Magnifying micro-variation: variation in Italian dialects

• Instead of using evidence coming from typological work, I use data coming from a domain where independent variables (like the position of the verb, the basic word order) are controlled by the fact that these languages are genetically related.

• Furthermore, in this domain it is easy to trace back the etymological source of negative markers, since all these languages come from Latin.

• I will summarize Zanuttini’s (1997) work and will integrate it with empirical observations coming from the ASIt project (Syntactic Atlas of Italy:

http://asit.maldura.unipd.it/ and diachronic observations coming from the

OVI Old Italian data base:https://artfl-project.uchicago.edu/content/ovi

• Zanuttini has shown that negation in Northern Italian dialects (NIDs) can be typed into four different classes whose syntactic properties we now examine in detail.

• Southern Italian dialects have also developed new negative markers that differ from the standard Italian non inherited from Latin non. (see Garzonio and Poletto (2012), (2014)

• For the moment I will keep Zanuttini’s terminology in referring to the four types she has identified, although I do not imply that NegP1 to NegP4 are really NegPs in terms of the semantic features they are endowed with or even in more traditional categorial terms.

NegP1

a. No sai (Cencenighe Agordino (BL))(I) Not know

b. *No vienlo? (Padua)Not comes=he

c. *No vanot go+imperative

d. No 'l è lugà nogugnNot he is come nobody

e. Nisun no vien più casa mia (Venice)Nobody not comes more my home

f. U min sent nent/U n li sent nent (Cairo)He me.not hears not/He not him hears not

Zanuttini’s findings: NegP1

Preverbal negation has the following propertiesA. It interferes with V to C in interrogativesB. It is not compatible with morphologically

unambiguous imperative formsC. It always requires negative concord with

postverbal n-words (in some dialects even with preverbal ones)

D. It can reorder with subject and object clitics

NegP2

a. Al sei bic (Livigno (SO))I=it know not

b. Magnelo mina? (S. Anna (VE))Eats=he not

c. Movat mia!/Movrat mia! (S.Antonino,/Albinea)Move not

d. A n è mina rivà nisun (Loreo (RO))It not is not come nobody

e. A l’a pa già ciama (Torino)He cl.has not already called

f. At crumpulu opura at crumpi millu (Borgomanero)You buy.it or you buy not.it

Zanuttini’s findings NegP2

Postverbal negative markers in this position are etymologically minimizers: A. They occurs before AnteriorTP signaled by “already”B. They do not block V to CC. They are generally compatible with true imperative forms (but see Emilian dialects for exceptions)D. They do not require but can trigger negative concordE. They only reorder with clitics in dialects with generalized enclisis, otherwise they do not interfere with the clitic cluster

NegP3

a. A l’avia già nen volu ‘ntluraHe it had already not wanted then

b. A l’ha nen dine sempre tut He cl has not said.us always allc. Parla nen! Talk not!d. I vni-ve nen? You come-you not?e. A parla nen cun gnun He speaks not with nobody

Zanuttinis’ findings NegP3

This type of negative marker is generally etymologically derived from ‘nothing’ it occurs after “already” but before “always”A. It never blocks V to C in interrogativesB. It is always compatible with true imperative verbsC. It does not require negative concord, but in some cases it is possibleD. It never reorders with clitics

NegP4

a. Su no (Milan)(I) know not

b. L'è rivà nisunIt is come nobody

c. Vusa no!Shout+imp not

d. Te la cumpret o te la cumpret no?You it buy.you or you it buy.you not?

