Abstract
This paper investigates two Italo-Romance discourse particles, which we analyze as ‘cooperativity markers’, conveying the conventional implicature that a future action to be accomplished by the speaker fulfills a set of maximal preferences that they share with the addressee; by means of this implicature, the speaker conveys that they intend their action to be cooperative. We show that clauses introduced by these particles share core syntactic and semantic properties with jussive expressions such as imperatives, most notably future orientation and a constraint on the person specification of the null subject. We argue that these particles occupy a functional projection which encodes preferential meanings and takes scope above Tense.
References
Bayer, Josef & Hans George Obenauer. 2011. Discourse particles, clause structure, and question types. The Linguistic Review 28. 449–491. https://doi.org/10.1515/tlir.2011.013.Search in Google Scholar
Bayer, Josef & Volker Struckmeier (eds.). 2017. Discourse particles. Formal approaches to their syntax and semantics. Boston, Berlin: De Gruyter.10.1515/9783110497151Search in Google Scholar
Belletti, Adriana. 2004. Aspects of the low IP area. In Luigi Rizzi (ed.), The Structure of IP and CP. The cartography of syntactic structures, vol. 2, 16–51. New York: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780195159486.003.0002Search in Google Scholar
Belletti, Adriana. 2005. Extended doubling and the vP periphery. Probus 17. 1–35. https://doi.org/10.1515/prbs.2005.17.1.1.Search in Google Scholar
Bianchi, Valentina & Cristiano Chesi. 2014. Subject islands, reconstruction, and the flow of the computation. Linguistic Inquiry 45(4). 525–569. https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00166.Search in Google Scholar
Bianchi, Valentina, Giuliano Bocci & Silvio Cruschina. 2016. Focus fronting, unexpectedness, and evaluative implicatures. Semantics and Pragmatics 9. Article 3: 1–54. https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.9.3.Search in Google Scholar
Büring, Daniel. 2003. On D-trees, beans and B-Accents. Linguistics and Philosophy 26. 511–545.10.1023/A:1025887707652Search in Google Scholar
Burzio, Luigi. 1986. Italian syntax: A government-binding approach. Dordrecht: Foris.10.1007/978-94-009-4522-7Search in Google Scholar
Cardinaletti, Anna. 1999. Italian emphatic pronouns are post-verbal subjects. University of Venice Working Papers in Linguistics 9. 59–92.Search in Google Scholar
Cardinaletti, Anna. 2004. Towards a cartography of subject positions. In Luigi Rizzi (ed.), The structure of CP and IP, 115–165. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780195159486.003.0005Search in Google Scholar
Cecchetto, Carlo. 1999. A comparative analysis of left and right dislocation in Romance. Studia Linguistica 53. 40–67. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9582.00039.Search in Google Scholar
Colasanti, Valentina & Giuseppina Silvestri. 2019. Matrix complementizers in Italo-Romance. In Silvio Cruschina, Adam Ledgeway & Eva-Maria Remberger (eds.), Italian dialectology at the interfaces, 155–183. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/la.251.08colSearch in Google Scholar
Condoravdi, Cleo & Sven Lauer. 2012. Imperatives: Meaning and illocutionary force. Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics 9. 37–58.Search in Google Scholar
Coniglio, Marco & Iulia Zegrean. 2012. Splitting up force: Evidence from discourse particles. In Lobke Aelbrecht, Liliane Haegeman & Rachel Nye (eds.), Main clause phenomena: New horizons, 229–256. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/la.190.10conSearch in Google Scholar
Copley, Bridget. 2008. The plan’s the thing: Deconstructing futurate meanings. Linguistic Inquiry 39(2). 261–274. https://doi.org/10.1162/ling.2008.39.2.261.Search in Google Scholar
Corr, Alice. 2016. Structure beyond force? Evidence for a ‘speech act’ projection from Ibero-Romance. In Paper presented at GLOW 39, Gottingen, 5–8 April.Search in Google Scholar
Cruschina, Silvio. 2012. Discourse-related features and functional projections. New York & Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199759613.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Cruschina, Silvio & Valentina Bianchi. 2022. The syntactic encoding of conventional implicatures in Sicilian polar questions. Probus 34(1). 77–109. https://doi.org/10.1515/probus-2022-0006.Search in Google Scholar
D’Alessandro, Roberta & Adam Ledgeway. 2010. At the C-T boundary: Investigating Abruzzese complementation. Lingua 120(8). 2040–2060. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2010.02.003.Search in Google Scholar
Gunlogson, Christine. 2003. True to form: Rising and falling declaratives as questions in English. New York: Routledge.10.4324/9780203502013Search in Google Scholar
Hancil, Sylvie, Alexander Haselow & Margje Post (eds.). 2015. Final particles. Berlin, München, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9783110375572Search in Google Scholar
Haselow, Alexander & Sylvie Hancil (eds.). 2021. Studies at the grammar-discourse interface: Discourse markers and discourse-related grammatical phenomena. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/slcs.219Search in Google Scholar
Hooper, Joan & Sandra Thompson. 1973. On the applicability of root transformations. Linguistic Inquiry 4. 465–497.Search in Google Scholar
Hunter, Julie. 2016. Reports in discourse. Dialogue & Discourse 7(4). 1–35. https://doi.org/10.5087/dad.2016.401.Search in Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard. 2005. Movement and silence. New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195179163.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 2009. Making a Pronoun: Fake indexicals as windows into the properties of pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 40(2). 187–237. https://doi.org/10.1162/ling.2009.40.2.187.Search in Google Scholar
Ladusaw, William. 1994. Thetic and categorical, stage and individual, weak and strong. Semantics and Linguistic Theory 4. 220–229. https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v0i0.2463.Search in Google Scholar
Maier, Emar & Corien Bary. 2015. Three puzzles about negation in non-canonical speech reports. In Thomas Brochhagen, Floris Roelofsen & Nadine Theiler (eds.), Proceedings of the 20th amsterdam colloquium, 246–255. Amsterdam: Institute for Logic, Language and Computation, University of Amsterdam.Search in Google Scholar
Modicom, Pierre-Yves & Olivier Duplatre. 2020. Information-structural perspectives on discourse particles. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Search in Google Scholar
Moro, Andrea. 2003. Notes on vocative case: A case study in clause structure. In Josep Quer, Jan Schroten, Mauro Scorretti, Petra Sleeman & Els Verheugd-Daatzelaar (eds.), Romance languages and linguistic theory 2001, 247–261. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/cilt.245.15morSearch in Google Scholar
Neeleman, Ad & Hans van de Koot. 2010. Information-structural restrictions on A’-scrambling. The Linguistic Review 27. 365–385. https://doi.org/10.1515/tlir.2010.014.Search in Google Scholar
Portner, Paul. 2007. Instructions for interpretation as separate performatives. In Kerstin Schwabe & Susanne Winkler (eds.), On information structure, meaning and form: generalizations across languages, 407–425. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/la.100.22porSearch in Google Scholar
Potts, Christopher. 2007. The expressive dimension. Theoretical Linguistics 33. 165–197. https://doi.org/10.1515/tl.2007.011.Search in Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In Liliane Haegeman (ed.), Elements of grammar. Handbook in generative syntax, 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer.10.1007/978-94-011-5420-8_7Search in Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 2011. Minimality. In Cedric Boeckx (ed.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic minimalism, 220–238. New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199549368.013.0010Search in Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi & Giuliano Bocci. 2017. Left periphery of the clause: Primarily illustrated for Italian. In Martin Everaert & Henk C. van Riemsdijk (eds.), The Wiley Blackwell companion to syntax, 2nd edn., 1–30. Hoboken: Wiley.10.1002/9781118358733.wbsyncom104Search in Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi & Ur Shlonsky. 2007. Strategies of subject extraction. In Hans-Martin Gärtner & Uli sauerland (eds.), Interfaces + recursion = language? Chomsky’s Minimalism and the view from syntax-semantics, 115–160. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110207552.115Search in Google Scholar
Roberts, Craige. 1998. Information structure: Towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics. Semantics and Pragmatics 5. 6. https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.5.6.Search in Google Scholar
Rohlfs, Gerhard. 1968. Grammatica storica della lingua italiana e dei suoi dialetti. Torino: Einaudi.Search in Google Scholar
Ross, John R. 1970. On declarative sentences. In Roderick A. Jacobs & Peter S. Rosenbaum (eds.), Readings in English transformational grammar, 222–272. Waltham, MA: Ginn & Co.Search in Google Scholar
Simons, Mandy. 2007. Observations on embedding verbs, evidentiality, and presupposition. Lingua 117. 1034–1056. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2006.05.006.Search in Google Scholar
Stalnaker, Robert C. 2002 [1978]. Assertion. In Peter Cole (ed.), Syntax and semantics 9: Pragmatics, 315–332. New York: Academic Press. Reprinted in Paul Portner & Barbara H. Partee (eds.), Formal Semantics: The Essential Readings, 174–161. Oxford: Blackwell.10.1002/9780470758335.ch5Search in Google Scholar
Trovato, Salvatore C. 2002. La Sicilia. In Manlio Cortelazzo, Carla Marcato, Nicola De Blasi & Gianrenzo P. Clivio (eds.), I dialetti italiani. Storia, struttura, uso, 834–897. Torino: UTET.Search in Google Scholar
de Vries, Mark. 2005. Coordination and syntactic hierarchy. Studia Linguistica 59. 83–105. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9582.2005.00121.x.Search in Google Scholar
Wagner, Michael. 2012. Contrastive topics decomposed. Semantics & Pragmatics 5. Article 8: 1–54. https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.5.8.Search in Google Scholar
Wiltskho, Martina & Johannes Heim. 2016. The syntax of confirmationals: A neo-performative analysis. In Gunther Kaltenböck, Evelien Keizer & Arne Lohmann (eds.), Outside the clause, 305–340. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/slcs.178.11wilSearch in Google Scholar
Zanuttini, Raffaella, Miok Pak & Paul Portner. 2012. A syntactic analysis of interpretive restrictions on imperative, promissive, and exhortative subjects. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 30. 1231–1274. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-012-9176-2.Search in Google Scholar
© 2022 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
