You are on page 1of 11

Workshop on Variation and Change in the Verb Phrase

December 5-6, 2019: University of Oslo

From derived to lexically specified Result: Change in the French verb phrase
Michelle Troberg, University of Toronto Mississauga
michelle.troberg@utoronto.ca
1. Introduction

1.1. Goals
- To present a formal description of a typological change in French
- To illustrate that a micro-parametric approach is best suited to capture discrete intermediate
grammars
- To show that a diachronic point of view informs synchronic descriptions

1.2 Talmy’s satellite- vs. verb-framed typology

The basic insight in Talmy’s (2000) satellite-/verb-framed typology is that satellite-framed languages,
Path or transition semantics are lexicalized by uninflected elements that are the complement of the main
verb. In Indo-European languages, these are usually particles, prefixes, prepositions. The availability of
these lexical items corresponds with the ability to express manner of motion in the main verb, as show in
(1) for English.
In verb-framed languages on the other hand, only main verbs can productively encode Path. This means
that manner of motion must be expressed otherwise, show in (2) for French.
Path in satellite
(1) The bottle floated into the cave. Path in verb

(2) a. La bouteille est entrée dans la grotte en flottant.


‘The bottle entered the cave floating’
b. La bouteille a flotté dans la grotte.
‘The bottle floated around inside the cave.’

More generally, Talmy’s typology describes the possibilities for resultative secondary predication.
Empirically, this two-way divide predicts with some accuracy other syntactic correlates.

• Directional/aspectual verb particles

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


‘Through Mary’s wiggling/limping/swimming, Mary came to be out/in/down’
b. Mary washed the dishes up.
‘Through Mary’s washing the dishes, the dishes came to be completely washed’

(4) a. Marie a gigoté/boité/nagé (*hors/*dans/*bas).


b. Marie a lavé la vaisselle (*haut).

• Complex adjectival resultatives

(5) John hammered the metal flat.

(6) a. Jean a martelé le métal (*plat).


b. Jean a aplati le métal en le martelant/ avec un marteau.

However, Mateu & Rigau (2010), Mateu (2012), and Acedo Matellán & Mateu (2013, 2016) observe that
the presence of constructions like those in examples (1), (3), (5) are not always reliable diagnostics for
Variation and Change in the Verb Phrase December 5-6, 2019, University of Oslo

satellite framedness. The crucial test, according to these authors, is the possibility of resultative secondary
predication constructions with unselected objects as in (7). Only satellite-framed languages allow this.1
None of these are permitted in Modern French.

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


b. We laughed the pain away.
c. Mary drank the teapot empty.

1.3 Synopsis

VERB-FRAMED
Medieval French Modern French
Unselected objects ✘ ✘
Adjectival resultatives ✔(weak) ✘
Directional particles ✔(weak) ✘
Goal of motion (manner) ✔(weak) ✔(very restricted)
Table 1: Medieval French vs. Modern French

The locus of variation resides in the independence of Path as a discrete functional projection and in the
elements that lexicalize Path. I take Path to be a functional head within a resultative secondary predicate, as
shown in (8), following the extended PP laid out in Svenonius (2010).

(8) a. Medieval French b. Modern French

3 3
v DirP v/Path PlaceP
2 3 β 5
[α- ØDir] vGO PART 3 …
[β ØDir] Dir PathP
[Øβ ØDir] <Ø> 3
Path PlaceP
< α-> 5
<β> …
<Øβ>

In Medieval French, aspectual prefixes (α-), verbs having transition semantics (β), and a null verb with
transition semantics (Ø) could all lexicalize Path, while in Modern French, Path forms a bundled category
with v; see Pylkannen (2002, 2008) and Harley (2017) for split or bundled v0 and Voice0 as a point of
parametric variation.

This difference has three major consequences:


o The absence of directional/aspectual verb particles in Modern French
o The absence of complex adjectival resultative constructions in Modern French
o The very restricted set of verbs that permit goal-of-motion interpretations.

