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.