Past Participle Agreement - Question?

[Caroline]

Hello! I have a question - I have been looking around, but I can't find the right information so far. I was wondering if you could help me.

 

I'm working on using "que" and "qui" in my textbook, and this is one of the examples:

 

C'est l'histoire. J'ai déjà lu cette histoire le week-end dernier. --> C'est l'histoire que j'ai déjà lue le week-end dernier. 

 

Why would "lu" be masculine in the version without "que," but then become "lue" feminine in the version with "que?"

 

There are rules about past participle agreement, but if the past participle agrees with the direct object, wouldn't it agree with "l'histoire" which is feminine? 

 

I apologize if this is a very silly question - I'm afraid I must be missing some crucial bit of grammar knowledge here! 

 

 

[Neil Coffey]

It's not at all a silly question-- indeed you've touched upon what are some of the more complex, arbitrary rules of past participle agreement which in reality aren't universally agreed upon and followed by all French speakers.

 

The basic rule is that-- in formal writing at least-- the past participle agrees with a direct object that comes before the verb (the "preceding direct object" as it's sometimes fancily called).

 

So conventionally, would would write e.g. J'ai écrit les lettres but Les lettres que j'ai écrites.

 

A slight problem with this rule is that it doesn't reflect the reality of everyday speech. In ordinary spontaneous speech, native French speakers would generally say "Les lettres que j'ai écrit" without the agreement. But in formal writing, it's the convention.

 

You might want to take a look at the site's grammar pages on past participle agreements in French. Note that some of the finer details are not vital at all, and indeed there are cases where the correct answer as to whether to add an agreement or not (does one write Elle s'est rie de lui or Elle s'est ri de lui?) is generally considered to be "who knows...".

[Caroline]

That page on French linguistics is fabulous - I wish my textbook would be so thorough! Thank you so much for helping me out. :)

[Will Sheard]

My understanding of the latter example of reflexive verbs is that if the verb is transitive (i.e. takes a direct object) there is no agreement with the subject. On the other hand, if the verb is intransitive (i.e. does not take a direct object), there is agreement with the subject. Examples:

 

Elle s'est souvenue de lui.

She remembered him/her.

 

Elle s'est cassé la jambe.

She broke her leg.

 

I would say that native French speakers are more aware of the examples like Les lettres que j'ai écrites than the fine points of the grammar of reflexives, although judging by my French friends on Facebook, there are more serious problems out there. One French friend repeatedly writes la plus part where one would normally expect la plupart. But when the chips are down, none of these "mistakes" is so serious. I think a lot of these "mistakes" may come from a lack of reading on the part of French speakers. It's a particular problem with French because the spoken language differs, sometimes markedly, from the way it is written.

[Neil Coffey]

"My understanding of the latter example of reflexive verbs is that if the verb is transitive (i.e. takes a direct object) there is no agreement with the subject."

 

Yes -- essentially what usually happens is that the past participle agrees with the preceding direct object-- be that the reflexive pronoun, if that's the direct object, or some other direct object if there is one before the verb (e.g. La jambe qu'il s'est cassée).

 

In a few verbs it's arguable whether the reflexive pronoun is direct or indirect, so it's arguable whether to make the agreement.

[Will Sheard]

Thanks for that clarification, Neil. I hadn't considered the example of a raised direct object. My students really struggle with agreement and the passé composé. "But it's avoir," they say. "I thought there was no agreement with avoir." :-/