10.15160/1826-803X/173
Fenomeni come la mesoclisi all'imperativo (Halle - Marantz [1993; 1994])  e i cosiddetti plurali parassitici(Harris [1994]; Bonet [1995]) nelle  varietà spagnole vengono analizzati dalla letteratura corrente o a  livello di Struttura Morfologica (nel senso della Morfologia  Distribuita) o a livello di interfaccia di PF (Forma Fonologica), (Halle  - Harris [2005]). In questo articolo passiamo in rassegna fenomeni  dello stesso tipo, che implicano cioè l'infissazione di materiale  clitico tra una base lessicale e la sua flessione, in altre varietà  romanze argomentando che una analisi di livello morfologico o fonologico  non è né necessaria né sufficiente a rendere conto dei fenomeni stessi -  ed in particolare della variazione fine ad essi associata. Al  contrario, argomentiamo a favore di una analisi di livello sintattico e  specificamente di livello di Forma Logica. Poiché i fenomeni considerati  coinvolgono costituenti al di sotto del livello convenzionale della  parola (quali le flessioni), dire che il loro trattamento appropriato è  di livello sintattico equivale a dire che c'è una componente  morfosintattico unificato - basato sulle strutture, sulle categorie e  sui principi della sintassi (Manzini - Savoia [2005; 2007]). In altre  parole la sintassi sussume la morfologia.
application/pdf
1826-803X
173
it
Leonardo Maria Savoia
Sezione di Lettere
<i>Morphology dissolves into syntax: Infixation and Doubling in Romance languages</i>
Text.Serial.Journal
https://annali.unife.it/lettere
Linguistica
2012-10-17
2012-10-17
2016-10-20
1-28
AOLF
Leonardo Maria Savoia
2009
10.15160/1826-803X/173
1
1826-803X
it
28
<i>Morphology dissolves into syntax: Infixation and Doubling in Romance languages</i>
https://annali.unife.it/lettere/article/download/173/122
Annali Online di Ferrara - Lettere
Vol. 1 (2009) 1/28



                                     MARIA RITA MANZINI – LEONARDO MARIA SAVOIA


     Morphology dissolves into syntax: Infixation and Doubling in Romance languages

        1. Introduction

        Halle – Marantz (1994) consider a mesoclisis phenomenon in Spanish varieties, whereby in
imperatives a clitic cluster appears between a verb stem and its plural –n inflection. This contrasts
with the simple enclitic pattern of standard Spanish. Halle –Marantz (1994) assume that the
syntactic component generates structures where the clitic cluster is enclitic to the constituent formed
by the verb stem and its plural inflection. It is only at M(orphological) S(tructure) that the clitic
cluster is eventually moved between the verb stem and the plural inflection. The analysis of the
same phenomenon proposed by Halle – Harris (2005) targets an even lower level of organization of
the grammar, namely PF. Halle – Harris (2005) preliminarily deal with what they take to be a
simpler case, in which the –n plural morphology is copied on the verb and on the clitic. In the view
of Halle – Harris (2005), this is a case of partial reduplication. The substring formed by the –n
inflection and by the clitic is reduplicated and the leftmost part of the reduplication is deleted,
giving rise to the superficial effect of doubling at a distance. For Halle – Harris (2005), the
inversion of the clitic constituent with respect to the –n inflection is obtained through a partial
reduplication, whereby the leftmost part of the reduplicated material is deleted in the first copy and
the rightmost part in the second copy. The superficial effect is that of an inversion or, in
phonological terms, a metathesis.
        Manzini – Savoia (1999; 2004a; 2007; 2008a; 2008b) argue against the Distributed
Morphology analysis of imperative mesoclisis on the basis of data from Southern Italian and
Arbëresh (Albanian) varieties that are strictily comparable (though not identical) to the Spanish
ones. They present in detail the empirical and theoretical reasons that lead them to abandon a
morphological-level analysis of the phenomenon for a syntactic level one – implying in effect the
elimination of the traditional morphology-syntax divide and the postulation of a unified
morphosyntactic component. It would certainly be relevant to address the same data in connection
with Halle – Harris’s (2005) proposal for a phonological treatment of the Spanish imperative
mesoclisis. However the data themselves are already published in the (easily accessible) quoted
sources. Furthermore the same considerations we advance in favor of a syntactic level analysis, and
against a morphological level one, typically work against a lower level phonological analysis as
well. Therefore, keeping in mind the limitations of space imposed on this article, we develop a
similar discussion on the basis of a fresh set of data – namely the positioning of a clitic between the
verb base and the –n plural inflection in some Lombard varieties; the phenomenon involves subject
as well as object clitics and questions as well as imperatives. We then discuss the issue of parasitic
Annali Online di Ferrara - Lettere                                                 M. R. Manzini, L. M. Savoia
Vol. 1 (2009) 2/28



plurals – using as our empirical base Sardinian and Friulan varieties. In Sardinian, parasitic plurals
of the Spanish kind trigger agreement with the perfect participle; in Friulan, the discontinuous
realization of the -s plural morphology involves subject clitics and does not depend on suppletion.

        2. Mesoclisis between a verbal base and its inflection: object clitics.

        As noted by Ascoli (1873); Sganzini (1933), in the varieties of the Mesolcina Valley the
feminine plural inflection -n is lexicalized by all categories internal to the noun phrase, as in (1b) –
except for the definite article, that displays instead the -a feminine inflection both in the singular
and in the plural (1a). In the masculine, the plural is normally lexicalized by the determiner (and the
noun) as in (2b) vs. (2a).

        (1)         Soazza (Grisons)
                    a.        l-a     kabl-a/ kabl-
                              the-f   chair-f./ chair-fpl
                    b.        kwel-/ pk-/ tant-n/ kwant-      kabl-
                              those/ few/ so.many/ how.many           chairs
        (2)         Soazza
                    a.        el      m       fra’del
                              the     my       brother
                    b.        i       m       fradei
                              the     my       brothers

        The distribution in (1) can be described simply in terms of a lexical exclusion of the -n
morphology by the l- base of the definite article. We may expect the same incompatibility of the l-
base with the -n inflection to hold of 3rd person pronominal clitics, since in Romance languages the
latter often coincide with definite determiners. Indeed though interpreted as plurals, the feminine
subject clitic in (3a) and object clitic in (3b) are lexicalized by la; instead, it is the verb inflection
that carries the (feminine) plural specification -n. In the masculine, the latter is absent in
connection with the object clitic in (4b) and the subject clitic in (4a).

        (3)         Soazza
                    a.        la      bev -
                              she     drink-fpl
                              ‘They drink’
                    b.        la      tam-i      -
Annali Online di Ferrara - Lettere                                                   M. R. Manzini, L. M. Savoia
Vol. 1 (2009) 3/28



                              her    call -1sg-fpl
                              ‘I call them’
        (4)         Soazza
                    a.        i       be:f
                              they.m drink
                              ‘They drink’
                    b.        i      tam-i
                              them.m call-1sg
                              ‘I call them’

        A characterization of the -n morphology would appear to be straightforward at least for (3a).

Because the referential properties implied by -n are attributed to the subject, it is reasonable to

treat -n as a subject agreement inflection on the finite verb. It seems then natural to treat the same
morpheme in (3b) as an object agreement. Indeed it is independently known (Burzio [1986]) that
there are forms of the verb which are inflected to agree with internal arguments, hence with objects
(specifically clitic ones), namely perfect participles. As we may expect, in the Soazza variety they
also present the -n inflection in the context of a plurally understood object clitic l(a), as in (5).


        (5)         Soazza
                    tu        m     l        a      -i   -   portad-
                    you       me     def      have-2sg-fpl brought-fpl
                    ‘You have brought them to me’

        In the imperative, as shown in (6b), the masculine plural accusative clitic follows the verb
base. As for the feminine plural, in principle we might expect that the verb base inflected with -n is
followed by the la clitic, as in (6a’). In reality, what happens is that the l clitic is infixed between
the verbal base and the -n inflection, as in (6a) – the crucial piece of data for present purposes.


        (6)         Soazza
                    a.        tama -l        -
                              call   -def     -fpl
                              ‘Call them!’
                    a’.       *tam--la
                              call-fpl-her
Annali Online di Ferrara - Lettere                                                 M. R. Manzini, L. M. Savoia
Vol. 1 (2009) 4/28



                    b.        tama- i
                              call-them.m
                              ‘Call them!’

        As far as we can tell, no special problem arises in describing the pattern in (6a) in terms of
either Halle – Harris (2005) or of Distributed Morphology. However the same kind of questions that
Manzini – Savoia (2004a; 2007) ask of the Distributed Morphology treatment of mesoclisis in
Spanish varieties also arise for (6a). Thus there is no principled reason why mesoclisis is restricted
to enclitic contexts (as opposed to proclitic ones) and to agreement inflections (as opposed to
modal, aspectual, temporal ones). It is true that in Halle – Harris’s (2005) model, phonological
strings have to be adjacent in order for metathesis to apply – hence clitics have to be in enclisis. But
there is no reason why metathesis should affect agreement inflections rather than, say, modal ones.
Reference to enclisis again will not help, since enclisis characterizes for instance Romance
infinitives, whose –r (modal) inflection is never split from the verb base under mesoclisis. In fact
there is not even any reason why ‘metathesis’ should be restricted to clitics – so that for instance it
doesn’t apply to two inflections, as in (3b), yielding (7).

        (7)         *la tam--i
                    her call-fpl-I

        Of course, we are not saying that the relevant constraints cannot be adequately stated; rather
our point is precisely that that they have to be stated – and that there is no principled underlying
reason for any one of them or for their clustering. It is perfectly possible that this state of affairs is
exactly as it should be. However we doubt that this is the case – largely because we are not dealing
with ‘curious idiosyncratic phenomena of Spanish varieties’ (Halle – Harris [2005]). Rather, the
data reported in this article as well as in Manzini – Savoia (2004a; 2007) show that the relevant
patterns affect different types of inflections – and they do so in different Romance varieties and in
Albanian ones. Therefore an alternative to current theories is worth exploring. In particular, in our
view the difficulties we mentioned depend on the fact that morphological or phonological level
theories cannot manipulate bona fide syntactic notions and capture generalizations about them –
which presumably pertain to the syntactic component. By contrast, we propose that patterns such as
the Soazza one are entirely defined in the syntax – which means that a great deal (or all) of what is
traditionally thought of as morphology is integral part of syntax.
Annali Online di Ferrara - Lettere                                               M. R. Manzini, L. M. Savoia
Vol. 1 (2009) 5/28



        2.1 LF-level analysis

        In a noun phrase like (1a), we take it that the inflection of the noun represents the internal
argument of the predicate base, whose reference is independently individuated by the determiner
(Higginbotham [1985]). Since on this account the determiner and the inflection hook up to the same
argument slot in the predicate they must have compatible referential specifications, i.e. (as one
generally says) they must agree. Thus in (1a), and in the corresponding structure in (8) the feminine
plural -n on the noun is non-distinct from the feminine –a on the determiner. We take the step of
identifying the inflection of the noun with the N category. Thus we embrace the idea, advocated by
Marantz (1997), that the N categorization does not intrinsically associate with certain predicative
bases, but is a product of their combination with inflectional material in the syntax. We take the
category of the determiner to be D (for Definiteness), as is standard.

        (8)         Soazza
                    [D la     [ [√kabl [Nn]]


        In a sentence like (3a), we identify the category projected by the subject clitic with D,
following a suggestion by Chomsky (1995) concerning the nature of the nominative/ EPP argument,
as in (9). We further take the so-called subject agreement inflection of the verb to be akin to a
subject clitic within the word-level structure, hence D again. Note that here we label arguments
according to the relation they bear to the predicate head; hence the same -n morphology alternates
between N in (8) and D in (9). Nothing hinges on adopting this way of labeling, except that it
allows us to make certain relations more immediately evident – and it allows the present discussion
to be directly compatible with Manzini – Savoia’s (2004a; 2007). The discussion goes through if
the labels of the projections are provided by the lexical content of the terminals (à la Chomsky
[1995]).

        (9)         Soazza
                    [D la     [I [√bev [Dn]]


        Our analysis of (3b) proceeds along similar lines to (9) except that we take the step of
identifying the -n inflection with an N object agreement on the basis that it lexicalizes the internal
argument, exactly as the N inflection of the noun does in (8). For the same reason the accusative
clitic is also identified with N, as in (10).
Annali Online di Ferrara - Lettere                                                M. R. Manzini, L. M. Savoia
Vol. 1 (2009) 6/28



        (10)         Soazza
                     [N la    [I [√tam [D i] [Nn]]


        Since the same -n element appears both as a subject agreement in (9) and as an object
agreement in (10) we may expect that under the right circumstances, i.e. when both the subject and
the object sentential clitics are la, ambiguity arises as to whether -n should agree with one or the
other, i.e. whether plurality should be attributed to the subject or object argument. This is indeed
what happens in examples like (11a), where the -n inflection of the verb can refer to the feminine
subject clitic, to the feminine object clitic or to both at once. In particular we can impute the
ambiguity between the subject and object reading to the existence of two possible structures,
summarized in (11b). In one structure -n is referred to the D subject, while the other possibility is

to refer -n to the N object. As for the third interpretation, with both object and subject pluralized,

we take the fact that only one -n surfaces to be akin to the mutual exclusion between two l (subject
and object) clitics to which we shall return in connection with parasitic plurals (section 4).

        (11) Soazza
                a.            la      la      tam     -n
                              she     her     call     -fpl
                              ‘She calls them/ They call her/They call them’
                b.            [D la   [N la   [I [√tami [D/Nn]]


        We analyze the imperative in (6a) as involving mesoclisis of the clitic between the verb base
and its stranded -n inflection, as in (12). We cannot assume that the object clitic simply takes the

fully inflected ln form for feminine plural, because this would contradict the lexical exclusion

between the l- definiteness base and the -n plural morphology postulated for (1a). In (12), then. the
verb base appears in a high C position, notated CI (to suggest Irrealis). There it is followed by the l
clitic and by the stranded -n inflection corresponding to two separate lexicalizations of the object
clitic. That pronominal clitics are not constrained to a single set of positions but have multiple
dedicated slots, in different domains of the sentence, is a conclusion shared by Manzini – Savoia
(2007) and by completely independent, often incompatible work such as Poletto (2000).

        (12)         Soazza
                     [CI tama        [N l    [Nn
Annali Online di Ferrara - Lettere                                                  M. R. Manzini, L. M. Savoia
Vol. 1 (2009) 7/28



        Note that we do not assume that the -n inflection is stranded in the I position, as in (13). This
is because we agree with Chomsky (2000) that verbs do not undergo movement/ chain formation.
Hence whether their movement is a PF phenomenon (Chomsky [2000]) or they are merged directly
in the position where they surface – as we assume here in a representational mode, no copy of the
verb is present in I. In these circumstances the -n inflection is, so to speak, automatically promoted
to the syntactic-level N object clitic position, as in (12) above.

        (13)        Soazza
                    [CI tama        [N l   [I [√tama [Nn]]


        The structure in (12) holds the key to the question that directly interests us here – namely why
(rather than simply how) the -n inflection finds itself stranded and the l clitic in mesoclisis. This
configuration only occurs in the imperative, in that only insertion of the verb base in the high CI
position creates the conditions that are necessary and sufficient for it. We assume that the -n
element is unable to insert in the CI(rrealis) position, making its stranding necessary, because of its
definiteness properties (those same properties that make it an appropriate lexicalization for the clitic
N slot). Second, the insertion of the verb base in the modal position leaves enough space to its right
for what is effectively an instance of clitic doubling – by the pronominal l form in a higher domain
and the inflectional -n one in a lower domain. Third, the so-called agreement inflection can be
stranded in that there is an independently defined position in the sentence available to host it,
namely a clitic position. Though in principle one may think that the stranding of temporal/ modal/
aspectual inflections of the verb is possible, this does not happen – precisely because the structure
underlying the stranding of the agreement inflection is (12) and not (13). In other words, verbal
material cannot have discontinuous lexicalization in the potential verb positions of the sentence (C,
I, etc.), because of the assumptions about head movement outlined in connection with (13).
Crucially this generalization, stated in terms of syntactic constituency cannot be reproduced, as far
as we can see, in morphological or phonological level analyses.

        3. Mesoclisis between the verb base and its plural inflection: subject clitics

        Varieties of the Bregaglia Valley provide interesting comparison with those like Soazza in
what concerns the agreement structure of the noun phrase (Ascoli [1873]; Salvioni [1902]; Rohlfs
[1968, § 363]). The nominal class (gender) inflection –a characterizes the noun both in the singular
(14a) and in the plural (14b), while the plural –n is lexicalized only by the determiners, as in (14b).
This is not a case of mutual exclusion between the plural inflection on the determiners and the
noun. Thus the bare noun in predicative position in (14c) still lacks the -n plural inflection.
Annali Online di Ferrara - Lettere                                                M. R. Manzini, L. M. Savoia
Vol. 1 (2009) 8/28



        (14)        Soglio (Grisons)
                    a.        la     donna
                              the    woman
                    b.        l-an/ kwel-a/ tant-an/ pok-an/ kwant-a      donna
                                     the.pl/ those/so.many/few/how.many     woman
                              ‘the/ those/ so many/ few/ how many women’
                    c.        l      n       donna
                              they   are      woman
                              ‘They are women’

        The distribution of the feminine plural –n morphology in (14) is akin to the distribution of the
masculine plural –i morphology illustrated in (15) with another variety of the Bregaglia Valley.
Roughly speaking, the relevant inflectional material is lexicalized on the Determiners and
Quantifiers of the noun phrase, while it is excluded from the head noun.

        (15)        Casaccia (Grisons)
                    a.        al     ka
                              the    dog
                    b.        i/     kw-i/ kwit-i/ tat-i       ka
                              the.pl/ these/ those/ so.many       dog
                              ‘the/ these/ those/ so many dogs’

        Let us then turn to sentential contexts. Since the –n morphology of the feminine plural occurs
on l determiners within the noun phrase, we expect it to appear on pronominal clitics as well, as is
indeed the case with the objet clitic in (16).

        (16)        Soglio
                    i         la    klam
                    I         them.plf call
                    ‘I call them’

        Consider however the subject clitic. Here the feminine appears as la both in the singular and
in the plural, in other words has a distribution reminiscent of Soazza. What is also reminiscent of
Soazza is that the verb inflection bears an –n specification in the plural, as in (17a). However the -n
inflection also combines with the plural masculine i, as in (17b).
Annali Online di Ferrara - Lettere                                                  M. R. Manzini, L. M. Savoia
Vol. 1 (2009) 9/28



        (17)        Soglio
                    a.        la     drom
                              she    sleep.pl
                              ‘They sleep’
                    b.        i      drom
                              they.m sleep.pl
                              ‘They sleep’


        In other words, Soglio, contrary to Soazza, has an -n plural inflection on verbs which is
gender independent. Furthermore this –n inflection of the verb is mutually exclusive with the –n
inflection of the feminine plural subject clitic with which it agrees. For the better known mutual
exclusion between two l clitics, Manzini – Savoia (2007, and references quoted there) argue that the
l definiteness element takes scopes over the entire clitic string, with the result that it can and must
be lexicalized only once (see section 4 below). Similarly, the exclusion of the –n inflection of the
subject clitic by the –n inflection of the verb can be imputed to the latter taking the former in its
scope if plurality, like definiteness, is treated as a quantificational property.
        We have now set the stage for the apparent mesoclisis phenomenon that is directly relevant
here. In questions, the masculine plural clitic i appears in enclisis on the normally inflected form of
the verb, as in (18a). In the feminine plural, however, the verb base is followed by the la subject
clitic and then by the –n inflection as in (18b).

        (18)        Soglio
                    a.     drom-n-i
                              sleep-pl-they.m
                              ‘Do they sleep?’
                    b.        drom-l-a
                              sleep-she-pl
                              ‘Do they sleep?’

        The structure of the masculine plural example is soon disposed of. Quite simply the verb
inserts in a position of the C field where it leaves the subject clitic (D in the present notation) to its
right in the lower inflectional domain, as (19). Note that there is evidence that the verb in questions
lexicalizes a C position lower than in imperatives. For instance, object clitics, that appear in enclisis
on imperatives, appear in proclisis in questions. Again we will not insist on this point, since on the
empirical reasons for the postulation of several C verbal positions we agree with works completely
independent of (and not necessarily compatible with) the present one (Rizzi [1997]; Poletto [2000]):
Annali Online di Ferrara - Lettere                                                 M. R. Manzini, L. M. Savoia
Vol. 1 (2009) 10/28



        (19)        Soglio
                    [C [√drom [D n]]        [D i


        In the feminine plural, the same analysis adopted for Soazza in the previous section could in
principle apply; in other words, the verb inflection strands in a clitic position where it follows the la
clitic. However, if infixation of the subjet clitic between the verb stem and the -n plural inflection
was involved in the feminine, there would be no reason why it wouldn’t apply in the masculine as
well, yielding the ungrammatical (20).

        (20)         *drom-i-n
                    sleep-they.m-pl

        As it turns out, on the evidence provided so far, lan is the expected clitic form in the language
for the feminine plural, and it is only the –n mutual exclusion that prevents us from seeing it in
(17a). Therefore we can assume that in (18b) lan is indeed a clitic; in turn mutual exclusion will
apply, leading in this case to the –n inflection of the clitic excluding the –n inflection of the verb, as
in (21).

        (21)        Soglio
                    [C drom          [D [√l [N n]]


        As before, the real point of the discussion is not so much accounting for the distribution of –n
in Soglio, as for the reasons why it should hold. In particular, if we are correct in assuming that a
clitic and an inflectional copy of -n exclude each other we still must explain why in (21) -n shows
up on the clitic while in (17a) it shows up on the verb. The generalization seems to be that it is the
lower copy of –n that is lexicalized; in other words the lack of lexicalization for the higher –n
depends on the scope of the lower -n extending over it. It is a central theme of this article that the
proper evaluation metrics for a theory includes how it accounts for the observed variation with
respect to a given phenomenon. Even defining our empirical spread very narrowly – i.e. plural -n
reordering in Romance – it seems to us that a syntactic level analysis is both more flexible and more
restrictive than currently available theories at the morphological or phonological interface. Because
of this, it is much better adapted at accounting for variation. In particular, if our analysis is correct,
the same terminal string corresponds to an independently existing lexical item in Soglio, though not
in Soazza, where it truly results from infixation.
        Suppose that the empirical conclusion that Soglio has no mesoclisis but rather an enclitic ln
is taken to be correct. The metathesis approach simply isn’t seem equipped to deal with deletions
Annali Online di Ferrara - Lettere                                                  M. R. Manzini, L. M. Savoia
Vol. 1 (2009) 11/28



other than those dependent on reduplication – so that it seems to become irrelevant when it comes
to deleting the n inflection of the verb in the presence of the ln enclitic. A Distributed Morphology
analysis could work out some mechanism of mutual exclusion between the -n verbal and clitic
inflections, say an Impoverishment rule (of which more in the next section). But as far as we can
tell, the two contexts for the Impoverishment of -n would have to be separately stated for the
enclisis context in (21) and for the proclisis context in (17a), since the unifying notion of scope
would not be available to restrict morphological Impoverishment. Our objection is at heart always
the same: namely that a proper account of phenomena involving traditional morphological objects
such as inflection requires syntactic-level notions. Hence a unified morphosyntax can be argued to
be superior not only on general grounds of economy in the achitecture of grammar – but also of its
ability to predict the actual data.

        3.1 Other subject clitics between verb base and plural inflection

        The picture emerging from the discussion in the previous sections is roughly as follows. At
the LF interface, where our morphosyntactic representations are defined, there are at least two
structural representation for the superficial phenomenon of a clitic appearing between the verb base
and an –n plural inflection. The first depends on the inflection itself being stranded in a lower
position by the insertion of the verb in a higher one. This is the case of Soazza in section 2, but
following Manzini – Savoia (1999; 2004a; 2005; 2007) it is also robustly attested by mesoclisis in
the imperative in Southern Italian and Albanian dialects. The second structural possibility
corresponds to the case in which the –n inflection can form a constituent with the verb or with the
clitic, though they are never seen to cooccur for independent reasons. If the discussion that precedes
is correct, this second pattern is instantiated by Soglio; in this section we shall consider the question
whether it is replicated in other languages as well.
        A descriptive mesoclisis pattern in interrogatives whereby a subject clitic appears between the
verb base and the plural –n inflection is also found in Northern Tuscan dialects. Consider for
instance Dalli in (22). As it turns out, dialects like Dalli share at least one property with Soglio
namely that the subject clitic is not differentiated for number but only for gender. The reading of the
data is complicated by the presence of allomorphs for preconsonantal and prevocalic position. In
any event, in (22) it can clearly be seen that the subject clitic for the masculine both singular and
plural is a in preconsonantal position, as in (a), and  in prevocalic position, as in (c). In the
feminine the clitic is essentially la – with the l phonological variant prevocalically, as in (b) and (d).

        (22)        Dalli (Tuscany)
                    a.        a      ddrma/   d drm-n
Annali Online di Ferrara - Lettere                                               M. R. Manzini, L. M. Savoia
Vol. 1 (2009) 12/28



                              he     sleeps/           sleep-pl
                              ‘He sleeps/They sleep’
                    b.        la      rma/              rm-n
                              she    sleeps/           sleep-pl
                              ‘She sleeps/ They sleep’
                    c.               a/        a-            dormi 
                              he     has/      have-pl        slept
                              ‘He has/ they have slept’
                    d.        l      a/        a-            dormi 
                              she    has/      have-pl        slept
                              ‘She has/ they have slept’

        Questions in the Dalli dialect are characterized by verb-subject clitic inversion. Thus in the
singular, we find the masculine or feminine clitic after the verb as in (23a-b). In (23b) the feminine
ila is recognizably a bisyllabic version of the proclitic l(a); while i compares in the same way to

proclitic . Note that for us a clitic is a pronominal whose distribution is different from that of the

corresponding noun phrase; thus we keep referring to stress-bearing ila and i as clitics – and not
weak pronouns contra Cardinaletti – Starke (1999).

        (23)        Dalli
                    a.        dor’m-i 
                              sleeps-he
                              ‘Does he sleep?’
                    b.        dor’m-ila
                              sleeps-she
                              ‘Does she sleep?’

        We are now in a position to consider the form taken by questions in the plural. As anticipated
above, the subject clitic, i.e. i in the masculine and ila in the feminine, surface between the verb

base and the plural verb inflection -n, as in (24).


        (24)        Dalli
                    a.        k     ma     -i -n?
                              what   eat-he-pl
Annali Online di Ferrara - Lettere                                                  M. R. Manzini, L. M. Savoia
Vol. 1 (2009) 13/28



                              ‘What do they eat?’
                    b.        k         mma     -il-n?
                              what       eat-he-pl
                              ‘What do they eat?’

        One reason that leads us to incline for a treatment of the data in (24) along the lines of Soglio,
rather than of Soazza, has to do with the fact that they involve questions. As we saw in reviewing
Soglio, in questions the verb is found in a position higher than I but lower than the high C position
of imperatives. The evidence is that while object clitics typically follow the imperative (either in
enclisis or in mesoclisis), they precede the verb in questions, as can be seen in (25) for Dalli.

        (25)        Dalli
                    ai        vv' -i -n
                    them see-he-pl
                    ‘Do they see them?’

        But if the verb is inserted in the lower C position, then the subject clitic position of the
inflectional domain is taken by the inverted subject clitic, and it is not available for stranding the -n
inflection in the way proposed for Soazza. Therefore we revert to the structural proposal
independently developed for Soglio, whereby in enclisis it is the subject clitic that is inflected for
plurality, as in (26), while the verb appears as a pure lexical base.

        (26)        Dalli

                    wo
                    C
                    ma                 wo

                                         D
                              wo
                              I                  N
                              i/il          n


        Now, the crucial argument in favor of a structure like (26) in the case of Soglio was that it
allowed us to reconstruct a subject clitic form predicted to exist in the language though never found
in proclisis. Having adopted (26) for dialects like Dalli we would expect at the very least that forms
like in or iln are actually to be found if not in Dalli at least in similar dialects. Indeed it is
Annali Online di Ferrara - Lettere                                              M. R. Manzini, L. M. Savoia
Vol. 1 (2009) 14/28



fairly well known that subject pronouns such as ellino or eglino clearly formed from the egli ‘he’
pronoun of 3rd person singular and the -no inflectional ending are found in Old Italian (effectively
Old Tuscan) (cf. Rohlfs [1968, 135]).
        As it turns out, the particular cliticization system attested to by both Soglio and Dalli,
whereby the subject clitic is differentiated for gender but not for number is not a necessary
prerequisite for the apparent mesoclisis pattern at hand. Thus Romantch dialects of the Sutselva
such as Donat in (27a) present not only the full subject pronouns lts and ls for the masculine and
feminine respectively, but also a subject clitic i for plural, akin to the i of many Northern Italian
dialects, and hence denoting plurality (cf. the masculine plural of Soazza and Casaccia/ Soglio in
sections 2-3). In contexts where the verb inserts in C, i can be found in mesoclisis between the
verbal base and the -n inflection, as shown in (27b) with a question. Because these Romantch
varieties are verb-second (Manzini – Savoia [2005] and reference quoted there), the same effect is
found also in topicalization contexts as in (27c).

        (27)        Donat (Grisons)
                    a.        ‘lts/'ls/ i           ‘drmn
                              they.m/they.f/they       sleep
                              ‘They sleep’
                    b.        ‘drm-i-n
                              sleep-they-pl
                              ‘Do they sleep?’
                    c.        ‘osa     ‘drm-i-n
                              now      sleep-they-pl
                              ‘Now they sleep’

        Again we propose the same structure as in (26), on the basis of the same overall motivations.
We then expect that forms such as in consisting of the nominal base i for plurality and of the further
plural inflection n, also found on verbs, occurr independently of the mesoclisis phenomena at hand.
Indeed we have attestations of this possibility in a dialect like Airole in (28), where the n element
forms both the 3rd person plural of monosyllabic verbs such as sun ‘they are’, an ‘they have’ and the
plural of the subject clitic in.

        (28)        Airole (Liguria)
                    a.        i       su-    ve y/ ve ye
                              they     be-pl come/come-fpl
Annali Online di Ferrara - Lettere                                                 M. R. Manzini, L. M. Savoia
Vol. 1 (2009) 15/28



                              ‘They have come’
                    b.        i      l        a-              ta mau
                              they    him      have-pl          called
                              ‘They have called him’

        Despite the evidence that we have provided for the independent existence of 3rd person plural
clitics formed with an –n inflection, the question still arises why their distribution would be so
limited in the dialects considered. The key to the answer seems to us to lie in the allomorphies noted
for Dalli in (23). As we indicated, there are no prosodic reasons that motivated the alternation
between a more reduced form in proclisis and a richer form in enclisis; therefore Manzini – Savoia
(2005) conclude that the reason for the alternation is due to the sensitivity of lexicaltions of the
argumental series to the declarative or modal environment.

        4. Parasitic plurals: object clitics

        In its best known instantiation, the parasitic plural phenomenon depends on Spurious se. In
the Spurious se phenomenon of Spanish the 3rd person dative – accusative cluster does not surface
as a combination of the isolation forms, but rather the dative is apparently substituted by se. In
several varieties of Spanish, the number properties of the dative that cannot be lexicalized on se are
instead lexicalized on the accusative; this is the so-called parasitic plural. Instead of illustrating the
pattern with Spanish, we refer to Sardinian varieties, which have all of the crucial phenomena – and
more, as will become relevant later. Consider for instance Siliqua in (29). The isolation form of the
3rd person dative is given in (29a). However the combination of the dative form with the accusative
is excluded; as can be seen in (29b), the dative is apparently replaced by si.

        (29)        Siliqua           (Sardinia)
                    a.                nanta            kussu
                              to.him they.give          this
                              ‘They give this to him’
                    a’.         izi   gu su ddrnalli
                              to.them I.give the newspaper
                              ‘I give them the newspaper’
                    b.        si               nanta
                              SI      it       they.give
                              ‘They give it to him/them’

        What is relevant here is that in Sardinian varieties, as in Spanish ones, in Spurious se contexts
Annali Online di Ferrara - Lettere                                                  M. R. Manzini, L. M. Savoia
Vol. 1 (2009) 16/28



the number properties of the dative can be lexicalized as an –s ending on the accusative clitic, as in
(30).

        (30)        Siliqua
                    su ddrnalli          si       uz app(u) a ddnai
                    the newspaper          SI    them I.have to give
                    ‘The newspaper I will give (it) to them’

        Harris (1994) accounts for the relevant facts in terms of Distributed Morphology. A rule of
Impoverishment deletes the dative feature present in the underlying representation of a sentence like
(29b). When Vocabulary Insertion takes place the impoverished terminals are compatible only with
insertion of the default clitic of the system, namely si (Harris [1994, 331f.]). Before Vocabulary
Insertion, an adjunction operation (Harris [1994, 335f.]) can also take the plural property associated
with the dative feature (and eventually with the accusative clitic) and adjoin it to the cluster. This
property will be lexicalized cluster-finally, but it will be connected to either or both the clitics in the
cluster, yielding the parasitic plural. Vocabulary Insertion after Morphological Structure (i.e. Late
Insertion) is the reason why Halle – Harris (2005) cannot treat the –s ‘metathesis’ in (30) on the
same basis as the –n metathesis in section 1. In other words the si form inserted after
Impoverishment does not have a plural variant *sis. Therefore there is no phonological string to
which partial reduplication à la Halle – Harris (2005) can apply.
        Manzini – Savoia (2007; 2008a; 2008b; to appear) discuss at length general conceptual and
empirical problems with Late Insertion, Impoverishment and, even more fundamentally
underspecification and default. Because this material is independently published and easily
accessible, we proceed directly to the alternative analysis that Manzini – Savoia (2007) develop,
based on a unified morphosyntax, hence on projection from the lexicon (early insertion), as well as
on the avoidance of any notion of underspecification and default. We take it that the structure of a
simple Spurious se sentence of the type of (29b) is as in (31). In order to understand the Q
categorization for si it is necessary to keep in mind that we construe si as the indefinite of the clitic
system, hence as a free variable (Manzini [1986]) interpreted as the impersonal under generic
closure (Chierchia [1995]) and otherwise antecedent-bound in the reflexive or passive (Manzini –
Savoia [2007]). As in other cases, nothing hinges on the particular labels we choose – only the
characterization of the referential content of si matters.

        (31)        Siliqua
                    [Q si     [N     [nanta
Annali Online di Ferrara - Lettere                                                 M. R. Manzini, L. M. Savoia
Vol. 1 (2009) 17/28



        The first key to our approach is that the l/ definiteness base has scopal properties. In some
languages (say Italian) this has no consequences for the clitic string as a whole. In other languages,
however, if we assume that the l morphology of the lower clitic takes the whole string in its scope,
we predict that the lexicalization of the same morphology by any other clitic (say the dative) is
redundant and hence excluded. In a way, what we are proposing is again that dative l is cancelled
out by the presence of accusative l. Crucially however we need no specialized morphological rule,
operating by what in effect is unrecoverable deletion of the dative feature. In the present account the
exclusion of the dative (its ‘deletion’ in a manner of speaking) is ‘recoverable’ in the scope domain
of the definiteness properties of the accusative. Because of this, our account can be embedded
within (a minimalist) syntax without any need for the mediation of a morphological-level
readjustment component.
        The second key to our analysis is that something like the notion of second internal argument
of a ditransitive is real and so is the repertory of lexical forms that it can be matched to – but
crucially the matching does not depend on a morphological-level notion of dative. Some forms are
of course specialized for the second internal argument such as izi in (29a’). On the other hand,
suppletion of the type in (31) (i.e. Spurious se) is simply the lexicalization of the second argument
of ditransitives by si, when in the scope of l morphology. In this latter case, what we are saying is in
a way that si is an interpretive default, representing only the most elementary referential content, i.e.
that of a free variable, for an argument in the scope of the l- definiteness morphology. But the
differences between an interpretive default and a morphological default proper are vast – above all
that si in the string in (31) does not stand for some other item; rather it is inserted in (31) because of
its positive specifications, sufficient to satisfy the relevant argumental position in the given
configuration.
        Because of space limitations, we will not dwell further on suppletion (and syncretism)
phenomena (discussed in great detail by Manzini – Savoia [2002; 2007; to appear]), but we will
turn directly to the crucial issue here, i.e. parasitic plurals. Within the present theory the same
syntactic notions invoked in connection with Spurious se can account for parasitic plural as well.
We begin by assuming – in agreement with Harris (1994) on Spanish – that in languages like
Siliqua the accusative clitic, say uz in (30) has an articulated internal structure, in which the N
inflection -us consists of a nominal class -u base and a plural –s inflection, as in (32). The latter is
categorized as Q because of the quantificational properties we impute to plurality.

        (32)        Siliqua
                    [Q si     [[√    [N u]]   [Q s]]
Annali Online di Ferrara - Lettere                                                    M. R. Manzini, L. M. Savoia
Vol. 1 (2009) 18/28



        We assume that in (32), as in (31), the  definiteness element takes scope over the entire
string implying the lexicalization of the second internal argument by the variable si clitic. If
plurality is itself a quantificational property, we may assume that it can take scope over a clitic
(sub)string as well. Therefore in (32) si can be in the scope of plurality, so that the string is
potentially ambiguous between a plural interpretation of the first internal argument, or of the second
internal argument,t or of both. Once more, this may be seen as, the counterpart within the present
framework of the rule adjoining the plural specification to the clitic cluster in Distributed
Morphology. But, even if the syntactic level processes we suggest were only mimicking
morphological level rules, the fact that they are able to do so would be worthy of note. As it turns
out, the two analyses are anything but notational variants.
        Sardinian, like Italian and unlike Spanish, has perfect participle agreement with the (first)
internal argument when the latter is lexicalized by a clitic. In parasitic plural examples, the perfect
participle agrees not only in nominal class (gender) but also in number with the  clitic; hence it is
plural even if the accusative is interpreted as singular, as in (33), or in other words, plurality is a
property of the second internal argument, i.e. the ‘dative’.

        (33)        Paulilàtino         (Sardinia)
                    a.        (su libbru)      si      z          app   jaz
                              the book         SI    them.m        I.have given.mpl
                              ‘I have given it/the book to them’
                    b.        (sa makkina) si          az          app   ja aza
                              the car          SI    them.f        I.have given.fpl
                              ‘I have given it/the car to them’

        In a Distributed Morphology analysis, the syntax, say the minimalist rule of Agree of
Chomsky (1995) will compute agreement between abstract feature bundles. But in (33) the abstract
feature bundle associated with the accusative clitic reflects the referential properties of the internal
argument; hence in the absence of morphological readjustments, it should show up as a singular on
the participle. In order to capture the fact that the participle also agrees in the plural, one would
have to admit that the morphology readjusts the participle as it does the clitic – but it is difficult to
see how such ‘at a distance’ operation could be licenced at the MS level. Hence in Distributed
Morphology, as far as we can tell, facts of the type in (33) are impossible to predict (in any
principled way). In the account that we have given of parasitic plurals in (32), on the contrary, uz
is simply the plural masculine clitic independently occurring in accusative contexts. Therefore, we
fully expect that agreement phenomena will affect the uz clitic in a constant fashion, whether the
Annali Online di Ferrara - Lettere                                                   M. R. Manzini, L. M. Savoia
Vol. 1 (2009) 19/28



scope of plurality is restricted to it or it spreads over the string (hence over the dative).

        4.1 ‘Parasitic datives’

        Sardinian varieties illustrate another morphosyntactic pattern in the Spurious se environment
that does not appear to be attested in Spanish. This consists in the lexicalization not only of the –s
morphology, but also of the –i morphology of the dative on the second clitic of the cluster; in other
words si clusters with the isolation form of the dative plural, as in (34), with the interpretation
dative plural - accusative. Note that in examples like (34) the perfect participle agrees in nominal
class and number with the intended internal argument – hence it does not agree, not even in number,
with the iz clitic.


        (34)        Paulilàtino
                    a.        (su libbru)     si         iz        app   jau
                              the book        SI       to.them     I.have given
                              ‘I have given it/the book to them’
                    b.        (sa makkina) si            iz        app   ja a
                              the car         SI       to.them     I.have given.f
                              ‘I have given it/the car to them’

        In present terms, the structure corresponding to the ‘parasitic dative’ cluster in (34) is as in
(35). As before, the  definiteness morphology takes scope over the entire string and the second
internal argument of the ditransitive is lexicalized by the free variable si of the system, as discussed
for (31). For the –is morphology as a whole we claim the same as we did for the -s morphology in
isolation in (32), namely that it takes scope not only over the internal argument with which it is
structurally associated, but also over si, i.e. the lexicalization of the second internal argument – so
that it can be read as a property discontinuously assigned to si. In this perspective, the interpretation
of (35) has  as the sole lexicalization of the first internal argument, while the lexicalization of the

second internal argument consists of three specification, namely , the si variable and finally the
dative-number specifications –is. Our discussion suggests that it is because the –s plural property
independently admits of a discontinuous interpretation with the si variable, over which it scopes,
that the -i dative property also does. Indeed the pattern in (34) appears to require a dative plural – in
other words, it is not attested (in our data) with a dative singular.

        (35)        Paulilàtino
                    [Q si     [[√    [N i]]   [Q s]]
Annali Online di Ferrara - Lettere                                                  M. R. Manzini, L. M. Savoia
Vol. 1 (2009) 20/28



        In short, despite the surface similarity, the patterns in (32) and (35) turn out to be quite
different. In effect (32) preserves all crucial properties of the accusative, while allowing the dative
to be read from the free variable si and the definiteness morphology  in whose scope it is. On the
contrary (35) is analyzed as what it appears to be prima facie – i.e. a cluster where the dative
morphology is fully lexicalized (in the way described) while the accusative is simply implicated by
the  definiteness base. These differences are reflected in the different patterns of perfect participle
agreement. Thus in (34) the participle not only excludes the dative morphology –i but does not
agree with the is clitic at all, not even with respect to the plural -s morphology – rather its ending
corresponds to the nominal class (gender) specifications of the (first) internal argument.
        Let us now consider how data of the type in (34) could be dealt with by Distributed
Morphology. Adjunction of the plural feature to the clitic cluster à la Harris (1994) cannot simply
be extended to the dative feature. For, this would inevitably depend on impoverishing the
accusative feature which is contradictory with the dative one; but by this impoverishment we would
obtain a feature matrix itself capable of being lexicalized only by the default of the system si. A
possible alternative is of course that in the relevant examples only the accusative clitic is
impoverished and hence lexicalized by si, while the dative clitic receives its full lexicalization.
However it seems to us that under such an hypothesis one would expect to find independent
attestations of the lexicalization of an impoverished accusative by si or by other defaults – which is
definitely not the case.
        Another possible account of data of the type in (34) is suggested by Kayne (2006), who
quotes an example of the type of (34) with the locative in the place of si (his example is from Jones
[1993]; systematic data can be found in Manzini – Savoia [2005]). As we reconstruct it, Kayne’s
(2006) analysis is that in (34) and the like the object clitic is simply empty, while the si (or locative)
clitic and the dative clitic together lexicalize the dative. Note that Kayne’s (2006) analysis
presupposes one of the conclusions that we have been arguing for here – namely that suppletive
clitics (si, locative, etc.) are not defaults, but instantiate properties that concur to the lexicalization
of the clitic string. In other respects the present theory and Kayne’s (2006) differ; in particular we
reject the idea that there are empty clitics (Manzini – Savoia [to appear]; Savoia – Manzini [to
appear]) – a point that is beyond the scope of the present paper. What is directly relevant is that the
account prospected by Kayne (2006) predicts that patterns like (34) should be able to surface in any
language which has suppletive si, or suppletive locative, etc. – which again is clearly not the case.
In other words the pattern in (34) connects with the presence in a language of plural -s morphology
(for the dative) and of parasitic plurals and an adequate analysis should reflect this fact.
Annali Online di Ferrara - Lettere                                                   M. R. Manzini, L. M. Savoia
Vol. 1 (2009) 21/28



        5. Parasitic plurals and more: subject clitics

        Friulan varieties preserve the Latin plural in -s, like Spanish and Sardinian ones, but unlike
those also have subject clitics. The basic form of the 3rd person subject clitic paradigm in a variety
like Forni di Sotto is shown in (36a), while (36a’) shows the basic form of the 3rd person accusative
clitic paradigm. As shown in (36b-c) the -s morphology of the feminine plural subject clitic can
show up after an object clitic, including both a 1st person clitic like mi in (36 b-b’) and an l clitic,
like li in (36c) – either copied as in (36b’) or simply displaced as in (36b)-(36c). Similarly the –s
morphology can appear to the left and to the right of the negative clitic, as in (36d).

        (36)        Forni di Sotto (Friuli)
                    a.        al/    a/        ai/    as      du ar
                              he/ she/ they.m/ they.f         sleep
                              ‘S/he sleeps/ They sleep’
                    a’.       i      tu        li/    la/     i/      las   klams
                              ClS    you       him/ her/ them.m/ them.f     call
                              ‘You call him/her/ them’
                    b.        a      mi        s      da     kist
                              she    me        pl.    give    this
                              ‘They give me this’
                    b’.       az     mi        z      klam
                              they.f me        pl     call
                              ‘They call me’
                    c.        a      li        z      klam
                              she    me        pl     call
                              ‘They call me’
                    d.        as     n        s      du ar
                              they.f not       pl     sleep
                              ‘They don’t sleep’

        One aspect of the data in (36) is worth emphasizing immediately, namely that in the case of
Forni the copying and displacement of the –s morphology does not depend on the cooccurrence
with a suppletion phenomenon, as in the case of Spurious se. In other words, it doesn’t depend on
the feminine plural subject clitic being substituted by a default clitic. Because of this, there is no
technical impossibility in deriving these examples through partial reduplication à la Halle – Harris
Annali Online di Ferrara - Lettere                                                      M. R. Manzini, L. M. Savoia
Vol. 1 (2009) 22/28



(2005). It is evident on the other hand that such a derivation would separate the phenomenon under
discussion from the parasitic plurals of Spanish and Sardinian, which would be accounted for in a
different component of grammar – i.e. Morphological Structure. In the absence of arguments in its
favor, this separation must surely count as yet another reason not to adopt a ‘metathesis’ account.
        A second notable property of the variety of Forni is that not only the plural –s but also the l
definiteness base of the masculine singular has the distribution just illustrated. Thus l can be copied
as in (37a’) or displaced as in (37a) after non-l clitics or it can show up after the negation, as in
(37b). It will be noted that (37) does not replicate (36) in one important respect – namely that l does
not appear after an accusative clitic of the l (3rd person) series. In fact Forni does not allow us to
verify whether such a sequence is possible, simply because an accusative clitic of the l series
excludes the nominative l clitic altogether as discussed in detail by Manzini – Savoia (2004b; 2007)
for many Northern Italian dialects.

        (37)        Forni di Sotto
                    a.               a        mi/ ti/ si/ vi            l      klam
                                     ClS      me/ you/ us/you.pl         he     calls
                                     ‘He calls me/you/us’
                    a’.              al       mi      l         da       kist
                                     he       me      he        gives this
                                     ‘He gives me this’
                    b.               a        n      l         du ar
                                     ClS      not     he        sleeps
                                     ‘He doesn't sleep’

        Remembering the discussion of the parasitic plural of Sardinian varieties in the previous
section, we may wonder whether the repositioning of the plural morpheme or of other subject clitic
morphology after the object string has consequences on perfect participle agreement. The data in
(38a) display the agreement paradigm of the Forni participle with the feminine accusative clitic.
Example (38b) shows that the displacement of the -s plural ending of the feminine does not trigger
feminine plural agreement on the perfect participle; the latter simply shows up in the uninflected
form corresponding to the presence of a 1st/2nd person internal argument.

        (38)        Forni di Sotto
                    a.        a      l/ laz           a         klamad/ klamads
                              he     her/them.f       has       called.f/called.fpl
                              ‘S/he called her’
Annali Online di Ferrara - Lettere                                                    M. R. Manzini, L. M. Savoia
Vol. 1 (2009) 23/28



                    b.        kes fmins    a      mi        z     a     kla’mat
                              those women ClS        me        fpl   have   called
                              ‘Those women called me’

        We may usefully begin our analysis of Forni with negative clitic examples like (36d) or
(37b), where syntactic analyses are available not only from Manzini – Savoia (2005); Manzini
(2008) but also from the completely independent work of Poletto (2000). Despite their differences,
these works agree on the conclusion that where the negative clitic appears between two subject
clitics, the latter lexicalize two different subject clitic positions available in the sentence. On this
basis, we assume that in (36d) the as clitic and its partial copy -s occupy a higher and a lower D
position respectively, as in (39a). A version of the same structure can be adopted for (37b), where
the l morpheme is involved, and it is displaced rather than copied, as in (39b).

        (39)        Forni di Sotto
                    a.        [Das   [n      [D s   [I duar

                    b.        [Da    [n      [D l   [I duar


        If the structure of the negative examples is as in (39), then the account that suggests itself for
the other examples in (36)-(37) has the two copies of the subject clitic material generated again in
the higher and lower D positions respectively. Any object clitic appears between the two copies of
the subject clitic, yielding structure like (40) for the copying and stranding case alike. Note that the
P label for the 1st person clitic mi is simply intended to suggest P(erson), or participant in the
discourse (Manzini – Savoia [2007]).

        (40)        Forni di Sotto
                    a.        [D a(s) [P mi   [D s   [klam
                    b.        [D a(l) [P mi   [D l   [da


        The analysis in (40) correctly predicts that perfect participle agreement will not be
conditioned by the presence of subject clitic material, say the (feminine) plural –s, adjacent to an
object clitic. For, structurally speaking, the subject clitic material is stranded in an independent
subject clitic position. By contrast, the -s plural morphology agreeing with the perfect participle in
the parasitic plural of Sardinian varieties is embedded inside the accusative clitic, as in (32). In
other words, in the Sardinian case, the surface configuration includes what is a bona fide accusative
plural clitic, for instance in (32) – while of course this is not true of the sequences mi-s or li-s or mi-
l of Forni in (40). Suppose that Distributed Morphology tried to account for the Friulan data
Annali Online di Ferrara - Lettere                                               M. R. Manzini, L. M. Savoia
Vol. 1 (2009) 24/28



through some version of the ‘adjunction’ analysis of Spanish/ Sardinian parasitic plurals. In this
case, adjunction would involve not only the feature ‘plural’ eventually lexicalized through the -s
morphology, but also some feature or feature cluster lexicalized through -l. The crucial question is
whether a morphological-level treatment could make the right distinction in constituent structure
between the Spanish/ Sardinian and the Friulan case – keeping in mind that the empirical difference
in perfect participle agreements depend on this.
        In fact, the Sardinian parasitic plurals in section 4 and the phenomena at hand configures a
contrast similar to that observed between Soazza in section 2 – where in the present analysis the
mobile n morphology occupies an autonomous slot in the clitic sequence – and Soglio in section 3,
where the mobile n morphology is clitic internal. We capture both contrasts through the same
constituency mechanisms – providing some evidence that the very same lexical material can attach
either at what is conventionally treated as the syntax (Soazza, Forni) or the morphology (Soglio,
Paulilàtino). Note that it would be useless for a Distributed Morphology treatment of Sardinian to
retreat into saying that the plural property de-linked from the impoverished dative is relinked to the
accusative clitic (à la Bonet [1995]). For, this could yield a different constituency for Sardinian and
Friulan – but too late in the derivation for agreement to take it into account, since agreement as a
core syntactic process precedes morphological readjustment in minimalist/ Distributed Morphology
architectures. This problem does not affect the present account precisely because we assume a
unified morphosyntax.

        5. Conclusions

        In what precedes we have tried to show that infixation and copying of clitic material are not
‘curious idiosyncratic phenomena of Spanish varieties’ (Halle – Harris [2005]), but actually show
up in several different domains and languages within the Romance fold. In fact it is possible that
some degree of mobility of, say, the plural -s morphology is the normal state of affairs for Romance
languages that have it (for recent evidence on French, see Starke [2008]). Though we are aware that
superficially similar phenomena can correspond to different schemas of explanation, the burden of
proof is on theories such as Halle – Harris’s (2005) that imply that a different treatment must exist.
We also do not believe that Halle – Harris (2005) provide a ‘new theoretical framework’, since
many of the characteristics of their system are those that have dominated morphological analyses in
the past. The basic approach is the same as in Distributed Morphology – namely one in which the
morpho(phono)logical component ends up manipulating primitives that are extraneous to it and
only find a justification at the syntactic LF interface. We would surmise that it is the present
approach that contains true elements of novelty. In particular, we propose that the traditional
connection of morphology to phonology should give way to the recognition that morphological-
level phenomena may be best treated by a unification of morphology with syntax. The present
Annali Online di Ferrara - Lettere                                                M. R. Manzini, L. M. Savoia
Vol. 1 (2009) 25/28



theory needs neither Impoverishment nor Late Insertion – nor even more basically, notions of
underspecification and default. Not only such devices are unnecessary, but if we are correct, they
actually obscure the overall empirical pattern rather than helping in its explanation.
        It is true that an overall generalization of a prosodic nature appears to hold of all of the
phenomena that we have dealt with, namely that they involve prosodically weak material. But this
is simply due to the fact that any phrasal ‘metathesis’ would be automatically dealt with under the
heading of ‘movement’. In fact, what we have proposed here is precisely an extension of the
‘movement’ treatment to the morphology. As for copying, it typically involves partial copies. Thus
phrasal material will not be entirely duplicated but its copies will show up as pronominal and other
reduced material, hence as clitics and the like. Again the true nature of the generalization is non-
prosodic.


Maria Rita Manzini
Università degli Studi di Firenze
Dipartimento di Linguistica
Piazza Brunelleschi, 4
I – 50121 Firenze
mariarita.manzini@unifi.it

Leonardo Maria Savoia
Università degli Studi di Firenze
Dipartimento di Linguistica
Piazza Brunelleschi, 4
I – 50121 Firenze
lsavoia@unifi.it
Annali Online di Ferrara - Lettere                                               M. R. Manzini, L. M. Savoia
Vol. 1 (2009) 26/28



References


Ascoli, G.I. (1873) Saggi ladini. In Archivio glottologico italiano. 1. 1-556.


Bonet, E. (1995) Feature structure of Romance clitics. In Natural Language and Linguistic Theory.
13. 607-47


Brody, M. (2003). Towards an elegant syntax. London. Routledge.


Burzio, L. (1986). Italian syntax. Dordrecht. Kluwer.


Cardinaletti, A., Starke, M. (1999) The typology of structural deficiency: A case study of three
classes of pronouns. In van Riemsdijk, H. (ed.) Clitics in the Languages of Europe. Berlin. Mouton
de Gruyter. 145-233.


Chierchia, G. (1995) Impersonal Subjects. In Bach, E., Jellinek, E., Kratz, A., Partee, B.H. (eds.)
Quantification in natural languages. Dordrect. Kluwer. 107-14.


Chomsky, N. (1995) The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA. MIT Press.


Chomsky, N. (2000) Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Martin, R., Michaels, D., Uriagereka,
J. (eds.) Step by Step. Cambridge, MA. MIT Press. 89-155.


Halle, M., Harris, J. (2005) Unexpected plural inflections in Spanish: Reduplication and Metathesis.
In Linguistic Inquiry. 36. 195-222.


Halle, M., Marantz, A. (1993). Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. In Hale, K.,
Keyser, S.J. (eds.) The view from Building 20. Cambridge, MA. MIT Press. 111-76.


Halle, M., Marantz, A. (1994) Some Key Features of Distributed Morphology. In Carnie, A.,
Harley, H., Bures, T. (eds.) Papers on Phonology and Morphology, MIT Working Papers in
Linguistics. 21. 275-88.


Harris, J.W. (1994). The syntax-phonology mapping in Catalan and Spanish clitics. In Papers on
Phonology and Morphology, MIT Working Papers in Linguistics. 21. 321-53.
Annali Online di Ferrara - Lettere                                                M. R. Manzini, L. M. Savoia
Vol. 1 (2009) 27/28



Higginbotham, J. (1985) On semantics. In Linguistic Inquiry. 16/4. 547-93.


Jones (1993) Sardinian Syntax. London. Routledge.


Kayne, R.S. (2006) Expletives, Datives and the Tension between Morphology and Syntax. In
http://www.nyu.edu/gsas/dept/lingu/people/faculty/kayne/papers/Kayne1006Expletives.pdf


Manzini, M.R. (1986) On Italian si. In Borer, H. (ed.) The Syntax of Pronominal Clitics, Syntax and
Semantics. Vol. XVIII. New York. Academic Press. 241-62.


Manzini, M.R. (2008) Doubling by clitics and doubling of clitics: The case of negation. In Barbiers, S.
(ed.) Syntactic Doubling in European Dialects (Syntax and Semantics). Amsterdam. Emerald Group
Publishers. 69-102.


Manzini, M.R., Savoia, L.M. (1999) The syntax of middle-reflexive and object clitics: a case of
parametrization in arbëresh dialects. In Mandalà, M. (ed.) Studi in onore di Luigi Marlekaj. Bari.
Adriatica. 283-328.


Manzini, M.R., Savoia, L.M. (2002). Clitics: Lexicalization patterns of the so-called 3rd person dative.
In Catalan Journal of Linguistics. 1. 117-55.


Manzini, M.R., Savoia, L.M., (2004a) The nature of the agreement inflections of the verb. In MIT
Working Papers in Linguistics. 47. 149-78.


Manzini, M.R., Savoia, L.M. (2004b) Clitics: Cooccurrence and mutual exclusion patterns. In Rizzi,
L. (ed.) The structure of CP and IP. Oxford. Oxford University Press. 211-50.


Manzini, M.R., Savoia, L.M. (2005). I dialetti italiani e romanci. Morfosintassi generativa. 3 Vols.
Alessandria. Edizioni dell’Orso.


Manzini, M.R., Savoia L.M. (2007) A unification of morphology and symtax. Studies in Romance
and Albanian varieties. London. Routledge.


Manzini, M.R., Savoia, L.M. (2008a) Worknotes on Romance morphosyntax – Appunti di
morfosintassi romanza. Alessandria. Edizioni dell’Orso.
Annali Online di Ferrara - Lettere                                              M. R. Manzini, L. M. Savoia
Vol. 1 (2009) 28/28



Manzini, M.R., Savoia L.M. (2008b). Uninterpretable features are incompatible in morphology with
other minimalist postulates. In Freidin, R., Otero, C., Zubizarreta, M.L. (eds.) Foundational Issues
in Linguistic Theory. Cambridge, MA. MIT Press. 43-72.


Manzini, M.R., Savoia L.M. (to appear) Syncretism and suppletivism in clitic systems:
underspecification, silent clitics or neither? In D’Alessandro, R., Ledgeway, A., Roberts, I. (eds.)
Syntactic variation: The dialects of Italy. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press.


Marantz, A. (1997) No Escape from Syntax: Don’t Try Morphological Analysis in the Privacy of
Your Own Lexicon. In Dimitriadis, A., Siegel, L. et al. (eds.) University of Pennsylvania Working
Papers in Linguistics. Vol. 4.2. 201-25.


Poletto, C. (2000) The Higher Functional Field. Oxford. Oxford University Press.


Rizzi, L. (1997) The fine structure of the left periphery. In Haegeman, L. (ed.) Elements of
grammar. Dordrecht. Kluwer. 281-337.


Rohlfs, G. (1968) Grammatica storica della lingua italiana e dei suoi dialetti. Morfologia. Vol. II.
Torino Einaudi (ed. or. [1949] Bern. Francke).


Salvioni, C. (1902) Il plurale del femminili di 1° declinazione esposto per –a ed –an in qualche
varietà alpina di Lombardia. In Rendiconti del reale Istituto lombardo di scienze e lettere. Serie II.
35/851. 905-19.


Savoia L., Manzini M.R. (to appear) Lexicalization of 3rd person object clitics:clitic enclisis and
clitic drop. In D’Alessandro, R., Ledgeway, A., Roberts, I. (eds.) Syntactic variation: The dialects
of Italy. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press.


Sganzini S. (1933) Di alcune forme verbali nella parlata di Mesocco. In L’Italia dialettale. 9. 259-
63.


Starke, M. (2008) Spurious se. Tarald Taraldsen Celebratory Workshop (June 9-10). Tromsoe.
University of Tromsoe.
