The dynamics of the PF interface: Negation and clitic clusters☆
Introduction
Our article is devoted to the analysis of some peculiar processes at the boundary between morpho-syntax and phonology that involve clusters of negation and object clitics in some old and modern Italian varieties. In the dialects we take into consideration the preverbal negative marker, whose longer form is identical or similar to the standard Italian [non], also displays a reduced form, [no] or [n-]. This shorter form requires specific morphological and phonological conditions, which vary across varieties, but it can be shown that in all dialects except the less conservative variant of modern Florentine, it is sensitive to syntactic information and, more precisely, to structural phrasing, and not simply to linear adjacency. This alternation also has interesting consequences for the explanation of the dynamics of the Jespersen cycle: since it requires that the preverbal negative marker is bi-morphemic, i.e. morphologically complex, it blocks the typical doubling of the negative marker through so called negative reinforcers (like adverbs or minimizers) which generally starts the cycle.1 In other words, the alternation between a complex and a simple form of the preverbal negative marker is the piece of evidence that induces speakers to analyze the negative marker as a bi-morphemic item, which does not need to be reinforced by any additional morpheme, given that it is already morphologically articulated.
As we will claim below, the activation of the Jespersen cycle is due, as originally proposed by Jespersen himself, to the weakness of the negative marker, whereby we surmise that this weakness must concern all the levels of grammar, not only phonetics, and that it is to be reinterpreted as (morphological, phonological or syntactic) complexity. This means that for the cycle to activate, there can be no component of the grammar that provides the speaker with evidence that the negative marker is complex. The phenomenon we analyze is only one of the possible clues that a speaker can have concerning the complexity of the negative marker. This means that we do not predict that, as soon as the morphological phenomenon investigated here disappears, the Jespersen cycle activates, because also all other levels of the grammar must provide the speaker with no clue that negation is complex (for further cases of evidence for complexity see Postma, 2002, Meisner, 2013).
The article is organized in the following way: in section 2 we discuss some general problems about the Jespersen's cycle and the differences between the languages that have undergone it, like French, and those where it has not fully developed, like Italian posing the question of the reason why Italian has a frozen syntax while French has undergone a change in the type of negative marker.
In section 3 we observe that some Italian varieties have two alternative forms of the preverbal negative marker, and describe the conditions of the phenomenon in Sicilian and Tuscan dialects comparing it with other similar phenomena involving negation–clitic clusters. In section 4 we present some general conclusions with respect to the interaction between phonology and syntax and argue in favor of the hypothesis that phonology does not see categorial labels but only syntactic (and in some cases possibly prosodic) units.
Section snippets
The Jespersen cycle and its trigger
Since Jespersen formalized for the first time the empirical generalization which is now commonly known as the Jespersen cycle, several linguists have tried to pin down what the actual trigger of the evolution of the negative marker is. According to Jespersen's original intuition, the cycle proceeds in three steps, which we briefly mention here: (a) in the first one the original negative marker is still stable and expresses negation alone, (b) in the second stage negation is represented by a
Reduced negation in clitic clusters
In this section we examine three types of systems where the negative marker interacts with clitics and argue that these phenomena drive the speaker to assume that the negative marker is composed of more than one morpheme, thus rendering the language more stable with respect to the Jespersen cycle.
Negative and clitic interaction: from syntax to phonology
In this work we have analyzed the patterns of interaction between clitics and the preverbal negative marker and have shown that the Old Italian Florentine and Sicilian varieties have a clear alternation between two forms of the negative marker non/nun and no/nu depending on the presence of an object clitic, which requires the shorter form of the negative marker. Given that neither variety displays any general phonological rule that deletes a nasal coda in the presence of another initial
References (31)
Punti di sintassi comparata dei dialetti italiani settentrionali
- et al.
On clausal architecture: evidence from complement clitic placement in Romance
- et al.
The distribution of preverbal en in (West) Flemish: syntactic and interpretive properties
Lingua
(2013) On pronoun movement: the Italian dative “loro”, PROBUS 3.2
(1991)It Is All About Clitics: The Case of a Northern Italian Dialect Like Bellinzonese
(2009)- et al.
Standardisation of syntactic elicitation techniques
Lingua
(2004) Diachronic change and pronoun status: Italian dative “loro”
Linguistics
(2005)- et al.
Quantifiers as negative markers in Italian dialects
Linguistic Variation Yearbook
(2009) - et al.
Non and its companions: on the big NegP hypothesis. Ms.
(2013) - et al.
Sprach- und Sachatlas Italiens und der Südschweiz
(1928–40)
Parameters and Universals
Tracking Jespersen's cycle
L’origine del raddoppiamento fonosintattico
I dialetti italiani e romanci, Morfosintassi generativa
Microvariation in French negation markers: an historical perspective
Cited by (4)
Indefinites between Latin and Romance
2018, Indefinites between Latin and RomanceThe diachronic evolution of Italian mica: Discourse strategies and language change
2018, Italian Journal of LinguisticsThe negation in the dialects of Swiss Italian
2017, Vox Romanica
- ☆
We thank the audiences of the Italian Dialects in Diachrony Conference (Leiden, May 19–21, 2011) and of the 43rd Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages (New York, April 17–19, 2013), Paola Benincà, Ingo Feldhausen, Imme Kuchenbrandt, Diego Pescarini, Mair Parry and Silvia Rossi for comments and discussion. For the concerns of the Italian academy, Jacopo Garzonio takes responsibility over section 3 and Cecilia Poletto over sections 1 Introduction, 2 The Jespersen cycle and its trigger, 4 Negative and clitic interaction: from syntax to phonology.