Unification of Morphology and Syntax: Investigations into Italian, Romantch and Albanian Dialects (Routledge Leading Linguists)

A Unification of Morphology and Syntax

This book focuses on a classical theme of linguistic theory, that of variation across languages. From an empirical point of view, A Unification of Morphology and Syntax contributes to the discussion on language variation through engaging with new data collected during fieldwork covering both Romance and Albanian dialects. From a theoretical point of view the book shows how the variation displayed by the data is best accounted for through the interaction of an innate and universal computational system (Chomsky’s Universal Grammar) with languageparticular lexicons, whose items and their properties are set by the speakerhearer in the course of acquisition. In this sense this book is a contribution to what Noam Chomsky has recently called the ‘biolinguistic approach’, which holds that crucial aspects of language can be studied as part of the natural world. A Unification of Morphology and Syntax can be placed within the general fold of the minimalist research program summarized by Chomsky’s Strong Minimalist Thesis. Integrating dialectal data with the theoretical grille of generative theory, and in particular minimalism, leads the book to propose novel analyses of the relevant parameters, but also to revise several core concepts of Universal Grammar. This book will be of interest to linguists working in language variation and those studying formal theories of grammar. M. Rita Manzini is Professor of General Linguistics at the University of Florence, Italy. Her main research interests are in theoretical linguistics, syntax and language variation, including its acquisition aspects. Leonardo M. Savoia is Professor of General Linguistics at the University of Florence, Italy. His research interests center on phonology and morphosyntax.

Routledge leading linguists Series editor Carlos P. Otero University of California, Los Angeles, USA

1 Essays on Syntax and Semantics James Higginbotham 2 Partitions and Atoms of Clause Structure Subjects, agreement, case and clitics Dominique Sportiche 3 The Syntax of Specifiers and Heads Collected essays of Hilda J. Koopman Hilda J. Koopman 4 Configurations of Sentential Complementation Perspectives from romance languages Johan Rooryck 5 Essays in Syntactic Theory Samuel David Epstein 6 On Syntax and Semantics Richard K. Larson 7 Comparative Syntax and Language Acquisition Luigi Rizzi 8 Minimalist Investigations in Linguistic Theory Howard Lasnik 9 Derivations Exploring the dynamics of syntax Juan Uriagereka 10 Towards an Elegant Syntax Michael Brody

11 Logical Form and Linguistic Theory Robert May 12 Generative Grammar Theory and its history Robert Freidin 13 Theoretical Comparative Syntax Studies in macroparameters Naoki Fukui 14 A Unification of Morphology and Syntax Investigations into Romance and Albanian dialects M. Rita Manzini and Leonardo M. Savoia

A Unification of Morphology and Syntax Investigations into Romance and Albanian dialects

M. Rita Manzini and Leonardo M. Savoia

First published 2007 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN Simultaneously published in the USA and Canada by Routledge 270 Madison Ave, New York, NY 10016 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business This edition published in the Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2006. “To purchase your own copy of this or any of Taylor & Francis or Routledge’s collection of thousands of eBooks please go to www.eBookstore.tandf.co.uk.” © 2007 M. Rita Manzini and Leonardo M. Savoia All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilized in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data A catalog record for this book has been requested ISBN 0-203-96815-8 Master e-book ISBN

ISBN10: 0-415-39075-3 (hbk) ISBN10: 0-203-96815-8 (ebk) ISBN13: 978-0-415-39075-0 (hbk) ISBN13: 978-0-203-96815-4 (ebk)

Contents

Introduction

1

1 The nature of the agreement inflections of the verb

14

2 Subjects and subject-verb agreement in Italian dialects

39

3 Lexicalization patterns of the so-called third person dative

79

4 Co-occurrence and mutual exclusion patterns of subject and object clitics

120

5 Transitivity and unaccusativity: auxiliary selection

149

6 Parameters of auxiliary selection

188

7 The syntax of object clitics and middle-reflexives in Albanian dialects

228

8 ‘Participle’ and ‘infinitive’ in Geg dialects

264

9 ‘Subjunctives’ and non-finite sentences in Tosk dialects

298

10 Causatives in Albanian References Index

335 377 386

Introduction

In the past decade or so the authors have been involved with a large project relating to the morpho-syntax of dialects comprising Italy, Corsica, and the Italian and Romansch-speaking areas of Switzerland. This was born of an overarching concern with the nature of parametrization, and in particular with its microparametric dimension, with respect to which so-called dialects represent the ideal case study. As both our coverage of the data and our understanding of the problems involved in their analysis deepened, we found ourselves with a rather different work from what we may have originally envisaged, since it embedded of necessity some important revisions of current theories relating in particular to the syntax–morphology interface. Thus as the larger project was growing beyond the original intents, the corpus of data, analyses and theoretical proposals that was accumulating gave rise to several article-sized publications, on topics very often chosen to fit some conference or volume call. These were integrated by contributions on a different data set, namely Albanian dialects, but on closely related morphosyntactic themes. The originally planned book in Italian was finally published, containing an extensive record of the data collected from native informants beside an analysis of these data in terms of generative theory (Manzini and Savoia 2005). At this point we were ready to look back at the various essays issuing from it. Several reasons suggested that these essays (Manzini and Savoia 1997ff.; Savoia and Manzini 2000ff.) were well worth collecting. To begin with, as a result of the different stimuli to which we were responding, they cover most of the themes of theoretical interests implied by our larger work. At the same time, due to the requirements of the article format each theme tends to be presented as isolated from all others, perhaps making for a better introduction to our work than a single integrated monograph. Obvious connections existing between the various articles are established by internal references, as well as by the framework section of this introduction. There was however a major difficulty in publishing such a collection, namely the fact that our various essays appeared over a relatively long span of time, from 1997 to some still in press. As several aspects of Romance morpho-syntax were progressively integrated into the larger picture, the framework in which the analyses of these data are set changed. The fact that the change was mostly in

2

Introduction

the formalizations adopted rather than in the general conceptual aims did not lessen the problem of collecting the earlier studies together with the most recent ones. Only the most recent studies (Manzini and Savoia 2002bff.; Savoia and Manzini 2003ff.) could be republished more or less as they stand. In the end, only Chapter 1 may be truly considered a modified version of the original article and otherwise only Chapter 3 can maintain the title of Manzini and Savoia (2002b), being a modified and enlarged version of that article. Chapter 4 overlaps with Manzini and Savoia (2004b), though it has been not only edited and enlarged but also cut of all of the parts redundant with Chapter 3, becoming a different work from the original article. Other chapters in the book are new, though several of them relate to previously published work. Our priority was to make available in English our recent thought on themes that we had covered at an early stage of our investigation, notably the EPP in Chapter 2 (cf. Manzini and Savoia 2002a), si in Chapter 5 (cf. Manzini and Savoia 2001) and parameters of auxiliary selection in Chapters 5–6 (cf. Manzini and Savoia 1998a). We also wanted our work on Albanian dialects to be represented here; this corresponds to Chapters 7–10. Again Chapter 7 takes up data analyzed by Manzini and Savoia (1999), while Chapter 8 presents a version of work which previously appeared in Italian and Albanian (Manzini and Savoia 2003a; Savoia and Manzini 2003). What paid the price of this choice was a number of topics that did not find a place within this volume, though a first glimpse of our treatment may be gained from shorter articles, in particular on modifiers and complementizers (Manzini and Savoia 2002c, 2003b). We also regret not having been able to devote any room to the noun phrase. We hope to be able to make our results in these various fields available in a later collection.

1 The framework All of the chapters that follow have as their starting point some concrete problem, generally in language variation. In each case, the reason for the particular choice of topic is provided not by some pre-theoretical interest in a given set of data but rather by the theoretical issues that it promises to shed light upon. Writing from the empirical towards the solution of the theoretical problems means that the latter are generally embedded in the text; in particular reference to current literature is never prominent in motivating the progression of the discussion. These brief notes provide the reverse perspective to the one embodied by the various chapters. In other words, we shall briefly outline the framework we adopt, situating it in the context of the current debate in generative grammar (sections 1.1, 1.2). In the context of this general discussion, we shall indicate how the specific issues considered in the various chapters are relevant for the debate, contributing arguments in favor of the framework we adopt. In section 1.3 we shall also place the current contribution within the debate on language variation, outlining the reasons why in our view it provides strong evid-

Introduction

3

ence for what Chomsky (2004b, 2005) calls the ‘biolinguistic’ perspective. We make no apologies for the brevity of this introduction and for the almost shorthand references to the literature, since the separate chapters address all issues of detail. 1.1 Constituent structure This book is meant to be a contribution to what Chomsky (2004b, 2005) has recently called the ‘biolinguistic approach’, i.e. one holding that ‘crucial aspects of language can be studied as part of the natural world’ (Chomsky 2005: 3). More specifically, it can be placed within the general fold of minimalism, in the sense that it is informed by the research program outlined by Chomsky (1995ff.) and summarized by the strong minimalist thesis ‘that language is an optimal solution to interface conditions that FL must satisfy’ (Chomsky 2004b). Nevertheless, we diverge from the minimalist program as developed by Chomsky (1995ff.) and his associates, in that we do not take the view that movement is simply a fact; rather what is a fact are the interpretive relations corresponding to it at the interface. In this, we share the conclusions of Brody (1997ff.) that a truly minimalist stance is not only compatible with but actually requires what is sometimes called a ‘representationalist’ approach, as opposed to the ‘derivationalist’ one of Chomsky (1995ff.). According again to Chomsky (2004), ‘unbounded Merge or some equivalent is unavoidable in a system of hierarchic discrete infinity’; though we take it that what is crucial is not the set formation operation, but the relation ‘member-of’ corresponding to it. The minimalist idea of inclusiveness, barring ‘technology introduced in the course of derivation of an expression’ (Chomsky 2004) and hence enforcing projection of structure strictly from the lexicon, implies that there are no empty nodes. In this book, we actually impose upon ourselves a stronger restriction, to the effect that all lexical items are endowed with both LF and PF content. This means that there cannot be any node in the structure endowed with abstract feature content only; in other words the only terminal nodes present in a given structure are the overtly lexicalized ones. This is the assumption we make throughout this book and in Manzini and Savoia (2005). We in fact strengthen our conclusions about head structure so that each overtly lexicalized head gives rise to a full structure (e.g. a sentence in the case of a verb or a noun phrase in the case of a noun). Therefore in any given sentence or noun phrase only one head is present, empty heads being excluded as above, and any extra lexicalized head giving rise to its own independent sentential unit. This is one of the theoretical conclusions that contributes to the atomized (‘exploded’) look of the representations in this book as well as in Manzini and Savoia (2005). More interestingly, an empirical application of this conclusion may be seen in Chapters 5–6 where perfect participles are treated as defining independent sentences with respect to the auxiliaries that select them (as also argued by Kayne 1993). Similarly we treat invariable forms of the verb such as those exemplified by Arbëresh aspectuals, modals and causatives in Chapters

4

Introduction

9–10 as independent verbs. Complementizers are also independent heads in the proposal of Manzini and Savoia (2005), to wit nominal ones; a glimpse of this may be gained from Manzini and Savoia (2003b). Apart from the single head, all other material present in each sentence or noun phrase is an argument of the head. In fact, if Manzini and Savoia (2005) are on the right track, modifiers, such as adverbs, can also be reduced to nominals and hence to arguments. Manzini and Savoia (2002c) provide a flavor of what this reduction may imply with respect to a very small subset of adverbs, i.e. negative ones. The next most important factor contributing to the atomized nature of our representations is to be sought in our adherence to certain ideas broadly associated with the approach of the ‘cartography’ group (Cinque 2002; Belletti 2004; Rizzi 2004), in whose researches the authors took part. At an impressionistic level, this approach is characterized by hierarchies of specialized categories; though these immediately evoke questions of restrictiveness, their power appears to be equivalent to that of mechanisms available in any grammar, such as selection (or ‘edge’) features. Of course it is in the very nature of hierarchies to postulate an order in which the properties of the head are satisfied. In fact, in Chapters 3–4 we suggest that ordering should be a matter of scopal properties and derivable at no extra cost for the grammar. One respect in which the ‘cartographic’ program is forced (by its own intrinsic definition) to be more precise than the edge/selection feature approach is that the nature of the properties involved must be categorially specified. A case in point, studied extensively in this book (especially in Chapters 1–2), is the EPP, which according to Chomsky (2004), ‘can be reformulated in terms of [edge] feature inheritance’. We may prefer to still label the relevant feature with the descriptive ‘EPP’ tag; but this is no less expensive than an appropriate categorial tag. In this case Chomsky (1995) had what we believe is the correct proposal, namely that the EPP property corresponds to a D(efiniteness) closure requirement. We refer the reader directly to Chapters 1 and 3–4 for the identification of the internal argument with the categorial property N. In fact, we depart from the ‘cartographic’ approach in that the authors within its fold generally restrict it to modifiers (Cinque (1999), but see above for our approach to them) or to leftperipheral positions (Rizzi 1997); we extend it to argument positions however. The property that perhaps most obviously characterizes a ‘cartographic’ tree is that the label of a merged spec derives from the property it satisfies. Thus, a noun phrase that satisfies an X specification is labeled as X (phrase) rather than as noun phrase. This is the notation (and conceptualization) we keep to consistently in this book, as in Manzini and Savoia (2005). We devote a considerable part of the discussion in Chapters 3–4 to the relation between the internal properties of a constituent and its satisfaction of the category it projects at point of insertion – essentially a (proper) containment relation. It has long been our contention that at least argument hierarchies that we study repeat themselves identically at different points of the overall structure. This is true in particular of the clitic series, as illustrated in particular in Chapter 1

Introduction

5

for Romance, as well as in Chapter 7 for Arbëresh. On this again we differ from other ‘cartographic’ approaches, where typically the repetition of a given element, say a subject clitic in different domains, is treated as an instantiation of different categorial properties (e.g. Poletto 2000). At the same time our point can be made quite independently of clitics; thus the Merry-go-Round generalization of Starke (2000) implies the constancy of the relative order of two elements when both moved; Krapova and Cinque (2003) argue explicitly that the internal order of wh-phrases in multiple wh-movement repeats (in some languages) the internal argument of the clitic string, and so on. We believe that the hierarchy of domains as well as that internal to argumental strings is ultimately derivable by scopal considerations. The reader may have noticed that we have skipped what would appear to be a necessary part of the discussion of constituent structure (Kayne 1994; Chomsky 1995ff.; Brody 2000), namely issues of labeling algorithms, since the only labels we mentioned are those of heads, and those of constituents projecting a ‘cartographic’ category. As it turns out, the apparently quirky (though possible) assumption we introduced above, to the effect that there is a single verbal/nominal head per sentence/noun phrase, makes other labels irrelevant. Thus since there is a single head, we may assume that all argumental material preceding or following it (superordinate or subordinate to it respectively) forms with it constituents projecting the head as a label. However, any other labeling would be equivalent, including the one inspired by Starke (2000) employed by Manzini and Savoia (2005), though we agree that it is an inferior choice if nothing else from the point of view of perspicuity. The point to which we have now arrived is the point we start at in Chapter 1, there we detail the unification of morphosyntax with respect to constituent structure. Morphological-level structures (i.e. word-internal ones), are point-by-point identical to syntactic structures. Thus we accept with the Distributed Morphology of Halle and Marantz (1993, 1994) as well as the various scholars credited there, that the same constituent structure found in the syntax is found in the morphology as well (Williams 1981). With Distributed Morphology we hold that morphological structures are truly identical to syntactic ones, and no Mirror applies either derivationally or representationally (contra Baker (1985), but in this case also Brody (2000)). Manzini and Savoia (2005) actually present counter-examples to the Mirror generalization, but the strongest counter-argument is a simplicity one, since it will be seen that even in the case of fairly complex morphological structures (Chapter 7) no mirroring mechanism is justified. Having approved of some aspects of Distributed Morphology above, we should note straight away that we differ from extant structural approaches to morphology in taking the radical step (not yet attempted as far we can tell) of upholding the same categories in morphology as in syntax. We achieve this result by eradicating morphological features such as number, gender, person and case in favor of the very same categorial specifications projected on the sentential tree under the ‘cartographic’ approach. The details of how we do this are the subject matter of the first few chapters, especially Chapters 3–4. Note that this is

6

Introduction

precisely the kind of step which only a precise notion of the categories we are manipulating in the syntax allows us to take. We also differ sharply from Distributed Morphology in holding that insertion of lexical items is ‘early’; because of this we deny ourselves the considerable power accruing to distributed morphology from impoverishment and similar mechanisms that require Late Insertion. The explanatory adequacy and in fact superiority of the current approach occupies us in Chapters 1–3. Under standard minimalist assumptions about the purely notational value of such devices as bar levels, labels do not provide any record of the level of structure. Therefore, not even this potential device distinguishes morphological-level from sentential-level structures. Nevertheless a long habit of distinguishing the two would have made any tree structures complying with the stricter notation fairly unintelligible. Therefore we tried to strike a compromise of some sort. As we have already mentioned, only some nodes are labeled. Furthermore, all labels correspond to bare categories; thus D both at the syntactic and the morphological level, never D or DP. At the same time, we employed the notation strictly implied by our model, with no non-lexicalized nodes, only at the morphological level. At the syntactic level, we approximated traditional constituency by notating superordinate arguments of a head as Specs and subordinate ones as Specs of some lower head. Occasionally we signposted the structure by means of intermediate parenthesized empty heads. The latter are not there at all. It is really the doubling of certain argumental projections or the apparent inversion of a given hierarchy which signals that a different domain is being entered. 1.2 Agreement and chain relations We anticipated at the outset that what we take here is a representational rather than a derivational stance, mentioning the general conceptual reasons that in our view motivate this choice (as in Brody 1997ff.). In our view, empirical evidence systematically supports this conclusion, to the extent that accounts in terms of movement operations (and/or feature-checking ones) are not just a notational variant of representational accounts, but typically require a richer set of assumptions, in particular concerning the interface of the computational system with the lexical and morphological component. One general type of argument for the primacy of chains with respect to movement is that though movement is interpreted in terms of chains (sharing of a single argument slot), chain interpretations also arise independently of movement between two lexicalized points in a tree. In other words, movement chains are a proper subset of chains. This conclusion may be circumvented in various ways, but at the price of adding extra-descriptive mechanisms to the grammar. Thus take the case of resumptive clitics, on whose existence at least there is no quarrel. Accounting for it in a movement grammar typically involves clitic doubling as a mechanism of doubling of a head by its Spec; now, Chomsky (2004a) concludes that ‘there should be . . . no Spec–head relations’, correctly in our view. But even if there were head–Spec relations, expressing clitic doubling

Introduction

7

in this format generalizes to clitics being doubled by pro in the absence of lexical material (Sportiche 1996), defeating attempts at dispensing with this (redundant) empty category. Chapter 5 is in fact partially devoted to arguing that there are chains where the ‘copy’ has a lexicalization independent of the ‘antecedent’, namely with the si/se clitic of Romance, which we treat as the lexical counterpart of an A-trace. All of the difficulties connected with its interpretation dissolve if we simply accept that a variable interpretation could be associated with an overt lexical item, allowing it to enter into a chain relation despite the transitive syntax of the sentence (where si/se is just like any other object, i.e. accusative or oblique, clitic). Generalizing, those lexical items that admit of a variable reading can enter into the chain relation. As seen most clearly in the work of Brody (1997ff.), a representationalist stance is fully compatible with a copy theory of traces, to the effect that variables are introduced at the LF interface as full copies of lexical material present elsewhere in the structure – or can be so introduced. However, copies are irrelevant for the empirical issues we consider in this book, essentially limited to socalled A-movement, where ‘reconstruction effects are far weaker . . . (if they exist at all)’ (Chomsky 2004); similarly, they are irrelevant for the aspects of Amovement considered by Manzini and Savoia (2005). Therefore the stance we take on reconstruction evidence, and hence on copies, is strictly agnostic. More radically, in the discussion in Chapter 5 centered on the classical problem of auxiliary selection in languages such as Italian, we take an agnostic stance on the movement/chain account of unaccusativity. In other words, we shall never notate copies; but equally we shall not notate GB-style empty categories or the interpretive counterpart to such constructs (variables) at the interface. All of these theoretical devices are compatible with our analysis, but all we need – and hence all we ever make reference to – is the interpretive construal whereby the unique argument slot of certain verbs (by hypothesis an internal argument) is associated with the EPP argument (the one argument whose presence is obligated by universal principles). It should be noted that the copy theory to this day has not subsumed, at least for Chomsky (1995ff.), the base generated empty category PRO. The latter is rendered as the introduction of a variable at the LF interface, notably for the purpose of explaining control in Chapters 8–9. These issues are investigated in relation to Albanian due to the well-known property of so-called ‘Balkan’ languages of not embedding infinitivals. Thus the syntactic properties postulated for the PRO subject of infinitivals (Chomsky’s (1995) null case) can overtly be seen to be irrelevant for control and similar interpretations, since these equally arise in finite contexts in ‘Balkan’ languages. In our reconstruction of the facts the so-called ‘subjunctive particle’ of Balkan languages introduces the relevant variable, very much like the infinitive morphology of Romance or Germanic, independently (among others) of case configurations. Mention of empty category (variable) subjects of finite sentences also inevitably raises the question of what their relation is to the null subject

8

Introduction

parameter. Our take on this, introduced in Chapter 2 and developed in Chapter 10, is that the null subjects of finite sentences can generally be introduced as variables in language where the D sentential category is not independently lexicalized under the null subject parameter. It remains for us to consider agreement of which subject-verb configurations represent the paradigmatic instance for Chomsky (2000ff.). However, we have outlined above a theory in which the agreement inflection of the verb has the same status within the morphological-level structure as the subject pronoun at the sentential level; therefore (as we discuss in detail in Chapter 1), no issue of uninterpretability arises for the so-called inflection, since at different levels of structure a subject pronoun and an agreement inflection represent exactly the same kind of semantic object. An interpretive mechanism is furthermore available in the grammar for assigning them to the same argument slot, namely chain formation, which routinely allows for the doubling of arguments by pronominal material. In this perspective agreement is but a relation among two or more elements, allowing them to enter into such as chain relation. Since sharing of reference is a prerequisite for chain formation, all referentially relevant properties of the elements involved in a chain will have to match, or at least be compatible. Agreement amounts simply to the relevant matching relation, or in fact more correctly to a non-distinctness one. The theory outlined above is compatible with Brody’s (1997ff.) position that at least one member of any chain must be interpretable, without imposing any non-interpretability requirements otherwise. At the same time it differs from it in enforcing a radical interpretability requirement; exactly as we set out in section 1.1 (where PF interpretability was relevant for the discussion) all lexical entries are a couple of a PF and an LF representation. The latter requirement means that there will be no lexical entry, be it even a verb inflection, deprived of semantic content. As for case, which would be the one example of a radically uninterpretable feature in the grammar of Chomsky (1995ff.), we agree with Chomsky (2001, 2004a) that it ought to be derivable from other properties of grammar. There are empirical reasons why deriving case from agreement is not possible (Chapter 10) quite independently of the treatment of agreement. What we therefore support is theory where case derives instead from the EPP(s). In our terms nominative is simply the way in which the categorial signature D surfaces in the grammar. Accusative case in turn reduces to what we take to be the categorial property N, as discussed throughout Chapters 1 and 3–4 (see Manzini and Savoia (forthcoming) for a discussion of much the same material, but finalized to case). The range of phenomena we consider here excludes not only reconstruction, but also islands and locality in general. Therefore we have no take on a concept which provides the title for at least two works by Chomsky (2001, 2004a) (i.e. phases). In other words, our stance with respect to phases can only be agnostic. As for reconstruction and the copy theory, we limit ourselves to the observation that there is nothing in the architecture of our model that either excludes phases

Introduction

9

as locality domains or suggests their validity. Given the different approach that we take to constituent structure, we expect phases not to overlap exactly with Chomsky’s (2001ff.). If anything, however, the conception of phase would be simplified. In particular, given that each new head starts a new sentential or nominal projection we may expect just sentences and noun phrases to be phases. At this point we must resist the temptation to provide a list of our various results and invite the reader to proceed directly to the text. Suffice it to say that the focus of the presentation is on full interpretability, i.e. on the interpretable nature of agreement inflections in Chapters 1–2, on the arguments against morphological and Optimality treatments of clitics (and by extension of morphosyntax in general) in Chapters 3–4, on transitivity alternations (passive, reflexive, unaccusative) and hence by extension on A-chains in Chapters 5–6. The focus of the Albanian Chapters (7–10), is on complementation both finite and non-finite, and hence on control and complex predicates (causativization). 1.3 The question of language variation As we mentioned at the outset, the overall research program of which this book is a product was aimed at language variation in Romance (and subsequently Albanian) dialects. Although we have tried briefly to lay out the view of Universal Grammar that emerges from our work, the conclusions relating to the nature of parametrization represent an equally important part of it. They also represent the aspect of the book that connects it most strongly to the issues raised by Chomsky’s (2004a, 2005) ‘biolinguistic’ perspective. Linguistic variation, seen as the result of an historical process or as a reflex of geographical distribution, has represented a major object of the scientific study of language since its beginnings, when attention was focused on the causes of linguistic change and the manner in which it takes place. At the same time sociolinguistic enquiries showed that there is no truly homogenous linguistic community and that phonological, morphosyntactic and lexical differences will inevitably show up in different situations of use. Sapir (1921) endeavors to connect variation internal to a language to historical change, but individual variations remain beyond the reach of scientific explanation for classical twentiethcentury structuralism which characterizes them as casual. The idea that ongoing linguistic change, or otherwise put, the variation present within a linguistic community, is outside the bounds of linguistic analysis underlies statements such as Bloomfield’s (1933: 347) to the effect that ‘the process of linguistic change has never been directly observed; we shall see that such observation, with our present facilities, is inconceivable’. As pointed out by Chomsky (2004b: 8) in the ‘structuralist/behaviorist frameworks of the 1950s’ ‘it was commonly assumed . . . that the basic technology of linguistic description was available, and that language variation was so free that nothing of much generality was likely to be discovered’. Similar considerations hold for works in the descriptive dialectology tradition, based on data collection through fieldwork, since their observations do not

10

Introduction

find an explanation in terms of inherent properties of language, but only an external motivation in the social and cultural factors governing communication. It is not by chance that linguists within this approach are noted for perceiving that language variation integrates seamlessly with pragmatic and socio-cultural patterns. A paradigmatic example of this in the literature is Gauchat (1905), where variation is connected to particular groups of speakers and age classes, initiating a schema that has since become a classic of dialectological studies. Indeed, if we consider that the biological bases of language are the same for present-day languages as for languages spoken in the past, it follows that the mechanisms of language differentiation in time can be identified with those for currently observable language variation. Recent approaches to the origin of language (Chomsky 2002, 2004b; Hauser et al. 2002) reinforce the premise that language ‘is a fundamentally uniform system, which means that since its emergence there has not been any significant evolution. It has just stayed that way’ (Chomsky 2002: 147). Therefore it is possible for a single set of properties to explain all linguistic phenomena, including those concerning languages no longer spoken, only partially documented or reconstructed, as well as those concerning languages spoken by living speakers. This view finds important support from the work of Labov (1994), showing that mechanisms of variation and change are the same in the past, accessible through documents or through reconstruction, and in the present. It is theoretical issues relating to the nature of the language faculty and certainly not any classificatory intent that we had in mind when we started our work on Italian dialects. We can usefully begin with the contrast set up in the generative literature between macroparametric and microparametric views of language variation. Under the macroparametric view (Baker 1996), one parametric setting triggers several properties of a language connected by non-trivial deductive relations. By contrast, the overall view that emerges from our study is microparametric, in the sense that parameters reduce to elementary properties of lexical items at the interfaces, and these generally combine freely, up to the general consistency of the system. If we are correct, a simplicity argument favors the present view, in that while the alternative theory in general has the power to state all of the relevant facts, these are stated more economically at a lower lexical level. Our position is consistent with minimalist theorizing. Thus Chomsky (1995: 7) states that ‘there is a single computational system CHL for human language and only limited lexical variety. Variation of language is essentially morphological in character, including the critical question of which parts of a computation are overtly realized.’ In other words, a language comprises a lexicon including both predicative and inflectional bases specifying a set of morphosyntactic properties on whose differences parametric variation depends. The lexical items of a language, including its morphology, correspond to a particular way of instantiating the information relevant for the interface levels, yielding different morphosyntactic organizations of linguistic expressions. Of course the repertory of properties on which the lexicon of a given lan-

Introduction

11

guage draws is itself universal. Thus what surfaces as a parameter between two languages will typically take the form of a categorial discrimination present in one but not in the other. One typical example of this is the animacy hierarchies of the typological literature (Comrie 1981; Croft 1990; Dixon 1994) that appear to be relevant for ergative languages, but not for nominative languages such as English or Italian. In reality on this point (as on others) our empirical discussion allows us to conclude that the categorial (discrete) distinction reflected by the descriptive hierarchies are a universal of language (or cognition more generally). Languages will very often differ not as to whether they instantiate them, but only with respect to the lexical domain where they instantiate them. In other words, the choice is once again microparametric (lexical) not systemic (macroparametric). Crucially it seems to us that our findings are what we expect given the ‘biolinguistic’ perspective (Chomsky 2004b, 2005), which provides the conceptual setting for the issue of language variation as well as for the closely related issue of language growth (i.e. acquisition). If we assume an approach under which a language is ‘an internal component of the mind/brain’ (Hauser et al. 2002) the range of possible variation will be fixed by the principles of the faculty of language. Specifically Chomsky (2004b: 8) makes explicit the relation between language variation and the faculty of language as a biological system. Variation may be seen as a correlate of ‘the growth of language in the individual’, in which the genetic endowment interacts with experience. The latter ‘leads to variation, within a fairly narrow range, as in the case of other subsystems of the human capacity and the organism generally’. On the basis of these conceptual premises we hardly expect variation to take the form of the broad generalizations entertained by the typological tradition, which takes as its starting point (not coincidentally) functionalist (hence fundamentally behaviorist) conceptions of language. Nor do we expect that the same types of generalizations admit of a restatement within the mentalist model, say, in the form of macroparameters. It seems to us important that studies such as this provide what in our mind is compelling evidence in favor of the view that language variation results from the free interplay of elementary differences connected to the mental lexicon. If this conclusion is correct, it contributes a strong argument in favor of the biolinguistic perspective, which is the only model capable of predicting such variation. For external reasons, i.e. because of the political and cultural causes that for centuries have kept the Italian peninsula in conditions of great administrative and social fragmentation, dialectal differentiation in Italy has been preserved for longer (i.e. up to the present day) than in other areas of Western Europe, including Romance-speaking countries. Thus Italian dialects provide a rich and articulated picture of language variation that contrasts to some extent with that of other intensively studied linguistic varieties, say, French or English. We should emphasize however that in our view the Italian situation reflects closely the kind of variation we expect to find in conditions of normal language growth and that the present theory of Universal Grammar and parameters predicts, in keeping

12

Introduction

with the biolinguistic program. This means that it is the linguistic situation of, say, England or France that represents a somehow misleading picture of variation, reflecting not only the action of the internal shaping forces of language growth but also external mechanisms of social and political standardization. The variation presented by Albanian dialects is compatible with that of Italian dialects. In this case our basic sample is more limited, including essentially a couple of varieties in Albania itself (covering the major Geg vs. Tosk divide), as well as a detailed picture of Albanian dialects spoken in southern Italy (Arbëresh). The latter witness a subtle and systematic variation in the morphosyntactic organization of the sentence (for instance, in the verb inflection and in the case assignment system) that has the same general characters as the microvariation observed in Romance dialects and may be explained in the same terms, essentially of lexical variation. On several occasions in the course of this work we will also have the opportunity to treat variation characterizing not just two or more different dialects (linguistic communities) but showing up within the same dialect, or even within the productions of a single speaker. In accordance with the minimalist model, which predicts the absence of free alternations within any given grammar, we shall treat the relevant cases as revealing the simultaneous presence of slightly different lexicons (hence grammars) within the same speaker(s). Thus the level at which variation is defined is the competence of the individual hearer-speaker, motivating once again the conclusion that the ‘biolinguistic’, microparametric approach is the only one capable of modeling it. This amounts to saying that, strictly speaking, there are no monolingual individuals, given that (as we mentioned above) each speaker will alternate at least between so-called stylistic choices according to situations of use. For instance, any cultivated Italian speaker of northern Italy will typically alternate a grammar inclusive of a simple perfective past (used only in writing or comparable registers) with a grammar where the present perfect covers the meaning of the simple perfective past as well. In this sense each speaker will have to some extent a ‘bilingual’ competence, for which current literature indeed reduces to the co-existence of different lexicons with a single computational component (MacSwan 2000).

Acknowledgments The research reported in this book has been financed mainly through four Programma di Ricerca di Interesse Nazionale of the MURST/MIUR, namely Per una cartografia strutturale delle configurazioni sintattiche: microvariazione nei dialetti italiani (1997–1999), La cartografia strutturale delle configurazioni sintattiche e le sue interfacce con la fonologia e la semantica. Parametri morfosintattici e fonosintattici (1999–2001), Categorie linguistiche: Categorie di flessione nominale e verbale (Accordo, Aspetto); Nome e Verbo (2001–2003), I sistemi linguistici ‘speciali’ (apprendimento, disturbi) e la variazione tra i sistemi linguistici ‘normali’. Categorie funzionali del nome e del verbo (2003–2005).

Introduction

13

Special thanks go to all our informants, both on Romance and on Albanian, though reasons of space prevent us from mentioning all of them here. Our debt to the teachers, friends and colleagues whose work inspired us should be obvious from the references. However, we should take this opportunity to thank at least Carlos Otero, as the series editor, for helping our project along. Thanks also to Alan Pona for putting together the analytical index. The debt that this book owes to previously published work of the authors is acknowledged at the beginning of this Introduction. Thanks should be extended to OUP for granting permission to use (edited) passages of Manzini, M.R. and Savoia, L.M. (2004) ‘Clitics: Cooccurrence and mutual exclusion patterns’, in L. Rizzi (ed.) The structure of CP and IP, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 211–250 © OUP, and to Lorenzo Massobrio of Edizioni dell’Orso for granting us permission to use passages (translated from Italian and edited) of Manzini, M.R. and Savoia, L.M. (2005) I dialetti italiani e romanci. Morfosintassi generativa, Alessandria: Edizioni dell’Orso, 3 vols. © Edizioni dell’Orso. Earlier versions of chapters 1 and 3 appear respectively as Manzini, M.R. and Savoia, L.M. (2004) ‘The nature of the agreement inflections of the verb’, MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, 47: 149–178 © M.R. Manzini and L.M. Savoia, and as Manzini, M.R. and Savoia, L.M. (2002) ‘Clitics: lexicalization patterns of the so-called 3rd person dative’, Catalan Journal of Linguistics, 1: 117–155. An earlier version of chapter 8 appears in Italian as Manzini, M.R. and Savoia, L.M. (2003) ‘Participio e infinito nella varietà di Scutari’, in Matteo Mandalà (ed.) Cinque secoli di cultura albanese in Sicilia. Atti del XXVIII Convegno Internazionale di Studi Albanesi, Palermo: A.C. Mirror, pp. 401–432.

1

The nature of the agreement inflections of the verb

The unification of morphology and syntax that we adopt in this book leads us to the conclusion that the morphological structure of the verb within which the inflection is inserted reproduces the syntactic structure of the sentence hosting the subject; thus the inflection has exactly the same status within the verbal constituent as a clitic subject within the sentence. This proposal is supported by several sets of data presented in section 2. The model we propose requires a different theory of agreement and chains, also discussed in section 3.

1 The basic structure of the sentence and of the noun phrase and the present proposal We adopt the conventional assumption that a sentence includes several different positions for the verb, the lowest one of which (i.e. V) corresponds to the predicative content of the event. It is again conventional to assume that the V position projects a set of arguments, including at least the object and the subject. We take it that the crucial property of the subject is a denotational property, which we provisionally notate D. In other words we identify the EPP property, which defines the subject, with the D property, an intuition which we share with Chomsky (1995). The so-called object essentially corresponds to the point of saturation of the obligatory internal argument of the predicate. We take it that this property may be characterized by the category N, a label to which we return below. Therefore, connecting the V predicate with its N object and D subject yields a tree structure of the type in (1). (1)

wu D wu N wu V

It is a familiar assumption that the fundamental position of the inflected verb within the sentence is not V, but rather a higher one, conventionally I. Thus consider a finite sentence. Its structure minimally includes (2b), where the verb is in I.

Agreement inflections of the verb (2)

a

corr-o run-1sg ‘I run’

b

wi I corro

15

Consider what would be the counterpart of (2) in a language where, contrary to Italian, a lexicalization of the subject is needed. This is also the case in languages with a considerable amount of verbal inflections, such as northern Italian dialects, where in declarative sentences the subject is lexicalized at least by a socalled subject clitic, as in (3). (3)

Modena (Emilia) la ’man-a she eat-3sg ‘She eats’

On the basis of much evidence concerning Romance as well as Albanian dialects, we arrive at the conclusion that each one of the fundamental positions of the verb, which include V and I, projects its own full set of nominal positions, which include of course N and D. This holds for I, V and also for C, giving rise to a sentential schema of the type in (4). (4)

[D

[N

[C

[D

[N

[I

[D [N

[V

In these terms subject clitics, or eventually full noun phrases, give rise to representations of the type in (5). (5)

Modena wu D wu la I mana

Consider then a sentence like (6), containing a postverbal lexical subject in Italian, a so-called inverted subject. (6)

corr-o io run-1sg I ‘I run’

If we keep to the assumptions embodied by the structure in (4), the so-called inverted subject is the lowest D projection in the sentence, as in (7).

16 (7)

Agreement inflections of the verb wu I wu corro D io

The idea for which we argue in this chapter is that the so-called agreement inflection of the finite verb corresponds to D material. Consider a finite verb, whose inflection alone represents the subject in a language such as Italian, as in (2a), yielding a case of so-called null subject. It is widely accepted in the literature that the inflection in a null subject language is pronominal (Rizzi 1982) and that it alone suffices to satisfy the EPP requirement (Pollock 1996). Our proposal represents a development of this line of thought, with some important differences. In the first place we adopt the conclusions of the introduction that morphological structures are identical to syntactic structures. In the traditional conception, reflected by generative theory and by the minimalist model (Chomsky 1995, 2000, 2001), syntactic categories and morphological features represent two different subsystems. In particular the traditional conception of feature distinguishes the feature itself from its value, which is binary (Jakobson 1966; Chomsky and Halle 1968). To begin with, we can observe that the distinction between feature and value may be dispensed with. Thus instead of saying that there is a number feature whose value can be positive (plural) or negative (singular), we can say that the number feature identifies with the plural. As a consequence, the notion of default and markedness is excluded from our grammar; for example, if number coincides with the plural, it is not possible to treat the singular as a default value of the feature, but only as its absence. If so, a morphological feature comes to have the same formal nature as a syntactic category. For Romance dialects, in Chapters 3–4 we reach the conclusion that the case, person, number and gender features generally employed in the description of pronominal clitics are inadequate. Our proposal is instead that clitics can be adequately described in terms of syntactic categories, namely D, already introduced above for subject clitics, and several categories for object clitics. These include R (referentiality) for properties of specific quantification; Q for properties of indefinite quantification; P for person, i.e. reference to speaker and hearer, Loc transparently for locatives. Again N has been introduced above for objects; the independent categorization of P elements makes it clear that the N category is in fact restricted to the third person. The categories mentioned above coincide with those independently postulated by many theories for the internal structure of the noun phrase. In other words, they do not constitute a separate list of morphological categories, but they are the same as syntactic categories. Given this identification of morphological and syntactic categorization it is natural to assume that morphological structure, understood descriptively as the structure of words, is articulated into the same hierarchies as syntactic structure. The unification of morphological and syntactic structures can be crucially

Agreement inflections of the verb

17

applied to verb inflection. The traditional and generative approach to verb inflection and to its role in the structure of the sentence is well illustrated by the theory of Chomsky (1995, 2000, 2001) according to which the verb inflection consists of an unspecified set of features associated to the verb in I, whose value is set by the corresponding, valued features of the sentential subject. The unification of morphology and syntax that we adopt here leads however to the conclusion that the verb inflection has exactly the same status as a pronominal subject, in particular the clitic subject in (5). Thus we take the verb inflection to be categorizable as D. What is more, we assume that it is inserted in a D position within a morphological structure which reproduces exactly the syntactic structure of the sentence. Concretely, for a verb like the one in (2), we propose the analysis in (8a), where the verbal root corr-, corresponding to the predicative content of the verb, is generated in I while the inflection occupies the D position. Crucially the structure in (8a) is to be understood as word-internal, while a structure like (7), which most directly compares with it, is to be understood as syntactic in the conventional sense of the term. The two combine as indicated in (8b). In essence, the verb in the sentential I position takes a D subject to its right; in turn the verb in the sentential I position has a structure that strictly parallels that of the sentence, with the verb root in I and its inflection in the D position to its right. (8)

a

eu I D corr o

b

ep I eu eu D I D io corr o

The current proposal concerning the relation of morphology and syntax has an important point of similarity with the Distributed Morphology model of Halle and Marantz (1993, 1994), namely the presence of a syntactic-like hierarchical structure within the morphological component. This property of distributed morphology holds of the current system as well; but in other respects the two models differ. First, Halle and Marantz (1993, 1994) distinguish two sets of categories for morphology and syntax, forcing the two components to be separate in turn. On the contrary, in the current model there is a unique set of categories and structures and therefore a completely integrated morphosyntactic component. We shall devote this chapter to providing empirical evidence in favor of this conclusion, as it concerns the internal structure of the verb and of the sentence. At the same time it seems to us that it gives rise to a simpler grammar than the one envisaged by Halle and Marantz (1993, 1994). Indeed to the extent that their morphological and syntactic components largely overlap, there is considerable redundancy between the two, which is absent from our theory.

18

Agreement inflections of the verb

The second important difference is that in Distributed Morphology there is Late Insertion; in other words, the insertion of lexical items applies at the end of the morphosyntactic derivation. Late Insertion is furthermore governed by the underspecification principle, according to which a lexical element may be inserted under a terminal node only if its features are a subset of the features of the terminal node itself. This means that different lexical items are in principle available for insertion under the same node; therefore the element that is actually inserted is the most highly specified one, on the basis of conditions akin to Kiparsky’s (1973) ‘Elsewhere’. For cases in which this condition is apparently violated, Halle and Marantz (1993, 1994) posit a rule specific to the morphological component, namely impoverishment, which deletes features from a terminal node. In this respect Distributed Morphology has the same power as do theories employing ranking of constraints, such as Optimality Theory. Our model is based instead on the minimalist idea that linguistic structures are projected from lexical material, thus excluding the existence of a morphosyntactic structure independent of the lexical items that it will eventually host, and a fortiori the existence of readjustment rules such as impoverishment. It seems to us that such a model is once again more restrictive in that it does not have the power of extrinsic ordering provided by constraint ranking in Optimality Theory and by readjustment rules in Distributed Morphology. We argue elsewhere (Chapter 3) that our model is able to account for phenomena which are classically taken to argue for the alternative models such as the ‘Spurious se’ of Spanish, where the se clitic apparently replaces the specialized dative in combination with an accusative. In introducing the syntactic representation in (8) for a sentence such as (2), we noted that the idea that the verb inflection has a pronominal status is adopted by much current literature for null subject languages, though without an explicit formalization. The treatment we propose for verb inflection however is meant to be universal and not bound to the null subject status of languages such as Italian. Thus the Modena structure in (5), with the subject overtly lexicalized by the clitic la, is to be completed as in (9) with the same internal structure of the verb proposed above in (8) for standard Italian. (9)

Modena ep D eu la I eu I D man a

With this much background, we can now return to the N formalization for the object of the sentence that we have proposed in (1) without further discussion. As is well known (Burzio 1986; Kayne 1989a), a language such as Italian has at least one verbal form, i.e. the perfect participle, which does not agree with the

Agreement inflections of the verb

19

subject, but rather with the object, as may be seen in examples of the type in (10). (10) la ha-nno riconosciut-a her have-3pl recognized-fsg ‘They have recognized her’ Taking the lead from Kayne (1993), we assume that the participle defines its own sentence, exactly as the finite verb does. If so, in the participial clause, the –a morpheme in (10) represents the sole lexicalization of the object, as is more clearly the case in the participial adjunct clause in (11a), of a type described by Belletti (1990). For a participial sentence of the type of (11a), as for the participial clause embedded under the auxiliary in (10), we suggest the structure in (11b), where the so-called agreement is the N argument of the verb, i.e. its object. (11) a

b

riconosciut-a Maria corse via recognized-fsg Mary ran away ‘Having been recognized, Mary ran away’ eu I N riconosciut a

The current literature (Marantz 1997) has familiarized us with the idea that a lexical item (e.g. love) can correspond equally to the basic predicative content of the sentence or the noun phrase; thus verb or noun are not primitive syntactic categories but rather the label we give to the result of embedding such a primitive predicate in a given functional structure. In an Italian noun phrase such as (12a), the base that expresses the predicative content of the noun phrase, gatt-, is followed by an inflection –a which has the same properties as the inflection of the perfect participle in (10). What is more, the article la is recognizably the same element that appears as a so-called subject clitic in northern Italian dialects, as is confirmed by the Modena example in (12b). (12) a

b

la gatt-a the cat-fsg ‘the cat’ Modena la gat-a the cat-fsg ‘the cat’

Based on the parallelism with the perfect participle, we suggest that the structure corresponding to the noun in (12a) (i.e. gatta) is as in (13a), where the

20 Agreement inflections of the verb nominal root is in an I position, while the inflection that follows it is in N. When the noun is inserted into the noun phrase, the structure is as in (13b), strictly comparable to the Modena sentence in (9). Indeed, the noun is inserted in the I position of the noun phrase, while the definite determiner precedes it in D. (13) a

b

eu I N gatt a ep D eu la I eu I N gatt a

Let us return to the nature of N. Our idea is that the noun is characterized as such by the fact that the predicative head has inflectional properties of the N type. It is essentially the observation that there is morphological coincidence between object agreement, as seen in the perfect participle, and the inflection of the noun that brings us to identify the ‘internal argument’ property with the ‘noun’ property, as in (1). This conclusion is strengthened, for instance, by the fact that where so-called nominative and accusative morphology are distinguished on Romance clitics, the latter systematically coincides with the presence of nominal class (gender) features absent on the former (Chapter 4). In the same way the identification of the EPP property with the D(efiniteness) property amounts to the conjecture that D is the property that in many languages (though not in all) obligatorily closes off the I/C domain of the noun phrase and of the sentence alike. We conclude this introduction to the main concepts presupposed by the empirical discussion to follow, recalling that according to Chapters 3 and 4 the internal structure of clitics and of noun phrases is articulated not only in terms of the categories D and N, which have been identified with categories present in the sentence as well, but also in terms of categories such as R, Q, P, Loc. In fact, we assume that the whole sequence of nominal positions is represented between the D and N positions in each verbal domain. In other words, the hypothesis in (4) is to be refined as in (14). In (14) we give the nominal sequence for the highest verbal domain, while the dotted lines have to be understood as being filled by the same string. We refer the reader to Chapters 3 and 4 for further details on the string of nominal positions in the sentence. (14) [D

[R [Q

[P

[Loc

[N

[C

...

[I

...

[V

Agreement inflections of the verb

21

2 Empirical evidence As outlined above, the thesis we intend to support empirically in this chapter is that the so-called agreement inflection of the verb is categorized exactly as a subject clitic; what is more, it bears a structural relation to the verb root which parallels that of a subject clitic (or any other subject) to the verb. The main evidence in favor of this proposal is provided in this section, while section 3 will return to some relevant consequences of the conclusions we have reached for the theory of agreement of Chomsky (1995, 2000, 2001) and hence for the theory of movement (chains) in general.

2.1 Morphological identity between clitics and nominal inflections of verbs One argument in favor of the conclusion that the inflection of the verb has the same morphosyntactic status as subject clitics, and lexical subjects as well, is simply that in many languages there is morphological identity between so-called clitics and so-called inflections. The first case in point concerns t inflections in the second person singular of the verb, in dialects of northern Italy where the same morphology characterizes the subject clitic as well, as illustrated in (15). In Lombard dialects such as Strozza this morphology is found in the present, past imperfective, and conditional, while in a dialect of the Romagna such as Forlì the relevant morphology is restricted to the imperfective past. In the examples in (15) and throughout this chapter, for morphologically complex forms of the verb we shall indicate only the segmentation relative to the agreement morphology; we refer the reader to Manzini and Savoia (2005) and to Chapters 5 and 7–8 for a treatment of other tense, mood and aspect inflections compatible with the current framework. (15) Strozza Valle Imagna (Lombardy) a te ’mandZ-et you eat -2sg ‘You eat’ b te man’dZa-et you ate -2sg ‘You ate’ c te mandZe’res-et you would.eat -2sg ‘You would eat’ Forlì (Romagna) b t dur’mif-ta you slept -2sg ‘You slept’

22

Agreement inflections of the verb

The t inflection for the second person singular is, on the other hand, attested also for null subject languages, such as the Sicilian dialects in (16). The Camporeale example shows that the t morphology is present in these languages for second person object clitics. (16) Camporeale (Sicily) tI lavava -tU you washed-2sg ‘You washed yourself’ Much the same as we saw for the t morphology of second person singular holds for the v morphology of second person plural, as exemplified in (17) both for northern Italian dialects with subject clitics, like Strozza, Forlì, and for null subject southern Italian dialects. In each case we have provided comparisons with the second person plural object clitic. Note that by a straightforward phonological process word-final v surface as f in the Strozza dialect. (17) Strozza Valle Imagna a man’dZ-if eat -2pl ‘You eat’ b man’dZa-ef ate -2pl ‘You ate’ c mandZe’res-ef would.eat -2pl ‘You would eat’ d El ve l ’da he you it gives ‘He gives it to you’ Forlì c a vdi’rEc -uv ClS would.see-2pl ‘You would see’ d a v la’vi: ClS you wash.2pl ‘You wash yourselves’ Camporeale b vI la’vava -vU you washed(impf)-2pl ‘You washed yourselves’ b vI la’vaStI-vU you washed(pf)-2pl ‘You washed yourselves’

Agreement inflections of the verb

23

In (18) we have reproduced some examples illustrating the lexicalization of the n morphology for the first person plural, in dialects of the Salento which also have a nE clitic for the first person plural object. (18) Giurdignano (Apulia) a man’dZau-nE ate-1pl ‘We ate’ b nE lla’vamu us wash.1pl ‘We wash ourselves’ As for the first person singular, a relevant piece of data is represented by the i inflection in dialects of the Friuli (cf. Benincà and Vanelli 1975) and in RhaetoRomance varieties such as La Pli. In both of the examples in (19), it may be seen that this i inflection coincides with the subject clitic form. (19) S. Giorgio della Richinvelda (Friuli) i mi ’lav -i I me wash-1sg ‘I wash myself’ La Pli de Mareo (Alto Adige) i ’dorm-i I sleep -1sg ‘I sleep’ Finally, clear cases of coincidence of the inflection of the verb with nominal morphology are to be found in the third person plural. In particular in the dialect of Airole in (20), the n element forms both the third person plural of monosyllabic verbs such as sun ‘they are’, an ‘they have’ and the plural of the subject clitic which in this language is in. The same type of phenomenon is known for Old Italian where we find ellino (cf. Rohlfs 1968 [1949]) or eglino clearly formed from the egli ‘he’ pronoun of third person singular and the -no ending. The latter is still the inflection of the verb in the third person plural in standard Italian, cf. dormo-no ‘they sleep’, and so on. (20) Airole (Liguria) a iN su-N ve’ny/ ve’nye they be-3pl come/come-fpl ‘They have come’ b iN l a -N tSa’mau they him have-3pl called ‘They have called him’

24

Agreement inflections of the verb

The coincidence between the plural morphology of the pronoun and the third person plural inflection of the verb suggests that the n form is best categorized as a pure plural. This conclusion is further strengthened by a dialect such as Casaccia where n characterizes the (third person) plural of all verbs, as well as the plural of nominal constituents of the feminine class. In (21) in particular we illustrate the occurrence of the n ending on the definite article, on the (morphologically identical) object clitic as well as on the verb. It will be noted that in (a) the n ending does not appear on the noun; similarly comparison between (a) and (b) shows that the n ending characterizes the object clitic but not the subject one. These distributional phenomena are considered by Manzini and Savoia (2005). (21) Casaccia (Grisons) a l -aN ’dona the-plf woman ‘the women’ b a l -aN ’ve ClS them-plf see ‘I see them’ c i ’dCRm-aN they.m sleep-3pl ‘They sleep’ d la ’dCRm-aN she sleep -3pl ‘They sleep’ In the dialect of Soazza in (22) the n morphology within the noun phrase appears on the head noun, while the article lexicalizes just the feminine nominal class. In (23c) the same morphology is seen on the enclitic object. The data in (23a)–(23b) on the other hand indicate that this morphology appears on the verb as well; but what is most interesting is that it combines with the third person plural verb in the presence of a feminine subject but not in the presence of a masculine one. Thus both within the noun phrase and within the sentence the n morphology is associated with the feminine nominal class. The example in (23d) highlights the fact that the n morphology of the verb may also be interpreted as pluralizing the feminine direct object, when it is a proclitic. In other words, the inflection of the finite verb behaves in this respect like the inflection of the participle, exemplified in (23e). We shall return to the Soazza dialect in section 2.3. (22) Soazza (Grisons) la Ska’bEl-eN the chair-fpl ‘the chair’

Agreement inflections of the verb

25

(23) Soazza a i ’be:f they.m drink ‘They drink’ b la ’bev -eN she drink-fpl ‘They drink’ c ’tSama-l -eN call -def-fpl ‘Call them!’ d la ’tSam-i -eN her call -1sg-fpl ‘I call them’ e tu mE l a -i -N por’tad-eN you me def have-2sg-fpl brought-fpl ‘You have brought them to me’ Apart from the cases in (20)–(23) in which the n morphology for plural may be seen both on the noun and the verb, there are many cases in which it may be seen on the verb. In fact this is the normal lexicalization for the third person plural inflection in Romance languages, as may also be seen from standard Italian in (24). (24) Corr-ono run-3pl ‘They run’ 2.2 Mesoclisis in the imperative Under a ‘syntactic’ view of clitics and a ‘morphological’ view of inflections, the clitics should always be external to the inflection of the verb. However, Romance dialects provide evidence that clitics do appear between the verb stem and its inflection. In particular mesoclisis of the object clitic is found in the plural forms of the imperative, notably in a set of dialects of the Lucania– Calabria border (the so-called Lausberg area). For example, in the dialect of Albidona, mesoclisis characterizes both plural forms of the imperative, i.e. first person as in (25a) and second person as in (25b)–(25d). In these forms, the dative clitic as in (25a)–(25b), P clitics, i.e. first and second person as in (25c), and the se clitic (which is among other things the reflexive) as in (25d), appear between the verb stem and the inflection. The accusative clitic remains excluded from the mesoclisis position, appearing after the verb inflection. (25) Albidona (Calabria) a pCrta -ye -’mu-lle bring-him-1pl-it ‘Let us bring it to him’

26

Agreement inflections of the verb b

c

d

da -yye-’tE -lle give-him-2pl-it ‘Give it to him’ da -me-’tE -lle give-me-2pl-it ‘Give it to me’ fave-se-’tE-lle wash-yourselves-2pl-it ‘Wash it for yourselves’

Following much literature on the subject, in particular Rivero (1994), we assume that the imperative appears in a high position in the sentence, i.e. within the C field, associated with the modal properties of the verb. We propose that in the examples in (25) the verb stem occupies the relevant position within the C field, while the inflection is stranded in a lower position. Given that the inflection is ordinarily inserted in D within the verb structure, it is natural to assume that the position where it is stranded is a sentential D position. If we assume that clitics in Romance dialects are ordinarily inserted in the nominal positions above I or higher, then in an example like (25c) N of the I domain is the position of the accusative clitic l, as illustrated in (26). In turn the stranded verb inflection can have exactly the same position as the subject clitic in northern Italian dialects, namely D of the I domain itself. This means that the C field is articulated in at least two C positions (cf. Rizzi 1997). We keep calling C the lower position, while the higher one will be labeled CI to suggest that its properties relate to modality, understood as some I(ndefiniteness)/quantificational property. The verb stem will then appear in the higher CI position, while the intermediate me clitic will appear in the nominal string projected above the C position, as illustrated in (26). (26) Albidona eu CI eu da P eu me (C) eu D eu tE N lle All of the examples in (25) refer to plural imperative forms in combination with clitic clusters. When a single clitic of the P type, Q type and so on appears without the accusative, we may expect that it is in mesoclisis as well. In reality dialects of the Albidona type generally display simple enclisis, as illustrated in (27c) for Senise, though mesoclisis of the clitic as in (27a) and doubling of the clitic in mesoclisis and enclisis as in (27b) can also surface.

Agreement inflections of the verb

27

(27) Senise (Lucania) a ra’vi-dde-te ’tutte give-him-2pl everything ‘Give him everything’ b ra -’mi-te -me ’kwiste give-me-2pl-me this ‘Give me this’ c pur’tæ-te -de ’kwiste bring -2pl-him this ‘Bring him this’ The structure of (27a) will follow the same lines as that postulated in (26); having proposed that the verb stem is inserted in the high CI position, we take it that the clitic is in the C domain, while the verb inflection lexicalizes D of the I domain, as in (28). (28) Senise eu CI eu ravi Q eu dde (C) eu D te In turn, examples of doubling of the clitic as in (27b) are some of the best evidence for the recursion of nominal projection domains that characterizes the present model. These can straightforwardly be assigned a structure like (29) in which the two copies of the clitic appear in the appropriate position of two different clitic strings. (29) Senise eu eu CI ra P eu mi (C) eu D eu te P me The analysis in (29) provides an independent argument for assigning to simple enclisis a structure like (30), which maintains the split between the position of the verb stem and the verb inflection and lexicalizes the clitic in the I domain.

28

Agreement inflections of the verb

(30) Senise eu CI eu purtæ (C) eu D eu te Q de As is well known from the literature (in particular Zanuttini (1997) on Italian dialects), second person singular imperatives in general do not combine with the negation; thus the negative form of the imperative involves a different verbal mood. In the Albidona dialect in (31) the form employed is the infinitive, as it is in standard Italian; in the absence of an infinitival ending, the infinitive is still recognizable from the stress pattern. (31) Albidona a ’pCrte ’kwIsse bring this ‘Bring this’ b C yy u pCr’ta not him it bring ‘Don’t bring it to him’ The classical explanation for patterns of the type in (31) is based on minimality (Rizzi 1990; Chomsky 1995), i.e. on the idea that movement of the verb to a high C position is blocked by the intervening Neg operator (Rivero 1994; Roberts 1994). In representational rather than derivational terms, we could say that the verb must be within the scope of the negation and not outside it, if their combination is to be interpretable. In fact mesoclisis, depending on the high position of the verb stem in CI, does not co-occur with negation. The presence of the negation triggers the positioning of clitics between the negation itself and the verb, as in (32). (32) Albidona a C yy u ’Da:-te not him it give-2pl ‘Don’t give it to him’ b Cn s a fa’va:-te not self it wash -2pl ‘Don’t wash it for yourselves’ Following an idea first suggested by Zanuttini (1997), we assume that in examples like (32) it is the negation itself that, by being inserted in a high modal domain, satisfies the modality requirements of an imperative sentence. The verb will then appear in the normal position in which inflected verbs appear in declar-

Agreement inflections of the verb

29

ative sentences, i.e. I, leading to proclisis, as in (33). The insertion of the negative clitic in an R position in (33) corresponds to a nominal treatment of the negation that is argued for by Manzini and Savoia (2005). (33) Albidona eu R eu Cn (CI) eu Q eu s (C) ep N eu a I eu I D fava te It is worth noting that the explanation given above, namely that the negation itself satisfies the requirement for the lexicalization of modal properties, effectively voids the explanation based on Minimality. Quite simply the verb is in I to satisfy the lexicalization of eventive/inflectional properties and, putting it in derivational terms, is not required at any point to move to CI. The account of the suppletion pattern for the second person singular in terms of Minimality is itself open to question. Thus in many Italian dialects, there is no reason to believe that the infinitive is any lower than the imperative, given that clitics are in enclisis. Indeed, Manzini and Savoia (2005) conclude that the position of insertion of the infinitive is also CI. However, the infinitive can normally be negated and in that case clitics still follow it, in its imperative use as well, as in standard Italian (34). (34) Non portarglielo not bring-to.him-it ‘Don’t bring it to him’ Therefore the lexicalization of the negative imperative cannot be seen in terms of the incompatibility of the negation with a high position of the verb, i.e. in terms of minimality. On the contrary, in the view of Manzini and Savoia (2005) the explanation is to be sought in the fact that the negation concurs with the infinitive to the lexicalization of the relevant interpretation. The most notable question left open by the above analysis concerns the distribution of the clitics in the different domains available to them. One first important point is that only clitics of the Loc, P, Q type appear in mesoclisis; so-called accusative clitics, i.e. N clitics in the current approach appear in enclisis in any case. This conclusion is strengthened by the data concerning Albanian dialects presented in Chapter 7, since exactly the same generalization holds for the latter as well. In present terms this means that N clitics always appear within the

30

Agreement inflections of the verb

nominal projections of I, while the other clitics can equally well appear within the nominal projections of C. The split between N clitics on the one hand and P, Loc, Q clitics on the other appears to be a generalized version of the so-called person split, whereby third person pronouns pattern differently from first and second person pronouns. In Chapter 6, we interpret this split as the reflex of different conditions attaching to elements anchored only to the discourse, like first and second person, and elements, like the so-called third person, whose reference is anchored at the event. In this sense we expect that Loc clitics and Q clitics could pattern with P clitics; for discourse-anchored interpretations of si one need only consider the semantics of so-called arbitrary si, as described by Chierchia (1995). Given this much background, we propose that the proper analysis of the distribution observed is that N clitics, or the class of clitics that are necessarily anchored at the event, can only appear in the lower I domain, bound to the fixing of the temporal reference of the verb. In the same perspective we can view the positioning of the verb inflection in D of the I domain as motivated by the obligatory anchoring of the EPP argument to the event. On the other hand, clitics whose reference is directly anchored to the discourse can also appear in the higher C field, and in particular in the C domain bound to modal specifications. Furthermore it is only clitic clusters with an accusative lexicalized in the lower string that involve mesoclisis; in other cases we find simple enclisis. Examples such as (27b) from Senise would appear to represent a particular case of this grammar, in which mesoclisis appears when the lower clitic domain is also filled, in the case at hand by a second copy of the same clitic. In essence, in the context defined by the lexicalization of the verb in CI, clitics that are event-anchored are constrained to appear in the lower clitic domain, where they are inserted in declaratives as well; however, clitics that are discourse-anchored and are not so constrained appear in the higher modal domain. One further complication is that clitic interpretation requires the lower clitic domain, corresponding to the nominal projections of I, to be filled; therefore mesoclisis of discourse-anchored clitics only appears in conjunction with enclisis of accusative clitics or eventually of a copy of the discourse-anchored clitic itself. It is useful to consider what the available alternatives to the analysis outlined above may involve. It is fortunate in this respect that an analogous mesoclisis phenomenon in imperatives is actually considered by Halle and Marantz (1994) for Caribbean Spanish. Thus the enclitic pattern of standard Spanish in (35a) contrasts with mesoclisis in Caribbean Spanish, as in (35b). (35) a

b

de -n -me-lo give-2pl-me-it ‘Give it to me’ de -me-lo-n give-me-it -2pl (Halle and Marantz 1994: 286)

Agreement inflections of the verb

31

Halle and Marantz (1994) assume that the syntactic component generates structures of the type in (35a) (irrelevant details omitted), where the clitic cluster, i.e. Cl, is adjoined to the right of the I cluster formed by the verb and its plural inflection. It is only in the morphological component that the clitic cluster moves in a position internal to the I constituent, inserted between the verbal stem and its plural inflection, yielding a structure of the type in (35b). (35) a b

[I de – n] [Cl me – lo] [I de [Cl me lo] n]

Obviously enough, an account of the type in (35) is perfectly adequate to describe the facts. It seems to us however that considerations of explanatory adequacy, and of overall simplicity in the architecture of the grammar, favor a syntactic approach of the type we are taking. Indeed, it is true that the infixation of the clitic can be obtained by a post-syntactic movement rule internal to the morphological component. The same infixation however may be easily obtained within the syntactic component along the lines proposed here. Everything else being equal, our analysis is preferable on simplicity grounds in that it does not make recourse to an additional level of representation beyond syntax. On the other hand, there seem to be empirical advantages to a syntactic treatment. In the model in (35) it is not clear why the infixation would apply only in the imperative; again descriptive adequacy is not at stake, since imperatives can obviously be singled out by stipulation. In a syntactic model like the current one however, the relevant restriction may be derived rather than just stated. Indeed, as we saw in (30), we have reasons for assuming that the imperative involves the high CI position, while no other finite form of the verbs does. Mesoclisis can be related to this independent difference between the imperative and other finite verb forms. Similarly, the morphological model can only account by stipulation for the simple alternation between positive and negative imperatives, since there is no principled reason why the morphologically defined infixation rule should be sensitive to the presence of a syntactic operator like the negation. To be more precise, if the morphological rule makes reference to enclisis, then the fact that infixation cannot affect ordinary finite verbs or negated imperatives will effectively be derived by the syntactic rules that determine proclisis in these cases. However, there is no reason why a morphological rule that has the power of infixing (part of) an enclitic group should not have the power of infixing (part of) a proclitic group. Furthermore, there is no morphology-internal reason why the agreement inflection of the verb should be splittable from the stem, to the exclusion of temporal, modal and aspectual inflections. In the current model, the latter do not give rise to mesoclisis in that there is no independently represented position in the sentence structure that could host the modal/aspectual inflection in the way in which D, independently postulated for subject clitics, hosts the agreement inflection.

32

Agreement inflections of the verb

Another line of argument can be developed starting with the observation that the split between clitics always has first and second person clitics infixed and third person ones as enclitics. The dissociation between first/second and third is independently known in the syntax (where it underlies split ergativity and more) and understandable in interpretive terms as a dissociation between discourseand event-anchored arguments. But in the morphology such a split can only be stipulated. We also note that Halle and Marantz (1994) construct their model so as to exclude the possibility that a clitic cluster should be able to split, with one clitic appearing in mesoclisis and the other in enclisis. Of course the data presented here trivially falsify their prediction. We should note in this regard that the current theory is flexible enough to account for Spanish (35) where clitics do not split. One possibility is simply that in Caribbean Spanish there is no requirement on the N (accusative) clitic to anchor the clitic string in the lower I domain. 2.3 N clitics and inflections A further argument that may be put forward in favor of the present unification of syntax and morphology is drawn from the distribution of plural n morphemes in languages such as those considered above, in particular Soazza in (22)–(23). We shall disregard here the distribution of n within the noun phrase (see Manzini and Savoia (2005) for a treatment). Within the sentence the main facts, as already noted by Sganzini (1933), are that the plurality of the feminine subject or object proclitic is lexicalized not on the clitic itself but on the verb. The crucial data are therefore those reported in (23b) for the feminine subject clitic and in (23d) for the feminine object clitic. For (23b), the above discussion suggests a straightforward analysis in which the subject clitic is generated in D of the sentence, while the en inflection appears in D of the verbal constituent as in (36). The plurality properties, overtly lexicalized as the verb inflection in D of the verbal constituent, combine with the feminine nominal class properties lexicalized by the subject clitic to provide the feminine plural denotation for the external argument of the predicate. In more traditional terms one would say that the two D positions ‘agree’; we shall return to the differences between the notion of agreement implied by the present model and the more traditional one in the next section. (36) Soazza ep D eu la I eu I D bev en The advantages of the current model are especially clear when we consider the feminine object clitic as in (23d). In the example we have chosen, it is clear

Agreement inflections of the verb

33

that the verb root is followed by a subject inflection for the first person singular. We obviously associate it with the D position immediately to the right of I. Thus the en inflection is not a candidate for the D position; indeed, its denotation is not referred to the subject but rather to the object argument. The current model allows us to represent this property of en by associating it with the N position embedded in the verbal constituent to the right of the root in I and of the subject inflection in D. (37) Soazza ep N eu la I eu I eu tSam D eu i N en The treatment in (36)–(37) will also explain the multiple ambiguity of an example like (38a), where the en inflection of the verb can be referred to the feminine subject clitic, to the feminine object clitic or to both at once. In particular we can impute the ambiguity between the subject and object reading to the existence of two possible structures, summarized in (38b). In one structure -en is inserted in D of the verbal constituent and hence referred to the subject, while the other possibility is to insert en in the N position where it is referred to the object. The question is what structure corresponds to the third interpretation with both object and subject pluralized. We take it that in this case it is N that is lexicalized by en morphology, which in this position excludes the lexicalization of D by a morpheme with the same denotational properties by a phenomenon studied in detail in Chapter 4 for the clitic string. (38) Soazza a la la ’tSam-en she her call -fpl ‘She calls them/They call her/They call them’ b

eu D ep la N eu la I eu I D/N tSam en

With this much background we can consider the Soazza second person singular imperative in (23c), where the verb stem is followed by the definiteness

34

Agreement inflections of the verb

morpheme l which forms third person clitics in most Romance dialects and then by the en morpheme again. One possibility would be to assume that in this case the object clitic is seen in the fully inflected len form for feminine plural. However, it is not obvious why this clitic would have such a restricted distribution. Therefore we propose, along the lines suggested in section 2.2, that some sort of mesoclisis of the clitic is involved, as in (39). In (39) the verb stem appears in the high CI position where it is followed by the l clitic in the N position of the C domain, while en lexicalizes the D position of the I domain. (39) Soazza eu eu CI tSama N eu l D en

3 Chain interpretations involving two differently lexicalized ‘copies’ On the basis of the above discussion, we conclude that the distinction between ‘clitic’ and ‘inflections’ in Romance languages lacks a compelling empirical basis. The next question to ask is whether nominal inflections of the verb are best analyzed as ‘clitics’, i.e. pronominal arguments, as effectively implied by the above discussion; or whether on the contrary clitics are to be treated as inflectional. In fact, one of the classic theories of cliticization, Sportiche’s (1996), proposes that clitics correspond in all cases to inflectional heads. The immediate advantage of such a theory, in Sportiche’s (1996) terms, is that it allows for a straightforward account of clitic doubling, in that the full NP is conceived as the Spec of the clitic inflectional head. Translating this account in Chomsky’s (2000, 2001) terminology, the clitic would be the lexicalization of uninterpretable features acting as probes for the corresponding interpretable features of the full NP with which they agree. There is however a drawback to this theory, which in our view argues crucially against it. In cases in which the pronominal clitic is the only element to lexicalize a given argument, it is evident that its conception as inflectional (non-interpretable) material leads to the postulation of an empty pronominal element, i.e. a pro, which is itself interpretable. However, no strong empirical evidence supports the existence of pro; on the contrary alternative accounts are available for all environments in which pro has been postulated, including not only clitic ones, but also null subject ones, analyzed by us above. If so, the argument against pro is simply that it represents a considerable enrichment of the grammar. Admitting pro, in fact, amounts to admitting that the lexicon may contain elements that lack one interface representation (the PF one), while being interpretable at the other interface. If one such element exists, then there is no reason why the lexicon should not consist of them entirely (or even in a substantial subset of cases), which is evidently not true.

Agreement inflections of the verb

35

On the basis of such considerations we conclude that clitics and inflections of the verb alike are interpretable. The ultimate consequence of this way of reasoning is that an inflection and a subject, or a subject clitic and a lexical subject, and so on, being all argumental in nature, can only share the same argumental slot of the verb insofar as they form a chain. If so, the grammar contains a great number of chains where the different points are independently lexicalized. Thus the chain interpretation cannot be subsumed by movement, as implied by the Chomskyan tradition, nor by the base generation of copies, as is the case for representational models such as Brody’s (1997). The present approach makes some empirical predictions that are worth checking. Since clitics can normally be doubled by inflections, we expect that clitics can be doubled by other clitics. Indeed, one example of this has already been provided by the Senise data analyzed in (31b). The doubling of object clitics may also be found in simple enclisis, i.e. independently of the mesoclisis phenomenon, as in (40). (40) S. Severo (Apulia) a da -ttSa -’tS -ille give-there-there-it ‘Give it to him’ b da -mma-’m -ille give-me -me-it ‘Give it to me’ The present theory can easily associate a structure with examples of the type in (40), since directly below the da verbal stem in CI there are at least two clitic domains in which to insert the two copies of the locative or P clitic, as illustrated for the P clitic in (41), whereas the N clitic inserts in the lower I domain. Interestingly, the phenomenon in (40) seems to be subject to much the same restrictions as the mesoclisis phenomena in section 2.2, since it is always the Loc and P clitics that double, i.e. appear in two different domains, while the accusative does not. (41) S. Severo eu eu CI da P eu mma (C) eu P eu m N ille The doubling of the subject clitic to the right and to left of the interrogative verb in C is illustrated by examples such as (42), where we were careful to reproduce only data where the right- and left-hand clitics are clearly copies of one

36

Agreement inflections of the verb

another, including at least the same consonantal segment. Thus in the second person the t morpheme is doubled, as is the V/l morpheme in the third person. (42) Castellazzo Bormida (Piedmont) a VP ’dVwCm-VP she sleep -she ‘Does she sleep?’ b VP ’dVwCm she sleep ‘She sleeps’ Oviglio (Piedmont) a la ’drCm-la she sleep -she ‘Does she sleep?’ b la ’drC:m-e she sleep -3sg ‘She sleeps’ S. Bartolomeo Pesio (Piedmont) a et ’dErm -is -tO you sleep -2sg-you ‘Do you sleep?’ b et ’dErm-i you sleep -2sg ‘You sleep’ Montaldo (Piedmont) a yt ’drOm-ty you sleep -you ‘Do you sleep?’ b yt ’dVOm-i you sleep -2sg ‘You sleep’ Margarita (Piedmont) a Ot ’man(dZ)-tO you ea -you ‘Do you sleep?’ b Ot ’dOrm-i you sleep -2sg ‘You sleep’ In (43) we provide the structural representation of one of these examples chosen because it presents both a preverbal and a postverbal subject clitic in

Agreement inflections of the verb

37

addition to a clearly specialized verb inflection, internal to the verbal constituent in C. (43) S. Bartolomeo Pesio ep D ep et C eu eu D I D tO dErm is Perhaps surprisingly, given the obvious presence of this pattern in natural languages, for instance, in the Albanian imperatives studied in Chapter 7, current theories have trouble predicting them. Indeed, the basic model for deriving doubling is the inflection model of cliticization referred to above (Sportiche 1996). But this does not leave any room for more than one clitic head. Such a model is then at a loss, at least in the immediate, in predicting the data reviewed here. Needless to say, a lexical subject could double the double-copy clitics in (42), leading to at least three copies case of the type in (44) that head-Spec models do not take into account. (44) Castellazzo Bormida VP ’dVwCm-VP tu su’rElP she sleep -she your sister ‘Does your sister sleep?’ The data in this section, as well as those considered already, pose the question as to the exact nature of agreement in the current system. In a classical transformational model such as the minimalist one, agreement is seen as the result of a derivational process of feature checking. However, the approach taken here to verbal inflection undermines the postulate of minimalist theory that there are non-interpretable features. Indeed, in our reconstruction of the model there are only categorial properties, systematically associated with an interpretation at the interface. Therefore agreement as feature checking (i.e. matching of uninterpretable and interpretable feature sets) is excluded. On the other hand, there is another classical way of approaching agreement which is fully compatible with our proposals. Thus agreement between an anaphora and its antecedent is simply seen in generative theory as a precondition for the co-referential interpretation to apply; in other words, agreement or the lack thereof is seen as a constraint that syntax imposes on the range of possible interpretations at the interface. In current terms, this characterization of agreement holds throughout. To be more precise we have seen a number of cases in which agreement between, say, the verb and its subject cannot be characterized as the sharing of features by the verb and the (pro)noun; rather these two elements contribute different specifications for establishing the denotation of the

38

Agreement inflections of the verb

argument at the interface. Thus in the Soazza dialect (see section 2.3), the subject or object clitics contribute nominal class specifications while the verb contributes plurality. Strictly speaking then, agreement reduces to the fact that elements with compatible properties can share the same reference and hence the same argumental slot.

2

Subjects and subject-verb agreement in Italian dialects

In a language like English a subject must be overtly lexicalized in the sentential I domain. Northern Italian dialects lexicalize the same position by subject clitics; subject noun phrases are in a higher position, combining with subject clitics and preceding them. Hybrid types also exist, alternating between subject clitics and noun phrases, like French. By contrast, in a language such as Italian no subject is lexicalized in the sentential I domain. These parameters are formalized in the following sections. In a representational model of the type we are proposing, so-called agreement does not correspond to a computational operation on features (Chomsky 1995, 2000, 2001, 2004a); on the contrary, the sharing of referential properties is simply a precondition for sharing the same reference and/or argument slot at the interface, as discussed in the next sections. There we also argue that in expletive constructions without agreement, the expletive introduces a variable of which the associate (i.e. the postverbal subject) fixes the reference; the result of this variable configuration is the focused reading of the associate.

1 Subjects 1.1 Null subject, non-null subject and clitic subject languages Classical discussions of the so-called pro-drop or null subject parameter (Taraldsen 1978; Chomsky 1981, 1982; Rizzi 1982) take as their starting point the behavior of subjects in two different types of languages: on the one hand languages like English, on the other hand languages like Italian. According to Rizzi (1982), there are three properties concerning the syntax of the subject that differentiate these two types of languages, as summarized in (1). (1)

a

b

Optional vs. obligatory presence of a preverbal subject: Italian: (Loro) dormono English: *(They) are sleeping Possibility vs. impossibility of so-called free inversion of the subject: Italian: Dormono i bambini English: *Are sleeping the children

40

Subjects and subject-verb agreement c

Possibility vs. impossibility of extracting a subject across a that-type complementizer: Italian: Chi pensi che dorma? English: Who do you think *(that) is sleeping?

The null subject parameter as construed by Rizzi (1982) in (1) has been taken to support a macroparametric view of variation (Baker 1996), in the sense presumably that major properties of a language, connected by non-trivial deductive relations, may be triggered by a single parametric setting. Needless to say, the overall view that emerges from our study is microparametric, in the sense that parameters reduce to elementary lexicalization/interpretation properties at either interface, and these generally combine freely, up to the general consistency of the system. It seems to us that a simplicity argument favors the current view, in that while the alternative theory in general has the power to state all of the relevant facts, these are more economically stated at a lower lexical level. In this perspective, the schema in (1) must be considered here, albeit briefly, as it represents perhaps the single strongest objection to the line of investigation we pursue here. In a nutshell, our view of (1) does not so much deny the validity of the proposed correlations as it predicts that to the extent that they hold, they are trivially deducible from one another. To begin with, it is not clear what exactly the category of ‘free’ inversion in (1b) is meant to encompass. To illustrate, in English the impossibility of null subjects, as in (1a), correlates with an extremely limited range of postverbal subject constructions, restricted by the (in)definiteness of the subject and by the aspectual class of the verb, as well as by the presence of an expletive. However, in German, contexts which are clearly non-null subject in that they present the obligatory lexicalization of an expletive pronoun allow for postverbal subjects independently of (in)definiteness and of the aspectual class of the verb, as shown in (2) from Cardinaletti (1994: 148–149). (2)

Es stieß ihn der Soldat von der Brücke it shot him the soldier from the bridge ‘The soldier shot him from the bridge’

French, which Rizzi (1982) considers explicitly to be a non-null subject language, differs from English in that the restrictions on postverbal subject constructions hold only in declarative contexts. In interrogative contexts so-called ‘stylistic’ inversion (Kayne and Pollock 1978, 2001) results in structures indistinguishable from those produced by so-called ‘free’ inversion in Italian, as in (3), including the absence of an expletive subject. (3)

Quand vont appeler tes amis? when go call your friends ‘When will the children come?’

Subjects and subject-verb agreement

41

One interpretation of the relevant correlation between (1a) and (1b) is simply that languages like Italian which have the argumental pronominal reading for null subjects in (1a) also lack expletives, as in (1b), in all environments. In this sense a category of ‘free’ inversion can indeed be defined, but there is no deductive depth to the connection with the null subject property. Something similar may be said of property (1c). The well-known analysis by Rizzi (1982) is based on the idea that some principle of grammar universally bans extraction from the preverbal subject position adjacent to the complementizer; its availability in null subject languages is only apparent and derives from extracting the subject from the ‘free’ inversion position, thus establishing a correlation between (1b) and (1c), and only indirectly between (1c) and (1a). In reality, it seems to us, in view also of the dubious status of the notion of ‘free’ inversion, that there is no necessary hierarchical ordering of the properties in (1). Thus the possibility of having null subjects in a language, corresponding to either argumental or expletive pronouns in other languages, guarantees the possibility of a null subject after a complementizer in a trivial way. In short, if the schema in (1) is to be embraced as empirically adequate, the properties involved must be read in a way which denies any deductive depth to their correlation. Even in this somewhat reductive reading, languages other than those directly considered (Italian, English) may raise problems, as noted in particular for northern Italian dialects by Brandi and Cordin (1981, 1989), and Rizzi (1986). On the one hand, these languages differ from Italian in that they obligatorily lexicalize the preverbal subject, even if only in the shape of a subject clitic, as in (4a). On the other hand, they differ from English in that the subject clitic systematically doubles a preverbal lexical subject, as in (4b), while in English lexical subject and subject pronoun are in complementary distribution. (4)

Castellazzo Bormida (Piedmont) a VP ’dVwCm ClS-3psf sleeps ‘She is sleeping’ b ’kulP ’dCnP VP ’dVwCm that woman ClS sleeps ‘That woman is sleeping’

Brandi and Cordin (1981, 1989) and Rizzi (1986) propose that northern Italian dialects are null subject languages. To understand this conclusion, it is necessary to recall that in a null subject language like Italian, according to Rizzi (1982), the Spec position of I may be occupied by an empty category licensed by the rich agreement morphology of the verb. Since this empty category has pronominal properties, Chomsky (1982) suggests the term pro to refer to it. By contrast, in a language like English the subject position must be lexically filled in that the phi-features of I are not sufficient to license pro. Thus in the proposals of Brandi and Cordin (1981, 1989), and Rizzi (1986), northern Italian

42

Subjects and subject-verb agreement

dialects are null subject in that they are pro-subject languages. The differences between languages like Italian and these dialects consist simply in the existence of additional inflectional material in the latter, realized by the subject clitic. This inflectional material is then normally doubled by the lexical subject in sentences like (4b), while in sentences like (4a) it is doubled by the empty category pro. As for the nature of the extra inflectional material, Cardinaletti and Roberts (1991) identify the relevant inflectional position as an independent head AgrS. Chomsky (1995) criticizes the postulation of a category Agr whose sole contribution to the derivation is mediating an agreement relation between two other categories, i.e. the finite verb and the subject in the case of AgrS. Nevertheless, even taking this criticism of the category Agr into account, a number of facts point to the conclusion that the subject clitic of northern Italian dialects is lexicalized as an independent head. Perhaps the strongest argument is that in questions and similar V2 environments, raising of the finite V to C strands the subject clitic to its right (Manzini and Savoia (2005) and references quoted there). This means that the subject clitic cannot simply be adjoined to I, at least if we assume that excorporation is banned on grounds of restrictiveness of the theory. Taking the above evidence into account, we postulate the existence of a category lexicalized by the subject clitic; following Chapter 1 we refer to this category as D, as in (5). It is important to note that this category cannot be construed as a variant of the AgrS category. Thus while the content of AgrS reduces to phi-features, with respect to which it determines agreement between the subject and the verb, D has the denotational content D(efiniteness) and is in fact the same category as we find in the highest position of nominals, where socalled definite articles are inserted. The morphophonological similarity or identity between (subject) clitic and definite articles in Romance languages is well known; any differences between the two may be taken to be a consequence of the different environments they find themselves in. (5)

Castellazzo Bormida wu D wu VP I dVwCm

Returning to the issue of pro, and hence of the null subject or non-null subject nature of northern Italian dialects, we note that in a structure like (5) pro simply doubles the properties independently present on the subject clitic. In other words, the redundancy between pro and the subject clitic is complete. Straightforward simplicity considerations suggest therefore the abandonment of pro (cf. Borer 1986). Against this backdrop, we can also reconsider languages like Italian and English. Within our theory, we assume, along the lines already detailed in Chapter 1, that the verbal inflection is nothing other than a pronominal subject,

Subjects and subject-verb agreement

43

itself representing the lexicalization of a D category, internal to the structure of the verb. In other words, the internal structure of the verb, within what is traditionally conceived as the morphological level of organization of grammar, recapitulates the structures of the sentence at the syntactic level. In this perspective the structure of the Italian verb (and sentence) in (1a) is as in (6), where the D category is lexicalized within the internal structure of the verb by the verb inflection. (6)

eo I D dorm ono

Unlike a null subject language such as Italian, northern Italian dialects have a specialized element, namely the clitic head, lexicalizing D within the I domain of the sentence, as in (5). In this sense, our take on subject clitic languages is that they belong to the non-null subject languages like English rather than to the null subject languages like Italian, though the difference noted in (4) still remains. Thus English can lexicalize the D position of the inflectional I domain with a pronominal or with a full lexical subject; languages like Castellazzo will always lexicalize the inflectional D position by a specialized clitic category, while a lexical subject will eventually double it. Another way to explain this problem is that while the position of lexical subjects is accounted for in English, no account is available for either northern Italian dialects or standard Italian, where the D position of the I domain is either reserved to the subject clitic or empty. We shall return to this problem in the following section. In the meantime we shall consider another type yet of Romance varieties, which in the current view will turn out to include French. As already noted in connection with (3), French is classically treated as a non-null subject language of the same type as English. In reality, French does have a set of elements that are at least superficially characterizable as subject clitics. Kayne (1975) proposes that the pronominal subjects of French are in fact clitics but only at the PF interface; in other words, they are syntactically represented as full noun phrases and only cliticize in the phonology. The main obstacle to construing them as syntactic clitics is represented by their inability to be doubled by lexical noun phrases, in contrast with the behavior described above for northern Italian dialects. Now, a number of Ladin dialects of Italy are characterized by conditions somewhat intermediate between those of typical northern Italian dialects and those of French, as already noted by Vanelli (1998: 118). Thus at Colfosco in (7) we find a different realization for subject clitic forms and full pronominals in the first and second person (though in the plural there is simply non-lexicalization of the subject clitic). As expected, in the first and second person the clitic and full forms may co-occur. In this respect, therefore, Colfosco is like any typical northern Italian dialect. In the third person, however, we find a single form of pronominal subject. On the one hand, this does not double a lexical noun phrase; on the other hand, it is obligatory in the absence of it, exactly as happens in French.

44 (7)

Subjects and subject-verb agreement Colfosco (Alto Adige) a i ’dorme te ’dormes al/ala ’dorm dor’mjon dor’mi:ze al/ala ’dorm ClS sleep ‘I sleep’ b ju (i) ’dorme tu (te) ’dormes al/ala ’dorm nos dor’mjon os dor’mi:ze al/ala ’dorm I (ClS) sleep ‘I sleep’ c i mi’toNs (*al) ’van de’do: the boys (ClS) come afterwards ‘The boys are coming afterwards’

In other dialects, for instance, La Pli de Mareo, there are two different series of pronominal subjects, namely a subject clitic form and a full pronominal form; the two never co-occur, as can be seen by the comparison between (8a) and (8b). What is more, the subject clitic never co-occurs with a lexical subject, as in (8c). In other words, this dialect reproduces the same conditions as French, except that the two series of pronominal forms for subjects unambiguously identify subject clitics with respect to full pronominals. (8)

La Pli de Mareo (Alto Adige) a i ’dormi te ’dormes al/ara ’dorm i dor’mjuN i dor’mi:s ai/ares ’dorm ClS sleep ‘I sleep’ b ju ’dormi tø ’dormes el/era ’dorm nos dor’mjuN vos dor’mi:s ei/erEs ’dorm I sleep ‘I sleep’

Subjects and subject-verb agreement c

45

i mi’tuNs ’dormia de ’la the children sleep there ‘The children sleep there’

This set of observations leads us to conclude that languages like the Ladin dialects in (7)–(8) represent the case in which the subject position of the sentential I domain can be satisfied either by a specialized subject clitic, lexicalizing a D head, or by a full noun phrase. We can assume that lexicalization of both the specialized clitic and a full phrase is excluded on the obvious grounds that the same D position cannot be filled twice. The same conclusion may then be extended to French, allowing us to dispense with the ad hoc assumption that French subject clitics have a somewhat different (PF) status from northern Italian subject clitics. The fact that dialect like Colfosco in (7) combines subject clitics with full pronouns in the first and second person will have to be addressed in connection with the general problem of the position of lexical subjects in northern Italian dialects (and in standard Italian). Summarizing thus far, our theory allows for several different types of languages, according to whether the D position of the sentential I domain is lexicalized by a specialized head (northern Italian dialects), by a full noun phrase (English) or by either a specialized head or a full phrase (French). By contrast, in a language like Italian the D position of the sentential I domain is not lexicalized, while the D argument is lexicalized only at the morphological level by the inflection of the finite verb. In terms of a parametrized condition on the lexicalization of the D properties of the I domain we can schematize our results as in (9). The divide between (a) and (b) in (9) corresponds to the classical divide between null subject languages and non-null subject ones. We shall return to how the parametrized condition in (9) relates to the universal EPP in the next section. (9)

Lexicalization of the D properties of the sentential I domain: a i by clitic (e.g. northern Italian dialects) ii by clitic or noun phrase (e.g. Ladin dialects, French) iii by noun phrase (e.g. English) b no lexicalization (e.g. Italian)

It is worth mentioning that our discussion thus far, like classical discussions of the null subject parameter, is potentially open to a quite general criticism, illustrated in fact by the Colfosco dialect. For, in the subject clitic paradigm in (7a), the first and second person plural forms are effectively null subject. Crucially, the same issue arises in a large number of northern Italian dialects, which do not present the extra complications of the Colfosco one, as illustrated in great detail in Manzini and Savoia (2005) (a case in point is Como in Chapter 4). A lexical approach to parametrization yields a perfectly suited instrument for dealing with cases like this one. Indeed, there is no special problem involved within the current framework in claiming that a dialect like Colfosco simply

46

Subjects and subject-verb agreement

lacks a specialized clitic lexicalization for the D position of the sentential I domain in the first and second person plural. As for why precisely these forms of the pronominal paradigm are singled out, what is at stake are the reasons underlying person splits in general, studied in connection with auxiliary choice in Chapter 6. What is immediately relevant here is that an empirically adequate characterization of the null subject parameter requires a further distancing from the classical null subject parameter, in that the requirement on the lexicalization of D may be subject to person splits, reflected in particular in the alternance between subject clitic and null subject forms. For general reasons of space, we shall not illustrate the matter further here; because the account of subject lexicalizations in this chapter is largely preliminary to the examination of the central question of agreement with the verb (or lack of it), we will furthermore continue to refer to languages as null subject, clitic subject and so on. In all cases it should be understood that it is a particular set of forms that has the relevant property. Manzini and Savoia (2005) also illustrate in great detail the possible types of lexicalizations for expletives, a set of data that shall be only partially introduced in the next section in connection with expletive-associate constructions. Although once again reasons of space prevent us here from providing even a cursory exemplification of the relation between argumental clitic and expletive clitic paradigms, it is worth noting that some subject clitic languages, lexicalizing in particular an obligatory third person singular argumental clitic, will lack any lexicalization for the expletive. Therefore there is no direct correlation between the non-null subject property in (9)(a) and the presence of an expletive in subject inversion contexts, at least as far as subject clitic languages are concerned. The only implication is from (9)(b) to the lack of expletives, precisely as we suggested in the discussion of (1). Similarly, going back to (1), if we hold on to the idea that subject clitic languages fall into the non-null subject class, they represent a striking case where non-null subjects go hand in hand with ‘free’ inversion of the Italian type, in being independent of (in)definitess and verbal class constraints. 1.2 Preverbal and postverbal subjects As indicated above, the systematization of the null subject parameter in (9) leaves the question open as to the position of the lexical subject in null subject and subject clitic languages. Furthermore, the position of the postverbal subject remains to be defined entirely, whether in null or non-null subject languages. According to the generally accepted theory, the unique argument of unaccusative verbs is an internal argument, similar to the object of transitive verbs. As proposed by Burzio (1986), therefore, its postverbal position corresponds to its thematic position, i.e. a complement position of the verb. By contrast, with unergative and transitive verbs the subject does not correspond to the internal argument of the verb, and its thematic position cannot be identified with that of the complement of the verb in standard generative theories. The poorly articu-

Subjects and subject-verb agreement

47

lated structure of the VP, available to Burzio (1986) from Chomsky’s (1981) framework, forces a treatment of the postverbal subject of these verbs in terms of an inversion operation from the preverbal subject position. However, the more highly articulated structure of the VP adopted by minimalism allows for an account where the postverbal position of the subject again corresponds to its thematic position, in the spec of VP, in accordance with the so-called VPinternal subject hypothesis. In terms of the current proposal (Chapter 1), this analysis translates into a structure of the type in (10) for a sentence like Italian (1b), under which the postverbal subject occupies a position within the lower domains of the verb, where postverbal complements also appear. At the same time, the fact that the postverbal argument has the general properties of a subject including full agreement with the verb in a language like Italian suggests that it projects the categorial D properties. (10) wo I eo dormono D i bambini A transitive sentence counterpart to (1b) displays an SOV order in Italian, as in (11). These kinds of data can be explained in standard transformational theory by assuming that for some reason the object in (11) is not in its thematic position, but in some intermediate position between V and I. In the current theory we are in fact assuming that there are at least two verbal domains embedded under I, namely the E(ventive) domain corresponding to the aspectual properties of the verb and the L(exical) domain corresponding to its predicative content. The order observed in (11) may then be obtained by simply assuming that in this case the object is placed in a higher domain than the (postverbal) subject, as in (12). (11) Portò il dolce mio fratello brought the cake my brother ‘My brother brought the cake’ (12) Italian wu I wo portò N wo il dolce (E) eo D mio fratello As is well known (Cinque 1993; Zubizarreta 1998), postverbal subjects of the type in (10) or (12) may be read with the postverbal subject in the scope of the

48

Subjects and subject-verb agreement

N(uclear) S(tress) R(ule) and of Focus. The reverse order of subject and object with respect to (12), as in (13), is in fact perfectly possible, as in (13), but interpreted with the object outside the sentential focus (i.e. as a topic). Apparently, therefore, in a language like Italian any inverted D element closes off the focus domain. (13) Comprò mio fratello il dolce bought my brother the cake ‘My brother bought the cake’ It is worth noting that the representations in (10) and (12) exclude that Focus interpretations correspond to the presence of a specialized Focus category in the lower domains of the sentence, as proposed by Belletti (1999, 2001) (cf. Brunetti 2003). At a theoretical level the objection against syntactic categories such as Focus is a familiar one, deployed by Chomsky (2000) to criticize the encoding of theta-roles as features. Roughly, syntactic categories/features in a restrictive minimalist framework should only correspond to inherent properties of lexical items and therefore should not encode notions that are obviously relational, including pragmatic ones such as Focus, or Topic. This theoretical stance forces us to abandon Rizzi’s (1997) ideas as to a Focus position in the left periphery of the sentence as well. Indeed, Manzini and Savoia (2005) argue that (left-peripheral) Focus is nothing but the name of the interpretations that arguments inserted in the ordinary nominal positions receive in one of the domains of the left periphery. We shall return in the second part of the article to (in)definiteness and other restrictions often observed on the postverbal subject in nonnull subject languages. We are now in a position to return to consider the preverbal position of the subject, in languages such as Italian or northern Italian dialects, where by hypothesis they do fill the D position of the inflectional domain. The crucial observation here is that though postverbal subject sentences like Italian (1b) are truth-functionally equivalent to their counterparts with preverbal subjects, there is in fact an interpretive difference between them. While we have seen that the postverbal subject receives a focused reading, the preverbal subject is included within the topic material of the sentence. This suggests that the lexicalization of the preverbal subject, which in Italian by hypothesis does not satisfy a syntactic requirement on the D position of the inflectional domain, corresponds to its interpretation as a topic, i.e. as outside the focus of the sentence. Interestingly enough, in a minimalist model of phrase structure like the one adopted here in the introduction, structures involving a preverbal subject in Italian match exactly those of a language like English, as in (14)–(15). Interpretively, the two structures are in fact differentiated, in that if (14) has D closing the I domain of the verb, the D of (15a) lexicalizes a higher topic domain, namely what Manzini and Savoia (2005) indicate as CD, as in (15b). In reality, structures of the type of (15b) are expository devices, combining the actual phrase structure in (15a) with an interpretive annotation, to wit that D is outside the focus domain of the sentence.

Subjects and subject-verb agreement

49

(14) wu D eo they I sleep (15) a

b

wu D eo loro I dormono wu D eu loro (CD) eo I dormono

The doubling of the subject clitic by the preverbal lexical subject in northern Italian dialects may then be understood in terms of the two elements lexicalizing two different sets of properties. Thus the subject clitic corresponds to the satisfaction of a formal property to the effect that the inflectional domain of the verb must be closed by a D argument. The presence of a specialized series of elements (i.e. subject clitics) to fulfill this requirement means that preverbal subjects will correspond to the lexicalization of different properties, namely topicalization ones. The same idea can be graphically expressed in the format in (15b), by saying that the higher D in (16) fills a position within the topical CD domain. Again, empty heads may be used as a diacritic to enforce the relevant order; the latter nevertheless can be independently established on the basis of the interpretive primitives really involved. In other words, the different D positions of the sentence are (scopally) ordered with respect to one another, and I-level properties must be satisfied (by the subject clitic) before topic properties can be introduced. (16) Castellazzo Bormida wu D wu kulP dCnP (CD) wu D wu VP I dVwCm In short, we have suggested that the preverbal subject of Italian and northern Italian dialects implies a topicalized reading, scopally outside the nuclear sentence represented by the verb and its inflectional D closure. Rizzi (1986), in considering the doubling of the lexical subject by the subject clitic in northern Italian dialects, explicitly rejects the conclusion that it may be imputed to the status of

50

Subjects and subject-verb agreement

the lexical subject as a topic. Rizzi (1986) tests the nature of the position occupied by the preverbal lexical subject in null subject languages by taking into consideration the behavior of quantified noun phrases; the basic idea is that negative quantifiers and the like are incompatible with a topic interpretation due to their intrinsic properties. Therefore if they occur in front of the verb in null subject languages (as they do) they must be in the subject position proper, rather than in a topic position. Rizzi (1986) supports the idea that quantification and topicalization are mutually exclusive with pairs of examples such as (17a) and (17b), where in his judgment the focusing in (a) is well formed, while the topicalization (clitic left dislocation) in (b) is not. However in our judgments the facts are more subtle. Thus by refining the pragmatic context (for instance, adding a separate focus) sentences of the type of (17b) become acceptable, as in (17c). (17) a

b

c

Nessuno ho visto nobody I.have seen ‘I saw nobody’ Nessuno l’ ho visto al cinema nobody him I.have seen at the cinema ‘I saw nobody at the movies’ Qui nessuno l’ ho mai visto vestirsi Here nobody him I.have ever seen dress.himself ‘I never saw anybody dress like this’

così so

Poletto (1993, 2000), though fundamentally proposing a theory like the current one, under which the preverbal subjects of northern Italian dialects are in a topic position, agrees with Rizzi (1986) on the fact that the doubling of a subject clitic is excluded in the case of negative quantifiers, at least in the dialects she considers. The data in Manzini and Savoia (2005) again reveal a more articulate picture. Thus on the one hand, negative quantifiers and the like may be doubled by a referential subject clitic as in (18); on the other hand, they can be immediately followed by the expletive found in expletive-associate constructions as in (19). Interestingly, the same dialect can display more than one possibility; this suggests to us that at least the alternation in (18)–(19) does not depend on a parametric choice, but rather on the availability of different readings associated with the preverbal quantifier. (18) Mezzenile (Piedmont) ’nyN u ’mindZunt nobody ClS eat ‘Nobody eats’ Stienta (Veneto) ni’suN i ’mana nobody ClS eat ‘Nobody eats’

Subjects and subject-verb agreement

51

(19) Mezzenile ’nyN E ’vint nobody ClS comes ‘Nobody comes’ Stienta ni’suN a ’mana nobody ClS eats ‘Nobody eats’ At the same time, conditions of the type illustrated by Poletto (1993) also emerge in our data, as illustrated in (20), where preverbal nobody is in complementary distribution with the subject clitic as in (20a), though a subject clitic normally appears in combination with other preverbal subjects as in (20b) and in expletive-associate constructions as in (20c). (20) Pigna (Liguria) a ne’SiN ’dCVme nobody sleeps ‘Nobody sleeps’ b eV u ’doVme he ClS sleeps ‘He sleeps’ c u nu ’dCVme ne’SiN ClS not sleeps nobody ‘Nobody sleeps’ Modena (Emilia) a ni’sun fa ’ninta ’kE nobody does nothing here ‘Nobody does anything here’ b pi’rEin a n fa ’ninta Pete ClS not does nothing ‘Pete doesn’t do anything’ c a n fa ’ninta ni’sun ClS not does nothing nobody ‘Nobody does a thing’ Data of the type in (18) can straightforwardly be accounted for as instances of doubling of the subject clitic by the negative quantifier lexicalizing a topic-like domain. As suggested by the fact that the same dialects appear both in (18) and (19), the alternation between the two patterns can depend on their different interpretation. Thus, sentences where a preverbal subject is followed by an expletive-verb construction are interpreted as focused. We shall briefly return to this point in section 2.

52

Subjects and subject-verb agreement

The data in (20) on the other hand are interesting precisely in that the pattern in (a) is attested only with quantificational elements. The contrast between the doubling of the lexical subject by the clitic in northern Italian dialects, as in (4), and their mutual exclusion in Ladin dialects, as in (7)–(8), was interpreted above as an indication that in the latter either the subject clitic or the full noun phrase could lexicalize the sentential D property. Adopting the same mode of explanation for (20), we are led to conclude that in northern Italian dialects indefinite quantificational elements can also satisfy the D property, alternating with D clitics. If in null subject languages like Italian quantificational elements can also insert in D of the I domain, then Rizzi’s (1986) intuitions as to the fact that negative and other quantifiers are good subjects, though they are not good topics, can equally be explained.

2 Agreement 2.1 Agreement parameters and their current analyses In all of the examples considered thus far the preverbal subject agrees in person and number with the finite verb, and in person, number and gender with the subject clitic, when the latter is present. Thus agreement with the preverbal subject is obligatory independently of the status of the language with respect to the null subject parameter. On the other hand, is well known from Chomsky’s (1995) discussion of English and French that in English postverbal subjects agree with the finite verb, as in (21a–b), while in French the finite verb appears to agree with the expletive in the third person singular rather than with the postverbal subject, as in (21c–d) (the English examples also provide the translation of the French ones). (21) a b c d

There comes a boy There come some boys Il vient un enfant Il vient des enfants

Again the agreement parameter observed in (21) is independent of the null subject parameter. In northern Italian dialects we often find an expletive subject clitic determining agreement in the third person singular even in the presence of a plural postverbal subject; this non-agreement is of course reminiscent of French (21). Some relevant examples are provided in (22). (22) Castellazzo Bormida a iV maz’nQi i ’dVwCmu de ’lP the children ClS sleep in here ‘The children sleep in there’ b de ’lP u i ’dVwCm iV maz’nQi in there ClS there sleeps the children ‘(The) children sleep in there’

Subjects and subject-verb agreement

53

Modena a i ’C:m i ’pεrlen the men ClS speak ‘The men speak’ b a ’pεrla i ’C:m ClS speaks the men ‘The men speak’ Nevertheless, some northern Italian dialects display agreement in number, gender and person of the postverbal subject with the finite verb and with the subject clitic; this is typically true of the dialects of the Friuli, as illustrated in (23). (23) Vito d’Asio (Friuli) a i ka’nais ai duar u’i the children ClS sleep there ‘The children sleep here’ b u’i ai ’duar i ka’nais there ClS sleep the children ‘The children sleep here’ Pinzano (Friuli) a i ka’nais a coN vi’nu:s the children ClS are come ‘The children came’ b a ’venin dai fan’tas ClS come of.the children ‘There come children’ Thus the same agreement parameter illustrated by (21) is reproduced for the clitic subject languages in (22) and (23). What is more, classical null subject languages also display the same parametric variation. In these languages the postverbal subject typically agrees with the finite verb, as illustrated in (1b) for Italian. However, some dialects belonging to this type, notably in the area of the north-central Marche, lack agreement between the finite verb and the postverbal subject, as illustrated in (24). (24) Urbino (Marche) a ki bur’dεi ’dCrmne de ’la those children sleep there ‘Those children sleep there’ b de ’la ’dCrme ki bur’dεi there sleeps those children ‘Those children sleep there’

54

Subjects and subject-verb agreement

Dialects such as (22) and (24), where the verb does not agree with the postverbal subject, do not restrict postverbal subjects to indefinites, contrary to English or French. Thus they allow full pronouns to appear in postverbal position, provided they are focused; in this case a plural pronoun still does not trigger plural agreement on the verb and the subject clitic, as illustrated in (25). It is worth noting that according to Zucchi (1996), in the dialect of Piacenza there is a contrast between postverbal definite subjects, which are possible without agreement, and postverbal pronoun subjects, which are not possible. This distribution of data is not necessarily replicated by the dialects below, even if it is true that agreement with the postverbal pronoun is at least possible in all dialects. As we shall see below, this agreement option extends to all definites and does not therefore single out pronouns. (25) Revere (Lombardy) a l a ma’na li ’lor ClS it has eaten they ‘They ate it’ Pigna u ’vEN ’eli/’eV/’ela ClS comes they/he/she ‘He/she/they come(s)’ Now, consider first and second person pronouns. By the discussion that precedes, there is no independent reason having to do with definiteness or with their pronoun status why they should be excluded from the expletive construction without agreement. Nevertheless, they are excluded from it. To be more precise, they may normally appear in postverbal position with a focused interpretation. In such case, however, both the verb and the subject clitic agree with them in all features, as in (26), a fact already discussed by Brandi and Cordin (1989: 138) (cf. also Suñer 1992). (26) Revere a dUrm’em ClS sleep ‘We sleep’

ny’altAr we

Castellazzo Bormida ’lCi t ’dVwCmi ’tOj there ClS sleep you ‘You sleep there’ As we have often stressed, agreement parameters are completely independent of the null subject parameter. Thus we expect the same generalization to be true in classical null subject languages, and in classical non-null subject languages.

Subjects and subject-verb agreement

55

As anticipated in the above discussion, French does not allow us to check the prediction, since it restricts postverbal subjects to indefinites in any case. However, Italian dialects of the northern Marche type in (24) obey this generalization, as illustrated in (27). (27) Urbino a si nut ’te are come you ‘You have come’ b sen ’nuti ’no are come we ‘We have come’ Chomsky (1995), taking as his empirical basis the French and English data in (21), argues that the agreement properties of the postverbal subject depend directly on the phi-features of the expletive. Indeed there in English is not inherently specified for number, gender and person, while French il is specified as [third person, singular, masculine]. Thus according to Chomsky (1995, 2000), in English the phi-features of the postverbal subject must delete the uninterpretable phi-features of the verb. The same operation however is not necessary, and hence not possible in French, since the features of the verb are deleted directly by the expletive. Chomsky himself (2000: 149, n. 90) however notices the problematic status of French il. Although he does not elaborate on this point, the main problem would seem to be that if il deletes the agreement features of I, the latter cannot act as a probe for the corresponding features of the associate. This predicts correctly that the associate does not agree with the verb, but it also leaves its status with respect to case entirely open. The problem remains in the approach of Chomsky (2001, 2004) where ‘Case deletes under matching of phifeatures’ (Chomsky 2001: 6). Chomsky’s (1995ff.) theory also has an empirical problem when it comes to postverbal subjects with a P (Person, i.e. first or second person) denotation. Under this theory, agreement is governed by the features of the expletive, with the result that according to the nature of the expletive itself, the associate should never or always agree. On the contrary, the presence of agreement with P postverbal subjects, in contrast with third person subjects, leads us to the conclusion that in northern Italian dialects agreement depends on the intrinsic properties of the associate and not on those of the expletive. This conclusion will be strengthened below by observations concerning (in)definiteness effects on the associate. It is also supported more directly by data showing that agreement parameters do not in fact correlate with the lexical properties of expletives. Recall that according to Chomsky (1995), verbassociate agreement in English depends on the fact that the expletive there lacks phi-features; on the contrary il has such features in French, so that the associate does not raise and does not determine agreement. Cardinaletti (1997) notes that this generalization is invalidated by German since German expletive es does

56

Subjects and subject-verb agreement

have phi-features but German expletive constructions have agreement of the verb with the associate. Italian dialects abound in counter-examples; thus lack of agreement characterizes dialects where the expletive is the a element arguably not associated with number or gender specifications, as seen, for instance, in the comparison of Revere’s (25) with (26), where a appears as the subject clitic in first person plural contexts. Similarly the possibility of non-agreement in null subject, expletive-less sentences like (27) is a particularly strong argument against a Chomsky-like theory. As an alternative, Cardinaletti (1997: 526) proposes that ‘those expletives that are unambiguously marked as nominative trigger agreement with the verb’; on the contrary, expletives not unambiguously marked for nominative determine agreement of the associate with the verb. In fact, French il is unambiguously nominative, whereas German es is both nominative and accusative. Our data concerning northern Italian dialects undermine the empirical basis of Cardinaletti’s generalization. In particular, in some dialects the expletive takes a third person singular form ambiguous between nominative and accusative; however, it is still the expletive and not the associate that triggers agreement with the verb. This is true both in dialects where the expletive takes the masculine form, such as Casaccia, and in dialects where the expletive is feminine, such as Casola, as shown in (28). The (a) examples illustrate the form of the subject clitic in preverbal subject constructions, the (b) examples illustrate its form in expletive-associate constructions, while the (c) examples illustrate the form of the object clitic. (28) Càsola (Tuscany) a (la ni’nina) la ’dCrm (the little girl) ClS sleeps ‘The little girl is sleeping’ b nde kl es’tantsa la ge ’dCrm i ni’niN in that room ClS there sleeps the children ‘The children sleep in that room’ c i la ’laone ClS her wash ‘They wash it’ Casaccia (Grisons) a (al ba’gai) al ’ven ’dCpo (the child) ClS comes afterwards ‘The child comes afterwards’ a laN ’fia la ’dCRmaN vi ’la the.pl girl ClS sleep there ‘The girls sleep there’ b al ’ven i ba’gai ClS come the children ‘The children come’

Subjects and subject-verb agreement

57

b vi ’la al ’dCRm laN ’fia there ClS sleeps the.pl girl ‘The girls sleep there’ c al ’fa: t? it do you? ‘Are you doing it?’ In connection with the data in (28) it is worth noting that Casola’s (b) provides an example where it is not only the case that the verb inflection disagrees in number (singular vs. plural) with the postverbal subject, but the subject clitic also disagrees with the postverbal subject in gender/nominal class (feminine vs. masculine). The same point may be made with Casaccia’s al, given its compatibility with feminine postverbal subjects in (28b). This is one respect in which the theory of Chomsky (1995, 2000) does not have problems, given that no direct connection is ever established between the expletive and the associate, but they relate only through the verb inflection, which does not have gender/nominal class properties. It remains for us to consider one last empirical argument put forward by Chomsky (1995). This is that French does not allow for control of an adverbial sentence by a postverbal subject; such control is instead perfectly admissible in languages like Italian which present agreement with the postverbal subject, as exemplified by the contrast in (29). According to Chomsky (1995), the data in (29) suggest that in languages where the associate determines agreement, as in Italian, it(s features) move high enough in the tree to be in a position to ccommand and hence control into the adjunct (however control is to be construed); vice versa, this is not the case in languages where the associate does not agree. (29) a

b

Sono arrivati dei ragazzi senza avvisarmi are arrived some boys without warning-me ‘Some boys arrived without warning me’ *Il est arrivé des garçons sans me le dire it has arrived some boys without me it telling ‘Some boys arrived without telling me’

The problem we noted above with respect to the account for French provided by Chomsky (2000) has a reflex for the control facts. Thus in order for these facts to be explained, we want no relation to be established between the verb inflection and the postverbal subject; but if so, nominative case checking on the latter remains unexplained. Despite these difficulties the facts are obviously worth considering in their own right. Now, according to Cardinaletti (1997), the generalization holds for northern Italian dialects as well. Her data relating to Friulan-type dialects, in which the subject clitic agrees with the associate, indicate that control of an adjunct is possible. On the contrary, data for the Padova and Belluno dialects would show that in non-agreeing expletive constructions,

58

Subjects and subject-verb agreement

control of the adjunct by the associate is not possible (Cardinaletti 1997: 528). However, these types of data are not replicated by our survey; thus northern Italian dialects which lack agreement of the associate systematically allow for control into the adverbial, as illustrated in (30); the same holds furthermore of Ladin dialects such as La Pli which are otherwise close to the conditions of French. (30) La Pli de Mareo al e ’ny ki mi’tuNs ’tsCntsa m al ’di ClS is come those boys without me it tell ‘Those boys came without telling me’ Modena l e ’nu di ra’gass ’se˜nsa ’dirmel ClS is come some boys without tell.me.it ‘Boys came without telling me’ Castellazzo Bormida u j æ a’ni ir maz’næi ClS there is come the boys ‘The boys came without telling me’

’sansa ’di-m-li without tell.me.it

Pigna ul E ve’niu i tEi a’migi saNsa avi’zPV-me ClS is come the your friends without warn.me ‘Your friends came without warning me’ The possibility of control of an adjunct sentence by the associate in a nonagreeing expletive construction also characterizes null subject varieties. A particularly interesting case connects with Sardinian dialects that we shall present below in section 2.5. These dialects normally present the same distribution of have and be auxiliaries as Italian, with be for unaccusatives and have for the other verbal forms; nevertheless they switch to auxiliary have in nonagreeing expletive constructions (Manzini and Savoia 2005). Since this latter choice of auxiliary is observed in (31) as well, we can confidently exclude that the postverbal subject is construed as topicalized or in any other way independently capable of explaining its ability to control the adverbial. (31) Orroli dui a Be’niu pittSCk’kEdduzu ’sEntsa dE mmi ’nai ’nudda here has come children without of me tell anything ‘Children came here, without telling me anything’ Thus it appears that the constraint in (29) for French is to be studied in a different context from that suggested by Cardinaletti (1997) and Chomsky (1995).

Subjects and subject-verb agreement

59

2.2 Agreement of the subject with the verb The theory of agreement processes developed here views agreement as a prerequisite for the interpretations under which two or more nominal elements share the same reference and/or correspond to a unique argumental slot. This take is made possible among others by the reconceptualization of the internal structures of the verb, whereby its inflection is assimilated effectively to a (morphological level) subject clitic, as in Chapter 1 and here in section 1. One consequence of what we are proposing, and a desirable one in our view, is that all grammatical properties are interpretable, in all of their occurrences; specifically there is no uninterpretability attached to the phi-features on the verb inflection. In classical transformational grammars, the sharing of an argumental slot as well as of all referential properties corresponds to the theoretical notion of chain, itself derived from that of movement. A number of reasons support the independence of the interpretive notion of chain from that of movement. Crucially, a chain interpretation can involve not only a lexical element and an empty position, but also two lexicalized positions, such as precisely a lexical subject and a subject clitic or more generally a dislocated element and a resumptive pronoun. Since the chain relation is interpretive, we assume that it is determined at the LF interface, as proposed by Brody (1997ff.). Consider the agreement between a subject clitic and a verb inflection. In a structure of the type in (32), the subject clitic in the sentential D position and the verb inflection in the verb-internal D positions must be given a chain construal for convergence at the interface. The compatibility of their referential properties (i.e. informally speaking their agreement) is a prerequisite for such a construal, obviously satisfied in (32). (32) Castellazzo Bormida ep D ei i I ei I D dVwCm u The same mechanism also accounts for agreement between the D inflection of the verb and full subjects in English, as in (33). (33) wp D ei John I ei I D sleep s

60

Subjects and subject-verb agreement

Multiple agreement between the D inflection of the verb, the D clitic closing the inflectional domain of the sentence and the topic-like full subject of subject clitic languages, may also be accounted for within the same framework. Thus in the structure in (34), compatibility of referential properties (i.e. informal agreement) allows for the chain interpretation, which is in turn necessary for the wellformed construal of argument structure at the LF interface. (34) Castellazzo Bormida ep D ep iV maznQi D ei i I ei I D dVwCm u Italian structures with preverbal lexical subjects are a variant of the schema in (34) where only the topicalized subject and the verb inflection are lexicalized, as in (35). The agreement and chain formation mechanisms are therefore essentially the same. (35) ep D ei loro I ei I D dorm ono The same model deployed so far for agreement between the verb inflection (i.e. in current terms the V-internal D position), and the various types of preverbal subjects, can of course be deployed for postverbal subjects, allowing us to predict at least those cases where the postverbal subject agrees with the verb inflection. As we saw above, agreement with the postverbal subject is entirely independent of the null subject parameter. Thus within the class of languages where such agreement is present we find null subject languages like Italian. Applying the model developed above for preverbal subjects, the various D positions of the sentence, including the verb-internal one, have a chain interpretation; agreement (i.e. compatibility of referential properties) is a prerequisite for such interpretation as, for instance, in (36). (36)

ep I ei ei D I D i bambini dorm ono

Subjects and subject-verb agreement

61

We are now in a position to consider sentences where the postverbal subject agrees with the verb inflection and with the subject clitic in D, as illustrated in (37) with dialects of the Friuli. Once again the fact that the postverbal lexical subject, the verb inflection and the subject clitic all have compatible referential properties provides a necessary precondition for their interpretation as members of one chain, i.e. they are lexicalizations of one and the same argumental slot. (37) a

b

Vito d’Asio wp D wp ai I ei duar D i kanais Pinzano wp D wp a I ei ei D I D dai fantas ven in

Note that agreement is best formalized in terms of compatibility (rather than identity) of referential specifications. Examples such as (37b) provide clear empirical motivation for this conclusion. In (37b) the verb inflection in D internal to the verb is clearly specialized for plurality, though not for person, since -in also appears in the 1pp (Manzini and Savoia 2005). The postverbal noun phrase, which includes the i determiner, is in turn marked for plurality. On the other hand, the a subject clitic equally appears as the third person singular feminine as well as in meteorological contexts. Manzini and Savoia (2005) consider that the only property associated with a is nominal class, allowing it to be inserted in a nominal position. Therefore while the subject clitic satisfies a feature compatibility requirement of the type imposed here on chains, it would not satisfy a feature matching requirement. A different point may be made with respect to the structure in (37a). Thus in (37a) the postverbal subject can be clearly seen to have plural (masculine) morphology both in the definite determiner i and in the inflection -s; these properties it shares with the subject clitic ai. However, the verb appears in its bare lexical base form, which may correspond to a third person or to the first person singular of the present indicative (Manzini and Savoia 2005). It is reasonable to assume that the absence of any temporal/modal specification allows for the present indicative reading only. The absence of any referential specification in turn allows for reference to what we construe as the most salient participant to the discourse (first person) or for references other than to the participants to the discourse (third person); this kind of ‘syncretism’ will be considered in more detail in Chapter 8 in relation to bare verbal bases of Albanian. In any event, what is

62

Subjects and subject-verb agreement

immediately relevant here is that there is no element within the verb structure that enters into the calculation of chain relations at the interface. It is then referential properties to be inferred from the lexical base that enter the argument calculus; again we shall return to these points in connection with Albanian in Chapter 8. 2.3 Lack of agreement of the postverbal subject with the verb: the basic analysis We are now in a position to consider those languages lacking agreement of the verb and the expletive with the postverbal subject. First of all, the data show that non-agreement in number between the associate and the verbal inflection and/or the expletive is constrained to the case in which the former is plural and the latter are singular. Thus Italian dialects (and in other languages that we know of) it is not possible to have a singular associate with a plural inflection and/or expletive; in other words, the non-agreeing expletive form and verbal inflection are always singular. The fact that this generalization is usually left implicit in syntactic treatments presumably reflects the idea that some morphophonological default mechanism is responsible for this state of affairs. The same may be said for the fact that the non-agreeing expletive and verb inflection are third person. Within a theory such as the current one, however, the third person singular inflectional morphology (and the expletive, if present) must have a positively specified referential content, justifying its occurrence in the postverbal subject construction. An empirical argument against an attempt at construing the non-agreeing third person singular as a morphological default may be constructed on the basis of the English dialect of Belfast, as reported by Henry (1995). Thus in Belfast English a (preverbal) plural subject can combine with a non-agreeing verb in the third person singular as in (38) (from Henry 1995: 16–18). But in English it is if anything the non-third person singular forms that may be construed as a morphological default, coinciding with the lexical base of the verb. On the contrary, the third person singular is lexicalized through the specialized morphological element -s. (38) These cars go/goes very fast A similar argument may be run with expletives. Thus we have mentioned that expletive clitics can be differentiated in gender (i.e. in nominal class), as seen in the comparison between Casola and Casaccia in (28) above. This casts doubts on the idea that the non-agreeing expletive realizes default values, since if default is at stake, its value for gender should presumably be universal. In other words, the (marked) specification of Casola’s la for the feminine has the same status as the third person singular verb inflection of the (Belfast) English verb. Let us now consider a sentence like (39) for Casaccia, where plurality is lexicalized on the postverbal subject by the determiner i while the subject clitic al is restricted to singular denotation as is the bare lexical base of the verb ven.

Subjects and subject-verb agreement

63

A quick comparison with the paradigms reported in Manzini and Savoia (2005) indeed shows that in the Casaccia dialect third person plural denotation is lexicalized through an -n inflectional ending, while the third person plural subject clitic is i. (39) Casaccia ei D wp al I ei ven D ei D ei i I bagai In (39) we have indicated the internal structure of the noun phrase, which is in this case relevant for an understanding of the discussion. As argued in detail by Manzini and Savoia (2005), one of the basic advantages of the current recategorization of the nominal positions of the sentence is that it allows for a unification of the internal structure of the sentence with that of the noun phrase. Indeed, categories such as Q or D are routinely recognized as being part of the internal structure of the noun phrase, and our conception of them essentially adheres to tradition on this point (Chapters 3–4). One important difference, detailed in Chapter 1 in connection with the adjectival form of the verb (i.e. the perfect participle) is that N does not correspond to the predicative content of the noun phrase, but rather to one of its inflectional specification. In particular, by analogy with the position of the verb within the sentence, we assume that the noun is embedded in the I head position of the noun phrase. We consider that N in Romance noun phrases is typically lexicalized word-internally, as the (number and gender/nominal class) inflection of the so-called noun. Sentences like (39) confront us with the problem that the only interpretation possible at the interface is one in which all D positions of the sentential domain concur to the fixing of the reference of a single argument; but on the basis of the above discussion this should mean that they enter a chain relation and therefore that they agree. In fact, what faces us is just a version of the problem discussed on p. 55 for Chomsky’s (2000) theory; if a relation exists between the postverbal subject and the other nominal positions of the sentence, then it should have the familiar property of agreement, which it doesn’t. But such a relation must exist nevertheless, since denying it leads us to a paradox at the interface. Manzini and Savoia (2002a), in considering almost exactly the same range of theoretical and empirical questions analyzed here, argue that the correct solution to the dilemma presented above is that there is always an agreement relation between the subject clitic and the D inflection of the verb on the one hand and the postverbal noun phrase on the other. Their idea is that in structures like (39), agreement of the verb inflection and the subject clitic is with the lexical base,

64

Subjects and subject-verb agreement

namely bagai in the concrete case at hand. In the more sophisticated framework of Manzini and Savoia (2005), reflected in the current work, agreement with the lexical base becomes impossible, precisely because it represents simply a predicative content, and as such it has no referential properties; what it denotes is simply a property. Another logically possible solution is that agreement does not in fact hold in (39) and the like, and this is as it should be, since the relation crucially responsible for the identification of i bagai with the sentential D positions is not the chain relation and is compatible with the presence of different referential properties on the two. The crucial observation in this respect is that lack of agreement on the postverbal subject implies the focused interpretation discussed on pp. 47–48. By contrast, though the focused interpretation is possible in agreeing contexts, as in Italian, in the same contexts nothing bars right dislocation (i.e. right periphery topicalization). Suppose we assume with Chomsky (1977: 203–204, 1981: 196) that focusing is an interpretation depending on an operatorvariable structure, where we may assume that the relevant variable is simply closed existentially at some level. Thus a sentence like (39) translates into a logical form roughly of the type in (40). (40) there is an x such that x arrives and x  the boys The logical form in (40) in itself suggests a rather natural treatment for the third person singular form of the subject clitic and of the inflected verb. Thus one may assume that the relevant subject clitic and/or verb inflection simply introduce the D sentential argument as a variable. The variable argument thus introduced is identified by the postverbal subject through what we can construe as a predication relation. In this we effectively take up the intuition of Manzini and Savoia (2002a) that the predicative content of the postverbal subject (denoted by the lexical base of the noun) is crucially involved in the computation of structures like (39); at the same time note that the connection with Focus escapes the account of Manzini and Savoia (2002a). As we emphasized above, the relevant generalization is that lack of agreement implies focusing; the converse does not hold, of course, given that the postverbal subject is equally focused in languages like Italian or the Friulan dialects where it agrees with the verb inflection and/or the subject clitic. In fact, though we assumed that the third person singular inflection or subject clitic can introduce a variable, we also know that the ability to introduce a variable attaches to any pronominal element. Thus in Italian or Friulan the focus interpretation may be construed on the basis of a structure in which the various D elements of the sentence have been independently identified (in a chain relation) on the basis of agreement. At the same time agreement is also compatible with a non-focused (i.e. topicalized) reading of the subject, as may be seen in all languages considered so far from the interpretation of the agreeing preverbal subject. It is worth emphasizing that there is in fact no asymmetry between postverbal and preverbal subjects, but the asymmetry is wholly between topic interpreta-

Subjects and subject-verb agreement

65

tions that require agreement in Romance dialects, and non-agreement, which implies focusing. Indeed, noun phrases in the left periphery of the sentence turn out to be fully compatible with the non-agreement option as exemplified in (41); similar data for the Florence dialect are provided by Brandi and Cordin (1989: 139) and Brandi and Giannelli (2001). But exactly as for noun phrases to the right of the verb, the disagreement with the verb forces the focused reading. (41) Modena i me fi’o a ’vi:n the my children ClS comes ‘My children come’ One may also wonder why it is the third person singular forms that are allowed to introduce a variable identified through predication, as opposed to any other form of the verb. Of course, a specification for speaker or hearer denotations would prevent the variable reading. Furthermore, it is natural enough to assume that a specification in the singular is compatible with existential closure, itself logically compatible with the fixation of the actual reference in the plural; but the same does not hold for the plural. The morphological properties that allow for the variable reading are in fact the same that allow for the logically distinct but related phenomenon of ‘syncretism’ between third person singular and plural, including eventually one or more P forms as well, as observed in many Italian dialects (Manzini and Savoia 2005). In all cases the typical third person singular morphology consisting of a vocalic ending, essentially a nominal class one, is involved. Next, the subject clitic has gender properties, which may in turn disagree with those of the postverbal subject. As before, the question is why certain properties turn out to be compatible with the variable reading and not others. But as far as nominal class is concerned, the problem does not really arise, since masculine or feminine crop up indifferently according to the language. There may be language-internal reasons why one or the other lexicalization is selected. Thus in Càsola and other similar Tuscan dialects which adopt the feminine for the variable introducer, the feminine is in fact the one subject clitic which includes the l/d definiteness base in all allomorphs. As we pointed out in presenting the data, the expletive subject clitic in many languages is not a third person singular (masculine or feminine) form, as seen, for instance, with a of Modena in (22). Thus in this dialect the distribution of the a clitic also covers the first person and the second person plural (Manzini and Savoia 2005), while excluding the third person. This distribution forces an impoverished feature content in classical morphological frameworks, creating difficulties for Chomsky’s (1995, 2000) feature-checking account, as already noted in section 2.1. Since a is independently known as a (pan-Romance) feminine morphology, the simplest thing is to assume that this is indeed the characterization for the a subject clitic. Its occurrence as an expletive is then unproblematic in terms of the above discussion. As for the occurrence of a

66

Subjects and subject-verb agreement

(and other vocalic, i.e. nominal class) morphemes in the first and second person we will have to conclude that in itself this type of morphology does not exclude hearer and speaker, though it is only when such a reference is excluded that the further restriction to a subclass of nominals (e.g. feminine) becomes available. In other words, though the remaining distribution of a as a subject clitic is in the first and second person we are not assuming that it has some sort of intrinsic first/second person content. More generally, an expletive (i.e. in present terms the variable introducer) cannot be specified for speaker, hearer reference. In this respect the properties of the expletives match those of the verb inflection discussed above. Similarly, expletives cannot be plural. To be more precise, Manzini and Savoia (2005) quote Provençal dialects of Piedmont (S. Pietro Val Grana) where the expletive has the i morphology typically associated with the plural. In these dialects however i is also the feminine singular; in other words, the clitic is independently attested as nominal class morphology in the singular. Thus with respect to number as well, the properties of the expletive match those of the verb inflection. At this point it will not have escaped the reader that the current discussion effectively reconstructs Chomsky’s (1995, 2000) basic intuition that in an expletive-associate construction, where the postverbal subject does not determine agreement, the expletive and the verb in fact agree or rather their referential properties are compatible in current terms. Our reconstruction of this intuition however depends on the expletive and the verb inflection sharing the interpretive property of introducing a D variable. Vice versa, there is no feature-driven computational process that determines the interpretation; in those terms internal contradiction very quickly arises within the grammar, as argued in section 2.1. The structure in (42) finally illustrates the case where non-agreement between the verb inflection and the postverbal subject occurs in null subject languages, which do not close the inflectional domain of the sentence by a D element, providing ultimate evidence against the conclusion that the expletive triggers agreement with the verb. Incidentally, Urbino’s (42) allows us to exemplify the case where not only the verb has an internal structure, but also the noun. Thus plurality is lexicalized through the i morpheme in the N inflection of the lexical base burdE as well as through the determiner ki, which could in turn be analyzed as consisting of a lexical base k- and of a nominal inflection -i in N. (42) Urbino w I ei I D dorm e

ei D wp D ei ki I ei I N burdE i

Subjects and subject-verb agreement

67

Now, given the above discussion, it is the third person inflection of the verb that in the absence of an expletive introduces a variable reference. Pursuing the application of the analysis proposed for Casaccia in (39), we would say that a predication operation applies to fix the value of this variable and to produce a focused reading. The alternative is that which emerges from the classical transformational model of the null subject phenomenon (Chomsky 1982; Rizzi 1982), suitably translated into a representationalist framework holding of the interpretive interface. Thus in the classical transformational model an empty category is inserted in the I-subject position in abeyance with the EPP. In an interpretive counterpart to the classical transformational model we could assume that if there is no lexicalization, and hence no closure of D of the I domain, the interpretive interface automatically supplies a variable EPP argument. It is thus this variable that more properly enters into the predication required by the focus interpretation, as in (42). In this perspective then the EPP is a universal requirement at the interface inserting a variable in the I domain which must either be bound by the D argument of the same domain or else find alternative means of identification. Although the discussion of the EPP has been carried out in relation to the non-agreeing postverbal subject sentences of the type in (42), it equally generalizes to the structures of the type of Italian (36) and to ordinary null subject sentences. Since in all of these contexts a variable can in fact be identified by the finite D inflection of the verb, it would appear that its presence or absence just configures two notational variants of the same account. However, an argument in favor of the presence of such a variable comes precisely from the fact that it enters into such relations as predication, which appear to be properly defined at the syntactic level (i.e. there is no word-internal focusing, though a wordinternal constituent may very well be focused contrastively). In reality the idea that a variable EPP argument is instantiated in sentences not lexicalizing D of the I domain is necessary and sufficient to cover non-finite contexts as well, corresponding to what in traditional generative theory are instances of PRO. Thus in particular the variable EPP argument will be crucially involved in the interpretation of participial sentences (including passives) in Chapter 5, as well as of non-finite (participial/infinitival) complements in the Geg dialects of Albanian in Chapter 8. An examination of the structures of Albanian where a finite sentence appears as a control or ‘restructuring’ complement, in Chapters 9–10, will clinch the case against the distinction between pro and PRO and in favor precisely of the unified variable treatment that we are proposing here. In fact, pro and PRO are but labels for different interpretations of the EPP variable (through identification by the finite inflection in the case of pro and through control by a matrix antecedent or generic/universal quantification in the case of PRO). The interest of the Balkan pattern illustrated with Albanian in Chapters 9–10 is precisely that control or ‘restructuring’ interpretations can overlap with the presence of finite inflections.

68

Subjects and subject-verb agreement

2.4 Lack of agreement of the postverbal subject with the verb: some loose ends One result of the data we presented as problematic for the overall approach of Chomsky (1995ff.) is the fact that postverbal subjects with P (i.e. speaker and hearer) denotation obligatorily co-occur with agreement of the verb and/or the preverbal clitic. In the current approach the relevant structures are of the type provided in (43a) for a subject language dialect, and in (43b) for a null subject dialect. It will be noted that in (43a) the verb inflection is specialized for first person plural, i.e. a denotation including the speaker and possibly the hearer. On the contrary the subject clitic is a, also appearing elsewhere as an expletive; crucially however this is the ordinary lexicalization for first person (plural), as discussed for Modena in the previous section. (43) a

Revere wp D wp a I ei ei D I D nyaltAr dUrm em

b

Urbino wp I ei ei D I D no parl en

For Manzini and Savoia (2002a) the obligatoriness of agreement in (43) is to be explained in terms of their idea that apparent non-agreement is in reality agreement with a lexical base. Thus if no lexical base can be factored out in pronominal forms such as nyaltAr, no in (43) and the like, only agreement in all referential features is left as a possible alternative. Although we differ from this analysis, it seems natural to assume that the difference between (39), (42) and (43) is that the postverbal subject in (39), (42) is built around a lexical base with predicative content, while the content of the postverbal subject in (43) or equivalently of its lexical base reduces entirely to speaker, hearer denotation. The former therefore allow for predicative identification as a way of fixing the reference of the focus variable in (39) or (42); while predicative identification is excluded by speaker, hearer referents. As already noted, the data in (25) suggest that the l definiteness base and/or the nominal class elements that make up third person pronouns do support the focus interpretation at least for some speakers (or dialects), though for other speakers (or dialects, for instance, Piacenza according to Zucchi), third person pronouns pattern with P elements. In a wider cross-linguistic perspective we

Subjects and subject-verb agreement

69

may also expect the person splits to be altogether missing in some grammars, so that disagreement of the subject with the verb is allowed independently of the reference of the subject itself. Within the Romance fold, there are indications that French may be a relevant case. The definiteness restriction on French postverbal subjects noted at the outset may be circumvented by what Chomsky (1995) calls the list reading of existentials. But in this reading French ordinarily allows first and second person focused pronouns in the postverbal subject position with third person singular verbs, as in (44). (44) a

b

Il (n) y a (que) moi ClS not there has that me ‘There is (only) me’ C’ est moi it is me ‘It’s me’

Less peripheral evidence comes from other language families. Thus in Somali, verbs can fully agree with their subjects, or can present a reduced agreement pattern where the third person singular masculine distributes over most of the paradigm (Saeed 1993: 72). One context for the reduced agreement paradigm is provided by focusing which is lexicalized by a particle following the focused noun phrase. If focusing bears on a non-subject, both the particle and the verb normally agree with the subject, as in (45a). If focusing bears on the subject, the particle does not agree and the verb crucially appears with the reduced agreement paradigm. In current terms the third person singular masculine form that characterizes the latter is naturally treated as introducing a variable, whose value is fixed by the subject in the focusing pattern, as already described in (40) for Romance. What is immediately relevant for the present discussion is that the so-called reduced agreement paradigm combines not only with the third person plural but also with the second person (singular and plural) as in (45b) (Puglielli 1981: 13). Thus the phenomenon of disagreement between subject and verb does not necessarily cut the first and second person off from the third but in this Somali instance cuts off the first person (specifically plural) from the others. We refer the reader to Chapter 6 for a detailed discussion of the reasons underlying person splits. (45) a

b

Adigu moos baad cumysaa you banana Prt eat ‘It is the banana that you eat’ Adiga baa moos cunayá you Prt banana eats ‘It is you who eats the banana’

The above discussion suggests that disagreement and person splits are two discrete dimensions of variation that do not necessarily combine. The prediction

70

Subjects and subject-verb agreement

of this way of viewing the Italian dialects data is that verb-subject disagreement may combine with other interpretive splits; indeed, in section 2.5 we shall see that the choice of agreement pattern may be sensitive to the (in)definiteness of the postverbal subject. The discussion thus far accounts in a unified manner for all of the data laid out at the beginning concerning lack of agreement between the verb and the postverbal subject in Romance languages. It also accounts of course for agreement of the verb with it. However, the patterns we actually discussed in connection with the current theory are either null subject (Italian) or have a fully agreeing clitic (Friulan). Thus we have not explicitly examined the pattern of English, whereby a form of the verb agreeing with the postverbal subject co-occurs with an invariable non-agreeing pronominal form, namely there, functioning as an expletive. In fact, there are subject clitic systems that are superficially similar to English. Thus in the Franco-Provençal dialect of Celle the associate agrees with the verb in I, as illustrated in (46); however, the clitic subject takes an invariable form, as is clear from the comparison with (47), where the lexical subject is preverbal. The alternation between C and ai in (46) appears to be governed by the alternation between verbs beginning by consonant and vowel respectively; in any event, both forms are clearly distinct from what we take to be the agreeing D clitics in (47), which alternate between i and y (the latter restricted to forms of essere beginning by vowel, cf. Manzini and Savoia 2005). Note that the C/ai clitic cannot appear with first and second person postverbal subjects, where the subject clitic is represented by the appropriate P form. (46) Celle S. Vito (Apulia) a C d’dCre l eN’faN ClS sleeps the child ‘The child sleeps’ b C dur’munde lCs eN’faN ClS sleep the children ‘The children sleep’ c a’j ette ve’ni muN fi’awe ClS is come my child ‘My child came’ (47) Celle S. Vito a l eN’faNN i d’dCre the child ClS sleeps ‘The child sleeps’ b lCs eN’faN i dur’munde the children ClS sleep ‘The children sleep’ c muN fi’awe ’y ette ve’ni a’iere my child ClS is come yesterday ‘My child came yesterday’

Subjects and subject-verb agreement

71

In discussing Provençal expletives, Martin (1974) proposes an etymological derivation which assumes the Latin base *hoc for C and the Latin basis *ibi for i, which also enters into ai. These reconstructions may be debatable as such, but they are interesting precisely in that they seem to follow not an independently motivated etymological sequence, but rather a semantic interpretation a posteriori of the relevant forms, precisely as locatives. One may think that their locative status can straightforwardly be ascertained from independent locative contexts; in reality many Romance languages (e.g. Spanish) lack a lexicalization for the locative clitic. Celle is essentially such a language, though lexicalization of what is clearly a locative by ai is found at least in existential contexts, as in (48). (48) Celle S. Vito n ai ’ave ’uNe of.them there had one ‘There was one (of them)’ We indeed interpret the ai clitic as resulting from the combination of the a morphology familiar from northern Italian expletives with a locative i morpheme, independently attested in the dialects of Chapter 3 (cf. also Manzini and Savoia 2005). The phonologically determined alternation with ai lends plausibility to a locative characterization of C, in itself again a nominal class element. Thus the apparent non-agreeing subject clitic of Celle is reanalyzed as a locative clitic. Since, as discussed in detail by Manzini and Savoia (2005), Celle is a dialect with mutual exclusion between object and subject clitics, of the type studied in Chapter 4, any object clitic as sufficient to exclude the subject clitic; therefore locative ai and C exclude the subject clitic is a consequence of this. Especially keeping in mind that locative clitics are not otherwise lexicalized, one may wonder why they would crop up in postverbal subject sentences, a sentence type which can in fact also subsume the existential, as in (48). As we may expect, the obligatory presence of locatives in inversion sentences is not an isolated behavior of this dialect, but is quite systematically observed in particular in Piedmontese dialects. An example of this is Castellazzo’s (22b). Following much literature on focus, we may assume that the focusing of the postverbal subject is either facilitated or made possible at all by the lexicalization of definite specifications anchored at the universe of discourse, which effectively provides a topic-like informational ‘subject’ (Saccon’s (1992) term) for the sentence. The locative clitic simply provides such specifications. Although Romance dialects, rather than English, are at the empirical core of the current discussion, it is worth returning to there sentences with the Celle discussion as a background. In effect the presence of a locative in postverbal subject sentences, which are focused in English as well, may respond to exactly the same requisite as in Celle. At the same time, while in Celle the locative clitic normally appears in its object position, on the evidence of sentences like (48), in English it appears to close off the inflectional domain for the sake of the EPP.

72

Subjects and subject-verb agreement

In fact, a modification of the EPP could allow the D closure of the inflectional domain to be effected in any given languages by elements of the I domain other than D itself. Under such a modification, the English ‘expletive’ there could then sit in the Loc position like its Romance clitic counterpart. The appearance of a locative element to close off the inflectional domain recalls the phenomenon of ‘quirky subjects’ (i.e. oblique noun phrases in the same position) in another Germanic language like Icelandic, with which it can presumably be unified. What matters for the discussion of agreement at hand is that we do not expect an element with locative denotation to enter into a chain relation with the verb inflection and the postverbal subject, and therefore to be itself inflected according to the referential properties of the latter (informally to agree with it). 2.5 Definiteness effects Many Italian dialects display (some degree of) interaction between the agreement pattern and the (in)definiteness of the postverbal subject. One relevant distribution is presented by the data in (49) where in (a) the definite postverbal subject agrees with the verb inflection and the subject clitic as in the Friulan dialects in section 2.2; in (b) however, the indefinite postverbal subject lacks agreement, as in the widespread northern Italian pattern in section 2.3. In the data of Gorfigliano, an indefinite postverbal subject may in fact appear in the agreeing construction. However, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, we may assume that this surface optionality is only apparent, involving the possibility for indefinites to be read as specific or non-specific. If so, the generalization for (49) could be restated as associating both definite and indefinite specifics with the agreement patterns. (49) Montereale (Friuli) a i ’veN i no fi’oi ClS come the our children ‘Our children come’ b a ’veN ka’nais ClS comes children ‘Children come’ Gorfigliano (Tuscany) a ’dCuppo i v’vεnnene di/i f’fanti afterwards ClS come of.the/the children ‘(The) children come afterwards’ b J ε vve’nute di f’fanti ClS is come of.the children ‘Children came’ As before, we do not expect the agreement pattern in (49) to depend on a particular value of the null subject parameter; rather we predict that the same

Subjects and subject-verb agreement

73

sensitivity to definiteness will be found in null subject languages. In fact, as exemplified in (50), Sardinian dialects typically do not display agreement with the postverbal subject when the latter is indefinite, while they do display agreement of the standard Italian type with the postverbal definite subject. As we saw in section 2.1, the (in)definiteness of the postverbal subject also interacts with the choice of auxiliary, which is ‘to be’ for agreeing unaccusative definites, as in Italian again, but ‘to have’ for non-agreeing indefinites (see Manzini and Savoia 2005). Thus observation of the non-agreement pattern is facilitated by the fact that it combines with auxiliary ‘to have’ even when the verb is unaccusative, as in Orroli’s (31) above, repeated here in (50b). (50) Orroli a funti e’niuzu is pittSCk’kEdduzu are come the children ‘The children came’ b dui a Be’niu pittSCk’kEdduzu here has come children ‘Children came here’ c dui ’frCkkanta is pittSCk’kEdduzu here lie.down the children ‘The children sleep here’ d dui ’frCkka ppittSCk’kEdduzu here lies.down children ‘Children sleep here’ Siniscola (Sardinia) a ’drommini zCs pit’tsinnCzC sleep the children ‘The children sleep’ b bi ’drommiti pit’tsinnCzC here sleeps children ‘Children sleep here’ Furthermore, many northern Italian dialects, which normally lack agreement of the postverbal subject with the verb inflection and the expletive, allow for such agreement if the postverbal subject is definite, as illustrated in (51), where the agreeing examples have to be compared to their non-agreeing counterparts in (22) for Modena and in (28) for Casaccia. Interestingly, the examples of Modena show that the agreement option is open with indefinites as well. However, as already discussed in connection with Gorfigliano, indefinites can have both a non-specific and a specific reading; under the latter they form a natural class with definites, which are always specific. It is therefore possible that agreement with the postverbal subject is in fact restricted to specific arguments.

74

Subjects and subject-verb agreement

(51) Casaccia i ’venan i ba’gai ClS come the children ‘The children come’ Modena i ’pErlen i/di ’C:m ClS speak the men ‘The men speak’ In contexts favoring a non-specific reading of indefinites, such as (non-list) existentials, agreement is clearly ruled out, as illustrated by the contrast between (52a) and (52b). The same contexts may also be used to rule out the possibility that agreement with the postverbal definite subject as in (51) depends on it being a topic, as in (52c), since the argument of the existential is always focused. (52) Modena ki ’g ε? who there is? ‘Who’s there?’ a a ’g ε di/ki ra’ga:s ClS there is of.the/the boys ‘There are boys’ b *i ’g e:n di ra’ga:s ClS there are of.the boys c i ’g e:N ki ra’ga:s ClS there are those boys ‘There are those boys’ As usual, we expect the typology illustrated with subject clitic dialects in (51) to be found in null subject varieties as well. Indeed, this possibility is illustrated by dialects of the northern Marche, that allow both for agreement and disagreement with the postverbal definite subject, as in (53). (53) Monteguiduccio (Marche) a dla ’dCrme i bor’dεi there sleeps the children ‘The children sleep there’ b dla ’dCrmne i bor’dεi there sleep the children ‘The children sleep there’ Let us begin by considering the dialects (50), where the postverbal subject disagrees with the verb if it is indefinite. In terms of the proposal advanced here concerning the unification of the internal structure of sentences and noun

Subjects and subject-verb agreement

75

phrases, it is natural to adopt the conclusion that definites lexicalize a D element (to close off the inflectional domain of the noun phrase), while indefinites do not. Thus definite postverbal subjects correspond to structures like (54a), while indefinites give rise to structures of the type in (54b). (54) Siniscola a

wp I ei ei D I D wp drommi ni D ei zCs I ei I N pittsinn CzC

b

wp I ei ei D I D ei drommi ti I N pittsinn CzC

According to the schema of explanation developed in the previous section, the lack of agreement between the verb inflection and the postverbal subject corresponds to the fact that the verb inflection introduces the D argument as a variable. The condition whereby lack of agreement is restricted to postverbal indefinites appears to be particularly easy to state in terms of this analysis. Thus if we assume, as in the discussion surrounding (40), that the variable introduced by the verb inflection is existentially closed, we may conclude that in languages of the type in (54) the identification of the variable by the argument in focus requires the argument itself to be compatible with existential quantification. An indefinite noun phrase such as the bare plural in (54b) is straightforwardly predicted to satisfy this requirement, as it is itself in the scope of existential closure. Consider dialects of the type of Modena in (51)–(52), where disagreement with the postverbal subject is always possible, while agreement is allowed only with definite postverbal subjects or at least specific ones. If this systematization of the data is correct, while indefinite postverbal subjects are constrained to the non-agreement pattern of section 2.3, definite/specific postverbal subjects alternate between the non-agreement pattern of section 2.3 and the agreement pattern of section 2.2. Given that definites are not amenable to some underlying split in intepretation such as the one between specific and non-specific indefinites, their distribution with respect to agreeing and non-agreeing contexts configures a true case of optionality.

76

Subjects and subject-verb agreement

In dealing with the general problem of (true) optionality, Manzini and Savoia (2005) and Savoia and Manzini (in press) are led to propose that optionality must be treated as an instance of (micro)-bilingualism, i.e. in terms of the simultaneous presence of two (or more) grammars in the mind-brain of the speaker. In particular the distribution of Modena may be accurately described in terms of the co-existence of the grammar of section 2.3, whereby all postverbal subject are compatible with the non-agreement variable construction, and of the grammar presented here for Sardinian dialects of the type in (54), where the non-agreement variable construction is restricted to indefinite/non-specific noun phrases. The first grammar accounts for the appearance of definites in the nonagreeing context and the second for their appearance in the agreeing context. At this point we can also briefly draw into the picture definiteness restrictions in classical non-null subject languages like English. The latter is generally described as requiring the associate to be indefinite in expletive constructions, which are therefore impossible if the associate is definite. To be more precise, as Chomsky (1995) points out, a definite associate is connected to a different interpretation than an indefinite one. Thus an indefinite associate gives rise to the typical existential reading in (54a), while a definite associate gives rise to the list interpretation, as in (55b). Recall that in English furthermore, expletive constructions are restricted to a limited class of predicates, essentially unaccusative ones. (55) a b

There is somebody outside There is John for a start

French, which in our analysis is a subject clitic language, is standardly described as patterning with English in the restrictions imposed on expletive construction. On the other hand, there are non-null subject languages which do not show either definiteness or verbal class restrictions, for instance, German in (2). Thus the restrictions are completely independent from the null subject parameter. The next relevant observation is that the discussion of definiteness effects in Italian dialects does not have any immediate application to English or French, where (in)definiteness does not simply determine the co-occurrence of a postverbal subject with certain agreement patterns but rather involves the exclusion of the postverbal subject altogether. Nevertheless, we expect that the same basic properties of (in)definites in focus constructions must be involved in the English-type cases as in those studied here for Italian dialects. In particular, it is natural to suppose that an existential closure operator is involved in the English postverbal subject sentences as in the Italian ones. We can then propose that the exclusion of definites from this context is determined by exactly the same restriction that we introduce for the Sardinian dialects in (54), namely that the postverbal subject must itself be able to be closed off by the same operator, and hence effectively be an indefinite. None of our data on the other hand show verbal class restrictions, leaving the problem as it now stands for English and similar languages.

Subjects and subject-verb agreement

77

3 Conclusion The above discussion makes it clear that the theoretical interest of morphosyntactic variation in Italian dialects goes far beyond the precise definition of the parameters involved. Indeed, while remaining within the broad conceptual framework of minimalism, we have made several proposals concerning Universal Grammar. To begin with, our discussion of the null subject parameter in section 1 has led us to propose that there is a nominal D position to the left of the verb in I. In the absence of a subject clitic or of a lexical subject there is no empty category projecting this. The null subject parameter itself reduces to whether the D position is lexicalized by a subject clitic (subject clitic languages), by a lexical DP (non-null subject languages) or it is not lexicalized (null subject languages). As already proposed in Chapter 1, on the other hand, the internal structure of words presents the same articulation as that of phrases and sentences. Thus in particular the finite verb inflection corresponds to the lexicalization of a D category internal to the verbal constituent. Null subject languages are those that can lexicalize the subject reference only through the verb-internal D. In section 2 we introduced several innovations in the theory of agreement. In our system, agreement of the verb inflection with the subject is construed as compatibility of the referential properties of two nominal elements; this in turn is a prerequisite for interpretations that assign to the relevant nominal elements the same referential properties and eventually the same argumental slot. Thus in current terms there is no independent syntactic operation of agreement, contrary to that argued by Chomsky (1995, 2000, 2001, 2004a). In this respect we take it as significant that our theorization leads us to reformulate the approach to expletive-associate constructions. In our system, the expletive and the verb not agreeing with the postverbal subject introduce an indefinite variable, whose reference is fixed by the postverbal subject through a predication relation (rather than a chain identification relation). Besides solving empirical problems for the approach of Chomsky (1995, 2000), as argued in section 2.3, our analysis also correctly connects non-agreeing postverbal subjects to focusing. As already emphasized in section 2.3, agreement is equally compatible with focusing of the postverbal subject; in this case the identification of the variable introduced by focus will be effected through ordinary chain identification supported by agreement. Crucially, however, an anti-focused or topicalized reading is not compatible with disagreement in any of the languages we considered. Within the same framework, we can also explain (in)definiteness effects of the associate on the expletive construction. Thus for the dialects of section 2.5 where definite postverbal subjects combine with agreement, while indefinites combine with non-agreement, we have proposed that a restriction is in place whereby the predicative identification of the variable introduced under the focus interpretation is restricted to arguments that are existentially closed as is the variable. We have also gone on to suggest that the same restriction may be

78

Subjects and subject-verb agreement

responsible for the different interaction of (in)definiteness with French and English focused postverbal subject, which appear to be altogether restricted to the case where they are existentially closed, independently of agreement. The status of agreement in turn has wider consequences for the theory of grammar. According to Chomsky (2000, 2001, 2004a), non-interpretable features act as probes for interpretable counterparts; indeed, being non-interpretable they must be deleted before the derivation reaches the LF interface. This system is crucially modeled on the deletion of the non-interpretable phi-features of I by the interpretable features of DP, which yields subject-verb agreement. If our alternative construal of agreement is correct, however, this piece of empirical motivation for the system no longer stands. Specifically, in motivating the conclusion that the verb inflection corresponds to a lexicalization of a nominal position D, as in Chapter 1, we eliminate the basic instance of uninterpretable features. Thus we undermine the idea that uninterpretable features (i.e. properties visible to the computation but without any independently motivated content at the interface) could exist at all. It seems to us that even if the two theories being compared were empirically equivalent, simplicity considerations would favor the one with the least assumptions, hence in this case the current one, which does not require the extra notational richness associated with non-interpretable features. More radically of course the current theory eliminates the notion itself of feature, whose classical conception (reflected by minimalist theorization) distinguishes a feature from its value. Thus notions of underspecification and default become unavailable, as well as agreement operations matching and/or evaluating features.

3

Lexicalization patterns of the so-called third person dative

We argue that the basic facts about the clitic string are best accounted for without having recourse to anything but a minimalist syntactic component, i.e. making no use of a specialized morphological component or of optimality-type comparisons between derivations/representations. In particular, we assume that clitics correspond to specialized inflectional categories and are merged directly into the positions where they surface; such categories are furthermore ordered in a universal hierarchy, as we will detail below. The aim of this chapter is to consider datives in the light of this framework. We will conclude that there is no evidence for the category dative in the Romance dialects we shall consider, while in fact there is evidence for categorizations of so-called dative clitics as quantificational elements or as locatives. In all cases the relevant categorization relies entirely on referential properties, or more generally on interpretive properties intrinsic to the lexical items involved, calling into question the traditional notion of case itself.

1 Theoretical background Following Sportiche (1996), rather than Kayne (1975, 1989a, 1991, 1994), we assume that clitics are inserted under specialized functional categories, i.e. in stricter minimalist terms their merger projects specialized functional categories. If clitics are generated in the ordinary argument positions and adjoined to verbal or inflectional positions it is hard to predict that they appear in a fixed number, in a fixed order and with fixed co-occurrence (or mutual exclusion) patterns which do not necessarily correspond to the number, order, co-occurrence (or mutual exclusion) patterns of corresponding arguments and adjuncts. To be more precise, the theory can derive the relevant properties of clitics in conjunction with a morphological component able to (re)order strings (Halle and Marantz 1993, 1994; Bonet 1995). To the extent that the (re)ordering operations match those of the syntax (Merge and Move), the resulting system is however highly redundant; vice versa to the extent that the two sets of (re)ordering operations do not match, the resulting system is considerably more complex. Therefore we assume that a purely syntactic account is to be preferred for reasons of simplicity of the theory.

80

Lexicalization patterns of third person dative

We assume specifically that clitics are generated directly in the position where they surface, hence that there are clitic positions between I and C. Adopting a universal hierarchy of functional positions of the type in Cinque (1999), though not necessarily one containing the positions postulated there, we are led to propose a universal clitic string, within which positions can neither be reordered (contra Ouhalla 1991) nor packed and unpacked (contra Giorgi and Pianesi 1997). A first set of clitic categories relevant to the hierarchy is motivated in relation to subject clitics by Manzini and Savoia (2002b), who argue in favor of a category P(erson) for first and second person clitics, a category N(oun) for third person clitics, a category Q(uantifier) for plural clitics, and a category D(efiniteness) for otherwise uninflected clitics. In their conception, therefore, clitic categories correspond to denotational properties. Thus P implies reference to the speaker (first person singular), the hearer (second person singular) and the sets including them (first and second person plural); in turn, N identifies the so-called third person simply with the nouniness property N. As for the Q and D categories, they are to be understood exactly as in the analysis of noun phrases, i.e. as encoding weak quantificational properties (corresponding to numerals, existentials and so on) in what concerns Q, and definite denotation in what concerns D. To these categories we add further categories characterized in broadly denotational terms, and specifically connected to their discussion of object clitics. In particular we individuate a Loc(ative) category lexicalizing reference to the spatial coordinates of discourse and a R(eferential) category corresponding to strong quantificational or specificity properties. A natural order for the categories individuated so far is suggested by the observation that many, if not all such categories are independently postulated in current generative analyses of the internal structure of the noun phrase. In particular, the sequence D–R–Q–N constitutes the basic skeleton of the noun phrase, where in terms of the discussion of previous chapters, N corresponds not to the predicative content of the noun phrase, but rather to the nominal class properties of its inflection. In turn Q is associated with indefinite quantifiers, R with specific quantifiers and D with the definite article. As for Loc, this position may be identified with demonstratives, on the grounds of the general spatial interpretation of these elements, and more specifically of the fact that in Romance dialects they surface coupled with overt locative pronouns; on the basis of the position occupied by the latter the Loc position is relatively low within the noun phrase (Brugè 1996; Bernstein 1997), presumably between N and the quantificational projections. The P category, which like Loc is interpreted in terms of discourse-anchored reference, is naturally construed as occurring in the same area of the nominal tree; there it can correspond to the merger position for possessives. Therefore the hierarchy of nominal categories within the noun phrase takes the shape in (1), with the content of the different categories briefly summarized in (2). (1)

[D

[R [Q

[P

[Loc

[N

Lexicalization patterns of third person dative (2)

a b c d e f

81

N is associated with nominal class Q is associated with quantifiers (indefinite quantification) R is associated with referentiality (specific quantification) D is associated with definiteness P is associated with person, i.e. reference to speaker and hearer (possessives) Loc is associated with locative, i.e. reference to the spatial coordinates (demonstratives).

We argue that the string in (1) also defines the basic order of clitic categories within the sentential string, and assign the various descriptive classes of clitics to the categories in it. In keeping with the observation that subject clitics generally appear before object clitics, it seems natural to reserve the higher positions of the string for them; more specifically, we identify the subject clitic position with D. As we anticipated, the basic aim of our discussion is to arrive at a characterization of datives, which we shall therefore leave for later discussion; of course, here and throughout, reference to case categories such as dative (as well as to person, number and gender ones) is purely descriptive. Obviously enough, the P category is lexicalized by first and second person (non-subject) clitics. The observed behavior in Italian clitic systems supports the position already taken by typological approaches, which sharply differentiates the status of first and second person (singular, and eventually plural) from that of the so-called third person. In our grammar, therefore, the total membership of the person category is constituted by the speaker and the hearer, whose denotation is fixed directly by the universe of discourse, and by the sets including them. When it comes to the dative category, this entitles us to consider third person only, abstracting from what may be described as first and second person datives. Crucially, in contrast to what happens with third person, there is no morphological differentiation between P forms used as accusatives and datives; nor do P forms have a different position in the clitic string depending on the dative/accusative divide. We note next that the characterization of Loc in terms of spatial reference must be conceived of in wide enough terms to include a whole series of possible interpretations associated with the locative clitic. Thus in a language like Italian ci can have a strictly locative meaning, an instrumental one, a comitative one and so on. The purely locative interpretation itself may be seen to be internally articulated in several different meanings. Thus the locative may be associated with a stative interpretation or with a motion intepretation, under which the locative typically refers to the coordinates of the final point of the event. In general, the Loc category does not correspond to a point on the aspectual contour of the event. Rather it must be understood in connection with other elements whose denotation is fixed by the universe of discourse, namely the speaker (‘I’), the hearer (‘you’) and the temporal coordinates of the discourse (‘now’). A language like standard Italian provides evidence that as in (1), the P clitic is ordered before the Loc one, as in (3a). The relevant substructure is as in (3b);

82

Lexicalization patterns of third person dative

note that, here and elsewhere, a linear format has been used for structural representations for purely practical reasons. (3)

a

b

Mi ci vede me there he.sees ‘He sees me there’ . . . P Loc . . . | | mi ci

We have already indicated that N corresponds to third person forms; the observation that accusative clitics appear in many languages in the lowest position of the string is consistent with assignment to the N category. Thus in a language like standard Italian they follow both P and Loc clitics, as indicated in (4)–(5). In this framework, the total content of the so-called accusative clitic is reduced to its N (nominal class) content; the interpretation of the N clitic as the internal argument of the verb is the result of the application of some interpretive principle. In other words, interpretive categories such as ‘theme of’ (or ‘Measure of’ in aspectual terms) are interpretations available for the relevant syntactic structures at the LF interface, essentially along the lines adopted by Chomsky (1995). In particular N is lexicalized only by the internal argument, though it is obvious that the reverse does not hold. Thus in unaccusatives, the internal and only argument of the verb corresponds to the D clitic (in subject clitic languages) by virtue of some version of Chomsky’s (1995) EPP. (4)

a

b

(5)

a

b

Me lo dà to.me it he.gives ‘He gives it to me’ ... P Loc N . . . | | me lo Ce lo mette there it he.puts ‘He puts it there’ . . . Loc N . . . | | ce lo

The partitive clitic, ne in standard Italian, does not directly denote an argument either in the event structure or in the domain of discourse, but it contributes to the denotation of one such argument. For instance, in (6a) the denotational content of ne enables us to fix the reference of the internal argument N of the verb, represented here by the numeral quantifier tre (‘three’). The evidence relating to the position of ne in the string indicates that it corresponds

Lexicalization patterns of third person dative

83

to N in a language like standard Italian, where the partitive appears lower that P and Loc clitics, as in (6b). We take it that the N position of the ne element corresponds to the fact that it cannot but be interpreted as a specification of a N category. In particular, in an example like (6) merger of ne in the N position of the string corresponds to its interpretation as specification of the internal argument independently lexicalized in the string by the quantificational head tre (‘three’). We shall return to this property of ne in the discussion in section 2.3. (6)

a

b

Ce ne mette tre there of.them he.puts three ‘He puts three of them there’ . . . P Loc N . . . | | ce ne

The only remaining clitic in a language like standard Italian is at this point si, associated with reflexives, impersonals and passives. The only relevant point is that we take its merger position to be normally Q, in virtue of its denotational properties, which are essentially those of a free variable (Manzini 1986). As detailed in Chapter 6, an analysis along these lines derives the different construals for si. Interestingly, a Q merger point would predict that si precedes not only accusative and partitive clitics, but also P and Loc ones, as it does in a large number of Italian dialects. In standard Italian on the contrary si normally precedes partitive and accusative, but follows P and Loc clitics, as in (7a). Our conception of the R position helps in this respect, since its specificity properties make it a potential host for the whole series of object clitics. As in (7b) we may assume therefore that R hosts the locative clitic, preceding si in Q. (7)

a

b

(Lui) ci se le lava (le mani) he there to.himself them washes (the hands) ‘(His hands) he washes them there’ . . . R Q P Loc N . . . | | | ci se le

Naturally, the conception of R as a specificity category predicts that we should be able to find in the same R position not only a Loc clitic such as ci in (7), but also other types of clitics. Indeed in section 2.1 we shall propose that the accusative series of the dialect of Olivetta can be hosted in R, and the same holds for the si-type clitic (i.e. a Q clitic) in the dialect of Vagli. For the dialect of Piobbico in section 2.2 and of Celle di Bulgheria in section 3.2 we shall propose that the dative is hosted by R. For the dialects of Nocara in section 2.3, of Làconi in section 3.1 and Nociglia in section 3.2 we shall associate R with the partitive. In some of the cases reviewed above, it is interesting to note that R is a possible point of merger rather than a necessary one. This is evident already

84

Lexicalization patterns of third person dative

from the comparison of standard Italian (7), where the locative is in R, with (3), where it is in Loc. We take it that in the case of (3) and (7), the Loc merger point is straightforwardly justified by the denotational content of the clitic; we conceptualize the R merger point in terms of scopal properties of the clitic itself. In other words the specific nature of the locative denotation allows for the scopal R position as well for the Loc one. On the basis of a scopal conception of R, we may equally expect that in some languages one or more clitics necessarily appear in the higher scopal position, as we shall see in particular for Olivetta in section 2.2. From a purely empirical point of view, of course, R serves as the one major source of reordering within the clitic string. On the basis of the discussion at the outset, the clitic string in (1), hence the partial structures in (3)–(7), occupy the area of the sentence between the I position, where the finite verb normally appears in declarative sentences and the C position where it appears in main clause interrogatives. Empirical evidence relating in particular to the doubling of clitics on either side of the verb in C argues strongly in favor of a conception in which the clitic string is repeated identically above C as well, as discussed in Chapter 10. Generalizing this conclusion, we assume that a clitic string is generated above each of the three main verbal domains (i.e. immediately above V, I and C). This gives rise to the organization of the sentence in (8), where the dotted space is to be filled by the string in (1). The lower string corresponds intuitively to the main argumental domain of the sentence, so that we may provisionally assume that lexical arguments are merged in the (Spec of) its relevant positions. (8)

...

[C

...

[I

...

[V

As well as an analysis of the overall structure of the clitic string and of the categories it consists of, an account of cliticization in Romance dialects presupposes an analysis of the internal structure of clitics themselves. Previous approaches in the literature include both morphological and syntactic ones. Among the former is James Harris’ (1994) account of the internal make-up of Spanish clitics, which recognizes a lexical basis l- for the third person series as well as nominal class morphemes such as -a (traditionally the feminine) and a number suffix -s. A syntactic, rather than morphological, characterization of the internal structure of clitics is attempted in a few recent works, including Kayne (2000) on first and second person clitics as opposed to third person ones, and Cardinaletti and Starke (1999) on clitics compared to weak and strong pronouns. The general idea of Cardinaletti and Starke (1999) is that clitics have the internal structure of a DP, albeit an impoverished one with respect to lexical DPs or even non-clitic pronouns. In their terms the latter are associated with a full structure equivalent to a sentential CP; on the other hand, clitics are characterized by a deficient structure, reducing to the equivalent of a sentential IP projection. According to Kayne (2000), on the other hand, first and second person clitics and pronouns lack full DP structure, while the latter characterizes third person clitics, as revealed by the presence of full agreement features.

Lexicalization patterns of third person dative

85

The approach we take to the internal structure of clitics relies on the idea that clitics are just ordinary noun phrases. As for the structure of the latter, we have already seen that (1) corresponds to the basic organization of nominal categories not only within the sentence but also within the noun phrase itself. This idea needs to be made more precise in just one respect. Following work by Abney (1986) and Szabolcsi (1994), the structure of the noun phrase is organized along similar lines to the structure of the sentence. On the model of the sentence, the lowest position in the noun phrase, associated with predicative content, may be taken to coincide with a predicative category that represents the counterpart to V in (8); we correspondingly revise (8) as in (9), where the basic predicative position of both the sentence and the noun phrase is labeled L (to suggest simply lexical item). The dotted space in (9) encloses as before the string in (1). (9)

...

[C . . .

[I

...

[L

We are now in a position to turn to the internal structure of clitic forms. We can translate the morphological analysis of Romance clitics proposed in works such as James Harris (1994) into the current syntactic model by identifying nominal class (gender) morphemes such as o, a which accompany the l lexical base in many Romance dialects with the I projection of a noun phrase. As for number morphemes, a natural analysis within our framework identifies them with the Q denotation. This analysis applies in particular to number morphemes added to nominal class ones, as is the case for s in Spanish. We then obtain structures of the type in (10), which account, for instance, for the as, Cs observed in the plural nominal inflections of typical Sardinian dialects. Structures of the type in (11) account for the as, Cs observed in the plural nominal inflections of typical Sardinian dialects by assuming that the nominal class morphemes C, a are I heads of the relevant subconstituents, while the s morphemes represent their N inflection. (10) (Sardinian) a [I C [N s]] b [I a [N s]] Inflections of the type in (10) may be added to adjectival or nominal bases, but what interests us here directly is that they may be added to the l morpheme of third person clitics. Precisely the observation that nominal constituents of the type in (10) have independent existence as agreement morphemes suggests that third person clitics involve a nominal head l. As illustrated in (11), we take it that l lexicalizes the normal inflectional position (i.e. I, within its own noun phrase) embedding the separate noun phrases in (10). (11) (Sardinian) a [I l [N Cs b [I l [N as

]] ]]

86

Lexicalization patterns of third person dative

The internal structures of clitics are directly relevant to an important question concerning the hierarchy in (1). In rejecting in particular the morphological model of Halle and Marantz (1993), we have adopted the point of view of the minimalist grammar of Chomsky (1995), where syntactic structures are directly projected by the insertion of lexical material. Thus there cannot be structures such as (1) produced by the syntactic component, to which lexical material is matched by lexical insertion. Rather, if hierarchies such as (1) hold, it must be due to independent constraints which, as suggested in Chapter 4, can ultimately be thought of in full intepretation terms. This puts a heavy constraint on our grammar, since we cannot simply insert a clitic in an already given position as a default lexicalization, not presenting any mismatch with the syntactic category. On the contrary, we must be able to show that in each case it is an internal specification of the clitic that projects the relevant category of the sentential string. The discussion that follows will uphold this general conclusion; in many cases we shall be able to show that the category projected by the clitic on the sentential tree corresponds exactly to the category of the internal head of the clitic itself. Thus in the case of a clitic series such as (11), it will typically project N on the sentential tree. For pure ease of reading, exactly as we describe clitics in terms of accusative, dative, first and second person (i.e. of features that do not correspond to our actual categories), so we will speak of their insertion points. In all cases we will understand by the insertion point of a clitic, the category that the clitic itself projects on to the basis of its internal constituency.

2 Morphologically third person datives 2.1 Dative-accusative Manzini and Savoia (2005), in considering the lexicalization of the so-called dative argument in several dozens of Italian dialects, note that it is the exception rather than the rule that they should present a morphologically third person clitic form for the third person dative. Standard Italian is among the dialects which possess such a form, which furthermore combines with the accusative preceding it. This pattern is normally found in central Italian dialects, and emerges in the dialects of Lucania as well as in Tuscan dialects, including Vagli di Sopra in (12). The (a) example displays the isolation form of the dative (i.e. Ji). The (b) example shows the combination of dative and accusative in this order. The e morpheme that surfaces in the feminine plural le is a phonological alternant of e surfacing, for instance, in sentence-final position as in the enclitic came-le (‘call them!’); this yields an accusative clitic series l/la/Ji/le. As shown in (c), the dative is also followed by other clitics, such as the partitive. Note that to economize on glosses we have given the meaning of Ji as ‘to him’; in fact, this is short for ‘to him/to her/to them’. We have followed the same general principle throughout this chapter.

Lexicalization patterns of third person dative

87

(12) Vagli di Sopra (Tuscany) a i Ji Da k’kweste he to.him gives this ‘He gives this to him’ b i Ji l/la/Ji/le ’Da he to.him it-m./it-f./them-m./them-f. gives ‘He gives it/them to him’ c i Ji ne Da d’doi he to.him of-them gives two ‘He gives two of them to him’ Although the language chosen for exemplification has third person subject clitics, we will disregard the shape taken by them. On the basis of the above discussion we take the series of third person clitics illustrated in (12), i.e. l/la/Ji/le, to correspond to noun phrases. Because a head noun normally occupies the I position within the noun phrase, we take l in particular to occupy the I position within its nominal constituent following the schema in (11). As for the morphemes combining with l, a lexicalizes gender (i.e. nominal class) in its N position, deriving the singular feminine form la as in (13b). On the other hand, the feminine plural le appears to combine l with an e formative associated again with the N position, as shown in (13d). The structure in (13d) implies that in the feminine, plurality is not lexicalized through a morpheme with Q denotation, but rather through the switch from the nominal inflection class a to another nominal class morphology, i.e. e. We observe that e is the nominal morphology which turns up on the participle in the absence of person, number and gender agreement with the object or subject; this confirms that it is not intrinsically associated with plural denotation, but it is indeed a nominal class morpheme. As for l of the so-called masculine singular, it corresponds to uninflected l, as in (13a). A characteristic of the Vagli dialect to which we shall return is that the so-called masculine plural accusative Ji coincides with the number- and gender-neutral dative. At least as part of the accusative paradigm, we may assume that Ji consists of a i morpheme lexicalizing plurality in N, while J corresponds again to the I head of its own nominal constituent, as in (13c). (13) Vagli di Sopra a [I l] b [I l [N a]] c [I J [N i]] d [I l [N e]] According to our description, the language of Vagli has a dative clitic, Ji, invariant for number and gender, which coincides with the form analyzed in (13c). More generally, the systematic study of Italian dialects conducted by Manzini and Savoia (2005) reveals that what descriptive grammars treat as specialized third person dative forms generally coincide with accusative forms, typically masculine

88

Lexicalization patterns of third person dative

plural ones. We shall see more evidence for this in what follows. In other words, case distinctions, at least between accusative and dative, are in fact not registered by the pronominal system. This confirms our tentative conclusion that only denotational properties are relevant to the definition of such systems. The lexicon in (13) provides the basis for predicting the insertion position of the relevant clitics. Thus in virtue of its properties, which include in all cases a nominal base, the whole series of clitics in (13) may be inserted in the N position of the string in (1). In virtue of the Q denotation of the i morpheme, on the other hand, the Ji clitic can be equally inserted in Q. Therefore we associate structural descriptions with the dative-accusative clusters in (12b), as illustrated in (14). (14) Vagli di Sopra D R Q P Loc | | i Ji

N I | | l/la/Ji/le Da

The Q point of insertion of the Ji clitic goes hand in hand with an interpretation of the Q property different from plurality, since as we have seen, so-called dative Ji is ambiguous with respect to number as well as gender. In this connection, we note that the Q denotation is compatible with plurality, but it does not imply it; we thus expect plurality to be a possible interpretation of Q, but not a necessary one. Next, we observe that in the case of an accusative Ji, the Q denotation characterizes part of its internal structure, but does not correspond to its position of insertion. Vice versa in the case of a dative Ji, Q represents both one of its internal specifications and its position of insertion in the clitic string. We propose that in the former case the internal Q specification of Ji determines a plural reading. In the second case, however, the internal Q specification of Ji is subsumed by the Q properties of the insertion position in the clitic string. Thus Ji does not involve plurality, but only the interpretation that attaches to the Q position of the clitic string. As it turns out the plural and the dative reading are mutually exclusive in the sense that the dative is not necessarily plural. In other words, either i has scope internal to the clitic, in which case its reading is plurality; or it takes scope in effect over the sentential string, in which case its reading is ‘dativity’. One scope excludes the other. It is worth pausing for a moment to consider what this interpretation of the Q position of the sentential string may be, given that it cannot simply be reduced to plurality. The Q–N order seems to imply that Q hosts elements taking scope over N. In this perspective the question regarding the nature of Q essentially reduces to which scopal properties the order Q–N instantiates. It is independently known from the literature that scopal phenomena are sensitive to the relative structural prominence of arguments. Thus Reinhart (1983) reads the relative scope of quantifiers off c-command relations in surface structure. May (1985), while introducing the quantifier raising operation in abstract syntax, notes further surface effects such as the possibility for a wh-quantifier to commute in scope with a subject but not with an object.

Lexicalization patterns of third person dative

89

One scope phenomenon that involves datives and accusatives in a particularly obvious way is that of distributivity; thus an appropriately quantified subject can distribute over an indefinite object and a dative over an accusative, while the reverse is not true. This is in essence also the conclusion of Beghelli (1997). Exceptions involve the presence on the distributor of an each, every quantifier, or the presuppositional reading of the distributor; in the first case no correspondence to surface argument hierarchies holds; in the second case at least the indirect–direct object hierarchy breaks down. In both cases Beghelli (1997) argues that dedicated quantificational positions are involved. Some relevant examples of the normal case are provided in (15)–(16) from standard Italian. (15) a b

(16) a b

Loro hanno visto un uomo ciascuno They have seen a man each *Un uomo li ha visti ciascuno A man them has seen each Assegnai loro un compito ciascuno I gave them an assignment each *Li assegnai a uno studente ciascuno Them I assigned to a student each

Putting together these observations with the hierarchy of argumental positions postulated in (1), it is natural to hypothesize that the set of possible distributors corresponds to the set of arguments (i.e. datives or subjects), which have been motivated independently to occupy a position with quantificational properties, be it Q or D. Conversely the accusative object does not have the properties of a distributor in that it corresponds to the non-quantificational N category. In general, we agree with Beghelli (1997) and Beghelli and Stowell (1997) that quantificational properties are syntactically encoded; nor do they belong to the high C domain of the sentence, but may be found in the inflectional domain where arguments otherwise appear. However, in the current conception there are not two distinct series of argumental and quantifier positions but a single series, which is partially defined in quantificational terms. Since the dative is associated with the Q position, we are led to conclude that the dative has quantificational properties, which may be construed as those of a distributor. 2.2 Accusative–dative In some languages, which otherwise have properties comparable to those illustrated for Vagli, the 3rd accusative form precedes the 3rd dative form. This parametric possibility is illustrated by several dialects of Corsica and of Western Liguria, such as Olivetta S. Michele in (17) where (a) illustrates as before the dative form in isolation and (b) the combination of dative and accusative in this order. By contrast, third person dative generally precedes other clitics with which it can co-occur, for instance, the partitive as in (c).

90

Lexicalization patterns of third person dative

(17) Olivetta S. Michele (Liguria) a el i ’duna a’ko he to.him gives this ‘He gives this to him’ b el u/i/a/e i ’duna he it-m./it-f./them-m./them-f. to.him gives ‘He gives it/them to him’ c el i n ’duna ’dyi he to.him of.them gives two ‘He gives two of them to him’ On the basis of the discussion concerning Vagli, datives are associated with a high position in the sentential nominal string, and specifically with the Q position. This conclusion is confirmed by the empirical data of Olivetta, since as shown in (17c), the dative clitic precedes the partitive (in N). If the dative is inserted under Q, the accusative that precedes it has at its disposal only the R position, where it may in turn be preceded by the subject clitic in D, as indicated in (18); as before, subject clitics are not our concern here. (18) Olivetta S. Michele D R Q P Loc | | | el u/a/i/e i

N I | duna

Explaining the parametrization between Vagli in (12) and Olivetta in (17) requires the lexicon of Olivetta to be accounted for. The i form, subsuming in descriptive terms the accusative masculine plural and the dative, has a Q denotation to that assigned to the Ji clitic of Vagli in (13c); we propose that i lexicalizes a I position within its phrase, as in (19c). As for the other forms of the accusative paradigm, we can assign u, a and e to the I category, treating them as nominal class markers, as in (19a)–(19c). We note that the systematic lack of an l formative in the structures in (19) makes the clitics of Olivetta identical to the inflections observed on the nominal and adjectival system. (19) Olivetta S. Michele a [I u] b [I a] c [I i ] d [I e] What remains to be seen is how the lexicon in (19) relates to the structure in (18). To begin with, the Q specification of the i clitic makes it compatible with insertion in Q. What is more, the internal structure of all the elements in (19) is evidently compatible with insertion in R; indeed, it is the general conclusion of the section 1 that R is a normal insertion position for all elements that are associated with specific properties. Thus we obtain the basic observed order 3rd accusative

Lexicalization patterns of third person dative

91

followed by 3rd dative. In fact, nothing in the lexical entries in (19) prevents the third person clitics from inserting in N; we must assume that the fact that they take a scope position such as R, rather than the N position associated with aspectual properties, is what the Olivetta child learns as a parameter of the language. Saying that in Vagli the accusative clitic appears in the N position associated with the internal argument intepretation, while in Olivetta it appears in the scopal position R for specific elements, is similar to saying that the wh-phrase appears in its thematic position in a language like Chinese, while it appears in scope position in a language like English. One may object that the position of the wh-phrase in English is the result of movement, not of merger. In fact, we take it that the idea that lexical material merges directly in the position where it surfaces holds not only for clitics but for all elements in grammar; one possible instantiation of this idea is the representational model of Brody (1995ff.). More precisely, wh-phrases may be inserted in argumental position in English as well, in appropriate contexts. There is therefore a particularly close match between the properties of wh-phrases in a language like English and the properties described in section 1 for clitic ci of standard Italian which will either insert in Loc or in R according to the context. In general, we take it that the intrinsic denotational content of wh-phrases, as of clitics in the case at hand, determines their compatibility with positions in the syntactic tree; their actual position will depend on other properties. These are identified by Chomsky (1995, 2000, 2001) with noninterpretable or EPP properties of the landing site; but these are only notationally lexical properties, while in fact they correspond to a syntactic parameter which is fully comparable to the one given here for Vagli vs. Olivetta. The same high position, R, that hosts the u, a, e clitics associated with the internal argument interpretation, can also host the i clitic, including the case when it is interpreted as a dative. This is shown by examples of the type in (20a), where the i clitic precedes the partitive n clitic and the impersonal he clitic (corresponding to Italian si). While the partitive may be associated with the N position, the impersonal is naturally associated with the Q position in virtue of its generic, i.e. quantificational, interpretation. Therefore the i clitic will itself appear in a position higher than Q (i.e. R), as illustrated in (21a). The relevant contrast is with a dialect like Vagli, where the dative actually occurs after the impersonal; in this case we must assume that the relative order of the two elements is the reverse, with Ji keeping the quantificational Q position and si being allowed in R, as in (21b). (20) a

b

Olivetta S. Michele i he n ’di ’katr to.him one of.them says four ‘one says a few things to him/a few things are being said to him’ Vagli di Sopra i si Ji ’DaN i s’sCldi it one to.him give the coins ‘one gives him money/money is being given to him’

92

Lexicalization patterns of third person dative

(21) a

b

Olivetta S. Michele D R Q P Loc N | | | i he n Vagli di Sopra D R Q P Loc N | | | i si Ji

I | di I | DaN

3 The types ‘ci’, ‘ne’, ‘si’ for third person dative In many Italian dialects the so-called dative is represented not by a morphologically third person form, but by a form which coincides with a clitic of the language independently associated with the locative denotation, Loc, or with the partitive denotation, or finally with the impersonal/reflexive one, i.e. a Q element of the si type. At least this third type of lexicalization of the dative is known in the literature for contexts including a third person accusative. In fact, in a language like Spanish, the incompatibility of third person accusative and third person dative leads to the apparent substitution of the dative with the se clitic (Perlmutter 1972; Bonet 1995; and (in an optimality framework) Grimshaw 1997). It is important to realize, however, that in this section we shall present cases where the lexicalization of the so-called third person dative by a si-type clitic, or by a locative or by a partitive, is totally independent of the syntactic context; thus it holds in all clitic combinations, and in isolation as well. To begin with, the dative coincides with the locative in the majority of northern Italian dialects, as well as in many dialects of central and southern Italy. In a northern Italian dialect such as Modena, g lexicalizes the third person dative in isolation as in (22a) and in combination with other clitics as in (22b); at the same time it represents the locative form of the language as in (22c). We describe the data in terms of a lexicalization of the dative by the locative, rather than the other way round, because forms such as g are unconnected to object or subject third person morphology, contrary to the so-called datives considered in the previous sections. The g clitic not only precedes the accusative, as in (22b), and the partitive, but it also follows all other clitics with which it can co-occur, i.e. the P and si clitic, as in (22d)–(22e). Note that g is glossed ‘there’ or ‘to him’ (meaning ‘to him/to her/to them’ as above) in accordance with the translation; the same principle is followed in glosses throughout this section. (22) Modena (Emilia) a a g ’dag kwas-’kE I to.him give this ‘I give this to him’ b a g al/la/i/li ’dag I to.him it-m./it-f./them-m./them-f. give ‘I give it/them to him’

Lexicalization patterns of third person dative c

d

e

93

a g ’mEt kwas-’kE I there put this ‘I put this there’ a m g la ’mEt I myself there it put ‘I put it there (for myself)’ a se g ’mEt dla ’rCba it one there puts some stuff ‘One puts some stuff there/some stuff is being put there’

The relative position of the g clitic with respect to P clitics, to the si clitic in Q and to accusative clitics confirms that it is associated with the locative denotation and inserted in the Loc position of the string, as in (23), which illustrates the position of the g clitic relative to the accusative clitic in N. (23) Modena D R Q P Loc N I | | | | | a m g la mEt We may assign to the g clitic a lexical entry which is compatible both with its locative interpretation, and with its insertion point in Loc, by associating the g morpheme with the I position within the clitic noun phrase as in (24). (24) Modena [I g] While in sections 2.1–2.2 we have analyzed dialects in which the descriptive category of dative corresponds to a Q element (i.e. a distributor), in dialects of the Modena type the descriptive dative corresponds to locative properties connected to the spatial coordinates of the discourse and the event. Thus if possession is a sort of location (cf. Freeze 1992), the classical idea of Kayne (1984) that double object verbs embed a small clause, where the dative is the possessor of the accusative argument, amounts to a locative interpretation of the dative. More generally, typical dative-accusative verbs such as give may be described in terms of a change in the spatial location of the internal argument; thus John gave a book to Peter implies that the book, located at John at the beginning of the event, changed its location to Peter at the end of the event. To complete our discussion it is worth mentioning that in several Italian dialects the identification of dative and locative involves an i clitic which like those considered in previous sections is morphologically a third person form, coinciding with the accusative (masculine) plural. A case in point is the Lombard-type dialect of Casaccia, where in descriptive terms i is the masculine plural accusative, as in (25b), as well as the dative in (25a) and (25c), and the locative in (25d).

94

Lexicalization patterns of third person dative

(25) Casaccia (Grisons) a a i ’di:S var’got he to.him says something ‘He says something to him’ b a i ’ve he them sees ‘He sees them’ c a i al ’di:S he to.him it says ‘He says it to him’ d a i an ’met ent ’doi he to.it of.them puts inside two ‘He puts two of them inside it’ On the basis of the discussion in sections 2.1–2.2 we are led to analyze the i clitic of the Casaccia dialect as in (26) (i.e. as a lexical base with Q denotation), merged in the Q position of the string. This means that a dialect like Casaccia, though superficially similar to dialects like Modena, turns out to be specular to them with respect to the lexicalization of dative and locative. A dialect like Modena never lexicalizes a distributor, but inserts a locative in contexts where other languages may have a distributor. Vice versa, we are led to claim that a dialect like Casaccia never lexicalizes a locative (not of the ‘there’ type in any event), but rather inserts a distributor in contexts where other languages have a locative. (26) Casaccia [I i ] If our construal of the data is correct, we expect several consequences to follow. In particular, we predict that in languages that have both distributors and locatives, they should be licensed in the same eventive environments and therefore alternate to a large extent. This prediction is verified in standard Italian by examples of the type in (27a). The occurrence of locative hi and dative li in many of the same contexts is discussed for Catalan by Rigau (1982), who accounts for the alternation in terms of animacy. Both the distributor gli and the locative ci are however interpreted as inanimate in (27a). Another potential prediction of the account introduced here for Modena and Casaccia is that there will be eventive environments that though compatible with one of the two forms under consideration will not be compatible with the other, leading to no lexicalization. It is indeed frequently the case that dialects of the Casaccia subgroup (including in particular Piedmontese dialects) will present a reduced occurrence of i in locative contexts, where a specialized locative is lexicalized by other dialects. An example for Casaccia is provided in (27c), which represents the native speaker’s translation of standard Italian (27b).

Lexicalization patterns of third person dative (27) a

b

c

95

Gliene/ Ce ne attacco due to.it-of.them /there of.them I.stick two ‘I stick two of them to/on it’ Mi ci manda me there he.sends ‘He sends me there’ Casaccia a m ’manda he me sends ‘He sends me (there)’

That the same event (or state) can support different argumental series is well known from the literature on phenomena such as the locative alternation whereby I loaded the wagon with hay alternates with I loaded the hay on the wagon. The approach often taken in the literature (Levin and Rappaport 1995) is that there are underlying arrays of arguments which may be variously linked to syntactic structures. Here we rather take the view that the superficially seen array is the only real one; thus it must be admitted that a verb such as load is compatible with a locative construal of the location and an internal argument (accusative) one. To take another example, Longa et al. (1998) note that the same locative environments with verbs of the ‘to be’ class support in the different dialects of Iberian Romance either a locative clitic (Catalan) or an accusative neuter clitic (Galician, Asturian, Northwestern Spanish). The authors make a point that the appearance of the accusative neuter in the latter dialects is the implementation of a default strategy, the Clitic Recycling Strategy, requiring ‘Use the (most) unmarked clitic to fill in gaps of the system’. Thus the appearance of the neuter accusative reflects lack of a locative in the system, given presumably an underlying argumental array. The point of view taken here is of course different, namely that there are no underlying abstract arrays corresponding to either optimal or default surface lexicalizations; but rather that the same verbal environments can truly support different argumental arrays. Several dialects of the southern Lucania/northern Calabria area (the so-called Lausberg area), and of the Salento, again do not have a morphologically third person form of the dative but lexicalize instead a ne clitic, which generally coincides with the partitive form. Thus for Nocara, (28a)–(28b) exemplify the lexicalization of the interpretation corresponding to a third person dative by the ne clitic, both by itself and in combination with an accusative clitic. The example in (28c) illustrates the case in which ne lexicalizes the partitive; finally (28d) shows that ne can occur twice in the string, giving rise to a combination of its two possible interpretations. The alternation between Da and DaDe is phonologically determined. (28) Nocara (Calabria) a ne ’Da stu ’kunde to.him he.gives this thing ‘He gives this to him’

96

Lexicalization patterns of third person dative b

c

d

n u/a/i ’DaDe to.him it-m./it-f./them he.gives ‘He gives it/them to him’ me ne ’Da d’du:je to.me of.them he.gives two ‘He gives two of them to me’ ne ne ’Da d’du:je to.him of.them he.gives two ‘He gives two of them to him’

The fact that two nes co-occur as in (28d) shows that there must be at least two points of insertion available to the clitic. On the basis of the discussion of partitives in section 1, the lower one may be identified with N; in such cases ne will receive what we call a partitive interpretation, connected to the internal argument of the verb, and will therefore appear after other clitics, such as P clitics in (29a). The ne clitic that lexicalizes the 3rd dative interpretation in connection with accusative clitics may on the other hand correspond to structure of the type in (29b), where ne is inserted in the higher R position. The co-occurrence of the two ne clitics is then predicted to be possible, as in (29c), with the lower ne inserted in N and interpreted as the partitive, and the higher one in R. (29) Nocara a D R

b

D

c

D

Q P Loc N | | me ne R Q P Loc N | | n u/a/i R Q P Loc N | | ne ne

F | Da F | DaDe F | Da

If our characterization of the partitive in section 1 is on the right track, ne may be analyzed as in (30), where n represents a lexical base with partitive denotation, while e, as in general the vocalic inflections of Italian dialects, is associated with the head position of the clitic noun phrase. We assume that e lexicalizes a nominal class specification in N. (30) Nocara [I n [N e]]. In section 1, we provided an explanation for how the so-called partitive interpretation comes about. The question posed by dialects such as Nocara is how the ne-type clitic becomes associated with third person dative interpretation. In

Lexicalization patterns of third person dative

97

particular we have proposed in section 1 that the ne-type clitic is not itself interpreted as an argument of the event but contributes to fixing the denotation of such an argument, namely the obligatory internal one. As we did in all of the cases thus far, we assume that the same basic characterization holds for contexts traditionally described in terms of a dative interpretation. Consider concretely the n u cluster in (29b). While u in N is associated with the internal argument of the verb, n in R concurs to the fixation of its reference, by introducing a partitive specification, or in traditional case terms a genitive specification, of the N argument itself. This strategy is particularly close to the one we have described above for dialects of the type of Modena; in this latter case, the insertion of a Loc clitic fixes the coordinates of the internal argument of the verb, lexicalizing its possessor at the end of the event being described. Intuitively, languages like Nocara do the same thing, anchoring the reference of the internal argument of the verb to a possessor, which is lexicalized however as a partitive element; thus Nocara’s (29c) corresponds roughly to ‘I give it (and it is) of his’. The final distribution of clitics to be considered in this section involves dialects of Calabria, where the si-clitic lexicalizes the impersonal and the third person reflexive, exactly as described in section 1 for standard Italian (cf. Chapter 6), but also the third person dative both in isolation, as in (31a) and in combination with other clitics, as in (31b). Because of its general properties, we predict that given the right context, both a reflexive and a third person dative reading are equally salient and available. This is indeed the case in an example such as (31c), which thus examplifies also the reflexive reading of si, meaning both ‘he buys it for him’ and ‘he buys it for himself’. (31) S. Agata del Bianco (Calabria) a si ’Dunanu ’kistu to.him they.give this ‘They give this to him’ b s u ’Dunanu (a’D iyyu) to.him it they.give to.him ‘They give it to him’ c ’iyyu s u k’khattha he to.him/to.himself it buys ‘He buys it for him/himself’ Taking up again the analysis of impersonal and reflexive si hinted at in section 1, we associate si of the relevant Calabrian dialects with a structure of the type in (32), where the s formative is associated with a lexical base with indefinite Q denotation. The i morpheme may in turn be identified with its N inflection; indeed in the relevant dialects, which have a rather different inflectional structure from the other Italian dialects considered thus far, it corresponds arguably to a nominal class specification not necessarily associated with a Q denotation.

98

Lexicalization patterns of third person dative

(32) S. Agata del Bianco [I s [N i ]] The quantificational denotation of the si clitic in (32) forms the basis for its insertion in the clitic string, which targets the Q position, preceding in particular accusative clitics in N, as illustrated in (33). (33) S. Agata del Bianco D R Q P Loc N F | | | s u kkhattha In Chapter 6 we will argue that the intepretive properties of impersonal and reflexive si can be naturally derived from its characterization as a quantificational variable (Manzini 1986). In particular the so-called impersonal reading is the result of the binding of the si variable by a generic operator (Chierchia 1995), while the reflexive reading implies a pronominal reading dependent from an antecedent. The discussion of morphologically third person datives in sections 2.1 and 2.2 above as Q elements, lexicalizing a distributivity property, suggests a similar treatment for the cases involving si such as (33). In other words, we are led to propose that in appropriate environments the quantificational properties of si can equally well receive a distributive reading in the relevant languages, hence conventionally a dative one. It is worth pausing at this point to briefly summarize the conception of parametric variation emerging from the preceding discussion. In general both traditional and generative analyses imply that there is a common nucleus of syntactic and semantic properties that are properly labeled together as a distinctive category of dative. In this perspective, the parametrization between languages would have to do with the particular way in which these same properties are morphologically realized, for instance, by a specialized form (e.g. of the i type) or by suppletion, typically construed as replacement by an underspecified form (e.g. si). As already noted at the outset, our theory programmatically avoids reference to what we consider to be theoretically expensive notions of underspecification or default; nor does it conceive of parameters in terms of the overt realization of the same underlying semantico-syntactic units by different lexical material. This is particularly evident if the proposals being advanced here are compared with the model by Halle and Marantz (1993), in which syntactic operations manipulate features and lexical insertion is late, meaning at the end of the syntactic cycle. In the current model, as in the minimalist model of Chomsky (1995), syntactic structures are conceived of as the result of applying the operation merge to actual lexical material. Therefore, we exclude that there is a ‘dative’ category, or a predefined ‘dative’ set of features, which remains constant in the face of superficial variation. On the contrary, where a language like standard Italian (or Vagli or Olivetta) lexicalizes a morphologically third person distributor, another lan-

Lexicalization patterns of third person dative

99

guage such as S. Agata may lexicalize a si-type distributor. Another possibility is the lexicalization of a partitive specification of the N argument (i.e. ne as in the Nocara language), or of a Loc clitic specifying the spatial coordinates of the N argument, as in the Modena language. This latter case is interesting also in that it is equally possible to find languages, such as Casaccia, where a morphologically third person element may be used not only in traditional dative contexts but also in locative ones.

4 Mutual exclusion and suppletion 4.1 The ‘spurious se’ pattern In sections 2.1 and 2.2 we have considered several languages in which clusters of morphologically third person datives and accusatives are possible in either order; while in section 3 we have illustrated several languages which lack a morphologically third person dative independently of its clustering with other clitics. As we have already mentioned, in some Romance languages a morphologically third person dative is excluded by clusters including a third person accusative, though it surfaces in isolation or in combination with other clitics. This mutual exclusion between third person dative and third person accusative clitics has received wide attention in the literature, as have the suppletion phenomena to which it apparently gives rise. The best-known single instance of the dative-accusative mutual exclusion pattern in Romance languages is the so-called ‘Spurious se rule’ of Spanish. The discussion in section 3 is directly relevant to this complex question, in that the apparently suppletive pattern produced by the ‘Spurious se rule’ of Spanish, whereby se receives the dative interpretation in combination with an accusative clitic, is actually found in some languages (S. Agata) independently of any mutual exclusion. This amounts to saying that the pattern emerging from the apparent suppletion mechanism does not require any explanation beyond those provided above for languages where suppletion is not found. Among Italian dialects, the spurious se pattern is attested by Sardinian ones. The essential data are reproduced in (34) for the dialect of Làconi. The language has a specialized dative form which emerges in isolation, as in (34a), and a full accusative paradigm, illustrated in (34b). In combination with an accusative, the dative interpretation is however conveyed by the si clitic, as in (34c). Both the accusative clitic and the dative clitic appear to follow all other clitics, such as the P clitic or the partitive in (34d)–(34e). (34) Làconi (Sardinia) a ddi/ddizi a k’kustu to.him/to.them gives this ‘He gives this to him/them’ b ddu/dda/dduzu/ddaza b’biu him/her./them-m./them-f. I.see ‘I see him/her/them’

100

Lexicalization patterns of third person dative c

d

e

si ddu ’aDa to.him it gives ‘He gives it to him’ mi ddu ’aDa to.me it gives ‘He gives it to me’ ndi ddi ’a d’duaza of.them to.him gives two ‘He gives two of them to him’

The above analyses provide us with a basis for the systematization of both the clitic inventory and the insertion positions involved in a dialect like Làconi. The evidence concerning the position of both accusative and dative clitics is compatible with the conclusion that the insertion point of both clitics is N. This explains the fact that they surface to the right of all other clitics, including P clitics which precede the accusative as in (35a), and the partitive clitic which precedes the dative as in (35b). Note that in keeping with the conclusions of section 2, in (35b) the position of the partitive has been taken to be R; the argument that the dative is in N is particularly strong in cases of clusters such as (35b), since, if the dative could be inserted in a higher position in the string, we could expect the partitive itself to occur in N and thus to follow the dative. The si- accusative cluster can simply be assigned the structure in (35c) where si occupies the Q position, in consonance with the discussion in section 2. (35) Làconi a D R

b

c

Q P Loc N I | | | mi ddu aDa D R Q P Loc N I | | | ndi ddi a D R Q P Loc N I | | | si ddu aDa

As for the lexical entries of third person clitics, we note that Sardinian dialects in general, and the Làconi one in particular, have a fully specified set of clitics corresponding to the accusative and dative paradigm. What is especially interesting is that contrary to the other cases considered thus far, there is no lexical overlapping of dative and accusative. Let us begin with the accusative paradigm. The d morpheme, which we analyze as an I head within the clitic constituent, combines with u and a morphemes for the masculine and feminine singular respectively, which we in turn analyze as its N inflection, as in (36a)–(36b). To a and u may in turn be added the plural morpheme s; the internal structure of us, as is the same provided in (10) for Cs, as with the vocalic

Lexicalization patterns of third person dative

101

nominal class morpheme in the I head of its constituent followed by the s morpheme with Q denotation in N. The combination of d with the us, as inflections yields the plural forms in (36c)–(36d). It remains for us to consider the dative. In this case as well, we find the I morpheme d followed in N by a morpheme i which we take to be specialized for distributivity, as in (36e). The noteworthy property of the Làconi dialect in this respect is that it has two separate lexicalizations for plurality and distributivity, i.e. s and i respectively. Nothing in principle prevents i and s from combining, and indeed they do combine in a dative plural clitic which takes the form illustrated in (36f). (36) Làconi a [I d b [I d c [I d d [I d e [I d f [I d

[N u ]] [N a ]] [N us ]] [N as ]] [N i ]] [N is]]

The lexical properties of the clitics in (36), in particular the fact that they correspond to a full noun phrase including a d nominal head, induce insertion into the N position. This also holds for the di/dis forms which embed an i morpheme with Q denotation, evidently not sufficient to induce insertion in Q. We can tentatively connect this to the fact that datives inserted in Q have either a pure i morphology (Olivetta, Casaccia) or a specialized consonantal head (J of Vagli), that effectively selects for the i morpheme itself. Clitics comprising an ltype head and an i morpheme lexicalize N, as in the Làconi dialect itself, and below in the Nociglia one. The R alternative is in principle open for both i-type and li-type clitics. In fact, there is evidence that the R insertion point can alternate with Q for i of Olivetta, though not for Ji of Vagli or i of Casaccia. Similarly we shall argue that an R insertion point characterizes li of Celle di Bulgheria below, though not di of Làconi. This is in keeping with the conclusion of section 2.1 that lexicalization in R represents an independent parameter; more precisely, merger in R corresponds to lexicalization of a scope specificity position. What is directly relevant here is that given the N insertion point for di of Làconi, the mutual exclusion between accusative and dative can be attributed simply to the fact that they insert in the same N position. Either one may be inserted in N, but if the accusative is inserted then the dative is excluded, and vice versa. The mutual exclusion between accusative and dative results in the apparent substitution of the dative by the si clitic. The basic lexical entry for si as an element with quantificational denotation predicts the existence of strings where si in Q is followed by the accusative inserted in N. The fundamental characterization of si as a quantificational variable implies the possibility of the impersonal interpretation (i.e. a generic interpretation), as well as of the reflexive interpretation, whereby the reference of si is fixed by an antecedent. In some

102

Lexicalization patterns of third person dative

dialects, as in the case of S. Agata in section 2.3, it also yields a distributive (dative) interpretation; the same holds for Làconi, when a cluster with the accusative is involved. That purely interpretive properties are involved, and not structural ones, is underlined by the ambiguity between the reflexive interpretation of si and the non-reflexive dative interpretation evident in contexts such as (37). (37) Làconi si ddaz a ssamu’naDaza to.him/to.himself them he.has washed ‘He has washed them (i.e. his/his own hands)’ From the present perspective the question is why the reflexive reading of si remains available in contexts where there is no accusative clitic, while the nonreflexive reading becomes impossible. We have seen in the course of the above discussion that the traditional third person dative specification corresponds to the combination of two properties, namely the distributivity property with the property of third person denotation. Indeed di combines both properties, namely the third person property, lexicalized by the definiteness morpheme d, and the distributivity property associated with the i morpheme; si can be associated with distributivity given its quantificational denotation, but does not have definite (third person) denotation. Therefore we propose that the third person dative reading is available for purely quantificational si only in contexts in which definite denotation is independently lexicalized in the string, specifically by the clitic in N, corresponding to the argument over which the dative distributes. In other contexts it remains perfectly possible to have si but only with its reflexive/impersonal reading different from that of a definite pronoun. Crucially, if what precedes is on the right track, the phenomena routinely described as substitution of a clitic for another in a cluster are nothing of the sort. Two independent accounts are involved on the one hand for the mutual exclusion of two clitics in a string and on the other hand for the emergence of some other combination such as si accusative as well as for the range of possible interpretations associated with it. It is important to emphasize that the proposed analysis does at no point rely on the comparison between possible representations or derivations, differing in this respect from optimality approaches (Grimshaw 1997, 1999). Furthermore, no manipulation of features/categories is implied, either in the form of feature changing or in the form of feature fusion, fission and in general of the operations introduced by Distributed Morphology (Halle and Marantz 1993). A particularly clear comparison is with Calabrese (1997) who also briefly considers the Sardinian examples. Indeed, Calabrese accounts for mutual exclusion on the basis of an ad hoc morphological restriction on morphological feature clusters, while suppletion is produced by a repair rule changing one of the conflicting features. Our proposal concerning Làconi, where the possibility of the non-reflexive dative reading for si in accusative contexts only is related to the lack of intrinsic

Lexicalization patterns of third person dative

103

third person properties, is supported by the observation that in this dialect si also appears as the first and second person plural reflexive, as illustrated by the reflexive paradigm in (38a). More generally it lexicalizes reference to the first and second plural person in non-reflexive contexts, as in (38b)–38c). (38) Làconi a mi ’zamunu ti ’zamunaza si ’zamunaDa si zamu’nauzu si zamu’naizi si ’zamunanta myself I.wash ‘I wash myself’ b si b’biaDa us/you-pl. he.sees ‘He sees us/you’ c si a k’kustu to.us/to.you-pl. he.gives this ‘He gives this to us/you’ To account for a dialect like Làconi, we begin by considering what a more precise characterization of the first and second person plural readings may be, and how they may be made consistent with the basic nature of si assumed thus far. A relevant consideration is that while there are several dialects which admit of si as the reflexive in first and second person contexts both in the singular and in the plural, none of the dialects reviewed by Manzini and Savoia (2005) have si as the lexicalization of first and second person singular in non-reflexive contexts. Indeed the so-called first and second person singular correspond to individual denotations introduced directly the universe of discourse, namely the speaker and hearer respectively. On the contrary, the denotation of the so-called first and second person plural consists of a set including the speaker and hearer but also other individuals, whose reference is not necessarily anchored in the universe of discourse. Therefore we are led to conclude that while the usual nonreflexive (i.e. non-antecedent) determined interpretation of si cannot subsume speaker or hearer, it can nevertheless subsume reference to a set including hearer or speaker. Even in a language like standard Italian, which has first and second person forms distinct from si in the reflexive paradigm, impersonal si can not only be associated with a generic interpretation, but also with a specific interpretation of sorts. Thus if in (39a) si is most naturally intepreted as referring to human beings in general, the most natural interpretation of (39b) is one in which si refers to the restricted set of people belonging to the family. The two relevant interpretations are discussed by Chierchia (1995) who characterizes them as ‘generic’ and ‘episodic’ respectively. What is directly relevant for the present

104

Lexicalization patterns of third person dative

discussion is that one interpretation which is particularly salient in specific (or episodic) contexts is precisely the first person plural interpretation, i.e. ‘we’; thus (39b) itself can be rendered as in questa famiglia siamo sempre scontenti: ‘in this family we’re always unhappy’. (39) a b

Quando si è buoni si è contenti when one is good, one is happy In questa famiglia si è sempre scontenti in this family one is always unhappy

We propose that the ability of si to refer to a set restricted by contextual information forms a basis for its interpretation as the set contextually restricted by reference to the speaker (i.e. the so-called first person plural), or to the hearer (i.e. the so-called second person plural). In this way, in keeping with the general program of a minimalist explanation of clitic systems, we account for the lexicalization of first and second person plural reference, as in the Làconi dialect, without having recourse to ad hoc morphological mechanisms such as readjustment strategies (Bonet 1991). By contrast, a dialect such as S. Agata considered above in section 3 does not extend the denotation of si to first or second person plural in any context; even the reflexive paradigm has distinct first and second person plural forms, namely ndi and vi respectively, as in (40). (40) S. Agata del Bianco mi ’lavu ti ’lavi si ’lava ndi la’vamu vi la’vati si ’lavanu myself I.wash ‘I wash myself’ It is natural to connect the isolated use of si as the non-reflexive dative in the S. Agata dialect to the fact that the clitic does not admit to what we have conventionally characterized as first and second person readings. In particular, we have suggested that dialects like Làconi are able to lexicalize the distributor by means of si only in contexts where a third person reference is independently lexicalized (in particular by the N argument that si distributes over) in that s is a quantificational head not restricted to third person reference. On the other hand, in languages like S. Agata, we may assume that the si clitic has intrinsic third person reference; s will then lexicalize the distributor in all contexts.

Lexicalization patterns of third person dative

105

4.2 Other suppletion patterns According to the above discussion, mutual exclusion between datives and accusative and the emergence of apparent suppletion patterns are unrelated phenomena. As a consequence of this, we may expect that the ways of lexicalizing the dative in apparent suppletion contexts are exactly the same as we have found for the dative in general, independently of suppletion. Thus since in section 3 we have seen that the dative may be lexicalized by morphologically non-third person forms including the si clitic, but also by the partitive or the locative, we may expect suppletion patterns to be possible not only with si, as in section 4.1, but also with the partitive or locative. In theories in which the insertion of si or some other clitic is caused by mutual exclusion of accusative and dative, and dictated by criteria of underspecification, there is no particular reason for expecting this result, i.e. that the patterns we end up with are all and only those that are attested for dative contexts independently. To begin with, we consider dialects where a partitive form is substituted for the morphologically third person dative, which appears in isolation and in clusters with other clitics. These include some dialects of Calabria and Lucania as well as of Apulia, as illustrated in (41). As usual, (41a) gives the isolation form of the dative, which is also found in clusters with non-accusative clitics, such as the partitive in (41d); in the latter case the dative appears at the end of the clitic sequence. In combination with accusative clitics, whose paradigm is provided in (41b), the dative is substituted by a partitive-type clitic, as in (41c). Note that example (41d) coincides with example (41c) on the string nE li; the latter is in other words ambiguous between the dative–accusative reading indicated in (41c) and the partitive–dative reading indicated in (41d). (41) Nociglia (Apulia) a li ’dajE ’kwistu to.him he.gives this ‘He gives this to him’ b lu/la/li/lE ’viSu him/her/them-m./them-f. I.see ‘I see him/her/them’ c nE lu/la/li/lE ’dajE to.him t-m./it-f./them-m./them-f. he gives ‘He gives it/them to him’ d nE li ’dajE ’dCi of.them to.him he.gives two ‘He gives two of them to him’ The basic properties of the dialect of Nociglia, which account for the complementary distribution of morphologically third person dative and accusative, are not unlike those already considered in section 4.1 for Làconi. We associate the clitics of the accusative series lu/la/li/lE with the lexical entries in

106

Lexicalization patterns of third person dative

(42), where the l morpheme corresponds to a nominal I head while the vocalic morpheme that follows it occupies its N inflection. (42) Nociglia a [I l b [I l c [I l d [I l

[N u ]] [N a ]] [N E ]] [N i ]]

Due to their nominal properties, the clitics in (42) are inserted in the N position of the string. This holds in particular for the li form, which even as a distributor follows all other clitics it can co-occur with, including the partitive. If a high position was available to the dative, say Q, we could expect the partitive to occur in N, hence to the right of the dative. Instead the partitive is presumably inserted in R, as in (43). As discussed more than once, the availability of R to the partitive clitic but not to the dative depends on an independent parameter. Thus nE admits of lexicalization in the scopal specificity position corresponding to R, while the l series, including li, is constrained to the N position. The insertion of all clitics in (42) in N position means of course that they are in complementary distribution, excluding in particular the combination of li as a distributor with another clitic of the series. (43) Nociglia D R Q P Loc N I | | | nE li dajE The impossibility of combining two clitics of the set in (42) in a dative–accusative cluster gives rise to the apparent substitution of the dative by nE. According to the discussion in section 3 concerning Nocara, nE contributes to fixing the reference of the internal argument N of the event. This is true both of the partitive interpretation of nE and of its so-called dative one, whereby (41c) corresponds informally to ‘they give it (and it is) of his’. As in the case of ‘spurious se’, the problem is why the partitive takes on this particular interpretation only in the presence of an accusative clitic. In the traditional perspective taken up and theorized by optimality accounts, inserting the more specialized form of dative (i.e. li) is necessary when possible; insertion of nE in its place is just a last resort option for those contexts where insertion of li is not possible. The approach taken here however sees the alternation between the lexicalization of li and nE in a radically different light, since the two clitics effectively lexicalize different interpretive contents, which can only descriptively be imputed to a common label of dative. In this respect it is crucial that li does not in any way represent a specialized dative, as optimality treatments would imply, since it is also the accusative masculine plural; it is not obvious therefore that li has more features in common with the gender- and

Lexicalization patterns of third person dative

107

number-neutral dative than nE. In this sense neither li nor nE represents an optimal solution to some underlying third person dative feature; or more precisely, both of them are equally optimal solutions, if as Chomsky (1995) puts it syntax is an optimal solution to the problem of interfacing LF and PF. We must therefore conclude that the child learning the Nociglia language learns a slightly more complex system than those considered in section 3, in which distributivity is lexicalized only in contexts where the internal argument is not a definite clitic pronoun. When the internal argument is such a clitic, what is lexicalized in the same contexts is a partitive specification. The last typology to be considered here involves dialects of central and southern Italy where a morphologically third person form of dative emerging in isolation and in non-accusative contexts alternates with a Loc clitic in clusters with accusatives, as illustrated in (44). As before, (a) provides the isolation form of the dative, while (b)–(c) illustrate the accusative paradigm; note that the accusative plural form differs from the dative form in that the former but not the latter triggers gemination of the following consonant (a type of ‘raddoppiamento fonosintattico’). As may be seen in (d)–(e), it is the Loc clitic that combines with the accusative in dative contexts, exactly as in locative ones, cf. (g). The combination of dative and partitive furthermore gives rise to the order li-ne, as illustrated in (f). (44) Celle di Bulgheria (Campania) a li ’danu ’kistu to.him they.give this ‘They give this to him’ b lu/la ’viDinu him/her they.see ‘They see him/her’ c li b’biDinu them they.see ‘They see them’ d ndZi lu ’danu to.him it they.give ‘They give it to him’ e ndZi li d’danu to.him them they.give ‘They give them to him’ f li si nni ’daji ’trCppu to.him one of.it gives too much ‘One gives too much of it to him/He is being given too much of it’ g ndZi ’mittu ’kistu there I.put this ‘I put this there’ The analysis of the clitic set in the dialect of Celle cannot abstract from the fact that the relative order of clitics is compatible with a high insertion position

108

Lexicalization patterns of third person dative

for the dative itself. The latter in general precedes the clitics with which it cooccurs, including the partitive and the si clitic; this suggests an R insertion position, as illustrated in (45). (45) Celle di Bulgheria D R Q P Loc | | li si

N | nni

I | daji

An immediate consequence of the high insertion position of the dative in (45) is that the complementary distribution between datives and accusatives cannot be explained simply by the fact that they compete for the same N position. This situation, though not considered thus far, is far from rare in Italian dialects; in other words, there are many dialects where mutual exclusion patterns are found even when two or more different positions in the string are available for insertion of the relevant clitics. Several such cases are considered in detail in Chapter 4, where we provide an explanation depending on the lexical properties of the clitics themselves. The idea is that the l morpheme of clitics whose insertion excludes that of other clitics of the same series lexicalizes all properties with which it is associated for the whole clitic string. In particular then the insertion of an l clitic prevents the relexicalization in the string of the nominal properties associated with the l morpheme, and interpretively connected in our model to third person reference. Let us consider the accusative series in the Celle di Bulgheria dialect, i.e. lu/la/li. As discussed above, we associate the l morpheme with the I head of a nominal constituent; in turn the u, a and i morphemes may be associated with the N inflection of the definiteness base, as in (46a)–(46c). The quantificational denotation of i will determine the distributive (dative) interpretation of li. Since as a plural accusative li provokes phonosyntactic gemination of the following consonant, we are led to assume that its lexical entry includes an abstract final consonant C. Following previous discussion, iC is a N inflection, as in (46d). As for the internal shape of the iC constituent we suggest an analysis on the model of Sardinian (10), where i is the I head of a constituent of which C represents an N inflection; therefore it is C that in this subsystem lexicalizes the quantificational specification for plural. (46) Celle di Bulgheria a [I l [N u]] b [I l [N a ]] c [I l [N i ]] d [I l [N iC ]] The idea that insertion in any position of the clitic string of an l clitic of the type in (46) succeeds in lexicalizing the relevant nominal properties of the whole string means that if the li clitic in (46c) is inserted in R, it prevents the insertion

Lexicalization patterns of third person dative

109

of an accusative clitic in N. Vice versa, insertion of an accusative clitic in N excludes that of the distributor li in the higher R position for the same reason. This explanation does not touch on the possibility of combining the clitics of the l series in (46) with other clitics, which do not have the relevant l-type properties; hence li can be combined with si and the partitive as in (45), and the accusative can of course be combined with the locative, as in the suppletion pattern in (44d). As for the apparent suppletion pattern itself, its explanation follows already familiar lines. On the one hand, we have indicated in some detail in section 3 how the Loc clitic can come to lexicalize contexts which in other languages may be lexicalized by a third person distributor (the so-called specialized dative). On the other hand, in a language like Celle it is only in combination with a third person accusative that the Loc clitic takes on the so-called dative interpretation, i.e. one in which it provides the possessor with coordinatives of the internal argument of the verb. As in the case of ne suppletion patterns, we will assume that this relatively complex distribution is learned by the native speaker. The discussion concerning Celle di Bulgheria, in basing the mutual exclusion between dative and accusative on a lexical property of the l morpheme implies that it is independent of the status of the clitic as a dative or as an accusative. Indeed in Chapter 4 we show that many northern Italian dialects with subject clitics do not allow for the combination of a third person subject clitic with a third person object clitic. In the simplest case this mutual exclusion leads to the lexicalization of only one of the two clitics, namely the accusative; in many dialects the accusative takes a fixed form; this latter phenomenon also has a counterpart in dative-accusative patterns that will be examined below. Interestingly in no cases that we know of, one of the two clitics can actually be substituted by a different form altogether (e.g. ci, ne, si). This further clinches the argument in favor of the conceptual and empirical separation of mutual exclusion and suppletion. 4.3 ‘Partial’ mutual exclusion In discussing the dialect of Celle in section 4.2 we have proposed that the mutual exclusion between accusatives and datives both belonging to the l series may be attributed to the fact that insertion of one l clitic lexicalizes definiteness properties for the whole string, preventing their relexicalization by another clitic of the same series. The dialects in which all clitics of the N series insert in N (such as Làconi) are in a way a special case of this more general state of affairs, also discussed in Chapter 4. In what precedes we have further analyzed clitics of the l series as consisting typically of two constituents, namely l itself associated with definite denotation, and a vocalic head corresponding to a nominal class inflection. Putting this together with the general mechanism of mutual exclusion just described, we may expect to find mutual exclusion phenomena that, instead of involving the whole clitic, only involve the l subconstituent. This case is indeed found, providing direct evidence in support of our theory.

110

Lexicalization patterns of third person dative

Consider dialects such as Gavoi in (47): (47a) illustrates the dative in isolation, (47b) the accusative in combination with a P clitic, and (47c) the combination of accusative and dative. While the clitics in (47a)–(47b) include an l morpheme, the cluster in (47c) has an l dative followed by an accusative including simply nominal class and eventually plural morphology. (47) Gavoi (Sardinia) a li ’daDa ’?ustu to.him he.gives this b mi lu/lCr ’daDa to.me it/them he.gives c li u/a/Cr/ar ’daDa to.him it-m./it-f./them-m./them-f. he.gives The accusative paradigm of a dialect such as Gavoi may be analyzed along the same lines indicated in (10)–(11) for Sardinian dialects in general. We treat a and u as nominal class (gender) morphemes in the I position of their own constituent, as in (48a)–(48b). As suggested in (10) above, the plural morpheme s is a lexicalization of the N inflection of this nominal class basis, as in (48c)–(48d); the r ending surfacing in the examples in (47) is simply a phonological alternant of s. The l morpheme corresponds in turn to the I head of a nominal constituent, embedding the nominal inflections u, a, Cs, as in N as in (48a)–(48d). Contrary to various other cases considered thus far, the dative form does not coincide exactly with any of the accusative ones. We of course analyze the l morpheme as for the accusative series. Furthermore we identify i with an N inflection with quantification denotation, as in (48e); this amounts to proposing that the Gavoi dialect, like the Làconi one in section 3, has a specialized lexicalization for distributivity (i.e. i), distinct from the lexicalization of plurality (i.e. s). (48) Gavoi a [I u ]] b [I a ]] c [I C [N s ]] d [I a [N s ]] a b c d

[I l [I l [I l [I l

e

[I l [N i ]]

[N u ]] [N a ]] [N Cs ]] [N as ]]

The nominal properties of accusative clitics correspond to their insertion in the N position of the clitic string. By virtue of its quantificational properties, we expect li to be inserted in a higher position, as it indeed is when it combines with

Lexicalization patterns of third person dative

111

accusatives. On the other hand, its nominal properties should also allow for insertion in N. We have direct evidence for this possibility in cases such as (49a), in which the dative is preceded by the partitive. If the dative was inserted higher we could expect the partitive to normally insert in N and therefore to follow it, as it follows other clitics such as those of the P series in examples like (49b). We take it that the order observed in (49a) can only be explained by assuming that the partitive lexicalizes R, but it does so because the dative itself inserts in N. In turn, given that R alternates with N as a possible insertion point, we can identify the high position of datives with R. (49) Gavoi a nde li ’daDa ’duCs of.them to.him he.gives two b ti ndE ’daDa ’duCs to.you of.them he.gives two The points of insertion of the clitics in (48) are therefore as indicated in (48). (48) Gavoi (l)u, (l)a, (l)Cs, (l)as → N li → R, N What is immediately relevant for our current purposes is that the clustering of dative and accusative is impossible with the dative and the accusative both lexicalized by l clitics, as indicated in (50). (50) Gavoi *li lu/la/lCr/lar ’daDa to.him it-m./it-f./them-m./them-f. he.gives The pattern in (50) is explained by our theory of mutual exclusions as due to the fact that the l head of the clitic lexicalizes nominal reference properties for the whole string. Once an l form is inserted, insertion of a second l form is therefore excluded. The Gavoi dialect represents a particularly transparent answer to this requirement; thus its morphology allows it to lexicalize only the nominal class properties for the accusative, while the dative lexicalizes distributivity as well as nominal l properties for the whole string. This gives rise to strings of the type in (47c), to which we can now assign the structure in (51): (51) Gavoi D R Q P Loc | li

N I | | u daDa

112

Lexicalization patterns of third person dative

5 Specialized (‘opaque’) forms for the combinations of third person dative and third person accusative The last major type of phenomena attested by our data is represented by the appearance of one specialized clitic form, endowed with third person morphology, with the interpretation of a clustering of third person dative and accusative. This is reminiscent of the description provided by Harris (1994) and Bonet (1995) for the Catalan dialect of Barcelona (Barceloní), where the cluster of accusative and dative (singular) does not surface as such but as a single form li, which corresponds to the dative in isolation. In the analysis of these authors however li is not simply the dative form but rather what they call an ‘opaque’ form (Bonet 1995), i.e. a specialized lexicalization of the cluster. 5.1 Dative for accusative Languages of the type of Barceloní, where clusters of accusative and dative appear to reduce to the clitic form that also lexicalizes the dative in isolation, also include some dialects of the Abruzzi such as Mascioni in (52)–(53). The clitic inventory of this language includes a lu/la/li/le series for masculine singular, feminine singular, masculine plural and feminine plural respectively to which is added a lo form for the neuter, as illustrated in (52a)–(52b). The li clitic furthermore lexicalizes the dative as in (52c). Two l clitics cannot be combined, one as an accusative and the other as a dative; instead we find the form li as in (53a). As in most other dialects considered thus far, the accusative follows other clitics, for instance, P clitics, with which it normally combines, as in (53b). Interestingly, however, the dative may also be shown to follow the clitics it combines with, in particular the partitive as in (53c), whereas the partitive itself typically follows other clitics such as those of the P series as in (53d). (52) Mascioni (Abruzzi) a lo ’iko it I.say ‘I say it’ b lu/la/li/le ’camo him/her/them-m./them-f. I.call ‘I call him/her/them’ c li a k’kweSto to.him he.gives this ‘He gives this to him’ (53) a

b

li ’a to.him he.gives ‘He gives it/them to him’ me lo ’a to.me it he.gives ‘He gives it to me’

Lexicalization patterns of third person dative c

d

113

ne li ’a d’du of.them to.him he.gives two ‘He gives two of them to him’ me ne ’a d’du to.me of.them he.gives two ‘He gives two of them to me’

The evidence in (53) points to the conclusion that both the accusative and the dative have N as their insertion position in the dialect of Mascioni. Thus the accusative follows all other clitics with which it co-occurs, including the P clitics, yielding structures of the type in (54a). However, on the evidence of (53c), the dative also follows the clitics with which it co-occurs, and in particular the partitive. As we have suggested in connection with Gavoi, if the dative was inserted in R we could expect the partitive to normally insert in N and therefore to follow it, as it indeed follows P, Loc and si-type clitics. We take it that the order observed in (53c) may be explained by assuming that the partitive lexicalizes R, but it does so only because the dative is itself inserted in N, as illustrated in (54b). (54) Mascioni a D R

b

Q

D R Q | ne

P Loc N I | | | me lo a P Loc N I | | li a

As for the internal structure of the lo/lu/la/li/le series, following the analyses proposed throughout, we associate the l morpheme with the nominal head of a constituent, which in this dialect systematically embeds a vocalic inflection. The gender morpheme a is the lexicalization of N as in (55c). Furthermore Mascioni, like other dialects of central Italy, specifically of the Abruzzi area, distinguishes in the singular between the u morpheme of the masculine as in (55a) and the o morpheme of the neuter as in (55b). As for le, we treat e as yet another nominal class morpheme, as in (55e); thus for the feminine, plurality is denoted by a change in nominal class rather than by a plural morpheme proper. On the contrary, i seems to be appropriately treated as a category with quantificational denotation, as in (55d), being associated either with plurality, as when it lexicalizes the descriptive accusative masculine plural, or with distributivity, when it lexicalizes the dative (for all numbers and genders). (55) Mascioni a [I l [N u ]] b [I l [N o ]] c [I l [N a ]] d [I l [N i ]] e [I l [N e ]]

114

Lexicalization patterns of third person dative

In a dialect such as Mascioni the co-occurrence of dative and accusative is blocked by the simple fact that they insert in the same position N for which they compete. In other words, there is a unique insertion point for the whole l series, as in (55). In general we have seen that datives inserted in Q have either a pure i morphology (Olivetta) or a specialized consonantal head (Ji of Vagli). Clitics comprising an l head and an i morpheme lexicalize N (for instance, Gavoi and Mascioni itself) and eventually R. The R alternative is open in the Gavoi language, but not in the Mascioni language. (55) Mascioni lo, lu, la, li, le

→ N

The interesting point about Mascioni is the lexicalization of the li form in contexts implying a dative-accusative interpretation. The structure for li of Mascioni in (55d) includes a Q specification that can be associated with number or with distributivity (dativity) as well as a nominal l head associated with what is traditionally known as third person reference. Our idea is that insertion of li in the N position on the one hand entails lexicalization of the l (i.e. third person properties) for the whole string; on the other hand it specifically lexicalizes the distributivity property through i. Thus li in a dialect like Mascioni is compatible with the dative–accusative interpretation in that l can lexicalize multiple third person referents, while i introduces the distributive interpretation that we have identified with dativity. On the contrary, insertion of a lu/lo/la/le form can only be interpreted as introducing reference to an accusative object, in that they lack the distributor in their internal structure. 5.2 Accusative for dative In the cases considered thus far under the heading of ‘opacity’ the mutual exclusion of third person accusative and dative clitics results in the lexicalization of the dative, as illustrated here with Mascioni. However, mutual exclusion can also result in the survival of the accusative. This situation is found in a number of dialects of Apulia, Lucania and Calabria, including Grottaglie in (56). As before, (a) illustrates the dative in isolation, (b) the accusative in isolation, and (c) the survival of the sole accusative in dative-accusative contexts. In this dialect, the accusative clitic generally follows the clitics it combines with, as in (d). As for the dative, the mutual exclusion pattern extends to the partitive, as in (56e), which means that we lack good combinations with other clitics altogether. (56) Grottaglie (Apulia) a li ’tC ’kwiStu to him I.give this ‘I give this to him’ b lu/la/li ’vEtinu him/her/them they.see ‘They see him/her/them’

Lexicalization patterns of third person dative c

d

e

115

lu/la/li ’tE it-m./it-f./them s/he.gives ‘S/he gives it/them to him’ ti lu/la/li ’tE to.you it-m./it-f./them s/he.gives ‘S/he gives it/them to you’ ni tE ’tui of.them s/he.gives two ‘S/he gives two of them to him’

The clitic repertory of the dialect of Grottaglie includes three different forms for the accusative clitic, two for the singular (masculine and feminine) and one for the plural; the dative in isolation coincides with the descriptive accusative plural. Following the analyses proposed above, we treat l as a nominal I head. The morpheme a, descriptively associated with feminine gender, is the lexicalization of a nominal class property, as in (57b). The same holds for the u morpheme descriptively associated with the masculine, as in (57a). Naturally the i morpheme showing up in the plural and in the dative is in current terms an element with Q denotation, as in (57c). (57) Grottaglie a [I l [N u]] b [I l [N a ]] c [I l [N i ]] The nominal properties of all these clitics make them compatible with insertion in N; indeed, the distribution of the accusative follows the usual lines, in that the accusative is preceded by all other clitics. On the one hand, in the absence of clusters including li as a distributor (dative in descriptive terms), we could conclude that it is also inserted in N as accusative li. On the other hand, the mechanism of mutual exclusion would remain substantially unchanged if we were to hypothesize a higher insertion position for dative li, for instance, R as in (57). In this latter case, we would say that insertion of an l clitic in N lexicalizes definiteness for the whole string, preventing insertion of another l clitic. If all clitics insert in N, a special case of this constraint applies, under which the shared definiteness properties imply a single point of insertion, hence automatic mutual exclusion. (57) Grottaglie lu, la, li → N (li → R) The interesting property of the Grottaglie dialect is that lexicalization of the accusative series in N is compatible with the cluster interpretation dativeaccusative. The presence of an l form in N may therefore be interpreted as a

116 Lexicalization patterns of third person dative straightforward lexicalization of the internal argument as in (56b); or it may interpretively imply reference to another third person argument, such as the distributor in (56c). By contrast with Mascioni the insertion of the li distributor, while excluding that of the accusative, is not able to subsume it; thus the dative only surfaces in the presence of a lexical object (or an incorporated object in the case of unergatives) and does not give rise to the cluster interpretation. This asymmetry may be connected to the fact that in the dialect of Grottaglie, lexicalization of the internal argument requires that of a nominal class property, such as u, a or i itself interpreted as a plural specification of the l base. The dative alone does not suffice to lexicalize dative–accusative contexts, in that it does not lexicalize a nominal class property. Vice versa, the fact that in this dialect the scopal properties of dative may be subsumed by the accusative can be explained by assuming that l specification of the latter is interpreted with the relevant distributor scope. In short, the two dialects of Mascioni and Grottaglie appear even superficially to make specular choices, in that Grottaglie simplifies the cluster of dative and accusative to the accusative, while Mascioni simplifies it to the dative. In fact, both dialects have the property that the l head lexicalizes properties of the whole string and hence gives rise to a potential third person cluster reading. However, while Grottaglie enforces the lexicalization of N properties through the nominal class morpheme, the Mascioni dialect enforces lexicalization of the distributor. This parametric choice is primitive and therefore learned. 5.3 ‘Opaque’ forms without mutual exclusion It is also interesting to note that contrary to what is implied by the Barcelonì case reported in the literature the emergence of forms specialized for the third person dative to third person accusative context does not depend on the mutual exclusion between the two clitics. This may be seen in particular from several dialects of the Marche, such as Piobbico in (58). In the Piobbico dialect the accusative series is el/la/(l)i/le, both in isolation from and in combination with other clitics, for instance, of the P series as in (58b); the i clitic furthermore represents the dative, in isolation as in (58a) but also in combination with clitics such as si in (58d). The lexicalization of dative and accusative in this language does not however lead to sequences i  el/la/(l)i/le; rather we find a specialized li form preceded by i as in (58c). (58) Piobbico (Marche) a i ’da ’kwest to.him he.gives this ‘He gives this to him’ b m el/la/(l)i/le ’da to.me it-m./it-f./them-m./them-f. he.gives ‘He gives it/them to me’

Lexicalization patterns of third person dative c

d

117

i li ’da to.him it/them he.gives ‘He gives it/them to him’ i si ’da ’sEmpre ra’dZo:ne to.him one gives always reason ‘One always approves of him/he is always approved of’

Let us begin by considering the internal structure of the accusative and dative series. Taking up again the analyses proposed before we assume that the l morpheme lexicalizes the I head of a nominal constituent, while a vocalic morpheme corresponding to nominal class specifications such as a, e is embedded under l as its N inflection, yielding structures of the type in (59b) and (59c). The case of el in (59a) is analyzed on the other hand as an allomorph of l, hence as an I head not embedding any inflectional specification. The i clitic, corresponding to both the descriptive accusative masculine plural and the isolation form of the dative, is the I head with quantificational denotation as in (59d). This same morpheme can combine with the l base denoting definiteness, as in (59e); this gives rise to the li form, which corresponds to the internal argument in the context of a dative as in (58c), but also to the internal argument with (masculine) plural interpretation in other contexts as in (58b). (59) Piobbico a [I el] b [I l [N a ]] c [I l [N e ]] d [I i ] e [I l [N i ]] The lexical properties of all clitics in (59) are compatible with insertion in the N position of the clitic string, where the el/la/le set receives the ordinary interpretation as internal arguments of the verb, as does the (l)i form, whose quantificational properties induce a plural reading. The i clitic can furthermore lexicalize the Q position, or more correctly in this case the R position, since it precedes si in Q in examples such as (60), receiving there a distributive interpretation, which corresponds to the descriptive label of dative. Remember that in the case of Olivetta in section 2.2 the i clitic in R could be interpreted not only as a dative (distributor) but also as a masculine plural accusative. We correlate the parameter between the two languages to the obvious fact that it is the whole third person clitic series that merges in R in Olivetta, but only i in Piobbico. We maintain the proposal developed above that merger in the scopal R position corresponds to the specificity properties of the Olivetta third person series; on the other hand, the exclusively dative interpretation of the i clitic in R of Piobbico is explained if what motivates it is specifically its scopal sentential properties as a distributor.

118

Lexicalization patterns of third person dative

(60) Piobbico D R Q P Loc | | i si

N F | da

The problem we need to consider is that in the case of a third person argument distributing over a third person internal argument, the latter is lexicalized by li. We note that the internal structure suggested for li in (59e) consists of the i morpheme with quantificational denotation (i.e. in our terms a potential distributor), and of the l morpheme, which lexicalizes third person reference through its definite denotation. Therefore it is reasonable to assume that li is the specialized lexicalization precisely for a third person object in the scope of a distributor. The insertion position of li can in turn coincide with N, given the presence of the nominal l head; in this position it is of course preceded by i, which we can associate with R, as indicated in (61). (61) Piobbico D R Q P Loc | i

N F | | li da

6 General summary On the evidence of our discussion of the so-called dative, the traditional morphological category of case is a spurious one. In some languages, indeed, reference to the dative reduces to reference to the spatial or superset (partitive) coordinates of the internal argument of the event. In other languages, reference to the dative is introduced by means of a category, which appears to be associated with quantificational properties, interpreted both as distributivity and plurality (as with the type i/li) or genericity (in the case of si). What interests us directly is that all empirical elements are in place for concluding that crucially dative is a descriptive category and does not correspond to a syntactic category. What is more, the categories we adopt as an alternative to dative characterize intrinsic denotational content; thus Loc is interpreted with reference to the locative coordinates of discourse, and Q is interpreted as distributivity, genericity and so on. In no case are the relevant categories characterized by relational properties such as case would be. Our discussion suggests furthermore that the conclusions just drawn for the dative hold for case categories of traditional grammar in general. Thus traditional accusative may reduce to the internal argument interpretation (forcing a reanalysis of ECM), while nominative may be construed as another name for the EPP property, as argued in Chapter 1. The observation that in many dialects the dative coincides with the accusative plural (masculine) is in fact directly relevant not only to the status of the traditional feature of case but also to that of the feature of number, which traditionally represents the distinction between singular and plural. In fact, the above discussion supports the conclusion that there is no independent number category, but rather a quantificational property underlying plurality as well as distributivity.

Lexicalization patterns of third person dative

119

Nor do the other traditional phi-features survive a careful analysis, as already indicated in Chapter 1. The gender category is in fact problematic even within the framework of Chomsky (1995), at least if we want to enforce the idea that agreement features are interpretable on nouns; for gender corresponds to a property with referential import (roughly feminine sex) only in a small subset of cases in the Romance languages. On the contrary a characterization of gender that will hold true in all cases is that it corresponds to a nominal inflection class as we have assumed throughout this chapter. Thus in a language like standard Italian the so-called masculine (-o) and feminine (-a) coincide with two separate inflectional classes, to which must be added a third (-e) class which can combine with either of the above (i.e. is either feminine or masculine in traditional terms). Concerning person, it is of course a category of our grammar; but its content is not that of traditional (and generative) treatments opposing speaker (1p), hearer (2p) and others (3p). Rather we take it that P(erson) coincides with first and second person, whose distribution and general behavior differ from those of traditional third person. Another respect in which the current approach differs from the others found in the literature is that it does not introduce any form of comparison between derivations in the grammar to account for the ‘preference’ of one clitic or another according to context. That comparison between derivations (or representations) is involved is particularly evident in the optimality treatment of Romance clitics by Grimshaw. In essence, according to Grimshaw (1997, 1999), lexical insertion takes place on the basis of the need to satisfy the maximum possible amount of constraints defined by the grammar. This means that in isolation the closest match to a third person dative, in some languages a dedicated form, is inserted. If for some reason the dedicated form is unavailable, the grammar provides for the insertion of a severely underspecified element such as se, other positively specified elements necessarily violating more constraints than it does. Essentially the same conceptual schema, based on the implicit or explicit comparison between derivations or representations, is in fact implied by morphological theories that use Elsewhere as the basic lexical insertion principle, effectively the main line of generative morphology down to current distributed morphology frameworks (Halle and Marantz 1993). Our account of the relevant phenomena makes use of no Elsewhere principle, with the allied notions of underspecification or default, nor of comparison between derivations/representations. It seems to us that to the extent that such notions represent an enrichment of the grammar, the current account has an edge over its competitors. As for notions of comparisons of derivations or representations, recall that though they play some role in the earlier minimalist framework of Chomsky (1995) they have shown to be not only unnecessary, but to effectively derive the wrong results in more recent statements of the theory (Chomsky 2000, 2001) where they are altogether abandoned. As for notions of Elsewhere, and the attending concepts of underspecification and default, we note that these notions have been discounted in the very phonological domain in which they have first arisen (cf. the government phonology literature, e.g. Harris 1994).

4

Co-occurrence and mutual exclusion patterns of subject and object clitics

Our starting point for the discussion will be a set of assumptions, motivated in Chapter 3, which include the idea that clitics correspond to specialized categories, and are inserted directly into the positions where they surface. Such categories are ordered in a universal hierarchy. We shall show that within such a framework, it is possible to account for some basic facts about the clitic string without having recourse to anything but a minimalist syntactic component. In particular no use is made of a specialized morphological component nor of optimality-type comparisons between derivations/representations. The main facts addressed include, mutual exclusion of object and subject clitics and the emergence of what are described in the literature as opaque forms.

1 Mutual exclusion In order to show that the syntactic theory of clitics outlined in Chapter 3 is empirically adequate we consider the main types of evidence from Romance languages quoted by Bonet (1995) in favor of her morphological analysis. The first such type of evidence concerns the fact that ordering of clitics can vary from language to language, though the underlying order of full lexical arguments remains apparently unchanged. One well-known case concerns the ordering of third person dative and third person accusative forms in languages such as Italian, where the dative precedes the accusative, and in languages such as French, where the accusative precedes the dative. This is of course one of the topics considered in Chapter 3, and we shall simply adopt the conclusions advanced there. The next major phenomenon to be explained in this perspective is the mutual exclusion between clitics, which does not have a counterpart in the mutual exclusion between the corresponding full arguments. This phenomenon is also parametrized. Again the mutual exclusion of accusative and dative is discussed in Chapter 3. Here we shall introduce and analyze a comparable case, involving northern Italian dialects with subject clitics which do not allow for the combination of a third person subject clitic with a third person object clitic. In the simplest case mutual exclusion between accusative and subject clitics leads to the lexicalization of only one of the two clitics, namely the accusative. Consider, for instance, the dialect of Tavullia. This is a subject clitic language,

Mutual exclusion of subject and object clitics

121

giving rise in the third person to the l/la/i/le paradigm in (1a), which coincides with that of third person object clitics illustrated in (1b). Crucially, in the dialect of Tavullia, the presence of a third person object clitic excludes that of a third person singular subject clitic, as in (2a); the presence of an additional P clitic does not interfere with this mutual exclusion, as in (2b). On the other hand, the dialect allows for the combination of the third person plural subject clitic i with the whole third person series of object clitics, as in (1c); in this case the plural clitic takes on the denotation of both masculine and feminine. Note that there are several indications to the effect that the mutual exclusion between subject and object clitic in examples of the type in (2) is resolved in favor of the object. First of all, properties of the clitic such as masculine or feminine are interpreted as those of the object. Furthermore in an example such as (2b), the third person clitic follows the P clitic, as predicted if it is inserted in N like object clitics, and not in D like subject clitics. (1)

Tavullia (Marche) a El/la/i/le te ’cEma he/she/they-m/they-f you call(s) ‘He/she/they call you’ b t El/la/i/le ’cE:m you him/her/them-m/them-f call ‘You call him/her/them’ c i l/la/i/le ’cEma they him/her/them-m/them-f call ‘They call him/her/them’

(2)

Tavullia a El/la/i/le ’cEma him/her/them-m./them-f. calls ‘S/he calls him/her/them’ b m El/la ’da to.me it-m/it-f gives ‘S/he gives it to me’

Although we essentially elicit from our native speakers positive data rather than grammaticality judgments, it may be useful to indicate that what we do not find are crucially sentences of the type in (3) as opposed to (2). We can exclude that the impossibility of combining object and subject clitics depends on a prohibition against repeating the same clitic in the string, since it is clear that sequences such as those in (3) do not involve identical forms. (3)

Tavullia a *El la ’cEma he her calls b *El m la ’da he to.me it gives

122

Mutual exclusion of subject and object clitics

The l/la/i/le clitics of Tavullia with which we are concerned are compatible both with insertion in the nominal N position of object clitics and with insertion in the D position of subject clitics. In the first case they are preceded by the P clitic in subject position as in (4a), while in the second case they are followed by the object P clitic as in (4b). (4)

Tavullia a D | t b D | El/la/i/le

R

Q P

R

Q P | te

Loc

N | El/la/i/le Loc N

I | cE:m I | cEma

The fact to be explained about the dialect of Tavullia is that insertion of an l/la/i/le form in the N position of the clitic string blocks insertion of an l form in the D position, as in (5a), though the latter can host the i clitic as in (5b). From another perspective we could say equally that insertion of an l/la/i/le clitic in N results in a form of partial pro-drop, given that third person subject clitic forms are not lexicalized with the exception of the pure plural i. (5)

Tavullia a D Q P Loc

b

N I | | El/la/i/le cEma D Q P Loc N I | | | i l/la/i/le cEma

The lexical entries for third person clitics provided in Chapter 3 treat the third person clitics as noun phrases with an I head corresponding to an inflectional class (i.e. gender) morpheme or to a definiteness specification l, which can in turn embed a nominal class morpheme. We propose that in the Tavullia dialect the l clitics have the same type of structure, as indicated in (6). The i clitic has the structure in (6c), which makes it coincide with a pure lexicalization of a quantificational denotation. (6)

Tavullia a [I El] b [I l [N a]] c [I i ] d [I l [N e]]

We suggested above that the object for subject phenomenon reduces to the fact that insertion of one of the clitic forms in (6) in the N position of the string

Mutual exclusion of subject and object clitics

123

causes the Tavullia dialect to display a partial pro-drop phenomenon. In terms of the current analysis, non-null subject languages, as is Tavullia in the ordinary case, require the lexicalization of the definiteness properties associated with the D position of the clitic string, through the insertion of a subject pronoun. Evidently in the cases under review, inserting one of the clitics in (6a), (6b), (6d) which by hypothesis is made up of a morpheme l intrinsically associated with definite reference and a nominal class morpheme, satisfies the requirement that definiteness properties be lexicalized, no matter whether the clitic is inserted in D itself or in N. If it is inserted in D it is interpreted as the subject of the verb, with whose inflection it agrees. Alternatively, however, the l clitic can be inserted in N, where its interpretation is that of the internal argument of the verb, the referential properties of the subject will be recovered in this case through the verb inflection. In either case we assume that in a dialect like Tavullia the insertion of an l element results in the lexicalization of definiteness for the whole string. Therefore inserting one of the l forms in N excludes lexicalization of an l form in D. In generalizing this model we can assume that l lexicalizes all properties it is associated with for the whole string; in particular then the insertion of an l clitic prevents the relexicalization in the string of the nominal properties associated with the l morpheme, interpretively connected in our model to third person reference. The above discussion does not yet take into account the peculiarity of i in the Tavullia dialect, namely that insertion of i in D is compatible with the presence in the N position of clitics belonging to the series in (6). We note that while the other clitics in (6) coincide with the combination of the two nominal bases represented by l and the vocalic nominal class, the i clitic in (6c) consists entirely of a nominal base with a quantificational specification. The insertion of one of the forms in (6) in the N position of the string, while lexicalizing the definiteness property, does not interfere with the lexicalization of quantificational properties; we can take it that the insertion of i in D is a consequence of this. On the other hand, the above discussion seems to predict that the insertion of the i clitic in N should also be compatible with the insertion of the whole series in (6) in the D position. In other words, we could expect that the Tavullia dialect, admitting of (1c), admits of (7) as well, which is instead ungrammatical. (7)

Tavullia *la i ’cEma she them calls

Given the quantificational (plural) properties shared by subject and object instances of i, there are no reasons to believe that different lexical entries are involved in (1a) and (7). Therefore it must be the point of insertion of the clitic that determines its different behavior. We may begin by considering what makes a clitic with quantificational denotation, like i in the Tavullia dialect, suitable for insertion in N. We suggest that the insertion of i in N is possible only to the extent that i is interpreted as a quantificational specification of N itself; in other

124

Mutual exclusion of subject and object clitics

words, the insertion of i in N yields the equivalent of a clitic form including an l head together with the quantificational (plural) specification. We suggest that the insertion of i in N works like that of any other clitic in the series in (6), lexicalizing the definiteness properties of the whole string, with the consequences already noted for the lexicalization of the D position. As noted in the presentation of the data, the i that appears in subject position when one of the clitics in (6) is inserted in N has a plural reference independent of nominal class (i.e. gender in traditional terms). As an object, and as a subject in contexts where N is not lexicalized by one of the clitics in (6), the i clitic has plural reference restricted however to a particular nominal class (the so-called masculine). When it is inserted in N position, as in (1b), we have just theorized that i is interpreted as a quantificational specification of N itself. We may assume that its taking on properties of nominal class are connected to its syntactic N property; the plural properties depend of course on its intrinsic quantificational properties. When i is inserted in subject position, and the N properties of the string are independently lexicalized, the i clitic takes on the value of a pure plural. Finally, when i is inserted in subject position and N is not independently lexicalized, as in (1a), again it takes on nominal class (masculine) interpretation. This suggests that in effect, in the Tavullia system, the lexicalization of plurality must in all cases be connected to a nominal property; in the contexts under consideration the latter surfaces precisely as a nominal class (i.e. masculine) property of i itself. It is interesting to note that in a dialect like Tavullia the so-called third person dative coincides with the (masculine) plural, i.e. with i. We should naturally like to extend to dative i the analysis in Chapter 3, which associates the i morpheme with the quantificational denotation. If so, we predict that the dative clitic will be able to insert in Q or eventually in R. The evidence in (8a) suggests that this second possibility is the correct one, given that i precedes the si-type clitic c, which is itself inserted in Q. If we assume that i in R has the same properties as i inserted in D, we predict that it will combine with the accusative clitic series in (6), including i itself, and precede it, as is indeed the case in (8b). (8)

Tavullia a i c da un ’libre to.him one gives a book ‘One gives a book to him’ b i El/la ’da to.him it-m./it-f. gives ‘He gives it to him’

On this basis we can complete the picture of the insertion points for the clitics in (6) as indicated in (6): (6) Tavullia El, la, le → D, N i → D, R, N

Mutual exclusion of subject and object clitics

125

In (8b), the presence of a clitic of the accusative series in N is sufficient to exclude the lexicalization of a subject clitic in D, while in the impersonal (8a) the problem does not arise. However, the exclusion of the subject clitic is determined also by the simple presence of the dative, as illustrated in (9). (9)

Tavullia i ’da ’kwect to.him gives this ‘S/he gives this to him’

The basis for this behavior is to be sought precisely in the characterization of the dative as a distributor over the N argument. Thus it can combine with a lexicalization of N by a clitic of the accusative series, as in (8b), in which case the accusative clitic may be assumed to exclude the subject clitic. Alternatively, it can combine with a lexical object (or an incorporated one for unergatives) as in (10); but its nature as a distributor implies in any event the lexicalization of N properties. Therefore even the dative in isolation effectively amounts to a lexicalization of the combination of quantificational properties with N properties. This excludes lexicalization of the subject, on the usual grounds that in a dialect like Tavullia nominal definiteness is lexicalized only once in the clitic string. Support for this analysis comes from the comparison of the data in (1a)–(1b) and (2b) with (10) below. As already indicated, (1a)–(1b) show that a subject clitic of the P series can combine with an object clitic of the series in (6) and vice versa. As we expect, furthermore, the presence of an object clitic of the series in (6) prevents the lexicalization of the subject clitic in (2b) in the presence of a P clitic functioning as a dative. However, as shown in (10), the subject clitic is also optionally excluded in cases where only the P clitic is lexicalized in the string, provided the latter functions as a distributor. We interpret this evidence along the same lines as (10); the optionality of the subject may be taken to be a result of the fact that the P clitic is only optionally computed as a distributor. (10) Tavullia (El/la) me ’da ’kwect he/she to.me gives this ‘S/he gives this to me’ Going back to the general solution we have proposed to the mutual exclusion of subject and object clitic in the dialects of the type of Tavullia, we note that it has several interesting properties differentiating it from other approaches to mutual exclusion phenomena found in the literature. In particular our analysis does not depend either on the identity of the clitics that are in complementary distribution nor on the competition for a single position. Indeed it is obvious not only that different clitics can be in complementary distribution as in (3) but also that different positions are available to the clitics in complementary distribution. Thus Tavullia has an N position to the right of P clitics for objects as in (4a) and

126

Mutual exclusion of subject and object clitics

a separate subject D position to the left of P clitics as in (4b). What is more, the complementary distribution is not constrained by adjacency as may be seen by the contrast between (2b) and (3b). All of these properties of the mutual exclusion phenomenon strongly point to the irrelevance of morphophonological considerations and to the purely (morpho)syntactic nature of the phenomenon itself. In this perspective we may consider what exactly is the parameter between Tavullia-like dialects and dialects that allow for the combination of two third person clitics as object and subject respectively. An example is provided by the dialect of Corte in (11) where the relevant combination is possible in all cases, including those where there is identity between object and subject also from a purely phonological point of view, such as the feminine singular in (11b). (11) Corte (Veneto) a el lo/la/ie/le he him/her/them-m./them-f. ‘He sees him/her/them’ b la l/la/i/le she him/her/them-m./them-f. ‘She sees him/her/them’

’veiga sees ’veiga sees

We take it that in the case of Corte in (11) the definiteness properties lexicalized by the nominal head l cannot be computed separately from the nominal class properties which they subcategorize, and they have to be lexicalized as many times in the string as there are interpreted arguments. On the other hand, in a dialect like Tavullia, it appears that the definiteness properties lexicalized by l may in fact be computed separately from the nominal class inflections they embed, and they can go towards satisfying the definiteness properties of the entire string. This produces the object-for-subject effect we are aiming to explain. Indeed, the insertion of an l clitic in object position lexicalizes the definiteness properties of the string, while at the same time the referential properties of the subject are recoverable from the D position corresponding to the verbal inflection. The most natural way to construe these different properties of l in the Tavullia and Corte dialects is in terms of scope. In other words, l in a dialect like Corte takes scope uniquely over its own constituent, while the scope of l in a dialect like Tavullia extends to the D position of the sentential string, even when the clitic is inserted lower down. These different scopal properties are in turn not specifically introduced here in order to account for mutual exclusion; rather they represent an independently needed property of grammars.

2 ‘Partial’ mutual exclusion The above discussion is based on the idea that the two constituents of which an l clitic typically consists (i.e. l itself) and the vocalic head corresponding to nominal class may in fact behave to a large extent independently of one another.

Mutual exclusion of subject and object clitics

127

If so, we may expect to find mutual exclusion phenomena that, instead of involving the whole clitic, involve only one of its subconstituents, in particular the l subconstituent. A case in point is represented by Ligurian dialects which show an alternation between two sets of third person subject clitics; one purely vocalic, the other including in the singular an l segment besides the vocalic one. The former appears in front of verbs beginning with consonant, as exemplified for the Pigna dialect in (12a); the latter appears in front of verbs beginning with vowels, including the auxiliary to have in (12c), the auxiliary to be in (12d), and lexical verbs as in (12b). The third person plural has the sole vocalic form, as in (12e–f). (12) Pigna a u/a/i ’dorme he/she/they sleep(s) ‘S/he sleeps/They sleep’ b ul/al a’isa a kai’rega he/she raises the chair ‘S/he raises the chair’ c ul/al a doV’miu he/she has slept ‘S/he has slept’ d ul/al E ve’niu/ve’nia he/she is come-m/come-f ‘S/he has come’ e i aN doV’miu they have slept ‘They have slept’ f i suN ve’nii they are come ‘They have come’ The subject forms in (12b–e) present the interesting property of combining what appear to be nominal class morphemes u, a with l morphology in the reverse sequence with respect to the combinations we have seen thus far, where l precedes nominal class morphology. In fact, there is evidence that ul and al are treated by the grammar as sequences of two subject clitics rather than as a single clitic. Thus in negative contexts the vocalic clitic appears to the left of the negative clitic nu, while the l segment appears to its right, as shown in (13c–d). As we may expect, purely vocalic clitics appear before the negation, as in (13a) and (13e–f), but so also does the specialized second person clitic ti, as in (13b). (13) Pigna a u/a/i nu ’doVme he/she/they not sleep(s) ‘S/he doesn’t sleep/They don’t sleep’

128

Mutual exclusion of subject and object clitics b

c

d

e

f

ti nu ’doVme you not sleep ‘You don’t sleep’ u/a nu l a doV’miu he/she not he/she has slept ‘S/he hasn’t slept’ u/a nu l E ve’niu/ve’nia he/she not he/she is come-m/come-f ‘S/he hasn’t come’ i nu aN doV’miu they not have slept ‘They haven’t slept’ i nu suN ve’nii they not are come ‘They haven’t come’

We shall come back to the data in (13) in the analysis that follows. What is directly relevant here is that the l element is in complementary distribution with object clitics, in particular the accusative series. The latter has a morphology comparable to that of the nominative series in that the vocalic forms u/a/i/e show up in front of a verb beginning with a consonant, as in (14a); in front of a verb beginning with a vowel, including in particular auxiliaries, the singular form is l as in (14b), though the plural keeps the vocalic forms i/e, as in (14c). Crucially, though the phonological environment would allow for the ul/al subject clitic to combine with the object vocalic series, this does not happen, as shown in both (14a) and (14c). (14) Pigna a u/a u/a/i/e ’tSama he/she him/her/them-m./them-f. calls ‘S/he calls him/her/them’ b u/a l a tSa’mau/tSa’ma he/she him/her has called-m/called-f ‘S/he has called him/her’ c u/a i/e a tSa’mai/tSa’mae he/she them-m/them-f has called-m/called-f ‘S/he has called them’ We shall begin by considering the interaction of subject clitics with the negation clitic, which strongly suggests that ul and al are to be analyzed as a sequence of two subject clitics (i.e. u/a and l), rather than as a single clitic. We have already introduced in Chapter 3 the idea that every verbal domain projects its own set of nominal positions. Thus the clitic sequence appears not only immediately above I (i.e. the ordinary position of the inflected verb), but also immediately above C. If al/ul are to be analyzed as the sequence of two

Mutual exclusion of subject and object clitics

129

subject clitics u/a and l respectively, one possible structural hypothesis as to the positions these subject clitics occupy is that they correspond to D of two different clitic strings, i.e. those immediately above I and above C, as illustrated in (15). In turn we can account for the position of the negation in the terms of Manzini and Savoia (2005), where the negative clitic is itself treated as nominal element. In particular the relation of the negation to the internal argument of the verb suggests that its position is compatible with internal argument specifications, identifying in most dialects with R, i.e. the highest position in the object hierarchy. Thus the order vocalic clitic – negative clitic – l clitic may be accounted for as in (15) simply assuming that the position of the negation coincides with R of the higher clitic string. There it is preceded by the higher subject clitic in D of the same string and is followed by the l subject clitic in D of the lower string. (15) Pigna D R Q P Loc | | u/a (nu)

N C D ... I | | l a . . . dur’miu

The clitic system of Pigna, as illustrated in (12)–(13) therefore includes four vocalic forms, namely u/a/i/e and the consonantal form l. All of these clitics are simple forms consisting of a nominal class base or a definiteness base in I of its own constituent, as summarized in (16). (16) Pigna a [I u ] b [I a ] c [I i ] d [I e ] e [I l ] These clitics in (16) can generally appear either as subjects, inserting in D of the string, or as objects, inserting in N. The only exception is in the plural where the object distinguishes i, e along nominal class divides, while the subject clitic is the i form with quantificational denotation, as indicated in (16). Evidently insertion in N of the string dictates that the i morphology be restricted to a particular nominal class, while its insertion in D corresponds with the quantificational reading of pure plurality. (16) a, u, i, l → D, N e → N At this point we can account for the mutual exclusion of the l subject clitic and the accusative clitics within the I string along similar lines to those adopted in the discussion of the Tavullia facts in section 1. Evidently in the absence of

130

Mutual exclusion of subject and object clitics

any lexicalization of the object clitic string, the subject clitic (in the appropriate phonological environments) is lexicalized through the doubling of nominal class morphology u,a and definiteness morphology l. Lexicalization of N of the lower string by an accusative clitic, as in (17), results in the exclusion of the l subject clitic from the same string. The surface effect is ‘partial’ exclusion, in the sense that the vocalic subject clitic still combines with the accusative, differentiating this kind of dialect from those considered in section 1. Another notable point is that the exclusion of the l morphology is determined not only by an l object clitic, as in auxiliary environments such as (17b), but also by a vocalic object clitic, as in (17a). In other words, clitics with nominal class morphology play the same role as l clitics in this respect. (17) Pigna a D R Q P Loc N C . . . | u/a b D R Q P Loc N C . . . | u/a

N | u/a/i/e N | l

I | tSama I | a . . . tSa’ma(u)

Although our focus in the discussion of the Pigna dialect has been on mutual exclusion phenomena, a phenomenon of equal interest that emerges from it is the existence of separate clitic series depending on the phonological environment. Several Italian dialects present similar alternations, which in many dialects show, in addition to the phonological conditioning, syntactic restrictions as well. Thus in many dialects it is the auxiliaries, or even one of the auxiliaries (generally to have), that determines the emergence of the l clitic series. It is this latter kind of clitics that Poletto (1993) has in mind when she speaks of the ‘subject clitic of the auxiliary’. The combination of this specialization of third person clitics for different verbal environments and of the mutual exclusion phenomena we are discussing also provides the proper setting for understanding data concerning the distribution of first person subject clitics in Franco-Provençal dialects, first noted in the generative literature by Roberts (1993). We exemplify the relevant condition with Cantoira in (18)–(19). As shown in (18) the first person (singular and plural) subject clitic is not lexicalized in front of a verb beginning with a consonant (both lexical and auxiliary), while it is lexicalized by dZ in front of a vowel. (18) Cantoira (Piedmont) a ’tSamu/tSa’meN ’tyiti I.call/we.call everybody ‘I/we call everybody’ b (dZ) ausu/au’seN la ’taula I/we raise the table ‘I/we raise the table’

Mutual exclusion of subject and object clitics c

d

131

se/sen vy’ny I.am/we.are come ‘I/we have come’ dZ Ei/EN dyr’mi I/we have slept ‘I/we have slept’

When we consider the possible combinations with object clitics in (19) it becomes evident that the distribution of dZ also reflects syntactic conditions. To begin with, we note that accusative clitic in turn occur in two slightly different series according to the phonological environment determined by the verb. In preconsonantal positions the accusative series is lu/le/li/el for masculine and feminine, singular and plural; there is however a separate u form for the neuter, corresponding to the ‘it’ of English in contexts such as ‘I know it’, ‘I said it’ and so on. The l accusative series excludes the dZ subject clitic as in (19a), which combines with the u clitic as in (19b–c). Since the combination of dZ and el would be perfectly possible on grounds of the phonological restrictions discussed thus far, it is evident that a morphosyntactic condition is at play. The pre-vocalic accusative series l for the singular in turn does not combine with dZ, as in (19d), (19e). Once again we note that the phonological environment defined by an initial vowel is necessary for dZ to show up, though it is not sufficient, since dZ is excluded by i of the masculine plural as in (19f). What is more, the data in (19g–h) show that a syllabic dZi form combines regularly with P object clitics exemplified here with t ‘you’. (19) Cantoira a lu/le/li/el ’tSammu/tSa’meN him/her/them-m./them-f. I.call/we.call ‘I/we call him/her/them’ b dZ u ’dju I it say ‘I say it’ c dZ u ’seN we it know ‘We know it’ d l e/eN tSa’ma:/tSa’mai him I.have/we.have called-m/called-f ‘I/we have called him’ e l e/eN sa’vy it I.have/we.have learned ‘I/we have learned it’ f i e/eN tSa’ma:/ them I.have/we.have called ‘I/we have called them’

132

Mutual exclusion of subject and object clitics g

h

dZi t ’tSamu/tSa’meN I/we you call ‘I/we call you’ dZi t e/eN tSa’ma: I/we you have called ‘I/we have called you’

The feminine plural accusative shows the conditions most closely reminiscent of the partial exclusion phenomenon of Gavoi in Chapter 3. Indeed the ordinary allomorph for the accusative feminine plural in prevocalic position is l(e)z as in (20a). In combination with dZ however we find the reduced form ez lacking the l formative as in (20b). (20) Cantoira a u lz 3t tSa’majes he them-f has called-f ‘He has called them’ b dZ ez e/eN tSa’majes I/we them-f have called-f ‘I/we have called them’ To facilitate the discussion, we provide representations for the full-blown system of accusative (pro)clitics in the dialect of Cantoira in (21). As we have seen, the singular presents lu/u//le in (21a–c) preconsonantally and l in (21d) prevocalically. The masculine plural alternates between li preconsonantally and i prevocalically as in (21e–f). As for the feminine plural, it again has essentially two alternants, one endowed with the l lexical base as in (21g) and one lacking it as in (21h). The el clitic that shows up preconsonantally may be treated as a phonological variant of prevocalic l(e)z, essentially along the lines familiar from the treatment of liaison and e insertion/deletion in standard French. However, ez represents an independent lexical entry. (21) Cantoira a [I l b [I l c [I u] d [I l ] e [I l f [I i ] g [I (e)l h [I e

[N u ]] [N e ]]

[N i ]] [N (e)z ]] [N z ]]

On the basis of the structural schemas in (21), the generalization that emerges from the data in (19)–(20) is that dZ is incompatible with all and only the clitics of the l series, to which we must assimilate i of the masculine plural; on the con-

Mutual exclusion of subject and object clitics

133

trary, dZ normally combines with both clitics such as u, ez and P clitics. This supports the analysis of the mutual exclusion phenomena we have been proposing throughout, namely that insertion in N of a clitic inclusive of the l morpheme is sufficient to lexicalize definiteness specifications for the whole string preventing their relexicalization in D. As we have seen before, the i clitic, which we associate with a quantificational denotation, patterns in this respect with the l series. On the contrary, insertion in N of a clitic coinciding with nominal class (and number) specifications such as u, ez combines with the normal lexicalization of the definiteness properties by the subject clitic in D of the string. The interesting variation introduced by languages of the type of Cantoira is simply that it is the lexicalization of the specialized first person form dZ that displays sensitivity to these conditions. Precisely the fact that a subject clitic form with P denotation is involved makes it particularly interesting that the exclusion is not determined by another P clitic such as t, ‘you’. There is therefore an asymmetry between subject clitics with P denotation, that are excluded from the D position, and object clitics with the same denotation, whose insertion does not exclude subject clitics. In terms of the structural schemas proposed thus far, this asymmetry corresponds to the fact that all subject clitics are associated with the D structural position, independently of their denotation, while object clitics with P denotation lexicalize a specialized P position. Thus it is evidently only the N position of the string that interacts with the lexicalization of the D position, in the dialect of Cantoira as in the others considered thus far. In the absence of an object clitic the conditions of lexicalization of dZ are dictated by the phonological condition that prevents dZ from appearing in front of consonants, as in (18). A twist on this is introduced however by the observation that a syllabic form dZi also exists in the language, showing up in front of consonantal P clitics such as t, but not in front of verbs. This state of affairs implies a stronger set of conditions on the interaction between subject and object clitics than we have so far envisaged. Evidently, it is not sufficient to exclude the lexicalization of dZ in D when the object string presents the relevant lexicalizations of N. Rather it must also be the case that when the object string is lexicalized by other forms, the lexicalization of D is necessary. Finally, it should be noted that according to the data in (18), the lexicalization of dZ is optional in front of a lexical verb beginning by vowel. Given minimalist conceptions, true optionality of this kind suggests the co-existence of two slightly different grammars for the same speaker(s) (Savoia and Manzini 2005). One is the grammars we have entertained so far, where distribution of dZ in the absence of object clitics is determined by phonological conditions. In the alternative grammar, dZ is found only with auxiliaries, though of course in the absence of object clitics and in the appropriate phonological conditions; thus the distribution of dZ is determined by a morphosyntactic environment. Although the relevant distribution may be stipulated by reference to auxiliary verbs, Manzini and Savoia (2005) connect it to the fact that specialized sets of (subject or object) clitics typically arise in modal contexts, namely questions,

134

Mutual exclusion of subject and object clitics

imperatives, negation. Thus Manzini and Savoia (2005) suggest that the larger phenomenon of allomorphy is to be understood in terms of specialization of the clitic sets for the modal/aspectual properties of the verbs whose argument projections they lexicalize.

3 ‘Opaque’ forms So far we have considered in some detail languages where the cluster of subject and object is simplified to a single clitic, which would be described in traditional terms as the object. However, the literature on Romance languages typically considers cases where the mutual exclusion between two clitics leads to either the replacement of one of the two by different forms or to the emergence of what Bonet (1995) calls an opaque form. In Chapter 3 we discuss cases of this kind for the cluster of accusative and dative. Here we shall consider object-forsubject phenomena that also give rise to lexicalizations characterizable as ‘opaque’. In dialects of the Lombardy region such as Castiglione d’Adda in (22) the third person subject clitic is lexicalized in isolation from or in combination with a P object clitic, as illustrated in (22a) for the singular and in (22b) for the plural. Furthermore a P subject clitic is lexicalized when in combination with a third person object clitic, as in (22c). However, Castiglione d’Adda excludes the combination of a third person subject clitic with a third person accusative as in (23); the presence of an additional P clitic is irrelevant to the mutual exclusion as in (24). The dialect of Castiglione d’Adda is different from that of Tavullia in that the mutual exclusion characterizes all third person clitics, including the plural. But another difference that emerges from (22)–(24) is actually more striking. In particular the data in (23a)–(23b) show that in contexts excluding the subject clitic, the singular object clitic takes the invariant form la whether it is interpreted as feminine or masculine. This contrasts with (22c) where the masculine and feminine forms are clearly distinguished in the context of a P subject clitic. In a framework such as Bonet’s (1995), the la clitic in (23)–(24) could therefore be described as an opaque form. Similarly, the plural is apparently inflected by a final a, taking the form ia rather than the form i in (22b)–(22c). (22) Castiglione d’Adda (Lombardy) a el/la me ’tSama he/she me calls ‘S/he calls me’ b i me ’tSamu˜ they me call ‘They call me’ c t el/la/i ’tSami you him/her/them call ‘You call him/her/them’

Mutual exclusion of subject and object clitics

135

(23) Castiglione d’Adda a la ’tSama him/her calls ‘S/he calls him/her’ b la ’tSamu˜ him/her they.call ‘They call him/her’ c ia ’tSama them calls ‘S/he calls them’ d ia ’tSamu˜ them they.call ‘They call them’ (24) Castiglione d’Adda a me la ’daN to.me it they.give ‘They give it to me’ b m ia ’daN to.me them they.give ‘They give them to me’ In other words, the dialect of Castiglione d’Adda excludes the combination of two third person forms of the type in (25), which do not appear in our data. (25) Castiglione d’Adda a *el/la el/la/i ’tSama he/she him/her/them calls b *i l/la/i ’tSamu˜ they him/her/them call The fact that la is restricted to the feminine in contexts without mutual exclusion, but ranges over all nominal classes in mutual exclusion contexts, is confirmed by the data in (26). Thus in the mutual exclusion context in (26c) the la form can combine with an adjective agreeing in the masculine or in the feminine, whereas in (26b) it can only combine with an adjective agreeing in the feminine. (26) Castiglione d’Adda a t el ’vedi ’strak/*’straka you him see tired-m/tired-f ‘You see him tired’ b t la ’vedi ’straka/*’strak you her see tired-f/tired-m ‘You see her tired’

136

Mutual exclusion of subject and object clitics c

la ’ved ’strak/’straka him/her sees tired-m/tired-f ‘S/he sees him/her tired’

The subject clitics that are lexicalized by Castiglione d’Adda in isolation from or in combination with P clitics are el for the masculine singular, la for the feminine singular, i for the plural, which also surface as object clitics in the presence of P subject clitics. The evidence at our disposal suggests that both singular and plural object clitics are inserted in N, while subject clitics appear in D position, since object clitics follow P clitics while subject clitics precede them, as in (27a). The conclusion that la/ia forms are inserted in N extends furthermore to examples of the type of (23)–(24). To begin with, the number properties of such forms (singular or plural) are interpreted as attaching to the internal argument, not to the subject. What is more, such forms follow the P clitic in (24), indicating an N position for them, as in (27b). (27) Castiglione d’Adda a D R Q P Loc N | | el/la me b D R Q P Loc N | | me la

I | tSama I | daN

The mutual exclusion of third person clitics in (25) follows if the lexicon of Castiglione d’Adda is analogous in relevant respects to that of Tavullia; in other words, insertion of an l clitic in the N position lexicalizes definiteness for the whole string preventing relexicalization of an l clitic in D. Because insertion of an l clitic in the N position satisfies the definiteness requirement of the entire string, it induces what is in effect a null subject behavior. Vice versa, insertion of an l clitic in D excludes that of an l clitic in N but cannot subsume it. This is because l in D lexicalizes definiteness for the whole string, but not nominal class properties, which according to our hypothesis must be independently lexicalized in N for the internal argument. We begin by considering the internal structure of the relevant clitics. In the plural, Castiglione d’Adda differentiates between i and ia for the mutual exclusion context. We identify the i morpheme with an I head with quantificational denotation, as in (28c). The ia form is best analyzed as resulting from the combination of i, analyzed as before, and of the nominal class morpheme a lexicalizing its N nominal inflection as in (28d). Turning to the singular, the masculine el coincides with the pure nominal head without inflection, as in (28a). On the contrary the feminine la results from the combination of the nominal base l with the inflectional base a; the latter is of course the same which appears in ia and is therefore to be construed as nominal class morpheme, rather than as a gender morpheme in the traditional sense of the term, as in (28b). It is worth pointing

Mutual exclusion of subject and object clitics

137

out that the majority of northern Italian dialects have a single nominal class inflection, i.e. a. Indeed, nouns and adjectives as well as articles have no inflection in the so-called masculine singular and the i quantificational ending in the plural, at least in some residual cases (Manzini and Savoia 2005). This inflectional system holds at least for clitics in the dialect of Castiglione. (28) Castiglione d’Adda a [I el] b [I l [N a ]] c [I i [N (a) ]] Consider (23a)–(23b) in which la is inserted in N as the singular object clitic in the presence of a third person verb, hence in the case in which we have taken the l morpheme to lexicalize the D position of the string. We propose that the obligatory presence of the a morpheme reflects a requirement that a nominal class base, represented in this case by a, be lexicalized as well. This requirement is connected precisely to the fact that in mutual exclusion contexts the l head of the N clitic lexicalizes definiteness properties for the whole string; the nominal class head, i.e. a, therefore represents the dedicated lexicalization of the internal argument. Similarly in the plural the two clitics ia and i differ in that the i clitic lexicalizes only a quantificational specification, while ia has nominal class content provided by the a morpheme. We may assume that this is at the basis of the insertion of ia in the N position of mutual exclusion contexts. Insertion in this position requires the presence of a nominal class head in the internal structure of the clitic, which is provided by a. In contexts where the D position is lexicalized by a subject clitic, for instance, a P clitic, the N position is normally filled by the el/la/i series; we shall return shortly to the fact that la in this case is restricted to the so-called feminine. Similarly the el/la/i series lexicalizes the D position, yielding the overall schema in (28) for the insertion of clitics. (28) Castiglione d’Adda el, la, i → D, N ia → N As we noted in the presentation of the data, i in the Castiglione d’Adda dialect is always in complementary distribution with the other clitics in (28), differing in this from i in the Tavullia dialect. We account for this, assuming that the quantificational morpheme i, insofar as it is interpreted as the plural specification of a nominal base, is treated as equivalent in all respects to clitics involving a nominal lexical base l. This correlates with the fact that the i clitic does not lexicalize the distributor (dative). There is in fact no third person lexicalization for the dative form in this dialect, but rather dative contexts present a locative form, as illustrated in (29). For an analysis of this and similar patterns we refer the reader to Chapter 3.

138

Mutual exclusion of subject and object clitics

(29) Castiglione d’Adda a i ge ’daN ’kwEst they there give this ‘They give this to him’ b ge ’meti la ’sa:l there I.put the salt ‘I put the salt in there’ One aspect of the analysis to be clarified concerns the treatment of la, which does not coincide with the traditional feminine gender specification in mutual exclusion contexts, though it does in other contexts. We have already argued that a can only be construed as a nominal class marker. In these terms, the problem regarding la is that in contexts where the presence of a is required by the verb as a lexicalization of nominal class content, it is not restricted to agree with nominal, adjectival and other elements belonging to the nominal class traditionally labeled as feminine. On the contrary, when the presence of a is not required to mark nominal class content, it again agrees with nouns, adjectives and other elements belonging to the traditional ‘feminine’ class. We assume therefore that if the presence of a nominal class head a is required by the lexicalization conditions on N, as in mutual exclusion contexts, its reference is allowed to range on all nominal classes. On the other hand, in contexts where no restriction is present on the lexicalization of N (or D), the range of a is restricted to one particular nominal class. These conclusions are consistent also with the appearance of a in the plural clitic form ia. 3.1 ‘Opaque’ forms are independent of mutual exclusion Our analysis explicitly eliminates a number of hypotheses that can potentially be entertained on the object-for-subject phenomenon and are in fact reflected by current descriptions of the facts. In particular, some Lombardy dialects with substantial affinity to Castiglione d’Adda allow us to show that ‘opaque’ object clitics emerge independently of the existence of subject clitics in the language. This shows that the phenomena of mutual exclusion and ‘opacity’ cannot be analyzed in terms of the competition of morphologically similar forms or of the competition of such forms for the same position. Quite simply an abstract syntactic solution is imposed by the fact that there is no subject clitic to compete with the object clitic or to fuse with it into an ‘opaque’ form. Consider, for instance, the dialect of Como. The interesting peculiarity of this dialect is that the lexicalization of the subject is subsumed by the verb inflection in the third person plural as in (30b), though a subject clitic is inserted in the singular, as in (30a). On the contrary object clitics in first or second person contexts present the l/la/i paradigm familiar from Castiglione d’Adda. Despite the absence of lexicalized subject clitics in any context, the Como dialect, exactly as the Castiglione d’Adda dialect, restricts the lexicalization of the singular object

Mutual exclusion of subject and object clitics

139

clitic to the la form in any third person context, i.e. not only in the singular as in (31a) and (32a), but also in the plural, as in (31b) and (32b). Note that the plural object clitic in third person contexts takes the form ia as in (31c)–(31d), though as we have seen it is the i clitic that appears in first and second person contexts as in (30c). The lexical entries of the Como dialect are therefore exactly as detailed in (28) for Castiglione d’Adda. (30) Como (Lombardy) a al/la ’dCrma he/she sleeps ‘S/he sleeps’ b ’dCrmaN they.sleep ‘They sleep’ c t al/la/i ’tSamAt you him/her/them call ‘You call him/her’ (31) Como a la ’tSama him/her calls ‘S/he calls him/her’ b la ’tSamaN him/her they.call ‘They call him/her’ c ia ’tSama them calls ‘S/he calls them’ d ia ’tSamaN them they.call ‘They call them’ (32) Como a ma la ’da to.me it gives ‘S/he gives it to me’ b ma la ’daN to.me it they.give ‘They give it to me’ In the perspective of Chapter 2 the null subject or non-null subject nature of a given language depends on the fact that non-null subject languages require the lexicalization of D of the inflectional domain (the clitic domain proper), while a null subject language does not. In a language like Como, which is similar in this respect to many northern Italian dialects, the null subject property concerns only

140

Mutual exclusion of subject and object clitics

some forms of the verbal paradigm. This may suggest that the lexical properties of the relevant clitics and inflections are involved. To begin with, the -a ending of third person singular is a pure nominal class form; on the other hand, the -an ending of third person plural is specialized for plurality (in the third person) and hence can be assigned in current terms quantificational denotation. It is natural to assume that in the third person singular, an l clitic form lexicalizes domainspecific properties, which lead to its insertion. On the contrary the i clitic corresponding to the third person plural reference does not lexicalize any domain-specific properties, i.e. any properties not independently lexicalized by the -aN inflection of the verb. We now return to the lexicalization of la and ia accusative forms not only in mutual exclusion contexts proper, as in the third person singular, but also in the third person plural, which has the null subject property. This distribution is consistent with our conclusion that l or i respectively lexicalize definiteness properties for the whole string, while the presence of the a morpheme corresponds to a requirement on the lexicalization of nominal class properties specifically connected with the internal argument. A complementary case to that illustrated with the dialect of Como would be a dialect where a specialized accusative series appears in combination with the third person clitic subject, without any exclusion phenomenon applying to the latter. In other words, a specialized lexicalization of the accusative combines with the forms of the third person subject clitic that also appear in isolation or with other object clitics. This possibility is in fact attested, as exemplified here in (33) by Pozzaglio. In (33a) we illustrate the nominative series in isolation, and in (33b) the accusative series, again in isolation, given that the subject clitic does not have a lexicalization in the first person singular; the two series are identical. In (33c–d) we exemplify the combination of a singular nominative with an accusative; in this case the El/la forms of the subject remain unchanged with respect to the isolation forms, while the object presents the lexicalizations la/ia both for the feminine and for the masculine; this is confirmed by the agreement of the adjective. The combination of a plural nominative with an accusative yields a partial exclusion phenomenon, in that the subject clitic shows up as i whether a masculine or a feminine interpretation is involved; thus it is only i that combines with la/ia as in (33e). (33) Pozzaglio (Lombardy) a El/la/i/li ’tSama kEi ’le he/she/they-m/they-f call(s) them ‘S/he calls them/They call them’ b El/la/i/li ’tSami him/her/them-m/them-f I.call ‘I call him/her/them’ c El/la la vEd ’fjak/’fjaka he/she him/her sees tired-m/tired-f ‘S/he sees him/her tired’

Mutual exclusion of subject and object clitics d

e

141

El/la ia ’vEd ’fjak/’fjaki he/she them sees tired-m/tired-f ‘S/he sees them tired’ i la/ ia ’tSama they him-her/them call ‘They call him/her/them’

As usual, we shall begin by considering the internal structure of the relevant clitics. The la form combines the nominal base l with the nominal class inflection a, as in (34a). Analogously in the i(a) clitic the i element with quantificational denotation represents a nominal base I inflected (optionally) by the nominal class morpheme a, as in (34c). In turn, i can represent the nominal class inflection of the l base, as in (34d), yielding the feminine plural. Finally, we shall treat El of the masculine singular as a pure base with definite denotation, i.e. an allomorph of l, as in (34a). (34) Pozzaglio a [I El ] b [I l [N a ]] c [I i [N (a) ]] d [I l [N i ]] As indicated in (34), the clitics El, la, i and li are compatible both with insertion in D, by virtue of their definite/quantificational denotation and with insertion in N, by virtue of their nominal (class) properties. The ia clitic is compatible with insertion in N only, representing a combination of the i clitic itself compatible with N, with the a morphology specialized for nominal class. (34) El, la, i, li → N, D ia → N Since in the singular subject clitic forms normally combine with the presence of a clitic in N, we must conclude that definiteness properties are relexicalized in D when a clitic of the definite/quantificational series is inserted in N. On the contrary, the insertion in D of a form inclusive of the definiteness base l or of the quantificational base i forces the N position to be filled by a clitic inclusive of the nominal class morphology a. Thus the singular accusative is lexicalized by la, whose denotation in other environments is restricted to the feminine subclass; the plural accusative in turn presents the ia form not found in isolation. The interaction of the accusative with the plural nominative is of the type already considered at the beginning of this section, since the lexicalization of a specialized accusative combines with a mutual exclusion phenomenon. The latter takes a form already familiar from Tavullia, since the i/li clitics in isolation, differentiated according to nominal class, reduce to i in combination with an accusative. We must conclude therefore that lexicalization of definiteness

142

Mutual exclusion of subject and object clitics

properties in N excludes their relexicalization by the form li that combines the definitess base l with the quantificational morpheme i. To put it another way, the pure quantificational form i is sufficient to satisfy the lexicalization requirements of D for all nominal classes. On the other hand, the insertion of specialized accusatives la/ia responds to exactly the same requirements examined above in connection with the third person singular nominative, where no mutual exclusion holds. In general, the point we wish to make is that the term ‘opaque’ is misleading even from a descriptive point of view. Indeed, the data we have considered show that specialized (generally richer) morphology for an accusative clitic can arise in the environment determined by a third person subject interpretation, independently of any mutual exclusion between the accusative itself and a subject clitic. In other words, the real phenomenon is the occurrence of richer clitics in the interpretive environments determined by third person subjects. The subject clitic may be lexicalized in isolation and not in combination with the object clitic, giving the impression that the surviving form takes on the properties of the cluster; this is the fact hinted at by the ‘opaque’ term. However, as in the case of Como, the richer form of the accusative may depend on an interpretation which corresponds to a pro-drop configuration, where the subject clitic is never lexicalized. Similarly, the richer form of the object cannot correspond to a cluster lexicalization in a case like Pozzaglio, where the subject clitic maintains the isolation forms.

4 Generalized interactions between subject clitics and object clitics In the previous sections we have considered interactions between subjects and object clitics belonging to the same morphophonological series, namely the third person one. Many arguments exclude the possibility that this interaction is to be explained in terms of either phonological clash or purely morphological processes, such as the deletion and conflation of features envisaged by distributed morphology. Instead we have proposed explanations based on syntactic/interpretive mechanisms. A further reason to believe that we are on the right track is provided by the observation that in some dialects the relevant interactions involve clitic series that are morphophonologically dishomogeneous, such as P clitics. In particular we have seen in section 3 an instance of exclusion of a first person form by l clitics in the Cantoira dialect. In this section we shall exemplify cases where it is any object clitic, and not only an N clitic, that excludes the third person clitic as well as cases where specialized N forms turn up with any subject clitic. 4.1 Mutual exclusion A simple example of a dialect where the lexicalization of third person subject clitics is found in isolation but not in combination with object clitics is provided

Mutual exclusion of subject and object clitics

143

by Briga Novarese in (35). As shown in (35a), the isolation forms of the nominative singular are al/la; those are not found in combination with either a clitic of the accusative series as in (35e), or other object clitics such as the P clitic am in (35c) or the locative clitic ag (with dative interpretation) in (35d). We may also notice that the accusative is lexicalized by the specialized forms lu/ju in the exclusion context in (35e), while the normal series l/la/i surfaces again in combination, for instance, with the plural subject clitic i, as in (35f); i itself maintains the isolation form seen in (35b). (35) Briga Novarese (Piedmont) a al/la ’tSama mi e ti he/she calls me and you ‘S/he calls me and you’ b i ’drCmen they sleep ‘They sleep’ c am ’tSama me he/she.calls ‘S/he calls me’ d ag da Sta ’rCba there he/she.gives this thing ‘S/he gives this thing to him’ e lu/ju ’tSama him-her/them he/she.calls ‘S/he calls him/her/them’ f i m/l/la/i ’vAgAn they me/him/her/them see ‘They see me/him/her/them’ The nominative series in isolation is al/la/i; this is identical to the accusative series l/la/i seen in combination with the i subject clitic in (35e). In mutual exclusion context we find the specialized set lu/iu. We treat al/l as allomorphs of the same lexical base with definite denotation as in (36a). The combination of l with the nominal class morphology a yields la as in (36b). In turn i (i.e. the lexical base with quantificational denotation), can show up either alone or inflected by the nominal class morphology u as in (36c). The latter combines with l as well, yielding lu as in (36d). The relevant insertion points of these forms are indicated in (36). (36) Briga Novarese a [I (a)l ] b [I l [N a ]] c [I i [N (u) ]] d [I l [N u ]]

144

Mutual exclusion of subject and object clitics

(36) al, la, i → D, N iu, lu → N Both the internal structure of the clitic forms in (36) and the way they interact follow closely those considered for the dialects in section 3. Thus we may assume that the lexicalization of a definite/quantificational element in N prevents the relexicalization of the definiteness base l in D, therefore excluding the insertion of the al/la subject clitics. In the same conditions furthermore it is obligatory to lexicalize a specialized nominal class morpheme on the N clitic, which in this dialect takes the shape of u (rather than a as in the previous cases considered here). But the reason why we introduced the data of a language like Briga is another, namely the fact that the insertion of al/la in D is excluded by any object clitic, including P clitics and locatives. It is only natural to extend to this generalized mutual exclusion the same approach we have taken throughout. In other words, we conclude that in the Briga dialect the insertion of any element in the object string is sufficient to lexicalize definiteness properties for the string as a whole, excluding their relexicalization by the subject clitic in D. 4.2 ‘Opaque’ forms With Briga Novarese in section 4.1 we have exemplified languages where the interaction between subject and object involved only third person singular subjects but all objects. A language where the interaction affects third person object clitics in combination with all subjects is exemplified by S. Nazzaro Sesia in (37)–(38). The data in (37) concerning third person forms follow familiar lines. The isolation subject clitics are al/la/i as in (37a–b). In combination with any object clitic the third person subject clitic is not lexicalized, as in (37c)–(37f). Furthermore, the object clitic takes the form lu/iu inclusive of the specialized nominal class morphology u, already examined for Briga Novarese in section 4.1. What is new is the data shown in (38a), where the lu/iu accusatives appear in combination with all subject clitics including notably at, ‘you’. On the other hand, we cannot simply assume that the language lacks a series of accusatives differentiating nominal classes (traditionally feminine and masculine); indeed such a series, namely lu/la/i, appears in enclisis on the imperative, as shown in (38b). (37) S. Nazzaro Sesia (Piedmont) a al/la ’tSama ’tytS he/she calls everybody ‘S/he calls everybody’ b i ’tSamu ’tytS they call everybody ‘They call everybody’ c lu/ju ’tSama him-her/them calls ‘S/he calls him/her/them’

Mutual exclusion of subject and object clitics d

e

f

145

am/at ’tSama me/you calls ‘S/he calls me/you’ ag ’da kus ’ki there gives this ‘S/he gives this to him’ lu/iu ’tSamu him-her/them they.call ‘They call him/her/them’

(38) S. Nazzaro Sesia a at lu/iu ’tSami you him-her/them call ‘You call him/her/them’ b ’tSam-lu/-la/-i call-him/her/them ‘Call him/her/them’ As before, it is useful to provide an analysis of the nominative/accusative third person series, here given in (39). The al form can be analyzed as a simple lexical base, as in (39a); the combination of the definiteness base l with nominal class morphology u/a yields la/lu as in (39b–c). In turn the i element with quantificational denotation can appear either alone or inflected by the nominal class morphology u, as in (39d). (39) S. Nazzaro a [I al ]] b [I l [N a ]] c [I l [N u ]] d [I i [N (u) ]] The points of insertion of the clitics in (39) are indicated in (39). The mutual exclusion between third person subject clitics and all object clitics follows familiar lines; in other words, insertion of any object clitic lexicalizes definiteness properties for the whole string, excluding their lexicalization in D by the definite/quantificational elements al, la, i. (39) al → D la, i → D, N lu, iu → N The reason why we are considering a dialect like S. Nazzaro is that the accusative forms lu/iu appear not only in mutual exclusion contexts, where the subject has a third person interpretation, but also in combination with P subjects, i.e. in particular t of second person singular. As we have seen in (39) and (39),

146

Mutual exclusion of subject and object clitics

u is a nominal class formative specialized for insertion in the N position; thus lu, iu forms appear only in N. What is more, this morphology specialized for the N position subsumes in the singular the distinction between the u, a classes, which surfaces therefore only in enclisis in contexts where a subject clitic is independently excluded. These properties make it reasonable to assimilate the lu, iu forms to the specialized accusatives found in combination with mutual exclusion phenomena in other languages, for instance, Briga in the previous section. Hence languages like S. Nazzaro provide an important argument in favor of the conclusion, already suggested above, that the requirement concerning the insertion in N of a form with a (specialized) nominal class inflection is independent of mutual exclusion. In other words, the dialect of S. Nazzaro, where lu and iu are inserted in proclisis independently of the interpretation of the subject, simply represents the case in which the nominal class morphology requirement applies without contextual restrictions. We may also consider briefly why the complete paradigm of object clitics al/la/i surfaces in enclisis, as exemplified in (38b) with the imperative. We have already noted at the end of section 3 that dedicated sets of (subject or object) clitics arise in modal contexts. In turn enclitic and modal contexts tend to overlap since modal forms of the verb typically involve lexicalization in the higher C positions of the sentence. The imperative is a case in point (Chapter 1). Thus we conclude that the obligatory lexicalization of the specialized nominal class morphology u in N is associated with non-modal contexts; modal contexts allow for the insertion of what we may consider to be the ordinary clitic series (for both objects and subjects), namely al/la/i.

5 Concluding remarks The current approach is profoundly different from the others found in the literature which effectively take the routine description of the phenomenon seriously and therefore introduce some form of comparison between derivations in the grammar to account for the ‘preference’ of one clitic or another according to context. That comparison between derivations (or representations) is involved is particularly evident in the recent optimality treatment of Romance clitics by Grimshaw. In essence according to Grimshaw (1997, 1999), lexical insertion takes place on the basis of the need to satisfy the maximum possible amount of constraints defined by the grammar. If for some reason a dedicated form is unavailable, the grammar provides for the insertion of an underspecified element, since other positively specified elements will inevitably violate more constraints than it does. Essentially the same conceptual schema, based on the implicit or explicit comparison between derivations or representations, is in fact implied by morphological theories that use Elsewhere as the basic lexical insertion principle, down to current distributed morphology frameworks (Halle and Marantz 1993). Our account of the relevant phenomena makes use of no Elsewhere principle, with the allied notions of underspecification or default, nor of comparison

Mutual exclusion of subject and object clitics

147

between derivations/representations. It seems to us that to the extent that such notions represent an enrichment of the grammar the current account has an edge over its competitors. As for notions of comparisons of derivations or representations, recall that though they play some role in the earlier minimalist framework of Chomsky (1995), they have been shown to be not only unnecessary, but to effectively derive the wrong results in more recent statements of the theory (Chomsky 2000ff.) where they are altogether abandoned. As for notions of Elsewhere, and the attending concepts of underspecification and default, we note that these notions have been discounted in the very phonological domain in which they have first arisen (cf. the government phonology literature, e.g. Harris 1994). The empirical discussion in this chapter supports the thesis laid out in Chapter 3, namely that clitic systems of the type found in Italian dialects, characterized both by internal complexity and by subtle parametrization, may be described by a minimalist syntax which has no resort to comparisons between possible derivations or representations, or indeed to the choice between alternative lexical insertion patterns. This result is interesting, in that current literature almost without exception assumes that accounting for phenomena such as Romance cliticization involves having recourse to specialized morphological components, mechanisms of underspecification and default, not to mention optimality schemas. Nevertheless the theoretical proposals we have advanced raise interesting questions of their own. We would like to conclude our discussion by considering some of them. We have so far adopted without any discussion the idea that clitics are ordered in rigid hierarchies. It is however an open question of whether hierarchies, of the present type or of the type discussed by Rizzi (1997) and Cinque (1999), among others, exist at all as part of the computational component. The conceptual problem most often debated with respect to such hierarchies is that they seem to subsume under phrase structure a number of properties that ought to be dealt with (and could only adequately be dealt with) at the interpretive interface of LF. Recent theoretical reconstructions of the minimalist framework (Freidin and Vergnaud 2000; Starke 2000) explicitly integrate functional hierarchies into the computational component. They assume that Merge is an operation of set-theoretical union, whose order of application defines an intrinsic order among constituents; the latter is constrained by hierarchies (constellations for Freidin and Vergnaud (2000), f-sequences for Starke (2000)), which account for observed phrase structure configurations as opposed to non-existing ones. At the same time it is reasonable to think that relatively simple hierarchies, which are furthermore constant across categorial domains, can be derived on independent grounds. The clitic hierarchy adopted here is of this type. In particular we have emphasized the parallelism between the inflectional clitic hierarchy and the functional hierarchies within the noun phrase; in essence D–Q–N represents both the basic order of clitics in the sentence (nominative–dative–accusative) and the basic progression of categories in the noun phrase (definite determiner–numeral quantifier–noun). Crucially it is not difficult to find interpretive reasons for the order observed. Thus the ordering of

148

Mutual exclusion of subject and object clitics

Q, D with respect to N is motivated by their quantificational/denotational nature, binding a variable in the argument structure of N (as originally proposed by Higginbotham (1985)). The relative order of D with respect to Q is simply that of definite or strong quantifiers with respect to weak or existential ones, with which they can combine.

5

Transitivity and unaccusativity Auxiliary selection

In standard Italian and in many Italian dialects, auxiliary selection is governed by the class of the embedded participle, so that roughly speaking, essere co-occurs with unaccusatives and avere with transitives. The literature analyzes this pattern precisely as a selection of the functional category auxiliary by the lexical verb embedded beneath it (Burzio 1986; see also Chierchia 2004; Reinhart 1997). Our starting point however is represented by the idea that so-called auxiliaries are ordinary main verbs selecting sentential complements where the verb happens to be participle (Kayne 1993). Therefore it is the selection properties of the auxiliary which strictly speaking, determine the kind of structures that may be embedded beneath them. Within this framework we shall derive the distribution of auxiliaries in a language like Italian (section 4) and account for some parameters in the interaction between auxiliary selection and si (section 5). The general form of our solution will be briefly discussed in section 1, while section 2 will provide an introduction to the internal structure of the participle and the participial clause, including their agreement properties. Finally, section 3 will discuss the key properties of si.

1 Overview of the issues and general form of the current proposal Following a long tradition of studies on English auxiliaries and modals (Chomsky 1957), Burzio (1986) adopts a monoclausal analysis for auxiliary–past participle constructions, under which the participle is inserted in the lexical verb position V of the sentence, while the auxiliary is inserted in the functional I position. In such a perspective, auxiliary choice is to be thought of as a set of restrictions that the main verb V imposes on the its functional projection I. According to Burzio (1986), who takes up in this respect the analyses of relational grammar (Perlmutter 1978; cf. also La Fauci 1989), in standard Italian the auxiliary to be is associated with unaccusatives, while to have is associated with unergatives and transitives. In Burzio’s (1986) terms, unaccusatives have only an internal argument, while unergatives have only an external argument and transitives both an internal and an external argument. This distribution of thetaroles is paralleled by a distribution of cases whereby crucially unaccusatives do not assign accusative case. Therefore the argument of unaccusatives is forced to

150

Auxiliary selection

move from its base-generated object position to the subject position. In this perspective the basic environment for the choice of the auxiliary to be is the one determined by movement from object into subject position, while the other environments are associated with to have. An interesting complication arises from the fact that si constructions are always associated with to be. In particular, according to Burzio (1986), reflexive and impersonal si require an extra rule to the effect that to be is chosen when there is a binding relation between the subject and the object, namely si. Needless to say, the disjunctive nature of the final rule represents a problem for the whole approach. Several authors treat reflexive si in the same terms as unaccusative/passive si, i.e. as involving a movement relation from object to subject (Grimshaw 1982; Marantz 1984) or its equivalent in the relational grammar framework (Rosen 1984). This allows for a simplification of the rule of auxiliary choice, but not for its unification. Indeed, impersonal si does not imply movement from object to subject, since it can overtly co-occur with an accusative clitic, as we shall see in more detail in section 3. A new departure on auxiliary selection is represented by the theory of Kayne (1993), where a participle is a structure itself endowed with the full series of sentential functional projections, or at least some of them. Any argument that moves from the object position of the participle to the subject position of the auxiliary must cross the participial C. In Kayne’s (1993) analysis, to be represents the normal form of the auxiliary, lexicalized when the internal argument of the verb passes the participial C node, as happens with unaccusatives. On the other hand, if it is the external argument of the participle to raise to the subject position of the auxiliary, as happens with unergatives and transitives, C can be passed only if C itself incorporates into the matrix verb, i.e. the auxiliary. In this case the incorporation of C into to be gives rise to to have. Unfortunately, the idea that to have is derived from to be through a process of incorporation is not empirically substantiated, since Kayne (1993) himself is not able to point to any language where there is a morphological transparent relation between auxiliaries to be and to be  x  to have. A similar objection, based on the morphology of Georgian, is put forward by Nash (1998). Another major line of explanation pursued in the literature is based on the semantic rather than on the syntactic properties underlying auxiliary selection. Thus according to Chierchia (2004), be selection characterizes contexts in which some semantic operation or other targets the subject. Two such rules are introduced by Chierchia (2004). Reflexivization R identifies object and subject; this applies in reflexives but also in unaccusatives, where a language like Italian also lexicalizes si. The second rule is passive P which introduces a variable for the external argument; this underlies both passives and impersonals. Interestingly enough, Chierchia (2004) partitions the logical space of be predicates into two subclasses exactly like Burzio (1986); however, for Chierchia (2004), the partition is the one just described, while for Burzio (1986), passives and unaccusatives pattern together as opposed to impersonals and reflexives. This also means that Chierchia’s (2004) rule is no less disjunctive than Burzio’s (1986),

Auxiliary selection 151 who also suggests a cover generalization whereby to be is selected when some rule connects subject and object position. Reinhart (1997) takes up Chierchia’s (2004) proposal, introducing two rules that essentially parallel his. One of these, saturation, existentially binds the external argument, deriving passive. A second rule, reduction, applies to a twoplace relation reducing it to a one-place property. Reflexivization corresponds to a reduction of the internal theta-role, while unaccusatives derive from a reduction of the external theta-role. In these terms, be selection marks either the reduction of a theta-role or its lack of lexicalization when saturation applies. One point developed by Reinhart (1997) to which we shall return below concerns the fact that in languages like Dutch the reflexive zich combines with to have rather than with to be as in Italian; the proposal is that zich is a reduced pronominal element capable of checking the accusative case feature in an argumental position. On the contrary Italian si is treated as an inflectional element. From a strictly syntactic point of view the first major alternative that the literature sets in front of us is between bi-sentential treatments, as proposed by Kayne (1993), and mono-sentential treatments. In our view the bi-sentential analysis is supported by the fact that participial clauses and auxiliary verbs may be found independently of each other, with recognizably the same basic characteristics, so that auxiliary–past participle constructions appear to be an ordinary case of embedding a non-finite sentence beneath a main verb. To begin with, participial sentences occur independently of auxiliaries, in particular as adverbials, in the so-called absolute participle construction studied by Belletti (1990). In these sentences it is evident that the participle is associated with its own set of nominal projections, which may include the full set of clitics, which will appear in enclisis on the participle. (1)

Mangiate-le, si sentì meglio eaten-them M/R he.felt better ‘Having eaten them, he felt better’

As for be and have, the crucial observation is that in Romance dialects (as in English) these two verbs do not appear only as so-called auxiliaries in combination with past participles. Thus to be is the copula, as in (2a), while to have is the possessive, as in (2b), and/or the necessity modal, as in (2b). (2)

a

b

c

Gianni è l’amico di Lucia G. is the friend of L. ‘Gianni is Lucia’s friend’ Gianni ha molti libri G. has many books ‘John owns many books’ Gianni ha da partire G. has to leave ‘G. has to leave’

152

Auxiliary selection

Let us consider to have first. Given its appearance in the possessive construction in (2b), it would appear that avere is a straightforward two-place predicate, traditionally a transitive predicate, as in (2b). This characterization is also compatible with the modal context in (2c) where avere is construed essentially as a control verb. By contrast, the proper treatment of copular sentences of the type of (2a) seems to be essentially the one argued for by Moro (1997), whereby to be has the argumental structure of a raising verb, i.e. essentially a structure involving an embedded proposition and no external argument. In this sense to be is an unaccusative as in (3b). (3)

a b

To have is a transitive predicate To be is an unaccusative predicate

The most notable problem that faces an analysis like the one we have in mind, where the participle projects a sentence related to the auxiliary by a simple complementation relation, is the fact that a participial sentence embedded beneath an auxiliary does not denote an event independent from the one denoted by the auxiliary itself. Rather there is a single event, interpreted in traditional descriptive terms as a past perfect event. It seems to us that the unification of the eventive structures of the auxiliary and the past participle that appears to be necessary under the biclausal analysis is in fact similar to the one required by socalled restructuring constructions in the sense of Rizzi (1982), as well as by reanalysis in causative constructions, which we discuss for Albanian in Chapter 10. There we argue that non-finite (and even finite) complements embedded beneath a restructuring or reanalysis verb are semantically predicates, in that their EPP position corresponds to a variable. This EPP variable is not bound within the embedded sentence; rather its value can and must be fixed by an argument of the matrix sentence. This binding of the embedded EPP variable allows for the unification of the argumental structures of the matrix and embedded verbs, and of the events they denote. What we propose here is that auxiliary–past participle constructions involve restructuring (or reanalysis) in the sense just defined. In other words, the participial sentence is associated with a variable EPP argument not satisfied within the embedded sentence. This same unsaturated argument allows for the appearance of the participial expression in all predicative contexts, including those within the noun phrase, where we otherwise find an adjective. In the case under consideration, where the participle is embedded under a(n auxiliary) verb, we assume that the EPP argument of the participle is bound by the EPP argument of the matrix verb. This eventually leads to the identification of their argumental structures and of their events. Before we proceed, it is worth recalling that, as ever, we do not evaluate our theory on the basis of how it fares with respect to a particular set of parametric values (a particular grammar or language); rather what is crucial to us is its handling of the observed parametric variation. In the domain of auxiliary selection this is no less finely articulated than in the domain of clitics. Leaving aside

Auxiliary selection 153 minor parameters, such as the one concerning reflexives mentioned in reviewing Reinhart (1997), in a whole group of central Italian dialects the two auxiliaries to have and to be alternate not according to the verbal class of the participle, but rather according to the person specifications of the EPP argument. Thus a classical system, independently described by Kayne (1993) and Cocchi (1995), has the first and second person associate with to be, while the third person associates with to have. As is well known, there are also languages where all participles combine with to have, except for the passive which has to be; this is of course what happens in English or in a Romance language like Spanish. Languages where participial structures are systematically associated with to be are also to be found in the Romance family, though they are harder to come by. Because in all cases we are dealing with the same linguistic family, these variations with respect to auxiliary selection co-exist with the same basic morphosyntactic structure of the participle and of participial sentences; they also co-exist with the same basic properties of to be as a copula and to have as a possession verb and/or a necessity modal. If we consider this range of variation (Chapter 6) it is evident that, so far as Universal Grammar is concerned, there is a fundamental compatibility of all auxiliaries with all verbal classes, essentially as predicted by the ordinary complementation approach proposed here. Dialects where have and be alternate according to the person (and to a lesser extent dialects with only have or only be) will be considered in the next chapter. In this chapter we shall check whether a theory that abides by the overall constraints set out above correctly predicts the possible and impossible auxiliary–past participle combinations in a language like Italian.

2 Internal structure and agreement of the past participle Before we consider the issue of auxiliary choice in past participle constructions, it is worth considering the internal structure of both the participle and the participial sentence, proceeding then to the complementation structure it forms with the auxiliary. Perhaps the most prominent single issue that arises in connection with the internal structure of the participle and its sentence is that of its agreement patterns. According to Burzio (1986), in a language like Italian, the participle overtly agrees with its internal argument, since it agrees with the surface subject of unaccusatives (including reflexives and passives), as well as with the direct object of transitives, at least when it is lexicalized by a clitic. Unifying these observations into a single statement one could say that the past participle agrees with a promoted object, either through passivization or through cliticization. Kayne (1989) provides an elegant derivational explanation for this state of affairs in terms of object movement having to stop by an intermediate AgrO position (of participial agreement). The theory of participial agreement we shall be pursuing here cannot but parallel the theory of finite verb agreement discussed in particular in Chapters 1–2.

154

Auxiliary selection

Thus there is no derivational process determining agreement, say, the checking of predetermined features (Chomsky 1995) or the valuation of unvalued features (Chomsky 2001). Rather, interpretive conditions at the interface determine the well-formedness of certain interpretations; in languages with inflectional structure like Italian (and to a much lesser extent English), the precondition for any interpretation involving co-reference or chain formation (assignment of several arguments/inflections to the same argument slot) is compatibility of the denotationally relevant properties (e.g. number, nominal class, person). This is what is called agreement. In what follows we shall show that the agreement properties of the participle follow from the current framework, without any additional stipulation. Let us begin with the structure of the participial sentence. In those cases where clitics can be seen within the participial sentence, as in (1), it is interesting to note that they appear after the participle. Examples such as (1) therefore provide important evidence as to the position of the participle within the participial sentence; since the clitic follows the participle, we take it that the participle itself is relatively high within its sentence, inserted in C or higher. Taking up a proposal of Manzini and Savoia (2005), we shall in fact associate the participle, like other non-finite forms of the verb, with the CI position of the C field, associated with I(ndefinite) modality as lexicalized in particular by non-finite forms of the verb, but also by the imperative (cf. Chapter 1). If we keep associating clitics with the lower I domain, this yields structures like (4). (4)

ei CI ei mangiate (C) ei N le

In Chapter 1 we propose that finite verbs are characterized by a D inflection; on the contrary, we assume that nouns and adjectives are associated with an N inflection. D inflections, like the D clitic position, may be associated with P specifications as well as number and eventually nominal class specifications; on the contrary, N inflections, like clitics inserted in N, have number and nominal class properties, but are not compatible with P specifications; recall that object P clitics have their own separate insertion position. Participial agreement, which has the morphological properties of nominal and adjectival agreement, will correspond to the lexicalization of an N argument within the participle, rather than of a D argument, as happens with finite verbs. In terms of the discussion in Chapters 1 and 3–4 the interpretive content of N is that of internal argument of the predicate; in other words, the lexicalization of N, both as an inflection and as a sentential argument, means satisfaction of the internal obligatory argument of the predicate itself. This yields structures of the type of (5), as already seen in Chapter 1.

Auxiliary selection 155 (5)

ei CI ei I N mangiat e

Completing briefly the morphological analysis of the participle itself, we note that besides the agreement morphology analyzed above, regularly formed Italian past participles include a t element that may be identified with a lexicalization of the aspectual property of perfectivity. Manzini and Savoia (2005) treat modal and aspectual inflectional morphemes as the I head of their verbal constituent, which takes the verbal stem as its complement; the latter is inserted in an N position which is to the immediate left of the I aspectual/modal head because of the right-headedness of morphological structures. This structure, illustrated in (6), is also independently motivated for the participles of Albanian in Chapter 8. In the regular participles the t morphology attaches to a verb stem itself formed by the verb root, namely mangi- in the case at hand, and a so-called thematic vowel, i.e. -a for a first-conjugation verb. The treatment of the thematic vowel which we suggest here depends on the observation that thematic vowels are generally necessary (and sufficient) to allow the verb root to combine with aspectual and modal I heads in a complementation structure. We suggest therefore that thematic vowels are simply N inflections making the verbal root into a nominal form of the verb available to insert in the N position of an I aspectual/modal head. (6)

ei CI ei I N ei e N I ei t I N mangi a

We will now return to the fact that the N inflection of the past participle in (5) agrees in Burzio’s (1986) terms with the internal argument of the participle. In terms of the model developed in Chapters 1–2 with respect to agreement of the D inflection of the finite verb we expect that the N inflection of the participle will agree with the N argument lexicalized by the le clitic in (1) or (4); strictly speaking, the two will be interpreted as specifications of the same referential content and argumental slot. The other major agreement pattern of participles, namely the one involving the surface subject of unaccusatives, may also be usefully studied without making reference to the embedding beneath an auxiliary. As discussed by

156

Auxiliary selection

Belletti (1990), a lexical subject can be lexicalized within the participial sentence; the morphological distinction present in the pronominal series between nominative and accusative/oblique case allows us to establish that this subject is a nominative, as in (7). As in auxiliary–past participle contexts, in the so-called absolute participial clause in (7), the participial inflection agrees with the subject of the unaccusative verb. Thus the speaker in (7) is interpreted as having a feminine referent due to the properties of the participial inflection. (7)

Arrivata io/*me, cominciò la riunione arrived I/me began the meeting ‘Once I had arrived, the meeting began’

As anticipated in the introduction, the one argument of the verb arrivare (to arrive) will be inserted in the D position. The unaccusative interpretation will correspond to the matching of the D subject of the sentence with the one argumental slot of the verb, namely its internal argument slot. Since the latter is independently lexicalized by the N inflection of the participle, this will result in the identification of the D nominative subject with the N participial inflection, and hence agreement, as in the structure in (8). (8)

ei CI ei arrivata (I) ei D io

The interesting property of structures like (8) is that the internal (morpho)syntax of the participle and the syntax of the participial clause are in a sense mismatched. According to Chapter 1, and again to the above discussion, the internal syntax of nouns, adjectives and participles is ergative, in the sense that the argument lexicalized by their inflection corresponds to N. However, it is evident from such examples as (8) that a sentential unit formed on the basis of a participle has the basic syntactic properties of sentences formed with finite verbs, including crucially the fact that the EPP argument corresponds to a D. The properties both of participles and of participial clauses must be taken to be primitive in this respect, hence learned by the child as part of the grammar of Italian. In a language like Hindi, for instance, perfect participles not only display an ergative agreement pattern, but also form sentences with an ergative case pattern. On the other hand, the combination of ergative agreement patterns and nominative case patterns displayed by Italian (8) has theoretical consequences for the treatment of case and agreement proposed by Chomsky (2000, 2001, 2004a), according to which the same feature checking operation results in agreement of the finite verb with the EPP argument and in assignment of the nominative case to the latter. In particular, ‘structural case is not a feature of the probe’ but only

Auxiliary selection 157 of the goal; therefore while probe and goal are matched with respect to other features, such as phi-features, ‘Case itself is not matched, but deletes under matching of phi-features’ (Chomsky 2001: 6). The general theoretical picture proposed by Chomsky (2001) is in a sense exactly the one that we are trying to enforce here, since the only properties that have an independent existence are denotational ones, while case is but a reflex of them. At the same time Chomsky’s proposal faces empirical problems, in the sense that there is no certain matching in natural languages between morphological agreement and morphological case. The participial clauses of Italian are a case in point, since in (8) agreement with the participle involves a nominative subject, while of course in (4) it involves an accusative. It is easy to see that the same agreement patterns that we analyzed within participial clauses also apply when the participle is embedded under the auxiliary. Thus in (9a), the N inflection of the participle agrees with the N argument lexicalized in the sentential structure by the accusative clitic. Similarly, agreement of the participle with the surface subject of unaccusative finds an exact counterpart in sentences where the participle is embedded under an auxiliary, as in (9b). (9)

a

b

Li/ le ho visti/ viste them-m/them-f I.have seen-mpl/ seen-fpl ‘I saw them’ Maria è arrivata M. is arrived-fsg. ‘Mary arrived’

The literature (Burzio 1986; Kayne 1989a) emphasizes an asymmetry between cases like (9a), where the participle agrees with the accusative clitic, and cases like (10), where the past participle does not agree with the lexical object. Rather, the participle surfaces in what may be characterized as a nonagreeing form. It is evident that within the approach to morphosyntax we are advocating here, we cannot simply describe (10) as lacking agreement of the participle, since -o is clearly the masculine singular inflection. On the other hand, we cannot say either that the presence of -o is determined by default mechanisms inserting this morpheme in the absence of any specified agreement features, since recourse to default is barred in our model. (10) Hanno chiuso gli occhi they.have closed-msg the eyes ‘They closed their eyes’ In the discussion in Chapter 2 concerning third person singular agreement of the finite verb with a postverbal subject, we proposed that the third person singular inflection of the verb can introduce the D argument of a finite sentence as a variable, existentially closed at the predicate level. The lexical subject occurring in the postverbal domain essentially functions as a predicate of this variable

158

Auxiliary selection

argument, of which it specifies the reference. Indeed, in dialects which display the relevant agreement pattern of the finite verb, an unaccusative participle will show up with the masculine singular inflection in the presence of a postverbal subject, as shown for a Tuscan variety (morphologically similar to standard Italian) in (11). (11) Dicomano (Tuscany) JJ ε vve’nuh-o de ra’fattsi it is arrived-msg some boys ‘Some boys arrived’ In (11) we obviously take the same mechanism to be at play for the participial inflection as for the finite one. Thus the -o masculine singular morphology can introduce the N argument of the past participle as a variable, of which the postverbal subject is a predicate, fixing its referential properties. Accounting for (10) is now simply a matter of extending the analysis provided for (11). In other words, the participial -o inflection in (10) introduces the N argument of the participle as a variable, while the N lexical argument gli occhi is connected to the variable through a predicative relation. In Chapter 2 we also theorized that introducing a variable at the interpretive interface and having its value fixed through a predication represents the core of the focusing operation. Therefore the postverbal subject of northern Italian dialects like (11) can only be interpreted as focused. On the other hand, in forms such as (9a) the preverbal subject is normally interpreted as topicalized – or more correctly anti-focused. Therefore agreement with the verb, implying that the D argument of the verb is introduced as a fully referential element (the equivalent of a lexical pronoun), is necessary. We take the same kind of consideration to explain the contrast between obligatory agreement of the past participle with the clitic in (9a), which is associated with unfocused/anti-focused interpretation, and non-agreement with the lexical noun phrase in (10) which is within the information focus of the sentence. In reality, though (10) records the pattern generally discussed by the literature for standard Italian, agreement of the past participle with the lexical object represents an accepted norm in the early literary language, as discussed notably by Egerland (1996), who provides example (12) from Old literary Italian. The same pattern keeps being attested in literary texts up to contemporary Italian, and it is acceptable to the authors of this text. (12) Hanno chiusi li occhi they.have closed-mpl the eyes ‘They closed their eyes’

(Dante, Convivio I:IV)

The co-existence of the patterns in (10) and in (12), for those like us who accept both, could be described in terms of the co-existence of two slightly different grammars. One grammar is the one described in detail above, whereby the lexical object in the informational focus of the sentence is set apart from the anti-

Auxiliary selection 159 focused accusative clitic. The other grammar essentially has full agreement independently of interpretation. The latter seems to correspond to the earlier stages of the language, and is part of the internalized competence of at least some speakers. A pattern to some extent specular to the one exemplified with literary Italian in (12) is found in dialects like Donat in (13) where the participle normally agrees with the externalized internal argument of unaccusatives; however, it never agrees with an accusative object, even when it is lexicalized by a clitic. (13) Donat (Grisons) a El l(a)/las a la’vo he it-f./them-f. has washed ‘He washed it/them’ b El/Ella e va’nie/va’nida he/she is come-m./f. ‘S/he came’ It is not difficult to distinguish the unaccusative context in (a) from the transitive context in (b) either in terms of classical transformational grammars or of the present one. In current terms, in an example like (13b), the internal argument slot of the participle corresponds to an N lexicalization, namely the clitic la/las, while in the unaccusative (13a), the internal argument slot at the sentential level is assigned to the EPP argument. Therefore one could accurately describe the distribution of Romansh varieties like Donat by saying that the participial inflection provides an independent lexicalization of the N internal argument slot, in combination with its absence at the sentential level. On the contrary, the internal argument is introduced as a variable at the morphological level corresponding to its independent lexicalization in the sentential structures, independently of the pragmatic import of the argument itself. In the above discussion one major class of verbs has been systematically avoided, namely so-called unergatives. These clearly display the non-agreement pattern, as in (14). Given the above discussion, the presence of the invariable -o inflection on participles of the relevant class amounts to saying that the N argument of the participle is introduced as a variable. We take this to be consistent with characterizations of unergatives as incorporating the internal argument (Hale and Keyser 1993; Chomsky 1995). (14) I delegati hanno parlato alla riunione the delegates have spoken at the meeting ‘The delegates spoke at the meeting’ There is a question that our treatment of non-agreeing participles in -o begs so far, namely why it is the masculine singular of traditional morphological theories that introduces the N argument as a variable, as opposed to any other form of the inflectional paradigm of participles. In a language like standard Italian there are at least four possible lexicalizations of the N inflection of the noun and

160

Auxiliary selection

hence of the adjective and participle, namely -a, -e and -i besides -o. Of these, we may be able to exclude that -i introduces the variable in that its denotation is intrinsically quantificational and hence amounts to plurality when it lexicalizes an N inflection; the same plural denotation attaches to the nominal class morphology -e, which we may therefore assume to be analogously excluded from introducing a variable. However, this leaves us with both -o and -a as possible candidates for the lexicalization of the N argument as a variable; that -o is the correct one will simply represent a parametric value learned by the child. This kind of approach tends to predict that in other languages it could be some other nominal class morpheme that turns out to introduce the N variable. A good case in point are central Italian dialects which, in addition to the masculine and feminine nominal class morphemes, also have a neuter one. In a first group of dialects this neuter morphology, also -o, systematically characterizes unergative participles and transitive participles with lexical objects as in (15a). Note that in the relevant dialects the masculine singular corresponds to quite separate lexicalization, namely -u as in (15b). (15) Filottrano (Marche) a a ar’tsat-o a ’sEdja he.has raised-nsg the chair ‘He lifted the chair’ b e vvi’nut-u u fij’jolu is come the boy ‘The boy came’ A different group of dialects that also have separate nominal class endings for the neuter is exemplified by Mascioni in (16). Thus in (16c)–(16d) the -o ending on the neuter article and clitic lo is clearly distinguished from the -u ending of the masculine nominal class on the lu clitic in (16e). The interesting fact about Mascioni is that the participial ending with unergative verbs (or transitives with a lexical object) is -u as in (16a), which also shows up in agreement with a masculine argument as in (16b) and not -u. Therefore we can safely conclude that there is no universal implication, missed by the present theory, as to the morphological values chosen by non-agreeing participles. One important line of objection to the argument offered here could be based on the observation that participial paradigms, and for that matter nominal paradigms in general, are not associated with the -o neuter inflection in any event, so that, for instance, in (16d) the lexical base vin- is inflected by -u. But the argument is well taken in our view, in the sense that if there existed any hierarchy of markedness ordering the several nominal class morphologies, then the neuter may effectively have to appear in (16a). (16) Mascioni (Abruzzi) a ’ajo or’mitu I.have slept-nsg ‘I slept’

Auxiliary selection 161 b

c

d

e

E vve’nutu nu ’tSitulu is come-msg a boy ‘A boy came’ tSe lo ’mette there it he.puts ‘He puts it in’ lo ’vinu the-nsg wine ‘the wine’ lu ’camo him I call ‘I call him’

The question concerning the choice of -o for the non-agreeing inflection of the participle is strictly connected to the question we asked in Chapter 2 as to the choice of the third person singular for the non-agreeing form of the finite verb. It is worth pointing out that the answer we provided is essentially the same in both cases. Thus third person singular inflection is able to introduce a variable in that it does not bear any intrinsic quantificational properties of plurality or of P denotation. Specialized inflections are not able to do the same. The dative clitic, which incidentally can coincide morphologically with an accusative (plural), does not normally agree with the participle. Since agreement with the participle characterizes the accusative due to its lexicalization of the internal argument in N, the dative, which does not share these properties, is excluded from agreement, as may be seen from standard Italian (17). In (17) the participle can be associated neither with the -a morphology corresponding to the denotation of the dative le (to her), nor eventually with the -e morphology corresponding to the nominal class ending of the clitic. (17) Le hanno detto/ *-a/ *-e questo her they.have told-msg/fsg/fpl this ‘They told her this’ On the other hand, there are cases in which the participle actually does agree with the dative, as in (18a). Example (18b) establishes that li is also the form of the masculine plural accusative, which agrees with the participle exactly as the dative does, as in (18c). In (18a) therefore we cannot but conclude that the -i ending of the past participle agrees with the dative. We can capture the data on the basis of the usual assumption that the N inflection of the participle lexicalizes the internal argument, if we admit that the dative in a language like Bastia is treated as an internal argument. (18) Bastia (Corsica) a l(i) aJJu ’daddi ’kwEstu him/her/them I.have given this ‘I gave this to him/her/them’

162

Auxiliary selection b

c

mi lu/ la/ li/ le ’Da˜nu me it-m/ it-f/ them-m/them-f they.give ‘They give it/them to me’ ti ’l aJJu ’dadd-u/ -a/ -i/ -e you it/them I.have given-msg/ -fsg/ -mpl/ -fpl ‘I gave it/them to you’

3 si As we saw in section 1, the presence in the structure of the si clitic in a language like Italian triggers to be as an auxiliary independently of the lexical choice of the verb and of the exact meaning of si. In fact there is a considerable overlap between the literature dealing with auxiliary selection and with si, notably Burzio (1986), Chierchia (2004) and Reinhart (1997). As a preliminary to a refinement of the theory of auxiliary selection outlined in section 1, we will therefore consider the syntax and semantics of si, abstracting for the time being from auxiliary selection. In a language like Italian, si receives a range of different interpretations, defining a continuum that the descriptive and theoretical literature differentiates into four major types. These are the (third person) reflexive as in (19a), the impersonal (i.e. a generic) as in (19b), the middle and/or passive as in (19c), and the unaccusative as in (19d). In all cases we will be glossing si as M/R to evoke its middle/reflexive properties. (19) a

b

c

d

Gianni si lava John M/R washes ‘John washes himself’ Si va M/R goes ‘One goes’ I giornali si leggono tutti i giorni the newspapers M/R read all the days ‘Newspapers are read every day’ La luce si spegne the light M/R extinguishes ‘The light goes off’

Although in (19) we selected contexts that made one of the various meanings of si salient, it is common to find multiply ambiguous sentences. In a case like (20) Gianni may voluntarily prick himself, in which case one may speak of a reflexive, or may become pricked, without any intention of his or any implication as to an external cause/agency, in which case one may speak of an unaccusative. Gianni may also be pricked in a process involving an external agency or cause, in which case one would speak of passive; finally, if Gianni is construed as the syntactic object of the verb rather than a postverbal subject, the impersonal reading would arise.

Auxiliary selection 163 (20) Si punse Gianni M/R pricked G ‘G. pricked himself/G. was pricked/one pricked G’ Faced with the array of data in (19)–(20), Burzio (1986) postulates the existence of at least two omophonous sis, namely a reflexive and an impersonal one, the latter being also responsible for passives; as for unaccusatives, they are a lexical variant of passives. This theory however misses the point that the various si constructions in (19)–(20) form a natural class picked up in other languages as well by the same lexical elements. Following this kind of observation, various attempts have been made in the literature at unifying the two sis of Burzio (1986). One line of thought (Marantz 1984) essentially aims at reducing reflexives to passives. Remember that passive is standardly analyzed along the following lines: the passive morphology, in this case si, becomes associated with the external theta-role of the predicate; this forces the internal argument to externalize, yielding the typical promotion of object to subject in (19c). If reflexive si as in (19a) is thought of as the exact counterpart of a reflexive full pronoun se stesso (‘himself’), si cannot but become associated with the internal argument of the verb (Burzio 1986). Crucially however, because a reflexive predicate is by definition symmetric, we have no way of knowing whether si in fact corresponds to the internal or to the external argument of the verb. Suppose that exactly as passive si, reflexive si is associated with the external argument of the predicate; the derivation that ensues is identical to that of passive, with promotion of the object-to-subject position providing for a unification of the two sis. As it turns out, on the other hand, the theory reducing reflexive to passive meets its own problems; thus it cannot easily account for impersonal si, since, for instance, (19b) involves associating si with an internal argument slot, i.e. the unique argument of unaccusatives. For Chierchia (2004), as for Burzio (1986), two rules are necessary to account for reflexives on the one hand and passives/impersonals on the other. Thus a rule of reflexivization, R, identifies object and subject; this accounts for the reflexive, but also crucially for the unaccusative. On the other hand, a different rule, namely the passive, P, introduces a variable corresponding to the external argument; this operation forms the basis for the passive and the impersonal. Once again this interpretively based systematization lends itself to criticism in that it provides two different (semantic) derivations for predicates that present the same surface syntax, being equally associated with si. Nor is it clear in Chierchia (2004) what accounts for the fact that impersonals are not constrained to the external theta-role. Following up on Chierchia (2004), Reinhart (1997) posits a rule of saturation binding existentially the external argument, and thus deriving passive. She also posits a rule of reduction that applies to a two-place relation, reducing it to a property. Reduction can affect either the internal or the external argument. Reflexives are obtained through reduction of the internal theta-role, while

164

Auxiliary selection

unaccusatives result from reduction of the external theta-role. The range of data considered by Reinhart once again does not include the impersonal. In the perspective taken here, the unification of the different types of si constructions depends first of all on the possibility of defining a single lexical element si. Leaving aside for a moment its syntactic properties, si differs from pronouns like the lo/la/li/le (him/her/them) series or the mi/ti (me/you) series, in that it does not have a definite denotation. Indeed, so-called impersonal si is associated with an ‘arbitrary’ (i.e. generic) reading that would not be compatible with a pronoun whose denotation is a definite individual or set of individuals. Following Manzini (1983, 1986), we shall assume that the range of interpretations associated with si depends on the fact that its semantics is that of a free variable (i.e. an indefinite) in the sense of Heim (1982). At least for impersonal si this semantics is independently motivated by Chierchia (1995, 2004). As an indefinite variable, si can be bound by a quantifier, namely a generic/universal one, yielding the interpretation typical of so-called impersonal si. As for the other sis, translating in current terms the analysis traditionally adopted for the reflexive, we can see that the value of the variable introduced by si is fixed by an antecedent rather than by a quantifier. Since, from the denotational point of view, si corresponds to a variable, hence to the type of element normally bound by a quantifier, it is natural to suppose that its point of insertion in the nominal string is Q, where we inserted it in the discussion of object clitics in Chapters 3–4. In particular, evidence concerning the position of si with respect to other clitics is consistent with this position. In terms of the discussion thus far, the structure we propose for the elementary sentence in (20) is therefore as in (21), with si filling the Q position of the clitic string. In turn, Gianni will be construed as a postverbal subject in D or as an object in N. (21) ei Q ei si I ei punse D/N Gianni Consider first the case in which Gianni is the EPP argument of the sentence in the (postverbal) D position. The argumental structure associated with (21) involves the lexicalization of an argumental slot by the si variable. To be more precise, it is natural to assume that si, whose position is clearly internal to the object-clitic sequence, corresponds to the internal argument. Thus a sentence like (21) involves the lexicalization of the internal argument slot by the variable represented by si. The need to provide a value for it implies that si enters a chain relation with the EPP argument, whereby the internal argument slot is associated with the referential properties of the EPP argument. The literature proposing that movement from object into subject position underlies all of its various interpretive articulations is typically obscure as to the

Auxiliary selection 165 nature of the si element. In particular, if a movement theory is adopted for clitics as well, the obvious base position for si, as object of the verb, would coincide with the base position of the argument externalized to the subject position. Alternatively, si is treated not as a clitic but as an inflectional affix, but all of its distributional properties place it squarely in the object-clitic set. The reason why we are able to keep a straightforward clitic syntax for si is that we account for the interpretation, whereby the internal argument slot is associated with the EPP argument, without having recourse to the syntactic process of movement. Therefore, an intransitivized interpretation (reflexive, middle, passive) may correspond to a transitive syntax, where si itself is inserted in object position. In general, we take si sentences to be a major reason why the connection between chain interpretation and syntactic movement is at best possible but not necessary. We have yet to make explicit what the interpretive difference between the reflexive, the unaccusative and the passive readings of (21) amounts to. In essence it seems to us that one simply speaks of reflexive when some degree of intentionality attaches to the argument of the si sentence. Thus reflexive readings are available only with EPP arguments capable of a mental state. The passive is a reading under which the implication is preserved that the event takes place through an external agency or cause, interpreted in the way of all so-called implicit arguments, i.e. as a generic. Finally, the unaccusative reading is the simplest, as the argument is neither imputed agentive properties itself (reflexives) nor is it acted up by another agent/cause (passive). We would like to maintain that these interpretations arise in connection with si for the simple reason that all three exhaust the range of possible interpretations for intransitivized contexts. Before proceeding further in the discussion of middle-reflexive si, we must consider the case where Gianni in (21) is itself the direct object N and si has the so-called impersonal reading. Thus in (21) the internal argument slot is lexicalized by Gianni, configuring a situation in which the si variable evidently associates with the external argument slot. But it is equally possible for si to have the impersonal reading when clearly associated with the internal argument slot, as with the lexical inaccusative in (19b). In all cases, in the absence of any independently referring D argument, the variable in argument structure is bound by generic quantification. The above analysis accounts for a puzzling gap in the distribution of si, whereby si cannot lexicalize the internal argument of a transitive predicate with impersonal interpretation. In other words, (20) cannot mean ‘Gianni pricks people/us’. The reason for this is that if si is associated with an internal argument slot and an argument with independent denotation in the sentential D position, si is in the immediate logical scope of it and must have its value fixed by it; this gives rise to the ‘intransitivized’ reading of middle reflexives. Only in cases where si is not in the scope of a D argument is its reference fixed by a generic, yielding the impersonal reading. Distributional contrasts that oppose impersonal si to the other si types could potentially be incompatible with the unification of si proposed here, leading to

166

Auxiliary selection

the postulation of a separate lexical entry at least for impersonal si. One such contrast arises in standard Italian, where the accusative clitic precedes impersonal si, as in (22b), though it follows reflexive si, as in (22a). The reflexive order is straightforwardly predicted on the basis of the approach adopted so far, whereby si is in Q and is therefore followed by the accusative clitic in N. However, the reverse order with the impersonal is not expected, as may be seen also by the comparison with (22c) where both the reflexive and the impersonal interpretation of si are obtained in the presence of the predicted si – ne order of si in Q and partitive in N. (22) a

b

c

Maria se lo compra Mary M/R it buys ‘Mary buys it for herself’ Lo si compra it M/R buys ‘One buys it’ Se ne compra M/R of.them buys ‘He buys some of them for himself/One buys some of them’

A natural way of accommodating the two different orders within our grammar is suggested precisely by the discussion of mesoclisis in Chapter 1. In those cases the intermediate placement of the verb inflection between (roughly) P or Loc clitics and accusative clitics may be accounted for if the two clitic series are generated in two different domains. In the case at hand, it may be assumed that a similar structural principle underlies clitic insertion in impersonal si structures. In particular, if the reflexive order simply corresponds to the realization of si in Q and of the accusative clitic in N of the I domain, as in (23a), the impersonal order may be derived by assuming that the realization of si in Q of the I domain forces the accusative to a higher domain, namely the C domain, as in (23b). Relevant supporting evidence from Italian dialects is presented by Manzini and Savoia (2001, 2005). (23) a

b

ei P ei se N ei lo I compra ei N ei lo (C) ei Q ei si I compra

Auxiliary selection 167 Although the standard Italian contrast between the order accusative– impersonal si and the order reflexive si–accusative may in principle be used to argue for the existence of two separate sis, associated with different syntactic categories and positions, the fact that the placement of the accusative clitic appears to depend on the presence of impersonal si or reflexive si does not in any way imply two separate lexical entries or positions for those two elements, since the interpretation associated with them can tell them apart. In particular, in terms of the theory proposed here, in the reflexive the D subject is lexicalized by an argument with referential properties independent of those of si, while such an argument is not present in the impersonal construal. Other Romance dialects lexicalize impersonals and reflexives/passives by means of two different items, as in French, where the impersonal is lexicalized by means of on. In the relevant languages, the si-type clitic lexicalizes the indefinite variable in those constructs (the reflexive and the passive), where it is bound by the independently lexicalized subject. On the contrary a specialized ‘impersonal’ element lexicalizes the indefinite variable in the scope of the generic operator. It is worth emphasizing that the presence of a specialized lexicalization for the impersonal is not connected to the null subject parameter. On the one hand, it is evident from the spread of data reported in Manzini and Savoia (2005) that subject-clitic languages allow both for a specialized impersonal (as in French) or for impersonal si (as in northern Italian dialects). Vice versa, a null subject language like Romanian only allows for the si-type element in the reflexive and passive bound construal (Dobrovie-Sorin 1998), behaving in this respect like French. Beginning with Burzio (1986), one issue that has attracted particular attention in the theoretical literature on si concerns the embedding of this element in infinitival sentences. Burzio (1986) argues that impersonal/passive si cannot be embedded in control sentences on the basis of the need for impersonal si (to which passive si is assimilated) to have nominative case. By contrast, reflexive/unaccusative si, treated by Burzio (1986) as an object clitic, can normally be embedded in control sentences. Cinque (1988) however arrives at a different generalization for passive si, based on the possibility of two different readings for it, namely a property reading corresponding to the traditional middle, and a passive reading proper. According to Cinque (1988), the middle involves a ‘pure passivizer’ si, which does not require the nominative case, and is therefore not excluded from control environments, as in (24a). The passive si proper is an argumental element that is associated with the external theta-role, and requires nominative, therefore being excluded from control environments. We agree with Cinque’s (1988) argument concerning the well-formedness of the ‘middles’, as in (24a). However, a solution based on associating what Cinque (1988) calls passive si proper with nominative case is barred in the current theory, where passive si is an object clitic. In reality, it seems to us that a sentence like (24b) is acceptable on a par with (24a), though there is no doubt that it does not have the middle or property reading which ‘is possible only with generic time reference (and a limited class of verbs)’ (Cinque 1988: 560).

168

Auxiliary selection

Thus to the extent that contrasts such as those noticed by Cinque (1988) are found, we conclude that an account for them is not to be sought in a morphosyntactic distinction between ‘middle’ and ‘passive’. (24) a

b

Questo vestito ha il vantaggio

di lavarsi

molto più facilmente di altri This dress has the advantage to wash-M/R much more easily than others ‘This dress has the advantage of washing much more easily than others’ Questi libri hanno il pregio di essersi comprati a poco prezzo These books have the merit of to.be-M/R bought for little ‘These books have the merit of having being bought for little’

Before discussing impersonals in control sentences, it is worth considering the fact that there are infinitival contexts that, even in traditional generative theory, allow for the assignment of nominative case. In these contexts, according to Cinque (1988), we normally find passive si assigned an external theta-role and a nominative case, as in (25a), but not what Cinque (1988) construes as a ‘syntactic marker for generic person’, as in (25b), in practice our impersonal si. Indeed, according to Cinque (1988), a ‘syntactic person marker’ will need to combine with Agr and will then be found only in finite sentences, never in infinitival ones, even if nominative is available. (25) a

b

Sembra non essersi ancora scoperto il vero colpevole it.seems not to.be-M/R yet discovered the true culprit ‘The true culprit seems not have been discovered yet’ *Sembra non essersi stati invitati da nessuno it.seems not to.be-M/R been invited by anybody ‘We seem not to have been invited by anybody’

Accepting that Cinque (1988) is correct on the data in (25), nothing effectively prevents us from accepting its line of explanation, since as we have seen in the above discussion the current theory is perfectly capable of factoring impersonal si away from other sis and can also stipulate its association with finite inflection. Similarly, if our conclusion that passive si is systematically allowed for in control environments in (24) is correct, we still need to account for the impossibility of impersonal si in them. In contexts such as (24), where there is a matrix argument that fixes the referential value of the embedded EPP argument, this excludes impersonal si by definition, since the latter arises when the referential content of the EPP argument is not independently fixed. However, environments of so-called arbitrary control, where the reference of the embedded EPP argument is not independently fixed by a matrix argument, also exclude impersonal si, as in (26).

Auxiliary selection 169 (26) *E’ preferibile non essersi stati invitati da nessuno it.is preferable not to.be-M/R been invited by anybody ‘It is preferable not to have been invited by anybody’ Again nothing prevents us technically from having recourse to a stipulation comparable to Cinque’s (1988) argument as to the exclusion of impersonal si from infinitival contexts in general. However, in Chapters 8–9, in discussing the control and raising interpretation available in Albanian (as in other Balkan languages) in finite sentences as well, we connect them to the fact that the EPP argument is interpreted as a variable. This variable may be introduced either through a specialized element such as të in Albanian, or by the infinitival morphology in Romance (or English). Indeed, it has been noted (Chomsky 1981) that the properties of the empty category subject of control sentences are formally and interpretively identical to those of si; specifically the so-called arbitrary reading of the control empty category parallels impersonal si. This is what we predict given that the same variable semantics is associated with both, if we assume that arbitrary control results from the binding of the EPP variable by a generic operator (in the absence of other antecedents). Suppose that impersonal si is excluded in environments of arbitrary control, as in (26). Generic quantification can take its scope over the EPP variable directly; therefore a configuration where the same argumental slot is actually filled a second time by si (i.e. by an identical variable element) may reasonably be barred. The same solution may be invoked in raising examples like (25), which become grammatical if si is in the matrix clause. Effectively then, combining the approach to si proposed here with the approach to infinitival (and equivalent) environments proposed in Chapters 8–9, we can derive the generalization of Cinque (1988) as to the exclusion of impersonal si from infinitival contexts. Environments that truly differentiate between reflexive/unaccusative si and impersonal/passive si do exist, though infinitivals are not among them. It is useful to start with an obvious distributional fact about si that we have not mentioned thus far, namely that in the first and second person the Italian reflexive/unaccusative is not lexicalized by si, but rather by the ordinary clitics with P denotation, as shown by the paradigm in (27). (27) Mi pungo ti pungi si punge ci pungiamo vi pungete si pungono Refl prick ‘I prick myself’ As already known from Burzio (1986), the first and second person forms in (27) do not admit of a passive interpretation. On the other hand, the passive

170

Auxiliary selection

reading with a first or second person cannot be obtained with a si construction either, as shown by the ungrammaticality of (28a). Thus the only possible way of combining a first or second person internal argument with a si form is through the impersonal construction, as in (28b). (28) a

b

*Io si rispetto qui I M/R respect here ‘I am respected here’ Mi si rispetta qui me M/R respects here ‘One respects me here’

The split between first/second person and third person is a phenomenon widely attested by typological studies, as we will discuss in particular in Chapter 6 in connection with auxiliary choice. We will motivate the conclusion that the split opposes elements whose reference is directly anchored at the universe of discourse, namely the P forms, to other nominal elements, whose reference is necessarily event-anchored. In this perspective it is natural to find that a reflexive event requiring the identification of two argumental slots and its transitive counterpart involving two different argumental referents is only lexically differentiated in the third person. In particular, in the case of a transitive event, the N argument will be lexicalized by the l series of pronouns as in (29b), while the reflexive event will have recourse to the si element with a variable denotation. The first and second person, because their reference is directly discourseanchored, have the same lexicalization independently of the transitive or reflexive nature of the event involved, as exemplified in (29a). (29) a

b

Mi lava me he.washes ‘He washes me’ Lo lavo him I.wash ‘I wash him’

The facts concerning the reflexive split would be expressed in classical generative theory by saying that in the third person the l series is associated with the pronominal property, subject to principle B of binding theory, while si is an anaphor, subject to principle A. Similarly, elements such as mi/ti could be compatible both with the status of anaphors, subject to binding principle A, and with that of pronominals, subject to binding principle B; in other words, the anaphor/pronominal distinction would be neutralized with respect to such elements. Furthermore, if we adhered to the government and binding idea that traces of A-movement are anaphors, we may be able to account for the fact that the unaccusative reading may also be conveyed through the P series. However, a theory expressed in these terms does not provide us with any insight into why

Auxiliary selection 171 the neutralization characterizes precisely the first and second person as opposed to the third person; for instance, there is no reason why the reverse could not be true. Vice versa, we have yet to provide a characterization of the P clitics that allows for the reflexive and the unaccusative reading. Crucially, the ordinary pronominal series, including P clitics and l clitics as well, may routinely be used as resumptive clitics, in what generative grammar identifies as a chain interpretation, implying the sharing of a single argument slot by elements lexicalized in different positions. In classical generative terms, the resumptive clitic behavior suggests that pronominal clitics are equivalent to traces when it comes to whmovement environments. Interpretively speaking, it is commonly recognized in the literature that the resumptive clitic receives a variable interpretation bound by the wh-phrase operator. Evidently therefore, ordinary pronominal elements endowed with intrinsic denotational restrictions can play the role of variables in natural languages. It is precisely what we assume the P series does in the reflexive and unaccusative paradigms of Italian, as in (27). The reason why the l series cannot is precisely the person split, whereby intransitivization requires a specialized lexicalization in the event-anchored third person. We are left with the question that got us started in the first place; namely why the passive reading is not available in (27). It is natural to assume that, in cases where the first or second person are lexicalized by the P series, the intrinsic denotational context of the latter somehow connects to the impossibility of the passive reading. In other words, the P clitic construction cannot be read as implying an external agency acting on the P referent (passive), though it can be read as involving intentionality on the part of the P referent (reflexive) or as involving the pure intransitive reading (unaccusative). Similarly, we may expect that reflexive and passive interpretations be subjected to other splits (on a parametric basis), without prejudice for the lexical and syntactic unification of si proposed here. One such case concerns sentences like (30), where si is taken to correspond to a dative object. As indicated by the glosses, these are perfectly grammatical in the reflexive interpretation. However, the passive interpretation is utterly impossible. (30) Gianni si regala dei libri G M/R gives books ‘G. gives himself books’ *‘Gianni is given books’ Given the overall parallelism between the interpretations observed with the P series above and those observed with dative si, one possibility is to advance for the latter the same kind of explanation that we have been advancing for the former, in other words, that it is some denotational property of the EPP argument, eventually accruing to it from the argument slot lexicalized by si, that excludes the passive reading. More specifically, given the above discussion of P referents, we suggest that the impossibility of attaching an external agency

172

Auxiliary selection

(passive) reading to (30), exactly as to their P counterparts, is due to a constraint applying to denotations that are discourse-anchored in some respect or other. The conclusion that there is a nucleus of common denotational properties between the P series and the so-called dative is confirmed by the existence of independent phenomena where person splits or more generally animacy splits, as discussed in more detail in Chapter 6, interact with the lexicalization of dativity. In particular in some Romance languages, direct objects that are animate, and in some cases just first or second person (as well as specific), are lexicalized as datives, through a phrase introduced by a (to) (Jaeggli 1981; Suñer 1988; Torrego (1998) on Spanish; Dobrovie-Sorin (1993) on Romanian). In dealing with Italian dialects, Manzini and Savoia (2005) explain the relevant cluster of properties by assuming that a is characterized in the lexicon as introducing a denotation anchored at the universe of discourse. The sensitivity of a insertion to the animacy hierarchy is due to the fact that animates (humans) are always potential discourse participants (and first and second person actual ones), while datives can be treated in terms of discourse-anchored locative coordinates, given that a also introduces locatives. If we now combine the proposals concerning the syntax of si in this section with those concerning perfect participle agreement in section 2, we find that the same explanation provided in (9) for agreement of the past participle with the accusative object and the unaccusative subject straightforwardly predicts the agreement pattern of reflexive, unaccusative and middle si sentences, as exemplified by the (at least two-ways) ambiguous sentence in (31). Again, the N inflection of the participle lexicalizes the internal argument. An independent lexicalization of the internal argument is in turn provided by the si variable, which is identified with the matrix EPP argument. In either case, the N inflection of the participle finds itself identifying with the matrix EPP argument. Agreement is a morphological precondition for this interpretation to go through. (31) Maria si è lavata M M/R is washed-fsg. ‘Mary washed herself/Mary was washed’ Even in languages like Italian where datives do not agree with the participle, the participle agrees with so-called ‘indirect’ reflexives, i.e. instances of reflexivization where the variable lexicalized by si corresponds to the dative (e.g. indirect object, second object) rather than to the accusative (e.g. direct object). Thus in (32) the participle can display agreement with the accusative argument, represented by the lexical NP le mani (‘the hands’) in (32a) and the clitic le (them (feminine plural)) in (32b). However, it is also possible for the participle to agree with the surface subject Maria, presumably through the fact that Maria in turn fixes the reference of the si variable lexicalizing the dative (inherent possessor). Standard judgments typically give agreement with si/Maria as preferred in (32a), and agreement with le as preferred in (32b); less restrictive dialects like those of the authors actually allow for the other possibility in both cases. In either case the substance of the problem remains unchanged.

Auxiliary selection 173 (32) a b

Maria si è lavat-a/ -e le mani M M/R is washed-fsg/ fpl the hands ‘Maria washed her hands’ Maria se le è lavat-e/ -a M M/R them-fpl is washed-fpl/ -fsg ‘Mary washed them (her hands)’

Consider agreement with the dative in (32a). We can capture the -a (feminine singular) agreement on the basis of the usual assumption that the N inflection of the participle lexicalizes the internal argument, if we consider that the interpretation whereby the si variable is bound by the matrix EPP argument requires treating si as an internal argument. Naturally the N object will represent an internal argument of the sentence; this explains the -e (feminine plural) agreement pattern for those speakers that admit it. Similarly in (32b) either internal argument will agree with the participle, with a preference for the N argument for many speakers. Therefore in a language like Italian, with si (and only with si) what are effectively double-object constructions come to light. The fact that there isn’t a middle-passive interpretation of sentences like (21a) has already been dealt with above, in terms that do not conflict with the present treatment of si. The final aspect of past participle agreement that deserves to be mentioned here involves impersonal si. The data quoted in the theoretical literature (Chomsky 1981; Jaeggli 1981) imply that impersonal si agrees with an unaccusative (e.g. reflexive, passive) participle in the masculine plural. Indeed, this is possible as shown in (33); however, depending on the appropriate contextual restrictions si is compatible with any plural agreement on the participle, including the feminine one, as again shown in (33). In either case the interesting fact is that the finite verb, which is set on the third person singular, ends up having a peculiar disagreement relation to the past participle. (33) Si era arrivat-i/ -e M/R was arrived-mpl/ -fpl ‘One/we had arrived early’

presto early

The current theory turns out to be ideally suited to account for (33). Because si in (33) is the argument actually associated with the internal argument of the unaccusative, the denotational properties of the N participial inflection and its own denotational properties must be compatible, i.e. they must agree. Chierchia (1995) distinguishes a generic interpretation proper of impersonal si, which is essentially a universally quantified one, and what he calls an episodic interpretation which is contextually restricted, in particular by reference to a specific temporal domain. The episodic denotation of impersonal si brings it close to a ‘we’; indeed, Tuscan varieties of Italian allow for the systematic doubling of impersonal si by a noi ‘we’ topic. Therefore we fully expect the plural inflection on the participle, since the perfective specifications typically make the reading of si ‘episodic’ in contexts like (33).

174

Auxiliary selection

However, the D inflection of a finite verb actually agrees with the D argument. Si in sentences like (33) is an object clitic, and in northern Italian dialects requiring a lexicalization of the D argument beside the verb inflection, the D position is overtly lexicalized by an expletive, as in (34). The co-occurrence of si with the expletive clitic strengthens the conclusion that si syntactically is an object clitic, and cannot be a D clitic. Indeed, if it occupied the D position we would expect it to exclude the expletive on the model of other argumental subject clitics. Exactly as in expletive constructions of the type in (34), the verb inflection in (33) will then introduce the D argument as a variable; this is why it appears in the third person singular. (34) Modena a s mana SCl M/R eats ‘One eats’

4 Auxiliary selection in Italian We begin our review of Italian data by considering the combination of to be with an unaccusative participle, as in (35a); the combination of essere with a transitive participle, as in (35b), yields an ill-formed sentence. (35) a

b

Le carte sono bruciate The papers are burned ‘The papers burned down’ *Siamo bruciate/o/i le carte we.are burned the papers ‘We burned the papers’

The relevant structures are as illustrated in (36) for the well-formed (35a). For the time being, we avoid making explicit the exact embedding structure of the participial sentential complement under the matrix verb, since it plays no role in the current discussion. A hypothesis about it will be put forth at the end of this section. We have instead indicated the full internal structure of both the main and the embedded verb. (36) wp D wp le carte I ... ei ei I D CI so no ei ei N N I e brucia t

Auxiliary selection 175 The only assumption that we made in the above discussion as to the nature of the verb essere (to be) is that it is an unaccusative verb. Consider then (35a). The unaccusative construal of participles implies that their internal argument slot is assigned to the EPP argument. In turn, it is in the nature of non-finite sentential complements such as the participle that their EPP argument is a variable. The latter is therefore in need of an identification which comes from the matrix EPP argument. The assignment of the internal argument slot of the participle to the EPP argument of to be satisfies the unaccusative property of the auxiliary. We have already stressed above that the internal syntax of the participle differs from that of the participial clause in being ergative; thus within the participle the internal argument slot of the unaccusative is overtly lexicalized by an N inflection. Agreement of the N inflection of the participle with the D inflection of the matrix verb is just a precondition for the sharing of the same argument slot. Consider by contrast (35b). In the transitive participial sentence the EPP argument is introduced as a variable, identified as before by the EPP argument of the matrix verb; the internal argument is independently lexicalized. Therefore (35b), where the matrix EPP argument only inherits the external argument slot of the embedded EPP variable, does not satisfy the unaccusativity of to be. As we know, to have is in complementary distribution with to be as an auxiliary. Thus it combines with a transitive verb as in (37a) and also with an unergative as in (37b). That the same verbal base, that of bruciare (to burn) is involved throughout, stresses the fact that it is the construal of the predicate that is relevant. At the same time avere (to have) cannot combine with an unaccusative as shown by the agrammaticality of (37c), but also by the fact that (37b) obligatorily has the (unergative) process reading and cannot have the (unaccusative) result reading associated with (37a). (37) a

b

c

Abbiamo bruciato/e le carte we.have burned/fpl the papers ‘We burned the papers’ Hanno bruciato (a lungo) they.have burned (for long) ‘They burned for a long time’ *Abbiamo arrivato/i we.have arrived ‘We arrived’

The structure for the grammatical (37a), irrelevant details omitted, is as in (38); the unergative (37b) simply lacks the N lexical object. In the discussion at the outset we proposed that whereas, essere (to be) is an unaccusative verb, avere (to have) is a transitive predicate. This lexical requirement is evidently satisfied in (37a) and (37b) in that the EPP argument of avere controls the embedded EPP variable, from which it inherits the external argument slot. Needless to say, the N argument of the participle may be adopted as the N argument of avere as well, and hence of the complex predicate as a whole. The

176

Auxiliary selection

interpretation of (37c) on the other hand requires the EPP argument of avere not only to bind the variable corresponding to the EPP argument of the participial clause, but in so doing, also to inherit the internal argument slot of the lexical unaccusative. This violates the constraint as to the transitivity of avere. (38)

wp I ... ei wp ei I D CI abb iamo ei N ei N le carte N I o/e brucia t

The account we have now outlined for Italian will correctly predict the remaining facts about the distribution of have and be as well. In particular si, independently of its interpretation, will be associated with the auxiliary essere in Italian, as illustrated in (39). In (39a) we provide a single example for the reflexive, unaccusative and middle-passive readings, which as we argued in section 3 are associated with identical syntactic structures; in (39b) we exemplify the impersonal that reflects a slightly different syntax. (39) a

b

Si sono bruciati M/R they.are burned ‘They burned themselves/they burned/they were burned’ Li si è bruciati them M/R is burned ‘We burned them’

Let us consider first middle-reflexive si, as in (39a). In the relevant structure, namely (40), the si clitic introduces a variable in object position, corresponding to the internal argument slot of the participial predicate, which must ultimately be identified by the matrix EPP argument (also identifying the variable corresponding to embedded EPP position). This configuration, including an object variable as well as the binding of its argument slot by the EPP argument, is compatible with the unaccusative properties of the to be auxiliary, but not with those of to have. Hence middle-reflexive si is necessarily associated with essere. The different readings that si gives rise to are determined in present terms strictly at the interpretive interface, where an intentional (reflexive), non-intentional (unaccusative) and externally caused (passive) reading may be distinguished.

Auxiliary selection 177 (40) ei Q wp si I ... ei wp I D CI so no ei ei N N I i brucia t Let us then consider a sentence like (39b), which due to the presence of an overtly lexicalized object cannot but configure a case of impersonal si. Such a structure combines it with the auxiliary to be once again, as in (41). (41) ei N ei li Q wp si I ... è wp CI ei ei N N I i brucia t The interesting property of structures like (41) is that essere combines with a transitive structure, showing that no unified account of auxiliary choice in Italian is possible in terms of the transformational rule of movement; in other words (41) is a bona fide transitive structure with no promotion from object to subject taking place at all. Indeed, it is si that forces Burzio (1986) to split the rule of essere selection into two. In terms of Chierchia (2004), one may simply assume that essere is inserted in correspondence of a valency-changing rule like reflexive or passive; but in this case it is the underlying treatment of si in terms of these two rules that presents an internal disjunction. In section 3 we tried to argue that a genuine unification of si can be achieved in a representationalist grammar like the current one by simply assuming that it introduces a variable into argument structure. Indeed, despite the interpretive differences characterizing the structures in (40) and (41), it remains true in both of them that from a syntactic point of view the si element fills a variable in object position. Furthermore, its argumental slot is shared in both cases with the matrix EPP argument; that in (41) the variable corresponds to the external argument slot appears to be irrelevant. In other words, the presence of a configuration where an object variable is identified with the matrix EPP argument is sufficient to define a structure that counts as unaccusative, independently of the nature of the argument slot so shared. Needless to say, impersonal si will also

178

Auxiliary selection

combine with essere in sentences formed with an unaccusative participle. This gives rise to a configuration straightforwardly accounted for, where the si variable fills an internal argument slot, identified with the EPP argument in the classical way of unaccusatives, compatible with essere, but not with avere. Summarizing thus far, impersonal si, as in (41), provides an important argument that at least in a language like Italian so-called auxiliary selection (i.e. the lexical properties that determine the insertion of essere and avere) are sensitive not to a lexical-semantic level with access to such properties as transitivity or unaccusativity. Rather, they have access to a syntactic level where the relevant formal property of introducing an object variable bound by the EPP argument is equally instantiated by the transitive construction in (41) as by the intransitive one in (40). It remains for us to consider the fact that a sentence like (35a) which involves a verb like bruciare that admits of a transitive construal can also have a passive interpretation, disambiguated in (42a) by the by phrase. A purely transitive verb like amare (to love) will combine with essere with a passive interpretation as in (42b). (42) a

b

Sono bruciate da Gianni they.are burned by G. ‘They are burned by Gianni’ Sono amate da Gianni they.are loved by G. ‘They are loved by Gianni’

The interpretive properties of a be passive are to some extent the same reviewed for the unaccusative in (35). In particular, the EPP argument of the be auxiliary identifies the internal argument slot of the perfect participle, satisfying the unaccusative construal of the to be auxiliary. One major difference involves the variable corresponding to the EPP argument of the participial sentence. In the unaccusative reading in (35) it is itself controlled by the matrix EPP argument; in other words, it is identified with the internal argument slot. In the passive reading it can be lexicalized through an adjunct by phrase as shown in (42); alternatively, it remains free and is generically interpreted through quantificational binding. Needless to say, an EPP argument, even a variable one, cannot normally be identified by an oblique, such as the by phrase; we shall return to this point in connection with so-called faire-par constructions in Chapter 10, where we shall connect it to complex predicate formation. Interestingly, despite the fact that auxiliary insertion in perfect participle constructions with unaccusative and passive interpretation can easily be unified, passives are not generally treated in the auxiliary selection literature. This is due to another interpretive difference between them which requires to be accounted for if we are to continue treating all auxiliary–perfect participle constructions as a unitary set. Roughly speaking, an unaccusative sentence like (35a) is interpreted as a perfect, as is the entire well-formed set of sentences in (35) and (37). On the contrary, a passive sentence like (42a) is interpreted as a present.

Auxiliary selection 179 According to the literature, the perfect, at least in English, roughly denotes a present state arrived at as a consequence of a concluded event, hence a past by implication. These are, for instance, the terms in which Comrie (1976) defines the perfect: ‘the perfect relates a past action to a present state, i.e. can express a present state as being the result of some past action’. More formal proposals about the semantics of English perfects may be read as renditions of the same basic intuition. For instance, Parsons (1990) assigns to sentences such as (35) a semantics like the following: there is an event e of ‘leaving’ whose theme is ‘John’ and the state following e, CS(e) holds at the moment of utterance. It is also well known from the literature (Comrie 1976; Giorgi and Pianesi 1997), that the English and the French or Italian perfect differ in that the French/Italian perfect can further take on the meaning of a simple perfective past (which we have generally used in the glosses). For instance, the English perfect cannot be modified by an adverbial like yesterday, while the French/Italian one can. Cross-linguistic differences in the interpretation of the perfect go beyond the scope of this book. What is relevant here is that the passive, as in (42), does not have a perfect, but rather a present interpretation (which is normally a present progressive in Italian as in other Romance languages). This corresponds to the fact that the auxiliary verb is in the present; thus perfectivity is associated strictly with the embedded participle and does not accrue to the complex predicate. The one independent difference between passives and unaccusatives assumed here concerns the interpretation of the embedded EPP variable in the passive, which we assume not to be bound by the matrix EPP argument but either lexicalized by the oblique by phrase or generically bound. It is therefore natural to conclude that the fact that the embedded EPP variable is not bound from the matrix EPP position yields a degree of independence between the matrix auxiliary clause and the embedded participial clause, sufficient to determine a reading where the auxiliary maintains its temporal value of present. We thus assume that the past (or in any event the perfect) reading of the non-passive auxiliary structures with essere and with avere is connected to the unification of their EPP arguments, and in general to the complete identification of their argument structure. To be more precise, the above discussion conflates two different interpretations associated with passives, namely the process reading of the so-called verbal passive, and the stative reading of the so-called adjectival passive. In fact though the verbal vs. adjectival passive description leads one to think of underlying syntactic differences (indeed proposed by the literature), they can equally well be treated as interpretations of the same syntactic construct, as discussed thus far. Therefore, though a reading may be preferred to another depending on contextual factors, as well as on their interaction with the inherent semantics of the verb, both meanings can clearly apply to an example like (43). (43) Le carte sono firmate dal direttore The papers are signed by the director  ‘The director signs the papers’  ‘The papers bear the director’s signature’

180

Auxiliary selection

The distinction implied by the verbal passive vs. adjectival passive terminology appears to be justified by the fact that the state reading is independently available when the participle is simply embedded under a noun as in (44a), or in any other predicative context as in the clitic context in (44b). We take it that examples such as (44) show that the state reading is actually associated with the aspectual properties of the participle per se; in this respect the adjectival passive label indeed provides a good first-hand description of the phenomenon. Therefore, the discussion surrounding the original examples in (35) or (42) should be further specified, so that the interpretation associated with the simple compositional semantics of the copula and the embedded participle is the stative (adjectival) one. Complex predicate formation with the to be auxiliary will then lead to the non-compositional aspects of the process (verbal passive) reading. (44) a

b

Le carte firmate dal direttore sono qui The papers signed by the director are here ‘The papers signed by the director are here’ Le ho firmate dal direttore them I.have signed by the director ‘I have them (i.e. they are in my possession), signed by the director’

One final question that remains open concerns the exact structure created by the embedding of the participle under the auxiliary verb. As we noted at the outset, auxiliary selection phenomena depend essentially on the internal structure of the matrix and embedded sentence, as well as on the fact that complex predicate formation of one kind or another takes place between them. The fact that the discussion can proceed without reference to the exact embedding structures is an element leading us to suspect that it is just an ordinary embedding structure, as observed in particular with other non-finite complements. In general, Manzini and Savoia (2003b, 2005) argue for the assumption that sentential complements fill the ordinary argument positions of the nominal string. In this perspective, at least for cases like (38) involving avere, it is natural to suggest that the participle fills the N direct object position of the auxiliary. This conclusion, which gives rise to structures of the type in (38), is crucially consistent with the assumption that avere has a normal transitive structure. At the same time it is tempting to assume that the lexical property of the participial head of the sentence that allows for its insertion in N is the presence on it of an N inflection. As we already saw when discussing (38), the N argument of the participle shares the internal argument slot with the N argument of the participial sentence and of the complex predicate as a whole, whether it agrees with it or not.

Auxiliary selection 181 (38) wp I ei abbiamo N ep CI ei bruciato/e N le carte As for essere contexts, if we adopt a structure exactly parallel to the one just motivated for avere, we obtain structures of the type in (36), where the participial sentence is once again the N complement of essere. As before it is natural to think that the N inflection of the participial head of the embedded structure provides the relevant match for insertion in the N position. At the same time one may wonder how the insertion of the participial sentence in N sits with the unaccusative character of essere. The latter is however more of a problem in classical generative approaches than in the current one, where what is crucial for unaccusativity is the presence of a variable structure that will trigger identification and inheritance interpretive processes. Thus interpretive unaccusativity can correspond to syntactic transitivity, as we argued specifically for si in section 3. In (36) of course the unaccusativity of essere and of the complex predicate it enters into is ensured by the fact that the internal argument slot of the participle is ultimately identified by the EPP argument of essere itself, as already discussed for (36). (36) wp D wp le carte I ei sono N ei CI bruciate

5 Italian-type systems combining si with avere and interactions with participle agreement As with other phenomena considered in this book, our aim is to propose an integrated system of elementary principles capable not only of accounting for a given language, but also crucially to define a parametric system, which takes into account the whole spread of variation observed within the relevant domain. A first set of parameters is observed in connection with languages that are exactly like Italian in that the distribution of to have and to be is sensitive to the transitive or unaccusative nature of the embedded participle; the relevant parameters affect the interaction between auxiliary distribution and the silike element since the latter combines with to have rather than to be. Reinhart (1997) is aware of a parameter of this type between a language like Italian and a

182

Auxiliary selection

language like Dutch. Given the independent differences between the so-called weak pronouns of Germanic language and the clitics of Romance, one could in fact entertain the idea that it is these differences that give rise to the variation in an auxiliary selection pattern. The Italian dialect data make it evident that the same parametrization as to auxiliary choice which characterizes Italian vs. Dutch also opposes Italian to other Romance dialects, which present exactly the same si element for the middle-reflexive (and impersonal). A case in point is Soazza. As illustrated in (45), avere combines with transitives (a) and unergatives (b), while essere combines with unaccusatives (c). As shown in (46) however, avere is the auxiliary of choice with reflexives in (a) as well as with unaccusatives formed with si in (b). With impersonal si, avere and essere alternate according to the verbal class of the embedded participle, as in (c)–(d). It will be noted that in this dialect, despite the parameter concerning auxiliary selection, the agreement pattern of the perfect participle remains identical to that of Italian. This provides an argument in favor of an independent treatment of the two phenomena. (45) Soazza (Tessin) a i a’veN la’vai them we.have washed ‘We washed them’ b i a dor’mi:t they have slept ‘They slept’ c i E ri’vai they are arrived ‘They arrived’ (46) Soazza a El/la s a la’vo/la’vada he/she M/R has washed/washed-f. ‘S/he washed’ b al/la s a se’to/se’tada he/she M/R has sat/sat-f. ‘S/he sat down’ c se la a viSta M/R her has seen ‘One/we saw her’ d s e ’sempro ri’vo ’tart M/R is always arrived late ‘One/we always arrived late’ Because the properties of the auxiliaries, as well as of si remain constant, what will vary is the criteria for their satisfaction at the interpretive interface. In particular, the variation will reside with the satisfaction of the unaccusative and

Auxiliary selection 183 transitive property of essere and avere respectively. Soazza appears to be a language where transitivity is satisfied if an object position corresponding to the internal argument slot is lexically filled. This means that transitivity will be satisfied when the object position is lexicalized by a variable like si, and middlereflexive si sentences of the type of (46a)–(46b) will be associated with avere, as desired. Auxiliary distribution in impersonal si sentences also follows. Indeed, the presence of the auxiliary avere in (46c) is expected simply because of the presence of a lexicalized internal argument. On the other hand, the inheriting of the internal argument slot of the embedded participle by the matric EPP argument in (46d) explains the lexicalization of essere. Although, as we pointed out above, in a dialect like Soazza, the combination of avere with si does not introduce any change in the participle agreement pattern described for standard Italian, there are dialects like Chioggia in (48) where avere with middle-reflexive si implies the invariable form of the participles. In particular, the examples in (47) establish not only that in Chioggia transitives take avere and (lexical) unaccusatives essere, but also that the participle agrees with the EPP argument of essere in (a) and with the accusative clitic in (b). The data in (48) on the other hand show avere without participle agreement with reflexive si in (a), with unaccusative si in (b) and also with passive si in (c). (47) Chioggia (Veneto) a su ve’nuo/ve’nua I.am come-m./come-f. ‘I came’ b j/lje C lja’vai/lja’vae them I.have washed-m./washed-f. ‘I washed them’ (48) Chioggia a a/la/i/le s a he/she/they-m/they-f M/R has/have ‘He/she/they washed’ b s a ’vErto la ’pCrta M/R has opened the door ‘The door opened’ c i s a ’visto pa’sare they M/R have seen pass.by ‘They have been seen to pass by’

lja’vao washed

With respect to the auxiliary selection parameter, Chioggia is identical to Soazza and may be accounted for in exactly the same terms. At the same time the strict parallelism between participle agreement in Italian and in Chioggia’s (47) suggests that the same principle is at play, whereby the N inflection of the participle lexicalizes the internal argument of unaccusatives and of transitives, showing up in the invariable form depending on discourse parameters, such as

184

Auxiliary selection

whether the internal argument is focalized or not. Now, by hypothesis, languages like Chioggia or indeed Soazza combine middle-reflexive si sentences with the auxiliary avere in that they treat contexts presenting a lexical variable like si as transitive. Therefore we equally expect the variable to be given the same treatment as any other Q object of the sentence, typically a dative (section 2), i.e. lack of agreement with the participle. From the parameters just reviewed an implication appears to emerge whereby the avere auxiliary may combine with Italian-style agreement of the participle or not, while the essere auxiliary always displays (some degree of) past participle agreement. However, based on the idea that participle agreement and auxiliary distribution are in principle fully independent we do not predict such an implication. We shall come back to this point in Chapter 6, where it will be discussed in connection with languages that take avere or essere over the entire perfective paradigm. Other systems are like standard Italian in that they have essere with middlereflexive si, but differ from it in that the impersonal combines with an auxiliary reflecting the lexical class of the participle. A case in point is the dialect of Cavergno in (49), where (a) illustrates reflexive si, (b) unaccusative si and (c) impersonal si; crucially the impersonal has avere with an unergative participle, while the middle-reflexive has essere. Comparison data, establishing that auxiliaries indeed alternate according to verbal class, are provided in (d) for the unergative and in (e) for the lexical unaccusative. (49) Cavergno (Tessin) a u/la/i s e la’vau/la’vada/la’vei he/she/they M/R is/are washed-m/washed-f/washed-pl ‘He/she/they washed himself/herself/themselves’ b uma s e ce’tei/ce’ta ’dZy one M/R is sat-l/sat down ‘We sat down’ c lai’C u s a de:s dOr’mi:t ’be:n there ClS M/R has always slept well ‘There one/we always slept well’ d l a pjC’vy: it has rained ‘It rained’ e l E ’nitS/’nitSa s/he is come/come-f. ‘S/he came’ The strict similarity between standard Italian and Cavergno on all points but (49c) may be accounted for by assuming that contrary to Italian, in the Cavergno variety the unaccusative property is satisfied only if the EPP argument binds an internal argument slot. Thus essere is inserted in cases like (49a)–(49b), where through binding of the si variable, the matrix EPP argument inherits the internal

Auxiliary selection 185 argument slot. On the contrary, in examples such as (49c), where the si variable, though identified with the EPP argument, corresponds to an external argument slot, the argumental frame satisfies the transitive property, leading to the insertion of avere. One of the notable properties of the account of auxiliary distribution proposed here and of the parametrization system it generates is that the lines along which auxiliary distribution may differ from language to language are the same as already traced for independent reasons in considering the distribution of the different si interpretations. The obvious reference is to the divide between middle-reflexive and impersonal, which may or may not produce a different lexicalization of the auxiliary. This point is worth making explicitly in that it corresponds to what in our view is a fundamental property of a good parametrization system. In other words, the possible divisions of the grammatical space are given a priori as part of universal grammar and it is only whether one of these divisions is lexically instantiated, and how, that gives rise to language variation. Based on this general approach we may of course expect that other parameters that we have seen to play a role in argument structure-related phenomena will crop up again and again; for instance, here with respect to auxiliary distribution in Italian-type grammars. So-called indirect reflexives (i.e. si variable structures where si fills the socalled dative (e.g. second object) slot) have already been considered in connection with the fact that they are incompatible with the passive interpretation as well as in connection with the agreement patterns they give rise to (section 3). What interests us here is that there are dialects which like Italian normally combine middle-reflexive si with essere, except that they lexicalize avere in the indirect reflexive. A case in point is Orroli in (50) where the reflexive is exemplified in (a), the unaccusative in (b), and the indirect reflexive in (c). Example (d) shows that impersonal si in a language of this type combines with the auxiliary dictated by the class of the embedded participle. Examples (e) and (f) show the Italian-type essere/avere alternance between lexical unaccusatives and transitives. (50) Orroli (Sardinia) a mi ’zEu Sak’kwau me am washed ‘I washed myself’ b mi ’zEu ’zettsia me am sat ‘I sat down’ c ’m appu Sak’kwau i m’manuzu me I.have washed the hands ‘I washed my hands’ d iN’guni z a s’sEmpri om’riu ’Eni here M/R has always slept well ‘Here one/we always slept well’

186

Auxiliary selection e

f

sEu E’niu I.am come ‘I came’ d appu Sak’kwau it I.have washed ‘I washed it’

Given that in dialects like Orroli auxiliary insertion with the impersonal follows the verbal class of the embedded participles, we have reasons to propose (as for Cavergno) that the unaccusative property which combines with the insertion of essere depends on the assignment of an internal argument slot to the EPP argument. However, a further restriction appears to be in place in Orroli and similar dialects, to the effect that it is not just any internal argument slot that satisfies unaccusativity, but more specifically the obligatory internal argument corresponding to the accusative first object. Finally, one of the basic contentions not only of this chapter, but of this book as a whole, is that there are fully lexicalized environments which are interpretively indistinguishable from environments where an empty category is present in classical generative terms, implying movement in derivational models. We take this to support a grammar where the relevant phenomena are treated interpretively at the interface. More specifically, our stance is that all that is relevant at the interpretive interface is, say, the presence of a variable, and it is irrelevant whether it is lexicalized by a specialized element such as si, or any other. But then we may also expect that the alternance between, say, si and be lexicalizations that we have seen in the passive interpretation can extend to other interpretations as well. This effect actually becomes visible in some dialects where in the present the reflexive is normally lexicalized by si, while in the perfect it is simply lexicalized by the combination of essere with the perfect participle. A case in point is Forni di Sopra in (51), where the present reflexive formed with si is illustrated in (a). In the perfect, the auxiliary essere excludes the lexicalization of the pronominal variable as in (b). The same conditions are observed in the indirect reflexive as in (c). The basic distribution of auxiliaries has essere with unaccusatives and avere with transitives as in (d)–(e). (51) Forni di Sopra (Friuli) a i mi ’lavi a tu ti ’lavas al/a si ’lava i si la’vCN i vi la’vEis i/as si ’lava I Refl wash ‘I wash myself’

Auxiliary selection 187 b

c

d

e

i swoi la’vat tu swos la’vat al/a i la’vat/la’vada i son la’va:s i sEis la’va:s i/az eN la’va:s I am washed ‘I have washed myself’ i eN la’va:s las ’maNs they are washed the hands ‘They washed their hands’ i/az eN vi’nu:s/vi’nudas they-m./-f. are come-m./f. ‘They came’ i laz oNs la’vadas they them have washed ‘They washed them’

Faced with the distribution in (43) it is natural to propose that what differentiates the present reflexive from the perfect reflexive is very much what differentiates the si passive from the be passive. In a nutshell, in languages of the general type that we are considering in this chapter, we know (equivalently the child who learns the language knows) that insertion of be corresponds to the unaccusativity of the complex predicate it enters into. The peculiarity of a dialect like Forni in (43) with respect to the better known case of Italian or French is simply that the construction is compatible with the reflexive interpretation as well. More evidence of this, and of a more direct kind, will turn up when we consider Albanian dialects (Chapter 7) where the lexicalization of the middle-reflexive alternates between the u clitic and a specialized verbal inflection (comparable to a morphological-level be auxiliary).

6

Parameters of auxiliary selection

Although in standard Italian and in many Italian dialects auxiliary selection is governed by the class of the embedded participle, the alternance between essere (to be) and avere (to have) can also be governed by different principles. In this chapter in particular, we shall examine auxiliary selection according to person in central and southern Italian dialects. Besides the pattern known in the theoretical literature (Kayne 1993; Cocchi 1995) whereby first and second person are associated with essere, while third person is associated with avere, a highly articulated picture of person splits emerges from our data. Furthermore splits may be determined by verbal tense/aspect and mood. Before considering these facts, we shall however analyze systems which always present essere and systems which always present avere, since they provide a simpler case in which either auxiliary is compatible with all verbal classes. The implications of the various splits for the classical typological question of ergativity will also be discussed.

1 Essere (to be) as the sole auxiliary Languages in which participial structures combine only with essere are illustrated in (1)–(3), where (1) displays the present perfect, (2) the past perfect and (3) the subjunctive perfect, i.e. the counterfactual. In all cases, the (a) examples show the combination of essere with an unaccusative and an unergative, while (b) shows the combination with a transitive, including a direct object. The set in (1) also includes for comparison the form of the copula in (c) which coincides with that of the aspectual auxiliary, as well as the form of the possessive in (d) which is lexicalized by tENge (lit: I hold). The language does have the avere auxiliary which appears in modal contexts, as in (e). The lack of number properties on the participle in (1) is due to the morphological structure of the dialect; agreement in nominal class of the participle with the internal argument may be seen in (a)–(b). (1)

Pescolanciano (Abruzzi) a sCNge/ si/ E/ seme/ sete/ sue(nne) me’nu:te/ der’mu:te I.am/you.are/ he.is/we.are/you.are/ they.are come/ slept ‘I have come’/ ‘I have slept’

Parameters of auxiliary selection

189

a

sCNge me’nu:ta I.am come-f ‘I have come’ b re sCNge/ si/ E/ seme/ sete/ sue(nne) ca’ma:te him I.am/you.are/ he.is/we.are/you.are/ they.are called ‘I have called him’ b la sue cca’mata her they.are called-f ‘They called her’ c sCNge/ si/ E/ seme/ sete/ sue(nne) kun’diende I.am/you.are/ he.is/we.are/you.are/ they.are happy ‘I am happy’ d tENge la bitSi’kletta I.hold the bicycle ‘I have a bike’ e r ayy/ a/ a/ em/ et/ EAnn a ca’ma him I.have/you.have/he.has/we.have/you.have/they.have to call ‘I have to call him’ (2)

Pescolanciano a jiva/ jive/ jiva/ ja’vame/ ja’vate/ ’jivene me’nu:te/der’mu:te I.was/you.were/he.was/we.were/you.were/they.were come/slept ‘I had come’/ ‘I had slept’ b jiva/ jive/ jiva/ ja’vame/ ja’vate/ ’jivene kun’diende I.was/you.were/he.was/we.were/ you.were/they.were happy ‘I was happy’

(3)

Pescolanciano fusse me’nu:te/ der’mu:te I.were come/ slept ‘Had I come’/‘Had I slept’

In discussing languages of the type of standard Italian we saw that essere combines with all predicates in these languages as well. However, the combination of essere with transitive predicates (to which we assimilate the unergatives) is restricted to the passive reading, i.e. to an unaccusative interpretation whereby the internal argument of the embedded predicate is identified with the EPP argument of essere. By contrast, Pescolanciano in (1) is a language in which essere can combine with all predicates in all readings. Note that avere does exist in the language as the necessity modal, so it is not a banal lexical gap that is responsible for the distribution. In fact, precisely because essere is the copula in all Italian dialects and thus the verb normally selecting for nominal/adjectival predicates makes it the simplest choice for embedding participles in the absence of any further restrictions. In other words, we take the position that it is the eventual choice of avere as auxiliary for some or all verbal classes that requires some added explanation.

190

Parameters of auxiliary selection

An unaccusative perfect in the Pescolanciano language is point-by-point identical to its standard Italian counterpart. The variable introduced as the EPP argument of the participial sentence and inhering the internal argument slot is identified by the matrix D argument. The internal argument of the embedded predicate in turn has an independent lexicalization at morphological level as the N inflection of the participle. Agreement between this and the matrix subject (i.e. compatibility of all of their referential features) is a necessary precondition for the required argumental interpretation to go through. (4)

Pescolanciano wp I ... wo wp I D CI sC Nge wo I N wo a N I menu t

The interesting piece of data is the transitive in (5). Of the two argument slots of the transitive predicate one is overtly filled by the accusative clitic in N, which agrees with the N inflection of the participle. The second argumental point corresponds to variable introduced as the EPP argument of the participial complement. Its reference is straightforwardly fixed by the EPP argument of the matrix verb. In the absence of further restrictions, essere is therefore perfectly sufficient to support the interpretation of an embedded participle. (5)

Pescolanciano wp N wp la I ... wo wp I D CI sue (nne) wo I N wo a N I cama t

At this point the question is: What defines the parameter between two languages like standard Italian and Pescolanciano? In particular, we may want to ask how the unaccusative property is satisfied in Pescolanciano (5). Roughly speaking, the insertion of auxiliaries in standard Italian, hence in particular of avere in the counterpart of (5), is due to the fact that the unaccusativity of essere

Parameters of auxiliary selection

191

or the transitivity of avere are satisfied with reference to the complex predicate they enter into (in the perfective reading). On the contrary, in a dialect like Pescolanciano which systematically inserts essere in participial contexts, complex predicate formation (yielding the perfect reading) does not enter into the computation of unaccusativity. Thus structures like (5), or (4), where the EPP argument of essere inherits an argumental slot of the embedded predicate, all satisfy its insertion frame as they do for any raising verb. A dialect like Trecate has at least the option of presenting essere in all of the paradigm of the present perfect, as in (6a)–(6b); the copula is naturally essere in this language, as in (6c). Interestingly, though the language has the lexical item avere and can deploy it in the possessive, as in (6f), essere can also appear in place of avere, both in experiencer contexts as in (6d) and in material possession contexts as in (6e); furthermore it can appear as the necessity modal in (6f). By comparison we report in (6e)–(6f) the possession and necessity modal paradigms with avere, which is also available in the lexicon of the language. It will be noted that in the second person singular the same form appears in what are given as the paradigms for essere and avere; in other words, the second person singular is what would traditionally be described as a case of ‘syncretism’ between the two auxiliaries. We shall return to this phenomenon in section 5. (6)

Trecate (Lombardy) a suk/ t E/ l E/ suma/si/ in ’ny/ dru’my I.am/ you are/he is/we.are/ you.are/ they.are come/ slept ‘I have come/slept’ b suk/ t E/ l E/ suma/si/ in tSa’ma-r I.am/ you are/he is/we.are/ you.are/ they.are called-him ‘I have called him’ c suk/ t E/ l E/ suma/si/ in kun’te:nt I.am/ you are/he is/we.are/ you.are/ they.are happy ‘I am happy’ d suk/ t E/ l E/ suma/si/ in pagyra I am/ you are/he is/we are/ you.are/ they.are fear ‘I have a car’/‘I am hungry’ e suk/ t E/ l E/ suma/si/ in ’la ara ’makina I am/ you are/he is/we are/ you.are/ they.are there the car ‘I have a car’/‘I am hungry’ e i C/ t E/ l a/ i uma/ i i/ i Ok ara ’makina/pagyra I have/you have/he has/we have/you have/they have the car/fear ‘I am hungry’ f ?suk/ t E/ ?l E/ suma/ si/ inu da fE I am/ you are/he is/we are/ you.are/ they.are to do ‘I have to do’ f i C/ t E/ l a/ i uma/ i i/ i Ok da fE I have/you have/he has/we have/you have/they have to do ‘I have to do’

192

Parameters of auxiliary selection

Needless to say, the occurrence of to be in possessive constructions is well known in the literature. However, the cases reported upon involve the possessor in an oblique case (dative, locative) and the possessed argument in the nominative agreeing with the verb (Freeze 1992; Kayne 1993). The rough correspondence between the object of ‘to have’ and the subject of ‘to be’ in possessive sentences has generally been used to propose a derivational relation of sorts between the two, whereby ‘to have’ represents the incorporation of an oblique (locative, dative) preposition into ‘to be’ with the result of creating a transitive (applicative) structure. In this perspective the interest of (6) is that essere and avere alternate within the same syntactic frame, where the possessor is the subject and the possessed argument an object. As a consequence of the fact that essere appears as both the copula and the possessive verb, some sentences are actually ambiguous between the two interpretations, such as the one illustrated in (7), which can mean either ‘it is fear’ or literally ‘s/he has fear’, i.e. ‘s/he fears’ as in (6d). Let us begin with the former, more familiar interpretation. The crucial step, reflected by agreement, is the identification of the internal argument of the predicate pagyr-, lexicalized by its N inflection, with the l argument of the matrix clause. In this respect a copular structure is entirely parallel to any unaccusative participial structure. Although to facilitate reading we do not generally indicate the exact nature of the embedding of the participle under the auxiliary we have suggested in Chapter 5 (section 4) that complementation has a homogeneous structure across complement types, thus participial clauses are nominal N complements of the auxiliary. If we take this suggestion to its logical conclusion, as indicated in (7), the nominal complement of the copula is also inserted into its object N position. (7)

Trecate wo D wp l I wo E N wo I N pagyr a

Let us then consider the alternative reading of (7) as an experiencer sentence. In languages of the type of Italian, essere will only enter structures where its D argument and the N argument of the predicate (participle, adjective, nominal element) are identified in the argument calculus. By contrast, in languages of the type of Trecate, we know that essere enters structures where the N argument of the embedded participle is not identified with the D argument of the auxiliary; rather the matrix D satisfies the variable introduced as the EPP argument of the participial sentence. This analysis is also sufficient to tell apart the copular reading of (7), analyzed above, from its experiencer reading. In the latter, the l argument of essere does not identify with the internal argument of pagyr- (its theme). Rather it provides a referential content for its second argumental slot,

Parameters of auxiliary selection

193

roughly corresponding to the experiencer (of the fear). The latter is obligatorily introduced as a variable in the ‘inherent possession’ structures, very much as in embedded participial sentence; though of course in other contexts the experiencer can be overtly lexicalized within the noun phrase by a possessive. It is interesting to note that not only in the Trecate language, but also in the other languages analyzed by Manzini and Savoia (2005), namely Castelvecchio and Cerano, experiencer contexts involving a clearly two-place embedded predicate, represent the core occurrence of the essere-for-avere phenomenon. As for the (material) possession contexts proper, even Trecate appears to require a locative specification la (there) (or ki (here)) combining with essere, and hence to support the idea that the transitive possessive predicate can be a copula augmented (e.g. through incorporation, event unification) by a locative specification. This is not at odds with the conclusions of Chapter 5, where we discounted suggestions, notably by Kayne (1993), that a verb like avere in Italian results from the incorporation of an oblique into essere. Note indeed that the locative specification in Trecate is restricted to the (material) possession context, and does not even extend to experiencer contexts, let alone auxiliary ones proper. We shall come back to the alternation between essere and avere as a verb of modal necessity in section 3, in connection with dialects (Colledimacine) where the alternation is governed by a person split.

2 Avere (to have) as the sole auxiliary Many Romance languages follow the English-like pattern whereby avere combines with all perfect participles in the active, and essere only appears as the passive-forming auxiliary. In the best-known Romance attestation for this pattern (i.e. Spanish), the insertion of haber combines with the appearance of an invariable participle form, never agreeing therefore with the N argument. However, southern Italian dialects also attest to the possibility for avere to cooccur with perfect participle agreement of the standard Italian type, as illustrated in (8)–(9). This lack of implication between auxiliary selection and perfect participle agreement supports our treatment of participle agreement as defined independently of auxiliary insertion. In particular, in (8) we illustrate the present perfect and in (9) the past perfect. The (a) examples show the combination of avere with an unaccusative predicate, agreeing with the matrix subject, while the (b) examples show the combination with the unergative predicate. Agreement of the present perfect with the lexical object is shown in (8c), while (8d) and (9c) show by comparison the copular construction with essere. In (8e) and (8f) we also illustrate the possessive form which is constructed with tennu (lit: I hold), and the necessity modal which is avere once again. (8) Carmiano (Apulia) a addZu/ a/ e/ imu/ iti/ anE i’nutu/ i’nuti I.have/you.have/he.has/we.have/you.have/they.have come.msg/come.mpl ‘I have come’

194

Parameters of auxiliary selection b

c

d

e

f

(9)

addZu/ a/ e/ imu/ iti/ anE tur’mutu I.have/you.have/he.has/we.have/you.have/they.have slept ‘I have slept’ e b’biSti a t’tutti he.has seen to all ‘He has seen everybody’ suntu/ sinti/ EtE/ simu/ siti/ suntu ’autu/ ’auti I.am/ you are/he is/we.are/ you.are/ they.are tall.msg/tall.mpl ‘I am tall’ tennu ’famE I.have hunger ‘I am hungry’ l addZu ca’marE him I.have call ‘I have to call him’

Carmiano a ia/ ia/ ia/ ’iamu/ iu/ ’ianE i’nutu/ i’nuti I.had come.msg/come.mpl ‘I had come’ b ia/ ia/ ia/ ’iamu/ iu/ ’ianE tur’mutu I.had slept ‘I had slept’ c Era/ jEri/ Era/ ’Eramu/ jEru/ ’Eranu ’autu/ ’auti I.was/you.were/he.was/we.were/ you.were/they.were tall.msg/tall.mpl ‘I was tall’

In the languages at hand, which are essentially of the English type, a participle of the unaccusative class embedded under essere will have the adjectival reading, such as in English (They are dead); a transitive (or unergative) participle will have the passive reading (adjectival or not) as in English (They are lost). In terms of the discussion in Chapter 5, the interpretation associated with the simple compositional semantics of the copula and the embedded participle is the adjectival and/or passive one. In particular in this reading the matrix verb maintains its independent reference to the present (e.g. to the imperfective past), and in the passive the variable corresponding to the EPP argument of the participial is either independently lexicalized by a by phrase or interpreted as a generic. The perfective reading of the auxiliary–participle combinations depends instead on complex predicate formation, itself based on the fact that the variable EPP argument of the participle becomes bound by the matrix EPP argument. Languages like English, Spanish or Carmiano have an (interpretive) constraint in place whereby the latter requires the presence of a predicate with the transitivity property. The other interesting property of Carmiano, already pointed out above and illustrated in (10), is that this constraint on auxiliary insertion com-

Parameters of auxiliary selection

195

bines with the agreement pattern of the perfect participle of varieties like standard Italian. Thus in (10a) the internal argument of the transitive predicate is lexicalized by the N inflection of the participle as well as by full noun phrase and the two agree as a prerequisite for their identification. In (10b), the internal argument of the unaccusative, lexicalized by the N participial inflection is on the other hand identified with the D matrix argument. The so-called ‘prepositional’ accusative form with which the lexical object shows up in (10a) has already been mentioned in Chapter 5 (section 3). (10) Carmiano a wp I ... E wp ei CI ei N I N a tutti wo i N I bbiS t b

wp I ... wo wp I D CI a nE wo I N wo i N I inu t

The question is not so much how to account for the dialect of Carmiano in itself – or for similar languages – but rather to determine what is the parameter that distinguishes it from languages like Italian in Chapter 5 or Pescolanciano in section 1 above. In particular, with respect to Carmiano the crucial question appears to be how the transitive property of avere is satisfied in a structure like (10b). In section 1, we suggested that languages which select a single auxiliary over the entire perfective paradigm (specifically essere) determine the satisfaction of their insertion frame independently of the complex predicate they enter into. Vice versa, a language like Italian that alternates between auxiliaries according to the verbal class of the participle appears to compute the conditions for their insertion with respect to the complex predicate they form (in the perfective reading). If this line of thought is correct, we may assume that what is crucial for the satisfaction of the transitivity property in a language like Carmiano is the fact that the auxiliary selects for a complement clause, namely the participial, as well

196

Parameters of auxiliary selection

as for a separate EPP argument. In other words, the insertion frame of avere is satisfied in the same way as in the necessity context, essentially in the manner of control verbs. As discussed above, it remains true that transitive avere is necessary in order to obtain the perfective (i.e. complex predicate) reading at all. Copular (i.e. (near) compositional) contexts insert essere. We are now in a position to turn to languages where avere combines with participles of all verbal classes, but the perfect participle takes an invariable form, as in (11)–(12). In particular in (11) we illustrate the present perfect, in (12) the past perfect. As shown in (11b)–(11c) the combination of the perfect passive with essere is also possible in the adjectival/passive reading. In these cases the N inflection of the participle lexicalizes the full referential specifications of its internal argument; agreement with the D argument of essere forms the basis for their identification. Such examples obviously show that lack of agreement in the avere–participle constructions cannot be explained by a simple gap in the morphological paradigm. (11) Calascibetta (Sicily) a ajU/ a/ a/ amU/ atU/ anU vI’nUtU/ DUr’mUtU I.have/you.have/he.has/we.have/you.have/they.have come/ slept ‘I have come’ b stu lin’tsulu E lla’vatU this sheet is washed.msg ‘It is washed’ c sti lin’tsCla sU lla’vatI these sheet are washed.mpl ‘They are washed’ (12) Calascibetta a’va/ a’vitu/ a’va/ a’vIvUmU/ a’vIvUvU/ a’vIvUnU bbI’nUtU/dUr’mUtU I.had come/slept ‘I had slept/come’ In accordance with the discussion of Carmiano we assume that it is the event unification (i.e. restructuring) reading of the auxiliary–past participle combination that requires the insertion of avere. In other terms it is only avere, with its transitive argument frame including two separate eventive points, that can support the relevant reading. The interesting property of Calascibetta is therefore that the unaccusative has the non-agreeing form of the participle, as in (13). This is not simply a form lacking any N inflection. Rather, it has an invariable -u morphology corresponding to the masculine singular of nominal inflection paradigms. In terms of the analysis we proposed in Chapter 5 for the non-agreeing forms of Italian, the property of such an invariable N morphology is to introduce the N argument of the participle as a variable.

Parameters of auxiliary selection

197

(13) Calascibetta wp I ... wo wp I D CI a nU wo I N wo U N I vinu/DUrmU t As already noted, the agreement parameter in (13) has to be considered in the context provided by structures like (14), where, in the adjectival/passive constructions formed with essere and the perfect participle, the internal argument of the participle is introduced by a fully referential inflection of the participles itself. As we already theorized for Carmiano this is just the compositional reading of a copula and the participial form of the verb. (14) Calascibetta wp I ... su wp CI wo I N wo i N I lava t We know independently that there are languages, for instance, the Romansh dialect of Donat discussed in Chapter 5, where the participial inflection is always introduced as a variable (i.e. does not agree) with transitives, independently of the lexicalization of the N point as a full noun phrase, a clitic, a reflexive variable. Languages like Calascibetta extend the same treatment to all participles embedded in a structure involving transitive avere under complex predicate formation. In ordinary copular contexts the pan-Romance principle applies, whereby the past participle inflection has a fully referential lexicalization. It is important to note that the above discussion only indirectly links the participle agreement pattern to auxiliary selection. Thus the real link is between what we have called the compositional (adjectival, stative) reading of the copula– participle construct or the complex predicate (one event) reading of the auxiliary–participle construct and, on the other hand, the phenomena of essere/avere insertion and participle agreement. On this basis we do not expect any direct implication to link auxiliary selection and past participle agreement crosslinguistically. This conclusion is confirmed by various observations. First, in a

198

Parameters of auxiliary selection

dialect like Montebello Ionico, essere and avere alternate freely, as exemplified in (15) with the past perfect. The free alternation corresponds in current terms to two slightly different grammars (i.e. lexicalization choices) involving either essere over the whole paradigm or avere over the whole paradigm. Evidently, however, the split between copular, compositional reading and complex predicate (eventive unification) reading that presides to avere selection, determines lack of participle agreement in Montebello Ionico independently of auxiliary choice. (15) Montebello Ionico (Calabria) Era/ a’iva dur’mutu/ vi’nutu Eri/ a’ivi Era/ a’iva Erumu/a’ivumu Eruvu/ a’iuvu Erunu/ a’ivunu I.was/ I.had slept/ come ‘I had come/slept’ Casting a slightly wider net would certainly yield an even more articulated picture of the parameters of participle agreement and their (lack of) relation to auxiliary choice. Thus in the Albanian varieties of Chapters 7–8 kam (‘I have’) and jam (‘I am’) select transitive and unaccusative (passive, reflexive) predicates respectively; however, it is only in copular contexts that the participle lexicalizes the reference of the N argument through a set of inflections. Thus the parameter that determines auxiliary choice is the same as in standard Italian, while the parameter that determines past participle inflection is (roughly) the same as in Sicilian dialects. This means that participles without agreement will normally combine with jam (‘I am’).

3 Auxiliary selection governed by person: first and second person vs. third person The final parameter to be considered here is the one that presents the greatest internal articulation and is therefore especially interesting from the point of view of natural language parametrization. In many central and southern Italian dialects essere and avere alternate as aspectual auxiliaries, according however to the person. The best-known case in the literature (Rohlfs 1969 [1954]; Giammarco 1973; Tuttle 1986; Kayne 1993; Cocchi 1995) has essere in the first and second person (both singular and plural) alternating with avere in the third person, as illustrated here in (16). We shall delay illustration of the past perfect, as well as the subjunctive past perfect to a later section, in that the same systems to display person splits generally also have aspectual splits, whereby particular past forms of the verbal paradigm revert to a single auxiliary, essere in the particular case of Sonnino, but avere in many others. The independence of auxiliary choice paradigms from participial agreement paradigms is once again

Parameters of auxiliary selection

199

upheld by the data in (16), since unaccusative participle agrees with the surface subject, while the unergative and transitive participle show up in the invariable form, exactly as in languages of the Italian type. The data in (16b) show that agreement of the past participle characterizes contexts with accusative clitics, once again on the model familiar from Italian and similar languages. (16) Sonnino (Latium) a iii sC mme’nuto/mme’nuta/ ppar’lato/ lla’vato la ’makena I.am come-m./come-f./spoken/ washed the car ‘I have come/spoken/washed the car’ iii si mme’nuto/mme’nuta/ppar’lato/lla’vato la ’makena you.are iii a mme’nuto/mme’nuta/ppar’lato/lla’vato la ’makena he.has iv semo me’nute/ppar’lato/lla’vato la ’makena we.are iv sete me’nute/ppar’lato/lla’vato la ’makena you.are vi ao me’nute/ppar’lato/lla’vato la ’makena they.have b iv la semo lavata it-fsg we.are washed.fsg ‘We have washed it’ vi l ao lavata it they.have washed.fsg ‘They have washed it’ The reason for interest in this paradigm resides not only in the phenomenon of auxiliary selection in itself, but also in the fact that the so-called person split, in particular between first/second person and third person, is typologically widespread and touches on very different phenomena. Thus DeLancey (1981) argues that languages with so-called ergativity splits (i.e. alternations between the ergative (/absolutive) case system and the nominative (/accusative) system) most commonly oppose first and second person to third person. In other systems the opposition may be between pronouns and lexical noun phrases or between animate and inanimate arguments. In the typological literature it is usual to treat all of these various phenomena under the general heading of animacy hierarchies (Silverstein 1976; Comrie 1981; Croft 1990; Dixon 1994). Based on these general ideas, Tuttle (1986) treats the auxiliary split in terms of the proposal that the higher degree of animacy of the first and second person is best expressed by middle constructions involving essere. In reality, as DeLancey (1981) points out, precisely the typological prevalence of first/second person vs. third person splits casts doubts on the fact that more generic notions of animacy may be involved. In that case one may expect grammatical splits based on the opposition of, say, human and non-human to be much

200 Parameters of auxiliary selection more prominent. DeLancey’s (1981) proposal is based on notions of attention flow and viewpoint. The former proceeds from source to goal in a motion event and from agent to patient in a transitive event. On the other hand there are at least as many viewpoints as participants in the event. If a speech act participant (SAP) is also a participant in the event, the most natural point of view is the one associated with it. Thus in split ergative systems, if the starting point of the attention flow ‘is also an SAP, i.e. a natural viewpoint locus, it is so marked by being in the nominative case. Otherwise it must be marked for ergative case, which identifies it as the natural starting-point’ (DeLancey 1981: 640). The same categories are applied to aspectual splits. Thus in the perfective, which specifies a terminal viewpoint, the latter would be identified with the patient. On the contrary the starting point cannot be selected as viewpoint, so that ‘it must be marked as starting-point by ergative Case-marking’ (DeLancey 1981: 647). Leaving the theme of aspectual (temporal modal) splits for later, it is worth noting that person splits have actually been considered already in Chapters 3–4 where we have introduced the positions P and N for object clitics. These are strongly motivated on empirical grounds by the general distribution of first and second person clitics in P as opposed to third person accusative clitics in N. From a conceptual point of view, we justified them on the grounds that the participants in the discourse (i.e. the speaker and the hearer and the sets including them) are anchored directly at the universe of discourse, independently of their role within the event. On the other hand, non-participants in the discourse depend directly for their characterization on the position assigned to them within the structure of the event. Nevertheless, in present terms, notions such as that of animacy hierarchy, or more to the point pragmatic notions such as those proposed by DeLancey (1981), can only have an indirect relevance for grammatical systems; it is only the grammatical embedding of such conceptual distinctions that is relevant for the theory, here in particular through the categorial P vs. N distinction. What is more, the intuition pursued by the current distinction between P and N elements is rather distant from the intuition codified by animacy hierarchies. In treatments based on such hierarchies, first and second person arguments are identified as prototypical agents, while in the present approach the crucial point is the dissociation of first and second person referents from event structure and hence from such notions as agentivity. Support for the idea that person splits can be reduced to a structural rather than pragmatic hierarchy of nominal categories comes from work on language families far removed from the Romance one, such as Davis (1999) on Salish and Déchaine (1999) on Algonquian. Thus Davis (1999) concludes that the person and person features are lexicalized on two different subject positions and that the position of the subject pronoun with P denotation is higher than the position of the third person subject clitic. Furthermore, Davis (1999) relates associated third person elements with the verbal domain V, containing asserted material, and first/second person elements with the inflectional domain containing presupposed material. The same subject position that hosts the third person also hosts the transitive property, while the position hosting the P pronoun also hosts the type of sentence feature (e.g. subjunctive).

Parameters of auxiliary selection

201

Once again there are similarities with the stance defended here, since the lower subject position of Davis (1999) is conceptually akin to our N position in being responsible for the transitivity properties of the sentence. The similarity is increased by the analyses developed in Chapter 4 according to which the definiteness properties of the D element (the subject) can actually be lexicalized in the N position in the object-for-subject phenomenon. What is more, the higher subject position, or the subject position proper in our framework, namely D, can be sensitive in its lexicalization to sentence-level properties (as in the different lexicalizations for proclitics in declaratives and enclitics in questions; cf. Manzini and Savoia 2005). In fact, Davis’ (1999) idea that the two subject positions should be characterized by a set of purely formal syntactic features seems to us to be better implemented in frameworks like the current one which dispense altogether with pragmatic interpretive notions such as asserted–presupposed. A related set of ideas is presented by Nash (1997) who, in analyzing the person split in ergative languages with particular reference to Georgian, concludes that two types of considerations interact in its explanation. First, according to the internal ergative subject hypothesis of Nash (1995), agents are lower in ergative languages than in accusative ones. Thus while in accusative languages they are projected to the spec of a category higher than V, in ergative languages they correspond to the spec of V itself. On the other hand, the definite character of first and second person pronouns means that they will be ‘licenced higher than other pronominal arguments, at a level at which the ergative/absolutive patterns is blocked’ (Nash 1997: 137). It is for this reason that discourse-anchored elements cannot be assigned ergative, so that they associate with the nominative–accusative case pattern instead. 3.1 essere in the first and second, avere in the third, or vice versa With this much background we can now return to the issue at hand, namely the person split in auxiliary selection. Precisely because the alternance between essere and avere is governed by person, both verbs combine with participles of all verbal classes. In this respect therefore languages like (16) are closer to the varieties where essere appears over the entire paradigm or avere does, as considered here in sections 1–2. The parallelism with these languages is underlined by the fact that in the third person avere is not strictly speaking the only auxiliary selecting a perfect participle. Rather, essere appears in copular environments as in (17a) and in examples like (17b)–(17c) that are potentially ambiguous between the adjectival and the eventive passive reading; the latter reading is unambiguously associated with the perfect in (17d), involving essere/stare for the formation of the passive and avere for the formation of the perfect. (17) Sonnino a Sto kane E m’morto this dog is dead ‘This dog is dead’

202

Parameters of auxiliary selection b

c

d

Ste ka’miSe so lla’vate these shirts are washed ‘These shirts are washed’ ’isso E kkonoS’Suto da ’tutte he is known by all ‘He is known to everybody’ a Stata ra’pErta/’kCtta it.has been opened/cooked ‘It has been opened/cooked’

Let us then begin by considering the combination of participles of all verbal classes with essere in the first and second person. The combination itself is known from section 1, where we considered languages taking essere over the entire paradigm. As we saw in section 1, this configures a particularly simple grammar where, in the absence of any additional constraints, it is the same matrix verb, namely the copula essere, that appears in all contexts where a nominal predicative complement is selected. In the case of the first and second person of a language like Sonnino, the combination with essere gives rise to structures like (18a) for unaccusative participles and (18b) for transitive participles. Needless to say, the structures in (18) are point by point identical to their Pescolanciano’s counterparts in section 1 above. (18) Sonnino a

wp I ... wo wp I D CI se mo wo I N wo e N I menu t

b

wp N la wp I ... wo wp I D CI se mo wo I N wo a N I lava t

Parameters of auxiliary selection

203

In the complementary third person pattern, the systematization of Sonnino is strictly comparable to that reviewed in section 2 for a dialect like Carmiano. In both languages the relevant split is between what we have characterized as the compositional reading of the copula and the perfect participle, and the complex predicate formation that underlies the perfect reading. In the first reading the ordinary copula of Romance varieties (i.e. essere) is normally inserted. The second reading however requires the insertion of a matrix predicate with a full argumental structure, i.e. transitive avere. The resulting structures in (19) are essentially identical to those of Carmiano. In particular in the transitive (19a), the N inflection of the participle agrees with the accusative clitic – or more accurately in this case supplies nominal class and number specifications for the pure definiteness morpheme l. In the unaccusative (19b) the identification, hence the agreement, is between the N argument of the participle and the matrix D argument lexicalized by the verb inflection. (19) Sonnino a wp N wp l I ... wo wp I D CI a o wo I N wo a N I lava t b

wp I ... wo wp I D CI a o wo I N wo e N I menu t

We also provide a structure for the passive/adjectival passive structure, where the perfect participle is embedded under essere in all persons, including the third person as in (20). The contrast between (20) and, say, (19a) is important for the present theory in that it provides support for the conclusion that there is no exclusion between third person and essere, but only interpretive constraints that restrict this combination.

204

Parameters of auxiliary selection

(20) Sonnino wp I ... E wp CI wo I N wo o N I konoSSu t We will now consider why the essere selection pattern in (18) combines with first and second person D arguments, while the avere selection pattern in (19) combines with third person arguments. In terms of the above discussion, first and second person referents (i.e. speaker, hearer, and sets including them) are anchored directly at the universe of discourse; though they are of course embedded in event structures into which they participate, these are not necessary for establishing their reference. Third person elements on the other hand depend for their reference on the anchoring at the eventive structure; through the eventive structure they are also anchored at the deictic space of the universe of discourse. Thus in a language like Sonnino, D arguments that are directly anchored at the universe of discourse impose no restrictions on the interpretation of copula– perfect participle structures; in other words, the passive/adjectival reading is possible, but also the complex predicate one corresponding to the perfective aspect of the verb as in (18). By contrast, third person D argument, whose referent is event-anchored, imposes an overt lexicalization of the split between copular contexts with essere as in (19), and context implying the formation of a complex predicate (hence a single event reading) which requires avere as in (19). In other words, the simpler grammar in the first and second person, where the participle is embedded under essere without interpretive restrictions, corresponds to the independence of speaker, hearer reference from the event structure. The more complex grammar, with essere and avere alternating according to parameters traditionally described as voice (active, passive), aspect (stative, eventive) or other, is associated with elements whose reference in deictic space is obtained through their anchoring in the event structure. Note that it is in any case the D argument that interacts with the lexicalization of the auxiliary; the lexicalization of the object is irrelevant for it. For instance, a P object is not sufficient to justify the insertion of essere in perfective contexts, nor is the presence of an N object sufficient to insert avere. In fact, as highlighted by much literature (Marantz 1984), there is no uniform relation between the verb on the one hand and its arguments on the other. Rather, the verb composes directly with its object(s) to give rise to define a predicate, and hence an event type; the subject then combines with this predicate. In this sense, though the reference of a P object is obtained exactly as the reference of a P subject, the

Parameters of auxiliary selection

205

P object is embedded in the event structure as an N object and the two structures will pattern alike. In the above discussion we have indicated that it is natural to find that in a grammar like Sonnino’s the first and second person, directly anchored at the universe of discourse, are associated with a grammar in which essere embeds all participles, irrespective of verbal class, voice and other event-related specifications. In the same perspective it is natural to find that it is with third person subjects that essere and avere are selected to embed a participial expression according to event-type specifications of the construct, so that essere shows up in adjectival/passive contexts and avere in perfective contexts. Yet however natural this connection may be, it does not represent a formal necessity of the system. Nothing in what we have said structurally excludes the reverse distribution, in which essere combines with the event-anchored third person, while the first and second person alternate between avere in the perfect and essere in copular passive constructions. The fact that the theory allows for both patterns turns out to correctly predict the existence of dialects like Morcone in (21), where in the present perfect the third person singular combines with essere independently of verbal class, as in (21) and (21d), while the other persons combine with avere as in (21a) and (21b). Since essere is of course the copula of the system, as in (21d), this means that in the third person singular participial expressions are always associated with essere, while it is the other persons that distinguish between copular essere and perfective avere. (21) Morcone (Campania) a addZo/ a/ emo/ ete/ ao me’nuto/ dur’muto I.have/you.have/we.have/you.have/they.have come/slept ‘I have come/slept’ b E mme’nuto/ddur’muto he.is come/ slept ‘He has come/slept’ c r addZo/ a/ emo/ ete/ ao/ ca’mato him I.have/you.have/we.have/you.have/they.have called ‘I have called him’ d r E cca’mato him he.is called ‘He has called him’ e E kkon’tento he.is happy ‘He is happy’ It will have been noted that Morcone is not perfectly specular to Sonnino in the choice of perfective auxiliaries in at least one respect, namely that in Morcone, the whole of the plural patterns alike, without any distinction between first/second and third person. However this kind of pattern, whereby

206

Parameters of auxiliary selection

the third plural does not differentiate itself from the P paradigm, is independent of the particular auxiliary selection pattern. We shall return to this in section 3.4. Summarizing thus far, we have theorized that the split between first/second and third person observed in auxiliary selection in Italian dialects is based on a (universal) split between discourse-anchored and event-anchored arguments. The split itself is quite independent of the various phenomena it interacts with. In other languages, this split interacts notably with case pattern, in split ergativity phenomena. In the languages at hand it interacts with lexicalization patterns of essere and avere in participial contexts so that essere and avere characterize the perfect with discourse-anchored and event-anchored D arguments respectively – or vice versa. A quick glance at the table in Appendix A reveals that the first pattern, illustrated by Sonnino, is a relatively robust one, while the Morcone pattern is essentially isolated. This corresponds to the fact that while cases like Sonnino are amply commented upon in the literature, cases like Morcone go unnoticed. Thus the natural connection appears to be between event anchoring in the third person and choice of avere in the perfect active (as opposed to the passive). However, the theory does not structurally encode this connection, in a move which appears to be strongly motivated by the formal possibility of the reverse pattern as well. 3.2 essere (or avere) in the first and second person, essere and avere according to verbal class in the third person One particularly interesting variation on the Sonnino case, given the analysis we have proposed in the preceding section, is represented by languages like Colledimacine in (22), where the first and second person of the present perfect are associated with essere, while in the third person essere and avere alternate according to the verbal class of the participle. Thus in the third person essere combines with unaccusative participles as well, as in (22a), while avere combines with unergatives and transitives as in (22c). Similar patterns have been described in the literature by Loporcaro (1999). The data in (d)–(d) show that a dialect like Colledimacine has the basic agreement pattern of the N inflection of the perfect participle with the accusative argument, represented here by a full lexical noun phrase. Note that because final vowels are systematically rendered as e in this dialect, agreement can be seen only through the harmonic processes undergone by the stressed vowel of the lexical base. (22) Colledimacine (Abruzzi) a so/ Si/ e/ semme/ se:te/ e me’nu:te I.am/you.are/he.is/ we.are/you.are/they.are come ‘I have come’ b ye so/ Si/ semme/ se:te ca’ma:te him I.am/you.are/ we.are/ you.are called ‘I/you/we have called him’

Parameters of auxiliary selection

207

y a ca’ma:te him he.has/they.have called ‘He has/they have called him’ d so ’pierte ye pur’to:ne I.am opened.m the door.m ‘I have opened the door’ d so ’pErte la ’pCrte I.am opened.f the door.f ‘I have opened the door’ c

In the previous section we argued that first and second person can obtain their reference directly through anchoring at the universe of discourse, while for third person reference is established necessarily through anchoring at the event. On the basis of this characterization we may expect that in an auxiliary selection system with person split, third person elements will be the only ones to display sensitivity to the event structure of the predicate, as reflected in particular by the unaccusative or transitive argument array of the participle. On the contrary, discourse-anchored first and second person elements will be insensitive to this distinction. If, following the Sonnino pattern, voice, activity/stativity and other eventive specifications are also irrelevant for them, they will combine with essere. Thus we predict the distribution of the type of Colledimacine. It is worth noting that in the dialect of Colledimacine, necessity contexts also alternate between essere in the first and second person and avere in the third person, as illustrated in (23a) and (23b) respectively. This phenomenon is similar to the one observed for a dialect like Trecate in section 1. The coincidence on this point of Trecate and Colledimacine shows that all dialects that have essere insertion independent of verbal class (over the entire paradigm, or more usually over some persons of it) are potentially open to the lexicalization of the necessity context and eventually the possession context through essere. Since avere is selected in the third person, where Colledimacine displays sensitivity to the unaccusative/transitive divide, the necessity modal is treated as transitive. On the contrary, in the first and second person avere is effectively eliminated in favor of essere, since event anchoring, and therefore notions such as that of a transitive event structure, are by hypothesis irrelevant. (23) Colledimacine a le son/ Sin/ semm/ set a ’fa it I.am/you.are/we.are/you.are to do ‘I/you/we have to do it’ b l a da ’fa it he.has/they.have to do ‘He has/they have to do it’ In a language like Aliano, the lexicalization of the perfective auxiliary varies between essere with unaccusatives as in (24c) and avere with unergatives and

208

Parameters of auxiliary selection

transitives as in (24c)–(24d) in the third person singular. Comparison with the copula in (24f), the necessity modal in (24g) and the possessive verb in (24b) shows that E and a are indeed the third person singular forms of essere (the copula) and avere (the possession verb) respectively. On the contrary, a single auxiliary choice, independent of verbal class, characterizes the first and second person (as well as the third person plural, for which see the discussion of Morcone in the preceding section). In at least one case (i.e. the second person plural), the perfective auxiliary coincides with the necessity modal and the possessive verb, in other words with avere. In the first person, the second singular and the third plural the form of the perfective auxiliary actually differs from that of the possessive by the color of the initial vowel. Since there is no independent morphophonological basis for this alternation in the language, we must conclude that in the relevant persons Aliano has a specialized perfective auxiliary. (24) Aliano (Lucania) a EddZe/ (f)ei/ Eme/ a’vese/ Ene ve’nute/dur’mute I.have/you.have/we.have/you.have/they.have come/slept ‘I have come/slept’ b l EddZe/ ei/ Eme/ a’vese/ Ene ca’mate him I.have/you.have/we.have/you.have/they.have called ‘I have called him’ c E vve’nute he.is come ‘He has come’ d a dur’mute he.has slept ‘He has slept’ e l a ca’mate him he.has called ‘He has called him’ f si/ si/ E/ sime/ sise/ su b’bC:ne I.am/you.are/he.is/we.are/you.are/they.are good ‘I am good’ g l addZ/ ai/ a/ am/ a’ves/ an (d)a ca’ma him I.have/you.have/he.has/we.have/you.have/they.have to call ‘I have to call him’ h addZe/ faje/ fate/ fa’veme/ a’vese/ fane na bbElla ’kase I.have/you.have/he.has/we.have/you.have/they.have a nice home ‘I have a nice home’ Despite the intricacies of its morphology, Aliano is worth presenting because at least in the second person plural it allows us to illustrate a parameter that we do expect to exist. This corresponds to the lexicalization of the auxiliary according to verbal class in the third person (singular), as in Colledimacine, while the auxiliary with the P forms, insensitive to verbal class, is avere. A similar kind of

Parameters of auxiliary selection

209

system surfaces in the dialect of Altamura as discussed by Loporcaro (1988) and La Fauci and Loporcaro (1989: 167). Note that in presenting the Aliano data we have been careful not to draw hasty conclusions as to the nature of the E-forms of the perfective auxiliary. It seems to us that the case of the second person plural suggests that these forms are those of a transitive verb, i.e. of a verb that, though obviously specialized for the perfective environment, shares with avere a transitive argument structure. In summary, our proposal concerning the third person does not simply characterize it in negative terms, as is often done (Benveniste 1966), as excluding speaker and hearer reference. Rather, we proposed specifically that the third person reference, not being directly anchored at the discourse, is characterized (in positive) by its necessary anchoring at the event. In turn, eventive structure, as reflected by intransitive (unaccusative) vs. transitive argument structures, is the formal basis for auxiliary selection according to verbal class; in other words, we could speak of auxiliary selection according to eventive structure. Given this characterization, we fully predict that essere and avere will be found to alternate according to verbal class in the event-anchored third person. 3.3 Person splits cutting across the first/second person vs. third person divide The split between first/second and third person is somewhat idealized in that it is relatively frequent to find auxiliary selection types to split the person hierarchy in a slightly different manner. Again, this does not mean that certain generalizations are not observed. One of them is that essere over the whole paradigm is never selected as the auxiliary by one of the P forms, unless it is selected by the second person singular. The implicational generalization from the second person to the other P forms, apparently giving a pre-eminence to it with respect to the other P forms, makes it potentially surprising to find that there are languages where the second person singular and the third person pattern alike, selecting essere over the entire paradigm, as opposed to the other P forms. A case in point is Capracotta. As shown by the paradigm in (25a), the second person singular and the third person (singular and plural) combine with essere in the present perfect, independently of verbal class. On the contrary, essere is simply an option in the first and second person plural; another option is a (reduced form of) avere, independently attested at least for the first person plural in the necessity modal paradigm in (25c). Finally the first person singular chooses an auxiliary which is strictly speaking neither essere (the copula) nor avere (the possessive) and superficially appears as a morphophonological variant of avere, with a change in the color of the initial vowel; this kind of phenomenon has already been described for Aliano in the previous section. (25) Capracotta (Molise) a iii Eje me’nute/ me’nuta/ der’mute I.have come.msg/come.fsg/slept

210

Parameters of auxiliary selection

b

c

d

iii sje me’nute/ me’nuta/ der’mute you.are come.msg/come.fsg/slept iii E me’nute/ me’nuta/ der’mute he.is come.msg/come.fsg/slept iv seme/eme me’nute/ der’mute we.are/we.have come/slept iv sete/ete me’nute/ der’mute you.are/you.have come/slept vi sC mme’nute/ dder’mute they.are come/slept ‘I have come/slept’ sC/ sje/ E/ seme/ sete/ so ’gruesse I.am/you.are/he.is/we.are/you.are/they.are big ‘I am big’ r aj/ ie/ a/ em/ a’vet/ ien/ (r)a ca’ma him I.have/you.have/he.has/we.have/you.have/they.have to call ‘I have to call him’ aje/ ia/ a/ a’veme/ a’vete/ ’iane ’fame I.have/you.have/he.has/we.have/you.have/they.have hunger ‘I am hungry’

We have already discussed for Aliano why the distributional evidence suggests that the specialized E-forms of the perfective auxiliaries are transitive. Therefore, we shall treat Capracotta as the glosses imply, namely as presenting essere in the second person singular and in the third person (singular and plural), a free alternation of avere and essere in the first/second person plural, and avere (or avere’, sharing with avere a transitive argument frame) in the first person singular. Within the current model, which adopts basic minimalist ideas about the economy (optimality) of grammar, free alternations correspond to the surfacing of slightly different lexicons, and hence grammars within the competence of the same speaker(s). In these terms the free alternations between essere and avere point to the existence of a grammar where essere characterizes the second person singular and the third person to the exclusion of the other forms, which associate with avere. This coincidence of second and third person singular gives rise to structures of the type in (26), where essere is the perfective auxiliary both with unaccusative and transitive participles, as in (26a) and (26b) respectively. In current terms this means that the second person singular and the third person are associated with the simplest possible grammar in which the verb selecting for a nominal predicate remains constant across adjectival (copular), passive, and perfective (complex predicate) interpretations.

Parameters of auxiliary selection

211

(26) Capracotta a wp I ... sjE/E wp CI wo I N wo a N I menu t b

wo N wp l(e) I ... sjE/E wp CI wo I N wo a N I cama t

By contrast, in a dialect like Capracotta, elements other than the second and third person singular are – or can be – associated with the grammar lexicalizing voice, activity/stativity and similar event-type specifications through the split between essere, the copula, and avere, the perfective auxiliary. The implicational generalization that we set out at the beginning of this section, whereby the essere grammar must characterize the second person singular if it is to be associated with any other P form, assigns a pivotal role to the second person singular. Thus the particular person split found in Capracotta (and similar dialects) associates the simplest auxiliary grammar, namely the one without avere, with the event-anchored third person (as in Morcone) and with the pre-eminent discourse-anchored person, i.e. the second person singular. The exact formalization of second person singular pre-eminence in discourseanchoring is an interesting question in itself, since we have already rejected the idea that there could be any relevance to animacy hierarchies among persons. Our conclusion must be once again that parameters correspond to categorial (i.e. discrete) splits such as the ones individuated here between discourse and eventanchored referents; the split between hearer and other discourse-anchored referents must be such a discrete split. In what we have called a microparametric model, variation depends on the free interplay of the various categorial splits; the latter is up to consistency with general grammatical and interpretive principles, which occasionally reveal themselves in the form of a missing version of the logically possible paradigm.

212

Parameters of auxiliary selection

If the dialect of Capracotta illustrates a case in which second person singular and third person pattern alike in contrast with all other persons, there are also cases where it is the first person singular that patterns with the third person, to the exclusion of the other persons. An important difference however emerges between the two distributions. In the Capracotta distribution the convergence is on essere, while in the alternative distribution the convergence is on avere. An interesting case in point is the dialect of Vastogirardi, whose present perfect paradigm is provided in (27). In the third person singular essere and avere alternate according to verbal class; while the second person singular and plural have essere. The first person singular detaches itself from other P forms in that it allows either avere with all verbal classes, or crucially for our present purposes, auxiliary alternation according to verbal class, as in the third person singular. (27) Vastogirardi (Molise) a sieNge/ si/ E/ seme/ sete/ so me’nute I.am come ‘I have come’ a aje me’nute/ me’nuta I.have come.msg/come.fsg ‘I have come’ b aje/ a der’mute I.have/he.has slept ‘I have/he has slept’ b si/ seme/ sete/ so der’mute you.are/we.are/you.are/they.are slept ‘You/we/they have slept’ c r aje/ a ca’mate him I.have/he.has called ‘I have/hehas called him’ c re si/ seme/ sete/ so ca’mate him you.are/we.are/you.are/they.are called ‘You/we/they have called him’ Vastogirardi is interesting because the first person singular and third person coincide on the essere–avere alternation pattern according to verbal class. This suggests the conclusion that at least in these cases, including Vastogirardi, the first person singular is treated like the third person in being event-anchored. Once again the interesting question is why this should be so, in a restrictive system which does not contemplate (potentially non-universal) non-discrete hierarchies, but only universal and discrete parametric splits. It seems to us that the property which sets aside the first person singular is one of pragmatic salience. From this fairly uncontroversial observation, we draw conclusions that are opposed to those of the typological literature. Thus in the animacy/ agenthood hierarchy of Dixon (1994) the first person singular precedes

Parameters of auxiliary selection

213

the second person singular as ‘the speaker is for him- or herself, the quintessential agent’ (Dixon 1994: 90). However, from the outset we discounted ideas that animacy and/or agenthood enter into the determination of person-split phenomen, which we imputed to the anchoring of referential properties directly in the discourse or in the event. In terms of referential anchoring, the data at hand force us to the conclusion that the pragmatic salience of the first person singular allows for a treatment of it as not directly discourse-anchored at all. Intuitively, the pragmatic salience of the first person singular allows it to be recovered independently of lexicalization choices. Thus in many northern Italian dialects (cf. the discussion surrounding Modena in Chapter 2) the first person singular will be lexicalized by the simple nominal class morpheme a as opposed to the t morphology specialized for P denotation in the second person singular. Similarly, other lexicalization choices, like the one at hand, may actually pair up the first person singular with the event-anchored third person. Because it is a theme of the current work that there is a single morphosyntactic level of analysis, we expect the relevant splits to occur in the syntax, but also in the morphology. Indeed, so-called synchretisms of first and third person are found even in morphology-poor English as in the paradigm I/he was vs. you/we/they were. For the latter a formal treatment is possible in terms of a binary feature system, which characterizes first person and third person as sharing the feature – second person (i.e. – hearer). On the other hand, the facts we are dealing with allow us to exclude approaches based on traditional feature categorizations as not restrictive enough, at least when imported into the syntax. Thus when it comes to the ‘syncretism’ between second and third person one could describe it in terms of the sharing of the feature – first person (i.e. – speaker). However, we cannot see how, in terms of a (negative) feature characterization, one could predict that the -hearer ‘syncretism’ of Vastogirardi is compatible with the event-anchored alternation of essere and avere according to verbal class, while this is never the case for the -speaker ‘syncretism’, as in Capracotta. 3.4 Treatment of the plural In at least three of the dialects we have considered so far, namely Morcone (section 3.1), Aliano (section 3.2) and Vastogirardi (section 3.3), the plural displays no split between first/second and third person. As it so happens, in all of the varieties quoted, auxiliary selection in the plural reflects the parametric setting for the P forms of the singular. Thus the perfective auxiliary is avere in Morcone and Aliano, while it is essere in Vastogirardi. However, it is important to note that there are also dialects where the plural presents no person split and the auxiliary selection pattern is the same as in the third person singular. A case in point is Giovinazzo in (28), where essere is the present perfect auxiliary in the first and second person singular while avere is found in the other persons of the present perfect.

214

Parameters of auxiliary selection

(28) Giovinazzo (Apulia) a sC/ si drem’meute/ ve’neute/ la’ve:te la ’makene I.am/you.are slept/ come/ washed the car ‘I/you have slept/come/washed the car’ b a/ amme/ a’vi:te/ anne drem’meute/ ve’neute/ la’ve:te la ’makene he.has/we.have/you.have/they.have slept/ come/ washed the car ‘He has slept/come/washed the car’ In fact, plural paradigms showing no person split can pattern either with the discourse-anchored or the event-anchored forms of the singular. It seems therefore wrong to conclude that in a dialect like Giovinazzo, the first and second person plural are somehow unified with the third person on grounds of eventanchoring, while in a dialect like Vastogirardi, the plural is unified with the second person singular on grounds of event-anchoring, since in this way we would obtain a contradiction of sorts. Crucially there are also dialects where the plural does have its own pattern. A case in point is Popoli, where the singular has the split familiar from Colledimacine with essere in the first and second person and essere–avere alternating according to verbal class in the third person. Yet the plural has consistently avere, as illustrated in (29). Incidentally, though agreement patterns are concealed in this, as in many of the dialects considered, by the phonological neutralization of the final vowels, they can be shown to follow the ordinary Italian patterns by looking at vocalic harmony phenomena, as in (29e–e). (29) Popoli (Abruzzi) a sC/ Si ve’niute/ ddur’moite/ SSak’kwa:te i ’pEnne I.am/you.are come/ slept/ washed the clothes ‘I/you have come/slept/washed the clothes’ b (a’v)emme/ a’ve:te/ anne ve’niute/ dur’moite/ SSak’kwa:te i ’pEnne we.have/you.have/they.have come/ slept/ washed the clothes ‘We/you/they have come/slept/washed the clothes’ c E vve’niute he.is come ‘He has come’ d a dur’moite/ SSak’kwa:te i ’pEnne he.has slept/ washed the clothes ‘He has slept/washed his clothes’ e la ’sC a’pErte it.f I.am opened.f ‘I opened it’ e ji ’sC e’pjCrte it.m I.am opened.m ‘I opened it’ In (29) the insertion of essere in the first and second person singular corresponds to the lack of sensitivity to event-based distinctions with discourse-

Parameters of auxiliary selection

215

anchored forms. The event-anchored third person on the other hand displays sensitivity to such distinctions, alternating between essere and avere according to verbal class. In turn, the plural displays sensitivity to the voice distinction in that it forms the perfective with avere rather than with the copula, essere. In this sense its lexicalization is closer to that of the third person singular than to that of the first and second person singular. Nevertheless there is no overlap. Based on the evidence of Popoli, as well as on the discussion of the contrast between Giovinazzo and Vastogirardi above, we conclude that in dialects with homogeneous plurals, essere or avere are lexicalized without reference to the discourse-anchoring and/or event-anchoring properties of the plural. It is not the homogenization of the plural referents on discourse-anchoring or eventanchoring that determines auxiliary choice. Rather, auxiliary selection in the plural happens independently of such distinctions, as in dialects with essere in section 1 or with avere in section 2. Underlying the relevant grammar we therefore find a split between singular and plural, independent of the split between first/second and third person analyzed thus far. In fact, in the dialects at hand, we conclude that the person split proper is supported only by the singular, while the plural does not support it at all. If this generalization is correct, it remains of course to be explained why. What we can invoke are fairly obvious considerations concerning the actual denotation of the so-called first and second person plural. Thus the first person plural does not necessarily denote a plurality of speakers (though it may), or the speaker and hearer only (though again it may); rather its denotation routinely involves one speaker and a certain number of other individuals who are being referred to together with the speaker. The same is true for the second person plural, which does not necessarily (or normally) denote a plurality of hearers but simply refers to the hearer taken together with a certain number of other individuals. Thus in the plural the distinction between first/second person and third person may be supported on the clear basis that the first and second person include the discourse-anchored speaker and hearer respectively. But the fact that the relevant notion is inclusion of (rather than identification with) the speaker and hearer may equally well lead to a common treatment for the plural as a whole.

4 Aspectual/modal splits As we anticipated in the above discussion, Italian dialects with person splits typically limit them to the present perfect, while in the past perfect and in the counterfactual (the latter corresponding to the past perfect subjunctive or past conditional) they select a single auxiliary, which is either essere or avere. An interesting piece of data emerging from the data summarized in Appendix B is that dialects do not necessarily rely on the same auxiliary in all tenses/moods without person split; thus Pescocostanzo has essere in the past perfect and avere in the counterfactual. Faced with a considerable consistency in the selection of a single auxiliary in the past, there are also dialects which alternate between essere and avere according to person; however, judging from the data reported

216

Parameters of auxiliary selection

in Manzini and Savoia (2005), it appears that only S. Benedetto in the past and Capracotta in the counterfactual maintain a split close to the one observed in the present perfect. Finally some dialects allow for a completely free alternance between essere and avere. Note that the data in Appendix B do not include the present perfect subjunctive because in central and southern Italian dialects the relevant contexts for it (i.e. sentential complements of verbs of wanting, saying, believing) are generally lexicalized by the indicative, in a pattern familiar from English as well, leaving only the counterfactual as a subjunctive form. The tabulation of the data further interacts with a descriptive and theoretical question that we shall return to in section 5, namely the existence in some dialects of a unique form of auxiliary, nondistinct between essere and avere in some or all of the persons of the pluperfect. Since we shall argue that the unique auxiliary is in fact an unaccusative, we simply assimilated them to essere. In short, the main theoretical point of interest that emerges from the comparison of the table(s) in Appendix A and Appendix B is that the person split in most dialects is limited to the present perfect. Thus the past perfect and the counterfactual of the relevant dialects present no person split; rather essere or avere is lexicalized over the entire paradigm. This is briefly exemplified in (30) with Sonnino, whose person split we studied in section 3.1. (30) Sonnino a Era/ Ere/ Era/ era’vEmo/ era’vEte/ ’Ereno par’lato/ me’nuto I.was/you.were/he.was/we.were/you.were/they.were spoken/ arrived ‘I had spoken/arrived’ b sa’ria/ sa’riSte/ sa’ria/ sa’rimmo/ sa’riSte/sa’rieno par’lato/me’nuto I.would.be/ spoken/ come ‘I would have come’ Although this book hardly concerns itself with the temporal and modal system of verbs, there is at least one aspect of the pattern under consideration that we consider elsewhere (Chapter 8), namely the parallelism between the past indicative and the counterfactual. In fact, what we have so far referred to as the past perfect is formed with the imperfective past auxiliary, corresponding to the pluperfect of traditional Italian grammars. In Italian varieties it is possible to express counterfactuality not only with the counterfactual, but also with the simple imperfective past and with the pluperfect, as illustrated in (31a–c) for Italian itself. In Italian the past conditional as in (31d) is the correlate of a counterfactual hypothetical clause, though in other dialects it may appear as the counterfactual itself. The paradigm in (31) therefore provides a connection between these various forms of the verb. (31) a

Se fosse venuto, . . . If he.were come ‘If he had come . . .’

Parameters of auxiliary selection b

c

d

217

Se veniva, . . . if he.came ‘If he came . . .’ Se era venuto, . . . if he.was come ‘If he had come . . .’ Sarebbe venuto, se . . . He.would.be come if . . . ‘He would have come, if . . .’

Following the discussion in Chapter 8, we assume with Bonomi (1997) that the imperfective morphology introduces a universal or generic quantification over events, while the perfective introduces an existential quantification. This latter characterization is compatible with the indefinite/definite divide suggested by Manzini and Savoia (2005) for the imperfective/perfective opposition, since existentials lend themselves to a specific reading. Although Bonomi (1997) does not extend his treatment to imperfectives in modal contexts, we may take it that the same universal quantification over possible worlds can yield hypothetical modality (of the irrealis type) rather than imperfective aspect. Given what precedes, aspectually indefinite verbal forms will include the imperfective. We take it as fact that the formation of the pluperfect by means of the imperfective auxiliary, and its counterfactual interpretation, implies its indefinite nature. All counterfactuals will in turn be modally indefinite forms. In this vein, we tentatively suggest that the distinction between present perfect, supporting the person split, and pluperfect or counterfactual, not supporting it, connects to a distinction between definite/specific (or existentially quantified) and indefinite (or generically/universally quantified) specifications of aspect and mood. This conclusion appears to be a natural one. It is only in cases in which the event or the situation is specific (i.e. existentially quantified) that the distinction between event-anchored and discourse-anchored D arguments comes into play. For indefinite events or situations (i.e. universally/generically quantified ones) the discourse- vs. event-anchored distinction becomes inaccessible. Intuitively, the quantification over events/situations overtakes all other event-based distinctions. Interestingly enough, some languages that have auxiliary selection according to verbal class in the present perfect also switch to a single auxiliary in the pluperfect and counterfactual, as illustrated in (32). In other words, it is not only auxiliary selection according to person that turns out to be supported only in the present perfect, but also auxiliary selection according to verbal class. (32) Accettura (Calabria) a sC/ si/ jE/ se:me/ se:te/ sC vve’ne:te I.am/you.are/he.is/we.are/you.are/they.are come ‘I have come’

218

Parameters of auxiliary selection b

c

d

addZe/ eje/ a/ amme/ ate/ anne la’ve:te a ’makene I.have/you.have/he.has/we.have/you.have/they.have washed the car ‘I have washed the car’ je:re/ jisse/ je:re/ jimme/jisse/ jinneve ve’ne:te/ la’ve:te a ’makene I.was/you.were/he.was/we.were/you.were/they.were come/ washed the car ‘I had washed the car’ fCsse/ fusse/ fCsse/ ’fCsseme/ ’fusseve/ ’fCssene ve’ne:te/ la’ve:te a ’makene I.were come/ washed the car ‘Had I come’

In terms of the above discussion, a paradigm like the one of Accettura in (32) confirms that under the universal/generic quantification that characterizes irrealis modality and imperfective aspect (presumably two facets of the same phenomenon), other distinctions between event types may become unavailable. Specifically in the case of Accettura, it is the contrast between intransitive and transitive event structures that becomes unavailable, leading to the lexicalization of a single auxiliary independent of verbal class. Our theory thus far does not make any explicit prediction as to the auxiliary that will be inserted in the pluperfect or counterfactual, namely essere or avere. Comparison of the tables in Appendix A and Appendix B shows in fact no obvious correlation between the person split patterns in the present perfect and the auxiliary chosen in the imperfective/irrealis. For instance, Colledimacine (studied in section 3.2) presents avere, but other dialects with exactly the same person split present essere (e.g. Borgorose). The conclusion that the lexicalization of the auxiliary represents an independent parametric choice is also supported by the existence of dialects like Pescocostanzo signalled above, where the auxiliary actually varies from pluperfect to counterfactual. Other conceivable correlations are also not significant. Thus Aliano (from section 3.2) and, say, Frigento have the same pattern in the present perfect, with a clear prevalence of avere, covering in particular the whole plural, but they split in the pluperfect, where Aliano has essere, and Frigento has avere. The only generalization which appears to hold true is that dialects that have a prevalence of essere in the present perfect, specifically defined as a choice of essere over the whole of the plural (as for Vastogirardi in section 3.3), stick with essere in the pluperfect and counterfactual. This appears to be consistent with our characterization of the essere grammar as the simplest one, so that essere across (plural) persons in the present perfect is a good predictor of essere elsewhere in the aspectual/modal paradigm. However, the same does not hold for avere.

Parameters of auxiliary selection

219

5 ‘Syncretism’ of essere and avere One independent descriptive and theoretical problem that interacts in points with the above discussion is what in traditional terms would be described as a ‘syncretism’ between essere and avere. In the present perfect this ‘syncretism’ never involves more than a few forms of the paradigm, as was actually illustrated for the second person singular of Trecate in section 1; in the pluperfect there are actually examples of whole ‘syncretic’ paradigms, as in Trecate’s (33a–b). Note that though in the present (perfect) of Trecate there is a certain amount of free alternation between essere (the copula) and avere (the necessity modal and possessive predicate), the paradigms of the two verbs are clearly distinct (except precisely in the second person singular). In the pluperfect instead there are no distinct paradigms of avere and essere. Two distinct forms again emerge in the counterfactual/conditional where the distribution of essere appears to be sensitive to unaccusativity, as in (33c–d), with a pattern different both from the pluperfect and from the present perfect. (33) Trecate a i seva/ t eva/

b

c

d

’ny/ dru’my/ tSa’ma-r I was/you were/he was/we.were/you.were/they were come/slept/ called-him ‘I had come/slept/called him’ i seva/ t eva/ l eva/ sevu/ sevu/ i evu fam/kun’te:nt I was/you were/he was/we.were/you.were/they were hunger/happy ‘I was hungry/happy’ (i) a’vres dru’my/tSa’ma-r I would.have slept/called-him ‘I would have slept/called him’ i a’vresu/ sa’resu ny they would.have/ would.be come ‘They would have come’ l eva/

sevu/

sevu/ i evu

Although we have labeled the phenomenon with the commonly understood term of ‘syncretism’, the theory of the lexicon and of the morphology that we embrace does not allow us to have underspecified lexical items belonging to one or the other of the two basic auxiliaries, or equivalently lexical entries disjunctively specified for one or the other of them. Rather, what we expect to have is a form of auxiliary positively specified for unaccusativity or alternatively for transitivity. Given this approach, the available evidence forces us to conclude that the single auxiliary is an unaccusative form. The basic evidence is provided by the fact that it appears in copular contexts like ‘I am happy’, which as far as we know are not compatible with a transitive auxiliary. Our conclusion is compatible with its distribution in possession and necessity constructs, since we independently know that (non-syncretic) forms of essere can turn up in these

220

Parameters of auxiliary selection

contexts, as seen in section 1 for Trecate and in section 3.2 for Colledimacine. The glosses in (33) reflect this theoretical conclusion, since ‘syncretic’ forms are glossed as essere. If we go back to the pattern of Trecate in section 1 keeping this theoretical conclusion in mind, in the present perfect the necessity modal and the possessive present a split with the second person singular lexicalized by essere (or essere’) and the remaining forms lexicalized by avere. At the same time a single auxiliary essere (or essere’) is lexicalized in the pluperfect. Our explanation of the phenomenon is essentially the same provided in section 4 for the fact that auxiliary alternations according to either person or verbal class are generally lost in the pluperfect. The idea is that the presence of a structure of indefinite quantification over the event, introduced by the imperfective aspect of the auxiliary, makes other event-based distinctions unavailable. Thus it is for the discoursevs. event-anchored distinction between D-arguments or for auxiliary alternation according to verbal class. Support for the idea that the occurrences of the ‘syncretic’ auxiliary should be taken as a person split proper comes from a consideration of their distribution. In particular, if we look at the present perfect, ‘syncretic’ forms typically correspond to second person singular. In other dialects this may be seen more clearly than in Trecate. For instance, in Briga in (34), while the ‘syncretic’ auxiliary is associated with the second person singular, other persons of the present perfect alternate between essere and avere according to verbal class. (34) Briga Novarese (Piedmont) a sum/ l E/ sumAN/ si/ iN ’ny/’nyi I.am/ he is/ we.are/ you.are/ they.are come/come-pl ‘I have come’ b C/ l a/ umA/ i/ (i) aN dru’metS/tSa’ma lA tO su’rElA I.have/ he has/ we.have/you.have/they have slept/called the your sister ‘I have slept/called your sister’ c t E ny/ dru’metSt/ Sa’ma lA tO su’rElA you are come/slept/called the your sister ‘You have come/slept/called your sister’ d t E kun’te:nt you are happy ‘You are happy’ e ti g E ’fa:m you there are hunger ‘You are hungry’ On the other hand, the pluperfect of Briga itself has the ‘syncretic’ auxiliary in the second person singular and in the third person, while in the other persons it again alternates between essere and avere according to verbal class, as illustrated in (35). If we take the ‘syncretic’ auxiliary to be essere, the distribution in (35) is akin to the one seen in section 3.2 for Capracotta where the person split

Parameters of auxiliary selection

221

opposes the second person singular and the third person with essere to the other persons. (35) Briga Novarese a sevi/ sevAN/ sevi ’ny/ ’nyi I.was/we.were/you.were come/come-pl ‘I/we/you had come’ b evi/ evAN/ evi dru’metS/ tSa’ma i ’tOi ma’tai I.had/we.had/you.had slept/called the your children ‘I/we/you had called your children’ c t evi/ l eva/ (i) evAN ’ny/ dru’metS/ tSa’ma i ’tOi ma’tai/ you were/he was/they were come/slept/called the your children ‘You/he/they had come/slept/called your children’ d t evi/ l eva/ (i) evAN kun’te:nt you were/he was/they were happy ‘You/they were Happy’/‘He was happy’ e ti g evi/ Al g evA/ i g evAN ’fa:m you there were/he there was/they there were hunger ‘You/they were hungry’/‘He was hungry’ Another distribution attested to by our data is the one observed in dialects like S. Bartolomeo in (36) where the ‘syncretic’ auxiliary appears only in the third person of the pluperfect, while the other persons alternate between essere and avere according to verbal class. Again, taking the ‘syncretic’ auxiliary to be an unaccusative, hence essere, as argued above, this distribution is comparable to that of dialects like Morcone in section 3.1, with essere in the third person only. (36) S. Bartolomeo Cavargna (Lombardy) a seva/ t seva/ sevum/ sevo ’ni I.was/you were/we.were/you.were come ‘I/you/we had come’ b eva/ t eva/ e’vum/ evo dru’mi I.had/you had/we.had/you.had slept ‘I/we/you had slept’ c l eva/ i eva ’ni/ dru’mi he was/they were come/slept ‘He/they had come/slept’ d l eva/i eva kon’tent/kon’tentS he was/they were happy/happy.pl ‘He/they were happy’ We take the distributions of the ‘syncretic’ auxiliary now reviewed to support the conclusion that its presence configures a person split fully comparable to the one investigated in section 3. If we take the presence of a single auxiliary

222

Parameters of auxiliary selection

(as opposed to two distinct forms for essere and avere) literally as a syncretism (i.e. an accidental morphophonological coincidence of the two forms), we do not expect its distribution to follow a pattern independently attested, and derived by the principles of grammar. Another fact prominently displayed by both the dialect of Briga and that of Cavergno in (35)–(36) further discounts the possibility that the person split is coincidental and thus that ‘syncretism’ may truly be involved in the explanation of the phenomenon described. It will be noted that the forms listed as belonging to the imperfective of essere in (35a)–(36a) coincide fully with the forms listed for avere in (35b)–(36b) prefixed by s-. In traditional historical terms forms like sevi, seva in (35)–(36) are neoformations combining the (etymological) avere forms evi, eva and so on with the lexical base s-. Incidentally, this phenomenon is interesting in itself, given the existence of theories that suggest the derivability of avere from essere plus some incorporated locative or other, as in Benveniste (1966) and Kayne (1993). Instead the imperfective auxiliaries of Briga or S. Bartolomeo display a clear phenomenon of formation of differentiated essere from avere through incorporation with the s- element. Manzini and Savoia (2005) identify the latter with the s- lexical basis that also forms clitic se/si in Romance; in other words, they propose that the formation of essere from avere proceeds along the lines familiar from Chapter 5 for the formation of other unaccusatives from transitives, namely through combination with the si clitic. In the context of the current discussion the phenomenon is relevant in that it suggests a simple morphological means whereby a ‘syncretic’ form of auxiliary may actually become specialized for the unaccusative (vs. transitive) argumental frame. If it is just the second person singular and the third person in Briga or just the third person in S. Bartolomeo that display the ‘syncretism’ this cannot depend on a lexical accident, but must correspond to a grammatical choice, supported by the principles of person split reviewed above in section 3. On the basis of the evidence reviewed we then conclude that distributions such as (34)–(36) represent genuine cases of person splits. There is no necessary contradiction between the fact that many of the person splits considered here occur in the pluperfect, and the generalization drawn in the preceding section whereby the pluperfect tends to present a single auxiliary in dialects which have a classical person split in the present perfect. Indeed, we saw that even among the latter there are some that do maintain the person split in the pluperfect. More interestingly, the pluperfect of the dialects at hand, if interpreted in terms of person split, includes a pattern that was actually missing from the dialects of section 3. This is illustrated above by S. Bartolomeo, where the third person is associated with the simple essere only (essere’ only) grammar, while the first and second person display the alternance of essere and avere according to verbal class.

6 Perfect participle agreement So far we have seen that past participle agreement, when present, shows considerable independence of the auxiliary lexicalization pattern, since it follows

Parameters of auxiliary selection

223

the lines explored in detail in Chapter 5 for languages like standard Italian. We are then in a position to strengthen the conclusion already reached in section 2, namely that parametric choices, pertaining in particular to auxiliary lexicalization and to perfect participle agreement, are independent of one another. In particular, the N inflection of the perfect participle lexicalizes its internal argument and will therefore agree either with an N argument independently lexicalized at the sentential level in transitive structures or with the D argument in unaccusative structures, given that the internal argument is introduced as a variable and identified by D. Thus the N inflection of the participle will agree and be identified with the object of transitives and the subject of unaccusatives. Having said this, it should be noted that some of the dialects studied in connection with person split phenomena in section 3 also display a different pattern, whereby the perfect participle inflection agrees with the D matrix argument independently of the transitive or intransitive (unaccusative) sentential frame. This form of agreement is recorded by Giammarco (1973: 169) for contexts with essere. However, it appears from our data to be equally possible with avere, as seen, for instance, in (37). The dialect exemplified in (37), namely Tufillo, belongs to the person split type exemplified in section 3.2 with Colledimacine, whereby the first and second person associate with essere, while the third person alternates between essere and avere according to verbal class. In the dialect in (37), as in many of those considered in section 3, the final vowel is e by general phonological rules; therefore agreement becomes visible only through harmony processes affecting the stressed vowel. In the case of a perfect participle, whose internal structure is essentially the one analyzed for standard Italian in Chapter 5, this means that agreement is recorded by the so-called thematic vowel. (37) Tufillo (Abruzzi) a sC ca’mQ:te ’frat-te I.am called.sg brother-yours ‘I have called your brother’ b sEme ca’mite ’frat-te we.are called.pl brother-yours ‘We have called your brother’ c anne arra’vite la ka’moSe they.have washed.pl the shirt ‘They have washed the shirt’ Agreement of the perfect participle with the D argument of a transitive predicate may also be seen in dialects that (at least optionally) display essere over the entire paradigm. A case in point is Roccasicura in (38). This type of agreement however does not surface in varieties of the type of standard Italian which alternate between essere and avere according to verbal class, nor in dialects with avere in the perfect as in section 2.

224

Parameters of auxiliary selection

(38) Roccasicura (Molise) nu emme ’kuette/ ’kCtta la ’paSta we are cooked.pl/ cooked.fsg the pasta ‘We have cooked pasta’ Consider then the pattern in (37b) or (37c), whose structure, on the principles adopted thus far, is as indicated in (39). The relevant aspect of structures like (39) is that the N participial inflection becomes identified with the D argument of the matrix participle even in the presence of a transitive argument structure, lexicalized through an N lexical object or clitic. This in turn does not depend on the properties of the D argument that can be either discourse-anchored as in (39a) or event-anchored as in (39b). (39) Tufillo a

ei I ei I D sEme

...

ep CI ei ei N I N fratte ei e N I ei t I N cam i

b

ei I ei I D anne

...

ep CI ei ei N I N la kamoSe ei e N I ei t I N arrav i

Remember that the EPP argument of the participial clause is introduced as a variable. Complex predicate formation at the sentential level requires the identification of the variable with the D argument of the main sentence, which becomes the D argument of the complex predicate. At the same time it appears that the EPP variable is independently identified by the N inflection of the participle. What this amounts to is what would conventionally be called a passive treatment of the participle with an active treatment of the complex

Parameters of auxiliary selection

225

predicate as a whole. We surmise that this kind of combination, indifferent to voice, activity/stativity and similar event-based distinctions, is constrained to those languages that are not sensitive or only selectively sensitive to event-based distinctions in auxiliary lexicalization patterns. Thus we noted that it is only in person split dialects or in those that at least optionally are associated with essere over the entire paradigm that the pattern in (39) is found. On the other hand, in Tufillo, but also in Roccasicura and other dialects with person split or with essere, the grammar just described actually co-occurs with the grammar described for standard Italian in Chapter 5. In it the N inflection of the participle simply identifies with the internal argument, whether independently lexicalized at the sentential level by an accusative or introduced as a variable in unaccusatives.

Appendix A Distribution of auxiliaries according to person in the present perfect (from Manzini and Savoia 2005) We separated the dialects considered into four groups on purely classificatory grounds. Dialects in (A)–(C) have the lexicalization of essere in the second person singular in common. Dialects in (B) present some form of canonical person split with essere in the first and second person and avere in the third person. Dialects in (A) informally have a prevalence of essere, with this auxiliary in the third person as well. Dialects in (C) informally have a prevalence of avere with this auxiliary in the first and second person as well. Finally, dialects in (D) do not have essere in the second person singular but rather in the third person, with a prevalence of avere overall again.

(A) (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi)

Poggio Imp. Castelpetroso Roccasicura Capracotta Gallo Matese Monteroduni Miglionico Vastogirardi

(B) (vii) Colledimacine Torricella Peligna Borgorose-Spedino Amandola Ortezzano Tufillo

1ps

2ps

3ps

1pp

2pp

3pp

E

E

E

E

E

A/E

A/E A A/E A/E

E E E E

E E E E

E A/E E E

E A/E E E

E E A/E A

A/A–E

E

A–E

E

E

E

E

E

A–E

E

E

A–E

continued

226

Parameters of auxiliary selection

(viii) S. Benedetto T. Campli Bellante Canosa Sannita Pescocostanzo Pontecorvo Sonnino (ix) Viticuso S. Vittore (x) Sassinoro (xi) Secinaro Guardiaregia (C) (xii) Agnone (xiii) Bisceglie Giovinazzo (xiv) Ruvo Bitetto (xv) Popoli Montenerodomo (xvi) Padula Castelvecchio S. (xvii) Molfetta (D)

Monteparano Minervino M. Morcone S. Giorgio S. Giffoni Frigento Gravina Viguzzolo Aliano

1ps

2ps

3ps

1pp

2pp

3pp

E

E

A

E

E

A

A/E

E

A

E

E

A

A/E A/E

E E

A/E A–E

A/E A/E

A/E A/E

A/E A/E

A/E E

E E

A–E A

A A

A A

A/E A

A/E

E

A~E

A

A

A

E

E

A–E

A

A

A

A/E

E

A–E

A

A

A

A/E

E

A

A

A

A

A A/E A A

A/E A/E A A

A/E A–E E E~A

A A/E A A

A A/E A A

A A/E A A

A A/E A–E/A A

A A A–E/A A

E–A E~A A–E/A A–E

A A A A

A A A A

A A A A

Key to symbols A  avere E  essere A/E  free alternation between essere and avere A–E  selection of essere or avere according to verbal class E~A  selection of essere and avere neither free nor (entirely) according to verbal class

Appendix B Distribution of auxiliaries in the pluperfect and counterfactual of the dialects of Appendix A (from Manzini and Savoia 2005) (A) Auxiliaries in the pluperfect a

essere: Ortezzano, Amandola, Bellante, Campli, Pescocostanzo, Capracotta, Vastogirardi, Agnone, Roccasicura, Castelpetroso, BorgoroseSpedino, Sonnino, Pontecorvo, S. Vittore, Viticuso, Guardiaregia,

Parameters of auxiliary selection

b

c d

227

Gallo, Monteroduni, Poggio Imperiale, Miglionico, Sassinoro, Aliano, Giffoni, Morcone, Monteparano avere: Secinaro, Montenerodomo, Colledimacine, Torricella Peligna, Canosa Sannita, Tufillo, Bisceglie, Giovinazzo, Molfetta, Ruvo di Puglia, Bitetto, Padula Gravina, Frigento, Viguzzolo essere/avere: Castelvecchio Subequo, Minervino, S. Giorgio del S. essere, avere: Popoli, S. Benedetto del Tronto

(B) Auxiliaries in the counterfactual a

b

c d

essere: Ortezzano, Amandola, Campli, Sonnino, S. Vittore, Vastogirardi, Roccasicura, Castelpetroso, Gallo, Monteroduni, Sassinoro, S. Benedetto del Tronto, Aliano, Giffoni, S. Giorgio del S. avere: Popoli, Secinaro, Montenerodomo, Tufillo, Pescocostanzo, Giovinazzo, Molfetta, Ruvo di Puglia, Bitetto, Padula, Frigento, Morcone, Viguzzolo essere/avere: Castelvecchio Subequo essere, avere: Viticuso, Guardiaregia, Capracotta, Agnone

Appendix C Distribution of ‘syncretic’ forms of the auxiliary (from Manzini and Savoia 2005)

(A) Present perfect Briga N. Quarna Sotto Quarna Sopra Montjovet Trecate Cerano Masserano (B) Pluperfect Trecate Briga, Montebruno Cerano Masserano Grumello, Passirano, Civate, Casorezzo, Inveruno, Arconate S. Fedele, S. Bartolomeo C. Olgiate Quarna Sotto Key to symbols e  ‘syncretic’ auxiliary form

1ps

2ps

3ps

1pp

2pp

3pp

A–E

e

A–E

A–E

A–E

A–E

A/E E–A/E A

e e e

E E A–A/E

E A/E A/E

E A/E A–A/E

E E A

e A–E A/E–E A A–E

e e e e A–E

e e e e e

e A–E A/E–E A A–E

e A–E A/E–E A A–E

e e e e e

A–E A–E

A–E A–E

e A–E

A–E A–E

A–E A–E

A–E e

7

The syntax of object clitics and middle-reflexives in Albanian dialects

In section 1 of this chapter we shall consider the position of object clitics in the varieties of Albanian spoken in southern Italy, or Arbëresh, paralleling the discussion of Romance dialects in Chapter 1. In Arbëresh dialects, object clitics precede the finite non-modal verb while the imperative is characterized by enclisis of the dative and accusative clitics, and mesoclisis of the Person clitic. In negative imperatives clitics are generally preverbal; however, in the dialect of S. Marzano accusative and dative clitics are doubled, appearing both before and after the verb. In Arbëresh dialects furthermore the middle-reflexive (considered for Romance dialects in Chapters 5–6) admits of different lexicalizations, including specialized morphological endings on the verb (in the present and in the simple past, both perfective and imperfective) and formations with the u clitic (in the present and past perfect in combination with the auxiliary kam (I have)). In the dialect of Carfizzi, which reflects in this the conditions of standard Albanian, the middle-reflexive perfect is formed simply with the auxiliary jam (I am). In the second person singular of the imperative all dialects considered here combine the specialized middle-reflexive morphology on the verb with the u clitic. The same holds for the second person plural in the dialect of S. Marzano. The positioning of the u clitic generally reflects that of P clitics. However, in the negative imperative of S. Marzano, the u clitic is in enclisis in the singular and in mesoclisis in the plural, differing in this respect from other clitics.

1 Patterns of proclisis, enclisis and mesoclisis 1.1 The data In all Arbëresh dialects, third person dative and accusative clitics precede the inflected verb; furthermore, the dative precedes the accusative, as in Italian. Clitics with first and second person denotation also occur before inflected verbs, and precede the third person accusative when they combine with it. This state of affairs is illustrated in (1).

Object clitics and middle reflexives: Albanian 229 (1)

S. Sofia d’Epiro a E ’SCfEn him they.see ‘They see him’ b i ’japEn k’te to.him they.give this ‘They give this to him’ c j a ’japEn to.him it they.give ‘They give it to him’ d me ’SCfEn me they.see ‘They see me’ e m E ’japEn to.me it they.give ‘They give it to me’ Carfizzi a E ’SCXnin him they.see ‘They see him’ b i ’japnin X’tA to him they give this ‘They give this to him’ c j a ’japnin to.him it they.give ‘They give it to him’ d me ’japnin X’tA to.me they.give this ‘They give this to me’ e m E ’japnin to.me it they.give ‘They give it to me’ S. Marzano a E ’frEte him he.calls ‘He calls him’ b j a ’jaBe to him it I.give ‘I give it to him’ c me ’frEte me he.calls ‘He calls me’

230 Object clitics and middle reflexives: Albanian d

t E ’jaBe to.you it I.give ‘I give it to you’

Portocannone a E/i/me/te/na/ju ’SCxnen him/them/me/you/us/you they.see ‘They see him/them/me/you/us’ b i ’japnen k’ten to.him they.give this ‘They give this to him’ c j a ’japnen to him it they.give ‘They give it to him’ d me ’SCxnen me they.see ‘They see me’ e m E ’japnen to me it they.give ‘They give it to me’ In the presence of the auxiliary kam (to have) we find object clitics realized in proclisis in several Arbëresh dialects, as in (2), similar in this to standard Albanian; in other words, the clitics occupy the same position with respect to the auxiliary as well as to the lexical verb in (1). Note that only the past perfect is exemplified in all dialects. As discussed by Altimari (1994), Arbëresh dialects split between those where there is a present perfect with temporal value (including Carfizzi, as well as S. Marzano among those illustrated here) and those where past reference is expressed through the simple past. According to Altimari (1994). other dialects also have formations with the present auxiliary and the perfect participle which however have a ‘presumptive’ modal interpretation rather than a temporal one. (2)

S. Sofia d’Epiro a E kiS ’pa:V him s/he.had seen ‘S/he had seen him’ b i kiS ’Den k’te to.him s/he.had given this ‘S/he had given this to him’ c j ai kiS ’Den to.him it s/he.had given ‘S/he had given it to him’ d m kiS ’pa:V me s/he.had seen ‘S/he had seen me’

Object clitics and middle reflexives: Albanian 231 e

m E kiS ’Den to.me it s/he.had given ‘S/he had given it to me’

Carfizzi a E kCm ’la:r it I.have washed ‘I have washed it’ b E kiSa ’la: r it I.had washed ‘I had washed it’ c ja ka ’DCn to.him it has given ‘S/he has given it to him’ d m E ’keni ’DCn to.me it you.have given ‘You have given it to me’ e m E kiS ’DCn to.me it he.had given ‘He had given it to me’ f t E kCn ’DCn to.you it they.have given ‘They have given it to you’ In some dialects, on the other hand, the clitic appears in enclisis on the auxiliary, as in (3). (3)

Portocannone ’kiSa (dZa) i ’sritur I.had (already) them called ‘I already had called them’ S. Benedetto Ullano a kiSna E ’paV I.had him seen ‘I had seen him’ b kiSin na/ju E ’DenuV they.had to.us/to.you it given ‘They had given it to you/to us’

In the S. Marzano dialect the distribution is more complex. Proclisis characterizes P clitics both in isolation as in (4e) and in clusters with an accusative as in (4f). By contrast, third person accusatives and datives are generally doubled, appearing in proclisis and in enclisis, as illustrated with the accusative in isolation in (4a)–(4b), with clusters of dative and accusative in (4c)–(4d), and with the accusative in combination with the P clitic in (4f). To be more precise, enclisis of the dative and accusative is superficially absent from

232

Object clitics and middle reflexives: Albanian

the second and third person singular of the present, as well as in the first and second person singular of the imperfective. In all dialects, the negation leaves the distribution of clitics with respect to the auxiliary unchanged. (4)

S. Marzano a (neNg) E/i ’kamm E/i ’frittere E/i kE ’frittere E/i ka ’frittere E/i ’kimmi E/i ’frittere E/i ’kinni E/i ’frittere E/i ’kann E/i ’frittere (not) him/them I.have him/them called ‘I have called him/them’ b E/i ’kinna ’frittere E/i ’kinnE ’frittere E/i ’kiSi E/i ’frittere E/i ’kiSem E/i ’frittere E/i ’kiSiD E/i ’frittere E/i ’kiSen E/i ’frittere him/them I.had him/them called ‘I had called him/them’ c j a ’kamm j a ’henne j a kE ’henne j a ka ’henne j a ’kimmi j a ’henne j a ’kinni j a ’henne j a kann j a ’henne to.him it I.have to.him it said ‘I have given it to him’ d j a ’kinna ’Denne j a ’kinnE ’Denne j a ’kiSi j a ’Denne j a ’kiSem j a ’Denne j a ’kiSiD j a ’Denne j a ’kiSen j a ’Denne to.him it I.had to.him it given ‘I had given it to him’ e te ’kamme/ ’kinna ’frittere me kE/ ’kinnE ’frittere ne ka/ ’kiSi ’frittere te ’kimmi/ ’kiSime ’frittere me ’kinni/ ’kiSiDe ’frittere me ’kanne/ ’kiSene ’frittere you I.have/ had called ‘I have/had called you’

Object clitics and middle reflexives: Albanian 233 f

t E ’kamm m E kE/ ’kinnE m E ka t E ’kimmi m E ’kinni/ ’kiSiD m E kann/ ’kiSen to-you it I.have ‘I have said it to you’

E

’henne ’henne ’henne E ’henne E ’henne E ’henne it said

In the imperative, Arbëresh dialects in general present enclisis on the second person singular, as shown in (5). (5)

S. Sofia d’Epiro a ’pVit E/me/na wait him/me/us ‘Wait for him/me/us’ b ’zJCj E wake.up him ‘Wake him up’ c ’zJC m/na wake.up me/us ‘Wake me/us up’ d ’C˜ m E give to.me it ‘Give it to me’ e ’jip j a give to.him it ‘Give it to him’ Carfizzi a dzi’oj E wake.up him ‘Wake him up’ b dzi’o m wake.up me ‘Wake me up’ c ’C m E give to.me it ‘Give it to me’ d ’jip j a give to.him it ‘Give it to him’

234

Object clitics and middle reflexives: Albanian S. Marzano a siJ’JCj ’Ngrij E/i wake.up/ pick.up him ‘Wake/pick him/them up’ b siJ’JC/ ’Ngri mme/nni(tSe) wake.up pick.up me/us ‘Wake/pick me/us up’ c hua mm E say to.me it ‘Say it to me’ d ’hua j a say to.him it ‘Say it to him’ Portocannone a ’zJCj E wake.up him ‘Wake him up’ b zJC m wake.up me ‘Wake me up’ c ’Tuo j a say to.him it ‘Say it to him’ d ’Tuo m E say to.me it ‘Say it to me’

In the second person plural of the imperative, enclisis characterizes the accusative and dative clitics as well as dative–accusative clusters; as for P clitics, we find mesoclisis of the first person singular between the verbal stem and the ni inflection. In clusters including a first person singular clitic and an accusative, the person clitic is in mesoclisis and the accusative in enclisis, as illustrated in (6). The first person plural presents some asymmetries with respect to the first person singular. In particular, mesoclisis of ne (us) is not attested by the data and is given as dubious or impossible by native speakers as for (c) of S. Marzano. (6)

S. Sofia d’Epiro a ’pVit ni E wait 2pl him ‘Wait for him’ b ’zJC ni E wake.up 2pl him ‘Wake(pl) him up’

Object clitics and middle reflexives: Albanian 235 c

d

e

f

’jip ni j a give 2pl to.him it ‘Give it to him’ ’pVit me ni wait me 2pl ‘Wait for me’ ’zJC m ni wake.up me 2pl ‘Wake me up’ ’C˜ m ni E give to.me 2pl it ‘Give it to me’

Carfizzi a dzi’C ni E wake.up 2pl him ‘Wake him up’ b dzi’C m ni wake.up me 2pl ‘Wake me up’ c ’C m ni E give to.me 2pl it ‘Give it to me’ d ’jip ni j a give 2pl to.him it ‘Give it to him’ S. Marzano a siJ’JC/ ’Ngrig (n)ni E/i wake.up pick up 2pl him/them ‘Wake/pick him/them up’ b siJ’JC/ ’Ngrige (m)me ni wake.up pick.up me 2pl ‘Wake/pick me up’ c ?’lE nne ni leave us 2pl ‘Leave us’ d ’hua nni j a say 2pl to.him it ‘Say it to him’ e ’hua mme ni E say to.me 2pl it ‘Say it to me’

236 Object clitics and middle reflexives: Albanian Portocannone a ’zJCni- E wake.up- 2pl him ‘Wake him up’ b ’zJCme- ni wake.up me 2pl ‘Wake me up’ c ’Tuo- ni- ja say 2pl to.him it ‘Say it to him’ d ’Tuo- mni- E say to.me 2pl it ‘Say it to me’ In the negative forms of the imperative, the clitic is generally found in front of the verb following the negation mos, as illustrated in (7). (7)

S. Sofia d’Epiro a mCs E/m/na ’pVit/ ’pVi(t)-ni not him/me/us wait wait-2pl ‘Don’t wait for him/me/us’ b mCs E/m/na z’JC/ z’JC-ni not him/me/us wake.up/wake.up-2pl ‘Don’t wake him/me/us up’ c mCs m E ’jip/ ’ji-ni not to.me it give/ give-2pl ‘Don’t give it to me’ d mCs j a ’jip/ ’ji-ni not to.him it give/ give-2pl ‘Don’t give it to him’ e mCs na i ’jip/ ’ji-ni not to.us it give/ give-2pl ‘Don’t give it to us’ Carfizzi a mis E/m dzi’C/ dzi’C-ni not him/me wake.up/ wake.up-2pl ‘Don’t wake me/him up’ b mis m E ’jip/ ’jip-ni not to.me it give/ give-2pl ‘Don’t give it to me’ c mis j a ’ji/ ’jip-ni not to.him it give/ give-2pl ‘Don’t give it to him’

Object clitics and middle reflexives: Albanian 237 Portocannone a mCs E/me z’JC/ z’JC-ni not him/me wake.up/ wake.up-2pl ‘Don’t wake him/me up’ b mCs j a ’Tuo(tS)/ ’Tuo-ni not to.him it say/ say-2pl ‘Don’t say it to him’ c mCs m E ’Tuo(tS)/ ’Tuo-ni not to.me it say/ say-2pl ‘Don’t say it to me’ In the dialect of S. Marzano in (8), third person accusative and dative clitics are doubled in the presence of the negation mos, appearing both before and after the imperative; the P clitic represented here by the first person forms does not double however, and therefore appears just before the imperative. (8)

S. Marzano a mCs E siJ’JCj(-nni) E not him wake.up(-2pl) him ‘Don’t wake him up’ b mCse me siJ’JC(-nni) not me wake.up(-2pl) ‘Don’t wake me up’ c mCs E/i N’grij/ N’grige-ni E/i not him/them pick.up/pick.up-2pl him/them ‘Don’t pick him/them up’ d mCse me/ne N’gri/ N’grige-ni not me/us pick.up/pick.up-2pl ‘Don’t pick me/us up’ e mCse m E ’huaj/ ’hua-nni E not to-me it say/ say-2pl it ‘Don’t say it to me’ f mCs j a ’hua/’hua-nni j a not to-him it say/say-2pl to.him it ‘Don’t say it to him’

1.2 The imperative Consider the simple sentences in (1), where object clitics are in proclisis and dative precedes accusative. By analogy with the Romance dialects studied in Chapters 3–4 accusative clitics such as E or a (him/her/it) and i (them) may be inserted in the N position of the string, characterized by the internal argument interpretation. Dative i (to him/her/them), which co-occurs with the accusative and precedes it, may be inserted in the Q position. As schematized in (9), clitics precede the declarative verb in I in that they insert in the clitic string between I

238

Object clitics and middle reflexives: Albanian

itself and C. In the light of the discussion of Romance dialects in Chapter 3, it is also interesting to note that in Albanian dialects as well, the dative i coincides with the accusative plural. This brings further support to the conclusion that a quantificational denotation, associated in this case with i, can underlie both distributivity (dative) and plurality. (9)

S. Sofia d’Epiro D R Q P Loc N I | | | i a japEn

We have seen that in some cases, in particular in the simple second person singular imperative in (6), clitics actually occur in enclisis after the verbal form. This state of affairs is explained if we assume that the imperative appears in one of the C positions (cf. Rivero (1994) for ‘Balkan’ languages). On this basis we predict that the clitics surface after the imperative, which on the basis of the discussion of Romance in Chapter 1, we associated more precisely with CI as in (10). As for the reasons why the imperative forms of the verb lexicalize CI, we suggest that while I is associated with the tense and agreement properties of the verb, the C field in general is associated with its modal properties. In particular, CI is associated with indefinite modality and hence with the imperative, but also with infinitivals in many Italian dialects. (10) S. Sofia d’Epiro eu CI eu prit (C) eu N E The phenomenon of mesoclisis in the plural imperative has been independently considered in Chapter 1 for Italian dialects. The analysis we proposed there relies on the conclusion that the internal structure of inflected verbs reproduces the same categorial organization that we have reviewed above for the sentence. Thus the second person plural imperative of Arbëresh dialects has an internal structure of the type in (11) where the verb stem in I is followed by an inflection in D, corresponding to the position assigned to the subject (the EPP argument) in the clitic string. (11) S. Sofia d’Epiro ei I D prit ni In the analysis independently proposed in Chapter 1, in cases of mesoclisis the verbal stem is normally inserted in CI; the verb inflection however does not

Object clitics and middle reflexives: Albanian 239 appear in the D position internal to the verbal constituent as in (11), but rather in the position where we would otherwise find subject clitics (i.e. the D position of the sentential I domain) as in (12). The clitic infixed between the verb root and the verb inflection may then be inserted in an ordinary clitic position, which in the case of the first person clitic in (12) will be the P position of the string between CI and C. (12) S. Sofia d’Epiro eu eu CI prit P eu me (C) eu D ni As we saw in (6), the clusters of a person and an accusative clitic are split, since the P clitic appears between the verbal stem and its inflection, while the accusative appears after the verbal inflection. Analogous data emerge in Romance dialects considered in Chapter 1. We provide a structure for the relevant examples by simply putting together the analyses independently proposed in (10) and (12), as in (13). As in (12), the verb stem inserts in CI followed by the P clitic in the string of the C domain and by the verb inflection in D of the I domain. As in (10), the accusative clitic is in N of the I domain itself. (13) S. Sofia d’Epiro eu CI eu C˜ P eu m (C) eu D eu ni N E As for why mesoclisis of the P clitic, as seen in (12) and (13), contrasts with enclisis of the N clitic, as seen in (10) and (13), we can adopt for Albanian dialects the same analysis already suggested for their Romance counterparts in Chapter 1, namely that the split between N clitics on the one hand and P clitics on the other represents a special case of person split. Thus we propose that N clitics, or the class of clitics that are necessarily anchored at the event, appear in the lower I domain, bound to the fixing of the temporal reference of the verb. In the same perspective we can view the positioning of the verb inflection in D of the I domain as motivated by the anchoring of the EPP argument to the event. On the other hand, P clitics, whose reference is directly anchored to the discourse, appear in the C domain bound to modal specifications. It is interesting to note that in Arbëresh, dative clitics pattern in this respect with accusative, while

240

Object clitics and middle reflexives: Albanian

in the Italian dialects considered in Chapter 1 they pattern with P clitics. In Arbëresh dialects evidently the property that determines the domain of insertion of datives is their definite denotation (descriptively the third person reference). Thus they pattern with other clitics of the definite/third person series; recall indeed that morphologically dative i overlaps with accusative plural. A further element of complexity is introduced in Arbëresh dialects by the asymmetry between first person singular and first person plural clitics. The former appear between the verbal stem and its inflection, being barred from appearing in enclisis. However, first person plural clitics do not seem to occur either in enclisis or in mesoclisis. Since na normally appears in enclisis on the second person singular imperative, what is effectively blocked is the combination of the first person plural clitic na with the second person plural inflection ni in either order. This phenomenon recalls that of mutual exclusion between clitics studied in detail in Chapters 3–4. We may assume that at the basis of the mutual exclusion between na and ni is a shared denotational property, which we may identify with plurality combined with reference to the speaker and/or the hearer. In terms of the theory we have developed for clitics, the lexicalization of the relevant property by one of the two elements (ni) excludes its relexicalization by the other (na). One argument that supports the high position of the imperative is its interaction with negation. In Albanian the negation is represented by a preverbal clitic, which takes different forms according to the modality of the verb. In the dialects under consideration, mCs (mis in the dialect of Carfizzi) is the negation in the imperative and in the subjunctive, as may be seen in (7); on the other hand, neNg is the indicative negation, as illustrated in (4) or in (14). (14) S. Sofia d’Epiro neNg E ’SCfEn not him they.see ‘They do not see him’ We interpret this fact in the light of the theory of sentential negation developed by Manzini and Savoia (2005) for Italian dialects. According to this theory, the negation is internal to the I field or in a position internal to the C field. In general, the negation is inserted in the C field in modal environments, including imperatives, while the negation internal to the I domain is associated with non-modal environments. The two negative elements that we have individuated in Albanian dialects represent two different lexicalizations for the two different positions posited by our theory. In particular the non-modal negation neNg may be taken to lexicalize the negative position internal to the I field. Thus the typical configuration involving the non-modal negation takes the form in (15). On the basis of Manzini and Savoia (2005) we characterize the negation not as a sentential operator in a dedicated Neg position, but rather as a nominal element, inserted as such in the clitic string. In particular, we identify the position of the negation with R, where it precedes the other object clitics.

Object clitics and middle reflexives: Albanian 241 (15) S. Sofia d’Epiro D R Q P Loc N I | | | neNg E SCfEn Let us then consider the structures involving mCs and the imperative. We assume that the negation mCs is a lexicalization of the modal negation position internal to the C field. The presence of a negation internal to the C field is sufficient to lexicalize modal properties of the relevant C position, preventing its lexicalization by the verb; thus the verb is inserted in I. The preverbal position of clitics is a consequence of this position of the verb. Specifically, we may assume that if the negation is to subsume the modal properties of CI, it is generated in the domain immediately above it, as in (16). In turn the clitics may appear in the same position where they are found with positive imperatives, namely the C domain in the case of the P clitic in (16a) and the I domain in the case of the N clitic in (16b). (16) S. Sofia d’Epiro a eu R eu mCs (CI) eu P eu m (C) eu I zJCni b

eu R eu mCs (CI) eu (C) eu N eu E I zJCni

If there are languages in which insertion of the modal negation is not sufficient to subsume the modal properties of the verb, we expect the imperative to occupy the ordinary CI position. We may therefore assume that in the S. Marzano dialect the imperative lexicalizes CI. This automatically explains why event-anchored clitics appear in enclisis after the verb. On the other hand, we are also forced to the conclusion that preverbal clitics in this case appear in the same modal domain where the negation is lexicalized as in (17).

242

Object clitics and middle reflexives: Albanian

(17) S. Marzano eu R eu mCs P eu m N eu E CI eu huaj (C) eu N E In the second person plural the negative imperative of S. Marzano presents the same surface order as in the singular. This is compatible with the assumption that it is only the verb stem that raises to CI, while the verb inflection lexicalizes D of the I domain as in (18). The absence of mesoclisis may be imputed to the fact, independently established, that the modal domain of lexicalization of clitics is CI, where the negation is found, as already assumed for (17). (18) S. Marzano eu R eu mCs Q eu i N eu a CI eu hua (C) eu D eu nni Q eu i N a In dealing with dialects such as S. Sofia in the previous section we have proposed that the split between P and N/Q clitics depends on a simple condition whereby event-anchored clitics appear in the I domain, while discourseanchored clitics appear in the modal domains. The first part of this condition holds for S. Marzano as well. Structures such as (18) induce us to conclude that the event-anchored clitics are not excluded from modal domains in general, but only from the modal domain included between the verb stem and its inflection. Thus we may propose that modal domains are in general compatible with the entire clitic string; it is the discourse-anchored nature of the imperative that excludes from its immediate domain all nominal material that is not itself discourse-anchored. Recall that in (18) it is not the imperative, but rather the modal negation that takes the clitic string in its immediate scope.

Object clitics and middle reflexives: Albanian 243 1.3 The auxiliary It remains for us to examine auxiliary and past participle structures of the type in (2)–(6). In many Arbëresh dialects these present proclisis of the clitic on the auxiliary as in (2). Therefore we can analyze them along the same lines as structures with a simple lexical verb. In other words, the auxiliary appears in I where it is preceded by the clitics, in the order determined by the string, as in (19). As for the participle, we assume that it does not appear within the same sentence as the auxiliary, but rather heads an independent participial sentence; since the exact structure of the embedding, discussed in Chapter 5 for Italian, is irrelevant here, we provide an abbreviated structure. (19) S. Sofia d’Epiro eu P eu m N eu E I ... kiS eu I Den In the dialect of S. Marzano, dative and accusative clitics are doubled, appearing both before and after the auxiliary, while the person clitics appear only before it. These cases present an obvious parallelism with those already considered in relation with negative imperatives. Therefore we propose that the auxiliary is realized not in I, as we have assumed so far for the lexical verb, but rather in a position internal to the C field. In this way, the event-anchored clitics will follow it due to the condition imposing their lexicalization within the I domain. At the same time the clitic string before the auxiliary will lexicalize the nominal positions of a modal domain. In (20) we identify the position of the auxiliary not with CI, but rather with the lower C position associated, for instance, with questions according to Manzini and Savoia (2005). This conclusion is confirmed by the fact that while imperatives are associated with the modal negation mCs, auxiliaries combine with the finite negation neNg. (20) S. Marzano eu P eu t N eu E C eu kimmi N ... E eu I henne

244

Object clitics and middle reflexives: Albanian

The crucial question raised by the analysis in (20) is why lexicalization within the C field is limited to the auxiliary and does not characterize lexical verbs. This question relates to a number of contrasts opposing the behavior of auxiliaries and lexical verbs. One case which is well known from the literature concerns English questions, where the auxiliary is realized in C, as may be seen from the position of the subject that follows it (e.g. have you called?). Lexical verbs however are not realized in C, as may be seen from the impossibility of *called you?; rather a do form is inserted in C in place of the lexical verb as in did you call? The parallel with the Albanian structures under consideration is very close, since in both cases the auxiliary but not the lexical verb is inserted in C. We exclude an explanation based on the intrinsic lexical content of the auxiliary as opposed to that of a non-auxiliary verb; in other words, that it is some sort of impoverishment of the auxiliary with respect to the lexical verb that determines their different behavior, as explicitly suggested by Pollock (1989) with reference to the English facts. The analysis of auxiliaries in Chapter 5 argues against such a solution, since we treat auxiliaries, in particular to have, as main verbs endowed with their own argumental structure and embedding the participle as a separate sentential complement. Rather, the privileged relation between auxiliaries and C points to a connection between the aspectual properties that auxiliaries lexicalize and the modal properties residing in C. As discussed in more detail in Chapter 8, the connection between the two traditional notions of mood and aspect is established through a scopal mechanism. More specifically, Manzini and Savoia (2005) characterize the imperfective/perfective opposition in terms of an indefinite/definite divide. This is compatible with the semantics proposed for Italian by Bonomi (1997), according to which the imperfective morphology introduces a universal or generic quantification over events, whereas perfective morphology corresponds to an existential quantification. Indeed, a specific (definite) reading can associate only with existentials. We take it that modality reduces essentially to properties of definite or indefinite quantification over possible worlds, yielding in particular the fundamental contrast between realis and irrealis forms (cf. Manzini (1996) on the Italian subjunctive; Baker and Travis (1997) on Algonquian languages). Thus universal quantification over possible worlds can yield irrealis, while realis corresponds to an existential quantification. As discussed once again in Chapter 8, the connection between imperfective and irrealis, established now through the notion of universal quantification, can explain why the imperfective also turns up as the counterfactual in many languages. These include modern Greek as discussed by Iatridou (2000), as well as the Arbëresh dialects under consideration. Furthermore, Altimari (1994) points to the fact that in many Arbëresh dialects the syntax of the present perfect is only associated with a modal interpretation, described as that of a ‘presumptive past’; this appears to be similar to the so-called evidentials of Macedonian (Fici 2001) and other south Slavic languages. Their meaning in turn is the same carried by conditionals in Romance. As it turns out, dialects such as S. Sofia as well as more significantly S. Benedetto and Portocannone, also characterized by enclisis on the auxiliary,

Object clitics and middle reflexives: Albanian 245 are constrained to the modal, presumptive reading. The connection we establish between the present perfect syntax and the presumptive reading is similar to that outlined above for past perfects with counterfactual interpretation. On the other hand, in the case of S. Marzano under consideration, the auxiliary lexicalizes C even in the perfective reading. In this case the connection between the auxiliary and the C field must be mediated by some notion of definiteness or specificity, i.e. existential quantification over the event. These definiteness properties of the auxiliary construction may also help in explaining its positioning in C rather than in CI. In presenting the data we noted that there is no doubling of the third person clitic after the second and third person singular of the auxiliary in the present perfect. The relevant restriction is observed with forms of the verb inflected by a vocalic element E, a which is added to the base k. The other forms of the present involve instead a consonantal ending added to the ka/ki base, namely mm for the first person singular and mmi/ni/nn for the plural, as indicated by the segmentation in (21a). The comparison with the lexical verb ‘I call’ in (21b) shows that mi, (e)ni, (e)ne are independently attested as the plural endings. The mm inflection that appears in the first person singular of the auxiliary is independently attested in the regular conjugation of middle-reflexives, to which we shall return in section 2. (21) S. Marzano a ’ka-mme k-E k-a ’ki-mmi ’ki-nni ’ka-nne ‘I have’ b ’frEs-e ’frEt-e ’frEt-e ’frEs-mi ’frit-eni ’frEs-ene ‘I call’ Although it is tempting to see the restriction against enclisis in the second and third person singular as due to phonological conditions, we can exclude that this is the case. In particular there are no phonological grounds why E, a could not combine with the plural clitic i. In fact, the phenomenon is reminiscent of the mutual exclusion between certain types of inflection and postverbal clitics both in the interrogative and in the imperative paradigms of Italian dialects. Manzini and Savoia (2005) exclude the phonological explanation for those cases as well, proposing instead a morphosyntactic analysis based on the generalization of the mutual exclusion mechanism between object and subject clitics reviewed here in Chapters 3–4. This approach is based on the idea that the inflection represents a

246

Object clitics and middle reflexives: Albanian

lexicalization of the D subject argument internal to the verb. Therefore, exactly as subject and object clitics give rise to mutual exclusion phenomena, so do the D inflection of the verb and the N object clitic. To be more precise, the discussion in Chapter 4 shows that mutual exclusion does not generally involve subject clitics specialized for a person denotation, and that in many dialects the same holds for third person plural clitics specialized for a quantificational denotation. The parallels with the facts at hand are evident. The inflections that do not provoke exclusion are specialized for the denotation of speaker such as mm (first person), of hearer such as nni (second person plural), and for plurality such as nn (third person plural). By contrast we may assume that the vocalic forms which determine the exclusion with the object clitics share with the latter the nature of nominal morphemes, denoting nominal class. As for the fact that we find the same morphology in the third person and in the second person, Italian dialects also present many instances of nominal morphology with first or second person denotation. We must assume that this is possible precisely because of the elementary nature of this morphology, which as such is potentially compatible with a wide range of denotations. As for the mechanism of mutual exclusion, it is useful to go back to the reasons that justify the doubling of the object clitic to the right of the auxiliary in the first place. We have proposed that the doubling is due to the necessity for the event-anchored accusative to lexicalize the sentential I domain. Our idea is that when the verb itself has a nominal inflection, this effectively satisfies the relevant requirement, which we now take to be that a lexicalization of some eventanchored element be present in the lower reaches of the sentence. In the pluperfect, doubling of the third person clitic after the verb is blocked in the first and second person singular. Regular verbs present past imperfective formations of the type illustrated in (22b) with ‘I roasted’, where the lexical base diJJ is followed by the imperfective morphology (e)S and by a series of person inflections. The comparison with the past perfective of the same verb in (22c) shows that the third person singular i and the plural eme, ete, ene are inflections specialized for past forms of the verb. In the first and second person singular the a, E endings that characterize the past perfective are combined with a nn morpheme in the imperfective. Interestingly, the past imperfective of the auxiliary in (22a) is formed by combining the verb stem ki directly with nna, nnE in the first and second person singular, while the other persons are formed regularly with the verb stem followed by S and then by the person endings. (22) S. Marzano a ’ki-nn ’ki-nn ’ki-S ’ki-S ’ki-S ’ki-S ‘I had’

-a -E -i -eme -ete -ene

Object clitics and middle reflexives: Albanian 247 b

c

’diJJ-eS-n -a ’diJJ-eS-n -E ’diJJ-eS -i ’diJJ-eS -eme ’diJJ-eS -ete ’diJJ-eS -ene ‘I was roasting’ ’dCJJ -a ’dCJJ -E ’dCJJ -i ’dCJJ -eme ’dCJJ -ete ’dCJJ -ene ‘I roasted’

Let us now consider first the formations including (e)S. The idea argued for in this book is that the internal structure of words presents the same categories and the same hierarchies as the internal structure of sentences. On these grounds we take it that the imperfective morphology (e)S has the same relation to the lexical base as an aspectual auxiliary has to a verb it introduces. In other words, the imperfective suffix is the head of the constructions, while the lexical base is its complement. In keeping with the schemas generally adopted here, the position of the head eS is taken to be I, while its complement (the lexical base) is taken to be N. The D inflection that follows eS is treated as a D argument of the derived verbal stem as in (23a). The case in which eS is followed by (n)n is slightly more complex. The (n)n morphology is sensitive both to the past denotation of the verb base, appearing only in the past imperfective, and to the denotation of the D argument, appearing only in first and second person. One analysis compatible with this characterization treats (n)n as an internal D inflection specialized for the imperfective. The resulting structures such as (23b) are comparable to cases considered above in which a clitic is doubled within a sentence; in this case it is the D argument that has a double lexicalization within the word. (23) S. Marzano a ei I D ei i N I diJJ eS b

ei I D ei a I D ei n N I diJJ eS

248

Object clitics and middle reflexives: Albanian

With this much background we can now return to the imperfective auxiliary, which we analyze along the lines of (24). The fact that interests us here is the mutual exclusion between the first and second person singular inflection and the enclitic. It is evident that the D arguments involved, namely a of the first person and E of the second person, are exactly the same that determine mutual exclusion in the present. Therefore we can advance the same explanation, namely that the nominal nature of a, E excludes the accusative clitic from its immediate domain, in that it satisfies the lexicalization requirement of a nominal element in the inflectional reaches of the sentences. Endings that do not give rise to the mutual exclusion include eme, ete specialized for P reference, and ene specialized for plurality. It is interesting that i of the third person singular patterns with these syllabic endings. This behavior may be explained if we assimilate the i inflection to the i clitic, assigning quantificational denotation to both. In this case we may assume that the quantificational element introduces an indefinite variable, amenable to the so-called third person reference. (24) S. Marzano a ei I D ei a I D ki nn b

ei I D ei i N I ki S

The same asymmetry between auxiliaries and lexical verbs that we have now analyzed in detail for the dialect of S. Marzano characterizes in a simplified form dialects such as S. Benedetto Ullano in (3), where all clitics appear in enclisis on the auxiliary, without doubling in proclitic position. The presence of enclitics leads us to assume that the auxiliary is lexicalized in the C field, hence in a higher position than the lexical verb. Although the enclitic pattern is similar to that observed with the imperative, the different interaction of the auxiliary with the negation excludes its positioning in CI. Thus we propose that the auxiliary is inserted in C, where it is preceded by the Nge negation associated with finite forms as shown in (25). Given this structure, the parameter between S. Marzano and S. Benedetto may be expressed simply by saying that in S. Benedetto the entire clitic string remains in the I domain with which it is normally associated with lexical verbs. In other words, only in S. Marzano, the finite modality properties of the auxiliaries do reflect on the positioning of clitics.

Object clitics and middle reflexives: Albanian 249 (25) S. Benedetto eu C eu kiSna N ... E eu I paV

2. The middle-reflexive 2.1 The empirical questions Albanian dialects form both the reflexive and the middle by the same morphological means, as is well known for the standard from the descriptive as well as the theoretical literature. This situation is comparable to that of Romance varieties such as standard Italian in which both the reflexive and the passive are realized by a clitic si. In what follows, we shall be concentrating on Arbëresh dialects, illustrating in particular some contrasts that arise between the dialect of S. Marzano and a number of other dialects. The data in (26) illustrate the middle-reflexive present. In many Arbëresh dialects, the vocalic stems (cf. Solano 1988) exemplified in (a) insert a middlereflexive infix, basically -h-, which has a number of phonetic realizations; thus, it is -g/f- in the S. Marzano dialect, -x- in the Portocannone dialect, -X- in the Carfizzi dialect, -f- in the S. Sofia dialect; This middle-reflexive morphology is in turn followed by inflections for person and number, generally specialized for the middle-reflexive as well. Consonantal stems, exemplified in (b), are followed directly by these specialized inflections. (26) S. Marzano a seJ’JC -f wake.up M/R ‘I wake up’ b ’viS -eme dress.up 1sg ‘I dress up’ S. Sofia d’Epiro a ’zJC -f wake.up M/R ‘I wake up’ b ’vES -Em dress.up 1sg ‘I dress up’

-eme /-E 1sg /2sg

/-eDe /-emi /-eni etc.

/-E /2sg

/-eDe /-emi /-eni

-Em 1sg

/-E /2sg

/-Et /-ami etc.

/-E /-Et -ami /-ani /2sg

/-ene

/-ene

/-ani

/-En

/-En

250

Object clitics and middle reflexives: Albanian Carfizzi a dzi’C -X wake.up M/R ‘I wake up’ b ’veS -Em dress.up 1sg ‘I dress up’

a

b

Portocannone ’zJC -x wake.up M/R ‘I wake up’ ’viS -Em dress.up 1sg ‘I dress up’

-Em /-E /-Et /-Emi 1sg /2sg /-E /-Et /-Emi /2sg

/-Eni

/-Eni

-Em /-E /-Et /-Emi 1sg /2sg /-E /-Et /-Emi /2sg

/-Eni

/-En

/-En

/-Eni

/-En

/-En

In the perfective past, Arbëresh dialects resort to a different morphology for the formation of the middle-reflexive; indeed they prepose the clitic u, which corresponds to Romance si/se, to the inflected verb form, as illustrated in (27). We note that contrary to many (but not all) Romance varieties, u is associated with all the different person forms. As for the internal morphology of the verb, it is useful to distinguish at least vocalic stems in (a) from consonantal stems in (b). With vocalic stems we generally find a past morphology suffix v in the first and second person singular. In the dialect of Carfizzi we also find the past morphology suffix t in the other persons, while in the dialect of S. Marzano the t morphology (D in the actual example) is extended to the entire paradigm. With consonantal stems dialects like S. Sofia present the t morphology in the plural. Person endings follow the past morphology or directly the verb stem with the exception of the third person singular, where we find the bare stem in many dialects; once again S. Marzano is an exception in that the third person singular also has a person ending. The verb morphology is generally identical in the middle and in the active; the only possible difference concerns indeed the third person singular, since in the active it can be characterized by a person ending i in those dialects where it is absent in the middle, as shown in S. Sofia’s (27a). (27) S. Marzano a u seJ’JC -D -a /-E /-i /-eme /-eDe /-ene M/R wake.up past 1sg/ 2sg ‘I woke up’ b u ’viS -a /-E /-i /-eme /-eDe /-ene M/R dress.up 1sg/ 2sg ‘I dressed up’

Object clitics and middle reflexives: Albanian 251 S. Sofia a u z’JC -v -a u z’JC -v -E u z’Jua u z’JuE -m u z’JuE -t u z’JuE -n M/R wake.up Past 1sg ‘I woke up’ a z’JC -i wake.up -3sg ‘He wakes somebody up’ b u ’vES -a u ’vES -E u ’vES u ’vES -t -im u ’vES -t -it u ’vES -t -in M/R dress.up 1sg ‘I dressed up’ Carfizzi a u dzi’o -v u dzi’o -v u dzi’o: -t u dzi’uE -t u dzi’uE -t u dzi’uE -t M/R wake.up Past ‘I woke up’ b u ’veS -a u ’veS -E u ’veS u ’veS -um u ’veS -it u ’veS -in M/R dress.up 1sg ‘I dressed up’ Portocannone a u z’JC u z’JC -v u z’Jua u z’Juo u z’Juo

-a -E -um -it -in 1sg

tS -E -m -t

252

Object clitics and middle reflexives: Albanian

b

u z’Juo -n M/R wake.up Past 1sg ‘I woke up’ u ’vES u ’vES -E u ’vES u ’vES -em u ’vES -et u ’vES -en M/R dress.up 1sg ‘I dressed up’

The middle-reflexive conjugation also includes forms consisting of an auxiliary followed by the participle, as illustrated in (28). In the Arbëresh dialects the auxiliary is generally kam (to have) which is associated with the middle-reflexive clitic u. However, in the dialect of Carfizzi (as in standard Albanian) the auxiliary is jam (to be) and it is not accompanied by any specialized middle/reflexive clitic. That the auxiliary in the active is ‘to have’ may be seen in (2) as well as in the comparison data in (a)–(b). In auxiliary and participle constructions, the behavior of u in Arbëresh dialects is generally parallel to that observed for other clitics in section 1. Thus in many dialects the u clitic appears in front of the auxiliary, while in a dialect like S. Benedetto it appears in enclisis after it. (28) S. Sofia d’Epiro u ’kiSa /’kiSE /’kiS /’kim M/R I.had ‘I had woken up’

/’kiSit

/’kin

z’JuEV woken.up

Carfizzi a jCm /je /C /’jemi /’jeni /jCn ’la:r I.am washed ‘I have washed myself’ b ’iSa /’iSE /iS /’iSem /’iSit /’iSin ’la:r I.was washed ‘I had washed myself’ a kCm ’arDu I-have come ‘I have come’ b ’kiSa ’arDu I-had come ‘I had come’ S. Benedetto Ullano (neNg) kiSna u ’yaituV (not) I.had M/R washed ‘I had (not) washed myself’

Object clitics and middle reflexives: Albanian 253 The dialect of S. Marzano is worth considering separately, in that the middlereflexive auxiliary is formed with a specialized base kw as noted by Savoia (1980) and illustrated here in (29). This base is normally combined with person endings in the present perfect in (a) as well as with past morphology in the past perfect in (b). The comparison with the present perfect and the past perfect of an active verb is provided by the examples in (4). (29) S. Marzano a u ’kwa -mme ’viSere u ’kw -E ’viSere u ’kw -a ’viSere u ’kwi -mmi ’viSere u ’kwi -nni ’viSere u ’kwa -nne ’viSere M/R have -1sg dressed.up ‘I have dressed up’ b u ’kwi -nn-a ’viSere u ’kwi -nn-E ’viSere u ’kwi -S-i ’viSere u ’kwi -S-eme ’viSere u ’kwi -S-eDe ’viSere u ’kwi -S-ene ’viSere M/R have -past-1sg dressed up ‘I had dressed up’ The second person singular of the middle-reflexive imperative is formed with the u clitic in enclisis, as object clitics generally are. In the negative imperative, u is inserted before the verb, with the exception of S. Marzano where it maintains its enclitic position, as illustrated in (30). Internally to the verb form many dialects have specialized middle-reflexive morphology for vocalic stems, such as X (Carfizzi), x (Ginestra, Portocannone), f (S. Marzano); in the dialect of S. Sofia however the middle-reflexive is lexicalized only by u, as is the case generally with consonantal stems. (30) S. Sofia d’Epiro a ’zJC u wake.up M/R ‘Wake up’ a ’vES u dress.up M/R ‘Dress up’ b mCs u z’JC /’vES not M/R wake.up/dress.up ‘Don’t wake/dress up’

254

Object clitics and middle reflexives: Albanian Carfizzi a dzi’CX u wake up- M/R M/R ‘Wake up’ a ’veS u dress.up M/R ‘Dress up’ b mis u dzi’o-X /’veS not M/R wake.up-M/R/dress.up ‘Don’t wake/dress up’ Portocannone a ’zJCx u wake.up- M/R M/R ‘Wake up’ a ’viS u dress.up M/R ‘Dress up’ b mCs u z’JC-x /’viS not M/R wake.up-M/R/dress up ‘Don’t wake/dress up’ S. Marzano a siJ’JCf u wake.up- M/R- M/R ‘Wake up’ a ’viS u dress.up- M/R ‘Dress up’ b mCse siJ’JC-f u not wake up-M/R M/R ‘Don’t wake up’ b mCse ’viS u not dress.up M/R ‘Don’t dress up’

The second plural of the middle-reflexive imperative is formed with middlereflexive verb morphology in most Arbëresh dialects and coincides in its internal structure with the second person plural of the indicative middle-reflexive. Thus the vocalic stem is followed by middle-reflexive infix such as X (Carfizzi), x (Portocannone), followed in turn by person endings specialized for the middlereflexive. The consonantal stems are followed directly by the person endings as illustrated in (31). The negative imperative consists simply in preposing the modal negation to the positive form.

Object clitics and middle reflexives: Albanian 255 (31) S. Sofia d’Epiro a (mCs) ’zJCfani (not) wake up- M/R- 2pl ‘(Don’t) wake up’ b (mCs) ’vES-ani (not) dress.up-2pl ‘(Don’t) dress up’ Carfizzi a (mis) dzi’o-X-Eni (not) wake up-M/R-2pl ‘(Don’t) wake up’ b (mis) ’veS-Eni (not) dress up-2pl ‘(Don’t) dress up’ Portocannone (mCs) ’zJCx(not) wake.up- M/R‘(Don’t) wake up’

Eni 2pl

In the dialect of S. Marzano, illustrated in (32), the second person plural of the middle-reflexive imperative is formed with u which behaves like P clitics in the active imperatives reviewed in section 1, in that it appears between the verb stem and its second plural inflection ni. The negation of the imperative by the modal negation does not lead to any reorganization of the clitic string; in this respect the middle-passive differs from the active, where mesoclisis disappears under the negation. (32) S. Marzano a (mCse) siJ’JCf(not) wake.up M/R ‘(Don’t) wake up!’ b (mCse) ’viSu(not) dress.up- M/R ‘Don’t dress up’

uni M/R 2pl ni 2pl

2.2 Middle-reflexive formations with the u clitic and with the jam auxiliary As we have already noted, the element u that appears in middle-reflexive sentences has an obvious affinity with Romance middle-reflexive clitics such as Italian si, which in turn have been widely discussed in the theoretical literature. Albanian u, like Italian si, is not only a reflexive clitic as in (33a), but also an impersonal/ passive as in (33b–c), or an element inducing unaccusativity as in (33d).

256

Object clitics and middle reflexives: Albanian

(33) S. Sofia d’Epiro a a’i u ’veS he M/R dressed ‘He dressed himself’ b u ’fje: M/R slept ‘one slept’ c a’ta u ’pan sEmbrE sE ’SkCnEn they M/R saw always that they.pass.by ‘One always sees them pass by/They are always seen to pass-by’ d ta’juri u ’tSa: dish.the M/R it.broke ‘The dish broke’ The line of thought pursued in Chapter 5 sees the unification of the different types of si as connected to the fact that following Manzini (1983, 1986), si is semantically a free variable, i.e. an indefinite in terms of the theory of Heim (1982). Given its free variable denotation, and the ability to be bound by an operator, we associate si with the Q position of the clitic string. Extending the same analysis to Albanian u, we obtain structures like (34) corresponding to the examples in (33). The interpretation of (34) involves associating the internal argument with the free variable u and fixing its value on the independently lexicalized EPP argument, as (a) and (c)–(d), or else through generic quantification, as in the impersonal in (b). In the reflexive reading in (a) agency is imputed to the argument identified with the u variable, while this is not the case in the unaccusative in (d). In the passive reading in (c) an agent (e.g. experiencer) is interpretively implied. (34) S. Sofia d’Epiro a ei D ei ai (CD) ei Q ei u I veS b

ei Q ei u I fje:

c

ei D ei ata (CD) ei Q ei u I pan

Object clitics and middle reflexives: Albanian 257 d

ei D ei tajuri (CD) ei Q ei u I tSa:

One further option for the formation of the middle-reflexive is seen in the dialect of Carfizzi. In it, the present perfect is formed by the combination of the to be auxiliary with the past participle; active present perfects are instead formed with the auxiliary to have, independently of the verbal class (transitive, intransitive, unaccusative). This mode of formation of the perfect middle-reflexive, though represented within our set of Arbëresh dialects only by Carfizzi, is the same found in the standard, as well as in many other Albanian varieties. Comparable conditions are known from other languages as well, including, for instance, Italian in (35). Thus the verb bruciare (to burn) combines with the auxiliary avere (to have) in the active present perfect, as in (35a), while the combination with the auxiliary essere (to be) is sufficient to yield an unaccusative reading as in (35b). An even closer comparison can be made with the Italian dialects of Chapter 5 (section 5) where the combination with essere is sufficient to yield a reflexive reading as well. (35) a

b

Ho bruciato la lampadina I.have burned the light bulb ‘I burned out the light bulb’ La lampadina è bruciata The light bulb is burned ‘The light bulb burned out’

Let us then consider the combination of a participle with the auxiliary to have, as in the simple structure in (36). As in English or in the Romance dialects of Chapter 6 (section 2), this auxiliary can embed verbs of all classes. When embedding a transitive verb, the internal and external argument of the auxiliary are simply identified with the internal and external argument respectively of the lexical verb. In the case of unaccusatives, the internal argument of the unaccusative will identify not only with the internal argument of the auxiliary but also with its EPP argument. Precisely on this point languages like Italian make a different lexicalization choice, since identification between the internal and the EPP argument requires the presence of the auxiliary essere ‘to be’ itself endowed with a single argumental point.

258

Object clitics and middle reflexives: Albanian

(36) Carfizzi ei I ... kCm ei I la:r/arDu The combination of a participle with jam is also possible as in the simple structure in (37), but it yields the middle-reflexive or passive reading of a transitive. In other words, the internal argument of the participle identifies with the EPP argument of jam. The passive interpretation is obtained when the variable introduced as the EPP argument of the participle receives a generic interpretation or is overtly lexicalized through a prepositional phrase introduced by pVEi (cf. the discussion of faire-par in Chapter 10). The reflexive reading corresponds to the referential identification of the internal argument of the participle with its EPP variable, whether some agency is implied (reflexive) or not (unaccusative). (37) Carfizzi ei I ... jCm ei I la:r It may be noted that the participial forms which combine both with kam in the active and jam in the middle-reflexive are uninflected; this provides a good argument in favor of the idea that despite the overwhelming pattern of Romance languages, there is no implication between to be selection and participle agreement. This conclusion is strengthened by the observation that besides the participial forms exemplified thus far, Albanian also allows for the combination of inflected, overtly agreeing participles, in particular with the auxiliary jam (I am). Examples of this type are provided in particular in Chapter 8 for the Geg dialect of Shkodër. Their reading is what is generally called an adjectival passive; in Chapter 5 we have argued that this is essentially the compositional reading of the copula–perfect participle combination in the absence of any complex predicate formation. In any event, lack of agreement in structures like (36)–(37) cannot be due to a simple morphological gap. 2.3 The middle-reflexive verb morphology: complementary distribution and co-occurrence with the u clitic Let us consider the middle-reflexive morphology exemplified above in particular with the present, as in (26). In the discussion of the internal structure of partici-

Object clitics and middle reflexives: Albanian 259 ples in Chapters 5 and 8, we suggest that the perfective morphology can be treated as an I head which takes the lexical content of the verb as its complement; we therefore find within the word a structure similar to that instantiated at the sentential level by an aspectual auxiliary embedding a lexical verb as its complement. Given the discussion of jam (I am) as a middle-reflexive auxiliary in the preceding section, it is natural to assume that the middle-reflexive morphology plays the same role word-internally as does the ‘intransitivizing’ auxiliary at the phrasal/sentential level. Thus, for instance, the middle-reflexive element f in (38) is an I head taking the verb base zJC as its complement. The stem zJC-f is then further inflected by the person ending Et. (38) S. Sofia d’Epiro ei I D ei Et N I zJC f The middle-passive and active paradigms of the present in turn are associated with different series of D inflections. It is particularly relevant to consider a verb ending in a consonant, in that it does not present the middle-passive morphology identified with an I head in (38); thus the lexicalization of the middle-reflexive is entirely carried by the D inflections themselves. For instance, for a consonantal stem such as diEk (I burn) in (39), the active lexicalizes D inflections only in the plural, through the series mi, ni, En; the middle-reflexive instead lexicalizes the series Em, E, Et, ami, ani, En already seen in (26) which overlaps with the preceding one only with respect to third person plural. Thus if we take the second person plural diJni vs. diJani the lexicalization of the active vs. middle-reflexive is carried out by the inflections -ni and -ani respectively. (39) S. Sofia d’Epiro a diJ -Em /-E /-Et /-ami burn -1sg ‘I burn’ b diEk diEk diEk diEg -mi diJ -ni diEg -En burn ‘I burn something’

/-ani

/-Eni

A comparison with other languages may be useful at this point. In a language like Italian it is only the D inflections that differentiate the present indicative from the simple past or from the present subjunctive of regular verbs, given that the

260

Object clitics and middle reflexives: Albanian

same verbal stem is employed in all cases, without additions of specialized tense or mood morphology. This specialization of D endings for certain aspectual or modal environments is not dissimilar to the specialization of certain clitic series. Thus in Italian dialects, different series of subject clitics may appear in declaratives and in interrogatives, while different series of object clitics may appear in declaratives as opposed to imperative or negative environments. Although these alternations are traditionally justified in terms of phonological proclisis or enclisis, Manzini and Savoia (2005) argue that they cannot be described by phonological rules but only by morphosyntactic principles. This leads us to conclude that D inflections, like subject clitics, can specialize for aspectual and modal environments. If other specialized morphology is absent it will be the inflections or clitics that will themselves lexicalize the aspectual/modal specifications. Remember that we treat the u morphology on a parallel with Italian si (i.e. as an argument with free variable denotation) that may be applied to generic (impersonal), reflexive, passive or unaccusative interpretation. The verb-internal middle-reflexive morphology has now been treated as analogous to an auxiliary with passivizing or reflexivizing properties. It is interesting to note that there is no necessary connection between a particular form of ‘intransitivizing’ morphology and the temporal/aspectual morphology of the verb. In fact, though most Arbëresh dialects have the sequence u kam in the perfect, Carfizzi (or the standard) have jam. Similarly, while Arbëresh dialects, and the standard, have specialized middle-reflexive verb morphology in the past imperfect, the Geg dialect of Shkodër forms the middle-reflexive by combining the active past imperfect with the u clitic, as illustrated in (40a). In (40b–b) we provide the forms of the present, middle-reflexive and active respectively, which establish the existence of a middle-reflexive verb morphology in this dialect as well. (40) Shkodër a u /E ’lP -Sa u /E ’lP -SE u /E ’lP -tE u /E ’lP -Sim u /E ’lP -Sit u /E ’lP -Sin M/R /it wash past.impf 1sg ‘I.washed myself’/‘Iwashed it’ b ’lP -h -Em /-ES /-Et /-Ena /-Eni wash M/R 1sg ‘I wash myself’ b E ’lP -j /-n /-n /-im /-ni /-in it wash 1sg ‘I wash it’

/-En

The middle-reflexive morphology and the u clitic in Albanian dialects can also combine, as happens in particular in the second person singular of the

Object clitics and middle reflexives: Albanian 261 imperative, to which we assign the structure in (41). The appearance of u in enclisis reflects the normal postverbal position of other clitics after the imperative in CI. (41) S. Marzano ep CI ei ei Q N I u siJ’JCf In the second person plural of the imperative the u clitic is present only in the dialects of S. Marzano, where it is found between the verbal stem and its inflection. The corresponding structure can take the form in (42), with the verbal stem in CI, its inflection in D of the I domain and the u clitic in the Q position of the string internal to the C domain. Interestingly the mesoclisis of u indicates that it patterns with discourse-anchored clitics such as P forms, rather than with eventanchored clitics, since the latter are constrained to appear in enclisis. We can explain this property in connection precisely with the free variable denotation of u, which allows it to be bound by quantificational elements, themselves discourse-anchored, as in the case of the generic. (42) S. Marzano ep CI ei ei Q ei N I u (C) ei siJJCf D ni In negative imperatives, we again find an asymmetry between S. Marzano and the other Arbëresh dialects under consideration. Following the analysis of negative imperatives in section 1, we assume that the modal negation is inserted in R of the CI domain, where in most dialects it subsumes the lexicalization of the modality properties of the imperatives; this is therefore inserted in I, as in (43), with the consequence that the middle-reflexive clitic precedes the verb. (43) S. Sofia d’Epiro eu R eu mCs (CI) eu Q eu u (C) eu I zJC

262

Object clitics and middle reflexives: Albanian

In the dialect of S. Marzano on the other hand, the insertion of the modal negation in R of the CI domain combines with the lexicalization of the imperative in CI. The fact that the u clitic follows the verb may then be derived by inserting u in Q of the C domain. A confirmation for this point of insertion comes from the second person plural imperative, where u appears in mesoclisis, between the verb stem and the inflection inserted in D of the sentential I domain as in (44). It remains to be explained why mesoclisis is observed with u, while P clitics (which pattern with u in positive imperatives) appear between the negation and the verb in negative imperatives. (44) S. Marzano eu R eu eu mCs CI siJJCf Q eu u (C) eu D ni In order to explain the position of discourse-anchored clitics in practice P clitics in section 1, we proposed that in the presence of modal forms of the verb or of the modal negation, they appear in the relevant modal domains. Essentially the same holds true for the u clitic, which as we saw above shares in this respect the basic behavior of P, rather than of event-anchored elements. On the other hand, the u clitic does not shift from its position in the immediate domain of the imperative in the presence of a negation. One way to express this restriction is that u also shares with the accusative-dative series some properties of eventanchoring, as seen in the fact that its presence affects the argumental structure of the verb. This explains why it never raises to modal domains of elements other than the verb, such as the negation. In auxiliary and participle constructions, the behavior of u in Arbëresh dialects is generally parallel to that observed for other clitics in section 1.4. Thus in most dialects the u clitic appears in front of the auxiliary, corresponding to the fact that the latter is in I. In a dialect like S. Benedetto on the other hand, the u clitic appears in enclisis after the auxiliary, corresponding to the positioning of the auxiliary in C as in (45). This alternation between enclisis and proclisis in Arbëresh dialects is an important confirmation of our idea that u is an ordinary clitic. (45) S. Benedetto eu R eu neNg C eu kiSna Q u

Object clitics and middle reflexives: Albanian 263 The interesting point about the dialect of S. Marzano is that again there appears to be a double lexicalization of the middle-reflexive properties, both by the clitic u and by the specialized auxiliary base kw-, normally followed by a D inflection as in (46). In this case the specialization for the middle-reflexive is not carried by the lexical verb but by the auxiliary. (46) S. Marzano ei I D kui mmi

8

‘Participle’ and ‘infinitive’ in Geg dialects

As is well known, Albanian lacks a morphological infinitive. Thus where English or Romance employ an infinitive, standard Albanian and other Tosk dialects have recourse to të followed by the finite verb, as we shall see in Chapter 9. Geg varieties such as the one of Shkodër can employ the preposition mE (with) followed by a form of the verb which also occurs as a participle, giving rise to the so-called paskajore. In this chapter we account for this construct starting with a morphological analysis of the participial forms found in the Shkodër variety. One form consists of a verbal root inflected by a thematic vowel and by a perfective suffix; the agreement properties of this participle are overtly marked both by a suffix and by a preposed article. Fully inflected forms of the participle show the same agreement pattern as Romance perfect participles, in that the referential properties of the agreement morpheme are associated with the internal argument. The invariable participial form which appears in the paskajore reduces instead to the verbal stem, consisting of the verb base followed by the thematic vowel. Our account allows us to explain the emergence of verbal stems without a specialized inflection as lexicalizations for other forms of the paradigm, such as the third person singular of the perfect middle-passive, the second/third person singular of the present indicative or, in other dialects, the second person singular of the imperative. We do not take these to be accidental coincidences, but rather to correspond to the aspectual and modal properties of the bare stems. In the paskajore, the invariable verb form may be immediately preceded by the normal sequence of argumental clitics; all other functional material, including the modal negation, topics, foci (wh-phrases) and complementizers, appears before mE. We take the mE element of the paskajore construct and the mE element that enters ordinary prepositional phrases to have a single lexical entry, as a transitive preposition or as an intransive adverbial-like element. The latter appears in the paskajore, inserted in a nominal position of the C domain, specifically in the D position where, like the te particle (Chapter 9), it determines the control properties of the construction.

‘Participle’ and ‘infinitive’ in Geg dialects 265

1 The ‘infinitive’ Albanian lacks a specialized infinitive inflection of the type familiar from Romance languages. Thus in contexts such as control ones where the bestknown Romance languages insert an infinitive, standard Albanian lexicalizes a finite form of the verb introduced by the so-called subjunctive particle të (Chapter 9). Geg varieties are characterized instead by the syntactic construct traditionally described as paskajore (Cordignano 1931; Demiraj 1985, 1997; Banfi 1985; Joseph 1993; Pellegrini 1995) formed by the preposition mE (with) followed by an invariable participial form, as illustrated for Shkodër in (1). (1)

Shkodër mE ’P:VD to come

This construct presents various areas of interest, starting with the categorization of the elements that enter into it, namely mE and the verb. Indeed, it is only natural to assume that the syntactic behavior of the construct as a whole depends on its internal structure and ultimately on the internal (inflectional) structure of the verb. 1.1 Preposition–invariable verb form The elements that can introduce the invariable verb form of the paskajore include, beside mE, the elements pP (without) and tu(i), the latter yielding a gerund interpretation. Example (2) shows that mE and pP are in complementary distribution. (2)

Shkodër ’dola pP u la: I.went.out without M/R wash ‘I went out without washing’

Gerunds formed with the particle tu(i) can be embedded under the copula jam, giving rise to the progressive as in (3a–b), or under perception verbs as in (3c). (3)

Shkodër a jam tu E ’lP/ ’tSu/ m’lu/ ’ve:S/ ’pVe I.am Prt him-her wash/ wake.up/ cover/ dress/ cut ‘I am washing/waking up/covering/dressing/cutting him/her’ b jam tu j a ’TP˜ :n I.am Prt to.him it say ‘I am saying it to him’ c t kam ’pP tui ka’lu you I.have seen Prt pass.by ‘I saw you pass by’

266

‘Participle’ and ‘infinitive’ in Geg dialects

That mE e pP are (also) prepositions is illustrated by examples like those in (4). (4)

Shkodër a E kam bP˜ mE ’kry:p it I.have made with salt ‘I made it with salt’ b E kam bP˜ pP ’kry:p it I.have made without salt ‘I made it without salt’

In constructs where the invariable participle is introduced by a preposition, clitics are inserted between the two, as in (5); the same is true of the examples in (2)–(3). (5)

Shkodër kam ’P:VD mE t a I.have come to to.you it ‘I came to give it to you’

DP˜ :n give

The modal negation mas, which precedes mE as in (6a), and follows tu as in (6b), differs from the negation that occurs in declarative non-modal sentences, namely nuk or s as in (6d), and coincides with the negation co-occurring with the imperative as in (6c). (6)

Shkodër a ASt mA miV mas mE E S’kVu it.is more good not to it write ‘It is better not to write it’ b tu mas E ’bA˜ . . . Prt not it do ‘Not doing it . . .’ c mas E ’Tir not him call ‘Don’call him!’ d s/nuk E ’dZEi not it I.find ‘I am not finding him’

1.2 The participle The invariable verbal form that combines with the prepositions mE/pP also appears in combination with the auxiliaries kam (I have) e jam (I am), in contexts which in more familiar languages like English require a participle. In particular together with kam it forms the present perfect active, as in (7a), while with jam it forms the present perfect middle-reflexive/passive, as in (7b)–(7c).

‘Participle’ and ‘infinitive’ in Geg dialects 267 (7)

Shkodër a E kan m’lu him/her they.have covered ‘They have covered him/her’ b jan m’lu (pVEi ’s Pms) they.are covered (by gen mother) ‘They have covered up/They have been covered (by mother)’ c ASt ’ve:S (pVEi ’s Pms) he.is dressed (by gen mother) ‘He has dressed/He has been dressed (by mother)’

Indeed, the invariable verb form in (7) is normally treated as a participle (Cordignano 1931; Demiraj 1985, 1997), even though, as we shall see more in detail in section 2, the dialect of Shkodër also possesses a specialized participle. This is formed with the -un, -m suffix and with agreement morphology, and occurs in combination with jam in passives of the type in (8). A partial morphological overlapping between the inflected and the invariable participles appears at least in the verbal class of mlai (I cover) in (8) or kalai (I pass) in (3b), since both the invariable and the inflected participles are formed with the same thematic vowel -u. (8)

Shkodër jam i m’lu:m I.am m.sg. covered ‘I am covered’

Tosk dialects (including the standard) provide an interesting comparison with the Geg dialects considered thus far, as may be seen by Gjirokastër in (9). On the one hand they distinguish non-agreeing participles, which receive a perfective reading both active as in (9a) and middle as in (9b), (9b), from agreeing participles which receive a passive or adjectival reading as in (9c), (9c). On the other hand, the non-agreeing participle has a specialized inflection, namely -V, with respect to which it crucially differs from the invariable participle of Geg. (9)

Gjirokastër a E kam z’JuaV him-her I.have woken.up ‘I have woken him/her up’ b jam z’JuaV I.am woken.up ‘I have woken up’ b jan ’vESuV they.are dressed.up ‘They have dressed up’

268

‘Participle’ and ‘infinitive’ in Geg dialects c

c

jan te z’JuaV/ z’JuaVa they.are pl. woken.up-m./ woken.up-f. ‘They are woken up/awake’ jan te ’vESuV/’vESuVa they.are pl. dressed.up-m./dressed-up-f. ‘They are dressed up’

In Tosk dialects the invariable participles may furthermore be preceded by the gerund particle (dukE, tuVE/tuVa) or by prepositional elements including pa (without) e pri ma (lit: for with). This is exemplified in (10) with Gjirokastër and with Arbëresh dialects (Altimari 1994; Turano 1999), where we find the same form of the participle with -V morphology which appears in combination with the auxiliary jam/kam in (9). Note that in Gjirokastër’s (10b) the sequence pP–invariable participle is preceded by the determiner agreeing overtly with the subject of the main verb. Example (c) of S. Basile attests to the existence of ma (with) followed by the (inflected) participle at least in purpose constructions introduced by the pVi (for) preposition. (10) Gjirokastër a te ’patS dukE u ’lar you I.saw Prt M/R wash ‘I saw you wash’ b ’dCla pa E lar I.went.out without it wash ‘I went out without washing it’ b kam ’dale i pa N’gVenuV I.have gone.out msg without eaten ‘I left without eating’ Firmo a tuVE bAnuV ks’tu Prt do so ‘Doing so . . .’ a tuVE E ser’ritur Prt him/her called ‘Calling him/her . . .’ S. Basile a tuVa i ’yaituV S’kava Prt them wash I slipped ‘Washing them, I slipped’ b dul pa u ’yaV/’yaituV he.went.out without M/R wash ‘He went out without washing’

‘Participle’ and ‘infinitive’ in Geg dialects 269 c

ASt pVi ma ’bCn it.is for with do ‘It is to be done’

Barile a (mCs) tra N’gren ria ’mir (Neg) Prt eaten you.feel better ‘Eating, you’ll feel better’ a tra ’Tritur ’vin Prt called he.comes ‘Calling, he comes’ Piana degli Albanesi a tuE z’glEDuV Prt read ‘Reading . . .’ b ’dCra pa N’gVen/ ’laituV I.went.out without eat/ wash(M/R) ‘I went out without eating/washing’

2 Morphological properties of the invariable and inflected participles Let us consider the morphological properties of the invariable participle in the Shkodër dialect. Remember that this is the form that follows mE/pP/tu in the socalled paskajore, as well as combining with the auxiliaries jam and kam in the perfect and middle. The morphology varies according to verbal class (Camaj 1984; Solano 1988). Specifically, verbal bases in -a and -C- present a final -u vowel, as in (11i), while with verbal bases in -E, -P, -i the participle maintains the same vowel that also appears in finite forms of the paradigm as in (11ii)–(11iv). With verbal bases ending in a consonant the participle is formed without a thematic vowel, as shown in (11v)–(11viii). In (a) we provide examples of the paskajore, while in (b)–(c) we display auxiliary contexts. Similar facts are reported by Hoxha (1990) for other Geg varieties. (11) Shkodër viii a i kam ’TP˜ :n m u m’lu to.him I.have said to M/R cover ‘I told him to cover up’ b E/i kam m’lu him-her/them I.have covered ‘I have covered him/her up’ c ASt m’lu s/he.is covered ‘S/he has covered up’

270

‘Participle’ and ‘infinitive’ in Geg dialects viii a

b

c

viii a

b

c

iiiv a

b

c

iiiv a

b

c

iivi a

b

c

du mE E ’lP I.want to him/her wash ‘I want to wash him/her’ E kam ’lP him/her I.have washed ‘I have washed him/her’ ASt ’lP s/he.is washed ‘S/he has washed’ duhEt mE E ’zi it.is.necessary to it cook ‘It is necessary to cook it’ E kP ’zi it s/he.has cooked ‘S/he has cooked it’ ASt ’zi it.is cooked ‘It has cooked’ t kam ’TP˜ :n mE E ’pVe to.you I.have said to it cut ‘I told you to cut it’ E kam ’pVe it I.have cut ‘I have cut it’ jam ’pVe I.am cut ‘I have cut myself’ t kam ’TP˜ :n mE E ’ve:S to.you I.have said to him/her dress ‘I told you to dress him/her’ E kam ’ve:S him-her I.have dressed ‘I have dressed him/her’ ASt ’ve:S s/he.is dressed ‘S/he has dressed’ du mE E ’la:g I.want to him/her wet ‘I want to wet him/her’ E kam ’la:g him/her I.have wetted ‘I have wetted him/her’ ASt ’la:g s/he.is wetted ‘S/he has wetted him/herself’

‘Participle’ and ‘infinitive’ in Geg dialects 271 ivii a

b

c

viii a

b

c

t kam ’TP˜ :n mas mE u ’lo:D to.you I.have said not to M/R tire ‘I told you not to tire yourself’ E kam ’lo:D him-her I.have tired ‘I have tired him/her’ jam ’lo:D I.am tired ‘I have tired myself’ t kam ’TP˜ :n mE E ’kVe:h to.you I.have said to him/her comb ‘I told you to comb him/her’ E kam ’kre:h him/her I.have combed ‘I have combed him/her’ ASt ’kre:h s/he.is combed ‘S/he has combed him/herself’

Some verbal subclasses have invariable participle forms characterized by specialized inflections such as -n in the case of jap (I give) in (12a), or -t in the case of mPi (I keep) in (12b). (12) Shkodër a doin mE j a ’DP˜ :n they.want to to.him it give ‘They want to give it to him’ a j a kan ’DP˜ :n to.him it they.have given ‘They have given it to him’ b du mE E ’mPit I.want to it keep ‘I want to keep it’ b E kan ’mPit it they.have kept ‘They have kept it’ As we have already seen, the Shkodër dialect also has an inflected participle, which is excluded from the paskajore but allowed in auxiliary contexts. For this participle we find two morphological patterns. Stems ending in a vowel combine with an -m suffix, as in (13a), while stems ending in consonant take -un, as in (13b). What is more the -un ending can follow the -m morphology, giving rise to forms in which the participial ending is doubled, as in (13a). In turn, participial forms such as DP˜:n and mPit in (12) take the -un inflection, as shown in (13c–d). All of the participial forms in (13) present a prenominal and a postnominal

272

‘Participle’ and ‘infinitive’ in Geg dialects

article/inflection; this is also the agreement morphology of the adjective, and of the nominal subclass of kinship terms. In the nominative, relevant for the examples in (13), the proclitic particle is i for the masculine singular, E for the feminine singular, and t for the plural. The postverbal inflections include -E for the feminine (singular and plural) of the forms in -m and -a for the feminine plural of the forms in -un. The combination of the inflected participle with the jam (I am) auxiliary gives rise to a passive interpretation, allowing for the lexicalization of the agent through the preposition pVEi (by). (13) Shkodër a jam i m’lu:-m/ E m’lu-m-E (pVEi ’s Pms) I.am m.sg cover-ed/ f.sg cover-ed-f. (by gen mother) ‘I am covered up (by my mother)’ a jan t m’lu:-m/ t m’lu-m-E (pVEi ’s Pms) they.are pl cover-ed/ pl cover-ed-f. (by gen mother) ‘They are covered up (by their mother)’ a ASt i m’lu-m-un he.is m.sg cover-ed-ed ‘He is covered up’ b ASt i ’veS-un/ E ’veS-un (pVEi ’s Pms) s/he.is m.sg dress-ed/ f.sg dress-ed (by gen mother) ‘S/he is dressed up (by his/her mother)’ b jena t ’veS-un/ t ’veS-un-a (pVEi ’s Pms) we.are pl dress-ed/ pl dress-ed-pl (by gen mother) ‘We are dressed up (by our mother)’ c ASt i/ E ’mPit-un it.is m.sg/ f.sg kep-t ‘It is kept’ c jan te ’mPit-un/ ’mPit-un-a they.are pl. kept-ED/ kept-ed-f. ‘They are kept’ d ASt i/ E ’DP˜ n-un (peV stu’dim) s/he.is m.sg/ f.sg given-ed (to study) ‘S/he is given to study’ The inflectional structure of the participle in (13) is the same found with (nominative) adjectives in (14). In particular i, E, t are the prenominal articles in the masculine singular, feminine singular and plural respectively; the E, a inflections characterize the feminine (a only in the plural), in different nominal classes. (14) Shkodër a ASt i it.is m.sg ‘It is red’

’kutS/ E ’kutS-E red/ f.sg red-f.

‘Participle’ and ‘infinitive’ in Geg dialects 273 ASt i ’Pmel/ E it.is m.sg sweet/ f.sg ‘it is sweet’ b jan t ’kutS/ t they.are pl red/ pl ‘They are red’ b jan ’t Pmel/ ’t they.are pl sweet/ pl ‘They are sweet’ a

’Pmel sweet ’kutS-E red-f Pml-a sweet-f

A similar inflectional structure also characterizes a subset of nouns, namely kinship terms illustrated (in the nominative) in (14). The system of prenominal articles is exactly the same as for the adjectives in (14). However, the definite reference of the noun means that its inflectional structure records definiteness properties as well. Thus in the masculine singular we find the definite postnominal ‘article’ i; and similarly in the plural t is instantiated postnominally as well as prenominally. The feminine inflection E (i prevocalically) is lexicalized between the nominal stem and the postnominal definite article a in the singular and t in the plural. (14) Shkodër a i ’biV-i/ t biV-t the son-the/ the sons-the ‘The son(s)’ b E ’SotS-i-a/ t ’SotS-E-t the wife-f-the/ the wife-f-the ‘The wifes/wives’ As we have seen, the examples in (13) show constructions where the inflected participle follows the jam (I am) auxiliary, giving rise to a passive reading. A passive reading is also possible in contexts where these participles follow the kam (I have) auxiliary, as in (15). In this case the participle has accusative morphology, consisting of a preverbal t particle independent of number and gender, which alternates with E for the feminine singular. (15) Shkodër a E kam t m’lu:m/ him/her I.have acc cover-ed/ ‘I have him/her covered’ b E kam t veS-un him I.have acc dress-ed ‘I have him dressed’ c i kam k’miSa-t E/t them I.have shirt-s f.pl/acc ‘I have the shirts washed’

E/t m’lu-m-E f.pl/acc cover-ed-f

’lP-m-E wash-ed-f

274

‘Participle’ and ‘infinitive’ in Geg dialects

That t is the prenominal article morphology for accusatives is shown by the comparison with the kinship term in (16). (16) Shkodër pP t ’mCtV-En I.saw the.acc sister-the.acc ‘I saw (my) sister’ Yet another type of inflected participle appears as a complement of aspectual verbs such as to finish in (17). The comparison between the participial forms in (17a–b) and in (17c) shows that verbal bases ending in vowel combine with an -m ending eventually doubled by -un, while verbal bases in consonants take the -n suffix. As also discussed in relation to the Tosk counterparts of this construction in Chapter 9, the agreement paradigm is of a type independently known in Albanian for nominalized adjectives and kinship terms. In particular, the it ending of the definite paradigm is typical of these two other subclasses as well, while it does not appear in other nominal (and adjectival) paradigms. The proclitic articles s or t are independently attested for the genitive, t in particular for the neuter. (17) Shkodër a ma’VCva s S’kVu-m-it I.finished gen write-ed-def ‘I finished writing’ a E ma’VCva s/t S’kVu-m-un-it ’lEtV-En it I.finished gen/acc write-ed-ed-def letter-the ‘I finished writing the letter’ b ma’VCi s ’lP-m-un-it I.finish gen wash-ed-ed-def ‘I finish (the) washing’ c ma’VCva t hP˜ NeV-n-it I.finished acc eat-ed-def ‘I finished (the) eating’

3 The mEE–participle construction It is known from the literature (Joseph 1983; Banfi 1985; Demiraj 1985, 1997) that the construct formed by the mE/pP preposition and the invariable participle has a distribution corresponding to that of the infinitive or the subjunctive in Romance languages. If we compare Geg with Tosk varieties (the latter including the standard), we note that the paskajore has roughly the same distribution as the so-called subjunctive consisting of the të particle followed by a finite verb (Chapter 9). Thus the mE–participle structure occurs in control contexts with modals as in (18i), with causatives as in (18ii), with aspectuals as in (18iii), in other complementation contexts as in (18iv), as well as in adverbial sentences as in (18v). Some of the sen-

‘Participle’ and ‘infinitive’ in Geg dialects 275 tences show that mE may in turn be introduced by the finite complementizers tSi or sE; in adverbial sentences mE may be preceded by other prepositions such as peV. As we have already seen in section 1, the modal negation mas precedes mE; on the other hand, it follows other prepositions and complementizers. (18) Shkodër iii a s ’munEm mE E ’bP˜ not I.can to it do ‘I can’t do it’ b ’doin mE E ’bP˜ they.want to it do ‘They want to do it’ c na ’kena mE t ’Ti:r we have to you call ‘We shall call you’ iii E kam ’bP˜ m u ’tSu him I.have made to M/R wake.up ‘I made him wake up’ iii a mu’nChEn mE E ’bP˜ they.try to it do ‘They try to do it’ b kam fi’lu mE ’hP˜ NeV I.have begun to eat ‘I have begun to eat’ iv a i kan ’TP˜ :n (tSi) (mas) mE ’P:VD to.him they.have said that not to come ‘They told him (not) to come’ b i kan ’TP˜ :n (tSi) (mas) mE E ’bP˜ to.him they.have said that not to it do ‘They told him (not) to do it’ c i kan ’TP˜ :n (mas) m u ’lP to.him they.have said not to M/R wash ‘They told him (not) to wash’ d jam i g’zu:m mE t ’pP ’mi:V I.am m.sg glad to you see well ‘I am glad to see you well’ iv a kam ’P:VD (tSi) mE E ’pP I.have come that to him-her see ‘I came to see him/her’ b kam ’P:VD mE t a ’DP˜ :n I.have come to to.you it give ‘I came to give it to you’ c kam ’i:k peV mas mE E/t ’pP I.have left for not to him-her/you see ‘I left to see him/her/you’

276

‘Participle’ and ‘infinitive’ in Geg dialects d

kam ’dP:l paVa sE mE S’ku I.have gone.out before that to go ‘I went out before going (there)’

Furthermore, the mE–participle construction is found in infinitival questions, where it is introduced by a wh-phrase as in (19i), and in hypotheticals, where it is introduced by bP˜ as in (19ii). A wh-phrase also introduces free relatives of the type in (19iii), where the sequence mE–participle is further preceded by bP˜. Infinitival questions may in turn be preceded by the finite complementizer sE. (19) Shkodër iii a nuk ’di (sE) tSa mE ’bP˜ not I.know that what to do ‘I don’t know what to do’ b nuk E ’di si mE i Ti:r not it I.know how to them call ‘I don’t know how to call them’ c s ’di a mE E Ti:r not I.know whether to him-her call ‘I don’t know whether to call him/her’ iii bP˜ (mas) mE ’P:VD (s) t ’pVEs if not to come you I.await ‘If you (don’t) come, I am (not) waiting for you’ iii m ’bP˜ hEt tSifi dZiT kuS bP˜ mE ’P:VD to.me does pleasure every who if to come ‘Whoever comes pleases me’ Finally, the paskajore can occur in non-embedded contexts as in (20). (20) Shkodër mE ’P:VD to come ‘If he came!’ When a finite complementizer is present, a lexical subject can insert between the complementizer and the paskajore as illustrated in (21i); the other possible position for the subject is postverbal as in (21ii). (21) Shkodër ii a du tSi ’vla-i ’jat mE E ’bP˜ I.want that brother-the yours to it do ‘I want your brother to do it’ b doin tSi a’ta mE ’P:VD they.want that they to come ‘They want to come’

‘Participle’ and ‘infinitive’ in Geg dialects 277 c

ii

a

b

E miVa ’ASt tSi (ju) mE E ’bP˜ Art good it.is that you.pl to it do ‘It is well for you to do it’ doin (tSi) mE P:VD a’ta they.want that to come they ‘They want to come’ kam ’dP:l paVa sE mE P:VD ’ti I.have gone.out before that to come you ‘I went out before you came’

The complementizers tSi/sE in finite sentences are illustrated in (22), where (22i) in particular shows embedded declaratives. On the other hand, as discussed by Turano (1995) for Tosk varieties (including the standard and Arbëreshe dialects), in Albanian it is possible to have a wh-phrase embedded under the finite complementizer sE; this state of affairs, already exemplified with the paskajore, is found in finite sentences as well as in (22ii). The examples such as (22ii) show that the lexical subject precedes the wh-phrase. Finally the tSi complementizer introduces finite relatives as in (22iii). On the other hand, while the wh-word for what has the same tS base as the complementizer, the two do not overlap. As shown in (22ii), the full form for ‘what’ is tSa. (22) Shkodër iii a m kan ’TP˜ :n tSi/sE (s) ’vjEn ’neseV to.me they.have said that not s/he.comes tomorrow ‘They told me that s/he comes/doesn’t come tomorrow’ b munEt tSi ai ’vjEn it.is.possible that he comes ‘It is possible that he comes’ c m kan ’TP˜ :n tSi vla-i jP:t kP ’P:VD to.me they.have said that brother-the yours has come ‘They told me that your brother came’ iii a nuk E ’di sE kuS ’Tirri not it I.know that who called ‘I don’t know who called’ b nuk E ’di sE kE kPn Ti:r a’ta not it I.know that who have called they ‘I don’t know who they called’ c nuk E ’di ata si ’TirrEn not it I.know they how are.called ‘I don’t know how they are called’ d tSa je tu ’ba what you.are Prt do ‘What are you doing?’ e tS ’faV kmiSE-t ’dCn what kind shirt-gen you.want ‘what kind of shirt do you want?’

278 ‘Participle’ and ‘infinitive’ in Geg dialects iii ASt a’i tSi m ’TrEt is he who me calls ‘He is the one who calls me’

4 Morphological analysis The data presented above admit of a natural analysis within the model developed in the previous chapters for Romance dialects. In particular, the unification of syntax and morphology proposed here leads us to the conclusion that the verb’s agreement inflection has the same status within the verb as the pronominal subject has within the sentence (Chapter 1). Specifically we assume that both the subject and the verb agreement project a categorial property D(efiniteness). The difference between them is simply that the verb inflection, for instance, -in in (24a), is inserted in a word-internal D position; the lexical base kVeh- occupies in turn the I position. In the sentential structure in (24b) the inflected verb as a whole occupies the I position, where it is followed by the pronominal subject in D. (24) Shkodër a ’kreh-in comb-3pl ‘They comb’ a

ei I D kVeh in

b

’kreh-in a’to comb-3pl they ‘They comb’

b ei I ei kVehin D ato We furthermore extend our unification of the morphological and syntactic levels of analysis to the structure of the noun and the noun phrase as well, and of the adjective and the adjectival phrase. Thus the internal structure of a noun or adjective is formed by a lexical base I followed by an inflection, as illustrated in (25a) for one of the adjectives in (14). Within adjectives and nouns such as those in (25) we associate the agreement inflection to the category N, which in the approach of Chapter 1 corresponds to the internal argument. The different categorization reflects the different denotations of the two types of elements; indeed in Albanian as in Romance only the D inflection may be associated with first and second person denotation, while only the N

‘Participle’ and ‘infinitive’ in Geg dialects 279 inflection has nominal class (gender) properties. The article that precedes both the noun and the adjective can be treated, as in standard analyses of the noun phrase, as a D element, giving rise to structures like (25b). The agreement between the article in D and the inflection of the noun in N takes us back to the basic structure of passives and other unaccusatives considered in Chapter 5, where the N argument of the past participle agrees with the D subject of the auxiliary. Thus the structure of nominals is intrinsically unaccusative in the current model. (25) Shkodër a ei I N kutS E b

ei D ei E I kutSE

4.1 Participial inflections We extend the morphosyntactic model proposed in this book to the participles of Geg dialects, beginning with the superficially more complex inflected participles. As we saw, bases ending in a vowel have participles in -Vm, for instance, -um in mlu:m, while verbal bases ending in consonant form the participle with a suffix -un. The vowel -u, -i, -a, and so on appears independently of the presence of further inflectional material in invariable participles of the type mlu, zi, lP, pVe in (11). We associate this vocalic element, traditionally a thematic vowel, with the N position as in (16), as we did in Chapter 5 for the thematic vowel of Italian participles. (26) Shkodër ei I N ml u In turn the invariable participle of verbal bases ending in consonants is characterized by a long stressed nucleus, as in ve:S, contrasting with the pure verbal base veS which has a short stressed nucleus (cf. Beci (1979, 1984) on long vowels in Geg). An analysis of invariable participles such as ve:S is suggested precisely by the comparison with participles of the type of mlu in (26), where the specialized thematic vowel is an N constituent internal to the verb. We can extend this analysis to participles of the type of ve:S by assuming that the latter is a specialized lexical item, inclusive of an N denotation. The pure verbal base veS is deprived of such properties.

280

‘Participle’ and ‘infinitive’ in Geg dialects

As we saw, the inflected participle presents the same agreement morphology as nouns and adjectives (Turano and Rokaj 2000; Turano 2001). Specifically, participial agreement morphology includes the inflections E, a and the preparticipial articles i, E, t. These elements represent so many independent lexical heads as schematized in (27). In particular i, E, a are associated with nominal class denotations (i.e. what is traditionally called gender), while t is associated with quantificational (i.e. plural) denotation. It is also worth recalling that the proclitic element varies according to case. Thus the i, E, t series is found where the participle agrees with the nominative subject of an auxiliary, while in contexts where the participle agrees with an accusative, it is preceded by t in all cases, as in (15). (27) Shkodër a [I i] b [I E] c [I a] d [I t] The -m morphology that combines with bases in vowel, as well as the -un morphology of consonantal bases, may be analyzed as bearers of the aspectual, specifically perfective, denotation attaching to the participle as a whole. Extending once again the treatment proposed in Chapter 5 for Romance, the -m and -n inflections are I head as in (28), which take as their complement the verbal base augmented by the thematic vowel. While the mlu- subconstituent in (28a) coincides with the invariable participle, the -u that combines with a consonantal base like the one in (28b) is bound to the aspectual morphology -un. The analysis of (28) implies that the aspectual element takes as its complement not the pure lexical base, but rather the lexical base inclusive of an N element, i.e. -u. The E, a agreement inflections are in turn associated with a higher N position internal to the participle. The pre-participial article is assigned to the D position, where it closes off the structure of the participial phrase, as it would that of an adjective or noun. (28) Shkodër a

ep D ei E I ei I N ei E N I ei m I N ml u

‘Participle’ and ‘infinitive’ in Geg dialects 281 b

ep D ei t I ei I N ei a N I ei n I N veS u

We note that the so-called thematic vowel (i.e. the N argument found in invariable participles such as mlu in (26), and again embedded as the deepest layer in the structure in (28)) does not vary according to the agreement properties of the participle (i.e. effectively to the reference of its internal argument), as is instead the case with the higher N inflections -a/-E in (28). The -a/-E elements are therefore agreement morphemes in the traditional sense of the term, lexicalizing the nominal class and/or the plurality of the internal argument of the participle. On the other hand, the treatment of the so-called thematic vowel in (26) as an N element corresponds to a type of invariable nominal inflection of the participle that in the terms of Chapter 5 corresponds to the N inflection lexicalizing reference to an indefinite variable, whose value is fixed by the internal argument of the sentence. The same treatment is proposed in Chapter 2 for non-agreeing (third person singular) D inflections of the finite verb. Next, in (17) we saw that there are nominalizations, characterized by -m, -n participial inflections, that are embedded as arguments of a lexical verb. These nominalized participles are preceded by a proclitic s or t, which introduces a genitive. They furthermore include the -it definite inflection. In the structure in (29) we identify the aspectual morphology -n/-m with the I head of the participle; the lexical base, eventually enlarged by the thematic vowel -u as in (29b), represents the N complement of this I head preceding it. In turn -it may be treated as the N argument of the subconstituents hP˜ NeVn- e shkrum- formed in the way described above. It is this N constituent that determines the overall nominal status of the participial formation. In accordance with the above discussion, the proclitic particles t and s are treated as D elements closing off the participial nominalization. We believe that the appearance of genitive t or s corresponds to insertion of the participial phrase in the N complement position of the main verb. In support of this analysis we observe that genitive in Romance language corresponds to a ne clitic, which typically inserts in N (Chapters 3–4).

282

‘Participle’ and ‘infinitive’ in Geg dialects

(29) Shkodër a ep D ei t I ei I N ei it N I hP˜ NeV n b

ep D ei s I ei I N ei it N I ei m I N shkr u

Finally, comparison between the Geg dialect of Shkodër considered thus far and the data concerning Tosk dialects such as Gjirokastër in (9)–(10) shows that in the latter the participle is associated in all cases with a specialized aspectual inflection, namely -(V)V, which we analyze as the combination of a thematic vowel with the aspectual head V, as illustrated in (30a) for bases ending in a vowel and in (30b) for bases ending in a consonant. As in the dialect of Shkodër, in the dialect of Gjirokastër it is a form of the participle lacking agreement inflections, as in (30a–b), that normally appears in perfect constructions together with the auxiliaries kam (I have) and jam (I am). Participles endowed with inflections agreeing with an argument of the sentence only appear in adjectival/passive contexts; the relevant inflections can of course be analyzed exactly as in their Geg counterparts as indicated in (30c). (30) Gjirokastër a ei N I ei V I N zJ ua b

ei N I ei V I N veS u

‘Participle’ and ‘infinitive’ in Geg dialects 283 c

ep D ei te I ei I N ei a N I ei V I N veS u

4.2 The invariable participles of vocalic bases On the basis of the above discussion, in Geg dialects only inflected participles are associated with a specialized aspectual inflection as in (28). As a consequence, the contexts in which they appear are specifically participial, i.e. copular and passive sentences. By contrast the verbal forms for which we have used the descriptive label of invariable participles correspond to simple verbal bases, including an invariable N inflection, in the form of a thematic vowel or of a specialized long nucleus in the verbal base, as discussed in relation to (26). These verbal bases of the Shkodër dialect have a perfective (i.e. aspectual) value in contexts where they follow the auxiliary, while in constructs introduced by mE they lexicalize the irrealis modality corresponding in other languages to the morphological infinitive. The connection between modality and verbal tense and aspect is independently known from the descriptive and theoretical literature. Thus Iatridou (2000) takes into consideration the fact that the imperfective past of Greek also expresses counterfactuality. Iatridou (2000) is able to elegantly explain the occurrence of the past morphology in both past (temporal) and counterfactual (modal) contexts as a scopal difference. When it ranges over temporal variables it implies that the event time excludes the utterance time, i.e. the time of the speaker; when it ranges over possible worlds it implies that the event world excludes the speaker’s world, i.e. the actual world. Despite this, Iatridou (2000) treats the imperfectivity of the past form implied in counterfactuality essentially as a default. Indeed, she assumes that when the temporal morphology does not connect to the utterance time, then it can only be imperfective. In so doing Iatridou (2000) has a claim to explaining the generic use of imperfectives (where the past acts as a modifier of the whole generic sentence rather than of the event); however, she explicitly leaves aside the progressive and habitual readings of imperfectives. In terms of the theory developed by Manzini and Savoia (2005), the connection between the two traditional notions of mood and aspect is established through a scopal mechanism as well. Thus we assume that the progressive and habitual readings of the imperfective depend on an indefinite quantification over events. We can articulate this proposal further by adopting a semantics like the one proposed for Italian (past) imperfectives by Bonomi (1997), according to

284

‘Participle’ and ‘infinitive’ in Geg dialects

which the (past) imperfective morphology introduces a universal or generic quantification over events. In Bonomi’s (1997) terms the past perfective introduces instead an existential quantification; this is compatible with the indefinite/ definite divide suggested by Manzini and Savoia (2005) to characterize the imperfective/perfective opposition, since existentials lend themselves to a specific reading. Although Bonomi (1997) does not extend his treatment to imperfectives in modal contexts, we may take it that the same universal quantification over possible worlds can yield hypotheticals (of the irrealis type) explaining the appearance of imperfective in them. In the Shkodër dialect under consideration aspectual and modal properties are not attached to some shared morphology, but rather are conveyed by the pure verbal stem consisting of the verbal base and of a thematic vowel. The analysis we have provided for the latter excludes the fact that it may be considered to be an aspectual-modal suffix; rather the thematic vowel provides a low-level lexicalization of the internal argument of the predicate; in effect it produces an ‘ergative’, nominal version of the lexical predicate. We may speculate that precisely this nominal character of the verbal stem makes it perfective, on the assumption that (typical) nouns are stative predicates denoting properties. As for the infinitival interpretation, this will have to depend on an inferential process at the interpretive interface introducing a quantification over possible worlds, corresponding to the irrealis reading. The participle/infinitive is furthermore compatible with the progressive reading, found in combination with the particle tu. This again will depend on an interpretive process introducing a quantification, in this case over event stages/subevents effected by the overt tu element. In all cases the bare stem is not so much lexicalizing these meanings, but rather proves compatible with them due to the very elementarity of its morphology. It is interesting to compare the situation just described with that of the Tosk dialects in (9)–(10) characterized by a -VV participle. In the above discussion we have characterized -VV as a specifically aspectual morphology. Indeed arguably all of the contexts where the relevant forms appear are aspectual, ranging over perfective as in the contexts in (9), and progressive as in the contexts in (10), the latter admitting an English translation with the -ing (progressive) form. Coming back to the Shkodër dialect, the aspectual properties of verbal bases ending in a vowel are confirmed by the observation that they also represent the third person singular of the middle-reflexive perfective past, as illustrated in (31). We take it that the coincidence between (31) and the verbal bases that appear in participial/infinitival contexts is not accidental. (31) Shkodër a u m’lu M/R cover ‘He covered himself’ b u ’lP M/R wash ‘He washed himself’

‘Participle’ and ‘infinitive’ in Geg dialects 285 c

d

u ’pVe M/R cut ‘He cut himself’ u ’zi M/R cook ‘It cooked’

The middle-reflexive interpretation of the past perfects in (31) is independently lexicalized by the u clitic (Chapter 7). The same u element is present in the middle-reflexive forms in non-finite contexts as shown, for instance, in (18iv). What interests us here is that the u clitic is present in contexts where the middle-reflexive interpretation is associated with a pure verbal base. Alternatively the verb base corresponds to an invariable participle combined with the auxiliary jam (I am). In this latter case, the auxiliary is itself sufficient to establish the middle-reflexive interpretation, as we argued (for Tosk varieties) in Chapter 7. In the structure of the participle in (26) we have associated the thematic vowel with the N category, and hence with the internal argument of the verb. This means that the verbal form is actually not associated with any D inflection. Recall that first and second person (i.e. speaker and hearer) denotation implies reference to the universe of discourse. On the contrary, third person denotation is characterized by its anchoring to an eventive role. We assume that this difference between first/second and third person underlies the fact that reference of the verbal base–thematic vowel form is restricted to the sole third person. In other words, we may assume that denotation anchored at the discourse requires the lexicalization of a D inflection. Similarly, based on the evidence in (31), lexicalization of a D inflection is required for denotations involving plurality, hence quantification, such as the third person plural. This effectively restricts the compatibility of the bare stem forms to third person singular denotation as desired. Finally, we may assume that the perfectivity of the form in (31) is derived by the theory exactly on the same basis as the perfectivity of the same form in participial environments. As for the temporal reference to the past, we take it that it is simply an inferential part of the perfective; in Albanian, as in Romance, other temporal reference is carried by forms compatible with both perfective and imperfective readings. 4.3 The invariable participles of consonantal bases Turning now to the participial/infinitival forms of verbs with consonantal bases involving long stressed vowels of the type of ve:S, lo:D, we note that they coincide with the second and third person of the present indicative. The relevant paradigms are exemplified in (32). Therefore the person split in the present of verbs with consonantal bases opposes second and third person singular, lacking specialized inflections, and first person singular or the plural, which are endowed instead with specialized inflections.

286

‘Participle’ and ‘infinitive’ in Geg dialects

(32) Shkodër a E ’veS-i, him-her dress-1sg ‘I dress him/her’ b E ’lag-u, him-her wet-1sg ‘I wet him/her’ c E ’loD-i, him-her tire-1sg ‘I tire him/her’ d E ’kVeh-i, him-her comb-1sg ‘I comb him/her’

’ve:S, ’ve:S, ’veS-im,

’veS-ni,

’veS-in

’la:g, ’la:g, ’lag-um,

’lag-ni,

’lag-un

’lo:D, ’lo:D, ’loD-im,

’loD-ni,

’loD-in

’kVe:h, ’kVe:h, ’kVeh-im, ’kVeh-ni, ’kVeh-in

As for vocalic bases of the type in (31), we assume that the participial interpretation, perfective in nature, is connected to the lexicalization of internal argument properties, represented in our hypothesis by the lengthening of the root vowel. The infinitival interpretation depends in turn on a quantification on possible worlds, introduced at the interpretive interface as compatible with the bare verb stem. In the case of the consonantal bases in (32), however, the aspectual reading of participle and the modal reading of infinitive coincide with the present indicative. We take this latter reading to be aspectual. In particular, the present indicative in Albanian can have not only a generic reading but also a progressive one, essentially as the present indicative of Romance languages. Thus the closest reading to it that we have analyzed is the one attaching to the progressive formed with the particle tu. Extending its analysis, we assume that the present is obtained through an indefinite (universal, generic) quantification at the eventive level, yielding the progressive/generic reading. Temporal reference to the present may be implied simply by the absence of temporal specifications. Participial bases of the type of ve:S, and so on have no D specification. Given that they surface in contexts of the type in (32), we conclude, by analogy with the discussion of vocalic bases in the previous section, that this absence of D specifications is compatible with third person denotation, but in this case with second person denotation as well. This ‘syncretism’ between second and third person singular has been considered in detail in Chapter 6 in connection with auxiliary selection splits in Italian dialects. As in that case, we suggest that the lack of D inflections found in (32) is compatible both with the event-anchored reference of third person singular and with the discourse-anchored reference of second person singular precisely in that they are each salient within their own interpretive domain. Reference to the speaker or to the plural requires instead a D specification. Comparison with the present indicative of verbal bases ending in vowels, as in (33), shows that all persons are formed with agreement inflections added to the verbal base and its thematic vowel. Neverthless, the second and third person still have the same inflection, namely -n as in (33).

‘Participle’ and ‘infinitive’ in Geg dialects 287 (33) Shkodër a E m’la-i, m’la:-n, m’la:-n, m’lo-im, m’lo-ni, m’lo-in him/her cover-1sg ‘I cover him/her’ b E ’pVe-i, ’pVe:-n, ’pVe:-n, ’pVe-im, ’pVe-ni, ’pVe-in it cut-1sg ‘I cut it’ 4.4 Parameters concerning consonantal bases In the previous sections we have seen that in the Shkodër dialect, the forms of the participle/infinitive, characterized by specialized length and quality of the stressed vowel, coincide with the second and third person singular forms of the present in (32). On the contrary, the third person singular of the middle-reflexive perfective past in (34i) and the second person singular of the imperative in (34ii) are differentiated by the presence of a stressed nucleus both shorter and more open/centralized. (34) Shkodër ii a u ’vES M/R s/he.dressed ‘S/he dressed’ b u ’lCD M/R s/he.tired ‘S/he tired’ c u ’TIr M/R s/he.called ‘S/he called him/herself’ d u ’kVEh M/R s/he.combed ‘She combed him/herself’ e m/na ’vES me/us s/he dressed ‘S/he dressed me/us’ ii a ’vESE/ i dress- him/her/them ‘Dress him/her/them!’ b ’vESu dress- M/R ‘Dress youself!’ c mas m/ na/ E/ i/ u ’vES not me/ us him/her/them/ M/R dress ‘Don’t dress me/us/him/her/them/yourself!’ d m ’kVEh me comb ‘Comb me!’

288

‘Participle’ and ‘infinitive’ in Geg dialects e

f

mas u ’lCD not M/R tire ‘Don’t tire youself!’ mas E ’TIr not him/her call ‘Don’t call him/her!’

In other Geg dialects, such as Mirditë in (35), verbal bases ending in a consonant can lexicalize the invariable participle/infinitive as in (35a), but the entire singular of the present indicative as in (35b), and the third person singular of the middle-reflexive perfective past as in (35c). With some verbal bases, like the one illustrated in (35)(i), the second person singular imperative in (d) differs from the verbal base, presenting a specialized stressed vowel. With other verbal classes, however, such as the one exemplified in (35)(ii), the second person singular imperative in turn coincides with the verbal base. (35) Mirditë ii a du m(E) u ’kVEf I.want to M/R comb ‘I want to comb myself’ a ASt ’kVEf s/he.is combed ‘S/he has combed him/herself’ a E kam ’kVEf him/her I.have combed ‘I have combed him/her’ b E ’kVEf him/her I/you.comb/s/he combs’ ‘I/you comb him/her’ ‘S/he combs him/her’ c u ’kVEf M/R s/he.combed ‘S/he combed him/herself’ d m krif me comb ‘Comb me!’ ii a t kam Tan mCs mE E ’lCD to.you I.have said not to him/her tire ‘I told you not to tire him/her’ a E kam ’lCD him/her I.have tired ‘I tired him/her’ a ASt ’lCD s/he.is tired ‘S/he has tired’

‘Participle’ and ‘infinitive’ in Geg dialects 289 b

c

d

E ’lCD him/her I/you tire/s/he tires ‘I/you tire him/her’ ‘S/he tires him/her’ u ’lCD M/R tired ‘S/he tired’ mCs E ’lCD not him/her tire ‘Don’t tire him/her!’

It is useful at this point to provide a schematic summary of the forms of the verbs covered by the pure verbal base and by the verbal base combined with a lengthening of the nucleus or by a thematic vowel, in the two dialects of Shkodër e Mirditë. It is clear from (36) that such forms are in all cases modal (infinitive, imperative) or aspectual (participle, perfective past, present). Furthermore they turn out to be compatible with a restricted range of D denotations, essentially the singular, and more often the third person singular and/or the second person singular. (36) Shkodër a Bases in vowel Verbal base–thematic vowel – b

Bases in consonant Verbal base Verbal base-long stressed nucleus

Mirditë Bases in consonant Verbal base

participle/infinitive 3sg middle-reflexive perfective past

–

3sg middle-reflexive perfective past 2sg imperative – participle/infinitive 2/3sg present

–

participle/infinitive 3sg middle-reflexive perfective past 1/2/3sg present (2sg imperative)

The restrictions observed in (36) confirm our approach, based on the idea that there is no accidental coincidence between what are characterized as different forms of the paradigm by traditional feature matrices, but rather one lexical form compatible with a constrained set of interpretations is involved in each case. Let us now consider the dialect of Mirditë. Since in the verbal class in (35i) the participle/infinitive coincides with the third person singular of the middle-reflexive perfective past as well as with the singular forms of the present, this dialect effectively combines various possibilities that we have independently analyzed for Shkodër for bases in vowels and bases in consonants. A difference between

290

‘Participle’ and ‘infinitive’ in Geg dialects

the two dialects is that there is no evidence in Mirditë for a lexicalization of N properties; rather the form in (36) is a pure verbal base. Thus we must take it that the perfective readings are obtained not through an overt lexicalization of the N morphology but rather by a purely interpretive operation closing off the internal argument variable associated with the verbal base. A lesser difference between Shkodër and Mirditë is that in the absence of any D morphology the reference of the verbal base extends to all persons of the singular in the present. The possibility of lexicalizing the three persons singular of the present by the pure verbal base is also attested to in Romance varieties, as exemplified by standard French or by many northern Italian dialects quoted in Manzini and Savoia (2005). This pattern may be described simply by reference to the divide between the quantificational properties implied by plurality and their absence in the singular; evidently in the relevant varieties it is only the latter reference that may be inferentially interpreted on the basis of bare forms. With verbs of the class in (35)(ii), to the set of interpretations just described for the pure verbal base, we must add that of second person singular imperative. The imperative interpretation is of course modal in nature and closest to the infinitival one, which also implies irreality. We may therefore expect it on the same grounds as the infinitival reading, namely of its compatibility with a quantification over possible worlds. As for the reference of second person singular, its salience in the imperative context will suffice for it to be inferentially established in the absence of any overt lexicalization of D morphology. It remains for us to consider briefly the facts in (34) concerning once again the dialect of Shkodër, where the pure verbal base lexicalizes the third person singular of the middle-passive perfective past as well as the second person singular of the imperative. In terms of the above discussion, this coincidence will simply be established by compatibility of the pure verbal base (lacking specialized temporal/aspectual and modal morphology) with meanings of perfectivity and modality as already discussed for Mirditë.

5 Syntactic analysis 5.1 The paskajore The element that generally introduces the paskajore, namely mE, also introduces noun phrases, taking the meaning of the preposition ‘with’. An argument in favor of the conclusion that this coincidence is not mere homophony derives from the fact that the negative counterpart of mE, i.e. pP (without) can also introduce the invariable participle/infinitive. The classical treatment of prepositions in contexts where they embed nouns such as (4) takes them to be autonomous heads with a predicative content, of which the noun phrase represents the internal argument. In fact, Manzini and Savoia (2005) extend this treatment to prepositions introducing the morphological infinitive in Romance languages. Nevertheless, there are also notable differences between so-called prepositional complementizers in Romance and Albanian mE, which suggest a different

‘Participle’ and ‘infinitive’ in Geg dialects 291 treatment for the latter. We shall come back in what follows to the distributional evidence. In the meantime we note that in Romance languages the preposition that introduces the infinitive has a selective relation with the matrix verb, and that the infinitive can in fact appear bare of prepositions; on the contrary, in Albanian mE (and its negative counterpart pP) are the only prepositions associated with the invariable verb form in the paskajore, nor can the invariable verb form define a sentence by itself. Perhaps a closer comparison is with the particles that introduce finite sentences in other infinitival-less languages, including the te of Albanian considered in Chapter 9. In particular, according to Manzini and Savoia (2005), the so-called subjunctive particle mu of Calabrian dialects is an adverbial element; furthermore this inserts in a nominal position, since it is an independent conclusion of Manzini and Savoia (2002c, 2005) that adverbials in general do. A similar analysis for mE is compatible with the assumption that there is a single lexical item mE, on the fairly traditional observation that socalled adverbials can be the complement-less version of prepositions. English offers a good term of comparison, since prepositions used intransitively often contribute an aspectual value to the verb as in ‘I wake up’, and so on. In Chapter 9, in analyzing the subjunctive particle te in Tosk dialects, we shall abandon the analysis generally assumed in the literature, whereby te connects to the modal properties of the construction it enters into. Instead we proposed that its role is that of introducing a variable corresponding to the D argument of the embedded sentence. Control (i.e. the co-reference between the matrix and the embedded D arguments) is effected through this variable. We keep to the same analysis for the mE particle of the paskajore, whose adverbial/nominal nature has been discussed above. Therefore, as in (37), we insert mE in D; given the modal value associated with mE its domain of insertion will be at least as high as C. In (37) we further assume that the invariable verb form is inserted in the normal I inflectional position, where it is preceded by pronominal clitics such as t, inserting in the appropriate positions of the clitic string. (37) Shkodër ei D ei mE (C) ei P ei t I Ti:r As we saw in section 3, Albanian also has a series of complementizers analogous to English that or Romance que/che, introducing finite sentences. In terms of the theory of complementizers developed by Manzini and Savoia (2003b, 2005) the Romance type ke is a nominal head. Thus the main verb takes as its N complement a nominal element, i.e. the complementizer, introducing this propositional variable. The embedded sentence is the complement not directly of the main verb, but rather of the nominal head, i.e. tSi or sE in Albanian as illustrated in (38).

292

‘Participle’ and ‘infinitive’ in Geg dialects

(38) Shkodër a ep I ei tSi N ei D ei ai I vjEn b

ep I ei sE N ei R ei nuk I vjEn

The strongest arguments in favor of the nominal treatment of complementizers come from the fact that in many Romance languages the so-called complementizer, for instance, che in Italian, also appears as a wh- determiner of the noun and as a wh- argument with the meaning of ‘what’. No similar convergence holds in the data in (22). However, it does in neighboring Geg dialects spoken, for instance, in Montenegro/Macedonia as may be seen from examples like tSi ben? (‘what are you doing?’) (Flora Koleci, p.c.). The fact that elements like Italian che lexicalize wh- arguments suggests that their crucial interpretive property is that of introducing a variable. While this is an argumental variable in the case of a wh- item, Manzini and Savoia (2003b, 2005) propose that so-called complementizer che introduces a propositional variable. The literature, starting with Kayne (1976), provides an extensive discussion of the fact that complementizers of the type of English that or French que are restricted to finite sentences. It is interesting to note that in (18) we find exemplified a case in which the non-finite sequence mE–invariable verb form can be preceded by a tSi or sE complementizer. From a structural point of view the complementizer embeds the paskajore as its N complement as in (39), introducing a propositional variable whose value is specified by the paskajore itself. (39) Shkodër ep I ei tSi N ei D ei mE C ei N ei E I bP˜

‘Participle’ and ‘infinitive’ in Geg dialects 293 As we may expect, it is also possible to combine the paskajore with a prepositional introducer; the latter will be directly comparable to the prepositions introducing infinitivals in Romance. The relevant structures in essence repeat that in (39), with a preposition rather than a complementizer in the higher structural layer as shown in (40a). As discussed in Chapter 9, in Tosk dialects purpose clauses and infinitival relatives are also introduced by the combination of the preposition peV (for) with a participial clause, where the participle is overtly inflected with the specialized participial ending V. Interestingly we find the participle embedded under the te particle; the similar distribution of te and mE in this case strengthens the conclusion adopted here that they share the same structural characterization as D elements of the C domain. Finally, if mE can be preceded by a finite complementizer as in (39), and the finite complementizer can be preceded by a preposition, then we expect a sequence preposition– complementizer–mE, which is in fact found with the structure in (40b). (40) Shkodër a ep I ei peV N ei D ei mE (C) ei N ei E I pP b

ep I ei paVa N ep I ei sE N ei D ei mE (C) ei I ei P:VD D ti

In addition to the tSi and sE complementizers considered thus far, in the dialect of Shkodër the element bP˜, introducing hypotheticals, can precede the paskajore. According to Manzini and Savoia (2005), the sentence introduced by the Romance hypothetical complementizer si/se is interpreted as the restriction of a universally bound propositional variable. If we extend this analysis to bP˜ (cf. also po in the Tosk dialects in Chapter 9), then these introductors differ from

294

‘Participle’ and ‘infinitive’ in Geg dialects

tSi/sE in that the latter introduce a propositional variable in the scope of the ordinary existential closure. The two types of elements can otherwise receive exactly the same structural treatment, essentially as nominal heads. The morphology of Albanian bP˜ is consistent with this syntactic characterization, since it is the invariable participle of the verb ‘to do’, and hence a potentially nominal element. It is easy to show that the analysis proposed thus far is compatible with the distributional evidence presented in sections 1 and 3. Let us begin with the negation mas, which precedes mE and cannot appear between the preposition and the verb. This element is specialized for modal contexts, also appearing with imperatives and with gerunds formed by tu and the invariable participle, but not with ordinary declaratives. Following the proposals of Chapter 7 on Arbëresh negation, we assume that mas, as negations in general, lexicalizes a nominal position, say R; specifically as a modal negation, its domain of insertion will be C or higher. Since it precedes mE we may assume that it inserts in the higher CI domain, where it will also be lower than any eventual complementizer introducing the paskajore as in (41). (41) Shkodër ep I ei tSi N ei R ei mas (CI) ei D ei mE (C) ei N ei E I bP˜ In a way very much parallel to negation, the wh-element appears lower than the complementizer but higher than mE in embedded questions. This follows if the domain of insertion for the wh-phrase is the modal CI domain, in accordance again with the results of Manzini and Savoia (2005) on Romance. Therefore in (42) accusative tSa will insert in the appropriate argumental slot of the CI domain, i.e. N. We have already pointed out in presenting the data that the whphrase follows the complementizer in finite contexts as well, hence this possibility is independent of the paskajore, as discussed for Tosk dialects by Turano (1995).

‘Participle’ and ‘infinitive’ in Geg dialects 295 (42) Shkodër ep I ei sE N ei N ei tSa (CI) ei D ei mE (C) ei I bP˜ The position of the lexical subject remains to be examined. As with the negation and the wh-phrase in (41)–(42), the preverbal lexical subject appears above mE and below an eventual complementizer. We explain this position in terms of the general assumption that in null subject languages preverbal subjects are topicalized, as argued in detail for Romance languages in Chapter 2. As a topicalized element, therefore, a preverbal lexical subject inserts in the D position of a relatively high domain, i.e. typically CD, as ti in (43). An eventual complementizer like tSi in (43) will precede it. (43) Shkodër ep I ei tSi N ei D ei ti CD ei D ei mE C ei N ei E I bP˜ A lexical subject may also be inserted in the embedded sentence, but in this case it will appear in the lower predicative domain of the sentence and it will therefore surface postverbally. As postverbal subjects of Romance language, in this case the lexical subject, are interpreted as part of the focus of the sentence, this is indeed the case in the example in (40b). The position of the subject within the sentence will be D of the lower V domain. The control interpretation will not be considered here for the paskajore, since it will form the focus of much of the discussion in Chapter 9 on te complements in Albanian. There we shall justify in more detail the idea outlined above that particles like te or mE introduce a variable corresponding to the embedded EPP argument, which crucially allows for the control (e.g. raised) interpretation.

296

‘Participle’ and ‘infinitive’ in Geg dialects

P constructions 5.2 Gerund and pP The invariable participle may combine not only with mE but also with the particle tu, giving rise to a progressive reading comparable to that of English -ing forms; such reading is found both in combination with the auxiliary jam (I am) and in non-finite sentences introduced by prepositional complementizers. There is one notable difference between mE and tu, given that the negation follows tu, though it precedes mE. Since tu otherwise has very much the same properties as mE, we conclude that the position of tu is relatively higher in the sentence, coinciding, for instance, with the D position of the CI domain. If the negation inserts as before in R of the CI domain, it will then follow tu as in (44). The same analysis adopted here for the progressive of Shkodër may be extended to the Tosk data in (10), where a participle overtly inflected with V is also introduced by the dukE/turE/tuE/tura element. This analysis receives some support from the discussion of Tosk data in Chapter 9 where we shall see that the modal negation can follow as well as precede the te particle; again we shall find evidence that the position of the negation remains unchanged, whereas the particle can attach in a lower or higher D position. (44) Shkodër ei D ei tu R ei mas (CI) ei N ei E I bP˜ Finally, let us to consider the fact that both in Shkodër and in Tosk dialects participial sentences may be introduced by pa (without), namely by the lexical counterpart of mE incorporating negation as illustrated in (2) for Shkodër and in (10) for Tosk dialects. It is interesting to note that clitics follow pP, reproducing the order observed for mE and the clitic in the paskajore; the relative order of pP and the negation cannot be ascertained, since their combination yields interpretively odd results. If in the absence of contrary evidence we take the distribution of pP to coincide with that of mE, we are led to suggest a similar structure for pP participial sentences as in (45). A structure like (45) implies that pP does not contribute a predicative prepositional content to the structure of the sentence as a whole; rather its prepositional/adverbial content is compatible with its insertion in a nominal position such as D, where it introduces the EPP argument as a variable allowing for the control interpretation of the embedded subject. In all of this pP behaves exactly as the negative counterpart of mE; the same is true of course in the prepositional construal of these two elements exemplified in (4) above.

‘Participle’ and ‘infinitive’ in Geg dialects 297 (45) Shkodër ei D ei pP C ei N ei u I la: It is of course interesting to note that Tosk dialects in (10), though generally excluding the paskajore proper, normally present the pP construction under consideration. It is natural to suggest that the negative, therefore modal value, contributed to the sentence by pP is crucial for the existence of the construct in Tosk. In this respect it is also relevant to observe that in connection with the gerund construction introduced by tra, the Arbëresh dialect of Barile likes to employ an ‘expletive’ negation as in (10a). Indeed mCs in the relevant example is to be interpreted as contributing generic modal force to the structure rather than negating it; in this respect it is similar to the cases of ‘expletive’ Romance negations observed, for instance, in comparatives by Donati (2000).

9

‘Subjunctives’ and non-finite sentences in Tosk dialects

As we pointed out in Chapter 8, it is not only a property of Geg, but also of Albanian (and in general of the so-called ‘Balkan’ languages) that it lacks a morphological infinitive, and that therefore other verb forms will be found in contexts where the Romance languages have a morphological infinitive. In Geg dialects the relevant form is the paskajore, studied in Chapter 8; in Tosk dialects, including both the standard and the Arbëresh varieties considered in Chapter 7, the relevant form is a finite verb preceded by a particle te (të in the standard spelling). This element is generally described as a subjunctive particle, since combined with a finite verb it also covers the distribution of the morphological subjunctive in Romance (or Germanic) languages. The construct as a whole is then referred to as the subjunctive and the phenomenon that we are more directly interested in is often described as subjunctive-for-infinitive. In fact, we will propose a new analysis that while not denying the modal role played by the particle, crucially characterizes it for another property, namely that of introducing the EPP argument of the embedded finite verb as a variable. It is this property that crucially allows the embedded subject to enter into control and chain (raising) relations. Support for this analysis will be drawn not only from the properties of the te–finite verb constructions, but also from a fairly detailed consideration of the other contexts where te is found, typically as a prenominal/preadjectival article.

1 tee–finite verb/participle constructions Our examples of the te–finite verb constructions in (1) come from the same Arbëresh dialects studied in Chapter 7, as well as from Gjirokastër which reflects essentially the conditions of the standard (give or take a few phonological differences). In the Tosk dialects there is in fact some morphological distinction between the verb in the indicative and the subjunctive, visible in the second and third person singular. In such unambiguous cases it is the subjunctive form that follows the te particle. We mainly exemplified the second person singular of the verb, which in the active present subjunctive is lexicalized by a postalveolar final consonant -tS/S. A comparison with the corresponding form of the indicative is provided, for example, for Ginestra, where TratSe of the subjunctive contrasts

‘Subjunctives’ in Tosk dialects

299

with TrEt of the indicative. On the other hand, it may be noticed that under the te particle we also find non-present forms of the verb such as the imperfective past in the examples (a)–(b) of Firmo, depending on main verbs also in the imperfective past. As may be seen in particular from the Carfizzi, Portocannone and Civita sets the embedded subject can normally be lexicalized in the nominative in the postverbal position; crucially however it will never appear between the te particle and the finite verb. (1)

Firmo a fuV’nCva t E ’beja I.finished Prt it I.made ‘I finished doing it’ b ’EVDa t E ’Sikja I.came Prt it I.saw ‘I came to see it’ c jam ku’tjent t it ’SCk I.am happy Prt you I.see ‘I am glad to see you’ Civita a eSt me ’mi:V te ’viS ’ti it.is more good Prt come(subj) you ‘It is better for you to come’ b dua te E ’ben a’i I.want Prt it does(subj.) he ‘I want him to do it’ c fiV’nCva t E diE’vasja I.finished Prt it I.read ‘I finished reading it’ d te ’TaS te ’viS m’bjatu to.you I.said Prt you.come quickly ‘I told you to come quickly’ e jam kun’tjEnt t E ’SCx I.am happy Prt him I.see ‘I am glad to see him’ Vena di Maida a a’i me ’Ta t E ’bAn he to.me said Prt it I.do ‘He told me to do it’ b u ’dua t E ’bAtS I want Prt it you.do(subj.) ‘I want you to do it’

300

‘Subjunctives’ in Tosk dialects Carfizzi a te ’TCm t E ’bC:tS to.you I.say Prt it you.do ‘I am telling you to do it’ b dua te ’vin a’i I.want Prt comes(subj) he ‘I want him to come’ c C mir t E ’bCn a’i it.is good Prt it makes he ‘It is good for him to do it’ Ginestra a te ’TEje te a ’TratSe to.you I.said Prt him you.call ‘I told you to call him’ b iS me mir t a ’betS it.is more good Prt it you.do ‘It is better for you to do it’ Barile a te ’TEi (te) t me ’Tretja to.you I.said Prt Prt me you.called ‘I told you to call me’ b iSt me ’miV (te) t a ’beS it.is more good Prt Prt it you.do ‘It is better for you to do it’ c jamen kun’dEnt te t a ’SC I.am happy Prt Prt him I.see ‘I am glad to see him’ Portocannone a iSt me ’mir t E ’ben ’vE:t it.is more good Prt it makes(subj.) he ‘It is better for him to do it’ b dua te ’vin ’vE :t I.want Prt comes(subj.) he ‘I want him to come’ c te ’TatSa t E ’bejE to.you I.said Prt it you.did ‘I told you to do it’ d te prem’dCn te ’vin ’nEser to.you I.promise Prt I.come tomorrow ‘I promise you to come tomorrow’ e jam te te s’rEs I.am Prt you I.call ‘I am calling you’

‘Subjunctives’ in Tosk dialects

301

Gjirokastër a t a ’vESim Prt him we.dress ‘Let us dress him’ b i ’TatS te me ’fliVte to.him I.said Prt me he.called ‘I told him to call me’ c ASt ’miVe t a Te’ratS it.is good Prt him you.call ‘It is better to call him’ d ’EVDa te t a ’jap I.came Prt to.you it I.give ‘I came to give it to you’ e ’ErDi t a ’SChi s/he.came Prt him he.sees ‘S/he came to see him’ As illustrated in (2), considerable variation is found in the position of te with respect to mCs, which is the negation specialized for modal environments (e.g. imperatives), as also discussed in Chapters 7–8. In the standard the preferred order has mCs preceding te; the reverse order is however also attested in the Gjirokastër data. In Arbëresh, the modal negation mCs/mis and so on precedes te in the examples of Carfizzi, Vena di Maida and Firmo, while it follows it in the examples of Ginestra; the latter is also the situation reported for the dialect of S. Nicola dell’Alto by Turano (1993). In the dialect of Vena di Maida, on the other hand, mCs/mChe can be in complementary distribution with te. In the dialects of Civita, Barile and Ginestra the particle te can appear both to the right and to the left of mCs; the data of Barile in (1) show that the doubling of te may be found also in the absence of the negation. (2)

Firmo a t ’TE mCs t ’viS to.you I.said not Prt you.come ‘I told you not to come’ b ika mCs t E ’Sikja I.left not Prt him/her I.saw ‘I left not to see him/her’ Civita a A me ’miV te mCs t i ’TrES it.is more good Prt not Prt them you.call ‘It is better for you not to call them’ b jam kun’tjEnt te mCs t E ’SCx I.am happy Prt not Prt him I.see ‘I am glad not to see him’

302

‘Subjunctives’ in Tosk dialects Vena di Maida a A me ’mire mChe E ’SCre it.is more good not him/her s/he.sees(subj.) ‘It is better for him/her not to call him/her’ b A me ’mire mCs t E ’SCre it.is more good not Prt him/her s/he.sees(subj.) ‘It is better for him/her not to call him/her’ Carfizzi a te ’TCm mis t E ’bC:tS to.you I.say not Prt it you.do ‘I am telling you not to do it’ b te ’TCm mis t E ’bC:tS to.you I.say not Prt it you.do ‘I am telling you not to do it’ Ginestra a te ’TEje te mCs a to.you I.said Prt not him ‘I told you not to call him’ b iS me mir te mCs it.is more good Prt not ‘It is better for you not to do it’

’TratSe you.call t a ’betS Prt it you.do

Barile a te ’TEi te mCs t a to.you I.said Prt not Prt it ‘I told you not to do it’ b jamen kun’dEnt te mCs t I.am happy Prt not Prt I am glad not to see him’

’beS you.do a ’SC him I.see

Portocannone a te ’TatSa mCs t E ’betS to.you I.said not Prt it you.do(subj) ‘I told you not to do it’ b dua mCs te ’vitS I.want not Prt you.come ‘I want you not to come’ Gjirokastër a te mCs E ’vESim Prt not him/her we.dress ‘Let us not dress him/her’

‘Subjunctives’ in Tosk dialects b

303

mCs t a ’vESim not Prt him/her we.dress ‘Let us not dress him/her’

The particle te is also compatible with the declarative complementizer, which can precede it as in the examples in (3). Similarly, the finite complementizer can precede të in standard Albanian (Turano 1993). Examples (d) of Gjirokastër and (f) of Carfizzi show that te may also be preceded by wh-phrases; it equally appears in the hypothetical sequence pC te in Gjirokastër’s example (e). Furthermore in Arbëresh dialects, as may be seen in particular from Vena di Maida, Barile and Ginestra, the particle te can be embedded under a preposition, in particular pe (for). In a dialect like Portocannone purpose clauses and infinitival relatives are introduced by bet, which we equally interpret as a sequence of the allomorph be for ‘for’ and the particle te. The space between the complementizer and the subjunctive particle can host the negation, as in examples (a)–(e) of Carfizzi. In the same position we also find other lexical material, in particular a subject as may be seen, for instance, from Vena di Maida. The other possible position for the subject is postverbal as we already saw in (1) and we exemplify here again for Carfizzi in (c). (3)

Firmo a t ’TE sa t i Te’rES to.you I.said that Prt to.him you.call ‘I told you to call him’ b ’EVD sa t E Sik he.came that Prt him/her he.sees ‘He came to see him/her’ c ’iku sa t mCs t E ’Sik he.left that Prt not Prt him/her he.sees ‘He left not to see him/her’ d ’dCla par (sE) sa t ’binni I.went.out before that that Prt it.fall(subj) ‘I left before it rained’ Vena di Maida a u ’dua hE ti I want that you ‘I want you to do it’ b ’ErDa pe t E I.came for Prt him ‘I came to see him’ c ’zruDa pe mCh E I. left for not him ‘I left not to see him’

t E ’bAtS Prt it do ’SCre I.see ’SCre I.see

’Si rain

304

‘Subjunctives’ in Tosk dialects Carfizzi a te ’TCm sa (mis) t E ’bC:tS to.you I.say that (not) Prt it you.do ‘I am telling you (not) to do it’ b i kCm prCmE’tirtu sa (mus) t to.him I.have promised that (not) Prt ‘I promised him (not) to go’ c C mir (sE) t E ’bCn a’i it.is good that Prt it does he ‘It is good for him to do it’ d ’dua sE (mis) t E ’bCtS I.want that (not) Prt it you.do ‘I want you (not) to do it’ e nge ’di ku t ’ vEtE not I.know where Prt I.go ‘I wonder where to go’ Barile a ’ErDa pe te te ’Sifja I.came for Prt you I.saw ‘I came to see you’ b u ’vaita pe (t) mCs te ’Sifja I.went for Prt not you I.saw ‘I went not to see you’ Ginestra a ’fErDa pe t a I.came for Prt him ‘I came to see him’ b u ’dCla pe t mCs I.went for Prt not ‘I went not to see him’

’Sixja I.saw a ’Sixja him I.saw

Portocannone a ’ErDa par sa te ’vijE I.came before that Prt you.came ‘I came before you came’ b ’ErDa be t te ’Sixja I.came for Prt you I.saw ‘I came to see you’ c ne ’liber be t le’dZCxEt a book for Prt reads.M/R ‘A book to be read’ d a’i iSi te/be t me s’risi he was Prt me he.called ‘He was calling me’

’vEtE I.go

‘Subjunctives’ in Tosk dialects

305

Gjirokastër a te ’TatS tSe t a ’lanE to.you I.said that Prt him/her you.washed ‘I told you to wash him/her’ b te ’TatS tSe te mCs E ’lanE to.you I.said that Prt not him/her you.washed ‘I told you not to wash him/her’ c ’dCDa paVa sE t a ’viSna I.left before that Prt him/her I.dressed ‘I left before dressing him/her’ d nuk ’di tSe t ’bei not I.know what Prt I.do ‘I wonder what to do’ e pC t a ’haS dC ’jEtS me ’miV if Prt it you.eat fut. you.feel better ‘If you eat it, you’ll feel better’ The data in (4)–(6) clarify the status of the finite complementizers cooccurring with te by illustrating the contexts where they appear without te. In many Arbëresh dialects the declarative complementizer in the absence of te is generally sE as in (4). Comparison between the data in (3) and those in (4) reveal that the element sa appears when it is immediately adjacent to te, while sE shows up as the finite complementizer in all other contexts. In dialects like Barile and Ginestra the declarative complementizer is sa, in Portocannone it is kE. (4)

Firmo a jam si’kuru sE E ’SCk I.am sure that it I.see ‘I am sure that I see it’ b eSt me ’miV sE ’ti E ’ben it.is more good that you it you.do ‘It is better for you to do it’ c dua sE it vu’la ka t ’vin I.want that your brother he.has Prt he.comes ‘I want that your brother come’ d neNg di nde sE kam E ’ben not I.know if that I.have it I.do ‘I don’t know if I have to do it’ e nde sE ’vESE ri me ’miV if that you.dress you.feel more good ‘If you dress, you’ll feel better’ Civita a me ’Ta:n sE ’vijin me’nat to.me they.said that they.came tomorrow ‘They told to me that they came tomorrow’

306

‘Subjunctives’ in Tosk dialects b

nde sE ’ti neNg ’vjEn if that you not you.come ‘If you do not come, I leave’

u ’ikin I leave

Carfizzi a me kCn ’TC:n sE ’viEn to.me they.have said that he.comes ‘They told me that he comes’ b jCm si’kuru sE a’i ’vjEn I.am sure that he comes ‘I am sure that he will come’ c dua sE a’i ka t ’vjEn a’ti I.want that he has Prt he.come here ‘I want that he come here’ d i kCm prCmE’tirtu sE ’vEtE to.him I.have promised that I.go ‘I promised him to go’ e kCm’arDu m par sE a’i ka r’rCn I.have come before that he has arrived ‘I came before he arrived’ Portocannone a me ’Ta:n kE ’ti u z’JuovE to.me they.said that you M/R woke.up ‘They told me that you woke up’ b jam ’tSErtu kE ’vien I.am sure that he.comes ‘I am sure that he comes’ Ginestra a ’deua sa ti (neNg) a ’TrEt I.want that you not him call ‘I want you (not) to call him’ b me ’Tan sa ’vin ’nEser to.me they.said that you.come tomorrow ‘They told me that you will come tomorrow’ c u ’dCla me SpEi sa ’tei te ’veja I went.out more before that you Prt came ‘I left before you came’ d jam kun’dEndu sa te ’SC I.am happy that you I.see ‘I am glad to see you’ e ’burri sa ’vin iS a’i the man that comes is he ‘The man that is coming is that one’

‘Subjunctives’ in Tosk dialects

307

Barile a me ’Tan sa ’vinen to.me they.said that they.come ‘They told to me that they come’ b ’diSa sa ka t ’vES a’tia I.wanted that you.have Prt you.go there ‘I wanted you to go there’ c u ’dola me Speit sa ti ’veja I went.out more before that you came ‘I went before you came’ d jam si’kuru sa ’vin I.am sure that he.comes ‘I am sure that he comes’ e iS miV sa ’ti ’vin it.is good that you come ‘It is good that you come’ Gjirokastër a jam E ’sigurt sE dC ’vije I.am fs. sure that fut. he.comes ‘I am sure that he will come’ b te kam prem’tuaV sE dC ’vi to.you I.have promised that fut. I.come ‘I promised you that I will come’ c ’Tuai- me sE tS ’ha say to.me that what s/he.eats ‘Tell me what s/he eats’ In many Arbëresh dialects the sa form occurs independently of te as the whelement with the meaning of ‘how many’, as well as the sentential introducer in consecutive contexts as in (5). Therefore sa, beside it wh- /consecutive occurrences, only appears in combination with te. It is also interesting to note that in example (3d) of Firmo, we find the sequence par se sa t, where the sa complementizer seems to be required by t and se by par (before). In dialects like Barile and Ginestra, the wh- element for ‘how many’ is san. The element sa is also known in the standard as the wh- word for ‘how many’ and the consecutive sentential introducer. (5)

Firmo a ’mCVa Sum Sur’bisE sa Nge mund i ’cElin I.took many things that not I.can them I.carry ‘I took so many things that I can’t carry them’ b sa ’gra ’jan how many women are ‘How many women are they?’

308

‘Subjunctives’ in Tosk dialects Civita sa ’jan how many they.are ‘How many people are they?’ Carfizzi sa ’gra ’jCn how many women are ‘How many women are they?’ Portocannone sa ’buVa ’jan How.many men are ‘How many men are they?’ Ginestra san ’yibra ’dC how.many books want.you ‘How many books do you want?’ Barile san ’jan how.many are.they ‘How many people are they?’ Gjirokastër a kam ’mar ac ’Sum ’libVa sa nuk i S’piE ’dot I.have taken so many books that not them I.carry quite ‘I have taken out so may books that I can’t quite carry them’ b sa gra ’jane how.many women are ‘How many women are they?’

Arbëresh also has a tSe complementizer as in (6); this occurs only as the whelement with the meaning of ‘what’ but also as a sentential introducer for relative clauses, for complements of the preposition ‘after’, as well as for complements of Na (if) in the dialect of Carfizzi. In the Gjirokastër variety, which essentially reflects the conditions of the standard, sE and tSe both introduce sentential complements, though sE appears to have a more restricted distribution, being excluded in particular from most contexts with te. Furthermore tSe is the relative complementizer, overlapping in the GjIrokastër variety, as in Arbëresh, with the wh- introducer for ‘what’; this is despite the fact that standard orthography distinguishes që (the complementizer introducing relative clauses) from what. The conditions just reviewed recall those of many Romance dialects studied by Manzini and Savoia (2003b, 2005) which have more than one complementizer corresponding to English that or Italian che/French que. The overall distribution of sE and tSe suggests that the latter

‘Subjunctives’ in Tosk dialects

309

is the modal complementizer. In the Gjirokaster variety, it is generally tSe that precedes te, though the sequence sE te is equally attested, for instance, where the complementizer is itself selected by the preposition paVa (before). (6)

Firmo a ’dCla ’DCpu tSe ’ErD I.went.out after that he.came ‘I left after he came’ b E ’SCk tSe diC’vasin him I.see that he.reads ‘I see him to read’ c ke’miSa tSe bi’eita A E ’kuc the.shirt that I.bought is fsg. red ‘The shirt that I bought is red’ d tS(e) ’pE what you.saw ‘What did you see?’ Civita a a’i bur tSe ’SEx ASt imE ’vla: that man that you see he.is my brother ‘The man that you see is my brother’ b tSe ’duan what they.want ‘What do they want?’ Carfizzi a kCm ’arDu DCpu tS ke ’vatu I.have come after that you.have gone.out ‘I came after you went out’ b A mC ’mir Na tS ’vEtE it.is more good if that I.go ‘It is better if I go’ c Na tS ’viEn te cinde’rCi if that you.come you I.wait ‘If you come, I shall wait’ d ku’miSa tS(e) kCm bi’Etu ASt E ’barD shirt.the that I.have bought is fsg. white ‘The shirt that I bought is white’ e tS ke ’par? what you.have seen ‘What have you seen?’ f kCm ’mCr Sum ’ribrE tSe Nge ’mind t I.have taken many books that not I.can Prt ‘I took so many books that I can’t carry them’

i them

’biE I.carry

310 ‘Subjunctives’ in Tosk dialects Portocannone a iSa kun’dEndu tSe t ’patSa I.was happy that you I.saw ‘I was glad to see you’ b ’ErDa DCpu tSe ’dClE ’ti I.came after that left you ‘I came after you left’ c tSe ’dC what you.want ‘What do you want?’ d iSt ’buri tSe me se’rEt ’sEmbra he.is the man that me he.calls always ‘He is the man who always calls me’ Ginestra a u ’dCla ’DCpu tSe ’ti ’fErDa I went.out after that you came ‘I went after you came’ b ’burri tSe ’vin iS a’i the man that comes is he ‘The man that is coming is that one’ c tSe ’dC what you. want ‘What do you want?’ Barile a u ’dola me paV tSe t ’veja I went.out more before that Prt came ‘I went before you came’ b u ’dola ’DCpu tSe ’ErDa I went.out after that you.came ‘I went after you came’ c ’burri tSe ’SE iSt im u’la the man that you.see he.is my brother ‘The man that is coming is that one’ d tSe ’dC what you.want ‘What do you want?’ Gjirokastër a jam E ’sigurt tSe dC ’vije I.am fs. sure that fut. he.comes ‘I am sure that he will come’ b a’i ASt ’buri tSe te Ter’rEt S’pES he is the man that you he.calls always ‘He is the man that always calls you’

‘Subjunctives’ in Tosk dialects c

311

tSe men’dCn sE tSe ’ben a’i what you.think that what do he ‘What do you think that he is doing?’

In standard-like varieties such as Gjirokastër, there is a specialized construction for rendering non-finite purpose clauses, as well as infinitival relatives, which is exemplified in (7). This has the preposition peV followed by the particle te followed in turn not by a finite form of the verb, but rather by a participle, which is formed by the verbal base followed by the thematic vowel and the V participial ending, as already detailed in Chapter 8. Clitics are inserted between te and the participle, and the negation can either precede or follow te, exactly as in the ‘subjunctive’ constructions in (1)–(3). The same construction is also known in Arbëresh, where it appears to be restricted to infinitival relatives. The co-occurrence of te with the participle in (7) is especially interesting in that the participle is a nominal form of the verb. Indeed, inflected participles in -V can bear what in Chapter 8 we have analyzed as N inflections, also co-occurring with preposed articles, as Albanian adjectives normally do. Such articles vary according to the definiteness or indefiniteness of the nominal element they introduce, besides agreeing with it in number, gender and case. In this system t(e) occurs in the indefinite plural and in the oblique definite plural; it also lexicalizes the indefinite neuter, as well as the oblique definite neuter and the oblique masculine (Solano 1988). In short, t(e) occurs as a plural, a neuter and an oblique, with varying definiteness properties. (7)

Gjirokastër a aVDtS peV t a/ i ’vESur I.came for Prt him/ them dressed ‘I came to dress him/them’ b aVDtS peV t i a ’Dene I.came for Prt to.him it given ‘I came to give it to him’ c aVDtS peV t u ’laVe I.came for Prt myself washed ‘I came to wash myself’ d ’ika peV te mCs i a ’Dene I.left for Prt not to.him it given ‘I left not to give it to him’ e ’iku peV te mCs te/ me/ E z’JuaV S/he.left for Prt not you/ me/ him woken.up ‘S/he left not to wake you/me/him up’ f ’iku peV mCs te te/ me/ ju z’JuaV S/he.left for not Prt you/ me/ you.pl woken.up ‘S/he left not to wake me/you/you(pl) up’ g ’iku peV mCs t a/ i z’JuaV S/he.left for not Prt him/ them woken.up ‘S/he left not to wake him/them up’

312

‘Subjunctives’ in Tosk dialects h

i

eSt ne ’Je peV t u ’bene it.is a thing for Prt M/R made ‘It is a thing to be done’ ne ke’miS peV t (u) ’laVe a shirt for Prt M/R washed ‘A shirt to wash/be washed’

Aspectual and modal contexts are worth isolating, since at least in Arbëresh dialects they alternate between the te–subjunctive construction in (8) and other structural possibilities, which may be observed in comparing different varieties, but also within the same variety. In particular the data in (8) relative to S. Benedetto, Firmo and Portocannone show that progressive jam (I am) may be followed by (sa) t and the subjunctive. The same is true for ze (I take up/I start) in the S. Benedetto data. In dialects such as Barile and Ginestra the progressive is ria (I stand), which is construed with t at Ginestra. Modals are generally followed by te and the subjunctive. With modal mund (I can), on the other hand, only Barile has te and the subjunctive. The alternance between the constructions with and without te is often observed within the same paradigm. In particular in the dialects of Firmo and Civita, the necessity modal ‘I have to’ is followed by te and the verb only in the second and third person singular of the present, i.e. when the verb is overtly inflected for the subjunctive. A further parameter concerns the inflection of the aspectual or modal main verb, which may either show up with the ordinary paradigm, with overt agreement morphology, or in a reduced form, inflected for aspectual/temporal specifications, but without agreement morphology, or altogether uninflected. Note that for readability’s sake we generally exemplify only the singular of each paradigm. Such reduced forms of the verb generally characterize modal contexts, though some dialects, like Firmo and Civita, have the fully agreeing paradigm of kam (I have to) and the agreement inflection of the first person singular dua (I will); at least Civita maintains the fully agreeing paradigm of dua (I will) as well. The aspectuals jam/ri and ze, on the other hand, are generally inflected. (8)

S. Benedetto Ullano a eSt sa t E ’ben he.is that Prt it he.do ‘He is doing it’ b iSna sa t E ’bena I.was that Prt it I.did ‘I was doing it’ c ze sa t ’haS you.take that Prt you.eat ‘You begin eating’ d ka/ dC t E ’hapin/ ’hapS/ have/ want Prt it I.open/ you.open/ ‘I have to/will open it’

’hapin he.opens

‘Subjunctives’ in Tosk dialects e

f

dE/ dES t E ’bena/ ’benE/ ’beij wanted(imprf)/wanted(prf) Prt it I.did/ you.did/ he.did ‘I would do it’ paS (t) E ’hapna/ ’hapnE/ ’hapij had Prt it I.opened/ you.opened/ he.opened ‘I had to open it’

Portocannone a jam te te s’rEs I.am Prt you I.call ‘I am (about) to call you’ b iSi te me ’srisi he.was Prt me he.called ‘He was (about) to call me’ c ka/ dC t ’laxEm/ ’laxES/ ’laxEt have/ want Prt I.wash/you.wash/ he.washes ‘I have to/I will wash myself’ d diS te ’Sixjen wanted Prt they.saw ‘They would see’ Firmo a jan (sa) t E ’bejin they.are that Prt it they.do ‘They are about doing it’ b kam E ’ben kE t E ’beS ka t E ’ben I.have it I.do ‘I have to do it’ c kiS /pa t E ’bejin had(imprf) /had(prf) Prt it they.did ‘They had to do it’ d dua t E mbu’yCn dC t E mbu’yCS dC t E mbu’yCn I.want Prt it I.cover ‘I will cover it’ e dCi/dui t E mbu’yCjin wanted Prt it they.covered ‘They would cover it’ Civita a jan (sa) t E ’bejin they.are that Prt it they.do ‘They are about doing it’

313

314 ‘Subjunctives’ in Tosk dialects b

c

d

e

f

tS kE t zAS te ’beS? what you.have. Prt you.take Prt you.do? ‘What have you got to begin doing? kam ’fye: kE t ’fye:S ka t E ’fye:V I.have it I.sleep ‘I have to sleep’ kiS /pa t E ’beja had(imprf) /had(prf) Prt it I.did ‘I had to do it’ dua t E ’ben dC t E ’beS dC t E ’ben dum t E ’bemi dun t E ’beni duan t E ’bejin I.want Prt it I.do ‘I will do it’ dCi /diS t E ’bejin wanted(imprf)/wanted(prf) Prt it they.covered ‘They would cover it’

Barile a ka t a ’ben/’beS/ ’ben have Prt it I.do/you.do/he.does ‘I have to do it’ b kiS t a ’beja/’bejem had Prt it I.did/we.did ‘I had to do it’ c da t a ’SC/ ’SCS/ ’SE want Prt it I.see/you.see/he.see ‘I will see it’ d me t/ mend a ’benen can Prt/ can it they.do ‘They can do it’ e me t/ mend a ’bejene can Prt/ can it they.did(impf) ‘They could do it’ f me t/ mend a ’beVa can Prt/ can it I.did(pf) ‘I could do it’

‘Subjunctives’ in Tosk dialects Ginestra a u ria t ti ria t a’i ria t ’nEira rimi t ju rini t a’tC rinene t I stand Prt ‘I am doing it’ b u ria t a I stand Prt it ‘I was doing it’

a a a a a a it

315

’ben ’ben ’ben ’bem ’beni ’benene I.do

’beja I.did

The te–subjunctive construction considered thus far alternates in particular with E and the indicative as in (9). As shown by Portocannone, pronominal clitis are positioned between E and the embedded verb, and therefore show the same distribution as with te. The element E is in turn independently known in all of the relevant varieties as the coordination ‘and’. With modal mund (I can) a finite verb generally follows without any particle intervening; the alternance between this construction and that with te is often observed within the same paradigm. An alternance between E and zero is seen in S. Benedetto with jam, since in the past imperfective, where the first and second person singular of the aspectual end in a vowel, the latter is followed directly by the lexical verb. (9)

S. Benedetto Ullano a eSt E m ser’rEt he.is and me he.calls’ ‘He is calling me’ b iSna (E) ’SkVuana iSnE (E) ’SkVuanE iS E ’SkVuai I.was and I.wrote ‘I was writing’ c ze E ’ha I.take and I.eat ‘I begin eating’ d mun(d) ’vin/ ’vina can I.come/ I.came ‘I can/could come’ e mund E ’beVa(prf)/ ’beVE/ ’beVi can it I.did/ you.did/he.did ‘I could do it’

316

‘Subjunctives’ in Tosk dialects Portocannone a jam E te s’rEs I.am and you I.call ‘I am calling you’ b iS(en) E E ’Sixjen they.were and him they.saw ‘They were seeing him’ c kiS ’laxSa/ ’laxSE/ ’laxSi had I.washed/ you.washed/ he.washed ‘I had to wash myself’ d mund E ’SCx/ ’SCxS/ ’SCx can it I.see/ you.see/ he.see ‘I can see it’ e mund E ’Sixja can it I.saw ‘I could see it’ Firmo a jan E E diC’vasin they.are and it they.read ‘They are reading it’ b iS E E diC’vasja/diC’vasjin were and it I.read/they.read ‘I was reading it’ c tS eSt E diC’vasin what is and he.reads ‘What is he reading?’ d ze E E ’ben I.take and it I.do ‘I begin doing it’ e zuVa E ’fjeita I.took and I.slept ‘I began sleeping’ f mund E mbu’yCn/mbu’yCmi can it I.cover/we.cover ‘I can cover it’ g mund E mbu’yCja can it I.covered ‘I could cover it’ Civita a jan E E ’bejin they.are and it they.do ‘They are doing it’

‘Subjunctives’ in Tosk dialects b

c

d

e

f

317

iSin E ’fyejin they.were and they.slept ‘They were sleeping’ tSe jan E ’bejin? what they.are and they.do? ‘What are they doing?’ jam E zA E E ’ben I.am and I.take and it I.do ‘I am beginning doing it’ mund E ’bejin can it they.do ‘They can do it’ mund E ’beja can it I.did ‘I could do it’

Barile a a ria n’difem/ n’difen/ n’difen him stand I.help/ you.help/ he.helps ‘I am helping him’ b a ria ’beja/ ’bejem/ ’bejen him stood I.did/we.did/they.did ‘I was doing it’ c tSe ria ’bene what stand you.do ‘What are you doing?’ d u diS ’mirja ’payyen I wanted I.took the.ball ‘I would take the ball’ Ginestra a u ka ’vEta I have I.go ‘I have to go’ b u da ’vin I want I.come ‘I will come’ In a dialect like Portocannone the element E may also be found with kam (I have) used as an aspectual auxiliary, in which case it is followed by the participle, giving rise to a perfective construction. This is the case in particular with the past perfect as illustrated in (10). As we expect on the basis of the evidence in (9), clitics are positioned between the E particle and the embedded verb.

318

‘Subjunctives’ in Tosk dialects

(10) Portocannone a fu (Nge) ’kiSa E (dZa) ti ’kiSE E a’i ’kiS E na ’kiSem E ju ’kiSet E a’tC (neNg) ’kiSen E (’me) I (not) had Prt (already/more) ‘I had not yet called you’ b a’i ’kiS E E ’paitur he had Prt him/her seen ‘He had seen him/her’ c a’i ’kiS E j a ’Denur he had Prt to.him it given ‘He had given it to him’ d ’kiSa (E) u ’laxur I.had Prt M/R washed ‘I had washed myself’ e tSe kiSen E ’beitur what they.had and done ‘What had they done?’

te me me te na i you/me/us/them

’sritur ’sritur ’sritur ’sritur ’sritur ’sritur called

As already mentioned, the E element that appears in aspectual constructions coincides with the coordination ‘and’ as exemplified in (11). A coordination structure is in fact compatible with the basic syntax of aspectual sentences, where the element E may take inflected forms of the verb to its right and to its left; furthermore, as we have already noted, pronominal clitics appear within the embedded sentence between E and the lower verb. (11) Portocannone i s’rita E neNg ErDi to.him I.called and not he.came ‘I called him and he did not come’ Barile ’vEra E ’JaSt the wine and the cheese ‘The wine and the cheese’

2 Analysis of tee and other particle constructions The literature contains various proposals concerning the status of particles of the type of te. One conclusion generally agreed upon is that these particles cannot be identified with I for more than one reason. Thus the subjunctive is itself inflected and hence presumably occurs in I; furthermore, the particle always precedes

‘Subjunctives’ in Tosk dialects

319

object clitics. On the other hand, in theories which have only one C position at their disposal, the co-occurrence of the complementizer with the subjunctive particle counts as evidence against assigning the C position to the latter; hence Rivero (1994) postulates an additional M(ood) node between I and C. This treatment is specifically advocated for standard Albanian and Arbëresh dialects by Turano (1993). However, as observed by Roberts and Roussou (2003), within an articulated theory of the C field, different C positions are in principle available to host the subjunctive particle and the that-type complementizer. In fact, following Roussou (2000), Roberts and Roussou (2003) propose an analysis of Modern Greek in which the na particle, comparable to Albanian te considered here, appears in an Op position, forming part of the C field of the left periphery, where it can be preceded by a declarative complementizer like pou inserted in a higher position of the same C field. It is the min negation, when present, which lexicalizes the lowest position of the C field, namely M(ood), following therefore na. Within this framework Roberts and Roussou (2003) propose also that the mu particle of southern Italian dialects appears instead in the lowest complementizer position M, where it can be preceded by the negation no as well as by the complementizer ka (that) or pe (for) in Op. In short, the various analyses considered thus far agree in associating a modal value to the so-called subjunctive particles of Balkan languages. In other words, the combination of the verb with the particle results in the lexicalization of modal properties, which are in fact not necessarily present in the verb morphology. Within the current theory, we note that the particle cannot be assigned to one of the C projections, since we make the restrictive assumption that each phrasal/ sentential domain contains a single head, hence the verb in case of a sentence. At the same time, the distributional evidence seems to exclude that the particle appears in a complementizer position, as defined in Chapter 8, since if the particle represents an independent nominal head, we expect not only the negation, but also wh- elements or lexical subjects and other focused or topicalized material to be able to appear. Within the current theory we would therefore expect to find te in a nominal position in the subjunctive sentence; if it has modal content as well, this must somehow be compatible with its nominal specifications. 2.1 tee- finite verb In Chapter 8 we considered the internal structure of nominal/adjectival phrasal constituents by way of an analysis of overtly agreeing participles, which like other adjectives are inflected for nominal class (gender), number and case as well as being associated with an agreeing article. As we have already anticipated, te shows up as the article in the plural, neuter and oblique. In these cases, following the treatment of articles normally proposed for Romance or Germanic languages, we have assigned te to the D position, where it also contributes definiteness properties to the argument of the noun or adjective. The same element te furthermore shows up in front of participial nominalizations already considered in Chapter 8 and to which we shall return below.

320

‘Subjunctives’ in Tosk dialects

If we take the phonological identity between the article te and the so-called subjunctive particle te not to be purely coincidental, but to reflect the existence of a single lexical entry, then we are led to conclude that te is inserted in D in all cases. This conjecture is strengthened by an observation concerning its interaction with object clitics of the Gjirokastër variety. As shown in (12a), the clitic series in isolation includes E for the third person singular. In combination with other clitics, however, the third person singular clitic is generally represented by the allomorph a as in (12b). The same allomorph a surfaces in contexts where it is immediately preceded by te; when immediately preceded by mCs the allomorph E reappears, as illustrated for the same variety in (3a)–(3b). Several examples of this type are also given in (7). (12) Gjirokastër a me/ te/ E/ na/ ju/ i Te’rasin me/ you/ him/her/it us/ you/ them they.call b i/ t/ m/ ju a DatS to.him/to.you/to.me/to.you(pl) it I.gave c na E ’Da to.us it he.gave Consider then one of the simple examples in (1). Positioning the verb, as usual, in the I head of the sentence and the accusative clitic in the immediately superordinate clitic string, we can assign te to the D position of a modal domain, possibly the lowest such domain (i.e. C), or the CI domain associated with indefinite quantification as indicated in (13). In both cases, te will precede object clitics in the appropriate positions of the I domain. (13) Gjirokastër ei D ei t (C/CI) ei N ei a I vESim This structure is compatible with the distributional evidence presented in the previous section. Consider first the negation, namely mCs, which as we have seen in Chapters 7–8 is associated with the modal forms of the verb, and as such presumably appears in the C domain or higher. On the basis of the evidence concerning the imperative in Chapter 7, we have in fact assigned it to R of the CI domain. Assuming for te the position internal to the C domain, we predict the order mCs te, which is in fact attested in the Gijrokastër data as exemplified in (14). As we have seen, there are Arbëresh dialects in which this is in fact the only order present in the data (Portocannone, Carfizzi, Vena di Maida, Firmo).

‘Subjunctives’ in Tosk dialects

321

(14) Gjirokastër ei R ei mCs (CI) ei D ei t (C) ei N ei a I vESim In the Gjirokastër variety the reverse order with te preceding the mCs negation is also attested, and is in fact the preferred order in the standard, besides being present in Arbëresh dialects such as Ginestra. This order can in principle be derived in two different ways. First, the position of te may remain constant as in (14), in which case the position of the modal negation must vary between R below te and R of the domain above it. On the other hand, it may also be the case that the position of the negation remains fixed, while te can appear in more than one domain. One of the facts reviewed in the previous section argues in favor of the second solution. Indeed in Arbëresh dialects like Civita, te may double on either side of the negation. Such doubling is best explained by a double insertion of te in D of the C and of the CI domains as in (15). Another fact that supports the idea that te has different possible positions is that even in the absence of the negation, te can be seen doubled in a dialect like Barile. (15) Civita ei D ei te R ei mCs (CI) ei D ei t (C) ei N ei E I SCx We can extend to dialects where the order te–negation is the only possible one, the analysis already proposed for the doubling examples. Thus te must appear in the same CI domain as the negation in order for the negative modal interpretation to be observed. It is on this basis that in the Gjirokastër variety structures like (16) alternate with structures like (14).

322

‘Subjunctives’ in Tosk dialects

(16) Gjirokastër ei D ei te R ei mCs (CI) ei N ei E I vESim A reflex of the strict interpretive connection between the subjunctive particle and the negation, both associated with the CI domain, may be seen in another phenomenon observed in the Arbëresh dialect of Vena di Maida, where te and mCh are in complementary distribution. On the basis of the treatment of complementary distributions between clitics in Chapters 3–4, we assume that te and mCh exclude each other in that mCh alone suffices in lexicalizing both negative and modal properties. In other words, mCh in its R position internal to the CI domain lexicalizes the whole of the modal properties of the sentence, which in such a case are not independently lexicalized by the te particle. We expect wh-phrases to precede te, as they do, if we insert them in the appropriate nominal positions of the CI domain. Thus subjunctive indirect questions have the structure exemplified in (17). (17) Gjirokastër ei N ei tSe (CI) ei D ei t (C) ei I bei We have also seen that te sentences are normally preceded by complementizers, including tSe and sE in the Gjirokastër variety, and sa and sE in the Arbëresh dialects. In Chapter 8, we mentioned that complementizers of the type of English that are nominal heads which in turn take a sentence as their complement. Where the negation or other material precedes te in the sentential structure, this appears between the complementizer and te itself, as is the case for the negation in the Arbëresh variety of Carfizzi in (18).

‘Subjunctives’ in Tosk dialects

323

(18) Carfizzi ep I ei sa N ei R ei mis (CI) ei D ei t (C) ei N ei E I bC:tS The combination of a te sentence with a preposition, in particular the preposition pe observed in the purpose clauses and infinitival relatives of Arbëresh dialects, gives rise to a structure similar to (18). Thus the preposition represents an independent predicative head, taking the te sentence as its N complement as illustrated in (19). It is interesting to note that in a dialect like Vena di Maida, where the negation is in complementary distribution with te, it normally combines with pe. This provides a further argument in favor of the different treatment proposed here for te and sentential introducers proper, including both complementizers and prepositions. (19) Vena di Maida ep I ei pe N ei D ei t (C) ei N ei E SCre

2.2 tee participle In the Gjirokastër variety purpose clauses and infinitival relatives are also introduced by the combination of the preposition peV (for) with a te particle. In this case however the te particle embeds a participle overtly inflected with the specialized participial ending V. The internal structure of this participle is analyzed in Chapter 8. The distributional evidence indicates that the position of te in the participial sentence is the same as in the finite sentences considered thus far. Pronominal clitics appear immediately before the participle and after te, while te may either precede or follow the modal negation mCs. In the second case, te will

324

‘Subjunctives’ in Tosk dialects

be in the lower C domain as illustrated in (20), while in the first case it will appear in the same CI domain as the negation. (20) Gjirokastër ep I ei peV N ei D ei t (C) ei N ei a I vESur We have already mentioned that specialized participial forms in V may give rise to nominalizations; for the Shkodër variety, examples of such nominalizations are provided in Chapter 8. In (21), we provide their counterparts from Tosk varieties, where the inflected participial base is formed with the V morphology. The morphology of nominal elements in Albanian depends on their definitiveness, as well as on their number, gender and case. In Gjirokastër’s (21a)–(21c) we provide the definite forms of the nominal in the nominative (a), accusative (b) and oblique (c); in (21d)–(21f) we provide examples for the indefinite form in the same cases. The paradigm that emerges is of a type independently known in Albanian for nominalized adjectives and for a small subset of noun, consisting of kinship terms. In particular, the it ending of the definite paradigm is typical of these two other subclasses as well, while it does not appear in other nominal (and adjectival) paradigms. Nominalized adjectives and the participial nominalizations considered here also share the property of being preceded by te, which at least in (21c) appears to be in free distribution with E (i.e. a prenominal article), and thus to be construed in traditional terms as a prenominal article itself. In turn te may be preceded by an indefinite such as ne in (21d)–(21f). In (21c) and (21e), the first article agrees with the head of the noun phrase of which the genitive nominalization is a complement, as if in English one were to say ‘the time, the one for chatting’. (21) Gjirokastër a me pel’cEn te Da’fCsuV-it to.me likes Art chatted-Def ‘I like a chat’ b E ’dua te Da’fCsuV-it it I.want Art chatted-Def ‘I like (it) a chat’ c eSt ’kCh-a E te Da’fCsuV-it it.is time-fsg fsg Art chatted-Def ‘It is the time for a chat’

‘Subjunctives’ in Tosk dialects d

e

f

325

me pel’cEn ne E/te Da’fCsuV to.me likes a Art chatted ‘I like a chat’ E ’dua ne te Da’fCsuV(-en) (Nga a’i) it I.want a Art chatted(-Acc) (by him) ‘I like a chat (by him)’ eSt ’kCha E ne te Da’fCsuV-i/E it.is time-fsg fsg a Art chatted-gen ‘It is the time for a nice chat’

The further structures in (22), like the nominalizations in (21), involve a participle provided by a nominal inflection and preceded by an article, which in this case are -i and se respectively. Both of these elements are consistent with a description of the participial construct as being in the genitive case; indeed we have already seen -i as the inflection for the indefinite genitive in (21f), while se is independently known as the genitive article in feminine paradigms. At the same time the participle is associated with the normal argumental structure of verbs, inclusive of an internal argument in the accusative. The latter may be seen in (22) in the position immediately preceding the main verb, evidently as a result of a restructuring (i.e. complex predicate formation) process taking place in these contexts. This construction is restricted to complements of a small class of verbs, essentially ‘to finish’. In the Arbëresh dialect of Civita, the participial complement is preceded by te and not inflected, establishing a sort of intermediate link between nominalized participles and peV te constructions. (22) Gjirokastër a E mba’VCva se ’laV-i him I.finished Gen washed-Gen ‘I finished washing him’ b E mba’VCva se ’vESuV-i him I finished Gen dressed-Gen. ‘I finished dressing him’ Barile a fer’nCva se z’JyCDr-i ’yibren I.finished Gen read-Gen book-the(acc) ‘I finished reading the book’ b fer’nCva se ’yaitr-i I.finished Gen washed-Gen ‘I finished washing (myself)’ Civita a fiV’nCva te benuV et SuV’bEs I.finished Prt done that-thing(acc) ‘I finished doing that thing’

326

‘Subjunctives’ in Tosk dialects b

fer’nCva te diE’vasuV ’yibVin I.finished Prt read book-the(acc) ‘I finished reading the book’

One point of interest of the construction in (21) is that the preverbal article te (or E) may appear in the scope of an indefinite. Precisely the analysis we have provided for the te particle in sentences suggests a structural key to this distribution; indeed so-called subjunctive te appears in the D position of the lowest C domain, or higher in the presence of a negation. In nominalizations, we may assume that te has the same position of insertion, where a quantifier, inserted in Q of a higher domain, can take scope over it as in (23). (23) Gjirokastër ei Q ei ne (CI) ei D ei te (C) ei I DafCsuV The adjacency normally observed between article and noun induces us to maintain the same low position for the article in definite contexts, as in (24). In this example the definite reading is unambiguously contributed by the -it inflectional ending of the nominalization. Following the line we have taken in Chapter 1, we will identify -it with the N internal argument of the lexical base as in (24) again. (24) Gjirokastër ei D ep te C ei I ei I N DafCsuV it The D categorization we have maintained throughout for te should be understood on a par with the D categorization which we have associated with clitic subjects in Romance dialects in Chapters 2 and 4. In other words, te lexicalizes a nominal element that closes off the inflectional/modal domain of a sentence or a noun phrase. The connection we have outlined above between preadjectival/ prenominal te and the D argument of sentences supports the conclusion that te as a subjunctive particle is not directly connected to the modal properties of the verb, but rather to its D argument.

‘Subjunctives’ in Tosk dialects

327

A comparison between Albanian (or generally Balkan-type) subjunctives and those of Romance languages reveals a fundamental difference between the range of interpretations available for their respective subjects. As illustrated in (25), in a language like Italian the subject of a subjunctive complement is normally disjoint in reference from the subject of the matrix clause. Thus despite the fact that vada in (a)–(b) is compatible with the interpretation ‘I go’ or ‘he goes’, only the latter is available in (25a); in (25b) both are available but ‘he’ must be disjoint in reference from the matrix ‘he’. No such restriction applies to embedded indicatives, as in (25d), while in the presence of co-reference between the two subjects, modality is lexicalized through the infinitive, as in (25c), giving rise to a control sentence. (25) Italian a Voglio che vada I.want that he.go ‘I want him/*myself to go’ b Vuole che vada he.wants that I/he.go ‘He wants me/him/*himself to go’ c Voglio/ vuole andare I.want/he.wants to.go ‘I want/he wants to go’ d Dico che vado I.say that I.go ‘I am saying that I will go’ The analysis generally proposed for the long-distance disjoint reference effect in (25) is that in subjunctives the locality domain of the embedded subject somehow extends to the matrix sentence. Assuming that Albanian te itself is a D element, its role appears to be that of allowing for co-reference of the embedded subject and the matrix subject. In particular we propose that te introduces the EPP argument of the embedded sentence as a variable, which is identified with the D element introduced independently by the verb inflection. At the same time the te variable may be identified with the matrix subject, therefore mediating the apparent co-reference between the matrix subject and the embedded subject as lexicalized by the D inflection. Note that it is also perfectly possible for the EPP variable introduced by te to be identified only locally by the D inflection of the verb and to therefore lack the control property. This may correspond to the presence of an overt subject in particular in the left periphery of the sentence, as in Vena di Maida’s (3) or in the right periphery, as in Carfizzi’s (1) and (3). On the contrary, if te introduces the EPP argument as a variable, we expect the lexicalization of an inflectional level subject between te and the verb to be excluded correctly. This constitutes important evidence in favor of our proposal, as we shall further discuss in Chapter 10 in connection with causatives.

328

‘Subjunctives’ in Tosk dialects

We now consider how te, that we have analyzed thus far in relation to the syntax of the nominal arguments of the sentence, contributes to its modal interpretation. A relevant observation in this respect is that in those cases in which the verb itself has a specialized subjunctive morphology, the latter is represented by a D ending. This is true of the -(t)S endings of the second person and -n of the third person in Arbëresh dialects. Therefore, independently of te, modality is routinely lexicalized by Albanian through person endings; a similar conclusion was drawn in Chapter 7 for the lexicalization of middle-reflexive morphology for certain tenses and verbal stems. This type of lexicalization is independently known from Romance; thus in (25) vada and vado differ only by the -o/-a inflection that also carries person information. The interpretive characterization we have proposed for te is compatible with the range of nominal environments where it is found. In particular its variable status is compatible with the fact that te also lexicalizes plurals, connected to numerical quantification. Its appearance with neuters and obliques will mean that both involve the binding of an indefinite variable. Indeed what we have generally referred to as oblique, simplifying somewhat the finer details of Albanian morphology, includes the dative, but in the treatment of Italian dialects in Chapter 3, we argued that Romance datives can also be lexicalized by what is effectively quantificational morphology, coinciding in many cases with the plural. In short, our analysis unifies what we may take to be the two end-points of the range of constructions with te, namely the ‘subjunctives’ in section 2.1, where a finite form of the verb is involved, and the nominalizations in this section, where the participle bears a nominal inflection. A somewhat intermediate case is represented by the peV te construction in (7), where te associates with a participial form which however does not bear any nominal inflection. These may be analyzed along the same lines as the subjunctive, with which in effect they share the main distributional phenomena as well as basic interpretive properties. Needless to say the structures in (23)–(24) will be sufficient to account for the genitive nominalizations in (22) as well, while in the example of Civita in (22) the participial complement may be associated with the internal structure of peV te constructions again. 2.3 Aspectual and modal contexts We now turn to the modal and aspectual environments, exemplified in (8), which involve a complement consisting of te and a subjunctive. From a syntactic point of view the embedded te sentence has properties consistent with those already examined; in particular between te and the subjunctive we find the ordinary series of pronominal clitics. On the other hand, aspectual and modal constructions, including those in which the matrix verb is regularly inflected, are subject to interpretive restrictions. First of all, the matrix and the embedded verb are interpreted as having the same subject. Similarly, the higher and lower verb must agree with respect to their modal/temporal specifications. What is more,

‘Subjunctives’ in Tosk dialects

329

the matrix verb may differ from those considered thus far, in presenting a form not inflected for agreement specifications but only for temporal/aspectual ones; if so, the embedded D inflection fixes the references of the matrix EPP argument as well. In cases in which the higher verb has a form which does not vary according to tense/aspect either, this means that the temporal specifications of the embedded verb characterize the whole construct; for instance, a present verb embedded under future dC yields a simple future, while a past verb yields a conditional. Let us consider the necessity modal ka/ki in an Arbëresh dialect like Barile. This gives rise to familiar structures of the type in (26), where however the aspectual matrix verb is not inflected for the D argument, which is interpreted as being co-referential with the overtly lexicalized D argument of the embedded subjunctive verb (a second person singular in the case at hand). Furthermore, the temporal specifications of the two verbs must agree, so that in the presence of a past embedded verb, the matrix modal would take the form kiS. (26) Barile ep I ei ka N ei D ei t (C) ei N ei a I zJCS It should be emphasized that the reduced form of the modal is not due to a morphological deficiency; thus the normally inflected forms of kam (I have), shown in (27), appear in combination with the past participle in the present perfect paradigm or as a verb of possession. The comparison between (26) and (27a) shows that the invariable ka/kiS forms coincide with the verbal base of the present and imperfective past respectively. In particular in the past, kiS combines the specialized verbal base ki and the S past imperfective morphology, as already detailed in Chapter 7. (27) Barile a ’kam(en) I.have b kiSa I.had

’kE(ç) ka

’kEmi ’kEni

kan

’kiSa ’kiSi ’kiSem ’kiSet ’kiSen

The same general properties that we have described for aspectual and modal constructions involving te also characterize constructions where a modal/ aspectual simply embeds a finite verb as in (8)–(9). A typical example of this

330

‘Subjunctives’ in Tosk dialects

state of affairs is represented by the possibility modal (mund) which also embeds a subjunctive. From a syntactic point of view we can treat these examples as involving the normal embedding of a sentential complement under the matrix verb, simply not involving any particles, complementizers or prepositions as shown in (28). (28) Barile ep I ei mend N ei I vin Let us consider the constructions with E, followed either by a finite verb as in (9), or by the participle as in (10). In the absence of any argument to the contrary, we take the coincidence between the coordinating E in (11) and the subordinating E in (9)–(10) to correspond to the existence of a single lexical item. This identification is facilitated by the adoption of the syntax of coordination suggested by Ross (1967) and Kayne (1994), according to which the coordinating element takes the lower conjunct as its complement, making coordination indistinguishable in this respect from subordination. In particular, within the present framework we can assign to coordinating elements like E the same basic structure as we have assigned to complementizers (Manzini and Savoia 2003b, 2005). Thus E is an independent head which takes the right-hand conjunct as its complement while being itself embedded by the left-hand conjunct as shown in (29a) for the case in which it embeds a finite verb, and in (29b) for the case in which it embeds a participle. The interpretive properties of the constructions at hand are the same as already observed for modal and aspectual verbs embedding te or bare verbs as in (26) and (28). (29) Portocannone a ep I ei jam N ep I ei E N ei P ei te I srEs

‘Subjunctives’ in Tosk dialects b

331

ep I ei kiS N ep I ei E N ei Q ei i N ei a I Denur

The modal/aspectual class of matrix verbs that shows the peculiarities reviewed at the outset is also isolated by a set of characteristic behaviors in other language families. In particular in Romance languages, the same predicates give rise to ‘restructuring’ phenomena, in the sense of Rizzi (1982). Classical treatments of these phenomena, including Rizzi’s (1982), involve biclausal structures being reduced to monoclausal ones by a derivational process. A more recent version of the monoclausal approach is that taken by Cinque (2001), who identifies the position of the modal/aspectual verb with one of the functional projections of the sentence, while the embedded verb occupies a lower non-functional position in the same sentence. This treatment immediately isolates the relevant class of restructuring verbs, which in the terms of Cinque (2001) correspond to those for which there are independently motivated functional projections in the sentence. On the other hand, biclausal approaches have also been taken in the literature, notably by Kayne (1989b), who proposes that the relevant class of structures is characterized by a radical impoverishment of the embedded C layer. The combination of a coordinate syntax with an aspectual interpretation is similar to the one found in English in constructions with motion verbs followed by and and a finite verb. That the latter are not ordinary coordinations is shown by syntactic behaviors such as the possibility of extracting an argument from the second member of the apparent coordination. Thus Ann went to the store and bought some whisky allows for extraction of the lower object as What did Ann go to the store and buy? This kind of extraction is impossible with ordinary coordinations such as Ann slept all day and missed the train, cf. *What did Ann sleep all day and miss? These English constructions are in turn discussed by the literature (Déchaine 1993) in connection with serial verbs, even though others (Baker 1989; Collins 1997) restrict serial constructions to the case in which two verbs share an internal objects. Several examples in (9), relative in particular to Portocannone, Firmo, Civita and Barile, show that the property of extraction across what is formally a coordination with E characterizes the constructions considered here. Furthermore with aspectual verbs including the progressive, as well as with motion verbs, many southern Italian dialects present either a sequence of two

332

‘Subjunctives’ in Tosk dialects

finite verbs reminiscent of Albanian (28), or a finite aspectual followed by the particle a and a finite verb, where a is connected to the Latin coordination ac by the historical literature (Rohlfs 1969 [1954]: §761). Cardinaletti and Giusti (2001) study the relevant phenomenon in a Sicilian dialect, proposing a monophrasal structure in which the aspectual verb corresponds to a functional projection of the lexical verb, following the model of Cinque (2001). The structures that we have adopted in (26) and (28)–(29) are biclausal, following the analysis of ‘restructuring’ as well as of serial-like constructions in Sicilian dialects provided by Manzini and Savoia (2005). In the Albanian cases, unlike the Romance cases dealt with by the literature, the biclausal structure appears to be forced by the fact that both the matrix and the embedded verb can have temporal and agreement specifications, though the examples in (26) and (28) have non-agreeing matrix forms, and the example in (29b) has a nonagreeing embedded form. In turn the impoverishment of the embedded C field is not necessarily observed, since faced with bare structures like (28) we normally find the ordinary structures introduced by the te particle as in (26), or by the E complementizer as in (29). What is more, inflectional-level material, such as pronominal clitics, attaches to the embedded verb. Therefore, if we maintain that the modal and aspectual constructions in (8)–(9) have an ordinary biclausal structure, the interpretive properties they display should be imputed directly to the semantic interface. Following Manzini and Savoia (2005) on ‘restructuring’ predicates in Romance, we propose that the basic property of aspectual and modal predicates is that their complement is not taken to refer to an independent event. On the contrary, the embedded predicate and the modal/aspectual verb are taken to refer to a single event. This unification accounts for the salient interpretive properties of the constructions in (8)–(9). Let us consider first, at one extreme of the spectrum, the modal mund which does not bear any temporal/aspectual specifications, though it is worth recalling that in a variety like Gjirokastër it is associated with a full te sentential structure. The interpretation of sentences involving mund/mend as in (28) is obtained by attributing temporal and aspectual specifications lexicalized only on the embedded verb to the whole structure. We propose that this is an effect of the identification of the events denoted by the matrix and the embedded predicate, very much as two arguments may be identified in the chain (movement) interpretation; through it the temporal/aspectual properties of the lower verb take scope over the matrix predicate as well. Essentially the same explanation may be adopted for the case in which both the matrix and the embedded verb are inflected for temporal/aspectual specifications, which must agree. To be more precise, it is the temporal specifications that must agree. As for aspect, we note, for instance, that in the Firmo set in (8) the matrix verb allows for the complete set of temporal/aspectual specifications, including both the perfective past and the imperfective past of ‘to have’, namely kiS and pa respectively, while the embedded verb is restricted to the imperfective. This is reminiscent of the connection between imperfective aspect and irrealis modality studied in particular in Chapter 8. On the other hand, in the context

‘Subjunctives’ in Tosk dialects

333

defined by the uninflected modal mund, both perfective and imperfective specifications may be found on the embedded verb, as shown by the data of Barile. It is also worth noting that in a dialect like S. Benedetto in (8), past complements can equally be embedded under the past form of the necessity modal kiS or under its non-past form ka. In fact, ka in this dialect may be treated along the same lines as mund, i.e. a pure verbal base which does not have any intrinsic temporal/aspectual specification and is as such compatible with any embedded tense/aspect. Thus the alternation between matrix kiS and ka configures two slightly different grammars, one in which tense specifications are matched, and one in which an invariable modal form embeds a fully inflected verb. Eventive unification also connects with another property we noted above, namely the obligatory co-reference (control) of the EPP arguments of the two verbs. In fact, the two options that we reviewed above for temporal specifications are also available for the lexicalization of the EPP argument. One first option is to have the relevant properties lexicalized only on one verb, as is the case in the examples in (26), (28) and (29b). These properties, though lexicalized only on the embedded verb, are attributed to the complex predicate as a whole. The other possibility is to have the matrix and the embedded verb agree. Another possibility compatible with eventive unification is that observed, for instance, with the modal dua (I want) in the Firmo dialect, where the agreement specifications of the modal are severely reduced with respect to those of the ordinary paradigm, though they do not entirely disappear. Thus the first person singular dua maintains its inflected form, though the rest of the paradigm reduces to the pure verbal base dC. The discussion of causatives in Chapter 10 will make it clear that we in fact take the presence of a variable EPP argument in the embedded clause (eventually giving rise to the control interpretation) as a prerequisite for eventive unification, i.e. descriptively complex predicate formation. An important difference between the Albanian aspectual and modal sentences considered in this section and their Romance counterparts, both involving the embedding infinitival complements or bare verb and coordinate complements, is that the latter generally involve clitic climbing. The primary diagnostic for Italian or Spanish ‘restructuring’ in the sense of Rizzi (1982) is precisely the fact that clitics lexicalizing argument of the embedded verb surface in the inflectional domain of the higher modal or aspectual verb. Similarly, the serial-like structures of southern Italy involving a finite embedded verb, preceded eventually by the a particle, are systematically characterized by clitic climbing. Climbing may be accounted for along the lines proposed by Manzini and Savoia (2005). Thus eventive unification combines with the unification of argument structures, reflected also in the control property (obligatory co-reference of the EPP arguments) of the relevant predicates. Given a single argumental structure, we expect that it may be possible to lexicalize it through inflectional clitics on the higher verb, though even in Romance languages like Italian it is equally possible to have clitics lexicalized on the lower verb. In terms of a theory such as Rizzi’s (1982), this would mean that ‘restructuring’ has not applied. Manzini and Savoia (2005) take the same line as Kayne (1989b), namely that while the

334

‘Subjunctives’ in Tosk dialects

relevant class of predicates allows for ‘long movement’ of clitics, it does not force it. The data in (9) include only one instance of clitic climbing, in the Barile dialect, with the invariable matrix aspectual ria followed by a bare verb complement. This may be accounted for along the lines outlined above for Romance. On the other hand, clitic climbing is always excluded from te sentences in (8). Remember then that in our proposal te is inserted in the D position and is therefore connected to the lexicalization of the EPP properties in the lower sentence. It is natural to suppose that the lexicalization of a D clitic in the nominal projections of the embedded sentence forces the entire argumental series to have the lower lexicalization. We may in fact propose that the basic reason why Albanian tendentially does not display clitic climbing, even in the presence of clear complex predicate formation, is bound up with the fact that the embedded verb is generally inflected, as opposed to Romance where the embedded verb is generally invariable, i.e. an infinitival. In other words, in Albanian the presence of a lexicalization of the EPP argument in the embedded clause, represented by the D inflection of the verb, favors lexicalization of the inflectional-level arguments (i.e. clitics) in the embedded sentence as well. We shall come back to clitic climbing, and lack thereof, in Chapter 10, in connection with causatives.

10 Causatives in Albanian

In this chapter various strands of the previous discussion are drawn together in an analysis of Albanian causative construction. Especially in the Arbëresh dialects the challenge is to account for the peculiar mix of a biclausal syntax, of the type investigated in Chapter 9 for ‘subjunctive’ and ‘control’ evironments, and of case and agreement realignment phenomena of the type familiar especially from Romance languages (Kayne 1975). Most extant treatments (Brandi and Savoia 1990; Guasti 1993; Turano 1994), in trying to systematize the evidence within the conceptual grille provided by the incorporation framework of Baker (1988), note explicitly the difficulties encountered by it. Our review of the issues confirms such difficulties; on the other hand, our conclusion is that such difficulties are more general than Baker’s (1988) model and connect to aspects of the transformational framework it adopts. In trying to resolve them, we argue for full independence of the morphosyntactic properties of case and agreement from one another, contrary to the connection between them embedded in minimalist checking (Chomsky 2000, 2001, 2004a), as well as for an interpretive conception of movement. Specifically, the argument we develop here, as we have done since Chapter 1, is that the evidence forces a trade-off between different aspects of the minimalist model. We take it that the operations of checking and movement are essentially matters of execution, whose relaxation is a fair price to pay in order to preserve such conceptually salient constraints as the prohibition against ordering (e.g. of rules, constraints, components).

1 Background 1.1 The basic patterns of Arbëresh causatives We shall begin our discussion by presenting the basic data relating to causativization in Arbëresh dialects, largely reproducing the data originally presented by Savoia (1989a) and taken up by most of the literature already quoted (Brandi and Savoia 1990; Guasti 1993). Because of their relative unfamiliarity, we present them first in a fairly non-theory-led order to give an idea of the attested spread of variation; we will then analyze them according to the

336

Causatives in Albanian

theoretical problems raised, not necessarily in the order in which they have been introduced. In the dialects in (1) the matrix causative verb is an invariable uninflected form followed by a fully inflected embedded verb. This syntactic pattern is similar to that studied in Chapter 9 for complements of modal and aspectual verbs. In accordance with what we saw for modal/aspectual complements, temporal and aspectual specifications of the embedded verb are interpreted as applying to the matrix verb as well, with which it effectively forms a complex predicate. However, complements of causative verbs do not display the control property, and are therefore more similar in this respect to the te sentences analyzed in Chapter 9. As other finite complement sentences, those embedded under the uninflected causative verb can host a postverbal nominative subject as well as the full series of complements, including preverbal object clitics. In particular we have exemplified embedded intransitive sentences in (a) and transitive sentences in (b). (1)

Firmo a u bit/binE ’fje/ ’fjeS/ ’fjen I make he.sleeps/ you.sleep/ they.sleep ‘I make him/you/them sleep’ a ti bitE ’fjeta you make I.slept ‘You made me sleep’ b u binE diC’vasi ’libr-in kria’tur-i I make he.read book-the(acc) boy-the(nom) ‘I made the boy read the book’ b u binE it z’Jun a’ta I make you they.woke.up they ‘I made them wake you up’ Civita a u benE diE’vasin I make you.read ‘I make you read’ a u be t diE’vasS I make Prt you.read(subj.) ‘I make you read’ b a’ta benE diE’vasi ’yibr-in di’ay-i I make he.read book-the(acc) boy-the(nom) ‘I made the boy read the book’ b a’ta benE me z’Juan a’ta I make me they.woke.up they ‘I made them wake me up’

Causatives in Albanian

337

S. Benedetto Ullano a u bitE/binE ’fjeV/ ’fjeS/ ’fjen I make he.sleeps/ you.sleep/ they.sleep ‘I make him/you/them sleep’ a u bitE ’fjei I make he.slept(impf) ‘I made him sleep’ a u bitE ’fjeti I make he.slept(pf) ‘I made him sleep’ b u binE ’piEV ’cumst-in ’cEnn-i I make he.drinks milk-the(acc) dog-the(nom) ‘I make the dog drink the milk’ b u bitE E ser’ritin a’tC I make him they.called they ‘I made them call him’ In other Arbëresh dialects, causative structures differ from those reviewed above in that the combination of the matrix causative and the embedded verb provokes some case realignment. In these respects the relevant dialects are more similar to Romance languages. At the same time, they have the interesting property that the embedded verb preserves a full set of inflections. It is this combination of properties that has raised the interest of the theoretical literature (Savoia 1989a, 1989b; Brandi and Savoia 1990; Guasti 1993; Turano 1994; Rrokaj and Turano 1998). Let us consider Piana in (2). In this dialect the causative verb is inflected and agrees with the causer argument; indeed the examples are listed in (i)–(vi), according to the person inflection of the causative verb. The embedded complement takes the form of a te sentence, with the verb agreeing with its own (understood) EPP argument; at the same time, the case realignment typical of causative constructions takes place. The embedded subject of intransitives shows up in the accusative as in (a), while the embedded subject of transitives shows up in the dative as in (b); when it is cliticized, it is positioned on the matrix rather than on the embedded verb. The accusative argument of an embedded transitive verb is cliticized in the embedded position between te and the lower verb and doubled on the causative verb. (2)

Piana degli Albanesi iii a bun te ’flen di’al-in I.make Prt he.sleeps boy-the(acc) ‘I make the boy sleep’ a E bun te ’flen him I.make Prt he.sleeps ‘I make him sleep’

338

Causatives in Albanian u i bun te ’pjEcen ’miS-t I to.him make Prt he.cooks meat-the ‘I make him cook the meat’ b i a bun te E ’blEn to.him it I.make Prt it he.buy ‘I make him buy it’ b E bun te E n’dixjen him I.make Prt him they.help ‘I make them help him’ iii a ’buj E te ’flasen make him Prt he.speaks ‘Make him speak!’ iv a na ’bujem te ’lozin ’cEn-in we make Prt he.plays the dog-Acc ‘We make the dog play’ iv a ju me ’buni te ri’ET you me make Prt I.run ‘You make me run’ vi a a’ta me ’bejen te ’fleja they me made(impf) Prt I.slept ‘They made me sleep’ a a’ta me ’beVen te ’fleja they me made(pf) Prt I.slept ‘They made me sleep’ b

In a dialect like Vena di Maida in (3) the causative and the embedded verb are inflected, agreeing with the causer and the causee respectively, and the embedded verb is introduced by the particle (pe) te as in Piana above. As in Piana, furthermore, the causee may be lexicalized as the accusative when the embedded verb is intransitive and as the dative when the embedded verb is transitive as in (3a) and (3b) respectively; in Vena it may be seen that this subject also admits of a position immediately preceding the te particle. However, the causee may also be lexicalized by a nominative as in (3a) and (3b). Clitics corresponding to complements of the embedded verb are lexicalized on the lower verb in the expected case; the causee on the other hand is lexicalized on the higher causative verb in the accusative as in (3a) and (3b). (3)

Vena di Maida a u ’bAVA (ne’ri-une) pe te ’ikene I made man-the(acc) for Prt he.runs ‘I made the man run’ a ’bAnna (pe) te ’hare di’ay-i make for Prt he.eats boy-the(nom) ‘I make the boy eat’

(ne’ri-une) man-the(acc)

Causatives in Albanian

339

me ’bAnnene (pe) t E ’SCxe me they.make for Prt it I.see ‘They make me see it’ b u ’bAVA (’buStr-ite) te ’piçe ’krumiStine (’buStr-ite) I I.made dog-the(dat) Prt he.drunk the.milk dog-the(dat) ‘I make the dog drink the milk’ b ’bAnna (’buStr-i) te ’pire ’krumiStine (’buStr-i) I.make dog-the(nom) Prt he.drinks the.milk dog-the(nom) ‘I make the dog drink the milk’ b E ’bAnnene (pe) t E ’SCre him they.make for Prt it he.sees ‘They make him see it’ a

The dialect of Barile in (4) combines realignment of the case array with an uninflected matrix verb; the embedded verb, which follows it, agrees with the causer. The subject of embedded intransitives is in the accusative, while the subject of transitives surfaces as a dative. All clitics appear on the causative verb, eventually in enclisis as in the imperative. With respect to both the agreement and the case array therefore, the Barile dialect shows the same patterns as a Romance language like Italian. (4)

Barile iii b

u j a pata ’ben I to.him it make I.do ‘I make him do it’ iii a ’ti me pata ’fyej you me make you.sleep ‘You make me sleep’ b pat j a z’JyEDeS make to.him it you.read ‘Make him read it!’ b mCs j a pata z’JyEDeS not to.him it make you.read! ‘Do not make him read it!’ iii a ai me pata ’fyej (’mua) he me make he.sleeps (me) ‘He makes me sleep’ iv a ’nei a pata ’fyemi we him make we.sleep ‘We make him sleep’ vi a a’tC beta ’jekten ’cEn-en they make they.ran dog-the(acc) ‘They made the dog run’ a a pata ’flenen him make they.sleep ‘They make him sleep’

340

Causatives in Albanian i pata ’hapnen ’dEren (a’tit) to.him make they.open door-the(acc) to.him ‘They make him open the door’ b a’tC i a ’pata ’bEnen they to.him it make they.do ‘They make him do it’ b

In the dialect of Ginestra in (5) only the embedded verb is inflected, while the matrix causative verb is uninflected. At the same time the agreement morphology of the embedded verb may refer either to its own EPP argument, very much as in the dialects in (1)–(2), or it may refer to the causer, very much as in Barile’s (4). However, this alternance is not free. On the contrary it depends on the denotation of the matrix and embedded EPP arguments, and more specifically on their person. Hence the examples in (5) are first grouped in (i)–(vi) according to the person of the causer, and then further divided into (i)–(vi) subgroups according to the person of the causee. In the (I) examples the agreement morphology of the embedded verb refers to the causee; in the (II) examples it refers to the causer. It will be seen that in all cases in which a first or second person (singular or plural) causer is crossed with an embedded third person subject it is the latter that determines the agreement of the embedded verb (examples (I)). Vice versa, when a third person causer is crossed with an embedded first or second person singular or plural causee, the embedded verb agrees with the causer itself (examples (II)). In other words, third person always determines agreement. In the combination of two third persons the plural often prevails, be it an embedded subject or a matrix subject. As for the interaction between two P(erson) subjects, a second person singular causer always agrees with the lower verb (examples (ii)(II)). Otherwise first person causer and second person causee can yield both agreements as seen under both (i) and (iv); similarly for a second person plural causer and a first person causee, as in (v). In terms of the hierarchies generally posited in the typological literature on person splits, the data reviewed above define a clear hierarchy with third person plural on top, followed by third person singular, then by second person singular, and finally by the other persons. As for the case array, since the causer is obviously nominative and the embedded object accusative, what needs to be considered is the causee, i.e. the embedded subject. Let us begin with the instance where it appears as a clitic. When the causee is first or second person, singular or plural, a P clitic corresponding to it is lexicalized within the object clitic sequence of the lower predicate, independently of the agreement properties of the latter. Thus in the (I) pattern an object clitic finds itself agreeing with a D inflection of the verb, as, for instance, in (i)(I)(ii). Vice versa, a third person causee does not show up as an accusative or dative clitic. As we saw above, the causee may be lexicalized postverbally. Causees corresponding to full lexical noun phrases generally show up in the nominative. Stressed pronouns in the first and second person will systematically double a clitic that lexicalizes P as described above, showing up in the dative.

Causatives in Albanian (5)

Ginestra iii II iiii fu bite t a z’JyEDetS I make you it you.read ‘I make you read it’ iiii fu bita t a ’jEp ai ’titr-i I make to.you it he.gives that(nom) other(nom) ‘I make that guy give it to you’ ivi fu bita a ’Trasnene a’tC I make him they.call they(nom) ‘I make them call him’ III iiii fu beta te s’krune ne ’lEtere I make you I.write a letter ‘I make you write a letter’ iiv fu bita ve ’fyEje ’JiT-va ’jur-va I make you I.sleep all-dat you-dat ‘I make all of you sleep’ iii II iiii ti beta m’bilen ’dEir-ene kria’tYr-i you make he.closes door-the(acc) boy-the(nom) ‘You make the boy close the door’ ivi ti bita te n’dihten a’tC ’tir-t you make you they.helped those(nom) others ‘You made those people help you’ II iiii ti bita me ’fyEitS ’mewa you make me you.sleep me ‘You make me sleep’ iiv ti ’beta ne ’fCyetSe you make us you.speak ‘You make us speak’ iii II ivi vE:t bita a n’dihten tir-te kres’tEire he make him they.helped other-the people ‘He made those people help him’ II i/ii vE:t beta me/ te ’fCyene he make me/ you he.speaks ‘He makes me/you speak’ iiv a’i bita ne N’grihen ’tir-t he make us he.lifts.up others-the ‘He makes those people lift us up’ iiv vEt beta ve ’dCJi ’buk-en ’jur-va he make you he.roasted bread-the(acc) you-dat ‘He made you roast the bread’ ivi vEt beta z’JyEDene (a’tC) he make he.reads (they) ‘He makes them read’

341

342

Causatives in Albanian iv

II

II

iv

II

II

vi

II

iiii ’nEira beta te m’biletSe ’dEir-ene we make you you.close door-the(acc) ‘We make you close the door’ iiii ’nEira beta ’fCyene we make he.speak ‘We make him speak’ iiii ’nEira beta te ’foymi we make you we.speak ‘We make you speak’ iiii ju beta me ra: bukir-t you make me I.broke glasses-the ‘You made me break the glasses’ iiv ju beta ne ’fCyni you make us you.speak ‘You make us speak’ iiii a’tC beta me ’fCynene they make me they.speak ‘They make me/you speak’ iiii a’tC beta t a ’dzenene ’teje they make you it they.know you(dat) ‘They let you know it’ iiii a’tC beta ’iknene (a’i) they make they.run (he) ‘They make him run’ iiv a’tC bita n a ’ben ’nEira they make us it they.did us(dat) ‘They made us do it’ iiv a’tC beta ve m’bilynene ’dEir-ene they make you they.close door-the(acc) ‘They make you close the door’ ivi a’tC bita a ’benen a’tC they make it they.do they(nom) ‘They make them do it’

To ease the processing of the Ginestra data in (5), in (6) we provide example sets relating to the stressed pronoun system in the three major cases (nominative, accusative, dative). The data in (a) summarize the nominative set. Examples (b) and (c) illustrate full pronouns appearing as the second object of ditransitives and as the direct object of transitives respectively, which are doubled by a clitic. Comparison between (b) and (c) shows that in the third person the accusative in (c) and the dative in (b) are differentiated. In the first and second person however doubling environments in (b) and (c) present the same forms; the presence of unambiguously dative morphology such as -va in the second person plural leads us to conclude that the doubling environment induces a dative lexicalization of any object.

Causatives in Albanian (6)

Ginestra a fu, ti, a’i, nEi(ra), I you he we b a’ji m a ’jEp a’ji t a ’jEp a’ji j a ’jEp a’ji n a ’jEp a’ji v a ’jEp a’ji j a ’jEp he me it gives ‘He gives it to me’ c me ’pan ’mewa te ’pan ’teje a ’pan a’te ne ’pan ’nEi(ra) ve ’pan ’jurva i ’pan a’tC me they.saw me ‘They saw me’

343

ju, a’tC you they ’mewa ’teje a’teite ’nEira ’jurva a’tirva me

1.2 Interactions with passive or middle-reflexive morphology in Arbëresh In order not to unduly crowd the example sets we have excluded so far an important aspect of causative structures (also discussed prominently in the literature), namely the interaction of causativization with other morphology connected to ‘argument-changing’ operations, including middle-reflexive morphology and the by-phrase. In some dialects, the embedding of a middle-reflexive verb under the causative leads to a middle/passive or reflexive interpretation of the embedded sentence as illustrated in (7a). Examples (7b) of Firmo and Civita show that in the presence of an embedded middle-reflexive the causer and the causee may be interpreted as co-referential, giving rise to a reflexive reading of the whole causative predicate. Example (7b) of S. Benedetto actually has an auxiliary–past participle structure embedded under the causative, with a passive interpretation of the causative predicate. The pattern illustrated in (7c) for Firmo, Civita and S. Benedetto is also reported in this section, though it involves an active verb, in that a by-phrase cooccurs and agrees with the active verb. This pattern is reminiscent of the possibility already seen in section 1.1 for Piana, Vena or Ginestra where the D inflection of the embedded verb finds itself agreeing with a non-nominative causee. (7)

Firmo a a’ta binE u z’Jum they make M/R we.woke.up ‘They made us wake up’

344

Causatives in Albanian a

a

b

c

u binE u ’Sua ’drit-a I make M/R it.went.out light-the(nom) ‘I made the light go out’ u binE z’JCkEt I make he.wakes.up(M/R) ‘I made him wake up’ ai binE u ’ya he make M/R he.washed.up ‘He had him/himself washed’ u binE it z’Ju:n ka a’ta I make you they.woke.up by them ‘I made them wake you up’

Civita a u benE u ’uytin I make M/R they.sat ‘I made them sit down’ b a’ta benE z’JCxEn they make they.wake.up(M/R) ‘They have them/themselves woken up’ c a’ta benE me z’Juan ka a’ta they make me they.woke.up by them ‘They made them wake me up’ S. Benedetto Ullano a a’tC bitE u ’uja they make M/R I.sat ‘They made me sit’ b a’i binE cE i ’uyur he makes was msg. sat.down ‘He was made to sit down’ c a’tC bitE te ser’rEsin Nga a’tC they make you they.call by them ‘They make them call you’ In the Piana and Vena dialects in (8), despite their case realignment properties, the middle-reflexive morphology is normally interpreted as applying to the embedded (sub)event, as in the (a) examples. Since in these dialects the causative verb is inflected we also expect it to bear middle-reflexive morphology. In fact the spontaneous answer to an Italian stimulus containing a reflexivized causative verb is a sentence of the type of Piana’s (8b), where the middle-reflexive is associated with the embedded verb, while the co-referential reading of the causer and the causee allows for the reflexive property to hold of the whole causative predicate. However, middle-reflexive morphology is also found in the causative verb, in particular with a reflexive, when it doubles

Causatives in Albanian

345

middle-reflexive morphology on the embedded verb as in Piana’s (8b) meaning literally ‘He made himself be helped’. The passive of the causative verb may also combine with an embedded active verb as in (8b) where the passivized element is the causee. As shown in (8c), these dialects furthermore allow for a by-phrase co-occurring with an active verb. (8)

Piana degli Albanesi a bun te ’SuhEt ’zjarr-in I.make Prt it.go.out(M/R) fire- the(acc) ‘I make the fire go out’ b a’ji ben te z’JCnEt he makes Prt he.wake.up(M/R) ‘He has him/himself woken up’ b a’i ’bunet te n’dihEt ka JiT he makes(M/R) Prt he.helps(M/R) by everybody ‘He has himself helped by everybody’ b a’i klEu ben te ’cESene he was made Prt he.laughs ‘He was made to laugh’ c a’ji E bun t E ’Suan ka E ’SCca he it makes Prt it she.puts.out by the wif ‘He makes his wife put it out’ Vena di Maida a E ’bAnna te se’tahete di’ay-ine him I.make Prt he.sits.down(M/R) boy-the(acc) ‘I make the boy sit down’ b a’ji bAn t E z’JCnnene Nga ’jEtra-t he makes Prt him she.wake.up by others-the ‘He has him/himself woken up by the others’ c u ’bAVa te ’piçe ’krumiSt-ine Nga ’buStr-i I made Prt he.drunk milk-the(acc) by dog-the(nom) ‘I made the dog drink the milk’

The dialect of Barile does not substantially differ from those considered so far in the range of structures allowed. Thus in (9b) we have collected examples where the causative verb embeds middle-reflexive morphology; clitic climbing is responsible for the fact that the middle-reflexive clitic u shows up on the main verb. Note that in the past the middle-reflexive morphology on the verb and the u clitic may both be present, in a doubling phenomenon reminiscent of those considered in Chapter 7. The interesting thing is that the presence of middlereflexive morphology on the embedded verb is interpreted in connection with the whole causative complex predicate. In many of the examples in (b) the reflexive reading is salient; thus the matrix EPP is understood as being reflexived by one of the embedded arguments. In some examples, like (iii)(b), the

346

Causatives in Albanian

salient reading is however the passive one; in this reading the matrix EPP argument is understood as having a chain relation to the internal argument slot of the embedded predicate. The Barile dialect may also express the meaning whereby it is only the embedded (sub)event that is reflexivized (or passivized). However, in this case no middle-reflexive morphology is lexicalized. A good example of this is already (i)(d) where the accusative pronoun may be understood as the subject of a reflexively interpreted predicate ‘wash (himself)’; no middlereflexive morphology however shows up anywhere in the sentence. The same sentence has an alternative meaning in which the accusative is interpreted as the internal argument of transitive ‘wash’, while the subject is understood to be generic, as in impersonals and passives; again this is not signaled by any specialized morphology. The embedded unaccusative reading is unambiguously present in an example like (iii)(d), given the presence of the modifier ‘by myself’. The examples with overt by-phrases, and active verb morphology in (c) are interpreted along the same lines outlined for the (d) examples; however, the presence of the by-phrase forces the passive reading, as may be seen in particular from example (iii)(c), when contrasted with (iii)(d). (9)

Barile iii b

u pata z’JCva Nga ’n Eter M/R make I.woke.up by an other ‘I had myself woken up by somebody else’ c u te pata ’TrEs Nga ’n Eter I you make I.call by an other ‘I make somebody else call you’ d u a pata ’uyem I him make I.sit ‘I make him sit’ iii b ti pata z’JCna Nga ’vEt you make you.wake.up(M/R) by him ‘You have yourself woken up by him’ d pat a z’JCS make him you.wake.up ‘Make him wake up!/Have him woken up!’ iii b a’ji u pata z’Jua Nga a ’SCca he M/R make he.woke.up by the wife ‘He had himself woken up by his wife’ b la’trun-i u beta ’zu Nga ’cEni thief-the M/R make he.caught(M/R) by dog-the ‘The dog was made to catch the thief’ b cC ke’miS u pata ’yaf this shirt M/R make it.washed.up(M/R) ‘This shirt was made to wash’

Causatives in Albanian c

d

iv

b

c

iv

b

d

vi

b

d

347

a’i me pata z’JCn Nga ima ’SCca he me make he.wakes.up by my wife ‘He makes my wife wake me up’ a’i me pata z’JCn ’vEtem he me make he.wakes.up alone ‘He makes me wake up by myself’ ’nei beta z’JCnmi we make we.wake.up(M/R) ‘We have ourselves woken up’ ’nei i beta z’JCmi we them make we.wake.up ‘We make them wake up/We have them woken up’ pata z’JCnni make you.pl.wake.up(M/R) ‘Have yourselves woken up!’ pat me z’JCni make me you.pl.wake.up ‘Make me wake up!/Have me woken up!’ kria’turet u pata ’yaxten (Nga ’jema) the boys M/R make they.washed(M/R) (by mother) ‘The boys had themselves washed by their mother’ a’tC ne pata ’TrEsen S’pit they us make they.call always ‘They make us call/They have us called’

The dialect of Ginestra in (10) provides an interesting comparison with those that precede, since, as we saw in section 1, it allows both for agreement of the lower D with an embedded argument, or with the matrix subject (the causer). The (a) examples show that the middle-reflexive embedded morphology is generally interpreted in relation to the embedded (sub)event, whether the verb agrees with the causee as in (I) or with the causer as in (II). The middle-reflexive morphology also allows the causer and the causee to be identified as in the (b) examples, in which case the reflexive reading applies to the whole predicate; this pattern will be found under (II), since as a result the embedded verb inflection agrees with the causer. Another pattern that cuts across the (I) and (II) agreement sets has the embedded subject, be it a noun phrase or a full pronoun, expressed through an agentive phrase embedded under nga (by). This means that in the (I) patterns the verb agrees with the by-phrase as seen under (I)(c) in the first, second and fifth person. (10) Ginestra iii I a

fu bita te ’yahetS I make you you.wash(M/R) ‘I make you wash yourself’

348

Causatives in Albanian fu bita ’yahet ’vEtem I make he.washes.up.M/R alone ‘I make him wash by himself’ c fu beta ’yajti ’pErk-et Nga a’jC I make s/he.washed pants-the by her ‘I made her wash the pants’ c fu bita t a ’jEp Nga ’n Eter I make to.you it he.gives by another ‘I make another give it to you’ a ti bita ’yahet ’vEtem you make he.washes.up.M/R alone ‘You make him wash up’ c ti beta me n’dihnene nga atC ’gra: you make me they.help by those women ‘You make those women help me’ c ti bita te n’dihten Nga a’tC ’tirt you make you they.helped by those others ‘You made those people help you’ a ti beta me ’yahetSe you make me you.wash(M/R) ‘You make me wash myself’ a a’i peta n u De’trewa he make us M/R he.returned ‘He made us return’ a vE:t bita me ’yahet ’mewa ’vEtem he make me he.washes.up.M/R me alone ‘He makes me wash up by myself’ b a’i bita ’yahet Nga a ’SCca he make he.washes.up.M/R by the wife ‘He has himself/somebody else washed by his wife’ c vEt peta ’zu la’trunen Nga ’nEj he make he.caught the thief by us ‘He made us catch the thief’ a nEi peta u De’trewn we make M/R they.returned ‘We made them return’ c ju beta a ’dinnen nga a’tC ’diymere you make it they.know by those children ‘You let those children know it’ c ju beta ’mirni ’payy-ene nga ’mewa you make you.take ball-the(acc) by me ‘You make me take the ball’ a a’tC peta na z’JCnen ’nEi they make us they.wake.up.M/R we ‘They make us wake up’ a

iii II

II

iii II

iv

II

iv

II

II

vi

II

Causatives in Albanian

349

1.3 Casting a wider net: Italian and other Albanian dialects As we have noted more than once, extant accounts of Arbëresh causatives largely follow in the steps of Baker (1988) and therefore explicitly or implicitly insert Arbëresh in a larger context of cross-linguistic variation. Of particular relevance in this respect are Romance languages, which provide a well-studied and familiar paradigm of non-morphological causativization. In this respect they are very close to Arbëresh dialects, while at the same time differing from them in the type of complementation structure involved, since in Romance causatives as in English, the embedded verb is in fact an infinitival. The pattern of causativization in Romance languages is particularly close to that of Barile. Indeed, the embedding of an infinitival under the causative means that the only agreement inflection present in the construct refers to the causer. In turn the case of the causee is systematically realigned, showing up as an accusative with an embedded intransitive and as a dative otherwise. Clitics always attach to the causative verb. (11) Italian a Fecero correre me/*io they.made run me/*I ‘They made me run’ a Lo fecero correre him they.made run ‘They made him run’ b Fecero leggere il libro a Gianni they.made read the book to John ‘They made John read the book b Glielo fecero leggere to.him-it they.made read ‘They made him read it’ If anything the comparison is even closer when it comes to the interaction with other argument-changing morphology such as the passive or si. Thus in Italian, reflexivization or passivization of the embedded predicate is carried out by the embedding of an active form of the verb. The parallel between Italian and the Barile dialect extends to the fact that the agent of the active embedded predicate may be overtly expressed by a by-phrase as, for instance, in (12c). As illustrated in (12a), the embedding of passive morphology is impossible, as is the embedding of reflexive morphology without or with clitic climbing. On the other hand, reflexive and passive morphology is allowed on the verb that is overtly inflected, which is the causative in Romance (contrary to Barile); in that case the operation on argument structure involves the causer position and an embedded argument as in (12b).

350

Causatives in Albanian

(12) Italian a *Lo fecero svegliar-si him they.made wake.up-himself a *Se lo fecero svegliare himself him they.made wake.up a *Lo fecero essere svegliato him they.made be woken.up b Fu fatto svegliare he.was made to.wake.up ‘He was made to wake up’ b Si fece svegliare himself he.made wake.up ‘He had himself woken up’ c Lo fecero svegliare (da qualcuno) him they.made wake.up by somebody ‘They had him woken up by somebody/They made him wake up’ As we saw in Chapter 8, Geg dialects, including Shkodër, have a distinctive complementation pattern, with the reading approximately of a Romance infinitive, where the preposition mE introduces an invariable participle. This same complementation structure shows up embedded under the causative verb, as exemplified in (13). The causative verb is normally inflected, while it is the embedded verb that takes the invariable participial form. As for the case pattern, the causee shows up in the accusative as illustrated for intransive verbs in (13a) and for transitive verbs in (13b). Cliticization of the causee and of other arguments of the embedded predicate targets different domains, since a causee clitic associates with the causative verb, while other clitics associate with the lower verb. A causee lexicalized by a full lexical noun phrase is doubled by an accusative clitic associated with the causative verb; the lexical noun phrase itself can appear either postverbally inside the mE sentence, or between mE and the causative verb. In (13) we also exemplify the Tosk variety of Gjirokastër, which is essentially like the standard, as described by Rrokaj and Turano (1998). The complementation pattern has the causative and the embedded verb both inflected and the embedded verb introduced by te. The causee shows up either immediately before te or after the embedded verb; it is cliticized on the matrix verb, while other arguments of the embedded verb appear on it. In all of these respects, Gjirokastër patterns with Arbëresh (specifically Piana or Vena). At the same time, it is interesting to note that as in Shkodër the causee shows up in the accusative even when the embedded verb already has an accusative object as in (13b); as in the Arbëresh dialects, the postverbal causee may also be nominative (cf. especially Vena).

Causatives in Albanian

351

(13) Shkodër a E ’bAi ’tSEn-in mE NP ’vrap it I.make dog-the(acc) Prt went running ‘I make the dog run’ a E ’bAi mE NP ’vrap ’tSEn-in it I.make Prt went running dog-the(acc) ‘I make the dog run’ b E ’bAi ’tSEn-in mE ’pi: ’tSumSt-in it I.make dog-the(acc) Prt drunk milk-the(acc) ‘I make the dog drink the milk’ b E ’bAi mE ’pi: ’tSumSt-in ’tSEn-in it I.make Prt drunk milk-the(acc) dog-the(acc) ‘I make the dog drink the milk’ b E ’bAi mE E ’pi: it I.make Prt it drunk ‘I make it drink it’ Gjirokastër a ’ben (’cEn-in) te vVa’pCn (’cEn-in) I.make dog-the(acc) Prt run dog-the(acc) ‘I make the dog run’ b E ’ben ’cEn-in te ’pin ’cumSt-in it I.make dog-the(acc) Prt drink milk-the(acc) ‘I make the dog drink the milk’ b E ’ben t a le’dzCne a’i him I.make Prt it he.reads he ‘I made him read it’ Interactions between the middle/reflexive and the causative give rise to the same pattern in Shkodër and Gjirokastër. As shown in (14), in the (a) examples, where only the embedded verb shows middle-reflexive morphology, only the embedded (sub)event is involved by reflexivization or passivization. In the (b) examples the causative verb is also inflected for the middle-reflexive, with the result that reflexivization involves the causee and the causer. If both the causative verb and the embedded verb are passivized, as for instance in Gjirokastër’s (14b), the effect is that of a ‘long passivization’ reading on the lower object. Only if the lower verb is associated with the middle-reflexive morphology can the causee be lexicalized by a by-phrase, leading to absence of the typical Arbëresh (and Romance) pattern with the active verb morphology combining with a by-phrase, i.e. Kayne’s (1975) faire-par. (14) Shkodër a E kPm ’bA ’tSumSt-in mE u ’pi: Na ’tSEn-i it I.have made milk-the(acc) Prt M/R drunk by dog-the ‘I have made the milk be drunk by the dog’

352

Causatives in Albanian un E ’bAi mE u ’lP ’vet I him make Prt M/R washed alone ‘I make him wash himself’ b ’tSEn-i aSt ’bA mE Na ’vrap dog-the(nom) it.is made Prt went running ‘The dog has been made to run’ b ’tSEn-i aSt ’bA mE pi: ’tSumSt dog-the(nom) it.is made drunk milk ‘The dog has been made to drink milk’ b a’i ’bAhEt mE u ’Tir (pVei ’tynE) he makes(M/R) Prt M/R called (by them) ‘He has himself called’ a

Gjirokastër a ’cEni u ’be te vVa’pCnte (Nga a’ta) dog-the(nom) M/R it.makes Prt it.ran (by them) ‘The dog was made to run by them’ b ki ’cumeSt u ’be te ’pihEt this milk M/R it.makes Prt it.drinks(M/R) ‘This milk was made to be drunk’ 1.4 Previous analyses Treatments of Albanian causative constructions (Brandi and Savoia 1990; Guasti 1993; Turano 1994) generally adopt the framework of Baker (1988). According to Baker (1988) causative constructions of the Romance type represent simply the abstract movement counterpart to causative constructions overtly formed in other languages (e.g. Bantu ones) by incorporation of an embedded verb into a higher causative morpheme. The basic result is the reassignment of the embedded subject to the complement domain of the complex causative predicate. For Baker (1988) other consequences depend on one main parameter, namely whether it is indeed the verb that moves, or the embedded predicate, including the internal argument of the verb. If the verb moves, since the embedded subject remains in its place, the embedded object may move only within the embedded sentence. If the embedded predicate moves, then the embedded object, having been taken along, may move freely inside the matrix sentence. This parameter is introduced because, considering a certain spread of overt incorporation languages, Baker (1988) actually notices that some of them can passivize the lower object to the matrix subject position (in the way exemplified here for Barile or Italian), while others cannot. Within the framework of Baker (1988), only Brandi and Savoia (1990) take into account the full extent of the data presented by Savoia (1989a). Guasti (1993) restricts herself to a subset of data, while Turano (1994) considers only the data of her native dialect of S. Nicola dell’Alto. Brandi and Savoia (1990) have the verb, rather than the VP, move in all cases. For the type illustrated here

Causatives in Albanian

353

in (1), including S. Benedetto, Brandi and Savoia (1990) propose that the embedded verb moves only as far as the C position of the embedded sentence, so that the CP barrier protects the embedded arguments from any case reassignment. In the case illustrated here by Vena or Piana, according to Brandi and Savoia (1990), the same overt movement takes place. However, removal of the barrierhood status of CP allows for a reassignment of accusative case to the causee. For Ginestra and Barile, Brandi and Savoia (1990) propose that the embedded verb moves all the way to the matrix verb to incorporate it. In order to explain the varying conditions of verb agreement in the Ginestra dialect, Brandi and Savoia (1990) further introduce a filter incorporating the person hierarchy, namely 3p  2p  1p. In their terms the interaction between causative and middle morphology is determined by the order in which the two apply. Thus in Barile, the assumption is that incorporation of the embedded verb into the causative verb precedes the application of middle-reflexive morphology, which therefore operates on the verbal complex. The reverse ordering of the two relevant processes is exemplified by Ginestra where the middle morphology is merged with the verb before incorporation with the causative. Like Brandi and Savoia (1990), Guasti (1993) assumes that if there is case realignment of some sort, then incorporation has applied, as in Baker (1988). For Guasti (1993) in a dialect like S. Nicola it is the subjunctive particle te that incorporates into the causative verb; the fact that the causative verb is inflected is due to its subsequent excorporation and movement to matrix I. The result of the incorporation is that the embedded subject is governed by the causative complex, and is therefore assigned non-nominative case, with some adjustment needed to predict dative as well as accusative. The lower object on the other hand remains in the government domain of the lower verb, and neither its case nor its position is affected. The Barile case falls more straightforwardly within the bounds of an incorporation analysis and receives by Guasti (1993) the same treatment already proposed by Brandi and Savoia (1990), i.e. direct incorporation of the lower verb into the causative, with subsequent inflection of the complex predicate; the latter naturally determines case reassignment as well. Turano (1994) limits herself to the case of S. Nicola. She takes sentences with embedded nominative subjects to have ordinary biclausal structures, while case realignment is made to depend on Baker’s (1988) incorporation. Rrokaj and Turano (1998) account for both environments in standard Albanian without having recourse to incorporation, arguing explicitly against a solution based on Baker’s (1988) theory for the specific cases they consider. Thus they account for structures with a postverbal nominative subject simply by assuming that the embedded verb has moved to the C position of its own sentence. When the causee surfaces in the accusative, appearing in this case before the te particle, this is interpreted as a movement of the causee itself to the [spec, C] position of its own sentence. It would certainly be of great interest to provide a detailed discussion of the various proposals put forward. However, in view of recent developments in the theory of movement, specifically of the minimalist framework, it is evident that

354

Causatives in Albanian

both Baker (1988) and more specifically the attempts at adapting it to Albanian encounter a number of very general problems. Just to mention one, minimalism is a lexicalist framework. Mimicking incorporation through successive checking is perhaps possible, but certainly unnatural, as shown by Halle and Marantz (1993). More specifically, all of the overt incorporations that would happen in Albanian would imply adjunctions to the right, which is forbidden in the widely adopted phrase structure framework of Kayne (1994). More generally, the causative would be expected to appear to the right of the lexical verb simply on the basis of the fact that morphological structures are right-headed (Williams 1981). From an empirical point of view a problematic aspect of the Baker (1988) framework that warrants a mention here is that in effect it leaves us without an account for the fair-par constructions, in the sense of Kayne (1975), where an embedded active verb is coupled with an external argument expressed through a by-phrase. Baker (1988: 487, fn. 38) speculates on this construction, proposing that a passive morpheme associated with the lower sentence ‘satisfies its need to affix to a verb . . . by incorporating into the higher causative verb directly’. But Baker (1988) himself indicates that ‘the fact that there seems never to be any overt sign of this passive morpheme in the causative affix is a potential problem’. To find a treatment of faire-par we must look elsewhere in the literature, for instance, to Zubizarreta (1985), who in discussing the Romance causative patterns before the syntactic incorporation proposal of Baker (1988), makes the hypothesis that fare is an abstract ‘affix’ forming a complex verb with the embedded predicate. As its external argument, the causer, becomes the external argument of the whole predicate, the causee has only three options at its disposal. One is to become an internal argument showing up in the accusative/dative. Another one is to remain an external argument through lexicalization as an agent. The third option is to be deleted altogether. However, the Arbëresh dialects provide a direct counter-example to the approach of Zubizarreta (1985), which bases the faire-par pattern on a suppression of the EPP argument. Indeed in these dialects the lexicalization of a by-phrase coexists with a D inflection on the embedded verb, which is an instantion of the EPP argument. The primary reason why Albanian causative constructions are brought up here however is not to provide arguments against the incorporation approach. Rather, Albanian causatives, and especially Arbëresh ones provide, in our view, some further evidence that checking and the derivational construal of movement in terms of checking are best given up; only at this price, general minimalist postulates as to the early insertion, lexicalism, no optimality and so on can be maintained.

Causatives in Albanian

355

2 Analysis 2.1 No case or agreement realignment In consonance with the framework laid out in the preceding chapters, we pursue a treatment of causative constructions in which they correspond to biclausal structures. In the dialects in (1), for instance, Firmo, the complementation structure recalls that of the modal/aspectual contexts in Chapter 9 where the matrix verb has an invariable form, while it is the embedded verb only that is inflected. Following the conclusions of Chapter 9, the two verbs are lexicalized in the I positions of their respective sentences; as expected, the clitics associated with the embedded verb immediately precede it in the embedded I domain. The embedded EPP argument may be lexicalized in postverbal position, agreeing with the D inflection of the embedded verb as illustrated in (15). (15) Firmo ei D ep u I ei binE N ei P ei it I ei zJun D ata The middle-reflexive morphology that appears on the embedded verb is constrained to operate on the lower argument structure. This gives rise to structures like (16), where the u clitic in (a) or the middle-reflexive morphology on the verb implies an unaccusative reading of the embedded predicate only, not affecting the higher causative predicate. Note that sentences like (7b) of Firmo and Civita can convey a reflexivization of the causee by the causer; however, they do so through an active syntax, the relevant relation between causer and causee being co-reference between the matrix D argument and the pronominal embedded D represented by the verb inflection. Another relevant example is S. Benedetto’s (7b), where the matrix D argument ai is co-referential with the D argument of an embedded be–passive participle construction; this leads to a long passivization reading ultimately relating the internal argument of the embedded predicate to the matrix subject position, but without any long passivization relation or operation.

356 Causatives in Albanian (16) Firmo a ei D ep ata I ei binE N ei Q ei u I zJum b

ei D ep u I ei binE N ei I zJCkEt

The examples in (7) further attest to the co-occurrence of active morphology with the lexicalization of a by-phrase in the embedded sentence as in (17) below, giving rise to a phenomenon recalling the faire-par construction of Romance. The position of insertion of the by-phrase is given as Loc, in keeping with the fact that ka independently has a locative value, roughly ‘from’, as indeed da (from) in Italian, par (for, through) in French and by itself in English. The prevalence of locative meanings in prepositional adjuncts provides one general reason to identify the basic adjunct position with Loc; another clue to the same conclusion is provided by the fact that the one adjunct clitic of Romance languages (Italian ci, French y) is essentially a locative (e.g. instrumental). (17) Firmo ei D ep u I ei binE N ei P ei it I ei zJun Loc ka ata Consider first (15). The literature, beginning with Brandi and Savoia (1990), extensively debates the question why a nominative subject can only appear postverbally, while it cannot appear preverbally between the causative and the embedded verb. Now, the possibility of a postverbal nominative subject in sentences that do not allow for a preverbal one characterizes a wide range of sen-

Causatives in Albanian

357

tences, in particular te complements in Chapter 9. For those we have proposed that the te element itself inserted in D of a high inflectional domain introduces the EPP argument as a variable; in this analysis, an eventual lexical subject may be lexicalized only in a different domain, notably in the postverbal predicative one, and interpreted as fixing the value of this variable. In other words, the nominative lexical subject is forced to postverbal position by the fact that the embedded EPP argument is introduced as a variable in causatives as well. In the absence of specialized D arguments like the te particle, we simply assume that a variable interpretation is associated with the EPP argument in case there is no independent D lexicalization in the relevant domain. In semantic terms, what we are saying translates into the idea that the embedded complement of the causative verb is a predicate, with an empty (variable) subject argument. We connect the voiding of the EPP argument to another property displayed prominently both by causatives and by at least the aspectual/ modal subset of control predicates considered in Chapter 9, namely some form of complex predicate formation. In particular in (15)–(17), while the matrix causative verb takes an uninflected form, the tense and aspect specifications of the lower verb are interpreted as holding of the causative complex as a whole. This kind of property, which in other frameworks is treated by an incorporation operation, is an interpretive effect in the current model; the crucial prerequisite for it is that the EPP argument of the embedded sentence is introduced as a variable. Consider next (17), where in traditional terms the verb inflection agrees with the by-phrase. That a (basically locative) by-phrase can fix the reference of an external argument is of course an independently needed assumption about byphrases in any theory. The proposal that emerges from the structures under consideration (i.e. finite causative complements) is that this represents a phenomenon of the realignment of the embedded external argument to an oblique, made possible by complex predicate formation and ultimately by the presence of an EPP variable corresponding to the same external argument slot, whose reference is fixed by the by-phrase itself. To be more precise, in the case at hand, at the morphological level the EPP argument is normally lexicalized by the D inflection of the verb; this means that since the D inflection and the by-phrase concur to fixing the reference of the same variable, the D inflection agrees superficially with the by-phrase. It remains for us to consider the examples in (16), embedding middle-reflexive morphology. In (16a) the u clitic introduces a variable corresponding to the internal argument slot of the embedded predicate projecting. This leads to an interpretation where the internal argument variable and the EPP variable are identified, and their value is fixed in this case by the D argument internal to the verbal constituent, i.e. its inflection. When the middle-reflexive morphology is lexicalized by a verbal suffix, for instance, -k- in zJCket in (16b), we have treated the suffix as akin to a be auxiliary, taking the verbal base in its scope. The interpretation to which it gives rise is the same as found with be- passives; in other words, the internal argument of the verbal base is identified with the D argument of the middle-reflexive inflection, which also identifies the EPP embedded variable.

358

Causatives in Albanian

Brandi and Savoia (1990) raise a further issue, noting that invariable verb forms such as the one in (15)–(17) have a recognizable internal structure, including a t segment that does not appear as part of the ordinarily inflected verbal base for ‘to make’. Thus in the Firmo dialect ben (I make/I do) contrasts with causative bitE. If we follow Brandi and Savoia (1990) in assuming that the t morphology is to be identified with the te particle that introduces embedded sentential complements, we can assign to an invariable causative verb form like bitE a structure of the type of (18). Thus the causative verbal base bi is followed by a t element which lexicalizes a D specification within the verb structure, as the te particle does within the sentential structure. (18) Firmo ei I D bi t As for the vocalic formative E that closes off constituents such as (18), in Albanian dialects such vocalic elements are generally associated with nominal class properties. Indeed E has an independent lexicalization in Albanian as the accusative singular clitic. This suggests that invariant verb forms such as bitE are closed off by an N formative as in (19). (19) Firmo ei I N ei E I D bi t In the dialects in (1), the invariable causative forms involving a t inflection alternate with forms that exclude it, such as binE at Firmo and S. Benedetto and benE at Civita. Even in these cases it remains true that the invariable verb form is closed off by a vocalic formative, namely E, exactly as for the t counterparts. We assign to this element the same N categorization, making the invariable verb into a nominal form of sorts as in (20). (20) Firmo ei I N bin E In considering te sentential complements in Chapter 9 and above, we have proposed that te in D introduces a variable corresponding to the EPP argument of the embedded verb. However, the t element in (19) is internal to the causative verb; this would normally lead us to conclude that it introduces a variable corre-

Causatives in Albanian

359

sponding to the D argument of the causative verb itself. As a result, the causative verb form is not so much uninflected, as inflected with an unchanging variable D specification. That this is compatible with, rather than essential to, the causative construction is shown by the systematic alternation with t-less causative verbs, such as (20). 2.2 Realignment of the causee on the accusative The next system we shall consider is that of Shkodër. Taking the lead from the discussion in Chapter 8, the paskjore is in a syntactic complementation relation with the causative predicate bAi (I make). As usual, mE in D introduces the EPP argument of the embedded sentence as a variable; the complements of the embedded predicate maintain their ordinary position internal to the embedded sentence, whether they are full noun phrases or clitics as in (21). The causee may be positioned on the right periphery inside the embedded predicative domain, or between mE and the participle, in which case we associate it with a position on the left periphery of the embedded sentence. (21) Shkodër ru D ru un N ri E I ru bAi N ru N ru (tSEnin) D ru mE I ru pi: N ru tSumStin N (tSEnin) Our proposal is that all causative constructions have in common the embedding under the causative verb of a sentential complement with an open EPP variable, i.e. of what is semantically a predicate. In Shkodër’s (21) this variable is identified by an accusative, hence in current terms by an N internal argument. Thus argument cannot be defined with respect to the embedded predicate, given that in sentences like (21) the embedded predicate already has an internal argument. Similarly, it is obvious that the causative predicate already has its own internal argument corresponding to the paskajore itself. Nevertheless, the N argument to which the causee corresponds has a possible interpretation, as the internal argument of the complex predicate formed by the causative and the embedded verb. This complex predicate formation is made possible precisely by the fact that the embedded EPP position corresponds to a variable, so that the embedded complement is semantically a predicate.

360

Causatives in Albanian

The fixing of the EPP variable value by an N internal argument is in a way the mirror image of the interpretation that underlies middle-reflexives, whereby an object variable introduced by si in Italian or u in Albanian is identified by a D argument. In this perspective the generalization which emerges is that the variable interpretation corresponding to the argumental N or D point of the structure is involved respectively in the ‘externalization’ of an internal argument, as in passives, and in ‘internalization’ of an external argument, as in causatives. This parallelism however can only be captured in an interpretive model, while classical transformational theory is construed to account, asymmetrically, for externalization only. The distribution of clitics is consistent with the analysis provided thus far. As we saw in introducing the data, any clitic corresponding to an argument of the embedded predicate is lexicalized in the embedded sentence; however, an accusative clitic corresponding to the causee must insert in the inflectional domain of the matrix verb, presumably because this is the first possible clitic domain for the causative complex as a whole. It is also interesting to note that in the data in (13), as well as in (14a), a lexical causee in a position which is internal to the embedded sentence according to the analysis in (21) is actually doubled by a clitic inserted in the higher inflectional domain as in (21) itself. This may be imputed to a structural requirement as to the fact that a copy of the causee must be lexicalized in a position connected to the causative complex predicate as a whole. As illustrated in (22a), middle-reflexive morphology associated with the embedded predicate is interpreted in relation to the embedded subevent. This means that the causee reflexivizes the internal argument of the embedded predicate, or that the latter passivizes up to the causee position. Since the causative verb is inflected, exactly as the embedded verb, in the Shkodër dialect it is also possible to associate middle-reflexive morphology with it; in this case it is the causee that is passivized or reflexivized as in (22b). The presence of middlereflexive morphology on the lower predicate and on the causative verb yields the same effect as ‘long’ passivization/reflexivization of the internal argument of the embedded predicate. (22) Shkodër a ei N ep E I ei kam N ep I ei bA N ei N ei tSumStin D ei mE Q ei u I pi:

Causatives in Albanian b

361

ei D ep tSEni I ei aSt N ep I ei bA N ei D ei mE I ei pi: N tSumSt

The passive/reflexive interpretation in a sentence like (22a) is constrained to the embedded sentence. Thus the N argument of the causative complex fixes the value of the EPP variable identified with the variable introduced by the u clitic. Let us then consider (22b). What we find in this example is a be passive, which in current terms forces the identification of the D argument of the auxiliary with the internal argument of the participle. In the case at hand, the relevant internal argument is however that of the participle–embedded verb complex as a whole, hence ultimately the embedded EPP argument.

2.3 The causee is realigned on the accusative or dative Let us now consider the structural type represented by the dialect of Piana. From the point of view of verb inflections, this dialect conforms to ordinary biclausal structures since both the causative verb and the matrix verb are inflected, and the embedded sentence is introduced by te. Case realignment takes place, so that the causee turns up in the accusative if the embedded verb does not assign it independently as in (23a), or otherwise in the dative as in (23b). If the causee is cliticized, it furthermore appears on the higher verb, in the accusative or in the dative, as shown in (23a) and (23b) respectively. In (23b) the accusative clitic corresponding to the internal argument of the embedded verb is copied on both the causative and the embedded verb. (23) Piana degli Albanesi a ei N ep E I ei bun N ei D ei te I flen

362

Causatives in Albanian b

ei Q ei i N ep a I ei bun N ei D ei te N ei E I blEn

Interestingly, since the case realignment properties combine with separate inflectional structures for the matrix and the embedded verb, in traditional terms a causee in the accusative finds itself agreeing with the D inflection of the embedded finite verb. In a theory such as Chomsky’s (2001, 2004a), the same featurechecking operation results in agreement of the finite verb with the EPP argument and in assignment of the nominative case to the latter. The data of Piana under consideration are therefore a direct counter-example to this theory. This kind of problem is noted by Brandi and Savoia (1990) who propose an ordering solution, whereby agreement takes place before incorporation and case realignment afterwards. Of course ordering of rules is not available in a representational framework like the current one; nor is it possible to translate it into minimalist terms. A possible solution to the problem is provided by the approach of Iatridou (1993), quoted by Chomsky (2004a), which considers data similar to ours in modern Greek. Even assuming that the results are correct, for Greek, they are hardly applicable to our data. The general idea of Iatridou (1993) is that the role of nominative case assignors should be constrained to verbs that are not simply finite but tensed. Now, the Greek verbs embedded under causative-like predicates are systematically in the present, hence arguably untensed. However, as we pointed out in introducing the Albanian data, the verbs embedded in the causative are overtly inflected for tense and aspect, so that in Iatridou’s (1993) proposal we expect them to be nominative case assignors. Another possible construal of Iatridou’s (1993) proposal will be considered (and dismissed) in connection with Vena di Maida below. The position we take here is that accusative case lexicalizes internal argument properties (i.e. N properties in our categorization scheme); therefore assignment of accusative case to the clitic in (23a) means that it is the internal argument of the complex causative predicate. In the complementation structure of Piana the embedded sentence is introduced by the ‘subjunctive’ particle te, which is an instantiation of the categorial D properties of the embedded sentence; in particular, te introduces the D argument as a variable. Precisely by virtue of its variable content, the D argument introduced by te may be identified by the N (accusative) argument represented by the clitic in (23a), as well as by the D inflection. This leads to the superficial effect of agreement between the accusative clitic and the D inflection of the embedded verb.

Causatives in Albanian

363

Piana differs from other systems considered thus far in that the lexicalization of the causee is sensitive to the transitivity properties of the embedded verb. Thus the causee is associated with the N internal argument position only when the embedded verb does not have an N argument of its own. If the embedded verb already has an internal argument, the causee is lexicalized as a ‘dative’ or eventually as a by-phrase. We can derive this difference between Piana and other systems if we assume that the internal argument of the embedded predicate, if present, is computed as the internal argument of the complex causative predicate. Dativization of the causee in turn is difficult to conceptualize in terms of the traditional category of dative, but follows very naturally from the reconstruction of this category in Chapter 3. Thus a dative is simply a cover term that is used for elements as diverse as distributors (i.e. quantifiers of some sort), directionals (i.e. locatives), and partitives. In causative structures the causee interpretation may be taken to be compatible with the quantificational characterization of distributor datives. In particular in a structure like (23b), identification of the EPP variable by Q rather than by N is forced by the fact that the N argument is constrained to the independent internal argument slot in the presence of a transitive predicate. Identification of the EPP variable by N is possible only in the case of intransitive predicates. Middle-reflexive morphology, associated with the embedded verb, is interpreted in relation to the embedded (sub)event as in (24a). The causative verb may also be passivized, at least if the embedded verb is too, giving rise to structures like (24b). (24) Piana degli Albanesi a ep I ei bun N ei D ei te I ei SuhEt N zjarrin b

ei D ep ai I ei bunet N ei D ei te I ei ndihEt Loc ka JiT

In (24a) the middle-reflexive morphology operates as a be- auxiliary forcing the identification of the embedded EPP variable with the internal argument of

364

Causatives in Albanian

the embedded predicate. Because of the case realignment connected with complex predicate formation, it is interesting to note that the internal argument of the embedded predicate shows up in the same position and with the same case (accusative) that it would have in an ordinary transitive sentence. In other words, passivization and causativization cancel each other out, being the converse of one another, as discussed in the previous section. Native speakers produce sentences where the causative verb is associated with middle-reflexive morphology most easily if the embedded verb is also middle-reflexive as in (24b). In this case the embedded middle-reflexive implies as before the identification of the embedded EPP variable with the internal argument of the ndih- verbal base. The middle-reflexive morphology associated with the causative verb in turn implies the identification of the D argument of the causative with an internal argument that can only be that of the complex predicate as a whole. The combination of matrix and embedded passive ultimately gives rise to a ‘long’ reflexive interpretation bearing on the causer and the embedded internal argument. On the other hand, this surface effect is obtained through two ‘local’ applications of the middle-reflexive relation. ‘Long’ reflexivization/passivization is otherwise impossible. This behavior is reminiscent of what in transformational terms would be locality constraints, such as the specified subject condition of Chomsky (1973), Kayne (1975) and Rouveret and Vergnaud (1980). Thus the reference of the internal argument of the embedded verb cannot be fixed by the matrix D argument across a lower EPP argument. It is interesting to note that the cliticization pattern provides independent support for this conclusion. Indeed when cliticized, the accusative argument of the embedded verb is doubled in the matrix and embedded sentence. If, as proposed above, the internal argument of the embedded verb is adopted as the internal argument of the complex predicate, it is possible for it to be lexicalized in the matrix-inflectional domain, corresponding to that of the complex predicate. At the same time we may take it that the lexicalization in the lower domain is enforced by the need to avoid a configuration in which the lower argument slot would be bound by the clitic across the lower EPP variable. The higher position of the clitic, corresponding to the clitic domain for the causative complex as a whole, is instead possible (and obliged) for the element identifying the EPP variable itself. Consider a dialect like Vena di Maida, whose complementation structure is comparable to that of Piana. In this dialect an embedded causee can show up in the nominative, as illustrated, for instance, in (25a). However, it can also show up in the accusative or dative according to the transitivity patterns of the embedded verb. In either case it may be positioned either postverbally or immediately before the (pe) te introductor; in structural terms this latter position is in the left periphery of the embedded sentence, at least if our discussion of Shkodër is correct.

Causatives in Albanian

365

(25) Vena di Maida a ep I ei bAnna N ei D ei (buStri) D ei te I ei pire N ei krumiStine D (buStri) b

ei D ep u I ei bAVa N ei Q ei (buStrite) D ei te I ei piçe N ei krumStine Q (buStrite)

The basis for the two different lexicalizations of the causee in (25) is the embedding structure characterized by a variable EPP position. The presence of this variable argument allows for the lexicalization of the embedded subject in a D (nominative) position as in (25a). It equally allows for ‘internalization’ of the causee argument in the way just described for Piana; this possibility corresponds to structures like (25b). One respect in which Vena differs from other dialects considered thus far is that the two structures in (25) are both allowed. This property allows us to sharpen the argument against Iatridou (1993). Remember that in Albanian we cannot just hold that the verb embedded under a causative is untensed, since it overtly displays temporal and aspectual inflections. However, we could have resort to a different criterion for evaluating the tenseness of the embedded verb, also suggested by Iatridou (1993); thus we could conclude that the embedded verb is not really tensed, in that its tense/aspect properties are controlled by the matrix ones. However, apart from any other consideration (such that it is often the properties of the embedded verb that take scope over the matrix invariable form), the fact that the causee alternates between nominative and non-nominative in Vena casts further doubts on Iatridou’s (1993) analysis. Specifically, if it is true that nominative is constrained to tensed embedded verbs and that non-nominative correlates with nontensed ones, we are forced to conclude that the surface optionality of Vena’s grammar is due to an underlying alternation between untensed and tensed

366

Causatives in Albanian

embedded verbs. However, this conclusion appears to be stipulative, since there is no observable variation in the morphological and interpretive properties of the embedded verb correlating with variations in case pattern. Consider then cliticization. The ‘internalized’ causee in the accusative or dative is cliticized to the higher causative domain, which in current terms means that it is necessarily construed as an argument of the whole causative complex. Other arguments of the embedded verb are cliticized to the embedded verb. The interesting point is that, while in the Piana dialect the clitic lexicalizing the causee alternates between accusative and dative, in keeping with the accusative or dative lexicalization of an embedded full noun phrase, in the Vena dialect the causee corresponds to an accusative clitic in all cases. In itself the fact that the clitic causee always appears in the accusative simply takes us back to a possible case realignment pattern already discussed for Shkodër. In this respect the only notable property of Vena is the split observed between the clitic in the accusative and its doubling lexical noun phrase in the dative as in (25b). What appears to be relevant for case realignment is therefore the local conditions encountered in each domain of lexicalization. More in general, at this point of the discussion we are in a position to explain subtle variations attested by Albanian dialects. Thus according to Turano (1994), S. Nicola has a different treatment for a causee of intransitive verbs, which is ‘internalized’ in the accusative, and that of a transitive verb, which may be ‘internalized’ (as a dative or a by-phrase) or may not be (hence showing up as a nominative). In this language therefore the causee is obligatorily realigned on the internal argument position where there is no such argument in the structure of the embedded verb. However, when the embedded verb already has an internal argument, this may be adopted as the internal argument of the causative complex, leaving the lexicalization of the causee free. In the variety spoken in Gjirokastër, we find a combination of the embedding patterns analyzed here for Piana and Vena and of the case patterns that we saw for Shkodër. In other words, the embedding structure introduced by the te particle combines with realignment of the causee in the accusative only. As before we take it that the presence of an embedded EPP variable licenses the ‘internalization’ of the causee to an N position, interpreted as the internal argument of the causative complex as a whole. The fact that this realignment is not sensitive to the presence of an internal argument of the embedded verb may be seen as a consequence of the fact that the latter is not subsumed into the complex predicate structure. Cliticization is coherent with this analysis, since the causee shows up as an accusative clitic on the matrix verb, while other arguments of the embedded verb are cliticized on it. Similarly, we expect that middle-reflexive morphology on the embedded verb to be interpreted locally, while middlereflexive morphology on the causative verb is interpreted as reflexivizing/ passivizing the causee to the matrix D position. This pattern follows that for Piana.

Causatives in Albanian

367

2.4 Case and agreement realignment The dialect of Barile takes us back to a pattern similar to that of Firmo and other dialects in section 2.1 in that only the embedded verb is inflected, while the causative verb is an invariable form. The difference is that while the embedded agreement is fixed on the causee in Firmo, it is fixed on the causer (i.e. the argument of the causative verb) in Barile. As for case patterns, the causee appears in the accusative if it corresponds to the only argument of the embedded verb, while it appears in the dative if the embedded verb has an independent accusative argument. Clitics are always inserted in the string associated with the higher causative predicate. This distribution is illustrated in (26a) for an intransitive embedded verb, and in (26b) for a transitive one. (26) Barile a ei D ep atC I ei beta N eo I ei jekten N cEnen b

ei D ei u Q ei i N ep a I ei pata N ei I ben

Following the discussion in section 2.1, we assign to the invariable causative verb beta of Barile the internal structure in (27), where the causative verbal base be is followed by a t element which lexicalizes a D specification, and by an a vocalic formative that lexicalizes N. The distribution of clitics in imperatives confirms the conclusion that forms such as Barile’s (27) are only articulated at the morphological level; in other words, that t or a are not constituents at the phrasal/sentential level, as well as the fact that despite their lack of inflection such forms are independent verbs. Indeed the examples concerning the second person in (4)(ii) show that the object clitic follows beta/pata in imperatives. This pattern is predicted if beta and the like are simply inserted in a high C position in the imperative, while they appear in I in declaratives (or in negative imperatives).

368

Causatives in Albanian

(27) Barile ei ei N I D a be t The case assignment pattern treats causer, causee and other complements as arguments of a single predicate. The causer is the D argument of this predicate, while an eventual internal argument of the embedded verb surfaces as its N. The causee is an accusative N argument in the absence of other N arguments (i.e. when the embedded verb is intransitive) or a dative Q argument when an N argument is already present (i.e. when the embedded verb is transitive). In the preceding sections, we saw that the ‘internalization’ of the causee depends on the EPP argument being introduced as a variable. In particular in the absence of specialized particles such as te, we assume that the EPP argument is automatically read as a variable when there is no D lexicalization in the relevant domain, as already suggested in section 2.1, for dialects that have the same embedding structure as Barile. The notable difference between Barile and the other dialects considered thus far is that the D inflection of the embedded verb agrees with the causer. The combination of the case realignment pattern described above with this inflection pattern gives rise to a canonical system of sorts, which associates the finite verb inflection with the nominative case. It is natural to view this as a consequence of the fact that the embedded EPP variable is controlled by the matrix D argument. As a consequence of this, all morphosyntactic processes in this dialect involve the causative complex as a whole. This choice leads to cliticization in the higher inflectional domain (i.e. descriptively) to systematic clitic climbing. In representational terms this corresponds to the possibility for the clitics in (26b) to be associated with an argument slot of the lower predicate, in that the first argumental domain closed off by an independently referring D is that of the matrix sentence (the embedded EPP variable being controlled). Middle-reflexive morphology is fully compatible with the embedded inflected verb, but when it appears it implies an operation on the argument structure of the whole causative complex, namely a ‘long’ reflexivization or passivization relation involving the matrix D position and an internal argument (slot) of the embedded predicate. In an example like (28a) the most natural reading is a reflexive one, namely ‘the children have themselves washed’; in (28b) the salient reading is passive, corresponding roughly to a thematic structure of the type ‘made [catch the thief by the dog]’, where it is the internal object of the embedded predicate, namely ‘the thief’, that surfaces as the EPP argument of the causative. On the other hand, given that reflexive and passive share the same morphological instantiation, all examples are potentially ambiguous between the two readings.

Causatives in Albanian

369

(28) Barile a ei D ep kriaturet Q ep u I ei pata N ei I yaxten b

ei D ei latruni Q ep u I ei beta N ei I ei zu Loc Nga cEni

In the dialect of Barile it is also possible to convey the meaning whereby it is the embedded predicate that has undergone an intransitivization operation of sorts. However, this is done as in (29), where the embedded verb has the ordinary active morphology. Examples such as (29a) are generally ambiguous between a reading that may be described as passive and a reading that may be described as unaccusative. In the passive reading the accusative object, namely i ‘them’ in (29a), corresponds to the internal argument of the embedded (sub)event, while the causee is understood as a generic. In the other reading the two argumental points of the embedded (sub)event are identified. The lexicalization of a by-phrase, as in (29b), makes the sentence unambiguously passive. (29) Barile a ei D ei nEi N ep i I ei beta N ei I zJCmi

370

Causatives in Albanian b

ei D u ei P ep te I ei pata N ei I ei TrEs Loc Nga n Eter

The so-called faire-par construction exemplified in (29b) is not substantially different from the so-called faire-à construction, except that the external argument of the embedded predicate is lexicalized through a by-phrase rather than by a Q element (‘dative’). Thus the variable interpretation associated with the EPP position of the embedded predicate allows for what we have characterized as the ‘internalization’ of the EPP argument, understood as the identification of the referential value of the EPP variable by an element other than D as in (29a). In this sense we are saying that faire-à and faire-par are equivalent; what differs is the form that the internalization takes, either as a Q (dative) or as an agent phrase (presumably an instrumental/locative in our schema of nominal positions). This is in fact the position we have taken throughout the discussion, starting with dialects like Firmo in section 2.1, where argument realignment is restricted precisely to faire-par constructions. What becomes relevant at this point is once again the fact that alone among the dialects considered here, Barile has the lower verb agreeing with the higher subject, explained above in terms of the control of the embedded EPP variable by the matrix D argument. This allows for sentences like (29a), which do not lexicalize the external argument of the embedded predicate at all, not even at the morphological level through the D inflection of the (embedded) verb. If the argument is interpreted, this gives rise to a variant of the faire-par reading, with a generic understood agent. If, on the other hand, no external argument is interpreted, an intransitive (unaccusative/reflexive) reading of the embedded predicate is obtained. As we expect, examples like (29a) are systematically ambiguous between those two interpretations, suggesting that the same syntax underlies both. On the possibility of sentences of this type, Barile turns out to be similar to a language like Italian, where the embedding pattern is reversed, in the sense that the inflected verb is the causative and the embedded verb is not; the agreement pattern however is the same in the sense that the only D inflection lexicalizes the matrix EPP argument, and we may assume that the latter controls the embedded EPP variable. Let us then consider the examples in (28) where middle-reflexive morphology is lexicalized on the embedded verb; both possible lexicalizations are exemplified, namely middle-reflexive verb morphology in (28a) and the u clitic. Let us begin with (28a). In terms of the theory of Chapter 7, middle-reflexive mor-

Causatives in Albanian

371

phology within the verb is some sort of an auxiliary ‘to be’; as a consequence, the D inflection of the verb is identified with its internal argument. Now, the D inflection of the embedded verb in the Barile dialect is a lexicalization of the matrix EPP argument. Therefore middle-reflexive morphology on the embedded verb will be read as an identification relation between the matrix D argument, and an internal argument slot of the structure. In case the embedded verb is transitive, the relevant internal argument will be that of the embedded verb as in (28a) considered here, i.e. literally ‘the children made-wash themselves by . . .’. As an alternative to a specialized inflection on the verb, or in combination with it, in Albanian dialects middle-reflexive morphology may be lexicalized by the clitic u. In terms of the theory of Chapter 7, middle-reflexive u introduces a variable corresponding to an internal argument whose content is identified by a D argument. Once again in the Barile causative structures the only D argument that can identify the variable content of u is the causer. In turn the u clitic may correspond to the internal argument of the embedded verb as in (28b). This will determine a reading with long passivization from internal argument of the embedded verb to causer position, literally ‘the thief was made-catch by . . .’). 2.5 Split realignments The dialect of Ginestra presents the same embedding structure as both the dialects in section 2.1 and Barile in the previous section, with an inflected embedded verb and an uninflected causative verb. This structure is compatible with agreement of the embedded verb both with the causee (i.e. its own argument) or with the causer (i.e. the external argument of the causative predicate). The interest of Ginestra is that the two options co-exist, alternating according to a person hierarchy. As we saw in the presentation of the data, a third person causer or causee forces third person inflection of the lower verb. In case two third persons are involved, either one can determine agreement, namely the causee as in (30a) or the causer as in (30b). (30) Ginestra a ei D ep vE:t I ei bita N ei N ei a I ei ndihten D tirte krestEire

372

Causatives in Albanian b

ei D ep vE:t I ei beta N ei I ei zJyEDene D atC

The salience of the third person in determining agreement may be understood in terms of the split between event-anchored and discourse-anchored arguments introduced in Chapter 6 in relation to auxiliary choice in Romance dialects. The combinations between discourse-anchored causer and causee again allow in principle for both first and second person inflection on the verb, either with the causee as in (31a) or with the causer as in (31b); the only hierarchical constraint supported by our data is the one that favors second person causers. In reality, at least in declarative contexts first person reference (to the speaker) is pragmatically salient. This means that second person will be more likely to show the same patterns as event-anchored arguments, therefore in the case at hand it will agree with the embedded verb. This is true at least if it represents the matrix subject, i.e. the causer. (31) Ginestra a ei D ep fu I ei beta N ei P ei te I kyatS b

ei D ep fu I ei beta N ei P ei te I ei skrune N ne lEtere

Note furthermore that, though we have thus far considered the interaction of the person split with the agreement system, it equally interacts with the case system. Thus first and second person causees show up as an object clitic (even-

Causatives in Albanian

373

tually doubled by a dative stressed pronoun) as in (31), while third person causees show up in the nominative as in (30). Generalizing, one could say that the third person gives rise to no case realignment, while the first and second person does. In terms of models which allow for hierarchical constraints, the patterns observed in Ginestra would routinely be described in terms of an animacy scale where the first and second person are ranked differently from the third person. In such a scale, third person would regularly prevail over first and second person for agreement with the verb, independently of their respective argumental roles of causer or causee. A solution of the same type could also be implemented in formal theories that allow for constraint ranking such as optimality. Thus one could say that violation of third person agreement, with causer or causee, is more highly ranked than violation of first and second person agreement. In the current grammar, however, it is not possible to have recourse either to rules stated in terms of preference hierarchies, or to the ranking of constraints. What is more, for the purpose of case realignment one would need the opposite ranking, since it is first and second person causees that systematically trigger it, while third person causees do not. Consider first the case pattern. The only instance where first and second person will be anchored at an eventive point is where this is necessary to satisfy the EPP requirement; if so they will fill a D position; otherwise they will appear in the P position characterized in terms only of discourse anchoring. Now, as discussed in detail in previous sections, the embedded complement is characterized by the voiding of the EPP argument associated with a variable interpretation. This makes it possible for the first and second person causee to be inserted in the P position. In other words, first and second person causees can always be ‘internalized’ in the shape of a P clitic as in (31). Any element with a third person referent requires on the other hand to be event anchored. In Ginestra, the actual construal of this general principle appears to require that a third person causee is anchored at the D inflection of the embedded verb. As in the dialects of section 2.1, the only other possibility will be for the third person causee to be ‘internalized’ to a by-phrase specialized for the lexicalization of external arguments. Turning now to agreement patterns, let us consider the case in which the causer is third person while the causee is first or second person. As we saw, the causee will be lexicalized in the P clitic position characterized in pure discourse terms. In this case the D inflection of the verb will agree with the third person matrix EPP argument as in (32b). Conversely we could have a first or second person causer with a third person causee. In this case again the D inflection of the verb will agree with the third person D argument in the postverbal position as in (32a). (32) a b

[fu [bita [x [a [Tras-nene [atC [vE:t [beta [x [me/te [fCy-ene

Suppose that the first or second person causee combines with an equally discourse-anchored causer as in (31). The D position represented by the

374

Causatives in Albanian

inflection of the embedded verb can equally well correspond to the causer (i.e. the EPP position of the whole predicate), or to the causee. In this second case interpretive mechanisms force a reading in which D inflection simply concurs together with the P pronoun to the identification of the variable introduced by the causative complementation structure. Alternatively we have an assignment whereby the D inflection is controlled by the only other D argument around, i.e. the matrix EPP argument. In the case in which causer and causee are both third person as in (30), both may be event anchored through lexicalization in D; again the combination of a third person causer and a third person causee can therefore yield agreement of the verb inflection with one or the other. From the point of view of the interaction between causative and middlereflexive morphology, it is especially interesting to compare Ginestra with Barile, since both can display agreement of the embedded verb with the causer. Despite this, in the dialect of Ginestra, middle-reflexive morphology is understood in connection with the (sub)event denoted by the embedded verb, whether the D inflection of the verb denotes the causee as in (33a), or the causer as in (33b). Thus even if yahetS (you wash) agrees with the matrix subject ti (you) as in (33b), it is understood as reflexivizing the embedded subevent. (33) Ginestra a ei D ep fu I ei bita N ei P ei te I yahetS b

ei D ep ti I ei beta N ei P ei me I yahetS

As usual, in a sentence like (33a), the -h- morphology of the embedded verb yahetS is construed as the equivalent of a be- auxiliary with the effect of identifying the internal argument the lexical base with its D argument; because this lexicalizes the embedded EPP argument, ‘short’ (i.e. clause-bound) reflexivization/passivization is correctly predicted. More interestingly however, the same interpretation characterizes (33b), despite the fact that the inflection D morphology of the middle-reflexive verb refers to the matrix EPP argument.

Causatives in Albanian

375

So far we have avoided an explicit discussion of what exactly identifies the embedded EPP variable in a dialect like Ginestra with the case and agreement splits analyzed above. Precisely the local interpretation of the middle-reflexive morphology, constrained to apply to the embedded arguments structure, suggests that while for reasons relating to the person split the embedded D inflection alternates between the embedded EPP argument and the matrix one, the embedded EPP variable itself is never controlled by the matrix EPP argument. In this respect therefore Ginestra differs from Barile even when it patterns with it with respect to morphological agreement. Therefore we will obtain the correct results with respect to the interpretation of the middle-reflexive morphology if we consider that it identifies the internal argument of the verb with the EPP variable, rather than with the morphologically defined D inflection; in other words it is at the syntactic rather than at the morphological level that interpretations are computed.

3 Summary At this point it is worth briefly retracing our steps in order to summarize the parametrization that the data in section 1 point to. If we limit ourselves to the environments where only active forms of the verb are lexicalized, the spread of data looks as in (34a), where for comparison we have illustrated the relevant clauses of the parameters in a Romance language (Italian) and in English. Two major parameters are considered, namely whether the agreement of the lower verb is with its own subject (the causee) or with the higher subject (the causer); the blank rows corresponding to Shkodër, Italian and English reflect the fact that the lower verb is an invariable form. Similarly agreement with the causative verb is not considered in (34) since, when present, it is not parametrized, but always is with the causer. The second parameter considered in (34a) concerns the distribution of case realignment. In particular faire-par labels the constructions in which the causee is lexicalized by a by-phrase and faire-à the constructions in which the causee is in the accusative or dative according to the transitivity of the lower verb; with faire-acc, we label the case in which the causee is systematically in the accusative. In this classification a language like English is faire-acc. The separate table in (34b) considers the parameters that arise from the interaction of causatives with passivization/reflexivization. At least in Albanian dialects this corresponds to the lexicalization of middle-reflexive morphology that may be associated either with the lower or with the higher causative verb, depending on which of the two is inflected. We have extended this parameter to English and Italian, referring the values to si or the be passive in Italian, and to the passive in English. When the M/R morphology is instantiated on the causative verb, the two argumental points being identified can be the matrix and the lower EPP arguments, or the matrix EPP argument and the internal argument of the lower verb. When the M/R morphology is on the lower verb, the reflexivization/passivization may be constrained within the lower sentence or may involve the matrix EPP argument.

376

Causatives in Albanian

(34) a

b

Lower agr Causee  

Firmo Piana Vena Barile  Ginestra  Gjirokastër  Shkodër Italian English high M/R high D– low D Firmo Piana  Vena Barile Ginestra Gjirokastër  Shkodër  Italian  English 

Lower agr Causer  

faire-par faire-à

faire-acc

 

 

  

   3rd 1st/2nd              low M/R low M/R high D– low D– low N low N    

high M/R high D– low N 

   

     

 

     

Very few implicational generalizations emerge from (34), which are most notable for the lack of such implications. One of them is that faire-à implies the existence of faire-par, but not vice versa. Thus faire-par is in a sense the more basic of the two patterns (contra Baker 1988). On the other hand there is complementary distribution between the faire-par/faire-à patterns and what we have labeled faire-accusative, corresponding roughly to the ECM construction of English. Note specifically that faire-acc does not combine with faire-par and in this sense is clearly not a variant of faire-à. Another fairly obvious distribution that emerges from (34b), is that short passivization in the embedded clause can combine with short passivization in the matrix clause (corresponding to two  in the first and in the last column). Vice versa, long passivization may emerge either with the middle-reflexive morphology on the embedded or on the matrix verb, but will not allow for combination of the two; this is seen most clearly in Italian where the embedded infinitival could in principle support si/passive, but never does. Perhaps the most striking conclusion is that the agreement properties of the causative construction, corresponding to the first two rows of (34a), do not have any import either for the case patterns or for the passive/reflexive patterns.

References

Abney, S. (1986) The English Noun Phrase in its Sentential Aspect, Ph.D. dissertation, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Altimari, F. (1994) ‘Nota’, in F. Altimari (ed.) N. Frashëri, Baqëti e bujqësija, Rende: Centro Editoriale Librario dell’Università della Calabria, pp. 83–84. Baker, M. (1985) ‘The Mirror Principle and morphosyntactic explanation’, Linguistic Inquiry, 16: 373–415. Baker, M. (1988) Incorporation, Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press. Baker, M. (1989) ‘Object sharing in serial verb constructions’, Linguistic Inquiry, 20: 513–553. Baker, M. (1996) The Polysynthesis Parameter, New York: Oxford University Press. Baker, M. and Travis, L. (1997) ‘Mood as verbal definiteness in a “tenseless” language’, Natural Language Semantics, 5, 3: 216–269. Banfi, E. (1985) Linguistica balcanica, Bologna: Zanichelli. Beci, B. (1979) ‘Vlera funksionale e gjatësisësë zanoreve të theksuara në shqipen’, Studime filologjike, 3: 89–133. Beci, B. (1984) ‘Sistemi i zanoreve hundore në të folmen e Shkodrës’, Studime filologjike, 2: 45–73. Beghelli, F. (1997) ‘The syntax of distributivity and pair-list readings’, in A. Szabolcsi (ed.) Ways of Scope Taking, Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 349–408. Beghelli, F. and Stowell, T. (1997) ‘Distributivity and negation: the syntax of each and every’, in A. Szabolcsi (ed.) Ways of Scope Taking, Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 71–107. Belletti, A. (1990) Generalized Verb Movement, Turin: Rosenberg & Sellier. Belletti, A. (1999) ‘ “Inversion” as focalization and related questions’, Catalan Working Papers in Linguistics, 7: 9–45. Belletti, A. (2001) ‘“Inversion” as focalization’, in A. Hulk and J.Y. Pollock (eds) Inversion in Romance and the Theory of Universal Grammar, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Belletti, A. (ed.) (2004) Structures and Beyond. Volume 3: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Benincà, P. and Vanelli, L. (1975) ‘Morfologia del verbo friulano: il presente indicativo’, Lingua e contesto, 1: 1–62. Benveniste, E. (1966) Problemes de linguistique generale, Paris: Gallimand. Bernstein, J. (1997) ‘Demonstratives and reinforcers in Germanic and Romance languages’, Lingua, 102: 87–113. Bloomfield, L. (1933) Language, New York: Henry Holt. Bonet, E. (1991) Morphology after Syntax: Pronominal Clitics in Romance, Ph.D. dissertation, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

378

References

Bonet, E. (1995) ‘Feature structure of Romance clitics’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 13: 607–647. Bonomi, A. (1997) ‘Aspect, quantification and when-clauses in Italian’, Linguistics and Philosophy, 20: 469–514. Borer, H. (1986) ‘I-subjects’, Linguistic Inquiry, 17: 375–416. Brandi, L. and Cordin, P. (1981) ‘Dialetti e italiano: un confronto sul parametro soggetto nullo’, Rivista di Grammatica Generativa, 6: 33–87. Brandi, L. and Cordin, P. (1989) ‘Two Italian dialects and the null subject parameter’, in O. Jaeggli and K. Safir (eds) The Null Subject Parameter, Dordrecht: Reidel, pp. 111–142. Brandi, L. and Giannelli, L. (2001) ‘L’accordo nome-verbo nelle strutture VS e nelle frasi dipendenti in area toscana’, in Atti del V Congresso Silfi, Catania. Brandi, L. and Savoia, L.M. (1990) ‘Proprietà morfosintattiche e assegnazione del Caso nel causativo arbëresh’, Rivista di Grammatica Generativa, 15: 29–121. Brody, M. (1995) Lexico-logical Form, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Brody, M. (1997) ‘Towards perfect chains’, in L. Haegeman (ed.) Handbook of Syntax, Dordrecht: Kluwer. Brody, M. (2000) ‘Mirror theory: syntactic representation in perfect syntax’, Linguistic Inquiry, 31: 29–56. Brugè, L. (1996) ‘Demonstrative movement in Spanish: a comparative approach’, Working Papers in Linguistics, Università di Venezia, 6(1): 1–53. Brunetti, L. (2003) A Unification of Focus, Tesi di dottorato, Università di Firenze. Burzio, L. (1986) Italian Syntax, Dordrecht: Kluwer. Calabrese, A. (1997) ‘Distributed morphology and sentential complementation in the Salentino dialect of Italian’, Harvard Working Papers in Linguistics, 6: 47–85. Camaj, M. (1984) Albanian Grammar, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Cardinaletti, A. (1994) La sintassi dei pronomi, Bologna: Il Mulino. Cardinaletti, A. (1997) ‘Agreement and control in expletive constructions’, Linguistic Inquiry, 28: 521–533. Cardinaletti, A. and Giusti, G. (2001) ‘ “Semi-lexical” motion verbs in Romance and Germanic’, in N. Corver and H. van Riemsdijk (eds) Semi-lexical Categories, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 371–414. Cardinaletti, A. and Roberts, I. (1991) Levels of Representation of Agreement, ms., Università di Venezia – Université de Genève. Cardinaletti, A. and Starke, M. (1999) ‘The typology of structural deficiency: a case study of three classes of pronouns’, in H. van Riemsdijk (ed.) Clitics in the Languages of Europe, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 145–233. Chierchia, G. (1995) ‘Impersonal subjects’, in E. Bach, E. Jellinek, A. Kratz and B.H. Partee (eds) Quantification in Natural Languages, Dordrect: Kluwer, pp. 107–143. Chierchia, G. (2004) ‘A semantics for unaccusatives and its syntactic consequences’, in A. Alexiadou, E. Anagnostopoulou and M. Everaert (eds) The Unaccusativity Puzzle: Explorations of the Syntax–Lexicon Interface, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Chomsky, N. (1977) Essays on Form and Interpretation, Amsterdam: North Holland. Chomsky, N. (1981) Lectures on Government and Binding, Dordrecht: Foris. Chomsky, N. (1982) Some Concepts and Consequences of the Theory of Government and Binding, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Chomsky, N. (1995) The Minimalist Program, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Chomsky, N. (2000) ‘Minimalist inquiries: the framework’, in R. Martin, D. Michaels and J. Uriagereka (eds) Step by Step, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

References 379 Chomsky, N. (2001) ‘Derivation by phase’, in M. Kenstowicz (ed.) Ken Hale: A Life in Language, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 1–52. Chomsky, N. (2002) On Nature and Language, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Chomsky, N. (2004a) On Phases, Ms, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Chomsky, N. (2004b) ‘The biolinguistic perspective after 50 years’, Quaderni del Dipartimento di Linguistica dell’Università di Firenze, 14: 3–12. Chomsky, N. (2005) ‘Three factors in language design’, Linguistic Inquiry, 36: 1–22. Chomsky, N. and Halle, M. (1968) Sound Patterns of English, New York: Harper & Row. Cinque, G. (1988) ‘On si constructions and the theory of arb’, Linguistic Inquiry, 19: 521–581. Cinque, G. (1993) ‘A null theory of phrase and compound stress’, Linguistic Inquiry, 24: 239–297. Cinque, G. (1999) Adverbs and Functional Heads – A Cross-linguistic Perspective, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Cinque, G. (2001) ‘ “Restructuring” and the order of aspectual and root modal heads’, in G. Cinque and G. Salvi (eds) Current Studies in Italian Syntax, Amsterdam: North Holland, pp. 137–155. Cinque, G. (ed.) (2002) Functional Structure in DP and IP: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures Volume 1, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Cocchi, G. (1995) La selezione dell’ausiliare, Padova: Unipress. Collins, C. (1997) ‘Argument sharing in serial verb constructions’, Linguistic Inquiry, 28: 461–497. Comrie, B. (1976) Aspect, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Comrie, B. (1981) Language Universals and Linguistic Typology: Sintax and Morphology, Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press. Cordignano, F. (1931) Lingua albanese (dialetto ghego), Milan: Hoepli. Croft, W. (1990) Typology and Universals, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Davis, H. (1999) ‘Subject inflection in Salish’, UBC Working Papers in Linguistics, 1: 181–241. Déchaine, R.-M. (1993) ‘Serial verb constructions’, in J. Jacobs et al. (eds) Syntax Volume 1, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 799–825. Déchaine, R.-M. (1999) ‘What Algonquian morphology is really like: Hockett revisited’, MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics, 17: 25–72. DeLancey, S. (1981) ‘An interpretation of split ergativity and related patterns’, Language, 57, 3: 626–657. Demiraj, Sh. (1985) Gramatike Historike e Gjuhës Shqipe, Tirana: 8 Nëntori. Demiraj, Sh. (1997) La lingua albanese. Origine, storia, strutture, Rende: Centro Editoriale Librario dell’Università della Calabria. Dixon, R.M.W. (1994) Ergativity, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dobrovie-Sorin, C. (1993) The Syntax of Romanian, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Dobrovie-Sorin, C. (1998) ‘Impersonal se constructions in Romance and the passivization of unergatives’, Linguistic Inquiry, 29: 399–437. Donati, C. (2000) La sintassi della comparazione, Padova: Unipress. Egerland, V. (1996) The Syntax of Past Participles, Lund: Lund University Press. Fici, F. (2001) ‘The modal category of perfect in Macedonian’, Makedonski jazik: 61–88. Frampton, J. and Guttman, S. (2001) How Sentences Grow in the Mind, ms., Northeastern University. Freeze, R. (1992) ‘Existentials and other locatives’, Language, 68: 553–595.

380

References

Freidin, R. and Vergnaud, J.-R. (2000) A Presentation of Minimalism, ms., USC and Princeton. Gauchat, L. (1905) ‘L’unité phonétique dand le patois d’une commune’, in Aus romanischen Sprachen und Literaturen. Festschrift für H. Morf, Halle: Niemeyer, pp. 174–232. Giammarco, E. (1973) ‘Selezione del verbo ausiliare nei paradigmi dei verbi composti’, Abruzzo, 11: 152–178. Giorgi, A. and Pianesi, F. (1997) Tense and Aspect. From Semantics to Morphosyntax, New York: Oxford University Press. Grimshaw, J. (1982) ‘On the lexical representation of Romance reflexive clitics’, in J. Bresnan (ed.) The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Grimshaw, J. (1997) ‘The best clitic: constraint conflict in morphosyntax’, in L. Haegeman (ed.) Elements of Grammar, Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 169–196. Grimshaw, J. (1999) Optimal Clitic Positions and the Lexicon in Romance Clitic Systems, ms., Rutgers University. Guasti, M.T. (1993) Causative and Perception Verbs: A Comparative Study, Turin: Rosenberg & Sellier. Hale, K. and Keyser, S.J. (1993) ‘On argument structure and the lexical expression of syntactic relations’, in K. Hale and S.J. Keyser (eds) The View from Building 20, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Halle, M. and Marantz, A. (1993) ‘Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection’, in K. Hale and S.J. Keyser (eds) The View from Building 20, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Halle, M. and Marantz, A. (1994) ‘Some key features of distributed morphology’, in A. Carnie, H. Harley and T. Bures (eds) Papers on Phonology and Morphology, MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, 21: 275–288. Harris, J. (1994) English Sound Structure, Oxford: Blackwell. Harris, J.W. (1994) ‘The syntax-phonology mapping in Catalan and Spanish clitics’, in A. Carnie, H. Harley and T. Bures (eds) Papers on Phonology and Morphology, MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, 21: 321–353. Hauser, M.D., Chomsky, N. and Fitch, W.T. (2002) ‘The faculty of language: what is it, who has it and how did it evolve?’, Science, 298: 1569–1579. Heim, I. (1982) The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases, GSLA, Department of Linguistics, University of Massachusetts at Amherst. Henry, A. (1995) Belfast English and Standard English. Dialect Variation and Parameter Setting, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Higginbotham, J. (1985) ‘On semantics’, Linguistic Inquiry, 16, 4: 547–593. Hoxha, Sh. (1990) ‘E follia e Arrnit’, in Dialektologjia Shqiptare VI, Akademia e Shkencave e RPS Të Shqipërisë: 57–188. Iatridou, S. (1993) ‘On nominative case and a few related things’, Papers on Case and Agreement II, MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, 19: 175–196. Iatridou, S. (2000) ‘The grammatical ingredients of counterfactuality’, Linguistic Inquiry, 31: 231–270. Jaeggli, O. (1981) Topics in Romance Syntax, Dordrecht: Foris. Jakobson, R. (1966) Saggi di Linguistica Generale, Milan: Feltrinelli. Joseph, B.D. (1983) The Synchrony and Diachrony of the Balkan Infinitive, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kayne, R. (1975) French Syntax: The Transformational Cycle, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

References 381 Kayne, R. (1976) ‘French relative “que” ’, in F. Hensey and M. Luján (eds) Current Studies in Romance Linguistics, Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, pp. 255–299. Kayne, R. (1984) Connectedness and Binary Branching, Dordrecht: Foris. Kayne, R. (1989a) ‘Facets of Romance past participle agreement’, in P. Benincà (ed.) Dialect Variation and the Theory of Grammar, Dordrecht: Foris. Kayne, R. (1989b) ‘Null subjects and clitic climbing’, in O. Jaeggli and K. Safir (eds) The Null Subject Parameter, Dordrecht: Kluwer. Kayne, R. (1991) ‘Romance clitics, verb movement and PRO’, Linguistic Inquiry, 22: 647–686. Kayne, R. (1993) ‘Toward a modular theory of auxiliary selection’, Studia Linguistica, 47: 3–31. Kayne, R. (1994) The Antisymmetry of Syntax, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Kayne, R. (2000) Parameters and Universals, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kayne, R. and Pollock, J.-Y. (1978) ‘Stylistic inversion, successive cyclicity and Move NP in French’, Linguistic Inquiry, 9: 595–622. Kayne, R. and Pollock, J.-Y. (2001) ‘New thoughts on stylistic inversion’, in A. Hulk and J.-Y. Pollock (eds) Subject Inversion in Romance and the Theory of Universal Grammar, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 107–162. Kiparsky, P. (1973) ‘“Elsewhere” in phonology’, in S. Anderson and P. Kiparsky (eds) A Festschrift for Morris Halle, New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, pp. 93–106. Krapova, I. and Cinque, G. (2003) ‘On the order of wh-phrases in Bulgarian multiple whquestions’, FDSL-5, Leipzig, 26–28 November. Labov, W. (1994) Principles of Linguistic Change. Internal Factors, Oxford: Blackwell. La Fauci, N. (1989) ‘Ausiliari perfettivi e accordo del participio passato in italiano e in francese’, in F. Foresti, E. Rizzi and P. Benedini (eds) L’italiano tra le lingue romanze, Atti del XX congresso internazionale di studi della S.L.I., Rome: Bulzoni, pp. 213–252. La Fauci, N. and Loporcaro, M. (1989) ‘Passifs, avancements de l’objet indirect et formes verbales périphrastiques dans le dialecte d’Altamura (Pouilles)’, Rivista di linguistica, 1–1: 161–196. Levin, B. and Rappaport, M. (1995) Unaccusativity, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Longa, V.M., Lorenzo, G. and Rigau, G. (1998) ‘Subject clitics and clitic recycling: locative sentences in some Iberian Romance languages’, Journal of Linguistics, 34: 125–164. Loporcaro, M. (1999) ‘L’ausiliazione perfettiva nelle parlate di Zagarolo e Colonna (Roma) e lo studio della sintassi dei dialetti moderni’, Contributi di Filologia dell’Italia Mediana, 13: 203–226. MacSwan, J. (2000) ‘The architecture of the bilingual language faculty: evidence from intrasentential code switching’, Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 3: 37–54. Manzini, M.R. (1983) On Restructuring and Reanalysis, Ph.D. dissertation, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Manzini, M.R. (1986) ‘On Italian si’, in H. Borer (ed.) The Syntax of Pronominal Clitics, Syntax and Semantics Volume 18, New York: Academic Press, pp. 241–262. Manzini, M.R. (1996) ‘Il congiuntivo’, in P. Benincà et al. (eds) Italiano e dialetti nel tempo: Saggi di grammatica per Giulio C. Lepschy, Rome: Bulzoni, pp. 175–189. Manzini, M.R. and Savoia, L.M. (1997) ‘Null subjects without pro’, UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, 9: 301–313. Manzini, M.R. and Savoia, L.M. (2001) ‘The syntax of object clitics: si in Italian dialects’, in G. Cinque and G. Salvi (eds) Current Studies in Italian Syntax. Essays to Honour Lorenzo Renzi, Amsterdam: North Holland, pp. 234–264.

382

References

Manzini, M.R. and Savoia, L.M. (2002a) ‘Parameters of subject inflection in Italian dialects’, in P. Svenonius (ed.) Subjects, Expletives and the EPP, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 157–199. Manzini, M.R. and Savoia, L.M. (2002b) ‘Clitics: lexicalization patterns of the so-called third person dative’, Catalan Journal of Linguistics, 1: 117–155. Manzini, M.R. and Savoia, L.M. (2002c) ‘Negative adverbs are neither adv nor neg’, in Masako Hirotani (ed.) Proceedings of North East Linguistic Society, 32, GLSA, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, pp. 327–346. Manzini, M.R. and Savoia, L.M. (2003a). ‘Participio e infinito nella varietà di Scutari’, in Matteo Mandalà (ed.) Cinque secoli di cultura albanese in Sicilia. Atti del XXVIII Convegno Internazionale di Studi Albanesi, Palermo: A.C. Mirror, pp. 401–432. Manzini, M.R. and Savoia, L.M. (2003b) ‘The nature of complementizers’, Rivista di Grammatica Generativa, 28: 87–110. Manzini, M.R. and Savoia, L.M. (2004a) ‘The nature of the agreement inflections of the verb’, MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, 47: 149–178. Manzini, M.R. and Savoia, L.M. (2004b) ‘Clitics: co-occurrence and mutual exclusion patterns’, in L. Rizzi (ed.) The Structure of CP and IP, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 211–250. Manzini, M.R. and Savoia, L.M. (2005) I dialetti italiani e romanci. Morfosintassi generativa, Alessandria: Edizioni dell’Orso, 3 vols. Marantz, A. (1984) On the Nature of Grammatical Relations, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Marantz, A. (1997) No Escape from Syntax: Don’t Try Morphological Analysis in the Privacy of Your Own Lexicon, ms., Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Martin, J.-B. (1974) ‘Le pronom personnel de la 3e personne en francoprovençal central (formes et structures)’, Travaux de Linguistique et Littérature, Université de Strasbourg, 12, 1: 85–116. May, R. (1985) Logical Form, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Moro, A. (1997) The Raising of Predicates, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Nash, L. (1995) Portée argumentale et marquage casuel dans les langues SOV et dans les langues ergatives: l’example du géorgien, Ph.D. thesis, Université de Paris VIII. Nash, L. (1997) ‘La partition personnelle dans les langues ergatives’, in A. Zribi-Hertz (ed.) Les pronoms: morphologie, syntaxe et typologie, Saint-Denis: Presses Universitaires de Vincennes. Nash, L. (1998) ‘A propos de ETRE et AVOIR en georgien’, in A. Rouveret (ed.) ETRE et AVOIR: syntaxe, sémantique, typologie, St Denis: Presses Universitaires de Vincennes. Ouhalla, J. (1991) Functional Categories and Parametric Variation, London: Routledge. Parsons, T. (1990) Events in the Semantics of English, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Pellegrini, G.B. (1995) Avviamento alla linguistica albanese, Università di Palermo. Perlmutter, D. (1972) Deep and Surface Constraints in Syntax, New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Perlmutter, D. (1978) ‘Impersonal passives and the unaccusative hypothesis’, Berkeley Linguistic Society, 4: 157–189. Poletto, C. (1993) La sintassi del soggetto nei dialetti italiani settentrionali, Padova: Unipress. Poletto, C. (2000) The Higher Functional Field, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pollock, J.-Y. (1989) ‘Verb movement, Universal Grammar and the structure of IP’, Linguistic Inquiry, 20: 365–424.

References 383 Pollock, J.-Y. (1996) Langage et cognition: Introduction au programme minimaliste de la grammaire generative, Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. Puglielli, A. (1981) ‘Frase dichiarativa’, in A. Puglielli (ed.) Sintassi della lingua somala. Studi somali 2, Ministero degli AA. EE. e Comitato tecnico linguistico per l’Università nazionale somala, Rome, pp. 3–44. Reinhart, T. (1983) Anaphora and Semantic Interpretation, London: Croom Helm. Reinhart, T. (1997) ‘Syntactic effects of lexical operations: reflexives and unaccusatives’, OTS Working Papers in Linguistics, University of Utrecht. Rigau, G. (1982) ‘Inanimate indirect object in Catalan’, Linguistic Inquiry, 13: 146–150. Rivero, M.-L. (1994) ‘Clause structure and V-movement in the languages of the Balkans’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 12: 63–120. Rizzi, L. (1982) Issues in Italian Syntax, Dordrecht: Foris. Rizzi, L. (1986) ‘On the status of subject clitics in Romance’, in O. Jaeggli and C. SilvaCorvalan (eds) Studies in Romance Linguistics, Dordrecht: Foris, pp. 391–419. Rizzi, L. (1990) Relativized Minimality, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Rizzi, L. (1997). ‘The fine structure of the left periphery’, in L. Haegeman (ed.) Elements of Grammar, Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 281–337. Rizzi, L. (ed.) (2004) The Structure of CP and IP: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures. Volume 2, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Roberts, I. (1993) ‘The nature of subject clitics in Franco-Provençal Valdotain’, in A. Belletti (ed.) Syntactic Theory and the Dialects of Italy, Turin: Rosenberg & Sellier, pp. 319–353. Roberts, I. (1994) ‘Two types of head movement in Romance’, in N. Hornstein and D. Lightfoot (eds) Verb Movement, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Roberts, I. and Roussou, A. (2003) Syntactic Change, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rohlfs, G. (1968 [1949]) Grammatica storica della lingua italiene e dei suoi dialetti. Morfologia. Turin: Einaudi. Rohlfs, G. (1969 [1954]). Grammatica storica della lingua italiana e dei suoi dialetti. Sintassi e formazione delle parole, Turin: Einaudi. Rosen, C. (1984) ‘The interface between semantic roles and initial grammatical relations’, in D. Perlmutter and C. Rosen (eds) Studies in Relational Grammar 2, Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, pp. 38–77. Ross, J.R. (1967) Constraints on Variables in Syntax, Ph.D. dissertation, MIT. Roussou, A. (2000) ‘On the left periphery: modal particles and complementizers’, Journal of Greek Linguistics, 1: 65–94. Rouveret, A. and Vergnaud, J.R. (1980) ‘Specifying reference to the subject: French causatives and conditions on representations’, Linguistic Inquiry, 11: 97–202. Rrokaj, Sh. and Turano, G. (1998) ‘Strategia del Causativo in albanese’, Studi Italiani di Linguistica Teorica e Applicata, 3: 551–565. Saccon, G. (1992) ‘VP-internal arguments and locative subjects’, NELS, 22: 383–397. Saeed, J.I. (1993) Somali Reference Grammar, Kensington, MD: Dunwoody Press. Sapir, E. (1921) Language: An Introduction to the Study of Speech, New York: Harcourt, Brace & Co. Savoia, L.M. (1980) ‘La parlata albanese di S.Marzano di S.Giuseppe: appunti fonologici e morfologici’, Zjarri, 12: 8–26. Savoia, L.M. (1989a) ‘Processi morfologici, proprietà di caso e accordo nel causativo arbëresh’, Zjarri, 33: 186–293. Savoia, L.M. (1989b) ‘Alcune caratteristiche del causativo arbëresh’, in Le minoranze

384

References

etniche e linguistiche. Atti del 2° Congresso Internazionale, Comune di Piana degli Albanesi, pp. 363–420. Savoia, L.M. and Manzini, M.R. (2000) ‘Variazione linguistica, disturbi del linguaggio e grammatica universale’, Quaderni del Dipartimento di Linguistica dell’Università di Firenze, 10: 107–139. Savoia, L.M. and Manzini, M.R. (2003) ‘Pjesorja dhe paskajorja në të folmen e Shkodrës’, Studime Filologjike, 3–4: 93–138. Savoia, L.M. and Manzini, M.R. (in press) ‘Variazione sintattica nel costrutto ausiliare arbëresh. La variazione come problema teorico’, Proceedings of Minoranze linguistiche e Italiano L2 in area abruzzese e molisana. Fra sociolinguistica e glottodidattica, Milan: Franco Angeli. Sganzini, S. (1933) ‘Di alcune forme verbali nella parlata di Mesocco’, L’Italia dialettale, 9: 259–263. Silverstein, M. (1976) ‘Hierarchy of features and ergativity’, in R.M.W. Dixon (ed.) Grammatical Categories in Australian Languages, Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, pp. 112–171. Solano, F. (1988) Manuale di lingua albanese, Corigliano: Calabro. Sportiche, D. (1996) ‘Clitic constructions’, in J. Rooryck and L. Zaring (eds) Phrase Structure and the Lexicon, Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 213–276. Starke, M. (2000) Move Dissolves into Merge: A Theory of Locality, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Geneva. Suñer, M. (1988) ‘The role of agreement in clitic doubled constructions’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 6: 391–434. Suñer, M. (1992) ‘Subject clitics in the Northern Italian vernaculars’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 10: 641–672. Szabolcsi, A. (1994) ‘The noun phrase’, in K. Kiss and F. Kiefer (eds) The Syntactic Structure of Hungarian. Syntax and Semantics 27, New York: Academic Press, pp. 179–274. Taraldsen, K.T. (1978) On the NIC, Vacuous Application, and the That-t Filter, ms., MIT. Torrego, E. (1998) Dependencies of Objects, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Turano, G. (1993) ‘Subjunctive constructions in Arbëresh and standard Albanian’, Rivista di Grammatica Generativa, 18: 101–133. Turano, G. (1994) ‘Assegnazione di caso e proprietà strutturali nelle costruzioni causative e percettive del dialetto arbëresh di S. Nicola dell’Alto’, in F. Altimari and L.M. Savoia (eds) I dialetti italo-albanesi, Rome: Bulzoni Editore, pp. 387–410. Turano, G. (1995) Dipendenze sintattiche in albanese, Padova: Unipress. Turano, G. (1999) ‘Il costrutto “pa  participio” nella varietà Arbëreshe di S.Nicola dell’Alto (KR)’, in M. Mandalà (ed.) Studi in onore di L. Marlekaj, Bari: Adriatica, pp. 564–578. Turano, G. (2001) ‘Albanian noun phrase domain’, Quaderni del Dipartimeno di Linguistica. Serie Albanistica 3, Università della Calabria. Turano, G. and Rokaj, Sh. (2000) ‘A proposito del sintagma nominale in albanese’, Lingua e Stile, 35(1): 95–128. Tuttle, E. (1986) ‘The spread of ESSE as universal auxiliary in central Italo-Romance’, Medioevo Romanzo, 11(2): 229–287. Vanelli, L. (1998) I dialetti italiani settentrionali nel panorama romanzo, Roma: Bulzoni.

References 385 Williams, E. (1981) ‘On the notions “lexically related” and “head of a word” ’, Linguistic Inquiry, 12: 245–274. Zanuttini, R. (1997) Negation and Clausal Structure, New York: Oxford University Press. Zubizarreta, M.L. (1985) ‘The relation between morphophonology and morphosyntax: the case of Romance causatives’, Linguistic Inquiry, 16: 247–289. Zubizarreta, M.-L. (1998) Prosody, Focus and Word Order, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Zucchi, A. (1996) Subject Clitics in Piacentino, ms., Cornell University.

Index

Accettura 217–18 accusative: clitic 26–32, 82, 86–92, 112–16, 157–9, 166–7, 228, 237–9, 243, 248, 320, 350, 360–2, 366; see also N clitic adjective 154–6, 179–80, 258, 267, 272–4, 278–80, 282, 298, 311, 319, 324, 326 adverb 179, 264, 291, 296 agreement see nominal class; number; plural Airole 23 Albidona 25–6, 28–9 Aliano 208 Altimari, F. 230, 244 animacy 94, 172, 199–200, 211–13, 373 article 19, 24, 42, 80, 137, 160, 264, 272–4, 279–80, 298, 311, 319–20, 324–6 aspect 155, 178–80, 215–18, 220, 244, 247, 259–60, 264, 274, 280–4, 286, 289–91, 312, 315, 317–18, 328–34, 336, 355, 357, 362, 365; inflection 155, 282–3, 365 auxiliary see ‘be’; ‘have’ Baker, M. 349, 352–4 Barile 269, 300–4, 307–10, 314, 317, 325, 329–30, 339–40, 346–7, 367–70 Bastia 161–2 ‘be’ 58, 73, 127, 149–53, 156, 174–99, 201–28, 252, 255, 257–60, 265–75, 282, 285, 296, 312–13, 315–17, 330 Beghelli, F. 89 Belletti, A. 156 bilingualism 12, 76 biolinguistics 3, 9–12 binding theory 98, 148, 150, 152, 163, 169–70, 176

Bloomfield, L. 9 Bonet, E. 112, 120, 134 Bonomi, A. 217, 244, 283–4 Brandi, L. 41, 352–3, 358, 362 Briga Novarese 143–4, 220–1 Brody, M. 3, 7–8, 35 Burzio, L. 46–7, 149–50, 153, 155, 162–3, 167, 177 C 26–9, 37, 84, 154, 238, 241, 243–5, 248, 262, 319, 353, 367; CD 48–9, 256, 295; CI 26–9, 34–5, 154–6, 238–9, 241–5, 248, 261–2, 294, 296, 320–4, 326 Calabrese, A. 102 Calascibetta 196–7 Camporeale 22 Cantoira 130–2 Capracotta 209–11 Cardinaletti, A. 40, 42, 55–8, 84, 332 Carfizzi 229–36, 250–8, 300–9, 323 Carmiano 193–5 cartography 4–5 Casaccia 24, 56–7, 63, 74, 94–5 case see accusative clitic; dative clitic; locative; partitive clitic; subject clitic Càsola 56 Castellazzo Bormida 36–7, 41–2, 49, 52, 54, 58–60 Castiglione d’Adda 134–8 causative: agreement in 335, 337–40, 343, 347, 349–50, 353, 355, 362, 367–8, 370–1, 374–6; biclausal nature of 353, 355, 361; by-phrase in 343, 345–51, 354, 356–7, 363, 366, 369–70, 373, 375; case in 335, 337–40, 342, 344, 349–50, 353, 355, 361–2, 364, 366–8, 372–3, 375–6; causee 337–8, 340, 343–4, 347, 349–51, 353–5, 359–69, 370–6; causer 337–40, 342–4, 347, 349, 351, 354–5, 364, 367–8,

Index 387 371–6; faire à 370, 375–6; faire par 351, 354, 356, 370, 375–6; and middlereflexive 363–4, 366, 368, 370–1, 374–6; and passive 343, 345–6, 349, 354–5, 357, 360–1, 364, 368–9, 375–6; verb 336, 339–40, 355, 357–9, 367–8, 371 Cavergno 184 Celle di Bulgheria 107–8 Celle S.Vito 70–1 chain 6–9, 21, 34–5, 59–64, 72, 77, 154, 164–5, 171, 298, 332, 346 Chierchia, G. 103, 150, 163–4, 173, 177 Chioggia 183 Chomsky, N. 3–4, 6–11, 14, 16–17, 28, 34–5, 39, 41–2, 47–8, 52, 55–9, 63–9, 76–8, 82, 86, 91, 98, 107, 119, 147, 154, 156–7, 335, 362 Cinque, G. 5, 167–9, 331 Civita 299–317, 321, 325–6, 336, 344 clitic: climbing 333–4, 345, 349, 368; doubling 27, 34–8, 41–3, 49–52, 232, 237, 243, 245–6, 248, 263, 337, 340, 342, 344–5, 350, 360, 366, 373; internal structure of 85, 87, 90, 94, 96, 98, 101, 106, 108, 110, 113, 115, 117, 122, 129, 132, 137, 141, 143, 145; mutual exclusion 52, 71, 99–116, 120–34, 142–4, 240, 245–6, 248; ‘opaque’ 112–18, 134–42, 144–6; resumptive 6, 59, 171; see also D clitic; Loc clitic; N clitic; Q clitic; P clitic; R clitic Colfosco 44 Colledimacine 206–7 Como 139 complex predicate 175, 178–81, 187, 190–1, 194–8, 203–4, 210, 224, 258, 325, 333–4, 336, 345, 353, 357, 359–60, 364, 366 Comrie, B. 179 control 57–8, 67, 152, 167–9, 175, 178, 196, 264–5, 274, 291, 295–6, 298, 327, 333, 335–6, 357, 365, 368, 370, 374–5 copula 151–3, 180, 188–211, 215, 219, 258 Cordin, P. 41 Corte 126 counterfactual 188, 215–19, 226–7, 244–5, 283 D argument 45, 49, 64–7, 154–8, 165, 190–7, 203–6, 217, 220, 223–4, 246–8, 291, 326, 329, 355, 357, 359–62, 368, 370–1, 373–4; see also EPP: argument dative clitic 25, 79, 86–119, 124, 161, 228, 234, 237–9, 340

Davis, H. 200–1 D clitic 15, 18, 32–3, 42, 49, 59–61, 63, 68, 120–46, 239, 242, 262, 291–5, 320–4, 329, 359–63, 365; see also mE, te (të) default 16, 62, 78, 86, 95, 98, 119, 146–7, 157, 283 definiteness 16, 20, 40, 72–6, 101–18, 122–38, 238, 240, 244, 248, 256, 273–4, 281, 286, 311, 324–6, 328 DeLancey, S. 199–200 demonstrative 80–1 derivation 3, 5–7, 18, 28–9, 37, 42, 71, 78–9, 102, 119–20, 146–7, 153, 163, 186, 192, 331, 354 Dicomano 158 D inflection 17–19, 26–9, 32–3, 59–61, 63, 66, 68, 238, 247–8, 259, 261, 263, 278, 358, 368 discourse-anchoring 30–2, 61, 71, 80–2, 93, 103, 118, 170–2, 183, 200–24, 239, 242, 261–2, 285–6, 372–3 Distributed Morphology 5–6, 17–18, 119, 142, 146 distributivity 88–9, 93–4, 98–9, 101–2, 104, 106–7, 109–11, 113–18, 125, 137, 238, 363 Dixon, R.M.W. 212–13 Donat 159 D position 14–15, 20, 45, 80–1; see also D clitic; D inflection Elsewhere 18, 119, 146–7 enclisis 24–32, 35, 86, 144–6, 151, 228, 231, 233–4, 238–41, 244–5, 248, 252–3, 260–2, 339 English 39–40, 49, 59, 62, 76 E particle 330–2 EPP: argument 67, 152–3, 156, 159, 164–5, 168, 171–96, 224, 238–9, 256–8, 295–6, 298, 327, 329, 333–4, 337, 340, 345–6, 354–75; variable 67, 152, 169, 175, 178–9, 224, 258, 296, 298, 327, 333, 357–75 ergativity 11, 32, 156, 175, 199–201, 206, 284 event: anchoring 29–32, 81–2, 93–7, 118, 170–1, 200–25, 239–42, 246, 261–2, 283–6, 372–4; unification 193, 196, 198, 332–3, 357, 368 existential 69, 71, 74–8, 80, 148, 151, 163, 217, 244–5, 284; closure 4, 49, 65, 67, 72, 75–6, 294 experiencer 191–3, 256

388

Index

expletive 39–41, 46, 50–2, 54–8, 62, 65–8, 70–3, 76–7, 174; negation 297 external argument 32, 149–52, 159, 163–5, 167–8, 175, 177, 185, 257, 354, 357, 360, 370–3 feature: checking 6, 37, 57, 65, 151, 154, 156, 335, 354, 362; phi 41–2, 55, 59, 78, 119, 157; uninterpretable 6, 8, 34, 37, 55, 59, 68; unvalued 154 Filottrano 160 Firmo 268, 299–316, 336, 343–4, 355–8 Focus 48, 50, 64, 67–8, 71, 75–7, 158, 295 Forlì 21–2 Forni di Sopra 186–7 Freidin, R. 147 French 40, 57, 69 Gauchat, L. 10 Gavoi 110–11 gender see nominal class German 40 gerund 265, 268, 296–7 Ginestra 300–10, 315–17, 341–3, 347–8, 371–4 Giovinazzo 214 Giurdignano 23 Giusti, G. 332 Gjirokastër 267–8, 282–3, 301–12, 320–6, 351–2 Grimshaw, J. 119, 146 Grottaglie 114–15 Guasti, M.T. 352–3 Halle, M. 5, 17–18, 30–2, 98 harmony 214, 223 Harris, J.W. 84, 112 ‘have’ 58, 73, 127, 130, 149–53, 175–6, 178–86, 188–99, 201–7, 228, 230, 252, 257–8, 260, 266–8, 273, 282, 312–14, 317, 329, 360 head-Spec 4, 6, 34, 37, 41, 47, 84, 201, 353 Henry, A. 62 Iatridou, S. 283, 362, 365 imperative 25–34, 134, 144–6, 154, 228, 233–43, 245, 248, 253–5, 260–2, 264, 267, 287–90, 294, 301, 320, 339, 367; negative 28–9, 31, 228, 236–7, 240–3, 253–5, 261–2, 267, 301, 320, 367 imperfect 21, 194, 216–18, 220, 222, 228, 232, 244, 246–8, 260, 283–5, 299, 315, 329, 332–3

impersonal 83, 91–2, 97–8, 101–3, 125, 150, 162–73, 176–8, 182–6, 255–6, 260, 346 impoverishment 6, 18, 244, 331–2 incorporation 150, 192–3, 222, 335, 352–4, 357, 362 indefinite 72–6, 164, 167, 217, 220, 238, 244, 248, 256, 281, 283, 286, 311, 324–6, 328 infinitive 28–9, 67, 167–9, 238, 264–5, 274, 276, 283–91, 293, 298, 303, 311, 323, 327, 333–4, 349–50, 376 inflection see aspect: inflection; D inflection; N inflection instrumental 81, 356, 370 internal argument 149–51, 153–6, 163–5, 170–1, 174–8, 183–6, 188–92, 195–7, 223–5, 237, 256–8, 264, 278, 281, 284–6, 290, 325–6, 346, 352, 354–5, 357, 359–64, 366, 368–9, 371, 374–5; see also N argument I position 14–20, 29, 32–3, 47, 49, 59–61, 63, 66, 68, 75, 85, 238, 241, 243, 256–8, 261, 278, 280–3, 291–7, 320–4, 326, 329–31; see also aspect: inflection; clitic: internal structure of irrealis 217–18, 244, 283–4, 332 Italian 15–20, 25, 29, 39–40, 43, 47–50, 57, 60, 82–3, 89, 104, 151, 154–7, 159, 161–4, 166, 168–81, 216–17, 257, 327, 349–50 Kayne, R. 43, 84, 93, 149–51, 153, 330–1, 333–4 Krapova, I. 5 L 47, 85 label 4–6 Labov, W. 10 Làconi 99–103 La Pli de Mareo 23, 44–5, 58 La Strozza Valle Imagna 21–2 late insertion 6, 18 Levin, B. 95 LF 3, 7–8, 59–60, 78, 82, 107, 147 locality 8–9, 327, 364, 366, 375 locative 71–2, 92–5, 107–9, 172, 192–3, 222, 356–7, 363, 369–70 Loc clitic 80–3, 93; see also locative Longa, V.M. 95 Lorenzo, G. 95 Manzini, M.R. 83, 98, 164, 244, 256 Marantz, A. 5, 17–19, 30–2, 98, 163

Index 389 Margarita 36 markedness 16, 160 Martin, J.-B. 71 Mascioni 112–14, 160–1 May, R. 88 mE 264–7, 269, 274–6, 283, 290–6, 350–1, 359 merge 3, 79–80, 83–4, 91, 98, 101, 117, 147 mesoclisis 25–32, 34, 166, 228, 234, 238–40, 242, 255, 261–2 Mezzenile 50–1 middle-reflexive 165, 176, 182–5, 187, 228, 249–63, 266, 284–5, 287–9, 328, 344–5, 355, 363–4, 366, 368, 370–1, 374–6 minimalism 3, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 37, 47–8, 77–9, 86, 98, 104, 119–20, 133, 147, 210, 335, 353–4, 362 minimality 28–9 Mirditë 288–9 mirror 5 Modena 15, 18–19, 51, 53, 58, 65, 74, 92–3, 174 Montaldo 36 Montebello Ionico 198 Monteguiduccio 74 Montereale 72 mood 26–31, 133–4, 146, 154–5, 215–18, 230, 238–44, 248, 254–5, 260–2, 264, 266, 274, 283–4, 286, 289–91, 294, 296–8, 301, 309, 312, 315, 319–23, 326–33, 336, 355, 357; see also E particle, mE, te (të) Morcone 205 move see chain N argument 20, 154–5, 157–61, 164–5, 170–1, 173, 175–80, 192–3, 196, 198, 203, 223, 279, 281, 359, 361, 363, 368 Nash, L. 201 N clitic 26, 29, 34, 82–3, 88, 90, 92–3, 96, 98, 100, 106, 108, 111, 113, 118, 122, 129–30, 136, 154, 238–9, 241–3, 249, 292–7, 320–4, 329, 331, 359–60, 362 negation 28–9, 31, 127–9, 134, 232, 240–3; and mood 240–3, 254–5, 261–2, 264, 266, 275, 294, 296, 301, 321, 323; see also R clitic N inflection 19–20, 33–4, 85, 87, 90, 94, 96, 98, 101, 106, 108, 110, 113, 115, 117, 122, 129, 132, 137, 141, 143, 145, 155, 174, 176–7, 190, 192, 195, 197, 202–4, 224, 279–83, 326, 358 Nocara 95–6

Nociglia 105–6 nominal class 20, 24, 32–4, 57, 61–3, 65–6, 68, 71, 80–2, 84–5, 87, 90, 96–7, 101, 109–11, 113, 115–17, 119, 122–30, 134–46, 154, 160–1, 188, 203, 213, 246, 272, 279–81, 319, 358 nominalization 274, 281, 319, 324–6, 328 nominative see subject clitic noun phrase 19–20, 63, 74–5, 77, 80, 84, 278–9 N position 15, 20, 80–1; see also N clitic; N inflection Nuclear Stress Rule 47–8 null subject 39–52, 123, 136, 139–40, 167, 295 number 16, 52–3, 55–7, 62–3, 66, 81, 84–5, 87–8, 107, 113–14, 118, 133, 136, 154, 188, 203, 249, 273, 311, 319, 324; see also plural Old Italian 158 Olivetta San Michele 90–2 optimality (theory) 9, 18, 79, 92, 102, 106, 119–20, 146–7, 354, 373 optionality 39, 72, 75–6, 125–6, 133, 141, 223, 225, 365 Orroli 58, 73, 185–6 Oviglio 36 parameter: lexical 10–11; macroparameter 10–11, 40; microparameter 1, 10–12, 40, 211 Parsons, T. 179 participle: absolute 151, 156; agreement 153–62, 172–3, 181–7, 190, 197–8, 202–4, 222–5, 258, 279–80; see also aspect, inflection; N inflection particle see E, mE, te (të) partitive clitic 82–3, 86, 89–92, 95–7, 99–100, 105–9, 111–14, 118, 166, 362 paskajore 264–5, 269, 271, 274, 276–7, 290–7, 359 passive 150–3, 162–73, 176–80, 197, 201, 203, 210, 224, 249, 255–6, 258–60, 264, 266–7, 272–3, 279, 282–3, 290, 343–6, 349, 354–5, 357, 360–1, 363–4, 368–9, 371, 375–6 P clitic 26–7, 35, 82–3, 93, 96, 100, 113, 122, 136, 239, 241–2, 355–6, 370, 372, 374 perfect 178–9, 215, 222, 225, 227–8, 230, 244–6, 250, 253, 257, 259–60, 264, 266–7, 269, 280, 282–90, 317, 329, 332; see also participle

390

Index

person split 30, 46, 69, 171–2, 188, 193, 199–201, 203, 207, 209, 211, 213–18, 220–3, 225, 239, 285, 340, 347, 371–2, 375; see also P clitic; P position Pescolanciano 188–90 PF 3, 8, 34, 43, 45, 107 phase 8–9 Piana degli Albanesi 269, 337–8, 345, 361–3 Pigna 51, 54, 58, 127–30 Pinzano 53, 61 Piobbico 116–18 pluperfect 216–22, 226–7, 246 plural 22–6, 31–4, 62–9, 80–1, 85–6, 103–4, 106–8, 112–13, 115–18, 120–48, 160–1, 172–3, 209–15, 234, 238, 240, 242, 245–6, 248, 250, 254–5, 259, 261–2, 272–3, 280–1, 285–6, 290, 311, 319, 328, 340, 342 Poletto, C. 50, 130 Pollock, J.-Y. 244 Popoli 214 Portocannone 230–7, 251–5, 300–18, 330–1 possessive 151–2, 188, 191–3, 208–9, 219–20; in noun phrases 80–1 Pozzaglio 140–1 P position 80–1; see also P clitic pragmatics 10, 48, 50, 159, 200–1, 212–13, 372 predication 64–5, 67, 77, 158 preposition 192, 195, 258, 264–6, 268, 272, 274–5, 290–1, 293–4, 296, 303, 308–9, 311, 323, 330, 350, 356 pro 7, 34, 39, 41–2, 67, 122–3, 142 PRO 7, 67 pronoun weak vs. strong 84, 182 Q clitic 27–9, 80–1, 88, 90, 92, 98, 100, 108, 118, 164, 166, 242, 256–7, 261–2, 360, 369–70 Q position 15, 20, 83; see also Q clitic quantifier 50–2, 80–2, 88–9, 147–8, 164, 326, 363 raddoppiamento fonosintattico 107 Rappaport, M. 95 R clitic 29, 90, 92, 96, 100, 106, 108, 111, 118, 129, 241–2, 261–2, 292, 294, 296, 321–3 reanalysis 152 reconstruction 7–8 reflexive 25, 83, 92, 97–8, 101–4, 150–1, 153, 162–73, 176–7, 182–7, 197–8, 249,

255–8, 260, 343–51, 355, 360–1, 364, 366, 368–71, 374–6 Reinhart, T. 88, 151, 163–4, 181–2 representation 3–8, 15, 18, 28, 31, 34–6, 39, 48, 67, 79, 82, 91, 102, 119–20, 132, 146–7, 177, 368 restructuring 67, 152, 196, 325, 331–3 Revere 54, 68 Rigau, G. 94–5 Rivero, M.-L. 319 Rizzi, L. 16, 26, 39–41, 48–50, 52, 331 Roberts, I. 42, 319 Roccasicura 224 Ross, J.R. 330 Roussou, A. 319 R position 80–1; see also R clitic Rrokaj, Sh. 353 Saccon, G. 71 San Bartolomeo Cavargna 221 San Bartolomeo Pesio 36–7 San Basile 268–9 San Benedetto Ullano 231, 249, 252, 262, 312–15, 337, 344 San Giorgio della Richinvelda 23 San Marzano 229–37, 242–50, 253–5, 261–3 San Nazzaro Sesia 144–5 San Severo 35 Sant’Agata del Bianco 97–8, 104 Santa Sofia d’Epiro 229–43, 249–61 Sapir, E. 9 Sardinian 85 Savoia, L.M. 253, 335, 337, 352–3, 356, 358, 362 scope 28, 47, 49, 75, 84, 88–9, 91, 101, 106, 116–18, 126, 165, 167, 169, 242, 244, 283, 294, 326, 332, 357, 365 Senise 27–8 Shkodër 260, 265–97, 351–2, 359–61 si see impersonal; middle-reflexive; passive; reflexive; unaccusative Siniscola 73, 75 Soazza 24–5, 32–4, 182 Somali 69 Sonnino 199, 201–4, 216 Spanish, Caribbean 30–1 specificity 16, 72–6, 80–4, 90–1, 101, 103–4, 106, 117, 172, 217, 244–5, 284 Sportiche, D. 34 ‘Spurious se’ 18, 99, 106, 118, Starke, M. 84 Stowell, T. 89

Index 391 subject: postverbal 39–41, 46–8, 52–5, 57–8, 60–78, 157–8, 162, 164, 295, 336, 352, 355–7; preverbal 39, 41–52, 56, 60, 62, 64, 70, 158, 295, 356; quirky 72; -verb agreement 52–78; see also expletive subject clitic 15–16, 19, 21–5, 31–3, 35–6, 39, 41–6, 49–54, 56–7, 59–66, 68, 70–2, 74, 76–7, 80–2, 87, 90, 109, 120–2, 125, 127–31, 133–4, 136–8, 140–6, 167, 174, 200, 239, 245, 260; see also D clitic subjunctive 188, 198, 200, 215–16, 240, 244, 259, 274, 298, 311–12, 315, 318–19, 322, 327–30; particle 7, 291, 296, 303, 315, 317–19, 330, 332–3; see also E particle, mE, te (të) suppletion 29, 98–9, 102, 105, 109 syncretism 61, 65, 191, 213, 219–22, 227, 286 Tavullia 121–5 te (të) 169, 264–5, 274, 291, 293, 295–6, 298–9, 301, 303, 305, 307–9, 311–12, 315, 318–30, 332, 334, 336–8, 350, 353, 357–8, 361–2, 364, 366, 368 tense 30–1, 61, 81, 173, 179, 188, 200, 215–16, 230, 238–9, 260, 283, 285–6, 290, 312, 328–9, 332–3, 336, 357, 362, 365; inflection 31, 365 thematic vowel 155, 223, 264, 267, 269, 279–86, 289, 311 theta-role 48, 149, 151, 163–4, 167–8 Topic 48–52, 58, 60, 64, 71, 74, 77, 158, 173, 264, 295, 319 trace 7, 170–1

transitive 46–7, 149–50, 152–3, 159–60, 165, 170–1, 174–5, 177–8, 180–3, 185–6, 188–203, 206–10, 218–19, 222–4, 257–8, 264, 291, 336–9, 342, 346, 349–50, 363–4, 366–8, 370–1 Trecate 191–2, 219 Tufillo 223–4 Turano, G. 349, 353, 366 Tuttle, E. 199 unaccusative 46, 58, 73, 76, 149–53, 155–9, 162–5, 167–79, 181–96, 198–9, 202–3, 206–7, 209–10, 216, 219, 221–3, 225, 255–8, 260, 279, 346, 355, 369–70 unergative 46, 116, 125, 149–50, 159–60, 175, 182, 184, 188–9, 193–4, 199, 206–7 Urbino 53, 55, 66, 68 V2 42 Vagli di Sopra 87–8, 91–2 Vastogirardi 212 Vena di Maida 299, 302–3, 323, 338–9, 345, 365 verb base 25–8, 31, 33–5, 155, 234, 238–40, 242, 246–7, 250, 255, 259–62, 264, 279, 284–6, 290, 328, 333 Vergnaud, J.R. 147 Vito d’Asio 53, 61 wh- 5, 88, 91, 171, 264, 276–7, 291, 294–5, 303, 307–8, 319, 322 Zubizarreta, M.L. 354 Zucchi, A. 54, 68