Linguistic Variation in Bilingual Communication, Acquisition, and Diachronic Change Universität Hamburg, October 2003

Linguistic Variation in Bilingual Communication, Acquisition, and Diachronic Change Universität Hamburg, October 003 1. Introduction Transitivity, grammaticalization and change * Yves Roberge University of Toronto A change in progress? The ellipsis of the nominal object of transitive verbs is another syntactic change in progress in contemporary French. Fónagy (001: 64), see also Fónagy (1985); Lambrecht & Lemoine (1996), Larjavaara (000) [L]. The counterpart to this is the realization of nominal objects with unergative verbs. Microvariation: French vs. English; Cummins & Roberge (003) [also to a lesser extent for now between European French and Canadian French]. Transitivity: somehow considered to be the result of a grammaticalization of the structural relationship between V and Obj in the diachronic evolution of French; Blinkenberg (1960), Bernard (1991). Does this add up to anything? I argue that it does: Transitive verbs without lexically represented direct object; (1) a. Seulement moi, je n'assassine pas, je ressuscite. (L) Only I don't murder, I resuscitate. b. Un peintre dérange bien moins qu'un écrivain. (L) A painter disturbs much less than a writer. + Unergative verbs with a lexically represented direct object (cognate or not); () a. Vivre sa vie. To live one s own life. b. Tosca a chanté un air familier. Tosca sand a familiar aria. + Other empirical facts and theoretical observations = Transitivity Requirement (TR) Strong hypothesis according to which a structural object position is obligatory in all VPs, at least in a language like French; see Roberge (00), Cummins & Roberge (003). For the moment, let s assume that the simplified representation in (1) is given by UG. (3) V Obj First, introduce the facts, then present the requirement, then examine it from the point of view of Minimalism, then look at consequences for variation and change. * CRSH Grant (Di Sciullo, 41-97-0016). Parts of this work have been developed with Sarah Cummins

. Transitivity.1. Empirical.1.1. Cognate Objects. Massam (1990), Jones (1988), Blinkenberg (1960), Larjavaara (000) Cognate objects: (4) a. Jouer le jeu. To play the game. b. Combattre le dernier combat. To fight the last fight. c. Quel rêve je rêvai! What a dream I dreamt! (5) a. *Il venait souvent son chemin. b. *He arrived an early arrival. Transitivizing objects: (6) a. Les Toulousains ont d abord balayé leurs adversaires avant de balbutier leur rugby. (L) The Toulouse players first swept their adversaries and then they mumbled their rugby. b. Bâiller mon temps dans un bureau. (L) To yawn my time in an office. (7) a. Élise a grimacé. Elle n aime pas quand on la prend à l improviste. Elise grinned. She does not like to be surprised. b. Elle grimaca un rictus résigné. She grinned a resigned smile. (8) a. Reinhard bougonne tout seul dans son coin. Reinhard grumbles all alone. b. Reinhard bougonne un truc inaudible. Reinhard grumbles something inaudible. These behave like normal direct objects, they are referential and non expletive: (9) a. Face aux grands événements que nous vivons. Given the important events we are living. b. On sentait là, sous sa poitrine, de gros battements qui la haletaient. You could feel, in her chest, a deep beat panting her..1.. Null Objects. Authier (1989), Blinkenberg (1960), Cummins & Roberge (003), García Velasco & Portero Muñoz (00) (G), Lambrecht & Lemoine (1996), Larjavaara (000), Rizzi (1986). Two general types : indefinite/generic (10) a. Do you write? (G) b. Le peuple crève de faim, bricole, trafique, fait les poubelles et recycle. (L) definite/latent (11) a. I love! (G) b. Tu as lu les pages? Il avait lu. (L)

Some contexts or constructions favour null objects: - verb strings (1) a. He will steal, rob, and murder. (G) b. Elles ont caressé, pétri, étreint, pénétré... (L) - imperative (13) a. Push hard. (G) b. Fais voir. (L) - contrastive (14) a. He theorises about language, but I just describe. (G) b. Seulement moi, je n'assassine pas, je ressuscite. (L) - infinitive (15) a. This is a lovely guitar, with an uncanny ability to impress and delight. (BNC) b. Strickland qui aime à pénétrer, passer... et défendre en interceptions. (L) - generic present tense (16) a. There are those who annihilate with violence who devour. (BNC) b. Un peintre dérange bien moins qu'un écrivain. (L) - ça as subject (17) Ça flingue à tout va là-dedans. (L) They re shooting like crazy in there. The locus of variation could be the Lexicon: (18) a. I ate. b. I ate a soup. (19) a. Eat 1, unergative, eat a meal, incorporates the object component. b. Eat, transitive, ingest food in a certain manner, incorporates the manner component. Note that this amounts to saying that if a verb incorporates a direct object it is unergative. Does this apply to all unergatives? See Hale & Keyser (1993). But, can it be shown that the null object is syntactically represented or, at the very least, syntactically active and accessible? The following is based on Cummins & Roberge (003). - The null object can serve as antecedent for a compatible pronoun: (0) a. Ce roman amuse quand on le prend avec humour. b. His attitude intimidates, until you figure out he's a phony. 3

- The null object can act the argument of a secondary predicate: (1) a. Les steaks, moi, je préfère manger saignants. b. Vous avez acheté en solde? c. Beat until thick and lemon-coloured. - The null object can receive further specification: () a. C'est une chose si douce que de louer, et surtout ses amis. (L) b. *C'est une chose si douce que d arriver, et surtout ses amis. Moreover, a lexical account does not account for the existence of different types of null objects. (3) a. Lifting his arm to strike, he felt a grip of iron around his wrist, restraining him. (BNC) b. On voit que ce n'est pas lui qui lave. (L) c. M. Jospin, maintenant, régularisez. (L) d. Il livrait pour la Shell. (L) e. When you don't have money and you have to work hard to accomplish in life, it's not that easy to just throw it down... (Toronto Globe&Mail, 8 March 003) f. Vous avez éclaté, tripoté et gratouillé à mort? (L) Finally, cross-linguistic variation (between English and French, for instance) might be difficult to handle with a lexical approach. (4) a. T'as pas à lui filer le tournevis...ça devrait être à lui de nous dépanner...j'étais où quand tu lui as donné? (L) You're not supposed to give him the screwdriver. He should be helping us out. *Where was I when you gave him? b. Tu as lu les pages? Il avait lu. (L) Did you read the pages? *He had read. c. On lui tendit une main...vexé, il négligea. (L) A hand was extended to him. Annoyed, *he ignored. d. Si un mec t'offre un café balance lui à travers la gueule. (L) If a guy offers you a coffee, *throw in his face. e. Nikel m'a dit de prendre une boîte bleue dans le vestiaire. J'ai prise. (L) Nikel told me to take a blue box from the locker. *I took. f. J'ai déjà lu ce livre et j'ai adoré! I read that book already, and *I loved! Following TR, assume that an object is represented and that variation is to be found in the recoverability mechanisms available..1..1. Recoverability There are three means of recovering the identity or reference of NOs: 1) internally, through material in IP (including VP); ) by binding from the left periphery; and 3) through discourse. We take up each of these in turn. 4

Internally-licensed NOs (5) a. La magie des séries, c'est de surprendre, de dépayser. (L) The magic of the playoffs is in surprising, disorienting. b. Where Boulestin never falters or misleads is in the sureness of his taste and the sobriety of his ingredients. (BNC) c....the patter of the camp, grey-haired one between songs can irritate. (BNC) (6) a. A : Ben, qu'est-ce que tu fais? B : J'explore. (L) Hey, what are you doing? 'I'm exploring. b. Dans ma hâte à décacheter, j'ai déchiré la feuille. (L) In my haste to unseal, I tore the page. c. Crystal claqua dans ses mains. On décilla. (L) Crystal clapped his hands. We opened. (7) a. A: What happened to that carrot? B: *I chopped. (Goldberg 001:51) b. The door is open. *Didn t you lock? (8) a. A: What happened to all the vegetables? B: Well, Jacques has been chopping and dicing all afternoon. b. (pulling out of the driveway) Did you lock? (9) a. A: We have to get rid of all the ugly dishes before your date arrives. B: Okay, you wash and I ll dry. (Goldberg 001:515) b. Je laisse ici? (speaker holding up bag) (Lambrecht & Lemoine 1996:301) Can I leave here? c. I ll introduce. (one host to another before a talk) d. Même avec trois cuillerées de sucre en poudre, le breuvage reste amer. Leroy touille en comptant les miettes sur la toile cirée. (L) Even with three spoonfuls of sugar, the drink was still bitter. Leroy stirred, counting the crumbs on the oilcloth. The internally recovered null object is thus a null cognate object ; see also Pesetsky & Torrego (to appear). (30) John has few books. Kayne (00): we should take few to be a modifier of an unpronounced noun that I will represent as NUMBER and that is strongly similar to the pronounced noun number. From this perspective the adjective few itself is very much like the adjective small, except that few is by and large restricted to modifying NUMBER. (31) a. fewer NUMBER books... b....fewest NUMBER books... c....few NUMBER books... (3) V V N cognate 5

