Cover not available
Part of
Points of Convergence in Romance Linguistics: Papers selected from the 48th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages (LSRL 48), Toronto, 25-28 April 2018
Edited by Gabriela Alboiu and Ruth King
[Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 360] 2022
► pp. 11–34

Chapter 1
Picard subject clitics

An analysis at the interface of syntax, phonology, and prosody

| Université de Montréal
This paper argues that the analysis of Picard subject clitics and lexical subjects greatly benefits from considering syntax, phonology, and prosody. Specifically, the status of pronominal clitics as arguments or agreement markers must be determined on the basis of syntactic criteria, while the determination of their status as clitics or affixes necessitates phonological arguments. My analysis shows that Picard subject clitics behave like agreement markers but that they retain the status of clitics, thus providing evidence for the Clitic Group as proposed by Nespor & Vogel (1986). I also provide evidence that other grammatical monosyllables do not create clitic groups.
Keywords: subject clitics, subject doubling, clitic group, vowel epenthesis, prosodic hierarchy, agreement marking, grammaticalization, colloquial French, dislocation, stylistic inversion
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Subject clitics: Syntactic subjects or agreement markers?
  • 3.Lexical subjects: Syntactic subjects or dislocated phrases?
    • 3.1Vowel epenthesis in Picard
    • 3.2Subjects and epenthesis
  • 4.Subject clitics: Affixes or clitics?
    • 4.1Phonological phrase and clitic group
    • 4.2Phonological word and clitic group
  • 5.Discussion and conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 10 March 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.360.01aug
References (68)
References
Ashby, William J. 1977. Clitic inflection in French; An historical perspective. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
1980. Prefixed conjugation in Parisian French. In Herbert J. Izzo (ed.), Italic and Romance linguistic studies in honor of Ernst Pulgram, 195–207. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1988. The syntax, pragmatics, and sociolinguistics of left- and right-dislocations in French. Lingua 75. 203–229. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Auger, Julie. 1994. Pronominal clitics in Colloquial Québec French: A morphological approach. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania dissertation.
. 2000. Phonology, variation, and prosodic structure: Word-final epenthesis in Vimeu Picard. In Josep M. Fontana, Louise McNally, M. Teresa Turell & Enric Vallduvi (eds.), Proceedings of the First International Conference on Language Variation in Europe (ICLaVE), 14–24. Barcelona: Universitat Pompeu Fabra.Google Scholar
. 2001. Phonological variation and Optimality Theory: Evidence from word-initial vowel epenthesis in Picard. Language Variation and Change 13(3). 253–303. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2003a. Le redoublement des sujets en picard. Journal of French Language Studies 13(3). 381–404. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2003b. The development of a literary standard: The case of Picard in Vimeu-Ponthieu, France. In Brian D. Joseph, Johanna DeStefano, Neil G. Jacobs & Isle Lehiste (eds.), When languages collide: Perspectives on language conflict, language competition, and language coexistence, 141–164. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press.Google Scholar
. 2003c. Les pronoms clitiques sujets en picard: une analyse au confluent de la phonologie, de la morphologie et de la syntaxe. Journal of French Language Studies 13(1). 1–22. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2018. Revitalisation, variation régionale et purisme dans le développement d’un standard littéraire: le cas du picard. In Christine Meyer & Paula Prescod (eds.), Langues choisies, langues sauvées: poétiques de la résistance, 155–171. Würzburg, Germany: Königshausen & Neumann.Google Scholar
Auger, Julie & Ryan Hendrickson. 2011. Picard verbal morphology: What it tells us about syllable structure. Paper presented at the CUNY Conference on the Phonology of Endangered Languages, New York City, NY, January 12–14.
Auger, Julie & Anne-José Villeneuve. 2008. Ne deletion in Picard and in regional French: Evidence for distinct grammars. In Miriam Meyerhoff & Naomi Nagy (eds.), Social lives in language – Sociolinguistics and multilingual speech communities, 223–247. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. La double expression des sujets en français saguenéen: étude variationniste. In Wim Remysen & Diane Vincent (eds.), Hétérogénéité et homogénéité dans les pratiques langagières: mélanges offerts à Denise Deshaies, 67–86. Québec: Presses de l’Université Laval.Google Scholar
Barnes, Betsy. 1985. The pragmatics of left detachment in spoken standard French. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beaulieu, Louise & Patricia Balcom. 1998. Le statut des pronoms personnels sujets en français acadien du nord-est du Nouveau-Brunswick. Linguistica atlantica 20. 1–27.Google Scholar
Brandi, Luciana & Patrizia Cordin. 1989. Two Italian dialects and the null subject parameter. In Osvaldo Jaeggli & Ken Safir (eds.), The null subject parameter and parametric theory, 111–142. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Burnett, Heather & Julie Auger. 2016. Syntax, semantics and affect in Picard secondary negation. Paper presented at Linguistic Symposium on the Romance Languages (LSRL) 46, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY, March 31–April 3.
Campion, Elizabeth. 1984. Left dislocation in Montréal French. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania dissertation.
Clements, George N. 1990. The role of the sonority cycle in core syllabification. In John Kingston & Mary E. Beckman (eds.), Papers in laboratory phonology, 283–333. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cochet, E. 1933. Le patois de Gondecourt (Nord). Paris: Droz.Google Scholar
Coveney, Aidan. 2003. Le redoublement du sujet en français parlé: une approche variationniste. In Anita Berit Hansen & Maj-Britt Mosegaard Hansen (eds.), Structures linguistiques et interactionnelles dans le français parlé: actes du colloque international, Université de Copenhague du 22 au 23 juin 2001, 111–143. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press.Google Scholar
. 2005. Subject doubling in spoken French: A sociolinguistic approach. The French Review 79(1). 96–111.Google Scholar
Culbertson, Jennifer. 2010. Convergent evidence for categorial change in French: From subject clitic to agreement marker. Language 86(1). 85–132. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dagnac, Anne. 2015. ‘Pas’, ‘mie’, ‘point’ et autres riens : de la négation verbale en picard. In Jan Goes & Mariana Pitar (eds.), La négation en français : études linguistiques, pragmatiques et didactiques, 129–152. Artois: Artois Presse Université. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dauby, Jean. 1979. Le livre du ‘rouchi’ parler picard de Valenciennes. Amiens: Musée de Picardie.Google Scholar
Dawson, Alain. 2008. “Bienvenue chez les Chtis”: la langue opaque. Langues et cité 12(4).Google Scholar
. 2010. Guide de conversation picard de poche. Paris: Asimil.Google Scholar
De Cat, Cécile. 2007. French Dislocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Debrie, René. 1974. Étude linguistique du patois de l’Amiénois. Amiens: Archives départementales de la Somme. Paris: Université de Paris dissertation (1960).
Edmont, Edmond. 1897. Lexique Saint-Polois. Geneva: Slatkine Reprints. (Reprint of the original 1897 self-published edition).Google Scholar
Fonseca-Greber, Bonnibeth Beale. 2000. The change from pronoun to clitic to prefix and the rise of null subjects in spoken Swiss French. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona dissertation.
Gaglia, Sascha & Christoph Schwarze. 2015. The controversial status of Romance pronominal clitics – a new criterion. Linguistische Berichte 242. 103–139.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce. 1989. The prosodic hierarchy in meter. In Paul Kiparsky & Gilbert Youmans (eds.), Phonetics and Phonology; Rhythm and Meter, Volume 1, 201–260. Cambridge, MA: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heap, David, Michèle Oliviéri & Katerina Palasis. 2017. Clitic pronouns. In Andreas Dufter & Elisabeth Stark (eds.), Manual of Romance morphosyntax and syntax, 183–229. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Horne, Merle. 1990. The clitic group as a prosodic category in old French. Lingua (82)1. 1–13. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hrkal, Ed. 1910. Grammaire historique du patois picard de Démuin. Revue de philologie française et de littérature 24. 118–140, 175–204, 241–277.Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard & Jean-Yves Pollock. 1978. Stylistic inversion, successive cyclicity, and Move NP in French. Linguistic Inquiry 9(4). 595–621.Google Scholar
King, Ruth & Terry Nadasdi. 1997. Left dislocation, number marking, and (non-)standard French. Probus 9. 267–284. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Landrecies, Jacques. 2006. Astérix, Cafougnette, Tintin et Martine ou le picard en tête de gondole. Nord’ 48. 63–90.Google Scholar
Ledieu, Alcius. 1909. Petite grammaire du patois picard. Paris: H. Welter.Google Scholar
Legendre, Géraldine, Jenny Culbertson, Isabelle Barrière, Thierry Nazzi, & Louise Goyet. 2010. Experimental and empirical evidence for the status and acquisition of subject clitics and agreement marking in adult and child spoken French. In Vincent Torrens, Linda Escobar, Anna Gavarró, & Juncal Gutiérrez (eds.), Movement and clitics, 333–360. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Martineau, France & Raymond Mougeon. 2003. A sociolinguistic study of the origins of ne deletion in European and Quebec French. Language 79(1). 118–152. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nadasdi, Terry. 1995. Subject NP doubling, matching and minority French. Language Variation and Change 7(1). 1–14. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2000. Variation grammaticale et langue minoritaire: le cas des pronoms clitiques en français ontarien. Munich: LINCOM Europa.Google Scholar
Nespor, Marina & Irene Vogel. 1986. Prosodic phonology. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Oudin, Antoine. 1632/1970. Grammaire française rapportée du langage du temps. Geneva: Slatkine Reprints.Google Scholar
Palasis, Katerina. 2013. The case for diglossia: Describing the emergence of two grammars in the early acquisition of metropolitan French. Journal of French Language Studies 23(1). 17–35. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015. Subject clitics and preverbal negation in European French: Variation, acquisition, diatopy and diachrony. Lingua 161. 125–143. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Poletto, Cecilia. 2000. The higher functional field: Evidence from Northern Italian dialects. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Remacle, Louis. 1960. Syntaxe du parler wallon de la Gleize. 3 volumes. Paris: Belles Lettres.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 1986. On the status of subject clitics in Romance. In Osvaldo Jaeggli & Carmen Silva-Corvalan (eds.), Studies in Romance Linguistics, 391–419. Dordrecht: Foris. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roberge, Yves. 1990. The syntactic recoverability of null arguments. Montréal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.Google Scholar
Sankoff, Gillian. 1982. Usage linguistique et grammaticalisation: les clitiques sujets en français. In Norbert Dittmar & Brigitte Schlieben-Lange (eds.), Sociolinguistique dans les pays de langue romane, 81–85. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Suñer, Margarita. 2003. The lexical preverbal subject in a Romance null subject language. Where are thou?. In Rafael Núñez-Cedeño, Luis López & Richard Cameron (eds.), Romance perspective on language knowledge and use: Selected papers from the 31st Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages (LSRL), Chicago, 19–22 April 2001, 341–357. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vasseur, Gaston. 1996. Grammaire des parlers picards du Vimeu (Somme). Abbeville: F. Paillart.Google Scholar
Vaugelas, Claude Favre de. 1647. Remarques sur la langue françoise utiles à ceus quiveulent bien parler et bien escrire. Paris: J. Camusat & P. le Petit (facsimile edition by Jeanne Streicher, Paris: Slatkine Reprints, 1934)Google Scholar
Villeneuve, Anne-José & Julie Auger. 2013. Chtileu qu’i m’freumereu m’bouque i n’est point coér au monne: Grammatical variation and diglossia in Picardie. Journal of French Language Studies 23(1). 109–133. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vogel, Irene. 2009. The status of the clitic group. In Janet Grijzenhout (ed.), Interface explorations: Phonological domains: Universals and deviations, 15–46. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zribi-Hertz, Anne. 1994. La syntaxe des clitiques nominatifs en français standard et en français avancé. Travaux de linguistique et de philologie XXXII. 131–147.Google Scholar
Data sources
[Chl’autocar] Leclercq, Jean. 1996. Chl’autocar du Bourq-éd-Eut. Abbeville: Ch’Lanchron.Google Scholar
[Deglicourt] Deglicourt, Pierre. 1987. Un 31 d’octobe coeud…. Ch’Lanchron 29. 22–23.Google Scholar
[Dufrêne] Dufrêne, Jules. 1991. Quante o n’o pu qu’ses zius… pour braire. Ch’Lanchron 43. 10.Google Scholar
[JVasseur] Vasseur, Jehan. 1996. I n’feut point gadrouilleu ch’pain…. Ch’Lanchron 63. 8.Google Scholar
[Lettes] Vasseur, Gaston. 2003. Lettes à min cousin Polyte. Abbeville: F. Paillart.Google Scholar
[Réderies] Lecat, Charles. 1977. Réderies. Fressenneville: Imprimerie Carré.Google Scholar
[Rinchétte] Chivot, Eugène. 1993. Rinchétte. Abbeville: Ch’LanchronGoogle Scholar
[Viu temps] Vasseur, Gaston. 1969. Histoéres du viu temps. Abbeville: Imprimerie Lafosse.Google Scholar