You are on page 1of 13

48th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages April 25, 2018

Workshop: Romance Diachrony at the Interfaces York University, Toronto

Diachronic reanalysis and the satellite- versus verb-framed distinction


Michelle Troberg
University of Toronto Mississauga

1. Introduction

1.1 The issue: a typological shift in the history of French

It is generally accepted that as Latin evolved into Modern French, a gradual typological shift took place: a
gradual loss of the pattern for which Talmy (2000) coined the term satellite-framed behavior (where particular
types of secondary resultative predication occur productively) accompanied by an increase in verb-framed
strategies until the satellite-framed constructions are no longer attested or are no longer productive.
What is fairly clear: the properties of the grammars on either end of the typological continuum.
What is not clear: the grammar(s) of the intermediate stages.

Troberg & Burnett (2017) show that, contrary to what is widely expected, we do not attest a gradual change
from the Latin satellite-framed to the Romance verb-framed grammar. Rather, intermediate types of resultative
secondary predication appear in Medieval French – constructions that are found neither in Latin nor in Modern
French – and that are not like resultative secondary predication in English, either. Medieval French therefore
appears to occupy a grey area in Talmy’s typology.

Proposal:
Ø Old French is a type of satellite-framed grammar.
Ø The shift from a Latin-type of satellite-framed grammar to the verb-framed Modern French grammar
involved three cases of reanalysis

1.2 Road map of the talk

Section 2: Brief overview of satellite- vs verb-framedness.

Section 3: Resultative secondary predication in Medieval French

Section 4: An account of the shift to verb-framedness in Modern French as a series of three reanalyses; the first
results in the appearance of new constructions while the last case of reanalysis results in the loss of syntactic
possibilities.

Section 5: Conclusion and some implications

2. Satellite- vs verb-framedness

The basic insight in Talmy’s (2000) satellite-/verb-framed typology is that satellite-framed languages have non-
verbal lexical items that encode Path semantics, while verb-framed languages do not–only verbs can
productively encode Path in these languages. The well-known characteristics of each type involve how motion
and change of state events are lexicalized.

2.1 English (satellite-framed)

English is a well-known s-framed language where Path is productively encoded in prepositions. Or example, in
(1), the preposition under can produce a goal-of-motion interpretation where the boat moves to a place under
the bridge by floating. In (1b), the compound preposition onto encodes this same sense of transition, or Path.
(1) a. The bottle floated under the bridge. (goal of motion)
b. The dancer spun onto the stage.

(2) [The bottle]Figure [floated]Motion+Manner [[under]Path+Place [the bridge]Ground]

Goal of motion constructions can also be built with verb particles. The telic, directional interpretations in (3a)
come not from the manner verbs wiggle/limp/swim, but from the directional particles out/in/down. Such
particles can take on more aspectual meanings (3b), while still contributing a bounded interpretation.

(3) a. Mary wiggled/limped/swam out/in/down. (directional verb particles)


b. Mary washed the dishes up/ scrubbed the car down. (completive)

In English, resultative secondary predication constructions license unselected objects in (4). In fact, the
possibility of these unselected objects has been treated as a crucial test for satellite-framedness: Mateu (2001),
Acedo Matellán & Mateu (2013, 2016).

(4) a. Dance me to the end of love.


b. We laughed the pain away.

Complex adjectival resultatives also seem to be hallmarks of satellite-framedness, and (Talmy 2000) proposes
that they are built in essentially the same way as a motion event. In (5), the metal comes to be flat by John’s
hammering and the teapot empty through Mary’s drinking.

(5) a. John hammered the metal flat. (complex adjectival resultatives)


b. Mary drank the teapot empty.

Note that each construction in (1) to (5) involves a main verb that encodes Manner and a secondary predicate
that encodes the result of a transition: Path.

Other constructions involving resultative secondary predication have been claimed to correlate with a satellite-
framed grammar:
• Double object construction (Mary gave John the book): Harley (2011)
• Created result construction (Mary carved the wood into a doll): Folli & Harley (2016)
Snyder (2001) : productive noun-noun compounding (worm can) is uniquely s-framed.
Acedo Matellán (ms.): the accusative-oblique alternation is uniquely s-framed.

