Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-42gr6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T17:17:45.328Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On the role of phonology and discourse in Francilian French wh-questions1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 June 2010

FATIMA HAMLAOUI
FATIMA HAMLAOUI*
Affiliation:
Université Paris Sorbonne Nouvelle – UMR LaCiTO
*
Author's address: Institut de Phonétique et de Linguistique Générales et Appliquées, 19 rue des Bernardins, 75005 Paris, Francefhaml044@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

It is argued that in Francilian French, the dialect of French spoken in the Paris metropolitan area, in-situ and fronted wh-questions have the same answerhood conditions but vary with respect to their respective focus-set (Reinhart 2006). The difference between the two types of questions lies in the discourse status of their non-wh portion. Whereas the wh-phrase is never discourse-given, the non-wh portion may or may not be, depending on the discourse context. In Francilian French in-situ wh-questions, the non-wh portion must be discourse-given. As this language exhibits a strong requirement on sentence stress to be kept rightmost it cannot, in contrast with English, assign sentence stress to a fronted wh-phrase when the non-wh portion is discourse-given and needs to be destressed. The only way to simultaneously destress discourse-given items and keep sentence stress rightmost is by aligning the wh-phrase with the right edge of the clause. Whereas in Hungarian prosody triggers movement (Szendrői 2003), in Francilian French, prosody prevents it from occurring. An Optimal Theoretic analysis in the spirit of much recent work on focus and givenness in declaratives (Samek-Lodovici 2005, Féry & Samek-Lodovici 2006) captures this phenomenon.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 47 , Issue 1 , March 2011 , pp. 129 - 162
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

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]

This paper began its life as a joint project with Eric Mathieu (Hamlaoui & Mathieu 2007). Although it has undergone many changes since our collaboration ended, I would like to express my gratitude to him. I am extremely grateful to two anonymous JL referees as well to the following people for their insightful comments on earlier drafts of this paper: Marie-Hélène Côté, Hamida Demirdache, Caroline Féry, Léa Nash, Georges Rebuschi, Annie Rialland, Laurent Roussarie and Lisa Selkirk. I would like to thank Pascale Pascariello, who kindly allowed me to use her interviews. My thanks also go to Emma Wesolowski, who helped checking and correcting the paper. All the remaining errors are my own.

