Cover not available
Article published In:
Revue Romane
Vol. 58:1 (2023) ► pp.65–87
articles linguistiques

Il congiuntivo alla danese

A homage to Jørgen Schmitt Jensen

| University of Copenhagen
| University of Copenhagen
This article assesses the theory of ‘the subjunctive as a subordination marker’ proposed by Schmitt Jensen (1970a) in light of recent advances in the study of complementation. It argues that the theory is consistent with the functional framework of Givón (2001) where event integration is said to be mirrored in syntactic integration, but that it has to be revised on two points. Firstly, instead of marking syntactic subordination, we propose that the subjunctive is used to prompt a non-referring construal of the subordinate clause in certain constructions. Secondly, we suggest that the subjunctive prompts a conceptually secondary construal of the subordinate clause in other constructions. By proposing a twofold function of the subjunctive, we can keep the main findings of Schmitt Jensen while avoiding potential circularity and shortcomings that the syntactic theory of the subjunctive faces when applied to, e.g., mood alternation.
Keywords: Italian language, subjunctive, mood alternation, cognitive-functional linguistics, complementation
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Schmitt Jensen’s Subjonctif et hypotexe en italien
    • 2.1Revisiting the idea
      • 2.1.1Givón’s clause union theory
      • 2.1.2The complementation scale
      • 2.1.3Confronting the cohesion-creating subjunctive with the complementation scale
  • 3.A cognitive-functional approach
    • 3.1Subjunctive as prompting a non-referring construal
    • 3.2Subjunctive as prompting a conceptually secondary CC
  • 4.Advantages of the cognitive-functional approach
    • 4.1Confronting some basic assumptions
    • 4.2Mood alternation
    • 4.3Summing up
  • 5.Discussion
    • 5.1The non-referring subjunctive
    • 5.2Conceptually secondary subjunctive
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
Published online: 11 February 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/rro.20027.and
References (37)
References
Achard, M. (1998): Representation of Cognitive Structure: Syntax and Semantics of French Sentential Complements. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin-New York. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berretta, M. (1994): Il parlato contemporaneo, in: Serianni, L. & P. Trifone (eds.): Storia della lingua italiana. Einaudi, Turin, vol. II1: Scritto e parlato, pp. 239–279.Google Scholar
Bolkestein, A. M. (1976): The relation between form and meaning of Latin subordinate clauses governed by verba dicendi. Mnemosyne, 29,2, pp. 155–175. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boye, K. (2010): Reference and clausal perception-verb complements. Linguistics, 48,2, pp. 391–430. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2012): Epistemic meaning: a cross-linguistic and cognitive study. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boye, K. & P. Harder. (2012): A usage-based theory of grammatical status and grammaticalization. Language, 88,1, pp. 1–44. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2018): Verbalmodus og sætningsmodus. Ny forskning i grammatik, 251, pp. 4–15. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bronzi, A. M. (1977): Indicativo e congiuntivo nelle completive italiane. Studi di grammatica italiana, 61, pp. 425–450.Google Scholar
Della Valle, V. & G. Patota. (2009): Viva il congiuntivo! Sperling & Kupfer, Milan.Google Scholar
Dik, S. (1997): The Theory of Functional Grammar. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin-New York, vol. I1: The Structure of the Clause.Google Scholar
Giorgi, A. (2009): Toward a syntax of the subjunctive mood. Lingua, 1191, pp. 1837–1858. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Givón, T. (1995): Functionalism and grammar. Benjamins, Amsterdam. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2001): Syntax: An introduction. Benjamins, Amsterdam, vol. II1. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harder, P. (1996): Functional semantics: A theory of meaning, structure and tense in English. Mouton, Berlin. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hooper, J. B. (1975): On Assertive Predicates. Syntax and Semantics, 41, pp. 91–124.Google Scholar
