occupy the standard
subject position, and is therefore theoretically relevant.
In practice, French is not different from English or Dutch in this respect. The
data are given in (26) for indefinites and (27) for definites.
(26)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(27)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
? Il a dit que dans la forêt vivait un vieil ermite
He has said that in the forest lived an old hermite
? Il a dit que dans la forêt ne vivait aucun singe.
He has that that in the forest didn’t live any ape.
* Il a dit que chez sa mère vit une femme après avoir quitté son mari.
He has said that with her mother lives a woman after having left her
husband.
??? Il a dit que dans la forêt vivait le vieil ermite.
He has said that in the forest lived the old hermite
? Il a dit que dans cette forêt vivait le vieil ermite.
He has said that in that forest lived the old hermite
? Il a raconté que dans cette île mourut Napoléon.
He has told that on that island died Napoleon.
* Il a raconté qu’à St. Hélène mourut Napoléon.
He has told that at St. Helens died Napoleon.
Generally speaking, the sentences are less grammatical than their root counterparts,
without therefore being fully ungrammatical. Crucially, however, the definiteness
properties are identical to the ones described above. As the reader may verify, the
deletion of one question mark gives the judgments in the first section. In other words,
there are no special definiteness effects in embedded clauses with locative inversion.
If they are considered grammatical, the generalization noted above holds – a
generalization with the impersonal construction.
2.2. Stylistic Inversion
The counter-indefiniteness effect is observable under the proper circumstances, as
shown by (28).
(28)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
* Il a demandé quel gâteau a mangé quelqu’un
He has asked which cookie has eaten someone.
Elle a demandé où habite un homme après son divorce.
She has asked where lives a man after his divorce.
Elle a demandé où ne vivait (plus) aucun singe.
She has asked where didn’t live any ape (any more).
?? Elle a demandé à quel endroit dormaient trois chats (note 6)
She has asked at which place slept three cats.
Nevertheless, there is an issue in embedded clauses, which stems from the optionality
of the inversion. Both (29a) and (29b) are grammatical:
(29)
(a)
(b)
Il a demandé où dormaient les trois chats.
He has asked where slept the three cats
Il a demandé où les trois chats dormaient.
He has asked where the three cats slept.
The question to be dealt with in this case is whether there are situations in which (a) is
preferred over (b) or the reverse. These have been argued to involve Focus. In what
follows we will argue for Focus as the intervening property in structures in which
stylistic inversion is otherwise optional.
First, consider ‘contrastive focus’.
(30)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
Il a demandé quel gâteau a mangé Jean.
He has asked which cookie has eaten John
Il a demandé quel gâteau Jean a mangé.
He has asked which cookie John has eaten.
Mais non, il veut savoir quel gâteau a mangé Paul / PAUL.
No, he wants to know which cookie has eaten Paul
?? Mais non, il veut savoir quel gâteau Paul a mangé.
No, he wants to know which cookie Paul has eaten.
Mais non, il veut savoir quel gâteau PAUL a mangé.
No, he wants to know which cookie PAUL has eaten.
The postverbal position can be contrastive on its own, with the possibility of a strong
accent. The preverbal position is unfelicitous in contrastive situations, but can be
rescued by putting a strong accent. So, contrastive focus causes a strong accent and/or
inversion, but excludes non-inversion without accent.
The impressionistic (dynamic) discourse definition we have in mind for
contrastive focus is: “delete an existing entity inside a specified predicate and insert
another existing entity at the emptied position”.
(31)
Mais non, il veut savoir quel gâteau a mangé Paul.
No, he wants to know which cookie has eaten Paul
Manger (x, x=Jean, y, y=gâteau) Æ manger (x, x=Paul, y, y=gâteau)
Before continuing, let us also define impressionistically ‘narrow focus’: insert an
existing entity inside a specific predicate at the position that is open (by the question).
(32)
Qui a mangé ce gâteau? Jean
Who has eaten this cookie? John
Manger (x, x=?, y y=gâteau) Æ Manger (x, x=Jean, y, y=gâteau)
Wide focus corresponds to the construction of a predicate and adding of its
arguments:
(33)
Qu’est-ce qui s’est passé? Jean a causé un accident
What happened? John causes an accident
00 Æ causer (x, x=Jean, y, y=un accident)
Let us then consider the data which relate to the subjunctives in French. In situations
of wide focus, inversion is optional without side effects, as shown in (34). As
subjunctive is the licensing property of inversion, the same type of inversion is
ungrammatical with indicatives, as illustrated in (35).
(34)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(35)
(a)
(b)
(c)
Que veux-tu?
What do you want
Je veux que Paul vienne.
I want that Paul comes.
Je veux que vienne Paul.
I want that comes Paul
Que dis-tu?
What do you say
Je dis que Paul viendra
I say that Paul will-come
* Je dis que viendra Paul
I say that will-come Paul
In cases of narrow focus however, the pattern that we saw above with contrastive
focus re-occurs.
(36)
A.
B.
Qui veux-tu qui vienne?
Who do you want that comes?
(a)
J’aimerais bien que vienne Paul.
I would like that comes Paul
(b)
?? J’aimerais bien que Paul vienne.(note 7)
I would like that Paul comes
(c)
J’aimerais bien que PAUL vienne.
I would like that PAUL comes.
Narrow focus causes either an accent or stylistic inversion. Like contrastive focus, it is
incompatible with a preverbal un-accented NP subject. It is relevant to note that this
pattern is also dependent on the subjunctive, as shown in (37).
(37)
A.
B.
Qui crois-tu qui a dormi?
Who do you think that has slept
* Je crois qu’a dormi Georges.
I believe that has slept Georges.
Thus, although narrow focus may entail inversion, it may only entail inversion in
constructions in which it is otherwise allowed to invert. One cannot say that narrow
focus triggers inversion in French embedded clauses. Narrow focus triggers inversion
only if the other properties of the clause allow for inversion.
Finally, consider the data for contrastive focus in an otherwise narrow focus
context. The patterns observed above are confirmed.
(38)
(a)
Qui croit-elle qui a dormi?
(b)
(c)
(39)
(a)
(b)
(c)
Who does she think that has slept
* Elle croit qu’a dormi Georges
She believes that has slept Georges
* Mais non, elle croit qu’a dormi Jacques / JACQUES
No, she believes that has slept Jacques
Qui veut-elle qui vienne?
Who does she want that comes
Elle veut que vienne Paul
She want that comes Paul
Mais non, elle veut que vienne Raoul.
No, she wants that comes Raoul.
Contrastive focus may entail inversion, but it is not possible to say that in French
contrastive focus causes inversion. It only causes inversion if inversion is otherwise
allowed.
2.3. Conclusions
In embedded clauses the basic properties of the constructions in root clauses are
identical. The observations and generalizations made in section 1.4. do not deserve
further qualification and in fact are simply confirmed.
This does not entail that there are no issues in embedded clauses. One of the
standard syntactically problematic issues is that Stylistic Inversion is generally
considered to be optional, not directly in root clauses, but generally in embedded
clauses. In this domain we have paid particular attention to the pragmatic function of
otherwise definite NPs.
The conclusion is that French has a possibility of syntactically encoding focus
in the postverbal position. But this possibility is severely restricted. The possibility
may only be instantiated if the sentence itself allows for inversion for independent
reasons; the contrast between subjunctives and indicates is the source of this
observation. In indicatives focus has no influence on word order, because the
indicative does not allow for the inversion in the first place. Subjunctives do supply a
proper environment for inversion.
When the precondition of allowing for inversion is satisfied, inversion is
favored in situations of both narrow and contrastive focus. In wide focus inversion it
is not favored, such that it is completely optional. An alternative for inversion is
heavy accenting of the preverbal position, while the inverted position may
additionally receive this heavy accent. In cases of narrow and contrastive focus, using
the preverbal position with neutral accent is unfelicitous.
There are a number of issues for future research, besides the linking between
the issues of indefiniteness of section 1 with the focus issues for definites of section 2
(that is, the behavior of indefinites vs. definites under focus). We mention two here,
relating to the data of focus.
In (39) we gave examples with ergative verbs, which are uncontested. In the
area of agentive verbs, there is a relatively strong judgment disagreement between
Kampers-Manhe (1998) and Marandin (2000a) (note 8)
(40)
Je voudrais que travaille Marie (a: *, b: ok)
I would like that works Mary
Above we gave the data for narrow and wide focus, but there also exists
‘intermediate’ focus, defined as the situation in which the VP without the subject is
new information:
(41)
(a)
(b)
(c)
Que veux-tu que Pierre fasse?
What do you want that Peter dos
Je veux que Pierre travaille
I want that Peter works
* Je veux que travaille Pierre.
I want that works Peter.
Hence, these seem to point at the relevance of another property, in this case Topic.
