@CENTRONOSPAZ = RIVISTA DI GRAMMATICA

Transcription

RIVISTA DI GRAMMATICA GENERATIVA
Volume 26, anno 2001
Direzione:
Guglielmo Cinque (Università di Venezia)
Luigi Rizzi (Université de Genève e Università di Siena)
Comitato di lettura:
Manuela Ambar (Univ. de Lisboa) - Paola Benincà (Università di
Padova) - Adriana Belletti (Università di Siena) - Luciana Brandi
(Univ. di Firenze) - Luigi Burzio (The John Hopkins Univ.) - Noam
Chomsky (MIT) - Patrizia Cordin (Univ. di Trento) - Violeta Demonte
(Univ. Autonoma de Madrid) - Alessandra Giorgi (Università di
Bergamo) - Giorgio Graffi (Univ. di Verona) - Richard Kayne (New
York University) - Michael Kenstowicz (MIT) - Giulio Lepschy (Univ.
of Reading) - Giuseppe Longobardi (Univ. di Trieste) - Lidia Lonzi
(Univ. di Milano) - Maria Rita Manzini (Università di Firenze) - Joan
Mascaró (Univ. Autonoma de Barcelona) - Marina Nespor (Univ. Di
Ferrara) - Jean-Yves Pollock (Univ. de Rennes II) - Annarita Puglielli
(Univ. di Roma) - Andrew Radford (Univ. of Essex) - Lorenzo Renzi
(Univ. di Padova) - Alain Rouveret (Univ. de Paris VIII) - Leonardo
Savoia (Univ. di Firenze) - Sergio Scalise (Univ. di Bologna) - Laura
Vanelli (Univ. di Padova) - Jean-Roger Vergnaud (Univ. of Southern
California)
L‟INTERPRETAZIONE MORFOSEMANTICA
DEL MODO CONGIUNTIVO IN ITALIANO E IN TEDESCO 1
Paolo CHINELLATO
0. Introduzione
In questo lavoro propongo che l‟interpretazione semantica e il comportamento sintattico del modo congiuntivo siano strettamente legati alla sua costruzione morfologica
e al numero di tratti che i morfemi riescono ad esprimere. Più precisamente, quello che
dimostrerò attraverso la comparazione di dati del tedesco, dell‟italiano standard e di
due varietà dialettali dell‟italiano (veneziano e bellunese), è che quando siamo in presenza di una forma sincretica che appartiene a due modi verbali diversi, il parlante interpreta tale forma come quella appartenente al modo meno marcato.
Il lavoro è organizzato nel seguente modo: nella sezione 1 si discute un caso di selezione del modo congiuntivo in tedesco, più precisamente il discorso indiretto. Dopo
aver esposto i casi di selezione di entrambi i congiuntivi, seguendo Cinque (1999)
ho attribuito al congiuntivo presente (o congiuntivo1) il tratto [+evidenziale], e il
tratto [+valutativo] al congiuntivo imperfetto (o congiuntivo 2); in 1.1 il confronto
tra la coniugazione del congiuntivo e quella dell‟indicativo mostreranno che le forme che vengono interpretate dai parlanti come appartenenti al modo congiuntivo sono solamente quelle che possiedono un morfema di modo che veicola i tratti presentati al punto1. Nella sezione 2 tratterò un caso di selezione del modo congiuntivo in
italiano, più precisamente la possibilità dei verba dicendi di selezionare un congiun1
Questo lavoro nasce come approfondimento di alcuni temi già presenti nella mia Tesi di
Laurea. Durante quel periodo, il mio lavoro è stato profondamente influenzato dal lavoro
di Alessandra Giorgi alla quale sono estremamente debitore. Ringrazio tutti coloro che
hanno letto o discusso con me parti di questo lavoro: Paola Benincà, Gehrard Brugger,
Guglielmo Cinque, Federico Damonte, Giuliana Giusti, Rui Riberto Marques, Nicola
Munaro, Fabio Pianesi e Cecilia Poletto. Un ringraziamento speciale va ad Anna Cardinaletti, che ha seguito questo lavoro dall‟inizio, fornendomi preziosi consigli ed indicazioni
per la stesura di ogni versione del lavoro.
3
Paolo Chinellato
tivo: in 2.1 presenterò i tratti morfosemantici del modo congiuntivo italiano, proponendo che questo modo (insieme al modo condizionale), se selezionato da questa
classe verbale, veicola il tratto [+valutativo], come il congiuntivo imperfetto tedesco; seguirà in 2.2 l‟analisi delle forme verbali, dove proporrò di considerare la desinenza della prima persona plurale –iamo come nuovo morfema di accordo e in 2.3
tratterò i casi ambigui nell‟interpretazione dei due modi; nella sezione 3 introdurrò il
Principio di Sostituzione (Pds), il principio che regola l‟interpretazione di una forma
sincretica come quella appartenente al modo meno marcato e che attua la sostituzione di tale forma con una più marcata, se il contesto lo richiede. In 4 darò degli argomenti a sostegno di tale principio: osserverò per prima cosa due dialetti italiani
settentrionali, il veneziano e il bellunese. Il veneziano (4.1.1) si comporta come
l‟italiano standard e applica il PdS in alcuni casi in cui la forma del congiuntivo è
identica all‟indicativo, mentre il Bellunese (4.1.2) non lo applica proprio perché avendo due forme distinte tra indicativo e congiuntivo non ne ha bisogno. In 4.2 infine considererò il caso della cancellazione del complementatore che in Italiano Standard come prova dell‟interpretazione di tali forme sintetiche come forme non marcate: infatti, la cancellazione è impossibile con forme di congiuntivo uguali
all‟indicativo. La sezione 5 concluderà il lavoro.
1. Un caso di selezione del modo congiuntivo in tedesco
In tedesco le classi dei verba dicendi e verba sentiendi selezionano una frase subordinata al congiuntivo, anche se l‟indicativo è ugualmente ammesso:
Er sagt/glaubt, dass Paul aus Italien kommt/komme/käme.
2
(lett.: lui dice/crede che Paolo dall‟Italia viene/venga/IND/KON1/KON2)
il congiuntivo tedesco è ammesso quando il soggetto della frase principale e quello
della subordinata sono diversi dal parlante (2), quando solo il soggetto della principale è diverso dal parlante (3), ma non quando il soggetto della principale coincide
col parlante (4) o quando entrambi i soggetti delle frasi coincidono col parlante (5):
Sein Arzt sagt, er müsse ausspannen, diesmal sei ernstlich krank
(Il suo medico dice, lui deve / KON 1 riposarsi, questa volta è / KON 1 lui seriamente malato)
Er sagte, dass ich krank sei
(Lui disse che io malato sono / KON1)
2
4
D‟ora in poi mi riferirò al congiuntivo presente tedesco con la sigla KON 1 e al congiuntivo imperfetto con la sigla KON 2.
L’interpretazione morfosemantica del modo congiuntivo in italiano e in tedesco
* Ich glaube, dass er komme
(Io credo che lui venga / KON 1)
* Ich glaube, dass ich krank sei
(* Io credo che io venga / KON 1)
La frase (4) mostra chiaramente che il KON 1 non può segnalare nessun atteggiamento del parlante sul contenuto della frase, perché se così fosse sarebbe grammaticale come lo è (6):
Er glaubt, dass Paul komme
(Lui crede che Paolo venga / KON 1)
Il KON 1 sembra quindi essere un segnale del discorso riportato; sembra esprimere, attraverso il morfema di modo, un tratto che chiamerò, seguendo
3
l‟impostazione di Cinque (1999), [+evidenziale] .
Notiamo che l‟uso del congiuntivo tedesco differisce dall„italiano nel caso in (4),
dove la corrispondente italiana è grammaticale,
Io credo che lui venga
ma è identico nel caso di (5), dove anche la corrispondente italiana (8) è completamente agrammaticale e deve essere sostituita con (9):
* Io credo che io venga
Io credo di venire
La differenza tra (4) e (7) chiarisce la diversa natura del modo congiuntivo nelle
due lingue. In italiano standard la classe dei verba sentiendi richiede il modo congiuntivo (consecutio modorum) come si vede dalla differenza di accettabilità tra
4
(10a) e (10b) (si veda la sezione 2.1):
a.
Credo che lui venga
b. ? Credo che (lui) viene
Per quanto riguarda la concordanza dei tempi, il congiuntivo presente esprime
un rapporto di contemporaneità (11a) e di posteriorità (11b) con la frase principale, ma non contemporaneità con il verbo della principale al passato (12) (si veda la
sezione 2.1):
3
4
Il nome [+evidenziale] corrisponde al termine [+riportato] che avevo usato in Chinellato
(2000).
Per una dettagliata analisi morfosintattica del modo congiuntivo italiano, si veda Giorgi &
Pianesi (1997), cap. 5.
5
Paolo Chinellato
a.
Credo che in questo momento sia al ristorante.
b. Credo che lui venga/verrà domani.
* Credevo che lui venga
Inoltre, come abbiamo visto, in italiano non è possibile avere un congiuntivo con
una frase subordinata il cui soggetto coincide col soggetto della principale e con il
parlante, come si vede dall„agrammaticalità di (13) e (16):
* Credo che io venga
Credo di venire
* Credevo che io venissi
Credevo di venire
In tedesco il congiuntivo non è legato né a concordanza di modo né di tempo
come si vede da (17),
Hans glaubt/glaubte, dass Paul krank sei/ist
(Gianni crede/credeva che Paolo malato sia/fosse/IND)
ma è sempre agrammaticale con la prima persona nella frase principale (si veda
(7) e (8)).
Come si vede in (18)/(20), le forme del KON 1 sono uguali al presente indicativo
alla prima persona singolare e plurale e alla terza persona plurale:
Er sagt/glaubt, dass ich aus Italien komme
(Lui dice/crede che io dall‟Italia vengo / venga / IND = KON 1)
Er sagt/glaubt, dass wir aus Italien kommen
(Lui dice/crede che noi dall‟Italia veniamo / IND = KON 1)
Er sagt/glaubt, dass sie aus Italien komme
(Lui dice/crede che loro dall‟Italia vengono / vengano / IND = KON 1)
Nei casi (18)–(20), in cui le forme del KON 1 coincidono con le forme
5
dell‟indicativo, è possibile un‟alternanza con il KON 2 :
Er sagt/glaubt, dass ich aus Italien käme
(lui dice/crede che io dall„Italia vengo / venga / KON 2)
5
6
La grammatica tradizionale propone una sistematica sostituzione con il KON 2 ogni volta
che il KON 1 è uguale all‟indicativo: come si vedrà in seguito, la regola della sostituzione
proposta dalla grammatica tradizionale non sembra essere in grado di soddisfare i casi in
(26) e (27). Per un‟analisi alternativa del congiuntivo tedesco si veda Chinellato (2000).
(22) Er sagt/glaubt, dass wir aus Italien kämen
(lui dice/crede che noi dall‟Italia veniamo / KON 2)
(23) Er sagt/glaubt, dass sie aus Italien kämen
(lui dice/crede che loro dall‟Italia vengono / vengano / KON 2)
Osservando (24) e (25)
(24) Hans sagt, dass seine Eltern in der Schweiz sind/seien/wären, aber das ist
nicht wahr.
(Gianni dice che i suoi genitori in Svizzera sono / IND / KON 1 / KON 2 /, ma
questo non è vero)
(25) Hans sagt, dass ich ihn geschlagen habe/hätte, aber das ist nicht wahr.
(Gianni dice che io lui colpito ho / IND = KON 1 / KON 2, ma questo non è vero)
notiamo che il KON 2 sottolinea la posizione del parlante riguardo a ciò che ha detto
il soggetto della frase principale: questo tratto che chiamerò, sempre seguendo Cin6
que(1999) [+valutativo] , è espresso dalla morfologia passata del congiuntivo unita
con il morfema di modo.
Questa interpretazione del KON 2 è confermata dal fatto che l‟alternanza del
KON 1 con il KON 2 alla prima persona singolare e plurale e alla terza persona plurale non è sempre possibile. Ci sono dei casi in cui il KON 2 risulta piuttosto strano,
come in (26) e (27):
(26) Hans sagte, dass seine Eltern in der Schweiz sind/seien/??wären, und er hat
Recht, weil ich sie gesehen habe
(Gianni ha detto che i suoi genitori in Svizzera sono / IND / KON 1 / KON 2 e
lui ha ragione perché io li ho visti)
(27) Hans sagte, dass ich geschlagen habe/??hätte, und er hat recht
(Gianni ha detto che io lui colpito ho / IND = KON 1 / KON 2)
Notiamo che le frasi con il KON 2 sono quelle in cui esso esprime il dubbio che
viene sottolineato dalla frase seguente, come si vede da (24) e (25), mentre quando
c‟è un contesto di certezza come in (26) e (27) il KON 2 risulta non accettabile.
L‟indicativo, poiché non contiene nessun morfema di modo, si presenta come
l‟opzione meno marcata.
Osservando le frasi (26) e (27), possiamo stabilire l‟inaccettabilità del KON 2 (si
veda la sezione 1.1.2) considerando la sua presenza insieme alle altre due forme in
6
Il nome [+valutativo] corrisponde al termine [+distanza] che avevo usato in Chinellato
(2000).
7
Paolo Chinellato
termini di opzione [±marcata]. In (26) il KON 2 è inadeguato perché ha un valore
più marcato rispetto al contesto dell‟enunciazione e lo stesso vale per (27): questo
valore viene veicolato dal tratto [+valutativo] che risulta inadeguato nei contesti di
certezza espressi dalle due frasi.
1.1. I tratti morfosemantici del congiuntivo tedesco
1.1.1. Il konjunktiv 1
Confrontiamo la coniugazione del konjunktiv 1con il presente indicativo:
(28) Indicativo Presente
TEMPO
MODO
kommkommkomm-












RADICE
TEMPO
MODO
Ich
komm-

Du
Er/sie
Wir
kommkommkomm-



ee-
Ihr
Sie
kommkomm-
Ich
Du
Er/sie
Wir
Ihr
Sie
RADICE
kommkommkomm-
ACCORDO
e
st
t
en
t
en
(29) Konjunktiv 1




e
ACCORDO
e
st

en
t
en
In (29) il morfema –e– distingue il modo congiuntivo dall‟indicativo (i morfemi
di modo saranno sempre segnati in grassetto): il morfema è presente alla seconda
persona singolare e plurale e alla terza persona singolare.
Riassumendo, la distribuzione del tratto [+evidenziale] è la seguente:
8
(30)
PERSONA
Ich
Du
Er
Wir
Ihr
Sie
MORFEMA DI MODO
+
+
+
-
MORFEMA DI ACCORDO
+
+
+
+
+
1.1.2. Il konjunktiv 2
Consideriamo ora il konjunktiv 2 confrontandolo con la struttura del preterito:
Preterito del verbo gehen (andare)
(31)
Ich
Du
Er/sie
Wir
Ihr
Sie
TEMPO
gingginggingginggingging-
MODO
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
ACCORDO
Ø
st
Ø
en
t
en
TEMPO
MODO
ACCORDO
gingginggingginggingging-
eeeØ
eØ
Ø
st
Ø
en
t
en
(32)
KON 2 del verbo gehen (andare)
Ich
Du
Er/sie
Wir
Ihr
Sie
Come si vede in (32), la distribuzione del tratto [+ valutativo] è la seguente:
9
Paolo Chinellato
(33)
PERSONA
Ich
Du
Er /sie
Wir
Ihr
Sie
MODO
+
+
+
+
+
ACCORDO
+
+
+
+
1.2. Casi ambigui
Le frasi (34) e (35), inoltre,
(34) Hans sagte, dass wir nach Italien gingen
(35) Hans sagte, dass sie nach Italien gingen
non vengono interpretate come in (36), ma come in (37); la forma gingen viene
riconosciuta come preterito e non come KON 2:
(36) Gianni ha detto che noi/loro andiamo/vanno in Italia
(37) Gianni ha detto che noi/loro andavamo/andavano in Italia
Le voci verbali della prima e terza persona plurale si comportano come le voci
verbali dei verbi cosiddetti “deboli”, che hanno la stessa forma per il preterito e per
il KON 2 , come si vede nella frase (38): la forma studierte non viene riconosciuta
come KON 2, ma solamente come preterito e accettando la frase solo con
l‟interpretazione data in (39). In entrambi i casi, l‟unica forma ammessa di KON 2 è
7
la WF come appare in (40) :
(38) Hans sagte, dass ich Mathematik studiere/*studierte
(Gianni ha detto che io matematica studio IND = KON 1/ PRET = KON 2)
(39) Gianni ha detto che studiavo matematica
(40) Hans sagte, dass ich Mathematik studieren würde
7
10
Se il verbo subordinato è un verbo regolare (o “debole”), la sostituzione proposta dalla
grammatica tradizionale non sarà sufficiente, perché il KON 2 è uguale al preterito; la
grammatica tradizionale propone di sostituire le forme ambigue con la perifrasi chiamata
“würde-Form” (d‟ora in poi WF).
Pertanto, al KON 2 le voci verbali della prima e terza persona singolare dei verbi
irregolari e tutte le forme dei verbi regolari sono meno marcate perché in esse non è
presente il morfema -e- che esprime insieme alla morfologia passata il tratto
[+valutativo]. Un altro caso in cui, quando la forma del KON 2 è uguale al preterito,
essa viene interpretata come indicativo è il periodo ipotetico.
Le frasi (41) e (42),
(41) Wenn wir einen Brief schrieben, schrieben wir mit einen blauen Kugelschreieber.
(42) Wenn wir ein neues Auto kauften, kauften wir eine BMW
vengono interpretate come (43) e (44) e non come (45) e (46):
(43) Ogni volta che scrivevamo una lettera, scrivevamo con una penna blu
(44) Ogni volta che compravamo una nuova auto, compravamo una BMW
(45) Se scrivessimo una lettera, scriveremmo con una penna blu
(46) Se comprassimo un‟auto nuova, compreremmo una BMW
Anche qui, l‟unica possibilità di avere un periodo ipotetico è quello di sostituire
il KON 2 con la WF:
(47) Wenn wir einen Brief schreiben würden, würden wir mit einen blauen Kugelschreieber schreiben.
(48) Wenn wir ein neues Auto kaufen würde, würden wir eine BMW kaufen.
2. Un caso di selezione del modo congiuntivo in italiano
2.1. I tratti del congiuntivo
In questa sezione esaminerò i tratti del modo congiuntivo. Chiamerò tratto di
concordanza quel tratto presente nel verbo della frase principale e della subordinata
che lega tra loro i due verbi in un rapporto di tempo e/o di modo.
Distinguerò, quindi, il tratto di concordanza temporale [+CT] dal tratto di selezione di modo: per concordanza temporale mi riferisco ad una relazione temporale
definita del verbo principale che obbliga il verbo subordinato a concordarsi nello
stesso tempo e al modo congiuntivo; per selezione di modo intendo ciò che ho illustrato nella precedente sezione per il tedesco e cioè la selezione del tratto
[+evidenziale] (KON 1) o [+valutativo] (KON2).
11
Paolo Chinellato
In Italiano, il verbo credere al passato instaura un legame temporale e di modo
con il verbo subordinato (che deve essere un congiuntivo imperfetto). Il tratto [+CT]
è presente nell‟italiano contemporaneo:
(49) Gianni crede che Maria sia incinta.
(50) Gianni credeva che Maria fosse incinta.
(51) *Gianni credeva che Maria sia incinta.
L‟agrammaticalità di (51) dipende dal fatto che il verbo subordinato non possiede il tratto [+passato], ma [+presente], che non concorda però con il tempo della frase principale. In (52) la frase è accettabile perché, nonostante il verbo non abbia instaurato la selezione modale con il verbo principale, possiede comunque il tratto
[+passato] che si concorda con il tempo della frase principale:
(52) ? Gianni credeva che Maria era incinta
Considererò ora il verbo dire che seleziona il congiuntivo, che non è obbligatorio
per ragioni di consecutio temporum, ma mostra un comportamento analogo al discorso indiretto tedesco. Alcuni linguisti sostengono che il congiuntivo in italiano
non è ammesso se viene selezionato da un verbo di affermazione e se il soggetto è
8
espresso. Per questi autori (53) è agrammaticale :
(53) Marco e Maria hanno detto che il signor Bianchi abbia lavorato in Africa
Serianni (1988) e Portner (1997) sostengono il contrario portando come prova un
esempio tratto da un testo letterario. Riporto l‟esempio parafrasato in italiano con9
temporaneo presente nel lavoro di Portner (1997) :
(54) I ragazzi dicono che suo padre, il farmacista, stia sperimentando su di lui gli
effetti di un nuovo sciroppo purgativo.
Riscriviamo lo stesso periodo (con alcune modifiche) al passato con l‟indicativo,
col congiuntivo e il condizionale nella frase subordinata:
(55) Marco e Maria hanno detto che il padre di Gianni ha sperimentato un nuovo
sciroppo.
8
9
12
Wandruszka (1991): “Il congiuntivo si può usare anche in dipendenza da locuzioni con
soggetto indeterminato dicono, si dice, c’è chi dice, con le quali il contenuto della frase
subordinata può essere riportato come opinione o punto di vista esistenti, senza impegno
in merito da parte del parlante stesso.”
La parafrasi in italiano contemporaneo presente nel Portner (1997) è di Raffaella Zanuttini.
(56) Marco e Maria hanno detto che il padre di Gianni abbia sperimentato un nuovo
sciroppo.
(57) Marco e Maria hanno detto che il padre di Gianni avrebbe sperimentato un
nuovo sciroppo.
Tutti i tre modi sono accettabili, ma se proviamo a far seguire la frase da un contesto più preciso, vediamo che sia congiuntivo e condizionale risultano molto strani:
(58) Marco e Maria hanno detto che il padre di Gianni ha/??abbia/??avrebbe sperimentato un nuovo sciroppo e hanno ragione perché io l‟ho visto farlo.
(59) Marco e Maria hanno detto che il padre di Gianni ha/abbia/avrebbe sperimentato un nuovo sciroppo, ma questo non è vero.
I tre modi italiani, indicativo da una parte, congiuntivo e condizionale dall‟altra
sembrano comportarsi rispettivamente come l‟indicativo tedesco l‟uno e il KON 2
gli altri. La stranezza del congiuntivo e condizionale in (58) dipende dalla presenza
del tratto [+valutativo] che è in contrasto con il contesto della frase.
2.2. Analisi delle forme verbali
L‟analisi delle forme verbali dell‟Italiano standard delle prossime sezioni segue
l„impostazione di Thornton (1999): Thornton propone il seguente schema di costituzione delle forme flesse italiane, valido per l„indicativo e per il congiuntivo e per
altri modi verbali:
(60) a. base radicale + accordo nelle persone prima, seconda e terza singolare
b. base tematica + accordo nelle persone prima e seconda plurale
c. terza persona singolare + morfo di plurale = terza persona plurale
In questo lavoro considererò questo schema, modificando lo status della prima
persona plurale. Essa infatti risulta una forma irregolare in quanto la desinenza
-iamo risulta un‟espansione della forma del congiuntivo (cfr. Tagliavini (1969),
Vincent (1980), Bruni (1984)). Come dimostreremo più avanti questa forma e la
forma della seconda persona singolare della prima coniugazione vengono interpretate dai parlanti dell‟Italiano Standard come indicativo: propongo, quindi, di considerare -iamo come morfema di accordo della prima persona plurale:
(61) noi am-iamo nostro padre
(62) Gianni pensa [che noi am-iamo nostro padre]
13
Paolo Chinellato
In questo caso la –i di –iamo non viene interpretata come morfema di modo congiuntivo proprio perché non esiste in Italiano Standard una prima persona plurale
10
come in (63) tale che la forma in (62) possa sostituirla come congiuntivo :
(63) *noi ama-mo nostro padre
Riassumendo propongo, per la prima persona plurale, indicativo e congiuntivo, il
seguente schema:
(64) 1^ persona plurale: Radice + Nuovo Accordo
Per l‟analisi delle forme del congiuntivo imperfetto seguirò la proposta di Thornton (1999), che ipotizza per ogni tempo e modo una base radicale e una base tematica come nello schema riportato in (60). Secondo questo schema la base radicale
dell‟imperfetto è costituita dalla base tematica del presente con il morfema di tempo
–v-. La base tematica è formata da questa radice e dalla vocale tematica, come si può
vedere in (65) (la base radicale e tematica dell‟imperfetto sono segnate in grassetto),
mentre in (66a) la radice non mostra il morfema di tempo che è caduto, ma che era
presente nella forma latina di provenienza (66b):
(65) [[[[am]R –a ]T –v ]R –a T]
(66) a. [[[[am]R–a]T  ]R –ssi T]
b. [[[[am]R –a]T –v]R –sset T]
2.3. Casi ambigui
Un verbo della classe dei verba sentiendi in Italiano Standard seleziona il congiuntivo nella frase subordinata: consideriamo la frase (67), che contiene un verbo
alla prima coniugazione alla seconda persona singolare, che non distingue tra indica11
tivo e congiuntivo :
(67) Gianni pensa che proprio in questo momento tu parli (IND = CONG) alla
conferenza.
Per intensificare il rapporto di contemporaneità nel presente tra la frase principale e la subordinata, (68) sembra la sostituzione migliore:
(68) Gianni pensa che proprio in questo momento tu stia parlando alla conferenza.
10
11
14
In varietà non standard si hanno prime persone plurali formate secondo lo schema proposto da Thornton (1999): cfr. i tipi parlamo, vedemo, sentimo.
In questa sezione mi occuperò solo dell‟Italiano Standard. I parlanti che di solito selezionano un indicativo dopo i verba sentiendi, sentono quest‟uso, cioè (67), legato alla loro
varietà regionale che non prevede il congiuntivo. Ringrazio Anna Cardinaletti e Giuliana
Giusti per i giudizi su questo punto.
Notiamo che in presenza di un verbo irregolare con le forme di indicativo e congiuntivo distinte, la sostituzione non sembra essere necessaria come non lo è per le
seconde persone delle altre coniugazioni:
(69) Gianni pensa che proprio in questo momento tu vada / stia andando al cinema
(70) Gianni pensa che in questo periodo tu beva / stia bevendo troppo gin.
(71) Gianni pensa che in questo periodo tu dorma / stia dormendo troppo.
La stessa frase (67), risulta inaccettabile quando la subordinata esprime un rapporto di posteriorità come in (72) e diventa accettabile con la sostituzione in (73):
(72) *Gianni pensa che domani tu parli bene alla conferenza
(73) Gianni pensa che domani parlerai bene alla conferenza
Anche qui la sostituzione non sembra obbligatoria per un verbo irregolare della
prima coniugazione e per le altre coniugazioni:
(74) a. Gianni pensa che domani tu vada/andrai al cinema
b Gianni pensa che domani tu scriva/scriverai una lettera
c Gianni pensa che domani tu dorma/dormirai fino a mezzogiorno
2.4. Riepilogo
In § 1 abbiamo individuato i tratti espressi dal KON 1 e dal KON 2:
(75) KON 1: [+evidenziale]
KON 2: [+valutativo]
In 2.1 abbiamo visto che se selezionato da un verbo di affermazione (dire) il modo congiuntivo e condizionale italiani esprimono il tratto [+valutativo].
3. Il Principio di Sostituzione
Dall‟analisi dei dati considerati in tedesco (§ 1) e in italiano (§ 2) sembra pertanto che vi sia un principio che regoli l‟interpretazione di due forme morfologicamente uguali:
(76) Principio di Sostituzione (PdS):
Se hai una forma morfologicamente identica per due modi verbali diversi, interpreta tale forma come quella appartenente al modo meno marcato e sostituiscila con una forma più marcata se il contesto te lo richiede.
In tedesco le forme in (77a, b, c)
15
Paolo Chinellato
(77) a. ich hab-e [-evidenziale]
b. wir hab-en [-evidenziale]
c. sie hab-en [-evidenziale]
vengono interpretate solo ed esclusivamente come indicativi perché non possiedono
un morfema di modo come quello presente nelle altre forme verbali in (77d, e, f) e
non riescono ad esprimere il tratto [+evidenziale]
d. du hab-e-st [+evidenziale]
e. er hab-e
[+evidenziale]
f. ihr hab-e-t [+evidenziale]
Allo stesso modo le forme in (78)
(78) a. wir ging-en [-valutativo]
b. sie ging-en [-valutativo]
non possedendo il morfema –e non esprimono i valori del tratto [+valutativo], come
invece le forme in (79), e vengono interpretate come voci dell‟indicativo preterito:
(79) a. ich ging-e
b. du ging-e
c. er ging-e
d. ihr ging-e
[+valutativo]
[+valutativo]
[+valutativo]
[+valutativo]
In italiano forme come in (80) non esprimono alcun tratto morfosemantico e non
possono instaurare un rapporto di posteriorità con la frase principale; il congiuntivo
12
non riesce ad esprimere il suo tratto [+irrealis] e di conseguenza viene interpretato
come la forma meno marcata, l‟indicativo presente:
(80) a. *Gianni pensa che domani tu parli bene alla conferenza
b. Gianni pensa che domani tu parlerai bene alla conferenza
[-irrealis]
[+irrealis]
In (81) entrambe le forme esprimono il tratto [+irrealis] e la scelta tra le due diventa in italiano standard opzionale:
(81) a. Gianni pensa che domani tu scriva/scriverai una lettera
[+irrealis]
b. Gianni pensa che domani tu dorma / dormirai fino a mezzogiorno [+irrealis]
12
16
Cfr. Scorretti (1991) e Poletto (1995), (2000) per il tratto [+irrealis], del congiuntivo, del
futuro e del condizionale.
4. Argomenti a sostegno del principio di sostituzione
4.1. Un’osservazione comparativa
4.1.1. Il Veneziano
Consideriamo una varietà dialettale come il veneziano, che ha alla prima coniugazione il modo congiuntivo uguale all‟indicativo tranne che nella prima persona
singolare:
(82) Mario e Maria i sa che fumo massa
(Mario e Maria sanno che fumo troppo)
(83) Mario e Maria i crede che mi fuma massa
(Mario e Maria credono che io fumi troppo)
e alla seconda e terza coniugazione la prima persona singolare e la terza singolare e
plurale distinte tra indicativo e congiuntivo:
(84) a. Mario e Maria i sa che mi bevo/dormo massa
b. Mario e Maria i sa che iù beve/dorme massa
c. Mario e Maria i sa che iori i beve / i dorme massa
(85) a. Mario e Maria i crede che mi beva/dorma massa
b. Mario e Maria i crede che ‟l beva/dorma massa
c. Mario e Maria i crede che iori i beva / i dorma
Se il verbo subordinato deve indicare posteriorità, anche in veneziano la forma
corrispondente ad (86), (87), risulta inaccettabile:
(86) *Gianni crede che domani tu parli bene alla conferenza
(87) *Nane el crede che domàn te parli ben ala conferensa
Entrambe le forme sono perfettamente grammaticali se vengono selezionate da
un verbo che ammette solo l‟indicativo come sapere:
(88) Gianni sa che domani tu parli alla conferenza
(89) Nane sa che domàn ti te parli ben ala conferensa
Le frasi (86) e (87) andranno sostituite con una forma più marcata come il futuro,
che contiene il tratto [+irrealis]:
(90) Gianni crede che domani parlerai bene alla conferenza
(91) Nane el crede che domàn te parlerà ben ala conferensa
17
Paolo Chinellato
Anche in veneziano, come in italiano standard, quando la forma uguale ai due
modi è usata per indicare posteriorità (caratteristica del modo marcato, il congiuntivo), essa risulta inaccettabile perché interpretata come indicativo, cioè la
meno marcata. Anche in questo caso sembra trovare applicazione il Principio di
Sostituzione.
4.1.2. Il Bellunese
Il Bellunese, è una varietà più conservativa del veneziano. Quando la forma del
congiuntivo è distinta da quella dell‟indicativo, essa risulta grammaticale per indicare posteriorità, senza dover ricorrere alla sostituzione col futuro indicativo.
In (92) l‟indicativo è inaccettabile perché il verbo credere seleziona il modo congiuntivo, (frase (93)), e il futuro indicativo risulta strano (frase (94)) poiché il verbo
della frase principale ha a disposizione una forma di congiuntivo (che non è disponibile in Italiano standard e in veneziano) e quindi non ha bisogno del Principio di
Sostituzione:
(92)
*Nani ‟l crede che domàn ti te compra an vestito novo
(Gianni crede che domani tu compri / IND un vestito nuovo)
(93)
Nani ‟l crede che domàn ti te compre an vestito novo
(Gianni crede che domani tu compri / CONG in vestito nuovo)
(94)
?? Nani ‟l crede che domàn ti te comprarà an vestito novo.
(Gainni crede che domani tu comprerai un vestito nuovo)
4.2. Cancellazione del complementatore e congiuntivo
L‟altro argomento a sostegno dell‟interpretazione di forme uguali interpretate
come appartenenti al modo meno marcato, riguarda la cancellazione del complementatore che (d‟ora in poi CD, dall‟inglese Complementizer Deletion), possibile
con il modo congiuntivo, ma non con l‟indicativo:
(95)
Gianni crede sia malato
(96)
*Gianni sa è malato
La CD è possibile con il congiuntivo nei seguenti contesti:
(97)
Gianni crede tu sia malato
(verbo essere)
(98)
Gianni crede tu abbia ragione
(verbo avere)
(99)
Gianni crede tu debba farlo
(verbo modale)
(100) Gianni crede tu possa farlo
(verbo modale)
18
(101) Gianni crede tu voglia andartene
(verbo modale)
(102) Gianni crede tu beva troppo
(2^ coniugazione)
(103) Gianni crede tu dorma troppo
(3^ coniugazione)
Con la seconda persona singolare della prima coniugazione e la prima persona
plurale di tutte le coniugazioni, abbiamo agrammaticalità come si vede in
(104)/(107):
(104) *Gianni crede tu fumi troppo
(105) *Gianni crede noi fumiamo troppo
(106) *Gianni crede noi beviamo troppo
(107) *Gianni crede noi dormiamo troppo
Appare evidente che queste forme vengono interpretate come indicativi, poiché
non ammettono CD. Questo dato è coerente con i risultati raggiunti nella sezione 2.
5. Conclusioni
In questo lavoro ho proposto che i tratti presenti nei morfemi verbali di modo intervengono nell‟interpretazione semantica del verbo all‟interno di una frase subordinata. In primo luogo ho analizzato la selezione del modo in tedesco (sezione 1) e in
italiano (sezione 2).
Ho rilevato che le forme coincidenti tra congiuntivo e indicativo, cioè che non
possiedono alcun tratto veicolato da alcun morfema di modo, vengono interpretate
come forme meno marcate, cioè forme del modo indicativo. In base a queste osservazioni ho formulato un principio che sembra regolare l‟interpretazione di tali forme, che ho chiamato Principio di Sostituzione (PdS, sezione 3):
Se hai una forma morfologicamente identica per due modi verbali diversi, interpreta tale forma come quella appartenente al modo meno marcato e sostituiscila
con una forma più marcata se il contesto te lo richiede.
Nella sezione 4 ho presentato due argomenti a sostegno del Pds: in 4.1 ho analizzato il caso di due varietà dialettali, Veneziano e Bellunese. Il Veneziano
(4.1.1) sembra comportarsi come l‟Italiano standard e applica il PdS, mentre il
Bellunese (4.1.2) non lo applica proprio perché avendo due forme distinte tra indicativo e congiuntivo non ne ha bisogno. In 4.2 infine ho considerato il caso della
CD in Italiano Standard e la sua impossibilità con forme di congiuntivo uguali
all‟indicativo.
19
Paolo Chinellato
Bibliografia
Bruni, F., (1984), L’italiano. Elementi di storia delle lingue e della cultura, Torino, Utet.
Chinellato, P., (1998), Su alcuni aspetti della concordanza di tempo e modo in italiano e tedesco:
un’analisi nel quadro della teoria generativa, Tesi di Laurea, Università di Venezia.
Chinellato, P., (2000), Il modo congiuntivo tedesco: una proposta d‟analisi, in corso di stampa.
Cinque, G., (1999), Adverbs and Funcional Heads. A Cross - Linguistic Perspective, Oxford University Press.
Giorgi, A., & Pianesi, F., (1997), Tense and Aspect: from Semantics to Morphosyntax, Oxford
University Press.
Poletto, C., (1995), Complementizer Deletion and Verb Movement, in Venice Working Papers in
Linguistics, vol. 5 n. 2., pp. 49-79.
Poletto C., (2000), The Higher Functional Field. Evidence from Northern Italian Dialects, Oxford
University Press.
Portner, P., (1997), The Semantics of Mood, Complementation and Conversational Force, in
Natural Language Semantics, vol. 5, n. 2., pp. 167-212.
Scorretti, M., (1991), Complementizers in Italian and Romance, Tesi di Dottorato, Università di
Amsterdam.
Serianni, L., (1988), Grammatica Italiana. Italiano comune e lingua letteraria. Torino, Utet.
Thornton, A.M., (1999), Diagrammaticità, uniformità di codifica e morfomicità nella flessione
verbale italiana, in SLI 41, Atti del XXXI Congresso di Fonologia e Morfologia
dell’Italiano e dei dialetti d’Italia, Bulzoni, Roma, 483-502.
Vincent, N., (1980), Words versus morphemes in morphological change: the case of Italian -iamo,
in J. Fisiak (a cura di), Historical Morphology, The Hague, Mouton, 383-398.
Wandruszka, U., (1991), Frasi subordinate al congiuntivo, in L.Renzi e G. Salvi (a cura di),
Grande grammatica italiana di consultazione, II, pp. 117–156, Bologna, Il Mulino.
20
THE ARTICULATION OF INFLECTION
IN JAMAICAN CREOLE1
Stephanie DURRLEMAN
0. Introduction
This paper explores the syntax of declarative clauses in Jamaican Creole (JC), focussing on the articulation of inflection in this language. The investigation situates itself within the Principles and Parameters framework, which upholds that the study of
any natural human language reveals a complex linguistic system regulated by the Principles and Parameters of Universal Grammar (UG). Under this perspective, the examination of the architecture of the clause in JC is expected to show compatibility with the
very elaborate functional clause-structure provided by UG (Pollock (1989), Belletti
(1990), Cinque (1999)). This research verifies the validity of such a prediction. The
work is organized as follows: section 1 presents the universal clause-structure in question, section 2 concentrates on the compatibility of the articulation of inflection in JC
with this sophisticated clausal architecture, section 3 turns to theoretical issues raised
by this comparison, section 4 highlights the evidence from JC for the framework provided by Cinque (1999), and section 5 concludes the discussion.
1. The Architecture of the Clause
1.1. The Split-Infl Hypothesis
The structure in (1) illustrates a first application of X‟-schema to both lexical and
functional categories of sentential structure:
1
This paper is a reduced version of Durrleman (1999). I thank Enoch Aboh, Guglielmo
Cinque, Eric Haeberli, Liliane Haegeman, and Luigi Rizzi for their comments. Thanks are
also due to Deborah DePass, Leah DePass and Evelyn Miller for their intuitions on the
data considered.
21
Stephanie Durrleman
(1)
CP
C‟
Spec
C°
IP
I‟
DP
I°
VP
DP
V‟
V°
XP
Although this analysis is essentially on the right track, it has had to be modified
into a more articulate structure on the basis of both conceptual and empirical shortcomings:
(a) Conceptually, it is undesirable to associate a single X° with independent sets of
features such as tense and agreement.
(b) Empirically, the splitting of this projection is forced so as to accommodate word
2
order variations such as those found between French and English :
(2) AGRP
AGR‟
NP
AGR
TP
T‟
T
VP…
(Pollock (1989), Belletti (1990))
A recent development of clause structure has led to the postulation of additional
functional projections to those in (2). Much of the evidence for this stems from a
meticulous observation of the behaviour of adverbs as discussed in Cinque (1999),
as well as that of bound and free functional heads expressing Tense, Modality and
Aspect. The present paper situates itself within the framework provided by Cinque
(1999). More specifically, it aims at testing its validity on new evidence of the third
sort: i.e. free functional morphemes as found in the grammar of JC.
2
22
C.f. Pollock (1989).
The articulation of inflection in Jamaican Creole
1.2. Cinque (1999)
1.2.1. A hierarchy of classes of adverbs
Adverbial hierarchy is established on the observation that certain adverbs (each
representative of a class) necessarily precede others. For example, consider the
data in (3) and (4) from French which examines the position of déjà in relation to
pas and plus:
(3) a. Si tu n‟as pas déjà mangé, tu peux le prendre
„If you have not already eaten, you can take it‟
b. *Si tu n‟as déjà pas mangé, tu peux le prendre
„If you have already not eaten, you can take it‟
(4) a. A l‟époque, il ne possédait déjà plus rien
„At the time, he did not possess already any longer anything‟
b. *A l‟époque, il ne possédait plus déjà rien
„At the time, he did not possess any longer already anything‟
These examples yield the relative orders: pas > déjà and déjà > plus. Through
transitivity, it is expected that plus be more structurally embedded than pas. At first
sight, this may appear difficult to prove since the two cannot co-occur:
(5) a. *Ils n‟ont pas plus téléphoné
They haven‟t not any longer telephoned
b. *Ils n‟ont plus pas téléphoné
They haven‟t any longer not telephoned
Despite the impossible co-occurrence of pas and plus, evidence with respect to
lexical infinitives (Pollock (1989)) upholds that, as expected from the data above,
pas is higher than plus in the structure:
(6) a. Ne dormir plus
b. Ne plus dormir
(7) a. *Ne dormir pas
b. Ne pas dormir
The data above can be accounted for in terms of the syntactic analysis in (8):
(8) [ _ [ pas _ [ plus … dormir ]]]
X
23
Stephanie Durrleman
This argumentation upholds both a hierarchical organisation of adverbs, the lat3
ter‟s status as XPs , as well as the presence of intervening X° positions where, for
example, a lexical verb [-fin] can occur.
The hierarchy of AdvPs proposed in Cinque (1999) on the basis of evidence
from Romance (Italian and French), is shown to hold cross-linguistically: English,
Norwegian, Bosnian/Serbo-croatian, Hebrew, Chinese, and Albanian, to name a few
languages, reveal a striking consistency in the ordering of adverb classes. Indeed,
despite the occasional surface variations of adverbial orders from one language to
the next, it is illustrated in Cinque (1999) that, upon closer examination, these variations remain consistent with a single overall order. An example of apparent crosslinguistic variation in the ordering of adverbs may be found between English and
Romance always/sempre and any longer / più:
(9) John doesn‟t always win his games any longer
(10) a. Gianni non vince più sempre le sue partite
G. [neg] win any longer always his games
b. *Gianni non vince sempre più le sue partite
However, “when both always and (not..) any longer appear before the verb, their
order is just like that found in Italian (Romance)” (Cinque (1999, 33):
(11) a. John doesn‟t any longer always win his games
b. *John doesn‟t always any longer win his games
The apparent subversion of the order of adverbs in (9) can therefore be analysed
as XP movement of [always win his games] across any longer as shown in (12).
Movement across any longer gives rise to a slight focus on this adverb:
(12) John doesn‟t [always win his games] i any longer ti
Through this type of meticulous consideration of the syntactic behaviour of adverbs, the single, universal order of AdvPs is identified:
(13) Frankly > fortunately > allegedly > probably > once > then > perhaps > necessarily > possibly > willingly > inevitably > cleverly > usually> again > often > quickly > already > no longer > still > always > just > soon > briefly >
characteristically > almost > completely > tutto > well > fast/early > co mpletely > again > often
3
24
Note that if adverbs were X°s, they should block X° movement (e.g. of the infinitive) under Relativized Minimality (Rizzi 1990).
Independently of AdvPs, Cinque (1999) determines the order of clausal functional heads based on evidence from bound and free morphological inflection. Once
again, he examines a wide variety of languages, and the overt relative orders evinced
in these support his claim that, as found to obtain for AdvPs, functional heads are
universally organised in a single overall order.
1.2.2. Bound functional morphemes
If a universal hierarchy of functional heads indeed exists, then head-initial languages such as English should reflect the mirror image to that observed in „headfinal‟ languages such as German:
(14) English: These books have been being read all year
→ Tense > Aspectperfect > Aspectprogressive
(15) German: …da er von der Bank angestellt worden sein muss
… that he by the bank employed been have must
„… that he must have been employed by the bank‟
→ Aspectperfect > Tense > Modal
The data above confirms that, as a consequence of the headedness parameter,
German virtually duplicates the evidence from English for the order of functional
heads.
1.2.3. Free functional morphemes
Free functional morphemes behave differently to bound functional morphemes in
that they disallow the head immediately below them to adjoin onto them. Consequently, in instances of head-initial languages evincing particles, the latter “allow us
to directly observe the order of functional heads. One such case is provided by creole languages” (Cinque 1999, 58).
Literature on Creoles has generally claimed that the ordering of functional particles is Tense - Mood/modal – Aspect, wherefore the reference to these as TMA
markers. Cinque (1999, 59) underlines that “(t)hough in essence correct, this ordering is somewhat gross, and must be qualified. For one thing, various aspectual particles can co-occur, so that their relative order needs to be determined”. Cinque‟s
careful analysis of data from head-initial Guyanese Creole, Haitian Creole, and
Sranan leads to a refinement of this claim. For example, Guyanese Creole provides
evidence for co-occurring aspectual particles:
(16) Shi a aalweez/neva de a sing
(Guyanese Creole; Gibson 1986, 852f)
She HAB always/never DUR PROG sing
„She usually always/never keeps singing‟
25
Stephanie Durrleman
Therefore different positions for Asp head positions must be provided in the
structure.
Secondly, Cinque (1999, 59) notes that “there are occasional claims in the literature for the order Modal > Tense rather than Tense > Modal”. Guyanese Creole once
again gives insight for the postulation of various positions for modals:
(17) Jaan shuda bin kyaan get fu gu
(Guyanese Creole; Gibson 1986, 585)
J. MODepistemic PAST MODr MODr COMP go
„J. should not have been able to be allowed to go‟
The data in (17) shows different positions for epistemic versus root modals (ability > permission) with respect to tense: indeed whereas the former precedes T°, the
latter follows it. Therefore Cinque (1999) refines the traditional analysis of TMA
markers so as to derive a more articulate structure with different positions for accommodating different modal types.
The more intricate structure of functional particles established on the basis of
head-initial languages is further supported by evidence from „head-final‟ languages
which also make use of functional particles (e.g. Kachin of the Tibeto-Burman area,
or Sanio-Hiowe of New Guinea): The latter in fact display their particles sentence
finally, in a mirror image order to that which is established on the basis of direct
evidence from „head-initial‟ languages with particles.
Putting the attested relative orders together, Cinque (1999) arrives at the single
overall order in (18):
(18) Moodspeech act > Moodevaluative > Moodevidential > Modepistemic > T(Past) > T(Future)
> Moodirrealis Modnecessity > Modpossibility > Modvolition > Modobligation > Modability/permission > Asphabitual > T(Anterior) > Aspperfect/imperfect > Aspretrospective > Aspdurative > Asp generic/progressive > Aspprospective > AspCompletive > Voice > Aspcelerative > Aspcompletive > Asp(semel)repetitive > Asp iterative
At this stage one can observe the two independently established hierarchies,
namely that of AdvPs and that of functional heads, and see that they generally match
semantically from left to right:
(19) [Frankly Moodspeech act [fortunately Moodevaluative [allegedly Moodevidentia l
[probably Modepistemic [once T(Past) [then T(Future) [perhaps Moodirrealis [necessarily Modnecessity [possibly Modpossibility [willingly Modvolition [inevitably Modobligation [cleverly Modability/permission [usually Asphabitual [again Asprepetitive(I) [often
Aspfrequentative(I) [quickly Aspcelerative(I) [already T(Anterior) [no longer Aspterminative
[still Aspcontinuative [always Aspperfect(?) [just Aspretrospective [soon Aspproximative
[briefly Aspdurative [characteristically (?) [? Asp generic/progressive [almost Aspprospec26
[completely Aspcompletive(I) [tutto AspPlCompletive [well Voice [fast/early Aspcelerative(II) [completely AspSgCompletive(II) [again Asprepetitive(II) [often Aspfrequentative(II) …
tive
Cinque (1999, 77) writes that “(i)n many cases a transparent specifier/head relation between a certain adverb class and the right-adjacent functional head is immediately recognizable”.
He concludes that the essential compatibility of individual languages attested
with this comprehensive order cannot be accidental. Rather, it follows as a consequence of the fact that the structure in (19) above is a fixed order determined by UG.
Therefore Cinque (1999) predicts that no human language should prove incompatible with the hierarchy expressed in (19) or refinements of it. JC is a new territory on
which to test Cinque‟s (1999) clause structure.
2. The articulation of Inflection in JC
Inflectional markers are the overt manifestation of clausal functional heads, and
their corresponding adverbs are the overt realisation of the specifiers of their projections. The investigation undertaken in this paper verifies if a rigid order exists
amongst the functional material of the clause in JC, as predicted by the framework,
and if such a hierarchy is compatible with that established in Cinque (1999).
2.1. The preverbal markers
JC exhibits SVO surface order:
4
(20) Dem
en/did nuo dat
S
V O
Them [+past] know that
„They knew that‟
Verbs are not conjugated via inflectional morphology in this language. In (20),
an independent inflectional element, en (rural) or did (urban) depending on the variety of Creole, precedes the verb stem and gives rise to a past interpretation. These
markers do not agree in tense or number with the subject:
(21) Mi/yu/Im/Wi/Uno/Dem
en/did nuo betta
I/you/S/he/We/You[+plural]/They [+past] know better
„I/you/S/he/We/You[+plural]/They knew better‟
4
En and did express past tense in rural and urban Creole respectively. Some of the data
drawn from the literature on JC use en, so I familiarise the reader with this marker here.
Although this marker is not unfamiliar to me, I will not always give it in my examples as I
am not personally a user of it.
27
Stephanie Durrleman
JC makes use of markers to express not only tense, but also mood and aspect
(TMA). All of these markers, when used, must intervene between the subject and the
invariant verb form, as seen for past tense markers in (20) and (21). An example of a
modal is given in (22), and an aspectual marker in (23):
(22) Im shuda nyam di bammy lang taim
S/he [+modal] eat the bammy long time
„S/he should‟ve eaten the bammy a long time ago‟
(23) Im a nyam di bammy
S/he [+progressive] eat the bammy
„S/he is eating the bammy‟
Long sequences of these middle-field inflectional markers seldom occur in JC,
but nevertheless they can potentially be used combinatorily, and occasionally are, as
long as they fall in a fixed order:
(24) a. Jan shuda en a ron
S/he [+modal] [+past] [+prog] run
„S/he should have been running‟
b. *Jan shuda a en ron
c. *Jan en shuda a ron
d. *Jan en a shuda ron
e. *Jan a shuda en ron
f. *Jan a en shuda ron
Bailey (1966)
2.2. Modals
2.2.1. Mod(al) 1
The examples in (24a-f) suggest that in JC the structural hierarchy of inflectional
markers gives rise to certain modals, here shuda, dominating tense and aspect markers. An inventory of these initial modals is given in (25):
(25) shuda, wuda, maita, mosa, kuda
A particularity of modals belonging to this class is that they tend to all end in a
(26) Im neva shuda tief di mango-dem
S/he never [+modal] thief the mango-[plur]
„S/he never should‟ve stolen the mangoes‟
Modal-associated a is not a marker encoding past time (such as perfective have
in the Standard), contrary to what the gloss for (26) may imply. Notice that stative
verbs may follow these sequences and give rise to a present interpretation (27):
28
(27) Betta Jan no tell im dat, caw im wuda tink seh im a di bess!
Better John [neg] tell him that, „cause him [+modal] think that him [equative]
the best
„(It‟s) better that John doesn‟t tell him that, because he would think that he‟s
the best!‟
The past interpretation is therefore not forced by the presence of this modal-a
element at all.
Modals from different sets can be combined in JC. The first set of modals in the
hierarchy of modal markers is Mod(al)1. Modals of the same set cannot be combined amongst themselves:
(28) a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
*Im shuda wuda…
*Im wuda shuda…
*Im shuda maita…
*Im maita shuda…
*Im shuda mosa…
*Im mosa shuda…
*Im shuda kuda…
*Im kuda shuda… etc.
2.2.2. Mod(al)s 2 & 3
In the event that the combination of modals takes place (29a, 30a), this combination must respect a certain ordering constraint, otherwise the result is ungrammatical
(29b-d, 30b-d):
(29) a. Im shooda muss kyan get tru
„He must surely be able to succeed‟
Adams (1995)
(30) a. dat-de biebi wuda mos hafi priti
„That baby would have to be pretty‟
Bailey (1966)
(29) b.
c.
d.
e.
*Im muss shooda kyan get tru
*Im kyan muss shooda get tru
*Im muss kyan shooda get tru
*Im shuda kyan muss get tru
(30) b.
c.
d.
e.
*Dat-de biebi mos wuda hafi priti
*Dat-de biebi hafi mos wuda priti
*Dat-de biebi mos hafi wuda priti
*Dat-de biebi wuda hafi mos priti
29
Stephanie Durrleman
As a result the first set of modals, Mod1, whose members always end in a, can
be opposed to mos, hafi and kyan which occur deeper in the structure. Mos can in
turn be opposed to hafi and kyan in that the former precedes the latter.
On the basis of these observations, the positions of modals in the structure of JC
5
seem to fall in the fixed order given in (31) :
(31) [Mod1 kuda/wuda/shuda/mosa/maita] > [Mod2 mos] > [Mod3 hafi, kyan] …
As already attested for Mod1, modals belonging to the same set compete for the
same position and consequently cannot be combined amongst each other:
(32) a. *Im kyan hafi…
b. *Im hafi kyan…
2.3. Tense
2.3.1. Past Tense
In the sequence of inflectional markers in JC, just after the modals ending in a
comes the past tense marker en in basilectal varieties, did in mesolectal ones:
(33) Im wooda en say
(Adams 1995)
S/he would have [+past] say
„S/he would have said‟
Im wooda did say
S/he wouldhave [+past] say
This tense marker is optional in sentences such as those given in (33): even in the
event that en and did were done away with, the interpretation yielded could still correspond to the conditional past:
(34) Im wooda say
This is because null tense specification is the default mechanism for expressing
past with non-stative verbs in JC:
(35) Im say dat saim ting deh
S/he say that same thing there
„S/he said that very thing‟
5
30
It is not immediately obvious why sequences such as …*kuda kyan…, and …*mosa
mos…are banned, as the mutual exclusion of these elements can neither be accounted for
in terms of competition for the same position, nor in terms of semantics alone. Notice that
in French, a similar constraint on modals exists: *pouvait pouvoir, *devrait devoir.
Since [-stative] verbs have a default interpretation corresponding to a past-time
reading, then in the case of these verbs the insertion of a [+past] tense marker did
generally yields an anterior past interpretation.
(36) Jan did nyam di bammi
John [+past] eat the bammy
„John had eaten the bammy‟
The potential temporal specifications for a non-stative verb such as ron are given
in (37):
(37) a. Mi ron
b. Mi en ron
I run (habitually); I ran
I have run; I had run
6
Sebba (1993)
The [±stative] nature of the verb plays a crucial role in determining tense in the
absence of markers: we have seen that a non-stative verb without markers has a default interpretation corresponding to past-time. With respect to stative verbs, however, the absence of particles usually results in a non-past interpretation:
(38) Jan tink seh im  a di bess
John think that he [equative] the best
„John thinks/*thought that he is/*was the best‟
Therefore the [±stative] nature of a verb plays an important role in the temporal
specifications assigned to this verb. On the one hand, the default time specification
for non-stative verbs is past, so that when en/did combine with [-stative] verbs the
result is an anterior past interpretation. On the other hand, the default time specification for stative verbs is present, so the insertion of the pre-verbal markers en/did are
necessary in order to obtain a past interpretation for [+stative] verbs.
2.3.2. Future Tense
The markers en/did considered above are tense indicators of past, in contrast to
wi which is an indicator of futurity:
(39) Jan wi nyam dat
„John will eat that‟
Futurity may also be expressed by the aspectual a+go, which often becomes ao
in rapid speech:
(40) Im a (g)o nyam dat
S/he [prog] [prosp] eat that
S/he is going to eat that
6
Sebba (1993) draws on Bailey (1966).
31
Stephanie Durrleman
Wi and a+(g)o behave differently with respect to en/did. The former, though not
the latter, is in complementary distribution with the past tense markers. Indeed, the
sense of imminence given by the Asp markers a+(g)o may very well serve in the
description of some past event:
(41) a. *Im en/did wi nyam dat
b. *Im wi en/did nyam dat
(42) Im en/did a (g)o nyam dat aaff, bot mi stap im
“S/he was going to eat it all up, but I stopped her/him”
Given the complementary distribution between wi and en/did, wi is analysed here
as a T marker expressing the opposite value (future) to en/did (past). The mutual exclusion of these elements could then be accounted for in terms of their targeting the
same T head. This analysis does not extend to a(g)o in light of the compatibility of
a(g)o with en/did. A(g)o is therefore considered an aspectual marker of futurity.
2.4. Modals and T
2.4.1. Mod1 and T
We have already observed in example (33) repeated here as (43) that mood
(Mod1) must precede tense.
(43) Im wooda en say
(Adams 1995)
S/he would+have [+past] say
Im wooda did say
S/he would+have [+past] say
We can see now that the various tense markers must in turn precede aspectual
ones:
(44) a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
Im did a (g)o nyam…
*Im a did/en (g)o nyam…
*Im (g)o did/en a nyam…
*Im a (g)o did/en nyam…
*Im (g)o a did/en nyam…
Examples (44a-e) confirm that tense must precede aspect. (45) gives the order established so far:
(45) Mod1 > T > Asp
2.4.2. Mod 2 & 3 and T
Mods 2 and 3, unlike Mod1, cannot precede a tense particle. Instead, Mods 2 and
3 must follow did/wi:
32
(46) *Im did shooda laugh
(47) Im did hafi laugh
„She had to laugh‟
(48) (Mi feel seh wen di taim come ) im wi kyan dwiit
„(I feel that when the time comes) s/he will be able to do it‟
7
(49) Im wi mos hafi tek dat
„S/he will be obliged to take that‟
This means that Mod 2 and 3 are to be situated lower down in the structure than
T. In the event that they behave like other lexical verbs, one could situate them under V. However this is unlikely: note that unlike lexical verbs, they cannot be situated below aspect because of the ungrammaticality of the following sequences:
(50) *(Wen di taim come,) im a (o) hafi laugh
vs. Im wi hafi laugh
(51) *(Wen di taim come,)maybe im a (o) kyan dwiit vs. Maybe im wi kyan dwiit
The ordering of TMA markers thus seems to be as follows:
(52) [Mod1 wuda/shuda/mosa/maita] > [T en/did/wi] > [Mod2 mos] > [Mod3 hafi,
kyan] > [Asp1 a [Asp2 (g)o] [V…]
Therefore tense intervenes between epistemic and root modals. Recall that Guyanese Creole exhibits a similar phenomenon:
(53) Jaan shuda bin kyaan get fu gu
J. MODepistemic PAST MODr MODr go
„J. should not have been able to be allowed to go‟.
(Gibson 1986, 585)
Cinque (1999) highlights that the distributional variation between different modal types in relation to T is linked to their correspondingly different interpretational
values: Epistemic (pre-T° modals) are analysed as being “concerned with the
speaker‟s deductions or opinions” versus root modals (post-T° markers) which, “in
contrast to epistemic (…) are strictly subject oriented”.
8
In JC, an epistemic and a root version of the same modal exist : mosa and mos.
The semantic contrasts between these two offers new ground where one can test this
epistemic/root distinction:
7
8
See also Bailey (1966, 44) for more examples.
Kuda has alethic particularities which render it difficult to strike a clear contrast with
kyan. C.f. Cinque (1999, 78,79 & 198n3).
33
Stephanie Durrleman
(54) Jan mosa did hafi tell dem
„John most probably/more than likely had to tell them‟ / „*John was obliged to
tell them‟
(55) Jan did mos hafi tell dem
9
„John was obliged to tell them‟ / „ % John probably had to tell them‟
Whereas the preferred interpretation for mos yields the notion of necessary obligation with respect to the subject Jan, this is not accessible to mosa, which does not
emphasise Jan‟s obligation, but rather invokes the speaker‟s opinion with respect to
Jan‟s plausible obligation.
Another clear difference between the two has to do with their use in questions:
mosa though not mos, gives rise to a distinct awkwardness in a question:
(56) ??Jan mosa did hafi tell dem?
(57) Jan did mos hafi tell dem?
Jackendoff (1972, 103) writes that “(i)f epistemic modals are treated like
speaker-oriented adverbs by the semantic component, this restriction will follow
automatically”.
The above observations give evidence for the structure below:
(58) Mod epistemic (Mod 1) > T > Mod root obligation (Mod 2) > Mod root
ability/permission (Mod 3)
2.5. Asp markers
This section turns to aspectual markers in JC. Markers of aspect in this language,
and seemingly in all languages, form the group of inflectional particles located closest to the VP (see Bybee (1983)).
2.5.1. Progressive Aspect
This marker a precedes the [-stative] verb so as to give the action or event
evoked by this verb an „on-going‟ interpretation:
(59) Jan a nyam i’
John [+prog] eat it
„John is eating it‟
9
34
It would be inaccurate to conclude that mos cannot give rise to an interpretation where the
speaker‟s opinion is involved. This ambiguous nature is also attested with dwe for some
speakers of Haitian Creole (see Leblanc (1989, 51).
We observed that [-stative] VPs such as [nyam i’] are generally interpreted in the
past in the absence of markers. In (60), the sole use of the particle a with this same
VP implies that the event described is going on at the time of the utterance. In the
presence of a, even with projections of [-stative] verbs, a past interpretation has to
be specified:
(60) Jan did a nyam uno bammi
John [+past] [+prog] eat your[plur] bammy
„John was eating your bammy
(… good ting mi tell im fi stap)
(… good thing I tell him to stop)
(… good thing I told him to stop)‟
Therefore the use of the progressive suggests that the verb evokes something in
progress, by default at the time of utterance.
Recall that [+stative] verbs are, by definition, inherently on-going at the time of
utterance:
(61) Jan nuo dat
John know that
„John knows that‟
It is not surprising then that the redundant combination of stative verbs with the
progressive is banned:
(62) *Jan a nuo dat
A combines with (g)o to yield a reading of futurity referred to as prospective
aspect.
2.5.2. Prospective Aspect
Cinque (1999, 99) explains that: “the term „prospective aspect‟ has come to be
used for those grammatical forms (…) which mark “a point just prior to the beginning of an event” (Frawley 1992, 322). This is for example the case with the English
construction “to be going to” / “to be about to”. (Comrie (1976, 64ff))”. Comrie
(1976, 64) points out an important difference between “prospective meaning”: Bill is
going to / is about to throw himself off the cliff and expressions of future time reference:Bill will throw himself off the cliff, since Bill‟s eventually not throwing himself
off the cliff makes the speaker wrong in the second case, but not in the first.
As already underlined, a reinforcement of the idea that wi warrants an analysis as
the tense marker for future while a(g)o is aspectual is founded on the observation that
wi is in complementary distribution with did, although this is not the case with a(g)o:
(63) a. *Im en/did wi nyam i’ aaff
b. *Im wi en/did nyam i’ aaff
(64) Im en/did a (g)o nyam i’ aaff, bot mi (en/did) stap im
„S/he was going to eat it all up, but I stopped her/him‟
35
Stephanie Durrleman
The fact that prospective go must be used in combination with the progressive
(even though in rapid speech the latter may become somewhat shortened) can be
seen by the fact that a minimal pair can be formed between preverbal go used without the progressive and one used with the progressive:
(65) (Afta wa im seh…) yu go pick i’ up?
Vs. y(u) a go pick i’ up?
(After what s/he say) you go pick it up
you [+prog] [+prosp] pick it up
„(After what s/he said)you went and picked it up? /you‟re going to pick it up?
2.5.3. Retrospective Aspect
In this work, the marker jus designating „immediate past‟ is referred to along the
lines of Cinque (1999) as retrospective aspect
(66) Im did jus a go dw i’
S/he [past] [retrospective] [progressive] [prospective] do it
„S/he was just about to do it‟
2.5.4. Completive Aspect and Anterior
The inflectional particle done may precede the VP as do other aspect markers of
JC, but it also has the particularity of occasionally occurring in a post-VP configuration. This was already noticed by Cassidy (1961) who gives the following description for done:
“The participle done enters into a peculiar adverbial idiom. Placed after verbs
it shows completion of the action. (…) „Me feed him dun dis long time‟ (…)
done loses verbal force and becomes a modifier of the other verb.”
In the event that done occurs in a pre-VP configuration with [-stative] verbs, it
can yield two different interpretations. A sentence such as that in (67) is therefore
ambiguous, giving rise to the interpretations in (67a) and (67b):
(67) Im done nyam i’
S/he done eat it
a. „S/he already ate it‟
b. „S/he finished eating it‟
The additional interpretation in (67a) is erased in a post-VP configuration, so the
ambiguity observed for (67) no longer obtains in (68) where done follows the VP it
modifies:
(68) Im nyam i’ done
S/he eat it done
a. „*S/he already ate it‟
b. „She finished eating it (up)‟
36
I take this to suggest the presence of two different done markers in JC, one corresponding to the meaning [+completion] as given by the verb „to finish‟ in English,
and the other corresponding to the meaning [+anterior], as given by the adverb „already‟ in English.
These two done markers behave differently syntactically: Assuming that VP10
movement takes place to the Spec of the completive marker done when the latter
appears in a post-VP configuration, according to the data in (68) movement of the
VP projected by a [-stative] verb to the Spec of Anterior done is not accessible to
VP-movement. In other words, if one were to translate the sentence in (69) into JC,
one could not say (69a), only (69b):
(69) S/he already ate it
a. *im nyam i’ done
b. im done nyam i’
A possible hypothesis to account for the fact that a VP cannot move to the Spec
of [+anterior] done, is that the VP in JC cannot move as high as the [+anterior] projection. Movement of the VP in JC is limited as examples (70-2) illustrate: a VP
cannot be found in the specifier of projections for retrospective aspect jus (70a, b),
progressive aspect a (71a, b), or prospective aspect go (72a, b):
(70) a. Im jus nyam i’
S/he just eat it
„S/he just ate it‟
b. *Im nyam i’ jus
(71) a. Im a nyam i’
S/he [+prog] eat it
„S/he is eating it‟
b. *Im nyam i’ a
(72) a. Im a (g)o nyam i’
S/he [+prog] [+prosp] eat it
„S/he is going to eat it‟
b. *Im a nyam i’(g)o
If movement of [-stative] VPs in JC cannot go as high as the specifiers of aspectual particles such as jus, a and (g)o, yet the specifier of the particle done
10
I assume leftward movement of a VP to be possible, in line with Cinque (1999, 190n26)
who also makes use of this device to derive sentence final don for Guyanese Creole. I return to the discussion of VP movement in section 3.
37
Stephanie Durrleman
[+completive] may host the [-stative] VP in JC, then it can be reasonably hypothesised that the projection of done [+completive] be situated quite low in the structure:
lower than the aspectual markers considered here. If this were not the case, then
movement to the specifer of completive aspect would be excluded since it would
violate Relativized Minimality through having to skip intermediate specifier positions. This predicts a structure along the lines of (73):
(73) [Intermediate Asp] > [done [+completive]] > VP
X
Indeed, this is confirmed by the examples in (74, 75) which overtly illustrate the
distribution of this particle [+completive] as used in JC in relation to other inflectional markers:
(74) Wentaim mi reach, im did jus done nyam i’
When I reach, s/he [+past] [+retrospective] [+completive] eat it
„When I arrived, s/he‟d just finished eating it ‟
11
(75) Mine! Im a go done nyam di whole a i’!
Mind! S/he [+prog] [+prosp] [+completive] eat the whole of it
„Careful! S/he is going to finish eating all of it!‟
Where done follows the lowest of the other overtly expressed aspectual heads
in JC:
(76) Asp [+retrospective] > Asp [+prog] > Asp [+prosp] > Asp [+completive]
As expected, this occurrence of done, i.e. deeply embedded structurally, cannot
correspond to an interpretation meaning [+anterior], but is reserved only for an interpretation implying that the action expressed is completed. It follows that
[+completive] aspect is as hypothesised, situated low down in the clausal hierarchy:
lower than the other aspectual heads already considered, and lower than T
[+anterior].
Given the observations above, JC gives evidence for two different types of inflectional particles done: one [+anterior], the other [+completive]. Completive may
occur either in a pre- or post-VP configuration, and is only compatible with [stative] verbs, Anterior can only occur in a pre-VP configuration, and may occur
with both [+stative] and [-stative] verbs.
Done when used in combination with [+stative] verbs in a pre-VP configuration,
unlike that observed with respect to [-stative] verbs, does not give rise to ambiguity
11
38
Note that while done [completive] may potentially occur with prospective a (g)o, it does
not occur easily with progressive a alone : ? ? ?im a done nyam i’.
in JC. Consider example (77) with the verb nuo, and the fact that the interpretation
in (77a) can be derived, whereas the one in (77b) cannot:
(77) Im done nuo seh mi like im
a. „S/he already knows that I like her/him‟
b. „*S/he finished knowing that I like her/him‟
This amounts to saying that the only marker done which can occur with
[+stative] verbs is the one which gives rise to the meaning [+anterior], as expressed
12
by the adverb „already‟ in English. Lamiroy (1987, 284) accounts for this by suggesting that: “since all the phases in a state are identical (…) (states) lack an internal
dynamic structure. Aspect, however, crucially deals with the internal structure of
situations. Therefore states and the expression of aspect are naturally incompatible”.
It follows then that stative verbs may be specified for T [anterior] done, but not for
Asp [completive] done.
The hypothesis that there exist two different done markers in the clause structure
makes a prediction as to the potential syntactic distribution of the projections of
[+stative] verbs with respect to the particle done: If done [+anterior] cannot host
VPs in its Spec for it is too far away, and only this done can occur with [+stative]
verbs, then [+stative] VPs should never be able to occur in a pre-done configuration,
as the latter configuration is derived by movement to the specifier of done
[+completive] only. This prediction is borne out as the contrast between (78a) and
(78b) illustrates:
(78) a. Im done nuo dat
S/he done know that
„S/he already knows that‟
b. *Im [[nuo dat]i done] ti
S/he know that done
Done [+anterior] does not easily combine with other markers in JC, so although
we have reason to believe it is relatively high in the hierarchy of markers, it would
be difficult, maybe impossible, to locate its exact position in the structure if we did
not have recourse to its corresponding adverb aredi, an overt manifestation of its
specifier position along the lines of Cinque(1999, 94): Aredi, like done[anterior], has
as “its core meaning (…) one of temporal priority (…), in fact, one of precedence
with respect to a reference time. (…) This makes it plausible to locate it in the specifier position of the lowest TP (TP anterior)”.
12
In Da Cruz (1995, 368).
39
Stephanie Durrleman
13
Although aredi is, more often than not, placed at the end of a sentence (79a-c) ,
it can occasionally be inserted amongst certain of the other markers, as examples
(79e-g) illustrate:
(79) a. Im mosa gi ’im di gassip aredi
„S/he must have given her/him the gossip already‟
b. Im did nuo dat aredi
„S/he knew that already‟
c. Im a gwaan bad aredi
„S/he is behaving badly already‟
d. Im (*aredi) mosa (aredi) gi ‘im di gassip
S/he (*already) must [epistemic] (already) give her/him the gossip
„S/he must have already given her/him the gossip‟
e. Im (*aredi) did (aredi) nuo dat
S/he (*already) did (already) know that
„S/he already knew that‟
f. Im (aredi) a (*aredi) gwaan bad
S/he (already) [prog] (*already) go+on bad
„S/he‟s already behaving badly‟
The data in (79d-f) gives evidence for the structure in (80):
(80) Mod (epistemic) T (past/future) > aredi (anterior) > Asp prog
Given the respective distributions of done [+completive] (76 repeated as 81) and
aredi [+anterior] with respect to Asp [+prog] (80), the projection corresponding to
[+anterior] is by transitivity higher in the structure than the one corresponding to
[+completive] (82):
(81) Asp [+retrospective] > Asp [+prog] > Asp [+prosp] > Asp [+completive]
(82) T [anterior] > Asp [+prog] > Asp [+completive]
2.5.5. Continuative and Frequentative Aspects
Cinque (1999) situates the adverb „still‟ in the specifier position of the continuative aspect projection. In JC, the position of this adverb indeed coincides with the
Asp [continuative] projection in his structure: i.e. JC still can be shown to follow the
root modal [ability/permission] kyan, and therefore all markers dominating this mo13
40
Sentence final aredi may possibly be derived through XP movement past this adverb,
along the lines of (Cinque (1999). I return to this hypothesis in Section 4.3.
dal, and it can also be shown to precede those markers dominated by continuative
14
aspect in Cinque‟s structure
(83) Jan wuda/did/mos/kyan > still > a/go chat
John [Mod1] / T / [Mod2] [Mod3] > still > Asp [prog] Asp [prosp] talk
Cinque (1999, 207n51) observes that “(c)ontinuative aspect is found expressed
by particles, (…) or (apparently, more often) by reduplication of the verb stem”
In JC, reduplication of the verb stem is also a productive process:
(84) Yu nuh nuo im? A di same wan weh chat-chat wi business?
You [neg] know her/him? [equative] the same one which chat [V reduplicated]
we business
„Don‟t you know her/him? S/he‟s the very one who‟s incessantly spreading
our personal affairs‟
Whether or not reduplication of the verb in JC directly corresponds to continuative aspect, however, is not so clear-cut: Bailey (1966, 16) takes repetition of a verb
to “refer to repetitive or habitual action”, while giving the examples taak-taak, and
biit-biit which she translates as “talk continuously” and “whip constantly” respec15
tively . It seems therefore that what is stressed by the reduplication of a verb is not
specifically the continuity of the action expressed, but rather more generally the frequency at which this action takes place. If reduplication were an expression of frequency in JC, then the fact that stative verbs do not reduplicate would follow: these
verbs cannot be qualified frequentatively either.
Recall that the adverb „still‟ and its analogues in different languages is taken by
the framework here adopted, to be the overt realisation of the specifier position of
the projection of continuative aspect. Notice in the example below that still can be
separated from the reduplicated verb by the progressive particle:
(85) im still a chat-chat di people-dem business bout di place
S/he still [prog] Verb-Verb the people [+plur] business around the place
„She‟s still incessantly spreading those people‟s private affairs all over town‟
14
15
Still is not compatible neither with retrospective aspect jus, nor with anterior or completive aspects done. Indeed if jus occurs with still, jus cannot mean „a short while ago‟, but
rather is automatically interpreted to mean „nevertheless‟: im still jus do wa im waan fi do:
„s/he kept on nevertheless doing what s/he wanted to do‟ vs. „*s/he kept on a short while
ago doing what s/he wanted to do‟. Anterior done, as well as its specifier aredi, are in
complementary distribution with still: *im done still nyam; *im aredi still nyam. Similarly, completive done shows incompatibility with still: *im still done nyam.
Bold letters are mine.
41
Stephanie Durrleman
If still sits in the Specifier of AspContinuativeP, and a is the overt realisation of
Prog°, then the preverbal copy cannot sit in AspContinuative°.
A possible analysis to account for the verbal reduplication in JC is one which
situates the preverbal copy in AspFrequentative°, i.e. the lowest functional head of
the clausal system. This would explain why it can even follow done, the marker of
completive aspect:
(86) Im nuh done chat chat di people-dem business all now?
S/he [neg] [completive] [frequentative] chat-chat the people [plur] business
even now?
„S/he hasn‟t yet finished incessantly spreading those persons‟ private affairs?‟
The interpretation and distribution of aspectual heads in JC considered here
and, where possible, their corresponding specifiers, is compatible with the hierarchy in (87):
16
(87) Anterior < Asp Continuative < Asp retrospective < Asp progressive <
Asp prospective < Asp completive < Asp frequentative
2.6. Overall order for TMA markers in JC
(88) Mod epistemic (Mod 1) > T > Mod root obligation (Mod 2) > Mod root
ability/permission (Mod 3) > Anterior < Asp Continuative < Asp retrospective < Asp progressive < Asp prospective < Asp completive < Asp
frequentative
3. Theoretical issues
This section returns to the case of the marker done in JC (section 2.5.4). The aim
is to examine the validity of an IP-internal-movement analysis for sentence final material, as compared to a Serial Verb Construction (SVC) approach for Completive
and distinct sentence-medial and sentence-final for AnteriorP.
3.1.1. Completive Aspect in JC and Fongbè: an SVC approach
It has been pointed out that the marker encoding Asp [completive] behaves differently syntactically with respect to the other markers in JC: done [completive] has the
17
distributional particularity of optionally following the VP over which it takes scope :
16
42
Note, however, that the incompatibility of Anterior with AspContinuative and AspRetrospective makes it difficult to determine the precise hierarchy between these proje ctions in JC.
18
(89) Uno jus
nyam di bammi done ?
Subj [retrospective] VP
[completive]
„You all have just finished eating the bammy?‟
Analogous patterns related to the completive marker are found crosslinguistically. Da Cruz (1995) observes that: Fongbè places completive markers fó
and vò in a VP-final configuration:
(90) Kòkú wà àzo ó
fó
Kòkú do work DET finish
„Kòkú finished doing the work‟
(91) Kòkú kló
katake
le vò
Kòkú wash high stool PL finish
„Kòkú finished washing the high stools‟
Da Cruz (1995, 364) defines fó/vò as aspectual verbs, and distinguishes them
from aspectual morphemes of Fòn as the word order of sentences containing the
former is different to that of sentences containing the latter: “The word order (…)
distinguishes the verbs fó and vò from the aspectual morphemes of Fòn” (da Cruz
1995, 364). Whereas irrealis ná, and habitual nó precede the VP over which they
take scope, fó and vò follow it. Consequently, da Cruz (1995) quotes Avolonto‟s
(1992) structure for aspect markers ná and nó as given in (92), and considers this an
impossible underlying structure for fó and vò (93):
(92) AspP
Asp‟
Asp°
ná/nó
VP
V‟
V°
17
18
NP
It is worth noting that this option is less exploited by the younger generations than preverbal done.
Whether or not there are restrictions on the type of VP which can precede done is a topic
for future research.
43
Stephanie Durrleman
(93) * …Asp‟
Asp°
VP
fó
To account for the particularities of fó/vò sentences, da Cruz argues that they are
serial verb constructions involving obligatory control. Therefore under his approach,
a sentence such as (91), repeated as (94a), is assigned the structure (94b) below:
(94) a. Kòkú kló katake le vò
Kòkú wash high stool PL finish
„Kòkú finished washing the high stools‟
(94) b.
IP
I‟
NP
Kòkúi
I
VP1
V‟
V‟j
V1
VP2
NP OPj
kló katakè lé
VP2
V‟
PROi
V2
V‟
vò
ej
Da Cruz (1995, 374) explains his approach as follows: “In order to express the
fact that fó and vò semantically select an event, I propose that (…) the complement
of fó,vò is an empty verbal projection (minimally a V‟). I argue that the empty category which occupies this position is a variable bound by a null operator (Op) which
is adjoined to the VP headed by fó,vò. The first VP and Op have the same reference.
Op and the variable form a chain ; thus, by co-indexation, there could be transfer to
the chain of the semantic properties of VP1.” He argues (p.377) that “The analysis
of sentences with aspectual verbs fó and vò as obligatory control constructions has
many advantages. The structure in (98b) accounts for the S-structure word order in
Fongbè, and offers a mechanism for understanding the selectional restrictions on the
verbs which combine with fó and vò. As a matter of fact, indicating that the subject
44
of the construction finished realizing the event expressed by the preceding VP, fó
and vò can only combine with verbs which are compatible with this property”.
Da Cruz (1995) bases his analysis of sentences containing fó and vò as serial
verb constructions on the observation that they have four characteristics of serial
verb constructions as listed under (95) through (98) below. In both fó/vò sentences
and serial verb constructions:
(95)
(96)
(97)
(98)
“there is only one lexical subject and more than one verb”
“there is only one expression of time and aspect”
one can see that they “only contain one expression of negation”
and, “just as there are semantic restrictions on serial verb constructions (…)
there are semantic restrictions in the context of the aspectual use of fó and vò”
On the other hand, da Cruz (1995, 370) recognises that “there is not object sharing
with aspectual verbs fó and vò” although it has been argued in Baker (1989) that “the
Projection Principle predicts that object sharing is not only possible in serial verb constructions, but obligatory”. Da Cruz then takes fó/vò constructions to be evidence for
19
the conclusion that argument sharing is not a necessity in serial verb constructions .
I do not adopt the analysis of da Cruz (1995) in this paper, and instead tentatively propose an analysis along the lines of Cinque (1999) which involves move20
ment . The VP-movement analysis is seen to account for the ungrammaticality of
fó/vò constructions as discussed in da Cruz (1995) independently of a consideration
of such sentences as serial verb constructions involving obligatory control. The fact
that fó/vò sentences do not involve argument sharing follows from this approach:
The lack of argument sharing would then not in itself constitute an argument for
abandoning Baker‟s (1989) hypothesis that serial verb constructions obligatorily involve argument sharing, but rather could be a consequence of the fact that fó/vò sentences are not serial verb constructions.
19
20
The fact that I do not treat fó/vò (Fongbè) and done (JC) constructions as serial verb constructions is inspired by the approach in Cinque (1999). The IP-internal VP-movement
hypothesis applied here has implications for a serial verb approach. These implications
deserve careful examination which is beyond the scope of this work.
In this paper, I follow Kayne (1994), Cinque (1999) in assuming a head-initial X‟-schema.
Notice that an alternative approach which would allow for head-final structure would imply
that the constructions here considered could be derived independently of movement.
