Old French and Comparative Gallo-Romance Syntax

Jensen, Frede

doi:10.1515/9783110938166

Cited by 84 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…(40b)= 'Love teaches everything'; (41a) = 'All his limbs hurt'). Moreover, a closer look at the predicates of the relative clauses in these examples reveals that C-omission always follows an inactive antecedent, which is confirmed by further data reported in Jensen (1986Jensen ( ), (1990, here omitted for space reasons. I can thus conclude that the active vs. inactive distinction also plays a role in C-omission in relative clauses of Old French and Old Occitan, being attested with inactive antecedents, on a par with C-omission in Renaissance Florentine.…”

Section: C-omission In Old French and Old Occitan Relative Clausessupporting

confidence: 79%

“…On a par with Old North Western Italian varieties (cf. section 3.2), Old Occitan and Old French present various forms to introduce relative clauses: que, qui and cui (for obliques) (Bourciez 1967, Jensen 1986, 1990. Ledgeway (2012:336) argues that the qui/que distinction of Old Romance originated from the Latin NOM/ACC marking (cf.…”

Section: C-omission In Old French and Old Occitan Relative Clausesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A word qui before yesterday to.me was said 'A word that was said to me the day before yesterday.' (Jensen 1990:203, Queste 53.33) Moreover, Jensen (1986Jensen ( , 1990 The verb 'to see' in example (39) does not constitute a counterexample, since the thematic role of subjects of perception verbs in their 'basic' form (hear, see, etc., although probably not 'eardrop' or 'stare') is semantically more similar to that of experiencers rather than agents. The notion of agentivity seems to be tightly overlap between an active vs. inactive opposition and a NOM/ACC marking, as Ledgeway (2012) also suggests for other Northern Romance languages (cf.…”

Section: C-omission In Old French and Old Occitan Relative Clausesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Not there has that not has.SBJV done insult 'There is not a person whom I have not insulted.' (Renart 1764, in Jensen 1990 As examples (40)- (41) show, C-omission is "the norm" (Jensen 1990:498) when both the matrix and the relative clause are negated, which in fact results in an affirmative interpretation (e.g. (40b)= 'Love teaches everything'; (41a) = 'All his limbs hurt').…”

Section: C-omission In Old French and Old Occitan Relative Clausesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The Spec-Head agreement with a [-realis] OP (rather than with a true Neg OP) yields the expletive [-realis] interpretation on the negation. It is also worth mentioning that C-omission in Old French and Old Occitan, let aside relative clauses, is most frequently attested with embedded subjunctive predicates or, regardless of mood, in complements of semifactives and propositional attitude verbs (Jensen 1990, Scorretti 1991. All these syntactic contexts seem to share the absence of embedded independent illocution.…”

Section: C-omission In Old French and Old Occitan Relative Clausesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Phase-edge properties and complementizer omission

Franco

2015

isogloss

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper deals with the diachrony of complementizer omission (C-omission) in some Italian clauses. C-omission is restricted to clauses with [-realis] mood in Old as well as in Modern Italian, and to some types of declarative clauses in Modern Florentine (Cocchi & Poletto, 2005). This phenomenon is instead much more pervasive in the Renaissance period (Wanner 1981, Scorretti 1991 and invests basically all types of subordinate clauses. The present study concentrates on C-omission in Renaissance Italian relative clauses, which is attested in both subject and non-subject extractions. There is a subject/non-subject asymmetry in the frequency of C-omission in relative clauses, which is claimed to result from the combination of an active vs. inactive distinction that characterizes both Old and Renaissance Italian, and the loss of V-to-C. The active vs. inactive distinction is attributed to the presence of a strong (*) feature on the low-phase head, v*, in both Old and Renaissance Italian, while the loss of (*) in CP determines the loss of V-to-C in Renaissance Italian only. The argument is corroborated by further comparative facts from Old Occitan and Old French, as well as by a contrast with Old Portuguese and Old Spanish.

show abstract

Section: C-omission In Old French and Old Occitan Relative Clausessupporting

confidence: 79%

Section: C-omission In Old French and Old Occitan Relative Clausesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: C-omission In Old French and Old Occitan Relative Clausesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: C-omission In Old French and Old Occitan Relative Clausesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: C-omission In Old French and Old Occitan Relative Clausesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations