PLEASE NOTE:

This is the peer reviewed version of the following article: Tristram, A. ‘Diachronic change in verbal agreement patterns with majorité’, Transactions of the Philological Society, online publication July 2013, which has been published in final form at http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-968X.12030. This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance With Wiley Terms and Conditions for self-archiving. 

(LA) MAJORITÉ: A CASE STUDY OF MORPHOSYNTACTIC CHANGE

BY ANNA TRISTRAM University of Cambridge

1. INTRODUCTION1 This article discusses a case study of morphosyntactic variation and change in French: verbal agreement patterns with the noun majorité (‘majority’). This noun is one of a number of nouns which, in French and other languages, can show variation in agreement patterns: that is, it may, in its singular form, take either singular or plural agreement on the verb, as in the examples below.2

(1) je pense que la majorité des gens sont très contents d’avoir les trente-cinq heures (A1M3)3 I think that the majority of people are very happy to have the thirty-five hours ‘I think that most people are very happy to have the 35 hour [working week]’

(2) il y a une trentaine d’années il y avait beaucoup de location(s) + et puis euh + s- ago about thirty of-years there was much of renting and then uh s- les locataires pour des raisons diverses s- sont partis + et maintenant la majorité the tenants for the reasons various s- left and now the majority n- sont sont propriétaires (O1M3)n- are are owners ‘About thirty years ago there was a lot [more] renting and then uh for various reasons the tenants left and now most people are home owners’

This variation arises primarily because of a mismatch between the syntactic and semantic properties of the noun (cf. Corbett 2006), and is constrained by a number of factors, as I discuss below. Such nouns may broadly be termed collective nouns, though there are some problems with this term – especially when collective nouns are viewed in a cross-linguistic optic – which I address in more detail in Tristram 2012. Briefly, the main difficulty lies in the fact that the term collective noun and the French cognate term nom collectif do not refer to the same set of nouns. This is because the two main traditions in which collective nouns have been studied, the ‘Anglo-Saxon’ 1 The research presented in this article was carried out as part of my doctoral thesis (Tristram 2012) at the University of Cambridge, supervised by Professor Wendy Ayres-Bennett, and fully funded by the AHRC (2007/133053). I am very grateful to Professor Ayres-Bennett for feedback on drafts of this article. 2 See e.g. Corbett 2006, Depraetere 2004, Fries 1981, 1988, Levin 1998a, 1998b, 2001 on English; Berg 1998, Findreng 1976 on German; Bosque and Demonte 1999; Falt 1972; Millán Orozco 1977; Ortega and Morera 1981-1982; Nuessel 1984; Pountain 1992; Seco 2002 on Spanish. Variation in verbal agreement with collective nouns can also be found further afield, in languages such as Paumari, an Aruan language of Brazil, and Kabardian, a North-West Caucasian language, as well as Samoan (Corbett 2000: 191). Variation in agreement on other elements, such as pronouns, is also possible, but this article considers only agreement on the main verb. 3 This and all subsequent translations by the author. Token taken from interview data – code refers to category of speaker; here A1M3 = Adult Level 1 Education Male 3; see below. The transcription conventions are those used by the GARS/DELIC corpus of spoken French (GARS/DELIC corpus ‘Présentation du Corpus de référence du français parlé’ <http://www.up.univ-mrs.fr/~veronis/pdf/2004-presentation-crfp.pdf> [Accessed May 2007 and November 2011]). A single star (*) represents an incomprehensible syllable; multiple stars (***) as in example (4) represent an incomprehensible sequence of two or more words. Brackets, e.g. étai(en)t, indicate possible orthographic alternatives. Angled brackets < > indicate overspeaking. A plus sign + indicates a short pause; multiple plus signs longer pauses.

1

and the ‘continental’ traditions (Joosten 2006),4 use quite different definitions of the respective terms:

In the Anglo-Saxon tradition (e.g. Juul 1975, Quirk et al. 1985; Bache & Davidsen-Nielsen 1997; Levin 2001) it is customary to define collective nouns fairly strictly, on the (primarily) syntactic basis of variable concord. Collective nouns, then, are nouns such as committee, family, or team, i.e. nouns that in the singular may combine with both singular and plural verbs and pronouns. […] Opposed to the Anglo-Saxon syntactic notion of collective nouns, there is a ‘continental’ semantic tradition. In French, German and Dutch studies (e.g. Aliquot-Suengas 1996; Lecolle 1997; Leisi 1975; Kuhn 1982; Mihatsch 2000b; Haeseryn et al. 1997), for instance, collective nouns are usually not defined on syntactic grounds. Instead, a broad semantic definition prevails: collective nouns are nouns lexically referring to a (denotational) multiplicity that – in some way or the other – is conceptualised as a unity. French collective nouns, then, are nouns such as club [‘club’], comité [‘committee’], archipel [‘archipelago’], groupe [‘group’], troupeau [‘herd/flock’], bourgeoisie [‘bourgeoisie’], Pyrénées, lingerie [‘lingerie’], mobilier [‘furniture’], or bétail [‘cattle/livestock’]. (Joosten 2006: 73-74; italics in this and all subsequent quotes as in original)

Thus the Anglo-Saxon approach to collective nouns prioritises syntax: collective nouns are nouns which, though morphologically singular, can appear with either singular or plural verbal and pronominal agreement. This, in turn, means that collective nouns in Anglo-Saxon studies are generally considered to be animate, since inanimate nouns such as forest or archipelago do not allow variable concord (Joosten 2006).5 This contrasts with the continental approach to defining collective nouns – typified by Lammert (2010) – which prioritises their semantic characteristics, and does not usually refer to agreement. Here, I use the term collective noun neutrally throughout, returning to the matter of the definition in Section 5 below.

The data examined in this paper come from a larger project (Tristram 2012) which investigated variation and change in agreement patterns with a range of nouns of this kind in French. The study focused primarily on the nouns minorité ‘minority’, moitié ‘half’, foule ‘crowd’, reste ‘rest/remainder’, partie ‘part’ (as well as majorité). Data from sociolinguistic interviews and cloze tests for these nouns was examined. A small number of other nouns which occurred in spontaneous interview data were also considered (including classe ‘class’, entourage ‘circle of friends’, groupe ‘group’, moyenne ‘average’, série ‘series’; see Tristram 2012: 118). A subset of the nouns listed above, namely majorité, minorité, foule and partie, constituted the focus of a supplementary diachronic corpus study. The main hypothesis tested in the project was that overall, plural agreement with collective nouns is becoming more common in modern French. This hypothesis was based on the findings of a previous study (Tristram & Ayres-Bennett 2012), which showed that another noun of this type, la

4 The use of the terms ‘Anglo-Saxon’ and ‘continental’ requires some clarification: Joosten uses these to refer, respectively, to work on English collective nouns, done by researchers of various nationalities, and to work on collective nouns in other languages (usually European), also done by researchers of various nationalities. 5 Joosten observes that two notable exceptions to the syntactically-based Anglo-Saxon definition tradition are Jespersen (1924) and Persson (1989), who both advocate a semantic definition of collective nouns, and affirm the possibility of inanimate collective nouns.

2

plupart (‘most’), after a long period of variation between singular and plural agreement, became fixed with plural agreement around the beginning of the eighteenth century. In modern French, the only grammatical agreement possible with la plupart is plural:

(3) la plupart des romanciers pèchent par excès [1990-1999_62_GRA]6

most of novelists fall into the trap of excess ‘Most novelists undermine themselves by overdoing it’

In this paper, I focus on the noun majorité. This was the noun of those mentioned above which showed the strongest evidence of change towards the plural, as I demonstrate below. All of the forms investigated in the larger project were rare, but some were relatively more frequent than others. Majorité was the most frequent of those investigated, which meant that sufficient data was available for reliable quantitative analysis.

2. FACTORS AFFECTING AGREEMENT WITH COLLECTIVE NOUNS Much previous work on collective nouns has looked at these nouns in English (see fnError: Reference source not found for references). Though there have been a number of studies of collective nouns in French (e.g. Flaux 1998, 1999, 2001; Lammert 2010; Lecolle 1998; Michaux 1992; Vilagines-Serra 2002), these tend to focus more on the semantics of such nouns rather than their agreement patterns. The matter of variation in agreement is mentioned by some scholars of French, but this is usually in relation to the study of these nouns in English and other languages; moreover, it is claimed that the question of variation simply does not arise in French.7

Lammert (2010), for example, in one of the most comprehensive studies of collective nouns in French, mentions briefly the possibility of variation in agreement with collective nouns, but states that:

Les questions d’accord du verbe avec un Ncoll [sc. nom collectif] comme sujet ne se posent pas directement pour le français. Dans une phrase du type Dét + N + V + Complément [sc. determiner + noun + verb + complement], si le sujet est au singulier, le verbe ne peut que s’accorder au singulier, de même dans le cas du pluriel. (Lammert 2010: 90-91)‘The question of verbal agreement with a collective noun subject does not directly concern French. In a phrase of the type determiner + noun + verb + complement, if the subject is singular, the verb can only agree in the singular; similarly in the plural.’

The larger project mentioned above demonstrated that this is not, in fact, the case: there is variation in agreement with these nouns in French, and many of the same factors which affect agreement of this kind in English also operate in French.8 One

6 Example taken from corpus data for Tristram and Ayres-Bennett 2012. Label here and in other examples below indicates corpus period, token number, and author initials. 7 There is, however, evidence of long-standing variation as attested in metalinguistic texts such as Vaugelas’ Remarques of 1647. Vaugelas discusses, for example, whether a noun such as infinité (‘infinity’) should take singular or plural agreement. Many other metalinguistic texts – from some of the earliest up to the modern day – also discuss this topic. See Tristram 2012 for a comprehensive survey of this topic in a selection of metalinguistic texts. 8 In this article, I discuss primarily the role of the post-modifying NP; see Tristram 2012 for full discussion of other factors.

3

factor which has been discussed in a number of studies of collective nouns in English is distance: that is, the linear and/or syntactic distance between the noun and the verb (controller and target, to use Corbett’s 2006 terminology). Linear distance refers to the distance in words between the controller and target, defined in most instances as orthographic words (though it is acknowledged that this is not ideal when comparing written and spoken data; Levin 2001: 94). Syntactic distance refers to the number of syntactic nodes between the controller and target. Although syntactic and linear distance are to some extent interdependent (since the longer the linear distance, the more syntactic nodes or boundaries there are likely to be), research suggests that they can also act independently (Levin 2001: 99-102). Though distance has been shown to have a reliable effect on agreement with collective nouns in English (cf. Levin 2001, Nixon 1972), such that with increasing distance between controller and target, plural agreement becomes more likely, the influence of this factor has not been considered in French. However, examples such as the following, where we – rather unexpectedly – see plural agreement with the noun gouvernement, seem to indicate that distance may have a similar effect in French:

(4) euh le le gouvernement fin le oui l’état fin le gouvernement *** quel que uh the the government well the yes the state well the government whichever soit le gouvernement d’ailleurs + euh vont + vont taper on appelle ça on a une be the government moreover uh will will hit one calls that one has an expression vont taper sur les retraites (O1M3)expression will hit on the pensions ‘Uh the government well the yes the state well the government *** and whoever the government is moreover they euh they will hit we call it we have an expression they will hit pensions’

As I discuss below, one factor above all seems to be important to the matter of variation (and change) in agreement with collective nouns in French: this is the presence/absence and number of what is termed here the post-modifying noun phrase (NP). The post-modifying NP is a singular or plural noun phrase which accompanies the collective noun (usually immediately following), and which serves to make explicit the referent of the noun. For example, la majorité de la classe politique (‘the majority of the political class’), where de la classe politique is a singular post-modifying NP, or la majorité des hommes (‘the majority of men’), where des hommes is a plural post-modifying NP. Though Lammert (2010), as we saw above, dismisses the possibility of variation in agreement with collective nouns in French, she nonetheless makes the following observation elsewhere:

Certaines variations d’accord sont également possibles en français, notamment en ce qui concerne les pronoms personnels et le verbe lorsque le sujet est un SN [sc. sujet nominal] complexe du type Dét Ncoll de (Dét) N [sc. determiner + nom collectif + (determiner) + noun]’ (Lammert 2010: 58, fn1) ‘Certain variations in agreement are also possible in French, notably where personal pronouns are concerned, as well as the verb when the subject is a complex nominal subject of the type determiner + nom collectif + (determiner) + noun.’

As I discuss below, the results of the empirical study reported here confirm what is claimed by some studies (e.g. Lammert 2010), and left unclear in others (e.g.

4

Blinkenberg 1950, Høybye 1944): that in French, the possibility of variation in agreement with collective-type nouns arises principally where there is a post-modifying NP, and this is also a crucial factor in change in agreement patterns.

Extralinguistic factors such as the medium of use (written or spoken) have also been shown to have an effect on agreement with collective nouns, both in the project described above, and elsewhere (e.g. Levin 2001 for English). The principal source of data which has been exploited for the study of collective nouns in French is written (corpus) data. Lammert’s study, for example, uses only written data. She notes ‘les données orales, quant à elles, sont absentes de notre corpus, néanmoins les occurrences qui jalonnent cette analyse offrent un panorama suffisamment représentatif des emplois des Ncolls pour que cette absence ne soit pas une carence’ (2010: 14). However, the example with gouvernement discussed above serves to illustrate that it is vital also to consider data from an oral source, in order to have a full picture of variation in agreement with collective nouns.

Though the presence of variation does not always indicate change in progress, Weinreich, Labov and Herzog ague that no change can take place in the absence of variation (1968: 188). Variation and change in agreement with collective-type nouns has been investigated most fully in (British) English, but there is a distinct lack of consensus amongst scholars. While some conclude that there is change taking place in (British) English, such that singular agreement is increasing (cf. Bauer 1994, Dekeyser 1975, Levin 2001, Liedtke 1910), others disagree. Siemund (1995), for example, argues that the picture is more complex than this, while Berg (1998) argues that British English prefers plural agreement. Although his findings are not based on diachronic data, Berg argues that his conclusions are of predictive value in ascertaining probable directions for change for different languages. His investigation is a comparative study of English and German which uses cloze tests to investigate the ‘resolution of number conflicts’ with a range of different structures, including agreement with collective-type nouns, coordinated noun phrases and cleft constructions. He reports that overall, English tends to rely on semantic criteria for resolving number conflicts, whereas German tends to rely on syntactic criteria. German always preferred singular (syntactic) agreement with collective-type nouns in the experiment (the lowest rate of singular agreement was 61% and the highest 100%), while for English, plural (semantic) agreement was preferred (the rate of plural agreement for collective-type items was between 47% and 95%).9 Berg relates this to the impoverished morphology and ‘word ordering component’ of English as compared to German. He notes (1998: 67):

At the heart of the agreement decision is the morphosyntactic component. When this component is weak, the syntactic force has to yield to the semantic force, which is always present due to the fact that the accessing of linguistic units is semantically driven. However, when this component is strong, the syntactic force will easily override the semantic force because the latter is not

9 The items tested in English and German were: the couple – das Ehepaar; the majority – die Mehrzeit; the majority of adults – die Mehrzeit der Erwachsenen; a number of critical issues – eine Anzahl heikler Themen; a gang of thugs – eine Bande von Rowdys; a series of reports – eine Reihe von Berichten; a small number of stings – eine kleine Anzahl von Stichen; a crowd of supporters – die Menge der Anhänger; a bunch of flowers – ein Strauß Blumen; a set of exam papers – ein Stapel von Klassenarbeiten; a heap of old papers – ein Stapel alter Zeitungen; a group of researchers – eine Gruppe von Forschern; a host of patients – ein Schar von Patienten; a certain percentage of students – ein gewisser Prozentsatz an Studenten (see Berg 1998: 45-46, 51-52).

5

germane to the level at which it is supposed to have an effect and is, therefore, of reduced strength.

Berg’s results imply a move towards increased plural agreement in English,10 in contrast to the majority of the other studies mentioned above. He argues that ‘to the extent that a language has a rich inflectional morphology and a flexible syntactic processor, it will favor syntactically based resolution principles’ (1998: 67). As a language with impoverished morphology in the spoken language and relatively fixed word order, Berg’s account therefore predicts that French would favour semantic resolution of number conflicts. There is also perhaps a case for arguing that since the most frequent form of this type, la plupart, is categorically plural, this could exert an analogical effect on other forms.

If the question of change has not been resolved for English, there is an almost complete lack of discussion of this issue for French. In the remainder of this article, I look at the evidence for change in agreement patterns with the noun majorité. The analysis relates mostly to this noun when it is used with the definite determiner, i.e. la majorité, but I also briefly discuss its use with other determiners, such as une majorité and cette majorité (‘this majority’), or where the noun is qualified with a preceding adjective, e.g. l’immense majorité (‘the immense majority’). Where they provide a useful point of comparison, I compare majorité with other nouns of this type.

3. DATA AND METHODOLOGY

3.1 The challenges of studying morphosyntactic variation The study of morphosyntactic variation presents challenges which simply do not arise in the study of phonological variation, on which level of language variationist studies have, at least until more recently, been primarily focused. These challenges, together with the theoretical questions raised the study of variation ‘above and beyond’ the level of phonology (Sankoff 1980),11 are perhaps in large part responsible for the marked asymmetry in the number of variationist studies which consider phonological as opposed to morphosyntactic variation, even in English (Cheshire 2002: 439). It is of note, however, that this imbalance is decidedly less marked for the French of Québec, which has provided a fertile testing ground for Labovian methods in general, largely due to the existence of the Sankoff-Cedergren corpus, collected in 1970-71. As Coveney (2007: 101) explains, this corpus has been orthographically transcribed in its entirety, which remains the exception rather than the norm in sociolinguistics. It has provided data for a large number of studies, making this the variety of French for which ‘quantitative analysis has been most rigorously and successfully applied to variation in morphosyntax’ (Green and Ayres-Bennett 1990: 2). However, there are far fewer studies of morphosyntactic variation for the French spoken in France (cf. Armstrong et al. 2001: 8-9; Green and Ayres-Bennett 1990: 2; Sociolinguistique Urbaine group12). Aside from ‘a reluctance to be seen to embrace transatlantic

10 Levin (2001: 27) makes the point that this opposition of syntactic and semantic agreement implies that for collective nouns, semantic agreement can only be plural, which is of course not the case, since these nouns can refer to both the (semantically-singular) entity and the (semantically-plural) collection of individuals which makes it up. I therefore primarily refer to singular and plural agreement throughout, though the terms syntactic/grammatical and semantic/notional agreement are also used.11 Notable contributions to this debate include: Blanche-Benveniste 1977; Cheshire 1987; Gadet 1997; García 1985; Lavandera 1978; Romaine 1984; Winford 1996. See also Coveney 2007: 103. 12 <http://sociolinguistique-urbaine.com/spip.php?article130> ‘Rationale and research questions’ [accessed March 2011]

6

innovations with undue alacrity’,13 the relative neglect of morphosyntactic variation in this variety may also be due to the long-standing existence in France of an unrivalled tradition of dialectological investigation, and a certain unwillingness to acknowledge the existence of variation (Green and Ayres-Bennett 1990: 2; see also Bauvois 2002: 9). This imbalance has, however, begun to be addressed in recent years. Pioneering work on morphosyntactic variation in French was carried out by Ashby (1976, 1977), who looked at negation in a corpus of spoken Parisian French. Together with interrogation, negation has constituted one of the major topics of interest in the investigation of morphosyntactic variation (cf. Ashby 1976, 1977, 1981, 2001; Behnstedt 1973; Coveney 1996), but the breadth of morphosyntactic topics covered for Québecois French is not replicated for the French of France.

The methodological challenges inherent in the study of morphosyntactic variation are particularly acute where the object of study is a rare form, such as the nouns in question here (la majorité occurred at a frequency of just 0.00329 per 1000 words in the written corpus described below). For a phonological variable, even twenty minutes of recording may well be enough to provide a sufficient number of tokens for statistical analysis. In the case of morphosyntactic variation, hours of recording could elapse without the desired structure being used once. For this reason, one approach to the study of morphosyntactic variation has been to use structured or guided sociolinguistic interviews, which include questions specifically intended to elicit the forms of interest (see e.g. Carruthers 1993 and Coveney 1996). In the study described here, a novel methodological approach was taken, which was to combine data from guided interviews with two other sources of data, cloze tests and a diachronic corpus study. This provided a more rounded picture of variation and change in agreement than would be possible with one source of data alone. Cloze tests, where the participant is required to complete a gap in a sentence, are well established as a means of collecting more controlled data. Though the resulting data cannot be said to represent spontaneous usage, it has the significant advantage of (virtually) guaranteeing sufficient data for quantitative analysis, which is a key concern in the investigation of a rare form such as this. The corpus study, as I explore below, revealed aspects of the influence of the post-modifying NP which were not evident in either the cloze test or interview data, but equally these sources of data suggested avenues of investigation in the corpus study (e.g. the behaviour of modified forms of the same noun – e.g. une partie vs. une grande partie; see Tristram 2012). The use of these different techniques, and the combination of different types of data, including both spoken and written, therefore brought insights to the investigation of a rare form which would otherwise not have come to light.

The fieldwork for this study (interviews and cloze tests) was conducted in Normandy, France, between April-July 2009, using the judgment/quota sampling method – i.e. the social factors which were of interest were identified by the researcher in advance, and participants were selected according to a sample frame as shown in Table 1. These social factors were chosen because the study was intended to look at change in apparent time, thus different age groups were required, and because a pilot study indicated that education was likely to be of considerable interest. The sample was also balanced for gender, as is generally regarded to be good practice. Normandy was identified as a suitable region with minimal regional influences (at least in syntax; see for example Hall 2008).14 Though sampling by the judgment

13 On this point, see also Gadet 1996: 84. 14 The majority of the interviews were carried out in Caen (Lower Normandy), as well as some in Bayeux (approximately 15km from Caen), Rouen (Upper Normandy), and two interviews were

7

method precludes any claims of true (statistical) representativeness, it enables a clearer picture to be gained of the effect of the different sociolinguistic variables and how they interact, and has become virtually standard in sociolinguistics (Chambers 1995: 41). The total number of participants here, 42, though small by the standards of other social science disciplines (see e.g. Milroy & Gordon 2003: 28), with a cell size of 6 speakers per cell was comparable to other studies of this kind (e.g. Ashby 1976, 1977, 1981; Coveney 1996). Interviews generally lasted around 45 minutes to one hour, and were usually conducted in the participant’s own home, but occasionally in a friend’s house, their workplace, or a neutral location such as a café. After the interview, participants were asked to complete the cloze test, which comprised 40 questions, 14 items containing the forms of interest and 26 ‘filler’ items designed to disguise the object of interest.15

EDUCATION ►AGE ▼

Level 1 –BAC

Level 2 +BAC

Level 3 +UNIV

TOTAL

Young 15-17

Male 3Female 3

[empty cell] [empty cell] 6

Adult 30-45

Male 3Female 3

Male 3Female 3

Male 3Female 3

18

Older 60+

Male 3Female 3

Male 3Female 3

Male 3Female 3

18

TOTAL 18 12 12 42Table 1 - Sample frame (M = male, F = female; -BAC = education below Baccalauréat level, +BAC = education to Baccalauréat level; +UNIV = education to university level)

4. RESULTS AND ANALYSIS

4.1 Cloze tests and interviews The analysis presented below looks first at the cloze test results analysed by age group to give a picture of change in apparent time for the noun majorité. There were three age groups used in the main part of the study: ‘Young’ (15-17); ‘Adult’ (30-45) and ‘Older’ (60+).16 According to the apparent time construct, linguistic differences between speakers of different ages (i.e. changes in apparent time) are taken to be a reflection of diachronic change in the language (i.e. change in real time), when social and stylistic factors are held constant (Labov 1963, 1966). Thus, for the case of variation and change in agreement with majorité, if the hypothesis that plural agreement is increasing is correct, we would expect to see the youngest group using the most plural agreement, the oldest group using the least, and the middle group between these.

The pattern observed in the cloze test results for la majorité is suggestive of change (Table 2 and Figure 1): the youngest speakers show the highest use of plural agreement (66.67%), but the Adult and Older groups have the same rate (56.25%). The structure of the groups in the sample (i.e. fewer data points for the youngest group) means that a quantitative analysis of these results must be interpreted with

conducted with participants living on the Cotentin Peninsula (Lower Normandy). The precise locations used depended largely on access to speakers willing to participate in the study, rather than any other strictly methodological concerns. No significant differences between the more rural and the more urban locations were identified. 15 Five different randomly-ordered versions of the test were used to control for order of presentation. See Appendix for an example. 16 See Tristram 2012 for full discussion of the age groups and justification for choosing them.

8

caution.17 There are nonetheless two particularly interesting aspects to the results for la majorité. First, the proportion of plural agreement used by the participants in the cloze tests overall for this noun is much greater than for any of the other nouns which were investigated. Second, for all age groups with this noun, plural agreement is more frequent than singular. This suggests that the hypothesized change towards plural agreement is further advanced for la majorité than for other nouns, since even the oldest group uses plural agreement with this noun more frequently than singular.

Table 2 - Cloze test results (by age) for la majorité

33.33%43.75% 43.75%

66.67%56.25% 56.25%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Young Adult Older

Age group

% S

ingu

lar/p

lura

l

Plural

Singular

Figure 1 - Cloze test results for la majorité analysed by age

There is also qualitative support for this hypothesis in the interview data. La majorité is the most common collective-type noun in the interviews, accounting for 11 of the 34 tokens. Eight of these tokens are homophonous, but the remaining three tokens all show plural agreement, and these are produced by one individual from each of the age groups. There were no unambiguous tokens of singular agreement with la majorité in the interview data.

17 The numbers are too low here to conduct a reliable statistical analysis, and so descriptive statistics are used instead.

9

4.2 Corpus data The time frame afforded by apparent time data is necessarily brief, and the diachronic corpus data therefore provides a useful perspective of much greater time depth. The corpus used for this investigation was the Frantext corpus of written French, which consists of 3985 texts (approximately 239 million words), dating from the late twelfth century to the modern day.18 All texts for the periods shown in Table 3 were selected to give seven sub-corpora, and a total corpus of nearly 50 million words. These periods were chosen to give an overview of the diachronic development of agreement with la majorité over approximately the last four hundred years, from the mid-seventeenth century to the modern day.19

Table 3 - Frantext corpus details

Although there are no tokens of majorité in the first and third periods examined (1650-69 and 1750-59), and only one in the 1690-1709 period, there are sufficient tokens in the remaining periods to provide a good picture of variation and change in agreement with this noun over time.20 Table 4 and Figure 2 show that from 1790 onwards, the proportion of plural agreement with majorité increases steadily over time, reaching around 50% singular and 50% plural agreement by the most modern period examined here. These results are particularly interesting because while the cloze test results merely suggested change, the corpus study data shows a clear and unambiguous picture of plural agreement increasing. Moreover, since this is written data, which would usually be expected to lag behind in any change taking place, the fact that plural agreement has already reached around 50% supports the hypothesis that the change is already quite advanced for this noun.

18 <http://www.frantext.fr/> [Accessed June 2010 and June-July 2011]. The most recent text in the corpus dates from 2011, and new texts are added regularly. The searches for this study were carried out in summer 2010 and summer 2011. See Tristram and Ayres-Bennett (2012) for discussion of caveats when using this type of corpus to track change. 19 In the earlier periods, since there are fewer texts, a longer time frame was used to give sub-corpora of roughly equal size. Creating homogeneity in this way – i.e. in the number of texts/words in the sub-corpus – risks creating heterogeneity in another, since the corpus then spans a longer period, and potentially encompasses significant changes in textual practices during that time. However, since the expanded periods are nineteen years as opposed to nine, the risk was felt to be minimal, and is compensated for by the greater possibilities for quantitative analysis afforded by the larger number of tokens. 20 Though there are a number of hits for the noun majorité in these earliest periods, they are all uses of the noun in the sense of ‘coming of age’, rather than in the sense of ‘largest proportion of something’. This latter use appears to become commonplace only towards the end of the eighteenth century.

10

Table 4 - Corpus study results for majorité

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

80.00%

90.00%

100.00%

1790-1799 1850-1859 1890-1899 1950-1959 1990-1999

Period

% s

ingu

lar/p

lura

l

SING

PLU

Figure 2 - Agreement with majorité over time (1790 onwards)

The data in Table 4 and Figure 2 include all tokens of majorité: that is, tokens of la majorité, une majorité together with other forms such as cette majorité. An analysis was conducted to investigate the agreement patterns with the forms cette majorité (‘this majority’), l’immense majorité (‘the immense majority’), la grande majorité (‘the large/vast majority’), and la très grande majorité (‘the very large/vast majority’) in order to see if the forms behave similarly in terms of variation and change, but the number of tokens was too low to allow a quantitative analysis (see Table 5), though a number of qualitative observations can be made. First, cette majorité shows a strong preference for singular agreement. There are no tokens of plural agreement in any period with this form, which occurs seven times in total. Second, for two forms where majorité is qualified by an adjective, there is no strong preference. L’immense majorité and la grande majorité occur 11 and 12 times respectively, with eight tokens of singular agreement for each form. La très grande majorité may favour plural agreement slightly more than these two, but the number of tokens is too low to draw any firm conclusions.

11

Table 5 - Other forms of majorité

Similarly, the corpus study results do not allow any firm conclusions to be drawn regarding the agreement behaviour of la majorité versus une majorité (i.e. with a definite versus indefinite determiner). Although there are ample tokens of la majorité, by contrast une majorité occurs only six times in the data, with one plural token in each of the earliest periods in which it occurs (1850-59 and 1890-99), and four singular tokens in the period 1950-59. This highlights the rarity of these forms: even in a total corpus of nearly 50 million words, the number of tokens was still extremely low. Both the plural tokens of une majorité have a plural post-modifying NP, underlining the importance of this factor in determining agreement. Moreover, some of the tokens with une majorité are ambiguous between the ‘proportion’ sense of this noun (the sense we are interested in here), and the political sense of a parliamentary majority. For example:

(5) il n'était pas du tout sûr de rencontrer une majorité travailliste ou socialiste

12

he was not of all sure of to-meet a majority labour or socialist qui fût assez… [1950-1959_45_SCE] which was enough ‘He wasn’t at all sure of finding a labour or socialist majority which was sufficiently…’

However, the marked difference in the number of tokens of the different forms indicates that une majorité is seldom used in the ‘proportion’ sense: la majorité is the form overwhelmingly used to convey this meaning.

The corpus study results therefore confirm that a change in agreement seems to be taking place with majorité: plural agreement is becoming more common. But a further aspect to agreement with collective nouns in general, and with majorité in particular, revealed by the corpus study data, is the importance of the post-modifying NP.

Four nouns were investigated in detail in the corpus study. While we are concerned primarily with majorité here, it is useful briefly to examine the data for the other nouns in order to highlight why the post-modifying NP is so important to the matter of variation and change in agreement with collective nouns in French. For the four collective-type nouns examined in the corpus study, it seems that plural agreement is only possible if a plural post-modifying NP is present (Table 6). Where the post-modifying NP is singular, or it is absent, agreement is overwhelmingly singular.

Table 6 - Overall corpus study data for post-modifying NP and agreement

There are, however, some exceptions to this, i.e. plural agreement which occurs in the presence of a singular post-modifying NP or when the post-modifying NP is absent (shown in italics in Table 6):21

21 A plural post-modifying NP, however, does not guarantee plural agreement, and rates of plural agreement in the presence of a plural post-modifying NP vary significantly, from below 40% for la foule to above 85% for une foule.

13

Absent post-modifying NP + plural agreement:

(6) et la majorité appartenaient au type… [1950-1959_35_LE]and the majority belonged to the type ‘Most belonged to [this] type…’

(7) la majorité, les demi-sels, les faux vicieux, tenaient… the majority, the small-time crooks the sly tricksters had [1950-1959_48_SIM]‘Most [of them], the small time crooks, the sly tricksters, had…’

(8) et une partie inculte, le saltus, bois, buissons, landes, friches, rocailles, and a part uncultivated the glade wood shrubs moors wasteland stony ground qui servent de pâture [1950-1959_685_MEY]which serve as pasture ‘And an uncultivated part, glade, wood, shrubs, moors, wasteland, stony ground, which serve as pasture’

Singular post-modifying NP + plural agreement:

(9) que ne donnerois-je pas d'une peinture qui représenteroit une partie du feu what not would give I of a painting which represented a part of the fireet de la tendresse qui brilloient dans ses regards [1750-1759_274_PRE]and of the tenderness which shone in his looks ‘What wouldn’t I give for a painting which represented a part of the fire and tenderness which shone in his looks’

(10) une partie du cabinet anglais répugnaient à suivre… [1950-1959_495_DE]a part of the cabinet English were reluctant to follow‘Some [a part] of the English cabinet were reluctant to follow…’

(11) on trouve aux portes du monde une foule de cicerone qui one finds at the doors of the world a crowd of guide(s) who viennent bruyamment vous offrir leurs services [1850-1859_49_MUR]

come noisily to you offer their services ‘And one finds at the gates of the world a crowd of guides who come noisily offering their services’

With the exception of (6), it is clear that other factors increase the likelihood of plural agreement in these examples. In examples (7) and (8), several plural nouns in apposition separate the target from the controller. This results in plural agreement in a context where it is otherwise not expected (i.e. where the post-modifying NP is absent), and suggests that suggest that plural nouns in apposition and plural post-modifying NPs have much the same effect. Linear and syntactic distance are increased in examples (8), (9), and (10), where the target appears in a subordinate clause after qui. In example (9), the post-modifying NP is made up of two coordinated singular nouns, which then trigger plural agreement. In example (10), the post-modifying NP, though syntactically singular, is semantically plural (cabinet anglais), and this is also possibly the case in example (10).22 22 The example is interesting from the point of view of the number of the post-modifying NP. The noun cicerone, ‘guide’, a nineteenth-century borrowing from Italian, is listed in the ATILF as having a possible Italian plural, ciceroni (ATILF Analyse et Traitement Informatique de la Langue Française, entry for cicerone <http://atilf.atilf.fr/dendien/scripts/tlfiv5/advanced.exe?8;s=1804920090;> [Accessed September 2011]). The use in this sentence appears to imply that the noun is semantically plural (i.e. there is a crowd of many guides), but the form of the noun is singular. This may be because

14

Thus the post-modifying NP is crucial to the possibilities for variation in agreement with collective nouns in French. This was investigated further by conducting a supplementary quantitative analysis of the corpus data for majorité and the three other nouns mentioned above. This analysis separated out diachronic developments in agreement with the different types of post-modifying NP: it examined (a) what type of post-modifying NP a noun was most commonly found with, and whether this changed over time, and (b) if agreement with each type of post-modifying NP changed over time. The analysis showed that, for some nouns, the proportion of plural post-modifying NPs increases over time – i.e. the noun begins to appear more frequently with a plural post-modifying NP. This is the case for the noun majorité, as Figure 3shows.

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

80.00%

90.00%

100.00%

1790-1799 1850-1859 1890-1899 1950-1959 1990-1999

Period

Post

-mod

ifyin

g N

P %

of t

otal

ABSENT

SINGULAR

PLURAL

Figure 3 - Post-modifying NP with majorité over time

Plural post-modifying NPs with majorité become more common over time, and are the most common type of post-modifying NP from the mid-twentieth century onwards for this noun. Agreement with a singular or absent post-modifying NP is almost always (with one or two exceptions as discussed above) singular. For this reason, it is of key interest to examine how the tendency for plural agreement where there is a plural post-modifying NP changes over time.

of doubt over the plural form (Fr cicérones or It ciceroni?), or because it is used deliberately in the singular with a plural sense.

15

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

80.00%

90.00%

100.00%

1790-1799 1850-1859 1890-1899 1950-1959 1990-1999

Period

% p

lura

l pos

t mod

ifyin

g N

P / p

lura

l agr

eem

ent

% plural post-modifying NP % plural agreement

Figure 4 - Plural post-modifying NP and agreement in this condition for majorité over time

Figure 4 shows the proportion of plural post-modifying NPs with majorité and the tendency for plural agreement with a plural post-modifying NP plotted on the same graph. Over time, there is an increased tendency for plural agreement where there is a plural post-modifying NP with majorité. This coincides with the increased tendency for the noun to appear with a plural post-modifying NP, and this therefore affects the overall pattern of variation and change. For majorité, the combination of these two tendencies leads to an overall increase in plural agreement with this noun.

5. DISCUSSION While the cloze test and interview data suggested that plural agreement with majorité might be increasing, this was confirmed by the longer time perspective afforded by the use of corpus data. Crucially, the corpus data also revealed that the post-modifying NP is key to this variation and change, since, apart from where other factors such as distance play a role, the possibility of variation in agreement generally only arises when there is a plural post-modifying NP. The propensity to appear with a plural post-modifying NP may change over time, as well as the propensity to allow plural agreement where there is a plural post-modifying NP. For majorité, both these things are increasing, and the noun therefore increasingly takes plural agreement.

The influence of the post-modifying NP seems to be intimately linked with the noun’s lexical content. Nouns which have relatively weak lexical content are much more likely to take a post-modifying NP. For the noun majorité, the ATILF lists as its second meaning (after the meaning of ‘political majority) ‘Le plus grand nombre, la plus grande partie’.23 The primary meaning of majorité therefore conveys size/number, but does not specify the referent further, and it is consequently much more likely that majorité will appear with a post-modifying NP – which, because of the meaning, is likely to be plural in form, or meaning, or both. In contrast, a noun

23 The largest number, the largest part. ATILF, entry for majorité <http://atilf.atilf.fr/dendien/scripts/tlfiv5/visusel.exe?44;s=1153150800;r=2;nat=;sol=2;> [Accessed October 2011]

16

which has a relatively strong lexical content, such as foule, is far less likely to take a post-modifying NP when it is used with its canonical meaning. This is because the range of possible referents is far smaller. In its entry in the ATILF, for example, the noun foule has as its primary meaning ‘Presse qui résulte de la présence d'une multitude de personnes en un même lieu; la multitude elle-même’.24 Thus, the canonical meaning of foule is restricted to [+HUMAN] subjects. However, the presence of a plural post-modifying NP does not by any means guarantee plural agreement. The tendency to allow plural agreement where there is a plural post-modifying NP varies considerably from noun to noun. For la foule, perhaps because of its overwhelming tendency for singular agreement more generally, a plural post-modifying NP triggers plural agreement in just 40% of cases, compared to 85% for une foule, and 50% for majorité.

There is also an important caveat to be made here. The possibilities for agreement depend quite heavily on the context and medium of usage. While in the formal, written cloze test, agreement where the post-modifying NP was absent was almost always singular, and the same was true of the (mostly) formal, literary corpus data, in the interviews, there was evidence that plural agreement can occur in the absence of a post-modifying NP. In this sense, the methodological techniques used in this study, and the particular combination of different types of data, have allowed aspects of variation in agreement with collective-type nouns to be explored which have been neglected in other studies.

