2.2.2 Thematic VP* structure
2.2.3.2 Dative shift
From a comparative perspective, one striking syntactico-pragmatic flexibility not afforded in French is the applicative construction (Tallerman 2005: 201–4), more commonly known in the context of English as dative shift, and illustrated in (90b):
(90) a. John gave [the book] [to Mark]. b. John gave [Mark] [the book].
Simple colour adjectives typically agree, as in (ia); some simple colour adjectives which have been recruited from 42
nominal uses don’t agree, as in (ib):
the applicative construction is marked by a specific applicative suffix on the verb. The Indonesian examples below are taken from Tallerman (2005: 6):
(91) a. Ali meng-kirim [surat itu] [kepada Hasan]. (Indonesian)
A. send letter the to H. ‘A. sent the letter to H.’
b. Ali meng-kirim-kan [Hasan] [surat itu]. A. send-APPLIC H. letter the
‘A. sent H. the letter.’
The existence (in some languages, at least) of an overt applicative morpheme suggests that the examples in (90b) and (91b) are characterised by the presence of a VP*-internal head into which the lexical verb
incorporates; what varies is whether this head is overt (as in Indonesian) or covert (as in English). We might propose that the applicative morpheme effects a subtle modification in the semantic/aspectual structure of the verb, whereby the Recipient of the transfer (Mark in (90b); Hasan in (91b)) is (re-)conceptualised as the Patient, while the entity transferred (the book in (90b); surat itu ‘the letter’ in (91b)) is (re-)conceptualised as some sort of measure. In other words, the meaning of the verb in (90a) and (91a) is slightly different from the meaning of the verb in (90b) and (91b), as a consequence of the presence of an applicative morpheme. Such an approach to the applicative means that nothing further needs to be said about the syntactic realisation of the verb’s arguments.
A further possibility opened up by the existence of the (c)overt applicative morpheme relates to passivisation (§2.2.3.1): since the applicative morpheme turns the Recipient into a Patient, causing it to be realised as direct object in active sentences, as in (90b) and (91b), this entity can be realised as syntactic subject in passive sentences, as in (92):
(92) a. Mark was given the book (by John).
b. Hasan di-kirim-kan [surat itu] (oleh Ali). (Indonesian)
H. be.sent-APPLIC letter the by A. ‘H. was sent the letter (by A.).’
Structures parallel to the English and Indonesian examples in (90b), (91b) and (92a, b) aren’t available in French, as shown in (93):
(93) a. Jean a donné [le livre] [à Marc]. b. *Jean a donné [Marc] [le livre]. J. has given the book to M. J. has given M. the book
= (90a) = (90b)
c. *Marc a été donné le livre (par Jean). M. has been given the book by J. = (92a)
This suggests that, unlike Indonesian, which has an overt applicative morpheme, and unlike English, which has a covert applicative morpheme, French has no applicative morpheme at all, neither overt nor covert. The absence of this morpheme directly rules out (93b), as required, and, indirectly, (93c), again as required.
2.3
Adjectives/adverbials and adjective/adverbial phrases
I consider the morphosyntactic properties of adjectives (§2.3.1) and adverbials (§2.3.2) and the lexical properties of AP*s and AdvP*s (§2.3.3). The specific issues surrounding attributive-AP* placement within nominals are discussed in §3.7, and those concerning AdvP* placement within clauses are set out in §4.1.
2.3.1
Adjectives
In terms of their agreement morphology, adjectives pattern much like nouns (§§2.1.2.1–2.1.2.3). First, they are compatible with (primarily orthographic) gender and number marking, in both attributive and
(i) a. des chemises vert-e-s b. des chemises marron of.the shirts green-F-PL of.the shirts brown
‘green shirts’ ‘brown shirts’ (le marron ‘chestnut’)
There is some hesitation in usage, with true adjectives sometimes failing to show agreement marking, and some noun-cum- adjectives showing agreement marking.
The adjective at the heart of a complex colour adjective doesn’t agree, as in (ii): (ii) a. des chemises vert(*es) émeraude b. des chemises vert(*es) clair
of.the shirts green-F-PL emerald of.the shirts green-F-PL clear ‘emerald-green shirts’ ‘light green shirts’
Received wisdom is that structures like (iia, b) are elliptical forms of those in (iiia, b), in which vert is in fact a noun: (iii) a. des chemises d’un vert d’émeraude b. des chemises d’un vert clair
of.the shirts of-a green of-emerald of.the shirts of-a green clear
= (iia) = (iib)
A number of M/F alternations are found uniquely with adjectives. See Battye et al. (2000: 127ff.) for examples. 43
Suffixation typically adds -ment to the F or base form of the adjective. Where the adjective is -ant(e) or -ent(e) final, the 44
derivation is more complex. See Battye et al. (2000: 152).
The collocation tout de son long ‘along its entire length’, in which adverbial tout modifies [de son long], has been 45
reanalysed as de tout son long, whereby tout has been absorbed into the nominal constituent as a predeterminer. The expression tout au début ‘right at the beginning’, in which the adverbial tout modifies [au début], has also been
reanalysed, as au tout début (Goosse 2000: 121–2). Here, the new position/function of tout after the article (au = à + le) is neither straightforwardly that of adverbial tout (nouns don’t take adverbial modification) nor that of predeterminer tout (predeterminer tout precedes the definite article); rather it looks like an adjective. Whatever the structure, it’s been stable Second, the regular patterns of gender marking (i M ~ -eF: grand ~ grande ‘big M/F’) and number marking (i SG ~ -sPL: grand(e) ~ grand(e)s ‘big (F.)SG/PL’) are the same as those found with nouns. Third, the kinds of irregularity found with adjectives match those found with nouns, for example, social ~ sociaux ‘social SG/PL’, canadien(ne) ‘Canadian M/F’.43
A phenomenon widespread across Romance through the centuries, yet condemned by Etiemble (1964) as being the result of influence from English, involves the use of adjectives as manner adverbials:
(94) a. conduire mou b. frais peint c. écrire économique drive soft fresh painted write economical ‘to drive sloppily’ ‘freshly painted’ ‘to write economically’
(= ‘wet paint’)
2.3.2
Adverbials
The small set of morphologically simple adverbs (bien ‘well’, mal ‘badly’, tôt ‘early’, tard ‘late’) is augmented via a derivational adjective-to-adverb conversion process, namely, -ment suffixation, analogous to -ly suffixation in English:44
(95) a. ferme 6 fermement b. patient 6 patiemment ‘firm’ ‘firmly’ ‘patient’ ‘patiently’
This process is not, however, as productive as -ly suffixation in English, and some adjectives are incompatible with it, as in (96a), where an inherent-case-marked nominal structure is found instead, as in (96b):
(96) a. intéressant 6 *intéressamment b. de/d’une façon/manière intéressante ‘interesting’ ‘interestingly’ of/of-a fashion/manner interesting
‘interestingly’
A syntactically interesting category of adverbial comprises elements which also appear within complex determiners (§3.6), for example, beaucoup ‘lots’, trop ‘too much’, peu ‘a little’, pas ‘no(t)’, combien ‘how much/many’:
(97) a. Je t’aime beaucoup. b. J’ai [beaucoup d’amis]. I you-love lots I-have lots of-friends ‘I love you lots.’ ‘I have lots of friends.’
The syntactic interest in these adverbials relates to their mobility (see §4.3.2).
French adverbials are almost exceptionlessly morphologically invariant. The exception is the adverbial tout ‘all’ which, like predeterminer tout (§3.2.4), shows some agreement. Within attributive and predicative45
enough to allow backformation of le tout début ‘the very beginning’. This use of tout is reminiscent of what is found in le tout Paris ‘all Paris’ (that is, ‘everyone in Paris’).
Example (98b) possibly illustrates quantifier float (§4.3.1), as analysed in (i): 46
i SC PreDetP i AP (i) [cette pièce] est [ [ toute t ] [ petite] ]
However, the interpretation of (98b), as well as the existence of (98a), which can’t be analysed as quantifier float, militate against an analysis of (98b) as (i).
On quantifier float see §4.3.1. 47
Note the contrast between (ia) and (ib): 48
(i) a. Ils sont tous [tus] petits. b. Ils sont tout [tu] petits. they are all.M.PL small they are all.M.SG small ‘All of them are small.’ ‘They are very small.’
In (ia) tous is a quantifier which has floated off the subject and agrees in number and gender with the subject proform; in (ib) tout is an adverbial intensifier associated with the adjectival predicate and agrees in gender but not number.
Miller et al. (1997: §3) extend their analysis to predicative nominals and concessive constructions. What is clear is that there’s no agreement in number; however, agreement in gender is somewhat unstable, too.
A different case is illustrated in (i): (i) Il a les yeux grands ouverts.
he has the eyes big.M-PL open.M-PL ‘His eyes are wide open.’
Unlike adverbial tout, which agrees in gender but not number, the adjectival intensifier grand agrees in both number and gender. Where adverbial tout and adjectival grand co-occur, these agreement patterns are maintained, as in (ii):
(ii) Il laisse les portes tout-e grand-e-s ouvert-e-s. he leaves the doors all-F big-F-PL open-F-PL ‘He leaves the doors wide open.’
AP*s, tout is an adverbial ‘intensifier’. In (98) tout agrees with the lexical head of the nominal:
AP* AP*
(98) a. cette [ toute petite] pièce b. Cette pièce est [ toute petite].46 this all small room this room is all small
‘this very small room’ ‘This room is very small.’
The agreement waters are muddied somewhat by phonological linking phenomena and orthographic conventions which are artificial, unstable and counterintuitive. However, Miller et al. (1997) show that the relevant facts can be accounted for straightforwardly by ignoring spelling and looking exclusively at the all important spoken language, where judgements are very clear: pre-AP* tout is pronounced [tu] in M contexts before a consonant, as in (99a), [tut] in M contexts before a vowel, as in (99b), and [tut] in F contexts, irrespective of whether the adjective is consonant (99c) or vowel initial (99d):
(99) a. tout petit(s) M.SG/PL [tup(c)ti] ‘very small’ b. tout étroit(s) M.SG/PL [tutetwa] ‘very narrow’ c. toute petite(s) F.SG/PL [tutp(c)tit] ‘very small’ d. tout étroite(s) F.SG/PL [tutetwat] ‘very narrow’
The pronunciations [tus] and [tuts], found with PL predeterminer tous/toutes in some quantifier-float environments (100a, b), are never found with pre-AP* 47 tout, even if the adjective is PL (101a, b) (and neither does tout bear the orthographic -sPL marker):48
(100) a. Ils sont tous [tus] partis. b. Elles veulent toutes [tuts] entrer. they.M.PL are all left they.F.PL want all enter
‘They M all left.’ ‘They F all want to come in.’ (101) a. tout étroits M.PL b. tout étroites F.PL
[tutetwa] ~ *[tusetwa] [tutetwat] ~ *[tutsetwat]
This suggests that pre-AP* adverbial tout agrees in gender, but not in number. 2.3.2.1 Negative adverbials
Sentential negation is typically marked by a preverbal negative particle ne (§4.5.1) together with some other negative XP which can be a nominal (§3.5) or an adverbial. The unmarked adverbial is pas ‘not’; other, more specific adverbials are plus ‘no more’, jamais ‘never’ and guère ‘not much’:
On the simplification of de/à ce que as que see §5.1.1. 49
(102) Je ne fume pas/plus/jamais/guère. I neg smoke not/no.more/never/not.much
‘I don’t smoke.’/‘I don’t smoke any more.’/‘I never smoke.’/‘I don’t smoke much.’ The syntax of these adverbials is considered in the context of clause structure in §4.