Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-wq484 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T00:24:20.366Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

French imperatives, negative ne, and non-subject clitics1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 November 2013

PAUL ROWLETT
PAUL ROWLETT*
Affiliation:
University of Salford
*
Address for correspondence: Paul Rowlett, School of Humanities, Languages & Social Sciences, University of Salford, Salford M5 4WT, UK e-mail: P.A.Rowlett@salford.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article focuses on the behaviour of negation and clitics in the context of French imperatives. Standard descriptions contrast positive Fais-le ! (with enclisis) with negative (Ne) le fais pas ! (with proclisis). I adopt a view of imperatives in terms of a pragmatic irrealis mood feature associated with Rizzi's (1997) exploded CP and defective/impoverished morphology which allows inflection and irrealis mood features to be checked on a single functional head. Thus, positive imperatives can check all their grammatical features before merger of any clitics, which (following Shlonsky, 2004) will therefore be enclitic. The presence of negation, when realised as a grammatical feature on an (overt or null) functional head within the clausal trunk, prevents this from happening because negation intervenes between the relevant inflection and mood features in the universal hierarchy underlying the Rizzi/Cinque exploded CP/IP. Outside cliticisation contexts, the difference has no surface impact: Viens ! vs. (Ne) viens pas ! In cliticisation contexts, in contrast, there is a surface difference: negative imperatives cannot check all their inflectional features at the point at which clitics are merged, and clitics will not therefore be enclitic. Regionally/stylistically marked forms like Fais-le pas !, in which proclisis and negation co-occur, must be deemed to have a radically different structure, with no negative feature projected within the inflectional domain. Such forms are argued to be a natural (and therefore expected) innovation within Jespersen's cycle of diachronic development.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of French Language Studies , Volume 24 , Issue 1: Negation and Clitics in French: Interaction and variation , March 2014 , pp. 29 - 47
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

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.)

Footnotes

1

Acknowledgements: Versions of this material were presented at the Romance Linguistics Seminar in Cambridge in January 2006 and at the Negation and Clitics in Romance conference in Zurich in February 2012. My thanks to the organisers and participants of the conference, as well as to the guest editors and reviewers of this special issue of JFLS. The Zurich conference illustrated very clearly the similarity of my own approach to that of Hugues Peters (see Peters, this volume). The analysis of the empirical issue at the heart of the paper touches on a number of major areas of syntactic theory, especially in section 3, which are expounded only to the extent that they illuminate the issue at hand; a fuller treatment could have been provided were it not for space limitations. The usual disclaimers apply. Abbreviations used: Ag = agent; Th = theme; Re = recipient; imp = imperative; neg = negative; pos = positive; sg = singular; pl = plural; ind = indicative; sub = subjunctive; pres = present; KP = case phrase; i = inflection; irr = irrealis.

References

REFERENCES

Armstrong, N. (2001). Social and Stylistic Variation in Spoken French: A Comparative Approach. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Ashby, W. J. (1976). The loss of the negative morpheme ne in Parisian French. Lingua, 39: 119–37.Google Scholar
Ashby, W. J. (1981). ‘The Loss of the negative particle ne in French: A syntactic change in progress. Language, 57: 674–87.Google Scholar
Ashby, W. J. (1991). When does variation indicate linguistic change in progress? Journal of French Language Studies, 1: 1–19.Google Scholar
Ashby, W. J. (2001). ‘Un nouveau regard sur la chute du ne en français parlé tourangeau: s'agit-il d'un changement en cours? Journal of French Language Studies, 11: 1–22.Google Scholar
Belletti, A. (1990). Generalized Verb Movement: Aspects of Verb Syntax. Turin: Rosenberg and Sellier.Google Scholar
Cinque, G. (1999). Adverbs and Functional Heads: A Cross-linguistic Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Coveney, A. (2002). Variability in Spoken French: A Sociolinguistic Study of Interrogation and Negation. Exeter: Elm Bank.Google Scholar
Haegeman, L. (1997). Elements of Grammar: A Handbook of Generative Syntax. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Hirschbühler, P. and Labelle, M. (2003). Residual Tobler-Mussafia in French dialects. In: Pérez-Leroux, A. T. and Roberge, Y. (eds.), Romance Linguistics: Theory and Acquisition (Selected papers from the 32nd Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages (LSRL), Toronto, April 2002), pp. 149–64.Google Scholar
Hirschbühler, P. and Labelle, M. (2006). Proclisis and enclisis of object pronouns at the turn of the 17th century: The speech of the future Louis XIIIth. In: Gess, R. and Arteaga, D. (eds.), Historical Romance Linguistics: Retrospective and Perspectives. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 187–208.Google Scholar
Jones, M. A. (1996). Foundations of French Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Peters, H. (this volume). The morpho-syntactic status of ne and its effect on the syntax of imperative sentences.Google Scholar
Pollock, J.-Y. (1989). Verb movement, Universal Grammar and the structure of IP. Linguistic Inquiry, 20: 365–424.Google Scholar
Rivero, M.-L. (1994). Negation, imperatives and Wackernagel effects. Rivista di Linguistica, 6: 39–66.Google Scholar
Rizzi, L. (1997). The fine structure of the left periphery. In: Haegeman, L. (ed.), Elements of Grammar: A Handbook of Generative Syntax. Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 281–337.Google Scholar
Roberts, I. (2010). Agreement and Head Movement: Clitics, Incorporation and Defective Goals. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Rooryck, J. (1992). Romance enclitic ordering and Universal Grammar. The Linguistic Review, 9: 219–50. (Slightly revised version published as Rooryck 2000a).Google Scholar
Rooryck, J. (2000a). ‘Enclitic ordering in imperatives and infinitives’ in Rooryck (2000b), pp. 115–43.Google Scholar
Rooryck, J. (2000b). Configurations of Sentential Complementation: Perspectives from Romance Languages. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Rowlett, P. (1993). On the syntactic derivation of negative sentence adverbials. Journal of French Language Studies, 3: 39–69.Google Scholar
Rowlett, P. (1998). Sentential Negation in French. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rowlett, P. (2007). The Syntax of French. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rowlett, P. (2013). Do French speakers really have two grammars? Journal of French Language Studies, 23: 37–57.Google Scholar
Sankoff, G. (1980). The Social Life of Language. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sankoff, G. and Vincent, D. (1977). L'emploi productif du ne dans le français parlé à Montréal’, Le Français Moderne, 45: 243–56. English version published as ‘The productive use of ne in spoken Montreal French’, in G. Sankoff (1980).Google Scholar
Shlonsky, U. (2004). Enclisis and proclisis. In: Rizzi, L. (ed.), The Structure of CP and IP: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, vol. 2. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 329–53.Google Scholar
Sobin, N. (1997). Agreement, default rules, and grammatical viruses. Linguistic Inquiry, 28: 318–43.Google Scholar
Travis, L. (1984). Parameters and effects of word order variation. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Zanuttini, R. (1997). Negation and Clausal Structure: A Comparative Study of Romance Languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Zeijlstra, H. (2004). Sentential negation and negative concord. Doctoral dissertation, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar