Componentes de las actitudes

15. During the periods in the history of French that are relevant to the discussion in this section,

pas competed with point as an “intensifier” for negative ne in the absence of “negative” pronouns and adverbs such as the ones discussed in chapters 4 and 5. Consequently, the observations made here about word order apply to both pas and point, even where explicit reference is only made to pas. (See Price 1984: 252!57, chapter 19, for discussion of an initial difference between pas and point.) Note that, contrary to the comments in Yaeger-Dror (1997: 27fn3), pas is not a reduced form of point. See foot- note 25.

16. See sections 3.1.1, 3.1.2, and 3.5.2, as well as section 4.3.2, for discussion of the diachronic development of the system of sentential negation in French.

In this section, I argue that the analysis of the syntax of pas proposed in section 2.1 immediately lends itself to an account of the historical development of the distribution of pas with respect to lexical infinitives. The data in this section15 come largely from recent work by such authors as Paul Hirschbühler and M arie Labelle (henceforth, H&L) (1992a, b, 1993, 1994a, b), France M artineau (1990, 1994), and Elizabeth Pearce (1990, 1991, 1993), who have looked at the dia- chronic development of the syntax of pas, in particular its position with respect to infinitives, especially lexical infinitives. (See also Pollock 1997a: chapter 13.) From a diachronic perspective, there are two clear pieces of evidence that suggest that pas has not always occupied SpecNegP at S-structure and that con- sequently cast some doubt on the claim that this element originates in SpecNegP in the modern language. Prior to its advent as main sentential negator, the posi- tion of pas relative to infinitival verbs and the fact that pas could be fronted for emphatic purposes both suggest this element is best analyzed in the same way as a number of other adverbs, rather than as an element uniquely associated with (Spec)NegP. I suggest that an analysis of the syntax of pas in terms of adjunc- tion in the base followed from about the seventeenth century by increasingly compulsory raising into SpecNegP is well placed to account for not only the synchronic facts but also the diachronic development.

The first piece of evidence concerns the relative order of pas and lexical in- finitives. W hile, in the modern language, pas obligatorily precedes a lexical in- finitive (see section 1.1.7.3), this has not always been the case. Prior to the sev- enteenth century (when ne was capable of marking sentential negation on its own, that is, when the appearance of pas in negative clauses was optional ), the16

two orderings illustrated in (10) (H&L’s 1993: 1 (1)) were attested (Pearce 1993: 3!4), although the ne V pas order illustrated in (10a) was more common than the ne pas V order)obligatory in the modern language)illustrated in (10b) (H&L 1993: 3). During the seventeenth century, there was a clear shift from the

neVpas order in (10a) to the nepasV order in (10b).

(10) a. . . . c’est de N E S’ A B AN D O N N E R P AS au plaisir de les suivre. it is of neR EFL abandon pas to-the pleasure of them follow ‘ . . . is not giving in to the pleasure of following them.’

b. Nous fûmes bien malheureux de N E PAS T’ EM M ENER . . . we were well unhappy of nepas you take

17. Given that the data on which these statistics are based are literary in nature, they are of course unlikely to be an accurate reflection (in terms of absolute percentages) of vernacular usage. However, the clear shift in literary usage represented by these figures is likely to reflect a parallel (possibly earlier) shift, in relative terms, in vernacular usage. Given the conservatism of written language, these shifts in absolute terms undoubtedly predated the seventeenth century. See footnote 20.

18. The issue arises as to the cause-and-effect relationship between the “denegativization” of ne

and the “negativization” of pas. It seems to me that further study is needed on this issue, and I hope to be able to address it in future work. What seems clear is that the relationship between XE and XP negative markers is often mediated by non-overt operators. I suspect, therefore, that any causality as might exist between the “denegativization” of ne and the “negativization” of pas is likely to be indirect, that is, mediated by such a non-overt operator.

19. Yvon (1948: 22) gives the following Old French examples from finite clauses:

(i) Pas ne vus esmaiez! (Vie de Saint Alexis, v 681)

pasne you dismay ‘Don’t fret!’

(ii) Ço est Climborins qui pas ne fut produme. (Chanson de Roland, v 1528) It is C. who pasne was worthy

‘He is C. and he was not a man of worth.’

H&L’s (1993: 4, 1994a, b) statistical data suggest that the “modern” construc- tion, that is, the ne pas V order in (10b), was used just 30 to 40 percent of the time at the beginning of the seventeenth century, but 80 to 90 percent of the time by the end of the seventeenth century.17

Under the assumption (on which see my later discussion) that Verb M ove- ment patterns remained constant during this time, that is, that lexical infinitives occupy a position below NegP throughout (as argued for the modern language in section 1.1.7.3), the earlier order clearly suggests that pas does not occupy SpecNegP in (10a). The shift from (10a) to (10b) can therefore be attributed to a progressive development whereby pas is increasingly obliged to raise to Spec- NegP (at S-structure). Given that I have so far motivated pas-raising to Spec- NegP by the need to mark sentential negation, namely to endow NegE with the feature [+N EG], the shift from the order in (10a) to the one in (10b) can be inter-

preted in association with the progressive weakening or “denegativization” of ne

and the concomitant “negativization” of pas. This conclusion, as well as the as- sociation of ne “denegativization” with pas “negativization”, is supported by the coincidence of two developments with the shift from (10a) to (10b), namely (a) the loss of the ability of ne to function as the sole overt marker of sentential ne- gation and (b) the shift in the interpretation of pas from an emphatic item to a negative item, according to Price (1993) and Posner (1985).18

The second piece of evidence relevant to the base position of pas comes from a third possible)albeit marked)order alongside (10a, b), illustrated in (11) ((11a) is taken from M artineau 1994: 59 (14), and H&L 1993: 15 (9a); (11b) is from H&L 1993: 16 (9c)), in which pas/poin(c)t actually precede the main nega- tive marker ne:19

(11) a. . . . affin de . . . , PAS NE TRAVAILLER, PO IN CT N E M E SO U CIER. in-order of pasne work-IN F point ne me worry-IN F

b. Il nous faut . . . partir, et PO IN T N’ A TTEN D R E ici nos it to-us is-necessary leave-IN F and point ne wait-IN F here our

ennemis. enemies

‘It is necessary for us . . . to leave, and not wait here for our enemies.’ Once again, assuming constant Verb M ovement patterns and cliticization of ne

to AgrSE, these data suggest that pas/poin(c)t do not occupy SpecNegP.

Recent accounts of these historical facts with a view to relating them to the situation in the modern language by H&L (1992a, b), M artineau (1990), Pearce (1990, 1991), and Pollock (1997a) have argued that the contrast between (10a) and (10b) can be attributed to differences in infinitival Verb M ovement patterns. However, the fact that pas was the only negative adverb affected by the shift from (10a) to (10b) during the seventeenth century (H&L 1993: 2fn3, 13) sug- gests that Verb M ovement is unlikely to have been responsible for the change. Note also that differing infinitival Verb Movement patterns alone are insufficient to account for the possibility of the examples in (11) or the finite examples in footnote 19.

In contrast, I suggest, following H&L (1993, 1994a, b) and Pearce (1993), that, instead of being the result of differing Verb M ovement patterns, the con- trast is due, rather, to a change in the (surface) position of the negative pas. As H&L (1993: 5) put it: “W e now favor the idea that the change from ne V pas to

ne pas V in the case of lexical verbs reflects a change in the position of the p- negative adverbs [i.e., pas/point] and not in the extent of [infinitival, PR] Verb M ovement.” In the “old” system, illustrated in (10a), NegE can be endowed with the feature [+N EG] without the negative operator pas raising to SpecNegP. Con- sequently, pas was able to appear in situ in the VP-adjoined position. Given V- raising out of VP, minimally to M oodE, pas then follows the verb. In contrast, in the “new” system, illustrated in (10b), NegEcannot be endowed with the feature [+N EG] without a negative operator raising to SpecNegP. For the reasons detailed at the start of this chapter, this has the consequence that, in (10b), pas

raises to SpecNegP and precedes the infinitive.

The discussion in the previous paragraph does not in fact follow H&L’s (1993, 1994a, b) analysis fully. For me, the contrast between (10a) and (10b) revolves around the superficial position of pas; it is generated adjoined to VP in both cases and either does or doesn’t raise to SpecNegP. In contrast, H&L sug- gest that it is the base position of pas that changes; although generated in an ad- joined position in (10a), pas is generated directly in SpecNegP in (10b), as in Pollock’s (1989) analysis of Modern French. In section 2.1, raising of pas into SpecNegP in the modern language was motivated by the need to mark sentential negation: given that, in M odern French, pas is inherently negative, it bears the feature [+N EG] and can endow NegE with that feature via DA after raising into the specifier position. The fact that this movement seems once to have been un- necessary/unavailable/optional can be explained if ne is deemed formerly to have been inherently negative, an approach supported by the facts that ne could mark sentential negation on its own and pas was interpreted as an emphatic item.

20. Posner (1985: 184) agrees that the changes coincide but suggests a critical period two centuries earlier: “The obligatory intercalation of the ‘forclusif’ between the auxiliary or modal and the non-finite lexical verb dates from the late fourteenth century: before then its position was freer and it had emphatic import.” See footnote 17.

W ithin the terms of an analysis along these lines, obligatory raising of pas from its base position to SpecNegP and, hence, the shift from neV pas to nepasV in the context of lexical infinitives is seen as a consequence of the process by which pas increasingly took over the role of primary sentence negator from ne. This approach is supported by the following related facts (H &L 1993: 15): first, the loss of (10a) and (11) coincides with the loss of the ability of ne to mark ne- gation on its own; second, the loss of (10a) and (11) coincides with the shift in the interpretation of pas from an emphatic/polarity item to a strictly negative element. According to H&L’s (1993: 15) interpretation of the statistical data, the critical period is the beginning of the seventeenth century.20

In summary, H&L’s idea that the change from ne V pas to ne pas V in the context of lexical infinitives is the consequence of a change in the base position of the negative requires assumptions in addition to those required by the analysis proposed here in which the change in relative position of the two items is seen as a consequence of increasingly obligatory raising to SpecNegP, that is, a change in surface position only. H&L’s analysis requires reanalysis of pas/point from an adverb to a SpecNegP-associated element. In addition, given that the shift from (10a) to (10b) is progressive, that is, given that two orders exist simultaneously during an intermediate period, H&L’s analysis assumes a period of dual classifi- cation. In contrast, my proposed analysis assumes nothing more than the increas- ing “negativization” of pas (and point) and “denegativization” of ne. The need for a functional head in clausal structure to bear the feature [+N EG] to mark sentential negation (Haegeman 1995) does the rest, in that, in the absence of an inherently negative marker in NegE and a suitable non-overt operator, an overt [+N EG] XP will be obliged to raise into specifier position. The shift from (10a) to (10b) then falls out directly. The period during which pas/point appear to have had a dual classification can then be viewed as an ambivalence with respect to the status of ne ([+N EG] or not) and pas (negative quantifier or emphatic NPI) (H&L 1993: 17; Price 1993), rather than ambivalence with respect to the posi- tion in which pas is generated. I therefore conclude that the diachronic develop- ments discussed in this section are best analyzed in terms of increasingly com- pulsory pas-raising to SpecNegP and that, as claimed in section 2.1, pas is gen- erated in an adjoined adverbial position throughout.

2.2

Configuration 2: pas and

indefinite direct objects

Here I consider a syntactic context representing an exception to the analysis of

pas proposed and supported so far. W here the clause (negated by pas) contains a transitive verb that governs an indefinite direct object, it is argued that, excep- tionally, pas is not generated in an adjoined position. Rather, in this context, pas

21. See Englebert (1993) for review and discussion.

22. In section 2.2.3 and footnote 28, I consider the possibility, following Lyons (1994a), that, as indefinites, partitives lack a DP shell altogether. The exact nature of the non-overt NE is not relevant for my purposes, but see Battye (1991) for a proposal and Rowlett (1993a) for discussion. See also Kornfilt (1990) for discussion of partitives with non-overt heads in Turkish.

2.2.1