e. L’a mangià noHe has eaten not

NegP4

This type of negative marker is found at the vP border after adverbsA. It is compatible with true imperativesB. It never requires or allows for negative

concordC. It never blocks V to CD. It is generally found after the past participle

and in some dialects even after the object

SummaryNegP1 NegP2 NegP3 NegP4

Position preT preAnteriorT pregenericAsp prevP

V to C interference

+ - - -

Negative concord

+ +/- -/(+) -

Compatible with true imperatives

- +/- + +

Reorders with clitics

+ -/(+) - -

SummaryNegP1 NegP2 NegP3 NegP4

Position preT preAnteriorT pregenericAsp prevP

V to C interference

- - -

Negative concord

+ +/- -/(+) -

Compatible with true imperatives

- +/- + +

Reorders with clitics

+ -/(+) - -

+ - - -

SummaryNegP1 NegP2 NegP3 NegP4

Position preT preAnteriorT pregenericAsp prevP

V to C interference

+ - - -

Negative concord

+ +/- -/(+) -

Compatible with true imperatives

- +/- + +

Reorders with clitics

-

+ +/- - -

SummaryNegP1 NegP2 NegP3 NegP4

Position preT preAnteriorT pregenericAsp prevP

V to C interference

+ - - -

Negative concord

+ +/- -/(+) -

Compatible with true imperatives

- +/-

Reorders with clitics

+ -/(+) -+ +

- -

SummaryNegP1 NegP2 NegP3 NegP4

Position preT preAnteriorT pregenericAsp prevP

V to C interference

+ - - -

Negative concord

+ +/- -/(+)

Compatible with true imperatives

- +/- + +

Reorders with clitics

+ -/(+) - -

- + +/- +/-

• Notice that even in a minimalist framework we have to explain why it is so that a negative marker comes in front of ‘already’ while another comes after ‘already’. The usual explanation of the universal ordering of adverbials in the minimalist framework is that they are ordered according to their semantic scope. Since the two negative markers have the same semantic import, this explanation is not viable in our case.

• This means that the problems we noted concerning the cartographic approach also apply to the minimalist view:

• Why is negation instantiated in so different ways and positions in the languages of the world and even in very similar dialects.

Zanuttini’s analysis

[NegP1 non [TP1 V+Agr

[NegP2 mica [ TP2 [AdvP already]

[NegP3 niente [ Asp perf. Vpast part [Asp gen/progr [AdvP always]

[NegP4 NO [VP ]]]]]]]]]

Each negative marker has a different position in the clause where it is merged.

back to the problem

This account does not explain: A. why there are four distinct negative markers with different syntactic properties, but which can all be the standard negative marker, i. e. have the same semantic property of negating the whole proposition. B. why the four NegPs are exactly where and what they are in the structure.

• Negation is per se not a feature, but a whole set of features all of which contribute to build negation in a compositional sense.

• This means that the syntactic expression of “NegP” is not a simple projection with a Spec and a head as usually assumed, but a complex set of projections with an internal layering.

• NegP = [a [b [c [d ]]]

The “Big NegP” Hypothesis

All negative markers are merged inside a single constituent, a big complex XP which has various layers. Each of the four negative types we have seen lexicalizes one of these layers and corresponds to a semantic component necessary to achieve sentential negation.

• If all negative markers are portions of a big XP how come they occur in different syntactic positions?

• Suppose each negation type only expressed one feature, i.e. one projection inside the big XP. This feature has to be checked inside the clausal spine.

You have two movement possibilities

• You can either move the whole big XP containing the negative marker as a whole.

• For example: a quantifier negation moves to the position where quantifiers are usually moved (i.e. the low IP area). It can do so pied piping the rest of the big XP.

2. Alternatively, the negative marker can be extracted out of the big XP and moved alone to the positions according to the feature it is endowed with leaving behind the rest of the big XP.

• The movement positions where you see negative markers generally correspond to the position where the original etymological element was merged/moved, i.e. Q-negation can remain in the original position of the quantifier, Focus negation can remain in the Focus position and so on.

• The only element that has a position which probably does not represent its original meaning is non, since it is a clitic and as such must enter the clitic field located in most Romance varieties on top of TP.

The structure of the “big NegP”

[ Focus/Operator NO/manco [ScalarP non [MinQ mica [Existential/IndefiniteP (ni)-ente ]]]]

The four types of elements which can constitute a negative marker are etymologically uniform:a) Focusb) Scalar (?)c) Minimizerd) Existential/Indefinite

• This complex XP is merged either at the vP border or even below.

• This hypothesis has been proposed by Rowlett (1998) for French, by Bayer (2009) for a particular case of sentential negation involving nichts in German.

