Cover not available
Article published In:
Transitivity and Valency: From theory to acquisition
Edited by Georgia Fotiadou and Hélène Vassiliadou
[Lingvisticæ Investigationes 40:1] 2017
► pp. 59–80

On, Se and related valency alternations in Medieval French

 | Universität Salzburg
This article explores the question of why Medieval French does not use se-constructions as exhaustively as other Medieval Romance varieties and why the indefinite pronoun on is clearly the preferred choice. It is claimed that se exhibits affix-like behavior in passive constructions and that it is very likely to be a morphological exponent of absorbing the [+Def] feature on T in IACs. These assumptions are connected to the possibility within a language system to store affixes as independent lexical entries, following Speas, 1995. It will be shown that Medieval French seems to be a language system in flux in which signs of NSL > non-NSL were present over a longer period of time. The uncertain status of affixes within these radical changes would have prompted learners to go for a multifunctional solution that is readily available and unequivocally identifiable: on.
Keywords: on , se , pro-drop, syntax, Medieval French, Medieval Spanish, valency
Article outline
  • Introduction
  • 1. Se in MF – new data
    • 1.1Anticausatives and passive se
    • 1.2The passive > impersonal active shift
  • 2.A successfully competing construction from the beginning: on
  • 3. Se as an affix, pro-drop and why learners opted for on
    • 3.1The status of se
    • 3.2The role of pro-drop
    • 3.3MF as a language system in flux and why learners opted for on
  • Conclusion
  • Notes
  • Corpora
  • References
Published online: 8 December 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/li.40.1.04wol
References (56)
Corpora
BFM (Base de français médiéval): [URL] (08/12/2016).
REAL ACADEMIA ESPAÑOLA: Banco de datos (CORDE) [en línea]. Corpus diacrónico del español. [URL] (01/10/2016).
References
Adams, M. (1987). From Old French to the theory of pro-drop. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 5(1), 1–32. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Balon, L. & Larrivée, P. (2016). L’ancien français n’est déjà plus une langue à sujet nul – nouveau témoignage des textes légaux. Journal of French Languages Studies, 261, 221–237. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bamba, K. (2015). D feature and impersonal SE: A new perspective on Romance impersonal constructions. [URL] (05/01/17)
Barbosa, P. (2011). Pro-drop and theories of pro in the Minimalist Program. Part 1: Consistent null-subject languages and the Pronominal-Agr Hypothesis. Language and Linguistic Compass, 5(8), 551–570. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bartra Kaufmann, A. (2002). La passiva i les construccions que s’hi relacionen. In J. Solà et al. (Eds.), Gramàtica del català contemporani (vol. II1, 2115–2179). Barcelona: Empúries.Google Scholar
Bassols de Climent, M. (s.a.). Sintaxis histórica de la lengua latina. Madrid: C.S.I.C.
Batllori, M. (2015). Análisis comparativo de las construcciones de dislocación a la derecha y su incidencia en el orden de palabras del español, catalán y portugués medievales. In M. López Izquierda & M. Catillo Lluch (Eds.), El Orden de palabras en la historia del español y otras lenguas iberorromances (pp. 83–110). Madrid: Visor Libros.Google Scholar
Brown, C. B. (1931). The disappearance of the indefinite Hombre from Spanish. Language, 7(4), 265–277. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carlier, A. & Combettes, B. (2015). Typologie et catégorisation morphosyntaxique: Du latin au français moderne. Langue française 187(3), 15–58. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cennamo, M. (1998). The loss of the voice dimension between Late Latin and Early Romance. In M. S. Schmid/J. R. Austin & D. Stein (Eds.), Historical Linguistics 1997. Selected papers from the 13th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Düsseldorf, 10–17 August 1997 (pp. 77–100). Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1999). Late Latin pleonastic reflexives and the Unaccusative Hypothesis. Transactions of the Philological Society, 97(1), 103–150. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2016). Voice. In A. Ledgeway & M. Maiden (Eds.), The Oxford guide to the Romance Languages (pp. 967–980). Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cinque, G. (1988). On si constructions and the theory of arb. Linguistic Inquiry, 19(4), 521–581.Google Scholar
Cornilescu, A. & Nicolae, A. (2015). The grammaticalization of a constraint on passive reflexive constructions in Romanian. In G. Pană Dindelegan et al. (Eds.), Diachronic variation in Romanian (pp. 309–362). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
Dobrovie-Sorin, C. (1998). Impersonal se constructions in Romance and the passivization of unergatives. Linguistic Inquiry, 29(3), 399–437. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gamillscheg, E. (1957). Historische französische Syntax. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Gerlach, B. (2002). Clitics between syntax and lexicon. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Giacalone Ramat, A. & Sansò, A. (2007). The indefinite usage of uomo (‘man’) in early Italo-Romance. Grammaticalization and areality. [URL] (06/12/16).
(2010). L’emploi indéfini de homo en latin tardif: aux origines d’un “européanisme”. [URL] (06/12/16).
(2011). From passive to impersonal: A case study from Italian and its implications. In A. Malchukov & A. Siewierka (Eds.), Impersonal constructions. A cross-linguistic perspective (pp.189–228). Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, M. (2002). Understanding morphology. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Herslund, M. (2001). L’action fondamentale et les verbes symétriques et réfléchis. In L. Schøsler (Ed.), La valence, perspectives romanes et diachroniques (pp. 34–42). Stuttgart: Steiner.Google Scholar
Hopper, P. J. & Traugott, E. C. (1993). Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Jensen, F. (1990). Old French and comparative Gallo-Romance syntax. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kaiser, G. A. (2002). Verbstellung und Verbstellungswandel in den romanischen Sprachen. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kemmer, S. (1993). The Middle Voice. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kempchinsky, P. (2006). Teasing apart the middle. [URL] (05/04/2015).
Labelle, M. (2007). Clausal architecture in Early Old French. Lingua, 117(1), 289–316. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marchello-Nizia, C. (2009). Word order from Latin to French. A case of grammaticalization (from pragmatics to syntactics) or of typological coherence. In C. Rossari et al. (Eds.), Grammaticalization and Pragmatics. Facts, Approaches and Theoretical Issues (pp. 1–18). Bingley: Emerald. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Martins, A. M. (2005). Passive and impersonal se in the history of Portuguese. In C. D. Pusch, J. Kabatek & W. Raible (Eds.), Romanische Korpuslinguistik. Korpora und diachrone Sprachwissenschaft (pp.411–429). Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Mendikoetxea, A. (1990). On the syntax of constructions with arb se in Spanish. Anuario del seminario de filología vasca, 24(1), 307–328.Google Scholar
Moignet, G. (1973). Grammaire de l’ancien français. Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar
Monge, F. (1955). Las frases pronominales con sentido impersonal en español. [URL] (03/10/2015).
Mutz, K. (2012). SE-verbs, SE-forms, or SE-constructions? SE and its transitional stages between morphology and syntax. In S. Gaglia & M. -O. Hinzelin (Eds.), Inflection and word formation in Romance languages (pp. 319–346). Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nicolae, A. (2013). A note on the syntax of Romanian aspectual verbs: Aspectuals and voice. [URL] (01/04/2017).
Otero, C. P. (1986). Arbitrary subjects in finite clauses. In I. Bordelois, H. Contreras & K. Zagona (Eds.), Generative studies in Spanish syntax (pp. 81–110). Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Poletto, C. (2014). Word order in Old Italian. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Prévost, S. (2011). Expression et position du sujet pronominal du 12ème au 14ème siècle: une approche quantitative (recherche inédite). [URL] (10/05/2017).
Reichenkron, G. (1933). Passivum, Medium und Reflexivum in den romanischen Sprachen. Jena.: Gronau.Google Scholar
Rinke, E. & Meisel, J. M. (2009). Subject-inversion in Old French: Syntax and information structure. In G. A. Kaiser & E. -M. Remberger (Eds.), Proceedings of the workshop “Null Subjects, Expletives, and Locatives in Romance” (pp. 93–130). Konstanz: Fachbereich Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Konstanz, Arbeitspapier 123.Google Scholar
Roberts, I. G. (1993). Verbs and diachronic syntax. A comparative history of English and French. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Roberts, I. & Roussou, A. (2003). Syntactic change. A minimalist approach to grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roberts, I. (2010). Agreement and head movement. Clitic, incorporation, and defective goals. Cambridge: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rohrbacher, B. (1993). The Germanic VO languages and the full paradigm. A theory of V to I raising. Doctoral dissertation, Amherst: University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Sansò, A. (2011). Grammaticalization paths and prototype effects. A history of the agentive reflexive. Folia Linguistica Historica, 321, 1–34.Google Scholar
Sitaridou, I. (2005). A corpus-based study of null-subjects in Old French and Old Occitan. In C. D. Pusch, J. Kabatek & W. Raible (Eds.), Romanische Korpuslinguistik. Korpora und diachrone Sprachwissenschaft (pp. 359–374). Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Speas, M. (1995). Economy, agreement and the representation of null arguments. [URL] (15/03/2016).
Stéfanini, J. (1962). La voix pronominale en ancien et en moyen français. Aix-en-Provence: Éditions Ophrys.Google Scholar
Torrego, E. (2008). Revisiting Romance SE. [URL] (15/04/2016).
Vance, B. S. (1997). Syntactic change in Medieval French. Verb-second and null subjects. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wehrli, E. (1986). On some properties of French clitic se . In: H. Borer (Ed.), The syntax of pronominal clitics (pp. 263–283). Orlando/London: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wolfsgruber, A. C. (2017): Medieval Romance se. Its grammaticalization and syntactic status. New data from Medieval Spanish, French, Catalan and Occitan. Doctoral dissertation. Salzburg: University of Salzburg.Google Scholar
Zaring, L. (2011). On the nature of OV and VO order in Old French. Lingua, 1211, 1831–1852. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zribi-Hertz, A. (2008). Le médiopassif à accord riche en français: pour une approche multifactorielle. In J. Durand, B. Habert & B. Laks (Eds.), Congrès mondial de linguistique française (pp. 2645–2662). [URL] (05/12/16).
Cited by (3)

Cited by three other publications

Ormazabal, Javier & Juan Romero
2024. Deconstructing SE-Constructions: Number Agreement and Postsyntactic Variation. Linguistic Inquiry 55:3 ► pp. 445 ff. DOI logo
Percillier, Michael, Yela Schauwecker, Achim Stein & Carola Trips
2024. Contact Scenario 1: Middle English in Contact with Old French. In Carrying Verbs Across the Channel [New Approaches to English Historical Linguistics, ], ► pp. 21 ff. DOI logo
Wolfsgruber, Anne C.
2021. Null-Subjects and se Revisited: What Medieval Romance Varieties Reveal. In Unraveling the complexity of SE [Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 99], ► pp. 57 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 19 december 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.