In this article I propose a new analysis of Pseudo-Relative clauses ('PRs') within the Cartographic model (Rizzi 1997 a.o.). Heretofore, the apparently contradictory behaviour of PRs in the syntactic tests used to determine their structure has been very problematic. Based on new data from Italian, I show that PRs are Small Clauses with a ForceP projection. Moreover, I explain the inconsistent results of the syntactic tests by claiming that PRs can be embedded in different syntactic environments. More specifically, they can be inserted as 'bare' Small Clauses into the matrix clause or be part of a bigger structure: i.e., a Complex-DP, a locative adjunction or a 'Larsonian' structure.
This article presents a syntactic analysis of the third person subject clitic a in Camponese, a heretofore unstudied Friulian variety. Following Poletto's (2000) map of subject clitics, we argue that it bears [+third person] features, and is, in fact, the spellout of the functional head Subj°, located in the highest projection of TP (following Rizzi & Shlonsky 2007). In the first part of the article, we offer a detailed description of the distribution and syntactic properties of the subject clitic a, identifying its position in relation to the other elements that occur in the CP and TP. In the second part we discuss two proposals put forward to account for split clitics like a-l in the related variety of Forni di Sotto, where a and l are held to be part of a single clitic al (Manzini & Savoia 2009, Calabrese & Pescarini 2014. We show that such an account is incompatible with the case of Campone, where the clitics a and l are clearly separate: l is a [uφ]-clitic (Roberts 2010) and is located lower in the TP than the clitic a. We conclude with an analysis, which proposes the integration of Poletto's (2000) typology with a fifth type, corresponding to the clitic a of Campone.
This article offers a comparative analysis of “predicative” gerunds (“PGs”) and prepositional infinitives (“PIs”), focussing on perception constructions in Spanish (PGs) and European Portuguese (PIs). I demonstrate that these two constructions are diachronically related and that they still have a similar syntax. The evidence discussed suggests that both constructions are Small Clauses headed by a preposition of central coincidence. In PGs, this preposition is merged in a low aspectual projection and incorporates into the verb. In PIs, an evolution of PGs, it is merged later in the structure. This leads to a layering process, i.e. the splitting of a single head into a series of heads and transferring the semantics of one functional head to more heads. Thus, PIs have a more expanded structure than gerunds. Finally, further empirical evidence for this analysis is discussed, such as the insertion of adverbs and the use of sin (“without”) to negate the perceived event.
Rhaeto-Romance varieties are the only present-day Romance varieties which exhibit the Verb Second constraint , Poletto 2002, Salvi 2010. In this chapter we examine two properties typically ascribed to the Verb Second phenomenon, subject-finite verb inversion and restrictions on the co-occurrence of multiple constituents in the sentence-initial position, in two Rhaeto-Romance varieties spoken in South Tyrol (Province of Bolzano, Northern Italy). We demonstrate that both varieties behave like Verb-Second languages as far as both phenomena are concerned, but exhibit a specific Verb-Second system governed by the interplay between syntactic and discourse constraints which differs from that of Germanic and Old Romance languages. We also show that these two varieties are subject to diatopic and micro-diatopic variation and therefore provide an excellent showcase for the role of sociolinguistic factors in determining variation in syntax.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.