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. 99–128

Chapter 4
Preterite indicative Pseudo-Coordination and morphomic patterns

The case of the W-Pattern in the dialect of Delia

ORCID logo | Ca’ Foscari University of Venice
This paper discusses the paradigmatic configuration (or ‘morphome’; Aronoff 1994) that Pseudo-Coordination (V1[TAM.Agr] a V2[TAM.Agr], as in Jivu a ffici la spisa. ‘I went and did the shopping.’) displays in the preterite indicative in Deliano: i.e. the ‘W-Pattern’ (Di Caro 2019a; Di Caro and Giusti 2018). In the first part, the suppletive nature of the preterite paradigm of the V2s licensing this construction is discussed. These V2s all feature perfective roots (i.e. PYTA roots; Maiden 2018b), such as fici ‘I made/did’ and dissi ‘I said’, which are the ones allowed in the construction, and imperfective roots, such as facisti ‘you (sg.) made/did’ and dicisti ‘you (sg.) said’. In the second part, new data from a grammaticality judgment-based study on Pseudo-Coordination in Deliano are discussed, with reference to the emergence of the W-Pattern in a specific paradigm. The results clearly show that this morphome is consistently present throughout the sample (11–80 y.o. participants, N = 140) and has a “psychological reality” (cf. Maiden 2018b: 1–10), in the sense that it does not seem to be affected by variables such as age or gender, or to be subject to ordering effects.
Keywords: Pseudo-Coordination, Sicilian dialects, preterite indicative, motion verbs, restructuring verbs, PYTA roots, morphomes
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Morphomic patterns and PYTA roots
  • 3.The morphological characteristics of the preterite indicative in Deliano
  • 4.Assessing the productivity of the W-Pattern in Deliano preterite PseCo
    • 4.1The questionnaire
    • 4.2How to detect the emergence of the expected patterns
    • 4.3Dataset and descriptive analysis
  • 5.Conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 16 March 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.274.04dic
References (69)
References
Accattoli, Matilde & Todaro, Giuseppina. 2017. Verbes de mouvement et grammaticalisation: le cas du sicilien vaffazzu. In Normes et grammaticalisation: le cas des langues romanes, Malinka Velinova (ed.), Sofia: CU “Romanistika”.Google Scholar
Aronoff, Mark. 1994. Morphology by Itself. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Ascoli, Graziadio I. 1898. Un problema di sintassi comparata dialettale. Archivio glottologico italiano, 14: 453–468.Google Scholar
1901. Appendice all’articolo Un problema di sintassi comparata dialettale. Archivio glottologico italiano, 15: 221–225.Google Scholar
Biberauer, Theresa & Roberts, Ian. 2012. Towards a Parameter Hierarchy for Auxiliaries: Diachronic Considerations. COPiL, 6: 267–294.Google 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, Norbert Corver & Henk Van Riemsdijk (eds), 371–414. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2003. Motion Verbs as Functional Heads. In The Syntax of Italian Dialects, Christina Tortora (ed.), 31–49. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
. 2020. Multiple Agreement in Southern Italian Dialects. In Linguistic Variations: Structure and Interpretation – Studies in Honor of M. Rita Manzini [Studies in Generative Grammar 132], Ludovico Franco & Paolo Lorusso (eds), 125–148. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Collins, Chris, Guitard, Stephanie & Wood, Jim. 2009. Imposters: An online survey of grammaticality judgments. In Patricia Irwin & Violeta Vázquez Rojas Maldonado (eds), NYU Working Papers in Linguistics, Vol. 2. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
CorDel: Di Caro, Vincenzo Nicolò (in preparation). Corpus del dialetto deliano.
Cremona, Antonino. 1895. Fonetica del caltagironese con riguardi alle principali parlate del siciliano. Acireale: Tip. Ed. Saro Donzuso (repr. 2020, with a preface by Salvatore Menza, Sesto Fiorentino: Apice libri).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, Silvio Cruschina, Martin Maiden & John Charles Smith (eds), 262–283. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Damonte, Federico. 2005. La diffusione della particella ‘mi’ in alcune varietà messinesi: problemi di metodo. In Dialetti in città: Atti del convegno Sappada/Plodn (Belluno) 30 giugno – 4 luglio 2004, Gianna Marcato (ed.), 237–242. Padua: Unipress.Google Scholar
. 2009. La particella mu nei dialetti calabresi meridionali. In Quaderni di lavoro ASIt, 9. Studi sui dialetti della Calabria, Diego Pescarini (ed.), 101–117. Padua: Unipress.Google Scholar
. 2010. Matching Moods: Mood Concord between CP and IP in Salentino and Southern Calabrian Subjunctive Complements. In Mapping the Left Periphery. The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, vol. 5, Paola Benincà & Nicola Munaro (eds), 228–256. Oxford / New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
De Angelis, Alessandro. 2013. Strategie di complementazione frasale nell’estremo Meridione italiano. 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: Osanna Edizioni.Google Scholar
. 2017. Between Greek and Romance: Competing complementation systems in Southern Italy. In Language and Identity in Multilingual Mediterranean settings. Challenges for Historical Sociolinguistics, Piera Molinelli (ed.), 135–156. Berlin / New York: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Dardel, Robert. 1958. Le parafait fort en roman commun. Geneva: Droz.Google Scholar
Di Caro, Vincenzo N. 2015. Syntactic Constructions with Motion Verbs in Some Sicilian Dialects: a Comparative Analysis. Master’s Degree Dissertation. Ca’ Foscari University of Venice.
Di Caro, Vincenzo Nicolò. 2019a. Multiple Agreement Constructions in Southern Italo-Romance. The Syntax of Sicilian Pseudo-Coordination. PhD dissertation, Ca’ Foscari University of Venice.
. 2019b. The Inflected Construction in the dialects of Sicily: parameters of micro-variation. In Italian Dialectology at the Interface, Silvio Cruschina, Adam Ledgeway & Eva-Maria Remberger (eds), 63–78. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2019c. Perifrasi verbali deontiche e paradigmi difettivi nel dialetto di Delia, in Bollettino del Centro di Studi Filologici e Linguistici Siciliani, 30: 217–244.Google Scholar
Di Caro, Vincenzo Nicolò & Giusti, Giuliana. 2015. A Protocol for the Inflected Construction in Sicilian Dialects. Annali di Ca’ Foscari, Serie Occidentale, vol. 49: 393–422.Google Scholar
. 2018. Dimensions of variation: the Inflected Construction in the dialect of Delia (Caltanissetta). In Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 14. Selected papers form the 46th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages (LSRL), Stony Brook, New York, Lori Repetti & Francisco Ordóñez (eds), 54–68. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dressler, Wolfgang U. & Thornton, Anna. 1991. Doppie basi e binarismo nella morfologia italiana, Rivista di Linguistica 3 (1): 3–22.Google Scholar
Fulci, Innocenzio. 1855. Lezioni filologiche sulla lingua siciliana. Catania: Tip. del Reale Ospizio di Beneficenza.Google Scholar
Josefsson, Günlog. 1991. Pseudocoordination – A VP + VP coordination. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 47. 130–156.Google Scholar
Josefsson, Gunlög. 2014. Pseudo-coordination in Swedish with gå ‘go’ and the ‘surprise effect’, in Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax, 93. Lund: Lund University Publications.Google Scholar
Lausberg, Heinrich. 1969. Romanische Sprachwissenschaft: Einleitung und Vokalismus, 3 vols. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ledgeway, Adam. 1998. Variation in the Romance infinitive: the case of Southern Calabrian inflected infinitive. In Transactions of the Philological Society, 96: 1–61. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016. From Coordination to Subordination: the Grammaticalisation of Progressive and Andative Aspect in the Dialects of Salento. In Coordination and Subordination, Adriana Cardoso, Ana Maria Martins, Sandra Pereira, Clara Pinto & Fernanda Pratas (eds). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Leone, Alfonso. 1973. Vattel’a pesca, vieni a piglialo. Lingua Nostra, 34: 11–13.Google Scholar
. 1978. Sullo scadimento semantico di andare. Lingua Nostra, 39: 50–54.Google Scholar
. 1980. La morfologia del verbo nelle parlate della Sicilia sud-orientale. Palermo: Centro di studi filologici e linguistici siciliani.Google Scholar
Magni, Elisabetta. 2001. Paradigm organization and lexical connections in the development of the Italian passato remoto, in Yearbook of Morphology 1999, Geert Booij & Jaap van Marle (eds). Dordrecht: Springer 1999:75–96.Google Scholar
Maiden, Martin. 1995. A Linguistic History of Italian. London: Longman.Google Scholar
. 2000. Di un cambiamento intramorfologico: origini del tipo dissi, dicesti ecc., nell’italoromanzo. Archivio glottologico italiano, 85: 137–171.Google Scholar
. 2001a. Passato remoto e condizionale nella morfologia storica italoromanza. L’Italia dialettale, 62: 7–26.Google Scholar
. 2001b. A Strange Affinity: ‘Perfecto y tiempos afines’. Bulletin of Hispanic Studies, 78: 441–464. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2004. When lexemes become allomorphs – on the genesis of suppletion. Folia Linguistica, 38: 227–56. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2005. Morphological autonomy and diachrony, in Yearbook of Morphology 2004, Geert Booij & Jaap van Marle (eds). Dordrecht: Springer, 137–75. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. Morphological persistence, in The Cambridge History of the Romance Languages, Vol. 1, Martin Maiden, John Charles Smith & Adam Ledgeway (eds). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 155–215.Google Scholar
. 2018b. The Romance Verb. Morphomic Structure and Diachrony. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maiden, M. and O’Neill, P. (2010). ‘On morphomic defectiveness: evidence from the Romance languages of the Iberian Peninsula’. In Baerman, M., Corbett, G. G., and Brown, D. (eds), Defective Paradigms: Missing Forms and What They Tell Us. 103–24. Oxford: Oxford University Press/British Academy. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Manzini, M. Rita & Savoia, Leonardo M. 2005. I dialetti Italiani e Romanci: Morfosintassi Generativa. Alessandria: Edizioni dell’Orso.Google Scholar
Manzini, M. Rita, Lorusso, Paolo & Savoia, Leonardo M. 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
Meyer-Lübke, Wilhelm. 1895 [1890–1902]. Grammaire des langues romanes, vol. 2, Morphologie. Paris: E. Welter Editeur.Google Scholar
Palmer, Leonard R. 1954. The Latin Language. London: Faber and Faber.Google Scholar
Pitrè, Giuseppe. 1978a [1875]. Saggio d’una grammatica del dialetto e delle parlate siciliane, in Fiabe, novella e racconti popolari siciliani, vol. I. Palermo: Il Vespro.Google Scholar
. 1978b [1875]. Fiabe, novella e racconti popolari siciliani, vol. IV. Palermo: Il Vespro.Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey & Svartvik, Jan. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Rohlfs, Gerhard. 1968. Grammatica storica della lingua italiana e dei suoi dialetti, vol. 2: Morfologia. Turin: Einaudi.Google Scholar
. 1969. Grammatica storica della lingua italiana e dei suoi dialetti, vol. 3: Sintassi e formazione delle parole. Turin: Einaudi.Google Scholar
Ross, Daniel. 2016. Going to Surprise: the grammaticalization of itive as mirative. In Online Proceedings of Cognitive Linguistics in Wrocław Web Conference. Wrocław: Polish Cognitive Linguistics Association and University of Wrocław. Online at: <[URL]>.
Schütze, Carson T. & Sprouse, Jon. 2013. Judgment data. In Research Methods in Linguistics, Robert J. Podesva & Devyani Sharma (eds), 27–50. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Smith, John Charles. 2013. The morphome as a gradient phenomenon: evidence from Romance. In The Boundaries of Pure Morphology, Silvio Cruschina, Martin Maiden & John Charles Smith (eds), 247–261. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sobin, Nicholas. 1987. The variable status of Comp-trace phenomena. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 5: 33–60. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sornicola, Rosanna. 1976. Vado a dire o vaiu a ddico problema sintattico o problema semantico? Lingua Nostra, 37 (3–4): 65–74.Google Scholar
Sorrento, Luigi. 1950. Sintassi romanza: Ricerche e prospettive. Milan: Istituto editoriale cisalpino.Google Scholar
Stefanini, Ruggero. 1970. Imperativo per infinito in fiorentino. Lingua Nostra, 31: 19–20.Google Scholar
Tekavčić, Pavao. 1980. Grammatica storica dell’italiano, vol. 2. Morfosintassi. Bologna: Il Mulino.Google Scholar
Teleman, Ulf. 1974. Manual för grammatisk beskrivning av talad och skriven svenska. Lund: Studentlitteratur.Google Scholar
Thornton, Anna. 2007. “Is There a Partition in the Present Indicative of Italian Irregular Verbs?”. Annali Online di Ferrara – Lettere, 2: 43–61.Google Scholar
Todaro, Giuseppina & Del Prete, Fabio. 2019. The morphosyntax-semantics interface and the Sicilian Doubly Inflected Construction. In Italian Dialectology at the Interface, Silvio Cruschina, Adam Ledgeway & Eva-Maria Remberger (eds). 131–154. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wiklund, Anna-Lena. 1996. « Pseudocoordination is subordination ». Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax, 58: 29–54.Google Scholar
. 2008. Creating surprise in complex predication. Nordlyd 35, 163–187. Tromsoe University. DOI logoGoogle Scholar