elements on the borders a colored approach to vowel reduction in lunigiana dialects gen and num...

Elements on the borders

a colored approach to vowel reduction in Lunigiana dialects

gen and num distribution in Lunigiana nominal expressions

Edoardo Cavirani

[email protected]

Italian Dialect Meeting 2015 and CIDSM X

22-24 June 2015, University of Leiden

mailto:[email protected]

Overview

02/27

EXPLANANDUM

Variation in fem and pl distribution in the nominal expressions of Lunigiana dialects: Carrara, Colonnata and Ortonovo

MAIN HYPOTHESES• The burden of the variation is taken by the phonological

module

no Vocabulary difference (vs Taraldsen 2009)no morphological operation (vs Manzini & Savoia 2005)

• The linearization of fem and pl is taken care of by the phonological module

no ‘special’ syntactic derivation (vs Taraldsen 2009)no morphological operation (vs Distributed Morphology)

The geolinguistic domain: Lunigiana

03/27

Data: NP

GEN and NUM DISTRIBUTION in NPs

Carrarese lup-epl.f vs lup-af

Colonnatese lup-ipl-af vs lup-af

Ortonovese lup-apl.f = lup-af

04/27

Data: NP

SYNTACTIC STRUCTURE

Word final vowels are morpho-syntactically complex: they can represent the phonological exponent of more than one

morpho-syntactic terminal (DM & nS)

05/27

Analysis: previous accounts

Distributed Morphology•Vocabulary insertion targets terminal nodes•Subset Principle•Morphological operations: Fusion and Impoverishment

Carr. morphological operations Carr. Vocabulary ItemsFusion: {pl{f}} => {pl,f} /ø/ {m} (lup)

{pl{m}} => {pl,m} (?) /a/ {f} (lupa)/i/ {pl}/e/ {f.pl}

06/27

/e/ {pl.f}

lup-e ‘wolves f.pl’

/i/ {pl.m}

lup-i ‘wolves m.pl’


07/27

/i/ {pl}/a/ {f}

lup-i-a ‘wolves f.pl’

/i/ {pl}/ø/ {m}



08/27


09/27

/a/ {f}

lup-a ‘wolve(s) f(pl)’

/i/ {pl}



10/27

/e/ {pl{f}}

lup-e ‘wolves f.pl’

/i/ {pl{m}}



11/27

/a/ {f}/i/ {pl{m}}

lup-i-a ‘wolves f.pl’

/i/ {pl{m}}



12/27


13/27

/a/ {pl{f}} /a/ {f}

lup-a ‘wolves f.pl’

/i/ {pl{m}}



SUMMARY

Distributed Morphology

Carrarese /e/ {pl,f} {pl{f}} => {pl,f}Colonnatese /a/ {f}; /i/ {pl}Ortonovese /a/ {f} {pl} => ø (if gen: f)

•problems with Colonnatese Ellipsis•problems with the sensitivity to gen of Impoverishment in Ortonovese•variation both in the Vocabulary and in the Morphology

nanoSyntax

Carrarese /e/ {pl{f}} Colonnatese /a/ {f}; /i/ {pl{m}}Ortonovese /a/ {pl{f}}

•no problem with Colonnatese Ellipsis•no problem with Ortonovese Impoverishment •variation only in the Vocabulary; no need for Morphology

14/27

Analysis

From PROTO-ROMANCE to LUNIGIANA DIALECTS

“[…] unstressed vowel deletion […] is (almost) normal in the Higher Magra Valley […], while the more you descend the valley, the more the

deletion alternates with the reduction” (Luciani 1999)

Word-internal unstressed vowels have been reduced to schwa or deleted in the whole geolinguistic domain (Cavirani 2015)

SILVĀTICU(M) ‘wild sg.m’ Carr./Col./Ort. [səlˈvat(ə)k] Pontr. [sarˈvadg]

LIBERU(M) ‘free sg.m’ Carr./Col./Ort. [ˈlib(ə)r]LIBRU(M) ‘book sg.m’ Pontr. [ˈlibar]

15/27

Analysis

From PROTO-ROMANCE to LUNIGIANA DIALECTS

“[…] unstressed vowel deletion […] is (almost) normal in the Higher Magra Valley […], while the more you descend the valley, the more the

deletion alternates with the reduction” (Luciani 1999)

Word-final vowels display a better resistance to reduction (Cavirani 2015)

16/27

LŬP- ‘wolf’masc fem

sg pl sg pl

Carrarese lup-ø lup-i lup-a lup-e

Colonnatese lup-ø lup-i lup-a lup-j-a

Ortonovese lup-ø lup-i lup-a lup-a

Pontremolese luv-ø luv-i luv-a luv-ø

Analysis

PHONOLOGICAL STRUCTURE

unstressed nuclei graduallya lose their melodic contentb, namely their ability to license phonological structuresc (Cavirani 2015)

