Cover not available
Part of
Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 10: Selected papers from 'Going Romance' 28, Lisbon
Edited by Ernestina Carrilho, Alexandra Fiéis, Maria Lobo and Sandra Pereira
[Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 10] 2016
► pp. 305–324

The status of subject pronouns in Modern Standard French revisited

| Universität Konstanz
This paper readdresses the long-standing debate on the morpho-syntactic status of subject pronouns in the contemporary formal variety of French by reinvestigating this issue along with those of the number of their paradigms and the null subject property. On the basis of the discussion of proposals challenging what has emerged as the received view on these issues, the paper essentially argues that a structural differentiation of prosodically weak subject pronouns as a function of their occurrence regarding the finite verb is unwarranted. From this and various other evidence which underpin the fundamental plausibility of the received view the paper concludes that Modern Standard French has two paradigms of prosodically strong and, respectively, phonologically clitic subject pronouns and represents a non null subject language.
Keywords: French, null subject property, paradigm, Subject pronoun
Published online: 8 December 2016
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/rllt.10.15zim
References (45)
References
Alexopoulou, Theodora, Edit Doron, and Caroline Heycock. 2004. “Broad Subjects and Clitic Left Dislocation.” In Syntactic Edges and Their Effects, ed. by David Adger, Cécile De Cat, and George Tsoulas, 329–358. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Auger, Julie. 1995. “Les clitiques pronominaux en français parlé informel: Une approche morphologique.” Revue québécoise de linguistique 24: 21–60. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blanche-Benveniste, Claire. 2010a. Approches de la langue parlée en français. Gap: Ophrys.Google Scholar
. 2010b. Le français. Usages de la langue parlée. Leuven: Peeters.Google Scholar
Brandi, Luciana, and Patrizia Cordin. 1989. “Two Italian Dialects and the Null Subject Parameter.” In The Null Subject Parameter, ed. by Osvaldo Jaeggli, and Kenneth J. Safir, 111–142. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Burzio, Luigi. 1986. Italian Syntax. A Government-Binding Approach. Dordrecht: Reidel. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cardinaletti, Anna, and Michal Starke. 1999. “The Typology of Structural Deficiency: A Case Study of the Three Classes of Pronouns.” In Clitics in the Languages of Europe, ed. by Henk van Riemsdijk, 145–233. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Couquaux, Daniel. 1986. “Les pronoms faibles sujet comme groupes nominaux.” In La grammaire modulaire, ed. by Mitsou Ronat, and Daniel Couquaux, 25–46. Paris: Les Éditions de Minuit.Google Scholar
Culbertson, Jennifer. 2010. “Convergent Evidence for categorial change in French: From subject clitic to agreement marker.” Language 86: 85–132. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Darmesteter, Arsène. 1877. De la création actuelle de mots nouveaux dans la langue française et des lois qui la régissent. Paris: Vieweg.Google Scholar
De Cat, Cécile. 2005. “French Subject Clitics Are Not Agreement Markers.” Lingua 115: 1195–1219. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diez, Friedrich. 1882. Grammatik der romanischen Sprachen. Drei Theile in einem Bande. Bonn: Weber.Google Scholar
Doron, Edit, and Caroline Heycock. 1999. “Filling and Licensing Multiple Specifiers.” In Specifiers: Minimalist Approaches, ed. by David Adger, Susan Pintzuk, Bernadette Plunkett, and George Tsoulas, 69–89. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
. 2010. “In Support of Broad Subjects in Hebrew.” Lingua 120: 1764–1776. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Foulet, Lucien. 1935/1936. “L’ extension de la forme oblique du pronom personnel en ancien français.” Romania 61: 257–315; 401–463; Romania 62: 27–91. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Friedemann, Marc-Ariel. 1997. Sujets syntaxiques. Positions, inversions et pro. Berlin: Lang.Google Scholar
Grevisse, Maurice, and André Goosse. 2011. Le bon usage. Grammaire française. Bruxelles: De Boeck.Google Scholar
Kaiser, Georg A. 1992. Die klitischen Personalpronomina im Französischen und Portugiesischen. Eine synchronische und diachronische Analyse. Frankfurt: Vervuert.Google Scholar
. 2008. “Zur Grammatikalisierung der französischen Personalpronomina.” In Romanische Syntax im Wandel, ed. by Elisabeth Stark, Roland Schmidt-Riese, and Eva Stoll, 305–325. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Kaiser, Georg A., and Michael Zimmermann. 2011. “On the Decrease in Subject-Verb Inversion in French Declaratives.” In The Development of Grammar. Language Acquisition and Diachronic Change. In Honour of Jürgen M. Meisel, ed. by Esther Rinke, and Tanja Kupisch, 355–381. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kayne, Richard S. 1975. French Syntax. The Transformational Cycle. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 1983. “Chains, Categories External to S, and French Complex Inversion.” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 1: 107–139. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koch, Peter, and Wulf Oesterreicher. 2011. Gesprochene Sprache in der Romania. Französisch, Italienisch, Spanisch. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Labelle, Marie. 1985. “Caractère post-lexical de la cliticisation française.” Lingvisticæ Investigationes 9: 83–96. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud. 1981. Topic, Antitopic and Verb Agreement in Standard French. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Landau, Idan. 2009. “Against Broad Subjects in Hebrew.” Lingua 119: 89–101. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Massot, Benjamin. 2010. “Le patron diglossique de variation grammaticale en français.” Langue Française 168: 87–106. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meisenburg, Trudel. 2000. “Vom Wort zum Flexiv? Zu den französischen Pronominalklitika.” Zeitschrift für französische Sprache und Literatur 110: 223–237.Google Scholar
Miller, Philip H., and Ivan A. Sag. 1997. “French Clitic Movement Without Clitics or Movement.” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 15: 573–639. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Palasis, Katerina. 2013. “The Case for Diglossia: Describing the Emergence of Two Grammars in the Early Acquisition of Metropolitan French.” Journal of French Langage Studies 23: 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
Pollock, Jean-Yves. 1989. “Verb Movement, Universal Grammar, and the Structure of IP.” Linguistic Inquiry 20: 365–424.Google Scholar
. 2006. “Subject Clitics and Complex Inversion.” In The Blackwell Companion to Syntax. Volume IV, ed. by Martin Everaert, and Henk van Riemsdijk, 601–659. Malden: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 1986. “On the Status of Subject Clitics in Romance.” In Studies in Romance Linguistics, ed. by Osvaldo Jaeggli, and Carmen Silva-Corvalán, 391–419. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi, and Ian Roberts. 1989. “Complex Inversion in French.” Probus 1: 1–30. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roberge, Yves. 1986. “Subject Doubling, Free Inversion, and Null Argument Languages.” Canadian Journal of Linguistics 31: 55–79.Google Scholar
Roberts, Ian. 1993. Verbs and Diachronic Syntax. A Comparative History of English and French. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
. 2010. “Varieties of French and the Null Subject Parameter.” In Parametric Variation: Null Subjects in Minimalist Theory, ed. by Theresa Biberauer, Anders Holmberg, Ian Roberts, and Michelle Sheehan, 303–327. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rowlett, Paul. 2007. The Syntax of French. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Söll, Ludwig, and Franz J. Hausmann. 1985. Gesprochenes und geschriebenes Französisch. Berlin: Schmidt.Google Scholar
Sportiche, Dominique. 1999. “Subject Clitics in French and Romance. Complex Inversion and Clitic Doubling.” In Beyond Principles and Parameters. Essays in Memory of Osvaldo Jaeggli, ed. by Kyle Johnson, and Ian Roberts, 189–221. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zimmermann, Michael, and Georg A. Kaiser. 2014. “On Expletive Subject Pronoun Drop in Colloquial French.” Journal of French Language Studies 24: 107–126. 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 32: 131–147.Google Scholar
. 2011. “Pour un modèle diglossique de description du français: quelques implications théoriques, didactiques et méthodologiques.” Journal of French Language Studies 21: 231–256. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zwicky, Arnold M., and Geoffrey K. Pullum. 1983. “Cliticization vs. Inflection: English N’T .” Language 59: 502–513. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Zimmermann, Michael
2018. Changes in status and paradigms? On subject pronouns in medieval french. Transactions of the Philological Society 116:1 ► pp. 131 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 25 july 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.