Microvariation in the Distribution of Resumptive Pronouns in the Left Dislocation Construction in Two Tyrolean Dialects of Northern Italy

Abstract

In this paper we document a so-far neglected case of microvariation involving resumptive pronouns in the left-dislocation construction in Meranese, spoken in South Tyrol, and Mòcheno, spoken in the Fersina valley (Trentino). While in standard German resumptive elements in this construction belong to the class of D-pronouns, the two Tyrolean dialects considered in the paper exhibit, as resumptive pronouns, both (i) D-pronouns and (ii) pronominal usages of the distal demonstrative formed by the definite article (D) and sèll corresponding to ‘that one’. We show that in both languages D+sèll forms overlap with German D-pronouns in most contexts, whereas D-pronouns only superficially, but not functionally, correspond to German D-pronouns, and have undergone a weakening process. While the weakening process is in nuce in Meranese, it seems to be nearly completed in Mòcheno, where D-pronouns appear to have acquired a status close to that of subject clitics of Northern Italian varieties.

1. Introduction

In this paper, we investigate cases of Verb third (V3) word orders involving a fronted argument in two Tyrolean dialects: Meranese, spoken in South Tyrol, and Mòcheno, spoken in the Fersina valley (Trentino). The paper focuses on the so-called Linksversetzung construction, found in present-day German (1). In this construction, an XP is fronted and doubled by a resumptive pronoun. If the fronted constituent is a verb argument, the resumptive element is doubled by a so-called D-pronoun (i.e., a pronoun exhibiting the properties of both personal and demonstrative pronouns, cf. Portele and Bader 2016, p. 3) that agrees in case, number, and gender with the fronted argument:

(1)	[Dem	Johann]j	demj	habe	ich	das	Buch	gegeben.
	the.dat	Johann,	this.dat	have	I	the	book	given
	‘I gave Johann the book.’

In Meranese and Mòcheno, V3 word orders in the Linksversetzung construction are possible, but, unlike in German, they involve two different series of resumptive D-pronouns: D-pronominal forms familiar from German, and der/di/s (Meranese)/der/de/s (Mòcheno)+ sèll forms,1 which are formed by the definite article (D) and the demonstrative sèll and correspond to ‘that one’ (literally “the (in masculine, feminine, neuter forms) + that”, henceforth: D+sèll forms).2 The two pronominal forms are found in the cases in which a D-pronoun is present in German, cf. the contrast in (2) in which both the D-pronoun der and D+sèll form are possible with a fronted subject, whereas D+sèll is the only form compatible with a fronted direct object.

(2)	a.	Der	Marioj,	der	sèllj	/	dèrj	isch	kèmmen.	Meranese
		the.nom	Mario	the.nom	that		this.nom	is	come
	b.	Der	Marioj,	der	sèllj	/	derj	ist	kèmmen.	Mòcheno
		the	Mario	the.nom	that		he.nom	is	come
		‘Mario has arrived.’
	c.	N	Marioj,	n	sèllj	/	*dènnj	hònn	i	geschtern	ksechn. Mòcheno
		the.acc	Mario	the.acc	that		this.acc	have	I	yesterday	seen
		‘I saw Mario yesterday.’
	d.	A	mònn,	der	sèll	hòn	e	tsechen		Mòcheno
		a	man	the	that	have	I	seen
		‘I saw a man.’

In this paper, we will show that the two pronominal classes exhibited by Meranese and Mòcheno differ in their distribution and, crucially, D-pronouns only superficially correspond to German D-pronouns, whereas D+sèll forms are actually those functionally and syntactically overlapping in most cases with German D-pronouns. This implies that Meranese and Mòcheno D-pronouns are not functionally identical to German D-pronouns, whereas D+sèll forms in most cases are.3

According to our knowledge, the data to be discussed in this paper have never been reported for German, where D-pronouns build a coherent class and are fully compatible with all syntactic functions of the fronted argument. D-pronouns, often defined as a kind of demonstrative pronoun, build a special class of pronouns that does not differ from personal pronouns in terms of lexical content and phi-features, but rather in terms of information structure (Portele and Bader 2016, p. 5ff). This implies that the D-pronoun dem in (1) shares the same phi-features (singular, masculine, dative) with the corresponding personal pronoun ihm (him.dat), but, due to its demonstrative character, its distribution is fed by both grammatical and discourse factors, first of all accessibility (Ariel 1990, 2001). Syntactic function does, however, play a role in the distribution of D-pronouns and personal pronouns in written German, as shown by Portele and Bader (2016), who have demonstrated that the first factor favoring the presence of a D-pronoun over a personal pronoun is the syntactic function of the doubled XP. Specifically, D-pronouns are highly disfavored in contexts not involving a syntactic subject, where personal pronouns are found instead. This correlates with the observation that personal pronouns are used as topic continuators in German, whereas D-pronouns are typically found in contexts in which a topic shift has taken place (Abraham 2002; Wiemer 1996; Zifonun et al. 1997). The two other main factors favoring the presence of a D-pronoun emerging from the study by Portele and Bader (2016, p. 23), givenness and position, are directly connected to accessibility.4 According to Portele and Bader (2016), the presence of D-pronouns is favored with new referents, i.e., non-given antecedents. The antecedent’s position within the clause is the third condition favoring the use of a D-pronoun instead of a personal pronoun: in texts, D-pronouns are favored when they refer back to a sentence-final antecedent, i.e., an NP which is not followed by any other potential antecedent (Portele and Bader 2016, p. 15).

In the Tyrolean varieties examined in this paper, the two pronominal forms are found in cases in which a D-pronoun is present in German, cf. the contrast in (2) above in which both the D-pronoun and the D+sèll form are possible with a fronted subject, whereas D+sèll is the only form compatible with a fronted direct object. Crucially, indefinite common nouns can also enter the Linksversetzung construction in Meranese and can be doubled by D-forms; this, we will show, is a key difference with standard German, where the Linksversetzung construction is restricted to definite XPs. Mòcheno has pushed the distribution of D+sèll forms to its maximal consequences, since D-pronouns are only possible with proper names with the syntactic function of a subject, whereas in all other contexts, D+sèll is obligatory, cf. (3).

(3)	Proper name; subject	Proper name; non-subject	definite/indefinite common nouns
Meranese5	dèr/der sèll	*dèr/okder sèll	dèr/?/*der sèll
Mòcheno	der/der sèll	*der/okder sèll	*der/okder sèll

In the two dialects considered in this paper, D-forms have undergone a sort of weakening process, leading to a system in which D+sèll forms correspond to German D-pronouns in most cases, whereas D-forms appear to instantiate a third, different class. As in German, D-pronouns exhibit a hybrid status between demonstrative and personal pronouns in Meranese, which is evidenced by their adjectival usages: dèr mònn corresponds to “this man”, whereas der mònn (here der is the definite article and not the demonstrative, cf. footnote 5) is to be translated as “the man”. The status of D-pronouns in Mòcheno, on the other hand, is closer to that of personal pronouns (despite the fact that the demonstrative meaning is not completely absent), since in this language there exists a special proximal demonstrative form der doi, “this”, and D-pronouns cannot be used as adjectives (cf. der mònn, “the man; *this man”, der doi mònn, “this man”). By investigating a variety of contexts, we will show that the distribution of the two pronominal forms in Tyrolean is fed by their “richness”: in both languages, D+sèll is the richer form and D-pronouns are the less complex, weaker form. Specifically, we show that D+sèll forms actually correspond to German D-pronouns and their distribution is fed by the same factors feeding the presence of D-pronouns (Portele and Bader 2016), whereas Tyrolean D-pronouns have undergone a reduction process according to which they have become compatible with subjects, thus showing properties of a subject clitic pronoun, especially in Mòcheno.

The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2 we discuss the Linksversetzung in standard German and its relation with the V2 character of the language. In Section 3, we describe and account for Linksversetzung in Meranese, whereas Section 4 is dedicated to the construction in Mòcheno. Section 5 compares the two varieties with each other and offers a common explanation. Section 6 contains the conclusions.

2. V2 and the Linksversetzung in Standard German

2.1. German as a V2 Language

Within the typology of V2 languages, German is considered as a prototypical ‘strict V2 language’ (cf. den Besten 1989; Tomaselli 1990; Haider 2010; Holmberg 2015). Descriptively, this means that the finite verb has to appear in the second linear position in all main declarative and interrogative clauses. Therefore, the finite verb in German can be preceded by a single constituent; if this constituent is not the subject, the latter immediately follows the verb, giving rise to subject–finite verb inversion. These properties are illustrated in (4):

(4)	a.	Maria	hat	gestern	den	Brief	geschrieben
		Maria	has	yesterday	the.acc	letter	written
	b.	Gestern	hat	Maria	den	Brief	geschrieben
		yesterday	has	Maria	the.acc	letter	written
	c.	*Gestern	Maria	hat	den	Brief	geschrieben
		yesterday	Maria	has	the.acc	letter	written
		‘Maria wrote the letter yesterday.’

Another property connected to the strict V2 character of German is the fact that any XP, not only the subject, can appear in the sentence-initial position without resumption: V2 languages are thus X-V languages and not S(ubject)-V languages (Poletto 2002; Benincà 2006; Wolfe 2018). Moreover, asymmetries in the position of the finite verb between main and embedded clauses are attested due to the unavailability of the C° position in embedded clauses due to the presence of a complementizer (den Besten 1989).

2.2. V3 Word Orders in German

Since Altmann’s (1981) work, it has been known that, especially in the spoken language and in texts which replicate an oral, informal style, violations of the strict V2 word order are attested. In this paper we focus on one of the constructions which are typically connected with V3 in present-day German: the so-called Linksversetzung.6 This construction is characterized by the fact that one phrase, which is typically one of the arguments, is fronted to the sentence-initial position and is doubled by a D-pronoun preceding the finite verb. The fronted XP and the co-indexed resumptive D-pronoun agree in case, number, and gender.7 The fronted XP typically has a loose syntactic relation with the clause; prosodically, it can (but does not have to) be separated from the clause by a pause, which we indicate here with a comma.

(5)	a.	Der Peterj,		derj	hat	meine Mutter	gestern	gesehen.
		the.nom Peter		he.nom	has	my mother	yesterday	seen
		‘Peter saw my mother yesterday.’
	b.	Diesen Mannj,		denj	habe	ich	gestern	gesehen.
		this.acc	man	him.acc	have	I	yesterday	seen
		‘I saw this man yesterday.’
	c.	Dem Peterj,		demj	habe	ich	gestern	geholfen
		the.dat Peter		him.dat	have	I	yesterday	helped
		‘Peter, I helped him yesterday.’

The resumptive D-pronoun immediately follows the constituent in the sentence-initial position in main declarative clauses. In main interrogative clauses, on the contrary, the D-pronoun appears within the clause; observe the following examples from Wöllstein (2014, p. 55), and see also Bidese and Tomaselli (2005).8

(6)	a.	Seinen Hundj	denj		darf	man	doch wohl		mitbringen.
		his.acc dog	him.acc		be.allowed	one	part part		with.bring
		‘One should be surely allowed to bring their dog with them.’
	b.	Seinen Hundj	warum	soll	man	denj	nicht
		his.acc dog	why	should	one	him	neg
		mitbringen	dürfen?
		with.bring	be.allowed
		‘Why should one not be allowed to bring their own dog with them?’

The fronted constituent and the resumptive D-pronoun cannot both precede the wh-element or the finite verb in interrogative clauses, cf. the following example.

(7)		*Seinen Hundj	denj	warum	soll	man	nicht
		his.acc dog	him.acc	why	should	one	neg
		mitbringen	dürfen?
		with.bring	be.allowed
		‘Why should one not be allowed to bring their own dog with them?’

The same pattern is found in imperative clauses; here, the D-pronoun has to follow the verb:

(8)		Dem Johanj	gib	demj	noch	ein Stück	Kuchen.
		the.dat Johan	give	him. dat	still	a piece	cake
		‘Give Johann another piece of cake.’

If the fronted argument is a PP, it is resumed by a PP containing the same preposition and a D-pronoun:

(9)	a.	Mit dem Karlj	mit demj		habe	ich	gerade			gesprochen.
		with the.dat Karl	with him.dat		have	I	just			spoken
		‘I have just talked to Karl.’
	b.	Von der Mariaj	von derj	habe	ich	das	erfahren.
		from the.dat Maria	from her. dat	have	I	that	discovered
		‘I have discovered this from Maria.’

Fronted adverbial specifications (also in form of an adverbial clause) can also be left-dislocated; in these cases, the resumptive elements are da or dann, literally ‘there, then’ (cf. Casalicchio and Cognola 2023 and contributions in De Clercq et al. 2023):

(10)		a.	In Konstanzj,	da	habe	ich	mal	gelebt
			in Konstanz	there	have	I	once	lived
			‘I lived once in Konstanz.’
		b.	[Wenn	du	nicht	ausgehen	willst]j,
			if	you	neg	out.go	want
			dannj	bleiben	wir	zu	Hause
			then	stay	we	at	home
			‘If you don’t want to go out, we’ll stay at home.’

As discussed in Ott (2014, pp. 272–73), all categories which can potentially be anaphorically resumed can appear in the Linksversetzung construction in German (examples from Ott 2014, p. 272):

(11)	a.	[CPDass	Peter	seine	Freundin	geküsst	hat]j,	dasj	glaube	ich	nicht.
		that	Peter	his	girlfriend	kissed	has	this	believe	I	neg
		‘I don’t believe that Peter kissed his girlfriend.’
	b.	[AP Schön]j,	dasj	ist	sie	wirklich	nicht.
		beautiful	that	is	she	really	neg
		‘She really isn’t beautiful.’

Importantly, interrogative wh-elements, QPs, nonspecific indefinites, and NPIs are ruled out from the Linksversetzung construction in German (cf. Ott 2014, p. 282).

The Linksversetzung construction is sometimes subsumed to the English “contrastive left dislocation” (also ‘CLD’, cf. Thráinsson 1979) to distinguish it from the hanging-topic construction (cf. Ott 2014, p. 271), but there is consensus in the literature that the construction is not characterized by a contrastive component (cf. Frey 2004). As discussed by Ott (2014, p. 271, footnote 6), the Linksversetzung construction has a topic-marking component, but there are also “non topical uses of dXPs—for example, as narrow-focus answers to questions or in connection with only/even-type focus-sensitive operators—are clearly possible; see (Hinterwimmer and Repp 2010; Repp and Drenhaus 2011). The information-structural realizations of dXPs in CLD are thus congruent with those of XPs fronted to the prefield, which can likewise be topical or focal”.

2.3. Theoretical Accounts of the Linksversetzung Construction

Within the so-called topological model, i.e., a linear, descriptive model proposed to account for the syntax of German (see Höhle 1986; Wöllstein 2014), the syntax of the Linksversetzung is captured through the idea that constituents resumed by a D-pronoun appear in a special position. The topological model relies on the idea that the German clause can be divided into areas (Felder ‘fields’) that correspond to positions for a single constituent or for more XPs. In canonical V2 main clauses, the fronted XP appears in the prefield position (Vorfeld, able to host a single XP), the finite verb in the left bracket (linke Satzklammer, able to host the finite verb), and the following XPs in the middle field (Mittelfeld, where several XPs can appear), whereas the right bracket (Rechte Satzklammer) is the position hosting the non-finite verb parts (or separable prefixes), if present.9

(12)	a.	Wann		hast		du		den	Peter	getroffen?
		when		have		you		the.acc	Peter	met
		‘When have you met Peter?’
	b.	Den	Peter	habe	ich	gestern		getroffen.
		the.acc	Peter	have	I	yesterday		met
		‘I met Peter yesterday.’

(13)	Vorfeld	Linke Satzklammer	Mittelfel	Rechte Satzklammer
	Wann	hast	du den Peter	getroffen?
	Den Peter	habe	ich gestern	getroffen.

Within this model, the Linksversetzung construction is accounted for by assuming that there exists an extra position (Feld) found above the Vorfeld (i.e. the ‘pre-prefield’), in which Linksversetzungen and hanging topics are hosted, as in the following structure:

(14)	a.	Den	Peterj,	wann	hast	du	denj	getroffen?
		the.acc	Peter	when	have	you	him.acc	met
		‘When have you met Peter?’
	b.	Den	Peterj,	denj	habe	ich	gestern	getroffen.
		the.acc	Peter	him.acc	have	I	yesterday	met
		‘Peter, I met him yesterday.’

(15)	Vorvorfeld	Vorfeld	Linke Satzklammer	Mittelfeld	Rechte Satzklammer
	Den Peter	den	habe	ich gestern	getroffen
	Den Peter	wann	hast	du den	getroffen

Within Generative approaches, the topological structure can be restated in the CP-IP-VP articulation.10

(16)

[CP

[IP

[VP]]]

Within this approach, it is assumed that the fronted XP appears in Spec,CP, the finite verb in C°, whereas the non-finite verb remains in the VP layer preceded by the non-moved constituents (following the idea that German is an OV language in which heads select their complements on the left).

(17)	a.	Wann	hast	du		den	Peter	getroffen?
		when	have	you		the.acc	Peter	met
		‘When did you meet Peter?’
	b.	[CP [Spec Wann [C° hast [IP du [VP den Peter getroffen ]]]]]

The Linksversetzung is accounted for through the idea that there exists an additional CP position, as in (18):

(18)	a.	Den	Peterj,	denj		habe	ich	gestern	getroffen.
		the.acc	Peter	him.acc		habe	ich	yesterday	met
		‘I met Peter yesterday.‘
	b.	[CP Den Peter [CP [Spec den [C° habe [IP ich [VP gestern getroffen]]]]]]

Since the Linksversetzung construction exhibits properties of both base-generated and moved constituents, traditional approaches either analyze it as a CP-adjoined position (Frey 2004) or as a position involving movement (Grohmann 2003; Grewendorf 2008; the latter in terms of “big DP”). On the other hand, Ott (2014) proposes a biclausal account with ellipsis in the highest clause (see also Broekhuis and Corver 2016):

(19)	a.	Den	Peterj,	denj	habe	ich	gestern	gesehen
		the.acc	Peter	him.acc	habe	ich	yesterday	seen
		‘I saw Peter yesterday.‘
	b. [CP1 den Peteri habe ich gestern ti gesehen] [CP2 deni habe ich gestern gesehen] (Ott 2014, p. 278)

(20)	[CP1 dXP [… ti …]] [CP2 … correlate …] (Ott 2014, p. 278)

2.4. The Present Investigation

This paper aims at investigating the distribution of pronouns in the Linksversetzung construction involving a fronted argument in two German dialects spoken in Northern Italy: the variety spoken in the town of Merano (South Tyrol) and Mòcheno (spoken in the Fersina valley), cf. Figure 1.11

Figure 1. The map of Northern Italy is available at Wikicommons (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/11/Italy_North_location_map.svg/2560px-Italy_North_location_map.svg.png); The map of the region Trentino-Alto Adige is a modified (by the authors) version of the map available at Wikicommons (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Map_of_municipalities_of_Trentino-Alto_Adige-S%C3%BCdtirol_-_Italy.svg#filelinks).

These two varieties belong to the South Bavarian dialects, specifically to the Tyrolean group. More specifically, Meranese is representative of the varieties spoken in South Tyrol (by around 300,000 speakers), whereas Mòcheno is a heritage Tyrolean variety (see Alber 2013 for phonological arguments in favor of the status of Mòcheno as a “canonical” Tyrolean dialect) spoken by around 600 speakers featuring conservative traits (cf. Rowley 2021)12 and peculiar features, especially at the lexical level, due to the long contact situation with Romance varieties (cf. Rowley 2021 and Cognola 2013a, 2013b for the idea that syntactic traits are not direct borrowing). All speakers of Meranese also speak the regional variety of Standard German and study the standard language at school; Italian is spoken, mainly as L2, by most of them (with different proficiency levels). Mòcheno is spoken in a situation of bidialectism with the local Trentino dialect (cf. Cognola 2011; Cognola and Bidese 2016), whereas the prestigious variety is regional Italian.

Our investigation starts out from a peculiar and according to our knowledge so-far neglected case of microvariation, i.e. the presence in these two Tyrolean dialects of two resumptive elements for fronted arguments in the Linksversetzung construction: D+sèll forms and D-pronouns.

(21)		Der	Marioj,	der	sèllj	/	dèrj	isch	kèmmen.	Meranese
		the.nom	Mario	the.nom	that		this/he.nom	is	come
		‘Mario has arrived.’

In what follows, we will investigate the pattern of distribution of the two pronominal forms in (21), which is not attested in present-day German, in order to understand whether they are in free variation or alternate on the basis of rules internal to the two grammars. Specifically, we will address the research question of how they are used with different types of arguments (such as proper names and definite common names) in order to establish whether the distribution of the different resumptive forms is fed by the nature of the fronted XP. The second research question we address is whether the two Tyrolean dialects pattern together or whether they exhibit differences to be connected with syntactic microvariation.

3. Linksversetzung in Meranese

3.1. Meranese as Strict V2 Language

As far as the V2 property is concerned, the Tyrolean dialect spoken in the town of Merano can be subsumed to the group of strict V2 languages, since it displays a system fully comparable to that of standard German, as discussed in Section 2; in main declarative and wh-interrogative clauses, the finite verb moves to the left periphery and it is preceded by one constituent, as the following examples show:13

(22)	a.	Di	Maria	hòtt	geschtern	n	priaf	kschribn.
		the	Maria	has	yesterday	the.acc	letter	written
	b.	Gestern	hòtt	di Maria	n	priaf	kschribn.
		yesterday	has	the Maria	the.acc	letter	written
	c.	*Gestern	di Maria	hòtt	n	priaf	kschribn.
		yesterday	the Maria	has	the.acc	letter	written
		‘Maria wrote the letter yesterday.’

In addition, Meranese shows the same main-embedded asymmetry involving the position of the finite verb found in Standard German, as in example (23), in which the finite verb appears in the sentence-final position; compare (22) with the following:

(23)	…	dass	di	Maria	gestern	n	priaf	kschribn		hòtt.
		that	the	Maria	yesterday	the.acc	letter	written		has
	‘… that Maria wrote the letter yesterday.’

As in standard German, violations of the strict V2 word order are possible in some contexts (cf. Casalicchio and Cognola 2023), among which the Linksversetzung is found.

Different categories, like arguments and adverbs, are compatible with the Linksversetzung, and the resumptive pronoun immediately follows the fronted constituent with which it agrees in case and number.

(24)	a.	Dènn mònnj,	dènnj	hònn	i	geschtern	ksechn.
		this.acc man,	this.acc	have	I	yesterday	seen
		‘I saw this man yesterday.’
	b.	In Meranj,	sèmmj	regnet	s	sèltn.
		In Meran	there	rains	it	rarely
		‘It rarely rains in Merano.’

In interrogative clauses, the resumptive element must appear within the clause (in the Mittelfeld):

(25)		Dènn	mònnj	vènn	hòsch‘n	dènnj	ksechn?
		this.acc	man	when	you have.prt	this.acc	seen
		‘When have you seen this man?’

In the next sections, we focus on the left dislocation of arguments and in particular on the properties of the resumptive element.

3.2. Some Properties of the Demonstrative and the Case System of Meranese

Despite the fact that the properties of the Linksversetzung construction are apparently identical between Meranese and German, the two languages differ in one respect: while in German the resumptive element is always a D-pronoun, in Meranese, two resumptives are available: D-forms and D+sèll pronouns.

(26)	Der	Markusj	der sèllj	/	dèrj	isch	kèmmen.
	the	Markus	the that		this	is	come
	‘Markus arrived.’

These two forms interact with the case system. In this respect, Meranese has replaced the morphological genitive with a prepositional phrase headed by fon ‘of’, as is typical of nearly all German dialects, as well as of spoken German. In addition, the dative also tends to be replaced by a prepositional phrase, headed by in. There is much variation between the morphological and the prepositional dative, and the choice also depends on the lexical item and on the determiner used, as well as on its gender and number (cf. Seiler 2003, 2006):

(27)		I	hòn	in di kinder	a zuckerle	gebn.
		I	have	to the children	a candy	given
		‘I gave the children a candy.’

In Meranese, D-forms (featuring [ε] as the stem vowel) can be used adjectivally and pronominally, and in both cases their meaning is primarily that of a proximal demonstrative: dèr mònn, ‘this man’; dèr, “this one”.14 The D+sèll forms appearing in the Linksversetzung construction, on the other hand, are pronominal usages of the distal demonstrative; see der sèll mònn ‘that man’, der sèll, “that one”. The distal demonstrative is thus a combined form, in which the first element is homophonous with the article der (featuring [ǝ] and not [ε] as the stem vowel), while sèll derives from the adjective and adverb selben, ‘same’.15 Note that no intervening material is allowed between the two parts of the distal demonstrative. When it is used adjectivally, the whole demonstrative precedes the noun: der sèll mònn, ‘that man’. The determiner der is inflected for case, while sèll can be inflected or not: der sèll pam, ‘the.nom sèll tree’ vs. n sèll/sènn pam, ‘the.acc sèll tree’.16

(28)		Dèr	mònn (do)	hòtt	unglaitet,	net	der sèll	(mònn).
		this.nom	man (here)	has	called,	neg	the.nom that	mann
		‘This man called, not that one.’

As far as the realization of the dative is concerned, both demonstratives show some peculiarities. As Table 1 shows, the proximal dèr only occurs as a morphological dative in the masculine/neuter (dèm), but the preposition is optional (29). On the other hand, it tends to occur as a prepositional dative in the feminine (in dèr) and only occurs in this form in the plural (in de). The distal der sèll, on the other hand, always occurs as a prepositional dative with the exception of the feminine form, where both the morphological and the prepositional dative are possible. In addition, in the masculine/neuter singular, the form sèll occurs preferably inflected, as in sèmm (but im sèll is also possible): in sèmm mònn/im sèll mònn, ‘that.dat man’.17

(29)	(In)	dèm	mònn	hònn	i	a puach	gebn
	to	this.dat	man	have	I	a book	given
	net	in die sèll	kinder
	neg	to the these	children
	‘I gave a book to this man, not to those children.’

Table 1. The dative forms of the proximal and distal demonstrative.

	Masculine sg.	Feminine sg.	Neuter sg.	Plural
proximal dèr	dèm	in dèr (dèr)	dèm	in dé
distal der sèll	im sèll/in sèmm	der sèll/in der sèll	im sèll/in sèmm	in di sèll

3.3. Distribution of the Two Resumptive Forms

We have seen that in Meranese two forms, D-pronouns and D+sèll forms, are, unlike standard German, available with the Linksversetzung construction. Note that speakers do not perceive the distal/proximal contrast between them, which clearly have a hybrid pronominal/demonstrative status, i.e., they can, but do not have to, be interpreted as demonstrative forms and can function as simple pronouns. In this section, we discuss the distribution of the two resumptives, which we show depends on the semantic and syntactic properties of the fronted argument. From a semantic point of view, we distinguish between proper names and common nouns, which are further divided into definite and indefinite nouns. In addition, there is a difference between modified and unmodified nouns. Syntactically, we consider the different syntactic roles of the resumed element (subject vs. direct object vs. indirect object).18

3.3.1. Resumptive V3 with Proper Names

With proper nouns, we observe the use of D+sèll forms in all contexts. D-forms, on the other hand, are only fully grammatical with unmodified subjects (30a). On the other hand, their use with modified subjects and indirect objects is either strongly marginal or fully ungrammatical:

Resumed subjects:
(30)	a.	Der Marioj,	der sèllj/dèrj		isch	kèmmen.
		the.nom Mario,	the.nom that/this.nom		is	arrived
		‘Mario has arrived.’
	b.	Der Marioj,	den	du	nitt	kènnsch,
		the.nom Mario,	that.acc	you	neg	know
		der sèllj/	*dèrj	isch	kèmmen.
		the.nom that	this.nom	is	arrived
		‘Mario, who you don’t know, has come.’

Resumed objects:
(31)	a.	N Marioj,	n sèllj     /	*dènnj		hònn	i	geschtern	ksechn.
		the.acc Mario,	the.acc that/	this.acc		have	I	yesterday	seen
		‘Mario, I saw him yesterday.’
	b.	Im Marioj,	in sèmmj	/??dèmmj		hònn	i	a puach	gem.
		in.the Mario,	in.the that	/this.dat		have	I	a book	given
		‘I gave Mario a book.’

Resumed indirect objects:
(32)	a.	N Marioj,	der	in Lana	lepp,	n sèllj/	??dènnj
		the.acc Mario	that.nom	in Lana	lives	the.acc that	this.acc
		hònn	i	geschtern	ksechn.
		have	I	yesterday	seen
		‘Yesterday I saw Mario, who lives in Lana.’
	b.	Im Marioj,	der	in Lana	lepp,	in sèmmj	/* dèmmj
		in.the Mario	that.nom	in Lana	lives	in.the that	this.dat
		hònn	i	a puach	gebn.
		have	I	a book	given
		‘I gave a book to Mario, who lives in Lana.’

The examples (30–32) show that D+sèll forms are always grammatical with proper nouns. D-forms, on the other hand, are ruled out or strongly marginal with any modified argument and with objects in general; they are only acceptable with unmodified subjects.

3.3.2. Resumptive V3 with Definite Common Nouns

The pattern found with proper names is not replicated with common nouns. In the case of definite common nouns, all types of arguments, both modified and unmodified, can be resumed by D-forms (33–35). The distribution of D+sèll, on the other hand, is more complex to describe: it is fully grammatical with modified subjects (33b) and indirect objects (35b), and ungrammatical with unmodified subjects (33a). With unmodified direct objects it is strongly marginal (34a). Finally, with modified direct objects and with unmodified indirect objects, it is marginal, as shown in (34b) and (35a):

Resumed subjects:19
(33)	a.	Dèr mònnj,	dèrj/*der sèllj	hòtt	di	ksuacht.
		this.nom man	this.nom/the.nomthat	has	you.acc	searched
		‘This man was looking for you.’
	b.	Dèr mònnj,	der sèmm	steat,	der sèllj	/dèrj	hòtt di
		this.nom man	that.nom there	stays	the.nom that	this.nom	has you
		davor	ksuacht.
		earlier	searched
		‘That man over there was looking for you earlier.’

Resumed direct objects:
(34)	a.	Dènn mònnj,	dènnj	/ ??in sèllj	hònn	i
		this.acc man,	this.acc	/ the.acc that	have	I
		geschtern	ksechn.
		yesterday	seen
		‘I saw this man yesterday.’
	b.	Dènn mònnj,	den	du	a	kènnsch,	dènn	/ ?n sèmmj
		this.acc man,	that.acc	you	also	know	this.acc	the.acc that
		hònn	i	geschtern	ksechn.
		have	I	yesterday	seen
		‘I have seen the man who you also know.’

Resumed indirect objects:
(35)	a.	In dèmm mònnj,	dèmmj/?in sèmmj		hònn	i	a puach		gebn.
		in this.dat man,	this.dat/in that.dat		have	I	a book		given
		‘I gave this book to this man.’
	b.	In dèmm mònnj,	den	du	a	kènnsch,	dèmmj/in sèmmj
		in this.dat man,	that.acc	you	also	know	this.dat/in that.dat
		hònn	i	a puach	gebn
		have	I	a book	given
		‘I have given a book to this man who you also know.’

The examples (33–35) show that there are two factors improving the grammaticality of D+sèll: when the argument is an indirect object and when it is modified. The proximal dèr is never ruled out, although it is dispreferred with modified indirect objects.

3.3.3. Resumptive V3 with Indefinite Common Nouns

Unlike standard German, in Meranese the Linksversetzung construction is also possible with indefinite nouns, and crucially, in this context, the use of D+sèll forms is highly restricted.

D-forms are used as resumptive forms with all types of arguments and are only marginal with modified indirect objects (36–38). Therefore, with respect to D-forms, we find exactly the same pattern as with definite common nouns. However, the picture changes when the distal resumptive D+sell is considered, because it is much more restricted than with definite common nouns: it is only fully grammatical with modified indirect objects (38b) and marginal with modified subjects (36b) and unmodified indirect objects (38a). In the other cases, it is ungrammatical:

Resumed subjects:
(36)	a.	A mònnj,	dèrj		/ * der sèllj	hòtt	unglaitet.
		a.nom man,	this.nom		/ the.nom that	has	called
		‘A man called.’
	b.	A mònnj,	der	in	Lana	lepp,	dèrj	/?der sèllj
		a.nom man,	that.nom	in	Lana	lives	this.nom	the.nom that
		hòtt	unglaitet.
		has	called
		‘A man who lives in Lana called.’

Resumed direct objects:
(37)	a.	An mònnj,	dènnj	/		*’n sèllj	hònn	i		ksechn.
		a.acc man	this.acc			the.acc that	have	I		seen
		‘I saw a man.’
	b.	An mònnj,	den		du	kènnsch,	dènnj/	*n sènnj
		a.acc man	that.acc		you	know	this.accthat	the.acc
		hònn	i		geschtern	ksechn.
		have	I		yesterday	seen
		‘Yesterday I met a man whom you know.’

Resumed indirect objects:
(38)	a.	In an mònnj,	dèmmj		/ ?in sèmmj	hònn		i
		in a man	this.dat		in that.dat	have		I
		a	puach		gebn.
		a	book		given
		‘I gave a book to a man.’
	b.	In an mònnj,	den	i	nia	ksechn		kòpp	hònn,
		in a man	that.acc	I	never	seen		had	have
		dèmmj	/in sèmmj		hònn	i	a	puach		gebn.
		this.dat	in that.dat		have	I	a	book		given
		‘I gave a book to a man I had never seen before.’

Therefore, we observe that D-forms have the same distribution with both definite and indefinite nouns: they are always grammatical. On the other hand, the use of D+sèll is more restricted with indefinite than with definite nouns: it is only possible with indirect objects (38) and marginal with modified subjects.

3.3.4. Recap

Table 2 offers an overview of the distribution of D-forms and D+sèll pronouns with all syntactic functions of arguments considered. The distribution of the two resumptives tends to be complementary: D+sèll is clearly the preferred option with proper names, except with unmodified subjects, while D-forms are preferred with common nouns. Moreover, D+sèll is acceptable with some types of common nouns and there is clearly an effect of modification: when an argument is modified, it is nearly in all cases compatible with D+sèll forms. The resumptive D-form, on the other hand, tends to be more accepted with unmodified, than with modified, proper names.

Table 2. The grammaticality of dèr and D+sèll with different types of resumed arguments.

Type of Argument		dèr	D+sèll
Proper name	unmodified subject	ok	ok
	modified subject	??/*	ok
	unmodified object	*	ok
	modified object	??	ok
	unmodified ind. object	??	ok
	modified ind. object	*	ok
Definite common noun	unmodified subject	ok	*
	modified subject	ok	ok
	unmodified object	ok	??
	modified object	ok	?
	unmodified ind. object	ok	?
	modified ind. object	ok	ok
Indefinite common noun	unmodified subject	ok	*
	modified subject	ok	?
	unmodified object	ok	*
	modified object	ok	*
	unmodified ind. object	ok	?
	modified ind. object	ok	ok

3.4. Analysis

We propose that the distribution of D-pronouns and D+sèll pronominal forms in Meranese is fed by the nature of the antecedent, and it is ruled by the same factors identified for the distribution of D-pronouns in German by Portele and Bader (2016). Specifically, we propose that D+sèll forms mostly pattern with German D-pronouns, whereas Meranese D-pronouns represent a different class.

Portele and Bader (2016) show that the preference for D-pronouns over personal pronouns is exhibited with (i) non-subject, (ii) new, and (iii) salient (close to the pronoun) antecedents.

For Meranese, we propose that the factors favoring D+sèll forms over D-pronouns are (i) definiteness and discourse givenness (new).20 Leaving aside for the moment the case of subject proper names, with which both D-pronouns and D+sèll forms are possible, in all other functions, proper names appearing in the Linksversetzung construction obligatorily require the presence of D+sèll forms. As shown in (39), proper names are ranked high in Aissen’s (2003, p. 437) definiteness scale, whereas common nouns are lower in the scale and are ranked according to their being definite and, subsequently, their being specific. As a consequence, non-specific nouns are at the bottom of the scale:21

(39)	Personal Pronoun → Proper Name → Definite NP → Indefinite specific NP → Non-specific NP

It appears clear that in Meranese, the more definite a noun is, the more likely it is to be compatible with D+sèll resumption, whereas D-pronouns are used with elements that are lower on the scale, i.e., are less definite.

We assume that there is an internal hierarchy within the definiteness category which interacts with the distribution of D-pronouns and D+sèll forms. With nouns preceded by the definite article or by the demonstrative, such as der/dèr mònn, ‘the/this man’, D+sèll is usually ruled out. However, when the definite noun is preceded by a possessive determiner, D+sèll forms are possible:

(40)	Main chefj,	??dèrj/der sèllj		hòtt	mi	haint unglaitet.
	my boss	this/the that		has	me.acc	today called
	‘My boss has called me today.’

Our hypothesis is that the obligatoriness of D+sèll forms in Meranese is due to a sort of “definiteness effect”, with XPs that are higher in the definiteness hierarchy being more prone to only be compatible with D+sèll forms, cf. (41).

(41)	Personal Pronoun → Proper Name → Definite NP → Indefinite specific NP → Non-specific NP
		der sèll	der sèll/dèr

There is, however, another context which favors the presence of D+sèll forms across all considered classes: the modification by a relative clause. We suggest that this piece of data follows from the fact that the distribution of D+sèll forms, like D-pronouns in German, is subject to a givenness effect, with D+sèll forms being favored with new referents. Building on the idea that modified, heavy constituents typically realize new information (cf. Arnold et al. 2000), we suggest that the presence of D+sèll forms specifically with modified XPs might be due to the fact that modified XPs typically realize new information, as in German (where new antecedents tend to be doubled by a D-pronoun).

According to the proposed account, the distribution of D-pronouns and D+sèll forms is fed by definiteness and givenness in Meranese, with D+sèll forms being preferred with more definite and new (modified) referents (as German D-pronouns) and D-forms being compatible with less definite and given (unmodified) antecedents.

There are two contexts which remain unexplained so far: the presence of D-pronouns (along with the expected D+sèll) with subject proper names and with indefinite nouns and the fact that both forms are possible with fronted indirect objects (except with proper names, where only D+sèll forms are grammatical). As for the case of indirect objects, we suggest that D+sèll forms are favored due to their non-subject function, as is the case of D-pronouns over personal pronouns in German (cf. Portele and Bader 2016, p. 23).22

There is only a single context which we could not yet account for, i.e., that of proper names with the function of subjects, which can be resumed by both D-pronouns and D+sèll forms. The possibility of having D-forms in this context is completely unexpected within the present account, since a noun’s definiteness disfavors doubling with D-forms. We propose that the case of subject proper names cannot be accounted for along the lines of what has been proposed for German, and we suggest that in order to account for the distribution of D-pronouns with subject proper names, data of another Tyrolean dialect, i.e., Mòcheno, need to be discussed.

4. Mòcheno

4.1. Mòcheno as a V2 Language

Mòcheno is analyzed as a relaxed V2 language (Cognola 2013a, 2013b, 2019) in which V2 is to be understood as an abstract property involving the movement of the finite verb to a C head of an articulated left periphery in all main clauses and not as a linear restriction (similar to Old Romance languages; see Benincà 2006; Poletto 2002; Holmberg 2015, among others). The V2 analysis is backed up by the presence in Mòcheno of the properties typically connected with the V2 character of a language (see den Besten 1989; Wolfe 2018; Cognola 2013a, 2013b, 2019). The first is subject–finite verb inversion in main clauses (obligatory with subject pronouns and with focused NP subjects):

(42)	a.	Gester	hòt	er	a puach	kaft.
		yesterday	has	he	a book	bought
		‘Yesterday he bought a book.’
	b.	Gester	hòt	de mama	kaft	s puach.
		yesterday	has	the mum	bought	the book
		‘It was the mum who bought the book yesterday.’

Moreover, any XP can appear in the sentence-initial position. Therefore, Mòcheno is not an SVO language, but an XVO language. Moreover, direct objects do not need to be doubled by a clitic when they are fronted, cf. (43):

(43)	a.	S puach	hòt	de mama	kaft.
		the book	has	the mum	bought
		‘The mum bought the book.’
	b.	En de mama	hòt	der Nane	gem	s puach.
		to the mum	has	the John	given	the book
		‘John has given the book to the mum.’

In Mòcheno, there also exist asymmetries between main and embedded clauses in the position of the finite verb, cf. the sentence’s final position of the finite verb in an embedded clause (44).23

(44)		Er	hòt	mer	tsòk,	as
		he	has	to.me	said	that
		der Mario	s puach	kaft	hòt.
		the Mario	the book	bought	has
		‘He told me that Mario bought the book.’

These typical V2 features co-occur with the availability of V3/V4 word orders, which are possible because the EPP feature responsible for V2 is associated with a low head of the left periphery (see Cognola 2013a, 2013b, 2019, and Casalicchio and Cognola 2018, 2020 for a description and theoretical account of V3/V4 word orders in Mòcheno and Rhaetoromance V2 varieties).

(45)	a.	S puach	gester	hòt	de mama	kaft.
		the book	yesterday	has	the mum	bought
		‘Mum bought the book yesterday.’
	b.	S puachj,	ber	hòt	sj	kaft?
		the book	who	has	it	bought
		‘Who bought the book?’

4.2. The Linksversetzung in Mòcheno

Casalicchio and Cognola (2023) show that the Linksversetzung construction exists in Mòcheno when adverbial and semi-argumental fronted XPs are involved, whereby the fronted constituent is doubled by the locative element semm; see the following examples from Casalicchio and Cognola (2023, p. 99f).

(46)	a.	Ka Trea’tj,	semmj	hòn	e	a puach		kaft.
		in Trento	there	have	I	a book		bought
		‘I bought a book in Trento.’
	b.	Pet de scharj	semmj	schnai	e	de kòrt.
		with the scissors	there	cut	I	the paper
		‘I cut the paper with the scissor.’

Fronted arguments can also appear in the Linksversetzung construction and, like in Meranese, they can be doubled by D+sèll or D-pronouns:

(47)		Der Mario	der sèllj/	derj	ist	kèmmen.
		the Mario	the that	he	is	arrived
		‘Mario has arrived.’

In what follows, we focus on cases of Linksversetzung involving different types of fronted arguments, replicating the methodology used for Meranese in Section 3.

As discussed in Rowley ([2003] 2017) and Cognola and Molinari (2016), Mòcheno has lost morphological marking on accusative DP objects in the varieties of Palù (the one investigated here) and Fierozzo; in these varieties, direct objects appear with the same morphology as syntactic subjects. Accusative case on DPs has been maintained in the variety of Roveda. In all Mòcheno varieties, masculine and neuter DPs functioning as indirect objects are not marked through morphological case, but they are realized by the preposition en followed by the noun without the article (masculine and neuter nouns) or by the noun with the article (feminine and plural). In the variety of Roveda, feminine nouns can appear with the dative article der. Overt morphological case marking remains on pronouns. The different forms are summarized in Table 3 (adapted from Rowley [2003] 2017, p. 134).

Table 3. Case system in present-day Mòcheno. F = Fierozzo variety; P = Palù variety; R = Roveda variety.

	Masculine	Feminine	Neuter	Plural
Nom.	der mònn “the man”	de mama, “the mum”	s pett, “the bed”	de kia, “the cows”
Acc.	der mònn (F+P) en mònn (R)	de mama	s pett	de kia
Dat.	en mònn	en de (F+P)/ der (R) mama	en pett	en de kia

As for the resumptive forms appearing in the Linksversetzung construction, D+sèll forms are pronominal usages of the distal demonstrative adjective sèll, cf. en sèlln jor (“in that year, in that time”, Rowley [2003] 2017, p. 156), in opposition with the proximal adjective doin, cf. i pin der jingest van doin hèrrn do (“I am the youngest among these men here”, Rowley [2003] 2017, p. 156, and Cognola and Molinari 2019, p. 137). D-pronouns, on the other hand, formally (but not functionally) correspond to German D-pronouns, i.e., they are definitively closer to personal pronouns rather than to demonstratives (although a vague demonstrative meaning is still present) due to the availability of the proximal demonstrative D+doi in the language. For this reason, Mòcheno D-pronouns will be glossed as personal pronouns in the following examples. The forms are summarized in Table 4.

Table 4. Demonstrative forms in Mòcheno.

Masc. Singular	Fem. Singular	Neuter	Plural	Translation
der doi	de doi	s doi	de doin	this (one)
der sèll	de sèll	s sèll	de sèlln	that (one)/those (ones)

4.3. Distribution of the Two Pronominal Forms in Relation to the Fronted Noun

4.3.1. Proper Names

When a non-modified proper name is fronted, it can be doubled by pronouns belonging to both pronominal classes.

(48)		Der Mario	der sèllj/	derj	ist	kèmmen.
		the Mario	the that	he	is	arrived
		‘Mario has arrived.’

Unlike in Meranese, both forms are also possible when the proper name is modified by a relative clause.

(49)		Der Mario	as	o	du	nèt		kennst
		the Mario	that	you.cl	you	neg		know
		der sèllj/	derj	ist	kèmmen.
		the that	he	is	come
		‘Mario, who you do not know, has arrived.’

With (modified and non-modified) objects, D-pronouns are always ungrammatical and the only possible forms are D+sèll pronouns. When an indirect object is fronted, doubling with the en im form (im is the dative of the strong subject pronoun er, corresponding to German ihm) is possible; crucially, a dative form of the D-pronoun dem/en dem is not attested.

(50)	a.	En Marioj,	en sèllj /	*en imj	hòn	e
		to.the Mario	to that	to him	have	I
		a book	gem.
		a book	given
		‘I gave Mario a book.’
	b.	Der Mario,	as	o	du	nèt	kennst,
		the Mario	that	you.cl	you	neg	know
		*derj	/der sèllj	hòn	e	gester	tsechen.
		he	the that	have	I	yesterday	seen
		‘Yesterday I met Mario, who do not know.’
	c.	En Marioj,	as	o	du	nèt	kennst,
		to.the Mario	that	you.cl	you	neg	know
		en imj/	en sèllj	hòn	e	a puach	gem.
		to him	to.the that	have	I	a book	given
		‘I gave a book to Mario, who you don’t know.’

4.3.2. Definite Common Nouns

All definite common nouns appearing in the Linksversetzung construction are doubled by D+sèll forms, independently of the presence of a modification.24 In the following examples, we give cases involving a modified and a non-modified fronted definite subject and show that the only possible resumptive forms are D+sèll pronouns:

(51)	a.	De daina kamarotinj	*dej/	de sèllj	ist	kèmmen.
		the your friend	she	the that	is	arrived
		‘Your friend has arrived.’
	b.	Der studentj,	as	o	du	nèt	kennst
		the student	that	you.cl	you	neg	know
		*derj/	der sèllj	ist	kèmmen.
		he	the that	is	arrived
		‘The student, who you don’t know, has come.’

As shown in (52), a D+sèll form is obligatory when the fronted argument is the (modified or non-modified) direct object, whereas when it is the indirect object, the strong form en im can again be used.

(52)	a.	Der mònnj,	*derj	/der sèllj	hòn	e
		the man	he	the that	have	I
		gester	tsechen.
		yesterday	seen
		‘I saw the man yesterday.’
	b.	En mònnj,	en imj	/en sèllj	hòn	e	a puach	gem
		to.the man	to him	to that	have	I	a book	given
		‘I gave the man a book.’
	c.	Der mònnj,	as	o	du	aa	kennst
		the man	that	you.cl	you	also	know
		imj/der sèllj/	*derj,	hòn	e	hait	tsechen.
		him/the that	him	have	I	today	seen
		‘I have seen today the man you also know.’
	d.	En mònnj,	as	o	du	aa	kennst
		to the man	that	you.cl	you	also	know
		en imj	/en sèllj	hòn	e	a	puach	gem.
		to him	to that	have	I	a	book	given
		‘I have given a book to the man you also know.’

4.3.3. Indefinite DPs

The distribution of the forms belonging to the two resumptive classes just sketched does not change when indefinite DPs are considered. The examples below show that the forms of the D+sèll class are the only ones possible, with both modified and unmodified DPs. With fronted indirect objects, doubling can involve a pronominal form im selected by the preposition en, “to” (en im), but not an oblique form of der (which is not attested).25 In (53) we show the examples involving a non-modified argument.

(53)	a.	A mònnj,	*derj	/der sèllj	ist	kèmmen.
		a man	he	the that	is	arrived
		‘A man has arrived.’
	b.	A mònnj,	derj	/der sèllj	hòn	e	tsechen.
		a man	him	the that	have	I	seen
		‘I saw a man.’
	c.	En a mònnj,	en imj	/en sèllj	hòn	e	a puach	gem.
		to a man	to him	to that	have	I	a book	given
		‘I gave a book to a man.’

Modified subject and objects are considered in (54):

(54)	a.	A mònnj	as		o	du	aa	kennst
		a man	that		you.cl	you	also	know
		*derj	/der sèllj		ist	kèmmen.
		he	the that		is	arrived
		‘A man who you also know has come.’
	b.	A mònnj	as	o	du	aa	kennst
		a man	that	you.cl	you	also	know
		*derj	/der sèllj	hòn	è	pakemmp.
		he	the that	have	I	met
		‘I have met a man you also know.’
	c.	En a mònnj	as	o	du	aa	kennst
		to a man	that	you.cl	you	also	know
		en imj	/ en sèllj	hòn	e	a puach	gem.
		to him	to that	have	I	a book	given
		‘I gave a book to a man you also know.’

Table 5 summarizes the distribution of D-pronouns and D+sèll forms in Mòcheno.

Table 5. The grammaticality of dèr and D+sèll with different types of resumed arguments in Mòcheno.

Type of Argument		dèr	D+sèll
Proper name	unmodified subject	ok	ok
	modified subject	ok	ok
	unmodified object	*	ok
	modified object	*	ok
	unmodified ind. object	*	ok
	modified ind. object	*	ok
Definite common noun	unmodified subject	*	ok
	modified subject	*	ok
	unmodified object	*	ok
	modified object	*	ok
	unmodified ind. object	*	ok
	modified ind. object	*	ok
Indefinite common noun	unmodified subject	*	ok
	modified subject	*	ok
	unmodified object	*	ok
	modified object	*	ok
	unmodified ind. object	*	ok
	modified ind. object	*	ok

4.4. Analysis

The data discussed in the previous sections have shown that Mòcheno has basically generalized D+sèll forms to all contexts involving the Linksversetzung construction and only allows for the use of D-forms in a single case, which is with a fronted proper noun with the function of the syntactic subject. Importantly, a D-form is also possible in Mòcheno with modified names, as repeated in (55) below:

(55)	a.	Der Marioj	derj/	der sèllj	ist	kèmmen.
		the Mario	he	the that	is	arrived
		‘Mario has arrived.’
	b.	Der Marioj	as	o	du	aa	kennst
		the Mario	that	you.cl	you	also	know
		derj	/der sèllj	ist	kèmmen.
		he	the that	is	arrived
		‘Mario, who you also know, has arrived.’

The sentences in (55), together with the distribution of the two pronominal forms across all other contexts considered, indicate that the distribution of D-pronouns and D+sèll forms is not fed by the same constraints discussed for Meranese and that the observed pattern calls for a different explanation. In what follows, we suggest that the asymmetry between Mòcheno and Meranese lies in the nature of the two pronominal classes in Mòcheno: D-pronouns will be shown to be weak, unstressed pronouns, whereas D+sèll forms will be shown to be their strong, stressed counterparts.

4.4.1. Status of D-Pronouns in Mòcheno

Cognola (2013b: 80ff) shows that Mòcheno exhibits three morphologically distinct classes of subject pronouns according to Cardinaletti and Starke’s (1999) classification of pronouns: strong, weak, and clitic forms. In her description of Mòcheno, Cognola (2013b) also considers D-pronouns. These three classes of pronouns differ in their phonological and syntactic properties.26 First, only strong forms are stressed, whereas weak and clitic forms are unstressed. Second, only strong forms can (i) appear in isolation; (ii) be coordinated; (iii) be focused. Finally, strong and weak forms are all preverbal, whereas clitics are always postverbal (in X-V sentences).

These properties are illustrated with the third person singular pronominal forms listed in (56).

(56)		strong	weak	clitic
		si/er	de/der	se/er
		‘She/he.’

(57)	a.	Ber ist kèmmen?	Si/Er	*Der/*de; *se.
		who is arrived	she / he	he / she / she
		‘Who arrived? She/he.’
	b.	Bèr ist kèmmen?	Si ont er;	*der ont si;	*der ont de.
		who is arrived	she and he	he and she	he and she
		‘Who arrived? She and he.’
	c.	SI nèt er	ist kèmmen	/*DE nèt er	ist kèmmen.
		she neg he	is arrived	she neg he	is arrived
		‘She arrived (not he).’

(58)	a.	Si /De /*Se	ist	gester	kèmmen.
		she/she/she	is	yesterday	arrived
		‘She arrived yesterday.’
	b.	Gester	ist	se	/*de/*si	kèmmen.
		yesterday	is	she	she/she	arrived
		‘She arrived yesterday.’

According to the tests in Cardinaletti and Starke (1999), D-forms qualify syntactically as weak pronouns in Mòcheno. As expected from the fact that Mòcheno is a V2 language, weak subject pronouns are compatible with the sentence-initial position since they are (unlike clitics) maximal projections able to appear in a Specifier position. Moreover, as expected from the analysis of D-pronouns as weak categories, D-pronouns are incompatible with a preposition in Mòcheno; see the ungrammaticality of dative forms featuring the preposition en and a D-form (*en der) and the obligatoriness of a strong alternative form im or sèll (en im/en sèll).

4.4.2. D-Pronouns and D+Sèll Pronouns in the Linksversetzung

Further evidence for the claim that D-pronouns are weak forms in Mòcheno comes from a closer analysis of the Linksversetzung construction. In (59), we investigate the distribution of D-pronouns and D+sèll forms in co-occurrence with fronted proper names and add a further variable, i.e., information structure, which was not considered above. More specifically, we investigate cases in which the fronted proper name appearing in the Linksversetzung construction in Mòcheno is either a contrastive focus or a contrastive topic. We see that in these cases, optionality disappears and the only grammatical form is D+sèll.

(59)	a.	*Der Marioj,	derj	ist	kèmmen	nèt	der Nane.
		the Mario	he	is	arrived	neg	the John
	b.	Der Marioj,	der sèllj	ist	kèmmen	nèt	der Nane.
		the Mario	the that	is	arrived	neg	the John
		‘Mario arrived not John.’
		What did Mario and Maria do?
	c.	*Der Marioj,	derj	hòt	a puach	kaft	ont	de Maria
		the Mario	he	has	a book	bought	and	the Maria
		hòt	a tee	trunken.
		has	a tee	drunk
	d.	Der Marioj,	der sèllj	hòt	a puach	kaft	ont	de Maria
		the Mario	the that	has	a book	bought	and	the Maria
		enveze	hòt	a	tee	trunken.
		instead	has	a	tea	drunk
		‘Mario bought a book and Maria had a cup of tea.’

The examples in (59) are particularly relevant, since they indicate that when a pragmatically non-ambiguous context is chosen, i.e. when the fronted proper name is either contrastively topicalized or focused, optionality disappears and the presence of a D+sèll form is forced. These examples also allow us to better describe the contexts in which a D-form is grammatical in Mòcheno. We suggest that D-pronouns can (but do not have to) double a fronted proper name when it functions as an Aboutness topic (a constituent that is “newly introduced, newly changed or newly returned to” (Givón 1983, p. 8), a constituent which is proposed as “a matter of standing and current interest or concern” (Strawson 1964), cf. Frascarelli and Hinterhölzl 2007, p. 88). The weak D-pronoun coindexed with the Aboutness topic can (but does not have to) also appear in coordinated clauses sharing the same subject.

(60)		Question: What did Maria do in the meantime? Answer:
	a.	De Mariaj,	dej	hòt	a puach	kaft.
		the Maria	she	has	a book	bought
		‘Maria bought a book.’
	b.	De Mariaj,	dej	hòt	a puach	kaft	ont	dora
		the Maria	she	has	a book	bought	and	then
		(dej)	hòt	a	tee	trunken.
		she	has	a	tea	drunken
		‘Maria bought a book and then she had a tea.’

4.4.3. Theoretical Account

Let us consider now the syntactic position of fronted proper names and the coindexed D-pronoun. Following Cognola (2013b), we suggest that weak subject pronouns realize SubjP27 in Mòcheno, a criterial A-position hosting the subject of predication28 in whose head subject clitics are also found (cf. Cardinaletti 2004 for this position and Rizzi 2006 for the idea that Subj° hosts clitics in Northern Italian dialects).29 Moreover, we suggest that Subj° is the head associated with the EPP feature responsible for V2 which attracts the finite verb and a maximal constituent to its Specifier position (cf. Holmberg 2015). This implies that the finite verb raises to Subj° in all main clauses. Spec,SubjP can be occupied by a weak pronoun, and in this case, the fronted XP is both the syntactic subject and the subject of predication. When another XP is fronted to Spec,SubjP, like in wh-interrogative clauses, the syntactic subject is realized by a clitic pronoun on Subj° which encliticizes to the finite verb that has raised to Subj°, whereas the wh-element checks the EPP feature associated with Subj° (and functions as the subject of predication).

(61)	a.	[SubjP De	[Subj° hòt	[TP hòt	[VP a puach kaft]]]]
	b.	[SubjP Bos	[Subj° hòt-se	[TP hòt	[VP kaft bos]]]]

According to the structure in (61), a D-pronoun can only show up if SubjP is empty and no other XP able to satisfy the EPP feature on Subj° is fronted. Given this configuration, let us now consider the position of the fronted proper name doubled by a D-pronoun or a D+sèll form. Based on the data above, we suggest that when the proper name is doubled by a D-pronoun, it appears in a Topic position and the D-form shows up in Spec,SubjP. In this configuration, the D-pronoun cannot have a topic or a focus reading, which we capture through the idea that the pronoun appears in the lowest FP of the left periphery, which is not associated with a marked discourse reading, but simply with the expression of the subject of predication and the syntactic subject. When a D-pronoun is present, it functions both as the syntactic subject and as the subject of predication. When the subject of predication is an operator, as in (62b), we propose that the wh-element is moved first to the left periphery through Spec,SubjP. In this configuration, the syntactic subject must be realized by a subject clitic in Subj° which appears as an enclitic pronoun due to the movement of the finite verb to Subj° for the need to check the EPP feature responsible for V2.

(62)	a.	[TopicP Der Mario … [SubjP der		[Subj° hòt	[TP	hòt	[VP a	puach kaft]]]]]
	b.	[FocusP Bos [SubjP	bos	[Subj° hòt-se	[TP	hòt	[VP kaft	bos]]]]]

When the proper name is doubled by a D+sèll form, we put forth that the XP bears the [+aboutness] feature and is doubled by a pronoun with the same phi-features as the noun. The discourse features, on the contrary, do not match; the idea is that D+sèll forms always differ from the Aboutness topic in their information status and that they can realize either a focus or a contrastive/familiar topic.30

(63)	[TopicP Der Mario [FocusP der sèll [SubjP der sèll [Subj° hòt	[TP hòt	[vP Mario [VP a puach	kaft]]]]]]]
	[TopicP Der Mario [ContrTopicP der sèll [SubjP der sèll [Subj° hòt [TP hòt [vP Mario [VP a puach			kaft]]]]]]]

5. Discussion

In Section 3 and Section 4, we have shown that D-pronouns and D+sèll forms are competing pronominal resumptive forms in the Linksversetzung construction in the Tyrolean varieties Meranese and Mòcheno. In both languages, the distribution of the two forms is fed by their “richness”: D+sèll pronouns are richer than D-pronouns, which are the less complex forms. In Meranese, “richness” is to be understood in terms of definiteness and information structure: D+sèll forms are preferred in contexts involving a definite or modified (i.e., focused) fronted XP. D-forms are preferred in/restricted to contexts involving a subject antecedent and an indefinite XP, two contexts which, in German, disfavor the Linksversetzung construction (ungrammatical with indefinite XPs) and the presence of a D-pronoun (D-pronouns are disfavored with subject antecedents). These facts clearly indicate that the D+sèll forms of Meranese pattern with German D-pronouns, whereas the distribution of Meranese D-pronouns differs from that of their German counterparts.

In Mòcheno, D+sèll forms are compatible with all contexts, whereas weak D-forms are only compatible when the antecedent is a subject proper name. We have proposed that in this configuration, D-pronominal forms appearing in SubjP realize the phi-features matching those of the Aboutness topic in the left periphery. Since the weak pronoun basically agrees in phi-features with the subject and resumes it without adding any discourse features (which can only be expressed by the D+sèll forms), we suggest that in this configuration the D-pronoun is developing into a clitic pronoun in Mòcheno. Note, however, that this use of the weak pronoun is optional, and it is restricted to proper names, i.e., to NPs exhibiting the highest degree of definiteness, and ruled out with other nouns. In this, Mòcheno appears to replicate the distribution of subject doubling documented in Venetian dialects, specifically in the variety of Venice (cf. Poletto 2000, p. 141), which only allows for subject doubling with proper names. Interestingly, the pattern we have documented crucially differs from that found in the Trentino dialects spoken in the surroundings of the Fersina valley (for instance in the Cembran variety of Montesover spoken in the neighboring Cembra valley), where subject clitic doubling appears to be possible with other noun types, such as definite DP subjects:

(64)	a.	Nanej	(elj)	magna.	Venice (Poletto 2000, p. 141)
		John	subj.cl.3sg	eats
	b.	El popoj	elj	magna.	Montesover (Poletto 2000, p. 141)
		the child	subj.cl.3sg	eats
		‘John/the child is eating.’

The parallel with Northern Italian varieties indicates that Mòcheno has developed a Linksversetzung construction which is actually closer to Italian left dislocation than to the German construction, but, unlike the neighboring Northern Italian varieties, it has developed a very restricted subject doubling pattern, which corresponds to that of a non-related Northern Italian variety (Venetian). For these reasons, we discard the idea that the pattern we observe is to be connected directly to an effect of contact with Romance varieties.

Since the pattern observed in Mòcheno is a unicum among the languages considered in this paper, we suggest that it has developed due to isolation from other Tyrolean dialects and that it fulfills a tendency already present in Tyrolean. At a closer look, in fact, Meranese D-pronouns appear to constitute an unstable class within the language’s grammar, since they exhibit the characteristics of both weak and strong forms.

Let us consider sentences with a fronted proper name functioning as the syntactic subject. In this case, the DP can be doubled by both D- and D+sèll forms; crucially, when the subject is focused, D-forms are ruled out and only D+sèll forms are allowed, like in Mòcheno.

(65)		Der Marioj,	DER SÈLLj	/*DÈRj	isch	kèmmen		nitt der Luca.
		the.nom Mario	the.nom that	this.nom	is	come		neg the Luca
		‘Mario has arrived, not Luca.’

When oblique cases are considered, we see again that D-pronouns can never be focused (whereas D+sèll forms can), which is further evidence for the fact that they are weak forms.

(66)	a.	Im Marioj,	IN SÈMMj		/*DÈMMj	hònn	i
		in.the Mario	in that		this.dat	have	I
		a puach	gebn.
		a book	given
		‘I have given Mario a book.’
	b.	N Marioj,	N SÈLLj	/DÈNNj	hònn	i	geschtern		ksechn.
		the.acc Mario	the.acc that	this.acc	have	I	yesterday		seen
		‘I saw Mario yesterday.’

With definite common nouns, D-forms are available and can also be focused (along with the D+sèll series), both with a fronted subject and fronted objects:

(67)	a.	Dèr mònnj,	DÈRj		/*DER SÈLLj	hòtt	di		ksuacht.
		this.nom	this.nom		the.nom that	has	you.acc		searched
		‘This man was looking for you.’
	b.	Dènn mònnj,	N SÈLLj	/DÈNNj	hònn	i	geschtern	ksechn.
		this.acc man	in.acc that	this.acc	have	I	yesterday	seen
		‘I saw this man yesterday.’
	c.	Dènn mònnj,	den	du	a	kènnsch
		this.acc man	this.acc	you	also	know
		N SÈNNj	/DÈNNj	hònn	i	geschtern	ksechn.
		in.acc that	this.acc	have	I	yesterday	seen
		‘I saw this man you also know.’
	d.	/In dèmm mònnj,	DÈMMj	IN SÈMMj	hònn	i	a puach	gebn.
		in this.dat man	this.dat	in that.dat	have	I	a book	given
		‘I gave this man a book.’

In addition, indefinite fronted common names pattern with definite common names in allowing for focused D-forms (along with D+sèll forms) as resumptive pronouns.

(68)	a.	A mònnj,	DÈRj		/DER SÈLLj	hòtt	unglaitet.
		a.nom man	this.nom		the.nom that	has	called
		‘A man called.’
	b.	A mònnj,	der	in Lana	lepp,	DÈRj	/DER SÈLLj	hòtt	unglaitet.
		a.nom man	that.nom	in Lana	lives	this.nom	the.nom that	has	called
		‘A man who lives in Lana called.’
	c.	An mònnj,	N SÈNNj	/DÈNNj	hònn	i	geschtern	ksechn.
		a.acc man	in.acc that	this.acc	have	I	yesterday	seen
		‘I saw a man yesterday.’
	d.	An mònnj,	den	du	kènnsch,	N SÈNNj	/DÈNNj	hònn	i
		a.acc man	that.acc	you	know	in.acc that	this.acc	have	I
		ksechn.
		seen
		‘I saw a man you also know.’
	e.	In an mònnj,	DÈMMj	/IN SÈMMj		hònn	i	a puach	gebn.
		to a.dat man	this.dat	to that.dat		have	I	a book	given
		‘I gave a book to a man.’

The data in (65)–(68) indicate that D-pronouns doubling proper names have (in all investigated contexts) a special status in Meranese, which is comparable to their status in Mòcheno: more specifically, the two languages share the fact that D-forms are not compatible with focalization when a fronted subject is doubled (65) and are thus weak forms. Crucially, in Meranese, the status of D-forms as weak pronouns is not found when definite and indefinite common names are considered. With these fronted DPs, D-forms can be focused, i.e., they are strong forms. This fact appears to indicate that D-pronouns are weak forms in Meranese, too, but crucially only when a fronted proper name is involved in the Linksversetzung construction, possibly indicating that D-forms are developing into clitics starting precisely from the doubling of fronted proper names. However, in Meranese, weak D-pronouns are still far from becoming clitics, since they still exhibit morphological forms for all cases, whereas in Mòcheno, only the subject forms are available, as summarized in Table 6 and Table 7.

Table 6. Overview of D+sèll forms in the Linksversetzung in Meranese and Mòcheno.

	D+sèll-Pronouns
	Morphological Forms			Contexts
	Nom	Acc	Dat	All NP antecedents	Focalization/topicalization
Meranese	√	√	√	√	√
Mòcheno	√	√	√	√	√

Table 7. Overview of D-pronouns in the Linksversetzung in Meranese and Mòcheno.

	D-Pronouns
	Morphological Forms			Focus	Status
Meranese	Nom	Acc	Dat
Proper name	√	√	√	*	weak
Definite NP	√	√	√	√	strong
Indefinite NP	√	√	√	√	strong
Mòcheno
Proper name	√	*	*	*	weak
Definite NP	*	*	*	*	weak
Indefinite NP	*	*	*	*	weak

We therefore propose that the pattern found in Mòcheno has developed from pushing to its extreme consequences a tendency already present in Tyrolean, i.e., the tendency of D-pronouns to develop into weak forms in opposition to D-pronouns of standard German. In both Tyrolean and Mòcheno, D-pronouns are weak forms with proper names and strong forms are expressed with forms of the D+sèll series.31

6. Conclusions

By discussing novel data from two Tyrolean dialects, Meranese and Mòcheno, in this paper we have documented a so-far neglected case of microvariation across German varieties affecting the syntax and the distribution of resumptive pronouns in the Linksversetzung construction involving fronted verb arguments.

The first asymmetry involves the series of pronouns: while in standard German the Linksversetzung construction involves D-pronouns, Meranese and Mòcheno exhibit two classes of pronouns, D-pronouns, formally corresponding to German D-pronouns and exhibiting a hybrid status between personal and demonstrative pronouns, and D+sèll forms, corresponding to pronominal usages of the distal demonstrative.

The second asymmetry we have documented between standard German and the two Tyrolean varieties affects the distribution of pronouns in the Linksversetzung construction: while in German D-pronouns do not exhibit any restrictions correlated with the nature of the fronted XP, in the two Tyrolean varieties the two forms have clearly specialized for different types of fronted XPs.

The distribution of the two classes of pronouns is not identical in Meranese and Mòcheno, which indicates that microvariation is also found within the two Tyrolean varieties considered. In Meranese, the distribution of the two forms is fed by definiteness and information structure: while D-pronouns and D+sèll pronouns can co-occur in most contexts, definite and focused (modified) XPs are more likely to be doubled by D+sèll forms only, whereas the less definite a fronted DP is, the more likely it is to be doubled by a D-pronoun. Moreover, subject antecedents favor the presence of D-forms, which, along with the grammaticality of the Linksversetzung construction with indefinite XPs, represents a key asymmetry with German (cf. Portele and Bader 2016).

In Mòcheno, on the other hand, D+sèll pronouns are compatible with all classes of considered DPs, whereas D-forms can only double fronted proper names functioning as the syntactic subject.

We have accounted for this case of microvariation within Tyrolean by showing that D-pronouns in Mòcheno are weak forms in the sense of Cardinaletti and Starke (1999), which immediately explains why they are incompatible with prepositions (and cannot thus express the indirect object). Moreover, in Mòcheno, D-pronouns are only found with the nominative case, i.e., with syntactic subjects, functioning as doubling elements of an Aboutness topic. We have suggested that this class of pronouns is developing into clitic pronouns, showing that Mòcheno exhibits a rather restricted pattern of subject doubling, since only proper names can optionally be doubled. This pattern is identical to that reported for Venetian by Poletto (2000) and divergent from that of neighboring Trentino varieties, which speaks against the idea that the special development of D-forms in Mòcheno is a direct effect of contact with Romance. By taking a closer look at Meranese, we have shown that the development observed in Mòcheno is very likely to be an autonomous development due to isolation, leading to its extreme consequences a tendency already present in Meranese. In fact, in this variety, D-pronouns exhibit both strong (as in present-day German) and, to a lesser extent, weak forms (as in Mòcheno). Crucially, D-forms (in all forms of the paradigm) are always weak when they double proper names. This piece of data indicates that, while D+sèll forms are consistently strong in both languages, D-pronouns tend to develop into weak forms starting from sentences involving a fronted proper name. The difference between Meranese and Mòcheno lies in the fact that Mòcheno has brought this tendency to its extreme consequences, i.e., D-pronouns are marginal in the system and D+sèll pronouns appear in all considered contexts with the exception of sentences with a proper name, whereas in Meranese, D-pronouns exhibit both weak and strong forms, with the former being specialized for the resumption of proper names, as in Mòcheno.