• The labels I present here are based on morphological/etymological evidence. It might be the case that the real semantic values provided here are different or incomplete.

The big NegP is no “NegP”

None of these formatives is per se the negation in the logical sense of ¬ P. All these formatives have different features and are attracted by different heads in the clausal domain, therefore they occur in different positions although they have been merged together. These formatives do not exist because of NegP, they are also components of other elements, like quantifiers, whs, etc.

• An advantage from splitting negation into more basic components is that it accounts immediately for the fact that negation interferes with various other elements like Focus and different types of quantifiers.

I. Relativized minimality

• Z Y* How do you wonder [ who behaved ___ ] [+f] [+f] [+f] * • Y is in a Minimal Configuration with X iff there

is no Z such that• Z is of the same structural type as X, and• Z intervenes between X and Y.

Structural types (Rizzi 2004)

• Argumental: person, number, gender, case• Quantificational: Wh, Neg, measure, focus...• Modifier: evaluative, epistemic, Neg,

frequentative, celerative, measure, manner,....

• Topic If negation occurs in two different RM natural

classes, it means it has at least more than one feature.

• How is a RM „natural class“ defined? • On the basis of more primitive features that

are present in all the members of a single class.

• For instance: if Focus, wh-items and negation belong to the same class, they must have the same primitive component in their endowment.

• What we call „features“ might correspond to basic semantic operations composing well known different types of phenomena (i.e. wh-items, focus and negation have a basic semantic, syntactic and sometimes even morphological formative in common)

• Relativized minimality thus provides us with a theoretical argument that negation must be semantically complex.

• On the premises that languages tend to express a complex semantics with a complex morphosyntax, then negation must be syntactically complex as well.

Another advantage of this analysis is that it explains Neg-doubling, tripling and quadrupling noticed in typological literature straightforwardly: this is the same process of splitting and moving found with clitic doubling with DPs.

• When we have two or more negative formatives, each can either move independently to check its features (or to satisfy other requirements, see clitics) or together as the whole big XP.

Arguments for big NegP

I first present four arguments which show that NegP doubling and DP doubling are the same phenomenon.Then I show that the big NegP idea nicely complements Zanuttini’s theory in explaining some exceptions to her empirical generalizations.

II. Doubling

Like DP doubling, NegP doubling is clause bound: Un m’ha detto che *(un) viene punto (Florence)not to.me has said that not comes notIn order to license punto, the preverbal negative marker must be in the same clause. Exceptions to this rule are cases of negative raising, but clitic climbing also exists.

III. Tripling

DP doubling allows for triplings. The same is true for negative markers, you can have three negative markers or even four:No la go miga magnada NO! (Venice)Not it have not eaten not‘I did not eat it’(mvûl) kà-nák-ááŋ-áp (kwénd)(1.rain) neg1.1sc-rain-tam-neg2 (neg3)‘it does not rain’

IV. Clustering

If two negative markers are merged together, there must be cases where we see them move together. This is the case of constituent negation, where there is no clausal structure to which the two formatives can independently move:

No miga tutti (Padua)not not all

V. No double negation

The advantage of this hypothesis is that it explains negative concord between two negative markers in a straightforward way. The reason why the two negative markers count as one is that they are merged together. Again, the parallel with one of the analyses put forth for DP doubling is striking: if we consider the two components as members of a syntactic unit, then:two nominal elements can share case and thematic role, two negative markers add one negation to the clause.

Do we really need the big NegP?

What are the advantages if we assume the big NegP with respect to simply assuming, as Zanuttini did, that there are four different NegPs?First of all, NegP is at present the only exception to the view that sentence structure is a set of FPs all with different semantic features, at least phase internally.

Yes, we do

It is well known that negative markers must be allowed to move in Italian varieties:‘He did not come’Non è mica venutoNot is not comeMica é venutoNot is comeHere we can assume that mica can move to the Spec Position where non is sitting, thus deleting non.