2.2 French (verb-framed)

On the other end of the spectrum, French is considered to be a quintessentially v-framed language in which
Path is only productively encoded in the verb. In contrast with the examples from English (1a), a transition
interpretation cannot be achieved with the preposition sous. Rather, a Path verb such as aller or passer is
required. Since, in French, the Manner component of the motion event cannot be encoded in the main verb as it
can be in English (float), this element of the event must appear as an adjunct or not at all – in which case it is
often present through contextual inference.

(6) a. *La bouteille a flotté sous le pont. (no goal-of-motion reading)


b. La bouteille est allé/a passé sous le pont en flottant.

Modern French does not have directional verb particles, so translating the English example in (3) involves a
Path verb with a manner component as an adjunct, shown in (7).

(7) a. *Marie a gigoté/boîté/nagé hors/dans/bas. (absence of verb particles)


b. Marie est sortie/entrée/descendue en gigotant/boîtant/nageant.


Similarly, Modern French completely rejects goal-of-motion constructions involving an unselected object.

(8) a. Dansez (*-moi) dans la cuisine.


b. Il faut rire *(la douleur) ailleurs.

Modern French does not permit complex adjectival resultative constructions, either of the strong (9a) or the
weak (9c) kind. Such events are naturally expressed with a de-adjectival verb, where again, the Result (not the
Manner) is encoded in the verb.

(9) a. *Jean a martellé le metal plat.


b. Jean a aplati le metal en le martellant/ avec un marteau.
c. *Jean a essuyé la table propre.
d. Jean a nettoyé la table en l’essuyant.

This constellation of constructions and their apparent relatedness has been intensively investigated in the
literature. What is clear: English allows all of these types of resultative secondary predication while French
does not.

2.3 Latin as a satellite-framed language

Talmy (2000) discusses Latin as a clear case of a satellite-framed language, where the satellites take the form of
verbal prefixes, clearly derived from the system of locative prepositions. I follow Victor Acedo Matellán’s
(2010, 2016) account of the facts. For example, in (10a) the verbal prefix ad- encodes the subject’s transition
and the verb describes the manner of transition: the flies come to be at a region occupied by the goat’s udders
through flying. Similarly, the verbal prefix in (10b) encodes the transition of an unselected object while the
verb encodes manner: the intoxication comes to be out through sleeping.

(10) a. Caprarum-que uberibus ad-volant (goal of motion)


goat.GEN.PLUR-and udders-DAT.PLUR at-fly (Plin. Nat. 10, 115)
‘And they fly onto the udders of the goats.’

b. E-dormi crapulam, inquam. (unselected object)


out-sleep.IMP.2SG intoxication. ACC say.1SG (Cic. Phil. 2, 30)
‘Sleep off that intoxication, I said.’

Assumptions underlying the formalization in (11):

• Following Acedo Matellán (2010, 2016) and Troberg & Burnett (2017), the relationship between the
Latin spatial prepositions and the Path prefixes is one of incorporation.1
• I assume the standard view of directed motion events; see Koopman 2000, Svenonius 2010, Den
Dikken 2010, among others.
• Manner modification: Folli & Harley (2016)’s proposal whereby the manner root can merge as an
adjunct to v0 when no other root is present to lexicalize the verbalizing head. The root then m-merges
with the complex v0 head (Matushansky 2006).

1
Acedo Matellán (2010, 2016) shows that these prefixes have fundamentally locative semantics.


(11) Path-Place prefixes in Latin; see (10b) E-dormi crapulam,inquam.

vP
3
√P 3
dorm v0 PathP
2 3
Path0 v0 tPath PlaceP
2 3
Place0 Path0 DP 3
ex Ø- crapulam tPlace

One of the major insights in Acedo-Matellán (2010, 2016) on Latin, is that the satellite prefixes are the unique
source of resultative secondary predication with manner verbs. The most striking limitation of this grammar is
that complex adjectival resultatives, of the type “John hammered the metal flat”, seem to be impossible.

(12) *Ovida poculum vacuum bibit.


Ovida.NOM goblet.ACC.SG empty.ACC.SG drink.3.SG
Acedo-Matellán (2016: 169)

If the only dedicated morpheme of the category Path in Latin is a null preverb, then the restriction on adjectival
resultatives seems to follow; the bare adjective would have to raise to become a preverb. This appears to be
forbidden. Perhaps one reason would be for reasons of agreement – something Victor mentions in his work.

There is much more to say about Latin, but these are the most important facts for the purposes of this paper.

3. Medieval French: Innovations in resultative secondary predication

3.1 Path prefixes and Manner Modification

Medieval French has a productive system of prefixes, many direct descendants of the Latin prefixes, that are
used to generate satellite-framed constructions in that the verbal root is clearly the manner component of the
event while the prefix contributes the transition interpretation often in the form of a completive or inchoative
meaning.
On the one hand, the examples in (13) illustrate the similarity of the Old French directional/aspectual preverb
system to the Latin prefixes. See Troberg (2017) for a more extensive discussion.

(13) Productive resultative verbal prefixes; see Buridant (2000); Kopecka (2009); Martin (2006);
Rainer and Buridant (2015); Tremblay et al. (2003), among others.

a. de- (de-)boter ‘to push (aside)’ baver/de-baver ‘to drool/to cover with drool’
b. es- (es-)duire ‘to take (out)’ bouillir/ e-bouillir ‘to boil/ to bring to a boil’
c. en- (en-)lever ‘to lift (out/off)’ amer/en-amer ‘to love/to fall in love’
d. fors- (fors-)geter ‘to throw (out)’ joster/for-joster ‘to joust/to out joust’
e. oltre (oltre-)noer ‘to swim (across)’
f. por- (por-)aler ‘to go (all around)’
g. par- (par-)geter ‘to throw (beyond/far away)’
h. tres- (tres-)voler ‘to fly (across)’ batre/tres-batre ‘to beat/ to beat excessively’

On the other hand, these prefixes are quite different from their Latin counterparts. Importantly, they no longer
have prepositional equivalents and many have lost their clear spatial meaning (a-, de-, e-, en-). Troberg &
Burnett (2017) analyse them as essentially dedicated Path morphemes. They retain the prefixal properties from


Latin and the boundedness property of Path, as shown in (14) for the verb eduire ‘to draw out’. Derivationally,
the prefix raises via head movement and forms a complex head with v0. The manner root, dui-, then adjoins and
m-merges.

(14) Path prefixes in Medieval French; see (13b) éduire ‘to take out’

vP
3
v0 PathP
2 3
√dui v0 tPath PlaceP
2 5
0 0
Path v …
es-

à Medieval French still generates motion and change of state events with Path satellites, thus allowing Manner
Modification.

Troberg & Burnett (2017) describe the evolution of these elements from Latin Path-Place prefixes to Medieval
French Path prefixes as a classic case of grammaticalization in the specific sense of Roberts and Roussou
(2003); the internal Merge of a locative preposition (in Latin) with Path has been reanalysed as external Merge
of a preverb at Path.

(15) Reanalysis #1: Latin Path-Place preverbs à Medieval French Path preverbs + Innovations

(a) Latin (b) Medieval French


vP
3 vP
v0 PathP 3
2 3 v 0
PathP
√MAN v0 Path0 PlaceP 2 3
Ø[uv] 3 √MAN v0 Path0 PlaceP/AdjP
DP 3 es[uv] 5
Place0
ex prepositional and
adjectival results

Actualization: Innovative resultative secondary predication built from PPs and APs, which were not permitted
in Latin. There is now room within the secondary predicate to independently express the resultant state or
location of the Figure, accounting for the presence of adjectival resultatives and goal of motion constructions
not permitted in Latin. Note that the gradual creation of a new set of dedicated Path morphemes in Medieval
French creates no surface change in the way prefixed verbs are realized.

3.2 Innovations in Medieval French: weak resultative secondary predication (no Manner Modification)

From the earliest Old French texts, two new types of resultative secondary predication appear: adjectival
resultatives (recall these are unattested in Latin) and goal of motion without a preverb (only rarely attested in
Late Latin): very exciting!


(16) Goal of motion without a preverb

a. Et puys après nous troterons en guerre. (La Ressource de la Chrestienté, 133)


and then after we will.trot in war
‘And then after we will trot into war.’

b. en passant par la chambre et cheminant aux nopces


in passing by the room and making.his.way at.the wedding
‘while passing by the bedroom and making his way to the wedding’
(Cent Nouvelles Nouvelles, 122)

c. Le vent […] souffle la pouldre droit à eulx. (Beuil, II, 201)


the wind blows the powder straight at them
‘the wind blows the powder straight to them.’

Note that these types of resultative secondary predication are of the weak type (Washio 1997), which is to say
that in all cases, the verb itself must be able to express transition – a change of location or state. Troberg &
Burnett (2014) show that telicity is, in fact, the minimal requirement. This contrasts with the strong type seen in
English and shown in (1) above, repeated below, in which the main verb can express pure Manner.

(17) a. The bottle floated under the bridge. (goal of motion)


b. The dancer spun onto the stage.

One way of explaining this restriction, the weakness of the resultative predicates, is to see it as lexical. Only a
null Path element would permit a manner root to enter the derivation and create strong resultatives of the
English type. Medieval French does not have a null Path morpheme, and so, derives them using verbs denoting
a transition of some kind.

(18) Et puys après nous troterons en guerre.

vP
3
v0 PathP
3
Path0 PlaceP
trot- 5
(nous) en guerre

(19) Adjectival resultative secondary predication

a. Yci tout nu le despoulliez (Mir. St Panth., 350)


here all naked him strip
‘Strip him naked here’

b. qu' il l' envoie El gué tot plat desor le flot (Chevalier de la charrette, 27)
that-he him-sends in.the river all flat on the water.
‘that he threw him flat on the surface of the water’

c. Enmi l’encloistre l’abati tout pasmé. (Moniage Guillaume, 33 )


in.the.middle the-courtyard him-a-beat all unconscious
‘In the middle of the corral/courtyard, he beat him unconscious.’


These constructions are productive in both the verb and the adjective; see Troberg & Burnett (2014). In (20), I
propose a derivation for weak adjectival resultatives that is virtually identical to the weak goal-of-motion
constructions shown in (16) and (18).

(20) Yci tout nu le despoulliez

vP
3
v0 PathP
2
Path0 AdjP
despoill- (le) tout nu

3.3 Directional verb particles

Directional verb particles are attested to some degree in Late Latin but by Medieval French they are in robust
use. The advent of verb particles has been attributed to the loss of productivity of verbal prefixes with spatial
value. Iacobini (2015), Iacobini and Fagard (2011) and Iacobini and Masini (2006), describe the advent of the
verb particles as a natural compensatory reflex of the weakening of the verbal prefixes. The inventory of
particles is given in (21) and some examples of their use in (22).

(21) ariere ‘back’; avant ‘forward’; sus ‘up’; jus ‘down’; ens ‘in’; hors/fors ‘out’; amont ‘up’; aval ‘down’;
contremont ‘upwards’; contreval ‘downwards’

(22) a. Sus le voldrent faire lever en la roche (VieSGrég1, ms. A2, 2411)
Up him want make rise in the rock
‘They want to get him lifted up on the rock’

b. et qu' il alast hors et parlast à luy (Reg. crim. Chât., I, 382)


and that he go.IMP.SUBJ out and speak.IMP.SUBJ at him
‘and that he go out and speak to him’

c. il escouoit la lance jus (La Marche, p.132)


he shook.out the spear down
‘he shook down the spear’

d. et le reversa jus a terre. (Froissart, Chron. D., 387)


and him make.upside.down down at ground
‘and he knocked him down to the ground.’

I follow Svenonius (2010), suggesting these particles are prepositional elements merged as the specifier of a
functional projection that dominates PathP such as DirP. In some cases, such as (22b), the particle restricts the
possible Path denotations to those that are oriented outward. In other cases, the particle emphasizes the
restriction on the possible paths that is already present in the denotation of the verb, such as that in (22a).

The meaning and distribution of these particles has been studied in some detail: Buridant (2000); Dufresne,
Dupuis & Tremblay (2003), Burnett, Petrik & Tremblay (2005), Burnett, Gauthier & Tremblay (2010); Burnett
& Tremblay (2009, 2012a, 2012b), Troberg & Wysblocka (2017); Troberg, Ahmad & Krol (2018); Troberg,


Krol & Ahmad (2018). The particles occur with verbs that imply some kind of translative motion or change of
state. We are thus dealing with another case of weak resultative secondary predication.2

(23) et le reversa jus a terre

vP
3
v0 DirP
3
PP 3
jus Dir PathP
Ø 3
Path0 PlaceP
revers- 5
(le) a terre

4. Latin à Medieval French à Modern French

4.1 Reanalysis #1

I proposed the primary change that produced the Medieval French grammar was the creation of a class of
dedicated Path prefixes from what were the Latin spatial prepositions. This case of reanalysis generates the
innovative goal-of-motion and adjectival resultative constructions characteristic of Medieval French – see (15)
above, repeated below.

2
Many of the verb particles can have a more aspectual meaning – generally completive – but the restriction to verbs
denoting a transition remains.
(i) Et ne furent pas adont tout hors paiiet (Froissart, Chroniques)
and NEG were NEG then all out paid
‘and they were not then all paid out at all’
(ii) Le sanc jus de ses plaies tert (Charette, 12c, p.89)
the blood down from his wounds wipes
‘he wipes the blood off of his wounds’
(iii) li ont jus la tieste copée (Mousket, Chronique)
him AUX down the head cut
‘they have cut his head off’

Troberg (2017) argues that these aspectual interpretations of the particle are derived in the same way as their spatial
interpretations; see example (23). However, avant and arriere can, in addition to their directional meaning, have distinct
aspectual meanings (inchoative and iterative respectively), and they can occur with unergative verbs (avant parler ‘begin
speaking’; arrière consillier ‘conversing again’) discussed in Burnett & Tremblay (2009). One possible analysis would be
that they come to have another distinct function, merging as Path elements.


(24) Latin Path-Place preverbs à Medieval French Path preverbs

(a) Latin (b) Medieval French


vP
3 vP
0 3
v PathP
2 3 v 0
PathP
√MAN v0 Path0 PlaceP 2 3
Ø[uv] 3 √MAN v0 Path0 PlaceP/AdjP
DP 3 e[uv] 5
Place0
ex prepositional and
adjectival results

4.2 Reanalysis #2

The second type of reanalysis again involves the Path prefixes. It widely accepted that the loss of these
preverbs was brought about by the blurring of the morphological boundary between the prefix and the verbal
root through standard phonetic change (Acedo-Matellan 2016; Acedo-Matellán & Mateu 2013; Iacobini &
Fagard 2011; Kopeka 2006, 2009; Talmy 2000).

This low-level morphological change began occurring at least since Late Latin, spreading verb by verb and
prefix by prefix, and lasted until well into the 16th century, following Dufresne, Dupuis & Longtin (2001) for
the prefix a-. Formally speaking, there is still raising of Path0 to v0 after univerbation, but now the whole verb
comes from where the affix was originally generated.

(25) Univerbation of Path prefixes

(a) Late Latin/Medieval French I (b) Medieval French II

vP vP
3 3
v0 PathP v0 PathP
2 3 3
√MAN v0 Path0 PlaceP/AdjP Path0 PlaceP/AdjP
α- 5 β 5

The consequence of this slow but steady process is the creation of many verbal roots with Path semantics, often
with some bleaching of the manner semantics of the root.

(26) a. de + scendere à descendre


down climb go down

b. a + fluer à affluer
to + flow arrive/flow in great quantity

On the other hand, we also witness the loss of hundreds of less common derived verbs. Contrasts such as the
examples in (27) become obsolete.


(27) (a)penser ‘to think’ / ‘to realize’
(a)viser ‘to look at’ / ‘to recognize, identify’
(a)fluer ‘flow’ / ‘flow in abundance somewhere’
(a)genouiller ‘kneel’ / ‘kneel down’
(a)brouer ‘flee’ / ‘flee somewhere’
(a)monter ‘climb’ / ‘climb up’
(a)trotter ‘trot’/ ‘trot up’
(a)voler ‘to fly’/ ‘to fly somewhere’

à The crucial consequence of the univerbation of the prefixes is the decreasing evidence of Manner
Modification. There are thus less derivations of the earlier type in (25a), and many more like those in (25b).
This means loss of evidence for Path as a distinct head with a distinct projection in the syntax. This brings
about the third reanalysis.

4.3 Reanalysis #3

In the absence of evidence to the contrary, I propose that v0 and Path0 were reanalysed as a single head in the
lexicon; see Pylkannen (2002, 2008) and Harley (2017) for split or bundled v0 and Voice0. I propose that in
Modern French, the functions of v0 and Path0 are unified in a single projection. I suggest that this is what
defines a v-framed language. Another case of grammaticalization: Roberts and Roussou (2003).

(28) v0 and Path0 bundled as one head in Modern French

Medieval French II Modern French


Particles can
vP merge here: DirP v/PathP
3 3
v0 PathP v/Path0 PlaceP
3 β
Path0 PlaceP/AdjP
β

4.3.1 Actualization: loss of verb particles


A clear prediction of the third reanalysis is that the directional verb particles (merged as Spec,DirP) should no
longer be possible; there is no longer any place for them to merge once v0 and Path0 are bundled as one head.
This bundling should produce a catastrophic change in the sense of Lightfoot (1999, 2006): the wholesale loss
of verb particles. The quantitative work that has been done so far on verb particles demonstrates that this indeed
appears to be the case. Verb particles, in all of their senses, are lost wholesale starting between the 13th and 14th
centuries. Some examples follow.

Burnett, Petrik & Tremblay (2005) track the loss of the particles avant, arriere, and sus to discover that the
frequency of all three declines from the 13th century.

Figure 1: The loss of avant, arriere, and sus in French

10


The particles jus ‘down’ and hors/fors ‘out’ fall out virtually simultaneously from the 14th century onward;
Troberg & Wyslobocka (2017); Troberg, Ahmad & Krol (2018). These studies measure the number of tokens
as a proportion of the total word count; values are e-5.

Figure 2: The loss of hors/fors and jus in French.

It seems to me that formal accounts of this typological shift along with formal comparative treatments of
Romance have overlooked the importance of the verb particles.3 Indeed, Medieval French verb particles appear
to be the canary in the coal mine for the major change in the lexicon that I propose in (28).4 The standard
movement analysis of Path0 or Result0 to v0 in Modern Romance (thus a split PathP and vP) is simply untenable
in light of the diachronic facts and the loss of the particles: these analyses will overgenerate and make
predictions that may not hold.5

What happens to all of the verbal roots that had been able to merge as a Path element in Medieval French?

• v/Path0: these are the directional verbs: aller, venir, descendre, monter, entrer, sortir, etc. sauter, glisser,
rouler, (courir), (voler)
• Activities (vDO): trotter, cheminer, chevaucher, voler, marcher, grimper, vomir etc. along with laver,
essuyer, souffler, etc.
• Ground (Place0/Adj0/ Res0): verbs of removal: laver, essuyer, souffler, etc.

4.3.2 Actualization: loss of adjectival resultatives


Another consequence of the bundling and this reorganization is that adjectival resultatives are no longer
attested from the 16th century. Why? Directional v/Path0 verbs are now the only possible verbs that could

3
Medieval French verb particles are often treated as identical to Italian verb particles (verb-framed).
4
Modern Italian particles (see Mateu & Rigau 2010) should not pose a problem for this analysis. Although they pattern in
much the same way as Old French particles, they appear to have been reanalysed as elements of the Ground (PlaceP) and
now form a syntactic constituent with the verb. This means that verbs of removal in Italian, such as lavare, along with
certain uses of other verbs like mangiare, tirare, correre, etc. can instantiate v/Path0 along with the common directional
verbs such as uscire, and andare.
5
My analysis of verb-framed languages makes a prediction about borrowing and the directional tendency of the
typological shift. A strictly v-framed language in which v0 and Path0 are bundled as one head in the lexicon, should be
resistant to the syntactic borrowing of lexical items that are associated with resultative secondary predication and thus less
likely to undergo a shift to an s-framed language. Verb-framed languages should thus be resistant to borrowing directional
verb particles, for instance, despite the salience of these items in the discourse of a satellite-framed language. The
borrowing of English locative and iterative back into Acadian French would support this prediction. King (2000, 2011)
shows that despite prolonged contact with English, back has not been borrowed into Acadian French in its function as a
particle; rather, it has integrated into the grammar as an adverb. From another angle, Acedo Matellán (2015) provides
compelling evidence to suggest that Rhaeto-Romance varieties are satellite-framed languages. Indeed, these varieties show
very similar properties to Medieval French, and appear to have, in fact, slightly more s-framed behaviour. I suggest that if
these varieties have always had a split vP and PathP grammar (i.e., they did not undergo the last case of reanalysis as I
propose for other Modern Romance languages), it should not be surprising that the sustained contact with German has not
only preserved the early Romance satellite-framed grammar but, in some cases, extended it; see Acedo Matellán (ms.) for
a likely scenario of how strong resultative secondary predication can be extended into a grammar that only permits
resultative secondary predication of the weak kind.

11


introduce an adjectival resultative, but directional verbs are not semantically compatible with such
constructions. These constructions need verbs that denote some kind of manner and result.

5. Conclusion

This paper has…


à proposed a synchronic account of Medieval French resultative secondary predication as satellite-framed, but
which can only generate weak resultative secondary predication built from PPs and AdjPs. The traditional
hallmarks of satellite-framed grammars thus only capture a subset of satellite-framed languages.
à framed the Medieval French grammar within a larger typological shift. I capture the shift in terms of three
successive cases of reanalysis, where well-known phonetic and phonological changes are the local and
contingent factors of the changes; the sound changes obscure evidence for the internal merges that are possible
in the Latin and the Medieval French extended PP and ultimately obscure evidence of Manner Modification. It
may be that the latter is the real “cue” for satellite-framedness.
à presented diachronic facts from French have lead me to define the satellite- vs verb-framed grammar in
terms of one point of variation in the grammar (v0 and Path0 are either distinct heads in the lexicon or v0 and
Path0 form a complex head in the lexicon). This leaves room for variation in the types of possible satellite-
framed and verb-framed languages.

6. Selected References

ACEDO MATELLÁN, V. ms. From satellite- to verb-framed and back again. Approaching the diachrony of the
resultativity typology in terms of parametric hierarchies. Oxford University.
ACEDO MATELLÁN, V. 2016. The Morphosyntax of Transitions. OUP.
ACEDO MATELLÁN, V. 2015. (Meso)parameterising Talmy’s typology. Paper given at the Workshop on the
Diachrony of Verb-Framed vs. Satellite-Framed Languages, October 16, Ulster University, Belfast.
ACEDO MATELLÁN, V. & J. MATEU. 2016. Argument structure and satellite-framedness in Latin: Evidence
from Unselected Object Constructions. In P. Poccetti (ed), Latinitatis Rationes. Descriptive and Historical
Accounts for the Latin Language, 149-169. Berlin: de Gruyter.
ACEDO MATELLÁN, V. & J. MATEU. 2013. Satellite-framed Latin vs. verb-framed Romance: A syntactic
approach’, Probus 25: 227-265.
BURIDANT, C. 2000. Grammaire nouvelle de l’ancien français. Paris: Sedes.
BURNETT, H, G. GAUTHIER, & M. TREMBLAY. 2010. La perte des particules arrière et avant en français
medieval: étude quantitative. In F. Neveu et al. (eds.) Congrès Mondial de Linguistique Française 2010.
BURNETT, H., K. PETRIK & M. TREMBLAY. 2005. La grammaire des particules en ancien français: sémantisme,
distribution et perte de productivité. Proceedings of the 2005 annual conference of the CLA.
BURNETT, H. & M. TREMBLAY. 2012a Change in the encoding of Direction in the history of French: A
quantitative approach to argument structure change. In Nynke de Haas & Ans van Kemenade (eds.)
Historical Linguistics 2009. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 333-353
BURNETT, H. & M. TREMBLAY. 2012b Directionalité et aspect en ancien français: l’apport du système
prépositionnel. in Mario Barra-Jover et al. (eds). Études de linguistique gallo-romane. Presses de
l’Université de Vincennes, 217-232.
BURNETT, H. & M. TREMBLAY. 2009. Variable-behaviour Ps and the location of PATH in Old French, in E.
Aboh et al. (ed), Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 2007. Benjamins, 25-50.
DEN DIKKEN, M. 2010. ‘On the functional structure of locative and directional PPs’, in G. Cinque and L. Rizzi
(eds), Mapping spatial PPs: The cartography of syntactic structures Vol. 6. New York: OUP, 74-126.
DUFRESNE, M, F. DUPUIS, & C.-M. LONGTIN. 2001. Un changement dans la diachronie du français: La perte de
la préfixation aspectuelle en a-. Revue québécoise de linguistique 29(2): 33-54.
DUFRESNE, M, F. DUPUIS, & M. TREMBLAY. 2000. The Role of features in the historical change. In S. Dworkin
and D. Wanner (eds.) New Approaches to Old Problems: Issues in Romance historical linguistics.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 129-149.
DUFRESNE, M., F. DUPUIS, & TREMBLAY, M. 2003. Preverbs and particles in Old French. In Booij, G. and A.
van Kemenade (eds), Yearbook of Morphology 2003, Kluwer, 30–60.

12


FOLLI, R. & H. HARLEY. 2016. Against deficiency-based typologies. in E. Carrilho et al. Romance Languages
and Linguistic Theory 10. Benjamins.
IACOBINI, C. 2015. Particle verbs in Romance. In P. Müller et al. Volume 3 Word-Formation. An International
Handbook of the Languages of Europe. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton, 627-659.
IACOBINI, C. & B. FAGARD. 2011. ‘A diachronic approach to variation and change in the typology of motion
expression. A case study: From Latin to Romance’, Cahiers de Faits de Langue 3: 151-172.
IACOBINI, C. & F. MASINI. 2006. ‘The emergence of verb-particle constructions in Italian: locative and actional
meanings’, Morphology 16: 155-188.
KING, R. 2000. The Lexical Basis of Grammatical Borrowing. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, John Benjamins.
KING, R. 2011. Back to back: The Trajectory of an Old Borrowing. U. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics,
Volume 17(2): 115-123.
KOOPMAN, H. 2000. ‘Prepositions, postpositions, circumpositions, and particles: The structure of Dutch PPs’,
in H. Koopman (ed), The Syntax and specifiers and heads: Collected essays of Hilda J. Koopman. London:
Routledge, 204-260.
LIGHTFOOT, D. 1999. The development of language: Acquisition, change and evolution. Oxford: Blackwell.
LIGHTFOOT, D. 2006. How new languages emerge. Cambridge: CUP.
MARCHELLO-NIZIA, C. 2002. Prépositions françaises en diachronie : Une catégorie en question. Lingvisticae
Investigationes 25(2): 205-221.
MARTIN, R. 2001. ‘Le préfixe a-/ad- en moyen français’, Romania 119: 289-322.
MARTIN, R. 2006. ‘Sémantique préfixale du moyen français: les prefixes de-/des’, Lexique 17: 29-53.
MATEU, J. 2001. Unselected objects. In N. Dehé & A. Wanner (eds.), Structural Aspects of Semantically
Complex Verbs, 83-104. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
MATEU, J. & G. RIGAU. 2010. Verb-particle constructions in Romance: A lexical-syntactic account. Probus 22:
241-269.
MATUSHANSKY, O. 2006. Head movement in linguistic theory. Linguistic Inquiry 37.1, 69-109.
RAINER, F. & C. BURIDANT, C. 2015. From Old French to Modern French. In P. Müller et al. Volume 3 Word-
Formation. An International Handbook of the Languages of Europe. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton,
1975-2000.
SNYDER, W. 2001. On the nature of syntactic variation: Evidence from complex predicates and complex word-
formation. Language 77:324-342.
SVENONIUS, P. 2010. Spatial P in English, in G. Cinque and L. Rizzi (eds), Mapping spatial PPs: The
cartography of syntactic structures Vol. 6. New York: OUP, 127-160.
TALMY, L. 2000. Typology and Process in Concept Structuring. Cambridge (Massachusetts): MIT Press.
TROBERG, M. 2017. Adpositions of Result in Medieval French. Paper given at the workshop on
Morphosyntactic Variation in Adpositions, May 8-9, Queen’s College, Cambridge.
TROBERG, M. & H. BURNETT. 2017. From Latin to Modern French: A punctuated shift. In E. Mathieu and R.
Truswell From Micro-change to Macro-change, OUP.
TROBERG, M. & P. WYSLOBLOCKA. 2017. Jus: A Portrait of a verb particle in Medieval French. Paper given at
the Annual Meeting of the CLA, May 27-29, Ryerson University, Toronto.
TROBERG, M., M. AHMAD & M. KROL. 2018. The diachrony of the particle fors/hors in the history of French.
Poster given at the Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages, April 26-28, York University, Toronto.
TROBERG, M., M. KROL & M. AHMAD. 2018. Change and loss of P-elements: A case study of fors and hors in
the history of French. Poster given at the Annual Meeting of the CLA, May 30-June 1, University of Regina.
TROBERG, M. & H. BURNETT. 2014. Le prédicat résultatif adjectival en français médiéval. Linguisticae
Investigationes 37(1) :152-176.
WASHIO, R. 1997. Resultatives, compositionality, and language variation. Journal of East Asian Linguistics
6 (1):1-49.

13