Topics in French Syntax

Geraldine Legendre

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2016
• ISBN:
  9781315463834
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Languages & Linguistics
• Subtopic: Linguistics
• Index: Languages & Linguistics

The main goal of this study, first published in 1994, is to present a substantial part of the grammar of French. This goal is achieved by bringing together two aspects of syntactic investigation. First, the study focuses on a vast range of French clausal phenomena, including Object Raising constructions, Causative constructions of various types, Impersonal constructions, amongst many others. Second, the investigation is conducted within the framework of Relational Grammar. This title will be of interest to students of language and linguistics.

I
Object Raising

1.1. Introduction

This chapter ¹ examines a class of phenomena in French analogous to tough movement constructions in English, exemplified in (1b).

• (1)
  1. It is easy to please John.
  2. John is easy to please.

Although similar phenomena in French present a complex pattern of data, within the framework of Relational Grammar (RG) they can all be accounted for by a single condition of remarkable simplicity:

• (2) Condition on Object Raising in French
  An Object Raising structure is well-formed only if the raisee heads only 2-arcs in any clause below the raising predicate.

In French, the analogue of tough movement is highly restricted. Sentences like (3) are permitted for a small class of adjectives including facile "easy", difficile "difficult", dur "hard", and impossible "impossible"; I will refer to this as the facile class.

• (3)
  1. Il est toujours difficile de dire la vérité. It is always difficult to tell the truth.
  2. La vérité est toujours difficile à dire. The truth is always difficult to tell.

The nominate (like la vérité in (3)) that raise from the lower, complement clause to the upper, matrix clause are typically direct objects. But this is not at all obvious in (4).

• (4)
  1. Il est facile de faire fondre la glace au soleil.
     It is easy to make the ice melt in the sun.
  2. La glace est facile à faire fondre au soleil.
     The ice is easy to make melt in the sun.

Here, the raisee la glace is traditionally viewed as a complement subject. It remains to be shown (section 1.4.1) that (4b) also belongs in that class.

The constraints on French Object Raising seem at first sight to be quite complex, as shown below in (5) through (8). Some direct objects can raise from the lower to the upper clause (3); some can't (5). When the lower clause is a causative construction with an embedded clause, some intransitive predicates in the most deeply embedded clause allow their subjects to raise to the uppermost clause (4), while others don't (6). When the lower clause is an object-controlled Equi construction, the controlling object cannot raise (7). With some verbs taking reflexive morphology, a subtle interaction arises between causative constructions and Object Raising. In simple sentences, these verbs require the reflexive marker se (8a). In causative constructions, se is optional (8b). But raising out of a causative structure is permitted only when se is absent (8c).

• (5)
  1. Il est impossible d'avertir les passagers d'un danger imminent.
     It is impossible to warn the passengers about an imminent danger.
  2. *Les passagers sont impossibles à avertir d'un danger imminent.
     The passengers are impossible to warn about an imminent danger.
• (6)
  1. Il est facile de faire téléphoner Pierre á Marie.
     It is easy to make Peter call Mary.
  2. *Pierre est facile à faire téléphoner à Marie.
     Peter is easy to make call Mary.
• (7)
  1. Il sera difficile de forcer Pierre à courir.
     It will be difficult to force Peter to run.
  2. *Pierre sera difficile à forcer à courir.
     Peter will be difficult to force to run.
• (8)
  1. Les enfants se taisent/*taisent.
     The children are keeping quiet.
  2. Il fait se taire/taire les enfants.
     He makes the children keep quiet.
  3. Les enfants sont impossibles à faire taire/*se taire.
     The children are impossible to make keep quiet.

To show that these seemingly complex constraints (and many others) can all be accounted for in RG by the simple Condition on Object Raising (2), I adopt the following plan. In section 1.2, I review the RG account of Object Raising and elaborate upon the proposed condition. In section 1.3, the Object Raising condition is motivated by considering a variety of simple constructions. A general analysis of the condition is given in section 1.4. Section 1.5 summarizes the contributions of the analysis.

1.2. The RG Account of Object Raising

The syntactic structure attributed to sentences by RG is most clearly represented by relational networks (RNs) like the one shown in (9a) for the sentence (9b).

• (9) b. A big rat was caught by the cat in the attic.

Clauses may have several syntactic levels or strata; these are ordered, from the initial to the final stratum. In each stratum, elements of a sentence may bear particular grammatical relations (GRs) such as the 1- (subject), 2- (direct object), and 3- (indirect object) relations, P (predicate), Loc (locative), and others. In (9a), there is a single clause with two strata. In the initial stratum of this clause, the cat bears the 1-relation, a big rat the 2-relation, and in the attic the Loc relation. From the network representation comes the terminology "N heads a 2-arc" for "N bears the 2-relation" in a particular stratum. Thus in the final stratum, a big rat heads a 1-arc, in the attic heads a Loc-arc, and the cat bears the relation Chô, which will be discussed further below. In the passive structure (9), the nominal a big rat is said to have "advanced from 2 to 1."

Example (9) illustrates several general features of RG analyses which can be roughly phrased as follows. In many cases the initial GRs are closely related to the semantic roles played by the arguments of a given predicate but this need not be the case (see Chapter Two and for more details, Rosen (1984b) on this issue). Surface word order is determined through language-particular rules by the GRs borne in clauses' final strata. In French, as in many languages, morphological case markings are also determined by the GRs in final strata.

Much of the work done by transformations in transformational grammar is carried out in RG through conditions referring to the multiple levels of syntactic structure expressed as clauses with multiple strata. At all levels of syntactic structure, syntactic constituents may bear GRs to clauses. Grammars consist of well-formedness conditions on RNs: language-particular constraints which, together with universal laws of the theory, specify patterns of GRs that can occur in acceptable RNs. Surface forms that correspond to no valid RN are ungrammatical.

One of the most basic laws of the theory² is the

• (10) Stratal Uniqueness Law:
  In any single stratum, at most one nominal may bear each of the 1-, 2-, and 3-relations.

Another fundamental principle of RG (which I will later argue must be revised) is the

• (11) Final 1 Law:
  In the final stratum of each basic clause, some nominal must head a 1-arc.

These laws play important roles in the RG analysis of most phenomena, including raising. Raising actually played a singular role in the history of RG. The central significance of GRs in articulating language-independent, universal syntactic principles was first suggested to Perlmutter and Postal by the observation that the GR borne by a raised nominal is always the same as the GR borne by the clause out of which the nominal raises. This generalization became the Relational Succession Law of RG (Perlmutter and Postal, 1983b).

To precisely state this law, it is first necessary to describe raising in RG terms; that is, to characterize RNs with raising structure. Such an RN contains a lower clause (the complement) that bears a relation in some stratum of a higher claus...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title
• Copyright
• Original Title
• Original Copyright
• Dedication
• Contents
• Preface
• Acknowledgements
• 1. Object Raising
• 2. Unaccusative Clauses
• 3. Inversion Structures
• 4. Impersonal Constructions
• 5. Causative Unions
• References
• Index