Bare and non bare quantifiers in Old Italian Jacopo Garzonio

Bare and non bare quantifiers in Old Italian
Jacopo Garzonio (University of Venice Ca’ Foscari) [email protected]
Cecilia Poletto (Goethe University Frankfurt) [email protected]
1. In this work we investigate the syntactic properties of non negative quantifiers in Old Italian and
argue that there is a structural distinction between bare and non bare quantifiers, which is not due to any
supposed weak status of bare quantifiers. We argue that a) bare quantifiers are in a dedicated position in
the low IP area and, b) the internal structure of bare quantifiers is different from the one of quantified
DPs (see Giusti-Leko (2005)). The empirical domain of the investigation is the online corpus of the
Opera del Vocabolario Italiano, out of which we only consider the texts till approximately the first
decade of the XIV century.
2. In order to show that bare quantifiers must occupy a dedicated position in the low IP space while
Q+DP do not, we provide the following arguments:
a) Bare quantifiers must occur between the auxiliary and the past participle (as shown in (1a)), while
complex Q+DP can but need not be preposed in front of the past participle (as in (1b) and (1c)
respectively) in a way very similar to definite DPs (1d), which can also be scrambled to the left of the
past participle, though not obligatorily.
(1)
a.
b.
c.
d.
Ànne tutto paghato
(B. Bencivenni, 1296)
Aux-BareQ-PastP
(they) have everything paid
il quale, da che ebbe tutto Egitto vinto (B. Giamboni, 1292)
Aux-Q+DP-PastP
the which from that had all Egypt won
questi m’à(n)no ve(n)duto tutto i loro podere (Anonym., 1290)
Aux-PastP-Q+DP
these to.me have sold all the their farm
nimici avessero già il passo pigliato (B.Giamboni, 1292)
Aux-(Adv)-DP-PastP
enemies had.subj.3pl already the pace taken
We will show that the two types of movements, i.e. bare quantifier movement and scrambling of
definite or quantified DPs, are to be kept distinct and are ordered so that bare quantifiers always precede
scrambled elements:
(2)
Vedemmo che fue tutta in quattro parti divisa (B. Giamboni, 1292) Aux-BareQ-PP-PastP
(we) saw that (it) was all in four parts split
That this does not have to do with a weakness or clitic property of the bare quantifier as it might be
thought on the basis of modern French, is shown by the fact that when the bare quantifier is preceded by
a preposition it behaves as (direct object) bare quantifiers and not as a complex Q+DP in being
obligatorily in preparticipial position.
(3)
chi ‘l tene del tutto in sé celato (B. Latini, 1274)
who it-keeps of-the all in himself concealed
This position dedicated to bare quantifiers is not sensitive to the argumental versus adjunct status of the
bare Q, as adjunct PPs with bare quantifiers are also obligatorily preposed.
(4)
che sia per tutto detto
that is for all said
(Dante, 1300)
Furthermore, when Qs are followed by a DP or an adverb, they can never be extracted alone to reach
their dedicated position in the IP. Interestingly, this restriction is not observed when the Q is extracted
and moved to a different position, like the Focus position in the CP left periphery.
(5)
la quale [molto] v’era venuta molto contamente con nobile conpangnia
the which very there was come prettily with noble company
(Anonym., 1300)
We argue that the reason why this is so is that the position in the low IP area is an adverbial position (as
already proposed by Cinque (1999) for bare tutto), which cannot be occupied by an element linked to an
argument in the VP.
3. There is at least one argument which might lead us to think that the internal structure of bare
quantifiers is different from the one of complex Q+DPs, thus explaining why they can occupy an
adverbial position. It is the fact that quantifiers behave differently when they are directly modified by a
relative clause or when they select a DP which is in turn modified by a relative clause:
(6) come hanno già fatto molti altri che sotto loro cagione hanno commesso molto male
(B. Giamboni, 1292)
how have already done many others that under their reason have committed much evil
Only when the quantifier is directly modified by the relative clause does it become possible to
subextract the quantifier and prepose it alone leaving its restriction in situ.
(7)
ne possa molti ingannare a cui dice di far lo somigliante
(B. Giamboni, 1292)
of.them can many deceive to whom says of to.do the same
This will lead us to render more precise Doetjes’ (1997) approach to quantifiers as being adjoined to
either a null DP (containing a pro) or to a lexicalized one. We will claim that the null category sitting
lower than the quantifier is not identical to a full DP, which in turn selects a NP, but only contains a
classifier (which distinguishes between + and - human) and not a real lexical noun (not even a lexically
unrealized one). The classifier element (similar to English ‘thing’/body’ in everything/everybody) is
actually visible in some modern Italian dialects, which display forms like tutte cose instead of tutto and
tutti quanti instead of tutti.
(8)
a.
b.
I so frati s’addunanu di tuttu cosi
the his brothers discovered of all things
Mi li so littə tuttə quində
me them am read all
(Sicilian, Catania, ASIt)
(Abruzzese, Arielli (CH), ASIt)
The lexicalization of the classifier can also be observed in some contexts in Old Italian, where negative
quantifiers are systematically realized as neuna cosa in preverbal position and niente in postverbal
position. Cases of persona or cosa alone in negative contexts are also reported in Old Italian, in cases
where modern Italian would more naturally use a bare quantifier like qualcuno, qualcosa.
(9)
cose non convenevoli [a]lla persona di colui che l’ adomanda (B. Giamboni, 1292)
things not appropriate to.the person of that that is asks
4. If there will be time, we will discuss the realization of these bare classifiers, which probably represent
an initial stage of a (never fullfilled) grammaticalization in the sense that has brought to the French
personne and rien. We will follow Roberts and Roussou’s theory of grammaticalization and propose
that the internal structure of bare quantifiers is the following one:
(10)
[QP alcun-/molt-/tutt-/neun-[ClassifierP persona/cosa]]
to be opposed to the more standard one of quantified DP, for which we follow Giusti-Leko (2005).
(11)
[QP alcun-/molt-/tutt-/neun-[DP [NP ]]]
The reason why bare quantifiers can be used as adverbs or at least in adverbial positions within the IP is
precisely that their internal structure does not contain any lexical noun with its “heavy” matrix of
semantic and categorial features, which means that cases like (7) should be reinterpreted as having a free
relative clause, an analysis which is evidently not possible for cases where the lexical N is present as in
(6).
In the end, we will present a generalization on agreement patterns which might clarify the movement
path that the quantifier undergoes to reach its adverbial position in the low IP area.