The pattern is neither identical to the pattern in narrow focus (where inversion is
strongly preferred), nor to the pattern in wide focus (where inversion is fully
optional). Topichood could block inversion also when it is otherwise licensed.
3. Conclusion
Postverbal subject position in French illustrate an unexpected wealth of semantic and
pragmatic differences. A statement that French is a language with a rigid word order
that has no direct way of encoding semantic and pragmatic differences would appear
to be too strong.
References
Abeillé, A. & D. Godard, 2000. “Construction impersonnelle”. Ms. Cited after
Marandin (ms.)
Cornulier, B. de, 1974. “Pourquoi et l’inversion du sujet non clitique”. In: C. Rohrer
& N. Ruwet (eds), Actes du colloque franco-allemand de grammaire
transformationnelle, Vol. 1, Niemeyer, Tubingen, pp. 139-163.
Drijkoningen, F., 1997. “Morphological Strength: NP positions in French”. In: H. van
Riemsdijk et al. (eds), Rightward Movement. Benjamins, Amsterdam.
Drijkoningen, F., 1999. “Past Participle Agreement in French; AGRO? AGRA!”. In:
R. van Bezooijen & R. Kager (eds), Linguistics in the Netherlands 1999.
Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 41-52.
Hoekstra, T., & R. Mulder, 1990. “Unergatives as copular verbs; location and
existential predication”. The Linguistic Review 7, pp. 1-79.
Hulk, A., 1982. Het clitisch pronomen “en”: een dwarsdoorsnede van de Franse
syntaxis. Ph.D. Dissertation, Utrecht University.
Kampers-Manhe, B., 1998. “Je veux que parte Paul: A neglected construction”. In: A.
Schwegler, B. Tranel & M. Uribe-Etxebarria (eds) Romance Linguistics:
Theoretical Perspectives. Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 130-141.
Kayne, R., & J.-Y. Pollock, 1998, ms. (unpublished). “New thoughts on Stylistic
Inversioin”. Both a handout at the Amsterdam conference on Inversion in
Romance (1998), and a paper to appear in a volume edited by A. Hulk, to be
published by Oxford U.P.
Kupferman, L., 1984. “Syntaxe et conditions pragmatiques”. Linguisticae
Investigationes VII/2, pp. 385-400.
Legendre, G., 1998. “Focus in French Stylistic Inversion”. Handout of the paper
presented at the Amsterdam conference on Inversion in Romance (1998).
Marandin, J.-M, 2000a. “Unaccusative inversion in French”. Handout of a paper
presented at the PICS meeting in Paris in May, 2000. [related to Marandin (to
appear) “Unaccusative Inversion in French”, in Selected Papers of Going
Romance 1999].
Marandin, J.-M, 2000b. “Unité et diversité de l’inversion en français”. Ms.
CNRS/Paris 7.
Miller, P., 1991. Clitics and constituents in phrase structure grammar. Ph.D.
Dissertation, Utrecht University.
Rizzi, L., 1997. “The fine structure of the left periphery”. In: L. Haegeman (ed),
Elements of grammar. Handbook of Generative Syntax. Kluwer, Dordrecht,
pp. 281-337.
Notes
1. This paper has been presented at the workshop on “Information Structure in
French” organized in the framework of PICS, in Amsterdam, December 2000. This
work is still in progress: the text reproduced here is close to the oral version of
December 2000, and does not always fully integrate the new data and discussions that
have arisen since. The goal of PICS is to come to a rather theory independent
overview of the relevant data.
2. For HPSG (a model for which we are not specialists) what is said here seems to
favor an analysis of the Miller (1991) type over that of Abeillé & Godard (2000) – in
which the impersonal subject looks as treated as the only subject, and the second (NP)
subject as ‘demoted’ to object status. That is, as far as the agreement patterns are
involved.
3. We are not aware of an analysis of participle agreement in HPSG.
4. An exception must be made for the use of this construction in a list. The sentence
would be all right in an enumeration of different places where celebrities died: A
Paris mourut Louis XVI; A New York John Lennon, ….
5. Nevertheless, the use of stylistic inversion in (25b) remains ungrammatical. This
issue is left open for further research.
6. Our judgments on the ungrammaticality of (25d) indicate that the contrast that is
central in the proposal by Kayne & Pollock (1998) may be less severe in embedded
clauses.
7. In fact, we feel that these are ungrammatical. The speakers at the workshop did not
fully agree with the judgment ‘plainly ungrammatical’.
8. The whole discussion group of the workshop remained consistently divided on that
point during the discussion.