45
Stephanie Durrleman
3.1.2. Completive Aspect in JC and Fongbè: VP-movement
The observation in (95) that fó/vò, like serial verb constructions, involve “only
one lexical subject and more than one verb” is used by da Cruz (1995) to account for
the ungrammaticality of the (99):
(99) *Kòkú wà àzo ó Kòkú fó
Kòkú do work DET Kòkú finish
However, the fact that there is “only one lexical subject and more than one verb”
is a characteristic of any sentence containing a lexical verb augmented with an aspectual marker, once this marker is simply labelled as an aspectual „verb‟, which I
take to be the case of fó in (99). Consider, for example, the contrast between the data
in (100a) and (100b, c):
(100) a. Jan a
go
nyam di bammi
J. [aspectul verb 1 (progressive)] [aspectual verb 2 (prospective)] VP
b. *Jan a go Jiemz nyam di bammi
c. *Jan a Jiemz go nyam di bammi
The contrast in (100) stems from the fact that aspect markers are functional material and consequently do not project an argument structure. To insert an additional
external argument into a sentence with only one lexical verb would mean that this
argument would be without a theta role and therefore entail a violation of the Theta
Criterion.
The second parallelism drawn by da Cruz (1995) between serial verb constructions and sentences containing fó/vò, is that “there is only one expression of time
and aspect” in both. He illustrates the relevance of this hypothesis by means of the
contrast between (101a) and (101b):
(101) a. Asíbá ná sá sèn dó hòn ó fó
Asíbá IRR pass on paint put door DET finish
Asíbá will finish painting the door‟
b. *Asíbá ná sá sèn dó hòn ó ná fó
Asíbá IRR pass on paint put door DET IRR finish
However, if (101b) were not treated as a serial verb construction but rather as a
run-of-the-mill sentence with multiple asp markers, it would be ruled out anyway
since this sentence makes use the same marker twice: In (101b), the marker encoding irrealis is repeated within one single sentence. Notice that a double use of an
aspectual marker in one sentence such as that encoding progressive from JC below
also yields ungrammaticality (102b, c):
46
(102) a. Im a go nyam I‟
S/he [prog] [prosp] eat it
„S/he is going to eat it‟
b. *Im a go a nyam I’
c. *Im a a go nyam I’
The third parallelism between serial verb constructions and fó/vò sentences has
to do with the two “constructions only contain(ing) one expression of negation”. The
ungrammaticality of (103) is assumed to stem from the fact that it is a serial verb
construction:
(103) *Asíbá má sá sèn dó hòn ó má fó
Asiba NEG pass on paint put door DET NEG finish
However, once again, the ungrammaticality of (103) could also be linked to another factor: Multiple negation can give rise to ungrammaticality in almost any sentence involving an asp marker if this marker as well as the VP it modifies are both
negated (104b):
(104) a. Jan nuh jus pain di door deh?
John neg [retrosp] paint the door there
„Isn‟t it just a while ago that John painted that door?‟
b. *Jan nuh jus nuh pain di door deh?
John NEG just NEG paint that door there
Finally, da Cruz (1995, 366) remarks that “just as there are semantic restrictions
on serial verb constructions in Fongbè in general (…), there are semantic restrictions
in the context of the aspectual use of fó and vò”. He takes the ungrammaticality of
(105) to be a consequence of its being a serial verb construction which violates a
semantic selectional restriction:
(105) *Kòkú mò Báyì fó
Kòkú see Báyì finish
„Kòkú finished seeing Báyì‟
Notice, however, that not only lexical verbs, but also markers of aspect commonly show semantic restrictions on the VP they select: recall, for example, that the
progressive aspect marker cannot combine with a [+stative] VP:
(106) *Jan a nuo dat
John [prog] know that
Therefore the semantic restriction on selection typical of fó/vò sentences does not
necessarily lead to the conclusion that fo/vo are verbs in serial verb constructions.
47
Stephanie Durrleman
Indeed fó/vò are likely to be aspect markers with selectional restrictions like those
already observed with other aspectual markers.
In conclusion, I do not believe that the characteristics sketched in da Cruz (1995)
imply necessarily that fó/vò sentences involve serial verb constructions with obligatory
control. Moreover, I believe this analysis has undesirable theoretical shortcomings:
Serial verb constructions are typically constructions involving a sequence of
verbs which share logical arguments. To illustrate this with an example from JC,
consider the data in (107):
21
(107) (Yu nuo wa dat ginal do?)
Im tek mi ackee (go) sell a maakit!
(You know what that ginal do?)
Him take me ackee (go) sell at market
„(Do you know what that trickster did?) S/he actually (went and) sold my ackee
at the market!‟
Both tek and sell are transitive verbs. The object mi ackee is „shared‟ by the
verbs tek and sell: i.e. what is both „taken‟ and „sold‟ is „my ackee‟. Indeed according to the Projection Principle, this sharing of an object is considered by Baker
(1989) to be obligatory in serial verb constructions. Da Cruz (1995) illustrates that
fó/vò constructions do not involve object sharing:
(108) Ajòtó lé xò kãnlìn lé fó
Thief PL hit animal PL finish
„The thieves finished hitting the animals‟
Da Cruz (1995) explains that the data from Fongbè in (108) above “mean(s) that
the action of hitting (…) is finished. (…) The interpretation of (this) sentence() does
not imply that (…) the animals are “finished”.” This reading extends to done in JC
as the example (109) taken from Bailey (1966, 42) nicely illustrates:
(109) Jiemz no riid di buk don yet
Jamed [neg] read the book [completive] yet
„James has not finished reading the book yet‟
It is indeed the act of reading the book, and not the book itself, which is qualified
by the marker done. The data above illustrates therefore that object sharing is a
characteristic of serial verb constructions which is not typical of fó/vò and done sentences. This suggests, according to the hypothesis in Baker (1989), that fó/vò and
done sentences are not serial verb constructions.
21
48
Ackee is a fruit used to prepare Jamaica‟s national dish: ackee and saltfish.
Notice that the analysis proposed in da Cruz (1995) for fó/vò sentences is unable to capture similarities between fó and vò and markers of completive aspect in
other languages such as English which do not at first sight exploit (serial verb)
constructions with obligatory control. One such similarity is noted by da Cruz
(1995, 372) himself: “(f)ó and vò present the same selectional restrictions as the
aspectual verb „finish‟. They only combine with accomplishment verbs or with
activity verbs which are interpreted as quasi-accomplishments”. The choice of a
different syntactic apparatus for fó/vò on the one hand, and „finish‟ or „finir‟ on
the other is based on the observation that “contrary to what is observed in English
and French (…) the verbs fó and vò appear after the VP complement (da Cruz
1995, 369).” Postulating an entirely new analysis for constructions which share
many points in common apart from surface word order is intuitively unattractive.
What would be preferable is an approach which would reflect the underlying
cross-linguistic parallelism between linguistic elements such as those considered
here, while allowing for a derivation which could be responsible for their SurfaceStructure difference.
On a language specific level, this analysis also fails to reflect underlying similarities between heads encoding aspect in Fongbè. It is shown in da Cruz (1995) that
other aspectual morphemes of Fòn occur in a pre-VP configuration. Example (110)
taken from da Cruz (1995) illustrates that markers encoding irrealis or habitual aspect select a VP complement which must surface to their right:
(110) Kòkú ná/ nó wà àzo
Kòkú IRR HAB do work
„Kòkú will work / usually works‟
To postulate that markers encoding irrealis and habitual aspect select a phonetically realised VP complement, whereas what appears to be the marker encoding
completive aspect selects a control construction strikes an undesirable inconsistency
in the underlying grammar of Fongbè: the obligatory control construction postulated
by da Cruz (1995) would be a structural particularity of the complement of the element encoding completive aspect as opposed to those encoding irrealis and habitual.
It would be favourable to account for the respective Surface-Structure differences
between the markers of this language with an analysis which retains an underlying
similarity between them.
It is also noteworthy that when fó and vò function as lexical verbs they must select a nominal complement which surfaces to their right (111a, b) just as JC done
does (112):
49
Stephanie Durrleman
(111) a. Fongbé: Kòkú fó àzo ó
Kòkú finish work DET
„Kòkú finished the work‟
b.
Kòkú vò mólìnkún ò
Kòkú finish rice DET
„Kòkú finished the (plate of) rice‟
(112) JC: Im done di bammi
S/he finish the bammy
„S/he finished the bammy‟
If other aspectual verbs in Fongbè generate their verbal complement to their
right (110) without recourse to control, and lexical verbs in this language also
generate their nominal complements to their right (111), then the underlying structural tendency is for a X°, lexical or functional, to generate its complement to its
right. It is therefore plausible that the VP which precedes fó and vò is its complement which has simply been generated to the right and has undergone leftward
movement. Da Cruz (1995) himself touches upon this possible analysis: „In
Fongbè, the NP complement of the verbs fó/vò is always on the right (…). If the
VP (…) is generated in the same position, we would then have to explain the word
order at S-structure by a movement of this VP (…). Thus, one could suppose that
there is movement to the left of the VP complement.” Indeed this is what I argue
to be the case.
The VP-movement hypothesis is rejected by da Cruz (1995) for Fongbè for
two main reasons: One reason is that “(i)t is impossible to have S-structure sentences like those in (113a, b) in which a VP with a phonological content is on the
right of fó and vò.
(113) a. *Kòkú fó wà àzo ó
Kòkú finish do work DET
„Kòkú finished doing the work.‟
b. *Kòkú vò kló katake le
Kòkú finish wash high stool DET
„Kòkú finished washing the high stools.‟”
Another reason he gives for rejecting a VP-movement hypothesis is that “this
hypothesis is difficult to defend, given that there is no independent motivation for
such a movement of VP in Fongbè” (da Cruz 1995, 373). I believe that these reasons
can be countered on the basis of the following observations:
Firstly, other languages influenced by such African languages as Gbe, namely
creoles, do allow S-structure sentences where the completive marker may surface to
50
the left of a phonetically realised VP complement. This can be seen in data from JC
(114) and Guyanese Creole (GC) (115, taken from Edwards 1991):
(114) JC Jan done
nyam i’?
Subj [completive] V
O
„John finished eating it?‟
(115) GC Somtaim wen you don
wok yu go an bai a dringk
Subj [completive] V
„Sometimes when you are finished working you go and buy a drink.‟
The fact that Gbe languages constitute part of the substratum of JC, and that JC
allows the completive marker to optionally precede its VP complement reinforces
the idea that when the VP surfaces to the left of completive markers fó/vò in Fongbè
or done in JC, it has in fact originated in a post-VP configuration and undergone
leftward movement:
(116) … AspCompletive
Asp‟
Spec
Asp°
fó/vò done
VP
Secondly, observe that this type of movement is plausibly exploited by Fongbè
since another Kwa language of the Gbe group, namely Gungbe, exploits such
movement of the VP and extended projections of VP. This is illustrated for purposeclauses, and imperfective/prospective constructions in Aboh (1998). It is therefore
not implausible that this analysis be extended to Fongbè.
One instance of the application of leftward movement of an extended projection
of V in Gungbe is applied by Aboh (1998) to „purpose‟-clauses in Gungbe known as
gbé-constructions (117):
(117) Hwé-énenu Asíbá nò yì hwéví jrá gbé
At that time Asiba Hab go fish
sell Purpose
„At that time Asiba habitually went out to sell fish‟
The analysis given to account for the structure of the purpose-clause in (117) is
(118):
51
Stephanie Durrleman
(118) AspP2
AspP2‟
Spec
Asp°2
yì
NomP
Nom‟
spec
Nom°
gbé
AspP3
Asp3‟
spec
hwévíj
Asp°3
jrái
AgroP
Agr‟
spec
tj
Agr°
t‟i
VP
V
ti
DP
tj
Under the approach in Aboh (1998), aspect verbs like yì „go‟ select a syntactic
unit NomP whose head may be realised by the purpose-marker gbé. The internal argument of this marker is a reduced clause: the aspectual projection AspP3. This entire aspectual projection must move to the specifier position of the projection to the
immediate left of the small clause: [Spec,NomP] for nominalization purposes. This
analysis is shown in Aboh (1998) to capture not only the syntactic particularities of
purpose-clauses, but also those of imperfective/prospective clauses.
Imperfective/prospective sentences in Gungbe always end in a low tone: `. This
can be explained under the analysis that the imperfective marker tò, is situated under
AspP2 in a structure like that given in (118). Tò is then logically in complementary
distribution with aspectual verbs such as yì. Imperfective tò selects a NomP which is
headed by a Nom° realised as `. When AspP3 moves to [Spec,NomP] for nominali-
52
zation purposes in imperfective constructions, a logical consequence of this move22
ment is that a low tone ` always floats at the end of the sentence :
(119) … tò [ Spec NomP [AspP3 nà O V]i [Nom ° ` ] t i
imperf
prosp O V
Therefore, if movement of extended projections of VP arguably takes place in
languages of the Gbe group, it is not implausible that VP movement occur in
Fongbè, and ultimately in JC. Moreover, the scope properties of completive constructions follow from a VP-movement analysis: the marker encoding completive
aspect c-commands the trace of its VP complement.
No additional structure is needed to account for the scope properties of completive constructions under the analysis adopted here: That the completive marker takes
scope over the VP which precedes it is a natural consequence of the movement hypothesis since according to the structure in (116), the marker encoding completive
aspect c-commands the trace of its VP complement.
Recall that the ungrammaticality of sentences (99), (101b), (103) and (105) was
argued by da Cruz (1995) to stem from these sentences being serial verb constructions. Recall also that postulating this analogy is not the only option available. Notice now that the ungrammaticality of (99), (101b), (103) and (105) repeated here as
(120), (121), (122) and (123) follow from the structural analysis in (114): Structure
(114) leaves no space for an element to intervene between the VP in
[Spec,CompletiveAspP] and fó/vò in CompletiveAsp°, which gives a syntactic account for (120) through (123):
*Kòkú [Spec AspCompletive wà àzo ó] [ ? Kòkú] [AspCompletive° fó]
Kòkú do work DET Kòkú finish
*Asíbá ná [Spec AspCompletive sá sèn dó hòn ó] [?ná] [AspCompletive° fó]
Asíbá IRR pass on paint put door DET IRR finish
*Asíbá má [Spec AspCompletive sá sèn dó hòn ó][? má] [AspCompletive° fó]
Asíbá NEG pass on paint put door det NEG finish
The ungrammaticality of sentence (105) repeated as (123) follows from feature
incompatibility: the VP mò Báyì: “see Báyì” does not bear the feature [+completive]
and therefore cannot occupy the specifier position of the Completive Projection:
22
I refer the reader to Aboh (1998) for details.
53
Stephanie Durrleman
*Kòkú [SpecCompletiveAsp [mò Báyì [–completive]] [CompletiveAsp° fó]
Kòkú see Báyì finish
„Kòkú finished seeing Báyì‟
23
The very motivation for movement of a VP to [Spec, CompletiveAspP] is explainable in terms of the presence of the completive aspect marker in CompletiveAsp° endowing this projection with a [+completive] feature. This feature is strong in
Fongbè since the specifier of the CompletiveAsp projection in this language must be
morphologically realised at S-structure. The [+completive] feature is less strong in
JC, so that the filling of [Spec,CompletiveAsp] may optionally occur at the level of
Logical Form.
In short, leftward movement of the VP to [Spec,CompletiveAspP] has the theoretical advantage of accounting for the particularities of completive aspect constructions, while retaining an underlying structural consistency between markers of aspect both cross-linguistically, as well as within the internal grammars of languages
such as Fongbè and JC.
3.1.3. Problem for the VP-movement analysis
The analysis proposed here still faces the problem of accounting for the optionality of VP-movement to [Spec,CompletiveAspP] in JC. However, this would be a
problem for the alternative analysis in da Cruz (1995) also: indeed if the surface order were to be the determining factor in the development of a syntactic apparatus for
linguistic elements, then one would have to postulate completely different underlying structures for pre- and post-verbal completive done, although the two are semantically equivalent.
The fact that younger speakers of JC use VP-final done more rarely than preverbal done, and more rarely than the older generations, may be an important point
for the IP-internal VP-movement hypothesis: Possibly, the originally strong
[+completive] feature emerging from substratum influence has entered into competition with a weak [+completive] feature resulting from superstratum influence. The
optionality attested between pre- and post-verbal done in JC would be the result of
the availability of both of these options of the completive feature. What seems to be
happening at present is that the use of the strong option of the feature has become
less common than the weak one. More specifically, the weak [+completive] feature
is now more predominant than the strong one in the grammar of JC, implying that
VP movement to [Spec,CompletiveAspP] is no longer forced at Surface-Structure.
This analysis makes the prediction, therefore, that in future generations, VP23
54
Recall that preverbal done cannot occur with a [stative] VP either: Im done see mi: S/he
has already seen me; *S/he has finished seeing me.
movement to [Spec,CompletiveAspP] may eventually cease to exist, as the weak option of the completive feature takes over entirely. Indeed this is already the case in
JC varieties which oscillate between the mesolect and the acrolect.
3.2.1. Multiple base generation of Anterior tense
The fact that the adverb aredi can occur in a sentence medial as well as a sentence final position can be accounted for in two ways: either it is directly generated
in these two positions, or movement has taken place past it. This section briefly
sketches these two analyses and argues that the movement hypothesis is the more
favourable of the two.
If aredi is the specifier of a functional projection as argued in Cinque (1999),
then to generate it in two different positions implies that its corresponding functional
projection can be generated in two different positions. However, as Cinque (1999,
22) notes: “it would make little sense to generate functional projections twice, once
to the left, and once to the right of the verb (and its complements) (…) (T)he same
rigid order of the AdvPs in post-complement position would have to be enforced
through a specific principle duplicating the ordering principle for the functional
heads in the pre-VP “space””. The uneconomical factor of an analysis generating
aredi in two different positions renders this approach conceptually unsatisfactory.
On an empirical level, this approach would fall short in accounting for the fact
that the two independently generated adverbs cannot occur simultaneously:
*Im aredi nyam di whole a i’ aredi
S/he already eat the whole of it already
„S/he already ate the whole of it already‟
Indeed where adverbs are generated in two different positions this is indicated by
the fact that their simultaneous presence does not render the sentence unacceptable:
John twice knocked on the door twice
(Cinque 1999, 27)
3.2.2. Movement of (extensions of) VP across Anterior
The fact that adverbs like „already‟ and its analogues in other languages can occur either sentence-medially or sentence-finally without yielding any perceptible
change in interpretation seems best captured by the analysis whereby movement of
the VP or of its extensions can occur across this adverb. This type of movement is
demonstrated in Cinque (1999, 22) for Italian:
(125) a. A Natale, credo che avesse completamente perso la testa di GIA
„At Christmas, I think he had completely lost his mind already‟
b. A Natale, credo che avesse
di già [completamente perso la testa]
55
Stephanie Durrleman
Cinque (1999, 22) explains that “(u)nder this alternative, we can account for the
„scope under reconstruction‟ property typical of movement (whereby completamente
is under the scope of di già to its right), and at the same time derive the apparent subversion of the relative order of the AdvPs, otherwise unexpected in a non wh-type
movement because of the ensuing Relativized Minimality violation. Given that the
AdvP di già is crossed over not by the AdvP completamente directly, but by a larger
phrase containing completamente, no Relativized Minimality violation takes place.”
Notice that the relative order between aredi [anterior] and done [completive] was
established as illustrated in (126):
T [anterior] > Asp [+completive]
This accounts for the grammaticality of (127a) and the ungrammaticality of (127b)
a.
Im aredi done
nyam di whole a i’
S/he [anterior] [completive] eat the whole of it
“S/he already finished eating it all”
b. *Im done aredi nyam di whole a i’
Notice that although this fixed order cannot be subverted when both aredi and
done precede the verb and its complements, it can be once aredi occurs in a post-VP
configuration, as expected under the movement hypothesis illustrated in (128):
a.
Im aredi [done nyam di whole a i’]
b. Im [done nyam di whole a i’]i aredi ti
S/he [completive] eat the whole of it already
„S/he finished eating it all already‟
Now consider the data in (129) which at first sight presents counter-evidence for
Cinque (1999) where it is argued that functional projections respect the same fixed
order in both pre- and post-VP configurations respectively: in (129) both done and
aredi follow the VP yet the order established between the two in a pre-VP configuration (127) is subverted:
Im nyam di whole a i done aredi
S/he eat the whole of it [completive] [anterior]
“S/he finished eating it all already”
Under the VP-movement hypothesis established for completive done, however,
this can be accounted for: in (129) movement has occurred in two steps: firstly, the
56
VP has moved to [Spec, Completive], then the entire AspPCompletive has moved on
24
to the specifier of a functional projection preceding TPAnterior :
(130)
… FP
F‟
Spec
F°
TPAnterior
T‟
Spec
aredi
T°
AspCompletive
Asp‟
Spec
Asp°
done
VP
nyam di whole a i’
Notice also that the successive movement illustrated in (130) accurately accounts
for the scope facts of this sentence: Firstly the VP is interpreted as being in the scope
of completive aspect although it is situated on its right at S-structure: what is completed is the act of eating something. Since done is generated in CompletiveAsp°, it
c-commands the trace of the VP so that its taking scope over this VP is to be expected. Secondly, the entire CompletiveAspP is in the scope of [Spec,TPAnterior]
realised by aredi, although this projection also surfaces to the right of [SpecTPAnterior]: what has already taken place is the completion of the act of eating something.
24
Notice that VP-movement past AspCompletive° could also potentially take place to the
specifier of a functional projection FP situated to the left of AspCompletiveP. However if
movement of the complement of CompletiveAsp° is triggered by the need to check a
strong completive feature, then it is most plausible that this movement takes place to
[Spec,AspCompletiveP] where the completive feature is located. Movement to the specifier of a FP such as that located to the left of Anterior Tense, which gives rise to a particular focus on the adverb crossed, could then be reserved for the purpose of focussing clause
internal adverbs.
57
Stephanie Durrleman
Again, since aredi c-commands the trace of CompletiveAspP, then it follows that
the scope properties evoked here are derived under reconstruction.
4. Overt functional structure of JC: evidence for the framework in Cinque
(1999)
Cinque‟s (1999) structure given in (19) is repeated in (131) with bold letters applied to the evidence drawn from JC:
(131) [Frankly Moodspeech act [fortunately Moodevaluative [allegedly Moodevidential
[probably Modepistemic: shuda, wuda, maita, mosa, kuda [once T(Past):did
[then T(Future):wi [perhaps Moodirrealis [necessarily Modnecessity:mos [possibly
Modpossibility [willingly Modvolition [inevitably Modobligation:haffi [cleverly
Modability/permission:kyan [usually Asphabitual [again Asprepetitive(I) [often Aspfrequentative(I) [quickly Aspcelerative(I) [aredi T(Anterior) done1 [no longer Aspterminative
[still Aspcontinuative [always Aspperfect(?) [jus Aspretrospective [soon Aspproximative
[briefly Aspdurative [characteristically (?) [? Aspgeneric/progressive: a [almost Aspprospective: go [completely Aspcompletive(I): done2 [tutto AspPlCompletive [well Voice
[fast/early Aspcelerative(II) [completely AspSgCompletive(II) [again Asprepetitive(II) [often
Aspfrequentative(II): reduplicated verb …
JC fits harmoniously into Cinque‟s (1999) structure: (131) illustrates that one
does not contradict the other. It must be noted, however, that this language does not
25
at first sight provide direct evidence for separating T past from T future , nor for
separating Mod obligation from Mod ability/permission. If each of the members of
these pairs of markers in JC were to be inserted under different heads such as that
implied by (131), then their mutual exclusion could not be explained in terms of
competition for the same position. In light of (131), therefore, the impossible cooccurrence of did/wi and haffi/kyan in JC remains to be explained. Markedness thoery may, once developed, provide a means for accounting for these facts.
25
58
It is not entirely clear that the data given in (Cinque 1999) from Guyanese Creole can really
be taken as evidence for the structure T past > T future either: Jaan bin gu riid: J. PAST
FUT read „J. would have read‟ (Cinque 1999, 59, taken from Gibson 1985, 585). Indeed gu
here looks like JC go, the Asp [prosp] marker. Consider that wuda and [past] + [prosp] may
be found to yield a similar interpretation in JC also: Jan did go riid/ Jan wuda riid … bot mi
stap ‘im: „John was going to read/ would have read … but I stopped him‟.
5. Conclusion
This paper has concentrated on exploring the clausal structure of a basilectal variety of JC. In such varieties, there is an absence of morphological verbal inflection.
Inflection is articulated by means of independent inflectional particles, or TMA
markers. Manifestations of TMA markers, like that of morphological inflection and
adverbs, may serve the generative linguist as a key source of evidence in identifying
clausal functional projections (Pollock (1989), Belletti (1990), Cinque (1999)).
A recent framework (Cinque (1999)) postulates a good 30 functional projections
in the clausal domain. The data from JC discussed in this work give direct overt evidence for over a third of these projections. Future research of the notion of markedness may prove insightful in determining if the functional structure here attested for
JC is entirely present in all clauses of the language through marked or default values. Pursuing this line of reasoning, it becomes conceivable that JC exploit the entire
array of functional structure postulated by the framework (Cinque 1999). If this rich
functional structure is ultimately proven present in every clause through default values, the articulation of inflection in this language, and all languages, would prove to
be much richer than that which is overtly manifested.
The framework here adopted (Cinque (1999)) is highly restrictive in that the numerous functional projections postulated are argued to universally respect a rigidly
fixed order. The overt evidence for functional clause structure provided by JC
proves directly hierarchically compatible with this rigid order: There is a transparent
systematic match between markers in JC and the fixed hierarchy of functional projections postulated by the framework. Surface differences in the structures can be
accounted for in terms of IP-internal movement. This work therefore upholds the
universality of the architecture of the clause as provided by Cinque (1999).
References
ABOH, E.O. (1998) From the Syntax of Gungbe to the Grammar of Gbe, Doctoral Dissertation,
University of Geneva.
ADAMS, L.E. (1995) Understanding Jamaican Patois: An Introduction to Afro-Jamaican
Grammar. Kingston: Kingston Publishers Limited.
ARENDS, J., KOUWENBERG, S., & SMITH, N., (1995) „Theories focusing on the nonEuropean input‟, in Pidgins and Creoles: An introduction Eds. Arends, J., Muysken, P. &
Smith, N. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
AVOLONTO, A. (1992) AspP et la catégorie INFL en fongbè. Journal of West African Languages 22 (1): 97-113.
BAILEY, B. (1966) Jamaican Creole Syntax: A Tranformational Approach, Cambridge University Press.
BAILEY, B. (1971) Can dialect boundaries be defined?, Pidginization & Creolization of Languages, Ed. Dell Hymes. Cambridge University Press.
59
Stephanie Durrleman
BAKER, M. (1985) “The Mirror Principle and Morphosyntactic Explanation”, Linguistic Inquiry,
16: 373-415.
BAKER, M. (1989) „Object sharing and projection in serial verb constructions‟, Linguistic Inquiry 20: 513-554.
BAKKER, P. (1995) Pidgins, in Pidgins and Creoles: An introduction Eds. Arends, J., Muysken,
P. & Smith, N. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
BELLETTI, A., (1990) Generalized Verb Movement. Turin: Rosenberg and Sellier.
CASSIDY, F.G. (1961) Jamaica Talk: Three Hundred Years of the English Language in Jamaica, Macmillan & Co Ltd.: London.
CINQUE, G. (1992) „On tout/tutto and the Syntax of Past Participles in French and Italian‟ unpublished ms., University of Venice.
CINQUE, G. (1994) „Evidence for Partial N-movement in the Romance DP‟ in Cinque et al.
(eds.) pp. 85-110.
CINQUE, G. (1999) Adverbs and Functional Heads: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective, Oxford
University Press, New York.
COMRIE, B. (1976) Aspect. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
DA CRUZ , M. (1995) „Aspectual verbs fó, vò „finish‟ in Fongbè‟. The Linguistic Review 12, pp.
361-380.
DECAMP, D. (1971a) „The Study of Pidgin and Creole languages‟, in Pidginization and Croelization of Languages, Ed. Hymes, D., Cambridge University Press pp. 13-43.
DECAMP, D. (1971b) „Towards a generative analysis of post-creole continuum‟, in Pidginization
and Croelization of Languages, Ed. Hymes, D., Cambridge University Press pp. 349-70.
DEGRAFF, M. (ed.) (To appear) Creolization, Language Acquisition & Language Change, MIT
Press, Cambridge (Mass.)
DELFOSSE, R. (1997) Viewpoint: Patois- The rights and wrongs. The Weekly Gleaner, June 1117, 1997, Kingston.
DURRLEMAN, Stephanie (1999) „The architecture of the clause in Jamaican Creole‟, ms. University of Geneva, to appear in GG@G.
EDWARDS, Walter F. (1991) “A comparative description of Guyanese Creole and Black English
preverbal aspect don.” In Verb Phrase Patterns in Black English and Creole, Walter F.
Edwards and Donald Winford (eds.) Detroit: Wayne State University Press.
GADELII, K.E. (1997) Lesser Antillean French Creole and Universal Grammar, Doctoral Dissertation, Gothenburg Monographs in Linguistics 15.
GIBSON, K. (1986) „The Ordering of Auxiliary Notions in Guyanese Creole‟, Language, 62. Pp.
571-586.
JACKENDOFF, R. (1972) Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar. MIT Press, Cambridge (Mass.)
JAKOBSON, R. (1971) [originally 1939] “Signe zéro”, in Selected Writings, vol.II, Mouton, The
Hague, pp.211-219
KAYNE, R. (1994) The Antisymmetry of Syntax. MIT Press, Cambridge (Mass.)
60
LAMIROY, B. (1987) „The complementation of aspectual verbs in French‟. Language 63: pp.
278-298.
MAGLOIRE-HOLLY, H. (1982) „Les modaux: auxiliares ou verbes?‟, in Lefebvre, C. et al.
(eds.), Syntaxe de l’Haïtien. Ann Arbor, Karoma.
MAHAJAN, A. (1990) The A/A-Bar Distinction and Movement Theory. Doctoral Dissertation,
MIT.
MÜHLHÄUSLER, P. (1986) Pidgin and Creole linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell.
PINKER, S. (1994) The Language Instinct. Penguin Books: England.
POLLOCK, J.-Y. (1989) Verb movement, Universal Grammar and the structure of IP, Linguistic
Inquiry, 20, pp. 365-424.
RIZZI, L. (1990) Relativized Minimality, MIT Press, Cambridge (Mass.)
ROMAINE, S. (1994) Pidgin and Creole Languages , Longman New York.
RUSSEL, T. (1868) The Etymology of Jamaican Grammar, by a young gentleman, Kingston: De
Cordova, McDougall.
SEBBA, M. (1993) London Jamaican, Longman U.K.
SEUREN, P. & WEKKER, H (1986) „Semantic Transparency as a factor in creole genesis‟, in
Muysken, P., & Smith, N., (eds.), Universals vs. Substrata in Creole Genesis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins pp. 57-71.
SPORTICHE (1993) „Adjuncts and Adjunction‟, ms., UCLA.
61
“L-TOUS”, RESTRUCTURING AND QUANTIFIER CLIMBING
Marco NICOLIS
1. Introduction
The aim of this paper is to investigate the distribution of the object quantifier
tout/tutto in French and Italian. Although in both languages this quantifier can
appear in a “low” derived position (which will be argued to be one and the same in
both languages), French displays an additional option: in some biclausal structures,
tout can optionally appear in a high derived position (e.g. (1)), a structure known as
“Quantifier Climbing”.
(1) Il a tout voulu manger
The clausal structure adopted in this paper is the highly articulated structure
recently put forth by Cinque (1999). In this work, the “spirit” of Pollock‟s (1989)
“Split-Infl Hypothesis” reaches its most radical formulation. The node traditionally
known as “IP” is not just split into two different Functional Projections (see Pollock
(1989), Belletti (1990) and much related work), but is made up of about thirty FPs.
Cinque‟s proposal relies on the individuation of a rigid, crosslinguistically
consistent, hierarchical ordering of adverbs. Each FP hosts an adverbial class in its
Spec and may allow (modulo the different “length” of V movement in different
languages) Verb movement through its Head. The existence of a hierarchy of FPs
rather than of a (multiple) adjunction structure (see Chomsky (1995), ch.4) is further
confirmed by those languages expressing adverbial modification by means of
“particles” (therefore, heads) incorporated into the verb: the ordering of these heads
is (under Baker‟s Mirror Principle) exactly the same found for adverbs in “abverbial
1
languages” . We report in (2) the adverbial hierarchy which constitutes the lowest
1
Cinque‟s (1999) account of the adverbial ordering in terms of an FP hierarchy, rather than
adjunction, is a welcome conclusion under a restrictive theory of syntax, such as Kayne‟s
(1994) antisymmetric program. In this system, adjunction to XP is never an option, even
though Specs are in general considered elements adjoined to single bar constituents.
63
Marco Nicolis
part of “IP”, noting, as expected, its consistency in different languages (Italian (2a),
French (2b), English (2c) respectively).
(2) a. solitamente>mica>già>sempre>completamente>tutto>bene
b. généralment>pas>déjà>plus>toujours>complètement>tout>bien
2
c. usually>…>already>always>completely>…>well
The ordering in (2) has been obtained by simply juxtaposing adverbs belonging
to different semantic classes and noting that they can only appear in just one of the n
possible orderings. The mechanics of this process is illustrated by the paradigm (3):
(3) a. Quando lo andiamo a trovare, Gianni ha solitamente già finito di mangiare
When him-cl. go to meet, Gianni has usually already finished to eat
b. *Quando lo andiamo a trovare, Gianni ha già solitamente finito di mangiare
c. Gianni ha già spiegato bene la lezione a Maria
Gianni has already explained well the lecture to Maria
d. *Gianni ha bene spiegato già la lezione a Maria
e. Gianni capisce solitamente bene la lezione
Gianni understands usually well the lecture
f. *Gianni capisce bene solitamente la lezione
Examples (3 a-b) show that the adverb solitamente must precede the adverb già.
(3 c-d) show that già precedes bene. (3e-f) confirm the validity of the ordering
solitamente>già>bene, showing that transitivity holds: solitamente must in fact
precede bene. The reiteration of this procedure with all the different adverbial
3
classes yields the highly articulated structure of IP proposed by Cinque (1999) .
The adoption of this rich clausal architecture poses some preliminary problems
of “translation”: given the pre-pollockian clausal structure adopted in classical
works on floating quantifiers (such as Sportiche (1988)) or even the not-so-highly2
3
64
The clausal structure proposed by Cinque (1999) is actually even more fine grained than
reported in (2). In particular, several adverbs can occupy two distinct positions yielding
two different semantic interpretations. Cinque (1999, ch. 1 p. 30) argues that in (ia)
“slowly qualifies the entire event (each test could well have been rapid), whereas in (ib) it
qualifies each test individually”:
(i) a. He has been slowly testing some bulbs
b. He has been testing some bulbs slowly
As the point is irrelevant to our argument, in order to avoid unnecessary complexity we
will keep on referring to (2) as the lowest part of the IP.
In (3) we tested three adverbs quite “distant” from one another. It is worth observing that the
closer two adverbial classes are, the more nuanced the grammaticality judgement becomes.
“L-Tous”, Restructuring and Quantifier Climbing
articulated structure adopted by Cinque himself in works on leftward movement of
tutto in Italian (see Cinque (1995, ch. 3, 9)), the positional characterisation of the
landing site of these clause internal movements must be reconsidered; if “IP” is
indeed constituted of about thirty adverbial FPs (and each one is probably
“accompanied” by a “DP related” FP), the number of possible landing sites for
movement dramatically increases. It is thus necessary to test the position of the
moved material with respect to the fixed position occupied by adverbs in the
relevant part of the clausal structure.
The “positional analysis” will always be integrated by an analysis of the
“typology of positions”: the individuation of a particular position in the structure
will be constantly tied to the individuation of the typological class it belongs to. The
matter is made more complex by the split between quantificational and
modificational Ā positions recently proposed by Rizzi (1999), (2000).
In Relativized Minimality (1990), Rizzi suggested that “the class of possible
interveners triggering minimality effects is not coextensive to the class of target
positions, but significantly wider” (Rizzi (2000)). In fact, it is well known that
Negation, wh- elements and quantificational adverbs such as beaucoup/molto all
pattern alike so far as their ability to block wh- extraction of non arguments in
4
“pseudo opacity” structures is concerned (Rizzi (1990)) , as (4 b, c, d) clearly show:
(4) a. Combien i a-t-il consulté [ti de livres] ?
b. *Combien i a-t-il beaucoup consulté [ti de livres]?
c. *Combien i ne sais-tu pas résoudre [ti de problèmes] ?
d. *Combien i sais-tu [comment résoudre [ti de prblèmes] ?
On the other hand, if all adverbs sit in a [Spec, FP] and all such positions are (by
assumption) uniformly Ā position, one should expect that all adverbs may trigger
minimality effects with respect to wh- extraction of non arguments. The prediction
anyway is not borne out, as (4) clearly shows:
(5) a. *Combien a-t-il beaucoup consulté de livres?
b. Combien a-t-il attentivement consulté de livres?
On the basis of data like (5) Rizzi (2000) proposes that Ā positions are actually
to be split into two classes: quantificational Ā positions (Ā-q henceforth) and
modificational Ā positions (Ā-m). If this idea is correct, one should find cases in
which a modificational adverb acts as an intervener wrt to the fronting of another
modificational adverb. Consider (6):
4
These data were originally noted by Obenauer (1983).
65
Marco Nicolis
(6) a. *Rapidamente, i tecnici hanno probabilmente risolto ___ il problema
5
b. RAPIDAMENTE i tecnici hanno probabilmente risolto ___ il problema
(6a) shows that the fronting of a modificational adverb across an adverb of the
same type triggers RM effects. Since Focalization, contrary to simple fronting,
involves movement to a Left Peripheral Ā -q position (Cinque (1990), Rizzi (1997)
and much related work), no RM effect is triggered in (6b), as Rizzi (2000)‟s theory
correctly predicts (see also (44) and fn. 22).
The same kind of effect is further illustrated by the fronting of adverbs for V2
reasons in Dutch. Given the ordering helaas (unfortunately) > waarschijnlijk
(probably) (7), only the former can be fronted but not the latter: this movement would
violate RM, since both the landing site and the intervener are Ā-m positions (8).
(7) a. Het is zo dat hij helaas waarschijnlijk ziek is
“It is so that he unfortunately probably sick is”
b. *Het is zo dat hij waarschijnlijk helaas ziek is
(8) a. Helaas is hij ___ waarschijnlijk ziek
“Unfortunately is he probably sick”
b. *Waarschijnlijk is hij helaas ___ ziek
c. Waarschijnlijk is hij ___ ziek
(helaas>waarschijnlijk)
Koster (1978)
Having spelled out the background theoretical assumptions underlying this work,
we may now turn to the analysis of the movement of tout/tutto.
2. The movement of tout/tutto: the low position
It is well known, at least since Belletti‟s (1990) influential work on Verb
movement, that both French and Italian object quantifiers tout/tutto occupy a derived
position at S-Structure (or at Spell Out) despite the fact that tutto follows the Past
Participle and tout precedes it, as (9) shows.
(9) a. Jean a {tout} mangé {*tout}
b. Gianni ha {*tutto} mangiato {tutto}
The contrast in (9) is amenable to the well known difference between the two
languages concerning Past Participle movement; since Past Participle in Italian
moves much higher that its French counterpart, the data in (9) are readily accounted
5
66
(i) shows that the correct hierarchical ordering of the two adverbs rapidamente and probabilmente is probabilmente>rapidamente.
(i) a. I tecnici hanno probabilmente risolto rapidamente il problema
b. *I tecnici hanno rapidamente risolto probabilmente il problema
for. This conclusion is further confirmed by the distribution of low adverbs; since
both quantifiers show the same distribution with respect to the fixed positions
occupied by low adverbs (they precede (see (10)), and follow (see (11)) the same
adverbial classes), the obvious conclusion is that they occupy the same structural
position in both languages:
(10) a.
b.
c.
d.
Ha già detto tutto bene Gianni
*Ha già detto bene tutto Gianni
Elle a tout très mal compris
*Elle a très mal tout compris
(11) a.
b.
c.
d.
Ha rifatto già tutto bene Gianni
*Ha rifatto tutto già bene Gianni
Jean a déjà tout refait
6
*Jean a tout déjà refait
Cinque (1999)
Although the conclusion that both tout and tutto occupy the same derived
position at S-Structure is fairly uncontroversial in the literature, there is to my
knowledge no general agreement about the categorial status of this derived position.
As a matter of fact, any of the three aforementioned structural classes for XPs (A, Ām, Ā-q) has been proposed in different works to be the class the landing site of the
movement of tout/tutto belongs to. Let‟s now consider each of the three alternatives
2.1 Movement to an Ā-q position
7
Belletti (1990, pag. 78) argued that “[…] it can be assumed that rien/tout have
the defining property of obligatorily undergoing a QR-type movement process in the
syntax (presumably to be assigned scope already at this level of representation).”
QR is typically an LF movement moving variables to a scope assigning position,
therefore the landing site of this movement must be an Ā-q position, since scope
assigning positions are by assumption quantificational. The position occupied by
tout/tutto seems to be hardly characterizable as a scope assigning Ā-q position.
First of all, claiming that being subject to a sort of pre-LF QR is a “defining
property” of tout/tutto is a mere stipulation, unless independent empirical evidence
(which is, to my knowledge, lacking) supporting this thesis is brought up. Even
assuming that some evidence in the desired direction could be found, it still needs to
6
7
As in all the examples quoted in this paper, unless otherwise indicated, the sentences in
(10), (11) are to be read with a flat intonation, namely, one which doesn‟t make any constituent more “salient”.
The same argument is in a later passage extended to Italian as well.
67
Marco Nicolis
be explained why the Quantifier can remain in base position when focalized,
modified or coordinated, maybe with a very slight marginality (see (12)):
(12) a.
b.
c.
d.
?Il a repris TOUT
?Il a repris presque tout
?Il n‟a lu absolutement rien
?Il a lu tout ou presque tout
Belletti (1990)
Belletti (1990)‟s account of the data in (12) consists in simply proposing that “It
could be assumed as in Kayne (1975) that the rule moving the quantifiers is
suspended in conjunction with stress or heaviness” (Belletti (1990), page 138
fn. 67). Also in this case, there seems to be no independent empirical reason forcing
such a conclusion. Moreover, since QR involves the interpretability of the moved
elements, some kind of interpretive difference between the bare quantifier cases
(such as (10)), in which QR would have applied, and the non-bare cases (such as
(12)), where no QR is supposed to have taken place should be detectable. The
prediction is clearly not borne out, though.
Alongside these theoretical problems, the hypothesis according to which
tout/tutto move to an Ā-q position seems to be empirically inadequate; in fact, these
quantifiers can move across a quantificational adverb like beaucoup, without
triggering any RM violation.
In order to show that this argument goes through, it is first necessary to make
sure that the position occupied by beaucoup/molto is indeed in between the moved
quantifier and its trace and therefore qualifies as a potential intervener. Cinque
(1999) observes that beaucoup/molto and bien/bene can be easily coordinated and
8
seem to surface in a quasi-complementary distribution , two (somewhat loose)
indications that they may occupy the same position. However, this hypothesis does
not seem very promising from a semantic viewpoint. In fact, the FPs constituting
Cinque‟s hierarchy are each representative of a peculiar semantic class:
beaucoup/molto and bien/bene, if anything, encode very different semantic
properties and it is therefore highly implausible that they occupy the same position.
Cinque (1999) further noticed that there are a few cases (like (13)) in which molto
and bene can cooccur without requiring coordination. In all the relevant cases bene
must necessarily follow molto. It is therefore plausible to assume that the two
adverbs occupy two distinct, although contiguous positions.
8
Consider for example the sentences in (i), where coordination seems to be the only option
((ia) is grammatical in the irrelevant interpretation in which molto locally modifies bene):
(i) a. *Gianni ha mangiato molto bene
b. *Gianni ha mangiato bene molto
c. Gianni ha mangiato molto e bene.
68
(13) a. (?)Ballava molto assai bene anche il fratello
9
b. *Ballava assai bene molto anche il fratello
(10) above shows that the derived position tutto moves to precedes the one filled
by bene (and the one filled by completamente, assuming (2) is correct), therefore
molto/beaucoup is indeed a potential intervener for the movement of tout/tutto.
The examples in (10) jointly with those in (13) correctly predict that the ordering
beaucoup/molto>tout/tutto is impossible for configurational reasons (see (13b)), as
(14) shows:
(14) a. *Il a beaucoup tout apprecié
b. *Ha apprezzato molto tutto
We may now turn to the crucial examples in which the quantifier moves to a
position higher than the one occupied by beaucoup/molto:
(15) a. Il a tout beaucoup apprecié
b. Ha apprezzato tutto molto
If the landing site of tout/tutto were an Ā-q position, an RM effect should arise,
given the quantificational nature of the adverb beaucoup/molto. The absence of any
such effect seems to suggest that the landing site of tout/tutto is not a
quantificational position.
A possible objection to this conclusion is that whatever class the position
occupied by tout/tutto belongs to, these elements possess an inherent
[+Quantificational] feature, which should emerge in any position they move to,
being lexically determined. This idea seems to be operative in such domains as
variable binding, as (16) shows.
(16) a. Tuttoi, non dovrà vender(*lo)
b. I suoi libri, non dovrà vender*(li)
9
The judgment is quite delicate in this case, because the presence of an inverted subject coocurring with a low adverb yields per se a marginal sentence as Rizzi (1996) showed (see (i)):
(i) ?Ha giocato bene Gianni
??Ha fatto tutto bene Gianni
The presence of the inverted subject is nonetheless very important in these cases: in fact,
given the general possibility for any deaccented extraposed XP to appear in sentence in
final position, it is necessary to show that the acceptability of a sentence like (13a) with a
preverbal subject is not the result of the application of some “rescuing strategy”, like extraposition of the sentence final adverb.
69
Marco Nicolis
Contrary to full DPs (16b), bare quantifiers such as tutto can bind a variable from
a clearly non quantificational position (Topic in (16)) without requiring a resumptive
clitic (16a). But not only don‟t they require a resumptive clitic, they actually do not
tolerate it, plausibily because it would qualify as a closer potential binder for the
variable in object position: this would lead to a case of vacuous quantification, since
the operator-like item tutto would have no variable to bind.
These facts however do not automatically extend to the domain of Locality,
which on the contrary doesn‟t seem to be sensitive to intrinsic features. As a matter
of fact, we can consider variable binding and the computation of Locality effects
two independent phenomena that exploit different computational mechanisms.
Rizzi (1999) proposes that a Spec position acquires the featural characterization
relevant for the computation of Locality effects from its local head X°. Therefore the
intrinsic features of a moved element are irrelevant for the computation of RM
effects. Given the characterization of Relativized Minimality reported below and in
particular (23 (i)), Rizzi (1999) proposes that “same structural type” is to be
understood as “(i) head or Spec, and (ii) Spec licensed by features of same class”;
the licenser of a given Spec is its local head.
2.2. Movement to an Ā-m position
The hypothesis of a movement to Ā-m position had been explicitly put forth in
various works by G. Cinque. Cinque (1995, ch.9) argued that “[…] only tout/tutto,
among XPs, could move to what appears to be an adverbial-like Ā position, […]
while retaining their ability to bind a variable”. The hallmark of bare quantifiers
such as tout/tutto would be their being structurally reduced, “a complementless QP,
unspecified for the features N V” (Cinque (1995), ch. 9, pag. 282). The structural
peculiarity characterizing these QPs could be responsible for their ability to escape
10
the requirements of the Case Filter : in fact, being a complementless QP implies
being not a N°‟s extended projection; therefore, the Case Filter can be ignored and
the quantifier can move to an Ā-m position.
The adverbial nature of tout/tutto is further discussed in Cinque (1999), where it
is claimed that these Quantifiers encode a particular type of Completive Aspect.
Cinque (1999), quoting previous work by Bybee, distinguishes two types of
10
70
I will not commit myself to the existence of the Case Filter; in particular, the ideas exposed in this paragraph will be rejected in a later one. Anyway, for consistence‟s sake, I
will adopt a standard formulation of the Case Filter, such as that reported in (i) (taken
from Chomsky (1995, ch. 1 page 111)):
(i) Every phonetically realized NP must be assigned (abstract) Case
Of course, the Case Filter extends also to all the nominal projections that can be considered extended projections of N° in Grimshaw‟s (1991) sense.
Completive Aspect in the case of a definite plural object, one expressing “that the
plural set has been totally affected (i.e. each member of the set has been affected)
and 2) that each member of the set has been totally affected”. Cinque proposes that,
although several languages do not distinguish between the two (e.g. English (17),
where the particle up ambiguously encodes both), others, like Polish (see (18)), do.
(17) I ate up the sandwiches
(18) Po-prze-czyt-yw-o am
wszystkie jej ksiazki
COMPL-COMPL-read-HAB-PAST all
her books
“I have read all her books occasionally one after the other and right through”
Cinque (1999)
Cinque calls the two aspects “plural completion” and “singular completion”.
Back to Italian, Cinque (1999) observes that “it is temping to see completamente and
tutto as the specifiers corresponding to „singular‟ and „plural‟ completion,
respectively”; he further observes that in fact, tutto can only refer to a plurality of
items (a singular object in not an appropriate answer to the question (19)) and that
completamente obeys the same restrictions that the corresponding functional heads
obey in other languages, namely it is “incompatible with situations lacking internal
stages and a natural end point”. Thus, in the relevant respect, Hungarian, Chinese
and Italian all pattern alike, modulo the realization of the head (Hungarian and
Chinese) or of the Spec (Italian) of the same FP.
(19) Hai trovato tutto?
Cinque (1999)
(20) a. *Karoly tejet I vott meg
K. milk drank up
„K. drank milk up‟
b. Ta xiao-(*wan)-le
He smile-(COMPL)-PERF
„He smiled completely‟
c. *Gianni ha riso completamente
Cinque (1999)
This hypothesis, although the point is not fully clarified by Cinque (1999), seems
to imply that the quantifier tutto acquires its modificational „completive‟ nature by
virtue of sitting in a modificational [Spec, FP] at SS or Spell-Out; in particular, the
restriction concerning the possibility of referring only to singular referents should be
the result of occupying the Spec of the AspectPluralcompletive projection. If this is
correct, the prediction is that this restriction should be suspended in those contexts in
which the modified or focalized quantifier tout/tutto remains in base position. (21)
shows that the prediction is not borne out, in fact in both (21a) and (21b) the
quantifier can only refer to a singular entity.
71
Marco Nicolis
(21) a. Hai pulito tutto bene?
b. Hai pulito bene quasi tutto?
But the most important drawback of Cinque‟s analysis has to do with locality. If
we adopt Rizzi‟s (2000) system, it is obvious that the quantifier tout/tutto can cross
11
low modificational adverbs, as (10a), (10c) show , without triggering any RM effect.
A possible objection to this conclusion could be that tout/tutto are not inherently
modificational elements (in the way most adverbs are), but acquire their
modificational status only when they reach the relevant [Spec, FP] and therefore
when the crossing takes place no RM effect arises because the moved element is not
endowed with the relevant modificational feature the crossed element is. However,
this objection does not go through. In fact, Rizzi‟s system (Rizzi (1990) as well as
Rizzi (2000)) is essentially a representational system, namely one in which possible
intervening effects are computed from the final representation rather than taking into
account the whole derivation. Rizzi‟s (2000) basic idea of Relativized Minimality
(see (22)) is in fact technically implemented making reference to the notion of
Minimal Comfiguration (see (23)), which in turn relies on a representational notion
of chain (see (24)), the typical locus where an MC is created.
(22) In the configuration …X…Z…Y… “Y cannot be related to X if Z intervened
and Z has certain characteristics in common with X. So, in order to be related
to X, Y must be in a minimal configuration with X, where minimality is
relativized to the nature of the structural relation to be established” Rizzi (2000)
(23) Y is in a Minimal Configuration (MC) with X iff there is no such Z that
(i) Z is of the same structural type as X, and
(ii) Z intervenes between X and Y
Rizzi (2000)
(24) (A1,…An) is a chain iff, for 1 ≤ i < n
12
(i) Ai=Ai+1
(ii) Ai c-commands Ai+1
(iii) Ai+1 is in a MC with Ai
Rizzi (2000)
The combination of (22), (23), (24) implies that intervention effects are to be
detected solely on the basis of the structural properties of the target position and of the
intervener, therefore if they share the same feature (e.g. modificational in (10a), (10c),
11
12
72
10b, 10d show that bene>tutto is (expectedly) the only possible ordering between the unmodified quantifier tout/tutto and the bien/bene class of adverbs.
See Chomsky (1995) for a theory of traces as copies.
as Cinque‟s theory seems to imply) a RM violation is expected, no matter which
features the moved element is inherently endowed with. Given the lack of RM effects
in the cases under examination, it is fair to conclude that the head of the FP to which
the Quantifier moves in not endowed with the feature [+Modificational].
2.3. Movement to an A position
The option we are left with is movement to an A position. This hypothesis,
defended in Cardinaletti & Starke (1994), (1994b), readily provides an explanation
for exactly those aspects that were problematic for the hypotheses considered so far.
In particular, it convincingly accounts for the possibility of leaving a non bare
quantifier in base position and for the lack of RM effects in cases like (10), (15).
The latter point is straightforward. In fact, if the target position is an A position,
the intervention of an Ā element of whatever kind is not expected to trigger any RM
effect. The case wuold be fully parallel to another case in which tout moves to an
indisputable A position, namely subject position, crossing a modificational adverb
(vraiment) without triggering any RM effect:
(25) a. Tout a été vraiment apprécié par Jean
Let‟s now consider (25b):
(25) b. Gianni ha spiegato loro tutto bene
Cases like (25b), in which the weak pronoun loro has moved to a derived A
position, probably for Case reasons, (see below and Cardinaletti & Starke (1994))
across the quantifier tutto, cannot be considered counterexamples to the conclusion
that tutto moves to an A position. In fact, (25b) is a member a of a larger set of cases
in which a “short” A movement does not trigger RM violations; A movements of
elements targeting positions within the verbal extended projection of the clause they
were generated in, typically do not induce RM violations. The prototypical and most
discussed cases of this sort are Object Shift and the (fully grammatical) crossing of
13
the [Spec, AgrOP] position by the subject on its way to [Spec, AgrS] . The typical
13
I do not really commit myself to any of the many proposal in the literature trying to account for the perfect acceptability of this movement, since the descriptive datum is all I
really need in my argument. However, for completeness sake, it is worth noting that
Chomsky (1995, ch. 3) argued for the well known device called equidistance, Roberts
(1997) proposes that RM effects are voided if in the structural context …X…Z…Y… X
and Z are non-distinct, where distinctness is defined as in (i):
(i) α is a position nondistinct from β if α and β are of the same category and are in the
extended projection of a single lexical category L.
Since both AgrOP and AgrS are in the same extended projection of the verb V, the intervener and the target are non-distinct, therefore RM is not violate, given (i).
73
Marco Nicolis
RM violation involving A positions is in fact superaising, which in fact involves an
intervener and a landing site which are in two distinct extended projections, being
14
both positions required by EPP .
As to the possibility of leaving a non bare quantifier in base position (such as
modified, coordinated, focalized tout/tutto), Cardinaletti & Starke (1994) propose
that what is at stake in these cases exactly corresponds to what is found with a large
class of personal pronouns. Many personal pronouns have three distinct forms: a
heavy, a weak and a clitic form (e.g. Italian dative plural pronoun a loro (Strong),
loro (Weak), gli (clitic)). As the example in the parenthesis show, the strong form is
often morphologically richer than the weak form, which is in turn richer than the
15
clitic form . This difference correlates to a distributional difference: strong
elements occupy a position lower that those occupied by weak and clitic elements,
as (26) clearly shows:
(26) a. \Non gli metterò mai il cappuccio
b. Non metterò mai loro il cappuccio
c. Non metterò mai il cappuccio a loro
The strong version of the pronoun can typically be coordinated, focalized and
modified, while the weak (and a fortiori the clitic) forms cannot, as (27) vs. (28) and
(29) shows:
(27) a. Ho parlato [a loro] e [a loro]
b. Ho parlato [a LORO], non [a LORO]
c. Ho parlato solo [a loro]
Finally, Rizzi (Univ. of Siena seminars, 1999) proposes that in the cases we are considering the intervener is not to be identified with just the head of the chain , but with the
whole chain. Therefore, the crossing of [Spec, AgrOP] by the subject is not problematic
since the tail of the chain formed by the movement of the object to AgrOP is not crossed
by the subject, which is of course generated higher.
14
15
74
A case of superaising is illustrated in (i), where the subject of the most embedded clause
in raised to the subject position of the matrix clause across the expletive subject it in
[Spec, AgrS2]:
(i) *[AgrS1 Johni seems that [AgrS2 it is likely [ AgrS3 t i to win]]]
This is not necessary, though. In fact, in many cases the different classes are homophonous (German strong and weak forms sie, French weak and clitic forms il) , but it is never
the case that a stronger form is morphologically poorer than a weaker counterpart.
(28) a. *Ho parlato [loro] e [loro]
b. *Ho palato [LORO], non [LORO]
c. *Ho parlato solo [loro]
(29) a. *[gli] e [gli] ho parlato
b. *[GLI] ho parlato, non [GLI]
c. *Solo [gli] ho parlato
Cardinaletti & Starke (1994) further show that when the structural conditions for
the appearance of functionally equivalent pronouns are met, the weaker form is
always preferred over the strong one. In other words, if nothing forces a strong form
to occur (prominence, by and large, as in (27), (28), (29)), the weak form is chosen.
(30) illustrates the point in different languages (from Cardinaletti & Starke (1994):
(30) a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
Jean {laC} regarde {*elleS}
Gianni {laC} guarda {*leiS}
Ich habe {ihnW} gestern {*ihn} eingeladen
…, dass {zC/ *esW} toire isch
…, dat {zeW/*zjjS} niet will komen
(FRENCH)
(ITALIAN)
(GERMAN)
(OLANG TIROLESE)
(DUTCH)
The properties observed so far for pronouns exactly mirror those of the quantifier
tout/tutto. On the assumption that the quantifier tout/tutto has both a weak and a
strong omophonous form (see fn. 12), all the data straightforwardly fall into place.
(10) shows on a par with (30) that the weak form, which occupies a higher position
(as (26) shows for pronouns), is preferred over the strong one when nothing forces
the latter to appear. (12) shows for French that the contexts in which the quantifier is
left in base position are exactly the same in which a strong pronoun shows up,
namely modification (27c), (12 b, c), coordination (27a), (12d) and focalization
(27b), (12a). (28) shows the same point in Italian:
(31) a. Gianni ha capito bene assolutamente tutto (*assolutamente tutto bene)
(modification)
b. Gianni ha capito bene tutto o quasi (*tutto o quasi bene) (coordination)
c. Gianni ha capito bene TUTTO, non solo il primo capitolo (*?TUTTO bene,
non…)
(focalization)
d. *Ha fatto bene tutto anche Gianni (Ha fatto tutto bene anche Gianni)
(bare quantifier)
Cardinaletti & Starke (1994) account for the properties of weak elements in
terms of structural deficiency: since their projection is structurally reduced (it
75
Marco Nicolis
16
contains less structural layers) , they need to compensate for such a deficiency by
moving to an adequate [Spec, FP], in order to recover the properties they are not
structurally endowed with. For example, it is argued in Cardinaletti & Starke (1994)
that the property pronouns need to recover is case: the dummy marker a appearing in
17
(26c) would be the morphological realization of a case assigning head . Weak
elements lack the relevant projection DP internally, therefore they must move to a
“Case assigning” projection in the IP space, plausibly an Agreement projection
(AgrOP or a similar projection if Agreement projections in the low IP space are
more than traditionally assumed).
This case based account does not automatically extend to all the weak elements,
since Cardinaletti & Starke (1994) observe that some languages such as Greek have
18
weak adverbs , which of course do not need case.
Determining the kind of structural deficiency affecting quantifiers is far from
straightforward: in fact, it could only be assessed on the basis of a much deeper
knowledge of the fine structure of QPs. If Cinque is right in claiming that bare
quantifiers are complementless QPs, then a case based account of their structural
deficiency would prove implausible, since they should be able to escape the Case
Filter. If Cardinaletti & Starke‟s (1994) approach (lack of the highest layer(s)) is on
the right track, then bare quantifiers could still perhaps be considered extended
projections of some empty N°, thus being subject to the Case Filter. Their deficiency
could then be due to Case reasons on a par with full DPs.
16
17
18
76
Cardinaletti & Starke (1994) propose that these projection lack the uppermost layer
(CNP), which, just like CP would be able to host a prepositional dummy marker, such as a
in (26). I do not really commit myself to all the technical details of this proposal, given
the many recent works showing that both the sentential CP and the DP are probably to
share the same fate of the node IP, namely split into many FPs.
The overt morphological realization of this head is of course not a necessary condition
for case assignment: the necessary condition is the structural presence of such a case
assigning head.
The Greek adverb sigo is considered by Cardinaletti & Starke (1994) the weak counterpart of sigà, as their distribution in (i) confirms:
(i) a. To {*sigà} évrasa {sigà}
b. To {sigo} évrasa {*sigo}
It slowly I boiled slowly
As predictable, only the strong form sigà can be grammatically coordinated:
(ii) a. To évrasa sigà ke kalà
b. *To sigo ke kalo évrasa
It slowly and well I boiled
3. The movement of tout: the high position
As anticipated in the Introduction, in some, but not all biclausal structures, the
French quantifier tout can occupy a high derived position, an option unavailable to
its Italian counterpart tutto. Consider (32) vs. (33), adapted from Kayne (1975 ch. 1)
and Kayne (1984 ch. 3):
(32) a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
Il a tout voulu manger
Elle n‟a rien pu boire
Vous n‟auriez rien osé dire (de plus)
Tu vas tout devoir apprendre par cœur
Il a tout failli rater
Kayne (1975)
(33) a. *Elle va tout avouer mépriser (Elle va avouer tout mepriser)
b. *Elle est tout montée mettre à la poubelle (Elle est montée tout mettre à la
poubelle)
c. *Elle va tout courir mettre dehors (Elle va courir tout mettre dehors)
The class of verbs allowing Quantifier Climbing by and large corresponds to the
class of Restructuring verbs in restructuring languages. This datum is surprising,
since Modern French lacks Restructuring, which is shown by the ungrammaticality
of Long NP movement with mediopassive “se” (34a), Auxiliary Change (34b) and
Clitic Climbing (34c), the typical hallmarks of Restructuring.
(34) a. *Les nouvelles maisons se commenceront à construire
b. *Pierre est voulu venir avec nous
c. *Jean le veut faire
Although Modern French lacks Restructuring, Old French was a restructuring
languge, as (35) shows:
(35) a. Nuls om mortals no.l pod penser
No man mortal not.it(cl.) can think
b. Elle la commença a desirer
She it(cl.) begins to desire
c. Vous estes volue apparoir
You are wanted appear
d. car amors ne se puet celer
as loves not “se”(mediopassive) can hide
(clitic climbing)
(clitic climbing)
(auxiliary change)
(long NP movement)
(35) could lead one to hypothesize that the occurrence of Quantifier Climbing
with the class of Restructuring verbs in French is a residual phenomenon, since
French was a restructuring language. The hypothesis seems however hard to
77
Marco Nicolis
maintain, since Italian, a full fledged Restructuring Language, strongly disallows
Quantifier Climbing:
(36) **Gianni tutto vuole mangiare
We now face a somewhat paradoxical situation: French, a non restructuring
language allows Quantifier Climbing in sentences involving restructuring verbs,
whereas Italian, a restructuring language, simply disallows Quantifier Climbing.
Before coming back to this intricate problem, let‟s first of all determine the
structural class of the position the “climbed Quantifier” moves to.
3.1. Quantifier climbing: the landing site
19
Although Modern French does not allow Restructuring, Clitic Climbing is
grammatical in some causative structures, plausibly a residue of earlier stages of the
language, when Restructuring was an option:
(37) Jean la fait manger par/à Paul
Given Shlonsky (1991) analysis of the structure of QP, according to which tout
is generated in Q°, Quantifier Climbing could in principle be though of as head
movement, on a par with (37). But a clear difference between Clitic Climbing and
Quantifier Climbing emerges with respect to RM effects. Clitic Climbing clearly IS
head movement, given the impossibility in both Italian and French for the clitic to
cross an intervening head:
(38) a. *Gianni li vuole non vedere (OK… non li vuole vedere) (OK… vuole non
vederli)
b. *Gianni non li vuole che Maria veda
c. *Jean/Cela lui a fait ne pas manger a l‟enfant (??Jean/Cela a fait ne pas
manger sa soupe a l‟enfant) (Kayne 1989)
On the other hand, the climbed Quantifier can cross a head (C° in (36)):
(39) a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
19
78
?Jean veut tout qu‟elle refasse
?Je veux tout que tu leur enlèves
?Je ne veux rien que tu fasses (d‟autre)
?Il faut tout que je leur enlève
?Il ne faut rien que tu fasses
I adopt Kayne‟s (1989) account of cliticization as composite movement, namely XP
movement to [Spec,AgrOP] followed by X° movement up to the cliticization site.
In all the cases in (39) the Quantifier crosses the Subject position of the
embedded clause, thus showing that the position it targets is not an A position.
The Quantifier tout appears to be able to move out of wh- islands (40), thus
showing that this position is not an Ā-q position:
(40) a. ?Il a tout su ou mettre
Kayne (1989)
On the contrary, the intervention of a modificational adverb yields
ungrammaticality:
(41) a. *?Il a tout voulu obstinément voir en même temps
I take the evidence in (39), (40), (41) as a clear indication that the climbed
Quantifier moves to an Ā-m position.
This conclusion seems to be inconsistent with the grammaticality of the
20
extraction of tout from Inner Islands, as (42b) shows :
(42) a. Il aurait voulu ne tout dire qu‟à son advocat
b. *Il aurait tout voulu ne dire qu‟à son advocat
Kayne (1975)
It is well known, at least since Ross (1983), that wh- islands are stronger than
Inner Islands; therefore, the asymmetry (40) vs. (42) is unexpected: the mild
deviance of (40) should imply the perfect grammaticality of (42), contrary to fact.
Negation has long been considered an Ā-q element; Rizzi (1990) observed that
“…negation patterns on a par with other uncontroversial Ā binders such as wh21
elements and adverbial QPs”, as (43) shows :
(43) a. Combien a-t-il lu [e de livres]
b. Il a beaucoup lu [e de livres]
c. Il n‟a pas lu [e de livres]
20
21
Rizzi (1990)
The intervener in (41) is plausibly not ne, which is standardly assumed to be the head of a
NegP, but rather a null negative operator (the covert counterpart of pas) sitting in the Spec
of the projection headed by ne.
The Ā-q nature of Negation is further shown by the systematic lack of ambiguity in sentences like (ib), contrary to structures like (ia):
(i) a. Il n‟a [pas [résolu [beaucuop de problèmes]]]
b. Il n‟a [pas [beaucoup résolu [e de problèmes]]]
In (ia) the whole object can be grammatically Q-Raised at LF (whatever the reason allowing this structure: θ-marking of the object in a disjunctively formulated ECP, proper index
assignment, D-Linking…), giving beaucoup wide scope. Beaucoup can only have narrow
scope in (ib), because its raising across pas would violate RM, as (ii), the LF representation of (ib) with beaucoup assigned wide scope, shows:
(ii) *beaucoup il n‟a [pas [t résolu [de problèmes]]].
79
Marco Nicolis
On the other hand, there seems to be good reason to believe that Negation also
carries a [+Modificational] feature, as (44) shows:
(44) *Rapidamente, Gianni non ha risolto il problema
22
This sentence is ungrammatical if the adverb is interpreted as simply fronted in a
“Modificational” position in the CP space, plausibly beacause the crossing of pas
23
violates RM .
Rizzi‟s (1999) theory accounts for the double featural specification of Negation
([+Modificational] (44), [+Quantificational] (43) and fn.21) by simply proposing
that different positions can inherit more than one feature by their head. The table
(45), taken from Rizzi (1999), is a characterization of all the possible featural
combinations of [Q], [Mod], [Arg].
(45)
ARG
Q
MOD
EXAMPLES
+
+
+
+
-
+
+
+
+
-
+
+
+
+
-
John (non-quantificational subjects)
*
Wh, Foc
Beaucoup, pas
Noone (quantificational subjects)
*
Carefully
Topic
Given (45), the asymmetry (40) vs. (42) is no longer surprising: the Wh word ou
in (40) is specified as [+Q], therefore it does not qualify as an intervener for the
22
23
80
This sentence is grammatical if uttered in particular pragmatic contexts in which the
adverb can be interpreted as a real Topic. Rizzi (1999b) reports the following convers ational context:
A: Pare che Gianni abbia risolto rapidamente il primo problema
B: Mi sembra impossibile: rapidamente, ha probabilmente risolto IL SECONDO
As noted earlier, the Top° head is [-Q], [-Mod] and [-Arg], therefore the lack of RM effects in B is expected.
Rizzi (1999b), proposes, in a way consistent with other recent works ( see Benincà & Poletto
(2000) among others), that the fine structure of the Left Periphery is more fine grained than
it was assumed in Rizzi (1997). In particular, examples like (44), involving a non-topicalized
adverb in the CP space, are taken to be a clear indication of the existence of a (recursive)
Mod projection. Therefore, the CP structure proposed by Rizzi (1999b) is as in (i):
(i) Force Top* Focus Mod* Top* Fin
movement of tout, which targets a [+Mod] position. On the contrary, since it is
specified as both [+Q] and [+Mod], Negation blocks Quantifier Climbing.
Hence, we can conclude that Quantifier Climbing targets a [+Mod] position.
3.2. Quantifier Climbing: Restructuring and CP reduction
What has still to be assessed is the relation between Restructuring and Quantifier
Climbing. I adopt the basic guidelines of Roberts (1997) analysis of Restructuring,
in particular the proposal that Rizzi‟s (1982) idea of Restructuring as clause union
can be implemented in more modern terms making reference to a process of
incorporation of the embedded verb onto the restructuring verb, a process that yields
a unitary extended projection.
Turkish data overtly support the hypothesis that an incorporation process
underlies Restructuring; in fact in this language “the modal and aspectual predicates
that trigger restructuring are realized as affixes” (Roberts (1997)), as (46) shows:
(46) a. O Adam el aç-iyordu
The man hand open-PROG
“The man is begging”
b. Yika-u-ma-mali-yim
Wash-REFL-NEG-NEC-1SG
“I shouldn‟t wash myself”
However, Romance Restructuring clearly does not rely on a process of
morphological incorporation; in fact, the Restructuring verb and the embedded verb
can surface under different heads, as the (grammatical) intervention of XPs such as
Adverbs, FQs and wh- words between the two shows:
(47) a. Questi libri si volevano proprio leggere
b. Gianni li vuole tutti leggere
c. ?Certe risposte non si sanno mai come dare
In order to make the data in (47) consistent with the idea that an incorporation
process underlies Restructuring, Roberts (1997) proposes (48):
(48) a. Head movement is copying
b. *[X° W1 W2], where Wn are morphological words
c. A head is spelled out in the highest position of its chain, subject to (48b)
The morphological constraint in (48b) limits the “quantity” of morphological
material that can be spelled out under a single head. Since two verbs are of course
two distinct lexical items, their morphological incorporation would violate (48b),
therefore, according to Roberts‟ proposal, they have to be spelled out under distinct
81
Marco Nicolis
heads (48c). Roberts concludes that Restructuring in Romance can be considered a
sort of covert incorporation, which cannot surface morphologically, due to (48b).
This idea along with the proposal that RM is suspended if the intervener and the
landing site both belong to the same extended projection (see fn. 13) provide an
explanatory tool for the emergence of the typical phenomena associated with
24
Restructuring, namely Clitic Climbing, Aux change, Long NP movement .
Consider for example (49), a case of Long NP movement:
(49) [AgrS1 [Queste case]i si vogliono [AgrS2 PRO venderev [AgrOP ti Agr° [VP tv ti a caro
prezzo]]]]
The embedded verb vendere is “virtually incorporated” onto the Restructuring
verb volere, but they are spelled out under different heads, due to (45b). The
incorporation process yields a single extended projection: therefore, the movement
of the DP queste case to [Spec, AgrS1] does not violate RM, since PRO in [Spec,
Agrs2] does not qualify as a potential intervener, under the assumption that RM does
not hold if landing site and potential intervener are in the same extended projection.
So, Roberts‟ account of Restructuring relates the availability of Restructuring to
long Verb movement, an empirically correct conclusion. Hence, so far as French is
concerned, it does not allow Restructuring, since Infinitival Verbs do not move long
enough to (virtually) incorporate onto the Restructuring verb, therefore in cases
comparable to (49), PRO would count as an intervener.
As Roberts (1997) himself observes, his analysis does not easily extend to
Quantifier Climbing. In fact, if anything, French should be more “opaque” than
Italian, given the shortness of [-fin] Verb movement.
The necessary conclusion seems to be that Roberts‟ analysis must be somehow
integrated in order to account for Quantifier Climbing. I would like to propose that
Restructuring verbs, alongside their ability to trigger the virtual incorporation of the
embedded verb, also select a reduced CP. I take this (these?) missing layer(s) to be
responsible for the ungrammatical climbing of tout with non Restructuring verbs in
(33). This is just a speculation, though, since I have no strong independent evidence
for such a claim. However, it is well known that Restructuring verbs and their
counterpart in V2 languages allow for clause bound movements to happen in
biclausal structures. Consider (50), from Giusti (1993):
(50) a. weil die berühmte Friedlandia [CP dieses Lied in Wien zu singen] versuchte
because the famous Friedlandia this Lied in Wien to sing tried
b. weil [dieses Lied] i die berühmte Friedlandia [CP ti in Wien zu singen]
24
82
See Rizzi (1982) for the original account of these phenomena and Burzio (1986) for the
non full coextensivity of the three phenomena.
(51) a. weil
die berühmte Friedlandia [ CP dieses Lied in Wien zu singen]
verlangte
because the famous Friedlandia
this Lied in Wien to sing
b. *weil [dieses Lied]i die berühmte Friedlandia [CP ti in Wien zu singen]
versuchte
pretended
With a particular class of verbs, which corresponds by and large to Restructuring
verbs, Scrambling, a typically clause bound movement, can cross a CP projection
((50) vs. (51)). This is of course no compelling evidence for the hypothesis that
Restructuring verbs indeed select a reduced CP. However, the contrast (50) vs. (51)
strongly resembles the one in (32) vs. (33) above. It seems to me fair to conclude
that whatever lexical property characterises Restructuring verbs (be it selecting a
reduced CP or not), allowing for (50), the sam property should also be operative in
French allowing (32).
But if this conclusion is correct, how come Italian strongly disallows Quantifier
Climbing? It is first of all important to notice that Quantifier Climbing is a marked
option in French, that seems to satisfy no core UG requirement; in fact in all the
cases in (32) the Quantifier can remain in between the main verb and the embedded
verb; therefore it is plausible that an existing structural option is not exploited in
Italian, given the peripheral status of the construction. Moreover, I have shown that
Quantifier Climbing targets an Ā-m position, therefore it must be attractable by a
[+Mod] head. If it was possible to show that French tout is in some sense “more
adverbial” than its Italian counterpart tutto, the absence of Quantifier Climbing in
Italian could be due the impossibility of attraction of tutto by a [+Mod] head. Some
evidence in the desired direction seems to exist. In fact, French tout, but not Italian
tutto, can modify some adverbial classes.
(52) a. tout bêtement
b. tout simplement
c. tout doucement
a‟. *tutto stupidamente
b‟. *tutto semplicemente
c‟. *tutto dolcemente
Therefore, Italian tutto could not be attractable by a [+Mod] head.
A last point is worth mentioning. Given the optional possibility of Quantifier
Climbing in French, one may wonder whether the Quantifier moves directly from
the embedded object position, or moves through the derived low position. An
answer to this question relies on the precise individuation of the kind of structural
deficiency the Quantifier has to recover for. If we adopt Cardinaletti & Starke
(1994) hypothesis that the movement to the low position is mandatory for Case
reasons, the natural conclusion would be that Quantifier Climbing is a two step
movement, since otherwise the moved Quantifier would violate the Case Filter.
83
Marco Nicolis
References
Belletti, A. 1990. Generalized Verb Movement. Rosenberg & Sellier, Torino.
Baltin, M. & Ch. Collins, eds. 2000 A Handbook of Syntactic Theory, Blackwell, Oxford.
Burzio, L. 1986. Italian Syntax. Kluwer, Dordrecht.
Cardinaletti, A. & M. Starke. 1994. “The typology of structural deficiency. On the Three
Grammatical Classes”, University of Venice Working Papers in Linguistics, 4 (2).41-109.
Chomsky, N. 1995. The Minimalist Program. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Cinque, G. 1990. Types of A’ dependencies, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Cinque, G. 1995a “Bare quantifiers, quantified NPs, and the notion of operator at S-structure” (ch.
3 in Cinque (1995b)).
Cinque, G. 1995b “On leftward movement of tutto in Italian” (ch. 9 in Cinque (1995c)).
Cinque, G. 1995c Italian Syntax and Universal Grammar, Cambridge University Press.
Cinque, G. 1998. Adverbs and Functional Heads. Oxford University Press.
Giusti, G. 1993. La sintassi dei determinanti. Unipress, Padova.
Grimshaw, J. 1991. “Extended Projections”. Manoscritto, Brandeis University, Waltham, Mass.
Kayne, R. 1975. French syntax. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Kayne, R. 1984. Connectedness and binary branching. Dordrecht: Foris.
Kayne, R. 1989. “Null subjects and clitic climbing”. In Jaeggli, O. & K. Safir (eds.), The Null
Subject Parameter: 239-261.
Kayne, R. 1994. The antisymmetry of syntax. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Koster, J. 1978. Locality Principles in Syntax, Foris, Dordrecht.
Obenauer, H. 1983 “On the Identification of Empty Categories”, The Linguistic Review, 4,
153-202.
Pollock, J.-Y. 1989. “Verb Movement, Universal Grammar, and the structure of IP”, Linguistic
Inquiry 20, 365-424.
Rizzi, L. 1982. Issues in Italian Syntax, Foris, Dordrecht.
Rizzi, L. 1990. Relativized Minimality. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Rizzi, L. 1996. “Residual Verb Second and the Wh-Criterion”, in Belletti, A. & L. Rizzi (eds),
Parameters and Functional Heads, Oxford University Press, 63-90.
Rizzi, L. 1997. “The Fine Structure of Left Periphery”, in L. Haegeman (ed.), Elements of
Grammar, Kluwer, Dordrecht.
Rizzi, L. 1999. “Some Issues in the Theory of Locality”, talk given at the Workshop on the
Cartography of Syntactic Positions and Semantic Types, Certosa di Pontignano,
Nov. 1999.
Rizzi, L. 2000. “Relativized Minimality Effects”, in Baltin & Collins, eds. 2000.
Roberts, I. 1997. “Restructuring, Head Movement and Locality”, Linguistic Inquiry 28: 423-460.
Shlonsky, U. 1991. “Quantifiers as functional heads: a study of quantifier float in Hebrew”,
Lingua, 84.159-180.
Sportiche, D. 1988. “A theory of floating quantifiers and its corollaries for constituent structure”.
Linguistic Inquiry 19, 425-449.
84
BILINGUISMO E ACQUISIZIONE INFANTILE DI L2:
ALCUNE OSSERVAZIONI SULL’ACQUISIZIONE
SIMULTANEA DI ITALIANO E TEDESCO
DA PARTE DI BAMBINI IN ETÀ PRESCOLARE*
Manola SALUSTRI
1. Introduzione
Ricerche recenti hanno mostrato che l’acquisizione del linguaggio nei bambini
bilingui non presenta differenze rilevanti rispetto all’acquisizione nei bambini
1
monolingui . Negli studi svolti da J. Meisel nell’ambito del progetto D.U.F.D.E. su
bambini bilingui francese-tedesco di età prescolare sono state infatti riscontrate le
stesse fasi presenti nello sviluppo linguistico dei bambini monolingui francesi e
tedeschi. In particolare non sono stati riscontrati errori nella struttura della frase,
2
anche se le due lingue acquisite presentano un diverso ordine di base.
Questo lavoro riporta i risultati di uno studio longitudinale sull’acquisizione
simultanea di italiano e tedesco da parte di tre bambini bilingui di circa tre anni,
Renzo, Samuele e Marianna, residenti in Italia. Lo studio è basato sull’analisi
quantitativa di un corpus di produzione spontanea raccolto nel corso di circa un anno
e trascritto nel formato CHAT di CHILDES. In particolare verrà considerata la
posizione del verbo nella struttura della frase tedesca.
*
1
2
Desidero ringraziare Adriana Belletti, Maria Teresa Guasti e Luigi Rizzi per i preziosi
suggerimenti e per aver pazientemente letto e commentato questo lavoro. Vorrei
ringraziare inoltre Imke Kruse, Claudia Perlitius, Claudia Ruff e David Nolan per l’ aiuto
nella raccolta ed interpretazione dei dati. Infine un ringraziamento particolare ai bambini,
alle loro famiglie e alla Scuola Materna di Gaiole in Chianti per la disponibilità e la
collaborazione.
Cfr. Meisel (1986/1990), Meisel & Müller (1992).
Nel corso del progetto DUFDE (Deutsch und Franzosisch, Doppelter Erstspracherwerb)
diretto dal 1986 al 1990 da J. Meisel all’Università di Amburgo è stata studiata
longitudinalmente l’acquisizione simultanea di tedesco e francese in bambini di età
prescolare. Cfr. Meisel (1994).
85
Manola Salustri
Indicherò con il termine “bilinguismo” solo l’acquisizione simultanea di due
lingue dalla nascita (Bilingual First Language Acquisition) o dai primi mesi di vita (
3
Bilingual Second Language Acquisition) . Nel caso in cui i bambini siano venuti in
contatto con una seconda lingua solo dopo i due anni di età, è infatti più opportuno il
4
termine di “acquisizione infantile di L2”.
Dalla ricerca emerge chiaramente che i bambini hanno acquisito le regole
grammaticali della lingua tedesca, il verbo viene posto infatti correttamente nella
seconda posizione nelle frasi principali e nell’ultima nelle frasi subordinate. La
presenza di frasi principali V1, cioè con verbo flesso in prima posizione, può essere
analizzata come il risultato dell’omissione del primo elemento della frase dovuta a
due distinti fenomeni: la Fase del Soggetto Nullo Infantile ed il Topic-drop.
Quest’ultimo fenomeno, che caratterizza il tedesco parlato, viene ipergeneralizzato
da uno dei bambini, Renzo, anche agli avverbi.
Nel corpus di questo bambino sono presenti, seppur in percentuale molto
limitata, anche frasi a V1 non analizzabili come il risultato dei suddetti fenomeni, le
quali sembrano indicare una vera e propria fase nello sviluppo linguistico.
Dai risultati emerge la tendenza riscontrata anche nell’input e sempre più
frequente nel tedesco contemporaneo, a posizionare il verbo flesso in seconda
posizione nelle subordinate introdotte da “weil”, come già notato da Schönenberg
(1998) e Hamann (1997). Quest’uso non viene quindi considerato un’interferenza
con l’italiano, ma è dovuto ad un influsso dell’input, infatti nella lingua parlata
“weil” permette il Verb-Second (V2).
Verranno riportati infine alcuni dati riguardanti l’acquisizione dell’italiano come L2
da parte di Angela, una bambina di madrelingua tedesca di tre anni residente in Italia, i
quali mostrano differenze evidenti rispetto ai corpus dei bambini italiani nelle stesse fasi
dello sviluppo linguistico (cfr. Guasti (1993/1994)). Pur essendo limitati, questi dati
sembrano mostrare che l’acquisizione infantile di L2 segue, almeno inizialmente,
processi diversi rispetto all’acquisizione nei bambini bilingui e monolingui.
L’articolo è organizzato come segue: dopo aver mostrato le diverse posizioni in
cui può trovarsi il verbo nella frase tedesca, considerando anche il fenomeno del
3
4
86
Per distinguere questi due casi di bilinguismo (BFLA e BSLA), spesso difficili da
identificare, vengono usate a volte terminologie diverse. Bohnacker (1998) ad esempio,
usa il termine “successive bilingualism” per indicare un tipo di acquisizione linguistica in
cui l’esposizione alle due lingue ha avuto luogo entro il primo anno di vita ma non fin
dalla nascita: “Successive bilingualism takes place when children are exposed to a second
language not from birth but later, tough well before they have mastered the essentials of
their first language. […] ... successive bilingualism in childhood is sometimes not
consider “proper” bilingualism or true second language acquisition.”.
Cfr. De Houwer (1996).
Bilinguismo e acquisizione infantile di L2
Topic-drop, verranno analizzati alcuni aspetti della grammatica infantile. Verrà
quindi presentato il corpus raccolto, mentre la sezione 7 avrà come oggetto i risultati
dell’analisi quantitativa. Nell’ultima parte si discuteranno i risultati ottenuti alla luce
della teoria linguistica adottata.
2. La struttura della frase tedesca
2.1. Asimmetria principale-subordinata: il fenomeno del Verb-Second
Nella lingua tedesca gli elementi nominali hanno una distribuzione piuttosto
libera, dato che, nonostante la presenza di un ordine stabilito nella frase, sono
presenti posizioni cosiddette di scrambling, cioè posizioni dove il costituente
5
nominale può trovarsi liberamente. La posizione del verbo è invece molto più
rigida: questo si trova necessariamente nella seconda posizione nelle frasi principali
come in (1)-(2) (Verb- second) mentre nelle subordinate, come in (3)-(4), il verbo
6
occupa l’ultima posizione (Verb-final) .
(1) Der Professor las ein Buch.
Il professore leggeva un libro
S
V
O
(2) Ein Buch las der Professor.
Un libro leggeva il professore
O
V
S
(3) , daß der Professor ein Buch las.
, che il professore un libro leggeva
S
O
V
(4) , ob der Professor ein Buch las.
, se il professore un libro leggeva.
S
O
V
5
6
Cfr. Cardinaletti & Giusti (1996).
Questa asimmetria tra la frase principale e la frase subordinata ha causato una notevole
incertezza ai fini di un inquadramento tipologico della lingua tedesca, caratterizzata da un
possibile ordine SVO nelle principali e da un ordine SOV nelle subordinate. La prima e
meglio conosciuta analisi in ambito generativo del fenomeno del V2 (v. Thiersch (1978) e
Den Besten (1983)) considera il tedesco come una lingua SOV e spiega l’ordine della
principale come il risultato di un movimento testa a testa del verbo flesso da INFL a C°
(cfr. tra gli altri, la discussione in Tomaselli (1990), v. paragrafo 3.2.1).
87
Manola Salustri
Nel caso in cui la prima posizione nelle frasi principali sia occupata dall’oggetto o
da un altro costituente, come un avverbio, il soggetto segue immediatamente il verbo
7
flesso nell’ordine frasale, come in (1), fenomeno sintattico designato come Inversione.
Questo schema è generalmente rispettato in tedesco, ma esistono contesti in cui il
verbo può trovarsi in posizioni diverse: questo può infatti occupare la prima e la seconda
posizione nelle frasi principali, la prima, la seconda e l’ultima nelle subordinate.
Le frasi principali a Verb-First sono costituite dalle Interrogative SI/NO, dalle
imperative e dalle frasi caratterizzate da Topic-drop. (v. par. successivo). Le frasi
subordinate invece, possono avere il verbo in prima posizione nelle frasi ipotetiche
8
non introdotte da un complementatore.
Il V2 nelle subordinate è invece possibile con i verbi cosiddetti “bridge” (come
sagen, meinen, glauben, denken, wissen) con C nullo, e nelle subordinate introdotte
da “weil” nel registro parlato.
2.2. Il fenomeno del Topic-drop in tedesco
Nelle frasi principali in (5) e (6) il soggetto e l’oggetto, rispettivamente, sono
omessi. Tale processo, che è possibile nella lingua parlata quando il soggetto e
l’oggetto sono noti e recuperabili dal contesto, viene chiamato Topic-drop. Non è
possibile omettere altri tipi di complementi, né marcati con il caso dativo o genitivo,
7
8
88
Tutte le lingue germaniche, tranne l’inglese moderno, presentano il fenomeno del V2, così
come le lingue romanze medievali. Studi recenti hanno mostrato però, che non tutte le
lingue a V2 presentano un’asimmetria principale-subordinata. L’Islandese e l’Yiddish, ad
esempio, presentano questo fenomeno, ma con caratteristiche parzialmente diverse
rispetto al tedesco. In queste lingue infatti il V2 è caratterizzato dalla restrizione alla
seconda posizione del verbo flesso e dall’inversione del soggetto, qualora la prima
posizione sia occupata da un altro costituente, non è presente però l’asimmetria tra frasi
principali e frasi subordinate, il V2 in queste lingue è un fenomeno generale, come si nota
nei seguenti esempi:
(i) Jonas tsveyfelt az morgen vet Miriam fri oyfshteyn.
(Yiddish) Fr. Sub.
John doubts (on) that-tomorrow will M. early stand up.
(ii) Jón efast um að á morgun fari María snemma á fætur.
(Islandese) Fr. Sub.
John doubts (on) that-tomorrow will M. early stand up.
(per una discussione più dettagliata cfr. Vikner (1994)).
L’Yiddish, in particolare, non ha sempre permesso il V2 nelle frasi subordinate come accade
adesso, troviamo infatti la stessa asimmetria principale/subordinata in alcuni testi
dell’Yiddish medievale. (cfr. Santorini (1995)). Questa lingua presenta quindi il processo
inverso rispetto all’inglese, il quale pur permettendo il V2 nel periodo medievale, ha perso
questo fenomeno in seguito, conservandone solo alcune tracce (cfr. Belletti e Rizzi (1996)).
Questo tipo di costruzione si ha anche in italiano in frasi come la seguente:
(i) Avessi il tempo, lo farei.
né introdotti da una preposizione e, come notato da Huang (1984), in una frase può
essere omesso un solo argomento . Il Topic-drop è un fenomeno “radice”, non si può
avere nelle subordinate, in contesti post-verbali o post-wh. Gli esempi seguenti
riassumono questo aspetto della distribuzione:
(5) __ist gekommen
(lui) è arrivato.
omissione del soggetto
(6) __hat er gekauft.
(esso) ha lui comprato.
omissione dell’oggetto
(7) *, dass__gegessen hat
, che (lui) mangiato ha
*omissione in una subordinata
(8) *Was hat__gegessen?
cosa ha (lui) mangiato
*omissione in contesto post-verbale
(9) A: Braucht er Hilfe?
Ha bisogno lui di aiuto
B: __habe ich schon geholfen
(lui +dat.) ho io già aiutato.
*omissione di un complemento
marcato con il caso genitivo (ihm)
(10) A: Ist Hans gekommen?
è Hans arrivato?
B: __habe ich lange gewartet
(a lui +acc.) ho io a lungo aspettato
*omissione di un complemento
introdotto da una preposizione
(auf ihn)
Seguendo Rizzi (1994), il Topic-drop è possibile solo se il costituente è omesso
dalla prima posizione della frase, cioè dallo Spec/CP, una chiara manifestazione di
quello che Rizzi definisce “Privilege of the Root”. Gli espletivi, non costituendo un
9
elemento topicalizzato, cioè dato, non sottostanno a questo processo.
Si assume che le frasi a Topic-drop coinvolgano il movimento di un operatore
nullo (OP), generato nella posizione soggetto o nella posizione oggetto, dalla
posizione di base allo Spec/CP. Tale movimento lascia come traccia una variabile
legata dall’operatore. Quest’ultimo verrà identificato dal discorso tramite un
elemento topic introdotto da una frase precedente.
Consideriamo ad esempio la rappresentazione in (11).
(11) [CP OP i kommt [IP ti morgen]]
arriva domani
9
omissione del soggetto in tedesco
L’omissione di un espletivo dalla prima posizione della frase, non accettabile in tedesco, è
invece possibile nello svedese parlato in frasi come la seguente (cfr. Rizzi (2000)):
(i) (det) verkar som om…
(esso) sembra come se....
89
Manola Salustri
Anche se apparentemente il verbo finito in queste costruzioni sembra occupare la
prima posizione, si assume che nelle frasi a Topic-drop il verbo sia preceduto da un
operatore nullo. Nelle lingue come il cinese ed il tedesco, quindi, la possibilità di omettere
soggetti ed oggetti è dovuta alla disponibilità di un operatore nullo legato al discorso.
Consideriamo adesso la categoria vuota lasciata dal movimento dell’operatore
nella posizione di base. Essa non può essere pro, altrimenti avrebbe la stessa
distribuzione che si trova nelle frasi a soggetto nullo ad esempio in italiano, non può
essere PRO perché questa categoria, identificata dai tratti [+ana; +pro] si trova solo in
contesti non flessi, in particolare come soggetto non esplicito delle infinitive e non può
essere una traccia di NP perché si trova in una posizione a cui viene dato caso.
Rizzi propone che la categoria vuota nei contesti di Topic-drop sia una costante
10
nulla , identificata dai tratti [-a, -p, -v] e legata all’operatore nullo, che si trova
sempre in prima posizione ed è legato al discorso. Questo tipo di categoria si ha in
frasi come in (12)-(14).
(12) This book [OP I really like NC]
Topicalizzazione in inglese
(13) [OP habe [NC es schon gesehen]]
ho
ciò già visto
Topic-drop in tedesco
(14) [OP[NC kanjian ta le]]
ha visto lui-ASP
Topic-drop in cinese
Il parametro responsabile delle frasi a soggetto ed oggetto nullo nel tedesco ed
11
anche nel cinese, è il parametro del Topic-drop (vedi Huang (1984)): .
Parametro del Topic-drop
È disponibile un operatore legato al discorso? (si/no)
Nelle lingue come l’italiano e lo spagnolo, cosiddette a pro-drop, i soggetti nulli
vengono invece interpretati come pro, elementi pronominali non realizzati
foneticamente i cui tratti di accordo, seguendo Rizzi (1986), possono essere
recuperati grazie ai tratti di accordo presenti in I.
10
11
90
Lasnik e Stowell (1991) hanno proposto di differenziare le categorie vuote [-ana; +pro] in
vere variabili ed epiteti nulli, osservando che certe costruzioni ad operatore nullo hanno
un’interpretazione ed un’analisi diversa dalle costruzioni ad operatore quantificazionale e
variabile in riferimento al fenomeno di Weak crossover.
Il Topic drop in tedesco presenta delle differenze rispetto al Topic-drop in cinese. In
quest’ultima lingua infatti l’omissione del soggetto e dell’oggetto non è limitata alla
prima posizione della frase ma può trovarsi anche in frasi subordinate ed interrogative
wh-. Tuttavia la possibilità di omettere soggetti ed oggetti viene riportata in entrambe le
lingue alla disponibilità di un operatore nullo legato al discorso (cfr. Guasti, in stampa).
La distribuzione dei soggetti nulli nelle lingue è quindi governata dai seguenti
parametri:
(i) il parametro del pro-drop.
(ii) il parametro del Topic-drop.
(italiano, spagnolo, catalano)
(cinese, coreano, tedesco)
Come vedremo nel paragrafo 3., i soggetti nulli riscontrati nella grammatica infantile
presentano delle caratteristiche diverse rispetto a quelli presenti nella grammatica adulta
delle lingue a soggetto nullo e necessitano di una diversa interpretazione.
3. Alcune osservazioni sulla grammatica infantile
Numerosi studi hanno confermato che fino all’età di circa tre anni, i bambini
hanno l’opzione di omettere il soggetto anche se la loro lingua target non è una
lingua a soggetto nullo. Gli esempi in (15)-(17) mostrano questo aspetto della
grammatica infantile in tedesco (15), francese (16) e danese (17).
(15) __bin wieder lieb
am again good
(I) am good again
(Elisa 2; 10)
(16) __a tout tout tout mangé
has all all all eaten
(he) has eaten all
(Augustin 2; 0)
(17) __ikke køre traktor
(Jens, 2; 0)
not drive traktor
(I, you, etc.don’t drive the tractor)
(da Hamann (1997))
Negli anni ottanta la fase del Soggetto nullo infantile era stata interpretata come il
risultato di una scelta parametrica sbagliata da parte del bambino: seguendo Hyams
(1986), il parametro del pro-drop è fissato inizialmente al valore positivo e solo se il
bambino viene a contatto con una lingua non a pro-drop il parametro viene “rifissato”
al valore negativo. Tuttavia studi più approfonditi hanno mostrato delle chiare
discontinuità tra questo fenomeno e l’omissione del soggetto nelle lingue a pro-drop.
Mentre in queste ultime l’omissione del soggetto è possibile anche in frasi subordinate
e nelle interrogative wh-, come in (18) e (19), i soggetti nulli non sono presenti in
questi contesti strutturali nei bambini che acquisiscono lingue non a pro-drop.
(18) Gianni canta quando pro è contento.
(19) Chi hai pro visto?
Come mostrano le frasi in (20)-(21) l’omissione del soggetto in questi contesti è
invece presente nei bambini che acquisiscono l’italiano. Sembra quindi che il
parametro del pro-drop venga fissato molto presto.
91
Manola Salustri
(20) Ov’è?
(Martina,1;8)
(21) Pecchè piangi?
(Martina, 2;3)
(da Cipriani et al. (1993))
Seguendo Rizzi (1994), i bambini hanno l’opzione di omettere il soggetto solo se
esso si trova nello Specificatore della Radice, il fenomeno del Soggetto nullo
infantile è infatti limitato alla prima posizione assoluta nelle frasi con verbo flesso.
La presenza di soggetti nulli in posizioni non iniziali, come in (22), è limitata
alla frasi caratterizzate da un altro fenomeno della grammatica infantile, i Root
12
Infinitives, o infiniti principali, la differenza cruciale è che tale presenza è limitata
13
a contesti non flessi (v. par. 3.1.).
(22) Where ____go(ing)
La restrizione del fenomeno alla prima posizione assoluta nelle frasi con verbo
flesso ha portato a trovare degli elementi di continuità tra questo ed altri “fenomeniradice” presenti nella lingua adulta, come il Topic-drop (cfr. tra gli altri Bromberg e
Wexler (1995)), ed il Diary-drop, osservato in alcuni registri particolari (per una
discussione più dettagliata di questo tipo di omissione cfr. Haegeman (2000)).
Come si è visto nel paragrafo precedente, anche nelle lingue germaniche
caratterizzate da Topic-drop, i soggetti nulli non possono trovarsi in posizione postverbale o post-wh, lasciando supporre che questo fenomeno e la fase del Soggetto
nullo infantile siano interpretabili con un’analisi simile, mettendo in gioco una
categoria vuota diversa da pro, specificamente una costante nulla legata ad un
operatore nullo (vedi par. 2.2.), come in (23).
(23) [CP OPi [IP ti wan(t) do (a)gain]
(Sarah, 2;7, da Guasti, in stampa)
Come notato da Hyams e Wexler (1993) è tuttavia presente una significativa
differenza tra la fase del Soggetto nullo infantile ed il fenomeno del Topic-drop.
Dato che il fenomeno del Topic-drop permette anche l’omissione di oggetti,
dovremmo riscontrare nella grammatica infantile dell’inglese anche la presenza di
oggetti nulli. Gli studi di Hyams e Wexler mostrano invece una notevole asimmetria
tra l’omissione di soggetti ed oggetti nei bambini inglesi, mentre nei bambini cinesi
questa non è riscontrata (cfr. Wang, Lillo Martin, Bast e Levitt (1992)). Questa
osservazione lascia supporre che il fenomeno del soggetto nullo in inglese non sia
interpretabile con l’analisi in (23).
12
13
92
Cfr. Wexler (1992), cfr. anche Rizzi (1993/94).
Dal momento che un ambiente non flesso può licenziare un soggetto non realizzato
foneticamente, la presenza dell’uso di forme non flesse nelle grammatiche infantili potrebbe
essere la diretta causa della non realizzazione del soggetto in questi casi (cfr. Rizzi (2000)).
In particolare, verificando la curva estensiva dell’omissione del soggetto nelle
lingue germaniche a V-2 si osservano delle differenze, indicate di seguito, tra questo
fenomeno nella grammatica infantile ed il fenomeno del Topic-drop nella lingua
adulta (le osservazioni si riferiscono a studi di Haegeman (1995) sull’olandese):
(i) Mentre la grammatica infantile permette l’omissione degli espletivi, la
14
grammatica adulta non presenta questa opzione.
(ii) In tutti i bambini esaminati c’è una fase in cui gli infiniti principali ed i
soggetti nulli decrescono parallelamente, il che lascia supporre una
correlazione tra i due fenomeni.
Basandosi su queste osservazioni Haegeman (1995) sostiene che i soggetti nulli
presenti nelle grammatiche infantili di lingue come olandese e tedesco, caratterizzate
dal Topic-drop, debbano essere considerate non come il risultato di questo
fenomeno, bensì come il risultato di troncamenti nella struttura, responsabili anche
della presenza di Root Infinitives, così come proposto da Rizzi (1994) per i bambini
francesi ed inglesi (vedi paragrafo successivo).
Nel paragrafo seguente verrà presentata la teoria del Troncamento di Rizzi
(1994). Questa teoria, tenendo conto delle osservazioni di Haegeman (1995), verrà
generalizzata anche alle lingue a V2, come il tedesco. Seguendo Rizzi (1997) verrà
adottata una struttura del CP più articolata in modo da mantenere un’analisi
simmetrica del fenomeno del V2, pur ipotizzando la possibilità di troncamenti. Si
assumerà infatti che in queste lingue il troncamento ha luogo ad un livello più alto
della struttura rispetto a lingue come il francese o l’inglese, in modo da mantenere
una struttura sufficiente all’analisi del V2. (vedi par. 3.2.)
È plausibile pensare, tuttavia, che perlomeno una parte dei soggetti nulli infantili
in queste lingue sia dovuta al fenomeno del Topic-drop, come confermano i dati
della ricerca, in cui non solo soggetti, ma anche oggetti vengono omessi dai
bambini. Questo aspetto verrà discusso nel paragrafo 3.2.2.
3.1. L’ipotesi del Troncamento
Seguendo Rizzi (1994) la grammatica infantile, pur possedendo la stessa
struttura frasale della grammatica target, quindi l’intera gamma delle categorie
funzionali, non comprende vincoli per quanto riguarda la radice delle frasi
dichiarative. Seguendo questa ipotesi, il principio in (24), secondo il quale il sistema
14
L’omissione di espletivi nella prima posizione nella lingua parlata è comunque
accettabile in altre lingue a Topic-drop come lo svedese (vedi nota 9) non
sarebbe irragionevole pensare, quindi, che i bambini ipergeneralizzino una regola
della grammatica adulta.
93
Manola Salustri
del complementatore viene sempre proiettato nella struttura della grammatica adulta,
15
viene acquisito dai bambini solo verso i tre anni di età.
(24) The Root Principle (Rizzi 1994)
CP = Root
Ne deriva che i bambini possono proiettare delle strutture “troncate”, ad esempio
non comprendenti CP all’inizio del loro sviluppo linguistico. Il troncamento in un
punto della struttura implica che tutte le categorie al di sotto di tale punto siano
incluse nella rappresentazione, mentre le categorie al di sopra ne siano escluse. Se la
struttura viene troncata ad Agr, ad esempio, come in (25), viene proiettato solo TP,
di modo che l’accordo non risulterà specificato.
(25)
CP
C’
spec
C
Agr P
Agr’
spec
neg P
Agr
neg’
spec
neg
TP
spec
T’
T
VP
spec
V’
V
15
94
Cfr. anche Rizzi (2000).
Seguendo Rizzi l’opzione di troncamento nella struttura è responsabile della
presenza di Root Infinitives (o infiniti principali) e Soggetti nulli nella grammatica
dei bambini.
Come si è visto sopra, l’omissione del soggetto nella grammatica infantile di
lingue non a pro-drop è stata riscontrata prevalentemente in due casi:
(i) con infiniti non flessi.
(ii) nella prima posizione assoluta.
Seguendo Rizzi, possiamo assumere che il soggetto nullo in contesti non flessi
sia PRO, presente anche nella grammatica adulta, per cui vale la seguente restrizione
di occorrenza:
PRO è legittimato in contesti non flessi.
Quest’ultimo sarebbe legittimato dalla presenza dei cosiddetti Root Infinitives
(RI), presenti nella grammatica infantile e dovuti, seguendo Rizzi (1998), alla
presenza di strutture troncate in cui Agr non è specificato.
Il soggetto nullo legittimato nello specificatore della radice, sempre seguendo
Rizzi, sarebbe invece una costante nulla. Ipotizzando che i bambini di due-tre anni
abbiano l’opzione di “troncare” la struttura a diversi livelli, ad esempio IP, lo
Spec/IP diverrebbe lo Spec. della radice. Quest’ultimo, assumendo la riformulazione
dell’ECP in (26), proposta da Rizzi (1994) risulta libero dal principio di
identificazione, non essendo c-comandato da nessun’altra posizione.
(26) ECP.
Una categoria vuota non pronominale deve essere identificata da un antecedente
che la c-comanda solo se può esserlo.
Una costante nulla (NC) generata nello specificatore della radice non ha bisogno di
essere identificata e ciò permette un’analisi del soggetto nullo infantile come in (27).
(27) [NC mange du pain]
eat-3SG some bread
(Grégoire, 2;1, da Guasti, in stampa)
3.1.1. Osservazioni sul fenomeno del Troncamento ed il fenomeno del Topic-drop
Nel paragrafo 3. abbiamo visto che il fenomeno del soggetto nullo infantile non
può essere interamente ridotto ad un’interpretazione come in (23). in quanto sono
presenti degli elementi di discontinuità tra questo fenomeno ed il Topic-drop che
caratterizza la grammatica adulta di lingue come l’olandese o il tedesco (vedi
Haegeman (1995)). Seguendo Rizzi (1994/2000) abbiamo quindi interpretato i
95
Manola Salustri
soggetti nulli infantili come costanti nulle generate nello specificatore della radice,
dovute all’opzione di troncamenti della struttura.
Contrariamente all’ipotesi di Haegeman (1995) (v. par. 3), sembra però
plausibile pensare che nelle lingue caratterizzate dal Topic-drop come il tedesco e
l’olandese, la presenza di soggetti nulli nella grammatica infantile sia dovuta almeno
in parte alla presenza di questo fenomeno.
I dati relativi al cinese ci mostrano che i bambini che imparano questa lingua
hanno fissato il parametro già molto presto (v. Wang et al. (1992)) sarebbe quindi
improbabile che nei bambini tedeschi ed olandesi non avvenga lo stesso. I dati della
ricerca relativi al corpus di Renzo, inoltre, (v. pag. 26) mostrano che sono presenti
anche omissioni di oggetti. Questo lascia supporre che il bambino abbia fissato il
parametro del Topic-drop. Nei bambini che acquisiscono l’inglese, che non presenta
questo fenomeno, questo tipo di omissione non è infatti riscontrata.
Hamann (1997), analizzando il corpus di due bambini tedeschi di circa tre
anni, ha notato una diminuzione dei soggetti nulli in prima posizione dal 40% al
5% nel corso del loro sviluppo linguistico. Questa diminuzione, come quella di
Renzo, indica che il bambino ha perso un’opzione, quella di troncare la struttura,
mentre è ancora presente un meccanismo di legittimazione dei soggetti nulli
identificabile proprio nel fenomeno del Topic-drop che resterà operativo anche
nella lingua adulta.
3.2. L’acquisizione della posizione del verbo
L’acquisizione della posizione del verbo è stata il centro di interesse di molte
ricerche sull’acquisizione del linguaggio. Il tedesco, in particolare, come si è visto
sopra, presenta un ordine verbale piuttosto complesso (SVO nelle principali con
soggetto in prima posizione, SOV nelle subordinate), ma dalle ricerche emerge che i
16
bambini non commettono errori nel posizionare il verbo. Nelle principali viene
rispettato il parametro del V2, e non appena i bambini iniziano ad usare le
subordinate il verbo viene subito posto in ultima posizione (Rothweiler (1993)).
Seguendo Clahsen (1982), superata la fase di una sola parola, gli ordini verbali
prevalenti sono V2 e Verb-final e non si hanno casi in cui il verbo appare prima del
soggetto nelle frasi principali dichiarative (VS). Gli ordini dominanti nelle frasi
principali, con differenze a seconda del bambino, sono quindi SVO e SOV.
Come notato da Poeppel e Wexler (1993) il verbo si trova correttamente nella
seconda posizione se flesso, mentre i verbi all’infinito o senza flessione sono
collocati in posizione finale (si veda anche Clahsen (1990)).
16
96
Cfr. tra gli altri Meisel (1992), cfr. anche Poeppel & Wexler (1993).
(28) ich hab ein dossen Ball.
I have a big ball
Verbo flesso
(29) du das haben.
you that have
Verbo non flesso
(da Poeppel eWexler (1993))
Gli oggetti e gli avverbi vengono topicalizzati, cioè posti all’inizio della frase già
molto presto. Inizialmente il soggetto è spesso omesso in prima posizione, raramente
in posizione post-verbale e nelle frasi subordinate, e quasi mai nelle interrogative Wh.
Per quanto riguarda i bambini bilingui, non sono state riscontrate differenze
rilevanti rispetto ai bambini monolingui, tranne una minore variabilità nell’ordine
17
dei costituenti frasali all’inizio della fase delle due parole.
3.2.1. Osservazioni sull’ipotesi del Troncamento d il fenomeno del Verb-second
Seguendo Poeppel e Wexler (1993), come si è visto sopra, già dalle prime fasi
dell’acquisizione del tedesco i bambini non commettono errori per quanto riguarda il
parametro del V2: il verbo flesso si trova cioè correttamente in seconda posizione
nelle frasi principali, mentre il soggetto od un altro costituente frasale occupa la
prima posizione.
18
Seguendo l’analisi tradizionale, detta simmetrica , il fenomeno del V2 può
essere spiegato sostenendo che il tedesco ha un ordine di base SOV e che l’ordine
presente nelle frasi principali è dovuto all’interazione di due movimenti sintattici:
(i) un movimento sintattico del verbo flesso dalla posizione di base a C°
(VIC°).
(ii) un movimento sintattico di un primo costituente della frase dalla posizione di
base a Spec/C.
17
18
Basandosi sui dati di tre bambini bilingui francese-tedesco, Meisel e Müller hanno
riscontrato alcuni errori nelle frasi subordinate. Uno dei bambini, Ivar, utilizza lo stesso
ordine presente nelle frasi principali, con il verbo flesso che segue direttamente il primo
costituente della frase. Gli altri due bambini bilingui usano lo schema del verb-final non
appena iniziano ad usare frasi subordinate e non commettono errori. Müller sostiene che
anche i bambini che acquisiscono tedesco e inglese (v. Leopold (1949)) e italiano e
tedesco (v. Taeschner (1983)) commettono occasionalmente errori nelle subordinate,
posizionando il verbo nella prima, nella seconda o nella terza posizione. Durante questo
periodo i bambini usano allo stesso tempo anche lo schema del verb-final nelle
subordinate. (cfr. Meisel e Müller (1992)).
L’analisi simmetrica tratta uniformemente le frasi principali a soggetto iniziale (SVO) e le
frasi principali non a soggetto iniziale (XVS), mentre nell’analisi asimmetrica, proposta da
Travis e ripresa da Zwart nel 1990 le prime vengono considerate con una struttura più piccola
rispetto alle ultime con l’ordine V2 espresso a livello dell’IP. Per una discussione più
approfondita del fenomeno del V2 vedi tra gli altri i lavori raccolti in Belletti & Rizzi (1996).
97
Manola Salustri
La periferia sinistra della frase si rende quindi necessaria come posizione di
arrivo del verbo flesso (C°) e del primo costituente frasale (Spec/C).
Come abbiamo mostrato nel paragrafo 3.1. la presenza di RI e di Soggetti nulli
nella grammatica infantile viene interpretata, seguendo Rizzi (1994/2000), con
l’opzione di troncamenti nella struttura. D’altra parte, ipotizzando un troncamento
ad Agr, questo verrebbe ad eliminare la periferia sinistra della frase, verrebbe
dunque a mancare una struttura sufficiente a spiegare il movimento del verbo flesso,
non essendo più disponibile una posizione di arrivo per il primo costituente della
frase (Spec/C) ed una per il verbo (C°), come in (30).
(30)
CP
C’
spec
C
Agr P
Agr’
spec
neg P
Agr
neg’
spec
neg
TP
spec
T’
T
VP
spec
V’
V
Questo tipo di analisi porterebbe quindi a dover dare un’interpretazione non
uniforme della conoscenza del fenomeno del V2, applicata in alcune frasi, quelle
98
cioè con soggetto realizzato fonologicamente, in cui la periferia sinistra della frase
viene attivata, ma non in altre, quelle a soggetto nullo, costituite da strutture
“troncate” in cui viene proiettato solo IP. Si porrebbe inoltre il problema di
considerare IP a testa mediale nella grammatica infantile, in modo da rendere conto
dell’ordine dei costituenti frasali (VO) e a testa finale nella grammatica adulta,
ipotizzando un cambiamento ad un certo punto dello sviluppo linguistico.
Se vogliamo mantenere l’ipotesi che anche nelle frasi a soggetto nullo i
bambini applicano la conoscenza che sottende il V2, dobbiamo adottare un’analisi
più complessa della periferia sinistra della frase. Questo ci permetterà di
analizzare il fenomeno del V2 ipotizzando anche la possibilità di troncamenti nella
struttura nelle prime fasi di acquisizione del linguaggio ad un certo punto dello
19
sviluppo linguistico.
Una proposta che permette un’analisi soddisfacente di entrambi i fenomeni
consiste nell’adottare la teoria di Rizzi (1997) riguardo allo split-CP. Seguendo
Rizzi, il livello del CP dovrebbe essere suddiviso in un numero maggiore di
20
proiezioni funzionali . Basandosi su dati di italiano, inglese, francese, Rizzi
propone la struttura in (31), in cui la testa funzionale indicata con Fin contiene le
informazioni sulla finitezza della frase. La testa funzionale Focus ospita i costituenti
focalizzati, ed i costituenti interrogativi, mentre la testa Topic ospita gli elementi
topicalizzati. Topic, contrariamente a Focus è ricorsivo, come indicato da *.
19
20
Seguendo Haegeman (1995) la generalizzazione della proposta di Rizzi (1994) alle lingue
a V2 implica una riconsiderazione della grammatica di queste ultime. Per mantenere
un’analisi del V2 nella grammatica infantile ipotizzando la possibilità di troncamenti nella
struttura, Haegeman propone di adottare un’analisi asimmetrica del V2 come proposta da
Travis e ripresa da Zwart (1990). In questo caso, le frasi con soggetto iniziale verrebbero
analizzate come IP (con I a testa mediale) mentre le frasi XPVS verrebbero analizzate
come CP. Nelle frasi con soggetto iniziale quindi, la parte periferica della struttura non
verrebbe attivata ed un’eventuale troncamento, responsabile della presenza di soggetti
nulli infantili, permetterebbe tuttavia un’analisi del V2 all’interno di IP. Haegeman
propone che la periferia sinistra venga invece attivata in entrambi i casi nella grammatica
adulta, lasciando però questo aspetto come un problema aperto (per una discussione più
dettagliata cfr. Haegeman (1995)).
Cfr. Rizzi (1997).
99
Manola Salustri
(31)
Force P
Force’
SPEC
Force
Top P*
Top’
SPEC
Top
Foc P
Foc’
SPEC
Foc
Top P*
Top’
SPEC
Top
Fin P
SPEC
Fin’
Fin
IP
Con un sistema del CP più articolato, il fenomeno del Verb-Second non può
ricevere un’interpretazione uniforme in cui il verbo sale a C° ed il primo costituente
della frase sale allo Spec/C. Dobbiamo infatti considerare a quale testa, nel dominio
di CP, salga il verbo, ed in quale Spec salga il primo costituente.
Partendo da questo presupposto Haegeman (1996) ha ipotizzato una nuova
analisi del fenomeno del V2, basandosi sull’olandese, proponendo la
rappresentazione in (32). Per frasi del tipo SVO, il soggetto muove allo Spec/Fin ed
il verbo flesso alla testa Fin, mentre i costituenti topicalizzati (oggetti, avverbi, ecc.)
21
si muoverebbero, seguendo Haegeman, a Spec/Top .
21
Cfr. Haegeman (1996).
100
(32)
Force
Force’
SPEC
Force
SPEC
het
Fin P
Fin’
Fin
regende
IP
de hele dag
Contrariamente all’ipotesi tradizionale, quindi, in cui il costituente che precede il
verbo flesso muove sempre a Spec/C, nel sistema split-CP il costituente può
occupare, a seconda delle caratteristiche di quest’ultimo, diverse posizioni nel
22
dominio di CP.
Quest’ultima analisi del fenomeno del Verb-second permette di esprimere certe
proprietà interessanti, come il diverso comportamento di soggetti pronominali tonici
ed atoni, (v. discussione in Tomaselli (1990)) presupponendo diversi “luoghi di
arrivo” a seconda degli elementi considerati, all’interno del sistema del CP. Allo
stesso tempo è possibile mantenere un’analisi unitaria del V2, in quanto il fenomeno
risulta operativo sia nelle frasi SVO, nelle quali il soggetto si muove a Spec/FinP,
che nelle frasi non a soggetto iniziale, in cui il primo costituente si muove a
posizioni diverse a seconda delle sue proprietà.
Presupponendo una struttura più articolata del CP possiamo ipotizzare che il
troncamento avvenga ad un certo livello del sistema del complementatore. Tale
23
troncamento, responsabile della presenza di Soggetti nulli infantili , sarebbe
tuttavia più alto della posizione di arrivo del verbo e dell’elemento topicalizzato, in
modo da rendere disponibile una struttura sufficiente per l’analisi del V2.
22
23
Questa caratteristica avvicina l’ipotesi dello split CP all’analisi asimmetrica di Travis e
Zwart, secondo la quale i due casi, SVO e XVS, vanno trattati in maniera distinta.
Il troncamento responsabile della presenza dei Root Infinitives ha luogo in un punto più
basso della struttura sotto la specificazione temporale.
101
Manola Salustri
Seguendo questa ipotesi, il livello del troncamento sarà più alto nei bambini che
acquisiscono una lingua a V2, rispetto ai bambini che acquisiscono una lingua in cui
questo fenomeno non è presente, come il francese, in cui la posizione di arrivo fuori
da IP per il verbo flesso e per il primo costituente della frase non si rende necessaria.
Queste osservazioni sulla Teoria del Troncamento implicano necessariamente un
maggiore approfondimento, legato alla studio della periferia sinistra della frase ed al
ruolo dei processi maturativi nell’acquisizione del linguaggio. Gli aspetti della teoria
discussi sopra rimangono quindi un problema aperto, destinato ad ulteriori ricerche.
4. Il Corpus
Tre bambini bilingui italiano-tedesco di circa tre anni, residenti in Italia, Renzo,
24
Samuele e Marianna, sono stati registrati per un periodo di circa un anno . Le
registrazioni di produzione spontanea, effettuate in un contesto di gioco, sono state
trascritte nel formato CHAT e controllate da due parlanti di madrelingua tedesca ed
una di madrelingua italiana (io stessa).
Il corpus comprende inoltre tre registrazioni di Angela, una bambina di
madrelingua tedesca residente in Italia che ha acquisito l’italiano solo dopo i tre anni
e che quindi rappresenta un caso di acquisizione infantile di L2.
Tav. 1. Corpus
BAMBINO
TIPO_DI_ACQUISIZIONE
ETÀ
ITA
Samuele
BFLA
3;9-4;0
Si
Renzo
BFLA
3;5-4;1
Si
Marianna
BFLA
3;8-4;2
Si
Anna
L2
3;0-3;1
Si
* BFLA= Bilingual First Language Acquisition (v. Introduzione)
L2= Acquisizione (infantile) di L2
TED
ING
Si
Si
Si
Si
(Si)
No
No
No
4.1. Renzo
Il corpus principale è costituito dalle registrazioni di Renzo, che è stato seguito
per un periodo di circa nove mesi. Le registrazioni sono infatti iniziate nel Gennaio
’98, quando il bambino aveva 3;5 anni, e sono terminate nel Settembre ’98. Il
bambino parla tedesco con la madre, con la quale trascorre la maggior parte della
giornata, ed italiano con il padre. Renzo ha iniziato a frequentare l’asilo italiano
all’età di 4;1 anni, ed ha una sorella Isa, di circa un anno e mezzo. Il tempo di
24
Le registrazioni sono state effettuate con un registratore SONYTMC-59V.
102
esposizione al tedesco è stato maggiore rispetto all’italiano, il padre parla comunque
spesso al bambino in questa lingua. I genitori si sono rivolti a lui nelle due lingue fin
dalla nascita, ed il bambino ha iniziato a formulare le prime frasi all’età di circa un
anno e mezzo. Renzo è molto precoce ed il livello raggiunto sia in italiano che in
tedesco è molto buono per la sua età. Le registrazioni sono state eseguite a casa del
bambino, a Firenze, alla presenza della madre. Quando questa non era presente,
un’altra persona di madrelingua tedesca o parlante L2 di tedesco si è rivolta a lui in
questa lingua. In questo modo il bambino ha sempre avuto un referente per l’italiano
(io stessa) ed uno per il tedesco.
Tav. 2. Durata di esposizione durante il periodo delle registrazioni
Renzo (BFLA)
L. materna
L. paterna
L. ambiente
Ted., (Ita.) Tutta la giornata.
Ita.
Alcune ore al giorno.
Ita.
Limitato (il bambino non frequenta ancora l’asilo).
4.2. Samuele
Samuele ha iniziato a frequentare l’asilo italiano a circa tre anni, ma già prima
parlava italiano con i figli dei vicini e gli amici dei genitori. La lingua di famiglia è
il tedesco (la madre è di madrelingua tedesca) ma il padre, di madrelingua inglese, a
volte cerca di rivolgersi al bambino in questa lingua, quando giocano insieme.
Samuele, che ha un fratellino di circa un anno e mezzo, si esprime molto bene sia in
italiano che in tedesco, mentre il vocabolario inglese è limitato, anche se il bambino
riesce a comprendere questa lingua. Le registrazioni sono state effettuate all’asilo o
a casa del bambino. In quest’ultimo caso Samuele ha sempre avuto un referente di
madrelingua italiana (io stessa), uno di madrelingua inglese e uno di madrelingua
tedesca (la madre). Il corpus è costituito prevalentemente dalle lingue che
riguardano questa ricerca, italiano e tedesco.
Tav. 3. Durata di esposizione durante il periodo delle registrazioni
Samuele (BFLA)
L. materna
L. paterna
L. ambiente
Ted.
Ing.
Ita.
Circa metà giornata.
Limitato (circa un’ora al giorno).
Circa metà giornata (il bambino frequenta l’asilo da
circa un anno*).
* prima dell’inizio dell’asilo Samuele era esposto all’italiano per alcune ore al giorno
103
Manola Salustri
4.3. Marianna
Marianna ha iniziato a parlare italiano fin dalla nascita con la baby-sitter e la
sorellina Valery, tre anni più grande. La madre si rivolge alle bambine sempre in
tedesco mentre il padre usa a volte anche l’italiano. Marianna si esprime
correttamente sia in tedesco sia in italiano e presenta una forte inflessione toscana.
Oltre a vocaboli dialettali notiamo la presenza della gorgia toscana. Le registrazioni
sono state effettuate a casa della bambina, dalla madre, oppure all’asilo. Nella
registrazione di Marianna sono presenti molti esempi di Code-Switching la bambina
25
cioè “mischia “ i termini delle due lingue.
Tav. 4. Durata di esposizione durante il periodo delle registrazioni.
Marianna (BFLA)
L. materna
L. paterna
L. ambiente
Ted.
Ted.
Ita.
Alcune ore al giorno.
circa metà giornata (la bambina frequenta l’asilo da
circa un anno*).
* prima dell’inizio dell’asilo Marianna era esposta all’italiano per alcune ore al
giorno (baby-sitter italiana)
4.4. Angela
Lo sviluppo linguistico di Angela , una bambina di tre anni di madrelingua
tedesca, è stato seguito per due mesi. La madre di Angela è tedesca mentre il padre è
italiano; Angela ha anche un fratellino, Andrea, di circa cinque anni che come lei ha
imparato l’italiano all’asilo, in quanto in famiglia i due bambini parlano solo
tedesco. La prima registrazione è stata eseguita a Settembre, solo una settimana
dopo l’apertura dell’asilo. Angela non riusciva ad esprimersi in italiano e giocava
prevalentemente con gli altri bambini che parlano tedesco. La seconda registrazione
è stata effettuata ad Ottobre, sempre all’asilo frequentato dalla bambina.
25
Alcuni esempi di Code-Switching dal corpus di Marianna (MAR- R1.):
a. Ich bin auch eine incavolata.
Io sono anche una incavolata
b. Und das war lustig als du das in den insalata gemacht hast.
E questo era divertente quando tu questo nell’insalata messo hai. (Marianna, 3; 8)
104
Tav. 5. Durata di esposizione durante il periodo delle registrazioni.
Angela (L2)
L. materna
L. paterna
L. ambiente
Ted.
Ita.
Ita.
Limitato.*
Circa metà giornata ( la bambina frequenta l’asilo
da circa una settimana).
* prima dell’inizio dell’asilo Angela era esposta quasi esclusivamente al tedesco
5. Dati utilizzati nella ricerca
In questa ricerca verranno utilizzati i dati relativi alla lingua tedesca nel corpus di
Renzo, Samuele e Marianna, al fine di svolgere un’analisi quantitativa degli errori
presenti rispetto alla posizione del verbo nelle frasi tedesche principali e
subordinate. Le registrazioni contrassegnate da un asterisco non sono state utilizzate
in quanto costituite prevalentemente da frasi in italiano.
Verranno quindi considerati i dati relativi alla produzione spontanea di Angela,
al fine di paragonare la sua acquisizione dell’italiano come L2 e l’acquisizione dei
bambini italiani monolingui nelle stesse fasi dell’apprendimento.
Tav. 6. Registrazioni utilizzate nella ricerca.
Registrazioni
Renzo
R1
R2*
R3
R4
R5
Samuele
R1*
R2
R3
R4*
Marianna
R1
R2*
R3*
Angela
R1
R2 (a.& b.)
Età del bambino
Data
3;5
3;7
3;9
3;11
4;1
18.01.1998
29.03.1998
04.05.1998
08.07.1998
3;9
3;10
3;11
4;0
24.06.1998
28.07.1998
10.08.1998
24.09.1998
3;8
3;9
4;2
20.12.1997
12.01.1998
24.06.1998
3;0
3;1
24.09.1998
10.10.1998
105
Manola Salustri
6. Errori nella posizione del verbo nei bambini bilingui
6.1. Metodo
Nel paragrafo seguente verranno riportate tutte le frasi presenti nel corpus di
Renzo con un ordine verbale scorretto. Ogni registrazione sarà analizzata
singolarmente prendendo in considerazione prima le frasi principali, quindi le
secondarie. Gli errori sono stati controllati da due parlanti di madrelingua tedesca
che hanno letto l’intero corpus. Se è stata ipotizzata un’omissione, verrà indicato tra
parentesi l’elemento omesso. I risultati dell’elaborazione verranno quindi confrontati
con i dati di altri due bambini, Samuele e Marianna.
6.2. Analisi delle frasi principali nel corpus di Renzo: i casi di Verb-First
Considerando gli errori presenti nelle frasi principali del corpus di Renzo è
emerso che, tranne alcuni rari casi di V3 e V-Final, la maggioranza delle frasi con
verbo flesso non in seconda posizione è costituita da casi di Verb-First. Queste frasi,
in cui il verbo flesso occupa la prima posizione, vengono analizzate, nella maggior
parte dei casi, come il risultato dell’omissione di un elemento dalla prima posizione
della frase, il Vorfeld, dovuto ai fenomeni del Topic-drop e del Soggetto nullo
infantile, come in (33)-(34). (gli elementi tra parentesi sono omessi).
(33) (Du) kommst auch von Fenster rein.
(tu) entri anche da finestra
omissione del soggetto (Renzo 3; 5)
(34) (Das) kannst du ruhig reinwerfen .
(questo) puoi tu tranquillamente buttare.
omissione dell’oggetto (Renzo 3; 5)
Per quanto l’omissione dell’oggetto sia difficile da valutare, in quanto spesso si
creano contesti ambigui, le frasi considerate non avrebbero senso e non sarebbero
grammaticalmente accettabili senza considerare l’omissione dell’oggetto, identificabile
dal contesto (i giudizi sull’omissione degli oggetti sono stati dati da parlanti nativi che
hanno letto non solo le frasi ma anche l’intero contesto delle registrazioni).
A giudizio di parlanti nativi tedeschi, inoltre, in alcune frasi sembrerebbero
essere omessi dalla prima posizione anche altri elementi oltre ai soggetti ed agli
oggetti. In alcune frasi il bambino sembrerebbe omettere avverbi come jetzt
(= adesso), dann (= poi), da (= qui).
Prendiamo in considerazione alcune frasi ed il loro contesto come in (35) in cui
l’avverbio jetzt è stato omesso:
(35)
*REN:
106
und jetzt hab ich das Wasser wieder ausgestellt.
E adesso ho io l’acqua di nuovo “chiuso”
*RUF: mhm
*REN: ___ hab ich das Wasser wieder ausgestellt.
___ho io l’acqua di nuovo “chiuso”
In questo esempio possiamo facilmente ipotizzare un’omissione, trattandosi della
ripetizione della stessa frase.
I casi di Verb-First sono schematizzati nelle tabelle seguenti (gli elementi tra
parentesi sono omessi).
Tav. 7. Registrazione REN1. Data: 18.01.’98.
a. (S)
b. (S)
c. (O)
d. (Avv)
e.
f.
Vfnt
Vfnt
Vfnt
Vfnt
Vfnt
Vfnt
Vp
S
S
S
S
Vp
Vp
14
2
5
1
5
4
Nella registrazione REN1. 31 frasi principali su 164 (circa il 20%) presentano
26
il verbo finito in prima posizione. Di queste, 16 sono interpretabili con
l’omissione del soggetto dalla prima posizione della frase, 5 frasi presentano
invece l’omissione dell’oggetto, mentre una sola frase è interpretabile con
l’omissione di un avverbio.
Nella prima registrazione sono presenti anche 9 frasi a V1 non interpretabili con
l’omissione di un elemento dalla prima posizione, (come in (36)). Queste
costituiscono un fenomeno limitato ma non trascurabile (circa il 5% del totale) e,
come vedremo, tendono a diminuire fino a scomparire completamente.
(36) Kann der Zug dann wieder fahren.
Può il treno poi di nuovo correre.
(Renzo 3; 5)
Tav. 8. Registrazione REN.3. Data: 04.05.’98.
a. (S)
b. (S)
c. (O)
d. (O)
e.
f.
g.
26
Vfnt
Vfnt
Vfnt
Vfnt
Vfnt
Vfnt
Vfnt
Vp
S
S
S
S
S
Vp
O
Vp
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
In questa registrazione è presente ache un caso di Verb-final, in 1.
1. Ah, man zurückschauen kann.
(Renzo, 3; 5)
107
Manola Salustri
Delle 136 frasi principali presenti nella registrazione REN.3., 9 presentano il
27
verbo flesso in prima posizione, quindi il 6,6,%. Possiamo considerare 6 delle 9
frasi principali con Vfnt in prima posizione come il risultato dell’omissione del primo
elemento della frase (in particolare, in 4 frasi è stato omesso il soggetto, in 2
l’oggetto), mentre gli ultimi tre casi sembrano non essere causati dall’omissione di
elementi dal Vorfeld.
Tav. 9. Registrazione REN.4. Data: 07.04.’98.
a. (O)
b. (S)
c.(Avv)
d.
Vfnt
Vfnt
Vfnt
Vfnt
S
O
S
S
Vp
Vp
11
21
10
4
Nelle frasi principali presenti nella registrazione REN.4. il verbo flesso si trova
in 46 frasi su 420 in prima posizione (circa l’11%). In 42 casi ciò può essere
attribuito all’omissione di elementi topic nel Vorfeld (in 11 casi si ha l’omissione
dell’oggetto, in 21 l’omissione del soggetto ed in 10 l’omissione di un avverbio),
28
mentre quattro frasi sembrano non essere interpretabili con un’omissione.
Tav. 10. Registrazione REN5. Data: 19.10.’98.
a. (S)
b. (S)
c. (O)
d. (Avv)
Vfnt
Vfnt
Vfnt
Vfnt
O
S
S
2
1
2
2
Delle 164 frasi principali presenti nella registrazione REN5., 8 hanno un ordine
verbale scorretto, quindi il 4,8% circa. È presente solo una frase con il verbo flesso in
ultima posizione mentre le rimanenti 7 frasi sono tutti casi di Verb-First, interpretabili
con l’omissione di un elemento dal Vorfeld (in 4 casi si ha l’omissione del soggetto, in
2 casi l’omissione dell’oggetto ed in 2 casi l’omissione di un avverbio.
6.2.2. Conclusione
Dall’analisi dei dati emerge che Renzo ha acquisito il fenomeno del V2. Gli
errori presenti nelle frasi principali sono, nella maggior parte dei casi, frasi a V1
interpretabili come il risultato del fenomeno del Topic-drop e della fase del Soggetto
27
28
Oltre ai casi di V1, sono presenti in questa registrazione anche 4 casi di V3. Sono invece
assenti casi di Verb-final.
In questa registrazione sono presenti, oltre ai casi di V1, un caso di Verb-final ed uno di V3.
108
nullo infantile. Come si nota dal grafico questi casi diminuiscono progressivamente,
passando da un 20% nella prima registrazione ad un 5% circa nell’ultima. Il residuo
riscontrato nell’ultima registrazione è attribuibile al fenomeno presente nel tedesco
parlato, che persiste anche nella lingua adulta, cioè il Topic-drop.
Grafico 1. La linea unita indica le frasi con il verbo flesso in prima posizione
interpretabili nella maggior parte dei casi con l’omissione di un elemento
dal Vorfeld, risultato del fenomeno del Soggetto nullo infantile e del Topicdrop ( il residuo è dovuto alla permanenza, nella grammatica adulta, di
quest’ultimo fenomeno). La linea tratteggiata indica il totale delle frasi
con ordine verbale scorretto. Le due linee tendono a coincidere, indicando
che errori come V3 e Verb-final sono quasi assenti.
Errori frasi principali
25
% Errori
20
15
10
5
0
Gennaio
V1
Maggio
Luglio
Settembre
Percentuale totale di
errori
Mesi
Nelle prime registrazioni erano tuttavia presenti delle frasi V1 non interpretabili
come il risultato dell’omissione di un costituente dalla prima posizione della frase le
quali lasciano ipotizzare una fase V1 in cui il bambino posiziona il verbo flesso in
prima posizione, forse interpretabile con un transfer dall’italiano. Queste frasi, pur
costituendo il 5,4% delle principali nella prima registrazione, scomparendo
completamente nell’ultima registrazione, costituiscono un fenomeno non
trascurabile nello sviluppo linguistico di Renzo.
109
Manola Salustri
Grafico 2. Come si vede dal grafico il V1 costituisce una vera e propria fase nello
sviluppo linguistico di Renzo, che scompare nell’ultima registrazione,
quando il bambino ha 4,1 anni.
VERB-FIRST non interpretabile con l'omissione di
elementi dal Vorfeld
6
5
% V1
4
VERB-FIRST
3
2
1
0
Gennaio
Maggio
Luglio
Settembre
Mesi
Nel corso dello sviluppo linguistico di Renzo si può notare una graduale
diminuzione dei soggetti non realizzati foneticamente, che scendono da circa il 9,2%
(rispetto al totale delle frasi) nella prima registrazione ad un 1,8% nell’ultima,
29
mostrando la presenza di una fase del Soggetto nullo infantile.
29
Nel corpus di Renzo sono presenti anche soggetti nulli in posizione non iniziale (circa il
4% rispetto al totale delle frasi nella prima registrazione), in frasi principali del tipo XP V
(S), in subordinate ed in interrogative si/no, come di seguito, dove l’elemento tra parentesi
è stato omesso:
i) Hier ist (das) so.
Qui è (ciò) così
ii) Wenn (ich) es so gebaut habe.
Se (io) ciò così costruito ho.
iii) Hast (du) gesehen?
(Renzo 3; 5)
Hai (tu) visto?
Nelle interrogative si/no ( che costituiscono la maggioranza dei casi) l’omissione risulta
però ambigua in quanto nella stessa registrazione si nota anche la presenza di forme
contratte come in iv.:
iv) Haste [=hast du] gesehen?
(Renzo 3, 5)
110
Grafico 3. Il grafico mostra lo sviluppo della fase del Soggetto nullo infantile: la
linea indica i soggetti nulli in posizione topic, che diminuiscono
progressivamente. Il “residuo” presente nell’ultima registrazione è
attribuibile al fenomeno del topic-drop, che è presente nel tedesco
parlato e persiste anche nell’età adulta.
Soggetti Nulli
% Soggetti Nulli
10
8
6
4
2
0
Gennaio
Soggetti Nulli in
Posizione Topic
Maggio
Luglio
Settembre
Mesi
6.2.3. Analisi delle frasi subordinate nel corpus di Renzo
Per quanto riguarda le frasi subordinate è emersa la tendenza da parte del
bambino ad usare il verbo flesso in seconda posizione nelle frasi introdotte da “weil”
, uso sempre più frequente nel tedesco parlato.
Questa congiunzione sembrerebbe aver assunto negli ultimi decenni uno statuto
particolare, come confermano le frasi delle mamme e dell’investigatrice tedesca
presenti nel corpus. L’uso del V2 introdotto da “weil” sembra non essere legato ad
un fattore dialettale.
Sono presenti anche frasi subordinate con ordine verbale scorretto introdotte da
altre congiunzioni, che, come notiamo dal grafico, scompaiono nelle ultime
registrazioni. Anche se queste frasi costituiscono una percentuale molto bassa, esse
Considerato che già nella seconda registrazione l’omissione in contesti non iniziali è scesa
al 1,4% fino a scomparire totalmente nell’ultima registrazione, questo fenomeno non
verrà considerato come rilevante (ma vedi Hamann (1997) per uno studio dei soggetti
nulli post-verbali in una fase tarda dello sviluppo del tedesco (Late argument drop)).
111
Manola Salustri
costituiscono una differenza rispetto ai corpus dei bambini monolingui dove non si
30
riscontra nessun errore della posizione del verbo nelle frasi subordinate.
Grafico 4. Dal grafico si nota che la percentuale delle frasi introdotte dalla
congiunzione “weil” con ordine verbale non finale rimangono costanti
nel corso dello sviluppo, indicando che non si tratta di una fase ma di un
particolare uso riscontrato anche negli adulti. Sono presenti anche frasi
subordinate con ordine scorretto che costituiscono circa il 5% delle frasi
subordinate con errori e scompaiono nell’ultima registrazione.
Errori frasi subordinate
25
% errori
20
15
10
5
0
Gen
Errori totali frasi
subordinate
Mag
Lug
mesi
Sett
V2 introdotto da
"weil"
Dai risultati della ricerca possiamo comunque concludere che il bambino ha
acquisito il parametro d’ordine OV/VO. La percentuale degli errori nelle frasi
subordinate è infatti molto bassa (circa il 5%) mentre le frasi a V2 introdotte da
“weil” non costituiscono un errore ma una caratteristica dell’input.
6.2.4. Confronto con il corpus di Samuele
Nella registrazione di luglio 11 frasi su 157, quindi il 7% delle frasi principali
presentano un ordine verbale scorretto. Tutte le frasi con un ordine verbale scorretto
presentano il verbo flesso in prima posizione. Di queste, 10 sono interpretabili con
l’omissione di un elemento dal Vorfeld (soggetto o oggetto), mentre una sola risulta
ambigua, in (37).
30
Schönenberg (2000) ha notato, in uno studio sull’acquisizione di una varietà del tedesco
(Swiss German Lucernese) che i bambini da lei considerati muovono il verbo nelle frasi
subordinate anche in contesti in cui ciò non è permesso nella grammatica adulta.
112
(37) Habe ich noch nett [= nicht] fertig.
ho io non ancora finito
(Samuele 3; 11)
Tav. 11. Registrazione SAM 2. Data : 28.07.’98.
a. (S)
b. (O)
V
V
S
8
2
Delle 6 frasi subordinate presenti, 2 non presentano il verbo flesso in ultima
posizione. Una di queste è introdotta da “weil”, l’altra è una interrogativa indiretta.
Questi dati mostrano che Samuele ha acquisito il fenomeno del V2 e le frasi con
posizione del verbo scorretta possono essere attribuite all’omissione di elementi dal
Vorfeld. La percentuale di frasi con omissione di un costituente dalla prima
posizione della frase è circa il 6,3%, la percentuale di soggetti omessi in prima
posizione è il 5%.
Nella registrazione SAM3. del 18.08.’98 è presente un solo caso di frase
principale con verbo flesso in posizione scorretta. Ciò potrebbe essere attribuito alla
prevalenza in questa registrazione di frasi interrogative, nelle quali il verbo flesso si
trova correttamente nella prima posizione. Dall’analisi delle frasi principali risulta
che circa l’80% di queste sono frasi interrogative SI/NO. L’unico errore riscontrato
è la frase in (38), un’interrogativa.
(38) Du hast alles gesehen?
tu hai tutto visto
(Samuele 4; 0)
Per quanto riguarda le subordinate, è stato riscontrato un caso di V2 introdotto
da “weil”.
(39) weil ich bin schwach, ok?
perché io sono debole, ok
(Samuele 4; 0)
6.2.4. Confronto con il corpus di Marianna
Per quanto riguarda l’ordine verbale, nella prima registrazione di Marianna sono
presenti una subordinata introdotta da “weil” con il verbo flesso in terza posizione
ed una principale con un ordine verbale V1 dovuta all’omissione del soggetto in
prima posizione. Dato il numero limitato di errori, possiamo affermare che anche
Marianna posiziona correttamente il verbo flesso nelle principali e nelle subordinate.
Anche in questo caso si osserva l’uso del V2 con le subordinate introdotte da “weil”
riscontrabile, in questa registrazione, anche nella produzione linguistica della
mamma e della sorellina di otto anni.
113
Manola Salustri
7. Acquisizione infantile di L2: alcune osservazioni
Nel corso della ricerca sono stati registrati anche bambini venuti in contatto con
l’italiano solo dopo i due anni di età. In questo caso, come anticipato nell’introduzione,
è più opportuno parlare di acquisizione infantile di L2, seppur precoce, e non di vero e
proprio bilinguismo. D’altra parte le difficoltà nel tracciare i limiti tra Bilinguismo ed
Acquisizione precoce di L2 rendono forse più opportuno parlare di una fase transitoria
attraversata dal bambino nel corso dell’acquisizione, durante la quale si riscontrano gli
stessi fenomeni di transfer tipici dell’acquisizione di L2. Nonostante non siano
disponibili registrazioni riguardanti lo sviluppo successivo del caso qui considerato, è
ragionevole pensare che l’acquisizione della seconda lingua in bambini di tre anni
31
raggiunga livelli linguistici propri dei bambini monolingui e bilingui.
Tra i dati raccolti, il corpus più interessante riguarda una bambina di tre anni,
Angela, che è stata seguita per circa due mesi. La prima registrazione è stata
eseguita a settembre, solo una settimana dopo l’apertura dell’asilo. In poche frasi
Angela cerca di esprimersi in italiano usando parole di questa lingua e del tedesco,
come in (40)-(41), dove sono presenti anche errori di accordo.
(40) Io vuole guck mal man.
(Angela 3; 0)
(41) Io vuole questo angucken.
Nella registrazione di Ottobre Angela ha già migliorato il suo italiano, e
nonostante la presenza di errori, si nota una maggiore fluenza, come in (42)-(43).
(42) Vuole un foglio.
(43) Io vuo un attro disegno.
(Angela 3; 1)
Sono ancora presenti, tuttavia, errori di accordo, persona e numero, che non si
riscontrano invece nei bambini che acquisiscono l’italiano come L1, sia monolingui
che bilingui. Nel corpus studiato da Guasti, ad esempio, i bambini presentano un
32
accordo corretto già dalle prime fasi dell’acquisizione linguistica.
Possiamo osservare, come dimostrano le frasi in (44)-(45), che in questa fase
dell’acquisizione Anna non ha ancora acquisito la persona ed il numero.
(44) io vuoi un attro disegno.
(45) Io vuo un attro disegno.
31
32
A questo proposito cfr. Belletti & Hamann (1999).
Cfr. Guasti (1993/94).
114
(46) Vuole un foglio.
Sembra inoltre che la bambina provi a formare delle frasi in italiano traducendo
direttamente dal tedesco, applicando all’italiano le regole della grammatica di questa
lingua, come in (47)-(49).
(47) Isegno vuole io.
Inversione
(48) Quetto vuole io.
Inversione
(49) È questo mio?
Interrogativa con verbo flesso in prima posizione
La bambina utilizza i movimenti sintattici tipici del tedesco anche per l’italiano,
come l’Inversione, in cui il verbo flesso ed il primo elemento della frase (in questo
caso l’oggetto) si spostano dalla posizione di base ad una posizione più alta della
struttura frasale.
I dati di Angela sembrano quindi essere in accordo con l’ipotesi Full Transfer/Full
Access (FT/FA) di Schwartz e Sprouse (1994). Seguendo questa ipotesi la grammatica
di L1 costituisce “lo stato iniziale” della grammatica di L2: le proprietà sintattiche di
L1 vengono trasferite ad L2 e solo in seguito la grammatica, sottostando ai principi di
33
GU viene ristrutturata secondo le proprietà della lingua target.
Conclusioni
(i) Nel corpus di Renzo non è stata riscontrata la presenza di infiniti principali,
sembra quindi che la fase dei RI sia terminata già dalla prima registrazione (3;5
anni) in accordo con i dati di Wexler (1990) e Rizzi (1994). La fase del Soggetto
nullo infantile continua invece fino circa 4 anni. A questa età la percentuale di
frasi a V1 diviene la stessa riscontrata negli adulti (circa il 5%). Questo residuo è
attribuibile al fenomeno del Topic-drop che caratterizza la lingua tedesca.
(ii) Nei termini dell’ipotesi del Troncamento, ciò significa che in questa fase il
bambino non ha più l’opzione di troncamenti al livello di TP, responsabili
della presenza di infiniti principali, mentre sono ancora possibili troncamenti
ad un livello più alto della struttura frasale, responsabili della fase del
Soggetto nullo infantile. Solo intorno ai quattro anni il bambino acquisisce
completamente il principio:
CP = Root (Rizzi 1994)
(iii) Il parametro d’ordine OV/VO risulta fissato già dalla prima registrazione (3; 5
anni). Il bambino non commette errori nella struttura frasale, posizionando il
verbo flesso nella seconda posizione nelle frasi principali e nell’ultima nelle
33
Seguendo Schwartz (1998), nonostante i diversi “punti di inizio” e di arrivo, i processi
cognitivi responsabili dell’acquisizione di L1 ed L2 sarebbero comunque gli stessi.
115
Manola Salustri
34
subordinate, mostrando così di aver acquisito il fenomeno del V2 . La presenza
di frasi V1 viene interpretata come il risultato del fenomeno del Soggetto nullo
infantile e del fenomeno del Topic-drop. Solo una piccola percentuale di frasi V1
non è attribuibile a questi due fenomeni e necessita una diversa interpretazione.
(iv) Il bambino ha fissato negativamente il parametro del pro-drop, non sono
presenti infatti soggetti nulli in posizione post-verbale o post-wh (ma vedi anche
nota 29), mentre il parametro del Topic-drop è stato fissato positivamente, il
bambino infatti omette non solo soggetti ma anche oggetti. Quest’ultimo
35
fenomeno viene ipergeneralizzato dal bambino anche agli avverbi .
(v) Nelle frasi subordinate è stato riscontrato un numero limitato di errori (circa il
5%) mentre è emersa la tendenza da parte del bambino ad usare il V2 nelle frasi
introdotte dalla congiunzione “weil”, uso riscontrato anche nell’input e già
notato in precedenti lavori (cfr. tra gli altri Hamann (1997)).
(vi) I dati di Samuele e Marianna confermano i risultati riscontrati in Renzo. I
bambini posizionano correttamente il verbo flesso ed hanno fissato i parametri
del pro-drop e del Topic-drop. In entrambi i casi sono presenti frasi subordinate
introdotte da “weil” con verbo flesso in seconda posizione. La percentuale di
soggetti nulli omessi in prima posizione da Samuele a 3;10 anni è confrontabile
con la percentuale presente in Renzo all’età di 3;11 anni (entrambe circa il 5%).
Sembra tuttavia che la fase del soggetto nullo sia terminata in Marianna già
dalla prima registrazione (3;2 anni).
(vii) Nei dati relativi all’acquisizione dell’italiano come L2 da parte di Angela, una
bambina tedesca di tre anni, sono presenti interferenze con il tedesco e
differenze rispetto ai dati relativi all’acquisizione dell’italiano in bambini
monolingui. La presenza di frasi con oggetto topicalizzato e frasi con inversione
del soggetto nei dati di Angela indicano la presenza di perlomeno una categoria
34
Un’ulteriore prova per quanto riguarda l’acquisizione del parametro d’ordine OV/VO è
costituita dal fatto che Renzo non commette errori nelle frasi del tipo in i.
(i) ich habe das gesehen.
S Vfin O Vp
Io ho ciò visto.
Mentre il verbo finito in queste frasi si sposta nella periferia sinistra della frase, in un
punto più alto della struttura, il verbo all’infinito resta nella posizione di base. Trovandosi
l’oggetto sempre alla sinistra del verbo non flesso nelle costruzioni perifrastiche,
possiamo dedurre che il bambino ha fissato correttamente il parametro d’ordine OV/VO.
35
Peraltro, l’omissione di un avverbio dalla prima posizione della frase, specialmente della
particella “da”sembra essere accettata anche da parlanti adulti del tedesco nel registro
parlato (Rizzi, L., p.c.).
116
funzionale fuori da VP. D’altra parte i numerosi errori di accordo (circa il 28%)
sembrerebbero mostrare l’assenza di Agr.
L’assenza di errori o interferenze nell’acquisizione della posizione del verbo
flesso nella frase tedesca sembra indicare che Renzo, Samuele e Marianna, esposti
all’italiano ed al tedesco sin dalla nascita, quindi casi di Bilingual First Language
Acquisition, sono in grado di separare le due grammatiche e presentano le stesse fasi
nell’acquisizione riscontrate nei bambini monolingui riguardo a questo aspetto della
36
grammatica tedesca.
I dati di Angela, invece, riguardanti l’Acquisizione infantile di L2 mostrano che
la bambina, esposta alle due lingue solo dopo i due anni di età, tende a confondere le
due grammatiche e l’acquisizione segue, almeno inizialmente, processi diversi.
Bibliografia
Belletti A. & L. Rizzi (1996), Parameters and functional heads, Oxford University Press.
Belletti A. & C. Hamann (1999), “Ça on fait pas! On the L2-Acquisition of French by two your
children with different source languages”, BUCLD 24 Proceedings.
Bohnaker U. (1998), Iceland plus English: language differentiation and functional categories in a
successively bilingual child, tesi di dottorato, University of Durham, UK.
Bromberg H. & K. Wexler (1995), “Null subjects in wh-questions”, in C.T. Schutze et al. (eds.)
Papers on language processing and acquisition, 221-48.
Cardinaletti A. & G. Giusti (1996), Problemi di sintassi tedesca, Unipress, Padova.
Cipriani P., A.M. Chilosi, P. Bottari & L. Pfanner (1993), L’acquisizione della morfosintassi in
italiano: fasi e processi, Unipress, Padova.
Chlasen H. (1982), Spracherweb in der Kindheit. Eine Untersuchung zur Entwicklung der Syntax
bei Kleinkindern, Narr, Tübingen.
Clahsen H. (1990), “Constraints on parameter setting: a grammatical analysis of some stages in
German child language”, Language Acquisition, 1: 297-335.
De Houwer A. (1996), “Bilingual first language acquisition”, in The Handbook of Child
Language, Fletcher P. & B. MacWhinney (eds.), Blackwell Publisher Inc. Cambridge.
Besten H. den (1983), “On the interaction of Root Transformations and lexical deletive rules”, in
W. Abraham (ed.), On the formal Syntax of the Westgermania, 47-131, John Benjamins,
Amsterdam.
Friedemann M.-A. & L. Rizzi (2000), The acquisition of syntax, Longman.
Guasti M.T. (1993/94), “Verb syntax in Italian child grammar: finite and non finite verbs”,
Language acquisition, 3 (1): 1-40.
36
L’analisi dei dati in italiano, rimandata ad uno studio futuro, permetterà una visione più
completa dello sviluppo linguistico di questi bambini bilingui, che non presentano
differenze rilevanti per quanto riguarda il tedesco.
117
Manola Salustri
Guasti M.T., Introduction to language acquisition, MIT Press (in stampa).
Hamann C. (1997), From syntax to discourse: children’s use of pronominal clitics,
nullarguments, infinitives and operators, Habilitationsschrift, Universität Genf
Sommersemester 1997.
Haegeman L. (1995), Root infinitives and initial root null subject in early Dutch,
Proceedings of GALA.
Haegeman L. (1996), “Verb-second, the split-CP and null subject in early Dutch Finite Clauses”,
GenGenP 4 (2).
Haegeman L. (2000), “Adult null subjects in non pro-drop languages”, in M.-A.
Friedemann & L. Rizzi.
Hyams N. (1986), Language acquisition and the theory of parameters, Reidel, Dordrecht.
Hyams N. & K. Wexler (1993), “On the grammatical basis of null subjects in child language”,
Linguistic inquiry 24: 421-453.
Wang Qi, D. Lillo-martin, C.T. Best & A. Levitt (1992), “Null subject versus null object: some
evidence from the acquisition of Chinese and English”, Language Acquisition, 2: 221-254.
Huang C.-T.J. (1984), “On the distribution and reference of empty pronouns”, Linguistic Inquiry,
15: 531-574.
Lasnik H. & T. Stowell (1991), “Weakest crossover”, Linguistic Inquiry, 22: 687-720.
Meisel J. (1986), “Word order and case marking in early child language. Evidence from
simultaneous acquisition of two first languages: French and German”, Linguistic, 24:
123-183.
Meisel J. (1990), Two first languages, early grammatical development in bilingual children, Foris
Publications, Dordrecht-Holland.
Meisel J. & N. Müller (1992), “Finitess and verb placement in early child grammar: evidence for
simultaneous acquisition of French and German bilinguals”, in J. Meisel (ed.), The
acquisition of verb placement: functional categories and V2 phenomena in language
development, Kluwer, Dordrecht, 109-138.
Meisel J. (1992), The acquisition of verb placement, Kluwer Academic publishers, Holland.
Meisel J. (1994), Bilingual first language acquisition: French and German grammar
development, John Benjamins, Amsterdam.
Poeppel D. & K. Wexler (1993), “The full competence hypothesis of clausal structure in early
German”, Language, 69: 1-33.
Rizzi L. (1986), “Null objects and the theory of pro”, Linguistic inquiry 17, ripubblicato in Rizzi
(2000b).
Rizzi L. (1991), “Residual verb –second and the Wh-criterion”, Technical reports on formal and
computational linguistics N. 2, Geneva University, ripubblicato in Rizzi (2000b).
Rizzi L. (1994), “Some notes on linguistic theory and language development: the case of root
infinitives”, Language Acquisition 3: 371-393, ripubblicato in Rizzi (2000b).
Rizzi L. (1994), “Early null subject and root null subject”, T. Hoekstra & B. Schwarzt (eds.),
Language acquisition studies in Generative Grammar, Benjamins, Amsterdam,
ripubblicato in Rizzi (2000b).
118
Rizzi L. (1997), “The fine structure of the left periphery”, in L. Haegemann (ed.), Elements of
grammar. Handbook of generative syntax, Kluwer, Dordrecht, the Netherlands,
ripubblicato in Rizzi (2000b).
Rizzi L. (2000a), Remarks on early null subject and root infinitives, in M.-A. Friedemann & L.
Rizzi (2000).
Rizzi L. (2000b), Comparative syntax and language acquisition, Routledge, London.
Rothweiler M. (1993), Der Erverb von Nebensatzen in Deutschen, Niemeyer, Tübingen.
Santorini B. (1995), “Two types of verb second in the history of yddisch”, in A. Battye & I.
Roberts (eds.), Clause structure and language change, Oxford University Press, New
York.
Schönenberg M. (1998), The acquisition of verb placement in Swiss German, Thése de doctorat,
Université de Geneve.
Schönenberg M. (2000), “The acquisition of verb placement in lucernese Swiss German” in M.A. Friedemann & L. Rizzi (2000).
Schwartz B.D. (1998), “The second language instinct”, in Lingua, 106: 133-160.
Thiersch C. (1978), Topics in German syntax, PhD Dissertation, MIT.
Tomaselli A. (1989), La sintassi del verbo finito nelle lingue germaniche, tesi di dottorato,
Università di Pavia.
Valian V. (1991), “Sintactic subjects in the early speech of American and Italian children”,
Cognition, 40: 21-81.
Vikner S. (1994), “Finite verb movement in Scandinavian embedded clauses”, in N. Horstein &
D. Lightfoot (eds.), Verb Movement, Cambridge University Press.
Vikner S. (1995), Verb movement and expletive subjects in the germanic languages, Oxford
University Press, New York.
Wang Q., D. Lillo-Martin, C.T. Best & A. Levitt (1992), “Null subject versus null object: some
evidence from the acquisition of Chinese and English”, Language Acquisition.
Wexler K. (1992), “Optional infinitives, head movement, and the economy of derivations in child
grammar”, MIT, Occasional Paper #14.
119
ON THE RELATIVE POSITION OF BEAUCOUP, GUÈRE, PEU,
RIEN AND TROP IN FRENCH 1
Sara VECCHIATO
1. Introduction
Adverbs and quantifiers have been studied extensively in linguistics and several
accounts of their distributional properties have been provided under different approaches. In the generative framework, their nature and behaviour have been considered as possible clues for the internal structure of the sentence. Since Pollock
(1989), word order variation concerning adverbs has been dealt with by assuming
that it is the verb that moves around the adverb, which always remains in situ. Instead, quantifiers are taken to move leftward in the sentence, towards a „scope‟ position, either in visible syntax or in Logical Form. What we have seen is an attempt to
provide simple and elegant accounts of apparently puzzling facts.
Among the various hypotheses made, I will be mainly concerned with Cinque
(1999)‟s proposal that there is a single universal hierarchy of adverbs, where each
adverb occupies the SPEC position of a functional projection marked with a certain
feature (aspect, tense, modality, etc). The idea is that adverbs are licensed by the
relevant feature associated with their corresponding functional head.
My purpose in this article is to examine a few French adverbs and quantifiers, not
considered in Cinque ‟99 and to try to determine their position in the hierarchy proposed there. Most of them actually belong to both categories. In fact, while rien „nothing‟ can be used only as a negative quantifier, beaucoup „a lot‟, peu „little‟, trop „too
much‟, guère „not much‟ can be used either as quantifiers or as adverbs. It would be
difficult to establish whether they are actually the same words being used in two ways
- as bare quantifiers and as quantificational adverbs - or distinct homonymic words.
1
I wish to thank Paolo Acquaviva, Maria Teresa Biason, Guglielmo Cinque, MarieChristine Jamet, Dominique Sportiche and Michal Starke for native judgments and/or
helpful comments and suggestions.
121
Sara Vecchiato
The testing method is the same as Cinque‟s (‟99) - namely, a comparison between minimal pairs of sentences in which two adverbs appear in opposite orders.
(1) a. Pierre a tout beaucoup aimé.
Pierre has everything a-lot liked.
Pierre liked everything a lot.
b. *Pierre a beaucoup tout aimé.
The order accepted by French native speakers is taken as relevant to establish the
position of the examined items in the hierarchy. It seems that each couple adverbquantifier (i.e. guère, trop, beaucoup / peu both as QPs and as AdvPs) occupies exactly the same position in the hierarchy. Despite some difficulties in testing some
couples of adverbs due to their semantic incompatibility (for example, beaucoup „a
lot‟ and complètement „completely‟), the data point decisively to this direction. This
implies the existence, in the hierarchy, of aspectual heads licensing both adverbs and
quantifiers by checking the same features. The identified positions are presumably
the scope positions to which quantifiers move in overt syntax. I will give some suggestions concerning the names of some heads‟ features.
This article is organized as follows: in the first part I will present the full hierarchy of Cinque (‟99), which is the basis for my analysis; then, I will examine the distributional properties of the QPs/quantificational AdvPs with respect to the auxiliary
and lexical verbs in active and passive sentences. The third part is devoted to the
crucial data concerning the location of the examined items, followed by an addictional section meant to show that, if beaucoup, guère, peu, rien and trop are tested
with “lower” adverbs other than those presented in the key-sentences, their mutual
order is consistent with the identified positions.
2. The hierarchy
The AdvP hierarchy is given in English, since this is the original version of Cinque‟s work. However, it is positively confirmed by French data. There are three
French items; tout, corresponding to English everything, and two duration adverbs,
longtemps and longuement, which can be both roughly translated with for long. The
location of tout was identified in Cinque (‟99), while I have added longtemps and
longuement (see Vecchiato (‟99)). These two adverbs exactly cover the position of
brièvement „briefly‟, formerly established as the only duration adverb in the hierarchy.
[frankly MOODspeech act [fortunately MOODevaluative [allegedly MOODevidential [probably
MOODepistemic [once T(Past) [then T(Future) [perhaps MOOD irrealis [necessarily MOODnecessity [possibly MODpossibility [usually ASPhabitual [again ASPrepetitive (I) [often ASPfrequentative(I) [intentionally MODvolitional [quickly ASPcelerative (I) [already T (Anterior) [no longer
ASPterminative [still ASPcontinuative [always ASPperfect [just ASPretrospective [soon ASPproximative
[longtemps ASPdurative (I) [longuement ASPdurative (II) [characteristically (?) ASP122
On the relative position of beaucoup, guère, peu, rien and trop in French
[almost ASPprospective [completely ASPSgCompletive (I) [tout ASPPlCompletive
[well Voice [fast/early ASPcelerative (II) [completely ASPSgCompletive (II) [again ASPrepetitive
(II) [often ASPfrequentative (II) ]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]
generic/progressive
It will be seen that all the examined items occupy “lower” positions in this hierarchy, namely, between presque „almost‟ and bien „well‟. Adverbs directly occupy their
own position in the hierarchy, whereas quantifiers move leftward in the sentence, from
the canonical object position [V, NP] towards their „scope‟ position, where their fea2
tures are checked . The scope position A‟-binds the canonical object position.
(2) Il a [touti [compris ti ]].
He has everything understood
He understood everything
3. Distributional properties
In order to establish the distribution of French QPs/quantificational AdvPs in the
sentence, three positions have been taken into account: (i) the position which immediately follows the auxiliary verb; (ii) the position which immediately follows the
active past participle or the passive auxiliary été (been); (iii) the position between
the active past participle and the direct object or between the auxiliary été and the
passive participle. Sentences (3a-c) illustrate this pattern. When French bare QPs are
the subjects of passive sentences, they are allowed not to be in [Spec, IP] if the expletive pronoun il (it) is used (sentence (4)). In this configuration, they are thought
to occupy their base position.
We will see that guère „not much‟, trop „too much‟ and rien „nothing‟ cannot follow the past participle, either as adverbs or as quantifiers, except if they have a focus
reading. Instead, for some reasons, beaucoup „a lot‟ and peu „little‟, as quantifiers, can
also occur in the (post-participial) object position: [V‟, NP]. We will also see that the
patterns of distribution vary considerably with respect to the passive auxiliary été
(been). I will argue that this is not due to AdvP-movement, but that the verbal head
moves further leftwards than the past participle through being an auxiliary.
2
“ Lower” adverbs and quantifiers are delimited on the left by the past participle in Italian presumably because the Italian past participle is allowed to move further to the left in the
sentence than its French equivalent. Then, the apparent word order of an Italian sentence
looks as if tutto (everything) has remained in its base position, but in fact it has not:
(i) Ha capitok [tuttoj [tk tj]]
pro has understood everything
He understood everything
123
Sara Vecchiato
(3) a. Marie a soigneusement peigné François.
Marie has carefully combed François.
Marie combed François carefully.
b. Marie a peigné soigneusement François.
c. Marie a peigné François soigneusement.
(4) Il a beaucoup été fait pour eux.
Itexpl has a-lot been done for them
A lot was done for them.
3
Guère and trop
The distribution of guère and trop varies with respect to the passive auxiliary été
„been‟ according to their being quantifiers or adverbs. Namely, adverbs can appear
in position (ii) in passive sentences, whereas quantifiers cannot.
Guère-QP:
Michel n‟a guère mangé.
Michel notcl has not-much eaten
Michel didn’t eat much
b. *Michel n‟a mangé guère.
(5) a.
(6) a. Il n‟a guère été fait pour les sauver.
Itexpl notcl has not-much been done to themcl save
Not much was done to save them.
b. *Il n‟a été guère fait pour les sauver.
c. *Il n‟a été fait guère pour les sauver.
3
As a verb modifier, guère is currently used with the negative marker ne „not‟ in Modern
French. These two negative expressions are interpreted as just one semantic negation
(“Negative Concord”): Je n’aime guère ce quartier „I don‟t like this district much‟. As a
bare quantifier it is very formal: Le nom d’Alain ne me disait guère „The name of Alain
didn‟t tell me much‟. Guère was used without ne, with a positive meaning, in Middle
French: Si nature ne prête un peu, il est malaisé que l’art et l’industrie aillent guiere
avant (Montaigne) „If Nature doesn‟t help a bit, it is difficult that industry and the arts
make a lot of progress‟. In Modern French, it can actually be used without ne in elliptical
answers or as an adverb modifier, though it keeps its current negative meaning: Tu connais l’opium? - Guère (Malraux) „Do you know opium? - Not much‟; Une autre possibilité, guère moins irritante, était qu’il s’en fichait peut-être „Another, not much less sad,
possibility was that he didn‟t give a damn about it‟. For an analysis of guère in a hierarchy of negative projections, see Zanuttini (‟97).
124
Trop-QP:
(7) a. Maurice a trop mangé.
Maurice has too much eaten
Maurice ate too much.
b. *Maurice a mangé trop.
(8) a. Il a trop été fait pour le repas; on a gaspillé la nourriture.
Itexpl has too much been done for the lunch PRON impers has wasted the food
Too much was done for lunch; we wasted the food.
b. *Il a été trop fait pour le repas; on a gaspillé la nourriture.
c. *Il a été fait trop pour le repas; on a gaspillé la nourriture.
Guère-AdvP:
(9) a. Michel n‟a guère changé l‟ameublement.
M. notcl has not much changed the furniture
Michel hasn’t changed the furniture much.
b. *Michel n‟a changé guère l‟ameublement.
c. *Michel n‟a changé l‟ameublement guère.
(10) a. Ce livre n‟a guère été lu l‟année dernière.
This book not cl has not-much been read the year last
This book wasn’t read much last year.
b. Ce livre n‟a été guère lu l‟année dernière.
c. *Ce livre n‟a été lu guère l‟année dernière
Trop-AdvP:
(11) a. Maurice a trop étudié la partition.
M. has too-much studied the score
Maurice studied the score too much.
b. *Maurice a étudié trop la partition.
c. *Maurice a étudié la partition trop.
(12) a. La partition a trop été changée.
The score has too-much been changed
The score was changed too much.
b. La partition a été trop changée.
c. *La partition a été changée trop.
125
Sara Vecchiato
Beaucoup and peu
Beaucoup and peu, as quantifiers, enjoy more possibilities than guère and trop.
In fact, they can appear also in the post-participial positions. Sentences (13)-(14) and
(15)-(16) actually differ in their intonational contour, though the post-participial position is not necessarily focussed.
Beaucoup-QP:
(13) a. Kay a beaucoup fait pour sa famille.
Kay has a-lot done for her family
Kay did a lot for her family.
b. Kay a fait beaucoup pour sa famille.
(14) a. Il a beaucoup été fait pour les sauver, mais sans résultat.
Itexpl has a lot been done to themcl save, but without result
A lot has been done to save them, but unsuccessfully.
b. Il a été beaucoup fait pour les sauver, mais sans résultat.
c. Il a été fait beaucoup pour les sauver, mais sans résultat.
Peu-QP:
(15) a. Lola a peu fait pour sa famille.
L. has little done for her family
Lola did little for her family.
b. Lola a fait peu pour sa famille.
(16) a. Il a peu été fait pour les sauver, et tout le monde a du remords.
Itexpl has little done to themcl save, and all the world has artpartitive remorse
Little was done to save them, and everybody feels remorse.
b. Il a été peu fait pour les sauver, et tout le monde a du remords.
c. Il a été fait peu pour les sauver, et tout le monde a du remords.
4
As intensity adverbs , beaucoup and peu can appear in position (ii) only in passive
sentences, like trop and guère. Then, in (18b) and (20b) respectively, beaucoup and
4
Beaucoup and peu have not only an intensive value, but also a (temporal) frequentative
value. These two readings are apparently associated with two different positions in the hierarchy, since beaucoup can occur twice in a sentence: La pièce a beaucoup été beaucoup
changée. „The play has been very changed many times‟. The frequentative beaucoup apparently enjoys one position more than its intensive equivalent both in active sentences
and in passive sentences. On the contrary, the frequentative peu does not differ in its distribution from peu-intensive-AdvP.
126
peu modify the past participle discuté „discussed‟ and frappé „struck‟. Since beaucoup
5
is incompatible with adjectives , it can be claimed that the past participle is a verbal
head, here, and not an adjective. We will see the relevance of this point below.
Beaucoup-intensity AdvP:
(17) a. On a beaucoup discuté ce projet à la réunion.
PRONimpers has a lot discussed this project at the meeting.
We discussed this project a lot at the meeting.
b. *On a discuté beaucoup ce projet à la réunion.
c. *On a discuté ce projet beaucoup à la réunion.
(18) a. Ce projet a beaucoup été discuté à la réunion.
This project has a lot been discussed at the meeting
This project was discussed a lot at the meeting
b. Ce projet a été beaucoup discuté à la réunion.
c. *Ce projet a été discuté beaucoup à la réunion.
Peu-intensity AdvP:
(ii)
a. On a beaucoup discuté ce projet ces derniers jours.
PRONimpers has a lot discussed this project these latest days.
We have discussed this project a lot of times the latest days.
b. On a discuté beaucoup ce projet ces derniers jours.
c. *On a discuté ce projet beaucoup ces derniers jours.
(iii) a. Ce projet a beaucoup été discuté ces derniers jours.
This project has a lot been discussed these latest days
This project has been discussed a lot of times the latest days.
b. Ce projet a été beaucoup discuté ces derniers jours.
c. ?Ce projet a été discuté beaucoup ces derniers jours.
(iv) a. On a peu discuté ce projet ces derniers jours.
PRONimpers has little discussed this project these latest days
We have discussed this project few times the latest days.
b. *On a discuté peu ce projet ces derniers jours.
c. *On a discuté ce projet peu ces derniers jours.
(v) a. Il a peu été frappé par la violence à la télé.
He has little been struck by violence on TV
He has been struck few times by violence on TV
b. Il a été peu frappé par la violence à la télé.
c. *Il a été frappé peu par la violence à la télé.
5
In French, the modifier of APs (and AdvPs) is très „very‟: Il est très aimable „He is very
lovable‟ vs *Il est beaucoup aimable.
127
Sara Vecchiato
(19) a. On a peu discuté ce projet à la réunion.
PRONimpers has little discussed this project at the meeting
We little discussed this project at the meeting.
b. *On a discuté peu ce projet à la réunion.
c. *On a discuté ce projet peu à la réunion.
(20) a. Il a peu été frappé par cette prédiction.
He has little been struck by this prediction
He was little struck by this prediction.
b. Il a été peu frappé par cette prédiction.
c. *Il a été frappé peu par cette prédiction.
6
Rien
(21) a. Paul n‟a rien fait.
Paul notcl has nothing done
Paul didn’t do anything.
b. *Paul n‟a fait rien.
(22) a. Il n‟a rien été fait.
Itexpl notcl has nothing been done
Nothing was done.
b. Il n‟a été rien fait.
c. *Il n‟a été fait rien.
The reader has easily noticed the lack of symmetry in the distribution of the examined items with respect to the passive auxiliary été „been‟. As Pollock (‟89) argued, it is much costlier to postulate that AdvPs move in the sentence than to assume
that only verbal heads move, creating the illusion of adverbial „transportability‟ (see
6
The distribution of its semantic opposite tout „everything‟ is slightly different, since it can
never appear in the second position:
(vi) a. André a tout compris.
André has everything understood.
André understood everything.
b. *André a compris tout.
(vii) a. Il a tout été entrepris pour les sauver, mais sans résultat.
Itexpl has everything been undertaken to them cl save, but without result
Everything was undertaken to save them, but unsuccessfully.
b. *Il a été tout entrepris pour les sauver, mais sans résultat.
c. *Il a été entrepris tout pour les sauver, mais sans résultat.
128
Travis (‟88)). Giving up with the idea that adverbs move, then, it may be argued that
quantificational adverbs gain the position (ii) because the past participle is, in fact,
an adjective, as traditional grammars claim. Thus, été „been‟ would be a copula and
the analysed adverbs would specify the participial adjective. This is actually the unmarked choice in French, since the adjective modifier très „very‟ is currently employed in passive sentences:
(23) Ce livre a été très apprécié.
This book has been very appreciated
This book was very appreciated.
However, it is definitely impossible to claim this in the case of beaucoup, because beaucoup is not an adjective modifier, as said above. Then, it is less costly to
assume a unique derivation for all the cases, namely that été, being an auxiliary,
simply moves further leftward than the active past participle. The fact that bien
shares this pattern as well (see ftn. 9) also supports this hypothesis.
4. Location within the hierarchy
In this section, I try to identify the position of guère, trop, beaucoup, peu and rien
in the hierarchy, both as quantifiers and intensity adverbs. In the data given below, the
reader will notice few “gaps” due to the fact that some couples of adverbs are impossible to test since they are semantically incompatible. Unfortunately, one of these gaps
7
concerns the preverbal adverb complètement „completely‟ , which is often the keyadverb to establish the position of some items. We will see if and when we can make
up for this difficulty. My hypothesis, to which the data seem to point, is that each couple adverb-quantifier occupies exactly the same position in the hierarchy.
By the way, we can observe that the behaviour of both longtemps and longuement is the same as that we would expect form brièvement „briefly‟.
Trop
Trop-AdvP and trop-QP are both found after presque „almost‟ and before complètement „completely‟. I chose to test these adverbs in passive sentences to make
7
“Completamente can occupy two distinct positions; a preverbal and a post-object one, associated with two distinct interpretations, which likely depend on their different scope”
(Cinque (‟99), p. 172):
(viii) a. John completely forgot her instructions
b. John forgot her instructions completely
The first sentence can only mean that her instruction didn‟t occur at the appropriate moment,
while the second sentence can also mean that John forgot every part of her instruction.
129
Sara Vecchiato
sure a given order was not established because the first adverb was the specifier of
the second one. Since the participle été „been‟ can be found between the two adverbs, we are certain that they do not form a constituent.
Presque „almost‟ > trop „too much‟
8
(24) a. Ma mère a presque été trop touchée par cette nouvelle.
My mother has almost been too much touched by this piece of news.
My mother has almost been touched too much by this piece of news.
b. *Ma mère a trop été presque touchée par cette nouvelle.
Trop „too much‟ > complètement „completely‟:
(25) a. Les employés ont trop été complètement exploités.
The employees have too much been completely exploited
The employees have been completely exploited too much
b. *Les employés ont complètement été trop exploités.
Presque „almost‟ > trop „too much‟
(26) a. Il a presque été trop fait pour moi, et rien pour toi!
Itexpl has almost been too much done for me, and nothing for you
Too much was almost done for me, and nothing for you!
b. *Il a trop été presque fait pour moi, et rien pour toi!
Trop „too much‟ > complètement „completely‟
(27) a. Il a trop été complètement refait, ça semble artificiel.
Itexpl has too much been completely redone, it looks artificial
Too much has been completely redone, it looks artificial
b. *Il a complètement été trop refait, ça semble artificiel.
Guère
Guère is found after presque „almost‟ and before trop „too much‟, both as an adverb (28-31) and as a quantifier (32-35). Actually, presque can occur with guèreAdvP only in the active sentence (28), whereas in the passive sentence (29) both the
8
It could be argued that presque is found before trop through a kind of modification by
transitivity - that is, presque modify the VP and, by transitivity, trop. In fact, in Italian, È
quasi stata troppo commossa da questa notizia can mean both „She risked being too
touched by this piece of news‟ and „She was too touched by this piece of news‟. However,
in the appendix the reader can find evidence that trop actually follows all the adverbs
higher than presque.
130
orders seem to be impossible. It could be claimed that (28) is possible only because
presque is the specifier of guère. However, in the Appendix we can see that guère
actually follows all the adverbs before presque. Moreover, guère-QP clearly follows
presque both in the active and in the passive sentence. Then, I would think it is the
semantic awkwardness of (29) that causes its rejection. As to the objection that
guère forms a constituent with trop, it is refuted by the fact that in a passive sentence the participle été „been‟ separates the two adverbs.
Presque „almost‟ > guère „not much‟
(28) a. ?Les manifestants n‟ont presque guère gâché l‟exposition.
The demonstrators notcl have almost not very much spoiled the exhibition
The demonstrators haven’t almost spoiled the exhibition very much.
b. *Les manifestants n‟ont guère presque gâché l‟exposition.
(29) a. *L‟exposition n‟a presque été guère gâchée par les manifestants.
The exhibition notcl has not very much been almost spoiled by the demonstrators
b. *L‟exposition n‟a guère été presque gâchée par les manifestants
Guère „not much‟ > trop „too much‟
(30) a. Les révolutionnaires n‟ont guère trop changé la morale publique.
The revolutionaries notcl have not-much too-much changed the morals public
Revolutionaries haven’t much changed public morals too much.
b. *Les révolutionnaires n‟ont trop guère changé la morale publique.
(31) a. La morale publique n‟a guère été trop changée par les révolutionnaires.
The morals public notcl has not-much been too-much changed by the revolutionaries.
Public morals haven’t been much changed too much by revolutionaries.
b. *La morale publique n‟a trop été guère changée par les révolutionnaires.
Presque „almost‟ > guère „not much‟
(32) a. Les manifestants n‟ont presque guère fait contre la mairie, le soir, mais le
lendemain ils ont tout détruit.
The demonstrators notcl not-much almost done against the town hall, the
evening, but the following day they have everything destroyed.
The demonstrators almost didn’t much against the town hall in the evening,
but the following day they destroyed everything.
b. *Les manifestants n‟ont guère presque fait contre la mairie, le soir, mais le
lendemain ils ont tout détruit.
131
Sara Vecchiato
(33) a. Il n‟a presque été guère gâché par les manifestants, le soir, mais le lendemain la mairie a été mise en sac.
Itexpl notcl almost been not-much spoiled by the demonstrators, the evening,
but the following day the city hall has been put in sack
Not much was almost spoiled by the demonstrators, in the evening, but the
following day the city hall was sacked.
b. *Il n‟a guère été presque gâché par les manifestants, le soir, mais le lendemain la mairie a été mise en sac.
Guère „not much‟ > trop „too much‟
(34) a. Les révolutionnaires n‟ont guère trop changé dans le monde.
The revolutionaries notcl have not-much too-much changed in the world
Revolutionaries haven’t much changed too much in the world.
b. *Les révolutionnaires n‟ont trop guère changé dans le monde.
(35) a. Il n‟a guère été trop repeint dans l‟église, presque tous les originaux sont
encore là.
Itexpl notcl has not-much been too-much repainted in the church, almost all
the originals are still there
Not much was repainted too much in the church almost all, the originals
are still there.
b. *Il n‟a trop été guère repeint dans l‟église, presque tous les originaux sont
encore là.
Beaucoup
It is perfectly clear that beaucoup-AdvP is between tout „everything‟ and bien
„well‟. Bien can be employed as an IP-adverb, meaning in fact, definitely (Le prof a
bien analysé le théâtre ‘In fact, the teacher has analysed theater‟), which obviously
9
produces ambiguity. Thus, I chose to use its modified form très bien „very well‟ .
9
Très can be adjoined to bien without making its distribution wider nor narrower. The pattern is the same as that of beaucoup/peu/trop/guère intensive AdvPs and rien.
(ix) a. Liliane a (très) bien compris la question.
Liliane has very well understood the question
Liliane understood the question (very) well.
b. *Liliane a compris (très) bien la question.
c. *Liliane a compris la question (très) bien.
132
Tout „everything‟ > beaucoup „a lot‟
10
(36) a. Pierre a tout beaucoup aimé.
Pierre has everything a-lot loved
Pierre liked everything a lot.
b. *Pierre a beaucoup tout aimé.
Beaucoup „a lot‟ > bien „well‟.
11
(37) a. ?Le prof a beaucoup très bien analysé la pièce de théâtre .
The teacher has a-lot very well analysed the theater play.
The teacher analysed the play a lot and very well.
b. *Le prof a très bien beaucoup analysé le théâtre.
As to beaucoup-QP, there are two difficulties in establishing its position: first, it
is impossible to test its relative order with tout, because they would compete for the
position of subject or direct object in the same sentence; second, beaucoup-QP can12
not appear with complètement „completely‟ .
(x)
10
11
12
a. On a (très) bien été réchauffés par le feu du camping.
PRONimpers has well been warmed by the camp-fire.
We have been warmed well by the camp-fire.
b. On a été (très) bien réchauffés par le feu du camping.
c. *On a été réchauffés (très) bien par le feu du camping.
Compare the passive sentence: Il a tout été beaucoup apprécié „Everything was much appreciated‟ vs *Il a beaucoup été tout apprécié.
French speakers show some resistance to beaucoup and (très) bien appearing in the same
sentence without being coordinated. The form beaucoup et (très) bien is much preferred.
However, the passive sentence is judged as perfect: La pièce a beaucoup été très bien
analysée par notre professeur „The play was analysed a lot very well by our teacher vs
*La pièce a très bien été beaucoup analysée par notre professeur.
If beaucoup is the „dislocated‟ quantifer of a DP, it follows complètement. By dislocation
I do not mean Left Dislocation, but a typical French configuration which Obenauer (‟94)
defines Quantification à Distance (Quantification from the distance, QAD). QAD allows
quantifiers to precede the past participle while the quantified DPs follow it:
(xi) J‟ai beaucoup lu de livres
I have a lot read of books
I read a lot of books
Obenauer (‟94) supposes, following Kayne (‟81), that from its base structure [Q [NP]], the
quantifier is allowed to move towards its scope position, which is identified with [Spec, VP].
Moving to [Spec, VP], the quantifier gains a frequentative value: “I often read books”.
(xii) J‟ai beaucoupk lu [tk de livres].
133
Sara Vecchiato
(38) a. *Fanny a complètement beaucoup caché.
Fanny has completely a lot hidden
*Fanny a beaucoup complètement caché.
However, beaucoup-QP follows presque „almost‟ and precedes bien, which delimits the range of its possible locations.
Presque „almost‟ > beaucoup „a lot‟
(39) a. Il avait presque été beaucoup fait, mais on nous a communiqué d‟arrêter.
Itexpl had almost been a-lot done, but PRONimpers uscl has told to stop
A lot had almost been done, but we were told to stop.
b. *Il avait beaucoup été presque fait, mais on nous a communiqué d‟arrêter.
Beaucoup „a lot‟ > bien „well‟
(40) a. ?Lucie a beaucoup très bien produit à l‟usine.
L. has a-lot very well produced at the factory.
L. has produced a lot at the factory very well.
b. *Lucie a très bien beaucoup produit à l‟usine.
In conclusion, it seems to me that the data point to the direction that beaucoupQP is in the same position as beaucoup-AdvP, and that beaucoup-QP‟s location after tout simply cannot be seen.
Peu
The behaviour of peu is identical to that of beaucoup: as an adverb, it follows
tout „everything‟ and it precedes bien „well‟.
Although the hypothesis of beaucoup‟s location must be updated, the quantifier‟s frequency reading is certainly worth analysing further. In our case, supposing beaucoup is
„dislocated‟ (i.e. moved) to its scope position, then it should move to the position in the
hierarchy in which it is checked by its corresponding aspectual head - in other words, in
the same position as beaucoup bare quantifier.
(xiii) a. Fanny a complètement beaucoup caché de choses.
Fanny has completely a lot hidden of things
Fanny has completely hidden a lot of things
b. *Fanny a beaucoup complètement caché de choses.
However, this tempting hypothesis needs verification. Alternatively, one should check if this
„dislocated‟ position, having a frequentative meaning, coincides with the location of frequentative quantificational adverbs (i.e. beaucoup meaning beaucoup de fois „a lot of times‟).
134
Tout „everything‟ > peu „little‟
(41) a. Jacques a tout peu révisé.
J. has everything little revised.
J. revised everything little.
b. *Jacques a peu tout révisé.
Peu „little‟ > bien „well‟
(42) a. ?Il a peu très bien marché.
He has little very well walked.
He has little walked very well.
b. *Il a très bien peu marché.
Peu-QP follows presque „almost‟ and precedes bien „well‟. Presque „almost‟ together with peu is felt as somewhat unnatural by native speakers. Consequently, (43)
has been given an ironic sense.
13
Presque „almost‟ > peu „little‟
(43) a. Il a presque été peu fait pour le Kosovo. Quelle honte!
Itexpl has almost been little done for Kosovo. What a shame
Little has almost been done for Kosovo. What a shame!
b. *Il a peu été presque fait pour le Kosovo. Quelle honte!
Bien „well‟ > peu „little‟
(44) a. Il a peu très bien mangé.
He has little very well eaten
He has eaten little very well
b. *Il a très bien peu mangé.
14
Peu-QP cannot appear with complètement . The reading where peu modifies
complètement has obviously been excluded.
13
14
Compare: Yves a presque peu fait aujourd’hui…quel garçon paresseux! 'Yves has almost
done little today…what a lazy boy!‟ vs *Yves a peu presque fait aujourd’hui…quel
garçon paresseux!
However, just like its antonym beaucoup, peu can actually follow complètement if it is a
„dislocated‟ quantifier: Fanny a complètement peu caché de choses „Fanny has completely
hidden few things vs *Fanny a peu complètement caché de choses.
135
Sara Vecchiato
(45) a. *Fanny a peu complètement changé dans le théâtre moderne
Fanny has completely little changed in the theatre modern
b. *Fanny a complètement peu changé dans le théâtre moderne.
Rien
15
Rien seems to be located between presque and complètement .
16
Presque „almost‟ > rien „nothing‟
(46) a. Il n‟a presque été rien changé.
Itexpl not cl has almost been nothing changed
Nothing has almost been changed.
b. *Il n‟a rien été presque changé.
Rien „nothing‟ > complètement „completely‟
(47) a. Daniel n‟a rien complètement changé.
Daniel notcl has nothing completely changed.
Daniel hasn’t completely changed anything.
b. *Daniel n‟a complètement rien changé.
5. Conclusion
We have seen quite clear-cut data for the location of the examined quantifiers in
the general hierarchy. As to their corresponding aspectual heads, one of them had
already been identified in Cinque (1999) - namely, guère (Neg4). However, no reference is made there to the other four. Here, I would like to label the aspectual projections corresponding to beaucoup, peu, trop and rien, at least in a tentative way.
15
16
It could be argued that rien cannot be found after complètement because of semantic reasons. In fact, though complètement normally precedes tout, the antonym of rien, it can
also follow it with some lexical choices (see Cinque (‟99), p. 10):
(xiv) a. Tu as complètement tout refait?
b. Tu as tout complètement refait?
In (a) complètement modifies both the verb and the object (the natural answer could be Non!
Je n’ai fait que la cuisine). In (b) the adverb modifies just the verb (the answer could be:
Non! Je n’ai fait que la peinture). Being rien a negative quantifier, it would be impossible
for it to be under the scope of a „completion‟ adverb. Then, it would exploit only the second
option, where complètement is focussed on the verb. I leave the question open.
Compare: Jean n‟a presque rien changé dans son milieu de travail. ‟Jean has changed almost
nothing in his place of work‟ vs *Jean n‟a rien presque changé dans son milieu de travail.
136
Of course, it will be necessary to check if aspectual heads corresponding to these
adverbs exist in some languages.
I would like to suggest ASPexcess for trop, ASPdegree for beaucoup/peu and ASPabsence for rien. Since beaucoup and peu seem to occupy the same specifier position, I
would like to propose that their aspectual heads have two features, a positive one,
[+ASPdegree], associated with beaucoup and a negative one, [-ASPdegree], associated
with peu.
[frankly MOODspeech-act [fortunately MOODevaluative [allegedly MOODevidential [probably
MOODepistemic [once T(Past) [then T(Future) [perhaps MOODirrealis [necessarily
MOODnecessity [possibly MODpossibility [usually ASPhabitual [again ASPrepetitive(I) [often ASPfrequentative(I) [intentionally MODvolitional [quickly ASPcelerative(I) [already T(Anterior) [no
longer ASPterminative [still ASPcontinuative [always ASPperfect [just ASPretrospective [soon ASPproximative [briefly ASPdurative [characteristically (?) ASP generic/progressive [almost ASPprospective [guère Neg4 [trop ASP excess [rien ASP absence] [completely ASPSgCompletive(I) [tout
ASPPlCompletive [beaucoup / peu ASPdegree [well Voice [fast/early ASPcelerative(II) [completely ASPSgCompletive(II) [again ASPrepetitive (II) [often ASPfrequentative (II)]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]
6. Appendix: there are no contradictions
In order to find their locations, all the examined items were tested to determine
their position with respect to every lower adverbs, starting from toujours (always).
The data are consistent with the key sentences provided above.
Trop-AdvP
(49) a. Les films ont toujours trop impressionné David.
b. *Les films ont trop toujours impressionné David.
(50) a. On a récemment trop contesté le député
b. *On a trop récemment contesté le député.
(51) a. Ses louanges t‟ont bientôt trop flatté.
b. *Ses louanges t‟ont trop bientôt flatté.
(52) a. Les médecins ont longtemps trop ignoré la dépression.
b. *Les médecins ont trop longtemps ignoré la dépression.
(53) a. Il a brièvement trop utilisé son ordinateur, mais après tout a été arrangé.
b. *Il a trop brièvement utilisé son ordinateur, mais après tout a été arrangé.
(54) a. On a trop tout analysé.
b. *On a tout trop analysé.
137
Sara Vecchiato
(55) a. On a trop très bien dansé et on est crevés.
b. *On a très bien trop sauté et on est crevés.
(56) a. On a de nouveau trop poussé à l‟extrême le réacteur.
b. *On a trop de nouveau poussé à l‟extrême le réacteur.
(57) a. Les gardiens du zoo ont vite trop nourri les lions.
b. *Les gardiens du zoo ont trop vite nourri les lions.
(58) a. Tu l‟as rarement trop embarrassé par tes remarques
b. *Tu l‟as trop rarement embarrassé par tes remarques
Trop-QP:
(59) a. David a toujours trop mangé.
b. *David a trop toujours mangé.
(60) a. On a récemment trop fait pour influencer sa décision.
b. *On a trop récemment fait pour influencer sa décision, il nous en veut
beaucoup.
(61) a. ?Tu as bientôt trop acheté, il fallait que tu attendes d‟avoir l‟argent.
b. *Tu as trop bientôt acheté, il fallait que tu attendes d‟avoir l‟argent.
(62) a. Les médecins ont longtemps trop ignoré pour pouvoir soigner réellement.
b. *Les médecins ont trop longtemps ignoré pour pouvoir soigner réellement.
(63) a. ??Yvonne a trop très bien produit, je l‟envie, franchement.
b. *Yvonne a très bien trop produit, je l‟envie, franchement.
(64) a. *Sa famille n‟a guère toujours influencé Claude.
b. Sa famille n‟a toujours guère influencé Claude
(65) a. *Les spectateurs n‟ont guère récemment écouté son discours.
b. Les spectateurs n‟ont récemment guère écouté son discours.
(66) a. *Les gens âgés du village n‟ont guère bientôt apprécié la musique techno
b. Les gens âgés du village n‟ont bientôt guère apprécié la musique techno
(67) a. *Paul n‟a guère brièvement utilisé son ordinateur.
b. Paul n‟a brièvement # guère utilisé son ordinateur.
(68) a. *Je n‟ai guère longtemps soigné le jardin.
b. Je n‟ai longtemps guère soigné le jardin.
138
(69) a. Tom n‟a longuement guère examiné le problème.
b. *Tom n‟a guère longuement examiné le problème.
(70) a. *L‟incendie n‟a guère complètement touché la bibliothèque
b. *L‟incendie n‟a complètement guère touché la bibliothèque
(71) a. Les révolutionnaires n‟ont guère trop changé la morale publique.
b. *Les révolutionnaires n‟ont trop guère changé la morale publique.
(72) a. Tu n‟as guère tout envisagé.
b. *Tu n‟as tout guère envisagé.
(73) a. Gilles n‟a guère beaucoup estimé sa mère.
b. *Gilles n‟a beaucoup guère estimé sa mère.
(74) a. Les citoyens n‟ont guère bien compris son emprisonnement
b. *Les citoyens n‟ont bien guère compris son emprisonnement
(75) a. ?David n‟a guère vite affaibli le géant
b. David n‟a vite guère affaibli le géant.
(76) a. *Ils n‟ont guère de nouveau amélioré le jus de fruit.
b. Ils n‟ont de nouveau guère amélioré le jus de fruit.
(77) a. Cette thérapie n‟a rarement guère soigné un claustrophobe.
b. Cette thérapie n‟a guère rarement soigné un claustrophobe.
(78) a. *Sa famille n‟a guère toujours fait pour Claude
b. Sa famille n‟a toujours guère fait pour Claude
(79) a. *Les spectateurs n‟ont guère récemment vu, les lumières ne marchaient pas.
b. Les spectateurs n‟ont récemment guère vu, les lumières ne marchaient pas.
(80) a. *Les gens âgés du village n‟ont guère bientôt mangé, ils ont perdu l‟appétit.
b. Les gens âgés du village n‟ont bientôt guère mangé, ils ont perdu l‟appétit.
(81) a. *Je n‟ai guère longtemps acheté dans ce magasin, il était déguelasse, vraiement.
b. Je n‟ai longtemps guère acheté dans ce magasin, il était déguelasse, vraiement.
(82) a. *Tom n‟a longuement guère écouté, il en avait marre de la radio.
b. *Tom n‟a guère longuement écouté, il en avait marre de la radio.
(83) a. Il n‟a longuement été guère fait pour l‟hôpital, il est presque ruiné.
b. *Il n‟a guère été longuement fait pour l‟hôpital, il est presque ruiné.
(84) a. *L‟incendie n‟a guère complètement détruit, il en reste assez de choses.
b. *L‟incendie n‟a complètement guère détruit, il en reste assez de choses
139
Sara Vecchiato
(85) a. Les citoyens n‟ont guère très bien fait pour leur ville.
b. *Les citoyens n‟ont très bien guère fait pour leur ville.
Beaucoup-AdvP
(86) a. Marguerite Duras a toujours beaucoup lu.
b. *Marguerite Duras a beaucoup toujours lu.
(87) a. On a récemment beaucoup voyagé en Angleterre.
b. *On a beaucoup récemment voyagé en Angleterre.
(88) a. Yves a bientôt beaucoup aimé sa fille adoptive.
b. *Yves a beaucoup bientôt aimé sa fille adoptive.
(89) a. Jeanne a longtemps beaucoup ignoré son fils.
b. *Jeanne a beaucoup longtemps ignoré son fils.
(90) a. Pascal a longuement beaucoup ignoré sa sœur.
b. *Pascal a beaucoup longuement ignoré sa sœur.
(91) a. Nous avons brièvement beaucoup souhaité la victoire de ce candidat.
b. *Nous avons beaucoup brièvement souhaité la victoire de ce candidat.
17
(92) a. Nicolas a beaucoup trop surchargé ses collègues.
b. *Nicolas a trop beaucoup surchargé ses collègues.
(93) a. Gilles a de nouveau beaucoup travaillé.
b. *Gilles a beaucoup de nouveau travaillé.
(94) a. Jean a rarement beaucoup apprécié le travail des autres.
b. *Jean a beaucoup rarement apprécié le travail des autres.
(95) a. Vous avez vite beaucoup couru dehors.
b. *Vous avez beaucoup vite couru dehors.
Peu-AdvP
(96) a. Les lecteurs moyens ont toujours peu apprécié son livre.
b. *Les lecteurs moyens ont peu toujours apprécié son livre.
17
Beaucoup (a lot) seems to follow trop (too much). However, it is difficult to interpret the
data, because trop and beaucoup are apparently incompatible from a semantic point of
view: They can appear together in an active sentence because beaucoup is trop‟s specifier: “far too much”. Instead, in passive sentences, the higher beaucoup and trop have a
frequency reading. Consequently, we are obliged to establish beaucoup‟s position with respect to trop by transitivity.
140
(97)
a. Gilles m‟a récemment peu écouté.
b. *Gilles m‟a peu récemment écouté.
(98)
a. Ses camarades ont bientôt peu estimé Céline.
b. *Ses camarades ont peu bientôt estimé Céline.
(99)
a. Les soldes ont longtemps peu attiré les gens.
b. *Les soldes ont peu longtemps attiré les gens.
(100) a. On a longuement peu laissé les animaux du zoo en liberté.
b. *On a peu longuement laissé les animaux du zoo en liberté.
(101) a. Les armes à feu ont brièvement peu effrayé Geneviève.
b. *Les armes à feu ont peu brièvement effrayé Geneviève.
(102) a. Les critiques musicaux ont presque peu considéré Jimi Hendrix
b. *Les critiques musicaux ont peu presque considéré Jimi Hendrix
(103) a. *On a peu trop exercé sa conscience morale.
b. *On a trop peu exercé sa conscience morale.
(104) a. On a de nouveau peu reconnu Agnès comme un auteur important.
b. *On a peu de nouveau reconnu Agnès comme un auteur cela.
(105) a. Ton patron t‟a vite peu chargé de travail.
b. *Ton patron t‟a peu vite chargé de travail.
(106) a. Le professeur a rarement peu blâmé Guitry.
b. *Le professeur a peu rarement blâmé Guitry.
Rien
(107) a. Valentine n‟a rien très bien fait.
b. *Valentine n‟a très bien rien fait.
(108) a. Il n‟a rien été très bien fait.
b. *Il n‟a très bien été rien fait.
References
Acquaviva, Paolo: “The Logical Form of Negative Concord”, in “Empirical Issues in formal syntax and semantics”, European Academic Publishers, Berne 1997.
Alexiadou, Artemis: “Issues in the Syntax of Adverbs”, Phd Dissertation, Universität Potsdam, 1994.
Bat-Zeev Shyldkrot, Hava: “Tout: Polysémie, Grammaticalisation et sens prototypique”, Langue
Française, vol.107, Larousse, Paris 1995.
Belletti, Adriana: “Generalised Verb Movement”, Rosenberg & Sellier, Torino, 1990.
141
Sara Vecchiato
Borillo, Andrée.: “La quantification temporelle: durée et itérativité en français”, Cahiers de
Grammaire, 11, 117-156, Université de Toulouse - Le Mirail, Toulouse 1986.
Cinque, Guglielmo: “Adverbs and Functional Heads”, Oxford Studies in Comparative Syntax,
Oxford University Press, New York , Oxford, 1999.
Cinque, Guglielmo, “On leftward movement of tutto in Italian”, University of Venice Working
Papers in Linguistics, Venice, 1992.
Cinque, Guglielmo: “Types of A-bar Dependencies”, Linguistic Inquiry Monographs, 17, 56-97,
The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachussetts, 1990.
Cinque, Guglielmo: “Bare Quantifiers, Quantified NPs and the Notion of Operators at SStructure”, Rivista di Grammatica Generativa, 11, 33-63, Unipress, Padova, 1985.
Giusti, Giuliana: “The Categorial Status of Determiners”, in “The New Comparative Syntax”, 95123, Longman, London and New York, 1997.
Haegeman, Liliane: “Introduction to Government and Binding Theory”, Blackwell Publishers, UK, 1994.
Kayne, Richard S.: “The Antisymmetry of Syntax”, Linguistic Inquiry Monographs, 25, The MIT
Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1994.
Kayne, Richard S.: “French Syntax - The Transformational Cycle”, 1-65, The MIT Press, Cambridge, 1975.
Laenzlinger, Christopher: “Comparative Studies in Word Order Variations”, Thèse de doctorat
d‟État, Université de Genève, 1996.
Laenzlinger, Christopher: “Adverb Syntax and Phrase Structure”, in “Configurations” ed. AnnaMaria di Sciullo, 99-127. Somerville: Cascadilla Press, 1996.
Lonzi, Lidia: “Which Adverbs in SPEC, VP?” Rivista di Grammatica Generativa, 15, 141-160, Unipress, Padova, 1990.
Nølke, Henning: “Recherches sur les adverbes: bref aperçu historique des travaux de classification”, Langue Française, 88, 117-123, Larousse, Paris, 1990.
Obenauer, Hans-Georg: “Aspects de la syntaxe A-barre”, Thèse de doctorat d‟ Etat, Université de
Paris VIII, 1994.
Pollock, Jean-Yves: “Verb Movement, UG and the Structure of IP”, Linguistic Inquiry, 20, 365424, MIT Press Cambridge Mass, 1989.
Robert, Paul: “Le Nouveau Petit Robert”, Dictionnaires Le Robert - Paris, 1994.
Sportiche, Dominique: “Adjuncts and Adjunction”, UCLA, 1994.
Togeby, Knud: “Grammaire française, Vol. II: Les formes personnelles du verbe”; “Vol. IV: Les
mots invariables”, Etudes Romanes de l‟Université de Copenhague, Akademisk Forlag,
Copenhague, 1984.
Travis, Lisa: „The Syntax of Adverbs‟, McGill University Working Papers in Linguistics,
Montréal, 1988.
Vecchiato, Sara: “A Note on Longtemps-Longuement”, Annali di Ca’ Foscari, Venezia, 1999.
Vinet, Marie-Thérèse: “Adverbial Quantifiers, Negation and Stress Rules Effects”, University of
Venice Working Papers in Linguistics, 5, 115-138, 1995.
Zanuttini, Raffaella: “Negation and Clausal Structure”, Oxford Studies in Comparative Syntax,
Oxford University Press, New York / Oxford, 1997.
142
ANCORA AND ADDITIVE WORDS
Milena VEGNADUZZO
0. Introduction
The classification and analysis of the parts of speech (or may be better, parts of
sentence) has produced a long tradition of studies that have adopted different criteria
(morphological, semantic, distributional) to define them. It is well known that in this
kind of research the class of adverbs received less attention than others in traditional
grammar. It is the least homogeneous category, the one to which all those words that
do not find place in other categories are assigned. Adverbs are traditionally classified, rather approximately, according to their meaning: e.g., we have time adverbs,
mood adverbs, place adverbs.
In this paper I will deal in particular with the Italian adverb ancora, which shows
interesting properties because of the multiplicity of contexts in which it can be used.
I will discuss its main readings in order to see whether it is possible to reduce this
multiplicity of values to a general, basic, abstract meaning. Then I will extend the
generalization obtained for ancora to other adverbs in order to identify a group of
adverbs sharing the same properties.
1. Readings of “ancora”
The adverb ancora is used in many situations to express different meanings. It
can have different values such as continuative, iterative, quantitative, additive, comparative or adversative. This could be considered a case of lexical ambiguity. However, I will argue that ancora has a single lexical entry allowing for different construals, depending upon the context where the adverb is inserted. We can say that the
meaning that ancora acquires is determined by the interaction of its basic meaning
with the argument structure of the verb, and by the combination of the semantic features of the verb and its object. In particular, the following parameters are relevant:
a) the aspectual class of the VP (activity, accomplishment, state, achievement, following Vendler [1967] and Verkuyl [1989]), with special reference to the tel-
143
Milena Vegnaduzzo
1
ic/atelic distinction; b) tense; c) grammatical aspect; d) the presence or absence of
the direct complement (definite or indefinite object, count or mass noun); e) the type
of event (unique or non-unique).
On the basis of these parameters I will characterize the contexts where each reading of ancora is allowed. Since in English each value we are concerned with is associated with a different lexical item, I will use these words as labels to easily recognize each construal of ancora.
1.1. The continuative reading
2
When used with continuative meaning , (i.e., in the sense of English “still”), ancora implies an interval at which the situation is in progress, i.e. it presupposes that
the situation expressed by the verb was already in progress at the reference time.
Thus ancora has scope on the state of affairs expressed by the verb. This reading is
licensed under the following conditions:
3
A. if the predicate is an adjective it is alterable (ex. 1-2)
B. if the predicate is a verb without complements it is durative (ex. 3-12)
C. the verb is atelic (ex. 3-5)
D. the verb has imperfective aspect (ex. 3-8)
1
2
3
I consider telic verbs those oriented to reach a definite natural terminal point that once
reached involves a change in the situation described; I consider atelic verbs those that lack
such intrinsic terminal point, go on without interruptions and can be stopped at any time.
I prefer the term continuative with respect to the term traditionally used durative, because
it does not only refer to the length of time but emphasizes also that the action was in
progress previously, which is exactly what ancora means in this reading. Then I will use
the term durative only to make reference to the action of the verb while I will reserve the
term continuative to express the value of the adverb deriving from its basic meaning associated with the action of the verb.
With the expression «alterable predicates» I mean durative predicates whose denotation
lasts for a determined period of time after which it is subject to a change of state. When
associated to this predicates ancora states the persistence of its denotation against the
supposition it already came to the change of state. They are alterable predicates adjective
as: young, living, sick, raw, unripe, short, eatible but not they antonyms old, dead, healthy
cooked, ripe, tall, out of date. So for example «to be young» is a condition that lasts for a
period of time and then undergoes a change of state because people necessarily, become
old. The direction of change goes from «to be young» to «to be old» but the reverse does
not hold. So the former predicate is alterable, while the latter is not.
144
Ancora and additive words
4
Examples :
(1) Maria è ancora giovane.
„Mary is still young.‟
(2) *Maria è ancora vecchia.
„Mary is still old.‟
(3) Maria nuota ancora.
„Mary is still swimming.‟
(4) Maria stava ancora nuotando.
„Mary was still swimming.‟
(5) Maria nuotava ancora quando chiusero la piscina.
„Mary was still swimming when the swimming pool was closed.‟
(6) #Maria ha/aveva nuotato ancora.
<Mary has/had swum again.>
(7) #Maria nuotò ancora.
„Mary swam again.‟
5
(8) #Maria nuoterà/avrà nuotato ancora .
„Mary will swim/will have swum again.‟
(9) #Maria parte ancora.
„Mary leaves again.‟
(10) *Maria muore ancora.
*„Mary still dies.‟
(11) #Luca legge ancora un romanzo.
„Luca reads another novel.‟
4
5
The symbol # indicates that the sentence is not acceptable in the reading of ancora we are
dealing with (in the present case the continuative one), but it is with other readings; the
symbol * indicates ungrammaticality on any reading. I will give in the English translation
the exact interpretation of the Italian sentence.
Notice that the continuative reading is available if the Future has progressive value:
«Quando arriverai Maria nuoterà ancora (= starà ancora nuotando)», „When you will arrive Mary will be still swimming.‟
145
Milena Vegnaduzzo
(12) Luca legge ancora romanzi.
„Luca still reads novels.‟
In the last case the still reading is allowed because the bare plural is not a discret
entity and therefore the event is atelic (cfr. Tovena).
The association of ancora with stative verbs is impossible when they express generic predications such as geographic locations or when they refer to classes or species:
6
(13) #Chiasso è ancora in Italia .
„Chiasso is still in Italy.‟
(14) *Le tigri sono ancora dei felini.
*„Tigers are still feline.‟
With respect to stative verbs that refer to specific situations, the association with
ancora is allowed only if it is possible an alteration of the described state of affairs,
even if such alteration means the cancellation of the existence conditions of the state
of affairs itself:
(15) Mio figlio crede ancora all‟Uomo Nero.
„My son still believes in the Blak Man.‟
(16) Stefano fa ancora l‟avvocato.
„Steven is still a lawyer.‟
(17) Nonostante l‟età mio nonno è ancora in gamba.
„Despite his age my grandpa is still fit.‟
1.2. The iterative and quantitative readings
Besides the continuation of an action, ancora can be used to express the repetition of an event (cfr. Tovena). In this case the fundamental element is the presence
of a well-defined termination point: in fact the repetition shows the action in its single occurrences and therefore as completed. From this it follows that only telic predicates can express repetition. As suggested by Tovena: a) if the repetition shows up
as iteration of the event, ancora corresponds to the English “again” and it has, then,
iterative meaning; b) if it shows up as alteration of a participant of the event, ancora
corresponds to English “one more”, “another” and it has quantitative meaning.
Therefore, I claim, in the first case, ancora has scope over the event, in the second
case over an argument. Iterative and quantitative meaning of ancora represent then
6
This sentence can only have a spatial interpretation in a context as: „Chiasso is still in Italy but Lugano is already in Switzerland.‟ which refers to a scalar relation of the cities.
(See König 1977 p. 184).
146
two sides of a unique concept, i.e. the concept of repetition, but are licensed under
different contextual conditions.
The iterative reading (the “again” construal) requires:
E. telic verbs (ex. 18-19)
F. non-unique event (ex. 19-20)
G. perfective aspect (ex. 18-26)
H. specific object (ex. 19, 21-23)
Examples4:
7
(18) #Maria nuota ancora .
„Mary is still swimming.‟
(19) Maria legge / ha letto ancora la lettera.
„Mary reads / has read the letter again.‟
non-unique event/definite object
(20) ?*Maria scrive ancora la lettera7.
„Mary writes the letter again.‟
unique event
(21) #Maria legge / ha letto ancora una lettera.
non-unique event/indefinte object
„Mary reads / has read another/one more letter.‟
(22) Maria legge / ha letto ancora una lettera di sua zia.
non-unique event / specific object
„Mary reads / has read her aunt‟s letter again.‟
„Mary reads / has read another letter of her aunt.‟
(23) Maria lesse ancora i romanzi.
„Mary read the novels again.‟
(24) Maria verrà ancora a trovarti.
„Mary will came to see you again.‟
(25) Maria non ti deluderà ancora.
„Mary will not disappoint you again.‟
7
The iterative reading is possible if the Present Tense has progressive value:
«Maria sta nuotando ancora (= di nuovo)».
„Mary is swimming again.‟
«Maria sta scrivendo ancora (= di nuovo) la lettera».
„Mary is writing the letter again.‟
147
Milena Vegnaduzzo
(26) Maria mangia ancora la zuppa (e non il riso).
„Mary eats soup again (and not rice).‟
„Mary still eats soup (and not rice).‟
The sentence in (22) can have both the iterative interpretation (“again”) or the
quantitative one (“another”). This ambiguity is due to the different scope of ancora: in the former case ancora takes scope over the event, in the latter it takes scope
over the NP object. Same explanation for the sentence in (26): ancora can take
scope either over the state of affairs (“still” reading) or over the event (“again”
reading). In this case, as suggested by Tovena, the iterative reading follows from
the fact that the definite NP is coerced into a „type‟ reading which transforms a
unique event into a non-unique event.
The quantitative reading “one more”, “another” has more applicability restrictions
because it is triggered only by the presence of a direct object that therefore constitutes
the element in the scope of ancora. The licensing conditions are the following:
I.
J.
K.
L.
presence of a NP object
presence of an event (unique or non-unique), (ex. 27-28)
telic verb
possibility of alteration of the NP, i.e. the substitution of the participant with
another one of the same type
M. indefinite NP object (ex. 29).
Examples4:
(27) Maria scrive / ha scritto ancora una lettera.
„Mary writes / has written one more/another letter.‟
(28) Maria legge / ha scritto ancora una lettera.
„Mary reads / has read one more / another letter.‟
(29) #Maria ha letto ancora la lettera.
„Mary has read the letter again.‟
(30) Maria mangia ancora cioccolata.
„Mary eats more chocolate.‟
(31) Maria mangia ancora un piatto di lenticchie.
„Mary eats one more / another plate of lentils.‟
(32) Maria ha nuotato ancora per due ore.
„Mary has swum for two more hours.‟
The last two examples suggest interesting observations. In (31) ancora can only have quantitative reading and not iterative (cfr. example (22)). I think this is
148
probably due to the quantificational properties of the NP “un piatto” which behaves as a unit of measure.
In (32) ancora can have only a quantitative and not a continuative meaning as
one might think. It is true that this sentence too implies a continuation of the action
expressed by the verb, but such continuation is different from the one seen in (1) because it goes, so to speak, in the opposite direction, i.e. starting from a reference
point (not necessarily coincident with the utterance time) towards the future. The
semantic difference between the two sentences is mirrored in the syntactic structure:
in (32) ancora modifies the Adverbial Phrase (AdvP) and not the verb, as the comparison with the English translation shows.
1.3. The comparative reading
Another meaning attributed to ancora by traditional grammar is that of comparative adverb, because it modifies adjectives or adverbs in the comparative degree.
With this reading ancora corresponds to English “even”:
(33) Maria è ancora più giovane di Piera.
„Mary is even younger than Piera.‟
(34) Maria è ancora più vecchia di Antonio.
„Mary is even older than Anthony.‟
(35) Maria mangia ancora più lentamente di Antonio.
„Mary eats even more slowly than Anthony.‟
In this case the element under the scope of ancora is the comparative adjective
or adverb. Nevertheless, the comparative sense does not seem to represent a really
distinct construal of ancora, because it can be easily reduced to another value, i.e.
the quantitative meaning. Actually, in the examples (33)-(35) ancora can be interpreted as indicating a further degree, a greater extent of some property expressed by
the adjective or the adverb. We could say that the term “comparative” indicates the
function performed by ancora in the sentence more than its meaning, which can be
rather considered quantitative. I will come back to this point later.
In the “comparative” construal ancora can modify alterable or non-alterable predicates. On the other hand, when it modifies superlatives, ancora has only the continuative meaning and therefore it is sensitive to the opposition alterable/non-alterable:
(36) Maria è ancora bellissima.
„Mary is still very beautiful.‟
(37) *Maria è ancora vecchissima.
*‟Mary is still very old.‟
149
Milena Vegnaduzzo
1.4. The additive reading
Finally ancora can be used also as an additive conjunction (“also”, see It.
“anche”) and in Old Italian also as an adversative conjunction (“nevertheless”,
“however”, see It. “tuttavia”). In the first case the origin of such use should be probably led back to a common etymological ancestor of these two forms (hinc ad horam
or a reconstructed root *anc), which specialized later in the two different forms ancora and anche. Even if it is not clear which form derives from which, it is undeniable that for some time in Old Italian these two forms were used in a very flexible
way, appearing in the same contexts. They later specialized and undertook the modern meaning. Nevertheless, in modern Italian traces persist of this overlap. If, in
general, they determine different readings of the same sentence and are not interchangeable (see the example in (38)), in some contexts they are (39-42), while in
others they show parallelisms (43-44):
(38) a. Oggi esistono anche i computer portatili.
„Today we have also laptop computers.‟
b. Oggi esistono ancora i computer portatili.
„Today we still have laptop computers.‟
(39) a. Ieri e ancora oggi.
„Yesterday and still today.‟
b. Ieri e anche oggi.
„Yesterday and also today.‟
(40) a. Ancora di più.
„Still more.‟
b. Anche di più.
„Also more.‟
(41) a. Viene anche Antonio.
„Also Anthony is coming.‟
b. C‟erano Luca, Paolo, Giovanni e ancora Carlo, Roberto, Alfredo.
„There were Luca, Paul; John and still Karl, Robert, Alfred.‟
(42) a. Gli ho anche detto.
„I also told him.‟
b. Gli ho ancor detto. (obsolete)
„I still told him.‟
(43) a. Anche se fosse stanco. (= irreal)
„Even if it was tired.‟
150
b. Ancorché fosse stanco. (= real).
„Although he was tired.‟
(44) a. Neanche.
„Neg-anche.’
b. Neancora. (= non ancora, dialectal)
„Neg-ancora.’
According to Tovena‟s analysis [1996] the overlap of meanings of ancora and
anche takes place in the presence of coordinated structures: in this case a new participant is explicitly introduced into the action, unlike what happens in the iterative reading “again” (where there is only one participant), or in the quantitative
reading “one more” (where the participant in the predication is substituted for by
another of the same type).
1.5. The adversative reading
Finally, ancora in Old Italian was used with an adversative meaning:
(45) Se voi mi concedete ch‟io vada, io v‟andrò e se voi non me lo concedete ancora andrò. (Boccaccio, I, 270)
„If you let me go, I will go and if you do not, still I will go.‟
It must be noticed that in Old Italian the adverb tuttavia, indicating the persistence of a situation or condition in the present or in the past, could be interchanged
with ancora:
(46) Essendo il freddo grande e nevicando tuttavia forte. (Boccaccio)
„Being really cold and snowing still a lot.‟
(47) Dall‟una e dall‟altra di quelle terre correvano e corrono tuttavia strade e stradette più o meno ripide o piane. (Manzoni)
„From one and another of these grounds run in the past and still run streets and
little streets more or less steep or flat.‟
An interesting parallelism can be observed in the history of English: according to
the Oxford English Dictionary the adversative meaning displayed by still is probably
derived from the temporal meaning:
(48) Nothing can make such a room healthy. Ventilation would improve it, but still
it would be unhealthy. (Flor. Nightingale, Nursing, 1861, 22)
In this sense, if we suppose the same thing for ancora, the Italian adverb would
have under its scope the state of affairs expressed by the verb in the adversative
reading as well.
151
Milena Vegnaduzzo
To summarize, we have seen that each reading exhibited by ancora is determined by different licensing conditions. We also noted that in each construal ancora
takes scope over a different entity. We argue, then, that the cases of multiple reading
of a sentence are due to scope differences.
2. Uniform classification
So far we have seen that ancora has different readings according to the context
in which it is used. I will now try to show that such polysemy is only apparent, i.e.,
it represents the manifestation at the contextual level of a unique more general and
abstract meaning that interplays with the features of the elements of the syntactic
context. Many are the proposals of a unitary classification of the meanings of ancora, or of its counterparts in different languages. The majority of these theories makes
use of the concepts of assertion and presupposition: when ancora is applied to a sentence F, the presupposition holds that F is true for the entire timespan at which the
situation is in progress. This induces the persistence of a situation started in the past
until the moment expressed by the tense of the sentence where it is contained. Such
presupposition does not say anything about the state of affairs after utterance time,
which therefore remains undetermined.
Starting from this concept, König [1977] defines the temporal and non-temporal
(spatial, comparative, adversative) meanings of the German noch as manifestations
of a basic scalar meaning because both interpretations imply the selection of some
points in time or entities of different type fixed in an ordered relation. But such scalar meaning cannot account for the additive meaning of noch. Consider (49):
(49) Ich kenne nóch einen Mann, der flieend Russisch spricht.
„I know another person who speaks Russian fluently.‟
Here the additive reading of noch should be reduced to the non-temporal use.
Anyway, it cannot be accounted for within the framework of this analysis because it
does not introduce a set of ordered elements.
In Barker [1991] stillF means that the state of affairs in F has persisted, against
some conditions. Still takes as argument the constituent to whose denotation the
concept of persistence can somehow be applied. This happens directly in the temporal case, by analogy in the other ones. Then, in general, what unifies the different
construals of still is an analogical extension stemming from the prototypical case,
i.e., the temporal one.
Nef [1981] proposes to reduce temporal, iterative and quantitative meanings of
French encore to a “schéma formel d‟implicature” which is interpreted in a different way for each case. I do not enter into the details of his analysis. It is enough to
say that he too keeps distinct temporal cases as “Paul est encore malade” („Paul is
152
still ill‟) from quantitative cases as “Marie a mangé encore deux gâteaux” („Mary
ate two more gâteaux‟).
Also Tovena [1996] thinks that the different readings of ancora depend on its sensitivity to the context, in particular on the type of event which it is applied to. For Tovena ancora is a binary operator schematically represented as ANCORA (A, B). The
basic meaning of ancora is identified, then, in two components: a mapping of the argument A instantiated by a proposition (e.g. “to be young”) with the argument B
which contains an “eventuality identifier” (the information provided by the verb) and
an effect of continuation. Such continuation is realized in different ways according to
the entity which it is applied to: if the event lacks a terminal point such continuation is
an extension in time, if the event has a definite terminal point the continuation is a repetition (iterative or quantitative construal). But I think that also this explanation implies an ordering of entities as in König‟s proposal because this “effect of continuance” seems to suggest the idea of “ before” and “after”, that is a continuance in a
linear dimension. Therefore it can hardly account for an example like (49).
In all these theories, then, the quantitative meaning of ancora (or whatever counterpart in other languages) is the most difficult to insert in a unitary classification.
In the present work I will put forward an explanation that can account for the
temporal value and the non-temporal one (and all the others) at the same time. To do
this I think it is worth starting from an approach opposite to that used by the authors
quoted above. On the basis of the fact that the additive meaning should be connected
to the others, it might be worth trying the opposite path, namely to assume the additive meaning as basic and assign a component of this type to all other meanings.
Such idea was already implicitly suggested by Doherthy [1973] (who says that “a
mere additive function […] lies at the bottom of all the various nochs”), and was afterwards assumed by König e Stark [1987] in terms of a basic additive meaning.
Following the analysis of van der Auwera [1993] for German noch, I will show that
each construal of Italian ancora can be expressed as addition of an entity to another
entity of the same type or of a different type, if this is possible according to the features of the arguments taking part in the predication. But to consider the additive
reading the basic component of the meaning of ancora does not mean that we set
aside the presuppositional component that previous works reveal indispensable. I
think, therefore, a unitary theory of the meanings of ancora should integrate in some
way both these elements, presupposition and additive component.
The additive component is clearly visible in the quantitative reading of ancora.
Consider the following sentence:
(50) t = Prendo ancora un biscotto.
„I will take another / one more biscuit.‟
153
Milena Vegnaduzzo
In this case ancora indicates that some entity x (a biscuit) introduced at the utterance time t is added to an entity x‟ previously introduced at the moment t.‟ This sentence presupposes then a sentence like (51) or at least an act of taking a biscuit:
(51) t‟ = Prendo un biscotto.
„I will take a biscuit.‟
The quantitative reading conveys, therefore, the presupposition of existence of
another entity of the same type. At this point the component of meaning I called addition means that the entity x is added to the one presupposed and both constitutes
the set of elements that are the subject of the predication.
It should be noted that at this level of the analysis it is not important to know the
type of participant targeted by ancora, i.e. whether it is a count or a mass noun: this
does not imply differences in the interpretation of what we are testing here, the presence of the additive feature.
At this point the hypothesis I formulated for the quantitative reading can account
for all other construals of the adverb. We only need to substitute for the discourse
referent x the element under the scope of ancora. I will show how this works for
each reading I have discussed above.
Recall the definition of the continuative reading where ancora implies an interval at which the situation is in progress
(52) Maria abita ancora qua.
„Mary still lives here.‟
In this reading ancora says that the state holding at time t, specified by the ad8
verb, already held in the immediately preceding interval , and that such state persists
until the time t, i.e., the state holding in the past is still in progress at the reference
time t. It is important to notice that such persistence holds for each moment of time
of the interval including the final one but not the first one. It is evident that within an
interval the initial point, i.e., the starting point of the state, cannot be considered
continuation of itself. The starting point represents the change of state from a “negative” situation, in which the state does not hold, to a positive one in which the state
comes to existence.
As an example, consider the following: the sentence (53) presupposes (54):
(53) Maria vive ancora qua.
„Maria still lives here.‟
(54) Maria viveva qua precedentemente.
„Mary has been living here previously.‟
8
I do not consider the internal length of such interval that might be a second or many years.
154
In (53) ancora conveys an interval projecting backwards, from utterance time to
an undetermined moment in the past, the starting point of the interval, i.e., the point
at which Maria went in the house for the first time. Therefore such moment indicates
the change from a phase in which Maria did not live in the house, and it is expressed
lexically by another adverb, the adverb già (“already”):
(55) Maria già vive qua.
„Mary already lives here.‟
Applying to this reading my hypothesis we have that the state holding at time t
already held at a time t‟ preceding t. Because of the fact that the state persists unchanged, going through the interval up to the moment t, this condition holds at any
moment of the interval but the initial one. This follows directly from the fact the
continuative reading of ancora is allowed only with durative verbs. Then it is not
necessary to postulate a condition of contiguity of the moments t‟ and t as suggested
by van der Auwera since the state is homogeneous.
On the basis of the additive analysis the entity x in the continuative reading
stands for a state, so to speak, added to a previous state of the same type: addition
means that we have something more of a same state, a further moment in which the
state of living persists. I will make this explicit with a graphic representation:
--------------------------------->
initial point
final point
già
abitava x‟(t‟)
ancora x(t)
In the picture the continuous line indicates the interval at which the situation (except the initial point lexicalized by già) persists and it is made up of infinitesimal
states of living; x(t), the state identified by ancora, coincides with the final point,
while x‟(t‟) can represent any of the infinitesimal states inside the interval. So the
living of Mary in that place is the sum of all the infinitesimal states of the interval
including the final one but not the first one.
The iterative reading of ancora presupposes the existence of an event x‟ holding
at t‟ previous to the event x holding at t. In this case, too, it is not necessary to postulate a condition of non-contiguity of the elements x and x‟, as van der Auwera
does, because such condition is directly inferred by the features of the element under
the scope of ancora:
(56) Vieni a trovarmi ancora, Maria.
„Come to see me again, Mary.‟
In fact in this case the variable x does not stand for a state but for an event. As I
noticed above, the event is telic and reaches a terminal point, while the state is atelic
and can have infinite duration. Events are expressed by verbs of accomplishment or
155
Milena Vegnaduzzo
achievement that show the situation as completed. The visits of Mary are the set of
all single events repeated. This concept is shown in the following scheme:
event 1
event 2
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------>
initial
point
final
point
x‟(t‟)
initial
point
final
point
x(t)
In the graphic the black dots represent two events of the same type. Such
events have their specific internal duration represented by the triangles indicating
the beginning and the end of the event. In this way we can clearly see that we are
dealing with two different events that take place in the temporal axis (the dotted
line from left to right).
As for the so-called comparative reading the explanation of the meaning of ancora in terms of addition confirms the hypothesis that the comparative reading could
be considered a case of quantitative construal.
(57) Pietro è alto, ma Paolo è ancora più alto.
„Peter is tall, but Paul is even taller.‟
In this case x stands for the comparative function “essere più alto” („to be taller‟)
and clearly presupposes another less tall element. Therefore we can say that the
quantitative reading of ancora depends upon the element under its scope: a) when it
is a NP (Noun Phrase) ancora has, strictly speaking, quantitative construal, b) when
it is a degree adjective or adverb ancora has a “comparative” construal.
Consider now the adversative reading. I said above that the Oxford English Dictionary suggests for English the derivation from the temporal meaning. In my analysis I will adopt this point of view and therefore, also in this case, the entity substituted for x will be a state that persists against some contrary conditions.
(58) Se voi mi concedete ch‟io vada, io v‟andrò e se voi non me lo concedete ancora andrò. (Boccaccio, I, 270)
„If you let me go, I will go and if you do not let me still I will go.‟
When ancora is used as conjunction (“anche”) the theory makes the right prediction again because, even if in this case a new participant takes part in the predication and x and x‟ are elements of different type, the element x (a nursery) pre-
156
suppose the existence of another element. All these elements constitute the set of
charities made by Mary.
(59) Luisa è una grande benefattrice: nel 1972 ha costruito un ospedale e ancora
una casa di riposo nel 1975.
„Louise is a great benefactress: she built an hospital in 1972 and also a nursery in 1975.‟
To summarize, with this analysis I propose that the basic meaning of ancora
conveys a presupposition and is essentially additive. The hypothesis proposed puts
together these two components and is sufficiently general to account for all readings
of ancora simply by substituting for the variable x the entity focalized by ancora,
i.e. the entity falling under its scope. This hypothesis does not imply an ordering of
the entities but refer to them as a set of elements which constitute the argument of
the predication. Therefore it can account for the example in (49) repeated below:
(49) Ich kenne nóch einen Mann, der flieend russisch spricht.
„I know another man who speaks fluent Russian.‟
So, in this case the presupposition is that I know (at least) a man who speaks fluent russian; to this man (corresponding to x‟) the man (corresponding to x) referred
to in (49) is added. These men constitute, therefore, the set of men who speak fluent
Russian that I know.
In this analysis we also saw that the application of ancora to any entity takes
place in the temporal dimension which can be directly or indirectly implicated. The
intuition that the use of ancora was related to the temporal dimension induced
grammars to classify ancora as a time adverb in the same group of deictic adverbs
such as ieri “yesterday”, oggi “today”, domani “tomorrow”, adesso “now”. If ancora has temporal value this must be understood not in the deictic sense but as relation
of two not necessarily contiguous subsequent moments.
By taking as fundamental the additive meaning this new classification of the
readings of ancora can easily and economically account for all interpretations. The
hypothesis bases its functionality on the element under the scope of ancora: once
established that it is different for each reading we do not need more specifications.
Each reading follows directly from the element under the scope and the aktionsart of
the sentence as resumed in the table below:
157
Milena Vegnaduzzo
ANCORA
processes /states
AdjP
events
continuative
adversative
iterative
NP
quantitative comparative
additive
The hypothesis proposed for ancora might work also for all adverbs corresponding to ancora in other European languages. As a matter of fact the counterparts of
ancora in Spanish (todavía/aún), English (still), French (encore) and German
(noch), all have at least three different readings: continuative, adversative, and comparative. However, other construals, such as the iterative one, can be recovered in the
previous historical stages of these languages. This is the case for Spanish and English,
while French and German associate to encore and noch a large cluster of readings.
Therefore I would like to suggest that the meaning of ancora can be decomposed
in a modular way: each language associates a higher or lower number of readings to
a unique basic adverb with the meaning of ancora, while the other ones are attributed to independent lexical items. I will leave this point open to further research.
3. Application of the theory
Consider now whether the hypothesis proposed for ancora can be extended to
other adverbs, i.e., whether there exist other adverbs whose meaning is given by the
same components as for ancora: presupposition and addition.
Going back to the readings ancora can have in Italian, we noticed that in other
languages some of these are expressed by independent lexical items: so in English
the readings of ancora that we have considered here are expressed by “still”,
“again”, “one more”, “another”, “even”, “nevertheless”, “also”. I claim that my hypothesis can account for the interpretation of these adverbs. Since the meaning of each of
these adverbs corresponds to one of the possible meanings of ancora, it should follow
that their meaning could be understood in terms of presupposition and addition.
Consider, then, the following group of English adverbs: again, one more, another, even and the conjunctions also and nevertheless.
(60) It is raining again.
(61) She read the letter again.
(62) She came back again.
(63) She read one more/another letter.
158
(64) She ate more chocolate.
(65) She drank one more/another beer.
(66) John is even more intelligent than Bob.
(67) She won the first and also the second prize.
In these sentences the hypothesis is easy to apply. In the equivalent Italian sentences these adverbs would be all translated by ancora.
Consider now an example in which my proposal seems to apply less straightforwardly and, more interestingly, the adverb could not be translated by ancora:
(68) Even a child could do so.
„Perfino un bambino potrebbe farlo.‟
In (68) even would be translated as “perfino”. The element under the scope of
even is “a child” corresponding therefore to the entity x(t) of the hypothesis: the presupposition is that everybody is able to do that thing.
However, it should be noted that Italian, too, has independent lexical items for each
of the meanings exhibited by ancora, i.e., di nuovo (“again”), un altro (“one more”),
perfino (“even”), anche (“also”), tuttavia (“nevertheless”), più (“more”), sempre (“always”). Consider briefly the two last adverbs, which we did not mention before.
Syntactically, the Italian adverb più, can be an indefinite adjective (without article and plural) when it modifies a noun (69.a), an adverb when it modifies adjectives,
adverbs or verbs (69.b), or a substantivized pronoun (neuter and singular) as in (69.c):
(69) a. Dammi più pesche che fragole.
„Give me more peaches than strawberries.‟
b. Maria è più intelligente di Luca.
„Mary is more intelligent than Luca.‟
c. Il più è fatto.
„The most of it is done.‟
Semantically, più is a quantifier and can form comparative clauses. It is interesting to notice that a) if used adverbially (ex. 70-71) più has always comparative
meaning, b), if used as an adjective, it has comparative meaning when it modifies
mass nouns (ex.72), but when it modifies count nouns it has comparative meaning
only if there is a second element of comparison in the textual or extratextual context
(ex. 73). Otherwise, più works as non-comparative quantifier expressing an indefinite quantity equivalent to adjective such as parecchi, molti, svariati (“quite a lot”,
“many”, “various”) (ex. 74):
(70) Marco è più alto di Luca.
„Mark is taller than Luca.‟
159
Milena Vegnaduzzo
(71) Marco mangia più lentamente di Luca.
„Mark eats more slowly than Luca.‟
(72) Giovanni ha più esperienza.
„John has more experience.‟
(73) Marco ha più libri di Luca.
„Mark has more books than Luca.‟
(74) Ho mangiato più volte in questo ristorante.
„I have eaten many times in this restaurant.‟
So più exhibits a double function: it is a comparative or an additive quantifier. In
both cases the behaviour of più is predicted by my hypothesis, since in the first case
it behaves exactly as “comparative” ancora, in the latter as quantitative ancora.
The adverb sempre as well, when expressing a continuation limited to the present
time, can replace ancora and therefore it can be accounted for in my perspective:
(75) Pronto? – Sono sempre io.
„Hallo? – It is me again.‟
(76) Sei sempre in collera con me?
„Are you still angry at me?‟
4. Particular cases
Until now we have seen that the general meaning of ancora is typical of other
adverbs and conjunctions. Such hypothesis, proposed to give an economical and
global account of the readings of a single adverb, acquires general value, explaining
the behaviour of a determined group of adverbs and conjunctions. Ancora then
represents a kind of “hyperonym” of such class of words. But the most interesting
thing is that the hypothesis works not only for the adverbs that are “hyponimous” of
ancora but also for independent adverbs such as even/perfino (68), più and for two
other conjunctions, as I will try to show now.
It seems plausible to think that also the conjunctions e (“and”) and con (“with”)
should be interpreted in terms of presupposition and addition. Conjunction e has
basically the logical meaning of AND combining two syntactic categories which in
the sentence have the same function, including sentences:
(77) Tu e io.
„You and me.‟
(78) Bello e buono.
„Nice and good.‟
160
(79) Chi va piano, va sano e lontano.
„Who goes slowly, goes healthy and far.‟
(80) Canta e balla tutte le sere.
„She sings and dances every night.‟
In these sentences we consider only the second element: it is evident that it presupposes the existence of another element to which it is associated. Evidences of this
hypothesis come from Old Italian where e meant anche (“also”), and from mathematics, where e is used in the sense of the additional operator più: “2 + 5 = 7” is read
“2 e 5, 7”. We have already shown that anche and più satisfy the hypothesis, therefore, by transitivity, the conjunction e does as well.
A similar argument holds for the conjunction con when used to express companionship and union:
(81) Vengo con te.
„I will come with you.‟
(82) Cioccolata con panna.
„Chocolate with cream.‟
In this case too the second element of the sentence presupposes the existence of
another element which it combines with to express the sense of the sentence.
I claimed that adverbs and conjunctions can be uniformly accounted for under
my hypothesis, i.e., they have the same basic meaning. But conjunctions differ from
adverbs: if it is true that both conjunctions and adverbs lack inflection and agreement, only the former and not the latter are unstressed and occur in fixed positions.
Therefore their behaviour differs from that of adverbs: while adverbs are essentially
modifiers and represent a functional category, conjunctions set up a relation of subordination or coordination between functional categories.
Consider, then, how this difference of function affects the theory put forward in
this paper. We saw that the adverbs my hypothesis applies to associate an assertion
with the sentence that they presuppose: they state the persistence of a determined
action against the opposite expectation of the hearer. In the example considered in
(52) (repeated below as (83)) ancora indicates the persistence of the living of Maria
in the same place against the supposition that she moved away:
(83) Maria abita ancora qui.  Maria abitava qua precedentemente.
x(t)
x‟(t‟)
On the other hand the conjunctions dispatch their action inside the sentence relating two phrasal constituents or two clauses.
161
Milena Vegnaduzzo
(84) Cioccolato con panna.
x‟  x
(85) Maria canta e balla.
x‟  x
Comparing the symbolic representation of the sentences in (84-85) and the one
in (83) we note that the former lacks the symbol t. In these cases the temporal relation
is not relevant because the presupposition is realized in the dimension of simultaneity.
Conclusion
In this paper we have seen that the polysemy of the Italian adverb ancora is
only apparent. It has a single lexical entry and all the different readings it can assume depend upon the context where it is inserted: each reading derives by compositionality of ancora basic meaning and the semantic properties of the argument
structure of the verb.
I got to define the basic meaning of ancora by considering what element it has
scope on: I showed, then, that in each reading the element falling under its scope
is different.
I claim that the basic meaning of ancora is made up of two components: presupposition and addition. The entity falling under the scope of ancora is added to the
one presupposed.
Then I have shown that there is a group of adverbs, di nuovo, un altro, sempre,
perfino, più and conjunctions e, con, tuttavia, anche that share the same basic, general meaning found for ancora.
This is important with respect to the issue of parts of speech classification. It
would be an example of the fact that adverbs and conjunctions are not categories
completely isolated from each other and impermeable, but share some features. In
this work I studied only a little number of adverbs and conjunctions but we have
seen that they can be considered a homogeneous group on the basis of the semantic
features they share. This is only a preliminary attempt to open the way to an integrated study of these two word classes to try to define a new classification on the
basis of new criteria.
References
Abraham W. (1980) “The Syncronic and Diachronic Semantics of German Temporal noch and
schon with Aspects of English still, yet, already”, in Studies in Language, 4, pp. 3-24.
Barker S. (1991) “Even, Still and Counterfactuals”, in Linguistics and Philosophy, 14, pp. 1-38.
Battaglia S. (1986) Grande dizionario della lingua italiana, vol I, UTET, Torino.
Bertinetto P.M. (1987) Tempo, Aspetto e Azione nel verbo italiano. Accademia della Crusca, Firenze.
162
Blücher K. (1974) Studio sulle forme ho cantato, cantai, cantavo, stavo cantando. Struttura funzione e uso nel sistema verbale dell’italiano moderno, Bergen/Oslo/Tromsø.
Borgato G.L. (1976) “Aspetto verbale e Aktionsart in italiano e tedesco”, in Lingua e Contesto, 2,
pp. 65-197.
Bosque I. (1980) Sobre la negacion, Madrid Catedra.
Carlson L. (1981) “Aspect and Quantification”, in Syntax and Semantics, 14, pp. 31-64, Tedeschi
Zaenen eds..
Comrie B. (1976) Aspect, Cambridge University Press.
Coromines (1980) Diccionari etimològic i complementari de la llengua catalana, Barcelona, Curial ediciones catalanas, Caixa de Pensions, “La Caixa”.
Cuervo R.C. (1994) Diccionario de construcción y régimen de la lengua castellana, Santafé de Bogota.
Davidson D. (1967) “La forma logica degli enunciati d‟azione”, in Azioni ed eventi, trad. it. di R.
Brigati (1992) Il Mulino, Bologna.
Doherty M. (1973) “Noch and schon and their Presupposition”, in F. Kiefer and N. Ruwet eds.
Generative Grammar in Europe, Reidel Dordrecht, pp. 154-177.
Emonds J.E. (1987) “Parts of speech in Generative Grammar”, in Linguistics Analysis, 17,
pp. 3-42.
Garrido J. (1991) “Gestión semántica de la información pragmática en los adverbios de cambio
todavía y ya”, in Foro Hispanico, 2, pp. 11- 27.
(1992) “Expectations in Spanish and German Adverbs of Change”, in Folia Linguistica, 26,
pp. 357-402.
Grice H.P. (1975) “Logic and Conversation”, in P. Cole and J. L. Morgan (eds.) Syntax and Semantics, 3 Speech Acts, Academic Press, New York, pp. 41-58.
Horn L.R. (1970) “Ain‟t it Hard (Anymore)”, in Campbell M.A. et al. (eds), Papers from the
Sixth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, Chicago, Illinois, pp. 318-327.
Jackendoff R. (1972) Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar, MIT Press, Cambridge (Mass.).
Jespersen O. (1924) The philosophy of grammar, London, Allen and Uhwin.
König E. (1977) “Temporal and non-temporal uses of noch and schon in German”, in Linguistics
and Philosophy, 1, pp. 177-198.
König E., Stark D. (1987) “Function words in a bilingual German- English Dictionary. A new
Approch”, in Lexicografica, 3, pp. 158-177.
König E., Traugott E.C. (1982) “Divergence and apparent convergence in the development of yet
and still”, in Proceedings from the tenth annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, Berkeley Linguistics Society, Berkeley, 8, pp. 170-179.
Lonzi L. (1989) “Il sintagma avverbiale”, in Grande grammatica di consultazione, a cura di L.
Renzi, Il Mulino, Bologna vol. II.
Losada Durán J.R. (1992) “Still yet / aún todavía: el aspecto y la negación”, in Revista de lingüística aplicada, 8, pp. 115-125.
LUI (1968) Lessico Universale Italiano, Roma 1968.
163
Milena Vegnaduzzo
McConnell-Ginet S. (1982) “Adverbs and Logical Form”, Language, 58, pp. 144-184.
Morrisey M.D. (1973) “The English Perfective and still/anymore”, in Journal of Linguistics, 9, pp. 65-69.
Mourelatos A.P.D. (1981) “Event, Processes, and State”, in Sintax and Semantics, Tedeschi e
Zaenen eds. vol 14, pp. 191-211.
Muller C. (1975) “Remarques Syntacto-Sémantiques sur Certains Adverbes de Temps”, in Le
Français Moderne 43, pp. 12-38.
Nef F. (1981) “Encore”, in Langage, 64 pp. 93-107.
Parsons T. (1989) “The Progressive in English: Events, States and Process”, in Linguistics and
Philosophy, 12, pp. 213-241.
(1990) Events in the Semantics of English: A Study in Subatomic Semantics, Cambridge, Mass.,
MIT Press.
Pecoraro W., Pisacane C. (1984) L’avverbio, Bologna, Zanichelli.
Reichenbach H. (1947) Elements of Symbolic Logic, London.
Renzi L., Salvi G. (eds.) (1991-95) Grande grammatica italiana di consultazione, Il Mulino, Bologna.
Rohlfs G. (1969) Grammatica storica della lingua italiana e dei suoi dialetti, III, Einaudi, Torino.
Serianni L. (1988) Grammatica italiana, UTET, Torino.
Smith C. (1991) The Parameter of Aspect, Kluwer Academic Publishers Dordrecht.
Tovena M.L. (1996) “The context sensitivity of the italian adverb ancora”, ms.
Traugott E.C., Waterhouse J. (1969) “Already and yet. A suppletive set of aspect markers”, in
Journal of Linguistics, 5, pp. 287-304.
van de Auwera J. (1993) “Already and still beyond duality”, in Linguistics and Philosophy, 16,
pp. 613-653.
Vanelli L. (1991) La deissi in italiano, Unipress, Padova.
Vendler Z. (1967) Linguistics in Philosophy, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York.
Verkuyl H.J. (1989) “Aspectual classes and aspectual composition”, in Linguistics and Philosophy, 12, pp. 39-94.
Vlach F. (1993) “Temporal adverbials tense and perfect”, in Linguistics and Philosophy,
pp. 231-283.
164
RIVISTA DI GRAMMATICA GENERATIVA
Volume 26, anno 2001
L’interpretazione morfosemantica
del modo congiuntivo in italiano e
in tedesco
Paolo CHINELLATO
The articulation of inflection in
Jamaican Creole
Stephanie DURRLEMAN
“L-tous”,
restructuring
quantifier climbing
Marco NICOLIS
and
Manola SALUSTRI
On the relative position of beaucoup, guère, peu, rien and trop in
French
Sara VECCHIATO
Milena VEGNADUZZO
Caterina Santinello
Bilinguismo e acquisizione infantile di L2: alcune osservazioni
sull’acquisizione simultanea di italiano e tedesco da parte di bambini in età prescolare
Cod. RGG026
ISSN 1122-4428

@CENTRONOSPAZ = RIVISTA DI GRAMMATICA

Transcription

Similar documents

Buon lavoro `Ing. Renato Casappa`

LESSON II

Il tempo libero - Vista Higher Learning