•the diachronic change is mimicked by the diatopic variation

•defined in terms of Elements (Backley 2011)

[a] [i] [e] [ɛ]

|A| |I| |I| |A| |A| |I| |I| |A| |A| |I|

•structural complexity hierarchy (|A| > |I|/|U|; Pochtrager 2015)

|X| |X| > > >

|X| |Y| |X| |X| | |

17/27

Analysis

PHONOLOGICAL STRUCTURE

Word final vowels are phonologically complex objects …

[a] [i] [e] [ɛ]

|A| |I| |I| |A| |A| |I| |I| |A| |A| |I|

aka

|A| |I| |IA| |IA|

… translating complex morpho-syntactic structures, viz subtrees (nS)

|A| {f}a |I| {pl{m}}b

a. Rather than {pl{f}} as seems to be required for Ortonovese by nS Superset Principleb. Because of Colonnatese’s ellipsis

18/27

Analysis

PHONOLOGICAL COMPUTATION

Colored Containment Theory (Van Oostendorp 2007)

•the morphological affiliation of phonological objects must be visible on the surface•“Coloring […] grants the bare minimum of accessibility phonology may have to morphological structure” (Trommer 2015: 83)

Constraint set (Cavirani 2015)

*V|Str| : unstressed vowels cannot license complex structures

(*V|XY| >> *V|X| >> *V|X| >> *V| |)

Express-|X|α : elements belonging to the underlying representation of an affix (α) must be (phonetically) interpreted

*MixColor : elements belonging to the underlying representation of an affix (α) cannot be interpreted by the root (ρ)

19/27

Analysis

PHONOLOGICAL COMPUTATION: lup, lupi, lupa

•√s spell out {N{m}} (Taraldsen 2009)

•√s display a CVCV template (Lowenstamm 2008; Lampitelli 2014)

• √-final (empty) V slot hosts the floating elements |I|α and |A|α translating {pl{m}} and {f}, respectively

20/27

Analysis

PHONOLOGICAL COMPUTATION: lupe, lupja, lupa•Carrarese: faithful spell-out of both {pl{m}} and {f}

*MixColor, Express-|X|α >> *V|XY| (… >> Express-|X|ρ)

•Colonnatese: spell-out of both {pl{m}} and {f} + |I| lands on the preceding C (palatalizing it)

Express-|X|α, *V|XY| >> *MixColor (… >> Express-|X|ρ)

•Ortonovese: only {f} is spelled out

*MixColor, *V|XY| >> Express-|X|α (… >> Express-|X|ρ)

21/27

Analysis

CONCLUSION• no Vocabulary difference (vs Taraldsen 2009): the three dialects

display the same Vocabulary Items

Carrarese = Colonnatese = Ortonovese

/i/ {pl{m}} /a/ {f}

• no morphological operation (vs Manzini & Savoia 2005)

• the burden of the variation is taken by the phonological module

Carrarese: *MixColor, Express-|X|α >> *V|XY|

Colonnatese: Express-|X|α, *V|XY| >> *MixColor

Ortonovese: *MixColor, *V|XY| >> Express-|X|α

22/27

Why |I|{pl{m}}-|A|{f} linearization (contra Mirror Principle)?

1.√-rising without pied-piping (Taraldsen 2009; no head-adjoining)

“successive movement of the N to the specifier of the pl head through the specifier of f […] That is, I assume that the heads pl and f appear in their underlying order. One reason for assuming this is that it seems natural to assume that the gender marker, being directly selected by the N, should be below Number (pl)” (Taraldsen 2009: 114)

NumP

NPi Num’

√pl GenP-i

ti Gen’

f ti

-a

Affixes linearization

23/27



2.Merge under adjacency (MUA; Harley 2010; post-syntactic)

“MUA applies to adjacent terminal nodes, adjoining one to the other even across phrase boundaries, enabling the appearance of affixation of a structurally superior element to a structurally inferior one” (Harley 2010: 174)

TP TP

DP T’ DP T’she she

T VP VP-ed

V DP V DPkick it it

V Tkick -ed

24/27


2.Head movement + MUA

Once Gen/n is merged to √, √ moves and adjoins to (its c-commanding) Gen/n head (left-adjoining head movement; Baker 1986’s Incorporation). Then, Gen/nP moves to spec-NumP and MUA right-adjoins Gen/n to Num

NumP NumP

Gen/nPi Num’ Gen/nPi Num’

Gen/n’ Gen/n’Num ti Num

√ Gen/n -i √ -a Num Gen/n

-i -a


25/27


3.Phonology (my proposal)

a) Gen/nP moves to spec-NumP (with pied-piping)b) Vocabulary insertionc) Phonological computation

NumP Carr. Col. Ort.

|I|{pl{m}} |I|{pl{m}} |I|{pl{m}}

Gen/nPi Num’ |A|{f} |A|{f} |A|{f}

Gen/n’Num ti l u p l u p l u p

√ Gen/n -i -a C V C V C V C V C V C V


26/27





|I|{pl{m}} |I|{pl{m}} |I|{pl{m}}




lupe

*MixColor

Express-|X|α

*V|XY|


26/27





|I|{pl{m}} |I|{pl{m}} |I|{pl{m}}




lupe lupja

*MixColor Express-|X|α

Express-|X|α *V|XY|

*V|XY| *MixColor


26/27





|I|{pl{m}} |I|{pl{m}} |I|{pl{m}}




lupe lupja lupa

*MixColor Express-|X|α *MixColor

Express-|X|α *V|XY| *V|XY|

*V|XY| *MixColor Express-|X|α


26/27

ReferencesBackley P. (2011). An introduction to element theory. Edinburgh University Press.Cavirani E. (2015). Modeling Phonologization: vowel reduction and epenthesis in Lunigiana dialects. Utrecht: LOT

publishing. Dissertation, Leiden University.Barbiers S. (2013). “Where is syntactic variation?”. In P. Auer, J. C. Reina, & G. Kaufmann (eds.), Language Variation - European Perspectives IV. (Vol. 14). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company,

pp. 1-26.Harley H. (2010). Affixation and the mirror principle. Interfaces in Linguistics, New Research Perspectives, Oxford

Studies in Theoretical Linguistics 31, pp. 166-186.Lampitelli N. (2014). “The Romance plural isogloss and linguistic change: A comparative study of Romance nouns”.

In Lingua 140, pp. 158-179. Loporcaro M. 1994. “Sull’analisi del plurale femminile la doni8 a ‘le donne’ nei dialetti della Lunigiana”. L’Italia Dialettale 57, pp. 35-42.Lowenstamm J. (2008). “On n, nP and √”. In J. Hartmann, V. Hegedus & H. van Riemsdjik (eds.), The Sounds of

Silence: Empty Elements in Syntax and Phonology. Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 105-144Luciani L. (1999). Il dialetto Carrarese. Suoni, forme, costrutti, parole. Carrara: Aldus.Manzini M.R. & L.M. Savoia (2005). I dialetti italiani e romanci. Morfosintassi generativa. Alessandria: Edizioni

dell’Orso. Van Oostendorp M. (2007). Derived environment effects and consistency of exponence. In S. Blaho, P. Bye & M.

Kramer (eds.), Freedom of Analysis? Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 123-148. Samuels B. (2010) “Phonological derivation by phase: evidence from Basque”. Proceedings of PLC 33 (PWPL 16.1),

pp. 166-175. Taraldsen T. (2010). “Lexicalizing number and gender in Lunigiana”. Nordlyd 36, pp. 113–127. Trommer J. (2015). “Moraic Affixes and Morphological Colors in Dinka”. Linguistic Inquiry 46, pp. 77-112.

27/27

Xxx 3

Why |I|-|A| linearization (contra Mirror Principle)?

•|I| is not the PL’s exponent of a NUM functional projection, but of CLmax.

“… all nouns, in all languages, are mass, and are in need of being portioned out, in some sense, before the can interact with the ‘count’ system. This portioning-out function, accomplished in laguage like Chinese through the projection of classifiers, is accomplished in languages like English by the plural inflection, as well as by the indefinite article. Put differently, plural inflection is classifier inflection, thus accounting for the complementary distribution between classifier inflection and plural inflection, now reduced to the fact tht they are simply distinct instantiations of the classifier system” (Borer 2005: 93)

Borer’s Extended Projection

{Ex[N]}: {D, Q, #, CL}, order universally fixed

“every ExP segment is optional, but its presence/absence has interpretational Consequences” (Borer 2013)

28/27

yyy

Why it’s |I| that is delinked in DP?

•Derivation by phases (defining the relevant domains; Marantz 2001; Samuels 2010)•n(= gen) +√ are spelled-out first, and cannot be further modified (PIC: Samuels 2010). As a consequence, ellipsis (viz delinking of elements) can affect only |I|, which is inserted in/belongs to the next cycle/phase). Check the other domains (see in Bridget conclusion)

Derivationally, little x’s determine the edge of a cyclic domain (a “phase” in Chomsky’s recent terminology). Thus the combination of root and little x is shipped off to LF and PF for

phonological and semantic interpretation, and the meaning of the root in the context of little x is negotiated, using “Encyclopedic” knowledge. Heads attaching outside a little x take as

complements a structure in which the root meaning (and pronunciation) has already been negotiated. (Marantz 2001: 6)

head x

=> LF; PFx √

29/27

elements on the borders a colored approach to vowel reduction in lunigiana dialects gen and num...

Documents

pl distribution

previous accounts1327analysis

previous accounts0827analysis

previous accounts0927analysis

previous accounts1127analysis

previous accounts1027analysis

previous accounts1227analysis

previous accounts0727analysis