The obligatory use of the preposition ’a’ plus disjunctive pronoun after certain verbs in French

Table of contents :
Front......Page 3
TABLE OF CONTENTS......Page 5
NOTES......Page 9
1.1. Dative / Non-dative......Page 10
1.2. Stressed / Unstressed......Page 13
2. The Verbs......Page 14
2.4. Appeler......Page 15
2.8. Avoir affaire......Page 16
2.13. Etre......Page 17
2.17. Interesser......Page 18
2.21. Prendre garde......Page 19
2.27. Revenir......Page 20
2.29. Songer......Page 21
2.32. Toucher......Page 22
3.1. Motion......Page 23
3.2. Verb-Complement Relationship......Page 24
3.2.1. Transitive / Intransitive; Direct / Indirect; Dative / Non-dative......Page 25
3.2.2. Animate / Inanimate; Human / Non-human; Y / lui......Page 27
3.2.3. Maurice Gross' Classifications of Verbs......Page 29
4. Summary......Page 33
NOTES......Page 35
II. FURTHER GRAMMATICAL CONSIDERATIONS......Page 38
1. The Personal Pronoun System......Page 39
2. The Preposition à......Page 45
2.1. Syntactic and SemanticFunctions of à......Page 46
2.1.1. Movement......Page 49
2.1.3. Reversal......Page 50
2.2. The Preposition à; Conclusion......Page 51
3.1. Object Complements......Page 53
3.1.1. Direct Object Complement......Page 54
3.1.2. Indirect Object Complement......Page 55
3.2. Circumstantial Complements......Page 56
3.2.1. Complements of Destination......Page 57
3.3. Complements: Conclusion......Page 60
4. Verbs......Page 61
4.3. Miscellaneous......Page 62
4.4. A Comparison with other Verbs......Page 66
5. Pronominalization......Page 71
6. Conclusion......Page 78
NOTES......Page 79
1. The Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries......Page 82
1.1. Sixteenth Century Grammarians......Page 83
1.2. Seventeenth Century Grammarians......Page 94
2. Textual Examples......Page 99
2.1. Dire......Page 128
2.2. Miscellaneous Examples......Page 129
2.3. Examples with y......Page 132
2.4.1. Verbs of Total Physical Movement......Page 135
2.4.3. Verbs of Speaking and Verbalizing......Page 136
2.4.6. Verbs which take y......Page 137
3. Conclusion......Page 138
NOTES......Page 141
IV. PEDAGOGICAL TREATMENT......Page 145
NOTES......Page 155
WORKS CITED......Page 156
VITA......Page 163

Citation preview

INFORMATION TO USERS

This was produced from a copy of a document sent to us for microfilming. While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the material submitted The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand markings or notations which may appear on this reproduction. 1. The sign or "target" for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is "Missing Page(s)". If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting through an image and duplicating adjacent pages to assure you of complete continuity. 2. When an image on the f i l m is obliterated with a round black mark it is an indication that the film inspector noticed either blurred copy because of movement during exposure, or duplicate copy. Unless we meant to delete copyrighted materials that should not have been filmed, you will find a good image of the page in the adjacent frame. If copyrighted materials were deleted you will find a target note listing the pages in the adjacent frame. 3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., is part of the material being photographed the photographer has followed a definite method in "sectioning" the material. It is customary to begin filming at the upper left hand comer of a large sheet and to continue from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps If necessary, sectioning is continued again-beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete. 4. For any illustrations that cannot be reproduced satisfactorily by xerography, photographic prints can be purchased at additional cost and tipped into your xerographic copy. Requests can be made to our Dissertations Customer Services Department, 5. Some pages in any document may have indistinct print. In all cases we have filmed the best available copy.

University Microfilms International 300NZEEBRD

ANN ARBOR,MM8106

8203449

DUNBAR, RICHARD TERRY

THE OBLIGATORY USE OF THE PREPOSITION A PLUS DISJUNCTIVE PRONOUN AFTER CERTAIN VERBS IN FRENCH

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

University Microfilms I n t e m a t l 0 n a l 300 N Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48106

PH.D. 1981

THE OBLIGATORY USE OF THE PREPOSITION A PLUS DISJUNCTIVE PRONOUN AFTER CERTAIN VERBS IN FRENCH

BY RICHARD TERRY DUNBAR B . S . , Bowling Green S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , M.A. , Miami U n i v e r s i t y , 1975

1969

THESIS Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in French in the Graduate College of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, I98I

Urbana, Illinois

UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN THE GRADUATE COLLEGE

SEPTEMBER 1981

WE HEREBY RECOMMEND THAT THE THESIS BY RICHARD TERRY DUNBAR FNTTTT.F.n

THE OBLIGATORY USE OF THE PREPOSITION A

PLUS DISJUNCTIVE PRONOUN AFTER CERTAIN VERBS IN FRENCH BE ACCEPTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE O F

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

jr

Committee on Final E x a m i n a t i o n !

A 1 Required for doctor's degree but not for master's

f

director of Thesis Research

'

Head of Ifepartiyjent

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION

1

Chapter I. II. III. IV.

THE TRADITIONAL VIEW

5

FURTHER GRAMMATICAL CONSIDERATIONS

33

HISTORICAL EVIDENCE

77

PEDAGOGICAL TREATMENT

1^0

WORKS CITED

151

VITA

158

1

INTRODUCTION I propose in this study to elucidate an unusual phenomenon of the French language which, for lack of a particular, succint descriptive name, I will identify as the obligatory use of the preposition a + disjunctive e.g., penser. opposition:

pronoun after certain verbs in French,

The problem is most succintly identified by the

j_e lui parle / je pense a lui (or *2§ iui pense).

This study will go beyond a mere descriptive account of this phenomenon (and therefore beyond what has been v/ritten on the subject heretofore) and seek the possible reasons for the constraint upon conjunctive pronominalization with verbs such as penser.

In

so doing, I will examine the personal pronoun system, the role of the preposition a, the types of verb complements, word order, semantics and language development.

The study will therefore

contain both contemporary and historical analyses.

Ultimately,

I will examine what the implications are for language instruction. When one approaches the problem, a series of questions arise. I would like to give some idea of the areas which these questions touch upon and which will be explored subsequently. It was necessary from the beginning to compile the first reasonably comprehensive list of the present-day verbs for which conjunctive pronominalization is impossible under certain conditions.

Having done so, the verbs can be examined to see whether

they have anything in common besides the constraint in question, e.g., do they share any semantic commonality?

The list invites an historical analysis of each verb to see what changes, if any, they may have undergone with respect to the problem in question.

It becomes apparent that the list has chan-

ged over the centuries.

For example, we know that prior to the

seventeenth century parler behaved like penser. to change?

What caused it

Did grammarians like Vaugelas have a hand in this?

What is the relationship of the verb to its complement?

I

will look into the notions of transitivity and intransitivity, of direct and indirect objects, of dative and non-dative verbs, to see whether any of these point to a reason for the constraint. What role does the preposition a play?

What is its syntacti

and semantic function9 I will examine the syntax of personal pronouns, especially the usage of y_ and lui, the contrast animate / inanimate and human / non-human and their possible role in the constraint. Data for the historical aspect of this study have been obtained from grammars and grammarians of the past, and from an examination of literary texts of various periods. Data for the contemporary aspect have been collected from modern grammars, dictionaries and several articles. This study will aid in determining whether the obligatory use of a + disjunctive pronoun after certain verbs in French is due to semantic constraints, to the prescription of grammarians, to the whimsical development of the language, or to a combination of all three influences and others. As a result of these findings, I will be able to suggest how the problem may best be dealt with in pedagogy. In this study, the uses of disjunctive pronouns with prono-

3 minal verbs, and after constructions such as ne . . . que, and after prepositions other than a are not considered, except insofar as peripheral allusion contributes to a further amplification of this study.

k

NOTES The use of the terms " d i s j u n c t i v e " and "conjunctive" i s explained in Chapter I .

5

CHAPTER I THE TRADITIONAL VIEW 1.

Terminology In this study, the personal pronouns moi, toi, lui, elle,

soi. nous, vous, eux, elles used after a preposition and entering into a complement relationship with a verb will be called "disjunctive"

pronouns, e.g., j ^ pense a lui.

The same pronouns (except soi) used to emphasize a pronoun or a noun still present in the sentence, e.g., lui, il me parle or il me semble, a moi, will simply be called "emphasis" pronouns (other usual terms are "tonic", "stressed" or "emphatic"). Personal pronouns (including reflexive pronouns) which are complements of a verb and which are placed before that verb will be called "conjunctive" pronouns (the same term will be used for the one exception when the pronoun immediately follows the verb in the affirmative imperative).

The term "conjunctive", to make

it more precise and to distinguish between what are commonly called direct and indirect object pronouns, can be qualified as direct or indirect. I have preferred these terms to some others used in various grammatical descriptions. 1.1.

Dative / Non-dative Several grammars refer to the "dative", a term which is

reminiscent of the historical substitution of a + pronoun for the

6 Latin d a t i v e . Ewert mentions -the "accented d a t i v e " :

i l me semble, a moi, 2

and the "unaccented dative":

il songe a moi.

For Ferrar, the

pronoun in 1'enfant vint a moi is the result of a "non-dative a", whereas in 1'idee leur vint, leur is the result of a dative a. Ferrar points out that the former sentence uses a verb of motion literally whereas the latter uses one figuratively.

He goes on to

list other verbs constructed with "non-dative a", many of which are not verbs of motion.

No further explanation is offered.

Darmesteter comments on several constructions with a. calls the construction in parler a moi a datif analytique.

He In je

donne de 1'argent a mon ami, the preposition a indicates attribution (the French term).

The pronoun is dative in j_e lui donne une chose;

a indicates direction in ,j' envoie de 1' argent a mon ami. Darmesteter1 s parallel argument implies that a in _i§ pense a lui indicates direction and that the pronoun is non-dative.-5 Wartburg's discussion of the dative focuses on the datif ethique as in laisse-moi ces livres; qu'on nous le fusille! meaning.

qu'on me jette ces papiers au feu;

The ethical dative translates an affective

Moi, toi, lui, elle, soi, nous, vous, eux, elles after

the preposition are called formes absolues and syntactically are complements prepositionnels.

The other pronouns (pre-posed to the

verb) are pronoms conjoints/ Grevisse states that "le pronom personnel . . . a done garde une certaine declinaison: . . . le cas du complement d'objet inQ

direct (datif), le cas prepositionnel (ablatif)." Mansion declares that "the stressed form of the pronoun" is used in j'allai a lui sans hesitation, "but the dative is used if there is no motion in space . . . Cette robe ne me va pas;"

"me

7 is a dative of advantage" (or "of interest" •-- p. 132) in Ah! 9 savais bien que vous me reviendriez.

Je

As a rule, when the verb has two objects, one is the accusative "of the thing", and the other the dative "of the person." It is only seldom that both objects are persons, as in Je vous le presenterai, Je vous presenterai a lui, and with a number of verbs the indirect object is always a stressed form governed by a when the direct object is a person, i.e., it ceases to have the value of an object, and takes on an adverbial function . . . Le Seigneur 1'avait envoye a eux pour leur enseigner la loi divine . ', .10 Sandfeld makes a distinction between

datif conjoint and

a + pronom non-conjoint. Raupach mentions that a in parler a quelqu'un is dative,12 and that the vrai datif is used with verbs like dormer, demander, devoir, preferer, etc.; -' vrai datif is not defined but apparently refers to the use of the conjunctive pronoun. From these few remarks it can be seen that the dative is generally equivalent to the use of the conjunctive pronoun and the non-dative is generally equivalent to the obligatory use of the disjunctive pronoun as I have defined them.

A variety of other

terms which are used confuse the issue, however.

Furthermore, the

use of the terms "dative" and "non-dative" imply a clear-cut grammatical difference which may not hold true.

"Dative" usually

means "indirect object", and there is evidence to suggest that some of the non-dative consbructions are in fact indirect object complements (see Chapter II).

The terms conjunctive and disjunc-

tive have the merit of simply establishing a relationship of distance from the verb (Figure 1) without implying a grammatical relationship which is too complex, as we will see, to be reduced simply to "dative" or "non-dative".

conjunctive pronoun(s) prepoSition + disjunctive i f verb i n * -^ pronoun imperative Figure 1

Conjunctive pronoun(s)

1.2,

Stressed /

Unstressed

The terms " s t r e s s e d " and " u n s t r e s s e d " pronouns a r e sometimes m e n t i o n e d i n g r a m m a t i c a l d e s c r i p t i o n s w h i c h a l l u d e t o the c o n t r a s t je l u i p a r l e / j e pense a l u i .

We know t h a t f o r s e v e r a l

t h e u s e of s t r e s s e d and u n s t r e s s e d p r o n o u n s was n o t

centuries

consistent,

v i z . i n Old F r e n c h and up t o t h e s i x t e e n t h c e n t u r y a t l e a s t , except a f t e r p r e p o s i t i o n s when s t r e s s e d p r o n o u n s were u s e d . Ik T h e i r use today i s c o n s i s t e n t ,

b u t t h e t e r m s " s t r e s s e d " and " u n s t r e s s e d " are

of t h e m s e l v e s d i f f i c u l t blem.

t o a p p l y when d e s c r i b i n g t h e p r e s e n t p r o -

There i s no s t r i c t c o r r e s p o n d e n c e , for e x a m p l e , between

d a t i v e and u n s t r e s s e d o r n o n - d a t i v e and s t r e s s e d , moi, moi i s s t r e s s e d and n o n - d a t i v e ; s t r e s s e d and c o n j u n c t i v e ;

ecoute-moi;

nous, vous, l u i ,

e.g.,

eux a r e a l w a y s s t r e s s e d ,

l ' a n e e t moi mourrons,

e l l e , e l l e s are e i t h e r s t r e s s e d

u n s t r e s s e d depending on t h e i r u s e : parle-nous (stressed).

me, t e , se a r e always u n -

moi, t o i , s o i ,

but not n e c e s s a r i l y d i s j u n c t i v e ,

e . g . , in c r o i s -

On n o u s p a r l e

disjunctive

a g a i n p e r m i t s us to overcome t h e c o m p l e x i t y i n h e r e n t i n the t i o n and form of t h e s e p r o n o u n s . PERSONAL PRONOUNS

me (moi) te (toi) l u i (se) nous vous

Disjunctive

(verb) (preposition)

or

(unstressed),

The c o n t r a s t c o n j u n c t i v e /

Conjunctive

^

moi toi lui, elle, nous vous

soi

func-

9 se

eux, elles Figure 2

Finally, when moi, toi, lui, elle, nous, vous, eux, elles are used merely to emphasize a noun or a pronoun, they will be called "emphasis" pronouns (see 1., p. 5). This terminology is established for the purposes of this study only and I make no claims for its desirability out of this context. 2.

The Verbs The following list of verbs which require the use of the

preposition a + disjunctive pronoun (at least under some circumstances) was compiled by consulting several grammars and dictionaries.1"' No single source provided a list as complete as this one. Most mentioned penser, r|yer, songer and the so-called verbs of motion.

It is reasonable to claim that this list is the first of

its kind and substantially complete. For some of these verbs, it was very difficult to find examples to confirm their usage, or even a definition which would allude to the use of a given verb with a + human complement, even though the verb had been listed by an authority as being in that category.

One is perhaps not likely

to see some of these verbs used this way, and where they are questionable or unacceptable, a question mark or an asterisk precedes the example.

Nevertheless, whether or not the use of a

given verb is actually attested to by some literary, grammatical, or dictionary source, I believe that, in theory, even the questionable examples are possible and that for the sake of research they should be posited, especially since each verb listed here has

10 been mentioned by a grammarian, even though an example of its use may not have been given.

I assume that the author had a valid

reason for listing a verb for which no textual examples of a + disjunctive pronoun exist. The use of the verb in this construction can always be rejected later if no examples can be found. Where possible, I have included, for each verb, examples using a conjunctive pronoun.

For some, I have provided dictionary

definitions in order to bring out certain nuances or differences in meaning between the same verb used with either a disjunctive or a conjunctive pronoun, or to clarify the meaning of a verb. Each verb in the following list will be examined in detail later within syntactical, semantic and historical contexts. 2.1.

Accourir II accourut a moi.

2.2.

Accoutumer ?I1 a accoutume Mireille a Paul. ?I1 l'a accoutumee a lui.

2.3.

Aller J'allai a lui sans hesitation.

(Mansion, p. 138)

Cette robe ne vous va pas. 2.4.

Appeler J'en appelle a eux.

"Je leur demande de confirmer par leur

temoignage ce que j'affirme . . . Syn.

faire appel."

(Davau

et al., p. 58) "Dieu vient de 1'appeler a. lui, se dit en parlant d'une personne qui vient de mourir."

(Diet, de l'Academie, vol. 1, p. 6?)

11 2.5«

Arriver ?Je s u i s a r r i v e a e l l e en courant. ? I 1 e s t enfin arrive a e l l e .

Obtenir ses f a v e u r s . "

"Arriver a . . . une femme.

(Imbs e t a l . , p . 570)

"II e t a i t impossible d ' a r r i v e r a. l u i . "

(Sandfeld, p . 82)

Pes l e t t r e s l u i sont a r r i v e e s de Nancy. I I l u i e s t a r r i v e une a f f a i r e ennuyeuse. 2.6.

Aspirer ?Elle est charmante.

J'aspire a elle.

"Aspirer a. — pretendre a.

Aspirer n'implique que l ' i d e e des

d e s i r s qui nous poussent a. une chose;

pretendre implique que nous

y avons des d r o i t s r e e l s ou imaginaires ( L i t t r e ) . "

(Thomas, p . 38)

(see pretendre below) 2.7-

Attirer "Simon etait deja. assis a table, et, affame par la depense

physique du jour et de la nuit precedents, il attirait a. lui les plats de hors d'oeuvre fort copieux."

(Imbs, p. 870)

"Attirer a. soi 1'attention du public."

(Diet, de l'Academie,

vol. 1, p. 95) "Son attitude insolente lui attirera des ennuis, sera la cause d'ennuis pour lui . . . " 2.8.

(Davau et al., p. Qk)

Avoir affaire

"Avoir a f f a i r e a quelqu'un, se t r o u v e r en r a p p o r t avec l u i pour quelque r a i s o n :

I I a eu a f f a i r e a. moi pour une question de

passeport (Romains)."

(Grand Larousse, v o l . 1, p . 75)

"Encore une s o t t i s e de ce genre, e t vous aurez a f f a i r e a moi." (Mansion, p . 138);

(This i s meant

as a t h r e a t . )

12 2.9-

Avoir recours J ' a u r a i recours a l u i .

secours a. quelqu'un . . . "

"Action de demander de l ' a i d e , du (Grand Larousse, v o l . 6, p . 4945)

"(syn. r e c o u r i r , f a i r e a p p e l ) . "

(Dubois e t a l . , D i c t i o n n a i r e ,

p . 974) 2.10.

Comparer ?I1 compare Jean a moi. "Gardez-vous de comparer Lucain a. V i r g i l e . " 7

2.11.

(Hanse, p . 188)

Gardez-vous de comparer Lucain a l u i . Courir

"Je courus a l u i . "

(Nyrop, v o l . St p. 224)

" I I fut mis hors l a l o i , et chacun eut l e d r o i t de l u i courir sus."

(Diet, de l'Academie, v o l . 1, p . 317) "pop.

Courir-a quelqu'un:

cavaler . . . ) .

I ' e n n u y e r (Cf. casser l e s pieds,

Tu nous cours avec t e s h i s t o i r e s . "

(Robert, p .

999) 2.12.

Croire ?Je c r o i s au p r e s i d e n t .

e ' e s t se f i e r a l u i : . . . " ?Je c r o i s aux s o r c i e r e s .

Je c r o i s a l u i . (Thomas, p . 110)

Je c r o i s a e l l e s .

quelqu'un, e ' e s t c r o i r e a. son e x i s t e n c e : . . . " ?Je c r o i s a Ralph Nader. a j o u t e r foi a. s e s p a r o l e s . " 2.13.

"Croire a quelqu'un,

Je c r o i s a l u i .

"Croire a. (Hanse, p . 214) "Croire a. quelqu'un,

(Dubois e t a l . , L e x i s , p . 449)

Etre Elle est a lui.

mariage;"

"Etre a. . . . , Stre lie par les noeuds du

(Littre, p. 450)

"Aujourd'hui, en p a r l a n t d'une femme, se donner a un homme." (Grand Larousse, vol. 3, p . 1777) "Je suis t o u t a. vous, tout dispose a. f a i r e ce qui vous sera agreable;"

( L i t t r e , p . 450)

"Je suis t o u t a. vous = je suis p r £ t a. m'occuper de vous, a vous ecouter . . . "

(Davau e t a l . , p . 473)

" I I n ' e s t p l u s a l u i , se d i t d ' u n homme dont l ' e s p r i t dans une a g i t a t i o n extreme . . .

N ' e t r e plus soi-meme

est

. . . "

( L i t t r e , p. 450) Cette maison est a moi. "Force nous fut d'en r a b a t t r e . " "C'est a. vous de p a r l e r . " 2.14.

(Regula, p . 97)

(Caput, p . 202)

Faire ap_p_el On a fait appel a vous.

"Faire appel a, demander, de facon

instante l'appui, l'aide, le concours de: . . ."

(Grand Larousse,

vol. 1, p. 206)

2.15.

Faire a t t e n t i o n Faites attention a ce passage.

quer: . . . "

"Faire attention a, remar-

(Grand Larousse, vol. 3, p. 1865)

"Fais attention a. eux, ils te detestent. "

(Hoffmann, p. 122)

"Faire attention a quelqu'un, ne pas le negliger: mSme pas fait attention a. moil" 2.16.

(Grand Larousse, vol. 1, p. 298)

Habituer "Habituer son chien a un hote." ?I1 habitue son chien a moi.

2.17.

Interesser

II n'a

(Caput, p. 242)

"Lors meme que Shakespeare r e p r e s e n t e des personnages dont l a desbinee a e t e i l l u s t r e , i l i n t e r e s s e ses s p e c t a t e u r s a. eux p a r des sentiments purement n a t u r e l s . " 2.18.

(Mansion, p , 132)

Marcher l i s marchaient a 1'ennemi.

a 1'ennemi . . . " 2.19.

l i s marchaient a l u i .

"Marcher

(Robert, p. 280)

Parvenir ?Je ne pus parvenir a l u i . ". . . je ne pus p a r v e n i r j u s q u ' a l u i . "

(Dicx. de l'Academie,

v o l . 2, p. 299) "Cette l e t t r e l u i parviendra demain = a r r i v e r a jusqu'a l u i . . . "

(Davau e t a l . , p . 887)

2.20.

Penser Je pense souvent a elle. "diriger sa pensee vers, avoir comme objst de reflexion. . . .

(syn. songer) . . . "

2.21.

(Dubois et al., Dictionnaire, p. 842)

Prendre garde "Prends garde a. t o i . . . "

p.

(Dubois et a l . , D i c t i o n n a i r e ,

555) "Avoir 1 ' a t t e n t i o n e v e i l l e sur quelque danger, se precau-

t i o n n e r contre l u i , en g a r a n t i r quelqu'un qui y e s t expose1

. . . "

( D i e t , de l'Academie, v o l . 1, p . 587) " I I est passe sans prendre garde a. moi, sans me r e g a r d e r , sans s'occuper de moi; . . . " " . . .

(Davau e t a l . , p. 561)

f a i r e t r e s a t t e n t i o n a. quelqu'un . . . "

Larousse, vol. 3, p. 2151)

(Grand

15 2.22.

Prendre inter|t ?I1 prend interet a vous parce qu'il vous aime bien.

2.23.

Pretendre

? I 1 pretend a e l l e , "Pretendre a une femme (pour I ' e p o u s e r ) . s i g n i f i e ' a s p i r e r a, se f l a t t e r d ' a v o i r . * " 2.24.

Pretendre a.

(Thomas, p . 336)

Recourir Je vais recourir a lui. "Demander le secours de quelqu'un . . . Syn.:

a, . . . faire appel a, . . ." 2.25.

avoir recours

(Grand Larousse, vol. 6, p. 4944)

Reflechir

*Je reflechis souvent a elle. 2.26.

Renoncer J'ai renonce a toi. "Renoncer a. quelqu'un, se resoudre a. admettre qu'on ne pourra

plus entretenir de relations avec lui . . . "

(Grand Larousse,

vol. 6, p. 5068) "Renoncer a. quelqu'un: frequenter, de le voir . . . "

l'abandonner . . . , cesser de le (Robert, vol. 5. P- 795)

"Renoncer a. soi-meme, se depouiller de tout amour propre . . ." (Littre, p. 1043) "Se refuser toute satisfaction."

(Dubois et al., Lexis,

P. 1532) "Se renoncer." 2.27.

(Diet, de 1 'Academie. vol. 2, p. 5°1)

Revenir "Je reviens a vous dans un moment . . . "

(Diet, de l'Academie,

v o l . 2, p . 526) "Se r e c o n n a i t r e , s'amender: (Flechier) — S'apaiser, quand i l r e v i e n t a. l u i . "

l e sage r e v i e n t aisement a s o i .

se calmer;

L'homme emporte a des r e g r e t s

(Larousse, v o l . 5. P« 1055)

"Revenir a s o i , reprendre ses sens apres un evanouissement: On me f i t r e s p i r e r des s e l s , et quand je r e v i n s a. moi,

. . . "

(Grand Larousse, vol. 6, p . 5165) "Revenir a. quelqu'un, reprendre avec l u i des r e l a t i o n s normales.

Apres avoir mene une vie assez d i s s o l u e , son mari l u i est

revenu entierement."

(Grand Larousse, vol. 6, p . 5165)

"Etre r a p p o r t ee a. quelqu'un, en p a r l a n t d'une rumeur, nouvells.

d'une

' C e r t a i n s propos tenus s u r sa conduite l u i r e v i n r e n t . ' "

(Robert, v o l . 6, p . 7) "C'est un homme qui me r e v i e n t . " 2.28.

(Nyrop, v o l . 5, P« 255)

Rever Je r&vais a e l l e . "R&ver a, s i g n i f i e ' r e f l e c h i r a, songer a, penser a . . ."

(Thomas, p . 368) Rever a. = "Meditation" 2.29.

( L i t t r e , p . IO67)

Songer I I songe a eux. "Songer a. quelqu'un, l u i p o r t e r i n t e r e t , avoir p r e s e n t a

1 ' e s p r i t l e souci de sa personne, de son s o r t : aux a u t r e s e t pas seulement a soi . . . "

I I faut songer

(Grand Larousse, v o l . 6,

p . 5594) "Songer a. quelqu'un, s'occuper de l e s a t i s f a i r e pour une a f f a i r e , pour une commande . . . "

( L i t t r e , p . 1148)

17 "Songer, . . . est vieilli dans le sens de 'faire un songe' ou 'voir en songe';

il s'emploie le plus ordinairement au figure,

dans le sens de 'se livrer a la reverie ou de 'penser, faire attention, prendre garde': songe qu'a. lui." 2.30.

. . . Songer a. vos affaires . . . II ne

(Hanse, p. 673)

Tenir

"Je t i e n s a eux p a r c e q u ' i l s me sont sympathiques."

(Hoffman,

p . 122) "Fig. Tenir a. quelqu'un, a quelque chose; p a r un sentiment durable d ' a f f e c t i o n , . t e n i r a. une femme . . . "

d ' i n t e r & t , d'amour-propre . .

(Robert, vol. 6, p . 509)

"II t i e n t a vous q u ' i l s o i t nomine . . . ( i l depend de . . . que) . . . " 2.31.

y §tre a t t a c h e

I I t i e n t a . . . que

(Hanse, p . 705)

Tirer "Cet homme t i r e t o u t a. l u i . "

(Diet, de l'Academie, v o l . 2,

p . 661) "Tirer a. s o i , amener de son cc-te. . . . Fig.

T i r e r a. soi l a couverture

T i r e r a. s o i , t i r e r de son cSte, s ' a r r o g e r . "

(Littre,

p . 1232) " . . . avantage."

t i r e r a. s o i , chercher a tourner l e s choses a son " A t t i r e r , t i r e r a soi . . ."

(Dubois et a l . , Lexis,

p . 1793) 2.32.

Toucher Ne touchez pas a l u i . "Toucher a. quelqu'un, l u i f a i r e du mal:

frere."

Ne toucher pas a. mon

(Dubois et a l . , D i c t i o n n a i r e , p. 1152)

2.33-

Unir ?Le p r £ t r e a uni C h a r l e s a E l i z a b e t h . *Le pr&tre l ' a uni a e l l e .

2.34.

Venir " I I v i n t a. moi."

(Nyrop, vol. 5, p . 224)

"Laissez venir a moi les petits enfants."

(Mansion, p. 138)

"L'enfant venait a. nous sans defiance = s'approchait de nous . . . Apres s'&tre tenue a l'ecart, elle est venue a. nous = s'est rangee a. nos idees, a adhere a. notre groupe . . . "

(Davau, p.

1245) "Venir a. quelqu'un, avoir recours a. lui: Je viens a. vous, Seigneur, pere auquel il faut croire (Hugo)."

(Girodet, p. 3046)

Une idee m'est venue. 2.35.

Voler (to fly) ?I1 vola a lui. "Un ami vola a. son secours = y alia le plus rapidement

possible 3.

f

. ."

(Davau, p. 1268)

Classifying the Verbs In this section, I will look at various possible classifi-

cations of these verbs. 3.1.

Motion Most grammars identify so-called verbs of motion as requiring

a + disjunctive pronoun; aller, courir, venir are most often cited. Usually, a clear physical motion is required, otherwise the verb may very well accept an indirect conjunctive pronoun, " e.g., II lui vient une idee, ce manteau vous va bien. However, in une

lettre lui parvint, one can argue that an actual motion is involved in getting the letter to that person.

Grammars do not

mention it, but a qualification which seems necessary is that the subject of the verb of motion be able to move under its own power. Thus the subject is likely to be animate, but un avion volait a lui might be possible, although there is a strong desire to substitute vers for a, unless it can be argued that lui is the intended destination.

In our list, the verbs of motion are:

accourir,

aller, arriver, courir, marcher, parvenir, ^tirer, venir, voler. Tirer is questionable because from the examples in 2.31., it does not always involve a physical motion.

It is interesting to note

that other verbs of motion not in our list, such as nager or ramper, if they were commonly to have a "human goal" as complement, would require a + disjunctive pronoun, e.g., ?Je nage a lui, ?Ils rampaient a elle.

It appears therefore that verbs of motion are

a definite subcategory which commands the use of a + disjunctive pronoun.

Only certain verbs of motion, however, are likely to be

used in this way. Sometimes mentioned with verbs of motion are penser, river, songer, because they express a "direction of thought". ' Nevertheless, they are most often treated as idioms together with a sample of the other verbs requiring a + disjunctive pronoun.

This

is not a satisfactory classification since the verbs are reduced to a list without offering an explanation for the exception to the rule (see Chapter II for further discussion of this problem). 3.2.

Verb-Complement Relationship The concept of motion has been mentioned because it is so

common, although it borders more on a semantic explanation, however

20 imperfect.

I will return to the semantic considerations later, but

for the moment, it is more useful to probe the syntactic explanations and properties associated with the contrast conjunctive/disjunctive.

Indeed, much of what follows is dichotomous in nature,

for next to the present group of some thirty-five verbs, there is another group of verbs, probably much larger, like parler, succeder, nuire, obeir, etc., where conjunctive pronominalization of the preposition + noun is the rule.

These "normal" verbs are themselves

in need of being listed and studied.

Since our present verbs de-

viate from these, it is interesting to note just how different they are.

It would appear that there are a number of fundamental diffe-

rences in the nature of the verb-complement relationship. 3.2.1. Transitive / Intransitive; Direct / Indirect; Dative / Non-dative The concepts of transitive and intransitive verbs, direct and indirect objects, dative and non-dative pronouns and verbs are closely related and their presentation is often confusing.

In all

cases, it will be necessary eventually to go beyond the terminology itself and establish the relationship of verb and complement independently of the terms used. Most dictionaries and grammars classify verbs as "transitive", i.e., the verb has no object complement.

This is an oversimplifi-

cation however, since many verbs have both transitive and mtran20 sitive usages, e.g., je cours les rues (transitive) and je cours a six heures du matin (intransitive), so that it is more correct to say that a given verb is / may be used transitively and / or intransitively. The transitive category is further divided according to

21 whether the complement of the verb is a direct or indirect complement.

Therefore some verbs are listed in grammars and dictionaries

as transitif indirect or having a transitif indirect usage. is seldom a label such as transitif direct.

There

Generally, transitive

verbs are assumed to be those for which the action of the verb passes directly from the subject to the object complement, e.g., .Te regarde la television.

Where verbs are noted to have a transitif

indirect usage, this means that a preposition (a or de) comes between the verb and its object complement, so that the action of the verb somehow passes indirectly from the sub jeer; to the object complement, e.g., je parle a Jean.

When pronominalization of the ob-

ject complement of a transitif indirect verb takes place, the pronoun is conjunctive, e.g., je lui parle.

Traditionally, this pro-

21 noun is called an "indirecb object pronoun" or a "dative pronoun". If it were not for penser and like verbs, the distinction transitive / intransitive, and the notion of indirect object complement would be fairly clear.

Grammarians, while they agree about

the unusual behavior of penser and its companions, are less in agreement about diagnosing it.

Verbs like penser are variably

classified as transitive, transitif indirect, or intransitive. Some of these verbs can be used transitively.

In terms of gramma-

tical labelling, the problem is whether to call the complement in je pense a Jean an indirect object complement or something else. Is penser in this case transitif indirect or intransitive? course, the problem is not one of mere labelling.

Of

Whatever the

verb penser is called, the fact remains that it is different syntactically from parler when it comes to pronominalization.

The

real object of debate is over the relationship of the complement

22 t o the verb and even t o the s u b j e c t of t h e verb. s h i p s w i l l be examined i n d e t a i l l a t e r . g o r i z i n g p e n s e r as a t r a n s i t i f

These r e l a t i o n -

Suffice i t

t o say,

cate-

i n d i r e c t v e r b in j e p e n s e a l u i

does not h e l p t o e x p l a i n the p r o n o m i n a l i z a t i o n c o n s t r a i n t ,

nor

does c a l l i n g a l l e r i n j ' a l l a i s a l u i an i n t r a n s i t i v e verb c l e a r up t h e problem. 3 . 2 . 2 . Animate / I n a n i m a t e ; Human / Non-human; Y / l u i While t h e above d i s c u s s i o n focused somewhat on verb-complement r e l a t i o n s h i p s , t h i s s e c t i o n examines t h e n a t u r e of t h e complement. The c o n c e p t s animate /

i n a n i m a t e , human /

non-human, and t h e p r o -

nouns y_ and l u i are a l l c l o s e l y r e l a t e d i n t h i s d i s c u s s i o n . Within t h i s c o n t e x t t h e r e a r e a number of i n t e r e s t i n g cont r a s t s between verbs l i k e p e n s e r and v e r b s l i k e p a r l e r .

The

former a l l a c c e p t t h e a d v e r b i a l pronoun %_, whereas n o t a l l i n t h e l a t t e r c a t e g o r y do ( e . g . , ? j ' y p a r l e ) . 22 In p r i n c i p l e , y_ r e p l a c e s nouns i n t h e inanimate c a t e g o r y ,

and

even more s p e c i f i c a l l y t h e non-human c a t e g o r y , w h e r e a s l u i r e p l a c e s animate and human n o u n s .

In modern s p o k e n , and even w r i t t e n ,

language u s e , however, t h i s i s f a r from b e i n g a h a r d and f a s t

rule.

I n d e e d , t h e r e i s some t e n d e n c y t o use l u i f o r both animate and i n animate w i t h v e r b s l i k e donner, o t e r , r e n d r e , n u i r e ,

servir,

etc.,

and some t e n d e n c y t o u s e v_ f o r b o t h a n i m a t e and i n a n i m a t e with J v e r b s l i k e p e n s e r , c r o i r e , t e n i r . 23 T h i s l a t t e r phenomenon, where v. competes with a moi, a t o i , a l u i ,

e t c . , d a t e s back t o

Old French and was f r e q u e n t i n C l a s s i c a l F r e n c h .

A c c o r d i n g to

P i n c h o n , t h e u s e of y_ f o r p e r s o n s has n o t s i g n i f i c a n t l y

changed

s i n c e t h e 1 7 t h c e n t u r y , d e s p i t e t h e p r e s c r i p t i o n of Vaugelas and

his contemporaries that y_ must be avoided as a substitute for persons. 24 In popular language, / i / (conjunctive) is often used for persons.

There is some debate as to whether this originates with

Old French li or is an extension of the use of v. to lui. Nyrop mentions that v. was used for persons in Old French and Brunot notes that i was found mainly with parler in the first texts. ^ Dubois seems to imply that verbs like penser resist conjunctive pronominalization because of a "law of disambiguity": Lorsque les verbes ne peuvent se construire qu'avec les syntagmes objets animes, ou du moins que ceux-ci sont les plus probables, il n'y a pas d'ambiguite sur la substitution et le pronom complement est prlpose au verbe. Mais lorsque le syntagme objet peut §tre anime ou non anime, on fait appel a. la coexistence des deux pronoms v. et lui (qui, lorsqu'ils sont preposes, sont confondus dans la langue parlee populaire) pour opposer les deux types de syntagmes: J'y pense (non-anime) / je pense a. lui (anime) The distinction, however, is not as clear-cut as this, since writers and speakers do use v. for persons.

Furthermore, the fact

that conjunctive lui is used for inanimate / non-human seems to increase ambiguity.

At any rate, the desire to disambiguate does

not explain je pense a lui rather than *je lui pense. While 17th century grammarians proscribed v. as a substitute for humans, they did not attempt to change the syntax of penser and other verbs to bring about their use of the indirect conjunctive personal pronouns.

It would seem logical that while they

attacked the language habits of the French elite in using v. for persons, in their zeal to categorize and regularize the French language they could have decreed that *je lui pense should become an acceptable form.

24 Dubois alludes to the probability of verbs like obeir having animate object complements rather than inanimate ones, versus the probability of penser having either. gates this further.

Blanche-Benveniste investi-

She combines the notions of animate / inani-

mate and human / non-human into two categories: [- personal] . Thus lui is is

[+ persj , y_ is

[+ persl . Any verb which has

[+ personal] and [- pers] , and a lui

[+ persj a lui is necessarily

also constructed with [- persl y_ and the former is subordinated to the latter, so that renoncer, for example, would be represented as: [- persj

y_

I

("+ pers]

a lui (

J 'y renonce, a ca j_e renonce a lui

i.e., the preferred construction is with %.

On the other hand,

appartenlr would be represented as: j+ pers] P- persl * . .

lui]

il lui appartient

X

il K appartient

( . '27

where lui is preferred. ' Such an analysis provides a useful insight into the syntax of verbs and personal pronouns, and is another possible way of classifying verbs and distinguishing verbs like penser from verbs like obeir, but it continues to fall short of an explanation for their differences. 3.2.3. Maurice Gross' Classifications of Verbs Maurice Gross and the Laboratoire d'automatique documentaire et linguistique have conducted an ambitious and detailed study of no

the syntax of hundreds of French verbs with the aid of computers. The study concentrates on the type of complements which certain categories of verbs accept or do not accept.

Verbs are categorized

according to a principal structure which seems typical of these

verbs.

For example, douter enters into the s t r u c t u r e "No V de ce

Qu P" ^ (Subject + Verb •* de ce que + Phrase or C l a u s e ) , e . g . , Paul doute de ce que j e d i s . category.

A verb may enter i n t o more than one

Each v e r b in each category i s then l i s t e d in a t a b l e

with v e r t i c a l columns under headings and subheadings such as s u b j e t , complements d i r e c t s , complements i n d i r e c t s , completives, noms, i n f i n i t i v e s , pronoms, e t c .

Each column c o n t a i n s given p r o -

p e r t i e s or s t r u c t u r e s for each heading such as N. que P etc.

, .

(human n o u n ) ,

(que + subjunctive c l a u s e ) , ppr (preverbal pronoun),

In each column, for each verb, a + or - sign appears to i n -

d i c a t e t h a t the v e r b accepts or does not accept t h a t property o r s t r u c t u r e of the subject or complement. The book was examined t o see what treatment was given to t h e verbs i n t h i s s t u d y .

Most of the verbs appear somewhere in t h e

book (avoir a f f a i r e , avoir r e c o u r s , comparer, f a i r e appel, marcher, prendre i n t e r e t a r e not in any t a b l e s ) .

T i r e r i s found in two

t a b l e s (10, 16) which are not discussed h e r e .

Most verbs found

are l i s t e d in d i f f e r e n t t a b l e s (2, 3, 7, 11, 14, 1 9 ) .

Because

Tables 2 and 3 a r e closely r e l a t e d , as a r e 7 and 14, there are e s s e n t i a l l y four p r i n c i p a l s t r u c t u r e s under which t h e s e verbs a r e classified. Accourir, a l l e r , a r r i v e r , c o u r i r , r e v e n i r , v e n i r , voler a r e found i n Table 2 under the s t r u c t u r e "No V (E + Nx)

V°fl"

(Subject + Verb + (empty sequence + f i r s t complement) + i n f i n i t i v e + other complements).

These seven verbs f i t more s p e c i f i c a l l y

the

s t r u c t u r e "No Vmt V° f\ " (Subject + Verb of motion + i n f i n i t i v e + other complements), e . g . , I I court v o i r Marie.-'

Attirer figures

i n Table 3, "verbes c a u s a t i f s de mouvement" ("Vf, mt = faire Vmt").

26 The p r i n c i p a l s t r u c t u r e i s "No V N, V 1 " ( S u b j e c t + Verb + f i r s t complement + i n f i n i t i v e ments) , e . g . ,

of the f i r s t complement + o t h e r comple-

P i e r r e e n v o i e Paul v o i r Marie, envoyer b e i n g the

e q u i v a l e n t of f a i r e a l l e r .

Verbs i n Table 3 a r e c l o s e l y r e l a t e d t o

t h o s e i n T a b l e 2 because t h e i r complements have i d e n t i c a l p r o p e r ties. Seventeen verbs (among them p e n s e r , s o n g e r , r i v e r ) a r e found i n Table 7, u n d e r the s t r u c t u r e "No V a. ce Qu P"

( S u b j e c t + Verb +

a ce que + C l a u s e or P h r a s e ) , e . g . , P a u l t i e n t a c_e que t o u t en o r d r e .

soit

These are v e r b s with i n d i r e c t o b j e c t s i n t r o d u c e d by a

( i . e . , answering the q u e s t i o n s a q u i , a q u o i ) , which have no o t h e r complements ( d i r e c t , i n a o r i n d e ) . ^ Accoutumer, i t r e ( a l t h o u g h n o t i n c l u d e d i n Table 7,

it

b e l o n g s t h e r e , a l s o , as n o t e d by G r o s s ) , h a b i t u e r , i n t e r e s s e r are found i n Table 1 1 , "No V N, a. ce Qu P " , e . g . , P i e r r e accoutume P a u l a ce q u ' i l vienne au c o u r s .

Verbs i n t h i s t a b l e have a d i r e c t

o b j e c t noun and an i n d i r e c t complement i n a, and two s u b c a t e g o r i e s of s t r u c t u r e s "No V N-, a. V JTi",

e . g . , P i e r r e accoutume P a u l a

v e n i r au c o u r s and "No V N-, a, V° f \ " • e • g«» P a u l depense une g r o s s e somme a a c h e t e r ce t e r r a i n . -34 ' Table 14 c o n t a i n s e t r e and r e v e n i r under t h e s t r u c t u r e

"No V

a. ce Qu P Prep N2"> e . g . , Jean r e v i e n t a c_e que d i s a i t Marx dans l e Manifeste.

This t a b l e d i f f e r s from Table 7 o n l y by the a d d i -

t i o n of a complement "Prep N 2 " . The l a s t t a b l e , 19, i n c l u d e s a t t i r e r and u n i r under t h e s t r u c t u r e "Qu P V N1 Prep N 2 " , e . g . , Q u ' i l f a s s e c e l a

affermit

P a u l dans s e s i n t e n t i o n s . While G r o s s ' c l a s s i f i c a t i o n c o n t a i n s a w e a l t h of

information

27 on t h e s y n t a x of F r e n c h v e r b s , i t does n o t d e a l d i r e c t l y w i t h t h e problem of t h i s s t u d y .

The c o n s t r a i n t s on c o n j u n c t i v e l u i w i t h

penser a r e a l l u d e d t o , 17 but no e x p l a n a t i o n i s s u g g e s t e d .

A close

e x a m i n a t i o n of t h e t a b l e s to d e t e c t some p a t t e r n s which might s u g g e s t f u r t h e r e x p l o r a t i o n was f r u i t l e s s .

The o n l y n o t e of

interest

i s t h a t t h e m a j o r i t y of v e r b s a r e found e s s e n t i a l l y i n two t a b l e s , Table 2 where t h e v e r b s of m o t i o n a r e l i s t e d ( w i t h a t t i r e r Table 3 b e i n g c o n s i d e r e d c l o s e l y r e l a t e d ) , and Table 7« of 29 v e r b s l i s t e d ,

from

In fact,

17 a r e l i s t e d a t l e a s t i n Table 7.

Only a c c o u -

tume r , h a b i t u e r , i n t e r e s s e r ( T a b l e 1 1 ) , u n i r (Table 19) and t i r e r (Tables 10 and 16) a r e not found i n e i t h e r Table 2 or 7.

Table 2

does n o t i n c l u d e columns i n d i c a t i n g t h e p o s s i b i l i t y of a human noun as i n d i r e c t complement or of a p r e v e r b a l pronoun f o r such a complement, so t h a t no c o n f i r m a t i o n i s a v a i l a b l e . a c c e p t s a N. aspirer,

.

I n Table 3i

attirer

I n T a b l e 7, where t h e s e two columns e x i s t ,

pretendre,

arriver,

s o n g e r a r e l i s t e d a s n o t a c c e p t i n g a human noun

as i n d i r e c t complement.

The o t h e r v e r b s a r e confirmed a s a c c e p t i n g

a human noun as i n d i r e c t complement and n o t a c c e p t i n g t h e p r e v e r b a l pronoun.

The same h o l d s for accouturner, h a b i t u e r and i n t e r e s s e r

Table 11 and u n i r i n Table 19. complement a N i s n o t

in

The p o s s i b i l i t y of t i r e r w i t h t h e

confirmed.

In T a b l e 7, t h e r e a r e a few v e r b s o t h e r t h a n t h e s e v e n t e e n I have l i s t e d which a r e n o t e d as t a k i n g an i n d i r e c t N. These a r e (pronominal v e r b s e x c l u d e d ) : d r o i t , a v o i r intere" b, a v o i r t r a i t , prendre g o u t , p r e n d r e p l a i s i r , succomber.

and no ppv.

a c c e d e r , en a r r i v e r ,

c o l l e r , couper,

r e g a r d e r , en r e s t e r ,

avoir

obtemperer, revasser,

I t i s p o s s i b l e t h a t a f t e r f u r t h e r examination,

some or

a l l of t h e s e verbs c o u l d be added t o the l i s t I have d e v e l o p e d .

28 What we a r e l e f t with, e s s e n t i a l l y , is the general c a t e g o r i e s of verbs of motion and o t h e r exceptional verbs found in the t r a d i t i o n a l grammars. 4.

Summary I n t h i s c h a p t e r , I have sought b a s i c a l l y t o review some of the

t r a d i t i o n a l grammatical c o n s i d e r a t i o n s concerning the problem at hand.

I have i n some i n s t a n c e s d e l i b e r a t e l y r e s i s t e d developing

c e r t a i n hypotheses which a r e b e t t e r t r e a t e d in t h e next c h a p t e r devoted in p a r t t o semantic and transformational grammar treatments of the verbs. T r a d i t i o n a l grammars a r e d e s c r i p t i v e and f a l l short as such, of explaining t h e problem.

I have reviewed the sometimes confusing

and ambiguous terminology used to d e s c r i b e the problem, and,

at

the same time, I have e s t a b l i s h e d a p r e f e r r e d terminology f o r use in t h i s study. A f a i r l y comprehensive l i s t of t h e verbs, w i t h examples, which require t h e obligatory use of a + d i s j u n c t i v e pronoun was presented. Some of the attempts t o classify these verbs were reviewed, with t h e conclusion that no s a t i s f a c t o r y c l a s s i f i c a t i o n has y e t been e s t a b l i s h e d which would, at the v e r y l e a s t , h e l p the f o r e i g n language l e a r n e r t o p r e d i c t t h a t these verbs are exceptions t o the normal pronominalization r u l e . A number of questions have been r a i s e d which warrant f u r t h e r investigation.

F o r example, the m a t t e r of t r a n s i t i v i t y , the na-

ture of the p r e p o s i t i o n a i t s e l f , the verb complement system, x. l u i , t h e personal pronoun system.

vs

«

Because the t r a d i t i o n a l grammars

p r e s c r i b e and d e s c r i b e r a t h e r than e x p l a i n , I w i l l explore semantic

29

and transformational approaches to the problem, among o t h e r s , in t h e next c h a p t e r .

NOTES L. S. R. Byrne and E. L. Churchill, A Comprehensive French Grammar (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1963) , p. 1792 Alfred Ewert, The French Language (London: Faber and Faber, L t d . , 1949), p . 159. -'H. Ferrar, A French Reference Grammar (Oxford: Oxford University Press, i960), p. 101.

4Arsene

Paritiesteter; Cours de grammaire historique de la langue francaise; Quatrieme partie: Syntaxe (Paris: Librairie Ch. Delagrave, I89*?), p. 51. -?Darmesteter, Cours de grammaire, p. I83. Walter von Wartburg, Precis de syntaxe du frangais contemporain (Berne: Editions A. Francke S. A., 1958"), p. 336". n

'Wartburg, Precis, pp. 339-340. Q

Maurice Grevisse, Precis de grammaire francaise (Gembloux: Editions J. Duculot, S. A., 1963}", p. 118. Q

J. E. Mansion, A Grammar of Present-Day French (London: George G. Harrap & C o . , L t d . , 194"9), p . 13o\ Mansion, Grammar, p . 132. Kr. Sandfeld, Syntaxe du f r a n g a i s oontemporain. Les Pronoms ( P a r i s : L i b r a i r i e Ancienne Honore Champion, 1928), p. 81. 12 Manfred Raupach, "Je l u i parle - *Je l u i p e n s e , Ein T e i l problem der Pronommalisierung aus l i n g u i s t i s c h e r und d i d a k t i s c h e r S i c h t . " Neusprachliche M i t t e H u n g e r aus Wissenschaft und P r a x i s 29 (1976711 n C 13 ^Raupach, "Ein Teilproblem", p . 116. 14 Ferdinand Brunot, Histoire de la langue francaise des origines a nos jours, Tome I: De l'epoque latine a. la Renaissance (Paris: Librairie Armand Colin, 1966), p. 228. 15 Maurice Fischer and Georges Hacquard, A la decouverte de la grammaire f rang aise (Paris:

Librairie Hachette"^ 1959) , P- H O .

Grevisse, Precis, p. 117•

31 'References in short form appear after quotes. references appear in the bibliography.

Complete

•I Q

Aller, arriver, a t t i r e r , courir, parvenir, revenir, venir can take an i n d i r e c t conjunctive pronoun; i n a d d i t i o n , e t r e (which is the only verb not of motion) may, p o s s i b l y , i n some idioms, e . g . , ?Elle (maison) l u i e s t . 19' F e r r a r , Grammar, p . 101; Raupach, "Ein Teilproblem", p . 113• 20 Jean-Claude Chevalier e t a l . , Grammaire Larousse du frangais contemporain ( P a r i s : L i b r a i r i e Larousse, 1964), p . 70, p o i n t s out t h a t the number of verbs which cannot be used both t r a n s i t i v e l y and i n t r a n s i t i v e l y i s diminishing. on The concept d a t i v e / non-dative was reviewed e a r l i e r under terminology. Although t h i s concept r e l a t e s more to the p r e p o s i t i o n a and personal pronouns, some grammarians t a l k of d a t i v e verbs, which are e s s e n t i a l l y those verbs which accept the preposed i n d i r e c t o b j e c t pronoun (conjunctive pronoun), and which o t h e r s i d e n t i f y as transitive indirect. 22 According to C l a i r e Blanche-Benveniste, Recherches en vue d'une theorie de l a grammaire f r a n c a i s e . E s s a i d ' a p p l i c a t i o n a. l a syntaxe des pronoms ( P a r i s : L i b r a i r i e Honore Champion, E d i t e u r , 1975), P- ? 40; but: ? j ' y accoutume, * j ' y en a p p e l l e , ?je l ' y compare, j ' y habitue, ? j 'y m t e r e s s e , ? j 'y t i r e . 23-'Jacqueline Pinchon, " H i s t o i r e d'une norme: emploi des pronoms 'LUI', "EUX', 'ELLE(S)', 'EN', ' Y ' , " Langue F r a n c a i s e 16 (December 1972), pp. 74, 75, 83; Les Pronoms adverbiaux "EN" e t "Y" (Geneve: L i b r a i r i e Droz, 1972), pp. 102, 131; Raupach, "Ein Teilproblem", p . 110;, Sandfeld, Syntaxe, pp. 52-53, 137. 24 Pinchon, Pronoms, pp. 991 13721 ^Brunot, Histoire, vol. 1, p. 226; K. R.,,Nyrop, Grammaire historique de la langue frangaise (Copenhague: Det Nordishe Forlag, 19031. vol. 5, p. 255; Sandfeld, Syntaxe, p. 138. 26 Jean Dubois, Grammaire structurale du frangais: le verbe (Paris: Librairie Larousse, 1967)» PP« 20-21.

27 ''Blanche-Benveniste, Recherches, pp. 179-181. 28

Maurice Gross, Methodes en syntaxe., Regime des c o n s t r u c t i o n s completives ( P a r i s : Hermann, 1975)^Gross, Methodes, pp. I87 and 316. 30 J Gross, Methodes, pp. 232-388 (Annexe 1, t a b l e s ) . 31 Gross, Methodes, pp. 165, 237-242. no Gross, Methodes, pp. 168, 243-244.

33

Gross, Methodes, pp. 184, 187, 306-312;

the 17 are:

arriver, aspirer, croire, etre, faire attention, parvenir, penser, prendre garde, pretendre, recourir, reflechir, renoncer. rever, songer, tenir, toucher, en appeler. Ajross, Methodes, pp. 197. 199. 358-364. •"Gross, Methodes, pp. 206, 374. 36

Gross, Methodes, pp. 213, 387-388.

37Gross, Methodes, pp. 22-23, 78.

CHAPTER I I FURTHER GRAMMATICAL CONSIDERATIONS I n t h i s c h a p t e r . I w i l l examine t h e s y n t a x of

declarative

F r e n c h s e n t e n c e s which f o l l o w the p a t t e r n s : 1.

S u b j e c t (S) + Object Pronoun (OP) + Verb (V) Jean l u i p a r l e .

2.

S + V + P r e p o s i t i o n (Prep) + Pronoun (Pro) Jean p e n s e a e l l e .

I n h y p o t h e s i z i n g a b o u t t h e phenomenon of verbs l i k e p e n s e r , i t i s n e c e s s a r y t o have a broad view of t h e problem.

I t is not

enough to p r o p o s e t h a t t h e crux of t h e problem l i e s i n some h e r e t o f o r e unknown p e c u l i a r i t i e s of v e r b s l i k e p e n s e r .

While the v e r b

may be the h e a r t of the s e n t e n c e , o t h e r elements a l s o to forming t h e s e n t e n c e . patterns:

contribute

The verb i s a p i v o t a l p o i n t i n both

t h e nominal o b j e c t of t h e v e r b a f t e r undergoing p r o n o -

m i n a l i z a t i o n e i t h e r moves o r does n o t move i n front o f the v e r b . The v e r b a c t s a s a r e f e r e n c e p o i n t f o r t h e syntax of o b j e c t p r o nouns.

Some grammarians even speak of d i s t a n c e from t h e verb,

hence c o n j u n c t i v e and d i s j u n c t i v e p r o n o u n s .

They t a l k of the

p r e p o s i t i o n a s i f i t were some s o r t of o b s t a c l e put between t h e verb and the d i s j u n c t i v e pronoun. i s dependent upon t h e v e r b .

F r e n c h o b j e c t p r o n o u n syntax

While t h e v e r b has a r o l e to p l a y

in

the s y n t a x of p r o n o u n s , i t i s a l s o p o s s i b l e t h a t t h e pronouns have an i n f l u e n c e on t h e s y n t a x of t h e v e r b .

The p r e p o s i t i o n also p l a y s

34 a r o l e in determining the syntax of pronouns.

Therefore, I will

look c l o s e l y in t h i s chapter a t a l l of t h e s e :

t h e pronoun system,

the p r e p o s i t i o n a, the verbs, and the complement system.

This

a n a l y s i s w i l l touch upon transformational g e n e r a t i v e grammar and semantics whenever they prove u s e f u l . 1.

The Personal Pronoun System The French personal pronoun system may be represented by

Figure 1 ( p . 35).

While i t i s somewhat p r e t e n t i o u s to attempt

the r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of the p e r s o n a l pronoun system i n one c h a r t , does set off r e a d i l y c e r t a i n important p o i n t s .

it

The chart i s a r -

ranged to show the word order of a simple d e c l a r a t i v e sentence with one or more object pronouns.

Personal pronouns w i l l be discussed

only as they r e l a t e to persons. o t h e r pronouns.

Subject pronouns (SP) precede a l l

Me, t e , .se, nous, vous, se can function e i t h e r as

d i r e c t object pronouns (DOP), e . g . , Elle me regarde --> E l l e regarde qui?

Moi;

or as i n d i r e c t object pronouns (IOP), e . g . , E l l e me

p a r l e —> E l l e parle a qui?

A moi.

Henceforth, t h e s e pronouns

w i l l appear with e i t h e r the s u b s c r i p t 1 or 2 to d i f f e r e n t i a t e between these two f u n c t i o n s .

I t should be noted t h a t no pronoun

i n the s e r i e s me, (me,, t e , , s e , , nous, , v o u s , , s e , ) can appear w i t h any pronoun in t h e s e r i e s me 2 , e . g . , *I1 me

te

presente.

As a matter of fact, when the me., s e r i e s appears, no other conjunctive personal o b j e c t pronouns can appear.

In a simple d e c l a -

r a t i v e sentence, me, t e , se, n o u s , vous, se (whether DOP or IOP) always come a f t e r the subject.

I f they a r e followed by another

pronoun, they can only be of t h e s e r i e s me2 and t h e pronoun which follows them can only be l e , l a , l e s or en.

On t h e chart, l e ,

l a , l e s are l i s t e d under Object 1 since they are DOP, but the

Disjunctive

Conjunctive Subject

Ob.iect 1

r

Verb

Ob.iect 2

Prep a

*

Object 3

;

1

je

me.

me2

J

moi

2

tu

te.

te2

;

toi

3

il

u a

M

!

lui..

le

1

I

3

elle_

elle se.

M

— — —

-\

se

•

2 lui 2

y

en

soi

3

on

1

nous

ncus.

nous 2 j

nous.

2

vous

V01S,

VOUSp

vous,.

3

ils

3

elles

!

eux elles„ i

i les

\ y i

se

l

se0

i

C.

1

leur

s

Figure 1

en

v.

36 broken line shows that they come after the mg 2 series in the sentence.

Lui 2 and leur never appear with the me, series and

normally do not appear with the m§ 2 series, except in the case of the ethical dative, e.g., II me lui explique ga. la, les precede lui^, leur.

Otherwise, le,

Y and en are included in this chart

because they can replace animate nouns, but their usage with this function is complex and delicate.

Y as a personal pronoun relates

to IOP usage and would therefore not appear v/ith the me_2 series. Y (personal pronoun) is strictly excluded from appearing with the me, series for reasons stated above. The disjunctive pronouns are listed under Object 3. and where these pronouns share common forms with conjunctive or subject pronouns, a subscript has been added. From looking at Figure 1, we are able to observe that the pronoun system differentiates, although not consistently, between form, function, gender and number.

Personal pronouns may present

different forms depending on their syntactic function.

For exam-

ple, the first and second person singular pronouns show three different forms each depending on whether they are subject, (conjunctive) Object 1 and 2, or (disjunctive) Object 3 pronouns.

On

the other hand, there exists only one form for all of these categories in the first and second person plural.

The use of sub-

scripts helps to distinguish between the four nous and vous, the two me, te, lui, elle, se, elles. The pronoun system distinguishes between the grammatical functions of the pronouns, whether they are subject, direct or indirect object (conjunctive) or disjunctive.

The grammatical function of a pronoun is not always

apparent from its form alone, as I pointed out above.

Within the

37 simple declarative sentence, however, pronoun function can be determined on the basis of form, position and the verb.

For example,

in Je te l'ai dit mille fois, je is subject (form and position), te is conjunctive indirect object (position and form), 1' is conjunctive direct object (form and position).

If the sentence were only

Je te dis zut, te could only be recognized as indirect because of the verb (Je dis zut a qui? --» a toi --> te before the verb). All pronouns can be said to be marked for gender in their underlying form although this is neutralized in the surface form of most of them.

Only il, elle, ils, elles, le, la, elle,,, eux,

elles,, distinguish consistently in form between masculine and feminine. The form of most pronouns shows number, but in a few this is neutralized:

s_e, ^» Jrli*

On. although on the surface a singular,

can in underlying structure represent a plural subject.

Nous and

vous, although on the surface plurals, can represent a singular subject or object (e.g., the nous of majesty, the vous of formal address).

In cases where gender and number are neutralized, other

elements of the sentence and the discourse enable us to make a determination,

It is readily apparent that the French personal

pronoun system does not exhibit total congruence of form, function, gender and number.

However, the lack of congruence does not usu-

ally interfere with comprehension since other elements of the discourse can help to overcome ambiguity. The personal pronoun system reveals not only a syntactic structure, but also a semantic one. rank structure, the person.

Personal pronouns display a

While the noun belongs only to the

third person, the personal pronoun system displays three persons:

f i r s t , second, and t h i r d ,

^he person i s a r e f l e c t i o n of verbal

declension, but the p e r s o n a l pronoun i n t e g r a t e s both t h i s verbal declension and nominal declension or case (nominative, a c c u s a t i v e , dative). J e , tu, i l , i l s are exclusively subject pronouns;

t h e y are

merely the sign of a form belonging to the v e r b , but o u t s i d e the verb, the person.

