May 5-7th, 2011

LSRL41

On the Non-Uniformity of Secondary Predication Evidence from the History of French Michelle Troberg (University of Toronto) Heather Burnett (University of California, Los Angeles) Mireille Tremblay (Université de Montréal) 1. Introduction This paper presents an empirical study of the loss of a cluster of constructions involving secondary predication in the history of French and its implications for the synchronic and diachronic analysis of secondary predication in the syntax. 1) Old French • Old French (OF: 12th-13th centuries) presents a cluster of secondary predication possibilities: ◦ Double object construction (DOC) ◦ Verb-Particle construction (VPC) ◦ Directed motion construction (DMC) ◦ Adjectival resultative construction (AR) • OF patterns like a satellite-framed language; cf. Talmy (1985). • OF secondary predication is problematic for a number of prominent unified analyses of the syntax of resultative constructions. 2) Syntactic Change • These secondary predication constructions were all lost by the 17th century. ◦ Modern French (FM) is a verb-framed language. • Although the disappearance of multiple constructions suggests that a unified approach to these kinds of secondary predicates is correct, a closer investigation into the time-course of these changes casts some doubt. ◦ A quantitative approach to the study of syntactic change brings new evidence that resultative secondary predication may not subsume the DOC. Plan: 1.1 Secondary predication 2 Secondary predication in Old French 3. Correlations in secondary predication 4. Loss of DOC and VPC in the history of French 5. Conclusion 1.1

Secondary predication

Traditionally, the Germanic and the Romance languages are thought to differ in a principled manner with respect to how various types of secondary predicates are introduced in the syntactic structure. • Both Germanic (ex. English (1)) and Romance (ex. French (2)) allow depictive adjectival and prepositional secondary predication (locative PPs).

May 5-7th, 2011

LSRL41 (1)

English a. Mary left the party happy b. Mary is dancing in the living-room

(2)

French a. Marie est partie de la fête contente b. Marie danse dans le salon

However, English and French differ when it comes to resultative secondary predication: • (3)

English, but not French, allows verb particle constructions. Verb Particle Constructions a. The sea brought the ship back b. *La mer a emporté le navire arrière

•

English, but not French, allows adjectival resultative constructions. ◦ Provided certain semantic conditions are met (cf. Beavers (2008)), English can directly combine an adjective with a transitive VP to form a telic resultative construction. ◦ To the extent that such predication is allowed in French, the adjectival result state must be introduced by a preposition (Legendre (1997)).1

(4)

Adjectival Resultatives a. John hammered the metal flat b. *Jean a martelé le métal plat

(5)

a. Mary dyed her hair black b. *? Marie s'est teint les cheveux noirs c. Marie s'est teint les cheveux en noir •

(6)

English, but not French, allows directed motion constructions. ◦ English sentences with most spatial PPs and manner of motion verbs (dance, float, fly, waltz etc.) are ambiguous between an atelic locative interpretation and a telic directional interpretation. ◦ The corresponding French sentences lack the directional reading. Directed Motion Constructions a. The bottle floated under the bridge b. La bouteille a flotté sous le pont

(both locative and directional) (only locative)

1

One exception to this generalization is the causative (light) verb rendre 'to make/render' (i) Jean a rendu Marie heureuse Jean has made Mary happy

May 5-7th, 2011

LSRL41

•

(7)

English, but not French, has a double object construction. ◦ The dative argument of an English ditransitive verb can be introduced in two ways: directly, as in the DOC, or by the preposition to. English a. John gave Mary a book b. John gave a book to Mary

• (8)

(double object construction) (prepositional dative)

French ditransitives only allow the prepositional dative construction. French a. *Jean a donné Marie un livre b. Jean a donné un livre à Marie

Summary:

English Modern French

verb particle construction ✓ ☓

adjectival resultative ✓ ☓

directed motion construction ✓ ☓

double object construction ✓ ☓

This clustering difference is frequently thought to hold of Germanic vs Romance more generally.2 2

Secondary predication in Old French

We see the same cluster of SP constructions in Old French that we see in Modern English. 2.1

The Double Object Construction (cf. Herslund 1980) • By far the most common order: V-IO-DO

(9)

les trois diuesses donnerent Paris le pome ‘the three goddesses gave Paris the apple’

(Didot E 2236; H 1980:14)

• But we also find the possibility of V-DO-IO and topicalized objects: (10)

li danziaux... donna le cheval Adrastus ‘The young nobleman gave Adrastus the horse’

(Thebes 9014: H 1980: 9)

(11)

Un mes ont envoié l’amirant de Persie ‘They have sent the emir of Persia a messenger’

(Barb. 1684; H 1980: 10)

2

But see Mateu & Rigau (2002), Harley & Folli (2004), Iacobini & Masini (2007), and below for arguments that things are more complicated...

May 5-7th, 2011

LSRL41 • Note the presence of tonic object pronouns - they behave as full DPs: (12)

Moi doiz tu dire ton afere ‘You must tell me your business’

(Erec 2694; H 1980: 8)

(13)

Mais dounaissent lui un terme ‘but they might have given him a time limit’

(Clari 58.6; H 1980: 8)

• The DOC exists along side the oblique construction: (14)

qu’il envoiast armes et cheval a un chevalier ‘that he would send arms and a horse to a knight’

(Queste 117.10)

In line with other studies on the DOC, this construction is associated with verbs of transfer of possession and communication of a message. (15)

Verbs of transfer of possession (giving): amener ‘bring’; aporter ‘bring’; baillier ‘give, hand over’; chargier ‘entrust’; delivrer ‘return’; devoir ‘owe’; doner ‘give’; envoiier ‘send’; guerpir ‘abandon’; laissier ‘leave’; livrer ‘deliver’; offrir ‘offer’; porter ‘carry’; presenter ‘introduce’; prester ‘lend’ ; rendre ‘return’; tendre ‘hand’; trametre ‘transmit, send’; vendre ‘sell’; (taking away): celer ‘withold’; oster ‘remove’; refuser ‘refuse’; toldre ‘take away’; veer ‘refuse, deny’.

(16)

Verbs of communication of a message: comander ‘entrust, recommend’; conter ‘tell’; crier ‘yell’; demander ‘ask’; dire ‘say’; enseigner ‘teach’; escrier ‘yell’; gagier ‘guarantee’; jurer ‘swear’; loer ‘advise’; mander ‘ask, order’; mostrer ‘show, demonstrate’; noncier ‘announce’; pardoner ‘forgive’; proiier ‘beseech’; prometre ‘promise’; reprochier ‘reproach’ ; requerre ‘request’; rover ‘ask, beg’.

2.2

The Verb-Particle Construction (c.f. Burnett & Tremblay 2009)

Buridant 2000: a large number of prepositions could be used transitively or intransitively. Systematic homophony in the P-system (17)



Prepositions amont ariere aval avant contremont contreval ens hors jus sus

‘up’ ‘behind’ ‘down’ ‘before’ ‘up’ ‘down’ ‘inside’ ‘outside’ ‘down’ ‘on’

Directional Particles amont ‘up’ ariere ‘back’ aval ‘down’ avant ‘forward’ contremont ‘up’ contreval ‘down’ ens ‘in’ hors ‘out’ jus ‘down’ sus ‘up’

Aspectual Particles ariere

iterative

avant

inchoative

May 5-7th, 2011

LSRL41

• ARIERE PARTICLE (18) le mers reportoit le nef arriere (Clari, Li estoires… Coustantinoble, 74) ‘the sea brought the ship back’ PREPOSITION (19) il laissa tous ses compaignons ariere soi (Tristan p.204) ‘he left all his companions behind him’ • AVANT PARTICLE (20) Lors saut avant Girflez et dist a la reïne: … (Artu, p.319) ‘Then Girflé comes forward and says to the queen:… ‘ PREPOSITION (21) tout le mont avant lui (Alexandre de Paris, br.3, p.203) ‘everyone in front of him’ CONTREMONT PARTICLE (22) Et il vient as degrez et monte contremont, … ‘And he goes to the stairs and goes up…’ (Graal p.139) PREPOSITION (23) si cort au plus tost qu’il puet contremont la montagne. (Graal p.94) ‘he runs as soon as possible up the mountain.’ • SUS PARTICLE (24) Et toutevoies recort il sus au serpent … ‘However, he pursues the snake again…’ (Graal, p.94) PREPOSITION (25) Sus sa poitrine tenoit ses mains croissant (Aliscans 827, in Buridant 2000, §388) ‘He was keeping his hands crossed on his chest.’ 2.3

The Goal of Motion Construction (cf. Troberg, to appear) • Note auxiliary alternation: unaccusative être for DMC and avoir for activity reading

(30)

a.

Mais tot li chevalier ensamble i sont coru por lui rescorre. (Vengeance 33) ‘But together the knights quickly ran there in order to rescue him’

b.

Tant a coru et porchacié, ‘So much did he run and chase,’

(Saint-Cloud, Renart br.7, l. 5835)

• Other manner of motion verbs occurring with a Path-denoting PP (31)

a.

quant il soit pris, il vole sur les rainceaulx ou sur les branches. (Le Menagier 163) ‘when he is caught, he flies onto small tree limbs or branches.’

b.

Tantost après le conte de Salbry marcha en Beaulce et print Yenville ‘Soon after, the count of Salsbury marched into Beauce and took Yenville’ (Tringant, Commentaire du “Jouvencel”, 276)

May 5-7th, 2011

LSRL41 c.

en passant par la chambre et cheminant aux nopces ‘while passing by the bedroom and making his way to the wedding’

(CNN, 122)

d.

qui dansoient par la ville ‘who were dancing through the city’

(Baye, t.1, 48)

2.4

The Adjectival Resultative Construction

(32)

a.

a terre t'abaterai tout plat 'I'll beat you down flat to the ground'

(Roman de Renart. br. 10, p.7)

This construction deserves much future study. Summary: 3

Old French looks like English (Germanic) in that it has all the resultative secondary predication structures that Modern French lacks.

Correlations secondary predication

Rich history of work on secondary predication 3.1 Satellite vs verb-framed languages • Talmy (1972, 1975, 1985, 1991, 2000) • Satellite-framed languages like English express the “core schema” (path, resultant state) in a satellite: (33)

a. b. c.

DMC: The bottle floated into the cave AR: I hammered the metal flat VPC: I ran out; I dragged out the trash/ I dragged the trash out

Recall: None of the sentences in (33) are possible in verb-framed languages like French for which the core schema is encoded in the verb (but see fn. 2) (34)

a. b. c.

La bouteille est entré dans la grotte en flottant. J’ai aplati le métal avec un marteau. Je suis sorti en courant; J’ai sorti les ordures en les trainant

3.2 Common structural properties shared by DOC and resultatives • secondary predicate is introduced by either an additional verbal or small-clause structure • Hoekstra (1988), Kayne (1985), Larson (1988), among others 3.3. Compounding parameter • Beck & Snyder (2001), Roeper, Snyder & Hiramatsu (2002), Snyder (1995, 2001), Snyder & Stromswold (1997) – see also Slabakova (2001) for L2 acquisition • Snyder’s compounding parameter: The correct semantic interpretation of the DOC, VPC, DMC, and AR depends on the possibility of productive syntactic compounding in the grammar.

May 5-7th, 2011

LSRL41 (35)

Compounding parameter (Snyder 2001: 328) The grammar {*disallows, allows} formation of endocentric compounds during the syntactic derivation [*unmarked value].

• A reliable reflex of this parameter is productive, recursive compounding of the kind that makes words such nursery school book and peanut butter sandwich possible. o Prediction: if a language has productive N-N compounding, then such complex predicates as the DOC, VPC, DMC and AR should in principle also be possible.  supported in two cross-linguistic studies: compounding + DMC, AR • Comprehensive child acquisition study shows strong correlations among a number of complex predicates, notably the DOC, VPC. • A number of alternative interpretations of this compounding parameter, for example: Zubizarreta & Oh (2007), McIntyre (2004), and Mateau & Rigau (2002), among others 3.4 Manner incorporation: productive insertion of roots into vo Harley (2007) proposes that within a bipartite structure of verbs, the presence/absence of productive insertion of roots into the functional vo may account for clustering of DMC, VPC, AR, and DOC in Germanic languages like English and their absence in Romance languages • English allows productive insertion of roots into vo (36)

a. Adjectival resultative vP 3 DP v’ 5 3 Mary vo SC hammer 3 DP A 5 flat the metal c. Verb particle construction vP 3 DP v’ 5 3 Mary vo SC throw 3 DP P 5 out the cat

b. Directed motion construction vP 3 vBECOME float

SC 3 DP PP 5 5 the boat under the bridge

d. Double object construction vP 3 DP v’ 5 3 Mary voCAUSE SC send 3 DP HaveP 5 3 John Haveo DP 5 the book

May 5-7th, 2011

LSRL41 •

Claim: Since Latinate verbs are bimorphemic and pattern with verb-particle constructions syntactically (see below), they may not be inserted as manner elements into vo o Prepositional prefix entails the appearance of its particular P projection; this crowds out the possibility of merging a SC adjectival resultative or the HAVE predicate o should account for non-alternating Latinate verbs in English dative alternation and absence of DOC and resultatives in Romance languages

vP 3 DP v’ 5 3 Mary vo SC -hibit 3 DP PP 5 3 her paintings P PP ex5 to John

Claim: directional prefixes block resultative secondary predication

3.5 Consequences of OF Secondary Predication for Syntactic Theory  OF shows a number of characteristics of a satellite-framed language • Presence of productive preverbs, VPC, DMC, AR  OF does not appear to support a strong unified analysis • Compounding parameter – no productive, recursive N-N compounding in OF 3 • Manner incorporation – OF has the DOC and resultatives but many verbs are clearly bimorphemic containing directional/aspectual preverbs (cf. Dufresne et al. 2001; Tremblay et al. 2003) • Kayne’s correlation between the DOC and P-stranding doesn’t hold in OF 4

Syntactic Change

We present diachronic studies comparing the loss of two SP constructions in the history of French: the double object construction and the verb particle construction. 4.1 Corpora Old French period: Textes de français ancien (TFA) database (http://www.lib.uchicago.edu/efts/ARTFL/projects/TLA/). 3 The DOC is not shown to correlate with the resultatives cross-linguisticly and Snyder (1995, fn.29) himself remarks that semantically the DOC doesn’t seem to share many of the relevant properties of the other resultatives

May 5-7th, 2011

LSRL41 • • • •

Established at the Laboratoire de Français Ancien (LFA, University of Ottawa), in collaboration with the University of Chicago The database contains predominantly texts from the OF period, with a couple of texts from the 14th and 15th centuries. The corpus has a total of about 3 014 389 word occurrences. We limited our searches in the TFA to the OF period. There are 33 texts from the 12th century, and 21 texts from the 13th century.

Middle French period: Dictionnaire du Moyen Français • Part of the ATILF project (Analyse et traitement informatique de la langue française- Nancy Université & CNRS: http://www.atilf.fr/dmf ). • This corpus contains predominantly texts from Middle French (14th and 15th centuries), but also a small corpus from the Renaissance (16th century). • The 14th century subcorpus contains 2 879 163 words, the 15th century subcorpus contains 3 312 906 words, and the 16th century subcorpus contains 794 702 words. 4.2

The Double Object Construction

4.2.1 Donner 12th c. 13th c. 14th c. 1400-1410 1410 onward

DOC 16 12 15 14 (formulaic) 0

prep. dative 28 53 93 147 89

total tokens 44 65 108 161 89

% of DOC 36 19 14 9 0

Table 1: occurrences of DOC and oblique variant with donner 4.2.2 Bailler th

12 c. 13th c. 14th c. 15th c. onward

DOC 11 6 4 0

prep. dative 29 25 33 70

total tokens 40 31 37 70

% of DOC 28 19 11 0

Table 2: occurrences of DOC and oblique variant with bailer 4.2.3 Envoyer 12th c. 13th c. 14th c. 15th c. onward

DOC 11 3 5 0

prep. dative 73 37 40 38

total tokens 84 40 45 38

% of DOC 13 8 11 0

Table 3: occurrences of DOC and oblique variant with envoyer (only animate oblique objects)

May 5-7th, 2011

LSRL41 4.2.4 Summary donner 36 19 14 9 (formulaic) 0

th

12 c. 13th c. 14th c. 15th c., first half 15thc., second half

bailler 28 19 11 0 0

envoyer 13 8 11 0 0

Table 4: Frequency of DOC 4.3 The Verb-Particle Construction • Methodology : o Diachronic study of 4 verb-particle constructions o Selection criteria:  Productive (compositional reading)  Verbs: • Not light verbs • 2 directional pairs (monter/descendre and entrer/issir) • monter/descendre occur with more than one particle o monter: amont/contremont/sus o descendre : aval/contreval/jus • entrer/issir occur with only one particle: entrer ens; issir hors 4.3.1 Sus/Amont/Contremont Century Monter X

12

13

14

15

16

Monter

629

650

744

1217

174

Monter sus

36

24

11

16

0

Monter amont

2

11

11

12

2

Monter contremont

0

2

3

4

1

Table 6: Monter vs monter sus/amont/contremont in Old and Middle French 12th c. 13th c. 14th c. 15th c. 16th c.

VPC 38 37 25 32 3

Bare monter 591 613 719 1185 171

total monter 629 650 744 1217 174

% of VPC 6 6 3 3 2

Table 7: Use of a particle with monter in Old and Middle French •

Small decline in Middle French period, but far from extinct at the end of the 15th c.

May 5-7th, 2011

LSRL41 4.3.2 Descendre jus/aval/contreval Century Descendre X

12

13

14

15

16

Descendre

393

356

679

705

212

Descendre jus

16

16

20

9

0

Descendre aval

2

5

17

4

0

Descendre contreval

3

3

0

0

0

Table 8: Descendre vs descendre jus/aval/contreval in Old and Middle French VPC 21 24 37 15 0

12th c. 13th c. 14th c. 15th c. 16th c.

Bare descendre 372 332 642 690 212

total descendre 393 356 679 705 212

% of VPC 5 7 5 2 0

Table 9: Use of a particle with descendre in Old and Middle French •

VPCs with descendre are still attested in the 15th century and die out in the 16th century.

4.3.3 Entrer ens VPC 28 31 59 51 0

12th c. 13th c. 14th c. 15th c. 16th c.

Bare entrer 1161 987 2761 5420 1261

total entrer 1189 1018 2820 5471 1261

% of VPC 2 3 2 1 0

Table 10: Use of a particle with entrer in Old and Middle French •

VPCs with entrer die out in the 16th century.

4.3.4 Issir hors 12th c. 13th c. 14th c. 15th c. 16th c.

VPC 77 54 50 30 0

Bare issir 1045 686 611 843 114

total issir 1122 740 661 873 114

Table 10: Use of a particle with issir in Old and Middle French •

VPCs with issir die out in the 16th century.

% of VPC 7 7 8 3 0

LSRL41

May 5-7th, 2011

4.3.5 Summary • •

VPCs are well-attested through to the 15th century. We even find occurrences of monter amont and monter contremont in the 16th century.

4.4 Discussion  Empirical Result: DOCs fall out at least a century before the VPC.  Consequences • While this isn’t an argument per se against a unified analysis, it certainly leaves open the possibility that the DOC in OF is not as tightly related to the resultatives as has been proposed. ◦ Independent evidence for the lack of correlation between DOC and resultative secondary predicates: Cuervo (2003) and Diaconescu (2004) argue for a DOC analysis in present-day Spanish and Romanian, languages without resultative secondary predicate possibilities. • Given that the VPC, DMC, and AR are all present in the texts until the 16th c., it is more likely that these constructions form a cluster of common properties 5

Conclusion

 Secondary predication structures changed drastically in the history of French: • Modern French is a verb-framed language with no resultative secondary predication (nor DOC) • Old French was a satellite-framed language with resultative secondary predication (and DOC)  The fact that this entire cluster of constructions was lost by the 17th century might suggest that a unified analysis of the DOC and VPC (and DMC and AR constructions) is on the right track. • however, our quantitative diachronic study shows that the DOC died out at least a century before the VPC, which suggests that these two constructions are not so closely related after all ◦ We require more information about the precise grammar internal and external factors involved in the loss of each construction to make strong conclusions about the implications of these results for the syntactic analysis of the VPC and the DOC ◦ An examination into the likely cause of the loss of the VPC, DMC, AR could give us a window into common structural dependencies and thus a satisfactory unified analysis of these particular resultatives. 6

References

Beck, Sigrid. & William Snyder. 2001. “Complex Predicates and Goal PPs: Evidence for a semantic parameter”. Proceedings of the 25th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development ed. by A. H.-J. Do, L. Dominguez & A. Johansen, vol.1, 114-122. Somerville: Cascadilla Beavers, John. (2008). "Scalar Complexity and the Structure of Events". In Johannes Dölling and Tatjana Heyde-Zybatow (eds.) Event Structures in Linguistic Form and Interpretation. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

LSRL41

May 5-7th, 2011

Burnett, Heather & Mireille Tremblay. 2009. “Variable-behaviour Ps and the Location of PATH in Old French”. Romance languages and linguistic theory 2007 ed. by E. Aboh et al, 25-50. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Cuervo, Maria-Cristina. 2003. “Datives at Large”. PhD dissertation, MIT. Diaconescu, Rodica. 2004. “Romanian Applicative Constructions”. PhD dissertation, University of Ottawa. Dufresne, Monique, Fernande Dupuis & Mireille Tremblay. 2000. “The Role of Features in Historical Change”. New Approaches to Old Problems ed. by S. Dworkin & D. Wanner, 129-148. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Dufresne, Monique, Fernande Dupuis & Catherine-Marie Longtin. 2001. “Un changement dans la diachronie du français: la perte de la préfixation aspectuelle en a-”. Revue québécoise de linguistique 29:2.34-54. Folli, Raffaella. and Harley, H. (2004) "Flavors of v: Consuming results in Italian and English," in Roumyana Slabakova and Paula Kempchinsky, eds., Aspectual Inquiries, 95-120. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Folli, Raffaella & Heidi Harley. 2006. “On the Licensing of Causatives of Directed Motion: Waltzing Matilda all over”. Studia Linguistica 60:2:121-155. Harley, Heidi. 2007. “The Bipartite Structure of Verbs Cross-linguistically”. Talk given at the 2007 ABRALIN Congress in Belo Horizonte, Brazil. Herslund, Michel. 1980. Problèmes de syntaxe de l’ancien français: compléments datifs et génitifs. (= Études Romanes, 21). Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag. Hoekstra, Teun. 1988. “Small Clause Results”. Lingua 74:101-139. Kayne, Richard. 1984. Connectedness and Binary Branching. Foris. Larson, Richard. 1988. “On the Double Object Construction”. LI 19.335-391 Legendre, Géraldine. 1997. “Secondary Predication and Functional Projections in French.” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory. 15: 1-45. Mateu, Jaume & Gemma Rigau. 2002. “A Minimalist Account of Conflation Processes: Parametric variation at the lexicon-syntax interface”. Theoretical Approaches to Universals ed. by A. Alexiadou, 211-236. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Roeper, T., W. Snyder & K. Hiramatsu. 2002. “Learnability in a Minimalist Framework: Root compounds, merger, and the syntax-morphology interface”. The Process of Language Acquisition ed. by I. Lasser. Frankfurt: Peter Lang Verlag. Slabakova, R. 2001. Telicity in the second language, Benjamins Snyder, William. 1995. Language Acquisition and Language Variation: The role of morphology. PhD. dissertation, MIT. Snyder, William. 2001. “Language Acquisition and Language Variation: Evidence from complex predicates and complex word-formation”. Language 77:2.324-342. Son, Minjeong. 2007. “Directionality and Resultativity: The cross-linguistic correlation revisited”. Tromsø Working Papers on Language and Linguistics: Nordlyd 34:2. 126-164. Svenonius, Peter. 2010. “Spatial P in English”. Mapping Spatial PPs: The cartography of syntactic structures ed. by G. Cinque & L. Rizzi, vol. 6. New York: OUP. Talmy, Leonard. 1975. “Semantics and Syntax of Motion”. Syntax and Semantics ed. by J. P. Kimball, vol.4, 181-238. New York: Academic Press. Talmy, Leonard. 1985. “Lexicalization Patterns: Semantic structure in lexical forms”. Language Typology and Syntactic Description III ed. by T. Shopen, 57-149. Cambridge: CUP. Talmy, Leonard. 2000. Toward a Cognitive Semantics. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.

LSRL41

May 5-7th, 2011

Tremblay, Mireille, Fernande Dupuis & Monique Dufresne. 2003. “Les prépositions dans l’histoire du français: transitivité, grammaticalisation et lexicalisation”. Verbum 25:4.549-562. Troberg, Michelle. To appear. Directed motion in Medieval French. In Selected papers from the 40th Linguistics Symposium on Romance Languages, J. Herschenson (ed). John Benjamins. Zubizarreta, Maria-Luisa & Eunjeong Oh. 2007. On the Syntactic Composition of Manner of Motion. (=Linguistic Inquiry Monograph, 48). Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.