Progressive stative sentences in French

Progressive stative sentences in French
Fabienne Martin
Universität Stuttgart
[email protected]
Deuxième Atelier Franco-Allemand de Linguistique de l’École Doctorale
Internationale Stuttgart/Paris 8
17-18 novembre 2006
1.
1.1.
Introduction
The problem
• Contrary to what is commonly assumed, stative predicates are sometimes
compatible with the progressive in French.
• In easy cases, one can argue that the progressivized stative predicate is
coerced into a change of state predicate:
(1)
Il est en train de ressembler de plus en plus à son père.
He’s resembling more and more to his father.
• But in other cases, no coercion mechanism seems involved:
(2)
A. Je parie que Pierre va arriver dans 10 minutes, avec la bouteille
de vin qui nous manque.
B. Ma chère, tu es en train de croire au Père Noël.
A. I bet that Peter will arrive in 10 minutes, with the bottle of wine that
we need.
B. Lit. My dear, you are believing in Santa Claus
(3)
??Je suis en train de croire qu’il pleut.
I am believing that it’s raining.
1
(4)
A. Tu sais où elle est, ma vieille veste en velours?
B. Ta vieille veste en velours, elle est en train de décorer le fond de la
poubelle.
A. Do you know where is my old corduroy jacket?
Lit. B. Well, your old corduroy jacket is decorating the bottom of the
trash.
(5)
??Les boules de Noël sont en train de décorer le sapin.
Christmas balls are decorating the fir tree.
(6)
Je suis en train de rester sur un PC à lire des posts sur un forum de
fous. (Internet)
Lit. I am staying on a PC reading posts on a crazy forum.
(7)
??Une version de Word est en train de rester sur ton PC.
Lit. A version of Word is staying on your PC.
1.2.
Goals and plan of the talk
General hyp.:
1. to understand the distribution of stative predicates in progressive sentences, one should distinguish between three kinds of progressive:
- standard progressive
- interpretive progressive (cf. Buyssens (1968), König (1980), Kearns
(2003))
- active progressive (with the copula be, cf. Zucchi (1998))
Some combinations are not possible:
* standard active progressive
* standard interpretive progressive
2. none of the examples above are real counter-examples to the rule that
stative predicates are not compatible with the standard progressive in
French.
Section 2: Sentences like (2) are instances of the interpretive progressive.
2
Section 3: Sentences like (4) and (6) contain the standard progressive, but
the predicates used denote “agentive states”/ are pseudo-stative.
Section 4: Progressive sentences with the copula être in French are not
similar to the English active progressive:
(8)
You are being too noisy.
(9)
6= Tu es en train d’être trop bruyant.
2.
Stative predicates and the interpretive progressive (IP)
• Hypothesis: sentences like (2) contain the interpretive progressive, not the
standard progressive. Another example:
(10) Ecoute, tu es en train de vouloir réaliser l’impossible. [Context: the
speaker sees that the hearer tries to add a card on a card castle
which is visibly unstable]
Lit. Listen, you are wanting to realize the impossible.
(11) ??Je suis en train de vouloir manger une glace.
I am wanting to eat an ice cream.
• In order to argue for H, we have to:
– distinguish the interpretive progressive from the standard progressive
– explain why predicates like croire au Père Noël accept more easily the
IP than others like croire qu’il pleut
2.1.
Some specific properties of the interpretive progressive (IP)
Cf. also Kearns (2003)
2.1.1.
Discursive dependance
• IP-sentences Sj are generally preceded by another sentence Si with whom
they are linked by a specific relation R, which is obviously not only temporal:
3
(12) Pierre s’en va. Il est en train de faire une erreur. (interpretive
progressive)
Peter is going. He is making a mistake.
(13) Pierre s’en va. Il est en train de fumer une cigarette. (standard
progressive)
Peter is going. He is smoking a cigarette.
If an IP-sentence appears alone, one has to postulate the ellipsis of an implicit Si or in/by-phrase (cf. also Kearns (2003))
(14) You are making a mistake.
' In doing what you are currently doing, you are making a mistake.
• Question: what is the nature of R?
• Note that the same R is probably present in non progressive sentences
like (15), but not in (16):
(15) A. Je parie que Pierre va arriver dans 10 minutes, avec la bouteille
de vin qui nous manque.
B. Ma chère, tu crois au Père Noël, comme tu es là.
(16) Je lui téléphone. Je crois qu’il pleut.
I am going to call her. I think it rains.
Solution à la Ryle: two descriptions of the same event. According
to several authors, R is the identity relation (Ryle (1949), König (1980),
Kearns (2003)).
Problem: if R is the identity relation, we should be able to inverse the order
of the descriptions without any semantic change (cf. also Bennett (1994)
against Anscombe (1957), Sæbø (2005) against Kearns (2003)):
(17) En invitant Marie à danser, Pierre est en train de faire une erreur.
By inviting Mary to dance, Peter is making a mistake.
6⇒
(18) ?En faisant une erreur, Pierre est en train d’inviter Marie à danser.
By making a mistake, Peter is inviting Mary to dance.
4
Chock his opponent
Checkmate his opponent
Move his queen
Move his hand
Figure 1: Diagram of actions generation (Goldman)
Solution à la Goldman. According to Goldman (1970), the two events
described in sentences like (12) are in fact two different events, even if
these events happen to share their spatio-temporal boundaries.
• vi and vj are linked by a particular dependance relation, called “(level)
generation”.
• The generation is an asymetric, irreflexive, and transitive relation
Some linguistic tests allow to identify the presence of a generation between
two events sharing their spatio-temporal boundaries such that vi “generates” vj .
• Test 1 (provided by Goldman): when vi “generates” vj , it is possible to
say that “by doing vi , x was doing vj ”or “in doing vi , x was doing vj ”
(19) Peter is leaving. He’s making a mistake. (interpretive progressive)
(20) By leaving, he’s making a mistake.
(21) Peter is leaving. He’s smoking a cigarette. (standard progressive)
(22) #By/#in leaving, he’s smoking a cigarette.
• A similar test can be found for French (Martin (2006)): only the preposition en2 translating while can be easily modified by tout:1
1
I owe this point to C.Beyssade (c.p.).
5
(23) ?Tout en1 partant, Pierre fait une erreur.
tout-en leaving, Peter is making a mistake.
(24) Tout en2 partant, Pierre fume cigarette.
tout-en leaving, Peter is smoking a cigarette.
• Test 2: (not provided by Goldman) when vi generates vj , it’s always possible to present the fact that vi occurred as an explanation of the fact that
vj occurred:
(25) (12) Peter is leaving. He is making a mistake.
' Pierre is making a mistake because he’s leaving.
(26) Peter is going. He is smoking.
6' Peter is going because he is smoking.
• Goldman focalizes on the relation between two actions, but nothing in
its analysis impedes to define the dependance relation R below between an
action e and a state s as a level generation.2
• The aforementioned tests give the expected results:
(27) ?Tout en pariant que Pierre va arriver avec la bouteille qui nous
manque, tu crois au Père Noël. (test 1)
Tout-en betting that Peter will arrive with the bottle of wine that we
need, you believe in Santa Claus.
(28) OK Tout en lui téléphonant, je crois qu’il pleut.
Tout-en calling her, I believe it’s raining.
(29) A. Je crois que Pierre va arriver bientôt. B. Tu crois au Père Noël.
(test 2)
' Tu crois au Père Noël parce que tu ...
You believe in Santa Claus because you..
(30) Je lui téléphone. Je crois qu’il pleut.
6' ?Je crois qu’il pleut parce que je lui téléphone.
You believe it’s raining because you will call her.
2
This extension of the Goldmanian analysis to stative sentences is already proposed in
Martin (2006).
6
2.1.2.
An “unmasking” progressive
• Until now, we do not explain the difference between croire au Père Noël
and croire qu’il pleut, nor the contrasts below:
(31)
a. ??Je suis en train de porter mon costume.
I am wearing my suit.
b. Mais! Mais tu es en train de porter mon costume, toi!
But you are wearing my suit!
(32)
a. ??Je suis en train de vouloir une glace.
I am wanting an ice cream.
b. Dis donc! Tu crois que je n’ai pas remarqué où tu allais? Avoue,
tu es en train de vouloir une glace, comme tu es là.
Lit. Listen! You think that I haven’t noticed where you were
going? Admit it, you are wanting an ice cream.
• In order for the IP to be acceptable, the context must satisfy the evidential
value of this progressive summarized below:3
Evidential value of the IP The speaker of a sentence S denoting
a fact F containing the interpretive progressive suggests that an
epistemic agent a (identified by default with the entity denoted
by the subject of S) ignores the fact F or a fact F’ related to F
whereas a should know F/F’ or pretends not to know F/F’.
• In sum, the speaker of an IP sentence is seen as an agent who unmasks a
reality that a should know or tries to hide.
When the context satisfies this evidential property of the IP, almost any
stative predicate is compatible with it:
(33) Ha! Tu es en train de croire qu’il pleut, toi. Ce n’est que la voisine
qui arrose un peu trop généreusement ses plantes, tu sais.
Lit. Hey, you are believing that it’s raining. You know, it’s only the
neighbour who is watering her plants a bit too generously.
This value explains why in general, IP sentences are generally better with
the second/third persons than with the first person.
3
It is possible that this property distinguishes the French IP and the English IP.
7
3.
Standard progressive, agentive states and pseudostative predicates
• There are at least two other apparent exceptions to the rule that stative
predicates are not compatible with the standard progressive in French.
3.1.
(6)
Rester: Stative predicates denoting an agentive state
Je suis en train de rester sur un PC à lire des posts sur un forum de
fous. (Internet)
Lit. I am staying on a PC reading posts on a crazy forum.
(34) Une fois la lumière éteinte, je l’ai surpris en train de rester immobile
sur son dos au fond de l’aquarium.
Once the light was turned off, I discovered it staying motionless on its
back in the bottom of the aquarium.
(7)
??Une version de Word est en train de rester sur ton PC.
Lit. A version of Word is staying on your PC.
• Hyp.: When their subjects denote an intentional entity, verbs like rester
can denote an “agentive state”, i.e. states which share some properties of
actions:
– they are “planned” states
– the participant controls their occurrence (she can stop/continue it,
etc.)
3.2.
Décorer: Pseudo-stative predicates
• Sentences like (4) do not denote an agentive state, since their subject
cannot be associated to the role Agent:
(4)
A. Tu sais où elle est, ma vieille veste en velours?
B. Ta vieille veste en velours, elle est en train de décorer le fond de la
poubelle.
A. Do you know where is my old corduroy jacket?
Lit. A. Well, your corduroy jacket is decorating the bottom of the trash.
8
(35) Un horrible bouquet est en train de défigurer mon salon. C’est quoi ce
truc?
Lit. An ugly flower bunch is disfiguring my living room. What’s that
thing?
(36) Des morceaux de bois sont en train de nous barrer la route. On
pourrait pas enlever ça?
Lit. Pieces of wood are blocking the road. Is it possible to move that
away?
• Contrary to rester or se trouver, all these verbs are aspectually ambiguous:
they denote a state or an action.
• Hyp.: in progressive sentences, these verbs denote an action even with a
non animate subject, which is metaphorically presented as an Agent (“pseudostative predicates”).
Argument 1: these verbs pass other agentive tests, even when they are
(metaphorically) used to describe a state:
(37) Ce qu’ils font, ces morceaux de bois, c’est nous barrer la route.
Lit. What they do, these pieces of wood, is to block the road.
Argument 2: these verbs can be used as pseudo-stative predicates iff they
describe temporary states (arguably, permanent states cannot be metaphorically represented as actions):
(38) Une horrible statue est en train de trôner sur la place.
An ugly statue is standing imposingly on the place.
(39) ??Une horrible église est en train de trôner au milieu du village.
An ugly church is standing imposingly in the middle of the village.
4.
4.1.
Does French have an active progressive?
Definition of the active progressive
• Zucchi (1998): the copula be is only compatible with the active progressive
(AP):
(40) He is being arrogant.(Zucchi (1998), p. 353)
' He is acting in a arrogant way.
9
Argument 1: predicates compatible with the AP pass other agentive tests:
(41) What John did was be arrogant. (id., p. 358)
Argument 2: these predicates are compatible with the AP only with an
agentive subject:
(42) *The motor was being noisy. (id., p. 355)
• Problem for the Zucchi analysis: if beact clever means act in a clever way,
why the latter and not the former is compatible with a non animate subject?
(43) My computer is solving the problem. It’s doing it in a clever way, I
must say.
(44) ??My computer is solving the problem. It’s being clever, I must say.
Possible solution: beact clever rather means manifest one’s cleverness conspicuously and intentionally.
4.2.
No AP in French
• At first sight, one could assume that the French progressive compatible
the copula être is the AP:
(45) Ecoute, là, tu es en train d’être trop gentil. (M.Paillard (p.c.),
attributed to Franckel)
Listen, now, you are en-train-de be too generous.
• Hyp.: this progressive is not the AP.
Argument 1: être is compatible with the progressive even without an agentive subject:
(46) Dis, ta voiture est vraiment en train d’être trop bruyante.
Listen, you car is really en-train-de be too noisy.
Argument 2: French progressive sentences with être do not implicate that
the entity denoted by the subject is acting conspicuously and intentionally.
10
5.
Conclusions
• “Real” stative predicates are not compatible with the standard progressive in French
• Some stative predicates are compatible with the interpretative progressive in French
• Progressive sentences with the copula être are not instances of the
active progressive as defined by Zucchi (1998)
References
Anscombe, Elizabeth, 1957, Intention, Oxford: Blackwell.
Bennett, Jonathan, 1994, “The "Namely" Analysis of the "By"-Locution”, Linguistics and
Philosophy, 17:29–51.
Buyssens, Eric, 1968, Les deux aspectifs de la conjugaison anglaise au XX siècle, Bruxelles:
Presses universitaires de Bruxelles.
Goldman, Alvin, 1970, A Theory of Human Action, Prentice-Hall.
Kearns, Kate, 2003, “Durative Achievements and Individual-Level Predicates on Events”,
Linguistics and Philosophy, 26/5:595–636.
König, Ekkehard, 1980, “On the Context-dependence of the Progressive in English”, in
Christian Rohrer (éd.), Time, Tense, and Quantifiers. Proceedings of the Stuttgart Conference on the Logic of Tense and Quantification, 269–292, Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Martin, Fabienne, 2006, Les prédicats d’état en discours. Sémantique des adjectifs évaluatifs et des verbes psychologiques [Stative Predicates in Discourse. Semantics of Evaluative
Adjectives and Psych-Verbs], Thèse de doctorat, Université libre de Bruxelles.
Ryle, Gilbert, 1949, The Concept of Mind, Harmondsworth: Penguin/Peregrine Books.
Sæbø, Kjell Johan, 2005, “The Structure of Criterion Predicates”, in Johannes Dölling,
Tatjana Heyde-Zybatow et Martin Shäfer (éds.), Proceedings of the Workshop on Event
Structures in Linguistic Form and Interpretation.
Zucchi, Sandro, 1998, “Aspect Shift”, in Susan Rothstein (éd.), Events and Grammar, 349–
370, Dordrecht: Kluwer.
11