Cover not available
Article published In:
Syntactic Variation and Change
Edited by David Håkansson, Ida Larsson and Erik Magnusson Petzell
[Linguistic Variation 17:1] 2017
► pp. 44–67

How bare are bare quantifiers?

Some notes from diachronic and synchronic variation in Italian

| University of Padova
| University of Padova
In this article we analyze the internal structure of bare universal and negative quantifiers in Italian varieties, taking into consideration both synchronic and diachronic variation. It is proposed that bare quantifiers are not standard QPs with a null DP restrictor, but deficient items where the Q-portion is paired with a classifier expressing the [+/− human]-feature, more specifically a special type of light noun. Items of this type are overtly realized in languages like English and in some Italian varieties. The overt realization of these items appears to be related to the surface position of the QP, as is crucially shown by some varieties that allow both variants. The paper also discusses some cases where these classifiers are still lexically ambiguous between a full noun and a light noun.
Keywords: quantifier, Italian, dialects, morpho-syntax, classifier
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.On the special syntax of bare quantifiers
    • 2.1Modern Italian dialects (I): Bare quantifiers are not bare
    • 2.2 Tutto ‘everything’ in Old Italian
    • 2.3Modern dialects (II): On overt classifiers in Italo-Romance
  • 3.The internal structure of bare quantifiers and their position
  • 4.The case of negative quantifiers in Old Italian
  • 5.Concluding remarks
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 29 June 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lv.17.1.03gar
References (29)
References
Bartoli, Matteo Giulio. 1945. Saggi di linguistica spaziale. Torino: Rosenberg & Sellier.Google Scholar
Bayer, Josef. 2009. Nominal Negative Quantifiers as Adjuncts. The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 12(1). 5–30. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bayer, Josef & Eleonore Brandner. 2004. Light nouns and predicative infinitives. Ms., Universität Konstanz.Google Scholar
Baunaz, Lena. 2011. The Grammar of French Quantification. Berlin: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Belletti, Adriana. 2004. Aspects of the Low IP Area. In Luigi Rizzi (ed.), The Structure of CP and IP (Cartography of Syntactic Structures 2), 16–51. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Benincà, Paola. 2006. A Detailed Map of the Left Periphery of Medieval Romance. In Raffaella Zanuttini, Héctor Campos, Elena Herburger & Paul H. Portner (eds.), Negation, Tense and Clausal Architecture: Cross-linguistic Investigations, 53–86. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Cardinaletti, Anna & Michal Starke. 1999. The Typology of Structural Deficiency: On the Three Grammatical Classes. In Henk C. van Riemsdijk (ed.), Clitics in the Languages of Europe (Empirical Approaches to Language Typology 8), 145–233 Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo. 1999. Adverbs and Functional Heads. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Corver, Norbert & Henk C. van Riemsdijk. 2001. Semi-Lexical Categories: The Content of Function Words and the Function of Content Words. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Doetjes, Jenny Sandra. 1997. Quantifiers and Selection: On the Distribution of Quantifying Expressions in French, Dutch and English. University of Leiden dissertation.Google Scholar
Garzonio, Jacopo & Cecilia Poletto. 2012. On niente: Optional Negative Concord in Old Italian. Linguistische Berichte 2301. 131–153.Google Scholar
. To appear. Everything or Nothing: on the Distribution of Quantifiers in Old and Modern Italian. In Ana Maria Martins & Adriana Cardoso (eds.), Change in Word Order. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Giusti, Giuliana. 2008. Agreement and Concord in Nominal Expressions. In Cécile De Cat & Katherine Demuth (eds.), The Bantu – Romance Connection: A comparative investigation of verbal agreement, DPs, and information structure, 201–237. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Giusti, Giuliana & Nedzad Leko. 2005. The Categorial Status of Quantity Expressions. In Nedzad Leko (ed.), Linguisticki vidici, 121–184. Sarajevo: Forum Bosniae.Google Scholar
Grewendorf, Günther & Cecilia Poletto. 2005. Von OV zu VO: ein Vergleich zwischen Zimbrisch und Plodarisch. In ‪Ermenegildo Bidese, James R. Dow & Thomas Stolz‬ (eds.), Das Zimbrische zwischen Germanisch und Romanisch, 114–128. Bochum: Brockmeyer.Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard S. 1975. French Syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
2005. Some Notes on Comparative Syntax, with Special Reference to English and French. In Guglielmo Cinque & Richard S. Kayne (eds.), Handbook of Comparative Syntax, 3–69. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2006. On Parameters and on Principles of Pronunciation. In Hans Broekhuis, Norbert Corver, Riny Huybregts, Ursula Kleinhenz & Jan Koster (eds.), Organizing Grammar. Linguistic Studies in Honor of Henk van Riemsdijk, 289–299. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leu, Thomas. 2005. Something Invisible in English. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 11(1).Google Scholar
Manzini, Maria Rita & Leonardo Maria Savoia. 2005. I dialetti italiani e romanci. Morfosintassi generativa. 31 vols. Alessandria: Edizioni dell’Orso.Google Scholar
Mathieu, Eric. 2002. The Syntax of Non-Canonical Quantification: A Comparative Study. UCL dissertation.Google Scholar
Obenauer, Hans-Georg. 1994. Aspects de la syntaxe A-barre. Effets d’intervention et mouvements des quantifieurs. Université de Paris VIII Thèse d’Etat.Google Scholar
Poletto, Cecilia. 2014. Word Order in Old Italian. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rasom, Sabrina. 2007. Lazy Concord in the Central Ladin Feminine Plural DP: A Case Study on the Interaction between Morphosyntax and Semantics. University of Padua dissertation.Google Scholar
Renzi, Lorenzo & Giampaolo Salvi. 2010. Grammatica dell’italiano antico. Bologna: Il Mulino.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 1990. Relativized Minimality. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 2007. On Some Properties of Criterial Freezing. STiL – Studies in Linguistics 11. 145–58.Google Scholar
Shlonsky, Ur. 1991. Quantifiers as functional heads: a study of quantifier float in Hebrew. Lingua 841. 159–180. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sportiche, Dominique. 1988. A Theory of Floating Quantifiers and its Corollaries for Constituent Structure. Linguistic Inquiry 19(2). 425–449.Google Scholar
Cited by (3)

Cited by three other publications

Garzonio, Jacopo & Cecilia Poletto
2023. Living on the Edge. On Bare and Non-Bare NCIs across Italo-Romance. Languages 8:2 ► pp. 119 ff. DOI logo
Rossi, Silvia & Cecilia Poletto
2022. Bare quantifiers and Verb Second. In Language Change at the Interfaces [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today, 275], ► pp. 95 ff. DOI logo
Poletto, Cecilia & Cecilia Poletto
2021. Chapter 13. Very …. extracted. In Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 2018 [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, 357], ► pp. 250 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 8 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.