Cover not available
Part of
Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 12: Selected papers from the 45th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages (LSRL), Campinas, Brazil
Edited by Ruth E.V. Lopes, Juanito Ornelas de Avelar and Sonia M. L. Cyrino
[Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 12] 2017
► pp. 235–258

Chapter 15
When a piece of phonology becomes a piece of syntax

The case of subject clitics

| City University of New York | College of Staten Island and The Graduate Center
This work argues against the view that phonological factors play a role in the distribution of vocalic auxiliary subject clitics (vocalic auxiliary scls), namely, those scls which occur with auxiliary verbs beginning in a vowel. Evidence is given to support the view that such scls are purely syntactic entities, whose distribution is governed only by syntactic factors. The analysis leads to a re-casting of vocalic auxiliary scls as “be-scls,” where the phonological structure of the auxiliary becomes irrelevant. Removing the phonological component from the explanation of the behavior of these syntactic elements further allows us to make fruitful connections with many other syntactic phenomena which would not otherwise have been seen.
Keywords: auxiliary verbs, consonant onset, functional structure, Northern Italian dialects, subject clitics, syllable structure
Article outline
  • 1.Overview of the phenomenon
    • 1.1The nature of auxiliary subject clitics across Northern Italian varieties
    • 1.2This goal of this chapter
  • 2.Problems with dual phonology-syntax restriction on the distribution of the vocalic auxiliary scl
    • 2.1Lack of phonological restrictions elsewhere in the grammar
    • 2.2The distribution of clitics is otherwise determined by the presence of other syntactic entities
      • 2.2.1 ocl for scl phenomena
      • 2.2.2Romagnol scl vs. complementizer
    • 2.3Summary: Syntax is responsible for the distribution of clitics in Romance
  • 3.Borgomanerese second person singular scls t and tal : Mirror image pattern
    • 3.1The second person singular forms tal and t in Borgomanerese
    • 3.2Summary
  • 4.Alternative hypothesis: Speakers take the onset of the consonantal auxiliary’s syllable to be a syntactic object
    • 4.1Analysis for Torinese auxiliary scls and similar phenomena
      • 4.1.1Spanish non-standard imperatives (Kayne 2010)
      • 4.1.2“Change to [a]” under ocl-enclisis in Borgomanerese (Tortora 2014)
    • 4.2Evidence for the “independent consonant”
  • 5.Closing thoughts
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 19 October 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/rllt.12.15tor
References (27)
References
Brandi, L. & P. Cordin 1981. “Dialetti e italiano: un confronto sul parametro del soggetto nullo.” Rivista di Grammatica Generativa 6: 33–87.Google Scholar
Burzio, Luigi. 1981. Intransitive verbs and Italian auxiliaries. PhD Thesis, MIT.Google Scholar
. 1986. Italian Syntax: A Government Binding Approach. Dordrecht: Reidel. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Benincà, Paola. 1994. La variazione sintattica. Studi di dialettologia romanza. Bologna: Il Mulino.Google Scholar
. 2007a. Clitici e ausiliari: gh ò, z é . In Delia Bentley & Adam Ledgeway (eds.), Sui dialetti italoromanzi. Saggi in onore di Nigel B. Vincent ( The Italianist 27.1), pp. 27–47. King’s Lynn, Norfolk: Biddles Ltd.Google Scholar
. 2007b. I clitici fra fonologia e sintassi. In Roberta Maschi, Nicoletta Penello, & Piera Rizzolatti (eds.), Miscellanea di studi linguistici offerti a Laura Vanelli, da amici e allievi padovani, pp. 217–227. Udine: Forum.Google Scholar
Benincà, P. & C. Tortora. 2009. “Towards a finer-grained theory of Italian participial clausal architecture.” In University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 15.1: 17–26.Google Scholar
. 2010. “On Clausal Architecture: Evidence from Complement Clitic Placement in Romance.” In V. Torrens, L. Escobar, A. Gavarró and J. Gutiérrez (eds.), Movement and Clitics: Adult and Child Grammar, pp. 219–237. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Benincà, Paola & Laura Vanelli. 1984. Italiano, veneto, friulano: Fenomeni sintattici a confronto. Rivista Italiana di Dialettologia VIII: 165–194.Google Scholar
Cardinaletti, A. 2015. “Cases of apparent enclisis on past participles in Romance varieties.” Isogloss 1.2: 179–197. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cardinaletti, A. & L. Repetti. 2008. “The Phonology and Syntax of Preverbal and Postverbal Subject Clitics in Northern Italian Dialects.” Linguistic Inquiry 39.4: 523–563. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Colombo, Gianni. 1967. Na bisa bosa (Poesie in dialetto borgomanerese). Lyons – Tinivella: Borgomanero.Google Scholar
D’Alessandro, R. 2016. “When you have too many features: auxiliaries, agreement and DOM in southern Italian varieties.” Draft downloaded from [URL] on 12/10/16.
Garzonio, J. & C. Poletto. 2011. “I clitici di ausiliare nelle varietà piemontesi.” In J. Garzonio (ed.), Studi sui dialetti del Piemonte (Quaderni di lavoro ASIt n. 13), pp. 107–122. Padova: Unipress.Google Scholar
Goria, C. 2004. Subject Clitics in the Northern Italian Dialects: A Comparative Study Based on the Minimalist Program and Optimality Theory. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kayne, Richard. 1984. Connectedness and binary branching. Dordrecht: Foris. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1993. Toward a Modular Theory of Auxiliary Selection. Studia Linguistica 47: 3–31. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. “Toward a Syntactic Reinterpretation of Harris and Halle (2005).” In R. Bok-Bennema, B. Kampers-Manhe & B. Hollebrandse (eds.), Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 2008 (Selected papers from Going Romance Groningen 2008), pp. 145–170. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. “The Silence of Projecting Heads.” Talk given at NYU Syntax Brown Bag.Google Scholar
Lurà, Franco. 1987. Il dialetto del Mendrisiotto. Mendrisio: Edizioni Unione di Banche Svizzere.Google Scholar
Manzini, Rita & Leonardo Savoia. 2005. I dialetti italiani e romanci. Morfosintassi generativa (Vol. II). Alessandria: Edizioni dell’Orso.Google Scholar
Poletto, Cecilia. 2000. The higher functional field. Evidence from Northern Italian Dialects. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Poletto, C. & C. Tortora. 2016. “Subject Clitics: Syntax.” Chapter 47. In A. Ledgeway & M. Maiden (eds.), Oxford Guide to the Romance Languages. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rizzi, L. 2010. “Some notes on Romance cliticization.” Chapter 4. in Comparative Syntax and Language Acquisition. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Roberts, I. 1991. “Inversion and Subject Clitics in Valdôtain.” In E. Engdhal et al. (eds.), Parametric Variation in Germanic and Romance, Edinburgh Working Papers in Cognitive Science 6: 155–167.Google Scholar
Tortora, Christina. 1997. The syntax and semantics of the weak locative. PhD thesis, U. of Delaware.Google Scholar
. 2014. A Comparative Grammar of Borgomanerese. New York: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar