Ares Llop Naya
SYNTACTIC CHARACTERIZATION
OF THREE PALLARESE CATALAN MINIMIZERS:
GOT, MOLLA, CAP
Item
0. BACKGROUND
Pallarese is a dialect
of Catalan language,
which –because of
its geographic situation– is one of the most
conservative dialects of
Catalan. From a syntactic point of
view its study is interesting because,
although it is a dialect that has been in
contact with many languages (Aranese
Occitan, French, standard Catalan), it still
displays some proper and unique dialectal
variants. Such is the case of three minimizers used with different values in negative
sentences: got, molla, cap.
Positive
context
Noun
Negative context
Nominal quantifier
Quantitative
Marker
of sentential
negation
√
√
X
X
Molla
√
√
√
?
X
Cap
√
X
√
?
2. OVERVIEW
1. MINIMIZERS: “Nouns with a semantic content
that denotes a negligible number, amount, or part
of something”.
Reanalysis: Roberts (2007: glossary): "the notion that acquirers may
assign a structural description to a string which differs from the
one in the grammars of those who produce the string in the Primary
Linguistic Data".
2 STEPS involving minimizers’ reanalysis:
(3.1) Negative Polarity Item value
(3.2) Negative marker (emphatic or sentential) value
3.1. GOT, MOLLA, CAP. NEGATIVE POLARITY ITEMS
≤ To analyse diachronic pathways that minimizers follow during its processes of grammaticalization, and to account in more detail for the
following morphosyntactic characterization
observed for molla, got and cap.
2. MINIMIZERS AND NEGATION: Originally, they were
free positive nouns denoting a minimal quantity. In
negative sentences, many languages have resorted
to arguments formed by nominal minimizers to emphasize negative polarity.
Quantitative: got, molla
(5) No hi ha got (de) farina. (Francino, 1992: 143)
NEG there is NPI (of) flour.
‘There’s no flour’
(6) No tens
molla (de) memòria. (DCVB)
NEG have.2nd.PRES NPI (of) memory
‘You’ve got no memory’
Indefinite: cap
(7) No ha
vingut cap home. (GCC: 11.5.3.7)
NEG AUX.PAST come NPI man
‘No man arrived’
3.1.4. Adverbial quantifiers used in non-nominal contexts
Got and molla are the most productive minimizer in this contexts.
Got (and normally) molla only express the lowest degree of a scale
(Batllori, 2014).
Cap doesn’t appear with a quantitative value in non-nominal contexts, as there it acts as a negative emphatic polarity particle.
Diachronic reanalysis
in negative contexts:
3.1.1. Original positive value
(1) un got de vi ‘a glass of wine’
una molla de pa ‘a crumb of bread’
un cap de bestiar ‘a head
of cattle'
Adverbial minimizers quantifying adjectives:
(8) Sa mare
no ho veia
molla / got clar. (Giranto, 2002)
His mother NEG cl(OD) see.3rd.PAST NPI clear.
≥ Negative polarity items:
[aff.] > [α neg.]: no… minimizer within scope of NEG.
Adapted from Batllori (2013)
3.1.2. N-to-Num incorporation
V[DP [DØ] [NumP [Num got/molla/cap] [NP (got/molla/cap) [KP de . . . ] ] ] ]
Adapted from Roberts (2007)
Minimizers “are eligible for quantificational interpretation only once
the original noun has undergone
[…] N-to-Num incorporation and
subsequent loss of movement”
(Breithbarth et al., 2013: 3.2).
Adverbial minimizers quantifying adverbs:
(9) No estic
molla / got bé. (DCVB)
NEG be.1st.PRES NPI
well.
‘I don’t feel at all well. ’
Adverbial minimizers quantifying verbs:
(10) No ha plogut molla. (DCVB)
NEG AUX rained NPI.
‘It hasn’t rained a drop’
(11) No hi
veig
got. (also in Ribagorçan Catalan)
NEG there see.1st.PRES NPI
‘I can’t see a bit’
3.2. CAP. NEGATIVE EMPHATIC POLARITY
PARTICLE (NEPPA)
(2)
3.1.3. Quantificational value
Negative
Emphatic
Polarity
Particle
√
√
In Pallarese, used as marker of post-verbal negation, only cap has
specific information-structure constraints. See Espinal (1993,
2002); Batllori (2014) and Martins (2014).
“The whole structure is reinterpreted as a unique DP with the noun inside the PP (or KP) as the head of the NP, the preposition as a partitive
case marker and the minimizer as a classifier-like quantifier governing
the DP which provides its restriction”, Garzonio & Poletto (2008: 63).
Stage 1.
NEG + VERB
Je ne sais.
‘I don’t know’
Stage 2.
NEG + VERB
+ NEG
emphatic
Je ne sais
(pas).
Stage 3.
NEG + VERB
+ NEG
compulsory
Je ne sais
pas.
Stage 4.
VERB + NEG
Je sais pas.
3.2.1. REANALYSIS OF cap as a NEPPA:
NPI Minimizers can optionally move up to a higher position outside
the object position (see 3.2.2) > reanalysed as negative clausal
adverbs (Garzonio and Poletto, 2008: 64).
HYPOTHESIS: Batllori (2014): Any minimizer or quantitative adverb,
must have grammaticalised an [uNeg] formal feature in order to
evolve into a NEPPA.
> Other explanation for Pallarese having two
constructions for the expression of marked
negation: Is Pallarese undergoing an uncertain
transition to the following step in Jespersen’s
Cycle (unmarked negation, such as French)?
Could it be taken into consideration the possibility of speakers having two different cap?
- To propose a syntactic analysis from a cartographic approach for those items, according
to its characterization and to the previous
studies in this area for other similar particles
in a staggered explanation.
- To comment further possible stages
of negative expression development in
Pallarese Catalan in light of current data.
Pallarese minimizers analysed:
Got < GUTTU(M) ‘glass, small measure’
/ GUTTA(M) ‘drop’
Molla < MEDULLA(M) / MOLLIA(M) ‘crumb’
Cap < CAPU(M)‘head, end piece’
a) Simple tense:
(12) (No) m’
importari
cap / ?molla / *got. (Llop, 2013: 35)
NEG me.AC mind 3rd.COND NEPPA
‘I wouldn’t mind at all’.
(13) No ho
faré
molla. (DECAT: vol.5: 588)
NEG CL.AC do 1st.FUT NEPPA
‘I will not do it at all’.
b) Compound tense:
(14) (No) ho
hai cap/ *molla fet. (Bringué i Febrer, 2007: 141)
NEG CL.AC 1st.AUX NEPPA done
‘I haven’t done it at all’.
c) NEPPA + NPI:
(15) (No) em fan cap molla de por, les bruixes. (Coll, 2002 [1993]: 130)
NEG me.AC make.3rd.PRES NEPPA NPI of fear the witches
‘Witches do not scare me at all’
d) NEPPA + N-words:
(16) (No) ho
diria
cap
ningú. (Barbal, 2009: 179)
(NEG) CL.AC say.3rd.COND NEPPA no-one
‘Nobody would say it at all’
(17) (No) farem
cap
res. (Lluís, 1959-1979: 166)
(NEG) do.4th.FUT NEPPA nothing
‘We won’t do anything at all’
e) Answer to a yes-no question:
(18) Teniu
gana? (Llop, 2013)
Have.4th.PRES hunger
‘Are you hungry?’
No cap. / *Cap.
NEG NEPPA / NEPPA
‘Not at all’.
3.2.2. Analysis. Cap as a NEPPA
Negative sentences in Pallarese Catalan:
Unmarked negation: (19) No vindré. ‘I will not come’
Marked negation: (20) No vindré cap. ‘I will not come at all’
Marked negation: (21) Ø Vindré cap. ‘I will not come at all’
Proposal: Cap, given its emphatic / counter-presuppositional value, is considered to be a low emphatic polarity particle (low EPPA)
located in the IP periphery, in the specifier position of a low focus
phrase (FocusP2) (cf. Batllori, Hernanz: 2013).
>
In case of absence, we consider no to be phonologically empty
(represented as NO).
>
Cap’s uninterpretable [uNEG] feature has to be eliminated in
the course of a derivation by means of feature checking against
an operator (Op¬) carrying an interpretable [iNeg], in PolP.
This new step is related to reanalysis in Jespersen’s Cycle (1917).
(3)(4)
5. QUESTIONS FOR FURTHER
RESEARCH
[email protected]
1. GOALS
Got
3. MINIMIZERS, NEGATION
AND REANALYSIS
-
-
Indefinite
Adverbial
Quantifier
Centre de Lingüística Teòrica
– Universitat Autònoma
de Barcelona (CLT-UAB)
cap1: QX, [uNeg], [+foc]
(23) (No) m’importari
cap.
NEG me.AC mind 3rd.COND NEPPA
‘I wouldn’t mind at all.’
cap2: Xº, [iNeg], [+foc]
(24) Sé
cap.
Know.3rd.PRES NEG
‘I don’t know.’
> MinQ as base position for minimizers occupying low focus positions in complex NegP
(Poletto, 2008, 2014)?
> Cross-linguistic data in Iberian Romance varieties. Are there other similar particles to be
studied? See pon, mica, perreque and brenca
in Aragonese and Ribagorçan, and nada in Río
de la Plata, Chilean and Puerto-Rican Spanish.
(22) [ForceP . . .. [FocusP1 [PolP no [FinP.. [FocusP2 cap [vP . . .]]]]]]
[ForceP . . .. [FocusP1 [PolP NO [FinP.. [FocusP2 cap [vP . . .]]]]]]
4. CONCLUSIONS
>
>
>
During its diachronic pathway, molla, got, and cap are all
reanalysed in a first stage as quantifiers. Only cap undergoes a further complete reanalysis as a NEPPA; its usage
as a clausal negative marker is not clear.
Presence or absence of sentential no still remains a bit
controversial.
Wider and deeper analysis from a microsyntactic point of
view of Romance Iberian minimizers can shed some light
on studies on m-negation development.
7. REFERENCES
BATLLORI, M. (2013). “La evolución diacrónica de algunos
términos negativos del catalán en comparación con sus
correlatos españoles e italianos”, communication XXVIIe
Congrès International de linguistique et de philologie
romanes. Nancy (France). 15-20 juillet 2013.
BATLLORI, M. (2014). “The significance of Formal Features
in Language Change Theory and the Evolution of Minimizers”. In: LARRIVÉE, P.; CHUNGMING, L. (eds.) Negation and
negative polarity: Cognitive and experimental perspectives.
(DEU): Springer International Publishing, 2014.
BATLLORI, M.; HERNANZ, M.L. (2013). Emphatic polarity
particles in Spanish and Catalan. Lingua, 128, p. 9-30.
ESPINAL, M.T. (1993). The interpretation of no-pas in
Catalan. Journal of Pragmatics, 19 (4), 353-369.
ESPINAL, M.T. (2002). “La negació”. In: SOLÀ, J.; LLORET, M.R.;
MASCARÓ, J. I PÉREZ SALDANYA, M. (dir.). Gramàtica del Català
Contemporani. Barcelona: Empúries, vol. 3, cap. 24, 2729-2793.
GARZONIO, J.; POLETTO, C. (2008). Minimizers and quantifiers: a window on the development of negative markers.
Studies in Linguistics, Working Papers, vol, 2, 59-80.
MARTINS, A.M (2014). How much syntax is there in metalinguistic negation?, Natural Language and Linguistic
Theory, vol. 32 (2), 635-672.
POLETTO, C. (2008). On negative doubling. In: COGNOLA, F;
PESCARINI, D. (eds.), Quaderni di Lavoro ASIt 8, La negazione: Variazione dialettale ed evoluzione diacronica, 57-84.
POLETTO, C. (2014). "Decomposing negation". Communication in “Negation - an interdisciplinary workshop on the
syntax and semantics of negation”, Vienna, April 8, 2014.
ROBERTS, I. (2007). Diachronic syntax. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.