Cleft sentences in the history of French and English: … · Cleft sentences in the history of...

Cleft sentences in the history of French and English

Cleft sentences in the history of French andEnglish:

A critical review of compensation and contacttheories

Achim Stein Carola [email protected] [email protected]

Going Romance, Leuven, December 8, 2012

1


Contents

Introduction

The development of French cleftsAmbiguityTypes of cleftsCorpus studies

Language contactThe historical backgroundClefts in the language contact situationZooming out: predicative constructions

Conclusion

2


Introduction

Corpora and periods

I Syntactically annotated corpora:I MCVF (Martineau, 2009) for Old and Middle French (OF, MF).

Modéliser le changement: les voies du français (Ottawa)I SRCMF (Prévost and Stein, 2012) for Old French (OF)

Syntactic Reference Corpus of Medieval French (Stuttgart/Lyon)I YCOE (Taylor et al., 2003) for Old English (OE)

The York-Toronto-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Old English ProseI PPCME2 (Kroch and Taylor, 2000) for Middle English (ME)

The Penn-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Middle English

English time span French time spanOE up until 1150ME-m1 1150-1250 OF 842–ca.1320ME-m2 1250-1350ME-m3 1350-1420 MF ca.1320–1500ME-m4 1420-1500

3


Introduction

A definition of cleft constructions

DefinitionA CLEFT CONSTRUCTION (CC) is a complex sentencestructure consisting of a matrix clause headed by a copulaand a relative or relative-like clause whose relativized argu-ment is coindexed with the predicative argument of the cop-ula. Taken together, the matrix and the relative express alogically simple proposition, which can also be expressed inthe form of a single clause without a change in truth condi-tions.(Lambrecht, 2001, 467)

4


The development of French clefts

Ambiguity

Ambiguity in Modern French

I In written French (modern and medieval), cleft constructions areambiguous (Prévost, 2009, 3):

(1) C’estis it

PaulPaul

quiwho

esthas

tombé?fallen?

Nonno

c’estthis is

LucLuc

quiwho

esthas

tombé.fallen.

(2) Qu’est-cewhat is it

quithat

seREFL

passe?happens?

C’estthis is

LucLuc

quiwho

esthas

tombé.fallen.

I Only (1) is a focus as defined by Rooth (1985):I The focus on Luc indicates possible alternatives (hence the con-

trastive reading)I Only Luc in (1) is prosodically marked (by an H* accent).

⇒ Still more problematic is the interpretation in Medieval French.

5



Ambiguity

Controversial opinions about the development

1. Marchello-Nizia (1999) and Combettes (1999):I starting in the 13c., favoured by the loss of V2I accelerating in the 14c.

2. Bouchard et al. (2007):I clefts appear as early as the 12c.

but: ce is more often predicate than subject.

I Many Latin constructions were ambiguous between determina-tive and cleft constructions (Löfstedt, 1966, 263): determinativephrases were the origin of cleft constructions.

(3) nonnot

egoI

sum,am

quiwho

teyou.ACC

dudumrecently

conduxihired

(Plaut. Merc. 758) a. I am

not the one who. . . [cf. non ego is sum]b. It is not me who. . .

6



Types of clefts

Types of clefts

1. Stressed-focus clefts (Prince, 1978)I the prototypical CCsI classified as “unmarked” by Collins (1991, 111)

2. The status of the “marked” (ibid) cases is more controversialI This is due to variation

I of the form, e.g. pronouns other than English it or French ce;I of the information structure, e.g. XP is not focus

7



Types of clefts

Types of clefts

Type 1 in PDE:Subject Verb XP subordinate clauseexpletive / nulldemonstrativeanaphoric

’be’’have’

argumentnon-argumentfocustopic

relativeadverbialnewgiven

(4) Thankfully, it is not the politicians who can lay claim to the distinction ofhaving caused the greater loss of life. It is the earthquake that merits thisdubious honour. (Collins, 1991, 113)

8



Types of clefts

Types of clefts

Type 1 in OF: stressed focus on subjectSubject Verb XP subordinate clauseexpletive / nulldemonstrativeanaphoric

’be’’have’



(5) “Beausbeautiful

fiz,son

fetsays

ele,she

avezhave-[you]

oïheard

//Cumhow

DeusGod

nusus

adhas

menezguided

ici?here?

//C’estthis is

vostreyour

perefather

kiwho

cihere

gistlies

//Quewhich

cistthis

villarzvillain

ahas

tortwrongly

ocist.killed

(MARIEF_LAIS,.2411-2, MCVF, ca. 1165)

I Focus elements (31% of the CP-CLF annotations in MCVF):I subjects and adverbials since 12c., objects since 15c.

9



Types of clefts

Types of clefts

Type 1 in OF: stressed focus on indirect objectSubject Verb XP subordinate clauseexpletive / nulldemonstrativeanaphoric

’be’’have’



(6) CeThis

n’estnot is

pasNEG

atotoy,you,

ditsays

elleshe

aussi,also,

quethat

defirst

prinsaultof all

cethis

doulxsweet

messagemessage

s’REFL

adresse,addresses,

combienhow much

qu’that

ilitteyou

toucheCONJ-touch

beaucoup.much

(CNN,99.2004, MCVF, ca. 1450)

I A clear case of contrastive focus.I First occurrences of direct and indirect object foci in Cent nou-

velles nouvelles, ca. 1450.10



Types of clefts

Types of clefts

Type 1 in OF: stressed focus on adverbialSubject Verb XP subordinate clauseexpletive / nulldemonstrativeanaphoric

’be’’have’



(7) ParBy

Dieu,God,

faitsays

ele,she,

cethis

fuwas

parby

poorfear

deof

mortdeath

quethat

jeI

m’RFL

enof-it

afoïfled

çahere

(QUESTE,80.2824)

I Problematic: function of the subordinate clauseI adverbial or relative modifying ce (Muller, 2003)

11



Types of clefts

Types of clefts


’be’’have’



(8) Another city to suffer the terrible vicissitudes of fortune in 1985 was Mex-ico City. It was here that an earthquake of unrivalled intensity struckduring the month of September. (Collins, 1991, 114)

I Prince (1978): “informative-presupposition cleft”

12



Types of clefts

Types of clefts

Type 2 in OF: (anaphoric)Subject Verb XP subordinate clauseexpletive / nulldemonstrativeanaphoric

’be’’have’



(9) CesThese

nouvellesnews

vinrentcame

atolathe

roinequeen

etand

atomessiresir

JehanJohn

deof

HainnauHainnau

quethat

lithe

roisking

etand

lithe

EspensiersEspensiers

estoientwere

priscaught

,,etand

quethat

cethis

estoientwere

chilthose

quiwho

waucroienterred

parover

mersea

enin

lathe

bargeship

.

(FROISSART,89.1085)

I Such clear anaphoric cases mostly don’t have a cleft tag (CP-CLF) in the MCVF corpus (but: no clear criteria)

13



Types of clefts

Types of clefts


’be’’have’



(10) It was in mid-September that a natural disaster of unrivalled intensitystruck the capital city of Mexico. Thousands of people were killed andlarge sections of the city reduced to rubble. (Collins, 1991, 114)

14



Types of clefts

Types of clefts

Type 2 or 3 in OF: anaphoric or all focusSubject Verb XP subordinate clauseexpletive / nulldemonstrativeanaphoric

’be’’have’



(11) Si acoillirent leur chemin tuit troi ensemble, si ont tant chevauchié qu’ilvindrent vers le chastel as puceles,‘They started their journey, they rode so far that they arrived at Pucelles castle.’

etand

cethis

fuwas

celuithat

jorday

meïsmessame

quethat

lithe

chastiauxcastle

fuwas

conquisconquered

(QUESTE,53.1893)

I subordinate = focus, cleft = ambiguous

15



Corpus studies

Frequencies of tagged clefts (CP-CLF)

period fabs frel∑

sentences12c 21 0,0012470 1684113c 11 0,0009131 1229414c 12 0,0004846 2768415c 40 0,0021974 15036all 84 0,0011690 71855

Figure : Diachronic variation of OF clefts

I Our analysis of cleft-tagged constructions(CP-CLF*) in the MCVFcorpus (Martineau, 2009)indicate

I a decrease between1100 and 1500

I an increase in the 15c

I These frequencies differfrom Dufter’s, who con-sidered surface structures(dem.pronoun + être +XP + rel.pronoun)

16



Corpus studies

Frequencies in Dufter (2008)

Figure : Diachronic variation of OF clefts (Dufter 2008, 46)

I Dufter’s explanation:I increase in the 13cI decrease in the 14c due to the dominance of chronicles in the

BFM corpus⇒ a clear increase of clefts occurs rather late (from ca. 1600 on)? How do we reconcile these results?

