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. 65–98

Chapter 3
A bisentential syntax for a/bare finite complements in South Italian varieties

Motion verbs and the progressive

ORCID logo | Università degli studi di Firenze
ORCID logo | Università degli studi di Firenze

In South Italian varieties of Apulia, Calabria and Sicily a restricted number of control/raising verbs, including stay/be, go, come and want embed finite complements, either bare or introduced by a. These are not necessarily languages with so-called subjunctive particles; in any event, the latter have a different form. Under monoclausal analyses, verbs like stay/be, go etc. are functional heads embedding an inflected predicate. Here we adopt a biclausal analysis under which embedding under stay/be, go etc. is a normal clausal embedding. We argue that the biclausal analysis is not only feasible, but also advantageous, from a morphosyntactic point of view. Focusing on the progressive, we also consider whether the bisentential analysis is compatible with semantic interpretation and how it fares in a typological perspective.

Keywords: complementizer, inflection, clitic, preposition, progressive
Article outline
  • 1.Basic evidence
    • 1.1Basic evidence
  • 2.Fine-grained evidence
    • 2.1Matrix and embedded verb inflections
    • 2.2Other parameters
  • 3.Syntactic analysis
    • 3.1The a introducer
    • 3.2Inflection patterns
    • 3.3Clititicization patterns
  • 4.The interpretation of the progressive
  • 5.Macrovariation and universals
  • 6.Conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 16 March 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.274.03man
References
Alexiadou, A. E. Anagnostopoulou, G. Iordachioaia & M. Marchis
2010 “No objection to Backward Control.” In Movement theory of Control, ed. by Norbert Hornstein, and Maria Polinsky, 89–118 Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Arsenijević, Boban
2009 “Clausal Complementation as Relativization.” Lingua 119: 39–50. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Belvin, Robert, and Marcel den Dikken
1997 “There, Happens, to, Be, Have.” Lingua 101: 151–183. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Benincà, Paola and Poletto, Cecilia
1996 “The diachronic development of a modal verb of necessity.” University of Venice Working Papers in Linguistics 6: 29–63.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan, Revere Perkins, and William Pagliuca
1994 The Evolution of Grammar. Tense, Aspect, and Modality in the Languages of the World. Chicago/London: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Calabrese, Andrea
1993 “The Sentential Complementation of Salentino: A Study of a Language without Infinitival Clauses.” In Syntactic Theory and the Dialects of Italy, ed. by Adriana Belletti, 28–98. Torino: Rosenberg and Sellier.Google Scholar
Cardinaletti, Anna, and Giuliana Giusti
2001 “Semi-lexical Motion Verbs in Romance and Germanic.” In Semi-lexical Categories: The Function of Content Words and the Content of Function Words, ed. by Norbert Corver, and Henk van Riemsdijk, 371–414. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2003 “Motion Verbs as Functional Heads.” In The Syntax of Italian Dialects, ed. by Christina Tortora, 31–49. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
2020 “Multiple Agreement in Southern Italian Dialects.” In Linguistic Variations: Structure and Interpretation – Studies in Honor of M. Rita Manzini, ed. by Ludovico Franco and Paolo Lorusso SGG, Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam
1995 The minimalist Program. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
2000 “Minimalist Inquiries: The Framework”. In Step by Step. Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik, ed. by Roger Martin, David Michaels, Juan Uriagereka, and Samuel Jay Keyser, 89–155. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
2001 “Derivation by Phase.” In Ken Hale: A Life in Language, ed. by Michael Kenstowicz, 1–52. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam, Ángel J. Gallego, and Dennis Ott
2019 “Generative Grammar and the Faculty of Language: Insights, Questions, and Challenges.” Special issue of Catalan Journal of Linguistics, 1–38.Google Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo
2006 Restructuring and Functional Heads. The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, vol. 4, New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2017 “On the Status of Functional Categories (Heads and Phrases).” Language and Linguistics. 18(4): 521–576. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo, and Luigi Rizzi
2009 “The Cartography of Syntactic Structures.” In The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Analysis, ed. by Bernd Heine, and Heiko Narrog, 65–78. Oxford: Oxford University Press.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, ed. by Silvio Cruschina, Martin Maiden, and John Charles Smith, 262–283. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Demirdache, Hamida, and Miriam Uribe-Etxebarria
2000 “The Primitives of Temporal Relations.” In Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik, ed. by Roger Martin, David Michaels, and Juan Uriagereka, 157–186. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Di Caro, Vincenzo
2019 “The Inflected Construction in the dialects of Sicily: parameters of micro-variation.” .” In Italian Dialectology at the Interfaces, ed. by Cruschina, Silvio, Adam Ledgeway and Eva-Maria Remberger, 63–78, Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Di Caro, Vincenzo, and Giuliana Giusti
2015 “A Protocol for the Inflected Construction in Sicilian Dialects.” Annali di Ca’ Foscari. Serie occidentale 49, 393–421.Google Scholar
Dobrovie-Sorin, Carmen, Isabela Nedelcu, and Ion Giurgea
2013 “Genitive DPs and pronominal possessors.” In A Reference Grammar of Romanian. Volume 1: The Noun Phrase, ed. by Carmen Dobrovie-Sorin, and Ion Giurgea, 309–354. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Franco, Ludovico
2015 “The morpho-syntax of adverbs of the carpone/i type in (Old and Modern) Italian.” Probus, vol. 27, pp. 271–306Google Scholar
Franco, Ludovico, M. Rita Manzini, and Leonardo M. Savoia
2021 “Locative Ps as General Relators: Location, Direction, DOM in Romance.” Linguistic Variation, 21(1):135–173. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gallego, Ángel J.
2010 “On the prepositional nature of non-finite verbs in Catalan.” Catalan Journal of Linguistics, 9:79–102. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Garzonio, Jacopo, and Silvia Rossi
2016 “Case in Italian complex PPs.” In Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 10, Selected papers from ‘Going Romance’ 28, ed. by Ernestina Carrilho, Alexandra Fiéis, Maria Lobo, Sandra Pereira, 121–137, Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Giorgi, Alessandra
2009 About the speaker. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halle, Morris, and Alec Marantz
1993 “Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection.” In The view from Building 20, ed. By Ken Hale and Samuel J. Keyser, 111–176. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Higginbotham, James
2009 Tense, Aspect, and Indexicality. Oxford Studies in Theoretical Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hill, Virginia
2013 “The Emergence of the Romanian Supine.” Journal of Historical Linguistics 3 (2): 230–271. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jones, Michael
1993 Sardinian Syntax. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard
2000 Parameters and Universals. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
2010 Comparisons and Contrasts, 190–227. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Laka, Itziar
2006 “Deriving Split-ergativity in the Progressive: The Case of Basque.” In Ergativity: Emerging Issues, ed. by Alana Johns, Diane Massam, and Juvenal Ndayiragije, 173–195, Dordrecht/Berlin: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Landau, Idan
2013 Control in Generative Grammar. A Research Companion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2015 A Two-tiered Theory of Control. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Landman, Fred
1992 “The Progressive.” Natural Language Semantics 1: 1–32. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ledgeway, Adam
2012 “Contatto e mutamento: complementazione e complementatori nei dialetti del salento.” Studi Italiani di Linguistica Teorica e Applicata, XLI, 3: 459–480Google Scholar
2016 “From Coordination to Subordination: The Grammaticalisation of Progressive and Andative Aspect in the Dialects of Salento.” In Coordination and Subordination. Form and Meaning. Selected Papers from CSI Lisbon 2014, ed. by Fernanda Pratas, Sandra Pereira, and Clara Pinto, 157–184. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Lorusso, Paolo
2019 “A person split analysis of the progressive forms in some Southern Italian varieties.” In Italian Dialectology at the Interfaces, ed. by Silvio Cruschina, Adam Ledgeway and Eva-Maria Remberger, 203–236. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Manzini, M. Rita, and Ludovico Franco
2016 “Goal and DOM Datives.” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 34: 197–240. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Manzini, M. Rita, Paolo Lorusso, and Leonardo M. Savoia
2017 “A/bare finite complements in Southern Italian varieties: Monoclausal or bi-clausal syntax?” Quaderni di Linguistica e Studi Orientali (QULSO) 3: 11–59. Florence: Florence University Press.Google Scholar
Manzini, M. Rita, and Leonardo M. Savoia
2005 I dialetti italiani e romanci: Morfosintassi generativa. 3 vols. Alessandria: Edizioni dell’Orso.Google Scholar
2007 A unification of morphology and syntax. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2011 Grammatical Categories. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2018a The Morphosyntax of Albanian and Aromanian Varieties. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2018b “Finite and Non-finite Complementation, Particles and Control in Aromanian, Compared to other Romance Varieties and Albanian.” Linguistic Variation, 215–264. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mateu, Jaume, and Laia Amadas
1999 “Extended Argument Structure: Progressive as Unaccusative.” Catalan Working Papers in Linguistics 7: 159–174.Google Scholar
Portner, Paul
2011 “Perfect and Progressive.” In Semantics: An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning, ed. by Maienborn, Claudia, Klaus von Heusinger, and Paul Portner, Vol. 2, 1217–1261. Berlin: Mouton de GruyterGoogle Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi
1981 Issues in Italian Syntax. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.Google Scholar
1997 “The Fine Structure of the Left Periphery.” In Elements of Grammar, ed. by Liliane Haegeman, 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roberts, Ian and Anna Roussou
2003 Syntactic Change: a Minimalist Approach to Grammaticalization. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rosenbaum, Peter
1967 The Grammar of English Predicate Complement Constructions. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Roussou, Anna
2009 “In the mood for control.” Lingua, 119:1811–1836. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rohlfs, Gerhard
1969 Grammatica storica della lingua italiana e dei suoi dialetti, Vol. 3: Sintassi e formazione delle parole. Torino: Einaudi. Rosenbaum.Google Scholar
Svenonius, Peter
2006 “The emergence of axial parts.” In Tromsø Working Papers on Language and Linguistics: Nordlyd 33.1, special issue on Adpositions, ed. by Peter Svenonius. 1–22. University of Tromsø, Tromsø.Google Scholar
Tellier, Christine
2015 “French Expressive Motion Verbs as Functional Heads.” Probus 27 (1): 157–192. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Trumper, John, and Luigi Rizzi
1985 “Il problema sintattico di CA/MU nei dialetti calabresi mediani”. Quaderni del Dipartimento di Linguistica (Università della Calabria) 1: 63–76.Google Scholar
Van Gelderen, E.
1993 The Rise of Functional Categories. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar