<table><caption>**Table 6.3.** Frequency of adnominal -ant forms in the historical, religious, literary, didactical, and legal texts in Old French</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Thematic domain</th><th colspan="2">#adnominal -ant forms</th><th colspan="2">#-ant forms</th><th rowspan="2">#adnominal -ant forms/<br/>#-ant forms</th></tr><tr><th>(per 10 000 words)</th><th></th><th>(per 10 000 words)</th><th></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Historical</td><td>22</td><td>(4.51)</td><td>122</td><td>(25.04)</td><td>18,03%</td></tr><tr><td>Religious</td><td>128</td><td>(4.51)</td><td>573</td><td>(20.21)</td><td>22,34%</td></tr><tr><td>Literary</td><td>192</td><td>(7.14)</td><td>779</td><td>(29.00)</td><td>24,65%</td></tr><tr><td>Didactical</td><td>114</td><td>(12.70)</td><td>388</td><td>(43.22)</td><td>29,38%</td></tr><tr><td>Legal</td><td>65</td><td>(4.24)</td><td>291</td><td>(19.00)</td><td>22,34%</td></tr></tbody></table>

A chi-square goodness-of-fit test shows that the share of adnominal forms is higher than expected in the literary and didactical texts and lower than expected in the historical, religious, and legal texts. However, the differences between these five thematic domains are statistically insignificant ($\chi^2 = 7.52; df = 4; p = 0.1108$) (Table 6.4). Hence, they are most likely random.

<table><caption>**Table 6.4.** Observed vs expected proportion of adnominal -ant forms to the total number of -ant forms in the historical, religious, literary, didactical, and legal texts in Old French</caption><thead><tr><th>Thematic domain</th><th>Observed frequency (%)</th><th>Expected frequency (%)</th><th>Standardised residuals</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Historical</td><td>22 (18,03%)</td><td>30 (24,59%)</td><td>-1.38</td></tr><tr><td>Religious</td><td>128 (22,34%)</td><td>139 (24,26%)</td><td>-0.91</td></tr><tr><td>Literary</td><td>192 (24,65%)</td><td>189 (24,26%)</td><td>+0.25</td></tr><tr><td>Didactical</td><td>114 (29,38%)</td><td>94 (24,23%)</td><td>+2.08</td></tr><tr><td>Legal</td><td>65 (22,34%)</td><td>70 (24,05%)</td><td>-0.65</td></tr></tbody></table>

The adnominal -ant form is thus not particularly frequent in legal texts, contrary to its present participle counterpart in Late Latin (see §5.3.1.3). Another difference with this Late Latin form involves its degree of productivity, measured in terms of the lexical variation between the -ant form and the governing noun on the basis of the type-token and hapax-token ratios (see §3.6.3.2). Table 6.5 shows that the adnominal -ant form is most productive in the religious texts and least productive in the literary texts, while having a similar degree of productivity in the historical, didactical, and legal texts.

<table><caption>**Table 6.5.** Productivity of the adnominal -ant form in the historical, religious, literary, didactical, and legal texts in Old French</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Historical</th><th>Religious</th><th>Literary</th><th>Didactical</th><th>Legal</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>#tokens</td><td>22</td><td>128</td><td>192</td><td>114</td><td>65</td></tr><tr><td>#types</td><td>17</td><td>110</td><td>110</td><td>87</td><td>50</td></tr><tr><td>#hapaxes</td><td>14</td><td>99</td><td>79</td><td>71</td><td>40</td></tr><tr><td>#types/#tokens</td><td><strong>0.77</strong></td><td><strong>0.86</strong></td><td><strong>0.57</strong></td><td><strong>0.76</strong></td><td><strong>0.77</strong></td></tr><tr><td>#hapaxes/#tokens</td><td><strong>0.64</strong></td><td><strong>0.77</strong></td><td><strong>0.41</strong></td><td><strong>0.62</strong></td><td><strong>0.62</strong></td></tr></tbody></table>
However, the differences between the five textual domains are not enormous. Considering also the low absolute number of instances in the legal and especially historical texts, the figures in Table 6.5 therefore indicate that the use of adnominal -ant forms does not show significant thematic variation in terms of productivity. This result conflicts with that obtained for the adnominal present participle in Late Latin, which is much less productive in legal texts than in historical and religious texts (see §5.3.1.3).

A similar conclusion can be drawn from the study of the five most frequent lexical combinations of a noun and an adnominal -ant form. The cumulative frequency of these combinations ranges between 13% and 25% in the religious, literary, didactical, and legal texts, the highest frequency being observed in the literary texts and the lowest one in the religious texts. This percentage is considerably higher in the historical texts, i.e. 45%. However, the low absolute number of forms in these texts (n=22) makes that this result is probably hazardous (Table 6.6).

<table><caption>**Table 6.6.** Inventory and cumulative frequency of the five most frequent lexical combinations of a noun and an adnominal -ant form in the historical, religious, literary, didactical, and legal texts in Old French</caption><thead><tr><th>Thematic domain</th><th>Lexeme of noun</th><th>Lexeme of -ant form</th><th>Frequency (%)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="5">Historical</td><td>chevalier 'knight'</td><td>valoir 'to be worthy'</td><td>4 (18,18%)</td></tr><tr><td>gent 'people'</td><td>aider 'to help'</td><td>2 (9,09%)</td></tr><tr><td>père 'father'</td><td>valoir 'to be worthy'</td><td>2 (9,09%)</td></tr><tr><td>cheval 'horse'</td><td>courir 'to run'</td><td>1 (4,55%)</td></tr><tr><td>étoile 'star'</td><td>luire 'to shine'</td><td>1 (4,55%)<sup>3</sup></td></tr><tr><td colspan="3" style="text-align: right; font-weight: bold;">10 (45,45%)</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="5">Religious</td><td>feu 'fire'</td><td>ardre 'to burn'</td><td>6 (4,69%)</td></tr><tr><td>compagnie 'company'</td><td>valoir 'to be worthy'</td><td>4 (3,13%)</td></tr><tr><td>four 'oven'</td><td>ardre 'to burn'</td><td>3 (2,34%)</td></tr><tr><td>gent 'people'</td><td>mécroire 'to distrust'</td><td>2 (1,56%)</td></tr><tr><td>vent 'wind'</td><td>porter 'to carry'</td><td>2 (1,56%)<sup>4</sup></td></tr><tr><td colspan="3" style="text-align: right; font-weight: bold;">17 (13,28%)</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="5">Literary</td><td>épée 'sword'</td><td>trancher 'to cut'</td><td>18 (9,38%)</td></tr><tr><td>chevalier 'knight'</td><td>errer 'to wander'</td><td>12 (6,25%)</td></tr><tr><td>cheval 'horse'</td><td>courir 'to run'</td><td>7 (3,65%)</td></tr><tr><td>chevalier 'knight'</td><td>valoir 'to be worthy'</td><td>7 (3,65%)</td></tr><tr><td>destrier 'war horse'</td><td>courir 'to run'</td><td>4 (2,08%)<sup>5</sup></td></tr><tr><td colspan="3" style="text-align: right; font-weight: bold;">48 (25,00%)</td></tr></tbody></table>

<footnote n="3">³ The remaining 55% of lexical combinations in the historical texts are represented by 12 more hapaxes.</footnote>

<footnote n="4">⁴ There are six more lexical combinations occurring twice in the religious texts.</footnote>

<footnote n="5">⁵ The literary texts contain four more lexical combinations with a token frequency of 4.</footnote>
<table><tbody><tr><td rowspan="5">Didactical</td><td>feu 'fire'</td><td>ardre 'to burn'</td><td>6 (5,26%)</td></tr><tr><td>homme 'man'</td><td>valoir 'to be worth'</td><td>5 (4,39%)</td></tr><tr><td>homme 'man'</td><td>vivre 'to live'</td><td>4 (3,51%)</td></tr><tr><td>soleil 'sun'</td><td>lever 'to rise'</td><td>3 (2,63%)</td></tr><tr><td>homme 'man'</td><td>pouvoir 'to be able to'</td><td>3 (2,63%)</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3"></td><td><strong>21 (18,42%)</strong></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="5">Legal</td><td>procureur 'prosecutor'</td><td>suffire 'to suffice'</td><td>5 (7,69%)</td></tr><tr><td>soleil 'sun'</td><td>esconser 'to set'</td><td>3 (4,62%)</td></tr><tr><td>homme 'man'</td><td>suffire 'to suffice'</td><td>3 (4,62%)</td></tr><tr><td>homme 'man'</td><td>valoir 'to be worthy'</td><td>2 (3,08%)</td></tr><tr><td>salaire 'salary'</td><td>suffire 'to suffice'</td><td>2 (3,08%)<sup>6</sup></td></tr><tr><td colspan="3"></td><td><strong>15 (23,08%)</strong></td></tr></tbody></table>

Moreover, except for the historical texts, the different types of texts do not greatly differ with respect to the proportion represented by the most frequent combination: this proportion is 5% in the religious and didactical texts, 8% in the legal texts, and 9% in the literary texts. The most frequent combination in this latter type of texts is *épée* 'sword'/*trancher* 'to cut' (7).

(7) Li *cuens* Amis tint l' *espee* ART.DEF.SBJ.M.SG count.SBJ.M.SG Amis hold.PST.3SG ART.DEF.OBL.F.SG sword.OBL.F.SG *tranch-ant* [...].
cut-V.ANT

'Count Amis held the sharp sword.' (*Ami* 1563)

Table 6.7 focuses on the lexical variation of the -ant forms individually. This variation is similar in the religious, literary, didactical, and legal texts. It is lowest in the literary texts, but the difference with the religious, didactical, and legal texts is too small to be significant. The historical texts present the highest variation, but the low absolute number of datapoints in these texts makes it again impossible to draw a firm conclusion.

<table><caption>**Table 6.7.** Lexical variation of the adnominal -ant forms in the historical, religious, literary, didactical, and legal texts in Old French</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Historical</th><th>Religious</th><th>Literary</th><th>Didactical</th><th>Legal</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>#tokens</td><td>22</td><td>128</td><td>192</td><td>114</td><td>65</td></tr><tr><td>#types</td><td>13</td><td>43</td><td>49</td><td>44</td><td>23</td></tr><tr><td>#hapaxes</td><td>10</td><td>27</td><td>25</td><td>26</td><td>14</td></tr><tr><td>#types/#tokens</td><td><strong>0.59</strong></td><td><strong>0.34</strong></td><td><strong>0.26</strong></td><td><strong>0.39</strong></td><td><strong>0.35</strong></td></tr><tr><td>#hapaxes/#tokens</td><td><strong>0.45</strong></td><td><strong>0.21</strong></td><td><strong>0.13</strong></td><td><strong>0.23</strong></td><td><strong>0.22</strong></td></tr></tbody></table>

<footnote n="6">⁶ There are five more lexical combinations occurring twice in the legal texts.</footnote>
The cumulative frequency of the five most frequent lexemes gives an analogous result: it is higher in the historical, religious, and legal texts than in the literary and didactical texts, but even the difference between the highest and the lowest fraction is too small to be significant (65% in the legal texts vs 44% in the didactical texts) (Table 6.8). A globally similar picture emerges from the frequency of the most frequent lexeme alone (although the religious texts (20%) pattern here with the literary (14%) and didactical (15%) texts rather than with the historical (36%) and legal texts (37%)).

<table><caption>**Table 6.8.** Inventory and cumulative frequency of the five most frequent lexemes used for adnominal -ant forms in the historical, religious, literary, didactical, and legal texts in Old French</caption><thead><tr><th>Thematic domain</th><th>Lexeme of -ant form</th><th>Frequency (%)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="5">Historical</td><td>valoir 'to be worthy'</td><td>8 (36,36%)</td></tr><tr><td>aider 'to help'</td><td>2 (9,09%)</td></tr><tr><td>priser 'to take'</td><td>2 (9,09%)</td></tr><tr><td>courir 'to run'</td><td>1 (4,55%)</td></tr><tr><td>luire 'to shine'</td><td>1 (4,55%)<sup>7</sup></td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td><td><strong>14 (63,64%)</strong></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="5">Religious</td><td>ardre 'to burn'</td><td>26 (20,31%)</td></tr><tr><td>valoir 'to be worthy'</td><td>19 (14,84%)</td></tr><tr><td>pouvoir 'to be able to'</td><td>12 (9,38%)</td></tr><tr><td>luire 'to shine'</td><td>9 (7,03%)</td></tr><tr><td>peser 'to weigh'</td><td>6 (4,69%)</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td><td><strong>72 (56,25%)</strong></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="5">Literary</td><td>trancher 'to cut'</td><td>26 (13,54%)</td></tr><tr><td>valoir 'to be worthy'</td><td>23 (11,98%)</td></tr><tr><td>courir 'to run'</td><td>15 (7,81%)</td></tr><tr><td>errer 'to wander'</td><td>14 (7,29%)</td></tr><tr><td>pouvoir 'to be able to'</td><td>13 (6,77%)</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td><td><strong>91 (47,40%)</strong></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="5">Didactical</td><td>valoir 'to be worthy'</td><td>17 (14,91%)</td></tr><tr><td>ardre 'to burn'</td><td>10 (8,77%)</td></tr><tr><td>pouvoir 'to be able to'</td><td>9 (7,89%)</td></tr><tr><td>plaire 'to please'</td><td>7 (6,14%)</td></tr><tr><td>vivre 'to live'</td><td>7 (6,14%)</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td><td><strong>50 (43,86%)</strong></td></tr></tbody></table>

<footnote n="7">⁷ The remaining 36% in the historical texts are represented by 8 more hapaxes.</footnote>
<table><tr><td rowspan="5">Legal</td><td>suffire 'to suffice'</td><td>24 (36,92%)</td></tr><tr><td>valoir 'to be worthy'</td><td>7 (10,77%)</td></tr><tr><td>vivre 'to live'</td><td>5 (7,69%)</td></tr><tr><td>esconser 'to set'</td><td>3 (4,62%)</td></tr><tr><td>lever 'to rise'</td><td>3 (4,62%)<sup>8</sup></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td><b>42 (64,62%)</b></td></tr></table>

As shown by Table 6.8, the historical and legal texts are the only text types in which the most frequent lexeme accounts for more than a third of all adnominal -ant forms. These lexemes are respectively *valoir* 'to be worthy' (8) and *suffire* 'to suffice' (9).

(8) [...] Er, le fiz Yder, i fud morz/
Er ART.DEF.SBJ.M.SG son.SBJ.M.SG Ider there be.PST.3SG dead.SBJ.M.SG
Uns chevaliers vaill-anz e forz [...].
ART.INDF.SBJ.M.SG knight.SBJ.M.SG be_worthy-V.ANT.SBJ.M.SG and strong.SBJ.M.SG
'Er, Ider's son, died there, a strong and brave knight.' (Wace *Brut* 12183-12184)

(9) [...] doivent avoir salaire soufis-ant [...].
must.PRS.3PL have.INF.PRS salary.OBL.M.SG suffice-V.ANT
'They must have a sufficient salary.' (Ph. de Beau. *Coutumes* 158)

The lexical variation of the nouns governing an -ant form yields an equivalent result. It is lowest in the literary texts and highest in the religious texts (Table 6.9). It is similar in the three other textual domains. However, the differences between the five thematic domains are too small to be of significance.

<table><caption>**Table 6.9.** Lexical variation of the nouns governing an -ant form in the historical, religious, literary, didactical, and legal texts in Old French</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Historical</th><th>Religious</th><th>Literary</th><th>Didactical</th><th>Legal</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>#tokens</td><td>22</td><td>128</td><td>192</td><td>114</td><td>65</td></tr><tr><td>#types</td><td>13</td><td>92</td><td>86</td><td>70</td><td>40</td></tr><tr><td>#hapaxes</td><td>8</td><td>72</td><td>57</td><td>49</td><td>29</td></tr><tr><td>#types/#tokens</td><td><strong>0.59</strong></td><td><strong>0.72</strong></td><td><strong>0.45</strong></td><td><strong>0.61</strong></td><td><strong>0.62</strong></td></tr><tr><td>#hapaxes/#tokens</td><td><strong>0.36</strong></td><td><strong>0.56</strong></td><td><strong>0.30</strong></td><td><strong>0.43</strong></td><td><strong>0.45</strong></td></tr></tbody></table>

The cumulative frequency of the five most frequent lexemes is again higher in the historical texts than in the other types of texts (Table 6.10), but this difference is again probably hazardous. The differences between the other text types are higher than in the case of the lexical variation of the nouns in general, but still not high enough to be significant.

<footnote n="8">⁸ There is one more lexeme occurring three times in the legal texts.</footnote>
<table><caption>**Table 6.10.** Inventory and cumulative frequency of the five most frequent lexemes used for the nouns governing an -ant form in the historical, religious, literary, didactical, and legal texts in Old French</caption><thead><tr><th>Thematic domain</th><th>Lexeme of noun</th><th>Frequency (%)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="5">Historical</td><td>chevalier 'knight'</td><td>4 (18,18%)</td></tr><tr><td>gent 'people'</td><td>3 (13,64%)</td></tr><tr><td>homme 'man'</td><td>3 (13,64%)</td></tr><tr><td>père 'father'</td><td>2 (9,09%)</td></tr><tr><td>fils 'son'</td><td>2 (9,09%)</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td><td><strong>14 (63,64%)</strong></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="5">Religious</td><td>feu 'fire'</td><td>7 (5,46%)</td></tr><tr><td>homme 'man'</td><td>6 (4,69%)</td></tr><tr><td>gens 'people'</td><td>4 (3,13%)</td></tr><tr><td>compagnie 'company'</td><td>4 (3,13%)</td></tr><tr><td>dame 'lady'</td><td>4 (3,13%)</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td><td><strong>25 (19,53%)</strong></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="5">Literary</td><td>chevalier 'knight'</td><td>24 (12,50%)</td></tr><tr><td>épée 'sword'</td><td>21 (10,94%)</td></tr><tr><td>cheval 'horse'</td><td>11 (5,73%)</td></tr><tr><td>homme 'man'</td><td>6 (3,13%)</td></tr><tr><td>roi 'king'</td><td>5 (2,60%)<sup>9</sup></td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td><td><strong>67 (34,90%)</strong></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="5">Didactical</td><td>homme 'man'</td><td>14 (12,28%)</td></tr><tr><td>feu 'fire'</td><td>6 (5,26%)</td></tr><tr><td>femme 'woman'</td><td>5 (4,39%)</td></tr><tr><td>bête 'animal'</td><td>4 (3,51%)</td></tr><tr><td>soleil 'sun'</td><td>3 (2,63%)<sup>10</sup></td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td><td><strong>32 (28,07%)</strong></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="5">Legal</td><td>homme 'man'</td><td>7 (10,77%)</td></tr><tr><td>procureur 'prosecutor'</td><td>5 (7,69%)</td></tr><tr><td>soleil 'sun'</td><td>5 (7,69%)</td></tr><tr><td>hôte 'host'</td><td>4 (6,15%)</td></tr><tr><td>chose 'thing'</td><td>3 (4,62%)</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td><td><strong>24 (36,92%)</strong></td></tr></tbody></table>

The historical texts share their most frequent lexeme with the literary texts, viz. *chevalier* 'knight' (8).

<footnote n="9">⁹ There are two more lexemes with a token frequency of 5 in the literary texts.</footnote>

<footnote n="10">¹⁰ The didactical texts contain one more lexeme occurring thrice.</footnote>
### 6.2.1.3. Conclusion

Adnominal -ant forms represent 24% of all -ant forms in the Old French corpus. This proportion is lower in Early Old French than in the 12th-13th c., but the difference between these two periods is statistically insignificant. Hence, the -ant form does not specialise in this use during the Old French period. The frequency and productivity of these forms does not show significant thematic variation.

## 6.2.2. Subject predicate -ant forms

The -ant form can also occur in subject predicates. For instance, *mordant* ‘biting’ (10) is the predicate of the relative pronoun *qui* ‘which’. The antecedent of this pronoun is *moz* ‘words’, whose inanimate character causes the meaning of *mordant* to shift from ‘biting’ to ‘offensive’. This property is predicated of the subject by means of the copular verb *samblent* ‘they seem.”

(10) [...] *se moz i trouvez ja mis qui*
if word.OBL.M.PL PRO.LOC find.PRS.2PL ever put.PTCP.PST.OBL.M.PL REL.SBJ.M.PL
*samblent mord-ant [...].*
seem.PRS.3PL bite-V.ANT

‘If you ever find here some words written here that seem offensive (lit. ‘biting’) (...).’ (J. de Meun
*Rose* 15168-15169)

This section will examine first the frequency of subject predicate -ant forms in general (§6.2.2.1), and then their frequency and productivity in the five thematic domains (§6.2.2.2). In this latter section, I will also explore the inventory of the copular verbs (or the verbs used as such).

### 6.2.2.1. Frequency

Subject predicate -ant forms are less frequent than adnominal forms. Their absolute frequency amounts to 4.56 instances per 10 000 words in the Old French corpus as a whole. This frequency is lower in Early Old French, but the difference with the 12th-13th c. is not enormous (Table 6.11). These forms represent 18% of all -ant forms in the Old French corpus (385 instances out of 2 153). This proportion is much lower in Early Old French, where only one instance has been found. However, the low frequency of -ant forms in this period does not allow drawing a firm conclusion from this result.
<table><caption>**Table 6.11.** Frequency of subject predicate -ant forms in Early Old French and the 12th-13th c.</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Period</th><th colspan="2">#subject predicate -ant forms</th><th colspan="2">#-ant forms</th></tr><tr><th colspan="2">(per 10 000 words)</th><th colspan="2">(per 10 000 words)</th></tr><tr><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th>#subject predicate -ant forms/ #-ant forms</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Early Old French</td><td>1</td><td>(1.12)</td><td>33</td><td>(36.84)</td><td>3,03%</td></tr><tr><td>12th-13th c.</td><td>356</td><td>(4.41)</td><td>1 989</td><td>(24.63)</td><td>17,90%</td></tr></tbody></table>

In the *Chanson de Roland*, the absolute frequency of subject predicate -ant forms corresponds to 10.19 instances per 10 000 words. In relative terms, these forms make up 21% of all -ant forms in this text (28 instances out of 131). The *Chanson de Roland* resembles in this regard more the 12th-13th c. texts than the Early Old French texts. This result is in line with that obtained for adnominal -ant forms.

A chi-square goodness-of-fit test indicates that the increasing proportion of subject predicate -ant forms between Early Old French and the 12th-13th c. is probably random. Indeed, the fraction of subject predicate forms is lower than expected in Early Old French and higher than expected in the 12th-13th c. in a statistically insignificant way ($\chi^2 = 3.26$; df = 1; p = 0.071) (Table 6.12).

<table><caption>**Table 6.12.** Observed vs expected proportion of subject predicate -ant forms to the total number of -ant forms in Early Old French and the 12th-13th c.</caption><thead><tr><th>Period</th><th>Observed frequency (%)</th><th>Expected frequency (%)</th><th>Standardised residuals</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Early Old French</td><td>1 (3,03%)</td><td>6 (18,18%)</td><td>-2.00</td></tr><tr><td>12th-13th c.</td><td>356 (17,90%)</td><td>351 (17,65%)</td><td>+0.26</td></tr></tbody></table>

During the Old French period, the -ant form thus does not specialise in this adjectival use.

### 6.2.2.2. Frequency and productivity in the five thematic domains

The (normalised) absolute frequency of subject predicate -ant forms is highest in the didactical texts, as in the case of adnominal -ant forms (Table 6.13). However, their proportion to the total number of -ant forms is highest in the religious texts, although the difference with the literary texts is negligible. The absolute frequency of subject predicate forms is lowest in the legal texts, while their share to the total number of -ant forms is lowest in the historical texts. All in all, the differences between the five thematic domains seem too small to be significant, as in the case of the adnominal -ant forms.
<table><caption>**Table 6.13.** Frequency of subject predicate -ant forms in the historical, religious, literary, didactical, and legal texts in Old French</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Thematic domain</th><th colspan="2">#subject predicate -ant forms</th><th colspan="2">#-ant forms</th></tr><tr><th>(per 10 000 words)</th><th></th><th>(per 10 000 words)</th><th></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Historical</td><td>13</td><td>(2.67)</td><td>122</td><td>(25.04)</td><td>10,66%</td></tr><tr><td>Religious</td><td>116</td><td>(4.09)</td><td>573</td><td>(20.21)</td><td>20,24%</td></tr><tr><td>Literary</td><td>156</td><td>(5.81)</td><td>779</td><td>(29.00)</td><td>20,03%</td></tr><tr><td>Didactical</td><td>60</td><td>(6.68)</td><td>388</td><td>(43.22)</td><td>15,46%</td></tr><tr><td>Legal</td><td>40</td><td>(2.61)</td><td>291</td><td>(19.00)</td><td>13,75%</td></tr></tbody></table>

The lack of significant thematic variation is confirmed by a chi-square goodness-of-fit test. The segment of subject predicate forms is lower than expected in the historical, didactical, and legal texts and higher than expected in the religious and literary texts in a statistically significant way, but none of the thematic domains makes a significant contribution to the obtained chi-square values on its own ($\chi^2 = 11.41; df = 4; p = 0.0223$) (Table 6.14).

<table><caption>**Table 6.14.** Observed vs expected proportion of subject predicate -ant forms to the total number of -ant forms in the historical, religious, literary, didactical, and legal texts in Old French</caption><thead><tr><th>Thematic domain</th><th>Observed frequency (%)</th><th>Expected frequency (%)</th><th>Standardised residuals</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Historical</td><td>13 (10,66%)</td><td>22 (18,03%)</td><td>-1.89</td></tr><tr><td>Religious</td><td>116 (20,24%)</td><td>102 (17,80%)</td><td>+1.34</td></tr><tr><td>Literary</td><td>156 (20,03%)</td><td>139 (17,84%)</td><td>+1.41</td></tr><tr><td>Didactical</td><td>60 (15,46%)</td><td>69 (17,78%)</td><td>-1.13</td></tr><tr><td>Legal</td><td>40 (13,75%)</td><td>52 (17,87%)</td><td>-1.67</td></tr></tbody></table>

The fact that the frequency of this type of -ant forms does not stand out in any thematic domain contrasts with what has been observed for the subject predicate present participles in Late Latin. These are much more frequent in legal texts than in historical and religious text (see §5.3.2.3). Since the same conclusion was drawn with respect to the adnominal forms (see §6.2.1.2), it appears that the language in legal texts greatly differs from that in other types of texts in Late Latin, but not in Old French. This issue (and its methodological implications) will be taken up in other sections of this chapter.

Another similarity between subject predicate and adnominal -ant forms in Old French relates to their productivity. The productivity of the subject predicate forms has been measured in function of the lexical variation between the -ant form and the copular verb (or the verb used as such). Table 6.15 shows that this productivity is highest in the legal texts and lowest in the literary texts. However, the difference between these texts (and with the other text types) is too small to be significant, especially considering the low absolute number of instances in some thematic domains.
<table><caption>**Table 6.15.** Productivity of the subject predicate -ant form in the historical, religious, literary, didactical, and legal texts in Old French</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Historical</th><th>Religious</th><th>Literary</th><th>Didactical</th><th>Legal</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><th>#tokens</th><td>13</td><td>116</td><td>156</td><td>60</td><td>40</td></tr><tr><th>#types</th><td>7</td><td>46</td><td>51</td><td>29</td><td>23</td></tr><tr><th>#hapaxes</th><td>4</td><td>30</td><td>26</td><td>17</td><td>18</td></tr><tr><th>#types/#tokens</th><td><strong>0.54</strong></td><td><strong>0.40</strong></td><td><strong>0.33</strong></td><td><strong>0.48</strong></td><td><strong>0.58</strong></td></tr><tr><th>#hapaxes/#tokens</th><td><strong>0.31</strong></td><td><strong>0.26</strong></td><td><strong>0.17</strong></td><td><strong>0.28</strong></td><td><strong>0.45</strong></td></tr></tbody></table>

This finding opposes these forms again to their Late Latin present participle counterparts, which are less productive in legal texts than in historical and religious texts (see §5.3.2.3). Note, however, that the Old French -ant form is less productive in subject predicates than in adnominal phrases (compare Tables 6.5 and 6.15), as observed also in the case of the Late Latin present participle.

The lack of relevant thematic variation in the productivity of the subject predicate -ant form is confirmed by the study of the five most frequent lexical combinations. Leaving out of consideration the historical texts, for which no solid conclusions can be drawn due to the low absolute number of instances (n=13), the cumulative frequency of these combinations ranges from 40% in the literary texts to 55% in the legal texts (Table 6.16).

<table><caption>**Table 6.16.** Inventory and cumulative frequency of the five most frequent lexical combinations of a copular verb and a subject predicate -ant form in the historical, religious, literary, didactical, and legal texts in Old French</caption><thead><tr><th>Thematic domain</th><th>Lexeme of copular verb</th><th>Lexeme of -ant form</th><th>Frequency (%)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="5">Historical</td><td>être 'to be'</td><td>valoir 'to be worthy'</td><td>4 (30,77%)</td></tr><tr><td>être 'to be'</td><td>pouvoir 'to be able'</td><td>3 (23,08%)</td></tr><tr><td>être 'to be'</td><td>trancher 'to cut'</td><td>2 (15,38%)</td></tr><tr><td>être 'to be'</td><td>suffire 'to suffice'</td><td>1 (7,69%)</td></tr><tr><td>être 'to be'</td><td>apparoir 'to appear'</td><td>1 (7,69%)<sup>11</sup></td></tr><tr><td colspan="3"></td><td><strong>11 (84,62%)</strong></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="5">Religious</td><td>être 'to be'</td><td>pouvoir 'to be able'</td><td>23 (19,83%)</td></tr><tr><td>être 'to be'</td><td>valoir 'to be worthy'</td><td>15 (12,93%)</td></tr><tr><td>être 'to be'</td><td>plaire 'to please'</td><td>6 (5,17%)</td></tr><tr><td>être 'to be'</td><td>obéir 'to obey'</td><td>5 (4,31%)</td></tr><tr><td>être 'to be'</td><td>repentir 'to repent'</td><td>5 (4,31%)<sup>12</sup></td></tr><tr><td colspan="3"></td><td><strong>54 (46,55%)</strong></td></tr></tbody></table>

<footnote n="11">¹¹ There are two more hapaxes in the historical texts.</footnote>

<footnote n="12">¹² The religious texts contain one more lexical combination with a token frequency of 5.</footnote>
<table><tbody><tr><td rowspan="5">Literary</td><td>être 'to be'</td><td>douloir 'to suffer'</td><td>21 (13,46%)</td></tr><tr><td>être 'to be'</td><td>jouir 'to enjoy'</td><td>13 (8,33%)</td></tr><tr><td>être 'to be'</td><td>recroire 'to renounce'</td><td>11 (7,05%)</td></tr><tr><td>être 'to be'</td><td>peser 'to weigh'</td><td>9 (5,77%)</td></tr><tr><td>être 'to be'</td><td>valoir 'to be worthy'</td><td>8 (5,13%)</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3"></td><td><strong>62 (39,74%)</strong></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="5">Didactical</td><td>être 'to be'</td><td>pouvoir 'to be able'</td><td>7 (11,67%)</td></tr><tr><td>être 'to be'</td><td>valoir 'to be worthy'</td><td>7 (11,67%)</td></tr><tr><td>être 'to be'</td><td>plaire 'to please'</td><td>5 (8,33%)</td></tr><tr><td>être 'to be'</td><td>douloir 'to suffer'</td><td>4 (6,67%)</td></tr><tr><td>être 'to be'</td><td>ardre 'to burn'</td><td>3 (5,00%)<sup>13</sup></td></tr><tr><td colspan="3"></td><td><strong>26 (43,33%)</strong></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="5">Legal</td><td>être 'to be'</td><td>suffire 'to suffice'</td><td>11 (27,50%)</td></tr><tr><td>être 'to be'</td><td>souffrir 'to suffer'</td><td>4 (10,00%)</td></tr><tr><td>être 'to be'</td><td>écouter 'to listen'</td><td>3 (7,50%)</td></tr><tr><td>être 'to be'</td><td>remembrer 'to remember'</td><td>2 (5,00%)</td></tr><tr><td>être 'to be'</td><td>escolourger 'to slip'</td><td>2 (5,00%)</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3"></td><td><strong>22 (55,00%)</strong></td></tr></tbody></table>

A similar point can be made on basis of the most frequent lexical combination alone, with this difference that the lowest proportion is observed here in the didactical instead of the literary texts. The two lexical combinations with the highest absolute frequency are *être* 'to be'/'pouvoir' 'to be able' (11) (n=23) and *être* 'to be'/'douloir' 'to suffer' (12) (n=21), in respectively the religious and the literary texts.

(11) *Bels ert [...] et po-ant sur ses enemis.*
beautiful.SBJ.M.SG be.FUT.3SG and be_able-V.ANT against his.OBL.M.PL enemy.OBL.M.PL
'He will be beautiful and powerful against his enemies.' (Lapid. alphab. 1211-1212)

(12) [...] *Yvains an fu dol-anz [...].*
Yvan.SBJ.M.SG because_of_this be.PST.3SG suffer-V.ANT.SBJ.M.SG
'Yvan was sad because of this.' (Chr. de Troyes *Yvain* 676)

More or less the same picture emerges from the lexical variation of the -ant forms alone. Hence, Tables 6.17 and 6.18, presenting respectively the lexical variation of these forms in the five thematic domains and the inventory and cumulative frequency of the five most frequent lexemes, will be provided without further comments.

<footnote n="13">¹³ There are three more lexical combinations occurring three times in the didactical texts.</footnote>
<table><caption>**Table 6.17.** Lexical variation of the subject predicate -ant forms in the historical, religious, literary, didactical, and legal texts in Old French</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Historical</th><th>Religious</th><th>Literary</th><th>Didactical</th><th>Legal</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>#tokens</td><td>13</td><td>116</td><td>156</td><td>60</td><td>40</td></tr><tr><td>#types</td><td>7</td><td>43</td><td>47</td><td>29</td><td>22</td></tr><tr><td>#hapaxes</td><td>4</td><td>26</td><td>22</td><td>17</td><td>17</td></tr><tr><td>#types/#tokens</td><td><strong>0.54</strong></td><td><strong>0.37</strong></td><td><strong>0.30</strong></td><td><strong>0.48</strong></td><td><strong>0.55</strong></td></tr><tr><td>#hapaxes/#tokens</td><td><strong>0.31</strong></td><td><strong>0.22</strong></td><td><strong>0.14</strong></td><td><strong>0.28</strong></td><td><strong>0.43</strong></td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><caption>**Table 6.18.** Inventory and cumulative frequency of the five most frequent lexemes used for subject predicate -ant forms in the historical, religious, literary, didactical, and legal texts in Old French</caption><thead><tr><th>Thematic domain</th><th>Lexeme of -ant form</th><th>Frequency (%)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="5">Historical</td><td>valoir 'to be worthy'</td><td>4 (30,77%)</td></tr><tr><td>pouvoir 'to be able'</td><td>3 (23,08%)</td></tr><tr><td>trancher 'to cut'</td><td>2 (15,38%)</td></tr><tr><td>suffire 'to suffice'</td><td>1 (7,69%)</td></tr><tr><td>apparoir 'to appear'</td><td>1 (7,69%)<sup>14</sup></td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td><td><strong>11 (84,62%)</strong></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="5">Religious</td><td>pouvoir 'to be able'</td><td>23 (19,83%)</td></tr><tr><td>valoir 'to be worthy'</td><td>15 (12,93%)</td></tr><tr><td>plaire 'to please'</td><td>6 (5,17%)</td></tr><tr><td>repentir 'to repent'</td><td>6 (5,17%)</td></tr><tr><td>obéir 'to obey'</td><td>5 (4,31%)<sup>15</sup></td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td><td><strong>55 (47,41%)</strong></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="5">Literary</td><td>douloir 'to suffer'</td><td>21 (13,46%)</td></tr><tr><td>jouir 'to enjoy'</td><td>14 (8,97%)</td></tr><tr><td>recroire 'to renounce'</td><td>12 (7,69%)</td></tr><tr><td>peser 'to weigh'</td><td>9 (5,77%)</td></tr><tr><td>valoir 'to be worthy'</td><td>9 (5,77%)</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td><td><strong>64 (41,03%)</strong></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="5">Didactical</td><td>pouvoir 'to be able'</td><td>7 (11,67%)</td></tr><tr><td>valoir 'to be worthy'</td><td>7 (11,67%)</td></tr><tr><td>plaire 'to please'</td><td>5 (8,33%)</td></tr><tr><td>douloir 'to suffer'</td><td>4 (6,67%)</td></tr><tr><td>ardre 'to burn'</td><td>3 (5,00%)<sup>16</sup></td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td><td><strong>26 (43,33%)</strong></td></tr></tbody></table>

<footnote n="14">¹⁴ There are two more hapaxes in the historical texts.</footnote>

<footnote n="15">¹⁵ The religious texts contain two more lexemes occurring five times.</footnote>

<footnote n="16">¹⁶ There are three more lexemes occurring thrice in the didactical texts.</footnote>
<table><tr><td rowspan="5">Legal</td><td>suffire 'to suffice'</td><td>12 (30,00%)</td></tr><tr><td>souffrir 'to suffer'</td><td>4 (10,00%)</td></tr><tr><td>écouter 'to listen'</td><td>3 (7,50%)</td></tr><tr><td>remembrer 'to remember'</td><td>2 (5,00%)</td></tr><tr><td>escolourger 'to slip'</td><td>2 (5,00%)</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td><b>23 (57,50%)</b></td></tr></table>

The copular verbs (or the verbs used as such) serve a grammatical function, and show as such less lexical variation than the -ant forms. This variation is low in the religious, literary, didactical, and legal texts: it ranges from two lexemes in the religious texts to five in the didactical texts. In the historical texts, there is no variation at all. In Table 6.19, the absolute numbers are more relevant than the type-token and hapax-token ratios (which are nonetheless provided for the sake of uniformity with the tables in the other sections of this chapter).

<table><caption>**Table 6.19.** Lexical variation of the copular verbs combined with a subject predicate -ant form in the historical, religious, literary, didactical, and legal texts in Old French</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Historical</th><th>Religious</th><th>Literary</th><th>Didactical</th><th>Legal</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>#tokens</td><td>13</td><td>116</td><td>156</td><td>60</td><td>40</td></tr><tr><td>#types</td><td>1</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>5</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>#hapaxes</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>4</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>#types/#tokens</td><td><b>0.08</b></td><td><b>0.03</b></td><td><b>0.03</b></td><td><b>0.08</b></td><td><b>0.10</b></td></tr><tr><td>#hapaxes/#tokens</td><td><b>0.00</b></td><td><b>0.01</b></td><td><b>0.01</b></td><td><b>0.07</b></td><td><b>0.03</b></td></tr></tbody></table>

The inventory and frequency of the copular verbs in the five thematic domains are given in Table 6.20.

<table><caption>**Table 6.20.** Inventory and frequency of the copular verbs combined with a subject predicate -ant form in the historical, religious, literary, didactical, and legal texts in Old French</caption><thead><tr><th>Thematic domain</th><th>Lexeme of copular verb</th><th>Frequency (%)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="2">Historical</td><td rowspan="2">être 'to be'</td><td>13 (100,00%)</td></tr><tr><td><b>13 (100,00%)</b></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="4">Religious</td><td>être 'to be'</td><td>113 (97,41%)</td></tr><tr><td>devenir 'to become'</td><td>2 (1,72%)</td></tr><tr><td>faire 'to do'</td><td>1 (0,86%)</td></tr><tr><td></td><td><b>116 (100,00%)</b></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="5">Literary</td><td>être 'to be'</td><td>151 (96,79%)</td></tr><tr><td>devenir 'to become'</td><td>3 (1,92%)</td></tr><tr><td>sembler 'to appear'</td><td>1 (0,64%)</td></tr><tr><td>tenir pour 'to hold as'</td><td>1 (0,64%)</td></tr><tr><td></td><td><b>156 (100,00%)</b></td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><tbody><tr><td rowspan="6">Didactical</td><td>être 'to be'</td><td>56</td><td>(93,33%)</td></tr><tr><td>devenir 'to become'</td><td>1</td><td>(1,67%)</td></tr><tr><td>sembler 'to appear'</td><td>1</td><td>(1,67%)</td></tr><tr><td>rester 'to remain'</td><td>1</td><td>(1,67%)</td></tr><tr><td>trouver 'to find'</td><td>1</td><td>(1,67%)</td></tr><tr><td></td><td><strong>60</strong></td><td><strong>(100,00%)</strong></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="5">Legal</td><td>être 'to be'</td><td>35</td><td>(87,50%)</td></tr><tr><td>tenir pour 'to hold as'</td><td>2</td><td>(5,00%)</td></tr><tr><td>écrire 'to write'</td><td>2</td><td>(5,00%)</td></tr><tr><td>mettre en écrit comme 'to write down as'</td><td>1</td><td>(2,50%)</td></tr><tr><td></td><td><strong>40</strong></td><td><strong>(100,00%)</strong></td></tr></tbody></table>

As shown in Table 6.20, *être* 'to be' (11-12) is dominant: it accounts for no less than 96% of all verbs combined with a subject predicate -ant form (368 instances out of 385). However, eight other lexemes have been used. Three of these are canonical copular verbs: *devenir* 'to become' (13), *rester* 'to remain' (14), and *sembler* 'to appear' (illustrated in (10) above).

(13) [...] povre devint et pain quer-anz [...].<fnref n="17" />
poor.SBJ.M.SG become.PST.3SG and bread.OBL.M.SG seek-V.ANT.SBJ.M.SG
'He becomes poor and short of food (lit. 'bread-seeking').' (J. de Meun *Rose* 14505)

(14) [...] rest la chose si pes-anz [...].
remain.PRS.3SG ART.DEF.SBJ.F.SG situation.SBJ.F.SG so weigh-V.ANT.SBJ.F.SG
'Thus, the situation remains so grievous (...).' (J. de Meun *Rose* 10580)

The remaining lexemes are transitive verbs used as copular verbs in passive syntactic configurations: *faire* 'to do' (15), *mettre* 'to put' (16), *tenir pour* 'to hold as' (17), *trouver* 'to find' (18), and *mettre en écrit comme* 'to write down as' (19).

(15) [...] ço est fai apar-ant [...].
DEM.SBJ.N.SG be.PRS.3SG make.PTCP.PST.SBJ.N.SG appear-V.ANT
'This is made clear.' (*Comm. psaum.* 3)

(16) [...] se la bonne est mise joign-ant de
if ART.DEF.SBJ.F.SG marker.SBJ.F.SG be.PRS.3SG put.PTCP.PST.F.SG join-V.ANT of
mon eritage [...].
my.OBL.M.SG land.OBL.M.SG
'If the marker is put next to my land (...).' (Ph. de Beau. *Coutumes* 850)

<footnote n="17">¹⁷ This example clearly shows that even subject predicate -ant forms can have verbal internal syntax: the direct object of *queranz* 'seeking', *viz.* the noun *pain* 'bread', is in the oblique case, just like when it is governed by a finite form of *quérir* 'to seek.</footnote>
(17) [...] *est* li *contremans* tenus pour **soufis-ans** [...].
be.PRS.3SG ART.DEF.SBJ.M.SG delay.SBJ.M.SG hold.PTCP.PST.M.SG for suffice-V.ANT.SBJ.M.SG
‘The delay is held (to be) sufficient.’ (Ph. de Beau. *Coutumes* 111)

(18) [...] *se recre-anz* iestes trovez [...].
if renounce-V.ANT.SBJ.M.PL be.PRS.2PL find.PTCP.PST.M.PL
‘If you are found harassed (...).’ (J. de Meun *Rose* 15386)

(19) Et tuit cil qui s' i acordent doivent
and all.SBJ.M.PL DEM.SBJ.M.PL REL.SBJ.M.PL REFL.OBJ.M.PL to_it agree.PRS.3PL must.PRS.3PL
estre mis en escrit comme **acord-ant** [...].
be.INF.PRS put.PTCP.PST.M.PL in written_document.OBL.M.SG as consent-V.ANT
‘And all those who agree with it should be written down as consenting.’ (Ph. de Beau. *Coutumes* 154)

### 6.2.2.3. Conclusion

18% of all Old French -ant forms occur in subject predicates. This fraction is lower in Early Old French than in the 12th-13th c., but the difference between these periods is statistically insignificant. Hence, the -ant form does not specialise in this use. The frequency and productivity of this type of -ant forms does not show great thematic variation. These conclusions line up with those drawn for the adnominal -ant form.

### 6.2.3. Object predicate -ant forms

The final type of -ant forms occurring in adjectival syntactic configurations are object predicates. As an example, consider *joiant* ‘being happy’ (20), which ascribes the feature [+happy] to the direct object of the verb *feïst* ‘he made’.

(20) Cil me *feïst* *joi-ant* [...].
DEM.SBJ.M.SG I.OBJ.M.SG make.PST.3SG be_happy-V.ANT
‘That one made me happy.’ (Chr. de Troyes *Yvain* 3694)

This section aims to explore the frequency of these forms in general (§6.2.3.1) as well as their frequency and productivity in the five thematic domains (§6.2.3.2).

#### 6.2.3.1. Frequency

Object predicate -ant forms are extremely rare. They have an absolute frequency of 0.71 instances per 10 000 words and represent only 2,74% of all -ant forms in the Old French corpus (59 instances out of
2153). All results obtained for them are thus subject to caution. No instances have been found in Early Old French, but this difference with the 12th-13th c. is probably hazardous (Table 6.21).

<table><caption>**Table 6.21.** Frequency of object predicate -ant forms in Early Old French and the 12th-13th c.</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Period</th><th colspan="2">#object predicate -ant forms</th><th colspan="2">#-ant forms</th></tr><tr><th colspan="2">(per 10 000 words)</th><th colspan="2">(per 10 000 words)</th></tr><tr><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th>#object predicate -ant forms/ #-ant forms</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Early Old French</td><td>0</td><td>(0.00)</td><td>33</td><td>(36.84)</td><td>0,00%</td></tr><tr><td>12th-13th c.</td><td>57</td><td>(0.71)</td><td>1 989</td><td>(24.63)</td><td>2,87%</td></tr></tbody></table>

The *Chanson de Roland* contains two object predicate -ant forms. This equals an absolute frequency of 0.73 instances per 10 000 and 1,53% of all -ant forms in this text. On the basis of this result, the *Chanson de Roland* thus behaves more like 12th-13th c. texts than as Early Old French texts. The same conclusion was reached for the adnominal and subject predicate -ant forms. However, the extreme rareness of object predicate forms in both periods of Old French does not allow interpreting this result in a conclusive way.

Expectedly, a chi-square goodness-of-fit test suggests that the increasing proportion from Early Old French to the 12th-13th c. is likely random. Indeed, this proportion is lower than expected in Early Old French and higher than expected in the 12th-13th c. in a statistically insignificant way ($\chi^2 = 0.2$; df = 1; $p = 0.6547$) (Table 6.22).

<table><caption>**Table 6.22.** Observed vs expected proportion of object predicate -ant forms to the total number of -ant forms in Early Old French and the 12th-13th c.</caption><thead><tr><th>Period</th><th>Observed frequency (%)</th><th>Expected frequency (%)</th><th>Standardised residuals</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Early Old French</td><td>0 (0,00%)</td><td>1 (3,03%)</td><td>-0.96</td></tr><tr><td>12th-13th c.</td><td>57 (2,87%)</td><td>56 (2,82%)</td><td>+0.12</td></tr></tbody></table>

Notice that the expected frequency of object predicates is smaller than five in Early Old French, so that a chi-square goodness-of-fit test is in principle not recommendable (Levshina 2015: 29). However, the conclusion emerging from this test, namely that the increasing proportion of object predicate -ant forms is random, is highly reliable in the light of both the normalised frequencies reported in Table 6.21 and the extreme rareness of instances in the Old French corpus in general. Thus, the -ant form does not show signs of a specialisation in object predicates, just as it does not specialise in its adnominal nor subject predicate uses.

### 6.2.3.2. Frequency and productivity in the five thematic domains

Due to their rareness, little can be said about the frequency of the object predicate -ant forms in the five thematic domains. Table 6.23 shows that their frequency is highest in the didactical texts and lowest in
the legal texts, both in (normalised) absolute terms and in relation to the total number of -ant forms. Yet, even in the didactical texts, the share of object predicate -ant forms does not exceed 4% of all -ant forms.

<table><caption>**Table 6.23.** Frequency of object predicate -ant forms in the historical, religious, literary, didactical, and legal texts in Old French</caption><thead><tr><th>Thematic domain</th><th>#object predicate -ant forms (per 10 000 words)</th><th>#-ant forms (per 10 000 words)</th><th>#object predicate -ant forms/ -ant forms</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Historical</td><td>2 (0.41)</td><td>122 (25.04)</td><td>1,64%</td></tr><tr><td>Religious</td><td>15 (0.53)</td><td>573 (20.21)</td><td>2,62%</td></tr><tr><td>Literary</td><td>24 (0.89)</td><td>779 (29.00)</td><td>3,08%</td></tr><tr><td>Didactical</td><td>16 (1.78)</td><td>388 (43.22)</td><td>4,12%</td></tr><tr><td>Legal</td><td>2 (0.13)</td><td>291 (19.00)</td><td>0,69%</td></tr></tbody></table>

According to a chi-square goodness-of-fit test, the share of object predicate forms is lower than expected in the historical, religious, and legal texts and higher than expected in the literary and didactical texts in a statistically insignificant way (χ² = 8.09; df = 4; p = 0.0883) (Table 6.24). Therefore, the differences between the five thematic domains are probably random.

<table><caption>**Table 6.24.** Observed vs expected proportion of object predicate -ant forms in proportion to the total number of -ant forms in the historical, religious, literary, didactical, and legal texts in Old French</caption><thead><tr><th>Thematic domain</th><th>Observed frequency (%)</th><th>Expected frequency (%)</th><th>Standardised residuals</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Historical</td><td>2 (1,64%)</td><td>3 (2,46%)</td><td>-0.73</td></tr><tr><td>Religious</td><td>15 (2,62%)</td><td>16 (2,79%)</td><td>-0.18</td></tr><tr><td>Literary</td><td>24 (3,08%)</td><td>21 (2,70%)</td><td>+0.57</td></tr><tr><td>Didactical</td><td>16 (4,12%)</td><td>11 (2,84%)</td><td>+1.65</td></tr><tr><td>Legal</td><td>2 (0,69%)</td><td>8 (2,75%)</td><td>-2.11</td></tr></tbody></table>

The expected frequency of object predicate forms is smaller than 5 in the historical texts, so that a chi-square goodness-of-fit test is again not recommendable. The conclusion drawn from the figures in Table 6.24, namely that the frequency of object predicate -ant forms does not stand out in any thematic domain, is nonetheless reliable in view of the result in Table 6.23. The object predicate forms behave in this regard like the adnominal and subject predicate forms (and like their present participles counterparts in the Late Latin corpus).

Given the low absolute number of object predicate forms, no firm conclusions can be drawn from the study of their productivity. Yet, their productivity, measured in terms of the lexical variation between the -ant form and the transitive main verb, is worth investigating, if only to explore whether they behave like the adnominal and subject predicate forms also in this regard. Table 6.25 confirms this parallelism:
the productivity of the object predicate forms does not greatly differ in the five thematic domains – the numbers for especially the historical and legal texts are too low for drawing solid conclusions.

<table><caption>**Table 6.25.** Productivity of the object predicate -ant form in the historical, religious, literary, didactical, and legal texts in Old French</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Historical</th><th>Religious</th><th>Literary</th><th>Didactical</th><th>Legal</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>#tokens</td><td>2</td><td>15</td><td>24</td><td>16</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>#types</td><td>2</td><td>12</td><td>20</td><td>14</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>#hapaxes</td><td>2</td><td>9</td><td>18</td><td>12</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>#types/#tokens</td><td><strong>1.00</strong></td><td><strong>0.80</strong></td><td><strong>0.83</strong></td><td><strong>0.88</strong></td><td><strong>1.00</strong></td></tr><tr><td>#hapaxes/#tokens</td><td><strong>1.00</strong></td><td><strong>0.60</strong></td><td><strong>0.75</strong></td><td><strong>0.75</strong></td><td><strong>1.00</strong></td></tr></tbody></table>

The two combinations in the historical and legal texts are hapaxes. In the religious and didactical texts, there are respectively three and two combinations occurring twice. The literary texts contain one lexical combination occurring twice and one combination used three times, i.e. *rendre* ‘to render’/*recroire* ‘to renounce’ (21).

(21) [...] *Rendre le quidet u mort o recre-ant.*

render.INF.PRS he.OBJ.M.SG try.PRS.3SG or dead.OBL.M.SG or renounce-V.ANT

‘He tries to make him dead or harmless.’ (Roland 2733)

A slightly different image arises regarding the lexical variation of the -ant forms individually. Leaving aside the historical and legal texts, which contain only two instances, Table 6.26 shows that this variation is lower in the literary texts than in the religious and didactical texts.

<table><caption>**Table 6.26.** Lexical variation of the object predicate -ant forms in the historical, religious, literary, didactical, and legal texts in Old French</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Historical</th><th>Religious</th><th>Literary</th><th>Didactical</th><th>Legal</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>#tokens</td><td>2</td><td>15</td><td>24</td><td>16</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>#types</td><td>2</td><td>11</td><td>13</td><td>13</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>#hapaxes</td><td>2</td><td>8</td><td>18</td><td>10</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>#types/#tokens</td><td><strong>1.00</strong></td><td><strong>0.73</strong></td><td><strong>0.54</strong></td><td><strong>0.81</strong></td><td><strong>1.00</strong></td></tr><tr><td>#hapaxes/#tokens</td><td><strong>1.00</strong></td><td><strong>0.53</strong></td><td><strong>0.24</strong></td><td><strong>0.63</strong></td><td><strong>1.00</strong></td></tr></tbody></table>

Closer scrutiny reveals that the low variation in the literary texts is due to the fact that 9 of the 24 object predicate forms are instantiated by the same lexeme, namely *recroire* ‘to renounce’ (21). The atypical character of the literary texts emerging from Table 6.26 thus results from the relatively high frequency of one lexeme rather than from a more general idiosyncratic feature of this type of texts.
As to the lexical variation of the transitive main verbs, it is lowest in the religious texts and highest in the didactical texts (Table 6.27). The historical and legal texts are again excluded from this discussion. However, the difference between the thematic domains is not enormous. Given also the extremely low absolute number of instances, no hard conclusion can be drawn.

<table><caption>**Table 6.27.** Lexical variation of the verbs combined with an object predicate -ant form in the historical, religious, literary, didactical, and legal texts in Old French</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Historical</th><th>Religious</th><th>Literary</th><th>Didactical</th><th>Legal</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>#tokens</td><td>2</td><td>15</td><td>24</td><td>16</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>#types</td><td>2</td><td>4</td><td>10</td><td>7</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>#hapaxes</td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>4</td><td>4</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>#types/#tokens</td><td><strong>1.00</strong></td><td><strong>0.27</strong></td><td><strong>0.42</strong></td><td><strong>0.44</strong></td><td><strong>0.50</strong></td></tr><tr><td>#hapaxes/#tokens</td><td><strong>1.00</strong></td><td><strong>0.07</strong></td><td><strong>0.17</strong></td><td><strong>0.25</strong></td><td><strong>0.00</strong></td></tr></tbody></table>

As it turns out, the lower variation in the religious texts is due to the fact that more than half of the forms (9 out of 15) are realised by the same lexeme, viz. *faire* ‘to make’ (22).

(22) [...] *les alume é fait clers é ard-anz.*
it.OBJ.M.SG enlighten.PRS.3SG and make.PRS.3SG clear.OBL.M.PL and burn-V.ANT.OBL.M.PL
‘He enlightens them and makes them clear and fiery.’ (Rois 101)

This lexeme also represents 8 of the 24 instances in the literary texts and 7 of the 16 occurrences in the didactical texts. Thus, the slightly atypical character of the religious texts observed in Table 6.26 does not result from an idiosyncratic feature of these texts in general.

### 6.2.3.3. Conclusion

Object predicate -ant forms represent a negligible proportion of the total number of -ant forms in the Old French corpus (less than 3%). No instances have been found in Early Old French, but this difference with the 12th-13th c. is probably hazardous. There is no significant thematic variation in the frequency of these forms, nor in their productivity. These findings are similar to those obtained for the adnominal and subject predicate forms, on the one hand, and for the Late Latin object predicate present participles, on the other.

### 6.2.4. General conclusion: the evolution of the adjectival -ant form

The previous sections have explored the frequency of adnominal, subject predicate, and object predicate -ant forms separately. This section will collate the results obtained these sections, in order to investigate
the evolution of the adjectival -ant form as a whole. A conclusion will also be drawn with respect to the degree of categorial (in)determinacy of the Old French -ant form.

Adjectival -ant forms account for almost half of all -ant forms in the Old French corpus (45% or 965 instances out of 2 153). However, the absolute frequency of these forms is rather low, namely 11.44 instances per 10 000 words. These figures are considerably lower in Early Old French than in the 12th-13th c. (Table 6.28), but the low absolute number of datapoints in the earliest period hinders drawing solid conclusions.

<table><caption>**Table 6.28.** Frequency of adjectival -ant forms in Early Old French and the 12th-13th c.</caption><thead><tr><th>Period</th><th>#adjectival -ant forms<br>(per 10 000 words)</th><th>#-ant forms<br>(per 10 000 words)</th><th>#adjectival -ant forms/<br>#-ant forms</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Early Old French</td><td>6 (6.70)</td><td>33 (36.84)</td><td>18,18%</td></tr><tr><td>12th-13th c.</td><td>888 (11.00)</td><td>1 989 (24.63)</td><td>44,65%</td></tr></tbody></table>

Generally speaking, the *Chanson de Roland* behaves more like the 12th-13th c. texts than as the Early Old French texts: the absolute frequency of adjectival -ant forms amounts to 25.84 instances per 10 000 words and their proportion to the total number of -ant forms is 53% (71 instances out of 133). If it were to be periodised, this text should therefore be assigned to the 12th-13th c.

Contrary to what holds for the adjectival forms separately, a chi-square goodness-of-fit test shows that increasing proportion observed in Table 6.28 might not be random. Indeed, the fraction of adjectival forms proves to be lower than expected in Early Old French and higher than expected in the 12th-13th c. in a statistically significant way ($\chi^2 = 4.56; df = 1; p = 0.0327$) (Table 6.29).

<table><caption>**Table 6.29.** Observed vs expected proportion of adjectival -ant forms to the total number of -ant forms in Early Old French and the 12th-13th c.</caption><thead><tr><th>Period</th><th>Observed frequency (%)</th><th>Expected frequency (%)</th><th>Standardised residuals</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Early Old French</td><td>6 (18,18%)</td><td>15 (45,45%)</td><td>-2.25</td></tr><tr><td>12th-13th c.</td><td>888 (44,65%)</td><td>879 (44,19%)</td><td>+0.29</td></tr></tbody></table>

Strictly speaking, this indicates a process of participialisation, that is to say, a specialisation of the -ant form in adjectival external syntax. However, the rareness of -ant forms in the Early Old French corpus (33 instances vs 1 989 in 12th-13th c. corpus) makes it impossible to interpret the increase in Table 6.29 as conclusive evidence in favour of such a participialisation process. It is worth recalling in this respect that statistical significance does not necessarily mean that some tendency cannot be random (cf. Gries 2013: 28).
Adopting a retrospective historical approach and assuming that the gerund does not acquire the potential to occur in adjectival syntactic configurations in the transition from Late Latin to Old French nor within the period of Old French itself, all adjectival -ant forms can be analysed as present participles. Hence, at least 45% of all -ant forms are categorially determinate. However, this percentage needs to be interpreted within the broad definition of the -ant form adopted in this study. In a narrower definition, some adjectival forms would qualify as adjectives and, hence, be excluded from the dataset. The absolute frequency of adjectival forms would be lower, and with this their proportion to the total number of -ant forms. This would decrease the number of forms categorisable as present participles, and thus the degree of categorial determinacy of the -ant form. For instance, the sole exclusion of forms built on pouvoir 'to be able to', which undoubtedly hold as adjectives in a narrower definition of the -ant form, reduces the absolute number of adjectival -ant forms by 75. If these forms are excluded from the dataset, the degree of categorial determinacy of the Old French -ant form drops from 45% to 43% (i.e. from 965 instances out of 2 153 to 890 instances out of 2 078).

As to the frequency of the adjectival -ant forms in the five thematic domains, it is highest in the didactical texts, both in (normalised) absolute terms and in relation to the total number of -ant forms (Table 6.30). Their absolute frequency is lowest in the legal texts, while their fraction to the total number of -ant forms is lowest in the historical texts.

<table><caption>**Table 6.30.** Frequency of adjectival -ant forms in the historical, religious, literary, didactical, and legal texts in Old French</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Thematic domain</th><th colspan="2">#adjectival -ant forms</th><th colspan="2">#-ant forms</th><th rowspan="2">#adjectival -ant forms/<br/>#-ant forms</th></tr><tr><th>(per 10 000 words)</th><th></th><th>(per 10 000 words)</th><th></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Historical</td><td>37</td><td>(7.59)</td><td>122</td><td>(25.04)</td><td>30,33%</td></tr><tr><td>Religious</td><td>259</td><td>(9.13)</td><td>573</td><td>(20.21)</td><td>45,20%</td></tr><tr><td>Literary</td><td>372</td><td>(13.85)</td><td>779</td><td>(29.00)</td><td>47,75%</td></tr><tr><td>Didactical</td><td>190</td><td>(21.16)</td><td>388</td><td>(43.22)</td><td>48,97%</td></tr><tr><td>Legal</td><td>107</td><td>(6.99)</td><td>291</td><td>(19.00)</td><td>36,77%</td></tr></tbody></table>

According to a chi-square goodness-of-fit test, the differences between the five text types are probably random, as in the case of the three types of adjectival forms separately: the share of adjectival forms is lower than expected in the historical and legal texts and higher than expected in the religious, literary, and didactical texts, but none of these thematic domains makes a significant contribution to the obtained chi-square values on its own ($\chi^2 = 12.93; df = 4; p = 0.0116$) (Table 6.31).
<table><caption>**Table 6.31.** Observed *vs* expected proportion of adjectival -ant forms to the total number of -ant forms in the historical, religious, literary, didactical, and legal texts in Old French</caption><thead><tr><th>Thematic domain</th><th>Observed frequency (%)</th><th>Expected frequency (%)</th><th>Standardised residuals</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Historical</td><td>37 (30,33%)</td><td>55 (45,08%)</td><td>-2.39</td></tr><tr><td>Religious</td><td>259 (45,20%)</td><td>257 (44,85%)</td><td>+0.14</td></tr><tr><td>Literary</td><td>372 (47,75%)</td><td>349 (44,80%)</td><td>+1.22</td></tr><tr><td>Didactical</td><td>190 (48,97%)</td><td>174 (44,85%)</td><td>+1.22</td></tr><tr><td>Legal</td><td>107 (36,77%)</td><td>130 (44,67%)</td><td>-2.05</td></tr></tbody></table>

Contrary to the Late Latin adjectival present participle, the Old French adjectival -ant form is thus not particularly frequent in legal texts (or in any other type of texts).

## 6.3. The adverbial -ant form

Having investigated the adjectival -ant forms, I will examine in this section the forms having adverbial external syntax, i.e. occurring in adjuncts (e.g. *lisant* ‘reading’ (23)).

(23) *E ço truvum lis-ant / En Ovide le grant [...].*
and DEM.OBJ.N.SG find.PRS.1PL read-V.ANT in Ovid ART.DEF.OBL.M.SG great.OBL.M.SG
‘And we find this reading in the great Ovid.’ (Ph. de Thaon *Comput* 1291-1292)

The forms explored in this section comprise both conjunct (e.g. *lisant* ‘reading’ (23)) and absolute (e.g. *vivant* ‘living’ (24)) forms. Recall that the subject of the former can be coreferential not only with the subject of the main verb, as in (23), but also with another constituent of the main clause. Witness (25), where the subject of *noant* ‘swimming’ is coreferential with the direct object of *prent* ‘it takes’, namely the NP *le peissun* ‘the fish’.

(24) *Quant aucun en porte eritage le when INDF.SBJ.M.SG INCH take.PRS.3SG heritage.OBL.M.SG ART.DEF.OBL.M.SG père et la mere viv-ant [...].*
father.OBL.M.SG and ART.DEF.OBL.F.SG mother.OBL.F.SG live-V.ANT
‘When someone starts taking inheritance during the life of his father and mother (...).’ (Ph. de Beau. *Coutumes* 481)

(25) [...]Le peissun prent no-ant [...].
ART.DEF.OBL.M.SG fish.OBL.M.SG take.PRS.3SG swim-V.ANT
‘It (the eagle) takes the fish as it swims.’ (Ph. de Thaon *Bestiaire* 2024)

Adverbial -ant forms cannot be categorised as either gerunds or present participles on the basis of their external syntax, since the Late Latin gerund and present participle can both occur in adjuncts and since
the data of this study do not testify of a substitution of the Late Latin present participle by the gerund in this syntax. However, some of these forms can be categorised on the basis of morphological criteria: the prepositional forms can in principle be taken as gerunds and the agreeing forms as present participles, although these morphological criteria are not plainly reliable (see §6.1.1).

The aim of this section is twofold. First, I will examine the frequency of the adverbial -ant forms in general (§6.3.1) as well as their frequency and productivity in the five thematic domains (§6.3.2). Then, I will calculate the proportion of the forms categorisable as either gerunds or present participles on the basis of the morphological criteria just mentioned, in order to measure the degree of categorial determinacy of the adverbial -ant forms (§6.3.3).

### 6.3.1. Frequency

In absolute terms, adjunct -ant forms are less frequent than adjectival forms: they occur about 6.55 times per 10 000 words, against 11.44 instances of adjectival forms. The fraction of adjunct forms to the total number of -ant forms (26% or 553 instances out of 2 153) is also much lower than that of the adjectival forms (45% or 965 instances). Adjunct forms are about as frequent as adnominal forms, according to both frequency measurements (see §6.2.1.1). The frequency of adjunct forms is higher in the 12th-13th c. than in Early Old French according to both measurements, but the difference between the two periods is not enormous (Table 6.32). Furthermore, the number of instances in Early Old French is very low, making it once more impossible to draw solid conclusions.

<table><caption>**Table 6.32.** Frequency of adjunct -ant forms in Early Old French and the 12th-13th c.</caption><thead><tr><th>Period</th><th>#adjunct -ant forms<br>(per 10 000 words)</th><th>#-ant forms<br>(per 10 000 words)</th><th>#adjunct -ant forms/<br>#-ant forms</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Early Old French</td><td>7 (7.82)</td><td>33 (36.84)</td><td>21,21%</td></tr><tr><td>12th-13th c.</td><td>532 (6.59)</td><td>1 989 (24.63)</td><td>26,75%</td></tr></tbody></table>

The segment of adjunct forms is much smaller in the *Chanson de Roland* (11% or 14 instances out of 131). The absolute frequency of adjunct forms in this text is also smaller, namely 5.10 occurrences per 10 000 words. On the basis of this use of the -ant form, the *Chanson de Roland* behaves more like Early Old French texts than as 12th-13th c. texts. This finding is at odds with the results obtained for the three types of adjectival forms, but should be put in perspective due to the small difference between Early Old French and the 12th-13th c.

Noteworthily, the low frequency of adjunct -ant forms in the *Chanson de Roland* is conform to a more general feature of this text. Indeed, this text is a versified written rendering of a text that has in the
first place been transmitted orally. In this type of texts, preference is given to short sentences restricted to one verse or covering only a few verses (Giouffi 2020: 127). Coordinated and/or juxtaposed sentences are frequent in this and similar texts, but subordinated clauses are less frequent. Since adjunct -ant forms belong to the domain of adverbial subordination, their low frequency in the *Chanson de Roland* is less surprising. However, this feature is not restricted to the *Chanson de Roland*, but characteristic of the earliest texts in general (Giouffi 2020: 127). Hence, it is surprising that the *Chanson de Roland* shows a low number of adjunct -ant forms, while the Early Old French texts do not comprise significantly fewer adjunct forms than the 12th-13th c. texts.

A chi-square goodness-of-fit test suggests that the increasing proportion of adjunct -ant forms between Early Old French and the 12th-13th c. is probably random. Indeed, this proportion is lower than expected in Early Old French and higher than expected in the 12-13th c. in a statistically insignificant way ($\chi^2 = 0.19; df = 1; p = 0.6629$) (Table 6.33).

<table><caption>**Table 6.33.** Observed vs expected proportion of adjunct -ant forms to the total number of -ant forms in Early Old French and the 12th-13th c.</caption><thead><tr><th>Period</th><th>Observed frequency (%)</th><th>Expected frequency (%)</th><th>Standardised residuals</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Early Old French</td><td>7 (21,21%)</td><td>9 (27,27%)</td><td>-0.61</td></tr><tr><td>12th-13th c.</td><td>532 (26,75%)</td><td>530 (26,65%)</td><td>+0.08</td></tr></tbody></table>

Hence, during the Old French period, the -ant form does not show signs of a converbalisation process, i.e. specialisation in adverbial external syntax.

### 6.3.2. Frequency and productivity in the five thematic domains

The absolute number of adjunct -ant forms is highest in the didactical texts and lowest in the historical texts (though the difference with the literary texts is negligible) (Table 6.34). In contrast, their proportion to the total number of -ant forms is highest in the legal texts and lowest in the literary texts.

<table><caption>**Table 6.34.** Frequency of adjunct -ant forms in the historical, religious, literary, didactical, and legal texts in Old French</caption><thead><tr><th>Thematic domain</th><th>#adjunct -ant forms (per 10 000 words)</th><th>#-ant forms (per 10 000 words)</th><th>#adjunct -ant forms/ -ant forms</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Historical</td><td>29 (5.95)</td><td>122 (25.04)</td><td>23,77%</td></tr><tr><td>Religious</td><td>177 (6.24)</td><td>573 (20.21)</td><td>30,89%</td></tr><tr><td>Literary</td><td>160 (5.96)</td><td>779 (29.00)</td><td>20,54%</td></tr><tr><td>Didactical</td><td>79 (8.80)</td><td>388 (43.22)</td><td>23,37%</td></tr><tr><td>Legal</td><td>108 (7.05)</td><td>291 (19.00)</td><td>37,11%</td></tr></tbody></table>
According to a chi-square goodness-of-fit test, the differences between the five thematic domains might not be random. Indeed, the proportion of adjunct forms is lower than expected in the historical, literary, and didactical texts and higher than expected in the religious and legal texts in a statistically highly significant way ($\chi^2 = 33.33; df = 4; p < 0.0001$) (Table 6.35). Closer scrutiny reveals that the only text types making a significant contribution to the obtained chi-square values are the literary and legal texts (only in these texts do the standardised residuals exceed the threshold of $\pm 2.58$ required at significance levels higher than $p = 0.01$; see Levshina 2015: 221).

<table><caption>**Table 6.35.** Observed *vs* expected proportion of adjunct -ant forms to the total number of -ant forms in the historical, religious, literary, didactical, and legal texts in Old French</caption><thead><tr><th>Thematic domain</th><th>Observed frequency (%)</th><th>Expected frequency (%)</th><th>Standardised residuals</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Historical</td><td>29 (23,77%)</td><td>31 (25,41%)</td><td>-0.42</td></tr><tr><td>Religious</td><td>177 (30,89%)</td><td>147 (25,65%)</td><td>+2.46</td></tr><tr><td>Literary</td><td>160 (20,54%)</td><td>200 (25,67%)</td><td>-2.83</td></tr><tr><td>Didactical</td><td>79 (23,37%)</td><td>100 (25,77%)</td><td>-2.07</td></tr><tr><td>Legal</td><td>108 (37,11%)</td><td>75 (25,77%)</td><td>+3.85</td></tr></tbody></table>

Thus, the question arises as to what distinguishes the use of adjunct -ant forms in the literary and legal texts from their use in the historical, religious, and didactical texts. The answer does not come from the productivity of the adjunct forms, measured in terms of the lexical variation between the -ant form and the main verb. As shown in Table 6.36, the productivity of this form shows some thematic variation, but the differences between the five domains are too small to be significant.

<table><caption>**Table 6.36.** Productivity of the adjunct -ant form in the historical, religious, literary, didactical, and legal texts in Old French</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Historical</th><th>Religious</th><th>Literary</th><th>Didactical</th><th>Legal</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>#tokens</td><td>29</td><td>177</td><td>160</td><td>79</td><td>108</td></tr><tr><td>#types</td><td>29</td><td>144</td><td>127</td><td>59</td><td>87</td></tr><tr><td>#hapaxes</td><td>29</td><td>128</td><td>108</td><td>56</td><td>94</td></tr><tr><td>#types/#tokens</td><td><strong>1.00</strong></td><td><strong>0.81</strong></td><td><strong>0.79</strong></td><td><strong>0.75</strong></td><td><strong>0.87</strong></td></tr><tr><td>#hapaxes/#tokens</td><td><strong>1.00</strong></td><td><strong>0.72</strong></td><td><strong>0.68</strong></td><td><strong>0.71</strong></td><td><strong>0.81</strong></td></tr></tbody></table>

A similar picture arises from the five most frequent combinations. Their cumulative frequency ranges from 14% in the literary texts to 17% in the historical texts, the only exception being the didactical texts. In these texts, this frequency amounts to 32% (Table 6.37).
<table><caption>**Table 6.37.** Inventory and cumulative frequency of the five most frequent lexical combinations of a main verb and an adjunct -ant form in the historical, religious, literary, didactical, and legal texts in Old French</caption><thead><tr><th>Thematic domain</th><th>Lexeme of main verb</th><th>Lexeme of -ant form</th><th>Frequency (%)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="5">Historical</td><td><i>enfuir</i> 'to flee'</td><td><i>quérir</i> 'to search'</td><td>1 (3,44%)</td></tr><tr><td><i>mourir</i> 'to die'</td><td><i>fuir</i> 'to flee'</td><td>1 (3,44%)</td></tr><tr><td><i>venir</i> 'to come'</td><td><i>crier</i> 'to shout'</td><td>1 (3,44%)</td></tr><tr><td><i>passer</i> 'to pass'</td><td><i>occire</i> 'to kill'</td><td>1 (3,44%)</td></tr><tr><td><i>orer</i> 'to pray'</td><td><i>pleurer</i> 'to cry'</td><td>1 (3,44%)<sup>18</sup></td></tr><tr><td colspan="3"></td><td><strong>5 (17,24%)</strong></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="5">Religious</td><td><i>dire</i> 'to say'</td><td><i>ouïr</i> 'to hear'</td><td>8 (4,52%)</td></tr><tr><td><i>dire</i> 'to say'</td><td><i>pleurer</i> 'to cry'</td><td>7 (3,95%)</td></tr><tr><td><i>aller</i> 'to go'</td><td><i>pleurer</i> 'to cry'</td><td>5 (2,82%)</td></tr><tr><td><i>faire</i> 'to do'</td><td><i>voir</i> 'to see'</td><td>4 (2,26%)</td></tr><tr><td><i>voir</i> 'to see'</td><td><i>songer</i> 'to think'</td><td>3 (1,69%)</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3"></td><td><strong>27 (15,25%)</strong></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="5">Literary</td><td><i>dire</i> 'to say'</td><td><i>pleurer</i> 'to cry'</td><td>7 (4,38%)</td></tr><tr><td><i>(s'en) tourner</i> 'to return'</td><td><i>fuir</i> 'to flee'</td><td>6 (3,75%)</td></tr><tr><td><i>occire</i> 'to kill'</td><td><i>voire</i> 'to see'</td><td>3 (1,88%)</td></tr><tr><td><i>dire</i> 'to say'</td><td><i>rire</i> 'to laugh'</td><td>3 (1,88%)</td></tr><tr><td><i>départir</i> 'to leave'</td><td><i>pleurer</i> 'to cry'</td><td>3 (1,88%)<sup>19</sup></td></tr><tr><td colspan="3"></td><td><strong>22 (13,75%)</strong></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="5">Didactical</td><td><i>trouver</i> 'to find'</td><td><i>lire</i> 'to read'</td><td>15 (18,99%)</td></tr><tr><td><i>trouver</i> 'to find'</td><td><i>dire</i> 'to say'</td><td>6 (7,59%)</td></tr><tr><td><i>couvrir</i> 'to cover'</td><td><i>fuir</i> 'to flee'</td><td>2 (2,53%)</td></tr><tr><td><i>douter</i> 'to doubt'</td><td><i>dormir</i> 'to sleep'</td><td>1 (1,27%)</td></tr><tr><td><i>voir</i> 'to see'</td><td><i>penser</i> 'to think'</td><td>1 (1,27%)<sup>20</sup></td></tr><tr><td colspan="3"></td><td><strong>25 (31,65%)</strong></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="5">Legal</td><td><i>mourir</i> 'to die'</td><td><i>pendre</i> 'to hang'</td><td>6 (5,55%)</td></tr><tr><td><i>prendre</i> 'to take'</td><td><i>faire</i> 'to do'</td><td>3 (2,78%)</td></tr><tr><td><i>prendre</i> 'to take'</td><td><i>justicier</i> 'to punish'</td><td>3 (2,78%)</td></tr><tr><td><i>faire</i> 'to do'</td><td><i>justicier</i> 'to punish'</td><td>3 (2,78%)</td></tr><tr><td><i>acheter</i> 'to buy'</td><td><i>durer</i> 'to last'</td><td>2 (1,85%)<sup>21</sup></td></tr><tr><td colspan="3"></td><td><strong>17 (15,74%)</strong></td></tr></tbody></table>

On closer inspection, the high portion in the didactical texts is due to the high frequency of one lexical combination, namely *trouver* 'to find'/*lire* 'to read' (26).

<footnote n="18">¹⁸ The remaining 24 lexical combinations in the historical texts are also hapaxes.</footnote>

<footnote n="19">¹⁹ There are two more lexical combinations occurring three times in the literary texts.</footnote>

<footnote n="20">²⁰ The remaining combinations in the didactical texts are represented by 54 more hapaxes.</footnote>

<footnote n="21">²¹ The legal texts contain two more lexical combinations occurring twice.</footnote>
(26) Mais ço truvum lis-ant / En cel compot but DEM.OBJ.N.SG find.PRS.1PL read-V.ANT in DEM.OBL.M.SG computus.OBL.M.SG Gerlant [...]. Gerland

‘But we find this by reading in that computus of Gerland.’ (Ph. de Thaon *Comput* 483-484)

The use of adjunct -ant forms in the literary and legal texts thus does not differ from their use in the historical, religious, and didactical texts in terms of productivity. Closer scrutiny furthermore shows that this thematic variation neither results from a difference in lexical variation of the main verbs and -ant forms separately. Indeed, the lexical variation of the -ant forms does not greatly differ in the religious, literary, and legal texts (Table 6.38). There is more variation in the didactical texts, but the difference with the three previous text types is too low to be significant. The variation is highest in the historical texts, but given the low absolute number of instances in these texts, this deviant character is probably hazardous.

<table><caption>**Table 6.38.** Lexical variation of the adjunct -ant forms in the historical, religious, literary, didactical, and legal texts in Old French</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Historical</th><th>Religious</th><th>Literary</th><th>Didactical</th><th>Legal</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>#tokens</td><td>29</td><td>177</td><td>160</td><td>79</td><td>108</td></tr><tr><td>#types</td><td>26</td><td>65</td><td>54</td><td>46</td><td>45</td></tr><tr><td>#hapaxes</td><td>23</td><td>45</td><td>34</td><td>36</td><td>31</td></tr><tr><td>#types/#tokens</td><td><strong>0.90</strong></td><td><strong>0.37</strong></td><td><strong>0.34</strong></td><td><strong>0.58</strong></td><td><strong>0.42</strong></td></tr><tr><td>#hapaxes/#tokens</td><td><strong>0.79</strong></td><td><strong>0.25</strong></td><td><strong>0.21</strong></td><td><strong>0.46</strong></td><td><strong>0.29</strong></td></tr></tbody></table>

Likewise, as shown in Table 6.39, the cumulative frequency of the five most frequent lexemes does not greatly differ among the religious, literary, didactical, and legal texts. In line with Table 6.38, this frequency is lower in the historical texts, with, however, the same proviso of a smaller number of tokens.

<table><caption>**Table 6.39.** Inventory and cumulative frequency of the five most frequent lexemes used for adjunct -ant forms in the historical, religious, literary, didactical, and legal texts in Old French</caption><thead><tr><th>Thematic domain</th><th>Lexeme of -ant form</th><th>Frequency (%)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="5">Historical</td><td>crier 'to shout'</td><td>2 (6,90%)</td></tr><tr><td>parler 'to speak'</td><td>2 (6,90%)</td></tr><tr><td>fuir 'to flee'</td><td>2 (6,90%)</td></tr><tr><td>quérir 'to search'</td><td>1 (3,44%)</td></tr><tr><td>vivre 'to live'</td><td>1 (3,44%)<sup>22</sup></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td><strong>8 (27,59%)</strong></td></tr></tbody></table>

<footnote n="22">22 The remaining 21 adjunct forms in -ant in the historical texts are also hapaxes.</footnote>
<table><tbody><tr><td rowspan="5">Religious</td><td>pleurer 'to cry'</td><td>29 (16,38%)</td></tr><tr><td>voir 'to see'</td><td>24 (13,56%)</td></tr><tr><td>ouïr 'to hear'</td><td>22 (12,43%)</td></tr><tr><td>dormir 'to sleep'</td><td>9 (5,08%)</td></tr><tr><td>crier 'to shout'</td><td>8 (4,52%)</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td><td><strong>92 (51,98%)</strong></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="5">Literary</td><td>pleurer 'to cry'</td><td>26 (16,25%)</td></tr><tr><td>voir 'to see'</td><td>21 (13,13%)</td></tr><tr><td>ouïr 'to hear'</td><td>9 (5,63%)</td></tr><tr><td>dormir 'to sleep'</td><td>9 (5,63%)</td></tr><tr><td>faire 'to do'</td><td>7 (4,38%)<sup>23</sup></td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td><td><strong>72 (45,00%)</strong></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="5">Didactical</td><td>lire 'to read'</td><td>15 (18,99%)</td></tr><tr><td>dire 'to say'</td><td>6 (7,59%)</td></tr><tr><td>dormir 'to sleep'</td><td>5 (6,33%)</td></tr><tr><td>fuir 'to flee'</td><td>5 (6,33%)</td></tr><tr><td>pleurer 'to cry'</td><td>2 (2,53%)<sup>24</sup></td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td><td><strong>33 (41,77%)</strong></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="5">Legal</td><td>pendre 'to hang'</td><td>17 (15,74%)</td></tr><tr><td>durer 'to last'</td><td>12 (11,11%)</td></tr><tr><td>justicier 'to punish'</td><td>8 (7,41%)</td></tr><tr><td>défendre 'to defend'</td><td>7 (6,48%)</td></tr><tr><td>dire 'to say'</td><td>7 (6,48%)<sup>25</sup></td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td><td><strong>51 (47,22%)</strong></td></tr></tbody></table>

The most frequent lexeme in the religious, literary, didactical, and legal texts represents more than 15% of all adjunct -ant forms in these texts. The religious and literary texts share their most frequent lexeme, namely *pleurer* 'to cry' (27). The most recurrent lexemes in the didactical and legal texts are respectively *lire* 'to read' (23/26) and *pendre* 'to hang' (28).

(27) *Tristan l' a plor-ant salüee.*

Tristan she.OBJ.F.SG have.PRS.3SG cry-V.ANT greet.PTCP.PST.F.SG

'Tristan greeted her while crying.' (Bér. *Tristan* 3777)

(28) *Quant [...] il muert le plet pend-ant [...].*

when he.SBJ.M.SG die.PRS.3SG ART.DEF.OBL.M.SG process.OBL.M.SG hang-V.ANT

'When he dies during the process (...).' (Ph. de Beau. *Coutumes* 225)

<footnote n="23">23 There is one more lexeme occurring seven times in the literary texts.</footnote>

<footnote n="24">24 The didactical texts contain five more lexemes occurring twice.</footnote>

<footnote n="25">25 There is one more lexeme with a token frequency of 7 in the legal texts.</footnote>
A similar observation can be made with respect to the lexical variation of the main verbs. Hence, Table 6.40, showing this variation, will be presented without being further discussed.

<table><caption>**Table 6.40.** Lexical variation of the main verbs combined with an adjunct -ant form in the historical, religious, literary, didactical, and legal texts in Old French</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Historical</th><th>Religious</th><th>Literary</th><th>Didactical</th><th>Legal</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><th>#tokens</th><td>29</td><td>177</td><td>160</td><td>79</td><td>108</td></tr><tr><th>#types</th><td>24</td><td>89</td><td>70</td><td>45</td><td>46</td></tr><tr><th>#hapaxes</th><td>20</td><td>64</td><td>43</td><td>34</td><td>27</td></tr><tr><th>#types/#tokens</th><td><strong>0.83</strong></td><td><strong>0.50</strong></td><td><strong>0.44</strong></td><td><strong>0.57</strong></td><td><strong>0.43</strong></td></tr><tr><th>#hapaxes/#tokens</th><td><strong>0.69</strong></td><td><strong>0.36</strong></td><td><strong>0.27</strong></td><td><strong>0.43</strong></td><td><strong>0.25</strong></td></tr></tbody></table>

Table 6.41 betokens that the same holds for the cumulative frequency of the five most frequent lexemes. The only difference is that this frequency in the historical texts does not greatly differ from that in the other text types, contrary to what has been observed for the lexical variation of the -ant forms.

<table><caption>**Table 6.41.** Inventory and cumulative frequency of the five most frequent lexemes used for verbs combined with an adjunct -ant form in the historical, religious, literary, didactical, and legal texts in Old French</caption><thead><tr><th>Thematic domain</th><th>Lexeme of main verb</th><th>Frequency (%)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="5">Historical</td><td>choir 'to fall'</td><td>3 (10,34%)</td></tr><tr><td>navier 'to navigate'</td><td>2 (6,90%)</td></tr><tr><td>venir 'to come'</td><td>2 (6,90%)</td></tr><tr><td>mourir 'to die'</td><td>2 (6,90%)</td></tr><tr><td>fuir 'to flee'</td><td>1 (3,45%)</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td><td><strong>10 (34,48%)</strong></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="5">Religious</td><td>dire 'to say'</td><td>21 (11,86%)</td></tr><tr><td>venir 'to come'</td><td>12 (6,77%)</td></tr><tr><td>faire 'to do'</td><td>10 (5,65%)</td></tr><tr><td>aller 'to go'</td><td>10 (5,65%)</td></tr><tr><td>courir 'to run'</td><td>6 (3,39%)<sup>26</sup></td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td><td><strong>59 (33,33%)</strong></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="6">Literary</td><td>dire 'to say'</td><td>16 (10,00%)</td></tr><tr><td>aller 'to go'</td><td>13 (8,13%)</td></tr><tr><td>(s'en) tourner 'to return'</td><td>10 (6,25%)</td></tr><tr><td>venir 'to come'</td><td>8 (5,00%)</td></tr><tr><td>voir 'to see'</td><td>7 (4,38%)</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td><td><strong>54 (33,75%)</strong></td></tr></tbody></table>

<footnote n="26">26 There is one more lexeme with a token frequency of 6 in the religious texts.</footnote>
<table><tbody><tr><td rowspan="5">Didactical</td><td><i>trouver</i> 'to find'</td><td>23 (29,11%)</td></tr><tr><td><i>aller</i> 'to go'</td><td>3 (3,80%)</td></tr><tr><td><i>venir</i> 'to come'</td><td>3 (3,80%)</td></tr><tr><td><i>prendre</i> 'to take'</td><td>2 (2,53%)</td></tr><tr><td><i>mettre</i> 'to put'</td><td>2 (2,53%)<sup>27</sup></td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td><td><b>33 (41,77%)</b></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="5">Legal</td><td><i>prendre</i> 'to take'</td><td>15 (10,77%)</td></tr><tr><td><i>faire</i> 'to do'</td><td>15 (7,69%)</td></tr><tr><td><i>mourir</i> 'to die'</td><td>6 (7,69%)</td></tr><tr><td><i>être</i> 'to be'</td><td>6 (6,15%)</td></tr><tr><td><i>dire</i> 'to say'</td><td>4 (4,62%)</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td><td><b>46 (42,59%)</b></td></tr></tbody></table>

In sum, the use of adjunct -ant forms in the literary and legal texts does not differ from their use in the historical, religious, and didactical texts with regard to their productivity, nor with respect to the lexical variation of the main verbs and -ant forms separately. So, why then are adjunct -ant forms more frequent in the legal texts and less frequent in the literary texts? No explanation has been found for their low frequency in the literary texts (the opposition between verse and prose did not prove relevant either). In contrast, their high frequency in the legal texts might be due to the textual composition of the Old French corpus. Indeed, this corpus comprises only three legal texts, namely the *Chartes de l'Aube*, the *Chartes du Hainaut*, and the *Coutumes de Beauvaisis*. Almost all adjunct forms in the legal domain occur in the latter text (103 instances out of 108), composed by Phillipe de Beaumanoir. Hence, the high frequency of adjunct forms in the legal texts might be an idiolectic feature of this particular author rather than a general feature of the language in legal texts. However, since statistical significance does exclude that some trend is random, the thematic differences in Tables 6.34 and 6.35 might also be accidental.

### 6.3.3. Degree of categorial determinacy

As noted *supra*, the degree of categorial determinacy of the adverbial -ant form will be calculated as the proportion of adjunct forms that are categorisable as either gerunds or present participles on the basis of the presence of respectively a preposition and an inflectional variant of the ending -ant.

34% of all adjunct forms are prepositional (188 instances out of 553). The overwhelming majority of these forms (n=178) are governed by *en* 'in', attested in five graphical variants: *en* (29), *a* (30), *am* (31), *an* (32), and *em* (33).

<footnote n="27">27 The didactical texts contain six more lexemes occurring twice.</footnote>
(29) [...] sospira et en plor-ant li demanda [...].
sigh.PST.3SG and in cry-V.ANT he.OBL.M.SG ask.PST.3SG
‘She sighed and asked him while crying (...).’ (Eneas 1676)

(30) [...] s' ele est contraire a soi meisme a respondant
if she.SBJ.F.SG be.PRS.3SG contrary.SBJ.F.SG to REFL.OBL.F.SG self in answer-V.ANT
as demandes [...].
to;ART.DEF.OBL.F.PL question.OBL.F.PL
‘If she contradicts herself in answering the questions (...).’ (Ph. de Beau. *Coutumes* 929)

(31) [...] ele use de ces II choses am plor-ant.
she.SBJ.F.SG consume.PRS.3SG of DEM.OBL.F.PL two thing.OBL.F.PL in cry-V.ANT
‘She consumes these two things while crying.’ (Vie de s. Genev. 3)

(32) [...] mot en parloient an al-ent.
a lot about_her speak.PST.3PL in go-V.ANT
‘They spoke a lot about her while moving forth.’ (Bér. Tristan 3534)

(33) Il ploroit e disoit em plor-ant [...].
he.SBJ.M.SG cry.PST.3SG and say.PST.3SG in cry-V.ANT
‘He cried and said while crying (...).’ (Vie de s. Eust. 23)

The remaining ten instances are introduced by *par* ‘by’ (34) or *sur* ‘in’ (35), each of them attested five times. *Sur* is graphically realised as *seur* and has a temporal value rather than its default spatial value.

(34) [...] car adonques puet prendre l' oirs toutes
for so can.PRS.3SG take.INF.PRS ART.DEF.SBJ.M.SG heir.SBJ.M.SG all.OBL.F.PL
les despueilles par le gaaignage pai-ant.
ART.DEF.OBL.F.PL harvest.OBL.F.PL by ART.DEF.OBL.M.SG land.OBL.M.SG pay-V.ANT
‘For so the heir can take the whole harvest in return for payment of land.’ (Ph. de Beau. *Coutumes* 449)

(35) [...] la seconde manière [...] est de tuer
ART.DEF.SBJ.F.SG second.SBJ.F.SG manner.SBJ.F.SG be.PRS.3SG by kill.INF.PRS
autrui seur soi defend-ant.
other.OBL.M.SG on REFL.OBL.M.SG defend-V.ANT
‘The second manner is by killing someone in self-defense.’ (Ph. de Beau. *Coutumes* 889)

Assuming that the present participle does not acquire the potential to be prepositional in the transition
from Late Latin to Old French or during the Old French period itself, these prepositional forms can be
taken as gerunds. Thus, the degree of categorial determinacy of the adverbial -ant form is at least 34%.

In addition, 46 adjunct -ant forms exhibit an inflectional variant of the ending -ant. This equals a
relative frequency of 8%. The form oianz ‘hearing’ (36) is a case in point.
(36) *L'* ymage dist, **oi-anz** les
ART.DEF.SBJ.F.SG statue.SBJ.F.SG say.PST.3SG hear-V.ANT.OBL.F.PL ART.DEF.OBL.F.PL

*genz* [...].
people.OBL.F.PL

‘The statue (of saint Mary) said in the presence of the people (...) (lit. ‘while the people could hear (it)’).
(Adg. *Mir*. 38.289)

Unless the gerund acquires the potential to agree with its subject in the transition from Late Latin to Old French or within the period of Old French, these agreeing forms can all be taken as present participles. Hence, the degree of categorial determinacy of the adverbial *-ant* form increases from 34% to 42%. In absolute numbers, this means that 234 forms are categorially determinate.

### 6.3.4. Conclusion

Adjunct *-ant* forms represent 26% of all *-ant* forms in the Old French corpus of this study. This portion is slightly lower in Early Old French, but in a statistically insignificant way. It is also higher in the legal texts than in the other types of texts, but this difference is not related to a difference in productivity, nor to a difference in lexical variation of the main verbs and *-ant* forms separately. It might result from an idiosyncratic feature of the language of one author (Philippe de Beaumanoir) or simply be hazardous.

Of this group of adjunct forms, 34% can be categorised as gerunds and 8% as present participles. This equals an absolute number of 234 forms. These 234 categorially determinate forms represent 11% of the total number of *-ant* forms. As a corollary, the degree of categorial determinacy of the Old French *-ant* form raises from 45% to 56% – the percentage of 45% was obtained on the basis of the adjectival forms. However, as stated in §6.2.4, this percentage needs to be interpreted within the broad definition of the *-ant* form adopted in this study. In a stricter definition, some adjectival instances would hold as adjectives, and would therefore be excluded from the dataset. The resulting lesser presence of adjectival forms would increase the proportion of adverbial forms. Since the latter, but not the former, have a low degree of categorial determinacy (34% *versus* 100%), the outcome would be a lower degree of categorial determinacy of the Old French *-ant* form in general.

## 6.4. The verbal *-ant* form

The last type of *-ant* forms to be examined are those exhibiting verbal external syntax. In principle, these forms can be used as the main verb of either a progressive construction (e.g. *demenant* ‘pursue’ and *abatant* ‘slaying’ (37)) or a presentative progressive construction (e.g. *seant* ‘sitting’ (38)) (see §2.2.2.3).
(37) Bretun les vunt mult **demen-ant** / E a granz
Briton.SBJ.M.PL they.OBJ.M.PL go.PRS.3PL much pursue-V.ANT and in large.OBL.F.PL
turbes **abat-ant** [...].
crowd.OBL.F.PL slay-V.ANT

‘The Britons go heavily pursuing them and slaying them in large numbers.’ (Wace *Brut* 12069-12070)

(38) [...] *Sur la roche u sunt venud / Trovent*
on ART.DEF.OBL.F.SG rock.OBL.F.SG where be.PRS.3PL come.PTCP.PST.M.PL find.PRS.3PL
**se-ant** homme nud.
sit-V.ANT man.OBL.M.SG naked.OBL.M.SG

‘On the rock where they arrived, they found a naked man sitting.’ (Ben. *Brendan* 1221-1222)

However, the corpus of this study also contains two forms used in a way that has gone unnoticed in the literature. Like those occurring in a progressive construction, these forms act as the main verb of a verbal periphrasis, but instead of denoting a durative state of affairs, this periphrasis expresses the starting point of the state of affairs denoted by the -ant form. The auxiliary (or the verb used as such) is thus (partly) grammaticalised as a marker of the inchoative aspect (cf. Comrie 1976: 19-20). The construction as a whole can as such be defined as an inchoative construction. The auxiliary of this construction is realised by two distinct, but semantically related lexemes: *se mettre* ‘to put’ (39) and *remettre* ‘to put again’ (40).

(39) [...] *suvent se mist **sigl-ant** en mer [...].*
often REFL.OBJ.M.SG put.PST.3SG sail-V.ANT in sea.OBL.F.SG

‘He often set sail on the sea (lit. ‘he often put himself to sail on the sea’).’ (Wace *Brut* 14169)

(40) [...] *et Perceval remest **dorm-ant** qui mout fu*
and Perceval.SBJ.M.SG putAgain.PST.3SG sleep-V.ANT REL.SBJ.M.SG very be.PST.3SG
travailliez de ceste avision.
tired.SBJ.M.SG of DEM.OBL.F.SG vision.OBL.F.SG

‘And Perceval, who was very tired because of this vision, went back to sleep.’ (Graal 133)

Given its extreme rareness (2 instances out of 2 153 or 0,09%) and given the fact that it is not preserved in later stages of the language, the use of the -ant form in an inchoative construction has, according to the terminology of Harris & Campbell (1995: 54), the status of an exploratory expression: they are part of the set of universally available expressions that may turn up spontaneously in several languages for the sake of enhancing expressivity or avoiding ambiguity. They may either be further grammaticalised or simply remain hapaxes. Noteworthy, French did develop an inchoative construction, but the non-finite verb form used in this construction is an infinitive, as illustrated in the Modern French example in (41) (Verroens 2011).
(41) *Ils se mettaient à lutter contre eux.*
they.SBJ.M.PL REFL.M.PL put.PST.3PL to fight.INF.PRS against they.OBL.M.PL
‘They started to fight against them.’ (Verroens 2011: 11)

In Late Latin, the gerund nor the present participle can occur in an inchoative construction. Hence, the forms in (39-40) cannot be categorised from a retrospective historical approach, and are thus categorially indeterminate. By contrast, the forms used in a presentative progressive construction can be categorised as present participles, because this use is only accessible to the Late Latin present participle. As to the forms in a progressive construction, they are categorially indeterminate. Indeed, this use is accessible to both the Late Latin gerund and present participle, and the Late Latin data of this study do not provide evidence in favour of a replacement of the present participle by the gerund in this construction. However, as in the case of the adjunct forms, some of these instances can nonetheless be categorised on the basis of the presence of a preposition or an inflectional variant of the ending -ant, provided, as always, that the gerund and the present participle do not encroach on each other’s morphology in the transition from Late Latin to Old French, nor within the period of Old French itself.

This section will examine respectively the -ant forms used in progressive (§6.4.1) and presentative progressive constructions (§6.4.2). I will bring together the results obtained for these forms in §6.4.3, in order to draw a conclusion for the verbal -ant form as a whole.

### 6.4.1. -Ant forms used in a progressive construction

-Ant forms functioning as the main verb of a progressive construction can be combined with two types of auxiliaries (or verbs used as such): existential/posture verbs (e.g. *être* ‘to be’ (42)) or motion verbs (e.g. *aller* ‘to go’ (43)).<fnref n="28" />

(42) *La glorie d'icest mund n' est*
ART.DEF.SBJ.F.SG glory.SBJ.F.SG of DEM.OBL.M.SG world.OBL.M.SG NEG be.PRS.3SG
lungement dur-ant.
for_a_long_time last-V.ANT
‘The glory of this world is not lasting for a long time.’ (Guernes *Becket* 1245)

<footnote n="28">²⁸ Remember that, in the transition from Late Latin to Old French, the existential verb *esse* ‘to be’ and the posture verb *stare* ‘to stand’ survive as two distinct verbs (respectively *être* and *ester*), but that some of their forms merge morphologically. The result is a situation of lexical indeterminacy. Following convention, all forms in issue will be analysed as forms of *être*, all the more because no instances have been found of progressive constructions containing an auxiliary that undoubtedly qualifies as a form of *ester*. Due to the morphological merging of the two verbs, the static auxiliaries are best described as existential/posture verbs.</footnote>
<table><tr><td>(43)</td><td>Li sans vait degut-ant / Sur les</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>ART.DEF.SBJ.M.SG blood.SBJ.M.SG go.PRS.3SG drop-V.ANT on ART.DEF.OBL.M.PL</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>oisels chaant [...].</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>bird.OBL.M.PL sing.V-ANT</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>'The blood goes dropping on the singing birds.' (Ph. de Thaon Bestiaire 2361)</td></tr></table>

The examination of this type of -ant forms will be conducted in two steps. First, I will investigate their frequency in general (§6.4.1.1) as well as their frequency and productivity in the five thematic domains (§6.4.1.2). The latter section will also explore the inventory of the verbs used as auxiliaries. Then, I will measure the degree of categorial determinacy of the -ant forms on the basis of the morphological criteria mentioned above (§6.4.1.3).

### 6.4.1.1. Frequency

-Ant forms occur about as often in progressive constructions as in adnominal phrases and adjuncts. Their absolute frequency amounts to 6.75 instances per 10 000 words (versus 6.17 adnominal forms and 6.55 adjunct forms). Their portion to the total number of -ant forms is thus also similar (26% or 570 instances out of 2 153, against 24% and 26% for respectively adnominal and adjunct forms). The frequency of this type of -ant forms is considerably higher in Early Old French than in the 12th-13th c., according to both measurements (Table 6.42).

<table><caption>**Table 6.42.** Frequency of -ant forms used in a progressive construction in Early Old French and the 12th-13th c.</caption><thead><tr><th>Period</th><th>#-ant forms used in a<br>progressive construction<br>(per 10 000 words)</th><th>#-ant forms<br>(per 10 000 words)</th><th>#-ant forms used in a<br>progressive construction/<br>#-ant forms</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Early Old French</td><td>19 (21.21)</td><td>33 (36.84)</td><td>57,58%</td></tr><tr><td>12th-13th c.</td><td>506 (6.27)</td><td>1 989 (24.63)</td><td>25,44%</td></tr></tbody></table>

The *Chanson de Roland* contains 16.38 -ant forms used in a progressive construction per 10 000 words. The proportion of these forms to the total number of -ant forms in this text is 34% (45 instances out of 131). On the basis of this use of the -ant form, the *Chanson de Roland* thus behaves more like 12th-13th c. texts than as Early Old French texts (the proportion of -ant forms to the total number of -ant forms is more telling than their (normalised) absolute frequency). This result is in line with that obtained for the three types of adjectival -ant forms, but at odds with that obtained for the adjunct forms.

According to a chi-square goodness-of-fit test, the decreasing proportion of -ant forms used in a progressive construction might reflect a linguistic change, since their fraction is higher than expected in
Early Old French and lower than expected in the 12th-13th c. in a statistically highly significant way ($\chi^2$ = 11.7; df = 1; p = 0.0006) (Table 6.43).

<table><caption>**Table 6.43.** Observed vs expected proportion of -ant forms used in a progressive construction to the total number of -ant forms in Early Old French and the 12th-13th c.</caption><thead><tr><th>Period</th><th>Observed frequency (%)</th><th>Expected frequency (%)</th><th>Standardised residuals</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Early Old French</td><td>19 (57,58%)</td><td>9 (27,27%)</td><td>+3.56</td></tr><tr><td>12th-13th c.</td><td>506 (25,44%)</td><td>516 (25,94%)</td><td>-0.46</td></tr></tbody></table>

However, the low frequency of -ant forms in Early Old French does not allow making conclusive claims. Hence, it is not excluded that the decline observed in Table 6.42 is nonetheless random, conformingly to the fact that statistical significance does not necessarily mean that some trend cannot be due to chance. Nonetheless, the high proportion of -ant forms used in a progressive construction in Early Old French in comparison with the 12th-13th c. might have something to do with the opposition between versified texts and texts written in prose. Indeed, all texts in the Early Old French corpus are versified. Hence, the high proportion of the -ant forms in issue in these texts might be due to their versified character. This is confirmed by the texts of the 12th-13th c. corpus: the use of -ant forms in a progressive construction is significantly more frequent in versified texts than in texts written in prose ($\chi^2$ = 4.07; df = 1; p = 0.0437) (Table 6.44).

<table><caption>**Table 6.44.** Observed vs expected proportion of -ant forms used in a progressive construction to the total number of -ant forms in versified texts and in texts written in prose in the 12th-13th c.</caption><thead><tr><th>Form</th><th>Observed frequency (%)</th><th>Expected frequency (%)</th><th>Standardised residuals</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Prose</td><td>186 (36,76%)</td><td>209 (41,30%)</td><td>-1.58</td></tr><tr><td>Verse</td><td>320 (63,24%)</td><td>297 (58,70%)</td><td>+1.33</td></tr></tbody></table>

One of the factors contributing to the high frequency of this type of -ant forms in versified texts is that these forms easily allow end rhymes, as in (44).

(44) *Gran folcs aredre, gran davan: /gran e petit great.SBJ.M..SG crow.SBJ.M.SG behind great.SBJ.M..SG before great.SBJ.M.PL and little.SBJ.M.PL Deu van laud-ant. / Ensobre tot petiz enfan / God.OBL.M.SG go.PRS.3PL praise-V.ANT above all.SBJ.M.PL little.SBJ.M.PL child.SBJ.M.PL osanna semper van clam-ant. osanna always go.PRS.3PL shout-V.ANT*

‘A large crowd (goes) behind, and a large (crowd goes) before. Adults and children are praising God. Above, all the little children are always shouting: “Osanna”. (Passion 45-48)
Other types of -ant forms also allow end rhymes (e.g. the adnominal form chant ‘singing’ in (43)), but the advantage of the forms used in a progressive construction is that they are part of a verbal periphrasis structurally equivalent to a finite verb form. As such, they do not complicate the syntax of the sentence by adding a subordinating clause, and can be introduced in a flexible way. This advantage is particularly relevant for the oldest texts, which, as stated in §6.3.1, are mostly versified written renderings of texts that have been transmitted orally and that usually contain short sentences and few subordinating clauses (cf. Giouffi 2020: 127).

### 6.4.1.2. Frequency and productivity in the five thematic domains

A closer look at the -ant forms used in a progressive construction reveals that their (normalised) absolute frequency is highest in the didactical texts, whereas their proportion to the total number of -ant forms is highest in the historical texts (Table 6.45). Both frequencies are lowest in the religious texts.

<table><caption>**Table 6.45.** Frequency of -ant forms used in a progressive construction in the historical, religious, literary, didactical, and legal texts in Old French</caption><thead><tr><th>Thematic domain</th><th>#-ant forms used in a progressive construction (per 10 000 words)</th><th>#-ant forms (per 10 000 words)</th><th>#-ant forms used in a progressive construction/#-ant forms</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Historical</td><td>52 (10.67)</td><td>122 (25.04)</td><td>42,62%</td></tr><tr><td>Religious</td><td>115 (4.06)</td><td>573 (20.21)</td><td>20,07%</td></tr><tr><td>Literary</td><td>217 (8.08)</td><td>779 (29.00)</td><td>27,86%</td></tr><tr><td>Didactical</td><td>116 (12.92)</td><td>388 (43.22)</td><td>29,90%</td></tr><tr><td>Legal</td><td>70 (4.57)</td><td>291 (19.00)</td><td>24,05%</td></tr></tbody></table>

A chi-square goodness-of-fit test shows that the proportion of the forms in issue is lower than expected in the religious and legal texts and higher than expected in the historical, literary, and didactical texts in a statistically highly significant way ($\chi^2 = 23.82; df = 4; p < 0.0001$) (Table 6.46).

<table><caption>**Table 6.46.** Observed vs expected proportion of -ant forms used in a progressive construction in the historical, religious, literary, didactical, and legal texts in Old French</caption><thead><tr><th>Thematic domain</th><th>Observed frequency (%)</th><th>Expected frequency (%)</th><th>Standardised residuals</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Historical</td><td>52 (42,62%)</td><td>32 (26,23%)</td><td>+3.47</td></tr><tr><td>Religious</td><td>115 (20,07%)</td><td>152 (26,53%)</td><td>-2.98</td></tr><tr><td>Literary</td><td>217 (27,86%)</td><td>206 (26,44%)</td><td>+0.75</td></tr><tr><td>Didactical</td><td>116 (29,90%)</td><td>103 (26,55%)</td><td>+1.31</td></tr><tr><td>Legal</td><td>70 (24,05%)</td><td>77 (26,46%)</td><td>-0.80</td></tr></tbody></table>
However, the only significant contribution to the chi-square values is made by the overrepresentation of instances in the historical texts and by their underrepresentation in the religious texts. Thus, the question arises as to what distinguishes the use of these forms in the historical and religious texts from their use in the other thematic domains. In what follows, I will investigate whether this difference comes from a difference in productivity.

The productivity of the forms at stake has been measured in terms of the lexical variation between the -ant form and the auxiliary (or the verb used as such). Table 6.47 shows that this productivity degree displays a relatively modest thematic variation in the historical, religious, literary, and didactical texts. In the legal texts, on the contrary, their productivity is extremely low.

<table><caption>**Table 6.47.** Productivity of the progressive -ant form construction in the historical, religious, literary, didactical, and legal texts in Old French</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Historical</th><th>Religious</th><th>Literary</th><th>Didactical</th><th>Legal</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><th>#tokens</th><td>52</td><td>115</td><td>217</td><td>116</td><td>70</td></tr><tr><th>#types</th><td>45</td><td>83</td><td>126</td><td>82</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><th>#hapaxes</th><td>40</td><td>64</td><td>100</td><td>66</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><th>#types/#tokens</th><td><strong>0.87</strong></td><td><strong>0.72</strong></td><td><strong>0.58</strong></td><td><strong>0.71</strong></td><td><strong>0.11</strong></td></tr><tr><th>#hapaxes/#tokens</th><td><strong>0.77</strong></td><td><strong>0.56</strong></td><td><strong>0.46</strong></td><td><strong>0.57</strong></td><td><strong>0.06</strong></td></tr></tbody></table>

In other words, the progressive -ant form construction is much less schematic in the legal texts than in the other thematic domains. However, closer scrutiny shows that the low figures in the legal texts are due to the high frequency of two combinations. This is evident in Table 6.48, presenting the inventory and cumulative frequency of the five most frequent lexical combinations in each thematic domain.

<table><caption>**Table 6.48.** Inventory and cumulative frequency of the five most frequent lexical combinations of a verb used as a progressive marker and an -ant form in the historical, religious, literary, didactical, and legal texts in Old French</caption><thead><tr><th>Thematic domain</th><th>Lexeme of auxiliary</th><th>Lexeme of -ant form</th><th>Frequency (%)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="5">Historical</td><td>aller 'to go'</td><td>fuir 'to flee'</td><td>4 (7,69%)</td></tr><tr><td>aller 'to go'</td><td>quérir 'to search'</td><td>2 (3,85%)</td></tr><tr><td>aller 'to go'</td><td>navier 'to navigate'</td><td>2 (3,85%)</td></tr><tr><td>aller 'to go'</td><td>demander 'to ask'</td><td>2 (3,85%)</td></tr><tr><td>venir 'to come'</td><td>suivre 'to follow'</td><td>2 (3,85%)</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td><strong>12 (23,08%)</strong></td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><tbody><tr><td rowspan="5">Religious</td><td>venir 'to come'</td><td>courir 'to run'</td><td>7 (6,09%)</td></tr><tr><td>être 'to be'</td><td>manoir 'to stay'</td><td>4 (3,48%)</td></tr><tr><td>aller 'to go'</td><td>crier 'to shout'</td><td>3 (2,61%)</td></tr><tr><td>aller 'to go'</td><td>quérir 'to search'</td><td>3 (2,61%)</td></tr><tr><td>aller 'to go'</td><td>parler 'to speak'</td><td>3 (2,61%)<sup>29</sup></td></tr><tr><td colspan="3"></td><td><strong>20 (17,39%)</strong></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="5">Literary</td><td>aller 'to go'</td><td>quérir 'to search'</td><td>34 (15,67%)</td></tr><tr><td>aller 'to go'</td><td>fuir 'to flee'</td><td>13 (5,99%)</td></tr><tr><td>venir 'to come'</td><td>courir 'to run'</td><td>6 (2,76%)</td></tr><tr><td>aller 'to go'</td><td>dire 'to say'</td><td>5 (2,30%)</td></tr><tr><td>aller 'to go'</td><td>regarder 'to watch'</td><td>5 (2,30%)<sup>30</sup></td></tr><tr><td colspan="3"></td><td><strong>63 (29,03%)</strong></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="5">Didactical</td><td>aller 'to go'</td><td>quérir 'to search'</td><td>7 (6,03%)</td></tr><tr><td>être 'to be'</td><td>entendre 'to hear'</td><td>7 (6,03%)</td></tr><tr><td>aller 'to go'</td><td>dire 'to say'</td><td>6 (5,17%)</td></tr><tr><td>aller 'to go'</td><td>nager 'to swim'</td><td>3 (2,59%)</td></tr><tr><td>venir 'to come'</td><td>voler 'to fly'</td><td>3 (2,59%)<sup>31</sup></td></tr><tr><td colspan="3"></td><td><strong>26 (22,41%)</strong></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="5">Legal</td><td>être 'to be'</td><td>coucher 'to sleep'</td><td>31 (44,29%)</td></tr><tr><td>être 'to be'</td><td>lever 'to get up'</td><td>31 (44,29%)</td></tr><tr><td>être 'to be'</td><td>manoir 'to remain'</td><td>2 (2,86%)</td></tr><tr><td>être 'to be'</td><td>demeurer 'to stay'</td><td>2 (2,86%)</td></tr><tr><td>être 'to be'</td><td>arrêter 'to stop'</td><td>1 (1,43%)<sup>32</sup></td></tr><tr><td colspan="3"></td><td><strong>67 (95,71%)</strong></td></tr></tbody></table>

The five most frequent combinations represent 96% of all lexical combinations in the legal texts, while they account for only between 17% and 29% in the other types of texts. Additionally, the most frequent combination accounts for 44% in the legal texts, against between 6% and 16% in the other text types. Moreover, the legal texts contain two combinations with a frequency of 44%. Hence, the overwhelming majority of the progressive constructions in these texts are represented by only two lexical combinations. These combinations are always used in coordination and confined to the *Coutumes de Beauvaisis*. The combinations in issue are *être 'to be'/coucher 'to sleep' and être 'to be'/lever 'to get up' (45).

<footnote n="29">29 There are three more lexical combinations occurring thrice in the religious texts.</footnote>

<footnote n="30">30 The literary texts contain one more lexical combination occurring five times.</footnote>

<footnote n="31">31 There are two more lexical combinations with a token frequency of 3 in the didactical texts.</footnote>

<footnote n="32">32 The legal texts contain three more hapaxes.</footnote>
(45) [...] *devant le seigneur dessous qui il sont* before ART.DEF.OBL.M.SG lord.OBL.M.SG under REL.SBJ.M.SG they.SBJ.M.PL be.PRS.3PL

**couch-ant et lev-ant.**

sleep-V.ANT and get_up-V.ANT

‘In the presence of the lord under whom they are staying (lit. ‘sleeping and getting up’).’ (Ph. de Beau. *Coutumes* 577)

Thus, the low productivity of the progressive construction in the legal texts might reflect an idiosyncratic feature of the language of one author, i.e. Philippe de Beaumanoir, rather than of the juridical language in general. The same conclusion was drawn for the high frequency of adjunct forms in the legal texts.

Table 6.48 also shows that the literary texts contain one particularly frequent lexical combination, viz. *aller* ‘to go’/*quérir* ‘to search’ (46).

(46) *E quant ele at sei grant / Une* and when she.SBJ.F.SG have.PRS.3SG thirst.OBL.F.SG great.OBL.F.SG ART.INDF.OBL.F.SG

*eve vait quer-ant.*

water.OBL.F.SG go.PRS.3SG look-V.ANT

‘And when she has great thirst, she looks for water.’ (Ph. de Thaon *Bestiaire* 769-770)

In sum, the productivity of the progressive construction in the historical and religious texts does not greatly differ from its productivity in the literary and didactical texts. The frequency difference of this construction between the historical and religious texts, on the one hand, and the literary and didactical texts, on the other, is thus not due to a difference in productivity. Only the legal texts behave differently, but their deviant character is probably due to an idiolectic feature of Philippe de Beaumanoir alone. This observation is important from the point of view of corpus building: at least for carrying out quantitative studies, it is preferable to include samples of texts from a plurality of authors rather than long texts from a few authors, in order to diversify the idiolects as much as possible with respect to different parameters, such as historical periods, textual genres, and thematic areas.

A similar conclusion emerges from the study of the lexical variation of the *-ant* forms separately.

Therefore, Table 6.49 presenting this variation will be given without further discussion.
<table><caption>**Table 6.49.** Lexical variation of the -ant forms used in a progressive construction in the historical, religious, literary, didactical, and legal texts in Old French</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Historical</th><th>Religious</th><th>Literary</th><th>Didactical</th><th>Legal</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>#tokens</td><td>52</td><td>115</td><td>217</td><td>116</td><td>70</td></tr><tr><td>#types</td><td>43</td><td>80</td><td>113</td><td>79</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td>#hapaxes</td><td>38</td><td>59</td><td>84</td><td>62</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>#types/#tokens</td><td>0.83</td><td>0.70</td><td>0.52</td><td>0.68</td><td>0.11</td></tr><tr><td>#hapaxes/#tokens</td><td>0.73</td><td>0.51</td><td>0.39</td><td>0.53</td><td>0.06</td></tr></tbody></table>

The same holds for the cumulative frequency of the five most frequent lexemes (Table 6.50).

<table><caption>**Table 6.50.** Inventory and cumulative frequency of the five most frequent lexemes used for -ant forms in a progressive construction in the historical, religious, literary, didactical, and legal texts in Old French</caption><thead><tr><th>Thematic domain</th><th>Lexeme of -ant form</th><th>Frequency (%)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="5">Historical</td><td>fuir 'to flee'</td><td>6 (11,54%)</td></tr><tr><td>quérir 'to search'</td><td>2 (3,85%)</td></tr><tr><td>suivre 'to follow'</td><td>2 (3,85%)</td></tr><tr><td>navier 'to navigate'</td><td>2 (3,85%)</td></tr><tr><td>demander 'to ask'</td><td>2 (3,85%)</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td><td><strong>14 (26,92%)</strong></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="5">Religious</td><td>courir 'to run'</td><td>8 (6,96%)</td></tr><tr><td>manoir 'to remain</td><td>4 (3,48%)</td></tr><tr><td>quérir 'to search'</td><td>3 (2,61%)</td></tr><tr><td>parler 'to speak'</td><td>3 (2,61%)</td></tr><tr><td>crier 'to shout'</td><td>3 (2,61%)<sup>33</sup></td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td><td><strong>21 (18,26%)</strong></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="5">Literary</td><td>quérir 'to search'</td><td>34 (15,67%)</td></tr><tr><td>fuir 'to flee'</td><td>15 (6,91%)</td></tr><tr><td>courir 'to run'</td><td>7 (3,23%)</td></tr><tr><td>dormir 'to sleep'</td><td>6 (2,76%)</td></tr><tr><td>faire 'to do'</td><td>5 (2,30%)<sup>34</sup></td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td><td><strong>67 (30,88%)</strong></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="5">Didactical</td><td>quérir 'to search'</td><td>7 (6,03%)</td></tr><tr><td>entendre 'to hear'</td><td>7 (6,03%)</td></tr><tr><td>dire 'to say'</td><td>6 (5,17%)</td></tr><tr><td>voler 'to fly'</td><td>4 (3,45%)</td></tr><tr><td>nager 'to swim'</td><td>3 (2,59%)<sup>35</sup></td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td><td><strong>27 (23,28%)</strong></td></tr></tbody></table>

<footnote n="33">³³ The religious texts contain three more lexemes occurring thrice.</footnote>

<footnote n="34">³⁴ There are two more lexemes with a token frequency of 5 in the literary texts.</footnote>

<footnote n="35">³⁵ The didactical texts contain three more lexemes used three times.</footnote>
<table><tr><td rowspan="5">Legal</td><td>coucher 'to sleep'</td><td>31 (44,29%)</td></tr><tr><td>lever 'to get up'</td><td>31 (44,29%)</td></tr><tr><td>manoir 'to remain'</td><td>2 (2,86%)</td></tr><tr><td>demeurer 'to stay'</td><td>2 (2,86%)</td></tr><tr><td>arrêter 'to stop'</td><td>1 (1,43%)<sup>36</sup></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td><b>67 (95,71%)</b></td></tr></table>

The verbs used as auxiliaries (primarily) serve a grammatical function. Hence, their lexical variation is lower than that of the -ant forms. Table 6.51 shows that their lexical variation is very low in the five text types, ranging between two and four types (the absolute number of types and hapaxes is more interesting here than the type-token and hapax-token rations).

<table><caption>**Table 6.51.** Lexical variation of the auxiliaries used in a progressive construction in the historical, religious, literary, didactical, and legal texts in Old French</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Historical</th><th>Religious</th><th>Literary</th><th>Didactical</th><th>Legal</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><th>#tokens</th><td>52</td><td>115</td><td>217</td><td>116</td><td>70</td></tr><tr><th>#types</th><td>4</td><td>4</td><td>4</td><td>3</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><th>#hapaxes</th><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><th>#types/#tokens</th><td><b>0.08</b></td><td><b>0.03</b></td><td><b>0.02</b></td><td><b>0.03</b></td><td><b>0.03</b></td></tr><tr><th>#hapaxes/#tokens</th><td><b>0.02</b></td><td><b>0.00</b></td><td><b>0.00</b></td><td><b>0.00</b></td><td><b>0.01</b></td></tr></tbody></table>

Table 6.52 presents the inventory and frequency of the auxiliaries per thematic domain.

<table><caption>**Table 6.52.** Inventory and frequency of the auxiliaries used in a progressive construction in the historical, religious, literary, didactical, and legal texts in Old French</caption><thead><tr><th>Thematic domain</th><th>Lexeme of auxiliary</th><th>Frequency (%)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="4">Historical</td><td>aller 'to go'</td><td>42 (80,77%)</td></tr><tr><td>venir 'to come'</td><td>7 (13,46%)</td></tr><tr><td>être 'to be'</td><td>2 (3,85%)</td></tr><tr><td>entrevenir 'to come'</td><td>1 (1,92%)</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td><b>52 (100,00%)</b></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="4">Religious</td><td>aller 'to go'</td><td>75 (65,22%)</td></tr><tr><td>être 'to be'</td><td>23 (20,00%)</td></tr><tr><td>venir 'to come'</td><td>14 (12,17%)</td></tr><tr><td>gésir 'to lie'</td><td>3 (2,61%)</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td><b>115 (100,00%)</b></td></tr></tbody></table>

<footnote n="36">³⁶ There are three more hapaxes in the legal texts.</footnote>
<table><tbody><tr><td rowspan="4">Literary</td><td>aller 'to go'</td><td>166 (76,50%)</td></tr><tr><td>venir 'to come'</td><td>27 (12,44%)</td></tr><tr><td>être 'to be'</td><td>23 (10,60%)</td></tr><tr><td>remaindre 'to remain'</td><td>1 (0,46%)</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td><td><strong>217 (100,00%)</strong></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="4">Didactical</td><td>aller 'to go'</td><td>100 (86,21%)</td></tr><tr><td>être 'to be'</td><td>11 (9,48%)</td></tr><tr><td>venir 'to come'</td><td>5 (4,31%)</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td><td><strong>116 (100,00%)</strong></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Legal</td><td>être 'to be'</td><td>69 (98,57%)</td></tr><tr><td>aller 'to go'</td><td>1 (1,43%)</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td><td><strong>70 (100,00%)</strong></td></tr></tbody></table>

First and foremost, Table 6.52 shows the dominance of *aller* 'to go' (384 instances out of 570, i.e. 67%). However, it also shows that both types of verbs that can act as the auxiliary of a progressive construction are attested, i.e. existential/posture verbs and motion verbs. The former are represented by three distinct lexemes: *être* 'to be' (47), *gésir* 'to lie' (48), and *remaindre* 'to remain' (49).

(47) *Un prestres ert messe chant-ant.*
ART.INDF.SBJ.M.SG priest.SBJ.M.SG be.PST.3SG Mass.OBL.F.SG sing-V.ANT
'A priest was singing the Mass.' (Adg. *Mir.* 9.1)

(48) [...] *é jurent partut mangi-anz* *é bev-anz* *é ensement*
and lie.PST.3PL everywhere eat-V.ANT.SBJ.M.PL and drink-V.ANT.SBJ.M.PL and thus
*cume feste celebr-anz* [...].
as party.OBL.F.SG celebrate-V.ANT.SBJ.M.PL
'And everywhere they were eating and drinking and thus celebrating as at a party.' (Rois 58)

(49) *Et cil remaint dorm-ant toz seus* [...].
and DEM.SBJ.M.SG remain.PST.3SG sleep-V.ANT entirely alone.SBJ.M.SG
'And that man kept sleeping all alone.' (Chr. de Troyes *Yvain* 2956)

Within the group of the motion verbs, three distinct lexemes occur: (i) *aller* 'to go' (50) and its variants *s'aller* 'to go' (51), *s'en aller* 'to go' (52), and *en aller* 'to go' (53); (ii) *venir* 'to come' (54), also attested under the forms *en venir* 'to come' (55) and *s'en venir* 'to come' (56); and (iii) *s'entrevenir* 'to come together' (57).

(50) *Mais alquant vunt dis-ant / Quë [...].*
but some.SBJ.M.PL go.PRS.3PL say-V.ANT that
'But some are saying that (...).' (Ph. de Thaon *Comput* 655-656)
(51) *Bretun* s' *aloent* **esmai-ant** [...].
Briton.SBJ.M.PL REFL.OBJ.M.PL go.PST.3PL worry-V.ANT
‘The Britons were worrying.’ (Wace *Brut* 12199)

(52) *Idunches s'* *en ala li clers repurpens-ant*
so REFL.OBL.M.SG INCH go.PST.3SG ART.DEF.SBJ.M.SG clerk.SBJ.M.SG think-V.ANT
*coment i avendra [...]*
how there get.FUT.3SG
‘So, the clerk was thinking about how he could get there.’ (Guernes *Becket* 6116)

(53) [...] *En paradis en irommez chant-ant [...].*
in paradise.OBL.M.SG INCH go-FUT.2PL sing-V.ANT
‘You will be singing in paradise.’ (Ami 3007)

(54) *Li oisels [...] al gupil vient*
ART.DEF.SBJ.M.SG bird.SBJ.M.SG to;ART.DEF.OBL.M.SG fox.OBL.M.SG come.PRS.3SG
**vol-ant** [...].
fly-V.ANT
‘The bird comes flying to the fox.’ (Ph. de Thaon *Bestiaire* 1785-1787)

(55) [...] *jusque en Alsis en vindrent dui err-ant [...].*
as_far_as in Alsis INCH come.PST.3PL two.SBJ.M.PL travel-V.ANT
‘Two travelled (lit. ‘came travelling’) as far as into Alsis.’ (Alexis 113)

(56) [...] *s' en vint fui-ant en Coustantinoble [...].*
REFL.OBJ.M.PL INCH come.PST.3SG flee-V.ANT to Constantinopel
‘He came fleeing to Constantinopel.’ (Constantinople 112)

(57) [...] *serreement [...] s' entrevindrent entr'aprism-ant [...].*
withoot resolution REFL.OBJ.M.PL come_together.PST.3PL approach Each other-V.ANT
‘With resolution, they came closer to each other (lit. ‘came approaching each other’).’ (Wace *Brut* 12541-12542)

Table 6.52 also shows that the motion verb *aller* ‘to go’ is dominant in the historical, religious, literary, and didactical texts, while the dominant auxiliary in the legal texts is *être* ‘to be’.

In sum, the use of -ant forms in a progressive construction in the historical and religious texts does not significantly differ from their use in the literary and didactical texts with regard to either their productivity or the lexical variation of the auxiliaries and the -ant forms separately. Why then is this use of the -ant form more frequent in historical texts and less frequent in religious texts? While I could not find any explanation for its low frequency in the religious texts, its high frequency in the historical texts might again be due to an idiosyncratic feature of the language of one author rather than to a property of the language used in historical texts in general: almost all -ant forms used in a progressive construction in the historical texts come from a single text, namely Wace’s *Brut* (45 instances out of 52).
6.4.1.3. Degree of categorial determinacy

As in the case of the adjunct forms, the degree of categorial indeterminacy of the -ant forms used in a
progressive construction will be measured by calculating the proportion of forms categorisable as either
gerunds or present participles based on the presence of respectively a preposition and an inflectional
variant of the ending -ant.

Only one prepositional -ant form serving as the main verb of a progressive construction has been
retrieved, viz. en saltant 'jumping' (58).

(58) *Saciez li elefant que il vunt en salt-ant.*

know.IMP.PRS.2PL ART.DEF.SBJ.M.PL elephant.SBJ.M.PL that they.SBJ.M.PL go.PRS.3PL in jump.V.ANT
‘Know that elephants go jumping.’ (Ph. de Thaon *Bestiaire* 1561-1562)

As has been discussed in detail in §3.5.4, -ant forms can often be analysed as either manner adjuncts or
the main verb of a progressive construction. In (58), the latter analysis of saltant ‘jumping’ is preferable
due to its impossibility to be omitted. However, adjunct -ant forms are subject to the same categorisation
problems as those used in a progressive construction, and so the syntactic ambiguity of saltant ‘jumping’
(58) does not influence the degree of categorial (in)determinacy of the Old French -ant form.

Under the assumption that the present participle does not become compatible with prepositions in
the transition from Late Latin to Old French or within the period of Old French itself, the prepositional
form in (58) can be analysed as a gerund. The impact of this unique instance on the degree of categorial
determinacy of the -ant forms used in a progressive construction is negligible: 0,18% (1 instance out of
570).

As to the criterion of morphological inflection, the Old French corpus comprises 80 -ant forms in
progressive constructions showing an inflectional variant of the ending -ant (e.g. the coordinated forms
mangianz ‘eating’, bevanz ‘drinking’, and celebranz ‘celebrating’ in (48)). This number does not include
the rare forms having a graphical or phonetic variant of the ending -ant, practically confined to two of
the oldest texts. The variants -an (59), -and (60), -en (61), and -end (62) occur in the *Passion de Jésus-
Christ* and the *Vie de saint Léger*, while the variant -ent is occasionally attested in later texts, for instance
in Chrétien de Troyes’ *Yvain* (63).

(59) [...] *per mals conselz van demand-an nostre sennior*
by bad.OBL.M.PL advice.OBL.M.PL go.PRS.3PL ask-V.ANT our.OBL.M.SG Lord.OBL.M.SG
cum tradissant.
that surrender.SBJV.PST.3PL
‘By bad advice they are asking that our Lord be surrendered.’ (*Passion* 79-80)
(60) [...] *fortment* lo vant il **acus-and** [...].
insistently he.OBJ.M.SG go.PRS.3PL they.SBJ.M.PL accuse-V.ANT
‘They are accusing him with insistence.’ (Passion 203)

(61) [...] *sanz* *Pedre sols* segw-en lo vai [...].
saint.SBJ.M.SG Peter alone.SBJ.M.SG follow-V.ANT he.OBJ.M.SG go.PRS.3SG
‘Saint Peter alone is following him.’ (Passion 167)

(62) [...] *de dobpla* corda lz vai fir-end, tot
with double.OBL.F.SG whip.OBL.F.SG he.OBJ.M.SG go.PRS.3SG beat-V.ANT all.OBL.M.SG
*lor* *marched* vai desfaz-end.
their.OBL.M.SG market.OBL.M.SG go.PRS.3SG destroy-V.ANT
‘He is beating them with a double whip and destroying their whole market.’ (Passion 75-76)

(63) [...] *Plus menuemant que brachez / Ne vet trac-ent perdriz*
more attentively than hound.SBJ.M.SG NEG go.PRS.3SG chase-V.ANT partridge.OBL.M.SG
*ne caille*.
NEG quail.OBL.M.SG
‘(...) more meticulously than a hound tracks partridges or quails’ (Chr. de Troyes *Yvain* 1264-1265)

The 80 forms with an inflectional variant of the ending -ant account for 14% of all -ant forms used in a progressive construction. Unless the gerund acquires the potential to agree with its subject between Late Latin and Old French or during the Old French period, these 14% can be taken as present participles.

On the basis of two morphological criteria just explored, 81 forms occurring in a progressive construction can be taken as either gerunds or present participles. The degree of categorial determinacy of these forms is thus 14% (81 instances out of 570). The remaining 86% are categorially indeterminate (n= 489).

### 6.4.1.4. Conclusion

-Ant forms serving as the main verb of a progressive construction represent 26% of all -ant forms. This proportion is higher in Early Old French than in the 12th-13th c., which might be due to the fact that all texts of the Early Old French corpus are versified – for this type of texts have been shown to comprise significantly more -ant forms used in a progressive construction than texts written in prose. Nonetheless, the low overall number of -ant forms in Early Old French invites us to interpret this result with caution. The historical texts contain more -ant forms in progressive constructions than the other text types. This difference is not related to a difference in productivity, but seems to result from an idiosyncratic feature of the language of one author, namely Wace.
One -ant form used as the main verb of a progressive construction can be categorised as a gerund, while 80 instances can be taken as present participles. These 81 forms represent 4% of the total number of -ant forms. Hence, the degree of categorial determinacy of the Old French -ant form raises from 56% to 59% (instead of 60% for reasons of rounding). The percentage of 56% was obtained on the basis of the adjectival and adverbial -ant forms. However, as mentioned before, this rate should be assessed in view of the broad definition of the -ant form in this study. In a stricter definition, the number of adjectival -ant forms would be lower, and, hence, the proportion of forms in progressive constructions would be higher. Since the former are categorially determinate, while the latter are predominantly indeterminate, the degree of categorial determinacy of the Old French -ant form would be lower.

### 6.4.2. -Ant forms used in a presentative progressive construction

The second type of -ant forms with the external syntax of the verb act as the main verb of a presentative progressive construction. In this construction, an -ant form combines with a NP and one of the following items: (i) a third person form of avoir 'to have' (64); (ii) the presentative ès 'behold' (65); (iii) a verb of sensory perception, such as trovent 'they find' (66) (see 2.2.2.3.2 and Vangaever 2021). The -ant form denotes a state of affairs presented as ongoing.

(64) Une corune d' or out a la ART.INDF.OBL.F.SG crown.OBL.F.SG of gold.OBL.M.SG have.PST.3SG at ART.DEF.OBL.F.SG croiz **pend-ant** [...]. cross.OBL.F.SG hang-V.ANT 'There was hanging a golden crown at the cross.' (Guernes Becket 6101)

(65) Eis vus **puin-ant** li quens de Flandres [...]. behold you.OBL.M.PL spur-V.ANT ART.DEF.SBJ.M.SG count.SBJ.M.SG of Flanders 'There is the count of Flanders spurring.' (Gormont 67)

(66) L' **ermite** Ogrin trovent **lis-ant**. ART.DEF. OBL.M.SG hermit. OBL.M.SG Ogrin find.PRS.3PL read-V.ANT 'They find the hermit Ogrin reading.' (Bér. Tristan 2292)

Recall that the lexical meaning of the perception verbs usually co-exists with their grammatical meaning, which consists of presenting the state of affairs expressed by the -ant form as all-new, that is, as a thetic information unit. This co-existence illustrates the concept of 'persistence' theorised by Hopper (1991: 22; see also Heine 2002: 86). In addition, the perception verbs often have an evidential value, since they usually express the source of information expressed by the -ant form or clause (cf. Greco 2013: 179-180 and Zheltova 2017: 317-319 with respect to Latin).
In Late Latin, the present participle, but not the gerund, can act as the main verb of a presentative progressive construction. Hence, all Old French -ant forms used in this construction can in principle be categorised as present participles, unless the gerund acquires this function in the course of time.

This section will examine the frequency of this type of -ant forms in general (§6.4.2.1) and in the five thematic domains (§6.4.2.2). In this latter section, I will also investigate the productivity of these forms and the inventory of the items used with a presentative function. The contribution of these forms to the degree of categorial determinacy of the Old French -ant form will be studied in §6.4.2.3.

### 6.4.2.1. Frequency

The use of -ant forms in a presentative progressive construction is extremely rare. They occur less than one time per 10 000 words (0.75), just like object predicate -ant forms (see §6.2.3.1). Their proportion to the total number of -ant forms is also low (2,93% or 63 instances out of 2 153). Hence, the quantitative results obtained for them should be taken with caution. The frequency of these forms is similar in Early Old French and in the 12th-13th c., according to both measurements (Table 6.53).

<table><caption>**Table 6.53.** Frequency of -ant forms used in a presentative progressive construction in Early Old French and 12th-13th c.</caption><thead><tr><th>Period</th><th>#-ant forms used in a presentative progressive construction (per 10 000 words)</th><th>#-ant forms (per 10 000 words)</th><th>#-ant forms used in a presentative progressive construction/ #-ant forms</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Early Old French</td><td>1 (1.12)</td><td>33 (36.84)</td><td>3,03%</td></tr><tr><td>12th-13th c.</td><td>61 (0.76)</td><td>1 989 (24.63)</td><td>3,07%</td></tr></tbody></table>

The *Chanson de Roland* contains only -ant form used in a presentative progressive construction. This yields an absolute frequency of 0.36 instances per 10 000 words and a proportion of 0,76% of the total number of -ant forms in this text. Given the more or less equal frequency in Early Old French and the 12th-13th c., this use of the -ant form does not allow subsuming the *Chanson de Roland* under either Early Old French or the 12th-13th c.

A chi-square goodness-of-fit test indicates that the proportion of -ant forms used in a presentative progressive construction in the two periods does not differ in a statistically significant way ($\chi^2 = 0$; df = 1; p = 1) (Table 6.54).
<table><caption>**Table 6.54.** Observed *vs* expected proportion of -ant forms used in a presentative progressive construction in proportion to the total number of -ant forms in Early Old French and 12th-13th c.</caption><thead><tr><th>Period</th><th>Observed frequency (%)</th><th>Expected frequency (%)</th><th>Standardised residuals</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Early Old French</td><td>1 (3,03%)</td><td>1 (3,03%)</td><td>-0.01</td></tr><tr><td>12th-13th c.</td><td>61 (3,07%)</td><td>61 (3,07%)</td><td>0.00</td></tr></tbody></table>

Again, the expected frequency of instances is smaller than five in Early Old French, so that a chi-square goodness-of-fit test is in principle not recommendable (Levshina 2015: 29). Yet, the conclusion drawn on the basis of this test, namely that there is no significant difference between Early Old French and the 12th-13th c., is reliable in view of the normalised frequencies reported in Table 6.53. The low frequency of these forms in both periods further adds to this conclusion.

### 6.4.2.2. Frequency and productivity in the five thematic domains

In the Old French corpus, the absolute frequency of -ant forms occurring in a presentative progressive construction is highest in the literary texts, while their proportion to the total number of -ant forms is highest in the religious texts, although the difference with the literary texts is negligible (Table 6.55). Their frequency is lowest in the didactical texts in both absolute and relative terms. However, the low absolute number of instances disallows drawing solid conclusions from these figures.

<table><caption>**Table 6.55.** Frequency of -ant forms used in a presentative progressive construction in the historical, religious, literary, didactical, and legal texts in Old French</caption><thead><tr><th>Thematic domain</th><th>#-ant forms used in a presentative progressive construction (per 10 000 words)</th><th>#-ant forms (per 10 000 words)</th><th>#-ant forms used in a presentative progressive construction/ #-ant forms</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Historical</td><td>3 (0.62)</td><td>122 (25.04)</td><td>2,46%</td></tr><tr><td>Religious</td><td>22 (0.78)</td><td>573 (20.21)</td><td>3,84%</td></tr><tr><td>Literary</td><td>29 (1.08)</td><td>779 (29.00)</td><td>3,72%</td></tr><tr><td>Didactical</td><td>3 (0.33)</td><td>388 (43.22)</td><td>0,77%</td></tr><tr><td>Legal</td><td>6 (0.39)</td><td>291 (19.00)</td><td>2,06%</td></tr></tbody></table>

According to a chi-square goodness-of-fit test, the differences between the thematic domains might not be random, since the proportion of forms used in a presentative progressive construction is lower than expected in the historical, didactical, and legal texts and higher than expected in the religious and literary texts in a statistically significant way ($\chi^2 = 10.3$; df = 4; p = 0.0357) (Table 6.56).
<table><caption>**Table 6.56.** Observed vs expected proportion of -ant forms used in a presentative progressive construction to the total number of -ant forms in the historical, religious, literary, didactical, and legal texts in Old French</caption><thead><tr><th>Thematic domain</th><th>Observed frequency (%)</th><th>Expected frequency (%)</th><th>Standardised residuals</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Historical</td><td>3 (2,46%)</td><td>4 (3,28%)</td><td>-0.30</td></tr><tr><td>Religious</td><td>22 (3,84%)</td><td>17 (2,97%)</td><td>+1.28</td></tr><tr><td>Literary</td><td>29 (3,72%)</td><td>23 (2,95%)</td><td>+1.30</td></tr><tr><td>Didactical</td><td>3 (0,77%)</td><td>11 (2,84%)</td><td>-2.48</td></tr><tr><td>Legal</td><td>6 (2,06%)</td><td>9 (3,09%)</td><td>-0.86</td></tr></tbody></table>

However, the only significant contribution to the chi-square values is made by the underrepresentation of occurrences in the didactical texts. Given the extremely low number of instances in these texts, this result can hardly be considered significant. The fact that the expected frequency of these forms is lower than five in the historical texts, so that a chi-square goodness-of-fit test is in theory not recommendable, does not have an impact on this conclusion. After all, it also emerges from the normalised frequencies in Table 6.55.

Due to their low absolute number in the five thematic domains, no conclusive claims can be made about the productivity of the -ant forms in question. The productivity of these forms has been measured in terms of the lexical variation between the -ant forms and the items used as presentative markers. Table 6.57 shows that the productivity of these -ant forms is lower in the literary than in the religious texts, but the difference is too small to be significant (also considering the low absolute number of instances). The figures for the historical, didactical, and legal texts are given for the sake of completeness, but they do not convey relevant information.

<table><caption>**Table 6.57.** Productivity of the -ant forms in a presentative progressive construction in the historical, religious, literary, didactical, and legal texts in Old French</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Historical</th><th>Religious</th><th>Literary</th><th>Didactical</th><th>Legal</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>#tokens</td><td>3</td><td>22</td><td>29</td><td>3</td><td>6</td></tr><tr><td>#types</td><td>3</td><td>19</td><td>19</td><td>3</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>#hapaxes</td><td>3</td><td>17</td><td>14</td><td>3</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>#types/#tokens</td><td><strong>1.00</strong></td><td><strong>0.86</strong></td><td><strong>0.66</strong></td><td><strong>1.00</strong></td><td><strong>0.83</strong></td></tr><tr><td>#hapaxes/#tokens</td><td><strong>1.00</strong></td><td><strong>0.77</strong></td><td><strong>0.48</strong></td><td><strong>1.00</strong></td><td><strong>0.67</strong></td></tr></tbody></table>

The lower type-token and hapax-token ratios in the literary texts in comparison with the religious texts are due to the fact that the former contain more combinations occurring several times. In particular, the five most frequent combinations represent 52% of all lexical combinations in these texts, against 36% in the religious texts (Table 6.58). In addition, the literary texts contain three combinations accounting each for more than 10%, while the religious texts comprise only one such lexical combination. All in all, the differences between the two text types are too small to be significant.
<table><caption>**Table 6.58.** Inventory and cumulative frequency of the five most frequent lexical combinations of a presentative marker and an -ant form in the religious and literary texts in Old French</caption><thead><tr><th>Thematic domain</th><th>Lexeme of presentative</th><th>Lexeme of -ant form</th><th>Frequency (%)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="5">Religious</td><td>trouver 'to find'</td><td>dormir 'to sleep'</td><td>3 (13,64%)</td></tr><tr><td>ès 'behold'</td><td>courir 'to run'</td><td>2 (9,09%)</td></tr><tr><td>ouïr 'to hear'</td><td>crier 'to shout'</td><td>1 (4,55%)</td></tr><tr><td>avoir 'to have'</td><td>pendre 'to hang'</td><td>1 (4,55%)</td></tr><tr><td>voir 'to see'</td><td>quérir 'to search'</td><td>1 (4,55%)<sup>37</sup></td></tr><tr><td colspan="3"></td><td><strong>8 (36,36%)</strong></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="5">Literary</td><td>trouver 'to find'</td><td>dormir 'to sleep'</td><td>4 (13,79%)</td></tr><tr><td>ès 'behold'</td><td>poindre 'to spur'</td><td>4 (13,79%)</td></tr><tr><td>trouver 'to find'</td><td>gésir 'to lie'</td><td>3 (10,34%)</td></tr><tr><td>trouver 'to find'</td><td>seoir 'to seat'</td><td>2 (6,90%)</td></tr><tr><td>voir 'to see'</td><td>dormir 'to sleep'</td><td>2 (6,90%)</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3"></td><td><strong>15 (51,72%)</strong></td></tr></tbody></table>

Note that the religious texts share their most frequent combination with the literary texts, namely *trouver 'to find'/dormir 'to sleep' (67). However, the literary texts comprise another combination with the exact same token frequency, viz. ès 'behold'/poindre 'to spur' (68).

(67) [...] troverent leanz dorm-anz tretouz les soudaiers
find.PST.3PL inside sleep-V.ANT.OBL.M.PL all.OBL.M.PL ART.DEF.OBL.M.PL soldier.OBL.M.PL
normanz.
Norman.OBL.M.PL

‘They found all the Norman soldiers sleeping inside.’ (J. de Meun *Rose* 12343-12344)

(68) Es lor **puinn-ant** Gautier de Maus [...]
behold they.OBL.M.PL spur-V.ANT Gauthier.OBL.M.PL of Mans
‘Gauthier of Mans is spurring.’ (*Gormont* 11)

The same observations can be made for the lexical variation of the -ant forms separately. For this reason, Table 6.59 presenting this variation in the five textual domains will be given without further discussion.

<footnote n="37">³⁷ The religious texts contain 14 more hapaxes.</footnote>
<table><caption>**Table 6.59.** Lexical variation of the -ant forms used in a presentative progressive construction in the historical, religious, literary, didactical, and legal texts in Old French</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Historical</th><th>Religious</th><th>Literary</th><th>Didactical</th><th>Legal</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>#tokens</td><td>3</td><td>22</td><td>29</td><td>3</td><td>6</td></tr><tr><td>#types</td><td>3</td><td>19</td><td>16</td><td>3</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>#hapaxes</td><td>3</td><td>17</td><td>11</td><td>3</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>#types/#tokens</td><td><strong>1.00</strong></td><td><strong>0.86</strong></td><td><strong>0.55</strong></td><td><strong>1.00</strong></td><td><strong>0.83</strong></td></tr><tr><td>#hapaxes/#tokens</td><td><strong>1.00</strong></td><td><strong>0.77</strong></td><td><strong>0.38</strong></td><td><strong>1.00</strong></td><td><strong>0.67</strong></td></tr></tbody></table>

This also holds for the cumulative frequency of the five most frequent lexemes in the religious and literary texts, though the difference between these two text types is slightly higher than in the case of the lexical variation between the presentative markers and the -ant forms (Table 6.60).

<table><caption>**Table 6.60.** Inventory and cumulative frequency of the five most frequent lexemes used for -ant forms in a presentative progressive construction in the religious and literary texts in Old French</caption><thead><tr><th>Thematic domain</th><th>Lexeme of -ant form</th><th>Frequency (%)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="5">Religious</td><td>dormir 'to sleep'</td><td>3 (13,64%)</td></tr><tr><td>courir 'to run'</td><td>2 (9,09%)</td></tr><tr><td>crier 'to shout'</td><td>1 (4,55%)</td></tr><tr><td>pendre 'to hang'</td><td>1 (4,55%)</td></tr><tr><td>quérir 'to search'</td><td>1 (4,55%)<sup>38</sup></td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td><td><strong>8 (36,36%)</strong></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="6">Literary</td><td>dormir 'to sleep'</td><td>6 (20,69%)</td></tr><tr><td>poindre 'to spur'</td><td>4 (13,79%)</td></tr><tr><td>gésir 'to lie'</td><td>4 (13,79%)</td></tr><tr><td>crier 'to shout'</td><td>2 (6,90%)</td></tr><tr><td>seoir 'to sit'</td><td>2 (6,90%)</td></tr><tr><td></td><td><strong>18 (62,07%)</strong></td></tr></tbody></table>

Since the items used as presentative markers (also) serve a grammatical function, their lexical variation is lower than that of the -ant forms. As shown in Table 6.61, the absolute number of distinct lexemes is lowest in the historical and legal texts (n=2) and highest in the religious texts (n=6).

<footnote n="38">³⁸ There are 14 more hapaxes in the religious texts.</footnote>
<table><caption>**Table 6.61.** Lexical variation of the items used as presentative markers in a presentative progressive construction in the historical, religious, literary, didactical, and legal texts in Old French</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Historical</th><th>Religious</th><th>Literary</th><th>Didactical</th><th>Legal</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><th>#tokens</th><td>3</td><td>22</td><td>29</td><td>3</td><td>6</td></tr><tr><th>#types</th><td>2</td><td>6</td><td>4</td><td>3</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><th>#hapaxes</th><td>1</td><td>3</td><td>1</td><td>3</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><th>#types/#tokens</th><td><strong>0.67</strong></td><td><strong>0.27</strong></td><td><strong>0.14</strong></td><td><strong>1.00</strong></td><td><strong>0.67</strong></td></tr><tr><th>#hapaxes/#tokens</th><td><strong>0.33</strong></td><td><strong>0.05</strong></td><td><strong>0.03</strong></td><td><strong>1.00</strong></td><td><strong>0.17</strong></td></tr></tbody></table>

Table 6.62 presents the inventory and frequency of all items used as presentative markers per text type.

<table><caption>**Table 6.62.** Inventory and frequency of the items used as presentative markers in a presentative progressive construction in the historical, religious, literary, didactical, and legal texts in Old French</caption><thead><tr><th>Thematic domain</th><th>Lexeme of presentative</th><th>Frequency (%)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="3">Historical</td><td>trouver 'to find'</td><td>2 (66,67%)</td></tr><tr><td>ès 'behold'</td><td>1 (33,33%)</td></tr><tr><td></td><td><strong>3 (100,00%)</strong></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="6">Religious</td><td>trouver 'to find'</td><td>9 (40,91%)</td></tr><tr><td>voir 'to see'</td><td>7 (31,82%)</td></tr><tr><td>ès 'behold'</td><td>3 (13,64%)</td></tr><tr><td>avoir 'to have'</td><td>1 (4,55%)</td></tr><tr><td>revoir 'to see again'</td><td>1 (4,55%)</td></tr><tr><td>ouïr 'to hear'</td><td>1 (4,55%)</td></tr><tr><td></td><td><strong>22 (100,00%)</strong></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="4">Literary</td><td>voir 'to see'</td><td>12 (41,38%)</td></tr><tr><td>trouver 'to find'</td><td>11 (37,93%)</td></tr><tr><td>ès 'behold'</td><td>5 (17,24%)</td></tr><tr><td>avoir 'to have'</td><td>1 (3,45%)</td></tr><tr><td></td><td><strong>29 (100,00%)</strong></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Didactical</td><td>trouver 'to find'</td><td>1 (33,33%)</td></tr><tr><td>voir 'to see'</td><td>1 (33,33%)</td></tr><tr><td>ouïr 'to hear'</td><td>1 (33,33%)</td></tr><tr><td></td><td><strong>3 (100,00%)</strong></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Legal</td><td>trouver 'to find'</td><td>5 (83,33%)</td></tr><tr><td>voir 'to see'</td><td>1 (16,67%)</td></tr><tr><td></td><td><strong>6 (100,00%)</strong></td></tr></tbody></table>

Table 6.62 shows in the first place the dominance of the verbs *trouver* 'to find' and *voir* 'to see'. These account for respectively 44% and 33% of all items used as presentative markers (28 and 21 instances out of 63). These forms belong to the group of perception verbs, which represent 83% of all presentative
markers (52 instances out of 63). Within this group of perception verbs, those evoking an act of visual
perception largely outnumber the ones denoting an act of auditory perception (50 *versus* 2 occurrences).
Moreover, the visual perception verbs are represented by three distinct lexemes, namely *trouver* 'to find'
(67), *voir* 'to see' (69), and *revoir* 'to see again' (70), while the verbs of auditory perception are lexically
restricted to *ouïr* 'to hear' (71).

(69) *Quant ge le vi tot seul ven-ant [...].*
when I.SBJ.M.SG he.OBJ.M.SG see.PST.1SG all alone.OBL.M.SG come-V.ANT
'When I saw him coming all alone (...).' (Chr. de Troyes *Yvain* 482)

(70) [...] *Revit le angele [...] / De maïr*
seeAgain.PST.3SG ART.DEF.OBL.M.SG angel.OBL.M.SG with perfect.OBL.F.SG
*clarté reluis-ant [...].*
clarity.OBL.F.SG shine-V.ANT
'He again saw the angel shining with a perfect clarity.' (Adg. *Mir*. 32.73-74)

(71) [...] *quant oïrent le païsant / « Fuiez, fuiez,*
when hear.PST.3PL ART.DEF.OBL.M.SG peasant.OBL.M.SG flee.IMP.PRS.2PL flee.IMP.PRS.2PL
*fuiez » dis-ant [...].*
flee.IMP.PRS.2PL say-V.ANT
'When they heard the peasant say: "Flee, flee, flee" (...).' (J. de Meun *Rose* 14807-14808)

Besides these perception verbs, two other types of lexemes act as presentative markers: the presentative
*ès* 'behold' (68) and the verb *avoir* 'to have' (72).

(72) [...] *Sanc ot et eve de vo costel*
blood.OBL.M.SG have.PRS.3SG and water.OBL.F.SG from your.OBL.M.SG flank.OBL.M.SG
*iss-ant [...].*
go_out-V.ANT
'There was blood and water flowing from your flank.' (*Ami* 1305)

The presentative *ès* 'behold' has been attested under five different variants: *es/ès* (68), *ez* (73), *ast* (74), *as* (75), and *eis* (76):

(73) *Ez Bricaudel par la ville cri-ant [...].*
behold Bricaudel through ART.DEF.OBL.F.SG city.OBL.F.SG shout-V.ANT
'Bricaudel is shouting through the city.' (*Ami* 2378)

(74) [...] *Ast vus ven-ant le Deu fedeil [...].*
behold you.OBL.M.PL come-V.ANT ART.DEF.OBL.M.SG God.OBL.M.SG trustee.OBL.M.SG
'The trustee of God is coming.' (Ben. *Brendan* 580)
(75) As vos **poign-ant** Malprimis de Brigant [...].
behold you.OBL.M.PL spur-V.ANT Malprimis of Brigal
‘Malprimis of Brigal is spurring.’ (Roland 889)

(76) Eis lur **puinn-ant** Tierri de Termes [...].
behold they.OBL.M.PL spur-V.ANT Thierry of Termes
‘Thierry of Termes is spurring.’ (Gormont 11)

The low frequency of avoir ‘to have’ and the presentative ès ‘behold’ is in line with the results obtained for the presentative progressive present participle construction in Late Latin. In this construction, the item used as a presentative marker is also mostly a perception verb (see §5.4.2.3).

### 6.4.2.3. Conclusion

Only 3% of all -ant forms occur in a presentative progressive construction. This share is nearly identical in Early Old French and the 12th-13th c., but lower in the didactical texts than in the other text types. However, due to the low absolute number of instances, no conclusive claims can be made in this respect.

From a retrospective historical approach, all -ant forms of this type can be categorised as present participles. An additional 3% of all Old French -ant forms are thus categorially determinate.

### 6.4.3. General conclusion: the evolution of the verbal -ant form

The previous sections have investigated the -ant forms used in progressive and presentative progressive constructions separately. The current section will bring together the results obtained in §6.4.1 and §6.4.2, in order to examine the evolution of the verbal -ant form as a whole. This synthesis also includes the two forms used in an inchoative construction (see (39-40)).

-Ant forms showing verbal external syntax account for 29% of all -ant forms (635 instances out of 2 153). Their absolute frequency amounts to 7.53 instances per 10 000 words, which is slightly higher than that of the adverbial forms. The frequency of verbal forms is considerably higher in the Early Old French period than in the 12th-13th c., according to both measurements (Table 6.63), but due to the low absolute number of -ant forms in Early Old French, no solid conclusions can be drawn.

<table><caption>**Table 6.63.** Frequency of verbal -ant forms in Early Old French and the 12th-13th c.</caption><thead><tr><th>Period</th><th>#verbal -ant forms<br>(per 10 000 words)</th><th>#-ant forms<br>(per 10 000 words)</th><th>#verbal -ant forms/<br>#-ant forms</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Early Old French</td><td>20 (22.33)</td><td>33 (36.84)</td><td>60,61%</td></tr><tr><td>12th-13th c.</td><td>569 (7.05)</td><td>1 989 (24.63)</td><td>28,61%</td></tr></tbody></table>
The *Chanson de Roland* behaves in this connection more like 12th-13th c. texts than as Early Old French texts: the share of verbal -ant forms amounts to 35% (46 instances out of 133), their absolute frequency being 16.74 instances per 10 000 words. This conclusion lines up with that emerging from the adjectival -ant form, but it contrasts with that drawn for the adverbial -ant form.

According to a chi-square goodness-of-fit test, the frequency difference between Early Old French and the 12th-13th c. might not be random: the proportion of verbal -ant forms is higher than expected in Early Old French and lower than expected in the 12th-13th c. in a statistically highly significant way ($\chi^2 = 10.34; df = 1; p = 0.0013$) (Table 6.64).

<table><caption>**Table 6.64.** Observed vs expected proportion of verbal -ant forms to the total number of -ant forms in Early Old French and the 12th-13th c.</caption><thead><tr><th>Period</th><th>Observed frequency (%)</th><th>Expected frequency (%)</th><th>Standardised residuals</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Early Old French</td><td>20 (60,61%)</td><td>10 (30,30%)</td><td>+3.35</td></tr><tr><td>12th-13th c.</td><td>569 (28,61%)</td><td>579 (29,11%)</td><td>-0.43</td></tr></tbody></table>

Though the low absolute number of verbal forms in Early Old French disallows interpreting this result in a conclusive way, the exclusively versified character of the earliest texts might play a central role, as noted in §6.4.1.1 for the forms used in a progressive construction separately. The argument developed there also applies here for the verbal -ant forms in general, given that the forms used in a progressive construction make up 95% of all verbal -ant forms in Early Old French and 89% in the 12th-13th c.

From a thematic viewpoint, the absolute frequency of verbal -ant forms is highest in the didactical texts, but their proportion to the total number of -ant forms is highest in the historical texts, just like for the forms used in a progressive construction separately (Table 6.65).

<table><caption>**Table 6.65.** Frequency of verbal -ant forms in the historical, religious, literary, didactical, and legal texts in Old French</caption><thead><tr><th>Thematic domain</th><th>#verbal -ant forms (per 10 000 words)</th><th>#-ant forms (per 10 000 words)</th><th>#verbal -ant forms/ -ant forms</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Historical</td><td>56 (11.49)</td><td>122 (25.04)</td><td>45,90%</td></tr><tr><td>Religious</td><td>137 (4.83)</td><td>573 (20.21)</td><td>23,91%</td></tr><tr><td>Literary</td><td>247 (9.20)</td><td>779 (29.00)</td><td>31,88%</td></tr><tr><td>Didactical</td><td>119 (13.25)</td><td>388 (43.22)</td><td>30,67%</td></tr><tr><td>Legal</td><td>76 (4.96)</td><td>291 (19.00)</td><td>26,12%</td></tr></tbody></table>

Expectedly, a chi-square goodness-of-fit test confirms the result obtained for the instances occurring in a progressive construction: the proportion of verbal -ant forms shows significant thematic variation, but
the only significant contribution is made by the overrepresentation of occurrences in the historical texts ($\chi^2 = 19.8$; df = 4; p = 0.0005) (Table 6.66).

<table><caption>**Table 6.66.** Observed vs expected proportion of verbal -ant forms in proportion to the total number of -ant forms in the historical, religious, literary, didactical, and legal texts in Old French</caption><thead><tr><th>Thematic domain</th><th>Observed frequency (%)</th><th>Expected frequency (%)</th><th>Standardised residuals</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Historical</td><td>56 (45,90%)</td><td>36 (29,51%)</td><td>+3.34</td></tr><tr><td>Religious</td><td>137 (23,91%)</td><td>169 (29,49%)</td><td>-2.46</td></tr><tr><td>Literary</td><td>247 (31,88%)</td><td>230 (29,53%)</td><td>+1.14</td></tr><tr><td>Didactical</td><td>119 (30,67%)</td><td>114 (29,38%)</td><td>+0.43</td></tr><tr><td>Legal</td><td>76 (26,12%)</td><td>86 (29,55%)</td><td>-1.06</td></tr></tbody></table>

It is worth recalling that the overrepresentation of forms used in a progressive construction and thus of verbal -ant forms in general might either be random or the result of an idiolectic feature of one author, viz. Wace. It is in any case unlikely that it is due to a general property of the language used in historical texts (see the discussion in §6.4.1.2).

With regard to the degree of categorial determinacy of the verbal -ant forms, all forms used in a presentative progressive construction can in principle be categorised as present participles (10% or 63 instances out of 635). One of the forms used in a progressive construction can be taken as a gerund and 80 of them can be analysed as present participles (13% or 81 instances out of 635). The two forms used in an inchoative construction are categorially indeterminate. Thus, the total number of categorisable verbal -ant forms amounts to 144. These 144 instances represent 23% of all verbal -ant forms. Only a minority of the verbal -ant forms are thus categorially determinate, which means that most of them are indeterminate (77% or 491 instances out of 635).

The 144 categorially determinate verbal -ant forms account for 7% of all -ant forms. Hence, the degree of categorial determinacy of the Old French -ant form raises from 56% to 62% (instead of 62% for reasons of rounding). Notice that the degree of 56% was achieved on the basis of the forms with adjectival and adverbial external syntax. This final degree of categorial determinacy of the Old French -ant form will be discussed in detail in §6.8 and §6.9, along with its theoretical implications. Prior to this, I will establish the external syntactic (§6.5), morphosyntactic (§6.6), and typological (§6.7) profile of the Old French -ant form.

## 6.5. External syntactic profile of the -ant form

The preceding sections have explored the frequency of the different uses of the -ant form in Old French. This section will synthesise the results obtained in these sections, so as to establish the external syntactic
profile of this form. Given that the frequency of the various uses of the -ant form has been discussed in detail in the previous sections, the figures showing its external syntactic profile will be commented in a global way (as for the gerund and the present participle in Late Latin in Chapters 4 and 5).

Unlike in the case of the Late Latin gerund and present participle, the external syntactic profile of the Old French -ant form is not dominated by one particular use. As shown in Figure 6.1, this form has three uses that are more or less equally frequent: (i) as the main verb of a progressive construction (26%); (ii) in adjuncts (26%); and (iii) in adnominal phrases (24%). A fourth use, namely in subject predicates, is less frequent, but still represents 18% of all instances. Its use in a presentative progressive construction and in object predicates is rare (less than 3% each). Its use in an inchoative construction extremely rare, if not exploratory (0,09%).

<figure><img src="image_47.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 6.1.** External syntactic profile of the -ant form in Old French</figcaption></figure>

The external syntactic profile of the -ant form is different in Early Old French, but since this period is represented by a very low number of -ant forms (n=33), no hard conclusion can be drawn (Figure 6.2). As to the *Chanson de Roland*, Figure 6.2 shows that the use of the -ant form in this text is similar to that in the 12th-13th c., but different from that in the Early Old French texts. An interesting methodological insight can be drawn from this result: in diachronic corpus studies of Old French, this text written around 1100 and thus on the verge between Early Old French (9th-11th c.) and the 12th-13th c. is best subsumed under the group of the 12th-13th c. texts. In Figure 6.2, frequencies smaller than 5% are not mentioned for practical reasons. For Early Old French, they correspond to 3,03% for the instances occurring in both subject predicates and presentative progressive constructions. For the 12th-13th c., they are: (i) 3,07% for the forms used in a presentative progressive construction; (ii) 2,87% for the ones occurring in object predicates; and (iii) 0,10% for those in an inchoative construction. In the *Chanson de Roland*, these
frequencies are 0,76% for the object predicate forms and 1,53% for those functioning as the main verb of a presentative progressive construction.

<figure><img src="image_48.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 6.2.** External syntactic profile of the -ant form in Early Old French, the 12th-13th c., and the *Chanson de Roland*</figcaption></figure>

Another factor separating the Old French -ant form from the Late Latin gerund and present participle with respect to its external syntactic profile is that it does not significantly differ among the five thematic domains. Whereas the external syntactic profile of the Late Latin gerund and present participle is quite different in the legal texts, on the one hand, and the historical and religious texts, on the other hand, the external syntactic profile of the Old French -ant form is similar in the five thematic domains. The most deviant result is the high proportion of forms used in a progressive construction in the historical texts, which is due to their high frequency in one text, i.e. Wace's *Brut*. If not random, this high proportion in the historical texts is thus more likely due an idiolectic feature of one author than a general property of the language in historical texts.
<figure><img src="image_49.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 6.3.** External syntactic profile of the -ant form in the historical, religious, literary, didactical, and legal texts in Old French</figcaption></figure>

Even if the empirical data relating to the use of the Old French -ant form do not show significant thematic variation, it remains nonetheless important to take this parameter into account when studying linguistic change, as evident from the analysis of the use of the Late Latin gerund and present participle.

Figure 6.4 furthermore shows that the external syntactic profile of the -ant form does not greatly differ between the versified texts and the texts written in prose. There are undoubtedly a few differences, such as the higher proportion of -ant forms in versified texts than in texts written in prose (see §6.4.1.1), but, globally speaking, the opposition between versified and prose texts does not appear to have a great influence on the syntactic use of the -ant form.
<figure><img src="image_50.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 6.4.** External syntactic profile of the -ant form in the versified and prose texts in Old French</figcaption></figure>

This is confirmed by the use of the -ant form in the only text of the Old French corpus that combines versified passages and passages in prose, namely the chantefable *Aucassin et Nicolette*. Indeed, the use of the -ant form in the two types of passages does not show significant differences, though the relatively low absolute frequency of these forms (n=30) does not allow drawing solid conclusions. Due to this low absolute frequency, the figures in Table 6.67, presenting the use of the -ant form in *Aucassin et Nicolette*, are not calculated in proportion to the total number of instances in the versified and prose passages.

<table><caption>**Table 6.67.** Frequency of the uses of the -ant form in the versified and prose passages in *Aucassin et Nicolette*</caption><thead><tr><th>Type of -ant form</th><th>Verse (n=13)</th><th>Prose (n=17)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Subject predicates</td><td>5</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>Progressive constructions</td><td>3</td><td>6</td></tr><tr><td>Adnominal -ant forms</td><td>3</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>Adjunct forms</td><td>1</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>Object predicates</td><td>1</td><td>0</td></tr></tbody></table>

## 6.6. Morphosyntactic profile of the -ant form

After having established the external syntactic profile of the -ant form, I will determine in this section its morphosyntactic profile. This profile is obtained by mapping the external syntactic profile of the -ant
form on the morphosyntactic categories of Old French. As mentioned in §2.2.2 and operationalised in §6.2 to §6.4, this mapping yields three types of -ant forms: (i) adjectival forms, occurring in adnominal phrases, subject predicates, or object predicates; (ii) adverbial forms, used in adjuncts; and (iii) verbal forms, acting as the main verb of a progressive, presentative progressive, or inchoative construction.

Unlike in the case of the Late Latin gerund and present participle, the Old French -ant form has a morphosyntactic profile that is not dominated by a particular type. Admittedly, the adjectival forms are more frequent than the adverbial and verbal forms, but the difference is not large enough to consider the Old French -ant form specialised in adjectival syntactic configurations (Figure 6.5).

<figure><img src="image_51.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 6.5.** Morphosyntactic profile of the -ant form in Old French</figcaption></figure>

This analysis is strengthened by the broadness of the definition of the -ant form adopted in this study. In a narrower definition, some adjectival forms qualify as adjectives, and would therefore be excluded from the dataset. As a corollary, the absolute frequency of adjectival instances would be lower, and, incidentally, their proportion to the total number of -ant forms. Consequently, the fraction of adverbial and verbal forms would be higher. In other words, the difference between the adjectival forms, on the one hand, and the adverbial and verbal forms, on the other, would be smaller. This revised ratio would more clearly highlight that the Old French -ant form is not specialised in adjectival external syntax.

Like its external syntactic one, the morphosyntactic profile of the -ant form is somewhat different in Early Old French than in the 12-13th c. (Figure 6.6). As regards the *Chanson de Roland*, it behaves again more like 12th-13th c. texts than as Early Old French texts.
<figure><img src="image_52.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 6.6.** Morphosyntactic profile of the -ant form in Early Old French, the 12th-13th c., and the *Chanson de Roland*</figcaption></figure>

As expected in view of its external syntactic profile, the morphosyntactic profile of the -ant form does not show significant thematic variation (Figure 6.7). The only noteworthy difference involves the high fraction of verbal instances in the historical texts, due to the comparatively high frequency of forms used in a progressive construction in these texts (see §6.5).

<figure><img src="image_53.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 6.7.** Morphosyntactic profile of the -ant form in the historical, religious, literary, didactical, and legal texts in Old French</figcaption></figure>
This lack of significant thematic variation separates the morphosyntactic profile of the Old French -ant form from the morphosyntactic profile of the Late Latin gerund and present participle, which is different in the legal texts than in the historical and religious texts.

Figure 6.8 shows that, like its external syntactic profile, the morphosyntactic profile of the -ant form is very similar in the versified and prose texts. Thus, the use of the -ant form does not appear to be sensible to the verse-prose parameter.

<figure><img src="image_54.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 6.8.** Morphosyntactic profile of the -ant form in the versified and prose texts in Old French</figcaption></figure>

## 6.7. Typological profile of the -ant form

The final step in describing the Old French -ant form consists of establishing its typological profile. This profile is obtained by mapping its morphosyntactic profile on Haspelmath's (1995: 4) typology of non-finite verb forms. In this typology, a distinction is made between (i) masdars, i.e. forms showing nominal external syntax; (ii) participles, i.e. forms with adjectival external syntax; and (iii) converbs, i.e. forms displaying adverbial external syntax. In this typology, the adjectival -ant forms fall under the participle type and the adverbial forms under the converb type. Parallel to the Late Latin verbal gerund and verbal present participle, the Old French verbal -ant form belongs to the converb type from a historical point of view, while from a synchronic perspective, it is not related to any of these types (see §2.2.2.4). Since almost a third of all -ant forms have verbal external syntax (29%), the association of the Old French -ant form with the participle and converb types should be put in perspective. This high proportion of verbal -ant forms further shows that, in contrast with its Late Latin gerund and present participle sources, the
Old French -ant form is particularly frequent in grammaticalised constructions, especially in progressive constructions.

The link of the -ant form with the participle type is stronger than with the converb type (45% vs 26%). However, even its association with the participle type is not extremely strong. This relation should moreover be evaluated in the context of the broad definition of the -ant form in this study. In a stricter definition, the link with the participle type would be weaker, while the link with the converb type would be stronger. If anything, this result shows that, unlike the Late Latin gerund and present participle, which are both strongly associated with the converb type, the Old French -ant form is not tightly related to any cross-linguistically recurrent type of non-finite verb forms. This also appears from the high proportion of verbal -ant forms, which fall outside Haspelmath's classification. I will return to this point in §6.9.

## 6.8. Degree of categorial (in)determinacy of the -ant form

Let us lastly establish the degree of categorial (in)determinacy of the Old French -ant form (this section), and determine the implications of this degree for the categorial distinction between the gerund and the present participle in Old French (§6.9).

Sections 6.2 to 6.4 have shown that, from a retrospective historical approach and assuming that the gerund and the present participle do not show morphological and/or distributional encroachment in the transition from Late Latin to Old French nor within the period of Old French itself, some -ant forms can be categorised, while others cannot. All forms with adjectival external syntax (n=965) and all forms used in a presentative progressive construction (n=63) can be categorised as present participles on the basis of their syntactic use alone, irrespective of whether they agree with their subject NP. The forms with adverbial external syntax and those used in a progressive or inchoative construction are categorially indeterminate from a syntactic point of view. However, some of these forms can be taken as gerunds or present participles on the basis of morphological criteria, namely the presence of a preposition, on the one hand, and the presence of an inflectional variant of the ending -ant, on the other. Among the forms categorisable on the basis of these criteria are 189 gerunds (188 of which are used in adjuncts and one in a progressive construction) and 126 present participles (46 of which occur in adjuncts and 80 in a progressive construction). The remaining instances are categorially indeterminate. This is the case for 319 adjunct forms, 489 forms used in a progressive construction, and 2 forms occurring in an inchoative construction.

In sum, 1343 -ant forms are categorisable, while 810 forms are not. Thus, the degree of categorial determinacy of the Old French -ant form amounts to 62%. Hence, its degree of categorial indeterminacy is 38%. Of the categorially determinate forms, most are present participles (n=1154), while a minority are gerunds (n=189). Figure 6.9 summarises the degree of categorial determinacy and indeterminacy of
the Old French -ant form, as well as the percentages of categorially determinate forms categorisable as either gerunds or present participles.

<figure><img src="image_55.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 6.9.** Categoriality degrees of the -ant form in Old French</figcaption></figure>

Although the categorially determinate forms outnumber the indeterminate ones, it is striking to observe that a quantitatively important number of Old French -ant forms cannot be categorised on the basis of syntactic and morphological criteria. The conclusion to be drawn is that the morphological merging of the gerund and the present participle in Old French raises a major problem for their categorial distinction, and, incidentally, for the grammatical description of the -ant form in Old French.

It is widely accepted that parts of speech should mainly be defined on the basis of morphological and syntactic criteria (Trask 1999: 281; Aarts 2007: 2; Pullum 2009: 257). The inability of such criteria to categorise all -ant forms in Old French suspends the distinction between the categories of the gerund and the present participle. Put differently, the data of this study do not provide evidence in favour of the existence of the gerund and the present participle as two clearly distinct categories in Old French.

This conclusion is again all the more significant in view of the broad definition of the Old French -ant form. In a stricter definition, the absolute number of adjectival forms would be lower, and, as a corollary, their proportion to the total number of -ant forms. Since all adjectival forms are categorially determinate (they all hold as present participles), the degree of categorial determinacy of the -ant form would decrease. Consequently, its degree of categorial indeterminacy would increase, and the fuzziness of the categorial distinction between the gerund and the present participle would be even more manifest.

On top of this, the degree of categorial determinacy of the Old French -ant form is measured from a retrospective historical approach and under the assumption that there is no morphological nor distributional exchange between the gerund and the present participle, neither in the transition from Late Latin to Old French, nor during the Old French period itself. However, this scenario of morphological
and/or distributional exchange cannot be excluded from a theoretical point of view. It even appears from
scattered empirical evidence (De Smet 2014: 40). For instance, some instances display the non-inflected
ending -ant instead of an agreeing ending in contexts where only a Late Latin present participle can be
used. Witness *fuiant* 'fleeing' (76), used in a presentative progressive construction.

(77) [...] *De toutes pars les veïst on fui-ant.*
from all.OBL.F.PL side.OBL.F.PL they.OBJ.M.PL see.PST.3SG one.SBJ.M.SG flee-V.ANT
'They were seen fleeing from all sides.' (Narbonnais 7534)

From a retrospective historical approach, this form is to be analysed as a present participle on the basis
of its syntactic function, but it does not show the expected morphological agreement with its subject NP,
i.e. *fuianz* instead of *fuiant* 'fleeing'. According to De Smet (2014: 40), these forms can be analysed in
two ways: either they are present participles reinterpreted as gerunds through categorial incursion or
they are gerunds encroaching on the distribution of the present participle due to analogical extension
(see §2.2.1). Whatever the scenario, these forms show that distributional and/or morphological exchange
between the gerund and the present participle does take place. Hence, it is in fact impossible to categorise
any Old French *-ant* form with absolute certainty. For how could we know whether an *-ant* form is a (i)
Latin-like gerund, (ii) a Latin-like present participle, or (iii) an innovative, categorially mixed form, be
it (iiia) a gerund with features going back to the Late Latin present participle or (iiib) a present participle
showing features characteristic of the Late Latin gerund. In other words, the suspension of the categorial
distinction between the gerund and the present participle in Old French is complete.

On the basis of the previous discussion and of the quantitative results of the empirical examination
(Figure 6.9), it is now possible to appropriately evaluate the two hypotheses of the categorial distinction
between gerund and the present participle in Old French, *viz.* the Splitter and Lumper Hypothesis (§6.9).

6.9. Categorial distinction between the gerund and the present participle

According to the advocates of the Spitter Hypothesis, the gerund and the present participle exist in Old French as two distinct categories of non-finite verb forms, just like in (Late) Latin (Gougenheim 1929; Anglade 1958: 215-217; Väänänen 1963³: 140-141; Ménard 1973: 169-175; Harris 1978: 199-201; Arnavielle 1982, 1984: 38, 1997; Jensen 1990: 322-334; Buridant 2000: 324-327; see §2.2.3.1).<fnref n="39" /> They

<footnote n="39">³⁹ As mentioned in §2.2.3.1, most of these authors regard the gerund and the present participle as distinct categories on the same level of abstraction (Anglade 1958: 215-217; Väänänen 1963³: 140-141; Ménard 1973: 169-175; Harris 1978: 199-201; Jensen 1990: 322-334), with the exception of Buridant (2000: 324-327). This author subcategorises the gerund under the present participle. However, as pointed out in §2.2.3.1, Buridant uses the term ‘gerund’ inconsistently, i.e. sometimes as a categorial label and sometimes as a functional label referring to a subtype of present participles. Therefore, it is even not clear whether he adheres to the Spitter or Lumper Hypothesis. If he takes this label as a functional label, he does not adhere to the Spitter Hypothesis, but to the Lumper Hypothesis, considering all *-ant* forms present participles. If, on the other hand, he takes it as a categorial label, he adheres to Splitter Hypothesis, in particular to the version of the theory that regards the gerund as a sub-category of the present participle.</footnote>
(implicitly or explicitly) hold that the morphological merging of the gerund and the present participle does not blur their categorial distinction, but simply causes a homonymic collision. By contrast, the adherents of the Lumper Hypothesis argue that the morphological merging of the gerund and the present participle does not merely blur the categorial distinction between them, but abolishes it and causes the two types of non-finite verb forms to merge also on a categorial level (Adams 2003: 749; De Smet 2014: 40).<fnref n="40" /> This categorial blend emerges as a new category, and combines properties of both the Late Latin gerund and present participle. Hence, “the all-purpose invariable non-finite form in *-ant* eventually left over is, in syntactic terms, neither a real gerund nor a real participle” (De Smet 2014: 40).

As shown in the discussion in the previous section, the Splitter Hypothesis is not compatible with the results of the empirical examination of this thesis: even when adopting a strict retrospective historical approach and assuming the absence of distributional and/or morphological exchange between the gerund and the present participle in the transition from Late Latin to Old French and within the period of Old French itself, only 62% of all *-ant* forms are categorially determinate. Given that there is no way to draw a clear line between the categories of the gerund and the present participle, the only viable hypothesis is in terms of categorial merging. It is worth recalling in this regard that the Lumper Hypothesis is also the most convincing hypothesis from a purely theoretical point of view (see §2.2.3).

The implications of the Lumper Hypothesis for the description of this part of Old French grammar are drastic: the categorial merging of the gerund and the present participle makes that these forms cease to exist as distinct linguistic categories, so that they can no longer be used to describe *-ant* forms in Old French. The discarding of categories that are so entrenched in the grammatical tradition of Old French (or of French grammar in general) is not evident. However, this is the only way in which the impact of the morphological merging of the gerund and the present participle on their categorial distinction can be convincingly accounted for, both in view of empirical data and from a theoretical stance. Additionally, this hypothesis is in line with the particularist approach of linguistic categories: it rightly separates Old French from the other Old Romance languages, where the gerund and the present participle do not merge morphologically, and thus do not undergo categorial blurring. Most importantly, however, the Lumper Hypothesis solves the fundamental problem of the categorial indeterminacy of the Old French *-ant* form, since these forms are all conceived of as belonging to the same category.

The question that remains to be answered is how this new category and the forms associated with it should be denominated. In §2.2.3.2, different labelling strategies have been mentioned and evaluated. The aim of the remainder of this section is to review these strategies in the light of the empirical study

<footnote n="40">⁴⁰ This might also be the position of Bazin-Tacchella (2020: 852). However, she does not explicitly discuss the fate of the categories of the gerund and the present participle, and hence one cannot be sure.</footnote>
carried out in this chapter, in order to determine which label is most appropriate for the categorial blend
in issue. Six strategies will be discussed.

(i) The category could be named after one of its source categories. This strategy underlies the term '-ing participle' used by Quirk *et al.* (1985: 1292) for the equivalent category of non-finite verb forms in English. On the basis of the result in Figure 6.9, viz. that most categorially determinate -ant forms are present participles rather than gerunds (54% versus 9%), the best option is the label 'present participle'. However, since only half of all -ant forms can be taken as present participles, this label is nonetheless not appropriate (and even less in view of the theoretical problem of the retrospective historical approach discussed in §6.8). Also, the use of the label 'present participle' runs the risk of wrongly evoking a one-to-one correspondence with the present participle in (Late) Latin, and, hence, of generating terminological confusion. For these reasons this first labelling strategy should be avoided.

(ii) Another possibility is to combine the labels of the source categories of the Old French blend. This strategy underpins the term ‘gerund-participle’ used by Huddleston (2002: 80) and Duffley (2006: 1) for English. The most obvious options are ‘gerund-present participle’ and ‘present participle-gerund’, but the shorter variants ‘gerund-participle’ and ‘participle-gerund’ are more practical. In view of the quantitative results obtained in Figure 6.9, the latter option (‘participle-gerund’) is to be preferred. This label has the advantage of explicitly marking the blended character of the category, but also of explicitly mentioning its source categories. However, it has the disadvantage of suggesting the priority of the first-mentioned source category. Since the *-ant* form is participle-like (read: has adjectival external syntax) in less than 50% of all of its uses (see Figure 6.5), such priority is uncalled for (especially considering the broad definition of the *-ant* form in this study). A further, but less substantial disadvantage of the label ‘participle-gerund’ is its morphologically complexity. All in all, this second label is to be rejected.

(iii) The third possibility is to forge a shorter, more practical version of the label ‘participle-gerund’, e.g. the acronym ‘parger’ (> **participle-gerund**’). Since it does not transparently state its source categories (at least not in full words), this label downgrades the problems of the labels ‘present participle’ and ‘participle-gerund’ mentioned in (i-ii). Hence, it is more convenient. However, the label ‘parund’ (> **participle-gerund**’) is more convincing, mainly because it has the metalinguistic advantage of allowing a fully transparent equivalent in French, namely *parondif*. This label has the practical advantage of morphologically simple, but the metalinguistic disadvantage of being neological and, hence, difficult to successfully spread in the linguistic community (see also (vi) below).

(iv) Since the forms involved have the invariable ending -ant or at least tend to generalise this ending, yet another option is to use a formal label (cf. Haspelmath 2010: 674). This strategy endorses the
term ‘-ing form’, also used by Quirk *et al.* (1985: 1292) for English. The most precise option is
‘verb form in -ant’. This term has the theoretical advantage of being categorially neuter, but the
practical disadvantage of being morphologically complex. The shorter variants ‘form in -ant’ and
especially -ant form’ are more practical, but have the disadvantage of not explicitly marking that
the forms in issue are verb forms and differ in this connection from other types of -ant forms, like
adjectives and nouns.

(v) A fifth option is to label the categorial blend of the gerund and the present participle on the basis of (one of) its functional properties (cf. Haspelmath 2010: 674; Lehmann 2018a: 36-37). It could be named, for instance, after one of the three cross-linguistically recurrent types of non-finite verb forms distinguished by Haspelmath (1995: 4) and handled in this thesis as comparative concepts, thus as purely functional labels (cf. Haspelmath 2010: 665; Lehmann 2018a: 33). As mentioned in §6.9, the Old French *-ant* form is related to two cross-linguistically recurrent types of non-finite verb forms: the participle and the converb. Its link with the participle type is stronger than with the converb type (45% *vs* 26%), and hence the label ‘participle’ is preferred. However, the affinity of the *-ant* form with the participle type is not very strong, so the label ‘participle’ is nonetheless less appropriate. Besides, this label raises the same problems as the terms ‘present participle’ and ‘participle-gerund’, like the risk of wrongly evoking a one-to-one correspondence with the present participle in (Late) Latin, and thus of generating terminological confusion. Therefore, this fifth labelling strategy should also be avoided.

(vi) Two final options are to assign the Old French blend an already existing, but non-linguistic label or to create an entirely new linguistic label, i.e. a neologism. Reference can be made in this respect to the terminology forged by Damourette & Pichon (1968-1971) for the description of French. In an attempt to neutralise the terminological confusion in the French grammatical tradition, these authors propose to replace some of the traditional labels by arbitrary terms, such as *assiette* ‘plate’ instead of *article* ‘article’.<fnref n="41" /> However, this strategy is radical and has not successfully spread in the linguistic community. Hence, this final strategy should be adopted only as a last resort, namely when none of the previous strategies yields an appropriate candidate.

In the light of the empirical examination conducted in this chapter, the best candidates for the categorial
blend of the gerund and the present participle in Old French are ‘parund’ and ‘-ant form’. These labels
are also most suitable from a theoretical perspective (see §2.2.3.2). From a theoretical standpoint, these
labels are more or less equally justifiable, although the term ‘-ant form’ is slightly less suitable because

<footnote n="41">⁴¹ As mentioned in §2.2.3.2 (fn. 56), these authors propose the terms ‘*adjectif verbal*’ and ‘*affonctif verbal*’ for respectively the (present) participle and the gerund in Modern French. The former has to be rejected for the present participle because it generates categorial confusion with true verbal adjectives, such as *convaincants* ‘convincing’ in *il a donné des arguments convaincants* ‘he gave convincing arguments’ (*vs* the present participle *convainquant* ‘convincing’ in *il a donné des arguments convainquant tous les members du jury* ‘he gave arguments that convinced all members of the jury’). The label ‘*affonctif verbal*’ for the gerund is to be avoided for reasons of terminological obscurity.</footnote>
it does not explicitly mention the verbal character of the forms at stake, so as to clearly distinguish these
forms from regular adjectives and nouns in *-ant* (see (iv) above). From a cognitive viewpoint, the label
'parund' raises the issue of being idiosyncratic because of its neological character. Hence, it faces the
afore-mentioned obstacle of getting neologisms accepted in the field of grammatical terminology. From
a practical perspective, the label 'parund' is more appropriate than '-ant form' due to its morphological
simplicity (compare, e.g., 'adnominal parunds' and 'adnominal -ant forms'). Thus, the choice ultimately
depends on whether priority is given to the practical/theoretical advantage ('parund' > '-ant form') or
the cognitive/metalinguistic advantage ('-ant form' > 'parund'). Since the term 'parund' runs the risk of
not successfully spreading in the linguistic community, I propose to retain the purely formal label '-ant
form'. This term is moreover parallel to the term '-ing form', used by many authors for the equivalent
forms in English. Such parallelism is encouraged by, e.g., Lehmann (2018a: 35-37), since it facilitates
cross-linguistic comparison and typological research (even if the formal marking of the forms involved
is language-specific).

**6.10. Conclusion**

In the transition from Late Latin to Old French, a series of morphological and phonetic evolutions affect
the endings of the gerund and the present participle, and ultimately lead to the same form for the two
types of non-finite verbs. This morphological merging of the gerund and the present participle leads to
a situation of categorial indeterminacy, since many forms can no longer be categorised as either gerunds
or present participles on the basis of syntactic and/or morphological criteria. In view of the empirical
study of the Late Latin gerund and present participle in Chapters 4-5, this final chapter has examined
the degree to which the Old French outcome of these forms is categorially indeterminate in a corpus of
texts between the 9th and the 13th c. The results of this examination have been assessed in the light of
the debate regarding the categorial distinction between the gerund and the present participle.

The degrees of categorial determinacy and indeterminacy of the Old French *-ant* form turn out to
be respectively 62% and 38%. This means that 38% of all *-ant* forms cannot be taken as either gerunds
or present participles on the basis of syntactic and/or morphological grounds, impeding the drawing of
a sharp line between the gerund and the present participle. This rate would even be higher in a stricter
definition of the *-ant* form. This result betokens that the morphological merging of the gerund and the
present participle raises a major issue for their categorial distinction. As such, it is incompatible with
the Splitter Hypothesis, and is instead to be taken in terms of categorial merging. This “conflation of the
two categories” (Adams 2003: 749) leads to a categorial blend, described by De Smet (2014: 40) as an
“all-purpose invariable non-finite form in *-ant*” that is “in syntactic terms neither a real gerund nor a
real participle”. The most suitable terms for this categorial blend are ‘*-ant* form’ and ‘parund’: the former
is preferable from a cognitive/metalinguistic viewpoint and the latter from a practical/theoretical one. In
my opinion, priority is to be given here to the cognitive/metalinguistic advantage of the former.

From a comparative viewpoint, the categorial merging of the gerund and the present participle in Old French distinguishes French from most other Romance languages, (e.g. Spanish and Italian), where the gerund and the present participle survive as morphologically and categorially distinct types of non-finite verb forms. Still from a Romance perspective, the categorial blending of the gerund and the present participle in Old French goes also against the general trend of morphosyntactic specialisation, normally more strongly pursued in the transition from Late Latin to Old French than to other Romance languages (cf. Carlier & Combettes 2015). Indeed, the categorial merging of the gerund and the present participle consists of a merging of adjectival, adverbial, and verbal forms, while in most other Romance languages, the present participle specialises in adjectival external syntax and the gerund in adverbial (and verbal) external syntax.

Note also that the morphological merging of the gerund and the present participle in Old French
runs parallel to the morphological merging of their English equivalents between Old and Middle English
(cf. Kisbye 1971: 54; Lass 1992: 146; Dalton-Puffer 1996: 90-91). Hence, it would prove interesting to
verify to which extent the hypothesis of categorial merging of the gerund and the present participle in
Old French can also be defended for English, on the basis of an empirical study comparable to the one
carried out in this thesis.<fnref n="42" /> Given the strong influence of French and in particular Anglo-Norman on
English between the 9th and 13th c., the question also arises of the impact of the categorial fusion of the
present participle and the gerund in Old French on the categorial distinction of their equivalents in
English.

<footnote n="42">⁴² As stated in §2.2.3.2, most authors regard the English gerund and present participle as two distinct categories of non-finite verbs, despite their morphological identity and partly overlapping functional properties. However, some forms cannot be taken as either gerunds or present participles on the basis of morphological and/or syntactic criteria with absolute certainty, e.g. those in a progressive construction (e.g. *he is singing*) or conjunct adjunct (e.g. *hearing this, he opened the door*) (Huddleston & Pullum 2002: 82; Duffley 2006: 1). Like their Old French counterparts, these forms are analysed in different ways. Some authors categorise them as either gerunds or present participles, but due to the lack of conclusive criteria, their analysis often varies from author to author. Others do not categorise these forms, and refer to them in an indeterminate way by means of the formal label '-ing form' (e.g. Quirk et al. 1985: 1292; Fonteyn 2016: Ch. 8) or the terminological blend 'gerund-participle' (e.g. Huddleston & Pullum 2002: 80; Duffley 2006: 1). The crucial difference between the labels '-ing form' and 'gerund-participle' in English linguistics and the label '-ant form' proposed in this thesis for Old French is that the former are restricted to a sub-group of English gerunds and/or present participles, while the latter applies to all Old French -ant forms. In other words, in English, the categorial distinction between the gerund and the present participle is eliminated for only a subset of instances. The theoretical problem of this strategy is that it solves the terminological issue of the indeterminate forms, but does not address their categorial issue. Indeed, the forms at stake inherently belong to some category, but since the labels 'gerund-participle' and '-ing form' do not refer to a category of non-finite verbs distinct from those of the gerund and the present participle (which position would be hard to defend), they are either gerund or present participles. Put differently, the labels 'gerund-participle' and '-ing form' do not solve the categorial problem of the forms involved, but simply conceal it on a terminological level. It is, among other things, to avoid this theoretical problem that, in this thesis, I propose to eliminate the categorial distinction between the gerund and the present participle altogether, instead of recognising a group of gerunds, a group of present participles, and a residual group of in-between cases. It is in this sense that it would be interesting to compare the findings of this study of Old French with those of a methodologically equivalent, diachronic corpus study of English.</footnote>