Traces of History Workshop Oslo, 9-10 March 2015University of Oslo

On Germanic and Old Romance V2. The view from Mòcheno

Federica CognolaUniversity of Trento

federica.cognola@unitn.it

1. Introduction*

➢ Focus on the structure of the left periphery of relaxed V2 languages;➢ concentrate on Mòcheno (German dialect spoken in the Fersina valley by 600 people) and

on Northern Ladin (variety spoken in the Badia valley, S. Leonardo, South Tyrol, joint work with Jan Casalicchio);

➢ comparison with data available in the literature on Old Italian, Old Frech, Old English.

Mòcheno:➢ traditionally analysed as a V2 language in which V3 and V4 word orders are possible (cf.

Rowley 2003);➢ novel analysis: V2 & V3/V4 word orders are generated by rules internal to a single

Mòcheno grammar;➢ the orders have specialised for different semantic/pragmatic functions (cf. Cognola 2015,

2014, 2013a-b, Cognola (2011), Cognola & Bidese (under review), Cognola&Moroni&Bidese (2014);

➢ DP subject – finite verb inversion: only when the DP subject is a new information focus;➢ absence of DP subject – finite verb inversion: only when the DP is a topic:

(1) a. Who bought the book yesterday?b. Gester hòt der Mario kaft s puach V2c.#Gester der Mario hòt kaft s puach V3“Yesterday Mario bought the book”

However, when the subject is given, subject-verb inversion is non felicitous, as shown in (2).

(2) a. What did Mario do yesterday? b. Gester der Mario hòt a puach kaft V3c.#Gester hòt der Mario kaft s puach V2“Yesterday Mario bought the book”

➢ a competing-grammars approach (cf. Kroch 1989, Pintzuk 1993) does not apply to the actual/synchronic situation of Mòcheno;

* I thank my main Mòcheno & Northern Ladin informants, LT (Palù) and Martina Irsara (S.Leonardo di Badia), and the other 47 people of the Fersina valley who have taken part to the fieldworks I have carried out. I also thank Werner Abraham, Paola Benincà, Theresa Biberauer, Ermenegildo Bidese, Jan Casalicchio, Christine Meckleborg-Salvesen andCecilia Poletto with whom I had the possibility of discussing most of the ideas presented here and contributed to improve both analysis and presentation. All errors are my own. This work is part of the project MÒCHENO-IN-BETWEEN financed by the Autonomous Province of Trento (BANDI-POST-DOC-PAT2011).

1

➢ Mòcheno is not V2 in the way German is + Mòcheno displays the V2 rule, unlike contact Romance.

Northern Ladin:➢ consensus that it is a V2 language (cf. Benincà 1994, Poletto 2000, 2002, Salvi 2000, Kaiser

2002, Gallmann et al 2013 a.o.);➢ Casalicchio&Cognola (2015): ➢ V2 & V3 are parasitic on information structure in a very similar way to Mòcheno:

(3) a. Who has always bought the flour in the shop?b. Te botëga à tres la mama cumprè la farinac.#Te botëga la mama à tres cumprè la farinad.#La mama te botëga à tres cumprè la farina“It was the mum who has always bought the flour in the shop”

(4) a. What did Maria buy yesterday?b.#Inier à la Maria cumprè n pacl de kaugummi c. La Maria à cumprè n pacl de kaugummi inierd. Inier alaj cumprè n pacl de kaugummi la Mariaj “Mum bought chewing gums yesterday”

Holmberg (2015):

(5) a. A functional head in the left periphery attracts the finite verb; b. This functional head wants a constituent moved to its spec position.

➢ the V2 rule of relaxed V2 languages does not manifest itself as a linear restriction (unlike German, cf. den Besten 1983);

➢ it is an abstract rule involving the obligatory movement of the finite verb and of one XP to the same FP of CP;

➢ this movement is triggered by an EPP feature on a C° (cf. Haegeman 1997, Roberts 1997, 2004, Holmberg 2015);

➢ in relaxed V2 languages the presence of an EPP feature on a C° can co-occur with V3/V4 word orders.

Aim of the talk:

➢ investigate in what forms multiple access to CP takes place (constraints, asymmetries etc);➢ investigate why relaxed V2 language differ from strict V2 languages.

