Advertisement

Obviation and Old French Subjunctive Clauses

  • Deborah L. ArteagaEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory book series (SNLT, volume 95)

Abstract

Obviation, or the fact that the subject of the subjunctival subordinate clause cannot be coreferential with the subject of the main clause, as seen by the French example, *je veux que je parte ‘I want that I leave’ (cf. Ruwet 1984), is a topic that has been discussed widely in the literature, especially for the Romance languages, including Catalan (Picallo 1985), French (Jackubowicz 1985), Old French (Martineau 1994; Arteaga 2015), Italian (Costantini 2005, 2016), Portuguese (Raposo 1987), Romanian (Farkas 1984), and Spanish (Kempchinsky 2009). This chapter considers the lack of obviation in Old French. After reviewing analyses proposing that obviation effects are related to tense construal in the subordinate clause, it is proposed that the analyses in San Martín (2007) and Laskova (2017) can be adapted to account for the lack of obviation effects in Old French and Romanian. Our analysis is an extension of Arteaga (2015), in that it is valid cross-linguistically and does not rely on the morphological development from Old French to Modern French.

Keywords

Old French Obviation Sequence-of-tense Binding Theory Bulgarian 

Notes

Acknowledgements

I want to thank Julia Herschensohn for her extensive comments on earlier drafts of this paper, which I dedicate to her. She has been unconditionally supportive of both my professional and personal lives, and I owe her a great deal of gratitude.

References

  1. Adams, Marianne. 1987. From Old French to the theory of pro-drop. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 5: 1–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anglade, Joseph. 1965. Grammaire élémentaire de l’ancien français. Paris: Armand Colin.Google Scholar
  3. Arteaga, Deborah (ed.). 1990. The disjoint reference requirement in subjunctive clauses: Diachronic evidence from Romance. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Washington.Google Scholar
  4. Arteaga, Deborah (ed.). 1994. Impersonal constructions in Old French. In Issues and theory in Romance linguistics, ed. Michael Mazzola, 141–156. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Arteaga, Deborah (ed.). 2009. On the existence of null complementizers in Old French. In Romance linguistics: Structure, interfaces, and microparametric variation, ed. Pascual Masullo, Erin O’Rourke, and Chia-Hui Huang, 19–36. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
  6. Arteaga, Deborah. 2015. On the Old French subjunctive. In Romance linguistics 2012, ed. Jason Smith and Tabea Ihsane, 147–170. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Arteaga, Deborah, and Julia Herschensohn. 2006. Il était une fois: Diachronic development of expletives, case, and agreement from Latin to Modern French. In Historical Romance linguistics: Retrospectives and perspectives, ed. Randall Gess and Deborah Arteaga, 267–286.Google Scholar
  8. Arteaga, Deborah, and Julia Herschensohn. 2004. Case, agreement, and expletives. A parametric difference in Old French and Modern French. In Contemporary approaches to Romance linguistics, ed. Julie Auger, Clancy Clements, and Barbara Vance, 1–15. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins.Google Scholar
  9. Brunot, Ferdinand. 1966. Histoire de la langue française des origines à nos jours. Paris: Librairie Armand Colin.Google Scholar
  10. Chomsky, N. (2001). Derivation by Phase. In M. Kenstowicz (Ed.), Ken Hale: A Life in Language, 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  11. Chomsky, Noam. 2005. On phases. Ms: MIT.Google Scholar
  12. Costantini, Franceso. 2005. On obviation in subjunctive clauses: The state of the art. Annali di Ca’Foscari 44: 97–132.Google Scholar
  13. Costantini, Francesco. 2007. On Tense Mismatch and a Morphosyntactic Theory of Sequence of Tenses. Rivista di Grammatica Generativa 32:39–64.Google Scholar
  14. Costantini, Franceso. 2016. Subject obviation in subjunctive clauses as a semantic failure. Annali di Ca’ Foscari. Serie occidentale 50: 109–131.Google Scholar
  15. Einhorn, Elsabe Carmen. 1975. Old French: A concise handbook. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Farkas, Donka. 1984. Subjunctive complements in Rumanian. In Papers from the XIIth linguistic symposium on Romance languages, ed. Philip Baldi, 354–372. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins.Google Scholar
  17. Foulet, Lucien. 1982. Petite syntaxe de l’ancien français. Paris: Librairie Honoré Champion.Google Scholar
  18. Giorgi, Alessandra. 2010. About the speaker. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Giorgi, Alessandra, and Fabio Panesi. (1997). Tense and Aspect. In From Semantics to Morphosyntax. New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Giorgi, Alessandra, and Fabio Panesi. 2001. Tense, attitudes, and subjects. In Proceedings of SALT, vol. 11, ed. B. Hastings, B. Jackson, and Z. Zvolensky, 226–249. Ithaca: University of Cornell Press.Google Scholar
  21. Glikman, Julie, and Thomas Verjans. 2013. Old French parataxis: Syntactic variant or stylistic variation? In Historical research on Old French: The state of the art, ed. Deborah Arteaga, 243–260. Amsterdam: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Higginbotham, James. 1995. Tensed thoughts. Mind and Language 10: 226–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Iatridou, Sabine. 2000. The grammatical ingredients of counterfactuality. Linguistic Inquiry 31: 231–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ingham, Richard. 2013. A derivational approach to negative polarity licensing in Old French. In Historical research on Old French: The state of the art, ed. Deborah Arteaga, 262–282. Amsterdam: Springer.Google Scholar
  25. Jakubowicz, Celia. 1985. Do binding principles apply to INFL? Paper presented at NELS, vol. 15. Google Scholar
  26. Jensen, Frede. 1990. Old French and comparative Gallo-Romance syntax. Tübingen: Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kempchinsky, Paula. 1986. Romance subjunctive clauses and logical form. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, UCLA.Google Scholar
  28. Kempchinsky, Paula. 2009. What can the subjunctive disjoint reference effect tell us about the subjunctive? Lingua 119: 1788–1810.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Laskova, Vasselina. 2017. On the nature of the subjunctive. Lingua 189–90: 19–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lasnik, Howard, and Juan Uriagereka. 2005. A course in minimalist syntax. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  31. Lightfoot, David. 1999. The development of language: Acquisition, change, and evolution. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  32. Martineau, France. 1994. The expression of the subjunctive in older French. Catalan Working Papers in Linguistics. 32.45–69.Google Scholar
  33. Mathieu, Éric. 2013. The left-periphery in Old French. In Historical research on Old French: The State of the art, ed. Deborah Arteaga, 327–350. Amsterdam: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Ménard, Pierre. 1988. Syntaxe de l’ancien français. Paris: Bordeaux Éditions Bière.Google Scholar
  35. Moignet, Gérard. 1976. Grammaire de l’ancien français. Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar
  36. Nyrop, Kristofer. 1930–1935. Grammaire historique de la langue française, 6 vols. Copenhagen: Gyldendalske Boghandel.Google Scholar
  37. Picallo, M. Carme. 1985. Opaque domains. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, CUNY.Google Scholar
  38. Raposo, Eduardo. 1987. Case theory and Infl-to-Comp: The inflected infinitive in European Portuguese. Linguistic Inquiry 18: 85–109.Google Scholar
  39. Rivero, Marisa. 1994. Clause Structure and V-movement in the Languages of the Balkans. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 12:63–120.Google Scholar
  40. Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In Elements of grammar: Handbook in generative syntax, ed. Liliane Haegeman, 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Roberts, Ian. 1993. Verbs and diachronic syntax: A comparative history of English and French. Norwell: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  42. Ruwet, N. 1984. ‘Je veux partir/Je veux que je parte’. À propos de la distribution des complétives à temps fini et des compléments à l’infinitif en français. Cahiers de grammaire 7: 76–138.Google Scholar
  43. San Martín, Itziar. 2007. Beyond the infinitive vs. subjunctive rivalry: Surviving changes in mood. In Coreference modality, and focus: Studies on the syntax-semantics interface, ed. Luis Eguren and Olga Fernández-Soriano, 171–190. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
  44. Suñer, Margarita, and José Padilla Rivera. 1987. Sequence of tenses and the subjunctive, again. Hispania 70: 634–42.Google Scholar
  45. Togeby, Knud. 1974. Précis historique de grammaire française. Odense: Akademisk Forlag.Google Scholar
  46. Tomaszewicz, Barbara. 2009. Subjunctive mood in Polish. In Studies in formal Slavic phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics and information structure: Proceedings of FDSL 7, Leipzig 2007 (Linguistik International 21), ed. Gerhild Zybatow, Uwe Junghanns, Denisa Lenertová, and Petr Biskup, 221–234. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  47. Vance, Barbara. 1997. Syntactic change in Medieval French. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of World Languages and CulturesUniversity of Nevada, Las VegasLas VegasUSA

Personalised recommendations