La narración

As a non-pro-drop language (§1.3), French finite clauses require an overt subject. In the absence of a DP* subject, a personal proform is used: je 1SG, tu 2SG, il 3M.SG, elle 3⁵¹ F.SG, nous 1PL, vous 2⁵² P L, ils 3⁵³ M.PL, elles 3F.PL. Given that⁵⁴ common nouns have grammatical gender (§2.1.2.1), the third-person proforms can be used with animates and non-animates, alike. The forms elle(s), nous and vous are cross-categorial, both clitic and non-clitic (§3.8).⁵⁵

Two other subject proforms are:

– ce (c’) ‘this’, which only ever co-occurs with copular être ‘to be’:⁵⁶

On agreement with subject ce see below.

57

The form l’on is sometimes used in ModF (but not ConF) as an alternative to on. The

58

context where l’on is used most frequently is immediately following the complementiser que, where it allows the complementiser and the proform to avoid elision (que l’on instead of qu’on). The form l’on is, however, excluded from three contexts, namely: (a) pronominal and complex inversion (§5.7.1); (b) resuming dislocated nous; and (c) followed by an l-initial word. The first of these exclusions is discussed in §5.7.1; the second is due to a mismatch between ModF l’on and ConF dislocation; the third is doubtless a superficial case of euphony. See Coveney (2004a).

(83) a. Une pomme, c’est bon. b. *Une pomme, ce coûte cher.

an apple it-is good an apple it costs dear

‘Apples are good.’

Ce (c’) is used: (a) as a ConF alternative to M odF il in some impersonal construc-tions (§2.2.3.1):

(84) a. Il est important d’être à l’heure. b. C’est important d’être à l’heure.

it is important of-be at the-hour it is important of-be at the-hour

‘It’s important to be on time.’

(b) in clefts (§5.5):

(85) C’est toi que j’ai vu.

it-is you that I-have seen

‘It’s you that I saw.’

(c) as the subject of a predicate nominal:

(86) C’est mon chef.

it-is my boss

‘That’s/He’s/It’s my boss.’

or (d) as a resumptive proform for dislocated constituents of various kinds, for example, verbal predicates, free relatives (§5.6.1) or generic DP*s (§5.3):

(87) a. Manger, c’est bon. b. Ne crache pas, ce n’est pas poli.

eat it-is good NEG spit not it NEG-is not polite

‘Eating is good.’ ‘Don’t spit, it’s not polite.’

c. Ce que tu as dit, c’était bien. d. Les papillons, c’est dur à attraper.

this that you have said, it-was good the butterflies it-is hard to catch

‘What you said was good.’ ‘Butterflies are hard to catch.’⁵⁷ Used referentially, ce refers – like cela ‘that’ and ceci ‘this’ (§3.8) – in an undifferentiated, global way. Thus, les papillons ‘the butterflies’ in (87d) can only be interpreted generically.

– on ‘one’, which triggers 3SG agreement on the finite verb, and can only be used with human referents. On is used: (a) as a vague reference to people in general:⁵⁸

For general discussion of subject–verb agreement see §2.2.1.1, and for adjective

59

agreement see §2.3.3.1.

(88) En France on boit le café sans lait.

in France one drinks the coffee without milk

‘In France people drink their coffee black.’

(b) instead of nous:

(89) On part à la mer.

one leaves to the sea

‘We’re off to the sea.’

In ConF replacement of personal-proform nous with on is systematic (Haegeman 2003: 36);

(c) as a contextually determined second-person reference (Goosse 2000: 122):

(90) a. On se calme! b. On se moque?

one self calms one self mocks

‘Calm down!’ ‘Are you mocking me?’

or (d) as a reference to an unidentified human Agent in structures alternating with the passive (§2.2.3.1):

(91) On a cassé la vitre.

one has broken the window.pane

‘Someone smashed the window.’/‘The window has been broken.’

Unlike other personal proforms, on doesn’t have a non-clitic equivalent (§3.8).

Generally, this isn’t a problem since with most uses of on, there’s no pragmatic need to use stress. The exception is (89). W here a subject is a pragmatic topic, it’s dislocated in ConF (§5.3). W here 1PL on is dislocated, nous ‘we’ is used, instead:

(92) a. Nous, on part à la mer. b. Nous, on est égaux.

we one leaves to the sea we one is equal.M.PL

• (89) ‘We’re equal.’

This mismatch between the dislocated phrase and the resumptive proform is widely condemned by prescriptivists. Judge and Healey (1983: 268) label (92b) ‘collo-quial’. However, the frequency of the pattern illustrated in (92) is such that it can’t be dismissed as a production error.

Unlike other personal proforms, on can’t ellipse in co-ordinate structures.

Compare (93a, b):

(93) a. Il arrive et (il) repart. b. On arrive et *(on) repart.

he arrives and he leaves.again one arrives and one leaves.again

‘He arrives and leaves again.’ ‘People arrive and leave again.’

Ce and on behave interestingly with respect to external agreement. As a generic⁵⁹ proform, ce bears no inherent gender, number or person features and therefore

generally triggers default agreement. This means 3SG agreement on the finite verb, and M.SG agreement on adjectival predicates (§2.1.2.3). Thus, in (94) since ce denotes the abstract notion of apples, rather than any particular apples, both the verb and the AP* are (M.)SG.

(94) Des pommes, c’est bon.

of.the apples it-is good

‘Apples are good.’

However, when ce is followed by a PL predicate DP*, the copula is marked PL: (95) a. Ce sont mes cousins. b. Ce sont ces deux-là que je veux voir.

it are my cousins it are these two-there that I want see

‘They are my cousins.’ ‘It’s those two that I want to see.’

The contrast between (94) and (95) stems from a difference in the nature of ö-feature marking on DP*s and AP*s. W hile DP*s bear ö ö-features inherently, AP*s bear them by association, only. Thus, in (94), since neither ce nor the predicative AP* bears inherent ö features, default 3M.SG is found throughout. In (95), in contrast, the predicate DP*s do have inherent ö features and these can percolate to ce, triggering PL marking on the verb.

In ConF SG verb agreement is found even where ce (c’) clearly has PL number:

(96) a. C’est mes cousins. b. C’est ces deux-là que je veux voir.

it-is my cousins it-is these two-there that I want see

= (95a) = (95b)

This is reminiscent of the there’s/there are distinction in Standard English, whereby a PL associate can trigger PL marking on be:

(97) a. There’s a man here. b. There are three men here.

Here, too, the distinction is absent in non-standard varieties:

(98) %There’s three men here.

As for the agreement patterns with on, for some speakers/writers, the semantic content of on (as an alternative for the PL personal proform nous, which can be F) is sufficient to trigger agreement in number and gender on past participles and adjectives (Leeman-Bouix 1994: 72):

(99) a. On est parti(e)(s). b. On sera jamais trop prudent(e)(s).

one is left.F.PL one will.be never too prudent.F.PL

‘We’ve left.’ ‘We can never be too careful.’

In §4.4.1 we concluded that weak non-subject proforms are syntactic clitics, merged in CliticE. Personal proforms are like their non-subject counterparts and unlike DP* subjects in a number of respects: (a) they are dependent on the presence of a finite verb:

The legal formula Je, (le) soussigné, déclare par la présente . . . ‘I, the undersigned, do

60

hereby declare . . . ’, in which the personal proform je is separated from the finite verb, is now fossilised.

The discussion here relates to preverbal personal proforms. Apparently inverted (that is,

61

postverbal) forms are discussed in §5.7.1.

(100) a. Partir? Paul/Lui? Jamais! b. *Partir? Il? Jamais!

leave P./him never leave he never

‘Leave? Paul/Him? Never!’

(b) they can’t be separated from the finite verb by anything other than a clitic:

(101) a. Paul, évidemment, est parti. b. *Il, évidemment, est parti.⁶⁰ P. evidently is left he evidently is left

‘Paul evidently left.’

(c) liaison between a personal proform and a following verb is compulsory:

(102) a. Les filles ont mangé. [lefij(z)]ÞmYÞ¥e] b. Ils ont mangé. [il(*z)]ÞmYÞ¥e]

the girls have eaten they have eaten

‘The girls ate.’ ‘They ate.’

and (d) the proform je and (optionally in informal ConF) the proform tu have elided forms (j’ and t’) which appear before vowel-initial verbs. All these properties suggest a close clitic-like relationship with the finite verb, so we might wonder whether subject proforms are clitics.⁶¹

However, there’s a difference between the syntax of non-subject clitics and that of personal proforms, and this suggests that personal proforms aren’t syntactic clitics, but rather phonological clitics. The difference relates to the ability of personal proforms, but not non-subject clitics, to ellipse in co-ordinate structures:

in (103a) the object clitic can’t be omitted from the second conjunct; in (103b) the personal proform can be omitted from the second conjunct:

(103) a. Le journal, je [l’achète] et [*(le) lis] tous les jours.

the newspaper, I it buy and it read all the days

‘The newspaper, I buy and read it every day.’

b. [Je me réveille] et [(je) me lève] de bonne heure.

I me wake and me rise of good hour

‘I wake up and get up early.’

Thus, instead of extending to subject proforms the analysis in §4.4.1 of non-subject proforms as CliticE elements, we might assume that subject proforms behave by and large like DP* subjects: they merge in a VP*-internal è position and raise to SpecIP* to check an EPP/D feature against the finite verb in I*E. Once there, though, they cliticise phonologically onto the adjacent verb. Provided that co-ordination and (optional) ellipsis/gapping take place before phonological cliticisation, the flexible pattern in (103b) is explained.

