Grammatical Categories: Variation in Romance Languages (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics)

This page intentionally left blank

G r a m m at ical Cat e gorie s

Grammatical categories (e.g. complementizer, negation, auxiliary, case) are some of the most important building blocks of syntax and morphology. Categorization therefore poses fundamental questions about grammatical structures and about the lexicon from which they are built. Adopting a ‘lexicalist’ stance, the authors argue that lexical items are not epiphenomena, but really represent the mapping of sound to meaning (and vice versa) that classical conceptions imply. Their rule-governed combination creates words, phrases and sentences – structured by the ‘categories’ that are the object of the present inquiry. They argue that the distinction between functional and non-Â�functional categories, between content words and inflections, is not as deeply rooted in grammar as is often thought. In their argumentation they lay the emphasis on empirical evidence, drawn mainly from dialectal variation in the Romance languages, as well as from Albanian. m . r i ta m a n z in i a n d l e o na r d o m. s avoia are both Full Professors of General Linguistics at the University of Florence.

In this series 94. 95. 96. 97. 98. 99. 100.â•… 101. 102. 103. 104. 105. 106. 107. 108. 109. 110. 111. 112. 113. 114. 115. 116. 117. 118. 119. 120. 121. 122. 123. 124. 125. 126. 127. 128.

j oan b yb e e : Phonology and language use l aur i e b aue r : Morphological productivity t homas e r ns t : The syntax of adjuncts e l i zab e t h c l os s t r augot t and r i c h a r d b. d a sh e r : Regularity in semantic change maya hi c kmann: Children’s discourse: person, space and time across languages di ane b l ake mor e : Relevance and linguistic meaning: the semantics and pragmatics of discourse markers i an r ob e r t s and anna r ous s ou: Syntactic change: a minimalist approach to grammaticalization donka mi nkova: Alliteration and sound change in early English mar k c . b ake r : Lexical categories: verbs, nouns and adjectives c ar l ota s . s mi t h: Modes of discourse: the local structure of texts r oc he l l e l i e b e r : Morphology and lexical semantics hol ge r di e s s e l : The acquisition of complex sentences s har on i nke l as and c he r yl zo l l : Reduplication: doubling in morphology s us an e dwar ds : Fluent aphasia b ar b ar a dancygi e r and e ve s w e e t se r : Mental spaces in grammar: conditional constructions he w b ae r man, duns tan b r ow n a n d g r e v i l l e g . c o r b e t t : The syntax–morphology interface: a study of syncretism mar c us t omal i n: Linguistics and the formal sciences: the origins of generative grammar s amue l d. e p s t e i n and t. dani e l se e ly: Derivations in minimalism paul de l acy: Markedness: reduction and preservation in phonology ye huda n. fal k: Subjects and their properties p. h. mat t he w s : Syntactic relations: a critical survey mar k c . b ake r : The syntax of agreement and concord gi l l i an c at r i ona r amc hand: Verb meaning and the lexicon: a first phase syntax p i e t e r muys ke n: Functional categories j uan ur i age r e ka: Syntactic anchors: on semantic structuring d. r ob e r t l add: Intonational phonology second edition l e onar d h. b ab b y: The syntax of argument structure b. e l an dr e s he r : The contrastive hierarchy in phonology davi d adge r , dani e l har b our a n d l au r e l j. wat k i n s: Mirrors and microparameters: phrase structure beyond free word order ni i na ni ng zhang: Coordination in syntax ne i l s mi t h: Acquiring phonology ni na t op i nt zi : Onsets: suprasegmental and prosodic behaviour c e dr i c b oe c kx, nor b e r t hor ns t e i n a n d ja i r o n u ň e s: Control as movement mi c hae l i s r ae l : The grammar of polarity: pragmatics, sensitivity, and the logic of scales m. r i ta manzi ni and l e onar do m . savo i a : Grammatical Â�categories: variation in Romance languages Earlier issues not listed are also available

CAMBRIDGE STUDIES IN LINGUISTICS General Editors: p. austin, j. bresnan, b. comrie, s. crain, w.dressler, c. j. ewen, r. lass, d. lightfoot, k. rice, i. roberts, s. romaine, n. v. smith

Grammatical Categories: Variation in Romance Languages

Grammatical Categories Va r i at i on i n Ro m ance L anguag e s

M. Rita M a n zin i University of Florence

Leo na r d o M . S avo ia University of Florence

cambrid ge uni ve r s i t y p r e s s Cambridge, New York, Melbourne, Madrid, Cape Town, Singapore, São Paulo, Delhi, Tokyo, Mexico City Cambridge University Press The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge CB2 8RU, UK Published in the United States of America by Cambridge University Press, New York www.cambridge.org Information on this title: www.cambridge.org/9780521765190 © M. Rita Manzini and Leonardo M. Savoia 2011 This publication is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception and to the provisions of relevant collective licensing agreements, no reproduction of any part may take place without the written permission of Cambridge University Press. First published 2011 Printed in the United Kingdom at the University Press, Cambridge A catalogue record for this publication is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloguing in Publication data Manzini, Maria Rita Grammatical categories : variation in romance languages / M. Rita Manzini, Leonardo Maria Savoia. â•… p.â•… cm. – (Cambridge studies in linguistics ; 128) ISBN 978-0-521-76519-0 (hardback) 1.╇ Grammar, Comparative and general–Grammatical categories.â•… 2.╇Language and languages–Variation.â•…I.╇Savoia, Leonardo Maria, 1948–â•…II.╇Title. P240.5.M36 2011 415–dc22 2010052183 ISBN 978-0-521-76519-0 Hardback Cambridge University Press has no responsibility for the persistence or accuracy of URLs or external or third-party internet websites referred to in this publication, and does not guarantee that any content on such websites is, or will remain, accurate or appropriate.

Contents

List of tables Acknowledgements

page x xi

Introduction:€grammatical categories and the biolinguistic perspective

1

1

 he structure and interpretation of (Romance) T complementizers

13

1.1

Romance complementizers are nominal and head their own noun phrase Structure of the complementizer phrase 1.2.1â•… Combining a left periphery in the complementizer phrase and in the embedded sentence; combining two complementizers 1.2.2â•… Some potential problems The left periphery beyond complementizers 1.3.1â•… Is order dictated by interpretation€– or interpretation by order? 1.3.2â•… Embedded contexts Conclusions

1.2

1.3

1.4

2

14 19

23 30 37 38 43 47

49

2.2 2.3

Variation in Romance k-complementizer systems Systems with two k-complementizers 2.1.1â•… Definite and indefinite complementizers€– and alternative analyses 2.1.2â•… Generalized wh–complementizers  ‘If’ The interaction with (non-)finiteness

3

Sentential negation:€adverbs

80

3.1

Sentential negation adverbs are nominal and argumental

83

2.1

49 54 61 65 73

vii

viii╅ Contents 3.1.1╅ Further evidence 3.1.2╅ Sentential negation adverbs as nominal arguments 3.2 Ordering sentential negation with respect to other adverbs 3.2.1╅ The order of negation with respect to aspectual adverbs 3.2.2╅The order of negation with respect to quantificational and manner adverbs 3.2.3╅ General discussion 3.3 The interaction of adverbial and verbal positions:€the participle

88 92 94 106

4

128

Sentential negation:€clitics

111 118 120

4.1 Interactions of negation clitics and subject clitics 4.2 Interactions of negation clitics with object clitics 4.2.1â•… Non-negative n 4.3 Negative concord and negative doubling

131 138 145 152

5

The middle-passive voice:€evidence from Albanian Data 5.1.1â•… Middle-passive morphologies 5.1.2â•… The interpretation of the middle-passive morphologies 5.1.3â•… The Arbëresh varieties The u clitic Specialized inflections 5.3.1â•… Be–participle

159

The auxiliary:€have/be alternations in the perfect Evidence 6.1.1╅ Theoretical background Auxiliary selection independent of transitivity/voice 6.2.1╅ Auxiliary selection according to person Splits according to transitivity/voice 6.3.1╅ Auxiliary selection according to voice 6.3.2╅ Auxiliary selection according to transitivity 6.3.3╅ Irreversibility Finer parametrization 6.4.1╅ Interactions between auxiliary selection according to transitivity/voice and according to person 6.4.2╅ The third auxiliary Some conclusions

196

5.1

5.2 5.3

6 6.1 6.2 6.3

6.4

6.5

160 160 164 169 172 184 188

196 203 208 209 216 216 218 222 223 224 228 233

Contentsâ•… ix 7 7.1

7.2

7.3

7.4

8 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.5

 he noun (phrase):€agreement, case and definiteness T in an Albanian variety Theoretical and empirical background 7.1.1â•… Nominal inflections in Albanian 7.1.2â•… Generative approaches to case Analysis of Albanian nominal inflections 7.2.1â•… Consonantal inflections 7.2.2â•… Vocalic case inflections and lack of inflections 7.2.3â•… Prepositional contexts 7.2.4â•… Summary The Albanian noun phrase 7.3.1â•… The genitive 7.3.2â•… The adjective 7.3.3â•… Adjectives as heads of the noun phrase Concluding remarks ( Definite) denotation and case in Romance:€history and variation The Latin case system Romance case systems:€Romanian Other Romance case systems€– and alternative accounts Loss of case in Romance:€Romansh –s Pronouns€– and some conclusions Notes References Index

236 237 239 244 246 250 255 259 261 262 262 266 272 275

276 277 286 295 302 308

312 331 345

Tables

6.1

6.2 7.1 7.2 8.1

x

 istribution of be (E) and have (A) according to person D in the present perfect (in Central and Southern Italian varieties) page 212 Distribution of be, have and syncretic forms in the present perfect in Piedmontese and Lombard varieties 231 Distribution of nominal inflections in Albanian 244 Denotational properties of Albanian nominal inflections 262 Denotational properties of Latin nominal inflections 286

Acknowledgements

The research reported in this book has been financed largely through PRIN grants from the MURST/MIUR, namely Per una cartografia strutturale delle configurazioni sintattiche:€ microvariazione nei dialetti italiani (1997–1999), La cartografia strutturale delle configurazioni sintattiche e le sue interfacce con la fonologia e la semantica. Parametri morfosintattici e fonosintattici (1999–2001), Categorie linguistiche:€Categorie di flessione nominale e verbale (Accordo, Aspetto); Nome e Verbo (2001–2003), I sistemi linguistici ‘speciali’ (apprendimento, disturbi) e la variazione tra i sistemi linguistici ‘normali’. Categorie funzionali del nome e del verbo (2003–2005), Strutture ricorsive in sintassi, morfologia e fonologia. Studi sulle varietà romanze. slave e albanesi (2005–2007), Morfosintassi e lessico:€ Categorie della flessione nominale e€verbale (2007–2009). Special thanks go to all our informants, both Romance and Albanian, though space limitations prevent us from mentioning all of them here. Our debt to the friends and colleagues whose work inspired ours should be obvious from the references. However, we take this opportunity to thank Neil Smith, as a (former) general editor of the series, for helping our project along.

xi

Introduction:€grammatical categories and the biolinguistic perspective According to Chomsky (2000b:€ 119), ‘the human language faculty and the (I–)languages that are manifestations of it qualify as natural objects’. This approach€– which ‘regards the language faculty as an “organ of the body”’€– has been labelled the ‘biolinguistic perspective’ by Chomsky (2005:€1). Hauser, Chomsky and Fitch (2002:€1570) base their discussion of the key biological question of evolution on the ‘biologically and individually grounded’ use of the term language ‘to refer to an internal component of the mind/brain (sometimes called “internal language” or “I-language”)’. They distinguish two conceptions of the faculty of language, one broader (FLB) and one narrower (FLN): FLB includes FLN combined with at least two other organism-internal systems, which we call ‘sensory-motor’ and ‘conceptual-intentional’ … A key component of FLN is a computational system (narrow syntax) that generates internal representations and maps them into the sensory-motor interface by the phonological system and into the conceptual-intentional interface by the (formal) semantics system … Most, if not all, of FLB is based on mechanisms shared with nonhuman animals … FLN€ – the computational mechanism of recursion€ – is recently evolved and unique to our species.â•…â•… (Hauser, Chomsky and Fitch 2002:€1571)

The conception of the language faculty and of (I-)languages as ‘natural’, ‘biologically grounded’ objects corresponds to specific theories concerning their internal articulation: the I-language consists of a computational procedure and a lexicon. The lexicon is a collection of items, each a complex of properties (called ‘features’) … The computational procedure maps an array of lexical choices into a pair of symbolic objects, phonetic form and LF [logical form] … The elements of these symbolic objects can be called ‘phonetic’ and ‘semantic’ features, respectively, but we should bear in mind that all of this is pure syntax and completely internalist.â•…â•… (Chomsky 2000b:€120)

The internal articulation of the FLN is crucial to the biolinguistic programme, no less than its applications to domains such as language evolution, genetics 1

2â•… The biolinguistic perspective and neurology. Here we address some points concerning this; specifically, we concentrate on the issue of language variation, starting with the idea that ‘the diversity and complexity can be no more than superficial appearance … the search for explanatory adequacy requires that language structure must be invariant’ (Chomsky 2000b:€7), and ‘There is a reason to believe that the computational component is invariant, virtually … language variation appears to reside in the lexicon’ (Chomsky 2000b:€120). From this perspective, a central aim of our work is to provide empirical support for what we may call the lexical parametrization hypothesis (Manzini and Wexler 1987), and thus to make more precise the sense in which it holds. Without a doubt ‘one aspect is “Saussurean arbitrariness”, the arbitrary links between concepts and sounds … However, the possible sounds are narrowly constrained, and the concepts may be virtually fixed’ (Chomsky 2000b:€120). In the present study, we address the issue of how the linguistically relevant conceptual space yields different (I-)languages beyond the obvious aspect of ‘Saussurean arbitrariness’. Before proceeding to the empirical core of the argument, we briefly introduce some of the conceptual underpinnings of the framework we adopt, beginning with the thesis that language ‘is a system that is, as far as we know, essentially uniform. Nobody has found any genetic differences … since its emergence there has not been any significant evolution. It has stayed that way’ (Chomsky 2002:€147). This view is shared by much current work on human cognitive and linguistic evolution (Lieberman 1991; Jackendoff 2002). The conclusion holds both for living languages and for ancient ones (whether documented and no longer spoken or merely reconstructed); as argued by Labov (1994), the same mechanisms of (surface) variation and change affect all of them. To take a comparative typological perspective: no evidence of anything like speciation has been found … Languages from typologically very different areas have the same latent structural potential … this survey has uncovered no evidence that human language in general has changed since the earliest stage recoverable by the method used here. There is simply diversity, distributed geographically.â•…â•… (Nichols 1992:€227)

As for this geographically distributed diversity: a residual zone or a set of residual zones will contain a good deal of the world’s possible linguistic diversity in microcosm, and both the existence of internal diversity and its actual profile are stable and obviously very natural situations. Diversity of a particular kind may even be regarded as the state to which a group of languages will naturally revert if left undisturbed … Spread zones, in contrast, are typically highly divergent from one another, but each is internally quite homogeneous … Just which language spreads in a

The biolinguistic perspective╅ 3 spread zone is a matter of historical accident, and this historical accident can distort the statistical distribution of linguistic types in an area.╅╅ (Nichols 1992:€23)

The set of languages considered in this work presents the kind of variation that we expect in natural languages in the absence of external constraints. Because of the political and cultural factors which, for centuries, have kept the Italian peninsula in conditions of great administrative and social fragmentation, dialectal differentiation in Italy has been preserved for longer (i.e. up to the present day) than in other areas of Western Europe, including Romance-speaking ones. Thus Italian varieties provide a rich and articulated picture of language variation that contrasts with that of other intensively studied varieties such as those of English. The view we take is that it is linguistic situations such as those in Britain, for example, that represent a somewhat misleading picture of variation, reflecting not only the internal shaping forces of language development, but also external mechanisms of social and political standardization. The variation seen in Albanian, including the major Gheg vs. Tosk divide in mainland Albania, and Arbëresh varieties of Southern Italy, has the same general character as that observed in Romance varieties. In the internalist (i.e. ‘biologically, individually grounded’) perspective that we adopt, variation between two or more varieties (linguistic communities) is in fact not qualitatively different from variation within the same variety (community), or even within the production of a single speaker. For example, to the extent that a speaker alternates between stylistic levels according to the situation of use, s/he will have a ‘bilingual’ competence of sorts€ – which, given the lexical parametrization hypothesis adopted here, can be accounted for as the co-existence of different lexicons with a single computational component (MacSwan 2000). Suppose, then, that the lexicon is the locus of linguistic variation€ – in the form of a uniform (i.e. invariant) computational component, and of an invariant repertory of interface primitives, both phonological and conceptual. Non-trivial questions arise at this point:€how can the lexicon vary on the basis of a universal inventory of properties (or ‘features’), and why does that variation in the lexicon result in variation in order, agreement, selection, and other relations that are computationally determined? These questions are amply debated in current linguistic theory. Our empirical discussion aims to support certain positions emerging from the debate, as opposed to others which are in principle equally possible. In particular, the answer to the preceding questions is mediated for various scholars by the notion that there is a fundamental distinction between functional and non-functional elements. Thus, within the Distributed Morphology framework, Embick (2000:187) assumes a ‘distinction between the functional and lexical vocabularies of a language … functional categories merely

4â•… The biolinguistic perspective instantiate sets of abstract syntacticosemantic features’, on which the derivational component operates. The actual phonological terminals corresponding to these abstract categories are inserted only after a level of morphological structure, where readjustment rules apply (Late Insertion). It is evident that the overall architecture of the grammar implied by this model is considerably more complex than one in which ‘the formal role of lexical items is not that they are “inserted” into syntactic derivations, but rather that they establish the correspondence of certain syntactic constituents with phonological and conceptual structures’ (Jackendoff 2002:€131). Kayne’s (2006, 2008a) parametrization model, while avoiding recourse to Late Insertion, is close to Distributed Morphology in assuming that functional items correspond to a universal lexicon of sorts. Lexical and hence grammatical differences depend on whether the elements of this functional lexicon are overtly realized or ‘silent’. Interestingly, for Kayne (2006), even variation in the substantive lexicon can be reduced to variation in functional structure in the sense just defined, as can be seen in his construal of shallow as ‘LITTLE deep’, that is, essentially as the specialized lexicalization of deep in the context of the silent functional category ‘little’. Manzini and Savoia (2005, 2007, 2008a) pursue a model under which, again, there is a unified conception of lexical variation€– however, this is of the type traditionally associated with the substantive lexicon:€there is a conceptual and grammatical space to be lexicalized and variation results from the distinct partitioning of that space. There is no fixed functional lexicon which varies along the axis of overt vs. covert realization€– so-called functional space is just like all other conceptual space, and all lexical entries are overt. Thus, the distinction between functional (i.e. grammatical) contents and conceptual ones is an external one; as such it may very well be useless, and at worst it may obscure the real underlying linguistic generalizations. Our conception of variation within the so-called functional lexicon is consistent with current conclusions regarding the conceptual space and the different ways in which it surfaces in natural languages. Fodor (1983) and Jackendoff (1994), among others, develop the Chomskyan theme that concepts, like other aspects of language, must have an innate basis€– largely because of the poverty of stimulus argument. It has already been observed by Lenneberg (1967) that lexical items are the overt marks of a categorization process through which human beings carve out an ontological system from the perceptual continuum of the external world. This process of categorization is of course only indirectly connected with the objects of the external world. Jackendoff (1994:€195) notes that the lexical forms employed to express spatial location and motion (e.g. The messenger is in Istanbul; The messenger went from Paris to Istanbul;

The biolinguistic perspectiveâ•… 5 The gang kept the messenger in Istanbul) typically also express possession (e.g. The money is Fred’s; The inheritance finally went to Fred; Fred kept the money), the ascription of properties (e.g. The light is red; The light went from green to red; The cop kept the light red), etc. This suggests that thought has a set of precise underlying patterns that are applied to pretty much any semantic field we can think about. Such an underlying ‘grain’ to thought is just the kind of thing we should expect as part of the Universal Grammar of concepts; it’s the basic machinery that permits complex thought to be formulated at all.â•…â•… (Jackendoff 1994:€197)

Dehaene, Izard, Pica and Spelke (2006) study geometrical concepts in an isolated group of Amazonian people whose language, Mundurukú, ‘has few words dedicated to arithmetical, geometrical, or spatial concepts’. They conclude that geometrical knowledge arises in humans independently of instruction, Â�experience with maps or measurement devices, or mastery of a sophisticated geometrical language … There is little doubt that geometrical knowledge can be substantially enriched by cultural inventions such as maps, mathematical tools, or the geometrical terms of language … however, the spontaneous understanding of geometrical concepts and maps by this remote human community provides evidence that core geometrical knowledge, like basic arithmetic is a universal constituent of the human mind.â•…â•… (Dehaene, Izard, Pica and Spelke 2006:€385, our italics)

In a similar vein, Hespos and Spelke (2004) study the acquisition of the conceptual distinction between ‘tight’ and ‘loose’ fit of one object to another in English-speaking children, which is not lexicalized in English, though it is in other languages like Korean. Their conclusion is that ‘like adult Korean speakers but unlike adult English speakers, these infants detected this distinction … Language learning therefore seems to develop by linking linguistic forms to universal, preexisting representations of sound and meaning’ (Hespos and Spelke 2004:€453). In short, the building blocks that are combined to make up the potentially infinite variety of human lexicons are innate. The lexicons of different languages are formed on this universal basis, covering slightly different extensions of it and in slightly different ways. The view we advocate here is simply that ways of representing the event, such as transitivity or voice (chapters 5–6), ways of connecting arguments to predicates (or to one another), such as cases (chapters 7–8), and more, are to be thought of as part of this general system. There is no separate functional lexicon€ – and no separate way of accounting for its variation. We started with the general Chomskyan biolinguistic, or internalist, picture of language, and of its basic components, both broadly and narrowly construed. Variation is crucial to establishing this model for the obvious reason that the uniformity thesis, as laid out above, requires a suitably

6â•… The biolinguistic perspective restrictive account of observed cross-linguistic differences. But, even more fundamentally, the lexical parametrization hypothesis that we adopt means that questions of variation will inevitably bear on the form of the lexicon, as one of the crucial components of the I-language. The other main component of the I-language is ‘the computational procedure’, which ‘maps an array of lexical choices into a pair of symbolic objects, phonetic form and LF’ (Chomsky 2000b, quoted above). As for the latter, Culicover and Jackendoff (2005:€ 6) aptly characterize a particularly popular conception of the relation of LF to the syntax (i.e. the computation) as ‘Interface Uniformity’, which holds that ‘the syntax-semantics interface is maximally simple, in that meaning maps transparently into syntactic structure; and it is maximally uniform, so that the same meaning always maps onto the same syntactic structure’. This bias inherent in much current theorizing provides a standardized way of encoding the data, but does not appear to have any strong empirical motivation; nor is the encoding it provides a particularly elegant or transparent one. Conceptually it corresponds to a picture where syntax ‘includes’ interpretation, in the sense that all relevant semantic information finds itself translated into syntactic structure. In contrast, we agree with Culicover and Jackendoff (2006:€ 416) on the idea that interpretation is ‘the product of an autonomous combinatorial capacity independent of and richer than syntax’, ‘largely coextensive with thought’, which syntax simply restricts in crucial ways. Linguistic meanings are merely an input to general inferential processes; the linguistic categorization of the conceptual space encoded by lexical items does not correspond to ‘meaning’ itself but rather to a restriction of the inferential processes producing it. Sperber and Wilson (1986:€174) provide a particularly compelling discussion of the point that linguistic expressions only denote because of their inferential associations:€ ‘Linguistically encoded semantic representations are abstract mental structures which must be inferentially enriched’. In such a model, the well-known indeterminacy of linguistic meanings becomes a key property of successful communication: A linguistic device does not have as its direct proper function to make its Â�encoded meaning part of the meaning of the utterances in which it occurs. It has, rather, as its direct proper function to indicate a component of the speaker’s meaning that is best evoked by activating the encoded meaning of the linguistic device. It performs this direct function through each token of the device performing the derived proper function of indicating a contextually relevant meaning.â•…â•… (Origgi and Sperber 2000:€160)

Note that we disagree with Culicover and Jackendoff (2005) on the model of syntax to be adopted. Our analysis depends on a representational version of minimalism, roughly in the sense of Brody (2003). Crucially, the LF primitives

The biolinguistic perspectiveâ•… 7 we employ are independently available within a minimalist grammar as defined by Chomsky (1995), and in this sense the approach we take is compatible with Chomsky’s model. In fact, we would argue that our views on lexical variation and on interpretation are the simplest construal of Chomsky’s (2000b) proposals, as summarized above€– much simpler than other current approaches, and in this sense closer to the core of minimalism and of the biolinguistic programme. Therefore, any theory maintaining a functional/lexical divide must define the boundary between the two€– which is a far from trivial task. The domain of spatial relations and of events involving them is a case in point. Spatial relations are covered by prepositions (or particles in their intransitive use), among other items. In particular, prepositions/particles can combine with elementary verbs to lexicalize events with a spatial component; for instance, English has put down (the book), Northern regional Italian has mettere giù (il libro). At the same time, Tuscan and literary Italian has a verb posare ‘put down’, and the examples could be multiplied (go in and enter in English, etc.). Particles in Germanic languages (but also in Romance, for instance in Northern Italian varieties) also allow for aspectual interpretations. If, on the basis of these, of the role they play in case systems, etc., we treat prepositions/particles as part of the functional lexicon, what should we infer about spatial primitives? Are they functional? If so, how is their relation to posare, enter, etc. (i.e. canonical lexical verbs) expressed? As mentioned above, the answer envisaged by authors such as Kayne (2006) is that apparent variation in the substantive lexicon reduces to variation in the pronunciation of functional categories; hence the substrings lexicalized by what would traditionally be thought of as lexical categories consist in reality of a number of functional specifications€– which may surface in some languages and not in others, or surface to different extents in different languages. In this way, the functional lexicon effectively spreads over considerable portions of the substantive lexicon; taking this to the extreme, one may want to say that lexical categories are but an epiphenomenon of abstract functional structure. Since the proposal we are putting forward is that lexicons are merely ways of partitioning an abstract categorial space, we are in a way suggesting theories close to those we are taking issue with. At the same time, we consider it significant that we take the step of calling the lexical/functional divide into question, while they typically don’t. To begin with, the different approaches make different empirical predictions in the data domains they both address. Thus, we have specifically referred to Kayne (2006, 2008a, 2009) and Distributed Morphology, since we can directly compare our respective approaches with regard to such domains as fine variation in clitic structures, where we believe our model to be preferable on grounds of descriptive as well as explanatory adequacy (Manzini and Savoia 2009b, 2010).

8â•… The biolinguistic perspective The lexical/functional issue seems to us particularly noteworthy, because at heart it concerns the distinction between the narrow and broad language faculty (FLN and FLB). Let us assume that there is a universal inventory of concepts, and that the lexicon represents a way of realizing it. In theories in which there are in fact two inventories, one for functional categories and one for non-functional ones, it seems to us that the functional and non-functional lexicons are implicitly or explicitly apportioned to the language faculty narrowly construed and broadly construed, respectively. The reduction of the divide that we are proposing has implications not only for the more technical aspects of the theory of grammar, but also opens up the possibility that the universal conceptual repertory which is partitioned by language-particular lexicons is part of the broadly construed language faculty in its entirety. In fact, we see no reason why the grammatically relevant categories investigated here should not constitute categorizations in a domain of general cognition. In other words, what we are saying is that the existence of a functional lexicon associated with the FLN is not a matter of logical or factual necessity€– and as such it should be open to scrutiny. Given the position that we tentatively take on the matter€– namely that eliminating the divide does not imply any empirical problem, and on the contrary allows for a certain simplification of the architecture of language€– we may wonder why such a distinction is so prominent in linguistics. Neuropsychological literature provides much evidence, based both on recent brain imaging techniques and on more traditional language disorders and acquisition studies, that different brain areas are implicated by different conceptual clusters. The prediction is that manipulable objects such as tools are strongly linked to motor behaviour and therefore their representational networks should comprise a significant amount of neurons in motor contexts. Animals, which are most of the time (visually) perceived rather than manipulated, should be represented by networks that partly reside in the visual cortex.â•…â•… (Bastiaansen et al. 2008)

Conversely, ‘assemblies representing function words remain limited to the perisylvian cortex and strongly left-lateralized in typical right-handers’ (Pulvermüller 1999:€260–1). This appears to underlie, in particular, the differential treatment of different sublexicons by aphasic patients (anomics, agrammatics, etc.). Given such results, it does not seem to us to be necessary to draw the conclusion that there is a functional lexicon associated with the computational system of natural language and distinguished on these grounds from a contentive lexicon. Another possibility is that there is a continuum of meaning complexity between the ‘simple’ concrete content words that have clearly defined entities they can refer to … more abstract items that may or may not be used to refer to objects and actions

The biolinguistic perspectiveâ•… 9 and function words … According to the present proposal, the important criterion is the strength of the correlation between the occurrences of a given word form and a class of non-linguistic stimuli or actions.â•…â•… (Pulvermüller 1999:€261)

In other words, it is not so much the functional lexicon that has a special status within the architecture of the mind-brain, but rather certain concrete contents as opposed to more abstract ones. Once freed from the burden of highly articulated inventories and hierarchies of functional categories, we can entertain a simpler syntax, much in the sense of Culicover and Jackendoff (2005). As already mentioned, on the other hand, we do not believe that levels of representations of the type proposed by Culicover and Jackendoff (2005), including rich notions such as grammatical functions, linking rules etc., are required by such a simpler syntax. Rather, the grammar implemented here is a representational version of current minimalist theories (cf. Brody 2003). The relation of the syntax, and more precisely its LF component, to interpretation, as outlined above, is crucial in our view to understanding the role of language variation in the overall economy of the faculty of language. If our construal of syntax and its relation to interpretation is correct, the syntax restricts interpretation, but does not ‘contain’ it (Culicover and Jackendoff 2006). Thus the boundary between syntax and interpretation is a loose one, allowing for a number of different matchings of syntactic form to (inferentially determined) meaning. The looseness of this relation seems to be an essential design feature of the faculty of language, in the sense that it permits the invariant constructs of syntax to cover changing meanings. Lexical items are at the core of language variation simply because they represent the core unit of this interface between syntax and interpretation. In this sense, variation is not an accidental property of the faculty of language, and neither are the characteristics of variation that we try to outline in this study. Rather, they pretty much represent a by-product of the general design of the language faculty. The aspect of our work which provides the title for this book (‘grammatical categories’) has to do with the redefinition of the grammatically relevant classes (i.e. the ‘categories’) of natural language. In general, we take it that the lexicons of natural languages are learnable in that lexical entries individuate natural classes. We apply this logic in particular to Romance complementizers which have the same form as wh–items (Italian che and the like) and to Romance sentential negations which have the same form as negative polarity arguments, in particular ‘nothing’ (Piedmontese nen etc.). In both cases we conclude that lexical identity of form is not a matter of homophony but reveals the sharing of deeper categorizations. This calls into question, among

10â•… The biolinguistic perspective other things, the classical functional categories of C(OMP) (chapters 1–2) and NEG (chapters 3–4). Elsewhere in this book, we find no reason to entertain a functional category status for the so-called AUX(iliaries) have and be, which are argued just to be main verbs selecting a participial clause (chapter 6). In chapter 5 the cluster of meanings associated with Romance si and its Albanian counterpart u are reduced to a unified characterization which also holds of other morphological instantiations of middle-passive voice. Even syncretisms involving case morphology€ – and the functional category K(ASE) according to some (cf. Fillmore 1968; Giusti 1995), are analysed in chapters 7–8 as instances of ambiguous interpretation of the same underlying category, rather than as instances of default lexicalization. This, in turn, requires a revision of the categorizations provided by standard morphological feature systems. It should be kept in mind that the functional structure that this book calls into question (COMP, NEG, AUX, K) is quite independent of recent cartographic proposals (see Cinque and Rizzi (2008) for an overview) which aim to provide a fine-grained picture of functional categories and the way in which they map to syntactic hierarchies. The result is an increase in the number of functional categories, yielding hierarchies of considerable complexity, which have been objected to on the grounds that they enrich the grammar by introducing a great number of new categories and orderings. Yet the same concern regarding the expressive power of the theory could be voiced for standard approaches to functional structure, since the creation of a new functional category or a new feature annotation of an existing category is not subject to any formal or substantive constraints. In this book we propose a take on the problem which goes back to the very first models of exploded structures (Larson 1988), and even further to the very first approaches to ‘functional’ structure in generative grammar (Rosenbaum 1967 on complementation). We argue that structures are indeed atomized, in the sense that a wealth of differentiated head positions are projected under Merge. At the same time, our contention is that a considerable amount of this atomization (perhaps all) does not derive from the introduction of novel categories, but simply from the recursion of certain elementary, identical cells. Thus, the complementizer (chapters 1–2) is not introduced as a specialized head C(OMP); rather, the clearly nominal nature of the complementizer in Romance languages (as in Germanic ones) suggests that the complementizer is the N complement of the matrix verb; in turn, this N takes the embedded sentence as its complement. This structure is as internally articulated as that of Rizzi (1997), but its internal articulation does not depend on a functional hierarchy. Rather, it depends on the recursion of ordinary nominal and sentential

The biolinguistic perspectiveâ•… 11 embeddings. Similarly, negation (chapters 3–4) is one of the earliest functional categories proposed under an articulated view of phrase structure, dating back at least to Pollock (1989). Based on evidence from Romance varieties, we propose, however, that so-called negative adverbs and heads are negative polarity elements, and, even more radically, that they participate in the argumental structure of the verb, coinciding specifically with the individuation of the internal argument position. Thus, in Romance languages, there is neither evidence for a lexicalized negative operator nor for a functional position hosting it. The final case study to be introduced here concerns the internal structure of nouns and noun phrases (chapters 7–8). Following an established trend in generative grammar, we argue for the conclusion that noun phrases (as well as adjective phrases) have the same internal organization as sentences. From this perspective, we take up the classical proposal of Higginbotham (1985) that the D(eterminer) saturates the obligatory (internal) argument of the nominal predicate; in this sense, D properties yet again represent an instantiation not of functional structure, but of predicate–argument structure. Case, in turn, is not construed as a (functional) primitive of grammar, but rather as a label covering much more elementary properties, relating again to the saturation of predicate– argument structures. Throughout the discussion, the emphasis is very much on empirical evidence. We repeatedly argue that our model not only fares better with respect to fairly reasonable simplicity metrics, but also that it has descriptive advantages. In fact, and quite strikingly in our opinion, less powerful theories are better suited to capturing complex (micro)variation data of the type we consider than theories potentially capable of greater descriptive power. In particular, we subscribe to the simplicity argument in favour of representational grammars advanced by Brody (2003). This implies abandoning derivations, including the notions of a cycle (phases) and an asymmetric search space (feature checking). What we retain is representational relations:€chains, agreement, etc. Simplicity is paramount, to the extent that existing empirical evidence does not provide any support for the more complex grammar. In particular, complex data concerning agreement (and variation in agreement patterns) are accounted for in Manzini and Savoia (2005, 2007, 2008a) by abandoning phifeature checking in favour of identity (or better, compatibility) of referential properties; uninterpretable and unvalued features are also eliminated under this approach. At no point is there any evidence that a derivational approach would have empirical advantages€ – on the contrary, the complexity of the variation effectively requires the simpler representational approach. In general, representational grammars are simpler than derivational ones in that the latter postulate

12â•… The biolinguistic perspective purely computational processes whose results are LF-relevant and hence redundant with LF constructs. Movement and the LF-relevant notion of chain are the obvious cases, but this also holds of the computational operation of agreement and its LF reflexes relevant for coreference etc. By contrast, the representational model views LF-relevant relations as determined directly by the interpretive calculus at the LF interface (chains by the theta-calculus, and so on). This adoption of a representational model goes hand in hand with the present take on functional structure. In the minimalist grammar of Chomsky (1995), functional categories, or features, bear the burden of computation, since they crucially enter into feature checking. To the extent that functional categories are reduced to ordinary predicates and arguments, functional feature checking is also replaced by ordinary selectional restrictions. In turn, empty functional heads and/or Specs, needed only for the checking of functional features, can be eliminated. As for the highly articulated hierarchies proposed in cartographic research, if functional and lexical properties of lexical entries are not formally different, as argued here, the most natural and economical assumption is that their ordering is restricted entirely by interpretive principles, including closure requirements, scope, etc. Needless to say, in the absence of any theoretical distinction between functional and lexical elements, we do not expect that they will be inserted at two different points in the derivation, namely in syntactic and morphological structure respectively (as in Distributed Morphology). On the contrary, we predict that all syntactic structure will be projected directly from lexical entries, independently of their properties. In other words, we propose a view in which morphological-level structures and relations are entirely unified with syntax. Lexical entries, in turn, are entirely characterized in terms of positive properties. Another theme of general significance is the question of how the present approach to functional structure relates to the issue of ‘grammaticalization’. In the terms of, say, Roberts and Roussou (2003), grammaticalization is essentially the reanalysis of a lexical category as a functional category, often with the result that a lexical entry can have both a lexical and a functional construal. In such cases we typically propose that there is a single lexical item with a unified (lexical, not functional) characterization; the che ‘that’ complementizer/wh–phrase (chapters 1–2) is a case in point. It is evident that, to the extent that this latter treatment can be generalized, the distinction between functional and lexical dissolves; if so, the problem of why exactly lexical categories would turn into functional ones (i.e. the problem of ‘grammaticalization’) simply does not arise.

1 The structure and interpretation of (Romance) complementizers

In this chapter we start from the observation that in Romance languages, Â�complementizers are nominal, belonging to the same argumental series as wh–phrases, although current theories treat them as functional projections of verbs, filling the same positions as verbs do. We argue that the Romance chetype complementizer is not a functional category of the verb, but rather a nominal head, which satisfies an argument slot of the matrix verb and which takes the embedded sentence as its complement (section 1.1). Both as a wh–phrase and as a complementizer, Italian che introduces a variable. If it Â�introduces an individual variable, the wh–phrase reading arises; if it introduces a propositional variable (ranging over situations or possible worlds) it is read as a so-called complementizer. In section 1.2, we argue that our proposal is compatible with fine distributional evidence relating to the left periphery of the sentence, in particular with the fact that elements such as topics or foci can occur both below the complementizer and above it. We capture this distribution by allowing them to occur at the left periphery of the embedded sentence (below the complementizer) or at the left periphery of the complementizer phrase (above the complementizer). This structural hypothesis predicts that occurrences of the relevant material below and above the complementizer can combine€ – a fact that requires quite complex functional hierarchies in alternative accounts. It should be kept in mind that, insofar as this chapter proposes an alternative to the generally adopted view that the complementizer is a functional projection of the sentence, it is not aimed specifically at so-called cartographic models. These, however, are discussed in some detail in section 1.3 (especially Rizzi 1997, 2001, 2004), because they explicitly consider the same type of data as we do. In section 1.2 we also briefly consider possible general objections to our proposal, for instance concerning the distinction between complementizer phrases and conventional noun phrases:€how is this distinction made for the purposes of selection? Extraction facts are also relevant:€ how are sentences 13

14â•… Romance complementizers:€structure & interpretation introduced by complementizers different from complex NPs? For the purposes of selection, complementizer phrases can be distinguished from conventional noun phrases in that they introduce a propositional and an individual variable respectively. As for extraction, the question why complementizer phrases, in contrast to conventional noun phrases, are not islands is the same as the question why complementizer phrases have a left periphery that is an ‘escape hatch’ (Chomsky 1973), and conventional noun phrases do not. This remains very much an irreducible primitive of all generative approaches (up to Chomsky 1995, 2008), since it is not the case that noun phrases lack a left periphery altogether (Szabolcsi 1994). We construe this primitive not as a structural, but as an interpretive one, contrasting propositional denotations with individual denotations. A different question concerns the fact that, although Romance complementizers belong to the wh–series, they typically have a non-interrogative interpretation. We return to this question in chapter 2, where we show that this property is parametrized. In particular, we illustrate Romance systems where the ‘that’ complementizer€– or an element of the wh–series€– lexicalizes the ‘if’ (interrogative/ hypothetical) complementizer as well. In general, the argument in favour of the present theory is based on explanatory adequacy. First, it simplifies the lexicon, allowing for a unified lexical entry for elements like Italian che, the only possible alternative being homophony. It also solves the mystery of why C would host such disparate categories as verbs and complementizers, reserving what we might continue to call C for verbs. Perhaps most interestingly, it reduces what would otherwise be potentially complex functional hierarchies to the recursion of simple predicate–argument structure (i.e. the complementizer is an argument of the matrix predicate, taking the embedded sentence as its argument). Furthermore, the burden of proof is on alternative theories to prove that they can account in an explanatory way for the fine variation we observe in complementizer systems, a matter to which we return in chapter 2.

1.1

Romance complementizers are nominal and head their own noun phrase

Current theories hold that complementizers are functional projections of the verb, that is, their position is essentially one which could in other circumstances be filled by a verb. This is true independently of whether there is a set of C positions (Rizzi 1997), or a single C position with a rich specifier structure (Chomsky 1995). But if complementizers fit into the same type of position as

Romance complementizers are nominalâ•… 15 verbs, it is unclear why they so clearly coincide with functional projections of the noun:€for instance with demonstratives in Germanic, or with wh–elements in Romance. Even if we were to accept that the relation of complementizers to the wh–system of Romance languages, to the demonstrative system of English etc. is a purely historical one, the question would arise of how nominal, quantificational elements could come to fit verbal specifications. In other words, the form of the problem would change, but not its substance. Consider for instance Italian, in which che, like English that, introduces finite declaratives, as in (1); since Kayne (1976) this has been identified with the relative clause introducer in (2). The same element also introduces interrogatives with the meaning of ‘what’ as in (3). Furthermore, che can appear as the wh–determiner of complex interrogative NPs as in (4). (1)â•… So che fai questo I.know that you.do this ‘I know that you do this’ (2) Il lavoro che fai è noto the workâ•… thatâ•… you.doâ•… is â•… known ‘The work you do is well-known’ (3) Che fai? what you.do? ‘What are you doing?’ (4) Che lavoro fai? which job you.do ‘Which job do you do?’

One possibility that we can reject is that Italian che simply has two lexical entries, one of which corresponds to the ‘that’ complementizer and the other to the ‘what’ wh–element. This solution does not have any explanatory value, given that the pattern that it describes is not an accidental coincidence observed in one or even a few languages, but a systematic phenomenon in Romance, as can be gleaned from the data to follow. What is more, Caponigro and Polinsky (2008) find the same formal identity between the wh–system and the complementizer system in a completely unrelated language, Adyghe (a NW Caucasian, Abkhazo-Adyghean language), showing that in Adyghe the same syntactic structure can be mapped to four different meanings, namely relative clause, complement clause, wh–interrogative and yes–no interrogative. Uncontroversially, in sentences like (3) che heads its own noun phrase, which in turn fills a position in the C field of the sentence, as in (5a). From an interpretive point of view, che introduces a variable corresponding to the internal argument of the predicate fare ‘to do’, as in (5b).

16╅ Romance complementizers:€structure & interpretation (5) a. [che] [C b. che x, fai x

[I fai

In examples of the type in (4), the interrogative noun phrase che lavoro ‘what job’ is associated with a structure of the type in (6a), where che represents a quantificational position Q within the noun phrase. Assuming that the structure of the noun phrase is parallel to that of the sentence, the inflected head noun is positioned in I€ – to parallel the position of the inflected verb within the sentence. From an interpretive point of view, che again introduces a variable restricted by the predicate lavoro ‘job’, as in (6b). (6) a. [Q cheâ•… [I lavoro]] [Câ•… [I fai b.â•… che x:€x lavoro, fai x

Apart from the fact that both complementizer and wh–phrase take the morphophonological form che, from a syntactic point of view the complementizer che in (1) and the wh–phrase che in (3) both occupy a position at the left periphery of the sentence. Since under current theories, complementizer che fills precisely the kind of position that we questioned at the outset, namely C, in (7a) it is assigned to an unnamed position above C€– the latter independently known to be a possible position of the verb in the sentence. From an interpretive point of view, complementizer che could be an operator introducing a variable, again like wh–phrase che€– the main difference between them being the nature of the variable. This ranges over individuals for the wh–phrase che in (5)–(6), while for complementizer che it ranges over situations/possible worlds, as in (7b).1 (7) a. [che [Câ•… [I fai questo b. che x: x fai questo

The fact that the operator-variable structure is interpreted as a question in (5)–(6), but not in (7), need not stand in the way of their unification, as we know that wh–phrase che can also have non-interrogative interpretations (very much like its English counterpart what). Thus che can be the head of a free relative, as in (8), or an exclamative, as in (9). The most natural interpretation of this range of data is that question, declarative (relative) and exclamative values are not intrinsic to the wh–phrase, but rather contextually determined.2 (8) Fai che ti pare do what to.you pleases ‘Do what you like’ (9) Che non farei! what not I.would.do ‘What I wouldn’t do!’

Romance complementizers are nominalâ•… 17 Given the discussion so far, if complementizer che appeared in the appropriate context, there is no reason why it shouldn’t assume the interrogative value of, say, English if or whether. Now, in well-known Romance languages like Italian, ‘if’ has a specialized lexicalization, se in Italian, in which the hypothetical and interrogative values overlap. In chapter 2, however, we will show that this state of affairs does not necessarily hold€– in other words, that there are languages in which the lexicalizations of ‘that’, ‘if’ and ‘wh–’ overlap, as we expect. Similarly, recall that the Adyghe morphology discussed by Caponigro and Polinsky (2008) is ambiguous between a ‘yes–no interrogative’ and a ‘complement clause’ interpretation (among others). Let us assume, then, that complementizer che is to be identified with wh– –phrase che (as the morphology but also the interpretation suggest) and that, as anticipated in the discussion of (7a), it cannot be hosted in C, since C is a verbal position, while che is nominal. An alternative structure is suggested by what is perhaps the earliest approach to finite complementation in generative grammar (Rosenbaum 1967) as well as by analyses of special subsets of complement sentences, notably factives (Kiparsky and Kiparsky 1970) and unselected questions (Adger and Quer 2001). These have in common the postulation of a nominal structure of some sort for sentential complementation. What we propose here is that every sentence introduced by che has a nominal layer, represented by a noun phrase headed by che itself. Thus, in a sentence like (1) the verb heading the matrix sentence takes as its complement a noun phrase headed by the che complementizer, which in turn takes the embedded sentence as its complement, yielding a structure of the type in (10). Following the assumptions we have already introduced in (6) concerning the position of head nouns in noun phrases, che is in I.3 (10)

I che C I fai V

questo

18â•… Romance complementizers:€structure & interpretation It should also be noted that the theoretical literature does contain treatments in which sentential introducers are removed from the C projection(s) of the embedded sentence and are made to depend directly on the main sentential tree. Notably, Kayne (1994), in analysing the infinitival introducers of Romance languages, such as Italian di ‘of’ etc., treats them not as complementizers, but as functional projections of the main verb, triggering movement of the embedded sentence to their Spec position. What we propose here is different, in that we are rejecting entirely the idea that complementizers are functional heads (either of the embedded or of the main sentence) and we are arguing that they are true arguments of the main verb, in turn taking the embedded sentence as their argument. For reasons of space we will not be able to deal with di–type introducers here. Manzini (1982) and Manzini and Savoia (2005) treat them as prepositions. A more direct comparison can be established with the work of Arsenijevic (2009), according to whom ‘the variable denoted by a wh–element gets bound by a question operator in questions or by an appropriate head in relatives. Its presence in F[inite] C[omplement] C[lause]s in a significant number of languages signals that the denotation of these clauses involves a variable’. This conclusion converges with those in the text, yet the syntax proposed by Arsenijevic (2009) for English markedly differs from ours. Thus, that, which semantically introduces a lambda operator, syntactically occupies the conventional C position. The variable over which the lambda operator abstracts corresponds to the Spec of a Force head generated immediately under the C head. This position is occupied either by a nominal expression with Force content such as claim or by its abstract incorporated counterpart for verbs such as to claim (analysed as make claim). In these terms the overall structure assigned to claim that John kissed Mary is a relativization headed by claim:€[N claim [C that [Force claim [John kissed Mary]]]]. Similarly, Kayne (2010) revises his (1976) idea that the relative que of French is really the que complementizer, by proposing instead that ‘that isn’t [a complementizer]. The that that introduces sentential complements is really a relative pronoun … The claim that English sentential that is a relative pronoun must be taken to extend … for example, to Italian che, to French que … From the present perspective that is not a Force in Rizzi’s (1997) sense nor the head of a CP phase in Chomsky’s (2001) sense’. The actual implementation that Kayne provides for these ideas differs markedly from ours, while bearing a considerable resemblance to Arsenijevic’s. In particular, for Kayne ‘factive sentences … have a deleted or silent FACT. If so … factives too must involve relative clause structures.’ Assume, then, that sentential complements and

Structure of the complementizer phraseâ•… 19 sentential subjects are always accompanied by a head noun, even if they are not factive … Either it will be raised from within the relative in a way largely parallel to what happens with overt fact … or a silent noun will be so raised’. We have insisted more than once on the empirical reasons, but also on the general theoretical problems that lead us to reject the silent categories approach of Kayne, for instance in the domain of clitic phenomena (Manzini and Savoia 2008a, 2009a, 2010; Savoia and Manzini 2010). These effectively apply to Arsenijevic (2009) as well. On the other hand, it seems to us that the extra assumptions concerning the (silent) Force phrase of Arsenijevic, or equivalently the silent head nouns of Kayne, are unnecessary, since both the semantics for propositional embedding and the identity of so-called complementizers and wh–phrases follow from the simpler syntax proposed here. We will return to this comparison in chapter 2. In the next section, we argue that the structure in (10) is compatible with the distributional evidence concerning the so-called left periphery of Romance languages€– in fact, it provides a particularly economical way of dealing with it. 1.2

Structure of the complementizer phrase

Given a structure like (10), we predict that material related to the quantificational and informational structure of the sentence (wh–elements, topic, focus, etc.) should be hosted by the left periphery of the embedded sentence and hence should follow the complementizer. Indeed the presence of such material under the complementizer is familiar from English as well as from Romance languages. In (11) we provide some examples from Italian, where (11a) illustrates a topic and (11b) a focus in the left periphery of the embedded sentence. (11)â•… a.â•… b.

So che questo non l’hanno preso I.knowâ•… that â•… this not it they.have taken ‘I know that they haven’t taken this’ So che questo hanno preso (non quello) I.know that this they.haveâ•… taken (not that) ‘I know that they have taken this one, not that one’

As expected, wh–phrases can also appear under the complementizer. In fact, in our own judgement, this option is open in Italian, as in (12). In any event it is fully productive in Southern Italian varieties such as Arena in (13), where any wh–phrase can appear either in the left periphery of the matrix sentence€– i.e. in its scope position, as in (13a’) and (13b’)€– or in the left periphery of the embedded sentence, hence under the complementizer, as in (13a) and (13b).

20â•… Romance complementizers:€structure & interpretation (12)â•… Credi che con chi se la prenderanno you.think that with whom MP it they.will.take ‘Who do you think they will take it out on?’ (13) Arena (Calabria) a.â•… ti kriði ka ðuvi ðrmi you thinkâ•… thatâ•… whereâ•… he.sleeps ‘Where do you think he sleeps?’ a’. duvi ti kriði ka ðrmi where you think that he.sleeps ‘Where do you think he sleeps?’ b. ti kriði ka pEkki vEni you thinkâ•… thatâ•… why he.comes ‘Why do you think he is coming?’ b’. pEkkiâ•… ti kriði ka vEni why you think that he.comes ‘Why do you think he is coming?’

In turn, the verb can invert with the subject in sentences embedded under the complementizer, yielding instances of embedded V2. In particular, among the (present-day) Romance languages, many Romansch and Ladin varieties, like La Pli and Scuol in (14) and (15) respectively, exhibit V2 in embedded sentences, hence under a che-type complementizer. On the standard assumption that V2 depends on the positioning of the verb in C, this means that the left periphery of sentences embedded under the complementizer, i.e. its C field, can host a verb as well. (14)â•… La Pli de Mareo (Alto Adige/South Tyrol) a.â•… i te diZi ke le liber a-i lit I you tell that the book have-I read ‘I am telling you that I have read the book’ b. i te diZi â•… ke endomaN/ gonot/ magari ve-el I you â•… tell thatâ•… tomorrow/ often/ may be comes-he ‘I am telling you that he is coming tomorrow/ often/ perhaps’ (15)

Scuol (Grisons) i m an dit tSa frs drmaS-t/ drm-al they me have told that perhaps sleep-you/ sleeps-he ‘They told me that perhaps you are/ he is sleeping’

The data that have been presented are merely compatible with the structure in (10) and do not in themselves provide any argument in its favour. An adequate analysis of the same data is available within the articulated theory of the C field proposed by Rizzi (1997, 2001, 2004). In particular, the distribution of Italian che and other Romance che-like complementizers in (11)–(15)

Structure of the complementizer phraseâ•… 21 corresponds to that predicted by Rizzi (1997) for the highest complementizer.4 The embedded V2 facts follow, as already proposed by Schwartz and Vikner (1996), if the verb occupies a different C position (in fact the lowest C position for Rizzi (1997)).5 By contrast, the existence of embedded V2 is problematic in frameworks like Chomsky’s (1995), where only one C position is available. In such a framework, one possibility is to derive embedded V2 from the positioning of the verb in I (Santorini 1989). The clitic nature of the inverted subject in (14)–(15) tends to discount this possibility, on the assumption that subject clitics are associated with a high inflectional domain€– hence if the verb were in I, subject clitics should precede, rather than follow, the verb. The only alternative that we can see to Rizzi’s (1997) articulated view of the C field is precisely the one we are advocating here:€namely, treating the complementizer as the head of an independent noun-phrase-like projection. The discussion so far only addresses the conditions that make structures like (14)–(15) possible; a different question altogether is what makes them necessary. According to McCloskey (2004) there is a particular interpretive value associated with embedded V2, which is revealed by the selectional restrictions discussed in the literature on Germanic languages. Thus, the highest layer of an embedded V2 structure€– i.e. the one filled by the complementizer€– realizes illocutionary force, and allows for inversion of the verb in the lower layer. In languages/contexts that do not allow for embedded V2, a single layer is present, hosting the complementizer and excluding V2; this does not realize illocutionary force. We are not aware of any data on Romance embedded V2 that would allow us to decide whether it obeys semantic restrictions. But suppose it does. The general schema of explanation proposed by McCloskey (2004) need not be tied to the double CP structure that he adopts; rather, it can be implemented, as far as we can see, by the structure that is at the heart of the present proposal. Thus, properties of the matrix sentence select a particular set of properties on the embedded complementizer€– which in turn select for V2 in the embedded sentence. Languages/contexts without embedded V2 simply do not select for the relevant properties on the complementizer head, and so the V2 position of the verb is not selected in the embedded sentence.6 While in (12)–(13) we have seen some cases where the che-type complementizer precedes a wh– phrase, there are many Romance varieties in which the che-type complementizer follows a wh–phrase in both main and embedded interrogatives. This pattern is quite robust in Northern Italian varieties; in (16) we exemplify just one of them.

22â•… Romance complementizers:€structure & interpretation (16) â•… Castellazzo Bormida (Piedmont) a.â•… kwan k i madZi when that you.pl eat ‘When do you eat?’ b. dallwO k i d4wOmi where that you.pl sleep ‘Where do you sleep?’

Now, precisely because the complementizer is the head of an independent constituent, a left periphery can be postulated for it as well. In this schema of explanation, therefore, the wh–phrase that precedes che belongs to the left periphery of the complementizer itself, roughly as in (17). Note that the wh–phrase dallw ‘where’ is simply categorized according to its relation to the predicate, as Loc(ative); we will return to the theory of left periphery elements that this labelling implies. (17) Castellazzo Bormida Loc dallw

c C I k C D i I drw mi c

The analysis in (17) predicts that the entire set of focus and topic elements should be able to appear to the left of the complementizer. Examples like those in (18)–(19) show that the left periphery of the complementizer can host not only wh–elements (presumably foci) but also topicalized material, including both adverbs and the lexical subject, doubled by the subject clitic following the complementizer.

Structure of the complementizer phraseâ•… 23 (18)

Castellazzo Bormida marjo dal’lw k u dRwm Mario where that he sleeps ‘Where does Mario sleep?’

(19)

Cerano (Piedmont) lo:/ adme� inda k i ve� they/ tomorrow where that they go ‘Where are they going (tomorrow)?’

Our structural hypothesis therefore accounts both for data in which the complementizer has topic and focus material to its right and for data in which it has topic and focus material to its left, and thus matches the descriptive power of an articulated C field of the type in Rizzi (1997). At this point the important question arises of whether a left periphery of the type in (16)–(19) is restricted to complementizer-headed noun phrases or whether it can associate with noun phrases in general. It is evident that, to the extent that the structure of noun phrases parallels that of sentences, noun phrases are predicted to host leftÂ�peripheral material exactly as the sentence does. In fact, the left periphery of the noun phrase in (6) hosts the wh–item che, paralleling the left periphery of the sentence in (5). Similarly, the ability of the left periphery of Hungarian DPs to act as an escape hatch for a possessor phrase was the key to Szabolcsi’s (1994) proposal of a parallel structure for noun phrases and sentences. Nevertheless, an asymmetry between sentences/complementizer-headed noun phrases and other noun phrases does in fact exist€– namely, that operators hosted at the left periphery of ordinary noun phrases must bind variables within the noun phrase itself. By contrast, sentences and complementizerheaded phrases can host operators binding long-distance variables. Within the analysis that we are suggesting, this asymmetry can be captured by saying that only propositions and nouns introducing propositional variables€– i.e. complementizers€– can support the relevant set of operators. This distinction is stipulated€– i.e. it is an apparently irreducible primitive of natural languages. But exactly the same is true of Chomsky’s (1973) original proposal of a C(OMP) node providing an ‘escape hatch’ for Subjacency in S(entences) but not in NPs, and its successors up to the present (Chomsky 1995, 2001, 2008). 1.2.1

Combining a left periphery in the complementizer phrase and in the embedded sentence; combining two complementizers Suppose we accept that left-peripheral material occurring after the complementizer is associated with the embedded sentence, while left-peripheral material occurring before the complementizer is associated with the left periphery of

24â•… Romance complementizers:€structure & interpretation the complementizer itself. We then predict that the two left peripheries should combine. The simplest verification of this prediction is that topics can not only precede the cluster of wh–phrase and che, as in (18)–(19), but they can also follow it, as in (20). In present terms, this means that in (20) the wh–phrase occurs in the left periphery of the complementizer, while the topic appears in the left periphery of the embedded sentence.7 (20)â•…

Castellazzo Bormida dallw kə  mat  drm where that the girl she sleeps ‘Where is the girl sleeping?’

Furthermore, a left periphery associated with the complementizer, in the shape of a wh–phrase and/or topics preceding it, can be combined with a left periphery in the embedded sentence in the shape of a verb in C. In other words, it is possible to embed V2 (as revealed by subject–verb inversion) under a sequence of wh–phrase and che complementizer, as in (21)–(22). Note that in the Cantoira example (22b), the complementizer is preceded not only by the wh–phrase, but also by the topicalized subject. (21)â•… Mezzenile (Piedmont) a. əndua k u wnt-i where that they go-they ‘Where are they going?’ b. kaŋ k u viunt-i when that they come-they ‘When are they coming?’ (22) Cantoira (Piedmont) a. ənduə k u dyərt-e whereâ•… thatâ•… theyâ•… sleep-they ‘Where do they sleep?’ b. lu: andua k u vEnt-e they where that they go-they ‘Where are they going?’

Data of the type in (21)–(22) are associated by the present theory with structures of the type in (23), in which the left periphery of the complementizer combines with the left periphery of the sentence embedded under it. The position of the verb, although we keep the conventional C label for it, is now characterized by exclusively verbal properties. Note also that two copies of the subject clitic D are present in (23), on either side of the verb; we assume that while the inverted subject clitic is in the ordinary subject (clitic) position

Structure of the complementizer phraseâ•… 25 immediately above I, the higher copy is in the C domain.8 In keeping with the labelling introduced in connection with (17), the wh–phrase is categorized as Loc(ative) by its intrinsic content€– as is the topicalized subject, notated as D like its clitic counterparts. We shall return to the lack of Top (Focus etc.) labels in section 1.3. (23) Cantoira D lu Loc andua (C) I ke D u C ��nt D e

Poletto (2000), working essentially within Rizzi’s (1997) framework, argues that in sentences like (21)–(22), che is inserted in an intermediate position of the C field. This is distinct from the higher C position (Force for Rizzi (1997)) involved in examples like (11)–(15), and from the lower C position (finiteness for Rizzi (1997)) involved in (16)–(20). Thus, theories of CP recursion can match the descriptive power of the present theory (with a single complementizer position combined with two left peripheries) by postulating three separate complementizer positions. Despite this apparent descriptive equivalence, the two theories are clearly different. Consider the fact that in several varieties interrogatives introduced by a wh–phrase alternate with interrogatives introduced by a wh–phrase and che. In at least some of them, the former have subject clitic inversion€– i.e. V2,

26â•… Romance complementizers:€structure & interpretation as in (24a’ and b’)€– but the latter don’t, as in (24a and b). In many more varieties, for instance Castellazzo Bormida, wh–questions introduced by the wh–phrase and che without inversion, as in (17), alternate with yes–no questions with inversion, as in (25). Both facts lead to the conclusion that in the relevant languages the cluster of wh–phrase and che is in complementary distribution with V2, which is otherwise required by interrogatives. (24)â•… Viguzzolo (Piedmont) a. indE k u drmæ where that he sleeps ‘Where does he sleep?’ a’. ind u drmæ-l where he sleeps-he ‘Where does he sleep?’ b. kwænt k u drmæ how.much that he sleeps ‘How much does he sleep?’ b’. kwand u drmæ-l when he sleeps-he ‘When does he sleep?’ (25)

Castellazzo Bormida 4 d4wm-4 she sleep-she ‘Does she sleep?’

A theory such as Poletto (2000) predicts the data in (24) by assuming that the che complementizer sits in the lowest C position; if so, verb movement will not be able to target that position€ – nor, according to Poletto (2000), will it be able to target any higher position because of minimality. However, under the schema of explanation adopted here, the wh–phrase is in the left periphery of the complementizer che and the verb is in the C position of the embedded sentence, exactly as discussed for (23). Hence the two positions are different, and neither interferes with the movement paths of the other, so the fact that they cannot both be filled in (24) must be explained on other grounds. In present terms, in varieties like (24), when the wh–phrase is introduced in the left periphery of the sentence, interrogative modality is lexicalized by the verb in C, as in (24a’ and b’). By contrast, if the wh–phrase is introduced in the left periphery of the complementizer, V2 is no longer necessary and is in fact excluded, as in (24a and b); we assume that this is so because of a selectional constraint, whereby the complementizer selects the declarative

Structure of the complementizer phraseâ•… 27 modality (i.e. the V in I rather than in C) in the embedded sentence. In the (rarer) languages of the type in (23), interrogative modality is lexicalized by the verb in C even when the sentence is embedded under the complementizer. There is no need, and indeed no evidence, for a different categorization of the complementizer which ultimately yields its different position, as in Poletto (2000). Let us mention also that, along with languages which form interrogatives with a wh–phrase and che (no V2), as in (16)–(20), languages which form them with a wh–phrase and V2 (no che), as in (24a’ and b’), and languages that form them with both che and V2, as in (21)–(23), there are languages that form them with neither. Thus, in (26) the wh–phrase introduces an interrogative sentence alone, i.e. without che-type complementizer, while at the same time the verb does not realize interrogative modality in C, but remains in I, as can be seen by the lack of inversion with the subject (clitic). (26)

Filattiera (Tuscany) ke kamiza t yi what shirt you want ‘Which shirt do you want?’

Our examples so far involve main sentences. Leaving aside embedded questions introduced by the ‘if’ complementizer (to which we return in chapter 2), in embedded wh–questions V2 is generally not found. This is the case in languages in which no inversion is found in main wh–questions, as in the Castellazzo Bormida example in (16’), in languages that do have inversion, as in the Cantoira example in (22’), and also in the Viguzzolo example in (24’) in the absence of a complementizer. In other words, V2 is generally limited to root contexts. We conclude that, contrary to the Romansh/Ladin varieties with embedded V2 in (14)–(15), matrix predicates in Northern Italian languages do not select for V in C in the embedded sentence€– nor for properties of the che-type complementizer that in turn select for embedded V2. (16’)â•…

Castellazzo Bormida di-m ki k i4 vi6N tell-me who that he comes ‘Tell me who is coming’

(22’)

Cantoira di-me ki (k) e vint tell-me whoâ•… thatâ•… heâ•… comes ‘Tell me who comes’

28â•… Romance complementizers:€structure & interpretation (24’)

Viguzzolo a ŋ s2 k a f@ŋ Iâ•… notâ•… knowâ•… whatâ•… theyâ•… do ‘I don’t know what they do’

At the same, there is no structural impossibility of having V2 in embedded questions€ – a fact which is duly reflected by the existence of data like (27) attesting the possibility of the relevant patterns. In this case we assume that the verb indeed lexicalizes interrogative modality in C. It is this interpretive property that discriminates between the pattern in (16’), (22’) and (24’), and the (much rarer) one in (27). From a strictly syntactic point of view, they are equally possible. (27) â•… Castiglione d’Adda (Lombardy) a. di-m sa tSam-ot tell-me who call-you ‘Tell me who you are calling’ b. di m sa sE -t a dre a fa tell me what are you in the process of doing ‘Tell me what you are doing’

A final set of examples which have been considered in the literature in the context of Rizzi’s (1997) proposals concerning an articulated left periphery involve the lexicalization of left-peripheral material, typically a topic, between two copies of the same che-type complementizer, as in (28). Examples like (28) are predicted within a theory of complementizers as functional heads, on the assumption that more than one complementizer position in the hierarchy is instantiated, along the lines of Paoli (2007). (28)â•… Castellazzo Bormida a. l E mii ke nuiâ•… k a l lavu itâ•… isâ•… betterâ•… thatâ•… we thatâ•… weâ•… itâ•… wash ‘It is better that we wash it’ b. l E mii ke vujautSâ•… k i m la dagi it is better that you.pl that you.pl me it give ‘It is better that you give it to me’

In the structures that we have laid out so far there is no room for two complementizers co-occurring. This is not to say that structures cannot be provided for (28). On the contrary, the relevant examples can be adequately described through recursion of the complementizer phrase. In other words, as shown in (29), the matrix predicate takes as a complement the higher complementizer, which in turn selects the lower complementizer, hosting the topic in its left periphery, and embedding the complement sentence.9

Structure of the complementizer phraseâ•… 29 (29) Castellazzo Bormida I ke D vujautʃ I ke D i

... I dagi

Needless to say, the question is not only whether a structure, say (29), can be assigned to a sentence like (28), but also what forces this structure. McCloskey (2004) entertains two alternatives. The first is that double complementizer structures semantically differ from simple complementizer structures; the other possibility is that the higher layer of complementizer structure ‘exists solely to facilitate the adjunction’ of the embedded topic material (McCloskey 2004:€ fn.€ 30). As it turns out, Paoli (2007) argues that both possibilities are instantiated in Romance. Thus, she finds that the double complementizer structures of Turinese (but ‘not the “mainstream” type spoke in Turin’) and of Ligurian are semantically restricted, in that the lower complementizer must select the subjunctive. By contrast, our data from Castellazzo in (28) display the double complementizer phenomenon both with the indicative in (28a) and the subjunctive in (28b). In this respect they seem entirely comparable to the data that Paoli (2007) quotes from Medieval Romance (Tuscan and other varieties). Since the evidence we have does not point to a semantic distinction between double and simple complementizer structures, they must be distinguished on structural grounds. Specifically, based on the evidence that we have, we conclude that matrix predicates in Castellazzo can immediately embed complementizers, as in (29), or wh–phrases as in (16’), but not topic/focus material. This state of affairs can be captured in terms of a selectional constraint imposed by the matrix verb on any complementizer phrase it embeds€– roughly to the effect that it can contain only clause-typing material (in the sense of Cheng (1991)), i.e. only declarative che or the interrogative cluster of wh–phrase and

30â•… Romance complementizers:€structure & interpretation che. Two alternatives are then open for the insertion of focus/topic material. First, one can position such material in the left periphery of the embedded sentence, as in (20). Alternatively, it can be positioned in the left periphery of the embedded complementizer€– but then a higher complementizer must be added, satisfying the selectional constraint just defined, as in (29). In this respect, therefore, we reject the view of Paoli (2007:€ 1075), according to whom the lower complementizer ‘is not a subordinating particle, but overt realization of Top°’ in medieval Romance.10 1.2.2 Some potential problems Before we proceed with our discussion, we will try to clear the ground of a number of quite general questions that may be raised against our approach. Perhaps the most basic such question involves selection of an embedded complement by a matrix predicate. If a complementizer head in Romance is nominal and its projection is a noun phrase, how can we state the distinction between selecting for a complementizer phrase, i.e. a sentence, and selecting for an ordinary noun phrase? The answer is that in terms of the interpretive categories adopted here, complementizers (like bare sentences) correspond to propositions, while conventional noun phrases correspond to individual terms. Therefore selection can adequately be stated on the basis of interpretive categories.11 Selection may even provide an argument in favour of the present articulation of the left periphery, as opposed to the cartographic one. Suppose that a higher predicate embeds a sentence whose leftmost and highest element is, say, a topic, as would be the case, for instance, in (18) and (19). Under Rizzi’s (1997) theory the predicate effectively embeds a topic phrase€– which, according to Newmeyer (2005), provides no clear grounds for selecting the interrogative force in lower functional projections. Whether this turns out to be a serious problem or not, it does not arise in the theory that we are building. A verb selecting for a complementizer-headed noun phrase selects for the properties of the complementizer head. Alternatively, if the higher predicate selects a bare sentence€– i.e. one without a complementizer€– it selects for properties of the embedded verbal head. Another property that has been consistently used to explain differences in distribution between noun phrases and sentences is Case. In the present framework, Case cannot be used to this end precisely because complementizers, which introduce sentences, are nominal€– and should therefore have the same Case properties as ordinary nouns. The evidence with which Stowell (1981) introduces his Case Resistance Principle concerns the fact that noun phrases, including gerunds, can be the object of a preposition, but sentences cannot, as in (30a) vs. (30b).

Structure of the complementizer phraseâ•… 31 (30) a. We talked about the Marines going to Iraq b. *We talked about that the Marines went to Iraq

Now, elements such as before, after and without would seem to be prepositions since they can select noun phrases. But their Italian counterparts also embed sentences introduced by che, as shown in (31). Hence there appears to be no general selectional constraint against sentences as objects of prepositions or against complementizers in such a position. To the extent that more specific constraints are real, they can be stated again in terms of the interpretive notions of individual vs. propositional variable. (31) a. b.

Sono arrivato prima/dopo che I.am arrived before/after that ‘I arrived before/after you left’ Me ne sono andato senza me away am gone without ‘I went without you noticing it’

sei partito you.are left che te ne accorgessi that you of.it noticed

A different kind of question has to do with the fact that theories in which a sentential complement is contained within a nominal layer have been proposed before€– but typically differentiate between various types of sentential complements. Specifically, Kiparsky and Kiparsky (1970) differentiate complements of factive verbs, which are endowed with a nominal layer, from complements of non-factive verbs, which do not have such a layer. Crucially, different syntactic behaviours are argued to follow from the different structures. Thus, it is suggested that factive verbs are islands for extractions, since their structure makes them into complex NPs. Our judgement for Italian is that there really is no difference between extraction from a non-factive context like (32a) and extraction from a factive one like (32b)€– and even extraction from ‘the fact that’ in (32c) is not severely degraded. In contrast, there is a strong contrast with extraction from a relative clause, as in (32d). (32) a. b. c.

Chi pensi che non abbiamo visto? Who you.think that not we.have seen ‘Who do you think that we didn’t see?’ Chi ti dispiace che non possiamo vedere? who you regrets that not we.can see ‘Who do you regret that we can’t see?’ Chi ti dispiace il fatto che non possiamo vedere? who you regrets the fact that not we.can see ‘Who do you regret the fact that we can’t see?’

32â•… Romance complementizers:€structure & interpretation d. d’.

*Chi ti dispiace il motivo perâ•… cui non possiamo vedere who you regrets the motiveâ•… for whichâ•… not we.can see ‘Who do you regret the reason why we can’t see?’ Chiâ•… ti chiediâ•… perchèâ•… nonâ•… abbiano potuto vedere? who youâ•… ask why not they.haveâ•… been.ableâ•… to.see ‘Who do you wonder why they haven’t been able to see?’

The fact that (32b) patterns with (32a) may simplify our task with respect to the distinction between factive and non-factive complements, since we may not need to worry about providing different structures for them. But the clear contrast between (32a) and (32d) raises the question of whether they shouldn’t both be blocked as instances of complex NP islands. In fact, this question can be reduced to the one we discussed at the end of section 1.2.1 concerning the admissibility of long-distance operator material in the left periphery of sentences vs. noun phrases. There we concluded that complementizers and sentences (because of their common propositional content) differ from other noun phrases in being able to host such material€ – i.e. in behaving like ‘escape hatches’. If so, we expect that ordinary noun phrases may give rise to a complex NP island effect, whereas complementizers do not. In other words, there is nothing in the present proposal contradicting standard accounts of islands in terms of subjacency/ phases€– though we remain strictly non-committal with respect to them.12 Italian does display some limited sensitivity to factive islands with adjuncts, which can have both matrix and embedded scope in sentences like (33a), while in (33b) embedded scope appears to be quite hard to obtain. This suggests that the adjunct cannot be extracted from the factive sentence€ – though this extraction is possible from the non-factive one. In other words, factives show an asymmetry between arguments, as in (32b) and adjuncts, as in (33b) of the type well known from Cinque (1990), and accounted for since Rizzi (1990) as a Minimality effect. (33)â•… a.â•… b.

Perchèâ•… pensi che siano venuti? why you.think that they.are come ‘Why do you think that they are coming?’ Perchè ti dispiace che siano venuti? why you regrets that they.are come ‘Why do you regret that they came?’

Now, we know that in some languages the factive vs. non-factive distinction involves the choice of different complementizers, one such language being Greek, as studied by Roussou (1994). Therefore it is natural to propose that the embedded complementizer in (33b) has some property (selected by the higher predicate) that the complementizer in (33a) does not have, for instance a

Structure of the complementizer phraseâ•… 33 definiteness property, which, as suggested by Roussou (1994), is consistent with the interpretation of factivity. It is reasonable to think that this property triggers a Minimality effect in (33b) which is absent from (33a). In other words, the present analysis of complementizers need not interfere with current theories of extraction (with respect to which we remain non-committal, as before). Rather, the two issues are orthogonal. Summing up so far, the structure that we propose for complementizers is motivated in section 1.1 on the basis of their nominal nature in Romance, as seen in the fact that they have the same form as wh–elements. Section 1.2.1 shows that this structure is compatible with the distribution of the complementizer with respect to other elements of the so-called left periphery. But note that this latter result depends on the complementizer being the head of its own projection€– and does not depend on it having the same form as the wh–operator or even a nominal nature. In other words, though we argued that the nominal, wh– nature of Romance complementizers requires the structure we propose for them, nothing in the structure we propose requires nominal, let alone wh– properties in the complementizer. Complementizers which do not coincide with wh–elements can easily be seen in Romance systems. A simple example is provided in (34), from a variety from Sardinia which distinguishes the declarative complementizer ki, as in (34a), from kiE ‘who’ in (34b) and kalE ‘which’ in (34d), as well as from ittE ‘what’ in (34c–d). Thus, though the complementizer can be assigned to the k-series to which ‘who’ and ‘which’ belong, it does not coincide with any wh–item. For languages like (34), we of course maintain the same analysis as for Italian che. In fact, given the morphological relatedness of ki to the ksystem of wh–elements, a language like Luras can be described as having a specialized wh–operator for propositional variables. (34)â•… Luras (Sardinia) a.â•… m ana naDuâ•… ki enis kraza to.meâ•… they.haveâ•… told thatâ•… you.comeâ•… tomorrow ‘They told me that you are coming tomorrow’ b. kiE eniDi whoâ•… comes ‘Who is coming?’ c. ittE znâ•… fattEN whatâ•… they.are doing ‘What are they doing?’ d. ittE/ kalE libbru t a llEaDu what/ whichâ•… book to.youâ•… he.hasâ•… brought ‘What/which book did he bring you?’

34â•… Romance complementizers:€structure & interpretation We know from Germanic languages that complementizers can belong to a non-wh– nominal series, namely that of demonstratives, like English that. We maintain the idea that the complementizer introduces a propositional variable for these languages as well. On the other hand, a wh–complementizer of the type generally instantiated in Romance (but also in Adyghe according to Caponigro and Polinsky (2008)) is very naturally construed as a lambda abstractor; the question of how best to construe the demonstrative complementizer of English is left open here. A related open question is whether the different nature of the complementizer has reflexes in the syntax and in the interpretation of Romance vs. Germanic complementation. In chapter 2 we introduce Romance complementizer systems that have no counterpart in Germanic languages known to us, possibly indicating that these are possibilities open to wh–complementation systems but not to demonstrative ones. Further afield, there are languages in which so-called complementizers are verbal, rather than nominal in nature. A case in point is the Buru language of Eastern Indonesia, as discussed by Roberts and Roussou (2003) on the basis of Klamer (2000). In Buru, fen can function as a main verb followed by a quotation, as in (35a), or can combine with another verb of saying introducing direct speech as in (35b) or indirect speech as in (35c); the data are from Klamer (2000). (35)â•… a.â•… b. c.

Nak ana-t feneâ•… “Ng-ina nau daholo” 3sgPossâ•… child-Nomâ•… say 1sgVoc-motherâ•… 1sgPossâ•… bunch-head ‘Her child said, “Mother, the hand (of bananas) at the top of the stalk is mine”’ Da prepaâ•… fenâ•… “Siraâ•… ruaâ•… kaduk” 3sgâ•… speak say 3pl two arrive ‘She said “The two of them came”’ Da prepa fene ringe mata haik 3sg speak say 3sg die Prf ‘He said that he was already dead’

Under the present approach, in all three examples in (35) fen can be treated as the I head of its own projection€– in this case not a noun-phrase-like projection, but a verb phrase-/sentence-like projection. In the absence of other verbal specifications, fen is read as a main verb, as in (35a)€– which we predict to be possible precisely on the basis of the fact that it heads a verb phrase-/sentencelike constituent. On the other hand, the combination of fen with another verb in (35b–c) recalls so-called serial verb constructions. In Manzini and Savoia (2005) we consider serial verbs in connection with constructions in Southern Italian varieties in which aspectual/modal/motion verbs with reduced or absent inflectional properties embed sentential complements, on condition that their

Structure of the complementizer phraseâ•… 35 temporal reference and their EPP (Extended Projection Principle) arguments coincide. We conclude that these constructions involve complex predicate formation; this implies the coincidence of temporal reference and argumental structure€ – and in turn these properties will typically result in a lack of inflection on one of the two verbs. The same general properties seem to hold in (35b–c), in which the so-called complementizer status of fen can then be described in terms of complex predicate formation€– again on the basis of the usual structure in which it heads a verb phrase-/sentence-like projection. Data of the type in (35) are worth bringing up not only for their intrinsic interest€– but also because of an issue that we raised in passing in section 1.1 and then abandoned in subsequent discussion:€namely, that (35) and the like are routinely described in terms of processes of historical change. Thus, according to Klamer (2000:80), ‘we can explain the synchronic distributional restrictions on fen if we assume that historically … the report verb fen(e) has developed an alternative interpretation as a quote marker fen … In contexts where fen is preceded by another verb which reports words, thoughts, or perceptions, it has developed a complementizer interpretation’. To quote just one similar case, for Whitman (2000:€222) in Ewe ‘the categorial feature of bé “say” changes from V to C’. A closer term of comparison with the present theory is provided by Roberts and Roussou’s (2003) discussion of English that€– an element which we have cited more than once as providing evidence for the connection of complementizers with bona fide nominal heads. In a nutshell, when it comes to that ‘we are dealing with one and the same lexical item which can surface as either D or C’ (Roberts and Roussou 2003:€115). This analysis is compared to Davidson’s (1997 [1968]:€828–9) idea that ‘sentences in indirect discourse, as it happens, wear their logical form on their sleeves … They consist of an expression referring to a speaker, the two place predicate “said”, and a demonstrative referring to an utterance’. According to Roberts and Roussou (2003:€113–14), in Davidson’s analysis complementizer that ‘is actually the demonstrative’; by contrast, ‘it is possible to argue that that in terms of its position in the sentence has been grammaticalized as a C element’. In present terms, the explanation for the range of interpretations of, say, Italian che or English that has to do with conditions internal to a single grammatical competence system; in other words, there is no necessity for invoking several competence systems in a relation of historical change to one another. Specifically, no grammaticalization is implied, understood roughly as reanalysis from lexical to functional (Roberts and Roussou 2003). In this respect the present analysis is closer to the syntactically naive one of Davidson (1997

36â•… Romance complementizers:€structure & interpretation [1968]). The gist of our proposal is that Italian che and its Romance counterparts are nominal quantificational heads in all cases€ – with a syntax typical of nominal heads, i.e. that of serving as arguments of predicates, and with a semantic content typical of quantificational heads, i.e. that of introducing variables. Similarly, we surmise that both demonstrative that and complementizer that are nominal heads and arguments of verbs; the only difference is that complementizer that has a propositional restrictor and demonstrative that a nominal one. Before proceeding, we will consider just one more issue. Nothing that we have said so far leads us to expect that complementizers appear only in embedded contexts. In fact we have already seen a complementizer occurring in matrix sentences:€ namely, the che-type element following the wh–phrase in (16)–(24).13 The che complementizer also introduces yes–no matrix questions in a variety like Florence in (36), though in the same variety wh–questions are introduced simply by a wh–phrase (as in standard Italian). We surmise that the insertion of ke in yes–no questions corresponds to the presence of a focalization bearing on the main verb, paralleling the focalization on the wh–constituent in wh–questions, but consistent with the yes–no interpretation. If so, we can maintain that the yes–no complementizer proper (i.e. what we will call the polarity complementizer in chapter 2) is the se ‘if’ element that occurs in embedded yes–no questions (in Florence as in standard Italian). (36)

Firenze (Tuscany) ke lla viEne la maria that she comes the Mary ‘Is Mary coming?’

Finally, matrix instantiations of the complementizer are also possible in standard Italian, subject to a modal split, since matrix subjunctives can be introduced by the complementizer, as in (37), while matrix indicatives are not. In other Romance varieties, the che-type complementizer can introduce ordinary indicative sentences, as reported in the literature for Provençal (Ronjat 1937:€536 ff.) and Guascon (Rohlfs 1977:€205); an example from Sardinian is provided in (38). (37) Che entrino that they.enter ‘Let them enter’ (38)

Àllai (Sardinia) ka dZai ɖɖ a ffattu that alreadyâ•… it he.hasâ•… done ‘He has already done it’

The left periphery beyond complementizersâ•… 37 1.3

The left periphery beyond complementizers

In the discussion of distributional evidence in section 1.2, we argued that this evidence is also accounted for by our analysis when tested against the alternative view of complementizers as functional categories of the verb. The argument in favour of our hypothesis does not have to do with empirical coverage per se, but rather with the way in which this empirical coverage is achieved. In our view, there are features of the present proposal that make it more conceptually perspicuous (more explanatory) than available alternatives. In particular, the cartographic model, which aims at an empirical coverage comparable to ours, is associated with a trend towards finer-grained phrase structure. In a sense, such an approach is simply what the empirical evidence requires€– and in this sense we share it. At the same time, in the specific implementation of the cartographic programme presented, say, by Rizzi (1997, 2001, 2004), the fine articulation of syntactic structure derives from the postulation of specialized hierarchies of functional categories. The model of the left periphery that we have defined here is clearly different. Thus, where Rizzi (1997) has a hierarchy of functional projections for complementizers, we have a single complementizer position€– and this position is not functional. Rather, on the evidence of its morpholexical form as well as its interpretation, the complementizer is the head of a noun phrase that selects the embedded sentence. In other words, a certain amount of the articulation of the so-called left periphery is achieved through the recursion of predicate–argument structures€– the superordinate verb selecting the complementizer noun phrase as its argument, and this in turn selecting the embedded sentence as its argument. Critics of cartography note that functional hierarchies are potentially unrestricted devices, since a new position or set of positions in the hierarchy can always be introduced to meet new empirical evidence. The present approach exempts at least complementizer structures from this potential problem. On the other hand, the present chapter so far only deals with the complementizer itself. Nothing that we have said touches on the independent issue of whether there is a single (conventionally C) position to which the verb can move or more than one. In previous work we have sided in favour of more than one verb position above I€– based notably on the comparison of finite verbs in questions and V2 with imperatives and infinitives. Evidence concerning their distribution with respect to clitics (enclisis vs. proclisis), negation and other material leads us to the conclusion that at least two different (conventionally C) positions of the verb are involved. In adopting multiple head positions above I, we therefore follow Rizzi (1997) and the related cartographic literature.

38â•… Romance complementizers:€structure & interpretation At the same time, in the model of Rizzi (1997, 2001, 2004), the possible head positions above I are also used to order topic, focus and other phrasal material, for it is one of the postulates of standard cartography, based on Kayne’s (1994) anti-symmetry, that there is a single Spec position for each head; therefore a head hierarchy automatically defines a hierarchy of phrasal material€ – and in fact hierarchies of phrasal material are stated as hierarchical orderings of the heads to which they attach (cf. Cinque 1999 on adverbs). The issue of the ordering of phrasal material in the left periphery is logically independent of the status of complementizers. It is evident, however, that the present reanalysis of complementizers leads us to expect that a considerable amount of currently postulated functional structure may be dispensed with in that respect as well. In this respect, potentially more promising views are held by Chomsky (1995, 2000a, 2008), according to whom each head supports any number of Specs (as for Brody (2003)), while topic, focus and similar notions correspond to interface interpretations€– not to features (or categories) entering syntactic computations. 1.3.1 Is order dictated by interpretation€– or interpretation by order? In what follows, we concentrate on the respective position of wh–phrases and of lexical subjects, specifically in Northern Italian varieties with subject clitics. The topic(-like) nature of the lexical subject in Romance languages is supported precisely by their position in questions. Thus, in subject-clitic languages the subject clitic follows finite verbs in questions, including the auxiliary, as in (39). This corresponds to the position of the lexical subject in Germanic languages, and can be analysed accordingly, as a result of the clitic remaining in the same position as in declarative sentences€– while the verb alternates between I in declaratives and C in questions. By contrast, lexical subjects in Romance do not appear between the auxiliary and the participle, but only after the participle or before the auxiliary, i.e. in the right or left periphery of the sentence, as in (39) again. (39)â•… Oviglio (Piedmont) a.â•… E -l amni marju is he come Mario ‘Has Mario come?’ b. marju E -l amni Mario is he come ‘Has Mario come?’

When wh–phrases are brought into the picture, it remains true that lexical subjects are generally positioned in the right or left periphery of the sentence;

The left periphery beyond complementizersâ•… 39 however, in this latter case they are found before the wh–phrase, as in (40a), and not between the wh–phrase and the verb, as in (40b). The examples in (40c-d) illustrate the parallelism of other topics with lexical subject in this respect. Both are normally excluded from the position between the wh–phrase and the verb in C. (40)â•… Modena (Emilia) a. lo ki tSam -el he who calls he ‘Who does he call?’ b. *ki lo tSam -el whoâ•… he calls he c. la torta indo l E -t the cake where it have you ‘Where have you put the cake?’ d. *indo la torta l E -t where the cake it have you

mesa put mesa put

According to Rizzi (1997:€ 299), the positioning of the lexical subject is determined essentially by the Wh–Criterion of Rizzi (1996), whose satisfaction requires the verb and the wh–phrase to be in a head-Spec configuration in C(Focus)P, which forces their adjacency and hence the impossibility of a lexical subject (or other material) intervening between them. At the same time, even for Rizzi (1996:€87), the unacceptability of a sentence like (41a) in Italian contrasts with the grammaticality of (41b), in which the lexical subject intervenes between the wh–phrase perchè ‘why’ and the verb. (41)â•… a.â•… b.

*Dove Gianni è andato? where G. is gone ‘Where has Gianni gone?’ Perché Gianni è partito? why G. is left ‘Why has Gianni left?’

Working in a model with a single C position, Rizzi (1996) proposes that in sentences like (41b), it is the wh–phrase perchè that occupies this position, so that the verb is in the ordinary I position and the subject precedes it. However, in Northern Italian varieties the position of the lexical subject between ‘why’ and the verb combines with inversion of the subject clitic and the verb, as in (42), indicating that the verb is in C. (42)â•…

Modena perkE al putEin e l parti why the child is he left ‘Why has the child left?’

40â•… Romance complementizers:€structure & interpretation In fact, it is not just ‘why’ that allows for the lexical subject (or other topical material) to appear between the wh–phrase and the verb, as Rizzi (1996:€87) also remarks. In his terms, the obligatoriness of verb movement to C in interrogatives is weakened when a D-linked wh–phrase is involved, for reasons that remain unclear, so that the verb is (again) in I. Data from Northern Italian varieties confirm Rizzi’s (1996) intuition about the possibility of positioning the subject after a D-linked wh–phrase. At the same time, this can combine with inversion of the subject clitic after the verb, as for instance in (43), leading us to conclude that the verb is in C. Hence the phenomenon is not connected with the verb remaining in I. (43)â•… Corte (Veneto) a. kEl de kis marjo ljezara-lo which of these Mario will.read he ‘Which of these will Mario read?’ b. *ula marjo va-lo where Mario goes he ‘Where does Mario go?’

Incidentally, note that if we combine the previous generalizations about the relative order of wh–phrases and lexical subjects/topics with the proposal that the complementizer is a specialized nominal head with its own left periphery, we obtain a straightforward prediction concerning interrogatives introduced by wh–phrase and complementizer. Namely, we predict that we will find not only the order in (23), in which the topic precedes the wh–phrase and complementizer sequence, but also the order in which the topic appears after the wh–phrase and hence before the complementizer. This prediction is confirmed by data like (44a); similar evidence is noted by Poletto and Vanelli (1995:€153) for a variety from the Turin area. Crucially, the order in (44a) appears to be restricted by the same factors that we considered for questions introduced by a simple wh–phrase€– so that a D-linked wh–phrase favours the order in (44a), while a non D-linked wh–phrase tends to exclude it, as in (44b, b1). (44)â•… S.Maria Maggiore (Piedmont) a. kwal ad kwi guit ul dZua k u tSama which of those children the John that he calls ‘Which of those children does John call?’ b. ki k a tSama lu:r who that they call they ‘Who do they call?’ b’. *ki lu:r k a tSama who they that they call

The left periphery beyond complementizersâ•… 41 Proceeding now with the theoretical discussion, a new take on the ‘why’ problem is offered by Rizzi (2001). In addition to the three C positions (finiteness, Focus and Force, cf. fn. 3–5) proposed by Rizzi (1997), Rizzi (2001) introduces a further C position, namely Int(errogative), located between the highest C(Force) position and the C(Focus) one. This C(Interrogative) position is meant to host elements like ‘why’ as well as interrogative ‘if’, se in Italian. Crucially, in Rizzi’s (1997) model, Top phrases can be freely interleaved between any C projections€– therefore topicalized material is predicted to occur between ‘why’ in C(Interrogative) and the verb, even if the latter is in C(Focus). Note that an eventual unification of ‘why’ with D-linked wh–phrases requires the latter to be moved to (or inserted in) Spec of C(Interrogative) as well. Abstracting away from the theoretical postulates of the cartographic approach€– essentially the idea that all phrasal and head movement must be supported by the presence of a matching functional head€– the empirical generalization seems to be that wh–phrases can move into two different positions, namely a slightly higher one that can precede a topic and a lower one that cannot. The question is whether the codification of this generalization in terms of functional structure yields predictions or insights that are otherwise unavailable. Incidentally, the labels ‘interrogative’ and ‘focus’ proposed by Rizzi (2001) for the relevant positions, while clearly interpretive in nature, are not sufficient to characterize the interpretation in full, for there is obviously no sense in which the wh–phrase is a Focus in one case but not in the other (or interrogative in one case but not in the other). As already mentioned, the alternative is essentially the one suggested by Chomsky (1995, 2000a, 2008), namely that Topic, Focus and the like simply name interpretations of left-peripheral material. Suppose that the left periphery considered in (40)–(43) is freely ordered above the verb€– in the absence of any functional hierarchy (of categories or features) forcing it. If so, sentences of the type in (41a), which represent the crucial case of ill-formedness, cannot be excluded on formal, computational grounds; on the contrary, their illformedness must be interpretive in nature. It seems to us that a potential argument in favour of this theoretical stance comes from the fact that the unacceptability of sentences like (41a) is far from a matter of absolute judgement in particular, there is no connection between the intrinsic lexical shape of the wh–phrase and the range of positions that the lexical subject or other topic material can take with respect to it. Thus, Benincà (2001) notes the acceptability of sentences like (45), in which the wh–phrase does not appear to be D-linked. Benincà (2001) further connects the well-formedness of (45) to a ‘rhetorical question’ interpretation, implying

42â•… Romance complementizers:€structure & interpretation ‘a negative answer’. We are not sure that this is the correct characterization of rhetorical questions, which seem to correspond more generally to questions that presuppose a certain answer, not necessarily a negative one (‘Who wants more money? Everybody does!’). Even so, it seems to us that (45) need not be interpreted as a rhetorical question at all€– rather, it can be a genuine request for information. (45)â•… Chi la fisica la sa bene? Who the physics it knows well ‘Who knows physics well?’

Independently of what its correct characterization may be, we may agree that the interpretation of (45) differs from that of (41a). This leads us to predict that in the out of the blue context implied by (41a), the utterance in (45) is equally ill-formed, while (41a) becomes grammatical if the range of interpretations that make (45) grammatical is forced. In a theory where the relative position of wh–phrases and topics/lexical subjects is governed by functional hierarchies of categories/features, we must assume that the very same wh–phrases can be associated with one or the other of these functional specifications and can be placed according to them. The other way of thinking about the relevant data is that the computational component allows for any positioning of the relevant elements (in the left periphery); however, crucially, different orderings yield different interpretations. To the extent that both views can be used to characterize contrasts like those considered here, they are notational variants. However, one of them is arguably simpler€– in more than one respect. To begin with, notions such as topic and focus are encoded only once (as interpretations) in the theory we are upholding here€– while they are (redundantly) encoded twice (as interpretations and as grammatical properties) in the alternative theory. This simplicity argument has a counterpart when it comes to the single lexical entries. Assuming the maximally restrictive Inclusiveness principle of Chomsky (1995), according to which only intrinsic properties of lexical items (i.e. properties associated with that item in the lexicon) enter syntactic computation, we would have to admit that topic, focus and similar properties can be (optionally) associated with any nominal head. The alternative is to consider that these notions, like other notions that are relational in nature, do not correspond to features/categories at all, but rather to configurations (cf. Chomsky 2000a on theta-roles)€ – defined in this case at the LF interface. These simplicity considerations, in the absence of empirical evidence, prove decisive in our view.14

The left periphery beyond complementizersâ•… 43 1.3.2 Embedded contexts In the preceding section, we considered the relative order of wh–phrases and lexical subjects in matrix interrogatives. A further element of complexity is introduced by embedded interrogatives. Here the judgement of Rizzi (1997:€289) is that in Italian the topic can precede the wh–phrase, as in (46a), while the configuration in (46b), in which the topic follows the wh–phrase, is ‘slightly marginal’. For us, both examples are equally well-formed. In fact, Rizzi’s (1997) structural schemas allow the topic to either precede or follow the wh–phrase, assuming its position to be the same in (46a) and in (46b), namely C(Focus). (46)â•… a.â•… b.

Mi domando il premio Nobel a chi lo potrebbero dare myself I.ask the prize Nobel to whom it they.could give ‘I wonder to whom they could give the Nobel prize’ Mi domando a chi il premio Nobel lo potrebbero dare myself I.ask to whom the prize Nobel it they.could give

Recall from the previous section that for Rizzi (1997), movement of the verb to C(Focus) normally excludes the wh–phrase–topic order in matrix questions. Therefore he automatically predicts that the latter resurfaces in embedded questions, as in (46b), because of the absence of verb movement. Data from Northern Italian varieties, however, call his explanation into question. In a null-subject language like Italian, it is hard to detect the position of the verb in the sentence on independent grounds, but in Northern Italian varieties the position of the subject clitic provides a reliable independent test. In many of these languages, inversion of the verb with the subject clitic does not take place in either matrix or embedded questions, providing evidence that the verb maintains its I position in all cases. Yet in the same languages, lexical subjects and other topics may appear in either right-peripheral or left-peripheral positions in matrix interrogatives, while the occurrence of the topic or lexical subject between the wh–phrase and the verb is not attested. This contrasts with embedded questions, in which the lexical subject/topic can either precede or follow the wh–phrase, as shown in (47). (47)â•… Fontanigordaâ•… (Liguria) a.â•… k2lu li duve u druome that.oneâ•… thereâ•… whereâ•… he sleeps ‘Where does he sleep?’ b. ne suo k2lu li duve u druome not I.know that.one there where he sleeps ‘I don’t know where he sleeps’

44â•… Romance complementizers:€structure & interpretation b’.â•… ne suo duve k2lu li u druome not I.know where that.one there he sleeps ‘I don’t know where he sleeps’

In other words, the contrast between matrix and embedded questions in a language without subject-clitic inversion is exactly the same as the one observed in a language with subject-clitic inversion, as in (48) vs. (40). (48)â•… Modena a. a n sO briza to fradEl indo al I not know not your brother where he ‘I don’t know where your brother goes’ b. a n sO briza ki lo l a I not know not who he him has ‘I don’t know who he has called’

va goes tSamE called

The conclusion that the ordering of the lexical subject/topic with respect to the wh–phrase in matrix questions is not determined by the position of the verb with respect to the wh–phrase is supported by at least one independent argument, from subject-clitic languages with interrogative inversion. In several relevant Northern Italian varieties, the subject clitic is not simply inverted after the verb but doubled before and after the verb. The relevant examples are (23) for questions introduced by a combination of wh–phrase and complementizer and (24a’, b’) for questions introduced by a simple wh–phrase. Therefore the supposed Spec-head adjacency of the wh–phrase and the verb is systematically disrupted by the preverbal subject clitic. In terms of the structure already provided in (23), in (24a’, b’) a D position intervenes between the wh–phrase in the left periphery of the sentence and the verb in C. If one wanted to claim that the clitic represented adjoined material, one would at the very least have to clarify how the double adjunction (of a proclitic and an enclitic) comes about. In short, for the various reasons reviewed, the contrasts relating to the positioning of the lexical subject in matrix and embedded questions cannot be due to the Wh–Criterion (or its variants). In other words, the relative ordering of wh–phrases and topics/lexical subjects seems to be determined by their intrinsic properties, without the position of the verb playing any role. If so, then it is no longer clear that the general acceptability of wh–phrases in front of lexical subjects/topics in embedded questions, and their acceptability in certain matrix questions (introduced by ‘why’, D-linked wh–phrases etc.) should not be accounted for in the same way. Answering the question of what would unify these various contexts is beyond the scope of the present chapter, which aims simply at establishing a

The left periphery beyond complementizersâ•… 45 theory of complementizers€– including of course its compatibility with a more general model of the left periphery. Nevertheless, the solution envisaged by Manzini and Savoia (2005) is worth mentioning, since it represents an extension of sorts of the approach to complementizers themselves. The idea is that embedded interrogatives, in which the wh–phrase can precede topic material, are effectively (free) relatives, of which the wh–phrase represents the nominal head. In other words, just as the complementizer is not in the left periphery of the sentence but rather projects its own noun phrase, the wh–phrase can project its own noun phrase, which embeds a sentence, eventually including topical material. This proposal can equally be applied to matrix questions, as Manzini and Savoia (2005) effectively do for matrix questions introduced by ‘why’. In other words, ‘why’ is not in the left periphery of interrogative questions; rather, it systematically introduces them as a sort of propositional operator (complementizer). In any event, we may assume that ‘why’ projects a nominal constituent€– which could then be taken to be more akin to a (free) relative. The latter proposal could further be extended to D-linked wh–phrases, and more generally to all wh–phrases that embed a topic. Other extant proposals in the literature seem to rest on intuitions compatible with the analysis just sketched. We have already mentioned Rizzi’s (1997) treatment of ‘why’ as a complementizer head. Kayne and Pollock’s (2001) discussion of pourquoi ‘why’ in French is also relevant. They consider the fact that ‘why’ and other wh–phrases like en quel sens ‘in which sense’ do not trigger inversion of the verb with the subject clitic in French matrix questions, in contrast to other wh–phrases. What they suggest is that questions like en quel sens les fleurs parlent ‘in which sense flowers speak?’ ‘include an abstract verb corresponding to say’, as if one were to say ‘In which sense are you saying that flowers speak?’. This proposal shares with ours the intuition that ‘why’ and other items of the same class belong to a different sentential(-like) constituent with respect to the sentence they introduce. At the same time, for reasons of restrictiveness of the theory, but also for strictly empirical reasons, we reject what Kayne (2006, 2008a) calls silent categories (Manzini and Savoia 2008a, 2009a, 2010; Savoia and Manzini 2010), including the ‘abstract verb’ of Kayne and Pollock (2001). In our intuition, the right interpretation for a sentence like (45), with the order wh–phrase–topic, is more likely to be simply ‘who (is it that) knows physics?’. Similarly, the interpretation of en quel sens les fleurs parlent? could be reconstructed as ‘in which sense (is it that) flowers speak?’. In other words, in both cases the embedded sentence is predicated of the wh–phrase€– more or less as we expect for (free) relatives, or clefts.15

46â•… Romance complementizers:€structure & interpretation For the sake of completeness, we note that in the discussion that precedes, the position of lexical subjects is assimilated to that of topics. However, this does not necessarily hold in all languages (witness the case of English), nor even in all Romance languages. Thus, in French, the lexical subject appears between the wh–phrase and the verb in so-called complex inversion examples, as in (49), independently of interpretive factors. The fact that the verb is inverted with respect to the subject clitic means that it is in a relatively high (conventionally C) position, so that the lexical subject must be in a higher position still€– yet not a topic position. The present analysis already provides a non-topic position for subjects above C, namely the position taken by the preverbal subject clitic in the structure in (23). The ability of the lexical subject in French to appear in a position which in Northern Italian varieties is only available for subject clitics correlates with the fact that while lexical subjects are obligatorily doubled by subject clitics in Northern Italian varieties, they lexicalize the subject alone in French€– and determine complementary distribution with subject clitics. (49) Quand Jean vient-il? When J. comes-he ‘When is John coming?’

At the same time, French, like Northern Italian varieties, reserves the lowest subject position, internal to the I domain, for clitics; therefore only subject clitics can be found inverted after the verb in questions. This contrasts with a language like English, in which the lexical subject ordinarily appears after the verb in questions€– and hence presumably occupies the same position as subject clitics in Romance languages. The English-type position of the subject can also be seen in some Romance languages, namely Romansh varieties in which the lexical subject can appear between the auxiliary and the participle, as in (50).16 (50)â•… Trunâ•… (Grisons) a. ain ilts taLO:ʀ kuʀdai pEʀ tiaʀa are the dishes fallen to ground ‘Have the dishes fallen to the ground?’ b. an iLts afOnts duʀmiu have the children slept ‘Have the children slept?’

There is a final set of data from the work of Rizzi (1997) that goes potentially unpredicted by the present approach. According to the data presented there, a topic can precede a wh–phrase not only in matrix questions, but also in embedded questions. However, a che-type complementizer cannot be preceded by a topic. The relevant data for embedded questions are of the type in (46);

Conclusionsâ•… 47 by contrast, Rizzi (1997) judges (51) and the like to be ill-formed. Benincà (2001), however, does not exclude topics in front of declarative complementizers altogether, since according to her an example like (51b) is well-formed. However, (51b) involves a so-called ‘hanging topic’; for Benincà (2001), Â�so-called clitic left dislocation, as exemplified in (51c), remains ill-formed. For us, the two sentences in (51b–c) have the same status; i.e. they are both acceptable. The same holds for a sentence like (51a), which is ambiguous between the descriptive categories of hanging topic and clitic left dislocation. (51)â•… a.â•… b. c.

Credo il tuo libro che loro lo apprezzerebbero molto I-believe your book that they it would.appreciate a.lot ‘I believe that they would appreciate your book a lot’ Sono certa questo libro che non ne ha mai parlato nessuno I.am certain this book that not of.it has ever spoken anybody ‘I am certain that nobody has ever talked about this book’ Sono certa su questo tavolo che non ci hanno messo niente I.am certain on this table that not there they.have put anything ‘I am certain that nobody put anything on this table’

The theory of Rizzi (1997) is constructed in such a way as to exclude examples of the type in (51). In particular, the che complementizer in these examples is identified with the highest C position, namely C(Force), which closes off the C field (cf. fn. 4, 6); therefore the prediction is that no leftperipheral material can precede it. In the present approach, however, in which che is the head of an independent nominal projection, the possibility must be open for its left periphery to host topical material. In fact, this is the structure we have postulated for sentences like (23) in section 1.2. Therefore examples like (51) are predicted to be grammatical. 1.4

Conclusions

In a nutshell, the present proposal represents a viable alternative to theories of C as a functional projection of the verb€– and possibly a better one in that it allows us to simplify functional architectures, treating complementizers in terms of the recursion of predicate argument structures. Another advantage resides in the simplification of the lexicon, to the extent that the complementizer can be given a unified lexical entry with the wh–phrases with which it is (often) homophonous. Though this would appear to be an even smaller gain than the previous one, consider that in a minimalist model the lexicon is all there is to language variation€– therefore simplifications in the lexicon are simplifications of the only learning task children have in front of them.

48â•… Romance complementizers:€structure & interpretation In the next chapter, we will pursue this second theme, providing some case studies in language variation and illustrating the account available for them under the present model. We argue that the model we are proposing is capable of accounting for the intricate parametrization of Romance varieties in a transparent way, effectively predicting that certain parametric values should be instantiated. In our view, these predictions depend on treating the complementizer as an argument, and specifically as an argument belonging to the same wh–series as classical wh–phrases. The burden of proof is on other theories to show that the same results can be mimicked if complementizers are functional projections of the verb. This may very well be possible€– but almost certainly through additional assumptions.

2 Variation in Romance k-complementizer systems

As observed in chapter 1, finite complementizers in Germanic and Romance are clearly nominal, belonging to argumental series such as demonstratives and wh–elements respectively. Therefore we propose that the complementizer is not a functional category of the verb, but rather an independent nominal head, which satisfies an argument slot of the matrix verb and which takes the embedded sentence as its complement. The aim of the present chapter is to investigate the range of variation in the lexicalization of complementizers in Romance varieties. We argue that only the treatment of the complementizer sketched in chapter 1 allows for a transparent account of the observed variation. First, the overlapping of Romance complementizers with the wh–system follows precise patterns, which excludes the possibility that we are merely dealing with homophony. Second, an account of the variation internal to the complementizer system requires the complementizer to be interpreted as introducing a propositional variable€– which is natural if it is a nominal head, but not if it is a functional projection of the verb. In section 2.3, we also consider the finiteness restriction that complementizers are subject to, arguing that they do not select for embedded temporal/modal properties (this being a potential argument in favour of their status as a functional projection of the verb), rather they select for the properties of the embedded EPP argument€– hence of the proposition as a whole.

2.1

Systems with two k-complementizers

The system of standard Italian, which we have considered in chapter 1, is characterized by a single complementizer introducing finite declarative clauses€– which is also the distribution familiar for English that. However, there are many Central and Southern Italian varieties which have two finite declarative complementizers, as in (1)–(2). One of the two complementizers, generally ka, is systematically found to introduce complements to verbs 49

50â•… Variation in Romance k-complementizer systems of ‘saying’ and ‘knowing’. The other complementizer, generally ke/ki (k), is found to introduce complements to verbs of ‘believing’ and ‘wanting’, though in some varieties (Guglionesi) some predicates alternate between the two complementizers. In other varieties, where all these predicates select the same complementizer ka, a second complementizer is found to introduce complements to ‘before’ and ‘after’ (Montenerodomo). Another important common property of these systems is that they involve some overlap between the complementizer system just described and the wh–quantifier system. Crucially, this overlap never affects the ka complementizer; instead it is the ke/ki complementizer that quite generally overlaps with the wh–quantifier for ‘what’. (1)â•… Guglionesi (Molise) a.â•… i. m ɔnnə dəttə ka vE krE to.me they.have said that he.comes tomorrow ‘They told me that he will come tomorrow’ a. ii. pEndzə ka vvE krE I.think that he.comes tomorrow ‘I think that he will come tomorrow’ b. i. vujjə kə vi krE I.want that you.come tomorrow ‘I want you to come tomorrow’ b. ii. pEndzə kə vvE krE I think that he.comes tomorrow ‘I think that he will come tomorrow’ b. iii. sNg aSSeutə prəmə kə tteu mənəssə I.am gone.out before that you would.come ‘I went before you came’ b. iv. sNg aSSeutə dppə kə ssi məneutə I.am gone.out after that you.are come ‘I went after you came’ c. kə ffi what you.do ‘What are you doing?’ (2) Montenerodomoâ•… (Abruzzi) a. i. m om ditt ka vi dum:n to.me they.have said that you.come tomorrow ‘They told me that you will come tomorrow’ a. ii. pEndz ka iss ve dum:n I.think that he comes tomorrow ‘I think that he will come tomorrow’ a. iii. vuless ka mniSS I.would.want that he.would.come ‘I would want him to come’

Systems with two k-complementizersâ•… 51 b. i. b. ii.â•… c.

so SSeut preim k mneiv I.am gone.out before that he.came ‘I went before he came’ so SSeut dop k tu avi mneut I.am gone.out after that you had come ‘I went after you came’ k ffi what you.do ‘What are you doing?’

The existence of double complementizer systems in varieties of Central and Southern Italy has been noted in the literature. However, Rohlfs (1969 [1954]:€190) puts it in the same bracket as another form of split lexicalization for sentential introducers, found in so-called Balkan languages as well as in some Southern Italian and Sicilian varieties. The relevant systems are characterized either by the lack of morphological infinitives or by their very reduced presence. Therefore the embedded infinitival clauses of English or Italian, associated with control and raising interpretations, are rendered in these Balkan (-like) languages by the embedding of finite clauses introduced by a specialized particle, which in Calabrian varieties, for instance, is mu. Thus, for Rohlfs, Neapolitan pèns ca vèn ‘I think that he come’ vs. vògli k mmang ‘I want that he eats’ and Calabrian pensu ca vèni ‘I think that he comes’ vs. vogghiu mu (mi) mangia ‘I want that he eats’ represent strictly comparable systems. The strongest argument for the independence of the two phenomena is that they actually combine. Thus, the Calabrian variety from Arena in (3), which has control and raising complements introduced by mu, also independently presents two complementizers of the k-series, roughly with the distribution described above for Montenerodomo, as in (2a–b). Of the two complementizers, it is the ki one, selected notably by ‘before’ and ‘after’, that has the same form as the wh–quantifier for ‘what’, as in (3c). (3)â•… Arena (Calabria) a. i. mi Dissiru ka vEni dmani to.meâ•… they.said thatâ•… he.comes tomorrow ‘They told me that he will come tomorrow’ a. ii. kriju ka vEni I.believe that he.comes ‘I think that he will come’ a. iii. E mmiu ka vini it.is better that you.come ‘It is better for you to come’ b. nESSivi duppu ki vinni I.went.out after that he.came ‘I went after he came’

52â•… Variation in Romance k-complementizer systems c. d.

ki ffatSi ijju what does he ‘What is he doing?’ vuu mu niï†fiï†fiu I.want Prt I.go.out ‘I want to go out’

We assume that introducers of the type of mu in Calabrian (or të in Albanian) are not complementizers in the sense defined in the preceding paragraph€– i.e. they are not (nominal) heads taking the embedded proposition as their (sentential) complement. Rather, they are internal to the embedded clause, to which they contribute modal properties (Rivero 1994; Roberts and Roussou 2003) and/or EPP properties involved in control and raising interpretations. Thus, we will put mu and the like aside without further discussion. Ledgeway (2003a, 2005, 2009) also argues against the identification of double complementizer systems with systems including a complementizer and a so-called subjunctive particle. It is possible that the three-complementizer split (ca, cu and che) described by Ledgeway (2005:€367 ff.) on the basis of Sgrilli (1983) for Early Salentino represents a system comparable to Arena in (3)€– with cu representing the ‘subjunctive particle’, very much like ku in contemporary Salentino varieties. Let us go back, then, to (1). The distribution of ka and k in varieties such as Guglionesi is reminiscent of the fact that standard Italian employs the indicative in complements of ‘to say’ and the subjunctive in complements of ‘to think’ or ‘to want’, with regional variants allowing for the indicative at least under ‘to think’, as in (4). (4) a. b. c.

Dico che viene I.say that he.comes ‘I say that he will come’ Penso che venga/ viene I.think that he.come/ he.comes ‘I think that he will come’ Voglio che venga I.want that he.come ‘I want him to come’

This similar distribution (and the somewhat similar distribution of indicatives vs. infinitives in the English translations) seems to suggest that some common property lies at the core of the complementizer split and the modality split. However, it should be stressed that it is not the case that one phenomenon depends on the other. In particular, in the examples in (1)–(2) the two

Systems with two k-complementizersâ•… 53 complementizers can embed the same indicative verbal forms, while ka in the Montenerodomo example in (2aiii) can embed the one form of subjunctive that appears to be present in the language, which can be roughly characterized as the counterfactual. Further examples of this pattern in Guglionesi are provided below in (9). In other words, there is no obligatory selection of the verb modality by the complementizer or vice versa. The evidence at our disposal also allows us to exclude the possibility that the complementizer split can be linked to the relatively impoverished modal system of varieties like (2); in other words, not only is it the case that there is no selection relation between complementizers and subjunctives, but there is no complementary distribution (functional equivalence) either. A case in point is represented by Sardinian varieties such as Paulilàtino in (5), in which a full-blown indicative€– subjunctive system of the standard Italian type combines with a double complementizer system of the type exemplified in (2) with Abruzzese varieties. (5) Paulilàtino (Sardinia) a. i. m anta nau ka bbeni kkraza to.me they.have said that he.comes tomorrow ‘They told me that he will come tomorrow’ a. ii. pEnts ka bbenizi I.thinkâ•… that you.come ‘I think that you will come’ b. i. pEnts ki bbEndzEDE I.think that he.come ‘I think he will come’ b. ii. kErdz ki bbEndzEzE I.want that you.come ‘I want you to come’ b. iii. sE bissiu appustisâ•… ki ze Benniu I.am gone.outâ•… after that you.areâ•… come ‘I went after you came’ b. iv sE bissia primma ki EssE Benniu DuE I.am gone.out before that be come you ‘I went before you came’ c. ittE faEzE what you.do ‘What are you doing?’

It will be noted that the ka complementizer combines with morphological indicatives in (a) while the ki complementizer combines with morphological subjunctives. However, the correlation between complementizer and verb modality breaks down in connection with complements to ‘before’ and ‘after’

54â•… Variation in Romance k-complementizer systems in (4biii) and (4biv) respectively. Following the pattern of standard Italian, the complement of ‘before’ is a subjunctive (a counterfactual) while the complement of ‘after’ is an indicative. Nevertheless, in both cases the complement is introduced by the ‘modal’ complementizer ki. This should of course be taken together with the existence of languages, like Montenerodomo in (2) or Arena in (3), in which complements to ‘before’ and ‘after’ maintain a specialized complementizer while other declarative sentential complements are uniformly introduced by ka. The lack of a one-to-one correlation between complementizers and modality is discussed at length by Ledgeway (2003a, 2005), who studies double complementizer systems in Early Neapolitan and other Southern Italian texts. He concludes that indicative clauses are frequently introduced by ‘CHE’. He also notices that selection for complementizers cannot be directly imputed to matrix predicates, since ‘it is not difficult to find minimal pairs … where the same main clause predicate selects in one case for an indicative clause headed by CA and in another for an indicative clause headed by CHE’ (Ledgeway 2005:€348). In other words, the historical varieties studied by Ledgeway have a complementizer system strictly comparable to that illustrated here by Guglionesi in (1) and in fact also by Paulilàtino in (5); the similarity between Ledgeway’s varieties and Sardinian ones is independently noted by Damonte (2006), who extends Ledgeway’s analysis to them. Nevertheless, Ledgeway subscribes to Formentin’s (1998:€ 432) conclusion that ‘the conjunction ca never introduces subjunctive clauses’, thus establishing a one-way implication between subjunctive and CHE complementizers. This oneway implication is not upheld by our data. Recall that we have already reviewed systems, such as Montenerodomo in (2), in which ka introduces a subjunctive (2aiii). More to the point, Sardinian varieties, which have fully productive subjunctives, show that both complementizers combine with both moods (indicative and subjunctive). Relevant data are found below in (11) for the variety from Làconi. Similarly the free alternation of ka and k with subjunctives is exemplified for Guglionesi in (9). Evidence that the subjunctive does not imply chi independently emerges in the Baunei corpus of Damonte (2006:€92), who quotes examples of ca with the subjunctive such as Mi pare ca custas cadirasa siente meda comodasa ‘it seems to me that these chairs are (lit:€be) very comfortable’. 2.1.1

Definite and indefinite complementizers€– and alternative analyses According to the conclusions of chapter 1, the finite k-type complementizer in Romance languages is an independent nominal head introducing a propositional

Systems with two k-complementizers╅ 55 variable, whose content is restricted by the embedded sentence. If so, the difference between the two complementizers in (1) is most naturally construed as a difference between two types of variable/quantification. We could assume, for instance, that the ka complementizer is a definiteness element, effectively the counterpart to a definite determiner, so that the LF of the Guglionesi example in (1a.ii) would be of the type in (6a). By contrast, the LF of a sentence like the Guglionesi example in (1b.ii) could include an indefinite quantification, corresponding to a free variable bound by existential closure, as sketched in (6b). (6) (Guglionesi) a. I think the x:€x he comes tomorrow b. I think for some x:€x he comes tomorrow

Because the evidence and the results discussed in this paper are mostly morphosyntactic in nature, we must content ourselves with a sketchy account of the interpretation. The evidence presented above is, however, sufficient to yield the generalization that of the two complementizers present in languages like Guglionesi in (1), it is always the indefinite complementizer that overlaps with a wh–quantifier. This is because the other complementizer effectively introduces a definite description, which is hardly compatible with wh–quantification€– while the indefinite complementizer introduces a propositional variable subject to existential closure, more or less like the argumental wh–variable. Manzini and Savoia (2005) provide examples from a considerable number of languages which behave like Guglionesi, and in all cases the same generalization holds, as shown by the summary table reproduced in (A) in the Appendix. Of course it is also logically possible to have double complementizer systems of the type in (6) in which no overlap with the wh–system is found, as summarized in table (A’) in the Appendix; the Paulilàtino sentence in (5) exemplifies this type of system.1 The preceding results are important for the present discussion for more than one reason. A preliminary point is that the identity of form shown by complementizers and wh–elements covers grammars that are not just different in general terms, but are specifically different in terms of the finite complementizer system€– having either a single complementizer or a split between complementizers. In other words, it cannot be objected that the formal identity of the complementizer with the wh–system is in a sense the property of just one grammar, and therefore to be treated as accidental. More importantly, the fact that in two complementizer systems it is the indefinite complementizer that coincides with the wh–system supports the semantics for complementizers sketched here, and indirectly the syntax in chapter 1.

56â•… Variation in Romance k-complementizer systems Now the question is:€under the alternative view, which has complementizers as C functional heads, could one provide characterizations for the two different complementizers, and capture the overlap with wh–quantifiers (or lack thereof)? Ledgeway (2003a, 2005), dealing with data closely comparable with ours, does provide an answer to the first part of the question. Before evaluating it, let us note that the two complementizer systems of languages like those in (1) may have a reflex even in a language like Italian in complementizer deletion phenomena; we will therefore consider first what the existing literature says about those. In fact there appears to be a good match between matrix predicates that require the indefinite complementizer in (6b) and those which, according to the literature, allow for the deletion of the che complementizer in Italian, as in (7b–d). By contrast, contexts which require the definite complementizer, as in (6a), seem to coincide with those that do not admit complementizer deletion in Italian, as illustrated in (7a). (7)â•… a.â•… b. c. d.

So *(che) viene I.know that he.comes ‘I know that he is coming’ Penso (che) venga I.think that he.come ‘I think that is coming’ Vorrei (che) venisse I.would.want that he.came ‘I would like him to come’ E’ meglio (che) venga It.is better that he.come ‘It is better for him to come’

The issue is made more complex by the existence of at least one variety in which effectively any matrix predicate admits complementizer deletion. The latter is identified by Cocchi and Poletto (2002) with the variety spoken in Florence. As in many cases involving Italian, the question can legitimately be asked whether, on the contrary, the judgements attributed to the standard are not unduly constrained by normative considerations; in fact even the judgements in Cocchi and Poletto (2002) appear to be unnecessarily restrictive for the Italian spoken in Florence.2 Be that as it may, the reason to address the (potential) pattern in (7) is that phenomena of complementizer dropping have been prominent in the theoretical literature since the study of the that-t filter in English by Chomsky and Lasnik (1977). Therefore distributions of the type in (7) have been discussed more than once (Poletto 2001; Giorgi and Pianesi 2004), providing us with a possible alternative to the analysis advocated here.

Systems with two k-complementizers â•… 57 On the basis of the preceding discussion of double complementizer systems, we would be led to characterize the alternation in (7) by saying that in order to introduce a propositional definite description the complementizer is necessary, as in (7a); while other types of propositional complementation admit the bare embedding of a sentence under the matrix verb, as in (7b–d). As for the question of why contexts obligatorily introduced by the complementizer feature the indicative, while subjunctive contexts admit complementizer dropping, we can assume that the indicative vs. subjunctive split is itself connected with the definite or indefinite binding of a propositional variable. In fact, Manzini (2000) notices that mood selection is not exclusively determined by the matrix predicate. Thus, ‘to know’ in (8a) normally requires the indicative. The latter remains possible when the matrix predicate is questioned, as in (8b), in which case the reading is still a factive one presupposing the truth of the embedded proposition. Questioning the matrix sentence also renders the subjunctive possible, in which case, however, the embedded proposition is in the scope of the question operator, yielding a non-presuppositional reading. (8)â•… a.â•… b. c.

So che è/ *sia venuto I.know that he.is/ he.be come ‘I know he came’ Sai che è venuto? you.knowâ•… that he.is come ‘Do you know that he came?’ Sai che sia venuto? you.know that he.is come ‘Do you know if he came?’

Alternations like (8b–c) can be described by saying that the indicative (like ka–type complementizers) introduces a propositional definite description, read outside the scope of polarity operators like the question operator. By contrast, the subjunctive (like ke–type complementizers) introduces an indefinite propositional variable, interpreted within the scope of polarity operators. This accounts for the parallelism between the complementizer split and the indicative vs. subjunctive split apparently present in (7). Let us now consider Giorgi and Pianesi (2004) and Poletto (2001). They assume, as we do, that so-called complementizer deletion does not correspond to the actual deletion of lexical material nor to the zero instantiation of the C position. For Giorgi and Pianesi (2004), while the sequence of che and a subjunctive provides separate instantiations for modality (through the che complementizer) and for agreement (through the I position of the verb), in complementizer deletion contexts, the Mood and Agr properties are conflated in the

58â•… Variation in Romance k-complementizer systems I head, and simply lexicalized by the verb. The reason why che cannot delete in indicative contexts has to do with the fact that in indicative contexts T and Agr properties cannot conflate, but must be independently lexicalized. To be more precise, ‘the T-features are duplicated in che/C in such a way that the indexical component can be evaluated outside the clause’ (Giorgi and Pianesi 2004:€200). According to Giorgi and Pianesi (2004) the satisfaction of this latter condition is independently required in order to obtain the so-called Double Access Reading, under which the situation denoted by the embedded sentence is taken to hold both at the time of the matrix event and at the time of utterance. What is relevant here is that Giorgi and Pianesi’s (2004) framework could in principle account for double complementizer systems, as the result of a split between exponents of C endowed with Tense (ka) and exponents of C endowed with Mood (ke/ki). But since there is no (direct) connection between the whâ•fi system and subjunctive Mood (e.g. wh–questions do not necessarily select the subjunctive) the overlapping of modal complementizers and the wh–system (to the exclusion of the non-modal complementizers) would not be predicted. The present discussion provides the missing link; but crucially it does so by extricating the complementizer from the Mood and Tense system to which Giorgi and Pianesi (2004) confine it€– and by assuming that it is an argumental element. Correspondingly it is removed from the C position and construed as an independent (nominal) head. Let us now turn to Poletto (2001), who draws a parallel between complementizer deletion and Germanic V-to-C movement; the latter, at least in some languages, is in complementary distribution with the lexicalization of the complementizer (and thus seems to result in its deletion). The idea is that ‘the class of verbs selecting C[omplementizer] D[eletion] complements is exactly the same as in Germanic embedded V2 contexts’ (Poletto 2001:€267). Thus both phenomena can be captured by the movement of the verb to the C position. On the assumption that ‘CD is possible only when the embedded verb is a subjunctive, a future or a conditional form’ and that ‘these forms all have a modal quality’, Poletto (2001:€278) proposes that ‘a [–realis] feature … is realized on the head of the complement and attracts the verb into the CP domain’. Let us leave aside the question of whether the verb does or does not move to the C position in Italian complementizer deletion contexts, what is relevant here is Poletto’s (2001) characterization of these contexts in terms of a [–realis] feature in C. In these terms, it is not difficult to recognize the common conceptual core of Poletto’s (2001) analysis and Giorgi and Pianesi’s (2004), namely that complementizer deletion involves modal properties, absent from indicative contexts. The point on which we differ from both analyses is once again made clearer if we try to extend Poletto’s (2001) account to the double

Systems with two k-complementizers â•… 59 complementizer systems considered here. One could assume, for instance, that what we have called the indefinite complementizer lexicalizes the€–realis feature, while the other complementizer satisfies the +realis feature in C. But if so, there is no reason why the former should overlap with the wh–system (to the exclusion of the latter), since wh–questions do not appear to have any (immediate) connection with€–realis (not being restricted, say, to the subjunctive). As before, the present theory has the advantage that it can make direct predictions on this point€– but these crucially depend on complementizers being extricated from the C position, and treated as argumental, nominal heads. We consider next the proposals put forth by Ledgeway (2003a, 2005). The empirical generalization that Ledgeway proposes concerning the distribution of the two complementizers depends on a further set of data concerning the distribution of CHE and CA with respect to embedded left-peripheral material. In his corpus of eleven early texts, he finds that out of a total of 327 examples of CA-clauses … a mere 10.1% were found to contain one or more elements in the left periphery, whilst from a total of 1,061 examples of indicative clauses introduced by CHE … 41.8% were found to host one or more elements in the left periphery … Secondly even if there do occur some examples of the complementizer CA preceding one or more elements of the left periphery … with very few exceptions, all such examples involve elements of the Focus field, namely … foci … and fronted indefinite quantifiers.â•…â•… (2005:€360)

Ledgeway’s characterization of CA and CHE is in fact partially based on mood selection, since he assumes that ‘CA and CHE are invariably merged in … Fin° … as an overt reflex of the different modal specifications (indicative vs. subjunctive) they check in Fin°, from which automatically follows the claim that CA only occurs in indicative clauses and CHE only in subjunctive clauses’ (2005:€372). However, ‘the appearance of topics and foci forces the complementizers CA and CHE to move out of Fin° to target Force°’ (2005:€376); crucially ‘this movement operation is spelt out morphologically only in the case of the indicative complementizer CA which invariably surfaces as CHE’ (2005:€374–5). The empirical generalization, namely that the presence of an embedded left periphery forces the complementizer to be CHE, deserves to be investigated for contemporary varieties as well. What we have found is that our varieties do not observe such a restriction, since both foci (e.g. (9c)) and topics (including clitic left dislocation in (9b)) appear under ka in Guglionesi in (9) and in the Sardinian varieties in (10)–(11).3 We also exemplify topics and foci under k and ki respectively, in order to establish that our varieties do not retain the asymmetry between the two complementizers, simply reversing their respective positions (i.e. ka higher and k/ki lower).4

60â•… Variation in Romance k-complementizer systems (9) Guglionesi a.â•… m ann  ka krE  to.me they.have said that tomorrow you.came ‘They told me that tomorrow you would come’ b. m ann  ka u kES ts l annâ•…    to.me they.have said that the cheese Refl it they.have taken the boys ‘They told me that the cheese was taken by the boys’ c. m ann  ka ï†fi ts ann tt i ajjEun to.me they.have said that the cheese Refl they.have taken the boys ‘They told me that it was the cheese that the boys took’ d. vujj ka/k pur tEu mnss I.want that also you come(subj) ‘I want you too to come’ e. vujj ka/kâ•… krE pur lrâ•… mnssn I.wantâ•… that tomorrowâ•… also they come(subj) ‘I want them as well to come tomorrow’ (10)â•… Paulilàtino a. m anta nau ka raza bbenizi to.meâ•… they.haveâ•… saidâ•… thatâ•… tomorrowâ•… you.come ‘They told me that you will come tomorrow’ a’. m anta nau ka u libru ɖ aza leddzju to.me they.have said that the book it you.have read ‘They told me that the book you read’ b. EstE mmendzus ki fintsaza juanni bEndzEDEâ•… kraza it.is better that even John comes tomorrow ‘It is better that John as well comes tomorrow’ (11)â•… Làconi (Sardinia) a. dEɔ krEɔ ka/tɔi issu Buru/ kraza I believe that he too/ tomorrow ‘I believe that he will come as well/tomorrow’ b. dεɔâ•… krEɔ tSi/kaâ•… issu Buru/â•… kraza I believeâ•… that he too/ tomorrowâ•… ‘I believe that he will come as well/tomorrow’

eniDi he.comes EdZaDa he.comes

Let us now consider Ledgeway’s (2003a, 2005) analysis, which, as we have seen, consists of a more conservative assumption, namely that complementizer choice depends on mood, and an innovative proposal, namely that movement of CA results in it being spelled out as CHE. The first part of the proposal is in essence the same as that reviewed above for complementizer deletion. Thus our generalization that the ‘subjunctive’ complementizer is the one that overlaps

Systems with two k-complementizersâ•… 61 with a wh–element (if such an overlap is present in the system), remains as inaccessible to Ledgeway as it does to Giorgi and Pianesi and Poletto, and for much the same reason. Indeed, connecting complementizers directly to modality (as is natural in a treatment where both belong to the functional spine of the verb) leaves us without any basis for associating the complementizer with the argumental, nominal system of wh–phrases. The novel part of Ledgeway’s (2003a, 2005) proposal is that movement of CA from the Fin to the Force position results in its morphological spellout as CHE. Now, there is no syntactic and/or morphological theory that can literally change a lexical item into another (because of Chomsky’s (1995) Inclusiveness, among others). Nor is it possible to have a lexical entry specified for a context defined by movement (since only intrinsic properties of lexical items belong in the lexicon). Therefore, Ledgeway’s analysis seems to imply that double-complementizer languages have a spell-out for indicative complementizers in Fin€ – and another spell-out for subjunctive complementizers as well as for complementizers in Force. This means that the unification achieved by Ledgeway’s analysis is only apparent€– as it requires a disjunctive lexical entry for the CHE complementizer. Alternatively, one could try to unify the entry for CHE by recourse to underspecification€ – i.e. to the idea that CHE is simply the default complementizer of the relevant languages, inserted as the Elsewhere case. But if so, the generalization noted here concerning its overlapping with the wh–system would become impossible to explain, in the absence even of modal properties on the complementizer. 2.1.2 Generalized wh–complementizers Section 2.1.1 discusses systems with a split between definite and indefinite complementizers of the type of Guglionesi in (1) or in Paulilàtino in (5). A different grammar, however, seems to be exemplified by Montenerodomo in (2) or by Arena in (3), in which the k/ki complementizer overlapping with a wh–question word is restricted to a few contexts, which in our data coincide with complements to ‘after’ and ‘before’. These contexts do not correlate with the verb modality€– which can be subjunctive under ‘before’ but is consistently indicative under ‘after’. Interestingly, all of the languages tabulated in (A’) of the Appendix, in which there is no overlap between the wh–system and the complementizer system, show the definite vs. indefinite complementizer split of the type in section 2.1.1. By contrast, the distribution of k/ki complementizers in languages like Arena in (3) or Montenerodomo in (2) appears to be necessarily connected with their wh–nature.

62â•… Variation in Romance k-complementizer systems In our view the key to the distribution observed resides in the fact that prepositions like ‘before’ or ‘after’ can easily embed complements introduced by wh–arguments/adjuncts, as in the comparative structures in Italian (12). In turn, the comparatives in (12) appear to be interpreted in relation to a temporal argument. Thus (12a) corresponds to an LF roughly of the form ‘I arrived at a time t before/earlier than a time t such that I thought I would arrive at t’, where the most embedded (italicized) proposition undergoes ellipsis.5 (12)â•… a.â•… b.

Sono arrivato prima di I.am arrived before of ‘I arrived earlier than I thought’ Sono arrivato dopo di I.am arrived after than ‘I arrived later than planned’

quanto how.much

pensassi I.thought

quanto stabilito how.much planned

On the basis of (12) we propose that languages that embed a wh–complementizer under ‘after’ and ‘before’ effectively select a (comparative-like) wh–structure. As noted before, the evidence we are considering is essentially morphosyntactic in nature and therefore hardly insightful when it comes to the semantics; hence semantic analyses are sketched here essentially for the sake of falsifiability. We suggest that the wh–complementizer acts in this case as a sort of generalized quantifier, binding the propositional variable, restricted by the following sentence and, at the same time, the temporal variable. We then expect that the generalized quantifier that we have hypothesized also turns up as a whâ•fi binder of arguments; in other words that it is not specialized as a propositional introducer, but will overlap with wh–arguments€– as is indeed the case. It is worth noting that Ledgeway (2009) notices the existence of doublecomplementizer systems that cannot be assimilated to those in section 2.1.1 in relation to the Calabrian variety of Cosenza. He reports that even in the speech of younger generations chi is obligatory in optative expressions such as chi ti vò affucà ‘(that you) go drown’; in a more conservative variety he finds chi to occur in complement sentences when the embedded verb is in the subjunctive (counterfactual). His generalization is that ‘ca is a passe–partout complementizer compatible both with indicative and with subjunctive, while chi is a modally marked complementizer’. Needless to say, this characterization cannot be extended to varieties like Arena in (3), in which ki is selected by ‘after’.6 Let us nevertheless consider his analysis€– namely that ca realizes the Force head while chi lexicalizes the Fin head in Rizzi’s (1997) schema, i.e. the head ‘responsible for marking modal distinctions’. In this schema, therefore, the Cosenza variety would involve the opposite distribution to the varieties of section 2.1.1, in which che is assigned to the Force position, while ca is restricted to Fin. Now, the point being made here is that the k of languages like Guglionesi

Systems with two k-complementizersâ•… 63 and the ki of languages like Arena have in common the fact that they overlap with the wh–system. From this perspective, Ledgeway’s (2003a, 2005, 2009) analysis would be saying that in double-complementizer systems, the wh–complementizer is sometimes a specialized Fin and sometimes a default. It seems to us that a theory that captured the continuity between the various double-complementizer varieties would have a clear explanatory advantage.7 This leads us to the next point to be examined, namely whether our theory can in fact capture this continuity. Crucially, in all languages of the same type as Guglionesi in (1), the indefinite complementizer, in the sense of (6b), turns up in ‘before’/‘after’ contexts as well. Now, if the wh–complementizer in languages like Arena in (3) or Montenerodomo in (2) is to be able to function as some sort of generalized binder of propositional and wh–variables, it cannot be definite (which would exclude wh–quantification). Therefore, in languages with definite vs. indefinite complementizers like Guglionesi, the contexts relevant for its lexicalization will be picked up by the indefinite complementizer, acting as a generalized wh–quantifier. This conclusion only depends on the indefinite nature of the complementizer and not on its actual formal identity with a wh–argument. Therefore we predict that the indefinite complementizer will also pick up ‘before’/‘after’ contexts in systems where it does not overlap with a wh–argument, such as Paulilàtino in (5).8 The final fact worth bringing up is that in all of the languages tabulated in (A–A) in the Appendix, what we have called the indefinite and generalized wh–complementizers also introduce relative clauses. Relevant examples are given in (13)–(16). These involve that relatives, and not who relatives, since, although the relevant complementizers overlap with ‘what’, as illustrated in (1)–(3) and (5), ‘who’ has a distinct lexicalization, as illustrated in (13b) and in (14c)–(16c). We can extend to (13)–(16) the analysis that we have already proposed for (12), treating ki/k as some sort of generalized binder for the propositional variable and the argumental one (actually a resumptive pronoun in the examples in (14b)–(16b). The treatment of ‘after’ and ‘before’ complements in what precedes also implies that we should find the indefinite/generalized wh–complementizer introducing comparatives. The data in Paulilàtino’s (16d) confirm this prediction. (13)â•… Guglionesi a.â•… E kkull k vvad sEmbr he.is that that I.see always ‘He is the one that I see all the time’ b. ki vE who comes ‘Who comes?’

64â•… Variation in Romance k-complementizer systems (14)â•… Montenerodomo a.â•… e kkwillâ•… k vve:tâ•… sEmbr it.isâ•… that thatâ•… I.see always ‘It is the one I see all the time’ b. e kkwill k i so dat l sld it.is that that to.him I.am given the money ‘It is the one I gave the money to’ c. ki ve whoâ•… comes ‘Who comes?’ (15) Arena a. su kkijjiâ•… ki vviju sEmpri they.areâ•… those thatâ•… I.see always ‘They are the ones that I see all the time’ b. su kkijji ki tSi dEttsi li srdi they.areâ•… thoseâ•… thatâ•… thereâ•… I.gave the money ‘They are the ones I gave the money to’ c. ku vni whoâ•… comes ‘Who comes?’ (16) Paulilàtino a. Es kussu ki bbi zEmpErE he.isâ•… that thatâ•… I.see always ‘He is the one that I see all the time’ b. Es kussu ki  appɔ jau z inari he.is that that him I.have given the money ‘He is the one that I gave the money to’ a’. juanniâ•… ki Estâ•… ammiu meu John thatâ•… is friend mine ‘John, who is my friend …’ c. kiE bbeniDi who comes ‘Who comes?’ d. tEndzâ•… pru llibrsâ•… ki (n)â•… inarE I.have moreâ•… books thanâ•… not money ‘I have more books than money’

In a language like Ardaùli in (17), of the Paulilàtino general type, the indefinite complementizer ki introduces restrictive relatives and the definite ka complementizer introduces appositive relatives. We suggest that in this language the choice of the complementizer is sensitive to the nature of the embedded variable. In particular, ki is incompatible with appositive relatives, in that they contain an individual variable; thus, the language resorts to the definite complementizer ka.9

‘If’â•… 65 (17)â•… Ardaùli (Sardinia) a.â•… Es kussu ki bbi sEmpErE he.isâ•… that that I.see always ‘He is the one that I see all the time’ b. Es kussu ki  app jau zu inarE he.is that that himâ•… I.have given the money ‘He is the one that I gave the money to’ a’. dzuanni ka Estiâ•… ammiuâ•… meu John, thatâ•… is friend mine ‘John, who is my friend …’ c. kiE eniDi whoâ•… comes ‘Who comes?’ d. tEndzâ•… pru llibrɔsâ•… ki (n)â•… inarE I.have moreâ•… books thanâ•… not money ‘I have more books than money’

As discussed in chapter 1, Arsenijevic (2009) and Kayne (2010) propose theories of complementation as relativization. We may wonder how these fare with respect to the relativization facts in (13)–(17). Consider for instance Paulilàtino€ – i.e. a language that has a two-complementizer system, but in which relative clauses are formed without exception by the indefinite complementizer. If the definite ka complementizer is nothing but a relative pronoun, why doesn’t it ever overtly appear in relatives? In fact, the preliminary question arises of how Kayne or Arsenijevic would deal with double-complementizer systems. In Arsenijevic’s terms, different complementizers could select for different types of ‘Force’ arguments. But even so, it is difficult to see why what we have characterized as the indefinite complementizer has the same form as the relative complementizer, but the definite one does not. For it does not seem possible to say that relative clauses associate with a particular type of Force. Kayne’s proposal would have to deal with the facts in a similar way; therefore the same critique applies (cf. also the discussion on conditionals in the next section).

2.2

‘If’

The complementizer system of Italian, as discussed in chapter 1, and that of the varieties considered so far, have a specialized lexicalization for the interrogative/hypothetical complementizer, se in Italian, corresponding (more or less) to English ‘if’. Thus the Italian data in (1)–(4) of chapter 1 are completed by (18).

66â•… Variation in Romance k-complementizer systems (18)â•… a.â•… b.

Se piove (spesso) esco if it.rains often I.go.out ‘If it rains I (often) go out’ Non so se viene not I.know if he.comes ‘I don’t know if he’ll come’

As it turns out, this state of affairs does not hold of necessity, but only as one of several possible parametric options. In some Sardinian varieties with a double declarative complementizer system, the indefinite complementizer also lexicalizes hypothetical and interrogative ‘if’, as exemplified by Làconi in (19). Note that the indefinite complementizer tʃi belongs to the wh–lexical series, exemplified by tʃinni ‘who’ in (19ci). Note also that the same distinction holds between the complementizer for restrictive and appositive relatives as we discussed for Ardaùli in (17); as before, it is the complementizer introducing restrictive relatives that overlaps with the indefinite/‘if’ complementizer. (19)â•… Làconi a. b. i. b. ii b. iiiâ•… c. i. c. ii. d. i. d. ii e. i

m anti nau ka ennis kraza to.me they.have said that you.come tomorrow ‘They told me that you come tomorrow’ bZ tSi EdZas kraza I.wantâ•… that you.comeâ•… tomorrow ‘I want you to come tomorrow’ E mmedZuzu tSi bbEdZaza it.is better that you.come ‘It is better for you to come’ sE essia prima Zi fRssaz arribbau I.am gone.out before that you.were come ‘I went out before you came’ a ttSinni tserriaza to whom you.call ‘Who are you calling?’ itta faizi whatâ•… you.do ‘What are you doing?’ funti gussuzu tSi tserriu zEmprE they.were those that I.call always ‘They were the ones that I always call’ srrE Dua ka EstE ammia mia sister yours that is friend mine ‘Your sister, who is a friend of mine …’ tSi llEzE BEdï†ı that you.want I.come ‘If you want, I will come’

‘If’â•… 67 e. iiâ•… f.

tSi rEDE n bbEss thatâ•… it.rains not I.go.out ‘If it rains, I won’t go out’ n iï†fiï†fiiu tSi u tserriu not I.know that him I.call ‘I don’t know if I shall call him’

Another major pattern of lexicalization of ‘that’ and ‘if’ is exemplified in (20) by Miglionico. This has a single declarative complementizer and a separate complementizer for hypotheticals and questions€– reproducing the conditions of a language like Italian. However, the hypothetical/question complementizer actually belongs to the wh–system, in fact overlapping with the wh–element for ‘who’, namely tʃi. Because of this, the embedded sentence in (20e) is ambiguous between the wh–question reading ‘who’ and the yes–no question reading ‘if’. (20)â•… Miglionico (Lucania) a. m vnn ditt ka vin kra to.me they.have said that he.comes tomorrow ‘They told me that he comes tomorrow’ b. s assut prim ka tu vniss I.am gone.out before that you came ‘I went out before you came’ c. i. tSi ve:n whoâ•… comes ‘Who is coming?’ c.â•… ii.â•… tSe ffa ï†fin what they.do ‘What are they doing?’ d. tSiâ•… vvuo ve if you.wantâ•… I.come ‘If you want, I come’ e. nanâ•… sattS tSi ven not I.know who/if he.comes ‘I don’t know who comes/if he comes’

In short, in the Làconi examples in (19) there is a single lexicalization for the indefinite declarative complementizer and for the question/hypothetical complementizer. Table (B) of the Appendix summarizes varieties for which this distribution holds; all of them are Sardinian, of a type in which there is no overlap between the complementizer and the wh–system. Crucially, from the table in (B) it can be seen that the hypothetical/interrogative complementizer never has the same form as the ka definite complementizer. In turn, in a language like Miglionico in (20) the lexicalization for the hypothetical/interrogative

68â•… Variation in Romance k-complementizer systems complementizer overlaps with that of a wh–element, while the (single) declarative complementizer has a different lexicalization. The data summarized in table (C) of the Appendix show that it is always the hypothetical complementizer that coincides with the wh–system (as opposed to the declarative one). The complementizer system of languages like (19)–(20) closes a potential gap in the discussion so far. As discussed in chapter 1, we know that wh–items are not intrinsically interrogative; in Italian, for instance, argument che can head a free relative as in (21a) or an exclamative as in (21b). We interpreted these data as showing that question, declarative or exclamative values are not intrinsic to the wh–element, but rather contributed by contextual operators. This is far from an isolated case in natural languages. For instance, so-called N-words in Romance are not intrinsically negative, but rather introduce a variable which can receive a negative interpretation in the scope of a negative operator€– and can equally well be licensed in non-negative contexts (cf. chapters 3–4). (21)â•… a.â•… b.

Faiâ•… che ti pare do whatâ•… youâ•… please ‘Do as you please’ Che non farebbe! what not he.would.do ‘What wouldn’t he do!’

On these grounds we expect that a complementizer belonging to the wh–series will not require a question interpretation. What does represent a potential problem for the present theory, however, is that none of the complementizers considered in section 2.1 allows for such an interpretation. Nothing in what we have said so far blocks the possibility that a k–complementizer could be interpreted as interrogative in the scope of an appropriate question operator, in a similar way to specialized interrogative wh–complementizers like English whether. From this perspective, systems like (19)– (20) are interesting in the first instance because they instantiate precisely the possibility we predict. Let us consider, then, what the characterization of the hypothetical/interrogative complementizer may be, beginning with a language like Italian (or indeed English) in which it has a specialized lexicalization. Hypothetical sentences are interpreted much in the same way proposed previously for complement sentences, that is, as the restriction of a propositional variable. According to Lewis’s (1975) classical treatment, the latter is bound by an adverb of quantification, or by a generic quantifier in the absence of other overt quantifications. Thus the sentence in (18a) has an LF of the type in (22a), if the adverb of

‘If’â•… 69 quantification is computed. Otherwise the propositional variable is closed by a universal quantification, as in (22b). (22)â•… a.â•… For many situations/possible worlds x:€x it rains, I go out (in x) b. For all situations/possible worlds x:€x it rains, I go out (in x)

An element which introduces a propositional variable (restricted by the embedded propositional content) is associated in the present grammar with structures of the type argued for in chapter 1 for k-type complementizers€ – which we will then extend to Italian se ‘if’.10 The latter can in turn be interpreted not only in a hypothetical context as in (15), but also in an interrogative context€– exactly like English ‘if’. The embedded interrogative interpretation simply follows if the variable introduced by se and the like (and restricted by the proposition following it) can be licensed in the scope of a question operator. We provisionally assume that this is what the interpretation of an interrogative complementizer amounts to, as in (23).11 (23)â•… I wonder for which situations/possible worlds x:€x John comes

At this point the characterization of the se complementizer is fundamentally the same as for the che complementizer, and more specifically for the indefinite complementizer in (6b), where the variable that the complementizer introduces is closed quantificationally. Therefore we fully expect that ‘if’ and the indefinite declarative complementizer can be lexicalized by the same item, yielding the Làconi system in (19). In view of the proposals reviewed in section 2.1.2 to the effect that complement sentences are relatives, it is particularly worth remarking on the independent literature treating conditionals as relatives€– specifically as free relatives. Thus, for Bhatt and Pancheva (2006), ‘turning to conditionals, our proposal that they are interpreted as free relatives amounts to the claim that they are definite descriptions of possible worlds’. As for the syntax, ‘the null operator in Spec, CP of if-clauses and likely the when itself in e.g. German conditionals, is a definite binder of the possible world variable’. As Bhatt and Pancheva note, the proposal that there is a covert operator in the Spec, CP of conditional if clauses goes back to Larson (1985), where the focus of the discussion is interrogative if clauses. For the latter, Larson posits the presence of a covert whether, which he extends to conditional if clauses. For Bhatt and Pancheva, ‘the fact that if functions in many languages as both a conditional and an interrogative complementizer makes sense within the general proposal that conditionals are free relative clauses. In English and in many other languages, this syncretism would be part of a more general structural parallelism between questions and free

70â•… Variation in Romance k-complementizer systems relatives’. However, if ‘free relatives are interpreted as definite descriptions, i.e. with the variable abstracted over being bound by a definite operator’ (Bhatt and Pancheva 2006), the lexicalization patterns observed in Làconi, in which ‘if’ overlaps with the indefinite complementizer, and not with the definite one, seem to be difficult to account for. More generally, the present account does not require us to postulate zero world operators in the syntax. Quite simply, the so-called complementizer is itself the element that introduces a (situation/ possible world) variable in the syntax of LF.12 If anything, our problem is how to provide a sharper characterization for languages like Italian that have two distinct complementizers, or languages like Paulilàtino in (5) that end up having three. Let us begin by considering a Â�language with three distinct forms, including the definite and indefinite declarative complementizers, as well as the hypothetical/interrogative complementizer, as exemplified for Paulilàtino in (5) and (24). Following the discussion in section 2.1, the definite complementizer introduces a propositional complement akin to a definite description, while the indefinite complementizer introduces an indefinite variable. The latter is also true of the proposition introduced by ‘if’, which therefore needs to be further differentiated. (24)â•…

Paulilàtino si ‘prEDEâ•… n Ess ifâ•… it.rains notâ•… I.go.out ‘If it rains, I won’t go out’

In introducing the contexts triggering subjunctive in Italian in section 2.1.1, we mentioned that they are not necessarily lexically selected; rather, subjunctive can be triggered in the scope of the question operator in (8c). In the scope of the question operator, the declarative complementizer, ordinarily embedded by a verb like to know, alternates with the ‘if’ complementizer, as in (25)€– a phenomenon discussed in the literature under the name of ‘unselected questions’ (Adger and Quer 2001). Needless to say, the reading of the embedded sentence in (25) is always non-factive, i.e. within the scope of the matrix question operator, independently of whether the indicative or the subjunctive is selected. As shown in (26), a matrix negation has very much the same effect as a question operator, both with respect to the triggering of the subjunctive in (26a) and to the possibility of the ‘if’ complementizer in (26b). In (26) only the co-occurrence of the che complementizer with the embedded indicative in (26a) yields a presupposed (factive) reading of the embedded sentence; both the subjunctive and the ‘if’ complementizer force the sentence to be read within the scope of the negation operator.

‘If’â•… 71 (25)â•… Sai se è/ siaâ•… venuto? you.knowâ•… ifâ•… he.is/â•… be come ‘Do you know if he has arrived?’ (26) a.â•… Nonâ•… sa che sono/siaâ•… guarito not he.knowsâ•… thatâ•… I.am healed ‘He doesn’t know that I am healthy again’ b. Nonâ•… sa se sono/siaâ•… guarito not he.knowsâ•… that/ifâ•… he.be healed ‘I don’t know if he is healthy again’

The fact that ‘if’ is triggered in the scope of a matrix question or negative operator with an otherwise declarative (factive) verb, as in (25)–(26), points the way to a solution for the problem we are concerned with, i.e. the characterization of the contexts specialized for ‘if’. Negations and questions are two of the fundamental contexts triggering (negative) polarity items€– the third one being the hypothetical one. Thus, for instance, in Italian nessuno ‘anybody’, niente ‘anything’ etc. are licensed in the scope of negation (yielding the equivalent of the negative quantifiers nobody, nothing etc. in English), as well as in the scope of a question or of a hypothetical. We suggest that the complementizer system of languages like Italian or Paulilàtino in (24) (or, for that matter, English) is sensitive to polarity, so that complementizers, i.e. nominal heads responsible for introducing propositional variables, are lexicalized by two different items in non-polarity and polarity contexts, surfacing in the latter as se in Italian, if in English etc. Correspondingly, we shall refer to these as the polarity complementizers. In section 2.1 we concluded that it is to be expected that the complementizer system, i.e. the system of propositional variable introducers, and the wh–system may coincide. More to the point, in cases of split complementizer systems the coincidence is predicted to involve the indefinite complementizer, i.e. the one introducing an indefinite variable, rather than the definite complementizer, which introduces a (propositional) definite description. This mode of reasoning can now be extended to the ‘if’ complementizer. In languages of the type of Làconi in (19) there is no overlap between the complementizer and wh–systems. However, languages like Miglionico in (20) verify this prediction for the systems with a polarity complementizer ‘if’ and a nonpolarity complementizer ‘that’. For in Miglionico, as in the other varieties tabulated in (C) of the Appendix, it is the ‘if’ complementizer that belongs to the wh–system€– and not the (single) declarative complementizer. A further parameter brought to the fore by varieties like Miglionico has to do with which element of the wh–system the complementizer identifies with. In

72â•… Variation in Romance k-complementizer systems Italian, as reviewed in chapter 1, the overlap is between the declarative complementizer and the wh–element for ‘what’. By contrast, in Miglionico in (20) the overlap is between the ‘if’ complementizer and the wh–item for ‘who’. This parameter is independent of the others considered. Thus, in Ruvo di Puglia in (27) the ‘if’ complementizer has the same form as ‘what’, and not ‘who’ as in Miglionico. By contrast, in a variety like Secinaro, otherwise entirely comparable to Guglionesi in (1), the modal complementizer has the same form as ‘who’, and not ‘what’, as in (28). (27)â•… Ruvo di Puglia (Apulia) a.â•… tS cɔ:v nn iss that it.rainsâ•… not I.go.out ‘If it rains I won’t go out’ a’. nn tsattï†fi tï†fi fratt m cɔm not I.know if brother-yours me calls ‘I don’t know if your brother is calling me’ b tSi vEn whoâ•… comes ‘Who comes?’ c. tSe ffɔS whatâ•… you.do ‘What are you doing?’ (28) Secinaro (Abruzzi) a. vujj k vvi I.want that you.come ‘I want you to come’ b. k vvE who comes ‘Who comes?’ c. ku ffE what you.do ‘What are you doing?’

In terms of the discussion in chapter 1, the wh–quantifier for ‘what’, such as Italian che, is characterized by the absence of any lexical restriction. Thus che questions can be answered by an animate or inanimate noun phrase or by a proposition, as in (29). Of course a lexical restriction can be added by a noun phrase, when che ‘what’ appears as its specifier€– or by a sentence, when che appears as the ‘that’ complementizer. (29)â•… a.â•… Che c’ è? what there is ‘What is it?’

Interaction with (non-)finitenessâ•… 73 b. Il campanello ‘the doorbell’ b’. Il postino ‘the postman’ b’’. Suona il postino rings the postman ‘The postman is ringing’

By contrast, the wh–quantifier for ‘who’ is characterized by a restriction to humans, which poses an interesting question as to its ability to appear as a complementizer at all. In fact, the occurrence of, say, Miglionico tʃi in (20) as a complementizer excludes the possibility that the restriction to humans is encoded in the lexicon. What we suggest instead is that it is a lexical property of tʃi that it requires a restriction. In complementizer contexts the latter is provided by the proposition that tʃi introduces. In wh–contexts, on the other hand, the restriction to humans may represent an interpretive closure in the absence of lexical restrictions. If this line of reasoning is correct, we should be able to find languages in which the wh–quantifier for ‘who’ also appears as the wh–determiner, restricted by a following noun phrase. A case in point is Fontanigorda in (30), which, like Italian, has a single declarative complementizer overlapping with a wh–quantifier€– except that the overlap involves ‘who’, rather than ‘what’. As expected, the same element also appears as the wh–determiner, as shown in (30d). (30)â•… Fontanigorda (Liguria) a.â•… m aŋ ittu ke te vie dɔpu to.meâ•… they.haveâ•… saidâ•… thatâ•… youâ•… comeâ•… afterwards ‘They told me that you are coming afterwards’ b. ke te tSammi whoâ•… youâ•… call ‘Who do you call?’ c. kuɔseâ•… te fE what youâ•… do ‘What are you doing?’ d. ke kamiï†ıaâ•… te te bEtti which shirt youâ•… yourselfâ•… put.on ‘Which shirt are you putting on?’

2.3

The interaction with (non-)finiteness

The last question we shall consider in this chapter concerns yet another asymmetry between wh–quantifiers and complementizers, observed even in

74â•… Variation in Romance k-complementizer systems languages in which they have the same lexicalization. Thus, in standard Italian che ‘what’ introduces both finite and infinitival questions, as in (31a). In contrast, complementizer che is restricted to finite contexts, and infinitival embeddings involve, if anything, prepositional introducers like di ‘of’ in (31b). (31)â•… a.â•… b.

Che faccio/â•… fare? whatâ•… I.do/ to.do ‘What should one/I do?’ Mi hanno dettoâ•… di/*cheâ•… essereâ•… venuti to.meâ•… they.haveâ•… said to/that be come ‘They told me that they had come’

The problem is not a descriptive one, since complementizer che can be distinguished from wh–che on the basis of both the syntactic context of insertions and its semantic characterization. From an explanatory point of view, however, the objection may legitimately be raised that the connection between complementizers and finiteness crucially links them to the functional projections of the verb. Now, finiteness has two components€– one relating to tense, and another relating to agreement. As is well known, some Romance languages allow these two components to be distinguished, since they feature so-called inflected infinitives. A case in point is provided by Sardinian varieties, including Paulilàtino in (32). Both inflected and non-inflected infinitives can be introduced by a prepositional complementizer, as in (32b)€ – but inflected infinitives also allow for the finite complementizer, as independently observed by Jones (1993). The finite complementizer, then, is sensitive not to the temporal/modal/aspectual properties of the verb, but to the presence of an agreement inflection. As we have seen, Paulilàtino, like many Sardinian varieties, has two declarative complementizers, a modal and a non-modal one€– and it is the modal complementizer that co-Â�occurs with inflected infinitives. However, Manzini and Savoia (2005) also provide examples from varieties which have only one declarative complementizer, which also appears in front of the inflected infinitive (for instance, Siniscola). (32)â•… Paulilàtino a.â•… l appu attu innantis dE/ ki TrrarE- s tuE it I.have done before to/ that come.back-2sg you ‘I did it before you came back’ b. l an fattu innantis dE EnnErE-â•… (nE) /ki nnErE-nE i it they. have done before to come- 3pl that come-3pl they ‘They did it before they came’

In our theory (cf. in particular chapter 5) the so-called agreement inflection is a lexicalization of the EPP argument of the sentence internal to the verb. If

Interaction with (non-)finitenessâ•… 75 no lexicalization of the EPP argument is present, either by an inflection or by a lexical subject, as is the case for non-inflected infinitives, we assume that the EPP argument is introduced as a variable at the interpretive interface. This variable can then be given a bound reading (control/raising) or a generic reading (arbitrary control). In such terms, the restriction of the che-type complementizer to finite sentences€– including inflected infinitivals€– can be restated as an incompatibility between it and the EPP variable. The question then becomes why the finite complementizers would have this crucial property. We may surmise that the presence of an EPP variable within the sentence defines an open predicate, rather than a proposition. Since we have proposed that the finite complementizer of Romance, and presumably that of English as well, takes a proposition as its complement, we may conclude that what the complementizer is actually incompatible with is the open expression resulting from the presence of the EPP variable. Similarly, for Roussou (2010), the fact that in English that requires a propositional complement ultimately yields the that-t filter, precisely because it excludes the possibility that the EPP argument is a variable. In Roussou’s terms, the absence both of that and of the EPP gives rise to a case of predicate embedding€ – which allows the base-generated wh–phrase in the matrix left periphery to bind a variable in the argument structure of the embedded predicate. In fact, Roussou (2010) analyses both the *for-t and the *for–to filters as results of the same restriction, to the effect that for, like that, embeds a proposition, barring EPP variables. Though a discussion of the that-t filter is beyond the scope of the present work, it is worth recalling that, according to the classical conclusion of Taraldsen (1978), languages like Italian lack that-t filter effects (whence the apparent lack of correlation with the finiteness constraint on the complementizer) in that they are null-subject languages. We propose that what is at stake is simply the fact that while in non-null-subject languages the EPP must be satisfied by a syntactic-level argument (the subject), in null-subject languages a morphological-level argument (the inflection) suffices. The latter therefore closes off the proposition even in the case of wh–extraction (effectively acting as a resumptive pronoun). Similarly, non-null-subject Romance languages, in contrast to English, generally have subject clitics and resolve the propositionality requirement on chetype complementizers by lexicalizing one of them. On the basis of a comparison with Romansh varieties, Taraldsen (2002) and Manzini and Savoia (2005) in particular conclude that the€–i of French qui is a subject clitic of this type. A further twist on the finiteness problem is introduced by the ‘if’ complementizer. In a language like standard Italian, hypothetical se ‘if’ is restricted to

76â•… Variation in Romance k-complementizer systems finite sentences, as in (33a), while interrogative se normally occurs in front of infinitival questions, as in (33b). Now, recall that in Làconi in (19) the same tʃi form lexicalizes both the modal declarative complementizer and the polarity (i.e. hypothetical/question) one. As it turns out, while declarative tʃi is restricted to finite sentences, interrogative tʃi combines with infinitivals, as in (34). In the discussion surrounding (23), we interpreted the interrogative complementizer as a wh–element ranging over propositions in the scope of a question operator. We must conclude that this interpretation makes it compatible with embedded EPP variables. In this respect, ‘if’ in the wh–construal behaves exactly like other wh–elements, including the English wh–complementizer whether. (33)â•… a.â•… b. (34)

*Seâ•… piovere, … if to.rain Non so se uscire not I.know if to.go.out ‘I don’t know whether to go out’

Làconi n iSSiu tSi u tsErriai not I.know if him to.call ‘I don’t know whether to call him’

The issue is further complicated by the fact that while Italian se or Làconi tʃi can introduce infinitival questions, as in (33)–(34), neither English if nor French si can do so. In present terms, this means that French si and English if must embed complete propositions, very much like che or that, even if they are construed in the scope of an interrogative operator. The present analysis can be usefully compared with Kayne’s (1991). For Kayne, the finiteness constraint on complementizers reflects their incompatibility with the PRO subject of infinitivals; in other words, he substantially agrees with the view advocated here that the finiteness requirement relates to the EPP rather than to the temporal properties of the sentence. However, for him, what is responsible for this constraint is the structural government relation holding between the complementizer and PRO. The lack of such a constraint on Italian se correlates with a further structural property, i.e. with the relatively high position of the infinitive, which protects PRO from government by the complementizer. That the position of the infinitive is higher in Italian than in French is shown, according to Kayne, by the fact that the clitic precedes the infinitive in French, while it follows the infinitive in Italian. However, he acknowledges that his theory ends up not accounting for the incompatibility of Italian che with the infinitive, since on the evidence of cliticization the infinitive must be in the same high position in declaratives as in questions (1991:€95). In Làconi

Interaction with (non-)finitenessâ•… 77 the problem is even starker, since the same tʃi complementizer cannot combine with infinitival declaratives€– as predicted by Kayne on the basis of the preverbal position of the clitic seen in (19)€– but can combine with infinitival questions. Furthermore, in the account of Kayne (1991), whether is oblivious to the finiteness of the sentence it embeds because it is not a complementizer at all, but a wh–phrase€– where these two notions are given a structural characterization once more, as a C head and a C Specifier respectively. However, a structural characterization as a C Specifier cannot be applied to Làconi tʃi€– on pain of not being able to predict that (as a C head) it excludes non-finite sentences in declarative contexts.13 A different type of evidence concerning definiteness restrictions on Â�complementizers of the k-series comes from Northern Italian vÂ�arieties Â�(including some that display the standard Italian identity of form between the wh–quantifier for ‘what’ and the complementizer), which form questions by combining whâ•fi quantifier and complementizer, as discussed in detail in chapter 1 (especially section 1.2). Most of the relevant languages alternate between wh– che in finite sentences and the wh–element alone in infinitivals, as shown in (35) for Zoldo Alto. However, there are (a few) otherwise entirely comparable languages in which the wh– che cluster introduces both finite and infinitival questions, like Civate in (36)€– though the che-type complementizer is otherwise restricted to finite complements. (35)â•… Zoldo Alto (Veneto) a.â•… di-me ke ke te faTe tell-meâ•… whatâ•… thatâ•… youâ•… do ‘Tell me what you are doing’ b. no sai ke fa notâ•… I.knowâ•… whatâ•… to.do ‘I don’t know what to do’ (36) Civate (Lombardy) a. tSe ke te tSamet whoâ•… thatâ•… youâ•… call ‘Who are you calling?’ b. so mia tSe ke tSa’ma I.know not who that to.call ‘I don’t know who to call’

The pattern of Zoldo Alto is what we expect on the basis of the assumption that in the wh–che sequence, the che-type element is the ordinary complementizer; as such we predict it to be sensitive to the finiteness of the embedded clause and in particular to exclude an infinitival sentence, whose EPP

78â•… Variation in Romance k-complementizer systems argument is a variable under present assumptions. Let us consider, then, the case of Civate. Evidently the presence of the wh–quantifier in the left periphery of the ke complementizer is sufficient for the latter to also be interpreted in the scope of a question operator€– that is, as a wh–element of sorts ranging over propositions. If so, we expect it to have the property that we have independently reviewed for such elements above, that is, that of being insensitive to the finiteness restriction. Appendix (A)

Comp def

Comp indef/wh–

rel

who

what

Sonnino Pontecorvo Colledimacine Montenerodomo Torricella Peligna Secinaro Civitaluparella Vastogirardi Capracotta Guardiaregia Guglionesi Frigento Nocara Albidona Terranova Pollino Morano Orsomarso Conflenti Platania Gizzeria Sorbo S.Basile S.Pietro a Maida Iacurso Arena Umbriatico Gerace S.Agata del Bianco

ka ka ka ka ka ka ka ka ka ka ka ka ka ka ka ka ka ka ka ka ka ka ka ka ka ka ka

ke k k k k k k k k k k ke k k k ki ki ki ki ki ki ki ki ki ki ki ki

ke k k k k k k k k k/ka k ki k k k ki ki ki ki ki/ka ki ki ki ki ki ki ki

ki ki ki ki k k ki kia kia ki ki ki k kwE ku ku ku kinE kinE kina kinE ku ku ku kini ku ku

ke k k k k ku k k k k k ke k k k ki ki ki ki ki ki ki ki ki ki ki ki

(A’) Dorgali Aritzo Ardaùli Paulilàtino Gallo

ka ka ka ka ka

ki tSi ki ki ku

ki tSi ki€– ka ki ku

kiE (e)tSinE kie kiE ki

ittE ittE (e)itte ittE kwe

Interaction with (non-)finitenessâ•… 79 Tufillo

ka

k

k

kia

Canosa Sannita

ka

k

k

ki

(k) dEkk ki

(B) Làconi Orroli Settimo S.Pietro Sìliqua

comp ka ka ka ka

comp/ if tSi ki ki ki

rel tSi€– ka ki€– ka ki ki

who tSinni (e)kini kini (ak)kini

what itta itta itta itta

(C) Miglionico Minervino Murge Gravina in Puglia Bitetto Ruvo di Puglia Canosa Bisceglie Martina Franca Molfetta Mesagne Putignano Brindisi Grottaglie Carmiano Uggiano Copertino Melissano

comp ka ka ka ka ka ka kE ka ka ka ka ka ka ka ka ka ka

if tSi tS tSi tS tS tS tS tS tSi tSi tS tSi tSi Si tSi tSi tSi

rel ka ka ka ka ka ka kE ka ka ka ka ka ka ka ka ka ka

who tSi tS tSi tS tSi tS tS tS tSi tSi tS tSi tSi Si tSi tSi tSi

what tSe tSk attSok tS tS tSE tS tS tSE tSe tSE tSE tSe tSE tSE tSe tSi

3 Sentential negation:€adverbs

The currently standard approach to the structure of negation (in Romance) was inaugurated by Pollock (1989), who proposed that negation adverbs such as pas in French fill the Spec position of a NegP projection generated below the I position targeted by the verb. The head of NegP can in turn be filled by a negative clitic like ne in French, whose higher inflectional position depends on movement, i.e. cliticization. In other languages, which include colloquial French, no negative head is present. Belletti (1990) applies the same theory to Italian, which only has a negative head; the latter originates in the Neg position and moves higher as a result of cliticization. A more complex set of data, involving Northern Italian varieties, is considered by Zanuttini (1997), who proposes that there are several Neg positions. Specifically, a Neg position is generated above I, while below I there are three Neg positions. The inflectional Neg position hosts negative clitics in languages like Italian which do not require a sentential negation adverb. In contrast, languages which require a sentential negation adverb generate it in one of the lower Neg positions; if a clitic combines with the adverb, it is generated in the head of the relevant Neg position and moves to the inflectional domain via cliticization. In other words, for Zanuttini (1997) preverbal clitic negations are associated with two different structures, according to whether they negate alone or combine with a negative adverb. In turn, the lower Neg positions are defined in relation to the general hierarchy of adverbs proposed by Cinque (1999); according to Zanuttini (1997), her Neg2, Neg3 and Neg4 positions occur within the aspectual adverbial series, while they do not interact in any significant way with either the temporal or the modal series. Neg1 corresponds to the negative clitic position in the inflectional domain. According to Cinque (1999:€106), the aspectual adverbial series is ordered according to the hierarchy partially reproduced in (1a). The three adverbial negation positions proposed by Zanuttini (1997:€99) are ordered with respect to this hierarchy as in (1b). The three different Neg positions correspond to three different types of sentential negation adverbs, which Zanuttini individuates in 80

Sentential negation:€adverbsâ•… 81 Northern Italian varieties on the basis of their distribution. The higher adverbial Neg position Neg2 corresponds to sentential negation adverbs such as pa in Piedmontese varieties or the optional mica of standard Italian. In the same Piedmontese varieties in which pa occurs as Neg2, the Neg3 position is filled by sentential negation adverbs of the nen type. In turn, the lowest adverbial negation position Neg4 corresponds to the Lombard type no. (1)â•… a.â•… [Tanterior already [AspTerminative no longer [AspContinuative still [AspPerfective always…[Voice well b. [Neg2 [already [Neg3 [no longer [still [always … [well [Neg4

In closely related literature, the functional category Neg also plays a role in explaining interpretive facts, specifically ‘negative concord’, whereby two negative elements in the sentence do not give rise to a double negation, but rather are interpreted as instantiations of a single logical negation. Consider, for instance, a Romance language like Italian which has a negative clitic; the latter combines with a negative argument or adverb (niente ‘nothing’, mai ‘never’, etc.) to yield a single logical negation. Haegeman and Zanuttini (1991) explain this phenomenon on the basis of a Neg Criterion, modelled on the Wh–Criterion of Rizzi (1996). On the basis of the Neg Criterion, the negative clitic in the head position of a NegP requires a Neg operator in its Spec and vice versa. The head-Spec configuration is in turn read as an agreement relation, yielding a single negation interpretation. This analysis presupposes that niente, mai and the like€– i.e. n-words€– are negative quantifiers. A consistent body of literature on Romance languages argues for a different conclusion, namely that Romance n-words are negative polarity items (Rizzi 1982; Laka 1990; Longobardi 1992; Acquaviva 1994). In other words, n-words have no intrinsically negative properties, but are simply existentials, or free variables in the terms of Heim (1982), which are interpreted in the scope of the negation or another polarity operator. The most immediate argument in favour of the polarity status of n-words in Romance comes from the fact that they occur in modal environments (questions, hypotheticals) without any implication of negative meaning. The argument that is often advanced in favour of a negative quantifier status for n-words, namely that they appear in fragments (Zanuttini 1997), depends on the fact that fragments are the result of ellipsis€– and that they interpretively correspond to a full sentential structure, obviously capable of hosting an abstract negative operator. In what follows we assume that n-words are negative polarity items (and not negative quantifiers). This entitles us to (provisionally) disregard the role played by NegP in negative concord. We shall return to negative concord in chapter 4, where we shall also consider the sentential negation clitics which enter into it.

82â•… Sentential negation:€adverbs In this chapter we focus on sentential negation adverbs. Specifically, in Â� section 3.1 we note that sentential negation adverbs either take the same form as negative arguments such as ‘nothing’ or are bare nouns. We argue that treating them as nominal elements, specifically connected to the internal argument of the predicate, allows for an explanation of data such as the fact that they trigger the partitive, or their sensitivity to the person (1st/2nd vs. 3rd) of the internal argument itself. Correspondingly, we abandon the Neg categorization in favour of a reassignment of sentential negation adverbs to a nominal, argument-related category, tentatively labelled Q.1 In section 3.2 we examine the distributional phenomena targeted by the hierarchy in (1) – keeping in mind also the fact that recent literature (Ernst 2002; Svenonius 2002; Nilsen 2003) argues that they are sensitive not to syntactic hierarchies but to semantic constraints on selection and/or scope. In particular, we reassess the sub-hierarchy in (1) in the light of our treatment of sentential negation adverbs as both nominal and argumental. We conclude that the adverbs of the sub-hierarchy in (1) are attached to the eventive domain of the sentence in accordance with LF selection requirements and that they are ordered within this domain according to the same macrocategories encountered in the argumental and inflectional domains€– i.e. roughly by quantificational (Q), deictic (Loc) and nominal/argumental (N) properties. In section 3.3 we briefly reconsider another major distributional pattern concerning the position of adverbs with respect to verbs. Cinque (1999) and Zanuttini (1997) predict that any verbal head appearing internally to the hierarchy of adverbs in (1) merely cuts it into two segments, without any reordering of the adverbs relative to one another. We argue that if the ability of non-finite verbs to appear in the middle of the sequence in (1) is construed as an indication of their low position, then the fact that they notably precede pronominal clitics (i.e. inflectional material) remains unexplained. We conclude that the non-finite verbs are quite high in the sentence (participles also define independent sentences as in Kayne (1993)). The adverbs in (1) attach even higher because the lack of tense specifications allows for an eventive treatment of the higher projections of the sentence (along the lines of the flexible matching of syntactic and interpretive projections proposed by Svenonius (2002) and Ernst (2002)). Overall, then, we devote this chapter to providing a recategorization of sentential negation adverbs; the alternative account of their distributional properties is meant to establish the compatibility of this recategorization with known facts. As anticipated, we leave the recategorization of negation clitics and the reappraisal of negative concord for chapter 4.

Sentential negation adverbs are nominalâ•… 83 3.1

Sentential negation adverbs are nominal and argumental

In several Northern Italian varieties, notably Piedmontese ones of the type also studied by Zanuttini (1997), the sentential negation adverb has the same form as the negative argument for ‘nothing’. This is true of nEŋ as in (2), nEint(a) as in (3), nota as in (4), and rEŋ as in (5), as well as nia in Ladin varieties, as in (6). As a result of the variable valency of the verb, the (b) examples are ambiguous between the argumental and sentential negation interpretations; specifically, since the verb can be construed both transitively and intransitively, the negative item can fill the internal argument slot, or it can have a reading equivalent to a sentential negation. Conversely, it is only the valency of the verb that disambiguates the sentential negation readings in (a) and the argumental readings in (b). (2) Montaldo (Piedmont) a.â•… i u tSam nEŋ Iâ•… himâ•… callâ•… not ‘I don’t call him’ b. i mdZâ•… nEŋ I eat nothing/not ‘I don’t eat (anything)’ (3) Oviglio (Piedmont) a. a n El vig nEinta I notâ•… himâ•… seeâ•… not ‘I don’t see him’ b. u n maJdZaâ•… nEinta heâ•… notâ•… eats nothing/not ‘He doesn’t eat (anything)’ (4) Quarna Sotto (Piedmont) a. tSamuâ•… not -t I.call notâ•… you ‘I am not calling you’ b. j vOg nota I see no/nothing ‘I don’t see (anything)’ (5) Stroppo/Macra (Piedmont) a. lu tSamuâ•… rEŋ himâ•… I.call not ‘I don’t call him’ b. al fai rEŋ he does nothing ‘He does nothing’

84â•… Sentential negation:€adverbs (6)â•… La Pli de Mareo (Alto Adige/South Tyrol) a.â•… i ne le kErdiâ•… nia Iâ•… notâ•… himâ•… call not ‘I don’t call him’ b. ju ne li nia I notâ•… readâ•… not/nothing ‘I don’t read (anything)’

The common lexicalization of the sentential negation adverb and negative arguments is recognized in the historical literature, specifically in connection with what is taken to be a ‘grammaticalization’ process changing the negative argument into a functional category Neg. Thus, Roberts and Roussou (2003) mention ‘negative quantifiers/pronouns’ as one of the ‘principal sources for clausal negators’ (English not is an example of this). In fact, there are many Northern Italian varieties in which the types nen, neinta, etc. for the sentential negation do not have the same form as ‘nothing’, so that the connection between the former and negative arguments appears to be purely etymological. However, varieties of the type in (2)–(6) seem to point to a bona fide lexical identity of negation and negative argument. Therefore we may wonder whether the best theory is one which posits two lexical entries for them, with the negation associated with the category Neg and the argument with the category N/Q. In fact, only a subset of the negative elements reviewed so far contains the negative morphology n-; thus, the type rEŋ is etymologically connected to a bare noun ( change of state, Cennamo’s evidence could be taken to show that the be/have parameter does not cut a point on a scale, further undermining the idea that the variation space could be generally organized through scales.11 Therefore, for the purposes of the present discussion, we simply maintain that where the same predicate takes have or be depending on the language, it is construed as monadic (unaccusative) with be and as dyadic (i.e. a concealed transitive) with have, although admittedly we have no insight to offer on this matter.12 6.4.1

Interactions between auxiliary selection according to transitivity/ voice and according to person In what follows, we consider the fine variation associated with interactions between auxiliary selection according to person and according to transitivity and voice. The data have attracted some attention in the literature, though not necessarily for the reasons deemed relevant here. For instance, Cennamo (2001, 2008) notices that in Sorrento, be occurs in the 3rd person singular with (change of) state verbs; in all other cases the auxiliary is have. However, for Cennamo, ‘what is interesting about the contemporary Campanian data on auxiliary selection is the fact that the variation appears to follow the Unaccusativity gradient’ (2008:€135), since she dismisses the person split as ‘part of a system for marking persons on the verb’ (2001:€447, our translation). Thus, what we

Finer parametrizationâ•… 225 take to be complex variation involving the crossing of two parameters (transitivity and person split) is considered in Cennamo’s work only for its interest with respect to one of these. Let us begin by illustrating the languages in (36)–(37), in which some persons in the paradigm are associated with a single auxiliary, while the others alternate between have and be essentially according to the pattern of standard Italian. Specifically, in Colledimacine, as shown in (36), the 3rd person is sensitive to transitivity and voice, as shown in (the relevant forms of) (36a) and (36c), while the 1st and 2nd persons are associated with auxiliary be, as in (36a–b). In Aliano, as shown in (37), the 3rd person singular alternates between have and be according to transitivity/voice, as in (37b) and (37c), while the other persons take have, as in (37a). (36)â•… Colledimacine (Abruzzi) a. so/ Si/ e/ semm@/ se:t@/ I.am/you.are/he.is/ we.are/you.are/ ‘I have come’ etc. b.  so/ Si/ semm@/ se:t him I.am/you.are/ we.are/ you.are ‘I/you/we have called him’ c.â•…  a cama:t@ him he.has/they.have called ‘He has/ they have called him’

e m@nu:t@ they.are come cama:t@ called

(37)â•… Aliano (Lucania) a.â•… Eddï†ı/ (G)ei/â•… Emm@/ aves@/ En@ v@nut@/durmut@ I.have/you.have/we.have/you.have/they.have come/slept ‘I have come/slept’ etc. b. E vv@nut@ he.is come ‘He has come’ c. a durmut@ he.hasâ•… slept ‘He has slept’

In both of the examples in (36)–(37), it is the 3rd person (singular) that displays auxiliary selection according to transitivity and voice€– while the 1st and 2nd persons do not display such sensitivity and are associated with a single auxiliary; incidentally, this latter auxiliary varies between have in Aliano and be in Colledimacine. Loporcaro (1988, 2007) and La Fauci and Loporcaro (1989:€167) discuss similar data from Altamura, in which the 1st and 2nd persons freely alternate between have and be, while 3rd person shows a residual sensitivity to verbal class; thus, 3rd singular has only be with unaccusatives, while 3rd plural has only have with transitives.

226â•… The auxiliary:€have/be alternation There are also varieties in which auxiliary selection according to transitivity and voice is observed in other persons in addition to the 3rd. For instance, the split paradigm of Vastogirardi in Table 6.1 (vi) holds for transitives/unergatives, while unaccusatives involve be throughout the paradigm. This means that both the 3rd and 1st singular alternate between have in transitives and be in unaccusatives, as illustrated in (38a–b), while the other persons do not alternate, as in (38a–b’). (38)â•… Vastogirardi (Molise) a.â•… sig@/â•… si/â•… E/â•… sem@/â•… set@/â•… soâ•… I. amâ•… etc. ‘I have come’â•… etc. b. r aj@/ a camat@ himâ•… I.have/he.hasâ•… called ‘I have/hehas called him’ b’. r@ si/ sem   himâ•… you.are/we.are/you.are/they.areâ•… ‘You/we/they have called him’

mnut come

camat@ called

These can be described as person split languages where have/be alternate according to transitivity/voice in some persons, typically the 3rd person, while the other persons have a single auxiliary, namely have in Colledimacine and Vastogirardi and be in Aliano. An equivalent way of stating this is what to Loporcaro (2007:€ 198) ‘makes little sense’, namely that ‘the distribution of auxiliary E/H … suggests a person ergativity split’. The languages in (39)–(40) illustrate another interaction of the person split with auxiliary selection according to transitivity/voice. In Molina di Ledro, the reflexive in (39a) has be in the 1st and 2nd persons and have in the 3rd person. However, unaccusatives are associated with be throughout the paradigm, as shown for the 3rd person in (39b), and transitives/unergatives are associated with have, as shown for the 1st person in (39c). (39)â•… Molina di Ledro (Trentino) a. me so lava E te te se E el/ laâ•… s a A neâ•… sumeâ•… laveâ•… E ve se E i/ le s a A ClS MP Aux washed ‘I have washed myself’ etc. b. l/ i E viï†−u ClS Aux come-m./f. ‘I have come’ etc

Finer parametrizationâ•… 227 c. o miGa durmi I.have not slept ‘I have not slept’

Example (39) is an instance of what Loporcaro (2007) calls ‘triple auxiliation’. Since there are two auxiliaries, it is evident that ‘triple auxiliation’ will involve the alternation of be with have and with the have/be split according to person, as in Molina’s unaccusatives (be) vs. reflexives (have/be according to person) vs. transitives (have). In terms of the parametrization picture laid out in this chapter, therefore, Molina di Ledro can be described as a language in which the 3rd person displays a have/be alternation according to transitivity only (as in Soazza), while the 1st and 2nd persons involve auxiliary selection according to transitivity and voice (as in Italian). The result is that the 1st and 2nd persons of the middle (reflexive) are associated with be (as in Italian), and the 3rd person is associated with have (as in Soazza). As expected on the basis of the general reversibility of person split patterns, the reflexive in Buonabitacolo, as shown in (40a), has the reverse split from Molina€– namely, be with the 3rd person singular and have with the other persons (the 1st and 2nd singular and the plural). Like Molina, this language systematically associates be with unaccusatives as in (40b), and have with transitives/unergatives, as exemplified in (40c) with the 3rd person. In the present terms, Buonabitacolo, therefore, is a language in which auxiliary selection in the 3rd person singular is sensitive to transitivity and voice (like standard Italian); hence we find be in the reflexive (40a) and in the unaccusative (40b). By contrast, the 1st and 2nd persons (and all persons in the plural) are sensitive only to transitivity; hence be combines with unaccusatives, as in (40b), but otherwise we find have. (40)â•… Buonabitacolo (Campania) a.â•… m addZaâ•… lavato A t a A s E E JtSâ•… amma lavati A v aita A s anna A MP Aux washed ‘I have washed myself’ etc. b. so/â•… si/â•… E/â•… simmo/â•… siti/â•… soâ•… vv@nuto/ v@nuti Aux come/ come-pl ‘I have come’ etc. c. iddu a camatu/ a patitu he has called to your father ‘He called your father’

228â•… The auxiliary:€have/be alternation In a nutshell, the data in this section illustrate the important point, concerning parameters in general, that complex surface patterns are obtained through freely crossing more elementary patterns, attested in isolation in other systems.13 Specifically, no scales are necessary (or even sufficient) to account for the observed variation. 6.4.2 The third auxiliary Finally, we examine a number of Romance varieties which alternate between be, have and what can be described as syncretic or neutralized forms of have and be. Consider, for instance, the perfect of Briga in (41). This displays a transitivity split between be with unaccusatives, as (41a–a’) and have with transitives/unergatives, as in (41b). In the 2nd singular, however, both classes of verbs combine with the same auxiliary form, namely . The latter also occurs in copular contexts as in (42a) and in possession contexts, as in (42b). (41)â•… Briga Novarese (Piedmont) a.â•… sum/ l E Jy I.am/â•… he isâ•… come ‘I have/ he has come’ a’. sumŋ/ si/ iŋ Jyi we.are/ you.are/ they.are come ‘We/ you/ they have come’ b. / l a/ um/ i/ (i) aŋ drumetS I.have/ he has/ we.have/ you.have/ they have slept ‘I/ he/we/you/ they have slept’ c. t E Jy/drumetS youâ•… Aux come/ slept ‘You have come/ slept’ (42)â•… a.â•… b.

t E kunte:nt youâ•… areâ•… happy ‘You are happy’ ti g E fa:m you Loc have hunger ‘You are hungry’

In the reflexive€ – i.e. what in the present terms is an instance of middleÂ�passive voice€– Briga alternates between be in the 1st person and in the 2nd plural, as in (43a), and have in the 3rd, as in (43b), reproducing a pattern similar to Molina, as in (39). Interestingly, although have in (43b) combines with si, be in (43a) appears without si. In other words, the reflexive with be lacks any clitic middle-passive morphology, just like Trun, as in (30), or in fact Albanian. The  form of the 2nd singular appears without si, as in (43c).

Finer parametrizationâ•… 229 (43)â•… Briga a. sum lava I.am washed ‘I have washed’ a’. sumn/ si lavai we.are/ you.are washed.pl ‘We/ you have washed’ b. s a lava MP he.has washed ‘He has washed’ b’. s aŋ lavai MP they.have washed.pl ‘He has washed / they have washed’ c. t E lava you Aux washed ‘You have washed’

The data in (41)–(42) may suggest that a language like Briga has the two ordinary auxiliaries have and be€– while the rule in the morphological component takes care of the fact that there is a single lexical exponent for both of them in the 2nd person singular. The relevant lexical item  could be associated just with [2nd singular, Aux] specifications, and in a Late Insertion framework like Distributed Morphology this could simply be inserted under richer syntactic specifications in the absence of better (more highly specified) candidates. The absence of a se form in the reflexive in (43c) suggests that the neutralized form of the auxiliary can be functionally equivalent to be. In the pluperfect, we also find unique auxiliary forms, as illustrated for Briga once again in (44). In the 2nd person and in the 1st person plural, be is lexicalized in combination with the unaccusative in (44a–a’) and have with the unergative in (43b). In the 3rd person and the 1st person singular, there is a generalized form of the auxiliary, as in (44c–c’). The data in (45) show that this unique form for have/be also occurs in main verb contexts, i.e. in possessive contexts in (45a) and in copular contexts in (45b). (44)â•… Briga a.â•… sevi Jy I.wasâ•… come ‘I had come’ a’. sevŋ/ sevi Jyi we.were/ you.were come ‘We/ you had come’ b. evi/ evŋ/ evi drumetS I.had/ we.had/ you.had slept ‘I/ we/ you had slept

230â•… The auxiliary:€have/be alternation c. c’.

t evi/ l eva Jy/ drumetS you Aux/he Aux come/ slept ‘You/ he had come’ evŋ Jyi/ drumetS they.Auxâ•… come.pl/ slept ‘They had come/ slept’

(45)â•… Briga a.â•… ti g evi/ l g ev/ i g evŋ fa:m you Loc had/ he Loc had/ they Loc had hunger ‘You were/ he was/ they were hungry’ b. t evi/ l ev/ (i) evŋ kunte:nt you were/ he was/ they were happy ‘You were/ he was/ they were happy’

This type of pattern in the pluperfect is not infrequent in Italian varieties. Table 6.2 presents a summary of the relevant Northern Italian varieties exemplified by Manzini and Savoia (2005); the * symbol refers to the descriptively neutralized auxiliary, A-E refers to have/be alternations according to transitivity and/or voice, while a parenthesized (A) indicates the optionality of have with transitives/unergatives. It can be seen that the distribution of unique auxiliary forms gives rise to a person split of sorts. For instance, the more robustly attested pattern, that of Grumello and other varieties, has have/be alternations in the 1st and 2nd persons, both singular and plural, and the unique form of the auxiliary in the 3rd person€– which is the classical discourse-anchored vs. event-anchored split discussed in section 6.2. Comparable data are found in Southern Italian varieties (Manzini and Savoia 2005; Cennamo 2010). Just as we have done for the unique auxiliary of the 2nd person singular, one may envisage a morphological-level solution for the unique auxiliary of the pluperfect. In these terms, the syntax would have distinct categorizations for have and be throughout the pluperfect paradigm€ – while underspecified elements would be inserted under some of the terminal nodes, depending on morphological rules. However, this approach to syncretism, requiring Late Insertion, Impoverishment and default lexical entries, is rejected here for theoretical (as well as empirical) reasons (cf. in particular chapters 7 and 8). The discussion of the person category in section 6.2 is directly relevant in this connection. The three traditional persons are not captured in present terms by simply letting the 3rd be unspecified (or negatively specified) for the hearer and speaker features. Similarly, the three-way split found in (44) between differentiated be, differentiated have and the unique eva forms cannot be described by simply letting eva be underspecified for the have and be properties. Rather, a categorization system must be devised so that each of the three auxiliaries in (44)€– or in (42) above€– is positively specified.

Finer parametrizationâ•… 231 Table 6.2 Distribution of be, have and syncretic forms in the present perfect in Piedmontese and Lombard varieties Trecate Briga, Montebruno Cerano Masserano Grumello, Passirano, Civate, Casorezzo, Inveruno, Arconate, S.Fedele, S.Bartolomeo C. Olgiate Quarna Sotto

* A-E

* *

* *

* A-E

* A-E

* *

(A)-E A A-E

* * A-E

* * *

(A)-E A A-E

(A)-E A A-E

* * *

A-E A-E

A-E A-E

* A-E

A-E A-E

A-E A-E

A-E *

This takes us back to a question that we only partially dealt with in section 6.3.3, namely the lexical content of have and be. Let us begin with be, which in section 6.3.3 we simply characterized as a verb lacking an external argument. In copular contexts, we can take the lexical content of be to be the logical relation of set membership. In other words, the logical form of John is intelligent is roughly ‘John ∈ {intelligent}’ or ‘John is a member of the set of intelligent individuals’. Following Moro (1997), we conclude that there is no separate identificational reading of be. Let us now consider have, which we can take to be fundamentally the verb denoting possession. In section 6.1.1 we rejected Kayne’s (1993) analysis of have as derived from be through the incorporation of a prepositional complementizer, mostly because this applicative derivation doesn’t seem to be reflected in the morphologies which are actually observed.14 At the same time, it is evident that have, i.e. possession, is closely connected to be, i.e. set membership. We propose that this connection should be captured directly at the interpretive level, in the sense that have can be lexically characterized as the reverse relation to be. Thus, have fundamentally denotes set inclusion. In fact, in certain cases have is equivalent to ‘include’ as in Italian has two auxiliaries (or more abstractly This set has two members). The inclusion relation also yields inalienable possession in a particularly natural way (John has nice legs)€– and we can take all possession to fall under a reasonable extension of the same relation. Of course, the ‘include’ relation is transitive, whence the transitive properties of have discussed in section 6.3.3.

232â•… The auxiliary:€have/be alternation This proposal is close to that advanced by Belvin and den Dikken (1997:170), according to whom the ‘meaning’ of have … denotes a special kind of inclusion relation … dubbed ‘zonal inclusion’ … Entities have various zones associated with them, such that an object or eventuality may be included in a zone associated with an entity without being physically contained in that entity … The type of zones which may be associated with an entity will vary with the entity.

In short, be and have are not only characterized by a transitivity opposition, but more to the point they express relations which are in some sense the mirror image of each other. Against this background, we propose that the unique eva auxiliary in (44) denotes a generalized ‘set relation’, which according to context can be read as ‘member-of’ or as ‘includes’. If this is on the right track, we expect other lexicalizations of this interpretive category to be independently attested in natural languages. We surmise that the Romance preposition di ‘of’ is a good candidate for this role. Thus, di quite obviously corresponds to the inclusion relation in partitive contexts, as for instance in tre di queste mele ‘three of these apples’ (roughly ‘three individuals included in the set of apples here’)€– and we extend the same construal to inalienable possession, as in i capelli di Gianni ‘lit:€the hair of John’), and possession in general. At the same time, di is compatible with a reversal of the inclusion reading in such expressions as quell’idiota di Gianni ‘that idiot of John’ (cf. Kayne 1994; den Dikken 1998), where John is attributed the property of being idiot, i.e. ‘John ∈ {idiot}’. The analysis just proposed extricates us from the more traditional way of approaching the descriptive problem posed by (42)–(43) or (44)–(45), namely whether the unique auxiliary forms should be identified with have or with be. Cennamo (2010), in a historical perspective, suggests that eva is derived from have, criticizing the analysis in Manzini and Savoia (2005), whereby eva is taken to instantiate be, on the basis of the fact that it appears as the copula. Despite the obvious difference between the present proposal and our previous analysis, the same underlying intuition remains, namely that the eva type represents a particularly elementary semantics. Systems like Briga could be seen as a true instance of the ‘triple auxiliation’ of Loporcaro (2007). Thus, in Briga and similar varieties have and be alternate with what we may call the ‘third’ auxiliary (eva). In the Briga perfect, in particular, have and be split according to transitivity/voice, while the ‘third’ auxiliary alternates with both of them on the basis of the person split. In other varieties, such as Trecate, as shown in (46), have, be and the ‘third’

Some conclusionsâ•… 233 auxiliary can be seen to lexicalize the 1st, 3rd and 2nd persons respectively, as in (46a). (46)â•… Trecate (Piedmont) a.â•… / t E/ l E ï†−y/ drumy/ tSama-r I.have/ you Aux/ he is come/slept/ called-him ‘I have/ you have/ he has come/ slept/ called him’ b. suk/ t E/ l E kunte:nt I.am/ you Aux/ he is happy ‘I am/ you are/ he is happy’ c. i / t E/ l a tri fiØ Loc I.have/ you Aux/ he has three children ‘I have/ you have/ he has three children’

At the same time, we do not find what Loporcaro (2007) or other supporters of transitivity scales predict to exist€– i.e. a language in which, for instance, be lexicalizes one extreme in the scale, have lexicalizes the other extreme and there is a middle zone associated with the ‘third’ auxiliary. To us this is further evidence that while the whole approach based on hierarchies may have descriptive value, it certainly has no theoretical substance. 6.5

Some conclusions

The review of auxiliary selection phenomena in what precedes is consistent with the conclusion that there is a limited range of descriptive categories that are involved in the definition of superficially very articulated parametric systems. This includes the split between event-anchored and discourseanchored referents, the split between active and middle-passive voice and the split between transitive and unaccusative predicates. The interaction of these primitives results in fine parametrization. As for the transitivity split, we proposed that what is involved is simply the n-adicity of the predicate€– the basic split being between monadic and polyadic. As for voice, we concluded that the unification of reflexives and passives with impersonals requires reference to a notion of open/generic variable in the argument structure. The person split has been characterized in terms of event- vs. discourseanchoring. The kinds of facts that we are thinking of when we use labels like these are precisely person splits of the type presented here. What is at stake is not so much the referential properties of 1st/2nd person vs. 3rd person per se as the way in which the anaphoric properties of the 3rd person (which can function as a variable) vs. the purely deictic properties of the 1st and 2nd person interact with their anchoring in argument structure. For instance, if we think of

234â•… The auxiliary:€have/be alternation the argument slots associated with a given predicate as variables (Adger and Ramchand 2005), we may suggest that 3rd person referents provide (quantificational) binders for these variables€– while the mechanism for linking 1st and 2nd persons to the argument structure must necessarily follow some other route. Here and in chapter 5 we have illustrated the reasons why we conclude that transitivity and voice alternations cannot be characterized in terms of movement from object to subject position€– either separately or together. Faced with a set of empirical issues, such as those encountered in applying the classical movement analysis to the middle-passive voice of Italian or Albanian, one way out is simply to add provisos to the theory, so as to fit the new evidence. However, in the case of middle-passive voice, it seems to us that the extensive literature on this topic has shown that no simple manipulation of the movement theory suffices to capture the facts. Therefore there are reasons why the alternative we are offering should be least be considered. Importantly, the primitives that we employ, namely the notions of selection, LF variable, generic binding, predicate–argument structure and so on, all independently enter into minimalist theories, so no questions of explanatory adequacy should arise in this respect. We also went into some detail on the empirical evidence in order to draw general conclusions from it about the nature of parametrization. A core pursuit of linguistic theory is to define the categorial distinctions of universal grammar (UG). Languages vary as to whether these categories are or are not instantiated (and how) in their lexicon. These categorial distinctions are the true ‘atoms’ of language (Baker 2001); on the one hand they are part of the universal competence, and on the other they enter into the differentiation of the various language-particular grammars. If what precedes is correct, what appear to be complex syntactic patterns of auxiliary selection reduce to the lexical, selectional properties of have and be. For the sublexicon consisting of have and be, the relevant categories are ‘defectiveness’ for standard Italian, transitivity for Soazza, voice for Albanian and the person split for the varieties in Table 6.1; both ‘defectiveness’ and the person split are relevant for the varieties in section 6.4. The distinction between microparametric and macroparametric approaches to variation has been so often discussed that the contours of the debate have become somewhat blurred. It is evident that, to the extent that the primitives manipulated by variation are macrocategories like transitivity or voice, we could describe our approach as macroparametric€ – though the fact that the unit of variation can be as small as a single lexical item qualifies it as

Some conclusionsâ•… 235 microparametric. What is clear is that the empirical evidence at our disposal appears to be incompatible with macroparameters in the sense of Baker (2001)€– i.e. structural parameters. None of our findings implies that the distinction between lexical and functional categories has any import for variation. Thus, all syntactic structures can be projected from lexical terminals, and there is neither a specialized morphological component nor specialized lexicalization principles applying to abstract functional nodes. The mechanisms that determine variation in so-called functional categories (such as those relevant for the selection of perfect participles by have and be) are the same ones responsible for variation in the substantive lexicon (including natural kinds, spatial relations, and similar universals connected with general cognition). The argument developed here in favour of this hypothesis is essentially based on economy; since the lexical/functional divide is not necessary, it can be dispensed with.

7 The noun (phrase): agreement, case and definiteness in an Albanian variety This chapter considers nominal inflections in Albanian, a language with case morphology. We argue that the deepest layer of inflection in Albanian nouns (including the predicative lexical base and the nominal class vowel) is more or less comparable to the inflection of Romance nouns. Above this layer, Albanian nouns add what is descriptively a case ending; we analyse it as an inflection specialized for the satisfaction of properties of the superordinate structure (nominative for the EPP argument, accusative for the internal argument etc.), as discussed in section 7.2. In the minimalist work of Chomsky (1995) and in its morphological implementation in Distributed Morphology (Halle and Marantz 1993), case and phifeatures are functional properties, interpretable at best on a subset of lexical heads, and as such triggering feature-checking operations€– as well as undergoing morphological rules and providing some of the key arguments in favour of Late Insertion. Here, on the contrary, we reduce case and phi-inflections to elements legible at the LF interface, and more precisely to arguments. Agreement between such inflections means that the arguments they represent form chains. Our crucial motivation is that abandoning schematic ideas about the division of labour between syntax and morphology and between functional and lexical categories (features) makes it easier to account for the finer articulation of the data and their variation. A particular point of interest as regards Albanian is that nominal inflections display not only agreement and case properties, but also definiteness properties. In Balkan linguistics (cf. also the discussion of Romanian in chapter 8), definite inflections are often (though not always) treated as postposed articles. In present terms, however, there is no advantage (descriptive or theoretical) to adopting a similar treatment; note that not even complementary distribution with the preposed article holds, since in Albanian definite inflections can combine with prenominal definite determiners, at least with kinship terms. Preposed articles also combine with adjectives (section 7.3). The pre-adjectival article, in turn, is not restricted to NP-internal positions, but is 236

Theoretical and empirical backgroundâ•… 237 also found in predicative contexts (copular and others). This property, which sets Albanian apart from other Balkan languages, indicates that the article is part of the adjective phrase€– not of the noun phrase that may or may not embed it. 7.1

Theoretical and empirical background

Under present assumptions, predicative elements such as the verb in the sentence and the noun in the noun phrase project a set of referential contents (D, Q, P, Loc, N) which build a structure of the type in (1). In this, I(nflection) corresponds to the core position of the lexical item (the verb or the noun) and D, Q, P, Loc, N form its (projection) domain. D corresponds to the (in)definiteness properties which characterize the EPP argument of the sentence and its equivalent within the noun phrase; that is, the determiner. P(erson)€– i.e. 1st and 2nd person€– Q(uantifier) and Loc(ative) lexicalize referential properties of deixis (P, Loc) and quantification (Q), satisfying (or participating in the satisfaction of) the argument slots of the predicate. In particular, N(oun) is the dedicated category for the internal argument of the predicate. We can think of the hierarchical order in (1) as a way of representing the relative scope of these elements. There are other positions available to the lexical head in the sentence/ noun phrase other than the I position mentioned in (1). These Â�correspond to different interpretive domains associated with predicative content (√, i.e. root, replacing N, V etc.), quantification over events, quantifications over situations, hence in particular modality (C), etc. Each of these positions projects the entire nominal string. (1) D Q P Loc N I

We extend the categories in (1), and hence the scope relations that order them, to what is conventionally thought of as morphological structure. Thus, the so-called agreement inflection of the verb is but an exponent of the D (EPP)

238â•… The noun:€agreement, case and definiteness argument within the verb structure. Similarly, consider the Italian noun phrase in (2a). The noun macchina ‘car’ can be analysed as a structure in which the lexical base, indicated as √, expressing predicative content, combines with a nominal class (gender) inflection –a. As illustrated in (2b), this inflection is identified with the N category, associated with the internal argument of the predicative base (also avoiding the need for a functional n category à la Marantz (1997)). The article in turn lexicalizes the D category at the phrasal level, as illustrated again in (2b). (2)â•… a.

la the

macchina car

b. D la

N macchina a

Current generative approaches conceive of agreement between, say, the different elements within the noun phrase as the result of the checking of features (of gender, number, etc). In contrast, we construe agreement between, say, the article, D, and the inflection, N, in (2) as the sharing of referentially relevant properties, which are interpreted by reference to the same individual, and jointly satisfy the internal, and only argument of the noun. In other words, since N and D jointly satisfy the same argument slot€– i.e. they form a chain€– their referential properties must be compatible, which is what agreement means in present terms. To say that macchin- is just a predicative base, as in (2), is to say that it cannot satisfy any argument slot. Rather, the argument in (2) is –a, whose referential properties are further specified by the Determiner with which it agrees€– i.e. in present terms, the Determiner it forms a chain with. Therefore it is€ –a, or the (la, –a) chain, that satisfies, say, the internal argument of the matrix predicate when (2) is further embedded, as in (3). Note that the inflection of the verb is construed as the verb-internal realization of the EPP argument of the sentence (Manzini and Savoia 2005, 2007, 2008b), notated as D, in keeping with Chomsky’s (1995) suggestion. The D/EPP argument saturates one of the arguments of the predicative base, i.e. here its external argument.

Theoretical and empirical backgroundâ•… 239 (3)â•…

a.

Lavo la macchina I. wash the car ‘I am washing the car’

b.

lav (x,y)

D ox

D l

N N ay

macchin

N ay

At this point a difficulty seems to arise, in that€–a in (3) appears to satisfy two argument slots (theta-roles) at once, namely that of the noun and that of the verb. Now, there are independent proposals in the minimalist literature, beginning with Hornstein (1999) and Manzini and Roussou (2000), that such configurations are independently found in the syntax. (Obligatory) control is precisely such a configuration:€ one in which the same argument satisfies an argument slot of a matrix and an embedded predicate. In the same way, we can say that the argument –a (equivalently its chain) in (3) satisfies the internal theta-role of the predicate base macchin- and controls the internal argument slot of the verb. Incidentally, while control configurations in languages like Italian or English have the controller higher than the controlled position, reverse configurations are possible, as in so-called backward control (Polinsky and Potsdam 2006). For a discussion of control along the lines assumed here, the reader is referred to Manzini (2009). Now, since Albanian nominal inflections register properties such as case and definiteness, it is evident that an extension of the model in (2)–(3) to Albanian requires further discussion of case categories in particular. In section 7.1.1 we will present the basic data, and in section 7.1.2 an overview of the theoretical literature on case. 7.1.1 Nominal inflections in Albanian In Albanian varieties, including the standard (Solano 1972; Camaj 1984; Giusti and Turano 2007) nouns have an indefinite and a definite declension. The definite inflection characterizes nouns typically occurring without determiners, to which it confers definite reference. The indefinite declension characterizes

240â•… The noun:€agreement, case and definiteness nouns that occur together with indefinite determiners. The indefinite paradigm is characterized by poorer case inflections, in particular in the sense that nominative and accusative are differentiated in the definite but not in the indefinite. These general properties are illustrated here for the Arbëresh (Italo-Albanian) variety of Vena, whose conditions are quite close to those of the standard, though not identical. For instance, demonstratives in Vena combine with the indefinite declension on nouns, while in the standard they combine with definites.1 In (4) we illustrate the definite singular paradigm, in (5) the indefinite singular paradigm and in (6)–(7) the definite and indefinite plural paradigms. In (4)–(7), the examples in (a) illustrate the nominative (for instance the subject of a finite verb, i.e. its EPP argument), the examples in (b) the accusative (for instance the internal argument of a transitive active verb) and the examples in (c) the dative (i.e. the second internal argument of a ditransitive like ‘give’). The latter is syncretic with the genitive, to be examined in detail in section 7.3; because of this syncretism we shall refer to the case in (c) simply as oblique. The other major case recognized in traditional paradigms is the ablative, which is, however, not preserved in Vena, allowing us to simplify the presentation somewhat.2 Consider first the definite paradigm in (4). The nominative is lexicalized by the –i/–u inflections for the masculine and by –a for the feminine, as in (4a); –u is selected by a lexical base ending in a velar or a vowel. The accusative in (4b) is lexicalized by the –n() inflection preceded by –i/u for the masculine and -@/ for the feminine. It is natural to assume that –i/u and –@/ are nominal class endings, while only –n@ marks accusative case. In turn, the oblique displays –i/u–t(@) in the masculine and –@/E–s@ in the feminine, which we analyse again as complex inflections formed by the nominal class morphology and the case morphology proper; here, therefore, case endings select for nominal classes (–t@ in the masculine and€–s@ in the feminine). (4)â•… a.â•… kriatur-i/ ‘the boy’/ b. kriatur-i-n/ ‘the boy’/ c. kriatur-i-t/ ‘to the boy’/

ri-u/ ‘the man’/ ri-u-n@ / ‘the man’/ ri-u-t@ / ‘to the man’/

vazd-a/ ‘the girl’/ vazd-@-n@/ ‘the girl’/ vazd-@-s@/ ‘to the girl’/

matS-a ‘the cat’ matS--n@ ‘the cat’ matS--s@ ‘to the cat’

In the indefinite paradigm in (5), the masculine nominative and accusative coincide with the uninflected nominal base; in the feminine, an – nominal inflection crops up with a subset of lexical bases, as in matS–. The oblique has –i/u–ç@ in the masculine and ––j in the feminine, again formed by the nominal class morphology followed by the oblique morphology. As for determiners,

Theoretical and empirical backgroundâ•… 241 the indefinite article @ in the nominative/accusative alternates with iç in the oblique. The paradigm of the demonstrative is ai, at atiç@ for the masculine vs. aj, at@ asaç for the feminine. Note that in the oblique feminine it combines with the noun inflected simply by nominal class. (5)

a. a’. b. b’. c. c’.

@ kriatur/ ‘a boy’/ ai kriatur/ ‘that boy’/ @ kriatur/ ‘a boy’/ at kriatur/ ‘that boy’/ iç@ kriatur-i-ç@/ ‘to a boy’/ atiç@ kriatur-i-ç@/ ‘to that boy’/

@ ri/ ‘a man’/ ai ri/ ‘that man’/ @ ri/ ‘a man’/ at@ ri/ ‘that man’/ iç@ ri-u-ç@/ ‘to a man’/ atiç@ ri-u-ç@/ ‘to that man’ /

@ vazd@/ ‘a girl’/ aj vazd@/ ‘that girl’/ @ vazd@/ ‘a girl’/ at vazd@/ ‘that girl’/ iç@ vazd--j/ ‘to a girl’/ asaç@ vazd@/ ‘to that girl’/

 matS- ‘a cat’ aj matS- ‘that cat’  matS- ‘a cat’ at matS- ‘that cat’ Jiç@ matS--j ‘to a cat’ asaç@ matS- ‘to that cat’

The plural is illustrated in (6) for the definite conjugation and in (7) for the indefinite. In the indefinite in (7), a specialized plural –a inflection emerges in several nominal classes in the nominative and accusative, as for instance in vazd–a. Other nominal classes show the same nominal class inflection as in the singular, notably matï†fi or have allomorphs specialized for the plural, as in r@s@ ‘men’ vs. ri ‘man’. In the definite conjugation in (6), nominative and accusative are lexicalized by the same formative€ –t added once again to the nominal base inclusive of the plural/nominal class vocalic inflection –a/. The oblique, both in the definite and in the indefinite, is lexicalized by the specialized (case) inflection –v, added to the nominal base inclusive of the nominal class vowel. As for the determiner system, the demonstrative has a generalized form at for nominative and accusative, masculine and feminine, while in the oblique it takes the form atir the indefinite quantifier tï†fi@d is inflected as tï†fi@d–v in the oblique, itself following the indefinite declension. (6) a.â•… b. c. (7) a. a’.

kriatur-a-t@ / ‘the boys’/ kriatur-a-t@ / ‘the boys’/ kriatur-a-v/ ‘to the boys’/

r@s@-t@/ ‘the men’/ r@s@-t@/ ‘the men’/ r@s@-v/ ‘to the men’/

tï†fid kriatur-a/ ‘some boys’/ at kriatur-a/ ‘those boys’/

vazd-a-t@/ ‘the girls’/ vazd-a-t@/ ‘the girls’/ vazd-a-v/ ‘to the girls’/

tï†fid r@s@/ ‘some men’/ at r@s@/ ‘those men’/

matï†fi-t@ ‘the cats’ matï†fi-t@ ‘the cats’ matï†fi-v ‘to the cats’

tï†fid vazd-a/ ‘some girls/ at vazd-a / ‘those girls’/

di matï†fi ‘two cats’ at matï†fi ‘those cats’

242â•… The noun:€agreement, case and definiteness b.â•… tï†fid kriatur-a/ tï†fid r@s@/ tï†fid vazd-a/ di matï†fi ‘some boys’/ ‘some men’/ ‘some girls’/ ‘two cats’ b’. at kriatur-a/ at r@s@/ at vazd-a/ at matï†fi ‘those boys’/ ‘those men’/ ‘those girls’/ ‘those cats’ c. tï†fid-v kriatur-a(-v)/ tï†fid-vr@s@(-v)/ tï†fid-v vazd-a(-v)/ div matï†fi ‘to some boys’/ ‘to some men’/ ‘to some girls’/ ‘to two cats’ c’ atir kriatur-a(-v)/â•… atir r@s@(-v)/â•… atir vazd-a(-v)/ atir matï†fi(-v) ‘to those boys’/ ‘to those men’/ ‘to those girls’/ ‘to those cats’

Kinship terms (as often happens in natural languages) show special morphosyntactic behaviours, beginning with the fact that they combine the definite inflection of the noun with a preposed article. That the kinship terms in (8) have the definite inflection in the nominative (a), accusative (b) and dative (c) can be seen by comparing them with the forms in (4). As for the preposed article, in nominative contexts it corresponds to the nominal class morphology i for the masculine and  for the feminine. In the accusative and oblique the preposed article is t@. (8) a. b. c.

r i kuSirir-i/  kuSirir-a cameâ•… theâ•… cousin.m/ the cousin.f ‘The/his/her/their cousin came’ p t@ kuSirir-i-n@/ t@ kuSirir-@-n@ I.saw the cousin.m/ the cousin.f ‘I saw the/his/her/their cousin’ j-a D t@ kuSirir--t@/ t@â•… kuSirir-@-s@ her-it I gave to.the cousin.m / to.the cousin.f ‘I gave it to the/his/her/their cousin’

In (9) we illustrate contexts in which kinship terms are preceded by an indefinite quantifier or a demonstrative; correspondingly they bear an indefinite inflection, reproducing the conditions already detailed in (5). (9) a. b. c.

r  kuSiri/  kuSirir came a cousin.m/ a cousin.f ‘There came a cousin (of his/ hers/ theirs)’ p  kuSiri/  kuSirir I.sawâ•… a cousin.m/ a cousin.f ‘I saw a cousin (of his/ hers/ theirs)’ j-a D iç@ kuSir--j / asaç@ kuSirir her-it I.gave to.a cousin.f/ to.that cousin.f ‘I gave it to a/that cousin’

Finally, in (10) we illustrate the definite paradigm of plural kinship terms, from which it can be seen that the prenominal article is t for the three cases

Theoretical and empirical backgroundâ•… 243 we are considering; (10a’) also provides an example of the indefinite paradigm, which (as already shown for the singular) simply reproduces the conditions observed with non-kinship terms. (10) a. a’. b. c.

r t@ kuSiriç@-t@ came the cousins.nom ‘The/his/her/ their cousins came’ r tï†fid kuSiriç@ came some cousins ‘Some cousins (of his/hers/ theirs) came’ p t@ kuSiriç@-t@ I.saw the cousins.acc ‘I saw the/his/her/ their cousins’ ja  t@ kuSiriç@-v them-it I.gave to.the cousins.dat ‘I gave it to the/his/her/ their cousins’

The data in (4)–(7) illustrate the existence in Vena of several inflectional endings which are associated with two or more interpretations, yielding instances of so-called syncretism. In our examples we find two types of syncretism:€(i) some inflections correspond to two (or more) cases; (ii) some inflections correspond to both a case interpretation and a nominal class interpretation (the traditional gender and number). For instance, the –a inflection lexicalizes the nominative definite (for the feminine singular class) in (4a) and the nominative/accusative indefinite (for the plural class) in (7a) and (7b). Thus, vazd–a is ambiguous between ‘the girl(Nom)’ and ‘girls (Nom/Acc)’. At the same time, the –a morphology also appears as a thematic vowel in plural formations involving specialized consonantal/syllabic case endings, for instance in the oblique (definite and indefinite) in (6c), (7c) and in the nominative/accusative definite in (6a), (6b). Similarly, the –i inflection, corresponding to the thematic vowel for the masculine singular, lexicalizes the nominative definite in (4a). In turn, the –t(@) inflection is associated with the oblique (singular masculine) in (4c) and with the nominative/accusative (plural) in (6a) and (6b). The –v inflection is uniquely associated with the oblique plural, yet it includes both the definite and the indefinite reading, as in (6c) and (7c). In Table 7.1 we list the morphological endings associated with case in the Vena nominal system in (4)–(7). For each of the forms we indicate the traditional case, definiteness, and number features they are associated with. The fact that most entries are associated with more than one row of values implies that they are syncretic. We abstract away from the thematic vowels, i.e. the vocalic formatives that appear between the nominal root and consonantal/

244â•… The noun:€agreement, case and definiteness Table 7.1 Distribution of nominal inflections in Albanian Vena Nom a i, u 

* * * * *

@

*

t(@)

*

Acc

Def *

*

*

* * * *

v n(@) s@ j ç@

Obl

*

* * * * * *

* * * * * *

Indef * * * * * * * *

Sg * * * * * * *

* * *

* * * *

Pl * * * *

* * * *

syllabic endings like –t(@),€–v etc; rather, we have tabulated the vocalic formatives only as they occur word finally. We have also left out the traditional gender (nominal class) from the properties being tabulated. 7.1.2 Generative approaches to case In the minimalist approach of Chomsky (1995), properties such as gender (nominal class), number and person, which are intrinsically associated with nominal constituents, are bona fide lexical features. However, relations, such as thetaroles, are not features at all, but correspond to syntactic configurations. From this perspective, it is potentially problematic to find that case is a feature. The fact that case is the only feature in Chomsky (1995) which is radically uninterpretable (i.e. which does not have an interpretable counterpart) is a reflex of the deeper difficulty of reconciling its relational core with its feature status. The solution at which Chomsky (2008) arrives is effectively to deny that case has a primitive relational content. In technical terms (and contra Chomsky 1995), case does not enter into any feature checking. Rather, the real underlying relation between case assigner and case assignee is an agreement relation, involving phi-features; case is but a reflex of this relation which appears on nominal constituents.

Theoretical and empirical backgroundâ•… 245 Similarly, Pesetsky and Torrego (2007) treat case as a temporal property. The presence of interpretable but unvalued features T[x] on the functional head T acts as a probe for the subject DP associated with the same T[x] feature, both uninterpretable and unvalued, yielding agreement between these two elements. The value of the feature is assigned through a further agreement operation with the corresponding T feature associated with the verb, which is uninterpretable, but valued. We agree with Chomsky, Pesetsky and Torrego that case cannot be a primitive of grammar. However, it seems to us that Chomsky (2008) falls short of implementing the reduction of case to agreement. For, simply put, if case is reduced to other primitives, why do we need to keep the case label at all? In other words:€what is the difference between a language which has just agreement (say, Italian) and a language like Latin which has the ‘case’ reflex of agreement? Similarly, saying, as Pesetsky and Torrego (2007) do, that (nominative) case is merely the name that Tense takes when lexicalized on a noun leaves us without a clue as to why we still need to refer to this Tense on nouns as case. Otherwise stated:€ where is the evidence, either morphological or interpretive, that independently connects the Tense of verbs and the supposed ‘Tense’ of nouns? The works reviewed so far consider so-called ‘abstract’ case, i.e. a case property independent of morphological realization, and as such found (by hypothesis) in all languages. In turn, case inflections have been the target of considerable morphological discussion. Within Distributed Morphology, Halle and Marantz (1993) propose a treatment for the case inflection of Potawatomi. In this language, the form /–mun/ denotes the 1st person plural as a subject and, in the context preceding the preterite affix, as an object. Halle and Marantz (1993:€157) conclude that /–mun/ is specified in the lexicon just for the features [+1], [+pl], and that it is inserted as, say, an accusative because of a rule that deletes [ACC] in front of the preterite, as in (11). (11) [ACC] → φ / ╇ ____╇ [+preterite] â•… [+1]

To generalize, syncretism corresponds to the lack of isomorphism between interpretive categories€ – e.g. in (11) the cluster [accusative, 1 pl]€ – and Â�morphological categories, e. g. /–mun/, which is just [1 pl]. In Distributed Morphology, this lack of isomorphism is circumvented by assuming that at the syntactic level, all semantic properties relevant for interpretation are abstractly represented€– while some categories to which syntactic computation applies do not have any morphological expression. This result is achieved through a model crucially involving the assumption that lexical insertion applies after

246â•… The noun:€agreement, case and definiteness morphological rules, such as Impoverishment in (11), have operated on the abstract terminal nodes (Late Insertion). What interests us here directly is that under the Distributed Morphology approach, a morpheme traditionally associated with case, e.g. accusative, turns out not to have any such property, but only a 1st person plural (‘we’) denotation. In general, in case-inflected languages, the presence of morphological entries associated with several case contexts (i.e. syncretic in traditional terms) leads to the conclusion that these case morphologies have a purely denotational content, devoid of case properties, and associated only with nominal class, number, and possibly definiteness, etc. We agree with Halle and Marantz on the content of actual case terminals€– i.e. the fact that their intrinsic properties may be just nominal class and the like. However, we differ from them in that we assume a unified morphosyntactic component, where Late Insertion is replaced by projection of syntactic structure from lexical terminals (Manzini and Savoia 2005, 2007, 2008a). We take this to be the theoretical position implied by the minimalist programme of Chomsky (1995). In such a framework, syncretism cannot be the result of the fact that morphological rules allow for radically underspecified lexical items to be inserted under richly detailed syntactic nodes. On the contrary, the denotational content that even conventional morphological models impute to terminals is all that is projected to the syntax and handled by the computational component. If, therefore, case is not a property of syntactic representations at all, we will have to show that syntactic and semantic composition can be successfully effected on the basis of this more restrictive approach. 7.2

Analysis of Albanian nominal inflections

Kinship terms provide a useful starting point in the analysis of the Albanian noun (phrase) because they present a more complex structure, where determiner and nominal inflection combine. This co-occurrence seems to result in a doubling of sorts, since, for instance, in the nominative singular definite, the nominal inflection and the preposed article converge on the nominal class morphology i for the masculine. The article that appears elsewhere in the paradigm, i.e. t, is also identical to the definite inflection for the nominative/ accusative plural, as well as for the definite oblique masculine singular. These parallelisms may invite a treatment of at least the definite inflections of Albanian as postnominal articles, i.e. as a prenominal D element to which the N head is left-adjoined through movement. This analysis is proposed, among others, by Dobrovie-Sorin (1987) for Romanian, Taraldsen (1990) for

Analysis of Albanian nominal inflectionsâ•… 247 Norwegian and Turano (2003) for Albanian. The N-to-D analysis is also proposed by Longobardi (1996, 2001) for a different type of structure, in which N is in complementary distribution with the article, as in Italian kinship terms or the casa ‘home’ type. Nevertheless, the N-to-D analysis of postnominal definiteness morphology has been questioned more than once in the literature. Thus, Longobardi (2000) points out that in Scandinavian languages, the postnominal definiteness morphology co-occurs with prenominal adjectives as in Icelandic frabæra bokinn hans ‘beautiful book-def his’, which Longobardi (2000) interprets as conclusive evidence in favour of a relatively low position of N and against movement of N to the highest D position. Similarly, for Romanian, Dimitrova-Vulchanova and Giusti (1998) argue that the so-called postnominal article is in fact generated directly on the noun; movement of N is involved in the derivation of definite noun phrases, but it is to a Focus position where the N-D head controls the scopal D position. In presenting the data, we have already referred to the postnominal definiteness morphology as an inflection. In fact, the presence of both a postnominal definiteness element and a preposed article in kinship terms undermines the main empirical basis for the postposed article analysis€ – namely, that such an analysis predicts complementary distribution between postnominal definiteness and definite articles. This complementary distribution is simply not observed in Albanian. Besides this, and the other empirical problems noted in the literature cited, the apparent simplicity of the movement analysis conceals a certain amount of stipulation. In particular, from a minimalist perspective, it is not made clear why a noun would move to D€– or for that matter to Focus, as proposed by Dimitrova-Vulchanova and Giusti (1998). We started from the observation that in examples like (8a) and (10a–b), the i and t articles coincide with the –i and –t(@) inflections. Despite this coincidence, and their shared definiteness properties, the lack of complementary distribution between articles and inflections leaves little room to analyses deriving one from the other. We assume that in sentences like (8a) and (10a–b), the preposed article i, t lexicalizes the D position within the noun phrase, cf. Italian (2b). The postnominal inflections –i, –t(@) cannot be the syntactic-level determiners at any stage of the derivations for the simple reason that the syntacticlevel D position is already filled by the article. Let us focus on the simpler vocalic inflection, e.g. –i. This element combines with€–n(@) for the accusative singular definite, –t(@) for the oblique singular definite and –ç@ for the oblique singular indefinite. Such a distribution suggests that the lexical entry for –i is associated with what in traditional terms is

248â•… The noun:€agreement, case and definiteness an agreement property, namely nominal class, like the vocalic endings of languages like Italian, as in (2). In keeping with the discussion in section 7.1, we then assign to –i an N categorization. The combination of a nominal root with an N morphology and a D determiner gives rise to structures like (12)€– entirely parallel to those of Romance, cf. (2). (12)â•… D i

N i

kuʃirir

The same treatment can be extended to the vocalic inflections€–a,€–,€–@ and –u. In the plural, the€–a and€– forms (depending on nominal class) combine with –t()) in the definite non-oblique and with€–v in the oblique. In turn, - combines with€–n(@)@) in the definite singular accusative, –s@ in the definite singular oblique and –j in the indefinite singular oblique. This distribution leads us to conclude that the lexical entries for€ –a and€ – are again associated with nominal class N properties. As for –u, it fairly obviously has the same distribution as –i, though with different lexical bases. The combination of nominal roots with an N morphology therefore gives rise to structures like (13). Nominal class morphologies are restricted to subclasses of roots; this can be expressed as a selectional relation whereby –a,€–,€–i etc. select the relevant lexical bases. (13) a. kriatur ɲeri

N i u

matʃ vazd

N ε ǝ

kriatur/ vazd

N a

b.

c.

Analysis of Albanian nominal inflectionsâ•… 249 Still, a couple of essential pieces are missing from the analysis of Albanian vocalic inflections. One is an account of how shift in nominal class can have a number interpretation; the other is an account of case. As already mentioned,€–a combined with vazd- or matï†fi- (conventionally the feminine) corresponds in traditional terms to the definite nominative singular; combined with vazd- again or with kriatur-, as in (13c), it corresponds to the indefinite nominative/accusative plural. Similarly,€ – in (13b) combined with matʃ- yields the nominative/accusative indefinite singular and plural. In turn, the masculine singular –i/–u in (13a) is the nominative (definite). We will return to vocalic inflections in section 7.2.2. Before addressing these various questions, however, we consider consonantal inflections, beginning with –t(@), which we have seen to coincide with the pronominal article in examples like (10a–b). In traditional terms,€–t(@) forms the plural definite nominative/accusative and the definite singular oblique, depending on nominal class in the oblique. It is evident even from this list that every occurrence of –t(@) in the nominal paradigm contributes definiteness properties to the base to which it attaches. This suggests that€–t(@) is (or includes) a definiteness operator taking in its scope structures like (13a) or (13c). Correspondingly, we may assign the categorial signature Q to the position projected by€–t(@) as a nominal inflection€– at least if we reserve the D projection for the prenominal article, where present. This yields structures of the type in (14) for the kinship terms in (10a–b). (14)â•… D tǝ kuʃiriçǝ

Q tǝ

The same analysis of€–t applies to plurals of non-kinship terms, as in (15a); and we can provisionally take it to hold for the oblique singular (masculine), as in (15b).

