No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.
Towards a Diachronic Theory of Genitive Assignment in Romance
Abstract
This chapter deals with the relevance of some cases of prepositionless genitives in Romance for a general theory of genitive assignment. It examines the peculiar properties of a specific class of Italian N+N compounds, identifying in the juxtaposition genitives of Old French, Occitan, and crucially Old Italian, the possible diachronic antecedent for such construction, which-it argues-is strictly intertwined with Romance construct state. © individual chapters their various authors 2009. All rights reserved.
... NN argumental compounds have been widely investigated 9 (Bisetto & Scalise, 1999;Lieber & Scalise, 2006;Delfitto & Paradisi, 2009a;Gaeta & Ricca, 2009;Baroni et al., 2009b;Bisetto, 2015). According to some authors they are not attested in Romance languages other than Italian (Baroni et al., 2009b;Delfitto & Paradisi, 2009b), 10 and within Italian, they are used predominantly in specific contexts (news-6 Their exocentricity has, however, been matter of debate, and they have also been interpreted as endocentric based on different interpretations of the nature of the verbal element (Varela, 1990;Zuffi, 1981;Bisetto 1994Bisetto , 1999Bisetto , 2006Bisetto & Melloni, 2008;Melloni & Bisetto, 2010). 7 Except for Romanian (Grossmann, 2012). ...
The particular properties of argumental compounds in Italian pose interesting theoretical challenges, and investigations of possible syntactic operations within this type of complex words have resulted in conflicting conclusions. Regarding compound-internal anaphora, some researchers exclude the possibility that pronouns can refer to the non-head, while others do not. However, these findings have been based on researchers' intuitions and on occurrences in language corpora, and while intuitions have been shown to give contrasting results, the absence of a grammatical structure in a corpus should not be taken as evidence that the structure is not possible. The present study aims to experimentally determine the possibility of compound-internal pronominal reference based on structural properties of compounds and referential expressions. Judgements were obtained from 140 Italian native speakers who rated the acceptability of sentences containing a pronoun (null or overt) referring to the argument element of an argumental compound. The results indicate that compound-internal anaphoric reference is acceptable in the case of left-headed compounds and, to a somewhat lesser extent, of verb-noun compounds. The argument element of right-headed compounds, however, does not appear to be available to anaphoric reference. Referential expressions also play a role in the degree of acceptability, with left-headed compounds allowing null form anaphora to a greater extent. These results provide new evidence on compound-internal pronominal reference and give important insights into the processing of argumental compounds.
... Incidentally, a large set of synthetic compounds (i.e., those headed by a deverbal noun)-like truck-driver, book selling, skin protection, and so on-are endocentric verbal-nexus subordinate compounds according to the approach by Scalise and Bisetto (2009). Moreover, in Italian, a set of noun compounds (quite an unicum in the Romance spectrum) are the specular correspondents of English synthetic compounds (for an analysis of the formations in (3a), see Baroni, Guevara, & Zamparelli, 2009;Bisetto & Scalise, 1999;Delfitto & Paradisi, 2009): ...
Subordinate and synthetic represent well-attested modes of compounding across languages. Although the two classes exhibit some structural and interpretative analogies cross-linguistically, they denote distinct phenomena and entail different parameters of classification. Specifically, subordinate makes reference to the grammatical relation between the compound members, which hold a syntactic dependency (i.e., head-argument) relation; synthetic makes reference to the synthesis or concomitance of two processes (i.e., compounding and derivation). Therefore, while the former term implies the presence of a syntactic relation realized at the word level, the latter has strictly morphological implications and does not directly hinge on the nature of the relation between the compound members.
Typical examples of subordinate compounds are [V+N]N formations like pickpocket, a class which is scarcely productive in English but largely attested in most Romance and many other languages (e.g., Italian lavapiatti ‘wash-dishes, dishwater’). Other instances of subordinate compounds are of the type [V+N]V, differing from the pickpocket type since the output is a verb, as in Chinese dài-găng ‘wait for-post, wait for a job’. The presence of a verb, however, is not compulsory since possible instances of subordinate compounds can be found among [N+N]N, [A+N]A, and [P+N]N/A compounds, among others: The consistent feature across subordinate compounds is the complementation relation holding between the constituents, whereby one of the two fills in an argumental slot of the other constituent. For instance, the N tetto ‘roof’ complements P in the Italian compound senza-tetto ‘without-roof, homeless person’, and the N stazione ‘station’ is the internal argument of the relational noun capo in capo-stazione ‘chief-station, station-master’.
Synthetic compounds can envisage a subordination relation, as in truck driv-er/-ing, where truck is the internal argument of driver (or driving), so that they are often viewed as the prototypical subordinates. However, subordination does not feature in all synthetic compounds whose members can hold a modification/attribution relation, as in short-legged and three-dimensional: In these cases, the adjective (or numeral) is not an argument but a modifier of the other constituent. The hallmark of a synthetic compound is the presence of a derivational affix having scope over a compound/complex form, though being linearly attached and forming an established (or possible) word with one constituent only. This mismatch between semantics and formal structure has engendered a lively theoretical debate about the nature of these formations. Adopting a binary-branching analysis of morphological complexes, the debate has considered whether the correct analysis for synthetic compounds is the one shown in (1) or (2), which implies answering the question whether derivation applies before or after compounding.
(1) a.[[truck] [driv-er]] b. [[short] [leg(g)-ed]]
(2) a. [[[truck] [drive]] -er] b. [[[short] [leg(g)]]-ed]
Interestingly, the structural and interpretative overlap between subordinate and synthetic compounds with a deverbal head is well represented across language groups: Synthetic compounds of the type in (1–2) are very productive in Germanic languages but virtually absent in Romance languages, where this gap is compensated for by the productive class of subordinate [V+N]N compounds, like Italian porta-lettere ‘carry-letters, mailman’, which are the interpretative analogous of Germanic synthetic formations. The difference between the two complexes lies in constituent order, V+N in Romance versus N+V in Germanic, and lack of an (overt) derivational affix in Romance languages.
Keywords: subordination, argument structure, deverbal nouns, verbal nexus, derivational affix, headedness, recursivity, lexical category
... Salvi and Renzi 2010) complex prepositions were commonly sandwiched in a layered sequence, comprising a functional/simple preposition above and one below them (cf. alsoDelfitto and Paradisi 2009). Such constructions are still widely attested for some items of Contemporary Italian, e.g. ...
In this volume scholars honor M. Rita Manzini for her contributions to the field of Generative Morphosyntax. The essays in this book celebrate her career by continuing to explore inter-area research in linguistics and by pursuing a broad comparative approach, investigating and comparing different languages and dialects.
... Salvi and Renzi 2010) complex prepositions were commonly sandwiched in a layered sequence, comprising a functional/simple preposition above and one below them (cf. also Delfitto and Paradisi 2009 Crucially, the same behaviour is attested with tra, fra, and su, as reported in (9), but does not uphold for the other simple/proper prepositions. 3 (9) a. in tra di sè medesimo in between of himself "to himself" Alberto della Piagentina, 1322/32 L. 5, cap. ...
In this paper we show that the structural (and terminological) partition between proper/simple and improper/complex adpositions operated for Italian does not presuppose an unspoiled syntactic reality. Indeed, on the basis of syntactic tests and diachronic evidence, we show that – within the subset of so called proper/simple preposition (Rizzi 1988, Salvi and Vanelli 2004, Tortora 2005, among others) – two morphemes, specifically su, on and tra (fra), between, might be better characterized as Axial Parts (following Svenonius 2006 and subsequent literature), namely lexical items whose semantic function would be to identify a region (a set of points/vectors in space, cf. Zwart 1995; Kracht 2002) based on a Ground item (i.e. the complement DP of P, in a Figure/Ground configuration, cf. Talmy 1991, 2000), which is optionally introduced in Italian by means of a genitive/dative (i.e. oblique) relator/elementary predicate (Manzini and Savoia 2011, Manzini and Franco 2016).
... For reasons of space, we will not discuss the b. cases here (for these we adopt the syntactic analysis put forward in Delfitto and Paradisi 2009, to which the interested reader is referred). Concerning the a. cases, we take the presence of elements that categorially qualify as prepositions as providing evidence in favor of a canonical mode of syntactic computation, whereby a head (the 'light' preposition) combines with a maximal projection (one of the two compounds member), in full compliance with narrow syntax requirements (LCA and related conditions). ...
The abstract for this document is available on CSA Illumina.To view the Abstract, click the Abstract button above the document title.
... A possibility that comes to mind is to reduce these cases of alleged compounding to a specific modality of genitive case assignment. Prepositionless genitive is well-documented both in Semitic, where it gives rise to the so-called 'Construct State' (CS), and in early phases of Romance, where it gives rise to the so-called 'Juxtaposition Genitive' (JG) of Old French (see Delfitto & Paradisi 2009a and the references cited therein). Construct State in Semitic and Juxtaposition Genitive in Romance share a number of properties, among which the aprepositional nature of the DP-complement and the strict adjacency requirement between N and the DP-complement. ...
In this article we compare three classes of nominal constructions: Bemba so-called 'associative nominals', a class of nominal constructions found in several Bantu languages (though we will essentially concentrate on Bemba), Italian so-called 'prepositional compounds' (or 'phrasal com-pounds'), a class of nominal constructions common to other Romance languages (such as French and Spanish), and a specific class of preposition-less deverbal compounds that is peculiar to Italian and is not found in the other Romance languages. The reason for comparing such geographically and typologically distant languages is that Bantu associative nominals and Romance compounds share some important properties. As is well known, Romance noun-noun compounds (see also Basciano et al. 2011, this volume) differ from Germanic root compounds in a number of respects. First of all, Romance noun-noun compounds are left headed, whereas Germanic root compounds are typically right headed. Also, in Romance noun-noun compounds, the two nominals are sometimes separated by a phonologically independent preposition-like element which seems to contribute in a non trivial way to the meaning of the whole compound. Germanic noun-noun compounds sometimes feature a so-called 'linking element', occurring between the two nouns. However, this element has the form of a nominal inflection marker, it is a bound form, and does not seem to contribute in any substantive way to the meaning of the whole construction. Moreover, some recent contributions (see Delfitto & Melloni 2009, 2011) have shown that Romance prepositional compounds (that is, those noun-noun compounds featuring a preposition-like element) do not always obey the restrictions dictated by the Lexical Integrity Hypothesis and, therefore, are less morphologically encapsulated than Germanic root compounds. Interestingly, Bemba associative nominals pattern together with Romance prepositional compounds in that they are left headed, they are composed of two nominals separated by a phonologically independent marker which seems to restrict the set of possible interpretations of the whole construction, and, arguably, they lie outside the scope of the Lexical Integrity Hypothesis. The goal of this article is therefore to compare in greater detail Bantu associative nominals and two specific varieties of Romance com-302 pounds in order to further investigate their differences and similarities from a theoretical perspective. The paper is organized as follows. In section 1 we discuss the main structural and interpretive properties of Bemba associative nominals and consider a number of tests enlightening their degree of morphological encapsulation. In section 2 we consider Italian prepositional compounds, their structural and interpretive properties, and, by applying the same tests adopted for Bemba associative nominals, their degree of morphological encapsulation. In section 3 we discuss the preliminary results of the analysis. Section 4 offers an overview of the properties of Italian deverbal compounds, shortly considering their relationship with the two classes of nominal constructions discussed in the preceding sections. The general conclusions are found in section 5.
This paper focuses on the status of de in Romance indefinites, partitives and pseudopartitives. It argues that there is neither a ‘partitive article’ nor a ‘partitive preposition’ in syntax. De in Romance indefinites is the overt Spell‐Out of an abstract operator de that cancels the definiteness of articles and is responsible for indefiniteness. De in Romance partitives is the overt Spell‐Out of a relator head that takes a definite DP as complement and a QP in the specifier position. Finally, pseudopartitivity is shown to have crosslinguistic parallels with indefinites, and it is derived by postulating a mono‐projectional analysis in which a semilexical N selects for a de‐phrase, in exactly the same way that quantifiers and cardinals select for indefinite de‐phrases.
This study presents a synchronic description of genitive constructions in a dialect of the Aramaic language, known as Syriac. It is a multi-faceted study which considers different aspects of genitive constructions from traditional and contemporary perspectives, before culminating into a reinterpretation under contemporary frameworks. Specifically, the first component relates to Syriac’s nominal inflection paradigm, which reveals interesting processes of syntactic change that helps to explain how definiteness and genitive case is expressed in genitive constructions. This is consolidated by empirical evidence from an ancient manuscript titled, The Chronicles of Joshua the Stylite (Wright, 1882), which forms the basis for a distributional analysis of definiteness and genitive case features. The final component is an account of Syriac’s three basic genitive constructions within a generative framework, and specifically, under Abney’s (1984) DP and Ritter’s (1991) N-to-D movement hypotheses.
This volume contains a selection of peer-reviewed articles first presented at the 43rd Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages (LSRL), held in New York in 2013. The articles deal with various synchronic and diachronic aspects of Romance languages and dialects world-wide. They will be of interest to scholars in Romance and in general linguistics.
In Old French, genitive structures both mirrored and differed from those found in Modern French. Prepositional genitives were found (i.e., la nièce au duc, la nièce du duc both ‘the duke’s niece’), but there were also structures without prepositions, the juxtaposition genitive, JG (cf. Arteaga D. On Old French genitive constructions. In: Amastae J, Goodall G, Montalbetti M, Phinney M (eds) Contemporary research in Romance linguistics. J. Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp 79–90, 1995; Arteaga D, Herschensohn J. A phase-based analysis of old French genitive constructions. In Colina S, Olarrea A, Carvalho AM (eds) Romance Linguistics 2009: selected papers from the 39th annual conference of the Linguistic symposium on the romance languages. J. Benjamins, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, pp 285–300, 2010; Delfitto and Paradisi 2009) type la nièce duc or la/le duc nièce.). In an analysis focusing on the evolution of the genitive, we propose that the JG in Old French has directly inherited the same structure in Latin, although Latin had no definite article. In later OF, when case endings ceased to be pronounced, case had to be checked by a preposition. At that point, children no longer had the morphological cues (Lightfoot D. The development of language: acquisition, change, and evolution. Blackwell, Oxford, 1999) to assign a genitive meaning to the possessor, the JG was lost. The reason for the narrowing of the à genitives can be explained by the fact that dative à has always been limited to persons (Herslund M. Problèmes de syntaxe de l’ancien français. Compléments datifs et génitifs. Akademisk Forlag, Uppsala, 1980).
Phrasal compounds did not constitute a highly debated issue in Italian, apart from some sporadic observations (Ricca 2005) on peculiar compounds as, for example, V+N exocentric compounds like spazzaneve 'snowplough' that admit NP constituents. This paper is devoted to the analysis of a group of N+NP constructions, found in the ItTenTen10 corpus, a corpus of 2.588.873.046 words investigated by means of the Sketch-Engine, with the purpose of establishing whether phrasal compounding is a phenomenon present in Italian too.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any references for this publication.