gender mismatches in partitive constructions with ... · we show that such mismatches are allowed...
Post on 03-Jul-2018
214 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
UvA-DARE is a service provided by the library of the University of Amsterdam (http://dare.uva.nl)
UvA-DARE (Digital Academic Repository)
Gender mismatches in partitive constructions with superlatives in French
Sleeman, A.P.; Ihsane, T.
Published in:Glossa
DOI:10.5334/gjgl.137
Link to publication
Citation for published version (APA):Sleeman, P., & Ihsane, T. (2016). Gender mismatches in partitive constructions with superlatives in French.Glossa, 1(1), [35]. DOI: 10.5334/gjgl.137
General rightsIt is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s),other than for strictly personal, individual use, unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons).
Disclaimer/Complaints regulationsIf you believe that digital publication of certain material infringes any of your rights or (privacy) interests, please let the Library know, statingyour reasons. In case of a legitimate complaint, the Library will make the material inaccessible and/or remove it from the website. Please Askthe Library: http://uba.uva.nl/en/contact, or a letter to: Library of the University of Amsterdam, Secretariat, Singel 425, 1012 WP Amsterdam,The Netherlands. You will be contacted as soon as possible.
Download date: 15 Jul 2018
RESEARCH
Gender mismatches in partitive constructions with superlatives in FrenchPetra Sleeman1 and Tabea Ihsane2
1 University of Amsterdam Spuistraat 134, 1012 VB Amsterdam, NL2 University of Geneva Rue de Candolle 2, 1205 Geneva, CHCorresponding author: Petra Sleeman (A.P.Sleeman@uva.nl)
This paper examines the syntax of partitive constructions with superlatives in French and the realization of gender in constructions with an animate noun, and focuses on contexts that allow gender mismatches (la plus intelligente de mes gentils professeurs ‘the most intelligent of my kind professors’). We show that such mismatches are allowed in French superlative partitives that contain a default masculine noun. To account for the mismatches, we propose that the nouns involved have an unvalued gender feature that can be assigned a sex specification in the course of the derivation. For superlative partitives we propose that this specification takes place in a Gender Phrase in the outer DP. Furthermore, we show that quantified partitives (e.g. three of the books) behave differently from superlative partitives, a fact we try to explain in terms of structural differences. We distinguish between partitives with an of-complement and non-canonical partitives with an ‘among’-PP or a preposed ‘of’-phrase. We also claim that our data can provide further insight into the role of locality in semantic agreement: we compare superlative partitives to quantified partitives in terms of agreement, and suggest that the two types of partitives should be placed in different positions on an Agreement Hierarchy.
Keywords: Partitive; superlative; gender agreement; feature checking; locality; Agreement Hierarchy; French
1 IntroductionPartitive constructions that are discussed in the literature are often introduced by a quantifier(‘threeofthebooks’),see,e.g.,Hoeksema(1996),Zamparelli(1998),Cardinaletti&Giusti (2006;2016).However,partitive constructions canalsobe introducedbyanordinal(‘thefirstofhisbooks’)orasuperlative(‘thebestofhisbooks’).OnlyinthefirstcasedoesJackendoff’s (1977)PartitiveConstrainton thepresenceofadefinitedeter-minerinthecomplementhavetoberespected(*‘manyofallbooks’).Withordinalsandsuperlativesthecomplementcanbeintroducedby‘all’(‘thebestofallpossibleworlds’),see,e.g.,Hoeksema(1996).Ordinalscanbeanalyzedasasubclassofsuperlatives(see,e.g.,Barbiers2007).InthispaperweshowthatsuperlativepartitivesalsodifferfromquantifiedpartitivesinthattheformermayallowinternalgendermismatcheswhereaswiththelatterthisisformostnativespeakersofFrenchfarlessacceptable.ThispaperinvestigatesthesyntaxofpartitiveconstructionsinFrenchandfocusesontherealizationofgenderinconstructionswithananimatenoun,inboththe“outer”andthe“inner”DP,wheretheformerrepre-sentsthesubsetandthelattertheset.WeshowthatthegendermismatchesmayoccurwhentheovertnounintheinnerDPisadefaultmasculinenoun.
Glossa general linguisticsa journal of Sleeman, Petra and Tabea Ihsane. 2016. Gender mismatches in partitive
constructions with superlatives in French. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 1(1): 35. 1–25, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.137
Sleeman and Ihsane: Gender mismatches in partitive constructions with superlatives in French
Art. 35, page 2 of 25
AccordingtoCardinaletti&Giusti(2006:§3.3.4)partitiveconstructionsintroducedbyaquantifiercanpresentmismatchesinnumber,butnotingender,asillustratedintheFrenchexample(1):
(1) une/*undemesfilles one.f.sg/one.m.sgofmy.pl daughters.f.pl
Inthispaperweshowthatthisalsoholdswhentheovertnounisadefaultmasculinenoun.In(2)thesexoftheprofessorsisunspecified(seeSection2):
(2) un /*une de mes anciens professeurs one.m.sg/one.f.sgofmy.plformer.m.plprofessors.pl
AccordingtoPougeoise’sdictionaryofgrammaticaldifficulties inFrench(1998;undertheheading“superlative”),insuperlativepartitiveconstructions,thesuperlativehastoagreeingenderwithitscomplement,asillustratedin(3):
(3) La/*leplusjeunedemesgentillesfillesestmalade. the.f.sg/the.m.sg mostyoungofmy.plsweet.f.pldaughters.f.plissick.sg ‘Theyoungestofmysweetdaughtersissick.’
Inthisexample,thedeterminer,la‘the.f.sg’,hastoagreeingenderwiththenounintheinnerDP,thatis,filles‘girls’.Thatthisnounisfeminineisshownbythefeminineagree-mentongentilles‘sweet’.Themasculinearticlele‘the.m.sg’wouldleadtoungrammatical-ity.Additionaldata,however,showthatthegenderintheouterpartofthesuperlativepartitiveconstructiondoesnotalwaysmatchthegenderintheinnerpart:1
(4) La/leplusjeunedemesgentilsprofesseursestmalade. the.f.sg/the.m.sg mostyoung.sgof my.plkind.m.plprofessors.plissick.sg ‘Theyoungestofmykindprofessorsissick.’
In(4),thedeterminerintheouterpartcanbefeminine, la ‘the.f.sg’, i.e. fail toagreewiththenounprofessor,whichis(default)masculineassuggestedbytheagreementonthe adjective gentils‘sweet’.2Ananalysisofthepartitiveconstructionsweareinterestedinhastoaccountforthecontrastbetween(3)and(4),ontheonehand,andbetween(4)and(2),ontheotherhand.Toexplainthefacts,wepartlybuildonIhsane&Sleeman(2016),whodistinguishbetweenseveralnounclassesandproposeafeaturecheckinganalysisofgendermismatches,whichwewilladjusttothemismatchesinsuperlativepartitivecon-structions,whicharethetopicofthispaper.Regardingthenounsinvolvedinthegendermismatchesweexamine,Ihsane&Sleeman(2016)suggestthattheybelongtoanounclassthatdoesnothaveanygenderfeatureinitsstructure,apropertythatresultsindefaultmorphology(Preminger2009;2011),andmorepreciselyinthemasculineintheinnerDP.Inthispaperwebuildonthisapproach,andproposeastructuralaccountofthepossibilityofgendermismatchesinsuperlativepartitiveconstructionsasopposedtotheirabsenceormarginalacceptabilityinquantifiedpartitives.Besidesaccountingforthedifferencesbetweensuperlativepartitiveconstructionsandquantifiedpartitiveswith respect togendermismatches,a theoryofpartitivity should
1ThisexampleisourownbutsimilarexamplescanbefoundincorporaandontheInternet.Wesubmittedmostofourexamplescontaininggendermismatchestoasmallgroupof8–10(Swiss)informants.Themis-matchinsentencessuchas(4)isalsoacceptedbyoneofourreviewers,anativespeakerofFrench.
2Theacceptability,according toour (Swiss) informants,of thegendermismatch in (i) suggests that seul ‘only’hastobeanalyzedasasuperlativeandnotasaquantifier:
(i) laseuledemesgentilsprofesseursquiestmalade the.f.sgonly.f.sg ofmykind.m.plprofesseurs.plthatis sick.sg ‘theonlyoneofmykindprofessorswhoissick’
Sleeman and Ihsane: Gender mismatches in partitive constructions with superlatives in French
Art. 35, page 3 of 25
addressfurtherissues,suchasthestructureofpartitiveconstructions,thepositionofthe“set”generally introducedby ‘of’ in thestructure,andwhether thisconstituentdiffersfrom‘among’-PPs.Inthispaperweshowthatourdataprovideevidenceforastructuraldistinctionbetweenthosetypesofpartitiveconstructions(cf.Cardinaletti&Giusti2006).Ifgendermismatchescanoccurinsidepartitiveconstructions,theyshouldbediscussedinrelationtoageneraltheoryofsemanticgendermismatchessuchasCorbett’s(1979)AgreementHierarchy.Thisiswhatwealsodointhispaper.Thepaperisorganizedasfollows.InSection2,wedistinguishseveralanimatenounclasses in French as they behave differently with regard to gender mismatches. InSection 3wepresentourstructuralanalysisofpartitiveconstructions.InSection4ourtheoreticalassumptionsarepresented,followedbythestructuralanalysisofourgenderdatainSection5.Section6placesourdatainthelightofCorbett’s(1979)AgreementHierarchy.Section7concludesthepaper.
2 Gender mismatches and noun classesInthissectionwepresentthetypologyofanimatenounsinFrench,partlybasedonIhsane&Sleeman(2016),thatweadopttoaccountforthemismatchesdiscussedinthispaper.InFrench,bothinanimateandanimatenounshavegenderdistinctions,namelymas-culine and feminine. However, whereas the gender of inanimate nouns is completelyarbitrary,inmostofthecasesgrammaticalgenderandsemanticgender,thatis,thesexofthereferentofthenoun,matchinanimatenouns.Matchingoccurswiththefollowingthreeclassesofnouns:
a) Suppletiveforms:Thesearenounswithunrelatedmorphologicalforms.Themasculineformreferstomalesandthefeminineformtofemales.Examplesarethefemininenoun(une)fille‘(a)girl’andthemasculinenoun(un)garçon‘(a)boy’.
b)Stemchange:Sexdifferencesmayalsobeexpressedbystemswithanalternatingsuffix:animatenounsendinginthesuffix-teur,suchasledirecteur‘thedirector’,aremascu-lineandrefertoamaleandnounsendinginthesuffix-trice(ladirectrice)arefeminineandrefertoafemale.Otherexamplesareprovidedbythepairsunétudiant‘amalestu-dent’versusuneétudiante‘afemalestudent’,unchat versus unechatte‘acat’,unvoisin versus unevoisine‘aneighbor’,un copain versus une copine‘amate’,unlecteur versus unelectrice‘areader’andunhéros versus unehéroïne‘ahero’.
c) Fixedformswitharticlechange:Sexdistinctionscanalsobeexpressedbythedetermineronly, the formof thenounbeing the same in the twocases:un/uneenfant ‘achild(masc./fem.)’, un/une secrétaire ‘a secretary’, un/une élève ‘a pupil’, un/une collègue‘a colleague’,andun/une camarade‘acomrade,afriend’.Thisclassalsoincludessomeprofessionnounsthatusedtobemasculineonly,butforwhichnowadaysthefeminineform,expressedbythefemininearticle,isalsoacceptedwhentheyrefertofemales:un/une professeur‘aprofessor,teacher’,un/unemannequin‘afashionmodel’.3
Inadditiontothesethreeclassesofanimatenouns,inwhichgrammaticalandseman-ticgenderconverge,therearealsoanumberofnounsinFrenchthat(may)presentamismatchingrammaticalandsemanticgender:
d)Formswithafixedarticle:TherearesomefemininenounsinFrenchthatmayreferbothtomenandtowomen.Onesuchexampleisthenounlasentinelle‘thesentinel’,which
3Inadditiontotheseforms,theFrenchdictionaryLePetitRobert(Rey-Debove&Rey2010)observesthatthevariants une professeure and unemannequinarenowadaysalsoacceptedinFrance.Forprofesseure Le Petit Robertadds:“followingtheuseinCanada”.ForashortsurveyofthehistoryoftheintroductionoffeminineformsofprofessionnamesinCanada,Belgium,Switzerland,andFrance,wereferthereaderto,e.g.,Arbour&deNayves(2014).ForsomeadditionalinformationonthephenomenonoffeminizationofprofessionnounsinFrance,seefn.8andVanCompernolle(2007).
Sleeman and Ihsane: Gender mismatches in partitive constructions with superlatives in French
Art. 35, page 4 of 25
hasafixed(feminine)grammaticalgender,althoughit isgenerallyusedtorefertomales.Otherexampleswouldbecanaille‘scoundrel’,personne‘person’,orvictime‘vic-tim’.Amasculineanimatenounisleléopard‘theleopard’,whichhasafixedmasculinegender,althoughitisusedtoreferbothtomaleandfemaleanimals.
Aswasshownin(3),withclassa)nounstherecanbenogendermismatchesinpartitiveconstructions.Thesameholdsforthenounsofclassd).Althoughsentinelsgenerallyrefertomen,syntacticallythenounis feminine.Léopard isamasculinenoun,evenwhenitreferstofemaleanimals.Inbothcasestherecanbenogendermismatchinthepartitiveconstruction:
(5) Laplusgrande/*leplusgranddecessentinelles the.f.sgmosttall.f.sg/ the.m.sgmosttall.m.sgofthese.plsentinels.f.pl aunebarbe. has a beard ‘Thetallestofthesesentinelshasabeard.’
(6) Leplus beau/*laplusbelledeces the.m.sg mostbeautiful.m.sg/ the.f.sgmostbeautiful.f.sgofthese.pl léopardsallaitesespetits. leopards.m.plfeedshis/her.plyoung ‘Themostbeautifuloftheseleopardsisfeedingheryoung.’
Gendermismatchesinpartitiveconstructionswithsuperlativesmayonlyoccurwithnounsofclassesb)andc).Thenounsoftheseclasseshaveamasculineformtorefertomalesandafeminineformtorefertofemales.Inclassb)thegenderdistinctionisexpressedbymeansofasuffix,andinclassc)bymeansofthearticle.Whenthefeminineformisused,nomismatchesoccur:
(7) Voilàlaplusintelligente/*leplusintelligent demes there.isthe.f.sgmostintelligent.f.sg/*the.m.sgmostintelligent.m.sgofmy.pl anciennesétudiantes. former.f.plstudents.f.pl ‘Hereisthemostintelligentofmyformerfemalestudents.’
(8) La/*leplus jeune demesgentilles enfantsestmalade. the.f.sg/the.m.sgmostyoung.sgofmy.plsweet.f.plchildren.f.plissick.sg
(9) lapluscompétente/*lepluscompétent the.f.sgmostcompetent.f.sg/the.m.sgmostcompetent.m.sg de mes anciennes professeurs ofmy.plformer.f.plprofessors.f.pl
However,themasculineformofthenounsofclassesb)andc)cangenerallyalsobeusedasadefaultmasculineform,whichleavesthesexofthereferentunspecified.Themascu-lineformcanbeusedtorefertobothmalesandfemalesinthiscase:4
(10) Toutétudiantdoitfaireunstage. every.m.sgstudent.m.sgmustdoaninternship
4InIhsane&Sleeman(2016)wecreatedaspecialclassforexpositoryreasons,classe),forthedefaultmas-culineuseoftheclassesb)andc)nouns.Sincetwoofthereviewersobservedthatthedistinctionofclasse)leadstoconfusion,wedonotdistinguishitasaseparateclasshere.
Sleeman and Ihsane: Gender mismatches in partitive constructions with superlatives in French
Art. 35, page 5 of 25
Butthedefaultmasculineformcanalsobeusedwhenthesexofthereferentisspecifiedelsewhereinthesentenceorthediscourse:
(11) MonprofesseurfavoriétaitMmeLagarde. my.m.sgprofessor.m.sgfavorite.m.sgwasMrs.Lagarde
InFrench,withclassesb)andc),masculinepluralisnotonlyusedwhenthepluralformreferstoagroupofmales,but,asdefaultmasculine,alsoifitreferstoamixedgroupofmalesandfemales.Thedefaultmasculinepluralformisalsousedwhenthesexofthereferentsisleftunspecified.Inthesecases,mismatchesinthesuperlativepartitivecon-structionmay,butdonothaveto,occur.5In(15),evenifthereisnogendermismatch,both professeurs and lepluscompétentcanrefertofemales:
(12) laplusintelligentedemesanciensélèves the.f.sgmostintelligent.f.sgofmy.plformer.m.plpupils.pl
(13) lapluscompétentedemesanciensprofesseurs the.f.sgmostcompetent.f.sgofmy.plformer.m.plprofessors.pl
(14) laplusjeune de mesexcellentssecrétaires the.f.sg mostyoung.sgofmy.plexcellent.m.plsecretaries.pl
(15) leplus compétentdemesanciensprofesseurs the.m.sgmostcompetent.m.sgofmy.plformer.m.plprofessors.pl
IthastobenotedthattheremaybevariationamongnativespeakersofFrench,whichmayberegional.Therearespeakerswhoonlyaccept(9)or(15),butnot(13),whenrefer-ringtoafemale.6Thesamemightholdfor(12).TherearealsonativespeakersofFrenchwhoacceptgendermismatcheswithnounsofclassc),butnotwithnounsofclassb).Thesespeakersaccept(13),butwithafemininearticleinthefirstpartofthesuperlativepartitiveconstructiontheyonlyaccept(16a)butnot(16b).7
(16) a. laplusintelligentedemesanciennesétudiantes the.f.sgmostintelligent.f.sgofmy.plformer.f.plstudents.f.pl
b. *?laplusintelligentedemesanciensétudiants the.f.sgmostintelligent.f.sgofmy.plformer.m.pl students.pl
Ingeneraltheclassb)nouns,i.e.thesuffixednouns,arejudgedfarlessacceptablethantheclassc)nounsbymostofourinformants.Notonlygendermismatchesinsuperlativepartitiveconstructionswithétudiantarenotacceptedbymostofourinformants;thisalsoholdsformismatcheswithclassb)nounssuchaschat‘cat’anddirecteur‘director’:
(17) *?Laplusjeunedemeschatsestmalade. the.f.sgmostyoung.sgofmy.plcats.plissick.sg
(18) *?Laplusjeunedenosanciensdirecteurs the.f.sgmostyoung.sgofour.plformer.m.pldirectors.pl atrouvéunnouvelemploi. hasfoundanewjob
5Examples (12)and(13)weresubmitted to the judgmentofasmallgroupofnativespeakersof (Swiss)French,and(14)wasprovidedbyoneofthereviewers.
6Oneofour(Swiss)informantsaccepts(13)onlyiftheprofessorsareallfemale. 7Oneofthereviewersofthispaperandhis/herinformantsacceptboth(13)and(16b),justlikesomeofourinformants,whilethesecondauthorofthispaper,anativespeakerof(Swiss)French,andmostofour(Swiss)informantsonlyaccept(13).
Sleeman and Ihsane: Gender mismatches in partitive constructions with superlatives in French
Art. 35, page 6 of 25
Asfortheclassc)nouns,gendermismatchesarenotonlyacceptedbyourinformantswith profession nouns that used to bemasculine only, such as professeur, butwhicharenowadaysalsousedasfemininenouns.Theyarealsoacceptedwithclassc)nounsthathavealwaysbeenusedforbothgenderssuchasun/uneélève‘apupil’.8Oneofourinformantsdoesnotacceptagendermismatch ina superlativepartitiveconstructioncontainingtheclassc)nounenfant ‘child’, judgingthefeminineuseofthisnounout-dated,andthereforeonlyacceptsthedefaultmasculineformintheinnerandouterDPtorefertoafemale.Despitethevariationamongnativespeakers,thefactthatgendermismatchesarepossibleinsuperlativepartitiveconstructionsshouldbeexplainedbyatheoryofgender.Wehaveshownthatgendermismatchesinsuperlativepartitiveconstructionsdonotoccurwithnounsofclassesa)andd).Withnounsofclassesb)andc) theymayonlyoccurifthenounisusedinitsdefaultmasculineform.InSection5weproposeatheo-reticalanalysis thatcaptures thedifferences.Firstwediscuss thestructureofpartitiveconstructions.
3 The structure of partitive constructionsWhetherpartitiveconstructionsinvolveoneortwonounsisdebatedinthelitera-ture. The argumentation hasmostly been based on quantified partitive construc-tions.Oneanalysisadoptingthe formerpositionhasbeenproposedforFrenchbyKupferman (1999). In his account, the partitive construction is analyzed as aDPselected by a quantificational head, as in (19)–(20). Similar analyses have beenproposed in the literature, the difference being that the partitive complement isanalyzedasaPPoraKPinsteadofaDP(seee.g.Abney1986;Battye1991;Mallén1992;andLópez2000).
(19) Partitive [QPbeaucoup[Q° de [DPmeslivres]]] ‘manyofmybooks’
(20) [QP trois [Q° de [DPmeslivres]]] ‘threeofmybooks’
InKupferman’sanalysis,thepartitiveconstructionminimallydiffersfromthequantitativeconstruction,inwhichQ°selectsanNPinsteadofaDP:
(21) Quantitative [QPbeaucoup[Q° de [NPlivres]]] ‘manybooks’
8InFrench,severalnounsreferringtoprofessions that, in thepast,wereassociatedwithmen,received,accordingly,themasculinegender.Amongthesearenounssuchasleprofesseur‘the.mprofessor,teacher’,le médecin ‘the.m doctor’, le juge ‘the.m judge’. Later, when professions could also be associatedwithwomen,theseprofessionsremainedmasculinenouns,eveniftheyreferredtowomen.InFrance,laterthaninotherfrancophonecommunitiessuchasQuebec,thissituationchangedattheendofthe20thcentury(see,e.g.,Houdebine2000;Baudino2001).In1984thecommissionRoudyproposestoaddthesuffix–e to somemasculineprofessionnouns,suchasprofesseur,ortousethefemininearticleincasessuchasmédecin,whentheyrefertowomen.ButtheAcadémiefrançaise,theinstitutionthatcontrolsthemaintenanceofthequalityoftheFrenchlanguage,keepsobservingthatinFrenchthemasculinegenderfortheseprofessionsservesasaneutergender.Inthepresentsituation,SpanishandItalian,incontrast,donothaveneutergen-derfor(singular)professionnouns.Onlyin1999areofficialproposalsmadewithrespecttothefeminineformof,traditionally,masculineprofessionnounsinFrance.TheseproposalsweremadebytheFrenchinstitutionINALF(InstitutNationaldelaLangueFrançaise,or‘NationalInstituteoftheFrenchLanguage’)underthedirectionofBernardCerquiglini.Thishasacceleratedthefeminizationofprofessionnounsin,e.g.,thepress.
Sleeman and Ihsane: Gender mismatches in partitive constructions with superlatives in French
Art. 35, page 7 of 25
(22) [QP trois [Q° [NPlivres]]] ‘threebooks’
FollowingMilner(1978),Sleeman&Kester(2002)argueagainsta‘onenoun’analysis.Theyshowthatthepartitiveandthequantitativeconstructionsbehavedifferentlyw.r.t.agreement.Whereasthepartitiveconstructioncanpresentanumbermismatch,thequan-titativeconstructioncannot:
(23) a. une de mes soeurs one.f.sgofmy.plsisters.f.pl
b. une soeur /*une soeurs one.f.sgsister.f.sg/one.f.sgsisters.f.pl
Sleeman&Kesterfurthermoreshowthattherearealsodifferenceswithrespecttosubjectagreementwiththeverb.Inthepartitiveconstructiontheverbalwaysagreeswiththequantifier(24),whereasinthequantitativeconstructiontheverbmayalsoagreewiththenounintheinnerDP(25)(Doetjes&Rooryck2000):
(24) UndemeslivresaétéretrouvéparPaul. ‘OneofmybookshasbeenfoundbackbyPaul.’
(25) Unefouled’étudiantssesontsuccédé. ‘Acrowdofstudentshavecomeinoneaftertheother.’
Someauthorsconsiderthatthestructureofquantifiedpartitivesisheadedbyanemptyelement,i.e.partitivescontaintwonouns(Jackendoff1977;Milner1978;Cardinaletti&Giusti2006),apositionadoptedhere(seealsoIhsane2008).9 Anotherargumentput forthbySleeman&Kester,whichhasalsobeenadvancedbyCardinaletti&Giusti (2006), is providedbydata such as the following (Milner1978;Corblin1995):
(26) Quatre(peintures)decellesquiavaientétévoléesontétéretrouvées. ‘Fourpaintingsofthosethathadbeenstolenhavebeenfoundback.’
IftheinnerDPdoesnotcontainalexicalnounitself,thequantityelementcanoptionallybefollowedbyalexicalnoun(peintures‘paintings’)insteadoftheemptycategory.ThepositionofthepartitivePP,i.e.theinnerDPgenerallyintroducedbyof/de,insidethepartitiveconstructionisdebatedintheliterature(complementofthequantityelement:Milner1978;complementoftheemptyN:Jackendoff1977;Abney1987;Cardinaletti&Giusti1992;specifierofafunctionalprojection:Cardinaletti&Giusti2006;Ihsane2008).Zamparelli (1998)proposes that thequantifier takesanaResiduePhrase (RP)as itscomplement,with ‘of’ as its head.10 The overt noun phrase in the second part of the
9Others,suchasMartí-Girbau(2003;2010),argueagainstsuchalineofresearch.Martí-Girbau(1999;2010)proposesapredicate inversionanalysis inwhich thequantifieroriginatesas thepredicate.This typeofanalysisiscriticizedbySleeman&Kester(2002).Kupferman(1999)andZribi-Hertz(2003)arealsoamongthosewhodonotadoptastructurewithanemptyelement.
10ZamparellibuildsonChierchia’s(1998)work.Forquantifiedpartitives,Chierchiaproposes(i)andforbarepartitives(ii)(forananalysisofbarepartitives,seealsoZamparelli2008,andIhsane2008forFrench):
(i) [DP [Dalcuni][NP [N 0[+part]][PP di [DPifolletti]]]] someofthegoblins
(ii) [DP [D deij ][NP [N tj ][PP tj [DP tjfolletti]]]]
art.ind.plgoblins
0[+part] in (i) is an empty relational noun. It is responsible for the partitive meaning and selects anobligatorilydefiniteDP.
Sleeman and Ihsane: Gender mismatches in partitive constructions with superlatives in French
Art. 35, page 8 of 25
partitiveconstructionisthecomplementof‘of’.InZamparelli’sanalysis,representedinasimplifiedformhere,thenouniscopiedtothespecifierpositionofRP,whereitremainsunpronounced:
(27) two[RP friends [R° of [DPhisfriends]]]
Asimilaranalysis isproposedbySleeman&Kester. In thespiritofKayne(1994)andbuildingonHulk&Tellier’s(2000)analysisofpossessiveconstructions,Sleeman&Kesterproposeabasestructureasin(28a)forFrenchquantifiedpartitiveconstructions,inwhicheisanemptynounmovingtothespecifierofFP,anunspecifiedfunctionalprojection,asin(28b).11,12MovementoftheemptyprepositiontotheheadofFPleadstoitsspell-outas‘of’,see(28c).
(28) a. deux[FPF°[PP eP°sesamis]] two hisfriends
b. deux[FP eiF°[PP tiP°sesamis]]
c. [QPdeux[FP ei dej [PP ti tj [DPsesamis]]]] ‘twoofhisfriends’
Acomparablespell-outstructure,withDPrepresentinganemptynoun,isproposedbyCardinaletti&Giusti(2016):
(29) a. [QPDP[Q’Q(PP)]] b. [qP [q’ Qi [QPDP[Q’ ti(PP)]]]]
Thequestionofthepresenceofoneortwonounsarisesnotonlyforpartitiveconstruc-tionsintroducedbyaquantifier,butalsoforthesuperlativepartitiveconstruction.Thatsuperlativeconstructionsdoinvolveanemptynounissuggestedby (30)(Matushansky2008:39):13
(30) a. Quellemaisonestlaplusàgauche? whichhouse.f.sgisthe.f.sgcmptoleft ‘Whichhouseistheleftmost?’
b. Quelbâtimentestleplusàgauche? whichbuilding.m.sgisthe.m.sgcmptoleft ‘Whichbuildingistheleftmost?’
In(30),thereisonlyonepossiblesourceofgenderonthearticleinthepredicate,namelythenullheadnoun.ThePrepositionalPhrasecannotplayarolehereasitdoesnotinflectforgender.Furthermore,asthisnullelementisanaphoric,Matushanskyproposes(2008:55)thatitisanNP-pronoun(cf.Sleeman1993;1996;Lobeck1995,andothersonNP-ellipsis).Thispronounispartofthespineofthestructure,aswellasthedefinitearticle.Thisnullnounisoneofthetwonounsinsuperlativepartitiveconstructions.
11Whereasweareconcernedwithgendermismatches in superlativepartitiveconstructions in thispaper,Hulk&Tellier(2000)analyzegendermismatchesinqualitativeconstructions(seealso,e.g.,Milner1978)suchas:
(i) Tonphénomènedefilleestdistrait*(e). yourphenomenon.mofdaughter.fisabsent-minded.f/*m
(ii) Cebijoud’égliseromaneaétéreconstruit(*e). thatjewel.mofroman.fchurch.fhasbeenrebuilt.m/*f 12MovementoftheprepositionhasbeenproposedbyChierchia(1998)forbarepartitives,cf.fn.10,andhasbeenadoptedbyZamparelli(2008).
13Intheglosses,“cmp”standsfor“comparative”.
Sleeman and Ihsane: Gender mismatches in partitive constructions with superlatives in French
Art. 35, page 9 of 25
Anotherargumentinfavorofa“twonoun”-analysis isprovidedbysuperlativepar-titivescontainingapronoun in the innerDP insteadofanovertnoun.Justas in thequantifiedpartitiveconstructionin(26),theremaybeanovertnounintheouterDPinthiscase:
(31) ?Laplusbelle(peinture)decellesquiavaientétévoléesaétéretrouvée. ‘Thenicestpaintingofthosethathadbeenstolenhasbeenfoundback.’
Weassumethat,justasinthequantifiedpartitiveconstruction,theemptynounistheresultofcopyingtheovertnounintheinnerDP,followedbydeletion/non-pronunciation,asinZamparelli’sanalysis,orasinSleeman&Kester’sanalysis,underthecopytheoryofmovement:
(32) [DPle [DegPplus[FPintelligentFo [FP ami de [PP te tde [DPsesamis]]] ‘themostintelligentofhisfriends’
Thatthefirstnounisacopyofthesecondnounissuggestedbythefactthattwodifferentnounsarenotpossible,neitherinthequantifiedpartitiveconstructionnorinthesuperla-tivepartitiveconstruction:
(33) a.*ungarçondemesétudiants aboyofmystudents
b.*leplusjeunegarçondemesétudiants themostyoungboyofmystudents
Ifthefirstnounisacopyofthesecondnoun,thisexplainsgenderagreementinquantifiedpartitiveconstructionsandsuperlativepartitiveconstructions.14Whatwepropose,isthatin(34)itistheemptynounewhichdeterminesthegenderoftheouterDP.However,asthiselementrepresents/copiesthelexicalnounintheinnerDP,itmeansthattheagree-mentpatternswecanobservedependonthegenderpropertiesoftheinnerN.
(34) a. Une/*unedemesgentillesfillesestmalade. one.f.sg/one.m.sgofmy.plsweet.f.pldaughters.f.plissick.sg
b. La/*leplus jeuneedemesgentillesfilles the.f.sg/the.m.sgmostyoung.sgofmy.plsweet.f.pldaughters.f.pl estmalade. issick.sg
(35) a. Une/*unedecessentinellesanglaisesaunebarbe. one.f.sg/ one.m.sgofthese.plsentinels.f.plEnglish.f.plhasa beard
b. La/*leplusjeuneedecessentinellesaunebarbe. the.f.sg/the.m.sgmostyoung.sgofthese.plsentinels.f.pl has a beard
Theanimatenounsintheseexamplesareaclassa)(suppletiveforms)andaclassd)noun(forms withafixedarticle),respectively.Aswealreadyshowed,withthesenounclassesgenderagree-mentinpartitiveconstructionsiscompulsory.Thisalsoholdsforthenounsoftheclassesb)(stemchange)andc)(fixedformswitharticlechange)whentheyarespecifiedforgender.Gendermismatchesmay,butdonothaveto,occurwithnounsoftheclassesb)andc)whentheyareusedasdefaultmasculinenouns.Thismayonlyhappeninthesuperlativepartitiveconstruc-tion(36)butisunacceptableordowngradedinthequantifiedpartitiveconstruction(37).15 In
14Foranaccountofthenumbermismatch,seeZamparelli(1998:11). 15PartitiveconstructionsmayalsobeintroducedbyademonstrativepronouninFrenchor‘theone’inEnglish.Barker(1998)andSleeman(2006)attempttoaccountforthefactthatwiththesepronounsthePPalone
Sleeman and Ihsane: Gender mismatches in partitive constructions with superlatives in French
Art. 35, page 10 of 25
thequantifiedpartitiveconstructionthereareonlytwooptions:eitherthedefaultmasculineformofthenounisusedtorefertoafemaleorthefeminineformisused,asin(38).Thatélèves ‘pupils’isfeminineinthisexampleissupportedbytheagreementontheadjectiveanciennes ‘former’.
(36) La/leplusjeunedemesanciensélèvesatrouvéun the.f.sg/the.m.sg mostyoung.sgofmy.plformer.m.plpupils.m.pl has found a emploi. job
(37) *Une/undemesanciensélèvesatrouvéunemploi. one.f.sg/one.m.sgofmy.plformer.m.plpupils.pl has found a job
(38) Unedemesanciennesélèvesatrouvéunemploi. one.f.sgofmy.plformer.f.plpupils.f.plhasfounda job
InSection5weproposeatheoreticalanalysisofthepossibilityofgendermismatchesinthesuperlativepartitiveconstruction.Accordingtoourinformants,theacceptabilityofagendermismatchinthequantifiedpartitiveconstructionseemstoincreaseifan ‘among’-partitive,whichcanalsobepre-posed,isused.Cardinaletti&Giusti(2006)arguethatpreposed‘of’-phrasesbehavelike‘among’-phrasesincertainrespects.16
(39) *Unedemesanciensprofesseursadéménagé. one.f.sgofmy.plformer.m.plprofessors.plhasmoved
(40) *Unedemesgrandsenfantsestmalade. one.f.sgofmy.plgrown.up.m.plchildren.plissick.sg
(41) *Unedenosanciensdirecteursadémissionné. one.f.sgofour.plformer.m.pldirectors.plhasresigned
(42) ?Parmimesanciensprofesseurs,seulementuneestdevenue amongmy.plformer.m.plprofessors.plonlyone.f.sgisbecome doyenne. dean.f.sg
(43) Certainesparmimesanciensprofesseursontfaitlagrève. some.f.plamongmy.plformer.m.plprofessors.plhavedonethestrike
isnotsufficient(‘theAnti-UniquenessConstraint’),buthastobeaccompaniedbyarelativeclause.Ourinformantsfindagendermismatchinthisconstructionmoreacceptablethaninaquantifiedpartitivecon-struction,butnotsoacceptableasinasuperlativepartitiveconstruction:
(i)?/??Celle demesgrandsenfantsquijoue dupianoestmalade. the.one.f.sgofmy.plgrown.up.m.plchildren.plthatplaysof.thepianoissick.sg
(ii) *Unedemesgrandsenfantsestmalade. one.f.sgofmy.plgrown.up.m.plchildren.plissick.sg
(iii) Laplusgrandedemesgentilsenfantsestmalade. the.f.sgmostold.f.sgofmy.plsweet.m.plchildren.plissick.sg 16Itmightbethecasethatthechoiceofthequantifierinfluencestheacceptabilityofthegendermismatch.Withcertains‘several’ourinformantsaremorereadytoacceptagendermismatchthanwithun‘one’.Whythisissoshouldbeinvestigated.
(i) ?Certainesdesesanciensprofesseursontfaitlagrève. some.f.plofhis/her.plformer.m.plprofessors.plhavedonethestrike
Sleeman and Ihsane: Gender mismatches in partitive constructions with superlatives in French
Art. 35, page 11 of 25
(44) ?Demesanciensprofesseurs,seulementuneestdevenue ofmy.plformer.m.plprofessors.plonlyone.f.sgisbecome doyenne. dean.f.sg
Toaccountforthedatain(42)–(44),weproposethattheemptynounintheseexamplesdiffers from the one in the canonical ‘of’-partitives in (39)–(41) (recall the discussionof(33)–(35)),asitisnotacopyofalowerN,butanindependentnountakenfromtheLexicon,whichis,inthiscase,empty.Supportforthisanalysiscomesfromthefactthattwodifferentfulllexicalnouns(e.g.enfants‘children’andgarçons‘boys’)couldbeusedintheseconstructions:
(45) Detouscesenfants,seulementdeuxgarçonsontétémalades. ofall.m.plthese.plchildren.plonlytwoboys.m.plhavebeensick.pl
Thegenderoftheemptynouninexamples like(42)–(44) ishenceindependentofthegenderofanotherN, inparticularof thenoun in theamong-PPor thepreposedof-PP (professeursin(42)–(44)).Suchananalysiswouldaccountforthedifferentagreementpat-ternsincanonicalpartitivesandothertypesofpartitives(‘among’-partitivesandpreposed‘of’-partitives).17Forcanonicalpartitivesweassumethattheemptynounisadeletedornon-pronouncedcopyoftheovertnounintheinnerDP(recall(32)).In this sectionwehavedefendeda “twonoun”analysis forboth typesofpartitives,quantifiedandsuperlativepartitives.InSection5wewillproposeanaccountofthediffer-entbehaviorofthetwotypesofpartitiveconstructionsw.r.t.gendermismatches.18Firstwepresentourtheoreticalassumptions.
4 Theoretical assumptionsInouranalysisofgender,wemakethe followingassumptions, likeKramer(2009) forAmharic andAtkinson (2015) for French (see also Ihsane&Sleeman2016). First,weadoptPesetsky&Torrego’s(2007)conceptionofAgree,namelythatbothinterpretableanduninterpretable featurescanbevaluedorunvalued.The reason is that inFrench,grammatical gender on, e.g., inanimate nouns, is clearly uninterpretable and valued,which is problematic for the standardMinimalist assumptions (Chomsky 1995; 2000;2001).ThiscontrastswithChomsky’sAgree(2000;2001)asitmeansthatinterpretabilityandvaluationareindependent,inthesensethatanuninterpretablefeatureisnotneces-sarilyunvalued(Pesetsky&Torrego2007).
17For ‘among’-partitives and preposed ‘of’-partitives introduced by a superlative,we also suggest that theemptynounisnotacopyoftheovertnouninthestructurebutisanindependentnountakenfromtheLexicon.Thisindependentnounmaybeanemptynounorafulllexicalnoun:
(i) Detousmesenfants,seule maplusjeunefilleestmalade. ofall.m.plmy.plchildren.plonly.f.sgmy.f.sgmostyoung.sgdaughter.f.sg issick.sg
Thisaccountsforthefactthatourinformants,mostofwhomdonotacceptagendermismatchwithétudiants inacanonicalsuperlative‘of’-partitive,asin(16b),findthemismatchfarmoreacceptableinnon-canonicalsuperlativepartitiveconstructions:
(i) ?Laplusintelligenteparmimesanciensétudiantsestmalade. the.f.sgmostintelligent.f.sgamongmy.plformer.m.plstudents.plissick.sg
(ii)?Detousmesétudiants,laplusintelligenteestmalade. ofall.m.pl my.plstudents.plthe.f.sgmostintelligent.f.sgissick.sg 18AsnoticedintheIntroduction,superlativepartitivesdifferfromquantifiedpartitivesinnotobeyingthePartitiveConstraint.Itistemptingtotrytorelatethedifferencew.r.t.gendermismatchestothedifferentbehaviorw.r.t.thePartitiveConstraint.Inthispaperwewillnottrytodoso.Abbott(1996)arguesagainstthePartitiveConstraint,claimingthatexamplesthataregivenintheliteraturetosupportthePartitiveCon-straintaredowngradedforpragmaticreasons,andnotforsemanticreasons,asisgenerallyassumed(e.g.byBarwise&Cooper1981).
Sleeman and Ihsane: Gender mismatches in partitive constructions with superlatives in French
Art. 35, page 12 of 25
Second,weassumethatgrammaticalandsemanticgendershouldbedifferentiatedandrepresentedintwoprojectionsofthenominalstructure,byafeature[+/–fem].19 The reason is that in French semantic gender (sex) and grammatical gender do notnecessarily go hand in hand, as shown by (35b) and (11): in the former, the noun sentinelles ‘sentinels’ is feminine (cf. agreement on the adjective), although sentinelsgenerallyrefertomen,i.e.tomalereferents.Inthelatter,agreementwithprofesseur ‘professor,teacher’takesthemasculineform,althoughprofesseurreferstoawomaninthisexample.Third,we followLegate (2002),whoproposes thatuninterpretable features canbedeletedinaglobalfashion,andthatAgreedealswithunvaluedfeaturesbeforethederivationissenttotheinterfaces.ThereasonforassumingthatAgreedependssolely on valuation is that the grammatical gender feature,which is uninterpret-able,doesnotalwaysco-occurwithan interpretable semanticgender feature: forexample, inanimates,which lack sex features, have anuninterpretable grammati-calgenderfeaturethatshouldcausethederivationtocrash,contrarytofact.Thisassumption contrastswith the standard assumptions of theMinimalist frameworkaccordingtowhichanuninterpretablefeaturemustbecheckedbyitsinterpretablecounterpart.Related to the second assumption and building on the analysis proposed in Ihsane& Sleeman (2016),we consider that animate nouns have a grammatical gender fea-ture[+/–fem]onN(exceptforonetypeofnouns,aswillbeseenbelow)andencodesemanticgenderinaGenderPhrase(GenP)betweenNPandDP.20Postulatingafunc-tionalprojectionGenPinthenominalstructureisjustified,becausesemanticgenderisinterpretable,incontrasttogrammaticalgender(see,e.g.,Alexiadou2004,referringtoChomsky1995;2001).GenPplaysanimportantroleinouranalysisbecauseitsproper-tiesallowustoaccountforourgenderdata.Genreceivesitsvaluefromthegrammati-calgenderonN;semanticandgrammaticalgendermatchwhenthefeatureonGenisinterpretable:
(46) Classesa),b),c):legarçon‘theboy’(masc.);lechat‘themalecat’;lesecrétaire ‘themalesecretary’
With nouns such as sentinelle ‘sentinel’, semantic and grammatical gender do notnecessarily match because the Gen feature is uninterpretable, that is, the infor-mation about the sex of the referent is not accessible: the semantic gender may
19Inhisstudyofgendermismatchesunderellipsis,Merchant(2014)alsoassumesthatsyntacticgenderandsemanticgendermustbedistinguished.
20Weconsiderthatsexandanimacygotogether,althoughitmightbeasimplification.ThepresenceofGenPisrestrictedtothestructureofanimatenouns.Inotherwords,inanimatenounsdonothavethisprojectionintheirstructure.InthisrespectouruseofGenPdiffersfromPicallo’s(1991)andalsofromBernstein’s(1993)andHarris’(1991)useoftheWordMarkerPhrase.
Sleeman and Ihsane: Gender mismatches in partitive constructions with superlatives in French
Art. 35, page 13 of 25
notmatchthegrammaticalgender,withouthavinganysyntacticconsequences(cf.Percus2011):21
(47)
Theuninterpretablefeaturethatisvaluedin(47)meansthatthefeatureinGenwhichrepresentssemanticgendercannotbeinterpretedassuch.Still,thefeatureispresentandreceivesthevalueofthefeatureonN,representinggrammaticalgender.Theresultis that it is grammatical gender that surfaces inside theDP, hiding the informationaboutsemanticgender.In(46)incontrast,thefeatureinGenisinterpretedassemanticgender.Asitgets itsvaluefromthefeatureonN,semanticandgrammaticalgendermustmatch.Inpartitiveconstructions,thegendervalueofN, i.e.[+/–fem,]istransmittedtotheouterDPviathecopiednoun(seesection3)ascanbeseenin(48a–b).
(48) a. la/*leplusjeunefilledemesgentillesfilles the.f.sg/the.m.sgmostyoungofmy.plsweet.f.pldaughters.f.pl b. la/*leplusjeunesentinelledecessentinelles the.f.sg/the.m.sgmostyoungofthese.plsentinels.f.pl
In(48),nogendermismatchesbetweenthetwoDPsarepossible:inaandb,theouterDis[+fem],likethenounintheinnerDP,astheobligatorinessofthefemininearticlela attests.Aswehaveshown,someothernouns,however,allowgendermismatchesinpartitiveconstructions,seethecontrastbetween(49a)and(49b).Suchmismatchesare,however,notalwayspossible,as(50)repeatedfrom(8)shows.
(49) a. Leplusjeunedemesgentilsenfantsestmalade. the.m.sgmostyoungofmy.plsweet.m.plchildren.plissick.sg b. Laplusjeunedemesgentilsenfantsestmalade. the.f.sgmostyoungofmy.plsweet.m.plchildren.plissick.sg
(50) La/*leplusjeunedemesgentillesenfantsestmalade. the.f.sg/the.m.sgmostyoungofmy.plsweet.f.plchildren.f.plissick.sg
In(49a),agreementongentils‘sweet’suggeststhatenfants‘children’ismasculine.How-ever,thearticleintheouterDPofthepartitivestructuremaybefeminine,asshownin(49b).In(50),incontrast,enfants‘children’isusedasafemininenoun,astheagreementon gentilles‘sweet’shows.Inthiscase,thearticleintheouterDPhastomatchthegenderofthenounintheinnerDPandnomismatchispossible.Toaccountforgendermismatches,weproposeinIhsane&Sleeman(2016)thatnouns
such as enfant‘child’arepolysemous,inthattheymayhavea[+/–fem]genderfeature
21ThepresenceofGenPaboveNinthestructureofanimatenounsisparticularlyjustifiedbynounssuchassentinelle,forwhichthereisamismatchingrammaticalandsemanticgender.Thismismatchisexpressed,inouranalysis,byanuninterpretablefeatureinGenP.
Sleeman and Ihsane: Gender mismatches in partitive constructions with superlatives in French
Art. 35, page 14 of 25
onNlikeothernouns(e.g.filles ‘girls’ in(48a)),ornospecifiedgender feature,whenusedinthedefaultsense,asin(49b).TheconsequenceisthatgendermismatcheswithsuchnounsarepossiblewhenthereisnogenderspecificationonNbutnotwhenNhasa[+/–fem]feature.Thelattercaseisanalogousto(48a–b)inthesensethatthegrammati-calgenderfeatureonNistransmittedtotheouterDPviathecopiednoun.Intheformercase,whengenderisnotspecifiedinsidetheinnerDP,thegenderfeatureontheprobesremainsunvaluedandAgreefails(FailedAgreeàlaPreminger2009;2011).Thisresultsindefaultgender,whichis,inFrench,masculine.Inhiswork,PremingershowsthatafailedAgreerelationdoesnotnecessarilyresultin ungrammaticality. He reports examples from Icelandic where Agree is blockedby interventionas in (51) (Holmberg&Hróarsdóttir2003),and focussesonBasque(Etxepare2006).
(51) (Holmberg&Hróarsdóttir2003:12;quotedinPreminger2009) Þaðvirðist/*virðasteinhverjummanni [hestarnirveraseinir]. explseem.sg/*seem.plsomeman.sg.datthe.horses.pl.nombeslow ‘Amanfindsthehorsesslow.’
In(51),theagreementbetweentheverbvirðist‘seem.sg’andthepluralsubjecthestarnir ‘the.horses.pl.nom’ is blocked by a dative experiencer einhverjum manni ‘some man.sg.dat’Thisdoesnotresultinungrammaticalitybutinthedefault(i.e.singular)oftheverbform.Premingerobservesthatthisisnotsurprisingas‘agreementisessentiallyafea-ture-valuationrelation;thus,ifitfailsforsomereason,thosefeaturesonthehostwhichweresupposedtobevaluedbythetargetnounphrasearenotvalued,retainingtheirpre-existingordefaultvalues.’(Preminger1998:4–5).InIhsane&Sleeman(2016)weextendthisanalysistoatypeofanimateDPsinFrench,andsuggestthatwhenthegenderfeatureonDremainsunvalued,defaultmasculineresults.Asthishappensinaphase,thewholeDPisdefaultmasculine.Astructuralrepresentationoftheenfant-typeofnoun,whichhasanunspecifiedgenderfeature,afterFailedAgree, isprovidedbelow.22 If the noun enfant isnotspecifiedforgrammaticalgender,itssemanticgenderalsoremainsunvalued,i.e.unspecified.23FailedAgreeresultsinthedefaultmasculineformoftheadjectivegentilsintheinnerDP.AftercopyingoftheunspecifiednountotheouterDP,FailedAgreeleadstodefaultmasculinespell-outofthedeterminerlein(49a).
(52)
22Onlytheprojectionsrelevantforourdiscussionarerepresented.Wedonotexcludethepresenceofe.g.nPorNumP.Thelattermightbenecessarytoaccountforthemismatchinnumberbetweentheovertnounandthecopiednouninexamplessuchaslaplusjeunedemesfilles‘theyoungestofmydaughters’.
23Thenounenfants‘children’in(49a)couldalsobespecifiedforgrammaticalgender,i.e.[–fem];withoutanycontext,itisdifficulttoknowwhichofthetwosituationswearedealingwith.The[–fem]featurewouldthenbetransmittedtotheouterD(le),viatheempty/deletednoun.In(49b),however,enfant can only be unspecifiedforgrammaticalgender.Ifitwere[+fem],theadjectivegentils‘sweet’wouldhavetobefemi-nine,too,andifitwere[–fem],theouterDwouldhavetobemasculine,i.e.le.
Sleeman and Ihsane: Gender mismatches in partitive constructions with superlatives in French
Art. 35, page 15 of 25
A crucial element of the analysis presented above is that animate nouns in French cannot be treated on a par when it comes to gender. Several classes have to be distinguished. In particular, we have associated the gender mismatches we are investigating to the enfant-type, i.e. nouns that can have a masculine, a feminine, and a default masculine realization (also professeur ‘professor’). In the next section we present our analysis of the gender mismatch in the superlative partitive construction (49b).
5 Analysis of gender mismatches in partitive constructionsIhsane&Sleeman(2016)claimthatgendermismatchesinFrencharetheresultofFailedAgree.Forgendermismatchesinsuperlativepartitiveconstructions,theyproposethattheinnerDPhasthedefaultmasculineformbecauseofFailedAgree.TheysuggesthoweverthattheunspecifiedgenderfeaturecanreceiveavalueintheinnerD,fromthecontext,inthecourseofthederivation.24Ifthisspecificationis[+fem],itgivesrisetoagendermismatchwiththedefaultmasculine.Postulatingagenderfeaturevaluationonthebasisofthecontext,afterAgreehasfailed,allowsthemtoaccountforthemismatchin(53)(i.e.(4)).In(53)theouterDPisfemininebecausethegenderfeatureoftheheadoftheinnerDPhasbeenspecified[+fem],afterAgreehasfailedintheinnerDP:
(53) Laplusjeunedemesgentilsprofesseursestmalade. the.f.sgmostyoungofmy.plkind.m.plprofessors.plissick
Aproblemwiththisanalysis,however, is that itsuggests that thesexof thereferentsoftheinnerDPbecomesfemale.Thisis,however,notthecase.TheinnerDPreferstoamixedgroupof referents.Analternativewouldbe to inserta femininevalue in theheadoftheouterDPafterFailedAgreeintheouterDP,butbeforespell-out.Thiswouldaccountforthefeminineformofthedeterminerin(53)andforthefactthatonlytheouterDPreferstoafemale.Suchananalysiscan,however,notaccountforthegendermismatchin(54):
(54) Laplusintelligentedemesgentilsprofesseursestmalade. the.f.sgmostintelligent.f.sgofmy.plkind.m.plprofessors.plissick
IffeaturespecificationtakesplaceintheouterD,onlytheouterDbutnottheadjectiveshouldhavethefeminineform.These considerations lead us to suggest that the specification of the gender featurepostulatedbyIhsane&SleemandoesnottakeplaceinDoftheinnerorouterDP,butinalowerfunctionalprojectionoftheouterDP.Whatweproposeinthispaperisthatingen-dermismatchesinsuperlativepartitiveconstructions,featurespecificationtakesplacein
24Ihsane&Sleeman(2016)claimthatfeaturespecificationtakesplaceinDbecauseofexamplessuchas(i),amismatchacceptedandevenjudgedcompulsorybyTabeaIhsane,whoisanativespeakerof(Swiss)French:
(i) Talkingaboutawoman: Monancienprofesseurdefrançaisétaittoujourscontentedemontravail. my.m.sgformer.m.sgprofessor.sgofFrenchwasalwayssatisfied.f.sgwithmywork
TherearenativespeakersofFrench,amongwhomoneofthereviewersofthispaperandhis/herinformants,whodonotacceptthefeminineformofthepredicativeadjective.Itmightbethecasethatthereisaregionaldifference,theuseofthefeminineformofprofesseurbeingmoreadvancedinSwitzerlandthaninFrance.Almosthalfofourinformants,however,acceptthissentence.Forthosewhoacceptthesentence,Ihsane&Sleeman(2016)proposethatfeatureinsertiontakesplaceinahighpositionwithintheDP.InfactitmustevenbeahigherpositionthanDP,becausethedeterminerinDhasthedefaultmasculineformandnotthefeminineform,asin(53).WesuggestherethatittakesplaceinɸP(Sauerland2004),afunctionalprojec-tionontopofDPthatinteractswithconstituents“ontheoutside”(foracomparableprojection,see,e.g.,Ihsane2008;Steriopolo&Wiltschko2010).Inaphasalapproach(Chomsky2000etseq.),thecomplementoftheheadofɸP,i.e.DP,wouldbesenttotheInterfacesforspell-outbeforeɸP(becauseofChomsky’sPhaseImpenetrabilityCondition;Chomsky2000;2001),andfeatureinsertionwouldtakeplaceintheheadofɸPafterspell-outofDP.ThiswouldaccountforthedefaultmasculineformoftheDPandthefeminineformofthepredicativeadjective.
Sleeman and Ihsane: Gender mismatches in partitive constructions with superlatives in French
Art. 35, page 16 of 25
theheadoftheGenPdominatingthecopyofthenounthatisnon-specifiedforgender.25 Thegender,providedbythesituationalcontext(e.g.thereferentthatthespeakerhasinmind)orthelinguisticcontext(asinMmeLagarde,laplusjeunedemesgentilsprofesseursdefrançais‘Mrs.Lagarde,theyoungestofmykindFrenchteachers’)issemanticgender,andthereforeitistheheadofGenPandnottheheadofDPthatreceivesavalue.IfthespecificationtakesplaceinGenPitalsoexplainswhythemismatchesunderdiscussionherearerestrictedtoanimatenouns:recallthattheGenPprojectionisspecifictothosenominals.ViaAgreetheadjectiveandthedeterminerintheouterDPinheritthefemininefeaturevalue.26
(55) [DP la[DegPplusintelligente[GenP F. [FP professeur [PP demesgentils[GenP [NP professeurs]]]]]]]
IffeaturespecificationcantakeplaceinsideGenP,thismayalsohaveconsequencesforourlexicalanalysisofclassb)andc)nouns,thenounswhosegenderisexpressedbyasuffixorbythedeterminer,respectively.Ihsane&Sleeman(2016)assumethatclassb)andc)nounsarepolysemous:theyfigurebothasnounsspecifiedforgenderandasnounsnon-specifiedforgenderintheLexicon.Itisalsopossibletoassume,however,thatclassb)andc)nounsareunspecifiedforgrammaticalgenderintheLexicon,andthat thevariant that is specified forgender results from the insertionofa semanticgenderspecificationintheheadofGenP,sinceAgreebetweenthenounnon-specifiedforgenderandGenhasnottakenplace.OncetheunvaluedsemanticgenderinGenhasbeenvaluedonthebasisofareferentinthesituationalorlinguisticcontext(cf.Alexi-adou2004), dominating adjectives anddeterminers are valuedviaAgreewithGen.ThisiswhatweproposefortheouterDPin (55),butalsofornon-partitiveDPslike(56),whereFisafemininevalue.Forclassb)nouns(stemchange)thefeaturespecifica-tioninGenhasconsequencesfortheformofthesuffixofthenoun:masculine(default)orfeminine.27
(56) [DP la [FPplusgentille[GenP F.[collègue]]]] the.f.sgmostkind.f.sgcolleague.sg
Inouranalysis,classb)nouns(stemchange)andclassc)nouns(fixedformswitharticlechange)thatarenotspecifiedforgrammaticalgendercaneithergiverisetothedefaultmasculineorreceiveagenderspecificationfromthecontextintheirderivation.Intheformercase,thegenderfeatureremainsunvaluedinDP,resultinginFailedAgree.Inthelattercase,thecontextgivesavaluetothegenderfeatureinGenP.Thisvalueisthentransmittedtothedominatingadjectivesanddeterminer.ToaccountforgendermismatchesinRussian,Pesetsky(2013)claims,inasimilarway,thatfeaturespecificationmaytakeplaceinsidetheDP.InRussian,gendermismatchesarepossiblewithmasculineprofessionnouns.TheRussiannounvrač‘doctor’ismascu-line,becauseitusedtobeajoboccupiedexclusivelybymen.However,nowadaysalsomanywomenaredoctors.Therefore,masculineisnowratherdefaultmasculine,sincethe
25IfthespecificationdoesnottakeplaceinD,italsoallowsustoproposeananalysisthatrespectsthePhaseImpenetrabilityCondition(PIC;Chomsky2000)accordingtowhichthedomainofaphaseheadisspelledoutandbecomescomputationallyinert,whereastheheadofthephase,aswellas itsspecifier,remainsaccessibleforfurtheroperations(movement,selection,…).
26 WefollowCinque(1994andlaterwork)inassumingthatalladjectives,alsotheonesthatsurfacepost-nominallyinFrenchifthereisanovertnoun,suchasintelligent,aremergedinthespecifieroffunctionalprojectionsdominatingNPcf.(32).
27InaDistributedMorphology-likeapproach(Marantz1997)thesuffixcouldbeinsertedatPFintheheadofnP,dominatingGenP(cf.fn.22).Alternatively,thesuffixcouldbeinsertedatPFinGenPitselfornPcouldassumeGenP’sfunction,asproposedbyLowenstamm(2008).
Sleeman and Ihsane: Gender mismatches in partitive constructions with superlatives in French
Art. 35, page 17 of 25
masculinenouncanrefertobothmenandwomen.Interestingly,ifthedoctorisawoman,attributiveadjectives,determiners,andpredicatescannotonlytakethemasculineform,butalso the feminine form(Crocket1976;Corbett1979and laterwork;Matushansky2013;Pesetsky2013).Amixisalsopossible,butoncethefemininefeaturespecificationhasbeenaddedagreementcanonlybefeminine:
(57) a. Ivanovaxorošajavrač Ivanovagood.fdoctor.m ‘Ivanovaisagooddoctor.’ b. ètavrač this.fdoctor.m c. Našazubnojvračumnica. our.ftooth.adj.mdoctor.mclever.person ‘Ourdentistisveryclever.’ d. Vračprišla doctor.marrived.f e. Našrajonnyjvračbylabol’na our.mdistrict.mdoctor.mwas.fsick.f f. *ètotxorošajavrač this.mgood.fdoctor.m
ToaccountfortheRussiandata,Pesetsky(2013)claimsthatazerofemininegendermor-phemecanbeinsertedatanyleveloftheDP,modifyingthemasculinedefaultgenderofthenoun.FrenchwoulddifferfromRussianinallowingafeaturespecificationtobeaddedonlyinoneposition,viz.GenP(butseefn.24).If, inFrench, ina simpleDPcontaininganunspecifiedclassb)or class c)nouna feature specification can be added in GenP, superlative partitive constructionsminimally differ from simpleDPs in having twoGenPs in one ofwhich a featurespecificationcanbeadded.IfthefeatureisinsertedintheGenPoftheinnerDPnomismatcharises(58a).FeaturespecificationinGenPleadstovaluationofthefea-turesof thechain formed throughAgree, including the featureonN. Thevaluedfeatureiscopiedwiththenoun.Ifthefeatureis insertedintheGenPoftheouterDP, this results in amismatch if the specification is [+fem] (58b). If no featurespecification isadded, thewholepartitiveconstructiongets thedefaultmasculineform(58c):28
(58) a. [DP la [FPplusgentille[GenP [NP collègue [PP de [DPmesanciennes[GenP F.[NP collègues]]]]]]]]
b. [DP la [FPplusgentille[GenP F.[NP collègue [PP de [DPmesanciens[GenP [NP collègues]]]]]]]]
c. [DP le [FPplusgentil[GenP [NP collègue [PP de [DPmesanciens[GenP [NP collègues]]]]]]]]
‘thekindestofmycolleagues’
28InSection2weobservedthatthereisvariationamongnativespeakersofFrenchwithrespecttotheaccept-anceofgendermismatchesinsuperlativepartitiveswithclassb)nouns,i.e.suffixednouns:therearespeak-erswhoacceptmismatcheswithnounssuchasétudiantandthusaccept(16b)besides(16a),butothersdonotacceptmismatchesandonlyaccept(16a).Theanalysisthatweproposehereaccountsforthisvariation.GenderspecificationinasimpleDPaccountsforthefeminineformuneétudiante,thusexcludinguneétudi-ant,andgenderspecificationintheinnerDPofsuperlativepartitivesaccountsfor(16a)withoutagendermismatch.Speakerswhoaccept(16b),withagendermismatch,allowforagenderspecificationintheouterDPofpartitiveconstructionswithclassb)nouns.
Sleeman and Ihsane: Gender mismatches in partitive constructions with superlatives in French
Art. 35, page 18 of 25
Finallywehavetoaccountforthenon-acceptabilityofgendermismatchesinquantifiedpartitive constructions. In Section 3we argued that, structurally, quantifiedpartitivesandsuperlativepartitivesarethesameinthatbothconstructionscontainacopied,non-pronounced,nounintheouterDP.IfmismatchesinsuperlativepartitivesaretheresultofthevaluationofGenintheouterDP,thissuggeststhatquantifiedpartitivesdistinguishthemselvesfromsuperlativepartitivesinnothavingaGenPintheouterDP.Structurally,quantifiedpartitiveswouldthusberatherbare,consistingonlyofthequantifierinNumP,theheadofwhichdirectlyselectsitsFPcomplement(RPinZamparelli’s1998analysis),withoutaninterveningGenP:
(59) a. [NumP une [FP collèguedemesanciennescollègues]] one.f.sgofmy.plformer.f.plcolleagues.f.pl b. *[NumP une [FP collèguedemesancienscollègues]] one.f.sgofmy.plformer.m.plcolleagues.pl c. [NumP un [FP collèguedemesancienscollègues]] one.m.sgofmy.plformer.m.plcolleagues.pl
In(59a),thecopiednounintheouterDPhasafemininegrammaticalgendervalue,cf.thediscussionof(58a).ThisvalueisinheritedbythequantifierthroughAgree.In(59b),thecopiednounisunspecifiedforgrammaticalgender(amismatchwouldrequirethistypeofnoun).SinceitisnotdominatedbyaGenP,theinsertionofafemininesemanticgenderfeatureisnotpossible,whichaccountsfortheungrammaticalityofagendermismatch.In(59c),thecopiednouncanalsobeunspecifiedforgrammaticalgender,resultinginthedefaultmasculineformofthequantifier.29Oritcanbe[–fem],afeaturethattheadjectiveandthequantifierinherit.Thatthestructureofquantifiedpartitivesisnotascomplexastheoneofsuperlativepartitivesissupportedbythefactthatadjectivescannotfollowthequantifier,whateverthe typeofnoun (and its gender: themasculine counterpartwouldbeungrammaticaltoo).ThismeansthatinthepartitiveconstructionthequantifierdirectlyselectsFP.Thequantifiedpartitiveisapurelyquantificationalconstruction.
(60) a. *unejeune[FP collèguedemesanciennescollègues] one.f.sgyoungofmy.plformer.f.plcolleagues.f.pl b. *unebelle[FP professeurdemesanciennesprofesseurs] one.f.sgpretty.f.sgofmy.plformer.f.plprofesseurs.f.pl c. *unecharmante[FP filledemesgentillesfilles] one.f.sgcharming.f.sgofmy.plsweet.f.pldaughters.f.pl
Inthissectionwehaveclaimedthatsuperlativepartitiveconstructionsstructurallydifferfrom quantified partitive constructions in the presence of aGenP in the outerDP, inwhichfeaturevaluationcantakeplacebecauseofthepresenceofananimatereferentinthesituationalorlinguisticcontext.Agreementbeingthussemanticinthecaseofgen-dermismatches,inthenextsectionwerelatepartitiveconstructionstoCorbett’s(1979)AgreementHierarchy.
6 The Agreement HierarchyThemismatchesinthepartitiveconstructionsweanalyzealsoleadustoconsiderlocality issues: indeed, thedistancebetween the agreeing element and thenounseemstoplayarole.Abstractingawayfromtheanalysisofthespecifiedformof
29The absence of GenP dominating the quantifier in the quantified partitive construction could simplybeaccountedfor ina“onenoun”analysissuchasMartí-Girbau’s(1999;2010), inwhichthequantifieroriginatesasapredicate.InSection3,however,wehavearguedagainsta“onenoun”analysis.
Sleeman and Ihsane: Gender mismatches in partitive constructions with superlatives in French
Art. 35, page 19 of 25
classb)andc)nounsproposedintheprevioussection,insideasimpleDP,gendermustbesharedinFrench(*lagrandegarçon ‘the.ftall.fboy.m’,*lagrandgarçon‘the.f tall.m boy.m’). Elements that are less local, however, do not necessarilyagreeordonotagreeatallingrammaticalgender.Whereasattributiveadjectivesalways agree in grammatical gender, partitive elements in complex DPs do notnecessarilydoso.ThatdistancemayplayaroleingenderagreementhasalsobeenobservedbyCorbett(1979andlaterwork).Onthebasisofvariousconstructionsinseverallanguages,amongwhichEnglish,French,German,andRussian,Corbett(1979)showsthatlocalrelationsfavorgrammaticalagreement,whereas less local relations favorsemanticagreement.30 ThisdescriptionisformalizedbytheagreementhierarchyproposedbyCorbett(1979)onthebasisofexamplessuchas(61).
(61) a. Thecommitteehasdecided. b. Thecommitteehavedecided. c. Thiscommitteesatlate. d. *Thesecommitteesatlate.
Whereas(61a)illustratesgrammaticalagreement,(61b)showssemanticagreement.ThissuggeststhatagreementinnumberinpredicatepositionisoptionalinEnglish.However,thecontrastbetweena-bontheonehandandc-dontheotherhand,showsthatonlysomepositionsallowoptionality.Inthelatter,whichrepresentattributivepositions,nooptionalityispossible.Theideathatthedistancebetweentheelementthatdeterminesagreement(thecon-troller) and the agreeing element has an impact on the kind of agreement that takesplace,namelygrammaticalvs.semanticagreement,iscapturedbyCorbett’sAgreementHierarchyreportedin(62):
(62) Attributive–predicate–relativepronoun–personalpronoun
(62)representsdifferentagreeingpositions.Theideaisthatthe“possibilityofsyn-tacticagreementdecreasesmonotonically from left to right” (Corbett1979:204).Thefurtherleftanelementisinthehierarchy,themorelikelysyntacticagreementis tooccur, the further right it is, themore likely semanticagreement is.Corbettfurtherobserves that “when there is a choice in twoadjacentpositions, semanticagreement is at least as likely (in fact,more likely) in the position on the right”(Corbett1979:211).Inourdiscussionofgender inFrenchsuperlativepartitives,wehaveseenthat theseconstructionsallowgendermismatcheswithdefaultmasculinenounssuchasprofesseur–recall(4),repeatedhereas(63)forconvenience:
(63) La/leplusjeunedemesgentilsprofesseursestmalade. the.f.sg/the.m.sg mostyoungofmy.plkind.m.plprofesseurs.plissick.sg
Thissuggeststhatanotherpositioncouldbeaddedto(62)(Ihsane&Sleeman2016),apossibilitynotexcludedbyCorbett(1979:214),whoalsosuggeststhattheremightbeafifthpositionforagreementpurposesinRussian(Crockett1976).InFrench,gen-deragreementbetweenanounandanattributiveadjectiveisgrammaticalagreement.ForpartofthenativespeakersofFrenchthisalsoholdsforgenderagreementwithapredicativeadjective.IfAgreetakesplacebetweenthesubjectandthepredicative
30SeealsoWechsler&Zlatić(2003),foranHPSGaccountofagreement.
Sleeman and Ihsane: Gender mismatches in partitive constructions with superlatives in French
Art. 35, page 20 of 25
adjective in a Spec-Head relation in AgrP, as proposed by Chomsky (1995), it islocal:31
(64) Mongentilprofesseurdefrançaisétaittoujourscontent(*e) my.m.sg.kind.m.sg.professor.sg.ofFrenchwasalwayshappy.m.sg./*f.sg. demontravail. withmywork.
GenderagreementwithrelativepronounsmaybesemanticinFrench,especiallyinnon-restrictive relative clauses. If a restrictive specification referring to a female is added,semanticagreementiscompulsory,asin(66):
(65) Monancienprofesseurdefrançais,aveclafille my.m.sgformer.m.sgprofessor.sgofFrench,withthedaughter duquel/delaquellej’aiparlé, estMmeLagarde. of.whom.m.sg/ofwhom.f.sgIhavespoken,isMrs.Lagarde.
(66) monancienprofesseurdefrançaisMmeLagarde,aveclafille my.m.sgformer.m.sgprofessor.sgofFrench,Mrs.Lagarde,withthedaughter *duquel/delaquellej’aiparlé of.whom.m.sg/ofwhom.f.sgIhavespoken
Withpersonalpronouns,whicharetheleastlocalelementsintheAgreementHierarchy,semanticagreementisalsocompulsory:
(67) Talkingaboutawoman: Voilàmonancienprofesseurdefrançais. there.ismy.m.sgformer.m.sgprofessor.sgofFrench. *Il/Ellevientdepartiràlaretraite. he/shejustretired
As(63)shows,withsuperlativepartitives,semanticgenderagreementcanbeoptional.We thereforeplace superlativepartitives in themiddleof the scale.For the sakeoflocality,itshouldbeassumedthatthecontrolleristheovertnounandnotthecopiednoun:
(68) Attributive–predicate–superlativepartitive–relativepronoun–personalpronoun
Inthispaperwehaveshownthatgendermismatchesinquantifiedpartitiveconstructionsarefarlessacceptable:
(69) *Unedemesgentilsprofesseursestmalade. one.f.sgofmy.plkind.m.plprofessors.plissick.sg
Thedifferencebetweenthetwopartitiveconstructionssuggeststhattwopartitiveposi-tionsshouldbedistinguishedin(68).FormostnativespeakersofFrench,quantifiedparti-tivesdonotordoonlymarginallyallowsemanticagreement:
31Asobservedinfn.24,therearealsonativespeakersofFrenchwhodonotacceptgrammaticalagreementin(64),butonlysemanticagreement.
(i) Talkingaboutawoman: Mongentilprofesseurdefrançaisétaittoujours*content/contente. my.m.sgsweet.m.sgprofessor.sgofFrenchwasalways*happy.m.sg/happy.f.sg
Forthesespeakers“predicate”wouldbeplacedtotherightof“superlativepartitive”in(68),probablyeventotherightof“relativepronoun”.Localitywouldforthesespeakersbedeterminedbythesurfacedistancebetweenthesubjectandthepredicate.
Sleeman and Ihsane: Gender mismatches in partitive constructions with superlatives in French
Art. 35, page 21 of 25
(70) Attributive–predicate–quantified partitive–superlative partitive–relativepronoun–personalpronoun
ThedistinctionbetweentwopartitiveconstructionsthusaddstwopositionstoCorbett’s(1979)AgreementHierarchy.IftheouterpartofthequantifiedpartitiveconstructiondoesnotcontainGenP,asarguedintheprevioussection,therelationbetweenthequantifierandtheovertnounisrelativelylocal,whichjustifiestheplacementofthequantifiedparti-tiveonthegrammaticalagreementsideofthescale,totheleftofsuperlativepartitives.
7 ConclusionInthispaperwehavecontributedtothediscussiononthedistinctionbetweendifferentpartitiveconstructions.OnthebasisofdatafromFrench,wehaveshownthat,whereassuperlativepartitiveconstructionsallowinternalgendermismatches,canonicalquanti-fiedpartitivesdonotordoonlymarginallydo so.Wehaveargued thatbothcanoni-cal superlative partitive constructions (in opposition to superlative partitives with an‘among’-phraseorapreposed‘of’-phrase)andcanonicalquantifiedpartitiveconstructionscontainanunpronouncedcopyofthenoun.Toaccountforgendermismatchesinpartitiveconstructionswithanimatenounswehaveproposedafeaturecheckinganalysisofgenderagreement.FollowingIhsane&Sleeman(2016),wehaveadoptedtheideathatdefaultmasculineformsaretheresultofFailedAgreeandthatAgreefailswhenthegenderfea-tureofsomeanimatenounsremainsunspecifiedinsidetheirDP.Inthispaperwehaveproposed that thegender featureof theseanimateDPs, initiallyunvalued,canreceiveafeaturespecificationinGenPonthebasisofthesexofareferentinthesituationalorlinguisticcontext.Insuperlativepartitiveconstructionswithgendermismatches,thisfea-turespecificationtakesplaceintheGenPintheouterDP.Theunacceptabilityofgendermismatchesincanonicalquantifiedpartitivessuggeststhattheseconstructionsstructur-allydifferfromsuperlativepartitives,andlacktheGenPdominatingtheunpronouncedcopiednoun.Wehavearguedthatinpreposed‘of’-partitivesand‘among’-partitivesthesilentnounintheouterDPisnotacopyoftheovertnounintheinnerDP.Thisaccountsforthefactthattwodifferentnounsareallowed,eachdominatedbyitsownGenP,andthatgendermismatchesarepossible,eveninthequantifiedpartitiveconstruction.WehaveaddedpartitivestoCorbett’sAgreementHierarchy,distinguishingquantifiedpartitivesfromsuperlativepartitives.Ourdatahaveshownthatonlythelatterallowgen-dermismatchesandthussemanticagreement.Inthispaperwehavepresenteddatathat,toourknowledge,havenotbeendiscussedbefore.SincethereisvariationamongnativespeakersofFrench,whichmayberegional,alargerscaleresearchwithmoreinformantsisneeded.Moredata,especiallywithothernouns,butalsofromotherlanguagesthanFrench,areneededtoobtainamorecompletepictureofgendermismatchesinpartitiveconstructions.Weleavethatforfutureresearch.
Abbreviationsadj=adjective,art=article,cmp=comparative,dat=dative,expl=expletive, f = feminine, m =masculine, ind = indefinite, nom= nominative, pl = plural, sg=singular
AcknowledgmentsThispaperwaspresentedinMay2015atLSRL45 inCampinasandinFebruary2016attheIGG42inLecce.Wethanktheaudiences,andespeciallyVivianeDéprez,GiulianaGiusti,JasonMerchant,andRobertoZamparellifortheirsuggestions.Wearealsovery
Sleeman and Ihsane: Gender mismatches in partitive constructions with superlatives in French
Art. 35, page 22 of 25
gratefultothreeanonymousreviewersfortheirvaluablecommentsonthispaperandtoourinformantsfortheirjudgmentsontheacceptabilityofourdata.FurthermorewethankMichelangeloFalcoandRobertoZamparellifororganizingthespecialissueonPartitives.
Competing interestsTheauthorsdeclarethattheyhavenocompetinginterests.
ReferencesAbbott,Barbara.1996.DoingwithoutaPartitiveConstraint.InJacobHoeksema(ed.), Partitives.Studiesonthesyntaxandsemanticsofpartitiveandrelatedconstructions,25–56.Berlin:MoutondeGruyter.DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/9783110908985.25
Abney,Steven.1986.TheEnglishnounphraseinitssententialaspect.Cambridge,MA:MITdissertation.
Alexiadou,Artemis.2004.Inflectionclass,genderandDP-internalstructure.InGereonMuller,LutzGunkel&GiselaZifonun(eds.),Explorationsinnominalinflection,21–50.Berlin:Mouton.
Arbour, Marie-Ève & Hélène de Nayves. 2014. Féminisation linguistique: étude com-parativedel’implantationdevariantesfémininesmarquéesauCanadaetenEurope.InLucaGreco(ed.),LangageetSociété148.31–51.DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.3917/ls.148.0031
Atkinson,Emily.2015.Genderfeaturesonn&theroot:AnaccountofgenderinFrench.InJasonSmith&TabeaIhsane(eds.),Selectedpapersfromthe42ndLinguisticSymposiumonRomanceLanguages(LSRL),229–244.Amsterdam/Philadelphia:JohnBenjamins.
Barbiers,Sjef.2007.Indefinitenumeralsone and manyandthecauseofordinalsuppletion.Lingua117.859–880.DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2006.03.003
Barker,Chris.1998.Partitives,doublegenitives,andanti-uniqueness.NaturalLanguageandLinguisticTheory16(4).679–717.DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1005917421076
Barwise, Jon & Robin Cooper. 1981. Generalized quantifiers and natural language. LinguisticsandPhilosophy4.159–219.DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00350139
Battye,Adrian.1991.Partitiveandpseudo-partitive revisited: reflectionson the statusof‘de’inFrench.FrenchLanguageStudies1.21–43.DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0959269500000788
Baudino,Claudie.2001.Politiquedelalangueetdifférencesexuelle :lapolitisationdugenredesnomsdemétiers.Paris:L’Harmattan.
Bernstein,Judy.1993.ThesyntacticroleofWordMarkersinnullnominalconstructions.Probus5.5–38.DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/prbs.1993.5.1-2.5
Cardinaletti, Anna & Giuliana Giusti. 1992. Partitive ne and the QP-hypothesis. InElisabettaFava(ed.),ProceedingsoftheXVIIMeetingofGenerativeGrammar,121–141.Turin:Rosenberg&Sellier.
Cardinaletti,Anna&GiulianaGiusti.2006.Thesyntaxofquantifiedphrasesandquantitativeclitics.InMartinEveraert&HenkvanRiemsdijk(eds.),TheBlackwellcompaniontosyntax,vol.5,23–93.Oxford:Blackwell.DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9780470996591.ch71
Cardinaletti,Anna&GiulianaGiusti.2016.Quantifiedexpressionsandquantitativeclit-ics.InMartinEveraert&HenkvanRiemsdijk(eds.),TheBlackwellcompaniontosyntax.2ndedition,Oxford:Blackwell.
Chierchia,Gennaro.1998.Partitives,referencetokindsandsemanticvariation.InAaronLawson(ed.),Proceedingsofsemanticsandlinguistictheory,vol.7,73–98.Ithaca,NY:CLCPublications.
Chomsky,Noam.1995.Theminimalistprogram.Cambridge,MA:MITPress.
Sleeman and Ihsane: Gender mismatches in partitive constructions with superlatives in French
Art. 35, page 23 of 25
Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries, the framework. In Roger Martin, DavidMichaels&JuanUriagereka(eds.),Stepbystep:EssaysonminimalistsyntaxinhonorofHowardLasnik,89–155.Cambridge,MA:MITPress.
Chomsky,Noam.2001.Derivationbyphase.InMichaelKenstowicz(ed.),KenHale:Alifeinlanguage,1–52.Cambridge,MA:MITPress.
Cinque, Guglielmo. 1994. Evidence for partial N-movement in the Romance DP. InGuglielmoCinque, JanKoster, Jean-Yves Pollock, Luigi Rizzi &Raffaella Zanuttini(eds.),Pathstowardsuniversalgrammar:StudiesinhonorofRichardS.Kayne,85–110.WashingtonD.C.:GeorgetownUniversityPress.
Corbett,Greville.1979.TheAgreementhierarchy.JournalofLinguistics15.203–224.DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0022226700016352
Corblin, Francis. 1995. Les formes de reprise dans le discours. Anaphores et chaînes de référence.Rennes:PressesUniversitairesdeRennes.
Crockett,DinaB.1976.AgreementincontemporaryStandardRussian.Cambridge,MA:Slav-ica.
Doetjes,Jenny&JohanRooryck.2000.Quantityandqualityagree.Paperpresentedatthecolloquium“FromNPtoDP”,Antwerp,10–12February2000.
Etxepare,Ricardo.2006.NumberlongdistanceAgreementin(substandard)Basque.InJosebaA.Lakarra&JoseIgnacioHualde(eds.),StudiesinBasqueandhistoricallinguisticsinmemoryofRobertL.Trask,303–350.
Harris,James1991.TheexponenceofgenderinSpanish.LinguisticInquiry22.27–62.Hoeksema, Jacob. 1996. Introduction. In Jacob Hoeksema (ed.), Partitives: Studies onthesyntaxandsemanticsofpartitiveandrelatedconstructions,1–24.Berlin:MoutondeGruyter.
Holmberg,Anders&ÞorbjörgHróarsdóttir.2003.AgreementandmovementinIcelandicraising constructions. Lingua 113. 997–1019. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0024-3841(02)00162-6
Houdebine,Anne-Marie(ed.).2000.Laféminisationdesnomsdemétiers.Enfrançaisetdansd’autreslangues.Paris:L’Harmattan.
Hulk,Aafke&ChristineTellier.2000.Mismatches:Agreementinqualitativeconstructions.Probus12.33–65.DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/prbs.2000.12.1.33
Ihsane&Sleeman.2016.GenderAgreementwithanimatenounsinFrench.InChristinaTortora, Marcel den Dikken, Ignacio Montoya, & Teresa O’Neill (eds.), Selectedproceedingsofthe43rdLinguisticSymposiumonRomanceLanguages,159–175.Amster-dam/Philadelphia:JohnBenjamins.
Ihsane,Tabea.2008.ThelayeredDP:FormandmeaningofFrenchindefinites.Amsterdam:JohnBenjamins.DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/la.124
Jackendoff, Ray. 1977. X-bar syntax. A study of phrase structure (Linguistic InquiryMonograph2).Cambridge,MA:MITPress.
Kayne,Richard.1994.Theantisymmetryofsyntax.Cambridge,MA:MITPress.Kramer, Ruth. 2009. Definite Markers, Phi-features and Agreement: A morphosyntacticinvestigationoftheAmharicDP.SantaCruz,CA:UniversityofCaliforniadissertation.
Kupferman, Lucien. 1999. Réflexion sur la partition: les groupes nominaux partitifset la relativisation. Langue Française 122. 30–51. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3406/lfr.1999.6286
Legate,JulieAnne.2002.Phasesin‘BeyondExplanatoryAdequacy’.Ms.MIT.Lobeck,Anne.1995.Ellipsis:Functionalheads,licensing,andidentification.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.
Sleeman and Ihsane: Gender mismatches in partitive constructions with superlatives in French
Art. 35, page 24 of 25
López,Luis.2000.Ellipsisanddiscourselinking.Lingua110.183–213.DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0024-3841(99)00036-4
Lowenstamm,Jean.2008.Onlittlen,√,andtypesofnouns.InJuttaHartmann,VeronikaHegedus&HenkvanRiemsdijk(eds.),Soundsofsilence:Emptyelementsinsyntaxandphonology,105–144.Amsterdam:Elsevier.
Mallén,Enrique.1992.Partitiveconstructions.HispanicLinguistics4(2).351–388.Marantz,Alec.1997.Noescapefromsyntax.UniversityofPennsylvaniaWorkingPapersinLinguistics4.201–25.
Martí-Girbau, Núria. 1999. Towards a unitary analysis of partitive and quantitativeconstructions.OxfordUniversityWorkingPapersinLinguistics.PhilologyandPhonetics4.84–101.
Martí-Girbau,Núria.2003.Partitives:oneortwonouns?.RivistadiGrammaticaGenerativa27.45–58.
Martí-Girbau,Núria.2010.Thesyntaxofpartitives.Barcelona:UniversitatAutònomadeBarcelonadissertation.
Matushansky,Ora.2008.Ontheattributivenatureofsuperlatives.Syntax11(1).26–90.DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9612.2008.00101.x
Matushansky, Ora. 2013. Gender confusion. In Lisa Cheng & Norbert Corver (eds.), Diagnosing syntax, 271–294. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199602490.003.0013
Merchant, Jason. 2014.Gendermismatches under nominal ellipsis.Lingua 151. 9–32.DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2014.01.008
Milner,Jean-Claude.1978.Delasyntaxeàl’interprétation.Paris:Seuil.Percus, Orin. 2011. Gender features and interpretation: A case study.Morphology 21.167–196.DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11525-010-9157-2
Pesetsky,David.2013.Russiancasemorphologyand the syntactic categories.Cambridge,MA:MITPress.DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262019729.001.0001
Pesetsky,David&EstherTorrego.2007.Thesyntaxofvaluationandtheinterpretabilityoffeatures.InSiminKarimi,VidaSamiian&WendyWilkins(eds.),Phrasalandclausalarchitecture,262–294.Amsterdam/Philadelphia:JohnBenjamins.DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/la.101.14pes
Picallo,M.Carme.1991.Nominalsandnominalization inCatalan.Probus3.279–316.DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/prbs.1991.3.3.279
Pougeoise,Michel.1998.Dictionnairedegrammaireetdesdifficultésgrammaticales.Paris:ArmandColin.
Preminger, Omer. 2009. Breaking agreements: Distinguishing Agreement and CliticDoubling by their failures. Linguistic Inquiry 40(4). 619–666. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/ling.2009.40.4.619
Preminger,Omer.2011.Agreementasafallibleoperation.Cambridge,MA:MITdissertation.Rey-Debove,Josette&AlainRey.2010.LeNouveauPetitRobertdelaLangueFrançaise.Paris:DictionnairesleRobert.
Sauerland,Uli.2004.AcomprehensivesemanticsforAgreement.Ms.ZASBerlin.Sleeman,Petra.1993.Nounellipsis inFrench.Probus 5. 271–595.DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/prbs.1993.5.3.271
Sleeman,Petra.1996.Licensingemptynouns inFrench.TheHague:HollandInstituteofLinguistics.
Sleeman,Petra.2006.Lastructuredelaconstructionpartitivesuivied’unerelative.InGeorgesKleiber,CatherineSchnedecker&AnneTheissen(eds.),Larelation“partie-tout”,320–335.Leuven:Peeters.
Sleeman and Ihsane: Gender mismatches in partitive constructions with superlatives in French
Art. 35, page 25 of 25
Sleeman, Petra& Ellen-Petra Kester. 2002. Partitive constructions and antisymmetry.In Claire Beyssade, Reineke Bok-Bennema, FrankDrijkoningen& PaolaMonachesi(eds.), Romance languages and linguistic theory (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory232), 271–286. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/cilt.232.15sle
Steriopolo,Olga&MartinaWiltschko.2010.Distributedgenderhypothesis. InGerhildZybatow,PhilipDudchuk,SergeMinor&EkaterinaPshehotskaya(eds.),FormalstudiesinSlaviclinguistics,155–172.NewYork:PeterLang.
VanCompernolle,RemiAdam.2007.Une pompière?C’estaffreux!Étude lexicale de la fémini-sation des noms de métiers et grades en France.LangageetSociété120.1–24.
Wechsler,Stephen&LarisaZlatić.2003.ThemanyfacesofAgreement.Stanford,CA:CSLIPublications.
Zamparelli,Roberto.1998.Atheoryofkinds,partitivesandof/zpossessives.InArtemisAlexiadou&ChrisWilder(eds.),Possessors,predicatesandmovementinthedeterminerphrase,259–301.Amsterdam:JohnBenjamins.
Zamparelli, Roberto. 2008. Dei ex machina. A note on plural/mass indefinite deter-miners. Studia Linguistica 62(3). 301–327. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9582.2008.00149.x
Zribi-Hertz,Anne.2003.Pouruneanalyseunitairededepartitif. InFrancisCorblin&LucienKupferman (eds.), Proceedings of the Indéfinis et prédication conference. Paris:PressesdelaSorbonne.
How to cite this article: Sleeman, Petra and Tabea Ihsane. 2016. Gender mismatches in partitive constructions with superlatives in French. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 1(1): 35. 1–25, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.137
Published: 16 September 2016
Copyright: © 2016 The Author(s). This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC-BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. See http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
OPEN ACCESS Glossa: a journal of general linguistics is a peer-reviewed open access journal
published by Ubiquity Press.
top related