View/Open - Lear
View/Open - Lear
View/Open - Lear
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
RIVISTA DI GRAMMATICA GENERATIVA<br />
Volume 26, anno 2001<br />
Direzione:<br />
Guglielmo Cinque (Università di Venezia)<br />
Luigi Rizzi (Université de Genève e Università di Siena)<br />
Comitato di lettura:<br />
Manuela Ambar (Univ. de Lisboa) - Paola Benincà (Università di<br />
Padova) - Adriana Belletti (Università di Siena) - Luciana Brandi<br />
(Univ. di Firenze) - Luigi Burzio (The John Hopkins Univ.) - Noam<br />
Chomsky (MIT) - Patrizia Cordin (Univ. di Trento) - Violeta Demonte<br />
(Univ. Autonoma de Madrid) - Alessandra Giorgi (Università di<br />
Bergamo) - Giorgio Graffi (Univ. di Verona) - Richard Kayne (New<br />
York University) - Michael Kenstowicz (MIT) - Giulio Lepschy (Univ.<br />
of Reading) - Giuseppe Longobardi (Univ. di Trieste) - Lidia Lonzi<br />
(Univ. di Milano) - Maria Rita Manzini (Università di Firenze) - Joan<br />
Mascaró (Univ. Autonoma de Barcelona) - Marina Nespor (Univ. Di<br />
Ferrara) - Jean-Yves Pollock (Univ. de Rennes II) - Annarita Puglielli<br />
(Univ. di Roma) - Andrew Radford (Univ. of Essex) - Lorenzo Renzi<br />
(Univ. di Padova) - Alain Rouveret (Univ. de Paris VIII) - Leonardo<br />
Savoia (Univ. di Firenze) - Sergio Scalise (Univ. di Bologna) - Laura<br />
Vanelli (Univ. di Padova) - Jean-Roger Vergnaud (Univ. of Southern<br />
California)
L‟INTERPRETAZIONE MORFOSEMANTICA<br />
DEL MODO CONGIUNTIVO IN ITALIANO E IN TEDESCO 1<br />
0. Introduzione<br />
Paolo CHINELLATO<br />
In questo lavoro propongo che l‟interpretazione semantica e il comportamento sintattico<br />
del modo congiuntivo siano strettamente legati alla sua costruzione morfologica<br />
e al numero di tratti che i morfemi riescono ad esprimere. Più precisamente, quello che<br />
dimostrerò attraverso la comparazione di dati del tedesco, dell‟italiano standard e di<br />
due varietà dialettali dell‟italiano (veneziano e bellunese), è che quando siamo in presenza<br />
di una forma sincretica che appartiene a due modi verbali diversi, il parlante interpreta<br />
tale forma come quella appartenente al modo meno marcato.<br />
Il lavoro è organizzato nel seguente modo: nella sezione 1 si discute un caso di selezione<br />
del modo congiuntivo in tedesco, più precisamente il discorso indiretto. Dopo<br />
aver esposto i casi di selezione di entrambi i congiuntivi, seguendo Cinque (1999)<br />
ho attribuito al congiuntivo presente (o congiuntivo1) il tratto [+evidenziale], e il<br />
tratto [+valutativo] al congiuntivo imperfetto (o congiuntivo 2); in 1.1 il confronto<br />
tra la coniugazione del congiuntivo e quella dell‟indicativo mostreranno che le forme<br />
che vengono interpretate dai parlanti come appartenenti al modo congiuntivo sono<br />
solamente quelle che possiedono un morfema di modo che veicola i tratti presentati<br />
al punto1. Nella sezione 2 tratterò un caso di selezione del modo congiuntivo in<br />
italiano, più precisamente la possibilità dei verba dicendi di selezionare un congiun-<br />
1 Questo lavoro nasce come approfondimento di alcuni temi già presenti nella mia Tesi di<br />
Laurea. Durante quel periodo, il mio lavoro è stato profondamente influenzato dal lavoro<br />
di Alessandra Giorgi alla quale sono estremamente debitore. Ringrazio tutti coloro che<br />
hanno letto o discusso con me parti di questo lavoro: Paola Benincà, Gehrard Brugger,<br />
Guglielmo Cinque, Federico Damonte, Giuliana Giusti, Rui Riberto Marques, Nicola<br />
Munaro, Fabio Pianesi e Cecilia Poletto. Un ringraziamento speciale va ad Anna Cardinaletti,<br />
che ha seguito questo lavoro dall‟inizio, fornendomi preziosi consigli ed indicazioni<br />
per la stesura di ogni versione del lavoro.<br />
3
Paolo Chinellato<br />
tivo: in 2.1 presenterò i tratti morfosemantici del modo congiuntivo italiano, proponendo<br />
che questo modo (insieme al modo condizionale), se selezionato da questa<br />
classe verbale, veicola il tratto [+valutativo], come il congiuntivo imperfetto tedesco;<br />
seguirà in 2.2 l‟analisi delle forme verbali, dove proporrò di considerare la desinenza<br />
della prima persona plurale –iamo come nuovo morfema di accordo e in 2.3<br />
tratterò i casi ambigui nell‟interpretazione dei due modi; nella sezione 3 introdurrò il<br />
Principio di Sostituzione (Pds), il principio che regola l‟interpretazione di una forma<br />
sincretica come quella appartenente al modo meno marcato e che attua la sostituzione<br />
di tale forma con una più marcata, se il contesto lo richiede. In 4 darò degli argomenti<br />
a sostegno di tale principio: osserverò per prima cosa due dialetti italiani<br />
settentrionali, il veneziano e il bellunese. Il veneziano (4.1.1) si comporta come<br />
l‟italiano standard e applica il PdS in alcuni casi in cui la forma del congiuntivo è<br />
identica all‟indicativo, mentre il Bellunese (4.1.2) non lo applica proprio perché avendo<br />
due forme distinte tra indicativo e congiuntivo non ne ha bisogno. In 4.2 infine<br />
considererò il caso della cancellazione del complementatore che in Italiano Standard<br />
come prova dell‟interpretazione di tali forme sintetiche come forme non marcate:<br />
infatti, la cancellazione è impossibile con forme di congiuntivo uguali<br />
all‟indicativo. La sezione 5 concluderà il lavoro.<br />
1. Un caso di selezione del modo congiuntivo in tedesco<br />
In tedesco le classi dei verba dicendi e verba sentiendi selezionano una frase subordinata<br />
al congiuntivo, anche se l‟indicativo è ugualmente ammesso:<br />
Er sagt/glaubt, dass Paul aus Italien kommt/komme/käme.<br />
(lett.: lui dice/crede che Paolo dall‟Italia viene/venga/IND/KON1/KON2) 2<br />
il congiuntivo tedesco è ammesso quando il soggetto della frase principale e quello<br />
della subordinata sono diversi dal parlante (2), quando solo il soggetto della principale<br />
è diverso dal parlante (3), ma non quando il soggetto della principale coincide<br />
col parlante (4) o quando entrambi i soggetti delle frasi coincidono col parlante (5):<br />
Sein Arzt sagt, er müsse ausspannen, diesmal sei ernstlich krank<br />
(Il suo medico dice, lui deve / KON 1 riposarsi, questa volta è / KON 1 lui seriamente<br />
malato)<br />
Er sagte, dass ich krank sei<br />
(Lui disse che io malato sono / KON1)<br />
2 D‟ora in poi mi riferirò al congiuntivo presente tedesco con la sigla KON 1 e al congiun-<br />
4<br />
tivo imperfetto con la sigla KON 2.
L’interpretazione morfosemantica del modo congiuntivo in italiano e in tedesco<br />
* Ich glaube, dass er komme<br />
(Io credo che lui venga / KON 1)<br />
* Ich glaube, dass ich krank sei<br />
(* Io credo che io venga / KON 1)<br />
La frase (4) mostra chiaramente che il KON 1 non può segnalare nessun atteggiamento<br />
del parlante sul contenuto della frase, perché se così fosse sarebbe grammaticale<br />
come lo è (6):<br />
Er glaubt, dass Paul komme<br />
(Lui crede che Paolo venga / KON 1)<br />
Il KON 1 sembra quindi essere un segnale del discorso riportato; sembra esprimere,<br />
attraverso il morfema di modo, un tratto che chiamerò, seguendo<br />
l‟impostazione di Cinque (1999), [+evidenziale] 3 .<br />
Notiamo che l‟uso del congiuntivo tedesco differisce dall„italiano nel caso in (4),<br />
dove la corrispondente italiana è grammaticale,<br />
Io credo che lui venga<br />
ma è identico nel caso di (5), dove anche la corrispondente italiana (8) è completamente<br />
agrammaticale e deve essere sostituita con (9):<br />
* Io credo che io venga<br />
Io credo di venire<br />
La differenza tra (4) e (7) chiarisce la diversa natura del modo congiuntivo nelle<br />
due lingue. In italiano standard la classe dei verba sentiendi richiede il modo congiuntivo<br />
(consecutio modorum) come si vede dalla differenza di accettabilità tra<br />
(10a) e (10b) 4 (si veda la sezione 2.1):<br />
a. Credo che lui venga<br />
b. ? Credo che (lui) viene<br />
Per quanto riguarda la concordanza dei tempi, il congiuntivo presente esprime<br />
un rapporto di contemporaneità (11a) e di posteriorità (11b) con la frase principale,<br />
ma non contemporaneità con il verbo della principale al passato (12) (si veda la<br />
sezione 2.1):<br />
3<br />
Il nome [+evidenziale] corrisponde al termine [+riportato] che avevo usato in Chinellato<br />
(2000).<br />
4<br />
Per una dettagliata analisi morfosintattica del modo congiuntivo italiano, si veda Giorgi &<br />
Pianesi (1997), cap. 5.<br />
5
Paolo Chinellato<br />
a. Credo che in questo momento sia al ristorante.<br />
b. Credo che lui venga/verrà domani.<br />
* Credevo che lui venga<br />
Inoltre, come abbiamo visto, in italiano non è possibile avere un congiuntivo con<br />
una frase subordinata il cui soggetto coincide col soggetto della principale e con il<br />
parlante, come si vede dall„agrammaticalità di (13) e (16):<br />
* Credo che io venga<br />
Credo di venire<br />
* Credevo che io venissi<br />
Credevo di venire<br />
In tedesco il congiuntivo non è legato né a concordanza di modo né di tempo<br />
come si vede da (17),<br />
Hans glaubt/glaubte, dass Paul krank sei/ist<br />
(Gianni crede/credeva che Paolo malato sia/fosse/IND)<br />
ma è sempre agrammaticale con la prima persona nella frase principale (si veda<br />
(7) e (8)).<br />
Come si vede in (18)/(20), le forme del KON 1 sono uguali al presente indicativo<br />
alla prima persona singolare e plurale e alla terza persona plurale:<br />
Er sagt/glaubt, dass ich aus Italien komme<br />
(Lui dice/crede che io dall‟Italia vengo / venga / IND = KON 1)<br />
Er sagt/glaubt, dass wir aus Italien kommen<br />
(Lui dice/crede che noi dall‟Italia veniamo / IND = KON 1)<br />
Er sagt/glaubt, dass sie aus Italien komme<br />
(Lui dice/crede che loro dall‟Italia vengono / vengano / IND = KON 1)<br />
Nei casi (18)–(20), in cui le forme del KON 1 coincidono con le forme<br />
dell‟indicativo, è possibile un‟alternanza con il KON 2 5 :<br />
Er sagt/glaubt, dass ich aus Italien käme<br />
(lui dice/crede che io dall„Italia vengo / venga / KON 2)<br />
5 La grammatica tradizionale propone una sistematica sostituzione con il KON 2 ogni volta<br />
che il KON 1 è uguale all‟indicativo: come si vedrà in seguito, la regola della sostituzione<br />
proposta dalla grammatica tradizionale non sembra essere in grado di soddisfare i casi in<br />
(26) e (27). Per un‟analisi alternativa del congiuntivo tedesco si veda Chinellato (2000).<br />
6
L’interpretazione morfosemantica del modo congiuntivo in italiano e in tedesco<br />
(22) Er sagt/glaubt, dass wir aus Italien kämen<br />
(lui dice/crede che noi dall‟Italia veniamo / KON 2)<br />
(23) Er sagt/glaubt, dass sie aus Italien kämen<br />
(lui dice/crede che loro dall‟Italia vengono / vengano / KON 2)<br />
Osservando (24) e (25)<br />
(24) Hans sagt, dass seine Eltern in der Schweiz sind/seien/wären, aber das ist<br />
nicht wahr.<br />
(Gianni dice che i suoi genitori in Svizzera sono / IND / KON 1 / KON 2 /, ma<br />
questo non è vero)<br />
(25) Hans sagt, dass ich ihn geschlagen habe/hätte, aber das ist nicht wahr.<br />
(Gianni dice che io lui colpito ho / IND = KON 1 / KON 2, ma questo non è vero)<br />
notiamo che il KON 2 sottolinea la posizione del parlante riguardo a ciò che ha detto<br />
il soggetto della frase principale: questo tratto che chiamerò, sempre seguendo Cinque(1999)<br />
[+valutativo] 6 , è espresso dalla morfologia passata del congiuntivo unita<br />
con il morfema di modo.<br />
Questa interpretazione del KON 2 è confermata dal fatto che l‟alternanza del<br />
KON 1 con il KON 2 alla prima persona singolare e plurale e alla terza persona plurale<br />
non è sempre possibile. Ci sono dei casi in cui il KON 2 risulta piuttosto strano,<br />
come in (26) e (27):<br />
(26) Hans sagte, dass seine Eltern in der Schweiz sind/seien/??wären, und er hat<br />
Recht, weil ich sie gesehen habe<br />
(Gianni ha detto che i suoi genitori in Svizzera sono / IND / KON 1 / KON 2 e<br />
lui ha ragione perché io li ho visti)<br />
(27) Hans sagte, dass ich geschlagen habe/??hätte, und er hat recht<br />
(Gianni ha detto che io lui colpito ho / IND = KON 1 / KON 2)<br />
Notiamo che le frasi con il KON 2 sono quelle in cui esso esprime il dubbio che<br />
viene sottolineato dalla frase seguente, come si vede da (24) e (25), mentre quando<br />
c‟è un contesto di certezza come in (26) e (27) il KON 2 risulta non accettabile.<br />
L‟indicativo, poiché non contiene nessun morfema di modo, si presenta come<br />
l‟opzione meno marcata.<br />
Osservando le frasi (26) e (27), possiamo stabilire l‟inaccettabilità del KON 2 (si<br />
veda la sezione 1.1.2) considerando la sua presenza insieme alle altre due forme in<br />
6 Il nome [+valutativo] corrisponde al termine [+distanza] che avevo usato in Chinellato<br />
(2000).<br />
7
Paolo Chinellato<br />
termini di opzione [±marcata]. In (26) il KON 2 è inadeguato perché ha un valore<br />
più marcato rispetto al contesto dell‟enunciazione e lo stesso vale per (27): questo<br />
valore viene veicolato dal tratto [+valutativo] che risulta inadeguato nei contesti di<br />
certezza espressi dalle due frasi.<br />
1.1. I tratti morfosemantici del congiuntivo tedesco<br />
1.1.1. Il konjunktiv 1<br />
Confrontiamo la coniugazione del konjunktiv 1con il presente indicativo:<br />
(28) Indicativo Presente<br />
8<br />
RADICE TEMPO MODO ACCORDO<br />
Ich komm- e<br />
Du komm- st<br />
Er/sie komm- t<br />
Wir komm- en<br />
Ihr komm- t<br />
Sie komm- en<br />
(29) Konjunktiv 1<br />
RADICE TEMPO MODO ACCORDO<br />
Ich komm- e<br />
Du komm- e- st<br />
Er/sie komm- e- <br />
Wir komm- en<br />
Ihr komm- e- t<br />
Sie komm- en<br />
In (29) il morfema –e– distingue il modo congiuntivo dall‟indicativo (i morfemi<br />
di modo saranno sempre segnati in grassetto): il morfema è presente alla seconda<br />
persona singolare e plurale e alla terza persona singolare.<br />
Riassumendo, la distribuzione del tratto [+evidenziale] è la seguente:
(30)<br />
L’interpretazione morfosemantica del modo congiuntivo in italiano e in tedesco<br />
PERSONA MORFEMA DI MODO MORFEMA DI ACCORDO<br />
Ich - +<br />
Du + +<br />
Er + -<br />
Wir - +<br />
Ihr + +<br />
Sie - +<br />
1.1.2. Il konjunktiv 2<br />
Consideriamo ora il konjunktiv 2 confrontandolo con la struttura del preterito:<br />
Preterito del verbo gehen (andare)<br />
(31)<br />
(32)<br />
TEMPO MODO ACCORDO<br />
Ich ging- Ø Ø<br />
Du ging- Ø st<br />
Er/sie ging- Ø Ø<br />
Wir ging- Ø en<br />
Ihr ging- Ø t<br />
Sie ging- Ø en<br />
KON 2 del verbo gehen (andare)<br />
TEMPO MODO ACCORDO<br />
Ich ging- e- Ø<br />
Du ging- e- st<br />
Er/sie ging- e- Ø<br />
Wir ging- Ø en<br />
Ihr ging- e- t<br />
Sie ging- Ø en<br />
Come si vede in (32), la distribuzione del tratto [+ valutativo] è la seguente:<br />
9
Paolo Chinellato<br />
(33)<br />
10<br />
PERSONA MODO ACCORDO<br />
1.2. Casi ambigui<br />
Ich + -<br />
Du + +<br />
Er /sie + -<br />
Wir - +<br />
Ihr + +<br />
Sie + +<br />
Le frasi (34) e (35), inoltre,<br />
(34) Hans sagte, dass wir nach Italien gingen<br />
(35) Hans sagte, dass sie nach Italien gingen<br />
non vengono interpretate come in (36), ma come in (37); la forma gingen viene<br />
riconosciuta come preterito e non come KON 2:<br />
(36) Gianni ha detto che noi/loro andiamo/vanno in Italia<br />
(37) Gianni ha detto che noi/loro andavamo/andavano in Italia<br />
Le voci verbali della prima e terza persona plurale si comportano come le voci<br />
verbali dei verbi cosiddetti “deboli”, che hanno la stessa forma per il preterito e per<br />
il KON 2 , come si vede nella frase (38): la forma studierte non viene riconosciuta<br />
come KON 2, ma solamente come preterito e accettando la frase solo con<br />
l‟interpretazione data in (39). In entrambi i casi, l‟unica forma ammessa di KON 2 è<br />
la WF come appare in (40) 7 :<br />
(38) Hans sagte, dass ich Mathematik studiere/*studierte<br />
(Gianni ha detto che io matematica studio IND = KON 1/ PRET = KON 2)<br />
(39) Gianni ha detto che studiavo matematica<br />
(40) Hans sagte, dass ich Mathematik studieren würde<br />
7 Se il verbo subordinato è un verbo regolare (o “debole”), la sostituzione proposta dalla<br />
grammatica tradizionale non sarà sufficiente, perché il KON 2 è uguale al preterito; la<br />
grammatica tradizionale propone di sostituire le forme ambigue con la perifrasi chiamata<br />
“würde-Form” (d‟ora in poi WF).
L’interpretazione morfosemantica del modo congiuntivo in italiano e in tedesco<br />
Pertanto, al KON 2 le voci verbali della prima e terza persona singolare dei verbi<br />
irregolari e tutte le forme dei verbi regolari sono meno marcate perché in esse non è<br />
presente il morfema -e- che esprime insieme alla morfologia passata il tratto<br />
[+valutativo]. Un altro caso in cui, quando la forma del KON 2 è uguale al preterito,<br />
essa viene interpretata come indicativo è il periodo ipotetico.<br />
Le frasi (41) e (42),<br />
(41) Wenn wir einen Brief schrieben, schrieben wir mit einen blauen Kugelschreieber.<br />
(42) Wenn wir ein neues Auto kauften, kauften wir eine BMW<br />
vengono interpretate come (43) e (44) e non come (45) e (46):<br />
(43) Ogni volta che scrivevamo una lettera, scrivevamo con una penna blu<br />
(44) Ogni volta che compravamo una nuova auto, compravamo una BMW<br />
(45) Se scrivessimo una lettera, scriveremmo con una penna blu<br />
(46) Se comprassimo un‟auto nuova, compreremmo una BMW<br />
Anche qui, l‟unica possibilità di avere un periodo ipotetico è quello di sostituire<br />
il KON 2 con la WF:<br />
(47) Wenn wir einen Brief schreiben würden, würden wir mit einen blauen Kugelschreieber<br />
schreiben.<br />
(48) Wenn wir ein neues Auto kaufen würde, würden wir eine BMW kaufen.<br />
2. Un caso di selezione del modo congiuntivo in italiano<br />
2.1. I tratti del congiuntivo<br />
In questa sezione esaminerò i tratti del modo congiuntivo. Chiamerò tratto di<br />
concordanza quel tratto presente nel verbo della frase principale e della subordinata<br />
che lega tra loro i due verbi in un rapporto di tempo e/o di modo.<br />
Distinguerò, quindi, il tratto di concordanza temporale [+CT] dal tratto di selezione<br />
di modo: per concordanza temporale mi riferisco ad una relazione temporale<br />
definita del verbo principale che obbliga il verbo subordinato a concordarsi nello<br />
stesso tempo e al modo congiuntivo; per selezione di modo intendo ciò che ho illustrato<br />
nella precedente sezione per il tedesco e cioè la selezione del tratto<br />
[+evidenziale] (KON 1) o [+valutativo] (KON2).<br />
11
Paolo Chinellato<br />
In Italiano, il verbo credere al passato instaura un legame temporale e di modo<br />
con il verbo subordinato (che deve essere un congiuntivo imperfetto). Il tratto [+CT]<br />
è presente nell‟italiano contemporaneo:<br />
(49) Gianni crede che Maria sia incinta.<br />
(50) Gianni credeva che Maria fosse incinta.<br />
(51) *Gianni credeva che Maria sia incinta.<br />
L‟agrammaticalità di (51) dipende dal fatto che il verbo subordinato non possiede<br />
il tratto [+passato], ma [+presente], che non concorda però con il tempo della frase<br />
principale. In (52) la frase è accettabile perché, nonostante il verbo non abbia instaurato<br />
la selezione modale con il verbo principale, possiede comunque il tratto<br />
[+passato] che si concorda con il tempo della frase principale:<br />
(52) ? Gianni credeva che Maria era incinta<br />
Considererò ora il verbo dire che seleziona il congiuntivo, che non è obbligatorio<br />
per ragioni di consecutio temporum, ma mostra un comportamento analogo al discorso<br />
indiretto tedesco. Alcuni linguisti sostengono che il congiuntivo in italiano<br />
non è ammesso se viene selezionato da un verbo di affermazione e se il soggetto è<br />
espresso. Per questi autori (53) è agrammaticale 8 :<br />
(53) Marco e Maria hanno detto che il signor Bianchi abbia lavorato in Africa<br />
Serianni (1988) e Portner (1997) sostengono il contrario portando come prova un<br />
esempio tratto da un testo letterario. Riporto l‟esempio parafrasato in italiano contemporaneo<br />
presente nel lavoro di Portner (1997) 9 :<br />
(54) I ragazzi dicono che suo padre, il farmacista, stia sperimentando su di lui gli<br />
effetti di un nuovo sciroppo purgativo.<br />
Riscriviamo lo stesso periodo (con alcune modifiche) al passato con l‟indicativo,<br />
col congiuntivo e il condizionale nella frase subordinata:<br />
(55) Marco e Maria hanno detto che il padre di Gianni ha sperimentato un nuovo<br />
sciroppo.<br />
8 Wandruszka (1991): “Il congiuntivo si può usare anche in dipendenza da locuzioni con<br />
soggetto indeterminato dicono, si dice, c’è chi dice, con le quali il contenuto della frase<br />
subordinata può essere riportato come opinione o punto di vista esistenti, senza impegno<br />
in merito da parte del parlante stesso.”<br />
9 La parafrasi in italiano contemporaneo presente nel Portner (1997) è di Raffaella Zanuttini.<br />
12
L’interpretazione morfosemantica del modo congiuntivo in italiano e in tedesco<br />
(56) Marco e Maria hanno detto che il padre di Gianni abbia sperimentato un nuovo<br />
sciroppo.<br />
(57) Marco e Maria hanno detto che il padre di Gianni avrebbe sperimentato un<br />
nuovo sciroppo.<br />
Tutti i tre modi sono accettabili, ma se proviamo a far seguire la frase da un contesto<br />
più preciso, vediamo che sia congiuntivo e condizionale risultano molto strani:<br />
(58) Marco e Maria hanno detto che il padre di Gianni ha/??abbia/??avrebbe sperimentato<br />
un nuovo sciroppo e hanno ragione perché io l‟ho visto farlo.<br />
(59) Marco e Maria hanno detto che il padre di Gianni ha/abbia/avrebbe sperimentato<br />
un nuovo sciroppo, ma questo non è vero.<br />
I tre modi italiani, indicativo da una parte, congiuntivo e condizionale dall‟altra<br />
sembrano comportarsi rispettivamente come l‟indicativo tedesco l‟uno e il KON 2<br />
gli altri. La stranezza del congiuntivo e condizionale in (58) dipende dalla presenza<br />
del tratto [+valutativo] che è in contrasto con il contesto della frase.<br />
2.2. Analisi delle forme verbali<br />
L‟analisi delle forme verbali dell‟Italiano standard delle prossime sezioni segue<br />
l„impostazione di Thornton (1999): Thornton propone il seguente schema di costituzione<br />
delle forme flesse italiane, valido per l„indicativo e per il congiuntivo e per<br />
altri modi verbali:<br />
(60) a. base radicale + accordo nelle persone prima, seconda e terza singolare<br />
b. base tematica + accordo nelle persone prima e seconda plurale<br />
c. terza persona singolare + morfo di plurale = terza persona plurale<br />
In questo lavoro considererò questo schema, modificando lo status della prima<br />
persona plurale. Essa infatti risulta una forma irregolare in quanto la desinenza<br />
iamo risulta un‟espansione della forma del congiuntivo (cfr. Tagliavini (1969),<br />
Vincent (1980), Bruni (1984)). Come dimostreremo più avanti questa forma e la<br />
forma della seconda persona singolare della prima coniugazione vengono interpretate<br />
dai parlanti dell‟Italiano Standard come indicativo: propongo, quindi, di considerare<br />
iamo come morfema di accordo della prima persona plurale:<br />
(61) noi am-iamo nostro padre<br />
(62) Gianni pensa [che noi am-iamo nostro padre]<br />
13
Paolo Chinellato<br />
In questo caso la –i di –iamo non viene interpretata come morfema di modo congiuntivo<br />
proprio perché non esiste in Italiano Standard una prima persona plurale<br />
come in (63) tale che la forma in (62) possa sostituirla come congiuntivo 10 :<br />
(63) *noi ama-mo nostro padre<br />
Riassumendo propongo, per la prima persona plurale, indicativo e congiuntivo, il<br />
seguente schema:<br />
(64) 1^ persona plurale: Radice + Nuovo Accordo<br />
Per l‟analisi delle forme del congiuntivo imperfetto seguirò la proposta di Thornton<br />
(1999), che ipotizza per ogni tempo e modo una base radicale e una base tematica<br />
come nello schema riportato in (60). Secondo questo schema la base radicale<br />
dell‟imperfetto è costituita dalla base tematica del presente con il morfema di tempo<br />
–v-. La base tematica è formata da questa radice e dalla vocale tematica, come si può<br />
vedere in (65) (la base radicale e tematica dell‟imperfetto sono segnate in grassetto),<br />
mentre in (66a) la radice non mostra il morfema di tempo che è caduto, ma che era<br />
presente nella forma latina di provenienza (66b):<br />
(65) [[[[am]R –a ]T –v ]R –a T]<br />
(66) a. [[[[am]R–a]T ]R –ssi T]<br />
b. [[[[am]R –a]T –v]R –sset T]<br />
2.3. Casi ambigui<br />
Un verbo della classe dei verba sentiendi in Italiano Standard seleziona il congiuntivo<br />
nella frase subordinata: consideriamo la frase (67), che contiene un verbo<br />
alla prima coniugazione alla seconda persona singolare, che non distingue tra indicativo<br />
e congiuntivo 11 :<br />
(67) Gianni pensa che proprio in questo momento tu parli (IND = CONG) alla<br />
conferenza.<br />
Per intensificare il rapporto di contemporaneità nel presente tra la frase principale<br />
e la subordinata, (68) sembra la sostituzione migliore:<br />
(68) Gianni pensa che proprio in questo momento tu stia parlando alla conferenza.<br />
10 In varietà non standard si hanno prime persone plurali formate secondo lo schema proposto<br />
da Thornton (1999): cfr. i tipi parlamo, vedemo, sentimo.<br />
11 In questa sezione mi occuperò solo dell‟Italiano Standard. I parlanti che di solito selezionano<br />
un indicativo dopo i verba sentiendi, sentono quest‟uso, cioè (67), legato alla loro<br />
varietà regionale che non prevede il congiuntivo. Ringrazio Anna Cardinaletti e Giuliana<br />
Giusti per i giudizi su questo punto.<br />
14
L’interpretazione morfosemantica del modo congiuntivo in italiano e in tedesco<br />
Notiamo che in presenza di un verbo irregolare con le forme di indicativo e congiuntivo<br />
distinte, la sostituzione non sembra essere necessaria come non lo è per le<br />
seconde persone delle altre coniugazioni:<br />
(69) Gianni pensa che proprio in questo momento tu vada / stia andando al cinema<br />
(70) Gianni pensa che in questo periodo tu beva / stia bevendo troppo gin.<br />
(71) Gianni pensa che in questo periodo tu dorma / stia dormendo troppo.<br />
La stessa frase (67), risulta inaccettabile quando la subordinata esprime un rapporto<br />
di posteriorità come in (72) e diventa accettabile con la sostituzione in (73):<br />
(72) *Gianni pensa che domani tu parli bene alla conferenza<br />
(73) Gianni pensa che domani parlerai bene alla conferenza<br />
Anche qui la sostituzione non sembra obbligatoria per un verbo irregolare della<br />
prima coniugazione e per le altre coniugazioni:<br />
(74) a. Gianni pensa che domani tu vada/andrai al cinema<br />
b Gianni pensa che domani tu scriva/scriverai una lettera<br />
c Gianni pensa che domani tu dorma/dormirai fino a mezzogiorno<br />
2.4. Riepilogo<br />
In § 1 abbiamo individuato i tratti espressi dal KON 1 e dal KON 2:<br />
(75) KON 1: [+evidenziale]<br />
KON 2: [+valutativo]<br />
In 2.1 abbiamo visto che se selezionato da un verbo di affermazione (dire) il modo<br />
congiuntivo e condizionale italiani esprimono il tratto [+valutativo].<br />
3. Il Principio di Sostituzione<br />
Dall‟analisi dei dati considerati in tedesco (§ 1) e in italiano (§ 2) sembra pertanto<br />
che vi sia un principio che regoli l‟interpretazione di due forme morfologicamente<br />
uguali:<br />
(76) Principio di Sostituzione (PdS):<br />
Se hai una forma morfologicamente identica per due modi verbali diversi, interpreta<br />
tale forma come quella appartenente al modo meno marcato e sostituiscila<br />
con una forma più marcata se il contesto te lo richiede.<br />
In tedesco le forme in (77a, b, c)<br />
15
Paolo Chinellato<br />
(77) a. ich hab-e [-evidenziale]<br />
b. wir hab-en [-evidenziale]<br />
c. sie hab-en [-evidenziale]<br />
vengono interpretate solo ed esclusivamente come indicativi perché non possiedono<br />
un morfema di modo come quello presente nelle altre forme verbali in (77d, e, f) e<br />
non riescono ad esprimere il tratto [+evidenziale]<br />
16<br />
d. du hab-e-st [+evidenziale]<br />
e. er hab-e [+evidenziale]<br />
f. ihr hab-e-t [+evidenziale]<br />
Allo stesso modo le forme in (78)<br />
(78) a. wir ging-en [-valutativo]<br />
b. sie ging-en [-valutativo]<br />
non possedendo il morfema –e non esprimono i valori del tratto [+valutativo], come<br />
invece le forme in (79), e vengono interpretate come voci dell‟indicativo preterito:<br />
(79) a. ich ging-e [+valutativo]<br />
b. du ging-e [+valutativo]<br />
c. er ging-e [+valutativo]<br />
d. ihr ging-e [+valutativo]<br />
In italiano forme come in (80) non esprimono alcun tratto morfosemantico e non<br />
possono instaurare un rapporto di posteriorità con la frase principale; il congiuntivo<br />
non riesce ad esprimere il suo tratto [+irrealis] 12 e di conseguenza viene interpretato<br />
come la forma meno marcata, l‟indicativo presente:<br />
(80) a. *Gianni pensa che domani tu parli bene alla conferenza [-irrealis]<br />
b. Gianni pensa che domani tu parlerai bene alla conferenza [+irrealis]<br />
In (81) entrambe le forme esprimono il tratto [+irrealis] e la scelta tra le due diventa<br />
in italiano standard opzionale:<br />
(81) a. Gianni pensa che domani tu scriva/scriverai una lettera [+irrealis]<br />
b. Gianni pensa che domani tu dorma / dormirai fino a mezzogiorno [+irrealis]<br />
12 Cfr. Scorretti (1991) e Poletto (1995), (2000) per il tratto [+irrealis], del congiuntivo, del<br />
futuro e del condizionale.
L’interpretazione morfosemantica del modo congiuntivo in italiano e in tedesco<br />
4. Argomenti a sostegno del principio di sostituzione<br />
4.1. Un’osservazione comparativa<br />
4.1.1. Il Veneziano<br />
Consideriamo una varietà dialettale come il veneziano, che ha alla prima coniugazione<br />
il modo congiuntivo uguale all‟indicativo tranne che nella prima persona<br />
singolare:<br />
(82) Mario e Maria i sa che fumo massa<br />
(Mario e Maria sanno che fumo troppo)<br />
(83) Mario e Maria i crede che mi fuma massa<br />
(Mario e Maria credono che io fumi troppo)<br />
e alla seconda e terza coniugazione la prima persona singolare e la terza singolare e<br />
plurale distinte tra indicativo e congiuntivo:<br />
(84) a. Mario e Maria i sa che mi bevo/dormo massa<br />
b. Mario e Maria i sa che iù beve/dorme massa<br />
c. Mario e Maria i sa che iori i beve / i dorme massa<br />
(85) a. Mario e Maria i crede che mi beva/dorma massa<br />
b. Mario e Maria i crede che ‟l beva/dorma massa<br />
c. Mario e Maria i crede che iori i beva / i dorma<br />
Se il verbo subordinato deve indicare posteriorità, anche in veneziano la forma<br />
corrispondente ad (86), (87), risulta inaccettabile:<br />
(86) *Gianni crede che domani tu parli bene alla conferenza<br />
(87) *Nane el crede che domàn te parli ben ala conferensa<br />
Entrambe le forme sono perfettamente grammaticali se vengono selezionate da<br />
un verbo che ammette solo l‟indicativo come sapere:<br />
(88) Gianni sa che domani tu parli alla conferenza<br />
(89) Nane sa che domàn ti te parli ben ala conferensa<br />
Le frasi (86) e (87) andranno sostituite con una forma più marcata come il futuro,<br />
che contiene il tratto [+irrealis]:<br />
(90) Gianni crede che domani parlerai bene alla conferenza<br />
(91) Nane el crede che domàn te parlerà ben ala conferensa<br />
17
Paolo Chinellato<br />
Anche in veneziano, come in italiano standard, quando la forma uguale ai due<br />
modi è usata per indicare posteriorità (caratteristica del modo marcato, il congiuntivo),<br />
essa risulta inaccettabile perché interpretata come indicativo, cioè la<br />
meno marcata. Anche in questo caso sembra trovare applicazione il Principio di<br />
Sostituzione.<br />
4.1.2. Il Bellunese<br />
Il Bellunese, è una varietà più conservativa del veneziano. Quando la forma del<br />
congiuntivo è distinta da quella dell‟indicativo, essa risulta grammaticale per indicare<br />
posteriorità, senza dover ricorrere alla sostituzione col futuro indicativo.<br />
In (92) l‟indicativo è inaccettabile perché il verbo credere seleziona il modo congiuntivo,<br />
(frase (93)), e il futuro indicativo risulta strano (frase (94)) poiché il verbo<br />
della frase principale ha a disposizione una forma di congiuntivo (che non è disponibile<br />
in Italiano standard e in veneziano) e quindi non ha bisogno del Principio di<br />
Sostituzione:<br />
(92) *Nani ‟l crede che domàn ti te compra an vestito novo<br />
(Gianni crede che domani tu compri / IND un vestito nuovo)<br />
(93) Nani ‟l crede che domàn ti te compre an vestito novo<br />
(Gianni crede che domani tu compri / CONG in vestito nuovo)<br />
(94) ?? Nani ‟l crede che domàn ti te comprarà an vestito novo.<br />
(Gainni crede che domani tu comprerai un vestito nuovo)<br />
4.2. Cancellazione del complementatore e congiuntivo<br />
L‟altro argomento a sostegno dell‟interpretazione di forme uguali interpretate<br />
come appartenenti al modo meno marcato, riguarda la cancellazione del complementatore<br />
che (d‟ora in poi CD, dall‟inglese Complementizer Deletion), possibile<br />
con il modo congiuntivo, ma non con l‟indicativo:<br />
(95) Gianni crede sia malato<br />
(96) *Gianni sa è malato<br />
18<br />
La CD è possibile con il congiuntivo nei seguenti contesti:<br />
(97) Gianni crede tu sia malato (verbo essere)<br />
(98) Gianni crede tu abbia ragione (verbo avere)<br />
(99) Gianni crede tu debba farlo (verbo modale)<br />
(100) Gianni crede tu possa farlo (verbo modale)
L’interpretazione morfosemantica del modo congiuntivo in italiano e in tedesco<br />
(101) Gianni crede tu voglia andartene (verbo modale)<br />
(102) Gianni crede tu beva troppo (2^ coniugazione)<br />
(103) Gianni crede tu dorma troppo (3^ coniugazione)<br />
Con la seconda persona singolare della prima coniugazione e la prima persona<br />
plurale di tutte le coniugazioni, abbiamo agrammaticalità come si vede in<br />
(104)/(107):<br />
(104) *Gianni crede tu fumi troppo<br />
(105) *Gianni crede noi fumiamo troppo<br />
(106) *Gianni crede noi beviamo troppo<br />
(107) *Gianni crede noi dormiamo troppo<br />
Appare evidente che queste forme vengono interpretate come indicativi, poiché<br />
non ammettono CD. Questo dato è coerente con i risultati raggiunti nella sezione 2.<br />
5. Conclusioni<br />
In questo lavoro ho proposto che i tratti presenti nei morfemi verbali di modo intervengono<br />
nell‟interpretazione semantica del verbo all‟interno di una frase subordinata.<br />
In primo luogo ho analizzato la selezione del modo in tedesco (sezione 1) e in<br />
italiano (sezione 2).<br />
Ho rilevato che le forme coincidenti tra congiuntivo e indicativo, cioè che non<br />
possiedono alcun tratto veicolato da alcun morfema di modo, vengono interpretate<br />
come forme meno marcate, cioè forme del modo indicativo. In base a queste osservazioni<br />
ho formulato un principio che sembra regolare l‟interpretazione di tali forme,<br />
che ho chiamato Principio di Sostituzione (PdS, sezione 3):<br />
Se hai una forma morfologicamente identica per due modi verbali diversi, interpreta<br />
tale forma come quella appartenente al modo meno marcato e sostituiscila<br />
con una forma più marcata se il contesto te lo richiede.<br />
Nella sezione 4 ho presentato due argomenti a sostegno del Pds: in 4.1 ho analizzato<br />
il caso di due varietà dialettali, Veneziano e Bellunese. Il Veneziano<br />
(4.1.1) sembra comportarsi come l‟Italiano standard e applica il PdS, mentre il<br />
Bellunese (4.1.2) non lo applica proprio perché avendo due forme distinte tra indicativo<br />
e congiuntivo non ne ha bisogno. In 4.2 infine ho considerato il caso della<br />
CD in Italiano Standard e la sua impossibilità con forme di congiuntivo uguali<br />
all‟indicativo.<br />
19
Paolo Chinellato<br />
Bibliografia<br />
Bruni, F., (1984), L’italiano. Elementi di storia delle lingue e della cultura, Torino, Utet.<br />
Chinellato, P., (1998), Su alcuni aspetti della concordanza di tempo e modo in italiano e tedesco:<br />
un’analisi nel quadro della teoria generativa, Tesi di Laurea, Università di Venezia.<br />
Chinellato, P., (2000), Il modo congiuntivo tedesco: una proposta d‟analisi, in corso di stampa.<br />
Cinque, G., (1999), Adverbs and Funcional Heads. A Cross - Linguistic Perspective, Oxford University<br />
Press.<br />
Giorgi, A., & Pianesi, F., (1997), Tense and Aspect: from Semantics to Morphosyntax, Oxford<br />
University Press.<br />
Poletto, C., (1995), Complementizer Deletion and Verb Movement, in Venice Working Papers in<br />
Linguistics, vol. 5 n. 2., pp. 49-79.<br />
Poletto C., (2000), The Higher Functional Field. Evidence from Northern Italian Dialects, Oxford<br />
University Press.<br />
Portner, P., (1997), The Semantics of Mood, Complementation and Conversational Force, in<br />
Natural Language Semantics, vol. 5, n. 2., pp. 167-212.<br />
Scorretti, M., (1991), Complementizers in Italian and Romance, Tesi di Dottorato, Università di<br />
Amsterdam.<br />
Serianni, L., (1988), Grammatica Italiana. Italiano comune e lingua letteraria. Torino, Utet.<br />
Thornton, A.M., (1999), Diagrammaticità, uniformità di codifica e morfomicità nella flessione<br />
verbale italiana, in SLI 41, Atti del XXXI Congresso di Fonologia e Morfologia<br />
dell’Italiano e dei dialetti d’Italia, Bulzoni, Roma, 483-502.<br />
Vincent, N., (1980), Words versus morphemes in morphological change: the case of Italian iamo,<br />
in J. Fisiak (a cura di), Historical Morphology, The Hague, Mouton, 383-398.<br />
Wandruszka, U., (1991), Frasi subordinate al congiuntivo, in L.Renzi e G. Salvi (a cura di),<br />
Grande grammatica italiana di consultazione, II, pp. 117–156, Bologna, Il Mulino.<br />
20
0. Introduction<br />
THE ARTICULATION OF INFLECTION<br />
IN JAMAICAN CREOLE 1<br />
Stephanie DURRLEMAN<br />
This paper explores the syntax of declarative clauses in Jamaican Creole (JC), focussing<br />
on the articulation of inflection in this language. The investigation situates itself<br />
within the Principles and Parameters framework, which upholds that the study of<br />
any natural human language reveals a complex linguistic system regulated by the Principles<br />
and Parameters of Universal Grammar (UG). Under this perspective, the examination<br />
of the architecture of the clause in JC is expected to show compatibility with the<br />
very elaborate functional clause-structure provided by UG (Pollock (1989), Belletti<br />
(1990), Cinque (1999)). This research verifies the validity of such a prediction. The<br />
work is organized as follows: section 1 presents the universal clause-structure in question,<br />
section 2 concentrates on the compatibility of the articulation of inflection in JC<br />
with this sophisticated clausal architecture, section 3 turns to theoretical issues raised<br />
by this comparison, section 4 highlights the evidence from JC for the framework provided<br />
by Cinque (1999), and section 5 concludes the discussion.<br />
1. The Architecture of the Clause<br />
1.1. The Split-Infl Hypothesis<br />
The structure in (1) illustrates a first application of X‟-schema to both lexical and<br />
functional categories of sentential structure:<br />
1 This paper is a reduced version of Durrleman (1999). I thank Enoch Aboh, Guglielmo<br />
Cinque, Eric Haeberli, Liliane Haegeman, and Luigi Rizzi for their comments. Thanks are<br />
also due to Deborah DePass, Leah DePass and Evelyn Miller for their intuitions on the<br />
data considered.<br />
21
Stephanie Durrleman<br />
(1) CP<br />
Spec C‟<br />
22<br />
C° IP<br />
DP I‟<br />
I° VP<br />
DP V‟<br />
V° XP<br />
Although this analysis is essentially on the right track, it has had to be modified<br />
into a more articulate structure on the basis of both conceptual and empirical shortcomings:<br />
(a) Conceptually, it is undesirable to associate a single X° with independent sets of<br />
features such as tense and agreement.<br />
(b) Empirically, the splitting of this projection is forced so as to accommodate word<br />
order variations such as those found between French and English 2 :<br />
(2) AGRP<br />
NP AGR‟<br />
AGR TP<br />
T‟<br />
T VP… (Pollock (1989), Belletti (1990))<br />
A recent development of clause structure has led to the postulation of additional<br />
functional projections to those in (2). Much of the evidence for this stems from a<br />
meticulous observation of the behaviour of adverbs as discussed in Cinque (1999),<br />
as well as that of bound and free functional heads expressing Tense, Modality and<br />
Aspect. The present paper situates itself within the framework provided by Cinque<br />
(1999). More specifically, it aims at testing its validity on new evidence of the third<br />
sort: i.e. free functional morphemes as found in the grammar of JC.<br />
2 C.f. Pollock (1989).
1.2. Cinque (1999)<br />
The articulation of inflection in Jamaican Creole<br />
1.2.1. A hierarchy of classes of adverbs<br />
Adverbial hierarchy is established on the observation that certain adverbs (each<br />
representative of a class) necessarily precede others. For example, consider the<br />
data in (3) and (4) from French which examines the position of déjà in relation to<br />
pas and plus:<br />
(3) a. Si tu n‟as pas déjà mangé, tu peux le prendre<br />
„If you have not already eaten, you can take it‟<br />
b. *Si tu n‟as déjà pas mangé, tu peux le prendre<br />
„If you have already not eaten, you can take it‟<br />
(4) a. A l‟époque, il ne possédait déjà plus rien<br />
„At the time, he did not possess already any longer anything‟<br />
b. *A l‟époque, il ne possédait plus déjà rien<br />
„At the time, he did not possess any longer already anything‟<br />
These examples yield the relative orders: pas > déjà and déjà > plus. Through<br />
transitivity, it is expected that plus be more structurally embedded than pas. At first<br />
sight, this may appear difficult to prove since the two cannot co-occur:<br />
(5) a. *Ils n‟ont pas plus téléphoné<br />
They haven‟t not any longer telephoned<br />
b. *Ils n‟ont plus pas téléphoné<br />
They haven‟t any longer not telephoned<br />
Despite the impossible co-occurrence of pas and plus, evidence with respect to<br />
lexical infinitives (Pollock (1989)) upholds that, as expected from the data above,<br />
pas is higher than plus in the structure:<br />
(6) a. Ne dormir plus<br />
b. Ne plus dormir<br />
(7) a. *Ne dormir pas<br />
b. Ne pas dormir<br />
The data above can be accounted for in terms of the syntactic analysis in (8):<br />
(8) [ _ [ pas _ [ plus … dormir ]]]<br />
X<br />
23
Stephanie Durrleman<br />
This argumentation upholds both a hierarchical organisation of adverbs, the latter‟s<br />
status as XPs 3 , as well as the presence of intervening X° positions where, for<br />
example, a lexical verb [-fin] can occur.<br />
The hierarchy of AdvPs proposed in Cinque (1999) on the basis of evidence<br />
from Romance (Italian and French), is shown to hold cross-linguistically: English,<br />
Norwegian, Bosnian/Serbo-croatian, Hebrew, Chinese, and Albanian, to name a few<br />
languages, reveal a striking consistency in the ordering of adverb classes. Indeed,<br />
despite the occasional surface variations of adverbial orders from one language to<br />
the next, it is illustrated in Cinque (1999) that, upon closer examination, these variations<br />
remain consistent with a single overall order. An example of apparent crosslinguistic<br />
variation in the ordering of adverbs may be found between English and<br />
Romance always/sempre and any longer / più:<br />
(9) John doesn‟t always win his games any longer<br />
(10) a. Gianni non vince più sempre le sue partite<br />
G. [neg] win any longer always his games<br />
b. *Gianni non vince sempre più le sue partite<br />
However, “when both always and (not..) any longer appear before the verb, their<br />
order is just like that found in Italian (Romance)” (Cinque (1999, 33):<br />
(11) a. John doesn‟t any longer always win his games<br />
b. *John doesn‟t always any longer win his games<br />
The apparent subversion of the order of adverbs in (9) can therefore be analysed<br />
as XP movement of [always win his games] across any longer as shown in (12).<br />
Movement across any longer gives rise to a slight focus on this adverb:<br />
(12) John doesn‟t [always win his games]i any longer ti<br />
Through this type of meticulous consideration of the syntactic behaviour of adverbs,<br />
the single, universal order of AdvPs is identified:<br />
(13) Frankly > fortunately > allegedly > probably > once > then > perhaps > necessarily<br />
> possibly > willingly > inevitably > cleverly > usually> again > often<br />
> quickly > already > no longer > still > always > just > soon > briefly ><br />
characteristically > almost > completely > tutto > well > fast/early > completely<br />
> again > often<br />
3 Note that if adverbs were X°s, they should block X° movement (e.g. of the infinitive) un-<br />
24<br />
der Relativized Minimality (Rizzi 1990).
The articulation of inflection in Jamaican Creole<br />
Independently of AdvPs, Cinque (1999) determines the order of clausal functional<br />
heads based on evidence from bound and free morphological inflection. Once<br />
again, he examines a wide variety of languages, and the overt relative orders evinced<br />
in these support his claim that, as found to obtain for AdvPs, functional heads are<br />
universally organised in a single overall order.<br />
1.2.2. Bound functional morphemes<br />
If a universal hierarchy of functional heads indeed exists, then head-initial languages<br />
such as English should reflect the mirror image to that observed in „headfinal‟<br />
languages such as German:<br />
(14) English: These books have been being read all year<br />
→ Tense > Aspectperfect > Aspectprogressive<br />
(15) German: …da er von der Bank angestellt worden sein muss<br />
… that he by the bank employed been have must<br />
„… that he must have been employed by the bank‟<br />
→ Aspectperfect > Tense > Modal<br />
The data above confirms that, as a consequence of the headedness parameter,<br />
German virtually duplicates the evidence from English for the order of functional<br />
heads.<br />
1.2.3. Free functional morphemes<br />
Free functional morphemes behave differently to bound functional morphemes in<br />
that they disallow the head immediately below them to adjoin onto them. Consequently,<br />
in instances of head-initial languages evincing particles, the latter “allow us<br />
to directly observe the order of functional heads. One such case is provided by creole<br />
languages” (Cinque 1999, 58).<br />
Literature on Creoles has generally claimed that the ordering of functional particles<br />
is Tense - Mood/modal – Aspect, wherefore the reference to these as TMA<br />
markers. Cinque (1999, 59) underlines that “(t)hough in essence correct, this ordering<br />
is somewhat gross, and must be qualified. For one thing, various aspectual particles<br />
can co-occur, so that their relative order needs to be determined”. Cinque‟s<br />
careful analysis of data from head-initial Guyanese Creole, Haitian Creole, and<br />
Sranan leads to a refinement of this claim. For example, Guyanese Creole provides<br />
evidence for co-occurring aspectual particles:<br />
(16) Shi a aalweez/neva de a sing (Guyanese Creole; Gibson 1986, 852f)<br />
She HAB always/never DUR PROG sing<br />
„She usually always/never keeps singing‟<br />
25
Stephanie Durrleman<br />
Therefore different positions for Asp head positions must be provided in the<br />
structure.<br />
Secondly, Cinque (1999, 59) notes that “there are occasional claims in the literature<br />
for the order Modal > Tense rather than Tense > Modal”. Guyanese Creole once<br />
again gives insight for the postulation of various positions for modals:<br />
(17) Jaan shuda bin kyaan get fu gu (Guyanese Creole; Gibson 1986, 585)<br />
J. MODepistemic PAST MODr MODr COMP go<br />
„J. should not have been able to be allowed to go‟<br />
The data in (17) shows different positions for epistemic versus root modals (ability<br />
> permission) with respect to tense: indeed whereas the former precedes T°, the<br />
latter follows it. Therefore Cinque (1999) refines the traditional analysis of TMA<br />
markers so as to derive a more articulate structure with different positions for accommodating<br />
different modal types.<br />
The more intricate structure of functional particles established on the basis of<br />
head-initial languages is further supported by evidence from „head-final‟ languages<br />
which also make use of functional particles (e.g. Kachin of the Tibeto-Burman area,<br />
or Sanio-Hiowe of New Guinea): The latter in fact display their particles sentence<br />
finally, in a mirror image order to that which is established on the basis of direct<br />
evidence from „head-initial‟ languages with particles.<br />
Putting the attested relative orders together, Cinque (1999) arrives at the single<br />
overall order in (18):<br />
(18) Moodspeech act > Moodevaluative > Moodevidential > Modepistemic > T(Past) > T(Future)<br />
> Moodirrealis Modnecessity > Modpossibility > Modvolition > Modobligation > Modabil-<br />
26<br />
ity/permission > Asphabitual > T(Anterior) > Aspperfect/imperfect > Aspretrospective > Aspdurative<br />
> Aspgeneric/progressive > Aspprospective > AspCompletive > Voice > Aspcelerative > Asp-<br />
completive > Asp(semel)repetitive > Aspiterative<br />
At this stage one can observe the two independently established hierarchies,<br />
namely that of AdvPs and that of functional heads, and see that they generally match<br />
semantically from left to right:<br />
(19) [Frankly Moodspeech act [fortunately Moodevaluative [allegedly Moodevidential<br />
[probably Modepistemic [once T(Past) [then T(Future) [perhaps Moodirrealis [necessarily<br />
Modnecessity [possibly Modpossibility [willingly Modvolition [inevitably Modobligation<br />
[cleverly Modability/permission [usually Asphabitual [again Asprepetitive(I) [often<br />
Aspfrequentative(I) [quickly Aspcelerative(I) [already T(Anterior) [no longer Aspterminative<br />
[still Aspcontinuative [always Aspperfect(?) [just Aspretrospective [soon Aspproximative<br />
[briefly Aspdurative [characteristically (?) [? Aspgeneric/progressive [almost Aspprospec-
The articulation of inflection in Jamaican Creole<br />
tive [completely Aspcompletive(I) [tutto AspPlCompletive [well Voice [fast/early Aspcel-<br />
erative(II) [completely AspSgCompletive(II) [again Asprepetitive(II) [often Aspfrequentative(II) …<br />
Cinque (1999, 77) writes that “(i)n many cases a transparent specifier/head relation<br />
between a certain adverb class and the right-adjacent functional head is immediately<br />
recognizable”.<br />
He concludes that the essential compatibility of individual languages attested<br />
with this comprehensive order cannot be accidental. Rather, it follows as a consequence<br />
of the fact that the structure in (19) above is a fixed order determined by UG.<br />
Therefore Cinque (1999) predicts that no human language should prove incompatible<br />
with the hierarchy expressed in (19) or refinements of it. JC is a new territory on<br />
which to test Cinque‟s (1999) clause structure.<br />
2. The articulation of Inflection in JC<br />
Inflectional markers are the overt manifestation of clausal functional heads, and<br />
their corresponding adverbs are the overt realisation of the specifiers of their projections.<br />
The investigation undertaken in this paper verifies if a rigid order exists<br />
amongst the functional material of the clause in JC, as predicted by the framework,<br />
and if such a hierarchy is compatible with that established in Cinque (1999).<br />
2.1. The preverbal markers<br />
JC exhibits SVO surface order:<br />
(20) Dem en/did 4 nuo dat<br />
S V O<br />
Them [+past] know that<br />
„They knew that‟<br />
Verbs are not conjugated via inflectional morphology in this language. In (20),<br />
an independent inflectional element, en (rural) or did (urban) depending on the variety<br />
of Creole, precedes the verb stem and gives rise to a past interpretation. These<br />
markers do not agree in tense or number with the subject:<br />
(21) Mi/yu/Im/Wi/Uno/Dem en/did nuo betta<br />
I/you/S/he/We/You[+plural]/They [+past] know better<br />
„I/you/S/he/We/You[+plural]/They knew better‟<br />
4 En and did express past tense in rural and urban Creole respectively. Some of the data<br />
drawn from the literature on JC use en, so I familiarise the reader with this marker here.<br />
Although this marker is not unfamiliar to me, I will not always give it in my examples as I<br />
am not personally a user of it.<br />
27
Stephanie Durrleman<br />
JC makes use of markers to express not only tense, but also mood and aspect<br />
(TMA). All of these markers, when used, must intervene between the subject and the<br />
invariant verb form, as seen for past tense markers in (20) and (21). An example of a<br />
modal is given in (22), and an aspectual marker in (23):<br />
(22) Im shuda nyam di bammy lang taim<br />
S/he [+modal] eat the bammy long time<br />
„S/he should‟ve eaten the bammy a long time ago‟<br />
(23) Im a nyam di bammy<br />
S/he [+progressive] eat the bammy<br />
„S/he is eating the bammy‟<br />
Long sequences of these middle-field inflectional markers seldom occur in JC,<br />
but nevertheless they can potentially be used combinatorily, and occasionally are, as<br />
long as they fall in a fixed order:<br />
(24) a. Jan shuda en a ron Bailey (1966)<br />
S/he [+modal] [+past] [+prog] run<br />
„S/he should have been running‟<br />
b. *Jan shuda a en ron<br />
c. *Jan en shuda a ron<br />
d. *Jan en a shuda ron<br />
e. *Jan a shuda en ron<br />
f. *Jan a en shuda ron<br />
2.2. Modals<br />
2.2.1. Mod(al) 1<br />
The examples in (24a-f) suggest that in JC the structural hierarchy of inflectional<br />
markers gives rise to certain modals, here shuda, dominating tense and aspect markers.<br />
An inventory of these initial modals is given in (25):<br />
(25) shuda, wuda, maita, mosa, kuda<br />
A particularity of modals belonging to this class is that they tend to all end in a<br />
(26) Im neva shuda tief di mango-dem<br />
S/he never [+modal] thief the mango-[plur]<br />
„S/he never should‟ve stolen the mangoes‟<br />
Modal-associated a is not a marker encoding past time (such as perfective have<br />
in the Standard), contrary to what the gloss for (26) may imply. Notice that stative<br />
verbs may follow these sequences and give rise to a present interpretation (27):<br />
28
The articulation of inflection in Jamaican Creole<br />
(27) Betta Jan no tell im dat, caw im wuda tink seh im a di bess!<br />
Better John [neg] tell him that, „cause him [+modal] think that him [equative]<br />
the best<br />
„(It‟s) better that John doesn‟t tell him that, because he would think that he‟s<br />
the best!‟<br />
The past interpretation is therefore not forced by the presence of this modal-a<br />
element at all.<br />
Modals from different sets can be combined in JC. The first set of modals in the<br />
hierarchy of modal markers is Mod(al)1. Modals of the same set cannot be combined<br />
amongst themselves:<br />
(28) a. *Im shuda wuda…<br />
b. *Im wuda shuda…<br />
c. *Im shuda maita…<br />
d. *Im maita shuda…<br />
e. *Im shuda mosa…<br />
f. *Im mosa shuda…<br />
g. *Im shuda kuda…<br />
h. *Im kuda shuda… etc.<br />
2.2.2. Mod(al)s 2 & 3<br />
In the event that the combination of modals takes place (29a, 30a), this combination<br />
must respect a certain ordering constraint, otherwise the result is ungrammatical<br />
(29b-d, 30b-d):<br />
(29) a. Im shooda muss kyan get tru Adams (1995)<br />
„He must surely be able to succeed‟<br />
(30) a. dat-de biebi wuda mos hafi priti Bailey (1966)<br />
„That baby would have to be pretty‟<br />
(29) b. *Im muss shooda kyan get tru<br />
c. *Im kyan muss shooda get tru<br />
d. *Im muss kyan shooda get tru<br />
e. *Im shuda kyan muss get tru<br />
(30) b. *Dat-de biebi mos wuda hafi priti<br />
c. *Dat-de biebi hafi mos wuda priti<br />
d. *Dat-de biebi mos hafi wuda priti<br />
e. *Dat-de biebi wuda hafi mos priti<br />
29
Stephanie Durrleman<br />
As a result the first set of modals, Mod1, whose members always end in a, can<br />
be opposed to mos, hafi and kyan which occur deeper in the structure. Mos can in<br />
turn be opposed to hafi and kyan in that the former precedes the latter.<br />
On the basis of these observations, the positions of modals in the structure of JC<br />
seem to fall in the fixed order given in (31) 5 :<br />
(31) [Mod1 kuda/wuda/shuda/mosa/maita] > [Mod2 mos] > [Mod3 hafi, kyan] …<br />
As already attested for Mod1, modals belonging to the same set compete for the<br />
same position and consequently cannot be combined amongst each other:<br />
(32) a. *Im kyan hafi…<br />
b. *Im hafi kyan…<br />
2.3. Tense<br />
2.3.1. Past Tense<br />
In the sequence of inflectional markers in JC, just after the modals ending in a<br />
comes the past tense marker en in basilectal varieties, did in mesolectal ones:<br />
(33) Im wooda en say (Adams 1995) Im wooda did say<br />
S/he would have [+past] say S/he wouldhave [+past] say<br />
„S/he would have said‟ „S/he would have said‟<br />
This tense marker is optional in sentences such as those given in (33): even in the<br />
event that en and did were done away with, the interpretation yielded could still correspond<br />
to the conditional past:<br />
(34) Im wooda say<br />
„S/he would have said‟<br />
This is because null tense specification is the default mechanism for expressing<br />
past with non-stative verbs in JC:<br />
(35) Im say dat saim ting deh<br />
S/he say that same thing there<br />
„S/he said that very thing‟<br />
5 It is not immediately obvious why sequences such as …*kuda kyan…, and …*mosa<br />
mos…are banned, as the mutual exclusion of these elements can neither be accounted for<br />
in terms of competition for the same position, nor in terms of semantics alone. Notice that<br />
in French, a similar constraint on modals exists: *pouvait pouvoir, *devrait devoir.<br />
30
The articulation of inflection in Jamaican Creole<br />
Since [-stative] verbs have a default interpretation corresponding to a past-time<br />
reading, then in the case of these verbs the insertion of a [+past] tense marker did<br />
generally yields an anterior past interpretation.<br />
(36) Jan did nyam di bammi<br />
John [+past] eat the bammy<br />
„John had eaten the bammy‟<br />
The potential temporal specifications for a non-stative verb such as ron are given<br />
in (37):<br />
(37) a. Mi ron I run (habitually); I ran Sebba (1993) 6<br />
b. Mi en ron I have run; I had run<br />
The [±stative] nature of the verb plays a crucial role in determining tense in the<br />
absence of markers: we have seen that a non-stative verb without markers has a default<br />
interpretation corresponding to past-time. With respect to stative verbs, however,<br />
the absence of particles usually results in a non-past interpretation:<br />
(38) Jan tink seh im a di bess<br />
John think that he [equative] the best<br />
„John thinks/*thought that he is/*was the best‟<br />
Therefore the [±stative] nature of a verb plays an important role in the temporal<br />
specifications assigned to this verb. On the one hand, the default time specification<br />
for non-stative verbs is past, so that when en/did combine with [-stative] verbs the<br />
result is an anterior past interpretation. On the other hand, the default time specification<br />
for stative verbs is present, so the insertion of the pre-verbal markers en/did are<br />
necessary in order to obtain a past interpretation for [+stative] verbs.<br />
2.3.2. Future Tense<br />
The markers en/did considered above are tense indicators of past, in contrast to<br />
wi which is an indicator of futurity:<br />
(39) Jan wi nyam dat<br />
„John will eat that‟<br />
Futurity may also be expressed by the aspectual a+go, which often becomes ao<br />
in rapid speech:<br />
(40) Im a (g)o nyam dat<br />
S/he [prog] [prosp] eat that<br />
S/he is going to eat that<br />
6 Sebba (1993) draws on Bailey (1966).<br />
31
Stephanie Durrleman<br />
Wi and a+(g)o behave differently with respect to en/did. The former, though not<br />
the latter, is in complementary distribution with the past tense markers. Indeed, the<br />
sense of imminence given by the Asp markers a+(g)o may very well serve in the<br />
description of some past event:<br />
(41) a. *Im en/did wi nyam dat<br />
b. *Im wi en/did nyam dat<br />
(42) Im en/did a (g)o nyam dat aaff, bot mi stap im<br />
“S/he was going to eat it all up, but I stopped her/him”<br />
Given the complementary distribution between wi and en/did, wi is analysed here<br />
as a T marker expressing the opposite value (future) to en/did (past). The mutual exclusion<br />
of these elements could then be accounted for in terms of their targeting the<br />
same T head. This analysis does not extend to a(g)o in light of the compatibility of<br />
a(g)o with en/did. A(g)o is therefore considered an aspectual marker of futurity.<br />
2.4. Modals and T<br />
2.4.1. Mod1 and T<br />
We have already observed in example (33) repeated here as (43) that mood<br />
(Mod1) must precede tense.<br />
(43) Im wooda en say (Adams 1995) Im wooda did say<br />
S/he would+have [+past] say S/he would+have [+past] say<br />
„S/he would have said‟ „S/he would have said‟<br />
We can see now that the various tense markers must in turn precede aspectual<br />
ones:<br />
(44) a. Im did a (g)o nyam…<br />
b. *Im a did/en (g)o nyam…<br />
c. *Im (g)o did/en a nyam…<br />
d. *Im a (g)o did/en nyam…<br />
e. *Im (g)o a did/en nyam…<br />
Examples (44a-e) confirm that tense must precede aspect. (45) gives the order established<br />
so far:<br />
(45) Mod1 > T > Asp<br />
2.4.2. Mod 2 & 3 and T<br />
Mods 2 and 3, unlike Mod1, cannot precede a tense particle. Instead, Mods 2 and<br />
3 must follow did/wi:<br />
32
(46) *Im did shooda laugh<br />
(47) Im did hafi laugh<br />
„She had to laugh‟<br />
The articulation of inflection in Jamaican Creole<br />
(48) (Mi feel seh wen di taim come ) im wi kyan dwiit<br />
„(I feel that when the time comes) s/he will be able to do it‟<br />
(49) Im wi mos hafi tek dat 7<br />
„S/he will be obliged to take that‟<br />
This means that Mod 2 and 3 are to be situated lower down in the structure than<br />
T. In the event that they behave like other lexical verbs, one could situate them under<br />
V. However this is unlikely: note that unlike lexical verbs, they cannot be situated<br />
below aspect because of the ungrammaticality of the following sequences:<br />
(50) *(Wen di taim come,) im a (o) hafi laugh vs. Im wi hafi laugh<br />
(51) *(Wen di taim come,)maybe im a (o) kyan dwiit vs. Maybe im wi kyan dwiit<br />
The ordering of TMA markers thus seems to be as follows:<br />
(52) [Mod1 wuda/shuda/mosa/maita] > [T en/did/wi] > [Mod2 mos] > [Mod3 hafi,<br />
kyan] > [Asp1 a [Asp2 (g)o] [V…]<br />
Therefore tense intervenes between epistemic and root modals. Recall that Guyanese<br />
Creole exhibits a similar phenomenon:<br />
(53) Jaan shuda bin kyaan get fu gu (Gibson 1986, 585)<br />
J. MODepistemic PAST MODr MODr go<br />
„J. should not have been able to be allowed to go‟.<br />
Cinque (1999) highlights that the distributional variation between different modal<br />
types in relation to T is linked to their correspondingly different interpretational<br />
values: Epistemic (pre-T° modals) are analysed as being “concerned with the<br />
speaker‟s deductions or opinions” versus root modals (post-T° markers) which, “in<br />
contrast to epistemic (…) are strictly subject oriented”.<br />
In JC, an epistemic and a root version of the same modal exist 8 : mosa and mos.<br />
The semantic contrasts between these two offers new ground where one can test this<br />
epistemic/root distinction:<br />
7 See also Bailey (1966, 44) for more examples.<br />
8 Kuda has alethic particularities which render it difficult to strike a clear contrast with<br />
kyan. C.f. Cinque (1999, 78,79 & 198n3).<br />
33
Stephanie Durrleman<br />
(54) Jan mosa did hafi tell dem<br />
„John most probably/more than likely had to tell them‟ / „*John was obliged to<br />
tell them‟<br />
(55) Jan did mos hafi tell dem<br />
„John was obliged to tell them‟ / „ 9 % John probably had to tell them‟<br />
Whereas the preferred interpretation for mos yields the notion of necessary obligation<br />
with respect to the subject Jan, this is not accessible to mosa, which does not<br />
emphasise Jan‟s obligation, but rather invokes the speaker‟s opinion with respect to<br />
Jan‟s plausible obligation.<br />
Another clear difference between the two has to do with their use in questions:<br />
mosa though not mos, gives rise to a distinct awkwardness in a question:<br />
(56) ??Jan mosa did hafi tell dem?<br />
(57) Jan did mos hafi tell dem?<br />
Jackendoff (1972, 103) writes that “(i)f epistemic modals are treated like<br />
speaker-oriented adverbs by the semantic component, this restriction will follow<br />
automatically”.<br />
The above observations give evidence for the structure below:<br />
(58) Mod epistemic (Mod 1) > T > Mod root obligation (Mod 2) > Mod root<br />
ability/permission (Mod 3)<br />
2.5. Asp markers<br />
This section turns to aspectual markers in JC. Markers of aspect in this language,<br />
and seemingly in all languages, form the group of inflectional particles located closest<br />
to the VP (see Bybee (1983)).<br />
2.5.1. Progressive Aspect<br />
This marker a precedes the [-stative] verb so as to give the action or event<br />
evoked by this verb an „on-going‟ interpretation:<br />
(59) Jan a nyam i’<br />
John [+prog] eat it<br />
„John is eating it‟<br />
9 It would be inaccurate to conclude that mos cannot give rise to an interpretation where the<br />
speaker‟s opinion is involved. This ambiguous nature is also attested with dwe for some<br />
speakers of Haitian Creole (see Leblanc (1989, 51).<br />
34
The articulation of inflection in Jamaican Creole<br />
We observed that [-stative] VPs such as [nyam i’] are generally interpreted in the<br />
past in the absence of markers. In (60), the sole use of the particle a with this same<br />
VP implies that the event described is going on at the time of the utterance. In the<br />
presence of a, even with projections of [-stative] verbs, a past interpretation has to<br />
be specified:<br />
(60) Jan did a nyam uno bammi (… good ting mi tell im fi stap)<br />
John [+past] [+prog] eat your[plur] bammy (… good thing I tell him to stop)<br />
„John was eating your bammy (… good thing I told him to stop)‟<br />
Therefore the use of the progressive suggests that the verb evokes something in<br />
progress, by default at the time of utterance.<br />
Recall that [+stative] verbs are, by definition, inherently on-going at the time of<br />
utterance:<br />
(61) Jan nuo dat<br />
John know that<br />
„John knows that‟<br />
It is not surprising then that the redundant combination of stative verbs with the<br />
progressive is banned:<br />
(62) *Jan a nuo dat<br />
A combines with (g)o to yield a reading of futurity referred to as prospective<br />
aspect.<br />
2.5.2. Prospective Aspect<br />
Cinque (1999, 99) explains that: “the term „prospective aspect‟ has come to be<br />
used for those grammatical forms (…) which mark “a point just prior to the beginning<br />
of an event” (Frawley 1992, 322). This is for example the case with the English<br />
construction “to be going to” / “to be about to”. (Comrie (1976, 64ff))”. Comrie<br />
(1976, 64) points out an important difference between “prospective meaning”: Bill is<br />
going to / is about to throw himself off the cliff and expressions of future time reference:Bill<br />
will throw himself off the cliff, since Bill‟s eventually not throwing himself<br />
off the cliff makes the speaker wrong in the second case, but not in the first.<br />
As already underlined, a reinforcement of the idea that wi warrants an analysis as<br />
the tense marker for future while a(g)o is aspectual is founded on the observation that<br />
wi is in complementary distribution with did, although this is not the case with a(g)o:<br />
(63) a. *Im en/did wi nyam i’ aaff<br />
b. *Im wi en/did nyam i’ aaff<br />
(64) Im en/did a (g)o nyam i’ aaff, bot mi (en/did) stap im<br />
„S/he was going to eat it all up, but I stopped her/him‟<br />
35
Stephanie Durrleman<br />
The fact that prospective go must be used in combination with the progressive<br />
(even though in rapid speech the latter may become somewhat shortened) can be<br />
seen by the fact that a minimal pair can be formed between preverbal go used without<br />
the progressive and one used with the progressive:<br />
(65) (Afta wa im seh…) yu go pick i’ up? Vs. y(u) a go pick i’ up?<br />
(After what s/he say) you go pick it up you [+prog] [+prosp] pick it up<br />
„(After what s/he said) you went and picked it up? /you‟re going to pick it up?<br />
2.5.3. Retrospective Aspect<br />
In this work, the marker jus designating „immediate past‟ is referred to along the<br />
lines of Cinque (1999) as retrospective aspect<br />
(66) Im did jus a go dw i’<br />
S/he [past] [retrospective] [progressive] [prospective] do it<br />
„S/he was just about to do it‟<br />
2.5.4. Completive Aspect and Anterior<br />
The inflectional particle done may precede the VP as do other aspect markers of<br />
JC, but it also has the particularity of occasionally occurring in a post-VP configuration.<br />
This was already noticed by Cassidy (1961) who gives the following description<br />
for done:<br />
36<br />
“The participle done enters into a peculiar adverbial idiom. Placed after verbs<br />
it shows completion of the action. (…) „Me feed him dun dis long time‟ (…)<br />
done loses verbal force and becomes a modifier of the other verb.”<br />
In the event that done occurs in a pre-VP configuration with [-stative] verbs, it<br />
can yield two different interpretations. A sentence such as that in (67) is therefore<br />
ambiguous, giving rise to the interpretations in (67a) and (67b):<br />
(67) Im done nyam i’<br />
S/he done eat it<br />
a. „S/he already ate it‟<br />
b. „S/he finished eating it‟<br />
The additional interpretation in (67a) is erased in a post-VP configuration, so the<br />
ambiguity observed for (67) no longer obtains in (68) where done follows the VP it<br />
modifies:<br />
(68) Im nyam i’ done<br />
S/he eat it done<br />
a. „*S/he already ate it‟<br />
b. „She finished eating it (up)‟
The articulation of inflection in Jamaican Creole<br />
I take this to suggest the presence of two different done markers in JC, one corresponding<br />
to the meaning [+completion] as given by the verb „to finish‟ in English,<br />
and the other corresponding to the meaning [+anterior], as given by the adverb „already‟<br />
in English.<br />
These two done markers behave differently syntactically: Assuming that VP-<br />
movement 10 takes place to the Spec of the completive marker done when the latter<br />
appears in a post-VP configuration, according to the data in (68) movement of the<br />
VP projected by a [-stative] verb to the Spec of Anterior done is not accessible to<br />
VP-movement. In other words, if one were to translate the sentence in (69) into JC,<br />
one could not say (69a), only (69b):<br />
(69) S/he already ate it<br />
a. *im nyam i’ done<br />
b. im done nyam i’<br />
A possible hypothesis to account for the fact that a VP cannot move to the Spec<br />
of [+anterior] done, is that the VP in JC cannot move as high as the [+anterior] projection.<br />
Movement of the VP in JC is limited as examples (70-2) illustrate: a VP<br />
cannot be found in the specifier of projections for retrospective aspect jus (70a, b),<br />
progressive aspect a (71a, b), or prospective aspect go (72a, b):<br />
(70) a. Im jus nyam i’<br />
S/he just eat it<br />
„S/he just ate it‟<br />
b. *Im nyam i’ jus<br />
(71) a. Im a nyam i’<br />
S/he [+prog] eat it<br />
„S/he is eating it‟<br />
b. *Im nyam i’ a<br />
(72) a. Im a (g)o nyam i’<br />
S/he [+prog] [+prosp] eat it<br />
„S/he is going to eat it‟<br />
b. *Im a nyam i’(g)o<br />
If movement of [-stative] VPs in JC cannot go as high as the specifiers of aspectual<br />
particles such as jus, a and (g)o, yet the specifier of the particle done<br />
10 I assume leftward movement of a VP to be possible, in line with Cinque (1999, 190n26)<br />
who also makes use of this device to derive sentence final don for Guyanese Creole. I return<br />
to the discussion of VP movement in section 3.<br />
37
Stephanie Durrleman<br />
[+completive] may host the [-stative] VP in JC, then it can be reasonably hypothesised<br />
that the projection of done [+completive] be situated quite low in the structure:<br />
lower than the aspectual markers considered here. If this were not the case, then<br />
movement to the specifer of completive aspect would be excluded since it would<br />
violate Relativized Minimality through having to skip intermediate specifier positions.<br />
This predicts a structure along the lines of (73):<br />
(73) [Intermediate Asp] > [done [+completive]] > VP<br />
X<br />
Indeed, this is confirmed by the examples in (74, 75) which overtly illustrate the<br />
distribution of this particle [+completive] as used in JC in relation to other inflectional<br />
markers:<br />
(74) Wentaim mi reach, im did jus done nyam i’<br />
When I reach, s/he [+past] [+retrospective] [+completive] eat it<br />
„When I arrived, s/he‟d just finished eating it ‟<br />
(75) Mine! Im a go done 11 nyam di whole a i’!<br />
Mind! S/he [+prog] [+prosp] [+completive] eat the whole of it<br />
„Careful! S/he is going to finish eating all of it!‟<br />
Where done follows the lowest of the other overtly expressed aspectual heads<br />
in JC:<br />
(76) Asp [+retrospective] > Asp [+prog] > Asp [+prosp] > Asp [+completive]<br />
As expected, this occurrence of done, i.e. deeply embedded structurally, cannot<br />
correspond to an interpretation meaning [+anterior], but is reserved only for an interpretation<br />
implying that the action expressed is completed. It follows that<br />
[+completive] aspect is as hypothesised, situated low down in the clausal hierarchy:<br />
lower than the other aspectual heads already considered, and lower than T<br />
[+anterior].<br />
Given the observations above, JC gives evidence for two different types of inflectional<br />
particles done: one [+anterior], the other [+completive]. Completive may<br />
occur either in a pre- or post-VP configuration, and is only compatible with [stative]<br />
verbs, Anterior can only occur in a pre-VP configuration, and may occur<br />
with both [+stative] and [-stative] verbs.<br />
Done when used in combination with [+stative] verbs in a pre-VP configuration,<br />
unlike that observed with respect to [-stative] verbs, does not give rise to ambiguity<br />
11 Note that while done [completive] may potentially occur with prospective a (g)o, it does<br />
38<br />
not occur easily with progressive a alone : ? ? ?im a done nyam i’.
The articulation of inflection in Jamaican Creole<br />
in JC. Consider example (77) with the verb nuo, and the fact that the interpretation<br />
in (77a) can be derived, whereas the one in (77b) cannot:<br />
(77) Im done nuo seh mi like im<br />
a. „S/he already knows that I like her/him‟<br />
b. „*S/he finished knowing that I like her/him‟<br />
This amounts to saying that the only marker done which can occur with<br />
[+stative] verbs is the one which gives rise to the meaning [+anterior], as expressed<br />
by the adverb „already‟ in English. Lamiroy (1987, 284) 12 accounts for this by suggesting<br />
that: “since all the phases in a state are identical (…) (states) lack an internal<br />
dynamic structure. Aspect, however, crucially deals with the internal structure of<br />
situations. Therefore states and the expression of aspect are naturally incompatible”.<br />
It follows then that stative verbs may be specified for T [anterior] done, but not for<br />
Asp [completive] done.<br />
The hypothesis that there exist two different done markers in the clause structure<br />
makes a prediction as to the potential syntactic distribution of the projections of<br />
[+stative] verbs with respect to the particle done: If done [+anterior] cannot host<br />
VPs in its Spec for it is too far away, and only this done can occur with [+stative]<br />
verbs, then [+stative] VPs should never be able to occur in a pre-done configuration,<br />
as the latter configuration is derived by movement to the specifier of done<br />
[+completive] only. This prediction is borne out as the contrast between (78a) and<br />
(78b) illustrates:<br />
(78) a. Im done nuo dat<br />
S/he done know that<br />
„S/he already knows that‟<br />
b. *Im [[nuo dat]i done] ti<br />
S/he know that done<br />
Done [+anterior] does not easily combine with other markers in JC, so although<br />
we have reason to believe it is relatively high in the hierarchy of markers, it would<br />
be difficult, maybe impossible, to locate its exact position in the structure if we did<br />
not have recourse to its corresponding adverb aredi, an overt manifestation of its<br />
specifier position along the lines of Cinque(1999, 94): Aredi, like done[anterior], has<br />
as “its core meaning (…) one of temporal priority (…), in fact, one of precedence<br />
with respect to a reference time. (…) This makes it plausible to locate it in the specifier<br />
position of the lowest TP (TP anterior)”.<br />
12 In Da Cruz (1995, 368).<br />
39
Stephanie Durrleman<br />
Although aredi is, more often than not, placed at the end of a sentence (79a-c) 13 ,<br />
it can occasionally be inserted amongst certain of the other markers, as examples<br />
(79e-g) illustrate:<br />
(79) a. Im mosa gi ’im di gassip aredi<br />
„S/he must have given her/him the gossip already‟<br />
b. Im did nuo dat aredi<br />
„S/he knew that already‟<br />
c. Im a gwaan bad aredi<br />
„S/he is behaving badly already‟<br />
d. Im (*aredi) mosa (aredi) gi ‘im di gassip<br />
S/he (*already) must [epistemic] (already) give her/him the gossip<br />
„S/he must have already given her/him the gossip‟<br />
e. Im (*aredi) did (aredi) nuo dat<br />
S/he (*already) did (already) know that<br />
„S/he already knew that‟<br />
f. Im (aredi) a (*aredi) gwaan bad<br />
S/he (already) [prog] (*already) go+on bad<br />
„S/he‟s already behaving badly‟<br />
40<br />
The data in (79d-f) gives evidence for the structure in (80):<br />
(80) Mod (epistemic) T (past/future) > aredi (anterior) > Asp prog<br />
Given the respective distributions of done [+completive] (76 repeated as 81) and<br />
aredi [+anterior] with respect to Asp [+prog] (80), the projection corresponding to<br />
[+anterior] is by transitivity higher in the structure than the one corresponding to<br />
[+completive] (82):<br />
(81) Asp [+retrospective] > Asp [+prog] > Asp [+prosp] > Asp [+completive]<br />
(82) T [anterior] > Asp [+prog] > Asp [+completive]<br />
2.5.5. Continuative and Frequentative Aspects<br />
Cinque (1999) situates the adverb „still‟ in the specifier position of the continuative<br />
aspect projection. In JC, the position of this adverb indeed coincides with the<br />
Asp [continuative] projection in his structure: i.e. JC still can be shown to follow the<br />
root modal [ability/permission] kyan, and therefore all markers dominating this mo-<br />
13 Sentence final aredi may possibly be derived through XP movement past this adverb,<br />
along the lines of (Cinque (1999). I return to this hypothesis in Section 4.3.
The articulation of inflection in Jamaican Creole<br />
dal, and it can also be shown to precede those markers dominated by continuative<br />
aspect in Cinque‟s structure 14<br />
(83) Jan wuda/did/mos/kyan > still > a/go chat<br />
John [Mod1] / T / [Mod2] [Mod3] > still > Asp [prog] Asp [prosp] talk<br />
Cinque (1999, 207n51) observes that “(c)ontinuative aspect is found expressed<br />
by particles, (…) or (apparently, more often) by reduplication of the verb stem”<br />
In JC, reduplication of the verb stem is also a productive process:<br />
(84) Yu nuh nuo im? A di same wan weh chat-chat wi business?<br />
You [neg] know her/him? [equative] the same one which chat [V reduplicated]<br />
we business<br />
„Don‟t you know her/him? S/he‟s the very one who‟s incessantly spreading<br />
our personal affairs‟<br />
Whether or not reduplication of the verb in JC directly corresponds to continuative<br />
aspect, however, is not so clear-cut: Bailey (1966, 16) takes repetition of a verb<br />
to “refer to repetitive or habitual action”, while giving the examples taak-taak, and<br />
biit-biit which she translates as “talk continuously” and “whip constantly” respectively<br />
15 . It seems therefore that what is stressed by the reduplication of a verb is not<br />
specifically the continuity of the action expressed, but rather more generally the frequency<br />
at which this action takes place. If reduplication were an expression of frequency<br />
in JC, then the fact that stative verbs do not reduplicate would follow: these<br />
verbs cannot be qualified frequentatively either.<br />
Recall that the adverb „still‟ and its analogues in different languages is taken by<br />
the framework here adopted, to be the overt realisation of the specifier position of<br />
the projection of continuative aspect. Notice in the example below that still can be<br />
separated from the reduplicated verb by the progressive particle:<br />
(85) im still a chat-chat di people-dem business bout di place<br />
S/he still [prog] Verb-Verb the people [+plur] business around the place<br />
„She‟s still incessantly spreading those people‟s private affairs all over town‟<br />
14 Still is not compatible neither with retrospective aspect jus, nor with anterior or completive<br />
aspects done. Indeed if jus occurs with still, jus cannot mean „a short while ago‟, but<br />
rather is automatically interpreted to mean „nevertheless‟: im still jus do wa im waan fi do:<br />
„s/he kept on nevertheless doing what s/he wanted to do‟ vs. „*s/he kept on a short while<br />
ago doing what s/he wanted to do‟. Anterior done, as well as its specifier aredi, are in<br />
complementary distribution with still: *im done still nyam; *im aredi still nyam. Similarly,<br />
completive done shows incompatibility with still: *im still done nyam.<br />
15 Bold letters are mine.<br />
41
Stephanie Durrleman<br />
If still sits in the Specifier of AspContinuativeP, and a is the overt realisation of<br />
Prog°, then the preverbal copy cannot sit in AspContinuative°.<br />
A possible analysis to account for the verbal reduplication in JC is one which<br />
situates the preverbal copy in AspFrequentative°, i.e. the lowest functional head of<br />
the clausal system. This would explain why it can even follow done, the marker of<br />
completive aspect:<br />
(86) Im nuh done chat chat di people-dem business all now?<br />
S/he [neg] [completive] [frequentative] chat-chat the people [plur] business<br />
even now?<br />
„S/he hasn‟t yet finished incessantly spreading those persons‟ private affairs?‟<br />
The interpretation and distribution of aspectual heads in JC considered here<br />
and, where possible, their corresponding specifiers, is compatible with the hierarchy<br />
in (87):<br />
(87) Anterior 16 < Asp Continuative < Asp retrospective < Asp progressive <<br />
Asp prospective < Asp completive < Asp frequentative<br />
2.6. Overall order for TMA markers in JC<br />
(88) Mod epistemic (Mod 1) > T > Mod root obligation (Mod 2) > Mod root<br />
ability/permission (Mod 3) > Anterior < Asp Continuative < Asp retrospective<br />
< Asp progressive < Asp prospective < Asp completive < Asp<br />
frequentative<br />
3. Theoretical issues<br />
This section returns to the case of the marker done in JC (section 2.5.4). The aim<br />
is to examine the validity of an IP-internal-movement analysis for sentence final material,<br />
as compared to a Serial Verb Construction (SVC) approach for Completive<br />
and distinct sentence-medial and sentence-final for AnteriorP.<br />
3.1.1. Completive Aspect in JC and Fongbè: an SVC approach<br />
It has been pointed out that the marker encoding Asp [completive] behaves differently<br />
syntactically with respect to the other markers in JC: done [completive] has the<br />
distributional particularity of optionally following the VP over which it takes scope 17 :<br />
16 Note, however, that the incompatibility of Anterior with AspContinuative and AspRetrospective<br />
makes it difficult to determine the precise hierarchy between these projections<br />
in JC.<br />
42
(89) Uno jus nyam di bammi done 18 ?<br />
Subj [retrospective] VP [completive]<br />
„You all have just finished eating the bammy?‟<br />
The articulation of inflection in Jamaican Creole<br />
Analogous patterns related to the completive marker are found crosslinguistically.<br />
Da Cruz (1995) observes that: Fongbè places completive markers fó<br />
and vò in a VP-final configuration:<br />
(90) Kòkú wà àzo ó fó<br />
Kòkú do work DET finish<br />
„Kòkú finished doing the work‟<br />
(91) Kòkú kló katake le vò<br />
Kòkú wash high stool PL finish<br />
„Kòkú finished washing the high stools‟<br />
Da Cruz (1995, 364) defines fó/vò as aspectual verbs, and distinguishes them<br />
from aspectual morphemes of Fòn as the word order of sentences containing the<br />
former is different to that of sentences containing the latter: “The word order (…)<br />
distinguishes the verbs fó and vò from the aspectual morphemes of Fòn” (da Cruz<br />
1995, 364). Whereas irrealis ná, and habitual nó precede the VP over which they<br />
take scope, fó and vò follow it. Consequently, da Cruz (1995) quotes Avolonto‟s<br />
(1992) structure for aspect markers ná and nó as given in (92), and considers this an<br />
impossible underlying structure for fó and vò (93):<br />
(92) AspP<br />
Asp‟<br />
Asp° VP<br />
ná/nó<br />
V‟<br />
V° NP<br />
17<br />
It is worth noting that this option is less exploited by the younger generations than preverbal<br />
done.<br />
18<br />
Whether or not there are restrictions on the type of VP which can precede done is a topic<br />
for future research.<br />
43
Stephanie Durrleman<br />
(93) * …Asp‟<br />
44<br />
Asp° VP<br />
fó<br />
To account for the particularities of fó/vò sentences, da Cruz argues that they are<br />
serial verb constructions involving obligatory control. Therefore under his approach,<br />
a sentence such as (91), repeated as (94a), is assigned the structure (94b) below:<br />
(94) a. Kòkú kló katake le vò<br />
Kòkú wash high stool PL finish<br />
„Kòkú finished washing the high stools‟<br />
(94) b. IP<br />
NP I‟<br />
Kòkúi I VP1<br />
V‟<br />
V‟j VP2<br />
V1 NP OPj VP2<br />
kló katakè lé PROi V‟<br />
V2 V‟<br />
vò ej<br />
Da Cruz (1995, 374) explains his approach as follows: “In order to express the<br />
fact that fó and vò semantically select an event, I propose that (…) the complement<br />
of fó,vò is an empty verbal projection (minimally a V‟). I argue that the empty category<br />
which occupies this position is a variable bound by a null operator (Op) which<br />
is adjoined to the VP headed by fó,vò. The first VP and Op have the same reference.<br />
Op and the variable form a chain ; thus, by co-indexation, there could be transfer to<br />
the chain of the semantic properties of VP1.” He argues (p.377) that “The analysis<br />
of sentences with aspectual verbs fó and vò as obligatory control constructions has<br />
many advantages. The structure in (98b) accounts for the S-structure word order in<br />
Fongbè, and offers a mechanism for understanding the selectional restrictions on the<br />
verbs which combine with fó and vò. As a matter of fact, indicating that the subject
The articulation of inflection in Jamaican Creole<br />
of the construction finished realizing the event expressed by the preceding VP, fó<br />
and vò can only combine with verbs which are compatible with this property”.<br />
Da Cruz (1995) bases his analysis of sentences containing fó and vò as serial<br />
verb constructions on the observation that they have four characteristics of serial<br />
verb constructions as listed under (95) through (98) below. In both fó/vò sentences<br />
and serial verb constructions:<br />
(95) “there is only one lexical subject and more than one verb”<br />
(96) “there is only one expression of time and aspect”<br />
(97) one can see that they “only contain one expression of negation”<br />
(98) and, “just as there are semantic restrictions on serial verb constructions (…)<br />
there are semantic restrictions in the context of the aspectual use of fó and vò”<br />
On the other hand, da Cruz (1995, 370) recognises that “there is not object sharing<br />
with aspectual verbs fó and vò” although it has been argued in Baker (1989) that “the<br />
Projection Principle predicts that object sharing is not only possible in serial verb constructions,<br />
but obligatory”. Da Cruz then takes fó/vò constructions to be evidence for<br />
the conclusion that argument sharing is not a necessity in serial verb constructions 19 .<br />
I do not adopt the analysis of da Cruz (1995) in this paper, and instead tentatively<br />
propose an analysis along the lines of Cinque (1999) which involves movement<br />
20 . The VP-movement analysis is seen to account for the ungrammaticality of<br />
fó/vò constructions as discussed in da Cruz (1995) independently of a consideration<br />
of such sentences as serial verb constructions involving obligatory control. The fact<br />
that fó/vò sentences do not involve argument sharing follows from this approach:<br />
The lack of argument sharing would then not in itself constitute an argument for<br />
abandoning Baker‟s (1989) hypothesis that serial verb constructions obligatorily involve<br />
argument sharing, but rather could be a consequence of the fact that fó/vò sentences<br />
are not serial verb constructions.<br />
19 The fact that I do not treat fó/vò (Fongbè) and done (JC) constructions as serial verb constructions<br />
is inspired by the approach in Cinque (1999). The IP-internal VP-movement<br />
hypothesis applied here has implications for a serial verb approach. These implications<br />
deserve careful examination which is beyond the scope of this work.<br />
20 In this paper, I follow Kayne (1994), Cinque (1999) in assuming a head-initial X‟-schema.<br />
Notice that an alternative approach which would allow for head-final structure would imply<br />
that the constructions here considered could be derived independently of movement.<br />
45
Stephanie Durrleman<br />
3.1.2. Completive Aspect in JC and Fongbè: VP-movement<br />
The observation in (95) that fó/vò, like serial verb constructions, involve “only<br />
one lexical subject and more than one verb” is used by da Cruz (1995) to account for<br />
the ungrammaticality of the (99):<br />
(99) *Kòkú wà àzo ó Kòkú fó<br />
Kòkú do work DET Kòkú finish<br />
„Kòkú finished doing the work‟<br />
However, the fact that there is “only one lexical subject and more than one verb”<br />
is a characteristic of any sentence containing a lexical verb augmented with an aspectual<br />
marker, once this marker is simply labelled as an aspectual „verb‟, which I<br />
take to be the case of fó in (99). Consider, for example, the contrast between the data<br />
in (100a) and (100b, c):<br />
(100) a. Jan a go nyam di bammi<br />
J. [aspectul verb 1 (progressive)] [aspectual verb 2 (prospective)] VP<br />
b. *Jan a go Jiemz nyam di bammi<br />
c. *Jan a Jiemz go nyam di bammi<br />
The contrast in (100) stems from the fact that aspect markers are functional material<br />
and consequently do not project an argument structure. To insert an additional<br />
external argument into a sentence with only one lexical verb would mean that this<br />
argument would be without a theta role and therefore entail a violation of the Theta<br />
Criterion.<br />
The second parallelism drawn by da Cruz (1995) between serial verb constructions<br />
and sentences containing fó/vò, is that “there is only one expression of time<br />
and aspect” in both. He illustrates the relevance of this hypothesis by means of the<br />
contrast between (101a) and (101b):<br />
(101) a. Asíbá ná sá sèn dó hòn ó fó<br />
Asíbá IRR pass on paint put door DET finish<br />
Asíbá will finish painting the door‟<br />
b. *Asíbá ná sá sèn dó hòn ó ná fó<br />
Asíbá IRR pass on paint put door DET IRR finish<br />
However, if (101b) were not treated as a serial verb construction but rather as a<br />
run-of-the-mill sentence with multiple asp markers, it would be ruled out anyway<br />
since this sentence makes use the same marker twice: In (101b), the marker encoding<br />
irrealis is repeated within one single sentence. Notice that a double use of an<br />
aspectual marker in one sentence such as that encoding progressive from JC below<br />
also yields ungrammaticality (102b, c):<br />
46
(102) a. Im a go nyam I‟<br />
S/he [prog] [prosp] eat it<br />
„S/he is going to eat it‟<br />
b. *Im a go a nyam I’<br />
c. *Im a a go nyam I’<br />
The articulation of inflection in Jamaican Creole<br />
The third parallelism between serial verb constructions and fó/vò sentences has<br />
to do with the two “constructions only contain(ing) one expression of negation”. The<br />
ungrammaticality of (103) is assumed to stem from the fact that it is a serial verb<br />
construction:<br />
(103) *Asíbá má sá sèn dó hòn ó má fó<br />
Asiba NEG pass on paint put door DET NEG finish<br />
However, once again, the ungrammaticality of (103) could also be linked to another<br />
factor: Multiple negation can give rise to ungrammaticality in almost any sentence<br />
involving an asp marker if this marker as well as the VP it modifies are both<br />
negated (104b):<br />
(104) a. Jan nuh jus pain di door deh?<br />
John neg [retrosp] paint the door there<br />
„Isn‟t it just a while ago that John painted that door?‟<br />
b. *Jan nuh jus nuh pain di door deh?<br />
John NEG just NEG paint that door there<br />
Finally, da Cruz (1995, 366) remarks that “just as there are semantic restrictions<br />
on serial verb constructions in Fongbè in general (…), there are semantic restrictions<br />
in the context of the aspectual use of fó and vò”. He takes the ungrammaticality of<br />
(105) to be a consequence of its being a serial verb construction which violates a<br />
semantic selectional restriction:<br />
(105) *Kòkú mò Báyì fó<br />
Kòkú see Báyì finish<br />
„Kòkú finished seeing Báyì‟<br />
Notice, however, that not only lexical verbs, but also markers of aspect commonly<br />
show semantic restrictions on the VP they select: recall, for example, that the<br />
progressive aspect marker cannot combine with a [+stative] VP:<br />
(106) *Jan a nuo dat<br />
John [prog] know that<br />
Therefore the semantic restriction on selection typical of fó/vò sentences does not<br />
necessarily lead to the conclusion that fo/vo are verbs in serial verb constructions.<br />
47
Stephanie Durrleman<br />
Indeed fó/vò are likely to be aspect markers with selectional restrictions like those<br />
already observed with other aspectual markers.<br />
In conclusion, I do not believe that the characteristics sketched in da Cruz (1995)<br />
imply necessarily that fó/vò sentences involve serial verb constructions with obligatory<br />
control. Moreover, I believe this analysis has undesirable theoretical shortcomings:<br />
Serial verb constructions are typically constructions involving a sequence of<br />
verbs which share logical arguments. To illustrate this with an example from JC,<br />
consider the data in (107):<br />
(107) (Yu nuo wa dat ginal do?) Im tek mi ackee 21 (go) sell a maakit!<br />
(You know what that ginal do?) Him take me ackee (go) sell at market<br />
„(Do you know what that trickster did?) S/he actually (went and) sold my ackee<br />
at the market!‟<br />
Both tek and sell are transitive verbs. The object mi ackee is „shared‟ by the<br />
verbs tek and sell: i.e. what is both „taken‟ and „sold‟ is „my ackee‟. Indeed according<br />
to the Projection Principle, this sharing of an object is considered by Baker<br />
(1989) to be obligatory in serial verb constructions. Da Cruz (1995) illustrates that<br />
fó/vò constructions do not involve object sharing:<br />
(108) Ajòtó lé xò kãnlìn lé fó<br />
Thief PL hit animal PL finish<br />
„The thieves finished hitting the animals‟<br />
Da Cruz (1995) explains that the data from Fongbè in (108) above “mean(s) that<br />
the action of hitting (…) is finished. (…) The interpretation of (this) sentence() does<br />
not imply that (…) the animals are “finished”.” This reading extends to done in JC<br />
as the example (109) taken from Bailey (1966, 42) nicely illustrates:<br />
(109) Jiemz no riid di buk don yet<br />
Jamed [neg] read the book [completive] yet<br />
„James has not finished reading the book yet‟<br />
It is indeed the act of reading the book, and not the book itself, which is qualified<br />
by the marker done. The data above illustrates therefore that object sharing is a<br />
characteristic of serial verb constructions which is not typical of fó/vò and done sentences.<br />
This suggests, according to the hypothesis in Baker (1989), that fó/vò and<br />
done sentences are not serial verb constructions.<br />
21 Ackee is a fruit used to prepare Jamaica‟s national dish: ackee and saltfish.<br />
48
The articulation of inflection in Jamaican Creole<br />
Notice that the analysis proposed in da Cruz (1995) for fó/vò sentences is unable<br />
to capture similarities between fó and vò and markers of completive aspect in<br />
other languages such as English which do not at first sight exploit (serial verb)<br />
constructions with obligatory control. One such similarity is noted by da Cruz<br />
(1995, 372) himself: “(f)ó and vò present the same selectional restrictions as the<br />
aspectual verb „finish‟. They only combine with accomplishment verbs or with<br />
activity verbs which are interpreted as quasi-accomplishments”. The choice of a<br />
different syntactic apparatus for fó/vò on the one hand, and „finish‟ or „finir‟ on<br />
the other is based on the observation that “contrary to what is observed in English<br />
and French (…) the verbs fó and vò appear after the VP complement (da Cruz<br />
1995, 369).” Postulating an entirely new analysis for constructions which share<br />
many points in common apart from surface word order is intuitively unattractive.<br />
What would be preferable is an approach which would reflect the underlying<br />
cross-linguistic parallelism between linguistic elements such as those considered<br />
here, while allowing for a derivation which could be responsible for their Surface-<br />
Structure difference.<br />
On a language specific level, this analysis also fails to reflect underlying similarities<br />
between heads encoding aspect in Fongbè. It is shown in da Cruz (1995) that<br />
other aspectual morphemes of Fòn occur in a pre-VP configuration. Example (110)<br />
taken from da Cruz (1995) illustrates that markers encoding irrealis or habitual aspect<br />
select a VP complement which must surface to their right:<br />
(110) Kòkú ná/ nó wà àzo<br />
Kòkú IRR HAB do work<br />
„Kòkú will work / usually works‟<br />
To postulate that markers encoding irrealis and habitual aspect select a phonetically<br />
realised VP complement, whereas what appears to be the marker encoding<br />
completive aspect selects a control construction strikes an undesirable inconsistency<br />
in the underlying grammar of Fongbè: the obligatory control construction postulated<br />
by da Cruz (1995) would be a structural particularity of the complement of the element<br />
encoding completive aspect as opposed to those encoding irrealis and habitual.<br />
It would be favourable to account for the respective Surface-Structure differences<br />
between the markers of this language with an analysis which retains an underlying<br />
similarity between them.<br />
It is also noteworthy that when fó and vò function as lexical verbs they must select<br />
a nominal complement which surfaces to their right (111a, b) just as JC done<br />
does (112):<br />
49
Stephanie Durrleman<br />
(111) a. Fongbé: Kòkú fó àzo ó<br />
Kòkú finish work DET<br />
„Kòkú finished the work‟<br />
b. Kòkú vò mólìnkún ò<br />
Kòkú finish rice DET<br />
„Kòkú finished the (plate of) rice‟<br />
(112) JC: Im done di bammi<br />
S/he finish the bammy<br />
„S/he finished the bammy‟<br />
If other aspectual verbs in Fongbè generate their verbal complement to their<br />
right (110) without recourse to control, and lexical verbs in this language also<br />
generate their nominal complements to their right (111), then the underlying structural<br />
tendency is for a X°, lexical or functional, to generate its complement to its<br />
right. It is therefore plausible that the VP which precedes fó and vò is its complement<br />
which has simply been generated to the right and has undergone leftward<br />
movement. Da Cruz (1995) himself touches upon this possible analysis: „In<br />
Fongbè, the NP complement of the verbs fó/vò is always on the right (…). If the<br />
VP (…) is generated in the same position, we would then have to explain the word<br />
order at S-structure by a movement of this VP (…). Thus, one could suppose that<br />
there is movement to the left of the VP complement.” Indeed this is what I argue<br />
to be the case.<br />
The VP-movement hypothesis is rejected by da Cruz (1995) for Fongbè for<br />
two main reasons: One reason is that “(i)t is impossible to have S-structure sentences<br />
like those in (113a, b) in which a VP with a phonological content is on the<br />
right of fó and vò.<br />
(113) a. *Kòkú fó wà àzo ó<br />
Kòkú finish do work DET<br />
„Kòkú finished doing the work.‟<br />
b. *Kòkú vò kló katake le<br />
Kòkú finish wash high stool DET<br />
„Kòkú finished washing the high stools.‟”<br />
Another reason he gives for rejecting a VP-movement hypothesis is that “this<br />
hypothesis is difficult to defend, given that there is no independent motivation for<br />
such a movement of VP in Fongbè” (da Cruz 1995, 373). I believe that these reasons<br />
can be countered on the basis of the following observations:<br />
Firstly, other languages influenced by such African languages as Gbe, namely<br />
creoles, do allow S-structure sentences where the completive marker may surface to<br />
50
The articulation of inflection in Jamaican Creole<br />
the left of a phonetically realised VP complement. This can be seen in data from JC<br />
(114) and Guyanese Creole (GC) (115, taken from Edwards 1991):<br />
(114) JC Jan done nyam i’?<br />
Subj [completive] V O<br />
„John finished eating it?‟<br />
(115) GC Somtaim wen you don wok yu go an bai a dringk<br />
Subj [completive] V<br />
„Sometimes when you are finished working you go and buy a drink.‟<br />
The fact that Gbe languages constitute part of the substratum of JC, and that JC<br />
allows the completive marker to optionally precede its VP complement reinforces<br />
the idea that when the VP surfaces to the left of completive markers fó/vò in Fongbè<br />
or done in JC, it has in fact originated in a post-VP configuration and undergone<br />
leftward movement:<br />
(116) … AspCompletive<br />
Spec Asp‟<br />
Asp° VP<br />
fó/vò done<br />
Secondly, observe that this type of movement is plausibly exploited by Fongbè<br />
since another Kwa language of the Gbe group, namely Gungbe, exploits such<br />
movement of the VP and extended projections of VP. This is illustrated for purposeclauses,<br />
and imperfective/prospective constructions in Aboh (1998). It is therefore<br />
not implausible that this analysis be extended to Fongbè.<br />
One instance of the application of leftward movement of an extended projection<br />
of V in Gungbe is applied by Aboh (1998) to „purpose‟-clauses in Gungbe known as<br />
gbé-constructions (117):<br />
(117) Hwé-énenu Asíbá nò yì hwéví jrá gbé<br />
At that time Asiba Hab go fish sell Purpose<br />
„At that time Asiba habitually went out to sell fish‟<br />
The analysis given to account for the structure of the purpose-clause in (117) is<br />
(118):<br />
51
Stephanie Durrleman<br />
(118) AspP2<br />
Spec AspP2‟<br />
52<br />
Asp°2 NomP<br />
yì<br />
spec Nom‟<br />
Nom° AspP3<br />
gbé<br />
spec Asp3‟<br />
hwévíj<br />
Asp°3 AgroP<br />
jrái<br />
spec Agr‟<br />
tj<br />
Agr° VP<br />
t‟i<br />
V DP<br />
ti tj<br />
Under the approach in Aboh (1998), aspect verbs like yì „go‟ select a syntactic<br />
unit NomP whose head may be realised by the purpose-marker gbé. The internal argument<br />
of this marker is a reduced clause: the aspectual projection AspP3. This entire<br />
aspectual projection must move to the specifier position of the projection to the<br />
immediate left of the small clause: [Spec,NomP] for nominalization purposes. This<br />
analysis is shown in Aboh (1998) to capture not only the syntactic particularities of<br />
purpose-clauses, but also those of imperfective/prospective clauses.<br />
Imperfective/prospective sentences in Gungbe always end in a low tone: `. This<br />
can be explained under the analysis that the imperfective marker tò, is situated under<br />
AspP2 in a structure like that given in (118). Tò is then logically in complementary<br />
distribution with aspectual verbs such as yì. Imperfective tò selects a NomP which is<br />
headed by a Nom° realised as `. When AspP3 moves to [Spec,NomP] for nominali-
The articulation of inflection in Jamaican Creole<br />
zation purposes in imperfective constructions, a logical consequence of this movement<br />
is that a low tone ` always floats at the end of the sentence 22 :<br />
(119) … tò [ Spec NomP [AspP3 nà O V]i [Nom° ` ] ti<br />
imperf prosp O V<br />
Therefore, if movement of extended projections of VP arguably takes place in<br />
languages of the Gbe group, it is not implausible that VP movement occur in<br />
Fongbè, and ultimately in JC. Moreover, the scope properties of completive constructions<br />
follow from a VP-movement analysis: the marker encoding completive<br />
aspect c-commands the trace of its VP complement.<br />
No additional structure is needed to account for the scope properties of completive<br />
constructions under the analysis adopted here: That the completive marker takes<br />
scope over the VP which precedes it is a natural consequence of the movement hypothesis<br />
since according to the structure in (116), the marker encoding completive<br />
aspect c-commands the trace of its VP complement.<br />
Recall that the ungrammaticality of sentences (99), (101b), (103) and (105) was<br />
argued by da Cruz (1995) to stem from these sentences being serial verb constructions.<br />
Recall also that postulating this analogy is not the only option available. Notice<br />
now that the ungrammaticality of (99), (101b), (103) and (105) repeated here as<br />
(120), (121), (122) and (123) follow from the structural analysis in (114): Structure<br />
(114) leaves no space for an element to intervene between the VP in<br />
[Spec,CompletiveAspP] and fó/vò in CompletiveAsp°, which gives a syntactic account<br />
for (120) through (123):<br />
*Kòkú [Spec AspCompletive wà àzo ó] [ ? Kòkú] [AspCompletive° fó]<br />
Kòkú do work DET Kòkú finish<br />
„Kòkú finished doing the work‟<br />
*Asíbá ná [Spec AspCompletive sá sèn dó hòn ó] [?ná] [AspCompletive° fó]<br />
Asíbá IRR pass on paint put door DET IRR finish<br />
*Asíbá má [Spec AspCompletive sá sèn dó hòn ó][? má] [AspCompletive° fó]<br />
Asíbá NEG pass on paint put door det NEG finish<br />
The ungrammaticality of sentence (105) repeated as (123) follows from feature<br />
incompatibility: the VP mò Báyì: “see Báyì” does not bear the feature [+completive]<br />
and therefore cannot occupy the specifier position of the Completive Projection:<br />
22 I refer the reader to Aboh (1998) for details.<br />
53
Stephanie Durrleman<br />
*Kòkú [SpecCompletiveAsp [mò Báyì [–completive]] [CompletiveAsp° fó] 23<br />
Kòkú see Báyì finish<br />
„Kòkú finished seeing Báyì‟<br />
The very motivation for movement of a VP to [Spec, CompletiveAspP] is explainable<br />
in terms of the presence of the completive aspect marker in Completive-<br />
Asp° endowing this projection with a [+completive] feature. This feature is strong in<br />
Fongbè since the specifier of the CompletiveAsp projection in this language must be<br />
morphologically realised at S-structure. The [+completive] feature is less strong in<br />
JC, so that the filling of [Spec,CompletiveAsp] may optionally occur at the level of<br />
Logical Form.<br />
In short, leftward movement of the VP to [Spec,CompletiveAspP] has the theoretical<br />
advantage of accounting for the particularities of completive aspect constructions,<br />
while retaining an underlying structural consistency between markers of aspect<br />
both cross-linguistically, as well as within the internal grammars of languages<br />
such as Fongbè and JC.<br />
3.1.3. Problem for the VP-movement analysis<br />
The analysis proposed here still faces the problem of accounting for the optionality<br />
of VP-movement to [Spec,CompletiveAspP] in JC. However, this would be a<br />
problem for the alternative analysis in da Cruz (1995) also: indeed if the surface order<br />
were to be the determining factor in the development of a syntactic apparatus for<br />
linguistic elements, then one would have to postulate completely different underlying<br />
structures for pre- and post-verbal completive done, although the two are semantically<br />
equivalent.<br />
The fact that younger speakers of JC use VP-final done more rarely than preverbal<br />
done, and more rarely than the older generations, may be an important point<br />
for the IP-internal VP-movement hypothesis: Possibly, the originally strong<br />
[+completive] feature emerging from substratum influence has entered into competition<br />
with a weak [+completive] feature resulting from superstratum influence. The<br />
optionality attested between pre- and post-verbal done in JC would be the result of<br />
the availability of both of these options of the completive feature. What seems to be<br />
happening at present is that the use of the strong option of the feature has become<br />
less common than the weak one. More specifically, the weak [+completive] feature<br />
is now more predominant than the strong one in the grammar of JC, implying that<br />
VP movement to [Spec,CompletiveAspP] is no longer forced at Surface-Structure.<br />
This analysis makes the prediction, therefore, that in future generations, VP-<br />
23 Recall that preverbal done cannot occur with a [stative] VP either: Im done see mi: S/he<br />
54<br />
has already seen me; *S/he has finished seeing me.
The articulation of inflection in Jamaican Creole<br />
movement to [Spec,CompletiveAspP] may eventually cease to exist, as the weak option<br />
of the completive feature takes over entirely. Indeed this is already the case in<br />
JC varieties which oscillate between the mesolect and the acrolect.<br />
3.2.1. Multiple base generation of Anterior tense<br />
The fact that the adverb aredi can occur in a sentence medial as well as a sentence<br />
final position can be accounted for in two ways: either it is directly generated<br />
in these two positions, or movement has taken place past it. This section briefly<br />
sketches these two analyses and argues that the movement hypothesis is the more<br />
favourable of the two.<br />
If aredi is the specifier of a functional projection as argued in Cinque (1999),<br />
then to generate it in two different positions implies that its corresponding functional<br />
projection can be generated in two different positions. However, as Cinque (1999,<br />
22) notes: “it would make little sense to generate functional projections twice, once<br />
to the left, and once to the right of the verb (and its complements) (…) (T)he same<br />
rigid order of the AdvPs in post-complement position would have to be enforced<br />
through a specific principle duplicating the ordering principle for the functional<br />
heads in the pre-VP “space””. The uneconomical factor of an analysis generating<br />
aredi in two different positions renders this approach conceptually unsatisfactory.<br />
On an empirical level, this approach would fall short in accounting for the fact<br />
that the two independently generated adverbs cannot occur simultaneously:<br />
*Im aredi nyam di whole a i’ aredi<br />
S/he already eat the whole of it already<br />
„S/he already ate the whole of it already‟<br />
Indeed where adverbs are generated in two different positions this is indicated by<br />
the fact that their simultaneous presence does not render the sentence unacceptable:<br />
John twice knocked on the door twice (Cinque 1999, 27)<br />
3.2.2. Movement of (extensions of) VP across Anterior<br />
The fact that adverbs like „already‟ and its analogues in other languages can occur<br />
either sentence-medially or sentence-finally without yielding any perceptible<br />
change in interpretation seems best captured by the analysis whereby movement of<br />
the VP or of its extensions can occur across this adverb. This type of movement is<br />
demonstrated in Cinque (1999, 22) for Italian:<br />
(125) a. A Natale, credo che avesse completamente perso la testa di GIA<br />
„At Christmas, I think he had completely lost his mind already‟<br />
b. A Natale, credo che avesse di già [completamente perso la testa]<br />
55
Stephanie Durrleman<br />
Cinque (1999, 22) explains that “(u)nder this alternative, we can account for the<br />
„scope under reconstruction‟ property typical of movement (whereby completamente<br />
is under the scope of di già to its right), and at the same time derive the apparent subversion<br />
of the relative order of the AdvPs, otherwise unexpected in a non wh-type<br />
movement because of the ensuing Relativized Minimality violation. Given that the<br />
AdvP di già is crossed over not by the AdvP completamente directly, but by a larger<br />
phrase containing completamente, no Relativized Minimality violation takes place.”<br />
Notice that the relative order between aredi [anterior] and done [completive] was<br />
established as illustrated in (126):<br />
T [anterior] > Asp [+completive]<br />
56<br />
This accounts for the grammaticality of (127a) and the ungrammaticality of (127b)<br />
a. Im aredi done nyam di whole a i’<br />
S/he [anterior] [completive] eat the whole of it<br />
“S/he already finished eating it all”<br />
b. *Im done aredi nyam di whole a i’<br />
Notice that although this fixed order cannot be subverted when both aredi and<br />
done precede the verb and its complements, it can be once aredi occurs in a post-VP<br />
configuration, as expected under the movement hypothesis illustrated in (128):<br />
a. Im aredi [done nyam di whole a i’]<br />
b. Im [done nyam di whole a i’]i aredi ti<br />
S/he [completive] eat the whole of it already<br />
„S/he finished eating it all already‟<br />
Now consider the data in (129) which at first sight presents counter-evidence for<br />
Cinque (1999) where it is argued that functional projections respect the same fixed<br />
order in both pre- and post-VP configurations respectively: in (129) both done and<br />
aredi follow the VP yet the order established between the two in a pre-VP configuration<br />
(127) is subverted:<br />
Im nyam di whole a i done aredi<br />
S/he eat the whole of it [completive] [anterior]<br />
“S/he finished eating it all already”<br />
Under the VP-movement hypothesis established for completive done, however,<br />
this can be accounted for: in (129) movement has occurred in two steps: firstly, the
The articulation of inflection in Jamaican Creole<br />
VP has moved to [Spec, Completive], then the entire AspPCompletive has moved on<br />
to the specifier of a functional projection preceding TPAnterior 24 :<br />
(130) … FP<br />
Spec F‟<br />
F° TPAnterior<br />
Spec T‟<br />
aredi<br />
T° AspCompletive<br />
Spec Asp‟<br />
Asp° VP<br />
done<br />
nyam di whole a i’<br />
Notice also that the successive movement illustrated in (130) accurately accounts<br />
for the scope facts of this sentence: Firstly the VP is interpreted as being in the scope<br />
of completive aspect although it is situated on its right at S-structure: what is completed<br />
is the act of eating something. Since done is generated in CompletiveAsp°, it<br />
c-commands the trace of the VP so that its taking scope over this VP is to be expected.<br />
Secondly, the entire CompletiveAspP is in the scope of [Spec,TPAnterior]<br />
realised by aredi, although this projection also surfaces to the right of [SpecTPAnterior]:<br />
what has already taken place is the completion of the act of eating something.<br />
24 Notice that VP-movement past AspCompletive° could also potentially take place to the<br />
specifier of a functional projection FP situated to the left of AspCompletiveP. However if<br />
movement of the complement of CompletiveAsp° is triggered by the need to check a<br />
strong completive feature, then it is most plausible that this movement takes place to<br />
[Spec,AspCompletiveP] where the completive feature is located. Movement to the specifier<br />
of a FP such as that located to the left of Anterior Tense, which gives rise to a particular<br />
focus on the adverb crossed, could then be reserved for the purpose of focussing clause<br />
internal adverbs.<br />
57
Stephanie Durrleman<br />
Again, since aredi c-commands the trace of CompletiveAspP, then it follows that<br />
the scope properties evoked here are derived under reconstruction.<br />
4. Overt functional structure of JC: evidence for the framework in Cinque<br />
(1999)<br />
Cinque‟s (1999) structure given in (19) is repeated in (131) with bold letters applied<br />
to the evidence drawn from JC:<br />
(131) [Frankly Moodspeech act [fortunately Moodevaluative [allegedly Moodevidential<br />
[probably Modepistemic: shuda, wuda, maita, mosa, kuda [once T(Past):did<br />
[then T(Future):wi [perhaps Moodirrealis [necessarily Modnecessity:mos [possibly<br />
Modpossibility [willingly Modvolition [inevitably Modobligation:haffi [cleverly<br />
Modability/permission:kyan [usually Asphabitual [again Asprepetitive(I) [often Aspfrequenta-<br />
58<br />
tive(I) [quickly Aspcelerative(I) [aredi T(Anterior) done1 [no longer Aspterminative<br />
[still Aspcontinuative [always Aspperfect(?) [jus Aspretrospective [soon Aspproximative<br />
[briefly Aspdurative [characteristically (?) [? Aspgeneric/progressive: a [almost Aspprospective:<br />
go [completely Aspcompletive(I): done2 [tutto AspPlCompletive [well Voice<br />
[fast/early Aspcelerative(II) [completely AspSgCompletive(II) [again Asprepetitive(II) [often<br />
Aspfrequentative(II): reduplicated verb …<br />
JC fits harmoniously into Cinque‟s (1999) structure: (131) illustrates that one<br />
does not contradict the other. It must be noted, however, that this language does not<br />
at first sight provide direct evidence for separating T past from T future 25 , nor for<br />
separating Mod obligation from Mod ability/permission. If each of the members of<br />
these pairs of markers in JC were to be inserted under different heads such as that<br />
implied by (131), then their mutual exclusion could not be explained in terms of<br />
competition for the same position. In light of (131), therefore, the impossible cooccurrence<br />
of did/wi and haffi/kyan in JC remains to be explained. Markedness thoery<br />
may, once developed, provide a means for accounting for these facts.<br />
25 It is not entirely clear that the data given in (Cinque 1999) from Guyanese Creole can really<br />
be taken as evidence for the structure T past > T future either: Jaan bin gu riid: J. PAST<br />
FUT read „J. would have read‟ (Cinque 1999, 59, taken from Gibson 1985, 585). Indeed gu<br />
here looks like JC go, the Asp [prosp] marker. Consider that wuda and [past] + [prosp] may<br />
be found to yield a similar interpretation in JC also: Jan did go riid/ Jan wuda riid … bot mi<br />
stap ‘im: „John was going to read/ would have read … but I stopped him‟.
5. Conclusion<br />
The articulation of inflection in Jamaican Creole<br />
This paper has concentrated on exploring the clausal structure of a basilectal variety<br />
of JC. In such varieties, there is an absence of morphological verbal inflection.<br />
Inflection is articulated by means of independent inflectional particles, or TMA<br />
markers. Manifestations of TMA markers, like that of morphological inflection and<br />
adverbs, may serve the generative linguist as a key source of evidence in identifying<br />
clausal functional projections (Pollock (1989), Belletti (1990), Cinque (1999)).<br />
A recent framework (Cinque (1999)) postulates a good 30 functional projections<br />
in the clausal domain. The data from JC discussed in this work give direct overt evidence<br />
for over a third of these projections. Future research of the notion of markedness<br />
may prove insightful in determining if the functional structure here attested for<br />
JC is entirely present in all clauses of the language through marked or default values.<br />
Pursuing this line of reasoning, it becomes conceivable that JC exploit the entire<br />
array of functional structure postulated by the framework (Cinque 1999). If this rich<br />
functional structure is ultimately proven present in every clause through default values,<br />
the articulation of inflection in this language, and all languages, would prove to<br />
be much richer than that which is overtly manifested.<br />
The framework here adopted (Cinque (1999)) is highly restrictive in that the numerous<br />
functional projections postulated are argued to universally respect a rigidly<br />
fixed order. The overt evidence for functional clause structure provided by JC<br />
proves directly hierarchically compatible with this rigid order: There is a transparent<br />
systematic match between markers in JC and the fixed hierarchy of functional projections<br />
postulated by the framework. Surface differences in the structures can be<br />
accounted for in terms of IP-internal movement. This work therefore upholds the<br />
universality of the architecture of the clause as provided by Cinque (1999).<br />
References<br />
ABOH, E.O. (1998) From the Syntax of Gungbe to the Grammar of Gbe, Doctoral Dissertation,<br />
University of Geneva.<br />
ADAMS, L.E. (1995) Understanding Jamaican Patois: An Introduction to Afro-Jamaican<br />
Grammar. Kingston: Kingston Publishers Limited.<br />
ARENDS, J., KOUWENBERG, S., & SMITH, N., (1995) „Theories focusing on the non-<br />
European input‟, in Pidgins and Creoles: An introduction Eds. Arends, J., Muysken, P. &<br />
Smith, N. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.<br />
AVOLONTO, A. (1992) AspP et la catégorie INFL en fongbè. Journal of West African Languages<br />
22 (1): 97-113.<br />
BAILEY, B. (1966) Jamaican Creole Syntax: A Tranformational Approach, Cambridge University<br />
Press.<br />
BAILEY, B. (1971) Can dialect boundaries be defined?, Pidginization & Creolization of Languages,<br />
Ed. Dell Hymes. Cambridge University Press.<br />
59
Stephanie Durrleman<br />
BAKER, M. (1985) “The Mirror Principle and Morphosyntactic Explanation”, Linguistic Inquiry,<br />
16: 373-415.<br />
BAKER, M. (1989) „Object sharing and projection in serial verb constructions‟, Linguistic Inquiry<br />
20: 513-554.<br />
BAKKER, P. (1995) Pidgins, in Pidgins and Creoles: An introduction Eds. Arends, J., Muysken,<br />
P. & Smith, N. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.<br />
BELLETTI, A., (1990) Generalized Verb Movement. Turin: Rosenberg and Sellier.<br />
CASSIDY, F.G. (1961) Jamaica Talk: Three Hundred Years of the English Language in Jamaica,<br />
Macmillan & Co Ltd.: London.<br />
CINQUE, G. (1992) „On tout/tutto and the Syntax of Past Participles in French and Italian‟ unpublished<br />
ms., University of Venice.<br />
CINQUE, G. (1994) „Evidence for Partial N-movement in the Romance DP‟ in Cinque et al.<br />
(eds.) pp. 85-110.<br />
CINQUE, G. (1999) Adverbs and Functional Heads: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective, Oxford<br />
University Press, New York.<br />
COMRIE, B. (1976) Aspect. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.<br />
DA CRUZ , M. (1995) „Aspectual verbs fó, vò „finish‟ in Fongbè‟. The Linguistic Review 12, pp.<br />
361-380.<br />
DECAMP, D. (1971a) „The Study of Pidgin and Creole languages‟, in Pidginization and Croelization<br />
of Languages, Ed. Hymes, D., Cambridge University Press pp. 13-43.<br />
DECAMP, D. (1971b) „Towards a generative analysis of post-creole continuum‟, in Pidginization<br />
and Croelization of Languages, Ed. Hymes, D., Cambridge University Press pp. 349-70.<br />
DEGRAFF, M. (ed.) (To appear) Creolization, Language Acquisition & Language Change, MIT<br />
Press, Cambridge (Mass.)<br />
DELFOSSE, R. (1997) <strong>View</strong>point: Patois- The rights and wrongs. The Weekly Gleaner, June 11-<br />
17, 1997, Kingston.<br />
DURRLEMAN, Stephanie (1999) „The architecture of the clause in Jamaican Creole‟, ms. University<br />
of Geneva, to appear in GG@G.<br />
EDWARDS, Walter F. (1991) “A comparative description of Guyanese Creole and Black English<br />
preverbal aspect don.” In Verb Phrase Patterns in Black English and Creole, Walter F.<br />
Edwards and Donald Winford (eds.) Detroit: Wayne State University Press.<br />
GADELII, K.E. (1997) Lesser Antillean French Creole and Universal Grammar, Doctoral Dissertation,<br />
Gothenburg Monographs in Linguistics 15.<br />
GIBSON, K. (1986) „The Ordering of Auxiliary Notions in Guyanese Creole‟, Language, 62. Pp.<br />
571-586.<br />
JACKENDOFF, R. (1972) Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar. MIT Press, Cambridge<br />
(Mass.)<br />
JAKOBSON, R. (1971) [originally 1939] “Signe zéro”, in Selected Writings, vol.II, Mouton, The<br />
Hague, pp.211-219<br />
KAYNE, R. (1994) The Antisymmetry of Syntax. MIT Press, Cambridge (Mass.)<br />
60
The articulation of inflection in Jamaican Creole<br />
LAMIROY, B. (1987) „The complementation of aspectual verbs in French‟. Language 63: pp.<br />
278-298.<br />
MAGLOIRE-HOLLY, H. (1982) „Les modaux: auxiliares ou verbes?‟, in Lefebvre, C. et al.<br />
(eds.), Syntaxe de l’Haïtien. Ann Arbor, Karoma.<br />
MAHAJAN, A. (1990) The A/A-Bar Distinction and Movement Theory. Doctoral Dissertation,<br />
MIT.<br />
MÜHLHÄUSLER, P. (1986) Pidgin and Creole linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell.<br />
PINKER, S. (1994) The Language Instinct. Penguin Books: England.<br />
POLLOCK, J.-Y. (1989) Verb movement, Universal Grammar and the structure of IP, Linguistic<br />
Inquiry, 20, pp. 365-424.<br />
RIZZI, L. (1990) Relativized Minimality, MIT Press, Cambridge (Mass.)<br />
ROMAINE, S. (1994) Pidgin and Creole Languages , Longman New York.<br />
RUSSEL, T. (1868) The Etymology of Jamaican Grammar, by a young gentleman, Kingston: De<br />
Cordova, McDougall.<br />
SEBBA, M. (1993) London Jamaican, Longman U.K.<br />
SEUREN, P. & WEKKER, H (1986) „Semantic Transparency as a factor in creole genesis‟, in<br />
Muysken, P., & Smith, N., (eds.), Universals vs. Substrata in Creole Genesis. Amsterdam:<br />
John Benjamins pp. 57-71.<br />
SPORTICHE (1993) „Adjuncts and Adjunction‟, ms., UCLA.<br />
61
“L-TOUS”, RESTRUCTURING AND QUANTIFIER CLIMBING<br />
1. Introduction<br />
Marco NICOLIS<br />
The aim of this paper is to investigate the distribution of the object quantifier<br />
tout/tutto in French and Italian. Although in both languages this quantifier can<br />
appear in a “low” derived position (which will be argued to be one and the same in<br />
both languages), French displays an additional option: in some biclausal structures,<br />
tout can optionally appear in a high derived position (e.g. (1)), a structure known as<br />
“Quantifier Climbing”.<br />
(1) Il a tout voulu manger<br />
The clausal structure adopted in this paper is the highly articulated structure<br />
recently put forth by Cinque (1999). In this work, the “spirit” of Pollock‟s (1989)<br />
“Split-Infl Hypothesis” reaches its most radical formulation. The node traditionally<br />
known as “IP” is not just split into two different Functional Projections (see Pollock<br />
(1989), Belletti (1990) and much related work), but is made up of about thirty FPs.<br />
Cinque‟s proposal relies on the individuation of a rigid, crosslinguistically<br />
consistent, hierarchical ordering of adverbs. Each FP hosts an adverbial class in its<br />
Spec and may allow (modulo the different “length” of V movement in different<br />
languages) Verb movement through its Head. The existence of a hierarchy of FPs<br />
rather than of a (multiple) adjunction structure (see Chomsky (1995), ch.4) is further<br />
confirmed by those languages expressing adverbial modification by means of<br />
“particles” (therefore, heads) incorporated into the verb: the ordering of these heads<br />
is (under Baker‟s Mirror Principle) exactly the same found for adverbs in “abverbial<br />
languages” 1 . We report in (2) the adverbial hierarchy which constitutes the lowest<br />
1 Cinque‟s (1999) account of the adverbial ordering in terms of an FP hierarchy, rather than<br />
adjunction, is a welcome conclusion under a restrictive theory of syntax, such as Kayne‟s<br />
(1994) antisymmetric program. In this system, adjunction to XP is never an option, even<br />
though Specs are in general considered elements adjoined to single bar constituents.<br />
63
Marco Nicolis<br />
part of “IP”, noting, as expected, its consistency in different languages (Italian (2a),<br />
French (2b), English (2c) respectively).<br />
(2) a. solitamente>mica>già>sempre>completamente>tutto>bene<br />
b. généralment>pas>déjà>plus>toujours>complètement>tout>bien<br />
c. usually>…>already>always>completely>…>well 2<br />
The ordering in (2) has been obtained by simply juxtaposing adverbs belonging<br />
to different semantic classes and noting that they can only appear in just one of the n<br />
possible orderings. The mechanics of this process is illustrated by the paradigm (3):<br />
(3) a. Quando lo andiamo a trovare, Gianni ha solitamente già finito di mangiare<br />
When him-cl. go to meet, Gianni has usually already finished to eat<br />
b. *Quando lo andiamo a trovare, Gianni ha già solitamente finito di mangiare<br />
c. Gianni ha già spiegato bene la lezione a Maria<br />
Gianni has already explained well the lecture to Maria<br />
d. *Gianni ha bene spiegato già la lezione a Maria<br />
e. Gianni capisce solitamente bene la lezione<br />
Gianni understands usually well the lecture<br />
f. *Gianni capisce bene solitamente la lezione<br />
Examples (3 a-b) show that the adverb solitamente must precede the adverb già.<br />
(3 c-d) show that già precedes bene. (3e-f) confirm the validity of the ordering<br />
solitamente>già>bene, showing that transitivity holds: solitamente must in fact<br />
precede bene. The reiteration of this procedure with all the different adverbial<br />
classes yields the highly articulated structure of IP proposed by Cinque (1999) 3 .<br />
The adoption of this rich clausal architecture poses some preliminary problems<br />
of “translation”: given the pre-pollockian clausal structure adopted in classical<br />
works on floating quantifiers (such as Sportiche (1988)) or even the not-so-highly-<br />
2 The clausal structure proposed by Cinque (1999) is actually even more fine grained than<br />
reported in (2). In particular, several adverbs can occupy two distinct positions yielding<br />
two different semantic interpretations. Cinque (1999, ch. 1 p. 30) argues that in (ia)<br />
“slowly qualifies the entire event (each test could well have been rapid), whereas in (ib) it<br />
qualifies each test individually”:<br />
(i) a. He has been slowly testing some bulbs<br />
b. He has been testing some bulbs slowly<br />
As the point is irrelevant to our argument, in order to avoid unnecessary complexity we<br />
will keep on referring to (2) as the lowest part of the IP.<br />
3 In (3) we tested three adverbs quite “distant” from one another. It is worth observing that the<br />
closer two adverbial classes are, the more nuanced the grammaticality judgement becomes.<br />
64
“L-Tous”, Restructuring and Quantifier Climbing<br />
articulated structure adopted by Cinque himself in works on leftward movement of<br />
tutto in Italian (see Cinque (1995, ch. 3, 9)), the positional characterisation of the<br />
landing site of these clause internal movements must be reconsidered; if “IP” is<br />
indeed constituted of about thirty adverbial FPs (and each one is probably<br />
“accompanied” by a “DP related” FP), the number of possible landing sites for<br />
movement dramatically increases. It is thus necessary to test the position of the<br />
moved material with respect to the fixed position occupied by adverbs in the<br />
relevant part of the clausal structure.<br />
The “positional analysis” will always be integrated by an analysis of the<br />
“typology of positions”: the individuation of a particular position in the structure<br />
will be constantly tied to the individuation of the typological class it belongs to. The<br />
matter is made more complex by the split between quantificational and<br />
modificational Ā positions recently proposed by Rizzi (1999), (2000).<br />
In Relativized Minimality (1990), Rizzi suggested that “the class of possible<br />
interveners triggering minimality effects is not coextensive to the class of target<br />
positions, but significantly wider” (Rizzi (2000)). In fact, it is well known that<br />
Negation, wh- elements and quantificational adverbs such as beaucoup/molto all<br />
pattern alike so far as their ability to block wh- extraction of non arguments in<br />
“pseudo opacity” structures is concerned (Rizzi (1990)) 4 , as (4 b, c, d) clearly show:<br />
(4) a. Combieni a-t-il consulté [ti de livres] ?<br />
b. *Combieni a-t-il beaucoup consulté [ti de livres]?<br />
c. *Combieni ne sais-tu pas résoudre [ti de problèmes] ?<br />
d. *Combieni sais-tu [comment résoudre [ti de prblèmes] ?<br />
On the other hand, if all adverbs sit in a [Spec, FP] and all such positions are (by<br />
assumption) uniformly Ā position, one should expect that all adverbs may trigger<br />
minimality effects with respect to wh- extraction of non arguments. The prediction<br />
anyway is not borne out, as (4) clearly shows:<br />
(5) a. *Combien a-t-il beaucoup consulté de livres?<br />
b. Combien a-t-il attentivement consulté de livres?<br />
On the basis of data like (5) Rizzi (2000) proposes that Ā positions are actually<br />
to be split into two classes: quantificational Ā positions (Ā-q henceforth) and<br />
modificational Ā positions (Ā-m). If this idea is correct, one should find cases in<br />
which a modificational adverb acts as an intervener wrt to the fronting of another<br />
modificational adverb. Consider (6):<br />
4 These data were originally noted by Obenauer (1983).<br />
65
Marco Nicolis<br />
(6) a. *Rapidamente, i tecnici hanno probabilmente risolto ___ il problema<br />
b. RAPIDAMENTE i tecnici hanno probabilmente risolto ___ il problema 5<br />
(6a) shows that the fronting of a modificational adverb across an adverb of the<br />
same type triggers RM effects. Since Focalization, contrary to simple fronting,<br />
involves movement to a Left Peripheral Ā -q position (Cinque (1990), Rizzi (1997)<br />
and much related work), no RM effect is triggered in (6b), as Rizzi (2000)‟s theory<br />
correctly predicts (see also (44) and fn. 22).<br />
The same kind of effect is further illustrated by the fronting of adverbs for V2<br />
reasons in Dutch. Given the ordering helaas (unfortunately) > waarschijnlijk<br />
(probably) (7), only the former can be fronted but not the latter: this movement would<br />
violate RM, since both the landing site and the intervener are Ā-m positions (8).<br />
(7) a. Het is zo dat hij helaas waarschijnlijk ziek is<br />
“It is so that he unfortunately probably sick is”<br />
b. *Het is zo dat hij waarschijnlijk helaas ziek is (helaas>waarschijnlijk)<br />
(8) a. Helaas is hij ___ waarschijnlijk ziek<br />
“Unfortunately is he probably sick”<br />
b. *Waarschijnlijk is hij helaas ___ ziek<br />
c. Waarschijnlijk is hij ___ ziek Koster (1978)<br />
Having spelled out the background theoretical assumptions underlying this work,<br />
we may now turn to the analysis of the movement of tout/tutto.<br />
2. The movement of tout/tutto: the low position<br />
It is well known, at least since Belletti‟s (1990) influential work on Verb<br />
movement, that both French and Italian object quantifiers tout/tutto occupy a derived<br />
position at S-Structure (or at Spell Out) despite the fact that tutto follows the Past<br />
Participle and tout precedes it, as (9) shows.<br />
(9) a. Jean a {tout} mangé {*tout}<br />
b. Gianni ha {*tutto} mangiato {tutto}<br />
The contrast in (9) is amenable to the well known difference between the two<br />
languages concerning Past Participle movement; since Past Participle in Italian<br />
moves much higher that its French counterpart, the data in (9) are readily accounted<br />
5<br />
(i) shows that the correct hierarchical ordering of the two adverbs rapidamente and probabilmente<br />
is probabilmente>rapidamente.<br />
(i) a. I tecnici hanno probabilmente risolto rapidamente il problema<br />
b. *I tecnici hanno rapidamente risolto probabilmente il problema<br />
66
“L-Tous”, Restructuring and Quantifier Climbing<br />
for. This conclusion is further confirmed by the distribution of low adverbs; since<br />
both quantifiers show the same distribution with respect to the fixed positions<br />
occupied by low adverbs (they precede (see (10)), and follow (see (11)) the same<br />
adverbial classes), the obvious conclusion is that they occupy the same structural<br />
position in both languages:<br />
(10) a. Ha già detto tutto bene Gianni<br />
b. *Ha già detto bene tutto Gianni<br />
c. Elle a tout très mal compris<br />
d. *Elle a très mal tout compris Cinque (1999)<br />
(11) a. Ha rifatto già tutto bene Gianni<br />
b. *Ha rifatto tutto già bene Gianni<br />
c. Jean a déjà tout refait<br />
d. *Jean a tout déjà refait 6<br />
Although the conclusion that both tout and tutto occupy the same derived<br />
position at S-Structure is fairly uncontroversial in the literature, there is to my<br />
knowledge no general agreement about the categorial status of this derived position.<br />
As a matter of fact, any of the three aforementioned structural classes for XPs (A, Ām,<br />
Ā-q) has been proposed in different works to be the class the landing site of the<br />
movement of tout/tutto belongs to. Let‟s now consider each of the three alternatives<br />
2.1 Movement to an Ā-q position<br />
Belletti (1990, pag. 78) argued that “[…] it can be assumed that rien/tout 7 have<br />
the defining property of obligatorily undergoing a QR-type movement process in the<br />
syntax (presumably to be assigned scope already at this level of representation).”<br />
QR is typically an LF movement moving variables to a scope assigning position,<br />
therefore the landing site of this movement must be an Ā-q position, since scope<br />
assigning positions are by assumption quantificational. The position occupied by<br />
tout/tutto seems to be hardly characterizable as a scope assigning Ā-q position.<br />
First of all, claiming that being subject to a sort of pre-LF QR is a “defining<br />
property” of tout/tutto is a mere stipulation, unless independent empirical evidence<br />
(which is, to my knowledge, lacking) supporting this thesis is brought up. Even<br />
assuming that some evidence in the desired direction could be found, it still needs to<br />
6 As in all the examples quoted in this paper, unless otherwise indicated, the sentences in<br />
(10), (11) are to be read with a flat intonation, namely, one which doesn‟t make any constituent<br />
more “salient”.<br />
7 The same argument is in a later passage extended to Italian as well.<br />
67
Marco Nicolis<br />
be explained why the Quantifier can remain in base position when focalized,<br />
modified or coordinated, maybe with a very slight marginality (see (12)):<br />
(12) a. ?Il a repris TOUT<br />
b. ?Il a repris presque tout<br />
c. ?Il n‟a lu absolutement rien<br />
d. ?Il a lu tout ou presque tout Belletti (1990)<br />
Belletti (1990)‟s account of the data in (12) consists in simply proposing that “It<br />
could be assumed as in Kayne (1975) that the rule moving the quantifiers is<br />
suspended in conjunction with stress or heaviness” (Belletti (1990), page 138<br />
fn. 67). Also in this case, there seems to be no independent empirical reason forcing<br />
such a conclusion. Moreover, since QR involves the interpretability of the moved<br />
elements, some kind of interpretive difference between the bare quantifier cases<br />
(such as (10)), in which QR would have applied, and the non-bare cases (such as<br />
(12)), where no QR is supposed to have taken place should be detectable. The<br />
prediction is clearly not borne out, though.<br />
Alongside these theoretical problems, the hypothesis according to which<br />
tout/tutto move to an Ā-q position seems to be empirically inadequate; in fact, these<br />
quantifiers can move across a quantificational adverb like beaucoup, without<br />
triggering any RM violation.<br />
In order to show that this argument goes through, it is first necessary to make<br />
sure that the position occupied by beaucoup/molto is indeed in between the moved<br />
quantifier and its trace and therefore qualifies as a potential intervener. Cinque<br />
(1999) observes that beaucoup/molto and bien/bene can be easily coordinated and<br />
seem to surface in a quasi-complementary distribution 8 , two (somewhat loose)<br />
indications that they may occupy the same position. However, this hypothesis does<br />
not seem very promising from a semantic viewpoint. In fact, the FPs constituting<br />
Cinque‟s hierarchy are each representative of a peculiar semantic class:<br />
beaucoup/molto and bien/bene, if anything, encode very different semantic<br />
properties and it is therefore highly implausible that they occupy the same position.<br />
Cinque (1999) further noticed that there are a few cases (like (13)) in which molto<br />
and bene can cooccur without requiring coordination. In all the relevant cases bene<br />
must necessarily follow molto. It is therefore plausible to assume that the two<br />
adverbs occupy two distinct, although contiguous positions.<br />
8 Consider for example the sentences in (i), where coordination seems to be the only option<br />
((ia) is grammatical in the irrelevant interpretation in which molto locally modifies bene):<br />
(i) a. *Gianni ha mangiato molto bene<br />
b. *Gianni ha mangiato bene molto<br />
c. Gianni ha mangiato molto e bene.<br />
68
(13) a. (?)Ballava molto assai bene anche il fratello<br />
b. *Ballava assai bene molto anche il fratello 9<br />
“L-Tous”, Restructuring and Quantifier Climbing<br />
(10) above shows that the derived position tutto moves to precedes the one filled<br />
by bene (and the one filled by completamente, assuming (2) is correct), therefore<br />
molto/beaucoup is indeed a potential intervener for the movement of tout/tutto.<br />
The examples in (10) jointly with those in (13) correctly predict that the ordering<br />
beaucoup/molto>tout/tutto is impossible for configurational reasons (see (13b)), as<br />
(14) shows:<br />
(14) a. *Il a beaucoup tout apprecié<br />
b. *Ha apprezzato molto tutto<br />
We may now turn to the crucial examples in which the quantifier moves to a<br />
position higher than the one occupied by beaucoup/molto:<br />
(15) a. Il a tout beaucoup apprecié<br />
b. Ha apprezzato tutto molto<br />
If the landing site of tout/tutto were an Ā-q position, an RM effect should arise,<br />
given the quantificational nature of the adverb beaucoup/molto. The absence of any<br />
such effect seems to suggest that the landing site of tout/tutto is not a<br />
quantificational position.<br />
A possible objection to this conclusion is that whatever class the position<br />
occupied by tout/tutto belongs to, these elements possess an inherent<br />
[+Quantificational] feature, which should emerge in any position they move to,<br />
being lexically determined. This idea seems to be operative in such domains as<br />
variable binding, as (16) shows.<br />
(16) a. Tuttoi, non dovrà vender(*lo)<br />
b. I suoi libri, non dovrà vender*(li)<br />
9 The judgment is quite delicate in this case, because the presence of an inverted subject coocurring<br />
with a low adverb yields per se a marginal sentence as Rizzi (1996) showed (see (i)):<br />
(i) ?Ha giocato bene Gianni<br />
??Ha fatto tutto bene Gianni<br />
The presence of the inverted subject is nonetheless very important in these cases: in fact,<br />
given the general possibility for any deaccented extraposed XP to appear in sentence in<br />
final position, it is necessary to show that the acceptability of a sentence like (13a) with a<br />
preverbal subject is not the result of the application of some “rescuing strategy”, like extraposition<br />
of the sentence final adverb.<br />
69
Marco Nicolis<br />
Contrary to full DPs (16b), bare quantifiers such as tutto can bind a variable from<br />
a clearly non quantificational position (Topic in (16)) without requiring a resumptive<br />
clitic (16a). But not only don‟t they require a resumptive clitic, they actually do not<br />
tolerate it, plausibily because it would qualify as a closer potential binder for the<br />
variable in object position: this would lead to a case of vacuous quantification, since<br />
the operator-like item tutto would have no variable to bind.<br />
These facts however do not automatically extend to the domain of Locality,<br />
which on the contrary doesn‟t seem to be sensitive to intrinsic features. As a matter<br />
of fact, we can consider variable binding and the computation of Locality effects<br />
two independent phenomena that exploit different computational mechanisms.<br />
Rizzi (1999) proposes that a Spec position acquires the featural characterization<br />
relevant for the computation of Locality effects from its local head X°. Therefore the<br />
intrinsic features of a moved element are irrelevant for the computation of RM<br />
effects. Given the characterization of Relativized Minimality reported below and in<br />
particular (23 (i)), Rizzi (1999) proposes that “same structural type” is to be<br />
understood as “(i) head or Spec, and (ii) Spec licensed by features of same class”;<br />
the licenser of a given Spec is its local head.<br />
2.2. Movement to an Ā-m position<br />
The hypothesis of a movement to Ā-m position had been explicitly put forth in<br />
various works by G. Cinque. Cinque (1995, ch.9) argued that “[…] only tout/tutto,<br />
among XPs, could move to what appears to be an adverbial-like Ā position, […]<br />
while retaining their ability to bind a variable”. The hallmark of bare quantifiers<br />
such as tout/tutto would be their being structurally reduced, “a complementless QP,<br />
unspecified for the features N V” (Cinque (1995), ch. 9, pag. 282). The structural<br />
peculiarity characterizing these QPs could be responsible for their ability to escape<br />
the requirements of the Case Filter 10 : in fact, being a complementless QP implies<br />
being not a N°‟s extended projection; therefore, the Case Filter can be ignored and<br />
the quantifier can move to an Ā-m position.<br />
The adverbial nature of tout/tutto is further discussed in Cinque (1999), where it<br />
is claimed that these Quantifiers encode a particular type of Completive Aspect.<br />
Cinque (1999), quoting previous work by Bybee, distinguishes two types of<br />
10 I will not commit myself to the existence of the Case Filter; in particular, the ideas exposed<br />
in this paragraph will be rejected in a later one. Anyway, for consistence‟s sake, I<br />
will adopt a standard formulation of the Case Filter, such as that reported in (i) (taken<br />
from Chomsky (1995, ch. 1 page 111)):<br />
(i) Every phonetically realized NP must be assigned (abstract) Case<br />
Of course, the Case Filter extends also to all the nominal projections that can be considered<br />
extended projections of N° in Grimshaw‟s (1991) sense.<br />
70
“L-Tous”, Restructuring and Quantifier Climbing<br />
Completive Aspect in the case of a definite plural object, one expressing “that the<br />
plural set has been totally affected (i.e. each member of the set has been affected)<br />
and 2) that each member of the set has been totally affected”. Cinque proposes that,<br />
although several languages do not distinguish between the two (e.g. English (17),<br />
where the particle up ambiguously encodes both), others, like Polish (see (18)), do.<br />
(17) I ate up the sandwiches<br />
(18) Po-prze-czyt-yw-o am wszystkie jej ks iazki<br />
COMPL-COMPL-read-HAB-PAST all her books<br />
“I have read all her books occasionally one after the other and right through”<br />
Cinque (1999)<br />
Cinque calls the two aspects “plural completion” and “singular completion”.<br />
Back to Italian, Cinque (1999) observes that “it is temping to see completamente and<br />
tutto as the specifiers corresponding to „singular‟ and „plural‟ completion,<br />
respectively”; he further observes that in fact, tutto can only refer to a plurality of<br />
items (a singular object in not an appropriate answer to the question (19)) and that<br />
completamente obeys the same restrictions that the corresponding functional heads<br />
obey in other languages, namely it is “incompatible with situations lacking internal<br />
stages and a natural end point”. Thus, in the relevant respect, Hungarian, Chinese<br />
and Italian all pattern alike, modulo the realization of the head (Hungarian and<br />
Chinese) or of the Spec (Italian) of the same FP.<br />
(19) Hai trovato tutto? Cinque (1999)<br />
(20) a. *Karoly tejet I vott meg<br />
K. milk drank up<br />
„K. drank milk up‟<br />
b. Ta xiao-(*wan)-le<br />
He smile-(COMPL)-PERF<br />
„He smiled completely‟<br />
c. *Gianni ha riso completamente Cinque (1999)<br />
This hypothesis, although the point is not fully clarified by Cinque (1999), seems<br />
to imply that the quantifier tutto acquires its modificational „completive‟ nature by<br />
virtue of sitting in a modificational [Spec, FP] at SS or Spell-Out; in particular, the<br />
restriction concerning the possibility of referring only to singular referents should be<br />
the result of occupying the Spec of the AspectPluralcompletive projection. If this is<br />
correct, the prediction is that this restriction should be suspended in those contexts in<br />
which the modified or focalized quantifier tout/tutto remains in base position. (21)<br />
shows that the prediction is not borne out, in fact in both (21a) and (21b) the<br />
quantifier can only refer to a singular entity.<br />
71
Marco Nicolis<br />
(21) a. Hai pulito tutto bene?<br />
b. Hai pulito bene quasi tutto?<br />
But the most important drawback of Cinque‟s analysis has to do with locality. If<br />
we adopt Rizzi‟s (2000) system, it is obvious that the quantifier tout/tutto can cross<br />
low modificational adverbs, as (10a), (10c) show 11 , without triggering any RM effect.<br />
A possible objection to this conclusion could be that tout/tutto are not inherently<br />
modificational elements (in the way most adverbs are), but acquire their<br />
modificational status only when they reach the relevant [Spec, FP] and therefore<br />
when the crossing takes place no RM effect arises because the moved element is not<br />
endowed with the relevant modificational feature the crossed element is. However,<br />
this objection does not go through. In fact, Rizzi‟s system (Rizzi (1990) as well as<br />
Rizzi (2000)) is essentially a representational system, namely one in which possible<br />
intervening effects are computed from the final representation rather than taking into<br />
account the whole derivation. Rizzi‟s (2000) basic idea of Relativized Minimality<br />
(see (22)) is in fact technically implemented making reference to the notion of<br />
Minimal Comfiguration (see (23)), which in turn relies on a representational notion<br />
of chain (see (24)), the typical locus where an MC is created.<br />
(22) In the configuration …X…Z…Y… “Y cannot be related to X if Z intervened<br />
and Z has certain characteristics in common with X. So, in order to be related<br />
to X, Y must be in a minimal configuration with X, where minimality is<br />
relativized to the nature of the structural relation to be established” Rizzi (2000)<br />
(23) Y is in a Minimal Configuration (MC) with X iff there is no such Z that<br />
(i) Z is of the same structural type as X, and<br />
(ii) Z intervenes between X and Y Rizzi (2000)<br />
(24) (A1,…An) is a chain iff, for 1 ≤ i < n<br />
72<br />
12<br />
(i) Ai=Ai+1<br />
(ii) Ai c-commands Ai+1<br />
(iii) Ai+1 is in a MC with Ai Rizzi (2000)<br />
The combination of (22), (23), (24) implies that intervention effects are to be<br />
detected solely on the basis of the structural properties of the target position and of the<br />
intervener, therefore if they share the same feature (e.g. modificational in (10a), (10c),<br />
11 10b, 10d show that bene>tutto is (expectedly) the only possible ordering between the unmodified<br />
quantifier tout/tutto and the bien/bene class of adverbs.<br />
12 See Chomsky (1995) for a theory of traces as copies.
“L-Tous”, Restructuring and Quantifier Climbing<br />
as Cinque‟s theory seems to imply) a RM violation is expected, no matter which<br />
features the moved element is inherently endowed with. Given the lack of RM effects<br />
in the cases under examination, it is fair to conclude that the head of the FP to which<br />
the Quantifier moves in not endowed with the feature [+Modificational].<br />
2.3. Movement to an A position<br />
The option we are left with is movement to an A position. This hypothesis,<br />
defended in Cardinaletti & Starke (1994), (1994b), readily provides an explanation<br />
for exactly those aspects that were problematic for the hypotheses considered so far.<br />
In particular, it convincingly accounts for the possibility of leaving a non bare<br />
quantifier in base position and for the lack of RM effects in cases like (10), (15).<br />
The latter point is straightforward. In fact, if the target position is an A position,<br />
the intervention of an Ā element of whatever kind is not expected to trigger any RM<br />
effect. The case wuold be fully parallel to another case in which tout moves to an<br />
indisputable A position, namely subject position, crossing a modificational adverb<br />
(vraiment) without triggering any RM effect:<br />
(25) a. Tout a été vraiment apprécié par Jean<br />
Let‟s now consider (25b):<br />
(25) b. Gianni ha spiegato loro tutto bene<br />
Cases like (25b), in which the weak pronoun loro has moved to a derived A<br />
position, probably for Case reasons, (see below and Cardinaletti & Starke (1994))<br />
across the quantifier tutto, cannot be considered counterexamples to the conclusion<br />
that tutto moves to an A position. In fact, (25b) is a member a of a larger set of cases<br />
in which a “short” A movement does not trigger RM violations; A movements of<br />
elements targeting positions within the verbal extended projection of the clause they<br />
were generated in, typically do not induce RM violations. The prototypical and most<br />
discussed cases of this sort are Object Shift and the (fully grammatical) crossing of<br />
the [Spec, AgrOP] position by the subject on its way to [Spec, AgrS] 13 . The typical<br />
13 I do not really commit myself to any of the many proposal in the literature trying to account<br />
for the perfect acceptability of this movement, since the descriptive datum is all I<br />
really need in my argument. However, for completeness sake, it is worth noting that<br />
Chomsky (1995, ch. 3) argued for the well known device called equidistance, Roberts<br />
(1997) proposes that RM effects are voided if in the structural context …X…Z…Y… X<br />
and Z are non-distinct, where distinctness is defined as in (i):<br />
(i) α is a position nondistinct from β if α and β are of the same category and are in the<br />
extended projection of a single lexical category L.<br />
Since both AgrOP and AgrS are in the same extended projection of the verb V, the intervener<br />
and the target are non-distinct, therefore RM is not violate, given (i).<br />
73
Marco Nicolis<br />
RM violation involving A positions is in fact superaising, which in fact involves an<br />
intervener and a landing site which are in two distinct extended projections, being<br />
both positions required by EPP 14 .<br />
As to the possibility of leaving a non bare quantifier in base position (such as<br />
modified, coordinated, focalized tout/tutto), Cardinaletti & Starke (1994) propose<br />
that what is at stake in these cases exactly corresponds to what is found with a large<br />
class of personal pronouns. Many personal pronouns have three distinct forms: a<br />
heavy, a weak and a clitic form (e.g. Italian dative plural pronoun a loro (Strong),<br />
loro (Weak), gli (clitic)). As the example in the parenthesis show, the strong form is<br />
often morphologically richer than the weak form, which is in turn richer than the<br />
clitic form 15 . This difference correlates to a distributional difference: strong<br />
elements occupy a position lower that those occupied by weak and clitic elements,<br />
as (26) clearly shows:<br />
(26) a. \Non gli metterò mai il cappuccio<br />
b. Non metterò mai loro il cappuccio<br />
c. Non metterò mai il cappuccio a loro<br />
The strong version of the pronoun can typically be coordinated, focalized and<br />
modified, while the weak (and a fortiori the clitic) forms cannot, as (27) vs. (28) and<br />
(29) shows:<br />
(27) a. Ho parlato [a loro] e [a loro]<br />
b. Ho parlato [a LORO], non [a LORO]<br />
c. Ho parlato solo [a loro]<br />
74<br />
Finally, Rizzi (Univ. of Siena seminars, 1999) proposes that in the cases we are considering<br />
the intervener is not to be identified with just the head of the chain , but with the<br />
whole chain. Therefore, the crossing of [Spec, AgrOP] by the subject is not problematic<br />
since the tail of the chain formed by the movement of the object to AgrOP is not crossed<br />
by the subject, which is of course generated higher.<br />
14 A case of superaising is illustrated in (i), where the subject of the most embedded clause<br />
in raised to the subject position of the matrix clause across the expletive subject it in<br />
[Spec, AgrS2]:<br />
(i) *[AgrS1 Johni seems that [AgrS2 it is likely [AgrS3 ti to win]]]<br />
15 This is not necessary, though. In fact, in many cases the different classes are homophonous<br />
(German strong and weak forms sie, French weak and clitic forms il) , but it is never<br />
the case that a stronger form is morphologically poorer than a weaker counterpart.
(28) a. *Ho parlato [loro] e [loro]<br />
b. *Ho palato [LORO], non [LORO]<br />
c. *Ho parlato solo [loro]<br />
(29) a. *[gli] e [gli] ho parlato<br />
b. *[GLI] ho parlato, non [GLI]<br />
c. *Solo [gli] ho parlato<br />
“L-Tous”, Restructuring and Quantifier Climbing<br />
Cardinaletti & Starke (1994) further show that when the structural conditions for<br />
the appearance of functionally equivalent pronouns are met, the weaker form is<br />
always preferred over the strong one. In other words, if nothing forces a strong form<br />
to occur (prominence, by and large, as in (27), (28), (29)), the weak form is chosen.<br />
(30) illustrates the point in different languages (from Cardinaletti & Starke (1994):<br />
(30) a. Jean {laC} regarde {*elleS} (FRENCH)<br />
b. Gianni {laC} guarda {*leiS} (ITALIAN)<br />
c. Ich habe {ihnW} gestern {*ihn} eingeladen (GERMAN)<br />
d. …, dass {zC/ *esW} toire isch (OLANG TIROLESE)<br />
e. …, dat {zeW/*zjjS} niet will komen (DUTCH)<br />
The properties observed so far for pronouns exactly mirror those of the quantifier<br />
tout/tutto. On the assumption that the quantifier tout/tutto has both a weak and a<br />
strong omophonous form (see fn. 12), all the data straightforwardly fall into place.<br />
(10) shows on a par with (30) that the weak form, which occupies a higher position<br />
(as (26) shows for pronouns), is preferred over the strong one when nothing forces<br />
the latter to appear. (12) shows for French that the contexts in which the quantifier is<br />
left in base position are exactly the same in which a strong pronoun shows up,<br />
namely modification (27c), (12 b, c), coordination (27a), (12d) and focalization<br />
(27b), (12a). (28) shows the same point in Italian:<br />
(31) a. Gianni ha capito bene assolutamente tutto (*assolutamente tutto bene)<br />
(modification)<br />
b. Gianni ha capito bene tutto o quasi (*tutto o quasi bene) (coordination)<br />
c. Gianni ha capito bene TUTTO, non solo il primo capitolo (*?TUTTO bene,<br />
non…) (focalization)<br />
d. *Ha fatto bene tutto anche Gianni (Ha fatto tutto bene anche Gianni)<br />
(bare quantifier)<br />
Cardinaletti & Starke (1994) account for the properties of weak elements in<br />
terms of structural deficiency: since their projection is structurally reduced (it<br />
75
Marco Nicolis<br />
contains less structural layers) 16 , they need to compensate for such a deficiency by<br />
moving to an adequate [Spec, FP], in order to recover the properties they are not<br />
structurally endowed with. For example, it is argued in Cardinaletti & Starke (1994)<br />
that the property pronouns need to recover is case: the dummy marker a appearing in<br />
(26c) would be the morphological realization of a case assigning head 17 . Weak<br />
elements lack the relevant projection DP internally, therefore they must move to a<br />
“Case assigning” projection in the IP space, plausibly an Agreement projection<br />
(AgrOP or a similar projection if Agreement projections in the low IP space are<br />
more than traditionally assumed).<br />
This case based account does not automatically extend to all the weak elements,<br />
since Cardinaletti & Starke (1994) observe that some languages such as Greek have<br />
weak adverbs 18 , which of course do not need case.<br />
Determining the kind of structural deficiency affecting quantifiers is far from<br />
straightforward: in fact, it could only be assessed on the basis of a much deeper<br />
knowledge of the fine structure of QPs. If Cinque is right in claiming that bare<br />
quantifiers are complementless QPs, then a case based account of their structural<br />
deficiency would prove implausible, since they should be able to escape the Case<br />
Filter. If Cardinaletti & Starke‟s (1994) approach (lack of the highest layer(s)) is on<br />
the right track, then bare quantifiers could still perhaps be considered extended<br />
projections of some empty N°, thus being subject to the Case Filter. Their deficiency<br />
could then be due to Case reasons on a par with full DPs.<br />
16 Cardinaletti & Starke (1994) propose that these projection lack the uppermost layer<br />
(CNP), which, just like CP would be able to host a prepositional dummy marker, such as a<br />
in (26). I do not really commit myself to all the technical details of this proposal, given<br />
the many recent works showing that both the sentential CP and the DP are probably to<br />
share the same fate of the node IP, namely split into many FPs.<br />
17 The overt morphological realization of this head is of course not a necessary condition<br />
for case assignment: the necessary condition is the structural presence of such a case<br />
assigning head.<br />
18<br />
The Greek adverb sigo is considered by Cardinaletti & Starke (1994) the weak counterpart<br />
of sigà, as their distribution in (i) confirms:<br />
(i) a. To {*sigà} évrasa {sigà}<br />
b. To {sigo} évrasa {*sigo}<br />
It slowly I boiled slowly<br />
As predictable, only the strong form sigà can be grammatically coordinated:<br />
(ii) a. To évrasa sigà ke kalà<br />
b. *To sigo ke kalo évrasa<br />
It slowly and well I boiled<br />
76
3. The movement of tout: the high position<br />
“L-Tous”, Restructuring and Quantifier Climbing<br />
As anticipated in the Introduction, in some, but not all biclausal structures, the<br />
French quantifier tout can occupy a high derived position, an option unavailable to<br />
its Italian counterpart tutto. Consider (32) vs. (33), adapted from Kayne (1975 ch. 1)<br />
and Kayne (1984 ch. 3):<br />
(32) a. Il a tout voulu manger<br />
b. Elle n‟a rien pu boire<br />
c. Vous n‟auriez rien osé dire (de plus)<br />
d. Tu vas tout devoir apprendre par cœur<br />
e. Il a tout failli rater Kayne (1975)<br />
(33) a. *Elle va tout avouer mépriser (Elle va avouer tout mepriser)<br />
b. *Elle est tout montée mettre à la poubelle (Elle est montée tout mettre à la<br />
poubelle)<br />
c. *Elle va tout courir mettre dehors (Elle va courir tout mettre dehors)<br />
The class of verbs allowing Quantifier Climbing by and large corresponds to the<br />
class of Restructuring verbs in restructuring languages. This datum is surprising,<br />
since Modern French lacks Restructuring, which is shown by the ungrammaticality<br />
of Long NP movement with mediopassive “se” (34a), Auxiliary Change (34b) and<br />
Clitic Climbing (34c), the typical hallmarks of Restructuring.<br />
(34) a. *Les nouvelles maisons se commenceront à construire<br />
b. *Pierre est voulu venir avec nous<br />
c. *Jean le veut faire<br />
Although Modern French lacks Restructuring, Old French was a restructuring<br />
languge, as (35) shows:<br />
(35) a. Nuls om mortals no.l pod penser (clitic climbing)<br />
No man mortal not.it(cl.) can think<br />
b. Elle la commença a desirer (clitic climbing)<br />
She it(cl.) begins to desire<br />
c. Vous estes volue apparoir (auxiliary change)<br />
You are wanted appear<br />
d. car amors ne se puet celer<br />
as loves not “se”(mediopassive) can hide (long NP movement)<br />
(35) could lead one to hypothesize that the occurrence of Quantifier Climbing<br />
with the class of Restructuring verbs in French is a residual phenomenon, since<br />
French was a restructuring language. The hypothesis seems however hard to<br />
77
Marco Nicolis<br />
maintain, since Italian, a full fledged Restructuring Language, strongly disallows<br />
Quantifier Climbing:<br />
(36) **Gianni tutto vuole mangiare<br />
We now face a somewhat paradoxical situation: French, a non restructuring<br />
language allows Quantifier Climbing in sentences involving restructuring verbs,<br />
whereas Italian, a restructuring language, simply disallows Quantifier Climbing.<br />
Before coming back to this intricate problem, let‟s first of all determine the<br />
structural class of the position the “climbed Quantifier” moves to.<br />
3.1. Quantifier climbing: the landing site<br />
Although Modern French does not allow Restructuring, Clitic Climbing 19 is<br />
grammatical in some causative structures, plausibly a residue of earlier stages of the<br />
language, when Restructuring was an option:<br />
(37) Jean la fait manger par/à Paul<br />
Given Shlonsky (1991) analysis of the structure of QP, according to which tout<br />
is generated in Q°, Quantifier Climbing could in principle be though of as head<br />
movement, on a par with (37). But a clear difference between Clitic Climbing and<br />
Quantifier Climbing emerges with respect to RM effects. Clitic Climbing clearly IS<br />
head movement, given the impossibility in both Italian and French for the clitic to<br />
cross an intervening head:<br />
(38) a. *Gianni li vuole non vedere (OK… non li vuole vedere) (OK… vuole non<br />
vederli)<br />
b. *Gianni non li vuole che Maria veda<br />
c. *Jean/Cela lui a fait ne pas manger a l‟enfant (??Jean/Cela a fait ne pas<br />
manger sa soupe a l‟enfant) (Kayne 1989)<br />
78<br />
On the other hand, the climbed Quantifier can cross a head (C° in (36)):<br />
(39) a. ?Jean veut tout qu‟elle refasse<br />
b. ?Je veux tout que tu leur enlèves<br />
c. ?Je ne veux rien que tu fasses (d‟autre)<br />
d. ?Il faut tout que je leur enlève<br />
e. ?Il ne faut rien que tu fasses<br />
19 I adopt Kayne‟s (1989) account of cliticization as composite movement, namely XP<br />
movement to [Spec,AgrOP] followed by X° movement up to the cliticization site.
“L-Tous”, Restructuring and Quantifier Climbing<br />
In all the cases in (39) the Quantifier crosses the Subject position of the<br />
embedded clause, thus showing that the position it targets is not an A position.<br />
The Quantifier tout appears to be able to move out of wh- islands (40), thus<br />
showing that this position is not an Ā-q position:<br />
(40) a. ?Il a tout su ou mettre Kayne (1989)<br />
On the contrary, the intervention of a modificational adverb yields<br />
ungrammaticality:<br />
(41) a. *?Il a tout voulu obstinément voir en même temps<br />
I take the evidence in (39), (40), (41) as a clear indication that the climbed<br />
Quantifier moves to an Ā-m position.<br />
This conclusion seems to be inconsistent with the grammaticality of the<br />
extraction of tout from Inner Islands, as (42b) shows 20 :<br />
(42) a. Il aurait voulu ne tout dire qu‟à son advocat<br />
b. *Il aurait tout voulu ne dire qu‟à son advocat Kayne (1975)<br />
It is well known, at least since Ross (1983), that wh- islands are stronger than<br />
Inner Islands; therefore, the asymmetry (40) vs. (42) is unexpected: the mild<br />
deviance of (40) should imply the perfect grammaticality of (42), contrary to fact.<br />
Negation has long been considered an Ā-q element; Rizzi (1990) observed that<br />
“…negation patterns on a par with other uncontroversial Ā binders such as wh-<br />
elements and adverbial QPs”, as (43) shows 21 :<br />
(43) a. Combien a-t-il lu [e de livres]<br />
b. Il a beaucoup lu [e de livres]<br />
c. Il n‟a pas lu [e de livres] Rizzi (1990)<br />
20<br />
The intervener in (41) is plausibly not ne, which is standardly assumed to be the head of a<br />
NegP, but rather a null negative operator (the covert counterpart of pas) sitting in the Spec<br />
of the projection headed by ne.<br />
21<br />
The Ā-q nature of Negation is further shown by the systematic lack of ambiguity in sentences<br />
like (ib), contrary to structures like (ia):<br />
(i) a. Il n‟a [pas [résolu [beaucuop de problèmes]]]<br />
b. Il n‟a [pas [beaucoup résolu [e de problèmes]]]<br />
In (ia) the whole object can be grammatically Q-Raised at LF (whatever the reason allowing<br />
this structure: θ-marking of the object in a disjunctively formulated ECP, proper index<br />
assignment, D-Linking…), giving beaucoup wide scope. Beaucoup can only have narrow<br />
scope in (ib), because its raising across pas would violate RM, as (ii), the LF representation<br />
of (ib) with beaucoup assigned wide scope, shows:<br />
(ii) *beaucoup il n‟a [pas [t résolu [de problèmes]]].<br />
79
Marco Nicolis<br />
On the other hand, there seems to be good reason to believe that Negation also<br />
carries a [+Modificational] feature, as (44) shows:<br />
(44) *Rapidamente, Gianni non ha risolto il problema 22<br />
This sentence is ungrammatical if the adverb is interpreted as simply fronted in a<br />
“Modificational” position in the CP space, plausibly beacause the crossing of pas<br />
violates RM 23 .<br />
Rizzi‟s (1999) theory accounts for the double featural specification of Negation<br />
([+Modificational] (44), [+Quantificational] (43) and fn.21) by simply proposing<br />
that different positions can inherit more than one feature by their head. The table<br />
(45), taken from Rizzi (1999), is a characterization of all the possible featural<br />
combinations of [Q], [Mod], [Arg].<br />
(45) ARG Q MOD EXAMPLES<br />
80<br />
+ - - John (non-quantificational subjects)<br />
+ - + *<br />
- + - Wh, Foc<br />
- + + Beaucoup, pas<br />
+ + - Noone (quantificational subjects)<br />
+ + + *<br />
- - + Carefully<br />
- - - Topic<br />
Given (45), the asymmetry (40) vs. (42) is no longer surprising: the Wh word ou<br />
in (40) is specified as [+Q], therefore it does not qualify as an intervener for the<br />
22 This sentence is grammatical if uttered in particular pragmatic contexts in which the<br />
adverb can be interpreted as a real Topic. Rizzi (1999b) reports the following conversational<br />
context:<br />
A: Pare che Gianni abbia risolto rapidamente il primo problema<br />
B: Mi sembra impossibile: rapidamente, ha probabilmente risolto IL SECONDO<br />
As noted earlier, the Top° head is [-Q], [-Mod] and [-Arg], therefore the lack of RM effects<br />
in B is expected.<br />
23 Rizzi (1999b), proposes, in a way consistent with other recent works ( see Benincà & Poletto<br />
(2000) among others), that the fine structure of the Left Periphery is more fine grained than<br />
it was assumed in Rizzi (1997). In particular, examples like (44), involving a non-topicalized<br />
adverb in the CP space, are taken to be a clear indication of the existence of a (recursive)<br />
Mod projection. Therefore, the CP structure proposed by Rizzi (1999b) is as in (i):<br />
(i) Force Top* Focus Mod* Top* Fin
“L-Tous”, Restructuring and Quantifier Climbing<br />
movement of tout, which targets a [+Mod] position. On the contrary, since it is<br />
specified as both [+Q] and [+Mod], Negation blocks Quantifier Climbing.<br />
Hence, we can conclude that Quantifier Climbing targets a [+Mod] position.<br />
3.2. Quantifier Climbing: Restructuring and CP reduction<br />
What has still to be assessed is the relation between Restructuring and Quantifier<br />
Climbing. I adopt the basic guidelines of Roberts (1997) analysis of Restructuring,<br />
in particular the proposal that Rizzi‟s (1982) idea of Restructuring as clause union<br />
can be implemented in more modern terms making reference to a process of<br />
incorporation of the embedded verb onto the restructuring verb, a process that yields<br />
a unitary extended projection.<br />
Turkish data overtly support the hypothesis that an incorporation process<br />
underlies Restructuring; in fact in this language “the modal and aspectual predicates<br />
that trigger restructuring are realized as affixes” (Roberts (1997)), as (46) shows:<br />
(46) a. O Adam el aç-iyordu<br />
The man hand open-PROG<br />
“The man is begging”<br />
b. Yika-u-ma-mali-yim<br />
Wash-REFL-NEG-NEC-1SG<br />
“I shouldn‟t wash myself”<br />
However, Romance Restructuring clearly does not rely on a process of<br />
morphological incorporation; in fact, the Restructuring verb and the embedded verb<br />
can surface under different heads, as the (grammatical) intervention of XPs such as<br />
Adverbs, FQs and wh- words between the two shows:<br />
(47) a. Questi libri si volevano proprio leggere<br />
b. Gianni li vuole tutti leggere<br />
c. ?Certe risposte non si sanno mai come dare<br />
In order to make the data in (47) consistent with the idea that an incorporation<br />
process underlies Restructuring, Roberts (1997) proposes (48):<br />
(48) a. Head movement is copying<br />
b. *[X° W1 W2], where Wn are morphological words<br />
c. A head is spelled out in the highest position of its chain, subject to (48b)<br />
The morphological constraint in (48b) limits the “quantity” of morphological<br />
material that can be spelled out under a single head. Since two verbs are of course<br />
two distinct lexical items, their morphological incorporation would violate (48b),<br />
therefore, according to Roberts‟ proposal, they have to be spelled out under distinct<br />
81
Marco Nicolis<br />
heads (48c). Roberts concludes that Restructuring in Romance can be considered a<br />
sort of covert incorporation, which cannot surface morphologically, due to (48b).<br />
This idea along with the proposal that RM is suspended if the intervener and the<br />
landing site both belong to the same extended projection (see fn. 13) provide an<br />
explanatory tool for the emergence of the typical phenomena associated with<br />
Restructuring, namely Clitic Climbing, Aux change, Long NP movement 24 .<br />
Consider for example (49), a case of Long NP movement:<br />
(49) [AgrS1 [Queste case]i si vogliono [AgrS2 PRO venderev [AgrOP ti Agr° [VP tv ti a caro<br />
prezzo]]]]<br />
The embedded verb vendere is “virtually incorporated” onto the Restructuring<br />
verb volere, but they are spelled out under different heads, due to (45b). The<br />
incorporation process yields a single extended projection: therefore, the movement<br />
of the DP queste case to [Spec, AgrS1] does not violate RM, since PRO in [Spec,<br />
Agrs2] does not qualify as a potential intervener, under the assumption that RM does<br />
not hold if landing site and potential intervener are in the same extended projection.<br />
So, Roberts‟ account of Restructuring relates the availability of Restructuring to<br />
long Verb movement, an empirically correct conclusion. Hence, so far as French is<br />
concerned, it does not allow Restructuring, since Infinitival Verbs do not move long<br />
enough to (virtually) incorporate onto the Restructuring verb, therefore in cases<br />
comparable to (49), PRO would count as an intervener.<br />
As Roberts (1997) himself observes, his analysis does not easily extend to<br />
Quantifier Climbing. In fact, if anything, French should be more “opaque” than<br />
Italian, given the shortness of [-fin] Verb movement.<br />
The necessary conclusion seems to be that Roberts‟ analysis must be somehow<br />
integrated in order to account for Quantifier Climbing. I would like to propose that<br />
Restructuring verbs, alongside their ability to trigger the virtual incorporation of the<br />
embedded verb, also select a reduced CP. I take this (these?) missing layer(s) to be<br />
responsible for the ungrammatical climbing of tout with non Restructuring verbs in<br />
(33). This is just a speculation, though, since I have no strong independent evidence<br />
for such a claim. However, it is well known that Restructuring verbs and their<br />
counterpart in V2 languages allow for clause bound movements to happen in<br />
biclausal structures. Consider (50), from Giusti (1993):<br />
(50) a. weil die berühmte Friedlandia [CP dieses Lied in Wien zu singen] versuchte<br />
because the famous Friedlandia this Lied in Wien to sing tried<br />
b. weil [dieses Lied]i die berühmte Friedlandia [CP ti in Wien zu singen]<br />
24 See Rizzi (1982) for the original account of these phenomena and Burzio (1986) for the<br />
82<br />
non full coextensivity of the three phenomena.
“L-Tous”, Restructuring and Quantifier Climbing<br />
(51) a. weil die berühmte Friedlandia [CP dieses Lied in Wien zu singen]<br />
verlangte<br />
because the famous Friedlandia this Lied in Wien to sing<br />
b. *weil [dieses Lied]i die berühmte Friedlandia [CP ti in Wien zu singen]<br />
versuchte<br />
pretended<br />
With a particular class of verbs, which corresponds by and large to Restructuring<br />
verbs, Scrambling, a typically clause bound movement, can cross a CP projection<br />
((50) vs. (51)). This is of course no compelling evidence for the hypothesis that<br />
Restructuring verbs indeed select a reduced CP. However, the contrast (50) vs. (51)<br />
strongly resembles the one in (32) vs. (33) above. It seems to me fair to conclude<br />
that whatever lexical property characterises Restructuring verbs (be it selecting a<br />
reduced CP or not), allowing for (50), the sam property should also be operative in<br />
French allowing (32).<br />
But if this conclusion is correct, how come Italian strongly disallows Quantifier<br />
Climbing? It is first of all important to notice that Quantifier Climbing is a marked<br />
option in French, that seems to satisfy no core UG requirement; in fact in all the<br />
cases in (32) the Quantifier can remain in between the main verb and the embedded<br />
verb; therefore it is plausible that an existing structural option is not exploited in<br />
Italian, given the peripheral status of the construction. Moreover, I have shown that<br />
Quantifier Climbing targets an Ā-m position, therefore it must be attractable by a<br />
[+Mod] head. If it was possible to show that French tout is in some sense “more<br />
adverbial” than its Italian counterpart tutto, the absence of Quantifier Climbing in<br />
Italian could be due the impossibility of attraction of tutto by a [+Mod] head. Some<br />
evidence in the desired direction seems to exist. In fact, French tout, but not Italian<br />
tutto, can modify some adverbial classes.<br />
(52) a. tout bêtement a‟. *tutto stupidamente<br />
b. tout simplement b‟. *tutto semplicemente<br />
c. tout doucement c‟. *tutto dolcemente<br />
Therefore, Italian tutto could not be attractable by a [+Mod] head.<br />
A last point is worth mentioning. Given the optional possibility of Quantifier<br />
Climbing in French, one may wonder whether the Quantifier moves directly from<br />
the embedded object position, or moves through the derived low position. An<br />
answer to this question relies on the precise individuation of the kind of structural<br />
deficiency the Quantifier has to recover for. If we adopt Cardinaletti & Starke<br />
(1994) hypothesis that the movement to the low position is mandatory for Case<br />
reasons, the natural conclusion would be that Quantifier Climbing is a two step<br />
movement, since otherwise the moved Quantifier would violate the Case Filter.<br />
83
Marco Nicolis<br />
References<br />
Belletti, A. 1990. Generalized Verb Movement. Rosenberg & Sellier, Torino.<br />
Baltin, M. & Ch. Collins, eds. 2000 A Handbook of Syntactic Theory, Blackwell, Oxford.<br />
Burzio, L. 1986. Italian Syntax. Kluwer, Dordrecht.<br />
Cardinaletti, A. & M. Starke. 1994. “The typology of structural deficiency. On the Three<br />
Grammatical Classes”, University of Venice Working Papers in Linguistics, 4 (2).41-109.<br />
Chomsky, N. 1995. The Minimalist Program. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.<br />
Cinque, G. 1990. Types of A’ dependencies, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.<br />
Cinque, G. 1995a “Bare quantifiers, quantified NPs, and the notion of operator at S-structure” (ch.<br />
3 in Cinque (1995b)).<br />
Cinque, G. 1995b “On leftward movement of tutto in Italian” (ch. 9 in Cinque (1995c)).<br />
Cinque, G. 1995c Italian Syntax and Universal Grammar, Cambridge University Press.<br />
Cinque, G. 1998. Adverbs and Functional Heads. Oxford University Press.<br />
Giusti, G. 1993. La sintassi dei determinanti. Unipress, Padova.<br />
Grimshaw, J. 1991. “Extended Projections”. Manoscritto, Brandeis University, Waltham, Mass.<br />
Kayne, R. 1975. French syntax. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.<br />
Kayne, R. 1984. Connectedness and binary branching. Dordrecht: Foris.<br />
Kayne, R. 1989. “Null subjects and clitic climbing”. In Jaeggli, O. & K. Safir (eds.), The Null<br />
Subject Parameter: 239-261.<br />
Kayne, R. 1994. The antisymmetry of syntax. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.<br />
Koster, J. 1978. Locality Principles in Syntax, Foris, Dordrecht.<br />
Obenauer, H. 1983 “On the Identification of Empty Categories”, The Linguistic Review, 4,<br />
153-202.<br />
Pollock, J.-Y. 1989. “Verb Movement, Universal Grammar, and the structure of IP”, Linguistic<br />
Inquiry 20, 365-424.<br />
Rizzi, L. 1982. Issues in Italian Syntax, Foris, Dordrecht.<br />
Rizzi, L. 1990. Relativized Minimality. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.<br />
Rizzi, L. 1996. “Residual Verb Second and the Wh-Criterion”, in Belletti, A. & L. Rizzi (eds),<br />
Parameters and Functional Heads, Oxford University Press, 63-90.<br />
Rizzi, L. 1997. “The Fine Structure of Left Periphery”, in L. Haegeman (ed.), Elements of<br />
Grammar, Kluwer, Dordrecht.<br />
Rizzi, L. 1999. “Some Issues in the Theory of Locality”, talk given at the Workshop on the<br />
Cartography of Syntactic Positions and Semantic Types, Certosa di Pontignano,<br />
Nov. 1999.<br />
Rizzi, L. 2000. “Relativized Minimality Effects”, in Baltin & Collins, eds. 2000.<br />
Roberts, I. 1997. “Restructuring, Head Movement and Locality”, Linguistic Inquiry 28: 423-460.<br />
Shlonsky, U. 1991. “Quantifiers as functional heads: a study of quantifier float in Hebrew”,<br />
Lingua, 84.159-180.<br />
Sportiche, D. 1988. “A theory of floating quantifiers and its corollaries for constituent structure”.<br />
Linguistic Inquiry 19, 425-449.<br />
84
BILINGUISMO E ACQUISIZIONE INFANTILE DI L2:<br />
ALCUNE OSSERVAZIONI SULL’ACQUISIZIONE<br />
SIMULTANEA DI ITALIANO E TEDESCO<br />
DA PARTE DI BAMBINI IN ETÀ PRESCOLARE*<br />
1. Introduzione<br />
Manola SALUSTRI<br />
Ricerche recenti hanno mostrato che l’acquisizione del linguaggio nei bambini<br />
bilingui non presenta differenze rilevanti rispetto all’acquisizione nei bambini<br />
monolingui 1 . Negli studi svolti da J. Meisel nell’ambito del progetto D.U.F.D.E. su<br />
bambini bilingui francese-tedesco di età prescolare sono state infatti riscontrate le<br />
stesse fasi presenti nello sviluppo linguistico dei bambini monolingui francesi e<br />
tedeschi. In particolare non sono stati riscontrati errori nella struttura della frase,<br />
anche se le due lingue acquisite presentano un diverso ordine di base. 2<br />
Questo lavoro riporta i risultati di uno studio longitudinale sull’acquisizione<br />
simultanea di italiano e tedesco da parte di tre bambini bilingui di circa tre anni,<br />
Renzo, Samuele e Marianna, residenti in Italia. Lo studio è basato sull’analisi<br />
quantitativa di un corpus di produzione spontanea raccolto nel corso di circa un anno<br />
e trascritto nel formato CHAT di CHILDES. In particolare verrà considerata la<br />
posizione del verbo nella struttura della frase tedesca.<br />
* Desidero ringraziare Adriana Belletti, Maria Teresa Guasti e Luigi Rizzi per i preziosi<br />
suggerimenti e per aver pazientemente letto e commentato questo lavoro. Vorrei<br />
ringraziare inoltre Imke Kruse, Claudia Perlitius, Claudia Ruff e David Nolan per l’ aiuto<br />
nella raccolta ed interpretazione dei dati. Infine un ringraziamento particolare ai bambini,<br />
alle loro famiglie e alla Scuola Materna di Gaiole in Chianti per la disponibilità e la<br />
collaborazione.<br />
1 Cfr. Meisel (1986/1990), Meisel & Müller (1992).<br />
2 Nel corso del progetto DUFDE (Deutsch und Franzosisch, Doppelter Erstspracherwerb)<br />
diretto dal 1986 al 1990 da J. Meisel all’Università di Amburgo è stata studiata<br />
longitudinalmente l’acquisizione simultanea di tedesco e francese in bambini di età<br />
prescolare. Cfr. Meisel (1994).<br />
85
Manola Salustri<br />
Indicherò con il termine “bilinguismo” solo l’acquisizione simultanea di due<br />
lingue dalla nascita (Bilingual First Language Acquisition) o dai primi mesi di vita (<br />
Bilingual Second Language Acquisition) 3 . Nel caso in cui i bambini siano venuti in<br />
contatto con una seconda lingua solo dopo i due anni di età, è infatti più opportuno il<br />
termine di “acquisizione infantile di L2”. 4<br />
Dalla ricerca emerge chiaramente che i bambini hanno acquisito le regole<br />
grammaticali della lingua tedesca, il verbo viene posto infatti correttamente nella<br />
seconda posizione nelle frasi principali e nell’ultima nelle frasi subordinate. La<br />
presenza di frasi principali V1, cioè con verbo flesso in prima posizione, può essere<br />
analizzata come il risultato dell’omissione del primo elemento della frase dovuta a<br />
due distinti fenomeni: la Fase del Soggetto Nullo Infantile ed il Topic-drop.<br />
Quest’ultimo fenomeno, che caratterizza il tedesco parlato, viene ipergeneralizzato<br />
da uno dei bambini, Renzo, anche agli avverbi.<br />
Nel corpus di questo bambino sono presenti, seppur in percentuale molto<br />
limitata, anche frasi a V1 non analizzabili come il risultato dei suddetti fenomeni, le<br />
quali sembrano indicare una vera e propria fase nello sviluppo linguistico.<br />
Dai risultati emerge la tendenza riscontrata anche nell’input e sempre più<br />
frequente nel tedesco contemporaneo, a posizionare il verbo flesso in seconda<br />
posizione nelle subordinate introdotte da “weil”, come già notato da Schönenberg<br />
(1998) e Hamann (1997). Quest’uso non viene quindi considerato un’interferenza<br />
con l’italiano, ma è dovuto ad un influsso dell’input, infatti nella lingua parlata<br />
“weil” permette il Verb-Second (V2).<br />
Verranno riportati infine alcuni dati riguardanti l’acquisizione dell’italiano come L2<br />
da parte di Angela, una bambina di madrelingua tedesca di tre anni residente in Italia, i<br />
quali mostrano differenze evidenti rispetto ai corpus dei bambini italiani nelle stesse fasi<br />
dello sviluppo linguistico (cfr. Guasti (1993/1994)). Pur essendo limitati, questi dati<br />
sembrano mostrare che l’acquisizione infantile di L2 segue, almeno inizialmente,<br />
processi diversi rispetto all’acquisizione nei bambini bilingui e monolingui.<br />
L’articolo è organizzato come segue: dopo aver mostrato le diverse posizioni in<br />
cui può trovarsi il verbo nella frase tedesca, considerando anche il fenomeno del<br />
3 Per distinguere questi due casi di bilinguismo (BFLA e BSLA), spesso difficili da<br />
identificare, vengono usate a volte terminologie diverse. Bohnacker (1998) ad esempio,<br />
usa il termine “successive bilingualism” per indicare un tipo di acquisizione linguistica in<br />
cui l’esposizione alle due lingue ha avuto luogo entro il primo anno di vita ma non fin<br />
dalla nascita: “Successive bilingualism takes place when children are exposed to a second<br />
language not from birth but later, tough well before they have mastered the essentials of<br />
their first language. […] ... successive bilingualism in childhood is sometimes not<br />
consider “proper” bilingualism or true second language acquisition.”.<br />
4 Cfr. De Houwer (1996).<br />
86
Bilinguismo e acquisizione infantile di L2<br />
Topic-drop, verranno analizzati alcuni aspetti della grammatica infantile. Verrà<br />
quindi presentato il corpus raccolto, mentre la sezione 7 avrà come oggetto i risultati<br />
dell’analisi quantitativa. Nell’ultima parte si discuteranno i risultati ottenuti alla luce<br />
della teoria linguistica adottata.<br />
2. La struttura della frase tedesca<br />
2.1. Asimmetria principale-subordinata: il fenomeno del Verb-Second<br />
Nella lingua tedesca gli elementi nominali hanno una distribuzione piuttosto<br />
libera, dato che, nonostante la presenza di un ordine stabilito nella frase, sono<br />
presenti posizioni cosiddette di scrambling, cioè posizioni dove il costituente<br />
nominale può trovarsi liberamente. 5 La posizione del verbo è invece molto più<br />
rigida: questo si trova necessariamente nella seconda posizione nelle frasi principali<br />
come in (1)-(2) (Verb- second) mentre nelle subordinate, come in (3)-(4), il verbo<br />
occupa l’ultima posizione (Verb-final) 6 .<br />
(1) Der Professor las ein Buch.<br />
Il professore leggeva un libro<br />
S V O<br />
(2) Ein Buch las der Professor.<br />
Un libro leggeva il professore<br />
O V S<br />
(3) , daß der Professor ein Buch las.<br />
, che il professore un libro leggeva<br />
S O V<br />
(4) , ob der Professor ein Buch las.<br />
, se il professore un libro leggeva.<br />
S O V<br />
5 Cfr. Cardinaletti & Giusti (1996).<br />
6 Questa asimmetria tra la frase principale e la frase subordinata ha causato una notevole<br />
incertezza ai fini di un inquadramento tipologico della lingua tedesca, caratterizzata da un<br />
possibile ordine SVO nelle principali e da un ordine SOV nelle subordinate. La prima e<br />
meglio conosciuta analisi in ambito generativo del fenomeno del V2 (v. Thiersch (1978) e<br />
Den Besten (1983)) considera il tedesco come una lingua SOV e spiega l’ordine della<br />
principale come il risultato di un movimento testa a testa del verbo flesso da INFL a C°<br />
(cfr. tra gli altri, la discussione in Tomaselli (1990), v. paragrafo 3.2.1).<br />
87
Manola Salustri<br />
Nel caso in cui la prima posizione nelle frasi principali sia occupata dall’oggetto o<br />
da un altro costituente, come un avverbio, il soggetto segue immediatamente il verbo<br />
flesso nell’ordine frasale, come in (1), fenomeno sintattico designato come Inversione. 7<br />
Questo schema è generalmente rispettato in tedesco, ma esistono contesti in cui il<br />
verbo può trovarsi in posizioni diverse: questo può infatti occupare la prima e la seconda<br />
posizione nelle frasi principali, la prima, la seconda e l’ultima nelle subordinate.<br />
Le frasi principali a Verb-First sono costituite dalle Interrogative SI/NO, dalle<br />
imperative e dalle frasi caratterizzate da Topic-drop. (v. par. successivo). Le frasi<br />
subordinate invece, possono avere il verbo in prima posizione nelle frasi ipotetiche<br />
non introdotte da un complementatore. 8<br />
Il V2 nelle subordinate è invece possibile con i verbi cosiddetti “bridge” (come<br />
sagen, meinen, glauben, denken, wissen) con C nullo, e nelle subordinate introdotte<br />
da “weil” nel registro parlato.<br />
2.2. Il fenomeno del Topic-drop in tedesco<br />
Nelle frasi principali in (5) e (6) il soggetto e l’oggetto, rispettivamente, sono<br />
omessi. Tale processo, che è possibile nella lingua parlata quando il soggetto e<br />
l’oggetto sono noti e recuperabili dal contesto, viene chiamato Topic-drop. Non è<br />
possibile omettere altri tipi di complementi, né marcati con il caso dativo o genitivo,<br />
7 Tutte le lingue germaniche, tranne l’inglese moderno, presentano il fenomeno del V2, così<br />
come le lingue romanze medievali. Studi recenti hanno mostrato però, che non tutte le<br />
lingue a V2 presentano un’asimmetria principale-subordinata. L’Islandese e l’Yiddish, ad<br />
esempio, presentano questo fenomeno, ma con caratteristiche parzialmente diverse<br />
rispetto al tedesco. In queste lingue infatti il V2 è caratterizzato dalla restrizione alla<br />
seconda posizione del verbo flesso e dall’inversione del soggetto, qualora la prima<br />
posizione sia occupata da un altro costituente, non è presente però l’asimmetria tra frasi<br />
principali e frasi subordinate, il V2 in queste lingue è un fenomeno generale, come si nota<br />
nei seguenti esempi:<br />
(i) Jonas tsveyfelt az morgen vet Miriam fri oyfshteyn. (Yiddish) Fr. Sub.<br />
John doubts (on) that-tomorrow will M. early stand up.<br />
(ii) Jón efast um að á morgun fari María snemma á fætur. (Islandese) Fr. Sub.<br />
John doubts (on) that-tomorrow will M. early stand up.<br />
(per una discussione più dettagliata cfr. Vikner (1994)).<br />
L’Yiddish, in particolare, non ha sempre permesso il V2 nelle frasi subordinate come accade<br />
adesso, troviamo infatti la stessa asimmetria principale/subordinata in alcuni testi<br />
dell’Yiddish medievale. (cfr. Santorini (1995)). Questa lingua presenta quindi il processo<br />
inverso rispetto all’inglese, il quale pur permettendo il V2 nel periodo medievale, ha perso<br />
questo fenomeno in seguito, conservandone solo alcune tracce (cfr. Belletti e Rizzi (1996)).<br />
8 Questo tipo di costruzione si ha anche in italiano in frasi come la seguente:<br />
88<br />
(i) Avessi il tempo, lo farei.
Bilinguismo e acquisizione infantile di L2<br />
né introdotti da una preposizione e, come notato da Huang (1984), in una frase può<br />
essere omesso un solo argomento . Il Topic-drop è un fenomeno “radice”, non si può<br />
avere nelle subordinate, in contesti post-verbali o post-wh. Gli esempi seguenti<br />
riassumono questo aspetto della distribuzione:<br />
(5) __ist gekommen omissione del soggetto<br />
(lui) è arrivato.<br />
(6) __hat er gekauft. omissione dell’oggetto<br />
(esso) ha lui comprato.<br />
(7) *, dass__gegessen hat *omissione in una subordinata<br />
, che (lui) mangiato ha<br />
(8) *Was hat__gegessen? *omissione in contesto post-verbale<br />
cosa ha (lui) mangiato<br />
(9) A: Braucht er Hilfe? *omissione di un complemento<br />
Ha bisogno lui di aiuto marcato con il caso genitivo (ihm)<br />
B: __habe ich schon geholfen<br />
(lui +dat.) ho io già aiutato.<br />
(10) A: Ist Hans gekommen? *omissione di un complemento<br />
è Hans arrivato? introdotto da una preposizione<br />
B: __habe ich lange gewartet (auf ihn)<br />
(a lui +acc.) ho io a lungo aspettato<br />
Seguendo Rizzi (1994), il Topic-drop è possibile solo se il costituente è omesso<br />
dalla prima posizione della frase, cioè dallo Spec/CP, una chiara manifestazione di<br />
quello che Rizzi definisce “Privilege of the Root”. Gli espletivi, non costituendo un<br />
elemento topicalizzato, cioè dato, non sottostanno a questo processo. 9<br />
Si assume che le frasi a Topic-drop coinvolgano il movimento di un operatore<br />
nullo (OP), generato nella posizione soggetto o nella posizione oggetto, dalla<br />
posizione di base allo Spec/CP. Tale movimento lascia come traccia una variabile<br />
legata dall’operatore. Quest’ultimo verrà identificato dal discorso tramite un<br />
elemento topic introdotto da una frase precedente.<br />
Consideriamo ad esempio la rappresentazione in (11).<br />
(11) [CP OP i kommt [IP ti morgen]] omissione del soggetto in tedesco<br />
arriva domani<br />
9 L’omissione di un espletivo dalla prima posizione della frase, non accettabile in tedesco, è<br />
invece possibile nello svedese parlato in frasi come la seguente (cfr. Rizzi (2000)):<br />
(i) (det) verkar som om…<br />
(esso) sembra come se....<br />
89
Manola Salustri<br />
Anche se apparentemente il verbo finito in queste costruzioni sembra occupare la<br />
prima posizione, si assume che nelle frasi a Topic-drop il verbo sia preceduto da un<br />
operatore nullo. Nelle lingue come il cinese ed il tedesco, quindi, la possibilità di omettere<br />
soggetti ed oggetti è dovuta alla disponibilità di un operatore nullo legato al discorso.<br />
Consideriamo adesso la categoria vuota lasciata dal movimento dell’operatore<br />
nella posizione di base. Essa non può essere pro, altrimenti avrebbe la stessa<br />
distribuzione che si trova nelle frasi a soggetto nullo ad esempio in italiano, non può<br />
essere PRO perché questa categoria, identificata dai tratti [+ana; +pro] si trova solo in<br />
contesti non flessi, in particolare come soggetto non esplicito delle infinitive e non può<br />
essere una traccia di NP perché si trova in una posizione a cui viene dato caso.<br />
Rizzi propone che la categoria vuota nei contesti di Topic-drop sia una costante<br />
nulla 10 , identificata dai tratti [-a, -p, -v] e legata all’operatore nullo, che si trova<br />
sempre in prima posizione ed è legato al discorso. Questo tipo di categoria si ha in<br />
frasi come in (12)-(14).<br />
(12) This book [OP I really like NC] Topicalizzazione in inglese<br />
(13) [OP habe [NC es schon gesehen]] Topic-drop in tedesco<br />
ho ciò già visto<br />
(14) [OP[NC kanjian ta le]] Topic-drop in cinese<br />
ha visto lui-ASP<br />
Il parametro responsabile delle frasi a soggetto ed oggetto nullo nel tedesco ed<br />
anche nel cinese, è il parametro del Topic-drop (vedi Huang (1984)): 11 .<br />
Parametro del Topic-drop<br />
È disponibile un operatore legato al discorso? (si/no)<br />
Nelle lingue come l’italiano e lo spagnolo, cosiddette a pro-drop, i soggetti nulli<br />
vengono invece interpretati come pro, elementi pronominali non realizzati<br />
foneticamente i cui tratti di accordo, seguendo Rizzi (1986), possono essere<br />
recuperati grazie ai tratti di accordo presenti in I.<br />
10 Lasnik e Stowell (1991) hanno proposto di differenziare le categorie vuote [-ana; +pro] in<br />
vere variabili ed epiteti nulli, osservando che certe costruzioni ad operatore nullo hanno<br />
un’interpretazione ed un’analisi diversa dalle costruzioni ad operatore quantificazionale e<br />
variabile in riferimento al fenomeno di Weak crossover.<br />
11 Il Topic drop in tedesco presenta delle differenze rispetto al Topic-drop in cinese. In<br />
quest’ultima lingua infatti l’omissione del soggetto e dell’oggetto non è limitata alla<br />
prima posizione della frase ma può trovarsi anche in frasi subordinate ed interrogative<br />
wh-. Tuttavia la possibilità di omettere soggetti ed oggetti viene riportata in entrambe le<br />
lingue alla disponibilità di un operatore nullo legato al discorso (cfr. Guasti, in stampa).<br />
90
Bilinguismo e acquisizione infantile di L2<br />
La distribuzione dei soggetti nulli nelle lingue è quindi governata dai seguenti<br />
parametri:<br />
(i) il parametro del pro-drop. (italiano, spagnolo, catalano)<br />
(ii) il parametro del Topic-drop. (cinese, coreano, tedesco)<br />
Come vedremo nel paragrafo 3., i soggetti nulli riscontrati nella grammatica infantile<br />
presentano delle caratteristiche diverse rispetto a quelli presenti nella grammatica adulta<br />
delle lingue a soggetto nullo e necessitano di una diversa interpretazione.<br />
3. Alcune osservazioni sulla grammatica infantile<br />
Numerosi studi hanno confermato che fino all’età di circa tre anni, i bambini<br />
hanno l’opzione di omettere il soggetto anche se la loro lingua target non è una<br />
lingua a soggetto nullo. Gli esempi in (15)-(17) mostrano questo aspetto della<br />
grammatica infantile in tedesco (15), francese (16) e danese (17).<br />
(15) __bin wieder lieb (Elisa 2; 10)<br />
am again good<br />
(I) am good again<br />
(16) __a tout tout tout mangé (Augustin 2; 0)<br />
has all all all eaten<br />
(he) has eaten all<br />
(17) __ikke køre traktor (Jens, 2; 0)<br />
not drive traktor<br />
(I, you, etc.don’t drive the tractor) (da Hamann (1997))<br />
Negli anni ottanta la fase del Soggetto nullo infantile era stata interpretata come il<br />
risultato di una scelta parametrica sbagliata da parte del bambino: seguendo Hyams<br />
(1986), il parametro del pro-drop è fissato inizialmente al valore positivo e solo se il<br />
bambino viene a contatto con una lingua non a pro-drop il parametro viene “rifissato”<br />
al valore negativo. Tuttavia studi più approfonditi hanno mostrato delle chiare<br />
discontinuità tra questo fenomeno e l’omissione del soggetto nelle lingue a pro-drop.<br />
Mentre in queste ultime l’omissione del soggetto è possibile anche in frasi subordinate<br />
e nelle interrogative wh-, come in (18) e (19), i soggetti nulli non sono presenti in<br />
questi contesti strutturali nei bambini che acquisiscono lingue non a pro-drop.<br />
(18) Gianni canta quando pro è contento.<br />
(19) Chi hai pro visto?<br />
Come mostrano le frasi in (20)-(21) l’omissione del soggetto in questi contesti è<br />
invece presente nei bambini che acquisiscono l’italiano. Sembra quindi che il<br />
parametro del pro-drop venga fissato molto presto.<br />
91
Manola Salustri<br />
(20) Ov’è? (Martina,1;8)<br />
(21) Pecchè piangi? (Martina, 2;3) (da Cipriani et al. (1993))<br />
Seguendo Rizzi (1994), i bambini hanno l’opzione di omettere il soggetto solo se<br />
esso si trova nello Specificatore della Radice, il fenomeno del Soggetto nullo<br />
infantile è infatti limitato alla prima posizione assoluta nelle frasi con verbo flesso.<br />
La presenza di soggetti nulli in posizioni non iniziali, come in (22), è limitata<br />
alla frasi caratterizzate da un altro fenomeno della grammatica infantile, i Root<br />
Infinitives, 12 o infiniti principali, la differenza cruciale è che tale presenza è limitata<br />
a contesti non flessi (v. par. 3.1.). 13<br />
(22) Where ____go(ing)<br />
La restrizione del fenomeno alla prima posizione assoluta nelle frasi con verbo<br />
flesso ha portato a trovare degli elementi di continuità tra questo ed altri “fenomeniradice”<br />
presenti nella lingua adulta, come il Topic-drop (cfr. tra gli altri Bromberg e<br />
Wexler (1995)), ed il Diary-drop, osservato in alcuni registri particolari (per una<br />
discussione più dettagliata di questo tipo di omissione cfr. Haegeman (2000)).<br />
Come si è visto nel paragrafo precedente, anche nelle lingue germaniche<br />
caratterizzate da Topic-drop, i soggetti nulli non possono trovarsi in posizione postverbale<br />
o post-wh, lasciando supporre che questo fenomeno e la fase del Soggetto<br />
nullo infantile siano interpretabili con un’analisi simile, mettendo in gioco una<br />
categoria vuota diversa da pro, specificamente una costante nulla legata ad un<br />
operatore nullo (vedi par. 2.2.), come in (23).<br />
(23) [CP OPi [IP ti wan(t) do (a)gain] (Sarah, 2;7, da Guasti, in stampa)<br />
Come notato da Hyams e Wexler (1993) è tuttavia presente una significativa<br />
differenza tra la fase del Soggetto nullo infantile ed il fenomeno del Topic-drop.<br />
Dato che il fenomeno del Topic-drop permette anche l’omissione di oggetti,<br />
dovremmo riscontrare nella grammatica infantile dell’inglese anche la presenza di<br />
oggetti nulli. Gli studi di Hyams e Wexler mostrano invece una notevole asimmetria<br />
tra l’omissione di soggetti ed oggetti nei bambini inglesi, mentre nei bambini cinesi<br />
questa non è riscontrata (cfr. Wang, Lillo Martin, Bast e Levitt (1992)). Questa<br />
osservazione lascia supporre che il fenomeno del soggetto nullo in inglese non sia<br />
interpretabile con l’analisi in (23).<br />
12 Cfr. Wexler (1992), cfr. anche Rizzi (1993/94).<br />
13 Dal momento che un ambiente non flesso può licenziare un soggetto non realizzato<br />
foneticamente, la presenza dell’uso di forme non flesse nelle grammatiche infantili potrebbe<br />
essere la diretta causa della non realizzazione del soggetto in questi casi (cfr. Rizzi (2000)).<br />
92
Bilinguismo e acquisizione infantile di L2<br />
In particolare, verificando la curva estensiva dell’omissione del soggetto nelle<br />
lingue germaniche a V-2 si osservano delle differenze, indicate di seguito, tra questo<br />
fenomeno nella grammatica infantile ed il fenomeno del Topic-drop nella lingua<br />
adulta (le osservazioni si riferiscono a studi di Haegeman (1995) sull’olandese):<br />
(i) Mentre la grammatica infantile permette l’omissione degli espletivi, la<br />
grammatica adulta non presenta questa opzione. 14<br />
(ii) In tutti i bambini esaminati c’è una fase in cui gli infiniti principali ed i<br />
soggetti nulli decrescono parallelamente, il che lascia supporre una<br />
correlazione tra i due fenomeni.<br />
Basandosi su queste osservazioni Haegeman (1995) sostiene che i soggetti nulli<br />
presenti nelle grammatiche infantili di lingue come olandese e tedesco, caratterizzate<br />
dal Topic-drop, debbano essere considerate non come il risultato di questo<br />
fenomeno, bensì come il risultato di troncamenti nella struttura, responsabili anche<br />
della presenza di Root Infinitives, così come proposto da Rizzi (1994) per i bambini<br />
francesi ed inglesi (vedi paragrafo successivo).<br />
Nel paragrafo seguente verrà presentata la teoria del Troncamento di Rizzi<br />
(1994). Questa teoria, tenendo conto delle osservazioni di Haegeman (1995), verrà<br />
generalizzata anche alle lingue a V2, come il tedesco. Seguendo Rizzi (1997) verrà<br />
adottata una struttura del CP più articolata in modo da mantenere un’analisi<br />
simmetrica del fenomeno del V2, pur ipotizzando la possibilità di troncamenti. Si<br />
assumerà infatti che in queste lingue il troncamento ha luogo ad un livello più alto<br />
della struttura rispetto a lingue come il francese o l’inglese, in modo da mantenere<br />
una struttura sufficiente all’analisi del V2. (vedi par. 3.2.)<br />
È plausibile pensare, tuttavia, che perlomeno una parte dei soggetti nulli infantili<br />
in queste lingue sia dovuta al fenomeno del Topic-drop, come confermano i dati<br />
della ricerca, in cui non solo soggetti, ma anche oggetti vengono omessi dai<br />
bambini. Questo aspetto verrà discusso nel paragrafo 3.2.2.<br />
3.1. L’ipotesi del Troncamento<br />
Seguendo Rizzi (1994) la grammatica infantile, pur possedendo la stessa<br />
struttura frasale della grammatica target, quindi l’intera gamma delle categorie<br />
funzionali, non comprende vincoli per quanto riguarda la radice delle frasi<br />
dichiarative. Seguendo questa ipotesi, il principio in (24), secondo il quale il sistema<br />
14 L’omissione di espletivi nella prima posizione nella lingua parlata è comunque<br />
accettabile in altre lingue a Topic-drop come lo svedese (vedi nota 9) non<br />
sarebbe irragionevole pensare, quindi, che i bambini ipergeneralizzino una regola<br />
della grammatica adulta.<br />
93
Manola Salustri<br />
del complementatore viene sempre proiettato nella struttura della grammatica adulta,<br />
viene acquisito dai bambini solo verso i tre anni di età. 15<br />
(24) The Root Principle (Rizzi 1994)<br />
CP = Root<br />
Ne deriva che i bambini possono proiettare delle strutture “troncate”, ad esempio<br />
non comprendenti CP all’inizio del loro sviluppo linguistico. Il troncamento in un<br />
punto della struttura implica che tutte le categorie al di sotto di tale punto siano<br />
incluse nella rappresentazione, mentre le categorie al di sopra ne siano escluse. Se la<br />
struttura viene troncata ad Agr, ad esempio, come in (25), viene proiettato solo TP,<br />
di modo che l’accordo non risulterà specificato.<br />
(25)<br />
94<br />
CP<br />
spec C’<br />
C<br />
spec<br />
15 Cfr. anche Rizzi (2000).<br />
Agr P<br />
Agr<br />
Agr’<br />
spec<br />
neg P<br />
neg<br />
neg’<br />
spec<br />
TP<br />
T’<br />
T VP<br />
spec V’<br />
V
Bilinguismo e acquisizione infantile di L2<br />
Seguendo Rizzi l’opzione di troncamento nella struttura è responsabile della<br />
presenza di Root Infinitives (o infiniti principali) e Soggetti nulli nella grammatica<br />
dei bambini.<br />
Come si è visto sopra, l’omissione del soggetto nella grammatica infantile di<br />
lingue non a pro-drop è stata riscontrata prevalentemente in due casi:<br />
(i) con infiniti non flessi.<br />
(ii) nella prima posizione assoluta.<br />
Seguendo Rizzi, possiamo assumere che il soggetto nullo in contesti non flessi<br />
sia PRO, presente anche nella grammatica adulta, per cui vale la seguente restrizione<br />
di occorrenza:<br />
PRO è legittimato in contesti non flessi.<br />
Quest’ultimo sarebbe legittimato dalla presenza dei cosiddetti Root Infinitives<br />
(RI), presenti nella grammatica infantile e dovuti, seguendo Rizzi (1998), alla<br />
presenza di strutture troncate in cui Agr non è specificato.<br />
Il soggetto nullo legittimato nello specificatore della radice, sempre seguendo<br />
Rizzi, sarebbe invece una costante nulla. Ipotizzando che i bambini di due-tre anni<br />
abbiano l’opzione di “troncare” la struttura a diversi livelli, ad esempio IP, lo<br />
Spec/IP diverrebbe lo Spec. della radice. Quest’ultimo, assumendo la riformulazione<br />
dell’ECP in (26), proposta da Rizzi (1994) risulta libero dal principio di<br />
identificazione, non essendo c-comandato da nessun’altra posizione.<br />
(26) ECP.<br />
Una categoria vuota non pronominale deve essere identificata da un antecedente<br />
che la c-comanda solo se può esserlo.<br />
Una costante nulla (NC) generata nello specificatore della radice non ha bisogno di<br />
essere identificata e ciò permette un’analisi del soggetto nullo infantile come in (27).<br />
(27) [NC mange du pain] (Grégoire, 2;1, da Guasti, in stampa)<br />
eat-3SG some bread<br />
3.1.1. Osservazioni sul fenomeno del Troncamento ed il fenomeno del Topic-drop<br />
Nel paragrafo 3. abbiamo visto che il fenomeno del soggetto nullo infantile non<br />
può essere interamente ridotto ad un’interpretazione come in (23). in quanto sono<br />
presenti degli elementi di discontinuità tra questo fenomeno ed il Topic-drop che<br />
caratterizza la grammatica adulta di lingue come l’olandese o il tedesco (vedi<br />
Haegeman (1995)). Seguendo Rizzi (1994/2000) abbiamo quindi interpretato i<br />
95
Manola Salustri<br />
soggetti nulli infantili come costanti nulle generate nello specificatore della radice,<br />
dovute all’opzione di troncamenti della struttura.<br />
Contrariamente all’ipotesi di Haegeman (1995) (v. par. 3), sembra però<br />
plausibile pensare che nelle lingue caratterizzate dal Topic-drop come il tedesco e<br />
l’olandese, la presenza di soggetti nulli nella grammatica infantile sia dovuta almeno<br />
in parte alla presenza di questo fenomeno.<br />
I dati relativi al cinese ci mostrano che i bambini che imparano questa lingua<br />
hanno fissato il parametro già molto presto (v. Wang et al. (1992)) sarebbe quindi<br />
improbabile che nei bambini tedeschi ed olandesi non avvenga lo stesso. I dati della<br />
ricerca relativi al corpus di Renzo, inoltre, (v. pag. 26) mostrano che sono presenti<br />
anche omissioni di oggetti. Questo lascia supporre che il bambino abbia fissato il<br />
parametro del Topic-drop. Nei bambini che acquisiscono l’inglese, che non presenta<br />
questo fenomeno, questo tipo di omissione non è infatti riscontrata.<br />
Hamann (1997), analizzando il corpus di due bambini tedeschi di circa tre<br />
anni, ha notato una diminuzione dei soggetti nulli in prima posizione dal 40% al<br />
5% nel corso del loro sviluppo linguistico. Questa diminuzione, come quella di<br />
Renzo, indica che il bambino ha perso un’opzione, quella di troncare la struttura,<br />
mentre è ancora presente un meccanismo di legittimazione dei soggetti nulli<br />
identificabile proprio nel fenomeno del Topic-drop che resterà operativo anche<br />
nella lingua adulta.<br />
3.2. L’acquisizione della posizione del verbo<br />
L’acquisizione della posizione del verbo è stata il centro di interesse di molte<br />
ricerche sull’acquisizione del linguaggio. Il tedesco, in particolare, come si è visto<br />
sopra, presenta un ordine verbale piuttosto complesso (SVO nelle principali con<br />
soggetto in prima posizione, SOV nelle subordinate), ma dalle ricerche emerge che i<br />
bambini non commettono errori nel posizionare il verbo. 16 Nelle principali viene<br />
rispettato il parametro del V2, e non appena i bambini iniziano ad usare le<br />
subordinate il verbo viene subito posto in ultima posizione (Rothweiler (1993)).<br />
Seguendo Clahsen (1982), superata la fase di una sola parola, gli ordini verbali<br />
prevalenti sono V2 e Verb-final e non si hanno casi in cui il verbo appare prima del<br />
soggetto nelle frasi principali dichiarative (VS). Gli ordini dominanti nelle frasi<br />
principali, con differenze a seconda del bambino, sono quindi SVO e SOV.<br />
Come notato da Poeppel e Wexler (1993) il verbo si trova correttamente nella<br />
seconda posizione se flesso, mentre i verbi all’infinito o senza flessione sono<br />
collocati in posizione finale (si veda anche Clahsen (1990)).<br />
16 Cfr. tra gli altri Meisel (1992), cfr. anche Poeppel & Wexler (1993).<br />
96
(28) ich hab ein dossen Ball. Verbo flesso<br />
I have a big ball<br />
Bilinguismo e acquisizione infantile di L2<br />
(29) du das haben. Verbo non flesso<br />
you that have (da Poeppel eWexler (1993))<br />
Gli oggetti e gli avverbi vengono topicalizzati, cioè posti all’inizio della frase già<br />
molto presto. Inizialmente il soggetto è spesso omesso in prima posizione, raramente<br />
in posizione post-verbale e nelle frasi subordinate, e quasi mai nelle interrogative Wh.<br />
Per quanto riguarda i bambini bilingui, non sono state riscontrate differenze<br />
rilevanti rispetto ai bambini monolingui, tranne una minore variabilità nell’ordine<br />
dei costituenti frasali all’inizio della fase delle due parole. 17<br />
3.2.1. Osservazioni sull’ipotesi del Troncamento d il fenomeno del Verb-second<br />
Seguendo Poeppel e Wexler (1993), come si è visto sopra, già dalle prime fasi<br />
dell’acquisizione del tedesco i bambini non commettono errori per quanto riguarda il<br />
parametro del V2: il verbo flesso si trova cioè correttamente in seconda posizione<br />
nelle frasi principali, mentre il soggetto od un altro costituente frasale occupa la<br />
prima posizione.<br />
Seguendo l’analisi tradizionale, detta simmetrica 18 , il fenomeno del V2 può<br />
essere spiegato sostenendo che il tedesco ha un ordine di base SOV e che l’ordine<br />
presente nelle frasi principali è dovuto all’interazione di due movimenti sintattici:<br />
(i) un movimento sintattico del verbo flesso dalla posizione di base a C°<br />
(VIC°).<br />
(ii) un movimento sintattico di un primo costituente della frase dalla posizione di<br />
base a Spec/C.<br />
17 Basandosi sui dati di tre bambini bilingui francese-tedesco, Meisel e Müller hanno<br />
riscontrato alcuni errori nelle frasi subordinate. Uno dei bambini, Ivar, utilizza lo stesso<br />
ordine presente nelle frasi principali, con il verbo flesso che segue direttamente il primo<br />
costituente della frase. Gli altri due bambini bilingui usano lo schema del verb-final non<br />
appena iniziano ad usare frasi subordinate e non commettono errori. Müller sostiene che<br />
anche i bambini che acquisiscono tedesco e inglese (v. Leopold (1949)) e italiano e<br />
tedesco (v. Taeschner (1983)) commettono occasionalmente errori nelle subordinate,<br />
posizionando il verbo nella prima, nella seconda o nella terza posizione. Durante questo<br />
periodo i bambini usano allo stesso tempo anche lo schema del verb-final nelle<br />
subordinate. (cfr. Meisel e Müller (1992)).<br />
18 L’analisi simmetrica tratta uniformemente le frasi principali a soggetto iniziale (SVO) e le<br />
frasi principali non a soggetto iniziale (XVS), mentre nell’analisi asimmetrica, proposta da<br />
Travis e ripresa da Zwart nel 1990 le prime vengono considerate con una struttura più piccola<br />
rispetto alle ultime con l’ordine V2 espresso a livello dell’IP. Per una discussione più<br />
approfondita del fenomeno del V2 vedi tra gli altri i lavori raccolti in Belletti & Rizzi (1996).<br />
97
Manola Salustri<br />
La periferia sinistra della frase si rende quindi necessaria come posizione di<br />
arrivo del verbo flesso (C°) e del primo costituente frasale (Spec/C).<br />
Come abbiamo mostrato nel paragrafo 3.1. la presenza di RI e di Soggetti nulli<br />
nella grammatica infantile viene interpretata, seguendo Rizzi (1994/2000), con<br />
l’opzione di troncamenti nella struttura. D’altra parte, ipotizzando un troncamento<br />
ad Agr, questo verrebbe ad eliminare la periferia sinistra della frase, verrebbe<br />
dunque a mancare una struttura sufficiente a spiegare il movimento del verbo flesso,<br />
non essendo più disponibile una posizione di arrivo per il primo costituente della<br />
frase (Spec/C) ed una per il verbo (C°), come in (30).<br />
(30)<br />
98<br />
CP<br />
spec C’<br />
C<br />
spec<br />
Agr P<br />
Agr<br />
Agr’<br />
spec<br />
neg P<br />
neg<br />
neg’<br />
spec<br />
TP<br />
T’<br />
T VP<br />
spec V’<br />
Questo tipo di analisi porterebbe quindi a dover dare un’interpretazione non<br />
uniforme della conoscenza del fenomeno del V2, applicata in alcune frasi, quelle<br />
V
Bilinguismo e acquisizione infantile di L2<br />
cioè con soggetto realizzato fonologicamente, in cui la periferia sinistra della frase<br />
viene attivata, ma non in altre, quelle a soggetto nullo, costituite da strutture<br />
“troncate” in cui viene proiettato solo IP. Si porrebbe inoltre il problema di<br />
considerare IP a testa mediale nella grammatica infantile, in modo da rendere conto<br />
dell’ordine dei costituenti frasali (VO) e a testa finale nella grammatica adulta,<br />
ipotizzando un cambiamento ad un certo punto dello sviluppo linguistico.<br />
Se vogliamo mantenere l’ipotesi che anche nelle frasi a soggetto nullo i<br />
bambini applicano la conoscenza che sottende il V2, dobbiamo adottare un’analisi<br />
più complessa della periferia sinistra della frase. Questo ci permetterà di<br />
analizzare il fenomeno del V2 ipotizzando anche la possibilità di troncamenti nella<br />
struttura nelle prime fasi di acquisizione del linguaggio ad un certo punto dello<br />
sviluppo linguistico. 19<br />
Una proposta che permette un’analisi soddisfacente di entrambi i fenomeni<br />
consiste nell’adottare la teoria di Rizzi (1997) riguardo allo split-CP. Seguendo<br />
Rizzi, il livello del CP dovrebbe essere suddiviso in un numero maggiore di<br />
proiezioni funzionali 20 . Basandosi su dati di italiano, inglese, francese, Rizzi<br />
propone la struttura in (31), in cui la testa funzionale indicata con Fin contiene le<br />
informazioni sulla finitezza della frase. La testa funzionale Focus ospita i costituenti<br />
focalizzati, ed i costituenti interrogativi, mentre la testa Topic ospita gli elementi<br />
topicalizzati. Topic, contrariamente a Focus è ricorsivo, come indicato da *.<br />
19 Seguendo Haegeman (1995) la generalizzazione della proposta di Rizzi (1994) alle lingue<br />
a V2 implica una riconsiderazione della grammatica di queste ultime. Per mantenere<br />
un’analisi del V2 nella grammatica infantile ipotizzando la possibilità di troncamenti nella<br />
struttura, Haegeman propone di adottare un’analisi asimmetrica del V2 come proposta da<br />
Travis e ripresa da Zwart (1990). In questo caso, le frasi con soggetto iniziale verrebbero<br />
analizzate come IP (con I a testa mediale) mentre le frasi XPVS verrebbero analizzate<br />
come CP. Nelle frasi con soggetto iniziale quindi, la parte periferica della struttura non<br />
verrebbe attivata ed un’eventuale troncamento, responsabile della presenza di soggetti<br />
nulli infantili, permetterebbe tuttavia un’analisi del V2 all’interno di IP. Haegeman<br />
propone che la periferia sinistra venga invece attivata in entrambi i casi nella grammatica<br />
adulta, lasciando però questo aspetto come un problema aperto (per una discussione più<br />
dettagliata cfr. Haegeman (1995)).<br />
20 Cfr. Rizzi (1997).<br />
99
Manola Salustri<br />
(31)<br />
Con un sistema del CP più articolato, il fenomeno del Verb-Second non può<br />
ricevere un’interpretazione uniforme in cui il verbo sale a C° ed il primo costituente<br />
della frase sale allo Spec/C. Dobbiamo infatti considerare a quale testa, nel dominio<br />
di CP, salga il verbo, ed in quale Spec salga il primo costituente.<br />
Partendo da questo presupposto Haegeman (1996) ha ipotizzato una nuova<br />
analisi del fenomeno del V2, basandosi sull’olandese, proponendo la<br />
rappresentazione in (32). Per frasi del tipo SVO, il soggetto muove allo Spec/Fin ed<br />
il verbo flesso alla testa Fin, mentre i costituenti topicalizzati (oggetti, avverbi, ecc.)<br />
si muoverebbero, seguendo Haegeman, a Spec/Top 21 .<br />
21 Cfr. Haegeman (1996).<br />
100<br />
Force P<br />
SPEC Force’<br />
Force<br />
Top P*<br />
SPEC Top’<br />
Top<br />
SPEC<br />
Foc P<br />
Foc<br />
Foc’<br />
SPEC<br />
Top P*<br />
Top’<br />
Top Fin P<br />
SPEC<br />
Fin’<br />
Fin IP
(32)<br />
SPEC<br />
Force<br />
Force<br />
Force’<br />
Fin P<br />
SPEC Fin’<br />
het<br />
Fin<br />
regende<br />
Bilinguismo e acquisizione infantile di L2<br />
IP<br />
de hele dag<br />
Contrariamente all’ipotesi tradizionale, quindi, in cui il costituente che precede il<br />
verbo flesso muove sempre a Spec/C, nel sistema split-CP il costituente può<br />
occupare, a seconda delle caratteristiche di quest’ultimo, diverse posizioni nel<br />
dominio di CP. 22<br />
Quest’ultima analisi del fenomeno del Verb-second permette di esprimere certe<br />
proprietà interessanti, come il diverso comportamento di soggetti pronominali tonici<br />
ed atoni, (v. discussione in Tomaselli (1990)) presupponendo diversi “luoghi di<br />
arrivo” a seconda degli elementi considerati, all’interno del sistema del CP. Allo<br />
stesso tempo è possibile mantenere un’analisi unitaria del V2, in quanto il fenomeno<br />
risulta operativo sia nelle frasi SVO, nelle quali il soggetto si muove a Spec/FinP,<br />
che nelle frasi non a soggetto iniziale, in cui il primo costituente si muove a<br />
posizioni diverse a seconda delle sue proprietà.<br />
Presupponendo una struttura più articolata del CP possiamo ipotizzare che il<br />
troncamento avvenga ad un certo livello del sistema del complementatore. Tale<br />
troncamento, responsabile della presenza di Soggetti nulli infantili 23 , sarebbe<br />
tuttavia più alto della posizione di arrivo del verbo e dell’elemento topicalizzato, in<br />
modo da rendere disponibile una struttura sufficiente per l’analisi del V2.<br />
22 Questa caratteristica avvicina l’ipotesi dello split CP all’analisi asimmetrica di Travis e<br />
Zwart, secondo la quale i due casi, SVO e XVS, vanno trattati in maniera distinta.<br />
23 Il troncamento responsabile della presenza dei Root Infinitives ha luogo in un punto più<br />
basso della struttura sotto la specificazione temporale.<br />
101
Manola Salustri<br />
Seguendo questa ipotesi, il livello del troncamento sarà più alto nei bambini che<br />
acquisiscono una lingua a V2, rispetto ai bambini che acquisiscono una lingua in cui<br />
questo fenomeno non è presente, come il francese, in cui la posizione di arrivo fuori<br />
da IP per il verbo flesso e per il primo costituente della frase non si rende necessaria.<br />
Queste osservazioni sulla Teoria del Troncamento implicano necessariamente un<br />
maggiore approfondimento, legato alla studio della periferia sinistra della frase ed al<br />
ruolo dei processi maturativi nell’acquisizione del linguaggio. Gli aspetti della teoria<br />
discussi sopra rimangono quindi un problema aperto, destinato ad ulteriori ricerche.<br />
4. Il Corpus<br />
Tre bambini bilingui italiano-tedesco di circa tre anni, residenti in Italia, Renzo,<br />
Samuele e Marianna, sono stati registrati per un periodo di circa un anno 24 . Le<br />
registrazioni di produzione spontanea, effettuate in un contesto di gioco, sono state<br />
trascritte nel formato CHAT e controllate da due parlanti di madrelingua tedesca ed<br />
una di madrelingua italiana (io stessa).<br />
Il corpus comprende inoltre tre registrazioni di Angela, una bambina di<br />
madrelingua tedesca residente in Italia che ha acquisito l’italiano solo dopo i tre anni<br />
e che quindi rappresenta un caso di acquisizione infantile di L2.<br />
Tav. 1. Corpus<br />
102<br />
BAMBINO TIPO_DI_ACQUISIZIONE ETÀ ITA TED ING<br />
Samuele BFLA 3;9-4;0 Si Si (Si)<br />
Renzo BFLA 3;5-4;1 Si Si No<br />
Marianna BFLA 3;8-4;2 Si Si No<br />
Anna L2 3;0-3;1 Si Si No<br />
* BFLA= Bilingual First Language Acquisition (v. Introduzione)<br />
L2= Acquisizione (infantile) di L2<br />
4.1. Renzo<br />
Il corpus principale è costituito dalle registrazioni di Renzo, che è stato seguito<br />
per un periodo di circa nove mesi. Le registrazioni sono infatti iniziate nel Gennaio<br />
’98, quando il bambino aveva 3;5 anni, e sono terminate nel Settembre ’98. Il<br />
bambino parla tedesco con la madre, con la quale trascorre la maggior parte della<br />
giornata, ed italiano con il padre. Renzo ha iniziato a frequentare l’asilo italiano<br />
all’età di 4;1 anni, ed ha una sorella Isa, di circa un anno e mezzo. Il tempo di<br />
24 Le registrazioni sono state effettuate con un registratore SONYTMC-59V.
Bilinguismo e acquisizione infantile di L2<br />
esposizione al tedesco è stato maggiore rispetto all’italiano, il padre parla comunque<br />
spesso al bambino in questa lingua. I genitori si sono rivolti a lui nelle due lingue fin<br />
dalla nascita, ed il bambino ha iniziato a formulare le prime frasi all’età di circa un<br />
anno e mezzo. Renzo è molto precoce ed il livello raggiunto sia in italiano che in<br />
tedesco è molto buono per la sua età. Le registrazioni sono state eseguite a casa del<br />
bambino, a Firenze, alla presenza della madre. Quando questa non era presente,<br />
un’altra persona di madrelingua tedesca o parlante L2 di tedesco si è rivolta a lui in<br />
questa lingua. In questo modo il bambino ha sempre avuto un referente per l’italiano<br />
(io stessa) ed uno per il tedesco.<br />
Tav. 2. Durata di esposizione durante il periodo delle registrazioni<br />
Renzo (BFLA)<br />
L. materna Ted., (Ita.) Tutta la giornata.<br />
L. paterna Ita. Alcune ore al giorno.<br />
L. ambiente Ita. Limitato (il bambino non frequenta ancora l’asilo).<br />
4.2. Samuele<br />
Samuele ha iniziato a frequentare l’asilo italiano a circa tre anni, ma già prima<br />
parlava italiano con i figli dei vicini e gli amici dei genitori. La lingua di famiglia è<br />
il tedesco (la madre è di madrelingua tedesca) ma il padre, di madrelingua inglese, a<br />
volte cerca di rivolgersi al bambino in questa lingua, quando giocano insieme.<br />
Samuele, che ha un fratellino di circa un anno e mezzo, si esprime molto bene sia in<br />
italiano che in tedesco, mentre il vocabolario inglese è limitato, anche se il bambino<br />
riesce a comprendere questa lingua. Le registrazioni sono state effettuate all’asilo o<br />
a casa del bambino. In quest’ultimo caso Samuele ha sempre avuto un referente di<br />
madrelingua italiana (io stessa), uno di madrelingua inglese e uno di madrelingua<br />
tedesca (la madre). Il corpus è costituito prevalentemente dalle lingue che<br />
riguardano questa ricerca, italiano e tedesco.<br />
Tav. 3. Durata di esposizione durante il periodo delle registrazioni<br />
Samuele (BFLA)<br />
L. materna Ted. Circa metà giornata.<br />
L. paterna Ing. Limitato (circa un’ora al giorno).<br />
L. ambiente Ita. Circa metà giornata (il bambino frequenta l’asilo da<br />
circa un anno*).<br />
* prima dell’inizio dell’asilo Samuele era esposto all’italiano per alcune ore al giorno<br />
103
Manola Salustri<br />
4.3. Marianna<br />
Marianna ha iniziato a parlare italiano fin dalla nascita con la baby-sitter e la<br />
sorellina Valery, tre anni più grande. La madre si rivolge alle bambine sempre in<br />
tedesco mentre il padre usa a volte anche l’italiano. Marianna si esprime<br />
correttamente sia in tedesco sia in italiano e presenta una forte inflessione toscana.<br />
Oltre a vocaboli dialettali notiamo la presenza della gorgia toscana. Le registrazioni<br />
sono state effettuate a casa della bambina, dalla madre, oppure all’asilo. Nella<br />
registrazione di Marianna sono presenti molti esempi di Code-Switching la bambina<br />
cioè “mischia “ i termini delle due lingue. 25<br />
Tav. 4. Durata di esposizione durante il periodo delle registrazioni.<br />
Marianna (BFLA)<br />
L. materna Ted. Circa metà giornata.<br />
L. paterna Ted. Alcune ore al giorno.<br />
L. ambiente Ita. circa metà giornata (la bambina frequenta l’asilo da<br />
circa un anno*).<br />
* prima dell’inizio dell’asilo Marianna era esposta all’italiano per alcune ore al<br />
giorno (baby-sitter italiana)<br />
4.4. Angela<br />
Lo sviluppo linguistico di Angela , una bambina di tre anni di madrelingua<br />
tedesca, è stato seguito per due mesi. La madre di Angela è tedesca mentre il padre è<br />
italiano; Angela ha anche un fratellino, Andrea, di circa cinque anni che come lei ha<br />
imparato l’italiano all’asilo, in quanto in famiglia i due bambini parlano solo<br />
tedesco. La prima registrazione è stata eseguita a Settembre, solo una settimana<br />
dopo l’apertura dell’asilo. Angela non riusciva ad esprimersi in italiano e giocava<br />
prevalentemente con gli altri bambini che parlano tedesco. La seconda registrazione<br />
è stata effettuata ad Ottobre, sempre all’asilo frequentato dalla bambina.<br />
25<br />
Alcuni esempi di Code-Switching dal corpus di Marianna (MAR- R1.):<br />
a. Ich bin auch eine incavolata.<br />
Io sono anche una incavolata<br />
b. Und das war lustig als du das in den insalata gemacht hast.<br />
E questo era divertente quando tu questo nell’insalata messo hai. (Marianna, 3; 8)<br />
104
Bilinguismo e acquisizione infantile di L2<br />
Tav. 5. Durata di esposizione durante il periodo delle registrazioni.<br />
Angela (L2)<br />
L. materna Ted. Circa metà giornata.<br />
L. paterna Ita. Limitato.*<br />
L. ambiente Ita. Circa metà giornata ( la bambina frequenta l’asilo<br />
da circa una settimana).<br />
* prima dell’inizio dell’asilo Angela era esposta quasi esclusivamente al tedesco<br />
5. Dati utilizzati nella ricerca<br />
In questa ricerca verranno utilizzati i dati relativi alla lingua tedesca nel corpus di<br />
Renzo, Samuele e Marianna, al fine di svolgere un’analisi quantitativa degli errori<br />
presenti rispetto alla posizione del verbo nelle frasi tedesche principali e<br />
subordinate. Le registrazioni contrassegnate da un asterisco non sono state utilizzate<br />
in quanto costituite prevalentemente da frasi in italiano.<br />
Verranno quindi considerati i dati relativi alla produzione spontanea di Angela,<br />
al fine di paragonare la sua acquisizione dell’italiano come L2 e l’acquisizione dei<br />
bambini italiani monolingui nelle stesse fasi dell’apprendimento.<br />
Tav. 6. Registrazioni utilizzate nella ricerca.<br />
Registrazioni Età del bambino Data<br />
Renzo<br />
R1 3;5 18.01.1998<br />
R2* 3;7 29.03.1998<br />
R3 3;9 04.05.1998<br />
R4 3;11 08.07.1998<br />
R5 4;1<br />
Samuele<br />
R1* 3;9 24.06.1998<br />
R2 3;10 28.07.1998<br />
R3 3;11 10.08.1998<br />
R4* 4;0 24.09.1998<br />
Marianna<br />
R1 3;8 20.12.1997<br />
R2* 3;9 12.01.1998<br />
R3* 4;2 24.06.1998<br />
Angela<br />
R1 3;0 24.09.1998<br />
R2 (a.& b.) 3;1 10.10.1998<br />
105
Manola Salustri<br />
6. Errori nella posizione del verbo nei bambini bilingui<br />
6.1. Metodo<br />
Nel paragrafo seguente verranno riportate tutte le frasi presenti nel corpus di<br />
Renzo con un ordine verbale scorretto. Ogni registrazione sarà analizzata<br />
singolarmente prendendo in considerazione prima le frasi principali, quindi le<br />
secondarie. Gli errori sono stati controllati da due parlanti di madrelingua tedesca<br />
che hanno letto l’intero corpus. Se è stata ipotizzata un’omissione, verrà indicato tra<br />
parentesi l’elemento omesso. I risultati dell’elaborazione verranno quindi confrontati<br />
con i dati di altri due bambini, Samuele e Marianna.<br />
6.2. Analisi delle frasi principali nel corpus di Renzo: i casi di Verb-First<br />
Considerando gli errori presenti nelle frasi principali del corpus di Renzo è<br />
emerso che, tranne alcuni rari casi di V3 e V-Final, la maggioranza delle frasi con<br />
verbo flesso non in seconda posizione è costituita da casi di Verb-First. Queste frasi,<br />
in cui il verbo flesso occupa la prima posizione, vengono analizzate, nella maggior<br />
parte dei casi, come il risultato dell’omissione di un elemento dalla prima posizione<br />
della frase, il Vorfeld, dovuto ai fenomeni del Topic-drop e del Soggetto nullo<br />
infantile, come in (33)-(34). (gli elementi tra parentesi sono omessi).<br />
(33) (Du) kommst auch von Fenster rein. omissione del soggetto (Renzo 3; 5)<br />
(tu) entri anche da finestra<br />
(34) (Das) kannst du ruhig reinwerfen . omissione dell’oggetto (Renzo 3; 5)<br />
(questo) puoi tu tranquillamente buttare.<br />
Per quanto l’omissione dell’oggetto sia difficile da valutare, in quanto spesso si<br />
creano contesti ambigui, le frasi considerate non avrebbero senso e non sarebbero<br />
grammaticalmente accettabili senza considerare l’omissione dell’oggetto, identificabile<br />
dal contesto (i giudizi sull’omissione degli oggetti sono stati dati da parlanti nativi che<br />
hanno letto non solo le frasi ma anche l’intero contesto delle registrazioni).<br />
A giudizio di parlanti nativi tedeschi, inoltre, in alcune frasi sembrerebbero<br />
essere omessi dalla prima posizione anche altri elementi oltre ai soggetti ed agli<br />
oggetti. In alcune frasi il bambino sembrerebbe omettere avverbi come jetzt<br />
(= adesso), dann (= poi), da (= qui).<br />
Prendiamo in considerazione alcune frasi ed il loro contesto come in (35) in cui<br />
l’avverbio jetzt è stato omesso:<br />
(35)<br />
*REN: und jetzt hab ich das Wasser wieder ausgestellt.<br />
E adesso ho io l’acqua di nuovo “chiuso”<br />
106
*RUF: mhm<br />
*REN: ___ hab ich das Wasser wieder ausgestellt.<br />
___ho io l’acqua di nuovo “chiuso”<br />
Bilinguismo e acquisizione infantile di L2<br />
In questo esempio possiamo facilmente ipotizzare un’omissione, trattandosi della<br />
ripetizione della stessa frase.<br />
I casi di Verb-First sono schematizzati nelle tabelle seguenti (gli elementi tra<br />
parentesi sono omessi).<br />
Tav. 7. Registrazione REN1. Data: 18.01.’98.<br />
a. (S) Vfnt 14<br />
b. (S) Vfnt Vp 2<br />
c. (O) Vfnt S 5<br />
d. (Avv) Vfnt S Vp 1<br />
e. Vfnt S 5<br />
f. Vfnt S Vp 4<br />
Nella registrazione REN1. 31 frasi principali su 164 (circa il 20%) presentano<br />
il verbo finito in prima posizione. 26 Di queste, 16 sono interpretabili con<br />
l’omissione del soggetto dalla prima posizione della frase, 5 frasi presentano<br />
invece l’omissione dell’oggetto, mentre una sola frase è interpretabile con<br />
l’omissione di un avverbio.<br />
Nella prima registrazione sono presenti anche 9 frasi a V1 non interpretabili con<br />
l’omissione di un elemento dalla prima posizione, (come in (36)). Queste<br />
costituiscono un fenomeno limitato ma non trascurabile (circa il 5% del totale) e,<br />
come vedremo, tendono a diminuire fino a scomparire completamente.<br />
(36) Kann der Zug dann wieder fahren. (Renzo 3; 5)<br />
Può il treno poi di nuovo correre.<br />
Tav. 8. Registrazione REN.3. Data: 04.05.’98.<br />
a. (S) Vfnt 3<br />
b. (S) Vfnt Vp 1<br />
c. (O) Vfnt S 1<br />
d. (O) Vfnt S Vp 1<br />
e. Vfnt S 1<br />
f. Vfnt S O 1<br />
g. Vfnt S Vp 1<br />
26 In questa registrazione è presente ache un caso di Verb-final, in 1.<br />
1. Ah, man zurückschauen kann. (Renzo, 3; 5)<br />
107
Manola Salustri<br />
Delle 136 frasi principali presenti nella registrazione REN.3., 9 presentano il<br />
verbo flesso in prima posizione, quindi il 6,6,%. 27 Possiamo considerare 6 delle 9<br />
frasi principali con Vfnt in prima posizione come il risultato dell’omissione del primo<br />
elemento della frase (in particolare, in 4 frasi è stato omesso il soggetto, in 2<br />
l’oggetto), mentre gli ultimi tre casi sembrano non essere causati dall’omissione di<br />
elementi dal Vorfeld.<br />
108<br />
Tav. 9. Registrazione REN.4. Data: 07.04.’98.<br />
a. (O) Vfnt S Vp 11<br />
b. (S) Vfnt O Vp 21<br />
c.(Avv) Vfnt S 10<br />
d. Vfnt S 4<br />
Nelle frasi principali presenti nella registrazione REN.4. il verbo flesso si trova<br />
in 46 frasi su 420 in prima posizione (circa l’11%). In 42 casi ciò può essere<br />
attribuito all’omissione di elementi topic nel Vorfeld (in 11 casi si ha l’omissione<br />
dell’oggetto, in 21 l’omissione del soggetto ed in 10 l’omissione di un avverbio),<br />
mentre quattro frasi sembrano non essere interpretabili con un’omissione. 28<br />
Tav. 10. Registrazione REN5. Data: 19.10.’98.<br />
a. (S) Vfnt O 2<br />
b. (S) Vfnt 1<br />
c. (O) Vfnt S 2<br />
d. (Avv) Vfnt S 2<br />
Delle 164 frasi principali presenti nella registrazione REN5., 8 hanno un ordine<br />
verbale scorretto, quindi il 4,8% circa. È presente solo una frase con il verbo flesso in<br />
ultima posizione mentre le rimanenti 7 frasi sono tutti casi di Verb-First, interpretabili<br />
con l’omissione di un elemento dal Vorfeld (in 4 casi si ha l’omissione del soggetto, in<br />
2 casi l’omissione dell’oggetto ed in 2 casi l’omissione di un avverbio.<br />
6.2.2. Conclusione<br />
Dall’analisi dei dati emerge che Renzo ha acquisito il fenomeno del V2. Gli<br />
errori presenti nelle frasi principali sono, nella maggior parte dei casi, frasi a V1<br />
interpretabili come il risultato del fenomeno del Topic-drop e della fase del Soggetto<br />
27<br />
Oltre ai casi di V1, sono presenti in questa registrazione anche 4 casi di V3. Sono invece<br />
assenti casi di Verb-final.<br />
28<br />
In questa registrazione sono presenti, oltre ai casi di V1, un caso di Verb-final ed uno di V3.
Bilinguismo e acquisizione infantile di L2<br />
nullo infantile. Come si nota dal grafico questi casi diminuiscono progressivamente,<br />
passando da un 20% nella prima registrazione ad un 5% circa nell’ultima. Il residuo<br />
riscontrato nell’ultima registrazione è attribuibile al fenomeno presente nel tedesco<br />
parlato, che persiste anche nella lingua adulta, cioè il Topic-drop.<br />
Grafico 1. La linea unita indica le frasi con il verbo flesso in prima posizione<br />
interpretabili nella maggior parte dei casi con l’omissione di un elemento<br />
dal Vorfeld, risultato del fenomeno del Soggetto nullo infantile e del Topicdrop<br />
( il residuo è dovuto alla permanenza, nella grammatica adulta, di<br />
quest’ultimo fenomeno). La linea tratteggiata indica il totale delle frasi<br />
con ordine verbale scorretto. Le due linee tendono a coincidere, indicando<br />
che errori come V3 e Verb-final sono quasi assenti.<br />
% Errori<br />
25<br />
20<br />
15<br />
10<br />
5<br />
0<br />
Errori frasi principali<br />
Gennaio Maggio Luglio Settembre<br />
Mesi<br />
Nelle prime registrazioni erano tuttavia presenti delle frasi V1 non interpretabili<br />
come il risultato dell’omissione di un costituente dalla prima posizione della frase le<br />
quali lasciano ipotizzare una fase V1 in cui il bambino posiziona il verbo flesso in<br />
prima posizione, forse interpretabile con un transfer dall’italiano. Queste frasi, pur<br />
costituendo il 5,4% delle principali nella prima registrazione, scomparendo<br />
completamente nell’ultima registrazione, costituiscono un fenomeno non<br />
trascurabile nello sviluppo linguistico di Renzo.<br />
V1<br />
Percentuale totale di<br />
errori<br />
109
Manola Salustri<br />
Grafico 2. Come si vede dal grafico il V1 costituisce una vera e propria fase nello<br />
sviluppo linguistico di Renzo, che scompare nell’ultima registrazione,<br />
quando il bambino ha 4,1 anni.<br />
Nel corso dello sviluppo linguistico di Renzo si può notare una graduale<br />
diminuzione dei soggetti non realizzati foneticamente, che scendono da circa il 9,2%<br />
(rispetto al totale delle frasi) nella prima registrazione ad un 1,8% nell’ultima,<br />
mostrando la presenza di una fase del Soggetto nullo infantile. 29<br />
29 Nel corpus di Renzo sono presenti anche soggetti nulli in posizione non iniziale (circa il<br />
4% rispetto al totale delle frasi nella prima registrazione), in frasi principali del tipo XP V<br />
(S), in subordinate ed in interrogative si/no, come di seguito, dove l’elemento tra parentesi<br />
è stato omesso:<br />
i) Hier ist (das) so.<br />
Qui è (ciò) così<br />
ii) Wenn (ich) es so gebaut habe.<br />
Se (io) ciò così costruito ho.<br />
iii) Hast (du) gesehen? (Renzo 3; 5)<br />
Hai (tu) visto?<br />
Nelle interrogative si/no ( che costituiscono la maggioranza dei casi) l’omissione risulta<br />
però ambigua in quanto nella stessa registrazione si nota anche la presenza di forme<br />
contratte come in iv.:<br />
iv) Haste [=hast du] gesehen? (Renzo 3, 5)<br />
110<br />
% V1<br />
6<br />
5<br />
4<br />
3<br />
2<br />
1<br />
0<br />
VERB-FIRST non interpretabile con l'omissione di<br />
elementi dal Vorfeld<br />
Gennaio Maggio Luglio Settembre<br />
Mesi<br />
VERB-FIRST
Bilinguismo e acquisizione infantile di L2<br />
Grafico 3. Il grafico mostra lo sviluppo della fase del Soggetto nullo infantile: la<br />
linea indica i soggetti nulli in posizione topic, che diminuiscono<br />
progressivamente. Il “residuo” presente nell’ultima registrazione è<br />
attribuibile al fenomeno del topic-drop, che è presente nel tedesco<br />
parlato e persiste anche nell’età adulta.<br />
% Soggetti Nulli<br />
10<br />
8<br />
6<br />
4<br />
2<br />
0<br />
Soggetti Nulli<br />
Gennaio Maggio Luglio Settembre<br />
Mesi<br />
Soggetti Nulli in<br />
Posizione Topic<br />
6.2.3. Analisi delle frasi subordinate nel corpus di Renzo<br />
Per quanto riguarda le frasi subordinate è emersa la tendenza da parte del<br />
bambino ad usare il verbo flesso in seconda posizione nelle frasi introdotte da “weil”<br />
, uso sempre più frequente nel tedesco parlato.<br />
Questa congiunzione sembrerebbe aver assunto negli ultimi decenni uno statuto<br />
particolare, come confermano le frasi delle mamme e dell’investigatrice tedesca<br />
presenti nel corpus. L’uso del V2 introdotto da “weil” sembra non essere legato ad<br />
un fattore dialettale.<br />
Sono presenti anche frasi subordinate con ordine verbale scorretto introdotte da<br />
altre congiunzioni, che, come notiamo dal grafico, scompaiono nelle ultime<br />
registrazioni. Anche se queste frasi costituiscono una percentuale molto bassa, esse<br />
Considerato che già nella seconda registrazione l’omissione in contesti non iniziali è scesa<br />
al 1,4% fino a scomparire totalmente nell’ultima registrazione, questo fenomeno non<br />
verrà considerato come rilevante (ma vedi Hamann (1997) per uno studio dei soggetti<br />
nulli post-verbali in una fase tarda dello sviluppo del tedesco (Late argument drop)).<br />
111
Manola Salustri<br />
costituiscono una differenza rispetto ai corpus dei bambini monolingui dove non si<br />
riscontra nessun errore della posizione del verbo nelle frasi subordinate. 30<br />
Grafico 4. Dal grafico si nota che la percentuale delle frasi introdotte dalla<br />
congiunzione “weil” con ordine verbale non finale rimangono costanti<br />
nel corso dello sviluppo, indicando che non si tratta di una fase ma di un<br />
particolare uso riscontrato anche negli adulti. Sono presenti anche frasi<br />
subordinate con ordine scorretto che costituiscono circa il 5% delle frasi<br />
subordinate con errori e scompaiono nell’ultima registrazione.<br />
Dai risultati della ricerca possiamo comunque concludere che il bambino ha<br />
acquisito il parametro d’ordine OV/VO. La percentuale degli errori nelle frasi<br />
subordinate è infatti molto bassa (circa il 5%) mentre le frasi a V2 introdotte da<br />
“weil” non costituiscono un errore ma una caratteristica dell’input.<br />
6.2.4. Confronto con il corpus di Samuele<br />
Nella registrazione di luglio 11 frasi su 157, quindi il 7% delle frasi principali<br />
presentano un ordine verbale scorretto. Tutte le frasi con un ordine verbale scorretto<br />
presentano il verbo flesso in prima posizione. Di queste, 10 sono interpretabili con<br />
l’omissione di un elemento dal Vorfeld (soggetto o oggetto), mentre una sola risulta<br />
ambigua, in (37).<br />
30 Schönenberg (2000) ha notato, in uno studio sull’acquisizione di una varietà del tedesco<br />
(Swiss German Lucernese) che i bambini da lei considerati muovono il verbo nelle frasi<br />
subordinate anche in contesti in cui ciò non è permesso nella grammatica adulta.<br />
112<br />
% errori<br />
25<br />
20<br />
15<br />
10<br />
5<br />
0<br />
Errori frasi subordinate<br />
Gen Mag Lug Sett<br />
mesi<br />
Errori totali frasi<br />
subordinate<br />
V2 introdotto da<br />
"weil"
Bilinguismo e acquisizione infantile di L2<br />
(37) Habe ich noch nett [= nicht] fertig. (Samuele 3; 11)<br />
ho io non ancora finito<br />
Tav. 11. Registrazione SAM 2. Data : 28.07.’98.<br />
a. (S) V 8<br />
b. (O) V S 2<br />
Delle 6 frasi subordinate presenti, 2 non presentano il verbo flesso in ultima<br />
posizione. Una di queste è introdotta da “weil”, l’altra è una interrogativa indiretta.<br />
Questi dati mostrano che Samuele ha acquisito il fenomeno del V2 e le frasi con<br />
posizione del verbo scorretta possono essere attribuite all’omissione di elementi dal<br />
Vorfeld. La percentuale di frasi con omissione di un costituente dalla prima<br />
posizione della frase è circa il 6,3%, la percentuale di soggetti omessi in prima<br />
posizione è il 5%.<br />
Nella registrazione SAM3. del 18.08.’98 è presente un solo caso di frase<br />
principale con verbo flesso in posizione scorretta. Ciò potrebbe essere attribuito alla<br />
prevalenza in questa registrazione di frasi interrogative, nelle quali il verbo flesso si<br />
trova correttamente nella prima posizione. Dall’analisi delle frasi principali risulta<br />
che circa l’80% di queste sono frasi interrogative SI/NO. L’unico errore riscontrato<br />
è la frase in (38), un’interrogativa.<br />
(38) Du hast alles gesehen? (Samuele 4; 0)<br />
tu hai tutto visto<br />
Per quanto riguarda le subordinate, è stato riscontrato un caso di V2 introdotto<br />
da “weil”.<br />
(39) weil ich bin schwach, ok? (Samuele 4; 0)<br />
perché io sono debole, ok<br />
6.2.4. Confronto con il corpus di Marianna<br />
Per quanto riguarda l’ordine verbale, nella prima registrazione di Marianna sono<br />
presenti una subordinata introdotta da “weil” con il verbo flesso in terza posizione<br />
ed una principale con un ordine verbale V1 dovuta all’omissione del soggetto in<br />
prima posizione. Dato il numero limitato di errori, possiamo affermare che anche<br />
Marianna posiziona correttamente il verbo flesso nelle principali e nelle subordinate.<br />
Anche in questo caso si osserva l’uso del V2 con le subordinate introdotte da “weil”<br />
riscontrabile, in questa registrazione, anche nella produzione linguistica della<br />
mamma e della sorellina di otto anni.<br />
113
Manola Salustri<br />
7. Acquisizione infantile di L2: alcune osservazioni<br />
Nel corso della ricerca sono stati registrati anche bambini venuti in contatto con<br />
l’italiano solo dopo i due anni di età. In questo caso, come anticipato nell’introduzione,<br />
è più opportuno parlare di acquisizione infantile di L2, seppur precoce, e non di vero e<br />
proprio bilinguismo. D’altra parte le difficoltà nel tracciare i limiti tra Bilinguismo ed<br />
Acquisizione precoce di L2 rendono forse più opportuno parlare di una fase transitoria<br />
attraversata dal bambino nel corso dell’acquisizione, durante la quale si riscontrano gli<br />
stessi fenomeni di transfer tipici dell’acquisizione di L2. Nonostante non siano<br />
disponibili registrazioni riguardanti lo sviluppo successivo del caso qui considerato, è<br />
ragionevole pensare che l’acquisizione della seconda lingua in bambini di tre anni<br />
raggiunga livelli linguistici propri dei bambini monolingui e bilingui. 31<br />
Tra i dati raccolti, il corpus più interessante riguarda una bambina di tre anni,<br />
Angela, che è stata seguita per circa due mesi. La prima registrazione è stata<br />
eseguita a settembre, solo una settimana dopo l’apertura dell’asilo. In poche frasi<br />
Angela cerca di esprimersi in italiano usando parole di questa lingua e del tedesco,<br />
come in (40)-(41), dove sono presenti anche errori di accordo.<br />
(40) Io vuole guck mal man. (Angela 3; 0)<br />
(41) Io vuole questo angucken.<br />
Nella registrazione di Ottobre Angela ha già migliorato il suo italiano, e<br />
nonostante la presenza di errori, si nota una maggiore fluenza, come in (42)-(43).<br />
(42) Vuole un foglio.<br />
(43) Io vuo un attro disegno. (Angela 3; 1)<br />
Sono ancora presenti, tuttavia, errori di accordo, persona e numero, che non si<br />
riscontrano invece nei bambini che acquisiscono l’italiano come L1, sia monolingui<br />
che bilingui. Nel corpus studiato da Guasti, ad esempio, i bambini presentano un<br />
accordo corretto già dalle prime fasi dell’acquisizione linguistica. 32<br />
Possiamo osservare, come dimostrano le frasi in (44)-(45), che in questa fase<br />
dell’acquisizione Anna non ha ancora acquisito la persona ed il numero.<br />
(44) io vuoi un attro disegno.<br />
(45) Io vuo un attro disegno.<br />
31 A questo proposito cfr. Belletti & Hamann (1999).<br />
32 Cfr. Guasti (1993/94).<br />
114
(46) Vuole un foglio.<br />
Bilinguismo e acquisizione infantile di L2<br />
Sembra inoltre che la bambina provi a formare delle frasi in italiano traducendo<br />
direttamente dal tedesco, applicando all’italiano le regole della grammatica di questa<br />
lingua, come in (47)-(49).<br />
(47) Isegno vuole io. Inversione<br />
(48) Quetto vuole io. Inversione<br />
(49) È questo mio? Interrogativa con verbo flesso in prima posizione<br />
La bambina utilizza i movimenti sintattici tipici del tedesco anche per l’italiano,<br />
come l’Inversione, in cui il verbo flesso ed il primo elemento della frase (in questo<br />
caso l’oggetto) si spostano dalla posizione di base ad una posizione più alta della<br />
struttura frasale.<br />
I dati di Angela sembrano quindi essere in accordo con l’ipotesi Full Transfer/Full<br />
Access (FT/FA) di Schwartz e Sprouse (1994). Seguendo questa ipotesi la grammatica<br />
di L1 costituisce “lo stato iniziale” della grammatica di L2: le proprietà sintattiche di<br />
L1 vengono trasferite ad L2 e solo in seguito la grammatica, sottostando ai principi di<br />
GU viene ristrutturata secondo le proprietà della lingua target. 33<br />
Conclusioni<br />
(i) Nel corpus di Renzo non è stata riscontrata la presenza di infiniti principali,<br />
sembra quindi che la fase dei RI sia terminata già dalla prima registrazione (3;5<br />
anni) in accordo con i dati di Wexler (1990) e Rizzi (1994). La fase del Soggetto<br />
nullo infantile continua invece fino circa 4 anni. A questa età la percentuale di<br />
frasi a V1 diviene la stessa riscontrata negli adulti (circa il 5%). Questo residuo è<br />
attribuibile al fenomeno del Topic-drop che caratterizza la lingua tedesca.<br />
(ii) Nei termini dell’ipotesi del Troncamento, ciò significa che in questa fase il<br />
bambino non ha più l’opzione di troncamenti al livello di TP, responsabili<br />
della presenza di infiniti principali, mentre sono ancora possibili troncamenti<br />
ad un livello più alto della struttura frasale, responsabili della fase del<br />
Soggetto nullo infantile. Solo intorno ai quattro anni il bambino acquisisce<br />
completamente il principio:<br />
CP = Root (Rizzi 1994)<br />
(iii) Il parametro d’ordine OV/VO risulta fissato già dalla prima registrazione (3; 5<br />
anni). Il bambino non commette errori nella struttura frasale, posizionando il<br />
verbo flesso nella seconda posizione nelle frasi principali e nell’ultima nelle<br />
33 Seguendo Schwartz (1998), nonostante i diversi “punti di inizio” e di arrivo, i processi<br />
cognitivi responsabili dell’acquisizione di L1 ed L2 sarebbero comunque gli stessi.<br />
115
Manola Salustri<br />
subordinate, mostrando così di aver acquisito il fenomeno del V2 34 . La presenza<br />
di frasi V1 viene interpretata come il risultato del fenomeno del Soggetto nullo<br />
infantile e del fenomeno del Topic-drop. Solo una piccola percentuale di frasi V1<br />
non è attribuibile a questi due fenomeni e necessita una diversa interpretazione.<br />
(iv) Il bambino ha fissato negativamente il parametro del pro-drop, non sono<br />
presenti infatti soggetti nulli in posizione post-verbale o post-wh (ma vedi anche<br />
nota 29), mentre il parametro del Topic-drop è stato fissato positivamente, il<br />
bambino infatti omette non solo soggetti ma anche oggetti. Quest’ultimo<br />
fenomeno viene ipergeneralizzato dal bambino anche agli avverbi 35 .<br />
(v) Nelle frasi subordinate è stato riscontrato un numero limitato di errori (circa il<br />
5%) mentre è emersa la tendenza da parte del bambino ad usare il V2 nelle frasi<br />
introdotte dalla congiunzione “weil”, uso riscontrato anche nell’input e già<br />
notato in precedenti lavori (cfr. tra gli altri Hamann (1997)).<br />
(vi) I dati di Samuele e Marianna confermano i risultati riscontrati in Renzo. I<br />
bambini posizionano correttamente il verbo flesso ed hanno fissato i parametri<br />
del pro-drop e del Topic-drop. In entrambi i casi sono presenti frasi subordinate<br />
introdotte da “weil” con verbo flesso in seconda posizione. La percentuale di<br />
soggetti nulli omessi in prima posizione da Samuele a 3;10 anni è confrontabile<br />
con la percentuale presente in Renzo all’età di 3;11 anni (entrambe circa il 5%).<br />
Sembra tuttavia che la fase del soggetto nullo sia terminata in Marianna già<br />
dalla prima registrazione (3;2 anni).<br />
(vii) Nei dati relativi all’acquisizione dell’italiano come L2 da parte di Angela, una<br />
bambina tedesca di tre anni, sono presenti interferenze con il tedesco e<br />
differenze rispetto ai dati relativi all’acquisizione dell’italiano in bambini<br />
monolingui. La presenza di frasi con oggetto topicalizzato e frasi con inversione<br />
del soggetto nei dati di Angela indicano la presenza di perlomeno una categoria<br />
34 Un’ulteriore prova per quanto riguarda l’acquisizione del parametro d’ordine OV/VO è<br />
costituita dal fatto che Renzo non commette errori nelle frasi del tipo in i.<br />
(i) ich habe das gesehen.<br />
S Vfin O Vp<br />
Io ho ciò visto.<br />
Mentre il verbo finito in queste frasi si sposta nella periferia sinistra della frase, in un<br />
punto più alto della struttura, il verbo all’infinito resta nella posizione di base. Trovandosi<br />
l’oggetto sempre alla sinistra del verbo non flesso nelle costruzioni perifrastiche,<br />
possiamo dedurre che il bambino ha fissato correttamente il parametro d’ordine OV/VO.<br />
35 Peraltro, l’omissione di un avverbio dalla prima posizione della frase, specialmente della<br />
particella “da”sembra essere accettata anche da parlanti adulti del tedesco nel registro<br />
parlato (Rizzi, L., p.c.).<br />
116
Bilinguismo e acquisizione infantile di L2<br />
funzionale fuori da VP. D’altra parte i numerosi errori di accordo (circa il 28%)<br />
sembrerebbero mostrare l’assenza di Agr.<br />
L’assenza di errori o interferenze nell’acquisizione della posizione del verbo<br />
flesso nella frase tedesca sembra indicare che Renzo, Samuele e Marianna, esposti<br />
all’italiano ed al tedesco sin dalla nascita, quindi casi di Bilingual First Language<br />
Acquisition, sono in grado di separare le due grammatiche e presentano le stesse fasi<br />
nell’acquisizione riscontrate nei bambini monolingui riguardo a questo aspetto della<br />
grammatica tedesca. 36<br />
I dati di Angela, invece, riguardanti l’Acquisizione infantile di L2 mostrano che<br />
la bambina, esposta alle due lingue solo dopo i due anni di età, tende a confondere le<br />
due grammatiche e l’acquisizione segue, almeno inizialmente, processi diversi.<br />
Bibliografia<br />
Belletti A. & L. Rizzi (1996), Parameters and functional heads, Oxford University Press.<br />
Belletti A. & C. Hamann (1999), “Ça on fait pas! On the L2-Acquisition of French by two your<br />
children with different source languages”, BUCLD 24 Proceedings.<br />
Bohnaker U. (1998), Iceland plus English: language differentiation and functional categories in a<br />
successively bilingual child, tesi di dottorato, University of Durham, UK.<br />
Bromberg H. & K. Wexler (1995), “Null subjects in wh-questions”, in C.T. Schutze et al. (eds.)<br />
Papers on language processing and acquisition, 221-48.<br />
Cardinaletti A. & G. Giusti (1996), Problemi di sintassi tedesca, Unipress, Padova.<br />
Cipriani P., A.M. Chilosi, P. Bottari & L. Pfanner (1993), L’acquisizione della morfosintassi in<br />
italiano: fasi e processi, Unipress, Padova.<br />
Chlasen H. (1982), Spracherweb in der Kindheit. Eine Untersuchung zur Entwicklung der Syntax<br />
bei Kleinkindern, Narr, Tübingen.<br />
Clahsen H. (1990), “Constraints on parameter setting: a grammatical analysis of some stages in<br />
German child language”, Language Acquisition, 1: 297-335.<br />
De Houwer A. (1996), “Bilingual first language acquisition”, in The Handbook of Child<br />
Language, Fletcher P. & B. MacWhinney (eds.), Blackwell Publisher Inc. Cambridge.<br />
Besten H. den (1983), “On the interaction of Root Transformations and lexical deletive rules”, in<br />
W. Abraham (ed.), On the formal Syntax of the Westgermania, 47-131, John Benjamins,<br />
Amsterdam.<br />
Friedemann M.-A. & L. Rizzi (2000), The acquisition of syntax, Longman.<br />
Guasti M.T. (1993/94), “Verb syntax in Italian child grammar: finite and non finite verbs”,<br />
Language acquisition, 3 (1): 1-40.<br />
36 L’analisi dei dati in italiano, rimandata ad uno studio futuro, permetterà una visione più<br />
completa dello sviluppo linguistico di questi bambini bilingui, che non presentano<br />
differenze rilevanti per quanto riguarda il tedesco.<br />
117
Manola Salustri<br />
Guasti M.T., Introduction to language acquisition, MIT Press (in stampa).<br />
Hamann C. (1997), From syntax to discourse: children’s use of pronominal clitics,<br />
nullarguments, infinitives and operators, Habilitationsschrift, Universität Genf<br />
Sommersemester 1997.<br />
Haegeman L. (1995), Root infinitives and initial root null subject in early Dutch,<br />
Proceedings of GALA.<br />
Haegeman L. (1996), “Verb-second, the split-CP and null subject in early Dutch Finite Clauses”,<br />
GenGenP 4 (2).<br />
Haegeman L. (2000), “Adult null subjects in non pro-drop languages”, in M.-A.<br />
Friedemann & L. Rizzi.<br />
Hyams N. (1986), Language acquisition and the theory of parameters, Reidel, Dordrecht.<br />
Hyams N. & K. Wexler (1993), “On the grammatical basis of null subjects in child language”,<br />
Linguistic inquiry 24: 421-453.<br />
Wang Qi, D. Lillo-martin, C.T. Best & A. Levitt (1992), “Null subject versus null object: some<br />
evidence from the acquisition of Chinese and English”, Language Acquisition, 2: 221-254.<br />
Huang C.-T.J. (1984), “On the distribution and reference of empty pronouns”, Linguistic Inquiry,<br />
15: 531-574.<br />
Lasnik H. & T. Stowell (1991), “Weakest crossover”, Linguistic Inquiry, 22: 687-720.<br />
Meisel J. (1986), “Word order and case marking in early child language. Evidence from<br />
simultaneous acquisition of two first languages: French and German”, Linguistic, 24:<br />
123-183.<br />
Meisel J. (1990), Two first languages, early grammatical development in bilingual children, Foris<br />
Publications, Dordrecht-Holland.<br />
Meisel J. & N. Müller (1992), “Finitess and verb placement in early child grammar: evidence for<br />
simultaneous acquisition of French and German bilinguals”, in J. Meisel (ed.), The<br />
acquisition of verb placement: functional categories and V2 phenomena in language<br />
development, Kluwer, Dordrecht, 109-138.<br />
Meisel J. (1992), The acquisition of verb placement, Kluwer Academic publishers, Holland.<br />
Meisel J. (1994), Bilingual first language acquisition: French and German grammar<br />
development, John Benjamins, Amsterdam.<br />
Poeppel D. & K. Wexler (1993), “The full competence hypothesis of clausal structure in early<br />
German”, Language, 69: 1-33.<br />
Rizzi L. (1986), “Null objects and the theory of pro”, Linguistic inquiry 17, ripubblicato in Rizzi<br />
(2000b).<br />
Rizzi L. (1991), “Residual verb –second and the Wh-criterion”, Technical reports on formal and<br />
computational linguistics N. 2, Geneva University, ripubblicato in Rizzi (2000b).<br />
Rizzi L. (1994), “Some notes on linguistic theory and language development: the case of root<br />
infinitives”, Language Acquisition 3: 371-393, ripubblicato in Rizzi (2000b).<br />
Rizzi L. (1994), “Early null subject and root null subject”, T. Hoekstra & B. Schwarzt (eds.),<br />
Language acquisition studies in Generative Grammar, Benjamins, Amsterdam,<br />
ripubblicato in Rizzi (2000b).<br />
118
Bilinguismo e acquisizione infantile di L2<br />
Rizzi L. (1997), “The fine structure of the left periphery”, in L. Haegemann (ed.), Elements of<br />
grammar. Handbook of generative syntax, Kluwer, Dordrecht, the Netherlands,<br />
ripubblicato in Rizzi (2000b).<br />
Rizzi L. (2000a), Remarks on early null subject and root infinitives, in M.-A. Friedemann & L.<br />
Rizzi (2000).<br />
Rizzi L. (2000b), Comparative syntax and language acquisition, Routledge, London.<br />
Rothweiler M. (1993), Der Erverb von Nebensatzen in Deutschen, Niemeyer, Tübingen.<br />
Santorini B. (1995), “Two types of verb second in the history of yddisch”, in A. Battye & I.<br />
Roberts (eds.), Clause structure and language change, Oxford University Press, New<br />
York.<br />
Schönenberg M. (1998), The acquisition of verb placement in Swiss German, Thése de doctorat,<br />
Université de Geneve.<br />
Schönenberg M. (2000), “The acquisition of verb placement in lucernese Swiss German” in M.-<br />
A. Friedemann & L. Rizzi (2000).<br />
Schwartz B.D. (1998), “The second language instinct”, in Lingua, 106: 133-160.<br />
Thiersch C. (1978), Topics in German syntax, PhD Dissertation, MIT.<br />
Tomaselli A. (1989), La sintassi del verbo finito nelle lingue germaniche, tesi di dottorato,<br />
Università di Pavia.<br />
Valian V. (1991), “Sintactic subjects in the early speech of American and Italian children”,<br />
Cognition, 40: 21-81.<br />
Vikner S. (1994), “Finite verb movement in Scandinavian embedded clauses”, in N. Horstein &<br />
D. Lightfoot (eds.), Verb Movement, Cambridge University Press.<br />
Vikner S. (1995), Verb movement and expletive subjects in the germanic languages, Oxford<br />
University Press, New York.<br />
Wang Q., D. Lillo-Martin, C.T. Best & A. Levitt (1992), “Null subject versus null object: some<br />
evidence from the acquisition of Chinese and English”, Language Acquisition.<br />
Wexler K. (1992), “Optional infinitives, head movement, and the economy of derivations in child<br />
grammar”, MIT, Occasional Paper #14.<br />
119
ON THE RELATIVE POSITION OF BEAUCOUP, GUÈRE, PEU,<br />
RIEN AND TROP IN FRENCH 1<br />
1. Introduction<br />
Sara VECCHIATO<br />
Adverbs and quantifiers have been studied extensively in linguistics and several<br />
accounts of their distributional properties have been provided under different approaches.<br />
In the generative framework, their nature and behaviour have been considered<br />
as possible clues for the internal structure of the sentence. Since Pollock<br />
(1989), word order variation concerning adverbs has been dealt with by assuming<br />
that it is the verb that moves around the adverb, which always remains in situ. Instead,<br />
quantifiers are taken to move leftward in the sentence, towards a „scope‟ position,<br />
either in visible syntax or in Logical Form. What we have seen is an attempt to<br />
provide simple and elegant accounts of apparently puzzling facts.<br />
Among the various hypotheses made, I will be mainly concerned with Cinque<br />
(1999)‟s proposal that there is a single universal hierarchy of adverbs, where each<br />
adverb occupies the SPEC position of a functional projection marked with a certain<br />
feature (aspect, tense, modality, etc). The idea is that adverbs are licensed by the<br />
relevant feature associated with their corresponding functional head.<br />
My purpose in this article is to examine a few French adverbs and quantifiers, not<br />
considered in Cinque ‟99 and to try to determine their position in the hierarchy proposed<br />
there. Most of them actually belong to both categories. In fact, while rien „nothing‟<br />
can be used only as a negative quantifier, beaucoup „a lot‟, peu „little‟, trop „too<br />
much‟, guère „not much‟ can be used either as quantifiers or as adverbs. It would be<br />
difficult to establish whether they are actually the same words being used in two ways<br />
- as bare quantifiers and as quantificational adverbs - or distinct homonymic words.<br />
1 I wish to thank Paolo Acquaviva, Maria Teresa Biason, Guglielmo Cinque, Marie-<br />
Christine Jamet, Dominique Sportiche and Michal Starke for native judgments and/or<br />
helpful comments and suggestions.<br />
121
Sara Vecchiato<br />
The testing method is the same as Cinque‟s (‟99) - namely, a comparison between<br />
minimal pairs of sentences in which two adverbs appear in opposite orders.<br />
(1) a. Pierre a tout beaucoup aimé.<br />
Pierre has everything a-lot liked.<br />
Pierre liked everything a lot.<br />
b. *Pierre a beaucoup tout aimé.<br />
The order accepted by French native speakers is taken as relevant to establish the<br />
position of the examined items in the hierarchy. It seems that each couple adverbquantifier<br />
(i.e. guère, trop, beaucoup / peu both as QPs and as AdvPs) occupies exactly<br />
the same position in the hierarchy. Despite some difficulties in testing some<br />
couples of adverbs due to their semantic incompatibility (for example, beaucoup „a<br />
lot‟ and complètement „completely‟), the data point decisively to this direction. This<br />
implies the existence, in the hierarchy, of aspectual heads licensing both adverbs and<br />
quantifiers by checking the same features. The identified positions are presumably<br />
the scope positions to which quantifiers move in overt syntax. I will give some suggestions<br />
concerning the names of some heads‟ features.<br />
This article is organized as follows: in the first part I will present the full hierarchy<br />
of Cinque (‟99), which is the basis for my analysis; then, I will examine the distributional<br />
properties of the QPs/quantificational AdvPs with respect to the auxiliary<br />
and lexical verbs in active and passive sentences. The third part is devoted to the<br />
crucial data concerning the location of the examined items, followed by an addictional<br />
section meant to show that, if beaucoup, guère, peu, rien and trop are tested<br />
with “lower” adverbs other than those presented in the key-sentences, their mutual<br />
order is consistent with the identified positions.<br />
2. The hierarchy<br />
The AdvP hierarchy is given in English, since this is the original version of Cinque‟s<br />
work. However, it is positively confirmed by French data. There are three<br />
French items; tout, corresponding to English everything, and two duration adverbs,<br />
longtemps and longuement, which can be both roughly translated with for long. The<br />
location of tout was identified in Cinque (‟99), while I have added longtemps and<br />
longuement (see Vecchiato (‟99)). These two adverbs exactly cover the position of<br />
brièvement „briefly‟, formerly established as the only duration adverb in the hierarchy.<br />
[frankly MOODspeech act [fortunately MOODevaluative [allegedly MOODevidential [probably<br />
MOODepistemic [once T(Past) [then T(Future) [perhaps MOODirrealis [necessarily MOOD-<br />
necessity [possibly MODpossibility [usually ASPhabitual [again ASPrepetitive (I) [often ASPfrequentative(I)<br />
[intentionally MODvolitional [quickly ASPcelerative (I) [already T (Anterior) [no longer<br />
ASPterminative [still ASPcontinuative [always ASPperfect [just ASPretrospective [soon ASPproximative<br />
[longtemps ASPdurative (I) [longuement ASPdurative (II) [characteristically (?) ASP-<br />
122
On the relative position of beaucoup, guère, peu, rien and trop in French<br />
generic/progressive [almost ASPprospective [completely ASPSgCompletive (I) [tout ASPPlCompletive<br />
[well Voice [fast/early ASPcelerative (II) [completely ASPSgCompletive (II) [again ASPrepetitive<br />
(II) [often ASPfrequentative (II) ]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]<br />
It will be seen that all the examined items occupy “lower” positions in this hierarchy,<br />
namely, between presque „almost‟ and bien „well‟. Adverbs directly occupy their<br />
own position in the hierarchy, whereas quantifiers move leftward in the sentence, from<br />
the canonical object position [V, NP] towards their „scope‟ position, where their features<br />
are checked 2 . The scope position A‟-binds the canonical object position.<br />
(2) Il a [touti [compris ti ]].<br />
He has everything understood<br />
He understood everything<br />
3. Distributional properties<br />
In order to establish the distribution of French QPs/quantificational AdvPs in the<br />
sentence, three positions have been taken into account: (i) the position which immediately<br />
follows the auxiliary verb; (ii) the position which immediately follows the<br />
active past participle or the passive auxiliary été (been); (iii) the position between<br />
the active past participle and the direct object or between the auxiliary été and the<br />
passive participle. Sentences (3a-c) illustrate this pattern. When French bare QPs are<br />
the subjects of passive sentences, they are allowed not to be in [Spec, IP] if the expletive<br />
pronoun il (it) is used (sentence (4)). In this configuration, they are thought<br />
to occupy their base position.<br />
We will see that guère „not much‟, trop „too much‟ and rien „nothing‟ cannot follow<br />
the past participle, either as adverbs or as quantifiers, except if they have a focus<br />
reading. Instead, for some reasons, beaucoup „a lot‟ and peu „little‟, as quantifiers, can<br />
also occur in the (post-participial) object position: [V‟, NP]. We will also see that the<br />
patterns of distribution vary considerably with respect to the passive auxiliary été<br />
(been). I will argue that this is not due to AdvP-movement, but that the verbal head<br />
moves further leftwards than the past participle through being an auxiliary.<br />
2 “Lower” adverbs and quantifiers are delimited on the left by the past participle in Italian -<br />
presumably because the Italian past participle is allowed to move further to the left in the<br />
sentence than its French equivalent. Then, the apparent word order of an Italian sentence<br />
looks as if tutto (everything) has remained in its base position, but in fact it has not:<br />
(i) Ha capitok [tuttoj [tk tj]]<br />
pro has understood everything<br />
He understood everything<br />
123
Sara Vecchiato<br />
(3) a. Marie a soigneusement peigné François.<br />
Marie has carefully combed François.<br />
Marie combed François carefully.<br />
b. Marie a peigné soigneusement François.<br />
c. Marie a peigné François soigneusement.<br />
(4) Il a beaucoup été fait pour eux.<br />
Itexpl has a-lot been done for them<br />
A lot was done for them.<br />
Guère 3 and trop<br />
The distribution of guère and trop varies with respect to the passive auxiliary été<br />
„been‟ according to their being quantifiers or adverbs. Namely, adverbs can appear<br />
in position (ii) in passive sentences, whereas quantifiers cannot.<br />
Guère-QP:<br />
(5) a. Michel n‟a guère mangé.<br />
Michel notcl has not-much eaten<br />
Michel didn’t eat much<br />
b. *Michel n‟a mangé guère.<br />
(6) a. Il n‟a guère été fait pour les sauver.<br />
Itexpl notcl has not-much been done to themcl save<br />
Not much was done to save them.<br />
b. *Il n‟a été guère fait pour les sauver.<br />
c. *Il n‟a été fait guère pour les sauver.<br />
3 As a verb modifier, guère is currently used with the negative marker ne „not‟ in Modern<br />
French. These two negative expressions are interpreted as just one semantic negation<br />
(“Negative Concord”): Je n’aime guère ce quartier „I don‟t like this district much‟. As a<br />
bare quantifier it is very formal: Le nom d’Alain ne me disait guère „The name of Alain<br />
didn‟t tell me much‟. Guère was used without ne, with a positive meaning, in Middle<br />
French: Si nature ne prête un peu, il est malaisé que l’art et l’industrie aillent guiere<br />
avant (Montaigne) „If Nature doesn‟t help a bit, it is difficult that industry and the arts<br />
make a lot of progress‟. In Modern French, it can actually be used without ne in elliptical<br />
answers or as an adverb modifier, though it keeps its current negative meaning: Tu connais<br />
l’opium? - Guère (Malraux) „Do you know opium? - Not much‟; Une autre possibilité,<br />
guère moins irritante, était qu’il s’en fichait peut-être „Another, not much less sad,<br />
possibility was that he didn‟t give a damn about it‟. For an analysis of guère in a hierarchy<br />
of negative projections, see Zanuttini (‟97).<br />
124
Trop-QP:<br />
On the relative position of beaucoup, guère, peu, rien and trop in French<br />
(7) a. Maurice a trop mangé.<br />
Maurice has too much eaten<br />
Maurice ate too much.<br />
b. *Maurice a mangé trop.<br />
(8) a. Il a trop été fait pour le repas; on a gaspillé la nourriture.<br />
Itexpl has too much been done for the lunch PRONimpers has wasted the food<br />
Too much was done for lunch; we wasted the food.<br />
b. *Il a été trop fait pour le repas; on a gaspillé la nourriture.<br />
c. *Il a été fait trop pour le repas; on a gaspillé la nourriture.<br />
Guère-AdvP:<br />
(9) a. Michel n‟a guère changé l‟ameublement.<br />
M. notcl has not much changed the furniture<br />
Michel hasn’t changed the furniture much.<br />
b. *Michel n‟a changé guère l‟ameublement.<br />
c. *Michel n‟a changé l‟ameublement guère.<br />
(10) a. Ce livre n‟a guère été lu l‟année dernière.<br />
This book not cl has not-much been read the year last<br />
This book wasn’t read much last year.<br />
b. Ce livre n‟a été guère lu l‟année dernière.<br />
c. *Ce livre n‟a été lu guère l‟année dernière<br />
Trop-AdvP:<br />
(11) a. Maurice a trop étudié la partition.<br />
M. has too-much studied the score<br />
Maurice studied the score too much.<br />
b. *Maurice a étudié trop la partition.<br />
c. *Maurice a étudié la partition trop.<br />
(12) a. La partition a trop été changée.<br />
The score has too-much been changed<br />
The score was changed too much.<br />
b. La partition a été trop changée.<br />
c. *La partition a été changée trop.<br />
125
Sara Vecchiato<br />
Beaucoup and peu<br />
Beaucoup and peu, as quantifiers, enjoy more possibilities than guère and trop.<br />
In fact, they can appear also in the post-participial positions. Sentences (13)-(14) and<br />
(15)-(16) actually differ in their intonational contour, though the post-participial position<br />
is not necessarily focussed.<br />
Beaucoup-QP:<br />
(13) a. Kay a beaucoup fait pour sa famille.<br />
Kay has a-lot done for her family<br />
Kay did a lot for her family.<br />
b. Kay a fait beaucoup pour sa famille.<br />
(14) a. Il a beaucoup été fait pour les sauver, mais sans résultat.<br />
Itexpl has a lot been done to themcl save, but without result<br />
A lot has been done to save them, but unsuccessfully.<br />
b. Il a été beaucoup fait pour les sauver, mais sans résultat.<br />
c. Il a été fait beaucoup pour les sauver, mais sans résultat.<br />
Peu-QP:<br />
(15) a. Lola a peu fait pour sa famille.<br />
L. has little done for her family<br />
Lola did little for her family.<br />
b. Lola a fait peu pour sa famille.<br />
(16) a. Il a peu été fait pour les sauver, et tout le monde a du remords.<br />
Itexpl has little done to themcl save, and all the world has artpartitive remorse<br />
Little was done to save them, and everybody feels remorse.<br />
b. Il a été peu fait pour les sauver, et tout le monde a du remords.<br />
c. Il a été fait peu pour les sauver, et tout le monde a du remords.<br />
As intensity adverbs 4 , beaucoup and peu can appear in position (ii) only in passive<br />
sentences, like trop and guère. Then, in (18b) and (20b) respectively, beaucoup and<br />
4 Beaucoup and peu have not only an intensive value, but also a (temporal) frequentative<br />
value. These two readings are apparently associated with two different positions in the hierarchy,<br />
since beaucoup can occur twice in a sentence: La pièce a beaucoup été beaucoup<br />
changée. „The play has been very changed many times‟. The frequentative beaucoup apparently<br />
enjoys one position more than its intensive equivalent both in active sentences<br />
and in passive sentences. On the contrary, the frequentative peu does not differ in its distribution<br />
from peu-intensive-AdvP.<br />
126
On the relative position of beaucoup, guère, peu, rien and trop in French<br />
peu modify the past participle discuté „discussed‟ and frappé „struck‟. Since beaucoup<br />
is incompatible with adjectives 5 , it can be claimed that the past participle is a verbal<br />
head, here, and not an adjective. We will see the relevance of this point below.<br />
Beaucoup-intensity AdvP:<br />
(17) a. On a beaucoup discuté ce projet à la réunion.<br />
PRONimpers has a lot discussed this project at the meeting.<br />
We discussed this project a lot at the meeting.<br />
b. *On a discuté beaucoup ce projet à la réunion.<br />
c. *On a discuté ce projet beaucoup à la réunion.<br />
(18) a. Ce projet a beaucoup été discuté à la réunion.<br />
This project has a lot been discussed at the meeting<br />
This project was discussed a lot at the meeting<br />
b. Ce projet a été beaucoup discuté à la réunion.<br />
c. *Ce projet a été discuté beaucoup à la réunion.<br />
Peu-intensity AdvP:<br />
(ii) a. On a beaucoup discuté ce projet ces derniers jours.<br />
PRONimpers has a lot discussed this project these latest days.<br />
We have discussed this project a lot of times the latest days.<br />
b. On a discuté beaucoup ce projet ces derniers jours.<br />
c. *On a discuté ce projet beaucoup ces derniers jours.<br />
(iii) a. Ce projet a beaucoup été discuté ces derniers jours.<br />
This project has a lot been discussed these latest days<br />
This project has been discussed a lot of times the latest days.<br />
b. Ce projet a été beaucoup discuté ces derniers jours.<br />
c. ?Ce projet a été discuté beaucoup ces derniers jours.<br />
(iv) a. On a peu discuté ce projet ces derniers jours.<br />
PRONimpers has little discussed this project these latest days<br />
We have discussed this project few times the latest days.<br />
b. *On a discuté peu ce projet ces derniers jours.<br />
c. *On a discuté ce projet peu ces derniers jours.<br />
(v) a. Il a peu été frappé par la violence à la télé.<br />
He has little been struck by violence on TV<br />
He has been struck few times by violence on TV<br />
b. Il a été peu frappé par la violence à la télé.<br />
c. *Il a été frappé peu par la violence à la télé.<br />
5 In French, the modifier of APs (and AdvPs) is très „very‟: Il est très aimable „He is very<br />
lovable‟ vs *Il est beaucoup aimable.<br />
127
Sara Vecchiato<br />
(19) a. On a peu discuté ce projet à la réunion.<br />
PRONimpers has little discussed this project at the meeting<br />
We little discussed this project at the meeting.<br />
b. *On a discuté peu ce projet à la réunion.<br />
c. *On a discuté ce projet peu à la réunion.<br />
(20) a. Il a peu été frappé par cette prédiction.<br />
He has little been struck by this prediction<br />
He was little struck by this prediction.<br />
b. Il a été peu frappé par cette prédiction.<br />
c. *Il a été frappé peu par cette prédiction.<br />
Rien 6<br />
(21) a. Paul n‟a rien fait.<br />
Paul notcl has nothing done<br />
Paul didn’t do anything.<br />
b. *Paul n‟a fait rien.<br />
(22) a. Il n‟a rien été fait.<br />
Itexpl notcl has nothing been done<br />
Nothing was done.<br />
b. Il n‟a été rien fait.<br />
c. *Il n‟a été fait rien.<br />
The reader has easily noticed the lack of symmetry in the distribution of the examined<br />
items with respect to the passive auxiliary été „been‟. As Pollock (‟89) argued,<br />
it is much costlier to postulate that AdvPs move in the sentence than to assume<br />
that only verbal heads move, creating the illusion of adverbial „transportability‟ (see<br />
6<br />
The distribution of its semantic opposite tout „everything‟ is slightly different, since it can<br />
never appear in the second position:<br />
(vi) a. André a tout compris.<br />
André has everything understood.<br />
André understood everything.<br />
b. *André a compris tout.<br />
(vii) a. Il a tout été entrepris pour les sauver, mais sans résultat.<br />
Itexpl has everything been undertaken to themcl save, but without result<br />
Everything was undertaken to save them, but unsuccessfully.<br />
b. *Il a été tout entrepris pour les sauver, mais sans résultat.<br />
c. *Il a été entrepris tout pour les sauver, mais sans résultat.<br />
128
On the relative position of beaucoup, guère, peu, rien and trop in French<br />
Travis (‟88)). Giving up with the idea that adverbs move, then, it may be argued that<br />
quantificational adverbs gain the position (ii) because the past participle is, in fact,<br />
an adjective, as traditional grammars claim. Thus, été „been‟ would be a copula and<br />
the analysed adverbs would specify the participial adjective. This is actually the unmarked<br />
choice in French, since the adjective modifier très „very‟ is currently employed<br />
in passive sentences:<br />
(23) Ce livre a été très apprécié.<br />
This book has been very appreciated<br />
This book was very appreciated.<br />
However, it is definitely impossible to claim this in the case of beaucoup, because<br />
beaucoup is not an adjective modifier, as said above. Then, it is less costly to<br />
assume a unique derivation for all the cases, namely that été, being an auxiliary,<br />
simply moves further leftward than the active past participle. The fact that bien<br />
shares this pattern as well (see ftn. 9) also supports this hypothesis.<br />
4. Location within the hierarchy<br />
In this section, I try to identify the position of guère, trop, beaucoup, peu and rien<br />
in the hierarchy, both as quantifiers and intensity adverbs. In the data given below, the<br />
reader will notice few “gaps” due to the fact that some couples of adverbs are impossible<br />
to test since they are semantically incompatible. Unfortunately, one of these gaps<br />
concerns the preverbal adverb complètement „completely‟ 7 , which is often the keyadverb<br />
to establish the position of some items. We will see if and when we can make<br />
up for this difficulty. My hypothesis, to which the data seem to point, is that each couple<br />
adverb-quantifier occupies exactly the same position in the hierarchy.<br />
By the way, we can observe that the behaviour of both longtemps and longuement<br />
is the same as that we would expect form brièvement „briefly‟.<br />
Trop<br />
Trop-AdvP and trop-QP are both found after presque „almost‟ and before complètement<br />
„completely‟. I chose to test these adverbs in passive sentences to make<br />
7 “Completamente can occupy two distinct positions; a preverbal and a post-object one, associated<br />
with two distinct interpretations, which likely depend on their different scope”<br />
(Cinque (‟99), p. 172):<br />
(viii) a. John completely forgot her instructions<br />
b. John forgot her instructions completely<br />
The first sentence can only mean that her instruction didn‟t occur at the appropriate moment,<br />
while the second sentence can also mean that John forgot every part of her instruction.<br />
129
Sara Vecchiato<br />
sure a given order was not established because the first adverb was the specifier of<br />
the second one. Since the participle été „been‟ can be found between the two adverbs,<br />
we are certain that they do not form a constituent.<br />
Presque „almost‟ > trop „too much‟ 8<br />
(24) a. Ma mère a presque été trop touchée par cette nouvelle.<br />
My mother has almost been too much touched by this piece of news.<br />
My mother has almost been touched too much by this piece of news.<br />
b. *Ma mère a trop été presque touchée par cette nouvelle.<br />
Trop „too much‟ > complètement „completely‟:<br />
(25) a. Les employés ont trop été complètement exploités.<br />
The employees have too much been completely exploited<br />
The employees have been completely exploited too much<br />
b. *Les employés ont complètement été trop exploités.<br />
Presque „almost‟ > trop „too much‟<br />
(26) a. Il a presque été trop fait pour moi, et rien pour toi!<br />
Itexpl has almost been too much done for me, and nothing for you<br />
Too much was almost done for me, and nothing for you!<br />
b. *Il a trop été presque fait pour moi, et rien pour toi!<br />
Trop „too much‟ > complètement „completely‟<br />
(27) a. Il a trop été complètement refait, ça semble artificiel.<br />
Itexpl has too much been completely redone, it looks artificial<br />
Too much has been completely redone, it looks artificial<br />
b. *Il a complètement été trop refait, ça semble artificiel.<br />
Guère<br />
Guère is found after presque „almost‟ and before trop „too much‟, both as an adverb<br />
(28-31) and as a quantifier (32-35). Actually, presque can occur with guère-<br />
AdvP only in the active sentence (28), whereas in the passive sentence (29) both the<br />
8 It could be argued that presque is found before trop through a kind of modification by<br />
transitivity - that is, presque modify the VP and, by transitivity, trop. In fact, in Italian, È<br />
quasi stata troppo commossa da questa notizia can mean both „She risked being too<br />
touched by this piece of news‟ and „She was too touched by this piece of news‟. However,<br />
in the appendix the reader can find evidence that trop actually follows all the adverbs<br />
higher than presque.<br />
130
On the relative position of beaucoup, guère, peu, rien and trop in French<br />
orders seem to be impossible. It could be claimed that (28) is possible only because<br />
presque is the specifier of guère. However, in the Appendix we can see that guère<br />
actually follows all the adverbs before presque. Moreover, guère-QP clearly follows<br />
presque both in the active and in the passive sentence. Then, I would think it is the<br />
semantic awkwardness of (29) that causes its rejection. As to the objection that<br />
guère forms a constituent with trop, it is refuted by the fact that in a passive sentence<br />
the participle été „been‟ separates the two adverbs.<br />
Presque „almost‟ > guère „not much‟<br />
(28) a. ?Les manifestants n‟ont presque guère gâché l‟exposition.<br />
The demonstrators notcl have almost not very much spoiled the exhibition<br />
The demonstrators haven’t almost spoiled the exhibition very much.<br />
b. *Les manifestants n‟ont guère presque gâché l‟exposition.<br />
(29) a. *L‟exposition n‟a presque été guère gâchée par les manifestants.<br />
The exhibition notcl has not very much been almost spoiled by the demonstrators<br />
b. *L‟exposition n‟a guère été presque gâchée par les manifestants<br />
Guère „not much‟ > trop „too much‟<br />
(30) a. Les révolutionnaires n‟ont guère trop changé la morale publique.<br />
The revolutionaries notcl have not-much too-much changed the morals public<br />
Revolutionaries haven’t much changed public morals too much.<br />
b. *Les révolutionnaires n‟ont trop guère changé la morale publique.<br />
(31) a. La morale publique n‟a guère été trop changée par les révolutionnaires.<br />
The morals public notcl has not-much been too-much changed by the revolutionaries.<br />
Public morals haven’t been much changed too much by revolutionaries.<br />
b. *La morale publique n‟a trop été guère changée par les révolutionnaires.<br />
Presque „almost‟ > guère „not much‟<br />
(32) a. Les manifestants n‟ont presque guère fait contre la mairie, le soir, mais le<br />
lendemain ils ont tout détruit.<br />
The demonstrators notcl not-much almost done against the town hall, the<br />
evening, but the following day they have everything destroyed.<br />
The demonstrators almost didn’t much against the town hall in the evening,<br />
but the following day they destroyed everything.<br />
b. *Les manifestants n‟ont guère presque fait contre la mairie, le soir, mais le<br />
lendemain ils ont tout détruit.<br />
131
Sara Vecchiato<br />
(33) a. Il n‟a presque été guère gâché par les manifestants, le soir, mais le lendemain<br />
la mairie a été mise en sac.<br />
Itexpl notcl almost been not-much spoiled by the demonstrators, the evening,<br />
but the following day the city hall has been put in sack<br />
Not much was almost spoiled by the demonstrators, in the evening, but the<br />
following day the city hall was sacked.<br />
b. *Il n‟a guère été presque gâché par les manifestants, le soir, mais le lendemain<br />
la mairie a été mise en sac.<br />
Guère „not much‟ > trop „too much‟<br />
(34) a. Les révolutionnaires n‟ont guère trop changé dans le monde.<br />
The revolutionaries notcl have not-much too-much changed in the world<br />
Revolutionaries haven’t much changed too much in the world.<br />
b. *Les révolutionnaires n‟ont trop guère changé dans le monde.<br />
(35) a. Il n‟a guère été trop repeint dans l‟église, presque tous les originaux sont<br />
encore là.<br />
Itexpl notcl has not-much been too-much repainted in the church, almost all<br />
the originals are still there<br />
Not much was repainted too much in the church almost all, the originals<br />
are still there.<br />
b. *Il n‟a trop été guère repeint dans l‟église, presque tous les originaux sont<br />
encore là.<br />
Beaucoup<br />
It is perfectly clear that beaucoup-AdvP is between tout „everything‟ and bien<br />
„well‟. Bien can be employed as an IP-adverb, meaning in fact, definitely (Le prof a<br />
bien analysé le théâtre ‘In fact, the teacher has analysed theater‟), which obviously<br />
produces ambiguity. Thus, I chose to use its modified form très bien „very well‟ 9 .<br />
9 Très can be adjoined to bien without making its distribution wider nor narrower. The pattern<br />
is the same as that of beaucoup/peu/trop/guère intensive AdvPs and rien.<br />
(ix) a. Liliane a (très) bien compris la question.<br />
Liliane has very well understood the question<br />
Liliane understood the question (very) well.<br />
b. *Liliane a compris (très) bien la question.<br />
c. *Liliane a compris la question (très) bien.<br />
132
On the relative position of beaucoup, guère, peu, rien and trop in French<br />
Tout „everything‟ > beaucoup „a lot‟ 10<br />
(36) a. Pierre a tout beaucoup aimé.<br />
Pierre has everything a-lot loved<br />
Pierre liked everything a lot.<br />
b. *Pierre a beaucoup tout aimé.<br />
Beaucoup „a lot‟ > bien „well‟.<br />
(37) a. ?Le prof a beaucoup très bien analysé la pièce de théâtre 11 .<br />
The teacher has a-lot very well analysed the theater play.<br />
The teacher analysed the play a lot and very well.<br />
b. *Le prof a très bien beaucoup analysé le théâtre.<br />
As to beaucoup-QP, there are two difficulties in establishing its position: first, it<br />
is impossible to test its relative order with tout, because they would compete for the<br />
position of subject or direct object in the same sentence; second, beaucoup-QP cannot<br />
appear with complètement „completely‟ 12 .<br />
(x) a. On a (très) bien été réchauffés par le feu du camping.<br />
PRONimpers has well been warmed by the camp-fire.<br />
We have been warmed well by the camp-fire.<br />
b. On a été (très) bien réchauffés par le feu du camping.<br />
c. *On a été réchauffés (très) bien par le feu du camping.<br />
10<br />
Compare the passive sentence: Il a tout été beaucoup apprécié „Everything was much appreciated‟<br />
vs *Il a beaucoup été tout apprécié.<br />
11<br />
French speakers show some resistance to beaucoup and (très) bien appearing in the same<br />
sentence without being coordinated. The form beaucoup et (très) bien is much preferred.<br />
However, the passive sentence is judged as perfect: La pièce a beaucoup été très bien<br />
analysée par notre professeur „The play was analysed a lot very well by our teacher vs<br />
*La pièce a très bien été beaucoup analysée par notre professeur.<br />
12 If beaucoup is the „dislocated‟ quantifer of a DP, it follows complètement. By dislocation<br />
I do not mean Left Dislocation, but a typical French configuration which Obenauer (‟94)<br />
defines Quantification à Distance (Quantification from the distance, QAD). QAD allows<br />
quantifiers to precede the past participle while the quantified DPs follow it:<br />
(xi) J‟ai beaucoup lu de livres<br />
I have a lot read of books<br />
I read a lot of books<br />
Obenauer (‟94) supposes, following Kayne (‟81), that from its base structure [Q [NP]], the<br />
quantifier is allowed to move towards its scope position, which is identified with [Spec, VP].<br />
Moving to [Spec, VP], the quantifier gains a frequentative value: “I often read books”.<br />
(xii) J‟ai beaucoupk lu [tk de livres].<br />
133
Sara Vecchiato<br />
(38) a. *Fanny a complètement beaucoup caché.<br />
Fanny has completely a lot hidden<br />
*Fanny a beaucoup complètement caché.<br />
However, beaucoup-QP follows presque „almost‟ and precedes bien, which delimits<br />
the range of its possible locations.<br />
Presque „almost‟ > beaucoup „a lot‟<br />
(39) a. Il avait presque été beaucoup fait, mais on nous a communiqué d‟arrêter.<br />
Itexpl had almost been a-lot done, but PRONimpers uscl has told to stop<br />
A lot had almost been done, but we were told to stop.<br />
b. *Il avait beaucoup été presque fait, mais on nous a communiqué d‟arrêter.<br />
Beaucoup „a lot‟ > bien „well‟<br />
(40) a. ?Lucie a beaucoup très bien produit à l‟usine.<br />
L. has a-lot very well produced at the factory.<br />
L. has produced a lot at the factory very well.<br />
b. *Lucie a très bien beaucoup produit à l‟usine.<br />
In conclusion, it seems to me that the data point to the direction that beaucoup-<br />
QP is in the same position as beaucoup-AdvP, and that beaucoup-QP‟s location after<br />
tout simply cannot be seen.<br />
Peu<br />
The behaviour of peu is identical to that of beaucoup: as an adverb, it follows<br />
tout „everything‟ and it precedes bien „well‟.<br />
134<br />
Although the hypothesis of beaucoup‟s location must be updated, the quantifier‟s frequency<br />
reading is certainly worth analysing further. In our case, supposing beaucoup is<br />
„dislocated‟ (i.e. moved) to its scope position, then it should move to the position in the<br />
hierarchy in which it is checked by its corresponding aspectual head - in other words, in<br />
the same position as beaucoup bare quantifier.<br />
(xiii) a. Fanny a complètement beaucoup caché de choses.<br />
Fanny has completely a lot hidden of things<br />
Fanny has completely hidden a lot of things<br />
b. *Fanny a beaucoup complètement caché de choses.<br />
However, this tempting hypothesis needs verification. Alternatively, one should check if this<br />
„dislocated‟ position, having a frequentative meaning, coincides with the location of frequentative<br />
quantificational adverbs (i.e. beaucoup meaning beaucoup de fois „a lot of times‟).
On the relative position of beaucoup, guère, peu, rien and trop in French<br />
Tout „everything‟ > peu „little‟<br />
(41) a. Jacques a tout peu révisé.<br />
J. has everything little revised.<br />
J. revised everything little.<br />
b. *Jacques a peu tout révisé.<br />
Peu „little‟ > bien „well‟<br />
(42) a. ?Il a peu très bien marché.<br />
He has little very well walked.<br />
He has little walked very well.<br />
b. *Il a très bien peu marché.<br />
Peu-QP follows presque „almost‟ and precedes bien „well‟. Presque „almost‟ together<br />
with peu is felt as somewhat unnatural by native speakers. Consequently, (43)<br />
has been given an ironic sense.<br />
Presque „almost‟ > peu „little‟ 13<br />
(43) a. Il a presque été peu fait pour le Kosovo. Quelle honte!<br />
Itexpl has almost been little done for Kosovo. What a shame<br />
Little has almost been done for Kosovo. What a shame!<br />
b. *Il a peu été presque fait pour le Kosovo. Quelle honte!<br />
Bien „well‟ > peu „little‟<br />
(44) a. Il a peu très bien mangé.<br />
He has little very well eaten<br />
He has eaten little very well<br />
b. *Il a très bien peu mangé.<br />
Peu-QP cannot appear with complètement 14 . The reading where peu modifies<br />
complètement has obviously been excluded.<br />
13 Compare: Yves a presque peu fait aujourd’hui…quel garçon paresseux! 'Yves has almost<br />
done little today…what a lazy boy!‟ vs *Yves a peu presque fait aujourd’hui…quel<br />
garçon paresseux!<br />
14 However, just like its antonym beaucoup, peu can actually follow complètement if it is a<br />
„dislocated‟ quantifier: Fanny a complètement peu caché de choses „Fanny has completely<br />
hidden few things vs *Fanny a peu complètement caché de choses.<br />
135
Sara Vecchiato<br />
(45) a. *Fanny a peu complètement changé dans le théâtre moderne<br />
Fanny has completely little changed in the theatre modern<br />
b. *Fanny a complètement peu changé dans le théâtre moderne.<br />
Rien<br />
136<br />
Rien seems to be located between presque and complètement 15 .<br />
Presque „almost‟ > rien „nothing‟ 16<br />
(46) a. Il n‟a presque été rien changé.<br />
Itexpl not cl has almost been nothing changed<br />
Nothing has almost been changed.<br />
b. *Il n‟a rien été presque changé.<br />
Rien „nothing‟ > complètement „completely‟<br />
(47) a. Daniel n‟a rien complètement changé.<br />
Daniel notcl has nothing completely changed.<br />
Daniel hasn’t completely changed anything.<br />
b. *Daniel n‟a complètement rien changé.<br />
5. Conclusion<br />
We have seen quite clear-cut data for the location of the examined quantifiers in<br />
the general hierarchy. As to their corresponding aspectual heads, one of them had<br />
already been identified in Cinque (1999) - namely, guère (Neg4). However, no reference<br />
is made there to the other four. Here, I would like to label the aspectual projections<br />
corresponding to beaucoup, peu, trop and rien, at least in a tentative way.<br />
15 It could be argued that rien cannot be found after complètement because of semantic reasons.<br />
In fact, though complètement normally precedes tout, the antonym of rien, it can<br />
also follow it with some lexical choices (see Cinque (‟99), p. 10):<br />
(xiv) a. Tu as complètement tout refait?<br />
b. Tu as tout complètement refait?<br />
In (a) complètement modifies both the verb and the object (the natural answer could be Non!<br />
Je n’ai fait que la cuisine). In (b) the adverb modifies just the verb (the answer could be:<br />
Non! Je n’ai fait que la peinture). Being rien a negative quantifier, it would be impossible<br />
for it to be under the scope of a „completion‟ adverb. Then, it would exploit only the second<br />
option, where complètement is focussed on the verb. I leave the question open.<br />
16 Compare: Jean n‟a presque rien changé dans son milieu de travail. ‟Jean has changed almost<br />
nothing in his place of work‟ vs *Jean n‟a rien presque changé dans son milieu de travail.
On the relative position of beaucoup, guère, peu, rien and trop in French<br />
Of course, it will be necessary to check if aspectual heads corresponding to these<br />
adverbs exist in some languages.<br />
I would like to suggest ASPexcess for trop, ASPdegree for beaucoup/peu and ASPabsence<br />
for rien. Since beaucoup and peu seem to occupy the same specifier position, I<br />
would like to propose that their aspectual heads have two features, a positive one,<br />
[+ASPdegree], associated with beaucoup and a negative one, [-ASPdegree], associated<br />
with peu.<br />
[frankly MOODspeech-act [fortunately MOODevaluative [allegedly MOODevidential [probably<br />
MOODepistemic [once T(Past) [then T(Future) [perhaps MOODirrealis [necessarily<br />
MOODnecessity [possibly MODpossibility [usually ASPhabitual [again ASPrepetitive(I) [often ASPfrequentative(I)<br />
[intentionally MODvolitional [quickly ASPcelerative(I) [already T(Anterior) [no<br />
longer ASPterminative [still ASPcontinuative [always ASPperfect [just ASPretrospective [soon ASP-<br />
proximative [briefly ASPdurative [characteristically (?) ASPgeneric/progressive [almost ASPprospective<br />
[guère Neg4 [trop ASPexcess [rien ASPabsence] [completely ASPSgCompletive(I) [tout<br />
ASPPlCompletive [beaucoup / peu ASPdegree [well Voice [fast/early ASPcelerative(II) [completely<br />
ASPSgCompletive(II) [again ASPrepetitive (II) [often ASPfrequentative (II)]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]<br />
6. Appendix: there are no contradictions<br />
In order to find their locations, all the examined items were tested to determine<br />
their position with respect to every lower adverbs, starting from toujours (always).<br />
The data are consistent with the key sentences provided above.<br />
Trop-AdvP<br />
(49) a. Les films ont toujours trop impressionné David.<br />
b. *Les films ont trop toujours impressionné David.<br />
(50) a. On a récemment trop contesté le député<br />
b. *On a trop récemment contesté le député.<br />
(51) a. Ses louanges t‟ont bientôt trop flatté.<br />
b. *Ses louanges t‟ont trop bientôt flatté.<br />
(52) a. Les médecins ont longtemps trop ignoré la dépression.<br />
b. *Les médecins ont trop longtemps ignoré la dépression.<br />
(53) a. Il a brièvement trop utilisé son ordinateur, mais après tout a été arrangé.<br />
b. *Il a trop brièvement utilisé son ordinateur, mais après tout a été arrangé.<br />
(54) a. On a trop tout analysé.<br />
b. *On a tout trop analysé.<br />
137
Sara Vecchiato<br />
(55) a. On a trop très bien dansé et on est crevés.<br />
b. *On a très bien trop sauté et on est crevés.<br />
(56) a. On a de nouveau trop poussé à l‟extrême le réacteur.<br />
b. *On a trop de nouveau poussé à l‟extrême le réacteur.<br />
(57) a. Les gardiens du zoo ont vite trop nourri les lions.<br />
b. *Les gardiens du zoo ont trop vite nourri les lions.<br />
(58) a. Tu l‟as rarement trop embarrassé par tes remarques<br />
b. *Tu l‟as trop rarement embarrassé par tes remarques<br />
Trop-QP:<br />
(59) a. David a toujours trop mangé.<br />
b. *David a trop toujours mangé.<br />
(60) a. On a récemment trop fait pour influencer sa décision.<br />
b. *On a trop récemment fait pour influencer sa décision, il nous en veut<br />
beaucoup.<br />
(61) a. ?Tu as bientôt trop acheté, il fallait que tu attendes d‟avoir l‟argent.<br />
b. *Tu as trop bientôt acheté, il fallait que tu attendes d‟avoir l‟argent.<br />
(62) a. Les médecins ont longtemps trop ignoré pour pouvoir soigner réellement.<br />
b. *Les médecins ont trop longtemps ignoré pour pouvoir soigner réellement.<br />
(63) a. ??Yvonne a trop très bien produit, je l‟envie, franchement.<br />
b. *Yvonne a très bien trop produit, je l‟envie, franchement.<br />
(64) a. *Sa famille n‟a guère toujours influencé Claude.<br />
b. Sa famille n‟a toujours guère influencé Claude<br />
(65) a. *Les spectateurs n‟ont guère récemment écouté son discours.<br />
b. Les spectateurs n‟ont récemment guère écouté son discours.<br />
(66) a. *Les gens âgés du village n‟ont guère bientôt apprécié la musique techno<br />
b. Les gens âgés du village n‟ont bientôt guère apprécié la musique techno<br />
(67) a. *Paul n‟a guère brièvement utilisé son ordinateur.<br />
b. Paul n‟a brièvement # guère utilisé son ordinateur.<br />
(68) a. *Je n‟ai guère longtemps soigné le jardin.<br />
b. Je n‟ai longtemps guère soigné le jardin.<br />
138
On the relative position of beaucoup, guère, peu, rien and trop in French<br />
(69) a. Tom n‟a longuement guère examiné le problème.<br />
b. *Tom n‟a guère longuement examiné le problème.<br />
(70) a. *L‟incendie n‟a guère complètement touché la bibliothèque<br />
b. *L‟incendie n‟a complètement guère touché la bibliothèque<br />
(71) a. Les révolutionnaires n‟ont guère trop changé la morale publique.<br />
b. *Les révolutionnaires n‟ont trop guère changé la morale publique.<br />
(72) a. Tu n‟as guère tout envisagé.<br />
b. *Tu n‟as tout guère envisagé.<br />
(73) a. Gilles n‟a guère beaucoup estimé sa mère.<br />
b. *Gilles n‟a beaucoup guère estimé sa mère.<br />
(74) a. Les citoyens n‟ont guère bien compris son emprisonnement<br />
b. *Les citoyens n‟ont bien guère compris son emprisonnement<br />
(75) a. ?David n‟a guère vite affaibli le géant<br />
b. David n‟a vite guère affaibli le géant.<br />
(76) a. *Ils n‟ont guère de nouveau amélioré le jus de fruit.<br />
b. Ils n‟ont de nouveau guère amélioré le jus de fruit.<br />
(77) a. Cette thérapie n‟a rarement guère soigné un claustrophobe.<br />
b. Cette thérapie n‟a guère rarement soigné un claustrophobe.<br />
(78) a. *Sa famille n‟a guère toujours fait pour Claude<br />
b. Sa famille n‟a toujours guère fait pour Claude<br />
(79) a. *Les spectateurs n‟ont guère récemment vu, les lumières ne marchaient pas.<br />
b. Les spectateurs n‟ont récemment guère vu, les lumières ne marchaient pas.<br />
(80) a. *Les gens âgés du village n‟ont guère bientôt mangé, ils ont perdu l‟appétit.<br />
b. Les gens âgés du village n‟ont bientôt guère mangé, ils ont perdu l‟appétit.<br />
(81) a. *Je n‟ai guère longtemps acheté dans ce magasin, il était déguelasse, vraiement.<br />
b. Je n‟ai longtemps guère acheté dans ce magasin, il était déguelasse, vraiement.<br />
(82) a. *Tom n‟a longuement guère écouté, il en avait marre de la radio.<br />
b. *Tom n‟a guère longuement écouté, il en avait marre de la radio.<br />
(83) a. Il n‟a longuement été guère fait pour l‟hôpital, il est presque ruiné.<br />
b. *Il n‟a guère été longuement fait pour l‟hôpital, il est presque ruiné.<br />
(84) a. *L‟incendie n‟a guère complètement détruit, il en reste assez de choses.<br />
b. *L‟incendie n‟a complètement guère détruit, il en reste assez de choses<br />
139
Sara Vecchiato<br />
(85) a. Les citoyens n‟ont guère très bien fait pour leur ville.<br />
b. *Les citoyens n‟ont très bien guère fait pour leur ville.<br />
Beaucoup-AdvP<br />
(86) a. Marguerite Duras a toujours beaucoup lu.<br />
b. *Marguerite Duras a beaucoup toujours lu.<br />
(87) a. On a récemment beaucoup voyagé en Angleterre.<br />
b. *On a beaucoup récemment voyagé en Angleterre.<br />
(88) a. Yves a bientôt beaucoup aimé sa fille adoptive.<br />
b. *Yves a beaucoup bientôt aimé sa fille adoptive.<br />
(89) a. Jeanne a longtemps beaucoup ignoré son fils.<br />
b. *Jeanne a beaucoup longtemps ignoré son fils.<br />
(90) a. Pascal a longuement beaucoup ignoré sa sœur.<br />
b. *Pascal a beaucoup longuement ignoré sa sœur.<br />
(91) a. Nous avons brièvement beaucoup souhaité la victoire de ce candidat.<br />
b. *Nous avons beaucoup brièvement souhaité la victoire de ce candidat.<br />
(92) a. Nicolas a beaucoup trop surchargé ses collègues. 17<br />
b. *Nicolas a trop beaucoup surchargé ses collègues.<br />
(93) a. Gilles a de nouveau beaucoup travaillé.<br />
b. *Gilles a beaucoup de nouveau travaillé.<br />
(94) a. Jean a rarement beaucoup apprécié le travail des autres.<br />
b. *Jean a beaucoup rarement apprécié le travail des autres.<br />
(95) a. Vous avez vite beaucoup couru dehors.<br />
b. *Vous avez beaucoup vite couru dehors.<br />
Peu-AdvP<br />
(96) a. Les lecteurs moyens ont toujours peu apprécié son livre.<br />
b. *Les lecteurs moyens ont peu toujours apprécié son livre.<br />
17 Beaucoup (a lot) seems to follow trop (too much). However, it is difficult to interpret the<br />
data, because trop and beaucoup are apparently incompatible from a semantic point of<br />
view: They can appear together in an active sentence because beaucoup is trop‟s specifier:<br />
“far too much”. Instead, in passive sentences, the higher beaucoup and trop have a<br />
frequency reading. Consequently, we are obliged to establish beaucoup‟s position with respect<br />
to trop by transitivity.<br />
140
On the relative position of beaucoup, guère, peu, rien and trop in French<br />
(97) a. Gilles m‟a récemment peu écouté.<br />
b. *Gilles m‟a peu récemment écouté.<br />
(98) a. Ses camarades ont bientôt peu estimé Céline.<br />
b. *Ses camarades ont peu bientôt estimé Céline.<br />
(99) a. Les soldes ont longtemps peu attiré les gens.<br />
b. *Les soldes ont peu longtemps attiré les gens.<br />
(100) a. On a longuement peu laissé les animaux du zoo en liberté.<br />
b. *On a peu longuement laissé les animaux du zoo en liberté.<br />
(101) a. Les armes à feu ont brièvement peu effrayé Geneviève.<br />
b. *Les armes à feu ont peu brièvement effrayé Geneviève.<br />
(102) a. Les critiques musicaux ont presque peu considéré Jimi Hendrix<br />
b. *Les critiques musicaux ont peu presque considéré Jimi Hendrix<br />
(103) a. *On a peu trop exercé sa conscience morale.<br />
b. *On a trop peu exercé sa conscience morale.<br />
(104) a. On a de nouveau peu reconnu Agnès comme un auteur important.<br />
b. *On a peu de nouveau reconnu Agnès comme un auteur cela.<br />
(105) a. Ton patron t‟a vite peu chargé de travail.<br />
b. *Ton patron t‟a peu vite chargé de travail.<br />
(106) a. Le professeur a rarement peu blâmé Guitry.<br />
b. *Le professeur a peu rarement blâmé Guitry.<br />
Rien<br />
(107) a. Valentine n‟a rien très bien fait.<br />
b. *Valentine n‟a très bien rien fait.<br />
(108) a. Il n‟a rien été très bien fait.<br />
b. *Il n‟a très bien été rien fait.<br />
References<br />
Acquaviva, Paolo: “The Logical Form of Negative Concord”, in “Empirical Issues in formal syntax<br />
and semantics”, European Academic Publishers, Berne 1997.<br />
Alexiadou, Artemis: “Issues in the Syntax of Adverbs”, Phd Dissertation, Universität Potsdam,<br />
1994.<br />
Bat-Zeev Shyldkrot, Hava: “Tout: Polysémie, Grammaticalisation et sens prototypique”, Langue<br />
Française, vol.107, Larousse, Paris 1995.<br />
Belletti, Adriana: “Generalised Verb Movement”, Rosenberg & Sellier, Torino, 1990.<br />
141
Sara Vecchiato<br />
Borillo, Andrée.: “La quantification temporelle: durée et itérativité en français”, Cahiers de<br />
Grammaire, 11, 117-156, Université de Toulouse - Le Mirail, Toulouse 1986.<br />
Cinque, Guglielmo: “Adverbs and Functional Heads”, Oxford Studies in Comparative Syntax,<br />
Oxford University Press, New York , Oxford, 1999.<br />
Cinque, Guglielmo, “On leftward movement of tutto in Italian”, University of Venice Working<br />
Papers in Linguistics, Venice, 1992.<br />
Cinque, Guglielmo: “Types of A-bar Dependencies”, Linguistic Inquiry Monographs, 17, 56-97,<br />
The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachussetts, 1990.<br />
Cinque, Guglielmo: “Bare Quantifiers, Quantified NPs and the Notion of Operators at S-<br />
Structure”, Rivista di Grammatica Generativa, 11, 33-63, Unipress, Padova, 1985.<br />
Giusti, Giuliana: “The Categorial Status of Determiners”, in “The New Comparative Syntax”, 95-<br />
123, Longman, London and New York, 1997.<br />
Haegeman, Liliane: “Introduction to Government and Binding Theory”, Blackwell Publishers,<br />
UK, 1994.<br />
Kayne, Richard S.: “The Antisymmetry of Syntax”, Linguistic Inquiry Monographs, 25, The MIT<br />
Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1994.<br />
Kayne, Richard S.: “French Syntax - The Transformational Cycle”, 1-65, The MIT Press, Cambridge,<br />
1975.<br />
Laenzlinger, Christopher: “Comparative Studies in Word Order Variations”, Thèse de doctorat<br />
d‟État, Université de Genève, 1996.<br />
Laenzlinger, Christopher: “Adverb Syntax and Phrase Structure”, in “Configurations” ed. Anna-<br />
Maria di Sciullo, 99-127. Somerville: Cascadilla Press, 1996.<br />
Lonzi, Lidia: “Which Adverbs in SPEC, VP?” Rivista di Grammatica Generativa, 15, 141-160, Unipress,<br />
Padova, 1990.<br />
Nølke, Henning: “Recherches sur les adverbes: bref aperçu historique des travaux de classification”,<br />
Langue Française, 88, 117-123, Larousse, Paris, 1990.<br />
Obenauer, Hans-Georg: “Aspects de la syntaxe A-barre”, Thèse de doctorat d‟Etat, Université de<br />
Paris VIII, 1994.<br />
Pollock, Jean-Yves: “Verb Movement, UG and the Structure of IP”, Linguistic Inquiry, 20, 365-<br />
424, MIT Press Cambridge Mass, 1989.<br />
Robert, Paul: “Le Nouveau Petit Robert”, Dictionnaires Le Robert - Paris, 1994.<br />
Sportiche, Dominique: “Adjuncts and Adjunction”, UCLA, 1994.<br />
Togeby, Knud: “Grammaire française, Vol. II: Les formes personnelles du verbe”; “Vol. IV: Les<br />
mots invariables”, Etudes Romanes de l‟Université de Copenhague, Akademisk Forlag,<br />
Copenhague, 1984.<br />
Travis, Lisa: „The Syntax of Adverbs‟, McGill University Working Papers in Linguistics,<br />
Montréal, 1988.<br />
Vecchiato, Sara: “A Note on Longtemps-Longuement”, Annali di Ca’ Foscari, Venezia, 1999.<br />
Vinet, Marie-Thérèse: “Adverbial Quantifiers, Negation and Stress Rules Effects”, University of<br />
Venice Working Papers in Linguistics, 5, 115-138, 1995.<br />
Zanuttini, Raffaella: “Negation and Clausal Structure”, Oxford Studies in Comparative Syntax,<br />
Oxford University Press, New York / Oxford, 1997.<br />
142
0. Introduction<br />
ANCORA AND ADDITIVE WORDS<br />
Milena VEGNADUZZO<br />
The classification and analysis of the parts of speech (or may be better, parts of<br />
sentence) has produced a long tradition of studies that have adopted different criteria<br />
(morphological, semantic, distributional) to define them. It is well known that in this<br />
kind of research the class of adverbs received less attention than others in traditional<br />
grammar. It is the least homogeneous category, the one to which all those words that<br />
do not find place in other categories are assigned. Adverbs are traditionally classified,<br />
rather approximately, according to their meaning: e.g., we have time adverbs,<br />
mood adverbs, place adverbs.<br />
In this paper I will deal in particular with the Italian adverb ancora, which shows<br />
interesting properties because of the multiplicity of contexts in which it can be used.<br />
I will discuss its main readings in order to see whether it is possible to reduce this<br />
multiplicity of values to a general, basic, abstract meaning. Then I will extend the<br />
generalization obtained for ancora to other adverbs in order to identify a group of<br />
adverbs sharing the same properties.<br />
1. Readings of “ancora”<br />
The adverb ancora is used in many situations to express different meanings. It<br />
can have different values such as continuative, iterative, quantitative, additive, comparative<br />
or adversative. This could be considered a case of lexical ambiguity. However,<br />
I will argue that ancora has a single lexical entry allowing for different construals,<br />
depending upon the context where the adverb is inserted. We can say that the<br />
meaning that ancora acquires is determined by the interaction of its basic meaning<br />
with the argument structure of the verb, and by the combination of the semantic features<br />
of the verb and its object. In particular, the following parameters are relevant:<br />
a) the aspectual class of the VP (activity, accomplishment, state, achievement, following<br />
Vendler [1967] and Verkuyl [1989]), with special reference to the tel-<br />
143
Milena Vegnaduzzo<br />
ic/atelic 1 distinction; b) tense; c) grammatical aspect; d) the presence or absence of<br />
the direct complement (definite or indefinite object, count or mass noun); e) the type<br />
of event (unique or non-unique).<br />
On the basis of these parameters I will characterize the contexts where each reading<br />
of ancora is allowed. Since in English each value we are concerned with is associated<br />
with a different lexical item, I will use these words as labels to easily recognize<br />
each construal of ancora.<br />
1.1. The continuative reading<br />
When used with continuative meaning 2 , (i.e., in the sense of English “still”), ancora<br />
implies an interval at which the situation is in progress, i.e. it presupposes that<br />
the situation expressed by the verb was already in progress at the reference time.<br />
Thus ancora has scope on the state of affairs expressed by the verb. This reading is<br />
licensed under the following conditions:<br />
A. if the predicate is an adjective it is alterable 3 (ex. 1-2)<br />
B. if the predicate is a verb without complements it is durative (ex. 3-12)<br />
C. the verb is atelic (ex. 3-5)<br />
D. the verb has imperfective aspect (ex. 3-8)<br />
1 I consider telic verbs those oriented to reach a definite natural terminal point that once<br />
reached involves a change in the situation described; I consider atelic verbs those that lack<br />
such intrinsic terminal point, go on without interruptions and can be stopped at any time.<br />
2 I prefer the term continuative with respect to the term traditionally used durative, because<br />
it does not only refer to the length of time but emphasizes also that the action was in<br />
progress previously, which is exactly what ancora means in this reading. Then I will use<br />
the term durative only to make reference to the action of the verb while I will reserve the<br />
term continuative to express the value of the adverb deriving from its basic meaning associated<br />
with the action of the verb.<br />
3 With the expression «alterable predicates» I mean durative predicates whose denotation<br />
lasts for a determined period of time after which it is subject to a change of state. When<br />
associated to this predicates ancora states the persistence of its denotation against the<br />
supposition it already came to the change of state. They are alterable predicates adjective<br />
as: young, living, sick, raw, unripe, short, eatible but not they antonyms old, dead, healthy<br />
cooked, ripe, tall, out of date. So for example «to be young» is a condition that lasts for a<br />
period of time and then undergoes a change of state because people necessarily, become<br />
old. The direction of change goes from «to be young» to «to be old» but the reverse does<br />
not hold. So the former predicate is alterable, while the latter is not.<br />
144
Ancora and additive words<br />
Examples 4 :<br />
(1) Maria è ancora giovane.<br />
„Mary is still young.‟<br />
(2) *Maria è ancora vecchia.<br />
„Mary is still old.‟<br />
(3) Maria nuota ancora.<br />
„Mary is still swimming.‟<br />
(4) Maria stava ancora nuotando.<br />
„Mary was still swimming.‟<br />
(5) Maria nuotava ancora quando chiusero la piscina.<br />
„Mary was still swimming when the swimming pool was closed.‟<br />
(6) #Maria ha/aveva nuotato ancora.<br />
<br />
(7) #Maria nuotò ancora.<br />
„Mary swam again.‟<br />
(8) #Maria nuoterà/avrà nuotato ancora 5 .<br />
„Mary will swim/will have swum again.‟<br />
(9) #Maria parte ancora.<br />
„Mary leaves again.‟<br />
(10) *Maria muore ancora.<br />
*„Mary still dies.‟<br />
(11) #Luca legge ancora un romanzo.<br />
„Luca reads another novel.‟<br />
4 The symbol # indicates that the sentence is not acceptable in the reading of ancora we are<br />
dealing with (in the present case the continuative one), but it is with other readings; the<br />
symbol * indicates ungrammaticality on any reading. I will give in the English translation<br />
the exact interpretation of the Italian sentence.<br />
5 Notice that the continuative reading is available if the Future has progressive value:<br />
«Quando arriverai Maria nuoterà ancora (= starà ancora nuotando)», „When you will arrive<br />
Mary will be still swimming.‟<br />
145
Milena Vegnaduzzo<br />
(12) Luca legge ancora romanzi.<br />
„Luca still reads novels.‟<br />
In the last case the still reading is allowed because the bare plural is not a discret<br />
entity and therefore the event is atelic (cfr. Tovena).<br />
The association of ancora with stative verbs is impossible when they express generic<br />
predications such as geographic locations or when they refer to classes or species:<br />
(13) #Chiasso è ancora in Italia 6 .<br />
„Chiasso is still in Italy.‟<br />
(14) *Le tigri sono ancora dei felini.<br />
*„Tigers are still feline.‟<br />
With respect to stative verbs that refer to specific situations, the association with<br />
ancora is allowed only if it is possible an alteration of the described state of affairs,<br />
even if such alteration means the cancellation of the existence conditions of the state<br />
of affairs itself:<br />
(15) Mio figlio crede ancora all‟Uomo Nero.<br />
„My son still believes in the Blak Man.‟<br />
(16) Stefano fa ancora l‟avvocato.<br />
„Steven is still a lawyer.‟<br />
(17) Nonostante l‟età mio nonno è ancora in gamba.<br />
„Despite his age my grandpa is still fit.‟<br />
1.2. The iterative and quantitative readings<br />
Besides the continuation of an action, ancora can be used to express the repetition<br />
of an event (cfr. Tovena). In this case the fundamental element is the presence<br />
of a well-defined termination point: in fact the repetition shows the action in its single<br />
occurrences and therefore as completed. From this it follows that only telic predicates<br />
can express repetition. As suggested by Tovena: a) if the repetition shows up<br />
as iteration of the event, ancora corresponds to the English “again” and it has, then,<br />
iterative meaning; b) if it shows up as alteration of a participant of the event, ancora<br />
corresponds to English “one more”, “another” and it has quantitative meaning.<br />
Therefore, I claim, in the first case, ancora has scope over the event, in the second<br />
case over an argument. Iterative and quantitative meaning of ancora represent then<br />
6 This sentence can only have a spatial interpretation in a context as: „Chiasso is still in Italy<br />
but Lugano is already in Switzerland.‟ which refers to a scalar relation of the cities.<br />
(See König 1977 p. 184).<br />
146
Ancora and additive words<br />
two sides of a unique concept, i.e. the concept of repetition, but are licensed under<br />
different contextual conditions.<br />
The iterative reading (the “again” construal) requires:<br />
E. telic verbs (ex. 18-19)<br />
F. non-unique event (ex. 19-20)<br />
G. perfective aspect (ex. 18-26)<br />
H. specific object (ex. 19, 21-23)<br />
Examples 4 :<br />
(18) #Maria nuota ancora 7 .<br />
„Mary is still swimming.‟<br />
(19) Maria legge / ha letto ancora la lettera. non-unique event/definite object<br />
„Mary reads / has read the letter again.‟<br />
(20) ?*Maria scrive ancora la lettera 7 . unique event<br />
„Mary writes the letter again.‟<br />
(21) #Maria legge / ha letto ancora una lettera. non-unique event/indefinte object<br />
„Mary reads / has read another/one more letter.‟<br />
(22) Maria legge / ha letto ancora una lettera di sua zia.<br />
non-unique event / specific object<br />
„Mary reads / has read her aunt‟s letter again.‟<br />
„Mary reads / has read another letter of her aunt.‟<br />
(23) Maria lesse ancora i romanzi.<br />
„Mary read the novels again.‟<br />
(24) Maria verrà ancora a trovarti.<br />
„Mary will came to see you again.‟<br />
(25) Maria non ti deluderà ancora.<br />
„Mary will not disappoint you again.‟<br />
7<br />
The iterative reading is possible if the Present Tense has progressive value:<br />
«Maria sta nuotando ancora (= di nuovo)».<br />
„Mary is swimming again.‟<br />
«Maria sta scrivendo ancora (= di nuovo) la lettera».<br />
„Mary is writing the letter again.‟<br />
147
Milena Vegnaduzzo<br />
(26) Maria mangia ancora la zuppa (e non il riso).<br />
„Mary eats soup again (and not rice).‟<br />
„Mary still eats soup (and not rice).‟<br />
The sentence in (22) can have both the iterative interpretation (“again”) or the<br />
quantitative one (“another”). This ambiguity is due to the different scope of ancora:<br />
in the former case ancora takes scope over the event, in the latter it takes scope<br />
over the NP object. Same explanation for the sentence in (26): ancora can take<br />
scope either over the state of affairs (“still” reading) or over the event (“again”<br />
reading). In this case, as suggested by Tovena, the iterative reading follows from<br />
the fact that the definite NP is coerced into a „type‟ reading which transforms a<br />
unique event into a non-unique event.<br />
The quantitative reading “one more”, “another” has more applicability restrictions<br />
because it is triggered only by the presence of a direct object that therefore constitutes<br />
the element in the scope of ancora. The licensing conditions are the following:<br />
I. presence of a NP object<br />
J. presence of an event (unique or non-unique), (ex. 27-28)<br />
K. telic verb<br />
L. possibility of alteration of the NP, i.e. the substitution of the participant with<br />
another one of the same type<br />
M. indefinite NP object (ex. 29).<br />
Examples 4 :<br />
(27) Maria scrive / ha scritto ancora una lettera.<br />
„Mary writes / has written one more/another letter.‟<br />
(28) Maria legge / ha scritto ancora una lettera.<br />
„Mary reads / has read one more / another letter.‟<br />
(29) #Maria ha letto ancora la lettera.<br />
„Mary has read the letter again.‟<br />
(30) Maria mangia ancora cioccolata.<br />
„Mary eats more chocolate.‟<br />
(31) Maria mangia ancora un piatto di lenticchie.<br />
„Mary eats one more / another plate of lentils.‟<br />
(32) Maria ha nuotato ancora per due ore.<br />
„Mary has swum for two more hours.‟<br />
The last two examples suggest interesting observations. In (31) ancora can only<br />
have quantitative reading and not iterative (cfr. example (22)). I think this is<br />
148
Ancora and additive words<br />
probably due to the quantificational properties of the NP “un piatto” which behaves<br />
as a unit of measure.<br />
In (32) ancora can have only a quantitative and not a continuative meaning as<br />
one might think. It is true that this sentence too implies a continuation of the action<br />
expressed by the verb, but such continuation is different from the one seen in (1) because<br />
it goes, so to speak, in the opposite direction, i.e. starting from a reference<br />
point (not necessarily coincident with the utterance time) towards the future. The<br />
semantic difference between the two sentences is mirrored in the syntactic structure:<br />
in (32) ancora modifies the Adverbial Phrase (AdvP) and not the verb, as the comparison<br />
with the English translation shows.<br />
1.3. The comparative reading<br />
Another meaning attributed to ancora by traditional grammar is that of comparative<br />
adverb, because it modifies adjectives or adverbs in the comparative degree.<br />
With this reading ancora corresponds to English “even”:<br />
(33) Maria è ancora più giovane di Piera.<br />
„Mary is even younger than Piera.‟<br />
(34) Maria è ancora più vecchia di Antonio.<br />
„Mary is even older than Anthony.‟<br />
(35) Maria mangia ancora più lentamente di Antonio.<br />
„Mary eats even more slowly than Anthony.‟<br />
In this case the element under the scope of ancora is the comparative adjective<br />
or adverb. Nevertheless, the comparative sense does not seem to represent a really<br />
distinct construal of ancora, because it can be easily reduced to another value, i.e.<br />
the quantitative meaning. Actually, in the examples (33)-(35) ancora can be interpreted<br />
as indicating a further degree, a greater extent of some property expressed by<br />
the adjective or the adverb. We could say that the term “comparative” indicates the<br />
function performed by ancora in the sentence more than its meaning, which can be<br />
rather considered quantitative. I will come back to this point later.<br />
In the “comparative” construal ancora can modify alterable or non-alterable predicates.<br />
On the other hand, when it modifies superlatives, ancora has only the continuative<br />
meaning and therefore it is sensitive to the opposition alterable/non-alterable:<br />
(36) Maria è ancora bellissima.<br />
„Mary is still very beautiful.‟<br />
(37) *Maria è ancora vecchissima.<br />
*‟Mary is still very old.‟<br />
149
Milena Vegnaduzzo<br />
1.4. The additive reading<br />
Finally ancora can be used also as an additive conjunction (“also”, see It.<br />
“anche”) and in Old Italian also as an adversative conjunction (“nevertheless”,<br />
“however”, see It. “tuttavia”). In the first case the origin of such use should be probably<br />
led back to a common etymological ancestor of these two forms (hinc ad horam<br />
or a reconstructed root *anc), which specialized later in the two different forms ancora<br />
and anche. Even if it is not clear which form derives from which, it is undeniable<br />
that for some time in Old Italian these two forms were used in a very flexible<br />
way, appearing in the same contexts. They later specialized and undertook the modern<br />
meaning. Nevertheless, in modern Italian traces persist of this overlap. If, in<br />
general, they determine different readings of the same sentence and are not interchangeable<br />
(see the example in (38)), in some contexts they are (39-42), while in<br />
others they show parallelisms (43-44):<br />
(38) a. Oggi esistono anche i computer portatili.<br />
„Today we have also laptop computers.‟<br />
b. Oggi esistono ancora i computer portatili.<br />
„Today we still have laptop computers.‟<br />
(39) a. Ieri e ancora oggi.<br />
„Yesterday and still today.‟<br />
b. Ieri e anche oggi.<br />
„Yesterday and also today.‟<br />
(40) a. Ancora di più.<br />
„Still more.‟<br />
b. Anche di più.<br />
„Also more.‟<br />
(41) a. Viene anche Antonio.<br />
„Also Anthony is coming.‟<br />
b. C‟erano Luca, Paolo, Giovanni e ancora Carlo, Roberto, Alfredo.<br />
„There were Luca, Paul; John and still Karl, Robert, Alfred.‟<br />
(42) a. Gli ho anche detto.<br />
„I also told him.‟<br />
b. Gli ho ancor detto. (obsolete)<br />
„I still told him.‟<br />
(43) a. Anche se fosse stanco. (= irreal)<br />
„Even if it was tired.‟<br />
150
Ancora and additive words<br />
b. Ancorché fosse stanco. (= real).<br />
„Although he was tired.‟<br />
(44) a. Neanche.<br />
„Neg-anche.’<br />
b. Neancora. (= non ancora, dialectal)<br />
„Neg-ancora.’<br />
According to Tovena‟s analysis [1996] the overlap of meanings of ancora and<br />
anche takes place in the presence of coordinated structures: in this case a new participant<br />
is explicitly introduced into the action, unlike what happens in the iterative<br />
reading “again” (where there is only one participant), or in the quantitative<br />
reading “one more” (where the participant in the predication is substituted for by<br />
another of the same type).<br />
1.5. The adversative reading<br />
Finally, ancora in Old Italian was used with an adversative meaning:<br />
(45) Se voi mi concedete ch‟io vada, io v‟andrò e se voi non me lo concedete ancora<br />
andrò. (Boccaccio, I, 270)<br />
„If you let me go, I will go and if you do not, still I will go.‟<br />
It must be noticed that in Old Italian the adverb tuttavia, indicating the persistence<br />
of a situation or condition in the present or in the past, could be interchanged<br />
with ancora:<br />
(46) Essendo il freddo grande e nevicando tuttavia forte. (Boccaccio)<br />
„Being really cold and snowing still a lot.‟<br />
(47) Dall‟una e dall‟altra di quelle terre correvano e corrono tuttavia strade e stradette<br />
più o meno ripide o piane. (Manzoni)<br />
„From one and another of these grounds run in the past and still run streets and<br />
little streets more or less steep or flat.‟<br />
An interesting parallelism can be observed in the history of English: according to<br />
the Oxford English Dictionary the adversative meaning displayed by still is probably<br />
derived from the temporal meaning:<br />
(48) Nothing can make such a room healthy. Ventilation would improve it, but still<br />
it would be unhealthy. (Flor. Nightingale, Nursing, 1861, 22)<br />
In this sense, if we suppose the same thing for ancora, the Italian adverb would<br />
have under its scope the state of affairs expressed by the verb in the adversative<br />
reading as well.<br />
151
Milena Vegnaduzzo<br />
To summarize, we have seen that each reading exhibited by ancora is determined<br />
by different licensing conditions. We also noted that in each construal ancora<br />
takes scope over a different entity. We argue, then, that the cases of multiple reading<br />
of a sentence are due to scope differences.<br />
2. Uniform classification<br />
So far we have seen that ancora has different readings according to the context<br />
in which it is used. I will now try to show that such polysemy is only apparent, i.e.,<br />
it represents the manifestation at the contextual level of a unique more general and<br />
abstract meaning that interplays with the features of the elements of the syntactic<br />
context. Many are the proposals of a unitary classification of the meanings of ancora,<br />
or of its counterparts in different languages. The majority of these theories makes<br />
use of the concepts of assertion and presupposition: when ancora is applied to a sentence<br />
F, the presupposition holds that F is true for the entire timespan at which the<br />
situation is in progress. This induces the persistence of a situation started in the past<br />
until the moment expressed by the tense of the sentence where it is contained. Such<br />
presupposition does not say anything about the state of affairs after utterance time,<br />
which therefore remains undetermined.<br />
Starting from this concept, König [1977] defines the temporal and non-temporal<br />
(spatial, comparative, adversative) meanings of the German noch as manifestations<br />
of a basic scalar meaning because both interpretations imply the selection of some<br />
points in time or entities of different type fixed in an ordered relation. But such scalar<br />
meaning cannot account for the additive meaning of noch. Consider (49):<br />
(49) Ich kenne nóch einen Mann, der flieend Russisch spricht.<br />
„I know another person who speaks Russian fluently.‟<br />
Here the additive reading of noch should be reduced to the non-temporal use.<br />
Anyway, it cannot be accounted for within the framework of this analysis because it<br />
does not introduce a set of ordered elements.<br />
In Barker [1991] stillF means that the state of affairs in F has persisted, against<br />
some conditions. Still takes as argument the constituent to whose denotation the<br />
concept of persistence can somehow be applied. This happens directly in the temporal<br />
case, by analogy in the other ones. Then, in general, what unifies the different<br />
construals of still is an analogical extension stemming from the prototypical case,<br />
i.e., the temporal one.<br />
Nef [1981] proposes to reduce temporal, iterative and quantitative meanings of<br />
French encore to a “schéma formel d‟implicature” which is interpreted in a different<br />
way for each case. I do not enter into the details of his analysis. It is enough to<br />
say that he too keeps distinct temporal cases as “Paul est encore malade” („Paul is<br />
152
Ancora and additive words<br />
still ill‟) from quantitative cases as “Marie a mangé encore deux gâteaux” („Mary<br />
ate two more gâteaux‟).<br />
Also Tovena [1996] thinks that the different readings of ancora depend on its sensitivity<br />
to the context, in particular on the type of event which it is applied to. For Tovena<br />
ancora is a binary operator schematically represented as ANCORA (A, B). The<br />
basic meaning of ancora is identified, then, in two components: a mapping of the argument<br />
A instantiated by a proposition (e.g. “to be young”) with the argument B<br />
which contains an “eventuality identifier” (the information provided by the verb) and<br />
an effect of continuation. Such continuation is realized in different ways according to<br />
the entity which it is applied to: if the event lacks a terminal point such continuation is<br />
an extension in time, if the event has a definite terminal point the continuation is a repetition<br />
(iterative or quantitative construal). But I think that also this explanation implies<br />
an ordering of entities as in König‟s proposal because this “effect of continuance”<br />
seems to suggest the idea of “ before” and “after”, that is a continuance in a<br />
linear dimension. Therefore it can hardly account for an example like (49).<br />
In all these theories, then, the quantitative meaning of ancora (or whatever counterpart<br />
in other languages) is the most difficult to insert in a unitary classification.<br />
In the present work I will put forward an explanation that can account for the<br />
temporal value and the non-temporal one (and all the others) at the same time. To do<br />
this I think it is worth starting from an approach opposite to that used by the authors<br />
quoted above. On the basis of the fact that the additive meaning should be connected<br />
to the others, it might be worth trying the opposite path, namely to assume the additive<br />
meaning as basic and assign a component of this type to all other meanings.<br />
Such idea was already implicitly suggested by Doherthy [1973] (who says that “a<br />
mere additive function […] lies at the bottom of all the various nochs”), and was afterwards<br />
assumed by König e Stark [1987] in terms of a basic additive meaning.<br />
Following the analysis of van der Auwera [1993] for German noch, I will show that<br />
each construal of Italian ancora can be expressed as addition of an entity to another<br />
entity of the same type or of a different type, if this is possible according to the features<br />
of the arguments taking part in the predication. But to consider the additive<br />
reading the basic component of the meaning of ancora does not mean that we set<br />
aside the presuppositional component that previous works reveal indispensable. I<br />
think, therefore, a unitary theory of the meanings of ancora should integrate in some<br />
way both these elements, presupposition and additive component.<br />
The additive component is clearly visible in the quantitative reading of ancora.<br />
Consider the following sentence:<br />
(50) t = Prendo ancora un biscotto.<br />
„I will take another / one more biscuit.‟<br />
153
Milena Vegnaduzzo<br />
In this case ancora indicates that some entity x (a biscuit) introduced at the utterance<br />
time t is added to an entity x‟ previously introduced at the moment t.‟ This sentence<br />
presupposes then a sentence like (51) or at least an act of taking a biscuit:<br />
(51) t‟ = Prendo un biscotto.<br />
„I will take a biscuit.‟<br />
The quantitative reading conveys, therefore, the presupposition of existence of<br />
another entity of the same type. At this point the component of meaning I called addition<br />
means that the entity x is added to the one presupposed and both constitutes<br />
the set of elements that are the subject of the predication.<br />
It should be noted that at this level of the analysis it is not important to know the<br />
type of participant targeted by ancora, i.e. whether it is a count or a mass noun: this<br />
does not imply differences in the interpretation of what we are testing here, the presence<br />
of the additive feature.<br />
At this point the hypothesis I formulated for the quantitative reading can account<br />
for all other construals of the adverb. We only need to substitute for the discourse<br />
referent x the element under the scope of ancora. I will show how this works for<br />
each reading I have discussed above.<br />
Recall the definition of the continuative reading where ancora implies an interval<br />
at which the situation is in progress<br />
(52) Maria abita ancora qua.<br />
„Mary still lives here.‟<br />
In this reading ancora says that the state holding at time t, specified by the adverb,<br />
already held in the immediately preceding interval 8 , and that such state persists<br />
until the time t, i.e., the state holding in the past is still in progress at the reference<br />
time t. It is important to notice that such persistence holds for each moment of time<br />
of the interval including the final one but not the first one. It is evident that within an<br />
interval the initial point, i.e., the starting point of the state, cannot be considered<br />
continuation of itself. The starting point represents the change of state from a “negative”<br />
situation, in which the state does not hold, to a positive one in which the state<br />
comes to existence.<br />
As an example, consider the following: the sentence (53) presupposes (54):<br />
(53) Maria vive ancora qua.<br />
„Maria still lives here.‟<br />
(54) Maria viveva qua precedentemente.<br />
„Mary has been living here previously.‟<br />
8 I do not consider the internal length of such interval that might be a second or many years.<br />
154
Ancora and additive words<br />
In (53) ancora conveys an interval projecting backwards, from utterance time to<br />
an undetermined moment in the past, the starting point of the interval, i.e., the point<br />
at which Maria went in the house for the first time. Therefore such moment indicates<br />
the change from a phase in which Maria did not live in the house, and it is expressed<br />
lexically by another adverb, the adverb già (“already”):<br />
(55) Maria già vive qua.<br />
„Mary already lives here.‟<br />
Applying to this reading my hypothesis we have that the state holding at time t<br />
already held at a time t‟ preceding t. Because of the fact that the state persists unchanged,<br />
going through the interval up to the moment t, this condition holds at any<br />
moment of the interval but the initial one. This follows directly from the fact the<br />
continuative reading of ancora is allowed only with durative verbs. Then it is not<br />
necessary to postulate a condition of contiguity of the moments t‟ and t as suggested<br />
by van der Auwera since the state is homogeneous.<br />
On the basis of the additive analysis the entity x in the continuative reading<br />
stands for a state, so to speak, added to a previous state of the same type: addition<br />
means that we have something more of a same state, a further moment in which the<br />
state of living persists. I will make this explicit with a graphic representation:<br />
---------------------------------><br />
initial point final point<br />
già abitava x‟(t‟) ancora x(t)<br />
In the picture the continuous line indicates the interval at which the situation (except<br />
the initial point lexicalized by già) persists and it is made up of infinitesimal<br />
states of living; x(t), the state identified by ancora, coincides with the final point,<br />
while x‟(t‟) can represent any of the infinitesimal states inside the interval. So the<br />
living of Mary in that place is the sum of all the infinitesimal states of the interval<br />
including the final one but not the first one.<br />
The iterative reading of ancora presupposes the existence of an event x‟ holding<br />
at t‟ previous to the event x holding at t. In this case, too, it is not necessary to postulate<br />
a condition of non-contiguity of the elements x and x‟, as van der Auwera<br />
does, because such condition is directly inferred by the features of the element under<br />
the scope of ancora:<br />
(56) Vieni a trovarmi ancora, Maria.<br />
„Come to see me again, Mary.‟<br />
In fact in this case the variable x does not stand for a state but for an event. As I<br />
noticed above, the event is telic and reaches a terminal point, while the state is atelic<br />
and can have infinite duration. Events are expressed by verbs of accomplishment or<br />
155
Milena Vegnaduzzo<br />
achievement that show the situation as completed. The visits of Mary are the set of<br />
all single events repeated. This concept is shown in the following scheme:<br />
156<br />
event 1 event 2<br />
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------><br />
initial final initial final<br />
point point point point<br />
x‟(t‟) x(t)<br />
In the graphic the black dots represent two events of the same type. Such<br />
events have their specific internal duration represented by the triangles indicating<br />
the beginning and the end of the event. In this way we can clearly see that we are<br />
dealing with two different events that take place in the temporal axis (the dotted<br />
line from left to right).<br />
As for the so-called comparative reading the explanation of the meaning of ancora<br />
in terms of addition confirms the hypothesis that the comparative reading could<br />
be considered a case of quantitative construal.<br />
(57) Pietro è alto, ma Paolo è ancora più alto.<br />
„Peter is tall, but Paul is even taller.‟<br />
In this case x stands for the comparative function “essere più alto” („to be taller‟)<br />
and clearly presupposes another less tall element. Therefore we can say that the<br />
quantitative reading of ancora depends upon the element under its scope: a) when it<br />
is a NP (Noun Phrase) ancora has, strictly speaking, quantitative construal, b) when<br />
it is a degree adjective or adverb ancora has a “comparative” construal.<br />
Consider now the adversative reading. I said above that the Oxford English Dictionary<br />
suggests for English the derivation from the temporal meaning. In my analysis<br />
I will adopt this point of view and therefore, also in this case, the entity substituted<br />
for x will be a state that persists against some contrary conditions.<br />
(58) Se voi mi concedete ch‟io vada, io v‟andrò e se voi non me lo concedete ancora<br />
andrò. (Boccaccio, I, 270)<br />
„If you let me go, I will go and if you do not let me still I will go.‟<br />
When ancora is used as conjunction (“anche”) the theory makes the right prediction<br />
again because, even if in this case a new participant takes part in the predication<br />
and x and x‟ are elements of different type, the element x (a nursery) pre-
Ancora and additive words<br />
suppose the existence of another element. All these elements constitute the set of<br />
charities made by Mary.<br />
(59) Luisa è una grande benefattrice: nel 1972 ha costruito un ospedale e ancora<br />
una casa di riposo nel 1975.<br />
„Louise is a great benefactress: she built an hospital in 1972 and also a nursery<br />
in 1975.‟<br />
To summarize, with this analysis I propose that the basic meaning of ancora<br />
conveys a presupposition and is essentially additive. The hypothesis proposed puts<br />
together these two components and is sufficiently general to account for all readings<br />
of ancora simply by substituting for the variable x the entity focalized by ancora,<br />
i.e. the entity falling under its scope. This hypothesis does not imply an ordering of<br />
the entities but refer to them as a set of elements which constitute the argument of<br />
the predication. Therefore it can account for the example in (49) repeated below:<br />
(49) Ich kenne nóch einen Mann, der flieend russisch spricht.<br />
„I know another man who speaks fluent Russian.‟<br />
So, in this case the presupposition is that I know (at least) a man who speaks fluent<br />
russian; to this man (corresponding to x‟) the man (corresponding to x) referred<br />
to in (49) is added. These men constitute, therefore, the set of men who speak fluent<br />
Russian that I know.<br />
In this analysis we also saw that the application of ancora to any entity takes<br />
place in the temporal dimension which can be directly or indirectly implicated. The<br />
intuition that the use of ancora was related to the temporal dimension induced<br />
grammars to classify ancora as a time adverb in the same group of deictic adverbs<br />
such as ieri “yesterday”, oggi “today”, domani “tomorrow”, adesso “now”. If ancora<br />
has temporal value this must be understood not in the deictic sense but as relation<br />
of two not necessarily contiguous subsequent moments.<br />
By taking as fundamental the additive meaning this new classification of the<br />
readings of ancora can easily and economically account for all interpretations. The<br />
hypothesis bases its functionality on the element under the scope of ancora: once<br />
established that it is different for each reading we do not need more specifications.<br />
Each reading follows directly from the element under the scope and the aktionsart of<br />
the sentence as resumed in the table below:<br />
157
Milena Vegnaduzzo<br />
158<br />
ANCORA<br />
processes /states AdjP<br />
events NP<br />
continuative iterative quantitative comparative<br />
adversative additive<br />
The hypothesis proposed for ancora might work also for all adverbs corresponding<br />
to ancora in other European languages. As a matter of fact the counterparts of<br />
ancora in Spanish (todavía/aún), English (still), French (encore) and German<br />
(noch), all have at least three different readings: continuative, adversative, and comparative.<br />
However, other construals, such as the iterative one, can be recovered in the<br />
previous historical stages of these languages. This is the case for Spanish and English,<br />
while French and German associate to encore and noch a large cluster of readings.<br />
Therefore I would like to suggest that the meaning of ancora can be decomposed<br />
in a modular way: each language associates a higher or lower number of readings to<br />
a unique basic adverb with the meaning of ancora, while the other ones are attributed<br />
to independent lexical items. I will leave this point open to further research.<br />
3. Application of the theory<br />
Consider now whether the hypothesis proposed for ancora can be extended to<br />
other adverbs, i.e., whether there exist other adverbs whose meaning is given by the<br />
same components as for ancora: presupposition and addition.<br />
Going back to the readings ancora can have in Italian, we noticed that in other<br />
languages some of these are expressed by independent lexical items: so in English<br />
the readings of ancora that we have considered here are expressed by “still”,<br />
“again”, “one more”, “another”, “even”, “nevertheless”, “also”. I claim that my hypothesis<br />
can account for the interpretation of these adverbs. Since the meaning of each of<br />
these adverbs corresponds to one of the possible meanings of ancora, it should follow<br />
that their meaning could be understood in terms of presupposition and addition.<br />
Consider, then, the following group of English adverbs: again, one more, another,<br />
even and the conjunctions also and nevertheless.<br />
(60) It is raining again.<br />
(61) She read the letter again.<br />
(62) She came back again.<br />
(63) She read one more/another letter.
Ancora and additive words<br />
(64) She ate more chocolate.<br />
(65) She drank one more/another beer.<br />
(66) John is even more intelligent than Bob.<br />
(67) She won the first and also the second prize.<br />
In these sentences the hypothesis is easy to apply. In the equivalent Italian sentences<br />
these adverbs would be all translated by ancora.<br />
Consider now an example in which my proposal seems to apply less straightforwardly<br />
and, more interestingly, the adverb could not be translated by ancora:<br />
(68) Even a child could do so.<br />
„Perfino un bambino potrebbe farlo.‟<br />
In (68) even would be translated as “perfino”. The element under the scope of<br />
even is “a child” corresponding therefore to the entity x(t) of the hypothesis: the presupposition<br />
is that everybody is able to do that thing.<br />
However, it should be noted that Italian, too, has independent lexical items for each<br />
of the meanings exhibited by ancora, i.e., di nuovo (“again”), un altro (“one more”),<br />
perfino (“even”), anche (“also”), tuttavia (“nevertheless”), più (“more”), sempre (“always”).<br />
Consider briefly the two last adverbs, which we did not mention before.<br />
Syntactically, the Italian adverb più, can be an indefinite adjective (without article<br />
and plural) when it modifies a noun (69.a), an adverb when it modifies adjectives,<br />
adverbs or verbs (69.b), or a substantivized pronoun (neuter and singular) as in (69.c):<br />
(69) a. Dammi più pesche che fragole.<br />
„Give me more peaches than strawberries.‟<br />
b. Maria è più intelligente di Luca.<br />
„Mary is more intelligent than Luca.‟<br />
c. Il più è fatto.<br />
„The most of it is done.‟<br />
Semantically, più is a quantifier and can form comparative clauses. It is interesting<br />
to notice that a) if used adverbially (ex. 70-71) più has always comparative<br />
meaning, b), if used as an adjective, it has comparative meaning when it modifies<br />
mass nouns (ex.72), but when it modifies count nouns it has comparative meaning<br />
only if there is a second element of comparison in the textual or extratextual context<br />
(ex. 73). Otherwise, più works as non-comparative quantifier expressing an indefinite<br />
quantity equivalent to adjective such as parecchi, molti, svariati (“quite a lot”,<br />
“many”, “various”) (ex. 74):<br />
(70) Marco è più alto di Luca.<br />
„Mark is taller than Luca.‟<br />
159
Milena Vegnaduzzo<br />
(71) Marco mangia più lentamente di Luca.<br />
„Mark eats more slowly than Luca.‟<br />
(72) Giovanni ha più esperienza.<br />
„John has more experience.‟<br />
(73) Marco ha più libri di Luca.<br />
„Mark has more books than Luca.‟<br />
(74) Ho mangiato più volte in questo ristorante.<br />
„I have eaten many times in this restaurant.‟<br />
So più exhibits a double function: it is a comparative or an additive quantifier. In<br />
both cases the behaviour of più is predicted by my hypothesis, since in the first case<br />
it behaves exactly as “comparative” ancora, in the latter as quantitative ancora.<br />
The adverb sempre as well, when expressing a continuation limited to the present<br />
time, can replace ancora and therefore it can be accounted for in my perspective:<br />
(75) Pronto? – Sono sempre io.<br />
„Hallo? – It is me again.‟<br />
(76) Sei sempre in collera con me?<br />
„Are you still angry at me?‟<br />
4. Particular cases<br />
Until now we have seen that the general meaning of ancora is typical of other<br />
adverbs and conjunctions. Such hypothesis, proposed to give an economical and<br />
global account of the readings of a single adverb, acquires general value, explaining<br />
the behaviour of a determined group of adverbs and conjunctions. Ancora then<br />
represents a kind of “hyperonym” of such class of words. But the most interesting<br />
thing is that the hypothesis works not only for the adverbs that are “hyponimous” of<br />
ancora but also for independent adverbs such as even/perfino (68), più and for two<br />
other conjunctions, as I will try to show now.<br />
It seems plausible to think that also the conjunctions e (“and”) and con (“with”)<br />
should be interpreted in terms of presupposition and addition. Conjunction e has<br />
basically the logical meaning of AND combining two syntactic categories which in<br />
the sentence have the same function, including sentences:<br />
(77) Tu e io.<br />
„You and me.‟<br />
(78) Bello e buono.<br />
„Nice and good.‟<br />
160
Ancora and additive words<br />
(79) Chi va piano, va sano e lontano.<br />
„Who goes slowly, goes healthy and far.‟<br />
(80) Canta e balla tutte le sere.<br />
„She sings and dances every night.‟<br />
In these sentences we consider only the second element: it is evident that it presupposes<br />
the existence of another element to which it is associated. Evidences of this<br />
hypothesis come from Old Italian where e meant anche (“also”), and from mathematics,<br />
where e is used in the sense of the additional operator più: “2 + 5 = 7” is read<br />
“2 e 5, 7”. We have already shown that anche and più satisfy the hypothesis, therefore,<br />
by transitivity, the conjunction e does as well.<br />
A similar argument holds for the conjunction con when used to express companionship<br />
and union:<br />
(81) Vengo con te.<br />
„I will come with you.‟<br />
(82) Cioccolata con panna.<br />
„Chocolate with cream.‟<br />
In this case too the second element of the sentence presupposes the existence of<br />
another element which it combines with to express the sense of the sentence.<br />
I claimed that adverbs and conjunctions can be uniformly accounted for under<br />
my hypothesis, i.e., they have the same basic meaning. But conjunctions differ from<br />
adverbs: if it is true that both conjunctions and adverbs lack inflection and agreement,<br />
only the former and not the latter are unstressed and occur in fixed positions.<br />
Therefore their behaviour differs from that of adverbs: while adverbs are essentially<br />
modifiers and represent a functional category, conjunctions set up a relation of subordination<br />
or coordination between functional categories.<br />
Consider, then, how this difference of function affects the theory put forward in<br />
this paper. We saw that the adverbs my hypothesis applies to associate an assertion<br />
with the sentence that they presuppose: they state the persistence of a determined<br />
action against the opposite expectation of the hearer. In the example considered in<br />
(52) (repeated below as (83)) ancora indicates the persistence of the living of Maria<br />
in the same place against the supposition that she moved away:<br />
(83) Maria abita ancora qui. Maria abitava qua precedentemente.<br />
x(t) x‟(t‟)<br />
On the other hand the conjunctions dispatch their action inside the sentence relating<br />
two phrasal constituents or two clauses.<br />
161
Milena Vegnaduzzo<br />
(84) Cioccolato con panna.<br />
x‟ x<br />
(85) Maria canta e balla.<br />
x‟ x<br />
Comparing the symbolic representation of the sentences in (84-85) and the one<br />
in (83) we note that the former lacks the symbol t. In these cases the temporal relation<br />
is not relevant because the presupposition is realized in the dimension of simultaneity.<br />
Conclusion<br />
In this paper we have seen that the polysemy of the Italian adverb ancora is<br />
only apparent. It has a single lexical entry and all the different readings it can assume<br />
depend upon the context where it is inserted: each reading derives by compositionality<br />
of ancora basic meaning and the semantic properties of the argument<br />
structure of the verb.<br />
I got to define the basic meaning of ancora by considering what element it has<br />
scope on: I showed, then, that in each reading the element falling under its scope<br />
is different.<br />
I claim that the basic meaning of ancora is made up of two components: presupposition<br />
and addition. The entity falling under the scope of ancora is added to the<br />
one presupposed.<br />
Then I have shown that there is a group of adverbs, di nuovo, un altro, sempre,<br />
perfino, più and conjunctions e, con, tuttavia, anche that share the same basic, general<br />
meaning found for ancora.<br />
This is important with respect to the issue of parts of speech classification. It<br />
would be an example of the fact that adverbs and conjunctions are not categories<br />
completely isolated from each other and impermeable, but share some features. In<br />
this work I studied only a little number of adverbs and conjunctions but we have<br />
seen that they can be considered a homogeneous group on the basis of the semantic<br />
features they share. This is only a preliminary attempt to open the way to an integrated<br />
study of these two word classes to try to define a new classification on the<br />
basis of new criteria.<br />
References<br />
Abraham W. (1980) “The Syncronic and Diachronic Semantics of German Temporal noch and<br />
schon with Aspects of English still, yet, already”, in Studies in Language, 4, pp. 3-24.<br />
Barker S. (1991) “Even, Still and Counterfactuals”, in Linguistics and Philosophy, 14, pp. 1-38.<br />
Battaglia S. (1986) Grande dizionario della lingua italiana, vol I, UTET, Torino.<br />
Bertinetto P.M. (1987) Tempo, Aspetto e Azione nel verbo italiano. Accademia della Crusca,<br />
Firenze.<br />
162
Ancora and additive words<br />
Blücher K. (1974) Studio sulle forme ho cantato, cantai, cantavo, stavo cantando. Struttura funzione<br />
e uso nel sistema verbale dell’italiano moderno, Bergen/Oslo/Tromsø.<br />
Borgato G.L. (1976) “Aspetto verbale e Aktionsart in italiano e tedesco”, in Lingua e Contesto, 2,<br />
pp. 65-197.<br />
Bosque I. (1980) Sobre la negacion, Madrid Catedra.<br />
Carlson L. (1981) “Aspect and Quantification”, in Syntax and Semantics, 14, pp. 31-64, Tedeschi<br />
Zaenen eds..<br />
Comrie B. (1976) Aspect, Cambridge University Press.<br />
Coromines (1980) Diccionari etimològic i complementari de la llengua catalana, Barcelona, Curial<br />
ediciones catalanas, Caixa de Pensions, “La Caixa”.<br />
Cuervo R.C. (1994) Diccionario de construcción y régimen de la lengua castellana, Santafé<br />
de Bogota.<br />
Davidson D. (1967) “La forma logica degli enunciati d‟azione”, in Azioni ed eventi, trad. it. di R.<br />
Brigati (1992) Il Mulino, Bologna.<br />
Doherty M. (1973) “Noch and schon and their Presupposition”, in F. Kiefer and N. Ruwet eds.<br />
Generative Grammar in Europe, Reidel Dordrecht, pp. 154-177.<br />
Emonds J.E. (1987) “Parts of speech in Generative Grammar”, in Linguistics Analysis, 17,<br />
pp. 3-42.<br />
Garrido J. (1991) “Gestión semántica de la información pragmática en los adverbios de cambio<br />
todavía y ya”, in Foro Hispanico, 2, pp. 11- 27.<br />
(1992) “Expectations in Spanish and German Adverbs of Change”, in Folia Linguistica, 26,<br />
pp. 357-402.<br />
Grice H.P. (1975) “Logic and Conversation”, in P. Cole and J. L. Morgan (eds.) Syntax and Semantics,<br />
3 Speech Acts, Academic Press, New York, pp. 41-58.<br />
Horn L.R. (1970) “Ain‟t it Hard (Anymore)”, in Campbell M.A. et al. (eds), Papers from the<br />
Sixth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, Chicago, Illinois, pp. 318-327.<br />
Jackendoff R. (1972) Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar, MIT Press, Cambridge<br />
(Mass.).<br />
Jespersen O. (1924) The philosophy of grammar, London, Allen and Uhwin.<br />
König E. (1977) “Temporal and non-temporal uses of noch and schon in German”, in Linguistics<br />
and Philosophy, 1, pp. 177-198.<br />
König E., Stark D. (1987) “Function words in a bilingual German- English Dictionary. A new<br />
Approch”, in Lexicografica, 3, pp. 158-177.<br />
König E., Traugott E.C. (1982) “Divergence and apparent convergence in the development of yet<br />
and still”, in Proceedings from the tenth annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society,<br />
Berkeley Linguistics Society, Berkeley, 8, pp. 170-179.<br />
Lonzi L. (1989) “Il sintagma avverbiale”, in Grande grammatica di consultazione, a cura di L.<br />
Renzi, Il Mulino, Bologna vol. II.<br />
Losada Durán J.R. (1992) “Still yet / aún todavía: el aspecto y la negación”, in Revista de lingüística<br />
aplicada, 8, pp. 115-125.<br />
LUI (1968) Lessico Universale Italiano, Roma 1968.<br />
163
Milena Vegnaduzzo<br />
McConnell-Ginet S. (1982) “Adverbs and Logical Form”, Language, 58, pp. 144-184.<br />
Morrisey M.D. (1973) “The English Perfective and still/anymore”, in Journal of Linguistics,<br />
9, pp. 65-69.<br />
Mourelatos A.P.D. (1981) “Event, Processes, and State”, in Sintax and Semantics, Tedeschi e<br />
Zaenen eds. vol 14, pp. 191-211.<br />
Muller C. (1975) “Remarques Syntacto-Sémantiques sur Certains Adverbes de Temps”, in Le<br />
Français Moderne 43, pp. 12-38.<br />
Nef F. (1981) “Encore”, in Langage, 64 pp. 93-107.<br />
Parsons T. (1989) “The Progressive in English: Events, States and Process”, in Linguistics and<br />
Philosophy, 12, pp. 213-241.<br />
(1990) Events in the Semantics of English: A Study in Subatomic Semantics, Cambridge, Mass.,<br />
MIT Press.<br />
Pecoraro W., Pisacane C. (1984) L’avverbio, Bologna, Zanichelli.<br />
Reichenbach H. (1947) Elements of Symbolic Logic, London.<br />
Renzi L., Salvi G. (eds.) (1991-95) Grande grammatica italiana di consultazione, Il Mulino,<br />
Bologna.<br />
Rohlfs G. (1969) Grammatica storica della lingua italiana e dei suoi dialetti, III, Einaudi, Torino.<br />
Serianni L. (1988) Grammatica italiana, UTET, Torino.<br />
Smith C. (1991) The Parameter of Aspect, Kluwer Academic Publishers Dordrecht.<br />
Tovena M.L. (1996) “The context sensitivity of the italian adverb ancora”, ms.<br />
Traugott E.C., Waterhouse J. (1969) “Already and yet. A suppletive set of aspect markers”, in<br />
Journal of Linguistics, 5, pp. 287-304.<br />
van de Auwera J. (1993) “Already and still beyond duality”, in Linguistics and Philosophy, 16,<br />
pp. 613-653.<br />
Vanelli L. (1991) La deissi in italiano, Unipress, Padova.<br />
Vendler Z. (1967) Linguistics in Philosophy, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York.<br />
Verkuyl H.J. (1989) “Aspectual classes and aspectual composition”, in Linguistics and Philosophy,<br />
12, pp. 39-94.<br />
Vlach F. (1993) “Temporal adverbials tense and perfect”, in Linguistics and Philosophy,<br />
pp. 231-283.<br />
164
RIVISTA DI GRAMMATICA GENERATIVA<br />
Volume 26, anno 2001<br />
L’interpretazione morfosemantica<br />
del modo congiuntivo in italiano e<br />
in tedesco<br />
The articulation of inflection in<br />
Jamaican Creole<br />
“L-tous”, restructuring and<br />
quantifier climbing<br />
Bilinguismo e acquisizione infantile<br />
di L2: alcune osservazioni<br />
sull’acquisizione simultanea di italiano<br />
e tedesco da parte di bambini<br />
in età prescolare<br />
On the relative position of beaucoup,<br />
guère, peu, rien and trop in<br />
French<br />
Ancora and additive words<br />
Paolo CHINELLATO<br />
Stephanie DURRLEMAN<br />
Marco NICOLIS<br />
Manola SALUSTRI<br />
Sara VECCHIATO<br />
Milena VEGNADUZZO<br />
Cod. RGG026 ISSN 1122-4428<br />
Caterina Santinello