Cover not available
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: 9 March 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lv.19012.qua
References (64)
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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Asbury, Anna, Jakub Dotlačil and Berit Gehrke (eds.). 2008. Syntax and Semantics of Spatial P. ( Linguistik Aktuell 120). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Authier, J.-Marc. 2016. French Orphan prepositions revisited. Probus 28(2). 231–270. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beck, Sigrid. and Kyle Johnson. 2004. Double objects again. Linguistic Inquiry 351. 97–124. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Franco, Ludovico, M. Rita Manzini, and Leonardo M. Savoia. 2020. Ps as general relators. Location, direction, DOM in Romance. Linguistic Variation. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2020. AxParts and Case in Complex PPs. In Jacopo Garzonio & Silvia Rossi (eds.) Variation in P, 84–113. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grohmann, Kleanthes. 2003. Prolific domains. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heidinger, Steffen. 2019. Anaphernresolution und verwaiste Präpositionen im Französischen. Zeitschrift für französische Sprache und Literatur 129(1): 3–30. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stepanov, Arthur. 2007. The end of CED? Minimalism and extraction domains. Syntax 10(1). 80–126. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wunderlich, Dieter. 1991. How Do Prepositional Phrases Fit into Compositional Syntax and Semantics? Linguistics 291: 591–621. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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