The propredicative clitic in Italo-romance: a micro-parametric variation approach

In this paper we describe the distribution of propredicative clitics in nominal copular constructions across different Italo-romance varieties. Different lexical items are recruited from the lexicon to cliticize the predicative NP, all of them either lack inflection or show a neuter inflection: the...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Paolo Lorusso, Andrea Moro
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Firenze University Press 2020-09-01
Series:Quaderni di Linguistica e Studi Orientali
Subjects:
Online Access:https://oaj.fupress.net/index.php/bsfm-qulso/article/view/9697
id doaj-b6b53f8046e949eea4f52d85f398c2e0
record_format Article
spelling doaj-b6b53f8046e949eea4f52d85f398c2e02020-11-25T03:53:48ZengFirenze University PressQuaderni di Linguistica e Studi Orientali2421-72202020-09-01610.13128/qulso-2421-7220-9697The propredicative clitic in Italo-romance: a micro-parametric variation approachPaolo Lorusso0Andrea Moro1NEtS Scuola Universitaria Superiore IUSS PaviaNEtS Scuola Universitaria Superiore IUSS PaviaIn this paper we describe the distribution of propredicative clitics in nominal copular constructions across different Italo-romance varieties. Different lexical items are recruited from the lexicon to cliticize the predicative NP, all of them either lack inflection or show a neuter inflection: the ‘uninflected’ status of propredicatives, in fact, is an available option among the categorical status of different pronouns. The characteristics of propredicatives across Italo-Romance confirms the predictions of the analysis of Moro (1997: 1) copular constructions allow only one agreement projection (agreement with the subject of the copular sentence and not with the predicate), 2) the proforms are generated in N0 rather than a D0. This analysis challenges the ‘definite’ analyses of romance l-clitics (which date back to Postal 1966): such proposals often invoke the parallel between clitics and definite articles as a reason to treat clitics as belonging to the category D. We will also show that apparent counterexamples found in some varieties in which the proforms agree in gender and number with the nominal predicates rely on semantic restrictions and ellipsis. We will finally update the proposal of Moro (1997) in terms of the labelling algorithm (Moro 2009; Chomsky 2013; Rizzi 2016): the N0 cliticization involved in the propredicative items allows a D0 in situ within the small clause which label the small clause, which otherwise will be unlabelled and imply a crash in the derivation. https://oaj.fupress.net/index.php/bsfm-qulso/article/view/9697AgreementCliticsDefinitenessNominal Copular ConstructionsPropredicatives
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Paolo Lorusso
Andrea Moro
spellingShingle Paolo Lorusso
Andrea Moro
The propredicative clitic in Italo-romance: a micro-parametric variation approach
Quaderni di Linguistica e Studi Orientali
Agreement
Clitics
Definiteness
Nominal Copular Constructions
Propredicatives
author_facet Paolo Lorusso
Andrea Moro
author_sort Paolo Lorusso
title The propredicative clitic in Italo-romance: a micro-parametric variation approach
title_short The propredicative clitic in Italo-romance: a micro-parametric variation approach
title_full The propredicative clitic in Italo-romance: a micro-parametric variation approach
title_fullStr The propredicative clitic in Italo-romance: a micro-parametric variation approach
title_full_unstemmed The propredicative clitic in Italo-romance: a micro-parametric variation approach
title_sort propredicative clitic in italo-romance: a micro-parametric variation approach
publisher Firenze University Press
series Quaderni di Linguistica e Studi Orientali
issn 2421-7220
publishDate 2020-09-01
description In this paper we describe the distribution of propredicative clitics in nominal copular constructions across different Italo-romance varieties. Different lexical items are recruited from the lexicon to cliticize the predicative NP, all of them either lack inflection or show a neuter inflection: the ‘uninflected’ status of propredicatives, in fact, is an available option among the categorical status of different pronouns. The characteristics of propredicatives across Italo-Romance confirms the predictions of the analysis of Moro (1997: 1) copular constructions allow only one agreement projection (agreement with the subject of the copular sentence and not with the predicate), 2) the proforms are generated in N0 rather than a D0. This analysis challenges the ‘definite’ analyses of romance l-clitics (which date back to Postal 1966): such proposals often invoke the parallel between clitics and definite articles as a reason to treat clitics as belonging to the category D. We will also show that apparent counterexamples found in some varieties in which the proforms agree in gender and number with the nominal predicates rely on semantic restrictions and ellipsis. We will finally update the proposal of Moro (1997) in terms of the labelling algorithm (Moro 2009; Chomsky 2013; Rizzi 2016): the N0 cliticization involved in the propredicative items allows a D0 in situ within the small clause which label the small clause, which otherwise will be unlabelled and imply a crash in the derivation.
topic Agreement
Clitics
Definiteness
Nominal Copular Constructions
Propredicatives
url https://oaj.fupress.net/index.php/bsfm-qulso/article/view/9697
work_keys_str_mv AT paololorusso thepropredicativecliticinitaloromanceamicroparametricvariationapproach
AT andreamoro thepropredicativecliticinitaloromanceamicroparametricvariationapproach
AT paololorusso propredicativecliticinitaloromanceamicroparametricvariationapproach
AT andreamoro propredicativecliticinitaloromanceamicroparametricvariationapproach
_version_ 1724476458809688064