2. Medieval French as a weak verb-framed language


Although Medieval French presents a remarkable range of resultative secondary predication constructions,
there are no attested cases of unergative verbs or unselected objects in these constructions (ex. 7). All
resultative secondary predication appears to be licensed by verbs that themselves denote or imply transition.

1
See Snyder (2001), Harley (2011), Folli & Harley (2016), and Acedo Matellán (ms.) for discussion of other
possible syntactic correlates.

2
Variation and Change in the Verb Phrase December 5-6, 2019, University of Oslo

2.1 Goal of motion with manner verbs


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

2.2 Verb-particle constructions

(10) a. 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.’
b. et puis leissié refroidir et arriere bouillir (Phébus, Livre de chasse, 117)
and then let cool and back boil
‘then let (it) cool and then come to a boil again’

2.3 Complex adjectival resultative secondary predication

These constructions are productive in both the verb and the adjective; see Troberg & Burnett (2014).

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


here all naked him strip
‘Strip him completely naked here’
b. qu'il l'avoit tué tout mort (La Sale, La Salade, 60)
that-he him=AUX killed all dead
‘that he had killed him right dead’

2.4.The extended PP (Svenonius 2010) as a resultative secondary predicate

à Manner modification/conflation is possible if v is not lexicalized through internal merge (12b) 2

(12) a. b. John limped down under the bridge

3 3
vGO DirP vGO DirP
3 2 3
PARTICLE 3 √limp ØGO down 3
Dir PathP ØDir PathP
3 3
Path PlaceP ØTO PlaceP
3 3
FIGURE 3 John 3
Place GROUND under the bridge

2.5 Path elements in Medieval French


à A verbal element always lexicalizes Path and incorporates into v. Manner modification is thus not
possible (but see ex.15). The derivations in (13) and (14) are in line with the type of analysis that Mateu &
Rigau (2010), Mateu (2012), and Folli & Harley (2016) give for Modern Romance. I propose a different
analysis for Modern Romance, involving a bundled v/Path category (see section 3.2).

2
See Embick (2010) and Mateu (2012) for a similar formulation along with Acedo-Matellán & Real-Puigdollers
(2014, section 4) who also correlate the possibility of Manner conflation to the presence of dedicated vocabulary
items that can lexicalize Path.

3
Variation and Change in the Verb Phrase December 5-6, 2019, University of Oslo

(13) a. Goal of motion b. Adjectival resultative


nous troterons en guerre (ex. 9a) depoullier tout nu (ex. 11a)

3 3
v PathP v PathP
2 3 2 3
trot ØGO Path PlaceP depouill ØGO Path PlaceP
<trot> 6 < depouill> 5
(nous) en guerre (le) tout nu

(14) a. Directional verb-particle b. Aspectual verb particle


le renversa jus a terre (ex. 10a) arriere bouillir (ex. 10b)

3 3
vGO DirP vGO DirP
2 2 3 2
[renvers-ØDir] ØGO jus 2 [bouill-…] ØGO arriere 2
<Ø> PathP <Ø > PathP
2 2
<renvers-> PlaceP <Ø> PlaceP
2 2
(le) 2 (le) 2
a terre <Ø> <bouill>

à NB. Medieval French also had a very productive system of prefixes that contributed a directional or
aspectual meaning to the event.3 These are vestiges of incorporated prepositions in Latin (see section 4 for
more discussion).

(15) a. a- (a-)flotter ‘to float (to) penser/a-penser ‘to think/to realize’


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

Troberg & Burnett (2017) analyse these prefixes as dedicated Path heads. As such, it is no surprise that we
find robust evidence of manner modification. This is a satellite-framed subsystem within an otherwise
verb-framed grammar.

(16) a. Directional prefixes: tresnagier b. Aspectual prefixes: apenser

3 3
vGO PathP vGO PathP
1 3 1 3
√nag vGO <tres- > PlaceP √pens vGO <a-> PlaceP
1 … 1 …
tres- ØGO a- ØGO

3
See Buridant 2000; Kopecka 2009; Martin 2006; Rainer and Buridant 2015; Tremblay et al. 2003, among others.

4
Variation and Change in the Verb Phrase December 5-6, 2019, University of Oslo

à Summary for Medieval French:


• Despite the range of resultative secondary predication we find, there is no convincing evidence
that this is a satellite-framed language similar to English.
• Path can be lexicalized by verbal elements (overt or null) in which case no manner modification
• Path can also be lexicalized by a system of prefixes with directional/aspectual interpretations
where manner modification is possible.

3. Standardized Modern French as a strong verb-framed language


Modern French only permits goal-of-motion constructions with a very restricted set of verbs.4 No manner
modification is permitted.
à The well-known Path and Direction verbs: aller, venir, partir, descendre, monter, etc.
(17) Jean est descendu dans l’arène. ‘John went down into the arena.’

à Some translative motion verbs with lexicalized prefixes: accourir ‘run toward’, affluer ‘flow toward’,
déferler ‘unfold’, s’enfuir ‘flee away’, s’envoler, ‘fly away’, etc.
(18) L’oiseau s’envole au nid. ‘The bird flies off to the nest.’

à A small set of translative motion verbs (continuous movement): couler ‘flow’, glisser ‘slide’, rouler ‘roll’
(19) La balle a roulé dans le trou. ‘The ball rolled into the hole.’

à A small set of translative manner of motion verbs (punctual interpretation): marcher ‘step’, sauter ‘jump’
(20) Marie a sauté dans la piscine. ‘Mary jumped into the pool.’

à Some manner of motion verbs in restricted contexts with variable speaker judgement: courir ‘run’,
grimper ‘climb’, nager ‘swim’, ramper ‘crawl’, voler ‘fly’
(21) Je pensais courir aussitôt à la maison. ‘I thought I would run immediately home’

3.1 Previous accounts of contemporary Romance as verb-framed


A number of accounts of the Romance facts propose a macro-parameter in order to describe the restriction
on Manner conflation/modification (Snyder 2001; Zubizaretta & Oh 2007; McIntyre 2004). Two recent
proposals:
3.1.1 Mateu (2012 et subseq.)
Mateu views Manner modification as the locus of cross-linguistic variation, it being dependant on the
licensing of a null light verb. To account for contemporary Romance, he relates the impossibility of manner
conflation (direct merge, or syntactic compounding, following Haugen 2009) to the fact that Path elements
are bound verbal roots and therefore must incorporate into v in Modern Romance, not far from Embick
(2010)’s categorization restriction and similar to my proposal for Medieval French.
(22) vˈ
3
v PathP
2 5
√PATH v … t PATH …
Ø

4
See Cummins (1996); Kopecka (2006, 2009).

5
Variation and Change in the Verb Phrase December 5-6, 2019, University of Oslo

3.1.2 Folli & Harley (2016)


Folli and Harley see the locus of variation as one of head movement, a requirement of v. The primary claim
is that verb-framed languages require overt head movement from the resultative secondary predicate into
vCAUSE or v GO with the consequence that the verbal root will always encode Res (or Path), never pure manner.5
(23) vˈ
3
v0 uRes* ResP
2 5
Res0 v0 uRes* … tRes …

à Note that both approaches derive the verb via head movement from Path. This is problematic:
- If we adopt Svenonius’s analysis of directional particles, then these analyses would predict particles
in Modern French (and Modern Romance) merging in SpecDirP.
- These analyses allow for the possibility of adjectival resultatives
- They cannot account for the restricted set of Path verbs in Modern Romance; why should verbs
meaning ‘run’ or ‘slide’ accept goal-of-motion interpretations while verbs meaning ‘trot’ or ‘wander’
are no longer able to license such constructions?
3.2 v and Path are a bundled category in Modern French
I propose that vGO0 and Path0, whose functions are distributed across two distinct functions in Latin and
Medieval French, were reanalysed as a unified function in Modern French, and thus as a single category in
the lexicon; see Pylkannen (2002, 2008) and Harley (2017) for split or bundled v0 and Voice0 as a point of
parametric variation.
(24) 3
v/Path0 PlaceP

All verbs discussed in section 3.0 would be of the category v/Path. The Path verbs (ex. 17) and the
lexicalized prefixed verbs (ex. 18) would be strictly v/Path. The others, which allow an accomplishment or
an activity reading, would be listed as either vDO or v/Path. 6
à Why would v/Path bundling arise?

Assuming this change occurs during first language acquisition, bundling would arise in the absence of
morphological evidence that v and Path are independently realized or in the absence of morphosyntactic or
semantic evidence that they function independently. In the case of French, the loss of the productive Path
prefix system brings about the loss of such evidence.

It is widely accepted that the loss of the 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.
There are thus fewer derivations of the type shown in (16) and many more where the verb and prefix have
been reanalysed as a single morpheme. The crucial consequence of the univerbation of the prefixes is the

5
Acedo-Matellán (2012, section 5) proposes a similar mechanism within a DM framework whereby Path is specified
to fuse with v in verb-framed languages so that they form a single node for Vocabulary Insertion, while Real-
Puigdollers (2010) proposes a defective Path within a particular version of phase theory to account for verb-framed
patterns in Romance.
6
My conclusions are very similar to that of Folli (2002) and Folli & Ramchand (2005) for Italian manner of motion
verbs. For these authors, manner verbs divide into two classes: pure activity verbs (galleggiare ‘float’, camminare
‘walk’, galloppare ‘gallop’, danzare ‘dance’, vagabondare ‘wander’, etc.) and manner verbs that can also have an
accomplishment reading by optionally licensing a Result secondary predicate (correre ‘run’, rotolare ‘roll’, volare
‘fly’, gattonare ‘crawl’, etc.). My account would have pure manner verbs lexically specified as vDO, for example,
while manner verbs that also allow goal-of-motion interpretations would also be specified as v/Path. This latter type
would thus be able to lexicalize either an activity or an accomplishment construction.

6
Variation and Change in the Verb Phrase December 5-6, 2019, University of Oslo

decreasing evidence of Manner modification and its correlate: evidence of Path as a unique category having
a distinct projection in the syntax and with discrete non-verbal exponents.

à How did it affect the lexicon?

In Medieval French, lexical items that denote, or that would commonly imply, transition were free to
instantiate Path. Path meanings were for the most part syntactically derived and thus we see a great range
of verbs able to occur in goal-of-motion, verb-particle, and adjectival resultative constructions.

Path meanings are lexicalized in Modern French. Verbs commonly lexicalizing Path were reanalyzed as
the bundled category, v/Path0 (aller, sortir, entrer, venir, etc.), while those that were not commonly
employed to describe change of location were acquired as pure manner/activity verbs (trotter, cheminer,
flotter, nager, etc.).

3.3. Advantages of the v/Path0 analysis

à No need to posit obligatory Res-to-v movement, to specify fusion of Path and v, or to introduce a syntactic
compounding parameter for Modern Romance; Path and vGO are a single category in the lexicon so that their
functions are unified in a single projection in the syntax.
à None of the previous accounts reasonably distinguish between the grammar of Modern French/Romance
and Medieval French/Romance.
• The particles: In considering the evolution of the particle systems through Romance, it is crucial to
be able to account for the complete loss of particles in French. The present analysis does so in a
clear way: particles that project DirP are ruled out categorically once v and Path become a bundled
category. This is supported by quantitative studies that show a unified loss of directional/aspectual
particles in French (Burnett et al. 2005, 2010, 2012a, among others).
o Technical formulations such as spanning, fusion, obligatory head movement overgenerate.
They all permit particles to merge within DirP, but this should be strictly ruled out in
Modern Romance.
o Romance shows very little evidence of particle borrowing, even in intense contact situations
(see King 2011). Rheto-Romance is exceptional, but s-framedness borrowing likely
occurred very early, when the Romance variety was typologically similar to Medieval
French (see Acedo-Matellán ms).
• The absence of adjectival resultatives is accounted for. The new class of v/Path verbs are
unaccusative motion verbs. Adjectival resultatives require causative verbs.
o It is not clear that adjectival resultatives would be ruled out in the other accounts.
• Goal-of-motion: the more restricted set of verbs that can occur in goal-of-motion constructions is
accounted for. Any verb having transition semantics (broadly construed) could lexicalize Path in
Medieval French; Path readings were thus derived syntactically. Productive, creative readings
abound. In Modern French, however, only verbs that are lexically specified as v-Path can occur in
goal-of-motion constructions. Some translative motion verbs are optionally v/Path and, as expected,
show variation among speakers and varieties.

4. From Latin to Modern French: the loss of resultative secondary predication

4.1 Path prefixes

Latin was a satellite-framed language. The resultative secondary predicates were primarily created using
incorporated spatial prepositions (Acedo Matellán 2016). Note the unselected object in (25b).

(25) a. Caprarum-que uberibus ad-volant (Plin. Nat. 10, 115)


goat.GEN.PLUR-and udders-DAT.PLUR at-fly
‘And they fly onto the udders of the goats.’

7
Variation and Change in the Verb Phrase December 5-6, 2019, University of Oslo

b. E-dormi crapulam, inquam. (Cic. Phil. 2, 30)


out-sleep.IMP.2SG intoxication. ACC say.1SG
‘Sleep off that intoxication, I said.’

(26) a. Latin prefixes: b. Medieval French prefixes: c. Modern French:


ex-dormire ‘sleep out/off’ es-coler ‘flow out’ écouler ‘flow (out/away)’

3 3 2
v PathP v PathP v/Path PlaceP
2 2 1 2 écoul- 5
[ex ØPATH-] v Path PlaceP es- v Path PlaceP …
2<Ø-> 2 1 <es-> 5
√dorm v FIGURE 2 √col v …
Place GROUND
<ex> - Productive prefixes no longer have - High frequency prefix-verb
prepositional equivalents forms univerbize.

Modern Romance still has productive prefixes used with verbs of change of state/location (e.g., écrémer
‘skim cream from milk’, édenter ‘detooth’, égorger ‘cut the throat of something’, enrager ‘enrage’,
enrichir ‘enrich’, etc.), but Mateu (2006) and Acedo-Matellán (2013, section 4.2) argue that in all such
cases the verbal root encodes the Result state, or Ground (the state of having cream, teeth, a throat, etc.),
while the prefix is the Place predicate encoding the entrance into or exit from such a state:
[v-PathP é-dent-Ø [PlaceP [DP FIGURE] <é> [AP <dent>]]]
It has been noted that the number of these kinds of Ground-denoting verbs increases significantly from
Classical Latin to Modern Romance, what Acedo-Matellán & Mateu interpret as a signal of the
typological change from s-framed to v-framed.

4.2 Goal-of-motion

Latin could express goal-of-motion without a prefix, shown in (28), but this is not commonly found. Acedo-
Matellán (2010: 188-193, ex. 50) points out that out of 149 telic goal-of-motion constructions identified in
his corpus, only 8 predicates are without a prefix, and of the 8, only 3 common translative motion verbs are
represented: curro ‘run’, salio ‘jump’, and volo ‘fly’. These may be the earliest cases of manner verbs being
acquired as optional Path verbs. The role of a preposition followed by an accusative marked DP, shown in
(28), in the composition of the goal-of-motion reading is unclear. Acedo-Matellán provides examples that
suggest such PPs do not encode Path. In (29), the Latin verb currere enters the derivation via manner
modification, but it could very well have already been derived as a Path verb, as shown for Medieval French
in (29b).

(28) Repente omnes [...] in Palatium cucurrerunt.


suddenly all.NOM.PL in palace.ACC run.PRF.3PL
‘On a sudden everybody hastened to the Palace.’ (Suet. 8, 2)

(29) a. Latin Goal-of-Motion: b. Medieval French Goal-of-motion: c. Modern French:


currere ‘run’ courir ‘run’ courir ‘run’

2 2 2
v PathP v PathP v/Path PlaceP
2 6 2 2 courir 5
√curr v omnes in Palatium cor v Path PlaceP …
<cor> 5

- Most goal of motion interpretations
require the presence of a verbal prefix; - Courir may instantiate Path in v/Path verbs become a restricted
unprefixed verbs are rare Medieval French, along with many other class. This class does NOT include
- Currere may already be an optional Path translative motion verbs (trotter, trotter, cheminer, chevaucher,
verb in Latin. cheminer, chevaucher, naviguer, etc.). naviguer, etc.

8
Variation and Change in the Verb Phrase December 5-6, 2019, University of Oslo

4.3 Verb particles

Particles used with generic Path verbs to emphasize the result are attested in Latin, but not robustly; see
Iacobini (2009: 36-38).7

(30) Noli foras ire, in te ipsum redi (Aug., De vera relig. 39)
‘Do not wish to go out, return into yourself’

(31) a. Latin verb particles: foras ire b. Medieval French verb particles: hors aller c. Modern French: ---

3 3 2
v DirP v DirP v/Path PlaceP
2 3 2 3 aller 5
ir v foras 3 all v fors 3 sortir …
Dir PathP Dir PathP
Ø 3 Ø 3
Path PlaceP Path PlaceP
<ir> 5 <all> 5
… …
- Particles disappear abruptly
- Particles are robust; their use expands between 14th and 15th c.
dramatically. - They survive in other Rom.
varieties, but uses are restricted;
reanalysed as elements of PlaceP.
4.4 Adjectival Resultatives
There are no attestations of adjectival resultatives in Latin (Acedo Matellán 2010, 2016).

(31) a. Latin Adjectival Resultatives --- b. Medieval French Goal-of-motion: c. Modern French: ---
*occidere mortuus ‘fall dead’ tuer mort ‘kill dead’ *tuer mort ‘kill dead’

* 2 2 3
v PathP v PathP v/Path PlaceP
2 2 2 2 *tuer 5
√occid- v Path PlaceP tu- v Path PlaceP #aller … mort
Ø- 5 <tu> 5 #accourir
… mortuus … mort

- The affixal status of null Path would - Robustly attested - Adjectival resultatives are no longer
create ungrammatical complex heads attested productively after the 16th c.
involving adjectival prefixes - The class of v/Path verbs are
unaccusative motion verbs. Adjectival
resultatives require agentive transitive
verbs.
Summary:
• weak satellite-framed (Lat) à weak verb-framed (MedFr) à strong verb-framed (ModFr)
• Loss of productive system of Path-encoding verbal prefixes
• Expansion of common translative motion verbs as optional Path exponents followed by the
restriction of this class of verb.
• Development and expansion of verb-particle system – correlates with loss of transparent verbal
prefixes – followed by the loss of particles
• Advent of weak adjectival resultatives followed by their loss

7
Interestingly, Acedo-Matellán & Mateu (2013: 26-27) point out the Latin particle porro is used to express
continuative aspect, much like avant is used in Medieval French or on in English. However, it does not appear to be
the case that this particle is located low in the structure, within the vP.

9
Variation and Change in the Verb Phrase December 5-6, 2019, University of Oslo

Selected References

ACEDO-MATELLÁN, V. 2016. The Morphosyntax of Transitions. OUP.


ACEDO-MATELLÁN, V. 2010. Argument Structure and the Syntax-Morphology Interface. A Case Study in
Latin and other Languages. Barcelona: Universitat de Barcelona dissertation. Downloadable at
http://filcat.uab.cat/clt/publicacions/tesis/pdf/AcedoMatellan2010PhDDissertation.pdf.
ACEDO-MATELLÁN, V. 2012. A layered derivation approach to conflation. Ms. University of Cambridge.
https://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/001631
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. & J. MATEU. 2013. Satellite-framed Latin vs. verb-framed Romance: A syntactic
approach’, Probus 25: 227-265.
ACEDO-MATELLÁN, V. & C. REAL-PUIGDOLLERS. 2014. Inserting roots into functional nodes: categories
and cross-linguistic variation. Linguistic Analysis 39: 125-168.
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.
CUMMINS, S. 1996. Movement and direction in French and English. TWPL 15: 31-54. 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.
EMBICK, D. 2010. Localism and globalism in morphology and phonology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
FOLLI, R. 2002. Constructing telicity in English and Italian. Doctoral dissertation, University of Oxford,
Oxford.
FOLLI, R. & H. HARLEY. 2016. Against deficiency-based typologies. in E. Carrilho et al. Romance
Languages and Linguistic Theory 10. Benjamins.
FOLLI, R & G. RAMCHAND. 2005. Prepositions and Results in Italian and English: An Analysis from Event
Decomposition. In: Verkuyl H.J., de Swart H., van Hout A. (eds) Perspectives on Aspect. Studies in
Theoretical Psycholinguistics, vol 32. Springer, Dordrecht.
HARLEY, H. 2017. The bundling hypothesis and the disparate functions of little v. In R. D'Alessandro, I.
Franco & A. J. Gallego (eds), The Verbal Domain, pp. 3-28. Oxford: OUP.
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. 2009. The role of dialects in the emergence of Italian phrasal verbs, Morphology 19: 15-44.
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.

10
Variation and Change in the Verb Phrase December 5-6, 2019, University of Oslo

IACOBINI, C. & F. MASINI. 2006. ‘The emergence of verb-particle constructions in Italian: locative and
actional meanings’, Morphology 16: 155-188.
KING, R. 2011. Back to back: The Trajectory of an Old Borrowing. U. Penn Working Papers in
Linguistics, 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.
KOPECKA, A. 2009. ‘Continuity and Change in the Representation of Motion Events in French’, in J. Guo,
E. Lieven, N. Budwig, S. Ervin-Tripp, K. Nakamura and S. Özçaliskan (eds), Crosslinguistic
Approaches to the Psychology of Language. New York: Psychology Press. 415-426.
KOPECKA, A. 2006. ‘The Semantic Structure of Motion Verbs in French: Typological Perspectives’, In M.
Hickmann and S. Robert (eds), Space in Languages: Linguistic systems and cognitive categories.
Amsterdam: Benjamins, 83-101.
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. 2012. Conflation and Incorporation processes in resultative constructions. In Telicity, change,
and state. A cross-categorial view of event structure, ed. by V. Demonte & L. McNally. Oxford/NY:
OUP.
MCINTYRE, A. 2004. Event paths, conflation, argument structure, and VP shells, Linguistics 42–3: 523–
571.
PYLKANNEN, L. 2002. Introducing arguments. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of
Techonology, Cambridge, MA.
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.
REAL-PUIGDOLLERS, C. 2010. A microparametric approach on goal of motion constructions: properties of
adpositional systems in Romance and Germanic. Catalan Journal of Linguistics 9: 125-150.
SNYDER, W. 2001. On the nature of syntactic variation: Evidence from complex predicates and complex
word-formation. Language 77:324-342.
SON, M. & P. SVENONIUS. 2008. Microparameters of cross-linguistic variation: Directed motion and
resultatives, West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL) 27: 338-396.
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. Toward a cognitive semantics, Vol. II: Typology and process in concept
structuring. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
TREMBLAY, M., F. DUPUIS & M. DUFRESNE. 2003. ‘Les prépositions dans l’histoire du français:
transitivité, grammaticalisation et lexicalisation’, Verbum 25(4): 549-562.
TROBERG, M. & H. BURNETT. 2014. Le prédicat résultatif adjectival en français médiéval. Linguisticae
Investigationes 37(1) :152-176.
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.
WASHIO, R. 1997. Resultatives, compositionality, and language variation. Journal of East Asian
Linguistics 6 (1):1-49.
ZUBIZARETTA, M. L. & E. OH. 2007. On the syntactic composition of manner and motion. Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.

11