Cover not available

Article In: Linguistic Variation: Online-First Articles

The instrument-subject alternation in the dialect of Reggio Emilia

ORCiD logo with link | Ca’ Foscari University of Venice
 | Ca’ Foscari University of Venice
This content is being prepared for publication; it may be subject to changes.
Abstract
This paper is dedicated to a cross-linguistic comparison of the Instrument-Subject Alternation in Italian and the dialect of Reggio Emilia. This phenomenon lies at the interface between semantics and syntax. It is syntactic in nature but ruled by two main semantic constraints, i.e., the Constraint on the Instrumental Subrole and the Deliberation Constraint. The comparative analysis reveals that the semantic constraints that rule the Instrument-Subject Alternation hold for both Italian and the dialect of Reggio Emilia. Differences between the two languages are found in the lexicon, i.e., in the way the two languages lexicalize the same concepts.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The Instrument-Subject Alternation
    • 2.1The Constraint on the Instrumental Subrole
    • 2.2The Deliberation Constraint
    • 2.3A note on the anticausative alternation
  • 3.The ISA in the dialect of Reggio Emilia
    • 3.1The Constraint on the Instrumental Subrole
    • 3.2The Deliberation constraint
    • 3.3Differences between the dialect of Reggio Emilia and Italian lie in the lexicon
  • 4.Conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Author queries
  • References
References (37)
References
Alexiadou, Artemis & Florian Schäfer. 2006. Instrument Subjects are Agents or Causers. In Donald Baumer, David Montero & Michael Scanlon (eds.), Proceedings of the 25th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 40–48. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Altenberg, Bengt & Sylviane Granger. 2002. Recent trends in cross-linguistic lexical studies. In Altenberg, Bengt & Sylviane Granger (eds.), Lexis in Contrast. Corpus-based Approaches. Studies in Corpus Linguistics 7, 3–48. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brunson, Barbara A. 1992. Thematic discontinuity. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Toronto.
Cennamo, M. 2001. L’inaccusatività in alcune varietà campane: teorie e dati a confronto. Sornicola et al. (eds.), Atti del XXXIII Convegno SLI, 419–444. Roma, IT: Bulzoni.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Davidson, Donald. 1967. The logical form of action sentences. Essays on actions and events, 5. 105–48. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
DeLancey, Scott. 1984. Notes on Agentivity and Causation. Studies in Language, 8(2). 181–213. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1991. Event Construal and Case Role Assignment. Proceedings of the Seventeenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society: General Session and Parasession on The Grammar of Event Structure, 338–353. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dillon, George L. I974. Some postulates characterizing volitive NPs. Journal of Linguistics, 10(2). 221–233. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dowty, David R. 1991. Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language, 67(3). 547–619. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. 1968. The case for case. In Emmon Bach & Robert T. Harms (eds.), Universals in Linguistic Theory, 1–87. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Folli, Raffaella. 2002. Constructing Telicity in English and Italian. PhD dissertation. University of Oxford.
Gruber, Jeffrey S. 1965. Studies in Lexical Relations. Ph.D. Dissertation. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Hajek, John. 1997. Emilia-Romagna. In Martin Maiden & Mair Perry (eds.), The Dialects of Italy, 271–77. London, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heidinger, Steffen & Richard Huyghe. 2024. Semantic roles and the causative-anticausative alternation: evidence from French change-of-state verbs. Linguistics, 62(1): 159–202. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1990. Semantic structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jezek, Elisabetta & Rossella Varvara. 2015. Instrument subjects without Instrument Role. In Proceedings of 11th Joint ACL-ISO Workshop on Interoperable Semantic Annotation, Queen Mary College of London. Tilburg University, Tilburg.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kamp, Hans & Antje Rossdeutscher. 1994. Remarks on Lexical Structure and DRS Construction. Theoretical Linguistics, 20 (2/3). 97–164. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kasper, Simon. 2008. A comparison of ‘thematic role’ theories. Unpublished masters’ thesis. The Philips University of Malburg.
Koenig, Jean-Pierre, Gail Mauner & Breton Bienvenue. 2003. Arguments for adjuncts. Cognition 89. 67–103. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Koenig, Jean-Pierre, Breton Bienvenue, Gail Mauner & Kathy Conklin. 2008. What With? The Anatomy of a (Proto)-Role. Journal of Semantics, 25(2). 175–220. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1991. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol II: Descriptive Application. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Levin, Beth & Malka Rappaport Hovav. 1995. Unaccusativity. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Marantz, Alec P. 1984. On the Nature of Grammatical Relations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ono, Naoyuki. 1992. Instruments: A Case Study of the Interface between Syntax and Lexical Semantics. English Linguistics, 9. 196–222. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya. 2002. The Theta System–An Overview. Theoretical Linguistics 28 (3): 229–290. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rissman, Lilia. 2013. Event Participant Representations and the Instrumental Role: A Cross- Linguistic Study. Ph.D. Dissertation. Johns Hopkins University.
Rissman, Lilia & Kyle Rawlins. 2017. Ingredients of Instrumental Meaning. Journal of Semantics, 34(3). 507–537. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schlesinger, Izchak M. 1989. Instruments as agents: on the nature of semantic relations. Journal of Linguistics, 25(1). 189–210. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1995. Cognitive Space and Linguistic Case: Semantic and Syntactic Categories in English. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schütze, Carson T. 1995. PP attachment and argumenthood. In Carson T. Schütze, Jennifer Ganger & Kevin Brolhier (eds.), Papers on language processing and acquisition, 95–151. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Suozzi, Alice, Anna Cardinaletti & Gianluca E. Lebani. 2024. On the argument status of Instruments in Italian. In M. Angster & M. B. Angster (eds.), The verbal kaleidoscope: perspectives on the syntax and semantics of verbs, 261–301. Morepress. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Suozzi, Alice, Gianluca E. Lebani & Giulia Maggiolini. 2025. What Makes an Agent an Agent? Comparing the Semantic Properties of Instruments and Prototypical Agents in Subject Position. Annali di Ca’ Foscari. Serie occidentale, 59, 145–172. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van Hooste, Koen. 2018. Instruments and Related Concepts at the Syntax-Semantics Interface. Düsseldorf, DE: Düsseldorf University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. & Randy Lapolla. 1997. Syntax: form, meaning, and function. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. & David P. Wilkins. 1996. The case for “Effector”: Case roles, agents and agency revisited. In Masayoshi Shibatani & Sandra A. Thompson (eds.), Grammatical Constructions: Their Form and Meaning, 289–322. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Webb, James. 2008. Instruments in LFG’s Argument-structure. MA Thesis. University of Oxford.
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 jbe-platform.quadraat-sans-bold jbe-platform.quadraat-sans-bold-dark jbe-platform.quadraat-sans-bold-light jbe-platform.quadraat-sans-bold prag Twitter_Logo_Blue