References

REFERENCES

Adli, Aria. 2004. Y a-t-il des morphèmes intonatifs impliqués dans la syntaxe interrogative du français? Le cas du qu-in-situ. In Meisunburg, Trudel & Selig, Maria (eds.), Nouveaux départs en phonologie: les conceptions sub et supraségmentales, 199–216. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Aoun, Joseph, Hornstein, Norbert & Sportiche, Dominique. 1981. Some aspects of wide scope quantification. Journal of Linguistic Research 1, 69–95.Google Scholar
Arnold, Jennifer E., Wasow, Thomas, Losongco, Anthony & Ginstrom, Ryan. 2000. Heaviness vs. newness: The effects of structural complexity and discourse status on constituent ordering. Language 76, 28–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baunaz, Lena. 2005. Un NPs and wh in-situ: An argument for an indefinite analysis. GG@G 4, 1–43.Google Scholar
Baunaz, Lena. 2008. Non-canonical quantification: A syntactic approach to French quantification. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Geneva.Google Scholar
Beck, Sigrid. 2006. Intervention effects follow from focus interpretation. Natural Language and Semantics 14, 1–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beyssade, Claire, Delais-Roussarie, Elisabeth, Doetjes, Jenny, Marandin, Jean-Marie & Rialland, Annie. 2004. Prosody and information in French. In Corblin, Francis & de Swart, Henriëtte (eds.), Handbook of French semantics, 477–500. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Boeckx, Cedric. 1999. Decomposing French questions. The University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 6, 69–80.Google Scholar
Chang, Lisa. 1997. Wh-in-situ phenomena in French. Master's thesis, University of British Columbia.Google Scholar
Cheng, Lisa & Rooryck, Johan. 2000. Licensing wh-in-situ. Syntax 3, 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1986. Barriers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1991. Some notes on economy of derivation and representation. In Freidin, Robert (ed.), Principles and parameters in comparative grammar, 417–454. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1992. A Minimalist program for linguistic theory. MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics 1.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist program. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Clech-Darbon, Anne, Rebuschi, Georges & Rialland, Annie. 1999. Are there cleft sentences in French? In Rebuschi, Georges & Tuller, Laurice (eds.), The grammar of focus, 83–118. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Côté, Marie-Hélène. 1999. Issues in the analysis and acquisition of clitics in (spoken) French. Ms., MIT.Google Scholar
Côté, Marie-Hélène. 2001. On the status of subject clitics in Child French. In Almgren, Margareta, Barrena, Andoni, Ezeizabarrena, Maria-José, Idiazabal, Itziar & MacWhinney, Brian (eds.), Research on child language acquisition, 1314–1330. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Coveney, Aidan. 1988. Pragmatic constraints on interrogatives in spoken French. York Papers in Linguistics 13, 89–99. [Selected papers from the Sociolinguistics Symposium.]Google Scholar
Coveney, Aidan. 1995. The use of QU-final interrogative structure in spoken French. Journal of French Language Studies 5, 143–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Cat, Cécile. 2007. French dislocation: Interpretation, syntax, acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Cat, Cécile. 2007. French dislocation without movement. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 25, 485–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Delais-Roussarie, Elisabeth. 2005. Phonologie et grammaire: étude et modélisation des interfaces prosodiques. Habilitation thesis, Université de Toulouse 2.Google Scholar
Delattre, Pierre. 1966. Les dix intonations de base du français. French Review 40, 1–14.Google Scholar
Downing, Bruce T. 1970. Syntactic structure and phonological phrasing in English. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Texas at Austin.Google Scholar
É. Kiss, Katalin. 1981. Structural relations in Hungarian, a free word order language. Linguistic Inquiry 12, 185–213.Google Scholar
Engdahl, Elisabet. 2006. Information packaging in questions. In Bonami, Olivier & Cabredo-Hofherr, Patricia (eds.), Empirical issues in syntax and semantics, vol. 6, 93–111. http://www.cssp.cnrs.fr/eiss6/index_en.html (24 April 2010).Google Scholar
Féry, Caroline & Samek-Lodovici, Vieri. 2006. Focus projection and prosodic prominence in nested foci. Language 82, 131–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grimshaw, Jane. 1997. Projections, heads and optimality. Linguistic Inquiry 28, 373–422.Google Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane. 1992. Sentential negation in Italian and the Neg Criterion. Geneva Generative Papers 0, 10–26. Genève: Département de Linguistique Générale.Google Scholar
Hamlaoui, Fatima. 2008. Focus, contrast and the syntax–phonology interface: The case of French cleft-sentences. Current Issues in Unity and Diversity of Languages: 18th International Congress of Linguists (CIL18), Seoul. Seoul: Linguistic Society of Korea.Google Scholar
Hamlaoui, Fatima & Mathieu, Eric. 2007. WH in situ and WH movement at the syntax–phonology interface. Presented at The Second Brussels Conference on Generative Linguistics.Google Scholar
Hedberg, Nancy. 2000. The referential status of clefts. Language 76, 891–920.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1972. Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jayaseelan, K. A. 2001. IP-internal topic and focus phrases. Studia Linguistica 55, 39–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krifka, Manfred. 2001. For a structured meaning account of questions and answers. In Féry, Caroline & Sternefeld, Wolfgang (eds.), Audiatur vox sapienta: A Festschrift for Arnim von Stechow, 287–319. Berlin: Akademie.Google Scholar
Krifka, Manfred. 2007. Basic notions of information structure. In Féry, Caroline, Fanselow, Gisbert & Krifka, Manfred (eds.), Working Papers of the SFB632 (Interdisciplinary Studies of Information Structure 6), 13–56. Potsdam: Universitätsverlag Potsdam.Google Scholar
Ladd, Robert. 1996. Intonational phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud. 1981. Topic, antitopic and verb agreement in non-standard French. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud. 2001. A framework for the analysis of cleft constructions. Linguistics 39, 463–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud & Michaelis, Laura A.. 1998. Sentence accent in information questions: Default and projection. Linguistics and Philosophy 21, 477–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lasnik, Howard & Saito, Mamoru. 1992. Move alpha: Conditions on its application and output. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Link, Godehard. 1983. The logical analysis of plural and mass nouns: A lattice-theoretic approach. In Bäuerle, Rainer, Schwarze, Christoph & Stechow, Arnim von (eds.), Meaning, use, and interpretation of language, 302–323. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martinet, André. 1960. Eléments de linguistique générale. Paris: Armand Colin.Google Scholar
Massot, Benjamin. 2003. Eléments linguistiques pour une vision diglossique du français contemporain. Master's thesis, Université Paris 8 Vincennes St-Denis.Google Scholar
Mathieu, Eric. 2004. The mapping of form and interpretation: The case of optional WH movement in French. Lingua 114, 1090–1132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, John & Prince, Alan. 1993. Generalized alignment. Technical report, Rutgers Center for Cognitive Science, Rutgers University, New Brunswick.Google Scholar
Mycock, Louise. 2005. Wh-in-situ in constituent questions. In Butt, Miriam & King, Tracy Holloway (eds.), LFG05 Conference, 313–333. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Ortiz de Urbina, Jon. 1989. Parameters in the grammar of Basque. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pesetsky, David. 1987. Wh-in-situ: Movement and unselective binding. In Reuland, Eric & Meulen, Alice ter (eds.), The representation of (in)definites, 98–129. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert, Janet. 1980. The phonology and phonetics of English intonation. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Prince, Alan & Smolensky, Paul. 2004. Optimality Theory: Constraints interaction in generative grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prince, Ellen. 1981. Toward a taxonomy of given/new information. In Cole, Peter (ed.), Radical pragmatics, 223–255. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya. 1995. Interface strategies. OTS Working Papers in Linguistics. Utrecht: OTS, Utrecht University.Google Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya. 2006. Interface strategies: Optimal and costly computations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 1991. Residual Verb Second and the Wh Criterion. Technical report, Faculté de Lettres, Université de Genève. (Technical Reports in Formal and Computational Linguistics 2.)Google Scholar
Rooryck, Johan. 1994. On two types of underspecification: Towards a feature theory shared by syntax and phonology. Probus 6, 207–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rooth, Mats. 1992. A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1, 75–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Samek-Lodovici, Vieri. 2005. Prosody–syntax interaction in the expression of focus. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 23, 687–755.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwarzschild, Roger. 1999. GIVENness, AvoidF and other constraints on the placement of accent. Natural Language Understanding 7, 141–177.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth. 1984. Phonology and syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Szendrői, Kriszta. 2001. Focus and the syntax–phonology interface. Ph.D. dissertation, University College of London.Google Scholar
Szendrői, Kriszta. 2003. A stress-based approach to the syntax of Hungarian focus. The Linguistic Review 20, 37–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tancredi, Christopher. 1992. Deletion, deaccenting and presupposition. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Tomioka, Satoshi. 2007. Pragmatics of LF intervention effects: Wh-interrogatives in Japanese and Korean. Journal of Pragmatics 39, 1570–1590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Truckenbrodt, Hubert. 1995. Phonological phrases: Their relation to syntax, focus, and prominence. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Truckenbrodt, Hubert. 1999. On the relation between syntactic phrases and phonological phrases. Linguistic Inquiry 30, 219–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Truckenbrodt, Hubert. 2005. A short report on intonation phrase boundaries in German. Linguistische Berichte 203, 273–296.Google Scholar
Vallduví, Enric. 1992. The informational component. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Wunderli, Peter. 1983. L'intonation des phrases interrogatives du type: ‘Il est né en quelle année?’. Romanica Gandensia 20, 169–181.Google Scholar
Wunderli, Peter & Braselmann, Petra. 1980. L'intonation des phrases interrogatives: le type ‘Tu vas où?’. Studii Si Cercetari Lingvistice 31, 649–660.Google Scholar
Zerbian, Sabine. 2005. Why a prosodic approach to focus in Northern Sotho does not work. Presented at the 5th Bantu Grammar Meeting, London.Google Scholar
Zribi-Hertz, Anne. 2006. Français standard et français dialectal: pour une reconnaissance du phénomène diglossique dans les descriptions syntaxiques du français. Ms., Université Paris 8, Vincennes St-Denis.Google Scholar
Zubizarreta, Maria-Luisa. 1998. Prosody, focus and word order. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Zubizarreta, Maria-Luisa. 2003. Intervention effects in the French wh-in-situ construction: Syntax or interpretation? In Nuñes Cedeño, Raphael, López, Luis & Camero, Richard (eds.), A Romance Perspective in Language Knowledge and Use: 31st Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages, 359–380. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar