A New Examination of Leftward Stylistic Displacement in Medieval French Through Textual Domain, Information Structure, and Oral Représenté
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Sa nature proveir se volt: A New Examination of Leftward Stylistic Displacement in Medieval French through Textual Domain, Information Structure, and Oral Représenté By Brock A. Imel A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the Requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Romance Languages & Literatures and Medieval Studies in the Graduate Division of the University of California, Berkeley Committee in charge: Professor Mairi McLaughlin, Chair Professor Richard Kern Professor Lev Michael Professor Bryan Donaldson, UCSC Summer 2019 Sa nature proveir se volt: A New Examination of Leftward Stylistic Displacement in Medieval French through Textual Domain, Information Structure, and Oral Représenté © 2019 Brock A. Imel Abstract Sa nature proveir se volt: A New Examination of Leftward Stylistic Displacement in Medieval French through Textual Domain, Information Structure, and Oral Représenté by Brock A. Imel Doctor of Philosophy in Romance Languages & Literatures and Medieval Studies University of California, Berkeley Professor Mairi McLaughlin, Chair ・・・ Among all the studies performed on medieval French syntax during the last decade, one construction in particular, variously known in the literature as “stylistic fronting” or “leftward stylistic displacement”, has provoked particularly lively debate. Atheoretically conceived, this construction is characterized by the presence of non-subject constituents to the left of the finite verb, such as adjectives, adverbs, nouns, infinitives, past participles, and prepositional phrases. One or more such elements may appear in both main and subordinate clauses, either to the left or to the right of the subject, when the subject is expressed. Originally at the heart of this debate was the apparent similarity between the medieval French construction and one found in contemporary and historical Scandinavian languages (Holmberg 2000; Hrafnbjargarson 2004). On the basis of a corpus containing instances of leftward stylistic displacement involving infinitives, past participles, and a small group of adverbs, Labelle and Hirschbühler (2013, 2014a, 2014b, 2017) have successfully illustrated that the medieval French construction is different from the Scandinavian one; there remains, however, much work to be done in terms of the holistic description of medieval French leftward stylistic displacement, particularly in view of the full variety of elements that can be displaced. The aim of the current project is twofold: firstly, to continue the descriptive project of Labelle and Hirschbühler (2017) by offering as complete a picture as possible of the totality of morphosyntactic variation that is inherent in this family of constructions, and secondly, to begin to understand what factors may (or may not) condition this variation. To that end, we construct a ~225,000-word plurigeneric corpus from portions of twelve texts ranging in date from the late-twelfth to the mid-fifteenth centuries and undertake a complete description of the leftward stylistic displacement that we find there. In addition to describing the construction itself as it appears through time, we consider three external textual and discursive variables: domain (a macro-version of text type), information structure, and reported discourse status. As a result of our study, we conclude that domain, on its own, is not a particularly good predictor of the morphosyntactic variation intrinsic to leftward stylistic displacement; we find that time, however, is an excellent predictor of this variation, an indication of a construction where change is very much at work. Using a series of decision trees for the information-structural tagging of our data, we also find that leftward stylistic displacement generally bears one of two information-structural values. On the basis of these, we propose a reanalysis of the structure of subordinate clauses in medieval French. With respect to discourse type, we find 1 that discourse type (direct discourse versus narration) is not a good predictor of the morphosyntactic variation that characterizes leftward stylistic displacement. We conclude, finally, that leftward stylistic displacement represents a fertile ground for continued research in medieval French, especially as it pertains to subordinate clauses. 2 For Bart i Table of Contents Acknowledgements…………………………………………………………………………… v Introduction 0.0- From Latin to Romance: Syntactic Change…………………………………………….. vii 0.1- Verb Second Syntax and Leftward Stylistic Displacement in Medieval French…………. x Chapter One: Review of the Literature 1.0- Introduction……………………………………………………………………………. 1 1.0.1- Medieval Romance: Verb Second and the Left Periphery…………………………….. 1 1.0.2- Medieval Romance: Verb Second and the Question of Symmetry……………………. 7 1.1- Defining Leftward Stylistic Displacement……………………………………………… 10 1.1.1- “Stylistic Fronting” or “Leftward Stylistic Displacement”? …………………………... 11 1.2- The Syntax of Leftward Stylistic Displacement: L’état de l’art…………………………… 16 1.3- Intermediate Summary…………………………………………………………………. 20 1.4- Textual Variables………………………………………………………………………. 20 1.5- LSD, Information Structure, and the Left Periphery…………………………………… 23 1.5.1- Basic Cognitive Concepts…………………………………………………………….. 24 1.5.2- Information Status…………………………………………………………………… 25 1.5.3- Topic………………………………………………………………………………… 28 1.5.3.1- Types of Topic……………………………………………………………………... 29 1.5.4- Focus………………………………………………………………………………… 30 1.5.5- Frame-Setters………………………………………………………………………… 32 1.5.6- Information Structure in Practice: The Left Periphery………………………………... 33 1.5.7- The Information Structure of Subordinate-Clause Leftward Stylistic Displacement: Rahn (2016)………………………………………………………………………………… 34 1.6- LSD and Discourse Type: Oral Représenté……………………………………………….. 38 1.7- Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………... 41 Chapter Two: Methodology 2.0- Introduction……………………………………………………………………………. 43 2.1- Scaffolding the Corpus…………………………………………………………………. 43 2.1.1- The Texts…………………………………………………………………………….. 44 2.2- A Typology of Leftward Stylistic Displacement………………………………………… 48 2.2.1- Three Separate Constructions………………………………………………………… 48 2.2.2- Complementizers: Variable “C”………………………………………………………. 50 2.2.3- Complements: Variables “X” and “Y”………………………………………………... 51 2.2.4- Subjects: Variable “S”………………………………………………………………… 53 2.3- Data Collection………………………………………………………………………… 54 2.4- The Present Study……………………………………………………………………… 55 2.4.1- Specific Tagging Protocols for Morphosyntactic Variables…………………………… 57 2.4.1.1- Tagging Complementizer Type……………………………………………………... 58 2.4.1.2- Tagging Adverbs…………………………………………………………………… 59 2.4.2- Tagging Elements for Information-Structural Values………………………………… 60 2.4.2.1- Information Status…………………………………………………………………. 61 ii 2.4.2.2- Topic……………………………………………………………………………….. 62 2.4.2.3- Frame-Setter………………………………………………………………………... 63 2.4.2.4- Focus………………………………………………………………………………. 64 2.4.2.5- Zero IS Value………………………………………………………………………. 65 2.4.3- Tagging Discourse Reporting Types………………………………………………….. 65 2.5- Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………... 68 Chapter Three: A Diachronic View of Leftward Stylistic Displacement Across Textual Domains 3.0- Introduction…………………………………………………………………………… 69 3.1- General Overview of the Data…………………………………………………………. 69 3.1.1- Raw Counts for LSD in Main versus Subordinate Clauses……………………………. 70 3.1.2- Raw Counts for LSD According to Typological Configuration……………………….. 70 3.1.3- Raw Counts for Displaced Element Type…………………………………………….. 74 3.1.4- Raw Counts for Subject Type………………………………………………………… 74 3.1.5- Raw Counts for Subordinate Clause Type……………………………………………. 75 3.2- Leftward Stylistic Displacement Across Domains……………………………………… 76 3.2.1- Main Versus Subordinate Clauses Across Domains…………………………………... 76 3.2.2- LSD Configurations Across Domains………………………………………………... 79 3.2.2.1- LSD Configurations Viewed Diachronically………………………………………... 81 3.2.2.2- LSD Configurations Viewed through Domain and Time………………………….... 84 3.2.2.3- Summary: LSD Configurations……………………………………………………... 90 3.2.3- “Atypical” LSD………………………………………………………………………. 91 3.2.4- Displaced Element Type……………………………………………………………... 94 3.2.4.1- Displaced Elements Across Domains……………………………………………… 95 3.2.4.2- LSD Elements Viewed Diachronically……………………………………………... 97 3.2.4.3- LSD Elements Viewed through Domain and Time……………………………….... 98 3.2.4.4- XYV and CXYV: Double LSD…………………………………………………….. 101 3.2.4.5- Summary: LSD Elements…………………………………………………………... 104 3.2.5- LSD Subject Type……………………………………………………………………. 104 3.2.5.1- LSD Subject Types Across Domains……………………………………………….. 104 3.2.5.2- LSD Subject Types Viewed Diachronically…………………………………………. 105 3.2.5.3- LSD Subject Types Viewed through Domain and Time…………………………….. 106 3.2.6- LSD Complementizer Type…………………………………………………………... 109 3.2.6.1- LSD Complementizer Type Across Domains………………………………………. 110 3.2.6.2- LSD Complementizer Type Viewed Diachronically………………………………… 112 3.2.6.3- LSD Complementizer Type Viewed through Domain and Time…………………… 113 3.3- Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………... 117 Chapter Four: Leftward Stylistic Displacement and Information Structure 4.0- Introduction…………………………………………………………………………… 119 4.1- Synchronic Overview of the Data……………………………………………………… 119 4.2- A Diachronic Overivew of LSD’s Information Structural Values………………………. 121 4.3- The Information Structure of LSD Configurations……………………………………... 124 4.3.1- IS and LSD Configurations in Synchrony…………………………………………….. 124 4.3.1.1- Main Clause LSD in Synchrony…………………………………………………….. 124 4.3.1.2-