THE EMERGENCE OF GRAMMARS: A CLOSER LOOK AT DIALECTS BETWEEN PHONOLOGY AND MORPHOSYNTAX 9781536198881, 9781685070229

Table of contents :
THE EMERGENCE OF GRAMMARSA CLOSER LOOK ATDIALECTS BETWEEN PHONOLOGYAND MORPHOSYNTAX
THE EMERGENCE OF GRAMMARSA CLOSER LOOK ATDIALECTS BETWEEN PHONOLOGYAND MORPHOSYNTAX
CONTENTS
PREFACE
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Chapter 1THE SECONDARY LOCATIVE CASESIN THE LITHUANIAN DIALECT OF ZIETELA
ABSTRACT
ABBREVIATIONS
INTRODUCTION
GENERAL INFORMATION ABOUT THE LITHUANIANDIALECT OF ZIETELA
PRIMARY AND SECONDARY CASES IN LITHUANIAN
SECONDARY CASES IN THE DIALECT OF ZIETELA
LOCATIVE PREPOSITIONS IN THE DIALECT OF ZIETELA
SYNTHETIC CASES AND THEIR CONSTRAINTS
CONCLUSION
REFERENCES
Chapter 2FIRST CONJUNCT AGREEMENT IS NOTAN ELLIPTICAL ILLUSION:A CASE OF PRENOMINAL ADJECTIVES
ABSTRACT
1. INTRODUCTION
2. ATTRIBUTIVE ADJECTIVES AGREEINGWITH THE CLOSEST CONJUNCT
3. ELLIPSIS AND FIRST CONJUNCT AGREEMENT
3.1. Semantic Plurality
3.2. Syntactic Plurality
3.3. Split/Joint Reference
3.4. Licensing Ellipsis
3.4.1. FCA with Multiple Adjectives
3.4.2. Gender-Number Mismatches
3.5. Nominal Ellipsis
CONCLUSION
REFERENCES
Chapter 3NULL SUBJECTS AND SUBJECT PRONOUNSIN DIACHRONY: EVIDENCE FROM TEXTUALSOURCES OF NORTHERN OCCITAN (VELAY)
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
1. BACKGROUND: THE NULL SUBJECTPARAMETER IN OCCITAN LANGUAGE
1.1. Synchronic Descriptions
1.2. Diachronic Descriptions of Subject Pronouns
2. NULL SUBJECT AND SUBJECT PRONOUNSIN MODERN DIALECTS OF VELAY
3. NULL SUBJECT AND SUBJECT PRONOUNS:DIACHRONIC EVIDENCE FROM THE CORPUSOF OCCITAN TEXTS OF VELAY
3.1. Binary or Gradual Parameterization?
3.2. Morphosyntax and Prosodic Status of Subject Pronouns
3.3. Subject Pronouns and Word Order
CONCLUSION
REFERENCES
Chapter 4ACCOUNTING FOR THE DEFINITE ARTICLESIN MEDIEVAL ITALIAN AND MODERNDIALECTS. NO ALLOMORPHY -A COMMON UR
ABSTRACT
1. INTRODUCTION. THERE IS NO ALLOMORPHYIN THE ITALO-ROMANCE DEFINITE ARTICLES
2. PHONOLOGICAL ALTERNATIONS IN ITALIAN ARTICLES
2.1. Why No Allomorphy?
2.2. (Underlying) Bisyllabic Articles in Medieval Italianand Modern Dialects
2.3. Extended Bisyllabic Forms before Vowel-Initial Stems
3. THE ‘EXTENDED’ MEDIEVAL VARIANTSAND PADOVAN VARIANT The same single bisyllabic UR has fully overt reflexes in some
4. THE EXTENDED BISYLLABIC NEAPOLITAN VARIANTAND THE REPRESENTATION OF (IN)DEFINITENESS
4.1. The Procidano and Ischitano Articles Variants.Hardening and Rhoticisation of the Extended Bisyllabic /ll/
CONCLUSION
REFERENCES
Chapter 5EMERGENCE OF MALTESEMORPHO-PHONOLOGICAL PROFILES
ABSTRACT
ABBREVIATIONS
1. INTRODUCTION
2. THE ARABIC HERITAGE
3. SYLLABIC STRUCTURE AND STRESS
3.1. The Segmental Cycle in Maltese Phonology
3.2. Theoretical Assumptions
3.3. Templatic Stems
3.3.1. Syllabic Constituency
3.3.2. Trochaic Minimality
3.3.3. Stem Vowel Syncope
3.3.4. Lexical and Word Strata
3.3.5. Stem-Syllabic Alternations at the Lexical Stratum
3.3.5.1. C-Final Templatic Stems
3.3.5.2. V-Final Templatic Stems
3.3.6. Stress Assignment
3.4. Non-Templatic Stems
3.4.1. Patterns of Incorporation as Templatic Stems
3.4.2. Paroxytone Stems
3.4.3. Proparoxytone Stems
3.4.4. Geminate-Initial Stems
3.5. Conclusion
4. LOSS OF EMPHATIC CONSONANTSIN MEDIEVAL MALTESE
4.1. Compensatory Effects
5. LOSS OF GUTTURALS IN MODERN MALTESE
5.1. Description of Gutturals by A. De Soldanis
5.2. Description of Gutturals by Vassalli
5.2.1. Minimal Pairs
5.2.2. Dialectal Variation in Pre-Modern Maltese
5.2.3. Allophonic Variation in Gutturals
5.3. Gutturals in Modern Maltese
5.3.1. Bonelli: Archivio Glottologico Italiano
5.3.2. Stumme Maltesische Studien
5.3.2.1. Dialectal Variants of q
5.3.2.2. Reflexes of h
5.3.3. Pharyngeal Sonorant З and Pharyngealized Vowels
5.4. Comparison with Tunisian Arabic
5.5. Pharyngealization in the 20th Century
5.5.1. Modern Dialectal Pharyngealized Vowels
5.5.2. Gutturals in Contemporary Maltese
5.6. Phonological Interpretation of Orthographic H and Għ
5.6.1. Orthographic h
5.6.2. Digraph għ
5.6.2.1. Għ Adjacent to a (Mid)Low Vowel
5.6.2.2. għ Adjacent to an Underlying High Vowel
5.6.2.3. Digraph għ Followed by h-Suffix
5.6.3. Predictive Phonology
CONCLUSION
REFERENCES
Chapter 6SONORITY AND REDUPLICATION:AN ATTEMPT TO REDUCE THE SONORITYCONDITION TO A TEMPLATIC CONDITION
ABSTRACT
1. INTRODUCTION1
2. THE SONORITY CONDITION
2.1. Reduplication and Templates
2.2. Reduplication and the Sonority of Consonants
2.3. Reduplications and the Sonority of Vowels
3. THE FORMALIZATION OF SONORITY
3.1. Sonority and Complexity
3.2. Sonority and Assimilation
3.3. Sonority and Branchingness
4. DERIVING THE SONORITY CONDITIONFROM BRANCHINGNESS
4.1. ‘Large’ Reduplicative Templates
4.2. ‘Small’ Reduplicative Templates
CONCLUSION
REFERENCES
Chapter 7REPETITIONS, RESTS INSERTIONAND SCHWA IN 16TH CENTURY FRENCHPOLYPHONY: AN EMERGENTSUB-GRAMMAR IN FRESNEAU’S SONGS?
ABSTRACT
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. Fresneau and His Work
1.2. Main Corpus and Control Corpora
1.3. Reading and Interpreting Sources
2. BACKGROUND: PROSODY, METRICS AND MUSIC
2.1. What Is Textsetting?
2.2. The Textual Module
2.2.1. Linguistic Representation: Phonological Phrasing and Schwa
2.2.2. Metrical Representation: Patterns and Association Rules
2.3. Music’s Grouping Structure
3. CONSTITUENTS MATCHINGIN STANZAIC DIASYSTEMIC GRAMMAR
3.1. Musical Repetitions over the Stanza
3.2. Matching Groups While Text Changes
3.3. Deriving the Metrified Form of the Text
3.4. The Status of the String of Notes Matchedwith a Metrical Constituent
4. FRESNEAU’S CONSTITUENTS MATCHING
4.1. Deriving Fresneau’s Metrified Form of the Text
4.2. Dealing with the -ə in the Derivation
4.3. Rest Insertion
5. PARTIAL TEXTSETTING GRAMMAR EMERGENCE
5.1. Dealing with Inferred Parameters in an OT Model
5.2. Emergence of Non-Predictable Constraint’s Ranking
CONCLUSION
REFERENCES
APPENDIX: CORPORA’S COMPOSITION
Main Corpus: Fresneau’s Songs
Idiolectal Control Corpus
Stanzaic Control Corpus
Chapter 8LOCATIVE, PRESENTATIVEAND PROGRESSIVE CONSTRUCTIONSIN ATLANTIC LANGUAGES
ABSTRACT
ABBREVIATIONS
1. INTRODUCTION
2. THE ATLANTIC LANGUAGES
3. LOCATIVE, PRESENTATIVEAND PROGRESSIVE CONSTRUCTIONS
4. STRUCTURE OF THE CONSTRUCTIONS
5. MARKERS OF THE CONSTRUCTIONS
6. ORIGIN OF THE CONSTRUCTION
6.1. A Genetic Inheritance
6.2. Grammaticalization and Reconstruction Hypotheses
CONCLUSION
REFERENCES
Chapter 9PARADIGM FUNCTION MORPHOLOGYAPPLIED TO THE SOUTHERN FINNICDIALECT NETWORK
ABSTRACT
ABREVIATIONS
Symbols
1. INTRODUCTION: METHODS AND GOALS
1.1. Methods
1.2. Goals
1.3. Theoretical Scope
2. THE PFM (PARADIGM FUNCTION MORPHOLOGY)FRAMEWORK APPLIED TO FINNIC DECLENSION
3. MODELING INFLECTIONAL CLASS SYSTEMSIN SOUTH EASTERN FINNIC LANGUAGES
4. MODELING THE PROCESSES FROM MPR
5. INTRICACY OF THE ITEM AND PROCESSMODEL PARAMETERS
6. NOMINAL AND ADJECTIVAL IC (DECLENSION)IN ÕS 2013: A LUMPING TAXONOMY FOR SE
7. DIASYSTEMIC IC SHIFTS, ACCORDINGTO A LUMPING TAXONOMY: SE VS. KIHNU
CONCLUSION AND PROSPECTS
REFERENCES
Chapter 10PLAUTDIETSCH: A REMARKABLE STORYOF LANGUAGE MAINTENANCE ANDCHANGE
ABSTRACT
1. INTRODUCTION
2. THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF MENNONITEMIGRATIONS AND CHANGES IN THEIR LANGUAGE USE
2.1. Mennonite Migrations
2.1.1. Mennonite Migrations in Europe and Former Russia
2.1.2. Historical Background of Mennonites in Kansas
2.1.3. Historical Background of Mennonites in Oklahoma
2.2. Social Changes in Mennonite Communities
2.3. Summary and Conclusion
3. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND AND DEVELOPMENTOF PLAUTDIETSCH
3.1. The Linguistic Situation in 16th Century Northern Europe
3.2. Phonetic and Phonological Changes in the Formation of PD
3.2.1. The Vowel System
3.3. Specifics of Language Shift in the Mennonite Low GermanVarieties
3.3.1. Vowel Shifts
3.3.2. /r/-Vocalization and Its Effects on PD Vowels and Consonants
3.4. Plautdietsch Morphology in the Developmental Stage
3.5. Lexical Changes in the Developmental Stage: Borrowingsfrom Contact Languages
3.6. The State of Plautdietsch Syntax in the Developmental Stage
3.7. Summary and Conclusion
4. A LINGUISTIC SKETCH OF PLAUTDIETSCHAS SPOKEN IN NORTH AMERICA TODAY
4.1. A Basic Comparison of the Consonant Systemsof Plautdietsch and Standard German
4.2. Features of the Plautdietsch Sound System as Realized inNorth American Varieties
4.2.1. Comparing Old Colony and European Plautdietsch
4.2.2. The Sounds of the PD Spoken in Kansas and Oklahoma Today
4.2.2.1. R-Vocalization
4.2.2.2. Rounded Front Vowels
4.2.2.3. Diphthongs and Triphthongs
4.2.3. Plautdietsch Morphology
4.2.4. Maintenance and Change in the Syntax of Plautdietsch
4.2.5. Periphrastic Do
4.2.6. The Role of English as the Dominant Language
4.2.7. Syntactic Variation and Innovation in North AmericanPlautdietsch
CONCLUSION
REFERENCES
ABOUT THE EDITOR
LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS
INDEX
Blank Page
Blank Page

Citation preview

LANGUAGES AND LINGUISTICS

THE EMERGENCE OF GRAMMARS A CLOSER LOOK AT DIALECTS BETWEEN PHONOLOGY AND MORPHOSYNTAX

No part of this digital document may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means. The publisher has taken reasonable care in the preparation of this digital document, but makes no expressed or implied warranty of any kind and assumes no responsibility for any errors or omissions. No liability is assumed for incidental or consequential damages in connection with or arising out of information contained herein. This digital document is sold with the clear understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering legal, medical or any other professional services.

LANGUAGES AND LINGUISTICS Additional books and e-books in this series can be found on Nova’s website under the Series tab.

LANGUAGES AND LINGUISTICS

THE EMERGENCE OF GRAMMARS A CLOSER LOOK AT DIALECTS BETWEEN PHONOLOGY AND MORPHOSYNTAX

MICHELA RUSSO EDITOR

Copyright © 2021 by Nova Science Publishers, Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means: electronic, electrostatic, magnetic, tape, mechanical photocopying, recording or otherwise without the written permission of the Publisher. We have partnered with Copyright Clearance Center to make it easy for you to obtain permissions to reuse content from this publication. Simply navigate to this publication’s page on Nova’s website and locate the “Get Permission” button below the title description. This button is linked directly to the title’s permission page on copyright.com. Alternatively, you can visit copyright.com and search by title, ISBN, or ISSN. For further questions about using the service on copyright.com, please contact: Copyright Clearance Center Phone: +1-(978) 750-8400 Fax: +1-(978) 750-4470

E-mail: [email protected].

NOTICE TO THE READER The Publisher has taken reasonable care in the preparation of this book, but makes no expressed or implied warranty of any kind and assumes no responsibility for any errors or omissions. No liability is assumed for incidental or consequential damages in connection with or arising out of information contained in this book. The Publisher shall not be liable for any special, consequential, or exemplary damages resulting, in whole or in part, from the readers’ use of, or reliance upon, this material. Any parts of this book based on government reports are so indicated and copyright is claimed for those parts to the extent applicable to compilations of such works. Independent verification should be sought for any data, advice or recommendations contained in this book. In addition, no responsibility is assumed by the Publisher for any injury and/or damage to persons or property arising from any methods, products, instructions, ideas or otherwise contained in this publication. This publication is designed to provide accurate and authoritative information with regard to the subject matter covered herein. It is sold with the clear understanding that the Publisher is not engaged in rendering legal or any other professional services. If legal or any other expert assistance is required, the services of a competent person should be sought. FROM A DECLARATION OF PARTICIPANTS JOINTLY ADOPTED BY A COMMITTEE OF THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION AND A COMMITTEE OF PUBLISHERS. Additional color graphics may be available in the e-book version of this book.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Russo, Michela, editor. Title: The emergence of grammars : a closer look at dialects between phonology and morphosyntax / Michela Russo (editor). Description: New York : Nova Science Publishers, [2020] | Series: Languages and linguistics | Includes bibliographical references and index. | Identifiers: LCCN 2021038493 (print) | LCCN 2021038494 (ebook) | ISBN 9781536198881 (hardcover) | ISBN 9781685070229 (adobe pdf) Subjects: LCSH: Grammar, Comparative and general--Phonology. | Grammar, Comparative and general--Morphosyntax. | Dialectology. | LCGFT: Essays. Classification: LCC P217 .E44 2020 (print) | LCC P217 (ebook) | DDC 415--dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2021038493 LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2021038494