They do not leave the verbal plane ( t h e y are

conjunctive) nor do they follow a p r e p o s i t i o n o r e ' e s t . as object pronouns, share the p r o p e r t i e s of j ^ , x i v e s , they r e p e a t the s u b j e c t .

etc.;

Me, e t c . , as r e f l e -

Moi, e t c . , p o s s e s s a g r e a t e r

f l e x i b i l i t y and autonomy reminiscent of the noun. While d i s j u n c t i v e pronouns tend to be s y n t a c t i c a l l y and semantically d i f f e r e n t from conjunctive pronouns, i t i s w e l l to examine how they are s i m i l a r . In the following examples: 4 1.

Je vous presente a l u i ,

2.

I I nous presente a t o i ,

3.

Je me confie a t o i ,

the d i s j u n c t i v e and conjunctive pronouns touch, i . e . , share the same forms;

they

a l u i in (1) and a t o i i n (2) and (3) are

d i s j u n c t i v e forms which stand for the conjunctive pronouns l u i ^ and _te ? .

But because i t i s impossible f o r pronouns of the me, and m§2

s e r i e s to appear side by s i d e , the IOP are r e a l i z e d as d i s j u n c t i v e pronouns.

From the f i n a l underlying s t r u c t u r e s :

1'.

*Je vous l u i presente•

2 *.

*II nous te p r e s e n t e ,

3' • *Je me t e confie we get the surface structures:

39 1.

Je vous presente a lui

2.

II nous presente a toi,

3.

Je me confie a toi '

A lui and a toi in these sentences are semantically equivalent to lui? and te ? . et non a moi;

The same can be said of lui in:

II parle a lui

stylistics govern the use of disjunctive lui:

a lui balances a moi.

The sentence II lui parle et non a moi is

stylistically unacceptable, if not ungrammatical.

Nonetheless,

a lui in this sentence is semantically equivalent to lui^. Given this observation, can it be argued that lui in je pense a lui is also semantically equivalent to luip?

There is no res-

triction similar to our three previous examples to favor je pense a lui over *je lui pense. idee lui vint.

Compare une personne vint a lui and une

Assuming the two lui are the same person, then there

is no difference of semantic reference between the two. Yet" *une personne lui vint and *une idee vint a lui are not acceptable. There is reason to believe (and I will attempt to demonstrate this towards the end of this chapter) that the disjunctive (Object 3) pronouns and the conjunctive (Object 2) pronouns are similar grammatically and semantically. and confier suggest this.

The last two examples with presenter The restrictions on the use of lui_2 with

penser and venir seem not to be dependent upon the form and function of the pronoun.

It must also be pointed out that the disjunctive

pronouns I am considering are very restricted in function.

Dis-

junctive pronouns are discussed here only as they fit the syntactic pattern S + V + Prep +• Pro (where the preposition is a);

functions

of the disjunctive pronouns which do not fit this pattern (such as disjunctive pronouns used to emphasize other pronouns) are not

analyzed.

Disjunctive pronouns e x h i b i t only one s e t of forms, but

s e v e r a l grammatical f u n c t i o n s .

What i s of p a r t i c u l a r i n t e r e s t in

t h i s study i s the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the conjunctive (Object 2) pronouns, the d i s j u n c t i v e (Object 3) pronouns, and the v e r b . This general overview of the p e r s o n a l pronoun system has made s e v e r a l points apparent: 1.

Personal pronouns assume v a r i o u s forms depending on

gender, number, and grammatical f u n c t i o n , but t h e r e i s no t o t a l congruence of form and function 2.

Pronoun order i s governed by s y n t a c t i c and semantic

constraints 3.

While the personal pronoun system d i s p l a y s a multi-person

dimension not a v a i l a b l e to t h e noun, each conjunctive pronoun surrenders the s y n t a c t i c f l e x i b i l i t y which the noun d i s p l a y s 4.

Disjunctive pronouns share many s y n t a c t i c and semantic

f e a t u r e s with the noun 5.

Conjunctive pronouns are s y n t a c t i c a l l y and probably seman-

t i c a l l y closely t i e d to the verb 6.

The choice of the pronoun to use i s not c o n s i s t e n t ;

it

i s not always dependent upon i t s form and function, but may be influenced by o t h e r factors such as semantics, s t y l i s t i c s , what the verb i s and how i t is used 7.

Function usually transcends form;

used f o r several d i f f e r e n t functions;

a s i n g l e form may be

however, i t i s a l s o p o s s i b l e

t h a t s e v e r a l d i f f e r e n t forms may r e p r e s e n t one function I w i l l t a l k about the pronoun system again in pronominalization. 2.

The P r e p o s i t i o n a

41 In this section, I will examine the syntactic and semantic functions of the preposition a in the pattern V + a + N (e.g., Je parle a Jean and Je pense a Jean) with the aim of clarifying what role the preposition plays in the relationship between the verb and the noun. 2.1. Syntactic and Semantic Functions of a The notion of case in French grammar is not a new one as we have seen (Chapter I, section 1.1.).

Although the case system of

French is atrophied, it is reflected in the pronoun system, and grammarians, even transformationalists, may still use case terminology to express certain syntactical relationships. This is particularly true when talking about the role of the preposition a in verb complementation, since historically the preposition a came to replace the Latin dative in certain constructions.

I will also use

this terminology. M. C. de Boer classifies prepositions as non-casuelles ou pleines (e.g., dans, apres, sans), semi-casuelles (e.g., avec, en, par, pour), casuelles ou vides (e.g., a, de);

this means that

prepositions like dans do not have the function of case; prepositions like avec sometimes have that function; the function of case.

a and de maintain

The prepositions with full semantic content

(pleines) have in and of themselves rather well-defined and restricted meanings ("in", "after", "without"), whereas the prepositions with little or no semantic content (vides) are more ambiguous in meaning ("to"*3, "at"?, "in"?, "of"?, "from"?, "by"?, "for"?, "with"?).

Thus a would mainly serve a syntactical function

(that of indicating what case the noun was in) and would have a

42 reduced or non-existent semantic function. A enters into a number of syntactic arrangements, but I will restrict my observations to one syntactical pattern only: N.

A serves to introduce two types of verb complements:

V + a + the indi-

rect object complement and the circumstantial complements; latter category is further subdivided.

the

Although I will discuss

these two broad types of complements in detail later, the present discussion will nonetheless touch upon them.

Syntactically, a

indicates that the verb complement is not a direct object.

Thus

the preposition a establishes a syntactic relationship between the verb and its complement.

The presence of the preposition a does

not tell us what type of complement of the verb follows it, since it could be indirect or circumstantial.

The absence of the prepo-

sition a does not guarantee that the verb complement is a direct object since some circumstantial complements follow the verb directly (e.g., II a dormi dix heures).

It is therefore easier to

define the syntactic relationship between the verb and its complement as it is expressed by a by saying what that relationship is not.

Since the presence of a is not enough to define its syntac-

tical function, it must be defined in reference to the other two elements of the syntactic relationship, namely the verb and its complement. Verbs like deplaire, desobeir, importer, nuire, obeir, plaire, recourir, repugner, resister, ressembler, succeder. survivre require the presence of a before their object complement; they are called transitive indirect verbs; direct object complement. well appear without a:

for this reason,

they never have a

Their object complement could just as

-"-Je desobeis Jean;

*Je resiste Jean;

43 *Je ressemble Jean;

the idea expressed by the verb and its com-

plement would still be intelligible, although ungrammatical (most of them do not have a preposition in English).

Clearly, in this

case a serves no semantic function, only a syntactic one. In Je tiens ma femme and Je tiens a ma femme, a serves not only to distinguish between two different types of verb complement, but it also changes the meaning of the verb tenir by its presence. A is considered part of the verb, i.e., we have a new verb, tenir a.

Here a serves a definite semantic function,

although this

function is not independent of the verb, but is realized through juxtaposition to the verb. In II vient a moi, a also serves both a syntactical and semantic function, but unlike the situation with tenir, this semantic function depends more upon its property as a preposition than upon the verb. This becomes clear when other prepositions are substituted for a:

I_l vient (avec, apres, avant, chez, pour) moi. A

carries its own meaning independently of the verb. venir does not change;

The meaning of

the relationship between venir and its

complement moi is especially modified semantically depending on what preposition is present. From the above examples with tenir and venir, it is clear that a serves a syntactic function, that of introducing the indirect object or the circumstantial complement of the verb.

It is also

clear that a may have a semantic function which varies in relation to the verb and its complement.

Thus it would not appear that a

is always "empty" semantically. A has many semantic functions which have been thoroughly analyzed by grammarians.

I will list a few pertinent to the V + a +

44 N pattern.

It will be observed that a is extremely flexible in

helping to mark various relationships.

For the moment, I will use

terms such as "destination" and "attribution" divorced from the term "complement" because I want to bring out semantic properties.

A

separate section dealing with types of complements introduced by a will be presented later. 2.1.1.

Movement

In Je v a i s a Urbana. a c a r r i e s the idea of movement toward a destination. vironment.

Notice t h a t a i s very weak semantically in t h i s enWithout the p r e p o s i t i o n ( i . e . , *Je v a i s Urbana), the

meaning of the phrase could s t i l l be grasped (note a l s o that Je v a i s rue Green — no p r e p o s i t i o n - - i s c o r r e c t ) .

What r e a l l y

c a r r i e s the idea of movement i s the verb, q u i t e obviously. i s not a l t o g e t h e r devoid of meaning.

But a

In Je v a i s vers Urbana, where

v e r s i s considered to have g r e a t e r semantic value, the goal of t h e movement i s l e s s p r e c i s e ;

vers Urbana i s only a g e n e r a l d i r e c t i o n ;

Urbana is not perceived as a d e f i n i t e p o i n t of a r r i v a l . i s more punctual.

Thus, a

In Je vais a Urbana, we can say t h a t a not only

serves to i n d i c a t e the d i r e c t i o n of the movement but a l s o points out the d e s t i n a t i o n of the movement. The use of a with verbs l i k e a l l e r , c o u r i r , marcher, e t c . , emphasizes p h y s i c a l movement.

With such verbs as e c r i r e , p a r l e r ,

envoyer, a h e l p s to c a r r y t h i s " f i g u r a t i v e " movement toward i t s destination point: a 1'administration.

J ' e c r i s a Marie, Je p a r l e a 1'Anglais,

J'envoie

These three verbs p o i n t out t h a t t h i s f i g u r a -

t i v e movement has various degrees.

We can s t i l l v i s u a l i z e a p h y s i -

c a l movement i n envoyer, e s p e c i a l l y where we are sending a l e t t e r , for example;

e c r i r e s t i l l involves some concrete r e a l i z a t i o n of

45 movement in the act of writing, e.g., written words, a letter, the mail;

parler involves the least movement of the three. A seems to

have more semantic value when used with these three verbs.

Compare

J'ecris a Marie to J'ecris "Marie" (sur le mur), Je parle a 1'Anglais to Je parle (1') anglais, J'envoie a 1'administration to J'envoie 1'administration (au diable).

The fact that these verbs can

have two object complements makes the use of a syntactically important, of course, but semantically important also, because without a, the idea of movement toward a goal is less clear (at least with parler and ecrire) and the destination point cannot be defined without it.

Other verbs fitting into this category are:

acceder, plaire,

recourir, repugner, resister. succeder. acquiescer. attenter. contrevenir, parvenir, subvenir. survivre. tenir, toucher, pretendre, repondre, equivaloir, proceder, succomber, chercher, remettre, preferer, songer, penser, ressembler. destiner, importer, nuire. 2.1.2.

Attribution

Grammarians have t r a d i t i o n a l l y d i s t i n g u i s h e d t h e function of a i n Je donne a Marie from t h a t which i t has in t h e above examples of f i g u r a t i v e movement.

I do n o t b e l i e v e t h a t t h e r e i s any s i g n i -

f i c a n t difference between the two c a t e g o r i e s .

Whether Je donne /

pr&te / confie / c r o i s a Marie or J ' e c r i s / p a r l e / pense a Marie, i t seems to me t h a t the idea expressed by each verb tends or moves towards the o b j e c t complement and t h a t a c l e a r l y marks Marie as the end point of t h i s movement. 2.1.3.

Reversal

In Je demande / soustrais / arrache / Ste / prend / achete a Marc, perhaps even J'obeis / desobeis a Marie, there is a reversal

46 of movement o r a r e t u r n of the movement with a serving to carry the idea expressed by the verb t o i t s object complement and back. The reversal i s e s p e c i a l l y c l e a r when de i s s u b s t i t u t e d for a: Je demande / s o u s t r a i s / arrache / ote / prend / achete de Marc. But a expresses something which de cannot express as c l e a r l y ,

the

f a c t that the d i r e c t i o n of movement i s f i r s t towards the complement of the verb;

de emphasizes the complement as o r i g i n , but a allows

f o r a two-way movement, from the verb to the complement and back. 2.1.4.

Punctuality

There i s no longer any movement in I I e s t / a p p a r t i e n t a Jean; a r e t a i n s i t s punctual value, d e s i g n a t i n g the p o s s e s s o r .

In C' e s t

a Jean de f a i r e quelque chose, a marks Jean as the person designated to do something.

One could argue t h a t t h i s i s also an example of

possession, s i n c e the i n i t i a t i v e f o r doing something now belongs to Jean.

Furthermore, one could a l s o argue t h a t i n these two cases of

p u n c t u a l i t y , Jean became the r e c i p i e n t of some f i g u r a t i v e movement which a t t r i b u t e d an o b j e c t or r e s p o n s i b i l i t y to Jean. ment would probably be marginal a t b e s t .

This argu-

In the above examples, a

can only have t h e value of p u n c t u a l i t y . There a r e many more functions of a, but these are not p e r t i nent to this study. 2.2.

The P r e p o s i t i o n a;

Conclusion

We have seen that the p r e p o s i t i o n a serves an important synt a c t i c function by pointing out t h a t the complement of the verb i s e i t h e r an i n d i r e c t object complement or a c i r c u m s t a n t i a l complement. The d i s t i n c t i o n between the two complements w i l l be made clear i n the next s e c t i o n .

We have seen -also t h a t semantically, a can h e l p

47 to express movement toward the complement and also indicates the destination point of that movement, e.g., the complement. last property is known as "punctuality". test semantic value of a.

This

This is perhaps the grea-

Whether the complement is a place, a

thing, or a person, whether the verb is one of movement (physical or figurative), or etre, or some other, such as in J'habite a Paris or Je mange a onze heures, a signals the complement as a point of application, of fixation, of situation in space or time.

The other

semantic values of a are less easily determined without a context. Where a helps to express movement, attribution, possession, the concept is dependent upon the verb; in other cases, such as with com12 plements of manner, e.g., Je pj|che a la ligne, and other circumstantial complements, it is the complement which gives a semantic value other than punctuality. In retrospect, it seems to me that a can hardly be called an "empty" preposition.

Even in the earlier case where I postulated

that with verbs like desobeir, resister, ressembler (transitive indirect verbs), the preposition a served no semantic function since the idea expressed by the verb and its complement would still be intelligible without a, it now appears that the presence of a serves to refine the relationship between verb and object, and this solely on the basis of the property of punctuality inherent in a. Dubois -' argues that a is marked for manner J+ manierel , instrument [+ instrumj , time j+ temps] , etc. , and thus calls for a noun marked in the same way to follow it.

It does not seem to me

that a can be marked a priori with a certain semantic content which governs the choice of the noun.

Rather, it is the noun and / or the

verb which give a these semantic contents.

Only one semantic con-

48 tent can be attributed to a without context: [+ punctuality] ; it is this content which makes it possible for a to assume additional contents. This examination of the preposition a is extremely important ultimately in determining its role in pronominalization in the context V + a + N.

I will have occasion to return to it at the end of

this chapter. 3.

The Complement System To complete our look at the Verb + Preposition + Complement

block, it is necessary to determine the nature of the complement, especially after the preposition a.

I will look at the two basic

kinds of complements, object and circumstantial, and more precisely, at the difference between indirect object and circumstantial complements introduced by a.

This section should help to decide whe-

ther in Je parle a Jean and Je pense a Jean we are dealing with two different kinds of complements or not, and whether this has any bearing on pronominalization. Because grammarians often disagree and contradict themselves and each other on the nature of the verb complement, I will try to define as precisely as possible the difference between object complements and circumstantial complements. 3.1.

Object Complements Object complements are syntactically and semantically the end

point of a process which begins with the subject of the verb, passes through the verb which describes the action undertaken by the subject, and ends in the object of that action. explanation which is stall valid today.

This is a traditional

This can be represented as:

49

S —>

V —>

C

e.g., Jean attaque Marc. 3.1.1.

Direct Object Complement

In the above example, Marc was directly affected by the action described by the verb and initiated by Jean.

The complement, Marc,

is perceived as lying in a straight line along the axis.

This

example also exhibits an important syntactic property, that of reversibility: Marc est attaque par Jean. In general, a direct object complement can thus be identified by changing the sentence from active to passive voice.

Although

syntactically the subject of the passive sentence is the former object complement and the former subject has become a complement, semantically the direction of attack is still from Jean to Marc. This is important to realize because the direct object cannot be identified solely on the basis of the absence of a preposition. Indeed, in J'aime a chanter des airs d*opera, Nous avons mange de la tarte aux cerises, L'hirondelle prevovait jusqu'aux moindres orages, the complements are semantically direct object complements.14 The semantic interpretacion is also especially important because going from active to passive voice sometimes results in rather awkward sentences: (?A) chanter des airs d'opera est aime par moi. (?De) la tarte aux cerises a ete mange par moi. (?Jusqu'aux) l'hirondelle.

les

moindres orages avaient ete prevus par

50 We can i d e n t i f y three b a s i c types of direct object complements:

1)

where the complement i s the product of the subject:

P i e r r e e c r i t une l e t t r e ; the a c t i o n :

2)

where the complement i s affected by

P i e r r e envoie une l e t t r e ;

"supports" the v e i b a l idea:

3)

where the complement

P i e r r e v o i t un a r b r e .

The tree i s not

p h y s i c a l l y affected by the a c t of seeing, but i s nonetheless t h e end p o i n t of the process begun in the s u b j e c t . •* 3.1.2.

Indirect Object Complement

In Pierre e c r i t a ses p a r e n t s , P i e r r e telephone a Marie, P i e r r e se mefie du chien, P i e r r e i s the o r i g i n a t o r of actions which find i s s u e in the complement:

the p a r e n t s , Marie, the dog are a l l 16 the object of the verbal idea begun in t h e subject. Syntactic a l l y , we observe t h a t the complements a r e not r e v e r s i b l e : 1.

*Ses p a r e n t s sont e c r i t s par P i e r r e

2.

*Marie e s t telephone par P i e r r e

3.

*Le chien e s t mefie p a r Pierre

I f we compare (1) above to Une l e t t r e est e c r i t e par P i e r r e a ses p a r e n t s , which i s the passive of P i e r r e e c r i t une l e t t r e a ses p a r e n t s , we can observe t h a t there i s a s y n t a c t i c a l difference in the two objects une l e t t r e and ses p a r e n t s ; v e r s i b l e , the l a t t e r i s not.

Nonetheless, the o b j e c t ses p a r e n t s

i s an extension of the S + V p r o c e s s . d i f f e r e n t object complements.

the former i s r e -

I n fact, the verb has two

Grammarians have t r a d i t i o n a l l y

chosen t o c a l l the r e v e r s i b l e complement the d i r e c t object complement while the n o n - r e v e r s i b l e complement, preceded by the prepos i t i o n s a or de, i s called the i n d i r e c t object complement.

The

presence of one of these two p r e p o s i t i o n s serves to mark the special r e l a t i o n s h i p of the i n d i r e c t o b j e c t complement to the verb

51 and distinguish it from the direct object, much as the accusative 17 and dative case endings might in other languages. ' This can be represented as: »C S — > V»!. or de + C

(Indirect Object)

When the verbal idea finds issue in an object complement, whether direct or indirect, verbs are said to be used transitively. To make a further distinction between direct and indirect complementation, we could say that verbs are used in a direct or indirect transitive mode. 3-2.

Circumstantial Complements The difficulty in identifying the nature of a verb complement

is further compounded by the existence of circumstancial complements.

These are a collection of various complements:

complements .

of time, place, manner, attribution, destination, cause, goal, price, weight, degree, identification, instrument, origin, etc. Syntactically, a circumstantial complement may look very much like a direct or indirect object complement on the surface, e.g., I_l a chante une heure, Je vais manger a Paris, Le journal coute deux francs, Ce saucisson sent l'ail, Je meurs de soif, II tire au fusil, especially where there is no preposition or only a or de as prepositions.

Most circumstantial complements can easily be iden-

tified as such, even under those conditions.

In the above exam-

ples, none of the complements following the verbs are direct or indirect, but there is an "adverbial quality" to them which indicates the time, place, cost, manner of the verbal idea, rather than being its object. Circumstantial complements do not contribute directly to the

52 r e a l i z a t i o n of t h e v e r b a l i d e a nor do they undergo the i n f l u e n c e of t h e v e r b d i r e c t l y .

R a t h e r they " q u a l i f y " ,

i.e.,

add an idea t o ,

-l o

the v e r b , as i n o u r p r e c e d i n g examples. axis of the S + V + Object Complement.

They e x i s t o u t s i d e the This i s s y n t a c t i c a l l y de-

m o n s t r a t e d by t h e a b i l i t y of the c i r c u m s t a n t i a l complements to sometimes s h i f t i n word o r d e r , e . g . , A P a r i s , j e v a i s manger des e s c a r g o t s , Pendant? une h e u r e , i l a c h a n t e des b a l l a d e s . The c i r c u m s t a n t i a l complement i s a r e f e r e n c e p o i n t " o u t s i d e " the v e r b a l idea which s e r v e s somewhat a s a c o o r d i n a t e ( t i m e , p l a c e , g o a l , e t c . ) for* t h e a c t i o n .

I t i s n o t r e v e r s i b l e and i t can be

i n t r o d u c e d by p r e p o s i t i o n s s e m a n t i c a l l y l e s s ambiguous t h a n a and de.

The number of c i r c u m s t a n t i a l complements i n a c l a u s e i s u n l i -

mited i n t h e o r y . C i r c u m s t a n t i a l complements a r e s i m i l a r i n usage to a d v e r b s . 19' From t h i s we can see t h a t c i r c u m s t a n t i a l complements have a more autonomous r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h t h e v e r b , t h a t t h e y do l i e somewhat o u t s i d e t h e nodal power of t h e v e r b and t h e S + V *• Object Complement a x i s . The d e t e r m i n a t i o n of t h e n a t u r e of t h o s e complements which follow t h e p r e p o s i t i o n a (which some grammarians c l a i m to be c i r c u m s t a n t i a l and which o t h e r s claim t o be i n d i r e c t o b j e c t complements) i s i m p o r t a n t t o t h i s s t u d y . 3.2.1.

Complements of D e s t i n a t i o n

These are c i r c u m s t a n t i a l complements i n d i c a t i n g interest,

and g o a l .

According t o Cayrou e t a l . , t h e complement of

a t t r i b u t i o n i n d i c a t e s to whom one a d d r e s s e s a g i f t , an o r d e r ,

attribution,

e t c . , and i s always i n t r o d u c e d by a

an u t t e r a n c e ,

I t i s assumed t h a t

Jean donne un cadeau a Marie and Georges p a r l e a Dominique a r e examples of t h i s .

To t h i s complement i s r e l a t e d t h e complement of

53 belonging also introduced by a, e . g . , C e t t e femme a p p a r t i e n t a mon 20 p e r e , L'avenir n ' e s t a personne.

Galichet proposes that t h e com-

plement of a t t r i b u t i o n i s b a s i c a l l y an i n d i r e c t o b j e c t complement. That i n whose favor an a c t i s accomplished i s t h a t for whom / which the a c t i o n i s intended ( d e s t i n e d ) , in o t h e r words, t h a t in whom / which the a c t i o n ends, i . e . , the object of the a c t i o n .

He f u r t h e r

s t a t e s that the notion of object becomes vague when i t r e f e r s to p u r e l y psychological verbal processes ( e . g . , verbs of judgement) or when the verbal process does not r e a l l y depict a c t i o n s .

Thus the

notion of object i s governed to a c e r t a i n extent by the n a t u r e of the v e r b a l process to which i t i s r e l a t e d .

The o b j e c t is o f t e n

close to the notions of goal, consequence, even c a u s e , i . e . , those of c i r c u m s t a n t i a l complements.

to

The so-called complement of

a t t r i b u t i o n i s close to being a circumstantial complement because a t t r i b u t i o n has a tendency to confound i t s e l f with d e s t i n a t i o n or goal.

Galichet proposes t h a t the term "complement of a t t r i b u t i o n "

be reserved f o r those cases where the a c t i o n or p r o c e s s only reaches the "beneficiary" through the intermediary of a primary object (dir e c t or i n d i r e c t ) , e.g. , Le voyageur tend_it son b i l l e t (qbjet p r e mier d i r e c t ) au contr&leur, Le defunt a f a i t don de ses biens (complement d'objet premier i n d i r e c t ) aux pauvres de l a commune. 21 For Buyssens, l i r a au j a r d i n , Je t i e n s a c_e l i v r e , Ce timbre manquait a ma c o l l e c t i o n , Cela tourne a n o t r e avantage, J ' i r a i a 22 l a Tour Eiffel a l l contain i n d i r e c t o b j e c t complements.

While

speaking of primary and secondary o b j e c t s , Brunot c i t e s I I a legue ses b i e n s a l ' U n i v e r s i t e de P a r i s as containing an i n d i r e c t

object;

moire, s e r v i r , a i d e r , c o n t r i b u e r , cooperer a l l have i n d i r e c t object complements. 23J

54 Grammarians who are aware of the difficulty inherent in distinguishing between attribution and indirect object complements have resorted to other terminology.

Because attribution often

involves two objects, e.g., Je donne un gateau au petit gargon, the objects are referred to as primary and secondary objects. Where the verbs have only one object which appears after the preposition a (e.g., nuire) , this object can be the primary object. Because of the many values of a, the terminology gets around making distinctions between the various complements which can follow it. The secondary object can be determined by asking a qui, auquel, a quoi, que sert.24 Galichet likes the term secondary (object) complement also, because it is more comprehensive and conveys better the structural mechanism of this complement and its close ties to the primary (object) complement.

In some cases, the two comple-

ments are necessary to each other;

either the secondary (object)

complement relies on the primary (object) complement so much that if this latter is missing, the secondary (object) complement has no reason to exist, e.g. , On a confere une decoration a mon cousin, or the primary (object) complement needs the secondary (object) complement to have full meaning, e.g., Nous n'avons imprime le cachet de notre temps (complement d'objet premier) ni a nos maisons, ni a nos jardins, ni a quoi que ce soit (complements d'objet seconds).

The secondary (object) complement remains functionally

dependent upon the verb and constitutes really only a branch of 21

the object complement. ^ Another way to get around making distinctions is to say that complements following a preposition are prepositional complements. This obviously does not solve the problem.

3.3-

Complements:

Conclusion

At the beginning of t h i s s e c t i o n , I set out t o determine whet h e r there a r e any differences between the complements in Je p a r l e a Jean and Je pense a Jean.

The a n a l y s i s reduced t h i s to a d i f f e -

rence between i n d i r e c t object and circumstantial complements i n t r o duced by the p r e p o s i t i o n a. us decide.

Certain s y n t a c t i c p r o p e r t i e s can help

I f the complement can be s h i f t e d to another p a r t of

the sentence, if another p r e p o s i t i o n of similar meaning can be s u b s t i t u t e d , we may be dealing with a c i r c u m s t a n t i a l complement, but t h i s procedure i s not foolproof.

Ultimately, i t seems to me

t h a t we must r e l y on the semantic t e s t .

If the complement i s the

"end point" of the verbal process begun i n the s u b j e c t , then we are dealing with an i n d i r e c t object complement.

The i n d i r e c t ob-

j e c t complement i s l i k e the d i r e c t object complement, except t h a t i t i s non-reversible and i s preceded by t h e p r e p o s i t i o n a. or d e . The case for c a l l i n g the p r e p o s i t i o n a l complement a f t e r any of the verbs in t h i s study an i n d i r e c t object complement i s a l l t h e s t r o n g e r because we are dealing exclusively with human complements. These human complements a f t e r verbs of motion can only with d i f f i c u l t y be r e f e r r e d to as p l a c e s , goals or d e s t i n a t i o n s .

Even i f

we choose to c a l l them t h a t , they are the end point of the p r o c e s s begun with the subject and passing through the verb.

They a r e not

e s s e n t i a l to the r e a l i z a t i o n of the verbal process n e c e s s a r i l y , but they can complete t h a t p r o c e s s .

They do not "add an idea" to

the verbal process l i k e c i r c u m s t a n t i a l complements; cluded in the plane of the verb;

they are i n -

in other words, they are an ex-

t e n s i o n of the verbal process, i . e . , the verbal process i s accomp l i s h e d or r e a l i z e d in them.

If we look a t each verb l i s t e d i n

Chapter I, Section 2, we see t h a t i t s human complement i s the end

56 point of the verbal process.

It can certainly be argued that this

complement is the goal or destination of the verbal process or that to which is attributed or given something, but these terms — destination, attribution — plement.

goal,

do not constitue a circumstantial com-

It is the relationship of the S + V + C, syntactically

and semantically, which determines the type of complement we are dealing with.

I am therefore led to believe that Jean is an indi-

rect object complement to both parler a and penser a.

In the last

section of this chapter, dealing with pronominalization, we will examine the implications of this conclusion. 4.

Verbs In this section, I will make a few observations about the

verbs under study.

I will not attempt to reclassify them, because

it is clear from Chapter I that there are many ways to classify verbs.

Whereas all of these classifications have their merits,

verbs can fall into several classes depending on which features we wish to emphasize, so that one classification is not necessarily more useful than another.

I have already classified these verbs

at the beginning of this study according to their pronominalization features.

This is the one common feature they possess and which

is at the basis of this study. classify them.

There is no need therefore to re-

My discussion of the complement system also shows

that these verbs share a feature with verbs of the parler category which would put them under a new (and larger) classification.

That

classification is not useful, however, since it does not permit a differentiation between parler verb types and penser verb types. Beyond these features, we have a mixed bag of verbs with little other common features.

I will note some of these nonetheless.

57 4.1.

Physical Movement Several of the verbs denote clearly that total physical move-

ment of the subject is necessary for the verbal process to be realized:

accourir, aller, arriver, courir, marcher, parvenir,

revenir, venir, voler.

Others involve only partial physical move-

ment of the subject, such as a motion of the arm: toucher, unir.

attirer, tirer,

Some of these can also be used to denote a figu-

rative movement:

arriver (J'en arrive a lui), parvenir (J'en suis

parvenu a lui), revenir (J'en reviens a lui), venir (J'en viens a lui).

Interestingly enough, this is only possible if a pleonastic

en is used. 4.2.

Mental / Emotional Tendency Certain verbs seem to denote a thought process which focuses

on the object complement:

aspirer, croire, penser, prendre interet,

pretendre, reflechir, renoncer, rever, songer, tenir.

Some are

more reflective than others, e.g., penser, reflechir, river, songer (these are also very close semantically). sonal stake in the complement: pretendre, tenir, renoncer; 4.3-

Some may involve a per-

aspirer, croire, prendre interet,

aspirer and pretendre are synonymous.

Miscellaneous (En) appeler, avoir recours, faire appel, recourir seem to

anticipate some intervention of the object complement to draw it in as a witness or intervenor. (En) appeler and faire appel are synonymous, as are avoir recours and recourir.

