L’Objet de cette étude est une analyse comparative et critique de deux ouvrages portant sur la syntaxe structurale du français, celui de Knud Togeby Structure immanente de la langue française (SI) et celui de Lucien Tesnière Eléments de syntaxe structurale (ESS).

Nous avons essayé de dégager les principes d’analyse syntaxiques utilisés par ces deux auteurs, de marquer dans quelle mesure leur méthode et les résultats qu’ils ont obtenus sont originaux à l’égard de la grammaire traditionnelle et s’ils apportent des solutions suffisantes à tous les problèmes de la syntaxe.

While reading the literature on glottochronology, I felt that there might be a special case which Swadesh, Lees, et al. had not accounted for: one which would not follow the same rate of divergence for basic vocabulary as they had generally predicted. This is the case in which languages diverge from a common proto language, but which nevertheless retain a common writing system—particularly a writing system which has no direct relationship to the phonemic system of the language. It could be hypothesized that due to the cohesive bond that might occur in languages with such a common writing system, the languages ought to diverge at a much slower rate than 80.5% retention per 1000 years as in the case of Lees’ findings (Lees 1953: 118-9), or 86% retention per 1000 years as in the case of Swadesh’s revised 100 word list (Swadesh 1955: 133-7). Subconsciously, my feelings about the Chinese “dialects” influenced me, particularly since I had already pre-judged the case and had assumed that the dialects diverged at a rate slower than Lees and Swadesh had predicted.

This paper is structured in the following way: first, certain alternations involving consonantal insertion will be examined in order to motivate a synchronic epenthesis rule for Old French (OF) phonology. After details of this rule and some of its relationships with other rules are fixed, an interesting set of historical changes involving restructuring, analogy, and rule ordering will be investigated in an effort to clarify several complicated interactions between phonological and morphological factors in the evolution of the OF verb system.

La très grande majorité des travaux, ancients et récents, consacrés au cris posent, souvent en d’autres termes mais cela revient au même, que la longueur est phonologique au niveau vocalique. En effet, qu’il s’agisse des ouvrages de Michelson (1939), ou de Bloomfield (1946), ou qu’il s’agisse des travaux de Lacombe (1874), de Hives (1948), de Watkins (1938), de Horden (1881), ou de Howse (1844), ou encore, des recherches de Rogers (1958), de Ellis (1962), de Mackenzie (1971), de Longacre (1957), ou de Wolfart (1973), partout l’on maintient, même si cela est souvent dit autrement, que la longueur exerce une fonction distinctive.

Introduction. In Spanish, pairs of sentences like the following are found:

1. (1)

   1. a. Oigo que Juan toca la guitarra.

      I-hear that John is-playing the the guitar.

   2. b. Oigo a Juan que toca la guitarra.

      I-hear John that (he) is-playing the guitar.

2. (2)

   1. a. Vio que María estaba de regreso.

      He-saw that Mary had returned.

   2. b. Vio a María que estaba de regreso.

      He-saw Mary that (she) had returned.

3. (3)

   1. a. Veo que el río trae mucha agua.

      I-see that the river carries a-lot-of water

   2. b. Veo el río que trae mucha agua.

      I-see the river that (it) carries a-lot-of water.

   In general, it appears that in sentences with verbs of perception which introduce a que clause, the embedded subject (see a. sentences) is able to move upwards to the object position in the main clause (see b. sentences). This pattern also occurs in the causative construction with dejar.

4. (4)

   1. a. Dejé que Juan saliera.

      I-let that John leave (Subjunctive)

   2. b. Dejé a Juan que saliera.

      I-let John that (he) leave (Subjunctive)