Published by Nova Science Publishers, Inc. † New York

CONTENTS Preface

vii

Acknowledgments

xv

Chapter 1

Chapter 2

Chapter 3

Chapter 4

The Secondary Locative Cases in the Lithuanian Dialect of Zietela Daniel Petit First Conjunct Agreement Is Not an Elliptical Illusion: A Case of Prenominal Adjectives Nadira Aljović Null Subjects and Subject Pronouns in Diachrony: Evidence from Textual Sources of Northern Occitan (Velay) Vincent Surrel Accounting for the Definite Articles in Medieval Italian and Modern Dialects. No Allomorphy - A Common UR Michela Russo and Shanti Ulfsbjorninn

1

43

69

101

vi Chapter 5

Chapter 6

Chapter 7

Chapter 8

Chapter 9

Chapter 10

Michela Russo Emergence of Maltese Morpho-Phonological Profiles Gilbert Puech Sonority and Reduplication: An Attempt to Reduce the Sonority Condition to a Templatic Condition Guillaume Enguehard

159

221

Repetitions, Rests Insertion and Schwa in 16th Century French Polyphony: An Emergent Sub-Grammar in Fresneau’s Songs? Timothée Premat, Sophie Chouvion and Axelle Verner

247

Locative, Presentative and Progressive Constructions in Atlantic Languages Maximilien Guérin

303

Paradigm Function Morphology Applied to the Southern Finnic Dialect Network Jean Léo Léonard

343

Plautdietsch: A Remarkable Story of Language Maintenance and Change John te Velde and Nora Vosburg

377

About the Editor

441

List of Contributors

443

Index

449

PREFACE This book brings together ten original contributions to the linguistic study of grammars. In several works carried out according to different theoretical perspectives, linguists have tried to identify the phonological, morphological, syntactic, and semantic properties of a grammar. What is a grammar? What types of grammar are possible in natural languages? Why and to what extent do grammatical properties vary from one language to another? The answer to these questions is not obvious. Linguistic analysis can have for object the linguistic knowledge, the grammatical competence (i.e., I-language), while an explicit grammar must model this knowledge in its entirety. A mentalist interpretation of grammar implies that it is not enough to propose any axiomatized system compatible with a given corpus. The book also raises the question of a modular grammar. Some researchers admit in the grammar only one productive component, others postulate a modular grammar composed by several autonomous generative systems interacting with one another. The book recalls one of the major empirical challenges to which a general theory of language structure must satisfy: to describe in detail both the variation and the absence of variation between languages, and to explain why this variation has the properties that we observe. This book also raises the question of the status of linearity in grammar, that is to say, first of all, the question of its multiplicity or its uniqueness.

viii

Michela Russo

The topic of linearity represents what can be called the maximum impact of phonology in grammar. The ten contributions that make up this book were conducted independently by linguists who, without necessarily sharing the same theoretical framework, share a universalist conception of grammar, and the ambition to go beyond the simple facts in order to propose an explanation. All languages are human and the properties of Lithuanian, Gothic, Sanskrit, Nakanai, Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian, Finnic languages, Atlantic Languages, Proto-Western Arabic and Maltese, Occitan, medieval and modern Italo-Romance grammars are therefore relevant to English or French specialists as well. Each article of this book aims to describe and understand complex data from empirical materials collected in a language, a group of languages or a type of language. Daniel Petit studies in his Chapter 1 (“The secondary locative cases in the Lithuanian dialect of Zietela”) the Lithuanian dialect of Zietela (Belorussia), where the Common Baltic system of secondary locative cases has been maintenaid. He provides information on this variety in the context of Baltic languages, then he addresses the case system in detail. He presents the reconfiguration – thus the emergence of a new system in Zietela - of case markers in the language. This system is structured in Old Lithuanian according to two parameters [±contact], [±motion]. In this chapter he aims to formally describe the new features configuration and distribution in the dialect of Zietela from the historical development. This dialect has original features, some of which are contact-induced innovations. Nadira Aljović in her Chapter 2 (“First conjunct agreement is not an elliptical illusion: a case of prenominal adjectives”) addresses the question of first-conjunct agreement with prenominal adjectives in Bosnian, Croatian, Serbian. She argues against an analysis of this phenomenon based on ellipsis. The claim is that first conjunct agreement can arise within a structure in which the prenominal element scopes semantically and syntactically over a conjunction noun phrase. Vincent Surrel’s Chapter 3 (“Null Subjects and subjects pronouns in diachrony: evidence from textual sources of Northern Occitan Velay”)

Preface

ix

focuses on the little-known pronominal systems present in northern Occitan, intermediate between the Oc and Oïl domains. One would expect verbs in Occitan, as in other Romance languages such as Italian or Spanish, to have no subject. The forms analysed by Vincent Surrel are therefore surprising and require a linguistic and dialectological interpretation. In the dialects of Oïl, subject pronouns are obligatory for inflected verbs, and this grammatical distinction, known by linguists as the null subject parameter (or pro-drop parameter), groups together two typological areas with or without an expressed subject. Vincent Surrel highlights the behavior of transitional dialects, with partial pro-drop. The idea is therefore to define these partial paradigms which seem to escape the traditional pro-drop parameterization. He proposes to model this pronominal variation. Michela Russo and Shanti Ulfsbjorninn in their Chapter 4 (“Accounting for the definite articles in Medieval Italian and Modern Dialects. No allomorphy – a commun UR”) explore (in the framework of Government Phonology) the properties of definite articles in Italo-Romance. It is well known that Italian definite articles are governed by allomorphic rules. They propose that this is not strictly speaking allomorphy because all Italian articles share a common underlying form that varies in shape according to phonological conditions. Their major claim is that the articles underlying form and their morphological exponents have remained virtually unchanged since Medieval Italo-Romance and the only important changes have been to the phonological and morphosyntactic processes that affect their surface realisation. In their Chapter they bring together diachrony, many modern dialects and Standard Italian under a shared, phonologically, and morphologically unified decompositional analysis. In all the medieval and modern dialects investigated, the same phonological objects expone the same syntactic features, and the variation in surface forms are merely the effect of the micro-parametric differences in the phonological and morphosyntactic processes that interpret the same UR (underlying representation) according to its phonological and syntactic context. Their analysis includes dialectal forms with ‘unexpected’

x

Michela Russo

gemination before vowel-initial stems (never previously analysed) and indefinite/mass articles in Southern Italo-Romance. In the framework called a Word Syntax (i.e., morphological linearity is derived from hierarchical organization), they show that in these dialects indefiniteness is marked by a bare marker ‘de’, in SpecDP within a layered DP structure (spelled out as P, such as ‘de’, only in the Medieval period). This bare marker acts as a licensor for a realized initial geminate of the masculine singular MASS and the indefinite feminine plural articles Vinitial in the indefinite morphosyntactic environments. In C-initial position the φ-features of the indefinite articles geminate the onset of the following indefinite nouns via the Raddoppiamento Sintattico triggered by these two indefinite markers. Gilbert Puech in his Chapter 5 (“Emergence of Maltese morphophonological profile”) explores the Arabic introduced on the islands of Malta and Gozo, close to Sicily, in the High Middle Ages, and he endorses the view that Maltese is an offspring of Proto-Western Arabic, although Maltese has prosodic and syllabification-related features in common with pre-Hillalian Levantine dialects, and on the grounds that it shares with continental Maghrebi dialects morphological innovations which identify this group. In his Chapter he focused on two aspects of Maltese morpho-phonology: syllabic structure and stress, and loss of ‘back’ consonants. The theoretical framework is structured by UG principles. He shows how emphatic consonants of Arabic Maltese were lost in the late Middle Ages and guttural consonants in modern times. This triggered substantial changes in Maltese phonology, and explains why Maltese, which is an Arabic dialect, now sounds very differently from the other dialect of the Arabic space. Once cut off from its Arabic and Islamic roots, new vocabulary was borrowed from European languages. The bilingualism with Italian, then with English impacted the morphophonological and morpho-lexical profile of modern Maltese. Guillaume Enguehard analyzes in his Chapter 6 (“Sonority and Reduplication: an attempt to reduce the Sonority Condition to a Templatic Condition”), within Government Phonology theory, the reduplicative

Preface

xi

mechanisms in Gothic, Sanskrit, and Nakanai which implement the melodic complexity regarding the sonority condition. According to him the size of the template (i.e., the quantity of skeletal positions) conditions the sonority of the reduplicated segments. Complex less sonorous templates are associated to larger templates. In this way he provides in this chapter a theoretical approach that relates the principle of sonority and the template. This has implications on the theory of sonority and allows for questioning the sonority driven syllabification principle, since it is generally assumed that the distinction between the complex segments and cluster types is generated by the Sonority Sequencing Principle. The proposal of Guillaume Enguehard, based on diagnostics of syllable structure, is inverse to this traditional assumption: for him sonority derives from structure, not the other way around. The constraints on the reduplicated segments derive from the representations. Timothée Premat, Sophie Chouvion and Axelle Verner (a singer, mezzosoprano) in their Chapter 7 (“Repetitions, Rests Insertion and Schwa in 16th century French Polyphony: An Emergent Sub-Grammar in Fresneau’s Songs?”) focus on the relationship between text and music in the 16 th century song, and on hierarchical constituent structure matching grammar in textsetting. Each song combines two objects, the text, the linguistic object, and the song, the musical object (tune). The authors describe how these two objects interact in Henry Fresneau’s songs. The textsetting refers to the correspondence between text and tune, making use of formal similarities between language and music. One main similarity consists in the hierarchical constituent structure. Like syllables lexical items can be grouped into phonological or syntactic constituents, the notes in a tune can be bounded in groups, also nested in hierarchical larger groups. Henry Fresneau’s 16th century polyphonic songs show a specific interaction in textsetting. The authors establish the matchings generated by this grammar and model the emergence of Fresneau’s song sub-grammar. This chapter has benefited from the collaboration of a singer, Axelle Verner (mezzo-soprano) specialized in restoring a 16th century French pronunciation, as well as on the analysis of textsetting in ancient music, and their transmission to singers and performers.

xii

Michela Russo

Maximilien Guérin examines in his Chapter 8 (“Locative, Presentative and Progressive Construction in Atlantic Languages”) the verbal morphology of Atlantic Languages. He particularly focuses on a prototypical locative construction also used as a presentative and/or progressive construction and the marker associated to it. His hypothesis is that this construction, characteristic of this family, is inherited from ProtoAtlantic, and that its marker derives from a demonstrative determiner through a process of grammaticalization. His theoretical framework moves from grammatical constructions (usage-based Grammar), a functionalist approach to Grammars. His model of grammar diverges from the one adopted in the previous chapters since it is not based on the principles of universal grammar, rather in this model grammar is not independent of use and meaning, thus changes result from the creation of new grammars and the loss of the previous grammatical stages, processes called grammaticalizations from which the evolution of grammars would arise. Jean Léo Léonard in his Chapter 9 (“Paradigm Function Morphology applied to the Southern Finnic Dialect Network”) describes Finnic inflectional systems within a diasystemic analysis. He combines in his morpho-phonological analysis two different approaches, Paradigm Function Morphology (PFM), templatic phonology and particle phonology. He points out two main issues, relevant to Finno-Ugrian linguistics, general typology, and morpho-phonology: the relationship between Finnic inflectional taxonomies and typological inflection systems, and the challenge for theoretical linguistics to model morphological complexity and dialectal variation. He gives an account of Finnic inflectional taxonomies within PFM through a set of morphophonological rules and graphs of stem variation in order to turn ‘complexity’ into a ‘simplexity’ model. It is important to recall the core assumption of the Paradigm Function Morphology used in Chapter 9, in this framework Morphology is an autonomous component of the grammar. It means that in the internal architecture of Grammar, Morphology has an independent component with its own architecture, based on lexemes, paradigms, and realizations; thus, a language’s inflectional morphology is the result of its paradigm function.

