<em>a</em>/bare finite complements in Southern Italian varieties: mono-clausal or bi-clausal syntax?

In dialects of Apulia, Calabria and Sicily a restricted number of verbs, including ‘stay/be’, ‘go’, ‘come’ and ‘want’ embed finite complements, either bare or introduced by a. One aim of the present work is to make the corpus of data in Manzini and Savoia (2005) accessible in English. The corpus dis...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: M. Rita Manzini, Paolo Lorusso, Leonardo M. Savoia
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Firenze University Press 2017-09-01
Series:Quaderni di Linguistica e Studi Orientali
Subjects:
Online Access:https://oaj.fupress.net/index.php/bsfm-qulso/article/view/1888
id doaj-edeefd43dabd4508844460b2c321789d
record_format Article
spelling doaj-edeefd43dabd4508844460b2c321789d2020-11-25T03:10:40ZengFirenze University PressQuaderni di Linguistica e Studi Orientali2421-72202017-09-01310.13128/QULSO-2421-7220-2133717637<em>a</em>/bare finite complements in Southern Italian varieties: mono-clausal or bi-clausal syntax?M. Rita Manzini0Paolo Lorusso1Leonardo M. Savoia2Università degli Studi di FirenzeUniversità degli Studi di FirenzeUniversità degli Studi di FirenzeIn dialects of Apulia, Calabria and Sicily a restricted number of verbs, including ‘stay/be’, ‘go’, ‘come’ and ‘want’ embed finite complements, either bare or introduced by a. One aim of the present work is to make the corpus of data in Manzini and Savoia (2005) accessible in English. The corpus displays a certain amount of microparametric variation, which is also known, in a less complete form, from independently collected data. On the basis of the evidence presented, we will discuss the two major syntactic analyses proposed for this type of sentences. Under the mono-clausal analysis, verbs like ‘stay, ‘go’ etc. are functional heads embedding a lexical predicate (Cardinaletti and Giusti 2001, 2003). The bi-clausal analysis on the contrary treats embedding under ‘stay’, ‘go’ etc. as anormal clausal embedding (Manzini and Savoia 2005). In this article we reiterate that the bi-clausal analysis is not only feasible, but also advantageous, from a morphosyntactic point of view. We conclude by sketching how this analysis can be rendered compatible with the mono-eventive interpretation that at least some of the relevant structures are reported to have.https://oaj.fupress.net/index.php/bsfm-qulso/article/view/1888BiclausalityClausal EmbeddingConstructionsFinite Control
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author M. Rita Manzini
Paolo Lorusso
Leonardo M. Savoia
spellingShingle M. Rita Manzini
Paolo Lorusso
Leonardo M. Savoia
<em>a</em>/bare finite complements in Southern Italian varieties: mono-clausal or bi-clausal syntax?
Quaderni di Linguistica e Studi Orientali
Biclausality
Clausal Embedding
Constructions
Finite Control
author_facet M. Rita Manzini
Paolo Lorusso
Leonardo M. Savoia
author_sort M. Rita Manzini
title <em>a</em>/bare finite complements in Southern Italian varieties: mono-clausal or bi-clausal syntax?
title_short <em>a</em>/bare finite complements in Southern Italian varieties: mono-clausal or bi-clausal syntax?
title_full <em>a</em>/bare finite complements in Southern Italian varieties: mono-clausal or bi-clausal syntax?
title_fullStr <em>a</em>/bare finite complements in Southern Italian varieties: mono-clausal or bi-clausal syntax?
title_full_unstemmed <em>a</em>/bare finite complements in Southern Italian varieties: mono-clausal or bi-clausal syntax?
title_sort <em>a</em>/bare finite complements in southern italian varieties: mono-clausal or bi-clausal syntax?
publisher Firenze University Press
series Quaderni di Linguistica e Studi Orientali
issn 2421-7220
publishDate 2017-09-01
description In dialects of Apulia, Calabria and Sicily a restricted number of verbs, including ‘stay/be’, ‘go’, ‘come’ and ‘want’ embed finite complements, either bare or introduced by a. One aim of the present work is to make the corpus of data in Manzini and Savoia (2005) accessible in English. The corpus displays a certain amount of microparametric variation, which is also known, in a less complete form, from independently collected data. On the basis of the evidence presented, we will discuss the two major syntactic analyses proposed for this type of sentences. Under the mono-clausal analysis, verbs like ‘stay, ‘go’ etc. are functional heads embedding a lexical predicate (Cardinaletti and Giusti 2001, 2003). The bi-clausal analysis on the contrary treats embedding under ‘stay’, ‘go’ etc. as anormal clausal embedding (Manzini and Savoia 2005). In this article we reiterate that the bi-clausal analysis is not only feasible, but also advantageous, from a morphosyntactic point of view. We conclude by sketching how this analysis can be rendered compatible with the mono-eventive interpretation that at least some of the relevant structures are reported to have.
topic Biclausality
Clausal Embedding
Constructions
Finite Control
url https://oaj.fupress.net/index.php/bsfm-qulso/article/view/1888
work_keys_str_mv AT mritamanzini emaembarefinitecomplementsinsouthernitalianvarietiesmonoclausalorbiclausalsyntax
AT paololorusso emaembarefinitecomplementsinsouthernitalianvarietiesmonoclausalorbiclausalsyntax
AT leonardomsavoia emaembarefinitecomplementsinsouthernitalianvarietiesmonoclausalorbiclausalsyntax
_version_ 1724658116093542400