Differences between German vs Romance V2:➢ presence of pro in R able to satisfy EPP on C°;➢ not all fronted XPs count for V2 in R (cf. Jouitteau 2010) – all fronted XPs count for V2 in

G;➢ V2 = precedence in the derivation > bottle-neck effects which can be circumvented by

something which is featurally different (cf. Rizzi 2004);➢ structural differences: V2 is low in German – two EPP positions in Romance.

About the left periphery:➢ the articulated structure of Romance is not universal;

2

➢ the articulated left periphery “emerges” through movements of constituents which can be predicted through the mechanisms of the latest version of RM (cf. Rizzi 2004);

➢ a structure has though to be assumed (contrary to Abels 2012).

2. On multiple access to the left periphery

2.1 V2 & split CP

Benincà (2006 and previous work, cf. also Poletto 2000, 2002): ➢ Old Romance languages have the same left periphery as modern Romance languages (cf.

Rizzi 1997, Benincà 2001 a.o.);➢ the V2 phenomenon takes place within this articulated left periphery;➢ focussed XPs can be preceded by topicalised XPs, which do not count for V2;➢ multiple topics are possible:

(1) [CP [Force [Hanging topics [Scene setters [Topic [Topic [Focus [Fin P [ V ]]]]]]]]

Tobler-Mussafia Law (Tobler 1875, Mussafia 1886, cf. Benincà 2006)when Spec,FocusP is empty, enclisis is obligatory:

(2) a. [Lo primo modo]k chiamo-lok estato temoruso (oUmbr., Jacopone) the first mode call1sg.it state timorous“I call the first type (of love) timorous state.”

b. Et così LO MIS e' ço (oVen.; Lio Mazor, p. 31)and so it-put down “And so I put it down.”

(3)  Sao [ForceC° co [TOPPkelle terre per kelle fini que ki contene [FocP trenta anni [C° le possette 

[IP[SPECparte Sancti Benedicti]]]]]

Generalization:➢ in the case in which two XPs co-occur in the left periphey,➢ and the higher can be doubled by a clitic, ➢ the lower is in FocusP and the higher is in TopicP > clitic obligatory.

If the extended structure of the left periphery is a property of UG, why is V2 a linear phenomenon in modern Germanic (with the exception of English) and an abstract one (V3-V4) in Old Romance?

Haegeman (1997) & Roberts (1997):➢ V2 is a property of FinP;➢ once the EPP feature on Fin° is satisfied, nothing can be moved to CP due to Relativised

Minimality (Rizzi 1990);➢ any fronted XP is a potential satisfier of the EPP feature responsible for V2;➢ “bottle-neck” effects: cf. *focus – focus; *focus -wh /*wh-focus;➢ in Romance topics can circumvent this restriction for different reasons (base-generation, cf.

Benincà 2006, Cinque 1990; + moved directly to TopicP if nothing satifies the EPP features, cf. Walkden 2014, to appear + doubled by a clitic, cf. Grewendorf/Poletto 2010 a.o.).

3

Poletto (2002), Frascarelli/Hinterhoelzl (2007), Grewendorf and Poletto (2010):➢ Germanic V2 is triggered by the presence of an EPP feature on Force°;➢ Old Romance V2, therefore, must be low, possibly associated with an EPP feature on Fin° or

Focus°.

2.2. On multiple access to the left periphery in Mòcheno

Specific properties unpredicted by both approaches in (1) and (2).

2.2.1 Fronting of given verb arguments in main declarative clauses

When IO and SUBJ are both given arguments / topics

(4) a. What did Luca buy for his mum?b. Der Lucaj - en de mamak hòt-(*erj-enk) a puach kaftc. En de mamak der Lucaj hòt-(*erj-enk) a puach kaft“Luca bought a book for his mum”

➢ it is possible to front both given IO and SUBJ;➢ any order is possible;➢ none of the arguments can be doubled by a clitic.

Fronting of given IO and DO: IO must always be doubled by the clitic

(5) a. When did he buy Mary the book?b. S puachj en de Mariak hòt-er-sj-enk gester kaft c. En de Mariak s puach hòt-er-enk gester kaft“He bought Mary the book yesterday”

Given DO and a given SUBJ cannot be contemporary fronted:

(6) a. When did the mum buy the book? (M)b. *De mamaj s puachk hòt-(sej)(sk) gester kaftc. *S puachk de mamaj hòt-(sej)(sk) gester kaft“The mum bought the book yesterday”

XP – XP – V:➢ is not a sequence TOPIC - FOCUS, but can also be a sequence TOPIC – TOPIC;➢ doubling is not syntactic, i.e. we do not see a distinction between LD vs

TOPICALIZATION;➢ DO and SUBJ cannot be fronted when they are topics.

Examples of this beyond Mòcheno:

Northern Ladin (Badia valley) – joint work with Jan Casalicchio (Casalicchio&Cognola 2015):

Given SUBJ + given IO can co-occur in the left periphery;both must be doubled by a clitic in IP:

4

(7) a. What did Luca buy for his mum? b. Lucaj ala mamak *(ti)k à*(l)j cumprè n liberc. Ala mamak, Lucaj *(ti)k à*(l)j cumprè n liber“Luca bought a book for his mum”

Given SUBJ + given DO cannot co-occur in the left periphery;irrespectively of clitic doubling.

(8) a. When did the mum buy the book?b.*La mamaj l liberk, (lk) a-(laj) cumprà inierc.*L liberk, la mamaj (lk) a-(laj) cumprà inier“The mum bought the book yesterday”

➢ Both data in (7) & (8) are incompatible with Poletto's (2002) theory on Ladin:➢ V2 always involves a Topic – Focus sequence, as assumed by Benincà (2006);➢ V3 is possible only if the lower XP is a focus and the higher is a HT, cf. (9):

(9) [HT [Scene setting [Force Focusi [LD [LD [Focusi [wh]]]]]]

Old French (Bech&Salvesen 2014):

“XSV: The first element is either a topic (two clauses in our corpus) in the sense of Benincà (33), anadverbial belonging to a restricted group (24 clauses) (34), or a subordinate adverbial clause (166 clauses) (Vance 1997) (35)”.

(10) Gorvenal solement, cil i demeure, et pleure et moine gorvenal only that-one there stays and cries and leads son duel por son norreçon his sorrow for his toddler ‘Only Gorvenal, he stays there and cries and shows his grief for his toddler’

(Tristan 305) (11) car sanz faille il ne li donastpas adont

for without fault he neg him gave neg therefore ‘For surely he did not give it to him for that reason’# (Tristan 255)

(12) Et quant il li plot qu’il se maria, il prist a feme and when it him pleased that’he refl married hetook to wife la fille au roi Hoel de la Petite Bretaigne the girl of-the king Hoel of the little Britain ‘#And when he decided to marry, he chose as wife the daughter of king

Hoel of Little Britain’# (Tristan 244)

“In our corpus of OF, we never find an argument moved in front of the finite verb when the subject is preverbal.”

➢ DO – SUBJ > unattested ➢ IO – SUBJ > unattested

5

➢ SXV: only three examples (not only verb arguments).

Old English (Bech&Salvesen 2014):

(13) Ac þonne wisdom heo sceal leornian . þæt... but this wisdom it shall learn that... ‘But it shall learn this wisdom, that...’# (ÆLS 24)

Furthermore, if the initial object is a DP, the subject is usually a pronoun, whereas if the initial object is a pronoun, the subject is usually a DP.

(14) and þone deað hi oferhogodon [and þone rædels understodon and dem death they despised [and dem riddle understood to arædenne] to read] ‘and they despised death [and ventured to solve the riddle]’# (ApT 4)

➢ SUBJ – DO – ok ➢ DO – SUBJ – ok ➢ SUBJ – IO ➢ IO – SUBJ

Old Italian (Benincà 2006):

(15) a. [Ad ogni matto] [i     savi]       paiono matti, [sì come] [ai savi] [i matti] paiono veramente matti. (oFlor.; Novellino, 40)to each madman the sane.men seem mad,     so as to the sane­men the madmen seem truly mad“To each madman the sane men seem crazy, just as the madmen seem truly crazy to the sane men.”

 b. [La figura piacente] [lo  coro] mi      diranca. (oSic.; Scremin, 34, Jacopo da Lentini) the figure pleasant   the heart to­me wrenches“The pleasant figure tears my heart.”

c. [La mia gran pena e lo gravoso affanno c'ho lungiamente per amor patuto],  [madonna] lo 

m'ha in gioia ritornato (oSic.; Scremin, 89, Guido delle Colonne) 

 the my great sorrow and the grievous pain that have1sg long for love suffered, my­lady it to­

me has into joy turned

“The great sorrow and grievous pain I have suffered for a long time, my Lady turned into joy 

for me.”

➢ SUBJ – IO;➢ IO – SUBJ > no doubling;➢ SUBJ – DO; ➢ DO – SUBJ > doubling.

6

SUBJ – DO DO – SUBJ SUBJ – IO IO - SUBJ

Mòcheno * * √ √

Northern Ladin * * √ √

Old French ? (*) ? (*) ? (*) ? (*)

Old Italian √ √ √ √

Old English √ √ √ √Table 1. Distribution of given arguments in the left periphery

2.2.2 Fronting of arguments in sentences with a fronted focus

➢ V3 word orders are possible in Mòcheno when a contrastive focus is in CP;➢ the XP preceding the focus can only be a topic (*wh-focus; *focus-wh);➢ the topic must be doubled by a clitic pronoun:

(16) a. Der Mario S PUACH hòt-er kaft, net de penna“It is a book that Mario bought, not a pen”b. En de mama S PUACH hòne-en gem, net de penna“It is a book that I bought mum, not a pen”

There are RM violations effects between the fronted focus and the fronted topic starting out from this underlying word order of verb arguments: (SUBJ – IO – DO);unexpected with Rizzi's (2004) latest version of RM:

(17) a.*S puach DER MARIO hòt-s kaft, net der Luca“It is Mario who bought the book”b.*En de mama DER MARIO hòt-en gem s puach, net en de muam“It is Mario who gave the mum a book”

(18) a. En de Maria A PUACH hot-er-en kaft (ont net a penna) ‘It was a book that he bought Mary and not a pen.’ b. Der Nane A PUACH hot-er kaft en de Maria (ont net a penna) ‘It was a book that John bought Mary, not a pen.’

(19) a. Der Nane EN DE MARIA hot-*(er) kaft s puach (ont net en Luca) ‘It was for Mary that John bought a book, and not for Luca.’ b.*A puach EN DE MARIA hot-er-*(s) kaft (ont net en Luca) ‘It was for Mary that he bought a book, and not for Luca.’

Only one XP can precede the fronted focus (scene setter can precede two topics in main clauses + see also wh-interrogatives):

(20) a.*Gester der Mario S PUACH hòt-er kaft, net de penna“It is the book that Mario bought yesterday, not the pen”b.*En de mama, der Mario, S PUACH hòt-er-en kaft, net de penna “It is the book that Mario bought for the mum”

7

Comparison with Northern Ladin

(21) a. *La mamaj, LA ORDÖRAk (l'k)a(laj) cumprè It is the fruit that the mum bought

b. *Inier LA MARIAj à cumprè n liberYesterday Maria bought a bookc.*Te botëga LA MAMA à (tres) cumprè la farina

(22) a.* (De) Giani CUN PIERO (nen)'ai bel baié b. I a baiè de Pietro cun la Mariac. *Piero, i nen à baiè...d. Pietro, i a baiè de chel mat cun la Mariae. Pietro, i nen à baiè cun la Maria inier “As for Pietro, I have spoken of him/that crazy man with Mary yesterday”

A focus cannot be preceded by a Scene setter nor by a HT in Northern Ladin.

XP – Focus: restricted in Mòcheno:*XP – Focus: impossible in Northern Ladin

XP - FOCUS XP – XP - FOCUS

Mòcheno √ + RM *

Norther Ladin * *Table 2: sentences with a fronted focussed argument

2.2.3 Wh-interrogative clauses

Multiple access to the left periphery is possible with the same restrictions observed with fronted topics:

(23) a. What did Luca buy for his mum?b. Der Lucaj en de mamak hòt-(*erj-enk) a puach kaftc. En de mamak der Lucaj hòt-(*erj-enk) a puach kaft

(24) a. Der Lucaj en de mamak bos hòt-(*erj-enk) kaftb. En de mamak der Lucaj bos hòt-(*erj-enk) kaft“What did Luca buy for the mum?”

➢ topics must be doubled by the clitic in wh-interrogative clauses.

Given DO and a given SUBJ cannot be contemporary fronted:

(25) a. When did the mum buy the book? (M)b. *De mamaj s puachk hòt-(sej)(sk) gester kaftc. *S puachk de mamaj hòt-(sej)(sk) gester kaft

This is also valid for wh-interrogative clauses.

(26) a.*S puach der Mario bo hòt-er-s kaft?

8

b.*Der Mario s puach bo hòt-er-s kaft?“Where did Mario buy the book?”

Important:➢ Lack of RM effects whatsoever between a fronted wh-element and the preceding focus

(contrary to what we saw above for contrastive topics).

(27) a. En de Maria ber hòt-en kaft s puach?“Who bought Mary the book?”b. S puach ber hòt-s kaft?“Who bought the book?”c. S puach en bem hòs-o-s kaft?“Whom did you buy the book?”

Northern Ladin:IO – SUBJ/ SUBJ - IO can co-occur when they are both given topics;DO – SUBJ / SUBJ – DO cannot co-occur when they are both given topics.

(28) a. What did Luca buy for his mum? b. Lucaj ala mamak *(ti)k à*(l)j cumprè n liberc. Ala mamak, Lucaj *(ti)k à*(l)j cumprè n liberd. When did the mum buy the book?e.*La mamaj l liberk, (lk) a-(laj) cumprà inierf.*L liberk, la mamaj (lk) a-(laj) cumprà inier

No restrictions on the co-occurrence of topicalised arguments are found in wh-interrogative clauses.

(29) a. La mamma, l Luca, a che ti l'àla prejentè? b. Luca, la mamma, a che ti l'àla prejentè?“Who did the mum introduce Luca to?”c. L liber da cojinék, la mamaj, a chi ti lk'a-laj pa cumprèd. La mamaj l liber da cojinék a chi ti lk a-laj pa cumprè?“For whom has mum bought the cooking book”

XP - wh XP – XP - FOCUS

Mòcheno √ - RM √ + restriction

Northern Ladin √ √Table 3: Sentences with a fronted wh-element

9

2.2.4 Interim summary

Main clauses; +given; +given

Main clauses; +given; +focus

Wh-interrogativeclauses;

+given;+given

M NL M NL M NL

SUBJ – DO * * √ (RM) * * √

DO - SUBJ * * * (RM) * * √

SUBJ – IO √ √ √ * √ √

IO – SUBJ √ √ * (RM) * √ √Table 4. Summary

Mòcheno:➢ asymmetry between main declarative clauses & sentences with a fronted focus;➢ no asymmetries between main declarative clauses & wh-interrogative clauses.

Northern Ladin:➢ asymmetry between main declarative clauses and wh-interrogative clauses;➢ asymmetry between main declarative clauses and sentences with a fronted focus;➢ asymmetry between wh-interrogative clauses and sentences with a fronted focus;➢ they cannot be captured by Poletto's (2002) structure nor by Benincà's (2006):

(30) [HT [Scene setting [Force Focusi [LD [LD [Focusi [wh]]]]]]

3. Proposed analysis

Cognola (2013):➢ the EPP feature in Mòcheno is associated with Subj° (Rizzi 2006);➢ SubjP is shown to be a subpart of FinP;➢ the other FP componing FinP is shown to contain definiteness (D) features.

satisfy the EPP feature on Subj° means: ➢ i) to be moved first in the derivation;➢ ii) to be the pragmatic subject;

What can satisfy the EPP feature and with what consequences?➢ fronted non-contrastive Topics never satisfy the EPP feature (cf. lack of Spec/head relation

with the finite verb, possibility to have pronouns following them, can be multiple etc);➢ when non-contrastive topics appear in CP, the EPP feature is actually satisfied by pro

(Spec,TP is never accessible to DP subjects in Mòcheno, it is though projected, and it contains pro);

➢ fronted wh-elements & fronted contrastive topics do satisfy the EPP feature on Subj° (must create a Spec/head configuration with the finite verb, enclisis is obligatory, cannot be multiple etc);

➢ +contrastive topics & foci are moved first in the derivation.

10

3.1. Mòcheno & NL main declarative clauses

➢ Topic – topic is possible;➢ SUBJ & IO in any order;➢ SUBJ & DO in no order.

➢ the are two TopicPs in CP specialised for verb arguments:➢ In main declarative clauses two given arguments can move to CP from the clause;➢ topics are not base-generated in TopicP (unless one would not expect restrictions);➢ XPs move to the TopicsP because nothing is in Spec,Subj° > EPP feature satisfied by pro;➢ the higher XP moves to the higher TopicP – the second follows;➢ only XPs with different featural marking can co-occur in these TopicPs;➢ Rizzi (2004): the relevant features for arguments are +/-topic, +/-focus, +/-case; ➢ in case the featural are not identical, both orders are possible;➢ subject and object cannot co-occur in the TopicPs in CP, because they share the same

featural marking (+topic, -focus, -case, where case is to be understood as morphologicalcase;

➢ the presence/absence of a case assigning P is distinctive for +/-case in R&M, which havelost morphological case on DPs.

(31) [CP [ TopicP XP [ TopicP XP [FocusP [FinP pro Finite V]]]]]

Is the movement strategy for topicalizations also found in the other relaxed V2 language?Apparently NO.

SUBJ – DO DO – SUBJ SUBJ – IO IO - SUBJ

Mòcheno * * √ √

Northern Ladin * * √ √

Old French ? (*) ? (*) ? (*) ? (*)

Old Italian √ √ √ √

Old English √ √ √ √Table 5. Distribution of given arguments in the left periphery

3.2 Sentences with a fronted focus

*XP – Focus in NL

Northern Ladin:

➢ Foci move to ForceP (cf. Poletto 2002);➢ Casalicchio&Cognola's (2015) data show that this position is the highest one of the clause,

higher than hanging topics and scene-setters (cf. Rizzi 1997, Benincà 2001);➢ I assume that in sentences with a fronted focus involve the presence of an EPP feature on

Force° in Ladin, i.e. the finite verb also moved to Force°:

(32) [CP [Force Focus [Topic [Topic [ wh [Fin P [ V ]]]]]]]]

11

Mòcheno:XP – Focus +RM; *XP-XP-Focus

➢ Mòcheno foci do not move to ForceP;➢ contrastive focalization is realised by using the two TopicPs available for arguments (cf. 31);➢ contrastive focalisation is an instance of topicalisation in Mòcheno.➢ This accounts immediately for the fact that:➢ there is an asymmetry in the number of topicalised arguments that can precede a focus (1)

and a wh-element (2);➢ subject & object can co-occur because one of them is featurally distinct (it bears the

+contrastive feature).

What about the presence of superiority effects? If the two Topics have a different featural makeup,why do not they behave like given topics (i.e. both orders with IO and SUBJ)?

➢ fronted +contrastive topics do satisfy the EPP feature on Fin°;➢ when they are moved to the lower TopicP they first move through Spec,SubjP; ➢ the property of these XPs to satisfy the EPP feature on Subj° implies that they are moved

first in the derivation;➢ the fact that one +contrastive topic is moved before the -contrastive topic creates the “bottle-

neck” effect;➢ the bottle-neck effect can only be circumvented by -contrastive topic, which do not have a

fully different featural make-up (+ topic; contrast is assumed to be a subfeatures of topic);➢ +/- case feature is irrelevant when +contrastive topic satisfies the EPP feature.

Rizzi (2004): “This approach would predict that if a language lacks the possibility of allowing multiple topics per clause, then in this language intervening topics should give rise to minimality effects because no topic escape hatch could be provided through equidistance. For the moment, we are unable to find afully convincing case to test this prediction”.

3.3 Wh-interrogative clauses

Northern Ladin:➢ XP – XP – wh-element with no restrictions;➢ Topics are base-generated/merged in CP when the EPP feature is satisfied by the wh-

element;➢ this EPP feature is low:

(33) [CP [Force [Topic [Topic [ wh [Fin wh [ V ]]]]]]]]

➢ This strategy is used by Old Italian in main clauses;➢ it is not clear if this structure can be applied to Old English, too.

Mòcheno:XP – XP – wh-element possible, with the same restrictions on the oders of topics found in main declarative clauses.

➢ Fronted wh-elements satisfy the EPP feature on Subj°;➢ they move first to CP;

12

➢ lack of any RM violations with preceding topics;➢ topics are not base-generated in the TopicPs area when the EPP is satisfied by the wh-

element;➢ if base-generation were possible, we would expect the same lack of ordering restrictions

between topics exhibited by Northern Ladin;➢ once the EPP feature has been satisfied, XPs unable to satisfy the EPP can be moved CP;➢ no RM effects between topics and foci because there is a different featural make-up (+topic,

+focus, cf. Rizzi 2004);➢ only restriction: the higher topic must move to the higher TopicP.➢ This accounts for the fact that:➢ Topics exhibt the same restrictions in wh-interrogative clauses and in main declaratives.

4. Conclusions

EPP on Force° EPP on Fin° Base-generationof topics

Northen Ladin √ √ √

Mòcheno * √ *Table 6.

Older Germanic + Mòcheno vs Old Romance (but Old French):➢ Germanic varieties (Mòcheno & OE):➢ EPP feature is on Fin°;➢ Romance (Rhaetoromance):➢ EPP feature can be on Force° & on Fin° (cf. presence of double complementisers, Poletto

2002, Paoli 2005, Ledgeway 2005).

Hypothesis:➢ the double articulation of the EPP features in CP is a typical Old Romance trait;➢ that the EPP feature is associated only with Fin° is a typical Germanic trait.

What about the differences between older Romance and modern V2 Germanic languages?

German:➢ V2 is due to the presence of and EPP feature on Fin°;➢ any XP can satisfy this feature;➢ any XP has the property of being moved first in the derivation;➢ it is the pragmatic subject;➢ German does not distinguish between XPs that count for V2 and XPs that do not;➢ any moved XP counts in the same way for EPP and is a potential intervener > bottle-neck

effects, +/-topic features do not count;➢ the possibility of moving two XPs to TopicPs lacks because this is parasitic on pro satisfying

the EPP feature;➢ base-generation of topics is not possible.

13

Romance: ➢ base-generation of topics is possible, given that the EPP feature has been satisfied in Fin°;➢ distinction between XPs able to satisfy the EPP and XPs that cannot;➢ movement of topics is possible as long as they respect some RM constraints;➢ movement of topics is parasitic on pro satisfying the EPP feature on Fin°.

Mòcheno:➢ R: distinction between foci vs topics;➢ R (+old Germanic + Old Romance): pro can satisfy the EPP feature >> topics can move to

CP in main declarative clauses;➢ G: EPP only on Subj° (subpart of Fin°); ➢ G: lack of base-generation >> cf. RM effects, made possible by the activation of a

mechanism in which features are relevant.

Partial References

Abels, Klaus. 2012. The Italian Left Periphery: A View from Locality. Linguistic Inquiry. 43, 2, 229–254.

Bech, Kristin & Christine, Meckleborg-Salvesen (2014), Preverbal word order in Old English and Old French, In Information Structure and Syntactic Change in Germanic and Romance Languages, Kristin Bech and Kristine Gunn Eide (eds), 233-269.

Benincà, Paola (2006). 'A detailed map of the left periphery of Medieval Romance'. In: Zanuttini et al. (eds.), Crosslinguistic research in Syntax and Semantics. Washington, 53-86.

Benincà, Paola. 1994. L’interferenza sintattica: di un aspetto della sintassi ladina considerato di origine tedesca. In La variazione sintattica, Paola Benincà, 89–103. Bologna: Il Mulino.

Casalicchio, Jan & Federica, Cognola (2015) On the left periphery of relaxed V2 languages: A comparison between Rhaetoromance and Mòcheno. Ms. University of Trento.

Cognola, Federica. 2015. How to define relaxed V2 languages and how to distinguish them from non-V2 languages: A reply to Brandtler (2014). To appear in: Nordic Journal of Linguistics 38(1).

Cognola, Federica. 2014. On asymmetric PRO-DROP in Mòcheno. Pinning down the role of contact in the maintenance of a root-embedded asymmetry. Stuf - Language Typology and Universals- Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung, 67:4, 511-532.

Cognola, Federica (2013a): Syntactic Variation and Verb Second. A German Dialect in Northern Italy. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Cognola, Federica (2013b): The Mixed OV/VO Syntax of Mòcheno Main Clauses. In T. Biberauer & M. Sheehan (eds), Theoretical Approaches to Disharmonic Word Orders. OUP, 106-138.

Cognola, Federica (2011): Acquisizione plurilingue e bilinguismo sbilanciato: uno studio sulla sintassi dei bambini mocheni in età prescolare. Padova: Unipress.

Cognola, Federica & Manuela, Moroni & Ermenegildo Bidese (2014): Effects of multilingualism on the grammar of Mòcheno-speaking pre-school children. A syntactic and prosodic analysis. Talk given at the SLI conference at the University of Udine.

Cognola, Federica & Ermenegildo, Bidese (under review) On language acquisition in a heritage multilingual setting. Consequences for the theories of language change. Ms. University of Trento.

Holmberg, Anders. 2015. Verb second. To appear in Tibor Kiss & Artemis Alexiadou (eds.), An

14

International Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Research, 342 -382 . Berlin: De GruyterGallmann, Peter & Heidi Siller-Rungaldier & Horst Sitta (2013): Sprachen im Vergleich: Deutsch –

Ladinisch – Italienisch, Bozen: Istitut Pedagogich Ladin.Kaiser, Georg (2002): Die Verb-Zweit-Stellung im Raetoromanischen. Ein typologischer Vergleich.

Ladinia 26-27: 313-334.Ledgeway, A. (2005) “Moving through the left periphery: The dual complementizer system in

the dialects of Southern Italy”. Transactions of the Philological Society103.3: 339-396.Paoli, S. (2005) “COMP: a multi-talented category: Evidence from Romance”, in L. Brugè et alii

(eds.) Contributions to the 30 Incontro di Grammatica Generativa . Venice: Cafoscarina, pp.185-202

Poletto, Cecilia (2000): The higher functional field. OUP.Poletto, Cecilia. 2002. The left periphery of a V2-Rhaetoromance dialect: A new perspective

on V2 and V3. In Syntactic Microvariation. Proceedings of the Workshop on SyntacticMicrovariation, Amsterdam, August 2000, Sjef Barbiers, Leonie Cornips & Susanne van der Kleij (eds), 214–242. Amsterdam: Meertens Institute.

Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In Elements of Grammar. A Handbook of Generative Syntax, Liliane Haegeman (ed.), 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Rizzi, Luigi. 2004. Locality and left periphery. In Structures and Beyond. The Cartography of Syntactic Structure, Vol. 3, Adriana Belletti (ed.), 223–251. Oxford: OUP.

Rizzi, Luigi & Shlonsky, Ur. 2007. Strategies of subject extraction. In Interfaces + Recursion = Language?, Uli Sauerland & Hans Martin Gärtner (eds), 115–160. Berlin: Mouton de GruyterRoberts, Ian. 1997. Directionality and word order change in the history of English. In Parameters of

Morphosyntactic Change, Ans van Kemenade & Nigel Vincent (eds), 423–460. Cambridge: CUP.

Roberts, Ian. 2004. The C-System in Brythonic Celtic languages, V2 and the EPP. In The Struc- ture of CP and IP. The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, Vol. 2, Luigi Rizzi (ed.), 297–328.Oxford: OUP.

Rowley, Anthony. 2003. Liacht as de sproch: grammatica della lingua mochena. Palù del Fersina: Pubblicazioni dell’istituto mòcheno di cultura.

Salvi, Giampaolo (2000): Il ladino. Schizzo linguistico, Verbum 2000/1, 151-169Walkden, George. 2014. Syntactic Reconstruction and Proto-Germanic. OUPWalkden, George. To appear. Verb-third in early West Germanic: A comparative perspective. In

Syntax over Time: Lexical, Morphological and Information-structural Interactions, Theresa Biberauer & George Walkden (eds). Oxford: OUP.

15