Viviane Deprez Atoms of negation. An out

1
2
3
4

Viviane De´prez: ‘‘Atoms of negation.
An outside-in micro-parametric approach
to negative concord.’’ Discussion.

5
6
7

Maj-Britt Mosegaard Hansen

8
9
10
11
12
13

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33

34
35
36
37
38
39
40

The micro-parametric model of the evolution of the French negative indefinites personne, rien, and aucun that is presented in Viviane De´prez’s
contribution to the present volume is an elegant, and to a large extent
convincing, one. One of the particular attractions of the model (at least
to my mind) lies in the fact that it explicitly allows for, indeed seems to
predict, a certain amount of variability among individual n-words, as a
result of di¤erent diachronic sources and trajectories, as well as di¤erences
in the pace of change. Nevertheless, the proposed model also raises a
number of questions that will be taken up below. As it is not my intention
in this contribution (nor my brief, as I understand it) to o¤er a competing
account, the questions raised should be seen merely as aspects that I
believe merit further reflection.
The first problem, acknowledged by De´prez herself, is that the model

cannot provide a uniform explanation of the evolution of all French nwords, as the notion of movement within the DP is not immediately applicable to the adverbial n-words jamais, plus, and gue`re. The suggestion that
the development of the latter may have been triggered indirectly by some
similarity with the nominal n-words unfortunately does not take us very
far in the absence of an account of what those similarities might be. It
seems safe to say that, in terms of their potential for negative concord
readings versus double negation readings, as well as the extent to which
they can appear with positive meaning in non-a‰rmative polarity contexts, French n-words behave in largely similar (even if not fully identical)
ways independently of their nominal vs adverbial origins (see further below).
For that reason alone, one would prefer a model capable of accounting
for their development by appealing to commonalities across specific items.
Even within the group of nominal n-words, it must be noted that the
evolution of nul is currently unaccounted for within the proposed model.
Although nul may conceivably have evolved in a way that resembles the
evolution of aucun, whether and to what extent that is so remains to
be shown. Indeed, there does intuitively appear to be salient di¤erences

(V9 16/9/11 16:11) WDG (155mm230mm) TimesNRMT 1318 Larriveel pp. 273–284 1318 Larriveel_11_Hansen (p. 273)

274
1

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40

Maj-Britt Mosegaard Hansen

between the two items. While etymologically negative, Old French nul did
not have negative meaning except in the presence of preverbal ne; unlike
the other nominal n-words, it does not, however, seem to have had genuinely positive uses at any stage of French, but is found with a positive
interpretation only in negative polarity contexts (Ingham 2008), suggesting that it must have been an NPI from the start, a status which – on
De´prez’s analysis – aucun only acquired in the Renaissance. It is doubtful
whether the NPI nul could have had the adjectival status that De´prez
argues for in the case of aucun, given that a quick search of the Frantext
and Textes de franc¸ais ancien data bases yielded only a single – marginally
possible – example of nul preceded by a determiner (where the verb
pre´sumer, which has two di¤erent valency patterns, is in fact far more
plausibly interpreted as indirectly transitive, making de a preposition
rather than a determiner):
(1) [. . .] comme c’est asse`s pour me´rite de ne pre´sumer de nuls
me´rites, [. . .].
‘as it is su‰cient for merit to not presume any merits/to not
expect too much of any merits’
(Calvin 1560)
The further fact that Old French nul is, in a number of instances in the

data bases, followed by the indefinite pronoun autre and/or by adjectives,
suggests that it had the status of a determiner (when not used as a pronoun). If I understand De´prez’s account of aucun correctly, one would
therefore expect that nul should have been capable of inherently negative
uses long before we reach the stage of Modern/Contemporary French.
The issue of di¤erent (types of ) n-words leads directly on to a di¤erent
problem with the model, namely the assumption that negative concord in
French is the result of a resumptive interpretation of a series of inherently
negative n-words, such that they form a single quantifier binding several
variables at the same time. This is in opposition to a sequential interpretation, whereby quantifiers have scope over one another, resulting in a
double (or multiple) negation reading. In this, De´prez adopts the approach
of May (1989). A resumptive interpretation of quantifiers requires that
the items involved exhibit syntactic and semantic parallelisms, which is
assumed to explain why combinations of n-words with sentential negation
in ‘‘standard’’ French do not allow for negative-concord readings, but
must be interpreted as double negation.
Now, while one can readily admit that nominal n-words like rien and
personne, which typically fulfil argument functions in their host clauses,
are intuitively dissimilar syntactically and semantically from the sentential

(V9 16/9/11 16:11) WDG (155mm230mm) TimesNRMT 1318 Larriveel pp. 273–284 1318 Larriveel_11_Hansen (p. 274)

An outside-in micro-parametric approach to negative concord
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

275

negator pas, whose role is that of an operator, it is less immediately obvious that the adverbial n-words plus and gue`re, whose combination with

other n-words invariably seems to give rise to concord readings, would
be syntactically and semantically more similar to rien and personne than
to pas:
(2) Personne n’a pas ouvert la bouche.
‘No one did not open their mouth’,
‘Everyone opened their mouth’ ¼ DN
(3) Personne n’a plus ouvert la bouche.
‘No one opened their mouth any more.’ ¼ NC
(4) Personne n’a gue`re ouvert la bouche.
‘No one hardly opened their mouth.’ ¼ NC

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40

In other words, for the notion of (dis)similarity among items to be
operational in determining the choice between resumptive and sequential

quantification, we need a more precise account of what it means for negative items to be syntactically and semantically (dis)similar in the first place,
and of how degrees of (dis)similarity can be measured.
As noted above, the usefulness of the notions of resumptive vs sequential quantification is predicated on the assumption that French n-words are
inherently negative elements, rather than (a special type of ) NPIs bound
by the preverbal ne.
In the case of sentential negation, few people would probably dispute
that in contemporary (spoken) French, postverbal pas is not only inherently negative, but also the ‘‘real’’ negator, whereas preverbal ne, when it
does occur, appears to be merely a kind of agreement marker, possibly
used principally as a index of formality of register and/or conversational
topic (Sanko¤ & Vincent 1977; Ashby 1981), possibly as a marker of
negative emphasis (Fonseca-Greber 2007). Statistics of the occurrence of
pas with or without preverbal ne in unplanned interaction seem to amply
bear this out: in both real and apparent time, ne is on the decline, and in
the most informal forms of conversation, it is almost completely absent,
particularly among younger speakers (Sanko¤ & Vincent 1977; Ashby
1981, 2001; Coveney 1996; Hansen & Malderez 2004).
Interestingly, however, the very same empirical studies referenced above
quite consistently show that ne is maintained with often significantly higher
frequency in clauses containing n-words rather than pas. It is di‰cult to
say how much importance should be attributed to these patterns, in as

(V9 16/9/11 16:11) WDG (155mm230mm) TimesNRMT 1318 Larriveel pp. 273–284 1318 Larriveel_11_Hansen (p. 275)

276
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

Maj-Britt Mosegaard Hansen

much as ne-retention in most cases remains below 50% in conversation;
nevertheless, we might venture that they provide some evidence that
speakers may be treating n-words as less fully negative than pas in and of
themselves, hence as calling for additional negative support, in the form of
preverbal ne.
Another set of observations regarding the distribution of n-words in
contemporary European French serves to further call into question their
status as inherently negative, namely the fact that a number of the French
n-words are still found quite regularly with positive interpretations in
a number of non-negative NPI-licensing contexts. Thus, a search of the
Frantext data base comprising texts published between 2000–2007 yielded
examples of the following environments:

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

Conditionals (only jamais):
(5) Si jamais il disait non?
‘If ever (¼ what if ) he were to say no?’
Rhetorical exclamations introduced by comme si (‘as if ’):
(6) Comme si on allait manquer de rien la`-bas !
‘As if we were going to lack for anything there!’
Direct and indirect interrogatives. These are frequently, but – as (8) shows –
not invariably, rhetorical questions ( pace De´prez):

24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35

(7) Est-il rien de moins marxiste en e¤et que la de´claration des typographes
de Nantes?
‘Is there, indeed, anything less Marxist than the declaration of the
typesetters from Nantes?’
(8) Demande-lui si ce train se remettra jamais en marche.
‘Ask him if this train will ever start moving again.’
Following a negated matrix clause:
(9) Je ne crois pas qu’elle ait trompe´ personne.
‘I don’t think she cheated anyone.’

36
37
38
39
40

In infinitival clauses following a lexically negative matrix verb:
(10) Il a refuse´ de voir personne.
‘He refused to see anybody.’

(V9 16/9/11 16:11) WDG (155mm230mm) TimesNRMT 1318 Larriveel pp. 273–284 1318 Larriveel_11_Hansen (p. 276)

An outside-in micro-parametric approach to negative concord
1
2
3
4
5
6

277

Following the pseudo-comparative expression [trop þ AdjP þ pour] (‘too þ
AdjP þ to’):
(11) Il est trop content de lui pour s’apercevoir de rien.
‘He’s too self-satisfied to notice anything.’
Following the temporal conjunction avant que (‘before’):

7
8
9
10
11
12
13

(12) Il est parti avant que personne e voie.
‘He left before anyone saw him.’
Following a comparative:
(13) Il lui arrivait plus souvent qu’a` aucun autre d’eˆtre surprise par la garde.
‘She was surprised by the guard more often than anyone else.’

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39

Following a superlative (only jamais):
(14) [. . .] une galette des rois chaude qui est la meilleure galette que
j’aie jamais mange´e.
‘a hot Twelfth-Night cake which is the best cake I’ve ever eaten.’
Following the preposition sans or the subordinating conjunction sans que:
(15) Il est parti sans avertir personne.
‘He left without telling anybody.’
(16) [. . .] sans que celui-ci se doute de rien.
‘. . . without the latter suspecting anything.’
It is not at all clear that (5)–(16) above are examples of a particularly formal
(and by implication, archaic) register. While rhetorical questions with
positively interpreted n-words do, as De´prez points out, feature subjectverb inversion, the word order is not principally a stylistic marker in this
instance, but is due to the fact that French interrogatives with declarative
SV word order simply do not admit of a rhetorical interpretation (Hansen
2001).
As De´prez’s model predicts, individual n-words vary with respect to the
specific types of context in which they can occur with positive interpretations in contemporary French, as shown in Table 1 below (adapted from
Muller 1991: 265). It is noteworthy, however, that in terms of their evolution towards inherent negativity, rien, personne, and aucun are, in fact,
among the most conservative n-words in ‘‘standard’’ French, while nul,

40

(V9 16/9/11 16:11) WDG (155mm230mm) TimesNRMT 1318 Larriveel pp. 273–284 1318 Larriveel_11_Hansen (p. 277)

278
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

Maj-Britt Mosegaard Hansen

which, as argued above, appears structurally identical to aucun, has gone
much further. The item nulle part, which, although used in adverbial functions, takes the form of what looks like a DP, occupies an intermediate
position. On the surface, at least, these facts go against De´prez’s prediction that n-words with a common internal make-up should behave homogeneously both within and across languages.
These observations also call into question the idea that standard French
and Que´be´cois French instantiate two di¤erent language types: although
Que´be´cois n-words admit of positive interpretations in more contexts that
their standard French equivalents, the di¤erence seems to be largely a
matter of degree. The two dialects appear to di¤er most obviously in their
acceptance of combinations of n-words and the sentential negator pas,
which – although possible (as examples (17)–(18), from the ELICOP
corpus of spoken French demonstrate) – are comparatively rare, and in
cases like (17), stigmatized, in Europe. It is, however, of relevance in this
context that the postverbal marker gue`re (‘hardly’), which in terms of its
semantics functions like a downtoned version of the sentential negator
pas, and which is largely confined to formal registers, was fully acceptable
with personne and rien in ‘‘standard’’ French until at least the beginning of
the twentieth century, and is still regularly used in combination with plus
(cf. (19)–(21)):
(17) [. . .] je ne loupe pas aucun fait divers
‘I don’t miss any newsworthy event.’
(18) [. . .] il disait pas bonjour ni rien du tout hein
‘He didn’t say hello or anything at all eh.’

27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40

(19) [. . .] on ne voyait gue`re personne [. . .] (1913)
‘We hardly saw anybody.’
(20) [. . .] je n’ai gue`re rien fait qui vaille. (1939)
‘I’ve hardly done anything worthwhile.’
(21) Il est vrai qu’on n’est plus gue`re supplicie´ pour cette raison. (2006)
‘It is true that one is hardly tortured for that reason anymore.’
What should be noted is that the status and interpretation of French nwords seem to have been ambiguous at least since late Middle French:
thus, Martin (1966) in an in-depth study of the n-word rien, adduces a
number of constructions in which Medieval and Renaissance writers regularly used this item with negative meaning in the absence of a licensing ne.

(V9 16/9/11 16:11) WDG (155mm230mm) TimesNRMT 1318 Larriveel pp. 273–284 1318 Larriveel_11_Hansen (p. 278)

An outside-in micro-parametric approach to negative concord
1
2
3

279

Table 1. Negative polarity uses of French N-words
N-word
Negative polarity context

jamais

rien/aucun/
personne

nulle part

nul

plus

4
5

Sans

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

6

Plus que

Z

Z

Z

Z

Y

7

Trop pour

Z

Z

Z

Y

(Z)

Neg V que

Z

Z

Z

Y

Y

Neg Vinf

Z

Z

Z

Y

Y

Negative item {Vinf/que}

Z

Z

Y

Y

(Z)

13

Avant {que/de}

Z

Z

Y

(Z)

Y

14

Peu

Z

Y

Y

Y

Y

Direct (rhetorical) question

Z

(Z)

Y

Y

Y

17

Conditional

Z

Y

Y

Y

Y

18

Indirect interrogative

Z

Y

Y

Y

Y

8
9
10
11
12

15
16

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40

The final issue I wish to address in this chapter is that of grammaticalization. De´prez’s paper raises two questions. Firstly, she takes her point of
departure in the Minimalist conception of grammaticalization as a process
whereby interpretable features become uninterpretable. This prompts her
to ask the question whether the evolution of the French n-words then
instantiates a di¤erent type of grammaticalization, given that their negative feature originally required the presence of a licensing element in order
to be interpretable, and thus appears to have been strengthened rather
than bleached.
While this is a very interesting observation, I tend to think its chief
importance lies in flagging up a possible inadequacy in the Minimalist
definition of grammaticalization. It seems to me that the evolution from
NPI to inherently negative quantifier can very plausibly be argued to be a
case of bleaching: Eckardt (2003: chapter 4), in her analysis of French
negation, observes that prototypical NPIs are specialized for emphatic
environments in so far as their use evokes scales of alternative entities/
states-of-a¤airs, while simultaneously highlighting the asserted entity/stateof-a¤airs as logically and/or rhetorically stronger than any of the alternatives. Thus, by choosing to deny the most striking alternative, (22) prag-

(V9 16/9/11 16:11) WDG (155mm230mm) TimesNRMT 1318 Larriveel pp. 273–284 1318 Larriveel_11_Hansen (p. 279)

280
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40

Maj-Britt Mosegaard Hansen

matically evokes a scale of more or less contextually likely individuals that
John might have talked to (e.g. a friend, a relative, a doctor, a priest, a
teacher. . .). At the same time, the logical meaning of (22) is simply that
‘John talked to nobody’:
(22) John didn’t talk to a soul.
In the course of time, the emphatic, scalar properties of NPIs may gradually
be lost, as they clearly have been in French to a large extent, such that only
the abstract feature of negativity remains. This loss of emphatic meaning
may take place at di¤erent times and at di¤erent paces for di¤erent language users, resulting in variability in the range of constructions in which
n-words can occur. Given that syntax is frequently observed to lag behind
semantics in grammaticalization, there is, moreover, nothing to prevent
the process of semantic attrition from being e¤ectively completed, even as
speakers still feel compelled to combine n-words with a preverbal ne.
The other question with respect to grammaticalization that is raised by
the paper under discussion is the question of what triggered the diachronic
changes that the French n-words have gone through (and more broadly,
what triggers grammaticalization in general). According to the proposed
model, it is very clearly syntactic changes that drive the changes in the
semantics of n-words. De´prez rejects, however, the recent proposal by
Zeijlstra (2008) that it is changes in the nature of sentential negation that
lead to changes in n-words, arguing that the former significantly precede
the latter in the history of French, and suggesting instead that the syntactic changes internal to the n-words themselves were driven by the loss of
bare nominals elsewhere in the language.
While the latter proposal is in itself an attractive idea, there are, as
far as I can tell, two problems with it: One is the fact that, as already discussed, it does not generalize to n-words of adverbial origin. The other
problem is that, when combined with the idea that syntactic change drives
semantic change and not the other way around (as is usually assumed at
least in the grammaticalization literature originating from the functional
end of the linguistic spectrum), this proposal ultimately makes a puzzle of
the evolution of the n-word aucun as analyzed in De´prez & Martineau
(2004): if this item was already in D0 in the oldest stages of French, why
would it suddenly descend to the lower adjectival position at just the time
when bare nouns were being eliminated? Surely, for such a structural
change to be motivated, the change in the semantics of aucun that De´prez
argues for, from context-independent positive meaning to context-dependent
negative-polarity meaning, must have preceded, rather than followed, the
syntactic change.

(V9 16/9/11 16:11) WDG (155mm230mm) TimesNRMT 1318 Larriveel pp. 273–284 1318 Larriveel_11_Hansen (p. 280)

An outside-in micro-parametric approach to negative concord
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36

281

Without commenting specifically on Zeijlstra’s (2008) model, I would
like to query De´prez’s rejection of the (to my mind, intuitively rather plausible) idea that changes in the sentential negation may have be instrumental in triggering analogous changes in the status of n-words. While the
postverbal marker pas had indubitably become fully negative by the end
of the Middle Ages, that does not entail that n-words, if evolving towards
inherent negativity in analogy with pas, would have to evince all the
features of their new status shortly after pas did so. First of all, the fact
that sentential negation is syntactically di¤erent from n-word negation
may mean that it is only with some delay that speakers feel the need to
bring the two forms of negation into line. Secondly, it is common in the
grammaticalization literature to distinguish between reanalysis as such
and its subsequent actualization (e.g. Harris & Campbell 1995: 77¤ ), i.e.
the process whereby a reanalyzed item or construction comes to assume
all the superficial grammatical characteristics associated with the innovative analysis. This process is frequently, perhaps even typically, a protracted one, and it may never go to full completion in a given case.
Indeed, if De´prez’s analysis is correct and rien, personne and aucun
have been reanalyzed as belonging in the strong-quantifier SDP-slot, the
process of actualization must still be on-going in this case, despite the
fact that it has been centuries since French lost the bare-noun construction
as a productive strategy, in so far as the three items in question clearly
have yet to fully adapt their distributional behavior to this new structural
slot. Not only do they favor ne-retention and remain capable of NPI uses,
as we have seen, but the results of a Google-search suggests that they do,
in fact, (contra De´prez) allow quantitative en-cliticization, which, according to Zamparelli’s model of the DP, is a feature of the lower, weakquantifier, PDP-slot: thus, De´prez’s starred example (35b), repeated below
as (23), is attested in a number of instances, as are corresponding constructions with rien like that in (24):1
(23) Je n’en connais personne.
‘I don’t know any of them.’
(24) Il n’en reste rien.
‘There’s nothing left of it.’

37
38
39
40

1. Indeed, the latter construction appears to be enshrined in the title of a hit song
by French rock singer Eddy Mitchell, S’il n’en reste rien ‘If there’s nothing left
of it’.

(V9 16/9/11 17:31) WDG (155mm230mm) TimesNRMT 1318 Larriveel pp. 273–284 1318 Larriveel_11_Hansen (p. 281)

282
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

Maj-Britt Mosegaard Hansen

It is in my view important, in developing models of the evolution of
negative markers, that we be careful not to idealize the database. There is
ample evidence, across this and other areas of the grammar, that language
users can live happily with structural and distributional variation and,
indeed, ambiguities for very considerable lengths of time. In a language
like French, we should probably expect such variation and ambiguities to
be all the more evident due to the tension between, on the one hand, a
culturally strong tradition of codification and prescriptivism with respect
to the more formal, in particular written, registers, and, on the other
hand, the inevitable evolution of informal, in particular spoken, registers.
Actual usage suggests that French speakers are not operating with clearly
separate grammars for formal versus informal registers, but are rather
making contextually variable use of a (more or less extended, according
to the individual) range of constructional possibilities. Our models, both
of specific areas of grammar and of grammar in general, need to reflect
this linguistic reality, which although it may be more complex in French
than in some languages, is surely not unique to that language.

18
19
20

References

21
22

Sources

23

Elicop
http://bach.arts.kuleuven.be/elicop/ (consulted April 2010)
Frantext
http://atilf.atilf.fr/frantext.htm (consulted April 2010)
Textes de franc¸ais ancien
http://www.lib.uchicago.edu/efts/ARTFL/projects/TLA/
(consulted April 2010)

24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40

Studies
Ashby, William J.
1981
The loss of the negative particle ne in French: a syntactic change
in progress. Language 57 (3): 674–687.
Ashby, William J.
2001
Un nouveau regard sur la chute du ne en franc¸ais parle´ tourangeau: s’agit-il d’un changement en cours? Journal of French Language Studies 11: 1–22.
Coveney, Aidan
1996
Variability in Spoken French. A Sociolinguistic study of interrogation and negation. Exeter: Elm Bank Publications.
De´prez, Viviane & France Martineau
2004
Micro-parametric variation and negative concord. In: Julie Auger,
Clancy Clements & Barbara Vance (eds.), Contemporary approaches to Romance linguistics, 139–158. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

(V9 16/9/11 16:11) WDG (155mm230mm) TimesNRMT 1318 Larriveel pp. 273–284 1318 Larriveel_11_Hansen (p. 282)

An outside-in micro-parametric approach to negative concord
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30

283

Eckardt, Regine
2003
The structure of change. Meaning change under reanalysis. Berlin:
Humboldt University. (Habilitation thesis. Revised version published by Oxford University Press in 2006, as Meaning change in
grammaticalization.)
Fonseca-Greber, Bonnibeth Beale
2007
The emergence of emphatic ne in conversational Swiss French.
Journal of French Language Studies 17: 249–275.
Hansen, Anita Berit & Isabelle Malderez
2004
Le ne de ne´gation en re´gion parisienne: une e´tude en temps re´el.
Langue et socie´te´ 107: 5–30.
Hansen, Maj-Britt Mosegaard
2001
Syntax in interaction. Form and function of yes/no interrogatives
in spoken standard French. Studies in Language 25 (3): 463–520.
Harris, Alice C. & Lyle Campbell
1995
Historical Syntax in a cross-linguistic perspective. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Ingham, Richard
2008
The spread of indefinite aucun in later AN negative clauses.
Paper presented at the 1st Cycles of Grammaticalization seminar, Aston University, June 7 2010.
Martin, Robert
1966
Le mot rien et ses concurrents en franc¸ais (du XIVe sie`cle a`
l’e´poque contemporaine). Paris: Klincksieck.
May, Robert
1989
Interpreting logical form. Linguistics and Philosophy 12: 387–435.
Muller, Claude
1991
La ne´gation en franc¸ais. Geneva: Droz.
Sanko¤, Gillian & Diane Vincent
1977
L’emploi productif de ne dans le franc¸ais parle´ a` Montre´al. Le
franc¸ais moderne 45: 243–256.
Zeijlstra, Hedde
2008
Negative concord in syntactic agreement. MS, University of
Amsterdam.

31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40

(V9 16/9/11 16:11) WDG (155mm230mm) TimesNRMT 1318 Larriveel pp. 273–284 1318 Larriveel_11_Hansen (p. 283)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40

(V9 16/9/11 16:11) WDG (155mm230mm) TimesNRMT 1318 Larriveel pp. 273–284 1318 Larriveel_11_Hansen (p. 284)