SF in Old Italian: issues and methods of analysis

In order to understand Old Italian SF and compare it to the Icelandic counterpart, the analysis starts from the observation that the most common criterion adopted to distinguish SF from V2 topicalization is the requirement that the subject be absent (SGC). As shown above, this condition is respected if there is a subject trace in extraction contexts or a pro/gap in expletive/quasi argumental subject constructions in Icelandic. I considered whether the SGC extends to Old Italian by including also argumental pro into the class of “missing subjects”, given the different setting of the pro-drop parameter in this language.

Nonetheless, including argumental pro into the set of null elements satisfying the SGC creates a potential ambiguity between V2 topicalization and SF, because argumental pro is virtually possible in any V2 structure of the type XP – V – Subj(pro). In this case, there is no specific characteristic that can be used to discriminate a context licensing SF

41_{One general condition for an item to be a proper goal for SF could be formulated as “make yourself}

visible to the higher phase”: a condition that is allegedly satisfied by vP-peripheral elements and not by more deeply embedded ones.

rather than topicalization. By contrast, expletive or quasi-argumental pro has a defined domain of occurrence, being found in specific constructions (e.g. impersonal ones) which can be taken as licensing contexts for SF.

In order to avoid the ambiguity between topicalization and SF derived from the presence of argumental pro in Old Italian, I considered exclusively the lexical categories which can be fronted by SF in Icelandic, but typically do not undergo topicalization, namely: (116)

a. Items from the verbal complex: Infinitives and Past Participles b. Predicative Adjectives and Nominal Predicates

I excluded cases of adverb fronting, negation, as well as DP and PP fronting, which can all occur also in V2 constructions with postverbal subjects, and, as such, are potentially ambiguous indicators.

Furthermore, particle fronting turned out to be very rare in Old Italian, perhaps due to the fact that phrasal verbs are not common43_.

For the analysis of Old Italian SF, I considered three texts:

- Anonimous (1271-1275), Fiori e vite di Filosofi e d’altri savi e d’imperadori (labeled as FF);

- Bono Giamboni (1292 (1260?)) Fiore di Rettorica (β corpus), (labeled as FR) - Anonimous, Il Novellino, XIII century, (labeled as N).

Below some sentences from the excerpted texts show what Old Italian SF consists of. (117) almeno quello che detto è __ non è inutile a sapere Past participle SF at.least which that said is not is useless to know.INF

“At least what is said isn’t useless to know” [FR, 72, 25] (118) Col guadagno che far se ne dovea __ Infinitive SF with.the gain that do.INF IMP of.it must.3sPAST

“With the gain that one should make of it” [N, XCVII, 16-17]

43 _{In Modern Italian, SF is a phenomenon restricted to the literary language, where the high register}

prefers full verbal forms to the few available phrasal verbs, which are more colloquial. I do not share Cardinaletti's (2003) judgment on (i) which is unacceptable, according to me:

(i) *Il ragazzo che via andò the boy that away went

“The boy that went away” [Cardinaletti (2003)]

I also consider (ii) ungrammatical, and would rather prefer the full verbal form in (iii): (ii) *La stesura del manoscritto che avanti andò senza interruzioni..

The editing of.the manuscript that on went.3s without interruptions (iii) La stesura del manoscritto che procedette senza interruzioni… The editing of.the manuscript that continued.3s without interruptions “The editing of the manuscript which continued without interruptions”

Notice that Italian does not have many phrasal verbs, contrary to sub-standard varieties, where particle fronting is equally ruled out:

(iv) a. Suo marito, che ha preso su e se n’è andato, è un bastardo (Sub-standard Italian, Venice) her husband that has taken up and self of.it is gone is a bastard

b. *Suo marito, che su ha preso e se n’è andato, è un bastardo her husband that up has taken and self of.it is gone is a bastard “Her husband, that suddenly went away, is a bastard”.

(119) Più legier è al pover fugire le schernie… Nominal predicate SF More light is to.the poor escape.INF the mockeries

“To avoid mockeries is easier for the poor…” [FF, XXIV, 44] (120) signore pro t’ho fatto __ di molte dilizie Predicative adjective SF lord pro 2s.CL.ACC have.1s made of many delicacies

“I have made you lord of many delicacies” [N, LXXII, 10] (121) e niuno era ardito che su vi sedesse Particle SF and no-one was brave who on LOC would.sit

“and there was no one who dared to sit on it” [N, XLI, 8-9] The analysis is divided into five parts:

1. Occurrences of stylistically fronted items

2. Location of subject pronouns and position of clitics. The assumptions are that Old Italian 3rd _{person singular pronouns may be weak but also strong, contrary to the same}

pronouns in Modern Italian, (cf. Cardinaletti to app., ch.11) and occupy the highest specifier position in the IP (cf. Cardinaletti 2004). I explored whether subject pronouns can coccur with stylistically fronted items and what the linear order would be. This analysis is motivated by using the weak pronouns as signposts to determine the target position of SF.

3. Position of clitics and presence of CP expletives: I consider as signipost the relative order between verb and clitic and the presence of CP expletives, following the analyses of Benincà (2004) and Poletto (2005).

4. Data comparison: facts on the distribution of SF with regard to pronominal subjects, clitics, and CP expletives are compared.

5. Typologies of SF: in order to understand whether SF is truly dependent on the SGC and is not triggered to satisfy V2 on a par with topicalization, I have distinguished SF in root contexts from SF in (what are usually assumed to be) non-V2 contexts, such as indirect questions and relative clauses. A different distribution of the type of fronted elements emerged.

A further section is then devoted to a thorough differentiation and description of the types of non-V2 clauses where SF is attested.