Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T13:40:19.194Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Subject NP doubling, matching, and minority French

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Terry Nadasdi
Terry Nadasdi
Affiliation:
York University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Our study presents a variationist analysis of subject doubling in the French of Ontario, Canada. Two principal variants are distinguished: a non-doubled variant and a doubled variant containing a clitic agreement marker. In our analyses, both linguistic and social factors are taken into account and analyzed using goldvarb2. It is proposed that subject clitics are marked for default features, and that the doubled variant is favored when the clitic's default features match those of the subject NP; lack of matching favors the non-doubled variant. Discussion of linguistic factors for the present study, therefore, is limited to those factors which can be explained in terms matching. The principal social factor studied is restricted language use (cf. Mougeon & Beniak, 1991). Our results show that the greater the restriction, the fewer doubled subjects one finds.

Type
Research Article
Information
Language Variation and Change , Volume 7 , Issue 1 , March 1995 , pp. 1 - 14
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1995

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

Andersen, R. (1982). Determining linguistic attributes of language attrition. In Lambert, R. & Freed, B. (eds.), The loss of language skills. Rowley, MA: Newbury. 83–118.Google Scholar
Ashby, W. (1988). The syntax, pragmatics, and sociolinguistics of left and right dislocations in French. Lingua 75:203–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Auger, J. (1993). Syntax, semantics, and ça: On genericity in Colloquial French. The Penn Review of Linguistics 17:1–12.Google Scholar
Auger, J. (1991). Variation and syntactic theory: Agreement-marking vs. dislocation in Québec Colloquial French. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Barnes, B. (1985). The pragmatics of left-detachment in spoken Standard French. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnes, B. (1986). An empirical study of the syntax and pragmatics of left dislocations in spoken French. In Jaeggli, O. & Silva-Corvalan, C. (eds.), Studies in Romance linguistics. 207–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cassano, P. V. (1977). Le français de Windsor. Bulletin du Centre en civilisation canadiennefrançaise de l'Université d'Ottawa 14:27–30.Google Scholar
Carroll, S. (1982). Redoublement et dislocations en français populaire. In Lefebvre, C. (ed.), Lasyntaxe comparée du français standard et populaire: Approaches formelle et fonctionnelle. Québec: Office de la langue française.Google Scholar
Chafe, W. (1976). Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics, and points of view. In Li, C. (ed.), Subject and topic. New York: Academic.Google Scholar
Chesterman, A. (1991). On definiteness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1977). On wh movement. In Culicover, P., Wasow, T. & Akmajian, A. (eds.), Formal syntax. New York: Academic.Google Scholar
Christophersen, P. (1939). The articles: A study of their theory and use in English. Copenhagen: Einar Munksgaard.Google Scholar
Comrie, B. (1981). Language universals and linguistic typology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Cummins, S. & Roberge, Y. (1994). A morphosyntactic analysis of Romance clitic constructions. In Mazzola, M. (ed.), Issues and theory in Romance linguistics: Selected papers from the linguistic symposium on Romance languages XXIII.Google Scholar
Deshaies, D., Guilbault, C. & Paradis, Cl. (1992). Prosodie et dislocation à gauche par anaphore en français québécois spontané. Proceedings of the XVth International Congress of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Enç, M. (1986). Tense without scope: An analysis of nouns as indexicals. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Hawkins, J. (1978). Definiteness and indefiniteness, London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Heim, I.R. (1982). The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Hirschbühler, P. (1975). On the source of lefthand NPs in French. Linguistic lnquiry 6:155–165.Google Scholar
Jespersen, O. (1949). A modern English grammar on historical principles: Syntax. London: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, K. (1981). Topic, antitopic and verb agreement in non-standard French. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laurendeau, P., Fournier, R., Néron, M. (1982). Contraintes sur l'emploi du pro-écho sujet en français du Québec. Revue de l'Association québécoise de linguistique 1–2:115–128.Google Scholar
Martinet, A. (1969). Langue et fonction. Paris: Éditions Denoël.Google Scholar
Mougeon, R. & Beniak, É. (1991). Linguistic consequences of language contact and restriction: The case of French in Ontario, Canada. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nadasdi, T. (1989). Déviation et simplification linguistique dans le français bruxellois. Revue de l'Association linguistique des provinces atlantiques. 11:1–18.Google Scholar
Nadasdi, T. (1995). Variation morphosyntaxique et langue minoritaire: Le cas du français ontarien. Doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto.Google Scholar
Ossipov, H. (1990). A GPSP account of doubling and dislocation in French. Doctoral dissertation, University of Indiana.Google Scholar
Perlmutter, D. (1978). Impersonal passives and the unaccusative hypothesis. Proceedings of the 4th Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley: University of California.Google Scholar
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G. & Svartvik, J. (1972). A grammar of contemporary English. London: Longman Group Ltd.Google Scholar
Rando, E. & Napoli, D. J. (1978). Definites in THERE-sentences. Language. 54:300–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rizzi, L. (1986). On the status of subject clitics in Romance. In Jaeggil, O. & Silva-Corvalán, C. (eds.), Studies in Romance linguistics. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Roberge, Y. (1990). The syntactic recoverability of null arguments. Montréal: McGill-Queen's University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberge, Y. & Vinet, M.-T. (1989). La variation dialectale en grammaire universelle. Montréal: Les Presses de l'Université de Montréal.Google Scholar
Rochement, M. (1989). Topic islands and the subjacency parameter. The Canadian Journal of Linguistics. 34–2:145–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sankoff, G. (1982). Usage linguistique et grammaticalisation: Les clitiques sujets en français. In Dittmar, N. & Schlieben-Lange, B. (eds.), La sociolinguistique dans les pays de langue romane. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag. 81–85.Google Scholar
Suñer, M. (1988). The role of agreement in clitic doubled constructions. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory. 6:391–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thibault, P. (1983). Équivalence et grammaticalisation. Doctoral dissertation, Université de Montréal.Google Scholar