Cover not available
Part of
Chapters of Dependency Grammar: A historical survey from Antiquity to Tesnière
Edited by András Imrényi and Nicolas Mazziotta
[Studies in Language Companion Series 212] 2020
► pp. 85–132

Chapter 3
How dependency syntax appeared in the French Encyclopedia

From Buffier (1709) to Beauzée (1765)

 | MoDyCo (UMR 7114), Université Paris Nanterre
In the French Encyclopedia (1765, Volume 14), Beauzée made a clear distinction between the notion of government (Fr. rection) (one word imposes a special form on another) and the notion of complement. Except for the subject, Beauzée’s complementation corresponds to the modern notion of dependency and is illustrated by complete dependency trees, but by means of verbal description and not diagrams. Starting from the seminal work of Port-Royal (1660), which redefined the aim of syntax, we show how Beauzée’s clear vision of syntactic structure developed in the previous century. Three other authors are discussed: Buffier (1709), though unfortunately using an awkward terminology, was probably the first to propose a detailed dependency-based analysis of sentences and a dependency-based definition of parts of speech; Girard (1747), preferring a more constituency-based analysis, proposed a definition of the notions of government and syntactic functions and a remarkable formalization of word order rules; Du Marsais (1754), in his contribution to the first articles of the Encyclopedia, synthesized the main ideas of his predecessors on the notions of complement, heralding Beauzée’s clear-cut formalization.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Dependency syntax in Beauzée
    • 2.1Regime vs. complement
    • 2.2Beauzée’s syntactic structures
    • 2.3Analytical order
    • 2.4Syntactic constraints on word order
      • 2.4.1Heavy shift
      • 2.4.2Projectivity
  • 3.From Buffier to Beauzée
    • 3.1Port-Royal (1660, 1662)
      • 3.1.1The foundations of grammar
      • 3.1.2The functions of the verb and the subject-attribute relation
      • 3.1.3The syntactic program
      • 3.1.4Determination
    • 3.2Buffier (1709)
      • 3.2.1The definition of syntax
      • 3.2.2Parts of speech
      • 3.2.3Buffier’s syntactic structure
      • 3.2.4Word order
    • 3.3Girard (1747)
      • 3.3.1The notion of government
      • 3.3.2The notion of function
      • 3.3.3Girard’s rules of grammar
    • 3.4Du Marsais (1754)
      • 3.4.1Construction vs. syntax
      • 3.4.2The two notions of complements
      • 3.4.3Du Marsais’s syntactic structure
      • 3.4.4The distinction between government and complement
  • 4.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 6 February 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.212.04kah
References (63)
References
A. Primary sources
Arnauld, A., & Lancelot, C. (1660). Grammaire générale et raisonnée [known as Grammaire de Port-Royal], [Engl. transl. General and Rational Grammar: The Port-Royal Grammar, translated by Jacques Rieux & Bernard E. Rollin. The Hague: Mouton, 1975].Google Scholar
Arnauld, A., & Nicole, P. (1662). La logique ou l’art de penser [known as Logique de Port-Royal], 1st ed. Paris: Jean Guignart, Charles Savreux, & Jean de Lavnay, [Engl. transl. Logic; or, the art of thinking, transl. by Several Hands. 1st ed. London: H. Sawbridge, 1685].Google Scholar
Beauzée, N. (1765). Régime. In D. Diderot & J. Le Rond D’Alembert (Eds.), Encyclopédie (Vol.14, pp.5–11).Google Scholar
(1767). Grammaire générale ou Exposition raisonnée des éléments nécessaires du langage, pour servir de fondement à l’étude de toutes les langues [General Grammar or rational exposition of necessary elements to serve as the foundation for the study of all languages], Vol.2: Syntax. Paris: Barbou.Google Scholar
Buffier, C. (1709). Grammaire françoise sur un plan nouveau [French grammar on a new plan]. Paris: Le Clerc- Brunet-Leconte & Montalant.Google Scholar
Cayley, A. (1857). On the theory of the analytical forms called trees. The London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science 13(4), 172–176. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
de Condillac, E. B. (1775). Grammaire [Vol. 1 of Cours d’Études pour l’instruction du Prince de Parme]. Parme: Imprimerie royale.Google Scholar
Diderot, D. (1751). Lettre sur les sourds et les muets à l’usage de ceux qui entendent & qui parlent. Anonymous publication.Google Scholar
Diderot, D., & D’Alembert, J. Le Rond (Eds.). (1751–1772). Encyclopédie ou Dictionnaire raisonné des sciences, des arts et des métiers [Encyclopaedia, or a systematic dictionary of the sciences, arts, and crafts], 28 Vols. Online edition at <[URL]>Google Scholar
D’Alembert, J. Le Rond. (1767). Éclaircissement sur l’inversion, et à cette occasion sur ce qu’on appelle le génie des langues [Clarification on inversion, and on this occasion on what is called the genius of languages]. In Essai sur les éléments de philosophie.Google Scholar
Du Marsais, C. C. (1930). Des tropes ou Des différents sens dans lesquels on peut prendre un même mot dans une même langue [On tropes or the different meanings that the same word can take in a language]. Paris: Chez la Veuve de Jean-Batiste Brocas.Google Scholar
(1754). Construction. In D. Diderot & J. Le Rond D’Alembert (Eds.), Encyclopédie (Volume 4, pp.73–92).Google Scholar
Euler, L. (1736). Solutio problematis ad geometriam situs pertinentis. Commentarii Academiae Scientiarum Imperialis Petropolitanae 8, 128–140.Google Scholar
Girard, G. (1747). Les Vrais principes de la langue françoise, ou la Parole réduite en méthode [The true principles of the French language, or Speech reduced to a method]. Paris: Le Breton.Google Scholar
de Vaugelas, C. F. (1647). Remarques sur la langue françoise, utiles à ceux qui veulent bien parler et bien escrire [Remarks on the French language, useful for those who want to speak well and write well]. Paris: Camusat & Le Petit.Google Scholar
Wallis, J. (1653). Grammatica linguae anglicanae [Grammar of the English language]. Oxford: Leon Lichfield.Google Scholar
B. Critical sources
Auroux, S. (1981). Le concept de détermination: Port-Royal et Beauzée. In Transactions of the Fifth International Congress on the Enlightenment (pp.1236–1246). Oxford: Voltaire Foundation.Google Scholar
(1992). L’adjectif et la catégorie des déterminants. L’apport de Beauzée. Histoire Épistémologie Langage 14(1), 159–179. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Auroux, S., & Rosier, I. (1987) Les sources historiques de la conception des deux types de relatives. Langages, 88, 9–29. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Barnard, F. A. P. (1836). Analytic grammar, with symbolic illustration. New York, NY: E. French.Google Scholar
Blanche-Benveniste, C., Bilger, M., Rouget, C., Van Den Eynde, K., Mertens, P., &Willems, D. (1990). Le français parlé. Etudes grammaticales. Paris: Presses du CNRS.Google Scholar
Berrendonner, A. (1990). Pour une macro-syntaxe. In Données orales et théorie linguistique [Travaux de Linguistique, 21] (pp.25–36). Paris: Ducolot.Google Scholar
Biggs, N. L., Lloyd, E. K., &Wilson, R. J. (1976). Graph theory, 1736–1936. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Billroth, J. G. F. (1832). Lateinische Syntax für die obern Klassen gelehrter Schulen. Leipzig: Weidmann.Google Scholar
Bloomfield, L. (1933). Language. New York, NY: Henry Holt.Google Scholar
Bouard, B. (2007). Structure de la proposition et construction verbale: Régime, complément et transitivité, dans les grammaires françaises, 1651–1863 (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Université Paris Diderot.Google Scholar
Chevalier, J.-C. (1968). Histoire de la syntaxe: Naissance de la notion de complément dans la grammaire française (1530–1750). Paris: Droz.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Croft, W. (1991). Syntactic categories and grammatical relations: The cognitive organisation of information. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
(2003). Typology and universals (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Deulofeu, J., Duffort, L., Gerdes, K., Kahane, S., & Pietrandrea, P. (2010). Depends on what the French say: Spoken corpus annotation with and beyond syntactic function. In Proceedings of the 4th Linguistic Annotation Workshop (LAW IV), 15–16 July, Uppsala University.Google Scholar
Dominicy, M. (1982). Condillac et les grammaires de dépendance. In J. Sgard (Ed.), Condillac et les problèmes du langage. Actes du colloque Condillac, Grenoble, 9–11 octobre 1980 (pp.311–343). Paris: Slatkine.Google Scholar
(1984). La naissance de la grammaire moderne. Langage, logique et philosophie à Port-Royal. Liège: Mardaga.Google Scholar
Gardiner, A. H. (1932). The theory of speech and language. Oxford: The Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Gladkij, A. V. (1968). On describing the syntactic structure of a sentence (in Russian with abstract in English). Computational Linguistics 7, 21–44.Google Scholar
Kahane, S. (1997). Bubble trees and syntactic representations. In Proceedings of Mathematics of Language (MOL) (pp.70–76). Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
Kahane, S., & Mazziotta, N. (2015). Syntactic polygraphs. A formalism extending both constituency and dependency. In Proceedings of the 14th Meeting on the Mathematics of Language (MoL 2015) (pp.152–164). Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kahane, S., & Osborne, T. (2015). Translators’ introduction. In L. Tesnière, Elements of structural syntax (pp.ixxx–lxiii). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Kemp, J. A. (1972). John Wallis’s grammar of the English language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Kempe, A. B. (1886). A memoir on the theory of mathematical form. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London 177, 1–70. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lecerf, Y. (1960). Programme des conflits, modèle des conflits. Bulletin Bimestriel de l’ATALA 1(4), 11–18.Google Scholar
Li, C. N., & Thompson, S. A. (1976). Subject and topic: A new typology of language. In C. N. Li (Ed.), Subject and topic (pp.457–489). New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Mazziotta, N., & Kahane, S. (2017). To what extent is Immediate Constituency Analysis dependency-based? A survey of foundational texts. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Dependency Linguistics (Depling) (pp.116–126). Pisa.Google Scholar
Mel′čuk, I. A. (1988). Dependency syntax: Theory and practice. New York, NY: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
Pavy-Guilbert, E. (2014). Nicolas Beauzée (1717–1789). In Les contributeurs, édition numérique collaborative et critique de l’encyclopédie. Retrieved from: <[URL]>Google Scholar
Rey, C. (2011). Nicolas Beauzée précurseur de la phonétique – dans l’Encyclopédie de Diderot et d’Alembert, la Grammaire générale et l’encyclopédie méthodique de Panckoucke. LEXICA – Mots et Dictionnaires. Paris: Champion.Google Scholar
Ricken, U. (1978). Grammaire et philosophie au siècle des Lumières: Controverses sur l’ordre naturel et la clarté du français. Lille: Presses Universitaires du Septentrion.Google Scholar
Roelandt, J., & Swiggers, P. (1990). La modification comme relation sémantico-syntaxique chez Claude Buffier. Travaux de Linguistique et de Philologie 28, 64–70.Google Scholar
Ross, J. R. (1967). Constraints on variables in syntax (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). MIT.Google Scholar
Sainte-Laguë, A. (1926). Les réseaux (ou graphes). Mémorial Sciences Mathématiques, 18.Google Scholar
de Saussure, Ferdinand (1916). Cours de linguistique générale. Paris: Payot.Google Scholar
Sweet, H. (1891). A new English grammar, logical and historical. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Swiggers, P. (1983a). Grammaire et théorie du langage chez Buffier. Dix-Huitième Siècle 15(1), 285–293. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1983b). La description des modes verbaux chez Beauzée. Zeitschrift fur Französische Sprache und Literatur 93, 70–75.Google Scholar
(1984a). La définition des parties du discours chez Beauzée: Une contribution à la théorie de la grammaire. Lingua Posnaniensis 27, 51–61.Google Scholar
(1984b). Les conceptions linguistiques des Encyclopédistes. Etude sur la constitution d’une théorie de la grammaire au siècle des Lumières. Heidelberg: J. Groos.Google Scholar
(1989). Structure propositionnelle et complémentation dans l’histoire de la grammaire: La théorie de Beauzée (1767). Lingua e Stile 24, 391–407.Google Scholar
Swiggers, P. (2006). À propos de la place de la syntaxe dans la grammaire: De Buffier à Girard. Revue Belge de Philologie et d’Histoire 84(3), 867–883. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tesnière, L. (1934). Comment construire une syntaxe. Bulletin de la Faculté des Lettres de Strasbourg 7, 219–229.Google Scholar
(2015). Elements of structural syntax (Transl. by T. Osborne & S. Kahane). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. (Trans. of Éléments de syntaxe structurale. Paris: Klincksieck, 1966, 2nd ed.; 1st ed., 1959)Google Scholar
Weil, H. (1844). De l’ordre des mots dans les langues anciennes comparées aux langues modernes. Paris: Crapelet.Google Scholar
Zwicky, A. (1985). Heads. Journal of Linguistics 21(1), 1–29. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (4)

Cited by four other publications

Gregov, Nicolas, Nicolas Mazziotta, F. Neveu, S. Prévost, A. Montébran, A. Steuckardt, G. Bergounioux, G. Merminod & G. Philippe
2024. Pour un diagramme raisonné en grammaire : modèle d’évaluation FCR et arbre dual. SHS Web of Conferences 191 ► pp. 07016 ff. DOI logo
Mazziotta, Nicolas & Sylvain Kahane
2024. Grammaires graphiques. Travaux de linguistique n° 87:2 ► pp. 111 ff. DOI logo
Hudson, Richard
2020. Towards a pedagogical linguistics. Pedagogical Linguistics 1:1 ► pp. 8 ff. DOI logo
Mazziotta, Nicolas
2020. Dependency in early sentence diagrams. In Chapters of Dependency Grammar [Studies in Language Companion Series, 212], ► pp. 133 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 29 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.