Variation and multiple argument realisation

In this section I discuss two kinds of variation in the way the inherent semantic structure of verbs is projected in syntax. The first is dialectal variation. For example, the verb aider ‘to help’, direct monotransitive in the standard language, is – unusually given the observation in §2.2.2.1 – indirect monotransitive in a number of eastern varieties, probably due to Germanic influence (Goosse 2000:

108):

(45) a. Jean aide Marie. b. %Jean aide à Marie.

J. helps M. J. helps to M.

a, b: ‘J. helps M.’

Conversely, with the verb enseigner ‘to teach’, the entity benefiting from the teaching is realised as an indirect object in the standard language, but as a direct

This is in line with the general rarity of indirect monotransitive verbs (§2.2.2.1). A further

22

example of transitivisation is blamed by Goosse (2000: 139) on English influence. In standard French, the dependant of the verb jouer ‘to play (a competitive game)’ which indicates the person against whom one plays is marked with the preposition contre ‘against’, as in (ia). Increasingly, though, this dependant can be realised as a direct object, as in (ib):

(i) a. Federer joue contre Roddick. b. %Federer joue Roddick.

F. plays against R. F. plays R.

a, b: ‘Federer is playing (against) Roddick.’

As an indirect object, the reflexive clitic doesn’t trigger PSTPRT agreement (§5.8.2).

23

object in some sub-Saharan Africa varieties (Queffélec 2000b: 827):²² (46) a. J’enseigne aux enfants. b. %J’enseigne les enfants.

I-teach to.the children I-teach the children a, b: ‘I teach the children.’

And with the verb jouer ‘to play (a musical instrument)’ the instrument played is marked with de in the standard language, but in Belgium is treated as a direct object:

(47) a. Je joue du piano. b. %Je joue le piano.

I play of.the piano I play the piano a, b: ‘I play the piano.’

There are in principle two ways of dealing with such variation. First, the contrast between (45a) and (45b), between (46a) and (46b) and between (47a) and (47b) might reflect a grammatical difference whereby one and the same thematic dependant is realised as different kinds of object. Second, the contrast might reflect a lexical semantic difference whereby speakers conceptualise the meaning of the verbs aider, enseigner and jouer in subtly different ways. Given that such variation is lexical-item specific, the second approach is arguably preferable.

An interesting case study of reconceptualised lexical semantic structure is provided by the verb rappeler ‘to recall’ and its reflexive counterpart se rappeler

‘to remember’. In the standard language rappeler is ditransitive, as in (48):

DO IO

(48) Jeanne a rappelé [ les dates de ses vacances] [ à sa mère].

J. has recalled the dates of her holiday to her mother

‘J. reminded her mother of the dates of her holiday.’

The entity recalled is realised as a direct object, the person reminded, as an indirect object. Used reflexively to mean ‘to remember’, the reflexive clitic (§4.4.1) is therefore an indirect object:²³

(49) Jeanne s’est rappelé [ les dates de ses vacances].DO

J. self.IO-is reminded the dates of her holiday

‘J. reminded herself of the dates of her holidays.’

‘J. remembered the dates of her holidays.’

For many speakers, however, the syntactic structure which se rappeler projects is

Leeman-Bouix (1994: 27) suggests that co-occurrence restrictions on clitics (§4.4.1) partly

24

explain why speakers reanalyse se rappeler along the lines of se souvenir. Since me and la appear in different columns in Table 4.1 on page 127, the example in (i) is grammatical:

(i) Je me la rappelle.

I me her recall

‘I remember her.’

However, since me and te appear in the same column, there’s no way of expressing the notion ‘I remember you’ on the basis of the standard ditransitive structure of rappeler:

(ii) a. *Je me te rappelle. b. *Je te me rappelle.

I me you recall I you me recall

However, structural analogy with se souvenir opens the door to (iii):

(iii) %Je me rappelle de toi.

I me recall of you

‘I remember you.’

different, and follows the pattern of the near synonym se souvenir. Se souvenir is a pronominal verb (§4.4.2). This means: (a) that it can only be used reflexively; and (b) that the reflexive clitic is a direct rather than an indirect object. T wo conse-quences follow from this. First, the reflexive clitic triggers P STP RT agreement (§5.8.2). Second, the entity recalled can’t be realised as a direct object; instead, it surfaces as a de-marked nominal:

(50) %Jeanne s’est rappelée [des dates de ses vacances].

J. self.DO-is reminded of.the dates of her holiday

• (49)

Again, rather than claiming that the contrast between (49) and (50) reflects an underlying grammatical difference between different varieties, we might assume, instead, that the relevant speakers conceive of the inherent lexical semantic structure of (se) rappeler differently. For speakers using (50) se rappeler has the same semantic structure as se souvenir; for speakers using (49) the two verbs have subtly different semantic structures.²⁴

There’s a second kind of variation of interest here and which also relates to differing conceptions of inherent lexical semantic structure. A number of verbs allow what Levin and Rappaport Hovav (2005) call multiple argument realisations.

T hat is, they appear to be flexible in how their thematic structure is projected in syntax. A well known example of this is the causative–inchoative alternation, illustrated in (51):

(51) a. Le ballon roule. b. Marie roule le ballon.

the ball rolls M. rolls the ball

‘The ball rolls.’ ‘M. rolls the ball.’

The argument le ballon ‘the ball’ is realised as the subject in (51a) and the direct object in (51b). Yet it’s the Theme in both cases, and presumably merges as Specè P. The difference in syntactic realisation isn’t therefore due to subtlyTh

different conceptualisations of semantic structure per se. Rather, it’s due to the

The alternation in (51a, b) differs from passivisation (§2.2.3.1) in two ways. First, there’s

25

no passive morphology. Second, there’s no reconceptualisation of the inherent semantic structure of the verbal predicate from an activity to a (change of) state and, therefore, no suppression of the Agent è role (non-realisation isn’t the same as suppression).

flexibility of the lexical semantic structure of rouler ‘to roll’, which allows, but doesn’t require, the realisation of an Agent. In (51b) the option of realising an²⁵

Ag Th

Agent is taken up, via merger of a è head above è P, in line with the thematic hierarchy, as in (52b); in (51a) it’s not, as in (52a):

Th Ag

(52) a. è P = VP* b. è P = VP*

3 3

Th Ag

Spec è N Spec è N

g 2 g 3

Th Ag Th

Theme è E V Agent è E è P

g 3

rouler Spec è NTh

g 2

Theme è ETh V g

rouler

The divergent VP* structures in (52) mean that the T heme is realised as subject in (52a), but not in (52b), where the Agent is realised as subject, the Theme, as direct object. This is a further example of the context dependence of argument realisation:

the way one argument is realised syntactically depends on the presence/absence of (an)other argument(s) (Levin and Rappaport Hovav 2005: ch. 6).

A different kind of flexible inherent semantic structure is illustrated in the examples in (53) and (54):

(53) a. Des fourmis grouillent dans le jardin. b. Le jardin grouille de fourmis.

of.the ants teem in the garden the garden teems of ants

‘Ants are teeming in the garden.’ ‘The garden is teeming with ants.’

(54) a. Jean charge les verres sur le plateau. b. Jean charge le plateau de verres.

J. loads the glasses on the tray J. loads the tray of glasses

‘J. loads the glasses onto the tray.’ ‘J. loads the tray with glasses.’

Taking the example of (54) for illustration, the alternating argument structures of charger ‘to load’ can’t be accounted for along the lines of (51) and (52): the difference between (54a) and (54b) isn’t a matter of the projection/non-projection of an optional thematic dependant. Rather, the alternation suggests that the inherent semantic structure of the verb charger is flexible in terms of which internal argument is cognitively salient, whereby cognitive salience is related to the Patient è role. If ‘the glasses’ is cognitively salient and bears the è role Patient, then ‘the tray’ is a locative; if ‘the tray’ is cognitively salient and the Patient, then ‘the glasses’ is conceived of as some kind of Instrument. The different VP* structures

then fall out directly from the thematic hierarchy.