Cover not available
Part of
Pseudo-Coordination and Multiple Agreement Constructions
Edited by Giuliana Giusti, Vincenzo Nicolò Di Caro and Daniel Ross
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 274] 2022
► pp. 35–64

Chapter 2
Theory-driven approaches and empirical advances

A protocol for Pseudo-Coordinations and Multiple Agreement Constructions in Italo-Romance

ORCID logo | Ca’ Foscari University of Venice
ORCID logo | Ca’ Foscari University of Venice
Italo-Romance varieties present at least three types of constructions that cluster together two verbs displaying double tense and double subject agreement and are taken as Pseudo-Coordinations (PseCos) or Multiple Agreement Constructions (MACs). In this paper, we follow Cardinaletti and Giusti’s (1998, 2001, 2003, 2020) hypotheses and claim that unification between the PseCos with a and the MACs with mu/mi/ma or ku in Southern Italian dialects is not viable. We adopt a diagnostic tool, which we call a protocol, that clusters the predictions of theory-driven analyses and apply it to the ‘take and’ construction, which is widespread across dialects and productive in Italian. In doing so, we discuss unobserved facts arising in the well-studied dialectal structures and make fine-grained observations about the less studied ‘take and’ PseCo in Italian.
Keywords: southern Italian dialects, pseudo-coordination, lack of infinitive, clitic climbing, protocol linguistics, negation raising, ‘take and’ construction’
Article outline
  • Introduction
    • 1.1The empirical domain
    • 1.2The formal analyses
    • 1.3A protocol for PseCos and MACs in Italo-Romance
  • 2.The functional vs. lexical status of V1
    • 2.1V1 belongs to a restricted class
    • 2.2Absence of argument structure of V1
    • 2.3Coreference of Subj1 and Subj2
    • 2.4Morphological reductions of V1
  • 3.Concord of tenses
    • 3.1Restriction of Mood, Person, and Tenses
    • 3.2Clitic climbing
    • 3.3Negation
  • 4.Conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 16 March 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.274.02giu
References (50)
References
Adger, David. 2006. Combinatorial variability. Journal of Linguistics, 42: 503–530. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2011. Multi-verb constructions: setting the scene. In Multi-verb construction: A view from the Americas (Brill Studies in the Indigenous Languages of the Americas), Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald and Pieter Muysken (eds.), 10–27. Amsterdam: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. and Robert M. W. Dixon. 2006. Serial Verb Constructions in typological perspective. In Serial Verb Constructions: A Cross-Linguistic Typology, Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald and Robert M. W. Dixon (eds), 1–68. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Andriani, Luigi. 2017. The syntax of the dialect of Bari. PhD Dissertation, University of Cambridge.
Benincà, Paola & Cinque, Guglielmo. 1992. Sur l’ambiguïté structurale des verbes météorologiques en italien. In De la musique à la linguistique: Hommages à Nicolas Ruwet, Liliane Tasmowski and Anne Zribi-Hertz (eds.), 155–162. Ghent: Communication and Cognition: Ghent.Google Scholar
Biberauer, Theresa & Richards, Mark. 2006. True optionality. When the grammar doesn’t mind. In Minimalist Essays [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 91] Cedric Boeckx (ed.), 35–67. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bravo, Ana. 2020. On Pseudocoordination in Spanish. Borealis – An international Journal of Hispanic Linguistics 9(1): 125–180. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cardinaletti, Anna & Giusti, Giuliana. 1998. Motion verbs as functional heads. GenGenP 6: 50–60.Google Scholar
. 2001. ‘Semi-Lexical’ Motion Verbs in Romance and Germanic. In Semi-lexical categories. On the function of content words and content of function words [Studies in Generative Grammar 39], Norbert Corver & Henk van Riemsdijk (eds.), 371–414. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2003. Motion verbs as functional heads. In The Syntax of Italian Dialects [Oxford Studies in Comparative Syntax] Christina Tortora (ed.), 31–49. New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
. 2020. Multiple agreement in southern Italian dialects. In Linguistic variation: structure and interpretation [Studies in Generative Grammar132] Ludovico Franco & Paolo Lorusso (eds.), 125–148. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Chillà, Leonida. 2011. Variazioni sintattiche in alcune varietà meridionali estreme: le strutture a controllo e la selezione dell’ausiliare. PhD dissertation, University of Florence.
Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
. 1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Ken Hale: A life in language, Michel Kenstowicz (ed.), 1–52. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo. 2001. “Restructuring” and the order of aspectual and root modal heads. In Current Studies in Italian Syntax, Guglielmo Cinque & Giampaolo Salvi (eds.), 137–155. Amsterdam: Elsevier. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coseriu, Eugenio. 1977 [1966]. “Tomo y me voy”: Un problema de sintaxis comparada europea. In Coseriu, Eugenio, Estudios de linguistica romanica, 79–151. Madrid: Editorial Gredos [Orig. publ.: 1966. “Tomo y me voy”. Ein Problem vergleichender europaischer Syntax. Vox romanica 25: 13–55].Google Scholar
Cruschina, Silvio. 2013. Beyond the stem and inflectional morphology: an irregular pattern at the level of periphrasis. In The boundaries of pure morphology. Diachronic and synchronic perspective, Silvio Cruschina, Martin Maiden & J. Charles Smith (eds.), 262–283, Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Angelis, Alessandro. 2013. Strategie di complementazione frasale. Messina: SGB Edizioni.Google Scholar
. 2016. Origini formali e funzionali della particella (m)i, (m)u, ma nell’area messinese e calabrese centro-meridionale. In Dialetti: per parlare e parlarne. Atti del IV Convegno Internazionale di Dialettologia. Progetto A.L.Ba. (Potenza, Castelmezzano, Lagopesole, 6–8 novembre 2014), Patrizia Del Puente (ed.), 75–95. Venosa (Pz): Osanna Edizioni.Google Scholar
. 2017. Between Greek and Romance: Competing Complementation Systems in Southern Italy. In Language and Identity in Multilingual Mediterranean Settings, Piera Molinelli (ed.), 135–155. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Déchaine, Rose-Marie. 1993. Serial verb constructions. Syntax. Vol 1. Joachim Jacobs, Arnim von Stechow, Wolfgang Sternefeld & Theo Vennemann (eds.), 799–825. Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Del Prete, Fabio & Giuseppina Todaro. 2020. Building complex events. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 38(1): 1–41. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Di Caro, Vincenzo N. 2019a. Multiple Agreement Constructions in southern Italo-Romance. The syntax of Sicilian Pseudocoordination. PhD Dissertation. Ca’ Foscari University of Venice.
2019b. The inflected construction in the dialects of Sicily: parameters of microvariation. In Italian dialectology at the interfaces [Linguistik Aktuell / Linguistics Today 251], Silvio Cruschina, Adam Ledgeway & Eva-Maria Remberger (eds.), 63–78. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Di Caro, Vincenzo N. & Giuliana Giusti. 2015. A Protocol for the Inflected Construction in Sicilian Dialects. Annali di Ca’ Foscari. Serie Occidentale 49: 293–322.Google Scholar
. 2018. Dimensions of variation: the inflected construction in the dialect of Delia (Caltanissetta). In Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 14: Selected papers from the 46th LISRL, Stony Brook, NY, Lori Repetti & Francisco Ordóñez (eds.) 54–68. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Giusti, Giuliana. 2011. Structural protocols for linguistic awareness enhancing language identity. Research project at CRASSH. University of Cambridge, October-December 2011. [URL]
. 2021a. A protocol for indefinite determiners in Italo-Romance. In Disentangling Bare Nouns and Nominals Introduced by a Partitive Article [Syntax & Semantics 43] Tabea Ihsane (ed.), 262–300. Amsterdam: Brill.Google Scholar
. 2021b. Partitivity in Italian: A protocol approach to a multifaceted phenomenon. In Partitive Determiners. Partitive Pronouns and Partitive Casem Petra Sleeman & Giuliana Giusti (eds.) Linguistische Arbeiten. Berlin: de Gruyter (in print). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Giusti, Giuliana & Iulia Zegrean. 2015. Syntactic Protocols to enhance inclusive cultural identity. A Case study on Istro-Romanian clausal structure. Quaderni di Linguistica e Studi Orientali 1: 117–138.Google Scholar
Groothuis, Kim A. 2019. Reflexes of Finiteness in Romance. University of Cambridge: doctoral thesis.
Haspelmath, Martin & Ekkehart König. 1995. Converbs in Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Structure and Meaning of Adverbial Forms – Adverbial Participles, Gerunds. [Empirical Approaches to Language Typology]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jaeggli, Osvaldo A. & Nina M. Hyams. 1993. On the independence and interdependence of syntactic and morphological properties: English aspectual come and go. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 11: 313–346. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ledgeway, Adam. 2012 [2013]. Contatto e mutamento: Complementazione e complementatori nei dialetti del Salento. In Lingue e grammatiche. Contatti, divergenze, confronti, Marina Benedetti (ed.), special issue of Studi Italiani di Linguistica Teorica e Applicata 41(3): 459–480.Google Scholar
. 2016a. From coordination to subordination: the grammaticalization of progressive and andative aspect in the dialects of Salento. In Coordination and Subordination: Form and Meaning – Selected papers from CSI Lisbon 2014. Fernanda Pratas, Sandra Pereira & Clara Pinto (eds.), 157–185. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholar Publishers.Google Scholar
. 2016b. Clausal complementation. In The Oxford Guide to the Romance Languages, Adam Ledgeway and Martin Maiden (eds.), 1013–1028. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2021. Coming and going in Calabrian: The syntax of pseudo-coordination. Revue Roumaine de Linguistique LXVI(1), 3–35.Google Scholar
Maesano, Deborah. 2016. The inflected constructions in Southern Calabrian dialects. BA Thesis, Ca’ Foscari University of Venice.
Manzini, M. Rita & Leonardo Savoia. 2005. I dialetti italiani e romanci: morfosintassi. Vol 1. Alessandria: Edizioni dall’Orso.Google Scholar
Masini, Francesca, Simone Mattiola, Greta Vecchi. 2019. La costruzione “prendere e V” nell’italiano contemporaneo. In Le tendenze dell’italiano contemporaneo rivisitate. Atti del LII Congresso Internazionale di Studi della Società di Linguistica Italiana (Berna, 6–8 settembre 2018) Bruno Moretti, Aline Kunz, Silvia Natale, Etna Krakenberger (eds.), 115–137. Roma: Bulzoni.Google Scholar
Miyagawa, Shigeru. 2011. Optionality. In The Oxford handbook of linguistic minimalism Cedric Boeckx (ed.), 354–376. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 1982. Issues in Italian syntax. Dordrecht: Foris. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1997. On the fine structure of the left periphery. In Elements of Grammar. Liliane Haegeman (ed.), 147–161. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rohlfs, Gerhard. 1969. Grammatica storica della lingua italiana e dei suoi dialetti, vol. 3: Sintassi e formazione delle parole. Torino: Einaudi.Google Scholar
Shopen, Timothy. 1971. Caught in the act. Papers from the Seventh Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 254–263.Google Scholar
Soto Gómez, Juan Francisco. 2020. Pseudocoordination in Spanish. A two construction analysis. MA thesis, Ca’ Foscari University of Venice. [URL]
Squillaci, M. Olimpia. 2016. When Greek Meets Romance: A Morphosyntactic Investigation of Language Contact in Aspromonte. University of Cambridge: doctoral thesis.
Todaro, Giuseppina & Fabio Del Prete. 2019. The morpho-syntax-semantics interface and the Sicilian Doubly Inflected Construction. In Italian dialectology at the interfaces [Linguistik Aktuell / Linguistics Today 251], Silvio Cruschina, Adam Ledgeway & Eva-Maria Remberger (eds.), 131–154. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yuasa, Etsuyo & Saddock, Jerry M. 2002. Pseudo-subordination: a mismatch between syntax and semantics, Journal of Linguistics 38(1): 87–111. DOI logoGoogle Scholar