Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T00:01:26.178Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Morphome death and transfiguration in the history of French1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 January 2016

LOUISE ESHER
LOUISE ESHER*
Affiliation:
St John’s College, University of Oxford
*
Author’s address: St John’s College,Oxford,OX1 3JP, UK [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Maiden (e.g. 2009a) shows that treating the paradigmatic distribution of root allomorphy in Romance verbs as morphomic, in the sense of Aronoff (1994), provides a coherent explanation for the diachronic behaviour of such allomorphy. The major templates for distribution (‘metamorphomes’, Round 2015) shared by most Romance varieties are also found in early French, but are not well represented in the modern language, which has developed new metamorphomes. By charting the diachronic development of metamorphomes in French, this study investigates the processes responsible for change to such templates. Overall, the French data point to segmental sound change as the central factor in change to metamorphomes: segmental sound change modifies the observable paradigmatic distribution of allomorphs, reducing the number of lexemes in which an existing metamorphomic template could be deduced, and increasing the number of lexemes across which a novel metamorphomic generalisation can be made. The loss of existing metamorphomes, and the rise of new ones, can be considered a single process, of metamorphomic templates changing shape as further paradigm cells attach to or defect from them. This process must be distinguished from changes in metamorphome shape due to the creation or elimination of paradigm categories for independent morphosyntactic reasons.

Keywords

autonomous morphologyFrenchhistorical linguisticsinflectional morphologylanguage changemorphomes
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 53 , Issue 1 , 01 February 2017 , pp. 51 - 84
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Albright, Adam. 2009. Modeling analogy as probabilistic grammar. In Blevins, James P. & Blevins, Juliette (eds.), Analogy in grammar, 185–213. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alibèrt, Loís. 1976. Gramatica occitana segon los parlars lengadocians, 2nd edn. Montpelhièr: CEO.Google Scholar
Anderson, Stephen R. 2008. Phonologically conditioned allomorphy in the morphology of Surmiran (Rumantsch). Word Structure 1, 109–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, Stephen R. 2011. Stress-conditioned allomorphy in the morphology of Surmiran (Rumantsch). In Maiden, Smith, Hinzelin & Goldbach (eds.), 13–35.Google Scholar
Anderson, Stephen R. 2013. Stem alternations in Swiss Rumantsch. In Cruschina et al. (eds.), 8–23.Google Scholar
Aronoff, Mark. 1994. Morphology by itself. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Barral, Marcel. 1980. L’imparfait du subjonctif. Paris: Picard.Google Scholar
Boiste, Pierre Claude Victor. 1820. Nouveaux principes de grammaire. Paris: Verdière.Google Scholar
Bonami, Olivier & Boyé, Gilles. 2002. Suppletion and dependency in inflectional morphology. In Van Eynde, Frank, Hellan, Lars & Beerman, Dorothee (eds.), Proceedings of the HPSG’01 Conference, 51–70. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Bonami, Olivier & Boyé, Gilles. 2003. Supplétion et classes flexionnelles dans la conjugaison du franc¸ais. Langages 152, 102–126.Google Scholar
Bonami, Olivier, Boyé, Gilles, Giraudo, Hélène & Voga, Madeleine. 2008. Quels verbes sont réguliers en franc¸ais? In Durand, Jacques, Habert, Benoît & Laks, Bernard (eds.), Actes du premier Congrès Mondial de Linguistique Franc¸aise, 1511–1523. Published online by EDP Sciences, www.linguistiquefrancaise.org (accessed 24 October 2014).Google Scholar
Bragantini-Maillard, Nathalie & Denoyelle, Corinne. 2012. Cent verbes conjugués en franc¸ais médiéval. Paris: Armand Colin.Google Scholar
Broussard, James F. 1922. Relative value of French verb tenses. The Modern Language Journal 7, 37–41.Google Scholar
Brunot, Ferdinand. 1933. Histoire de la langue franc¸aise, des origines à 1900. Tome VI: Le XVIIIe siècle. Deuxième partie: La langue postclassique. Fascicule deuxième: Les formes, la syntaxe, la phrase. Paris: Colin.Google Scholar
Brunot, Ferdinand. 1939. Histoire de la langue franc¸aise, des origines à 1900. Tome X: La langue classique dans la tourmente. Première partie: Contact avec la langue populaire et la langue rurale. Paris: Colin.Google Scholar
Buridant, Claude. 2000. Grammaire nouvelle de l’ancien franc¸ais. Paris: SEDES.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. 1985. Morphology: A study of the relation between meaning and form. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan [L]. 2001. Phonology and language use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Chaurand, Jacques. 1960. Feu l’imparfait du subjonctif. Le Franc¸ais moderne 28, 161–170.Google Scholar
Chaurand, Jacques. 1972. Introduction à la dialectologie franc¸aise. Paris: Bordas.Google Scholar
Coquillon, Anne & Turcsan, Gabor. 2012. An overview of the phonological and phonetic properties of Southern French. In Gess, Randall Scott, Lyche, Chantal & Meisenburg, Trudel (eds.), Phonological variation in French: Illustrations from three continents, 105–127. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Croft, William. 2000. Explaining language change: An evolutionary approach. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Cruschina, Silvio, Maiden, Martin & Smith, John Charles (eds.). 2013. The boundaries of pure morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Delattre, Pierre. 1939. Accent de mot et accent de groupe. The French Review 13.2, 141–146.Google Scholar
Dendale, Patrick. 2001. Les problèmes linguistiques du conditionnel en franc¸ais. In Dendale & Tasmowski(eds.), 7–18.Google Scholar
Dendale, Patrick & Tasmowski, Liliane (eds.). 2001. Le conditionnel en franc¸ais. Metz: Université de Metz.Google Scholar
Dupoux, Emmanuel, Sebastián-Gallés, Núria, Navarrete, Eduardo & Peperkamp, Sharon. 2008. Persistent stress ‘deafness’: The case of French learners of Spanish. Cognition 106, 682–706.Google Scholar
Esher, Louise. 2013. Future and conditional in Occitan: A non-canonical morphome. In Cruschina et al. (eds.), 95–115.Google Scholar
Esher, Louise. 2014. Autonomous morphology and extramorphological coherence. Morphology 24, 325–350.Google Scholar
Esher, Louise. 2015a. Formal asymmetries between the synthetic future and conditional in the Romance varieties of the Western Languedoc. Transactions of the Philological Society 113.2, 249–270.Google Scholar
Esher, Louise. 2015b. Morphomes and predictability in the history of Romance perfects. Diachronica 32.4, 494–529.Google Scholar
Fleischman, Suzanne. 1982. The future in thought and language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fouché, Pierre. 1967. Le verbe franc¸ais. Etude morphologique. Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar
Foulet, Lucien. 1920. La disparition du prétérit. Romania 46, 271–313.Google Scholar
Harris, Martin. 1978. The evolution of French syntax. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Harris, Martin. 1982. The ‘past simple’ and ‘present perfect’ in Romance. In Vincent, Nigel B. & Harris, Martin (eds.), Studies in the Romance verb, 42–70. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Iatridou, Sabine. 2000. The grammatical ingredients of counterfactuality. Linguistic Inquiry 31, 231–270.Google Scholar
Imbs, Paul. 1960. L’emploi des temps verbaux en franc¸ais moderne. Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar
Jun, Sun-Ah & Fougeron, Cécile. 2002. Realizations of accentual phrase in French intonation. Probus 14, 147–172.Google Scholar
Leeman, Danielle. 2006. Je et tu ou les sujets insoumis. Revue belge de philologie et d’histoire 84, 885–901.Google Scholar
Loporcaro, Michele. 2011. Syllable, segment and prosody. In Maiden, Smith & Ledgeway(eds.), 50–108.Google Scholar
Maiden, Martin. 1992. Irregularity as a determinant of morphological change. Journal of Linguistics 28.2, 285–312.Google Scholar
Maiden, Martin. 2000. Di un cambiamento intramorfologico: Origini del tipo dissi dicestiecc., nell’italoromanzo. Archivio glottologico italiano 85, 137–171.Google Scholar
Maiden, Martin. 2001. A strange affinity: Perfecto y tiempos afines. Bulletin of Hispanic Studies 58, 441–464.Google Scholar
Maiden, Martin. 2004. Verb augments and meaninglessness in Romance morphology. Studi di grammatica italiana 22, 1–61.Google Scholar
Maiden, Martin. 2005. Morphological autonomy and diachrony. Yearbook of Morphology 2004, 137–175.Google Scholar
Maiden, Martin. 2009a. From pure phonology to pure morphology: The reshaping of the Romance verb. Recherches linguistiques de Vincennes 38, 45–82.Google Scholar
Maiden, Martin. 2009b. Un capitolo di morfologia storica del romeno: Preterito e tempi affini. Zeitschrift für Romanische Philologie 125, 273–309.Google Scholar
Maiden, Martin. 2011a. Morphological persistence. In Maiden, Smith & Ledgeway(eds.), 155–215.Google Scholar
Maiden, Martin. 2011b. Allomorphy, autonomous morphology and phonological conditioning in the history of the Daco-Romance present and subjunctive. Transactions of the Philological Society 109, 59–91.Google Scholar
Maiden, Martin. 2011c. Morphomes and ‘stress-conditioned allomorphy’ Romansh. In Maiden, Smith, Hinzelin & Goldbach(eds.), 36–50.Google Scholar
Maiden, Martin. 2013. ‘Semi-autonomous’ morphology? A problem in the history of the Italian (and Romanian) verb. In Cruschina et al. (eds.), 24–44.Google Scholar
Maiden, Martin. Forthcoming 2016. Some lessons from history. Morphomes in diachrony. In Luís, Ana & Bermúdez-Otero, Ricardo (eds.), The morphome debate: Diagnosing and analysing morphomic patterns. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Maiden, Martin & Smith, John Charles. 2014. Glimpsing the future: Some rare anomalies in the history of the Italo-Romance and Gallo-Romance future and conditional stem, and what they suggest about paradigm structure. In Benincà, Paola, Ledgeway, Adam & Vincent, Nigel [B.] (eds.), Diachrony and dialects: Grammatical change in the dialects of Italy, 116–130. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Maiden, Martin, Smith, John Charles, Hinzelin, Marc-Olivier & Goldbach, Maria (eds.). 2011. Morphological autonomy: Perspectives from Romance inflectional morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maiden, Martin, Smith, John Charles & Ledgeway, Adam (eds.). 2011. The Cambridge history of the Romance languages, vol. I: Structures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Marchello-Nizia, Christine. 1995. L’évolution du franc¸ais. Ordre des mots, démonstratifs, accent tonique. Paris: Armand Colin.Google Scholar
Martinet, André & Walter, Henriette. 1973. Dictionnaire de la prononciation franc¸aise dans son usage réel. Paris: France-Expansion.Google Scholar
Meillet, Antoine. 1921. Sur la disparition des formes simples du prétérit. In Meillet, Antoine (ed.), Linguistique historique et linguistique générale, 149–158. Paris: Champion. [Reprint from Germanisch-Romanische Monatsschrift 1 (1909), 521–526.]Google Scholar
Meul, Claire. 2013. The Romance reflexes of the Latin infixes -I/ESC- and -IDI-: Restructuring and remodeling processes. Hamburg: Buske.Google Scholar
Ohala, John J. 1989. Sound change is drawn from a pool of synchronic variation. In Egil Breivik, Leiv & Jahr, Ernst Håkon (eds.), Language change: Contributions to the study of its causes, 173–198. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Orr, John. 1951. Le franc¸ais aimer. Mélanges de linguistique et de littérature romanes offerts à Mario Roques par ses amis, ses collègues et ses anciens élèves de France et de l’étranger, vol. I, 217–227. Paris: Didier.Google Scholar
Peeters, Bert. 2013. ‘Il fallut que je sois fusse...’: A la recherche d’un temps perdu (2001–2012). Presented at the conference ‘Si j’aurais su, j’aurais pas venu: Linguistique des formes exclues’, Université Libre de Bruxelles.Google Scholar
Pope, Mildred K. 1934. From Latin to modern French. Manchester: University of Manchester.Google Scholar
Rainsford, Thomas M.2011. The emergence of group stress in medieval French. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Cambridge.Google Scholar
Revaz, Franc¸oise. 2009. Valeurs et emplois du futur simple et du présent prospectif en franc¸ais. Faits de Langues 33, 149–162.Google Scholar
Roberts, Nicholas. 2012. Future temporal reference in Hexagonal French. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 18, 97–106.Google Scholar
Robson, C. A. 1954. Review of John Orr, Words and sounds in English and French, 1953. French Studies 8.1, 57–60.Google Scholar
Round, Erich R. 2015. Rhizomorphomes, meromorphomes and metamorphomes. In Corbett, Greville G., Brown, Dunstan & Baerman, Matthew (eds.), Understanding and measuring morphological complexity, 29–52. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Smith, John Charles. 2011. Variable analyses of a verbal inflection in (mainly) Canadian French. In Maiden, Smith, Hinzelin & Goldbach(eds.), 311–326.Google Scholar
Squartini, Mario & Bertinetto, Pier Marco. 2000. The simple and compound past in Romance languages. In Dahl, Östen (ed.), Tense and aspect in the languages of Europe, 403–439. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Streicher, Jeanne. 1936. Commentaires sur les remarques de Vaugelas par La Mothe le Vayer, Scipion Dupleix, Ménage, Bouhours, Conrart, Chapelain, Patru, Thomas Corneille, Cassagne, Andry de Boisregard et l’Académie Franc¸aise. Paris: Droz.Google Scholar
Stump, Gregory & Finkel, Raphael A.. 2013. Morphological typology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Thornton, Anna M. 2011. Overabundance (multiple forms realizing the same cell): A non-canonical phenomenon in Italian verb morphology. In Maiden, Smith, Hinzelin & Goldbach (eds.), 358–381.Google Scholar
Touratier, Christian. 1996. Le système verbal franc¸ais. Paris: Masson & Armand Colin.Google Scholar
Van Vliet, Edward R. 1983. The disappearance of the French passé simple: A morphological and sociolinguistic study. Word 34, 85–115.Google Scholar
Vet, Co & Kampers-Manhe, Brigitte. 2001. Futur simple et futur du passé: Leurs emplois temporels et modaux. In Dendale & Tasmowski (eds.), 89–104.Google Scholar
Walker, Douglas C. 1987. Patterns of analogy in the Old French verb system. Lingua 72, 109–131.Google Scholar
Waugh, Linda & Monville-Burston, Monique. 1986. Aspect and discourse function: The French simple past in journalistic usage. Language 62, 846–877.Google Scholar
Wilmet, Marc. 1970. Le système de l’indicatif en moyen franc¸ais. Genève: Droz.Google Scholar
Zink, Gaston. 1986. Phonétique historique du franc¸ais. Paris: PUF.Google Scholar