Copyright by Stephanie C. Russo 2017 The Dissertation Committee for Stephanie C. Russo Certifies that this is the approved version of the following dissertation: The Imparfait Lorrain in the Context of Grammaticalization Committee: Cinzia Russi, Supervisor Patience Epps Marc Pierce Bryan Donaldson The Imparfait Lorrain in the Context of Grammaticalization by Stephanie C. Russo, B.A.; M.A. Dissertation Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of The University of Texas at Austin in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy The University of Texas at Austin May 2017 Dedication To my husband, whose love knows no boundaries Acknowledgements This dissertation would not have been possible without the guidance and encouragement of several people in my life. My advisor, Professor Cinzia Russi, played an integral role in my success. Her helpful comments and feedback were crucial in getting me to the finish line. She stood by me throughout this project and I am grateful for her patience, kindness and unwavering support. I am truly thankful for her guidance and collaboration. I would like to thank my other committee members Professors Patience Epps, Bryan Donaldson and Marc Pierce. Their invaluable comments and support were instrumental in improving my overall project. I am also thankful for my past committee members, Professors Jean-Pierre Montreuil and Barbara Bullock, who guided me at earlier stages of my thesis. I would like to thank the Department of French and Italian, for many years of support, and my fellow graduate students. In particular, I would like to thank Meredith Lehman for her encouragement and devoted friendship at the most difficult of times. I am also grateful to friends Todd Krause and Lauren Winans, for providing me with helpful feedback on some of my chapters, and to Sabina Matyiku for her continued encouragement all the way to the end. I want to express my sincerest thanks to the Department of Physics and Astronomy at UCLA and to my colleagues in Student Services. I am particularly grateful to my supervisor Françoise Queval who provided encouragement, understanding and the time off needed to finish. Very special thanks goes to my cousin Kathy Meyer and to my three older brothers Peter, Joey and Adam for helping me along such a long and winding road. I want v to thank my in-laws, especially my mother-in-law Susan Mancuso for my many pep talks. I would like to thank my father Dr. Peter Russo whose memory and love lives on. My most heartfelt thanks goes to my mother Deborah Russo who taught me to never give up and instilled in me the belief that I could do anything. Last but not least, I would like to thank my husband Josh for going on this journey with me. His constant and selfless love has made all the difference and is truly one of the major reasons I am able to accomplish my goals. vi The Imparfait Lorrain in the Context of Grammaticalization Stephanie C. Russo, Ph.D. The University of Texas at Austin, 2017 Supervisor: Cinzia Russi This dissertation investigates the origins and development of the so-called imparfait lorrain (IL), a unique verbal formation in an obsolescent variety of French (Lorrain) that is comprised of the imparfait indicatif inherited from Latin and the Old French temporal adverb or(es) ‘now, at the time’. This study has two main goals: (1) to provide a finer- grained analysis of the functions of the IL and (2) to demonstrate that the origins and development of the IL are shaped by principles of grammaticalization (Heine, Claudi, & Hünnemeyer 1991; Bybee, Perkins, & Pagliuca 1994; Hopper & Traugott 2003; Heine & Kuteva 2002). In reviewing and discussing the existing literature on the IL, I find that previous studies have painted an inconsistent picture of the form’s origins and function(s). In light of a larger data set, my analysis reveals that as part of the IL, the erstwhile temporal adverb or(es) has acquired non-temporal functions in so far as or(es) behaves as a textual connective and as a modal particle. As a textual connective, or(es) relates two textually expressed events through a resultative relation; as a modal particle, or(es) indexes the speaker’s beliefs and attitudes and is thus epistemic in nature. Lastly, I found that the modal function of the IL may have been recruited for a discourse- structuring use to highlight new information. I then reassess the IL with respect to the parameters and mechanisms underlying a grammaticalization process. Crucially, and with particular emphasis on the grammaticalization of or(es), I find that generalization, vii subjectification, decategorialization, and phonological changes figure prominently into the development of the IL. By giving a more comprehensive and unified account of the IL, the dissertation contributes to the study of modal particles and draws attention to an understudied and obsolescent variety of French. viii Table of Contents List of Tables ................................................................................................... xiii List of Figures .................................................................................................. xiv Abbreviations ................................................................................................... xvi CHAPTER 1 1 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Introduction ................................................................................................ 1 1.2 Data and methods ....................................................................................... 6 1.2.1 Empirical basis................................................................................... 6 1.2.2 Corpora used ...................................................................................... 6 1.2.2.1 Periodicals ................................................................................. 7 1.2.2.2 Monographs .............................................................................. 8 1.2.2.3 Books/Anthologies .................................................................... 9 1.3 Text type and corpus size .......................................................................... 10 1.4 Problems with the texts ............................................................................. 10 1.5 Exclusions ................................................................................................ 13 1.6 Aims ......................................................................................................... 16 1.7 Organization ............................................................................................. 17 CHAPTER 2 18 GRAMMATICALIZATION 18 2.1 Introduction .............................................................................................. 18 2.2 Processes and hypotheses ......................................................................... 19 2.3 Metaphor and metonymy .......................................................................... 30 2.4 Theoretical issues ..................................................................................... 35 2.4.1 Unidirectionality .............................................................................. 35 ix 2.4.2 Grammaticalization as an epiphenomenon........................................ 36 2.5 Grammaticalization of or(es) in French..................................................... 38 2.6 Conclusion ............................................................................................... 49 CHAPTER 3 51 ON THE GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION OF THE IMPARFAIT LORRAIN 51 3.1 Introduction .............................................................................................. 51 3.2 An introduction to the Lorraine region and the Lorrain dialects................. 51 3.3 On the geographic distribution of the imparfait lorrain ............................. 57 3.3.1 Atlas linguistique de la France ......................................................... 60 3.3.2 Atlas linguistique des Vosges mériodonales...................................... 66 3.3.3 Atlas linguistique et ethnographique de la Lorraine romane ............ 70 3.3.4 Discussion........................................................................................ 78 3.4 Conclusion ............................................................................................... 81 CHAPTER 4 82 THE IMPARFAIT LORRAIN IN REVIEW 82 4.1 Introduction .............................................................................................. 82 4.2 The imparfait lorrain/imparfait standard perspective ............................... 83 4.2.1 Adam (1881) .................................................................................... 83 4.2.2 de Lazarque (1883) .......................................................................... 91 4.2.3 Franz (1920) .................................................................................... 94 4.2.4 Lemasson (1927) .............................................................................. 96 4.2.5 Martin (1939) ................................................................................... 98 4.2.6 Aub-Büscher (1962) ........................................................................100 4.3 Multifunctional perspective .....................................................................102 4.3.1 Oberlin (1970[1775]) ......................................................................102 4.3.2 Jouve (1864) ...................................................................................103 x 4.3.3 Hingre