Article published in:
Linguistic Variation
Vol. 21:2 (2021) ► pp. 370–412

Pattern replication and extraction from spatial PPs in Molise Slavic

| Karl-Franzens-Universität Graz
This paper investigates P-stranding under A′-extraction in spatial PPs in Molise Slavic (MSL). After showing that P-stranding bijectively correlates with dative case on the Ground argument of P, I argue that the cases of extraction at stake instantiate grammatical convergence in the form of “pattern replication” (Matras & Sakel 2007). A′-extraction is licensed by the presence of borrowed additional functional material valuing and interpreting K(ase). The richer structure allows for KP to move out of the PP Phase without violating Anti-Locality. Both Italian and MSL secondary Ps displaying P-stranding are characterized as instantiating one of two possible structural options for P-stranding. The alternative structure is argued to be instantiated in Germanic, consistently with existing proposals (Abels 2012). The choice between the two options, as well as the productivity of the selected option in a given grammatical system, is a matter of (micro-)variation in the availability of functional vocabulary.
Keywords: Anti-Locality, A′-Extraction, case, pattern replication, Phases, pied piping, P(reposition)-stranding, Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian, Italian, Molise Slavic
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Spatial prepositions in Molise Slavic
    • 2.1Language background
    • 2.2The system of spatial prepositions
    • 2.3The secondary class
  • 3.Extraction phenomena
  • 4.Extraction from PPs as pattern replication
  • 5.Connecting extraction and case
    • 5.1Case in spatial PPs
    • 5.2Availability of extraction and case
    • 5.3Accounting for P-stranding in Italian and Molise Slavic
  • 6.P-Stranding and variation in functional structure
    • 6.1Micro-variation in Molise and in Friuli
    • 6.2Beyond MSL and Italo-Romance
  • 7.Conclusion and outlook
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 09 March 2021
https://doi.org/10.1075/lv.19012.qua
References
Abels, Klaus
2003 Successive Cyclicity, Anti-locality and Adposition Stranding. Ph.D. Thesis. University of Connecticut, Storrs.Google Scholar
2012 Phases. An essay on cyclicity in Syntax ( Linguistische Arbeiten 543). Berlin: De Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Adamou, Evangelia, Walter Breu, Lenka Scholze and Rachel Xingjia Shen
2016 Borrowing and Contact Intensity: A Corpus-Driven Approach From Four Slavic Minority Languages. Journal of Language Contact, 91 (2016) 513–542. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Alexandre, Nélia
(2009) Wh-Constructions in Cape Verdean Creole: extensions of the theory of movement. Lisbon: Universidade de Lisboa dissertation.Google Scholar
Arsenijević, Boban
2012 Evaluative reflexions: evaluative dative reflexive in South East Serbo-Croatian. In Ricardo Etxepare e Beatriz Fernández (eds.), Datives in variation: a micro-comparative perspective, 1–21. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Asbury, Anna, Jakub Dotlačil and Berit Gehrke
(eds.) 2008 Syntax and Semantics of Spatial P. ( Linguistik Aktuell 120). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Authier, J.-Marc
2016 French Orphan prepositions revisited. Probus 28(2). 231–270. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bašić, Monika
2007 Serbian Ps with and without iz and the Superset Principle. Nordlyd: Tromsø Working Papers on Language & Linguistics 34.2. 300–319. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Beck, Sigrid. and Kyle Johnson
2004 Double objects again. Linguistic Inquiry 351. 97–124. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Benincà, Paola, Giampaolo Salvi and Lorenza Frison
1988 L’ordine degli elementi della frase e le costruzioni marcate. In L. Renzi, G. P. Salvi and A. Cardinaletti (eds.), Grande grammatica italiana di consultazione, vol. 11, 129–239. Bologna: il Mulino.Google Scholar
Belletti, Adriana
2018 On a-marking of object topics in the Italian left periphery. In R. Petrosino, P. Cerrone, and H. van der Hulst (eds.), From Sounds to Structure. Beyond the Veil of Maya (Studies in Generative Grammar 135), 445–466. Berlin/Munich/Boston: Walter De Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Boeckx, Cedric
2005 Some notes on bounding. Ms., Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Bošković, Željko
1994 D-structure, theta-criterion, and movement into theta-positions. Linguistic Analysis 241: 247–286.Google Scholar
2012 On NPs and clauses. In Günther Grewendorf and Thomas Ede Zimmermann (eds.), Discourse and grammar: From sentence types to lexical categories, 179–242. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2013 Phases beyond clauses. In L. Schürcks, A. Giannakidou, U. Etxeberria, e P. Kosta (eds.), Nominal constructions in Slavic and beyond, 75–127. Berlin: De Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2014 Now I’m a phase, now I’m not a phase: On the variability of phases with extraction and ellipsis. Linguistic Inquiry 45(1). 27–89. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2016 Contextual phasehood and the ban on extraction from complements of lexical heads: When does X become a phase? In M. Yasui and M. Mizuguchi (eds.), Phase theory and its consequences, 5–39. Tokyo: Kaitakusha.Google Scholar
Breu, Walter
2002 Italoalbanisch. In M. Okuka (ed.), Lexikon der osteuropäischen Sprachen. Klagenfurt: Wieserverlag 2002 73–75.Google Scholar
Breu, Walter & Giovanni Piccoli
2000 Dizionario croato-molisano di Acquaviva Collecroce. Campobasso:Google Scholar
2011 Südslavisch unter romanischem Dach. Die Moliseslaven in Geschichte und Gegenwart im Spiegel ihrer Sprache. Teil I. Texte gesprochener Sprache aus Acquaviva Collecroce, ( Sagners Slavistische Sammlung 32). München: Otto Sagner. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Buchholz, Oda & Wilfried Fiedler
1987 Albanische Grammatik. Leipzig: VEB Verlag Enzyklopedie Leipzig.Google Scholar
Cattell, Ray
1976 Constraints on movement rules. Language 521. 18–50. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam
2000 Minimalist Inquiries: The Framework. In Roger Martin, David Michaels, and Juan Uriagereka (eds.), Step by Step: Essays on minimalism in honor of Howard Lasnik, 89–155. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo
1990 Types of A′-Dependencies. Cambridge (MA) & London: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
1999 Adverbs and functional heads. A cross-linguistic perspective. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2010 Mapping spatial PPs: an introduction. In Guglielmo Cinque e Luigi Rizzi (eds.), Mapping Spatial PPs ( The Cartography of Syntactic Structures 6), 3–26. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
De Giovanni, Marcello
2003 Molise ( Profilo dei dialetti italiani – 12). Pisa: Pacini Editore.Google Scholar
Dorian, N. C.
1977 The Problem of the Semi-Speaker in Language Death. Linguistics 1911: 23–32.Google Scholar
Erlewine, Michael Yoshitaka
2020 Anti-locality and subject extraction. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 5(1): 841. 1–38. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Franco, Ludovico
2016 Axial parts, phi-features and degrammaticalization: the case of Italian presso/pressi in diachrony. Transactions of the Philological Society 1141: 149–170. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Franco, Ludovico, M. Rita Manzini, and Leonardo M. Savoia
2020 Ps as general relators. Location, direction, DOM in Romance. Linguistic Variation. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Garzonio, Jacopo and Silvia Rossi
2016 Case in Italian complex PPs. In E. Carrilho, A. Fiés, M. Lobo and S. Pereira (eds.), Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 101, 121–138. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2020 AxParts and Case in Complex PPs. In Jacopo Garzonio & Silvia Rossi (eds.) Variation in P, 84–113. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Grohmann, Kleanthes
2003 Prolific domains. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Heidinger, Steffen
2019 Anaphernresolution und verwaiste Präpositionen im Französischen. Zeitschrift für französische Sprache und Literatur 129(1): 3–30. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Huang, Cheng-Teh J.
1982 Logical relations in Chinese and the Theory of Grammar. Boston, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray
1983 Semantics and Cognition. Cambridge & London: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
1996 The architecture of the linguistic-spatial interface. In Paul Bloom, Mary A. Peterson, Lynn Nadel, e Merrill F. Garrett (eds.), Language and Space, 1–30. Cambridge, Ma: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kaiser, Georg
2012 Preposition stranding and orphaning: The case of bare prepositions in French. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 151–240–242. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kalsbeek, Janneke
1998 The Čakavian dialect of Orbanići near Žminj in Istria ( Studies in Slavic and General Linguistics 25). Amsterdam/Atlanta, GA: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Ledgeway, Adam
2000 A comparative syntax of the dialects of Southern Italy. A Minimalist approach. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Manzini, M. Rita, and Leonardo M. Savoia
2010 Case as denotation: variation in Romance. Studi Italiani di Linguistica teorica e applicata XXXIX 3: 409–438.Google Scholar
Matras, Yaron & Jeanette Sakel
2007 Investigating the mechanisms of pattern replication in language convergence. Studies in Language 31(4). 829–865. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Quaglia, Stefano
2016 Particle verbs in Italian. Konstanz, Germany: University of Konstanz Dissertation.Google Scholar
Padovan, Andrea
2012 Luserna Cimbrian and Semi-Speakerness. In Jacopo Garzonio & Diego Pescarini (eds.), Quaderni di Lavoro ASIt 141 (Atti della XVII Giornata di Dialettologia), 155–168.Google Scholar
Rešetar, Milan
1911 Die Serbokroatischen Kolonien Süditaliens. Wien: Kaiserliche Akademie der Wissenschaften.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi
1988 Il sintagma preposizionale. In Lorenzo Renzi, Giampaolo Salvi & Anna Cardinaletti (eds.), Grande grammatica italiana di consultazione Volume I (first edition), 507–531. Bologna: Il Mulino.Google Scholar
2001 Il sintagma preposizionale. In Lorenzo Renzi, Giampaolo Salvi & Anna Cardinaletti (eds.), Grande grammatica italiana di consultazione Volume I (second edition), 521–545. Bologna: Il Mulino.Google Scholar
Roy, Isabelle & Peter Svenonius
2009 Complex prepositions. In Francois Jacques, Eric Gilbert, Claude Guimier & Maxi Krause (eds.), Autour de la préposition. Actes du Colloque International de Caen (20–22 septembre 2007), 105–116. Caen: Presses Universitaires de Caen.Google Scholar
Saito, Mamoru, and Keiko Murasugi
1999 Subject predication within IP and DP. In Kyle Johnson and Ian Roberts (eds.), Beyond principles and parameters, 167–188. Dordrecht: Kluwer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schwarze, Christoph
2012 Romance clitic pronouns in lexical paradigms. In Sascha Gaglia & Marc-Olivier Hinzelin (eds.), Inflection and Word Formation in Romance Languages, 119–140. Amsterdam: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Svenonius, Peter
2006 The Emergence of Axial Parts. In Nordlyd: Tromsø Working Papers in Language and Linguistics. 33(1). 49–77.Google Scholar
2010 Spatial P in English. In G. Cinque e L. Rizzi (eds.), Mapping Spatial PPs (The Cartography of Syntactic Structures 6), 127–160. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Stepanov, Arthur
2007 The end of CED? Minimalism and extraction domains. Syntax 10(1). 80–126. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Talić, Aida
2013 Extraordinary complement extraction: PP-complements and inherently case-marked nominal complements. Studies in Polish Linguistics 8(3). 127–150.Google Scholar
2019 Upward P-cliticization, accent shift, and extraction out of PP. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory (37). 1103–1143. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ticio, Emma
2003 On the structure of DPs. Doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs.Google Scholar
Van Riemsdijk, Henk C.
1978 A Case Study in Syntactic Markedness: The Binding Nature of Prepositional Phrases. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Veenstra, Tonjes and den Besten, Hans
1995 Fronting, in J. Arends, P. Muysken & N. Smith (eds.), Pidgins and Creoles – an introduction, 303–315. Amsterdam: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wunderlich, Dieter
1991 How Do Prepositional Phrases Fit into Compositional Syntax and Semantics? Linguistics 291: 591–621. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wunderlich, D. and M. Herweg
1991 Lokale und Direktionale. In A. von Stechow & D. Wunderlich, eds., Semantik: Ein internationales Handbuch der zeitgenössischen Forschung, 758–785. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zlatić, Larisa
1994 An asymmetry in extraction from noun phrases in Serbian. In Indiana Linguistic Studies 71, 207–216. Indiana University Linguistic Club, Bloomington.Google Scholar
1997 The structure of the Serbian Noun Phrase. Doctoral dissertation, University of Texas, Austin.Google Scholar
Zribi-Hertz, Anne
. Orphan prepositions in French and the concept of “null pronoun”. Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana University Linguisitcs Club 1984.Google Scholar