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 noncommercial purposes in accordance With Wiley Terms and Conditions for selfarchiving.
(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 + sago about thirty of-years there was much
of renting
and then uh sles 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
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.univmrs.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
two main traditions in which collective nouns have been studied, the ‘Anglo-Saxon’
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
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.
4
2
(Tristram & Ayres-Bennett 2012), which showed that another noun of this type, la
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 fn2
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
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.
3
factors which affect agreement of this kind in English also operate in French.8 One
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 postmodifying 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
8
In this article, I discuss primarily the role of the post-modifying NP; see Tristram 2012 for full
discussion of other factors.
4
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.
Blinkenberg 1950, Høybye 1944): that in French, the possibility of variation in
agreement with collective-type nouns arises principally where there is a postmodifying 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):
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).
9
5
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
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
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.
6
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
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
<http://sociolinguistique-urbaine.com/spip.php?article130> ‘Rationale and research questions’
[accessed March 2011]
13
On this point, see also Gadet 1996: 84.
12
7
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
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 ► Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
TOTAL
AGE ▼
–BAC
+BAC
+UNIV
Male 3
[empty cell] [empty cell] 6
Young
Female 3
15-17
Male 3
Male 3
Male 3
Adult
18
Female 3 Female 3
Female 3
30-45
Male 3
Male 3
Male 3
Older
18
Female 3 Female 3
Female 3
60+
TOTAL
18
12
12
42
Table 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
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
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
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
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.
Response Singular Plural
TOTAL
Young N
2
4
6
%
33.33% 66.67% 100.00%
Adult N
7
9
16
%
43.75% 56.25% 100.00%
Older N
7
9
16
%
43.75% 56.25% 100.00%
TOTAL
N
16
22
38
%
42.11% 57.89% 100.00%
Table 2 - Cloze test results (by age) for la majorité
Age
100%
90%
% Singular/plural
80%
70%
56.25%
56.25%
66.67%
60%
Plural
50%
Singular
40%
30%
20%
43.75%
43.75%
Adult
Older
33.33%
10%
0%
Young
Age group
Figure 1 - Cloze test results for la majorité analysed by age
17
The numbers are too low here to conduct a reliable statistical analysis, and so descriptive statistics
are used instead.
9
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.
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 midseventeenth century to the modern day.19
Period
Dates
Mid C17
1650-1669
Late C17 / Early C18 1690-1709
Mid C18
1750-1759
Late C18
1790-1799
Mid C19
1850-1859
Late C19
1890-1899
Mid C20
1950-1959
Late C20
1990-1999
TOTAL
Table 3 - Frantext corpus details
Number of texts
152
88
70
56
112
104
217
75
874
Number of words
4,087,901
3,663,115
4,176,849
3,426,086
7,983,915
6,651,236
11,224,231
6,752,165
47,965,498
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
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 subcorpus – 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
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.
Singular
Plural
Period
N
%
N
1650-1669 0
0.00%
0
1690-1709 0
0.00%
1
1750-1759 0
0.00%
0
1790-1799 29
100.00% 0
1850-1859 20
86.96%
3
1890-1899 22
81.48%
5
1950-1959 36
65.45%
19
1990-1999 12
52.17%
11
TOTAL 119
75.32%
39
Table 4 - Corpus study results for majorité
%
0.00%
100.00%
0.00%
0.00%
13.04%
18.52%
34.55%
47.83%
24.68%
TOTAL
N
0
1
0
29
23
27
55
23
158
100.00%
90.00%
80.00%
% singular/plural
70.00%
60.00%
SING
50.00%
PLU
40.00%
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
1790-1799
1850-1859
1890-1899
1950-1959
1990-1999
Period
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
Form
cette majorité
Sub-total
l'immense majorité
Sub-total
la grande majorité
Period
1650-1669
1690-1709
1750-1759
1790-1799
1850-1859
1890-1899
1950-1959
1990-1999
1650-1669
1690-1709
1750-1759
1790-1799
1850-1859
1890-1899
1950-1959
1990-1999
1650-1669
1690-1709
1750-1759
1790-1799
1850-1859
1890-1899
1950-1959
1990-1999
Sub-total
la très grande majorité 1650-1669
1690-1709
1750-1759
1790-1799
1850-1859
1890-1899
1950-1959
1990-1999
Sub-total
TOTAL
Table 5 - Other forms of majorité
Singular Plural TOTAL
0
0
0
2
2
0
3
3
1
1
1
1
7
0
7
0
1
1
0
0
4
4
4
2
6
0
0
8
3
11
0
0
0
1
1
2
2
1
1
3
3
6
2
2
8
4
12
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
2
1
1
3
2
5
26
9
35
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:
12
(5) il n'était pas du tout sûr de rencontrer une majorité travailliste ou socialiste
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.
Agreement
Singular
Plural
Post-modifying NP Noun
N
%
N
%
Absent
majorité
62
96.88% 2
3.13%
minorité
30
100.00% 0
0.00%
une partie 75
98.68% 1
1.32%
la foule
562
100.00% 0
0.00%
une foule 99
100.00% 0
0.00%
Sub-total
828
99.64% 3
0.36%
Singular
majorité
20
100.00% 0
0.00%
minorité
1
100.00% 0
0.00%
une partie 143
98.62% 2
1.38%
la foule
3
100.00% 0
0.00%
une foule 5
83.33% 1
16.67%
Sub-total
172
98.29% 3
1.71%
Plural
majorité
37
50.00% 37
50.00%
minorité
1
33.33% 2
66.67%
une partie 116
57.43% 86
42.57%
la foule
47
60.26% 31
39.74%
une foule 30
14.35% 179
85.65%
Sub-total
231
40.81% 335
59.19%
TOTAL
1231
78.31% 341
21.69%
Table 6 - Overall corpus study data for post-modifying NP and agreement
TOTAL
N
64
30
76
562
99
831
20
1
145
3
6
175
74
3
202
78
209
566
1572
13
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
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 fire
et 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 postmodifying 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 post21
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.
14
modifying NP, though syntactically singular, is semantically plural (cabinet anglais),
and this is also possibly the case in example (10).22
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 postmodifying 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.
100.00%
Post-modifying NP % of total
90.00%
80.00%
70.00%
60.00%
ABSENT
50.00%
SINGULAR
PLURAL
40.00%
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
1790-1799 1850-1859 1890-1899 1950-1959 1990-1999
Period
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.
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
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
100.00%
% plural post modifying NP
/ plural agreement
90.00%
80.00%
70.00%
60.00%
50.00%
40.00%
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
1790-1799
1850-1859
1890-1899
1950-1959
1990-1999
Period
% 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 postmodifying 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 postmodifying NP varies considerably from noun to noun. For la foule, perhaps because
of its overwhelming tendency for singular agreement more generally, a plural postmodifying 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 postmodifying 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 subcategories, 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 subcategories 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 généricité
More 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, CECILE, 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 français 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, 273309.
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, 4165.
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, 95195.
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 :
Exemple
24
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