The Syntactic Status of Subject Clitics: A Problem from Venetan SE ‐Constructions

• Published in: Transactions of the Philological Society
• Main Authors: Fioratti, Marco, Russo Cardona, Leonardo
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: 16.07.2025
• ISSN: 0079-1636; 1467-968X
• DOI: 10.1111/1467-968X.12323

This article reopens the discussion on the syntax of subject clitics (SCLs) in Venetan dialects by providing a problematic piece of data and outlining its theoretical consequences. New evidence from se ‐constructions in Alto Polesine Venetan (APV) shows that SCLs resist a unitary categorisation even within the same dialect group: in varieties closely related to APV, both preverbal lexical subjects and SCLs are ungrammatical in passive se ‐constructions and both are grammatical in middle se ‐constructions (Pescarini 2018b), whereas in APV SCLs – but not preverbal lexical subjects – are always grammatical in both constructions. We argue that the different sensitivity to passive se shown by SCLs in the two sets of varieties strongly suggests that in the former case clitics move from a lower position in the v P, while in the latter case they are base generated in a functional projection in the TP: this is problematic for most theories of cliticisation, which only allow for one of these two options. We argue instead that both possibilities are attested in different varieties, despite of their close resemblance. Ultimately, this work shows how se ‐constructions can function as a diagnostic for the movement/base‐generation variable in SCLs and, more in general, how a theoretically informed test can explain surprising empirical observations. In sum, micro‐variation in the dialects of Italy once more proves significant in assessing current linguistic theory. Sto articoeo chi el verze oncora ea discussión so ea sintassi dei clitici de sogeto (SCL) in tei diaèti del Veneto, e el ne fa vedare dei dati problematici co i so efeti teorici. Dee prove nove dae costruzión col se in tel veneto del'Alto Poesine (APV) ne mostra che i SCL i ze difizii da classificare come un grupo unico anche in tei diaeti deo stesso tipo: in tee varietà vizine a l'APV, sia i sogeti lessicai preverbai che i SCL no i va ben in tee costruzión passive col se , però i va ben tuti do col se medio (Pescarini 2018b); in APV, però, i SCL – ma no i sogeti lessicai preverbai – i ze sempre gramaticai in tute do e costruzión. Noialtri a dizemo che e diferenze in come che se comporta i SCL col se passivo che se vede in tei do grupi de diaeti e ze na prova par dire che in tel primo caso i clitici i se move da na pozizión bassa in tel v P, e in te chealtro i ze tacà diretamente in te na proiezión funzionae in tel TP: questo ze on problema par tante teorie soa cliticizazión, parché e ne permete soeo una de e do opzión. Noialtri a pensemo che te cati tute do e possibiità in tee diverse varietà, anca in te quee che se someia parecio. Aea fine, sto laoro chi el mostra come che e costruzión col se e poe funzionare da test par la opzión de movimento dei clitici, o par quea che dize che i ze tacà diretamente in tel TP e, più in generae, el mostra come che un test bazà soa teoria el poe darne na spiegazión so dee osservazión empiriche sorprendenti. In poche paroe, ea micro‐variazión in tei diaeti de l'Italia ea se mostra oncora importante par vaeutare ea teoria linguistica del dì de oncò.