4 Analytic Demonstratives in Italo-Romance: A Parametric Account
4.3 A Parametric Account of Demonstratives From Latin to Romance
We assume that demonstratives are complex syntactic items resulting from the combination of two formal components, i.e. deixis (including spatial as well as
9In Teramano‘Deictic2’can also be represented by spatial adverbs (Mantenuto 2017: 13):
ii. [ʃtu tavulə ekkə] this.MSG table.MSG here
‘this table’
anaphoric functions) and definiteness (Guardiano et al. 2016; Longobardi et al.
2013). Crosslinguistically, these two major components are lexicalised either syncretically through the same element or in a split configuration which includes two distinct elements. Adnominal demonstratives in Italo-Romance show both configurations. We can assume that in the syncretic configuration the adnominal demonstrative occurs in the highest head position of the DP (Abney 1987;
Longobardi 1994) and checks both deixis and definiteness, therefore ruling out the possibility of a co-occurring definite article. In the split, discontinuous confi gu-ration, two different positions have to be assumed for the two demonstrative ele-ments: the highest D-head position for ‘Deictic1’(Do) and a lower, DP-internal, DemP hosting ‘Deictic2’(Brug`e 1996, 2002; Giusti 1997, 2002; Guardiano 2012;
Roberts 2011):
(37) [DP[D’Do[DemP[Dem’Demo[NPN ] ] ] ] ]
The definite component of the resulting configuration is expressed through the (adnominal) demonstrative, impoverished of its deictic force which is, in turn, conveyed by a second element (‘Deictic2’) that is either a spatial adverb (§4.2.1) or a pronominal demonstrative (§4.2.2). In the split configurations attested across Italo-Romance, the spatial adverb (‘Deictic2’) can surface either postnominally in a low area of the DP, or to the left of‘Deictic1’. These configurations are the result of parametric settings involving the possibility for the demonstrative to convey deixis and definiteness in a syncretic way or, alternatively, to resort to a split configu-ration where one element, i.e.‘Deictic1’, checks the definiteness and surfaces in D, and the other element, i.e.‘Deictic2’, occurring either lower in the DP or to the left of‘Deictic1’, bears the deictic features. These parametrically-defined choices are the reflexes of formal properties, such as (adapted from Guardiano et al. 2016):
1. D-checking deixis: the deictic element is able to check deixis and definiteness in D in a syncretic way. The demonstrative shows, therefore, a determiner-like behaviour.
2. Grammaticalised deictic person: the demonstratives are able to denote +1 and+2 person (or–1 and–2 person) through their morphological exponence.
3. Strong deixis: in a split configuration‘Deictic2’, which originates lower in the DP and projects a DemP, is able to move in the Spec-DP position, therefore higher than‘Deictic1’.
4. Adjectival deixis: in a split configuration,‘Deictic2’occurs in a low, yet internal, area of the DP.
Latin (Stage I) shows a syncretic configuration for demonstratives, whereHIC, ISTE, ILLE conveyed both the definite and the deictic component. Given that in Latin demonstratives show two alternative distributional patterns, i.e. D-initial
(determiner-like) and non-D-initial (adjectival-like), one can assume that these two possibilities reflected two different parametric settings, according to the two different positions that the same element can occupy in the structure of the DP, i.e.
[+D-checking Deixis] and [+Adjectival Deixis], respectively:
(38) a. cum ipse istam reprehensionem non fugerim
as self = this.ACC.FSG reproach.ACC not escape.SUBJ.PRF.1SG.