(33) a. Drink : 1. swallow a liquid. (The patient can drink when he wakes up.) Lexicon : DRINK Syntax : V V N liquid b. Drink :. take alcohol, esp. to excess. (He just drinks too much.) Lexique : drink binding from the left periphery DRINK N alcohol (34) a. Your book, I bought. *Ton livre, j'ai acheté. b. John, I can t stand. *Jean, je ne supporte pas. (35) a. Ton livre, je l ai acheté. b. Jean, je ne le supporte pas. But see (54) below. Standard analysis : bound variable or null constant. Rizzi (1997) posits Your book OP I bought ec discourse-linked (36) A: Maîtrisez-vous vos interviews? C'est capital, les interviews. B: Je maîtrise. (L) A: Do you control your interviews? Interviews are very important. B: I control. (37) a. Habe ich gestern gekauft. (Cardinaletti 1990) have I yesterday bought I bought it yesterday. b. Habe es gestern gekauft. have it yesterday bought I bought it yesterday. (38) D-structure: [ CP Op [ IP ich gestern pro gekauft habe]] S-structure: [ CP Op habe [ IP ich gestern pro gekauft]] (39) a. *Gestern habe ich gesehen. yesterday have I seen b. *Wann hast du gesehen? when have you seen 6

(40) a. Crystal tient à toi. Mais les méchants veulent lui prendre. Crystal wants to keep you. But the bad guys want to take from him. b. Yan m'a vue pour la première fois à la bibliothèque, et tout de suite il a adoré! Yan saw me for the first time in the library, and right away he adored! (41) a. Si on prenait Tigre et Dragon? Qui a vu? (in video store) How about Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon? Who has seen? b. Tu as lu les pages? Tu m'as dit que tu avais lu. Did you read the pages? You told me you had read. The discourse-linked null objects in French can be seen as an instance of clitic-drop. In all examples, the null object can be replaced by an accusative clitic; see Tuller (000), Guasti & Cardinaletti (003: note 17) and references cited there. (4) = (36) A: Maîtrisez-vous vos interviews? C'est capital, les interviews. B: Je les maîtrise. In contrast, null cognate objects with inferred reference cannot be replaced by an accusative clitic but sometimes by ça. (43) = (9b) Je laisse ça ici? (speaker holding up bag) (Lambrecht & Lemoine 1996:301) Can I leave this here? In turn, the clitic-drop construction does not accept ça. (44) = (36) A: Maîtrisez-vous vos interviews? C'est capital, les interviews. B: *Je maîtrise ça. On the difference between French and English (45) Overt topic a. Token b. Type English That book, I hated. Wine, I bought. John, I can t stand. Bananas, I ll eat. French *Ce livre, j ai détesté. *Jean, je ne supporte pas. Vin, j'ai acheté. (cf. also Vin, j'en ai acheté.) Les bananes, je mange. (cf. also Les bananes, j'en mange.) (46) No topic or null topic a. with linguistic antecedent b. with no linguistic antecedent English Did you read the pages? A: You like? *He had read. B: I love! A: What do you think of my cake?? So, how would you rate? B: *I like. French Tu as lu les pages? Il avait lu. A: Que penses-tu de mon gâteau? B: J'aime! A: Tu aimes? B: J'adore! Alors, comment as-tu trouvé? 7

.1.3. Summary: (47) a. V V null cognate object manger N edible dormir N sleepable eat sleep b. V V lexically-conditioned object manger une pomme dormir un bon somme eat an apple sleep a good nap c. V V lexically-independent object manger des baffes dormir sa vie eat (i.e. receive) slaps sleep one s life away Adding unaccusatives to this leads to the conclusion that all verbs have an Obj... Consequences (48) Verb types : transitive (to eat) intransitive: unaccusative (to arrive) or unergative (to sleep) (49) Projection Principle : Representations at all levels are derived from lexical properties in that they respect subcategorization frames of the lexical items. The view that the lexical properties of verbs determine the argument make-up of the clause has always existed and can be found in most discussions of transitivity. However, it is also accompanied by the intuition that syntax has something to do with transitivity. The terms transitive/intransitive clause and transitive/intransitive constructions are widespread. (50) Port-Royal (1780) : Les Neutres, que quelques Grammairiens appellent Verba intransitiva, verbes qui ne passent point au dehors [ ] [peuvent] signifier des actions, mais qui ne passent point dans un sujet différent de celui qui agit, ou qui ne regardent point un autre objet, comme, dîner, souper, marcher, parler. Néanmoins ces dernieres sortes de verbes neutres deviennent quelquefois transitifs, lorsqu on leur donne un sujet, comme, ambulare viam, où le chemin est pris pour le sujet de cette action. Souvent aussi dans le grec, & quelquefois aussi dans le latin, on leur donne pour sujet le nom même formé du verbe, comme, pugnare pugnam, servire servitutem, vivere vitam, &c. [ ] comme quand on a voulu dire qu un homme menoit une vie heureuse, ce qui n étoit pas enfermé dans le mot vivere, on a dit vivere vitam beatam. [ ] On peut résoudre parlà cette question; si tout verbe non passif régit toujours un accusatif, au moins sous-entendu [ ]. (51) Larjavaara (000 :131) La variété des verbes en emploi générique ou avec objet latent suggère qu en principe tous les verbes peuvent s employer sans objet, avec objet latent ou en emploi générique, même si certains verbes y sont plus propices. Il suffit qu il y ait un contexte approprié.[ ] Je commenterai cas par cas [l article de Lambrecht et 8

Lemoine] et j en tirerai la conclusion que les auteurs ont surestimé l influence des traits lexicaux des verbes en question. (5) Paradox : The object is provided by the semantic properties of the verb but verbs can appear quite freely with or without an object. 3. The treatment of Transitivity Working hypothesis: (53) Transitivity Requirement: An Obj position is always included in VP, independently of lexical choice of V. In other words, there are only possible frames: SVO (transitive and unergative verbs), VO (unaccusative verbs; extends to SVO with the EPP); this has already been proposed by Hale and Keyser (1993) for lexical structure representations. TR is the internal argument counterpart to the EPP. The issue obviously is to determine what accounts for TR. 3.1. Implementation TR is either the result of an obligatory application of Merge of V and Obj to create a Vmax or it is derivable from the obligatory presence of a functional category above Vmax which requires an Obj to value some feature. 3.1.1. Obj is there for the needs of a functional category Basilico (1998) : A functional category (also Tr) between the two VPs of the VP shell. An object can be merged directly in the Spec of Tr position or in the inner VP. Two object positions corresponding to two interpretations (thetic vs. categorical; see Kuroda 197, Cardinaletti 00). The thetic interpretation (inner position) gives emphasis to the event involving the object but does not single out the object. The categorical interpretation (outer position) ascribes a property to the object. Bowers (00). Postulates the existence of a TrP (transitive phrase). A universal typology of verbs. Tr assigns accusative Case to the object and the object moves up to Spec Tr to statisfy an EPP feature of Tr. (54) AGRO AGRO AGRO V SUJ V V OBJ (55) Larjavaara (000), from Amary (1997) a. Tu as dit la vérité à Pierre? Oui, je lui ai dit (*dite). b. Tu as promis une bière à Pierre? Oui, je lui ai promis (?promise). 9

(56) ASP ASP ASP V V OBJ Massam (1990:179): The result of the cognate object construction-forming lexical subordination process is the creation of a transitional verb or the spell-out of the transitional aspect of the verb. (57) a. *A butterfly lives in one day. b. A butterfly lives its life in one day. Pesetsky & Torrego (to appear): Two Tense nodes in a clause. One occurrence of T between v and V is responsible for licensing accusative case. A DP complement is always needed (even with unergatives) to value a feature of T. 3.1.. As an application of Merge Return to a comparison of the EPP and TR. Chomsky (198): Clauses have subjects. Chomsky (1995:199): The Extended Projection Principle, which requires that [Spec, IP] be realized (perhaps by an empty category) reduces to a morphological property of Tense: strong or weak NP features. Chomsky (1998, 1999) proposes that EPP is a selectional property of a probe, which requires an element within its local domain (specifier). Therefore, there is a relation between the EPP and the application of an Agree operation; see Hiraiwa (001) for a discussion. Lasnik (001: 360) formulate the EPP so that it demands that the functional head of the clause have a specifier, just as in Chomsky 198 and Chomsky 000, as opposed to Chomsky 1995. (58) CP Discourse layer C IP Functional layer I VP Thematic layer t V The EPP is clearly a requirement of the clause, in the functional layer of a clausal structure. The intuitive basis for the EPP is the concept of predication. And TR? 10

Chomsky (1981: 37): We will say that α θ-marks the category β if α θ-marks the position occupied by β or a trace of β. Note that α subcategorizes a position but θ-marks both a position and a category [ ] Clearly, θ-marking is closely related to subcategorization. The notions are not identical, however. This in reference to the subject, leading to the EPP. Our hypothesis is that this is also true of the object position within VP. The subcategorization component of the presence of a subject is the EPP. The subcategorization part of the presence of an object is TR. TR appears to be a requirement of the VP, in the thematic layer of the clause. (59) IP EPP I VP TR t V Only distinctive (uniquely human) property of natural languages (Hauser, Chomsky & Tecumseh Fitch 00): Recursion, yielding discrete infinity. Most certainly (exclusively?) based on the operation Merge. Application of Merge (V OBJ) to create a VP always applies as a result of a property of the computational system requiring unambiguous interpretation of Vmin and Vmax. Merging of OBJ defines V as Vmin, a necessary condition for head-to-head movement of V to higher functional projections. This implies that Merge applies independently of lexical content of V. The conceptual-intentional system must deal with the results and various components of the structure contribute to the interpretation of the object. (60) CP C IP I VP V Obj 4. Grammaticalization and Change? 4.1. The issue - General issue of transitivity itself. - Specific issue of a change in progress in French. 11

4.. A few previous accounts For Bréal (1897), grammaticalization affects the relationship between V and Obj. Transitivity comes from intransitivity. (61) Bernard (1991) interprets this in the following manner: 1. au départ, il y a la syntaxe libre qui réunit un verbe intransitif et un circonstant ; les deux termes sont sémantiquement autonomes et syntaxiquement apposés l un à l autre;. si la cooccurrence d un verbe et d un circonstant est fréquente, l attente du circonstant modifie la sémantique du verbe et le rend transitif ; ce circonstant est devenu un simple complément de cette attente; 3. le morphème qui marque la nature de la circonstance (cas, préposition ou postposition), devenu redondant, peut changer ensuite de fonction, par réinterprétation, pour devenir une marque de la transitivité (accusatif/datif, prépositions à, de). (6) Blinkenberg (1960) [ ] nous constatons que la «transition» dont il s agit dérive d une cohésion d un caractère particulier existant entre deux termes de la phrase, plus spécifiquement entre le verbe et un complément (p.17) Mais à quel moment de l évolution peut-on dire que la transitivité devient ainsi un fait structural assuré? (p.18) Nous pouvons suivre justement dans la perspective historique la création lente d un procédé de grammaticalisation, de structuralisation. [ ] Ce qui revient à dire que la transitivité existe avant d être projetée dans une forme une; elle conditionne une unification de la forme, elle n y conduit pas d un seul bond. (p.19) But, we find examples in OF and MF of null objects and cognate objects. Is there really a change in progress? For Schøsler (1999), Latin had generic null objects (Null Cognate Objects). In fact, when an object is missing in Latin it is an NCO. (63) a. Et jo ferrai e mil colps e vii cenz (Roland, laisse #LXXXV, 1078) Et je frapperai et mil coups et sept cents. b. Franceis sunt bon, si ferrunt vassalment (Roland, laisse #LXXXV, 1080) Les Français sont bons et frapperont vaillamment. So, it might seem preferable to assume that TR was present and that any putative change does not directly affect TR itself but rather probably the options available for the interpretation of objects in the various stage of evolution. In other words, null subjects to lexical subjects changes in EPP. Therefore, changes in the treatment of null objects changes in TR. 1

4.3. What is affected by the change? Cl-drop seems recent. (64) Arteaga (1997) a. Vostre terre qui defandra? (Lerch 195 385) (Ch. lyon 1617) b. Cest nostre rei por coi lessas cunfundre? (Roberts 1993:107) (Roland 1.583) c. On le remenroit en le vile por ardoir (Aucassin 16.8) d. La pristrent terre u Deus lur volst duner. (St. Alexis ms. A 163) As is well known, the presence of a dative clitic can also trigger the drop of an accusative clitic: (65) J'étais où quand tu lui avais donné? (L:39) (66) Old and Middle French : le + li li Schøsler (1999:6) Problems with the texts? Possible, see Troberg (in prep). - Style (Larjavaara) - Register (Schøsler) - Iconicity (Fonagy 001): Je supprime? J annule? J abrège. Utterance and event are affected On way to implement these intuitions would be to propose that the structural relationship given by TR can somehow be affected by discourse factors as though the relationship itself had acquired some component of meaning. This raises many other questions Cummins & Roberge (in prep) (67) CP C IP I VP Pragmatics V Obj 5. Conclusions TR: Transitivity as a property of the clause (lexical semantics is still relevant); Generic null objects and cognate objects are representatives of the same species. Generic null objects are null cognate objects; Grammaticalization is Merge of V-Obj; TR EPP; Not a change in progress but an extension of possible interpretations of null objects; Pragmatics through inferred reference leads to the perceived semanticisation of V-Obj; 13

Département d études françaises 81 St. Mary Street St. Michael s College University of Toronto Toronto, Ontario Canada M5S 1J4 yves.roberge@utoronto.ca Références Arteaga, Deborah (1997) On Null Objects in Old French, paper delivered at LSRL 7. University of California, Irvine. Authier, J.-Marc (1989) Arbitrary Null Objects and Unselective Binding, in Osvaldo Jaeggli & Ken Safir (eds) The Null Subject Parameter. Dordrecht: Reidel. 69-109. Bernard, Gilles (1991) Une conception linguistique méconnue de la transitivité,.in A. Montaut (ed) Sur la transitivité dans les langues. Revue de linguistique de l Université Paris 10. Bernard, Gilles (1995) Modéliser la transitivité verbale, in J. Bouscaren, J.-J. Franckel, S. Robert (eds) Langues et langage. Mélanges offerts à Antoine Culioli. Paris : PUF. Blinkenberg, Andreas (1960) Le problème de la transitivité en français moderne : essai syntactosémantique. Copenhaguen: Coll. Historisk-filosofiske Meddelelser. Bowers, John (00) Transitivity, Linguistic Inquiry 33: 83-4. Bréal, Michel (1897) Essai de sémantique. Paris. Chomsky, Noam (1995) The Minimalist Program. MIT Press: Cambridge. Company, Concepción (001) Multiple dative-marking grammaticalization: Spanish as a special kind of primary object language, Studies in Language 5: 1 47. Company, Concepción (00) Grammaticalization and Category Weakness, in Ilse Wischer & Gabriele Diewald (eds) New Reflections on Grammaticalization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Cummins, Sarah & Yves Roberge (003) Null Objects in French and English, paper delivered at LSRL 33. Indiana University, Bloomington. Cummins, Sarah & Yves Roberge (in prep) The Syntax and Pragmatics of Clitic-drop in French. Desclés, Jean Pierre (1998) Transitivité sémantique, transitivité syntaxique, in André Rousseau (ed) La transitivité. Presses universitaires du Septentrion, Villeneuve-d Ascq. Detges, Ulrich (00) Du sujet parlant au sujet grammatical. L obligatorisation des pronoms sujets en ancien français dans une perspective pragmatique, ms. Tübigen. Detges, Ulrich & Richard Waltereit (1999) Grammaticalization vs. reanalysis: a pragmatics-based distinction, colloquium New Reflections on Grammaticalization. Potsdam. Erteschik-Shir, Nomi & Tova R. Rapoport (000) Bare Aspect: A Theory of Syntactic Projection, paper delivered at the International Round Table on the Syntax of Tense and Aspect, Université de Paris 7. Fónagy, Ivan (1985) J aime Je connais. Verbes transitifs à objet latent. Revue Romane 0.1 : 3-35. Fónagy, Ivan (001) Languages Within Language: An Evolutive Approach. John Benjamins: Amsterdam. 14

García Velasco, Daniel & Carmen Portero Muñoz (00) Understood Objects in Functional Grammar, Working Papers in Functional Grammar 76, University of Amsterdam. Goldberg, Adele (001) Patient arguments of causative verbs can be omitted: the role of information structure in argument distribution. Language Science 3(4-5): 503-54. Groefsema, Marjolein (1995) Understood arguments : A semantic/pragmatic approach, Lingua 96: 139-161. Guasti, Maria Teresa & Ana Cardinaletti. 003. Relative Clause Formation in Romance Child s Production. Probus 15: 47-89. Hale, Kenneth & Samuel Jay Keyser (1993) On Argument Structure and the Lexical Expression of Syntactic Relations, in Kenneth Hale & Samuel Jay Keyser (eds.) The View from Building 0. MIT Press: Cambridge. Hauser, Marc D., Noam Chomsky, & W. Tecumseh Fitch (00) The Faculty of Language: What Is It, Who Has It, and How Did It Evolve?, Science 98:1569-1579. Hopper, P.J. & S.A Thomson (1980) Transitivity in Grammar and Discourse, Language 56: 53-99. Jones, Michael Allen (1988) Cognate Objects and the Case Filter, Journal of Linguistics 4: 89-111. Kayne, Richard (00) On the Syntax of Quantity in English, ms. New York University. Kroch, Anthony (000) Syntactic Change, in Mark Baltin & Chris Collins (eds) The Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory. pp. 69-739. Oxford: Blackwell Lambrecht, Knud & Kevin Lemoine (1996). Vers une grammaire des compléments zéro en français parlé, in Jean Chuquet & Marc Frid (eds), Absence de marques et représentation de l'absence. Presses universitaires de Rennes, 79-309. Larjavaara, Meri (000) Présence ou absence de l objet. Limites du possible en français contemporain. Academia Scientiarum Fennica: Helsinki. Levinson, Stephen C. (000) Presumptive Meaning: The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge: MIT Press. Lightfoot, David (1999) The Development of Language: Acquisition, Change and Evolution. Oxford: Blackwell. Massam, Diane (1990) Cognate Objects as Thematic Objects, Revue canadienne de linguistique 35: 161-190. Osawa, Fuyo (1999) Grammaticalization as Category Maturation, colloquium New Reflections on Grammaticalization. Potsdam. Pesetsky, David & Esther Torrego (to appear) Tense, Case, and the Nature of Syntactic Categories, in Jacqueline Guéron & Jacqueline Lecarme (eds.) The Syntax of Time. MIT Press: Cambridge. Rizzi, Luigi (1986) Null Objects in Italian and the Theory of pro, Linguistic Inquiry 17: 501-557. Roberge, Yves (00) Transitivité syntaxique, paper delivered at the annual meeting of the Canadian Association of Linguistics, Toronto, May 00. Roberge, Yves (00) Transitivity Requirement Effects and the EPP, WECOL 00, Vancouver, November 00. Roberts, Ian & Anna Roussou (1999) A formal approach to 'grammaticalization'. Linguistics 37: 1011-1041. Schøsler, Lene (1999) Réflexions sur l optionnalité des compléments d objet direct en latin, en ancien français, en moyen français et en français moderne. Études Romanes 44. 9-8. Schøsler, Lene (00) Passage du système valentiel latin au système de l ancien français. in Michel Banniard (ed) Langages et peuples d Europe. pp. 187-08. CNRS Université de Toulouse-Le Mirail : Toulouse. 15

Troberg, Michelle (in prep). La valence verbale en ancien et moyen français. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Toronto. Tuller, Laurice. 000. Null Objects in Deaf French. Ms., Université de Tours. 16