Both sets of verbs are also very close seman-

tically. Some verbs seem to bring two participants together as object

58 complements (one d i r e c t , the other i n d i r e c t ) : habituer, interesser, unir;

accoutumer, comparer,

accoutumer and habituer a r e synonymous.

Faire a t t e n t i o n and prendre garde are synonymous and involve some kind of precaution towards the object complement. Avoir a f f a i r e involves a t r a n s a c t i o n .

Etre is unique in t h a t

by nature i t cannot take an object complement.

It is difficult

t a l k of tendency towards a goal, even psychologically.

to

Nonethe-

l e s s , because of i t s pronominalization f e a t u r e s , i t belongs with the other verbs under study. Songer i s even semantically c l o s e , under certain c i r c u m s t a n c e s , n< /L

to f a i r e a t t e n t i o n and prendre garde,

on

and to prendre i n t e r e t .

Tenir i s close semantically to prendre i n t e r l t .

'

Attirer

and t i r e r are apparently very close a l s o . A few of t h e verbs accept i n d i r e c t object pronouns when t h e i r subject i s not human:

l i s l u i vont comme un gant, I I l u i est a r r i -

ve1 des malheurs, Cela va l u i a t t i r e r des ennuis, Cela l u i est e g a l , I I l u i est parvenu une l e t t r e , I I me r e v i e n t des propos, I I nous v i n r e n t des i d e e s .

The r e s t of the verbs can only accept disjunc-

t i v e pronouns. Figure 2 sums up the above observations.

We can n o t e the

range of the s o - c a l l e d verbs of motion a r r i v e r , parvenir, venir.

revenir,

They a r e able to make a t r a n s i t i o n from concrete t o figu-

r a t i v e movement which i s p a r a l l e l e d by a change in the syntax of the pronoun ( a t t i r e r also f i t s into t h i s change).

Courir may not

q u i t e resemble these because the conjunctive pronoun does not s t a n d for a + object but for some other p r e p o s i t i o n s such as a p r e s or sus.

Verbs which express a mental or emotional tendency show some

very i n t e r e s t i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p s .

Songer shows a very f l e x i b l e

Total physical movement

Partial physical movement

accourir aller arriver irT courir

Figurative movement

(en) arriver Iattirer* (IT tirer*(1) toucher

marcher parvenir revenir venir voler

(en) parvenir (en) revenir ( en) venir

(lui) (lui) 'lui J lui) (lui)

aller arriver attirer courir etre (egal)

(lui) parvenir (lui) revenir (lui) venir

unirT

Mental / Emotional tendency

Miscellaneous

aspirer*(2) croire penser*(5) prendre interet* (3)(4) pretendre*

(en) appeler* (6) avoir recours*(6) faire appel*(6) recourir*(6)

reflechir* (5) renoncer rever*(5) songer* (3)(5)(8) tenir*(4)

)etre) avoir affaire accoutumer*(7) comparer habituer*(7) interesser Iunir1 faire attention*(8) prendre garde*(8)

*Close semantically: (l)attirertirer

(2)aspirer-pretendre (4)tenir-prendre interet (3)songer-prendre interit (5)reflechir-penser-songer-rever (7)accoutumer-habituer (8)songer-faire atxention-prendre garde (6)(en) appeler-faire appel-avoir recours-recourir Figure 2 vo

60 semantic affinity to several other verbs.

Reflechir, penser, son-

ger, rever, while not totally synonymous, overlap semanticalLy. (En) appeler and faire appel, recourir and avoir recours are pairs which each contain a single verb form and a verbal expression which are synonymous. verbs.

We note six verbal expressions altogether among our

If we may consider songer as the single verb form of the

verbal expressions faire attention and prendre garde, we are left with only avoir affaire which does not have a corresponding single verb form.

Accoutumer, comparer, habituer, interesser, unir share

some syntactical commonality with these verbal expressions if we consider that each noun in the verbal expressions may be viewed historically as a direct object complement, their verb thus being followed by both a direct and indirect object complement. The appropriateness of unir in this group of verbs is less certain.

If we

can accept such sentences as ?J'ai uni Pierre a elle, then unir has a place here.

Note that with unir, the two object complements can

be replaced by a single direct object pronoun:

Je les ai unis.

With the possible exception of &tre, verbs listed under "miscellaneous" reflect largely a psychological process, i,e., while the relationship between subject and indirect object complements may involve concrete acts, the verbal process is essentially cerebral and emotional.

Thus it seems to me that they are closely

related to the other verbs listed under "mental / emotional tendency".

Our verbs are thus essentially of two subcategories, one

reflecting physical movement, the other psychological movement. The latter subcategory is more numerous than the former.

It is

also interesting to note that while the verbs in the psychological subcategory cannot be constructed with a human indirect object

61 (conjunctive) pronoun, the more abstract in terms of motion the verbs of movement become, the more likely they are to accept such a pronoun. 4.4.

A Comparison with other Verbs If we consider a number of verbs of the parler category, that

is verbs which only accept the conjunctive (indirect object) pronoun, we can make several comparisons.

Figure 3 shows an arrange-

ment of these verbs, several of which were taken from Gross' classification (see above, Chapter I, p. 24), similar to that for the penser category of Figure 2 (see Sections 4.1. to 4.3. above). Very few verbs are found under the "total physical movement" subcategory.

This is very significant, I feel.

The tendency is

for the French language to maintain the construction a + disjunctive pronoun after so-called verbs of motion when the indirect object complement is marked J% human] . For the sake of argument, if we posit such sentences as H

nage a Jean and II rampe a

Maurice, whether they are acceptable or not in French, they would pronominalize to ?I1 nage a lui and ?I1 rampe a lui. These sentences are intuitively more acceptable than *I1 lui nage and *I1 lui rampe.

It seems that more often than not, when a total physical

movement of the subject is clearly evident and when that movement is directed towards and ends in the indirect object complement marked [_+ human J preceded by the preposition a, this indirect object complement is pronominalized into a disjunctive pronoun. There are more verbs which involve a partial physical movement and most of these extend into figurative movement.

The three or four verbs of

Figure 2 which involve partial physical movement do not accept a conjunctive (indirect object) pronoun marked f+ humanlwhereas

Total physical movement

Partial physical movement

Figurative movement

Speaking / Verbalizing

echapper

attacher

attacher

commander

Miscellaneous

appartenir (1) —ceder |

,ceder donner

declarer

—deplaire

dedier

demander

rdesobeir

faire obstacle

|oter

oter

dire

1-obeir

louer

prendre

prendre

interdire

pr&ter

mentir

procurer

ordonner

rendre

parler

donner

|prater

rendre resister

|voler (to fly)

(1)

appartenir

(2)

convenir = aller a.

=

Mental / Emotional tendency

pardonner —plaire

convenir (2)

nuire presenter ressembler

—resister succeder

raconter

voler

repondre

sourire

etre a.

Figure 3

o\

63 the verbs in this subcategory in Figure 3 accept only this type of pronoun. Echapper does not extend to figurative movement. The two figures touch under "figurative movement" where pronoun syntax is similar, i.e., they both accept the conjunctive (indirect object) pronoun marked £ + human] . Again, the more restricted or abstract the movement becomes, the greater the tendency seems to be for conjunctive pronominalization to take place. The two figures differ significantly also in the presence of a new subcategory in Figure 3, that of "speaking or verbalizing" verbs.

The contrast is all the more striking when we consider that

the mental processes in Figure 2 are internal verbalizations. We have therefore a distinction between abstract and concrete verbalization which follows two different syntactical patterns. "Speaking / Verbalizing" verbs accept the conjunctive (indirect object) pronoun marked [+ human] , but the "Mental / Emotional tendency" verbs of Figure 2 do not. Can we jump to conclusions and posit on the basis of this contrast that verbs denoting mental or emotional tendency (Figure 2) will be constructed with the disjuncxive pronoun whereas verbs denoting concrete verbalization will be constructed with the conjunctive pronoun?

If we consider the verbs under the subcategory

"Mental / Emotional tendency" in Figure 3 at face value, we cannot. The latter is not altogether similar to its counterpart in Figure 2 however.

For one thing, there are no verbs which express the type

of reflection involved in penser, reflechir, river or songer. These are purely mental processes which do not have to result in any concrete act.

Even aspirer, croire, prendre interet, pretendre,

renoncer, tenir, while seemingly requiring an emotional ingredient

64 not necessary in the four preceding verbs, express mostly mental attitudes.

All of them may occur without a r e s u l t i n g concrete

act and without t h e i r i n d i r e c t object complement (a person) even being aware that the verbal process ( i . e . , the mental or emotional s t a t e ) i s taking p l a c e .

On the other hand, the verbs in the same

subcategory in F i g u r e 3 may lead more r e a d i l y to some concrete i n t e r p l a y between the subject and the i n d i r e c t object complement. These verbs may be more emotionally charged than t h e i r counterparts i n Figure 2 .

They may c a l l for some concrete r e a c t i o n from

one or t h e other of the persons involved (subject or i n d i r e c t object complement).

I t might be p r e f e r a b l e following t h i s a n a l y s i s

to consider the verbs in the "Mental / Emotional tendency" subcategory of Figure 2 as only r e f l e c t i n g "mental tendency" and the verbs i n the same subcategory of Figure 3 as r e f l e c t i n g only "emotional tendency".

As we can observe once again, the semantic ex-

p l a n a t i o n , while e s s e n t i a l l y a c c e p t a b l e , does not produce any c l e a r cut d i s t i n c t i o n s . The "Miscellaneous" category of Figure 3 i s q u i t e a mixed bag which shows less cohesion than i t s counterpart in Figure 2.

We

can note the presence of two verbs r e q u i r i n g both d i r e c t and i n d i r e c t o b j e c t complements: bal expression:

l o u e r and p r e s e n t e r .

There i s one v e r -

f a i r e obstacle (note the c o n t r a s t Je l u i f a i s ob-

stacle / Je fais a t t e n t i o n a l u i / Je f a i s appel a l u i ) .

Ressem-

b l e r r e f l e c t s a s t a t e and i s analogous to e t r e in t h i s sense, a l though completely u n r e l a t e d .

Appartenir, as noted, i s semantically

close to e t r e a and convenir to a l l e r a ( i . e . , f i g u r a t i v e movement). Here we can remark t h a t whereas convenir and a l l e r a both accept the conjunctive ( i n d i r e c t object) pronoun marked f+ human"], and

65 are thus syntactically similar when semantically similar, appartenir and &tre a are only semantically similar. There are semantic relationships between the "emotional tendency" verbs of Figure 3, but these are in the form of oppositions rather than synonymity:

ceder / resister, plaire / deplaire,

obeir / desobeir. In summary, the contrasts between verbs in figures 2 and 3 result in two significant observations:

1)

Verbs expressing

total physical movement of the subject towards and ending in the indirect object complement marked £ •«• human] and 2)

Verbs expres-

sing mental tendency of the subject towards the indirect object complement marked {% human 1 adhere to the pattern V + a + disjunctive pronoun in pronominalization. A comparison of verbs in the miscellaneous subcategory in Figure 3 is unproductive because of their heterogeneity.

However,

we must note that five of these verbs in Figure 2 are actually verbal expressions, and two more are synonymous with verbal expressions.

The possibility exists that such verbal expressions tend to

follow the pattern V + a + disjunctive pronoun in pronominalization. Let us note also that accoutumer, comparer, habituer, interesser, unir accept the direct object pronoun les which includes the indirect object complement of these verbs, e.g., Je compare Jean a Marie —> Je les compare.

It seems that this type of pronominali-

zation is preferred in French to Je le compare a elle, but this latter is intuitively preferable to *Je le lui compare. With such verbs therefore, the two object complements can be viewed as one unit replaceable by a direct object pronoun, but if we choose not to pronominalize in this fashion, then the language opts to maintain

66 the indirect object complement in its disjunctive pronoun form after a, e.g., ?J'accoutume Jean a Marie —> ?Je 1'accoutume a elle.

Semantically, this appears to stress the polarity of the

two object pronouns more than when they are both conjoined. 5.

Pronominalization I will now bring together the four preceding sections on the

pronoun system, the preposition a, the complement system, and the verbs. One of the problems to resolve is the role of the preposition a in pronominalization. According to Raupach,29' »a is not present in the deep structure of sentences where the verb is of the parler type, but is introduced as a special lexical entry (a case marker). Thus a sentence like Je t'obeis would have as a deep structure:

A would then be introduced and the structure would be: J'obeis a toi.

Obeir having been identified as accepting a con-

junctive indirect object pronoun, toi could be preposed to the verb, undergoing a change of form, toi —> te, corresponding to the change from stressed to unstressed position in the sentence. A would then be deleted. If the pronoun were of the third person, it could be "lexicalized", i.e., transformed into a noun, e.g., J'obeis a lui —

67 J'obeis a Jean.

In this case, a would not be deleted.

The argument for the pronoun already being present in deep structure is quite valid if we recall our analysis of the pronoun system, since only pronouns can overcome the third person ranking of the noun and account for the presence of other persons in the surface structure.

If a pronoun form is already present in deep

structure, then perhaps the term "pronominalization" is not quite appropriate to this discussion since it is more properly applied to a transformation of the noun into a pronoun.

I will keep the term

however since it is useful for referring to the syntactical changes involving pronouns. For verbs like penser, Raupach argues that a is already present in the deep structure, although he does not explain why:

Prep

i Je

penser

a

The surface structure would then be:

Je pense a toi. Pre-

sumably, penser having been identified as blocking pre-position of the pronoun, no oth?r transformation could occur. A as a case marker makes sense. Without it, the stressed pronouns after the verb cannot theoretically be identified as indirect object complements, and thus the correct form of the preposed pronoun cannot be selected for the third person pronouns (the problem of form selection does not arise for me, _te, nous, vous, but their syntactical function -- direct or indirect -- cannot be identified

68 without the preposition).

Note that Raupach argues for the in-

sertion of a once the pronoun is present in deep structure. But upon what does the insertion of a depend?

The only possible ansv/er

is that it depends upon the verb, because the verb commands the case of the complement.

It would seem rather superfluous to in-

sert a just to determine the case of the pronoun and then to delete it right away.

In the case of obeir, there is a latent a which

must appear whenever a complement is to be added to the verb. It seems logical to argue that this a appears at least at the same time as the complement, if not before.

I would propose the follo-

wing first level of deep structure for Je t'obeis:

Prep

If no complement were selected for obeir, then a would be deleted.

Since a complement is selected, the next level of deep

structure is:

Je

obeir

a

We have now rejoined Raupach's argument f o r the presence of a as a case marker.

Raupach argued t h a t for verbs l i k e p e n s e r , a was

a l r e a d y p r e s e n t in the deep s t r u c t u r e .

To emphasize t h a t a has a

69 semantic value of its own, he puts it at the head of a PP;

the

same structure is advanced for obeir above. I have argued in the section on complements that the semantic value of a is no different in verbs like penser from that in verbs like obeir.

Raupach does not explain what the semantic value of a

is with the former verb.

I suggest that a is no more than a case

marker also with penser.

Whatever different semantic value exists

between obeir and penser resides in the verbs and not in the preposition.

Thus the first level of deep structure for Je pense a

toi is the same as that for Je t'obeis:

penser A complement is then inserted, and we have:

Je

pense

However, because penser is marked semantically £+ mental tendency]] , pre-position of the pronoun and a deletion is blocked. The surface structure is therefore Je pense a toi. In the first section on pronouns, I showed that the form and position of the pronoun depends on certain restrictions peculiar to the system, such as exclusion of me ? series pronouns from pre-posi-

70 tion when me, s e r i e s pronouns are p r e s e n t before the v e r b .

Let us

look a t one of t h e verbs used in t h a t argument, p r e s e n t e r .

The

sentence Je vous presente a l u i , according to the model e s t a b l i s h e d in t h i s section, would have the following f i r s t level deep s t r u c ture:

Je

presenter

The pronoun under the NP of the VP, vous, i s the d i r e c t object of the verb p r e s e n t e r .

I t undergoes p r e - p o s i t i o n f i r s t .

Since

vous belongs to t h e me, s e r i e s of pronouns, p r e - p o s i t i o n of l u i (luip) i s then blocked.

The r o l e of a in t h i s type of s t r u c t u r e i s

simply to d i s t i n g u i s h the case of the pronoun.

Once t h i s i s esta-

b l i s h e d , the necessary transformations can occur in t h e i r proper order.

Note t h a t the deep s t r u c t u r e f o r p r e s e n t e r i s the same as

for p e n s e r , except t h a t penser cannot have a d i r e c t and i n d i r e c t object a t the same time. the same.

The l u i of both verbs i s grammatically

This grammatical function i s marked by a.

Beyond t h i s ,

a has no semantic value which can block p r e - p o s i t i o n with penser. Therefore, i t i s t h e verb which possesses t h i s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c ,

i.e.,

I *• mental tendency ] . P r e p o s i t i o n s can require d i s j u n c t i v e pronouns to be used, but a is t h e only one which, when followed by a complement marked [ + human ] , allows a conjunctive pronoun to replace that complement.-^31 Thus a of i t s e l f cannot require that a d i s j u n c t i v e pronoun

71 be used.

Where disjunctive pronouns marked [+ human ] are re-

quired, the semantic property of the verb must be identified before the restriction can be imposed.

And even where the disjunctive

pronoun is required, we cannot say that we are dealing with a different type of complement, as I demonstrated in section 3 above (p. 48). The primary semantic property of a, that of punctuality, designates the complement following it as the end point — object complement —

the

of the verbal process begun in the subject.

Its syntactic property as a case marker serves to designate the type of object complement, i.e., indirect. There is one final aspect of the pronominalization of verbs like penser which reinforces the argument that the disjunctive pronoun after these verbs is an indirect object complement.

This

has to do with the use of the pronoun y_ in place of luio* A number of grammarians have noted the use of v_ marked (_+ human] with penser and some of the other verbs under study. Blanche-Benveniste states that all verbs which require a lui after them can accept y. before them, which is not the case for all verbs which accept conjunctive lui.

This use indicates a preference

in the French language for using unstressed pronouns over stressed ones, which are more expressive. -^ This use of v. seems to be an attempt to avoid the disjunctive construction.

The fact that a +

disjunctive pronoun with verbs like penser can be replaced by v_ strongly suggests that we are dealing with an indirect object complement. Let us note that v_ in this case has the value of a personal pronoun, not of an adverb of place, and therefore the case for the disjunctive pronoun after a being an object complement rather than

72 a circumstantial complement seems all the more logical.

On the

other hand, we must wonder why v. was chosen over lui. An examination of pronominalization enables us at this point to explain in part why a + disjunctive pronoun is used after some of the verbs under study.

If we look again at Figure 2 (p. 59

above), we note that verbs of "total physical movement" have extended usages which are figurative in nature.

There is therefore

a distributive restriction upon the use of personal pronouns which is related to semantics. When the verbs are used figuratively, the pronouns are conjunctive;

when they are used in their ori-

ginal meaning as verbs of physical movement, the pronouns are disjunctive.

Furthermore, the use of £ with verbs of "total physical

movement" is adverbial and designates places, not humans.

Thus we

are able to account for the use of conjunctive and disjunctive pronouns satisfactorily on the basis of distribution.

We can also

explain the use of different pronouns for attirer on this basis. For tirer, toucher, marcher, voler (to steal), we can note that the conjunctive pronoun lui is used in expressions like Elle lui tire les cheveux, Je lui touche la main, II lui marche sur les pieds, II lui vole de 1'argent, where lui has a possessive property, e.g. , Elle tire les cheveux a lui (ses cheveux), Je touche la main a lui (sa main), II marche sur les pieds a lui (ses pieds), II vole de 1'argent a lui (son argent).

Therefore, the use of a

+ disjunctive pronoun is also based on distributional restrictions. As for unir, it cannot be explained in this way and will therefore not be treated as a verb of movement from now on. For the rest of the verbs, there are no distributional restrictions to explain why lui cannot be used conjunctively.

I can only offer those semantic

arguments already advanced i n t h i s chapter for a p o s s i b l e explan a t i o n of the r e s t r i c t i o n . Etre has been l a r g e l y ignored in t h i s discussion.

I should

n o t e t h a t there are many expressions such as l u i e t r e reconnaissant which can be said to have the underlying s t r u c t u r e &tre reconnaissant a lui.

In such i n s t a n c e , Stre forms a verbal expression

which i s q u i t e d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e from the &tre a + d i s j u n c t i v e p r o noun construction, e . g . , c_e l i v r e est a moi.

Thus i t would not

seem impossible d i s t r i b u t i v e l y t o have *Cette maison l u i e s t . E t r e i s also q u i t e d i f f e r e n t from the o t h e r verbs under study and must be c l a s s i f i e d alone semantically.

I w i l l not advance an ex-

p l a n a t i o n for i t s behavior a t t h i s time. 6.

Conclusion This chapter has examined those elements e n t e r i n g the con-

s t r u c t i o n V + a + d i s j u n c t i v e pronoun.

I f e e l i t was necessary

f o r a c l e a r e r understanding of the s y n t a c t i c problem under study. I t h i n k i t a l s o helps t o understand the h i s t o r i c a l development of the c o n s t r u c t i o n .

The evidence from modern grammar and l i n g u i s t i c s

suggests t h a t semantic factors may account for a l a r g e p a r t of the phenomenon.

There i s no absolutely c l e a r and conclusive evidence,

however, to suggest hard and f a s t rules f o r p r e d i c t i n g with c e r t a i n t y what c o n s t r u c t i o n a verb w i l l a c c e p t .

74

NOTES •i

Michel Arrive and Jean-Claude Chevalier, La Grammaire, (Paris: Klincksieck, 1970), p. 3032 Blanche-Benveniste, Recherches, p. 78. An article by Christian Leclere, "Datifs syntaxiques et datif ethique," in Methodes en grammaire francaise, ed. Jean-Claude Chevalier and Maurice Gross (Paris: Klincksieck, 1976), explores the problem of the ethical dative further. Some of the verbs in Chapter I may accept this construction: Tu me les appelles; II me les attire; II me les compare; II me tient ga; II me les tire; Tu me touche ca; Tu m'unis ca. The ethical dative does not have any direct bearing on the present problem however. -a

^Gerard Moignet, Le Pronom personnel frangais. Essai de psycho-systematique historique, (Paris: Librairie C. Klincksieck, 1965), pp. 17-24. Blanche-Benveniste, Recherches, pp. 44,and 48; Chevalier, Grammaire, p. 303.

Arrive and

-'Blanche-Benveniste, Recherches, p. 104. Adolphe Jaeggi, Le role de la preposition et de la locution repositive dans les rapports abstraits en frangais moderne. Berne: Editions A. Francke S. A., 195677 p. 26.

f

n

'Jaeggi, Le role de la preposition, p. 36. Q

Georges Le Bidois and Robert Le Bidois, Syntaxe du francais moderne, 2 vols. (Paris: Editions A et J Picard et Cie, 1967), vol. 2, p. 681. •\Le Bidois, Syntaxe, p. 683. Georges Galichet, Grammaire structurale du frangais moderne (Paris-Limoges: Editions Charles-Lavauxelle, 196"8), p. 57> 11 Arguments and examples for subsections 2.1.1. to 2.1.4. were derived from Le Bidois, Syntaxe, vol. 1, pp. 3O-3I; vol. 2, pp. 675-683$ Fischer and Hacquard, Decouverte, pp. 408-412. 12 Le Bidois, Syntaxe, vol. 1, p. 31-

13 Jean Dubois and Francoise Dubois-Charlier, Elements de linguistique francaise ( P a r i s : L i b r a i r i e Larousse, 1970), p . 120.

•^Galichet, Grammaire, pp. 142, 145, 147. •^ Jaeggi, Le role de la preposition, pp. 22-23. Jaeggi, Le role de la preposition, p. 36. 'Galichet, Grammaire, pp. 143 and 153•I Q

Jaeggi, Le rSle de la preposition, p. 34, ^Georges Galichet, Methodologie grammaticale. Etude psychologique des structures (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1953), p. 62; Grammaire, pp. 142-143, 156; Chevalier, Grammaire Larousse, pp. 75> 285. 20 G. Cayrou, P. Laurent, and J. Lods, Le frangais d'aujourd'hui. Grammaire du bon usage (Paris: Librairie Armand Colin, l ^ T , p. 37321 Galichet, Methodologie, pp. 62-63; Grammaire, pp. 143, 154. 22 Eric Buyssens, Les c a t e g o r i e s grammaticales du frangais (Bruxelles: E d i t i o n s de I ' U n i v e r s i t e de B r u x e l l e s , 1975), p . 35-Terdinand Brunot, La pensee et l a langue ( P a r i s : Masson e t Cie, E d i t e u r s , 1922), p p . 375, 377. 24 Brunot, La p e n s e e , pp. 375-3^325 ^Galichet, Grammaire, p . 15526TDictionnaire de l'Academie, v o l . 2, p . 598. 27 Dubois, Lexis, p. 1675 (i«e«» s'interesser a ) . 28.Dictionnaire de l'Academie, vol. 2, p. 649 (i«e-» lui etre ;he par quelque lien d'mterSt). attache 29. Raupach, "Ein Teilproblem", pp. 111-112. ^ Blanche-Benveniste, Recherches, p. 35> 31 -^ This is not quite true since de will allow en, but this is very rare. 3 Blanche-Benveniste, Recherches, pp. 40, 165, 179. 33 "^Pinchon, Pronoms adverbiaux, pp. 99. 102. 34 kui in these examples, despite appearances, is not an indirect object. Elle tire les cheveux a lui is an underlying structure for Elle lui tire les cheveux:

76

Pro

Elle

les cheveux

Les cheveux a lui = ses cheveux. The nature of conjunctive lui in these examples merits further examination.

77

CHAPTER III HISTORICAL EVIDENCE In this chapter, I will examine what references are made to the obligatory use of a - disjunctive pronoun in grammars of French from the l6th and 17th centuries.

In addition, I will provide some

textual examples from Old French and l6th and 17th century French which contain many of the verbs listed in Chapter I as well as others. 1. The Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries The first grammatical essays on the French language date from the 14th and 15th centuries, and interestingly enough, they were composed in England for those wishing to learn French.

Many gram-

mars written by French scholars in France appear in the 16th century, some written in Latin, others in French.

We are fortunate

to have direct testimony from scholars contemporary to those times. This allows us to have some insight into their view of the language in their lifetime.

This may help us to understand how the

language was being shaped, how it was changing, how it was being used.

While it is useful to analyze the literature of the times

and draw our own conclusions, observations from l6th and 17th century grammarians may give us explanations and insight which we cannot readily derive from textual evidence.

These two centuries are

also significant because grammarians are beginning to codify the

78 language, to make observations about its usage and derive grammatical rules which in turn influence to some extent usage. 1.1.

Sixteenth Century Grammarians The first significant French grammar, written in England, is

John Palsgrave's Lesclaircissement de la Langue Francoyse (1530)/ Palsgrave presents the following table of French pronouns:^ Nominative

Accusative and Dative

me te

je tu il

luy luy

le la

elle

Obliqu

moy toy luy elle

se len Ion on

se

soy

nous vous

nous vous

nous vous eulx elles

ilz

les les

elles

leur leur

We have essentially the modern French pronoun system.

The use

of these pronouns is nonetheless not fixed since it is possible, for example, to say:

je mesmes or moy mesmes, ilz mesmes or eulx mesmes

4

or leur mesmes.

Palsgrave also states: When so ever we use me in our tongue as governed of a verb, what so ever case the same verb require in that laten tongue they use ever me. Examples follow: He loveth me, he beholdeth me, he telleth me / il mayme, il me regarde, il me dit. And: In all other manner of speaking, is to say after interrogations, answers made by this verb suis, yteracyons of the pronoun, imperative modes, adverbs, prepositions, conjunctions, and interjections, whether we use I or me,

79 they use ever moy. Examples: Who shall go? I. / qui ira? moy; it is I / e'est moy; it is I that speak, knock, or cry / e'est moy qui parle, heurte, ou crie; I wotte nat I / je nescay moi; I saw him not I / je ne le vis pas moy; help me, behold me, follow me / aide moi, regarde moi, suis moi; now I, tomorrow I, well I / maintenant moi, demain moi, bien moi; to me / with me / for me / against me / a moi, avec moi, pour moi, contre moi; he and I, you or I / lui et moi, vous ou moi; there is but I / il n'y a que moi; hey, me miserable / hey, moi miserable.5 The rules are the same for tu, jte, toi. Further relevant quotes from Palsgrave follow: When we in our tonge use he as nominative case to a verb, the fr. tongue using the same verb as personal, they use ever H , if they use the verb with them as impersonal they use ever lui, . . . He loveth, he speketh, he beholdeth / il aime, il parle, il regarde; he must, he ytcheth, he smerteth / il lui faut, il lui cuit, il lui mangut." When we use him in our tongue after a verb, as governed of the same if the verb be such as of his own nature in the Latin tongue requires an accusative case, they use le, if the verb will have a dative case, they use lui. Examples: I love him, I behold him / je l'aime, je le regarde; „ I met him, I tell him / je lui rencontre, je lui dis. But for so much as this rule is very dark for a learner, and also that it is not general, for many times in the French tongue they use lui, when the latins use an accusative case . . . ° Palsgrave goes on to say that some indication of what pronoun to use will be given m

the table of verbs.

But some thing to lead the learner in this behalf by a general rule, when so ever we use him, or her, after a verb in our tongue where the sentence of him self may be parfyte without adding any more words thereunto, we shall in the French tongue use le or la. Examples:

In these sentences: I tell him, I make him, I ordain him, I purpose him, I do him, I tell her, I ordain her, I purpose her, I do her, and such like: for so much as the sentences require or they be perfect that I should express what I tell or make, or ordain or purpose, or to do him or her, I shall before all such verbs use lui, so that some verbs will have not only le or JLa, but also luy, before them, by reason that in some sence they make a perfect sentence without adding of any other substantive in some sence they do require a substantive to be expressed.9 Examples: God made him, god made her / dieu le fit, dieu la fit; I made him a gown, I made her a gown / je lui fis une robe, So that commonly when it is all one sense to put these words, him or her, next after a verb, and then bring in a substantive belonging to that same verb, and then any of these prepositions: to, or for, before that said him or her, in all such sentences for him or her they use lui. Because it is all one sense in our tongue, I make him a gown and I make a gown for him, I tell him a tale and I tell a tale to him: therefore they say, je lui fais une robe, je lui conte un conte. And by like reason where we say: I am good to him, they say: Je lui suis bon . . . 1 0 In all other manners of speaking they use ever only lui whether we use either he or him. Examples: Qui ira'7 lui; e'est lui; il nescait lui, aides lui, afteure lui, pour lui, et lui, que lui, hey lui miserable, ils monterent a. cheval, lui, sa femme, et son train, . . . n When so ever we use her in our tongue after a verb as governed of the same verb, if it be none such as I have made mention of here next before, they use lui . . Examples: I love her, I behold her, / je l'aime, je la regarde; I meet her, I tell her, I counsel her; je lui rencontre, je lui dis, je lui conseille, In all other manners of speaking they use elle, save after imperative mode they use la or lui, after the case that the verb require. Examples:

81 Qui ira? elle; e'est elle; elle nescait elle, regarde la, responde lui, afteure elle; pour elle; et elle; que elle; hey elle miserable.12 When so ever we use them in our tongue after a verb as governed of the same, if the verb will govern an accusative case they use les, if the verb will govern a dative case, they use leur, whether we understand masculine substantive or feminine. Examples:

We love them, we beholde them / nous l e s aimons, nous l e s regardons; we give them, we answer them: nous l e u r donnons, nous l e u r repondons. In a l l other manners of speaking when so ever we use they or them understanding masculine s u b s t a n t i v e s , they use eux, except a f t e r imperative modes, for then they use l e s or l e u r , a f t e r the case t h a t the verb r e q u i r e s . Examples: Qui iront? eux; ce sont eux, i l nescavent eux, regarde l e s , reponde l e u r , maintenant eux, pour eux, que eux, hey eux miserable.13 P a l s g r a v e ' s method i s c o n t r a s t i v e and attempts t o simplify t h i n g s for the l e a r n e r .

