Manual of Deixis in Romance Languages 9783110317671

900 82 6MB

English Pages 790 Year 2015

Report DMCA / Copyright

DOWNLOAD FILE

Polecaj historie

Manual of Deixis in Romance Languages
 9783110317671

Table of contents :
Table of Contents......Page 9
List of Abbreviations......Page 12
0 Introduction......Page 17
Deixis in Romance Languages......Page 31
1 Romanian......Page 33
2 Sardinian......Page 61
3 Italian......Page 75
4.1 Varieties in Italy 1......Page 91
4.2 Varieties in Italy 2: Alpine Varieties......Page 130
5 Ladin......Page 156
6 French......Page 183
7 French Varieties outside of France......Page 205
8 Catalan......Page 222
9 European Spanish......Page 256
10.1 Spanish Varieties of Latin America 1: South America......Page 274
10.2 Spanish Varieties of Latin America 2: Mexico and Central America......Page 295
11 European Portuguese......Page 313
12 Brazilian Portuguese......Page 331
13 Creoles......Page 348
Theoretical Frameworks......Page 373
14 Semantics......Page 375
15 Structuralism......Page 397
16 Contextualism......Page 423
17 Indexicalism......Page 441
18 Minimalism......Page 457
19 Cognitive Linguistics......Page 483
20 Referentiality......Page 509
21 Typology......Page 527
Comparative Aspects: Language Change and Language Contact......Page 551
22 From Latin and Vulgar Latin to Romance Languages......Page 553
23 From Old French and Middle French to Contemporary French......Page 574
24 Language Change and Language Contact......Page 597
25 Encoding Deictic Relations in Japanese......Page 613
26 Encoding Deictic Relations in Mesoamerican Languages......Page 627
Interfaces to Neighboring Fields of Interest......Page 675
27 Social Interaction......Page 677
28 Corpus Linguistics......Page 700
29 Gesture......Page 724
30 Discourse Deixis......Page 745
Index......Page 756

Citation preview

Manual of Deixis in Romance Languages MRL 6

Manuals of Romance Linguistics Manuels de linguistique romane Manuali di linguistica romanza Manuales de lingüística románica

Edited by Günter Holtus and Fernando Sánchez Miret

Volume 6

Manual of Deixis in Romance Languages Edited by Konstanze Jungbluth and Federica Da Milano

ISBN 978-3-11-031767-1 e-ISBN (PDF) 978-3-11-031773-2 e-ISBN (EPUB) 978-3-11-039356-9 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A CIP catalog record for this book has been applied for at the Library of Congress. Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de. © 2015 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston Cover-Bildnachweis: © Marco2811/fotolia Typesetting: jürgen ullrich typosatz, Nördlingen Printing and binding: CPI books GmbH, Leck ♾ Printed on acid-free paper Printed in Germany www.degruyter.com

Manuals of Romance Linguistics The new international handbook series Manuals of Romance Linguistics (MRL) will offer an extensive, systematic and state-of-the-art overview of linguistic research in the entire field of present-day Romance Studies. MRL aims to update and expand the contents of the two major reference works available to date: Lexikon der Romanistischen Linguistik (LRL) (1988–2005, vol. 1–8) and Romanische Sprachgeschichte (RSG) (2003–2008, vol. 1–3). It will also seek to integrate new research trends as well as topics that have not yet been explored systematically. Given that a complete revision of LRL and RSG would not be feasible, at least not in a sensible timeframe, the MRL editors have opted for a modular approach that is much more flexible: The series will include approximately 60 volumes (each comprised of approx. 400–600 pages and 15–30 chapters). Each volume will focus on the most central aspects of its topic in a clear and structured manner. As a series, the volumes will cover the entire field of present-day Romance Linguistics, but they can also be used individually. Given that the work on individual MRL volumes will be nowhere near as time-consuming as that on a major reference work in the style of LRL, it will be much easier to take into account even the most recent trends and developments in linguistic research. MRL’s languages of publication are French, Spanish, Italian, English and, in exceptional cases, Portuguese. Each volume will consistently be written in only one of these languages. In each case, the choice of language will depend on the specific topic. English will be used for topics that are of more general relevance beyond the field of Romance Studies (for example Manual of Language Acquisition or Manual of Romance Languages in the Media). The focus of each volume will be either (1) on one specific language or (2) on one specific research field. Concerning volumes of the first type, each of the Romance Languages – including Romance-based creoles – will be discussed in a separate volume. A particularly strong focus will be placed on the smaller languages (linguae minores) that other reference works have not treated extensively. MRL will comprise volumes on Friulian, Corsican, Galician, Vulgar Latin, among others, as well as a Manual of Judaeo-Romance Linguistics and Philology. Volumes of the second type will be devoted to the systematic presentation of all traditional and new fields of Romance Linguistics, with the research methods of Romance Linguistics being discussed in a separate volume. Dynamic new research fields and trends will yet again be of particular interest, because although they have become increasingly important in both research and teaching, older reference works have not dealt with them at all or touched upon them only tangentially. MRL will feature volumes dedicated to research fields such as Grammatical Interfaces, Youth Language Research, Urban Varieties, Computational Linguistics, Neurolinguistics, Sign Languages or Forensic Linguistics.

VI

Manuals of Romance Linguistics

Each volume will offer a structured and informative, easy-to-read overview of the history of research as well as of recent research trends. We are delighted that internationally-renowned colleagues from a variety of Romance-speaking countries and beyond have agreed to collaborate on this series and take on the editorship of individual MRL volumes. Thanks to the expertise of the volume editors responsible for the concept and structure of their volumes, as well as for the selection of suitable authors, MRL will not only summarize the current state of knowledge in Romance Linguistics, but will also present much new information and recent research results. As a whole, the MRL series will present a panorama of the discipline that is both extensive and up-to-date, providing interesting and relevant information and useful orientation for every reader, with detailed coverage of specific topics as well as general overviews of present-day Romance Linguistics. We believe that the series will offer a fresh, innovative approach, suited to adequately map the constant advancement of our discipline. Günter Holtus (Lohra/Göttingen) Fernando Sánchez Miret (Salamanca) June 2015

Acknowledgements The editors, together with the 32 authors, are very happy to share the outstanding result of this collective effort. Actually, the group of contributing people was much larger. We gratefully recognize the valuable contributions of several anonymous reviewers who formed part of our external review process, along with the contribution of nearly all of the authors themselves to the internal review process. We should also recognize the names of several other colleagues involved in the writing process, and of English experts who found the correct idiomatic expressions in different far-flung areas: Núria Alturo (Universitat de Barcelona) Lídia Amélia de Barros Cardoso (Universidade Federal do Ceará) Alena Ciulla (Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul) Barbara De Cock (Université Catholique de Louvain) Rita Franceschini (Freie Universität Bozen) Klaus Grübl (Ludwig Maximilian Universität München) Sergio Murias (Universidad de Buenos Aires) Lluís Payrató (Universitat de Barcelona) Eulàlia Salvat (Universitat de Barcelona) During the editing process, we received strong support from our two lecturers, Ulrike Krauß and Christine Henschel, and great feedback from the editors of our series, Günter Holtus and Fernando Sánchez Miret, who constantly encouraged us during the whole process of editing our manual. Without our student assistants, it would have been very difficult – if not impossible – to shoulder the time-consuming, sometimes monotonous tasks which form part of the preparation of a manuscript for a handbook like ours – not to mention meeting all the deadlines. We are happy that the following highly motivated and committed students were engaged in our team based at the Europa-Universität Viadrina in Frankfurt (Oder) at different stages of our endeavour: Dominik Gerst Ariane Kolb Friederike Schütte Layla Cristina Iapechino Souto Lukas Wegenast Tininiska Zanger Montoya We also want to emphasize the incredible work of Todd Ehresmann, our English proofreader. He edited the texts so readers could accurately understand linguistic

VIII

Acknowledgements

frameworks; he worked with Englishes from multiple areas of the world, and reliably completed the texts even on short deadlines. Finally, we would like to cordially thank our contributors for their patience and enduring commitment to our manual, which certainly demanded more dedication than the average publication. By means of their work, effort and persistence, the publication of our Manual on Deixis in Romance Languages has been achieved in time. Konstanze Jungbluth (Frankfurt an der Oder) Federica Da Milano (Milano) August 2015

Table of Contents  

List of Abbreviations

XII

0

Konstanze Jungbluth and Federica Da Milano Introduction 1

Deixis in Romance Languages 1

Alexandra Corina Stavinschi Romanian 17

2

Ignazio Putzu Sardinian 45

3

Federica Da Milano Italian 59

4

Varieties in Italy

4.1

Adam Ledgeway Varieties in Italy 1

75

Michele Prandi 4.2 Varieties in Italy 2: Alpine Varieties

114

5

Martina Irsara Ladin 140

6

Claire Beyssade French 167

7

Carolin Patzelt French Varieties outside of France

8

Neus Nogué-Serrano Catalan 206

9

Mª Elena Gómez Sánchez and Konstanze Jungbluth European Spanish 240

189

X

10

Table of Contents

Spanish Varieties of Latin America

Laura D. Ferrari 10.1 Spanish Varieties of Latin America 1: South America

258

Karolin Moser 10.2 Spanish Varieties of Latin America 2: Mexico and Central America

11

Helena Topa Valentim European Portuguese

12

Konstanze Jungbluth and Rita Vallentin Brazilian Portuguese 315

13

Konstanze Jungbluth Creoles 332

297

Theoretical Frameworks 14

Andreas Dufter Semantics 359

15

Johanne Peemöller Structuralism 381

16

Kasia M. Jaszczolt Contextualism 407

17

Rita Finkbeiner and Jörg Meibauer Indexicalism 425

18

Javier Gutiérrez-Rexach Minimalism 441

19

Wiltrud Mihatsch Cognitive Linguistics

20

Mônica Cavalcante Referentiality 493

467

279

Table of Contents

21

François Jacquesson Typology 511

Comparative Aspects: Language Change and Language Contact 22

Jens Lüdtke From Latin and Vulgar Latin to Romance Languages

23

Céline Guillot From Old French and Middle French to Contemporary French

24

Paolo Ramat Language Change and Language Contact

25

Martina Ebi Encoding Deictic Relations in Japanese

26

Maurizio Gnerre Encoding Deictic Relations in Mesoamerican Languages

597

27

Lorenza Mondada Social Interaction

28

Nicole Richter and Dagna Zinkhahn Rhobodes Corpus Linguistics 684

29

Ellen Fricke Gesture 708

30

Friedrich Lenz Discourse Deixis

Index

740

558

581

Interfaces to Neighboring Fields of Interest

661

729

537

611

XI

List of Abbreviations Abr. acc. adj. adn. adv. AgrP AP ART Bas. Bol. BP ca. Cal. Cast. Cat. cf. ch. CL Cmp. CN ČNK COMP CP CT dat. DEF Deic DEM DES DET DIR dist DP DS E EAbr. edd. e.g. Eml. Eng. EP et al. etc. Ex. f./fem. fig. fn.

Abruzzese accusative adjective adnominal adverb agreement projection adjectival phrase article Basilicatese Bolognese Brazilian Portuguese circa Calabrian Castillian Catalan see/compare chapter Cognitive Linguistics Campanian compound nominals Czech national corpus compound complementizer phrase coding time dative definite deictic demonstrative Dizionario etimologico sardo determiner direct distal determiner-phrase Default Semantics event Eastern Abruzzese editors for example Emilian English European Portuguese and others and so forth example feminine figure footnote

List of Abbreviations

FP Fr. Frl. FV Gal. gen. Gen. Ger. GOAL H ibid. ICM i.e. INDEF INDIR IPA Istr. It. Lat. Laz. LF lh. Lig. lit. Lmb. LOC Log. L2 m./m(a)sc. MA MED Megl. Mil. Mol. Mold. N n. Nap. NCal NKJP nom. NONPAST NP NumP Occ. OLmd. ONap OPdm. p.c.

functional projection French Friulian Français Vaudois Galician genitive Genoese German target hearer in the same place Idealized Cognitive Model that is indefinite indirect International Phonetic Alphabet Istroromanian Italian Latin Laziale logical form left hand Ligurian literal Lombard locative Logudorese second language masculine Mesoamerican Medial Meglenoromanian Milanese Molisano Moldave noun number Neapolitan Northern Calabrian Narodowy Korpus Języka Polskiego nominative non past (a verbal form in Japanese) noun-phrase number-phrase Occitan Old Lombard Old Neapolitan Old Piedmontese personal communication

XIII

XIV

Pdm. PERS Pgl. Pl./plur. Pmg. PLOH pp. PREP PRO/pron prox Pt. p1/p2/p3 QP ref. Rel. rh. RL(s) Rml. Rom. Rus. S s. Sal. SAP SBas. SCal. sect. SF Sg./Sing. Sic. SIL Sp. Spec SPK sq. ss. SUBJ Subst. s.v. SWPdm. s1/s2/s3 TAG TAM TOP Transilv. Tsc. u Umb. v

List of Abbreviations

Piedmontese personal Pugliese plural Parmigiano palm lateral open hand pages preposition pronoun proximal Portuguese first/second/third person plural quantifier-phrase referential relative right hand Romance Language(s) Romagnol Romanian Russian speaker sequens Salentino Speech Act Participant(s) Southern Basilicatese Southern Calabrian section Standard French singular Sicilian Summer Institute of Linguistics Spanish specifier speaker sequens sequentes subject noun under the word South Western Piedmontese first/second/third person singular tag-question temporal-aspectual-modal topic Transilvan Tuscan utterance Umbrian verb

List of Abbreviations

Var. Ven. viz. vol. VP vs. V2 WAbr. XP 1PL 1SG 2PL 2SG 3PL 3SG

variation Venetian namely volume verbal-phrase versus verb second Western-Abruzzese x-phrase first person plural first person singular second person plural second person singular third person plural third person singular

XV

Konstanze Jungbluth and Federica Da Milano

0 Introduction Abstract: Exploring the topic of deixis in Romance Languages, we start with Bühler (11934) and follow Cassirer (11923–1929), who emphasizes the priority of spatial conceptualizations with respect to temporal ones. Furthermore, transfer of the developed distinctions may be used to express oppositions in social space. As the deictic features are anchored in person, space and time, context plays a crucial role in understanding the references. In addition, it is common to use the capacity of pointing inherent in these items to strengthen coherence of discourse or for text editing. In order to find out which features and procedures are language specific and which ones are universal, the reader finds chapters on several different Romance Languages ordered from East to West, following the conventionalized sequence. Romance varieties outside Europe are included as well. Chapters on deixis as a topic in different theoretical frameworks, as part of non-related languages, and as an aspect of language change further broaden the perspective on current research in this fascinating field. Keywords: Romance Languages, Latin, Romanian, Sardinian, Italian, Varieties in Italy, Ladin, French, French Varieties outside of France, Catalan, European Spanish, Latin American Spanish, European Portuguese, Brazilian Portuguese, Creoles, pragmatics, grammar, diachrony, synchrony, deixis, spatial deixis, temporal deixis, personal deixis, social deixis, Origo, language change, contrastive linguistics, language family, Balkan Romania, Italoromania, Francoromania, Iberoromania, Old Romania, New Romania, Eastern Romania, Western Romania

1 Preliminaries The Manual of Deixis in Romance Languages offers its readers an overview of the field with a focus on Romance Languages, but it also reaches beyond this perspective. Rooted in the European tradition, research in any of the Romance Languages has always involved several comparative dimensions. First, their common Latin origins have always been part of the focus, including not only concepts of language change based on language contact, but also the diachronic nature of our research object: language in general. Secondly, a synchronic perspective of their “siblings”, or neighboring Romance Languages, offers a wide range of grammatical structures and lexical items that can be readily compared. Finally, we learned from language contact about primary, secondary, and tertiary varieties of Romance Languages in the past and present, as well as from examples in the academic writings of our predecessors in the field (Berger, Bühler, Coseriu, Ehrich, Fillmore, Klein, Lüdtke, Rauh, Schlieben-Lange, among others). We are trained to embed our findings in language-specific contexts, to test them for some members or for the whole family of Romance Languages, and to place our

2

Konstanze Jungbluth and Federica Da Milano

results in the context of a universal perspective. These three steps of abstraction – the studied language, the other Romance Languages, the other European and non-European languages – form part of the research process. It is not by chance that this research practice and its results play an important role in the development of research on deixis. This can be confirmed by a look at the references of the latest monographs and collections or basic scholarly works in our field of interest. Both the authors and editors of this volume are committed to this mission, and hope that the readers familiar with Romance Languages – but also those without experience in these languages – will gain new insights into deixis in general, and into the dimensions of similarities and differences between deictic structures. As proposed in the threefold approach, the use of deictic structures should be understood within and between different Romance Languages. Furthermore, we aim to show the differences of deictic structures and their use between Romance and other European and non-European languages, and in some points at the universal level of structures and language use in general. In the following, we sketch the state of the art and will explain furthermore the structure selected for this manual. In the first part, we identify deixis as a core subject of linguistics forming part of pragmatics. The fascinating field of deixis is situated at the crossroads between grammar and semantics. As Lenz (2003, vii) points out, it is not by chance that one of the most quoted definitions of deixis is taken from a monograph on semantics (Lyons 1977, 637): “By deixis is meant the location and identification of persons, objects, events, processes and activities being talked about […] in relation to the spatiotemporal context created […] by the act of utterance and the participation in it, typically, of a single speaker and at least one addressee”.

Conventional meanings codified by deictics (semantic coding) must be regarded as separate from the contingent contextual information and from the pragmatic contextdependent implicatures (pragmatic coding). Nevertheless, the two dimensions are interdependent and both contribute to the understanding of the utterance. According to Kemmerer (1999, 56), “[…] demonstratives appear to straddle the boundaries between visual perception, abstract semantic organization, and context-specific sociolinguistic interaction. It therefore makes sense that they should have connections with all three of these domains without being completely reducible to any single one of them”.

2 Current interest in linguistics for deixis Deixis is an area of research within linguistics that has drawn ever-increasing interest among scholars. It spans the fields of pragmatics and grammar, and also links the areas of pragmatics and semantics. Deixis is a crucial aspect of several closely related subdisciplines such as cognitive linguistics, anthropological linguistics, and gestures as part of communication, to name just a few.

Introduction

3

Current interest in the topic of deixis and deictic categories in language and cognition was recently confirmed by the STALDAC (Space and Time across Languages, Disciplines and Cultures) conference held in April 2010 in Cambridge, followed by the proceedings published in two volumes by Benjamins in 2012; the Pisa International Conference on “Space in language” (October 2009; cf. Marotta et al. 2010) and the International Workshop “Space and language: on deixis” organized by Federica Da Milano and Paolo Zublena at the University of Milano-Bicocca (Da Milano/Zublena, forthcoming). Recent work on the topic has recontextualized deictic use within both an interactional (cf. Goodwin 2000; 2003; Hanks 1990; Haviland 1996) and an ethnographic perspective (Duranti 1994; Hanks 1990; Keating 1994), and our Manual will give particular emphasis to this viewpoint. From a typological point of view, a good reference study is the classic chapter by Anderson/Keenan (1985), which deals with the fundamental deictic categories (space, time, person) in the languages of the world; Diessel’s monograph (1999) is a milestone in the study on demonstratives and on spatial deixis in general. Chapters on different aspects of deictic categories are systematically included in the World Atlas of Language Structures (WALS).

3 Deixis: part of pragmatics The field of research on deixis forms part of pragmatics. Language is perceived as language use embedded in action. Empirical data represented in spoken discourse or in text are prepared for our linguistic analysis in the form of smaller or larger corpora. Language use is not understood as a mere application of form and structure, of words and grammar. The use of deictic elements in any language of the world reveals the piggy-back process of anchoring that is essential for the understanding of language in general. Words and the rules for combining them are achieved through steps of abstraction which are sequentially organized. As in other sciences, we take the tension between theory and empirical basic data seriously. Although it may be true that the difference between theories is less than that between different empirical settings, we believe that the research process is fed by the reciprocal confrontation between them. This back-and-forth leads directly to findings obtained by “[d]eduction, induction, and abduction [which] are three basic forms of inference”1 (Jensen 2008, 1188; cf. Peirce 1898/2002) with the shared aim to develop and refine a crosslinguistically proved theory on deixis.

1 The citation is completed by the following subordinated clause [three basic forms of inference] “that inform the methodologies of communication research as well as other fields and disciplines” (Jensen 2008, 1188).

4

Konstanze Jungbluth and Federica Da Milano

Overcoming the traditional speaker- or distance-oriented view, which takes only the perspective of the speaker as Origo, our shared pivot and focal point in research on deixis starts from language use in dialogue, where the speaker and her or his hearer/s meet. While the speaker is only one person, her or his audience may consist of one or more hearers.2 Language use is based in the Dualis, in the duality formed by at least two interlocutors, who together form the Origo based in the conversational dyad. The speaker speaks even to her- or himself as if speaking to another. The author writes her or his text expecting that it will be read by another. The other, the Alter indispensably complements the Ego. Without interlocutor she or he falls silent. The dialogue is not only the place where language use begins but an important part of human interaction. “Imagine a language-game in which A asks and B reports the number of slabs or blocks in a pile, […]. – Such a report might run: ‘Five slabs’. Now what is the difference between the report or statement ‘Five slabs’ and the order ‘Five slabs!’? – Well, it is the part which uttering these words plays in the language game. No doubt the tone of voice and the look with which they are uttered, and much else besides, will also be different” (Wittgenstein 11914–1916/1984, 248)

The last part of the citation [“und noch manches mehr” ‘and much else besides’] is often filled with a gesture in face-to-face-communication. “When people say things they typically do so by combining words with images”3 (Enfield 2013, 691). “Human conceptualization of space is primarily determined by visual perception, by the three dimensional visual field. […] The orientation has a characteristic double structure: it starts in the own body on the one hand, in the objectively given space as points of reference on the other hand” (Zifonun/Hoffmann/Strecker 1997, 326s.).

In the first example used by Enfield, “Make it steep like this”, the meaning of words and gesture are carefully intertwined parts of the composite utterance.4 It is not by chance that the demonstrative in this case plays a prominent role. The meaning is interactively achieved by three devices: (1) the tight “spatiotemporal co-occurrence [of words and gesture] in place and time (both produced by the same source), (2) the use of explicit deictic expression ʻlike thisʼ (sending us on a search: ʻLike whatʼ, and leading us to consult the gesture for an answer), (3) the use of eye gaze for directing attention” (Enfield 2013, 692). Bühler (11934) was one of the first to show that even one-word utterances are complete signs regardless of the fact that they often lack a

2 Leaving aside the possibility of speaking in chorus. 3 With Enfield (2013) we consider strings of words themselves as a composite sign “consisting of words and grammatical constructions”. 4 “Make it steep like this”. The utterance forms part of “a corpus of video-recorded talk collected in Laos since 2000”. “[T]hree Lao men [are] sitting in a village temple, one of them thrusting his arm forward and down, with his gaze fixed on it” (Enfield 2013, 691).

Introduction

5

predicate and do not form a sentence. Not until after Bühler’s observation were these utterances considered to represent an object worth of linguistic analysis at all. Bühler’s famous examples, “I”, uttered by a visitor as an answer to someone behind the door, and “Here”, exclaimed by someone in the audience claiming his/her presence when a list of names is read aloud are deictic expressions, too. The three axes of place, time and person – here, now and I/You – determine the axis of the Origo.

4 Deixis: anchoring in space and time It is the relation to the spatial and temporal anchoring of the ongoing social interaction between the speaker and her or his hearer/s which makes deictic elements different from others. “I” and “Here” refer to someone or someplace different in each occasion of their use. Pronouns, adverbs and determinants are the most prominent word classes which have this deictic dimension as part of their meanings. Compare the deictic and the non-deictic use in the following pairs of sentences: A) B)

The noise of aircrafts pollutes more and more our environment here. versus Close to the Frankfurt International Airport aircraft noise is considered a growing environmental problem.

A) B)

At that time Hugo Chávez died. versus In March 2013 Hugo Chávez died.

It is obvious that in the first case the spatial information, and in the second the temporal relation is expressed deictically in both sentences labeled as A). Consequently, in order to understand the reference, one has to take into consideration the place and moment where the sentences have been uttered. The same does not hold for the other two sentences. It is true that not only deictic elements change their references in the world when uttered, but only deictic elements are anchored in one way or another to at least one of the spatiotemporal or personal dimensions. These dimensions are in turn determined by the interlocutors involved in the ongoing conversation. Though most deictic dimensions belong to the set of closed word classes mentioned above, they are not restricted to only these classes. They also form part of words belonging to open word classes, most frequently as verbal morphemes of person and time (e.g. “he sings”; “they sang”), as motion verbs (e.g. “to come”), and as some locative and temporal adjectives (e.g. “northern cities”; “last summer”) and expressions. The latter may be proven by paraphrasing the above sentence in the following way: “Two months ago Hugo Chávez died”.

6

Konstanze Jungbluth and Federica Da Milano

5 Deixis: spatial oppositions and their transfer Ontogenetic and phylogenetic data convincingly show that spatial experience is first in language acquisition (see e.g. Tomasello 2009), as in processes of language change accompanying the evolution of languages themselves (Cassirer 11923–1929/101994). Spatial categories are directly accessible to humans (see citation above). Inside is different from outside. The speaker’s space may be put in opposition to the one of the hearer. The opposition between close and distant spaces is basic. In some languages, a space at a middle distance is also routinely established. Spatial categories like river up, river down or mountain up, mountain down reflect environmentally important distinctions in some languages spoken by communities who make their living in these respective places.

6 Deixis: structuring time through space The perception of time, which may even be restricted to our species, is realized by the metaphorical transfer of oppositions based in space to the temporal flow. “We have seen the fluidity of the dividing line between imitative or affective sounds and the simplest spatial terms – and we encounter the same continuous, imperceptible transition between the linguistic spheres embracing local and temporal determinations. Even in our modern civilized languages these two often form an inseparable unity; it is common to find one and the same word used to express both spatial and temporal relations. […] for example, the word for ‘here’ merges with the word for ‘now’, the word for ‘there’ with that for ‘earlier’ or ‘later’” (Cassirer 1 1923–1929/101973, 216). “Involuntarily, language transposes the structural relations of time into relations of space. […] But where consciousness is limited to spatial intuition and apprehends temporal relations only through spatial analogies [sic!] – this unique character of the direction of time must remain obscure. As in the intuition of space, everything is here reduced to the simple distinction of near and far. The only essential difference that is grasped and clearly expressed is that between ʻnowʼ and ʻnot-nowʼ – between the immediate present and that which lies ʻoutsideʼ it” (Cassirer 11923– 1929/101973, 217).

The categories routinized on spatial oppositions are regularly used to structure time, which is less easily accessible and object of (metaphorical) abstraction. “Based on space time is conceptualized as a continuous and directed movement following a path, which may be represented by a time arrow” (Hoffmann 1997, 339, our translation).

Past is regularly opposed to present, sometimes subdivided in a nearer and a distant past. The latter holds true for European Spanish, where the present este año ‘this year’ stays in opposition to ese ‘that [year]’ and to a remote past referred to by aquel

Introduction

7

entonces ‘that time far away’.5 The conceptualization of future is even more fragile. Some cultures place a taboo on this uncertain dimension (e.g. in the Arabic world). Some languages have not developed categories of their own to express a future not grounded in the present. Other languages mirror the time arrow in both directions – towards the past and towards the future – making twofold distinctions on both sides.6 Moreover, in Chinese ‘last month’ is shànyuè (lit. ‘above-month’), ‘next month’ is xiàyuè (lit. ‘under-month’). In Aymara spoken in Peru nayra timpu ‘the past’ is literally ‘eye time = time in front of my eyes’ and q’ipi uru ‘tomorrow’ is literally ‘the day behind me’.

7 Deixis: transfer to structure social space Oppositions developed to categorize space may be transferred to other spaces, for example to the social space (cf. Fillmore 1975; Levinson 1979; Rauh 1983a, among others). Here the distance parameter inherent of spatial oppositions plays a crucial role. On the one hand, power distinctions are metaphorically mapped into a hierarchically structured up and down. The higher the person is assumed to be situated, the more power she or he possesses compared to other people. Maintaining the distance through the drawing of borderlines between them reflects these relations of social power:7 On the other hand, emotional closeness may be expressed by integrating the other in one unique social space, thus not establishing a borderline among the interlocutors. Overcoming the individual point of view, this conceptualization of an undivided space as one and only one is essential for concerted actions of any group starting with the pair. Language use focused as social activity is rooted in the conversational dyad formed by speaker and hearer/s representing the shared Origo. It is their involvement which characterizes the participants engaged in conversation. “[A]n internal, even emotional connection individuals feel which binds them to other people as well as to places, things, activities, ideas, memories and words” (Tannen 1989, 12).

5 It is not surprising that some of the widespread Latin American Spanishes did not maintain this finegrained distinction (due to language contact?). “Nearly in all American countries ese entonces is used [instead], sometimes alternating with the variant en aquel entonces, in other places replacing this idiom by majority or even exclusively” (RAE 2009, 1281; translation K.J.). 6 However, the use of the future is less frequent. 7 The socially reinterpreted spatial deictics may be strengthened by the use of personal pronouns, namely honorifics such as the famous V/T pronouns (vous/tu; cf. Brown/Gilman 1960; Levinson 1979; Helmbrecht 2005).

8

Konstanze Jungbluth and Federica Da Milano

According to Hanks (1990, 7): “In assuming egocentricity in deixis, one runs the risk of mistaking a part of the whole, overlooking several basic facts: interaction puts in play the reciprocity of perspectives, the production of mutual knowledge, conflict and asymmetry”.

And again citing Hanks (1990, 107s.): “Given that acts of reference are interactively accomplished, a sociocentric approach is certain to be more productive than an egocentric one, even when the speaker is the primary ground of reference”.

Reference to absent or present human participants in a speech event is the primary function of personal pronouns. Another aspect of the reference of personal pronouns, however, is what has been called social deixis in literature. There are many languages in which different pronominal forms may be used to indicate different degrees of respect. For a detailed analysis of politeness distinctions in second person pronouns from a typological point of view, see Helmbrecht (2003).

8 Deixis: structuring the space of text and discourse Textual deixis or discourse deixis has been theorized (as discourse deixis, textual deixis, Rededeixis, Textdeixis) by Fillmore (1972), Braunmüller (1977) and Lyons (1977). According to Conte (1999, 17): “La deissi testuale è quella forma di deissi con la quale un parlante fa, nel discorso, riferimento al discorso stesso, al discorso in atto, ossia a parti (a segmenti, o momenti), dell’ongoing discourse (in particolare: o al pre-testo, o al post-testo, o, nel logicamente problematico caso dell’autoriferimento, a quella stessa enunciazione, nella quale l’espressione deittica ricorre)”.

Textual as well as discourse deixis provide a transition between the notions of deixis and anaphora, because they involve the use of the deictic procedure to point to part of a pre- or post-mentioned textual or memory representation.8

9 Deixis: maintaining oppositions in spoken language As far as Romance Languages are concerned, many studies are devoted to particular languages or even subvarieties of them (see Jungbluth 2005 for Ibero-Romance

8 These representations have no need to be highly activated.

Introduction

9

languages; Gaudino‑Fallegger 1992 and Vanelli 1992 for Italian, etc.); Da Milano (2005) is a study on spatial deixis in the languages of Europe, where the author considers Romance Languages in relation to the other world languages. Languages of the world reflect the wide range of humankind’s natural creativity. The different deictic structures – not only the items themselves, but the oppositions between them that we use to make space accessible to us – reflect that neither space itself nor our use of it are cross-culturally alike. This difference reflects the diversity of natural environments and of humankind at the same time. Space is basic, and deictic structures are firmly rooted within space. They are and have been created and used daily by people all over the world, who also constantly maintain and change them. Routinized use in spoken language may even preserve items lost in varieties which are closer to the norm. Focusing on English spoken in Northern England and Shetland as compared to Standard English, Melchers (1997) not only confirms the cross-linguistically common use of distal demonstratives to express depreciation, but reports on its implications for reluctance towards language change:9 “The maintenance of a three-way system [this – that – yon] as still evidenced in Shetland dialect today indicates that [the use of three demonstratives] is above all of an emotional-attitudinal character” (Melchers 1997, 91).10

This diversity is not restricted to the difference between languages, but also appears at the level of varieties of languages. It is not by accident that even closely related language varieties differ in the way they structure space.

10 Structure of this volume This volume will therefore include chapters on deixis, not only with regard to languages of Eastern and Western Romania (Wartburg 1950), forming together the territory of so-called Old Romania, but also on languages of New Romania spoken on other continents. Alongside Romanian, Italian, Ladin, French, Spanish and Catalan, European and Brazilian Portuguese, we include chapters on the varieties of French in the francophone world, on Latin American Spanish(es), and on Romance language varieties in Italy, the autochthonous “descendent” of the ancient Latin core. The ordering of the Romance Languages of Europe follow the conventionalized sequence from East to West, starting with languages of the Balkan Romania, Italoromania, Francoromania and finally of Iberoromania (cf. Tagliavini 1948/21998). Using language history as a guideline, the chapters on the languages spoken outside Europe 9 “Demonstratives are highlighted and typically associated with informal, unplanned types of discourse, such as conversational interaction” (Melchers 1997, 90). 10 “It is also pointed out that yon tends to be used in phrases with euphemistic or depreciatory force” (Melchers 1997, 85).

10

Konstanze Jungbluth and Federica Da Milano

follow the chapters of the languages of their respective colonial nations. After this first part, we further expand the aspects of deixis in three directions. The first treats deixis embedded in different theoretical and traditional frameworks including semantics, structuralism, contextualism, indexicalism, minimalism, cognitive linguistics, referentiality and typology. The second has a more empirical nature. Two chapters will focus on the diachronic aspects revealing the changes from Latin to different forms of Vulgar Latin, and finally to the Romance Languages. One of them exclusively focuses on the French deictic systems, which underwent important changes beginning in the period of Old French, passing through the period of Middle French, to the French spoken today. A chapter on deictic systems that experienced language change and were affected by language contact forms precedes a series of chapters which contribute points of comparison to our view on deixis in Romance Languages by investigating deixis in other European and non-related languages of the world: Japanese and Mesoamerican languages among others. The third considers the interfaces between deixis and neighboring fields of interest, considering that “contrasting languages means not only contrasting language systems, but also contrasting language use in all its dynamics, mainly discourse strategies, commonly shared inferences, presuppositions, and, as part of contrastive pragmatics, also contrasting (anthropological) cultures” (Filipović/Jaszczolt 2012, 1).

Chapters on social interaction, corpus linguistics, gesture and finally discourse deixis complete and round off this volume.

11 References Anderson, Stephen R./Keenan, Edward L. (1985), Deixis, in: Timothy Shopen (ed.), Language Typology and Syntactic Description, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 259–308. Berger, Tilman (1991), Überlegungen zur Deixis im Russischen, Slavistische Beiträge 274, 9–34. Braunmüller, Kurt (1977), Referenz und Pronominalisierung. Zu den Deiktika und Proformen des Deutschen, Tübingen, Niemeyer. Brown, Roger/Gilman, Albert (1960), The Pronouns of Power and Solidarity, American Anthropologist 4 (6), 24–39. Bühler, Karl (1982 [11934]), Sprachtheorie, Stuttgart, Fischer; (1950) Teoría del lenguaje, translated into Spanish by Julián Marías, Madrid, Alianza; (1990) Theory of Language, translated into English by Donald F. Goodwin, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, Benjamins. Cassirer, Ernst (1955, 101973, [11923–1929]), Philosophie der symbolischen Formen, vol. 1: Die Sprache, Darmstadt, Wissenschaftliche Buchgemeinschaft; (1955) The Philosophy of Symbolic Forms, vol. 1: Language, translated into English by Ralph Manheim, London, Yale University Press. Conte, Maria-Elisabeth (1999), Condizioni di coerenza. Ricerche di linguistica testuale, Alessandria, Edizioni dell’Orso.

Introduction

11

Coseriu, Eugenio (1955), Determinación y entorno: dos problemas de una lingüística del hablar, Romanistisches Jahrbuch 7, 29–54; (1975) Determinierung und Umfeld. Zwei Probleme einer Linguistik des Sprechens, translated by Uwe Petersen, in: Sprachtheorie und allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft, München, Fink, 253–291. Coseriu, Eugenio (1988), Historische Sprache und Dialekt, in: Jörn Albrecht et al. (edd.), Energeia und Ergon, vol. 1: Schriften von 1965–1987, Tübingen, Narr, 44–61. Da Milano, Federica (2005), La deissi spaziale nelle lingue d’Europa, Milano, Angeli. Da Milano, Federica/Zublena, Paolo (edd.) (forthcoming), Space and language: on deixis, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, Benjamins. Diessel, Holger (1999), Demonstratives. Form, function and grammaticalization, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, Benjamins. Dryer, Matthew S./Haspelmath, Martin (edd.) (2005), The World Atlas of Language Structures, Oxford, Oxford University Press (since 2011 also available online, The World Atlas of Language Structures Online, Munich, Max Planck Digital Library, (09.01.2013). Duranti, A. (1994), From Grammar to Politics: Linguistic Anthropology in a Western Samoan Village, Berkeley, University of California Press. Ehlich, Konrad (1982), Anaphora and Deixis: Same, Similar or Different? in: Robert J. Jarvella/Wolfgang Klein (edd.), Speech, place and action: Studies in deixis and related topics, Chichester, Wiley & Sons, 315–338. Ehrich, Veronika (1992), Hier und Jetzt, Tübingen, Niemeyer. Enfield, Nick J. (2013), A “Composite Utterances” approach to meaning, in: Cornelia Müller et al. (edd.), Body – Language – Communication: An International Handbook on Multimodality in Human Interaction Vol. 1, Berlin/Boston, Mouton De Gruyter, 689–706. Filipović, Luna/Jaszczolt, Kasia M. (edd.) (2012), Space and Time in Languages and Cultures, 2 vol., Amsterdam/Philadelphia, Benjamins. Fillmore, Charles (1972), Ansätze zu einer Theorie der Deixis, in: Ferenc Kiefer (ed.), Semantik und generative Grammatik, vol. 1, Frankfurt am Main, Athenäum, 147–174. Fillmore, Charles J. (1975), Santa Cruz Lectures on Deixis, Bloomington, Indiana University Linguistics Club. Gaudino-Fallegger, Livia (1992), I dimostrativi nell’italiano parlato, Wilhelmsfeld, Egert. Goodwin, Charles (2000), Action and embodiment within situated human interaction, Journal of Pragmatics 32, 1489–1522. Goodwin, Charles (2003), Pointing as Situated Social Practice, in: Sotaro Kita (ed.), Pointing: Where language, culture, and cognition meet, Hillsdale/NJ, Erlbaum, 217–241. Hanks, William (1990), Referential Practice: Language and Lived Space among the Maya, Chicago, University of Chicago Press. Haviland, John (1996), Projections, transpositions, and relativity, in: John Gumperz/Stephen C. Levinson (edd.), Rethinking Linguistic Relativity, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 271–323. Helmbrecht, Johannes (2003), Politeness distinctions in second person pronouns, in: Friedrich Lenz (ed.), Deictic conceptualisation of space, time and person, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, Benjamins, 183–202. Helmbrecht, Johannes (2005), Politeness Distinctions in Pronouns, in: Martin Haspelmath et al. (edd.), The World Atlas of Language Structures, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 186–190. Hernández Socas, Elia/Sinner, Carsten/Wotjak, Gerd (edd.) (2011), Estudios de tiempo y espacio en la gramática española, Frankfurt am Main, Lang. Hoffmann, Ludger (1997), Deixis und situative Orientierung, in: Gisela Zifonun/Ludger Hoffmann/ Bruno Strecker, Grammatik der deutschen Sprache, 3 vols., Berlin/New York, De Gruyter, 309–359.

12

Konstanze Jungbluth and Federica Da Milano

Jensen, Klaus Bruhn (2008), Deduction vs Induction vs Abduction, in: Wolfgang Donsbach (ed.), The International Encyclopedia of Communication, vol. 3, Oxford, Blackwell, 1188–1192. Jungbluth, Konstanze (2005), Pragmatik der Demonstrativpronomina in den iberoromanischen Sprachen, Tübingen, Niemeyer. Jungbluth, Konstanze (2012), 39. Einzelaspekt: Deixis, in: Joachim Born et al. (edd.), Handbuch Spanisch, Berlin, Schmidt, 313–318. Jungbluth, Konstanze/Klein, Wolfgang (edd.) (2002), Deixis – universelle und einzelsprachliche Aspekte, Zeitschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Linguistik 125. Keating, Elizabeth L. (1994), Language, gender, rank and social space. Honorifics in Pohnpei, Micronesia, in: Cultural Performances: Proceedings of the Third Berkeley Women and Language Conference, Berkeley, Women and Language Press, 367–377. Keating, Elizabeth L. (1998), Power sharing, Oxford, Oxford University Press. Kemmerer, David (1999), “Near” and “far” in language and perception, Cognition 73, 35–63. Klein, Wolfgang (1978), Präliminarien zu einer Untersuchung der lokalen Deixis, Linguistische Berichte 58, 18–40. Klein, Wolfgang (ed.) (1991), Sprache und Raum, Zeitschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Linguistik 78. Kragh, Kirsten Jeppesen (ed.) (2013), Deixis and pronouns in Romance Languages, Amsterdam/ Philadelphia, Benjamins. Krefeld, Thomas (2011), “Primäre”, “sekundäre”, “tertiäre” Dialekte – und die Geschichte des italienischen Sprachraums, in: Anja Overbeck/Wolfgang Schweickard/Harald Völker (edd.), Lexikon, Varietät, Philologie. Günter Holtus zum 65. Geburtstag, Berlin/New York, De Gruyter, 137–147. Kristol, Andres (1998), Die historische Klassifikation der Romania III. Rätoromanisch, in: Günter Holtus/Michael Metzeltin/Christian Schmitt (edd.), Lexikon der Romanistischen Linguistik, vol. VII: Kontakt, Migration und Kunstsprachen. Kontrastivität, Klassifikation und Typologie, Tübingen, Niemeyer, 937–948. Lenz, Friedrich (ed.) (2003), Deictic conceptualisation of space, time and person, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, Benjamins. Levinson, Stephen C. (1979), Pragmatics and social deixis: Reclaiming the notion of conventional implicature, in: Christine Chiarello (ed.), Proceedings of the Fifth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 206–223. Levinson, Stephen C. (1983), Pragmatics, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press; (1989) Pragmática, Barcelona, Teide; (1990) Pragmatik, Tübingen, Niemeyer; (2007) Pragmática, São Paulo, Martins Fontes. Levinson, Stephen C./Wilkins, David P. (edd.) (2006), Grammars of space: explorations in cognitive diversity, New York, Cambridge University Press. Lüdtke, Helmut (2000), Kleine Beiträge zur portugiesischen Sprachgeschichte, in: Cornelia Klettke et al. (edd.), Ästhetik der Texte – Varietät von Sprache, Tübingen, Narr, 211–223. Lyons, John (1977), Semantics, 2 vol., Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Marotta, Giovanna, et al. (edd.) (2010), Space in language: Proceedings of the Pisa International Conference, Pisa, Ets. Melchers, Gunnel (1997), This, that, yon: on “Three Dimensional” Deictic Systems, in: Jenny Cheshire/ Dieter Stein (edd.), Taming the Vernacular: From Dialect to Written Standard Language, Harlow, Longman, 83–92. Mondada, Lorenza (1994), Verbalisation de l’espace et fabrication du savoir, Lausanne, Beck. Monticelli, Daniele/Pajusalu, Renate/Treikelder, Anu (edd.) (2005), From utterance to uttering and viceversa: Multidisciplinary views on deixis, Tartu, Tartu Ülikooli Kirjastus. Peirce, Charles Sanders (1898/2002), Das Denken und die Logik des Universums – Die Vorlesungen der Cambridge Conferences von 1898, translated by Helmut Pape, Frankfurt am Main, Suhrkamp.

Introduction

13

Rauh, Gisa (1983a), Aspects of deixis, in: Gisa Rauh (ed.), Essays on Deixis, Tübingen, Narr, 9–60. Rauh, Gisa (ed.) (1983b), Essays on Deixis, Tübingen, Narr. Real Academia Española (2009), Nueva Gramática de la Lengua Española, 2 vol., Madrid, Espasa. Schlieben-Lange, Brigitte (1975), Linguistische Pragmatik, Stuttgart, Kohlhammer. Sinner, Carsten/Tabares Plasencia, Encarnación/Montoro del Arco, Esteban T. (edd.) (2012), Tiempo, espacio y relaciones espacio-temporales en la fraseología y paremiología españolas, München, Urbanek. Tagliavini, Carlo (1948), Le origini delle lingue neolatine. Corso introduttivo di filologia romanza, Bologna, Pàtron; (21998) Einführung in die romanische Philologie, translated into German by Reinhard Meisterfeld and Uwe Petersen, Tübingen, Francke. Tannen, Deborah (1989), Talking voices: repetition, dialogue and imagery in conversational discourse, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Tomasello, Michel (2009), Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition, Harvard, Harvard University Press. Vanelli, Laura (1992), La deissi in italiano, Padova, Unipress. Wartburg, Walther von (1950), Die Ausgliederung der romanischen Sprachräume, Bern, Francke. Wittgenstein, Ludwig (11914–1916/1984), Tractatus logico-philosophicus; Tagebücher 1914–1916; Philosophische Untersuchungen, Frankfurt am Main, Suhrkamp; (1958) Philosophical Investigations, translated into English by G. Elizabeth M. Anscombe, Oxford, Blackwell. Zifonun, Gudrun/Hoffmann, Ludger/Strecker, Bruno (1997), Grammatik der deutschen Sprache, 3 vols., Berlin/New York, De Gruyter.

Deixis in Romance Languages

Alexandra Corina Stavinschi

1 Romanian Abstract: Romanian is one of the most understudied Romance Languages despite having a rich and often atypical deictic system which sets it apart from the rest. Research has mainly focused on morphological and phonological variation with little or no attention to pragmatic usage. Only recently, albeit sporadically, have scholars begun to obviate this shortcoming (Ionescu-Ruxăndoiu 1992; 1993; Hobjilă 2003; GALR 2005; GR 2013; RGR 2013). From these sources as from other data it is evident that there are no clear boundaries between the traditional categories of deixis. A close look at this overlap provides valuable insights into the grammaticalization process, and ultimately into how the human mind works. This chapter is based on a survey of the most relevant studies on the topic, but also includes new suggestions, in an attempt to draw attention on the peculiarities of the Romanian deixis and open new avenues for research. Keywords: Romance Languages, Romanian, language varieties, pragmatics, grammar, deixis, spatial deixis, temporal deixis, personal deixis, social deixis, textual deixis, modal deixis, anaphora, demonstratives, demonstrative adverbs, demonstrative pronouns

0 Introduction Deictics have a number of core features that are activated differently depending on the speech act participants and on the communicative setting. They establish references which vary according to the circumstances. Based on the classification provided by GALR 2005, 644, we shall consider the following categories: 1. Spatial deixis 2. Temporal deixis 3. Personal deixis (including social deixis) 4. Textual deixis and anaphora 5. Modal deixis.

1 Spatial deixis Spatial deictic distinctions are grammatically encoded in the demonstrative system. Demonstratives (pronominal, adnominal and adverbial) are used to highlight proximity or distance (physical or psychological) from the deictic centre. Like all the other Romance Languages, Romanian has a demonstrative system based on the rearrangement of the tripartite Latin system HIC - ISTE - ILLE (↗22 From Latin and Vulgar Latin to

18

Alexandra Corina Stavinschi

Romance Languages). The proximal HIC is lost and so is the ternary articulation. Standard Romanian uses a binary distinction with fairly fuzzy boundaries. For pronominal/adnominal uses, there is a main contrast between proximal acesta (with the short form ăsta) vs distal acela (short form ăla); for adverbial uses, between aici vs acolo (see below). As far as the opposition acesta/acela is concerned, the marked form is thought to be acela; acesta is considered the unmarked term as it is used when distance is immaterial (RGR 2013, 189). In spite of the relatively simple underlying structure, a significant number of cognate forms are employed. The choice of one variant over the other is subject to a number of diaphasic, diatopic and diachronic variables. Table 1: Demonstrative pronouns in Romanian. Proximity

Distance

Sg

Pl

Sg

Pl

Masc

acesta

aceștia

acela

aceia

Fem

aceasta

acestea

aceea

acelea

Neut

acesta

acestea

acela

acelea

Etymologically, the long forms of the series acesta/acela derive from Lat. ECCE + ISTE / ECCE + ILLE , while the short forms of the series ăsta/ăla derive from ISTE / ILLE . The latter do not occur in prenominal position. In spoken language, there is a strong tendency to employ the etymologically short forms ăsta/ăla (Nicula 2009), while the series acesta/acela has a more formal connotation, and is thus preferred in the written language. For their distributional and syntactic characteristics, see GALR (2005, 297– 298). When determined by a prenominal demonstrative, nouns must be indefinite; conversely, they must always be definite when accompanying a postnominal demonstrative: acest om ‘this man’ vs omul acesta ‘the man this’. According to the literature, at least in literary Romanian, prenominal demonstratives tend to be used with current discourse topics, whereas postnominal demonstratives are preferred for rhematic and contrastive uses. However, “in modern-day spoken Romanian, this interpretative difference between prenominal and postnominal demonstratives is lost, being superseded by a difference in register: the prenominal forms are literary and formal, the postnominal forms are generalized in the colloquial register” (RGR 2013, 162). The syntactic position of the determiner – pre- or postnominal – may yield different interpretations: Ionescu ăsta vs acest Ionescu, with the former conveying a pejorative value and the latter ambiguous between a pejorative value and a mere anaphoric reading (cf. GR 2013, 299; see also RGR 2013, 161). However, the etymologically long forms seem to be ruled out by proper names when following a noun: Ionescu *acesta ‘Ionescu *this’ but omul acesta ‘the man this’. The interpretation could ultimately be driven by the informal i.e. familiar connotation of the etymologically not reinforced form ăsta ‘this’.

Romanian

19

Prenominal demonstratives are mere endophoric determiners; they are used as a text-cohesion device (see section 4 below). By contrast, postnominal demonstratives are emphatic elements endowed with a specificity feature. This position communicates a focus (GR 2013, 299). As a consequence, contrastive stress is more common with postnominal demonstratives: cartea aceasta, nu aceea ‘book this, not that (one)’ as opposed to the less felicitous ?această carte, nu aceea ‘this book, not that (one)’. A possible explanation is that in oral speech, the postnominal forms ăsta/ăla largely prevail: in fact, this language use typically occurs in face-to-face interaction. Regionally, the demonstrative system may have a ternary structure, with an intermediate term related to the interlocutor (see Data 1 below: aci ʿthere, next to youʼ, 2nd term, expressing proximity to the hearer). This is thought to be the case of the dialect spoken in Oltenia (Hobjilă 2003, 136), with its tripartite distinction: aici (adverb)-ăsta (pronominal/adnominal) ‘close to speaker’, aci-ala ‘close to hearer’ and acolo-ăla ‘far from both’ (see Data 2 below: aici ʻnext to me, proximalʼ, 1st term constrasts with aci ʻat a middle distanceʼ, 2nd term). In Aromanian (Grămostean and Fărşerot) aoaţe contrasts with aţia (< Lat. HIC + ECCE ) and aclo (cf. Nevaci 2007, 72; Nevaci 2013, 261). However, the pronominal system has a binary structure, consisting of aistu ‘this’ and aţel ‘that’ (Nevaci 2007, 74). The proximal and distal demonstratives do not change their form when used as adjectives (for dialectal variation see Nevaci 2013, 236–261). E! ce-ai cu săcurea? Las-o focului aci, une-o fi pus-o alde tat-tu. (Oltenia: Sterescu) ʻHey! What are you doing with the axe? Leave it here for God’s sake, where your Dad must have left it.ʼ Data 1: Tripartite deictic system in Oltenian variety. Aoleu! muică…apoi cân l-oi pune cu postava aici, lângă mine …o să cadă săcurea-aia de-aci, de sus, peste copil …şi o să mi-l omoare (Oltenia) ʻOh my God! …when I put him with the trough here, next to me… that axe will fall down from there, from above, upon the child… and it will kill him.ʼ Data 2: Contrast between proximity and distance in Oltenian variety.

1.1 Adnominal demonstratives: pre- and postposed Both in standard and in regional Romanian, demonstratives may co-occur with nouns, in which case they operate as demonstrative adjectives. Modern Romanian has developed a strict inflectional distinction between prenominal and postnominal demonstrative determiners; when they occur in prenominal position, demonstratives exhibit shorter forms, normally dropping the final vowel (GALR 2005, 295): acest om vs omul acesta; acel om vs omul acela. Această carte vs cartea aceasta; acea carte vs cartea aceea. Similar variations occur in the plural according to the position of the adnominal: acei vs aceia; aceşti vs aceştia; aceste vs acestea; acele vs acelea. This distribution was looser in old Romanian (Dimitrescu 1978, 166–167; Cornilescu/Nico-

20

Alexandra Corina Stavinschi

lae 2009, 647; GALR 2005, 295). The familiar adnominal forms ăsta and ăla can only occur in a postnominal position. For a full table of forms, see GA I, 1966, 168–171.

1.2 Adverbs Deictic adverbs form a binary system, including aici (< Lat. AD + HICCE ) for proximity to the speaker (Var.: aci, acía, acílea, aíce, aícea, aice(a), ici, (a)icișa, ai adv.) vs acolo ( tistu, namely quistu/ tistu/quillu.

82

Adam Ledgeway

(near me)’, ssə vignə ‘those vines (near you)’, kwillu libbrə ‘that book’ (cf. also De Giovanni 1993, 107). There are also many attestations for individual dialects including, for instance, Vincelli’s (1995, 75) description of the Molisan dialect of Casacalenda with such examples as cuisc_t’uóve è frische ‘this egg is fresh’, cuiss’albere a tè a uelive? ‘does that tree have any olives on it?’, and cuill’u maleditte me fà asc-temà ‘that damned man makes me blaspheme’, where we are told that each of the three demonstratives refers exclusively to the spatial domains of the speaker, addressee and the non-discourse participants, respectively. Outside of central Italy and Abruzzo and Molise, Type T2 systems are distributed somewhat less densely across: (i) Basilicata (Lüdtke 1979, 29; Stavinschi 2009, 93), e.g. Calvellese kwistə/kwissə/kwirə (Gioscio 1985, 65), Murese quist’/quiss’/quigg’ (Mennonna 1977, 110s.); (ii) the Gargano in northern Puglia (Valente 1975, 27, 60; Stavinschi 2009, 93, 95), e.g. Sannicandrese sta nepóta ‘this niece (of mine)’, ssu bastóne ‘that stick (near you)’, ddu pajsane ‘that peasant’ (Gioiosa 2000, 91–93); (iii) central-southern Calabria (Falcone 1976, 69; Ledgeway 2004, 92 n. 41, 107; Stavinschi 2009, 95),6 e.g. Catanzarese chistu/(chi)ssu/chiḍḍu (Scerbo 1985 [1886], 50), Nicoterese sti cosi ‘these things (of mine)’, ssi cosi ‘those things (of yours)’, ju tempu ‘that time’ (Carè 1982), Andreolese chistu/chissu/chiḍḍu (Voci 1994, XII), Gioiese stu re ‘this king’, ss’oru ‘that gold (of yours)’, ddu spettaculu ‘that performance’ (Falcone 1979), Sidernese stu misi ‘this month’, ssu pugnali ‘that dagger (of yours)’, chilla bestia ‘that animal’ (Filocamo 1984), Reggino stu sceccu ‘this donkey (near me)’, ssa fimmina ‘that woman (near you)’, ddhu cavaddhu ‘that horse’ (Malara 1982 11909, XI; Meliadò 21994, 97s.), Mosorrofa stu libru ‘this book (near me)’, ssu libru ‘that book (near your)’, dhu calamaru ‘that squid’; (iv) Sicily (Leone 1995, 29, 41), e.g. sta seggia è scavigghiata: pòrtimi chissa o va-pigghimi chidda ‘this chair is broken: bring me that one (near your) or go and fetch me that one (over there)’, Mussomelese stu/ssu/ ddru libbru ‘this/this(/that)/that book’ (S.Cruschina p.c.).7 Formally, most Type T2 demonstrative systems display a paradigmatic distinction, though less frequently in the distal term, between adnominal and pronominal demonstratives through the use of simple and ECCU -reinforced forms, respectively. In some varietes the distinction is systematic, e.g. Maceratese ʃtu/ssu/llu tawlu ‘this/that/ that table’ vs kwiʃtu/kissu/kwillu ‘this/that/that one’ (Regnicoli 1995, §2.1, §2.3), Santorestese stu/ssu/kwellu sassu ‘this/that/that stone’ vs kweʃtu/kwessu/kwellu (Cimarra 1998, 74), WAbr./Mol. štu/ssu/quillu libbre ‘this/that/that book’ vs quiste/

6 Type T2 systems are not, however, unknown in northern Calabria and are documented, for instance, for Cetraro (kistu//kissu/killu; Forestiero 1985, 25) and Saracena (’stì càvəzə ‘these trousers (of mine)’, ’ssì cammìsə ‘those shirts (of yours)’, quìḍḍə scarpə ‘those shoes’; Viola 2006, 34). 7 The only apparent Type T2 system reported for Puglia is to be found in the Salentino dialect of Crispiano, for which Mancarella (1998, 160) provides the forms kustə/kussə/kuddə. For a different and more widespread type of ternary system in the Salento, see §1.1.6.

Varieties in Italy 1

83

quisse/quille (Finamore 1893, 22; Marinucci 1988, 647),8 Celanese ’sto/’sso/qui vs quisto/quiso/qui and Aquilano’stu/’ssu/quiju vs quistu/quissu/quiju (Villa 1992, 71), Murese sta/sa/quègg’ stràd’ ‘this/that/that road’ vs quèst’/quàss’/quègg’ (Mennonna 1977, 110s.), Mosorrofa sta/ssa/dha pinna ‘this/that/that pen’ vs chista/chissa/chidha (Crucitti 1988, 38 58, 217, 221), Saracenese ’stù/’ssù/quiḍḍu quadernə ‘this/that/ that exercise-book’ vs quìstu//quìssu/quìḍḍu (Viola 2006, 34, 46s.), while in others the reinforced forms can also be used in adnominal functions, e.g. Teramano (cu)štu/ (que)ssú/(que)llu vs cuštə/quessə/quellə (Savini 1881, 62), Calvellese (kwi)stu/ (kwi)ssu/kwiru libbrə ‘this/that/that book’ vs kwistə/kwissə/kwirə (Gioscio 1985, 65), Sannicandrese qui(stu)/(qui)ssu/(qui)ddu jadducce ‘this/that/that cockerel’ (Gioiosa 2000, 91), Cetrarese (kì)stu/(kì)ssu/(kì)llu (Forestiero 1985, 25). The latter option typically obtains in contexts of particular semantico-pragmatic emphasis such as (contrastive) focus (Ledgeway 2004, 72–74), e.g. Mussomelese chissu libbru m’a dari! ‘you’ve got to give me THAT BOOK !’ (S. Cruschina p.c.). Quite exceptional is the situation documented by Orrico (1985, 139, 163, 165) for the Basilicatese dialect of Trecchina which marks an adnominal/pronominal distinction only in the addresseeoriented term, namely (que)sso, whereas the speaker-oriented and distal terms apparently present only non-reinforced and reinforced forms, respectively, in both functions, namely sto and queddro. Specialized pronominal forms for [+human] referents, characterized by oxytonic stress (< ECCU -*ILLUI / * ILLEI ), abound in eastern Abruzzese (Marinucci 1988, 647; Hastings 1997, 326), witness the following typical masculine/feminine [-/+human] pronominal paradigms reported in Finamore (1893, 23): quéste/quésse/quélle ‘this/that/ that (thing)’ vs cuštù/chešté, cussù/cussé, cullù/chellé ‘this/that/that man/woman’. Representative in this respect are the following Teramano examples (Savini 1881, 62): quéšte è na bbèlla cose ‘this is a fine thing’ vs cuštù da dove è smuntate? ‘Where did this one (= he) crop up from?’, quèsse è n’àsene forte ‘this/that one is a strong donkey’ vs cussù che ss’acconte? ‘What news of this/that one?’, quélle è un cavalle di razza fine ‘that’s a pure-bred’ vs Mo passa chellé ‘Now that one (= she)’ll drop by’. While other southern varieties do not present distinct pronominal forms, the latter are often marked off from their adnominal variants by their combination with a following spatial adverb according to a pattern which, in contrast to northern dialects, generally proves less common with the adnominal demonstratives: Calvellese kwistu kkwa lit. ‘this one here’, kwissu ddɔkkə ‘that one there (near you)’, kwiru dda ‘that one there’ (Gioscio 1985, 65), Sannicandrese quisti qua (sti libbra qua) ‘these ones (books) here’, quissu ddò (ssu tavule ddò) ‘that one (table) there’, quéddu ddà (ddu chjóve ddà) ‘that one (nail) there’ (Gioiosa 2000, 93s.); Mussomelese chistu ccà ‘this one here’, chissu ddrùəcu ‘that one there’, chiddru ddrà ‘that one there’ (S. Cruschina p.c.).

8 In eastern Abruzzese the distal adnominal term frequently presents the weakened or non-reinforced forms ch(ə)lu or llu, e.g. ch(ə)lu flore ‘that flower’ (Hastings 1997, 326).

84

Adam Ledgeway

Typologically noteworthy within Romance is the emphatic pattern of demonstrative doubling found in Abruzzese (Savini 1881, 62; Finamore 1893, 22; Rohlfs 1968, 209; Vanelli 1997, 112; Verratti 1998, 48s.) where the NP is sandwiched between a nonreinforced demonstrative to its left and a corresponding reinforced form to its right: Lancianese a štu pajése quešte lit. ‘in this village this’, a ssa casa quésse ‘in that house that (near you/of yours)’, šte mise quište ‘this month this’; Teramano ’ss’ômə quessə ‘that man that (near your)’, ’ll’ôme quellə ‘that man that’; EAbr. štu cavalle quéšte ‘this horse this’, šti cavielle quište ‘these horses these’, šta/šte pèchere quèšte/quište ‘this/these sheep this/these’, ssu cane quésse ‘that dog that (near you)’, ssi chiéne quisse ‘those dogs those (near you)’, ssa crapa quesse ‘that goat that (near you)’, sse crapa quisse ‘those goats those (near you)’, chelu vóve quélle ‘that ox that’, cheli vuove quille ‘those oxen those’, chela vacca quélle ‘that cow that’, chele vacca quille ‘those cows those’.

1.1.4.1 Type T2A systems Within Type T2 systems, we must also recognize at least two formal subtypes, henceforth Types T2A and T2B, in which the deictic space continues to display a strict ternary organization, but in which the markers of each of the three deictic divisions belong to a distinct system of formal exponence. The first of these is discussed in this section, while discussion of Type T2B is delayed until §1.1.6. TypeT2A demonstrative systems are reported to occur widely in Piedmont and Liguria, an observation which highlights how typological classifications do not necessarily map onto broad diatopic distributions given the fact that ternary systems are otherwise restricted to central-southern varieties. For example, Parry (1997, 241; cf. also Lombardi Vallauri 1995; Vanelli 1997, 113) notes that most Piedmontese dialects present as many as three demonstratives in the reflexes of ( ECCU -) ISTE , IPSE and ECCU ILLE . Fundamentally, the demonstrative system of most dialects operates in terms of a simple Type B1 opposition (cf. §1.1.1), namely cust/stu ‘this’ vs cul ‘that’. However, this basic binary system can be readily expanded into a strict ternary system through its combination with one of the three spatial adverbs sì ‘here’, lì ‘there’ (near addressee) and là ‘there’ (Lombardi Vallauri 1995, 219): cust sì ‘this’ [+1person], cul lì ‘that’ [+2person] and cul là ‘that’ [-1/-2person] (Ramat, ↗24 Language Change and Language Contact, fn 7). As for the third term (ë)s(ë) (< IPSE ; cf. Ascoli 1901), Parry describes it as spatially unmarked, coming close in some respects to the functions of a definite article, while Lombardi Vallauri (1995, 214) describes it as speaker-oriented; given Parry’s claim (see below) that (ë)s(ë) marks psychological proximity, both interpretations probably amount to the same thing inasmuch as Parry and Lombrdi Vallauri are referring to two different levels of analysis, namely endophoric and exophoric reference (M.Parry p.c.; cf. Irsara 2009, 128–178; Stavinschi 2009, 215–236). Indeed, the weakened deictic force of (ë)s(ë) is reflected by its frequent use in conjunction with the

Varieties in Italy 1

85

three spatial adverbs above to produce an alternative ternary adnominal demonstrative system, viz. (ë)s(ë) sì/lì/là (cf. discussion of Type B2 systems in §1.1.2). This latter formal development is widely found in many dialects on the Piedmontese-Ligurian border (Forner 1997, 251; Vanelli 1997, 113; Irsara 2009, 98s.). For instance, Parry (1991; 2005, 150–153) reports for Cairese the presence of a single demonstrative, namely IPSE > es/sa/sci/se (msg/fsg/mpl/fpl), with reflexes of ISTE today limited to a handful of lexicalized temporal expressions (e.g. sc-tamatin ‘this morning’, sc-taseira ‘this evening’, sc-tann ‘this year’; cf. §3) and reflexes of ECCU - ILLE employed solely as adjectival/pronominal cataphors (e.g. chi u l’è cul óm ch’u vénn? ‘who’s the/that man who is coming?’). Just like (ë)s(ë) above, Cairese es is spatially unmarked, freely referring to the deictic space of any of the three grammatical persons (↗6 French, namely section 4.1; cf. Fr. ce), e.g. sa sc-pala a ’m fa mò ‘I’ve got this painful shoulder’, dòme sa bursa ‘give me that bag (of yours)’, cum i ’s ciamu sci brichi? ‘what’s the name of those mountains’ (cf. also the discussion of the dialects of Arenzano, Sassello and Rossiglione in Cuneo 2000), though it still marks psychological proximity: vòrda ’s fieu ‘look at this/that boy’ vs vòrda ’r fieu ‘look at the boy’. In its pronominal uses, and also very frequently in its adnominal functions, however, es is combined with one of the three spatial adverbs chì ‘here’, lì ‘there’ (near addressee) and là ‘there’ yielding once again an analytic ternary demonstrative system, e.g. es chì/lì/là ‘this one/that one (near you)/that one’, es can chì lit. ‘the dog here’.

1.1.5 Type B3(inary) systems 1.1.5.1 Type B3A systems We noted in §1.1.3 how in a number of central-southern Type T1 systems QUESSO is not integrated into the core demonstrative system but is largely restricted to the periphery of speakers’ grammars as a marked term. In particular, reference to the deictic domain of the addressee is in most cases already marked by QUESTO in its inclusive functions, such that the role of QUESSO proves in any case largely redundant. In view of its marginal status, it is not therefore surprising to observe that QUESSO may frequently fall entirely from usage to produce a new binary system, Type B3A, in which reference to the shared deictic domain of both discourse participants continues to be marked by the inclusive term QUESTO , with QUELLO marking all referents falling outside of this domain. This is the situation documented and analysed in detail in Ledgeway (2004, 96–104) for modern Neapolitan (cf. also Ledgeway 2009, 195–212) –9 and, more briefly, for some other southern dialects (↗8 Catalan, namely section 1.1; cf. also

9 See also C. Iandolo (1994, 168s., 174), Avolio (1995, 53s. n. 101), Radtke (1997, 86), De Blasi/ Imperatore (2000, 180), A. Iandolo (2001, 209s., 212).

86

Adam Ledgeway

modern Cat. aquest/aquell) – where there obtains a binary opposition chisto [‑3person] vs chillo [+3person]. Thus despite their formal similarity with the Italian dyad questo vs quello, the modern Neapolitan pair entail a quite different reading, since the Italian binary opposition makes reference only to the speaker, drawing a contrast between questo [+1person] and quello [-1person] (Maiden 1995, 125; Vanelli 1995, 324; Berretta 1996, 206; Maiden/Robustelli 2000, 83). Consequently, if we interpret a Neapolitan sentence such as Quanto me piaceno chelle scarpe! ‘How I like those shoes!’ in terms of the Italian demonstrative system simply substituting chelle with quelle (namely, Quanto mi piacciono quelle scarpe!), a very different result obtains since Italian QUELLO (here quelle) simply encodes the [-1person] feature and is neutral with regard to the role of the addressee (hence the possible readings ‘those shoes which you are wearing’ or ‘those shoes over there’), whereas Neapolitan QUELLO (here chelle) explicitly exludes reference to the addressee together with the speaker (hence the exclusive reading ‘those shoes over there’; cf. Ledgeway 2004, 99s.). Revealing in respect to the diachronic development sketched above are some dialects from the province of Reggio Calabria which we saw in §1.1.4 typically display a Type T2 system (Malara 1909, XI; Meliadò 21994, 97s.; Ledgeway 2004, 92, 107), but which in more recent times are reported (Loporcaro 2009, 129) to have all but lost the original addressee-oriented term ssu (stu/(†)ssu/ɖɖu mulu ‘this/this~that/that mule’), playing out changes which have long been completed in other varieties. Analogously, we noted in §1.1.3 above how in the Basilicatese dialect of Anzi the original addresseeoriented term kwéssə is today nothing more than an occasional relic of a former Type T1 system with the deictic domain of the addressee all but systematically marked, together with that of the speaker, by the inclusive term kwéstə, exemplifying the final stages of a transitional phase from a Type T1 to a Type B3A system. In addition to these varieties, Type B3A systems are reported to occur in: (i) most of northern Lazio (Stavinschi 2009, 140), e.g. Viterbese qué(sto)/sto vs quéllo (Petroselli 2009, 484s., 579s.); (ii) large areas of Campania, e.g. Procidano (chi)sto vs chire (Parascandola 1976, 74), Ischitano (chi)stu vs chillu/chiddu/(chi)gghiu (Castagna 1982, 79, 81s.); (iii) the vast majority of dialects south of Taranto-Brindisi (Mancarella 1975, 16, 36; 1998, 159; Loporcaro 2009, 129s.), e.g. Tarantino quist/sto vs quid (De Vincentiis 1872, 13), Brindisino (kwí)štu vs (kwí)ddu, Maruggese (cu)stu vs cuddu, Lec. (qui)stu vs (qui)ddu, Grottagliese (ku)štu vs kuru; (iv) small parts of Calabria, e.g. Crotonese (chi)stu vs chiru (Tassone 2000, 33); (v) much of Sicily (Ledgeway 2004, 92), e.g. (chi)stu vs (chi)ɖɖu (Varvaro 1988, 722), Frazzanese (ki)stu vs (ki)ḍḍu (Abbate 1995, 69, 71). Quite exceptional among the northern dialects, which we have seen in §§1.1.1–2 predominantly operate a simple binary [±1person] opposition in which reference to the addressee is neutralized and freely marked by either of the two available terms, is the Romagnol dialect. According to Masotti’s (1999, 64s.) description, the Romagnol demonstratives stè ‘this’ and chè ‘that’ are organized in terms of a Type B3A system with chè indicating ‘distance from both the speaker and the addressee’, e.g. [-3person]

Varieties in Italy 1

87

ste burdël ‘this boy’, quèst l’è mi zej ‘this is my uncle’, i vòstar dirèt j’è quist ‘your rights are these’ vs [+3person] chi zàcol ‘those ducks’, quèl l’è mi nòn ‘that is my grandfather’. As with the other southern dialects examined, pronominal forms in Type B3A systems are typically reinforced by ECCU , whereas in their adnominal functions the demonstratives typically favour the unsupported STO and, especially in the extreme south (e.g., central-southern Salento, Sicilian), LLO forms (Parascandola 1976, 74; Mancarella 1998, 156, 158s.; Abbate 1995, 69): Parabitano pòrtane stu libbru a ssìrta ‘take this book to your father’ vs pòrtane quistu a ssìrta ‘take this to your father’, ’ḍḍa cane ‘that bitch’ vs ci ète quiḍḍa? ‘who’s that one (= she)?’ (Romano 2009, 61, 132, 167); cf. also Rml. st’ôjóm ‘this elm’ vs quèst ‘this one’, cla femna ‘those woman’ vs quèla ‘that one’ (Masotti 1999, 51, 64s.). In some Salentino varieties where the reinforced forms are also employed with adnominal functions, the paradigmatic distinction between the pronominal/adonominal series continues to be marked by the conservation/loss of the post-velar labial, e.g. Cellinese kwíɖɖu tisse ‘that one said’ vs kuɖɖu paíse ‘that village’ (Mancarella 1998, 158). Also within Salentino and Pugliese varieties it is not uncommon for the pronominal function to be signalled through the use of the definite article before the demonstratives, e.g. Lec. àggiu cchiàte ste ttre masçe. – Facimu una bella ficùra cu lle quiste a nfacce ‘I found these three masks. – We’ll cut a fine figure with (lit. the) these on our faces’. Particularly interesting is the distribution of reinforced and simple forms of QUESTO in Viterbese which in most cases coincides with the canonical distinction between pronominal and adnominal uses (Petroselli 2009, 484s., 579s.): sò state quéste a fallo ‘these were the ones to do it’ vs ste regazze ‘these girls’. Quite exceptionally among central-southern varieties, however, the adnominal demonstrative can, apparently for emphasis, also occur in postnominal position, in which case the reinforced forms prove obligatory: dòppo ll’ùrtima guèrra quésta lit. ‘after the last war this’, sàbboto quésto c’annamo ‘Saturday this we’ll go’; cf. also la guerra quélla ‘the war that’.10 Formally, Viterbese also proves of interest in that in its pronominal uses quésto/-a/-e (msg/fsg/pl) presents the invariable apocopated form qué, the distribution of which appears restricted to clause-final and pre-pausal positions: ce mancava pure qué! ‘this was all we needed!’, martedì qqué ‘THIS Tuesday’, e qqué cch’adèra? ‘and this one, what was it?’. As in other southern dialects, locative reinforced forms are also occasionally encountered but are typically employed with, though not restricted to, the pronominal demonstratives: Viterbese quésto qqui(ne) lit. ‘this one here’ (Petroselli 2009, 484s.), Procidano chistuccà(nne) lit. ‘this.here’, chirullà(nne) ‘that.there’ (Parascandola 1976, 10 Examples like these are not unknown in spoken Italian to signal contastive focus in relation to referents which form part of a temporal or spatial sequence of alternatives, e.g. i centri commerciali cominceranno già a rimanere aperti domenica questa ‘shopping centres will already start opening from THIS Sunday’.

88

Adam Ledgeway

74), Nap. chisti cca ‘these here’, chilli llà ‘those there’, chistu libbre cca ‘this book here’, chillu previte llà ‘that priest there’ (Iandolo 1994, 168; 2001, 208, 212). On a par with Emilian-Romagnol varieties characterized by Type B1 systems, Romagnol also displays a reduced copular structure (Masotti 1995, 65): stucaquè < stu ch’è acquè ‘this one that is here’, clucalè < clu ch’è lè ‘that one that is there’. Observe, finally, how the availability of the discontinuous periphrasis QUESTO ( NP) LLOCO ‘this (NP) there (near you)’ allows Type B3A systems to single out reference to the adressee on those rare occasions when particular emphasis is required and simple QUESTO is not suitable (Parascandola 1976, 74; Ledgeway 2004, 102s.; 2009, 211). In particular, despite having entirely lost QUESSO , the organization of the Type B3A demonstrative system functionally replicates the T1 system through the ternary opposition instantiated by the use of the spatial adverbs ECCU - HAC (> (a)ccà) ‘here’ [+1/±2person], *LLOCO (> ll(u)oco, ddh(r)(u)ocu) ‘there’ [-1/+2person] and ILLAC (> llà, ddh(r)à) ‘there’ [‑1/‑2person]. For example, in Messinese chistu (…) ccà constitutes an inclusive expression marking referents ‘close to both the speaker and the addressee’, while chistu (…) ddhocu only picks out referents ‘far from the speaker but close to the addressee’, and chillu ddhà marks referents ‘distant from both the speaker and addressee’ (Quartarone 1998, 30). Effectively, then, Type B3A dialects like Messinese operate a binary distinction between discourse and non-discourse participants (viz. chistu (ccà) vs chillu (ddhà)), with chistu ddhocu representing a marked expression of addressee-oriented deixis (Stavinschi 2009, 76s.). It is significant to note that the addressee-oriented spatial adverb LLOCO is only compatible with QUESTO , and not QUELLO (e.g. Nap. ma è stato proprio sto/*chillu bocchino lloco? ‘was this/that cigarette holder (that you’re holding) the one involved?’), an observation entirely in line with our claim that QUESTO alone may (inclusively) mark the deictic sphere of the addressee.

1.1.5.2 Type B3B systems In Type T1 systems such as old Neapolitan there is considerable overlap in the use of the first two terms as a result of their inclusive values,11 which we have just seen in the case of modern Neapolitan and other dialects to have led to the generalization of

11 As for the inclusive value of QUES QUE SSO SO , one could assume that it acquired this value by analogy with QUESTO , with which it enjoyed, as we have seen, a certain degree of distributional overlap. But in any case the inclusive value of QUESSO was probably already present in the deictic EC CU - IPSU > QUESSO from the beginning, in that the presentative EC CU , besides calling attention to the addressee, also serves to identify a referent in relation to the speaker, as noted by Anderson/Keenan (1985, 279) who remark that presentatives like Latin E CCE “are used to indicate an item’s location or to signal its appearance in (or relative to) the observational field of the Sp[eaker]” (for further detailed discussion, see Ledgeway 2004, 78–87).

Varieties in Italy 1

89

at the expense of the marked and more restricted member of the system QUESSO (→ Type B3A system). Equally, however, the overlap in the use of QUESTO and QUESSO , which guarantees their frequent near equivalence, might just as easily have given rise to an increased use of QUESSO at the expense of QUESTO , a state of affairs which could ultimately, though not necessarily, lead to the total loss of QUESTO . This in fact must be what happened in a large number of southern dialects, including many northern Calabrian (Rohlfs 1977, 167; Ledgeway 2004, 104–107) and most northern Pugliese dialects (Rohlfs 1968, 207; Valente 1975, 27; Loporcaro 1986, 248; 1997, 344; 2009, 129–130; Stehl 1988, 706; Ledgeway 2004, 107s.), which now present a Type B3B system opposing QUESSO [-3person] vs QUELLO [+3person], e.g. Cosentino ssu vrazzu mi/ti fa male ‘this arm (of mine/of yours) hurts’ vs chiru vrazzu cci fa male ‘that arm (of his) hurts’; Altamurano kɛssa/kɛdda waɲɲɛdd ‘this/that girl’. Other varieties reported to display a Type B3B system include: (i) dialects of the area around Spoleto where tistu/testo is reported to include reference to the speaker (Moretti 1987, 98; Stavinschi 2009, 171); (ii) the central Laziale dialect of Palombara (Stavinschi 2009, 140); (iii) several dialects of northern Salento (Mancarella 1998, 157, 159), e.g. kussə vs kuddə at Ceglie, S. Michele, Palagiano, and kussə vs kurə at Fasano. As with the development of Type B3A systems, it is also possible to identify transitional Type B3B varieties including, for instance, the northern Pugliese variety described by Imperio (1990, 201) which, although canonically contrasting cussə ‘this/ that’ (speaker-/addressee-oriented) with cuddə ‘that’, is reported to still display occasional residual uses of custə ‘this’. Also revealing in this respect is Mancarella’s (1998, 155) description of the northern Salentino dialect of Crispiano where, alongside the standard formal opposition kussə [-3person] vs kuddə [+3person], kuštə is also reported to occur sporadically in place of kussə as part of the final stage in the transition from a Type T1/2 to a Type B3B system. Significantly, the loss of QUESTO from the demonstrative system of Type B3B dialects faithfully reproduces what must have happened in late Latin following the loss of HIC hypothesized above in §1.1.1. In this respect, these dialects serve as important models in verifying the reconstruction of the developments in the demonstrative system proposed for late Latin. Above we claimed that with the loss of HIC , the deictic territory it covered and therefore the deictic centre, were inherited by ISTE , whose domain of deictic reference was extended to include the role of the speaker in addition to that of the addressee. This development is accurately reflected in Type B3B dialects where QUESSO , having replaced QUESTO , now functions as the term marking referents in the deictic domains of both discourse participants, whereas QUELLO , in contrast to Italian quello, picks out referents that fall outside of the deictic domain of both discourse participants. Thus, although differing formally from one another with respect to the choice of term employed to mark both discourse participants (QUESSO vs QUESTO ), functionally Type B3B demonstrative systems are identical to Type B3A systems. Consider in this respect the Italian translation equivalents of the Neapolitan and Cosentino sentences in (2): QUESTO

90

Adam Ledgeway

(2) a Quanto me piaceno sti scarpe! (Nap.) a’ Quantu mi piacianu ssi scarpe! (Cosentino) a’’ Come mi piacciono (que)ste/quelle scarpe (It.) ‘How I like these/those shoes (that I’m/you’re wearing)’ b Comme me piaceno chelli scarpe! (Nap.) b’ Cumu mi piacianu chiri scarpe! (Cosentino) b’’ Come mi piacciono quelle scarpe (It.) ‘How I like those shoes (over there/that he’s wearing)’

1.1.5.3 Type B3C mixed systems A number of southern dialects present an interesting development of the Type B3 demonstrative system which marries together in a complementary manner formal developments of Type B3A and B3B systems. For instance, several northern Salentino varieties operate a binary opposition in which the distal [+3person] term is standardly represented by QUELLO , but the deictic space associated with the discourse participants is marked in part by QUESTO and in part by QUESSO (Mancarella 1998, 157). For instance, in Castellaneta the pronominal form associated with the discourse participants is QUESSO (viz. kussə/kessə), occasionally also found in adnominal functions (e.g. kussə vagnonə ‘this/that boy’, kessə pennə ‘this/that pen’), whereas the usual adnominal form is represented by non-reinforced STO (e.g. štu libbrə ‘this book’, šta pennə ‘this pen’). A similar (partially) suppletive paradigmatic distinction is also reported for Massafra and Ginosa: kussə (figghiə) ‘this one (son)’ vs štu fratə tuə ‘this brother of yours’. An identical distribution is reported by Cox Mildare (2001, 62s.) for the Pugliese dialect of Mola where, alongside the core adnominal/pronominal opposition kɔss ‘this’ vs kɔd ‘that’, we also find a restricted use of STO (viz. stu) in adnominal functions alone. More robust suppletive paradigmatic oppositions of this kind are found in Calabria. For example, Ledgeway (2004, 107) observes that, alongside the traditional Cosentino Type B3 B system ((chi)ssu vs chiru), younger speakers, under the influence of regional Italian, have innovated a compromise suppletive system which for the first term makes recourse to STO in adnominal functions (stu cane ‘this dog’) but which draws on the conservative QUESSO forms for pronominal uses (chissu ‘this one’), yielding a mixed system stu/chissu vs chiru. An identical distribution obtains in the central Calabrian dialect of Serra San Bruno (Nisticò 1983), e.g. stu mundu ‘this world’ vs chissi sugnu tutti avari ‘these ones are all tight-fisted’, but chidi quattru giagantari (21) ‘these four giant-makers’ and lu dicu a chidi chi hannu fami ‘I’ll tell it to those who are hungry’.

Varieties in Italy 1

91

1.1.6 Type T2B systems The second formal variant of the Type T2 system (cf. §1.1.4.1) is found in various parts of northern and southern Salento and involves a remarkable functional reanalysis of the dual formal outcomes of the reflex of ECCU - ILLE (Mancarella 1988, 159s.; Stehl 1988, 706). In the dialects affected, the original long lateral of ILLE is subject to various changes, including both a more conservative plosive stage [-ll-] > [-dd-] / > [-ɖɖ-] (e.g. kwiddu/kwiddə, kuddu/kuddə, kwíɖɖu) and a more advanced rhotic stage [-ll-] (> [-dd-] > [-ɖɖ-]) > [-r] (e.g. kwiru/kwirə, kuru/kurə). Although originally the plosive and rhotic outcomes in reflexes of ECCU - ILLE were presumably simple variant realizations of the long lateral, as is still the case today, for example, in the dialect of Andrano where, according to Mancarella (1998, 157), kwiru/kwíɖɖu freely alternate, in the relevant dialects the two outcomes have today specialized as distinct formal markers within the demonstrative system, with the plosive and rhotic outcomes coming to mark the deictic spheres of the addressee and non-discourse participants, respectively. Among these dialects we can formally distinguish between Type T2B1 and Type T2B2 systems which contrast QUESTO and QUESSO , respectively, with the dual outcomes of ECCU - ILLE : (i) Type T2B1, e.g. province of Lecce kwíštu vs kwíddu vs kiru (Miggiano, Surano, Presicce, Montesano) and issu vs kwíɖɖu vs kiru (Nociglia); province of Taranto kwíštu/kuštu vs kwíddu/kuddu vs kwíru/kuru (Carosino, Faggiano, Pulsano, Roca Vecchia, S. Giorgio, Leporano, Montemesola, Sava, Torricella) and kistə vs kwíddə vs kwirə (Taranto); (ii) Type T2B2, e.g. province of Brindisi kussə vs kuddə vs kurə (Ostuni, Villa Castelli) and province of Taranto (Ginosa, Martina Franca, Laterza, Palagianello). Both T2B1 and T2B2 variants of this system would appear then to represent developments from earlier B3A and B3B systems (§§1.1.5.1–2) in which formal marking of the addressee role has been reintroduced into the system through the exaptive reanalysis of erstwhile free phonetic variants of the distal term. This development can apparently be observed in progress in the northern Salentino dialect of Mottola for which Mancarella (1998, 160) reports a four-way system, namely kustə vs kussə vs kuddə vs kurə, characterizing the distribution of kustə as sporadic (Mancarella 1998, 157). Although Mancarella does not provide further details of the Mottolese system and the various values of each of the four terms, it seems reasonable to assume that speaker-oriented deixis in this dialect shows now advanced ongoing competition between QUESTO and QUESSO to the advantange of the latter, the predominant outcome in this area (Mancarella 1998, 157), such that the specialization of QUESSO in this role left a potential gap in the system. In response to this development, the plosive variant (kuddə) of the distal term has been pressed into service and deployed to mark addressee-oriented deixis, perhaps still alongside residual uses of kussə.

92

Adam Ledgeway

1.1.7 Summary In Table 2 we summarize the various formal and functional characteristics of the ten demonstrative systems reviewed above. Table 2: Overview of Italo-Romance demonstrative systems Discourse Participants Type

Speaker

Addressee

Non-discourse

Geographical

participants

distribution north

B1

( QUE ) STO ST O

B2

( QUE ) STO / QUELLO QUA / QUI

T1

( QUE ) STO

(( QUE ) SSO )

( QUE ) LLO

centre, south

T2

( QUE ) STO

( QUE ) SSO

( QUE ) LLO

centre, south (esp. Abr., Mol.)

T2A

SSO QUI

SSO LÌ

QUELLO

( QUE ) STO / QUELLO LÀ / LÌ

Lig., Pdm., Frl., (Mil.)

SSO LÀ

Liguria, Piedmont

B3A

( QUE ) STO ST O

( QUE ) LLO

Rml., NLaz., Cmp., Sal., Sic.

B3B

( QUE ) SSO

( QUE ) LLO

NCal., NPgl., SUmb., CLaz.

( QUE ) LLO

Cal., Pgl., NSal.

B3C

QUESSO / STO

T2B1

( QUE ) STO

QUELLO

(-dd-)

QUELLO

(-r-)

Sal.

T2B2

( QUE ) SSO

QUELLO

(- dd-)

QUELLO

(-r-)

NSal.

1.2 Spatial adverbs In much of the preceding discussion we have already had occasion to discuss several of the principal deictic divisions in the spatial adverbs and their formal representations across the dialects, hence in what follows we shall simply sketch some of the major patterns according to three broad geographical divisions. As will become apparent, there is a priori no correlation between the structural organization of the demonstrative system and that of the corresponding system of spatial adverbs in a given dialect (Ledgeway 2004, 101s., 109s.; Da Milano 2007, §4.3; Stavinschi 2009, 46s.) and, where there is a discrepancy, it is generally the case that the demonstrative system presents fewer distinctions than those available within the spatial adverb system (Benedetti/Ricca 2002, 15).

1.2.1 Northern varieties The principal forms found across northern Italy are reflexes of ECCU - HIC (> chì, quì, (i)què) / ECCU - HAC (> (i)quà) ‘here’ and ILLIC (> lì, (i)lè) / ILLAC (> (i)là, eà) ‘there’ (often preceded by the intensifier bel e ‘beautiful and’ > ‘right’ in Piedmontese; Rohlfs 1969, 163). In Liguria, Piedmont, Lombardy and Emilia-Romagna reflexes of ECCU - HIC and ILLIC prevail over those from ECCU - HAC and ILLAC (Rohlfs 1969, 246; Irsara 2009, 34s.,

Varieties in Italy 1

93

40s.),12 to the extent that reflexes of ECCU - HAC are today absent in Lombardy, e.g. Mil. de chi e de là ‘here and there’, whereas in the Veneto reflexes of ECCU - HAC and ILLAC are preferred (Rohlfs 1969, 246; Marcato/Ursini 1998, 393s.) in accordance with a tendency observable since early times (Irsara 2009, 47s.). Although we have seen (§§1.1.1–2) that virtually all northern varieties display a binary demonstrative system, the same cannot be said of the organization of the spatial adverbs. Here the major division is between the Veneto and all other varieties: while the Veneto presents a binary system in which qua and là/lì (the latter distributed in accordance with diatopic factors) mark proximity to and distance from the speaker, respectively (Marcato/Ursini 1998, 393; Irsara 2009, 88), other northern varieties present a ternary system based partly on person and partly on distance distinctions (Irsara 2009, 72). The basic person-oriented distinction, as in Venetan, contrasts referents located within the speaker’s deictic domain (marked by QUI / QUA ) and those that fall outside (marked by LÌ / LÀ ). At the same time, these pairs, with the partial exception of modern Milanese which lacks a reflex of ECCU - HIC , can be further distinguished in terms of a punctual vs non-punctual opposition (cf. It. qui/qua, lì/là; Vanelli 1981; 1995, 270s.), with forms in -ì/-è and those in -à indicating precisely defined and generic locations, respectively (Irsara 2009, 67–70), e.g. Lmb. propri lì in faccia ‘right there opposite’. This fundamental person-based distinction is, however, blended with a further distance-based distinction in the case of the LÌ vs LÀ dyad, inasmuch as LÌ represents a medial term referencing a location closer to the speaker’s deictic domain – possibly, but not necessarily, including that of the addressee – than that singled out by LÀ (Azaretti 1982, 231; Lombardi Vallauri 1995, 221s.; Irsara 2009, 80–88), e.g. Lig. Lì suta gh’è tütu u mei mundu […] fin là in fundu, duve […] ‘There below is my whole world […] as far as (over) there where […]’. The result is a ternary system, the internal structure of which is represented in (3): (3)

[QUI / QUA {+1person, +/‑punctual}] vs [[LÌ {medial}] vs [LÀ {distal}] {‑1person, +/-punctual}]

12 In modern Liguria, Piedmont and Emilia-Romagna we also find reflexes of ECCE - HAC (> sà, çà, zà ‘here’), but these are principally limited to the complements of prepositions (Rohlfs 1969, 249; Azaretti 1982, 231; Irsara 2009, 34), e.g. Pdm. spantijè ’n pò ’d sà ‘scattered a little around here’, Bol. in zàe in là EC CE E - HIC are today only found in Piedmontese (Rohlfs 1969, 249): ‘here and there’, whereas reflexes of ECC ECC U - HIC + ECCE ECC E - HIC ). In Lombardy, we also find mní sí ‘come here!’ (cf. also Ormeasco chizí ‘here’ < ECCU CCU - HINCE HINC E >) (chi)chinscì and (ILLIC ILL IC - HINCE >) (li)linscì (Irsara alongside simple chì and lì the emphatic (EECCU 2009, 41). Even more sporadic are reflexes of ILLOC > ilò ‘there’ and ( ECCU -) ILLOC > (chi)lò ‘(t)here’, today principally found in pre-Alpine Piedmontese and northern Lombard, e.g. Comasco vegní kilò ‘come here!’; Bergamasco chelò/chilò ‘here’ vs ilò/ilöga ‘there’ (Rohlfs 1969, 256).

94

Adam Ledgeway

1.2.2 Central varieties On a par with dialects of the north, it is not uncommon for dialects spoken towards the north of the central territory to display a binary [±1person] opposition (Stavinschi 2009, 171): Perugino tukuì/tukua ‘here’ vs tlì/tlà (Moretti 1987, 50), Amerino attokuà ‘here’ vs attollà ‘there’ (Moretti 1987, 128), Gualdese tukuì ‘here’ tulì/tulà ‘there’ (Moretti 1987, 137), Viterbese qui(/chi)/qua ‘here’ vs (l)lì/(l)là ‘there’ (Petroselli 2009, 345, 482, 485).13 On the whole, however, central dialects generally display a ternary person-based split identical to that found in the (Type T1, and in particular, Type T2) demonstrative system (Rohlfs 1969, 257; Avolio 1992, 304; 1995, 54; Maiden 1995, 116s.; Loporcaro 2009, 137; Stavinschi 2009, 141). Unlike northern and southern varieties (with the exception of neighbouring Campanian and Abruzzese varieties), however, the formal exponents of the system do not usually involve reflexes of ECCU HIC / HAC and ILLIC / ILLAC , but are based on the original presentative ECCU > ÈCCO (= (d)ècco, dècca, ècchə, èccu, aécco, (a)écchi) ‘here’ (speaker-oriented) with analogical forms drawn from IPSU > ÈSSO (= (d)èsso, èssə, (a)ssà, dessà, dessí) ‘there’ (addressee-oriented) and ILLU > ÈLLO (= (d)èllo, èllə) ‘there’ (non-discourse participants): Maceratese ɛkko/ɛsso/ɛllo (Regnicoli 1995, §2.1), Sorano/Catrese èkkə/èssə/èllə, Nemese dèkko/dèsso(/ssà)/dèllo (Rohlfs 1969, 257). In addition to their spatial adverb functions, these forms still also function as presentatives, e.g. Maceratese ’ɛkkotolo lo ɣwadam’bja ke ʃʃi fatto ‘here are your earnings’, ’ɛssolo lo vɛ ke tte vɔle ‘here’s just how much she loves you’ (Regnicoli 1995, §2.3), Santorestese ɛkkulu/ɛssulu/ɛllulu! ‘here/there/there he is!’ (Cimarra 1998, 75), which has led in some cases to variant spatial adverb forms incorporating a now opaque third-person enclitic pronoun -LO ‘him, it’: Palianese èccolo ‘here’, èssolo ‘there’, èllolo ‘there’ (Rohlfs 1969, 257).14 In other central varieties, especially those of southern Lazio (Rohlfs 1969, 256; Avolio 1995, 54; Stavinschi 2009, 141), the ternary system is formally somewhat different, in that the addresee-oriented term continues *ILLOCO , e.g. Sublacense/ Castellano lòco, Sonninese allòco. Some geographically transitional Laziale dialects present hybrid paradigms, in which the addressee is variously marked by ÈSSO and LLOCO , e.g. Velletrano dékka vs dessà/dessí or allòco vs délleca (Rohlfs 1969, 257). The Velletrano system is apparently even richer, in that it also presents yet another variant addressee-oriented term, namely ISTE > désta ‘there (near you)’, a form also found in the Spoletano ternary adverbial system (Moretti 1987, 99): ttekko/dekko/diekka vs diesta vs tello/dello/della/dellafo.

13 Cf. also Corsican qui(n)ci/inquá ‘here’ (cf. also ECC EC CU U - IBI > chive ‘here’) vs culà/quallà ‘there’ (Rohlfs 1969, 246, 248s., 254s.). 14 Interesting is the case of the northern Laziale dialect of Viterbo which, as we have seen, operates a binary opposition in the spatial adverbs, but adopts a southern Laziale-style ternary opposition in the presentative paradigm (Petroselli 2009, 276, 279), e.g. ècco/èsto/(ad)èjjo, although the addresseeoriented term èsto is reported to be obsolescent (Petroselli 2009, 279).

Varieties in Italy 1

95

1.2.3 Southern varieties As observed in §1.2.2, the typical central Italian ternary spatial system ÈCCO ( LO ) / ÈSSO ( LO ) / ÈLLO ( LO ) continues into parts of northern Campania and above all Abruzzo and Molise (Rohlfs 1969, 257; Avolio 1995, 54): Abr. èkkə/èssələ/èllələ, EAbr. ècche/èsse/ èlle (or allóche or ellelà) (Verratti 1998, 119; cf. presentatives ecchì/essì/ellì), Teramano ecchə/essə/ellə (Savini 1881, 78s.; cf. also presentative: ecchəluví ‘here it is’, essə lu vu ‘there it is for you’), Mol. dékkə(ta)/(j)ékkə vs déssə/(j)éssə vs (al)lókə (De Giovanni 2003, 137). An interesting paradigm is found in Celanese (Villa 1992, 79), where alongside the three traditional terms ècco, èsso and èllo, loco is also found. However, unlike in Velltrano where it was shown to function as an addressee-oriented term in apparent free variation with ÈSSO , in Celanese loco marks the deictic space of non-discourse participants, with èllo today restricted to presentative functions (e.g. èll’ i’ è ‘there he is!’). Outside of (northern) Molise and (north-western) Abruzzo LLOCO is found throughout the rest of the south as a spatial marker of addressee-oriented deixis (Rohlfs 1969, 256s.; Radtke 1997, 90; Stavinschi 2009, 77), where it regularly enters into a ternary opposition with reflexes of ECCU - HAC (ccà) ‘here’ (Rohlfs 1969, 246) and ILLAC (llà) ‘there’ (Rohlfs 1969, 256),15 e.g. Campobassano qua/llóchə/llà (but cf. presentative èssu ‘(t)here it is’; Avolio 1995, 54); Nap. (a)ccà (viene accà ‘come here!’) vs lloco (che ffacite lloco? ‘what are you doing there?’) vs llà (vire llà bbascio ‘look down there’) (Avolio 1995, 54; Ledgeway 2004, 101s.; 2009, 737–739); Procidano ccà/llóco/llà (Parascandola 1976, 144);16 Calvellese kkwa/ddɔkkə/dda (Gioscio 1985, 88); Murese qua/ lòch’/già (Mennonna 1977, 150); Cosentino ccà/dduòcu/ddrà (Ledgeway 2004, 109s.; cf. also Accattatis 1895, XXXVI); Mosorrofa cca/dhocu/dha (Crucitti 1988, 36, 58s.);17 Mussomelese ccà/ddrùəcu/ddrà (S.Cruschina p.c.).18 However, as shown in Ledgeway (2004, 101s., 109 n. 92; 2009, 738), in some dialects such as Neapolitan and Cosentino the frequency of the addressee-specific

15 Reflexes of ECCU - HIC are extremely rare in the south (cf. ki in Placiti cassinesi) and are limited to a handful of isolated dialects (e.g. Aterno, Pizzo; Rohlfs 1969, 246). 16 The Procidano presentative system is also ternary, employing the forms commonly documented across central Italy, namely (v)ecche/(v)esse/(v)elle (often reinforced by a weakened form of the imperative v- < vi ‘see!’; Ledgeway 2009, 739). ILL E ) 17 Note that the presentative in the dialect of Mosorrofa is formed on an inflected form of all- (< ILLE followed by the spatial adverb, namely alluccà/alludhocu/alludhà ‘here/there/there he is’, allaccà/ alladhocu/alladhà ‘here/there/there she is’, alliccà/allidhocu/allidhà ‘here/there/there they are’ (Crucitti 1988, 10). 18 Quite exceptional is the northern Calabrian dialect of Saracena (Viola 2006, 119), which is reported to mark a four-way deictic contrast blending both person and distance distinctions: quò/qua ‘here’ [+1person] vs ḍḍúchə [+2person] (e.g. jíscə ’a ḍḍúchə ‘get out of there’) vs ḍḍà [‑1/‑2persons] (but still close to deictic domain of discourse participants) vs ḍḍe ‘there’ [-1/-2 persons] (but remote with respect to deictic domain of discourse participants).

96

Adam Ledgeway

adverb LLOCO is very low, with reference to the deictic domain of the addressee more frequently (inclusively) marked by CCÀ : Nap. un te mòvere ’a ccà ‘don’t move from there!’. This is reminescent of the situation described above (§1.1.3) for T1 demonstrative systems, such that the system of spatial deixis in these dialects might be more appropriately described in terms of a fundamental binary opposition CCÀ vs LLÀ . Indeed, available descriptions of many southern dialects report just such a binary [±3person] contrast in the spatial adverbs, e.g. Tarantino qua/addà (De Vincentiis 1872, 27), Parabitano (a)cquài/(a)cquà vs (a)ḍḍai/(a)ḍḍa’ (Romano 2009, 61), Crotonese ccà/ddra (Tassone 2000, 44), Frazzanese kkà/ddà (Abbate 1995, 73). While the latter binary opposition is immediately comparable to Type B3A demonstrative systems, we also find, more rarely, binary spatial systems that contrast LLOCO with LLÀ along similar lines to Type B3B demonstrative systems, e.g. Castrovillarese dducu ‘here’ vs ddà ‘there’ (Battipede 1987b, 64). Finally, we must also mention how many Pugliese dialects present a reflex of ILLOC > ddó (cf. n. 12 above). In some dialects it marks addressee-oriented deixis as part of a ternary system, e.g. Sannicandrese qua (vattinne da qua ‘leave here’) vs ddò (lévete da ddò ‘get out of there’) vs ddà (sparisce da ddà ‘disappear from there’) (Gioiosa 2000, 174), whereas in many others it marks the shared deictic space of the discourse participants within a binary system, e.g. Barese ddó ‘here’ [‑3person] vs ddè ‘there’ [+3person] (Imperio 1990, 217; L. Andriani p.c.).

2 Modal adverbs Although northern dialects present a single form of the modal adverb derived from ECCU - SIC ‘thus’, e.g. Eml. aksí, Rml. akšé (cf. It. così), many central and, to a much lesser extent, southern dialects mark a ternary deictic contrast in the modal adverb by analogy with similar distributions in the demonstrative and spatial adverb systems (Rohlfs 1969, 283; Avolio 1995, 70; Ledgeway 2004, 101 n.66; Loporcaro 2009, 137), namely ECCU - SIC (> (a)ccošì/ccušì/accusì/accussì) ‘in this way’ [+1person], IPSU - SIC (>ssošì/(a)ssušì/assusì) ‘in that way’ [+2person] and ILLU - SIC (> llošì/(a)llušì/allusì) ‘in that way’ [-1/-2persons]: Amasenense accusí/assusé/allusì, Sublacense cusí/susí/lusì, Ginesino accušì/assušì/allušì. The distinction is not, however, so robust in all varieties. For instance, although Regnicoli (1995, §2.4) reports a traditional ternary distinction for Maceratese (viz. kuʃí/ ssuʃí/lluʃí), he notes a strong tendency for it to be replaced by simple kuʃí in the modern dialect, a situation paralleled in Viterbese where Petroselli (2009, 107) reports simple accosì (with phonetic variants accu(s)sì, cossì, cu(s)sì), developments presumably to be attributed to the influence of the standard language (N.Vincent p.c.). Other varieties, by contrast, replicate the ternary > binary development found in the demonstrative and spatial adverb systems with loss of the addressee-oriented term, e.g. Celanese accuscì/alluscì (Villa 1992, 79), Calvellese akkussì/akkuddì (Gioscio 1985,

Varieties in Italy 1

97

88). Most southern dialects, however, present a single term, e.g. WAbr. (a)ccuçì (Verratti 1998, 123), Murese accussì (Mennonna 1997, 151), Castrovillarese (d)acussí (Battipede 1987b, 64), Parabitano cusì(ne) (Romano 2009, 58), although forms such as accullì/accuɖɖì ‘in that way’ may occasionally be found in jocular usage (Avolio 1995, 70s. n. 167) and in certain set expressions, e.g. Nap. fare accussì e accullì ‘to do this and that’ (Ledgeway 2009, 730).

3 Temporal deixis Leaving aside the verb system and the grammaticalization of tense distinctions (for which see, among others, Ambrosini 1969; Rohlfs 1969, 41–58; Bertinetto/Squartini 1996; Cordin 1997; Ledgeway 1999 [1997]; 2009, ch. 11; Alfonzetti 1998; Ricca 1998; Loporcaro 1999; Parry 2005, 193–203; Poletto 2008; Vincent 2014), the lexical expression of temporal deixis represents a poorly explored area of Italian dialectology for which at present there exists very little detailed comparative documentation (see though Rohlfs 1969, 264–279). In what follows we therefore limit ourselves to citing some of the most general lexical tendencies and recurrent lexicalized patterns according to a largely onomasiological approach. The principal temporal adverbs indicating past (‘then’), present (‘now’) and future (‘after, then’) show considerable variation across the dialects (Rohlfs 1969, 268–270, 274; Mennonna 1977, 150; Gioscio 1985, 88; Orrico 1985, 133; Imperio 1990, 217; Villa 1992, 80; Vincelli 1995, 211; Marcato/Ursini 1998, 396; Masotti 1999, 101; Verratti 1998, 121; Viola 2006, 122; Ledgeway 2009, 733; Romano 2009, 97, 172). Regarding the first, northern dialects continue a form of ILLA HORA (e.g. OPdm. antlor, Gen. allantoa, OLmb. enlora/inlora, Bormiese ilora, Sondriese igliura), whereas central and southern varieties display an analogical formation on QUANDO ‘when’ (cf. QUANTO / TANTO ), namely tando/-u (SCal., Sal.), tanno/-u (Cmp., Bas., NCal., Sic.), (a)ndanno (Laz., Abr.), allundannə (Abr.). For ‘now’ there are three principal forms and distributions: north AD IPSUM (Pdm./Lmb./Rml. adès, Eml. adèsa, Ven. desso), centre (and southern HOR A > ora (cf. also HAC H HORA ORA > Lig./SWPdm. áu(ra)/aú(ra), aó(v)a, Calabria, Sicily) HORA aú), south (and also parts of Lombardy) MODO > mo. For ‘after, then’ there are free principal forms. While most dialects continue a form of POS ( T ) ‘after’, e.g. Lig./Pdm. pöi, Eml. pò, Rml. pu, Cmp. pò, Cal. pu(e), Sal. puei, we also find reinforced forms DE POST in Lombardy and the Veneto (dop(o), despò), Lazio (da(p)pó) and large parts of the south (doppu/-ə, dipoi), not to mention Sic. appò(i), appuói (AD POST ). The third form concerns a reflex of AD - PRESSUM , principally found in Campania (appriesso) and Calabria (appriessu). Table 3 provides a selection of the cross-dialectal variation found in relation to the basic day-based divisions gleaned from a variety of sources and individual dialects within each region:

98

Adam Ledgeway

Table 3: Basic day-based divisions ‘Day before yesterday’

‘Yesterday’

‘Today’

‘Tomorrow’

‘Day after tomorrow’

Pdm.

l’autrèr, r’atra saira

jer, sèira

ancöi

dumaŋ

pasadumaŋ

Lig.

avantèi, ra’tra saira

saira, sèira, sèja, aieri, véi (Gen.)

ancö

dumaŋ

pödmáŋ

Lmb.

l’alrér, puʃiér

ieri

incö

dumaŋ

pasadomá, puʃdumá

Eml.Rml.

ier d’ là, jirlètər

ieri, (a)jìr

incö, incuo, incú

ədmáŋ, dmân

pasdmèn

Ven.

gerialtro, gerla’tro, ierlaltro

gèri, ièri, ngèr

ancúo, domáŋ, dimáŋ anc(u)ò, ancòi, incò(i), oncuò, unquò

dopodomáŋ, domanlaltro, domanealtro, passà doman

Umb.

l’altro ieri

jere

ogge

d(i)man(e), domene/-a

doppodomane, domane llà, dimane llà

Laz.

l’artro jjère, vantièri

jjère

ògge

domane, dimane, dumane

dopodomani, domà ll’altro

Abr., Mol.

l’atraddejére

ieri, iere

ogge, uojje

crajə, dumane, addimane

doppedumane

Cmp.

iterza, jesterza

ajerə

oggə

crajə/rimanə

pəʃcrai

ajíerə

oggə

rimanə

Nap. Bas.

avandjerə, rətɛrze, diterza

(a)jerə

ɔjə, òscə

crai(ə), rimànə

pòirimanə, ròppərimànə, pəscrai

Pgl.

nustèrza/-ə, nəsterzə

ajirə, jire

jòje, joscə, osci

crà, crè(i)

pescrà, pəscrè, piscrèi

Sal.

nustierzu

jeri

òsci

crai

puscrai, bbuscrai

NCal.

nustierzu, ’stèrzə, ìeri, ajèra, diterza, ’itèrzə jírə

òja, oji, gójə

crai, crèjə, dumani/‑u

doppudumani/-u, puscrai/piscrai, puscrèjə

SCal.

avantèri, pusèri

òje, oji

crai/domani

podomani

Sic.

avantèri, pasajèri sannajèri, pusèri

òji

dumani

passannu dumani

As a general tendency, Table 3 highlights how the dialects of the north, and to a lesser degree of the centre, show a larger number of lexical innovations than those of the south. For instance, whereas central-southern dialects straightforwardly continue H ODIE ‘today’, northern dialects display a reflex of the reinforced form HINC Latin HODIE HODIE lit. ‘this today’. Similarly, many (especially rural) southern varieties continue Latin CRAS ‘tomorrow’, whereas central and northern varieties all opt for the innovative formation DE MANE ‘of morning’. The term for ‘yesterday’, by contrast, is uniform across all areas (viz. < ( AD ) HERI ), with the exception of some Ligurian and Piedmon-

Varieties in Italy 1

99

tese (Monferrino) dialects which have extended reflexes of SERAM ‘evening’ from an initial innovative shift ‘yesterday evening’ to the more general meaning ‘yesterday’ (Rohlfs 1969, 266; cf. DE MANE ‘of morning’ > ‘tomorrow morning’ > ‘tomorrow’, as well as *maneana ‘of the morning’ > Sp. mañana, Pt. amanhã; Ger. morgen, Eng. in the morning).19 This initial semantic extension of SERAM (> ‘yesterday evening’) is attested beyond Liguria and Piedmont and is also found throughout the south (Rohlfs 1969, 266; Gioscio 1985, 88): Laz./Cmp. sera, Abr. sairə, Bas. serə, Cal. sira. This observation highlights how greater lexical conservatism in the south does not necessarily imply semantic conservatism. For instance, although HODIE is continued throughout the south, in many varieties it has also come to mean ‘this afternoon’ (Rohlfs 1969, 264): Pgl. joscə, SCal./Sic. òji (Cal. ndi vidimu òji ‘we’ll meet up this afternoon’), exceptionally giving rise to a lexical differentiation in Procidano (Parascandola 1976, 135s.; Ledgeway 2009, 734) between jojə ‘this afternoon’ and oggə ‘today’. The two core terms ‘yesterday’ (HERI ) and ‘tomorrow’ (CRAS , DE - MANE ) are also involved in many dialects in neologisms to indicate the day before and the day after, respectively. In the former case, the principal formations are HERI ALTERUM / ALTERUM H ERI and POST - HERI (north, southern Calabria, Sicily) and, HERI (north, centre), AB - ANTE - HERI in the south (excluding southern Calabria and Sicily) NUSTERTIUS (< NUDIUS TERTIUS ‘day before yesterday’) and/or DIES TERTIA ‘third day’. In addition to the latter, some of these same dialects – but not all of them, cf. isolated Nap. jesterza (Ledgeway 2009, 734), Mormannese diterza (Cedraro 1983 [1885], 51), Tarantino nusterza (De Vincentiis 1872, 27; Imperio 1990, 217) ‘day before yesterday’ – also present another related term to indicate ‘the day preceding the day before yesterday’ which is usually distinguished from the former by the presence of a sibilant (Rohlfs 1969, 266s.; cf. also SCal. appressavanteri lit. ‘after.day-before-yesterday’, Sic. avantirazzu < avantèri ‘day-before-yesterday’ + augmentative): Table 4: Lexicalizations of ‘2 / 3 days ago’ ‘2 days ago’

‘3 days ago’

Veroli (Rohlfs 1969, 267)

Itèrza

ištèrza

Campania (Rohlfs 1969, 266)

Itèrza

istèrza

Calvello (Giosci 1985, 88)

rətɛrze

rəsterzə

Castrovillari (Battipede 1987a, 240)

ditèrza

distèrza

Saracena (Viola 2006, 122)

’itèrzə

’stèrzə

San Giorgio (Rohlfs 1969, 266)

nustèrza

diatèrza

Parabita (Romano 2009, 51, 113)

nustierzu

nustierzignu

19 M.Parry (p.c.) points out that, as a consequence of this further semantic extension ‘yesterday evening’ > ‘yesterday’, in the relevant dialects ‘yesterday evening’ is now expressed by new lexicalizations including sèira sèira lit. ‘evening evening’ (Gribaudo 1996, 783) and seiranöit ‘evening(= yesterday).night’ (Massajoli/Moriani 1991, 388).

100

Adam Ledgeway

As for the ‘day after tomorrow’, three broad areal patterns can be identified. In the north (and southern Calabria and Sicily) formations based on pasa+DE - MANE and 20 POS ( T )+ DE - MANE are preferred, in the centre DE - POS ( T )+ DE - MANE , and in the south POS ( T )- CRAS . Once again, southern varieties traditionally present a rich array of innovative lexicalized variation in this area (cf. Table 5) through the use of diminutive (typically in ‑i-) and augmentative (typically in -(u)o-) suffixation to forge corresponding terms to indicate in three and four days time, respectively (Rohlfs 1969, 265). In rarer cases, we even find a further augmentative form to indicate ‘in five days time’. Table 5: Lexicalizations of ‘in 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 days time’

21

‘in 2 days’

‘in 3 days’

‘in 4 days’

Amaseno

pəscrai

pəscrigna

pəscròcca

Mol.

pəskra(jə)

pəskrílle, pəskrəlluccə

pəskrəllaccə, pəskrónə, pəskrwóttə, pəskrwózzə

ONap.

pescraie

pescrigno

pescru(o)zzo

Nap.

pescraje

pescrigno

pescrotte

Procida

piscreje

piscrigno

piscrogna

Pisticci

pəscrai

piscriḍḍə

piscròttu

Calvello

pəskrayə

pəskridde

pəskrwofələ

marwofələ

Trecchina

pescraje

pescriddro

pescroddro

pescruddro

Aieta

piscrai

piscriḍḍu

pəscronə

Saracena

puscrèjə

puscriḍḍə

Castrovillari

piscraj

piscriddu

Mormanno

piscrai, puscrai

piscriddru

Vico (FG)

pəscrai

pəcriddə

pəšcrògnə pescròzze

‘in 5 days’

pescruozzo

piscrotti

San Nicandro

pescrà

pescridde

Otranto

pusscrai

piscriḍḍi

piscruófələ

Nardò

puscrai

puscriḍḍi

puscriḍḍazzu

Parabita

bbuscrai

bbuscriḍḍi

piscriḍḍòne

20 The frequent linguistic similarity between northern Italy and southern Calabria and Sicily is a consequence of the neoromanization of this part of southern Italy following the Norman conquest of southern Italy (cf. Rohlfs 1997a,b [1972]). 21 The varieties exemplified here are taken from Cedraro ([1885] 1983, 51), Rohlfs (1969; 265), Gioscio (1985, 88), Orrico (1985, 133), Battipede (1987b, 53s.), Gioiosa (2000, 177), De Giovanni 2003, 115), Viola (2006, 122), Ledgeway (2009, 735), Romano (2009, 50s.).

Varieties in Italy 1

101

The basic terms ‘(day before) yesterday’ and ‘(day after) tomorrow’ can also be productively combined in all dialects with the individual divisions of the day:22 (i) ‘yesterday morning’: Viterbese jjerammattina, Trecchinese jerematina, Nap. aierammatina, Cosentino aieri matina; (ii) ‘yesterday evening’: Pdm. jersèira, Viterbese jjeresséra, Abr. jeresére, Nap. aierassera, Trecchinese jeresera, Sannicandrese jierséra, SCal. arzira, Sic. arsira, though we saw above that many dialects (also) employ here simple saira/sèira (Lig.), sera (Laz., Cmp.), sére (Abr.); (iii) ‘yesterday (/last) night’: Viterbese jjerannòtte, Abr. jennòtte, Teramano jinottə, Casacalendese jenòtte, Trecchinese jerannotte, Nap. aierannotte, Cosentino aieri notte; (iv) ‘tomorrow morning’: Viterbese domattina, Nap. dimanassera, Castrovillarese cramatina, Pgl. cremmènə, Sannicandrese crammatina, Parabitano crammatina (cf. also Mosorrofa matinu ‘tomorrow morning’); (v) ‘tomorrow afternoon’: Viterbese domane doppopranzo, Nap. rimane ô iuorno; (vi) ‘tomorrow evening’: Viterbese diman’a sséra, Mol. krajessérə, pəskrajjesssérə, Nap. dimanassera, Castrovillarese craj a sira, Parabitano crassira; (vii) ‘tomorrow night’: Nap. dimanannotte, Cosentino dumani notte. For presently relevant divisions of the day (namely, ‘last night’, ‘this morning’, ‘this evening’), most varieties employ lexicalizations incorporating non-reinforced forms of ISTE , including those which have long lost productive uses of ISTE from the demonstrative system (Type B3B; cf. Loporcaro 1986, 248; Parry 1991, 627; Ledgeway 2004, 110s.): Lig. stanöte, stamatiŋ, Cairese sc-taneucc, sc-tamatin, sc-taseira (Parry 2005, 151), Pdm. stanöit, stamatiŋ (Rohlfs 1969, 267), Rml. stanòt, stamatína, staséra, (Masotti 1999, 51), Abr. štanòtte, štamatine, štasére, Nap. stanotte, stammattina, stasera (Ledgeway 2009, 735), Calvellese stanɔttə, stummatinə (Gioscio 1985, 88), Cosentino stanotte, stamatina, stasira (Ledgeway 2004, 110), Crotonese stamatìna, stasìra (Tassone 2000, 67), Altamurano stɛmattin, stɛsair (Loporcaro 1986, 248), Parabitano stanotte, stamatina, stasira (Romano 2009, 164). Alongside stamattina and stasera, a number of central-southern varieties (also) present forms in ma-, mo- and mu-, which MANE NE - DE - MANE ‘tomorrow morning’ Rohlfs (1969, 267) explains partly as analogical on MA and partly as influenced by the adverb mo ‘now’: southern Marchigiano mandumá, massera, Laz. maddimani, massera, Abr. maddemane ‘this morning’, massére ‘this evening’ (Verratti 1998, 120), Teramano mandemánə, masserə (Savini 1881, 87), Casacalendese maddemane, mèssére (Vincelli 1995, 112), Sannicandrese maddemane, masséra (Gioiosa 2000, 177). Another form which frequently incorporates ISTE is the term for ‘this year’, e.g. Vnz. sto ano, Nap. st’anno, including again those varieties (Types T2A and B3B) which have otherwise eliminated ISTE from the demonstrative system e.g. Cairese sc-tann quest’anno’, Cosentino st’annu. This residual reflex of ISTE replicates ex-

22 See, for example, Savini (1881, 79), Rohlfs (1969, 264–266), Gioscio (1985, 88), Orrico (1985, 55), Battipede (1987b, 53s.), Imperio (1990, 217), Verratti (1998, 120s.), Masotti (1999, 51), Gioiosa (2000, 177), De Giovanni (2003, 137), Ledgeway (2009, 734), Petroselli (2009, 271, 344), Romano (2009, 50s.).

102

Adam Ledgeway

actly the frequent residue of HHIC IC ‘this’ found in the alternative central-southern lexicalization for ‘this year’ (cf. also discussion of HINC HODIE above, and discussion in Ramat, ↗24 Language Change and Language Contact, §3), namely reflexes of HOC ANNO (Rohlfs 1969, 267s.): Umb. guanno, Laz. vanno, Celanese vanno (Villa 1992, 80), Abr. uanne (Verratti 1998, 121), Cmp. awannə, ONap. aguanno (Ledgeway 2009, 735), Procidano auànno (Parascandola 1976, 31, also ‘nowadays’, e.g. ste ccanze r’auànno lit. ‘these socks of nowadays’), Catrovillarese/Crotonese aguannu (Battipede 1987a, 238; Tassone 2000, 67), Sic. a(g)uannu. Interesting is the Reggino variety of Mosorrofa where aguannu ‘this year’ can also be used in the periphrastic expression for ‘next year’, namely aguannu chi veni lit. ‘this year that comes’ (Crucitti 1988, 10). Other significant fundamental temporal concepts for which we have some evidence include ‘last year’, which in many dialects can be expressed, as in Italian, with the periphrasis ‘the year last/passed’, e.g. Murese l’ànn’ passàt’ (Mennonna 1977, 150). Other varieties, by contrast, opt for a more simple form consisting of the unmodified noun ‘year’ (< ANNO ; Rohlfs 1969, 268), e.g. Rml. an, Marchigiano/Umb./ Laz. anno (Petroselli 2009, 126), Cal. annu (cf. also Tsc. anno). Other lexicalizations include Nap. mo fa l’anno, Procidano mofaddènno (Ledgeway 2009, 735), Pgl. mufallannə (Imperio 1990, 217) lit. ‘now it makes the year’, not to be confused with Nap. mo fa n’anno (Ledgeway 2009, 735), Viterbese mó ffa n’anno (Petroselli 2009, 126) lit. ‘now it makes a year’, which are used to express ‘one year ago’. Indeed, ‘now’, together with ‘today’, represents a frequent means of expressing ‘ago’ in the dialects, e.g. Viterbese mó ssò ddu anne lit. ‘now it’s two years’ (Petroselli 2009, 126, but cf. also anno di llà/ll’anno quéll’altro lit. ‘year from there/the year that other’), Cosentino oja su tri misi lit. ‘today are three months’. To express ‘next’, many varieties prefer a relative periphrasis, namely ‘that comes/enters’ (Ledgeway 2009, 735), e.g. Murese l’ànn ch’ vén’ lit. ‘the year that comes’ (Mennonna 1975, 150), Sannicandrese l’anne/u mése/la settemana ca trasce/vvé ‘the year/month/week that enters/comes’ (Gioiosa 2000, 178). An alternative is the use of ALTRO ‘other’, e.g. Procidano n’ènt’ènno lit. ‘another year’, Cosentino n’atru mise ‘another month’.

4 Personal deixis Besides rich verbal inflection for person and number, all varieties grammaticalize reference to the speech participants through a series of tonic subject pronouns and separate series of tonic and clitic object pronouns, as well as possessive pronouns/ adjectives (cf. Rohlfs 1968, 120–30; Lombardi 2007). Northern varieties, together with northern Tuscan, further mark reference – although to differing degrees in accordance with considerable crossdialectal microvariation (see, among others, Rohlfs 1968, 140– 50; Renzi/Vanelli 1983; Vanelli/Renzi/Benincà 1985; Poletto 1993; 1997; 2000; Vanelli 1997; Manzini/Savoia 2005, 69–357; Poletto/Tortora in press) – to the discourse

Varieties in Italy 1

103

participants through a (partial) series of subject clitics, witness the representative present tense paradigms in Table 6. Table 6: Subject clitic paradigms in Genoese, Vicentino, Comasco, Carrarese Genoese scl 1sg

Vicentino

‘come’

scl

‘sell’

vegnu

a

vendo

Comasco scl

Carrarese

‘sleep’

scl

‘sleep’

dormi

a

dormə

2sg

ti

vegni

te a

vendi

ta

dormat



dormə

3sgm/f

u/a

vegne

el/la

vende

al/la

dorma

i/al

dormə

vegnimu

a

vendemo

dormum

a

durmim

vegnì

a

vendì

dormuf

a

durmitə

vegnan

i

vende

dorman

i/al

dormənə

1pl 2pl 3pl(m/f)

i

These subject clitics represent the outcome of the progressive weakening in the postmedieval period of original nominative tonic subject pronouns, e.g. io > a/i, tu > ti/te/(a)t (Poletto 1995), with the result that their original function came to be filled by TIB I > mi/ti (Lig., Pdm., Lmb., the corresponding tonic oblique pronouns, e.g. MIHI / TIBI Ven.) and mé/té (Eml.-Rml.): Ven. son paron mi! ‘I’m the boss!’, Bergamasco té t’ crèdet ‘you believe’ (cf. Tsc. te tu credi). In the centre-south, by contrast, the original nominative forms (e.g. i(o), tu(e)) have generally been preserved (Loporcaro 2008, 212): Nap. tu scasse e i’ pavo! ‘You break and I pay!’, Cosentino tu sgarri ‘you’re mistaken’ (cf. however Sal. mie/tie (?< ME / TE or MIHI / TIBI ; cf. Loporcaro 2008, 209; Sornicola 2014), e.g. Sta ccapisci nienti tie? ‘Don’t you understand anything?’).23 Consequently, in the singular, and all other persons of the tonic paradigm, northern varieties do not mark a subject-oblique case distinction, whereas central-southern varieties mark at least a binary case distinction (Ramat, ↗26 Language Chance and Language Contact, §1), e.g. Cosentino iu/tu ‘I/you’ (subject) vs a/pi/cu mia/tia ‘to/for/ with me/you’ (prepositional), and sometimes even a three- or four-way case distinction (Rohlfs 1968, 137–40; Vanelli 1997, 106; Loporcaro 2008, 218–230). For instance, in the Laziale dialect of Colonna (Loporcaro 2001) there operates a three-way distinction between io/tu ‘I/you’ (subject), a/pe mmi/tti ‘to/for me/you’ (prepositional) and ko mme/tte ‘with me/you’ (comitative),24 whereas the Basilicatese variety of Avigliano (Loporcaro 2008, 219–220; 2009, 148) marks a four-way distinction between íə/tu

23 Savini (1881, 87) reports that in Teramano the 1sg is occasionally replaced by HOMO ‘man’ > hunə ‘one’ to attenuate requests, e.g. hunəvurrí parlá ‘one (= I) would like to talk’. 24 This ternary case distinction is common in the dialects of the south, although the comitative form is often replaced by the general prepositional form, e.g. Nap. i’/tu ‘I/you’ (subject), a/pe me/te ‘to/for me/you’ (prepositional), cu mico/tico ‘with me/you’ (comitative) or cu me/te. Distinct autonomous comitative forms are also often found in Emilian (Rohlfs 1968, 139; Foresti 1988, 580; Vanelli 1997, 107), giving rise to a binary case distinction: mé/té ‘I/you’ (subject/object) vs mik/tik (or mek/tek) ‘with me/

104

Adam Ledgeway

‘I/you’ (subject), a mmi/tti ‘(to) me/you’ ((in)direct object), pə mme/tte ‘for me/you’ (prepositional), and cu mmwicə/ttwicə ‘with me/you’ (comitative < MECUM / TECUM ), and similarly Murese (Mennonna 1977, 115) distinguishes between i’/tu ‘I/you’ (subject), a mì/tì ‘(to) me/you’ ((in)direct object), tra mév’ e tév’ ‘between me and you’ (prepositional), and cù mìch’/tìch’ ‘with me/you’ (comitative). Although comitative forms prove relatively common among central-southern dialects, e.g. Sublacense co tticu/nnošcu ‘with me/us’, Abr. co mméco/ttéco/nnósco/bbósco ‘with me/you.sg/ us/you.pl’, Sanchirichese cu mmièchə/tièchə ‘with me/you’, their distribution has often extended beyond the original comitative context: Nap. avimma parlà io e ttico ‘I and you must talk’ (Ledgeway 2009, 273), Materano a mek ‘to me’ (Rohlfs 1968, 140), Grumese a maj/taj or a majkə/tajkə ‘to me/you’ (Loporcaro 1997, 344). The plural tonic forms of the discourse participants continue in all dialects reflexes of NOS / UOS ‘we/you’ in both subject and oblique functions. While in the centre-south these often occur in non-reinforced form, e.g. Laz. nu(i)/vu(i), Abr./Mol. nu/vu, Nap. nuje/vuje, Murese nù’/vù’, Sal. nui/ui, Cosentino nua/vua, SCal./Sic. nui/ vui, in the north these are more frequently reinforced by a now opaque ALTRI ‘other. pl’: Lig. nialtri/viatri, Pdm. gnaut/vaut, Lmb. nótar/vótar, Eml. nuétar/vuétar, Ven. noaltri/volatri (Rohlfs 1968, 134; Foresti 1988, 580; Marinucci 1988, 647; Vanelli 1997, 107; Marcato/Ursini 1998, 142). As a result, these forms are also generally able to indicate gender, e.g. Cairese n(u)iòci/n(u)iòtre (m/f), v(u)iòci/v(u)òtre (m/f; cf. Parry 2005, 163). While admittedly more frequent in the north, ALTRI -reinforced forms are far from unknown in the centre-south where in some varieties they receive a marked exclusive reading, e.g. Nap. nuje/vuje ate (Ledgeway 2009, 274s.), and in others an unmarked non-exclusive reading (S.Cruschina p.c.), e.g. SCal. nuàttri/vuàttri, Sic. nuà(u)tri/vuà(u)tri (Rohlfs 1968, 135; Varvaro 1988, 722; Abbate 1995, 70; Ruffino 2001, 60; Fortuna 2002, 51). Turning finally to the clitic oblique forms (cf. Rohlfs 1968, 151, 158–162; Poletto 1997; Vanelli 1997, 110s.), these invariably show case syncretism between accusative and dative. In the singular the forms prove remarkably straightforward, displaying regular local outcomes of ME and TE , broadly me/te in the north, centre and upper south, and mi/ti in the extreme south. The formal outcomes of the plural forms, on the IC > ce/ci other hand, show greater variation. For the 1pl we find reflexes of: (i) ECCE - HHIC in the centre (NLaz. ci levamo ‘we get up’); (ii) HINCE > nce/nge in the upper south (Nap. nce verimmo ‘we see each other’); (iii) NOS > nə/ne/(n)ni/ndi (cf. Loporcaro 1995; 1998) in the north (Lig. u ne cría ‘he scolds us’), upper south (Bas. nə jazzàmə ‘we get up’), and extreme south (SCal. ndi dissi ‘he told us’, Brindisino ndi amamu ‘we love one another’); (iv) SE > se/si in the centre (e.g. se levamo ‘we get up’) and north (e.g. Lig. se

you’ (comitative), and sometimes found in the plural (nosk/vosk ‘with us/you’), e.g. gní nosk ‘come with us!’.

Varieties in Italy 1

105

levèmu, Ven. se alsemo, Eml. a s’alvòm ‘we get up’).25 For the 2pl we predominantly find forms variously interpreted as reflexes of UOS ‘you’ or IBI ‘there’, e.g. ve in the north, centre and upper south, and vi in the extreme south (cf. though Sal. bu < UOS ). In some northern dialects the third-person dative/locative clitic ghe (cf. IBI above) has extended its sphere of reference to include the 2pl, e.g. Mil. …che me gh’i vendi ‘…so that I sell them to you’, a phenomenon also found in Lazio in conjunction with the dative/locative pronoun ce/ci, e.g. Palianese quanno ce lo disse ‘when I told you it’.

4.1 Social deixis Traditionally, the inherited second-person distinction TU (sg) and UOS (pl) – and associated pronominal and verb forms – is faithfully maintained, especially in rural dialects, of southern Marche, southern Umbria,26 Abruzzo, Campania, northern Calabria and Salento (Savini 1881, 86; Finamore 1893, 21; Accattatis 1895, XXIX; Rohlfs 1968, 181; Niculescu 1974, 58–63; Maiden 1995, 178s.; Renzi 1997, 113). Here polite singular address is therefore marked, when necessary, through the use of an appropriate title (typically based on vostra ‘your’ + s(ignor)ia ‘lordship’, but also (a)ccellenza ‘excellence’, Abr. Lorsignorə (sg./pl.)), e.g. NCal. Vussignuría duve vai? ‘Where are you going, sir?’, Vussuría vieni cca ‘Come here, sir!’, Abr. Ssurí, addó ʃti? ‘Sir, where are you?’, Teramano T’ajə dett’ a’ ssignirí ‘I told you, sir’, Barese Segnerí, sí capa tosta ‘Sir, you’re stubborn’, Sal. Signuría, nu sai lu tuttu ‘Sir, you don’t know the whole story’.27 In many of the remaining areas of the south (Rome, Naples, Basilicata, northern Puglia, southern Calabria), and increasingly in those where tu traditionally constituted the sole form of singular address, UOS (> voi, vui(e), vu(a), vu(e)) today represents both the singular and plural form of polite and/or respectful address (Accattatis 1895, XXIX; Rohlfs 1968, 182; Gioscio 1985, 62; Ledgeway 2009, 295–99), often reinforced by an appropriate title (e.g. DOMINUM / DOMINAM ‘master/mistress’ > (D)on/(D)onna + first name): NCal. Vostra accillenza staviti buoni? ‘Are you well?’. Consequently, whereas TU (henceforth T) is typically used reciprocally among speakers of all ages bound by close family ties, friendship and common interests or solidarity (e.g. Nap. Mammà, tu nun

25 Some varieties further mark a distinction here between reflexive and non-reflexive uses (M. Parry p.c.), e.g. Cairese a’slavuma ‘we wash (ourselves)’ vs a ’nlava ‘she washes us’. 26 However, in large areas of central Italy Lei now prevails over voi, as is the case in northern Umbria (Moretti 1987, 51). 27 On the widespread phenomenon of inverse address in central-southern Italy where the speaker addresses the interlocutor with the title of his/her own relationship to the addressee (e.g. Abr. nəm plagnə, la mamma lit. ‘don’t cry, the mum’ (said to son), Sal. áni, la sòru ‘go, the sister’ (said to brother), SCal. non ciangíri, a nanna ‘don’t cry, the grandma’ (said to grandson), see Rohlfs (1968, 130 n. 4; 1969, 32), Renzi (1997, 115), Ashdowne (in press, §54.4).

106

Adam Ledgeway

puo’ jì annanze accussì ‘mum, you(-T) can’t go on like that’), as well as in addressing deities and saints (e.g. Cosentino Sciuaddru miu! Aiutami Ddiu! ‘Oh gosh, help(-T) me God!), reciprocal UOS (henceforth V) is characteristically employed to mark social distance between speakers who share limited familiarity/intimacy (e.g. tenant/landlord: Nap. Don Luigi, truvateve n’ata cammera! – Me fate ’o favore pe’ stanotte? ‘Don Luigi, find yourself(-V) another room! – Can’t you(-V) put me up just for tonight?’, SBas. Ussuría no ssiti ‘Don’t(-V) go out, sir!’) or as a mark of respect among adult speakers of similar age and social status (e.g. neighbours: Cosentino Donna Marce’, quannu jate n’atra vota a Roma? ‘Marcella, when’s your(-V) next trip to Rome?). Non-reciprocal UOS , in contrast, typically obtains when addressing those of perceived higher social standing (e.g. Nap. Luisé, io non voglio che tu me chiamme signorina, quanno stammo nnanze a la gente va bene […] – Io ve rengrazio tanto tanto, ma capite vuje site na signora e io songo na cammarera ‘Luisa, I don’t want you(-T) to address me as ‘Miss’, in public it’s okay […] – Thank you(-V) ever so much, but you (-V) must understand, you(-V) are a lady and I’m a maid’), and especially whenever the speaker is considerably younger than the addressee (except if the former is a young child), even if interlocutors are well acquainted. Indeed, in the past especially non-reciprocal UOS could also be used by children to elders in the family, e.g. late 19th-c. Nap. Pecché nun te mine abbascio pure tu? – Papà, vuie cierte ccose nun ’e capite ‘Why don’t you(-T) go down as well? – Dad, you(-V) just don’t understand certain things’. The situation in Sicily is quite different from that observed above for other parts of southern Italy (cf. Rohlfs 1968, 183; Varvaro 1988, 722; Leone 1995, 29; Renzi 1997, 114; Ruffino 2001, 60). Here the traditional reciprocal polite form of address among the lower classes, especially among casual acquaintances, as well as in addressing those of lower social status, was vossía/vassía (< vossignuría ‘your lordship’, with variants vossa and ssa), employed in conjunction with a third singular verb, e.g. vossia mangia troppu lestu ‘you’re eating too quickly’ (S.Cruschina p.c.). It was also frequently employed as a non-reciprocal form of address by the lower classes to those of higher social standing who would, in turn, address their interlocutors with vui, hence the pejorative connotations of the latter. Besides vossía/vassía there was also another indirect address form, voscenza (< vostra eccellenza ‘your excellence’), which was reserved for addressing people of higher rank (e.g. by domestic servants to their employers). Nowadays, the more neutral Lei prevails almost everywhere across the island, alternating with vui which is still used when addressing those lowest in the social hierarchy, e.g. peasants and lower classes (Varvaro 1988, 722; Leone 1995, 29s.), and more rarely still between godparents and cousins. Today, vossía is increasingly perceived as antiquated and old-fashioned, but where it does survive (especially in rural inland areas; Fortuna 2002, 52) it is limited to addressing elder family members, those of high socioprofessional standing (e.g. doctors, lawyers) and above all priests. Nonetheless, the distribution of Lei, vossía and vui across the island is very dynamic and subject to considerable diatopic, diachronic and diagenerational varia-

Varieties in Italy 1

107

tion which cannot be easily captured here. By way of illustration, consider recent changes in the sociocultural factors conditioning the distribution of vu(i) and vossía in Mussomeli and surrounding areas highlighted by Cruschina/Rinollo (2013, 271, n. 17): vu(i) is different from the pronoun of respect vossia. Vu(i) was used to convey respect among peers: until not long ago it was used by children to address their parents or their elder siblings, as well as by friends or relatives of the same age to address their wedding witnesses and godfathers and godmothers of their own children. Vossia, instead, was employed to address elders or socially important people such as the mayor, a priest or a doctor, and denotes a certain social distance. While vossia is still used with the same function in many Sicilian villages, the use of vu (i) has almost died out among younger generations, only surviving among older generations and in some communities of Sicilian emigrants living abroad.

Traditionally, reflexes of UOS (though not incorporating ALTRO ‘other’) were also widely employed across rural northern Italy as a generic singular polite form of address (even reciprocally between husband and wife, and non-reciprocally by children to their parents in, for instance, 19th century Bergamasco), but today have receded considerably (Rohlfs 1968, 182). For instance, Marcato/Urisini (1998, 168) note, following Bernardi (1981), how in the Trevisan dialect of Oderzo vu is still kept alive as a respect form for addressing elders (including grandparents, aunts and uncles), with a similar situation obtaining in the Primiero Valley. Similarly, Parry (2005, 164) observes how until around the middle of the last century traditional polite vui was still used in parts of Cairo, especially to convey respect to elders, parents and women.28 Instead Cairese today, together with the rest of northern Italy, uses in the singular 3sg indirect forms of address (Rohlfs 1968, 183; Renzi 1997, 113s.; Marcato/ Ursini 1998, 170; Parry 2005, 164; Irsara 2009, 22s.) but, unlike the Italian grammatically feminine Lei, the relevant pronoun usually displays gender distinctions (cf. (m/f) Pdm. chiel/chila, Lmb. Lü/Le(e), Rml. Lo/Li, Ven. Lu/La, but Triestino Lei (m/f)): Cairese ch ‘u ra faza chèl, Sc-gnur Avucat! ‘Then you do it, Sir (lit. sir lawyer)!, Pdm. Ch’a varda, monsù, lì sla stagera a-i è minca sòrt ëd vin: ch’a serna chiel! ‘Look, sir, there on the shelf there is every sort of wine: you choose!’, Bergamasco Lü cósa pensa? ‘What do you(m) think?, Mantovano Al sarà servit ‘you(m)’ll be served’.29

28 Parry (2005, 165) also reports, under the influence of Piedmontese, the use among older Cairese speakers of madamin and, more rarely, monsû, in addressing (young) ladies and men, respectively. T U in the 29 As in many areas of the south, polite, formal address can also apparently be expressed by TU north, as in the following Milanese example where, in an open letter to the mayor (www.melegnano. net/sidice0008.htm), a citizen addresses the latter, albeit with some irony, with ti, despite continuing to use his official title sciur Sindegh ‘My Lord Mayor’ (also revealing is the use of Lei in the accompanying Italian translation): Mil. E ti, sciur Sindegh, quand teghe vü bisògn de decìd, tecercà nüm, per datuna man, e nüm tela dèm ‘And you(-T), My Lord Mayor, when you(-T) needed to decide, you(-T) asked for us to give you(-T) a hand, and we’ll give you(-T) a hand’.

108

Adam Ledgeway

Polite and especially deferential address in Liguria is also marked indirectly by the 3sg, but the relevant pronoun here is vusciá (< vostra signoria ‘your lordship’), with clitic form sciá (Rohlfs 1968, 183; Forner 1988, 460), e.g. Levantese vuciá come sciá se ciama? ‘What is your name?’. Forner (1988, 460) notes that traditional Genoese had a three-way system, viz. ti, vwĩ, vuʃà, in which the latter was originally reserved for addressing dignitaries, with vwĩ being used in all other contexts as the unmarked polite form of address. In the modern dialect, however, polite singular vwĩ has been lost following generalization of vuʃà. In the rural dialects of the province, by contrast there operated until the middle of the 19th century a canonical T~V opposition (ti/ vwi), in which vwi was the normal polite form of address employed not only with dignitaries, but also within the family (between husband and wife, parents and children) and among colleagues and friends. From the latter half of the century, however, ti became established as the general address form within the family, with vwî increasingly perceived as conveying pejorative connotations until it was eventually replaced by vuʃà as the form of polite/respectful address under the influence of the neighbouring urban dialect.

5 References Abbate, Lucia (1995), Contributo allo studio del dialetto di Frazzanò, Messina, Armando Siciliano Editore. Accattatis, Luigi (1895), Vocabolario del dialetto calabrese, Castrovillari, Patitucci. Alfonzetti, Giovanna (1998). Passato prossimo e passato remoto: Dimensioni di variazione, in Giovanni Ruffino (ed.), Atti del XXI congresso internazionale di linguistica e filologia romanza. Centro di studi filologici e linguistici siciliani, Università di Palermo 18–24 settembre 1995. Volume II, sezione 2, Morfologia e sintassi delle lingue romanze, Tübingen, Niemeyer, II, 27–37. Ambrosini, Riccardo (1969), Usi e funzioni dei tempi storici nel siciliano antico, Bollettino del Centro di studi filologici e linguistici siciliani 10, 141–178. Anderson, Stephen/Keenan, Edward (1985), Deixis, in: Timothy Shopen (ed.), Language Typology and Syntactic Description, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, III, 259–308. Ascoli, Graziadio (1901), Intorno ai continuatori neolatini del latino “ipsu”, Archivio glottologico italiano 15, 303–316. Ashdowne, Richard (in press), Address Systems, in: Adam Ledgeway/Martin Maiden (edd.), The Oxford Guide to the Romance Languages, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Avolio, Francesco (1992), Il confine meridionale dello Stato pontificio e lo spazio linguistico campano, in Contributi di Filologia dell’Italia Mediana VI, 291–325. Avolio, Francesco (1995), Bommèsprə. Profilo linguistico dell’Italia centro-meridionale, San Severo, Gerni. Azaretti, Emilio (1982), L’evoluzione dei dialetti liguri, Sanremo, Casabianca. Battipede, Benedetto (1987a), Studio linguistico tra Calabria e Lucania. Il dialetto di Castrovillari, Castrovillari, Il Coscile. Battipede, Benedetto (1987b), Dizionario del dialetto di Castrovillari, Castrovillari, Il Coscile. Benedetti, Marina/Ricca, Davide (2002), The Systems of Deictic Place Adverbs in the Mediterranean: Some General Remarks, in: Paolo Ramat/Thomas Stolz (edd.), Mediterranean Languages. Papers

Varieties in Italy 1

109

from the MEDTYP Workshop, Tirrenia, June 2000, Bochum, Universitätsverlag Dr. N. Brockmeyer, 13–32. Benveniste, Émile (1994 [1946]), Strutture delle relazioni di persona nel verbo, in: Émile Benveniste (ed.), Problemi di linguistica generale, Cuneo, Il Saggiatore Economici, 269–282. Bernardi, Ulderico (1981), Abecedario dei villani. Un universo contadino veneto, Treviso, Altri segni. Berretta, Monica (1996), Morfologia, in: Alberto Sobrero (ed.), Introduzione all’italiano contemporaneo. Le strutture, Roma/Bari, Laterza, 193–245. Berruto, Gaetano (1974), Piemonte e Valle d’Aosta, Pisa, Pacini. Bertinetto, Pier Marco/Squartini, Marco (1996), La distribuzione del perfetto semplice e del perfetto composto nelle diverse varietà di italiano, Romance Philology 49, 383–419. Brodin, Greta (1970), Termini dimostrativi toscani. Studio storico di sintassi e semantica, Lund, Gleerup. Carè, Placido (1982), ’Ju matrimoniu, Oppido Maritimo, Barbaro. Castagna, Giovanni (1982), Guida grammaticale del dialetto foriano letterario, Forio d’Ischia, Epomeo. Cedraro, Teodoro (1983, [1885]), Ricerche etimologiche su mille voci e frasi del dialetto calabrolucano, Bologna, Forni. Cimarra, Luigi (1998), Il dialetto di Sant’Oreste, Sant’Oreste, Apeiron. Compagna, Anna Maria (ed.) (1990), Lupo de Spechio, Summa dei re di Napoli e Sicilia e dei re d’Aragona, Napoli, Liguori. Cordin, Patrizia (1997), Tense, Mood and Aspect in the Verb, in: Martin Maiden/Mair Parry (edd.), The Dialects of Italy, London, Routledge, 87–98. Cox Mildare, Terry Brian (2001), Aspetti della fonologia e della morfologia del molese, un dialetto pugliese dell’Italia sud-orientale, Bari, Levante. Crucitti, Pasquale (1988), Vocabolario e frasario. Mosorrofano – Santagatino, Soveria Mannelli, Calabria Letteraria Editrice. Cruschina, Silvio/Rinollo, Melanie (2013), Between Subject Enclitic and Agreement Marker: The Second Person Endings in Sicilian, in: Transactions of the Philological Society 111, 259–273. Cuneo, Marco (2000), Esiti di IPSUM nei dialetti liguri, in: Lorenzo Renzi (ed.), Storia di IP SE , in: József Herman/Anna Marinetti (edd.), La preistoria dell’italiano: Atti della tavola rotonda di linguistica storica, Università Ca’ Foscari di Venezia, 11–13 giugno 1998, Tübingen, Niemeyer, 197–203. Da Milano, Federica (2007), Demonstratives in parallel texts: a case study, Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung, 135–147. De Blasi, Nicola/Imperatore, Luigi (2000), Il napoletano parlato e scritto. Con note di grammatica storica (Nuova edizione), Napoli, Dante e Descartes. De Giovanni, Marcello (1993), Molise, Pisa, Pacini. De Vincentiis, Domenico Ludovico (1872), Vocabolario del dialetto Tarantino, Bologna, Arnaldo Forni. Falcone, Giuseppe (1976), Calabria, Pisa, Pacini. Falcone, Giuseppe (1979), Racconti popolari calabresi, Reggio Calabria, Casa del Libro. Filocamo, Salvatore (1984), Farse carnevaleschi, Soveria Mannelli, Rubbettino. Finamore, Gennaro (1893), Vocabolario dell’uso abruzzese, Città di Castello, Lapi. Foresti, Fabio (1988), Aree linguistiche V. Emilia e Romagna, in: Günter Holtus/Michael Metzeltin/ Christian Schmitt (edd.), Lexikon der Romanistischen Linguistik. Band IV. Italienisch, Korsisch, Sardisch, Tübingen, Niemeyer, 569–593. Forestiero, Giuseppe, (1985), Proposta per una grammatica calabrese, Roma, Accademia degli Incolti. Fornaciari, Raffaello (1881), Sintassi italiana dell’uso moderno, Firenze, Sansoni. Forner, Werner (1988), Aree linguistiche 1. Liguria, in: Günter Holtus/Michael Metzeltin/Christian Schmitt (edd.), Lexikon der Romanistischen Linguistik. Band IV. Italienisch, Korsisch, Sardisch, Tübingen, Niemeyer, 453–469.

110

Adam Ledgeway

Forner, Werner (1997), Liguria, in: Martin Maiden/Mair Parry (edd.), The Dialects of Italy, London, Routledge, 245–252. Fortuna, Antonella (2002), Grammatica siciliana. Principali regole grammaticali, fonetiche e grafiche comparate tra i vari dialetti siciliani, Caltanissetta, Terzo. Giannini, Stefania (1995), Riferimenti deittici nel sistema dei pronomi personali. Appunti per una grammatica del lucchese, Archivio glottologico italiano 80, 204–238. Gioiosa, Matteo (2000), Grammatica del dialetto sannicandrese, San Nicandro Garganico, Gioiosa Editrice. Gioscio, Joseph (1985), Il dialetto di Calvello, Stuttgart, Steiner. Gribaudo, Gianfranco (1996), Ël neuv Gribaud, Torino, Piazza. Griva, Guido (1980), Grammatica della lingua piemontese, Torino, Viglongo. Hastings, Robert (1997), Abruzzo and Molise, in: Martin Maiden/Mair Parry (edd.), The Dialects of Italy, London, Routledge, 321–329. Iandolo, Carlo (1994), ’A lengua ’e Pulecenella. Grammatica napoletana, Castellammare di Stabia, Franco Di Mauro Editore. Iandolo, Antonio (2001), Parlare e scrivere in dialetto napoletano, Napoli, Tempolungo Edizioni. Imperio, Stefano (1990), Alle origini del dialetto pugliese, Fasano, Schena. Irsara, Martina (2009), Demonstratives and Adverbs of Place in Early and Modern Texts of Northern Italy, Padova, Monografie LabRoman 3/II-2009 (www.maldura.unipd.it/ddlcs/laboratorio/home.html). Jungbluth, Konstanze (2005), Pragmatik der Demonstrativpronomina in den iberoromanischen Sprachen, Tübingen, Niemeyer. Ledgeway, Adam (1999 [1997]), I tempi sovraccomposti nel napoletano antico, L’Italia dialettale LX, 105–124. Ledgeway, Adam (2004), Lo sviluppo dei dimostrativi nei dialetti centromeridionali, Lingua e Stile XXXIX, 65–112. Ledgeway, Adam (2009), Grammatica diacronica del napoletano (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie Band 350), Tübingen, Niemeyer. Leone, Alfonso (1995), Profilo di sintassi siciliana, Palermo, Centro di studi filologici e linguistici siciliani. Lombardi, Alessandra (2007), Definiteness and Possessive Constructions in Medieval Italo-Romance, in: Anna Laura Lepschy/Arturo Tosi (edd.), Histories and Dictionaries of the Languages of Italy, Ravenna, Longo, 99–118. Lombardi Vallauri, Edoardo (1995), Il sistema dei pronomi dimostrativi dal latino al piemontese (varietà torinese), una catena di trazione morfologica, in: Maria Teresa Romanello/Immacolata Tempesta (edd.), Dialetti e lingue nazionali. Atti del XXVVII congresso della società di linguistica italiana, Lecce, 28–30 ottobre 1993, Roma, Bulzoni, 209–225. Loporcaro, Michele (1986), Grammatia storica del dialetto di Altmura, Pisa, Giardini. Loporcaro, Michele (1995), Un capitolo di morfologia storica italo-romanza: it. ant. ne ‘ci’ e forme meridionali congeneri, L’Italia dialettale 58, 1–48. Loporcaro, Michele (1997), Puglia and Salento, in: Martin Maiden/Mair Parry (edd.), The Dialects of Italy, London, Routledge, 41–51. Loporcaro, Michele (1998), Ancora sull’etimo della particella pronominale ne di I plurale: La testimonianza dei dialetti del Meridione, in: Giovanni Ruffino (ed.), Atti del XXI congresso di linguistica e filologia romanza, Palermo, 18–24 settembre 1995, Volume I. Grammatica storica delle lingue romanze, Tübingen, Niemeyer, 161–172. CANTARE RE -HABEO nell’Italia meridionale, Archivio glottologico Loporcaro, Michele (1999), Il futuro CANTA italiano 84, 67–114. Loporcaro, Michele (2001), Flessione a tre casi del pronome personale in un dialetto alle porte di Roma, in: Alberto Zamboni/Patrizia Del Puente/Maria Teresa Vigolo (edd.), La dialettologia oggi

Varieties in Italy 1

111

fra tradizione e nuove metodologie. Atti del convegno internazionale, Pisa 10–12 febbraio 2000, Pisa, ETS, 457–476. Loporcaro, Michele (2008), Opposizioni di caso nel pronome personale: i dialetti del mezzogiorno in prospettiva romanza, in: Alessandro De Angelis (ed.), I dialetti italiani meridionali tra arcaismo e interferenza, Atti del Convegno internazionale di Dialettologia (Messina, 4–6 giugno 2008), Palermo, Centro di Studi filologici e linguistici siciliani, 207–235. Loporcaro, Michele (2009), Profilo linguistico dei dialetti italiani, Roma/Bari, Laterza. Lüdtke, Helmut (1979), Lucania, Pacini, Pisa. Maiden, Martin (1995), A Linguistic History of Italian, London, Longman. Maiden, Martin/Robustelli, Cecilia (2000), A Reference Grammar of Modern Italian, London, Arnold. Malara, Giovanni (1982 [1909]), Vocabolario dialettale calabro-reggino-italiano, Reggio Calabria, Libreria D. Calabrò; (Reprinted Sala Bolognese, Arnaldo Forni Editore). Mancarella, Giovan Battista (1975), Salento, Pisa, Pacini. Mancarella, Giovan Battista (ed.) (1998), Salento. Monografia regionale della "Carta dei Dialetti Italiani", Lecce, Edizioni del Grifo. Manzini, Maria Rita/Savoia, Leonardo (2005), I dialetti italiani e romanci. Morfosintassi generativa. Volume I, Alessandria, Edizioni dell’Orso. Marcato, Gianna/Ursini, Flavia (1998), Dialetti veneti. Grammatica e storia, Padova, Unipress. Marinucci, Marcello (1988), Aree linguistiche VIII. Abruzzo e Molise, in: Günter Holtus/Michael Metzeltin/Christian Schmitt (edd.), Lexikon der Romanistischen Linguistik. Band IV. Italienisch, Korsisch, Sardisch, Tübingen, Niemeyer, 643–652. Masotti, Adelmo (1999), Gramamatica romagnola, Ravenna, Edizioni del Girasole. Massajoli, Pierleone/Moriani, Roberto (1991), Dizionario della cultura brigasca. I: Lessico, Alessandria, Dell’Orso. Massarelli, Elisabetta (2010), “Dicete angò che è bellu Terni mia!” lingua e dialetto nei versi di Furio Miselli, tesi di laurea, Università degli Studi della Tuscia. Meliadò, Renato (21994), Le radici linguistiche e psico-antropologiche del dialetto reggino, Reggio Calabria, Jason. Mennonna, Antonio (1977), Un dialetto della Lucania (studi du Muro Lucano). Grammatica e anatologia. Volume I, Lecce, Galatina. Moretti, Giovanni (1987), Umbria, Pisa, Pacini. Nicoli, Franco (1983), Grammatica milanese, Milano, Bramante. Niculescu, Alexandru (1974), Strutture allocutive pronominali reverenziali in italiano, Firenze, Olschki. Nisticò, Giampiero (1983), Ieri, oggi… domani (Mastru Brunu), Soveria Mannelli, Rubbettino. Orrico, Leandro (1985), Il dialetto trecchinese. Vocaboli, modi di dire e proverbi confrontati con l’italiano, Napoli, Istituto grafico editoriale italiano. Parascandola, Vittorio (1976), Vèfio. Folk-glossario del dialetto procidano, Napoli, Alfredo Guida Editore. Parry, Mair (1991), Le système démonstratif du cairese, in: Dieter Kremer (ed.), Actes du XVIIIe congrès international de linguistique et de philologie romanes, Tübingen, Niemeyer, 625–631. Parry, Mair (1997), Piedmont, in: Martin Maiden/Mair Parry (edd.), The Dialects of Italy, London, Routledge, 237–244. Parry, Mair (2005), Sociolinguistica e grammatica del dialetto di Cairo Montenotte. Parluma ’d Còiri, Savona, Società Savonese di Storia Patria. Petroselli, Francesco (2009), Il lessico dialettale viterbese nelle testimonianze di Emil Maggini, Viterbo, Banca di Viterbo.

112

Adam Ledgeway

Pitré, Giuseppe/Wentrup, Christian (1995 [1875]), Grammatica siciliana del dialetto e delle parlate. Palermo, Flaccovio. Poletto, Cecilia (1993), La sintassi dei pronomi soggetto nei dialetti settentrionali, Padova, Unipress. Poletto, Cecilia (1995), The Diachronic Development of Subject Clitics in North-Eastern Italian Dialects, in: Ian Roberts/Adrian Battye (edd.), Clause Structure and Language Change, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 295–324. Poletto, Cecilia (1997), Pronominal Syntax, in: Martin Maiden/Mair Parry (edd.), The Dialects of Italy, London, Routledge, 137–144. Poletto, Cecilia (2000), The Higher Functional Field: Evidence from Northern Italian Dialects, New York/Oxford, Oxford University Press. Poletto, Cecilia (2008), Syntactic Encoding of Aspect in Some Northern Italian Dialects, in: Ángeles Carrasco Gutiérrez (ed.), Tiempos compuestos y formas verbales complejas, Madrid, Vervuet, 499–517. Poletto, Cecilia/Tortora, Christina (in press), Subject Clitics: Syntax, in: Adam Ledgeway/Martin Maiden (edd.), The Oxford Guide to the Romance Languages, Oxford, Oxford University Press. Quartarone, Saverio (1998), ’A parrata missinisa. Il dialetto siciliano in Messina, Messina, Sfameni. Radtke, Edgar (1997), I dialetti della Campania, Roma, Il Calamo. Regnicoli, Agostino, (1995) Questione di organizzazione linguistica dello spazio a partire da fenomeni del dialetto maceratese, in: Lingue speciali e interferenza. Atti del Convegno seminariale, Udine 16–17 maggio 1994, Roma, Il Calamo, 227–247. Renzi, Lorenzo (1997), Expression of Allocutionary Distance, in: Martin Maiden/Mair Parry (edd.), The Dialects of Italy, London, Routledge, 113–115. Renzi, Lorenzo/Vanelli, Laura (1983), I pronomi soggetto in alcune varietà romanze, in: Studi in onore di Giovan Battista Pellegrini, Pisa, Pacini, 121–415. Ricca, Davide (1998), Una perifrasi continua-iterativa nei testi piemontesi dal Cinquecento all’OttocenTENER E + participio passato, in: Paolo Ramat/Elisa Roma (edd.), Sintassi storica. Atti del to: TENERE XXX Congresso internazionale della Società di linguistica italiana, Pavia, 26–28 settembre 1996, Roma, Bulzoni, 345–368. Rohlfs, Gerhard (1968), Grammatica storica della lingua italiana e dei suoi dialetti. Morfologia, Torino, Einaudi. Rohlfs, Gerhard (1969), Grammatica storica della lingua italiana e dei suoi dialetti. Sintassi e formazione delle parole, Torino, Einaudi. Rohlfs, Gerhard (1977), Nuovo dizionario dialettale della Calabria, Ravenna, Longo. Rohlfs, Gerhard (1997a [1972]), Le due Calabrie (Calabria greca e Calabria latina), in: Gerhard Rohlfs (ed.), Studi e ricerche su lingua e dialetti d’Italia, Firenze, Sansoni, 246–259. Rohlfs, Gerhard (1997b [1972]), Latinità ed ellenismo nella Sicilia d’oggi (aspetti di geografia linguistica), in: Gerhard Rohlfs (ed.), Studi e ricerche su lingua e dialetti d’Italia, Firenze, Sansoni, 273–293. Romano, Antonio (2009), Vocabolario del dialetto di Parabita, Lecce, Grifo. Ruffino, Giovanni (2001), Sicilia, Roma/Bari, Laterza. Ruggieri, Donato/Batinti, Antonio (1992), Lingua e dialetto ad Anzi (Potenza). Note sulla situazione linguistica, Potenza, Il Salice. Savini, Giuseppe (1881), La grammatica ed il lessico del dialetto teramano, Bologna, Forni Editore. Scerbo, Francesco (1985 [1886]), Studio sul dialetto calabro con dizionario, Firenze. (Reprint Sala Bolognese, Arnaldo Forni Editore). Sornicola, Rosanna (2014), Sicilian 1st and 2nd Person Oblique Tonic Pronouns, in: Paola Benincà/ Adam Ledgeway/Nigel Vincent (edd.), Diachrony and Dialects. Grammatical Change in the Dialects of Italy. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 202–217.

Varieties in Italy 1

113

Stavinschi, Alexandra (2009), Sullo sviluppo del sistema dimostrativo italo-romanzo: Una nuova prospettiva, Padua, Monografie LabRoman 3/I-2009 (www.maldura.unipd.it/ddlcs/laboratorio/ home.html). Stehl, Thomas (1988), Aree linguistiche XI. Puglia e Salento, in: Günter Holtus/Michael Metzeltin/ Christian Schmitt (edd.), Lexikon der Romanistischen Linguistik. Band IV. Italienisch, Korsisch, Sardisch, Tübingen, Niemeyer, 695–716. Tassone, Bruno (2000), Grammatica e dizionario del dialetto crotonese, Soveria Mannelli, Calabria Letteraria Editrice. Valente, Vincenzo (1975), Puglia, Pisa, Pacini. Vanelli, Laura (1981), Ancora su lì / là (e qui / qua), Lingua nostra, 42, 72–77. Vanelli, Laura (1995), La deissi, in: Lorenzo Renzi/Giampaolo Salvi/Anna Cardinaletti (edd.), Grande grammatica italiana di consultazione, Bologna, Il Mulino, 261–375. Vanelli, Laura (1997), Personal Pronouns and Demonstratives, in: Martin Maiden/Mair Parry (edd.), The Dialects of Italy, London, Routledge, 106–113. Vanelli, Laura/Renzi, Lorenzo/ Benincà, Paola (1985), Typologie des pronoms sujets dans les langues romanes, in: Actes du XVIIe congrès international de linguistique et philologie romanes. Volume 3: Linguistique descriptive, phonétique, morphologie et lexique, Aix-en-Provence, Université de Provence, 163–176. Varvaro, Alberto (1988), Aree linguistiche XII. Sicilia, in: Günter Holtus/Michael Metzeltin/Christian Schmitt (edd.), Lexikon der Romanistischen Linguistik. Band IV. Italienisch, Korsisch, Sardisch, Tübingen, Niemeyer, 716–731. Verratti, Vittore (1998), Fonologia e morfologia del volgare abruzzese. Con rimario–glossario, Lanciano, Itinerari. Vignuzzi, Ugo (1988), Aree linguistiche VII. Marche, Umbria, Lazio, in: Günter Holtus/Michael Metzeltin/Christian Schmitt (edd.), Lexikon der Romanistischen Linguistik. Band IV. Italienisch, Korsisch, Sardisch, Tübingen, Niemeyer, 606–642. Vignuzzi, Ugo (1997), Lazio, Umbria and the Marche, in: Martin Maiden/Mair Parry (edd.), The Dialects of Italy, London, Routledge, 311–320. Villa, Eligio (1992), Grammatica e ortografia dei dialetti abruzzesi, L’Aquila, Japandre. Vincelli, Antonio (1995), Grammatica descrittiva del dialetto di Casacalenda, Campobasso, Enne. Vincent, Nigel (1999), The Synchrony and Diachrony of Deixis in Old Neapolitan (with Special Reference to the Cronache e ricordi of Loise De Rosa), University of Manchester, ms. Vincent, Nigel (2014), Similarity and Diversity in the Evolution of Italo-Romance Morphosyntax, in: Paola Benincà/Adam Ledgeway/Nigel Vincent (edd.), Diachrony and Dialects. Grammatical Change in the Dialects of Italy. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1–21. Viola, Leone (2006), Idiomi del Pollino. Grammatica del dialetto Saracenaro, Castrovillari, il Coscile. Voci, Bruno (1994), Com’a ru focularu. Dizionario lessicale fraseologico calabro andreolese – italiano. Con elementi di grammatica descrittiva e centri d’interesse illustrati, Soveria Mannelli, Calabria Letteraria Editrice.

Michele Prandi

4.2 Varieties in Italy 2: Alpine Varieties Abstract: The aim of this chapter is to shed light on ground-oriented deixis, a particular kind of spatial deixis found in dialects spoken in small territories whose morphologies are extremely marked. Unlike the well-known speaker-oriented deixis, the kind of spatial reference under investigation is not anchored in the contingent location of the speaker but rather in a map of the surrounding territory shared by the speaking community. In the Alpine Region, this phenomenon is documented in both Romance and German dialects. The scope of this study is restricted to the Gallo-Romance varieties spoken in Northern Italy and Switzerland in the Southern Alps. After an overview of the available data and relevant questions, the chapter illustrates the following points: the obligatory use of a special kind of deictic adverb (referred here as ‘positional adverbs’) in association with toponyms; the specific properties of a ground-oriented deictic system organised around an intersubjective origo and field; the relevant dimensions active in ground-oriented deixis; the structure of multidimensional adverbs cumulating subject-oriented deictic and positional adverbs; the behaviour of positional adverbs in the description of motion; the ambivalence of positional adverbs between ground-oriented and subject-oriented values. Keywords: Romance Languages, Gallo-Romance dialects, deixis, ground-oriented spatial deixis, subject-oriented spatial deixis, positional adverbs, multidimensional adverbs

1 Introduction The study of ground-oriented deixis requires preliminary remarks on the changing relationship between a language, its speaking community and its territory, which in turn affects the balance between the main functions of language itself. There are languages that are the heritage of a speaking community and for which it is absurd to speak of a territory and a fortiori of its morphology. In contrast, one also finds languages that do not cross the borderlines of a very small territory. In this way the territory in effect “hosts” the speaking community. Languages of the former type are first and foremost languages of communication, while territory and identification both play a heavy role in languages of the second type. Contemporary English is a good example of a language of communication. Like Greek koinè and Imperial and Middle-Ages Latin, it is uprooted from its specific territory, and belongs in the first place to a community of speakers: such a language “is not the property of any particular nation, and obviously it belongs to all who can speak it”, as proclaimed by India’s Official Language Commission in 1956. A small dialect of the kind analysed here – whose speakers can meet in a place in front of a

Varieties in Italy 2: Alpine Varieties

115

church – is a good example of a language that belongs primarily to its territory, which both circumscribes the speaking community and plays a primary role in identification. It typically happens, for instance, that two neighbouring dialects highlight precisely those features that strongly differentiate them, and above all phonological patterns. Now, the only functional justification of such a fact is not communication, which in any case is neither promoted nor threatened, but strong identification with a specific territory and its features. The sounds of one’s dialect are like the sound of the village’s bells. The preceding remark is perhaps trivial, but its consequences on the experience of space are far-reaching. Unlike the experience of the remaining domains involved in deictic reference – that is, persons and time – the experience of space crucially depends on the morphological structure of the territory occupied by the speaking community: the more this territory is limited and characterised, the more specific the relationship between speaker and space will be. When a language is spoken in a small territory, it may happen that the spatial orientation is not a task confined to the individual speaker but a task shared by the whole community and a specific function of the language, which leaves deep traces in its lexical and grammatical structure. The most apparent symptom of a deep relationship between a linguistic community and its specific territory is the wealth of deictic spatial adverbs to be found in mountain dialects. This wealth, it should be stressed, is not simply a question of quantity of expressions, but of relevant spatial dimensions. Besides proximity and distance, which identify the most salient dimension of speaker-oriented deixis, one finds dimensions such as ‘up’ vs ‘down’ or ‘inside’ vs ‘outside’, whose nature is less evident. I propose calling them positional dimensions. The presence of positional dimensions and positional adverbs in spatial deictic systems has been observed and described by many linguists in many different parts of the world. The first studies concern the Alpine region, and in particular Switzerland and Northern Italy (Pult 1897; 1931; Muret 1926; Jaberg 1939; Zinsly 1945; Staub 1949; Luedke 1955; Tognina 1967; Haidú 1969; Vicari 1972; Krier 1986; Ebneter 1993; Prandi 2004a; 2004b; Irsara 2009; 2010). A significant feature of some of these studies is that they document an interest in spatial orientation based on direct observation begun before the publication of the seminal work by Bühler (1982, 11934), which establishes the theoretical framework for subject-oriented deixis. In more recent years, within a typological perspective, the phenomenon has been observed all around the world, from Nepal (Bickel 1997) to Mexico (Levinson 1997) and Vietnam (Wallace 1966; Greenberg 1985). In my opinion, the theoretical import of positional spatial reference has generally been underestimated. Linguists who encounter positional adverbs engaged in deictic spatial reference during field work tend to relegate them to the system of subjective deixis, which is simply assumed to be richer and more complex than in average Western languages. A significant case is Greenberg (1985, 274): “One example is Katu,

116

Michele Prandi

a Mon-Kmer language of Vietnam (Wallace, 1966), which is described as having the following five demostratives, here, there (nearby), there (level), upward from speaker, downward from speaker”. Like distance and proximity, spatial positions such as ‘upward’ and ‘downward’ are assumed to depend on the subject’s contingent location: “These always take the speaker as point of reference”. The idea is that deictic systems may be more or less complex but their architecture is always speakeroriented. In my opinion, spatial positions such as ‘up’ and ‘down’, ‘inside’ and ‘outside’ do not behave in the same way as distance and proximity. Whereas distance and proximity depend on the contingent location of the speaker in an obvious way, the remaining spatial positions depend on a language-specific form of conceptualization of the morphology of the territory and of a spatial experience that is not individual but social. In spite of the general theoretical assumptions about the subjective structure of deictic reference, the idea that positional dimensions cannot be reduced to subjective deixis surfaces in many empirical descriptions of Alpine dialects, both Romance and German. Referring to spatial positions such as ‘up’, ‘down’, ‘inside’ and ‘outside’ in Val Blenio, Switzerland, Vicari (1972) underlines that “The directions pointed at by these adverbs are not established with reference to the subject’s location in space, as with qui, ‘here’, and là, ‘there’, but remain firm for each person belonging to the community”. In her analysis of the adverbs expressing spatial relations in some Alemannic dialects spoken in the Valais Alps in Switzerland, Krier (1986) identifies a dozen relevant positions distributed among three subsystems. Only one of these subsystems – that is, the opposition between “distance”, “proximity with a natural obstacle” and “proximity without a natural obstacle” – is speaker-oriented. Such oppositions as “altitude” vs “plain” and “up-river” vs “down-river” with reference to the main valley, and “on the inside” vs “on the outside” with reference to lateral valleys, by contrast, certainly belong to a shared categorisation of the morphological structure of the territory, which is independent of the contingent position of the speaker. Irsara’s (2009, 202) treatment of positional adverbs in Val Badia, Northern Italy, overtly assumes that their use is based on geographic factors. Referring to ite, ‘inside’, and fora, ‘outside’, for instance, she remarks that “Geographically, they indicate a location or a direction towards the inside or outside of a valley respectively, and are related to the direction of the river”, which of course does not depend on the contingent position of the speaker. All these remarks imply that there are some forms of spatial orientation that, although deictic in their structure and sharing a significant amount of means of expression with subjective deixis, cannot be reduced to a subjective origo. The natural conclusion of this premise, however, is never explicitly drawn: there is a specific deictic system that is anchored in a specific kind of origo independent of the contingent position of the speaker. What I would like to do in this chapter as both a linguist and a native speaker of a Gallo-Romance dialect spoken in the Alpine region of Lombardy, in Northern Italy, is to describe these facts as belonging to a special kind

Varieties in Italy 2: Alpine Varieties

117

of deixis – one that interacts with the most widespread subjective, speaker-oriented kind of deixis. I shall refer to this new type of deixis as ground-oriented deixis. One factor making it very difficult to identify an independent, ground-oriented deictic system is the fact that positional adverbs are open to both ground-oriented and subject-oriented spatial reference (see § 5). Owing to this, the ground-oriented uses, which are transparent for a native speaker, are totally eclipsed by the subject-oriented ones if looked at from the outer perspective of a linguist engaged in field research. For precisely this reason, the main source of inspiration of my analysis will be my direct experience as a native speaker. On the other hand, the data collected by my direct acquaintance will be compared not only with the data accessible in the current literature but also with data provided by linguists who are also native speakers of some Romance dialects spoken in the South side of the Alps. These native informants are Mario Vicari for the dialects of Val Blenio (Ticino, Switzerland), Luigi Menghini and Dario Monigatti for Valposchiavo (Graubünden, Switzerland), Manuel Barbera for the dialects of Val di Susa (Piedmont, Italy), and Martina Irsara for Badiot, the Ladin variety of Val Badia (South Tyrol, Italy; ↗5 Ladin). Some interesting remarks are inspired by a dialect spoken in a town located in the middle of the great Po plain, Piadena (Danio Maldussi), where a residual form of ground-oriented deixis is confined to the vertical dimension. Owing to the limitations of the language sample, the comparison is not exhaustive. Its less ambitious aim is twofold: to provide a consistent and explicit theoretical background and consistent description of the available data and identify the main features and the relevant variation parameters of a groundoriented deictic system open to further empirical investigation.

2 Ground-oriented deixis: intersubjective origo and field My native village, Poggiridenti, olim Pendolasco1, is nested on a glacial terrace that breaks the steep south-facing mountainside of a valley named Valtellina, about two hundred metres above its bottom. The territory is delimited both on the east and west by two side valleys deeply carved by two streams into the rock; at its shoulders the Bernina massif reaches 4,050 metres above sea level. The main valley, shaped by glaciers in two successive stages, is crossed by the river Adda on its path towards Lake Como. Its lower section, whose bottom is wide and flat, runs from East to West. Whereas the north slope that hosts my native village is on the sunny side, and occupied by a renowned vineyard called Inferno, the opposite slope is covered with a dense forest broken by just a few small meadows.

1 http://www.comune.poggiridenti.so.it/ (11.3.2015).

118

Michele Prandi

The most apparent and revealing phenomenon connected with ground-oriented deixis is the systematic association between toponyms and positional adverbs. In my native dialect of Pendolasco/Poggiridenti, if one wants to describe one’s walk towards a hamlet called Surana, located above the main village, one cannot simply say, for instance, (1). Instead, one has to say (2). (1) is an ill-formed sentence, just as I went Oxford in English. The same holds true when either an object, as in (3), or a process, as in (4), are located in a spatial frame:2 1. 2. 3. 4.

*[ˈsum ənˈdatʃ a syˈranə] I’ve gone to Surana [ˈsum ənˈdatʃ sa (sy + a) syˈranə] I’ve gone up to Surana [ˈgɔ n ˈbryʎu sa syˈranə] I have an orchard up at Surana [ˈo truˈat la maˈriə sa syˈranə] I’ve met the Mary up at Surana

In such expressions, the prepositional phrase – [a syˈranə] – draws a given objective relation between an individual or a process and a place, just as it happens in languages such as English or Italian. The positional adverb [ˈsy], by contrast, does not define the absolute location of the place, but its relation to a special kind of deictic origo, not speaker-oriented but ground-oriented, whose features I shall define below. The positional adverb and the preposition do not form a sort of compound preposition but perform two different functions that keep them sharply distinguished. The proof is that they may have opposite inherent contents without conflicting. In (5), for instance, [ˈint], ‘inside’ is a preposition that locates the father with reference to the meadow, whereas [ˈfø], ‘outside’, is a positional adverb that locates the meadow within the ground-oriented system: the father is inside a meadow that is located outside with reference to the origo: 5.

[əl ˈpa ˈlɛ ˈfint (ˈfø + ˈint) əl ˈpra] The father is outside inside the meadow3

Here are some combinations of positional adverbs and prepositional phrases in the dialect of Pendolasco/Poggiridenti:

2 The examples of my native dialect of Pendolasco/Poggiridenti, Valposchiavo and Val di Susa are transcribed in IPA; the examples of Val Blenio and Val Badia are given in the transcriptions provided by the informants. The English translations are word by word so as to reproduce the structure of the original form in a sort of diagram. 3 In the dialect of Piadena, a similar expression is used. Significantly, however, [fɔra], ‘outside’, belongs to the subject-oriented system: it refers to a position located outdoors with reference to an indoor position occupied by the speaker.

Varieties in Italy 2: Alpine Varieties

6.

7.

119

[əl ˈpa ˈlɛ ˈsint (ˈsy + ˈint) i ˈruŋk / ˈʤa (ˈʤu + ˈa) ˈsundrə / ˈʤint (ˈʤu + ˈint) i iɱˈfɛrən] the father is up inside i runk (a vineyard) / down at Sondrio / down inside the Inferno (a vineyard) [əl ˈpa lɛ nˈdatʃ ˈint al ˈtʃats / ˈva (ˈviə + ˈa) trəˈzif / ˈfa (ˈfø + ˈa) munˈtaɲə] the father has gone inside at the Piazzo / away at Tresivio / outside at Montagna

The association of toponyms and positional adverbs is a widespread feature of Romance dialects spoken in the Alpine Region, which however is threatened by the drift towards dialect levelling triggered by the growth of mobility and contact on the one hand and by the spread of standard varieties on the other. In Poschiavo, the association of positional adverbs and toponyms is strong: [ˈgi sy na ma:ˈnza sy in trivˈizina], ‘I’ve got up a young cow up in Trivisina’, [ˈvak inta a san ˈkarlu], ‘I’m going inside at San Carlo’. In Badiot, a noteworthy feature is that the preposition is specified with some positional adverbs – ite a San Ćiascian / fora a San Laurënz / ia a Ortijëi – and not with others: sö Calfosch / jö La Val: 8.

9.

I à na jormana sö Calfosch / jö La Val / ite a San Ćiascian * ite Ø San Ćiascian / fora (i)n Puster, * fora Ø Puster / ia (i)n Pescol, ? ia Ø Pescol I have a cousin up Calfosch / down La Val / inside at San Ćiascian / outside in Pusteria valley / away in Pescol (a hamlet in Badia) I va sö Calfosch / jö La Val / ite a San Ćiascian * ite Ø San Ćiascian / fora (i)n Puster / * fora Ø Puster / ia (i)n Pescol, ? ia Ø Pescol I’m going up Calfosch; down La Val; inside at San Ćiascian; outside in Puster; away in Pescol.

In the same variety, it appears to be a strong tendency for the positional adverb to be dropped when the speaker refers to a place located outside the Ladin valleys: that is, outside the territory organised by the social map, as in (10), or in the mouth of younger speakers more familiar with standard influences, as in (11): 10. I à na jormana a Porsenù / a Bornech / a San Laurënz I have a cousin at Porsenù / at Bornech / at San Laurënz 11. I à na jormana a Calfosch / a Corvara / a La Ila I have a cousin at Calfosch / at Corvara / at La Ila

In Val Blenio, the association is documented but not systematic, as confirmed by the data provided by Vicari (1972). For instance, the positional adverb is present in (12) and absent from (13) and (14): [ˈgẹwm I ˈsan yįn a safranˈtsešk] We had the (images of our) saints inside at St. Francis 13. [kə g ęra Ø ym pruzåš] who was in Prugiasco 14. [ˈkwạŋ k a ˈrivi Ø ym pruˈzåš] when I arrive in Prugiasco 12.

120

Michele Prandi

A tendency to drop the positional determinations is documented wherever a dialect loses its specific local identity as it melts into a more generic koinè. An interesting case is Val di Susa, where the archaic Francoprovençal varieties slowly but irreversibly surrender to the koiné spreading outward from Turin. In Val di Susa, the presence of positional determinations is randomly attested: for instance, it may happen that an inhabitant of Condove, located below Susa, says [iˈlai naˈviɲa sy a ˈsyza], ‘I have a vineyard up at Susa’, or that an inhabitant of Bardonecchia, located above, says [iˈlai naˈviɲa ʤy a ˈsyza] ‘I have a vineyard down at Susa’. However, the absence of positional determinations is now the standard form: [iˈlai naˈviɲa a ˈsyza], ‘I have a vineyard at Susa’. Significantly, the positional adverbs [ˈsy] and [ˈʤy], which are immediately connected to the vertical dimension and are most salient (Lyons 1977, 690), are the most likely to survive the drift. The comparison shows that these interesting remnants of an archaic stage of the Alpine dialects are likely to disappear in the next generations. The cooccurrence of toponyms and positional adverbs in the expression of spatial relations is the most salient feature of the kind of deixis under scrutiny. The question is how to interpret it. As I have remarked above, the standard treatment of such phenomena generally rests on the presupposition that deixis is always subjective, egocentric. A deictic system needs a centre – an origo – and a deictic field. Since Bühler (1982, 11934, Ch. II, § 7), the origo is generally assumed to be speaker-oriented, coinciding with “the here-now-I system of subjective orientation”. Now, this is certainly true for person and time deixis, but not necessarily for space. From a logical point of view, there is no a priori reason why spatial deixis should be confined to an egocentric field. In particular, there is no reason to exclude – beside the subjective experience of space – a social, intersubjective experience, which implies both an intersubjective field and an intersubjective origo. This hypothesis is particularly interesting when considering dialects spoken in a narrow territory, whose speakers are not expected to look at their environment in the same way as the speakers of a language devoid of any specific territorial anchor point. The question is an empirical one, and empirical data suggest that this sort of obsession with spatial reference that has been documented in mountain dialects cannot be seen as a mere extension of speakeroriented deixis. Whereas the dimension ‘proximal’ vs ‘distal’ is undoubtedly speakeroriented, the dimensions ‘up’ vs ‘down’ and ‘inside’ vs ‘outside’ within the uses focused on here are anchored in a field that coincides with a shared map of the territory. The origo that organises this field, in turn, does not coincide with the contingent position of the speaker, but with a fixed point in the shared map, typically located in the centre of the village. Speaker-oriented and ground-oriented deixis have distinct structures and functions. Whereas the function of the speaker-oriented system is to express the speaker’s contingent point of view, the function of the ground-oriented system is to impose on the surrounding territory a long-lasting and intersubjective social mark shared by all the members of the language community.

Varieties in Italy 2: Alpine Varieties

121

In languages spoken by a large community, reference to space is accomplished using two opposing strategies: an objective, non-deictic one, anchored in the geography – in Pendolasco, for instance – and a deictic and subjective one, anchored in the contingent position of the speaker: here. In such languages, the organisation of deictic spatial relations is uprooted from the organisation of the surrounding territory and its morphology; deictic means ‘subject-oriented’. In the dialects under scrutiny, spoken in a circumscribed territory with its specific morphology, by contrast, almost no room is left for objective reference, for almost any spatial reference is deictic in some way or other. This, however, does not imply that any form of spatial reference is subject-oriented. Rather, the idea is that deixis goes far beyond subjectivity. Ground-oriented deixis is neither objective nor subjective but intersubjective. It is not objective because it is anchored in an origo. It is not subjective because the origo does not coincide with the contingent location of the speaker; rather, it coincides with a fixed point at the centre of the village. It is intersubjective because the origo is rooted in a map of the territory shared by the whole language community. The field of subject-oriented spatial orientation, common to all known languages, is a mobile galaxy devoid of a fixed centre. The origo follows the contingent position of each speaker like a snail’s shell. In the presence of ground-oriented deixis, the spatial orientation is enriched by a supplementary and independent system that has the structure of a Ptolemaic universe turning around a fixed centre. In a sense, the system of ground-oriented deixis can be considered a deictic variant of an “absolute frame of reference”, where “speakers and addressees must be constantly and correctly oriented to the local fixed bearings” (Levinson 2003, 91). Unlike Levinson’s absolute frame of reference, however, the ground-oriented system clearly depends on an origo. Unlike such fixed bearings as north, south, west and east and their variants, fixed positions such as [ˈsy], ‘up’, [ˈʤu], ‘down’, [ˈint], ‘inside’, [ˈvi(ə)], ‘away’, [ˈfø] depend on an origo that is in turn fixed – namely, the centre of the village. The association of toponyms and positional adverbs provides the major argument supporting the idea of ground-anchored deixis as an independent system. This association is not mobile as it would obviously be under a regime of subject-oriented deixis, but rigid. Each toponym is located on the map of the territory by one positional adverb, and therefore irrespective of the speaker’s contingent location, because the relevant origo is not mobile but fixed in the space. In my native dialect of Pendolasco/ Poggiridenti, for instance, Surana is always [ˈsy], ‘up’, Sondrio, the main town of the valley, is always [ˈʤu], ‘down’, Il Piazzo, a hamlet of the village, is always [ˈint], ‘inside’, Tresivio, a nearby village eastward is always [ˈvi(ə)], ‘away’, Montagna, a nearby village westward, is always [ˈfø], ‘outside’, and so on. Significantly, when reference is made to the very ground-oriented origo, that is, to the village itself, no positional adverb is required: [la mi ˈca ˈlɛ a ˈpɔʤ:i], ‘my home is at Poggi’. When the origo is referred to, the ground-oriented system is neutralised, for

122

Michele Prandi

the reference point cannot be located with reference to itself. If a positional determination is ever used, it is caught into the net of the subject-oriented system: the utterance [la mi ˈca ˈlɛ sa ˈpɔʤ:i], ‘my home is up at Poggi’, can only be used by a speaker located below the village in a regime of speaker-oriented deixis. We shall examine the ambivalence of positional adverbs between the ground-oriented and the subjective system in § 5.

3 Empirical implications An adequate empirical description of ground-oriented deixis for a given dialect ideally includes two main steps: the definition of the relevant map of the territory, which contains the origo and an exact localisation of the main positional dimensions that emanate from it, and an inventory of the available linguistic means – namely, an inventory of the positional adverbs – that makes explicit the conditions for their use4.

3.1 The map of the territory: origo and relevant dimensions In my native dialect of Pendolasco/Poggiridenti, there are five positional adverbs organised in three oppositions, each corresponding to a relevant dimension: [ˈsy], ‘up’, vs [ˈʤu], ‘down’, [ˈint], ‘inside’, vs [ˈfø], ‘outside’, [ˈvi(ə)], ‘away’, vs [ˈfø], where [ˈfø] is the opposite of both [ˈint] and [ˈvi(ə)]. Each positional adverb defines a position with reference to a fixed origo identified by the centre of the village. The first point to be stressed is that the distribution of the positional adverbs on the map of the territory cannot be predicted through objective criteria such as elevation or North-South orientation5. This is the main reason why these dimensions are to be seen as intersubjective, that is, shared by the community, rather than objective.

4 The perspectives of an empirical study are promising. Since 1999, a scientific society founded in my valley has been promoting the compilation of dictionaries and inventories of toponyms (Istituto di Dialettologia e Etnografia Valtellinese e Valchiavennasca, IDEVV, http://associazioni.provincia.so.it/ idevv/home.htm.). Among the six first dictionaries, some include an inventory of both positional and multidimensional adverbs and a fine-grained description of their relationship with the relevant territory. One of them, the dictionary of Livigno (Mambretti, Bracchi 2011) contains a section dedicated to the structure of ground-oriented deixis: Mambretti 2011. 5 The general structure of the relevant map, including the origo and the relevant dimensions and positions, seems to be shared by the dialects studied thus far. An interesting case is provided by the dialect of Livigno, spoken on the border between Lombardy and Engadin. The peculiar structure of the territory – two distinct villages, one of which, Livigno, winds snake-like along twelve kilometres at the bottom of its valley and is formed by different nuclei – leads to a proliferation of different origo across the territory (Mambretti 2011, 301). Even in such an extreme case, the general scheme of groundoriented spatial reference is not threatened, but its complexity becomes very high.

Varieties in Italy 2: Alpine Varieties

123

The opposition [ˈsy] vs [ˈʤu] primarily organises the vertical dimension on the slope of the mountain. This slope actually coincides with the north-south axis, but this is not relevant for the use of the two adverbs, and more generally for the intersubjective map of the territory. However located southwards, the places on the opposite bank of the main river are considered either [ˈvi(ə)] if they are at the bottom of the valley – [ˈvin (ˈvi(ə) + ˈin) tʃaˈtedə], ‘away in Piateda’ – or [ˈsy] if they are on the slope of the opposite mountain – [sal (ˈsy + ˈa + əl) ˈgatʃ], ‘up at the Gaggio’ – or even [ˈint] if they are located in one lateral valley: [ˈint in vəˈninə], ‘inside in Venina’. The villages of Engadin, a parallel valley to the north, much higher above the sea level, are [ˈint]: [ˈint a ˈtsuots], ‘inside at Zuoz’. The opposite adverbs [ˈint] and [ˈfø], which mean ‘inside’ and ‘outside’ with reference to closed spaces, mainly identify the positions ‘upstream’ and ‘downstream’ with reference to the lateral valley delimiting the municipality eastside6. This use, however, is not exclusive. For instance, [ˈfø] is also used for the north bank of the main river – [ˈfa (ˈfø + ˈa) l ˈadə], ‘outside at the Adda’, whereas [ˈint] is used with the hamlet Il Piazzo which is not located in the lateral valley but on the main slope just a bit higher eastward between the village and the lateral valley: [ˈint al ˈtʃats]. The opposition between [ˈvi(ə)] ‘away’ and [ˈfø], ‘outside’, is rather elusive, but has a clear main value. Imagining the village as a person looking southwards, the opposition divides the space roughly located on a level with the origo in two halves: [ˈvi(ə)] is relevant to the left one (east) and [ˈfø] to the right one (west). Once again, this use is not exclusive: for instance, the south bank of the main river is [ˈvi(ə)] both westwards: [ˈval (vi(ə) + a + əl) faˈe], ‘away at the Faedo’, and eastwards: [ˈval (vi(ə) + a + əl) buˈfɛt], ‘away at the Boffetto’. Both the provision of positional adverbs and the structure of the paradigms organising them are expected to be language-specific. Among the examined dialects, Poschiavo has five adverbs organised in three dimensions, like my native dialect: [ˈsy] vs [ˈʤo], [ˈinta] vs [ˈfɔra], [ˈvia] vs [ˈfɔra]. Badiot shares the same three dimensions but fills them with six adverbs: sö, ‘up’, vs jö, ‘down’, ite, ‘inside’, vs fora, ‘outside’, ia, ‘away’, vs ca7, ‘here’. The dialect of Val Blenio only has four adverbs organised in two dimensions: sü, ‘up’, žü, ‘down’, yint’, ‘inside’, fọ, ‘outside’. In the koinè spoken in Val di Susa, the only surviving dimension is the vertical dimension [sy], ‘up’, vs [ˈʤu], ‘down’. The attested dimensions form an implicational hierarchy: the dimension ‘up’ vs ‘down’, whose core uses are firmly anchored in the vertical dimension, is the most salient one; the dimension that includes ‘away’, which is the most elusive in its relation with the landscape, is the less salient one; the dimension ‘inside’ vs ‘outside’ 6 It is worth remarking that although the lateral valley is very steep, the vertical dimension is not relevant when the path leading to the goal or location goes upstream. Accordingly, a place located at the head of the valley has to be referred to as being [ˈint], ‘inside’, and not [ˈsy], ‘up’. 7 The adverb ca has a specific behaviour: see below, § 4.

124

Michele Prandi

occupies an intermediate position. If a dialect activates a dimension low in the scale, it also activates the higher ones, which are the last to be lost. Significantly, the vertical dimension survives with a clear positional value even in dialects spoken in the great Po plain, for instance at Piadena: [vɔ ˈsø in munˈtaɲə], ‘I’m going up to mountainside’, [vɔ ˈzo al mar], ‘I’m going down to the sea’. The comparison raises a point whose theoretical implications are far-reaching – namely, the issue of ecological and conceptual motivation. Ecological motivation is a one-way vector: it is transparent and natural if considered a posteriori, but this does not imply that the physical structure of the landscape accounts a priori for the relevant dimensions, for the distribution of the relevant positions and for the provision of a given set of expressions, which are all language-specific. An extreme case of unpredictable distribution of relevant positions in the territory is documented in Valposchiavo. Along the main valley, Poschiavo is located upstream and north of Le Prese at about the same height and San Carlo north and upstream from Poschiavo on a higher level. In spite of this, an inhabitant of Le Prese says [ˈvak sy a puʃˈtʃaf], ‘I’m going up at Poschiavo’, but [ˈvak inta a san ˈkarlu], ‘I’m going inside at San Carlo’. Such structures cannot be accounted for by the structure of the landscape but rather refer to the structure of an intersubjective categorisation of it. This, however, does not imply that ecological motivation is simply replaced by conceptual motivation – that the cognitive structure of spatial experience directly shapes the structures of linguistic expressions. An alternative, more promising hypothesis predicts that it is the availability of a system of language-specific forms of expression that provides the experience of space, and in particular spatial orientation, with specific tools (see Levinson (1997; 2003, 14–15); Bickel 1997). The fine-grained and highly specific regimentation of spatial relations displayed by ground-oriented deixis cannot be reduced to the structure of independent concepts, but can only be attained thanks to the availability of language-specific coding devices (Slobin 1996). Therefore, it is not a matter of conceptual import, and even less of pragmatic import8, but really a matter of semantic import. When ideating such fine-grained forms of spatial orientation, language does not simply code a system of concepts independently accessible by consistent thinking9 but is really providing thinking with highly specific concepts. Far from being a passive instrument that provides independent thinking with serviceable

8 This is, for instance, Krier’s opinion: “The purpose of the study is to analyse the pragmatic significance of those elements which indicate spatial dimensions” (Krier 1986, 44; my translation). 9 For an explicit formulation of such a view, see for instance Li/Gleitman (2002, 266): “Language has means for making reference to objects, relations, properties and events that populate our everyday world. It is possible to suppose that these linguistic categories and structures are more or less straightforward mappings from a preexisting conceptual space, programmed into our biological nature: Humans invent words that label their concepts”.

Varieties in Italy 2: Alpine Varieties

125

means of expression, language behaves as an active instrument that makes possible a specific way of thinking by shaping a set of specific semantic categories. “The conceptual coding […] appears to mirror the structure of the linguistic coding”, as Levinson (1997, 38) underlines. When dealing with spatial orientation, language is no longer a mirror of independent conceptual structures. Rather, its specific forms of coding interact with more general conceptual structures to shape the heritage of cognitive tools shared by a language community (Levinson 2003, ch. 7).

3.2 The structure of multidimensional adverbs Such roles as goal, location and spatial frame can be expressed by either a prepositional phrase or a speaker-oriented deictic adverb roughly belonging to the dimension proximal vs distal. Like the former, the latter forms are completed by a positional specification. In [laˈsy], for instance, the positional component [ˈsy] is associated with the distal component [la-], which organizes the surrounding space from the speaker’s contingent standpoint. The association of these two forms gives rise to more or less complex paradigms of multidimensional adverbs. We shall examine the exact value and use of these forms below (§ 5.2). In this section, we put under focus their language-specific organisation into paradigms. The interesting point with multidimensional spatial adverbs is that both their amount and structure are highly language-specific, so that even neighbouring dialects display deep differences. In my native dialect of Pendolasco/Poggiridenti, each subjective deictic adverb – for instance, [la-], ‘there’ – can receive no more than one positional determination. Such forms as [laˈfø], ‘there outside’, [laˈsy], ‘there up’, and [laˈʤu], ‘there down’, are allowed, whereas such forms as *[laføˈsy], ‘there outside up’, or *[laføˈʤu], ‘there outside down’, are not allowed. In some neighbouring dialects, by contrast, two or even more positional specifications belonging to different dimensions are allowed. My dialect of Pendolasco/Poggiridenti has two pairs of subject-oriented deictic adverbs – namely, the proximal [ˈʃa] and [kiˈlɔ] and the distal [ˈla-] and [iˈlɔ] – whose behaviour is significantly different. The proximal adverbs [ˈʃa] and [kiˈlɔ] can both occur alone, without any positional determination. The adverb [ʃa], ‘here’, enters into a complex mono-dimensional adverb – [ʃakiˈlɔ] – whose behaviour, however, is more complex (see § 4). [kiˈlɔ], ‘here’, and [iˈlɔ], ‘there, at low distance’, can occur either alone or combined with a positional adverb, whereas [la-], ‘there, at high distance’, can only co-occur with a positional adverb. This gives rise to one series of bi-dimensional adverbs for proximity, one for low distance, and one for high distance:

126

Michele Prandi

Proximal: [kiˈlɔ]

Distal: [iˈlɔ]

Distal: [la-]

[sykiˈlɔ] up here

[syiˈlɔ] there up

[laˈsy] there up

[ʤukiˈlɔ] down here

[ʤuiˈlɔ] there down

[laˈʤu] there down

[intəkiˈlɔ] inside here

[intiˈlɔ] there inside

[laˈint] there inside

[føkiˈlɔ] outside here

[føiˈlɔ] there outside

[laˈfø] there outside

[vikiˈlɔ] away here

[viˈlɔ] there away

[laˈviə] there away

The different behaviour of the three subject-oriented deictic adverbs has clear implications for the language-specific categorisation of the surrounding space. The reference of the proximal adverb [kiˈlɔ], ‘here’, is seen in the first place as a point devoid of any positional dimension, which accounts for the use in isolation. If necessary, however, this point may be stretched to include the immediate surrounding space and thus organise it according to the positional dimensions, which justifies the compatibility with the positional adverbs. The adverb [iˈlɔ] refers to a shortdistance location that can be conceived as a point as well as an extended surface compatible with the positional dimensions. The distal adverb [la-], for its part, refers to a high-distance location, so that the identification of an exact point requires a positional specification. Some dialects spoken in nearby villages are more liberal in the formation of multidimensional adverbs. In the bordering village of Montagna, for instance, we find two double-series of distal and proximal bi-dimensional adverbs and two series of tridimensional adverbs: Proximal Bidimensional

Proximal tridimensional

Distal bidimensional

[sykiˈlɔ] up here

[kwaˈsy] here up

[siˈlɔ] up there

[ʤukiˈlɔ] down here

[kwaˈʤu] here down

[ʤiˈlɔ] [laˈʤu] down there there down

[intekiˈlɔ] [kwaˈint] inside here here inside [føkiˈlɔ] out here

[kwaˈfø] Here out

[kwaføˈsy] here out up

[laˈsy] there up

[intiˈlɔ] inside there

[laˈint] there inside

[fiˈlɔ] out there

[laˈfø] there out

[kwaˈvi] here away

[kwaviˈsy] here away up [kwaviˈʤu] here away down

[laføˈsy] there out up [laføˈ ʤu] there out down

[kwaføˈʤu] here out down [vikiˈlɔ] away here

Distal tridimensional

[viˈlɔ] [laˈvi] away there there away

[laviˈsy] there away up [laviˈʤu] there away down

Varieties in Italy 2: Alpine Varieties

127

The same holds for the dialect of Poschiavo, which has both bi-dimensional – [intaˈsy], ‘inside up’, [intaˈʤo], ‘inside down’, [fuˈsy], ‘outside up’, [fuˈʤo], ‘outside, down’ – and tri-dimensional adverbs: [intafuˈsy], ‘inside outside up’, [intafuˈʤo] ‘inside outside down’. In the dialect of Grosio, located forty kilometres upstream along the main valley, the wealth and almost free accumulation of spatial dimensions leads to a paradigm of deictic locative adverbs including no less than sixty-eight items (Bracchi 1995, 124; see also Bracchi 1994, XLVI-XLVII). Two significant examples of four-dimensional adverbs are [kulainˈsu], ‘there inside upside, in a distant, not well defined place, including the other side of the lateral valley’, and [kulainˈʤɔ], as above, ‘downside’. Going outside my native territory, Badiot has a rich set of multidimensional adverbs, with two noteworthy features. In bidimensional adverbs, both orders of constituents are admitted: Proximal bidimensional

Distal bidimensional

sö chilò up here

chilò sö here up

sö dailò up there

dailò sö there up

jö chilò down here

chilò jö here down

jö dailò down there

dailò jö there down

ite chilò inside here

chilò ite here inside

ite dailò inside there

dailò ite there inside

fora chilò outside here

chilò fora here outside

fora dailò outside there

dailò fora there outside

/

chilò ia here away

ia dailò away there

dailò ia there away

ca chilò ca here

chilò ca here ca

ca dailò ca there

dailò ca there ca (cf. fn. 15 below)

In tridimensional adverbs, the two positional constituents are coordinated by the conjunction y (pronounced [e] ‘and’): Proximal Tridimensional

Distal Tridimensional

sö y ite chilò sö y fora chilò sö y ca chilò

chilò sö y ite chilò sö y fora chilò sö y ia chilò sö y ca

jö y ite dailò sö y fora dailò sö y ia dailò

dailò sö y ite dailò sö y fora dailò sö y ia dailò sö y ca

jö y ite chilò jö y fora chilò jö y ca chilò

chilò jö y ite chilò jö y fora chilò jö y ia chilò jö y ca

jö y ite dailò jö y fora dailò jö y ia dailò

dailò jö y ite dailò jö y fora dailò jö y ia dailò jö y ca

fora y sö chilò fora y jö chilò fora y ite chilò

chilò fora y sö chilò fora y jö chilò fora y ite

fora y sö dailò fora y jö dailò

dailò fora y sö dailò fora y jö dailò fora y ite

128

Michele Prandi

Proximal Tridimensional

Distal Tridimensional

ite y sö chilò ite y jö chilò

chilò ite y sö chilò ite y jö

ite y sö dailò ite y jö dailò

dailò ite y sö dailò ite y jö

ca y sö chilò ca y jö chilò ca y ite chilò ca y fora chilò

chilò ca y sö chilò ca y jö chilò ca y ite chilò ca y fora

ia y sö dailò ia y jö dailò ia y ite dailò ia y fora dailò

dailò ia y sö dailò ia y jö dailò ia y ite dailò ia y fora

Vicari (1972, § 2.4) describes a great amount of bidimensional and tridimensional adverbs in the dialect of Val Blenio: for instance süfọlį, ‘up outside there’, žüfọlį, ‘down outside there’. In Val di Susa, there is no trace of tridimensional adverbs. On the other hand, the positional constituents of bidimensional adverbs are reduced to the dimension ‘up’ vs ‘down’: [laˈsy], ‘there up’, and [laˈʤy], ‘there down’, which, owing to its firm roots in the landscape, is both the most salient and the last to disappear.

3.3 Positional adverbs in absolute uses In my dialect of Pendolasco/Poggiridenti, positional adverbs can also occur alone, and have two main uses. The first use is immediately relevant for ground-oriented deixis. Positional adverbs occur in an absolute form accompanied by [’in] as arguments of verbs of state and motion to denote either a location or a goal that is either generic or known by the addressee:10 15. [əl ˈpa ˈlɛ in ˈsy] The father is in upside 16. [ˈvagi in ˈʤu] I’m going in downside 17. [əl ˈpa lɛ vəˈɲit in ˈfø] The father has come in outside 18. [əl ˈpa lɛ vəˈɲit in ˈʃa] The father has come in [’ʃa]11

10 In this use, [ˈin] is not a preposition; forms such as [in ˈsy], [in ˈʤu], [in ˈfø] function as compound adverbs. 11 The adverb [ˈʃa] is not translated for reasons that will be explained below (§ 4).

Varieties in Italy 2: Alpine Varieties

129

Additionally, the very same forms that occur as positional adverbs in spatial reference are used as particles12 to form an impressive number of phrasal verbs, a datum that documents the role of spatial orientation as a strategic metaphorical source for shaping general experience13. For instance, [fa ˈsy], ‘make up’, [fa ˈʤu], ‘make down’, [fa ˈint], ‘make in’, [fa ˈfø], ‘make out’, [fa ˈviə], ‘ make away’ (Prandi 2011). The use of positional particles to form phrasal verbs is also common in Romance dialects. Irsara (2009, 193) gives some parallel examples in Badiot: for instance, dè ia, ‘give away’ and tó ia, ‘slaughter’. The latter use of positional forms does not belong to ground-oriented deixis but interferes with its description in a significant way. In the presence of motion verbs like [ənˈda], ‘go’, and [vəˈɲi], ‘come’, the two uses – as positional adverbs and as constituents of phrasal verbs – may overlap: as a phrasal verb, for instance, [vəˈɲi ˈfø] simply means ‘come out’. In my dialect of Pendolasco/Poggiridenti, the main distinctive criterion is the presence of [ˈin] in case of positional use and its absence in case of phrasal verb. In [əl ˈpa lɛ vəˈɲit in ˈfø], ‘the father has come in outside’, the simple verb [vəˈɲi] is saturated by [in ˈfø], which identifies the goal through its relation with the source (see § 4). In [əl ˈpa lɛ vəˈɲit ˈfø], ‘the father has come out’, by contrast, the compound verb [vəˈɲi ˈfø] remains unsaturated until a source is specified: for instance, [əl ˈpa lɛ vəˈɲit ˈfø ˈdal ˈlɛtʃ], ‘the father has come out from the bed’. In Badiot, when the source is specified, the simple verb and the positional adverb are separated by the prepositional phrase that expresses it: for instance, I vëgn da La Val sö, ‘I come up from La Val’. Going back to the absolute use of positional adverbs, an interesting question is whether and to what extent accumulation is allowed outside multidimensional adverbs – that is, in association with toponyms and in absolute forms expressing a locative argument of verbs of state or motion. In my dialect of Pendolasco/Poggiridenti, accumulation is not allowed in multidimensional adverbs, absolute uses, or in association with toponyms: this is an extreme case of negative correlation. An extreme case of positive correlation is Poschiavo, where accumulation of positional adverbs is documented in multidimensional adverbs, in absolute uses (19) and even in association with toponyms (20): 12 Some positional forms are open to three uses: they behave as adverbs when used in groundoriented spatial reference – [ˈint al ˈtʃats] – as particles in the formation of phrasal verbs – [fa ˈint] – and as prepositions: [ˈint əl ˈpra]. On the ambivalence of positional forms, see Irsara (2009, 194–195). 13 In this use, positional adverbs identify in the first instance the main axes of spatial orientation. The following includes some examples: When used with a building, [fa ˈsy] means ‘build’, which underlines the vertical growing of the construction. When [fa ˈʤu] takes as direct object the unproductive shoots of the vine – [ˈruɲə] and [ˈfjø] – the motion towards the ground is focused on. [fa ˈint] is used to describe the action of putting wine from the barrel into the bottle, whereas [fa ˈfø] refers to the action of pouring wine from the bottle into the glasses. The motivation, however, is not always so direct and transparent. When used with a thread or string, [fa ˈsy] describes the action of spooling it; as an idiom, [fa ˈsy l ˈfil] – lit. ‘to spool the thread’ – means ‘die’.

130

Michele Prandi

19. [ˈvak intafuˈsy / ˈvegnum in ˈʃa ˈsy] I’m going first inside then outside up / we are coming in [ˈʃa] up 20. [ˈvam inta ˈʤo int a li plaˈnɛli vs ˈvegnum in ˈʃa ˈsy da li plaˈnɛli] We are going inside down inside to the Planeli vs We are coming in [ˈʃa] up from the Planeli

Poschiavo is the only dialect I am aware of that allows for the accumulation of positional adverbs in association with toponyms. According to Vicari (1972, 40), such an association should even be excluded for functional reasons: “the position of the hamlets is too familiar to the peasants to require to be specified by the combination of two directions”. As already remarked, however, the linguistic shaping of spatial relations cannot be immediately accounted for on functional grounds. The accumulation of positional adverbs in absolute uses is allowed in the dialect of Val Blenio. Both in Poschiavo (20) and Val Blenio (21), accumulation is by juxtaposition but the order of the dimensions is different: unlike in Poschiavo, in Val Blenio the vertical dimension is specified first: 21.

lì al kapiọt a g ę dọ strat: vüna la vå ysüfọra, r åltra la vå ysüint (Vicari 1972) There at the Kapiọt there are two paths: one goes up outside, the other goes up inside

In the dialect of Montagna (Valtellina), accumulation, which is allowed in multidimensional adverbs, is blocked not only in the presence of toponyms but also in absolute uses. Whereas an utterance such as [ˈsum ənˈdatʃ laviˈsy], ‘I have gone there away upside’, is grammatical, both *[ˈsum ənˈdatʃ viˈsy a bolgə], ‘I have gone away upside at Bolga’, and *[ˈsum ənˈdatʃ viˈsy], ‘I have gone away upside’, are not. The cases analysed suggest an implicational hierarchy that could easily be verified against a larger data set: if accumulation is allowed in the presence of toponyms, this implies that it is allowed in absolute uses, which in turn implies that it is allowed in adverbs.

4 The description of motion We have already remarked that positional adverbs are used either alone, or in combination with a toponym or with a subjective deictic adverb, not only when framing static relations between objects or processes and space, but also when describing motion across the territory. There are two kinds of motion that are relevant from our perspective: an objective kind, referred to by [ənˈda], ‘go’, and the kind referred to by [vəˈɲi], ‘come’, which incorporates a subject-oriented deictic component in that the goal is anchored in the position of either the speaker or the addressee. In the presence of verbs of the type go, motion is described on the same conditions as a static relation: 22. [ˈsum ənˈdatʃ sa (sy + a) syˈranə / ˈʤa (ˈʤu + ˈa) ˈsundrə / ˈint al ˈtʃats / ˈva (ˈviə + ˈa) trəˈzif / ˈfa (ˈfø + ˈa) munˈtaɲə]

Varieties in Italy 2: Alpine Varieties

131

I went up to Surana / down at Sondrio / inside at the Piazzo / away at Tresivio / outside at Montagna 23. [əl ˈpa lɛ nˈdatʃ in ˈsy / in ˈʤu / in ˈint / in ˈfø / in ˈviə] The father has gone in upwards / in downwards / in inwards / in outwards / in away

In the presence of verbs of the type come, the conditions of ground-oriented deictic reference grow very complex for two reasons: unlike personal deixis, ground-oriented deixis is ready to mark not only the position of the goal with reference to the origo but also the position of the origo with reference to the source; moreover, ground-oriented deixis is bound to interact and conflict with the personal deictic component of the motion. The latter point will be examined in the next section; we shall now consider the former. Unlike the goal, the source is independent of the subjective deictic origo, and languages devoid of any ground-anchored origo may express it in purely objective terms. In John is coming to Milan, for instance, Milan necessarily coincides with the position of either the speaker or the addressee. In John is coming from Milan, the location of Milan is independent of both. A system of ground-anchored deixis, by contrast, has at its disposal the means for marking the position of the source. Let us observe once again the behaviour of my native dialect of Pendolasco/Poggiridenti. When the goal is expressed, the positional adverbs are the same that express a static location: 24. [əl ˈpa lɛ vəˈɲit sa syˈranə / ʤa ˈsundrə / ˈint al ˈtʃats / fa munˈtaɲə / va trəˈzif / vin tʃaˈtedə] The father came up to Surana / down at Sondrio / inside at the Piazzo / outside to Montagna / away to Tresivio

When the source is specified, the positional relation is inverted: instead of anchoring the source in the origo, the positional adverb locates the origo with reference to the source. The expression (24), for instance, tells us that the origo – the centre of the village – is downward from Surana; the same happens when the toponym is not specified. In Levinson’s (2003, 68) terms, this gives a “unique vector” of direction any time motion is described:14 25. [əl ˈpa ˈlɛ vəˈɲit inˈʤu da syˈranə / əl ˈpa ˈlɛ vəˈɲit inˈʤu] The father came in downwards from Surana / The father came in downwards

Against such a premise, we can expect that the expression of the anchorage of the origo in the source simply inverts the anchorage of the goal in the origo, using the opposite term of the same paradigm. In fact, the correlation is not systematic. If the subject comes from a source that is [ˈsy], we find [in ˈʤu], and vice-versa:

14 “Notice that specification of either source or goal alone does not determine a direction – it merely determines a progression towards or away from a ground. Specification of both (as in He went from Antwerp to Amsterdam) determines a unique vector” (Levinson 2003, 68).

132

Michele Prandi

26. [ˈvagi sa syˈranə vs ˈveɲi in ˈʤu da syˈranə / əl ˈpa lɛ vəˈɲit (in) ˈʤu] I’m going up to Surana vs I’m coming in down from Surana / The father has come in down 27. [ˈvagi ʤa ˈsundrə vs ˈveɲi in ˈsy da ˈsundrə / əl ˈpa lɛ vəˈɲit in ˈsy] I’m going down to Sondrio vs I’m coming in up from Sondrio / The father has come in up

If the source is [ˈint] or [ˈvi(ə)], equally, we find [in ˈfø], as expected, as in (28) and (29), but the opposite does not hold. If the subject comes from a source that is [ˈfø], we have neither [in ˈint] nor [in ˈvi(ə)] but [in ˈʃa], as in (30): 28. [ˈvagi intɐl ˈval də ˈruɲə vs ˈveɲi (in)ˈfø dal ˈval də ˈruɲə / əl ˈpa lɛ vəˈɲit (in) ˈfø] I’m going inside the Rogna Valley vs I’m coming in outside from the Rogna Valley / The father has come in outside 29. [ˈvagi va (ˈvi(ə) + ˈa) trəˈzif vs ˈveɲi in ˈfø da ˈtrəzif / əl ˈpa lɛ vəˈɲit in ˈfø] I’m going away to Tresivio vs I’m coming in outside from Tresivio / The father has come in outside 30. [ˈvagi ˈfa (ˈfø + ˈa) i kastəˈlaʃ vs ˈveɲi in ˈʃa dai kastəˈlaʃ / əl ˈpa lɛ vəˈɲit in ˈʃa] I’m going outside to the castles vs I’m coming in [’ʃa] from the castles / The father has come in [ˈʃa]

The dialect of Poschiavo behaves in a slightly different way. One difference lies in the structure of the paradigms: the correlative of [ˈvia] is not [ˈfɔ] but [ˈʃa], which is also the correlative of [ˈfɔ]. Another is that the presence of [ˈin] with the positional adverb is obligatory in absolute uses and optional in the presence of toponyms: 31. [vagi (in) ˈsy a suˈazar vs ˈveɲi (in) ˈʤo da syˈazar / al ˈpa lɛ vyˈɲy in ˈʤo] I’m going up at Suasar vs I’m coming down from Suasar / The father has come down 32. [vagi (in) ˈʤo in ˈplaŋg vs ˈveɲi (in) ˈsy diŋg ˈplaŋg / al ˈpa lɛ vyˈɲy in ˈsy] I’m going down in Plang vs I’m going up from Plang / The father has come up 33. [vagi (in) ˈvi a viˈal vs ˈveɲi (in) ˈʃa da viˈal / al ˈpa lɛ vyˈɲy in ˈʃa /] I’m going away to Viale vs I’m coming in [ˈʃa] from Viale / The father has come in [ˈʃa] 34. [sem ˈy (in) ˈinta in val da ˈka:mp vs sem vyˈɲy (in) ˈfɔ da la ˈval da ˈkamp / al ˈpa lɛ vyˈɲy in ˈfɔ] I’ve gone inside in Val di Campo vs I’ve come outside from the Val di Campo / The father has come outside 35. [ˈvam (in) fu ˈʤo a ˈtorn vs ˈvegum (in) ˈʃa ˈsy da ˈtorn / al ˈpa lɛ vyˈɲy in ˈʃa ˈsy] We’re going (in) outside down at Torn vs We’re coming (in) [ˈʃa] up from Torn / The father has come in [ˈʃa] up

In the nearby village of Brusio, the description of ‘coming from’ allows for two positional adverbs: one, obligatory, locates the origo with reference to the source; the other, optional, anchors the source in the origo. Another difference is that the correlative of [ˈfo], ‘outside’ is not [ˈʃa] but [ˈint]. (36) and (37) describe coming to Brusio from Tirano, which is located downstream, and from Poschiavo, which is located upstream: 36. [vag ˈfo a tiˈraŋ vs ˈveɲi in ˈint da ˈfo a tiˈraŋ / ˈveɲi in ˈint da tiˈraŋ / ˈveɲi in ˈint da in ˈfɔ] I’m going outside at Tirano vs I’m coming in inside from outside at Tirano / I’m coming in inside from Tirano / I’m coming in inside from in outside

Varieties in Italy 2: Alpine Varieties

133

37. [vag ˈint a puʃˈtʃaf vs ˈveɲi in ˈfɔ da ˈint a puʃˈtʃaf / ˈveɲi in ˈfɔ da puʃˈtʃaf / ˈveɲi in ˈfɔ da in ˈint] I’m going inside at Poschiavo vs I’m coming in outside from inside at Poschiavo / I’m coming in outside from Poschiavo / I’m coming in outside from in inside

The positional relation between the origo and the source is also documented in Badiot, which displays an inverted order of prepositional phrase and positional adverb. Another difference is that in my dialect of Pendolasco/Poggiridenti the correlate of [ˈfø] ‘outside’, is the positional value of [ˈʃa], whereas in Badiot the correlate of fora ‘outside’, is ite ‘inside’; ca, for its part, is the correlate of ia ‘away’: 38. I va jö La Val vs I vëgn da La Val sö I’m going down La Val vs I’m coming from La Val up 39. I va sö Calfosch vs I vëgn da Calfosch jö I’m going up Calfosch vs I’m coming from Calfosch down 40. I va ia in Gherdëna vs I vëgn da Gherdëna ca I’m going away in Gherdëna vs I’m coming from Gherdëna ca 41. I va ite a San Ćiascian vs I vëgn da San Ćiascian for a I’m going inside at San Ćiascian vs I’m coming from San Ćiascian outside 42. I va fora in Puster vs I vëgn da Puster ite I’m going outside Puster vs I’m coming from Puster inside

In Val Blenio, the positional determination of the origo is documented – kwån kẹ y nizẹ fọ da dålp ‘When [the cows] were coming outside from the summer pasture’ – but optional. In Val di Susa, the two forms with and without the positional adverb are interchangeable: [alεˈvny ˈʤu dalcɔlˈbiuŋ] or [alεˈvny dalcɔlˈbiuŋ]. It should be stressed, however, that in the former example there is no proof that [ˈʤu] is positional; as a matter of fact, the sequence [ˈvny ˈʤu] behaves as a phrasal verb, like English come down. Returning to my dialect of Pendolasco/Poggiridenti, I do not try a translation of the adverb [ˈʃa], because it displays a specific kind of polyvalence. Besides identifying the position of the origo with reference to the source within the system of ground-oriented deixis as the opposite of [ˈfø], as in [ˈveɲi in ˈʃa dai kastəˈlaʃ], ‘I’m coming in [ˈʃa] from the castles’, it is used in the system of personal deixis as a proximal adverb, like [kiˈlɔ]. The two proximal adverbs, however, have different uses. The use of [kiˈlɔ] is restricted to the expression of a proximal static location, whereas [ˈʃa], in alternative to the compound [ʃakiˈlɔ], is restricted to the expression of the goal.15 Compare for instance [ˈsum kiˈlɔ] ‘I’m here’; [ˈla ˈmi ˈka ˈlɛ kiˈlɔ] ‘my home is here’; [ˈveŋ ˈʃa] ‘come here’; [ˈveŋ ʃakiˈlɔ] ‘come

15 As Irsara (2009, 182) points out, in Badiot “Ia and ca are thus diametrically opposed adverbs of direction […] while chilò and dailò indicate a position, ca and ia indicate a direction, ‘towards here’ and ‘towards there’ respectively”. In that, they “seem to have a similar function to German hin and her: Komm zu mir her (Come to me here); Ich geh zu ihm hin (I’m going to him there)”. Like [ˈʃa], Ladin ca “has remained faithful to a centripetal orientation, which existed in Latin HAC ” (184) and survives in Old French ça: Venez donc ça; for Ladin ca and ia also see § 5.

134

Michele Prandi

here here’. Accordingly, the utterance [ˈsum ˈʃa] does not mean ‘I’m here’, but something like ‘I’ve just arrived here’. The proof is that an utterance such as *[ˈla ˈmi ˈka ˈlɛ ˈʃa] is inconsistent, because its only admitted interpretation would be ‘my house has just arrived here’. In this use as the expression of goal, [ˈʃa] has no opposite, for [ˈvi(ə)] also admits a static sense. In the dialect of Poschiavo, [ˈʃa] is both the correlative of [ˈvia] and [ˈfɔ] as a positional adverb in the description of motion and an isolated value in the expression of a proximal goal: [ˈveŋ ˈʃa], ‘Come here’, alternative to [ˈveŋ kiˈlɔ], ‘Come here’. In Badiot, by contrast, ca is the opposite of ia in both uses (Irsara 2009, 182). In spite of these differences, [ˈʃa] and ca share an interesting restriction: as expressions of goal, both are compatible with coming but not with going. Whereas one can go [ˈsy], [ˈʤu] and [ˈfø] to a place and come [ˈsy], [ˈʤu] and [ˈfø] from one, one can come [ˈʃa] or ca from a place but not go [ˈʃa] or ca to one. One could think that this behaviour is the same as that displayed by here in English: Come here is natural, whereas Go here seems contradictory. However, there is a difference. Like [ˈvaŋ kiˈlɔ], Go here can be used in a regime of Deixis am Phantasma (Bühler 1934, Ch. II, § 8; Conte 1988; Mazzoleni 1985), for instance pointing at a map when giving instructions. In this case, the point on the map is near the speaker but refers to a distant location. [ˈʃa] does not even admit this use.

5 The interaction between ground-oriented and subject-oriented deixis Subject-oriented and ground-oriented deixis form two autonomous systems that coexist and interact; interaction, in turn, is peaceful under some conditions and problematic under others. At the root of the conflict between the two systems lies the ambivalence of positional adverbs, which are open to both a ground-oriented and a speaker-oriented use. Although more general, this ambivalence is highlighted in the description of motion.

5.1 The motion of the type [vəˈɲi] ‘come’ In the presence of verbs of the type come, the goal may coincide with the position of either the speaker – (43) – or the addressee – (44) – or remain indeterminate – (45): 43. Come here 44. I’m coming 45. John is coming

In the first case, the goal also coincides with the subjective origo; in the second, it does not. I shall define centripetal motion in the former case, and centrifugal in the latter.

Varieties in Italy 2: Alpine Varieties

135

When motion is centrifugal, it is possible that the position of the speaker coincides with the ground-oriented origo. In this case, the positional determination is the expected one. Owing to the coincidence between the speaker’s contingent location and the ground-oriented origo, however, the positional adverbs are compatible with both interpretations: 46. [ˈveɲi sa syˈranə / ʤa ˈsundrə / ˈintal ˈtʃats / fa munˈtaɲə / va trəˈzif] I’m coming up to Surana / down at Sondrio / inside to the Piazzo / outside to Montagna / away to Tresivio

If the speaker is located elsewhere, the ground-oriented determination enters into conflict with the subjective one; the positional adverb is no longer compatible with its elective function and is put in the service of the subjective orientation. If the speaker is located above Surana, for instance, the appropriate description of a centrifugal motion would not be (46) but (47). Surana, which is [ˈsy] ‘up’, with reference to the ground-oriented origo, becomes [ˈʤu] ‘down’, from the speaker’s point of view: 47. [ˈveɲi ʤa syˈranə] I’m coming down to Surana

If motion is centripetal, the location of the speaker coincides with the goal. In the case it is dissociated from the ground-oriented origo, the positional adverb becomes incompatible with the ground-oriented reference and is irreversibly attracted into the subjective deictic system. For a speaker located in Surana, for instance, motion is assumed to be upwards in (48) and downwards in (49). Unlike in the presence of centrifugal motion, both orientations are defined with reference to the speaker’s location: 48. [əl ˈpa lɛ vəˈɲit sa syˈranə] The father came up to Surana 49. [əl ˈpa lɛ vəˈɲit ʤa syˈranə] The father came down to Surana

When the goal coincides with the ground-oriented origo, the system of groundoriented reference is necessarily neutralised, as we have observed above, and positional adverbs can only be put in the service of subjective deixis. The motion is upwards in (50) and downwards in (51): 50. [əl ˈpa lɛ vəˈɲit sa ˈpɔʤ:i] The father came up to Poggi 51. [əl ˈpa lɛ vəˈɲit ʤa ˈpɔʤ:i] The father came down to Poggi

136

Michele Prandi

5.2 The ambivalence of positional adverbs When static relations are described by means of prepositional phrases in a regime of objective reference, the dissociation between personal and intersubjective origo does not threaten the ground-oriented system. A person finding himself in a place above Surana, for instance, typically favours the ground-oriented origo, that is, the position of the village he normally lives in, over his contingent position, and defines Surana’s location with regard to it: 52. [ˈgɔ n ˈbryʎu ˈsa syˈranə] I’ve got an orchard up at Surana16

As an alternative hypothesis, one could imagine that the presence of an origo uprooted from the actual position of the speaker is an instance of Deixis am Phantasma: the speaker assumes an imaginary origo in order to describe an imaginary location or trajectory across space. In our case, the speaker would behave as if he actually were in the village. The case in point, however, is very different: the gap between the actual location of the speaker and the assumed origo is not a free option, but a social fact shared by the speech community and incorporated into the grammar. Ground-oriented deixis is both pervasive and obligatory, whereas Deixis am Phantasma is both optional and connected to very peculiar communicative aims, for instance the description of a trajectory in a distant environment not directly accessible to demonstratio ad oculos. But let us now imagine that the same speaker uses an adverb belonging to personal deixis instead of the objective prepositional phrase: would one go on using the positional adverb [ˈsy] when referring from above to a place located below, maybe pointing one’s finger at it? Of course, not: one would never use (53) but (54): 53. [ˈgɔ n ˈbryʎu laˈsy] I’ve got an orchard there up 54. [ˈgɔ n ˈbryʎu laˈʤu] I’ve got an orchard there down

The conclusion is that positional adverbs display an essential ambivalence between ground-oriented and personal deixis even in the absence of motion. When they are dissociated from an objective spatial reference and combined with subjective deictic adverbs, the anchorage in the shared map of the territory gets lost; the multidimensional adverb as a whole is attracted into the sphere of personal deixis. In order to examine this point, let us consider the behaviour of multidimensional

16 The alternative option of locating Surana with reference to the speaker’s real position – [ˈgɔ n ˈbryʎu ˈʤa syˈranə] ‘I’ve got an orchard down at Surana’ – is not considered correct by the eldest inhabitants (including myself), who are less exposed to interferences from Italian.

Varieties in Italy 2: Alpine Varieties

137

adverbs in connection first to [vəˈɲi] ‘come’, then to [ənˈda] ‘go’, and finally with static locations. In (55), the bi-dimensional adverbs clearly put the surrounding space in relation to the position of the speaker; in particular, the positional vectors [ˈsy], [ˈʤu], [ˈint], [ˈvi(ə)] and [ˈfø] are defined with reference to the speaker. Independently of the presence of the verb [vəˈɲi] ‘come’, the same holds for the goal of father’s motion in (56) and for father’s location in (57): 55. [əl ˈpa lɛ vəˈɲit laˈsy / laˈʤu / laˈint / laˈviə / laˈfø] the father has come there up / there down / there inside / there away / there outside 56. [əl ˈpa lɛ ˈndatʃ laˈsy / laˈʤu / laˈint / laˈviə / laˈfø] the father has gone there up / there down / there inside / there away / there outside 57. [əl ˈpa lɛ laˈsy / laˈʤu / laˈint / laˈviə / laˈfø] the father is there up / there down / there inside / there away / there outside

As a native speaker, I am aware that the orientational criteria that govern the use of [ˈsy], [ˈʤu], [ˈint], [ˈvi(ə)] and [ˈfø] within the subjective system are inherited from the ground-oriented system: the complex network of coordinates that frames groundoriented deixis is projected onto the subjective space without losing its relational structure. Once adapted to the subjective origo, the positional dimensions go on organising the surrounding space along the same criteria; as such, they are added to the proximal and distal determinations to form such an extremely fine orientation system as to draw the attention of many field linguists. The polysemy of positional determinations, and in particular the undisputable subjective value they display in some uses, is certainly the deep reason why nobody ever observed the ground-oriented deictic system hidden behind the more apparent subjective one.

6 Conclusion: the collapse of the ground-oriented deictic system The ground-oriented frame of reference, rooted in the structure of a familiar territory, is solid enough to overcome the challenge of both the subjective frame of reference and the mobility of the speaker. What really leads to a complete collapse of the system is another kind of motion, a metaphorical one indeed, whose protagonist is not the speaker but the language itself: that is, either the spread of the language community beyond the borders of its narrow, elective territory or the colonisation of the territory by a standard language. When this happens, the heritage of positional adverbs is not condemned to death but is radically reorganised: its twofold function is reduced to one and confined to the subjective deictic system, while its dimensions are likely to be

138

Michele Prandi

reduced according to the implicational hierarchy described above (see § 3.1). This is the reason why even in languages spread across immense territories one finds such items as outside, inside, away, and above all up and down: speakers go on using them as optional, often redundant determinations belonging to the subjective deixis. In up there, for instance, up is optional. French là bas ‘there down’, for its part, simply means ‘there’; bas ‘down’ is redundant. As an individual’s heritage, the dialect loses its anchorage every time a native speaker leaves its territory. I moved away from my village many years ago. When I go back there, my dialect is the language I naturally speak with my relatives and friends, and the positional determinations are immediately and naturally activated. When a relative or a friend comes to see me and we speak the dialect of our dear village, a small community is formed and the map of the territory is restored in absentia, in a phantasmatic way: Surana is always [ˈsy] ‘up’, Sondrio is always [ˈʤu] ‘down’, Il Piazzo is always [ˈint] ‘inside’, Tresivio is always [ˈvi(ə)] ‘away’, Montagna is always [ˈfø] outside’. Significantly, however, I never spoke my dialect with my sons. This was not my choice: the option was simply not available, because they were born and actually live outside its territory. More generally, this is the deep reason why a dialect like mine cannot be taught and learnt outside the game of speaking it within the borders of its territory.

7 References Bickel, Balthasar (1997), Spatial operations in deixis, cognition and culture: where to orient oneself in Belhare, in: Jan Nuyts/Eric Pederson (edd.), Language and Conceptualization, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 46–83. Bracchi, Remo (1994), Profilo dei dialetti della Val Tartano, in: Giovanni Bianchini (ed.), Vocabolario dei dialetti della Val Tartano, Sondrio, Fondazione Pro Valtellina – Istituto di Dialettologia e di Etnografia Valtellinese e Valchiavennasca, XIII–LVII. Bracchi, Remo (1995), Profilo storico del dialetto di Grosio, in: Gabriele Antonioli/Remo Bracchi (edd.), Dizionario etimologico grosino, Grosio, Biblioteca Comunale, 51–159. Bühler, Karl (1982, 11934), Sprachtheorie, Jena, Fischer. 2nd ed., Stuttgart, Fischer. Conte, Maria-Elisabeth (1988, 21999), Condizioni di coerenza, Firenze, La Nuova Italia; 2nd ed. by Bice Mortara Garavelli, Alessandria, Edizioni dell’Orso. Ebneter, Theodor (1993), Strukturen und Realitäten: Aufsätze zur Romanität Graubündens und Norditaliens, Basel/Tübingen, Francke. Greenberg, Joseph H. (1985), Some iconic relationships among place, time and discourse deixis, in: John Haiman, (ed.), Iconicity in Syntax, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, Benjamins, 271–287. Haidú, Judit I. (1969), Der Richtungsausdruck in der französischen und spanischen Gegenwartssprache, Unpublished Dissertation, Zürich. Irsara, Martina (2009), Demonstratives and Adverbs of Place in Early and Modern Texts from Northern Italy, LabRomAn 3/II, 1–242. Irsara, Martina, (2010), Il sistema dimostrativo avverbiale ladino, in: Maria Iliescu/Heidi Siller-Runggaldier/Paul Danler (edd.), Actes du XXVe Congrès International de Linguistique et de Philologie Romanes (Innsbruck, 3–8 septembre 2007), Berlin/New York, De Gruyter, 75–82.

Varieties in Italy 2: Alpine Varieties

139

Jaberg, Karl (1939), Considérations sur quelques caractères généraux du romanche, in: Mélanges de linguistique offerts à Charles Bally, Genève, Georg, 283–292. Krier, Fernande (1986), Die lokaldeiktischen Ausdrücke im Alemannischen des Kanton Wallis (Schweiz), Zeitschrift für Dialektologie und Linguistik 53, 33–44. Levinson, Stephen C. (1997), From outer to inner space: linguistic categories and non-linguistic thinking, in: Jan Nuyts/Eric Pederson (edd.), Language and Conceptualization, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 13–45. Levinson, Stephen C. (2003), Space in Language and Cognition. Explorations in linguistic diversity, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Li, Peggy/Gleitman, Lila (2002), Turning the tables: spatial language and spatial cognition, Cognition 83, 265–294. Lüdtke, Helmut (1955), Präpositionen der Orts-, Höhen- und Richtungsbezeichnung im Graubündner Oberland, Romanische Forschungen 66, 374–378. Lyons, John (1977), Semantics, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Mambretti, Emanuele (2011), La mappa condivisa del territorio: deissi ambientale, in: Emanuele Mambretti/Remo Bracchi (edd.), Dizionario etimologico-etnografico dei dialetti di Livigno e Trepalle, Livigno – Sondrio, Comune di Livigno – Istituto di Dialettologia e di Etnografia Valtellinese e Valchiavennasca, 300–305. Mambretti, Emanuele/Bracchi, Remo (2011), Dizionario etimologico-etnografico dei dialetti di Livigno e Trepalle, Livigno – Sondrio, Comune di Livigno – Istituto di Dialettologia e di Etnografia Valtellinese e Valchiavennasca. Mazzoleni, Marco (1985), Locativi deittici, Deixis am Phantasma, sistemi di orientamento, Lingua e stile 20.2, 217–246. Muret, Ernest (1926), Adverbes préposés à un complement de lieu dans les patois valaisans, in: Festschrift Louis Gauchat, Aarau, Sauerlander, 79–94. Prandi, Michele (2004a), The Building Blocks of Meaning, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, Benjamins. Prandi, Michele (2004b), I toponimi nella mappa condivisa del territorio: la deissi ambientale, in: Franca Prandi, Inventario dei toponimi valtellinesi e valchiavennaschi, 28, Territorio comunale di Poggiridenti, Società Storica Valtellinese, Sondrio, 167–174. Prandi, Michele (2011), Portare la grammatica nei dizionari, in: Emanuele Mambretti/Remo Bracchi (edd.), Dizionario etimologico-etnografico dei dialetti di Livigno e Trepalle, Comune di Livigno – IDEVV, Sondrio, 183–232. Pult, Chasper (1897), Le parler de Sent (Basse Engadine), Unpublished dissertation, Lausanne. Pult, Chasper (1931), Impronte grigioni, Revue de linguistique romane 7, 101–118. Slobin, Dan (1996), From “thought and language” to “thinking for speaking”, in: John J. Gumperz/ Stephen C. Levinson (edd.), Rethinking Linguistic Relativity, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 70–96. Staub, Marianne (1949), Richtungsbegriff – Richtungsausdruck: Versuch zu einem Vergleich zwischen deutscher und französischer Ausdrucksweise, Bern, Francke. Tognina, Riccardo (1967): Lingua e cultura della Valle di Poschiavo, Basel, Società Svizzera per le tradizioni popolari 47. Vicari, Mario (1972), L’orientarsi dell’uomo nell’ambiente vitale di una regione alpina: Note sull’uso degli avverbi di direzione nei dialetti della valle di Blenio, Unpublished dissertation, Zürich. Wallace, Judith M. (1966), Katu Personal Pronouns, The Mon-Khmer Studies Journal 2, 55–62. Zinsli, Paul (1945), Grund und Grat: Die Bergwelt im Spiegel der Schweizerdeutschen Alpenmundarten, Bern, Francke.

Martina Irsara

5 Ladin Abstract: This chapter examines a number of aspects regarded as the most significant in an overview of the deictic system of the Ladin variety spoken in the upper part of Val Badia, located in the province of Bozen-Bolzano (Italy). The main part of the chapter is devoted to spatial deixis, which exhibits a number of distinctive features especially in its adverbial system, illustrated after an outline of the binary adnominal and pronominal demonstrative system. The semantic and pragmatic value of the high number of locative adverbs and their possible combinations with other particles are clarified on the basis of deictic concepts, like relation to the deictic centre, and reference to the extra-linguistic situation, discourse and common knowledge. The deictic value of temporal expressions is subsequently explored, before finally turning the attention to free and clitic forms of the first and second person pronouns, regarding these as a distinctive trait of Ladin, and intrinsically deictic. Keywords: Romance Languages, Rhaeto-Romance, Ladin, pragmatics, deixis, grammar, temporal deixis, personal deixis, demonstrative, adverb, locative

1 Introduction This chapter presents an overview of selected deictic phenomena in a variety of the Rhaeto-Romance minority language Ladin. The linguistic idiom presented is spoken in San Linert in Badia-Abtei, a village in the southern part of Val Badia, located in South Tyrol. It belongs to Sellaladinisch or Sella Ladin, which defines the varieties spoken in the valleys situated around the Sella massif in the Dolomites (Kattenbusch 1988; Kramer 2008). Sella Ladin is sometimes subsumed within the term “Dolomitic Ladin”, due to the location of the Sella valleys within the Dolomite mountain range. This term is normally used to refer to Rhaeto-Romance together with Swiss or Grison Romansh and Friulian (Belardi 22003; Videsott 2011). The use of the term Ladin to refer to a restricted area of the Rhaeto-Romance territory is therefore to be viewed as a simplification adopted in this chapter for ease of explanation.1 Although it has been pointed out that “deixis has been extended to cover a broad range of language fragments” (Green 1995, 11), and that “just about any referring

1 Ladin is spoken by approximately 31,000 people in the Dolomites, ca. two thirds of them (20,548) living in the province of South Tyrol, where they comprise 4.53% of the population according to the 2011 population census (ASTAT 2012). The percentage of Ladin speakers in the municipality of BadiaAbtei, one of the 8 municipalities in South Tyrol with Ladin majority, amounts to 94.07% (ASTAT 2012). Due to their settlement area, Ladins live in close contact with both German and Italian (↗24 Language Change and Language Contact).

Ladin

141

expression can be used deictically” (Levinson 2004, 101), in this chapter the narrower concept as defined by Vanelli (1981) will be used. Mainly lexical or intrinsic deixis is considered; namely, those expressions which form a defined lexical list in every language, and which – because of their lexical meaning – provide information related to the roles of the participants in the communicative exchange and their spatiotemporal location (Vanelli 1981). Contextually deictic expressions, which only require a deictic reading in certain contexts, are therefore just mentioned in passing. Despite the relatively large body of literature on deixis in other languages, including a number of older general studies that still appear to have a certain degree of validity and reliability, not much seems to have been written specifically on the topic in Ladin.2 The subject is presented in some detail in Irsara (2009) and subsequently in Irsara (2010). However, these studies provide revealing insights especially into the pragmatics of spatial deixis, whereas temporal and personal deixis are beyond the scope of the two analyses. In contrast, it is the aim of the present chapter to offer an outline of all the three semantic fields, types or categories of space, time and person (Levinson 2004; Vanelli 2010; Diessel 2012). After the introductory paragraphs, the chapter sets out to illustrate forms and functions of the adnominal and pronominal demonstratives in section 2, which also includes elucidation of deictic notions that are central to the entire chapter. Section 3 subsequently turns to an analysis of locative or spatial adverbs, reflecting in particular on the functions of the numerous terms available in the Ladin deictic system, with the attempt to identify and account for regularities of their use. In section 3, the chapter also illustrates multiple-word combinations occurring in the adverbial deictic system, before turning to temporal deictic expressions in section 4. Pragmatic features of temporal adverbial and noun phrases are analysed, while tense is not specifically dealt with in these pages, whose concise form would not have done justice to the complexity of the issues involved.3 Finally, free and clitic personal pronouns are presented in section 5, which analyses personal deixis and the use of plural pronouns to encode distinctions in social deixis. The text also contains a number of examples, the majority of which have arisen from the author’s competence as a native speaker from San Linert in Badia-Abtei. The data have been supported and enriched by other speakers of the language, who gave introspective acceptability judgments. Additionally, deictic expressions as used by them in informal conversations were collected and examined by the author for the purposes of the present chapter. The main focus lying on oral language, only a small part of the data derives from written texts, obtained by consulting the Ladin corpus Tratament Automatich dl Lingaz Ladin (TALL). 2 However, some information on adnominal and pronominal demonstratives as well as on accented and unaccented pronouns is provided as early as the nineteenth century by Gartner (1883). 3 For a presentation of tense formation and usage in Ladin see Gallmann/Siller-Runggaldier/Sitta (2007).

142

Martina Irsara

Since “deixis, in general, sets limits upon the possibility of decontextualization” (Lyons 1977, 646), most of the examples are also briefly paraphrased and set in context. In order to allow for a better understanding of the Ladin constructs, the translations are fairly literal. Items that would normally not be reproduced in an idiomatic translation are enclosed in round brackets, while elements that are not present in the Ladin sample, but are required for a proper understanding of the English version, are encased in square brackets.

2 The adnominal and pronominal demonstrative system The Ladin adnominal and pronominal demonstrative system comprises the forms presented in Table 1. The terms given do not distinguish themselves by their grammatical category, since they basically all function both adnominally and pronominally, with the exception of the feminine abbreviated form chëst’, which is always adnominal.4 Table 1: Adnominal and pronominal demonstrative forms

Singular, proximal

Masculine

Feminine

chësc /kaʃ/ ‘this’

chëst(a) /ˈkaʃta/ ‘this’

Singular, distal

chël /kal/ ‘that’

chëla /ˈkala/ ‘that’

Plural, proximal

chisc /kiːʃ/ ‘these’

chëstes /ˈkaʃtәs/ ‘these’

Plural, distal

chi /ki/ ‘those’

chëles /ˈkaləs/ ‘those’

Ladin has a two-term – or binary – adnominal and pronominal demonstrative system, exhibiting two categories along the deictic dimension (Anderson/Keenan 1985; CH ËSC < ECCU ( M ) ISTU ( M ) and CHËL < ECCU ( M ) ILLU ( M ) indicate respectively a ↗3 Italian). CHËSC referent connected positively and negatively to the deictic centre – the Origo or zero point in Bühler’s (1999 [1934]) deictic field.5 The centre is constituted by the speaker’s location at the moment of utterance, or by the point in discourse where the phrase containing the deictic element occurs (Vanelli 1995). The Ladin adnominal and pronominal demonstrative system is therefore egocentric, or centred on the speaker, who relates everything to his or her viewpoint (Lyons 1977). The speaker will employ

4 While feminine chëst’ seems to be used quite often, the masculine abbreviated form chëst only seems to occur sporadically in Badia-Abtei, e.g. chëst ann ‘this year’. In addition, the feminine distal demonstrative chëla is sometimes also shortened in adnominal position in other parts of the valley, e.g. chë möta ‘that girl’, whereas no such abbreviation is now found in Badia-Abtei. 5 Forms in italicised small capitals represent different paradigmatic variants.

Ladin

143

pronominal CHËSC , or phrases containing the same adnominal form, not only for referents viewed by him or her as proximal to his or her location, but also for referents that coincide with his or her location or include it. In contrast, CHËL will be used for referents perceived as being distant from or outside the speaker’s area (Vanelli 1995). A division of the demonstratives into proximal and non-proximal does not therefore seem to be entirely accurate; the use of the terms is to be seen as a deliberate simplification for expository purposes. The concepts of proximity, coincidence, inclusion and distance are illustrated in the examples below. Sentence (1) could be uttered by a person introducing his or her brother standing next to him or her, while in (2), the speaker attributes the position he is currently holding, e.g. a successful job, to his listener. In contrast, the little village indicated in (3) is to be understood as including the exact speaker’s location at the moment of utterance, whereas in (4) the referent is a rodent on a tree considered by the speaker outside his or her area. 1.

Chësc é mi fre. (proximity) ‘This is my brother.’

2.

I sun ruvé a chësc punt dandadöt por to mirit. (coincidence) ‘I have got to this point mainly thanks to you.’

3.

I oress m’en jì da chësc pice paîsc. (inclusion) ‘I would like to leave this small village.’

4.

Ve che al é na schirata sön chël lëgn! (distance) ‘Look (that there is) a squirrel on that tree!’

Hence, there are no traces of a specific medial adnominal or pronominal demonstrative in Ladin that might be used to “refer to something near the addressee and to something at a medium distance away from the speaker” (Da Milano 2007, 139). The listener’s location seems to be most often regarded by the speaker as outside his or her area, as in (5) below, where the non-proximal demonstrative chël occurs in a phrase indicating a book being leafed through by the addressee of the question. However, the listener is sometimes also viewed as located within the speaker’s sphere, as in (6) below, where the dress worn by the addressee is indicated by a phrase containing chësc. As also specified by Hottenroth (2002), the concept of distance is relative, and the speaker’s area is defined subjectively, which can sometimes result in a certain oscillation in the use of CHËSC and CHËL . 5.

Poi ti ćiarè en momënt a chël liber? ‘May I look for a moment at that book?’

6.

Chësc guant te sta propi bun! ‘This dress really suits you!’

144

Martina Irsara

Examples (5) and (6) above illustrate the situational, extralinguistic or exophoric use of demonstratives, as they “focus the hearer’s attention on entities in the situation surrounding the interlocutors” (Diessel 1999, 94). Moreover, the individualisation of the referents, e.g. the book in (5), might be facilitated by a pointing gesture in what has been called the gestural use of deictic expressions (Fillmore 1975; Levinson 1983; ↗29 Gesture). The paralinguistic strategy of making gestures in order to catch the addressee’s eye is also explained in Bühler’s (1982 [1934]; 1999 [1934]) demonstratio ad oculos (critically analysed by Fulir/Raecke (2002), who add the expression ad aures to emphasize the primacy of the listener’s act of hearing over seeing). The adnominal demonstrative CHËL is sometimes employed in a recognitional sense, in which “the intended referent is to be identified via specific, shared knowledge rather than through situational clues or reference to preceding segments of the ongoing discourse” (Himmelmann 1996, 230). In example (7) below, the addressee is asked by her mother to go and fetch a pair of scissors from a room which is not yet mentioned in the discourse, but which is familiar to both the speaker and the listener. The referent in (7) is therefore discourse-new but hearer-old (Diessel 1999). 7.

Vaste fora in chëla ćiamena a me tó na forfesc? ‘Could you go (out) into that room to fetch me a pair of scissors?’

Similarly, the use of the adnominal demonstrative chël in the following expressions indicating God (8) and the Child Jesus (9) also appears to be recognitional.6 8.

Sides dagnëra laldè Chël Bel Dî. (TALL) ‘May (That Nice) God always be praised.’

9.

Al vëgn prësc Chël Pice Bambin. ‘Baby Jesus (That Small Child) will come soon.’

Moreover, the distal demonstrative sometimes appears to signal empathetic distance, and conveys a negative affective meaning or contempt (Gaudino-Fallegger 1992). Affective or emotional deixis can be viewed in (10) below, where B refers to the person mentioned by A using the distal demonstrative chëla, which could have been easily omitted and which therefore seems to be emphatic and to betray the speaker’s feelings of dislike towards the woman referred to.7

6 Gsell (1986) provides a list of examples where a number of the demonstratives are described by the author as possibly conveying the meaning of ‘well-known’, e.g. sö por chi jûs ‘on those mountain passes’. Chël Bel Dî is also mentioned by Gsell (1986), who associates the distal demonstrative in this C HËL (often abbreviated to chë in the feminine form) to accompany proper expression to the use of CHËL names, e.g. chël Tone or chë Maria. While the latter use does not seem to be present in the current variety of Badia-Abtei, it is found in other areas of Val Badia. 7 The often negative connotation of the distal demonstrative CHËL pre-modifying proper names is supposed by Gsell (1986) to be one of the possible causes for the restriction of its use to certain contexts (e.g. dislike) and the decline in the use of the demonstrative in front of proper names in general.

Ladin

145

10. A: Inier el ste la Roberta che me à telefunè. A: ‘Yesterday Roberta called me.’ B: Ći orôla pa chëla? B: ‘What did that [that woman] want?’

While in (10), chëla is coreferential with a previous noun phrase, in (11) below the demonstrative refers anaphorically to a whole proposition. Connecting to the prior discourse, chësc indicates the fact that the pupil has daily afternoon lessons, which he or she does not like. The proximal demonstrative might be argued to indicate textual proximity, while the distal demonstrative chël, which would also be possible in (11), would denote distance in the extralinguistic situation (Vanelli 1981). 11.

Tut fora un n dé, unse vigni dé scora dômisdé, y chësc me sa le plü burt. (TALL) ‘Except for one day, we have school in the afternoons every day, and this is what I dislike the most.’

The distal pronominal demonstrative is sometimes used anaphorically in rhetorical questions in order to convey particular interest, disbelief or surprise at a piece of information passed on by the interlocutor, as in (12) below. 12.

A: Ël me à dit che ël ó lascè le laûr. A: ‘He has told me that he wants to leave his job.’ B: A chël? A mé me al dit che al é contënt. B: ‘Really? [Is that so?] To me he has said that he is satisfied.’

Demonstratives can therefore refer to what their antecedents refer to, and thus be described as cross-referring (Ehlich 1982). However, they can also refer directly “to portions of the text itself” (Levinson 2004, 119), as in (13) below, where chësc refers to the foregoing discourse itself, which should not be interpreted by the addressee as disapproval, but as a simple suggestion. Example (13) therefore seems to illustrate text or discourse deixis, inviting the addressee to search for the referent in the textual context, which functions as the deictic field (Cinque 1976; ↗30 Discourse Deixis). 13. Chësc ne dess nia ester na critica mo en pice consëi. ‘This is not meant to be a criticism but a small piece of advice.’

Finally, proximal CHËSC “can also function as a cataphor announcing a following piece of discourse” (Diessel 2012, 2426), as in example (14). 14. Dô… saráste dessigü bun da dè n valgönes respostes a chësta domanda: Ćiodî s’á pa le meder da sas adatè tan bun…? (TALL) ‘After… you will surely be able to give a few answers to this question: Why has the rock marten settled down so well…?’

146

Martina Irsara

Depending on the semantic value of the noun modified by the demonstrative, or by CH ËL are used, the relation to the deictic centre can be the context in which CHËSC and CHËL interpreted temporally as well as spatially (Vanelli 2010).

3 The locative adverbial system 3.1 Chilò, dailò, ca, ia Like the adnominal and pronominal demonstrative system, the Ladin locative adverbial system seems to be totally speaker oriented. Chilò < ECCU ILLOC ( Kramer 1989, 112) and dailò < ( DE ) AD ILLOC express respectively a positive and negative relation to the speaker’s location at the moment of utterance, with no specific role played by the addressee’s location in the choice of one adverb or the other (Irsara 2009; 2010).8 In (15) below, the use of chilò describes the shoes as placed within the speaker’s area, whereas dailò indicates a location at some distance. 15. Ve! Tü ćialzà é chilò/dailò! ‘Look! Your shoes are here/there!’

The spatial deictic system is further enriched by the two diametrically opposed particles of direction ia < VIA and ca < ECCU ( M ) HĀC (Kramer 1989, 19), which normally express motion away from and towards the speaker “on a level surface or in a real or imaginary straight line” (Irsara 2009, 182). Comparing examples (16) and (17) with (18) and (19), it is also apparent that the meaning of the clauses changes if the particles are shifted to another position. While in (16) and (17) the speaker and the church are destinations, in (18) and (19) they appear to be paths to follow or generic areas to head towards, as further illustrated in the next paragraph on the combination of ca and ia with chilò and dailò. 16. Vì ca da mè! ‘Come over here to me’ 17. I va ia da dlijia. ‘I go over there to the church.’ 18. Vì da mè ca! ‘Come towards me!’ 19. I va da dlijia ia. ‘I go towards the church.’

8 Chilò < EC CU ( M ) HIC + ILLOC IL LOC (Rohlfs 1969, 256). Ilò < IL LOC (Kramer 1991, 22). However, it is pointed out IL LOC OC and might possibly be attributed to HIC , so by Rohlfs (1969) that the i of ilò will hardly be that of ILL that the etymology of dailò could also be DE AD + HIC + ILLOC .

Ladin

147

Ca and ia can be found preceding or following chilò and dailò, with their position affecting the meaning expressed, as in (16)–(19) above. When ca and ia precede chilò and dailò, as in the imperatives in (20) and (21) below, the precise location or end point of a motion is normally emphasized. In contrast, chilò ca and dailò ia indicate either a generic area or a specific path with a precise starting point, usually in opposition to another point (Irsara 2009; 2010). In (22) and (23), the person mentioned is said to have gone to some unspecific place which is in proximity of the speaker in the former, and at some distance in the latter, whereas in (24) and (25) the addressee is advised as to the best way to walk, which is apparently less icy than another one. 20. Vì ca chilò! ‘Come over here!’ 21.

Va ia dailò! ‘Go over there!’

22. Ël é gnü inzai chilò ca, mo i ne sa nia avisa olâ. ‘He has come somewhere over here, but I do not know exactly where.’ 23. Ël é jü n pü’ dailò ia, mo i ne sa nia avisa olâ. ‘He has gone a bit towards there, but I do not know exactly where.’ 24. Va dailò ia che al é manco lize! ‘Go that way over there, since it is less slippery!’ 25. Vi chilò ca che al é manco lize! ‘Come this way over here, since it is less slippery!’

As ca and ia imply directions, they are not employed to reinforce adnominal or pronominal demonstratives, which can be accompanied by chilò and dailò, normally indicating precise positions (Irsara 2009; 2010). The use of the latter as opposed to the former in a reinforcing or specifying function is exemplified in (26) and (27): 26. Söl marćé me ai cumprè chësc sbeter chilò/*ca. ‘At the market I (have) bought myself this jumper here.’ 27. Söl marćé me ai cumprè chël sbeter dailò/*ia. ‘At the market I (have) bought myself that jumper there.’

In contrast, only ca and ia are used in gradable contexts to indicate an approaching or distancing from the deictic centre, whereas chilò and dailò are not, as illustrated below (Irsara 2009; 2010). 28. Vì plö incà/*chilò! ‘Come further over here!’

148

Martina Irsara

29. Va plö inìa/*dailò! ‘Go further over there!’

A sense of movement and direction is also conveyed by the coordinate construction ia y ca, which indicates either two specific directions or a series of to-and-fro movements (Irsara 2009; 2010). In (30) below, ia y ca indicates a movement away from the deictic centre to the town of Bressanone and back to the speaker’s home, whereas in (31) it expresses the speaker’s constant movement around the kitchen. Also notable is the order of the particles, with ia preceding ca. 30. I laori a Porsenù y va vigni dé ia y ca/* dailò y chilò cun l’auto. ‘I work in Bressanone and every day I go (over) there and come back (over) here by car.’ 31. I sun saltada ia y ca/* dailò y chilò por ćiasadafüch por ores. ‘I have been running all over the kitchen for hours.’

Ia and ca can also be used with the stative verb to be, where they normally maintain their meaning of movement or direction, and often give the idea of a motion or journey which has just been completed (Irsara 2009; 2010). In (32) below, a destination might have been reached after an accomplished journey or an overcome obstacle, such as a river. The personal pronoun will most naturally indicate animate beings, although goods that reached a place after being transported or sent might also be referred to (Irsara 2009; 2010). 32. Ëi é ca/ia. ‘They are [have arrived] over here/over there.’

‘To be’ + ca/ia is therefore not totally synonymous with ‘to be’ + chilò/dailò, as illustrated by the questionable sentence grouping in (33), and opposed to the perfectly acceptable combinations in (34) and (35). The two sentences in (33) seem to be contradictory, as the first one implies the speaker’s arrival after a journey undertaken with her sister, whereas the second one indicates the recent appearance of the sister only. In contrast, the sentences in (34) point to the shared journey and the recent arrival of both of the sisters, whereas in (35) there is no allusion to a journey. The speaker simply indicates her presence at the place together with her sister, who has just arrived (Irsara 2009; 2010). 33. ? I sun ca cun mia só. Ëla é dër gnüda adalerch.9 ‘I am [have come] over here with my sister. She has just arrived.’

9 The adverb adalerch (‘to this place, from afar’ < ?LARGUS ) also expresses a direction towards the deictic centre, so that it is never preceded by the verb ‘to go’, which indicates motion away from the speaker’s location. Unlike ca, adalerch does not exclude the up-down and north-south direction or vice versa, and normally implies fairly long journeys rather than a simple motion (Irsara 2009).

Ladin

149

34. I sun ca cun mia só. Sun dër gnüdes adalerch. ‘I am [have come] over here with my sister. We have just arrived.’ 35. I sun chilò cun mia só. Ëla é dër gnüda adalerch. ‘I am here with my sister. She has just arrived.’

Table 2 summarises a number of points made on chilò, dailò, ca and ia.10 Table 2: Characteristics of chilò, dailò, ca and ia Description

Forms

Positive relation to the deictic centre

chilò, ca

Negative relation to the deictic centre

dailò, ia

Reinforcement of CHËSC and CCHËL HËL

CHË CHËS SC C

Gradable contexts

plö incà, plö inìa, * plö in chilò, * plö in dailò

chilò, C HËL dailò, * CHËSC ca, * CHËL ia

3.2 Ca-, cura- and la- adverbs The locative adverbial system of Ladin comprises a series of adverbs beginning with ca-, cura- and la-, as illustrated in Table 3. Table 3: Ca-, cura- and la- adverbs Ca- adverbs 11

Cura- adverbs

La- adverbs

-ìa

caìa

curaìa

laìa

-sö (‘up’)

cassö

curassö

lassö

-jö (‘down’)

cajö

curajö

lajö

-ìte (‘in’)

caìte

curaìte

laìte

-fora (‘out’)12

cafora

curafora

lafora

10 The use of ia and ca modifying locative prepositions (e.g. ia/ca pormez a ćiasa ‘over there/here close by the house’), and the employment of the particles in phrasal verbs (e.g. fà ia ‘wrap up’ or arjigné ca ‘prepare, arrange’) go beyond the scope of the present chapter. For more information, see Irsara (2009). 11 While ca and ia had opposite deictic meanings in the examples considered so far, here they are unified in one term. 12 Ladin ite ‘in/inside’ and fora ‘out/outside’ indicate not only a place within or outside a circumscribed area. Geographically, they indicate respectively a location or direction towards the inside or outside of the valley according to the direction of the river (Irsara 2009; 2010). From Val Badia, someone can therefore be said to go ite a Fodom ‘in to Fodom valley’ but fora in Puster ‘out to Pustertal valley’, as the valley of Badia opens out towards Sankt Lorenzen in the valley of Pustertal, with the river Gadera flowing in that direction. Similarly, in his analysis of locative and directional adverbs and

150

Martina Irsara

As suggested by the etymology ECCU ( M ) HAC , caìa, cassö, cajö, caìte and cafora indicate locations viewed by the speaker as situated inside his or her area at the moment of utterance, and which are hence connected positively to the deictic centre (Irsara 2009; 2010). Caìa, cassö, cajö, caìte and cafora can all indicate places close to speaker’s position at the moment of utterance (Irsara 2009; 2010). In (36), the speaker suggests going to the grandmother, whose location is considered by him or her as somehow near on a level surface or in a straight line. Example (37) could be uttered in the garden of a house, with the speaker indicating the grandmother up on the balcony and suggesting to join her. Vice versa, in (38) the speaker and the addressee could be on the balcony and the grandmother in the garden. In (39) and (40) caìte and cafora could indicate the inside of the house and its garden (Irsara 2009; 2010). 36. Ve! La lâ é caìa. Junse inće nos ia? ‘Look! The grandmother is just over there. Shall we go there too?’ 37. Ve! La lâ é cassö. Junse inće nos sö? ‘Look! The grandmother is up here. Shall we go up too?’ 38. Ve! La lâ é cajö. Junse inće nos jö? ‘Look! The grandmother is down here. Shall we go down too?’ 39. Ve! La lâ é caìte. Junse inće nos ite? ‘Look! The grandmother is in here. Shall we go in too?’ 40. Ve! La lâ é cafora. Junse inće nos fora? ‘Look! The grandmother is out here. Shall we go out too?’

Unlike caìa, the adverbs cassö, cajö, caìte and cafora can also indicate places that coincide with the speaker’s location at the moment of utterance, as illustrated below (Irsara 2009; 2010). 41. I sun cassö/cajö/caìte/cafora. ‘I am up here/down here/in here/out here.’

In contrast, caìa is not used to refer to the speaker’s location at the moment of speaking, but can be employed to indicate a position the speaker has temporarily left (Irsara 2009; 2010). Sentence (42) could for instance be uttered in a concert hall during the break, when the speaker has left his or her seat, which he or she indicates to the addressee (Irsara 2009; 2010).

prepositions in the variety of Vaz/Obervaz (Grisons, Switzerland) Ebneter (1982; 1984) describes the use of aint ‘in’ and or ‘out’ as linked to the actual or assumed direction of the rivers.

Ladin

151

42. I sun caìa. ‘I am over there.’

Curaìa, curassö, curajö, curaìte and curafora sometimes occur in the same contexts as caìa, cassö, cajö, caìte and cafora, which seems to be due to the possibility of subjective interpretations of deictic concepts. However, the cura- adverbs seem to indicate locations which are viewed as further away from the deictic centre and which are usually somewhat more precise. The assumption of a greater distance might be confirmed by the possible etymology ECCU ( M ) ILLAC , with a rhotacism conversion of l into r (Irsara 2009; 2010). Sentence (43) was uttered by a mother showing her child fresh-fallen snow on the top of a mountain, whereas in (44) speaker B used curassö to refer to the place just mentioned to her by speaker A. 43. Ve che al é la nëi curassö! ‘Look (that there is the) snow up there!’ 44. A: Incö sunse sta sö Heidenberg. B: Ah, sês sta curassö! A: ‘Today we were (have been) on Heidenberg. B: Ah, you were (have been) up there!’

Like caìa, no cura- adverb is used to indicate the speaker’s exact location at the moment of utterance, which also holds for the la- adverbs. Laìa, lassö, lajö, laìte and lafora indicate locations that are outside the speaker’s area. They are also never used while gesturing toward a place mentioned for the first time in discourse, and which is still unknown to the addressee, unlike the adverbs beginning with ca- and cura(Irsara 2009; 2010). With a head nod or a hand movement, the utterer of (45) might show the addressee a bench to rest on after a walk, in which case lassö would not be used. 45. Ve! Al é n banch cassö/curassö/*lassö! ‘Look! There is a bench up here/up there!’

Laìa, lassö, lajö, laìte and lafora refer to hearer-old locations, which have already been introduced explicitly into discourse, or which belong to the speaker and listener’s common knowledge or shared experience (Irsara 2009; 2010). In (46), lassö is used anaphorically to indicate a place that is mentioned in the foregoing discourse. In (47), it appears to be used recognitionally, as the participants in the communicative exchange are supposed to know what is intended by lassö, namely the godmother’s living place, which is not overtly mentioned in the discourse. In any case, lassö maintains its deictic function of indicating places outside the speaker’s area at the moment of utterance. 46. Ëla va dui iadi al ann tla Norvegia y canche ëla é lassö fejela de vigni sort de te pici laûrs. ‘She goes twice a year to Norway, and when she is up there, she does all sorts of little jobs.’

152

Martina Irsara

47. Éla lassö la tota? I oress ti portè sö l’invit. ‘Is the godmother up there [at home]? I would like to bring her the invitation.’

The analysis of a number of pragmatic features of the adverbs beginning with ca-, cura- and la- therefore allows the following conclusions: a) The cura- and la- adverbs seem to indicate locations viewed by the speaker as external to his or her scope of pertinence, namely distant. b) The ca- adverbs appear to refer to places considered by the speaker to be inside his or her area, namely proximal. However, caìa does not indicate locations coinciding with the speaker’s position at the moment of utterance, unlike the other ca- adverbs. c)

The ca- and cura- adverbs can indicate discourse-new locations and be accompanied by paralinguistic gestures.

d) The la- adverbs only indicate hearer-old locations (Irsara 2009; 2010).

3.3 Combinations Among the characteristic features of the Ladin locative adverbial system are the complex combinations of spatial adverbs and prepositions in order to “track precise paths or directions according to environmental features from the speaker’s point of view” (Irsara 2009; 2010; ↗4.2 Varieties in Italy 2: Alpine Varieties). Chilò and dailò can be followed by more than one locative particle, the order of which determines the meaning of the combination. This order is subject to the following restriction: ite and fora normally do not precede ia and ca (Irsara 2009; 2010). Possible and unsuitable combinations are presented respectively in Tables 4 and 5. Table 4: Possible chilò/dailò combinations (Irsara 2009; 2010) Two-term combinations

Three-term combinations

chilò/dailò ia ‘in this/that area towards there’

chilò/dailò sö y ite ‘here/there up and in’

chilò/dailò ca ‘in this/that area towards here’

chilò/dailò sö y fora ‘here/there up and out’

chilò/dailò sö ‘here/there up’

chilò/dailò sö y ia ‘here/there up and across (over there)’

chilò/dailò jö ‘here/there down’

chilò/dailò sö y ca ‘here/there up and over here’

chilò/dailò ite ‘here/there in’

chilò/dailò jö y fora ‘here/there down and out’

chilò/dailò fora ‘here/there out’

chilò/dailò jö y ite ‘here/there down and in’

Ladin

Two-term combinations

153

Three-term combinations chilò/dailò jö y ia ‘here/there down and across (over there)’ chilò/dailò jö y ca ‘here/there down and over here’ chilò/dailò ite y sö ‘here/there in and up’ chilò/dailò ite y jö ‘here/there in and down’ chilò/dailò fora y jö ‘here/there out and down’ chilò/dailò fora y sö ‘here/there out and up’ chilò/dailò ia y ite ‘here/there over there and in’ chilò/dailò ia y fora ‘here/there over there and out’ chilò/dailò ia y sö ‘here/there over there and up’ chilò/dailò ia y jö ‘here/there over there and down’ chilò/dailò ca y sö ‘here/there over here and up’ chilò/dailò ca y jö ‘here/there over here and down’ chilò/dailò ca y ite ‘here/there over here and in’ chilò/dailò ca y fora ‘here/there over here and out’

Table 5: Unsuitable chilò/dailò combinations (Irsara 2009; 2010) Unsuitable combinations ? chilò/dailò ite y ia ‘here/there in and across (over there)’ ? chilò/dailò ite y ca ‘here/there in and over here’ ? chilò/dailò fora y ia ‘here/there out and across (over there)’ ? chilò/dailò fora y ca ‘here/there out and over here’

Locative-term combinations can indicate generic areas as well as specific paths or directions. In (48), the speaker tells the addressee about her bike excursion to an area where walking with children would apparently also be pleasant. The combination dailò sö y ite indicates the place mentioned in the foregoing discourse, specifying that it is located outside the speaker’s area at the moment of utterance, in a higher position and towards the inside of the plateau. In (49), the speaker shows his climbing partner the specific track he should follow, indicating a trajectory across an area and upward to him. 48. Inier sunsi stada da Piz La Ila sö cun la roda. Dailò sö y ite fossel inće bel da jì cun mituns. ‘Yesterday I was in the area of Piz La Ila by bike. There (there up and in) it would also be nice to go with children.’ 49. Vì ma chilò ca y sö che al é manco burt. ‘Come this way (here over-here and up) as it is less bad.’

154

Martina Irsara

Like chilò and dailò, the three adverb groups beginning with ca-, cura- and la- can also be accompanied by ca, ia, sö, jö, ite and fora in a number of ways (Irsara 2009; 2010). As the question marks in Table 6 illustrate, the same particle is normally not repeated, and the above-mentioned restriction on the use of ite and fora with ca and ia appears to remain valid. Table 6: Possible and unsuitable ca-, cura- and la- adverb combinations (Irsara 2009; 2010) Ca- adverbs

Cura- adverbs La- adverbs

+ ca/ia/sö/jö/ite/fora

-ìa

caìa

curaìa

laìa

+ ca/?ia/sö/jö/ite/fora

-sö

cassö

curassö

lassö

+ ca/ia/?sö/jö/ite/fora

-jö

cajö

curajö

lajö

+ ca/ia/sö/?jö/ite/fora

-ite

caìte

curaìte

laìte

+ ?ca/?ia/sö/jö/?ite/fora

-fora

cafora

curafora

lafora

+ ?ca/?ia/sö/jö/ite/?fora

While two-term ca-, cura- and la- combinations appear to be used extensively, the combination of the adverb with two further particles seems to be less common, although perfectly possible. In (50), the two-term combination cajö sö refers to the path upon which the speaker has pushed his or her bike, whereas in (51) the combination of the three words caìa, ite and sö accurately indicates the direction of an old path. 50. I à messè me sburlé la roda cajö sö. ‘I (have) had to push my bike up here (here-down up).’ 51. Le tru vedl jê caìa ite y sö! ‘The old path went up from there (over-there in and up)!’

The Ladin locative adverbial system therefore seems to be more complex than the adnominal and pronominal demonstrative systems, which appears to be in line with the typological tendency of deictic features to be “(more) fully represented in the adverbs than in the pronominals” (Levinson 2004, 116s.). Additionally, spatial deixis in Ladin seems to confirm that locative systems are probably particularly well developed in mountainous regions, where references to specific locations and directions are often central in people’s conversations and lives, and important for making their living (Zinsli 1945; Weissenborn/Klein 1982; ↗4.2 Varieties in Italy 2: Alpine Varieties).13

13 The high complexity of Rhaeto-Romance varieties in expressing trajectories is also pointed out by Berthele (2004).

Ladin

155

4 Temporal deictic expressions A number of Ladin adverbs can be identified as grammaticalising temporal deixis, which “concerns the encoding of temporal points and spans relative to the time at which an utterance was spoken (or a written message inscribed)” (Levinson 1983, 62). In Ladin, the present time is most commonly indicated by śëgn < DE ( AB ) SIGNU (Bacher 1995, 47) ‘now’, which therefore expresses a positive relation to the deictic centre, indicating a temporal point or span that comprises the exact moment of speaking, and approximately coincides with it or occurs very close to it (Vanelli 1992; 1995; 2010). In (52), śëgn is used to indicate a period of years that includes the coding time, whereas (53) was uttered by a woman while adding the eggs to the cake she was baking, so that śëgn designated a moment coinciding with the speaking time. Finally, in (54) and (55) śëgn was employed to indicate a moment presently following and immediately preceding the moment of utterance. 52. Śëgn él feter düć che à internet te ćiasa. ‘Now almost everybody has the Internet at home.’ 53. Śëgn mëti ite dui üs. ‘Now I add (put in) two eggs.’ 54. Aspeta che i vëgni śëgn. ‘Wait, (that) I’ll come now.’ 55. Śëgn sunsi stada ia dala vijina a bëre le cafè. ‘Now I was (have been over) at the neighbour’s to drink a coffee.’

Śëgn sometimes also indicates the narrative now-point in discourse types describing sequences of events (Almeida 1995). The present moment of the story about a travelling salesman is indicated in example (56), where the combination of śëgn with a past tense can also be noticed. 56. L’pür cramer l’â sëgn ria: su te n paîsc furest, sënza scioldi y sënza roba da vëne. (TALL) ‘The poor pedlar had it difficult [a difficult time] now: alone in a foreign country, without money and without goods to sell.’

In contrast, indant < IN DĒ ABANTE (Kramer 1991, 22) ‘a little while ago’ and cancalé ‘afterwards’ express a negative relation to the deictic centre.14 In particular, they indicate a moment in time shortly preceding and following the coding time. While in (57) the speaker’s friend is said to have just visited, in (58) she is supposed to call on the speaker soon after.

14 Cancalé: Probably ‘when that (it) is’, can < QUANDŌ .

156

Martina Irsara

57. Indant él gnü na mia compagna a me ciafè. ‘A short while ago/just now a friend of mine came (has come) to visit me.’ 58. Cancalé vëgnel na mia compagna a me ciafè. ‘Afterwards a friend of mine comes to visit me.’

In order for indant and cancalé to be interpreted, knowing the moment of the speech event is always necessary, in that the two temporal adverbs are inherently, intrinsically or lexically deictic, grammaticalising the reference to the speaking time (Vanelli 1981; 1995).15 The expressions al dedaincö ‘nowadays’ and (in)laôta ‘back then’ also possess an inherently deictic nature, illustrated respectively in (59) and (60).16 In example (60), both (in)laôta ‘back then’ and dailò ‘there’ can be used. However, (in)laôta does not seem to refer explicitly to the temporal span mentioned in the foregoing discourse, whereas dailò is anaphoric and would not be appropriately understood without the preceding sentence. Dailò can also indicate a moment in the future as well as one in the past, as illustrated in (61). 59. Al dedaincö él feter düć che à internet te ćiasa. ‘Nowadays almost everybody has the Internet at home.’ 60. Canche i ê picera, savôi apëna ći che en computer ê. (In)laôta/Dailò ne êl degügn che â internet te ćiasa. ‘When I was small, I hardly knew what a computer was. Back then/There nobody had the Internet at home.’ 61. Ti proscimi agn messarân fà vigni domanda sön internet. Dailò saral inće düć che à internet te ćiasa. ‘In the next years one will have to make every request on the Internet. At that time (there) everybody will also have the Internet at home.’

Hence, (60) and (61) above illustrate the import of a spatial expression into the temporal domain (Cassirer 1955 [1923]; Anderson/Keenan 1985; ↗0 Introduction). Similarly, the gradable locative adverb incà ‘over here’ can be used temporally. “Da + time expression indicating a period or point in time + inca` indicates a span of time reaching to the present, during which a situation or an action has taken place and continues up to the moment of utterance” (Irsara 2009, 187). While incà ‘over here’

15 Unlike indant and cancalé, the adverbs denant ‘before’ and dedô ‘afterwards/subsequently’, among others, are normally interpreted in relation to temporal points provided by the linguistic context. A discussion of them therefore goes beyond the scope of the present chapter. 16 Ôta < *VOLTA (Kramer 1993, 130). A meaning of ‘back in time’ is also conveyed by the terms plödadî E GO NON S APIO QUANDO (Gsell 1999, 246), the latter of which points to a time far back in the and zacan < EGO past.

Ladin

157

indicates a temporal span approaching the deictic centre (62), inant ‘onwards’ expresses a temporal distancing (63).17 62. I sun in maternité da Pasca incà. ‘I have been (am) on maternity leave since Easter.’ 63. Da incö inant sunsi in maternité. ‘From today onwards I am on maternity leave.’

In Levinson’s (1983, 74) terms, “a division of time into diurnal spans” is presupposed ODIE (Kramer 1991, 64) ‘today’, (in)doman < DĒ MĀNE (Kramer by the terms incö < HINC HHODIE 1990, 124) ‘tomorrow’, dodoman < DĒPOS ( T ) DĒ MĀNE (Kramer 1990, 114, 124) ‘the day ERI (Kramer 1991, 21) ‘yesterday’ and dantier < DĒ ABANTE after tomorrow’, inier < IN HHERI HERI (Kramer 1990, 23) ‘the day before yesterday’. These deictic adverbs can moreover be combined with further temporal expressions to specify precise diurnal or nocturnal points or spans of time, e.g. incö da doman ‘today in the morning’. The forms insëra ‘yesterday evening’ and insnöt ‘tonight’ also lexicalise respectively the reference to the evening of the day before and the present or approaching evening.18 In (64), the evening and night preceding the moment of utterance are referred to, while in (65) insnöt indicates the whole evening including the coding time. Example (66) points at first to the upcoming evening in general, then specifies the exact time at midnight, before finally indicating the depth of night. It can therefore be observed in the examples that the nighttime is not encoded in the meaning of insëra and insnöt, but needs to be further specified. 64. Al é sozedü insëra/insëra de nöt. ‘It happened (has happened) yesterday evening/yesterday night.’ 65. Ći bela sëra che al é insnöt! ‘What a nice evening (that it is) tonight!’ 66. Insnöt/Insnöt da mesanöt/Insnöt de nöt vëgnel Chël Pice Bambin.19 ‘Tonight/Tonight at midnight/Tonight at night Baby Jesus is coming’

17 The spatial domain also appears to be mapped onto the temporal domain with the expression drio < DĒ R ĚTRO . For example, ester drio a fà valch ‘to be (after) doing something’ indicates an activity or a situation in progress. A speaker saying that he or she is drio a scrì is therefore in the process of writing. It seems that drio is a loanword imported into Ladin from Venetian, whereas the Ladin formulation would be I sun do a scrì (P. Videsott, personal communication, December 18, 2013). 18 The hypothesis that insëra could be a folk-etymological transformation of an original form *irsëra HE RI S SĒRA ĒRA is tentatively put forward by Kramer (1995).