Syntactic annotation

2.2.1.1 Selected subordinate clause types and their coding

The reason for concentrating on fronting in embedded contexts only is the following. One of the most prominent properties discussed for Medieval French by analogy to other Old Romance languages is V2 in main clauses (as suggested by Adams 1987; Benincà 1983/1984, 2006;

Roberts 1993 and Vance 1997, among others, and challenged by Kaiser 2002; Rinke and Meisel 2009 and Sitaridou 2012). However, in embedded clauses, Old and Middle French show a strong tendency for SVO word order, though some types of subordinate clauses allow V2 order generally assumed to be available mostly in matrix clauses (Labelle and Hirschbühler 2014b).

The presence of V2 as a root phenomenon in embedded contexts in Old and Middle French corresponds to a similar phenomenon attested for Germanic languages (Heycock 2006;

Haegeman 2012). According to Heycock (2006) root clauses comprehend (highest) matrix clauses, coordinated clauses, and other types of parataxis, among which she counts adverbial clauses expressing causation (the type of German denn), so-clauses in English and free dass-clauses in German, as well as non-restrictive relative dass-clauses, even though the latter do not exhibit V2 in V2 languages. For Old French the following types of subordinate clauses are assumed to not allow V2: relative clauses, indirect questions or temporal adverbial clauses (Labelle and Hirschbühler 2014b). In addition, Franco (2009) notes that for Old Italian V2 is

31 The concept of a nominal group, for instance.

not present in non-bridge complements, if-clauses³², because-clauses, and further adverbials.³³ Therefore, in order to prevent intervention effects of V2, we disregard contexts where the fronting of elements could eventually be triggered to satisfy V2. Since Old Romance relative clauses are generally acknowledged to “constitute the most favourable environment for SF”

(Franco 2009: 81) and apparently do not show V2 effects, relative clauses are the focus. Bearing Heycock’s (2006) assumption on non-restrictive relative clauses in mind, different types of relative clauses are distinguished as follows: restrictive, non-restrictive, and headless relative clauses. Recall the semantic-based distinctions between relative clause types. Relative clauses which help to identify the reference item(s) evoked by the nominal head are called restrictive (also qualifying or specifying). Consider (13) as an example.

(13) ceulx qui presens estoient those who present were

‘those who were present’ (1431,201)

In contrast, non-restrictive (also appositive, explicative, or parenthetical) relative clauses give additional information about the nominal head (Holler 2013; Bianchi 2002a, b). Consider (14) as an example

(14) ledit Graindorge, lequel il print derechief a la gorge a deux poings the.said Graindorge who he took then at the throat by two fists

‘the said Graindorge, who he then took at the throat by both hands’ (1431,201) Therefore, the distinction between both types is only possible by taking into account the context of the utterance.³⁴ Relative clauses, depending on an overt nominal head where the classification relying on the context remains unclear, were coded as such, as ambiguity may reveal something about either bridging contexts or research deficits that may be addressed by further research. Headless or free relative clauses lack an overt realized nominal head (Grosu

32 On the basis of an analogy with Germanic V2 languages, if-clauses have been classified as “non-V2 contexts”, supposing that the syntactic derivation of the antecedent would ban topicalizations (Franco 2009: 86).

33 However, there are several studies that reject a V2 analysis for Old French, consider for instance Kaiser (2002). Furthermore, for Old Spanish, the situation appears to be different. Fontana (1993) describes it as a symmetric V2 language, whereas Wolfe (2015a) groups it as a limited embedded V2 language, since he accounts for an increased number of V1 and SVO orders. He points out that for relative and wh-clauses further research is needed.

34 Present-day punctuation – i.e. commas in cases of non-restrictive relative clauses (cf. Grevisse and Goosse 2008) – is not operable consistently at the time of our data, although in (14), the comma can be found.

2002). A fourth type is sometimes assumed to be available in French and other Romance languages: the type of “attributive” or “predicative” relative clauses (Schwarze 1974; Barme 2010) as illustrated in (15).

(15) Je le vois qui arrive.

I see him who arrives

However, within my corpus, any occurrences of this type have not been found.