He does not always succeed,

where comparisons with English are not h e l p f u l .

especially

He a l s o r e f e r s to

Latin i n order to explain the case which should follow the verb, but he i s forced to recognize t h a t t h i s i s not always useful e i t h e r . His French examples shed some l i g h t on the use of pronouns.

In

c o n t r a s t to some l a t e r grammarians who admit some f l u c t u a t i o n or h e s i t a t i o n in the use of pronouns, Palsgrave has opted for a fixed system, and one which in the e a r l y 16th century already shows some c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of modern French usage. Louis Meigret, in his T r e t t e de l a Grammere Francoeze (1550), has t h i s to say about pronouns: Au regard de me, t e , 'se; i l s ne regoivent jamais p r e p o s i t i o n : et s i sont toujours preposes aux verbes, ou p a r t i e i p e s , qui l e s gouvernent servant d ' a c c u s a t i f : lequel l e plus souvent e s t en notre langue sans aucune p r e p o s i t i o n : m&mes et noms, et a l o r s i l est le v r a i

82 passif, que les verbes actifs et transitifs gouvernent: comme, je frappe Pierre, tu combas Jean, tu batis une maison. Or ne sont pas me, te, se, seuls assis avant le verbe: mais aussi les sont lui, nous, vous, quand ils sont gouvernes par le verbe actif sans aucune preposition: comme nous vous verrons; nous nous conservons; nous lui dirons. Si aussi quelque preposition les gouverne, ils ne sont point mis avant le verbe gouvernant: comme je m'ebahis de vous; j'ai enyoye a vous; il a fait pour moi; je ferai pour lui . . . 14 . . . moi, toi sont nominatifs quelquefois . . . Au regard de soi, il n'a point de nominatif: et pourtant il ne peut Stre surpose aux verbes . . .15 Meigret offers this chart of the pronoun system: Nominatif

genetif

je, ou moi

de moi

Nous

de nous

Tu, ou toi

de toi

vous

de vous de soi

datif Singulier a moi, me Pluriel a nous Singulier a toi, te Pluriel a. vous Singulier a. soi, se Pluriel se

accusatif

vocatif

ablatif

me, moi

de moi

nous

de nous

te, toi vous

tu

de toi

vous

de vous „H6 de soi"

soi, ou se se

Again, the placement of pronouns seems to be consistent with modern usage for the most part. We note that Meigret has categorized the pronouns using Latin cases.

II, elle and lui were left

out of the chart. Note that me, te and se are listed under the accusative and the dative. Moi, toi and soi under the accusative represent stressed forms of me, te and se, e.g., in the affirmative imperative and after Stre. Meigret accounts for fluctuations in the use of conjunctive and disjunctive pronouns in the dative column, but there is no explanation for their use other than what has already been quoted. Pierre La Ramee said this concerning pronouns: P. Di' nom' son' vulgerement apele pronoms, e semblet

avoer celce c a z e . Le t r o e premiers son' Moe, Toe, Soe pour l e s i n g u l i e r , Nous, Vous, Se pour l e p l u r i e r : mes a u s i nou' dizon' oelcefoes je e me pour moe, tu e t e pour toe, se pour soe. '

Lui ou i l masculin s i n g u l i e r : Eus ou i l z p l u r i e r . e pour le femenin de l ' u n e 1 ' a u t r e , ele s i n g u l i e r , e l e s p l u r i e r . Le posesif derive de l u i ou i l , e de comu jenre, l e u r s i n g u l i e r , leurs p l u r i e r . Nous uzon' d'Eus pour l e p l u r i e r de Soe: on' tou' bien comun e n t r ' e u s .

come, Les amis

Leur, e celcefoe r e l a t i f pour le p l u r i e r : come, Les omes ont ofense Dieu se c ' i l leur a done a entendre. J ' e agete un geval pour i s e l u i t ' e n v o i e r : dizon* mieus, Pour te l ' e n v o i e r .

Mes nous

Me, Nous, Te, Vous, Lui, Leur, son' prepozes au verbe gouvernant: come, Je me p r i z e , Tu t e p r i z e s , Nou' nou' p r i z o n s , Vou' vou' p r i z e s , I I se p r i z e , I l z se p r i z e t , Je l u i d i r e , Je l e u r d i r e . 1 7 In t h i s 1562 e d i t i o n , Ramus merely l i s t s the pronouns by gender and number.

In a d d i t i o n , from t h e way he p r e s e n t s them a t

the beginning, we might get t h e impression t h a t moi, t o i , soi are more usual than j e or me, tu o r t e , and se ( s i n g u l a r ) .

Lui i s not

mentioned as being both masculine and feminine when conjunctive. Eux seems to have already supplanted s o i i n the p l u r a l .

We note

also t h a t c e r t a i n modern constructions a r e replacing a r c h a i c ones, e . g . , te l ' e n v o i e r f o r i s e l u i t ' e n v o i e r . of conjunctive me, t e , e t c .

Ramus does note the use

I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g t h a t t h i s grammar

which appears 32 y e a r s a f t e r P a l s g r a v e ' s describes a system which seems more archaic than the one Palsgrave described.

I t may be

assumed t h a t La Ramee i s describing a more popular usage and i s accounting for a system in f l u c t u a t i o n . Ten years l a t e r , La Ramee publishes another grammar which s e t s up a d e f i n i t e pronoun system.

Here is how he describes i t :

Le premier sans vo cat. a p a r tout au singul. moy, & au

84 nom. Je, au Dat. & Accusa. moy:

au plur. Nous.

Le seco'd a' au sing. voc. Tu, au reste par tout, Toy, & au nom. Tu, au Dat & ac. T'e, au Plurier, Vous. Le troisiesme a seulement au Sing. Ien. Dat. Accus. Abl. Soy: au Dat. & accu. Se, au plur. Dat. & accu. Se. D. Par ainsi, Je, se trouve en ung cas: Tu, Me, Te, Se en deulx: Soy en quatre: Moy, toy, Nous en cinq: Vous en six. Les deulx suivants sont relatifs. Le 5 cest au singulier, II, ou luy, nominatif: luy aussi genitif, datif, accusatif, ablatif pour le masculin: elle par tout, & luy au datif pour le femenin: leur de tout cas & genre, combie" que les Grammairie's le fassent plurier: au plurier. Ils, ou Eulx, nominatif, eulx, aussi genitif, datif, accus. ablatif, pour le feminin. Leurs de tout cas & g£re. Me, Te, Se, Nous, Vous, Luy, Leurs praecedent le verbe gouvernSt, come. Je me recommSde, Tu te prises, II se tourmente. II nous menace, II vous appelle. Je luy diray. Je leurs escriray.18 I have put the preceding description in chart form below: Nom.

Ace.

Dat.

Gen.

Abl.

je, moy

me, moy

me, moy

moy

moy

tu

te, toy

te, toy

toy

toy

se, soy

se, soy

soy

soy

luy

luy

luy

luy

elle

elle

luy

elle

elle

leur?

leur

leur

leur

leur

nous

nous

nous

nous

nous

vous

vous

vous

vous

vous

se

se

eulx

eulx

eulx

eulx

eulx

leurs?

leurs

leurs

leurs leurs

il, luy

ils M&F

Voc.

tu, toy

vous

85 La Ramee's classification reflects the Latin casu system. We note that the accusative and dative share the same forms, except for the third person feminine where luy is the dative pronoun instead of elle.

Leur has a plural form leurs and it can be used for

the accusative.

Although it is not clear, La Ramee apparently is .

trying to account for both spellings of leur, which exist in the 16th century, by classifying one as singular and the other as plural.

The use of eulx for the feminine plural is not uncommon in

7 that century.19 Moy and luy under the nominative must account for

their use as stressed subjects instead of the unstressed subject pronoun under certain circumstances. The l6th century grammarians are trying to cope with a changing pronoun system.

Some, like Palsgrave, adopt one system, others

account for the old and the new.

Garnier (mid-l6th century), con-

cerning the use of me, te, se says: Les Gaules se servent de ces accusatifs me, Jbe, _se pour mihi, tibi, sibi: par usage plutot que par art — "usu potius quam arte." En effet, selon les regies grammaticales, nous devrions dire: Vous avez escrit a moy; or nous disons — "abusive" — Vous m'avez escrit (, . .) Et de meme Cest homme la se plaist en ses paroles, et se fait plus de mal qu'il ne pense. Ce mode de parole par me, te, se est aujourd'hui le plus commun . . . chez les O.anles.20 Robert Estienne offers this pronoun system: I. Nominatif , Genetif datif accusatif vocatif ablatif

Singulier

je, moy de moy a moy, me moy, me a moy, de moy

tu, toy de toy te, a. toy te, toy toy, tu a toy, de toy

Pluriel Nominatif

nous

vous

de soy a soy, se soy, se de soy

genitif datif accusatif vocatif ablatif

de nous a nous nous a nous, de nous

de vous a vous vous vous de vous

se se

Remarque. — Moy, toy, s e r v a n t dans l e s i n t e r r o g a t i o n s , pour l e s reponses a f f i r m a t i v e s ou n e g a t i v e s : e s t - c e toy? c ' e s t moy, ce n ' e s t p a s moy. Me, t e , se sont places devant l e verbe; moy, toy, soy, apres l e verbe: j e me recommande a toy. Se a lui-meme un p l u r i e l , e ' e s t l e u r s , g e n e t i f p l u r i e l de i l , comme: c ' e s t le l e u r pour o ' e s t a eulx; - - i l s sont l e u r s pour i l s sont a eulx. Ces pronoms moy, t o y , au d a t i f , t a n t S t prennent l a p r e p o s i t i o n a, comme: venez a moy, tant&t ne l a prennent pas, comme: respondez moy. Le datif du pronom e s t moy ou me, toy ou t e ; avant l e verbe on p l a c e me, t e ; comme: H m'a . p a r l e ; apres l e verbe, moy, toy, comme: parlez-moi.^1 The a l l u s i o n to moy and toy being sometimes preceded by a and sometimes not i s found i n several grammarians.

Henri Estienne i s

quoted as saying: De mSme un pronom e s t , ou non, precede de p r e p o s i t i o n selon l e verbe a n t e r i e u r ; on d i t "respondez moy". mais "venez a. moy". Et on dit " p a r l e z a moy", mais "parlez moy de c e l a " . If f a u t envisager ces cas p a r t i c u l i e r s : "Respondez moy, D i t e moy c e l a (. . . ) : non autem, Respondez moy, Dite c e l a a. moy t u2 t loqui solent qui sunt in nostro sermone n o v i t i j ) " . ^ These grammarians do not seem to account for o t h e r elements of the sentence.

We seem t o be faced with a c a p r i c i o u s system when in

f a c t there are d e f i n i t e d i s t r i b u t i o n a l c o n s t r a i n t s which our grammarians e i t h e r ignore or do not understand.

At any r a t e , there i s

no explanation of the use of moy and toy with or without the p r e p o s i t i o n a. Grammarians of the 16th century begin to define the personal pronoun sysxem and i t s syntax, but t h i s i s a tortuous endeavor. Personal pronouns are defined in v a r i o u s ways and given diverse l a b e l s , such as " p r i m i t i f s " , "demonstratifs", and " r e l a t i f s " .

87 Under the influence of Latin grammar, these pronouns are given a 23 declension system.

J

In addition to those features of pronoun syntax already addressed by these 16th century grammarians, there are additional remarks by some of them concerning the position of pronouns in relation to specific verbs which bear mentioning, as well as a few remarks about other features of the language pertinent to this study. Palsgrave does not mention anything about parler or penser. He notes c'est a moy in the possessive sense.24 Jean Pillot and Robert Estienne both mention the use of y. and the disjunctive pronoun for persons with prendre garde a, but without any explanation.

J

Gamier prescribes the use of y_ with parler in the following situation: Prenes garde a. vous . . . j'y pren garde -. . . , ^ in hoc loco idem est quod a moy mihi et refert praecedens a vous . . . , j_e parle ray moy-mesme a luy, si vous n'y voules parler . . . aves vous parle a celuy que vous scaves? . . . j'y ai parle . . . , quand parleres-vous a M. N. 9 . . . Respondum j'y parleray demain . i .26? Louis Meigret cited an example of the disjunctive pronoun with envoyer (see above, p. 82). He also notes that §tre with the meaning of appartenir requires the disjunctive pronoun. ' Robert Estienne has an example of parler with the conjunctive pronoun and Henri Estienne has one with the disjunctive pronoun (see above, p. 86). Henri Stephane notes the use of v, for persons in examples with the verbs pourvoyer, aviser and prendre garde a.

He also devotes

two pages to verb and pronoun syntax, where he compares constructions such as Accorde moy cela (where moy is dative) to Accorde toy a cela (where toy is accusative).

He states that the stressed pro-

88 noun without the preposition a is correct after repondre, dire, montrer, apporter in the affirmative imperative, but that a moy is required after venir and parler in the same mode.

But he does con-

cede that the conjunctive pronoun is being used with parler in other modes.

He also compares venez a moy to venez moi dire le faict and

notes also venez me dire le faict.

He mentions both II luy faut

parler and II faut parler a luy as well as II luy faut dire, II le 28 luy faut dire and II le faut dire a luy. These examples show that there are doubts as to the fixed order of pronouns in the l6th century.

Stephane sheds no light on the need for the preposition a +

disjunctive pronoun after parler, while dire and repondre do not need it. He- merely makes observations but does not seek to explain to any great extent the need for a given structure. Antoine Caucius also mentions parler briefly, citing these examples:

Parlez-vous a moi?

a nul autre;

Quand vous reviendrez parlez a moi et

Me parles-tu encore de ceci?

Ne me parle plus de telles gens.

Ne paries-tu plus a moi?

Ne lui en parlez point de votre 2Q

vie.

Ne me parlez meshui de cet affaire.

7

Caucius does nox ex-

plain it, but from these examples it would appear that the conjunctive pronoun is used with parler when a phrase introduced by de follows the verb, otherwise a + disjunctive pronoun is used. Garnier also cites cela nous appartient as being used instead of appartient a nous. Chevalier quotes Cauchie's (Caucius) Grammatica gallica of 1576 on the use of as

"'Verbi gratia:

ie t'avoi bien dit ceci'.

'l'avois bien dit ceci a Nicola' hie a articulus esse censeatur non praepositio:

namsi praepositio esset, etiam pronomini premittere-

tur hoc modo 'II n'a point parle a. Charles, II n'a point parle a.

89 moi.'"^

Thus a serves the function of case marker, not that of a

preposition in the first case, and the inverse in the second case. As we saw in the second chapter of this study, the same argument has been advanced by modern grammarians to explain the difference between parler and penser, with no more satisfactory results. Despite the lack of clear insight, into how the language works, the 16th century grammarians have come a long way towards formalizing the French language.

Let us turn to their 17th century coun-

terparts and see if their observations may shed some light on the problem. 1.2.

Seventeenth Century Grammarians The 17th century grammarians generally provide more detailed

examples and observations on the language, and in some cases, they attempt to influence usage by recommending certain forms over others. Whereas the l6th century saw fluctuation and hesitation in usage, the 17th century tends toward fixity, especially in the pronoun system.

This is not to say that changes do not occur, but

they occur more slowly. The modern grammarian is already coming into his own by the beginning of the 17th century as evidenced in Charles Maupas' grammar of 1618. We are still confronted with a pronoun system which reflects Latin declension, and Latin commentary can still be found, but the style and grammatical terminology as a whole reflects a discipline which is coming of age: Dat. Accus. •

•

•

Dat. Ace. •

•

Me, moy, a. moy Me, moy . . . Te, toy, a. toy Te, toy

1

Luy, a. luy Le, luy

Dat. Ace. t

«

t

Datif Ace.

Se, soy, a. soy Se, soy

Datif Ace.

Leur, a. eux Les, eux

n

.

luy, a elle l a , elle

l e u r , a. e l l e s ^ les, elles

.

He mentions " p o s t p o s i t i f s " pronouns: Moy, Toy, Luy, nomi. ou a c c u s . eux, e l l e , e l l e s accusat i f s seulement. & tous ceux qui ont 1 ' a r t i c l e a d j o i n t , De moy, a. moy, . . .33 Quant aux d a t i f s , i l s s e r v e n t d ' a t t r i b u t i f s comme l e s a u t r e s , mais l e u r plus frequent usage est d ' e s t r e subj o i n t s aux verbes reciproquez, ou qui ont desja a u t r e ment avant eux un pronom accus. p r e p o s i t i f autre que 1'un des s u s d i t s . Le, La, Les, c a r l o r s l e d a t i f , q u i t t a n t l a place a. l ' a c c u s a t i f , se f a i t p o s t p o s i t i f . Exem. I e me rapporte a. vous de t o u t mon a f f a i r e . . . Item apres l e s verbes de mouvement l o c a l . A l l e r , Venir, Courir, F u i r , Retourner. I ' a y recours a. vous, Vous venez a. moy. E l l e va a. l u y , &c. a i n s i absolument. Car si- ces verbes e s t o i e n t s u i v i s d'un i n f i n i t i f , i l faudroit employer des p r e p o s i t i f s . Ie vous vien d i r e , ou, Ie vien vous d i r e des n o u v e l l e s . J ' i r a y vous s e c o u r i r , ou Ie vous iray s e c o u r i r au besoin. Ainsi l e verbe P a r l e r a c e t t e p r o p r i e t e , que sans expression de l a chose dont on p a r l e , i l se c o n s t r u i t mieux avec l e s d a t i f s p o s t p o s i t i f s . Je p a r l e a. vous, I I parle a. moy. J ' a y veu un t e l & ay parle a. luy. S i vous exprimez l a chose, vous userez de p r e p o s i t i f s . Vous me parlez de vos a f f a i r e s , & i e voulois vous p a r l e r des mienes. un t e l m'a p a r l e du mariage de son f i l s avec ma f i l l e . Parlez a. moy. P a r l e z a luy. P a r l e z moy de r i r e & non pas de t a n s e r . Parlez luy de f a i r e bonne chere.34 Maupas does not see v. as having a personal value in these examples: Et a. la chose elle signifie application & entente a. icelle: Prenez garde a vous: Bien, i'y prendray garde aussi: personne n'y prendra garde pour moy . . . Elle semble signifier ibi, latin.35 He offers this particular explanation of the syntax of tenir:

91 II Tient, signifiant Stare, a. sgavoir, destourbier & empeschement, ne regoit point de datifs prepos. ains postposibifs. II tient a. vous que vous n'estes scavant. II ne tiendra pas a moy que ne gangniez. Per te stat. Per me non stabit quin. &c. Mais quand il signifie envie ou volonte, il a les prepositifs, & apres soy ordinairement De & un infinitif, & negativement ou propos de mesme syntaxe, plustost qu'affirmativement. II ne me tient pas d'estre marie. II ne leur tiendra plus desormais d*aller a la guerre. Non teneor ista cupidine, vel volontate.36 Again, there is no real explanation of the use of disjunctive pronouns after a other than what can be observed distributionally. References to parler requiring a + disjunctive pronoun are quite common throughout the century.

These merely report usage and

do not say why. 17th century grammarians begin to make distinctions in the use of pronouns between non-human and human representation. particularly applicable to the use of

This is

]£.'

Perhaps Descartes is an influence on 17th century grammarians to consider animals inferior beings not worthy of certain pronouns, e.g., lui, replaceable by en or v.. But Thomas Corneille says: On se sert fort bien de ce relatif luy en parlant d'un cheval, et de toutes sortes de choses; pourveu que luy soit mis pour le datif, a luy, comme "On luy a donne de l'eperon, On luy mit une aigrette sur la teste."38 Oudin appears to be the first to make a clear distinction between animate and inanimate in the use of pronouns: j "ne s'applique qu'au lieu des prepositions, rapportant l'endroit ou la chose", but he allows elle for things and v_ for persons. " Bouhours recommends il s"y attache fort for H s'attache fort «. 40 a elle. Y and elle refer to philosophy. Chifflet states: "Y n'est jamais relatif des personnes, mais 41 seulement des choses et des lieux."

92 Vaugelas n o t e s t h a t y f o r l u y i s a m i s t a k e when r e f e r r i n g to persons:

" j ' a y r e m i s l e s h a r d e s de mon f r e r e a. un t e l , a f i n q u ' i l

l e s y donne, pour d i r e , a f i n q u ' i l l e s l u y donne. 42 t o u t e commune parmy n o s C o u r t i s a n s . "

C ' e s t une faute

The a u t h o r s of t h e P o r t - R o y a l grammar recommend a g a i n s t the u s e of p e r s o n a l p r o n o u n s f o r t h i n g s and f a v o r y :

" l u i , e t q u i au

g e n i t i f , d a t i f , a b l a t i f , ne s e d i s e n t o r d i n a i r e m e n t que d e s personnes;

e t a i n s i quand on p a r l e d ' a u t r e s c h o s e s , on se s e r t d ' e n au

l i e u du g e n e t i f de l u i , ou du pronom s o n ; a lui;

d ' y , au l i e u du d a t i f

. . . "^

Jean D ' A i s y ' s p e r s o n a l p r o n o u n s y s t e m s t i l l r e f l e c t s t h e L a t i n d e c l e n s i o n system (minus the a b l a t i v e and the v o c a t i v e ) , b u t he d i s t i n g u i s h e s between " p e r s o n n e l s a b s o l u s " ( e s s e n t i a l l y t h e d i s j u n c t i v e pronouns) and " p e r s o n n e l s c o n j o n c t i f s " .

The l a t t e r

c l u d e s moy and t o y a s d a t i v e pronouns f o r the a f f i r m a t i v e tive. tem.

in-

impera-

The system a s i t i s o u t l i n e d i s l i k e t h e modern F r e n c h sysA l l t h e modern u s e s of y a r e n o t e d .

does n o t a g r e e w i t h i t s use f o r p r o n o u n s .

As w i t h V a u g e l a s , D'Aisy Eux i s recommended for

soy a f t e r a i n t h e p l u r a l and u s e s of soy v e r s u s l u y a r e c l a r i fied.^ In h i s Grammaire F r a n g o i s e ( 1 6 4 0 ) , Antoine Oudin s t a t e s t h i s : "mais i l f a u t o b s e r v e r que quand on a d j o u s t e l e s u j e t dont on p a r l e , a l o r s on se s e r t des p e r s o n n e l s c o n j o n c t i f s , de son a f f a i r e

comme:

. . . "

i l luy a parle

Here Oudin i s s t a t i n g what t h e l 6 t h Ul grammarians f a i l e d t o say about t h e same c o n s t r u c t i o n . J

D'Allais says t h i s about t h e use of me, te,

century

se:

Remarquez ( encore que par une maniere de p a r l e r e l l i p t i q u e , c ' e s t - a - d i r e abregee, et pour e v i t e r l a p r e p o s i t i o n ou a r t i c l e a, on se s e r t f o r t souvent des a c c u s a t i f s me, t e , s e , et du cas oblique l u i au lieu du Datif. Ex. I I m'a

93 . s . 46 dit, pour II a dit a moi. The conjunctive pronouns are vseen as stylistic variations of a + disjunctive pronoun.

Note also that the "case" changes from

dative to accusative simply by moving the pronoun in front of the verb.' Regnier-Desmarais' grammar appears in the early 18th century (1706).

His treatment of the dative shows that the 17th century

has not brought much light to the use of a + disjunctive pronouns. His reasoning evokes that of Henri Stephane more than a hundred years earlier.

The dative is used with the imperative of active

verbs and with parler, unless en follows the pronoun or ne precedes the imperative, in which case a + disjunctive pronoun is used.

One

is dealing with a dative if a possessive adjective can be substituted for it with etre:

Ce livre-la. est a moy / c'est-la. mon livre,

ce livre-la. est mien.

Regnier-Desmarais even alludes to our problem

in examining the difference between II pense a moy and II m'obeit. He notes that with pronominal verbs, we are dealing with a dative when the reflexiVe pronoun can be replaced by me (or moy after the imperative), e.g., addressez moy un pacquet and s'adresser a moy. As Chevalier points out, this reasoning stretches the facts and does not justify its extension to venez parler a moy and venez me parler.

Regnier-Desmarais goes on to state that a moy is a dative

in un chien qui s'est donne a moy and a prepositional construction in un chien qui s'est adonne a, moy because adonner, unlike donner, cannot be constructed with me or moy.

And further, the comparison

with Latin resurfaces: . . . H a tort de s'attaquer a moy, il aura affaire a moy (. . .) et toutes les autres de mesme nature, dans toutes lesquelles l'a ne tenant lieu de la preposition latine ad, moy par consequent ne peut estre au Datif.^7

94 The outstanding grammar of the 17th century, Arnauld and Lancelot's Grammaire generale et raisonnee de Port-Royal (1660), from which I quoted briefly above (see p. 92), does not, unfortunately, shed any more light on the problem either. The 17th century grammarians on the whole have not yet quite escaped the influence of Latin grammar, but they have nonetheless sought to deal with the pronoun system and offer some explanations, however faulty their reasoning may appear to have been.

The con-

junctive pronouns take definite hold in usage, even if vestiges of the use of a + disjunctive pronoun still remain, e.g., with parler, a fact attributable Lo its high frequency which makes its changeover to a regularized structure slower.

Penser and like verbs are for

the most part ignored and left unexplained. 2.

Textual Examples In this section, I propose to present numerous textual examples

containing the construction V + a + disjunctive pronoun.

A number

of constructions with conjunctive pronouns are also included for comparison when significant.

There are also examples of verbs which

have y with personal value as the pronoun. These textual examples cover Old French, Middle French and Classical French. sources.

They are derived from primary and secondary

They represent a good cross-section of genres and styles.

Texts were read to find specific examples of V + a + disjunctive pronoun, keeping in mind the list of modern verbs which require this construction as presented in Chapter I.

Examples are not li-

mited to that list however since the syntax of verbs changes and there are other verbs in the old language which bear mentioning. I do not list every example I found here since they number

95 into the hundreds, but significant examples are provided for every century for which they are available.

Verbs with conjunctive pro-

nouns far outnumber the ones with disjunctive pronouns, and I did not systematically attempt to note every example of the former. Therefore, there are no statistics on the frequency of one construction versus the other. Each verb is listed below in alphabetical order, by century, from the earliest found example on. The etymology of some of the verbs is provided first.

Significant examples with a conjunctive

pronoun may be included, although a separate listing of these is found later. Comments are included for each verb where needed. To facilitate reading this section, the abbreviated reference for each example is to be found in parentheses after it and a more complete reference for the source is found m the notes. 48 1.

Accompagner (=. s'associer, s'unir a) 13th century: se tu te voloies a moi acompaignier, je te porteroie mult bone foi, . . . (Villehardoum, Vol. 2, p. 134)

2. Accourir (From Latin accurrere; 11th century, Alexis: Toit i acorent li grand e li petit; Imbs, p. 440) 12th century: A lui akeurent alqant et li plusor Qui li demandent: "Sire, que ferons nos?" (Chanson d'Aspremont, 1. 4792-3, p. 154) 16th century: Tout le monde accouroit a. luy pour sa preudhommie et sgavoir. (Prop. Rust. I, 106, in Huguet, p. 367) 3. Aller (From alare, 8th century, Reichenau; Dauzat, 1938, p. 26) 12th century:

aler, 11th century;

96 "Alias!" fet il, "quel le ferai? Irai a li, si li dirai . . . " (Marie de France, Guigemar, p. 311) Sont an Yrlande a lui ale. (Arnold & Pelan, Roman de Brut, 1. 1180, p. 73) 13th century: Par eel apostre c'on a Romme requiert, Je ne laroie por les membres tranchier Que a lui n'aille quant il iert esclairie, En ma conpaingne quatre cenz chevalier Qui m'ont lor fois plevies. (Ami et Amile, 1. 508-12, p. 17) 4.

Amener 13bh century: Qu'au besoing vous apele Delivrez est de paine, Qu'a vous son cuer amaine. (Rutebeuf, Theophile, p. 152)

5.

Apenser (= penser a, reflechir;

Bartsch, p. 360)

13th century: Se g'en devoie quanques a moi apant Vendre, engaigier ou livrer a torment, Nes mes douz fiz certez ou Belissant, Si le feroie, gel voz di et creant. (Ami et Amile, 1. 2839-42, p. 91) et lors s'apense qu'il i gitera le fuerre et retendra l'espee, car encor porroit avoir mestier a lui ou a autre; . . . (Legende du Saint Graal, La Mort d'Artus, p. 430) Bartsch notes that apenser is reflexive. of se penser and se songer below.

There are examples

The above examples will be

discussed again then. 6.

Appartenir 12th century: Voi s'ent done orer en son mostier et faire sacrefice, quar a lui apartient, et pense d'aisier son cors; (Roman de Troie, p. 37)

97 13th century: . . . a reconnu pardavant nos en dreit que en tant comme apartient et poait apartenir a lui, . . . (Behrens, p. 65', legal document #LVII, Loiret, Orleans, 1291) l4th century: . . . le roi et les chevaliers furent tous appareilles, et friquement et richement v&tus de neuves robes, ainsi comme a. eux appartenoit, . . . (FroLssart, p. 383) 17th century: 0 pauvres, que vous etes heureux, parce qu'a. vous appartient le royaume de Dieu. (Bossuet, Serm. Dignite des pauvres, 1, in Haase, p. 28) In this last example, Bossuet's sentence construction leaves no choice but to use a vous.

He may have chosen it to emphasize

vous. 7. Appeler (From Latin appellare, 'aborder'; apeler, 11th century; appel, verbal noun, 12th century; Dauzat, 1938, p. 42) 12th century: A sei apelet sis filz e les dous reis: (Chanson de Roland, 1. 3280, in Moignet, 1969, pp. 234-5) Un chambellenc apele a soi, ..,.,. (Marie de France, Guigemar, p. 320) 13th century: et je counois tant le chevalier qui la est que se il l'en estoit mesuheu que il vos en apeleroit; . . . (Legende du Saint Graal, Perceval, p. 391) The last example is different from the first two not only because it has a conjunctive vos, but also because it is figurative, whereas the first two examples involve the idea of movement, of coming to the person who calls. 8.

Apprendre 13th century: Je vueil que l'aprenez a mi: . . .

(Faral & Bastin, Rutebeuf, 1. 620, p. 362) 9.

Aprester (- preparer;

Bartsch, p. 36I)

12th century: . . . kar Deu est de science sires e a lui sunt apreste li pensed. (Traduction des quatre livres des rois, 1. 6-7, in Bartsch, p. 43) 10. Aspirer (From Latin aspirare, 'souffler'; figuratively, 'inspirer'. The original meaning exists until the 16th century. The figurative meaning, eliminated by inspirer, is replaced by the meaning 'porter son desir', from the metaphor of the old meaning 'porter son souffle'; Dauzat, 1938, p. 52) 17th century: Tous les princes du monde seront trop peu de chose pour aspirer a. vous; les dieux seuls y pourront pretendre. (Moliere, Les Am. magn., II, 3. in Haase, p. 25) 11.