250╅ The noun:€agreement, case and definiteness (15)╅ a.

vazd/kriatur

N a

kriatur

N i

Q t(ǝ)

b. Q t(ǝ)

Once more, what is missing from the account in (14)–(15) is a match with the traditional notion of case. Using the traditional case terminology, the€–t(@) morphology in the singular (15b) is restricted to the oblique, while in the plural (15a) it is restricted to the non-oblique. Avoiding the case terminology altogether, the problem is how to limit the€–t(@) morphology to certain syntactically defined environments, whatever their exact definition turns out to involve. A similar problem arises for vocalic inflections. Thus, why is the definite reading of –a and€–i morphologies in isolation restricted to what is conventionally known as the nominative context? At this point it is unclear whether these restrictions can even be stated if case is not an available primitive. We examine this question item by item, beginning with –t(@) in the next section. 7.2.1 Consonantal inflections Let us consider the masculine singular oblique in (15b). The question is:€how do the quantificational properties of€–t(@) relate to the context of appearance? Abstracting away from case terminology such as ‘oblique’, which is what we are trying to explain, the contexts in which –t(@) masculine singular appears correspond to the second argument of ditransitives (the so-called dative) and to the genitive, which we will examine in more detail in section 7.3.1. The dative–genitive syncretism is widely attested, characterizing, for instance, Modern Greek, Romanian, and the pronominal clitic system of some Romance varieties in which genitive and dative are syncretically lexicalized by ne. Manzini and Savoia (2005, 2007, 2008a) conclude that ne denotes a superset in relation to which some other argument is interpreted. This superset-of denotation is fairly obvious in partitives (e.g. three of the boys), where the boys specifies a larger set to which the three singled out belong; inalienable

Analysis of Albanian nominal inflectionsâ•… 251 possession and attribution of mental states are equally clear instances, since in John’s nose or John’s fears, the nose or fears are part of the collection of properties that we call ‘John’. Similarly, in chapter 6 we argue that the predicate have fundamentally denotes set inclusion (or ‘zonal inclusion’ in the sense of Belvin and den Dikken (1997)). In fact, have is sometimes equivalent to ‘include’, as in Italian has two auxiliaries (or more abstractly This set has two members); the same relation can be expressed by ‘genitives’, e.g. the two auxiliaries of Italian or the two members of this set. Although the inclusion relation yields inalienable and psych-state possession in a particularly natural way€– we can take all possession to fall under a reasonable extension of the same relation.3 Possession, hence in present terms inclusion, is a natural characterization for the dative as well. In particular, the second internal argument of ditransitives has been argued to be connected to possessives at least since Kayne (1984). English He gave a fright/a book to everybody corresponds to the attribution of a mental state or a material possession to the ‘dative’ argument€– and Romance languages also have inherent possession datives, as in Ho lavato i capelli a Maria lit:€‘I have washed the hair to Mary’, i.e. ‘I washed Mary’s hair’. In terms of the preceding discussion, the dative–genitive syncretism seen in the Albanian oblique points to a superset-of characterization for the relevant morphology, including –t(@) in (15b). This, in turn, appears to be compatible with the Q quantificational characterization that we have assumed for –t(@), given the set-theoretic calculus involved. From this perspective, we propose that there is no oblique case involved in (15b). All there is is a quantificational element –t(@) capable of satisfying the superset-of (roughly possessive) specification required for the satisfaction of the second arguments of ditransitives Â�(so-called dative) and more (i.e. the genitive to be considered in section 7.3.1). The other major context in which –t(@) is found to occur is the nominative/ accusative plural. The syncretism of oblique (i.e. dative) singular with nominative/accusative plural is again independently attested in the Romance clitic system. Thus, the standard Italian dative singular gli is an allomorph of li for accusative plural; other varieties display exactly the same (l)i form. In Manzini and Savoia (2005, 2007, 2008a), we explain this syncretism by proposing that the –i morphology of Italian varieties has a quantificational content. This has two instantiations:€superset-of (i.e. dative) and plurality. We take it that in the plural interpretation, the Q specifications of€ –i take only the lexical base to which they apply in their scope. In turn, the superset-of reading depends on the quantificational specifications of –i taking sentential scope.

252â•… The noun:€agreement, case and definiteness We apply this analysis to the fact that Albanian has€–t(@) for both oblique singular and non-oblique plural readings. Thus, when€–t(@) is read as plural, as in (15a), it takes in its scope the nominal class€–a (or€–) specifications. When it is read as superset-of, its scope is sentential. Interestingly, it follows that the two readings are in complementary distribution:€–t(@) can be oblique, but it will not be plural; or it can be plural, but it will not be oblique. Similar syncretisms are found in other languages. As discussed in chapter 8, Romanian –i is the oblique (dative/genitive) singular and the (masculine) nominative/accusative plural. Latin –i in turn shows up as genitive and/or dative singular and nominative plural in both the I and II classes; Latin –s is (among other things) genitive singular and nominative/accusative plural in the III, IV and V classes. What we characterized as the sentential scope of Q must be construed more precisely as scope over the internal arguments of the verb. Indeed, the –i dative of Romance or the€–t(@) oblique of Albanian are dyadic operators establishing a superset-of relation between the argument to which they attach (the descriptive dative) and the internal argument of the verb, excluding the external argument. The simplest way of achieving the correct scope within the present framework is to assume that the Q operator, which we will henceforth also notate as Q(⊆), has scope over the elementary event (the verb plus its internal argument(s)) (on Q elements within the predicative domain, see also the discussion of adverbs of quantification in chapter 3). We will occasionally use ‘sentential’ scope as a shorthand. Let us now consider the so-called accusative singular definite, which is associated with the dedicated morphology€–n(@). Observe that for the plural we already have structural schemas for the so-called accusative definite, as in (15a). In particular, we have argued that in (15a) the Q specification added to the nominal class morphology has a number interpretation. Thus, it would appear that it is N morphology that satisfies the so-called accusative context. Now, the syntactic properties of N that we have discussed so far relate it to the internal structure of the noun (phrase). We have proposed that the N nominal class morphology lexicalizes the internal argument of the predicative base of the noun. Therefore we are not surprised to find that the same morphology can satisfy the internal argument of the verb. Applying this reasoning to the€ –n(@) morphology of the singular definite forms, we can conclude that the –n(@) ending simply has N properties. In other words, it is nothing but an N inflection, further specialized for definiteness, as illustrated in (16). In these terms,€–n(@) therefore introduces reference to a specialized nominal class€– specialized both in that it is definite and in that it is contextually restricted to the internal argument-of relation.

Analysis of Albanian nominal inflectionsâ•… 253 (16)â•… a.

kriatur

N i

vazd/matʃ

N ε

N n(ǝ)

b. N n(ǝ)

In short, we argue that accusative is nothing but the name given to the satisfaction of an internal argument slot by nominal N morphology4. A potential problem for our proposal arises in connection with the fact that accusative is standardly taken not to be linked to any particular theta-configuration, and so is a structural case in the sense of Chomsky (1986). The classical motivation for this in English is so-called Exceptional Case Marking (ECM), whereby the EPP argument of some infinitival complements turns up in the accusative (as can be overtly seen with pronouns). Needless to say, an EPP argument can correspond to an internal argument slot (as in unaccusatives) but also to an external argument (as in transitives). Interestingly, there is a tradition in the generative literature (Chomsky 1975 [1955]) which treats English ECM as an instance of restructuring of the propositional attitude verb with the embedded verb, making the embedded subject into the thematic object of this complex predicate. An independent tradition proposes, furthermore, that the position of the accusative is not that of an embedded subject but that of a matrix object (Postal 1974; Johnson 1991). Assuming the (basic) validity of our results concerning –t(@) and –n(@) inflections, the entire set of consonantal inflections in Table 7.1 more or less falls into place. Thus –t(@) has the oblique definite singular reading only in the masculine. In the feminine, the oblique definite singular is lexicalized by –s@. In the plural, all nominal classes and both definites and indefinites are associated with –v. In the indefinite singular, again€–ç@ and –j represent specialized inflections for the masculine and feminine respectively. It stands to reason that if€–t(@) is able to lexicalize the second argument of ditransitives etc. in virtue of its superset-of denotation, then€–s@,€–v and –ç@ are characterized by essentially the same denotation, projecting the Q category as well, as in (17). We come back to the somewhat special properties of –j in section 7.2.2.

254╅ The noun:€agreement, case and definiteness (17)╅ a.

kriatur/vazd

N a

Q vε

b. Q çǝ kriatur

N i

matʃ

N ε

c. Q s(ǝ)

While, as discussed in the previous section, –t(@) has either sentential scope (oblique) or scope over the noun (plural),€–ç@,€–s(@) and –v will have only the sentential scope that in our terms corresponds to the oblique. Since –s@ only appears in the definite feminine, we will say that its Q properties include definiteness besides the superset-of denotation, and it also has a selectional property, namely for some particular nominal class(es). The same selectional property characterizes –ç which lacks definiteness properties. In turn,€ –v only appears in the oblique plural. If we take it that its Q(⊆) properties lead to the oblique interpretation because of their sentential scope, then by the present reasoning they should not be sufficient to determine plurality as well. In other words, plurality should be a property of the bases selected by –v. Indeed, the oblique plural can always be obtained by adding –v to the indefinite plural (kriatura–v, matï†fi–v, etc). This takes us back to a problem left open so far and to which we return directly below in section 7.2.2, namely how nominal class inflections can determine number interpretation€– and of course case. Summarizing so far, the traditional idea that there is a relation of case assignment between, say, a verb and an embedded complement€– and that this relation is lexicalized through case morphemes€– translates here into an altogether different picture. This is that the intrinsic denotational properties of nominal inflections enable them to satisfy the argument slots of predicates; nominal inflections that are sensitive to the particular argument slot they satisfy yield

Analysis of Albanian nominal inflectionsâ•… 255 what are conventionally called case inflections. In our model of case, there is no case checking or evaluation, for there truly is no case. Rather, case is a descriptive label for relations that are much more primitive (essentially satisfaction of predicate–argument frames), as are the categories that enter into them (nominal class, quantification).5 7.2.2 Vocalic case inflections and lack of inflections We will now consider the structures in (12)–(13), where the inflection consists only of a nominal class morpheme. Let us begin with –i/–u and€–a as the singular definite nominative endings in the masculine and feminine respectively, as in (13a) and (13c). Following Chomsky (2001) or Pesetsky and Torrego (2007), nominative case is the reflex on a noun of a feature-checking relation it bears to a finite inflection. In present terms, however, agreement is not defined in terms of feature checking, for the finite inflection of a verb, as for instance in Italian (3), does not represent a bunch of non-interpretable features, but is a verb-internal EPP argument associated with the categorial signature D. As argued at the outset, different argumental constituents which jointly fill the same argument slot enter into a chain relation, which presupposes the compatibility of their denotational properties and hence the surface effect of agreement. Within this framework, saying that inflections such as –a, –i and –u agree with the finite verb means saying that they combine with the finite verb inflection in fixing the reference of the EPP argument of the sentence. Saying that they are nominative translates into saying that they provide a link in this chain. In short, there is no nominative case. There is on the one hand nominal class morphology, and on the other hand the chain it forms with the D verb inflection. Nominal class morphology is sufficient to satisfy this context in the singular. Masculine€–i/–u appears as the nominal class vowel throughout the singular declension, including the nominative definite. In the so-called feminine, however, while –a is the definite nominative, the nominal class vowel appearing elsewhere (eventually followed by consonantal endings) is€–/–@. This asymmetry is not due to the incompatibility of the –/–@ nominal classes with the nominative environment (i.e. agreement, or chain formation, with the D inflection of the verb), for –/–@ show up in the nominative context at least in the indefinite of the matʃ- and vazd- classes respectively. Rather, we conclude that while –a is compatible with definiteness, –/–@ are inherently indefinite. This is confirmed by the fact that, when appearing alone, –/–@ only have an indefinite interpretation (in the nominative/accusative of the matʃ- class and in the nominative/accusative singular of the vazd- class). We propose that in the relevant configuration, nominal class inflections can be read as definite precisely

256â•… The noun:€agreement, case and definiteness because they are in the scope of the D finite inflection. Masculine singular –i/–u requires such D closure when lexicalizing the inflection alone, since it does not appear in the indefinite. Consider now non-definite inflections, including –/–@ in the feminine and –a in the plural, appearing as the nominative/accusative. These nominal class inflections are either in the scope of quantifiers, for instance the indefinite article, with which they agree in indefiniteness, or of deictic specifiers (demonstratives) which have definiteness properties of their own. Both of these elements close (quantificationally or deictically) the reference of the N inflection.6 Within the structure of the noun phrase, a Q position can be assigned to the indefinite article/quantifier€– and a Loc position to the demonstrative element, essentially a deictic element, as in (18). (18)â•…

a. Q/Loc ɲǝ/aiɔ matʃ

N ε

kriatur/vazd

N a

b. Q/Loc tʃǝdɔ/ atɔ

In this connection, we should also consider another fact, namely that in the singular indefinite, at least the masculine bases kriatur and ri can satisfy the nominative/accusative environment in the absence of any inflectional specifications€– and this is true of the accusative as well. In the present framework, zero morphology is excluded€– fundamentally for reasons of restrictiveness. Therefore, what appear to be inflectionless terminals really are treated as such within the present analysis. We should then ensure that their inflectionless status does not create problems. Recall that we formalize theta-roles/argument slots as variables introduced by a predicative base and bound in all instances considered so far by referential material (nominal class specifications or quantificational/definiteness specifications). Lack of inflectional specifications does not yield ungrammaticality (characterizing, for instance, a language like English) as long as the variable is closed by syntactic-level material. In particular, in examples like (5a–b), it is closed by the indefinite article or by the demonstrative (a deictic referent) again, as in (19).

Analysis of Albanian nominal inflectionsâ•… 257 (19)â•…

Q/ Loc ɲǝ/ai

kriatur

Interestingly, in the variety we are considering here, Vena, the oblique demonstrative is followed in the feminine singular by a form of the noun identical to the nominative/accusative, hence inflected only for nominal class. By contrast, the masculine singular is regularly inflected for the oblique, by the –ç@ morphology. In present terms, –ç@ projects a Q category, which satisfies the dative argument slot of a selecting verb, as already schematized in (17b). Feminine –j, i.e. its counterpart for feminine bases, seems to have different intrinsic properties, since it appears to include the feminine nominal class morphology. In fact, we can take –j to be an allomorph of€ – specialized for phonological contexts where it is preceded by vowels. Therefore –j also projects an N position, as schematized in (20). If so, the indefinite oblique feminine singular, the€–j ending in the scope of indefinite determiners and the – ending in the scope of demonstratives are essentially the same element, i.e. the N nominal class morphology. In the scope of indefinite determiners this morphology is doubled, while it is not in the scope of demonstratives. This latter distribution can be treated by assuming that the demonstrative, because of its deictic reference, does not require the lexicalization of the€–j inflection doubling, i.e. it subsumes it in terms of the theory of mutual exclusions discussed in chapters 3–4 in connection with negative doubling. (20)â•…

ɲ

N i

Q çǝ vazd

N ε

N jε

In the indefinite plural oblique, the€–v inflection is optional in the scope of both indefinites and demonstratives€– though it obligatorily occurs in the definite paradigm. We can express this distribution in terms similar to those suggested for the distribution of the feminine singular€–j, i.e. as a by-product of the fact that the indefinite quantifier or the demonstrative can subsume the lexicalization of the oblique properties by the noun. Incidentally, the structure in (20) shows that the same morphological analysis that we have so far applied to nouns can be extended to determiners. Thus, the indefinite in (20)

258â•… The noun:€agreement, case and definiteness can be analysed as consisting of a lexical n- base to which properties of indefinite (existential) quantification can be imputed, followed by the nominal class inflection€ –i and by the oblique inflection€ –ç. Interestingly, demonstratives also follow the indefinite declension. This is compatible with our characterization of their referential properties not in terms of definiteness but rather of deixis (here Loc). When we consider the overall distribution of nominal class inflections, an interesting pattern seems to emerge. We note that they can appear as definite, but this will exclude plural and oblique, as in the nominative singular –a, –i, –u; or they can appear as oblique, but this will exclude definiteness and plurality, as in the oblique indefinite singular –(j); or they can appear as plural, but this will exclude definiteness and oblique interpretations, as in the indefinite non-oblique plural –a,€ –. In short, definiteness, oblique case and plurality appear to be compatible with (all or some) nominal case inflections, but only as long as no two of them co-occur. This complementary distribution is reminiscent of the facts reviewed in section 7.2.1 for the definite morphology –t(@), which can either have superset-of properties (oblique) or plural properties, but not both (i.e. cannot be both oblique and plural). For –t(@) we proposed that both so-called oblique and plural correspond to quantificational properties, inherently associated with –t(@). But since plurality depended on –t(@) taking noun phrase scope and so-called oblique on sentential scope, the two readings were predicted to be in complementary distribution. Definiteness, by hypothesis, is inherently associated with –t(@). There is an obvious difficulty in extending this treatment to nominal class inflections, namely that no quantificational properties have been imputed to them€– nor can they be, since we find such elements in contexts that do not warrant a quantificational treatment (e.g. singular, indefinite, non-oblique, as in matʃ-). This difficulty can, however, be circumvented if we assume that the definite, plural and oblique properties accruing to nominal class inflections depend on their closure by quantificational operators. Let us begin with definiteness, which is associated with vocalic inflections in the so-called nominative singular. On the basis of the discussion at the beginning of this section, in the so-called nominative configuration the nominal class inflection satisfies the EPP argument of the verb, forming a chain with the finite inflection of the verb, i.e. in present terms a D specification. In this configuration we propose that it can be read as definite€– because it is in the scope of D. No such independent closure is available for the oblique interpretation of nominal class inflections, in the indefinite singular, e.g. (20). We speculate, therefore, that it derives from a quantificational closure at the sentential level,

Analysis of Albanian nominal inflectionsâ•… 259 licensing the superset-of (possessor) interpretation. In other words, the Q(⊆) quantificational property that we associate with terminals such as –t(@),€ –s@ and –v is also available in the form of an abstract closure at the LF interface. It is the presence of this abstract quantifier, with sentential scope, that licenses the oblique (superset-of) interpretation in (20). In relation to –t(@), we have further proposed that the same Q(⊆) quantificational properties can be read as plurality when they take the nominal base in their scope. If Q(⊆) is available as a closure at the LF interface, then we also predict that nominal bases inflected only with a nominal class vowel could have a plural interpretation. In Albanian in particular, it is – and –a that allow for this closure. At this point, the objection may be raised that, although we do not allow abstract morphosyntactic material into our grammar (in the form of impoverished features, zero morphemes, silent categories à la Kayne, the string lexicalization of nanosyntax, or uninterpretable/unvalued properties), we do allow for abstract quantificational closures, which may do part of the work (for instance, the indefinite plural interpretation). It seems to us that this cannot represent an objection to our analysis. This is because at least existential closure for indefinites, and generic closure for PROs, are independently needed and generally postulated. In other words, even if we abstracted away entirely from syncretisms, we would need quantificational closures in natural languages. But as far as we can tell, the existence of impoverished or non-lexicalized features is entirely motivated by the syncretism phenomena they are devised to explain. 7.2.3 Prepositional contexts Prepositions in Albanian assign all the cases that are independently found in sentential contexts. Thus, they can select accusative, as in (21), and oblique, as in (22); finally, as shown in (23), nominative can also be embedded under prepositional elements. (21)

Preposition€– Accusative  bɐri â•… p/ m â•… â•… ri-u-n it he.made â•… for/ with â•… man-Acc.def ‘He made it for/with the man’

(22)

Preposition€– Oblique  vura prpara ╇ ri-u-t it I.put before â•… man-ms-Obl.def/ ‘I put it in front of the man’

(23) Preposition€– Nominative a. ai r t gruaj-a/ ri-u he goes to girl-Nom man-Nom ‘He went (close) to the woman/ the man’

260â•… The noun:€agreement, case and definiteness b. kij ki  ban ga ri-u thisâ•… wereâ•… Artâ•… madeâ•… by man-Nom ‘This has been made by the man’

The fact that prepositional phrases license all cases that sentences do, would appear to be incompatible with the idea that prepositions assign a specialized oblique case in the sense of Chomsky (1995). One could object that the incompatibility of data such as (21)–(23) with the oblique case proposal of Chomsky (1995) disappears if the morphological component is taken into account. In the framework of Distributed Morphology, it could be assumed, for instance, that the insertion of at least some of the cases that prepositions select is due to impoverishment rules. Thus, we could assume that an impoverishment rule deletes oblique case from the prepositional contexts. However, prepositions in Albanian can select not one, but two different non-oblique cases, i.e. not just accusative, but also nominative. Therefore, the system has two different non-oblique entries (i.e. the nominative and the accusative) whose distribution in prepositional contexts cannot be described simply in terms of the underspecification of oblique€– but rather requires some positive characterization. Incidentally, the fact that the nominative is selected by prepositions is equally problematic for Chomsky’s (2001, 2008) construal of nominative as a reflex of agreement with the finite verb. As for Pesetsky and Torrego (2007), they identify prepositions with an aspectual type category:€‘a species of T merged below D and above NP’. They suggest that the selection of specific cases by certain subsets of prepositions must be connected with particular features associated with the varying properties of the event. However, when it comes to prepositions selecting the nominative, it is far from clear that Tprep can instantiate properties parallel to those of sentential T, precisely because sentential T is related to time reference while Tprep is related to the event. Let us now consider what can be said about cases selected by prepositions within the present approach. Prepositions are two-place predicates whose internal argument is independently lexicalized, while the external argument is controlled by some argument of the matrix predicate. For instance, in (22), the external argument of ‘in front of’ is controlled by the matrix accusative clitic ‘it’. Indeed, what ‘before’ denotes is a spatial relation between ‘it’ and ‘the man’. Consider now prepositional contexts like (21) which require the so-called accusative. In present terms, the prepositions that determine these contexts behave like transitive verbs in that their internal argument is satisfied, if definite, by the specialized nominal class morphology€–n(@) in the singular and by the nominal class + quantificational inflection –(V)t(@) in the plural. In

Analysis of Albanian nominal inflectionsâ•… 261 the indefinite, it is sufficient to have nominal class morphology or a bare nominal base, quantificationally closed. As for prepositional contexts selecting the oblique, as in (22), in present terms they require the satisfaction of their internal argument by argument morphology with Q specifications. These Q specifications correspond to a superset-of interpretation when taking a scope wider than the word; superset-of will then be the property selected by the preposition. Consider finally prepositional contexts requiring the so-called nominative. The gist of the present proposal is that there is no case, but only denotational properties capable of fixing argument reference in certain syntactic contexts. In particular, so-called nominative inflections are associated with contexts where they are in the scope of the D argument of the sentence (the finite verb inflection). Prepositions like t/ga in (23) then select inflections with the denotational properties found in the scope of D; these are the properties relevant for fixing the reference of their internal argument. 7.2.4 Summary The starting point of the present discussion was the data in Table 7.1, which laid out the nominal inflection system of Vena, classified in terms of the traditional case, definiteness and number categories. The aim was to show that case categories could be abandoned in favour of denotational primitives. Our perspective rests on a strict adherence to the (minimalist) postulates of projection of the syntax from actual terminals (no impoverishment, etc.) and of the ‘perfection’ of the computational module (no uninterpretability etc.). The overall picture that emerges from Albanian nominal inflections can be summarized in a fairly compact table (Table 7.2) which can now be substituted for Table 7.1. What we are perhaps most interested in is the fact that Table 7.2 is a genuinely different way of cutting the data, so that we expect direct empirical evidence to be able to discriminate between Table 7.1 (or its rendering by conventional morphosyntactic theories) and Table 7.2. Roughly speaking, there are three types of properties relevant for the nominal inflections of Vena:€ N(ominal class), Q(quantification), D(efiniteness). Vocalic N elements can have definite, or plural, or superset-of (oblique) interpretation, but we do not seem to see two or more of these combining. If the discussion at the end of section 7.2.2 is correct, this is due to the fact that such properties are not intrinsic to vocalic inflections, but contributed by the context of insertion in the shape of quantificational closures€– whence the parentheses in Table 7.2. It will be noted that in some instances the properties of two inflections overlap, such as those in the first line of the€–a and€–i entries

262â•… The noun:€agreement, case and definiteness Table 7.2 Denotational properties of Albanian (Vena) nominal inflections N -a -i,€–u -(j) -@ -t(@) -v -n(@) -ç@ -s@

+ + + + + +

Q=pl

Q=obl

(+)

(+) (+) +

+

Def

(+) + + + +

(+)

+ + + +

respectively; this, of course, corresponds to the fact that entries with the same content select for different sets of nominal bases. Among the other consonantal/syllabic endings,€–t(@) and –s@ are definiteness elements, while –ç@, –v are not; all are quantificational and will be plural (–t@) and/or oblique (–s@, –t(@),€–v,€–ç@). 7.3

The Albanian noun phrase

7.3.1 The genitive In presenting the major case configurations in (4)–(10), we omitted the genitive on purpose. The reason is twofold. On the one hand, genitive morphology overlaps with the morphology we have exemplified for dative. In other words, there is a single oblique case, which covers both dative environments and genitive ones. On the other hand, genitive contexts are distinguished from other oblique contexts in that the genitive is introduced by an article agreeing in number, gender and case with the noun that it is a complement of. These properties are illustrated by the data in (24)–(25), where the genitive is the complement of a definite noun, specifically a nominative in (24). In all the examples, the genitive can be seen to bear the same inflection as the dative; thus the definite genitive has€–s in the feminine singular,€–v in the plural, –t in the masculine singular; the indefinite genitive (introduced by an indefinite article or by a demonstrative) has€–ç in the masculine singular, –j in the feminine singular and again –v in the plural. The article that introduces

The Albanian noun phraseâ•… 263 the genitive agrees with the head noun. With a nominative head noun, i can be the pre-genitival article when the head noun is masculine singular, as in (24a), while  can correspond to a feminine singular head noun, as in (24b). At the same time a certain degree of free variation is observed, whereby the t form, which lexicalizes the plural, can alternate with nominal class ones in the singular. (24) a. a’. a’’. b. c.

kutuâ•…  biSt-i i/ t matS--s@ here is tail.nom.m the cat.gen.f ‘Here there is the tail of the cat’ biSt-i t asa-ç@ matS- tail.nom the of. that cat.f ‘the tail of that cat’ kj St t i-ç@/ ati-ç@ ri-u-ç@ this is the of.one/ of.that man ‘This is of a/ that man’s’ kjâ•…  kmb-a  matS--s@ this is leg.nom.f the cat.gen.f ‘This is the leg of the cat’ k@t jan biSt-@t  matï†fi-v these are tails.nom.pl the cats.gen.f ‘These are the tails of the cats’

When the head noun is accusative, as in (25), the genitive can be introduced by , which again appears to be in free variation with t. The examples in (25b) and (25c) show that if a kinship term is the genitive complement of a head noun, it keeps its preposed article in addition to being embedded under the article agreeing with the head noun. (25) a. a’. b. b’. c.

p biSt-i-nâ•…  matS--s@ I.sawâ•… tail.m the cat.gen.f ‘I saw the tail of the cat’ p biSt-i-n / t@ asaç@ matï†fi I saw tail.m the of.that cat.f ‘I saw the tail of that cat’ mra dr-@-n@  t@ mtr-@-s@ I.took hand.f the of.the sister.gen ‘I took the hand of the/his/her/their sister’ p kmb--n / t@ Ji-ç@ matS--j I.saw leg.f the of.one cat.f ‘I saw the leg of a cat’ mra kuputs--t t t nip-i-t I.took shoes.acc the of.the grandchild.gen-m ‘I took the shoes of the/his/her/their grandchild’

264â•… The noun:€agreement, case and definiteness Finally, when the head noun is indefinite, the article that introduces the genitive is always t, as seen in (26) for articles agreeing with a nominative singular, masculine in (b) and feminine in (a). (26) a. b.

/ aj kmb t@ matS--s@ a/that.nom leg the cat.gen.f ‘a/ that leg of the cat’ kj St t@ ri-u-t@ this is the man.gen ‘This is of the man’s’

The most notable structural property of genitives is that they are introduced by a determiner agreeing with the noun of which they are a complement€– or of which they are predicated, as in the copular structures in (24a”) and in (26b). As we will see in section 7.3.2, adjectives are characterized by a similar configuration, in which the adjective is preceded by a determiner agreeing with the noun it is predicated of, either within the noun phrase or in a copular structure. We conclude that in Albanian, all genitives (like all adjectives) are introduced as predications, not only in copular structures but in noun phrases as well. The structural representation of a DP like (24a) poses no particular problem. Quite simply, the head noun biʃti selects a noun phrase complement headed by a determiner, which agrees with the noun itself. In turn, this determiner takes the genitive noun (phrase) as its complement, as shown in (27a). The determiner agreeing with the matrix noun combines with the determiner introduced by kinship terms, as in (25b), showing that two different structural positions are involved. In (27b) it is particularly evident that, while the embedded determiner takes the form t for the oblique, the higher determiner takes the form  agreeing in accusative properties with the head noun. (27)â•… a. N i

biʃt

D i matʃ

N ǝ

b. D ε

D tǝ mɔtr

N ǝ

Q sǝ

Q sǝ

The Albanian noun phraseâ•… 265 A similar structure will of course characterize indefinite genitives, preceded by an indefinite determiner or a demonstrative, and embedded under a determiner agreeing with the head noun, as in (28), corresponding to example (25b’). (28)â•… D tǝ

D ɲiçǝ matʃ

N ε

N jε

What first interests us here is what in traditional terms would be described as the syncretism of the genitive inflection with the dative. In section 7.2.1. we argued that this syncretism is based on the fact that the relevant Q morphology specifies a superset-of denotation. Thus, the second internal argument of ‘give’, i.e. the traditional dative, in present terms participates in fixing the reference of the first internal argument, i.e. the accusative, by denoting a superset including it. Similarly, the traditional genitive specifies a superset in terms of which the reference of the head noun is fixed. In Albanian, there is of course a formal difference between datives and genitives, namely that genitives are embedded under a determiner agreeing with the head noun; this is not true of datives. This difference correlates simply with the different points of merger of the genitive and the dative. Merger within a noun phrase requires the predicative layer provided by the determiner agreeing with the head noun (also found in copular structures); in dative environments, the oblique merges directly as complement of a verb.7 Let us consider the articles that appear in front of genitives. These belong to the same set that we have independently seen for kinship terms, including i,  and t. We have already characterized t as a pure definiteness morpheme capable of carrying definite denotation independently of nominal class, number and case specifications. This is precisely what it does when introducing genitive complements of indefinite head nouns, and optionally of definite head nouns as well. Recall that if the head noun is indefinite, the pre-genitival article is t in both the nominative and in the accusative, irrespective of gender and nominal class. What the data suggest is that with indefinite head nouns, the predicative structure introducing the genitive must overtly lexicalize definiteness. If the head noun is definite, we find i in the nominative masculine singular, exactly as for kinship terms. On the other hand,  can be found not only in the

266â•… The noun:€agreement, case and definiteness nominative singular (feminine, as with kinship terms), but also in the accusative singular (irrespective of nominal class). We have characterized the i and  morphemes as nominal class elements:€there is no reason why this characterization cannot be maintained for their occurrence as articles. Thus, there is a single lexical entry for all of the occurrences of i and , though their points of merger vary. In particular, the article is lexicalized by  in all accusative contexts; this is consistent with the conclusion that accusative is satisfied by nominal class properties N. In the nominative, article  again occurs with plural and feminine head nouns, but the masculine requires i, in other words the morphology specialized for the masculine nominal class. Evidently, the fact that the article ultimately participates in lexicalizing the EPP (D) argument of the sentence requires the emergence of specialized lexical class morphology (i for the masculine, and  for the feminine). The oblique and the plural have t throughout. 7.3.2 The adjective The normally attested adjectival construction in Albanian, including Arbëresh varieties, has the inflected adjective preceded by the article. Within the noun phrase, the adjective appears postnominally. Although in the standard variety a subclass of adjectives can appear prenominally, this possibility appears to be missing in Vena. In turn, the article–adjective sequence is not restricted to noun-phrase-internal contexts, but appears in predicative contexts as well, including the copular construction. This observation leads us to conclude that the pre-adjectival article is part of the structure of the adjective phrase, and not of the noun phrase in which the adjective is eventually inserted. Consider first the nominative, illustrated in (29) with the copular construction and in (30) with adjectives embedded in noun phrases. As shown in (29b), the plural bears the€ –a inflection, while in the singular the masculine is not inflected, having the same form as the bare adjectival base, and the feminine bears a vocalic - inflection in some subclasses, as in (29a’). Nominal class (gender) and number may equally be lexicalized by stem allomorphies, as for vk@ç@ ‘small.m’ vs. vg@λ@ ‘small.f’. In turn, pre-adjectival articles take the i, , t@ form that we have already seen for kinship terms and pre-genitival articles; i appears in the masculine singular,  in the feminine singular and t@ in the plural. The adjective agrees with the noun (phrase) it is predicated of; the pre-adjectival article agrees with both the noun and the adjective in turn. (29) a. St i traS/  traS s/he.isâ•… the.m fat/ the.f fat ‘S/he is fat’

The Albanian noun phraseâ•… 267 a’. b.

St i ma/  ma s/he.is the.m big/ the.f big ‘S/he is big’ jan t@ traSa/ â•… t mbi they.are the fat/ the big ‘They are fat/ big’

(30) a.â•… a’. b. b’ c’. c.

r dia-i i ma/ vk@ç@ came boy the big/ small ‘The big/ small boy came’ r  diaç@ i vk@ç@ came a boy the small ‘A small boy came’ r vazd-a  ma/ vg came girl the big/ small ‘The big/ small girl came’ r  vazd@  vg came a girl the small ‘A small girl came’ r aj vazd@  vg/ ma came that girl the small/ big ‘That small/ big girl came’ r kriatura-t@â•… t@ mbia/ vga cameâ•… boys theâ•… big/ small ‘The big/ small boys came’

Vena displays no sensitivity to case in the adjectival embedding. Thus, in the accusative in (31) and in the dative in (32), both the adjectival ending and the preposed article have exactly the same form as in the nominative in (30)€– displaying sensitivity only to nominal class and number. (31) a. a’. b. b’. c.

p dia-i-n i vkiç@ I.saw boy-acc the small ‘I saw the small boy’ p at@ diaâ•… i vkiç@/ i ma@ I.sawâ•… thatâ•… boy the small/the big ‘I saw that small/ big boy’ p vazd-@n@  vgi I.saw girl-acc the small ‘I saw the small girl’ mra @ mbisal  maar- I. took a tablecloth the biggish ‘I took a biggish tablecloth’ p kriatur-a-t t@ vga I.saw boys-acc the small ‘I saw the small boys’

268â•… The noun:€agreement, case and definiteness (32) a. b. b’. c.

ja  dia-i-t i vkiç@ him-it I.gave boy-dat the small ‘I gave it to the small boy’ ja  vazd-s  vogi@ her-it I.gave girl-dat the small ‘I gave it to the small girl’ ja  â•›iç@ vazd-j  vgi@/ asaç@ vazd@  ma her-it I.gave to.a girl the small/ to.that girl the big ‘I gave it to a small girl/ to the big girl’ ja  kriatur-a-v t@ vga them-it I.gave boys-dat the small ‘I gave it to the small boys’

In short, the adjectives in (29)–(32) are formed like nouns by a predicative base followed by an inflection sensitive to nominal class and number, but not to case. We take it that these adjectival inflections are argumental elements capable of satisfying the obligatory (internal) argument of the predicative base. The presence of the article in front of the adjective can be imputed to a requirement that adjectival structures be closed by a D (EPP) element, very much as noun phrases are in Italian or English. This article picks up the same argument as the adjectival inflection with which it agrees, as shown for a feminine singular in (33). (33)â•… D ε maD

N ε

Consider the embedding of a structure like (33) in a copular context. Agreement between the adjective and the EPP argument of the copula corresponds to the fact that the latter forms a chain with the adjectival inflection and article. In virtue of this chain relation, the internal argument slot of the adjective is ultimately assigned to the EPP argument of the copula. Consider, then, the embedding of structures like (33) inside a noun phrase, as schematized in (34) for the nominative feminine singular. We know that both of the predicative bases present in (34), i.e. the adjectival and the nominal one, have (at least) one argumental slot, filled by the inflection€– and for adjectives also by the article. In present terms, these two (sets of) arguments slots are satisfied by the same individual(s). On the one hand, this provides a basis for the

The Albanian noun phraseâ•… 269 intersective interpretation typical of adjectival modification, whereby a ‘big girl’ is an individual which is both ‘a girl’ and ‘big (for a girl)’. On the other hand, it means that agreement holds of the noun, the pre-adjectival article and the adjective. (34)

vazd

N a

D ε

maD

N ε

We have noted that in Vena, the adjective does not agree with the head noun in case (nor is it sensitive to its definiteness properties). In other words, the Vena variety has a fully developed case system in the nominal domain, but not in the adjectival domain. This is not simply a morphological property of adjectival bases, for when the same bases are the head of a noun phrase (rather than predicated of the head noun), they are inflected just like nouns are (section 7.3.3). In standard Albanian (as described by Solano 1972; Turano 2002), by contrast, the pre-adjectival article is sensitive to case (and to the definiteness of the head noun). In classical frameworks in which gender, number and case form a bundle of features of the noun, or in a framework like Chomsky’s (2008) in which case is merely a consequence of agreement rules applying to number and gender, the fact that case is lexicalized in certain contexts but not in others must be the result of morphological rules. In the present framework, no such rule suppressing the overt realization of an abstractly present case category is necessary€– or possible. Rather, syntactic contexts differ as to whether they are or are not associated with case. In section 7.2, we have argued that case is merely the name of a specialized argument; if so, the question as to its absence becomes a question as to the absence of this specialized argument. It is natural to assume that the absence of the case argument on the adjective in (34) is connected to the fact that the argument slot of the matrix predicate is independently satisfied by the case argument of the noun. Therefore, the identification of the argument of the adjective with that of the noun does not require a case argument to be lexicalized on the adjective as well. Importantly, the basis for distinguishing the descriptive category ‘noun’ from the descriptive category ‘adjective’ is not that the predicative bases occurring in adjectival and nominal contexts are marked for one or the other category. Rather, it is only the contexts of occurrence that can be labelled in that way. In the variety under consideration, therefore, case

270â•… The noun:€agreement, case and definiteness discriminates between adjectival embeddings (case-less) and nominal embeddings (case-marked)€– not between nouns and adjectives. Let us now turn to the pre-adjectival article. The literature concludes€– much as we do here€– that the article is part of the adjectival constituent (DimitrovaVulchanova and Giusti 1998; Turano 2002, 2003; Giusti and Turano 2007). However, according to Dimitrova-Vulchanova and Giusti (1998), the pre-adjectival article is just an agreement marker (and a ‘redundant’ one). For them, the order Noun–Adjective in (34) is generated by movement of the noun to a Focus position, licensing the D position of the noun phrase. We have already argued against this derivation in discussing the internal structure of kinship terms in section 7.2. In turn, Turano (2002, 2003), following Cinque (1995), argues that the adjective is generated in the Spec of a functional projection dominating the noun, so that the Noun–Adjective order in (34) is derived by movement of the Noun to D. If our discussion in section 7.2 is on the right track, kinship terms exclude such a derivation, since they show that postnominal definiteness inflections and prenominal articles can co-occur; therefore the former cannot be derivationally related to the latter. At the same time, there are some differences between the distribution of preadjectival articles and that of articles in front of kinship terms. In particular, the data concerning kinship terms in (8) vs. (9) or in (10) show that demonstratives and indefinite quantifiers, including ted ‘some’ in (10) and  ‘a’ in (9), are in complementary distribution with the prenominal article. Elements quantifying over the adjective are not in complementary distribution with the pre-adjectival article, but rather precede it, as in (35). (35)â•… St m@/ Sum i ma/  ma s/he.is more/ very the.m big/ the.f big ‘S/he is bigger/ very big’

A minimal contrast with the quantifier ï†fium in (35) is provided by the occurrence of the same element as a quantifier of the noun in (36a)€– where it is in complementary distribution with the prenominal article. Furthermore, quantificational (and other) material can appear between the article and the kinship noun, as illustrated in (36b) with a numeral quantifier. (36)â•… a.â•… b.

∫um ku∫iriç many cousins ‘many cousins (of his/her/theirs)’ t katra ku∫iriçt the four cousins ‘the/his/her/their four cousins’

The Albanian noun phraseâ•… 271 The contrast between (35) and (36b) suggests that the determiner is inserted in a lower position within the adjective phrase than it is within the noun phrases. The high position of the determiner within the noun phrase has led the literature (Szabolcsi 1994) to the conclusion that the determiner has a strict affinity with the C position of the sentence. By contrast, we can analyse the pre-adjectival determiner as an inflectional-level element, filling the D position of the I domain, as in (37), where it is preceded by the indefinite quantifier in Q of the C domain. In this way, we also capture Dimitrova-Vulchanova and Giusti’s (1998) intuition that the pre-adjectival determiner is an agreement element of sorts.8 (37) Q mǝ/ʃum

(C) D ε

N ε

maD

On the basis of the contrast between (36) and (35), we conclude that the prenominal article of kinship terms is a determiner of the English/Romance type, inserted in the D position of the C domain, as in (38), where it can be followed by quantificational material in the same domain or in the lower inflectional domain, such as the numeral. The complementary distribution between the definite determiner and the indefinite quantifier seen in (8) vs. (9), or in (35), is not necessarily due to competition for the same position, but rather to the fact that their interpretations are mutually exclusive. (38) D tǝ

Q katra kuʃiri

...

It is also worth noting that possessives precede kinship nouns, and are in turn preceded by prenominal determiners, as in (39). This further confirms the availability of inflectional domains (for the positioning of the possessive clitic) between the determiner and the noun. The (1st person) possessive itself has an inflection sensitive to nominal class and number, alternating in particular

272â•… The noun:€agreement, case and definiteness between the bare stem im, with a masculine singular head noun, and the€ – inflection with a feminine head noun. This agreement of possessives with the head noun is observed in Romance as well, and is analysed by Manzini and Savoia (2005) for those languages.9 (39)â•… a. b.

p t im kuSiri/ t im kuSirir/ t im@ kuSiriç@ I.sawâ•… the my cousin.m/ the my cousin.f/ the my cousins ‘I saw my cousin/ cousins’ ja  t im kuSirir-i-ç@/ s ╇ im kuSirir/ t im kuSiriç-v him-it I.gave the my cousin.dat.m/ the my cousin.dat.f/ the my cousins.dat ‘I gave it to my cousin/ cousins’

7.3.3 Adjectives as heads of the noun phrase The insensitivity of Albanian adjectival inflections to case (and in Vena also to the definiteness of the head noun) is not a lexical property of the bases involved. Rather, the same bases that have been illustrated above as heads of adjective phrases embedded in a noun phrase can also occur as heads of noun phrases. If so, they display full nominal inflection, and like kinship terms they are also preceded by the definite determiner, as illustrated in (40). (40)â•… a. a’. a’’. b. b’’.â•… c.

r i vgi/â•…  vga came theâ•… little.m/ the little.f ‘The little one came’ r t@ vga-t@ came the little-pl ‘The little ones came’ r m i maD-i came more the big.m ‘The bigger one came’ p t@ vgi-n@/â•… t@ vgn@/ t@ I.saw theâ•… small.m/ theâ•… small.f/ the ‘I saw the small one(s)’ p m t mbiDç--t I.saw more the big.pl ‘I saw the bigger ones’ t@ vgi-t@/ t@â•… vgs@/â•… ja  him.itâ•… I.gaveâ•… theâ•… small.m/ the small.f/ ‘I gave it to the small one(s)’

vga-t@ small-pl

t@ vga-v the small.pl

These adjectival heads differ from kinship terms in some important respects, in which they parallel the structure of adjectival phrases. In particular, as can be seen in (40a’’), the adjective and its article can be preceded by a quantifier,

The Albanian noun phraseâ•… 273 such as the degree element m ‘more’. Similarly, unlike what happens in kinship terms, where the determiner excludes indefinite quantifiers and demonstratives, the latter can precede adjectival bases and their articles, as shown in (41). On the other hand, the demonstrative and the indefinite article combine with the indefinite inflection on the adjectival/nominal head. The latter is sensitive only to nominal class and number, except for the oblique plural, which optionally displays the case ending, as in (41c’). (41) a. a’. b. b’. c. c’. c’’.

r ai i vkiç@/ aj  vgi came that the little.m/ that the little.f ‘That little one came’ r  i vkiç@ /  vgi came a the â•… little.m/ the little.f ‘A little one came’ p at╅ i vkiç@/  vgi/ at t@ vgia I.sawâ•… that the little.m/ the little.f/ those the little.pl ‘I saw that little one/ those little ones’ p ╅ i vkiç@/  vgi I.sawâ•… a theâ•… little.m/ the little.f ‘I saw a little one’ ja  atiç@ i vkiç@/ asaç@  vgi him.itâ•… I.gave to.that the little.m/ to.that the little.f ‘I gave it to that little one’ ja  atir/ atir@v t@ vogia(v) them.it I.gave to.those the little.pl ‘I gave it to those little ones’ ja  Jiç@ i vkiç@/  vgi him.it I.gave to.a the little.m/ the little.f ‘I gave it to a little one’

The examples in (40)–(41) cannot be accounted for through ellipsis of the head noun. In (40), in particular, such an analysis would force us to say that in the context of a deleted definite noun, the adjective takes on the definite inflection. This in turn requires a framework which uses morphological spellout of syntactic features€– so that definiteness features can be passed from the deleted/silent head noun to the adjective before they are actually instantiated in the morphological component. By contrast, we are working with a unified morphosyntactic component. Given present assumptions, a sentence like (40a) can take the structure in (42). The nominative inflection N and the D article satisfy the internal Â�argument slot of the adjectival base vg@ and at the same time the argument slot of the matrix predicate. So-called nominative case in (42) corresponds to

274â•… The noun:€agreement, case and definiteness the D closure of the N inflection, as detailed in section 7.2.2. As we have just seen, in a noun ellipsis treatment, the distinction between nouns and adjectives, built on the presence of empty structures, determines the surface distribution of cases via morphological manipulations. By contrast, in the present framework, the projection of a case category, as determined by the requirements of predicate–argument structure, effectively distinguishes what we call a noun from what we call an adjective. (42)

I εrθ

D i y

vɔgƏ

N i

The nominal constituent in (42) and the adjective phrase in (37) are alike in that the article can combine with higher quantifiers that precede it, specifically degree quantifiers, as illustrated in (43). In (43), the article is therefore in the inflectional D position, as we have assumed for the adjective phrase in (37), rather than in the high C-domain position that we have assumed for kinship nouns in (38). (43)

Q mǝ

(C) D tǝ mbiD εçǝ

N tǝ

On these grounds, we equally expect that, while the determiner of kinship nouns is in complementary distribution with demonstratives and indefinites, the article in front of adjectival bases combines with them, as shown in (44).

Concluding remarksâ•… 275 (44) Q ŋǝ

(C) D ε

7.4

y

vɔgi

N ǝ

Concluding remarks

The proposals in this chapter merely represent a particular instance of a more general perspective we take on the minimalist framework. This perspective restricts current models by rejecting abstract terminals in favour of projection from the lexicon. The analysis of Romance and Albanian phenomena in this and other chapters of the book aims to demonstrate that the sharp divide between the functional and substantive lexicons that current generative literature often takes for granted does not have any real empirical motivation. Rather, the syntactic computation is built on the properties of the actual lexical terminals€– but it does not necessarily register every component of what we call the meaning of a sentence€– which the syntax merely restricts (cf. Culicover and Jackendoff 2005). The specific aim of the present chapter was to account for traditional case inflection within this general framework. The latter consists entirely of referential properties, including nominal class, definiteness and quantification, and it is these properties that enter into the projection of the syntactic tree. The traditional notion of case corresponds simply to the fact that different sets of denotational properties satisfy different syntactic environments, defined by agreement, theta-assignment and in general by the primitive relations of minimalist theory. We would argue further that by cutting away a lot of abstractness, our approach ends up being simpler than other possible solutions to what is by and large a commonly perceived problem. Most of the discussion was devoted to the crucial issue of empirical adequacy. In this respect, we have illustrated what is required for our approach to account for a fairly complex nominal inflection system, such as the one found in the Vena variety of Albanian.

8 (Definite) denotation and case in Romance:€history and variation In historical accounts of the transition from Latin to the Romance languages, the loss of case morphology is related to the evolution of Latin demonstratives into articles and to the typological change from SOV word order to SVO word order. Starting from the observation that change from Latin to Romance languages involved a shift from head-final order to head-initial order, Renzi (1987) proposes that in a string of the type N–k, the case suffix k, identified with a functional head, can no longer stay to the right of N, but must be reordered and move into first position.1 In terms of this explanation, the article is the lexical support for the case affix; the resulting sequence Art+k N realizes the desired head-initial order. In other words, the development of the Latin demonstrative into an article (cf. Vincent 1997) makes it possible for case to be lost as a nominal suffix. This account is not without problems. For instance, it predicts that we should find some Romance language (or language stage) in which case is realized exclusively on the determiner€– but in Old French both determiners and nouns have case (though the determiners may be argued to have a fuller set of case distinctions); and in Italian neither does. A potentially better argument for determiners bearing case to the exclusion of nouns is Romanian; in Romanian, however, the article is postnominal, and can be argued to be an inflection (section 8.2). More to the point, nouns of the feminine class have a residual inflection for dative/genitive as opposed to nominative/accusative. Giusti (1995, 2001) develops Renzi’s (1987) idea further. She separates the article from the other determiners of the noun and identifies it with a functional head also subsuming case; in her terms, F ‘is a nominal functional category which subsumes D[eterminer] and K[ase]’ (1995:€79). The article, therefore, is only ‘a syntactic means of expressing case’. She notices that her approach is ‘in contrast with current semantic theories which take the article as a kind of quantifier’. She questions, however, the ability of these theories to explain ‘how languages with no article can implement the mechanisms of nominal 276

The Latin case systemâ•… 277 interpretation currently attributed to the article in English’ (1995:€89). We shall return to this question in the concluding section. From a diachronic perspective, Giusti (2001:€168) suggests that in a language like Latin, ‘the rich morphology on the noun makes the N-[to-D]chain visible … even if N has not moved’; in Romance languages like Italian, ‘although the case morphology is not strong enough to make the N-chain visible … the presence of the newly formed article complies with the same function’. For both Renzi (1987) and Giusti (2001), therefore, case is a primitive category of grammar, and the difference between Latin and Romance is that, whereas Latin realizes this category as a nominal inflection, Romance lexicalizes the same category as part of the determiner (Renzi) or as the determiner (Giusti). Giusti dissociates the determiner from definiteness and other denotational properties, strengthening the link between determiner and case to a formal equivalence. In essence, therefore, what survives is only case, and its expression either by morphological case or by the determiner. Now, the theory that emerges from our discussion of Albanian case in Â�chapter 7 is that, if case and definiteness/quantification are merely two names for the same fundamental categorial specifications, the characterization of this category is D/Q rather than K€– in other words, Giusti’s stance is reversed. In this chapter, we seek to confirm the conclusions arrived at in the previous chapter on the basis of an analysis of the Latin case system (section 8.1) and its developments in Romance, including in particular the case systems of Romanian (section 8.2) and Old French (section 8.3), as well as survivals of nominative –s in Romansh varieties (section 8.4). 8.1

The Latin case system

The gist of the present proposal regarding case, as laid out in chapter 7, is that the nominal class inflection of, say, the modern Romance varieties is not substantially different from case systems such as that of Albanian, in the sense that ‘case’ inflections, like ‘agreement’ inflections, lexicalize denotational properties of nominal class (gender), quantification, definiteness, etc. In virtue of these denotational properties, they satisfy the argument specifications of the predicate base (the ‘noun’) to which they attach. ‘Case’ inflections differ from ‘agreement’ inflections in that they are restricted to certain syntactico-semantic configurations of embedding. In other words, they are specialized for attachment of the noun (phrase) as the complement of a superordinate verb (‘accusative’), as an EPP argument (‘nominative’), as a complement of a superordinate noun (‘genitive’) etc.

278â•… Denotation and case in Romance:€history & variation These conclusions, if correct, should easily extend from Albanian, considered in chapter 7, to other case languages. From this perspective, we briefly consider the case system of Latin, with a view to studying its development in the Romance languages. A morphemic analysis of the Latin case system is provided by Halle and Vaux (1997). In (1), we match the case endings resulting from this analysis, as schematized in Halle and Vaux’s Table (14), to the stems of the five standard conjugations, with classes II–IV also displaying separate forms for neuter. For Halle and Vaux (1997), these stems are formed by the root followed by the thematic vowels –a for the I class, –o for the II class, –i for the III class, –u for the IV class and –e for the V class. Phonological readjustment rules which delete, lengthen, shorten and change the quality of thematic vowels, as detailed in Halle and Vaux’s (19), would be responsible for the rather more complex thematic vowel schema emerging from (1). (1)

Singular

Plural

(I) Nom.â•… Gen. Dat. Acc. Abl.

ros ros ros ros ros

ros ros ros ros ros



(II) Nom. Gen. Dat. Acc. Abl.



-a -a -i: -a -i: -a -m -a:

-a -a: -i: -a: -i:

-i: -r-um -s -s -s

lup -u -s lup -i: lup -o: lup -u -m lup -o:

lup lup -o: lup -i: lup -o: lup -i:

-i: -r-um -s -s -s

(IIn.) Nom. Gen. Dat. Acc. Abl.

bell -u -m bell -i: bell -o: bell -u -m bell -o:

bell bell bell bell bell



(III) Nom. Gen. Dat. Acc. Abl.

can can can can can



(IIIn.) Nom. Gen. Dat. Acc.

corpus corpor -i -s corpor -i: corpus

-i -s -i -s -i: -e -m -e

-a -o: -r-um -i: -s -a -i: -s

can -e: can can -i can -e: can -i

-s -um -bu-s -s -bu-s

corpor corpor corpor -i corpor

-a -um -bu-s -a

The Latin case systemâ•… 279

Abl. (IV) Nom. Gen. Dat. Acc. Abl. (IVn.) Nom. Gen. Dat. Acc. Abl.



(V) Nom. Gen. Dat. Acc. Abl.

corpor -e

corpor -i

-bu-s

fruct fruct fruct fruct fruct

-u -s -u: -s -u -i: -u -m -u:

fruct fruct fruct fruct fruct

-u: -u -i -u: -i

-s -um -bu-s -s -bu-s

corn corn corn corn corn

-u: -u: -s -u: -u: -u:

corn corn corn corn corn

-u -u -i -u -i

-a -um -bu-s -a -bu-s

di di di di di

-e: -s -e: -i: -e: -i: -e -m -e:

di di di di di

-e: -e: -e: -e: -e:

-s -r-um -bu-s -s -bu-s

We adopt the inventory of case endings from Halle and Vaux (1997) (cf. also Calabrese 1998, 2008). We differ from them only in excluding zero endings; therefore, in instances where they would have a zero morpheme, we have just left a blank space in the relevant column of the paradigm in (1). As we have already done for Albanian, we assume that forms lacking a case ending are simply closed off by a thematic vowel (e.g. the I class abl. singular ros–a:€‘with the rose’) or correspond to bare roots (e.g. the III class neuter nom./acc. singular corpus ‘the body’). For Halle and Vaux (1997), the Latin case dictionary involves eight morphemes, including zero, for which they provide the lexical entries in (2). Cases are characterized by the features [±structural], referring to whether the case is structural or not in Chomsky’s (1986) sense, [±superior], referring to whether the case is assigned under government (-superior) or not, and [±oblique]. Halle and Vaux develop the view that the –r–um genitive plural of classes I, II and V depends on the combination of –s with –um morphology followed by rhotacism of€–s (i.e. conversion to€–r in intervocalic position). But even taking –um and –rum to be allomorphs which are not further analysable would not change the table of lexical entries in any essential respect. Similarly, for Halle and Vaux the –bu–s dative/ablative plural of classes II, IV and V is derived by combining –bu with –s; again, assigning a lexical entry to –bus rather than to –bu would not change the picture in (2) in any crucial way. We will therefore disregard this internal analysis in the discussion to follow.

280╅ Denotation and case in Romance:€history & variation (2)╅

umâ•… bu i: i: a m Ø s

[+obl +struct -sup [+obl +sup [+obl +struct [-obl +sup [-obl [-obl [ [

+pl] +pl] / [III, IV, V]+ -pl] +pl] / [-neut, I, II]+ +pl] / [+neut] + -pl] -pl] ]

Various general assumptions underlying the lexicon in (2) have been rejected as part of the discussion in chapter 7€– notably that the grammar includes relational features such as [±superior] (i.e. [±governed]), etc. and that lexical items may be specified for negative properties or radically underspecified. There are less general aspects of the Latin case lexicon in (2) that interest us here. For instance, the different occurrences of –i cannot be unified, but require two separate homophonous entries, one for the nominative plural occurrences, and one for the genitive/dative occurrences. Interestingly, the distribution of –i is very close to that of Albanian –t. In chapter 7, we saw that –t occurs in the nominative/accusative plural and in the oblique singular; thus, it can be plural or it can be oblique, but it cannot be plural and oblique. Analogously, Latin –i occurs as the dative and/or genitive singular (either genitive, or dative, or both according to inflectional class) and as the nominative plural; but it does not occur as the oblique plural. The analysis of Albanian –t in chapter 7 allows us to provide a unified entry for Latin –i. As for Albanian –t, we propose that Latin –i has quantificational properties. When they take scope over the word, they yield the plural reading (classes I and II, nonneuter). When they are construed as having wider (phrasal/ sentential) scope, they are read roughly as superset-of specifications€– i.e. as genitive/dative (in classes I and V), as genitive (noun phrase scope, in class II), or as dative (sentential scope in classes III and IV).2 Thus, a class II form like lup–i in (3) is ambiguous between the reading ‘the wolves’ (plural) and the reading ‘of the wolf’ (genitive singular). There is only one real difference between Albanian –t and Latin –i, namely that€–t characterizes all non-oblique contexts of insertion in the plural. By contrast, Latin –i in the plural is restricted to the so-called nominative context, which in terms of the discussion of chapter 7 is characterized by agreement (i.e. chain formation) with the D inflection of the finite verb. (3)

lup

Q i

The Latin case systemâ•… 281 It is evident that the present approach is not a notational variant of the more traditional approach represented by such works as Halle and Vaux (1997), since their respective dictionaries are clearly different. In particular, under the present approach, we are able to unify what for Halle and Vaux are two separate€–i morphemes into a single lexical entry. What is more, under the present approach the underlying distribution of –i is seen to be the same as that of Albanian€–t. The fact that the same pattern can be found with genetically unrelated inflections strengthens the argument against it corresponding simply to accidental homophonies or to default mechanisms. Johnston (1997:€102–7) shows that the same syncretism between genitive singular and nominative plural is also found in Russian. His discussion is interesting because he recognizes the systematicity of the pattern, though the ‘homonymies’ cannot be modelled within the ‘geometrical’ model he advocates, ‘because the elements involved have no element in common along any inflectional dimension’ (102). In fact he even predicts the possibility of a ‘geometric constraint that the relevant paradigm cells not be continuous’. This is precisely what our model (unlike Distributed Morphology) can provide. Another major syncretic morphology is€–s, which is treated as the general default of the system by Halle and Vaux. The notion of default is extraneous to our grammar€– where lexical terminals project syntactic structure on the basis of their positively specified properties. In fact, by and large the distribution of –s does not differ substantially from that of€–i. Consider, for instance, class III, where€–s occurs as the conventional nominative singular in (4a), the genitive singular in (4b) and the plural, both nominative and accusative, in (4c). Nominative singular is also attested for class II, genitive singular for classes II, IV and V, nominative/accusative plural for classes IV and V and accusative plural for all classes. In classes I and II, –s also occurs as the dative/ablative plural, which we will treat last. (4) â•… a. b. c.

Canis currit dog.sg.nom runs ‘The dog is running’ canis cauda dog’s tail ‘the dog’s tail’ Canes currunt/ video dogs run/â•… I.see ‘(The) dogs are running’/ ‘I see (the) dogs’

The lack of any feature characterization for –s in the lexicon of Halle and Vaux (1997) means that€–s can automatically be inserted in any of the contexts in (4). However, the Subset Principle that crucially governs Lexical Insertion

282â•… Denotation and case in Romance:€history & variation requires that ‘the most highly specified Vocabulary Item whose features are a subset of the features of the terminal node is inserted’. Consider, then, the nominative singular, which is characterized as [–oblique, +superior, +structural,€–plural] because it is an argument of the verb ([–oblique]), it is not governed ([–superior]) and [+structural]. For independent reasons one must assume that there is a lexical entry in Latin which is specialized for [–oblique,€–plural], namely –m, which occurs in the accusative singular of all nominal classes, as well as in the nominative of the neuter 2nd class. Therefore, –m should take precedence over –s in the nominative singular. In order to avoid this unwelcome result, an Impoverishment rule is postulated deleting the feature [–plural] in the nominative singular, yielding a node which is compatible only with the –s default terminal. An extension of this rule is further envisaged to allow for the insertion of –s in the genitive singular. However, Impoverishment processes such as the one just described are evidently ad hoc. In turn, paradoxically, a default item like –s, whose insertion is permitted by such processes, finds itself filling a multiplicity of case slots not in virtue of its rich case properties, but in virtue of their total absence. What we propose is that –s, far from being an empty element as in Halle and Vaux (1997), has a denotational content, which we identify again with Q, as in (5), corresponding to the structure for nominative singular and plural. The plural interpretation depends on the quantificational specifications of –s taking scope over the noun, as already discussed for –i in (3). To account for its occurrences in the singular, we assume, exactly as for –i in (3), that Q elements in morphology have scope properties€– a notion that ultimately goes back to Pesetsky (1985). The singular readings of the –s morphology, in turn, correspond to Q taking a scope wider than the noun (phrasal or sentential). Specifically, in the singular nominative configuration, we interpret the scope of€–s as sentential. We assume that the EPP argument provides a D closure of the sentence, and correspondingly requires quantificational Q properties, supplied by –s, to satisfy the syntactic context of insertion that it defines. (5)

can

N i/e

Q sx

currx

D itx /untx

In the so-called genitive, we can take the scope of –s to be the entire noun phrase; the genitive argument is then interpreted as ‘including’ the head

The Latin case systemâ•… 283 referent. The genitive reading of€s naturally leads us to the other oblique reading, as the syncretic dative/ablative plural. Ablative has not been discussed so far; since in the variety of Albanian considered here there is no systematic attestation of ablative. The range of readings associated with ablative in Latin is roughly comparable to that of Romance clitics like Italian ci, French y etc.€– i.e. basically locative and instrumental. Similarly, the syncretism of the ablative with the dative in the plural (in all classes), as well as in the singular of class II, is strongly reminiscent of Romance clitic systems in which 3rd person dative is lexicalized by the ci-type (locative) form (Manzini and Savoia 2005, 2007, 2008a; Kayne 2008a). Now, we have already seen that in Latin dative is also syncretic with genitive (cf. the –i inflection), giving rise to a threeway connection between dative, genitive and ablative. This same connection is independently known from possessive constructions (Freeze 1992) in which the possessor can be a descriptive genitive (the book is mine), a descriptive dative (Latin liber mihi est ‘lit:€the book is to me’), or a descriptive locative (Russian u menja est’ kniga ‘lit:€ the book is at me’). In present terms, this conceptual closeness underlying the observed syncretisms can be captured by the notion of superset-of or ‘zonal inclusion’ in the sense of Belvin and den Dikken (1997), as discussed in chapters 6–7. The latter can be construed as the possessive proper (genitive), or it can be defined spatially, resulting in the locative. The dative can correspond to either of these. On the basis of these various observations, we tentatively construe the so-called ablative as a quantificational Q element in turn.3 Coming back to the syncretic dative/ablative plural in –s, it is especially interesting in the present context in that it seems to attest a combination of plural and oblique values that is excluded both for Albanian –t and for Latin –i. This exclusion led us to theorize that the ‘crossed’ syncretism (either plural, or oblique, but no oblique plural) was due to the fact that Q specification of Albanian –t and Latin –i could take scope over the word (plural) or over sentential constituents (oblique), but not both. Interestingly, the oblique (dative/ ablative) construal of Latin –s appears to allow for this possibility. In reality, we think another analysis more likely. Note that in the dative/ ablative plural, the vowel preceding –s is always –i. The discussion of Halle and Vaux (1997) seems to imply that this is one of the many phonological readjustments involving thematic vowels in the Latin case declension. However, it seems unlikely that there is a phonological process leading from –a, –o thematic vowels in I, II class to –i. Therefore we assume that the –i–s ending of classes I and II oblique (dative/ablative) is really made up of the two quantificational elements –i and –s. The first plausibly takes the same word scope that

284â•… Denotation and case in Romance:€history & variation yields the plural reading in the (3) and in its class I counterpart; –s can then introduce the oblique (sentential scope) reading. In short, there are intrinsic lexical properties of –s and there are syntactic environments that it can satisfy. One traditionally labels these environments as case configurations and the terminals such as€–s as case terminals. Yet case has no reality, for the real properties of argumental terminals are denotational, such as Q, and the real nature of the configurations they enter into is that of argument–predicate (thematic) structures, agreement structures, etc. The same holds for€–i, reviewed above, and for environments where the nominal base is simply closed by the nominal class vowel. Regarding the latter, note first that Halle and Vaux (1997) have two separate entries for the same vocalic morpheme€–a, which is both the thematic vowel for class I and the nominative/accusative case ending for all neuter classes (II–IV). In the present approach, the same nominal class morphology N (specifically€–a) can either be followed by other nominal inflections (e.g. the specialized case inflections –m, –rum, etc. in class I) or follow them (e.g. the thematic vowels€ –i- of class III,€ –u- of class IV in the neuter plural). This means that –a can be given a unified lexical entry. In general, the distribution of nominal class morphology in the case paradigm of Latin is highly reminiscent of that found in the case paradigm of Albanian in chapter 7. In the Albanian indefinite conjugation, we found it as the nominative/accusative singular or plural as well as the oblique, but only in the Â�singular; similarly, we found it as the nominative singular, but not the plural, in the definite conjugation. We interpreted this distribution as a reflex of the need for nominal class morphology to be in the scope of quantificational closures. The latter have the same range of interpretations as overt Q/D morphology. Thus, nominal class morphology in the range of such a closure can be interpreted as plural or oblique, but not as plural oblique; it can also be interpreted as definite, but only in the nominative, i.e. in the context defined by the presence of the D inflection of the finite verb. As we commented in chapter 7, closures by abstract operators are not a notational variant of abstract (zero) morphology, given that Q/D closures are restricted in ways in which zero morphologies are not. Going back to Latin, nominal class morphology appears as the sole inflection in the dative singular (class II), in the nominative singular (class I) and in the nominative/accusative neuter, both singular (class IV) and plural (all neuter classes). In all classes, the ablative singular corresponds to the bare thematic vowel. In the plural reading, we take the nominal class morphology to be closed by a Q specification with word-internal scope, yielding set formation, i.e. plural; in the oblique (dative), the same Q specifications take sentential

The Latin case systemâ•… 285 scope, yielding the superset-of (possessor) reading. The nominative singular depends on the nominal class inflection being in the scope of the D (EPP) inflection of the finite verb. On the basis of the discussion of ablative –s (or at least of its locative value, cf. fn. 2) we take it that the dative/ablative syncretism of class II corresponds to the Q closure of the thematic vowel –o at the sentential level. The ablative (locative) reading of the thematic vowel in all classes will correspond to the same structure. We also follow the treatment provided for Albanian bare lexical bases in chapter 7 in dealing with Latin bare lexical bases such as the class III neuter corpus ‘the body’. We take it that in the absence of nominal class vowels and/ or of specialized ‘case’ inflections, the internal argument of the predicative base corresponds to a variable, interpreted in the scope either of some overt operator (for instance an indefinite quantifier within the noun phrase) or in the scope of the usual Q closure. Finally, in (1) we have chosen to illustrate what traditional grammars describe as class III bases in –e. According to traditional grammars, there are class II bases in –i, and Halle and Vaux (1997) consider –i to be the thematic vowel for class III in general, on the basis in particular of plurals such as animal–i–a ‘the animals’ or animal–i–um ‘of the animals’. If, therefore,€–i is also a nominal class vowel, we must assume that the Q properties that we have intrinsically associated with it in the discussion and in Table 8.1 are the result of quantificational closures€– no less than for the other nominal class vowels. On the basis of the preceding discussion, we are able to produce (a first version of) a case lexicon of Latin, on the model of that discussed in considerably more detail for Albanian in chapter 7. The lexicon in (1) appears to have more entries than that in (2)€– but this is only because Halle and Vaux (1997) list the five thematic vowels separately. Therefore they have thirteen entries, to which our nine entries in Table 8.1 compare favourably. In Table 8.1, we have followed the same notational conventions as in Table 7.2, parenthesizing those properties that do not appear to be intrinsic to the single morpheme, but are rather to be provided by quantificational closure available at the interpretive interface. For nominal class vowels, the tabulated values correspond to the instances in which they are not followed by other inflections. Three inflections (or inflection sets) have not been discussed, namely –m,€ –bu–s and –r–um. However, their specialized nature means that they can be slotted in fairly uncontroversially. The descriptive labels in the rightmost column are merely given to facilitate comparison with the data in (2). Let us summarize so far. One of our purposes in analysing the so-called case system of Latin (at least of the particular variety of Latin described by grammarians) was to verify whether the pattern uncovered by our study of Albanian

286╅ Denotation and case in Romance:€history & variation Table 8.1 Denotational properties of Latin nominal inflections

-a -o -e -u -i -s -bu-s -m (-r)-um

N

Q.pl

Q.obl

D

+ + + + + + + + + + + -

(+) (+) + + +

(+) (+) (+) (+) (+) + + +

(+) (+) (+) + + -

nom sg nom/acc pl abl sg dat/abl sg abl sg nom sg acc sg dat/abl sg nom pl gen/dat sg. gen/dat/abl nom/acc pl nom sg dat/abl pl acc sg nom sg gen pl

could account for other systems of roughly equal complexity. We found that the same basic set of N, Q and D specifications, together with scopal and selectional mechanisms, could adequately describe both systems. Importantly, although Albanian and Latin are genetically related languages, their case lexicons only marginally overlap (for instance in the –m/–n of the accusative singular)€– so that what we have uncovered is not a historical relation. Our other purpose in studying Latin was to set the stage for the analysis of the relation connecting it to the modern Romance languages, which mostly lack case, but are endowed with a richer determiner system, including the definite article. In what follows, we will argue that the account of the Latin system summarized in Table 8.1 provides for a natural account of the development of Romance case systems, including Romanian and Old French€– as well as for the relation between loss of case and introduction of determiners. We argue that the view of case that emerges from Halle and Vaux (1997) provides for a rather more opaque account of the historical development (cf. Calabrese 1998, 2008). 8.2

Romance case systems:€Romanian

Modern Romance languages generally preserve a case system in the pronominal domain; however, nouns (and adjectives) display no case inflections. The clitic systems of Romance varieties are analysed by Manzini and Savoia (2005,

Romance case systems:€Romanianâ•… 287 2007, 2008a), in terms of the same syntactic and interpretive categorizations of Table 8.1 (cf. section 8.5). Here we concentrate on nominal inflections€– beginning with the only modern Romance language which does have so-called case, namely Romanian. Romanian, like Albanian, is described as a language with postnominal articles (Dobrovie-Sorin 1987). On the model of Albanian, however, we will assume that the postnominal article is generated as a nominal inflection within the noun€– and in this sense we will simply refer to it as the definite declension of Romanian nouns. Romanian has an indefinite declension in the feminine, since the singular direct case (nominative/accusative) is –ă while the oblique (dative/genitive) is –e. There are clearer case distinctions in the definite declension and on quantifiers preceding indefinite nouns. In (6) we exemplify the nominative/accusative singular, in (7) the oblique singular and in (8)–(9) their plural counterparts. The (a) examples involve indefinites and the (b) example definites. Note that the dative can also be expressed through the preposition la; we exemplify this in the indefinite plural in (9a). (6)â•… Nominative/ accusative singular a.â•… a venit/ am văzut un băiat/ o fat-ă has come/ I.have seen a boy/ a girl-fsg ‘There came/ I saw a boy/ girl’ b. a venit/ am văzut băiat-ul/ fat-a has come/ I.have seen boy-def.msg/ girl-def.fsg ‘There came/ I saw the boy/ girl’ (7) Dative singular a. (i)-l am dat un-u-i băiat/ un-e-i fet-e him.itâ•… I.haveâ•… givenâ•… a-msg-obl boy/ a-fsg-obl girl-fsg.obl ‘I gave it to a boy/ girl’ b. (i)-l am dat băiat-ul-u-i/ fet-e-i him.it I.have given boy-def-msg-obl/ girl-fsg-obl ‘I gave it to the boy/ girl’ (8)â•… Nominative/ accusative plural a. au venit /am văzut do-i băieţ-i/ dou-ă fet-e have come/ I.have seen two boy-mpl/ two girl-fpl ‘There came/ I saw two boys/ girls’ b. au venit/ am văzut băietţ-i/ fet-e-l-e have come/ I.have seen boy-mpl-mpl/ girls-fpl-def-fpl ‘There came/ I saw the boys/ girls’ (9) Dative plural a. (i)-l am dat la doi băieţ-i / două fet-e him.itâ•… I.haveâ•… givenâ•… toâ•… two boy-mpl/â•… two girl-fpl ‘I gave it to two boys/ girls’

288â•… Denotation and case in Romance:€history & variation b. (i)-l am dat băieţ-i-l-or / fet-e-l-or him.it I.have given boy-mpl-def-obl/ girl-fpl-def-obl ‘I gave it to two boys/ girls’

A close point of contact between Albanian and Romanian is represented by genitive structures. So-called genitive and dative inflections are identical; however, genitives, i.e. obliques depending on a noun, are introduced by a (prenominal) determiner agreeing with the head noun, al (m.sg.), a (f.sg.), ai (m.pl.) or ale (f.pl.). The pre-genitival article can also take an invariant form a (which has the same form as the feminine singular) instead of the agreeing form. We exemplify this in predicative structures in (10). We progressively simplify morphological segmentation and glosses in the interest of readability. (10)â•… Genitive a.â•… ăsta e al/a om-ul-ui/ oamini-l-or / un-ei fet-e this.m is the.msg/the man-the-obl/ men-the-obl/ a-obl girl ‘This is (that) of the man/ the men/ a girl’ b. asta e a băiat-ul-ui/ un-ui om this.f is the(fsg) boy-the-obl/ a-obl man ‘This is (that) of the boy/ a man’ c. ăştia sîntâ•… ai/ a copil-ul-ui/ fet-ei / fete-l-or these.mâ•… are the.mpl/theâ•… child-the-obl/â•… girl-obl/â•… girls-the-obl ‘These are (those) of the child/ the girl/ the girls’ d. astea sîntâ•… ale/ a băiat-ul-ui/ un-ui băiat these.fâ•… are the.fpl/the boy-the-obl/ a-obl boy ‘These belong to the/a boy’

When it comes to embedding inside a noun phrase, a pre-genitival article agreeing with the head noun is necessary if the head noun is indefinite, as in (11), although a definite head noun licenses the straight embedding of a genitive, as in (12). (11)â•… Genitive a.â•… un pahar al/ a băiat-ul-ui/ un-ui băiat a glass the boy-the-obl/ a-obl boy ‘a glass of the/ a boy’ b. o carte a un-ui băiat/ băiat-ul-ui / un-ei fet-e a book the a-obl boy/ boy-the-obl/ a-obl girl-obl ‘a book of the boy/of a woman’ c. doi pantof-i ai/ a băiat-ul-ui / fet-ei/ fete-l-or two shoes-mpl the boy-the-obl/ girl-obl/ girls-the-obl ‘two shoes of the boy/ girl/ girls’ d. două kămăş-i ale băiat-ul-ui / un-ui băiat two shirts-fpl the boy-the-obl/ a-obl boy ‘two shirts of the/ a boy’

Romance case systems:€Romanian╅ 289 (12)╅ a.╅ b. c. d.

pahar-ul băiat-ul-ui / fete-i / une-i fet-e glass-theâ•… boy-the-obl/ girl-obl/ a-obl girl-obl ‘the glass of the boy/ the girl/ a girl’ carte-a om-ul-ui book-fsg man-the-obl ‘the man’s book’ pantofi-i băiat-ul-ui/ fete-i/ fete-lor shoes-mpl boy-the-obl/â•… girl-obl/ girls-the-obl ‘the boy’s/ girl’s/ girls’ shoes’ kămăşi-le băiat-ul-ui / fete-i / une-i fet-e shirts-the.fpl boy-the-obl/ girl-obl/ girls-the-obl ‘the boy’s/ girl’s/ girls’ shoes’

It is a crucial property of the present framework that lexical terminals have the properties necessary and sufficient to project morphosyntactic structures. In such a framework, the variation between lexicons is expected to Â�(exhaustively) define the variation between grammars€– providing a straightforward implementation of Chomsky’s (1995) minimalist programme in this respect. What holds for variation holds for change, from one grammar to another; from this perspective, the change from the Latin ‘case’ system in Table 8.1 to the Romanian one should be definable in terms of their respective lexicons. Three of the case endings of Table 8.1 survive in Romanian, namely –a of the nominative singular, -(o)r of the oblique plural and –i of both the oblique singular and the nominative plural (masculine). In present terms, the distribution of –i preserves that of Latin –i in fundamental respects. Suppose, then, we assume that Romanian –i is to be characterized essentially like Latin –i, as a Q element. As such, we predict that it will have the plural reading when taking scope over the words€– or the possessive (dative/ genitive) reading when taking sentential scope. This is precisely what we find, leading us to conclude that Latin –i has essentially been preserved in the lexicon of Romanian. Recall further that Latin –r–um in turn represented specialized oblique plural morphology€– whose value is again preserved in Romanian -(o)r. The –i and –or endings exhaust the case morphology of the masculine nominal class; in the nominative/accusative singular, the –l morphology, to which we return immediately below, is either bare, as in băiat–ul ‘the boy’, or followed by a nominal class inflection –e, as in câine–le ‘the dog’. The masculine and feminine in turn are alike in the oblique. In the nominative/accusative, both singular and plural, they again display the pure nominal class endings –a and –e. We have already commented in chapter 7 (cf. here section 8.1 concerning

290â•… Denotation and case in Romance:€history & variation in particular the –a neuter plural of Latin) on the fact that plurality can simply correspond to a change in nominal class. Next we take the –l morphology into account. In connection with this, we come back to the classical issue in Romance historical linguistics that introduced our discussion€– i.e. the relation between the partial or complete loss of case in Romance languages and the development of a determiner system. In Romanian, the question is set in slightly different terms, since this language has developed a set of specialized definite inflections with€–l morphology. In discussing Latin, we effectively assumed that so-called case inflections are sufficient to provide quantificational closures for the noun; when nouns are closed by thematic vowels, abstract closure at the interpretive interface is available. This means, among other things, that Latin does not need a system of determiners, which provide a quantificational/ definite closure in syntax. By contrast, in Romanian, the introduction of –l morphology corresponds to the need for a specialized definiteness closure of the noun (phrase). In the singular, on the other hand, this morphology is present in the masculine, but not in the feminine; in the plural nominative/ accusative, the relation between the two nominal classes is reversed in the sense that the –e feminine inflection is supported by –l, while€–i suffices to determine a definiteness closure. Let us illustrate the structural analysis of the definite nouns (noun phrases) of Romanian that results from the lexicon just reviewed. The most complex organization corresponds to the oblique singular (masculine) in (13a), the oblique plural in (13b) and the nominative/accusative feminine plural in (13c). These have three separate layers of inflection, including the quantificational specifications –or for the oblique plural in (13b) and –i for the oblique singular in (13a), as well as for the plural (masculine) in (13b). Note that when it represents the oblique, –i is attached above the –l definiteness ending, as in (13a), while when it represents the plural, it is attached below the l- definiteness morphology, as in (13b). The same –i entry is involved in both instances; only its position changes. Similarly, the same nominal class morphology –e is involved twice in (13c). The other type of inflection found in (13) is the nominal class vowel –u in (13a); this raises the question of whether –ul in (13a) should not be further decomposed. Here we chose to treat –ul as an allomorph of –l because there is no –u nominal class ending independently instantiated as the sister of a root.

Romance case systems:€Romanian╅ 291 (13) a.

N u

D ul

bǎiat

Q i

b.

oamen fet

Q or

D l

Q i e

c.

fet

N e

D l

N e

The genitive structures of Romanian can in turn be accounted for along the lines of our treatment of Albanian in chapter 7. The most notable structural property of genitives emerging from (10)–(11) is that they are introduced by a determiner agreeing with the noun of which they are a complement. Cornilescu (1995:€ 49) already concludes that ‘the Gen assigning functional head AL is not a preposition, but a functional nominal, a D° in the same family of Genassigning morphemes with English –s’. We also treat al/a/ai/ale as D elements€– but not as genitive case assigners, but rather as heads of a predicative structure. Following the discussion of the parallel Albanian structures in chapter 7, we associate phrases like (11a) with structures of the type in (14), where the head noun pahar selects a determiner which in turn takes the genitive noun (phrase) băjatului as its complement. The fact that the embedded determiner does not agree with the genitive noun shows that it cannot be the determiner

292╅ Denotation and case in Romance:€history & variation of the noun itself. Rather, the genitive, instead of being inserted directly as the complement of the head noun, is construed as the complement of a determiner predicated of the head noun. (14)

Q un

D al

pahar

bǎiat

Q i

N u

D ul

Romanian differs from Albanian in that there is at least one context in which the genitive is directly embedded under the head noun, namely when the head noun is definite and the genitive is adjacent to it, as illustrated in structure (15) for example (12a). (15)

pahar

D ul bǎiat

D ul

N u

Q i

We propose that the lack of a pre-genitival determiner in structures like (15) is due to a mutual exclusion of the type analysed in the Romance literature for sequences of two l- clitics (in particular in Spurious se environments, cf. Halle and Marantz 1993). In the terms suggested by Manzini and Savoia (2005, 2007, 2008a), the lexicalization of one l- form succeeds in lexicalizing definiteness properties for the entire clitic domain, essentially by taking scope over it. In (15), therefore, we propose that the lexicalization of the pre-genitival article agreeing with the head noun is excluded by the fact that it would be in the immediate scope of definite morphology. The fact that the pre-genitival article is excluded only under adjacency is again very similar to what we have observed elsewhere for l- clitics; thus, mutual exclusion is not observed if one of the two clitics is in enclisis and the other is in proclisis on the verb (cf. here also chapter 4 on the mutual exclusion of two negative n- forms).

Romance case systems:€Romanianâ•… 293 As for the syncretism of the genitive inflection with the dative, in chapter 7 we argued that it is based on the fact that the relevant Q morphology has a superset-of/inclusion denotation. Thus, the second internal argument of ‘give’, i.e. the traditional dative, in present terms participates in fixing the reference of the first internal argument, i.e. the accusative, by denoting a superset including it. Similarly, the traditional genitive specifies a superset in terms of which the reference of the head noun is fixed. As we have just seen, in Romanian, as in Albanian, genitives are (typically) embedded under a determiner agreeing with the head noun€– which is not true of datives. This difference straightforwardly correlates with the different points of merger of the genitive and dative. Merger within a noun phrase requires the predicative layer provided by the determiner agreeing with the head noun; in dative environments, the oblique merges directly as the complement of a verb. In recent work, particularly Cuervo (2003) for Spanish, based on Pylkkänen (2002) (cf. Torres Morais and Salles (to appear) on European vs. Brazilian Portuguese), the dative interpretation depends on the presence of an Applicative head; Diaconescu and Rivero (2007) embrace this model for Romanian. In their conception, an Applicative head is a functional category which takes the internal argument of the predicate as its complement, and expresses a ‘possession’ or other (source, goal) relation between this argument and the Â�argument in its Spec, i.e. the descriptive dative. Under these analyses, the Romance dative clitic is a lexicalization of the Applicative head. In the present proposal, we capture the relevant empirical generalizations without having recourse to the postulation of an Applicative head. Thus, oblique morphology is itself characterized as a dyadic (superset-of/inclusion) operator with scope over the elementary event taking the descriptive dative and the internal argument of the verb as its arguments. To the extent that the sentential scope position of the Q(⊆) operator is identified with that of the dative clitic, we also capture the connection between the latter and oblique case. In short, Applicative heads are a primitive of the theory which assumes them, no less than ‘dative’ is in other theories, and in this sense it is just a restatement of the problem. Here we have proposed a genuine reduction of the notion ‘dative’ to more elementary primitives, i.e. the Q(⊆) operator. Under the Applicative approach, datives and genitives are distinguished not only by their different structural attachment€– to the sentence and to the noun phrase respectively€– but also by the presence of the Applicative functional head for datives. So one may wonder why the genitive–dative syncretism could arise, except as an accident of the PF interface. Furthermore, under the Applicative approach, it is the dative that has (or can have) the more complex embedding

294â•… Denotation and case in Romance:€history & variation structure; the overt evidence tells us that the more complex embedding structure characterizes the genitive. Summarizing so far, the general approach to nominal inflections, and specifically to case, elaborated in the discussions of Albanian (chapter 7) and Latin (section 8.1) easily accommodates the system of Romanian and the variation between Latin and Romanian€– and hence the historical change between them. As in the minimalist programme of Chomsky (1995), the variation between two grammars is (exhaustively) determined by the variation between their two lexicons€– and so is the change from one to another. As for the classical problem in Romance historical linguistics that we started with, namely the relation between (partial or complete) loss of case and the introduction of the l determiner/clitic/inflection system, what we proposed in the discussion surrounding (13) is that a nominal inflection system like the Latin one was sufficient to determine a (definite) closure of the noun phrase in the absence of syntacticlevel quantificational specifications. This is no longer true in Romanian, which introduces –l morphology to produce such a closure. Recall the comparison in chapter 7 between the nominal inflections of Albanian, a ‘case-marked’ language, and of Italian, a ‘case-less’ language. In both languages (as in Latin, Romanian, etc.), contentive terms correspond to properties, relations, etc.€– i.e. to predicates. Thus, in Italian macchin- is the property of being a ‘machine/car’; in Albanian kriatur- is the property of being a ‘child’, etc. These properties cannot denote individuals and sets of individuals, i.e. elements that can provide arguments for other predicates, unless some semantic type-shifting occurs. In the classical semantic view (Higginbotham 1985; Chierchia 1998), this type-shifting is provided by the determiner system. Under the present conception, nominal morphology is sufficient to shift the predicative base to an argument (in our terms itself providing an argument capable of saturating both the nominal base and other superordinate predicates). The inflectional specifications of a language may in fact suffice for a referential closure. This is what happens in Albanian and Latin. In other languages, the argument closure of the predicative base (its shift from predicate to individual) requires the additional presence of determiners, specifically definite determiners. This is what happens in Italian€– and it is also the core of the innovation introduced in Romanian by the –l morphology. Within this model, the relation between (partial or complete) loss of the nominal inflections of Latin and the introduction of determiners (or determinerÂ�like morphology) which characterizes the passage from Latin to Romance can simply be described as the change from a certain system of ‘type-shifter’ (an entirely morphological one) to another one (broken down in inflections and

Other Romance case systems and alternative accountsâ•… 295 determiners). Recall that Giusti (2001) proposed to capture the same relation by taking the ‘functional’ F properties of case to be primitives and attributing the definite determiners of Romance to this F category. It seems to us that Giusti’s (2001) proposal has the same problems as any theory that takes case (or a no better-defined functional specification including it) to be a primitive of grammar. If the present analysis is on the right track, the historical connection between Latin case and Romance determiners€– and more generally between nominal inflection and determiner systems€– can be captured, while at the same time eliminating the spurious category of ‘case’. 8.3

Other Romance case systems€– and alternative accounts

The development of Latin into the medieval Gallo-Romance languages is characterized by a rather different set of changes from those observed in Romanian. Old French preserves a reduced case system in the masculine, based on the distinction of nominative and objective case. In the singular, –s, taken to be derived from the nominative singular of Latin, characterizes the nominative, while an alternant devoid of –s appears in non-nominative contexts, continuing an original accusative/oblique form. In the plural, the alternant with€–s, corresponding to the plural accusative of Latin, characterizes objective contexts, while the alternant without –s, taken to continue non-sigmatic plurals, appears in the nominative (Brunot and Bruneau 1969:€133 ff.). Relevant examples from Old French are provided in (16). (16)â•… a.â•… b.

Dur sunt li colp e li caples est grefs Hard are the blows and the scuffleâ•… is hard (Chanson de Roland, 1678) Guardez le champ … e le-s munz (munt-s) Watch over the field … and the mountains (Chanson de Roland, 2434)

Given the preceding discussion, our take on the change from Latin in Table 8.1 to Old French in (16) is fairly straightforward. Recall that in the discussion surrounding (4), we have associated Latin –s with a quantificational content, which takes on different interpretations according to different scope instantiations. Thus, its plural interpretation corresponds to scope over the word, its genitive interpretation to scope over the noun phrase and its dative interpretation to sentential scope. Consider Old French, then. The facts in (16) are consistent with it preserving both the€–s morphology and a quantificational content for it. The only change that intervenes is that the distribution of Old French –s is slightly simplified with respect to that of Latin. Either –s takes scope over

296â•… Denotation and case in Romance:€history & variation the word, yielding the plural reading, as in (17b), or it takes sentential scope, yielding the nominative reading, as in (17a). Other case terminals of Latin (in particular, consonantal specialized endings such as€–bus for oblique plural,€–m for accusative and neuter nominative, etc.) are simply not continued in Old French. (17) a. [ [√ caple] [Q s]] b. [ [√ munt] [Q s]]

The other development observed in (16), besides the loss of nominal inflections other than –s, is the development of the definite determiner. This is explained along the same lines as the development of the –l inflectional morphology of Romanian in section 8.2, i.e. as a result of the fact that nominal inflections no longer suffice to provide a referential closure for the noun (phrase). This is then independently provided by the determiner system, along the lines discussed in section 8.2 in connection with the development of Romanian. Leaving aside the determiner issue for now, an account of the development of Latin nominal inflections up to both Old French and Romanian is provided by Calabrese (1998) within the framework of Distributed Morphology. The gist of his argument is that one should distinguish contextual from absolute syncretism, where the latter corresponds to lack of attestation in a given language for a particular feature opposition. Contextual syncretism is treated by the mechanisms of underspecification and default described above in relation to Halle and Vaux’s (1997) analysis of Latin –s. However, absolute syncretism requires the postulation of a set of universal constraints disallowing certain feature combinations, ordered in a markedness hierarchy. In a language which has all possible case oppositions, none of the case constraints applies; languages that disallow certain cases activate one or more restrictions, in the order defined by the hierarchy. The activation of these constraints means that the relevant feature combinations are removed from the terminal nodes generated by the syntax; to be more precise, repair rules apply to reduce disallowed feature combinations into allowed ones. What interests us here directly is the account that Calabrese (1998) proposes for the change from Latin to Old French and Romanian in terms of his system. In both languages, the reduction in case oppositions is due to the activation of feature constraints that were inactive in Latin, with repair rules responsible for the consequent reduction of certain cases to others. In particular, according to Calabrese, the activation of constraints disallowing dative and ablative and the subsequent application of repair rules reduced the oblique to the [+possessor,€ –location] form, i.e. the genitive. This yielded the Proto-Romance

Other Romance case systems and alternative accountsâ•… 297 Â� three-case nominative–accusative–genitive system reconstructed by the historical literature (De Dardel and Gaeng 1992; Zamboni 1990, 1998). From this system, according to Calabrese, both Old French and Romanian were derived by the activation of further constraints. In Old French, the *[+possessor,€–location] constraint is activated, disallowing genitive. This triggers the repair of the offending terminal nodes [–subject,€–direct, +possessor,€–location …] into [–subject, +direct,€–possessor,€–location …], so that genitive (the surviving oblique of the system) ends up coinciding with accusative. Romanian activates the *[–subject, +direct] constraint, disallowing accusative. This triggers the repair of the offending terminal nodes [–subject, +direct …] into [+subject, +direct …], so that nominative exponents take the place of accusative ones, giving a system of nominative (direct) vs. genitive (oblique). Calabrese (1998:€111–12) explicitly rejects the idea that changes are due to the simple loss of lexical items, in this instance case endings, with the concomitant extension of the use of other lexical items … One could propose that more marked case endings are lost and replaced by less marked ones. Such an analysis would simply not work. For example … the ending /–s/ has a special status being the Elsewhere case … If we assume that syncretic changes are due to the loss of lexical items, we should expect … the ending /–s/ to be extended to uses that it did not have before.

In short, for Calabrese: the evolution of these case systems seems to operate only through operations on cases regardless of the lexical items composing the case systems. The best way of representing these changes is therefore by modifications in the morphosyntactic component, i.e. through the activation of case restrictions.

Let us consider first the problems that Calabrese envisages for lexically based accounts of historical development. His criticisms presuppose the system of Distributed Morphology, in which syntactic structure is projected from abstract feature bundles and actual terminals typically have a radically underspecified content, as in (2). In such a system, it is not possible to describe the change from Latin to Old French by saying that Old French simply keeps the –s entry of Latin. Since the –s entry of Latin is empty, its distribution in French is not predictable. However, Calabrese’s objections do not apply to lexicons consisting of positively specified entries such as ours, as summarized in Table 8.1. In our lexicon, the –s morphology of Latin has Q properties; it is these, rather than an Elsewhere characterization, that determine its distribution. Therefore it becomes possible for us to assume that the lexicon, and hence the grammar, of Old French are characterized by the preservation of –s, whose distribution is predicted as discussed above.

298â•… Denotation and case in Romance:€history & variation It is true that other –s inflectional systems could equally be derived on the basis of the preservation of this morphology from Latin into Romance, for instance one in which –s covered the nominative/accusative plural. But this is a general property of lexical change. Thus, contentive items can shift in interpretation in constrained ways€– it is not predictable which particular value in the permitted range any given language will pick. Essentially the same will be true of pieces of the functional, morphological lexicon. Conversely, not any system could be derived, for instance, not one where –s corresponded to the accusative singular€– which is lexicalized in present terms by N elements and hence excludes a Q lexicalization. By contrast, Calabrese’s account of historical change maintains the same opaque relation between the underlying abstract morphosyntax and the terminal nodes forming the lexicon, which characterizes the analysis of single linguistic systems, such as Latin in (2). Thus, the development of the abstract morphosyntax, involving case constraints and readjustment rules, and the development of the lexical terminals run on parallel tracks. For instance, the preservation of –s in Old French as the default exponent runs on a parallel track with respect to the survival of the sole nominative–accusative (non-Â�nominative) opposition. Therefore the fact that the two developments match up is just a matter of chance; other matches are equally possible, even assuming the same underlying development and the same dictionary with –s as default. In other words, there is no reason inherent to the system or the historical process why –s couldn’t show up, say, in the objective singular. Furthermore, since, on the account of Calabrese (1998, 2008), what happens on the way from Latin to Old French is the activation of several constraints and the application of the corresponding repair rules, a language with few case contrasts like Old French turns out to have a grammar as rich in case specifications as a language much richer in case contrasts like Latin. In terms of the classical discussion by Kiparsky (1982), the paradox is that the superficially simpler language, here Old French, is more opaque than a superficially more complex one, here Latin. For Kiparsky, a rule A → B / C___D is opaque to the extent that there are surface representations of the form (i) A in environment C___D or (ii) B in environment other than C___D.

He goes on to speculate that opaque rules are a cognitive burden, and that historical development could or should operate in the direction of a simplification of such contexts. Yet in the development from the Latin to the Romance nominal inflectional systems, the progressively more pervasive syncretisms

Other Romance case systems and alternative accountsâ•… 299 hypothesized by Calabrese (1998, 2008) would take us to a progressively more opaque system, hence a progressively more complex one on the basis of what we indeed consider to be a reasonable definition of complexity. Thus, from the perspective of the child who is learning the language, an opaque rule (as defined above) is obviously difficult to learn from the available evidence, since there is no surface cue for it. In the present model, morphosyntactic structures are projected from lexical terminals. In turn, lexical items are associated just with the denotational properties (nominal class, quantification, definiteness for arguments) that characterize them independently of the position of insertion; case is merely the name given to lexical items which in virtue of these properties are specialized for the satisfaction of certain syntactic contexts of embedding. In this model, there is no abstract case system and no constraints and rules mapping it to the PF interface. Therefore the change from Latin to Old French cannot be a change in these constraints and rules. All that is affected is the lexicon of so-called case inflections€– which in Old French is reduced to –s, maintaining its core characterization as a quantificational element. It should be noted at this point that we are not isolated in the current literature in taking issue with the Distributed Morphology model of the morpholexical interface. Others have noted that restrictiveness issues arise in connection with underspecified lexical items and the morphological rules (impoverishment etc.) justifying their insertion. Correspondingly, alternative models have been proposed. In particular, case systems, and specifically case syncretisms, are the core evidence considered by Caha (2009) within the Nanosyntax model (Starke 2009). There are points of contact between Caha’s model and the present one, namely the idea that categories cannot be negatively specified or underspecified for certain properties, and correspondingly that there are no morphological rules (Impoverishment) manipulating abstract terminal nodes to allow for the insertion of underspecified lexical items. Despite the importance of this assumption (cf. Kayne (2006, 2008a)), Nanosyntax remains conceptually close to Distributed Morphology in other respects€– representing, so to speak, its obverse. In particular, both Nanosyntax and Distributed Morphology assume that syntax is projected from abstract categories which are lexicalized only at the PF interface. For Distributed Morphology, the abstract constituents of syntax are bundles of features, while for Nanosyntax they are structured trees; it is not terminal nodes that receive a lexical realization, but entire strings of terminals. Correspondingly, where Distributed Morphology has the Subset Principle to determine lexical insertion, Nanosyntax has a Superset Principle, according to

300â•… Denotation and case in Romance:€history & variation which ‘a phonological exponent is inserted in a node if its lexical entry has a sub-constituent that is identical to the node’. Where two or more lexical items satisfy either the Subset or the Superset Principle, the one that is more similar to the abstract terminal wins the competition by an Elsewhere Condition. Under the Subset Principle, it is the item with more specifications that wins; in the Superset model, it is the less rich item. The underlying similarities between Distributed Morphology and Nanosyntax (as well as their differences) emerge fairly clearly from the comparison between Calabrese’s (1998, 2008) and Caha’s (2009) theories of case. Calabrese assumes a markedness hierarchy of case constraints NOM< ACC< GEN< DAT< ABL such that the realization of any case along the hierarchy implies that of all cases to its left. Caha (2009) transfers the same hierarchical order into a functional tree [Instr [Dat [Gen [Acc [Nom N]. He obtains two results from this. First, he argues that the head Noun moving leftwards along the hierarchy determines the cut-off point between what will appear as a case suffix (i.e. the nodes below N) and what will be realized by prepositions (i.e. the nodes above N). He then argues that the functional sequence of cases, together with the Elsewhere Condition, yield a Law of Adjacency to the effect that ‘only adjacent cases show non-accidental syncretism’. For instance, dative and genitive, or genitive and accusative, can be syncretic, but not dative and accusative, skipping over the genitive. By definition, nonaccidental syncretism must involve ‘various different exponents’ and ‘show up across paradigms’. Recall that lexical items cover terminal strings, and that among various competing items the smallest is chosen. A syncretism between, say, accusative and dative skipping the genitive would mean that the same lexical item lexicalizes both the Dat and the Acc node. But if there is a smaller lexical item for Gen, then this would always win the competition to realize the Acc node. In other words, the Nanosyntax model, like ours, cuts away the intermediate morphological level, so that obscuring rules are abandoned and only syntactic structures and lexical entries have theoretical status. At the same time, Caha maintains some of the postulates of Distributed Morphology that we have argued against here€– in particular, a Late Insertion model in which abstract syntactic structures are realized by lexical entries rather than being projected from them. Since, in the present model, projection of syntax from lexical terminals implies a non-trivial redefinition of syntactic categorization and structure, its empirical predictions quickly diverge from those of Nanosyntax no less than from those of Distributed Morphology. More specifically, our picture of syncretic phenomena does not distinguish between absolute/non-accidental

Other Romance case systems and alternative accountsâ•… 301 and other syncretisms, implying the abandonment of extrinsic criteria such as those that define non-accidental syncretisms for Caha. Indeed, syncretisms like that of oblique singular with non-oblique plural (Albanian –t, Latin –s, Latin –i, Romanian –I, etc.) do not fall under Caha’s Law of Adjacency. Thus, Latin –i as class I/II nominative plural and genitive singular is a syncretism which skips the accusative, contravening Caha’s hierarchy. This pattern therefore constitutes a problem for the Nanosyntax model. Nor does the definition of non-accidental syncretism help in excluding the undesired pattern. The discussion in Johnston (1997) is especially useful in this respect, in so far as it provides a completely independent observation of the facts. Concerning the ‘homonymy’ of genitive singular and nominative plural in Latin, he notes that ‘it occurs in the first, second and fourth declension’, and that it ‘involves at least two pairs of two homonymous affixes … if a less abstract analysis is adopted there are three different pairs of affixes involved:€–ae, –i and –u:s for I, II and IV class respectively’. In other words, the criteria for ‘non-accidental’ syncretism are satisfied. More generally, we consider it unjustified to suspend all of the criteria that we normally employ to establish significant generalizations (notably the relatively regular cross-linguistic appearance of certain subpatterns of lexical identity) in favour of an extrinsic criterion such as the definition of non-accidental syncretism€– which is ad hoc in so far as it applies uniquely to the domain of data that are targeted by the explanation. Furthermore, Caha (2009) does not tell us what happens with accidental syncretisms€– for which some conventional morphological component is presumably presupposed. How does this system work, since there is no longer underspecification and a Subset Principle? Is homophony going to take the lion’s share of the work to be done? In short, syncretism brings into sharp relief the different predictions of the various models reviewed. For Distributed Morphology, a syncretic case entry is not specified for any of the syncretic categories, leading to underspecification. For us, it must be positively specified for some category able to project all of the syncretic environments. For Nanosyntax, the syncretic case entry must be specified for all cases that enter into the syncretism. From the perspective of the present work, the content of lexical entries that results from Nanosyntax is just as undesirable as that resulting from Distributed Morphology. When it comes to historical variation, i.e. the process of change from one grammar to another and from one lexicon to another, a model, like the present one, in which the lexicon is the grammar (up to UG), as in the minimalist programme of Chomsky (1995), simplifies the terms of the problem€– and gives us a better handle on it. Indeed, we are able to capture change in the so-called case

302â•… Denotation and case in Romance:€history & variation system in terms of a straightforward (dis)continuity of certain lexical entries. By contrast, in Calabrese’s (1998, 2008) account, the point that remains fundamentally unclear to us is how the underlying change in rules and constraints relates to change (or not) in the actual lexicon. As far as we can see, the same issue arises for Nanosyntax, since its separate syntax and lexicon cannot but change separately. Similarly, if we are correct, the connection between determiner and case systems depends on the denotational categorization of case entries; as such, it seems to be beyond the reach of the superset case entries of Caha (2009) no less than the default ones of Distributed Morphology. 8.4

Loss of case in Romance:€Romansh –s

In most modern Romance languages, the nominal inflection system only reflects nominal class and number€– as already analysed for Italian in chapter 7. Consider, for instance, modern French, in which the€ –s inflection, whose development we have followed all the way from Latin, only functions as the plural ending. In present terms, the quantificational element –s is limited to taking scope over the noun, and is therefore interpreted as a plural. All wider scope interpretations are absent€– which in traditional terms means that it is no longer a case ending. Thus, the restructuring from Old French to Modern French is entirely straightforward. Systems like Old French are not attested among the modern Romance languages; nevertheless, a more restricted distribution of what appears to be a nominative –s ending for the masculine singular survives in Sursilvan Romansh varieties (Schmid 1951/52; Haiman 1988). As illustrated here with the variety from Vella (Lumnezia Valley, Grisons), this nominative inflection characterizes masculine singular adjectives, as in (18), and participles, as in (19), in predicative contexts. Note that in (18e), the predication takes as its subject the accusative el ‘him’, so that even in traditional terms the characterization of –s as nominative does not appear to be adequate. As generally happens in Romance, possessives pattern with adjectives, as in (18c) (cf. Manzini and Savoia (2005) on Italian varieties). (18)â•… Vella a.â•… el/ kwai om ai kwrt-s/ grnd-s/ bu-s he/ that man is short/ tall/ good ‘He/ that man is short/tall/good’ b. kwai rakwnt ai ver-s that story is true ‘That story is true’

Loss of case in Romance:€Romansh -s╅ 303 c. d. e.

kwai kodi∫ ai me:-s that book is mine ‘That book is mine’ el ai meer-s ke ju heâ•… isâ•… better than me ‘He is better than me’ juâ•… vai viu el kuntent-s I have seen him happy ‘I have seen him happy’

(19)â•… a.â•… b.

i afn ai iu-s the boy is come ‘The boy has come’ ∫tru∫ arivau-s va el a durmi once arrived goes he to sleep ‘Once arrived, he goes to sleep’

The data in (20) illustrate adjectives and participles occurring in attributive contexts, inside the noun phrase, where the –s inflection is excluded. As we can see in (21), the€–s inflection is also excluded in nominalized adjective contexts, even if they are predicates in a copular structure.4 (20)â•… Vella a. in om kwrt a man short ‘a short man’ b. in bien om a good man ‘a good man’ c. miu kodi∫ my book ‘my book’ d. il tSp lavau the jacket washed ‘the washed jacket’ (21)â•… a.â•… b.

kwel ai il grnd that one is the big ‘He is the big one’ kwai ai il miu this one is the mine ‘It is the one of mine’

Otherwise the –s inflection realizes the plural of adjectives in the masculine, as in (22a–a’), and in the feminine, as in (22b–b’), independently of the predicative or attributive context€– as well as the plural of nouns and determiners.

304â•… Denotation and case in Romance:€history & variation Participles have –s in the feminine plural and with a subset of masculine bases, as in (23a’–b)€– roughly, strong ones; weak participles have an –i plural, as in (23a). (22)â•… Vella a.â•… kwe-s omn-sâ•… kwrt-sâ•… those men short ‘those short men’ a’. kwe-s omn-s ain kwrt-s those men are short ‘Those men are short’ b. kw:la-s dona-s kw«rta-s those women short ‘those short women’ b’. la-sâ•… ain grsa-s they.f are big ‘They are big’ (23)â•… a.â•… a’. b.

il-s t∫p-s ain lava-i the jackets are washed ‘The jackets are washed’ il-s e∫-s ain aviart-s the doors are open ‘The doors are open’ la-s kamia-s ain lavada-s the shirts are washed ‘The shirts are washed’

In the framework that we have been defining here, we can construe Sursilvan€–s as a quantificational element attaching to adjectival bases, as in (24a), and to nominal bases, as in (24b)€– including feminine bases, i.e. those which include the nominal class morphology –a, as in (24a’–b’). In all contexts, its scope can remain word-bound, resulting in the plural reading. This does not exclude the possibility that specialized subclasses may form the plural by different means, as with weak perfect participles, which display€–i. (24)â•…

a.â•… b. a’. b’.

[√ kwrt] [Q s] [√ tp] [Q s] [[√ grs] [N a]] [Q s] [[√ don] [N a]] [Q s]

With masculine bases like (24a), i.e. bases without –a nominal class morphology, –s need not have the plural reading, but can attach to a singular. We can explain this distribution as an effect of –s taking sentential scope, so that it contributes a Q closure at the sentential level, rather than plurality. This non-plural –s occurs in predicative contexts, including copular sentences, as in (18a–d),

Loss of case in Romance:€Romansh -sâ•… 305 and small clauses, as in (18e). We conclude that in predicative contexts, adjectives (participles, etc.) require the lexicalization of a Q closure, which is provided by –s. Embedding in a noun phrase puts predicative bases in the scope of the D (definite) or Q (quantificational) closure provided by the determiners and quantifiers of the noun phrase. In predicative contexts, however, such a closure is not provided at the phrasal level; therefore the –s supplies it at the inflectional level. This also accounts for the contexts in (21) where the adjective is in the scope of a D or Q element, although it itself heads the noun phrase.5 Further empirical evidence shows that the notion of predication may be necessary, but is not sufficient to account for the distribution of€–s, which interacts with complex notions of referential content and quantification. To begin with, even in copular sentences, the –s inflection is not found on adjectival predicates in contexts like (25a). The appropriate distinction between (25a) and (18a) cannot be that between neuter and masculine, since there is no evidence for the two genders besides the need to somehow describe the contrast at hand. We propose that the relevant distinction is between the individual reference of the subject of predication in (18a) and the propositional reference of the subject in (25a). We can exclude the possibility that animacy plays a role on the basis of examples like (18b) above. We also note that the –s inflection, while possible, is not necessary with quantificational subjects, including wh–phrases, as in (25b), negative phrases, as in (25c), and existentials, as in (25d). (25)â•… Vella a. kwai ai ver that is true ‘That is true’ b. t∫i ai iu(-s) who is come ‘Who has come?’ c. nidzin ai iu(-s) nobody is come ‘Nobody has come’ d. tsit∫i ai iu(-s) someone is come ‘Someone has come’

As may be expected on the basis of (25a), the€–s inflection is absent from expletive contexts with a sentential subject, as in (26a). Note that we can exclude the possibility that certain types of adjective simply do not take –s on the basis of a comparison with (18d). More interestingly, the –s inflection is also missing in expletive sentences with a nominal correlate, as in (26b); these are characterized by the well-known pattern of French or Northern Italian

306â•… Denotation and case in Romance:€history & variation dialects whereby the verb does not agree with the postverbal subject, but shows up in the 3rd singular masculine. (26) Vella a. i() aiâ•… meer da klama tai it is better to call you ‘It is better to call you’ b. i() ai iu in afn/ afns it is come a boy/ boys ‘There came a boy/ boys’ b’.â•… ils afns ain ii the boys are come ‘The boys have come’

The evidence in (25)–(26) fits in fairly easily with our conclusions. Thus, when we say that –s provides a quantificational closure for the adjective, we should say more precisely that it provides such a closure for the argument slot associated with the adjectival base. It is natural to propose that the latter is not only unnecessary, but also impossible when this argument corresponds not to an individual variable but to a propositional variable€– thus explaining the contrast between (18) and (25a). Similarly, the optionality of the –s morphology in (25b–d) corresponds to whether the negative, wh– or existential quantifier receives a specific reading or an indefinite reading. Under the latter reading, it is incompatible with the –s closure, assuming that –s has definiteness/specificity properties. Turning now to expletive contexts, we assume that in non-agreeing expletive sentences, the expletive introduces a variable whose value is fixed by the correlate via predicational identification (as in Manzini and Savoia 2005, 2007, 2008a).6 This structure corresponds to the focus reading that characterizes postverbal-subject sentences in Romance. Under these assumptions, the lack of€–s inflection in (26) is expected on the same grounds as it is in (25). Quite simply (independently of the definiteness properties of the correlate), the presence of a variable as the EPP argument of the sentence is incompatible with the definiteness/specificity closure provided by the –s inflection. It is interesting to consider how Romansh –s could be accounted for in a more conventional framework€– such as the one discussed by Calabrese (1998, 2008). The continuity with systems such as Old French could be captured by assuming that –s represents a direct case inflection; but still its exclusion from noun phrase embeddings would have to be stipulated, as would the subtler contrasts in (25)–(26). Furthermore, it is hard to see how even the connection between case –s and plural –s could be captured at all. The strong points of the

Loss of case in Romance:€Romansh -sâ•… 307 present account are that it makes possible a unified lexical entry for –s and at the same time it correctly captures its complementary distribution with syntactic determiners/quantifiers. It does not achieve this through additional stipulations€– but through the very same means by which it accounts for Latin and Old French –s, conventionally two pure case inflections. A prediction of the analysis of Romansh€–s proposed here is that we could see an analogous distribution with historically unrelated morphology, as long as this had Q/D properties. This is what happens in Romance varieties of the Montefeltro (Marche, Italy), in which adjectives (and participles) in predicative contexts have a feminine plural inflection€ –le including the Romance definiteness morphology –l, and in fact having the same form as the definite determiner, as illustrated in (27a), as well as the clitic. Crucially, the€–le adjectival inflection occurs in predicative contexts like (27b), but not in attributive DP-internal contexts like (27a’), recalling the distribution investigated for –s in Vella. In predicative contexts, it also appears on the participle, as in (27c). (27)â•… Urbino a. le dn the.fpl women ‘the women’ a’. k-le brv dn those-fpl good women ‘those good women’ b. en brv-le they.are good-fpl ‘They are good’ c. n dvntt-le alt-le they.are become-fpl tall-fpl ‘They have become tall’

We can apply the same analysis adopted for Vella to the Urbino data. When adjectival bases occur inside noun phrases, they find themselves within the scope of the quantificational/definite closures of the DP. However, in predicative contexts, where such a closure is lacking at the phrasal level, it is supplied at the inflectional level, at least in the (feminine) plural, by the€–le element, to which we assign the structure in (28). (28)â•… [√ brv [Q le]]

The Urbino data are particularly interesting in that they show that the Vella pattern can be found independently of any continuity with Latin and medieval Romance case; therefore it need not involve a continuation of Latin case declensions such as€–s, but it may involve a new Romance formation like le.

308â•… Denotation and case in Romance:€history & variation The account that we have provided for –s from Latin through Old French to Romansh explains why a definiteness l form should be involved in the Urbino data. It seems to us that all of this remains coincidental in more conventional approaches. 8.5

Pronouns€– and some conclusions

In the preceding discussion we have considered nominal inflection systems to the exclusion of pronouns. As is well known, most modern Romance languages do in fact maintain a case system for pronouns. Italian is a good example of this, though 3rd person full pronouns vary according to gender and number but not case, as illustrated in (29). Note that the –ui,€–ei,€–oro inflection attached to the l- base is the same as that found in the Romanian oblique. (29)â•… a.â•… a’. b. c.

Lui/lei viene he/she comes ‘S/he is coming’ Loro vengono they come ‘They are coming’ Vedo te non lui/lei/loro I.see you not him/her/them ‘I see you, but not him/ her/ them’ Lo do a lui/lei/ loro it I.give to him/her/them ‘I give it to him/ her/ them’

On the other hand, a two-case system characterizes full (strong) pronouns in the 1st and 2nd person singular, distinguishing nominative (30a) from objective (accusative and oblique) in (30b). (30) a. b.

io, tu ‘I’ ‘you’ me, te ‘me’ ‘you’

Interestingly, in Romanian, the two-case system analysed in section 8.2 holds for nouns and for 3rd person pronouns, where nominative/accusative el/ea/ei/ele forms alternate with dative lui/lei/lor (the genitive corresponds to a possessive form, with adjectival agreement, of the type familiar from other Romance languages). However, 1st and 2nd person (singular) pronouns display a three-case system, distinguishing nominative, as in (31a), from accusative, as in (31b), and dative, as in (31c). In Albanian, the 1st and 2nd person

Pronouns€– and some conclusionsâ•… 309 system has three cases like the nominal system€– but differently distributed; in traditional terms, there is a nominative form, a specialized ablative form, and a single form for accusative and dative (cf. Manzini and Savoia (to appear) on the Gheg variety of Shkodër). (31) a. b. c.

eu dorm/ tu dormi I sleep/ you sleep ‘I/you sleep’ el m-/t- a văzutâ•… pe mine/ tine heâ•… me/you has seen me/ you ‘He saw me/you’ mi-/ţi- l au dat mie/â•… ţie me/youâ•… it they.have given to.me/ to.you ‘They gave it to me/you’

In short, data such as (30)–(31) illustrate a split between 1st/2nd singular bases and other (pro)nouns. We interpret this as indicating that the discourse-linked content of 1st/2nd singular requires the lexicalization of properties related to the different argument contexts (subject vs. dative vs. arguments of prepositions)€ – which are not required by other referential (event-linked) bases (3rd person and 1st/2nd plural, involving reference to ‘others’ besides the ‘speaker’ and ‘hearer’). Therefore the particular shape that the split takes has richer case specifications associated with the lexical bases characterized by the maximally specific denotation (‘hearer’ and ‘speaker’). Some of the richest case systems in Romance languages are to be found in clitic systems, specifically in the 3rd person involving the l- definiteness base, as well as its allomorphs -, -, -, etc. In (32) we illustrate a Tuscan system studied in more detail by Manzini and Savoia (2005, 2007, 2008a), in which the nominative series in (32a) differs from the accusative series in (32b), though there is a syncretism between the nominative masculine (singular and plural) and the accusative masculine plural. The dative in (32c) is in turn syncretic with these two forms, though its reference extends to masculine and feminine and to singular and plural, and is distinct in this sense from both nominative and accusative.7 (32)â•… Vagli Sopra (Tuscany) a.â•… iɟ/ e a/ ann@ durmite he-they.m/ she-they.f has/ have slept ‘S/he has / They have slept’ b. l/ la/ ɟi/ l@ v@jaŋ him/ her/ them.m/ them.f we.see ‘We see him/her/them’

310â•… Denotation and case in Romance:€history & variation c. da ɟɟi le/ ɟi give to.him/her/them it.m/ them.m ‘Give it/ them to him/her/them’

A general point of interest about Vagli is that it has a three-case distinction for l- bases€ – i.e. essentially the richest possible system in a Romance language, and a system as rich as that of Vena, which was discussed in chapter 7. Like standard Italian (to which Tuscan varieties are closely related), Vagli of course has no case declension on nouns. This distribution, and those concerning, in particular, 1st and 2nd person full pronouns above, lead us to wonder what constitutes an ‘absolute’ syncretism in Calabrese’s (1998, 2008) terms€– or what it means to activate a case constraint. Calabrese seems to imply that an entire grammar is involved; but it must really be lexical classes which are involved€– a fact which his theory is not best suited to capture. Another point of interest for the present discussion concerns the syncretism observed with (i) in (32) between the nominative/accusative plural masculine, the nominative singular masculine and the dative. This is essentially the same observed with –s of class III in Latin:€nominative singular, nominative/accusative plural and oblique (genitive singular, dative/ablative plural). At the same time, the (i) form in Vagli continues Latin ill–i based on the –i morphology, which in Latin did not characterize the nominative singular or the accusative plural. Now, the Latin –i morphology, which displays the oblique singular/nonoblique plural syncretism, has been associated in section 8.1 with a Q denotation (cf. also the discussion of Romanian in section 8.2); it is this denotation that is evidently continued by the clitic system in Vagli, at least for l- bases. However, the range of contexts that it satisfies is slightly extended, covering not only oblique singular (dative) and plural, but also nominative singular. When examining the outcome of Latin –s in medieval Romance (section 8.3), we proposed that, while its Q denotation was preserved, the range of contexts in which it appeared became restricted to the nominative singular and the plural. The extension of the contexts relevant for the lexicalization of –i in Vagli with respect to Latin –i represents the reverse phenomenon, as expected. In this connection, we should also return to the Old French example in (16), repeated below in (33). While in section 8.3 we discussed the nominal declension, the definite determiner also displays case inflections which are slightly at variance with the noun. Thus, in the masculine, the nominative singular and plural is li, while in the accusative, le and les alternate in the singular and plural respectively (as in Modern French). Evidently, the determiner system of Old French has an important point of contact with Vagli (and other modern

Pronouns€– and some conclusionsâ•… 311 Italian varieties) in the adoption of –i as nominative morphology. In the present conception, there is on the one hand continuity between the quantificational properties of –i in Latin and in Romance, and on the other hand a change in the context(s) that it satisfies. (33)â•… a.â•… b.

Dur sunt li Hard are the Guardez Watch over

colp e li caples est grefs blows and the scuffle is hard le champ … e le-s munz (munt-s) the field … and the mountains

The discussion of the syncretism between dative –i and masculine plural –i, as also seen in li ‘them’ and gli ‘to him’ in standard Italian, was one of the starting points for the common categorization (‘Q’) of obliques and plurals that we proposed in Manzini and Savoia (2005, 2007, 2008a). The conclusion reached in those works by inspecting the Romance clitic systems are now confirmed by the evidence from the case systems of Albanian, Latin and Romance itself€– as well as by the historical development we are able to trace from Latin to Romance in terms of straightforward lexical (dis)continuity. Indeed, a key property in terms of which our approach differs from the others reviewed is its uncompromisingly lexicalist stance, whereby structures are projected from actual lexical terminals. It is not abstract structures independent of the lexicon that determine the basic categorizations of natural languages and therefore design the basic ontology underlying them. It is the lexicon that does that.

Notes

1

The structure and interpretation of (Romance) complementizers

1. The first published version of this analysis is found in Manzini and Savoia (2003), where ‘we propose that the complement sentence in (1a), the question in (1e) and the wh-phrase in (1g) are all preceded by the same lexical item in that they have a similar LF with che introducing a variable. The different interpretations stem from the fact that in (1e) che binds the internal argument of a verbal predicate, as illustrated in (10a); in (1a), che binds a variable with sentential content, as in (10b); and in (1g) che binds the internal argument of a nominal predicate, as in (10c). (10)â•… a.â•… [che xâ•… [fai (x)]] b. [che x [x:€vieni domani]] c. [che x [camicia (x)]]’

(p. 95).

2. The obvious comparison is with N-words in Romance, discussed in chapters 3–4. These are not intrinsically negative, but rather introduce a variable which can receive a negative interpretation in the scope of a negative operator, though it can equally well be licensed in non-negative contexts. 3. It is important not to confuse I in (10) with some specialized position for the complementizer, since the ordinary noun in (6) is also in I. Note also that we assume that no empty heads are present in the structure; in (10) they are represented essentially as diacritics to help the reader process the tree, as they are in the bracketed representations in (5)–(7). One may wonder what the C head corresponds to under the new conceptualization of the complementizer in (10). Recall that one of the reasons for our original puzzlement at the currently standard analysis of complementizers was the fact that such clearly nominal elements would occur in positions otherwise taken by verbal (modal) heads. The present view, while reforming the conception of complementizers, does not affect the current analysis of verb placement. Thus, interrogative inversion is still construed as the occurrence of the verb in a higher position than I€– i.e. C etc. In this sense, if there are several positions of the verb higher than I, there will be a recursive C field, as in Rizzi (1997). These points are developed in section 1.3. 4. This is the C position that Rizzi (1997) characterizes as Force, i.e. illocutionary force. McCloskey (2004), who supports this characterization, also clearly notes that in semantics ‘there is a well-established and widely-held view that there can be no 312

Notes to pages 21–32â•… 313 such thing as an embedded illocutionary force indicator’. We share these misgivings, and therefore avoid referring to illocutionary force in the present account. ╇ 5. This is the C position that Rizzi (1997) characterizes as Finiteness. ╇ 6. For the reasons mentioned in fn. 4, we resist characterizing the properties instantiated by embedded V2 as illocutionary force. It is worth recalling that the incompatibility of embedded V2 with complementizers in, say, German was what provided the initial support for the identification of the complementizer with a verbal position€– namely the V2 position (den Besten 1984). In this respect two observations are in order. First, the argument only has any force in theories without multiple CPs, hence in practice none of the theories addressed by the present discussion. Second, when it comes to stating the relevant generalization, the simplest thing to say within the present theory is that in complementizer deletion no complementizer (here nominal) layer is present at all; a discussion of complementizer deletion in Romance is provided in chapter 2. This suggests that languages like German allow for the selection of the properties triggering V2 only directly on an embedded sentence€– requiring the ‘deletion’ (i.e. absence) of the complementizer. ╇ 7. We assume that the embedded subject doubled by the subject clitic is a topic. There is an ongoing discussion on this point, on which Rizzi (1986) holds a contrary position to ours:€ namely, that the clitic-doubled subject is in IP. This is entirely independent of the issue at hand; for instance, Poletto (2000) also takes the lexical subject of clitic subject languages to be a topic. ╇ 8. This doubling is independent of the phenomena being discussed here, being found in many other Northern Italian varieties:€ for instance, Viguzzolo, as exemplified immediately below in (24), or Castellazzo as in (25). ╇ 9. In the interest of not overloading the presentation with accessory information, we omitted the structure of the object clitic cluster in (29). 10. As for her Turinese and Ligurian varieties, Paoli (2007) proposes that the higher che lexicalizes Force in the schema of Rizzi (1997), while the lower che lexicalizes Fin. The connection with subjunctive is established by the fact that che is actually merged in the head of a Mood projection from where it is moved to Fin. In present terms, this would translate into a grammar in which a complementizer head selected by another one is necessarily an irrealis one. We believe, however, that the discontinuity not only with respect to our own Piedmontese data but also to the Medieval Romance data of Paoli herself warrants further empirical research. 11. It does not escape us that making such a claim amounts to entering the complex debate concerning s-selection and c-selection (Grimshaw 1979), taking a position in favour of s-selection to the exclusion of c-selection. This position has been Â�argued for independently in the literature, in particular by Pesetsky (1991), who only supplements s-selection by what he calls l(exical)-selection€– a notion also available under present assumptions. 12. Suppose that some notion of phase holds; then, is C (now an exclusively verbal head) the phase head or is that role taken over by the Nominal complementizer head? Suppose we take the most reductive construal of phases, as the locality domains for movement. A structuring of the sentence along the lines of (10) yields

314â•… Notes to pages 32–42 a straightforward reason why the bounding nodes for Subjacency (Chomsky 1973) were originally taken to be the IP (S) and the CP (S’):€namely, because the CP is in reality an independent noun phrase. This suggests that (at least) the so-called complementizer is a phase head in current terminology€– assuming that phases are indeed relevant for locality. In a separate development of the theory, phases have become responsible for the distribution of features in phasal domains (Chomsky 2008). As for C–T agreement generally, expressing it in terms of phases and operations on features is certainly possible€– but so is expressing it in terms of properties selected by a head on another head; we are not aware of any piece of evidence that would make this choice anything but a theory-internal matter. Complementizer agreement in Germanic languages cannot be construed as such a piece of evidence. It is certainly compatible with agreement analysis, but it can also be analysed as depending on an enclitic subject appearing on the complementizer (Shlonsky 1994). Under this latter analysis there is no C–T agreement, but simply an agreement between different copies of the EPP argument in different structural domains. Multiple copies of subject clitics are independently attested in Romance, where the borders between what are traditionally called agreement inflections and clitics are also quite labile. 13. Matrix lexicalizations of the che-type complementizer are possible when its left Â�periphery is lexicalized not only by a wh-phrase, but also by a focus, both in Northern varieties, as in (i), and in Southern ones, as in (ii). The same possibility is present for instance in Brazilian Portuguese, as noted by Mioto (2003), quoted by Belletti (2008). (i) (ii)â•…

Casaccia (Grisons) naZy k al ve nobody that he comes ‘Nobody comes’ Morano (Calabria) smbri ki ti wardnu always that you they.look.at ‘They always look at you’

14. Subsequent work on the left periphery further refines the general schema provided by Rizzi (1997). Thus, Benincà and Poletto (2004) and Benincà (2006) recognize several articulations both in the Focus field (Contrastive€– Informational) and in the Topic field (Hanging Topic€– Scene Setting€– Left Dislocation€– List Interpretation), with the Topic field ordered above the Focus field in accordance with the conclusions of Benincà (2001). In turn, Frascarelli and Hinterhoelzl (2007) articulate the Topic/Focus field into Shifting Topic€– Contrastive Topic€– Focus€– Familiar Topic. These further proposals do not change the substance of the more limited discussion in the text concerning Rizzi’s (2001) articulation of the wh-field into an Int€– (Topic)€– Focus hierarchy. Assuming the empirical correctness of (a subset of) their partitions of interpretive space and of their correlation to syntactic orders, the general question remains the one in the text, namely whether this correlation is encoded by means of functional categories and hierarchies. The alternative is, as in the text, that syntactic order restricts the range of available semantic Â�interpretations.

Notes to pages 42–46â•… 315 Thus, as discussed in the text, a Focus (a wh–phrase) taking a Topic (a lexical subject) in its scope can only have a certain range of interpretations; this reasoning can in principle be replicated for sequences of Topics and so on. More recent work has addressed the left periphery of the dialects of Italy. Cruschina (2010) for Sicilian, Mensching and Remberger (2010) for Sardinian and Paoli (2010) for Triestino all agree on the possibility of a left-peripheral Informational Focus as an answer to questions. Cruschina characterizes this as an ‘Emphatic’ IF, while Paoli suggests that ‘it clearly expresses new information, but simultaneously conveys an implicit sense of contrast’. All of these authors contrast the situation they describe for their respective varieties with that of standard Italian, in which, following Belletti (2004), they assume that answering a question with a left-peripheral Focus is ungrammatical. On the other hand, left-peripheral answers to questions are perfectly possible in our own competence of (standard) Italian, as in (i), from Cruschina (2010:€249), possibly with the pragmatics that the authors quoted associate with their varieties. (i) a. b.

Che cosa What Le chiavi, The keys,â•…

hai dimenticato? have.you forgotten ho dimenticato I.have forgotten

Similar judgements are found in Brunetti (2004), who also stresses that the truly ‘unmarked’ answer in (standard) Italian, as in English, is the elliptical one. 15. In Manzini and Savoia (2005) we propose that the different interpretations of whphrases determined by their ordering with respect to lexical subjects may be codified in terms of D-linking, or even more generally definiteness/specificity. Correspondingly, we introduce a specialized domain C (Definiteness) that supports both specific wh-phrases and topics, allowing them to intermingle. This would be consistent with the conclusion of Benincà (2006) and Benincà and Poletto (2004) that the topic field is superordinate to the focus field. Note, however, that verb positioning provides independent evidence for at most two head positions in the C field, namely the interrogative position considered here and a higher position for imperatives/infinitives, which must be lower than any wh-position. What is more, the behaviour of ‘why’ does not easily follow from Manzini and Savoia’s (2005) proposal. Thus, in that paper we introduce an altogether different analysis for the ‘why’ facts€– as sketched here. For these reasons we consider it more likely that it is this latter line of analysis that will ultimately provide a unified account of the facts. 16. Languages like Trun in (50) have a generalized V2 property. However, the possibility of the subject position in (50) does not correlate with it. Several Romansh and Ladin varieties with generalized V2 do not allow for the lexical subject to appear in the inverted subject position where subject clitics are found, as illustrated in (i) with a question and in (ii) with examples of generalized V2. (i)â•… Zernez (Grisons) ilts ufants an -i dOrmi the children have they slept ‘Have the children slept?’

316â•… Notes to pages 46–59 (ii)â•… La Pli de Mareo (Alto Adige/ South-Tyrol) a.â•… le liber a -l be lit ZaN the book has he well readâ•… John ‘John has indeed read the book’ b. ZaN le liber a -l lit John the book has he read ‘John has read the book’

2

Variation in Romance k-complementizer systems

1. In order to avoid tedious references to Manzini and Savoia (2005), let us state once and for all here that all the empirical generalizations drawn in the text are to be understood as holding for the set of data published by Manzini and Savoia (2005, I:€404–79). 2. In the judgement of one of the authors (Savoia), who is a native speaker of the Florence variety, not only is it possible to delete the che complementizer in (7a), as shown in (i) and as also indicated by Cocchi and Poletto (2002)€– it is also possible to delete relative che (as it is in Medieval Italian texts) as in (ii), and even se ‘if’, as in (iii). It remains impossible to delete wh- che, as in (iv). (i) (ii) (iii) (iv)

Hannoâ•… dettoâ•… viene domani They. have said he.comes tomorrow ‘They said that he will come tomorrow’ Ho contato tutti quelli sono venuti I.have counted all those are come ‘I counted those that came’ Mi chiedevano viene o no me they.asked he.comes or not ‘They asked me whether or not he was coming’ Non sanno *(che) fare not they.know what to.do ‘They don’t know what to do’

3. Làconi will be discussed in section 2.2, because of its special lexicalization of ‘if’; as will be seen, it is comparable to Paulilàtino in all respects considered here. 4. This is important in view of the recent discussion of Eastern Abruzzese by D’Alessandro and Ledgeway (2010), where it is proposed that ‘the Fin° head may be spelled out at PF as ca (realis specification) or chi (irrealis specification)’€ – while Force, ‘independently of the underlying modal specifications of Fin° is invariably spelt out as ca’. We comment on the reversal of the positions of ka and k/ ki in connection with the Cosenza variety in section 2.1.2 (in the text preceding fn. 6). D’Alessandro and Ledgeway (2010) also propose an empirical generalization whereby chi is restricted to contexts not ‘directly selected by a matrix predicate’. Again we do not find any reflex of this in our data; furthermore, D’Alessandro and Ledgeway do not consider potentially relevant contexts such as those selected by ‘before’ and ‘after’, to be discussed in section 2.1.2.

Notes to pages 62–64â•… 317 5. The analysis of temporal clauses as involving a wh-like temporal operator goes back at least to Larson (1987), who in turn quotes Geis (1970). Apart from the fact that temporal subordinators can overtly correspond to wh-phrases (e.g. when in English, quando ‘when’ in Italian etc.), the classical argument in favour of this conclusion is that temporal sentences can display ambiguities corresponding to what the basegenerated position (or the reconstruction position) of the temporal operator is taken to be. Thus John left after Mary told him that he should leave can be interpreted as John leaving after he should have left (according to Mary) or as John leaving after Mary told him something (namely that he should leave). Recent work by Haegeman (2007) takes up this evidence again, arguing that operator movement accounts for an altogether different set of data, namely for the impossibility of embedding left-peripheral material under temporal adjuncts. However, as noted by Haegeman, Romance clitic left dislocation is possible under temporal adjuncts. In turn, embedding of foci in Italian is taken to be ungrammatical by Haegeman (2007:€316), but it can be quite acceptable in our judgement, as in (i); note the lack of resumptive clitic, which excludes clitic left dislocation. (i)â•… Quando un dieci prenderà, sarò contento whenâ•… a tenâ•… he.will.get,â•… I.will.be happy ‘I will be happy when he gets an A’ We return to this matter in connection with conditionals, where it is more directly relevant for our discussion, cf. fn. 12. 6. The varieties close to Cosenza exemplified in Manzini and Savoia (2005), namely S. Fili and Montalto Uffugo, display a single ka complementizer, evidently belonging to less conservative varieties in Ledgeway’s description. 7. As part of the differences between CHE in Early Southern Italian texts and chi in the Cosenza variety, Ledgeway (2009) also notes a reversal of the data concerning the embedding of topics and foci. These are acceptable under ca but not under chi. We have already commented in section 2.1.1 (fn. 4 and text preceding it) on the analogous reversal proposed for Eastern Abruzzese in D’Alessandro and Ledgeway (2010). For Ledgeway (2009), the the Cosenza variety distribution involves yet another parameter€– namely that with chi the verb would move very high in the sentence (depriving even adverbs of preverbal space), while it would remain lower with ca. We refer the reader to chapter 3 for the reasons why we reject this line of argumentation, inaugurated by Cinque (1999). Of particular relevance is the literature (Svenonius 2002; Ernst 2002; Nilsen 2003) showing that adverb hierarchies cannot be used to argue for verbal positions without leading to contradiction. 8. Damonte (2006) provides similar data for Baunei, in which chi introduces finite sentences introduced independently of modality. 9. A few varieties of the Montenerodomo/Arena type tabulated in (A) display free alternation between their two complementizers as relative clause introducers€– namely Guardiaregia and Gizzeria. We interpret free alternation as the alternation between two different grammars. Therefore one of the grammars of these varieties is parallel to that of Montenerodomo/Arena in (14)–(15), with relative clauses introduced by the generalized wh-binder ki. The other grammar with ka as the relative clause introducer simply shows that relative clauses can be treated as an ordinary case of declarative embedding.

318â•… Notes to pages 69–77 10. This account of the se complementizer is already found in Manzini and Savoia (2003), essentially in the same terms as here. Thus ‘in the tradition of Lewis (1975) the sentence introduced by se is interpreted as the restriction of a propositional variable, bound in particular by adverbs of quantification … In the absence of an overt quantification, the operator that binds the quantificational variable can be the generic/universal one … Given these interpretive properties of hypotheticals, it is natural to assume that se “if” introduces an indefinite propositional variable. As such we expect its syntax to parallel that of the propositional che’ (p. 105). 11. Again the account of interrogative se goes back to Manzini and Savoia (2003). ‘For embedded yes–no questions we can again assume that se introduces an indefinite propositional variable and this in fact establishes a wh-question ranging over the proposition’ (p. 106). 12. Haegeman (2009) adopts the Larson/Bhatt-Pancheva syntax for conditionals with a view to accounting for restrictions on the left-peripheral material they embed, similar to those discussed in fn. 5 for temporal clauses€ – despite the fact that the classical argument in favour of treating temporal subordinators as wh-operators, namely the possibility of matrix or embedded construals, does not apply to conditionals. The issue is largely orthogonal to those debated here. In any event, our own judgements on conditionals are that left-peripheral material does not create intervention effects€– providing an unsurprising parallel to temporal clauses. (i) Se un sei prendi, sono contento If a six you.get I.am happy ‘I am happy if you get even a D’ (Context:€‘Will you be happy if I get a C?’) 13. Bhatt and Pancheva (2006) note another problem for Kayne’s (1991) proposal that if is excluded from finite sentences because it governs PRO, namely the fact that conditional if can select participial predicates like (i), whose only argument is controlled by the matrix argument. Notice further that there is no interrogative analogue to this pattern, as in (ii).





(i) If elected, he has said that … (ii) *By now he will be wondering if elected Sentences like (i) are problematic for the present account as well, since they appear to include a variable EPP argument controlled by a matrix argument. But maybe they don’t. Note that any nominal predicate can be embedded under if, as in (iii), making it far from obvious that (i) involves a sentential embedding. On the other hand, (ii) could be automatically excluded if interrogatives require a sentential embedding. (iii)â•… If beautiful, a woman has many chances What kind of embedding (i) represents, if not a sentential embedding, remains an open question; but notice that temporal operators equally allow for it, as in (iv). (iv) When still a child, he met his future wife

Notes to pages 82–90â•… 319 3

Sentential negation:€adverbs

1. Our first explicit statement of this conclusion goes back to Manzini and Savoia (2002):€‘In what follows, we shall concentrate on negative adverbs, arguing that they do not belong to a specialized Neg category; nor are they specialized Adv(erbs), but rather nominal elements. We shall briefly indicate how these conclusions may extend to Adv(erbs) in general and argue that clitic negations are in turn nominal in nature’, and later ‘The treatment suggested … for bare-N adverbs categorizes them as straightforward nominal heads, i.e. N. In turn the negative polarity item/negative quantifier status of ‘nothing’-type adverbs suggests that they are to be assigned to the category Q’. Manzini and Savoia (2005) bring further empirical evidence to bear on this analysis. Only recently, Garzonio and Poletto (2009) conclude that ‘the position of the negative marker nen in Piedmontese … is a dedicated position to quantifiers’, and that ‘in the case of m[inimizer] negation a noun becomes a quantifier and then raises to a position dedicated to quantifiers’ so that ‘the positions where the negative markers occur are not to be labelled as NegP’. Despite the fact that the authors take a ‘grammaticalization’ perspective, their results reproduce ours€– a fact of which they are ostensibly unaware. 2. We agree on the ungrammaticality of certain cases, though for instance (i), which was suggested to us, involves an idiomatic expression: (i) Non ci si capisce *(un) accidente Not there one understands a thing ‘One doesn’t understand a thing in there’ 3. We are aware that in Germanic or Slavic languages there is dative vs. accusative marking in 1st and 2nd person pronouns as well (cf. Fici, Manzini and Savoia 2001). A uniform behaviour of all persons, say with respect to Case, is not a problem for the present theory€– to the extent that the same treatment can be uniformly given to all nominal elements. All that is relevant here is that there are some languages in which the person split can be observed€– and those languages pattern in the way noted. 4. Data like those we are considering (and other data, such as auxiliary selection according to person, as discussed in chapter 6) require not so much a characterization of the intrinsic denotational properties of 1st/2nd person vs. 3rd person, but rather a linking of their referential properties to the properties of the various persons in linking to predicate–argument structures. Suppose, for instance, that we conceive of argument slots in predicate–argument structures as variables (Adger and Ramchand 2005). Everything we have said is compatible with the idea that only 3rd person arguments really bind these slots€– and this is no doubt connected to their ability to bind other arguments in anaphoric relations. As for 1st and 2nd person pronouns, we may consider that they satisfy the relevant argument slot through some different formal means€– an identity relation, a predicative relation or some other relation. We stress again that connecting the referential to the argumental properties is necessary to an understanding of how the person split operates in morphosyntax. Therefore we retain, as a first approximation, the ‘discourse-anchored’ and ‘event-anchored’

320â•… Notes to pages 90–135 characterizations, as opposed to other characterizations hinting at purely referential properties (‘deictic’ vs. ‘anaphoric’, etc.). The reflexive paradigms in (15)–(16) are also relevant, to the extent that the 3rd person, anaphoric si clitic patterns with 1st and 2nd person clitics. 5. Bayer (2006) notices construals of nothing in English of the type in She looks nothing like that, concluding that nothing can be either ‘an argumental category which occupies an argument position in the sentence’ or ‘an adjunct’, as in the sentence quoted. From the present point of view, this is just more evidence in favour of the nominal, argumental status of adverbial negations. For Bayer (2006), however, the implications of these data lie again in the domain of ‘grammaticalization’. 6. Here and throughout, generalizations not supported by the examples in the text presuppose the data published in Manzini and Savoia (2005). 7. Table (38) also provides counterexamples to Garzonio and Poletto’s (2009) recent claim that ‘Neg2 markers derive from grammaticalized minimizers … Neg3 markers derive from the bare inanimate quantifier corresponding to English ‘nothing’’. In fact, even leaving aside the separate question of Lombard nɔ negations, it is evident that the higher position of the negation (Zanuttini’s Neg2) characterizes not only bare-N (minimizer) adverbs, but also a bona fide Piedmontese ‘nothing’-type adverb like nitQ in Castellazzo Manzini and Savoia (2005) tabulate it together with nn in Dego and nnt in Garessio, as well as with nia in Colfosco and La Pli de Mareo. By contrast, leaving aside Lombard n again, the lower position of the negation (Zanuttini’s Neg3) characterizes the minimizer bo in Mustér. In Manzini and Savoia (2005), bit in Donat and buk in Trun are tabulated together with it. 4

Sentential negation:€clitics

1. A case in point is Bagolino in (i). (i)â•…

Bagolino (Lombardy) no drmo no te drme no l/l drma no dormo no dormif no i/le drm not ClS sleep ‘I don’t sleep’ etc.

mi mi mi mi mi mi not

2. An interesting question is whether the positional difference between I and C negations corresponds to an interpretive difference. All the evidence points to a different conclusion, namely that the interpretive value of the negation remains the same, though its lexicalization varies according to a number of ultimately interpretive differences (including in particular the shape of the event, as defined by the nature of the arguments satisfying the predicate). 3. The two negation positions postulated here do not share any of the properties of Zanuttini’s (1997), since they relate neither to a split between presence or absence of

Notes to pages 135–152â•… 321 negative adverbs nor to a split between base-generated and derived positions of the negation. 4. In the present approach we do not adopt what Culicover and Jackendoff (2005) call Interface Uniformity, hence two logically equivalent sentences need not have an identical syntax at some (abstract) level of representation. Rather, it is perfectly possible for two different syntaxes to yield the same semantics (and, vice versa, different semantics can correspond to the same syntax). Therefore we maintain that in languages in which the negation clitic follows the 1st and 2nd person clitic as well as 3rd person clitics, it is simply insensitive to the person split€– there is no LF movement scoping the negation out of the inflectional domain, or any other mechanism making its (abstract) syntax parallel to that of the person split cases. 5. Mutual exclusion between subject and other clitics has hardly been dealt with in the formal literature (as opposed to mutual exclusions, say, between datives and accusatives as in the Spurious se of Spanish). A notable exception is Roberts (1993), who considers only a highly specialized set of facts from Franco-Provençal dialects, in which the relevant alternations between subject and object clitics characterize the context before auxiliaries. According to Roberts (1993:€ 330), ‘some clitic always appears when an auxiliary is present. If an O[bject]CL is available this element may precede the auxiliary, or an S[ubject]CL precedes the auxiliary’. The explanation is that there is an Agr (i.e. clitic) position in front of the auxiliary which must be filled; furthermore, ‘clitics cannot adjoin to other clitics’ (Roberts 1993:€332), so that at most one clitic can fill Agr. The theory we propose in the references quoted is not the same as Roberts’ (1993). In the present model, clitics have dedicated (argumental, not Agr) positions in the sentential structure; this means that the failure of subjects and object clitics to combine cannot be due to competition for the same position. Rather, under the explanation pursued in the text, the Definiteness properties of the object clitic (as lexicalized, say, by the l lexical base of the 3rd person) scope over the entire string€– and it is this that prevents their lexicalization by the subject clitic. Furthermore, the same model is extended by Manzini and Savoia (2005, 2007) to mutual exclusions between object clitics (hence Spurious se and the like), while as far as we can tell this connection escapes Roberts (1993) altogether. 6. Manzini and Savoia (2005) argue that the difference between negative and nonÂ�negative n segments resides in the fact that they are inserted as sentential constituents in negative contexts, but as morphological constituents of the P clitic in positive contexts. As far as we can tell, the best evidence that n segments may turn up as word-internal constituents is provided by data from Felizzano, not reviewed here. 7. It may be worth providing some examples of the latter€ – also stressing that the arguments in the typological literature that ‘in questions, negation is neutralized […]:€Can you hear nothing? and Can you hear anything? have identical truth conditions’ (Haspelmath 1997:€121) are orthogonal to the arguments being advanced in the text; whether they stand further scrutiny or not (Weiss 2002) is very interesting in itself but not relevant for present purposes. Consider Italian (i). It seems fairly clear that there are two truth-conditionally different readings associated with the absence or presence of the negative clitic non, as reflected by the English translation. Yet the Italian non ‘not’ sentence is compatible with both (non truth-conditionally equivalent) readings.

322â•… Notes to pages 152–158 (i) Volli farlo prima che le mie forze (non) me lo consentissero I.wished to.do.it before that my energies (not) to.me it would.allow ‘I wished to do it before my energies allowed/did not allow me to’ For n-words, an appropriate context is represented by hypotheticals. The two English sentences in (ii) are clearly non-truth-functionally equivalent; by contrast, the Italian sentence in (iii) is ambiguous between (iia) and (iib)€– at least for speakers (like the author) who easily allow nessuno to be licensed by the conditional. (ii) a. If nobody arrives, tell me b. If anybody arrives, tell me (iii) Se nessuno arriva, dimmelo (subito) if N-one arrives tell.me.it (straight.away) It is also worth stressing that the conclusion that neither the n-clitic nor n-words are intrinsically negative is far from unique in the literature. Thus, for Â�Rooryck (2009, and references quoted there), ‘the paradox of negation in languages like bon usage French and Catalan then can be formulated as follows:€how can the combination of two elements that do not intrinsically express negation nevertheless lead to the expression of negation?’. Here we do not push the answer to this ‘paradox’ any further than is stated in the text; in other words, we assimilate the interpretive content of the n-clitic to that of n-argumental/adverbial phrases, treating all of them as negative polarity items; the negation operator (corresponding to the logical negation, or contrary negation in the sense of Horn (1989)) is introduced at LF to license all of these elements. The conjecture is that other polarity operators (nonveridical operators in the sense of Giannakidou (1998)) can license polarity items in the various non-negative contexts. Rooryck’s (2009) own answer to the ‘paradox’ takes the n-clitic to be ‘an NPI-licensing operator expressing contrary negation’, again in the sense of Horn (1989), ‘selecting the smallest possible value in a set of alternatives’ (i.e. the null set at the limit); the set of alternatives is provided by negative polarity items, construed as ‘partially ordered sets including the null set’. What seems to remain constant is that the n-clitic does not correspond to the logical negation embodied by the functional category Neg. Further interpretive matters are beyond the scope of the present chapter. 8. This does not correspond to a grammaticality judgement elicited from our speaker(s), but rather to our reconstruction of the gap found in the data, provided for ease of exposition. 9. If we backtrack to sentential negation adverbs, we may wonder whether the incompatibility with left periphery arguments or adverbs holds of them as well. An interesting case in point could be Müstair in (i). The adverbial negation nylja is found in the pre-infinitival position in (ia)€– actually an example of a negative imperative€– in accordance with what was independently observed in chapter 3 for Piedmontese varieties (cf. section 3.2). As shown in (ia), in this position it can co-occur with the lexically identical negative polarity argument nylja ‘nothing’ in postverbal position. However, (iib) shows a different possibility, namely a simple occurrence of nylja in pre-infinitival position. We conclude that (iib) displays an instance of Q-float of argumental nylja– of the type analysed by Kayne (1975) for French under the title of

Notes to pages 158–181â•… 323 L€— tous. This creates a local configuration of mutual exclusion with adverbial nylja, yielding the simple occurrence of the argument. (i)â•… Müstair (Grisons) a. nylja far nylja not do nothing ‘Don’t do anything!’ b. nylja tor nothing take ‘Don’t take anything!’

5

The middle-passive voice:€evidence from Albanian

1. Work on the Albanian middle-passive voice by Kallulli (2006), while finely disentangling the various bound readings associated with the Albanian forms, does not address the unification with the generic (impersonal) readings€– nor the question (crucial here) of the varying morpholexical instantiations of the relevant meaning cluster. In particular, Kallulli (2006) adopts the view that middle-passive morphology corresponds to a valency reduction executed by means of feature deletion on the v node responsible for introducing the external argument. Thus the passive is derived through suppression of a [+activity] feature from underlying activity structures, the anticausative through suppression of a [+cause] feature from underlying causative structures and the reflexive through suppression of [+intent] feature in underlying agentive structures. We will not enter into the finer points of the proposal; for instance the discussion in the text excludes the possibility that reflexives are non-agentive. What we are interested in is, as before, the fact that the various interpretations are simply encoded in the syntax. The fact that the mapping between the interpretation/syntax and its morphological instantiations becomes completely opaque is obviously not even perceived as a cost to be paid for this. The very same points that we are making here with respect to Kallulli’s analysis are discussed by Roussou (2008) and Manzini, Roussou and Savoia (to appear) in relation to analyses of the middle-passive voice in Greek (see section 5.3 below). For instance, Alexiadou and Anagnostopoulou (2004) argue that the different readings of the Greek middle-passive are syntactically encoded through the projection of different v heads; a passive has a VoiceP above VP with no specifier, while an anticausative has a Result vP embedding the passive VoiceP structure. The point is that the projection of different structures is necessitated by the availability of different readings with no connection to their morphological instantiation(s). Thus, the interface of syntax with morphology becomes opaque, again without this ostensibly being perceived as a cost at all. 2. (21b) is part of the larger question of deponent verbs, i.e. those verbs that are associated with a morphologically middle-passive inflection while having no active counterparts. The deponency phenomenon is present to some extent in any system which has a productive middle-passive voice. Thus, Italian has unaccusative predicates formed with si that have no transitive counterparts, as in (ia–a’); it also has

324â•… Notes to pages 181–183 predicates formed with si that are straight transitives€– nor does si correspond to an independently attested dative or other argument, as in (ib–b’). (i)â•… a. a’. b. b’.â•…

*Gianniâ•… ha arrabbiatoâ•… Lucia/ se stesso G hasâ•… angered L/ himself ‘John has angered Lucia/himself’ Gianni si è arrabbiato G M is angered ‘John has become angry’ *Gianni lo ha dimenticato a Lucia/ se stesso G it has forgotten to L /himself ‘John has made Lucia/ himself forget it’ Gianni se lo è dimenticato G M it is forgotten ‘John has forgotten it’

In effect (i) are the deponents of the Italian middle-passive voice. Following Embick (2000), we would have to say that while the middle-passive forms considered in the text are associated with a voice feature, say [pass], associated with the v functional projection of the verb, the forms in (i) are associated with a [pass] feature associated with the verb root. The objection that we have to this type of approach is that at best it annotates the relevant differences without explaining anything about them. Therefore, despite the dismissal of such ideas by Embick (2000), we tentatively maintain that (i) as well as Albanian (21b) in the text are bona fide instances of middle-passive voice at LF, with the si (or its various counterparts) instantiating a variable in the argument structure of the relevant verbs. This is an internal argument in (ia’) and a second internal argument in (ib’)€– despite the lack of active instantiations of such argument structures. 3. Movement from the object to the subject position could in turn be made compatible with a bona fide clitic treatment of si€– but at a cost. Thus, a base-generated si could coexist with movement from the object position of the EPP argument, as proposed by Dobrovie-Sorin (1998). Further elaborating on this, one could entertain the idea that si is base-generated as the head of a so-called big DP, whose Spec is the ‘doubling’ moved DP. Such extra assumptions are simply unnecessary here. 4. Another case in point is the Surselva variety of Mustér, where the impersonal is ins ‘one’. Note that ins is connected etymologically with unus ‘one’, while French on is connected with homo ‘man’ (along the lines of the German impersonal man). (i)â•… Mustér (Grisons) a. ins drma bain lQu one sleeps well there ‘One sleeps well there’ b. kwl vz-ins adina pr la vias that.one sees-one always in the street ‘One always sees him on the street’

Notes to pages 186–214â•… 325 5. Greek, unlike Albanian, allows for perfective aspect in the present tense as well. The present perfective forms in both the middle-passive and the active voice are characterized as ‘dependent’ ones (Holton, Mackridge and Philippaki-Warburton 1997), since they cannot occur independently in (finite) clauses, but have to be preceded by one of the modal particles (‘subjunctive’ na, ‘future’ tha or ‘hortative’ as), a hypothetical or temporal conjunction (an ‘if’, otan ‘when’, etc.) or a free relative pronoun (e.g. opjos ‘whoever’). 6. In a previous version of this chapter (Manzini and Savoia 2008c), the evidence provided by Roussou (2008) concerning the mutual exclusion of the -th middlepassive morphology and the specialized middle-passive person endings, based on the idea that -th represents a morphological-level counterpart to the si/u clitic, led us to exclude the possibility of identifying the -h morphology of Albanian with the latter€ – which we now take to be too hasty a conclusion. By contrast, the line of analysis pursued here is briefly suggested by Manzini, Roussou and Savoia (to appear), though this work is largely concerned with the interpretation of morphological-level ambiguities of various kinds (syncretisms, etc.), and only partially devoted to the question of varying morphological instantiations of the same interpretation(s). 6

The auxiliary:€have/be alternations in the perfect

1. Note that, given the existence of a person split, the reader may reasonably wonder about the full paradigms for the varieties discussed in connection with transitivity/ voice. There is no person split involved in any language mentioned except where explicitly noted. 2. As for the mapping of bisentential structures like (14) to a perfect interpretation, it is compatible with characterizations found in the literature according to which the perfect, at least in English, roughly denotes a present state arrived at as a consequence of a concluded event, hence a past by implication. For instance, Parsons (1990) assigns to sentences such as John has left a semantics like the following:€there is an event e of ‘leaving’ whose theme is ‘John’ and the state following e, CS(e) holds at the moment of utterance. As a further step, the French/Italian present perfect can take on the meaning of a perfective simple past, as is also well known from the literature (Giorgi and Pianesi 1998). 3. Cf. fn. 14. 4. The deeper level of explanation for this split, in terms of the real primitives of the computational component/LF interface, remains to be explored. A natural way to go is to connect the anchoring to the referential properties€– cf. the concluding remarks section 6.5. 5. Manzini and Savoia (2007) invoke essentially the same constraint to yield the canonical EEA distribution, in the following terms:€ ‘taking essere … configures a particularly simple grammar where, in the absence of any additional constraints, it is the same matrix verb, namely the copula essere, that appears in all contexts where a nominal predicative complement is selected’ as opposed to ‘the more complex grammar, with essere and avere alternating’, as copula and auxiliary respectively. ‘The simpler grammar in the 1st and 2nd person, where the participle is embedded

326â•… Notes to pages 214–224 under essere without interpretive restrictions, corresponds to the independence of speaker, hearer reference from the event structure. The more complex grammar, with essere and avere alternating … is associated with elements whose reference in deictic space is obtained through their anchoring in the event structure’. In other words, languages have a choice as to how far down the scale they implement (21). This may go some way towards explaining another problem hardly touched on here, namely why certain patterns are more robustly attested than others. 6. In the Albanian (Arbëresh) variety of Portocannone in (15), the perfect middleÂ�passive is formed with the u clitic, which combines with the kam ‘have’ auxiliary. In this respect, Portocannone behaves like the Romance varieties in which participial sentences are systematically selected by have (e.g. Verbicaro in (9)). 7. For Reinhart and Siloni (2005), the contrast in (30)–(31) is part of a larger parameter concerning whether arity operations apply in the syntax or in the lexicon. Thus, the fact that in Italian si can correspond to a dative, as in (31), means that voice is determined in the syntax; the fact that in Albanian the counterpart to (31) is just an active sentence, as in (32), means that voice is determined in the lexicon. However, given the spread of morphosyntactic realizations and interpretations connected to the middle-passive voice, it is hard to see in what sense voice could be lexical in Albanian. 8. The evidence is complicated somewhat by the fact that several Romance languages, e.g. Spanish, Southern Italian dialects, have the estar (Spanish) ‘lit:€to stay’ type in contexts which correspond to copular contexts in English (or Italian); however, other copular contexts have be. The relevant distinction appears to be between stage-level predicates (estar) and individual-level ones (ser). 9. In several Romance varieties, e.g. Spanish and Southern Italian dialects, the possession verb is of the type of tener (Spanish) ‘lit:€to hold’; however, have is attested as the necessity modal. 10. Legendre (2007) takes up again the evidence of Sorace (2000) providing a hierarchy of several verbal properties (displacement, telicity, etc.) ranked as a function of the property of blocking have; the auxiliary selection pattern of a language is a result of the ranking of the constraint *E (blocking be) within this hierarchy. We have no insight to offer on the ASH as an empirical generalization, nor on the categories of telicity, agentivity and others that are deemed to enter into it. When it comes to building such categories into the syntax, however, we note that much of the discussion in this work is predicated on the general idea that interpretive categories should be construed at the LF interface and not imported into the syntax for reasons of Interface Uniformity (Culicover and Jackendoff 2005) or for other reasons. 11. Kayne (2008b) attempts a different approach, in particular to the variation between Italian and French anticausatives. He argues that anticausative verbs are formed with a silent causative head. He assumes that in French, the perfect participle of this causative verb (like its overt counterpart) does not agree; if be requires an agreeing participle, this forces selection of have with the relevant class of verbs. In Italian, the participle of these causative verb sagrees, and be is selected. The problem is that, as we stressed in section 6.1, auxiliary selection and perfect participle agreement are independent phenomena. A key observation is that the assumption that

Notes to pages 224–240â•… 327 be implies participle agreement does not even hold in Romance languages, since in Montebello Ionico/Saline Ioniche, as in (18), in which have and be are in free variation, the participle remains non-agreeing with be as well. Furthermore, even if the implication held in Romance languages, it is not clear why it would not hold in Germanic languages (Kayne 2008a:€fn. 24) or in Albanian. 12. Another parameter of variation that we will disregard here concerns auxiliary alternations according to tense/aspect/mood (cf. Manzini and Savoia (2007), also McFadden (2007) for a survey, Cennamo (2002) and Ledgeway (2003b) for different views of Old Neapolitan). 13. Going back to the previous discussion of Kayne (2008b), we do not expect there to be an implicational relationship from perfect participle agreement to auxiliary selection (see the discussion in section 6.1 and in fn. 11)€ – nor, to take another recent proposal, do we expect that auxiliary selection will depend on the null-subject parameter (D’Alessandro and Roberts 2010). Specifically, D’Alessandro and Roberts propose that ‘If a language has person-driven auxiliary selection, that language must be a null-subject language’. However, the evidence concerning Molina in (39) and Briga in (41) shows that Northern Italian varieties can have person splits in auxiliary selection, even though they are subject-clitic languages. Two responses are possible to this objection€ – and both of them seem problematic to us. First, subject-clitic languages could be null-subject languages (Rizzi 1986); but note that French has never been taken to be€– and the overall variation picture within Romance establishes the continuity between French and Northern Italian. A second answer could be that the generalization only holds for auxiliary selection according to person of the simple type in section 6.1, excluding alternations according to both person and transitivity/voice. In fact, nothing in D’Alessandro and Roberts (2010) leads us to believe that they take their theory to apply to cases like Molina or Briga. But if so, this is a further problem for them. 14. In fact, on the basis of existing morphophonological evidence, one may want to argue that, on the contrary, be is derived from have. The interesting thing is that the be auxiliary in (44a–a’) is actually the result of combining the have auxiliary in (44b) with the s morpheme. Manzini and Savoia (2005) suggest that the latter could be identified with the si middle-passive clitic. 7

The noun (phrase):€agreement, case and definiteness in an Albanian variety

1. See Savoia (2008) on the microvariation between the nominal systems of Vena itself and two other Arbëresh varieties, Ginestra and Casalvecchio. If the Vena language fairly systematically reflects the conditions of the standard, the two other varieties show properties more typical of languages in contact. The case system of the Gheg variety of Shkodër, largely coinciding with the standard, is considered by Manzini and Savoia (to appear). 2. The ablative ending -t survives only in a limited number of constructs, illustrated in (i), which for present purposes can be treated as idioms. Manzini and Savoia (to appear) deal with their counterpart in the variety of Shkodër, in which the ablative is more productive.

328â•… Notes to pages 240–256 (i)  vstit vazda-t∫ / rs-t∫ / gra-t∫ a garment girls-abl/ men-abl / women-pl ‘a girls’/ women’s/ men’s garment’ 3. An interesting issue that we do not address here concerns eventive nouns. The potential problem is that the genitive in this case lexicalizes not the possessor, which has a notoriously loose relation with the head noun, but what appears to be the internal argument of the eventive noun, which has a much stricter relation to it, as illustrated for the ne clitic of Italian in (i). (i) Ne ho disapprovato il furto of.it I.have disapproved the theft ‘I disapproved the theft of it’ We provisionally maintain the same characterization for the genitives in (i) as we have provided here for partitives/possessors. The reason is that in the languages that we analyse, all of them receive the same morphosyntactic treatment. It looks like the genitive is the all-purpose shape of a nominal complement€– though its interpretation is restricted when it satisfies certain argument slots of eventive nouns. It is implicit in the analysis of Romance in section 7.1 (and more explicit in Manzini and Savoia 2005, 2008a) that nouns are ergative structures of some sort, with the inflection and the determiner satisfying the (true) internal argument of the predicative base and at the same time the D (EPP) property of the noun phrase. On these grounds, we may expect that accusative and nominative are exclusively sentential cases, so that noun phrases are restricted to the oblique (genitive, by-phrase, locative, etc.). 4. An alternative view of the accusative inflection is also possible, under which –n() of Albanian (cf. –m of Latin in Chapter 8) is not so much a specialized nominal class morpheme as an operator-like element. Such a characterization brings it closer to the consonantal inflections of the oblique and of the nominative as well (cf. the discussion of Latin –s in Chapter 8). In this alternative view, the –n() inflection could be construed as introducing a CAUSE-type relation between the argument to which it attaches and another, superordinate argument (the causer, agent, etc.) within the sentential domain. In other words, in accusative marking languages the internal argument of the predicate would not be introduced directly but through an operator (the so-called accusative) akin to Chomsky’s (1995) v. We leave any further discussion of these ideas for future work. 5. A reinterpretation of case in terms of the basic syntactic categories N, D, etc. is proposed by Pesetsky (2008). However, while we construe N, D etc. categorizations as specifying the intrinsic properties of the so-called case morphemes, Pesetsky seems to have (roughly) case-assigning specifications (N for partitive, V for accusative etc.) in mind. 6. There is a tricky point involved here. We invoke the D closure for the definite reading of nominative singulars lexicalized only by a nominal class vowel€– while for indefinites we say that the relevant closure is provided by an indefinite quantifier. But indefinite EPP arguments also agree with a D inflection, leading one to question how this is compatible with the definiteness of the latter. We simply assume that the D

Notes to pages 256–283â•… 329 inflection can take scope over the lexical subject€– but if this results in an ill-formed structure (as in the case of indefinites), then it simply acts as a pronominal double of sorts. In fact, in a language like Italian, in which definite determiners are independently lexicalized, the D inflection of the verb alternates between doubling the lexical Â�subject and actually providing the EPP closure of the sentence, for the simple reason that Italian is a null-subject language. In other words, we are not introducing any ad hoc device here. 7. In recent work, in particular Cuervo (2003) for Spanish, based on Pylkkänen (2002), the dative interpretation is mediated by the postulation of Applicative heads. We will return to this proposal in chapter 8 in connection with Romanian, which also shows the genitive/dative syncretism and has the same structure as Albanian for the embedding of genitives. 8. In the sentence, multiple D positions correspond, for instance, to the multiple occurrences of subject clitics observed in Romance languages (cf. here chapter 4). 9. Another interesting question posed by Albanian concerns the fact that with possessives, the kinship term appears in the indefinite form. This phenomenon is reminiscent of the mutual exclusion between possessives and definiteness in languages like French or English. We may suggest that 1st and 2nd person possessives in Albanian are sufficient to lexicalize definiteness properties for the inflectional domain of the noun phrase otherwise lexicalized by the definite inflection€– therefore excluding the latter. With non-kinship terms, possessives appear in postnominal position, as do adjectives and genitives. 8

(Definite) denotation and case in Romance:€history and variation

1. Fillmore (1968) had already argued in favour of the equivalence of NP-k structures with P-NP ones, in both instances yielding a KP phrase. 2. Recall from the discussion in chapter 7 that ‘sentential’ scope amounts to scope of the Q(⊆) operator over the elementary event (the verb plus its internal argument(s)). Indeed, the Q(⊆) operator to which we reduce the dative denotes a superset-of relation between the argument to which the dative morphology attaches and the internal argument of the superordinate predicate, excluding the external argument (see also chapter 3 on the notion of elementary event, roughly corresponding to the VP of Chomsky (1995), as opposed to its vP). 3. Strictly speaking, then, the discussion in the text sketches an account for the syncretism of dative with locative, namely with one of the interpretations associated with the traditional ablative, leaving out the other main interpretation as instrumental. Similarly, the ablative of the Gheg Albanian variety of Shkodër, considered by Manzini and Savoia (to appear), essentially has a locative value. Providing a precise characterization for instrumental is beyond the scope of the present work. Note that, on the basis of the discussion in the text, we expect genitive/locative syncretisms as well. In effect, it is well known that with a subset of lexical bases of the I, II class denoting cities/towns and small islands, the locative is formed with the -i morphology of the genitive.

330â•… Notes to pages 303–309 4. In a subset of masculine singular adjectives and participles, the attributive alternant without -s differs from the predicative alternant with -s in the quality of the stressed vowel, cf. bien vs. bu-s ‘good’, but also ni@f vs. nf-s ‘new’, aviert ‘open’ vs. aviart-s. 5. The possessive, which behaves like an adjective, also alternates between sigmatic forms in copular contexts like (18c) and non-sigmatic forms when embedded under a definite determiner, as in (21b). An interesting issue is raised by examples like (20c) in which the asigmatic form of the possessive is in complementary distribution with the article. The mutual exclusion of determiners and articles in Romance varieties is discussed by Manzini and Savoia (2005). There we argue that the combination of the possessive with the noun itself introduces a type of D closure with kinship terms in particular (cf. also Longobardi 1994, 1996). Evidently, the same type of D closure excludes the –s quantificational inflection in examples like (20c). 6. While it is in principle possible to account for lack of agreement of the verb with the postposed subject by saying that it agrees with the expletive instead, as proposed by Chomsky (1995), in the work cited in the text we have argued against this analysis on empirical, as well as theoretical grounds. 7. It will be noticed that in (a) we have used a pre-auxiliary context, in (b) a context preceding a lexical verb and in (c) an enclitic context; this was done just to display the various morphologies in their fuller form.

References

Acquaviva, Paolo 1994. ‘The representation of operator-variable dependencies in sentential negation’, Studia Linguistica 48:€91–132. Adger, David and Quer, Joseph 2001. ‘The syntax and semantics of unselected embedded questions’, Language 77:€107–33. Adger, David and Ramchand, Gillian 2005. ‘Merge and move:€wh–dependencies revisited’, Linguistic Inquiry 36:€161–93. Alexiadou, Artemis and Anagnostopoulou, Elena 2004. ‘Voice morphology in the causative-inchoative alternation:€ evidence for a non-unified structural analysis of unaccusatives’, in A. Alexiadou, E. Anagnostopoulou and M. Everaert (eds.), The Unaccusativity Puzzle. Explorations of the Syntax-Lexicon Interface. Oxford Â�University Press, pp. 114–36. Anagnostopoulou, Elena 2003. ‘Participles and voice’, in A. Alexiadou, M. Rathert and A. von Stechow (eds.), Perfect Explorations. Berlin:€ Mouton De Gruyter, pp.1–36. Arsenijevic, Boban 2009. ‘Clausal complementation as relativization’, Lingua 119: 39–50. Bastiaansen, Marcel C., Oostenveld, Robert, Jensen, Ole and Hagoort, Peter 2008. ‘I see what you mean:€theta-power increases are involved in the retrieval of lexical semantic information’, Brain and Language 106:€15–28. Baker, Marc 2001. The Atoms of Language. New York:€Basic Books. Bayer, Josef 2006. ‘Nothing/nichts as negative polarity survivors?’, in H.-M. Gärtner, S. Beck, R. Eckardt, R. Musan and B. Stiebels (eds.), Between 40 and 60 Puzzles for Krifka:€a web festschrift for Manfred Krifka. Berlin:€Zentrum für Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft, Typologie und Universalienforschung (ZAS), pp. 5–30. Belletti, Adriana 1988. ‘The case of unaccusatives’, Linguistic Inquiry 19:€1–35. â•… 1990. Generalized Verb Movement. Turin:€Rosenberg & Sellier. â•… 2000. ‘Speculations on the possible source of expletive negation in Italian comparative clauses’, in G. Cinque and G. Salvi (eds.), Current Studies in Italian Syntax. Essays offered to Lorenzo Renzi. Amsterdam:€North Holland, pp. 19–37. â•… 2004. ‘Aspects of the Low IP Area’, in L. Rizzi (ed.), The Structure of IP and CP:€The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, Volume II. Oxford University Press, pp. 16–51. â•… 2008. ‘Answering strategies:€new information subjects and the nature of clefts’, in A. Belletti, Structures and Strategies. New York:€Routledge, pp. 242–65.

331

332â•… References Belletti, Adriana and Rizzi, Luigi 1981. ‘The syntax of ne:€some theoretical implications’, The Linguistic Review 1:€117–54. Belvin, Robert and den Dikken, Marcel 1997. ‘There, happens, to, be, have’, Lingua 101:€151–83. Benincà, Paola 2001. ‘On the position of Topic and Focus in the left periphery’, in G. Cinque and G. Salvi (eds.), Current Studies in Italian Syntax. Amsterdam:€North Holland, pp. 39–64. â•… 2006. ‘A detailed map of the left periphery of medieval Romance’, in R. Zanuttini, H. Campos, E. Herberger and P. Portner (eds), Negation, Tense, and Clausal Architecture:€ Crosslinguistic Investigations. Georgetown University Press, pp. 53–86. Benincà, Paola and Poletto, Cecilia 2004. ‘Topic, focus and V2:€defining the CP subÂ� layers’, in L. Rizzi (ed.), The Structure of IP and CP. The Cartography of Syntactic Structures. Volume II. Oxford University Press, pp. 52–75. â•… 2001. Alternation according to person in Italo-Romance’, in L. Brinton (ed.), Historical Linguistics 1999. Selected Â�Papers from the 14th International Conference on Historical Linguistics. Amsterdam:€Benjamins, pp. 63–74. â•… 2003. ‘Auxiliary selection and the semantics of unaccusativity’, Lingua 114: 447–71. Benveniste, Émile 1966. Problèmes de linguistique générale. Paris:€Gallimard. Besten den, Hans 1984. ‘On the interaction of root transformations and lexical deletive rules’, in W. Abraham (ed.), On the Formal Syntax of West-Germania, Amsterdam:€Benjamins, pp. 47–131. Bhatt, Rajesh and Pancheva, Roumyana 2006. ‘Conditionals’, in M. Everaert and H. van Riemsdijk (eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Syntax. Volume 1. Oxford:€Blackwell, pp. 638–87. Bobaljik, Jonathan 2008. ‘Missing persons:€ a case study in morphological universals’, The Linguistic Review, special issue Examples of Linguistic Universals 25: 203–30. Brody, Michael 2003. Towards an Elegant Syntax. London:€Routledge. Brunetti, Lisa 2004. A Unification of Focus. Padua:€Unipress. Brunot, Ferdinand and Bruneau, Charles 1969. Précis de grammaire historique de la langue française. Paris:€Masson et Cie. Burzio, Luigi 1986. Italian Syntax. Dordrecht:€Kluwer. Caha, Pavel 2009. The Nanosyntax of Case. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Tromsoe. Calabrese, Andrea 1998. ‘Some remarks on the Latin case system and its development in Romance’, in J. Lema and E. Trevino (eds.), Theoretical Advances on Romance Languages. Amsterdam:€John Benjamins, pp. 71–126. â•… 2008. ‘On absolute and contextual syncretism:€remarks on the structure of paradigms and on how to derive it’, in A. Nevins and A. Bachrach (eds.), The Bases of Inflectional Identity. Oxford University Press, pp. 156–205. Camaj, Martin 1984. Albanian Grammar. Wiesbaden:€Harrassowitz. Caponigro, Ivano and Polinsky, Maria 2008. ‘Everything is relative:€ evidence from Northwest Caucasian’, paper presented at the GLOW 31 Colloquium, University of Newcastle.

Referencesâ•… 333 Cennamo, Michela 2001. ‘L’inaccusatività in alcune varietà campane, teorie e dati a confronto’, in F. Albano Leoni, E. Stenta Krosbakken, R. Sornicola and C. Stromboli (eds.), Dati empirici e teorie linguistiche. Atti del XXXIII congresso internazionale di studi della SLI. Rome:€Bulzoni, pp. 427–53. â•… 2002. ‘La selezione degli ausiliari perfettivi in napoletano antico:€fenomeno sintattico o sintattico-semantico?’, Archivio Glottologico Italiano 87:€175–222. â•… 2008. ‘The rise and development of analytic perfects in Italo-Romance’, in T. Eythórsson (ed.), Grammatical Change and Linguistic Theory:€the Rosendal Papers. Amsterdam:€Benjamins, 115–42. â•… 2010. ‘Perfective auxiliaries in the pluperfect in some southern Italian dialects’, in R. D’Alessandro, A. Ledgeway and I. Roberts (eds.), Syntactic Variation:€the Dialects of Italy. Cambridge University Press, 210–24. Cennamo, Michela and Sorace, Antonella 2007. ‘Unaccusativity at the syntax-lexicon interface:€evidence from Paduan’, in R. Aranovich (ed.), Split Auxiliary Systems:€a Cross–linguistic Perspective. Amsterdam:€Benjamins, pp. 65–100. Cheng, Lisa 1991. On the Typology of Wh–questions. Ph.D. Dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Mass. Chierchia, Gennaro 1995. ‘Impersonal subjects’, in E. Bach, E. Jellinek, A. Kratz and B. H. Partee (eds.), Quantification in Natural Languages. Dordrecht:€ Kluwer, pp. 107–43. â•… 1998. ‘Reference to kinds across language’, Natural Language Â�Semantics 6:€339– 405. â•… 2004. ‘A semantics for unaccusatives and its syntactic consequences’, in A. Alexiadou, E. Anagnostopoulou and M. Everaert (eds.), The Unaccusativity Puzzle: Â�Explorations of the Syntax-Lexicon Interface. Oxford University Press, pp. 22–59. Chomsky, Noam 1957. Syntactic Structures. The Hague:€Mouton. â•… 1965. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, Mass.:€MIT Press. â•… 1973. ‘Conditions on transformations’, in S. Anderson and P. Kiparsky (eds.),â•› A Festschrift for Morris Halle. New York:€Holt, Rinehart and Winston, pp. 232–86. â•… 1975 [1955]. The Logical Structure of Linguistic Theory. New York:€Plenum. â•… 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht:€Foris. â•… 1986. Knowledge of Language, New York:€Praeger. â•… 1995. The Minimalist Program, Cambridge Mass.:€MIT Press. â•… 2000a. ‘Minimalist inquiries:€ the framework’, in R. Martin, D. Michaels and J. Uriagereka (eds.), Step by Step. Cambridge, Mass.:€MIT Press, pp. 89–155. â•… 2000b. New Horizons in the Study of Language and Mind. Cambridge University Press. â•… 2001. ‘Derivation by phase’, in M. Kenstowicz (ed.), Ken Hale:€A Life in Language. Cambridge, Mass.:€MIT Press, pp. 1–52. â•… 2002. On Nature and Language. Cambridge University Press. â•… 2005. ‘Three factors in language design’, Linguistic Inquiry 36:€1–22. â•… 2008. ‘On Phases’, in R. Freidin, C. Otero and M.-L. Zubizarreta (eds.), Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory. Essays in Honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud. Cambridge, Mass.:€MIT Press, pp. 133–66. Chomsky, Noam and Lasnik, Howard 1977. ‘Filters and control’, Linguistic Inquiry 8:€425–504.

334â•… References Cinque, Guglielmo 1990. Types of A’-Dependencies. Cambridge, Mass.:€MIT Press. â•… 1995. Italian Syntax and Universal Grammar. Cambridge University Press. â•… 1999. Adverbs and Functional Heads:€a Cross-linguistic Perspective. Oxford University Press. â•… 2006. Restructuring and Functional Heads:€the Cartography of Syntactic Structures Volume 4. Oxford University Press. Cinque, Guglielmo and Rizzi, Luigi 2008. ‘The cartography of syntactic structures’, Studies in Linguistics 2, University of Siena, pp. 42–58. Cocchi, Gloria 1995. La selezione dell’ausiliare. Padua:€Unipress. Cocchi, Gloria and Poletto, Cecilia 2002. ‘Complementizer deletion in Florentine’, in C. Beyssade, R. Bok-Bennema, F. Drijkoningen and P. Monachesi (eds.),â•› Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 2000. Amsterdam:€Benjamins, pp. 57–76. Cornilescu, Alexandra 1995. ‘Rumanian genitive constructions’, in G. Cinque and G. Giusti (eds.), Advances in Rumanian Linguistics. Amsterdam:€ Benjamins, pp. 1–54. Cruschina, Silvio 2010 ‘Fronting as focalization in Sicilian’, in R. D’Alessandro, A. Ledgeway and I. Roberts (eds.), Syntactic Variation. The Dialects of Italy. Cambridge University Press, pp. 247–60. Cuervo, María C. 2003. Datives at Large. Ph.D. Dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Mass. Culicover, Peter and Jackendoff, Ray 2005. Simpler Syntax. Oxford University Press. â•… 2006. ‘The simpler syntax hypothesis’, Trends in Cognitive Sciences 10:€413–18. D’Alessandro, Roberta and Ledgeway, Adam 2010. ‘At the C-T boundary:€investigating Abruzzese complementation’, Lingua 120:€2040–60. D’Alessandro, Roberta and Roberts, Ian 2010. ‘Past participle agreement in Abruzzese:€ split auxiliary selection and the null-subject parameter’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 28:€41–72. Damonte, Federico 2006. ‘Complementatori e complementi congiuntivi in alcuni dialetti sardi’, Quaderni di lavoro dell’ASIt 6:€71–95. Davidson, Donald 1997 [1968]. ‘On saying that’, in P. Ludlow (ed.), Readings in the Philosophy of Language, Cambridge, Mass.:€MIT Press, pp. 817–32. Davis, Henry 1999. ‘Subject inflection in Salish’, UBC Working Papers in Linguistics 1, University of British Columbia, pp. 181–241. De Dardel, Robert and Gaeng, Paul 1992. ‘La déclinaison nominale du latin non classique:€essai d’une méthode de synthèse’, Probus 4:€91–125. Dehaene, Stanislas, Izard, Veronique, Pica, Pierre and Spelke, Elizabeth 2006. ‘Core knowledge of geometry in an Amazonian indigene group’, Science 311: 381–4. DeLancey, Scott 1981. ‘An interpretation of split ergativity and related patterns’, Language 57:€626–57. Diaconescu, Constanţa R. and Rivero, María Luisa 2007. ‘An applicative analysis of double object constructions in Romanian’, Probus 19:€209–33. Dimitrova-Vulchanova, Mila and Giusti, Giuliana 1998. ‘Fragments of Balkan nominal structure’, in A. Alexiadou and C. Wilder (eds.), Possessors, Predicates and Movement in the Determiner Phrase. Amsterdam:€Benjamins, pp. 333–60.

Referencesâ•… 335 Dikken, Marcel den 1998. ‘Predicate inversion in DP’, in A. Alexiadou and C. Wilder (eds.),â•› Possessors, Predicates and Movement in the Determiner Phrase. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 177–214. Dixon, Robert M. W. 1994. Ergativity. Cambridge University Press. Dobrovie-Sorin, Carmen 1987. ‘A propos de la structure du groupe nominal en Roumain’, Rivista di Grammatica Generativa 12:€123–52. â•… 1998. ‘Impersonal se constructions in Romance and the Â�passivization of unergatives’, Linguistic Inquiry 29:€399–437. Embick, David 2000. ‘Features, syntax and categories in the Latin perfect’, Linguistic Inquiry 31:€185–230. Epstein, Samuel and Seely, T. Daniel 2006. Derivations in Minimalism. Cambridge Â�University Press. Ernst, Thomas 2002. The Syntax of Adjuncts. Cambridge University Press. Fici, Francesca, Manzini, M. Rita and Savoia, Leonardo M. 2001. ‘Clitics in Macedonian’, in G. Zybatov, U. Junghanns, G. Melhorn and L. Szucsich (eds.), Current Issues in Formal Slavic Linguistics. Frankfurt:€Peter Lang, pp. 148–58. Fillmore, Charles 1968. ‘The case for case’, in E. Bach and R. Harms (eds.), Universals in Linguistic Theory. London:€Holt, Rinehart and Winston, pp. 1–88. Fodor, Jerry 1983. The Modularity of Mind. Cambridge, Mass.:€MIT Press. Formentin, Vittorio 1998. ‘Commento Linguistico’, in Loise De Rosa, Ricordi, Tomo I. Rome:€Salerno Editrice. Frascarelli, Mara and Hinterhölzl, Roland 2007. ‘Types of topics in German and Italian’, in S. Winkler and K. Schwabe (eds.), On Information Structure, Meaning and Form. Amsterdam:€Benjamins, pp. 87–116. Freeze, Ray 1992. ‘Existentials and other locatives’, Language 68:€553–95. Garzonio, Jacopo and Poletto, Cecilia 2009. ‘Quantifiers as negative markers in Italian dialects’, Linguistic Variation Yearbook 9:€127–52. Geis M. 1970. Adverbial Subordinate Clauses in English. Ph.D. Dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Mass. Giannakidou A. 1998. Polarity Sensitivity as (Non-)veridical Dependency. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Giorgi, Alessandra and Pianesi, Fabio 1998. Tense and Aspect. From Semantics to Morphosyntax. New York:€Oxford University Press. â•… 2004. ‘Complementizer deletion in Italian’, in L. Rizzi (ed.), The Structure of CP and IP:€the Cartography of Syntactic Â�Structures. Volume 2. Oxford University Press, pp. 190–210. Giusti, Giuliana 1995. ‘A unified structural representation of (abstract) case and article’, in H. Haider, S. Olsen and S. Vikner (eds.), Studies in Comparative Germanic Syntax. Dordrecht:€Kluwer, pp. 77–93. â•… 2001. ‘The rise of a functional category from Latin ILLE to the Â�Romance article and personal pronouns’, in G. Cinque and G. Salvi (eds.), Current Studies in Italian Syntax. Amsterdam:€North Holland, pp. 265–86. Giusti, Giuliana and Turano, Giuseppina 2007. ‘Case assignment in the pseudoÂ�partitives of Standard Albanian and Arbëresh:€a case for micro-variation’, Quaderni del Â�Dipartimento di Linguistica dell’Università di Firenze 17:€33–51.

336â•… References Grimshaw, Jane 1979. ‘Complement selection and the lexicon’, Linguistic Inquiry 10:€279–326. Haegeman, Liliane 2007. ‘Operator movement and topicalization in adverbial clauses’, Folia Linguistica 41:€279–325. â•… 2009. ‘The movement derivation of conditional clauses’, ms., University Â� of Ghent. Haegeman, Liliane and Zanuttini, Raffaella 1991. ‘Negative heads and the NEG criterion’, The Linguistic Review 8:€233–51. Haiman, John 1988. ‘Rhaeto-Romance’, in M. Harris and N. Vincent (eds.), The Â�Romance Languages. London:€Routledge, pp. 351–90. Hale, Ken and Keyser, Samuel J. 1993. ‘On argument structure and the lexical expression of syntactic relations’, in K. Hale and S. J. Keyser (eds.), The View from Building 20. Cambridge, Mass.:€MIT Press, pp. 53–109. Halle, Morris and Marantz, Alec 1993. ‘Distributed morphology and the pieces of Â�inflection’. In K. Hale and S. J. Keyser (eds.), The View from Building 20. Cambridge, Mass.:€MIT Press, pp. 111–76. Halle, Morris and Vaux, Bert 1997. ‘Theoretical aspects of Indo-European nominal morphology:€ the nominal declension of Latin and Armenian’, in J. Jasanoff, C. Melchert and L. Olivier (eds.), Mir Curad. A Festschrift in Honor of Calvert Watkins, University of Innsbruck. Harley, Heidi and Ritter, Elizabeth 2002. ‘Person and number in pronouns:€a featuregeometric analysis’, Language 78:€482–526. Harris, James and Halle, Morris 2005. ‘Unexpected plural inflections in Spanish:€reduplication and metathesis’, Linguistic Inquiry 36:€195–222. Haspelmath, Martin 1997. Indefinite Pronouns. Oxford:€Clarendon Press. Hauser, Marc, Chomsky, Noam and Fitch, W. Tecumseh 2002. ‘The faculty of language:€what is it, who has it and how did it evolve?’, Science 298:€1569–79. Heim, Irene 1982. The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases. GSLA, Dept. of Linguistics, University of Massachussets at Amherst. Hespos, Susan and Spelke, Elizabeth 2004. ‘Conceptual precursors to language’,â•› Nature 430:€453–6. Higginbotham, James 1985. ‘On semantics’, Linguistics Inquiry 16:€547–93. Hoekstra, Teun and Mulder, René 1990. ‘Unergatives as copular verbs:€locational and existential predication’, The Linguistic Review 7:€1–79. Holton, David, Mackridge, Peter and Philippaki-Warburton, Irene 1997. Greek Grammar:€a Comprehensive Grammar of the Greek Language. London:€Routledge [2nd edition, 1999]. Horn, Laurence 1989. A Natural History of Negation. Chicago University Press. Hornstein, Norbert 1999. ‘Movement and control’, Linguistic Inquiry 30:€69–96. Jackendoff, Ray 1972. Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, Mass.:€MIT Press. â•… 1994. Patterns in the Mind:€Language and Human Nature. New York: Basic Books. â•… 2002. Foundations of Language. Oxford University Press. Johnson, Kyle 1991. ‘Object positions’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 9, 577–637. Johnston, Jason 1997. Systematic Homonymy and the Structure of Morphological Categories:€ Some Lessons from Paradigm Geometry. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Sydney.

Referencesâ•… 337 Jones, Michael 1993. Sardinian Syntax. London:€Routledge. Kallulli, Dalina 2006. ‘A unified analysis of passives, anticausatives and reflexives’, in O. Bonami and P. Cabredo Hofherr (eds.), Empirical Issues in Formal Syntax and Semantics 6, pp. 201–25. Kayne, Richard 1975. French Syntax:€ the Transformational Cycle. Cambridge, Mass.:€MIT Press. â•… 1976. ‘French relative “que”’, in F. Hensey and M. Luján (eds.), Current Studies in Romance Linguistics, Washington, DC:€ Georgetown University Press, pp. 255–99. â•… 1984. Connectedness and Binary Branching. Dordrecht:€Foris. â•… 1991. ‘Romance clitics, verb movement and PRO’, Linguistic Inquiry 22:€647–86. â•… 1993. ‘Toward a modular theory of auxiliary selection’, Studia Linguistica 47:€3–31. â•… 1994. The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge, Mass.:€MIT Press. â•… 2006. ‘On the parameters and on principles of pronunciation’, in H. Broekhuis, N. Corver, R. Huybregts, U. Kleinhenz and J. Koster (eds.), Organizing Grammar:€ Linguistic Studies in Honor of Henk van Riemsdijk. Berlin:€ Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 289–99. â•… 2008a. ‘Expletives, datives and the tension between morphology and syntax’, in M. T. Biberauer (ed.), The Limits of Syntactic Variation. Amsterdam:€Benjamins, pp. 175–217. â•… 2008b. ‘A note on auxiliary alternations and silent causation’, ms., New York Â�University. â•… 2009. Some silent first person plurals. Merging Features. Oxford Scholarship Online Monographs, pp. 276–93. â•… 2010. ‘Why isn’t this a complementizer?’, in Comparisons and Contrasts. Oxford University Press. Kayne, Richard and Pollock, Jean-Yves 2001. New thoughts on stylistic inversion’, in A. Hulk and J.-Y. Pollock (eds.), Subject Inversion in Romance and the Theory of Universal Grammar. Oxford University Press, pp. 107–62. Kiparsky, Paul 1982. Explanation in Phonology. Dordrecht:€Foris. Kiparsky, Paul and Kiparsky, Carol 1970. ‘Fact’, in M. Bierwish and K. E. Eidolph (eds.), Progress in Linguistics. The Hague:€Mouton, pp. 143–73. Klamer, Marian 2000. ‘How report verbs become quote markers and complementisers’, Lingua 110:€69–98. Kratzer, Angelika 2000. ‘Building statives’, paper delivered at the Berkeley Linguistic Society 26, http://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/GI5MmI0M/kratzer.building. statives.pdf. Labov, William 1994. Principles of Linguistic Change:€Internal Factors. Oxford:€Blackwell. La Fauci, Nunzio and Loporcaro, Michele 1989. ‘Passifs, avancements de l’objet indirect et formes verbales périphrastiques dans le dialecte d’Altamura (Pouilles)’, Rivista di linguistica, 1:€161–96. Laka, Itziar 1990. Negation in Syntax:€ on the Nature of Functional Categories and Projections. Ph.D. Dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Mass. Larson, Richard 1985. ‘On the syntax of disjunction scope’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 3:€217–64.

338â•… References â•… 1987. ‘“Missing prepositions” and the analysis of English free relative clauses’, Linguistic Inquiry 18:€239–66. â•… 1988. ‘On the double object construction’, Linguistic Inquiry 19:€335–91. Lebeaux, David 1984. ‘Anaphoric binding and the definition of PRO’, in C. Jones and P. Sells (eds.), Proceedings of NELS 14, GLSA, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Mass. Ledgeway, Adam 2003a. ‘Il sistema completivo dei dialetti meridionali:€la doppia serie di complementatori’, Rivista Italiana di Dialettologia 27:€89–147. â•… 2003b. ‘L’estensione dell’ausiliare perfettivo avere nell’antico napoletano:€ Intransitività scissa condizionata da fattori modali’, Archivio Glottologico Italiano 88:€27–71. â•… 2005. ‘Moving through the left periphery:€ the dual complementiser system in the dialects of Southern Italy’, Transactions of the Philological Society 103:€339–96. â•… 2009. ‘Aspetti della sintassi della periferia sinistra del cosentino’, in D. Pescarini (ed.), Studi sui dialetti della Calabria (Quaderni di lavoro ASIt 9), pp. 3–24. Legendre, Geraldine 2007. ‘Optimizing auxiliary selection in Romance’, in R. Aranovich (ed.), Split Auxiliary Systems. Amsterdam:€John Benjamins, pp. 145–80. â•… 2010. ‘A formal typology of person-based auxiliary selection in Italo-Romance’, in R. D’Alessandro, A. Ledgeway and I. Roberts (eds.), Syntactic Variation:€the Dialects of Italy. Cambridge University Press, pp. 86–101. Lenneberg, Eric H. 1967. Biological Foundations of Language. New York:€Wiley. Lewis, David 1975. ‘Adverbs of quantification’, in E. Keenan (ed.), Formal Semantics of Natural Language. Cambridge University Press, pp. 3–15. Lieberman, Philip 1991. Uniquely Human:€the Evolution of Speech, Thought, and Selfless Behaviour. Cambridge, Mass.:€Harvard University Press. Löbner, Sebastian 1989. ‘German schon€– erst€– noch:€an integrated analysis’, Linguistics and Philosopy 12:€167–212. Longobardi, Giuseppe 1992. ‘In defence of the correspondence hypothesis:€ island effects and parasitic constructions in Logical Form’, in J. Huang and R. May (eds.), Logical Structure and Linguistic Theory. Dordrecht:€ Kluwer, pp. 149–96. â•… 1994. ‘Reference and proper names:€a theory of N-movement in syntax and Logical Form’, Linguistic Inquiry 25:€609–65. â•… 1996. ‘The syntax of N-raising:€a minimalist theory’, OTS Working Papers in Linguistics. Utrecht University. â•… 2000. ‘The structure of DPs:€some principles, parameters and problems’, in M. Baltin and C. Collins (eds.), Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory. Oxford: Blackwell. â•… 2001. ‘Formal syntax, diachronic minimalism and etymology:€the history of French chez’, Linguistic Inquiry 32:€275–302. Loporcaro, Michele 1988. Grammatica storica del dialetto di Altamura. Pisa:€Giardini. â•… 2001. ‘La selezione degli ausiliari nei dialetti italiani:€ Dati e teorie’, in F. Albano Leoni, E. Stenta Krosbakken, R. Sornicola and C. Stromboli (eds.), Dati empirici e teorie linguistiche. Atti del XXXIII congresso internazionale di studi della SLI. Rome:€Bulzoni, pp. 455–76. â•… 2007. ‘On triple auxiliation in Romance’, Linguistics 45:€173–222.

Referencesâ•… 339 McCloskey, James 2004. ‘Questions and questioning in a local English’, in R. Zanuttini, H. Campos, E. Herburger and P. Portner (eds.),â•› Negation, Tense and Clausal Architecture:€ Cross–Linguistic Investigations. Georgetown University Press, pp. 87–126. McFadden, Thomas 2007. ‘Auxiliary selection’, Language and Linguistics Compass 1:€674–708. MacSwan, Jeff 2000. ‘The architecture of the bilingual language faculty:€evidence from intrasentential code switching’, Bilingualism:€Language and Cognition 3:€37–54. Manzini, M. Rita 1982. ‘Italian prepositions before infinitives’. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 3:€115–22. â•… 1986. ‘On Italian si’, in H. Borer (ed.), The Syntax of Pronominal Clitics (Syntax and Semantics vol. 18). New York:€Academic Press, pp. 241–62. â•… 2000. ‘Sentential complementation:€the subjunctive’, in P. Coopmans, M. Everaert and J. Grimshaw (eds.), Lexical Specification and Insertion. Amsterdam:€ John Benjamins, pp. 241–67. â•… 2009. ‘Pro, pro and NP-trace (raising) are interpretations’, in K. Grohmann (ed.), Phase Theory:€Features, Arguments, Interpretations. Amsterdam/Oxford:€Elsevier, pp. 131–80. Manzini, M. Rita and Roussou, Anna 2000. ‘A minimalist theory of A-movement and control’, Lingua 110:€409–47. Manzini, M. Rita, Roussou, Anna and Savoia, Leonardo M. forthcoming ‘Voice morphology in Albanian and Greek’, in S. Özsoy and A. Gürel (eds.), Current Issues in Mediterranean Syntax. Manzini, M. Rita and Savoia, Leonardo M. 1998. ‘Clitics and auxiliary choice in Italian dialects:€their relevance for the Person ergativity split’, Recherches Linguistiques de Vincennes 27:€115–38. â•… 2002. ‘Negative adverbs are neither Adv nor Neg’, in Masako Hirotani (ed.), Proceedings of North East Linguistic Society 32, GLSA, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, pp. 327–46. â•… 2003. ‘The nature of complementizers’, Rivista di Grammatica Generativa 28:€87– 110. â•… 2005. I dialetti italiani e romanci. Morfosintassi generativa, Alessandria:€Edizioni dell’Orso, 3 vols. â•… 2007. A Unification of Morphology and Syntax:€Studies in Romance and Albanian Dialects. London:€Routledge. â•… 2008a. Work Notes on Romance Morphosyntax:€Appunti di morfosintassi romanza, Alessandria, Edizioni dell’Orso. â•… 2008b. ‘Uninterpretable features are incompatible in morphology with other minimalist postulates’, in R. Freidin, C. Otero and M. L. Zubizarreta (eds.), Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory. Cambridge, Mass.:€MIT Press, pp. 43–72. â•… 2008c. ‘Non-active voice in Albanian:€implications for the theory of movement’, in L. M. Savoia, Studi sulle varietà arbëreshe, Università degli Studi della Calabria, Rende. â•… 2009a. ‘Mesoclisis in the imperative:€ phonology, morphology or syntax?’, in V. Moscati and E. Servidio (eds.), Proceedings XXVIII Incontro di Grammatica Generativa, Studies in Linguistics on line 3, Università di Siena, pp. 51–76.

340â•… References â•… 2009b. ‘Morphology dissolves into syntax:€ infixation and doubling in Romance languages’, Annali online dell’Università di Ferrara. Sezione di Lettere IV, 1:€1–28.n. â•… 2010. ‘Syncretism and suppletivism in clitic systems:€underspecification, silent clitics or neither?’, in R. D’Alessandro, A. Ledgeway and I. Roberts (eds.), Syntactic Variation:€the Dialects of Italy. Cambridge University Press, pp. 86–101. â•… to appear. ‘Reducing “case” to “agreement”:€nominal inflections in the Geg Albanian variety of Shkodër’, Linguistic Variation Yearbook. Manzini, M. Rita and Wexler, Kenneth 1987. ‘Binding theory, parameters and learnability’, Linguistic Inquiry 18:€413–44. Marantz, Alec 1984. On the Nature of Grammatical Relations. Cambridge, Mass.:€MIT Press. â•… 1997. ‘No escape from syntax:€don’t try morphological analysis in the privacy of your own lexicon’, in A. Dimitriadis, L. Sieger, Cl. Surek-Clark and A. Williams (eds.) Proceedings of the 21st Annual Penn Linguistics Colloquium, U. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics 4.2, pp. 201–25. Mensching, Guido and Remberger, Eva-Maria 2010. ‘Focus fronting and the left periphery in Sardinian’, in R. D’Alessandro, A. Ledgeway and I. Roberts (eds.), Syntactic Variation:€the Dialects of Italy. Cambridge University Press, pp. 261–76. Meyer-Lübke, Wilhelm 1899. Grammatik der Romanischen Sprachen. Dritter Band:€Syntax. Leipzig. Michaelis, Laura 1996. ‘On the use and meaning of already’, Linguistics and Philosophy 19:€477–502. Mioto, Carlos 2003. ‘Focalização e quantificação’, Revista Letras 61:€169–89. Moro, Andrea 1997. The Raising of Predicates. Cambridge University Press. Newmeyer, Frederick 2005. ‘On split CPs, uninterpretable features and the “perfectness” of language’, ZAS Papers in Linguistics 35, pp. 399–422. Nichols, Johanna 1992. Linguistic Diversity in Space and Time. Chicago University Press. Nilsen, Øystein 2003. Eliminating Positions, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Utrecht. Origgi, Gloria and Sperber, Dan 2000. ‘Evolution communication and the proper function of language’, in P. Carruthers and A. Chamberlain (eds.), Evolution and the Human Mind:€Language, Modularity and Social Cognition. Cambridge University Press, pp. 140–69. Paoli, Sandra 2007. ‘The fine structure of the left periphery:€ COMPs and Subjects. Evidence from Romance’, Lingua 117:€1057–79. â•… 2010. ‘In focus:€ an investigation of information and contrastive constructions’, in R. D’Alessandro, A. Ledgeway and I. Roberts (eds.), Syntactic Variation:€the Dialects of Italy. Cambridge University Press, pp. 277–91. Parry, M. Mair 1995. ‘Some observations on the syntax of clitic pronouns in Piedmontese’, in M. Maiden and J. C. Smith (eds.), The Romance Languages and Contemporary Linguistic Theory. Amsterdam:€Benjamins, pp. 133–60. â•… 1997. ‘Preverbal negation and clitic ordering, with particular reference to a group of North-West Italian dialects’, Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie 113: 244–70.

Referencesâ•… 341 Parsons, Terence 1990. Events in the Semantics of English. Cambridge, Mass., MIT Press. Pesetsky, David 1982. Paths and Categories. Ph.D. Dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Mass. â•… 1985. ‘Morphology and logical form’, Linguistic Inquiry 16: 193–246. â•… 1991. Zero Syntax vol. 2:€Infinitives. Ms., MIT, Cambridge, Mass. â•… 2008. ‘Russian case morphology and the syntactic categories’, paper delivered at the Mediterranean Syntax Meeting€ – II, Bogazici University, Istanbul, 16 Â�October. Pesetsky, David and Torrego, Esther 2007. ‘The syntax of valuation and the interpretability of features’, in S. Karimi, V. Samiian and W. Wilkins (eds.), Phrasal and Clausal Architecture. Amsterdam:€Benjamins, pp. 262–94. Philippaki-Warburton, Irene 1973. ‘Modern Greek verb conjugation:€inflectional morphology in a transformational grammar’, Lingua 32:€193–226. Poletto, Cecilia 2000. The Higher Functional Field. Oxford University Press. â•… 2001. ‘Complementizer deletion and verb movement in standard Italian’, in G. Cinque and G. Salvi (eds.), Current Studies in Italian Syntax. Amsterdam:€North Holland, pp. 265–86. Poletto, Cecilia and Vanelli, Laura 1995. ‘Gli introduttori delle frasi interrogative nei dialetti italiani settentrionali’, in E. Banfi, G. Bonfadini, P. Cordin and M. Iliescu (eds.), Italia settentrionale:€crocevia di idiomi romanzi. Tübingen:€Niemeyer, pp. 145–58. Pollock, Jean-Yves 1989. ‘Verb movement, universal grammar and the structure of IP’, Linguistic Inquiry 20:€365–424. Polinsky, Maria and Potsdam, Eric 2006. ‘Expanding the scope of control and raising’, in B. Davies and S. Dubinsky (eds.), Special Issue on Raising and Control. Syntax 9:€171–9. Postal, Paul 1974. On Raising. Cambridge, Mass.:€MIT Press. Pulvermüller, Friedemann 1999. ‘Words in the brain’s language’, Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22:€253–336. Pylkkänen, Liina 2002. Introducing Arguments. Ph.D. Dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Mass. Ralli, Angeliki 1988. Eléments de la morphologie du Grec Moderne:€La structure du verbe. Doctoral dissertation, University of Montreal. â•… 2005. Morfologia. Athens:€Patakis. Reinhart, Tanya 1997. Syntactic Effects of Lexical Operations:€Reflexives and Unaccusatives. OTS Working Papers in Linguistics, Utrecht University. Reinhart, Tanya and Siloni, Tali 2005. ‘The Lexicon-Syntax parameter:€reflexivization and other arity operations’, Linguistic Inquiry 36:€389–436. Renzi, Lorenzo 1987. ‘Le développement de l’article en roman’, in C. Buridant (ed.), Romanistique€ – Germanistique:€ une confrontation. University of Â�Strasbourg, pp. 297–317. Rivero, María Luisa 1994. ‘Clause structure and V-movement in the languages of the Balkans’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 12:€63–120. Rizzi, Luigi 1982. Issues in Italian Syntax. Dordrecht:€Foris. â•… 1986. ‘On the status of subject clitics in Romance’, in O. Jaeggli and C. Silva-Â�Corvalan (eds.), Studies in Romance Linguistics. Dordrecht:€Foris, pp. 391–419.

342â•… References â•… 1990. Relativized Minimality. Cambridge, Mass.:€MIT Press. â•… 1996. ‘Residual verb second and the wh–criterion’, in A. Belletti and L. Rizzi (eds.), Parameters and Functional Heads. Oxford University Press, pp. 63–90. â•… 1997. ‘The fine structure of the left periphery’, in L. Haegeman (ed.), Elements of Grammar. Dordrecht:€Kluwer, pp. 281–337. â•… 2001. ‘On the position “Int(errogative)” in the left periphery of the clause’, in G. Cinque and G. Salvi (eds.), Current Studies in Italian Syntax. Amsterdam:€North Holland, pp. 287–96. â•… 2004. ‘Locality and left periphery’, in A. Belletti (ed.), Structures and Beyond. Â�Volume 3:€ The Cartography of Syntactic Structures. Oxford University Press, pp. 223–51. Roberts, Ian 1993. ‘The nature of subject clitics in Franco-Provençal Valdotain’, in A. Belletti (ed.), Syntactic Theory and the Dialects of Italy. Turin:€Rosenberg & Sellier, pp. 319–53. Roberts, Ian and Roussou, Anna 2003. Syntactic Change. Cambridge University Press. Rohlfs, Gerhard 1969[1954]. Grammatica storica della lingua italiana e dei suoi dialetti. Sintassi e formazione delle parole. Turin:€Einaudi. â•… 1977. Le guascon. Tübingen:€Niemeyer. Ronjat, Jules 1937. Grammaire Istorique des Parlers Provençaux Modernes. t.III. Montpellier:€Société des Langues Romanes. Rooryck, Johan 2009. ‘A compositional analysis of French negation’, ms., University of Leiden. Rosenbaum, Peter 1967. The Grammar of English Predicate Complement Constructions. Cambridge, Mass.:€MIT Press. Roussou, Anna 1994. The Syntax of Complementizers. Ph.D. Dissertation, University College London. â•… 2008. ‘Voice morphology and ergativity in Modern Greek’. Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Greek Linguistics (ICGL8), University of Ioannina. â•… 2009. ‘In the mood for control’, in J. Quer (ed.), Lingua 119 (Special Issue on Mood):€1811–36. â•… 2010. ‘Subjects on the edge’, in Ph. Panagiotidis (ed.), The Complementizer Phase. Oxford University Press, pp. 76–116. Saccon, Graziella 1992. VP-internal arguments and locative subjects. Proceedings of NELS 22, GLSA, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, pp. 383–97. Santorini, Beatrice 1989. The Generalization of the Verb-Second Constraint in the Â�History of English. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. Savoia, Leonardo M. 2008. Studi sulle varietà arbёreshe. Università della Calabria, Rende. Savoia, Leonardo M. and Manzini, M. Rita 2007. ‘Variazione sintattica nel costrutto ausiliare Arbёresh:€la variazione come problema teorico’, in Minoranze Linguistiche. Prospettive, strumenti, territori. Rome:€Carocci, pp. 85–102. â•… 2010. ‘Lexicalization of 3rd person object clitics:€clitic enclisis and clitic drop’, in R. D’Alessandro, A. Ledgeway and I. Roberts (eds.), Syntactic Variation:€the Dialects of Italy. Cambridge University Press:€102–18. Schmid, Heinrich 1951/52. ‘Zur Geschichte der rätoromanischen Deklination’, Vox Romanica 12:€21–81.

Referencesâ•… 343 Schwartz, Bonnie and Vikner, Sten 1996. ‘The verb always leaves IP in V2 clauses’, in A. Belletti and L. Rizzi (eds.), Parameters and Functional Heads. Oxford University Press, pp. 11–62. Sgrilli, Paola 1983. Il “Libro di Sidrac” salentino. Pisa:€Pacini. Shlonsky, Ur 1994. ‘Agreement in comp’, The Linguistic Review 11:€351–75. Solano, Francesco 1972. Manuale di lingua albanese. Corigliano Calabro. Sorace, Antonella 2000. ‘Gradients in auxiliary selection with intransitive verbs’, Language 76:€859–90. â•… 2004. ‘Gradience at the lexicon-syntax interface:€evidence from auxiliary selection and implications for unaccusativity’, in A. Alexiadou, E. Anagnostopoulou and M. Everaert (eds.), The Unaccusativity Puzzle:€ Explorations of the Syntax-Lexicon Interface. Oxford University Press, pp. 243–87. Sperber, Dan and Wilson, Deirdre 1986. Relevance. Oxford:€Blackwell. Starke, Michal 2004. ‘On the inexistence of Specifiers and the nature of heads’, in A. Belletti (ed.) Structures and Beyond. Oxford University Press. â•… 2009. ‘Nanosyntax:€a short primer to a new approach to language’, Nordlyd (Tromsoe University Working Papers in Language and Linguistics) 36.1:€1–6. Stowell, Timothy 1981. Origins of Phrase Structure. Ph.D. Dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Mass. Svenonius, Peter 2002. ‘Subject positions and the placement of adverbials’, in P. Svenonius (ed.), Subjects, Expletives and the EPP. Oxford University Press, pp. 201–42. de Swart, Henriëtte 1993. Adverbs of Quantification. New York:€Garland. Szabolcsi, Anna 1994. ‘The noun phrase’, in K. Kiss and F. Kiefer (eds.), The Syntactic Structure of Hungarian. Syntax and Semantics 27. New York:€Academic Press, pp. 179–274. Taraldsen, K. Tarald 1978. ‘On the NIC, vacuous application, and the that-t Filter’, ms., MIT, Cambridge, Mass. â•… 1990. ‘D-projections and N-projection in Norwegian’, in J. Mascaró and M. Nespor (eds.), Grammar in Progress:€ Glow Essays for Henk van Riemsdijk. Dordrecht :€Foris, pp. 419–31. â•… 2002. ‘The que/qui alternation and the distribution of expletives’, in P. Svenonius (ed.) Subjects, Expletives and the EPP. Oxford University Press, pp. 29–42. Terzi, Arhonto and Wexler, Ken 2002. ‘A-chains and S-homophones in children’s grammar’, in M. Hirotani (ed.) Proceedings of NELS 32, GLSA; University of Massachusetts at Amherst, pp. 519–37. Torres Morais, M. Aparecida and Salles, Heloisa to appear. ‘Parametric change in the grammatical encoding of indirect objects in Brazilian Portuguese’, Probus. Tortora, Christina 2002. ‘Romance enclisis, prepositions, and aspect’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 20:€725–57. Trommer, Jochen 2005. ‘Closest c-command in Albanian non-active constructions’, Â�paper presented at Morphosyntax Workshop, University of Vienna. Turano, Giuseppina 2002. ‘On modifiers preceded by the article in Albanian DPs’, Â�University of Venice Working Papers in Linguistics 12:€169–215. â•… 2003. ‘Similarities and differences between standard Albanian and Arbëresh numerals:€A case of micro-parametric variation’, University of Venice Working Papers in Linguistics, 13:€155–77.

344â•… References Vincent, Nigel 1997. ‘The emergence of the D-system in Romance’, in A. van Kemenade and N. Vincent (eds.), Parameters of Morphosyntactic Change. Cambridge University Press, pp. 149–69. Wasow, Thomas 1977. ‘Transformations and the lexicon’, in P. Culicover, T. Wasow and A. Akmajian (eds.), Formal Syntax. New York:€Academic Press, pp. 327–60. Weiss, Helmut 2002. ‘Three types of negation:€a case study in Bavarian’, in S. Barbiers, L. Cornips and S. van dee Kleij (eds.), Syntactic Variation. Meertens Institut Electronic Publications in Linguistics. Whitman, John 2000. ‘Relabelling’, in S. Pintzuk, G.Tsoulas and A. Warner (eds.), Diachronic Syntax:€Models and Mechanisms. Oxford University Press, pp. 220–38. Zamboni, Alberto 1990. ‘Premesse morfologiche e tipologiche del composto italiano “capinera”, “pettirosso”’. In Parallela 4:€Morfologia/ Morphologie. Tübingen:€Â�Niemeyer, pp. 97–109. â•… 1998. ‘Cambiamento di lingua o cambiamento di sistema? Per un Â�bilancio cronologico della transizione’, in J. Herman (ed.), La transizione dal latino alle lingue romanze. Tübingen:€Niemeyer, pp. 99–127. Zanuttini, Raffaella 1997. Negation and Clausal Structure. New York:€Oxford Â�University Press.

Index

ablative, 240, 283 syncretism with dative, 283 accusative, 191, 240, 277 as internal argument, 253 syncretism with nominative, 251, 284 adjective not sensitive to case, 268 preceded by article, 266 adverb aspectual, 80, 94, 108, 109, 110, 111, 118, 119, 125 aspectual/manner, 107 aspectual/quantificational, 102, 121 deictic/quantificational, 125 follows participle, 124 hierarchy, 82 manner, 113, 114, 117, 118, 119, 125 order, 108, 116, 120 position, 116, 120, 126 precedes participle, 124, 125 quantificational, 111, 112, 117, 119, 125 Agliano (Tuscany), 137 agreement, 11 as cheking, 238 as sharing of referential properties, 238 in copular construction, 268 in NP, 269 Aliano (Lucania), 225 Àllai (Sardinia), 36 ambiguity is not necessarily resolved syntactically, 107 anticausative interpretation, 216 vs. reflexive, 216 Applicative, 294, 328 arbitrarization, 182 Arconate (Lombardy), 116 Ardaùli (Sardinia), 65

Arena (Calabria), 20, 51, 64 article and inflection, 287 as K, 276 from case to, 277 postposed, 247, 287 with adjectives, 266, 270 with kinship terms, 242, 270, 271 auxiliary, 10 be independent of transitivity and voice, 201 have independent of transitivity and voice, 201 syncretism of have and be, 228, 232 triple, 227 auxiliary selection (non-)reversible, 203, 222, 223 according to person, 201 according to person and transitivity, 225 according to transitivity, 218 according to voice, 216 in middle-passive, 198 Auxiliary Selection Hierarchy (ASH), 223 Bagolino (Lombardy), 320 base bare, 285 verbal, 190 be as defective predicate, 222 auxiliary and copula, 222 Bedizzano (Tuscany), 138, 141 biolinguistic perspective, 1 biolinguistic program, 7 Briga Novarese (Piedmont), 228, 229, 230 Buonabitacolo (Campania), 227 Buru, 34

345

346â•… Index C, 24 as a verbal position, 17 as position of interrogative modality, 26 domain, 141 Finiteness, 41, 61, 313 Focus, 41 Force, 41, 61, 312 recursion, 28–30 Cantoira (Piedmont), 24, 27, 95, 96, 105, 108, 110, 112, 114, 115 Càrcare (Liguria), 143, 144, 151 cartography, 10, 37–8 Casaccia (Grisons, Val Bregaglia), 314 case, 10, 11 (in)sensitivity of adjectives to, 272 abstract, 299 as a feature, 244 as argument, 269 as denotational properties, 277 as descriptive label, 255 as N, Q and D specifications, 286 as nominal class, 255 as primitive category, 277 as quantificational closure, 290 as referential closure, 294 as Tense, 245 constraints, 298, 300 in the absence of inflections, 256 legible at LF interface, 236 loss of, 276, 290 of clitics, 309, 310 of pronouns, 308 Case Resistance Principle, 30 Casei Gerola (Lombardy), 86 Càsola (Tuscany), 134, 135 Casorezzo (Lombardy), 86, 99, 106, 116 Castellazzo Bormida (Piedmont), 22, 23, 24, 26, 27, 95, 105, 109 Castellinaldo (Piedmont), 124 Castiglione d’Adda (Lombardy), 28, 101, 105 categorization, 4–5 Celle di Bulgheria (Campania), 122 Cerano (Piedmont), 23, 85 chain, 11, 153, 206 in doubling, 154 change, 298, 301 Civate (Lombardy), 77 Civita (Calabria, Arbëresh), 172 clause-typing, 29 clitic doubling, 153

Colledimacine (Abruzzi), 225 Colonnata (Tuscany), 139, 140 comparatives, 62 complementation as relativization, 65 complementizer, 9, 10, 12 and subjunctive, 52–4, 59 as head of noun phrase, 17 as relative pronoun, 18–19 coinciding with demonstrative, 15, 34 coinciding with verb, 35 coinciding with wh–, 15, 55, 58, 59, 61, 62 definite, 55, 57, 61, 63, 65, 71 deletion, 56–9, 316 factive, 32 functional projection of the verb, 14 generalized wh–, 63 indefinite, 55, 61, 63, 65, 69, 71 interrogative, 69 interrogative/hypothetical, 65, 66, 67, 68 matrix, 36 modal, 72 polarity, 71 vs. wh–phrase, 73, complementizer agreement, 314 complex NP islands, 31–2 concept, 6 concepts, 4, 8 geometrical, 5 Corte (Veneto), 40 Cravagliana (Piedmont), 86 cycle, 11 dative, 240 as Q, 252 as superset-of, 283, 293 inherent possession, 251 singular syncretic with non-oblique plural, 311 syncretism with ablative, 283 syncretism with genitive, 250, 265, 280, 283, 288, 293 default, 61 an inadequate notion, 281 definite declension, 239, 290 Dego (Liguria), 145, 146, 156 Determiner, 11, 238, 271 as referential closure, 294

Indexâ•… 347 combines with definite inflection, 246 development of, 290 in AP, 271 in genitive, 288, 291 preadjectival, 271 discourse-anchoring, 90, 136, 138, 141, 210, 309 Distributed Morphology, 3, 7, 12, 137, 142, 229, 236, 245, 246, 260, 281, 296, 297, 299, 300, 301 ECP, 86 enclisis, 85 proclisis alternations, 172 English, 322 EPP argument, 93, 206, 207, 253, 282 as a variable, 75 as D, 238 impersonal, 181 in participial sentences, 216 morphological-level, 75 realized by verb inflection, 74 syntactic-level, 75 verb inflection as, 178 ergativity split according to aspect, 188 according to person, 209 event domain, 82 elementary, 93, 112, 119 structure, 90 event-anchoring, 90, 136, 138, 141, 210 Exceptional Case Marking, 253 factive islands, 32 sentences, 31 faculty of language broad (FLB), 1, 8 narrow (FLN), 1, 8 feature checking, 11 uninterpretable, 11 unvalued, 11 Filattiera (Tuscany), 27 Finale Emilia (Emilia), 84 Firenze (Tuscany), 36 focus, 19, 22, 41, 59, 315 as interpretation, 42 Fontane (Piedmont), 124, 155

Fontanigorda (Liguria), 43, 73 Forno Valle Strona (Piedmont), 204 French, 46, 85 functional category, 4, 5, 7, 11, 12, 235 hierarchy, 12 lexicon, 8 gender as nominal class, 238 genitive, 240, 277 as superset-of, 265, 283, 293 introduced as predication, 264 introduced by an article, 262 scope of, 282 syncretism with dative, 250, 265, 280, 288, 293 syncretism with nominative, 281 under negation, 87 Gizzeria (Calabria), 113 Gjirokastër (Albanian), 160, 161, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 173, 190, 197, 198, 200, 208, 216, 217, 218, 221 grammatical categories, 8, 9 functions, 9 grammaticalization, 12, 35–6, 84 Greek, 186, 193 Guglionesi (Molise), 50, 60, 63 hanging topic, 47 have as non-defective predicate, 223 denotes set inclusion, 231 deontic, 222 derived from be, 231 hierarchy as scope, 237 homophony vs. single lexical entry, 87 I domain, 141 –i inflection, 289 as Q closure, 285 distribution, 280 I-language, 1, 6 Impoverishment rule, 282 Inclusiveness, 61

348â•… Index indefinite declension, 239 infinitive followed by negation, 126 languages without, 51 preceded by negation, 121 innateness, 5 instrumental, 283 Interface Uniformity, 6, 176, 178, 188, 218 inversion complex, 45 Italian, 16, 19, 31–2, 36, 39, 42, 43, 47, 52, 56, 57, 65, 68, 71, 72, 74, 76, 88, 125, 158, 182, 196, 197, 219, 221, 222, 223, 308, 315, 316, 321, 323, 328 kinship terms, 242, 246 l morphology as definiteness, 290 as inflection, 307 mutual exclusion, 292 La Pli de Mareo (Alto Adige/ South Tyrol), 20, 84, 316 Làconi (Sardinia), 60, 66, 76, 221 Late Insertion, 229, 230, 236 Latin, 278, 281 left periphery, 41, 45, 59, 314 above complementizer, 21–3 below and above complementizer, 23–5 in noun phrases, 23 under complementizer, 20 lexical base, 238 categories, 4 items, 9 parametrization, 2, 6 terminal, 235, 275, 289, 299 lexicon, 6, 8 functional, 8 functional vs. substantive, 275 LF interface closures at, 259 locative, 283 Luras (Sardinia), 33 Margarita (Piedmont), 97, 98, 110, 112, 114, 115, 123, 127 Marzano Appio (Campania), 113 meaning, 6, 9 Mezzenile (Piedmont), 24, 97, 155

middle-passive, 10 anticausative reading, 179 as defective predicate, 220 as predicate with an open variable, 208 be-participle, 164, 169, 188, 192 clitic, 161 imperfective, 186 impersonal reading, 167, 181 movement analysis, 233 passive reading, 166, 177, 192 perfective, 186 reflexive reading, 165, 177, 180 specialized inflection, 159, 169, 184, 186 split according to aspect, tense, 163, 187 vs. active, 164, 171 with unaccusatives, 167 with unergative verbs, 166 Miglionico (Lucania), 67 Minimalist program, 6, 236, 246, 275, 289, 294, 301 Minimality, 33 minimizer, 84 Modena (Emilia), 39, 44 Molina di Ledro (Trentino), 226 Mombercelli (Piedmont), 102, 103, 105, 108, 109, 110 Montaldo (Piedmont), 83, 97, 104, 106, 108, 109, 111, 123 Montebello Ionico/ Saline Ioniche (Calabria), 209 Montenerodomo (Abruzzi), 50, 64 Morano (Calabria), 314 Morcone (Campania), 202 morphological structure, 12 morphology unification with syntax, 236, 273 Müstair (Grisons), 323 Mustér (Grisons), 1098n, 104, 106 mutual exclusion negation/negative polarity argument, 156 subject/object clitics, 137 Nanosyntax, 299, 301, 302 Neg Criterion, 81 Neg position, 80, 81, 82, 84, 91, 94, 108, 117, 122, 128, 129, 132, 137, 151, 319, 322, 339 negation, 9, 11 negation adverb, 81, 82, 135 and argument structure, 88, 91 and aspectual adverb, 94, 102

Indexâ•… 349 and negative argument, 83, 84, 87 and person split, 91 as a nominal element, 91 as argument, 91 as internal argument, 154 bare noun, 84, 85 complementary distribution with negative arguments and adverbs, 155 interaction with internal argument, 153 introduces a variable, 154 minimizer, 88 nominal, 117 nothing-type, 84 no-type, 98, 115 position, 118, 121 presuppositional vs. non-presuppositional, 94 quantifying over internal argument, 92, 93 negation clitic, 80, 81, 128, 129 and discourse-anchoring, 136 and event-anchoring, 136 and partitive, 151 and person split, 129, 130, 136, 148 and subject clitic, 135, 136, 137 as a negative polarity element, 152 as nominal element, 138, 152 as object clitic, 138 base generated, 130 complementary distribution with accusative, 147 complementary distribution with partitive, 149 distribution, 129, 144 doubling, 130, 139, 145, 153 in C-domain, 143, 148 in I-domain, 143, 148 introduces a variable, 154 two positions of, 133, 141 negative concord, 81, 130, 143, 152, 153 operator, 70, 87, 91, 92, 118, 152 polarity item, 81, 92, 152 polarity item as variable, 87 quantifier, 81 nominal class as denotational element, 277 as internal argument, 252 as sole inflection, 284 in the scope of D/Q, 255, 256, 258, 284 nominative, 191, 240, 277 syncretism with accusative, 251, 284

non-finite verbs, 82 null subject language, 75 Oblique, 260 of its lexical content, 232 Old French, 85, 295, 296, 310 opacity, 298 Optimality Theory, 137 Orsomarso (Calabria), 114 Oviglio (Piedmont), 38, 83, 147, 148, 149, 153 Pamparato (Piedmont), 103, 105, 108, 109, 112, 113 parameter micro- vs. macro-, 234 participle (non-)agreeing, 200, 209 as independent sentence, 123, 203, 204 lacks temporal reference, 123 position, 121 preceded by negation, 121 partitive, 85, 87, 91, 92, 149, 151 selected by negation, 82, 85 passive as chain formation, 177, 178, 179 interpretation, 216 movement analysis, 159 vs. anticausative, impersonal, reflexive, 159 past imperfective, 162, 165, 166, 184, 187 perfective, 162, 166, 169 Paulilàtino (Sardinia), 53, 60, 64, 70, 74 person (ir)reversibility of split, 227 1st plural, 213 2nd plural, 213 discourse-anchored vs. event-anchored, 212 lack of split in the plural, 213 singular vs. plural, 211 split, 82, 90, 209, 210 split under negation, 90 Pescolanciano (Abruzzi), 201 phase, 313 Piverone (Piedmont), 115 pluperfect, 230 plural bare, 86 polarity item, 71 operator, 71

350â•… Index Pomaretto (Piedmont), 95, 105 Portocannone (Molise, Arbëresh), 169, 170, 171, 173, 185, 190, 205 possession as inclusion, 251 possessive construction, 283 pronoun, 271 poverty of stimulus argument, 4 Pozzaglio (Lombardy), 95, 105 Pramollo (Piedmont), 84 predicate projecting referential contents, 237 Premana (Lombardy), 84 prepositions as sentential introducers, 18, 62 as two place predicates, 260 aspectual type categories, 260 license all cases, 259 present, 162, 166, 184, 187 present perfect, 164, 165, 166 Q-floated position, 87 Quarna Sopra (Piedmont), 88 Quarna Sotto (Piedmont), 83, 89, 92, 121 question operator, 57, 69, 70 raising interpretation, 192 readjustment rules, 278, 298 reflexive interpretation, 216 vs. anticausative, 216 relative analysis for conditionals, 69 appositive, 64 clause, 45, 63, 65 complement sentences, 70 restrictive, 64 representational, 6 grammar, 11 rhetorical question, 41 Romanian, 287, 288, 289, 309 Russian, 85 Ruvo di Puglia (Apulia), 72 –s inflection, 284, 295 absent from expletive, 305 as definiteness, 306

as Q, 282, 297, 305 denotational content, 282 S.Angelo Lodigiano (Lombardy), 100, 106 S.Bartolomeo Pesio (Piedmont), 150, 156 S.Benedetto del Tronto (Marche), 202 S.Benedetto Ullano (Calabria, Arbëresh), 172 S.Maria Maggiore (Piedmont), 40 Scuol (Grisons), 20 Secinaro (Abruzzi), 72 selection, 30 s-selection, 313 serial verbs, 34 Shkodёr (Albanian), 1099n, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 173, 177, 179, 180, 182, 184, 185, 189, 191, 192 silent categories, 4, 7, 45 Sillano (Tuscany), 132, 152 si-type clitic and person split, 141 as dative, 221 as internal argument, 177, 183 as middle-passive, 207 as pronominal object clitic, 172, 173, 178 as reflexive, 176 as variable, 69, 176 correlates with be, 197 variation, 174, 182 vs. impersonal pronoun, 183 with transitive, 182 Soazza (Grisons), 199, 219 Stroppo/ Macra (Piedmont), 83, 86, 87 subject clitic, 38–40, 43–4 lexical, 38–40, 44, 313 subject clitic inversion, 24–7 subjunctive, 52–4, 57, 70 particle, 52 Subset Principle, 281, 299 Superset Principle, 299 syncretism (non-)accidental, 301 contextual vs. absolute, 296 –t inflection as plural, 258 as superset of, 258 terminal abstract, 275 thematic vowel, 186, 187, 190, 243, 278, 279, 283, 284, 285 theta-theory, 12

Indexâ•… 351 topic, 19, 22, 24, 28, 41, 43, 59 as interpretation, 42 transitive as complex predicate, 93, 208 transitivity, 207, 223 Trecate (Piedmont), 85, 233 Trun (Grisons), 46, 84, 220 unaccusative active, 181 as defective predicate, 220 as elementary event, 93 as predicate with a single argument, 208 unergative as concealed transitive, 167, 208 as incorporating internal argument, 93 uniformity thesis, 2, 5 Urbino (Marche), 307 V2, 313 embedded, 20–1, 24 embedded in questions, 28 vs. complementizer, 58 Vagli di Sopra (Tuscany), 132, 133, 152, 309 variable individual, 64 propositional, 69, 71

variation, 9, 294 language, 2–3 Vastogirardi (Molise), 226 Vella (Grisons), 302, 303, 304, 305, 306 Vena (Calabria, Arbëresh), 241, 242, 243, 259, 263, 264, 266, 267, 268, 270, 272, 273 Verbicaro (Calabria), 201 Viano (Tuscany), 131, 134, 135, 153 Viguzzolo (Piedmont), 26, 28, 100, 101, 105 voice, 207, 223 wh–, 62, 72 argument, 15 determiner, 16 D-linked, 40 introducing exclamative, 16 introducing relative, 16 not intrinsecally interrogative, 68 variable, 63 Wh–Criterion, 39 wh–phrase, 19, 22, 24, 38, 41, 43 word order change, 276 Zernez (Grisons), 315 Zoldo Alto (Veneto), 77