The syntax of medieval Occitan

Jensen, Frede

doi:10.1515/9783111329277

Cited by 39 publications

(17 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: 80%

“…These general observations seem to partially contrast with the traditional descriptions of Old Occitan and Old French (Jensen 1986(Jensen :139ff, 1990), according to which "both qui and que are used indifferently about persons or things" (Jensen 1986:141, cf. Jensen 1990.…”

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

confidence: 56%

“…This is apparently not expected if the distribution of qui is determined by the animacy of the extracted argument. Jensen (1986) bases his observations on the attested usage of qui for inanimate antecedents, (38), already in old texts (pace Grafström 1968). (38) (Jensen 1986:140, 1990 …”

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

confidence: 95%

“…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%

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: 80%

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

confidence: 56%

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

confidence: 95%

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

Phase-edge properties and complementizer omission

Franco

2015

isogloss

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

The Person Case Constraint

Anagnostopoulou

2017

The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Syntax, Second Edition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This constraint, which is extremely robust cross‐linguistically, is known as the person case constraint (PCC), comes in several versions (Strong, Weak, Ultrastrong, and Me‐First), and has been related to a number of other phenomena showing restrictions on person agreement. This survey concentrates on different syntactic approaches to the PCC, as these have been developed in the past 15 years or so, focusing on the question of the scope of the constraint and its relation to comparable agreement restrictions in other domains. After presenting the different versions of the PCC and summarizing its main properties, I discuss some representative approaches to the Strong PCC based on Agree and relate Strong PCC effects to comparable restrictions. I then focus on the Weak PCC and the proposals that have been put forth to derive the various versions of the PCC on the basis of parameterizations of properties of Agree. I finally critically discuss (i) a proposal that has treated the PCC in terms of cartography and (ii) a functional, frequency‐based approach.

show abstract

Preverbal subjects, information structure, and object clitic position in Old Occitan

Donaldson

2015

J. Ling.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The position of object and adverbial clitics remains problematic in Old Occitan syntax (Wanner 2010). This paper analyzes clitic position specifically in affirmative main declaratives with overt preverbal subjects, in which clitics are either preverbal or postverbal with no apparent semantic distinction. Thus, the phrasesEn Constantiss’enanetandEn Constantis anet s’enare semantically equivalent, each meaning ‘Sir Constantine left’, whether the cliticss’en‘himself.from-there’ appear before or after the verbanet‘went’. Previous analyses have concluded that this variation is random (Mériz 1978) or due to regional or dialectal variation (Hinzelin 2007). Neither approach satisfactorily addresses the underlying grammar or the principles underlying the distribution of the variants. The present analysis draws on claims about the left periphery in medieval Romance (Benincà 2006) and reports empirical data from the troubadour biographies (vidasandrazos) and thevidaof Saint Douceline. Results from 470 subject–verb declaratives establish that the subject in subject–verb–clitic sequences is left-dislocated, albeit covertly so. This sequence is one of several instantiations of subject left dislocation in Old Occitan and usually signals topic shift.

show abstract

The syntax of medieval Occitan

Cited by 39 publications

References 0 publications

Phase-edge properties and complementizer omission

Phase-edge properties and complementizer omission

The Person Case Constraint

Preverbal subjects, information structure, and object clitic position in Old Occitan

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About