Assembler

(= en venir aux mains avec;

Faral, p. 167)

13th century: . . . que ensi porsivirent les Conmains bien pres de II lieues lding, et assemblerent a als; (Villehardouin, vol. 2, p. 166) . . . et li Blac del pais se furent assemble, et assamblerent a aus, et lor firent mult grant domage . . . (Villehardouin, vol. 2, p. 308) 12.

Atorner (- attribuer?

Bartsch, p. 364)

12th century: A li atorna tel amor. (Marie de France, Guigemar, p. 318) 13-

Attacher 17th century: Et la pensee enfin ou mes voeux ont souscrit, C'est d'attacher a. vous un homme plein d'esprit. (Moliere, F. Say., Ill, 4, 1072, in Haase, p. 27) Theodose orut les avoir attaches a. lui par ses caresses

99 et par ses liberalites. Haase, p. 27)

(Flech., Theod., II, 13, in

Les chefs des troupes sont attaches a. lui. XI, in Haase, p. 27)

(Fen., Tel.

The first example may be more literal, with the meaning of marier, whereas the last two seem to translate some affectivity, such as loyalty.

Attacher a + disjunctive pronoun is quite common

in the 17th century (Darmesteter, p. 51)• 14. Attirer (From a- and tirer; a-tirer, 1534, Rabelais; Davau, p. 84; Littre, p. 87). See tirer below. 16th century: Est-ce quelque vertu latente et propriete specificque absconce dedans les marmites et contrehastiers, qui les moines y attire, comme l'aymant a. soy le fer attire. (Rabelais, II, 308, in Huguet, p. 404) 15.

Avenir (= arriver, parvenir;

Bartsch, p. 366)

13th century: Je ne m'en puis pas a Dieu prendre, C'on ne puet a lui avenir. (Rutebeuf, Theophile, p. 137) . . . si que oil pooient avenir a els as espees et as lances. (Villehardouin, vol. 2, p. 280) 14th century: . . . pour ce je comencerai a declarer et plainement determiner de luy et des membres de son corps et de toutes autres choses et necessairs qu'a. luy appartiennent ou aviennent. (Gessler, ed., La Maniere de langage, p. 45) Avenir may have the meaning of convenir (Bartsch, p. 366) in this last example. 16.

Avoir 14th century: Mes pour la grant amour que j'ay a vous, . . .

100 (Quinze Joyes de Mariage, p. 625) This example illustrates the versatility of a in the old language. We would say pour vous today. 17.

Avoir affaire a (a.-faire, 12th century;

Littre, p. 33)

15th century: Que telz gens a moy n'ont affaire! Jouhan, p. 372)

(Farce du povre

l6th century: Respondix que non jamais: bien que les homes quelques foys avoient eu affaire a elle, (Rabelais, II, 170, in Huguet, p. 197) 18. Avoir mestier a (= rendre service, Itre utile; 452)

Bartsch, p.

13th century: et lors s'apense qu'il gitera le fuerre et retendra l'espee, car encor porroit avoir mestier a lui ou a autre; . . . (Legende du Saint Graal, La Mort d'Artus, p. 430) 19.

Commander 13th century: Si t'ad le cunbe ci a mei comande; . . (Chanson de Guillaume, 1. 1530. P- 64)

20,

Conter 13th centurv: Je n'en conterai point a ti, . . . (Adam de la Halle, Jeu de la feuillee, 1. 897, p. 126) 15th century: Si chevaucha si fort qu'il vint devers le roy, et quant fut a luy, luy compta les triumphes . . . (Roman de Jehan de Paris, p. 714)

21.

Convenir

101 13th century: Chascuns regardoit ses armes tels con a lui convint, . . . (Villehardouin, vol. 1, p. 134) 22. Courir (From Latin currere, Old French courre, replaced in the 14th century by courir (J. Le Fevre), under the influence of mourir; Littre, p. 287; Dauzat, 1938, p. 214) 12th century: Rollant reguardet, puis si li est curuz. (Chanson de Roland, 1. 174, in Bartsch, p. 28) Sun ceval brochet, si li curt ad esforz. (Chanson de Roland, 1. 1582, in Moignet, 1969, p. 128) These two examples are striking for the use of the conjunctive pronoun with a verb of motion alone. 13th century: Veit le paien, si li est coru sure, E cil a lui, qui nel meschoisit unques. (Chanson de Guillaume, 1. 3193, p. 125) 17th century: Elle alors me courut apres. in Brunot, 1966, p. 482)

(Astree, 1615, I, 59A,

These last two examples where courir forms a verbal expression by the addition of a preposition are common and require the conjunctive pronoun. 23.

Descendre 12th century: angle del ciel i descendent a lui. Aoi. (Chanson de Roland, 1. 462, in Bartsch, p. 36)

24.

Destiner 17th century: Qui m'y a mis, par l'ordre et la conduitte de qui ce lieu et ce temps a il ete destine a, moy? (Pascal, Pensees, ed. Moi., I, 4l, in Brunot, 1922, p. 385)

102 This verb is commonly constructed this way in the 17th century (Le Bidois, p. 140). 25.

Deveer (= defendre;

Bartsch, p. 398)

12th century: Son fruit a toi deveera, . . . (Jeu d'Adam, p. 27) 26.

Deviser (- parler;

Bartsch, p. 399)

13th century: Amis compains, puet ce iestre vertez Que voz a moi ci devise avez? (Ami et Amile, 1. 2947-8, p. 94) 15th century: . , . et apres, en devisant a elle, sachiez quel nom elle nommera. (Les Evangiles des Quenouilles, in Greene, p. 84) It is interesting to note that this verb adopts the same construction as its synonym parler prior to the 18th century.

See

parler below. 27.

Devoir 13th century: Vous deves doze saus a mi. (Adam de la Halle, Jeu de la Feuillee, 1. 972, p. 134)

28.

Donner 12th century: A ces d'autre terre donroit Ce qu'il a aus doner devroit; . . . (Arnold & Pelan, Roman de Brut, 1. 1285-6, p. 75) This is a rarity.

Donner with a conjunctive pronoun is found

in the Serments de Strasbourg and is very common throughout the old language.

103

29.

Purer 12th century: P h i l i p t o a s e s t o i t de b e l e fagon, mais i l e s t o i t s i orgiiillous que nus ne p o o i t a l u i durer. (Roman de Troie, p. 48) A l u i ne d u r o i t ne or ne argent ne drap de soie ne bon cheval, quar s a proe*sse l e semonoit tous j o u r s de b i e n f a i r e . (Roman de Troie, p . 50) The verb probably means supporter i n the f i r s t example and

s u b s i s t e r or r e s t e r i n the second (Bartsch, p . 402) 30.

Entendre a (= ecouter;

Bartsch, p . 408)

12th century: E s c o l t , Adam, entent a moi, Co i e r t ton p r e u . (Le Jeu d'Adam, p . 13) A ces d i s t q u ' a l u i antandissent Et ce q u ' i l l o r d i r o i t f e l s s e n t , . . . (Arnold & Pelan, Roman de Brut, 1 . 313-4, p . 52) 13th century: Vous n'aves warde de n u l u i , Se vous voles a moi entendre. (Adam l e Bossu, Jeu de Robin, p. 177) Damme, d i s t - i l , entendez s a a moi. (Ami e t Amile, 1. 2363, p . 76) This construction i s very common i n Old French. 31.

Envoyer 12th century: Dame, f a i t i l , e i n s i s o i t ; mes envoies a moi quant vos p l a i r a , quar je ne savrai ou je i r o i e ne a quel houre. (Roman de Troie, p . 12) Vos envoiast son maistre c o n s e l l i e r . (Chanson d'Aspremont, 1. 2543, p . 82) Et ses presanz l i anveoit . . . (Arnold & Pelan, Roman de Brut, 1. 52, p. 46)

104 13th century: . . . Toldres li Ascres prist ses messages, si les envoia a lui . . . (Villehardouin, vol. 2, p. 302) This verb is frequent in Old French and regularly takes two object pronouns.

The disjunctive pronoun may be used to avoid

putting the two object pronouns together. 32.

Esbatre (= reflexive, so divertir, s'amuser;

Bartsch, p. 4ll)

12th century: A lui esbatre que il fist contre mon Leva Moriel atolt le due Namlon Trois pies en halt, puis reciet el sablon; . . . (Chanson d'Aspremont, 1. 1982-4, p. 64) 33. Etre (From Vulgar Latin essere; 1938, p. 300)

estre, 1100, Roland;

Dauzat,

12th century: 0 ses homes delivrement, Qui a lui sont part seremant. (Arnold & Pelan, Roman de Brut. 1. 4517-8, p. 152) 13th century: . . . mais nos ne somes mie a vos, ains somes au conte. (Aucassin et Nicolette, p. 471) 15th century: S'i' vous plaisoit moy commander que je fusse a luy, j'y seroye. (Maistre Pierre Pathelin, p. 337) 16th century: Voire mais (dist le Diable) ce champ n'est pas tien, il est a moy et m'appartient. (Rabelais, II, 427, in Huguet, p. 81) 17th century: II n'y a homme au monde qui soit a. vous si veritablement que j'y suis. (La Rochefoucauld, in Pinchon, Les Pronoms, p. 100) These examples show that etre a with the possessive meaning

105 is firmly entrenched in tradition.

There are other examples with

different meanings. 15th century: Si chevaucha si fort qu'il vint devers le roy, et quant fut a luy, luy compta les triumphes . . . (Roman de Jehan de Paris, p. 714) Here etre a indicates the location reached following the movement. Etre is also found constructed with a conjunctive pronoun. 14th century: Or s'en vient le lendemain bien matin veoir la dame, et lui demande comment il luy est, et elle lui dit qu'il lui est ung pou amande devers le jour, mes que elle ne dormit de toute la nuit; . . . (Quinze Joyes de Mariage, p. 608) Here H

lui est is impersonal and probably means il se trouve

(Bartsch, p. 417). 16th century: Un million d'or luy est aussi peu qu'un Obole. (Rabelais, II, 268, in Huguet, p. 34) We would probably say today est pour lui.

A and pour compete

in the 17th century (Brunot, I966, vol. 3, p. 635) and this may be a precursor (assuming luy

=

a luy here).

The following are proba-

bly along the same line. 17th century: Et dont le souvenir me sera moins qu'un songe. (Mairet, Sylv., p. 92, v. 1166, in Brunot, I966, p. 482) Ses precautions lui sont un piege. 8, in Haase, p. 335)

(Boss., Hist., III,

There are numerous verbal expressions constructed v/ith £tre which take a. + disjunctive pronoun. 12th century:

106 Trente c i t e s sont bien a l u i aclin. (Chanson d'Aspremont, 1. 2 5 0 3 , p . 81) E t r e a c l i n means e t r e s o u m i s . 13th century: Volentiers, sire. Commandes Tel chose que j e p u i s s e f a i r e , E t q u i ne s o i t a moi c o n t r a i r e : . . . (Adam 1 P Bossu, J e u de R o b i n , p . 188) Tant e s t a mi p l u s grans l i deus . . . (Adam de l a H a l l e , Jeu de l a f e u i l l e e , 1 . 638, p . 96) 15th century: . . . p u i s s i o n s n o u s f a i r e e t d i r e c h o s e en c e s t u y t r a n s s i t o i r e monde que a luy [ D i e u ] s o i t p l a i s a n t e e t a nous proffitable. (Roman de Jen,an de P a r i s , p . 695) 17th c e n t u r y : Qui e s t sembiable a. vous? i n H a a s e , p . 28)

(Fen.

E x i s t . . I I , 3 . 48,

Some v e r b a l e x p r e s s i o n s t a k e a c o n j u n c t i v e p r o n o u n . 12th century: Se l i p u i s t e s t r e Dameldex e n a l e ! (Chanson d'Aspremont, 1. 953, p . 31) 16th century: T o u t e s f o y sus 1 ' e s t i m a t i o n humaine p l u s g r i e f l u y e s t , en t a n t que p a r t o y . . . ( R a b e l a i s , I , 116, i n Huguet, p . 428) 34. F a i r e (From L a t i n f a c e r e ; r a z e t , 842, Serments; 10th century, E u l a l i e ; Dauzat, 1 9 3 8 , p . 312"5

faire,

12th c e n t u r y : Quias l e guant me c a i s t en l a p l a c e , Cume f i s t a t e i l e bastun d e v a n t C a r l e ? (Chanson de Roland, 1. 7 6 4 - 5 , i n M o i g n e t , 1969. p . 76) E s t cen que nous deussons e s t r e h e n o u r e s e t s e r v i s comme e s t r a n g e g e n s , s i comme nous e u s s o n s f a i t a l u i , se i l f u s t en n o t r e p a l s v e n u , . . . (Roman de T r o i e , p . 8) 13th c e n t u r y :

107 Tel face a moi, que je mieus ne voz quier. (Ami et Amile, 1. 2212, p. 71) 35>

Faire clamor (r faire appel;

Bartsch, p. 379)

12th century: Son sane en fait a moi clamor, . . . (Jeu d'Adam, p. 41) 36.

Ganchir (= se lancer) 13th century: Quant cil le vit fors de la rote, a lui ganchist; cil nel redote; . . . (Chretien de Troyes, Erec et Enide, 1. 3589, p. 109)

37•

Joster (= rassembler?

Bartsch, p. 438)

12th century: I!

jostai a lui, quel virent maint baron: . . . (de Poerck et al., Charroi de Nimes, vol. 1, p. 31) 38.

Lancer 12th century: languns a lui, puis sil laissums ester! (Chanson de Roland, 1. 242, in Bartsch, p. 30) 13th century: Lancent a lui guivres e aguz darz, Entur le cunte debatent sun halverc; . . . (Chanson de Guillaume, 1. 877, p. 39)

39-

Livrer 12th century: Se il ne vient sa tiere a moi livrer . . . (Chanson d'Aspremont, 1. 2426, p. 78)

40.

Mander (= ordonner, commander; 12th century:

Bartsch, p. 447)

A toz li rois a soi mandez . . . (Arnold & Pelan, Roman de Brut, 1. 2180, p. 96) 41.

Mettre 14th century: Je metteray a. vous une galon de vyn qu'il n'y a homme ou roialm de France . . . (Gessler, ed., Maniere de langage, p. 91)

42.

Monter (s importer;

Bartsch, p. 454)

13th century: . . , se vous l'aves perdu si queres que vous l'aies retrove, car a moi ne monte rien de vostre afaire. (Legende du Saint Graal, Perceval, p. 386) A vous que monte? 43.

(Adam le Bossu, Jeu de Robin, p. I89)

Montrer 13th century: S'ai aportee, pour moustrer A vous, le trois lieues m'orine. (Adam de la Halle, Jeu de la feuillee, 1. 250-1, p. 48)

44.

Obtemperer (= obeir) 16th century: Enfans, attendez icy et vous offrez es ennemys franchement, eb obtemperez a. eux. (Rabelais, I, 338, in Huguet, p. 60)

45.

Offrir 12th century: e se sun quor lui purportast [suggerer] e s'un cunseil li dunast, prendreit de lui ceo que offert ad a lui. (Lois (iites de Guillaume le conquerant, 1. 35-36, in Bartsch, p. 4~1)

46.

Parler 12th century:

Cil ad parlet a lei de bon vassal; . . . (Chanson de Roland, 1. 887, in Moignet, 1969, p. 84) Dist as messages: "Seignurs, parlez a mei!" (Chanson de Roland, 1. 2742, in Moignet, 1969, p. 202) A toi parlerai, Evain. (Le Jeu d'Adam, p. 7) 13th century: Je parleroi a vos, si serois confessez . . . (Simon de Pouille, 1. 1579, P« 155) Se Dex m'alt, que n'aille a euls parler, . . . (Ami et Amile, 1. 1913, p. 61) 14th century: mais il manda le dit Aimery qu'il vint parler a lui a Londres. (Froissart, p. 376) Jehanne, m'amie, j'ay a. parler a vous. de Mariage,,621)

(Quinze Joyes

15th century: II me sembloit que vous parliez a. moy . . . I, 88, in Huguet, p. 60)

(Cent Nouv.

Ceulx qui ne les pevent veoir, ne a. eux parler. (Saintre, j6, in Huguet, p. 60) C'est done depuis soleil levant, car j'ay a luy parle, sane- faulte. (Maistre Pierre Pathelin, p. 306) Parle a moy! (Maistre Pierre Pathelin, p. 335) 16th century: Le capitaine nous dit, heure n'est de parler a. elle. (Rabelais III, 72, in Huguet, p. 6l) Floride venoit parler a. luy priveement, comme celle qui n'y pensoit en nul mal. (Rabelais I, 352, in Huguet, p. 108) 17th century: A quel dessein vient-il parler a. moi, Lui que je no vois point, qu'a peine je connoi? (Corneille, Her., II, 4, 580, in Haase, p. 26)

110 Pour lors il n'y avoit pas moyen de parler a. lui. (Vaugelas, Q.-C., IV, 5, in Haase, p. 26) Monsieur, un homme est la. qui veut parler a. vous. (Moliere, F. say., Ill, 3, 927, in Haase, p. 26) Parler is by far the most frequent verb with the construction a + disjunctive pronoun that I encountered, with the possible exception of venir.

As noted earlier, grammarians mention it often.

The construction seems to be still very much alive in the 17th century, There are also examples of parler with a conjunctive pronoun. 14th century: Quant on li parloit d'aucunes choses. para. 669, in Nyrop, vol. 5, P' 224) Ne me parlez ja plus a. cest fois . . . La Maniere de langage, p. 74)

(Joinville, (Gessler, ed.,

l'escuier dont il lui a parle viendra la nuit . . . (Quinze Joyes de Mariage, p. 631) Par ma foy, fait-elle, je lui en ay parle, . . . (Quinze Joyes de Mariage, p. 623) 15th century: je luy parle de drapperie. (Maistre Pierre Pathelin, p. 342) l6th century: Je leur ay parle de mariage . , .

(Bellot)

II luy deffendit que jamais il ne luy advint de luy parler. (Heptameron, II, 68, in Huguet, p. 270) As 16th and 17th century grammarians have shown, when parler is followed by a complement introduced by d_e, the conjunctive pronoun is used.

Of the two examples which do not contain this struc-

ture, one is written in England (La Maniere de language) (there are two other similar examples in this work) where, if we recall Palsgrave, the conjunctive pronouns seem to be favored by those writing

Ill about the French .Language.

The other example from l'Heptameron

may have undergone the influence of the other two verbs in the sentence.

It is difficult to generalize from these few examples,

of course. 47. Penser (From Low Latin pensare, meaning peser, figuratively, apprecier, examiner; 10th century, Saint Leger; Dauzat, 1938, p. 546; Davau, p. 902; Littre, p. 870) 12th century: Totes ores a li pansoit . . . (Arnold & Pelan, Roman de Brut, 1. 47, p. 46) 13th century. Comment a lui me contenoie de penser, quant je nel veoie! (Chastelaine de Vergi, p. 370) Nel te penser, Tedbald, go dist Esturmi; . . . (Chanson de Guillaume, 1. 59, p. 5) De lui me penssoie autressi qu'il se tenoit a mon ami toute sa vie et son eage; . . . (Chastelaine de Vergi, p. 371) 15th century: Mais se pensa que le musnier luy avoit baillee belle . . . (Cent Nouvelles, I, 26, in Huguet, p. 172) 16th century: Floride venoit parler a luy priveement, comme celle qui n'y pensoit en nul mal. (Rabelais, I, 352, in Huguet, p. 108) 17th century: Le roi est environne de gens qui ne pensent qu'a divertir le roi, et a l'empecher de penser a. lui. Car il est malheureux, tout roi qu'il est, s'il y pense. (Pascal, Pensees, ed. J. Steinmann, VIII, p. 106, in Moignet, 1965, p. 16) Rien ne peut me distraire de penser a vous, j'y rapporte toutes choses. (Sev., VI, 318, in Haase, p. 25) I found very few examples of penser, even less with the dis-

112 junctive pronoun.

Nonetheless, penser a + disjunctive pronoun is

obviously very old since there are examples in the 12th and 13th centuries.

Soi penser de means s'aviser (Bartsch, p. 468) and I

assume that the examples of the 13th and 15th centuries have this meaning.

Recall the verb apenser (see above, p. 96) which is also

reflexive and is probably related to this usage. examples of penser with y.

I also included

Y for persons is frequent in the 17th

century and does not necessarily stand for a + disjunctive pronoun, but in these two examples, it would seem to. In the 17th century, we also find penser en (as well as songer en, croire en) which, according to some grammarians of the period, has a stronger meaning than penser a.

Andry says:

"je pense en

vous . . . signifie non seulement que je vous ay dans ma pensee; mais encore que je pense a vous obliger en quelque chose, et a. vous faire faveur"

(Brunot, 1966, vol. 4, p. 1052).

Bouhours writes

that for the object of the thoughts and dreams of the heart, penser en should be used, whereas penser a expresses a purelv intellectual process which is weaker and more superficial (Nyrop, vol. 6, p. 115). 48.

Plaire 13th century: Si qu'a toi puisse plaire . . . (Rutebeuf, Theophile, p. 153)

49.

Porter envie 13th century: Dui soudier portent a moi envie, . . . (Ami et Amile, 1. 301, p. 10)

113 50.

Preferer 17th century: [Le chevalier de Lorraine] voyant^qu'il preferoit un petit secretaire a. lui, . . . (Sev., IV, 36, in Haase, p. 27)

51. Prendre (From Latin prehendere meaning saisir; Serments; Dauzat, 1938, p. 5837

prindrai, 842,

13th century: a li a prise grant bataille et dit: Seure sui et certe que trop recevrai leide perte, se je ici mon seignor pert. (Chretien de Troyes, Erec et Enide, 1. 3724-7, p. 114) l6th century: Cette femme prend tout a. soy . . .

(Bellot)

52. Prendre garde (Garder, from Frankish *wardon = 'veiller;, itre sur ses gardes'; guarder, 11th century, Alexis; Dauzat, 1938,

P. 35^0" 12th century; A vous bien prendre garde doit. (Bodel, Jeu de Saint Nicolas, p. 63) 17th century: Vous ne vous prenez pas garde que vous baillez un exemple qui peut tourner a. votre prejudice. (Malherbe, II, 282, in Haase, p. 142) Note the reflexive usage in the 17th century example. 53•

Presenter 13th century: et li donnons et avons donnei plair pooir de presenteir a vos por nos et en nostre non Gil-t, . . . (Behrens, p. 43; legal document #XXXVI, Marne, 1284)

54. Pretendre (From Latin praetendere, rendre ou etendre devant, 12th century; Dauzat, 1938, p. 585)

114 17th century: Et la preuve que je vous en demande, e'est de ne plus souffrir qu'Alceste vous pretende. (Moliere, in Dubois et al., 1975, p. 1^20) Pretendre here has the meaning of courtiser. Although the example is with a conjunctive pronoun, this verb is constructed with a + disjunctive pronoun today with the meaning of aspirer. 55>

Prier 13th century: Or vieng proier A vous, Dame, et merci crier, (Rutebeuf, Theophile, p. 155)

56.

Raler (= retourner) 10th century: et sancz Lethgiers nes soth mesfait; cum vit les meis, a lui ralat. (Vie de Saint Leger, 1. 89-90, in Bartsch, p. 11)

57' Recourir (From Latin recurrere; 'courir de nouveau', 13th century, Villehardouin; figuratively, avoir recours, 13th century, Beaumanoir; recours taken from juridical Latin recursus, 13th century, Rutebeuf; Dauzat, 1938, p. 616) l6th century: Un pauvre suppliant qui estoit recouru a. eulx en franchise . . . (Amyot, Demosthene, 25, in Gougenheim, p. 123) 58.

Rendre

12th century: A l u i r e n d i s s e s ses r a i s o n s , . . . (Jeu d'Adam, p . 40) 13th century: Done vos r e n d r i s a moi del t o t a mon p l a i s i r , (Simon de P o u i l l e , 1. 391, p . I l l )

, . .

59.

R e p a i r i e r (= r e t o u r n e r ) 12th century: Seint Gabriel e s t r e p a i r e t a l u i , . . . (Chanson de Roland. 1. 3610, in Moignet, 1969, p . 252) 13th century: et que i l r e p a r e r o i e n t a e l s au plus t o s t que i l p o r o i e n t . (Villehardouin, v o l . 2, p . 184)

60.

Retourner 12th century: a lui retorne . . . (de Poerck et al., Charroi de Nimes, vol. 2, p. 13) 13th century: . . . si retornerent a als . . . vol. 2, p. 178)

61. Revenir (From Latin revenire; Littre, p. IO67)

(Villehardouin,

10th century, Valenciennes;

13th century: Pois revendrai a vos, de ce soez tuit fi, . . . (Simon de Pouille, 1. 825, p. 127) 15th century: Ceulz qui ont entendement se reviennent tost. 71, in Huguet, p. 172)

(Commynes,

Revenir is also examined under venir (see below, p. 119)

62.

Servir 12th century: Deus e s t v e r a i s , q u i a l u i s e r t , . . . (Jeu d'Adam, p. 40) 13th century: Et plus honorez seruez, S'a l u i s e r v i r demoriiez, . . . (Rutebeuf, Theophile, p. 139)

116 16th century: La pitie servit a, elle de juste excuse. 118, in Huguet, p. 60)

(Hept. , II,

63. Songer (From Latin somniare, derived from somnus , 'sommeil'; 13th century; first r|yer, then figurative meaning of penser, l6th century; Littre, p. 1148; Dauzat, 1938, p. 6?4) 16th century: Voicy venir madamoiselle de l'eglise, qui se songea bien incontinent que monsieur de Raschault avoit faict le beau mesnage . . . (Nouv. Recr., II, 180, in Huguet, p. 173) 17th century: Si mademoiselle Dupuis, reprit Des Faus, est une infidele, j'approuve fort votre procede. Elle ne merite pas qu'un honn&te homme songe a. elle. (Chasles, Les Illustres Frangoises, I, p. 59, in Pinchon, Pronoms adverbiaux, p. 130) Grammarians note the new meaning of penser for this verb at the Court (Brunot, 1966, p. 583). 64.

Soumettre 17th c e n t u r y : j e n ' e n t e n d s p a s que vous soumettiez v o t r e creance a moy s a n s r a i s o n . . . ( P a s c a l , P e n s e e s , ed. Moi., I I , 278, i n Brunot, 1922, p . 385)

65'

Subjuguer 15th century: et bien disoient tous qu'il estoit pour subjuguer a soy tout le demeurant du monde. (Roman de Jehan de Paris, p. 738)

66.

Tencier (= disputer) 12th century: Tencent a lui, laidement le despersument: . . . (Chanson de Roland, 1. 258I, in Moignet, 1969, p. 192) 13th century:

117 Se or pooie a lui tancier, Et combatre et escremir, La char li feroie fremir! (Rutebeuf, Theophile, p. 137) 67. Tenir (From Vulgar Latin *tenire, Latin tenere; Dauzat, 1938, p. 704)

10th century;

12th century: a vos que tient de nos plais maintenir? (La Geste des Loherens, 1. 119, in Bartsch, p. 50) 13th century: Vasax, font il, a vos que tient? (Chretien de Troyes, Erec et Enide, 1. 4391, p. 134) Et dist Amis: "Ne sai qu'en tient a vouz." (Ami et Amile, 1. 2734, p. 87) Par foi, ce est que mes amis, Qui en moi cuer et cors a mis, Tient a moi as chans compaignie, . . . (Adam le Bossu, Jeu de Robin, p. 191) Cele ne tint a lui plus plait, mes grant corouz et grant deshait en ot au cuer, et si pensa, s'ele puet, bien s'en vengera. (Chastelaine de Vergi. p. 353) In the first three examples, tenir is impersonal with the meaning of il l'interesse, il lui importe. The fourth and fifth examples contain the verbal expression tenir plait (parole) which means faire une conversation (Greimas, p. 494), i.e., parler (Bartsch, p. 503). 68. Tirer (Perhaps from Vulgar Latin *tirare, based on Germanic teran" rdechirer'; 12th century, Roland; Dauzat, 1938, p. 711) l6th century: II n'y a rien si vray que le froc et la cogule tire a. soy les opprobes, injures et maledictions. (Rabelais, I, 148, in Huguet, p. 369) 17th century:

118 Telles gens par l e u r s bons a v i s Mettent a. bien l e s jeunes ames, Tirent a s o i f i l l e s et femmes. (La Fontaine, Contes, I I , 2, 10, in Haase, p. 31) In both cases, s o i has a p l u r a l value. 69>

Tourner 13th century: Et lors comencent li Grieu a lui a torner par l'acointement de l'empereris, . . . (Villehardouin, vol. 2, p. 88)

70.

Traire (= tirer) 12th century: II tent son arc, si trait a li. (Marie de France, Guigemar, p. 303) A soi le trest et puis l'anpaint, . . . (Arnold & Pelan, Roman de Brut, 1. 2983, p. 116) Segneur, je n'en trai nient a mi, . . . (Jeu de Saint Nicolas, p. 97) Por go fait bon traire a toi . . . (Jeu d'Adam, p. 18) The first example is very common with the meaning of tirer des

fleches or lancer.

The second example appears to be literal. The

third is not clear. Perhaps it has the meaning of accaparer. The fourth example has the meaning of venir (Bartsch, p. 506). 13th century: car si comme li rois Lot issoit de la nef, si traist uns serjans a lui et le feri d'un quarel parmi le pis. (Legende du Saint Graal, Artus, La Mort, p. 422) celui a soi par la main trait, . . . (Chastelaine de Vergi, p. 372) Estoilette, je te voi, que la lune trait a soi; . . . (Aucassin et Nioolette, p. 475) 14th century:

119 Aingois avoient ceux d'Evreux fait semblant que de lui servir de pierres et de mangonneaux, et de traire a. lui et a ses gens, . . . (Froissart, p. 395) 71.

Trametre (=envoyer) 10th century: Reis Chielperics cum il 1*audit, presdra sos meis, a luis tramist, cio li mandat que revenist, sa gratia por tot ouist. (Vie de Saint Leger, 1. 85-88, in Bartsch, p. 11)

72.

Unir (From Latin unire;

12th century, Gregoire; Dauzat, 1938,

p. 735T~ 17th century: [Retz] etoit uni a. lui par la parente. Mem., II, 110, in Haase, p. 27)

73'

(La Rochef.,

Venger 13th century: Venge a mei e choisist la plus belle; . (Chanson de Guillaume, 1. 1395, p. 60)

74. Venir (From Latin venire, meaning aller, venir, arriver; 10th century, Eulalie; Littre, p. 1300; Dauzat, 1938, p. 744; Revenir: From Latin revenire; 10th century, Valenciennes; Littre, p. 1067) 10th century: Domine deu in cio laissat et a dlable-s comandat qui done fud miels et a lui vint il volontiers semper reciut. (Vie de Saint Leger, 1. 127-130, in Bartsch, p. 12) lltn century: Sainz Innocenz ert idonc apostolies; a lui en vindrent e li rich e li povre, . . . (Vie de Saint Alexis, 1. 301-2, in Bartsch, p. 21) De la viande qui del herberc li vient tant en retient dont son cors en sostient . . . (Vie de Saint Alexis, 1. 251-2, in Bartsch, p. 21)

120 12th century: Qui d'autre terre a lui venist, . . . (Arnold & Pelan, Roman de Brut, 1. 2070, p. 94) "Francs rois", dist il, "je sui venus a ti, . . . " (La Geste des Loherens, 1. 35. in Bartsch, p. 49) Qu'a ce besoing ne li fausist Et en s'aie a lui venist. (Marie de France, Guigemar, p. 319) Va, meis garde que tu reveignes souvent a moi. (Roman de Troie, p. 69) Devers un gualt uns granz leons li vient, . . . (Chanson de Roland, 1. 2549, in Moignet, I969, p. 190) Illuec me vint une beste faee . . . (Chanson d'Aspremont, 1. 2782, p. 89) Apres icel li vien un altre avisiun, . . . (Chanson de Roland. 1. 2555, in Moignet, 1969, p. 190) Si la plaie lui vient el vis en descuvert . . . (Lois dites de Guillaume le conquerant, 1. 32, in Bartsch,

pTTa)

13th century: Ez voz a lui venu un escuier. (Ami et Amile, 1. 3398, p. 109) Et puis, quant tu aras ce fait, si vien a moi et je te rendrai ton braket. (Legende du Saint Graal, Perceval, P. 384) Robin, revien dont tost a nous. (Adam le Bossu, Jeu de Robin, p. 197) Mais or me dites par amors, et sans corous, dont ele vous vint, et se gou est diables u feme? (Legende du Saint Graal, Perceval, p. 387) Li nains a l'ancontre li vient . . . (Chretien de Troyes, Erec et Enide, 1. 161, p. 6) Tuit li Grieu de 1'une part et de 1'altre del Braz vindrent a lui et a son commandement et a sa volonte . . . (Villehardouin, vol. 1, p. 206) Et vindrent a els, si se combatirent, et furent desconfit li Franc, . . . (Villehardouin, vol. 2, p. 30) La lor vint novelle que mult des pelerins s'en aloient . . .

121 (Villehardouin, v o l . 1 . , p. 54) N ' i i r a i p a s , v o s t r e merci, mes i t a n t solemant vos p r i que, se nus besoinz m'avenoit e t l a novelle a vos venoit que j ' e u s s e mestier d ' a i e , adonc ne m ' o b l i e s s i e z mie. (Chretien de Troyes, Erec et Enide. 1. 3885-90, p . 118) Adont me v i n t a v i s i o n s . (Adam de l a H a l l e , Jeu de l a f e u i l l e e , 1. 68, p . 28) Lo fol p o r r o i s a v o i r , se i l vos v i e n t a g r e . (Simon de P o u i l l e , 1. 1331, p . 146) 14th century: I I vient a. e l l e et l a saluo, e t e l l e luy: . . . (Quinze Joyes de Mariage, p . 622) Mon seigneur, je vien a. vous i e n d r o i s en t o u t quanque je me puis avancer. (Gessler, e d . , La Maniere de l a n gage, p. 50) Venez a moy, ma t r e s doulce amie, . . . La Maniere de langage, p . 62)

(Gessler, ed.

15th century: Si chevaucha t a n t q u ' i l v i t celuy q u ' i l demandoit; s i vint a luy et l e salua . . . (Roman de Jehan de P a r i s , p. 713) Quant le conte de Charroloys s c e u t le depart ement du Roy qui s ' e s t o i t party du pays de Bourbonnoys e t q u ' i l venoit d r o i t a. luy . . . (Commynes, 18, in Huguet, p . 204) Les seigneurs, dames e t damoiselles l e u r vindrent au devant. (Roman de Jehan de P a r i s , p . 749) l 6 t h century: Madame le f i s t a soy venir. p . 63)

( S a i n t r e , 12, in Huguet,

C i l vint a. moy, e t pour me bien consoler, i l me va d i r e . (Jehan de P a r i s , 62, in Huguet, p . 84) Frere Jan l ' a p p e r c e u t , et demandoit dont luy venoit t e l l e fascherie non acoustumee. (Rabelais, I I , 335, i n Huguet, p. 129) Adonc l a t e r r e fut t a n t eschaufe, que i l luy v i n t une sueur enorme, dont e l l e sua toute l a mer, qui par ce e s t s a l e e . (Rabelais, I , 228, in Huguet, p. 99)

122 17th century: Lucide luy venant la premiere a la rencontre . . . (Sorel, Berg, extr., 1, V, t. I, 363, in Brunot, I966, vol. 3, p. 482") Le plus grand deplaisir qui puisse m'arriver au monde, e'est s'il me revenoit que vous Stes un indevot. (Racine, VII, 141, Lett., in Brunot, I966, vol. 4, p. 582) Idomenee, revenant a. soi, remercia ses amis. Tel., V, in Haase, p. 30) Examples of venir abound.

(Fen.,

The distinction between the literal

and figurative meanings of the verb governing the i\se of disjunctive or conjunctive pronouns is made very early in the language as seen in the 11th century examples.

This distinction is also seen in sub-

sequent examples, e.g., Apres icel li vien un altre avisiun

(see

above, p. 120), Adont me vint avisions and La lor vint novel (see above, pp. 120 and 121), although there is an example of the latter with the disjunctive pronoun in the 13th century (see above, p. 121).

There are also examples which clearly involve the movement

of one animate being towards another where the conjunctive pronoun is used, two in the 12th century involving animals approaching humans, and one in the 13th century involving two humans. These also involve a complement introduced by a preposition and / or adverb of place. In the 13th century, the first example with venir from Villehardouin has the meaning of se ranger:

Tuit li Grieu de l'une part

et de 1'altre del Braz vindrent a lui et a son commandement et a sa volonte

(see above, p. 120).

Verbal expressions with venir involving clear movement fluctuate in the use of the pronoun, e.g., venir en aide (disjunctive), venir a. la rencontre (conjunctive), venir droit (disjunctive), venir au devant (conjunctive).

123 Examples of revenir are fewer.

The early ones seem to be ex-

clusively literal (12th and 13th centuries).

In the 17th century,

we have examples of two different figurative meanings of revenir, each requiring different positions of the pronoun. 2.1.

Dire For the sake of comparison with parler, I have included several

examples of the verb dire. While these two verbs are not synonymous, they both involve speech in many instances. 11th century: N'il ne lour dist, ned il nel demanderent . . . (Vie de Saint Alexis, 1. 239, in Bartsch, p. 21) 12th century: Irai a li, si li dirai Que ele ait merci et pitie De cest chaitif desconseillie? (Marie de France, Guigemar, p. 311) Jol te dirai priveement . . . (Jeu d'Adam, p. 13) Jol di a toi, e voil que Eva l'oie: . . . (Jeu d'Adam, p. 8) 13th century: Se li dississiez qu'ele venist a moi parler . . . (Aucassin et Nicolette, p. 483) Biax amis Erec, alez i au chevalier, et dites li que il veigne a moi, -nel lest mie: . . . (Chretien de Troyes, Erec et Enide, 1. 201-3, p. 7) Et si tost come ele ot ceste parole dite, si parla une voiz et dist a eus: . . . (La Legende du Saint Graal, La Queste del Saint Graal, P. 438) 14th century: Or s'en vient le lendemain bien matin veoir la dame, et lui demande comment il luy est, et elle lui dit qu'il lui est ung pou amende devers le jour, . . . (Quinze Joyes de Mariage, p. 608)

124 16th c e n t u r y : Le c a p i t a i n e n o u s d i t , h e u r e n ' e s t de p a r l e r a e l l e . ( R a b e l a i s , I I I , 7 2 , in H u g u e t , p . 60) C i l v i n t a moy, e t pour me b i e n c o n s o l e r , i l me va d i r e . (Jehan de P a r i s . 6 2 , in H u g u e t , p . 84) 17th c e n t u r y : Et i c i j e ne p u i s m'empecher de l e d i r e a. vous, mes f r e r e s , que l a g r a c e a r e t i r e s des egarements du monde, . . . ( M a s s . , C a r . , Melange d e s Bons e t des Mechans, 1, i n Haase-, p . 28) With few e x c e p t i o n s , the c o n j u n c t i v e pronoun i s used wibh d i r e , even when p a r l e r t a k e s t h e d i s j u n c t i v e pronoun i n t h e same s e n t e n c e . 2.2.

M i s c e l l a n e o u s Examples For f u r t h e r comparison, a few examples of v e r b s w i t h t h e c o n -

j u n c t i v e pronoun a r e l i s t e d b e l o w . are listed

Because of t h e i r v a r i e t y ,

chronologically.

9th c e n t u r y :

donner

P o d i r me dunat, 10th c e n t u r y :

. . .

( S e r m e n t s , 1 . 9 , i n B a r t s c h , p . 3)

demander,

repondre

Zo l o r demandet q u e q u e r e n t . I I l i r e s p o n d e n t t u i t adun. (La P a s s i o n du C h r i s t , 1. 1 8 , i n B a r t s c h , p . 7) Reis C h i e l p e r i c s cum i l l ' a u d i t , p r e s d r a sos m e i s , a l u i s t r a m i s t , c i o l i mandat que r e v e n i s t , sa g r a t i a por t o t o u i s t . (Vie de S a i n t L e g e r , 1. 8 5 - 8 8 , i n B a r t s c h , p . 11) 11th c e n t u r y : demander, e n d i t e r (« i n d i q u e r ) , p a r d o n n e r , donner, remaindre ( = r e s t e r ) , r e q u e r i r ( = demander) N ' i l ne l o u r d i s t , ned i l n e l demanderent, . . . (Vie de S a i n t A l e x i s , 1. 2 3 9 , i n B a r t s c h , p . 21) Vint une voiz q u i l o u r ad e n d i t e t . . . (Vie de S a i n t A l e x i s , 1. 3 1 3 , i n B a r t s c h , p . 22) Ainz p r i e t Deu q u e d i l l e l o r p a r d o i n s t . . . (Vie de S a i n t A l e x i s , 1. 2 6 9 , i n B a r t s c h , p . 22)

they

125 De la vlande qui del herberc li vient tant en retient dont son cors en sostient se lui'n remaint, sil rent as provendiers; . . . (Vie de Saint Alexis, 1. 251-3. in Bartsch, p. 21) Sainz Innocenz ert idonc apostolies; a lui en vindrent e li rich e li povre, si li requierent conseil d'icele chose qu'il ont odide, qui molt les desconfortet; . . . (Vie de Saint Alexis, 1. 301-4, in Bartsch, p. 22) 12th century: acointier (= annoncer), conter, demander, donner, leisir (= £tre permis), mander, mescheoir (= aller mal, arriver malheur), noncier (= annoncer), otroiier (= octroyer), plaire, plevir (= promettre), porter, promottre, purporter (= suggerer), rendre, referir, repondre, rover (= demander), tendre Li palsant li acointierent Et ses espies li noncierent . . . (Arnold & Pelan,.Roman de Brut, 1. 3075-6, p. 118) Ele li conte la dolor, Les paines granz et la tristor De la prison ou ele fu, . . . (Marie de France, Guigemar, p. 321) A lui akeurent alqant et li plusor Qui li' demandent: Sire, que ferons nos? (Chanson d'Aspremont, 1. 4792-3, p. 154) Molt lor dona, molt lor promist, . . . (Arnold & Pelan, Roman de Brut, 1. 500, p. 56) Ferir ne covrir ne lor loist, . . . (Arnold & Pelan, Roman de Brut, 1. 4527, p. 152) Manda li qu'il s'an retornast, . . . (Arnold & Pelan, Roman de Brut, 1. 3109, p. 119) Vit que sovant li mescheoit . . . (Arnold & Pelan, Roman de Brut, 1. 3713, p. 180) Deus li otreit sainte benelgun! (Chanson de Roland, 1. 333, in Bartsch, p. 32) Dame, fait il, einsi soit; mes envoies a moi quant vos plaira, . . . (Roman de Troie, p. 12) S'aiderai Carle, que foi li ai plevie. (Chanson d'Aspremont, 1. 948, p. 31) De lor avoirs tant li porterent, . . . (Arnold & Pelan, Roman de Brut, 1. 1181, p. 73)

126 Et tuit ansanble li promistrent . . . (Arnold & Pelan, Roman de Brut, 1. 3704, p. 133) Et Artus li a bien promis Que tot le regne li randra . . . (Arnold & Pelan, Roman de Brut, 1. 1294-5, p. 76) E se sun quor lui purportast e s'un cunseil li dunast, prendreit de lui ceo que offert ad a lui. (Lois dites de Guillaume le conquerant, 1. 35-6, in Bartsch, p. 41) Et li dus Bues fiert le conte Flavent Et Flavens lui referi durement; . . . (Chanson d'Aspremont, 1. 4086-7, p. 131) Auquant d'aus li ont respondu » . . (Arnold & Pelan, Roman de Brut, 1. 2719, p. 110) Mes li baron li ont rove Que il sejort an la cite . . . (Arnold & Pelan, Roman de Brut, 1. 403-4, p. 54) Et au roi ostaiges donroient Que toz tans mes pes li tanroient Et treu par an li randroient, . . . (Arnold & Pelan, Roman de Brut, 1. 674-6, p. 61) 13th century: advenir, avoir convent (= promettre), croire, demander, donner, -faire hair, faire paiement, obeir, prier, repondre Et li mesage respond: "Nos volons que vos le nous creantes que il n'i ara garde se de vos seul non." Et li rois lor creanta. (Legende du Saint Graal, Perceval, pp. 404-5) Li amiranz te mande, ne celerai noiant, . . . (Simon de Pouille, 1. 1010, p. 134) Et lors demanda as serjans se li chevaliers estoit venus, et il li respondirent: "Sire, oil" et dist Bron: "Je i vuel aler." (Legende du Saint Graal, Perceval, p. 398) Et li donnons et avons donnei plain pooir de presenteir a vos por nos et en nostre non Gilet, . . . (Behrens, p. 43; legal document from the Marne, #36, 1284) L'endemain par matin leva, et fist celui a soi venir que sa fame li fet ha'ir . . . (Chastelaine de Vergi, p. 355) Et il enveoient a lui, et prioient que il lor feist paiement de lor avoir, si com il lor avoit convent. (Villehardouin, vol. 2, p. 8)

Et la gent de la terre le reciurent et li obeirent a seignor, qui le virent mult volentiers; . . . (Villehardouin, vol. 2, p. 120) N'i irai pas, vostre merci, mes itant solemant vos pri que, se nus besoinz m'avenoit . . . (Chretien de Troyes, Erec et Enide. 1. 3885-7, p. 118) 14th century:

demander, promettre, remembrer, servir

Or s'en vient le lendemain bien matin veoir la dame, et lui demande comment il luy est, et elle lui dit qu'il lui est ung pou amende devers le jour, . . . (Quinze Joyes de Mariage, p. 608) Car je lui ay promis parler demain a. matin a. luy. (Quinze Joyes de Mariage, p. 622) Et luy remembre bien souvent ses amis, qui aucunesfois luy en parlent. (Quinze Joyes de Mariage, p. 626) Aingois avoient ceux d'Evreux fait semblant que de lui servir de pierres et de mangonneaux . . . (Froissart, P. 395) 15th- century:

plaire

S'i' vous plaisoit moy commander que je fusse a luy, j'y seroye. (Maistre Pierre Pathelin, p. 337) 16th century:

advenir, deffendre

II luy deffendit que jamais il ne luy advint de luy parler. (Heptameron, II, 68, in Huguet, p. 270) 17th century:

arriver

Le plus grand deplaisir qui puisse m1 arriver au monde, e'est s'il me revenoit que vous etes un indevot. (Racine, VII, 141, Lett., in Brunot, 1966, vol. 4, p. 582) The use of the conjunctive object pronoun is widespread from early on in the language and with many verbs which have the same construction today.

Demander (and synonyms) and repondre (which

involve speech) are frequent. 2.3.

Examples with y Examples where y stands for a person are many.

128

12th century:

donner, mener, venir

Mult grant honur i ad l i r e i s dunee. ( i s Aide or Aude, Roland's fiancee) (Chanson de Roland, 1. 3733. in Moignet, 1969, p. 260] Gauvains en e s t a l u i alez, Ses compagnons i a menez. (Marie de France, Lanval, p . 336) Carles de France i v i n t , k i l succurat . . . ( i = le due Naimes) (Chanson de Roland, 1. 3444, in Moignet, 1969, p . 242) 13th century:

a l l e r , envoyer, f e r i r , p a r l e r , v e n i r

E t lors demanda as serjans se l i c h e v a l i e r s e s t o i t venus, et i l l i r e s p o n d i r e n t : "Sire, o i l " et d i s t Bron: "Je i ^uel a l e r . " (Legende du Saint Graal, Perceval, p . 398) Nains, f e t e l l e , l e s s e m ' a l e r : a ce c h e v a l i e r voel p a r l e r , c a r la r e i n e m'i anvoie. (Chretien de Troyes, Erec e t Enide, 1. 167-69, p . 6) E c i l le f i e r t del t i n e l enz e l sume, Noef colps i f e r i , e a l dismc en v a i t u l t r e . (Chanson de Guillaume, 1. 3196, p. 125) Certes, mais ne savoit, porries 457-8)

f a i t l i visquens, por nient en p a r l e r e s , que j a l a v e r r e s ; e t se vos i p a r i e s et vos peres l e i l a r d e r o i t e t mi e t l i en un feu, et vos meismes a v o i r toute paon. (Aucassin e t N i c o l e t t e , pp.

Or fu l i r o i s corrouciez e t i r e z , N ' e s t pas merveille n ' i l n ' e n f a i t a blasmer. Nostre empereres l e s f a i t t a n t o s t mander, E t i l i v i n r e n t , que ne l ' o s e n t veer (Ami et Amile, 1. 741-4, p . 24) 1 5 t h century:

etre, parler,

trouver

S ' i ' vous p l a i s o i t moy commander que je fusse a luy, j ' y seroye. (Maistre P i e r r e P a t h e l i n , p . 337) C e r t e s , vous n'y pourriez p a r l e r . p . 91, in Nyrop, v o l . 5, p . 255)

(Jehan de P a r i s ,

J e vous avoye entre a u l t r e s choisie comme l a non p a r e i l l e de loyaute, g e n t e t e , e t g r a c i e u s e t e , e t que je y trouveroye largement et a. comble l a t r e s noble vertu de loyaut e . (Cent Nouvelles I , 210, in Huguet, p. 71)

l6th century:

confesser. penser, resister

J'ay une si grande horreur, quand je voy ung Religieux, que seullement je ne m'y sgaurois confesser. (Hept., 191, in Huguet, p. 71) Floride venoit parler a. luy priveement, comme celle qui n'y pensoit en nul mal. (Rabelais, I, 352, in Huguet, p. 108) Dont se resolurent le laisser outre passer, sans y resister par armes. (Rabelais, III, 146, in Huguet, p. 71) 17th century: s'abandonner, s'attacher, egaler, etre, s'obliger, penser, pretendre, songer, se soumettre, rapporter, renvoyer Ils ont trompe le diable a. force de s'y abandonner. (Pascal, Provinciales, IV, in Nyrop, vol. 5, p. 256) Elle m'a paru toujours si sotte, que j'ai meprise les gens qui s'y sont fort attaches. (Bussy-Rab., Corr., II, 96, in Brunot, 1966, vol. ^, p. 880) Vous pouvez vous rendre semblables a. luy J^Dieu] , la sagesse vous y egalera, si vous voulez le suivre. (Pascal, Pensees, ed. Molin, I, 290, in Brunot, 1966, vol. IV, p. 880) II n'y a homme au monde qui soit a. vous si veritablement que j'y suis. (La Rochefoucauld, in Pinchon, Les Pronoms, p, 100) M'obligerai-je a. un mechant? Si je m'y oblige, que feraije pour m'en acquitter. (Malherbe, Oeuvres Completes, II, 35, in Nyrop, vol. 5, p. 256) Le roi est environne de gens qui ne pensent qu'a divertir le roi, et a. 1'emp^cher de penser a. lui. Car il est malheureux, tout roi qu'il est, s'il y pense. (Pascal, Pensees, ed. J, Steinmann, VIII, p. 106, in Moignet, 1965, P. 16) Tous les princes du monde seront trop peu de chose pour aspirer a. vous; les dieux seuls y pourront pretendre. (Moliere, Les Am.,magn., II, 3, in Haase, p. 25) Pour revenir a. cette grosse petite femme, qu'il me semble que je voy toutes les fois que j'y songe . . . (Scarron, Roman Comique, p. 693, in Pinchon, Pronoms adverbiaux, p. 130) Martel ne croyant pas qu'il [le Comte d'Estreesj en sut autant que lui a la mer, avoit eu peine a. s'y soumettre. (Bussy-Rab., Corr., II, 306, in Brunot, 1966, vol. 4, p. 880)

130 Rien ne peut me distraire de penser a. vous, j'y rapporte toutes choses. (Sev., VI, 318, in Haase, p. 25) Oui, oui, je te renvoie a. 1'autour des Satires — Je t'y renvoie aussi. (Moliere, Femmes Savantes, III, sc. 3, in Nyrop, vol. 5, P« 256) The use of y is quite common early on. Although it lends itself readily to being used with verbs of motion, indicating, by extension of its original locative meaning, the person to be reached, it is also used with other verbs, including donner, parler and penser.

Y seems to enjoy great popularity in the 17th century.

Pascal is fond of using it for God and devil. Y is also used to replace a personal pronoun preceded by other prepositions, e.g., en, sur, avec, chez, etc.

(Le Bidois, p. 173)- Although the use

of y may be for stylistic reasons in some cases, in order to avoid repeating a + disjunctive pronoun in the same sentence, there are many instances where it is not so.

Nor is it consistently used with

verbs which require a. + disjunctive pronoun, although the frequency of use with parler and penser is striking. 2.4.

Remarks on Textual Examples While our corpus of textual examples is limited, we can make

several observations about the syntax of the verbs listed. 2.4.1. Verbs of Total Physical Movement The construction a + disjunctive pronoun is generally the rule for verbs of motion in Old French.

Persons are more frequently the

objects of verbs of motion in this construction than in later forms of French.

The use of the conjunctive pronoun with verbs of motion

is generally for figurative meaning, e.g., besoinz m'avenoit, la viande . . . li vient.

The distributional constraints which were

I 131 mentioned in Chapter II (see above, p. 72) are present in Old French already.

These constraints are basically of the order

human (disjunctive) / non-human (conjunctive);

recall the two

examples of venir where animals approached a person and where the conjunctive pronoun was used (see above, p. 120). 2.4.2. Verbs of Partial Physical Movement Donner takes almost always the conjunctive pronoun, envoyer (and renvoyer and trametre) has both constructions, tirer, traire and attirer always take the disjunctive pronoun. no pattern.

There seems to be

These verbs all have two object complements —

and indirect. 9th century. also takes y ) .

direct

Donner takes the conjunctive pronoun as early as the Envoyer vacillates between three constructions (it The examples of tirer and attirer are figurative,

soi is always the disjunctive pronoun, and they appear only in the 16th and 17th centuries.

Traire is frequent in Old French, and al-

most always with the disjunctive pronoun, which is sometimes soi. It very often signifies tirer des fleches and when it takes soi, it resembles the figurative uses of tirer and attirer. 2.4.3. Verbs of Speaking and Verbalizing Parler (and deviser and tenir plait) take the disjunctive pronoun.

The one example of en appeler is conjunctive and there

are two examples of appeler a soi. takes the disjunctive pronoun. the conjunctive pronoun. tive pronoun.

One example of faire clamor

Promettre and avoir convent take

Commander (and mander) takes the disjunc-

Conter takes either.

Demander (and mander, requerir,

rover) always take the conjunctive pronoun.

132 Parler requires the disjunctive pronoun in the 12th and 13th centuries, but in the 14th, the conjunctive pronoun begins to appear.

Appeler a soi is required for distributional reasons (i.e.,

s'appeler has a different meaning). Dire almost always takes the conjunctive pronoun. 2.4.4. Verbs of Mental and Emotional Tendency Apenser, penser and songer all appear with disjunctive pronouns, although the example for songer is from the 17th century. These verbs also appear in reflexive forms prior to the 17th century.

These reflexive forms seem to translate some inner reflection

about another complement of the verb and are not the equivalent of penser a soi. 2.4.5.

Verbs of Belonging

Appartenir and etre both take the disjunctive pronoun in Old French. 2.4.6.

Verbs which take y

Based on our few examples, y is used with verbs of movement in Old French. parler.

There is one example of y with donner and one with

Thus, we have at least one example of each of these two

verbs with all three constructions.

In Middle French and Classical

French, we find examples of Itre, songer and penser especially with y and also with confesser, pretendre, rapporter and renvoyer. Early examples with y seem to be closer to its locative value. Later examples on the other hand seem to have more of a personal pronoun value.

133 3.

Conclusion How can we account f o r the l a c k of any c l e a r p a t t e r n i n t h e use

of pronouns i n any of t h e above c a t e g o r i e s ?

The answer i s t h a t the

language in g e n e r a l , and the pronoun system i n p a r t i c u l a r , a r e i n a 49 . . c o n t i n u o u s s t a t e of e v o l u t i o n . '

The use of a * d i s j u n c t i v e p r o -

noun i s one i n d i c a t i o n of the a n a l y t i c a l tendency of t h e l a n g u a g e . I t i s n o t s u r p r i s i n g t h e r e f o r e t h a t we s h o u l d f i n d i n Old F r e n c h t h a t t h i s c o n s t r u c t i o n i s very common, and w i t h a l l s o r t s of v e r b s . There i s , however, a t r e n d which would s u g g e s t a r e v e r s a l of t h i s t e n d e n c y i n Old French which a c c o u n t s f o r t h e r e d u c t i o n in the

fre-

quency of a. + d i s j u n c t i v e pronoun and the i n c r e a s e d u s e of the conj u n c t i v e pronoun.

These changes occur a t v a r i o u s t i m e s , some

e a r l y ( d o n n e r ) , some l a t e r ( p a r l e r ) .

We would e x p e c t t h e r e f o r e

to

see o u r l i s t of v e r b s change c o n s t a n t l y and we would expect a l s o to see much v a c i l l a t i o n i n u s a g e . t u r i e s have made t h i s i m p l i c i t l y

I t h i n k t h a t w r i t e r s over the c e n clear.

While t h e r e a r e changes in i n d i v i d u a l v e r b s , t h e c a t e g o r i e s of verbs which f a v o r one c o n s t r u c t i o n over t h e o t h e r r e m a i n the same t h r o u g h o u t the c e n t u r i e s .

These c a t e g o r i e s were d i s c u s s e d in d e t a i l

i n C h a p t e r I I and a g a i n above as t h e y r e l a t e to our t e x t u a l examples.

B a s i c a l l y , we can expect t h a t the human o b j e c t of verbs of

t o t a l p h y s i c a l movement and those of mental and e m o t i o n a l tendency w i l l be r e p r e s e n t e d by a d i s j u n c t i v e pronoun a f t e r t h e p r e p o s i t i o n a.

Verbs of p a r t i a l p h y s i c a l movement w i l l be d i v i d e d i n c o n s t r u c -

t i o n , b u t the more f i g u r a t i v e t h i s p a r t i a l p h y s i c a l movement a p p e a r s t o be, t h e more l i k e l y i t i s t h a t t h e d i s j u n c t i v e pronoun w i l l be used.

Verbs of speaking and v e r b a l i z i n g w i l l be c o n s t r u c t e d w i t h a

c o n j u n c t i v e pronoun.

134 The question that is left to be answered is why a verb would be constructed with one pronoun rather than the other. We can explain this for some verbs on the basis of distributional constraints.

This is particularly the case with verbs of motion.

But

for many other verbs, there are no such easy explanations. Even for parler, which we see changing syntax during the 16th and 17th centuries, we are offered no explicit reason by grammarians for the change.

Earlier I proposed that parler might have

continued to take a. + disjunctive pronoun much later than other verbs because of its high frequency.

Parler did take the conjunc-

tive pronoun when another complement introduced by de was present. It is likely that by the end of the 17th century or early in the 18th century, parler changes construction by analogy with other verbs, especially since it can often occur with a conjunctive pronoun and the a + disjunctive pronoun construction now assumes the function of grammatical stress. I have not found any observation or rule from any grammarian of the time to support this. Of course, none of these explanations account for the obligatory use of a +• disjunctive pronoun with penser, songer, r&ver. croire, and a few other verbs and verbal expressions from our original list in Chapter I.

Early grammarians do not make any expli-

cit revelations. We can only speculate.

These restrictions do not

seem to have any logical or explainable basis in the phonological and syntactical development of the language.

Semantic reasons seem

to be the only ones remaining. Was the human object of these verbs somehow more remotely perceived in the mind of speakers?

In other

words, did they seek (perhaps subconsciously) to equate a semantic relationship between certain verbs and their human object comple-

135 ments with the prepositional construction, a semantic relationship which sets the object complement in this case at a different level, further removed, than that semantic relationship existing in the conjunctive construction?

Indeed, in verbs of mental and emotional

tendency, the verbal process seems to be more abstract.

Yet, this

concept of remoteness has been bridged, although not completely, by using y with these verbs, but not lui, and we even saw that they could be reflexive in some cases. The present study does not show conclusively that an explanation for the development of verbs like penser does or does not exist.

I believe that an explanation is possible, but further re-

search into this problem is necessary in order to achieve a more definite conclusion.

The whole period of Old French needs to be

explored in detail.

The research should trace the development of

selected verbs (e.g., penser, songer, rever, croire, parler, obeir, repondre, etc.) from the earliest available texts.

Those texts

which are considered to be close xo the vernacular should be particularly examined.

This research should be exhaustive so that se-

veral examples of each verb at various stages of the development of Old French would be available.

Stages of deviation in syntax be-

tween the two categories of verbs, those requiring the conjunctive pronoun and those requiring a + disjunctive pronoun, should be pinpointed.

This should provide a much better picture of the histori-

cal problem and, hopefully, allow for a more definite conclusion.

136

NOTES Arrive and Chevalier, Grammaire, pp. 15-27; Albert Dauzat, Grammaire raisonnee de la langue francaise (Lyon: Edition IAC, 1947), PP. 15-16. 2 John Palsgrave, Lesclaircissement de la Langue Francoyse. in English Linguistics, ed. R. C. Alston (Menston, England: The Scolar Press, Ltd., 1969), No. 190. 3 Palsgrave, Lesclarcissement, second book, p. 354Palsgrave, Lesclarcissement, second book, p. 36. Palsgrave, Lesclarcissement, third book

p. 101.

Palsgrave, Lesclarcissement, third book 7Palsgrave, Lesclarcissement, third book 8 Palsgrave, Lesclarcissement, third book

pp. 101-102.

'Palsgrave, Lesclarcissement, third book

p. 102.

p. 102. p. 102.

Palsgrave, Lesclarcissement, third book, p. 102. Palsgrave, Lesclarcissement, third book, p. 102. 12 Palsgrave, Lesclarcissement, third book, p. 103. 13 ^Palsgrave, Lesclarcissement, third book, p. 104. 14 Louis Meigret, Le T r e t t e de la Grammere Francoeze, i n Sammlung franzb'sischer Neudrucke, ed. K a r l Vollmfiller (Heilbronn: Verlage von Gebr. Henningen, 1888), v o l . 7 , P- 70. 5 Meigret, T r e t t e . p . 70. 16 Meigret, Trette. p. 71. 17 Pierre La Ramee, Gramere (1562) (Geneve: Slatkine Reprints, 1972), pp. 47-48, 86-88,~~9~6~. 1 R

P i e r r e La Ramee, Grammaire (1572) (Geneve: Slatkine R e p r i n t s , 1972), pp. 71-73, 159. 19 'Georges Gougenheim, Grammaire de la langue du seizieme siecle (Lyon: Editions I. A, C , 19517, p. 67.

