Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
de
strong weakening of the proposal and should be supported by independent arguments. The three problems are intertwined and have to do with the exact semantic value of FPs and with their morphological realization. They all need to be investigated and hopefully solved.
From the picture we had at that time, what remained to be done was to investigate the three fields to determine the precise nature of each projection inside each field. In the meantime various other discoveries have changed the picture, which looks now much more complex than before: The low left periphery Doubling of projections across phases The hypothesis is that phases are all built in a parallel fashion . Hence, if the CP phase has a left periphery, there must be a similar layer at the border of the vP phase (and probably of each phase, including the DP). This hypothesis seems at first sight very attractive and explains a number of phenomena: a) Postverbal subjects of transitive verbs which are focussed in modern Italian (see Belletti (2004)) (2) a Lha mangiato GIANNI It has eaten Gianni b E arrivato Gianni is arrived Gianni
There is a difference between focussed postverbal subjects and subjects of inaccusative verbs: focussed subjects are indeed located in a low FocusP on top of the vP b) OV orders in Old Italian (3) a. i nimici the enemies avessero gi il passo pigliato had.subj.3pl already the pace taken
b. r. 1) c.
(BG, Or., p. 88, r. 15) Ed essendo dell' unico guernimento gi ispogliato, (Bono Giamboni, Orosio, p. 411, And being of the only ornament already stripped dice che poi e molto de ben fatto in guerra et in pace. says that then has a lot of good done in war and in peace (BL, Rett., p. 26, r. 22) il quale da che ebbe tutto Egitto vinto whom since had.3sg all Egypt won (BG, Or., p. 83, r. 15) Poi lo fece fuori trarre (Novellino, p. 158, rr. 6-7) that (he) him made outside take
d.
e.
This positions before the past participle have the same properties as those of the CP left periphery: The position is unconstrained, it can host any type of XP You can have more than one There is no apparent relative order among the constituents (4) a ed ha'mi la cosa molte volte ridetta (Bono Giamboni, Trattato, p.131) and has the thing many times retold E quand' ebbi cos chiaramente a ogni cosa risposto (Bono Giamboni, Vizi e Virtudi, and when had so clearly to everything answered
b p. 37, r. 24)
c) Some cases of reordering inside the DP in Old and Modern Italian: (5) a e and di gentile aspetto molto of kind appearance very
b P 11 r.18) c 148, r. 7)
(Dante, Vita Nuova, cap. 8, par. 1, v. 11) S come quando ordino di ritrarre dellantiche scritte le cose che.. (Brun. Latini Rett. So as when (I) order to draw of the ancient writings the things that la quale guardava al figliuolo piccolo del morto fratello, (Bono Giamboni, Orosio, p. whom looked at the young child of the dead brother
Assuming remnant movement, there is now a competition between the two layers, which leads to redundancy: when you have a sentence-final Focus, is the projection involved the low one in vP or the high one in CP? In both cases we have to assume remnant movement, either of the VP or of the IP. In some cases, it is difficult to find empirical evidence in favour of one of the two hypotheses. This means there is a redundancy: our theory is too powerful because it allows for parallel phases and at the same time unconstrained remnant movements (of IP and VP). How parallel are phases? 3
Quantifiers have a dedicated position in the low left periphery, is there a dedicated position also in the CP left periphery? Old Italian: (6) a b c
e come l' tutto perduto. Fiore di rett... (p.75) nne tutto paghato, cinque lb., per l' anno Doc. fior., 1 (p.395) cui si vuol ben tutto dare, Monte Andrea ... (p.269)
No cases of bare tutto after the past participle. However, tutto modifying a DP can be found before or after the past participle (7) a b d e f (8) a b c d era servito di tutto cioe che a llui abisongnava. Tristano Ric... (p.224) ond'io e perduto tutto lo mio onore Tristano Ric... (p.179) (n)no ve(n)duto tutto i loro podere, Doc. fior., 1... (p.226) appellato causa tutto 'l processo dell' una e dell' altra Brunetto Latini (p. 82) e insegnato per tutto il libro insine a questo luogo Brunetto Latini (p. 140) oi ch'egli ebbe tutto questo fatto, e molte altre cose, Tesoro vo... (p.a 286) Ched i' vo tutto 'l mondo og[g]i truffando, Fiore, XIII (p.196) abiendo tutto il mal d'Amor tenente, Monte Andrea ... (p.136) che mi teneano tutto il capo gravato. Bono Giamboni... (p.6)
Conclusion: bare tutto has a special position in the low left periphery. Is there anything comparable in the CP layer? Is there any evidence that quantifiers behave differently from DP? Distribution of subject quantifiers with respect to DP: (9) Non ha lavato i piatti nessuno Nessuna nchiarat i piatt:. Nobody has washed the dishes Cariati.
(10)
Non so dove la mamma abbia comprato i fiori. Unn sacciu duv ar accattat i ur a mamma. I do not know where mum bought the flowers
It seems that the order VOS is possible only if the subject is a DP, while if it is a quantifier, it has to raise. Another example: wh in situ (11) a. b. Alo fat che? Bellunese Has-he done what? Ngo fet na ngont? Where do-you fo where?
How is this to be analyzed? As having the wh-item in the low Focus position with remnant vP movement to IP or as having the wh-item in the CP Focus position with remnant IP movement to CP? 4
Further cases of the same type: (12) Ci vado SI There go YES I will surely go there SI che ci vado Yes that there go
(13)
Hypothesis: the two structures are connected in the following way: (14) NO che non ci sono andato! NO that not there am gone [CPFocus NO [FinP [Fin che [IP non ci sono andato]]] Non ci sono andato NO! Not there am gone NO
(15) (16)
(17) [SpecGroundP [IP non ci sono andato] [Ground [CPFocus NO] [FinP [IP non ci sono andato]]] [Fin [IP non ci sono andato]]] Alternative possibility: the sentence final Focus marker is in the vP-Focus position, while the sentence initial one is in the CP-Focus position: (18) [CPFocus [FinP [Fin (che)[IP non ci sono andato [vP [Focus NO].....]]]]
There are arguments which show that the first hypothesis is correct: The focus marker is indeed sentence final: only right dislocated items can occur after it (19) Non ci sono andato NO, al cinema Not there am gone NOT, to the cinema I really did not go to the cinema *Non ci sono andato NO, da nessuna parte Not there am gone NOT, to no place I really did not go anywhere *Non mi ha detto NO su Not me has told NO off He did not tell me off
(20)
Wh-items are usually analyzed to be located in the CP-Focus field: sentence final Focus is incompatible with wh-items (21) *Dove non sei andato NO? Where not are gone NO? Where didnt you go? *Il ragazzo che non ha telefonato NO, Gianni The boy that not has phoned NO, is John The boy I did not phone is John 5
(22)
Still: one might assume that you can only have one Focus per sentence. Assuming parallel structures for phases has created a tension in the theory: in some cases both left peripheries are required, in others they just seem redundant Further research: are the two left peripheries really identical? And what about the left periphery of the DP? (see Giusti (2006), (2008), (2010))
b.
Sardinian (25) a.
b.
Boggio chi siente trattadar bene Want that be tratead well I want them to be treated well Mamma mi nara sempre ca frade su ir bravu Mum me tells always that brother her is good My mother always tells me that her brother is good
Baunei (Sardinian)
But: (26) a. Mi criju ca me believe-1SG that Maria I believe that Maria is coming b. Vogghiu lu diavulu want-1SG the devil I want that the devil eats you! Maria vena come-3SG mu mu ti you (S. Calabrese)
mangia! eat-3SG
Is mu/mi a complementizer or is it an IP particle? (27) a. b. Lu Carlu ole [FinP cu ... [MoodP +mood ... bbene crai ... Vuogghiu [FinP +mood ... [MoodP mu ... lu viju ... (SA) (SC)
Damonte (2008) provides evidence that both exist: Compatibility with the declarative complementiser (28) a. b. c. (*Ca) cu (*ca) (bb)ene crai that cu comes tomorrow Let her/him come tomorrow Ole (*ca) cu (*ca) (bb)ene wants that cu comes He/she wants to come Ojju (*ca) la Maria cu bbene want that the Maria cu comes I want Maria to come Chimmu ti pigghia toccu! that-mu you grab stroke That a stroke hits you! Prima co trasa ncunu, chiudimu close before ca-u enters someone Before someone enters, let's close the door
(Carmiano, SA)
(29)
a. b
N.B. That the form co is to be analysed as ca-u is shown by the regular phonologically change a + u > o, found elsewhere in the dialect.
(30) a. b.
Compatibility with wh-items Me chiedu ce aggiu ffare me ask what have do I wonder what I have to do Me chiedu (*cu) ce (*cu) aggiu ffare 7
(Carmiano, SA)
(31)
a. b.
Non sacciu chimmu dico not know what-mu say I do not know what to say Non sacciu aundi u ccattu stu libbru not know where u buy this book I do not know where to buy this book Position with respect to negation Ojju cu nnu bbene iddu want cu not comes that I do not want that one to come * Ojju nu cu bbene iddu Speru nommu veni chijju hope not-mu comes that I hope he does not come *Speru mu non veni chijju
(Locri, SC)
(32)
a. b.
(Carmiano, SA)
(33)
a. b.
(Locri, SC)
Problem: again we observe doubling of features between the CP and the IP. How extensive is this mechanism of doubling? Is this really doubling or are the two projections different in some way? Notice that this time we cannot say that this is due to the parallel construction of phases. Moreover: we have a blurred area between CP and IP: the limits between the two domains are not clear. Although we use a cartographic approach, we continue to consider CP and IP as two domains. Notice that this has no real theoretical status in the CA, so is this split into core, left and right periphery justified? Common implicit assumption: the limit between IP and CP is provided by the complementizer. But then: what is a complementizer?
(35)
Although they are located after the verb, there are reasons to believe that SPs are located in the left periphery of the clause: a) They only occur in main clauses 8
(36)
(37)
*El me ga domand dove che i ze ndai, ti. (Venetian) he me has asked where that they have gone, ti He asked me where they went. *No so dove che el ze nd po. (Venetian) neg know where that he is gone po I dont know where he went.
b) They express the speakers attitude An example: the particle mo is compatible with imperatives that can be seen as requesting something that benefits the speaker: (38) a Suparsciam mo ciamo la ciamasa! (San Leonardo) iron mo now the shirt Iron my shirt now! Arzignem mo ca l baagn. prepare-me mo here the bath Get the bath ready for me! Faal mo k i l adoor! do-it mo that s.cl it use Do it, so that I can use it.
It is incompatible with imperatives that can be seen as requesting something that benefits the addressee: (39) a *Fa:l mo, s t os. (San Leonardo) do-it mo, if you want Do it, if you want. *Fa:l mo k al e na bona idea do-it mo that it is a good idea Do it, its a good idea. *Mandjeel mo, S no vaal frait eat-it mo, if neg goes cold nd Eat (2 pl) it, or else itll get cold. *Tet mo n d dvacanza. take mo a day of-vacation Take a day off. *Mangetles mo duetes. eat-them mo both Feel free to eat them both. It is sensitive to sentence type being compatible with only some sentences types but not all (Venetian)
c)
Particles in non V2 dialects typically occur in sentence final position: (41) Vien qua mo! come here mo 9 (Venetian)
Come here right away! (42) Dove zelo nd, ti? where is-SCLe gone ti Where did he go? (43) Quando eli rivadi, po? when are-SCL arrived po When did they arrive? (44) L' meio, lu! SCL-is better lu Isnt that better!
(Venetian)
(Pagotto)
(Pagotto)
Hypothesis: if particles are related to the speaker, there must be a speaker operator realized in the CP binding the particle. Cf. Sigurdsson (2007) Therefore: maybe Zanuttini and Portner (2002) are right in saying that sentence typing is compositional and derives from the activation of various projections, one of which is the SpeakerP.
General problem: how much of the pragmatic properties of these items do we encode in the syntax?
CHE < CLLD (47) Me dispiase che a Marco i ghe abia ditto cussi. me is.sorry that to Marco they to.him have.SUBJ told so I am sorry that they said so to Marco. (Venetian) CLLD < CHE (48) * Me dispiase a Marco che i ghe abia ditto cussi. me is.sorry to Marco that they to.him have.subj told so
WH < CLLD (49) * Me domando a chi el premio Nobel che i ghe lo podarla dar. 10
me I.ask to who the prize Nobel that they to.him it should give WH < CLLD (50) * Me domando a chi che el premio Nobel i ghe lo podarla dar. me I.ask to who that the prize Nobel they to.him it should give INTENDED: I wonder to whom they should give the Nobel Prize. (Venetian) CLLD < WH (51) Me domando el premio Nobel a chi che i ghe lo podarla dar. me I.ask the prize Nobel to who that they to.him it should give I wonder to whom they should give the Nobel Prize. (Venetian)
If there are two complementizer positions why are they not always realized? Van Craenenbroek notices that a) the structure with two complementizers vastly overgenerates b) no correlation is found between those dialects that admit complementizer doubling and those that show the pattern above (examples from Venetian) c) no morphological distinction is found between the two complementizers (this is only possible in Southern Italian dialects, not in Northern Italian dialects, a quite different group from the point of view of the syntactic features). d) structures like (52) are related to subjunctive in Turinese and Ligurian. However, they are not in Old Italian: (53) E tanto savio, bello e largo portamento de ciascuno facea, che1 tanti d'onne parti cavalieri And so wise, nice and big posture of anyone did, that so many from any place knights trassero a lui, che per lo gran senno e valore suo e larghezza, e per la bona cavalleria che lui went to him, that for the great wisdom and value his and nobelty and for the good chevalry that he seguia, che2 ventinove reami se sottomise. (Conti 552) (tosc., 13e s.) followed, that twenty-nine kingdoms submitted There are several cases of double complementizers in Romance, which shows that there are indeed two positions (see first handout): (54) (55) Et comment que oui qu Jean, on va lui envoyer de largent! (Authier 2010) and how that yes that-to Jean we will to-him to-send some the-money Per en aquesta mena daldarulls crec que s que calen ms policies but in this sort of disturbances believe that yes that need more police 'But in this kind of public disturbances I believe that more police is needed indeed' (Battlori & Hernanz (2011))
11
However, the problem pointed out by van Craenenbroek remains: we still have to explain the distribution of one or two che across varieties and structures.
12