Cover not available
Part of
Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 2017: Selected papers from 'Going Romance' 31, Bucharest
Edited by Alexandru Nicolae and Adina Dragomirescu
[Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 355] 2021
► pp. 205–238

The syntactic distribution of raddoppiamento fonosinttatico in Cosentino

A phase-theoretic account

| University of Cambridge
This chapter undertakes an overview of the structural conditions regulating the distribution of a phonological fortition process, raddoppiamento fonosintattico “phonosyntactic doubling”, in the Calabrian dialect of Cosenza, focusing on some particularly striking cases which also reveal the role of phases in constraining the application of RF. On the one hand, the data highlight the advantages of interpreting locality not just narrowly in terms of the three core structural configurations Spec-Head, Head-Head and Head-Comp, but also more broadly in terms of phasal domains, showing how different phonological realizations represent the spell-out of deep syntactic differences mapped at the interface between narrow syntax and PF (Phonological Form). On the other, the theoretical assumptions assumed here provide us with the key to understanding some intriguing empirical generalizations about the role of RF in signalling, among other things, informational structure content and binding relations, which, in turn, throw new light on current theoretical assumptions about clause structure and the nature of phases.
Keywords: syntax-phonology interface, phase, locality, raddoppiamento fonosintattico , information structure
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Cosentino RF: Initial overview
    • 2.1RF-triggers
    • 2.2Distribution: Core syntactic configurations
    • 2.3Phase-theoretic interpretation of locality
  • 3.Pragmatico-semantic effects of RF
    • 3.1Pragmatic mapping
    • 3.2Coreference
  • 4.Further implications and extensions
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 1 December 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.355.11led
References (81)
References
Acquaviva, Paolo. 1989. Aspetti della complementazione frasale. Degree thesis, University of Pisa.Google Scholar
Andalò, Adrina. 1991. Il raddoppiamento sintattico nel dialetto di Napoli. In Luciano Giannelli (ed.), Tra rinascimento e strutture attuali. Saggi di linguistica italiana, 241–251. Turin: Rosenberg & Sellier.Google Scholar
Belletti, Adriana. 2004. Aspects of the low IP area. In Luigi Rizzi (ed.), The structure of CP and IP. The cartography of syntactic structures, Volume 2, 16–51. Oxford: Oxford University of Press.Google Scholar
. 2005. Extended doubling and the VP periphery. Probus 17. 1–35. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biberauer, Theresa & Roberta D’Alessandro. 2006. Syntactic doubling and the encoding of voice in eastern Abruzzese. In Donald Baumer, David Montero & Michael Scanlon (eds.), Proceedings of the 25th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 87–95. Somverille, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Bonami, Olivier, Gilles Boyé & Jesse Tseng. 2014. An integrated approach to French liaison. In Paola Monachesi, Gerhard Jäger, Gerald Penn & Shuly Wintner (eds.), Proceedings of Formal Grammar 2004, 29–45. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Bonet, Eulàlia, Lisa Cheng, Laura Downing & Joan Mascaró. 2019. (In)direct reference in the phonology-syntax interface under phase theory: A response to modular PIC (D’Alessandro and Scheer 2015). Linguistic Inquiry 50. 751–777. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bošković, Željko. 1995. Case properties of clauses and the greed principle. Studia Linguistica 49. 32–53. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Michael Kenstowicz (ed.), Ken Hale: A life in language, 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 2008. On phases. In Robert Freidin, Carlos Otero & María Luisa Zubizarreta (eds.), Foundational issues in linguistic theory: Essays in honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud, 133–166. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. Foreword. In Ángel Gallego (ed.), Phases: Developing the framework, 1–9. Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo. 1999. Adverbs and functional heads. A cross-linguistic perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Corr, Alice. 2017. Ibero-Romance and the syntax of the utterance. Doctoral dissertation, University of Cambridge.Google Scholar
D’Alessandro, Roberta & Tobias Scheer. 2015. Modular PIC. Linguistic Inquiry 46(4). 593–624. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
D’Imperio, Mariapaola, Gorka Elordieta, Sonia Frota, Pilar Prieto & Marina Vigário. 2005. Intonational phrasing in Romance: The role of syntactic and prosodic structure. In Sonia Frota, Marina Vigário & Maria João Freitas (eds.), Prosodies, 59–98. The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
D’Ovidio, Francesco. 1874. Fonetica del dialetto di Campobasso. Archivio Glottologico Italiano 4(1). 145–184.Google Scholar
De Blasi, Nicola & Luigi Imperatore. 2000. Il napoletano parlato e scritto. Con note di grammatica storica (Nuova edizione). Naples: Dante & Descartes.Google Scholar
Diesing, Molly. 1992. Indefinites. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Durand, Jacques & Chantal Lyche. 2008. French liaison in the light of corpus data. Journal of French Language Studies 18. 33–66. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Elordieta, Gorka, Sonia Frota, Pilar Prieto & Marina Vigário. 2003. Effects of constituent length and syntactic branching on intonational phrasing in Ibero-Romance. In Maria-Josep Solé, Daniel Recasens & Joaquín Romero (eds.), Proceedings of the 15th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, 487–490. Barcelona: Causal Productions.Google Scholar
Fanciullo, Franco. 1986. Syntactic reduplication and the Italian dialects of the centre-south. Journal of Italian Linguistics 8. 67–103.Google Scholar
. 1997. Raddoppiamento sintattico e ricostruzione linguistica nel sud italiano. Pisa: ETS.Google Scholar
Gallego, Ángel. 2010. Phase theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1990. Syntax. A functional-typological introduction, Volume 2. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Graffi, Giorgio. 1996. Alcune riflessioni sugli imperativi italiani. In Paola Benincà, Guglielmo Cinque, Tullio De Mauro & Nigel Vincent (eds.), Italiano e dialetto nel tempo. Saggi di grammatica per Giulio C. Lepschy, 133–148. Rome: Bulzoni.Google Scholar
Inkelas, Sharon & Draga Zec. 1990. The phonology-syntax connection. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Kaisse, Ellen. 1985. Connected speech: The interaction of syntax and phonology. Orlando: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard. 1991. Romance clitics, verb movement and PRO. Linguistic Inquiry 22. 647–686.Google Scholar
. 1994. The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Ledgeway, Adam. 2000. A Comparative syntax of the dialects of southern Italy: A minimalist approach. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
. 2009a. Grammatica diacronica del napoletano (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie Band 350). Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009b. Aspetti della sintassi della periferia sinistra del Cosentino. In Diego Pescarini (ed.), Studi sui dialetti della Calabria (Quaderni di lavoro ASIt 9), 3–24. Padua: Unipress.Google Scholar
. 2016. The dialects of southern Italy. In Adam Ledgeway & Martin Maiden (eds.), The Oxford guide to the Romance languages, 246–269. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2018. Phonological correlates of syntactic structure: The distribution of raddoppiamento fonosintattico in Calabrian. In Mirko Grimaldi, Rosangela Lai, Ludovico Franco & Benedetta Baldi (eds.), Structuring variation in Romance linguistics and beyond: In honour of Leonardo M. Savoia, 283–296. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2019. Parameters in the development of Romance perfective auxiliary selection. In Michela Cennamo & Claudia Fabrizio Historical linguistics 2015: Selected papers from the 22nd International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Naples, 27–31 July 2015, 343–384. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2020. The causative construction in the dialects of southern Italy and the phonology-syntax interface. In Giulia Bellucci, Ludovico Franco & Paolo Lorusso (eds.), Linguistic variation: Structure and interpretation, 371–400. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Ledgeway, Adam & Alessandra Lombardi. 2005. Verb movement, adverbs and clitic positions in Romance. Probus 17. 79–113. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lehmann, Christian. 1988. Towards a typology of clause linkage. In John Haiman & Sandra Thompson (eds.), Clause combining in grammar and discourse, 181–225. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Loporcaro, Michele. 1988. History and geography of raddoppiamento fonosintattico: Remarks on the evolution of a phonological rule. In Pier Marco Bertinetto & Michele Loporcaro (eds.), Certamen Phonologicum, 341–387. Turin: Rosenberg & Sellier.Google Scholar
. 1997. Lengthening and raddoppiamento fonosintattico . In Martin Maiden & Mair Parry (eds), The dialects of Italy, 41–51. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
. 1998. L’assimilazione fonosintattica di -t finale nei dialetti della zona Lausberg. In Luciano Agostiniani, Maria Giovanna Arcamone, Fiorella Imparati, Onofrio Carruba & Riccardo Rizza (eds.), Do-ra-qu pe-re. Studi in memoria di Adriana Quattordio Moreschini, 237–244. Rome: IEPI.Google Scholar
Maiden, Martin. 1995. A linguistic history of Italian. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Manzini, Maria Rita & Leonardo Savoia. 2005. I dialetti italiani e romanci. Morfosintassi generativa (3 volumes). Alessandria: Edizioni dell’Orso.Google Scholar
. 2016. Quale informazione sintattica viene interpretata dai fenomeni fonosintattici? Evidenza dalle varietà italiane meridionali. In Adam Ledgeway, Michela Cennamo & Guido Mensching (eds.), Actes du XXVIIe Congrès international de linguistique et de philologie romanes (Nancy, 15–20 juillet 2013). Section 4: Syntaxe, 403–414. Nancy: ATILF. [URL] (10 May, 2021)
Massam, Diane. 1985. Case theory and the projection principle. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Masutti, Vania. 2016. La liaison entre phonologie, morphologie et syntaxe. In Adam Ledgeway, Michela Cennamo & Guido Mensching (eds.), Actes du XXVIIe Congrès international de linguistique et de philologie romanes (Nancy, 15–20 juillet 2013). Section 4: Syntaxe, 291–302. Nancy: ATILF. [URL] (10 May, 2021)
Morin, Yves-Charles & Jonathan Kaye. 1982. The syntactic bases for French liaison. Journal of Linguistics 18. 291–330. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Munaro, Nicola. 2004. Computational puzzles of conditional clause preposing. In Anna-Maria Di Sciullo & Rodolfo Delmonte (eds.), UG and external systems, 73–94. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar
. 2010. Towards a hierarchy of clause types. In Paola Benincà & Nicola Munaro (eds.), Mapping the left periphery, 125–162. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Plann, Susan. 1986. On case-marking clauses in Spanish: Evidence against the case resistance principle. Linguistic Inquiry 17. 336–345.Google Scholar
Rao, Rajiv. 2008. Observations on the roles of prosody and syntax in the phonological phrasing of Barcelona Spanish. The Linguistics Journal 3. 85–131.Google Scholar
Raposo, Eduardo. 1987. Case theory and Infl-to-Comp: The inflected infinitive in European Portuguese. Linguistic Inquiry 18. 85–110.Google Scholar
Richards, Mark. 2007. On feature inheritance: An argument from the phase impenetrability condition. Linguistic Inquiry 38. 563–572. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rivero, María-Luisa. 1994a. Negation, imperatives and Wackernagel effects. Rivista di linguistica 6. 39–66.Google Scholar
. 1994b. Clause structure and V-movement in the languages of the Balkans. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 12. 63–120. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rivero, María-Luisa & Arhonto Terzi. 1995. Imperatives, V-movement and logical mood. Journal of Linguistics 31. 301–332. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi & Leonardo Savoia. 1993. Conditions on /u/ propagation in southern Italian dialects. In Adriana Belletti (ed.), Syntactic theory and the dialects of Italy, 252–318. Turin: Rosenberg & Sellier.Google Scholar
Roberts, Ian. 2005. Principles and parameters in VSO languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rohlfs, Gerhard. 1966. Grammatica della lingua italiana e dei suoi dialetti, Volume 1: Fonetica. Turin: Einuadi.Google Scholar
. 1983. Distinzione di due congunzioni nei dialetti d’Italia (nel senso del latino ut e quod o quia). In Paola Benincà, Michele Cortelazzo, Aldo Luigi Prosdocimi, Laura Vanelli & Alberto Zamboni (eds.), Scritti linguistici in onore di Giovan Battista Pellegrini, 147–154. Pisa: Pacini.Google Scholar
Sampson, Rodney. 2016. Sandhi phenomena. In Adam Ledgeway & Martin Maiden (eds.), The Oxford guide to the Romance languages, 669–680. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Savoia, Leonardo M. 1987. Teoria generativa, modelli fonologici e dialettologia. La propagazione di u in una varietà lucana. Rivista Italiana di Dialettologia 11. 185–263.Google Scholar
2015. I dialetti italiani. Sistemi e processi fonologici nelle varietà di area italiana e romancia. Pisa: Pacini.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elizabeth. 1974. French liaison and the X′ convention. Linguistic Inquiry 5. 573–590.Google Scholar
. 1984. Phonology and syntax: The relationship between sound and structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 1986. On derived domains in sentence phonology. In Colin Ewen & John Anderson (eds.), Phonology Yearbook 3, 371–405. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Selkirk, Elizabth & Koichi Tateischi. 1988. Syntax and phonological phrasing in Japanese. In Carol Georgopoulos & Roberta Ishihara (eds.), Interdisciplinary Approaches to Language: Essays in honor of S.Y. Kuroda, 316–336. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Sheehan, Michelle. 2014. Portuguese, Russian and the theory of control. In Hsin-Lun Huang, Ethan Poole & Amanda Rysling (eds.), Proceedings of the 43rd Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society 43 (NELS 43), Volume 2, 115–126. Amherst, MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
. 2018a. Control of inflected infinitives in European Portuguese. In Anabela Gonçalves & Ana Lúcia Santos (eds.), Complement clauses in Portuguese: Adult syntax and acquisition, 27–58. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2018b. On the difference between exhaustive and partial control. In Federica Cognola & Jan Casalicchio (eds.), Understanding null subjects: A synchronic and diachronic perspective, 141–170. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Silvestri, Giuseppina. 2007. Il rafforzamento fonosintattico nel dialetto di Verbicaro (Cosenza). L’Italia Dialettale 68. 146–151.Google Scholar
. 2009. La metafonia nel dialetto di Verbicaro (CS). Italia Dialettale 70. 169–226.Google Scholar
. 2014. Rafforzamento fonosintattico as a phenomenon of the phonology-syntax interface. Paper presented at the Romance Linguistics Seminar, University of Cambridge, October 28.
Stowell, Tim. 1981. Origins of phrase structure. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Torcolacci, Giuseppe. 2014a. Il raddoppiamento fonosintattico e la codifica di tratti morfosintattici. Il caso dei dialetti italiani meridionali. In Roberta D’Alessandro, Claudio Di Felice, Irene Franco & Adam Ledgeway (eds.), Approcci diversi alla dialettologia italiana contemporanea. Special issue of L’Italia dialettale 75. 247–271.Google Scholar
. 2014b. Marking the default. Auxiliary selection in southern Italian dialects. Leiden: LOT.Google Scholar
Torrego, Esther. 1998. The dependencies of objects. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tortora, Christina. 2014. A comparative grammar of Borgomanerese. New York: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Truckenbrodt, Hubert. 1999. On the relation between syntactic phrases and phonological phrases. Linguistic Inquiry 30. 219–255. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Uriagereka, Juan. 2011. Derivational cycles. In Cedric Boeckx (ed.), The Oxford handbook of minimalism, 239–259. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zanuttini, Raffaella. 1997. Syntactic properties of sentential negation. A comparative study of Romance languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cited by (3)

Cited by three other publications

Cardullo, Sara N. & Kim A. Groothuis
2024. Revisiting Syntactic Microvariation and Diachrony in the Dual Complementizer Systems of Upper Southern Italy1. Transactions of the Philological Society 122:2 ► pp. 281 ff. DOI logo
Cruschina, Silvio, Adam Ledgeway & Eva-Maria Remberger
2019. The dialects of Italy at the interfaces. In Italian Dialectology at the Interfaces [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today, 251], ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Ledgeway, Adam
2018. Chapter 19. Phonological correlates of syntactic structure. In Structuring Variation in Romance Linguistics and Beyond [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today, 252], ► pp. 283 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 august 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.