Jespersen, O. (1924): The philosophy of grammar. George Allen & Unwin, London.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, K. (1994): Information Structure and Sentence Form, Topic, Focus, and the Mental Representations of Discourse Referents. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1991): Foundations of cognitive grammar. Stanford University Press, Stanford, vol. II1: Descriptive application.Google Scholar
(2014): Subordination in a dynamic account of grammar, in: Visapää, L., J. Kalliokoski, & H. Sorva (eds.): Context of subordination: Cognitive, typological and discourse perspectives. Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 17–72. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lombardi Vallauri, E. (2003): Vitalità del congiuntivo nell’italiano parlato, in: Maraschio, N. & T. Poggi Salani (eds.): Italia linguistica anno mille, Italia linguistica anno duemille: Atti del XXXIV Congresso Internazionale di Studi della Società di Linguistica Italiana (SLI). Bulzoni, Rome, pp. 609–634.Google Scholar
Meihuizen-Dokkum, B. I. (1974): Indicative e congiuntivo nelle completive italiane. Mondeel-Offsettdrukkerij, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Noonan, M. (2007): Complementation, in: Shopen, T. (ed.): Language typology and syntactic description. CUP, Cambridge, vol. II1: Complex constructions, pp. 42–140. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Prandi, M. (2002): C´è un valore per il congiuntivo?, in: Schena, L., M. Mazzoleni & M. Prandi (eds.): Intorno al congiuntivo. CLUEB, Bologna, pp. 29–44.Google Scholar
Rohlfs, G. (1969): Grammatica storica della lingua italiana e dei suoi dialetti. Einaudi, Turin, vol. III1: Sintassi e formazione delle parole.Google Scholar
Rossi, F. & F. Ruggiano. (2013): Scrivere in italiano. Carocci, Rome.Google Scholar
Salvi, G. & L. Vanelli. (2004): Nuova grammatica italiana. Il Mulino, Bologna.Google Scholar
Schmitt Jensen, J. (1970a): Subjonctif et hypotaxe en italien: Une esquisse de la syntaxe du subjonctif dans les propositions subordonnées en italien contemporain. Odense University Press, Odense.Google Scholar
(1970b): Une analyse fonctionnelle du subjonctif italien, in: Rosetti, A. & S. Reinheimer-Rîpeanu (eds.): Actele celui de-al XII-lea Congres International de Linguistică şi Filologie Romanică. Editura academiei republicii socialiste romănia, Bucharest, pp. 703–716.Google Scholar
Schneider, S. (1999): Il congiuntivo tra modalità e subordinazione: Uno studio sull’italiano parlato. Carocci, Rome.Google Scholar
Serianni, L. (1988): Grammatica italiana: Italiano comune e lingua letteraria: Suoni, forme e costrutti. UTET, Turin.Google Scholar
Serianni, L. & G. Antonelli. (2011): Manuale di linguistica italiana: Storia, attualità, grammatica. Mondadori, Milan.Google Scholar
Sgroi, C. S. (2013): Dove va il congiuntivo? Ovvero, il congiuntivo da nove punti di vista. UTET, Turin.Google Scholar
Stewart, D. (1996): The Italian subjunctive: tradition and innovation. The Italianist, 161, pp. 234–304. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thompson, S. A. (2002): “Object complements” and conversation: Towards a realistic account. Studies in Language, 26,1, pp. 125–163. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Togeby, K. (1971): Jørgen Schmitt Jensen: Subjonctif et hypotaxe en italien. Thèse de Århus. 749 pages – Odense University Press, 1970. Revue Romane, 6,1, pp. 127–135.Google Scholar
Wandruszka, U. (1991): Frasi subordinate al congiuntivo, in: Renzi, L. & G. Salvi. (eds.): Grande grammatica italiana di consultazione. Il Mulino, Bologna, vol. II1: I sintagmi verbale, aggettivale, avverbiale. La subordinazione, pp. 415–482.Google Scholar
Wurmbrand, S. & M. Lohninger (forthcoming): An implicational universal in complementation: Theoretical insights and empirical progress, in: Hartmann, M. H. & A. Wöllstein: Propositional Arguments in Cross-Linguistic Research: Theoretical and Empirical Issues. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin.