Unaccusative Verbs and Their Syntactic Correlates in New Brunswick Acadian French
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Labelle (1992) argued that pronominal change-of-state verbs in French are unaccusative while those without se are unergative, since the former are conjugated with etre in compound tenses, as are unaccusative verbs of inherently directed motion. On the other hand, change-of-state verbs without se are conjugated with avoir in compound tenses, like unergative activity verbs. Both verbs of inherently directed motion and pronominal change-of-state verbs occur in impersonal constructions, but change-of-state verbs without se are ungrammatical in such constructions, as are other unergative verbs. A third characteristic of verbs of inherently directed motion in French is that, unlike English and Spanish, their past participles can appear in DPs, for example [DP les invites arrives apres moi]. Borgonovo and Cummins (1999) attribute this to the fact that they are conjugated with etre. It remains to be seen whether the syntactic correlates of unaccusativity described above exist in Acadian French, where use of avoir has been demonstrated to be categorical with both verbs of inherently directed motion and pronominal change-of-state verbs (Gesner 1978, Peronnet 1991, King and Nadasdi 2001). I will explore this question using a fill-in-the-blanks task (FB) and grammaticality judgement (GJ) task. The FB is a narrative in the past with blanks to be filled in with an appropriate form of the verb in parentheses. It includes unaccusative verbs (change of state and inherently directed motion), as well as transitive and unergative verbs (change of state and activity). The GJ uses the same verbs as the FB and contain sentences exemplifying the syntactic correlates of unaccusativity. Subjects were speakers of Acadian French from northeastern and southeastern New Brunswick. They were first-year students at a Francophone university in the maritime provinces of Canada. Results indicate that they used etre 100% of the time with pronominal change-of-state verbs, but variably with verbs of inherently directed motion. Their acceptance of the syntactic correlates of unaccusativity was also variable. There was a relationship between subjects’ acceptance of conjugation with etre in compound tenses and their acceptance of impersonal il constructions and past participles in DPs. No significant regional differences were found.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".