Furthermore, comparative clauses containing a finite verb are take into account since they are considered to be closely related to relative clauses (Bresnan 1973, 1975; Donati 1997). Take (16), (17) and (18) as examples, the latter two being taken from Donati (1997: 151).

(16) quant envers Dieu fais telle disloyauté que les dismes […] tu paies si mauvaisement

when towards God (you) make such a disloyalty that the tithes you pay so badly.” (1359,250)

(17) Oggi sono venuti più invitati di quantii ne siano venuti today have come more guests than what of.them have come [e]i ieri

yesterday

‘More guests came today than yesterday.’

(18) Oggi sono venuti più invitati di quellii che/quantii sono venuti today have come more guests than those who/what have come [e]i ieri

yesterday

‘More guests came today than those who came yesterday.’

On the one hand, some comparative clauses as for instance (16) correspond to restrictive relative clauses from a bare syntactic point of view, since their comparative value is only generated by the use of a specific comparative determinant such as telle in the relative head DP.

On the other hand, comparative clauses that do not involve a nominal head behave, at first sight, syntactically different from relative clauses, cf. (17). However, the common analysis for (17) is that of free relative clauses involving an extraction context (Bresnan 1973, 1975, Donati

1997). According to Donati (1997), the contrast between (17) and (18), i.e. the imperative use of en in the former and its ban in the latter, can be explained by the different nature of head involved in the respective derivation.³⁵

Furthermore, the category of the nominal head was annotated and a distinction between demonstrative or pronominal pronouns, DPs, PPs, non-overtly realized heads and combinations of those items was made.

2.2.1.2 The subordinate item and the embedded verb

Since the subordinate item and the finite verb constitute the direct environment of the fronted element, coding was done in order to reveal if single factors or combinations of factors favour the fronting.

First, for each comparative and relative clause the type of its subordinate item was coded. In order to keep the coding simple and to permit an easy overview, the coding was done on the basis of the common citation form. Relative pronouns that varied in number or gender were annotated in the masculine singular form. For instance, lesquieux was coded as /lequel/. No distinction was set up between the different uses of que as complementizer or relative clause item either because in combination with the previous coding of clause types, a differentiated analysis is still possible.

Second, the type of the finite verb was coded since it is said to directly influence the fronting.

Salvesen (2011), for instance, in her data showed that the presence of modal verbs favours the fronting of infinitives. Further, one might think that the context of predicative expression combined with a finite verb form of the verb être might encourage fronting, too. The type of verb was, therefore, coded in two steps. On the one hand, a differentiation between modal verbs, lexical verbs and être was made. On the other hand, it was annotated whether the verb was used in a synthetic or an analytic form.³⁶

35 Namely the use of a definite determiner-like head in free relatives (D⁰) and of a quantative determiner-like head in comparatives (Q⁰), cf. Donati 1997: 150-151. According to her, this explains furthermore the

interpretive difference between (17) and (18) with the comparative clause comparing two sets and the relative clause implying a certain overlap between them.

36 However, statistical tests have shown no effects of these variables, hence, the results are not described in detail in chapter 3.

Finally, the distance between the subordinate item and the finite verb was coded. Whenever they were adjacent or the adjacency was only suspended by the fronted element, they were coded as adjacent.³⁷

2.2.1.3 The embedded subject and its position³⁸

In order to determine the concrete position of the fronted element and since in the context of the “stylistic fronting” debate³⁹, many authors (cf. Labelle and Hirschbühler (in press) for an overview) insist on the presence of a subject gap as a central property of “stylistic fronting”, the overt realization of the subject, its type (pronominal, demonstrative, DP) and its position in relation to the finite verb (pre- or post-verbal) were annotated.

2.2.1.4 Fronted elements

For all embedded clauses⁴⁰ containing fronted elements, the type of the fronted element was coded distinguishing between adjectives, adverbs, objects, PP, past participles and infinitives.⁴¹ In case of the same sentence containing an overtly realized preverbal subject, the position of the fronted item(s) in relation to the subject was further annotated. Finally, it was determined if there was an immediate adjacency between the fronted element and the subordinate item.