However, there are cases of apparent lowering of negative markers with respect to their assumed base position in Zanuttini’s schema. These cases are true exceptions to Zanuttini’s hierarchy, unless we assume that the four positions NegP1-NegP4 have all been reached by negative markers through movement from a lower one which either corresponds to NegP4 or is even lower.

First exception

A NegP4 element like no should occur on the right of ‘always’, not on the left. However, this is not always true: i an no semper durmi:d they have not always sleptHence, we have to assume that also the lowest negative markers can move higherThis could still be a case in which no only modifies the adverb, i.e. constituent negation

Second exception

Manzini and Savoia (2002; 2005) notice that in some cases the minimizer type of negation is located lower than the adverb ‘already’:jau dorme l aun bo Müstertal I sleep yet notThe negative marker bo, being a minimizer, should occur before ‘yet’ according to Zanuttini’s hierarchy. Notice that this cannot be interpreted as constituent negation since bo is the last element of the clause.

Third exception

Florentine punto is a minimizer and should be located in NegP2, i.e. higher than adverbs like yet/already: Un ha ancora dormito punto (Florence)Not has yet slept notHere punto occurs lower than ancora and again this does not look like constituent negation.

• Another possibility to explain these exceptions would be to assume vP fronting so that you reverse the order of negation and adverb.

• However, there is no evidence for this type of movement with other adverbs, i.e. all adverbs remain in a fixed hierarchy, it is only negation that varies.

Fourth exception

There are cases in which two negative markers occur in front of ‘yet’, i.e. they cannot be constituent negation, since the order would be the opposite one (non mia):

El ciamimia non anmo S. Angelo Lodigiano himI.call not not yet

(Manzini& Savoia (2011):27If we assume that the two negative marker are merged as a unit in a lower position, the problem is immediately solved.

• Further evidence that the negative marker is complex comes from its morphological endowment: there are cases in which, although there is no doubling between two negative markers, the negative marker itself is morphologically bi-morphemic, actually this seems to be the general diachronic path, as I will show tomorrow.

• One case of bi-morphemic negation is the one found in Sciacca, a Sicilian dialect where the negative marker has two alternative forms, un and nun

• The occurrence of the two alternants are syntactically conditioned

un appears when there is no CP element present:a. Iɖɖu un curri mai. (Sciacca)

he not runs never‘He never runs.’

b. Sta fimmina um-mi cala. (S. Biagio Platani)

this woman not=me pleases‘I don’t like this woman.’

• Or by an operator, as in yes/no interrogatives:Nun l’hai ancora accattatu? (Sciacca)not it=have.2SG yet bought‘Haven’t you bought it yet?’The two allomorphs un/nun cannot be derived by a

phonological rule, since the phonological context is the same in the following case:

Un sacciu cu parlau cu Maria.not know.1SG who spoke.3SG with Mary‘I don’t know who spoke with Mary.’

• Nun appears when the CP is activated, either by a complementizer:

Pensu di nun puttarlu dumani. (Sciacca)think.1SG of not bring.INF=it tomorrow‘I think that I will not bring it tomorrow.’…chi nul-la truvassimu. (S. Biagio Platani)

that not=her found.1PL‘…that we had not found her.’

• The proposal is that the two allomorphs are derived syntactically: the additional n- morpheme is spelled out only when the CP is already activated by another element:

• [Force° chi [CNeg° n- [Neg° -un [TP]]]]• [InterrogativeP OP [CNeg° n- [Neg° -un [TP]]]]

Summing up

• Northern Italian has four different types of negations which have different properties, but they are not merged in the position where we actually see them in the majority of the dialects, but lower down, at least at the vP edge.

• If we assume that they are all merged as a complex unit, we can account for a number of problems.

• First of all, it accounts for the existence of negative concord among negative markers, since they can be treated as a unit.

• It also accounts for the reason why negative markers occur where they do (they do not change their position with respect to the original etymological element they are derived from)

• Each formative can either move as the whole XP or alone. In these two cases we expect a different behavior.

• The positions noted by Zanuttini are actually the landing sites where each negative formative can occur according to its semantic endowment.

• As we will see tomorrow, this account also explains several problems internal to the Jespersen cycle.