Null Objects in Old French

Chapter
Part of the Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory book series (SNLT, volume 88)

Abstract

Despite claims to the contrary, it has been shown that a number of modern Romance varieties—including European and Brazilian Portuguese, Spanish, Italian, and French—allow omission of the object of a verb, even when the object has a definite referent. Taking as a point of departure Arteaga’s (On null objects in Old French. In: Schwegler A, Tranel B, Uribe-Etxebarria M (eds) Romance linguistics: theoretical perspectives. Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp 1–11, 1997) study of null objects in Old French, this paper discusses contexts in which null objects are attested in Old French, including some not discussed by Arteaga, and including instances of manuscript variation. In addition, drawing on recent theories of null objects, and using the nature of the antecedent to the null object as a diagnostic, it is proposed that Old French possessed both null pronominals and null variables. The wide range of contexts in which Old French evinced null objects is taken to suggest that the ability to license object drop is not an innovation in Modern or even Middle French. Given that null objects are also attested in Latin, the data point to the continual availability of object drop from the earliest stages of French to the modern language.

Keywords

Direct Object Main Clause Past Participle Discourse Referent Null Topic 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

I would like to acknowledge Barbara Vance, Laurent Dekydtspotter, Julie Auger, Michael Johnson, the audiences at the 34th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages (University of Utah) and the University of Texas at Austin, and the anonymous reviewers for helpful comments and suggestions. All errors and shortcomings are my own.

References

  1. Adams, Marianne. 1987. From Old French to the theory of pro-drop. Natural Language and Theory 5: 1–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adams, Marianne. 1989. Verb second effects in medieval French. In Studies in Romance linguistics, ed. Carl Kirschner and Janet Decesaris, 1–31. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
  3. Anglade, Joseph. 1941. Grammaire élémentaire de l’ancien français. Paris: Armand Colin.Google Scholar
  4. Arteaga, Deborah. 1997. On null objects in Old French. In Romance linguistics: Theoretical perspectives, ed. Armin Schwegler, Bernard Tranel, and Myriam Uribe-Etxebarria, 1–11. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
  5. Authier, Jean-Marc P. 1988. Null object constructions in KiNande. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6: 19–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Authier, Jean-Marc P. 1989a. Arbitrary null objects and unselective binding. In The null subject parameter, ed. Osvaldo Jaeggli and Kenneth J. Safir, 45–67. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Authier, Jean-Marc P. 1989b. Two types of empty operator. Linguistic Inquiry 20: 117–124.Google Scholar
  8. Benincà, Paola. 2004. The left periphery of medieval Romance. Studi Linguistici et Filologici Online 2: 243–297.Google Scholar
  9. Benincà, Paola. 2006. A detailed map of the left periphery of medieval Romance. In Crosslinguistic research in syntax and semantics: Negation, tense, and clausal architecture, ed. Raffaella Zanuttini, Hector Campos, Elena Herburger, and Paul Portner, 53–86. Washington, DC: Georgetown UP.Google Scholar
  10. Bescherelle. 1997. La grammaire pour tous. Paris: Hatier.Google Scholar
  11. Bouchard, Denis. 1989. Null objects and the theory of empty categories. In Studies in Romance linguistics, ed. Carl Kirschner and Janet Decesaris, 33–49. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
  12. Buridant, Claude. 2000. Grammaire nouvelle de l’ancien français. Paris: Sedes.Google Scholar
  13. Campos, Hector. 1986. Indefinite object drop. Linguistic Inquiry 17: 354–359.Google Scholar
  14. Cecchetto, Carlo. 1997. The distribution of clitics in dislocation structures. Paper presented at the 27th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages, Irvine, CA.Google Scholar
  15. Cinque, Guglielmo. 1997. Topic’ constructions in some European languages and ‘connectedness’. In Materials on left dislocation, ed. Elena Anagnostopoulou, Henk van Riemsdijk, and Frans Zwarts, 93–118. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
  16. Cole, Peter. 1987. Null objects in universal grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 18: 597–612.Google Scholar
  17. Cummins, Sarah, and Yves Roberge. 2004. Null objects in French and English. In Contemporary approaches to Romance linguistics, ed. Julie Auger, J.Clancy Clements, and Barbara Vance, 121–138. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
  18. De Cat, Cécile. 2007. French dislocation: Interpretation, syntax, acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Einhorn, E. 1974. Old French: A concise handbook. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Fónagy, Ivan. 1985. Verbes transitifs à objet latent. Revue Romane 20: 3–35.Google Scholar
  21. Foulet, Lucien. 1930. Petite syntaxe de l’ancien français. Paris: Honoré Champion.Google Scholar
  22. Galves, Charlotte Chambelland. 1989. L’objet nul et la structure de la proposition en portugais du Brésil. Revue des langues romanes 93: 305–336.Google Scholar
  23. Garcia Velasco, Daniel, and Carmen Portero Muñoz. 2002. Understood objects in functional grammar. Working Papers in Functional Grammar 76: 1–24.Google Scholar
  24. Hirschbühler, Paul. 1997. On the source of lefthand NPs in French. In Materials on left dislocation, ed. Elena Anagnostopoulou, Henk van Riemsdijk, and Frans Zwarts, 55–66. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
  25. Huang, C.-T.James. 1984. On the distribution and reference of empty pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 15: 531–574.Google Scholar
  26. Jensen, Frede. 1990. Old French and comparative Gallo-Romance syntax. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kayne, Richard S. 1994. The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  28. Kibler, William W. 1984. An introduction to Old French. New York: MLA.Google Scholar
  29. Lambrecht, Knud. 1981. Topic, antitopic, and verb agreement in non-standard French. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
  30. Lambrecht, Knud, and Kevin Lemoine. 1996. Vers une grammaire des compléments zéro en français parlé. In Absence de marques et représentation de l’absence: Travaux linguistiques du CERLICO, ed. Jean Chuquet and Marc Fryd, 279–309. Rennes: Presses Universitaires de Rennes.Google Scholar
  31. Lambrecht, Knud, and Kevin Lemoine. 2005. Definite null objects in spoken French: A construction-grammar account. In Grammatical constructions, ed. Mirjam Fried and Hans C. Boas, 13–55. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
  32. Larjavaara, Meri. 2000. Présence ou absence de l’objet: Limites du possible en français contemporain. Helsinki: Academia Scientiarum Fennica.Google Scholar
  33. Luraghi, Silvia. 1997. Omission of the direct object in Latin. Indogermanische Forschungen 102: 239–257.Google Scholar
  34. Marchello-Nizia, Christiane. 1995. L’évolution du français: Ordre des mots, démonstratifs, accent tonique. Paris: Armand Colin.Google Scholar
  35. Marchello-Nizia, Christiane. 1998. Dislocations en ancien français: Thématisation ou rhématisation? Cahiers de Praxématique 30: 161–178.Google Scholar
  36. Martin, Robert, and Marc Wilmet. 1980. Manuel du français du moyen âge. Bordeaux: SOBODI.Google Scholar
  37. Melander, Jehan. 1943. Le tour français Cet homme, je le connais: Sa fréquence et sa syntaxe dans l’ancienne langue. Studia Neophilologica 16: 195–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Pieroni, Silvia. 1999. Subject properties and semantic roles in Latin. Paper presented at the 10th International Colloquium on Latin Linguistics, Paris.Google Scholar
  39. Pinkster, Harm. 1990. Latin syntax and semantics. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  40. Priestley, L. 1955. Reprise constructions in French. Archivum Linguisticum 7: 1–28.Google Scholar
  41. Prince, Ellen F. 1981. Toward a taxonomy of given-new information. In Radical pragmatics, ed. Peter Cole, 223–255. San Diego: Academic.Google Scholar
  42. Raposo, Eduardo. 1986. On the null object in European Portuguese. In Studies in Romance linguistics, ed. Osvaldo Jaeggli and Carmen Silva-Corvalán, 372–390. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
  43. Raynaud de Lage, Guy. 1962. Introduction à l’ancien français. Paris: Société d’Edition d’Enseignement Supérieur.Google Scholar
  44. Rizzi, Luigi. 1986a. Null objects in Italian and the theory of pro. Linguistic Inquiry 17: 501–557.Google Scholar
  45. Rizzi, Luigi. 1986b. On the status of subject clitics in Romance. In Studies in Romance linguistics, ed. Osvaldo Jaeggli and Carmen Silva-Corvalán, 391–419. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
  46. Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In Elements of grammar, ed. Liliane Haegeman, 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Roberts, Ian. 1993. Verbs and diachronic syntax: A comparative history of English and French. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  48. Schøsler, Lene. 1999. Réflexions sur l’optionnalité des compléments d’objet direct en latin, en ancien français, en moyen français et en français moderne. Etudes Romanes 44: 9–27.Google Scholar
  49. Schøsler, Lene. 2000. Le statut de la forme zéro du complément d’objet direct en français moderne. Etudes Romanes 47: 105–129.Google Scholar
  50. Skårup, Povl. 1975. Les premières zones de la proposition en ancien français [Special issue #6]. Revue Romane. Google Scholar
  51. Stein, Achim, Pierre Kunstmann, and Martin-D. Gleßgen. 2008. Nouveau Corpus d’Amsterdam. Electronic corpus of Old French literary texts c. 1150–1350, originally established by Anthonij Dees. Stuttgart: Institut für Linguistik/Romanistik.Google Scholar
  52. Troberg, Michelle. 2004. Topic-comment resumptive pronouns in Modern French and Old and Middle French. Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics 23: 133–156.Google Scholar
  53. Vance, Barbara. 1989. The evolution of pro-drop in medieval French. In Studies in Romance linguistics, ed. Carl Kirschner and Janet DeCesaris, 413–441. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
  54. Vance, Barbara. 1993. Verb-first declaratives introduced by et and the position of pro in Old and Middle French. Lingua 89: 281–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Vance, Barbara. 1997. Syntactic change in medieval French: Verb-second and null subjects. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Vance, Barbara, Donaldson Bryan, and B. Devan Steiner. 2010. V2 loss in Old French and Old Occitan: The role of fronted clauses. In Selected proceedings of the 39th linguistic symposium on Romance languages, ed. Sonia Colina, Antxon Olarrea, and Ana Maria Carvalho, 301–320. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
  57. Vincent, Nigel. 2000. Competition and correspondence in syntactic change: Null arguments in Latin and Romance. In Diachronic syntax: Models and mechanisms, ed. Susan Pintzuk, George Tsoulas, and Anthony Warner, 25–50. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  58. Viollet-le-Duc, Eugène. 1874. Dictionnaire raisonné du mobilier français de l’époque carlovingienne à la Renaissance. Paris: Librairie centrale d’architecture.Google Scholar
  59. Yaguello, Marina. 1998. La réalisation zéro des clitiques objet dans les constructions di-transitives du français parlé. In Analyse linguistique et approches de l’oral: Recueil d’études offert en hommage à Claire Blanche-Benveniste, ed. Mireille Bilger, Karel van den Eynde, and Françoise Gadet, 267–274. Leuven: Peeters.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht. 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of French and ItalianUniversity of TexasAustinUSA

Personalised recommendations