Cover not available
Article published In:
Variation in C: Comparative approaches to the Complementizer Phrase
Edited by Jacopo Garzonio and Silvia Rossi
[Linguistic Variation 18:2] 2018
► pp. 315–335

Complementizer doubling and subject extraction in Italo-Romance

| Università Ca’Foscari – Venezia

In this article I analyze the complementizer doubling construction attested in some early and modern Italo-Romance varieties, where a preposed (clausal or non clausal) constituent associated to the selected clause appears in the embedded left periphery preceded and followed by a subordinating complementizer. While the higher complementizer is uncontroversially interpreted as a lexicalization of the head Force°, the lower complementizer has been taken to lexicalize either the functional head Topic° or the functional head Fin°. Relying on previous formal analyses of subject extraction, I argue that in the varieties in which the lower complementizer lexicalizes Fin°, its presence reflects the lexicalization of the mood features encoded by Fin°, and is ultimately due to the extraction of the thematic subject out of the embedded clause through Spec,FinP, a movement strategy made possible by the presence of an expletive pro in the canonical preverbal subject position.

Keywords: complementizer doubling, left periphery, clausal adjunct, topicalization, subject extraction, morphological syncretism, Italo-Romance
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Complementizer doubling in early Italo-Romance
  • 3.Splitting the Topic field: Evidence from complementizer tripling
  • 4.Complementizer doubling in modern varieties of Italo-Romance
  • 5.Subject extraction and criterial constraints in complementizer doubling structures
    • 5.1The subject criterion and the mood features of Fin°
    • 5.2Fin° as a criterial head
    • 5.3Residual issues
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 1 February 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lv.00020.mun
References
Benincà, Paola & Cecilia Poletto
(2004) “Topic, Focus and V2 – Defining the CP sublayers”, in L. Rizzi (ed.) The structure of IP and CP. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 52–75.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam
(2001) “Derivation by phase”, in M. Kenstowicz (ed.) Ken Hale: A life in language. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, pp. 1–52.Google Scholar
Cruschina, Silvio
(2011) Discourse-related features and functional projections. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
D’Alessandro, Roberta & Adam Ledgeway
(2010) “At the C-T boundary: investigating Abruzzese complementation.” Lingua 1201: 2040–2060. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Damonte, Federico
(2010) “Matching moods”, in P. Benincà & N. Munaro (eds.) Mapping the left periphery, Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 228–256.Google Scholar
Giorgi, Alessandra & Fabio Pianesi
(1997) Tense and aspect: from semantics to morphosyntax. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gonzàlez i Planas, Francesc
(2014) “On quotative recomplementation: Between pragmatics and morphosyntax”, Lingua 1461: 39–74. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane
(2012) Adverbial clauses, main clause phenomena, and the composition of the left periphery. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ledgeway, Adam
(2005) “Moving through the left periphery: The dual complementizer system in the dialects of Southern Italy”. Transactions of the Philological Society 103.3: 339–39. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2010) “Subject licensing in CP”, in P. Benincà & N. Munaro (eds.) Mapping the left periphery, Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 257–296.Google Scholar
Manzini, Rita & Leonardo Savoia
(2005) I dialetti italiani e romanci – Morfosintassi generativa. Alessandria: Edizioni dell’Orso.Google Scholar
Mascarenhas, Salvador
(2007) “Complementizer doubling in European Portuguese”, manuscript, Amsterdam ILLC/ NYU.Google Scholar
Munaro, Nicola
(2005) “Computational puzzles of conditional clause preposing” in A. M. Di Sciullo (ed.) UG and external systems, Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 73–94. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2010) “Towards a hierarchy of clause types” in P. Benincà & N. Munaro (eds.) Mapping the left periphery, Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 125–162.Google Scholar
(2016) “A diachronic approach to complementizer doubling in Italo-Romance and the notion of downward reanalysis.” Rivista di Grammatica Generativa 381: 215–228.Google Scholar
Paoli, Sandra
(2003) COMP and the left-periphery: comparative evidence from Romance. PhD Thesis, Manchester: University of Manchester.Google Scholar
(2005) “COMP: a multi-talented category: Evidence from Romance”, in L. Brugè et al. (eds.) Contributions to the 30th Incontro di Grammatica Generativa. Venice: Cafoscarina, pp.185–202.Google Scholar
(2007) “The fine structure of the left periphery: COMPs and subjects. Evidence from Romance.” Lingua 117.6: 1057–1079. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Parry, Mair
(2003) “ Cosa ch’a l’é sta storia? The interaction of pragmatics and syntax in the development of wh-interrogatives with overt complementizer in Piedmontese”, in C. Tortora (ed.) The syntax of Italian dialects. Oxford/ New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 152–174.Google Scholar
Poletto, Cecilia
(2000) The higher functional field – Evidence from Northern Italian dialects. Oxford/ New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Poletto, Cecilia & Laura Vanelli
(1995) “Gli introduttori delle frasi interrogative nei dialetti italiani settentrionali” in E. Banfi, G. Bonfadini, P. Cordin & M. Iliescu (eds.) Italia Settentrionale: crocevia di idiomi romanzi. Tübingen: Niemeyer, pp. 145–158. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi
(1997) “The fine structure of the left periphery”, in L. Haegeman (ed.) Elements of grammar, Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 281–337. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2001) “On the position ‘Int(errogative)’ in the left periphery of the clause”, in G. Cinque & G. Salvi (eds.) Current studies in Italian syntax. Essays offered to Lorenzo Renzi. Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 287–296.Google Scholar
(2006) “On the form of chains: Criterial positions and ECP effects” in L. Cheng & N. Corver (eds.) Wh-movement: Moving on, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, pp. 97–134.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi & Ur Shlonsky
(2006) “Satisfying the Subject Criterion by a non subject: English Locative Inversion and Heavy NP Shift”, in M. Frascarelli (ed.) Phases of Interpretation. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 341–361. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2007) “Strategies of Subject Extraction”, in H. M. Gärtner & U. Sauerland (eds.) Interfaces + Recursion = Language? Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 115–154.Google Scholar
Villa-Garcìa, Julio
(2012) “Recomplementation and locality of movement in Spanish”. Probus 24.2: 257–314. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vincent, Nigel
(2006) “Il problema del doppio complementatore nei primi volgari d’Italia”, in A. Andreose, & N. Penello (eds.) LabRomAn: Giornata di lavoro sulle varietà romanze antiche. Padua: University of Padua, pp. 27–42.Google Scholar