In this article, I have deliberately left the challenging issue of the definition of collective nouns to one side, in order to focus on one noun which seems to be undergoing a change in agreement patterns. However, when we come to think about explanations for why this might be the case – why does the proportion of plural post-modifying NPs change over time, for example? – then it becomes necessary to touch upon this issue. In many investigations of French collective nouns, the status of nouns like majorité and centaine (‘a hundred [or so]’) is unclear. Lammert, for example, sees nouns like centaine as separate from the main category of noms collectifs: she terms them noms de nombre collectif (‘nouns of collective number’), and she does not mention majorité, minorité etc. at all. In other works, nouns such as centaine and majorité are termed substantifs/collectifs numéraux (‘numeral [collective] nouns’; e.g. Høybye 1944). The reference to number in these nouns seems fundamental: this is their core meaning. In this respect, they are therefore different from other noms collectifs such as famille or foule.

Here, we have seen that the noun majorité, like other nouns examined in Tristram (2012), can show variation in agreement when accompanied by a post-modifying NP, and occasionally when this is absent. It is not possible at present, however, to say that all collective nouns will show this variation, since this study, and the larger project of which it is part has, for reasons of feasibility, only been able to consider a small number of nouns. There is, however, some evidence to suggest that not all collective nouns in French will have this possibility. Lammert (2010) argues that some noms collectifs have a higher level of généricité than others, and it is this which controls the possibilities for collocating with a post-modifying NP. Généricité refers to the extent to which a noun is generic.25 As such, it recalls the discussion above of nouns with

24 Crush resulting from the presence of many people in the same place; the crowd itself. ATILF, entry for foule <http://atilf.atilf.fr/dendien/scripts/tlfiv5/visusel.exe?12;s=1153150800;r=1;nat=;sol=1;> [Accessed October 2011] 25 Cf. ATILF entry for généricité ‘Caractère générique d'un terme, d'une propriété’ <http://atilf.atilf.fr/dendien/scripts/tlfiv5/advanced.exe?8;s=2573637990;> [Accessed October 2011]

17

strong lexical content versus nouns with less semantic content. Lammert (2010: 107) gives the following examples (question marks in original):

Un bouquet de fleurs (‘a bouquet of flowers)Un troupeau de chèvres (‘a herd of goats’)? Une forêt d’arbres (‘a forest of trees’) ? Une flotte de bateaux (‘a flotilla of boats’) ? Une armée de soldats (‘an army of soldiers’)

She observes: ‘En effet, un troupeau est à un niveau de généricité plus élevé que forêt qui ne peut avoir comme constituant principal que des arbres, tout du moins dans un sens strict’ (2010: 108; ‘Effectively, troupeau is at a higher level of généricité than forêt, which can only have as its main constituent trees, at least in a strict reading’).26

For Lammert, one of the core features of collective-type nouns is that there exists ‘un lien méronomique’ (‘a meronomic link’, < Gr. meros ‘part’) between the collection and its constituent members (see 2010: 99-116). This lexico-conceptual link ‘n’est pas aussi strict et stable dans tous les cas’ (2010: 108; ‘…is not as strict or as stable in every case’). She continues (2010: 108):

Ces Ncolls [sc. collective nouns with a higher level of généricité] sont ouverts à la variation d’un point de vue sémantique, ce qui se caractérise par la possibilité d’entrer dans une structure du type Dét Ncoll de Nelt [sc. determiner + collective noun + de + nom d’élément or post-modifying NP]. Cette différence de comportement sémantique sépare alors les Ncolls en deux catégories: ceux qui peuvent être complétés par un Nelt constitutif de la collection qu’ils énoncent, et ceux qui ne le peuvent pas. D’un point de vue sémantique, les premiers correspondent à une collection avec un niveau d’abstraction et de généricité plus grand que les seconds qui font référence à un seul type d’ensemble, à un ensemble dont les éléments ne peuvent être que d’une seule nature. ‘These collective nouns are liable to variation from a semantic point of view, which is characterised by the possibility of their entering into a structure of the type determiner + nom collectif + de + nom d’élément. This difference in semantic behaviour therefore separates noms collectifs into two categories: those which can take a nom d’élément indicating their constituent members, and those which cannot. From a semantic point of view, the former correspond to a collection at a higher level of abstraction and généricité than the latter, which refer to a single type of collection, to a collection whose elements can only be of one nature.’

Thus collective-type nouns at this higher level of généricité are ‘ouverts à la variation d’un point de vue sémantique’ (‘open to variation from a semantic point of view’), and they are also therefore open to variation in agreement, because of the (possible) presence of the post-modifying NP. This separates them into different sub-categories, under the broad category of noms collectifs.27 The level of généricité of a

26 Lammert notes however that if the post-modifying NP is modified, however, then the binominal structure becomes possible: e.g. Une forêt d’arbres séculaires ‘a forest of ancient trees’) (see 2010: 108-09). 27 See Tristram 2012 for further discussion of the definition and the need for further investigation before nouns such as centaine, majorité can be included in a scheme like Lammert’s (2010).

18

noun is also related to the extent of grammaticalisation it has undergone. The sub-categories of nouns with a higher or lower level of généricité could in effect be superimposed on sub-categories of nouns which are grammaticalised to a greater or lesser degree:

High level of généricité -------------------------------------Low level of généricitéMore grammaticalised ----------------------------------------Less grammaticalised

Various grammars and scholarly works (see e.g. Riegel, Pellat & Rioul 1994) note that some nouns, e.g. la majorité or une foule, function as a kind of quantifying determiner – i.e. have grammaticalised to some extent. Nouns which function in this way are relatively semantically empty. Some nouns which are canonically used with a strong lexical meaning – e.g. la foule – may occasionally be used in a more figurative way, and hence also function as a kind of quantifying determiner. Over time, this occasional quantifying usage may become more established, and the noun may begin to grammaticalise, and agreement patterns become more fixed. But there is a danger of circularity here: is the noun semantically empty because it is grammaticalising, or is it grammaticalising because it is semantically empty? Here, I have been principally concerned with the diachronic syntax of a French noun; but it has become clear that in order to understand why the patterns change as they do, future studies will need to consider the diachronic semantics of this and other nouns, in order to address questions such as: why are some nouns more prone to being used in a figurative sense than others, and hence to grammaticalise? How and why does this change over time?

The novel combination of data examined here has allowed significant progress to be made in the state of knowledge of variation and change in agreement with the noun majorité, an example of a collective noun in French. In highlighting areas of significant interest for future research, it is hoped that this investigation will also serve as a starting point for further study of this complex class of nouns.

REFERENCES

ALIQUOT-SUENGAS, S., 1996. Réference collective/sens collectif. La Notion de collectif à travers les noms suffixés du lexique français. Ph.D. dissertation, Université de Lille III.

ARMSTRONG, NIGEL, CÉLINE BAUVOIS & KATE BEECHING, (eds.), 2001. La Langue française au féminin. Paris: L’Harmattan.

ASHBY, WILLIAM, 1976. ‘The loss of the negative morpheme, ne, in Parisian French’, Lingua 39, 119-37.

ASHBY, WILLIAM, 1977. ‘Interrogative forms in Parisian French’, Semasia 4, 35-52.

ASHBY, WILLIAM, 1981. ‘The loss of the negative particle ne in French’, Language 57, 674-87.

ASHBY, WILLIAM, 2001. ‘Un Nouveau Regard sur la chute du ne en français parlé tourangeau: s’agit-il d’un changement en cours?’, Journal of French Language Studies 11, 1-22.

19

BACHE, C. & DAVIDSEN-NIELSEN, N., 1997. Mastering English. An Advanced Grammar for Non-Native and Native Speakers. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

BAUER, LAURIE, 1994. Watching English Change. London: Longman.

BAUVOIS, CÉCILE, 2002. Ni d’Eve ni d’Adam: étude de sociolinguistique de douze variables du français. Paris: L’Harmattan.

BEHNSTEDT, P., 1973. Viens-tu? Est-ce que tu viens? Tu viens? Formen und Strukturen des direkten Fragessatzes im Franzosischen. Tübingen: Narr.

BERG, THOMAS, 1998. ‘The resolution of number conflicts in English and German agreement patterns’, Linguistics 36, 41-70.

BLANCHE-BENVENISTE, CLAIRE, 1977. ‘L’un chasse l’autre, le domaine des auxiliaries’, Recherches sur le Français parlé 1, 100-48.

BLINKENBERG, ANDREAS, 1950. Le Problème de l’accord en français moderne: essai d’une typologie, Historisk Filologiske Meddelelser 33. Copenhagen: Ejnar Munksgaard.

BOSQUE, I. & DEMONTE, V., (eds.). 1999. Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española. Madrid: Espasa.

CARRUTHERS, JANICE, 1993. The ‘Formes Surcomposées’: The Discourse Function and Linguistic Status of a Rare Form in Contemporary Spoken French. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Cambridge.

CHAMBERS, JACK K., 1995. Sociolinguistic Theory: Linguistic Variation and its Social Significance. Cambridge, Mass.: Blackwell.

CHESHIRE, JENNY, 1987. ‘Syntactic variation, the linguistic variable and sociolinguistic theory’, Linguistics 25, 257-82.

CHESHIRE, JENNY, 2002. ‘Sex and gender in variationist research, in J.K.Chambers, P. Trudgill and N. Schilling-Estes (eds.), The Handbook of Language Variation and Change, Oxford: Blackwell, 423-43

CORBETT, GREVILLE, 2000. Number. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

CORBETT, GREVILLE, 2006. Agreement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

COVENEY, AIDAN, 1996. Variability in Spoken French: a Sociolinguistic Study of Interrogation and Negation. Exeter: Elm Bank.

COVENEY, AIDAN, 2007. ‘Grammatical variation in French’, Nottingham French Studies 46, 100-18.

20

DEKEYSER, X., 1975. Number and Case Relations in Nineteenth Century British English: A Comparative Study of Grammar and Usage. Antwerp: Bibliotheca Linguistica.

DEPRAETERE, ILSA, 2004. ‘A comparative analysis of verbal concord with staff, crew and cast’, in B. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk (ed.), Practical Applications in Language and Computers, Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 219-28

FALT, G., 1972. Tres problemas de concordancia verbal en el español moderno. Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell.

FINDRENG, Å., 1976. Zur Kongruenz im Person und Numerus im modernen Deutsch. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.

FLAUX, NELLY, 1998. ‘Les Noms collectifs et la prédication’, in M. Forsgren, K. Jonasson and H. Kronning (eds.), Prédication, assertion, information: Actes du colloque d'Uppsala en linguistique française, 6-9 juin 1996. Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis, Studia Romanica Upsaliensia 56, Uppsala, Sweden: Uppsala University, 173-83

FLAUX, NELLY, 1999. ‘A propos des noms collectifs’, Revue de Linguistique Romane, 63, 471-502.

FLAUX, NELLY, 2001. ‘Le Classement des noms de quantité’, in X. Blanco, P-A. Buvet and Z. Gavriilidou (eds.), Détermination et formalisation, Lingvisticæ Investigationes: Supplementa Studies in French and General Linguistics 23, Amsterdam: Benjamins, 151-61.

FRIES, UDO, 1981. ‘Zur Kongruenz bei Kollektiven’, in W. Pöckl (ed.), Europäische Mehrsprachigkeit: Festschrift zum 70. Geburtstag von Mario Wandruszka, Tübingen: Niemeyer, 19-27.

FRIES, UDO, 1988. ‘The crew have abandoned the ship: concord with collective nouns revisited’, Arbeiten aus Anglistik und Amerikanistik, 13, 99-104.

GADET, FRANÇOISE, 1996. ‘Variabilité, variation, variété: le français d’Europe’, Journal of French Language Studies 6, 75-98.

GADET, FRANÇOISE, 1997. ‘La Variation en syntaxe’, Langue Française 115, 3-4 and 5-18.

GARCÍA, E., 1985. ‘Shifting variation’, Lingua 67, 189-224.

GREEN, JOHN N. & AYRES-BENNETT, WENDY, (eds.). 1990. Variation and Change in French: Essays Presented to Rebecca Posner on the Occasion of her Sixtieth Birthday. London and New York: Routledge.

HALL, DAMIEN, 2008. A Sociolinguistic Study of the Regional French of Normandy. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pittsburgh.

21

HAESERYN, W., ROMIJN, K., GEERTS,G., DE ROOIJ, J. & VAN DEN TOORN, M.C., 1997. Algemene Nederlandse spraakkunst. Groningen: Martinus Nijhoff.

HØYBYE, P., 1944. L’Accord en franc ̧ais contemporain: essai de grammaire descriptive. Copenhagen: A.F. Høst and søns.

JESPERSEN, OTTO, 1924. The Philosophy of Grammar. Chicago: University of Chicago.

JOOSTEN, FRANK, 2006. ‘Why club and lingerie do not belong together: a plea for redefining collectives’, in G. Kleiber, C. Schnedecker & A. Theissen (eds.), La Relation partie-tout, Louvain, Belgium: Peeters, 73-88.

JUUL, ARNE, 1975. On Concord of Number in Modern English. Copenhagen: Nova.

KUHN, W., 1982. ‘Kollectiva und die Technik Kollektion am Beispeil des Deutschen, in H. Seiler and C. Lehmann (eds.) Apprehension. Das sprachliche Erfassen von Gegenständen. Teil I: Bereich und Ordnung der Phänomene, Tübingen: Gunter Narr, 84-97.

LABOV, WILLIAM, 1963. ‘The Social Motivation of a Sound Change’, Word 19, 273-309.

LABOV, WILLIAM, 1966. The Social Stratification of English in New York City. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.

LAMMERT, MARIE, 2010. Sémantique et cognition. Les noms collectifs. Genève: Droz.

LAVANDERA, BEATRIZ, 1978. ‘Where does the sociolinguistic variable stop?’, Language in Society 7, 171-82.

LECOLLE, M., 1997. Étude des noms collectifs en français. Master’s thesis, Université de Toulouse le Mirail.

LECOLLE, M., 1998. ‘Noms collectifs et méronymie’, Cahiers de grammaire 23, 41-65.

LEISI, E., 1975. Der Wortinhalt. Seine Struktur im Deutschen und Englischen. Heidelberg: Quelle and Meyer.

LEVIN, MAGNUS, 1998a. ‘On concord with collective nouns in English’, A. Renouf (ed.), Explorations in Corpus Linguistics, Amsterdam: Rodopi, 99-112.

LEVIN, MAGNUS, 1998b. ‘Concord with collective nouns in British and American English’, Acta Wexionensia Humanoria, Humanities 1, 193-204.

LEVIN, MAGNUS, 2001. Agreement with Collective Nouns in English, Lund Studies in English 103. Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell.

22

LIEDTKE, E., 1910. Die numerale Auffassung der Kollektiva im Verlaufe der englischen Sprachgeschichte. Königsberg: Karg and Manneck.

MICHAUX, C., 1992. ‘The collectives in French: a linguistic investigation’, Linguisticae Investigationes 16, 99-124.

MIHATSCH, W. 2000. ‘Wieso ist ein Kollektivum ein Kollektivum? Zentrum und Peripherie einer Kategorie am Beispiel des Spanische’, Philologie im Netz 13, 39-72,

MILLÁN OROZCO, A., 1977. ‘Anomalías en la concordancia del nombre en el español de la ciudad de México’, in J.M. Lope Blanch (ed.), Estudios sobre el español hablado en las principales ciudades de América, Publicaciones del Centro de Lingüística Hispánica 4, Mexico City: Universidad Nacional Autonoma de México, 85-104.

MILROY, LESLEY & GORDON, MATTHEW, 2003. Sociolinguistics: Method and Interpretation. Oxford: Blackwell.

NIXON, G., 1972. ‘Corporate-concord phenomena in English’, Studia Neophilologica 44, 120-26.

NUESSEL, F., 1984. ‘(Dis)agreement in Spanish’, Papers in Linguistics 17, 267-81.

ORTEGA, G. & MORERA, M., 1981-1982. ‘La concordancia numérica de los colectivos: un caso de silepsis’, Archivum 31-32, 645-56.

PERSSON, G., 1989. ‘On the semantics of collective nouns in English’, in B. Odenstedt and G. Persson (eds.) Instead of Flowers: Papers in Honour of Mats Rydén on the Occasion of his Sixtieth Birthday August 27th 1989, Umeå Studies in the Humanities 90, Acta Universitatis Umensis, 179-95.

POUNTAIN, CHRISTOPHER J., 1992. ‘Nebrija and Naturalness.’ Paper given at Colloquium of the Medieval Hispanic Seminar, University of London, Queen Mary and Westfield College, September 1992.

QUIRK, R., GREENBAUM, S., LEECH, G. & SVARTVIK, J., 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.

RIEGEL, M., PELLAT, J-C. & RIOUL, R., 1994. Grammaire méthodique du français. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.

ROMAINE, SUZANNE, 1984. ‘On the problem of syntactic variation and pragmatic meaning in sociolinguistic theory’, Folia Linguistica: Acta Societatis Linguisticae Europaeae 18(3-4), 409-37.

SANKOFF, GILLIAN, 1980. ‘Above and beyond phonology in variable rules’, in G. Sankoff (ed.), The Social Life of Language, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 81-93.

23

SECO, M., 2002. Diccionario de DUDAS y dificultades de la lengua española, 10th ed., Madrid: Espasa.

SIEMUND, R., 1995. ‘“For who the bell tolls”: or why corpus linguistics should carry the bell in the study of language change in present-day English’, Arbeiten aus Anglistik und Amerikanistik 20, 351-77.

TRISTRAM, ANNA, 2012. Variation and Change in Agreement with Collective Nouns in French, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Cambridge.

TRISTRAM, ANNA & AYRES-BENNETT, WENDY, 2012. ‘From negation to agreement: revisiting the problem of sources for socio-historical linguistics’, Neuphilologische Mitteilungen, special issue summer 2012 (3)

VAUGELAS, CLAUDE FAVRE DE, 1647. Remarques sur la langue françoise utiles à ceux qui veulent bien parler et bien escrire. Paris; repr. Geneva: Slatkine Reprints, 1972.

VILAGINES-SERRA, E. 2002. Étude comparative du fonctionnement des nombres singulier et pluriel dans les langues romanes : portugais, espagnol, catalan et français. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Provence Aix-Marseille I.

WEINREICH, URIEL, LABOV, WILLIAM & HERZOG, MARVIN, 1968. ‘Empirical foundations for a theory of language change’, in W. Lehmann and Y. Malkiel (eds.), Directions for Historical Linguistics, Austin, Texas: University of Texas Press, 95-195.

WINFORD, DONALD, 1996. ‘The problem of syntactic variation’, in J. Arnold et al. (eds.), Sociolinguistic Variation: Data, Theory, Analysis. Selected Papers from NWAVE 23, Stanford: CSLI, 177-92.

APPENDIX

NB For reasons of space, the cloze test is presented here with all questions consecutive. For participants, the test was presented with 5 items per page (the test was also presented in landscape format to avoid potential problems with layout).

EXERCICE ÉCRIT

Veuillez remplir les blancs dans les phrases suivantes aussi vite que possible, et dans l’ordre où elles vous sont présentées.

SVP ne revenez pas sur vos réponses, et dans chaque cas, donnez votre réponse initiale.

Dans chaque exemple, vous devez conjuguer au passé composé (avec l’auxiliaire avoir) le verbe entre parenthèses, par exemple :

24

Exemple  

Question :Selon son opinion, l’opéra __________________ (être) un succès.

Réponse :Selon son opinion, l’opéra _______ a été ______ (être) un succès.

[TOURNEZ LA PAGE SVP]

[PAGE VIDE]

1. L’inondation qu’il y __________________ (avoir) en Bretagne a causé des dégâts importants.

2. Pendant l’étude, la moitié des participants __________________ (recevoir) un placebo.

3. Les réflexions qu’il __________________ (faire) sur le sujet ne l’aident pas du tout.

4. Dans l’étude la plus récente, la majorité des données __________________ (provoquer) peu de problèmes.

5. Parmi les sottises qu’il __________________ (dire), il y a eu quelques bonnes idées.

[TOURNEZ LA PAGE SVP]

6. Malgré les fautes, la dissertation qu’il __________________ (rendre) les a convaincus de ses capacités.

7. Selon les chiffres officiels, les activités principales __________________ (changer) au cours des années.

8. Selon lui, l’enquête a échoué parce que la minorité des personnes interrogées __________________ (omettre) la dernière question.

9. Pendant sa vie, elle __________________ (connaître) pas mal de changements. 10. Un magazine masculin révèle que la majorité des hommes __________________

(avoir) des problèmes de sommeil.[TOURNEZ LA PAGE SVP]

11. Malgré les actions de certains individus, le reste des habitants __________________ (aider) à préserver le charme de la ville.

12. Dans l’industrie automobile, la production annuelle __________________ (baisser) cette année.

13. Lors des travaux de rénovation, la majorité des chambres __________________ (connaître) des modifications considérables.

14. Les statistiques qu’il __________________ (fournir) n’éclaircissent pas du tout le problème.

15. Pour rencontrer leur idole, la foule de fans __________________ (devoir) attendre trois heures.

[TOURNEZ LA PAGE SVP]

16. Selon lui, les lettres qu’elle __________________ (écrire) étaient trop longues.

25

17. Les chiffres indiquent que la majorité des animaux __________________ (voir) leur population augmenter pendant cette période.

18. Parmi toutes les possibilités, c’était la seule qu’il __________________ (pouvoir) choisir.

19. Les manifestations qu’il y __________________ (avoir) ont bouleversé le sommet.

20. En fin de compte, son comportement pendant le match __________________ (être) inacceptable.

[TOURNEZ LA PAGE SVP]

21. Les victimes de l’attentat __________________ (devoir) attendre les ambulances plus de trente minutes.

22. Lors de l’incendie à l’hôpital, la majorité des malades __________________ (souffrir) de complications.

23. Pour la saison 2008, l’étude a révélé que les touristes __________________ (visiter) seulement les quatre sites principaux.

24. Selon les journaux, la petite fille que les témoins __________________ (voir) partir n’est pas celle qui est cherchée.

25. Une fois la décision prise, elle __________________ (pouvoir) se détendre. [TOURNEZ LA PAGE SVP]

26. Ce jour-là, il __________________ (quitter) l’école définitivement. 27. Les chiffres officiels indiquent que cette année, la majorité __________________

(prendre) quatre semaines de congé.28. Le premier ministre __________________ (accepter) la proposition du président. 29. Suite aux négociations, une partie des employés __________________

(bénéficier) d’une augmentation de 4%.30. De tous les candidats, il __________________ (être) le plus prometteur pendant la

phase initiale. [TOURNEZ LA PAGE SVP]

31. Les autres résultats qu’il __________________ (voir) étaient bien meilleurs. 32. Selon les comptes rendus, la majorité de l’Assemblée Nationale

__________________ (vouloir) faire passer la loi.33. Selon l’étude, les mesures que le gouvernement __________________ (prendre)

ont échoué. 34. Le voyage fini, il __________________ (revoir) ses amis. 35. Au cours de l’enquête, les intuitions qu’il __________________ (avoir) au début

ont été largement confirmées. [TOURNEZ LA PAGE SVP]

36. Sa mère lui __________________ (téléphoner) au moins une fois par jour pendant sa convalescence.

37. Selon le sondage, une minorité de députés __________________ (travailler) dans d’autres domaines avant de faire de la politique.

38. L’exposition __________________ (être) très appréciée des critiques. 39. Dans la confusion, une foule de personnes __________________ (pouvoir)

s’échapper.40. Malgré ses erreurs, elle __________________ (réussir) l’examen. [FIN]

26