Abstract
The traditional understanding of case systems is that morphological case is needed to mark NPs in order for the speakers to identify their syntactic function. Accordingly, if changes in case systems occur, they are considered to be linked to fundamental reorganizations of the grammatical structure of a language. In contrast to the traditional view, the line of thinking adopted here takes into account the role of the case system with respect to other parts of the grammar. Moreover, our approach is anchored in variational linguistics, implying that synchronic and diachronic variation is both the result of, and the reason for, change. Indeed, the interpretation of variation is one of the greatest challenges for diachronic linguistics. With respect to the break-down of the Old French case system, it is difficult to uncover the underlying tendencies that might explain the apparently chaotic morphological variation. I show in this chapter that diasystematic variation parameters provide clues for the correct interpretation of this system. Finally, I propose that the ultimate break-down of case has proceeded via an intermediate system of case marking on articles.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
Information on Romance morphology can be found in Meyer-Lübke (1894/1972) inter alia.
- 2.
For Latin, a comparable view is presented by Pinkster (1991). Detges’ conclusion is that morphological case is “extremely redundant but … not entirely useless”.
- 3.
For convenience, I use the terms nominative and accusative not only for Latin forms, but also for OF forms, although the non-nominative forms assume the form and functions not only of the accusative, but also of the genitive, dative, and the ablative forms. See note 5 for details concerning the modifications of the Latin forms.
- 4.
The vocative case has no continuation in OF.
- 5.
The merger is caused by several changes, which are due to the fact that the distinction of quantity (i.e. short:long vowels) replace the opposition of quality (i.e. high:low vowels) with the resultant fusion of vowels, and due to the disappearance of final –m-. Examples of merger caused by the disappearance of these phonetic distinctions are the opposition between the nominative of the first declension with a short a, the accusative with a short a followed in writing by m, which disappeared (accordingly indicated as (m) in Tables 9.1, 9.2, and 9.3), and the ablative with a long a, e.g. nom.sg. mensa, acc.sg. mensam, abl.sg. mensa with a line above the final –a. In the third declension, there was confusion of es and is, accusative plural and genitive singular, respectively, e.g. montis, montes, and the merger of accusative singular with ablative singular: montem - monte. Further examples may be found in Penny (2002:116–117).
- 6.
It is thought that Italian had a distinction between the nominative and the oblique form (Maiden and Sornicola, personal communication). Only traces are found in Old Italian, and probably in some areas only in the nominative form of plural nouns.
- 7.
For an excellent short account of the development from Latin to Romance languages, and a balanced analysis of interacting factors, see Herman (1998, 2000). A fine discussion of different approaches to the many problems related to the development of the declension system is found in the Sornicola (2007) Sect. 9.3. A speculative presentation of the development of case and constructions in Proto-Romance is found in Dardel (2001).
- 8.
In Schøsler and Skovgaard-Hansen (2007), we find in itinerarium Egeriae that only 3.2% of all complex NP are discontinuous; but in this text type continuous NPs are the rule, whereas poetry is characterised by discontinuous NPs, e.g. Catullus: 33.3%, Horace 50.9% and Ovid 52.2% discontinuous NPs.
- 9.
This is a clear example of the well known: Post hoc ergo propter hoc-fallacy.
- 10.
“Minimalistic” in a non-technical sense.
- 11.
The term proposed in Andersen (2008) for this function is “phrase-internal indexing”.
- 12.
The glosses are conform to the Leipzig Glossing Rules. (http://www.eva.mpg.de/lingua/resources/glossing-rules.php)
- 13.
See Schøsler and Skovgaard-Hansen (2007) for a study of discontinuous NPs in selected passages from more than 20 Latin texts.
- 14.
- 15.
Additionally, Detges proposes a comparison between the OF and the corresponding translation of the first 265 verses of the Chevalier de la Charrette. But this can hardly be taken as a convincing piece of evidence concerning the relative frequency of lexical S in OF and MF. Moreover, this text represents just one text type, and I am convinced that it is necessary to proceed to a more balanced investigation, based on different text types (see Sect. 9.5.2).
- 16.
In his conclusion, Detges accepts my view that “morphology is just one of many clues indicating syntactic function and semantic role. In other words, it may be extremely redundant, but not entirely useless”. However, Detges does not develop this view in his paper, which focuses on the “uselessness” of morphology.
- 17.
This is the Silverstein-hierarchy; see Silverstein (1976).
- 18.
- 19.
“The medieval inflexion, as far as it exists, has no syntactic relevance. Its function is rather that of rhetorical ornamentation, indicating correctness of the written language” AT
- 20.
Detges (2008) quotes Klein, qualifying his view as ”somewhat radical and simplifying”.
- 21.
See e.g., Buridant (2000).
- 22.
- 23.
The influence of the germanic super- or ad-stratum has often been proposed to explain the preservation of declension in these dialects
- 24.
The term case-role is used for argument marking and for sub-specification of certain arguments, such as patient, recipient, experiencer, etc.
- 25.
Bibliography
Sources:Latin
Lewis, Charlton T., and Charles Short. 1879. A Latin dictionary. Oxford: Clarendon.
Old and Middle French Electronic Corpora
Lancelot ou le Chevalier de la Charrette Transcriptions (Princeton)
BFM = “Base de Français Médiéval” de l’UMR 8503, composed by Christiane Marquello-Nizia and her research group, http://ccfm.ens-lsh.fr
Le nouveau corpus d’Amsterdam, http://www.uni-stuttgart.de/lingrom/stein/forschung/transcoop/workshop.html
The Middle French electronic corpus ATILF http://www.atilf.fr/atilf/produits/frantext.htm
Old French Manuscripts
Le Charroi de Nîmes, transcription of nine ms. of a 12th century Chanson de geste
A = A1, Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, f.fr. 774;
E = A2, Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, f.fr. 1449;
F = A3, Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, f.fr. 368;
G = A4, Milan, Biblioteca Trivulziana 1025;
H = F (fragment), Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, nouv. acq.f. 934;
K = B1, London, British Library, Royal 20 D.XI;
L = B2, Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, f.fr. 24369;
M = C, Boulogne-sur-Mer, Bibl. Municipale 192;
N = D, Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, f.fr. 1448.
References
Andersen, Henning. 2001. Actualization and the (uni)directionality of change. In Actualization. Linguistic change in progress, ed. Henning Andersen, 225–249. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Andersen, Henning. 2008. Grammaticalization in a speaker- oriented theory of change. In Grammatical change and Linguistictic theory, ed. Thórhallur Eythórsson, 11–44. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Blake, Barry J. 1994. Case. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Buridant, Claude. 2000. Grammaire nouvelle de l’ancien français. Paris: Sedes.
Cerquiglini, B. 1989. Eloge de la variante. Histoire critique de la philologie. Paris: Seuil.
Chafe, Wallace. 1994. Discourse, consciousness, and time. Chicago/London: The University of Chicago Press.
Chaurand, Jacques. 1999. Nouvelle histoire de la langue française. Paris: Seuil.
de Dardel, Robert. 2001. Éléments de rection verbale protoro- mane. Revue de linguistique romane 65: 341–368.
Detges, Ulrich. 2008. How useful is case morphology? The loss of the Old French two-case system within a theory of preferred argument structure. In The role of semantic, pragmatic, and discourse factors in the development of case, Studies in Language Companion Series, ed. Jóhanna Barđdal and Shobhana Chelliah, 93–120. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Givón, Talmy. 1995. Functionalism and grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Herman, József (ed.). 1998. La transizione dal latino alle lingue romanze. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Herman, József. 2000. Vulgar Latin. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.
Hupka, W. 1982. Zur Funktionalität der altfranzösischen Zwei kasusdeklination. In Fakten und Theorien: Beiträge zur ro manischen und allgemeinen Sprachwissenschaft, Tübinger Beiträge zur Linguistik 119, ed. S. Heinz and U. Wandruszka, 95–109. Tübingen: Narr.
Klein, W. 2003. Wozu braucht man eigentlich Flexionsmorphologie? Zeitschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Linguistik 131: 23–54.
Koch, Peter, and Wulf Oesterreicher. 1985. Sprache der Nähe – Sprache der Distanz. Mündlichkeit und Schriftlichkeit im Spannungs feld von Sprachtheorie und Sprachgeschichte. Romanistisches Jahrbuch 36: 15–43.
Marchello-Nizia, Christiane. 1999. Le français en diachronie: douze siècles d’évolution. Paris: Ophrys.
Meyer-Lübke, Wilhelm. 1894/1972. Grammatik der Romanische Sprache II: Romanische Formenlehre. Leipzig: O.R. Reisland; Repr., Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesell schaft.
Nørgård-Sørensen, Jens, Lars Heltoft, and Lene Schøsler. 2011. Connecting grammaticalisation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Penny, Ralph. 2002. A history of the Spanish language, 2nd ed. Cambridge: CUP.
Pinkster, Harm. 1990. Latin syntax and semantics. New York: Routledge.
Pinkster, Harm. 1991. Evidence for SVO in Latin? In Latin and the romance languages in the early middle ages, ed. Roger Wright 69–82. London: Routledge.
Schøsler, Lene. 1984. La déclinaison bicasuelle de l’ancien fran- çais, son rôle dans la syntaxe de la phrase, les causes de sa disparition. Etudes romanes de l’Université d’Odense, vol. 19. Odense: Odense University Press.
Schøsler, Lene. 2000. The pragmatic functions of the old French particles AINZ, APRES, DONC, LORS, OR, PUIS, and SI. In Textual parameters in older languages, ed. With Susan C. Herring, Pieter van Reenen, and Lene Schøsler, 59–105, ISBN: 90-272- 3702-6. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Schøsler, Lene. 2001a. The coding of the subject-object distinction from Latin to modern French. In Grammatical relations in change, ed. Jan Terje Faarlund, 273–302. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.
Schøsler, Lene. 2001b. From Latin to modern French: Actualization and markedness. In Actualization. Linguistic change in progress. Papers from a workshop held at the 14th international conference on historical linguistics. Vancouver, BC, 14 Aug 1999. Current issues in linguistic theory 219, ed. Henning Andersen, 169–185. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Schøsler, Lene. 2002. La variation linguistique: le cas de l’expres-sion du sujet. In Interpreting the history of French, A Festschrift for Peter Richard on the occasion of his eightieth birthday, ed. R. Samson and W. Ayres-Bennet, 187–208. Amsterdam/New York: Editions Rodopi B.V.
Schøsler, Lene. 2006. Grammaticalisation et dégrammaticalisation. Etude des constructions progressives en français du type Pierre va/vient/est chantant. In Sémantique et diachronie du système verbal français, Cahiers Chronos 16, ed. Emmanuelle Labeau, Carl Vetters, and Patrick Caudal, 91–119. Amsterdam/New York: Rodopi.
Schøsler, Lene. 2008. Argument marking from Latin to modern Romance languages: An illustration of ‘combined grammaticalisation processes’. In Grammatical change and Linguistic theory, ed. Thórhallur Eythórsson, 411–438. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Schøsler, Lene, and Michael Skovgaard-Hansen. 2007. Undersøgelse over komplekse nominalsyntagmer i latin. In: Fra Plautus over klassisk latin, senlatin til humanismen, ALBVM AMICORVM. Festskrift til Karsten Friis-Jensen i anledning af hans 60 års fødselsdag/Studies in Honour of Karsten Friis-Jensen on the Occasion of his Sixtieth Birthday. Ed. Marianne Pade i samarbejde med/in collaboration with Eric Jacobsen, Hannemarie Ragn Jensen, Lene Waage Petersen, Lene Schøsler, Minna Skafte Jensen, Peter Zeeberg, Lene Østermark-Johansen (39 pages) Renæssanceforum 3 2007 http://www.renaessanceforum.dk/rf_3_2007.htm
Silverstein, Michael. 1976. Hierarchy of features and ergativity. In Grammatical categories in Australian languages, ed. R.M.W. Dixon, 112–171. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.
Sornicola, Rosanna. 2007. Riflessioni sullo studio del cambia mento morfosintattico dalla prospettiva di un Romanista: sincronia e diacronia rivisitate. Revue de linguistique Romane 71: 5–64.
Söll, Ludwig. 1974. Gesprochenes und geschriebenes Französisch. Berlin: Schmidt.
Stanovaïa, Lydia A. 1993. Sur la déclinaison bicasuelle en ancien français: point de vue scriptologique. Travaux de Linguis- tique et de Philologie XXXI: 163–182.
Völker, Harald. 2003. Skripta und Variation. Untersuchungen zur Negation und zur Substantivflexion in altfranzösischen Ur- kunden der Grafschaft Luxemburg, 1237–1248. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Völker, Harald. 2009. La linguistique variationnelle et l’intralinguistique. Revue de linguistique Romane, 73: 27–76.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Schøsler, L. (2013). The Development of the Declension System. In: Arteaga, D. (eds) Research on Old French: The State of the Art. Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, vol 88. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4768-5_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4768-5_9
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-4767-8
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-4768-5
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawSocial Sciences (R0)