W hile the above approach to subject proforms works in M odF/ConF, is some

In Picard, too, it’s suggested that subject doubling is so common that it can’t be explained

62

away as pragmatically triggered LD. Indeed, it’s found in syntactic contexts where the pragmatic analysis simply doesn’t work. Coveney’s (2003) study shows that subject doubling in Picard takes place 24% of the time and is subject to age and class differentiation, but not sex differentiation. See also Auger (2003a). According to Queffélec (2000a: 790) subject doubling among French speakers in the Maghreb is near systematic.

Nadasdi (1995) also found (Table 1, p. 7) that subject doubling is more likely to occur

63

when the subject is [+SPECIFIC] and [+DEFINITE]. Given that clitics like to match the features of their associated phrase, and given that personal proforms are [+SPECIFIC] by default, such a preference is expected. In fact, Nadasdi found (Table 2, p. 8) that the specificity continuum – 1/2>3>proper>common>indefinite proforms – corresponds to a falling rate of subject doubling.

Nadasdi makes two further findings which won’t be pursued here. First, he finds (Table 3, p. 10) that the nature of the superficial subject is relevant to subject doubling: the subject of an unaccusative/passive is less prone to subject doubling than that of an unergative/active.

Second, he finds (Table 4, p. 11) that subject doubling correlates with speakers’ relative use of French and English: those who speak relatively less French (and relatively more English) display less subject doubling. Of course, English doesn’t have subject doubling and the correlation may be due to interference from English. Alternatively it may be due to a general preference among less competent speakers, irrespective of the syntactic properties of the dominant language, for simple or stylistically narrow structures, or free rather than bound morphemes.

varieties it doesn’t. The relevant empirical data relate to subject doubling, illustrated in (104a):

(104) a. Mon chat il dort tout le temps. b. Mon chat, il dort tout le temps.

my cat he sleeps all the time my cat he sleeps all the time

‘My cat sleeps all the time.’ ‘My cat, he sleeps all the time.’

In subject doubling a ‘strong’ subject (here, mon chat ‘my cat’) co-occurs with a

‘weak’ subject (here, il ‘he’). The subject-doubling example in (104a) is superfi-cially very similar to subject (clitic) left dislocation (LD), illustrated in (104b) (§5.3.1). However, subject doubling is crucially different from subject LD, and the following differences are identified by Nadasdi (1995) on the basis of his study of subject doubling and subject LD in the French spoken in Ontario, Canada, following Roberge (1990):

(a) doubled subjects don’t have the characteristic ‘comma intonation’ of LDed subjects;

(b) doubled subjects are incompatible with contrastive/emphatic stress, unlike LDed subjects;⁶²

(c) doubled subjects allow liaison, while LDed subjects don’t; and,

(d) doubled subjects follow non-selected CP* material, while LDed subjects precede such material.⁶³

Auger (2003b) found similar things looking at the same phenomenon in Picard.

Furthermore, she found that subjects which were incompatible with subject LD were

While the pragmatic constraints on LD rule out (91b, c) in §5.3.1 in ConF, since

64

existential indefinites can’t be dislocated, such strings are grammatical in varieties with subject doubling, crucially because topicalisation isn’t involved (Auger 1994: 22):

(i) a. Personne il m’aime. b. Tout le monde il se baignait là-bas.

nobody he me-likes all the world he self bathed there

‘Nobody likes me.’ ‘Everyone was bathing there.’

c. Si tous mes soldats ils étaient curés . . . if all my soldiers they were priests

‘If all my soldiers were priests . . . ’

nevertheless compatible with subject doubling. Taken together, these differences⁶⁴ suggest strongly that subject doubling isn’t the same as subject LD.

In §5.3.1 (subject) LD like (104b) is analysed as: (a) IP*-external merger of the LDed DP*; and (b) a binding relationship between the dislocated DP* and the IP*-internal subject. Nothing further needs to be said about the IP*-internal structure of IP*.

Given the differences between subject doubling and subject LD, Roberge (1990) and Auger (1994) argue that, rather than merging externally to IP*, the ‘strong’

subject in subject-doubling contexts like (104a) merges IP* internally. They suggest that it is the subject and that it behaves accordingly: it merges in VP* and raises to SpecIP*. This means, of course, that the ‘weak’ subject in subject doubling isn’t the

‘real’ subject and therefore can’t be analysed as such. Instead of merging VP*

internally, raising to SpecIP* and phonologically cliticising onto the finite verb, it’s suggested that, in subject doubling, the ‘weak’ subject has been reanalysed, first as an affix, then as a mere agreement marker, realised directly on I*E, much as is the case in Northern Italian dialects (see Poletto 2000 and De Cat 2002: 38 for references). The ‘strong’ and ‘weak’ subjects in subject doubling therefore occupy the specifier and head positions, respectively, of IP*.

In document Voces y relaciones dialógicas en la narrativa de Ángeles Mastretta (página 41-44)