Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-vpsfw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-24T10:24:26.167Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Focus marking asymmetries in Colloquial and Standard French: A stochastic optimality-theoretic account

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 July 2015

EMILIE DESTRUEL
EMILIE DESTRUEL*
Affiliation:
University of Iowa
*
Address for correspondence: Department of French and Italian, University of Iowa, 111 Phillips Hall, Iowa City, Iowa 52245United States e-mail: e-destruel-johnson@uiowa.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article investigates the grammatical realization of the notion of focus in Colloquial French and Standard French. Based on two production experiments, the article reveals three findings: (i) focus marking is not as categorical as previously acknowledged, (ii) focus marking asymmetry for subjects vs. non-subjects is only supported in CoF and (iii) there is no strict relationship between focus realization and interpretation in either variety. I develop a stochastic optimality-theory analysis, which explains the canonical-cleft sentence alternation in terms of prosody and expands on past literature by accounting for the variation observed both within and across language variety.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of French Language Studies , Volume 26 , Issue 3 , November 2016 , pp. 299 - 326
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

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.)

References

Aissen, J. (1999). Markedness and subject choice in Optimality Theory. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 17: 673–711.Google Scholar
Bates, D., Maechler, M. and Bolker, B. (2012). lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes. Retrieved from http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lme4 (R package version 0.999999-0)Google Scholar
Belletti, A. (2005). Answering with a cleft. The role of the null subject parameter andthe vp periphery. In: Brugè, L., Giusti, G., Munaro, N., Schweikert, W. and Turano, G. (eds.), Proceedings of the Thirtieth ‘Incontro di Grammatica Generativa’. Cafoscarina, pp. 63–82.Google Scholar
Belletti, A. (2009). Structures and Strategies. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Belletti, A. (2012). Revisiting the CP of Clefts. In: Zimmermann, E. and Grewendorf, G. (eds.), Discourse and Grammar. From Sentence Types to Lexical Categories (Studies in Generative Grammar 112). Berlin: De Gruyter. pp. 91–114.Google Scholar
Blanche-Benveniste, C. (1997). Approches de la langue parlée en français: L’essentiel français. Paris: Ophrys.Google Scholar
Blyth, C.S. (1999). Toward a pedagogical discourse grammar: Techniques for teaching word order constructions. In: Lee, J. and Valdman, A. (eds.), Form and Meaning: Multiple Perspectives. AAUSC Issues in Language Program Direction. Boston: Heinle, pp. 183–229.Google Scholar
Boersma, P. and Hayes, B. (2001). Empirical tests of the Gradual Learning Algorithm. Linguistic Inquiry, 32: 45–86.Google Scholar
Büring, D. (2009). Towards a typology of focus realization. In: Zimmermann, M. and Féry, C. (eds.), Information Structure: Theoretical, Typological and Experimental perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 177–205.Google Scholar
Büring, D. and Gutiérrez-Bravo, R. (2001). Focus-related word order variation without the NSR: A prosody based cross-linguistic analysis. In: McCloskey, J. (ed.), SASC 3: Syntax and Semantics at Santa Cruz. Linguistics Research Center, University of California, Santa Cruz.Google Scholar
Calude, A. (2009). Cleft Constructions in Spoken English. VDM Verlag.Google Scholar
Chafe, W.L. (1976). Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics and point of view. In: Li, C. (ed.), Subject and Topic. New York: Academic Press, pp. 25–55.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1982). Some Concepts and Consequences of the Theory of Government and Binding. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Clech-Darbon, A., Rebuschi, G. and Rialland, A. (1999). Are there cleft sentences in French? In: Rebuschi, G. and Tuller, L. (eds.), The Grammar of Focus. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 83–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coveney, A. (2002). Variability in Spoken French: A Sociolinguistic Study of Interrogation and Negation. Bristol: Elm Bank.Google Scholar
Coveney, A. (2011). A language divided against itself? Diglossia, code-switching and variation in French. In: Martineau, F. et Nadasdi, T. (eds), Le français en contact. Québec: Presses de l’Université Laval, pp. 51–85.Google Scholar
de Cat, C. (2007). French Dislocation: Interpretation, Syntax and Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Delais-Roussarie, E. (2005). Phonologie et Grammaire: étude et modélisation des interfaces prosodiques. Université de Toulouse 2. Habilitation thesis.Google Scholar
Di Cristo, A. (1998). Intonation in French. In: Hirst, D.J. and Di Cristo, A. (eds), Intonation Systems: A Survey of Twenty Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 195–218.Google Scholar
Dohen, M., Loevenbruck, H. and Hill, H. (2006). Visual correlates of prosodic contrastive focus in French. In: Proceedings of Speech Prosody. pp. 221–4.Google Scholar
Drubig, H.B. 2003. Toward a typology of focus and focus constructions. Linguistics, 44: 1–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Etienne, C. and Sax, K. (2009). Stylistic variation in French: Bridging the gap between research and textbooks. Modern Language Journal, 93: 584–606.Google Scholar
Feldhausen, I. and del Mar Vanrell, M. (2014). Prosody, focus and word order in Catalan and Spanish: An Optimality Theoretic approach. In: Proceedings of the 10th International Seminar on Speech Production (ISSP), 5–8 May 2014, Cologne.Google Scholar
Féry, C. (2001). Focus and phrasing in French. In: Féry, C. and Sternefeld, W. (eds), Audiatur Vox Sapientiae. A Festschrift for Arnim von Stechow. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, pp. 153–181.Google Scholar
Féry, C. (2013). Focus as alignment. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 31: 683–734.Google Scholar
Féry, C. and Samek-Lodovici, V. (2006). Focus projection and prosodic prominence in nested foci. Language, 8: 131–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gabriel, C. (2010). On focus, prosody and word order in Argentinian Spanish: A minimalist OT account. ReVEL, 4: 183–222.Google Scholar
Grice, H.P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In: Cole, P. and Morgan, J. (eds.), Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 3: Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Grimshaw, J. (1997). Projection, heads, and optimality. Linguistic Inquiry, 28: 373–422.Google Scholar
Hamlaoui, F. (2007). French cleft sentences and the syntax-phonology interface. In: Radisic, M. (ed.), Actes du Congrès Annuel de l’Association Canadienne de Linguistique 2007. Canadian Linguistic Association.Google Scholar
Hamlaoui, F. (2009). La focalisation à l’interface de la syntaxe et de la phonologie: le cas du français dans une perspective typologique. PhD. thesis, University Paris 3 Sorbonne Nouvelle.Google Scholar
Hamlaoui, F. (2010). La structure de l’information et la prosodie dans les questions partielles : une analyse contrastive du français démotique et du français classique tardif. Manuscript.Google Scholar
Heck, F., Müller, G., Fischer, S., Vikner, S., Schmid, T. and Vogel, R. (2002). On the nature of the input in optimality theory. The Linguistic Review, 19: 345–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hornsby, D. (1998). The dynamic model and inherent variability: the case of northern France. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 6: 19–36.Google Scholar
Jun, S.-A. and Fougeron, C. (2000). A phonological model of French intonation. In: Botinis, A. (ed.), Intonation: Analysis, Modeling and Technology. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 209–42.Google Scholar
Kager, R. (1999). Optimality Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Katz, S. (1997). The syntactic and pragmatic properties of the c’est-cleft construction. Ph.D. thesis, University of Texas at Austin.Google Scholar
Katz, S. and Blyth, C. (2007). Teaching French Grammar in Context: Theory and Practice. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Katz, J. and Selkirk, E. (2011). Contrastive focus vs. discourse-new: evidence from prosodic prominence in English. Language, 87: 771–816.Google Scholar
Keenan, E. (1976). Toward a universal definition of subject. In: Li, C. (ed.), Subject and Topic. New York: Academic Press, pp. 303–33.Google Scholar
Kiss, K.E. (1998). Identificational focus versus information focus. Language, 74: 245–73.Google Scholar
Klein, W. (2012). The information structure of French. In: Krifka, M. and Musan, R. (eds.), The Expression of Information Structure. Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 95–126.Google Scholar
Koehn, P. (2005). Europarl: A Parallel Corpus for Statistical Machine Translation. Conference Proceedings: the Tenth Machine Translation Summit: 79–86. AAMT.Google Scholar
Krifka, M. (2008). Basic notions of information structure. Acta Linguistica Hungarica, 55: 243–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labov, W. (1969). Contraction, deletion and inherent variability of the English copula. Language, 45: 715–62.Google Scholar
Labov, W. (1972). Sociolinguistic Patterns. Trad. fr. Sociolinguistique. Paris: Minuit.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, K. (1987). On the status of SVO sentences in French discourse. In: Tomlin, R. (ed.), Coherence and Grounding in Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 217–62.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, K. (1994). Information Structure and Sentence Form: Topic, Focus, and the Mental Representations of Discourse Referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, K. (2001). A framework for the analysis of cleft constructions. Linguistics, 39: 463–516.Google Scholar
Legendre, G., Smolensky, P. and Wilson, C. (1998). When is less more? Faithfulness and minimal links in wh-chains. In: Barbosa, P., Fox, D., Hagstrom, P., McGinnis, M., and Pesetsky, D. (eds.), Is the Best Good Enough? Optimality and Competition in Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 249–89.Google Scholar
Marandin, J.-M. (2004). Pour une approche dialogique du contexte et de la structure informationnelle. On-line access: http://llf.linguist.jussieu.fr/llf/Gens/Marandin/Focus-HermesJuin04.pdf Google Scholar
Massot, B. (2008). Français et diglossie. Décrire la situation linguistique française contemporaine comme une diglossie: arguments morphosyntaxiques. PhD thesis, University Paris-8. http://tel.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-00726999.Google Scholar
Myers, L.L. (2007). Wh-interrogatives in spoken French: A corpus-based analysis of their form and function. PhD dissertation, University of Texas at Austin.Google Scholar
Prince, A. and Smolensky, P. (1993). Optimality Theory: Constraint Interaction in Generative Grammar. Rutgers Center for Cognitive Science Technical Report.Google Scholar
Quillard, V. (2001). La diversité des formes interrogatives: Comment l’interpréter? Langage et Société, 95: 57–72.Google Scholar
Reichle, R.V. (2014). Cleft type and focus structure processing in French. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 29: 107–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roland, D., Dick, F. and Elman, J.L. (2007). Frequency of basic English grammatical structures: A corpus analysis. Journal of Memory and Language, 57: 348–379.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rooth, M. (1992). A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics, 1: 75–116.Google Scholar
Rossi, M. (1999). L’intonation, le système du francais: description et modélisation. Paris: Ophrys.Google Scholar
Rowlett, P. (2013). Do French speakers really have two grammars? Journal of French Language Studies, 23: 37–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Samek-Lodovici, V. (2005). Prosody-Syntax Interaction in the expression of focus. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 23: 687–755.Google Scholar
Selkirk, E. (1984). Phonology and Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Skopeteas, S. and Fanselow, G. (2010). Focus types and argument asymmetries: A cross-linguistic study in language production. In: Breul, C. (ed.), Contrastive Information Structure. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 169–98.Google Scholar
Szendroői, K. (2003). A stress-based approach to the syntax of Hungarian focus. The Linguistic Review, 20: 37–78.Google Scholar
Truckenbrodt, H. (1995). Phonological Phrases: their relation to syntax, focus and prominence. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Vallduví, E. (1992). The Informational Component. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Vander Klok, J., Wagner, M. and Goad, H. (manuscript). The Prosodic Marking of Focus in English, Québec French, and European French. Mc Gill University.Google Scholar
Vion, M. and Colas, A. (1995). Contrastive marking in French dialogue: Why and how? Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 24: 313–31.Google Scholar
Zerbian, S. (2007). Subject/object-asymmetry in Northern Sotho. In: Schwabe, P. and Winkler, S. (eds.), Information Structure and the Architecture of Grammar: A Typological Perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 323–45.Google Scholar
Zimmermann, M. (2006). Focus in Western Chadic: A unified OT-account. In: Davis, C. et al. (eds.), Proceedings of NELS 36. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press.Google Scholar
Zimmermann, M. (2011). The grammatical expression of focus in West Chadic: Variation and uniformity in and across languages. Linguistics, 49: 1163–213.Google Scholar
Zribi-Hertz, A. (2011). Pour un modèle diglossique de description du français: quelques implications théoriques, didactiques et méthodologiques. Journal of French Language Studies, 21: 1–26.Google Scholar
Zribi-Hertz, A. (2013). De la notion de grammaire standard dans une optique diglossique du français. Journal of French Language Studies, 23: 59–85.Google Scholar