‘…since neither did I avoid this reproach’ (Latin, Cicero,Episulae Ad AtticumX, IIIa, 1)
b. verum illud quidem
true.ACC.NSG that.ACC.NSG indeed
impressum in animo…
engrave.PST.PTP.ACC.NSG in spirit.ABL.MSG
‘that truth is indeed ingrained in the spirit…’
(Latin, Cicero,AcademicaII, 44, 34)
In the evolution of the demonstrative forms from Latin to Romance, the syncretic, single-element configuration gave way to a scattered formation in which the realization of the demonstrative included an extra deictic element (Stage II). The possibility of a stage in whichISTEandILLEcombined with another existent deictic element is corroborated by the etymology of the two major Italo-Romance types,(A) QUESTOand (A)QUELLO, whose derivation includes the deictic presentative element
ECCE/ECCU(M)‘here is, behold’: namely,(EC)CU-ISTUis the basis of(A)QUESTOand (EC) CU-ILLUresulted in (A)QUELLO.One can assume that, at the beginning of the process of formation of these two Italo-Romance demonstratives, ISTE and ILLE, corre-sponding to‘Deictic1’, were accompanied byECCE/ECCU(M)for pragmatic reasons.10 The presentative and deictic adverbECCEwas available since early Latin comedy (Thesaurus Linguae LatinaeV: 23) and is attested with masculine/feminine and singular/plural accusative inflexional morphemes (ECCUM/-AM/-OS/-AS). The masculine singular formECCUMcame to be used as a reinforcer and merged with
ISTEandILLEto form some of the Italo-Romance demonstratives.11The possibility of
ECCEsharing phi-features with the referring noun indicates that it originated in the D-area, plausibly in a higher Spec-DP position, whereasISTEandILLElexicalized the D head and checked other D-features. A further historical stage (Stage III) includes a Spec-to-Head reanalysis (Van Gelderen 2004), whereby the erstwhile
10 This is historically confirmed forILLE,which corresponds to the original element from which the definite article of most Romance varieties originated.
11Tuscan and Umbrian addressee-oriented formscodesto/cotestoandtisto[+2PER] show thatECCU was reinforced by a second person marker: these Tuscan and Umbrian forms derive fromISTE which, given their addressee-oriented reference, could not be only marked as [+1PER] but also had to include [+2PER] (Ledgeway and Smith 2016: 822).
scattered structure evolved into a syncretic one yielding(A)QUESTOand (A)QUELLO, namely the D-initial and D-checking demonstrative of Italo-Romance which is able to check both definiteness and deixis. Moreover,(A)QUESTOand (A)QUELLOare also able to check person features, in that they distinctively refer to individuals immediately belonging either to the sphere of the speaker (+1PERS; 39a) or the addressee (+2PERS; 39b) or both the addressee and the non-discourse participants (–1PERS; 32c, 39d):
(39) a. Questa mia collega vi aiuterà.
this.FSG my.FSG colleague.FSG you.PL=help.FUT.3SG
‘This colleague of mine is going to help you.’
b. Questo tuo atteggiamento non mi piace.
this.MSG your.MSG attitude.MSG not to-me pleases
‘I do not like this attitude of yours.’
c. Comprerò quei quadri di ieri.
buy.FUT.1SG those.M painting.MPL of yesterday
‘I will buy those paintings we saw yesterday.’
d. Quel tuo ghigno non lo capisco.
that.MSG your.MSG sneer.MSG not it.DO understand.1SG
‘I do not understand this sneer of yours.’
The evidence from modern Italo-Romance shows that in some Italo-Romance va-rieties the demonstrative configuration underwent a further change (Stage IV), which is still ongoing in some dialects. A split configuration arose in which the adnominal demonstrative co-occurs with a second deictic element (‘Deictic2’). In this configuration the deictic force is expressed by‘Deictic2’which corresponds to either a spatial adverb or a pronominal demonstrative occurring lower in the DP.
The original adnominal demonstrative loses its deictic features and only checks the other D-features (40). At Stage IV the configuration is fully analytic in that two different positions in the structure are occupied by‘Deictic1’and‘Deictic2’and express two different bundles of features:
(40) a. sta dona là
this.FSG woman there
‘that woman’
(Ligurian; Ledgeway 2015b: 78)
b. kel libri ka
this.M book.MSG here
‘this book’
(Friulian; Ledgeway 2015b: 78–79)
In some varieties, here represented by the Abruzzese variety of San Valentino (Pescarini and Pascetta 2014), the syntactic distribution of‘Deictic2’reveals its adjectival behaviour and is placed in the lower DP-internal DemP (37, 41a). By contrast, in the varieties of Emilia-Romagna illustrated above in (33), arguably
‘Deictic2’was originally generated outside the DP, in a lower clausal projection embedding a copular structure. Today in some varieties ‘Deictic2’ is found as the lower DP-internal DemP position. We can assume that the dialects of Emilia-Romagna displaying a‘Deictic2’introduced by a relative element (41a) are the result of a restructuring, whereby an element on the clausal spine was rean-alysed as a DP-internal modifier (Stage IV-A). Finally, the variety of San Valentino clearly displays the adjectival function of‘Deictic2’(41b), thefinal point of this diachronic change (Stage IV-B).
(41) a. kl ˈomen (ke) ˈla
that.MSG man (which) there
‘that man there’
(Emilian Bolognese; Ledgeway 2015b: 78)
b. ʃtu ˈlebbrǝ (ˈkoʃtǝ) ma bˈbjaŋgǝ this.MSG book.MSG this.MSG my white.MSG
‘this white book of mine’
(Abruzzese; Pescarini and Pascetta 2014: 103)
In some varieties the discontinuous, analytic configuration is further changing towards a synthetic one (Stage V). The spatial adverb, functioning as‘Deictic2’and checking deixis, is lexicalized on the left of‘Deictic1’, plausibly in the higher Spec-DP position. This suggests that the scattered realization of deixis and definiteness is becoming syncretic, so that the demonstrative configuration is moving, again, from an analytic to a synthetic type:
(42) [ˈla kil ˈdon]
there those women
‘those women (there)’
(Ferrarese; Ledgeway 2015b: 78)
In Table 2 the relevant parameter settings are shown which define thefive different stages of the evolution of‘Deictic1’from Latin to Romance. In all the relevant varieties‘Deictic1’is able to check definiteness either in a syncretic fashion (Latin) or through a split configuration (Italo-Romance). The analytic formations are captured by the‘+’setting of the Strong Deixis parameter due to the presence of
‘Deictic2’(cf. Stages III to V). The syntactic function of‘Deictic2’is defined, when empirically borne out, by the setting of the parameter‘Adjectival Deixis’which is
‘+’if‘Deictic2’occurs DP-internally. A‘–’setting for this parameter corresponds to
a configuration where‘Deictic2’has raised to Spec-DP and is able to check defi-niteness in a syncretic way with ‘Deictic1’, therefore showing a Spec-to-Head grammaticalization process.
Table 2 also suggests that the changes which occurred from Latin to Romance can be accounted for in terms of parameter settings and re-settings. One of the major changes from Latin to Italo-Romance is the emergence itself of the demonstrative analytic configurations (+/– Strong Deixis). This parameter resetting was triggered by‘Deictic2’losing its pragmatic force as a deictic rein-forcer and thus reinterpreted as the element checking the grammaticalized deictic opposition.
Finally, we can observe that the emergence and development of split demonstratives in Italo-Romance underlines how the analytic-synthetic contin-uum is traversed from one extreme pole to the other at different times (Table 3).
Far from being a macro-set of settled systems, Italo-Romance reflects a cluster of ongoing changes in which the direction from analytic to synthetic and
Table: Parameter settings and types of demonstratives from Latin to Romance.
Stages Varieties Parameters Strong deixis
Adjectival deixis
D-checking deixis
Grammaticalized deictic person
I Latin() − + + +
II *Latin − ? + +
III Italo-Romance ()
+ − + −
IV-A Italo-Romance (a)
+ + + +
IV-B Italo-Romance (b)
+ ? + −
V Italo-Romance ()
+ − + +
Table: Syntheticity and analyticity of demonstratives from Latin to Italo-Romance.
Stage I *Stage II Stage III Stage IV Stage V
Synthetic Analytic Synthetic Analytic Synthetic
Latin Latin/Romance Modern Italo-Romance
from synthetic to analytic are two frequent pathways for the evolution of demonstratives.
5 Conclusions
Italo-Romance varieties provide rich empirical evidence that reveals analyticity and syntheticity to be two extreme poles of a composite continuum of structural evolution. The diachronic development of some functional categories in Romance is to be accounted for as resulting from cyclic pathways of grammaticalization, as the same category might cyclically change from more synthetic to more analytic, and vice-versa.
The development of future and modal values of HABERE in southern Italo-Romance confirms Roberts and Roussou’s (2003) analysis of grammaticalisation, as the result of merging an element higher up in the syntactic structure. However, the sentential level evidences the opposite structural directionality: we saw howcuand mucan lexicalise a T- orv-related position, resulting in lexicalization of the modal features in these domains, namely lower than the CP, giving rise to downward (re) grammaticalisation. Italo-Romance also provides evidence for the grammaticaliza-tion process to be accounted for as a parametric (re)setting: semantic-syntactic features such as deixis can be further analysed on the basis of syntactic parameters closely dependent on definiteness. The setting and re-setting of these parameters results in an analytic or synthetic form of the demonstratives and captures more-or-less-grammaticalised phases of the discontinuous configuration.
Italo-Romance microvariation provides rich empirical evidence against which the most effective generative accounts on language historical development can be tested. In this contribution two strictly related approaches, i.e. the cartographic model (adopted in Roberts and Roussou 2003) and the parametric accounts (Longobardi et al. 2013), have been shown to provide a principled explanation of the structural correlates of grammaticalisation at the sentential, clausal and nominal level of investigation.
Acknowledgements:This work is the result of close collaboration among the three authors, who wish to thank the editors for their help and support. For official purposes only, L. Andriani takes responsibility for §2, K. A. Groothuis for §3; G.
Silvestri for §4. The three authors take joint responsibility for §§1 and 5. L. Andriani wishes to acknowledge the support of a PRIN Grant (n. 20159M7X5P), awarded to Prof. M. Cennamo, Università degli Studi di Napoli“Federico II”, and an ERC Consolidator Grant (n. 681959), awarded to Prof. R. D’Alessandro, Universiteit Utrecht. All errors are the authors’own responsibility.
References
Abney, Steven Paul. 1987.The English noun phrase in its sentential aspect. Cambridge MA:
Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Adams, James N. 2003.Bilingualism and the Latin language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Adams, James N. 2013.Social variation and the Latin language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bentley, Delia. 1998. Modalità e tempo in siciliano: un’analisi diacronica dell’espressione del futuro.Vox Romanica57. 117–137.
Benveniste,´Emile. 1968. Mutations of linguistic categories. In Winfred P. Lehmann & Yakov Malkiel (eds.),Directions for historical Linguistics: A symposium, 83–94. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Benveniste,Emile. 1994 [1946]. Structure des relations de personne dans le verbe.´ Bulletin de la Soci´et´e de linguistique de Paris43. 225–236.
Berretta, Monica. 1994. Il futuro italiano nella varietà nativa colloquiale e nelle varietà di apprendimento.Zeitschrift für Romanische Philologie110(1–2). 1–36.
Bertinetto, Pier Marco & Mario Squartini. 2016. Tense and aspect. In Adam N. Ledgeway & Martin Maiden (eds.),The Oxford guide to the Romance languages, 939–953. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bertinetto, Pier Marco. 1979. Alcune ipotesi sul nostro futuro (con osservazioni su potere e dovere).Rivista di Grammatica Generativa4(1–2). 77–138.
Bertoni, Giulio. 1905. Intorno alle questioni sulla lingua della lirica italiana.Studi Medievali1.
580–593.
Bertoni, Giulio. 1916.Italia dialettale. Milano: Hoepli.
Biberauer, Theresa & Ian G. Roberts. 2015. Rethinking formal hierarchies: A proposed unification.
Cambridge Occasional Papers in Linguistics7. 1–31.
Bruge, Laura. 1996. Demonstrative movement in Spanish: A comparative approach.` University of Venice working papers in linguistics6(1). 1–53.
Bruge, Laura. 2002. The positions of demonstratives in the extended nominal projection. In` Guglielmo Cinque (ed.),Functional structure in DP and IP: The cartography of syntactic structures, 13–53. New York: Oxford University Press.
Calabrese, Andrea. 1993. The sentential complementation of Salentino: A study of a language without infinitival clauses. In Adriana Belletti (ed.),Syntactic theory and the dialects of Italy, 28–98. Turin: Rosenberg & Sellier.
Castrignanò, Vito Luigi. 2015.Testi notarili pugliesi del sec. XV. Edizione critica, spoglio linguistico e lessico. Rome: University of Rome“La Sapienza”Dissertation.
Chillà, Leonida & Cinzia Citraro. 2012. Impopolarità dell’infinito nelle varietà calabresi meridionali estreme: la selezione dei complementatori ei contesti modali.Rivista italiana di linguistica e di dialettologia14(14). 113–144.
Chung, Sandra & Alan Timberlake. 1985. Tense, aspect and mood. In Timothy Shopen (ed.), Language typology and syntactic description, vol. III: Grammatical categories and the lexicon, 202–258. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cinque, Guglielmo. 1999.The syntax of adverbs. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cinque, Guglielmo (ed.). 2006.Restructuring and functional heads. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Coleman, Robert. 1971. The origin and development of Latin habeo+infinitive.Classical Quarterly 21. 215–232.
Damonte, Federico. 2011. Matching moods: Mood concord between CP and IP in Salentino and southern Calabrian subjunctive complements. In Paola Benincà & Nicola Munaro (eds.), Mapping the left periphery: The cartography of syntactic structures, 228–256. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
De Angelis, Alessandro. 2013.Strategie di complementazione frasale nell’estremo Meridione italiano. Messina: SGB Edizioni.
De Angelis, Alessandro. 2015.Between Greek and Romance: competing complementation systems in Southern Italy. Messina: University of Messina manuscript.
De Angelis, Alessandro. 2016. Origini formali e funzionali della particella (m)i, (m)u, ma nell’area messinese e calabrese centro-meridionale. In Patrizia Del Puente (ed.),Dialetti: per parlare e parlarne. Atti del IV Convegno Internazionale di Dialettologia. Progetto A.L.Ba. (Potenza, Castelmezzano, Lagopesole, 6-8 novembre 2014), 75–94. Potenza: Il Segno Arti Grafiche.
Diessel, Holger. 1999.Demonstratives: Form, function, and grammaticalization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
D’Ovidio, Francesco. 1878. Fonetica del dialetto di Campobasso.Archivio Glottologico Italiano4.
145–184.
Ebneter, Theodor. 1973.Das bündnerromanische Futur.InSyntax der mit vegnir under habere gebildeten Futurtypen in Gegenwart und Vergangenheit (Romanica Helvetica 84). Bern:
Francke Verlag.
Festa, Giovan Battista. 1917. Il dialetto di Matera.Zeitschrift für Romanische Philologie38(2).
129–162, 257–280.
Fleischman, Suzanne. 1982.The future in thought and language. Diachronic evidence from Romance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Foresti, Fabio. 1988. Aree linguistche, 5: Emilia e Romagna. In Günter Holtus, Michael Metzeltin &
Christian Schmitt (eds.),Lexikon der romanistischen Linguistik, vol. IV Italienisch, Korsisch, Sardisch, 569–593. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Formentin, Vittorio (ed.). 1998.Loise De Rosa, Ricordi. Rome: Salerno.
Forner, Werner. 1988. Aree linguistiche, 1: Liguria. In Günter Holtus, Michael Metzeltin & Christian Schmitt (eds.),Lexikon der romanistischen Linguistik, vol. IV Italienisch, Korsisch, Sardisch, 453–469. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Forner, Werner. 1997. Liguria. In Martin Maiden & Mair Parry (eds.),The dialects of Italy, 245–252.
London: Routledge.
Gianollo, Chiara & Giuseppina Silvestri. Forthcoming. Key topics in semantics: Presupposition, anaphora, (in)definite nominal phrases, deixis, negation, tense and aspect, negation. In Adam N. Ledgeway & Martin Maiden (eds.),The Cambridge handbook of Romance linguistics.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Giusti, Giuliana. 1997. The categorial status of determiners. In Liliane Haegeman (ed.),The new comparative grammar, 95–123. London: Longman.
Giusti, Giuliana. 2002. The functional structure of noun phrases: A bare phrase structure approach. In Guglielmo Cinque (ed.),The Functional Structure of DP and IP (The Cartography of Syntactic Structures 1), 54–90. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Granatiero, Francesco. 1987.Grammatica del dialetto di Mattinata. Mattinata (FG): Comune di Mattinata.
Groothuis, Kim A. 2020.Reflexes offiniteness in Romance. Cambridge: University of Cambridge dissertation.
Groothuis, Kim A. 2019. Postverbal subject positions in‘semi-finite’clauses in Southern Italo-Romance and Sardinian.Romance languages and linguistic theory 2016. Selected papers from“Going Romance”Frankfurt 2016 (Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 15), 220–236. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Groothuis, Kim A. forthcoming. The downward grammaticalisation of irrealis subordinators in Romanian, Salentino and Southern Calabrese. In Alexandru Nicolae & Adina Dragomirescu (eds.),Romance languages and linguistic theory 2017. Selected papers from“Going Romance”31, Bucharest. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing.
Guardiano, Cristina, Dimitris Michelioudakis, Andrea Ceolin, Monica Alexandrina Irimia, Giuseppe Longobardi, Nina Radkevich, Giuseppina Silvestri & Ioanna Sitaridou. 2016. South by Southeast. A syntactic approach to Greek and Romance microvariation.L’Italia Dialettale 77.
95–166.
Guardiano, Cristina. 2012. Demonstratives, word order and the DP between syntax and semantics:
Crosslinguistic remarks.Studies in Greek Linguistics32. 100–115.
Harris, Alice C. & Lyle Campbell. 1995.Historical syntax in cross-linguistic perspective. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Haspelmath, Martin. 1989. From purposive to infinitive–a universal path of grammaticization.
Folia Linguistica Historica23(Historica vol. 10, 1-2). 287–310.
Heine, Bernd & Tania Kuteva. 2002.World lexicon of grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Heine, Bernd & Tania Kuteva. 2007.The genesis of grammar: A reconstruction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hofmann, Johann Baptist & Anton Szantyr. 1972.Lateinische Syntax und Stilistik: mit dem allgemeinen Teil der lateinischen Grammatik. vol. 2. Munich: Beck.
Joseph, Brian D. 1983.The synchrony and diachrony of the Balkan infinitive: A study in areal, general, and historical linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
La Fauci, Nunzio. 2006. Dinamiche sistematiche. Perifrasi perfettive e futuro sintetico: Dal latino al romanzo. In Renato Oniga & Luigi Zennaro (eds.),Atti della Giornata di linguistica latina, Venezia, 7 maggio 2004, 101–31. Venice: Editrice Cafoscarina.
Lausberg, Heinrich. 1966.Lingüística románica. Vol. II: Morfología. Madrid: Gredos.
Ledgeway, Adam N. & John Charles Smith. 2016. Deixis. In Adam N. Ledgeway & Martin Maiden (eds.),The Oxford guide to the Romance languages, 879–896. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ledgeway, Adam N., Norma Schifano & Giuseppina Silvestri. Forthcoming.Greek-Romance Contact: The Fading Voices of Southern Italy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ledgeway, Adam N. 1998. Variation in the Romance infinitive: The case of the southern Calabrian inflected infinitive.Transactions of the Philological Society96(1). 1–61.
Ledgeway, Adam N. 2004. Lo sviluppo dei dimostrativi nei dialetti centromeridionali.Lingua e
Ledgeway, Adam N. 2004. Lo sviluppo dei dimostrativi nei dialetti centromeridionali.Lingua e