Downloaded from the Website of the SYMILA Project: (Accessed on 14 April 2021)
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
languages Article Intraclade Contact from an I-Language Perspective. The Noun Phrase in the Ligurian/Occitan amphizone Diego Pescarini CNRS, Université Côte d’Azur, BCL, 06357 Nice, France; [email protected] Abstract: This article aims to compare some traits that characterise the syntax of the noun phrase in the Occitan/Ligurian amphizone (i.e., contact area) that lies at the border between southern France and northwestern Italy. The dialects spoken in this area differ in several syntactic traits that emerged in a situation of contact between dialects of different subgroups (Ligurian and Occitan), two roofing languages (Italian and French), and regional contact languages such as Genoese. In particular, I will elaborate on the syntax of mass and indefinite plural nouns, on the co-occurrence of determiners and possessives, and on the syntax of kinship terms. From an I-language perspective, the fine Citation: Pescarini, Diego. 2021. variation observed at the Occitan/Ligurian border raises two types of research questions: (a) which Intraclade Contact from an comparative concepts best capture the observed variation; (b) whether intraclade contact (i.e., contact I-Language Perspective. The Noun between languages of the same branch) can contribute relevant evidence and arguments to the debate Phrase in the Ligurian/Occitan concerning the biological endowment of the language faculty. amphizone. Languages 6: 77. https:// doi.org/10.3390/languages6020077 Keywords: syntax; morphology; dialects; Romance; agreement Academic Editors: Ángel Gallego, Bruno Camus, Ricardo Etxepare, Iván Ortega-Santos, Francesc Roca, Juan 1. Introduction Uriagereka, Greta Mazzaggio, Juana This article intends to discuss the relevance of dialectological data to the current M. Liceras and Raquel debate on linguistic contact. I will focus on contact between genealogically related dialects Fernández Fuertes that, although belonging to the same linguistic branch (clade), are separated by a bundle of Received: 27 January 2021 isoglosses. I will, therefore, deal with intraclade contact—i.e., contact between linguistic Accepted: 12 April 2021 varieties that are geographically and genealogically close—and not with interclade contact, Published: 21 April 2021 i.e., contact between separate clades of the phylogenetic tree. Interclade contact is a window into our I-language, allowing us to study how competing grammars interact in the linguistic Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral competence of bilingual speakers. By contrast, the relevance of intraclade contact from with regard to jurisdictional claims in an I-language perspective is far less clear and, to the best of my knowledge, whether data published maps and institutional affil- from dialectology may play a role in the current debate on contact is a research question iations. that has not been addressed properly. This article intends to tackle this issue by building on a case study regarding some aspects of the syntax of the determiner phrase (DP) in the contact area between Occitan and Ligurian dialects that are spoken at the border between northwest Italy and southeast France. Copyright: © 2021 by the author. The case study in Section2 focuses primarily on the syntax of the noun/determiner Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. phrase in Nissart (Niçart/Niçois), the Occitan dialect spoken in the city of Nice (southern 1 This article is an open access article France). I will compare Nissart with nearby linguistic systems that are attested in the 2 distributed under the terms and contact area (amphizone, in the traditional dialectological terminology ) stretching from the conditions of the Creative Commons River Var (immediately west of Nice; see Figure1d) to the Italian town of Taggia. Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/). 1 For helpful comments on a previous version of this work, I wish to thank Michèle Oliviéri, Sylvain Casagrande, Philippe Del Giudice, Cristina Guardiano, the participants to the SLE workshop ‘Contact and the architecture of language faculty’ organised by Rita Manzini and Greta Mazzaggio (27 August 2020), the audience of the linguistic seminar of the University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, and two anonymous reviewers. 2 See Petracco Sicardi and Azaretti(1989). Languages 2021, 6, 77. https://doi.org/10.3390/languages6020077 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/languages Languages 2021, 6, x FOR PEER REVIEW 2 of 24 Languages 2021, 6, 77 France).1 I will compare Nissart with nearby linguistic systems that are attested in the con2 of‐ 21 tact area (amphizone, in the traditional dialectological terminology2) stretching from the River Var (immediately west of Nice; see Figure 1d) to the Italian town of Taggia. (a) Italo‐Romance “islands” (b) Franch/Italy border (c) “Transitional” varieties (d) River Var Figure 1. Contact area between southern Occitan and (Intemelian) Ligurian. Source: Google Maps. Figure 1. Contact area between southern Occitan and (Intemelian) Ligurian. Source: Google Maps. The dialects spoken in this area belong to two Romance subgroups: southern Occitan (SauzetThe and dialects Olivi spokenéri 2016 in) andthis Intemelianarea belong Ligurian to two Romance (Forner subgroups:1986). The linguisticsouthern Occitan boundary (Sauzetbetween and Occitan Oliviéri and 2016) Italo-Romance, and Intemelian unlike Ligurian the (Forner one between 1986). The Italian linguistic and French, boundary runs betweennowadays Occitan through and French Italo‐ territoryRomance, (Figure unlike1 b;the see one Dalbera between 2003 Italian): Italo-Romance and French, dialects runs nowadaysare still spoken through in French the French territory villages (Figure of 1b; Saorge, see Dalbera Breil-sur-Roya, 2003): Italo Fontan,‐Romance Brigue, dialects and Tendeare still (see spoken Figure in the1a). French Conversely, villages no of OccitanSaorge, Breil dialect‐sur is‐Roya, spoken Fontan, in Liguria, Brigue, although and Tende few (seemunicipalities Figure 1a). at Conversely, the border no claim Occitan their dialect is Occitan.spoken in From Liguria, a sociolinguistic although few standpoint, munic‐ ipalitiesItalian speakers at the border tend claim to be their diglossic dialect (Italian/dialect), is Occitan. From whereas a sociolinguistic French speakers standpoint, tend Ital to‐ be ianmonolingual. speakers tend Occitan to be diglossic varieties (Italian/dialect), and the Ligurian whereas dialects French in French speakers territory tend to are, be mon in fact,‐ olingual.highly endangered. Occitan varieties and the Ligurian dialects in French territory are, in fact, highly endangered. Conservative traits are better preserved in the mountain areas or in the rustic registers Conservative traits are better preserved in the mountain areas or in the rustic regis‐ of the coastal vernaculars, which have been influenced by Genoese, the transregional ters of the coastal vernaculars, which have been influenced by Genoese, the transregional contact language up until the 19th century. Linguistic boundaries are therefore more contact language up until the 19th century. Linguistic boundaries are therefore more nu‐ nuanced along the coast, especially in the “transitional” area around Menton (Figure1c) 3. anced along the coast, especially in the “transitional” area around Menton (Figure 1c)3. In terms of roofing languages4, the whole area has witnessed the influence of both In terms of roofing languages4, the whole area has witnessed the influence of both Italian and French. Until the second half of the 19th century, Italian was spoken, at Italian and French. Until the second half of the 19th century, Italian was spoken, at least least by the upper class, in the counties of Nice and Savoy, which in 1860 were given by the upper class, in the counties of Nice and Savoy, which in 1860 were given to France to France by Sardinia-Piedmont in return for Napoleon III’s support in the war against by Sardinia‐Piedmont in return for Napoleon III’s support in the war against Austria. In Austria. In the same period, French was spoken and written by the elites of the kingdom of Piedmont. Nowadays, the linguistic boundary between Italian and French coincides with 1 For helpful comments on a previousthe administrative version of this border work, and,I wish except to thank daily Michèle commuters, Oliviéri, theSylvain linguistic Casagrande, communities Philippe Del at the Giudice, Cristina Guardiano, border—namelythe participants to inthe the SLE towns workshop of Menton ‘Contact and and Ventimiglia—arethe architecture of language not bilingual. faculty’ organised by Rita Manzini and Greta MazzaggioPhonological, (27 August 2020), morphological, the audience lexical, of the linguistic and syntactic seminar isoglosses of the University separate of southernModena and Occi- Reggio Emilia, and two anonymoustan and reviewers. Ligurian dialects. Most studies have examined this contact/transition area with the 2 See Petracco Sicardi and Azarettiintent (1989). of providing a sound classification (Forner 1986, 1989; Dalbera 1994, 2003). Syntax 3 Dialects spoken around Mentonhas are been difficult examined to classify, cursorily but see and (Oliviéri only with 2009). respect to well-known distinctive characteristics 4 A “roofing language” (Dachsprachesuch, asKloss those 1967) summarised is the linguistic in Tablevariety1( thatForner serves 1986 as ,a p. standard 163; Olivi languageéri 2009 in a ):linguistic commu‐ nity in which other dialects are spoken. • Southern Occitan dialects are null-subject languages