17



Corpus studies

A solution for the empirical problemI The CP-CLF annotation in the Penn corpora reflects a difficult

and therefore not always reliable interpretation of the data.I Dufter (2008) distinguishes types of clefts, but his overall fre-

quencies are based on surface structures alone.I But Dufter claims with respect to type 2 clefts that

I they do not occur before 1550 [our findings contradict this]I they are responsible for the increase of clefts in modern periods

I In historical texts, we must zoom out beyond the CP-CLF tag:I on predicative constructions with a relative clause which is not

CP-CLF tagged:I (subject) + copula verb + predicative + relative clauseI where subject is a pronoun or empty

I (We abbreviate PRED+REL in some of the tables.)

18


Language contact

Contents

Introduction

The development of French cleftsAmbiguityTypes of cleftsCorpus studies

Language contactThe historical backgroundClefts in the language contact situationZooming out: predicative constructions

Conclusion

19


Language contact

The historical background

Norman Conquest: Multilingualism since 1066

I Intense language contact situation from 1066-1500I Massive lexical borrowing (widely assumed), structural borrowing

(neglected for a long time, addressed only recently)I Multilingual situation of post-Conquest medieval England (1066

to 15th c.):I Anglo-Latin (official language for a long time)I Anglo-French (gradually replaced Anglo-Latin)I Varieties of Middle English (mainly spoken)

20


Language contact


Multilingual discourse

Ingham (2009)

“. . . it is becoming clear that the relationship between Frenchand English in the later medieval period was more a matterof complementarity. The two languages represented, not dif-fering communities with opposed interests, but choices avail-able to those who possessed bilingual competence.” [p.80]“Thus, if English and French were both spoken languages inlater medieval England, bilinguals having command of bothmight reasonably be supposed to have mixed the two, tosome extent.” [p.86]

21


Language contact


Multilingual discourse

Sources of multilingualism:I glosses in dictionariesI didactic texts (discussed in Hunt 1991),

grammars of French (e.g. Palsgrave 1530)I macaronic texts (business writing, lay subsidy rolls, leases)

see the work by Wright (1995; 2003),Trotter (2000); Ingham (2010); Schendl and Wright (2011))

I direct translations:e.g. La somme le roi (1279) → Ayenbite of Inwyt (1340)Le roman de la rose (ca. 1270) → The romaunt of the rose (ca.1385)

22


Language contact


Code-switching in macaronic texts

I Latin-English(12) þou most supplante and forsake al maner vices, non ore set corde

(I.375-376)‘You must supplant and forsake every kind of vice, not just by wordbut in the heart.’

(sermon De celo querebant, MS Bodley 649)

I French-English(13) “O Thomas, je vous dy, Thomas! Thomas! This maketh the feend;

this moste ben amended.“ ‘Oh Thomas, I tell you, Thomas! Thomas! The fiend is doing this,that must be changed.” ’

(Canterbury Tales III.1832-1833)

23


Language contact

Clefts in the language contact situation

Clefts: a language contact phenomenon?I Two candidates:

1. Informative presupposition it-cleft/Type 2 cleft(replication of Latin cleft) (→ Löfstedt 1966,Ball, 1991)

Subject Verb XP subordinate clauseexpletive / nulldemonstrativeanaphoric

’be’’have’



(14) þathen

wæswas

framfrom

CristesChrist’s

hidercymeadvent

hundteontighundred

&and

fiftigfifty

&and

sixsix

gear,year

þætthat

Marcus,Marcus

oþrefurther

namanname

Antonius,Antonius

sewho

wæswas

feowerteoþafourteenth

framfrom

AgustoAugustus

þamthe

casere,emperor

sehe

onfengreceived

RomwaraRoman

riceempire

midwith

AureliaAurelius

hishis

breðer.brother

(Bede_1:4.32.1.248)

24


Language contact


Clefts: a language contact phenomenon?

I Two candidates:2. Pronoun it-cleft/Type 2 (replication of French cleft)→ (Ball, 1991, 1994a,b)

Subject Verb XP subordinate clauseexpletive / nulldemonstrativeanaphoric

’be’’have’



(15) ‘Hit was I,’ seyde Balyn, ‘that slew this knyght in my defendaunte;’“ ‘It was I”, said B., “that slew this knight in my defense.”

(MALORY,53.1762)

25


Language contact


Latin influence on Old English (up until 1150)

I 89 cleft constructions in the YCOEI Most frequent in Latin based texts

I 47 (‘time clefts’) in the Ecclesiastical History of the English Peo-ple by Bede (731)

I 8 (introduced by causal adv.) in the Cura Pastoralis by Alfred theGreat (9th century)

(16) Forfor

ðæmthat-reason

wæswas

eacalso

ðættethat

SanctusS.

PetrusPeter

ærestfirst

towearpdestroyed

ðætthat

ðætthat

hehe

eftafterwards

timbrede.timbered.

(CP:58.443.2.3158)

Latin structure: hinc est quod Petrus prius evertit, ut postmodum construat

26


Language contact


French influence on Middle English (1066-1500)

I 92 cleft constructions in the PPCME2I 24 (26%) pronoun it-clefts in M3, M4 (1350-1500)I Most frequent in Latin or French based texts

(17) ofte‘Many

tymestimes

oureour

lordelord

IhesuJesus

saydesaid

toto

me,me,

“II

ititamam

thatthat

isishiaste.”highest.”

(JULNOR,59.256)

27


Language contact


French influence on Middle English (1066-1500)

Pronoun it-clefts in METext Tokens OriginM3 (1350-1420)Julian of Norwich’s Revelations of Divine Love 10 likelyThe New Testament (Wycliffite) 2 LatinPurvey’s General Prologue to the Bible 1 LatinEnglish Wycliffite sermons 1 LatinM4 (1420-1500)Aelred of Rivaulx’s De Institutione Inclusarum 2 FrenchCapgrave’s Chronicle 2 LatinMalory’s Morte Darthur 6 French

28


Language contact

Zooming out: predicative constructions

Zooming out: predicative constructionsI An analysis non-CLF-tagged predicatives with relative clauses

(PRED+REL) in the YCOE and PPCME3 corpora showed thatI PRED+RELs had a significant frequency peak in the first ME

period M1I decreased steadily through M2-M3-M4

Figure : Diachronic variation of OE/ME PRED+REL vs clefts29


Language contact



I The standard deviation of the average relative frequency ofPRED+RELI higher in ME texts: ø 0.78% ±0.98%)I lower in OF (ø 0.26% ±0.26%)

Possible interpretation of the PRED+REL figures:I In both medieval French and English predicative structures were

frequent, regardless of their IS status.I The high relative frequencies in ME are caused by a limited

number of texts.I These texts have a close relation to French texts, e.g. i.e. Ayen-

bite translated from the Somme le roi

30


Language contact


Language contact

Figure : ME predicatives with relative clause: rel. frequencies per text31


Language contact


Language contact

Predicatives with relative clause in METext fabs frel OriginM1 (1150-1250)St. Juliana 18 0.031690 LatinM2 (1250-1350)Ayenbite of Inwyt 97 0.035183 FrenchM3 (1350-1420)Dan Jon Gaytryge’s sermon 10 0.050251 LatinThe Book of Vices and Virtues 15 0.041209 French

32


Language contact


Language contact

(18) a. þet oþer heaued of þe kueade beste: is enuie. þet is þe eddre / þet al/ enuenymeþ. (AYENBI,26.408)

b. Li seconz chiés de la beste d’enfer est envie: c’est li serpenz qui en-venime tout. (SOMME-ch33-par2)‘The second head of the evil beast is envy. That is the adder that allpoisons.’

(19) a. þanne he becomþribaud. holyer. and þyef and þanne me hine an-hongeþ. þis is þet scot: þet me ofte payþ. (AYENBI,51.907-9)

b. puis devient ribauz et houliers et lerres, et puis le pent on. C’estl’escot que il en paie sovent. (SOMME-ch38-par28)‘Then he became bawdy and lecherous and a thief and then man himcrucified. This is that price that man often pays.’

33


Language contact


Chaucer’s translation of Le Roman de la Rose

34


Conclusion

Conclusion

1. PRED+REL and cleft constructions already existed in OE.2. The sharp increase of PRED+REL in ME could be due to French

influence.I PRED+REL could be interpreted as type 2 cleftsI PRED+REL could also explain the rise of pronominal type 2 clefts

3. Acceleration of a syntactic form + functional reinterpretationdue to intense language contact

“Pragmatic borrowing” (Prince, 1988, 505):

(i) a syntactic form S2 in L2 may be construed by speakers as’analogous’ to a syntactic form S1 in L1, and

(ii) the discourse functions of S1 in L1 may then be borrowed intoL2 and associated with S2.

35


References

Ball, C. N. (1991). The historical development of the it-cleft. PhD thesis, University of Pennsylvania,Philadelphia.

Ball, C. N. (1994a). The origins of the informative-presupposition it-cleft. Journal of Pragmatics,22:603–628.

Ball, C. N. (1994b). Relative pronouns in it-clefts: The last seven centuries. Language Variation andChange, 6:179–200.

Bouchard, J., Dupuis, F., and Dufresne, M. (2007). Un processus de focalisation en ancien français: ledéveloppement des clivées. In Actes du congrès annuel de l’Association canadienne de linguistique2007. Proceedings of the 2007 annual conference of the Canadian Linguistic Association.

