Testing the Interclausal Relations Hierarchy: Modal and Aspectual Constructions in Sardinian
Summary
Excerpt
Table Of Contents
- Cover
- Title
- Copyright
- About the author
- About the book
- This eBook can be cited
- Acknowledgement
- Table of Contents
- List of Abbreviations
- Conventional Notations
- Abstract
- Chapter 1 Introduction
- Chapter 2 Methodological notes
- 2.1 Introduction: aims of my research
- 2.2 Some preliminaries on the Sardinian language
- 2.3 My project
- 2.4 My informants and my questionnaire
- Chapter 3 Brief introduction to RRG
- 3.1 Fundamentals of RRG theory
- 3.1.1 The layered structure of the clause
- 3.1.2 Operators and their projection
- 3.1.3 Semantic macroroles
- 3.1.4 The linking of complex predicates, clauses and sentences
- 3.2 The Interclausal Relations Hierarchy
- Chapter 4 Analysis of the constructions
- 4.1 Tests and criteria
- 4.1.1 The standard RRG tests
- 4.1.2 Bybee’s and Krug’s proposal
- 4.1.3 The analysis with Praat
- 4.1.4 The semantic tests
- 4.2 Camp. ai / Log.-Nu. àere a + infinitive
- 4.2.1 The syntactic tests
- 4.2.2 A note on diachrony
- 4.3 Camp. dèppi(ri) / Log.-Nu. dèvere/dèppere + infinitive
- 4.3.1 Future dèppi(ri) / dèvere/dèppere + infinitive
- 4.3.2 Nexus and juncture in complex predications with dèppi(ri) / dèvere/dèppere + infinitive
- 4.3.3 A note on diachrony
- 4.4 Camp. fai / Log.Nu. fàghere/fàchere a + infinitive
- 4.4.1 The semantics of fai / fàchere/fàghere a
- 4.4.2 Nexus and juncture in complex predications with fai / fàghere/fàchere a
- 4.5 Camp. fai / Log.-Nu. fàghere/fàchere + infinitive
- 4.6 Camp. lassai / Log.-Nu. lassare + infinitive
- 4.7 Camp. torrai a/po / Log.-Nu. torrare a/pro + infinitive
- 4.8 Camp. andai / Log.-Nu. andare a + infinitive
- 4.9 Camp. (am)megai / Log.-Nu. (am)megare de / a + infinitive
- 4.9.1 Brief notes on the etymology of (am)megai / (am)megare
- 4.9.2 Semantics and syntax of megai
- Chapter 5 The Interclausal Relations Hierarchy vis-à-vis the Sardinian data
- 5.1 Introduction to the Interclausal Relations Hierarchy
- 5.2 Synoptic tables of the syntactic and semantic properties of the eight constructions
- 5.2.1 Ai / àere a + infinitive
- 5.2.2 Dèppi(ri) / dèvere/dèppere + infinitive
- 5.2.3 Fai / fàghere/fàchere a + infinitive
- 5.2.4 Fai / fàghere/fàchere + infinitive
- 5.2.5 Lassai / lassare + infinitive
- 5.2.6 Torrai a / po / torrare a / pro + infinitive
- 5.2.7 Andai / andare a + infinitive
- 5.2.8 Megai de + infinitive
- 5.3 The IRH vis-à-vis the Sardinian data
- Chapter 6 Diatopic variation in the structure and distribution of complex predicates
- 6.1 Introduction
- 6.2 Blasco Ferrer’s (1986: 14) and Virdis’ (1988: 905) map.
- 6.2.1 Distribution of the agglutinated forms of ai / àere a + infinitive versus the short forms of dèvere/dèppere
- 6.2.2 The construction fai / fàghere/fàchere a + infinitive
- 6.2.3 Causative fai / fàghere/fàchere + infinitive and lassai / lassare + infinitive
- 6.2.4 Purposive torrai / torrare a + infinitive versus torrai po / torrare pro + infinitive
- 6.2.5 Distribution of megai de + infinitive
- 6.3 Brief conclusions
- Chapter 7 Conclusions
- List of Illustrations
- Bibliography
This work tests the Interclausal Relations Hierarchy (Van Valin 2005: 209) vis-à-vis first-hand data on eight complex verbal constructions of Sardinian, namely: 1. Campidanese ai / Logudorese-Nuorese àere a + infinitive, lit. ‘to have to’ + infinitive, (hereafter also inf.), expressing future time reference; 2. Campidanese dèppi(ri) / Logudorese-Nuorese dèvere/dèppere + inf., lit. ‘must’ + inf., expressing both deontic modality and future time reference; 3. Campidanese fai / Logudorese-Nuorese fàghere/fàchere a + inf., lit. ‘to do to’ + inf., in the sense of ‘to be possible/able/allowed to do something’; 4. Campidanese fai / Logudorese-Nuorese fàghere/fàchere + inf., lit. ‘to do’ + inf., meaning ‘make someone do’; 5. Campidanese lassai / Logudorese-Nuorese lassare/(dassare) + inf. meaning ‘let someone do’; 6. Campidanese torrai a/po / Logudorese-Nuorese torrare a/pro + inf., lit. ‘to return to’, meaning both ‘go back to’ + inf. and ‘do something again’ (the latter meaning is possible only with the preposition a); 7. Campidanese andai / Logudorese-Nuorese andare a + inf., meaning ‘to go to’ + inf.; 8. Campidanese (am)megai / Logudorese-Nuorese (am)megare de/a + inf., lit. originally meaning perhaps ‘pretend’ or ‘threaten’ or ‘have an aim’, but nowadays meaning ‘to be doing’, ‘to have the intention to’ + inf. The hierarchy ranks complex verbal constructions from the most cohesive to the least cohesive, both syntactically and from a semantic point of view. There is a meaningful prediction of the hierarchy, i.e., the tightest syntactic linkage realizing a particular semantic relation should be tighter than the tightest syntactic linkage realizing looser semantic relations (Van Valin 2005: 209 and Van Valin & LaPolla 1997: 483). Almost all the constructions respect this prediction, with the exceptions of deontic dèppi(ri) / dèvere/dèppere + inf. and megai de + infinitive. In the latter case, it is possible that the syntax of the construction crystallised whilst its semantics developed further. In addition, my data manifest diatopic, i.e., geolinguistic variation. I have used Virdis’ (1988: 905) phonetic map to analyse my morphosyntactic data. I present a number of maps that show that morphosyntactic phenomena are in general more widespread than phonetic isoglosses, that is, they are common to the three main varieties of Sardinian: Campidanese, Logudorese and Nuorese.
Keywords: complex predicates, Sardinian, Role and Reference Grammar, Interclausal Relations Hierarchy, Typology, morphosyntax, semantics, phonology←19 | 20→
This work1 studies eight complex verbal constructions in Sardinian:
– Camp(idanese) ai / Log(udorese)-Nu(orese) àere a + infinitive, lit. ‘to have to’ + infinitive (hereafter also inf.), expressing future time reference;
– Camp. dèppi(ri) / Log.-Nu. dèvere/dèppere + inf., lit. ‘must’ + inf., expressing both deontic modality and future time reference;
– Camp. fai / Log.-Nu. fàghere/fàchere a + inf., lit. ‘to do to’ + inf., in the sense of ‘to be possible/able/allowed to do something’;
– Camp. fai / Log.-Nu. fàghere/fàchere + inf., lit. ‘to do’ + inf., meaning ‘make someone do’;
– Camp. lassai / Log.-Nu. lassare/(dassare) + inf., meaning ‘let someone do’;
– Camp. torrai a/po / Log.-Nu. torrare a/pro + inf., lit. ‘to return to’, meaning both ‘go back to’ + inf. and ‘do something again’ (the latter meaning is possible only with the preposition a);
– Camp. andai / Log.-Nu. andare a + inf., meaning ‘to go to’ + inf.;
– Camp. (am)megai / Log.-Nu. (am)megare de/a + inf., lit. originally meaning perhaps ‘pretend’ or ‘threaten’ or ‘have an aim’, but nowadays meaning ‘to be doing’, ‘to have the intention to’ + inf.
My principal aim is to verify whether the semantics of the constructions under investigation allow us to predict their degree of syntactic and morphological cohesion, in accordance with the Interclausal Relations Hierarchy (irh) (Van Valin 2005: 209).
Here is the representation of Fig. 1: The Interclausal Relations Hierarchy:
←21 | 22→
The hierarchy ranks the constructions from the most cohesive to the least cohesive, both syntactically and from the semantic point of view. There is an important prediction of the hierarchy, i.e., the tightest syntactic linkage realizing a particular semantic relation should be tighter than the tightest syntactic linkage realizing any looser semantic relation (Van Valin 2005: 209 and Van Valin and LaPolla 1997: 483).
Details
- Pages
- 270
- Year
- 2021
- ISBN (PDF)
- 9783034340649
- ISBN (ePUB)
- 9783034340724
- ISBN (MOBI)
- 9783034340731
- ISBN (Softcover)
- 9783034315531
- DOI
- 10.3726/b16972
- Language
- English
- Publication date
- 2021 (August)
- Published
- Bern, Berlin, Bruxelles, New York, Oxford, Warszawa, Wien, 2021. 270 pp., 5 fig. col., 35 fig. b/w, 20 tables.
