Linguistics 2020; 58(3): 651–677
Massimo Cerruti* and Riccardo Regis Partitive determiners in Piedmontese: A case of language variation and change in a contact setting https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2020-0080
Abstract: This paper addresses the use of partitive determiners in Piedmontese as a case in point for the interplay of language variation and change in Italo- Romance. Firstly, a brief diachronic account will be provided of the development of partitive determiners in Piedmontese, ranging from the twelfth and thirteenth centuries to the nineteenth and twentieth centuries; such an overview will rely upon the results of recent studies on this subject. Next, the behavior of partitive determiners in contemporary Piedmontese will be examined; we will draw primarily on some unpublished materials collected within the ALEPO research program (ALEPO stands for Atlante linguistico ed etnografico del Piemonte Occidentale, “Linguistic and Ethnographic Atlas of Western Piedmont”), which consist of both responses to a questionnaire survey and spontaneous speech data. The study will help to shed light on the similarities and differences not only between different varieties of Piedmontese, but also between such varieties and Italian. The main paradigmatic differences identified will be argued to relate to two different ways of categorizing the relationship between mass nouns and countable plurals, one in which quantification prevails over classification, and the other in which classification is foregrounded. This state of affairs will then be discussed against the backdrop of the sociolinguistic situation under scru- tiny, paying special attention to the contact between Piedmontese and Italian (as well as with French up to the end of the nineteenth century) and to the “super- position” of both an official standard language (i. e., Italian) and a regional koine (based on the variety of Turin) over local varieties of Piedmontese.
Keywords: partitive determiners, Piedmontese, language variation and change, language and dialect contact
*Corresponding author: Massimo Cerruti, Dipartimento di Studi Umanistici, Università di Torino, via S. Ottavio n. 50, Torino, Piemonte 10124, Italy, E-mail: [email protected] Riccardo Regis, Dipartimento di Studi Umanistici, Università di Torino, via S. Ottavio n. 50, Torino, Piemonte 10124, Italy, E-mail: [email protected]
Open Access. ©2020 Massimo Cerruti and Riccardo Regis, published by De Gruyter. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. 652 Massimo Cerruti and Riccardo Regis
1 Introduction1
The paper addresses the use of partitive determiners in Piedmontese, a Gallo-Italian dialetto spoken in the north-western Italian region of Piedmont. Following the conventions of Italian research, we use the label dialetti (singular dialetto)torefer to “primary dialects” (in Coseriu’s 1980 terminology) which – in most areas – are to be deemed, to a varying degree, Abstand languages, i. e., linguistic systems sepa- rate from Italian (see e. g., Maiden and Parry 1997: 2). Moreover, a dialetto is employed in limited areas (i. e., in a region, such as Piedmont, or in a part thereof) and within limited domains (i. e., mostly in oral and informal communication), its socio-cultural “roofing” (German Überdachung) being supplied by standard Italian. Gallo-Italian dialetti are generally considered by Italian scholars (see e. g., Pellegrini 1975 [1973]) as belonging to Italo-Romance; this will also be our starting assumption, while the whole question will be re-addressed in Section 6. The investigation of partitive determiners in Piedmontese provides us with an oppor- tunity to elaborate on some key aspects of language variation and change, as well as language contact, in Italo-Romance. At the same time, it offers valuable insight into the interplay of quantification and classification in the grammar of indefinite determiners, with special reference to Romance languages. Firstly, a brief overview will be provided of the sociolinguistic situation under scrutiny; particular emphasis will be given to the coexistence of Piedmontese, Italian, and French, which lasted until the end of the nineteenth century, and the super- position of both an official standard language (i. e., Italian) and a regional koine (based on the variety of Turin) over local varieties of Piedmontese, which is still relevant (Section 2). This will be followed by the description of partitive determiners in the regional koine, the latter having been codified by reference grammars (Section 3). Then,adiachronicaccountwillbesketchedofthedevelopmentofpartitivedeter- miners in Piedmontese; such development will be claimed to reflect, on the one hand, how paradigmatic differences between different varieties of Piedmontese have been preserved, and on the other, how the influence of the regional koine on written texts has changed over time (Section 4). The attention will finally turn to the behavior of partitive determiners in contemporary Piedmontese. The analysis will help to shed light on the similarities and differences not only between different varieties of Piedmontese, but also between such varieties and Italian, and the main paradigmatic
1 The paper is the result of close collaboration between both authors; however, for academic purposes, Massimo Cerruti is responsible for Sections 1, 4 and 5, and Riccardo Regis is responsible for Sections 2, 3 and 6. We would like to thank two anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments on an early version of the paper. Partitive determiners in Piedmontese 653 differences identified will be argued to relate to two different ways of categorizing the relationship between mass nouns and countable plurals (Section 5). Our arguments will draw primarily on some unpublished materials collected within the ALEPO research program. ALEPO stands for Atlante linguistico ed etnografico del Piemonte Occidentale, ‘Linguistic and Ethnographic Atlas of Western Piedmont’ (http://www.alepo.eu): This atlas covers an area in which Italian is spoken alongside two Gallo-Romance varieties, i. e., Francoprovençal and Occitan, and a Gallo-Italian dialetto, i. e., Piedmontese,2 and includes local- ities pertaining both to the Gallo-Romance and to the Gallo-Italian domains. For our purposes, we will focus in particular on some materials collected in the latter domain. Such materials are composed of both responses to a questionnaire survey and spontaneous speech data (see Section 5, fn. 11); the latter, which can be called ‘ethnotexts’ (cf. Canobbio 1989, 2002; see the notion of ethnotexte in Bouvier et al. 1980), consist mainly of conversations about traditional aspects of community life and culture. Moreover, we will rely on relevant data from other linguistic atlases (ASIS and AIS), as well as from previous studies conducted on written texts and spontaneous speech (cf. Sections 4 and 5). We will follow Squartini (2017) in adopting a “paradigmatic approach”. From this perspective, the behavior of partitive determiners in each given variety of Piedmontese will be dealt with in relation to the overall organization of the paradigm of indefinite determiners in that same variety. Only the noun phrases displaying an argumental function will be considered. Mention will also be made of how internal, external, and extra-linguistic factors can condition the presence of partitive determiners (or the lack thereof) and the form they take.
2 Piedmontese: a socio-historical introduction
Using the label Piedmontese, we can refer to two slightly different linguistic objects: 1) a group of varieties spoken in the central part of Piedmont; or 2) a regional koine which, as of the eighteenth century, developed from the urban variety of the most important center of the area, Turin, and started acting as a reference code for the surrounding varieties of dialetto, also playing the role of a “lingua franca” among speakers of different varieties of Piedmontese. The mere existence of a regional koine sets Piedmontese apart from the bulk of Italo- Romance dialetti; the relationship between the variety of Turin and the Piedmontese koine, however, shares many similarities with that between the
2 French survives in only a few parts of the area. 654 Massimo Cerruti and Riccardo Regis variety of Venice and the Venetan koine, the latter being based on the former. Such dialetti as Piedmontese and Venetan are defined by Muljačić (1997a, 1997b; 2011 [2000]) as middle languages, for they are High with respect to local varieties and Low with respect to the official standard language, and they display autonomy and heteronomy as well (see also the concept of Aubaudialekt/ Kulturdialekt in Kloss 1978: 55–60). At first glance, this kind of repertoire resembles what has been termed double overlapping diglossia by Fasold (1984: 44–46), the latter implying, nevertheless, the existence of different communities of speakers within the same territory. Piedmontese has been a dialetto with a certain degree of codification since the nineteenth century, its Turinese-based koine having been described in grammars and dictionaries; thus, it would not be wrong to maintain that Piedmontese had a reference variety of its own (an indication of autonomy), though the touchstone for its codification was offered by an external source (an indication of heteronomy). As for the possible external sources, it is worth recalling that two prestigious standard languages were traditionally present in Piedmont, Italian and French (see Regis 2013; Cerruti and Regis 2014: 94–97). In 1560 and 1561, Emmanuel Philibert issued two edicts, stating that Italian and French were to replace Latin in all of the administrative documents of the Duchy of Savoy: Italian in the cisalpine territories (except the Aosta Valley) and French in the transalpine areas. Even long after Italian became the official language in Piedmont, French was still the favored language of the aristocracy, which would converse alternating Piedmontese and French. Although this situation remained unchanged throughout the eighteenth century and for much of the following century (see Marazzini 1984), Italian was nevertheless selected as the model language for the codification of Piedmontese.3 It is perhaps useful to remember that, out of five dictionaries published between 1783 and 1859, two were Piedmontese-Italian dictionaries (Ponza 1830; Sant’Albino 1859), two were Piedmontese-Italian-French-Latin dictionaries (Pipino 1783a; Zalli 1815), and only one was a Piedmontese-French dictionary (Capello 1814: it is worth under- lining, however, that Capello’s book was printed during the Napoleonic annex- ation). We may wonder why Italian, instead of French, was assigned the delicate role of “guide language”, i. e., a language of cultural reference, for Piedmontese (see the notion of lingua guida in Pellegrini 1975 [1973]: 56–57). First of all, French was associated with the recurring political and military menace of France, whereas Italian was an institutional (and thus neutral) language,
3 This does not hold true, however, for the whole of orthography, the graphization of such sounds as [y] and [ø] being clearly modelled on French solutions ( for [y] and
3 Partitive determiners according to the grammars of the Piedmontese koine
The definition of Piedmontese as a rather codified language requires some clarification. As is often the case with Italo-Romance dialetti, dictionaries of Piedmontese abound, while its grammars are very limited in number.4 Moreover, we have to consider that dictionaries and grammars have been centered for centuries on the Turinese-based koine, with the regular codification of local varieties of Piedmontese taking place only as of the mid-twentieth century. It is important to clarify that this recent “microcodification” policy is rather different in scope from the “classic” codification of the Piedmontese koine, for whereas the former aims at documenting (and, to a certain degree, safeguarding) pre- viously discarded varieties, the latter was traditionally used as a reference model for Piedmontese speakers/writers, regardless of their place of origin. All this considered, we will hereinafter examine how the subject of partitive determiners has been tackled (or not) by the grammars of the koine, a list of which appears in Table 1. The “+” and “–” signs indicate whether or not a section on partitive determiners is present in each grammar.
4 It is worth noting that Piedmontese has never been formally taught in schools, so its grammars have never been available to a wide range of users. Partitive determiners in Piedmontese 657
Table 1: Grammars of the Piedmontese koine and partitive determiners.
Grammar Partitive determiners
Pipino (b) – Aly-Belfàdel ()+ Clivio ()a – Brero () – Brero []) – Brero []) + Griva ()+ Brero and Bertodatti ()+ Grosso ()+ Villata ( []) + aClivio (1964) is not properly a grammar but, rather, a “short basic course of Piedmontese”.
Pipino (1783b: 15–16) deals with both definite and indefinite determiners, while dismissing partitive determiners altogether (see, however, Section 4 for some examples of partitive determiners contemporary with Pipino’s grammar). Partitive determiners do not fit into Clivio (1964); they are also lacking in the earlier editions of Brero’s grammar (Brero 1967, Brero 1971 [1967]), being instead documented from the fourth edition onwards (Brero 1975 [1967]; see below). While the grammars displaying a “–” sign for the subject under scrutiny prove to be a minority, the “+” sign does not necessarily guarantee a thorough analysis of partitive determiners. Under the heading of prepositions, Aly-Belfàdel (1933: 278) deals with both partitive complements and partitive determiners (see examples below). The grammarian’s attention is thus focused on the different uses of the preposition dë,5 [də] ‘of’,as becomes immediately clear from his introductory lines: “la preposizione dë è frequentemente usata nel partitivo, che in piemontese si usa assai, alla moda francese o non troppo diversamente” [‘The preposition dë is frequentely used in partitive constructions, which in Piedmontese are very common, following to a certain extent the French model’]. Aly-Belfàdel offers various examples of partitive complements (many of which, however, are pseudo-partitives, e. g., mutubèn d’üva ‘a lot of grapes’, bin ’dfracas‘a lot of noise,’ and ëm poch ’dpan‘a bit of bread’), whereas the partitive determiners are restricted to two cases: pié d’infurmasiun ‘to gather some information, lit. of information’ and dë dné ‘some money, lit. of
5 Each form is quoted following the authors’ graphization; in some cases, the corresponding IPA transcriptions are also provided. 658 Massimo Cerruti and Riccardo Regis money’. More accurately, Brero 1975 [1967]: 26) tackles partitive determiners in the paragraph on indefinite determiners, defining them as “la forma indefinìa plural ëd l’articol” [‘the plural indefinite form of the article’]; the example supplied by Brero includes two partitive determiners, ëd fiuej ‘some boys, lit. of boys’ and ’dfije‘some girls, lit. of girls’: A-i son ëd fiuej che a canto e ’dfijech’abalo‘there are some boys who sing, and some girls who dance’6. Both Griva (1980: 32) and Grosso (2000: 53) follow Brero 1975 [1967]), addressing partitive determiners along with indefinite determiners. Griva’s formulation and original examples are as follows: “Al plurale [per i determinanti indefiniti], così al maschile come al femminile, si usano le forme del partitivo: ëd, ’d, dë, d’ (vëdend ëd piante; l’hai ’dsòld; i serno dë strass; i mangio d’àmpole)” [‘For both the masculine and feminine plural [of indefinite determiners], the partitive forms used are ëd, ’d, dë,andd’ (vëdend ëd piante ‘seeing plants, lit. of plants’; l’hai ’d sòld ‘I’ve got some money, lit. of money’; i serno dë strass ‘I choose some rags, lit. of rags’; i mangio d’àmpole ‘I eat some raspberries, lit. of raspber- ries’)’]. Not unlike Griva and Grosso, Brero and Bertodatti (1988: 27) tackle partitive determiners in the same paragraph as indefinite determiners; with respect to Griva and Grosso, however, they add an important note: “In piemontese esiste la forma partitiva […] che usa sempre la preposizione «ëd (’d), dë (d’)», mentre spesso in italiano è sottaciuta” (our emphasis on the word sempre)[‘In Piedmontese the partitive form always requires the preposition ëd (’d)ordë (d’), whereas in Italian it is often omitted’]. We are thus informed that: 1) the use of ëd and its variants are mandatory in Piedmontese partitive constructions; and 2) in this respect, Piedmontese behaves differently from Italian, a language in which mass and plural countable nouns can occur as bare forms. Yet, Brero and Bertodatti’sstatementis not completely accurate, since Italian allows the omission of partitive determiners only with mass nouns and non-specific countable nouns: C’èlatte‘there is milk’ and C’è del latte ‘there is some milk, lit. of the milk’ are both permitted (Renzi 2001: 392), as well as Mi ha regalato rose ‘He has given me roses’ and Mi ha regalato delle rose ‘He has given me some roses, lit. of the roses’ (Renzi 2001: 390). The partitive determiner is instead obligatory with specific countable nouns: I bambini hanno ritrovato dei cani che avevamo perduto ‘The children have found some dogs, lit. of the dogs, we had lost’) (Bonato 2004: 176). Villata (2009 [1997]: 22) insists on the fact that in the Piedmontese koine partitive determiners are mandatory, claiming, in
6 It is worth noting that the existential form, in Piedmontese as well as in other northern Italo- Romance dialetti, is supposed to be expressed by a third person singular verb, regardless whether the subject is singular or plural: a-i é ’d fieuj ‘there is some boys’ instead of a-i son ’fieuj ‘there are some boys’. The fact that the existential is here expressed by a third person plural verb, the subject being plural, is a clear sign of Italianization (see It. Ci sono dei ragazzi ‘there are some boys’). See also utterance (11) below. Partitive determiners in Piedmontese 659 addition, that this property is shared with French and conveniently highlighting the possible existence of geographical variation in the use of partitive determiners: “Vorremmo qui ricordare che in torinese il partitivo è costituito dalla sola prepos- izione semplice (ed /de), mentre in altre varietà di piemontese si preferisce usare la preposizione articolata (dla/dij)” [“Let us here recall that in Turinese the partitive is expressed by a simple preposition (ed/de ‘of’), whereas in other varieties of Piedmontese the articled preposition is preferred (dla ‘of the’ [feminine singular]/ dij ‘of the’ [masculine plural]’]. In other words, the behavior of the Turinese-based koine does not reflect the behavior of all varieties of Piedmontese. This is an often overlooked matter concerning both nonstandard and standard languages, whereby one is inclined to consider such entities as Piedmontese, Lombard, or even Italian as perfectly homogeneous, when in fact they are far from it.7 The scattered images provided by the grammars of the Piedmontese koine may be summarized as follows: 1) partitive determiners are expressed by a simple preposition (i. e., an unarticled form), ëd,[əd] (’d), dë,[də](d’), depending on the phonetic environment; 2) they are mandatory for both mass and countable nouns (see dë dné ‘some money’ and d’àmpole ‘some raspberries,’ respectively); 3) a. as for their being compulsory, they behave similarly to those of French and b. differently from those of Italian, which, at least to some degree, can be omitted; 4) they can behave differently from those of local varieties of Piedmontese.
The table below indicates the overall paradigm of indefinite determiners in the Piedmontese koine. It includes the singular masculine and feminine forms for countable nouns, and the partitives are marked in bold.
Table 2: Partitive determiners according to the grammars of the Piedmontese koine.
MASS NOUNS COUNTABLE NOUNS
MASCULINE FEMININE MASCULINE FEMININE
SINGULAR ëd (’d), dë (d’) un [yn], n’,në[nə]na PLURAL ëd (’d), dë (d’)
7 This “uniformitarian” principle is due, however, to different reasons, depending on whether a dialetto or a standard language is considered: in the former case, a dialetto is simply believed not having any kind of social and/or stylistic variation; in the latter, the action of standard ideology tends to erase any idea of variation. 660 Massimo Cerruti and Riccardo Regis
It is striking that none of the grammarians above has underlined the peculiarity of the unarticled form as a unique partitive determiner, setting the Piedmontese koine apart from both Italian and French. Following Bossong’s (2016: 69) classification of partitive determiners, Italian and French basically belong to type (4), since “[t]he preposition de […] is combined with the definite article and forms with it an indis- soluble unit”, while Piedmontese, along with most varieties of Occitan (Ronjat 1937: 128) and southern varieties of Francoprovençal(Kristol2014,Kristol2016:358–359), can be assigned to type (3): “[t]he preposition de […] does not combine with the definitive [sic] article but remains unchanged.” At any rate, the unarticled form is not unknown to Old Italian (Migliorini 1994 [1960]: 210; Rohlfs 1968: 117; Renzi 2010: 346– 347 and is well attested in formal styles of contemporary French (Grevisse and Goosse 2008: 747–748; see also Carlier and Melis 2006: 456), though in both cases it is limited to very restricted environments, namely before “attributive adjective + noun” phrases. As for Italian, further examples of this usage appeared during the Renaissance and between the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries (see again Migliorini 1994 [1960]: 636). Migliorini’s hypothesis that Italian modelled this con- struction on its French counterpart does not apply to all of the occurrences above, but rather only to the most recent ones. It must in fact be considered that, until the seventeenth century, French allowed both unarticled and articled forms before “attributive adjective + noun” phrases (Grevisse and Goosse 2008: 747); therefore, it would be rather peculiar for a language (Italian) to select an option (the unarticled form) from another language (French) which is not categorically employing it. Moreover, the unarticled form was widespread in Old Lombard, also with non- modified nouns, e. g., nogelasónderobaindosso‘they do not leave him any clothes on’ (Pietro da Barsegapé, thirteenth century; Rohlfs 1968: 117).
4 Partitive determiners in Piedmontese: A diachronic perspective
In what follows, a brief diachronic account will be provided of the development of partitive determiners in Piedmontese, ranging from the twelfth and thirteenth centuries to the present. Such an overview draws upon the results of recent studies on this subject (see especially Bonato 2003-2004: 113–145 and 2004; cf. Ricca 2008; Miola 2017).8
8 A caveat is to be issued here. These studies take into account both prose and poetry; as far as the latter is concerned, the presence or absence of partitive determiners may be influenced by the number of syllables per verse provided for by the poetic form. Partitive determiners in Piedmontese 661
The first occurrences of partitive determiners can be found in a collection of sermons, the so-called Sermoni subalpini, which dates back to the late twelfth to early thirteenth centuries. In these texts, mass nouns are sometimes marked by a partitive form derived from the Latin preposition de ‘of, from’, as is the case with d’ in utterance (1). On the contrary, plural indefinites always occur as bare nouns. However, it is worth noting that the Romance vernacular in which these sermons are written actually consists of both Italo-Romance and Gallo-Romance features9; there is indeed some question as to whether or not it can be consid- ered as Piedmontese (see e. g., Clivio 2002: 21–30).
(1) So compaignun no bevrà d’ aiva clara his comrade NEG drink.FUT.3SG INDF.DET water.F.SG clear.F.SG ‘his comrade will not drink clear water’ (Sermoni subalpini, 12th/13th century, VIII, 156; Bonato 2004: 180)
At any rate, it was not until the sixteenth century that partitive elements were regularly used as both singular and plural indefinite determiners. Moreover, in the sixteenth century indefinite determiners mostly displayed an articled form, deriving from the agglutination of a prepositional element (of the same type as the partitive marker d’ in Example (1)) and a definite article; a significant example is d’i,whichis found in Example (2). However, both mass nouns and countable plurals from this period can be seen to occur as bare forms. In particular, partitive determiners often alternate with zero marking when used with non-specific plural indefinite nouns, and the determiner position is more frequently filled when reference is made to specific plural indefinite entities, as in (2).
(2) Nòstra Biatrix m’ ha fag our.F.SG Beatrice to.me AUX.3SG make.PPT d’i scriz fo temp abiù INDF.DET-ART.DEF.M.PL jokes a while ago ‘our Beatrice played some jokes on me a while ago’ (Giovan Giorgio Alione, Farsa de Zoan zavatino, 16th century, 410; Gasca Queirazza, Clivio and Pasero 2003: 170)
As pointed out by Bonato (2004: 181–182), the use of partitive determiners increased considerably in the seventeenth century and became almost compulsory in the eighteenth century. However, the presence of bare nouns is still significant in the
9 In Old French as well, mass nouns and plural indefinites can occur as bare forms (cf. Foulet 1930: 61–63). 662 Massimo Cerruti and Riccardo Regis case of plural indefinite referents; for instance, in (3), zero marking occurs with a plural indefinite noun requiring a non-specific interpretation. In terms of form, unarticled determiners can still be found to alternate with articled ones, but the former (see e. g., ’d in sentence (4)) tend to be preferred.
(3) a mangio Ø cose buon-e 3PL.SBJ eat.PRS.3PL Ø thing.F.PL good.F.PL ‘they eat good food (lit. ‘good things’)’ (Canzone di Madonna Luchina, 17th century, 9; Gasca Queirazza, Clivio and Pasero 2003: 261)
(4) i quai […] as’invento ’d còse the.M.PL REL.PL 3PL.SBJ invent.PRS.3PL.REFL INDF.DET thing.F.PL tute fause all.F.PL false.F.PL ‘who […] come up with things that are all false’ (Rispösta-Rispösta, 18th century, in Pipino 1783b: 100; Bonato 2004: 183)
The most radical changes appear to have taken place in the nineteenth century. In fact, partitive determiners became mandatory with both mass nouns and countable plurals, and the unarticled form of the partitive marker came to predominate over the articled forms, with the latter hardly being found to occur. A relevant example is found in (5):
(5) un peul ciapesse ’d ganassà ant le man one can receive.REFL INDF.DET slaps on the hands ‘one can receive some slaps on the hand’ (Edoardo Calandra, La favola dël lassé core, 19th century; Gandolfo 1972: 189)
These latter uses can be argued to reflect the influence of the regional koine on the texts in question. Such an influence became, in fact, particularly evident in the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, when Turinese established itself as the reference variety for the codification of Piedmontese (cf. Section 2). In particular, as regards partitive determiners, reference grammars such as Brero and Bertodatti (1988) consider the Turinese use of unarticled forms (ëd or dë)as mandatory with both mass nouns and countable plurals (cf. Section 3), and this is indeed the form which stood out in nineteenth-century written texts. More broadly, the diachronic overview which has been sketched in this section does not portray the development of partitive determiners in a single variety of Piedmontese. Leaving aside the so-called Sermoni subalpini, which are subject to Partitive determiners in Piedmontese 663 the controversial question mentioned above, it is important to point out that there is no evidence about Turinese usage until the seventeenth century. In fact, the texts of the previous centuries only describe the linguistic behavior of small urban centers and villages; it is significant that sentence (2), which contains an articled form, comes from a poem written by an Asti-born writer (Villata 2008). The differences identified between the texts prior to the seventeenth century and the texts of the following centuries can thus reflect differences in the paradigm of partitive deter- miners between different varieties of Piedmontese. In this respect, it should be emphasized that we are dealing with written texts of an Italo-Romance dialetto. Texts of this kind, which are mostly the product of intellectual élites or (as of the twentieth century) activist groups, are typically learned and “refined”; in utterance (4), for example, we find the relative pronoun iquai(clearly corresponding to iqualiin Italian), whose usage is mainly restricted to literary style (see e. g., Parry 2007). Most of these texts, by their very nature, can hence be deemed to some extent artificial. This may be particularly the case with those texts written from the late eight- eenth century onwards by non-Turinese poets and novelists. Such texts, espe- cially those from the nineteenth century, generally conform to the description of Piedmontese provided by grammars and dictionaries, and therefore, as argued, to the variety of Turin. However, it can be maintained that the codifi- cation of Piedmontese has exerted a greater influence on written texts than on everyday speech; in particular, the everyday speech of small urban centers and villages has presumably always differed to some extent from written texts and has been (and still is) more influenced by Turinese through the spontaneous diffusion of linguistic features (cf. Cerruti and Regis 2014: 94–95) than as a result of codification. Finally, as far as partitive determiners are concerned, the twentieth cen- tury witnessed a significant presence of bare nouns and articled forms among non-Turinese poets and novelists, as in e. g., (6). This is consistent with the fact that by the second half of the twentieth century the influence of Turinese as a reference variety had weakened (cf. Section 2). In fact, as written texts ceased to conform strictly to the codified norm, linguistic features such as bare indefinite nouns and articled forms of indefinite determiners, which had always been present in local varieties of Piedmontese, could reemerge in writing.
(6) j’ é mach dël vgëtti con ij cavì gris LOC be.PRS.3SG just INDF.DET-ART.DEF.F.PL elder.F.PL with gray hair ‘there are (lit. ‘there is’) just some old ladies with gray hair’ (Vincenzo Buronzo, Canson ’d sèria, 20th century, 20; Brero 1983: 182) 664 Massimo Cerruti and Riccardo Regis
Table 310 summarizes the development of partitive determiners in Piedmontese from the sixteenth century to the twentieth century.
Table 3: Partitive determiners in Piedmontese: a diachronic sketch.
non-Turinese writers Turinese and non-Turinese writers
c c-c c c partitive unarticled < articled unarticled > articled unarticled unarticled/ forms (/articled) articled bare nouns + ( + ) – +
5 Partitive determiners in contemporary Piedmontese
A look into the behavior of partitive determiners in contemporary speech can provide us with a more comprehensive picture of the situation. To begin with, it can be argued that the use of indefinite determiners in spoken Turinese closely reflects the paradigm described by reference grammars of the Piedmontese koine (cf. Section 3). In fact, spoken Turinese displays an indefinite determiner for single bounded entities (un; e. g., un lìber ‘a book’) and an unarticled form of the partitive determiner for both mass nouns and countable plurals (ëd or dë, depending on the phonetic environment in which the form occurs). Evidence of this can be found in the relevant data provided by ALEPO,11 e. g., (7), (8), and (9). A further example is (10), taken from the ASIS survey (see also AIS 1343).
10 “>” and “<” stand for “greater than” and “less than”, respectively; round brackets mean that the relevant feature is rarely attested. 11 The questionnaire statements which have been taken into account are as follows: Q19 Ecco delle nuvole ‘here are some clouds’,Q499A quali tipi di prato viene dato un nome? ‘which kinds of meadow are given a name?’,Q502Questo prato ridiventa pascolo ‘this meadow turns again into a pasture’,Q750(Un terreno) grasso [ben concimato] ‘a rich terrain [well fertilized]’,Q845Lasciare dei posti non seminati ‘leave some areas unseeded’,Q1068Mangiare del pane ‘eat bread’,Q1323Ci sono dei fiori ‘there are some flowers’,Q1936Fare delle fascine ‘make bundles of firewood’, Q2082 Dare delle cornate ‘butt’,Q2329Quali sono le malattie dei bovini? ‘which are the diseases of bovines?’, Q2355 Fare della schiuma mungendo ‘foam while milking’,Q2359Bere del latte appena munto ‘drink some fresh cow’smilk’,Q3430(Pietro) ha dei debiti ‘Peter has debts’,Q3635La strada fa dei tornanti ‘the road makes hairpin turns’,Q4529Fare (delle) macchie ‘make stains’,Q5031Voglio sistemare della roba (nel ripostiglio) ‘I want to put some stuff in the closet’,Q5252(Io mangio) del (pane) ‘Ieat Partitive determiners in Piedmontese 665
(7) [e vøj by'te a pɔst əd'rɔba] 1SG.SBJ want.PRS.1SG put.INF in place INDF.DET stuff.F.SG ‘I want to clean up some stuff’ (ALEPO Q5031, Moncalieri; unpublished materials)
(8) [a j e d 'nivule] 3SG.SBJ LOC be.PRS.3SG INDF.DET cloud.F.PL ‘there are (lit. ‘there is’) some clouds’ (ALEPO Q19, Moncalieri; unpublished materials)
(9) [a'des a faŋ mɑk ke by'teje əd kun'tʃim] now 3PL.SBJ do.PRS.3PL only COMP put.INF.LOC INDF.DET fertilizer ‘nowadays, all they ever do is put some fertilizer in it’ (ALEPO Q499, Moncalieri; unpublished materials)
(10) i lese mai ed liber 2PL.SBJ read.PRS.2PL never INDF.DET books ‘you never read books’ (ASIS Questionnaire 2, Turin; http://asit.maldura.unipd.it)
However, contrary to the behavior described in reference grammars, the partitive determiner ëd/dë does not appear to be obligatory.12 In fact, consistent with Bonato’s (2003–2004: 134–135; Bonato 2004: 185) results, spontaneous speech data reveal that countable plurals can sometimes occur as bare forms when referring to non-specific indefinite entities, as in utterance (11):
(11) [a i suŋ Ø'tɛre mɑk a'dɑte 3PL.SBJ LOC be.PRS.3PL Ø area.F.PL only suitable.F.PL afe l 'ɛrba] to grow.INF ART.DEF.F.SG grass.F.SG ‘there are areas where only grass grows’ (ALEPO Q502, Moncalieri; unpublished materials)
some bread’,Q5253(Io mangio) della (carne) ‘I eat some meat’,Q5254(Io mangio) degli (uccelli) ‘I eat some fowl’,Q5255(Io mangio) delle (noci) ‘I eat some walnuts’; cf. Canobbio and Telmon (1994). In a number of cases, the questionnaire statements have stimulated the respondents to converse freely about the issues at hand; which has made it possible to collect a substantial amount of spontaneous speech (i. e., the so-called ‘ethnotexts’, see Section 1). 12 However, it comes as no surprise that reference grammars deem the use of partitive determiners to be mandatory; as is well-known, codification aims for “minimal variation” (see e. g., the classic Haugen 1966). 666 Massimo Cerruti and Riccardo Regis
The absence of a partitive determiner is clearly conditioned by a complex array of factors, of which we can make just brief mention here. For instance, when commenting on the behavior of partitive forms in Piedmontese, Berizzi and Zanini (2011: 39–41) suggest that the absence of determiners can be favored in clauses higher in transitivity (consistent with the provisions of Hopper and Thompson’s 1980 transitivity continuum). From this perspective, it may be no coincidence that a partitive determiner occurs in an utterance such as (10), in which the predicate is non-actional, non-punctual, negative, and atelic as well (given that negated events are not completed), thereby reducing the degree of transitivity of the clause (cf. Hopper and Thompson 1980: 252). Moreover, the presence of a partitive determiner is obviously unaffected by the absence of inflectional morphology on the related noun, as the unarticled form of the determiner does not convey number marking. In short, the paradigm of indefinite determiners in contemporary spoken Turinese can be broken down as follows13:
Table 4: Indefinite determiners in spoken Turinese.
MASS NOUNS COUNTABLE NOUNS
MASCULINE FEMININE MASCULINE FEMININE
SINGULAR ëd un na PLURAL ëd/Ø
Furthermore, the geographic differentiation observed in earlier stages of devel- opment (cf. Section 4) is found in contemporary speech as well. In fact, some varieties of Piedmontese employ articled forms of partitive determiners for both mass nouns and countable plurals (see e. g., (12) and (13)), and such forms can alternate with zero marking (see e. g., (14) and (15)). As mentioned above, certain factors can be crucial in allowing the determiner to be omitted. It would seem, for instance, that partitive determiners tend to alternate more often with zero marking when reference is made to non-specific indefinite entities, as in (14) and (15). In fact, it has been argued in particular that the articled forms of plural partitive determiners are inclined to express specificity (Stark 2007: 52), while sharing the same ambiguity between a wide-scope and a narrow-scope reading as singular indefinites (cf. Squartini 2017: 12–13).
13 Further forms can be found depending on the different phonetic environments. Such variants, which are displayed in Table 2, are disregarded in this and subsequent tables. Partitive determiners in Piedmontese 667
The presence of partitive determiners, or the lack thereof, can nevertheless result from different conflicting motivations. For example, in (13), where a non- specific plural occurs as well, the presence of the articled form [di] can be favored by the absence of inflectional markers of plurality on the related noun.14 More broadly, the ALEPO data (see fn. 11) reveals that in all varieties displaying articled forms, the determiner position is consistently filled when an indefinite noun does not bear any (overt) inflectional marker of number, as in (12) and (13). This seems to corroborate the existence of a correlation between the mandatory presence of determiners and the unavailability of markers of number on nouns; the absence of inflectional endings could indeed be offset by the presence of a partitive determiner, which overtly marks number opposition (cf. Stark 2007: 52; Squartini 2017: 2, 7–8).
(12) [dal paŋ] INDF.DET-ART.DEF.M.SG bread ‘some bread’ (ALEPO Q5252, Campiglia Cervo; unpublished materials)
(13) [la stra la fa di tur'nant] the road 3SG.SBJ make.PRS.3SG INDF.DET-ART.DEF.M.PL hairpin turns ‘the road makes hairpin turns’ (ALEPO Q3635, Campiglia Cervo; unpublished materials)
(14) [əl'vɑke a j 'davu Ø roba d ART.DEF.F.PL cow.F.PL 3PL.SBJ to.them give.PST.3PL Ø stuff.F.SG of pur'kət] pork ‘the cows (hanging topic) they gave them pig meat’ (ALEPO Q2329, Campiglia Cervo; unpublished materials)
(15) [j e Ø 'fjure] LOC be.PRS.3SG Ø flower.F.PL ‘there are (lit. ‘there is’) flowers’ (ALEPO Q1323, Campiglia Cervo; unpublished materials)
Such behavior seems to be common to most peripheral varieties of Piedmontese; in fact, it is found among speakers from the provinces of Biella and Alessandria, as well as among those from Canavese, Montferrat, and Langhe, to name but a
14 Quite a different case can be seen in (15), in which ['fjure] has a plural inflectional ending. 668 Massimo Cerruti and Riccardo Regis few. This is apparent not only from questionnaire surveys, such as those carried out by AIS (see e. g., AIS 1343), ALEPO (see fn. 11 above), and ASIS (cf. Berizzi and Zanini 2011), but also from spontaneous speech data (see e. g., Bonato 2004: 184–187; Parry 2005: 142–144; cf. Ricca 2008: 122–124; Miola 2017: 154–157). In sum, the paradigm of indefinite determiners in most peripheral varieties of Piedmontese is similar to that mapped out in Table 5 (including the singular indefinite article); for the sake of example, all forms in the table refer to the variety of Campiglia Cervo (a village located about fourteen kilometers north- west of Biella), which is the source of utterances (12), (13), (14), and (15).
Table 5: Indefinite determiners in peripheral varieties of Piedmontese (Campiglia Cervo).
MASS NOUNS COUNTABLE NOUNS
MASCULINE FEMININE MASCULINE FEMININE
SINGULAR dal/Ø dla/Ø in ina PLURAL di/Ø dal/Ø
However, there is yet a third type of behavior which can be gleaned from ALEPO data. In fact, unarticled and articled forms of partitive determiners appear to coexist in some varieties of Piedmontese (see also Bonato 2004: 185; Ricca 2008: 123). Such is the case, in particular, with some of the so-called “rustic” and peri-Turinese varieties, that is, some of those varieties spoken in the plains situated northwest and southwest of Turin and in the hilly areas around the capital (cf. Telmon 2001: 70–72). Below are some examples collected in Bibiana:
(16) [ənt el sɑk la smens e i by'tɑvu in ART.DEF.M.SG sack ART.DEF.F.SG seed and LOC put.PST.3PL d'sɑbja ən'sema] INDF.DET sand.F.SG together ‘in the sack (there was) the seed, and they added some sand’ (ALEPO Q750, Bibiana; unpublished materials)
(17) [vøj by'te nt l ar'mɑri dla 'rɔba want.PRS.1SG put.INF in the closet INDF.DET-ART.DEF.F.SG stuff.F.SG ‘I want to put some stuff in the closet’ (ALEPO Q5031, Bibiana; unpublished materials) Partitive determiners in Piedmontese 669
The coexistence of unarticled and articled forms of partitive determiners in these varieties can be easily explained by contact, first and foremost with Turinese. The relationship between the variety of Turin and the surrounding varieties of small urban centers and villages reflects situations of “geographical diffusion” (Kerswill 2003: 223–224), in which linguistic features spread from a “high” variety to lower varieties (cf. Cerruti and Regis 2014: 95). When these features do not replace the original traits of lower varieties, the coexistence of features can result in intra-speaker variability, i. e., style variation. This phenomenon can also be observed in the area under scrutiny, on account of the functional differences between Turinese and non-Turinese varieties (cf. Section 2); indeed, cases of shifting between the former and the latter are found to occur mainly in response to the closeness, prestige, or provenance of the interlocutor, and, therefore, to the degree of formality of the situation (see e. g., Cerruti 2006: 230–237; Parry 1997: 237). Below is the case of a single speaker shifting from a “rustic” variety of Piedmontese (18a) to Turinese (18b) according to a change of addressee; it is worth noting that such a shifting involves the alternation between the articled form (18a) and the unarticled form (18b) of the partitive determiner.
(18) a. [a i tʃam s a j e 1SG.SBJ to.him ask.PRS.1SG if 3SG.SBJ LOC be.PRS.3SG dal latʃ] INDF.DET-ART.DEF.M.SG milk ‘I’ll ask him if there’s some milk’ (addressing her brother) b. [j e d lajt]? LOC be.PRS.3SG INDF.DET milk ‘is there some milk?’ (addressing the shopkeeper) (spontaneous speech, Turin; unpublished materials)
Language-internal motivations can thus interplay with external and extra-lin- guistic factors in conditioning the alternation between unarticled and articled forms of partitive determiners. This may even be the case with peripheral varieties, for Turinese is ‒ or at least has been (cf. Section 2) ‒ superposed on all other varieties. However, the alternation between unarticled and articled forms of partitive determiners is not always due to the contact with Turinese. In fact, both forms can also be found in those varieties of Piedmontese which are intensively in contact with Gallo-Romance, i. e., Francoprovençal and Occitan, varieties (some of which employ unarticled partitives as well; see e. g., ALEPO Q1323; cf. AIS 1343). Moreover, at least in some of these Piedmontese varieties, the distribution 670 Massimo Cerruti and Riccardo Regis of unarticled and articled forms of partitive determiners appears to be related to the presence of inflectional markers of number on the related noun (or the lack thereof). The variety of Val della Torre, for instance, displays a distribution of this kind in the subset of feminine nouns; in fact, unarticled partitives are regularly found when indefinite nouns hold inflectional markers of number (e. g., [əd'rɔba], [əd 'matʃe], in (19)), while articled forms consistently occur when such markers are lacking (e. g., [dla karn] and [del nus] in (19)).
(19) [əd'rɔba], [dla karn], INDF.DET stuff.F.SG INDF.DET-ART.DEF.F.SG meat ‘some stuff’‘some meat’ [əd 'matʃe], [del nus] INDF.DET stain.F.PL INDF.DET-ART.DEF.F.PL walnuts ‘some stains’‘some walnuts’ (ALEPO Q5031, Q5253, Q4529, Q5255, Val della Torre; unpublished materials)
At this point, a comparison can be made between the paradigm of indefinite determiners in spoken Turinese and that of peripheral varieties of Piedmontese. As regards the relationship between mass nouns and countable singulars, both paradigms oppose a partitive determiner to an indefinite article (cf. Tables 4 and 5), thus codifying a classificational distinction between unbounded entities (“substan- ces”,e.g.,some milk) and single bounded units (e. g., abook). However, whereas both singular indefinite determiners are obligatory in Turinese (e. g., [əd'roba],un lìber), mass nouns are allowed to be bare in peripheral varieties (e. g., Ø ['roba] in utterance 14; except when they lack an inflectional marker of number, at least in some varieties; see e. g., [dal paŋ]in12). The main paradigmatic differences concern the relationship between mass nouns and countable plurals (cf. Tables 4 and 5). In peripheral varieties, the plural is conveyed at least by the articled form of the partitive determiner, which is found not to be omitted when the noun lacks inflectional markers of number (e. g., [di tur'nant] in 13). In Turinese, on the contrary, the plural is conveyed by the sole presence of inflectional endings on nouns,15 as the unarticled form of the determiner does not express number marking (e. g., [d 'nivule] in 8). If inflectional endings are dismissed, then the distinction between mass nouns and countable plurals is guaranteed in only a few cases, namely, when partitive
15 This is typically the case with feminine nouns, as in e. g., (8) above, and masculine nouns borrowed from Italian (cf. Ricca 2006: 138–141); as for the latter, see e. g., ëd (INDF.DET) gelat-i (ice cream-M.PL), ‘some ice creams’. Partitive determiners in Piedmontese 671 determiners (which are obligatorily required with mass interpretation) are opposed to bare plurals (which are found in some cases of non-specific indef- inite referents). When such conditions are not met, the distinction between mass nouns and countable plurals is neutralized, for both mass nouns and countable plurals have a morphosyntactic structure consisting of an unarticled determiner plus an invariable noun (e. g., [əd kun'tʃim] in 9, ed liber in 10). In this respect, as argued by Squartini (2017), two different ways of categoriz- ing the relationship between mass nouns and countable plurals hence emerge. One way is to have quantification prevail over classification. The paradigm of peripheral varieties of Piedmontese appears to be consistently based on such a principle, as the classificational distinction between unbounded entities (“sub- stances”,e.g.,some milk) and unbounded sets of separable individuals (“aggre- gates”,e.g.,some books; cf. Jackendoff 1991)16 is subsumed under number opposition. The other way foregrounds classification, and the paradigm of spoken Turinese meets such characteristics under certain circumstances. In fact, when nouns dismiss inflectional endings, the use of an unarticled determiner with both mass nouns and countable plurals equates “substances” and “aggregates”,and therefore functions as a marker of classification. Finally, it is quite clear that the paradigm of indefinite determiners in periph- eral varieties of Piedmontese matches that of Italian (the latter is depicted, for instance, in Renzi 2001: 390–392), as shown in Table 6. In actual fact, the para- digmatic organization of indefinite determiners in these varieties may have been influenced by Italian, especially in the twentieth century, when the standard language extended its reach to encompass ordinary conversation, thereby weaken- ing the influence of Turinese as a reference variety (cf. Section 2). However, both
Table 6: Indefinite determiners in Italian.
MASS NOUNS COUNTABLE NOUNS
MASCULINE FEMININE MASCULINE FEMININE
SINGULAR del/Ø della/Ø un una PLURAL dei/Ø delle/Ø
16 In the words of Jackendoff (1991: 19–20): “We will […] group bare mass nouns and bare plurals together as unbounded (-b) […]. The difference […] is that plurals entail a […] multiplicity of distinguishable individuals, whereas mass nouns carry no such entailment. We will encode this difference featurally […]. I will call the feature ±internal structure,or±i. Aggregates – the entities normally expressed by plural nouns – will be +i. Substances – the entities normally expressed by mass nouns – will be –i”. 672 Massimo Cerruti and Riccardo Regis zero marking and articled forms of partitive determiners are inherent features of peripheral varieties of Piedmontese, and there are no compelling arguments to contend that the related paradigm has changed considerably over time, at least in everyday speech (cf. Section 4). All in all, the possible influence of Italian can be understood in terms of “contact-induced stability” (cf. Kühl and Braunmüller 2014: 30–31); in other words, changes may not have taken place because of inter-systemi- cally equivalent elements, which are cost-saving in language processing and hence usually sought by bilingual speakers (see e. g., Matras 2009: 151, 235). On the contrary, contact with Italian may have brought about changes in the paradigm of indefinite determiners of spoken Turinese. From this perspective, the availability of bare plurals with non-specific reading could be considered as an instance of convergence towards the standard language (as non-specific plural indefinites are allowed to be bare in Italian: cf. Section 3), albeit conditioned by language-internal factors (see above). Partitive determiners were indeed obliga- tory in earlier stages of Turinese (cf. Section 4). Nevertheless, as is the case with other varieties of Piedmontese, everyday speech may have always differed to some extent from written texts; therefore, the occurrence of actual changes cannot be taken for granted. Along these lines, it cannot be ruled out that the obligatori- ness of partitive determiners has always been limited to written texts, on account of strict adherence to the codified norm.
6 Conclusions
At first sight, partitive determiners of the Piedmontese koine, i. e., the variety of Piedmontese traditionally codified by grammars, seem to behave similarly to those of French (cf. Section 3). Nevertheless, this affinity has to do with the compulsoriness of partitive determiners rather than with their formal realization, the Piedmontese koine allowing only unarticled forms (as opposed to the articled forms of French). Contemporary spoken Turinese displays a paradigm of partitive determiners certainly not far from that of the Piedmontese koine, yet permitting their omission with countable nouns (cf. Table 4). A different behav- ior occurs among peripheral varieties of Piedmontese: while some of them alternate articled forms and bare nouns (cf. Table 5), presumably depending on conditioning factors, others are characterized by a sharper functional distri- bution of the two (see the case of Val della Torre). Combining historical and geographical data, we would have expected (i) the Piedmontese koine and Turinese to behave similarly to Italian, towards which both varieties are traditionally oriented, and (ii) western varieties of Piedmontese to Partitive determiners in Piedmontese 673 behave similarly to their neighboring Gallo-Romance varieties (namely Occitan and Francoprovençal). However, these working hypotheses have been disconfirmed, even overturned, by our data. In fact, not only do the Piedmontese koine and Turinese diverge from Italian, but they also show a paradigm of partitive determin- ers which closely resembles that of the Gallo-Romance varieties of western Piedmont, while the paradigm of peripheral varieties of Piedmontese matches that of Italian. How can these puzzling behaviors be explained? We have seen that the Piedmontese koine chose Italian as its “guide language” during the codification process. While Italian was, and still is, a touchstone for both phonetics/phonology and lexicon, the morphosyntactic level has been less affected by the official language, the codification process also contributing to preserve structural peculiarities – this is demonstrated by such Piedmontese features as the double-filled complementizer, postverbal negation, or the subject clitic pro- nouns, which are shared with other northern Italo-Romance dialetti but are unknown to standard Italian. The case of partitive determiners seems to fit well within this pattern, since the paradigm of the Piedmontese koine sharply contrasts with that of Italian. However, if we were to focus on the behavior of peripheral varieties and spoken Turinese, we would argue that the role played by the national language is not negligible. Italian has probably reinforced a tendency which had been attested ab antiquo in peripheral varieties, i. e., the use of articled forms and bare nouns; moreover, we cannot exclude the possibility that the omission of partitive determiners in spoken Turinese, though internally motivated, has been fostered by Italian. It is clear that, when we take into account varieties of Piedmontese different from the koine, we are faced with a certain amount of variation. As is always the case with Italo-Romance dialetti, the label Piedmontese is a shortcut for a multi- faceted reality; it does not refer to a homogeneous linguistic entity, but rather to a group of varieties belonging to the same diasystem and behaving in a slightly different way from one another. The two main paradigms we have found are linked – at least partially – to different ways of categorizing the opposition between mass nouns and countable nouns, and, of course, pertain to geograph- ical varieties of Piedmontese, i. e., Turinese and peripheral varieties. Yet we have to underline that features of either paradigm can occur within a given variety of Piedmontese as a byproduct of style (as well as interindividual) variation. More generally, partitive determiners may become an important tessera in the much-debated collocation of Piedmontese (as well as of Gallo-Italian) within or without the Italo-Romance domain (for an overview, see Tamburelli and Brasca 2018: 442–444). The idea that Piedmontese is a sort of transitional variety between Italian and French, already expressed by Denina (1804: II, 61), has been then embraced by Tagliavini (1952: 314) and Vidos (1956: 292) and recently restated by 674 Massimo Cerruti and Riccardo Regis
Bossong (2016: 68), who maintains that “Piedmontese (and the other varieties of Gallo-Italian) […] forms a bridge between Gallo- and Italo-Romance” and that “[t]his alone would be sufficient to justify classifying Gallo-Italian as a language in its own right (‘language’ in the sense of ‘dialect group’ or ‘diasystem’)”. Unfortunately, as long as a comprehensive description of Piedmontese is lacking, this classificatory conundrum is doomed to remain unresolved.
Data sources
AIS = Jaberg, Karl & Jacob Jud. 1928–1940. Sprach- und Sachatlas Italiens und der Südschweiz Atlante linguistico ed etnografico dell’Italia e della Svizzera meridionale. Zofingen: Ringier. http://www3.pd.istc.cnr.it/navigais-web. ALEPO = Atlante Linguistico ed Etnografico del Piemonte Occidentale III. Il mondo animale, I – La fauna, II – Caccia e pesca. 2013. Alessandria: Edizioni dell’Orso. ASIS = Atlante sintattico d’Italia. http://asit.maldura.unipd.it.
References
Aly-Belfàdel, Arturo. 1933. Gramatica piemontese. Noale: Guin. Berizzi, Mariachiara & Chiara Zanini. 2011. Il partitivo nei dialetti piemontesi: Alcune osserva- zioni. Quaderni di Lavoro ASIt 13. 35–48. Berruto, Gaetano. 1989. On the typology of linguistic repertoires. In Ulrich Ammon (ed.), Status and function of languages and language varieties, 552–569. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Bonato, Massimo. 2003–2004. Tratti variabili nella sintassi del piemontese parlato contem- poraneo. Turin: University of Turin MA Thesis. Bonato, Massimo. 2004. Partitivo e articolo indeterminativo plurale nel piemontese parlato contemporaneo. Rivista Italiana di Dialettologia 28. 175–196. Bossong, Georg. 2016. Classifications. In Adam Ledgeway & Martin Maiden (eds.), The Oxford guide to the romance languages,63–72. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press. Brero, Camillo. 1967. Gramàtica piemontèisa. Turin: Musicalbrandé. Brero, Camillo. 1971 [1967]. Gramàtica piemontèisa, 2nd edn. Turin: Ij Brandé Brero, Camillo. 1975 [1967]. Gramàtica piemontèisa, 4th edn. Turin: Ij Brandé Brero, Camillo. 1983. Storia della letteratura piemontese, terzo volume (Sec. XX). Turin: Piemonte in Bancarella. Brero, Camillo & Remo Bertodatti. 1988. Grammatica della lingua piemontese. Parola – vita – letteratura. Turin: Piemont/Europa. Bouvier, Jean-Claude, Henry-Paul Bremondy, Philippe Joutard, Guy Mathieu & Jean-Noël Pelen. 1980. Tradition orale et identité culturelle: Problèmes et méthodes. Paris: CNRS. Canobbio, Sabina. 1989. Al di là della raccolta dialettale: Etnotesti e documentazione ergo- logica nell’ALEPO. In Vv. Aa., Atlanti regionali: Aspetti metodologici, linguistici ed etnog- rafici,83–112. Pisa: Pacini. Partitive determiners in Piedmontese 675
Canobbio, Sabina. 2002. L’atlante linguistico come strumento di ricerca? A proposito di alcune esperienze italiane. Revue Belge de Philologie Et d’Histoire 80(3). 905–929. Canobbio, Sabina & Tullio Telmon (eds.). 1994. Atlante Linguistico ed Etnografico del Piemonte Occidentale. Questionario, II, Testo. Turin: Regione Piemonte. Capello, Louis. 1814. Dictionnaire portatif piémontais-français. Turin: Bianco. Carlier, Anne & Ludo Melis. 2006. L’article partitif et les expressions quantifiantes du type peu de contiennent-ils le même de? In Georges Kleiber, Catherine Schnedecker & Anne Theissen (eds.), La relation partie-tout, 449–464. Louvain: Peeters. Cerruti, Massimo. 2006. Un’identità sociolinguistica scissa. Cinquant’anni dopo l’emigrazione ‘dai paesi’ a Torino (analisi di un caso). Italian Journal of Linguistics 18(2). 225–248. Cerruti, Massimo. 2016. L’italianizzazione dei dialetti: Una rassegna. Quaderns d’Italià 21. 63–74. Cerruti, Massimo & Riccardo Regis. 2014. Standardization patterns and dialect/standard con- vergence: A northwestern Italian perspective. Language in Society 43. 83–111. Clivio, Gianrenzo P. 1976. Language contact in Piedmont: Aspects of Italian interference in the sound system of Piedmontese. In Gianrenzo P. Clivio, Storia linguistica e dialettologia piemontese,91–106. Turin: Centro Studi Piemontesi. Clivio, Gianrenzo P. 1964. Piedmontese. A short basic course. Waltham, MA: Brandeis University. Clivio, Gianrenzo P. 2002. Profilo di storia della letteratura in piemontese. Turin: Centro Studi Piemontesi. Coseriu, Eugenio. 1980. “Historische Sprache” und “Dialekt”. In Joachim Göschel, Pavle Ivić & Kurt Kehr (eds.), Dialekt und Dialektologie, 106–122. Wiesbaden: Steiner. Denina, Carlo. 1804. La clef des langues. Berlin: Mettra, Umlang & Quien. Diez, Friedrich. 1836. Grammatik der romanischen Sprachen, I. Bonn: Weber. Fasold, Ralph. 1984. The sociolinguistics of society. Oxford: Blackwell. Foulet, Lucien. 1930. Petite syntaxe de l’ancien français. Paris: Champion. Gandolfo, Renzo (ed.). 1972. La letteratura in piemontese, dal Risorgimento ai nostri giorni. Profilo storico, autori, testi, documentazioni. Turin: Centro Studi Piemontesi. Gasca, Queirazza, Gianrenzo P. Clivio Giuliano & Dario Pasero. 2003 (eds.), La letteratura in piemontese dalle origini al Settecento: Raccolta antologica di testi. Turin: Centro Studi Piemontesi. Grevisse, Maurice & André Goosse. 2008. Le bon usage. Grammaire française. Brussels: De Boeck & Larcier. Griva, Guido. 1980. Grammatica della lingua piemontese. Turin: Viglongo. Grosso, Michela. 2000. Grammatica essenziale della lingua piemontese. Turin & Alessandria: Nòste Rèis – Libreria piemontese & Gioventura piemontèisa. Haugen, Einar. 1966. Dialect, language, nation. American Anthropologist 68(6). 922–935. Hopper, Paul & Sandra A. Thompson. 1980. Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language 56. 251–299. Jackendoff, Ray. 1991. Parts and boundaries. Cognition 41. 9–45. Joseph, Joseph Earl. 1985. ‘Superposed’ languages and standardization. Studi Italiani di Linguistica Teorica E Applicata 14(1–3). 33–52. Kerswill, Paul. 2003. Dialect levelling and geographical diffusion in British English. In David Britain & Jenny Cheshire (eds.), Social dialectology: In honour of Peter Trudgill, 223–243. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 676 Massimo Cerruti and Riccardo Regis
Kloss, Heinz. 1978. Die Entwicklung neuer germanischer Kultursprachen seit 1800. Düsseldorf: Schwann. Kristol, Andres. 2014. Les grammaires du francoprovençal: L’expression de la partitivité: Quelques leçons du projet ALAVAL. In La Géolinguistique dans les Alpes au XXe siècle: méthodes, défis et perspectives: Actes de la Conférence annuelle sur l’activité scientifique du Centre d’études francoprovençales René Willien,29–44. Aoste, Région autonome de la Vallée d’Aoste & Bureau régional pour l’ethnologie et la linguistique. Kristol, Andres. 2016. Francoprovençal. In Adam Ledgeway & Martin Maiden (eds.), The Oxford guide to the romance languages, 350–362. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press. Kühl, Karoline & Kurt Braunmüller. 2014. Linguistic stability and divergence: An extended perspective on language contact. In Kurt Braunmüller, Steffen Höder & Karoline Kühl (eds.), Stability and divergence in language contact. Factors and mechanisms,13–38. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Maiden, Martin & Mair Parry. 1997. Introduction. In Martin Maiden & Mair Parry (eds.), The dialects of Italy,1–4. London: Routledge. Marazzini, Claudio. 1984. Piemonte e Italia. Storia di un confronto linguistico. Turin: Centro Studi Piemontesi. Matras, Yaron. 2009. Language contact. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Meyer-Lübke, Wilhelm. 1909. Einführung in das Studium der romanischen Sprachwissenschaft. Heidelberg: Winter. Migliorini, Bruno. 1994 [1960]. Storia della lingua italiana. Milan: Bompiani. Miola, Emanuele. 2017. The position of Piedmontese on the romance grammaticalization cline. Folia Linguistica 51(1). 133–167. Muljačić, Žarko. 1997a. Il piemontese da lingua alta (LA) a lingua media (LM) nell’area di convergenza italiana. La Slòira. Arvista piemontèisa 3–4. 11–15. Muljačić, Žarko. 1997b. The relationship between the dialects and the standard language. In Martin Maiden & Mair Parry (eds.), The dialects of Italy, 387–393. London & New York: Routledge. Muljačić, Žarko. 2011 [2000]. Le vicende delle sei lingue medie d’Italia più notevoli dal Cinquecento al secondo Ottocento. In Elisabeth Burr (ed.), Tradizione e Innovazione. Integrando il digitale, l’analogico, il filologico, lo storico e il sociale, 183–191. Florence: Cesati. Parry, Mair. 1997. Piedmont. In Martin Maiden & Mair Parry (eds.), The dialects of Italy, 237–244. London: Routedge. Parry, Mair. 2005. Parluma ’d Còiri: Sociolinguistica e grammatica del dialetto di Cairo Montenotte. Savona: Società Savonese di Storia Patria. Parry, Mair. 2007. La frase relativa (con antecedente) negli antichi volgari dell’Italia nord- occidentale. Laboratorio sulle varietà romanze antiche 1(1). 9–32. Pellegrini, Giovan Battista. 1975 [1973]. I cinque sistemi linguistici dell’italo-romanzo. In Giovan Battista Pellegrini (eds.), Saggi di linguistica italiana. Storia, struttura, società,55–87. Turin: Boringhieri. Pipino, Maurizio. 1783a. Vocabolario Piemontese. Turin: Reale Stamparia. Pipino, Maurizio. 1783b. Grammatica Piemontese. Turin: Reale Stamparia. Ponza, Michele. 1830. Vocabolario piemontese-italiano. Turin: Stamperia Reale. Regis, Riccardo. 2012. Su pianificazione, standardizzazione, polinomia: due esempi. Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie 128(1). 88–133. Regis, Riccardo. 2013. Può un dialetto essere standard? Vox Romanica 72. 151–169. Partitive determiners in Piedmontese 677
Renzi, Lorenzo. 2001. L’articolo. In Lorenzo Renzi, Giampaolo Salvi & Anna Cardinaletti (eds.), Grande grammatica italiana di consultazione, I: La frase: I sintagmi nominale e prepos- izionale, 371–437. Bologna: Il Mulino. Renzi, Lorenzo. 2010. L’articolo. In Giampaolo Salvi & Lorenzo Renzi (eds.), Grammatica dell’italiano antico, 297–347. Bologna: Il Mulino. Ricca, Davide. 2006. Sulla nozione di “dialetto italianizzato” in morfologia: Il caso del pie- montese. In Alberto A. Sobrero & Annarita Miglietta (eds.), Lingua e dialetto nell’Italia del Duemila, 129–149. Galatina: Congedo. Ricca, Davide. 2008. Tratti instabili nella sintassi del piemontese contemporaneo: Tra italian- izzazione e arcaismi locali. In Sabine Heinemann (ed.), Sprachwandel und (Dis-) Kontinuität in der Romania, 113–127. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Rohlfs, Gerhard. 1968. Grammatica storica della lingua italiana e dei suoi dialetti: Morfologia. Turin: Einaudi. Ronjat, Jules. 1937. Grammaire historique des parlers provençaux modernes III. Montpellier: Société des Langues Romanes. Sant’Albino, Vittorio di. 1859. Gran dizionario piemontese-italiano. Turin: Unione Tipografico- Editrice. Scivoletto, Giulio. 2014. L’italianizzazione dei dialetti come caso di convergenza linguistica. Rivista Italiana di Dialettologia 38. 75–101. Sobrero, Alberto A. 1997. Italianization of the dialects. In Martin Maiden & Mair Parry (eds.), The dialects of Italy, 412–418. London: Routledge. Squartini, Mario. 2017. Quantification and classification in Romance indefinite determiners: Number or Seinsart? Paper presented at the International workshop, The Grammar of Reference and Quantification: Functions, Variation, and Change (RED 2017), Bologna, June 15–16. Stark, Elisabeth. 2007. Gender, number, and indefinite articles: About the ‘typological inconsis- tency’ of Italian. In Elisabeth Stark, Elisabeth Leiss & Werner Abraham (eds.), Nominal determination: Typology, context constraints, and historical emergence,49–71. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Tagliavini, Carlo. 1952. Le origini delle lingue neolatine. Introduzione alla filologia romanza, 2nd edn. Bologna: Pàtron. Tamburelli, Marco & Lissander Brasca. 2018. Revisiting the classification of Gallo-Italic: A dialectometric approach. Digital Scholarship in the Humanities 33(2). 442–455. Telmon, Tullio. 2001. Piemonte e Valle d’Aosta. Roma & Bari: Laterza. Vidos, Benedek Elmer. 1956. Handboek tot de romaanse taalkunde. ’S Hertogenbosch: Malmberg. Villata, Bruno. 2008. Osservazioni su La lingua dell’Alione: Grammatica dell’astigiano del secolo XVI. Montreal: Lòsna & Tron. Villata, B. 2009 [1997]. La lingua piemontese. Fonologia – Morfologia – Sintassi – Formazione delle parole. Turin: Savej – Fundassiun Cultüral Piemunteisa. Zalli, Casimiro. 1815. Disionari piemontèis, italian, latin e fransi. Barbier: Carmagnola.