Abstract Booklet - CRIL - Università del Salento

Transcription

Abstract
Booklet
42nd Incontro di Grammatica Generativa
February 18-20, 2016
Università del Salento
Lecce
Invited speakers:
Itziar Laka
Andrea Calabrese
!
1!
We thank the following reviewers
Flavia Adani
Birgit Alber
Artemis Alexiadou
Fabrizio Arosio
Linda Badan
Misha Becker
Adriana Belletti
Paola Benincà
Valentina Bianchi
Maria Theresa Biberhauer
Giuliano Bocci
Ignacio Bosque
Chiara Branchini
Teresa Cabré
Andrea Calabrese
Anna Cardinaletti
Jan Casalicchio
Carlo Cecchetto
Cristiano Chesi
Gennaro Chierchia
Luca Ciribasi
Gloria Cocchi
Federica Cognola
Joao Costa
Silvio Cruschina
Roberta D'Alessandro
Cecile De Cat
Maria Del Mar Vanrell
Henriette Deswart
Elisa Di Domenico
Anna Maria Di Sciullo
Teresa Espinal
Ricardo Etxepare
Antonio Fábregas
Michelangelo Falco
Abdelkader
Fassi Fehri
Raffaella Folli
Francesca Foppolo
Irene Franco
Ludovico Franco
Mara Frascarelli
Angel Gallego
Maria Garraffa
Berit Gehrke
Carlo Geraci
Chiara Gianollo
Barbara Gili Fivela
Alessandra Giorgi
Nino Grillo
Mirko Grimaldi
Cristina Guardiano
!
Maria Teresa Guasti
Liliane Haegeman
Yair Haendler
Roland Hinterhoelzl
Ilda Koopman
Marie Labelle
Rosangela Lai
Itziar Laka
Paolo Lorusso
Simona Mancini
Mariarita Manzini
Fran Marusic
Jaume Mateu
Chiara Melloni
Andrea Moro
Enzo Moscati
Nicola Munaro
Andrew Nevins
Paco Ordoñez
Orin Percus
Isabel Perez Jimenez
Diego Pescarini
Cecilia Poletto
Lucia Pozzan
Josep Quer
Francesca Ramaglia
Eva Remberger
Lori Repetti
Luigi Rizzi
Ian Roberts
Anna Roussou
Vieri Samek-Lodovici
Ludovica Serratrice
Michelle Sheehan
Hu Shenai
Petra Sleeman
Knut Taraldsen
Alessandra Tomaselli
Giuseppe Torcolacci
Jacopo Torregrossa
Miriam Uribe-Etxebarria
Marc Van Ooostendorp
Mirta Vernice
Francesco Vespignani
Sandra Villata
Susanne Wurmbrand
Roberto Zamparelli
Chiara Zanini
Hedde Zeijstra
2!
University of Salento
Edificio Sperimentale-Tabacchi – SP7 Meeting room
Lecce, February 18-20, 2016
Program of the 42° Generative Grammar Meeting
FEBRUARY, THURSDAY 18
8:45
Registration
9:45
Welcoming and introduction:
Mirko Grimaldi University of Salento
Giovanni Tateo Dean of the Department of Human Studies
10:00 Itziar Laka– Invited speaker
University of the Basque Country/Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea
Theoretical and experimental perspectives on ergativity.
11:00 Gloria Cocchi and Cristina Pierantozzi.
Università degli studi di Urbino
Gender agreement in mixed Italian/German relative clauses
11:30 Coffe Break (poster session)
12:00 Elena Pagliarini, Natale Stucchi and Maria Teresa Guasti.
Università degliu studi di Milano Bicocca
Prediction of abstract representations from the rhythmic and the syntactic structures
12.30 Shenai Hu, Maria Vender, Gaetano Fiorin and Denis Delfitto.
Università degli studi di Verona
Asymmetry in the comprehension of affirmative and negative sentences in young Chinese poor readers
13:00 Irene Caloi.
Goethe University of Frankfurt
Wh-question processing in patients with Alzheimer ’s disease
13:30 Lunch break
14.30 Poster session
15:00 Claudia Manetti and Adriana Belletti.
Università degli studi di Siena / University of Geneva
Topics and passives in Italian-speaking children and adults.
15:30 Anna Roussou.
University of Patras
Complement clauses: Case and argumenthood
!
3!
16:00 Ilaria Frana and Kyle Rawlins.
UMass Amherst - Johns Hopkins University
Italian "mica" as a Common Ground Managing Operator
16:30 Diego Pescarini.
Goethe Universität Frankfurt
Non-canonical enclitics are not weak pronouns
17:00 Coffee break (poster session)
17:30 Ion Tudor Giurgea.
The "Iorgu Iordan - Al. Rosetti" Institute of Linguistics –Bucharest
Intervention in Romanian se-passives
18:00 Ludovico Franco and Paolo Lorusso
Universidade Nova de Lisboa – Università di Firenze /Cril Università del Salento
Patterns of Syntactic Agreement with Embedded NPs
18:30 Petra Sleeman and Tabea Ihsane
University of Amsterdam - University of Geneva
Partitive constructions and semantic agreement in French
!
4!
FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 19
9.00
Andrea Calabrese – Invited speaker
University of Connecticut (USA)
Irregular Verbal Morphology, Athematicity and Locality. The Irregular Latin Perfect Forms, their PIE
Ancestors and their Romance Outcomes.
10:00 Laura Bafile.
Università degli studi di Ferrara
The debate on the nature of phonological primes in Element Theory
10:30 Francesca Foppolo, Francesca Panzeri, Ciro Greco and Maria Nella Carminati.
Università degli studi di Milano Bicocca- CITEC, University of Bielefeld
The incremental processing of perfectivity in accomplishment predicates
11:00 Coffee break (poster session)
11:30 M. Rita Manzini and Leonardo M. Savoia
Università degli studi di Firenze
The complementation system of Aromanian (South Albania)
12:00 Peter Herbeck.
University of Salzburg
Romance pro-drop hiding VO restrictions
12:30 Lena Baunaz and Eric Lander.
Ghent University
The internal structure of nominal and verbal complementizers
13:00 Theresa Biberauer and Ian Roberts.
University of Cambridge
Emergent parameters and pleiotropic features: new perspectives on syntactic complexity
13:30 Lunch break
14:30 Poster session
15:00 Ane Berro.
University of the Basque Country
Looking for the verbal category in Basque syntax: not found
15:30 Patrick Elliott
University College London
Nested which-phrases: consequences for the syntax of wh-scope
16:00 Nino Grillo and Keir Moulton.
Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin- Simon Fraser University
Kind of Perfect
16:30 Carlo Geraci
Institut Jean-Nicod CNRS Paris
Possessives in (three) Sign Languages
17:00
!
Coffee break (poster session)
5!
17:30 Vincenzo Nicolò Di Caro and Giuliana Giusti.
Università Ca' Foscari Venezia
Dimensions of variation. The Inflected Construction in the dialect of Delia (Caltanissetta)
18:00 Cristina Guardiano, Dimitris Michelioudakis, Andrea Ceolin, Giuseppe Longobardi, Nina Radkevich,
Monica-Alexandrina Irimia, Ioanna Sitaridou and Giuseppina Silvestri.
Università di Modena e Reggio Emilia / University of York / University of Pennsylvania / University of
Cambridge
A parametric approach to dialect classification: microvariation in Southern Italy
18:30 Olga Kellert, Irene Franco, Cecilia Poletto and Guido Mensching.
University of Göttingen / University of Frankfurt
A unified analysis of additive and temporal markers in Old Italian
19:00
Premio Marica De Vincenzi / Business Meeting
Social Dinner
!
6!
SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 20
9:00
Mirko Grimaldi – Invited talk
Università del Salento (CRIL)
The biolinguistics research at the Centro di Ricerca Interdisciplinare sul Linguaggio
10:00 Francesca Foppolo, Marco Marelli, Stefania Donatiello and Damiano Piattella.
Università di Milano Bicocca - CiMEC, University of Trento
To be (some) or not to be (all)
10:30 Jan Wislicki.
Roots and root typing: evidence from discontinuity
University of Warsaw
11:00
Coffee break (poster session)
11.30
Mara Frascarelli and Roland Hinterhoelzl.
Università degli studi Roma Tre- Università Ca' Foscari Venezia
German scrambling meets Italian Right-Dislocation
12:00 Giorgos Spathas and Dimitris Michelioudakis.
University of Stuttgart - University of York
The scope of additive operators: an argument for syntactic event decomposition
12:30 Volker Struckmeier.
University of Cologne
Interface relations underlie the cartography of scrambling positions in German
Conclusion – Farewell
Alternates
Anna Marchesini
The features specification of the Future morphology in Italian
Nino Grillo and Keir Moulton
Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin /Simon Fraser University
Clausal Determiners and Long Distance AGREE in Italian
!
7!
Poster Presentations
1.!
Giulia Bellucci, Lena Dal Pozzo, Ludovico Franco and Maria Rita Manzini
Università di Firenze/ CLUNL-Universidade Nova de Lisboa
Locatives, Part and Whole in Uralic
2.!
Daniele Botteri
Università degli studi di Siena
Focus and Ellipsis in Split Questions: Syntax and Variation
3.!
Luca Ducceschi and Roberto Zamparelli
Università degli studi di Trento
Syntax, Materialized
4.!
Guillaume Enguehard
University of Paris 7
ECP or OCP?
5.!
Nino Grillo and Keir Moulton
Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin/ Simon Fraser University
Clausal Determiners and Long Distance AGREE in Italian
6.!
Alexander Grosu and Ion Tudor Giurgea
Tel Aviv University/ “Iorgu Iordan - A. Rosetti” Institute of Linguistics
A Revealing Romanian-specific Grammatical Property
7.!
Rosangela Lai
Word-initial Geminates in Sardinian
8.!
Paolo Lorusso, Anna Dora Manca, Ludovico Franco and Mirko Grimaldi
Università degli studi di Firenze / Universidade Nova de Lisboa / Cril Università del salento
The features of Person and Gender: an ERP study on a Person Split in Italian
9.!
Iara Mantenuto
UCLA
Towards a Cartography of Teramano Demonstratives
10.! Anna Marchesini
The features specification of the Future Morphology in Italian
11.! Francesca Panzeri and Simone Carrus
Università di Milano-Bicocca / Università San Raffaele
The Derogatory Import of Slurs
12.! Roberto Petrosino
University of Connecticut
Allomorphy of Determiners in Italian
13.! Francesca Ramaglia and Mara Frascarelli
Università degli studi Roma Tre
Towards a Unification of Copular Constructions: an Integrated Approach
14.! Silvia Rossi and Jacopo Garzonio
Università degli studi di Padova/ Università Ca’ Foscari Venizia
Structural Seficiency across Phases: Oblique Pronouns in Old Tuscan Varieties
!
8!
15.! Giuseppe Samo
University of Geneva
Icelandic V3 Adverbs do not Violate the Bottleneck Effect
16.! Rosalinde Stadt, Petra Sleeman and Aafke Hulk
University of Amsterdam / ACLC
The L2 Status Factor and the Role of Immersion
17.! Neda Todorovic
University of Connecticut
Why Future is not so Perfect(ive): on the Aspectual Restrictions of Future Interpretations
18.! Giuseppe Torcolacci
Leiden University (LUCL)
Some Issues on pro-drop. The case of Northern Italian Subject Clitics
19.! Aleksandra Vercauteren
Belgium CLUNL/GIST
The Focalizing SER ‘to Be’ Construction in European Portuguese
!
9!
IGG42 KEYNOTE SPEAKER
Itziar Laka
University of the Basque Country/Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea
Theoretical and experimental perspectives on ergativity
In this talk, I will present and discuss aspects of theoretical and experimental research on ergativity.
Ergativity has received significant attention during the last decades in syntactic theory, particularly in
generative grammar; the number of languages and phenomena under scrutiny has increased, and as a
consequence our knowledge about the properties and the range of variation in the ergative class has
deepened considerably. As a result, there is an increasing trend towards convergence in the hypotheses
as to what constitutes the core of ergativity. This convergence involves two distinct but related
hypotheses, the sum of which I call the TotalErg hypothesis: (a) Ergative case is inherent; (b) Ergativity
does not split. Under this hypothesis, phenomena labeled splits, suggesting a change from an ergative
pattern to a nominative one, follow naturally given the grammatical properties of the languages under
study, within the boundaries of an ergative system. I will discuss two instances of “splitless” accounts
of two “split-like” phenomena from Basque: the progressive and the modal “need” (Laka 2006, in
press). In opposition to theoretical studies, psycholinguistic studies on ergativity are scarce; I will
discuss some recent ERP studies from our laboratory on the processing of ergative morphology in native
and (early high proficient) non-native speakers; results suggest that argument alignment patterns
(nominative/ergative) are very sensitive to the timeline of language development and have a significant
impact in the neural representation and processing of grammar (Zawiszewski et al. 2011, Díaz et al
2016).
References.
Laka Itziar ,2006. Deriving Split-ergativity in the progressive: the case of Basque. In: Alana Johns,
Diane Massam and Juvenal Ndayiragije (Eds.) Ergativity: Emerging Issues. Studies in Natural
Language and Linguistic Theory, Volume 65, Dordrecht/Berlin: Springer pp.173-95.
Zawiszewski A., Gutierrez E., Fernández B., Laka, I. 2011. Language distance and non-native
syntactic processing: evidence from event-related potentials, Bilingualism: Language and Cognition
14 (3), 400–411.
Díaz, B.; Erdocia, K.; de Menezes, RF.; Mueller, JL.; Sebastian-Galles, N. & Laka, I. (2016).
Electrophysiological correlates of second-language syntactic processes are related to native and
second language distance regardless of age of acquisition. Front. Psychol. 7:133.
Laka, I. (in press) Ergative Need not Split: An exploration into the TotalErg hypothesis. In Jessica
Coon, Diane Massam, Lisa Travis (Eds.) Handbook of Ergativity. New York: Oxford University
Press
!
10!
The debate on the nature of phonological primes in Element Theory
Laura Bafile
University of Ferrara
The way we model segmental phonology determines, or rather reflects, our conception of the relationship
between phonetics and phonology and, more generally, the role we assign to phonology in the architecture of
grammar.
Segmental models based on binary features may equally well serve quite divergent views of the phonologyphonetics relationship. On the one, end features are regarded as the input of articulatory machinery (e.g. Halle
& Bromberger 1989), on the other they are deemed to be mental categories belonging to a pure phonological
core that is part of (Universal) Grammar (e.g. Halle e Reiss 2000).
In its classical formulation (e.g. Harris and Lindsey 1995 = H&L), Element Theory, by considering
subsegmental primes to be privative, autonomously pronounceable units, makes a strong statement about the
link between form and substance in the realm of sounds. Elements are cognitive categories consisting in
signal based patterns by reference to which “listeners decode auditory input and speaker orchestrate and
monitor their articulation” (H&L); they “are associated with acoustic signatures which are to be found
somewhere in the signal” (Kaye 2005), amid much other information of non linguistic kind.
In practice, in analyses couched in ET terms, a certain amount of slack can be observed as for the phonetic
interpretation of elements or elemental compositions. Backley (2012) explicitly states that “a single phonetic
expression such as |I A| may be pronounced [ɛ] in some languages but [æ] in others” (p. 92). On of the reasons
at the base of this looser link between elements and phonetic shapes is the need to enlarge the capacity of
generating segments with a small set of primes. Recently, some work in ET has taken a more radical position
in the direction of substance-free phonology, by considering the relationship between phonological categories,
including elements and segments, and their phonetic counterparts to be arbitrary.
In his ET analysis of ‘voice’ contrasts of obstruents in Polish, based on of the privative elements |L| and |H|,
Cyran (2014) proposes to substitute the partition known as “Laryngeal realism” with a model in which the
correspondence between the two elements and phonetic voicing effects is not tight (therefore dubbed
“Laryngeal relativism”): the same voiceless unaspirated stop /p/ is assigned two different elemental
compositions in two dialects of Polish (i.e. it is analysed as containing |H| in the one, and as not containing
|L| (neither |H|) in the other).
Scheer (2014, 2015) examines several phenomena of phonology-phonetic mismatch, such as the case of the of
Inuit dialects, in which the same phonetic unit [i] displays twofold phonological behaviour, actually
corresponding to two different elemental composition, a “strong”, palatalising one (containing |I|) and a
“weak”, non-palatalising one (containing |I|). Scheer’s radical standpoint considers phonology an
encapsulated module completely independent from phonetics (see Reiss 2007, Boersma 2009). In his view,
the translation from phonology to phonetics is a matter of access to a “vocabulary”, and therefore arbitrary,
exactly in the same way as the translation from morphosyntax to lexicon is. Segments at the phonological
level are arbitrarily associated to their phonetic realisation.
The proposal of this paper is that the classic conception of phonetic interpretability of elements should be
maintained.
Regarding ‘voice’ contrasts, we follow Cyran in believing that some properties of sound patterns result
from universal principles of phonetic interpretation and do not depend on phonological categories. For example,
‘passive voicing’ in obstruents is not caused by a |L| element in the segmental composition. This is not to say,
however, that all the phonetic information is extraneous to the phonological competence. While there is no
need to assume that the substance of melodic primes is part of the UG, we can maintain that “acoustic
signatures” of elements, as previously defined, are part of I-language.
!
11!
The phonology-phonetics mismatch of the kinds accounted for in Scheer (2014, 2015) are not sporadic,
and are a sign that languages can tolerate a certain amount of ambiguity in the sound system. The crucial
point is that ambiguity tends to be restricted to lexical ‘exceptions’, to the result of opaque rules or
incipient (not completed) sound change.
We will discuss in this perspective data from Italian varieties, such as:
- the behaviour of word-initial /s/ and /ʧ/ in Sardinian (Lai 2015)
[sonu] / [su zonu] ‘(the) sound’
but
[suɣu] / [su suɣu] ‘(the) neck’
[ʧena] / [sa ʤena] ‘(the) dinner’
but
[ʧentezimu] / [su ʧentezimu] ‘(the) cent’
- lenition/strengthening alternations in Southern dialects, whereby stop lenition in word-initial position may
cause different path of restructuring:
[dɛnt%]
[o rɛnt%]
[tre ddjent%]
‘(the) tooth’, ‘three teeth’
[rɛnt%]
[o rɛnt%]
[tre rrjent%]
!
[a rott%] [s ɛ ddott%]
!
‘it has broken’ ‘it is broken’
- Full / centralised vowel alternations in Southern dialects, determined by both prosodic and
morphosyntactic conditioning. We observe a “free” phonetic realisations in some cases, and a strict one
in others:
/adʤ%/ →[adʤi], [adʤu], [adʤ%]
but
[bellu waʎʎon%] / *[bell% waʎʎon%]
References
Backley, P. (2012) “Variation in Element Theory”. Linguistic variation. 12.1: 57-102.
Boersma (2009) “Cue constraints and their interactions in phonological perception and production”, in P.
Boersma & S. Hamann (eds.) Phonology in Perception, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 55-110.
Cyran, E. (2014) Between Phonology and Phonetics. Polish Voicing. Berlin and New York: De Gruyter
Mouton.
Halle, M. & S. Bromberger (1989) “Why Phonology Is Different” Linguistic Inquiry, Vol. 20. 1, pp. 51-70.
Harris, J. & Lindsey, G. (1995a). “The elements of phonological representation”. In J. Durand, and Katamba,
F., editors, Frontiers of phonology: atoms, structures, derivations, Longman, Harlow, Essex, pp. 34 - 79.
Kaye, J (2005) "GP, I'll have to put your flat feet on the ground". In H. Broekhuis et al. (eds.) Organizing
grammar. Studies in Honor of Henk van Riemsdijk, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 283-288.
Hale M. & Reiss C. "Substance Abuse" and "Dysfunctionalism": Current Trends in Phonology Author(s):
Linguistic Inquiry, Vol. 31. 1, pp. 157-169.
LAI, R. (2015) “Word-Initial Geminates in Sardinian” Quaderni di Linguistica e Studi Orientali / Working
Papers in Linguistics and Orientral Studies, 1, pp. 37-60.
Reiss, C. (2007) “Modularity in the "sound" domain: implications for the purview of Universal Grammar”,
in
G. Ramchand & C. Reiss (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Interfaces, Oxford: OUP, pp.53–79.
Scheer, T. (2014) “Spell-Out, Post-Phonological” . In E. Cyran & J. Szpyra-Kozlowska (eds.) Crossing
Phonetics-Phonology, Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars, pp.255-275.
Scheer, T. (2015) “Why is it that people allow for slack in the phonetic interpretation of vowels, but not of
consonants?” Paper presented at Element Fest 2015 UCL London.
!
12!
The internal structure of nominal and verbal complementizers
Lena Baunaz ([email protected])
Eric Lander, Ghent University ([email protected])
Complementizers (Comp) in natural languages frequently have the same morphophonological
form as other categories, such as (demonstrative, relative, and interrogative) pronouns, as seen in (1).
We take these systematic overlaps as cases of syncretism. A syncretism is when a single
morphophonological form applies in more than one morphosyntactic structure. Note that syncretism is
restricted to adjacent regions (indicated by the shaded area in (1)).
(1)
!
Nominal Comp syncretism patterns (*neuter/inanimate singular forms)
DEM
COMP
REL
North Gmc
West Gmc
Romance
Balkan langs.
Swedish
English
Dutch
French
Italian
Modern
Greek
SerboCroatian
Finnish
Finno-Ugric
Hungarian
det
that
dat
ce
quello
ekíno
ekeí ‘there’
to!
!
!
tä- ‘this’
így ‘in this
manner’
att
that
dat
que
che
o-ti
pu
što
da
että
hogy
WH
som
that
dat
que
che
ó-ti (FREE REL)
(ó-)pu
što
vad
what
wat
que
che
tí
pú ‘where’
što
mia-hogy
mihogy(-an)
‘how’
See Manzini & Savoia (2003, 2011) for Italian; see Roberts & Roussou (2003), Kayne
(2008), Leu (2015) for English and West Germanic; see Roussou (2010) for Modern Greek.
Comp can also have the same morphophonological form as verbs like ‘say’ or ‘be like’, as well
as quotative, purpose (‘so that’), and similative (‘as if, like’) markers. This is seen in (2). Note that
syncretism is again restricted to adjacent regions.
(2)! Verbal Comp syncretism patterns (*bold indicates containment relationships)
!
SIM
PURPOSE /
COMP
QUOT
RESULT
Akuapem
se
West
sε
sε
sε
African Twi
Akan
sε
sε
sε
sε
(NigerEwe
abé (ené)
bé
bé
bé
Congo)
Engenni
ee-ga
ga
ga
ga
Viêtnamese
như
để mà
rằng/là
thì
Austroasiatic
Mandarin
xiang
cai
Sinitic
shuo̅#
shuo̅#
Kavalan
azu
?
tu
zin
Austronesian
Tatar
dip
dip
dip
dip
Altaic
dùd-càʔph$̌an- wâa
wâa
(?)wâa
TaiThai
wâa
Kadai
<V
‘say’
‘be like’
‘be like’
‘say’
‘be like’
‘say’
‘say’
‘say’
‘say’
See Lord (1993), Chappell (1999), Klamer (2000), among others, for discussion of this phenomenon,
which is common in West African and East Asian languages.
The prevalence of this phenomenon suggests that the homophony is not accidental and that a
more unified analysis is desirable. We propose that the identity of morphophonological form observed
between Comp and other categories should be analyzed in terms of (the nanosyntactic approach to)
syncretism. More precisely, we propose that Comps are complex morphemes (see Sanfelice & Poletto
2014, Leu 2015, a.o) composed of syntactico-semantic features which are hierarchically ordered
!
13!
according to a functional sequence (fseq) (see Starke 2009, 2011; Caha 2009). We also propose
that there are at least two fseqs available in natural language for building Comps: nominal and verbal.
The basic template for these fseqs is (3).
(3)!
F4 > F3 >
F2 >
F1 >
c
(c = category)
Importantly, at the very bottom of the hierarchy there is a categorial feature/head c which we
call the categorial core. If c is nominal (n), then the fseq in (4) is constructed. On the other hand, if c
is verbal (v), then the fseq in (5) is constructed.
(4)!
(5)!
Dem > Comp > Rel > Wh > n
Sim > Purp > Comp > v
We show that the nanosyntactic theory of syncretism and the fseqs proposed in (4) and (5) can
account for the ‘adjacency restriction’ observed above in both (1) and (2).
Following ideas in Cardinaletti & Starke (1999), moreover, we show that the nanosyntactic fseqs
in (4) and (5) make interesting predictions about the nominal core (n) and the verbal core (v). More
precisely, we show that the nominal core in (4) surfaces overtly as a bound morpheme in quantifiers (6).
(6)!Rom. (a) Fr. cha-que ‘every’, quel-que ‘some’; It. cias-che-duno, qual-che, etc.
Gk. (b) ká-ti ‘something’, tí-pota ‘anything’, TÍ-POTA ‘nothing’
Hu.
(c) vala-hogy(-an)
‘somehow, anyhow’ ; minden-hogy(-an)
‘everyhow’, etc.
Along the same lines, we also suggest that the verbal core in (5) surfaces overtly as a quotative
marker in Serial Verb Constructions (see Lord 1993 for West African and Chappell 2008 for Southern
Min), as in Twi (7) (from Christaller 1975: 117, cited by Lord 1993: 176, (305)).
(7)
!
wofré
nè
d&́ŋ
they.call
his
name
‘They call him “Kofi” ’
sè
say
kofi
Kofi
Caha, P. 2009. The nanosyntax of case, PhD dissertation, UTromsø.· Cardinaletti, A. & M. Starke.
1999. The typology of structural deficiency: A case study of the three classes of pronouns. In van
Riemsdijk, H. (ed.), Clitics in the languages of Europe (pp. 145-233). NY: Mouton de Gruyter.·
Chappell, H. 2008. Variation in the grammaticalization of complementizers from verba dicendi in
Sinitic languages. Linguistic Typology 12.1: 45-98. Kayne, R. 2008. Why isn’t this a complementizer?
Ms. NYU.· Klamer, M. 2000. How report verbs become quote markers and complementisers. Lingua
110: 69-98.· Leu, T. 2015. The Architecture of Determiners. OUP.· Lord, C. 1993. Historical change
in serial verb constructions. John Benjamins.· Manzini, M.R. & L.M. Savoia. 2003. The nature of
complementizers. Rivista di Grammatica Generativa 28, 87-110.· Manzini, M. R. & L.M Savoia.
2011. Grammatical Categories. CUP.· Roberts, I & A. Roussou. 2003. Syntactic change: a Minimalist
approach to grammaticalization. CUP.· Roussou, A. 2010. Selecting Complementizers. Lingua
Vol.120:3, 582-603.· Sanfelici, E. & C. Poletto. 2014. On the nature of complementizers : Insights for Italian
Subject Relative Clauses. Talk given at Going Romance 28, Lisbon, 4-6 dec.· Starke, M. 2009. Nanosyntax: A
short primer to a new approach to language. In Nordlyd: Special issue on Nanosyntax 36: 1-6.· Starke,
M. 2011. Towards an elegant solution to language variation: Variation reduces to the size of
lexically stored trees. LingBuzz/001183.
!
14!
Locatives, Part and Whole in Uralic
Giulia Bellucci1, Lena Dal Pozzo1, Ludovico Franco2, Rita Manzini1
1
Università degli Studi di Firenze / 2CLUNL-Universidade Nova de Lisboa
Spatial reference has always been debated in linguistics. Many authors have developed models
which aim to account how spatial expressions are syntactically encoded in natural languages (cf.
Koopman 2000, Terzi 2008, Svenonius 2010, Den Dikken 2010, Pantcheva 2011, Lestrade et al.
2011, among many others). Prima facie natural languages seem to display a lot of variation in this
respect, employing specialized case-endings (Finnish, Hungarian, Lezgian, etc.), spatial
adpositions (Italian), or both (Pashto). This fact is not surprising if we take case-inflections to be
the morphological counterpart of adpositions (Fillmore 1968).
We focus on inflected locative adpositions in Uralic languages. Building on primary data
from Finnish and on a fine-grained cross-linguistic survey taking into account 16 Uralic varieties
we show that a two-tiered structure of the type in (1b) can capture the cross-linguistic facts.
(1)
a.
Järvi
talo-n
lähe-llä.
lake.sg
house-gen.1sg
near-ade.sg
“The lake near the house”
Finnish
b.
What are traditionally labeled as adpositions in Finnish (and elsewhere in Uralic) are best
characterized as Axial-Parts (Svenonius 2006). In a Figure/Ground configuration (Talmy 1991,
2000) involving spatial Ps the Ground-complement of (⊆) is the possessor of the axis (the axialpart P) taken to evaluate the location of the Figure, introduced by means of the pP node in (1b).
The semantic function of AxPart would be to identify a region (a set of points/vectors in space,
cf. Zwart 1995; Kracht 2002) based on/possessed by the Ground item (i.e. the complement DP).
(Proto)typical AxParts indeed refer to the front, back, top, bottom, sides, and middle of an object,
though further zones projected by a pivotal Ground can be defined as well (cf. Zwart 1995; Roy
2006; Svenonius 2008, among others for ideas and taxonomies).
Such elements are nominal in nature in Uralic and their projection is the external argument of the
genitive –n in (1b). Many languages beyond the Uralic family treat regional constructions in the
same manner as dependent possessed nominal (e.g. Inuktitut and Uzbeki, cf. Johns and Thurgood
2011). Thus, the relation between AxPart and the complement of the genitive predicate in (1b) is
a kind of ‘Part-Whole’ relationship (cf. Fábregas 2007), notated here as (⊆), following Manzini
& Franco (2014), who have treated adpositions as (elementary) predicates introducing a relation
between the argument they selects and another argument. The same logic can be adopted for the
so-called oblique (i.e. genitive/dative) case. For instance, in the French phrase le livre de Marie
‘the book of Mary’ the preposition de can be taken to introduce the ‘possession’ relation, between
Jean (the possessor) and ‘the book’ (the possessum). Similarly, in the German phrase Johann-s
Buch ‘John’s book’, we take the –s ending to realize the ‘possession’ relation as a morphological
(case) inflection.
This approach is incompatible with the view of case as an uninterpretable feature (cf.
Chomsky 2001, Pesetsky and Torrego 2004, 2007). Indeed if we say that (oblique) case has a
relational content (it is effectively an inflectional counterpart of an adposition), then it is evident
!
15!
that we take the category case (at least, oblique case) to be interpretable. This does not necessarily
impinge on other minimalist postulates.
Every account of natural language must address the proximity of dative/genitive and
locative specifications, corresponding to frequent syncretic lexicalizations of dative and locative.
Possession/Part-Whole is often identified with a location in the literature, cf. in particular Freeze
(1992), Lyons (1967) (cf. also Levinson 2011 for an alternative perspective). Recently, Boneh
and Sichel (2010) take the part-whole relation to be the conceptual core of partitives (three of
them) and of inalienable possession (John’s nose) - however they factor out alienable possession
(John’s car), treated as a locative relation, since in the language they consider (Palestinian Arabic),
material possession is lexicalized by a locative preposition. Note that the same variation also
surfaces with DOM arguments; for instance in Romanian DOM obliques are introduced by a pe
preposition, which is locative.
Following the above mentioned literature we suggest that the –l/-s locative morphemes of
Finnish (cf. Ylikoski 2011) could be analysed as locative specializations of the fundamental
oblique (⊆). We construe locatives as a specialization of the part-whole relation, roughly ‘x
included by y, y a location’, where different locatives introduce different restrictions on inclusion.
Note that such morphemes are also able to lexicalize the head of (⊆)P in several cognate Uralic
languages.
On these grounds we may expect that possession in a given language may be construed as
locative inclusion rather than as pure inclusion - or that different types of possession may be
split between pure inclusion and locative inclusion as shown in the example from Ostyak in (2)
below:
(2) Jik-ǝ -l-naj
ara:ś-l
Son-EP-3sg-loc
proud-Npast.3sg
“He is proud of his son”
(Ostyak from Nikolaeva 1999: 13)
What the previous discussion implies is that there is a parallelism between the syntactic
configuration /relationship involving the Axial Part and the Ground and the Part-Whole relation.
This idea is confirmed by the fact that natural languages consistently employ the same strategy to
lexically encode a Part-Whole and an Axial Part-Ground relation (cf. Bellucci et al. in preparation).
Uralic data support this view, as shown in (3-4), for Eastern Khanty and Nenets respectively:
(3) a. kesɨ-nǝ
sǝm-ǝl
joɣ
lokkinta-ɣǝn
Part-Whole
Man-loc
heart-poss.3sg
home stop.pst0.3sg
“The man’s heart stopped”
(Eastern Khanty from Filchenko 2007:123)
(3) b. wajaɣ-nǝ
oɣ-ol
joɣ
nirimtä-s-ta
Figure/Ground
Animal-loc head-poss.3sg
home pull-pst2.3sg
“The animal hid its head back inside”
(Eastern Khanty from Filchenko 2007:163)
(4) a. Wen’ako-h
xawoda
lebt%°-q
Part-Whole
Dog
gen
ear.pl.3sg
hang-3pl
“Dog’s ears are hanging”
(Nenets from Nikolaeva 2014:59 )
(4) b. yǝx°-h
war°-h
n’in’a
pidǝr° yǝŋku- n°
Figure/Ground
river.gen bank.gen
on
you no2sg
“You are not on the river bank”
(Nenets from Nikolaeva 2014: 251)
Selected References: Fabregas, Antonio. 2007. “ (Axial) Part and Wholes”. In Nordlyd, Vol. 34(2):1-32.!Fillmore, Charles J. 1968. “The Case
for Case.” In Universals in Linguistic Theory. Emmon Bach and Robert T. Harms (eds). New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston: 1-88.! !Levinson,
Lisa. 2011. “Possessive WITH in Germanic: HAVE and the role of P”. Syntax 14(4): 355–393! Manzini, M.Rita and Ludovico Franco. 2015.
“Goal and DOM Datives”. In Natural Language and Linguistic Theory: 1-44.!Svenonius, P. 2006. ”The emergence of Axial Parts”. Nordlyd 33(1):
49-77! Talmy, L. 2000. Towards a Cognitive Semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
!
16!
Looking for the verbal category in Basque syntax: not found
Ane Berro (University of the Basque Country, UMR 7023)
i.!In this talk, I am going to propose that the verbal category does not syntactically exist in Basque
and that it is a post-syntactic construct derived from the configuration in which the predicate is
lexicalized. This proposal is supported by two analyses about Basque predicates: (i) a study of
Basque derived predicates, and (ii) an analysis of the analytic and synthetic verbal forms.
ii.! Most predicates in Basque are derived, formed attaching the -tu suffix to almost any kind of
element like a noun –ama-tu (mother-TU) ‘become a mother or turn sb into a mother’– an adjective
– lehor-tu (dry-TU) ‘dry’, etxe-gabe-tu (home-without-TU) ‘to evict’–, an adposition –etxe-ra-tu
(home- ALL-TU) ‘go home, take sb home’, ur-ez-ta-tu (water-INSTR-TA-TU) ‘water’– or an adverbial
kind of element –azkar-tu (quick-TU) ‘quicken’, sail-ka-tu (class-KA-TU) ‘to classify’. Looking at
this data and adopting an event configuration approach like that of the First Phase Syntax
(Ramchand 2008), we could think that -tu is a kind of verbalizer which conveys a part of event
configuration and which is related to the process subevent: it gives a transitional kind of meaning
and it turns the element in its complement into a verb. Nevertheless, as I explain below (section v)
-tu does not seem to have verbal category, but nominal one.
iii.! The case of location predicates formed by means of the allative adposition (e.g. etxe-ra-tu (homeALL-TU) ‘go home, take sb home’) is particularly enlightening. Hale & Keyser (1993) argue for similar
predicates in English (e.g. shelve) that they are built on a silent verb to which an adposition and
its complement have been incorporated. However, this analysis cannot explain why in Basque we
can have location predicates only consisting of the allative adposition, and not, for example, of the
ablative (like in *etxe-tik-tu (home-ABL-TU), with an intended meaning of ‘going from home’) or of
the approximative allative (like in *etxe-rantz-tu (home-APPROX-TU), intended ‘going towards
home’). If there were a silent verb, location predicates must be, in principle, able to be form from
any kind of Path adposition. Establishing a parallel and isomorphic relation between the event
decomposition (à la Ramchand 2008) and the inner structure of Path adpositions (à la Pantcheva
2011), I argue that, in this case, the allative is lexicalizing the process subevent. A consequence of
this analysis is that the process head must not be obligatorily verbal, since, in this case, it is
lexicalized by an element which is usually selected to spell out an adposition.
iv.! Regarding verbal configurations, there are two forms in which a predicate can surface in Basque.
The analytic configuration is the most widespread one. As a matter of fact, the number of predicates
which can align in the synthetic form is very small (no more than 15, Euskaltzaindia 1997, e.g.
etorri ‘come’, joan ‘go’, egon ‘be’, etc.) and in some cases, they have defective paradigms.
Furthermore, the synthetic form is nowadays restricted to the imperfective category. In contrast, the
analytic configuration can be used with all verbs, is the only productive configuration and can
be used to convey several aspectual categories like the perfect (1), the perfective (2), the
imperpective (3) and also the prospective (4).
The analytic configuration consists of a lexical predicate marked for aspect and an auxiliary
which supports all inflectional morphology like person, case and number agreement, and also tense
and mood markers.
(1)
(3)
Miren
etorr-i
da
Mary.ABS come-TU aux.3sgABS
‘Mary has come’
Miren
etor-tze-n
da
Mary.ABS come-TZE-INE aux.3sgABS
‘Mary comes’
(4)!
(2)
Miren etorr-i
zen
Mary.ABS come-TU aux.3sgABS.PST
‘Mary came’
Miren
etorr-i-ko
da
Mary.ABS come-TU-GEN aux.3sgABS
‘Mary will come’
v.! In the analytic form, the predicate has nominal category. Actually, the nominal category of -tze
is standardly assumed in the literature: predicates headed by -tze have been traditionally considered
verbal nouns (Euskaltzaindia 1997), and the -tze suffix has been analyzed as a nominalizer (Goenaga
!
17!
1985, Ortiz de Urbina 1989, Mateu & Amadas 1999, Demirdache & Uribe-Etxebarria 2000,
Laka 2004 2006). Furthermore, in the imperfective and in the prospective, the predicate is headed
by an adposition that is actually morphologically realized: the inessive -n in the imperfective and
the genitive -ko in the prospective. I argue that the morpheme -tu (or its variant -i in the examples)
is also indicating the nominal category of the predicate (see also Haddican & Tsoulas 2012). As a
matter of fact, -tu headed predicates show nominal distribution in several contexts: they can be headed
by determiners (Euskaltzaindia 1997, Hualde 2003, Artiagoitia 2003) (5), they can be headed by
adpositions (6) and also by Axial Parts (Svenonius 2006, Etxepare 2013) in temporal clauses (UribeEtxebarria 2014) (7).
(5)!
a. Urra-tu
bat
scratch-TU DET
‘a scratch’
b.!begira-tu bat
look-TU DET
‘a look’
c.!irabaz-i-a
win-TU-DET
‘the winning’
d.!uki-tu-a
touch-TU-DET
‘the touch’
(6)!
[egi-n-ez]
ikasten da
[do-TU-INSTR] it is learnt
‘you learn by doing’ lit. ‘it is learnt by doing’
(7)!
a. Miren
etorr-i oste-an
Miren.ABS come-TU back-INE
‘After Miren comes’,
lit. ‘in the back of Mary coming’
b. Miren
etorr-i
aurre-tik
Miren.ABS come-TU front-ABL
‘Before Miren comes’,
lit. ‘in the front of Mary coming’
vi.! In the spirit of Laka (1993), I argue that in the analytic configuration, the predicate is lexicalized
below the head responsible for viewpoint aspect (realized by the inessive -n in the imperfective). In
the synthetic, in contrast, the predicate is lexicalized high, together with other inflectional morphology
like tense. Following partially Embick’s (2000) analysis of Latin synthetic and analytic forms, I propose
that when the predicate is lexicalized high, together with tense, it surfaces like a verb (see also Svenonius
2007), and that when it is lexicalized low, below Asp, it is lexicalized as a noun.
vii.! In summary, these data leads me to the following conclusions. On the one hand, it seems that the
First Phase Syntax (Ramchand 2008) must be divorced from the verbal category, since parts of this
structure can be lexicalized with elements having other categorial status. On the other hand, the verbal
category is not morphologically identified in Basque, and positing a zero morph is also proved to be
problematic. I rather propose that the verbal category is a post-syntactic construct that emerges when
the predicate is lexicalized high, together with tense and other functional heads, and that it is not
syntactically represented in a little v head (cf. Marantz 1997). If the predicate is lexicalized low, like in
complement position of the Asp head responsible for viewpoint aspect, it surfaces with nominal category.
This is actually the case of the Basque analytic verbal configuration.
Selected references: EMBICK, D. 2000. Features, Syntax, and Categories in the Latin Perfect. Linguistic
Inquiry, 31-2: 185-230. EUSKALTZAINDIA. 1997. Euskal Gramatikaren Lehen Urratsak II. Nafarroa:
Nafarroako Foru Elkargoa eta Euskaltzaindia. HALE, K. & S.J. KEYSER. 1993. On Argument Structure
and the Lexical Expression of Syntactic Relations. In K.Hale & S.J.Keyser (eds.), The View from Building
20. Cambridge, Mass: The MIT Press. 53-109. RAMCHAND, G. 2008. Verb Meaning and the Lexicon. A
First Phase Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
!
18!
Emergent parameters and pleiotropic features: new perspectives on syntactic complexity
Theresa Biberauer1,2 & Ian Roberts1
University of Cambridge1 and Stellenbosch University2
We develop the idea that, rather than postulating a richly specified UG-given parametric endowment (as in
Chomsky 1981), parameters are emergent properties falling out of the interaction of Chomsky (2005)’s 3
factors: a minimally specified UG (F1), the PLD (F2), and non-language-specific cognitive optimization
strategies (F3). Under F3, we assume a general cognitive economy principle, the search/optimisation prodecure
Maximise Minimal Means, which has 2 particularly important language-oriented reflexes: Feature Economy
(FE: postulate as few formal features/FFs as possible) and Input Generalization (IG: generalize features as much
as possible). This paper’s goal is to consider the consequences of this approach in relation to a subset of
seemingly privileged FFs, what we will call the Pleiotropic Formal Features (PFFs).
Key to the proposal is the idea that FE and IG combine to create a learning path of the following general
type: postulate NO features (satisfies FE and IG); if a feature F is detected, posit it in ALL (relevant)
domains (satisfies IG but not FE); if F is absent in expected parts of the PLD (given the previous step),
posit it only in SOME relevant domains.
(1)!
Is F present?
NO
Yes: Is F present on ALL heads?
Yes
No: F and not-F are present (SOME)
The first NO is a default: F is only postulated if PLD points to its existence. The last step creates a distinction
between domains where F is present and where it is absent, thereby effectively creating a new feature
distinction (cf. also Dresher 2009, 2013, where essentially the same idea is applied in phonology, and Jaspers
2013, Seuren & Jaspers 2014 for further applications in the domain of concept formation). After the last
step, the NO>ALL>SOME procedure is repeated for the restricted version of F, and for not-F (i.e. G). Equating
parameters with (a subset of) FFs of functional heads (Chomsky 1995), this produces parameter hierarchies
of a highly constrained and hence comparable kind. We will demonstrate how (1)- type hierarchies work for
4 FFs which seem to regulate the existence of others, i.e. they are pleiotropic, in the sense familiar from
genetics. These Pleiotropic Formal Features (PFFs) are Person, Tense, Case and Order.
PFFs have “strong” and “weak” variants: a strong PFF controls more FFs and acts in more formal domains
than a weak one. Strong Person, for example, controls the properties of other formal features (gender,
number, etc.) and also plays a role in multiple domains (potentially, all phasal (sub)domains, across all
categories); by contrast, weak Person is simply instantiated with its standard values (1st, 2nd, possibly 3rd), and
other φ-features are not grammaticalised (in the sense that they do not participate in Agree relations,i.e. they
are present only as semantic features – Wiltschko 2008, 2014). Similarly, Tense can be weak or strong.
If strong, we see verb-movement into the higher inflectional field, along with restricted VP-ellipsis and few/no
auxiliaries; Tense will also function in numerous domains (cf. i.a. Ritter & Wiltschko 2014 on CP-Tense,
Pearson 2001 on vP-Tense, and Nordlinger & Sadler 2004 on nominal Tense). Furthermore, strong Tense
controls further FFs (e.g. future, modal and aspectual features). The position of the verb may be relativized to
the nature and realisation of other FFs in an intricate way; see Schifano (2015) for evidence of this from
Romance, and Biberauer & Roberts (2015) for discussion of the general formal consequences of the presence of
more and less elaborate FF inventories in different functional domains.
If Tense is weak, we see no verb movement to “high” clausal positions, a relatively rich auxiliary system and
more liberal VP-ellipsis, with modal and aspectual features either not grammaticalised or functioning
independently of Tense, which simply has the values Past and Non-Past. Case, following ideas originating
!
19!
in Vergnaud (1977/2008), plays the role of positional argument-“licensor”. Strong Case is associated with the
presence of lexical, inherent and/or quirky Case, a rich inventory of Case features, and a range of domains
in which the feature is active (CP and vP beside the usual nominal and TP-domains, for example). Weak Case
gives rise either to an undifferentiated FF which merely functions to make arguments active for Agree (in the
sense of Chomsky 2001), or to a minimally distinct Nominative-Accusative opposition in the clause (and possibly
Genitive in DP). Strong Case is associated with verbal semantics (argument structure, aspect) and can play a role
in determining DP semantics (various kinds of partitive case, genitive of negation, specificity, focus, etc.);
weak Case merely licenses arguments in given positions, hence the range of argument positions is likely to be
relatively restricted in weak-Case systems (as observed by Vergnaud and enshrined in GB Case theory; Chomsky
1981). Weak-Case systems are likely to have a richer array of Adpositions, especially semantically empty
“linker” elements (such as English of), whose sole role is to license an argument. Finally, Weak Order means
that constituents are linearised without the need to postulate an additional F, e.g. ^ in Biberauer, Holmberg &
Roberts (2014), i.e. head-initially. Strong Order requires the presence of movement-triggering Fs, giving rise to
fully harmonic head-final order and, in keeping with Maximise Minimal Means, scrambling. In (1), “strength”
thus corresponds to ALL, and “weakness”, a relative and gradient property, either to NONE (Order in fully
head-initial systems) or to various sub-options under SOME.
Taking the strong/weak options for the 4 PFFs, we predict 16 macro-types, as follows:
!
Latin,
other
conservative IE
Romance
(not
French)
Celtic/NW Semitic
Paraguayan
Guaraní
English/MSc
Cantonese
Japanese/Korean
Russian?
*?
*?
Icelandic
French
Innovative Faroese
*?
??
Turkish/ic
Person
S
Tense
S
Case
S
Order
S
S
S
S
W
S
S
S
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
S
S
W
W
W
W
S
S
W
W
W
S
S
W
S
S
W
S
W
W
W
W
S
S
W
W
S
W
S
W
S
S
W
S
S
S
S
S
W
W
W
S
W
S
The SSSS type is predicted to be the least complex, and we document typological and diachronic supporting
evidence. The WWWW type is relatively more complex, as the “weak” options may correspond to relatively
marked SOME options. Of the 50-50 options, WWSS is more common than SSWW as “harmony” of Strong
Case and Strong Order is natural (case morphology tends to coincide with relatively free word order). WSWS
is not found, because weak Case and strong Order, although a UG possibility, represent an unlearnable system.
WSSW is found (Icelandic), but it is rare and presumably highly marked.
In general, the PFF concept complements the emergent-parameter view and clarifies our understanding of
“deep” parameters in relation to typological distributions, diachronic (in)stability, acquisition/learnability, areal
spread and complexity/markedness. Most importantly, on this view, all of the above are related. Finally, the
long-standing parallel between parametric systems and genetics is further developed (cf. the discussion of
Jacob 1978 in Chomsky 1980:67).
!
20!
FOCUS AND ELLIPSIS IN SPLIT QUESTIONS:
SYNTAX AND VARIATION
Daniele Botteri
Università degli studi di Siena
The goal of this paper is to investigate the syntax of a peculiar type of question, i.e. split questions, in Italian and
in some Tuscan varieties. Descriptively, split questions are interrogative structures formed by two parts: a whpart which corresponds to a standard wh-question and a tag which constitutes a possible answer for that whquestion.
(1)!
Chi è venuto, Gianni?
‘Who came, Gianni?’
The starting point is Arregi (2010) which first proposed (contra Camacho 2002) that split questions are formed
by two separate questions: a wh-question (dubbed ‘the wh-part’) and a non wh-question (the source of the tag)
where Focus-movement and subsequent TP-ellipsis occur. After showing that the arguments in favour of a
biclausal analysis provided for by Arregi (2010) for Spanish are valid for Italian too, novel supporting evidence
is discussed. First, the possibility of structures like (2)
(2)!
Cosa ha portato Maria, la cena?
what has brought Maria, the dinner?
would be hard to explain in a monoclausal account given that Italian generally disallows order VSO (Belletti
2004). Second, mismatches in φ-features between non-deleted material and its correlate in the elided part are
allowed (3), a phenomenon independently attested in other elliptical structures such as Comparative Ellipsis and
“edge coordination” (Bianchi and Zamparelli 2004):
(3)!
Chi deve parlare, Giulia deve parlare o io devo parlare?
‘Who has to speak, Giulia or I?’
A biclausal account of split questions also allows us to capture some properties of a peculiar type of questions
attested among Tuscan varieties. Tuscan dialects like Fiorentino and Sienese are among those varieties which
avail themselves of a special type of split questions in which the question is introduced by the counterpart of
what, independently of the content of the tag, a possibility also attested in Catalan, Asturian Spanish and
substandard varieties of English. In the following examples, for instance, the wh-word is realized as (ic)ché,
‘what’ but the intended meaning is ‘when’:
(4)!
Fiorentino:
(Ic)ché
parti,
domani?
what (you) leave.2.SG. tomorrow
‘When are you leaving, tomorrow?’
One could take (4) to be a polar question with ic(ché) as a sort of complementizer, a possibility which could
receive some support from the fact that Fiorentino does have a complementizer (‘che’) which (optionally)
introduces polar questions, as in
(5)!
!
Che
dormi?
that (you) sleep.2.SG.
21!
However, there is compelling evidence that polar questions and split questions have a different structure, as also
suggested by the fact that they have a different intonation. Consider the following minimal pair:
(6)! a.
(Che)/*Icché
hai
visto Gianni?
that/what
(you) have.2.SG. seen Gianni
b.! *(Che)/Icché
hai
visto, Gianni?
that/what
(you) have.2.SG. seen Gianni
(6a) is a polar question (‘Did you see Gianni?’), in fact che can be omitted and cannot be replaced by icché. On
the other hand, (6b) is a split question and (ic)ché cannot be omitted (as expected, given that it is the internal
argument of vedere). Extra evidence supporting a different analysis for pairs like (6a-b) comes from clitic
resumption and island sensitivity. Clitic resumption of the object DP Gianni is possible in the polar question (Che
l’hai visto Gianni?), whilst it is never possible to resume the XP matching the wh-phrase in a split question (Icché
(*l’) hai visto, Gianni?). Furthermore, in both parts of a split question, A-bar movement occurs which, as
expected, is sensitive to island constraints (as in *Icché ti dà fastidio il fatto [che abbia visto <icché>], Gianni?
‘What bothers you, the fact that I have seen Gianni?’). On the other hand, the complementizer che has no relation
with the material inside the island and no island effect arises (Che ti dà fastidio il fatto che abbia visto Gianni?).
Notice that Fiorentino also allows a variant of (4) with a sentential tag (che-fare questions for easy of reference):
(7)!
(Ic)ché
fai,
parti?
what (you) do.2.SG.
leave.2.SG.
‘What are you doing, are you leaving?’
Although structures like (7) could be analyzed as monoclausal questions introduced by a interrogative morpheme
and a dummy form of fare, ‘do’, as proposed in Lusini (2013), it can be shown that these are simply split questions
without ellipsis in the second question. First of all, it must be noticed that the morpheme introducing these
questions cannot be omitted, while the interrogative complementizer che is usually optional, as mentioned above.
Second, in all cases of fare-insertion, che can be replaced by icché (‘what’), as in (7), which is never possible
when che introduces a plain polar question:
(8)!
Che/*Icché piove?
That/what (it) rains
Third, on a pair with “canonical” (i.e. elliptical) split questions, che-fare questions cannot be embedded, which
is expected if they are actually a sequence of questions.
(9)!
*Non so
che/se
fate,
andate a Roma?
(I)don’t know that/whether (you.2.PL.) do.2.PL go.2.PL. to Rome
References
Arregi, K. (2010) “Ellipsis in Split Questions" in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 28.3:539-592.
Belletti, A. (2004) “Aspects of the low IP area” in L. Rizzi (ed.), The Structure of CP and IP, New York: Oxford
University Press, 16-51.
Bianchi, V. and Zamparelli, R. (2004) “Edge Coordinations: Focus and Conjunction Reduction” in D. Adger et
al. (eds), Peripheries. Syntactic Edges and their Effects, Dordrecht: Kluwer, 313-327.
Brunetti, L. (2004) A Unification of Focus, Padua: CLUEP
Camacho, J. (2002) “ Wh-doubling: Implications for the syntax of wh-movement” in Linguistic Inquiry, 33:157–
164.
Lusini, S. (2013) Yes-no question marking in Italian dialects: a typological, theoretical and experimental
approach, Utrecht: LOT.
Merchant, J. (2004) “Fragments and ellipsis” in Linguistics and Philosophy, 27:661–738.
!
22!
Wh-question processing in patients with Alzheimer’s disease
Irene Caloi – Frankfurt University
Key words: wh-questions, linguistic impairment, dementia
This paper provides new empirical insights into the linguistic competence of patients affected by cognitive
impairment due to Alzheimer’s Disease (PAD) and aims at answering three questions only partially addressed in
previous literature: (i) Do PADs retain comprehension of Wh-questions?; (ii) Are PADs sensitive to extraction
site and/or type of Wh-element in use? iii) How does the possible deficit correlate with their level of dementia?
I claim that PADs with a moderate level of dementia are overall impaired at Wh-comprehension, with a specific
sensitivity to the original argument position of the Wh- and to its type; comprehension benefits from a mismatch
in lexical restriction between the subject and the object. Moreover, their pattern of performance changes along
with the development of the disease.
The discussion builds on experimental data gathered through a sentence-to-picture matching task, which sampled
the comprehension of Wh-questions in 36 Italian-speaking PADs and 21 healthy peers, matched for Age and
Level of Education (LoE).
Table 1: participants in the study.
PAD
n°
36
Age
77;6 (7;6)
(sd)
LoE
6.5 (2.9)
(sd)
CO
21
76;1
(5;4)
7.2 (3)
The material in use includes 32 experimental sentences, subdivided across four different experimental conditions,
which, in turn, are derived through the combination of two factors, namely: argument extraction (subject vs object
Wh-questions) and Wh-operator type (WhichNP vs Who). All sentences are root questions, involve only animate
characters and are pragmatically reversible. Being Italian a pro-drop language, sentences like (1) are ambiguous
between a subject and an object reading (De Vincenzi, 1991):
(1)! Chi fotografa il dottore?
Who photograph-3SG the doctor?
“Who photographs the doctor?/Who does the doctor photograph?”
In order to allow for disambiguation, one female character appears in all trials and embodies the first person
singular: disambiguation between a subject and an object reading proceeds through verb agreement. Whenever
the verb agrees with the first person, an object reading is biased (2b and 2c); while a third person agreement
forces a subject reading (2a and 2c). The sentences in (2) exemplify the four conditions included in the study:
(2)
a
WhoS
Chi mi sta fotografando?
Who me is photograph-PROG / “Who is photographing me?”
b
WhoO
Chi sto fotografando?
Who am photograph-PROG / “Who am I photographing?”
c
WhichS
Quale dottore mi sta fotografando?
Which doctor me is photograph-PROG / “Which doctor is
photographing me?”
d
WhichO
Quale dottore sto fotografando?
Which doctor am protograph-PROG / “Which doctor am I
photographing?”
Participants first undergo a Mini Mental-Examination Test (MMSE) in order to determine their overall level of
cognitive impairment: either spared for controls (CO; MMSE=29-30); mild (PAD1, MMSE= 25-28), moderate
(PAD2; MMSE= 19-24) or severe (PAD3, MMSE=12-18) for PADs. Table 2 displays how PADS distribute
!
23!
across the three levels of cognitive impairment (n°) and their related levels of accuracy (%) in the four
experimental conditions.
Table 2: Results from the four groups in the different conditions.
CO
PAD1
PAD2
PAD3
n°
(MMSE)
21
(29-30)
4
(25-28)
21
(19-24)
11
(12-18)
WhoS
92.85%
75.00%
61.30%
62.50%
WhoO
93.45%
96.88%
57.14%
60.42%
WhichS
95.23%
93.75%
77.98%
56.25%
WhichO
97.61%
93.75%
70.24%
54.17%
PAD1 are as proficient as COs in the comprehension of all kinds of Wh-questions (except for a patient with a
specific deficit at comprehending WhoS sentences), which means that mildly impaired PADs are not affected by
major processing changes.
By contrast, PAD2 display significant differences: a) a comparison across groups reveals that PAD2 perform
differently from PAD1 with respect to WhichO (Mann-Whitney, p=.007) and WhoO (Mann-Whitney, p=.006);
b) WhichO are understood significantly better than WhoO (Wilcoxon, p=.018); c) WhichS are understood
significantly better than WhoS (Wilcoxon, p=.001). Data in (a) show that in PAD2 the impairment targets
questions in which the Wh-element is moved from the object position, an observation which is clearly in line
with previous literature on the subject/object asymmetry in sentence structures characterized by argument
extraction (De Vincenzi, 1991; Frauenfelder, Segui, Mehler, 1980; Traxler, Morris, Seely, 2002;a.m.o.). I will
propose an interpretation along the lines of Relativized Minimality (Rizzi, 1990; Friedmann, Belletti, Rizzi,
2009). Object questions lack the presence of a lexicalized Subject, as the latter is in turn realized in the form of
a first person singular pro: given this circumstance, extraction of a Wh-item from the object position is favored
in case the moved element is lexically restricted (WhichNP). The lexically-restricted object can move across the
null subject, without triggering intervention effects since its features are distinct from those of the subject, while
the bare Wh-element Chi cannot. A similar effect of lexical restriction is registered within the subject conditions
too, with a better comprehension of WhichS over WhoS.
A further worsening of the disease leads PAD3 to such lower levels of accuracy in the different conditions, that
comprehension does not significantly reaches above chance-level in any of the proposed question-types. This
shows that the degenerative character of the disease also manifests into a progressive impairment of the linguistic
abilities at the processing level.
Summing up, I will show how patients’ processing abilities change along with the development of the disease,
with a specific sensitivity to a) extraction site and to b) Wh-operator types when they are in the stage of the
disease characterized by moderate impairment.
Selected References: De Vincenzi, M. (1991). Syntactic parsing strategies in Italian: The minimal chain
principle (Vol. 12). Springer Science & Business Media.Frauenfelder, U., Segui, J., & Mehler, J. (1980).
Monitoring around the relative clause. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19(3), 328-337.
Friedmann, N., Belletti, A., & Rizzi, L. (2009). Relativized relatives: Types of intervention in the acquisition
of A-bar dependencies. Lingua, 119(1), 67-88. Rizzi, L. (1990). Relativized minimality. The MIT Press.Traxler,
M. J., Morris, R. K., & Seely, R. E. (2002). Processing subject and object relative clauses: Evidence from eye
movements. Journal of Memory and Language, 47(1), 69-90.
!
24!
Gender agreement in mixed Italian/German relative clauses
Gloria Cocchi and Cristina Pierantozzi.
Università degli studi di Urbino
Starting from the Null Hypothesis on Code-Switching given in (1) below, the main aim of this
talk is to investigate mixed relative clauses uttered by bilingual speakers, in order to shed a
different light on general theories regarding the derivation of relative clauses (RCs).
(1)! “Code-switching and pure languages are governed by the same set of constraints and
principles in syntax, production and pragmatics (Chan 2003: 17)”.
Specifically, we will focus our attention on gender agreement in mixed Italian/German relative
clauses such as (2-3) below. Italian and German languages are particular suitable for our purpose,
given that: a) they both overtly spell-out gender agreement relations, and b) German relative
pronouns agree in gender, number and Case with the head of the RC:
(2)!
il/la Sessel, der/die uns heute geliefert wurde.
the(m/f) armchair(m) which(m/f) was delivered to us today
(3)!
der/die poltrona, der/die uns heute geliefert wurde.
the(m/f) armchair(f) which(m/f) was delivered to us today
German N: Sessel(m) – Italian equivalent N: poltrona(f)
Several questions arise from the mixed clauses in (2-3): a) Should the relative pronoun
systematically agree with the external D? b) Are the four possible cross-combinations in (2-3),
derived from a masculine German N “Sessel” having as its equivalent an Italian feminine N
“poltrona”, all available in a bilingual competence (MacSwan 1999 and subsequent works)? c)
Should we observe any restrictions, instead?
Prediction: Under the Head Raising analysis of RCs (Kayne 1994 and related works), all of the
mixed patterns seen above could in principle be generated. In fact, the agreement relation
between the external D, the N-head and the relative pronoun is the final output of a double
application of the operation Agree: the first taking place within the RC, and the second outside
the RC. So let us suppose, e.g., that an Italian/German bilingual speaker selects the external D
and the relative pronoun from the German lexicon, and the N-head of the RC from the Italian
lexicon, as in (3). The first application of the operation Agree within the RC might use either the
gender of the selected N, as in (5), or the so called “analogical gender”, namely the gender of the
equivalent N (see Poplack et al 1982), as in (4):
(4)!
(5)!
D
D
[der poltrona uns heute geliefert wurde]
[die poltrona uns heute geliefert wurde]
Outside the CP, the second Agree operation may still choose between the gender of the selected
N or the gender of its equivalent N, as in (6) [from (4)], or in (7) [from (5)]:
(6)!
a. Der poltrona [der <poltrona> uns heute geliefert wurde]
the(m) armchair(f) which(m) was delivered to us today
b.!Die poltrona [der <poltrona> uns heute geliefert wurde]
the(f) armchair(f) which(m) was delivered to us today
(7)!
!
a. Die poltrona [die <poltrona> uns heute geliefert wurde]
the(f) armchair(f) which(f) was delivered to us today
b.!Der poltrona [die <poltrona> uns heute geliefert wurde]
the(m) armchair(f) which(f) was delivered to us today
25!
Data: An Acceptability Judgment Task (AJT) containing mixed relative clauses with all possible
gender combinations has been administered on-line (through Google Form) to adult ItalianGerman bilingual speakers: two Swiss German/Italian bilinguals since birth and two (highly
proficient) German L2 learners having Italian as L1. The AJT (3 scale with corrections) also
includes monolingual sentences aiming to test gender agreement competence in Italian and
German, and other mixed sentences displaying gender agreement relations in Italian.
Results: Not all of the predicted patterns have been equally accepted by our participants. In
particular, one of them – given in (8) below – is systematically rejected by all speakers, independently
of the age of L2 acquisition:
(8)!
* die poltrona, der uns heute geliefert wurde
the(f) armchair(f) which(m) was delivered to us today
Besides, the pattern in (9) is accepted only by L2 learners (NB: pure bilinguals may accept this type
of mixed agreement only in sentences involving a German neuter N):
(9)!
? der poltrona, die uns heute geliefert wurde
the(m) armchair(f) which(f) was delivered to us today
Interestingly enough, a mixed pattern like (9), where the original N which receives the analogical
gender seems to be still active, is restricted only to mixed Relative clauses, while it is not
available in other mixed agreement relations.
Proposal: The restrictions we observe in mixed gender agreement in RCs do not seem to be
adequately captured by a Head Raising analysis, and favour instead a different approach, like the one
proposed in Manzini and Savoia (2011). Given that Manzini and Savoia’s analysis does not assume
the raising of the N-head, there is no double application of the operation Agree (which would lead
to results, given in (6)-(7), that contradict our data). Therefore, the sentences in (8-9) can simply be
tackled as true cases of mismatching gender agreement patterns, and are consequently rejected. L2
learners may marginally accept one of them, specifically (9), because they are more vulnerable to
gender cross-linguistic influences with respect to pure bilinguals.
Quoted References :
Chan, B. (2003). Aspects of the Syntax, the Pragmatics, and the Production of Code-Switching:
Cantonese and English. Berkeley Insights in Linguistics and semiotics, vol. 51. New York: Lang.
Kayne, R.S. 1994. The antisymmetry of syntax. Linguistic Inquiry Monographs 25.Cambridge
(Mass.): MIT Press.
MacSwan, J. (2000) “The architecture of the bilingual language faculty, evidence from
intrasentential code-switching”, Bilingualism, Language and Cognition 8, 1-22.
Manzini, M.R. and L.M. Savoia. (2011). Grammatical categories: variation in romance languages.
Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 128. Cambridge-NewYork: Cambridge University Press.
Poplack, S., Pausada, A. and Sankoff, D. (1982). Competing influences on gender assignment:
variable process, stable outcome. Lingua 57, 1-28.
!
26!
Dimensions of variation: The Inflected Construction in the dialect of Delia (Caltanissetta).
Vincenzo Nicolò Di Caro and Giuliana Giusti (Ca’ Foscari University of Venice)
Sicilian dialects display a monoclausal construction with a motion verb (V1) followed by a connecting
element a and a lexical verb (V2), as in (1). Cardinaletti & Giusti (2001) call it Inflected Construction:
(1) a. Vaju a pigghiu u pani. (Marsala, Trapani)
go.1sg a fetch.1sg the bread
‘I go and fetch the bread.’
b. Veni a mangia ni mia.
come.3sg a eat.3sg at me
‘He comes to eat at my place.’
The Inflected Construction (henceforth IC) competes with the infinitive, more widely spread in Italian
and other Romance varieties: Vaju/Vegnu a mangiari. ‘I’m going/coming to eat’.
Cardinaletti & Giusti (2001) report the following restrictions in the Marsalese IC:
(i)! Lexical restrictions on V1: Only a restricted number of motion verbs can appear, the most basic
‘go’ and ‘come’, ‘come by’ and the causative ‘send’. No other motion or modal verb.
(ii)! Inflectional morphology restrictions: Only five cells of the paradigm of these verbs enter the IC,
namely indicative present 1, 2, 3sg., 3pl. and imperative 2sg. This pattern corresponds to Maiden’s
(2004) N-pattern, as noted by Cruschina (2013). No other tense, mood, or persons can appear.
(iii)!Presence vs absence of a connecting element: In the indicative present, V1 is connected to V2 by
the connecting element a (> Lat. AC, cf. Rohlfs, 1969:§761). The connecting element a does not
occur in the imperative with ‘go’ and ‘come’.
(iv)!Monoclausal interpretation. The semantics of this construction retains the motion interpretation,
but it introduces no independent motion event.
Manzini & Savoia (2005) note that the restrictions (i)-(iii) do not apply to all varieties; e.g., Modica
(Ragusa) presents a full paradigm with the indicative preterite and imperfect; Pantesco misses the
linking element a throughout.
In a parametric perspective, this kind of variation is in need of an explanation.
Aims and goals: (i) pin down the dimensions of variation that are relevant to this construction; (ii)
investigate the division of labor between syntax and inflectional morphology. We reach these two goals,
focussing on Deliano (Caltanissetta), which is geographically and linguistically an intermediate stage
between the more restricted Marsalese and the more productive Modicano and Pantesco.
Data. Deliano features the following differences and similarities with Marsalese:
(i)! The same four motion verbs ‘go’, ‘come’, ‘come by’ and ‘send’ enter the IC with basically all the
restrictions found in Marsalese, including the N-pattern, the semantics.
(ii)! Two additional functional verbs appear: ‘come back’, which in the IC can/must have iterative
(non-andative) interpretation; and the inchoative ‘start’. Both verbs for many speakers are
restricted to Maiden’s U-pattern as in (2).
(iii)!The connecting element a has roughly the same distribution as in Marsalese, but it disappears in
the imperative only with ‘go’ and ‘come’.
(iv)!The IC can be found in the indicative preterite with a further restriction on V2: It is limited to
verbs derived from the Latin third conjugation (in -ĕre) and to four cells of the paradigm; namely
1sg., 3sg., 1pl.; 3pl. To the best of our knowledge, this pattern has not been identified by
morphomic accounts. We call it the W-pattern as in (3)
!
27!
(2)
1.sg.
2.sg.
3.sg.
1.pl.
2.pl.
3.pl.
V1 ‘start
accuminciu
*accuminci
*accumincia
*accuminciammu
*accuminciati
accumincianu
V2 ‘do’
a ddicu
a ddici
a ddici
a ddiciimmu
a ddiciti
a dicinu
(3)
1.sg.
2.sg.
3.sg.
1.pl.
2.pl.
3.pl.
V1 ‘go’
jivu
*jisti
ji
jammu
*jìstivu
jiru
V2 ‘do’
a ffici
a ffacisti
a ffici
a ffìcimu
a ffacìstivu
a ffìciru
V2 ‘eat’
a *mmangiavu
a *mmangiasti
a *mmangià
a *mmangiammu
a *mmangiastivu
a *mmangiaru
Analysis. From the morphological perspective, according to Corbett’s (2015) four criteria for
morphological splits [(i) form vs. composition; (ii) morphomic vs. motivated; (iii) lexically specified
vs. regular; and (iv) internal vs. external], the Marsalese IC is an example of irregular morphomic forms
that are externally relevant, cf. Corbett (2015: 179). Syntax is therefore crucial in this respect.
Cardinaletti & Giusti (2001) analyse the Marsalese IC parallel to English and Swedish to show that
semi-lexical motion verbs are lexical verbs merged in an “andative” functional head above the point of
merger of T+V in a given language. They claim that (i) the independent parameters of merging V and
T+Agr can derive the different properties of the IC in the three languages; (ii) insertion of a lexical verb
in a functional head is restricted to morphologically less marked forms; (iii) microparametric variation
regards which forms of a paradigm can be merged as semi-functional.
Cruschina (2013) argues that the IC is a suppletive form, which can be considered as part of the extended
paradigm of V2.
In our opinion these three accounts are not in competition. In fact, the “W-pattern” in (2) even suggests
that the paradigm of V2 can be specified for an unusual IC in the preterite, apparently going towards
Cruschina’s suggestion. On the other hand, the different pattern found with ‘start’ (3) and for some
speaker with ‘go back’confirms Cardinaletti & Giusti’s (2001) proposal that the possibility of entering
the IC must be specified on individual forms of the paradigm of the functional verb.
Selected References:
CARDINALETTI & GIUSTI (2001) ‘Semi-lexical motion verbs in Romance and Germanic’. Corver, N. &
Van Riemsdijk, H. (eds), Semi-lexical categories, 371-414. De Gruyter.
CARDINALETTI & GIUSTI (2003) ‘Motion Verbs as Functional Heads’. Tortora, Ch. (ed.), The Syntax of
Italian Dialects, 31-49. OUP.
CORBETT, G. (2015) ‘Morphosyntactic complexity: A typology of Lexical Splits’. Language 91.1: 14593.
CRUSCHINA, S. (2013). ‘Beyond the stem and inflectional morphology: an irregular pattern at the level
of periphrasis’. In Cruschina, et al. (eds), The Boundaries of Pure Morphology, 262-283. OUP.
MAIDEN, M. (2004). ‘When lexemes become allomorphs – on the genesis of suppletion’, Folia
Linguistica 38: 227-56.
MAIDEN, M. (2005) ‘Morphological autonomy and diachrony’, in Booj, G. van Marle, J (eds), Yearbook
of Morphology 2004. Kluwer, 137-75.
MANZINI, R. AND SAVOIA, L. (2005). I dialetti Italiani e Romanci. Morfosintassi Generativa. Ed.
dell’Orso.
!
28!
SYNTAX , M ATERIALIZED
Luca Ducceschi and Roberto Zamparelli
Università di Trento
I NTRODUCTION : THE SHORTCOMINGS OF LINGUISTIC EDUCATION
Compared to other scientific disciplines, such as chemistry, mathematics or physics, theoretical
linguistics has never developed a set of demonstration models which can be used to present the
basic functioning of its subject matter—human language— in a way that can be instructive, yet
entertaining. A tell-tale sign of this state of affairs is that science museums (e.g. San Francisco’s
Exploratorium, London’s Science Museum), which use hands-on models to explain ‘hard sciences’, but
also psychology and the social sciences, treat linguistics (if they treat it at all) only in terms of its relation
with the brain, or as synonym of ‘language typology’.
Compulsory linguistic education in not in better shape: in many countries, the teaching of
linguistics in primary and secondary schools (i.e.“grammar learning”) reduces to a mix of prescriptive
rules, part- of-speech tagging exercise, adjunct type listing and linguistically dubious constructs (e.g.
the notion of ‘minimal sentence’, dear to Italian schools; for the little boys spotted the fox, the ‘minimal
sentence’ (?) is the boys spotted). Comparative aspects are left to a minimum.
As linguists know well, practicing linguistics means, among other things, finding optimal
solutions to interesting and challenging puzzles at the root of human language ability; yet, sadly, this
problem-solving aspect is never brought to focus in elementary linguistic education. This is a big loss
(see Hudson 2004; Denham and Lobeck 2014 for discussion), since when properly done linguistics could
play an important role in education even just for its role in stimulating logical thinking and training
students in carrying out clean and inexpensive ‘experiments’.
A
PHYSICAL , HANDS - ON MODEL OF SYNTAX
This work is a first report on our attempt to remedy this situation. We created a physical, handson model of comparative syntax in a generative framework. This model (currently implemented in
plastic or wood, and patent-pending) can be played like a game, alone or in groups, by combining
together tiles which connect like the pieces of a physical puzzle. Each tile stands for a lexical head, a
syntactic category or a selection frame. When the pieces are arranged following a small set of
(apparently) non-linguistic rules, the model generates a fairly conventional tree structure for wellformed (though potentially semantically odd) sentences in Italian, English or German, without
requiring any real knowledge of these languages.
The model is essentially a physical implementation of a syntactic theory, and as such it raises a
number of interesting questions, which are the topic of this talk. Our goal was to strike a balance between
cover- ing a wide-enough range of constructions, making pieces which could each work in different
languages, and keeping the result practical and ‘playable’. To achieve the last point (“economy of
utilization”), we decided to limit as much as possible functional pieces with no overt content, and
avoid the use of movable parts. A particularly difficult trade-off was that between morphological
compositionality and number of pieces: if, for instance, the Italian complex adjectives in (1) are
decomposed into a root fort- plus a derivational affix (-issim-) and an inflectional suffixes for number
and gender, we avoid having multiple versions of most adjectives, but we run the risk of overgenerating
*forto/*forta.
(1)!
fort-issim-o/
fort-issim-a/
fort-issim-i/
fort-issim-e
strong- VERY sng−msc/ strong- VERY sng−f em / very- VERY pl−msc/ strong- VERY pl−f em
Eventually, we opted for morphologically preformed words but reduced the lexicon, reasoning that
meaning variety could be sacrificed to playabily. In particular, in the current prototype we do not use
plurals.
Centro interdipartimentale Mente e Cervello,
Università{roberto.zamparelli/luca.ducceschi}
@unitn.it
!
29!
di Trento, Corso Bettini 31, 38060 Rovereto, Italy;
T WO
RULE MODALITIES
It is in the spirit of hands-on models to model rules as ‘hardware’ constraints. In our model, words
will simply not lock together if their local selection is incorrect. On the other hand, we could not obtain longdistance dependencies/agreement via a physical mechanism, so we had to implement it via so- called
‘software’ rules, i.e. rules that ‘license’ pieces with certain symbols only when they are in the right structural
configurations (dominance, C-command and Spec/Head) with pieces with corresponding symbols. The
‘software approach’ makes it possible, for instance, to have a subjunctive in a subordinate only under certain
verbs in the root, or to license NPI under negation.
The implementation of movement rules required a departure from more traditional approaches. Evidently, we could not use copies because we could not multiply physical pieces (let alone insure read- ability
with them), not slash or feature percolation, in the absence of moving parts. In many modern syntactic
theories, the verb moves across a number of empty functional projections (AgrS, Agro, vP, etc.) whose
insertion was hard to justify. We resolved, therefore, to implement movement as constituent swapping:
(2)!
a.
b.!
c.!
In head movement, a head swaps with another head below it.
In XP movement, a special piece, the ‘trace’, is inserted in the position targeted by movement,
and must be swapped with a head plus any constituent which that head selects.
Movement is possible only if (i) both elements have a symbol that allows or forces movement;
(ii) both can fit in the slots vacated by the elements they exchange with, and (iii) no barrier symbol
intervenes in the tree line between the swapped pieces.
The conditions in (2c) prevent overgeneration, insuring that swapping does not become ‘lowering’. A second
type of head movement, used in Italian clitic movement, do-n’t formation and V-to-D raising overlaps two
heads, one an affix.
C OVERAGE
At present the model covers declarative sentences with transitive and intransitive verbs, with and without
auxiliaries, including progressive forms. Both root and embedded clauses are covered, as are V2 phenomena
in German root context, and head finality. Negation (including German kein) is placed in the correct positions,
and can trigger object scrambling. Both Yes/No and Wh- questions are covered, with Aux inversion in English
and German for non-subject interrogatives only. DP structures include subject and object pronouns and
determiners (though not with oblique cases), including pro in Italian. CPs can function as subjects, as can bare
infinitives or -ing forms in English, via raising to D. Adjective ordering involves head-movement in Italian, as
in Cinque (1994). Relative clauses are treated as NP adjuncts with special gap-containing relative CPs.
C ONCLUSIONS
It should of course be kept in mind that the goal of a physical implementation of syntax is not exhaustivity, but education and popularization of science. There are indeed many phenomena that a model of this
sort will never be able to cover, or which could be covered without overgeneration only at the expense of
Economy/Playability: there are almost no adverbs, adjuncts are restricted to NPs, there is no way to obtain
oblique cases for German, and various cases of overgeneration at the morphological level are possible. We tried
to strike a balance between simplicity and construction variety, but feedback from other linguists is essential to
understand if we strayed too much in either direction. Can this or similar models change the general perception
of linguistics? Which other languages could they accommodate? We bring these issues to the public, and hope
for interesting discussions and feedback.
Cinque, G. (1994). Partial N-movement in the Romance DP. In G. Cinque et al. (Eds.), Paths Towards Universal Grammar, pp. 85–
110. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.
Denham, K. and A. Lobeck (Eds.) (2014). Linguistics at School. Language Awareness in Primary and Secondary Education.
Cambridge University Press.
Hudson, R. (2004). Why education needs linguistics (and vice versa). Journal of Linguistics 40, 105–130.
!
30!
!
31!
!
32!
!
33!
!
34!
!
35!
!
36!
!
37!
!
38!
!
39!
!
40!
!
41!
!
42!
!
43!
!
44!
!
45!
!
46!
Intervention in Romanian se-passives
Ion Giurgea
The “Iorgu Iordan – Alexandru Rosetti” Institute of Linguistics
of the Romanian Academy, Bucharest
1. A Person constraint on IAs of se-passives. As well-known (Belletti 1982, Manzini 1986, Burzio
1986, Cinque 1988, Dobrovie-Sorin 1998, 2006, D’Alessandro 2007, a.o.), across the Romance domain
there are two types of “impersonal” constructions based on the reflexive clitic se: a passive construction,
where the verb agrees with the internal argument (IA) and accusative cannot be assigned, and a bona
fide impersonal, where se behaves as a subject clitic, like the counterpart of Fr. on or Germ. man.
Whereas the passive construction is found in all Romance languages, the subject clitic se is only found
in Italian and Ibero-Romance.
It has long been recognized that sentences with passive se obey a Person constraint: the IA cannot be 1st
or 2nd person (Cornilescu 1998, D’Alessandro 2007, Mendikoetxea 2008, Rezac 2011, MacDonald
2015, a.o.). I will discuss further constraints on the IA, manifest in Romanian, and propose an account
with interesting consequences on the theory of passive voice, Person and intervention in Agree relations.
Cornilescu (1998) noticed a correlation between obligatory differential object marking by the
preposition pe (DOM) and impossibility to occur as IA in se-passives, illustrated by 3rd person pronouns
and proper names:
(1)! Ieri
s-au
adus {prizonierii / mulţi prizonieri / prizonieri/*ei} la tribunal
yesterday SE-have.3PL brought prisoners-the / many prisoners / prisoners/they to court
/ *s-a
adus {Ion / el} la tribunal
SE-has brought Ion/ he to court
(2)! a. Au
adus prizonierii / mulţi prizonieri / prizonieri / *ei /*Ion/*el la tribunal
have.3PL brought prisoners-the / many prisoners / prisoners/ they/Ion/he to court
b. I-au
adus
pe ei / L-au
adus
pe Ion / pe el la tribunal
them-have.3PL brought ACC they / him-have.3PL brought ACC Ion / ACC he to court
She explained this fact by a requirement that animate IAs in se-passives can only have a propertydenotation, which is incompatible with DOM. However, since definite animates, which cannot be
assumed to have a property denotation, can occur in this construction (see prizonierii ‘the prisoners’ in
(1)), I propose that the DPs that are excluded in se-passives are not characterized by a particular
denotation type, but rather by a formal feature, namely, Person. The hypothesis of a distinction among
traditional “3rd person” nominals between nominals with a [-Participant] value for Person and nominals
that lack a Person feature has been independently proposed in accounts of DOM and other phenomena
(Ormazabal & Romero 2007, Richards 2008, Van der Wal 2015). For Romanian, there is additional
evidence that this feature is connected with a special formal licensing requirement of DPs, manifested
by rich agreement: not all IAs that require DOM when functioning as objects are excluded, but only
those that require DOM + clitic doubling (in (2)b, DOM is accompanied by clitic doubling; in the
absence of the clitic, the examples become ungrammatical). Indefinite pronouns, which do require DOM
but disallow clitic doubling, are acceptable in se-passives:
(3)! a. Se va
aduce cineva
cu experienţă.
SE will.3SG bring somebody with expertise
‘Somebody with good expertise will be brought.’
b. Aduc
*(pe) cineva
cu experienţă. / b´. *Îl aduc
pe cineva cu experienţă
bring.3PL (ACC) somebody with expertise
him bring.3PL ACC somebody...
‘They bring somebody with good expertise’
DOM+clitic doubling is associated with specificity (Tigău 2010, a.o.) plus either animacy or NP-ellipsis.
Obligatory clitic-doubling can be considered as the overt manifestation of a rich probe on v*, that
includes Person and is necessary for licensing those DPs that bear Person (see Chomsky 2001 on the
requirement of full feature match between the goal and the probe).
2. Accounting for the constraint. I propose that the ban on +Person IAs is due to the fact that a [Person]
feature associated to the EA intervenes in the nominative-licensing Agree relation between T and IA.
Comparing participial (or “copular”) passives, where there is no constraint on IA, with se-passives, it
can be seen that, although both show some degree of ‘activation’ of the EA (manifested by control in
!
47!
purpose clauses and agent-oriented adverbials), se-passives allow much more easily agreeing secondary
predicates and anaphors controlled by the EA (see the results of an acceptability test in (4)):
(4)! a. %? Nu se acordă premii sieşi
/ sie
însuşi
(80%)
not SE award prizes 3REFL.DAT self.DAT EMPH
‘One does not award prizes to oneself’
b. ?? /* Nu sunt acordate premii sieşi
/ sie
însuşi (25%)
not are awarded prizes 3REFL.DAT self.DAT EMPH
Moreover, unlike participial passives, se-passives require their EA to be a human agent or experiencer
(Burzio 1994, Cornilescu 1998, Zribi-Hertz 2008, a.o.) and allow body-part referring IAs ‘controlled’
by the EA in the inalienable possession construction (see MacDonald 2015 for Spanish):
(5)! Din sală, {s-a
ridicat / #a fost ridicată} o mână (Ro.)
from hall SE-has raised / has been raised
a hand
Based on these facts, and in particular on the restriction of EAs to humans, I propose that in se-passives
the element that introduces the EA bears a Person feature. This proposal is compatible with the view
that the EA in passives is existentially bound by a passivizing verbal functional head (see Bruening’s
2013 Pass), if we assume that the restriction to human EAs is associated to an interpretable [Person]
feature borne by the passivizing head itself (this feature also allowing Pass to bind anaphors and control
secondary predicates).
3. By-phrases in se-passives. In Romanian, se-passives allow by-phrases:
(6)! S-au
adus mai multe îmbunătăţiri de către specialişti.
SE-have.3PL brought several
improvements by
experts
‘A number of improvements have been brought by experts’
An account of such phrases along the lines of Collins (2005), in which they occupy the canonical
thematic EA position (SpecvP) is incompatible with the intervention-based account of the Person
constraint: like for participial passives, if the subject (IA) remains postverbal, the unmarked order is V–
IA–by-P (see (6)). Under Collins (2005), this order is derived by VP raising above the vP, which removes
the intervention of the EA (the so-called ‘smuggling’). But se-passives clearly show an intervention
effect, irrespective of the presence of a by-P. I adopt therefore Bruening’s (2013) analysis of by-phrases
as ‘selecting’ adjuncts (they select a VoiceP – which corresponds to Chomsky’s vP – with an unsaturated
EA, the adjunct behavior following from the fact that the labeling of the selectee projects), with a slight
amendment: Bruening proposes that the by-P saturates the EA and that the head Pass (introduced on top
of VoiceP/vP) only optionally existentially binds it (when a by-P is present, it is semantically inert), but
this is incompatible with my proposal that the passivizing head in se-passives always introduces a
+human specification on the EA (manifested by a Person feature); I consider therefore that by-Ps specify
the EA but do not saturate it, leaving it open for saturation by Pass:
(7)! by = λx λf<e,st> λy λe. (x=y ∧ f(x,e))
As for the absence of by-Ps in active clauses (the reason for which Bruening preferred the semantic
ambiguity of Pass to an entry such as (7)), I propose that by-P select a vPass, characterized by introducing
an EA in semantics without selecting a DP specifier.
4. Apparent exceptions to the Person constraint (e.g. Ne auzim bine în această sală ‘us hear.1PL well
in this hall’ “One can hear us well in this hall”) will be shown to be middles, rather than passives, having
the characteristic properties of middles: generic interpretation (the sentence is about the propensity of
the subject to act as a Theme in the relevant event type) and lack of any trace of activity of the EA. The
second property supports the idea that the EA is totally absent from the syntactic representation, which
explains the absence of intervention.
Selected references. Bruening, Benjamin. 2013. By Phrases in Passives and Nominals. Syntax 16, 1, 141; Cornilescu, Alexandra. 1998. Remarks on the syntax and the interpretation of Romanian middle
passive se sentences. Revue roumaine de linguistique, 43, 317-342; Dobrovie-Sorin, Carmen 1998.
Impersonal Se Constructions in Romance and the Passivization of Unergatives. Linguistic Inquiry 29/3:
399–438; Ormazabal, Javier and Juan Romero (2007). Object agreement restrictions. Natural Language
and Linguistic Theory 25: 315–347; Richards, Mark. 2008. Defective Agree, case alternations, and the
prominence of person. In Marc Richards, Andrej L. Malchukov (eds.), Scales. Linguistische
Arbeitsberichte 86, 137-161. Leipzig: University of Leipzig.
!
48!
!
49!
!
50!
!
51!
!
52!
An interesting Romanian-English contrast: amount relatives and (in)definiteness
Alexander Grosu* & Ion Giurgea**
*Tel Aviv University, **The “Iorgu Iordan – Al. Rosetti” Institute
of Linguistics of the Romanian Academy, Bucharest
In English, amount-denoting DPs that include an amount relative clause, as in (1), are infelicitous
without the definite article. In Romanian, the definite article is not necessary in comparable data, as
shown in (2).
(1) [#(The) 15 kgs. [that your hand-luggage weighs _]] will prevent you from boarding the plane.
(2) [(Cele) 15 kilograme [cât
cântăreşte _ bagajul
tău de mână]] te
vor
the 15 kilos
how-much weighs
luggage-the your of hand you.ACC will.3PL
împiedica să te urci
în avion.
prevent SBJV REFL go-up.2SG in plane
The same contrast between the two languages is detectable with individual-denoting DPs that include
an amount relative clause, as shown in (3)-(4).
(3) [#(The) three students [that there are now _ in the office]] arrived an hour ago.
(4) [(Cei) trei studenţi [câţi
sunt acum _ în birou]] au
sosit acum o oră.
the three students how-many are now
in office have arrived now an hour
The observable difference between these English and Romanian constructions is that the 'gap' of the
former is attributable to the fronting of a null operator, and that of the latter, to the fronting of an overt
amount relative pronoun. That (1) and (3) include an amount relative, i.e., a CP in which abstraction
applies to an amount variable, is inferable from the environment of the 'gap' in (1); in (3), it is inferable
from the unavailability of a free individual variable in the context there BE – XP (Carlson 1977). That
(2) and (4) include an amount relative is additionally signaled by the amount relative pronoun, which
also occurs in constructions otherwise like (4), but with the gap is in an 'ordinary' argument position,
where the individual variable is not existentially bound, as in (5).
(5) [(Cei) nouă cai
câţi
a cumpărat Ion] sunt din Arabia.
the nine horses how-many has bought Ion are from Arabia
‘The nine horses that Ion bought are from Arabia.’ (translation of the full version only!)
While the situation found in English corresponds to that found in other Romance and Germanic
languages, the one found in Romanian is the only one of its kind known to us, and thus at least prima
facie puzzling. The twin goals of this poster are [i] to clarify the meaning of the reduced versions of (2)
and (5), which differs subtly from that of the full versions, [ii] and to suggest a way of tracing the
English-Romanian contrast to distinct properties of the two languages.
The reduced versions of (2) & (5), just like the full versions, imply that 15 kgs is the total weight of
the luggage, and that 9 is the cardinality of all the horses bought by Ion; thus, a continuation of, e.g., (5)
like 'the other horses bought by Ion are from Libya' is contradictory. This is arguably due to the fact that
the amount pronoun coerces maximalization of the predicate denoted by the relative (cf. Grosu &
Landman 1998, 2016), as is typically the case in constructions that involve abstraction over degrees,
e.g., in comparatives. Importantly, the relative clauses in the reduced versions are not appositive, and
are thus distinct from superficially similar constructions in other languages, which exhibit an obligatory
pause before the relative, as in the Romanian and English data in (6). Thus, the constructions in (6) allow
construals on which the problematic 15 kgs do not concern 'your' luggage, and the nine horses from
Arabia were not bought by Ion. In the reduced versions of (2) and (5), the problematic 15 kgs are
necessarily those of 'your' luggage, and the nine horses from Arabia were necessarily bought by Ion.
(6) a. 15 kg, (atâta)
cât
cântăreşte bagajul
tău de mână, te
vor
15 kg (as-much) how-much weighs
luggage-the your of hand you.ACC will.3PL
!
53!
împiedica să te
urci
în avion.
prevent SBJV REFL step-up.2SG in airplane
‘15 kgs, as many as your hand-luggage weighs, will prevent you from boarding the plane.’
b. Nouă cai,
(atâţia) câţi
a cumpărat Ion, sunt din Arabia.
nine horses (as-many) how-many has bought Ion are from Arabia
‘Nine horses, as many as Ion bought, are from Arabia.’
The semantic difference between the full and reduced versions of (2) & (5) is: In the reduced versions,
there is necessarily no contextual presupposition concerning the weight or the luggage or the number
(and identity) of the horses, and these constructions are only felicitous when the (linguistic or nonlinguistic) context includes no information about a unique weight/number. Note that in general, when
the number of a plurality of entities is known, the identity of the entities is not necessarily known, but
when the number (if reasonably small) is not known, it is at least strongly implicated that the identity is
unknown, either. – As for the full versions, they are in principle acceptable both when the context
includes no information about cardinality/identity and when it does (in the former case, uniqueness is
accommodated into the context).
A result of this state of affairs that the reduced versions are most felicitous in contexts that allow
quantity (and identity) to be understood as novel, surprising, unexpected, etc. In the examples provided
above (i.e., (2), (4), (5)), the indefinite expressions are new-information topics. Examples with such
expressions in different positions are shown in (7), where the assumed context is: the addressee has
expressed willingness to accept luggage/candidates without being aware, or caring, about their precise
weight/number. In less 'surprising' contexts, felicity is degraded (see (8)).
[7] a. Chiar ai
de gând
să permiţi [20 kg. cât
pare să cântărească geanta
really have.2SG of thought SBJV allow.2SG 20 kg. how-much seems SBVJ weighs
bag-the
lui Ion] în avion?
GEN Ion in plane
‘Do you really intend to allow the 20 kg. that Ion’s bag seems to weigh in the plane?’
b. Chiar ai
de gând
să angajezi [200 candidaţi câţi
vrea să-ţi
trimită
really have.2SG of thought SBJV hire.2SG 200 candidates how-many wants SBJV-you.DAT sends
Ion] în întreprinderea ta?
Ion in company-the your
‘Are you really considering hiring the 200 candidates that Ion wants to send you in your company?’
[8] a. #În fiecare zi, Ion ridică [50 kg cât
cântăreşte sacul ăsta] pe umeri.
in every day Ion lifts 50 kg. how-much weighs sack-the this on shoulders
b. #În fiecare zi, Ion se
plimbă cu [2 câini câţi
are soţia
lui] prin parcul Cişmigiu.
in every day Ion REFL walks with 2 dogs how-many has wife-the his through park-the C.
Why are data like the reduced versions of (2), (4), (5) allowed in Romanian, but not in English or
even in some languages with overt degree relative pronouns, e.g., Albanian? We tentatively suggest the
following difference: In both types of language, abstraction over degrees in the relative clause yields a
set that contains all the entities described by the relative. In English or Albanian, a unique cardinality
value of this maximal sum is also assumed, i.e., the one specified by the external NP head, in Romanian,
such a unique value need not be assumed. In the latter case, 'maximalization' within the relative may be
viewed as implemented by the Boolean sum operator t, which does not presuppose existence of a
(unique) maximal element, rather than by the operator MAX of Grosu and Landman (1998, ex. (26)),
which does, and is needed for English-type amount relatives. This enables the denotatum of the
indefinite complex DP to be 'maximal' relative to the content of the relative clause, but indeterminate.
References
Carlson, Gregory, 1977a. Amount relatives. In: Language 53, pp. 520-542.
Grosu, Alexander and Fred Landman, 1998. Strange relatives of the third kind. Natural Language
Semantics 6, pp. 125-170.
Grosu, Alexander and Fred Landman, 2016. Amount relatives. The Blackwell Companion to Syntax II,
Chapter 7. Downloadable from Alexander Grosu’s website.
!
54!
!
55!
!
56!
!
57!
!
58!
!
59!
!
60!
!
61!
!
62!
Word-initial geminates in Sardinian
Rosangela Lai ([email protected])
I will show that Southern Sardinian displays phonological contrasts between simplex and geminate
obstruents in word-initial position. The purpose of this work is, first, to identify the word-initial
geminates with the tools offered by the CVCV theory (Lowenstamm 1996, Scheer 2004 and following
works) and, second, to show how these geminates interact with the whole of the Sardinian phonological
system.
The issue of geminates in Sardinian is controversial: their existence word-internally has often been
called into question. Distinctive consonant length is restricted only to certain consonants, namely /r/ /rr/, /n/ - /nn/, /l/ - /ll/ (Cf. Virdis 1978). In Sardinian, word-internal obstruents do not have a short
counterpart, unlike in Italian or Japanese, where minimal pairs of length are observed:
(1) Italian
bako ‘silkworm’
bruto ‘brute’
bakko ‘Bacchus’
brutto ‘ugly’
(2) Japanese (from Tsujimura 2007)
saka ‘hill’
sakka ‘author’
kata ‘shoulder’
kata ‘won’
In Sardinian, no length contrast is observed in obstruents. An obstruent is usually pronounced long but
alternative short realisations (for the same segment in the same context) are also acceptable. For
example, the word maccu ‘fool’ (from Latin MACCU(M)) can be pronounced either [makku] and
[maku]. Obviously, consonantal duration is phonologically meaningless. Thus, phonetics cannot be of
help in determining the nature of a segment. One must thus resort to other tools.
In Sardinian, a small group of segments (s, ʃ, ʧ, ɖ, r) behaves unusually in external sandhi (Cf. Bolognesi
1998). Tables (3) and (4) list examples with the alveolar fricative and the palato-alveolar affricate.
(3) Voiceless alveolar fricative in intervocalic position in Sardinian
a.! Items affected by lenition
[sɔrri]
[sa zɔrri]
‘the sister’
[sɛɖɖa]
[sa zɛɖɖa]
‘the saddle’
b.! Items that resist lenition
[suɣu]
[su suɣu]
‘the neck’
[sukuritu]
[su sukuritu]
‘the hiccup’
As one can see, /s/ surfaces in intervocalic positions with two different outputs. In (3a) /s/ undergoes
lenition while in (3b) does not. Words with word-initial /s/ that resist lenition are uncommon: the
expected behaviour is that in intervocalic position the voiceless alveolar fricative should surface as
voiced. The same situation can be observed with the voiceless palato-alveolar affricate (Cf. Bolognesi
1998). Some words respond to lenition, while others do not:
(4) Voiceless palato-alveolar affricate in intervocalic position
[ʧiða]
[sa ʤiða]
[ʧɛna]
[sa ʤɛna]
[ʧentru]
[su ʧentru]
[ʧellulari]
[su ʧellulari]
‘the week’
‘the dinner’
‘the centre’
‘the mobile phone’
Also for the voiceless palato-alveolar affricate, the common output in intervocalic position is the lenis
one, in which the voiceless affricate surfaces as voiced. An analogous bipartition can be found in postconsonantal position:
!
63!
(5) Voiceless alveolar fricative in post-consonantal position
[sɔrri]
[is sɔrris]
[sɛɖɖa]
[is sɛɖɖas]
[suɣu]
[izi suɣus]
[sukuritu]
[izi sukuritus]
(6) Voiceless palato-alveolar affricate in post-consonantal position
[ʧiða]
[duaʃ ʃiðas]
[ʧɛna]
[iʃ ʃɛnas]
[ʧentru]
[izi ʧɛntrus]
[ʧellulari]
[izi ʧellularis]
‘the sisters’
‘the saddles’
‘the necks’
‘the hiccups’
‘two weeks’
‘the dinners’
‘the centres’
‘the mobile phones
I argue that the structural identity of an initial segment in Sardinian can be detected by taking into
account its environment. In fact, Sardinian retains a number of phonological processes in external sandhi
that reveal the kind of segment we are dealing with. Therefore, by looking at these phonological
processes through the lens of CVCV theory, one can identify the structural representation of word-initial
segments and clusters.
Selected references
Bolognesi, R. The Phonology of Campidanian Sardinian. Dordrecht: HIL, 1998.
Chierchia, G. “Length, syllabification and the phonological cycle in Italian”. Journal of Italian
Linguistics 8 (1986): 5-32.
Contini, M. Etude de Géographie Phonétique et de Phonétique Instrumentale du Sarde. Alessandria:
Dell'Orso, 1987.
Lai, Rosangela. “Word-initial geminates in Sardinian”. Quaderni di linguistica e studi orientali. 1, 3760. Firenze University Press, 2015. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.13128/QULSO-2421-7220-16515
Lowenstamm, J. “CV as the Only Syllable Type”. Current Trends in Phonology Models and Methods.
Ed. J. Durand. European Studies Research Institute, University of Salford, 1996. 419-442.
Scheer, T. A Lateral Theory of Phonology. What is CVCV and Why Should it be? Berlin: Mouton de
Gruyter, 2004.
Ségéral, Ph., and T. Scheer. “Abstractness in phonology: the case of virtual geminates”. Constraints and
Preferences. Ed. K. Dziubalska-Kołaczyk. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 2001. 311-337.
Tsujimura, N. An Introduction to Japanese Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell, 2007.
Virdis, M. Fonetica del dialetto sardo campidanese. Cagliari: Ed. Della Torre, 1978.
Wagner, M. L. Historische Lautlehre des Sardischen. Halle: Niemeyer, 1941.
Keywords: Phonology, CVCV Theory, Sardinian
!
64!
The features of Person and Gender: an ERP study on a Person Split in Italian
Paolo Lorusso (Università di Firenze), Anna Dora Manca (Università del Salento), Ludovico
Franco (universidade Nova de Lisboa) and Mirko Grimaldi (Università del Salento)
Verb agreement is one of the most studied dependencies in the psycholinguistic experimental
literature. Here we present the results of an ERP study in which we explored two verbal
agreement features: person and gender. We checked the interaction between the number of
person and the gender features in a person split agreement configuration in Italian. In the Italian
clitic system a person split is found: 3rd person singular clitics, which represent event-anchored
participants (Manzini & Savoia, 2011), have forms inflected for gender (lo for masculine/la for
feminine), while 1st and 2nd person clitics, which represent discourse-anchored participants
(speaker and hearer) , display syncretic forms (mi/ti for both genders). While 1st and 2nd person
clitics denoting a feminine referent allow agreement with both feminine and masculine past
participle in the proclitic constructions with the present perfect in Italian as in (1), 3rd person
feminine clitics do not (2).
(1)!
a.
pro
mi/ti
hanno
vista
me /you (CL acc. fem . sing) have (Present 3rd Pl ) seen (P.Participle fem.sing)
b.
mi/ti
hanno
visto
pro
me /you (CL acc. fem . sing) have (Present 3rd Pl) seen (P.Participle masc.sing)
‘They have seen me/you’
(2)!
a. la
hanno
vista
pro her (CL acc. fem . sing)
have (Present 3rd Pl) seen (P.Participle fem.sing)
b.
*la
hanno
visto
rd
pro her (CL acc. fem . sing)
have (Present 3 Pl) seen(P.Participle. masc.sing)
‘They have seen her’
Person split phenomena are often linked to split ergativity patterns in the theoretical literature
(cf. D’Alessandro 2012; Manzini et al. 2015 for Indo-Aryan varieties). 1/2P structures are
somewhat ‘bigger’ than 3P ones (cf. Bianchi 2006) or require the presence of a corresponding
functional projection (ParticipantP) that disrupts the case calculus (Coon & Preminger, 2012)
as in the case of the mi/ti pronouns where no case and gender is calculated.
In the present study we explored by means of the Event Related Potential (ERP) (Luck,
2005) the agreement processing of gender and person by 20 Italian healthy subjects (n=20, 10
females; 30 yrs ±3) (visual word-by-word paradigm). The EEG activity was recorded with an
ActiCAP 64Ch system. The past participle inflected forms were the target for measuring the
brain activity. The experiment consists of 152 sentences in 4 conditions: 1) 1/2 person clitic +
masculine past participle (default gender); 2) 1/2 person clitic + feminine past participle (gender
ambuguity); 3) 3rd person clitic + past participle agreeing (control); 4) 3rd person clitic + past
participle non agreeing (gender agreement violation). The comparison between the 3rd person
gender agreement mismatch and the other conditions shows an ERP P600 component in the
right emisphere similar to the one found for the processing of ungrammatical sentences and
garden-path by Gouvea et al. (2009). Interestingly, A syntactic-semantic effect is found in the
comparison between 1st and 2nd person and 3rd person. While in both 3rd person condition we
find a higher negative activation compatible with both a LAN or N400 effect (as in Mancini et
al., 2011, Zawiszewski et al., forthcoming) for gender agreement violation, in both 1st and
2ndwe find at a smaller negative activation between 300ms and 500 ms. 1st and 2nd persons
(inherently animate referents) are processed neither as the 3rd person proper grammatical
!
65!
sentences, nor as the 3rd person Agreement mismatch condition: an effect of the person split
encoded in the Italian accusative clitic system seems to intervene in the computation of the
agreement dependencies that involve accusative proclitics. Subjects react to the person split
encoded in the past participle agreement construction in Italian showing responses linked to the
number of person. These results seem to confirm that person split analyses (Manzini et al. 2011,
D’alessandro 2012) have a neuropsychological reality: the brain response to discourse-related
persons (1st and 2nd) is different from event-related referents (3rd persons), at least in these
Italian constructions. Further studied in other languages and other constructions are needed to
confirm this preliminary result for which 1st and 2nd person features seem to be more cognitively
salient than 3rd person.
Condition 1: Control 1st 2nd person
Mi/ti hanno guardato
(default masculine) /
They have seen me /you
Condition 2: Gender ambiguity 1st/ 2nd person
Mi/ti hanno guardata
(feminine marked) /
They have seen me /you
Condition 3: Control 3rd person
Lo hanno guardato (gender match masculine)
/They have seen him
La hanno guardata (gender match femenine)
/They have seen her
Condition 4: Gender Violation 3rd person
*Lo hanno guardata (gender violation masc.)
/They have seen him
*La hanno guardato (gender violation fem.)
/They have seen her
!
300 ms-400ms
400ms-500ms
500ms-600ms
600ms-700ms
700ms-800ms
Fig. 1. Topographical maps for each conditions at temporal windows under investigation.
References
Bianchi, V. 2006. On the syntax of personal arguments. Lingua 116. 2023- 2067.
Coon, J., and O.Preminger. 2012. Towards a unified account of person splits. In Proceedings
of the 29th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 310-318.
D’Alessandro, R. 2012. Merging probes. Ms., Leiden University.
Luck SJ. 2005. An Introduction to the Event-Related Potential Technique. Cambridge: MIT
Press.
Gouvea, A., Philips, C., Kazanina, N. and D. Poppel. 2009. The linguistic processes
underlying the P600, Language and Cognitive Process 25(2), 149-188.
Mancini, S., Molinaro, N., Rizzi, L., and M. Carreiras,. 2011. A person is not a number:
discourse involvement in subject-verb agreement computation. Brain Research, 1410,
64-76.
Manzini, M. R., and L. M. Savoia. 2011. Grammatical Categories. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Zawiszewski, A., Santesteban, M. and I. Laka. Forthcoming. Phi-features reloaded: An ERP
study on person and number agreemen tprocessing, Applied Psycholinguistics.
!
66!
!
67!
!
68!
!
69!
!
70!
The complementation system of Aromanian (South Albania)
M. Rita Manzini – Leonardo M. Savoia
Università degli Studi di Firenze
We report new data relating to the complementation system of the Aromanian (AR) varieties of
Diviakë, Fier, Libofshë and Këllez (South Albania), providing a comparison with standard Romanian
(SR) and Early Romanian (ER). These data raise theoretical questions, concerning in particular the
nature of complementizers and of subjunctive (or rather control) particles.
1. Indicative vs. subjunctive complementizers. In SR and ER că introduces indicative sentences,
complement to verbs of knowing, saying etc; ca introduces subjunctive complements and hence
cooccurs with the subjective particle să. Their AR counterparts are k% in (1a) and tsi in (1b).
(1) ɲ
ar
dz%s k!
eu vini
to.me
they.have
said that he came
‘They told me that he came’
(2) mini vɔi
tsi
ei
s dɔrm/
tsi
s dɔrm
I want that they Prt they.sleep/ that Prt I.sleep
‘I want that they sleep/to sleep’
The double complementizer system of AR will be studied in relation to recent proposals
(Arsenjievic 2009, Kayne 2010, Manzini and Savoia 2011) that given the coincidence between whpronouns and complementizers attested in various languages, both are in fact wh- quantifiers. While
the wh- pronoun introduces an individual variable, the so-called complementizer introduces an
eventive/propositional variable. Specifically, Manzini and Savoia, discussing double complementizer
systems in Central and Southern Italian (cf. Ledgeway 2005), offer the generalization that of the two
complementizers it is always the subjunctive complementizer that overlaps with a wh-quantifier; the
indicative complementizer introduces a definite description, which is not compatible with whquantification. In SR both sentential introducers differ from whpronouns (ce ‘what’, cine ‘who’,
care ‘which’). On the other hand, AR not only has two complementizers – but one of them also
overlaps with the wh- interrogative (3a) and with the wh- relative (3b). As predicted, this is the
subjunctive complementizer (tsi).
(3) a.
tsi
fats
b.
esti
atseu tsi
ɲ% grɛsti
what
you.do?
he.is the.one that me calls
‘What do you do?’
‘He is the one who calls me’
2. Prepositional complementizers. In AR, the -re infinitive inflection (the so-called ‘long infinitive’)
is preserved, as is the Prepositional introducer ti/di (cf. Hill 2013a on ER). ti/di is a bona fide
preposition (4a); core environments for the occurrence of the infinitive are purpose clauses (4b),
infinitival relatives (4d) and some complement clauses (4c) – all control environments.
(4) a.
esti
libra ti tʃ%l%m%ɲ
b.
mini viɲ
di
v%dɛri tini
it.is the.book for children
I
came for
to.see you
‘It is the book for children’
‘I came to see you’
c. eu mba✂ri di l%dzɛri
libru
d.
esti
un% k%miʃa
di
ɣari
he stopped for to.read the.book
it.is a shirt
for
to.wash
‘He stopped reading the book’
‘It is a shirt to wash’
The other major non-finite construction of AR, employing the perfect participle (‘supine’), is
introduced by ni, cf. English ‘without’, in (5). Control is not obligatory, as in (5b).
(5) a.
mini am inʃ%t%
ni
m%kat!
I have gone.out
not
eaten
‘I went out without eating’
Diviakë
b.
am
fudzit
ni
v%nit tini
I.have
gone.away
not
come you
‘I went out wihout you coming’
Libofshe
If we dispute the idea that there is a dedicated category C to introduce finite sentences, it
would be strange if we had to revert to C for the sentential introducers that we independently know
to belong to the category P. It appears that at least Romance languages employ two different strategies
!
71!
to circumvent the fact that sentences cannot enter into the phi-features checking with v or T necessary
in Chomsky’s (1995) terms for embedding as sentential arguments; only DPs can do that. One strategy
is to make them into restrictors of wh-pronouns, i.e. into free relatives (as in the finite embedding
strategy). The second strategy is to embed them under an oblique case (here ti/di, SR de in front of
supines, SR a in front of SR), as with infinitives and participles .
3. The subjunctive/control particle. With obligatory control verbs, s(i) clauses display obligatory
coreference, s(i) complements of non-obligatory control verbs display control or disjoint reference,
as in (2). Hill (2013a, b) adopts Rizzi’s (1997) cartography of C positions including Fin(iteness) and
Force; the SR subjunctive particle să merges in Fin, while ca/că complementizer merge in Force. But
what is the causal relation (if any) between these positioning and the possibility of control? In
Landau's (2004, 2006) theory, cf. Jordan (2009), the presence of PRO is determined by the fact that
a clause lacks independent temporal specifications. But what is the relation between tenselessness
and the so-called subjunctive particle? Specifically, given that SR/AR have inflectional subjunctives,
why aren’t they sufficient to trigger control?
Manzini and Savoia (2007) propose that the Albanian particle të in (5), is not merely
homophonous with the article të but that it is to be identified with it (and ultimately with the IE
demonstrative, cf. Greek ton, tin, to), to the extent that it relates not to the TMA properties of the
embedded sentence (‘subjunctive’), but rather to its EPP property. In essence, të merges with a finite
clause, and turns the sentence into a predicate, introducing an open variable corresponding to the EPP
argument (the descriptive PRO).
(5)
a.
ɛrða!! tə!
t
a
jap
I.came Prt
to.you it
I.give
‘I came to give it to you’
b.
tə!!
θatʃ!! tʃə
t
a
laɲɛ
to.you I.said that Prt
him/her
you.washed
‘I told you to wash him/her’
Gjirokastër
We argue that AR s(i) is like Albanian të – with which it shares fine distributional properties, in
particular the possibility of being sequenced not only below the complementizer, but also below other
sentential material such as the negation in (6), though it precedes all object clitics.
(6) ma
ts%
dzɛk atsea tsi
nu s o bei
Progr
to.you I.say to.you that not Prt it you.drink
‘I am telling you not to drink it’
Libofshe
4. Some general considerations on the C field. In locating the subjunctive particle in the C field of
the sentence the literature crucially considers its position relative to the negation (Roberts and
Roussou 2003, Hill 2013). Our microvariation data reveal that both logically possible patterns are
instantiated, without any consequence for the interpretation of either the particle or the negation. This
is true even within the same variety, as in (6’) compared to (6). In other varieties, the s particle may
be doubled on either side of the negation, as in (7).
(6’) …
tsi
s nu o
bei
that Prt not it
you.drink
Libofshe
(7) ts%
dz%ʃ tsi
s
nu s o fats
to.you
I.told that Prt
not Prt it you.make
‘I told you not to do it’
Fier
Cartographic approaches postulate that if we sequence morphemes right, then we have
considerably restricted the range of hypotheses as to what their categorial content is, in fact in the
ideal case we will have found a unique match between position and category. There are however
empirical reasons to be wary of this hypothesis – for, either the grid is too coarse to capture the data,
or once it has been refined, it is so fine-grained as to lose predictiveness. The alternative is to take the
present, more traditional stance – namely to abandon cartographic hierarchies in favour of lexical
contents freely combining up to compatibility with syntactic restrictions (locality etc.) and with
semantic composition.
!
72!
!
73!
!
74!
Prediction of abstract representations from the rhythmic and the syntactic structures
Elena Pagliariniab, Natale Stucchia, Maria Teresa Guastia
a Università Milano-Bicocca
b Universitat Pompeu Fabra
Languages have a rhythmic structure, have (morpho)syntax and the two are somehow related.
Why? In this paper, we attempt to provide an answer to this question based on preliminary
experimental evidence from language impaired individuals and controls. In a nutshell, our
answer is that rhythm and syntax allow humans to generate predictions concerning the incoming
input. In turn, this ability reduces memory load through the pre-activation of the sensory system
and allows one to anticipate abstract representationas.
Current study. The evidence supporting these claims comes from an experiment testing adults
with developmental dyslexia (DD) and controls. Although DD is a disorder affecting the ability
of learning to read accurately and fluently, it has been claimed that the source of the disorder is
phonological in nature (Snowling 2000; Ramus et al. 2003). In addition, individuals with DD
often present subtle problems with the processing of morphosyntactic features (e.g., Rispens et
al. 2006; Cantiani et al. 2013 ao) and of complex syntactic structures (e.g., Robertson and
Joanisse 2010 ao). These facts make DD a good testing model for our hypothesis.
Experiment. Eighteen adults with DD were tested along with 20 controls. We engaged
participants in a task requiring entrainment to a given rhythm using a warning and imperative
paradigm. During habituation, participants heard a simple rhythm constituted by a sequence of
440 Hz pure tones with 8 ms rise and fall times and 200 ms steady-state duration. At test,
couples of beats were singled out from the sequence by adding a harmonic to the basic sounds.
The first beat, called the warning beat (WB), had the function of alerting the participant and
getting him ready to tap in synchrony with the second beat, called the imperative (IB). Ten WBIB couples were randomly distributed throughout the rhythmic sequence. A schematic
representation of the experiment is given in Fig. 1.
Fig. 2. Graphic illustration of the Spondee and
the Unpredictable condition
Fig. 1. Schematic representation of the experiment
Two conditions were included in the design: a Spondee (predictable) rhythm and an
unpredictable pattern, which serves as control condition (Fig. 2). In the Spondee condition,
beats were presented with onset-to-onset intervals of 750 m. In the control condition, beats were
presented with a mean onset-to-onset intervals of 750 ms ± a random error of 30% of the
reference duration of 750 ms. In the Spondee condition, participants are expected to extract the
timing regularity during habituation and use it to predict when the IB is going to occur during
test. In the control condition, the uncertain timing occurrence of the beat does not permit
extraction of regularity and therefore participants are in a position where no timing prediction
is possible.
!
75!
Results. In order to establish whether the timing of participants tapping was synchronous with
the occurrence of the IB, we calculate the synchronization error by subtracting from the timing
of the IB the time of the subject’s tapping response. A positive error indicates a response after
the IB; a negative error indicates a response before the IB. In the Spondee condition, significant
group difference were found, F(1, 36) = 9.33, p < .01, η2p = .20. Controls are synchronous or
anticipate the IB within a maximum of 30 ms, whereas participants with DD display a tendency
of tapping after the occurrence of the IB, with a delay between 20 and 90 ms (Fig. 3, Panel A).
In the unpredictable condition, Group was not significant, as participants from both groups
responded in response to the IB (i.e. reaction time) (Fig. 3, Panel B). Interestingly, participants
with good predictive skills were also faster in reading (r = .40, p < .01) and were faster in a
reception of grammar task (r = - .46; p < .05).
!
B
B
A
A
Fig. 3. Synchronization Error of Spondee rhythm (Panel A) and the unpredictable pattern (Panel B).
Discussion. The result of the Spondee condition suggest that participants with DD are not able
to use temporal regularity to anticipate the IB contrary to controls. Both groups showed a similar
response pattern in the unpredictable condition, as no regularity can be exploited in order to
predict the incidence of the IB. These results are in line with another finding from the literature
provided by Huetting & Brouwer (2015). These authors engaged adults Dutch individuals with
DD in an eye-tracking experiment in which they were shown a quadrant with four objects, one
of which was the target object and the other three were distractors. At the same time, they were
listening to the sentence “look at the displayed piano”. Interestingly, the information as to target
object was already available at the article (as the gender of the article was compatible only with
the target object and no similar morphosyntactic information was available on the adjective). It
was found that control participants shifted their eye gaze to the target objects substantially
earlier than adults with DD. In another words, the adults with DD were unable to use the
morphosyntactic information from the article to anticipate the target object.
Conclusion. Languages display a rhythmic structure that allows individuals to predict the
incoming linguistic events; similar, morphosyntactic features are used to anticipate the
incoming structure and generate an abstract representation used to accommodate the input.
Individuals with DD are impaired in predicting or in extracting regularities and display subtle
problems with language.
!
76!
The derogatory import of slurs
Francesca Panzeri*
Simone Carrus#
*Università degli Studi di Milano Bicocca; # Università Vita-Salute San Raffaele
Slurs are derogatory epithets that target specific groups, identified mainly on the basis of race (nigger for a
black person), nationality (wop for Italian), religion (kike for Jew), sexual orientation (faggot for gay). A
lively debate has developed in recent years regarding the “meaning” of these expressions. So-called contentbased theories (Anderson & Lepore, 2013) assume that a sentence such as (1) conveys both the descriptive
content (2) and the derogatory component (3).
1)
2)
3)
Leo is a faggot.
Leo is a (male) homosexual.
Homosexuals are despicable.
Semantic theories (Hom, 2010) assume that (1) “literally says” both (2) and (3), whereas pragmatic
approaches claim that (1) is truth-conditionally equivalent to (2), whereas the derogatory content in (3) is
pragmatically conveyed, as a presupposition (Schlenker, 2007; Cepollaro, 2015), or conventional
implicature (Potts, 2007, Williamson, 2009; McCready, 2010). These theories differ in the predictions they
make about the survival of the offensive component (3) in various contexts. Semantic theories predict that
the derogatory content of a slur, being part of its literal meaning, falls under the scope of operators such as
negation, conditionals, questions; whereas pragmatic theories expect only the truth-conditional content (2)
to be within the domain of linguistic operators. And, in fact, it has been claimed that slurs exhibit nondisplaceability (Potts, 2007), that is, their derogatory content “scopes out” (Hedger, 2012) of linguistic
contexts such as negation, (4), antecedent of conditionals, (5), or questions, (6), as witnessed by the anomaly
of the continuations. There is a controversy as to what happens when a slur is embedded in a report, as in
(7):
4)
5)
6)
7)
Leo is not a faggot [# homosexuals are not despicable]
If Leo is a faggot, he knows the answer [#but if homosexuals are not despicable, he might not…]
Is Leo a faggot? [not equivalent to: Are homosexuals despicable?]
Gianni said that Leo is a faggot.
According to some scholars (Potts, 2007), the person (the speaker of (7)) who is reporting what was said
by someone else (Gianni) is offensive, since she did not choose to utter a neutral term. Other scholars
(Kratzer, 1999: Schlenker, 2007) maintain that reporting a “bad word” uttered but someone else does not
necessarily require the speaker to share the same negative attitude. Schlenker (2007)’s example in (8)
illustrates this situation:
8) I am not prejudiced against Caucasians. But John, who is, thinks that you’re the worst honky he knows
Since the contexts in (4)-(6) constitute “holes” for presuppositions, whereas the indirect report in (7) is a
“plug” (Karttunen, 1973), presuppositional approaches to slurs predict that the derogatory import would
scope out in (4)-(6), but be blocked in (7), where the offensiveness carried out by the slur faggot should be
attributed to Gianni, but not to the speaker who reports his words.
The study. We carried out a study that aims at establishing the offensiveness of slurs in the linguistic
contexts of negation, antecedent of conditionals, questions and indirect reports, to check whether it scopes
out of all contexts. We tested 132 Italian adults (90 F), divided in four lists, with a written questionnaire
that comprised two parts. In the first one (Baseline), participants had to rate, on a 7-points scale, the
offensiveness of 32 words presented in isolation: 8 slurs (SL); their 8 neutral counterparts (NC); 8
neutral/positive controls (PC); 8 bad words (BW). In the second part (Linguistic Context), participants were
asked to rate (1-7) the offensiveness of a person who utters a sentence that contain a word (SL/NC/PC/BW)
embedded under negation (NEG), in the antecedent of a conditional (ANT), in a question (QUE), or in an
indirect report (IND).
!
77!
Results indicate that, in the baseline, the offensiveness of slurs in isolation does not differ from that of bad
words; neutral counterparts and positive controls are not perceived as offensive (Table 1). When the
offensiveness of the slurs in the baseline is compared to the offensiveness of a speaker who utters a sentence
with an embedded slur, we found that (i) as stated in the literature, a person uttering a slur is perceived as
being offensive even if the slur is embedded in a question or in the antecedent of a conditional; (ii) a person
who reports the statement of someone else who used a slur is herself perceived as being offensive, but to a
lesser degree; (iii) quite surprisingly, when a person utters the negation of a statement that contains a slur,
she is not perceived as being particularly offensive. (Table 2).
Slurs
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
Tot
Offensiveness
Offensiveness
Baseline
SL
BW
NC
PC
4,61
4,74
1,73
1,10
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
Serie1
SL_Baseli
ne
SL_Que
SL_Ant
SL_Ind
Neg_SL
4,61
4,49
4,34
3,83
3,05
Table 1. Offensiveness of the words (slurs SL, badTable 2. Offensiveness of the slurs in the baseline and in the linguistic
words BW, neutral counterparts NC, positive controlscontexts of questions (QUE); antecedent of conditionals (ANT); indirect
PC) in isolation.
reports (IND), and negation (NEG)
In order to explain the unexpected result on negation, we propose that our participants interpreted the
speaker’s statement as a metalinguistic negation: asserting a negated proposition is an appropriated move
when the purpose is to contradict what is (salient or) asserted by someone else; in that case, the negated
statement could be interpreted as a correction of the expressive, derogatory component of the corresponding
affirmative statement (“Marco is not a faggot, he is a homosexual”). We are currently testing this hypothesis
with a new test in which we elicit possible continuations of negated statements containing slurs, neutral
counterparts, bad words, and positive controls.
Keywords: slurs, semantics/pragmatics interface, metalinguistic negation
Selected references
Anderson, L., & Lepore, E. (2013). Slurring Words 1. Nous, 47(1), 25-48.
Cepollaro, B. (2015). In defence of a presuppositional account of slurs. Language Sciences.
Croom, A. M. (2011). Slurs. Language Sciences, 33(3), 343-358.
Hedger, J. A. (2012). The semantics of racial slurs: using Kaplan’s framework to provide a theory of the
meaning of derogatory epithets. Linguistic and Philosophical Investigations, (11), 74-84.
Hom, C. (2010). Pejoratives. Philosophy Compass, 5(2), 164-185.
Karttunen, L. (1973). Presuppositions of compound sentences. Linguistic inquiry, 169-193.
Kratzer, A. (1999). Beyond ouch and oops: How descriptive and expressive meaning interact.
Maciá, J. (2002). Presuposición y significado expresivo. Theoria. Revista de Teoría, Historia y
Fundamentos de la Ciencia, 17(3), 499-513.
McCready, E. S. (2010). Varieties of conventional implicature. Semantics and Pragmatics, 3, 8-1.
Potts, C. 2007. The expressive dimension. Theoretical linguistics, 33(2), 165-198.
Schlenker, P. (2007). Expressive presuppositions. Theoretical Linguistics,33(2), 237-245.
Williamson, T. (2009). Reference, inference and the semantics of pejoratives. The Philosophy of David
Kaplan, 137-158.
!
78!
!
79!
!
80!
!
81!
!
82!
Towards a unification of copular constructions:
An integrated approach
Francesca Ramaglia & Mara Frascarelli
University of Roma Tre
Keywords: copular constructions, interface analysis, predication
In the literature, scholars concerned with copular constructions have often examined the possibility for
the two relevant constituents to appear in the reversed order. Roughly speaking, there seems to be a
crucial difference between (1), which does not allow for inversion, and (2)-(3), which are acceptable in
both versions and seem to have ‘the same meaning’:
(1)! a.
b.
(2)! a.
b.
(3)! a.
b.
John is tall/a doctor
* Tall/a doctor is John
The cause of the scandal is a photo
A photo is the cause of the scandal
John is that man
That man is John
The present paper aims to make a contribution to this debate by proposing an interface analysis of two
(macro)-types of copular constructions:
(4)! a.
b.
c.
(5)! a.
b.
c.
It is a book that I read
What I read is a book
A book is what I read
There is a man in the garden
A man is in the garden
In the garden is a man
[cleft]
[pseudocleft]
[inverted pseudocleft]
[existential]
[locative]
[inverted locative]
Though the two sets of constructions in (4)-(5) present a number of common properties (not only
concerning word order but also, for instance, specific TAM restrictions, as is shown in Den Dikken et
al. 2000), they are generally analyzed independently from one another.
On the other hand, a unified explanation is proposed in this paper, in terms of predicative
structures. Based on Frascarelli & Ramaglia’s (2013) analysis of (pseudo)cleft constructions, syntactic
diagnostics will be used to show the role of the two copular constituents, distinguishing the subject from
the predicate in structures like (5).
Consider, for instance, extraction effects. Under the commonly agreed assumption that extraction
is not allowed from subject DPs (Moro 1997; Heycock & Kroch 1999; Den Dikken 2006), while no
restriction is imposed on the movement of predicate-internal material, the examples below suggest a
predicate analysis for the boldfaced constituent in sentences (a):
(6)! a. C’
è [una foto
di Maria] [nella stanza di
there is a
picture of Maria
in.the room of
‘There is a picture of Maria’s in Luigi’s room.’
b. [Di chi]i
of whom
c. *[Di
of
chi]i
whom
c’
è [una
there is a
c’
è
there is
foto
picture
[una
a
t i]
foto
picture
[nella
in.the
di
of
(7)! a. [Nella stanza di Luigi] c’
è [una foto
in.the room of Luigi there is a
picture
‘In Luigi’s room is a picture of Maria’s.’
!
83!
Luigi]
Luigi
stanza
room
Maria]
Maria
di
of
di Luigi]?
of Luigi
[nella stanza ti]?
in.the room
Maria]
Maria
b. [Di chi]i
of whom
c. *[Di
of
chi]i
whom
[nella
in.the
[nella
in.the
stanza
room
di
of
stanza
room
Luigi] c’
Luigi there
t i]
c’
there
è [una
is a
è [una
is a
foto ti]?
picture
foto
di
picture of
Maria]?
Maria
(8)! a. [Una foto
di Maria] è [nella stanza di Luigi]
a
picture of Maria
is in.the room of Luigi
‘A picture of Maria’s is in Luigi’s room’
b. *[Di
of
chi]i [una
whom a
c. *[Di
of
chi]i
whom
[una
a
foto
picture
foto
picture
di
of
t i]
Maria]
Maria
è
is
è
is
[nella
in.the
[nella stanza
in.the room
stanza
room
ti]?
di Luigi]?
of Luigi
Notice that the ungrammaticality of (8b) is to be ascribed to the fact that the fronted material is extracted
from a complex PP (a ‘syntactic island’, in GB terms). Nevertheless, the present hypothesis is confirmed
by the ungrammaticality of (8c): if the predicate of the relevant copular construction were the DP [una
foto di Maria] ‘a picture of Maria’s’, we would expect (8c) to be acceptable, contrary to facts.
Different syntactic phenomena (such as cliticization and Quantifier Raising) – used as testing
diagnostics – will be provided as evidence supporting the present analysis, both in Italian and English.
These results will be then integrated with semantic considerations, mainly based on Zamparelli’s (2000)
approach to copular constructions (cf. also McNally 1997), and discourse-prosodic analysis. This
interface approach will prove to be effective in capturing the parallelism between the two (macro)-types
of structures in (4)-(5). In particular, the information-structural analysis of prosodic data will show that
existential and locative sentences implement discourse-related constructions, much in the same way as
(pseudo)clefts do.
References
Den Dikken, Marcel (2006), Relators and Linkers, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Den Dikken, Marcel, André Meinunger & Chris Wilder (2000), “Pseudoclefts and Ellipsis”, in Studia
Linguistica 54 (1): 41–89.
Frascarelli, Mara & Francesca Ramaglia (2013), “(Pseudo)clefts at the syntax-prosody-discourse
interface”, in Katharina Hartmann & Tonjes Veenstra (eds.), Cleft Structures,
Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 97-137.
Heycock, Caroline & Anthony Kroch (1999), “Pseudocleft Connectedness: Implications for the LF
Interface Level”, in Linguistic Inquiry 30 (3): 365-397.
McNally, Louise (1997), A Semantics for the English Existential Construction, New York: Garland
Press.
Moro, Andrea (1997), The Raising of Predicates, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Zamparelli, Roberto (2000), Layers in the Determiner Phrase, New York: Routledge.
!
84!
Structural deficiency across phases: oblique pronouns in Old Tuscan varieties.
Silvia Rossi (Università Ca’ Foscari Venezia) – Jacopo Garzonio (Università di Padova)
KEYWORDS: nano- and microparameters; deficient pronouns; Old Italo-Romance.
1. In this paper we take into exam the syntactic microvariation in the distribution of deficient pronouns
(Cardinaletti & Starke 1999, henceforth C&S) in the history of Italo-Romance, in particular in Old Tuscan
varieties. Our main goal is to understand if structural deficiency is subject to a predictable parametric
variation. Our analysis shows that there seems to be a cline from parameters pertaining to individual classes
or categories to parameters pertaining to single lexical items. In other words, the history of Italian deficient
oblique pronouns shows a clear diachronic shift from micro- to nano-parameters (Roberts 2012 and
subsequent work). Moreover, we will argue that the trigger of this shift is originally dependent on the
interaction of macro-parameters (like V2 across phases, Poletto 2014) and that the weak/clitic divide shows
no fixed distinguishing properties but is a by-product of changing parameters (hence individual deficient
forms will show some core properties with some slightly different distributions).
2. Starting point of our discussion is the Modern Italian (MI) oblique plural loro, which C&S consider a
prototypical case of weak pronoun. MI oblique loro presents peculiar properties in that: (i) it must occur
before a full-DP direct object (Dative Shift like position); (ii) it can surface between the auxiliary and the
past participle; (iii) it precedes low/Voice adverbs like bene ‘well’ and tutto ‘completely’ (Cinque 1999);
(iv) it cannot be coordinated, modified or topicalized/focalized. While (iv) is also true of clitics, properties
(i)-(iii) are specific for loro and are accounted for by C&S by assuming that loro obligatorily occupies the
specifier of an AgrP projection as a consequence of its pertaining to the universal category of mildly
structurally-deficient pronouns, i. e. weak (but see Manzini 2014 for a critical discussion).
3. In Old Florentine (OFlor.), the oblique weak paradigm included forms for other persons: there are
instances of 3rd singular lui/lei ‘to.him/to.her’ patterning like plural loro (Cardinaletti 2010: 421ff. also
reports a few cases of 1st singular me ‘to.me’ and 2nd plural vo’ ‘to.you’ but these are probably relics of a
previous extended paradigm). These elements occurred in the same positions as MI loro, but they also had
positional possibilities no longer available in MI: (i) they could appear before the tensed verb (1a), and (ii)
they could appear after a direct object, (1b):
(1)
a. … che Dio era padre de' poveri, e loro ha donato podere delli altri giudicare.
… that God was father of.the poor and to.them has given power of.the other to.judge
OFlor., 1310; Zucchero Benivenni, Esposizione del Paternostro, 27).
b. Allora dissi queste parole loro…
Then said.1sg these word to.them
(OFlor., 1293; Dante Alighieri, Vita Nuova, chap. 18, par. 1-9, pag. 69)
Pre-T loro occupies a position in the Left Periphery as we find cases of sì loro:
(2)
Allor la donna, come ch’e’ le piaccia // Udir quelle parole, sì lor dica
Then the woman, how that it to.her pleasant.is to.hear these words, sì to.them say
(OFlor., 1300; Dante Alighieri, Fiore (II), 176, pag. 354)
Following Benincà (2006), sì ‘then’ is an adverb hosted in the Focus field; it must be concluded from (2)
that pre-T loro is in the Left Periphery.
Whatever the parameter governing this distribution, it is clear that in OFlor it was a microparameter
of a small lexically definable subclass of functional items (oblique pronominals) subsequently reduced in
the passage to MI to a nanoparameter of an individual grammatical item (3rd pl oblique loro). Furthermore,
we will argue that the distribution in (1) can be accounted for by assuming that these items satisfy the V2
property of OFlor. in both the lower and the higher phases (Poletto 2014). This entails that these elements
were generated in the lower clausal portion and then moved to the Left Peripheries as XPs (as expected
under C&S’s tripartition).
4. On the basis of this preliminary discussion, one could conclude that OFlor loro is a weak with some
strong-like properties. Thus, it is striking that loro could also display some clitic-like properties, as for
instance it could also appear after negation:
(3)
!
ed elli medesimi si piglieranno luogo e tempo di combattere, se voi non loro lo date.
And they themselves will.take place and time of to.fight, if you not to.them it give.2pl
85!
(OFlor., 1350, Deca prima di Tito Livio Volgarizzata, L. 7, cap. 14, pag. b169)
Moreover, there is at least one case (in Old Pisan) in which loro looks like a resumptive pronoun of a
dislocated topic (a possibility not available to MI loro):
(4)
A tutte le creature hae Idio data loro virtù e sufficienzia di potere venire…
(OPis., 1306; Giordano da Pisa, Quaresimale fiorentino (1305-1306), 60, 297)
(Notice that in Giordano da Pisa’s text, possessive loro is normally postnominal and when prenominal it
very often requies a D).
5. Some Southern Old Tuscan varieties like Old Sienese (OSien) furthermore present also a clitic lo’
derived from loro. Egerland (2010) determines the clitic status of lo’ as it patterns like other clitics: (i) lo’
appears proclitically or enclitically according to finiteness of the verb (and it is subject to the ToblerMussafia’s Law); (ii) it forms clitic clusters, usually with the modern order dat > acc; (iii) it always follows
negation; (iv) we found also cases of reduced l’ before tensed verbs and auxiliaries beginning with a vowel.
Yet again, lo’ also displays few weak-like properties in that it does not appear to give rise to PCC effects
and it could appear proclitically on non-finite verbs when preceded by negation:
(5)
a. Cristo mai non me lo’ parta dall’anima.
Christ never not me to.them take.away from.the soul
(OSien., 1367; Giovanni Colombini, Lettere, 28)
b.!altri crede che gli debbia esser fatta alcuna cosa non lo’ domandata
others believe that to.him has to.be done any thing not to.them asked
(1268; Andrea da Grosseto, Trattati morali di Albertano da Brescia volgarizzati, 2.49)
6. Thus, the empirical evidence in the above sections indicate that the clitic/weak divide is rather blurry in
Old Tuscan. It seems however that there was a clear and early tendency to reaccomodate these items
according to a systematic and predictable (and thus more easily learnable) strong vs. deficient partition:
deficient elements have to occur in the higher phase (i. e. in the C/T domain), while strong pronouns have
to occur in the lower lexical phase (i. e. the v/V domain). In a nutshell: the more deficient a pronoun, the
higher it surfaces in the sentence structure. In more general terms, we will argue that this reaccomodation
is a direct consequence of the resetting (loss) of a generalized V2 macro-parameter which triggers the
subsequent resetting of related micro-parameters, some of which may eventually survive as
nanoparameters. This is confirmed among other things, by the fact that in 15th cent. Florentine, CP V2 was
marginal and pre-T oblique loro is never attested (Ricci 2005).
As a final remark, the present study lends support to the idea that major linguistic changes are not always
the product of the sum of small steps (pace Kayne 1996), but rather, microvariation arises from the resetting
of small parameters following a ‘great leap’ (Ledgeway to appear), i. e. a macro-parametric change.
Selected references. CARDINALETTI, A. (2010). “Il pronome personale obliquo”, in: L. Renzi & G. Salvi
(eds.), Grammatica dell’italiano antico, vol. 1, chap.11 par. 2, 414-450. Bologna: Il Mulino; EGERLAND,
V. (2010), “I pronomi lo’ e ‘ro nel toscano dei primi secoli”, L’Italia Dialettale, 71: 111-145. LEDGEWAY,
A. (to appear). ‘From Latin to Romance syntax: the great leap’, in P. Crisma & G. Longobardi (eds.), The
Oxford Handbook of Diachronic and Historical Linguistics, Oxford: OUP; MANZINI, M. R. (2014).
“Grammatical categories. Strong and weak pronouns in Romance”. Lingua 150: 181-201; RICCI, A. (2005).
Mercanti Scriventi. Sintassi e testualità di alcuni libri di famiglia fiorentini fra Tre e Quattrocento. Roma:
Aracne.
!
86!
!
87!
!
88!
!
89!
!
90!
Partitive constructions and semantic agreement in French
Petra Sleeman (University of Amsterdam) & Tabea Ihsane (University of Geneva)
p.sleeman&uva.nl
[email protected]
Aim In the literature, syntactic analyses have been provided for quantified partitive
constructions such as ‘three of his books’. The goal of this paper is to explore whether all types
of partitive constructions should be analyzed in the same way. In this paper, we investigate the
syntax of different partitive constructions with an animate noun in French and focus on the
realization of gender, in both the “outer” DP (the subset) and the “inner” DP (the set). Showing
that semantic agreement is allowed in superlative partitives (la plus jeune de… ‘the youngest
of…’) but ungrammatical in quantified partitives (une/certaines de… ‘one/some of…’), we
propose that these constructions do not have the same structure. In addition, we distinguish
these two types of partitives from non-canonical partitives with an ‘among’-PP or a preposed
‘of’-phrase.
Puzzles We examine two puzzles not discussed in the literature to our knowledge, namely the
fact that semantic agreement is possible in superlative but not quantified partitives ((1) vs. (2)),
and that the examples with such mismatches strongly improve with an ‘among’-PP (3) and
when the ‘of’-phrase is preposed (4).
(1)!La
/le
plus jeune
de mes anciens
professeurs est malade.
the.F.SG./ the.M.SG. most young.SG. of my.PL. former.M.PL. professors.PL. is sick.SG.
(2)!*Une /un
de mes anciens
professeurs est malade.
one.F.SG / one.F.SG.
of my.PL. former.M.PL. professors.PL. is sick.SG.
(3)!Certaines parmi mes
anciens
professeurs ont fait la grève.
Some. F.PL. among my. PL. former.M.PL. professors.PL. went on a strike
(4)!?De mes anciens
professeurs, seulement une
a déménagé.
of my.PL. former.M.PL. professors.PL. only
one.F.SG. has moved
In (1), although professeurs is masculine as the agreement on anciens ‘former’ shows, both the
masculine and the feminine are possible in the outer DP (le/la plus jeune), whereas in (2) such
a mismatch in gender is out. In contrast, the feminine quantifiers certaines ‘some.F.PL.’ and une
‘one F.SG.’ are acceptable both in (3) and (4), despite the presence of the masculine professeurs.
Background We argue, contra, e.g., Matthewson (2001), Martí-Girbau (2010), Corver, van
Koppen & Kranendonk (2011) and Gagnon (2013) that (i) both quantified (Jackendoff, 1977,
Milner 1978, Sleeman & Kester 2002, Cardinaletti & Giusti 2006, Ionin, Matushansky & Ruys
2006 a.o.) and superlative (Matushansky 2008) partitives are headed by an empty noun, and
that the latter is a copy of the noun in the inner DP (Zamparelli 1998, Sleeman & Kester 2002,
Sauerland & Yatsushiro 2004, Le Bruyn 2007); that (ii) grammatical and semantic gender
should be differentiated and represented by a feature [+/-fem] in two projections of the nominal
structure (Kramer 2009, Atkinson 2015), NP and Gender Phrase (GenP), respectively, because
in French the two genders do not necessarily go hand in hand (cf. (1)); and that (iii) failed agree
does not necessarily result in ungrammaticality but can give rise to default morphology
(Preminger 2009, 2011), which is masculine in French (Ihsane & Sleeman to appear).
Analysis (i) As the noun in the outer DP of partitives is a copy of the noun in the inner DP, it
means that the agreement patterns we can observe in superlative and quantified partitives depend
on the grammatical gender properties of the inner N. We claim that the mismatch in (1) is possible
because the noun involved has an unvalued grammatical gender feature, resulting in Failed
Agree in the inner DP, realized as the default masculine. To account for the mismatch, we
propose that the unvalued feature is assigned a sex specification in the GenP of the outer DP on
!
91!
the basis of the sex of a referent in the situational or linguistic context. In (5), the added
specification is [+fem], and the outcome is la ‘the.F.SG.’:
(5)![DP la [ plus jeune [GenP F. [FP professeur [PP de mes anciens [GenP [NP professeurs ]]]]]]]
If the grammatical feature of the noun professeurs is masculine or if it remains unvalued with
Failed Agree resulting in a default spell-out, then the outer DP has to be masculine, too (hence
le ‘the.M.SG.’).
To account for the contrast between (1) and (2), we claim that, although we adopt a twonoun analysis for both, the structure of canonical quantified partitives (2) is simpler than the
one of superlative partitives, lacking GenP in the outer DP. Hence, when the grammatical gender
of the noun is unspecified, it cannot be specified in the derivation, and mismatches are
impossible. We argue that the ungrammaticality of adjectives in the outer DP supports our claim
that the structure of quantified partitives is simpler:
(6)!*une
jeune
[FP collègue de mes anciennes collègues]
one.F.SG. young
of my.PL. former.F.PL. colleagues.F.PL.
(ii) To account for the data in (3)-(4), we argue that the empty noun in these examples differs
from the one in the canonical ‘of’-partitives in (1)-(2), in that it is not a copy of a lower N. This
means that the gender of the empty noun is independent from the gender of the overt noun, and
hence that gender mismatches can be acceptable. Support for this analysis comes from the fact
that two different full lexical nouns (e.g. enfants ‘children’ and garçons ‘boys’) could be used
in these constructions, which is impossible in data like (1) and (2):
(7)!De tous
ces
enfants,
seulement deux
garçons ont été malades.
of all.M.PL these.PL. children.PL. only
two.F.SG boys
have been sick.PL.
Conclusion Our analysis shows that the structure of quantified and superlative partitives
differs in that gender is realized differently in these constructions. Furthermore, focusing on
gender mismatches or the absence thereof has allowed us (i) to distinguish these two types of
partitives structurally and (ii) to contrast them with those involving an ‘among’-PP or a
preposed ‘of’-phrase showing that the empty noun in the latter two constructions differs from
the one in canonical partitives.
Main references
* Kramer, Ruth. 2009. Definite Markers, Phi-features and Agreement: A morphosyntactic investigation of the
Amharic DP. Ph.D. dissertation, UC Santa Cruz. * Preminger, Omer. 2011. Agreement as a Fallible Operation.
Ph.D. dissertation, MIT. * Zamparelli, Roberto. 1998. A theory of kinds, partitives and OF/Z possessives.
Possessors, Predicates and Movement in the Determiner Phrase ed. by Artemis Alexiadou & Chris Wilder.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
!
92!
!
93!
!
94!
The L2 Status Factor and the role of English Immersion
Rosalinde Stadt, Petra Sleeman, Aafke Hulk (ACLC, University of Amsterdam)
[email protected]
English is ubiquitous in everyday life as an L2 and as a result, an increasing amount of primary
and secondary schools offer English-based immersion programs. In this paper we investigate
the influence of L2 English and of L2 immersion on the acquisition of L3 French at a
morphosyntactic level by L1 Dutch learners. The goal is to test language transfer and the
influence of immersion by studying finite verb placement in declarative root sentences.
In third language acquisition research, there is an extensive literature on L3 modelling.
Recent findings suggest that the source of language transfer from L2 to L3 can be related to L2
status (Bardel & Falk, 2007; Falk 2010), proficiency (Jaensch, 2009, 2012), exposure
(Hammarberg, 2009) and metalinguistic awareness (Thomas, 1988; Park & Starr, 2015). Since
we focus in this study on the influence of the L2, we test the L2 status factor hypothesis, which
is postulated for syntactic transfer by Bardel & Falk (2007), elaborating Williams &
Hammarberg’s (1998) and Hammarberg’s (2001) claim that the L2 is the most important source
of lexical transfer. Following Hammarberg (2009), who proposes that L2 influence on L3 is
furthered if there is frequent in- and output of form and if the acquisition of the L2 takes place
in a natural learning environment, we also hypothesize that learning English in an immersionbased program furthers L2 transfer, so that immersion students will accept and produce more
often the English word order.
This study investigates transfer by (1) testing the L2 status factor hypothesis (LSFH),
and by (2) comparing the influence of two different L2 English high school pedagogies
(immersion vs. a more formal-based instruction) on the acquisition of French. We formulated
the following research questions:
1.! Is L2 English a more important background language than L1 Dutch in L3 French
acquisition?
2.! To what extent does a school immersion-based program affect the English L2 as a
background language?
We ran our experiment at a partially bilingual Dutch high school where students can
either opt for the regular Dutch high school curriculum, receiving three hours a week of the
school subject English in which explicit grammar explanation is an important part of the
curriculum, or where they choose a partially immersion-based program, where more than 50%
of the subjects are taught in English and where formal instruction is avoided in the English
classes. We tested 28 third grade students (14 – 16 years) of whom 16 followed the immersionbased program and 12 followed the regular curriculum. All participants had Dutch as their only
native language and they had received almost three years of instruction-based French lessons.
Since all participants were intermediate learners of L3 French we only tested negative
transfer to avoid the possibility that correct judgments or answers do not relate to positive
transfer but to the learner being already passively or actively familiar with the construction in
L3 French. In order to test the L2 status factor, we compared the acceptance in L3 French of
two verb placement constructions where French differs from Dutch or from English. We
concentrated (1) on declarative root sentences containing manner/frequency adverbs or a
floating quantifier where the finite verb moves to T in French and in Dutch (and in Dutch
arguably even one step further, viz. to C, Den Besten 1983) but not in English and (2) on cases
in which the V2-rule applies in Dutch but does not do so in French and English.
!
95!
V-to-T (to-C) movement
1a.
Jean regarde souvent la télé.
1b.
Jean kijkt vaak televisie.
1c.
* John watches often television.
V2 with sentence-initial adverbial phrase (V-to-C movement)
2a.
* Aujourd’hui donne Jean une fête.
2b.
* Today gives John a party.
2c.
Vandaag geeft Jan een feest.
On the basis of the L2 status factor, we predicted that L3 French learners prefer L2
English over L1 Dutch as a background language in L3 acquisition, hypothesizing that there
will be negative transfer from English in the case of V-to-T movement (leading to the
acceptance and production of sentences such as *Jean souvent regarde la télé) and no negative
transfer from Dutch to French in the case of the V2-rule (leading to rejection/no production of
sentences such as *Aujourd’hui donne Jean une fête).
We report data from a grammaticality judgment task testing passive knowledge. Both
word order constructions were equally represented in the tests. The grammaticality judgment
task contained a total of 45 French test sentences: 14 items for both constructions (equals 28
items) of which half were grammatical and half were ungrammatical and 17 fillers.
A comparison of the two constructions revealed that the immersion students scored
significantly worse in V-to-T than in V-to-C (p-value = 0.005), suggesting more negative
influence from English than from Dutch, in support of the L2 status factor for the immersion
students. A comparison of the results between groups showed that the regular students scored
significantly worse than the immersion students in the V-to-C construction (p-value = 0.033),
which suggests that they are more negatively influenced by Dutch, but not in English.
In sum, we found support for the L2 status factor, but only for students of the immersion
program. Regular students were more influenced by their L1.
Selected References
Bardel, C. & Falk, Y. 2007. The role of the second language in third language acquisition: the
case of Germanic syntax. Second Language Research, 23(4), 459-484.
den Besten, H. 1983. On# the# Interaction# of# Root# Transformations# and# Lexical# Deletive#
Rules.. In On the Formal Syntax of West Germanic, W. Abraham (ed.), 47-131.
Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Hammarberg, B. 2009. Processes in Third Language Acquisition. Edingburgh University
Press.
Jaensch, C. 2012. Acquisition of L3 German: do some learners have it easier? In Third
language acquisition in adulthood, Cabrelli Amaro, J. Flynn, S. and Rothman, J.
(eds.), 165-193. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Park, M. & Starr, R. 2015. The role of formal L2 learning experience in L3 acquisition among
early bilinguals.International Journal of Multilingualism, 1-18.
Thomas, J. 1988. The role played by metalinguistic awareness in second and third language
learning. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 9,
!
96!
!
97!
!
98!
!
99!
!
100!
Some issues on pro-drop. The case of northern Italian subject clitics
Keywords: pro-drop, subject clitics, φ-features
Author: Giuseppe Torcolacci; Affiliation: University of Leiden
1. INTRODUCTION & DATA. Northern Italian dialects (NIDs) feature subject clitics (SCs) in their
grammars. In the literature, SCs are considered to be person, number and gender, i.e. φ, markers that
appear next to finite verbs (cf. Brandi & Cordin 1981, 1989; Poletto 1995, 2000; Goria 2004; Manzini
& Savoia 2005; Roberts, 2010; a.o.). In declarative contexts, SCs are generally attested in proclisis, i.e.
before instances of inflected verbs (cf. 1).
(1) a. Gorfigliano (Garfagnana-Tuscan)
b. Montereale (Friulan)
i
'ðɔrmo
SC sleep.1sg
maɲ'ʤɛve eat.past.1sg
tu
'ðɔrmi
SC.2sg sleep.2sg
te
maɲ'ʤɛvis SC.2sg eat.past.2sg
i/l%
d'dɔrma/'ðɔrma
SC/SC.3f sleep.3sg
al/a maɲ'ʤɛvɒ SC.3sgm/SC.3sgf eat.past.3
i
ðor'mjan
SC sleep.1pl
maɲʤɛ'aŋ eat.past.1pl
i
ður'mito
SC sleep.2pl
maɲ'ʤɛ'ai eat.past.2pl
i/l%
d'dɔrm%no/'ðɔrm%no SC/SC.3f sleep.3pl
i
maɲ'ʤɛvɒ SC.3pl eat.past.3
[Manzini & Savoia 2005, I: 379]
[Manzini & Savoia 2005, I: 372]
SCs in NIDs can be affected by paradigmatic gaps and syncretisms, as illustrated in the paradigms in
(1). In (1a), for instance, the SCs preceding the 1st singular and the 3rd singular masculine verbs, as well
as the 1st, 2nd plural and 3rd masculine plural verbs, are syncretic, i.e. overtly represented by /i/. In (1b),
on the other hand, no SC is realized before verbs encoding 1st singular and 1st and 2nd plural information.
2. SCs & PRO-DROP. NIDs are considered to be pro-drop languages (cf. Brandi & Cordin 1981; Rizzi
1986; Poletto 2000; Manzini & Savoia 2005; a.o.). NIDs, indeed, share a number of syntactic properties
that are in common with other pro-drop languages, which, according to Perlmutter (1971) and Rizzi
(1982), are: i. the possibility of a silent, referential, definite subject before finite verbs; ii. the ‘free
subject inversion’; iii.# the apparent absence of complementizer-trace effects; iv. rich agreement
inflection on finite verbs. Differently from other pro-drop languages, however, NIDs admit the selection
of SCs before finite verbs. In the literature, SCs of the northern Italian type are considered to be syntactic
heads that only contain φ-features (cf. Poletto 2000; Manzini & Savoia 2005). In her cartographic work,
Poletto (2000) identifies different syntactic heads that correspond to the merging site of SCs. According
to Poletto (2000), inv(ariable) and deic(tic) SCs are merged in the CP field, and relate to Topic/Focus
interpretation, as well as to the distinction between deictic and non-deictic person, i.e. 1 & 2 versus 3.
Number and Person SCs, conversely, are syntactic heads in the IP/TP area. The difference between CPand IP/TP-SCs does not rely exclusively on their merging sites in the syntactic tree, but also on their
morpho-phonological make-up. CP-SCs are generally overtly represented by means of a vocalic form
(cf. /i/ in (1a)), while IP/TP-SCs are morphological forms that are generally composed of a consonant
followed by a vowel (cf. /te/ (1b)). In more recent works (cf. Manzini & Savoia 2005; a.o.), IP/TP-SCs
have been claimed to be all merged in a syntactic head above T, whose label corresponds to D.
3. THE PUZZLE: SCs AND INTERROGATIVES. While northern Italian SCs are generally attested
in proclisis in declarative contexts (cf. 1), they generally appear in enclisis, i.e. in post-verbal position,
in interrogative environments. These facts are made explicit by means of (2a) and (2b), which
correspond to the interrogative versions of the declarative paradigms in (1a) and (1b), respectively.
(2) a. Gorfigliano (Garfagnana-Tuscan) [Manzini & Savoia 2005, I: 379]
i
dɔr'm
-i?
SC sleep.sg SC.1sg?
(i)
dɔr'mi
-tu?
(SC) sleep.2sg SC.2sg?
i/l%
ddur'm/'ðɔr'm
-iɟɟo/-ɛiɖo? SC/SC.3f sleep.sg SC.3m/3f
i
dɔrm%
-nɔu?
SC sleep.sg SC.1pl?
(i)
durmi't
-ɔu
(SC) sleep.2pl SC.2pl?
i/l%
ddɔrm%'no/ðɔrm%'n -iɟɟo/-ɛiɖo? SC/SC.3f sleep.3pl SC.3m/3f
b. Montereale (Friulian) [Manzini & Savoia 2005, I: 372]
maɲ'ʤɛv
-iu?
eat.past.sg SC?
maɲ'ʤɛvis
-tu?
eat.past.2sg SC.2sg?
!
101!
al/a
maɲ'ʤɛvɒ
-e?
SC.3sgm/SC.3sgf eat.past.3sg SC.3?
maɲʤɛ'an
-iu?
eat.past.1pl SC?
maɲ'ʤɛ'ai
-iu
eat.past.2pl SC?
maɲ'ʤɛv
-iŋ/e?
eat.past.sg SC.3plm/SC.3?
In the literature, the presence of enclitic SCs in interrogative contexts has been claimed to be determined
by the raise of the verb from T to C (cf. Poletto 2000; Manzini & Savoia 2005). Because of the raise of
the verb from T to C, the SCs, which according to Poletto (2000) and Manzini & Savoia (2005), a.o.,
occupy an independent head in the IP-/TP- field, get stranded and cliticize to the right of the moved
verbal element (cf. (3)).
(3)
[CP [C V+T] [TP pro [SC] [V+T]] [VP t ] …
With reference to NIDs, Renzi & Vanelli (1983) –Generalization 9- observe that “if interrogatives
sentences are formed via subject inversion, (i) the number of enclisis pronouns found in interrogative
sentences is equal to or greater than the number of proclitic pronouns in declarative sentences, and (ii)
the subject pronouns found in proclisis are also in enclitic position”. In (2), the number of the SCs in
enclisis is greater than the number of the proclitic SCs in (1). However, not all the enclitic SCs in (2)
morpho-phonologically coincide with those in proclisis in (1). In (1a), for instance, the 3rd singular SCs
in proclisis morpho-phonologically shape as /i/ and /l%/, while in (2a), when occurring in enclisis, they
are /iɟɟo/ and /ɛiɖo/, respectively. A summary of these facts is given in the table in (4).
(4) Gorfigliano (Garfagnana-Tuscan)
1
2
3
4
5
6
Proclitic
i
tu
i/l%
i
i
i/l%
Enclitic
i
tu
iɟɟo/-ɛiɖo
nɔu
ɔu
iɟɟo/-ɛiɖo
In addition, it should be noted that the proclitics /i/ and /l%/ in (1a), as well as the proclitics /al/ and /a/
in (1b), precede the inflected verbs also in interrogative contexts (cf. i/l# d'dɔrma/'ðɔrma [declarative]
versus i/l# ddur'm/'ðɔr'm-iɟɟo/-ɛiɖo [interrogative]).
4. PROPOSAL. The aim of this paper is to propose that the enclitic SCs in the paradigms in (2) are the
Spell-Out of the φ category contained in pro. We propose that pro is a full DP composed of different
layers of functional structure, amongst which φ (see Cardinaletti & Starke 1999 for the structural
composition of pronouns). The movement of the verb from T to C would trigger the overt realization of
φ contained in pro. In addition, we claim that T-to-C movement does not target only the verb in T, but
also the syntactic head merged right above it, i.e. the SC. The structure in (5) illustrate the syntactic
mechanism that is at play with interrogatives for the dialects in (1) and (2), as well for other NIDs.
(5)
CP
C
TP
pro
SpellOut
φ
T’
SC
T’
V+T+φ
…
The φ category spelled-out on pro cliticize to the right of its host, i.e. to the SC+finite verb cluster in C.
In this respect, NIDs cannot be considered as pro-drop languages in stricto sensu, since a category
contained in pro, i.e. φ, gets spelled-out under specific conditions, i.e. in interrogative contexts.
5. SELECTED REFERENCES. Manzini M. R. & L. M. Savoia (2005), I dialetti italiani e romanci.
Morfosintassi generativa, Alessandria: Dell’Orso; Poletto, C. (2000), The Higher Functional Field,
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
!
102!
The focalizing SER ‘to be’ construction in European Portuguese
Aleksandra Vercauteren (Ghent University – Universidade Nova de Lisboa)
The aim of this poster is to discuss the nature of the copula in the focalizing SER-construction (FSC)
in European Portuguese and to provide a novel analysis for this structure that takes into account the
liberal distribution of SER in the clause and draws parallels with the syntax of focus markers. I argue
that SER is a verbal constituent from a syntactic point of view, but not from a semantic point of view
(cf. Xu 2003 for Chinese shì).
It will be shown that the existing analyses make wrong predictions. For instance, the reduced pseudocleft analysis (Wheeler 1982; Toribio 2002; Costa & Duarte 2005) is not compatible with the
observation that SER is not a verb in the FSC. However, we can also not assume that SER is some sort
of focus marker that lexicalizes a FocP in the clausal spine (contra Méndez-Vallejo 2009), since SER
can surface in several positions within TP and vP, and in positions that are not in the clausal spine.
As an alternative, I argue that SER is a verbal focus marker that can be freely merged with a focalized
constituent and projects. The proposal is based on the following characterization of SER: SER is
syntactically a verb, but not semantically. As a consequence, the SER-focalized constituent complex
has the syntactic category v but maintains the semantics of the focalized constituent alone. The role of
SER is thus that it changes the syntactic category of the focalized constituent. This has consequences
for the distribution of the SER-focalized constituent complex in contexts where syntactic category is
relevant. It will be shown that the proposed characterization of SER makes accurate predictions
concerning its distribution in the clause.
!
103!
!
104!
!
105!

Abstract Booklet - CRIL - Università del Salento

Transcription

Similar documents

1. The Story of the Lost Child 2. Esco a fare due passi

BUONGiORNO!

Ocrim Spa - TecnAlimentaria

Italian-pamphlet - Sunshine Beach State High School

Italian Design Concepts

Italian PV market development

ItaLingua

SAV ETHE DATE

LaFesta Itinerary_printable

Sarento`s Italian Restaurant - Architectural Design Consultants, Inc.