Chaucer, G., Dahlberg, C., and Ruggiers, P. G. (1999). The romaunt of the rose, volume Vol. 7 of Avariorum edition of the works of Geoffrey Chaucer. Univ. of Oklahoma Press, Norman.

Collins, P. (1991). Cleft and pseudo-cleft constructions in English. Routledge, London, New York.Combettes, B. (1999). Thématisation et topicalisation: leur rôle respectif dans l’évolution du français.

In Guimier, C., editor, La thématisation dans les langues. Actes du colloque de Caen, 9-11 octobre1997, pages 231–245. Peter Lang, Paris.

Guillaume and Strubel, A. (1992). Le roman de la rose, volume 4533 of Le livre de poche. Libr.Générale Française, Paris.

Hunt, T. (1991). Teaching and Learning Latin in Thirteenth-Century England. Volume I: Texts. Brewer,Cambridge.

Ingham, R. (2009). Mixing languages on the manor. Medium Aevum, 78(1):107–124.Ingham, R., editor (2010). The Anglo-Norman Language and its Contexts. Boydell and Brewer.Kroch, A. and Taylor, A., editors (2000). The Penn-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Middle English, Second

Edition (PPCME2). University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.Lambrecht, K. (2001). A framework for the analysis of cleft constructions. Linguistics, (39):463–516.Laurent, F. (2008). La Somme le roi. Société des anciens textes français, Paillart, Paris, Abbeville.Löfstedt, B. (1966). Die konstruktion ’c’est lui qui l’a fait’ im lateinischen. Indogermanische

Forschungen, 71:253–277.36


References

Marchello-Nizia, C. (1999). Le français en diachronie: douze siècles d’évolution. Collection L’essentielfrançais. Ophrys, Paris.

Martineau, F., editor (2009). Le corpus MCVF. Modéliser le changement: les voies du français.Université d’Ottawa, Ottawa.

Morris, R., editor (1866). Dan Michel’s Ayenbite of Inwyt or Remorse of Conscience, volume I of TheEarly English Text Society 23. N. Trübner und Co., London.

Muller, C. (2003). Naissance et évolution des constructions clivées en c’est... que... : de la focalisationsur l’objet concret à la focalisation fonctionnelle. In Blumenthal, P. and Tyvaert, J.-E., editors, Lacognition dans le temps. Études cognitives dans le champ historique des langues et des textes, pages101–120. Niemeyer, Tübingen.

Prince, E. (1978). A comparison of wh-clefts and it-clefts in discourse. Language, 54:883–906.Prince, E. (1988). On pragmatic change: the borrowing of discourse functions. Journal of Pragmatics,

12:505–518.Prévost, S. (2009). Topicalisation, focalisation et constructions syntaxiques en français médiéval : des

relations complexes. In D. Apothéloz, B. C. e. F. N., editor, Les linguistiques du détachement, actesdu colloque international de Nancy, pages 427–439. Peter Lang, Bern.

Prévost, S. and Stein, A., editors (2012). Syntactic Reference Corpus of Medieval French. ENS deLyon/Universität Stuttgart, Lyon/Stuttgart.

Rooth, M. (1985). Association with Focus. PhD Thesis, UMass, Amherst.Schendl, H. and Wright, L., editors (2011). Code-switching in early English. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin.Taylor, A. et al. (2003). The York-Toronto-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Old English Prose (YCOE).

University of York, Heslington, York.Trotter, D., editor (2000). Multilingualism in Later Medieval Britain. D.S. Brewer, Cambridge.Wright, L. (1995). A hypothesis on the structure of macaronic business writing. In Fisiak, J., editor,

Medieval Dialectology, number 79 in Trends in Linguistics Studies and Monographs, pages 309–321.Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin.

Wright, L. (2003). Models of language mixing: Code-switching versus semicommunication in medievallatin and middle english accounts. In Kastovsky, D. and Mettinger, A., editors, Language contact inthe history of English, volume 1 of Studies in English Medieval Language and Literature, pages363–377. Peter Lang, Frankfurt/Main.

37


OF tagged clefts vs PRED+REL in MCVF

Figure : OF tagged clefts vs PRED+REL in MCVF

38


OF tagged clefts vs PRED+REL in MCVF

Figure : OF tagged clefts vs PRED+REL in MCVF per text

39

Cleft sentences in the history of French and English: … · Cleft sentences in the history of...

Documents

Transcript of Cleft sentences in the history of French and English: … · Cleft sentences in the history of...