Verb-second and clitic-second in Old French

1. Verb-second and clitic-second in Old French Jennifer Culbertson culbertson@cogsci.jhu.edu Geraldine Legendre Johns Hopkins University

2. Traditional approaches to V2 in OF • V2  verb in 2ndposition following arbitrary element • Strong V2 pattern in 12th c OF (85-90% main declaratives): (1) Vers dulce Francechevalchetl'emperere.  “Toward sweet France rodethe emperor.” Previous Analyses: • Germanic-based: V must move to C (e.g. Roberts 1993) • I to C in non-SVO clauses (e.g. Vance 1998) Alternative Approach: • V2 is a PF alignment effect (e.g. Legendre 2000)

3. Motivations for new approach • Symmetric V2 languages (Icelandic, Yiddish, OF) • Status of SpecIP as mixed A, A’ position (Diesing 1990, Lemieux & Dupuis 1995) • Motivation for filling specCP • Number of elements appearing before the verb • object and locative clitics in OF are second-position elements which interact with verb positioning

4. Alternative analysis of OF V2 • V2  conflict of alignment constraints (Legendre 2000, Anderson 2005) • Generalized Morphological Alignment (McCarthy & Prince 1993) • Alignment of features at PF V2 is constraint on linear order (2) Seignurs baruns, a Carlemagnesirez;  “Barons,[break],to Charlemagne(you)will go.” • Verbs compete with clitics for second position • Economy is built into competition

5. Alternative analysis of OF V2 Evidence: • V2 parallels clitic-second (Anderson 2005, Legendre 2001) • V2 is sensitive to number of constituents preceding verb • ‘Dummy’ or ‘arbitrary’ elements in first position (3) Sirecevraila chrestïene lei. “(I) will receivethe christian law.” Also: dunc “thus”, e “and”, u “or”, or “now”, puis “then” • By default symmetric V2 (COMP+V) expected

6. OF Second-position Clitics • OF object and locative clitics: • Appear/cluster in 2nd position, always in the same order: • (4) a. Demi Espaignevusduratil. • half spainyougivehe • “Half Spain he will give you.” • b. Jot’enmuvrai • Iyou+therefollow • “I will followyou there” • c.Dunezm’en • giveme+here • “Give me here!”

7. OF Second-position Clitics [5% of all main clauses in Chanson de Roland] • Obey Tobler-Mussafia law regardless of context (5) a. Imperative:Dunezlil'arc “Givehimthe sword!” b.Declarative: Vintises nies. “Cametherehis nephew” c. Question: Faiteslevos de gred? “Will (you) doitnow?” d. Quote: Distli paiens… “Saidthe pagans…” [3%] [<1%] [5%] • Verb-Clitic order switches • V1 occurs with special illocutionary force

8. OF Second-position Clitics • Encliticize with preceding elements e.g. sil = si + li, jel = je + li, nes = ne + les • Hirschbühler & Labelle (2000) claim that OF clitics are positioned independently of the verb • Advocate a set of constraints preventing clitics in 1st position, but pushing them to leftedge • But no clitic-second V2 interaction

9. V2 and C2 Alignment Constraints • Constraints for morphological/feature alignment: NONINITIAL(X): violated by candidates with [X] at the left edge of the intonational phrase (typically clause) EDGEMOST(X): gradiently violated by candidates with [X] not aligned with left edge of the intonational phrase • X = finiteness features of verbs (F) and clitics (Cl) • Interaction produces 2nd position when NI(X) >> E(X) • Verbs and clitics will compete for second-position • Resolution of conflict between second position elements is not unique to OF (eg. for Macedonian, Legendre 1997)

10. Using OT alignment constraints • I-to-C movement not necessary • Additional constraints: INTEGRITY(XP): violated by candidates with elements intervening within an XP unit (Anderson 2005) EPP: violated by candidates with empty specIP (satisfied by pro) • based on SUBJ (Grimshaw 1997), but can be satisfied by non-subjects • evidence: all types of constituents found before V in embedded clauses, e.g. …(6)queli Franceisasmastes a ferir; “…thatthe Frank (you) will fight” *t: violated by movement traces (called STAY in Grimshaw 1997, see also Legendre 2001)

11. Analysis of Old French V2 • OF ranks EPP, INTEGRITY >> NI(X) >> E(X) >>*t • OF ranks NI(Cl) >> E(Cl) >> NI(F) >> E(F) • SVX clauses (7) Li empererestentses mains vers Deu. “The emperorheldhis hands toward God” Key points:  SVX clauses are IPs, *t eliminates CP  NI(F) >> E(F)

12. Analysis of Old French V2 • XV(S) clauses (8) Vers dulce Francechevalchetl'emperere.  “Toward sweet Francerodethe emperor.” Key points:  XVS clauses are IPs *t eliminates CP candidate • What is the preverbal element?

13. Analysis of Old French V2 • X-Cl-V(S) clauses (9) Demi Espaignevusduratil.  “Half of Spainhewill giveyou.” Key points:  E(Cl) >> E(F)  clitics are coindexed with pro (Borer 1986) Key points:  INT(XP) is highly ranked

14. Analysis of Old French V2 • V2 is violated in V1 clauses (e.g imperatives) • EDGEMOST(IMP): imperatives must be at left edge (Legendre 2000) • Similar constraints could be used for other V1 contexts • V-Cl-X clauses *note reverse order of V-clitic (10) Dunezlil'arc“Givehimthe sword” Key points:  E(IMP) is highly ranked

15. V2 in Old French Embedded Clauses • Not quite as common, why? ranking EPP >> E(F) (11)a …querecevrezla lei de chrestiens “…that (you) receivethe law of the christians” b…quenusperdunsl'onur “…thatweloseour honor” • Key Points: • EPP high ranked pro satisfies EPP & E(F) • overt subj must intervene

16. V2 in Old French Embedded Clauses • Not just subjects intervene between complementizer + V (12) c…queli Franceisasmastesa ferir; “…thatthe Frank (you) will fight” d…queen Sarragucedescendentsuz un if. “…thatin Sarraguce (they) descend under a cliff” e…quelitramistli reis “…thatitsendsthe king” Key points:  if subj. pro can satisfy EPP, so can obj pro

17. Conclusions • OF V2 is captured successfully by the resolution of a conflict between NONINITIAL and EDGEMOST constraints • Second-position clitics in OF can be captured by this same constraint interaction • Competition between verbs and clitics leads to clitics in second position, verbs in third • Pattern of enclisis to verbs in V1 contexts automatically follows • Symmetric character of OF V2 is derived • Adds to the growing body of research suggesting that alignment may be theoretically preferable to traditional feature driven movement analyses of V2

18. Thanks! Special Thanks to Paul Smolensky

19. References Adams, M. (1987). "From Old French to the Theory of Pro-drop." NLLT 5: 1-32. Anderson, S. (2005). Aspects of the Theory of Clitics. New York, NY, Oxford University Press. Borer, H. (1986) “Thesyntaxofpronominalclitics” In H. Borer ed. Syntax and Semantics 19 Diesing, M. (1990). "Verb movement and the subject position in Yiddish." NLLT 8(1): 41-81. Grimshaw, J. (1997). "Projection, Heads, and Optimality." Linguistic Inquiry 28(3): 373-422. Hirschbühler, P. & M. Labelle (2000). “Evolving Tobler-Mussafia effects in the placement of French clitics”. New Approaches to Old Problems: Issues in Romance Historical Linguistics. S. Dworkin & D. Wanner. Philadelphia, PA, John Benjamins: 165-182. Legendre, G. (1997). Second Position Clitics in a Verb-Second Language: Conflict Resolution in Macedonian. ESCOL Meeting, Cornell University, CLC Publications. Legendre, G. (2000). P”ositioning Romanian Verbal Clitics at PF." Clitics in Phonology, Morphology & Syntax. B. Gerlach & J. Grijzenhout. John Benjamins. 36. Legendre, G. (2001). “Masked V2 Effects and the Linearization of Functional Features”. Optimality- Theoretic Syntax. G. Legendre, J. Grimshaw & S. Vikner. MIT Press: 241-277. McCarthy, J. and A. a. P. S. Prince (1994). The Emergence of the Unmarked: Optimality in Prosodic Morphology. NELS 24, University of Massachussetts Amherst, GLSA. Lemieux, M. & F. Dupuis, 1995. “The Locus of Verb Movement in Non-Asymmetric Verb-Second Languages: the Case of Middle French.” In A. Battye & I. Roberts eds., Clause Structure and Language Change, Oxford University Press. Roberts, I. (1992). Verbs and Diachronic Syntax: A Comparative History of English and French. Kluwer Academic Press. Vance, B. (1998). Verb-Second, Null Subjects, & Syntactic Change in Medieval French. Kluwer Academic Press.