The French Wh Interrogative System: Est-Ce Que, Clefting?
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
The French Wh Interrogative System: Est-ce que, Clefting? by Sandrine Tailleur A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctorate in Philosophy Department of Linguistics School of Graduate Studies University of Toronto © Copyright by Sandrine Tailleur 2013 « The French Wh Interrogative System: Est-ce que, clefting? » Sandrine Tailleur Doctorate in Philosophy Department of Linguistics University of Toronto 2013 Abstract This thesis revisits the variation inherent to the French wh interrogative system. In La[urentien]F[rench], there are many ways to ask wh questions, all of which are said to have the same general interpretation. By looking at different types of data, historical as well as contemporary, this thesis puts forward three main findings/proposals: i. the high degree of variation is due to the use of wh est-ce que, which appeared in Old French as an interrogative cleft (Rouquier 2003); ii. between Old and Modern French, wh est-ce que has gone through a typical cycle of grammaticalisation (as described by Roberts & Roussou 2003, van Gelderen 2008a, b), while the free relative of the Old French cleft remained unchanged; iii. today’s LaF wh system is dominated by the wh est-ce que and variants (over 98 percent of use – Elsig 2009), which lack traditional wh movement. It is proposed that wh est-ce que and variants appear in a construction containing an atrophied clefted CP adjoined to a main clause containing a wh operator, whereas the variant traditionally called wh in situ is generated in a structure in which the wh element is interpreted and spelled-out in the position of Merge. In addition to its theoretical contribution, this thesis helps to bring together theoretical and applied linguistics, since it makes use of different types of data, both historical and synchronic (oral and written corpora, experimental studies and grammaticality judgements). Moreover, the ii conclusions raise important questions about the realities of diglossia in the French diaspora: wh interrogative variants are divided according to fundamental structural differences; some have wh movement (high, formal register) and others do not (vernacular and neutral register). Finally, this thesis also contributes to the theories of oralité (Gadet 1992), since it sheds light on a complex system of variants found exclusively in vernacular speech. iii Acknowledgments First and foremost, I would like to thank Yves Roberge for his good words, his help, his patience, which were constant for the three years during which he was my supervisor. Diane Massam and Ileana Paul were also always very encouraging and supportive; all three members of my committee were extremely helpful, and I am convinced that I could not have finished without them. I am also very grateful for the Linguistics Department at the University of Toronto. The atmosphere, created by both faculty and students, contributed to a working environment that is both stimulating and most motivating. A special thanks to Elizabeth Cowper, Jack Chambers, Keren Rice, Alana Johns and Elaine Gold for their special contribution to my well-being as a grad student. Anne-Marie Brousseau, Susana Bejar and, most of all, Arsalan Kahnemuyipour, have also showed me anything but encouragements and kindness. My student colleagues; their constant presence in our lounge has been the excuse for many hours of serious and challenging, but also light and entertaining, conversations. A special thanks to Julia Sue, Maria Kyriakaki, Derek Denis, Chris Spahr, Alex Motut, James Byrnes, Eugenia Sue, Sarah Clarke, Liisa Duncan, Michelle St-Amour, Bridget Jankowski, Beth Macleod, Richard Compton, Kenji Oda, Will Oxford, Safieh Moghaddam, LeAnn Brown and Annick Morin, who each helped in their own ways, and were all equally important to me. Merci à ma famille : mom, dad, Karl, Francine, Guillaume, et surtout Annie-Jo, qui ont toujours été là pour moi, même loin, même sans toujours comprendre ce que je faisais qui me rendait si nerveuse… Le sentiment de les avoir derrière moi, me soutenant peu importe mes décisions, est irremplaçable. And finally, the special, special thank yous. I have already mentioned Yves Roberge, but he also deserves a special, special thank you. France Martineau, my mentor, my supervisor, my colleague and my friend; I owe her much of who I am professionally, and personally. Anne Mackay, who was always there for me, and who now understands me more than ever; Aude Patry et Alex Genois, for being such great friends (and great hosts!); Justin and Renee, for just being wonderful friends and neighbours; and, last but not least, Ailis Cournane, my friend, roommate, colleague, co-author, without whom none of this Toronto adventure would have been possible. iv And Matt: thanks for being there, for understanding that the dirtier the house was, the more productive I was being... This thesis is part yours and you have been an important piece of it, from the very beginning. v Table of Contents Acknowledgments .......................................................................................................................... iv Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................... vi List of Tables .................................................................................................................................. ix List of Figures ................................................................................................................................. x List of Appendices .......................................................................................................................... xi Chapter 1 ......................................................................................................................................... 1 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1 Chapter 2 ......................................................................................................................................... 6 2 Description of the French Interrogative System ......................................................................... 6 2.1 Types of French described .................................................................................................. 6 2.1.1 Dialectal varieties .................................................................................................... 6 2.1.2 Types of data and registers ...................................................................................... 7 2.1.3 Variable context ...................................................................................................... 8 2.2 Laurentian French variants: their evolution ........................................................................ 9 2.2.1 Wh fronting with inversion variants ...................................................................... 11 2.2.2 Wh fronting without inversion variants ................................................................. 12 2.2.3 Wh fronting with reinforcer variants ..................................................................... 14 2.2.3.1 Est-ce que variants: ALF data ................................................................. 24 2.2.3.2 Corpus study: wh+est-ce que vs. wh+complementizer .......................... 32 2.2.4 Wh in situ variants ................................................................................................. 41 2.2.4.1 Intervention effects and in situ ................................................................ 43 2.2.5 Embedded contexts ................................................................................................ 47 2.2.6 Summary: what does this all mean? ...................................................................... 52 Chapter 3 ....................................................................................................................................... 54 vi 3 What is ‘est-ce que’? ................................................................................................................ 54 3.1 The status of ‘est-ce/c’est’ ................................................................................................. 54 3.1.1 Grammaticalisation of est-ce/c’est: from XP to X0 ............................................... 57 3.1.2 Contemporary French: actual status of est-ce/c’est ............................................... 63 3.2 French declarative clefting ................................................................................................ 68 3.2.1 Definition and evolution of clefting ...................................................................... 69 3.2.2 Interpretation of clefts and relatives ...................................................................... 72 3.2.2.1 Prepositions and interpretation ............................................................... 72 3.2.3 Syntactic approaches to French clefts and relative clauses ................................... 76 3.3 Summary ........................................................................................................................... 80 Chapter 4 ....................................................................................................................................... 81 4 Proposal – Accounting for Variation .......................................................................................