Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-75dct Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-06T01:16:16.224Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Regrammation and paradigmatization: Diachronic analysis of a number of progressive periphrases in French1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 June 2015

KIRSTEN JEPPESEN KRAGH  and
LENE SCHØSLER
KIRSTEN JEPPESEN KRAGH*
Affiliation:
University of Copenhagen
LENE SCHØSLER*
Affiliation:
University of Copenhagen
*
Address for correspondence: University of Copenhagen Københavns Universitet Institut for Engelsk, Germansk og Romansk Njalsgade 128, 2300 København SDenmark email: kirstenkragh@hum.ku.dk, schoesl@hum.ku.dk
Address for correspondence: University of Copenhagen Københavns Universitet Institut for Engelsk, Germansk og Romansk Njalsgade 128, 2300 København SDenmark email: kirstenkragh@hum.ku.dk, schoesl@hum.ku.dk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In the present article, our purpose is to characterize each of the periphrases expressing progressivity Pierre est / va / s’en va / vient / s’en vient chantant, Pierre est à / après chanter, Pierre est en train de chanter as members of a progressive paradigm, and to provide arguments in favour of including the so-called deictic relative construction (Je vois) Pierre qui chante in this paradigm. Our arguments comprise diachronic, diastratic, Francophone, and Creole evidence. In Kragh and Schøsler (2014), we have examined in detail this construction, focusing on the grammaticalization process and, in particular, on the reanalysis and actualization process. We here propose an analysis of the deictic relative as yet another way of expressing progressivity. If our analysis is correct, the deictic relative should be considered as a member of the French tense, aspect, and mode (TAM) paradigm.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of French Language Studies , Volume 25 , Special Issue 2: Les marqueurs de temps, aspect et modalité en diachronie , July 2015 , pp. 265 - 293
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

1

We wish to thank the editors and André Thibault for valuable comments on a previous version.

References

REFERENCES

Andersen, H. (1973). Abductive and deductive change. Language, 49: 765–793.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andersen, H. (2001). Actualization and the (Uni)directionality of Change. In: Andersen, H. (ed.), Actualization. Linguistic Change in Progress. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 226–248.Google Scholar
Andersen, H. (2006). Grammation, regrammation, and degrammation: Tense loss in Russian. Diachronica, 23.2: 231–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andersen, H. (2008). Grammaticalization in a speaker-oriented theory of change. In: Eythórsson, T. (ed.), Grammatical Change and Linguistic theory: The Rosendal Papers,Vol. 113. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 11–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J., Perkins, R. and Pagliuca, W. (1994). The evolution of grammar tense, aspect, and modality in the languages of the world Chicago / London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Corne, C. (1999). From French to Creole. London: University of Westminster Press.Google Scholar
Corne, C. and Baker, P. (1982). Isle de France Creole. Affinities and origins. Ann Arbor, Michigan: Karoma Publishers.Google Scholar
Croft, W. (2001). Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Croft, W. and Cruse, D. A. (2004). Cognitive Linguistics Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dahl, Ö. (2004). The Growth and Maintenance of Linguistic Complexity. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engberg-Pedersen, E., Fortescue, M. D., Harder, P., Heltoft, L. and Jakobsen, L. F. (1996). Content, Expression and Structure: Studies in Danish Functional Grammar. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fleischman, S. (2000). Methodologies and ideologies in historical linguistics: on working with older languages. In: Herring, S. C., Reenen, P. v. and Schøsler, L. (eds), Textual Paramters in Older Languages. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 33–58.Google Scholar
Furukawa, N. (2005). Pour une sémantique des constructions grammaticales. Thème et thématicité. Brussels: De Boeck-Duculot.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions: Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Gosselin, L. (2011). L’aspect de phase en français: le rôle des périphrases verbale. Journal of French Language Studies, 21.2: 149–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gougenheim, G. (1971 [1929]). Etude sur les périphrases verbales de la langue française. Paris: Librairie A.-G. Nizet.Google Scholar
Heine, B. (1993). Auxiliaries, Cognitive Forces and Grammaticalization Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heine, B. and Kuteva, T. (2002). World Lexicon of Grammaticalization Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heltoft, L. (2014). Constructional change, paradigmatic structure and the orientation of usage processes. In:, Coussé, E. and Mengden, F. v. (eds), Usage-Based Approaches to Language Change. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 203–241.Google Scholar
Hjelmslev, L. (1943). Omkring sprogteoriens grundlæggelse. København: B. Lunos bogtrykkeri a/s.Google Scholar
Hopper, P. J. and Traugott, E. C. (2003 [1993]). Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jespersen, O. (1924). The Philosophy of Grammar. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Kragh, K. J. and Schøsler, L. (2014). Reanalysis and grammaticalization of constructions. In: Coussé, E. and von Mengden, F. (eds), Usage-Based Approaches to Language Change. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp.169–202.Google Scholar
Kragh, K. J. and Strudsholm, E. (2011). Deiktiske relativsætninger i fransk og italiensk. In: Durst-Andersen, P. and Müller, H. H. (eds), Ny forskning i grammatik,Vol. 18. Odense: Institut for Sprog og Kommunikation, Syddansk Universitet, pp. 197–223.Google Scholar
Kragh, K. J. and Strudsholm, E. (2013). The relevance of deixis in the description of the predicative relative clause. In: Kragh, K. J. and Lindschouw, J. (eds), Deixis and Pronouns in Romance Languages. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 207–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lamiroy, B. (1999). Auxiliaires, langues romanes et grammaticalisation. In: Bat-Zeev-Shylskrot, H. (ed.), Les auxiliaires: délimitation, grammaticalisation et analyse . = Langages 135. Paris: Larousse, pp. 33–45.Google Scholar
Lebas-Fraczak, L. (2010). La forme être en train de comme éclairage de la fonction de l’imparfait. In: Moline, E. and Vetters, C. (eds), Temps, aspect et modalité en français. = Cahiers Chronos 21. Amsterdam / New York: Rodopi, pp. 161–179.Google Scholar
Lehmann, C. (1985). Grammaticalization: synchronic varation and diachronic change. Lingua e Stile, 3: 303–318.Google Scholar
Lehmann, C. (1995). Thoughts on Grammaticalization. Munich / Newcastle: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar
Lyons, J. (1968). Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mengden, F. v. and Coussé, E. (2014). The role of change in usage-based conceptions of language. In: Coussé, E. and von Mengden, F. (eds), Usage-based Approaches to Language Change. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 1–19.Google Scholar
Nørgård-Sørensen, J. (2014). Filling empty distinctions of expression with content: Usage-motivated assignment of grammatical meaning. In: Coussé, E. and von Mengden, F. (eds), Usage-based Approaches to Language Change. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 243–269.Google Scholar
Nørgård-Sørensen, J., Heltoft, L. and Schøsler, L. (2011). Connecting Grammaticalization. The Role of Paradigmatic Structure. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pusch, C. and Wesch, A. (2003). Verbalperiphrasen in den (ibero-)romanischen Sprachen / Perífrasis verbals en les llengües (ibero-)romàniques / Perífrasis verbales en las lenguas (ibero-)románicas. (Beihefte zur Romanistik in Geschichte und Gegenwart, 9). Hamburg: Buske.Google Scholar
Schøsler, L. (2006). Grammaticalisation et dégrammaticalisation. Etude des constructions progressives en français du type Pierre va / vient / est chantant. In: Labeau, E., Vetters, C. and Caudal, P. (eds), Sémantique et diachronie du système verbal français. = Cahiers Chronos 16. Amsterdam / New York: Rodopi, pp. 91–119.Google Scholar
Squartini, M. (1998). Verbal periphrases in Romance: aspect, actionality, and grammaticalization. Berlin / New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Talmy, L. (1985). Lexicalization patterns: semantic structure in lexical forms. In: Shopen, T. (ed.), Language Typology and Syntactic Description,Vol. 3. Grammatical categories and the lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: pp. 36–149.Google Scholar
Tesnière, L. (1988 [1959]). Éléments de syntaxe structurale. Paris: Éditions Klincksieck.Google Scholar
Valdman, A. (1978). Le créole, structure, statut et origine. Paris: Éditions Klincksieck.Google Scholar
Vendler, Z. (1957). Verbs and times. The Philosophical Review, 66.2: 143–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vet, C. (1980). Temps, aspects et adverbes de temps en français contemporain, essai de sémantique formelle. Genève: Droz.Google Scholar
Vetters, C. (2010). Développement et évolution des temps du passé en français: passé simple, passé composé et venir de + infinitif. In: Moline, E. and Vetters, C. (eds), Temps, aspect et modalité en français. = Cahiers Chronos 21. Amsterdam / New York: Rodopi, pp. 277–298.Google Scholar
Völker, H. (2009). La linguistique variationnelle et la perspective intralinguistique. Revue de Linguistique Romane, 73: 27–76.Google Scholar
Werner, E. (1980). Die Verbalperiphrase im Mittelfranzösischen. Eine semantisch-syntaktische Analyse. Frankfurt a/M: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Wolf, D. (1973). Der perifrastische Verbalaspekt in den romanischen Sprachen. Untersuchungen zum heutigen romanischen Verbalsystem un zum Problem der Herkunft des periphrastischen Verbalaspekts. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.Google Scholar