137 c

Jean-Claude Chevalier, Histoire de la syntaxe. Naissance de la notion de complement dans la grammaire frangaise (1530-1750) "(Geneve: Librairie Droz, 196157, p. 243. 21 Charles L. Livet, La Grammaire frangaise et les grammairiens du XVIe siecle (Paris: Didier et Cie, Libraires, 1859), PP- 411-

WL2TT19. 22 Chevalier, Histoire, pp. 316-317. "•^Antoine Benoist, De la syntaxe f rang aise entre Palsgrave et Vaugelas (I877) (Geneve: Slatkine Reprints, 1968), pp. 1922. 24 Palsgrave, Lesclarcissement, third book, p. 115. o c.

"^Robert Estienne, Traicte de la gramaire Francoise (Paris, 1557) (Geneve: Slatkine Reprints, 1972), p. 29; Jean Pillot, Gallicae Linguae Institutio Latino Sermone Conscripta (1550) (Geneve: Slatkine Reprints, 1972), p. 18. 26 Pinchon, Les Pronoms adverbiaux, p. 140. ^Meigret, Trette. p. 66. 2R Henri Stephane, Hypomneses de gallica lingua (1582), pp. 2728, 170-171.

29'Antoine Caucius, Grammaticae Gallicae (1586), p . 101.

30 . Livet, Grammaire, p. 300. 31 Chevalier, Histoire, p. 328. 32 J Charles Maupas, Grammaire et Syntaxe Francaise (1618) 33 (Geneve: Slatkine Reprints, 197377 pp. 59-60. "^Maupas, Grammaire, p. 60. 34 J Maupas, Grammaire, p. 66-67. 35,Maupas, Grammaire, p. 98. 36 J Maupas, Grammaire, pp. 132-133^Pinchon, "Histoire", pp. 76-78. 38Pinchon, t Les Pronoms adverbiaux, p. 118. 39 -^Pinchon, Les Pronoms adverbiaux, p. 140. Brunot, La Pensee, p. 384.

41 Pinchon, " H i s t o i r e " , p . 79. 42 Claude Favre de Vaugelas, Remarques sur l a langue francoise

138 (Facsimile) (Paris: Librairie E. Droz, 193^), P« 9^. ^Chevalier, Histoire, p. 524. Jean D'Aisy, Le Genie de la langue frangaise (1685) (Geneves Slatkine Reprints, 1972), pp. 10-11, 18, 104^105, 130. -'Chevalier, Histoire, p. 471. 46.Chevalier, Histoire, p. 587. 77

Chevalier, H i s t o i r e , pp. 597-598.

48A more complete l i s t i n g of the references f o r these t e x t u a l

examples follows: Jeanne Baroin, ed., Simon de P o u i l l e . Chanson de Geste (Geneve: L i b r a i r i e Droz, 19687"; James Bellot, The French Method (1588), ed. R. C. Alston (Menston, England: The S c o l a r P r e s s L t d . , 1970); I . D. 0. Arnold and M. M. Pelan, e d . , La P a r t i e Arthurienne du Roman de Brut ( P a r i s : L i b r a i r i e C. Klincksieck, 1962)1 Karl Bartsch, Chrestomathie de l ' a n c i e n frangais (Vllle-XVe s i e c l e s ) , 12th ed. (New York and London: Hafner Publishing C o . , 1968); D i e t r i c h Behrens, e d . , Grammaire de l ' a n c i e n f r a n g a i s , 3e p a r t i e (Leipzig: 0. R. Reisland, 1913); Jean Bodel, Le Jeu de S a i n t Nicolas, in Jeux et sapience du moyen a g e , ed. Albert Pauphilet ( P a r i s : Gallimard, 1951); Adam l e Bossu, Le Jeu de Robin e t de Marion, in Jeux e t sapience du moyen age, ed. Albert Pauphilet ( P a r i s : Gallimard, 1951)5 Louis Brandin, ed., La Chanson d'Aspremont ( P a r i s : L i b r a i r i e Ancienne Honore Champion, Editeur, 1919)» Ferdinand Brunot, H i s t o i r e de l a langue frangaise des o r i g i n e s a nos jours ( P a r i s : L i b r a i r i e Armand Colin, 1966); Ferdinand Brunot, La pensee e t l a langue ( P a r i s : Masson e t Cie, E d i t e u r s , 1922); Chretien 'de Troyes, Erec e-t Enide, in Les romans de Chretien de Troyes, ed. Mario Roques [Paris: L i b r a i r i e Honore Champion, 1973); L. Constans and E. F a r a l , ed., Le roman de Troie en prose, v o l . 1 ( P a r i s : L i b r a i r i e Ancienne Honore Champion, 192277 Albert Dauzat, Dictionnaire etymologique de l a langue francaise ( P a r i s : L i b r a i r i e Larousse, 1938); Maurice Davau et a l . , D i c t i o n n a i r e du f r a n g a i s vivant ( P a r i s : Bordas, 1972); Peter F . Dembowski, ed., Ami et Amile, Chanson de geste ( P a r i s : L i b r a i r i e Honore Champion, Editeur, 1969); Jean Dubois et a l . , Lexis d i c t i o n n a i r e de l a langue frangaise ( P a r i s : L i b r a i r i e Larousse, 1975); Edmond Faral and J u l i a Bastin, ed., Oeuvres completes de Rutebeuf ( P a r i s : Editions A. et J. Picard e t Cie, 1959); Jean F r o i s s a r t , Les Chroniques, i n Histor i e n s e t chroniqueurs du moyen-age, ed. Albert Pauphilet ( P a r i s : Gallimard, 195 2 ); Jean Gessler, ed., La Maniere de langage qui enseigne a bien p a r l e r e t e c r i r e l e frangais (England, 14th century)" (Bruxelles: Editions U n i v e r s e l l e s , 1934); Georges Gougenheim, Systeme grammatical de l a langue frangaise ( P a r i s : Bibliotheque du "frangais moderne", 19317; Marion Austin Greene, Studies i n Fifteenth Century French Syntax (Chapel H i l l : University of North Carolina, 1949)J A. Haase, Syntaxe frangaise du XVIIe s i e c l e ( P a r i s : L i b r a i r i e Delagrave, 1969); Adam de l a H a l l e , Le Jeu de !§: f e u i l l e e , ed. Jean Rony ( P a r i s : E d i t i o n s Bordas, 19697; Edmond Huguet, Etude sur l a syntaxe de Rabelais ( P a r i s : L i b r a i r i e Hachette e t Cie, 1894); Paul Imbs et a l . , Tresor de l a langue frangaise ( P a r i s : Editions du Centre National de l a Recherche Scienxifique,

139 1971); Georges Le Bidois and Robert Le Bidois, Syntaxe du frangais moderne (Pari3: Editions A. et J. Picard et Cie, 1967); Emile Littre, Dictionnaire de la langue frangaise (Editions Universitaires, 1958"7! Duncan McMillan, ed., La Chanson de Guillaume (Paris: Editions A. et J. Picard et Cie, 1 9 W ) ; Marie de France, Lais, in Poetes et Romanciers du moyen age, ed. Albert Pauphilet (Paris: Gallimard, 1952); Gerard Moignet, ed., La Chanson de Roland (Paris: Bibliotheque Bordas, 1969); K. R. Nyrop, Grammaire historique de la langue francaise (Copenhague: Det Nordiske Forlag, 1903); Albert Pauphilet, ed., Jeux et sapience du moyen-age (Taris: Gallimard, 1951); contains: La Farce du povre Jouhan; Le Jeu d'Adam; Maistre Pierre Pathelin; Albert Pauphilet, ed., Poetes et romanciers du moyen-age (Paris: Gallimard, 1952); contains: Aucassin et Nicolette; La Chastelaine de Vergi; La Legende du saint Graal; Les Quinze joyes de mariage; Le Roman de Jehan de Paris; Jacqueline Pinchon, Les Pronoms adverbiaux "EN" et "Y" (Geneve: Librairie Droz, 1972); G. de Poerck et al., ed. Le Charroi de Nimes (Saint-Aquilin-de-Pacy: Librairie--Editions Mallier, 1970); Rutebeuf, Le Miracle de Theophile, in Jeux et sapience du moyen-age, ed. Albert Pauphilet (Paris; Gallimard, 1951); Geoffroy de Villehardouin, La Conqulte de Constantinople, ed. Edmond Faral (Paris: Societe d'Edition "Les Belles Lettres", I96I). 49 This is brought out strikingly in the following examples: Trente cites sont bien a lui aclin (12th century; p. 106); Et qui ne soit a moi contraire (13th century; p. 106)5 Que a luy soit plaisante (15th century; p. 106); A lui ganchist~Tl3th century; pi 107); Ne a eux parler (15th century; p. 109); A lui en vindrent (11th century; p. 119); Et en- s'aie a lui venist (12th century; p. 120); We are more concerned here, however, with the verbal construction than with free word order. 50 Moignet, Pronom, pp. 163-164.

140

CHAPTER IV PEDAGOGICAL TREATMENT In this chapter, I will examine how the contrast parler a / penser a (and related problems) is treated in a few recent first and second year textbooks commonly used in U. S. colleges and universities and draw some pedagogical conclusions. Of eight textbooks examined, three do not treat the problem. Harris and Leveque's Basic Conversational French contrasts penser a and penser de (pp. 232-233), explaining in a footnote how they differ.

It also mentions the use of the disjunctive pronoun for per-

sons and y for things.

There is a two part exercise designed to

drill the difference between the two verbs, replacing their noun objects (either human or inanimate) by appropriate pronouns, Penser a and parler a are contrasted in a lab manual exercise as part of an earlier unit (beginning on p. 186 of the textbook). There is no explanation of the differing pronoun syntax in that unit.

In the lab exorcise, students must replace the object of the

verb, either human or inanimate, by the appropriate pronoun. Parler de is also used in this exercise.

Students hear the original

sentence, then write the transformed sentence in.

They then recei-

ve an aural verification of the correct transformation.

This exer-

cise is supposed to contrast the use of object pronouns and disjunctive pronouns, and y and en.

The use of penser a however is

quite unexpected and the student is given only two examples to get

141 the idea that penser a followed by a human object must be replaced by a disjunctive pronoun. Etre a is treated in a grammar unit dealing with possessive pronouns (p. 205)•

Students are told to use the disjunctive pro-

noun after the verb to render "mine, yours, his, etc." Etre a is translated as "to belong to." The syntax of etre a is drilled in a substitution exercise. Y is mentioned in a grammar unit treating "unstressed forms of personal pronouns'* (p. l4^J) as replacing the "indirect object of a verb —

referring only to things."

There is no explanation, only

two examples, and one exercise which mixes indirect objects and objects of place.

The function of the preposition a and the dis-

tinction just mentioned is not explained anywhere in this unit. The introduction to the unit explains that "unstressed forms are sometimes called 'conjunctive' pronouns and the stressed forms 'dis2 junctive' pronouns." Michio Hagiwara and Frangoise de Rocher's Theme et Variations mentions that "a few verbs require a + stressed pronoun" rather than an indirect object pronoun.

Etre a and penser are given as

examples in this unit treating stressed pronouns (p. 303). X i s treated a few pages later (p. 306), both as an adverb of place and as replacing "a + noun denoting a thing or idea."

In the latter

function, examples are given with obeir, repondre, telephoner and penser.

It is also noted that "a +• noun denoting human beings

(and animals) is replaced by lui or leur or, in the case of &tre a and penser h, by a + stressed pronoun."

Several examples then fol-

low and there are two exercises contrasting these three types of pronoun syntax.

Indirect object pronouns, with no reference to ,y

142 or disjunctive pronouns, are treated earlier in the book (p. 196 on). 3 In Invitation by Jarvis et al., penser a and penser de are contrasted (p. 248) and it is noted that "when the noun following a or de is a person, it can be replaced by a disjunctive pronoun." Y and en can replace a thing or abstract idea after these verbs. These possibilities are then overed in several exercises, both structural and communicative. The uoes of y as an adverb of place and as a pronoun are covered immediately before this section (p. 245). It is pointed out that y cannot replace a person.

There are examples with penser and

reflechir. Etre a is found in the disjunctive pronoun section (p. 233) where it is noted that these are used after the verb "to indicate possession."

There is a substitution drill and a transformation exercise to reinforce this structure.4 Simone Dietiker's Franc-Parler devotes a section (p. 265) to

penser and a few other verbs which require a + disjunctive pronoun. It is pointed out that while a majority of verbs (e.g., parler and telephoner) use the indirect object pronoun to replace a + noun of person, penser and a small number of other verbs retain a and add the stressed pronoun.

The other verbs cited are:

songer, r|yer,

fetre, faire attention, reflechir, s'interesser, s'habituer. Dietiker then states that the "pronom adverbe y" is used before the verb to replace a thing, an inanimate object, an abstract word after a and that this rule is applicable to all verbs with the construction a + noun.

A chart then reviews the three constructions.

This is followed by two exercises which ask to replace the noun

143 after a in each sentence by an appropriate pronoun and a translation (English to French) exercise featuring the three constructions. Etre a is presented in two different places in the book, first in the stressed pronoun section (p. 151) to explain its translation of "to belong to, it's mine, his, hers, etc."

This is followed by

two exercises, one a fill-in to replace various possessive constructions, the other a directed dialog contrasting the several ways to express possession.

Etre a is also mentioned in the indirect ob-

ject pronoun section (p. 173) as an exception to verbs which are followed by an indirect object.

It has the meaning "to belong to"

and a is kept and followed by the stressed pronoun.

We are then

referred to the section on p. 151. No exercise follows which contains etre a. The three constructions to replace a + noun are concisely treated in one section in an intermediate textbook, Aujourd'hui. by Maresa Fanelli.

In the accented pronoun section (p. 304), it is

stated that "in most cases, the accented pronoun cannot replace a + noun."

"When the antecedent is a person, the indirect object

pronoun lui or leur will generally be used before the verb," e.g., parler and obeir.

Exceptions then follow, where "an accented pro-

noun may be the object of the preposition a:" verbs that require a before a complement," s'adresser;

2)

1)

"Pronominal

e.g., s'interesser and

"With certain idiomatic expressions," e.g., penser,

rever, faire attention, tenir a ("to be attached to") and etre a ("to belong to");

3)

"With verbs of mobion," e.g., courir. Final-

ly, "when the object of the preposition a is an inanimate thing, the adverbial pronoun y is substituted." these distinctions is available.

Only one exercise treating

144 Y is a l s o presented i n i t s own separate section ( p . 130) as an "adverbial pronoun".

I t i s noted t h a t i t cannot replace a person.

The problem of t r a n s l a t i n g y i s approached:

"Y may be t r a n s l a t e d

i n a v a r i e t y of ways depending on the meaning of the p r e p o s i t i o n a and the noun i t r e p l a c e s . "

Three examples follow using the verbs

p e n s e r , s ' i n t e r e s s e r and s ' h a b i t u e r . corporates these verbs and o t h e r s .

An exercise follows which i n Another exercise c o n t r a s t s the

u s e s of y / l u i , l e u r . Etre a i s also mentioned in a s e c t i o n e n t i t l e d " s p e c i a l r e marks about determiners" (p. 90) which t r e a t s d e f i n i t e ,

indefinite,

p a r t i t i v e a r t i c l e s and demonstrative and possessive a d j e c t i v e s .

It

i s mentioned with t h e l a t t e r as being a "very common c o n s t r u c t i o n " to indicate possession when followed by the "accented pronoun".

It

i s then used i n an e x e r c i s e where possessive a d j e c t i v e s are to be s u b s t i t u t e d f o r e t r e a + disjunctive pronoun. As we can see, textbook authors vary as t o the approach to be used in t r e a t i n g the problem. it.

Three out of e i g h t chose t o ignore

For the other f i v e , we can make some observations.

One common

t r a i t of a l l five i s t h a t they deal w i t h the i n d i r e c t object p r o noun system before t h e y mention the syntax of penser. occurs much e a r l i e r i n the book.

This usually

Four of them t r e a t the syntax of

penser in a separate s e c t i o n (one mentions i t i n a f o o t n o t e ) , a l though in conjunction with some other feature of the language.

Four

of them contra „ the syntax of penser with o t h e r verbs ( e . g . , p a r l e r ) , although one does i t without p r i o r explanation in a laboratory exercise r a t h e r than i n the textbook i t s e l f .

Three textbooks men-

t i o n the difference between penser a and penser de and two mention the use of d i s j u n c t i v e pronouns after them.

145 Etre a is mentioned in all five textbooks as having a possessive value (albhough one brings this out only through the translation of an example).

Three textbooks include the verb in their

treatment of "accented" or "stressed" pronouns.

Three of them also

mention it in another section as having the same pronoun syntax as penser. Y is treated in a section separate from the indirect object pronoun system in four textbooks.

The same four note that it is

marked [+ human] . All five provide examples of y with penser and verbs like parler. Only two textbooks (Franc-Parler and Aujourd'hui) devote a section treating the problem concisely.

They contrast parler, pen-

ser, the use of y, and give a list of a few verbs which behave like penser.

Aujourd'hui is more complete however, as it also includes

&tre a and verbs of motion in this section. Penser is always treated as an exception or as idiomatic and exercises are provided to reinforce its special pronoun syntax. These exercises range from being totally inadequate (Harris and Leveque) to somewhat effective in reinforcing this. Before offering some suggestions on how the problem relating to penser can best be approached, I will mention some recommendations offered by some noted linguists in the April 1970 issue of 7 the French Review.' Fernand Marty noted there that pronominal verbs (no matter what preposition followed them) and all non-pronominal verbs followed by a preposition other than a keep the preposition when the animate (person) object is replaced by a pronoun.

Marty then men-

tions some of the non-pronominal exceptions which keep a and states

146 that he doubts that there is any explanation, psychological or otherwise, for this (p. 812). Theodore Mueller borrows from transformational grammar and offers an explanation based on the distinction between the indirect object and the "prepositional-phrase complement:" The a plus noun phrase that is an indirect object is replaceable by an indirect-object pronoun: the noun is almost always animate. The y / a lui-complement, on the other hand, is a prepositional-phrase complement in which the preposition happens to be a (or sometimes some other preposition of place). Replacement is by means of a preposition plus a disjunctive pronoun if the noun is animate but by the adverbial pronoun y if the noun is inanimate. He then gives a list of "the most common verbs taking an y / a lui-complement" which includes "verbs of motion and many reflexive verbs" (p. 813). John Chamberlain Jr. uses a contrastive approach between English and French to attempt to deal with the problem.

If the

English equivalent of a French sentence such as Je lui donne le livre can be rendered m

English either with the preposition or

without it, i.e., "I give the book to him" or "I give him the book", then the object complement is indirect.

But in the case of Je vais

a lui, since "I go him" is not possible, "the object is thus the object of a preposition, and not an indirect object."

Chamberlain

admits that this procedure is not "100$ determinative", mentioning parler and dire (only when dire = "say to") as exceptions (p. 814). Fred M. Jenkins mentions that an advanced classroom text such as Fraser, Squair and Parker's French Composition and Reference Grammar is not totally adequate m

treating the problem and notes

that there is "no proof whatsoever that we are not dealing here with 'indirect objects'."

Jenkins concludes by remarking that "such

147 problems . . . have to do w i t h i n t e r f e r e n c e w i t h E n g l i s h p a t t e r n s as much as a n y t h i n g e l s e ! ' ( p p . 8 1 4 - 8 1 5 ) . Should t h e pronoun s y n t a x of p e n s e r and l i k e / e r b s b e t r e a t e d at a l l in a f i r s t - y e a r college textbook? yes.

I b e l i e v e t h e answer i s

This would p r o b a b l y n o t occur i n t h e f i r s t s e m e s t e r .

It is

p o s s i b l e , however, f o r f i r s t - y e a r s t u d e n t s of French t o g e t along w i t h o u t knowing a n y t h i n g a b o u t t h e p r o b l e m , a s three of o u r t e x t book a u t h o r s d e c i d e d .

S e c o n d - y e a r s t u d e n t s s h o u l d p r o b a b l y be ex-

posed to i t by t h e second s e m e s t e r s i n c e they a r e l i k e l y t o run a c r o s s n o t only p e n s e r , b u t r e v e r , s o n g e r , p e r h a p s a few o t h e r v e r b s l i k e i t , and examples w i t h r e f l e x i v e v e r b s and v e r b s of motion.

Second-year t e x t b o o k s and c u r r i c u l a u s u a l l y i n c l u d e a dose

of v a r i e d r e a d i n g s , and t h o s e s t u d e n t s who a r e c o n t i n u i n g

their

language study beyond t h i s l e v e l w i l l e n c o u n t e r the p r o b l e m again. This i s a d e c i s i o n which each t e a c h e r and a u t h o r w i l l h a v e t o make. However, i f i t i s going t o be t r e a t e d i n a t e x t b o o k and /

or pre-

s e n t e d i n c l a s s , I b e l i e v e i t should be done i n a d e f i n i t e

manner.

The p e r s o n a l pronoun system w i l l be t r e a t e d during t h e h a l f of the t e x t b o o k and t h e y e a r .

first

At t h a t t i m e the s t u d e n t l e a r n s

a f a i r l y r e g u l a r system and he / she i s t a u g h t t h a t t h e o b j e c t p r o noun p r e c e d e s t h e v e r b .

T h i s i s p r o b a b l y not a good time t o i n t r o -

duce t o o many i r r e g u l a r i t i e s .

The s t u d e n t h a s a d i f f i c u l t

i t i s d e a l i n g w i t h t h e F r e n c h p e r s o n a l pronoun system. books a l s o i n t r o d u c e y and en a t t h i s t i m e .

Most t e x t -

This is probably a

good time to do so and y should be p r e s e n t e d a s r e p l a c i n g of t h e p r e p o s i t i o n a marked T- human] .

time as

objects

The problem of y marked

[ + human] , as we have seen i n p r e c e d i n g c h a p t e r s , i s d e l i c a t e and p r o b a b l y d o e s n ' t belong i n t h e f i r s t two y e a r s of study.

148 Most textbooks follow the presentation of the personal pronoun system with that of disjunctive (or stressed or accented) pronouns, although how soon afterwards varies greatly.

This may ap-

pear to be a good time to mention penser and etre a at least, but this is still treating the problem piecemeal.

It should be noted,

however, that etre a is quite frequent and may have already been encountered in a reading.

In this section, the use of disjunctive

pronouns is called for after e'est., ce sont.

The introduction of

etre a may thus confuse some students since the verb would have one construction without a and one with a. Possessive adjectives are usually introduced in the first semester, sometimes before the personal pronoun system.

Since &tre a

is almost always used to indicate possession, this is probably the best place to introduce it, along with the construction Noun + de + Noun.

Some textbooks also introduce appartenir a.

The latter is

not all that frequent and may only confuse the student, especially if the personal pronoun system has not yet been introduced. In the first semester of a beginning course, students will usually also encounter reflexive verbs and verbs of motion (usually categorized in the passe compose unit).

After these have been en-

countered, probably in the second semester, penser can be introduced.

I would adopt Maresa Fanelli's presentation in Aujourd'hui.

It has the merit of presenting a similar structure for three categories of verbs:

penser and similar verbs, reflexive verbs which

are followed by a, and verbs of,motion.

This is a good time to

recall y as it will replace a [- humanl object of the preposition a for all three categories of verbs.

In addition to penser, stu-

dents can receive a small list of verbs:

rever and songer, which

149 would be easy to remember because all three are closely related in meaning;

etre a because it has already been mentioned in the posse-

ssive adjective section and students should already know it. Beyond this, we T.iay want to add reflechir which is also very close to penser, and faire attention a which will be encountered on occasion by first-year students.

There is no need to give a list of the re-

flexive verbs or verbs of motion since they will all behave the same way. Beyond the textbook presentation, which should be adequate as a classroom presentation also, is there any other approach that can be used to teach or learn the obligatory use of a + disjunctive pronoun?

The only one which seems passably satisfactory is John Cham-

berlain's previously mentioned contrastive true with English, but it is not foolproof.

This system might complicate things more than

is necessary for elementary or even intermediate students.

Beyond

those levels, students become exposed to more sophisticated uses of the language, benefit from a motivation to learn the language, and are often able to reside in a French speaking country, all of which contribute as well to learning the irregularities of a language as any other method ever devised.

NOTES Dana C a r t o n and Anthony C a p r i o , En F r a n g a i s , P r a c t i c a l Conv e r s a t i o n a l F r e n c h (New York: D. Van N o s t r a n d Co. , 1 9 8 1 ) ; Yvone L e n a r d , Elan (New York: H o l t , R i n e h a r t and Winston, I98O); JeanP a u l V a l e t t e and Rebecca V a l e t t e , C o n t a c t s (Boston: Houghton Miff l i n C o . , 1 9 7 6 ) ; The f i r s t and t h i r d t e x t b o o k s a r e b e g i n n i n g F r e n c h ; the second one i s an i n t e r m e d i a t e l e v e l t e x t b o o k . 2 J u l i a n H a r r i s and Andre Leveque, B a s i c C o n v e r s a t i o n a l F r e n c h , 6 t h ed. (New York: H o l t , R i n e h a r t and W i n s t o n , 1978) , p p . 1 4 4 - 1 4 6 , 205-206, 2 3 2 - 2 3 3 . 3 •^Michio P . Hagiwara and F r a n c o i s e de Rocher, Theme e t V a r i a t i o n s , 2nd ed. (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1 9 8 1 ) , p p . 1962 0 1 , 303, 3 0 6 - 3 0 8 .

4

G i l b e r t A. J a r v i s e t a l . , I n v i t a t i o n (New York: h a r t and Winston, 1 9 7 9 ) , PP- 2 2 4 - 2 2 5 , 246, 248-250.

Holt, Rine-

•^Simone Renaud D i e t i k e r , F r a n c - P a r l e r , 2nd ed. ( L e x i n g t o n , M a s s . : D. C. H e a t h and C o . , 1 9 8 0 ) , pp. 1 5 1 , 173-174, 265-267. . Maresa F a n e l l i , A u j o u r d ' h u i , 2nd e d . ( L e x i n g t o n , M a s s . : D. C Heath and C o . , 1 9 8 0 ) , p p . 9 1 - 9 2 , 130-131, 305-307. 7 Anne S l a c k , e d . , "Le Coin du Pedagogue," The F r e n c h Review, v o l . X L I I I , n o . 5 ( A p r i l 1970): 812-5; I n c l u d e s l e t t e r s from Fernand Marty, Theodore M u e l l e r , John L. Chamberlain and Fred M. Jenkins.

151

WORKS CITED Twentieth Century Grammars Arrive, Michel, and Chevalier, Jean-Claude. Klincksieck, 1970.

La Grammaire. Paris:

Buyssens, Eric. Les Categories grammaticales du frangais. Bruxelles: Editions de I'Universite de Bruxelles, 1975Byrne, L. S. R. and Churchill, E. L. A Comprehensive French Grammar. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, I963. Cayrou, G.; Laurent, P.; and Lods, J. Le Frangais d'aujourd'hui. Grammaire du bon usage. Paris: Librairie Armand Colin, 1949. Chevalier, Jean-Claude. Grammaire Larousse du frangais contemporain. Paris: Librairie Larousse, 19~6'4. Dauzat, Albert. Grammaire raisonnee de la langue frangaise. Lyon: Edition I. A. C , 194?. Dubois, Jean. Grammaire structurale du frangais: Paris: Librairie Larousse, 1967. Ewert, Alfred. The French Language. Ltd., 1949.

London:

Ferrar, H. A French Reference Grammar. i960.

le verbe.

Faber and Faber,

Oxford University Press,

Fischer, Maurice, and Hacquard, Georges. A la decouverte de la grammaire frangaise. Paris: Librairie Hachette, 1959Galichet, Georges. Grammaire structurale du frangais moderne. Paris-Limoges: Editions Charles-Lavauzelle, 1968. Gougenheim, Georges. Systeme grammatical de la langue frangaise. Paris: Bibliotheque du "frangais moderne", 1938. Grevisse, Maurice. Precis de grammaire frangaise. Editions J. Duculot, S. A., 1963.

Gembloux:

Hoffmann, Leon-Frangois. L'Essentiel de la grammaire frangaise. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 19o4~] Le Bidois, Georges, and Le Bidois, Robert. Syntaxe du frangais moderne. Paris: Editions A et J Picard et Cie, 1967.

152 Mansion, J . E. A Grammar of P r e s e n t - D a y F r e n c h . G. H a r r a p & C o . , L t d . , 1949.

London:

R e g u l a , M o r i t z . Grammaire f r a n g a i s e e x p l i c a t i v e . C a r l W i n t e r , U n i v e r s i t a t s v e r l a g , 1957.

George

Heidelberg:

S a n d f e l d , Kr. Syntaxe du f r a n g a i s contemporain. L e s Pronoms. P a r i s : L i b r a i r i e Ancienne Honore Champion, 1 9 2 8 . Von Wartburg, W a l t e r . P r e c i s de syntaxe du f r a n g a i s B e r n e : E d i t i o n s A. F r a n c k e S. A.

contemporain.

S p e c i a l Grammatical S t u d i e s B l a n c h e - B e n v e n i s t e , C l a i r e . Recherches en vue d ' u n e t h e o r i e de l a grammaire f r a n g a i s e . E s s a i d ' a p p l i c a t i o n a. l a syntaxe des pronoms• P a r i s : L i b r a i r i e Honore Champion, E d i t e u r , 1975Brunot, F e r d i n a n d . La pensee e t l a l a n g u e . E d i t e u r s , 1922.

Paris:

Masson e t C i e ,

D u b o i s , J e a n , and D u b o i s - C h a r l i e r , F r a n c o i s e . E l e m e n t s de l i n g u i s tique frangaise. P a r i s : L i b r a i r i e L a r o u s s e , 1970. G a l i c h e t , G e o r g e s . Methodologie g r a m m a t i c a l e . E t u d e p s y c h o l o g i q u e des s t r u c t u r e s . P a r i s : P r e s s e s U n i v e r s i t a i r e s de F r a n c e , 1953G r o s s , M a u r i c e . Methodes en s y n t a x e . Regime des c o n s t r u c t i o n s c o m p l e t i v e s . P a r i s : Hermann, 1 9 7 5 ' J a e g g i , Adolphe. Le r o l e de l a p r e p o s i t i o n e t de l a l o c u t i o n p r e p o s i t i v e dans l e s r a p p o r t s a b s t r a i t s en f r a n g a i s moderne. Berne: E d i t i o n s A. F r a n c k e S. A., 195"S« P i n c h o n , J a c q u e l i n e . Les Pronoms a d v e r b i a u x "EN" e t "Y". L i b r a i r i e Droz, 1972.

Geneve:

Dictionaries C a p u t , J . P . , and Caput, J . D i c t i o n n a i r e d e s v e r b e s P a r i s : L i b r a i r i e L a r o u s s e , 1969.

frangais.

D a u z a t , A l b e r t . D i c t i o n n a i r e etymologique de l a l a n g u e P a r i s : L i b r a i r i e L a r o u s s e , 193°• Davau, M a u r i c e ; Cohen, M a r c e l ; n a i r e du f r a n g a i s v i v a n t .

and Lallemand, M a u r i c e . P a r i s : Bordas, 19?2.

D i c t i o n n a i r e de l'Academie f r a n g a i s e . 1932.

Paris:

frangaise. Diction-

Librairie Hachette,

153 Dubois, J e a n . D i c t i o n n a i r e du frangais contemporain. L i b r a i r i e Larousse, 19