Natural Language & Linguistic Theory

, Volume 5, Issue 1, pp 1–32 | Cite as

From Old French to the theory of pro-drop

  • Marianne Adams
Article

Conclusion

The pattern of pro-drop found in OF suggested a revision in the theory of pro-drop. The theory proposed removes the phenomenon from the set of universal parameters and argues for the possibility of reducing it to directional government and feature identification. In this way we begin to explain why some languages do and some do not allow empty subjects. Notice that when one attributes a property to a parameter one is saying, in effect, that that property cannot be explained, at least not linguistically. The main purpose of this paper has been to try to explain linguistically the pro-drop parameter.

The model of pro-drop proposed in this paper has a number of interesting consequences well beyond its ability to account for the facts of OF. Synchronically, it helps explain the distribution of pro within languages and across languages. Diachronically, it helps explain the change from a system which licenses pro to one which does not.

Many questions remain. How and why, for example, did OF acquire V2 effects? Can we simply write this off as a consequence of Frankish-Galloroman bilingualism, or were there dynamics internal to Galloroman itself which made it receptive in some way? We know little about the Gallic (Celtic) substratum, but we do know that the modern Celtic languages have VSO word order. Is it too farfetched then to speculate that this substratum was instrumental in the receptivity of Galloroman to the V2 structure?

Another provoking question is why Romance free inversion should have been unusual in OF. Possibly Romance inversion is incompatible with Germanic inversion and was dispensed with prior to the emergence of written documents. On the other hand, Romance inversion may never have been a property of the Galloroman language which became French. That is, VOS order may have been a development peculiar to Italian and Spanish or to the spoken Latin which became Italian and Spanish. Without Romance inversion, what device did OF use to extract a subject from an embedded clause: optional que, que/que, que/qui? When and how did the que/qui rule of ModF originate? As in English, complementizer and relative que was sometimes omitted in OF. Whether this exactly paralleled the English situation and whether or not the omission was used as a means of proper government is a topic under study.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Adams, M.: in preparation, Parametric Change, Ph.D. dissertation, UCLA, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
  2. Aoun, J.: 1984, The Formal Nature of Anaphoric Relations, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
  3. —: 1986, Generalized Binding, Foris, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  4. Belletti, A. and L. Rizzi: 1981, ‘The Syntax of ‘ne’: Some Theoretical Implications’, The Linguistic Review 1, 117–154.Google Scholar
  5. Benincà, P.: 1984, ‘Un'Ipotese sulla sintassi delle lingue romanze medievali’, Quaderni Padavini di Linguistica, University of Padua.Google Scholar
  6. —: 1985, ‘L'interferenza sintattica: di un aspetto della sintassi ladina considerato di origine tedesca’, manuscript, University of Padua.Google Scholar
  7. Besten, H. den: 1983, ‘On the Interaction of Root Transformations and Lexical Deletive Rules’, in W. Abraham (ed.), On the Formal Syntax of the Westgermania, Benjamins, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  8. Borer, H.: 1983, Parametric Syntax, Foris, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  9. —: 1986, ‘I-Subjects’, Linguistic Inquiry 17, 375–416.Google Scholar
  10. Chao, W.: 1980, ‘PRO-drop languages and nonobligatory control’, University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics 7, 46–74.Google Scholar
  11. Chomsky, N.: 1981, Lectures on Government and Binding, Foris, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  12. —: 1986, Barriers, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
  13. Einhorn, E.: 1974, Old French: A Concise Handbook, Cambridge University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  14. Emonds, J.: 1978, ‘The Verbal Complex V'′-V in French’, Linguistic Inquiry 9, 151–177.Google Scholar
  15. —: 1980, ‘Word Order in Generative Grammar’, Journal of Linguistic Research 1, 33–54.Google Scholar
  16. Ewert, A.: 1943, The French Language, Faber, London.Google Scholar
  17. Foulet, L.: 1974, Petite syntaxe de l'ancien français, Champion, Paris. Reprint of 1928 edition.Google Scholar
  18. —: 1936, ‘L'extension de la forme oblique du pronom personnel en ancien français’, Romania 62, 27–91.Google Scholar
  19. Franzen, T.: 1939, La syntaxe des pronoms personnels sujets en ancien français, Almqvist, Uppsala.Google Scholar
  20. Greenberg, J.: 1966, ‘Some Universals of Grammar with Particular Reference to the Order of Meaningful Elements’, in J. H Greenberg (ed.), Universals of Language, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
  21. Harris, M.: 1978, The Evolution of French Syntax, Longman, London.Google Scholar
  22. Herman, J.: 1954, ‘Recherches sur l'ordre des mots dans les plus anciens textes français en prose’, Acta Linguistica Hungarica 4, 69–94, 351–382.Google Scholar
  23. Horvath, J.: 1981, Aspects of Hungarian Syntax and the Theory of Grammar, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, UCLA.Google Scholar
  24. Jaeggli, O.: 1982, Topics in Romance Syntax, Foris, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  25. —: 1985, On Certain ECP Effects in Spanish, manuscript, USC.Google Scholar
  26. Kayne, R.: 1981, ‘ECP Extensions’, Linguistic Inquiry 12, 93–133.Google Scholar
  27. —: 1984, Connectedness and Binary Branching, Foris, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  28. Kayne, R. and J.-Y. Pollock: 1978, ‘Stylistic Inversion, Successive Cyclicity, and Move NP in French’, Linguistic Inquiry 9, 595–621.Google Scholar
  29. Kempchinsky, P.: 1985, ‘Brazilian Portuguese and the Null Subject Parameter’, Mester 13.2, publication of the Department of Spanish and Portuguese, UCLA, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
  30. Koster, J.: 1975, ‘Dutch as an SOV Language’, Linguistic Analysis 1, 111–136.Google Scholar
  31. Lasnik, H. and M. Saito: 1984, ‘On the Nature of Proper Government’, Linguistic Inquiry 15, 235–290.Google Scholar
  32. Marchello-Nizia, C.: 1979, Histoire de la langue française aux XIV e et XV e siècles, Bordas, Paris.Google Scholar
  33. McCloskey, J. and K. Hale: 1984, ‘On the Syntax of Person-Number Inflection in Modern Irish’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 4, 442–487.Google Scholar
  34. Nyrop, Kr.: 1925, Grammaire historique de la langue française, Gyldendalske, Copenhagen.Google Scholar
  35. Price, G.: 1966, ‘Contribution à l'étude de la syntaxe des pronoms personnels en ancien français’, Romania 87, 476–504.Google Scholar
  36. Offord, M. H.: 1971, ‘The Use of Personal Pronoun Subjects in Post-position in Fourteenth Century French’, Romania 92, 37–64, 200–245.Google Scholar
  37. Renzi, L. and L. Vanelli: 1983, ‘I pronomi soggetto in alcune varietà romanze’, in Scritti linguistici in onore di Giovan Battista Pellegrini, Pacini, Pisa.Google Scholar
  38. Rizzi, L.: 1982, Issues in Italian Syntax, Foris, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  39. —: 1986, ‘Null Objects in Italian and the Theory of pro’, Linguistic Inquiry 17, 501–557.Google Scholar
  40. Safir, K.: 1982, Syntactic Chains and the Definiteness Effect, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
  41. Saito, M.: 1985, Some Asymmetries in Japanese and their Theoretical Implications, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
  42. Sproat, R.: 1985, ‘Welsh Syntax and VSO Structure’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 3, 172–216.Google Scholar
  43. Stockwell, R.: 1977, ‘Motivations for Exbraciations in Old English’, in Charles N. Li (ed.), Mechanisms of Syntactic Change, University of Texas Press, Austin.Google Scholar
  44. Stowell, T.: 1981, Origins of Phrase Structure, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
  45. —: 1983, ‘Subjects Across Categories’, The Linguistic Review 2, 285–312.Google Scholar
  46. —: 1985, ‘Null Operators and the Theory of Proper Government’, manuscript, UCLA, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
  47. —: 1986, ‘Null Antecedents and Proper Government’, in Proceedings of the 16th Annual Meeting of the North Eastern Linguistic Society, held in Montreal, November 1985.Google Scholar
  48. Taraldsen, K.: 1983, Parametric Variation in Phrase Structure: A Case Study, doctoral dissertation, University of Tromsø.Google Scholar
  49. Thiersch, C.: 1978, Topics in German Syntax, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
  50. Thurneysen, R.: 1892, ‘Die Stellung des Verbums im Altfranzösischen’, Zeitschrift fur romanische Philologie 16, 289–371.Google Scholar
  51. Torrego, E.: 1984, ‘On Inversion in Spanish and Some of Its Effects’, Linguistic Inquiry 15, 103–130.Google Scholar
  52. Travis, L.: 1984, Parameters and Effects of Word Order Variation, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
  53. Vanelli, L., L. Renzi, and P. Benincà: to appear, ‘Typologie des pronoms sujets dans les langues romanes’, in Actes du XVII Congrès de Linguistique et Philologie Romane, Aix.Google Scholar
  54. Wagner, R.-L.: 1974, L'ancien français, Larousse, Paris.Google Scholar
  55. Wartburg, W. van: 1946, Evolution et structure de la langue française, Francke, Berne.Google Scholar
  56. Weinberg, A., J. Aoun, N. Hornstein, and D. Lightfoot: 1986, ‘Two Types of Locality’, manuscript, University of Maryland and USC.Google Scholar
  57. Zagona, K.: 1982, Government and Proper Government of Verbal Projections, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Washington, Seattle, to be published in revised form by D. Reidel, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  58. Zubizarreta, M. L.: 1982, ‘Theoretical Implications of Subject Extraction in Portuguese’, The Linguistic Review 2, 79–96.Google Scholar
  59. Zwanenburg, W.: 1979, ‘ Perte de la flexion nominale et fixation de l'ordre des mots en français medieval ’, Atti: XIV Congresso Internazionale di linguistica e filologia romanza, Macchiaroli, Naples.Google Scholar

Old French Editions Cited

  1. Aucassin et Nicolette, edited by M. Roques, Champion, Paris, 1975.Google Scholar
  2. Le Charroi de Nîmes, edited by J.-L. Perrier, Champion, Paris, 1972.Google Scholar
  3. La Chastelaine de Vergi, edited by F. Whitehead, Manchester University Press, Manchester, England, 1944.Google Scholar
  4. Chrestien de Troyes, Erec, edited by M. Roques, Paris, 1953.Google Scholar
  5. Commynes, Ph. de, Mémoires, in Historiens et Chroniqueurs du Moyen Age, edited by A. Pauphilet, Gallimard, 1952.Google Scholar
  6. Eneas, edited by J.-J. Salverda de Grave, Champion, Paris, 1925.Google Scholar
  7. La Mort le Roi Artu, edited by J. Frappier, Droz, Genève, 1964.Google Scholar
  8. Le Roman du Graal, edited by B. Cerquiglini, Union Générale d'Editions, Paris, 1981.Google Scholar
  9. Robert de Clari, La Conquête de Constantinople, in Historiens et Chroniqueurs du Moyen Age, edited by A. Pauphilet, Gallimard, 1952.Google Scholar
  10. Villehardouin, G. de, La Conquête de Constantinople, in Historiens et Chroniqueurs du Moyen Age, edited by A. Pauphilet, Gallimard, 1952.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© D. Reidel Publishing Company 1987

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marianne Adams
    • 1
  1. 1.Romance Linguistics and Literature ProgramUCLALos AngelesU.S.A.

Personalised recommendations