Preface

xiii

John te Velde and Nora Vosburg in Chapter 10 (“Plautdietsch: A remarkable story of Language and change”) examine an endangered diasporic language of limited diffusion, Plautdietsch (also called Mennonite Low German), which has undergone changes dues to different linguistic factors. It is a religious minority originally from the Netherlands and Belgium, spoken as a primary language, and as heritage language. In the early formative years in the Vistula Delta, several phonological changes occurred that significantly changed the character of the original language, Dutch. It is composed by a cluster of dialects spoken among Mennonites in Europe, South America, and North America (USA, Canada, Mexico). Despite the actual distances, these varieties are still mutually intelligible. In this chapter they present interesting data from two Mennonite groups, one in Oklahoma, the other in Kansas. Despite the geographical distance for over a century their Plautdietsch varieties show a strikingly resemblance. Turning to formal aspects of syntax and phonology, they present evidence of the striking resilience of Plautdietsch dialect since earliest documentation. In particular, they found that the syntax of Plautdietsch varieties has remained intact as found in the other West Germanic languages with only very limited evidence of any shifts. These ten contributions could be grouped in thematic sub-headings ‘Syntax’, ‘Morphology’, ‘Morphosyntax’, ‘Phonology’, ‘Typology’, but from some of them a common point of view emerges: morphological properties are dependent on syntax, and syntax, phonology and morphology are together responsible for interpretative properties providing classification criteria to typology. In some of these contributions also emerges the hypothesis that morphology derives basically from the application of phonology to syntactic structures. However, some contributions have stated that Morphology is an independent component. Thus, an important question is left open: what place should be respectively given to Syntax and Morphology in the grammatical derivations? For some researchers, some operations are part of the syntax, while others see them as independent and post-syntactic mechanisms, and for some

xiv

Michela Russo

researchers, phonology creates linearity independently of syntax, within morphemes. The problem of the Syntax/Morphology and Phonology/Morphology interface is one of the major current issues in grammatical research. The themes proposed in this book particularly invite us to reflect.

Michela Russo Paris, the 14th of May 2021

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Many people have contributed to the creation of this volume. My thanks go especially to reviewers for various helpful criticisms and suggestions: -

Roland Noske (Associate Professor at University of Lille, France), Lameen Souag (Researcher at CNRS/LACITO = The Laboratory of Languages and Civilizations with an Oral Tradition, Paris, France) Mirko Grimaldi (Associate Professor at University of Salento, Italy) Luo Xiaoliang (Associate Professor at University of Orléans, France) Annie Rialland (Research Director at CNRS, UMR 7018, University of Sorbonne Nouvelle, Paris, France) François Dell (Research Director Emeritus at CNRS/CRLAO = The Center for East Asian Linguistic Research, Paris, France) Patrick Sauzet (Professor at University of Toulouse, France) Tjeerd de Graaf (Frisian Academy, Netherlands), Wolfgang Haubrichs (Professor at University of Saarbrücken, Germany) Anne Hertz (Professor Emeritus at University of Paris 8, France) Elena Soare (Associate Professor at University of Paris 8, France)

xvi

Michela Russo

All the authors of this book have been invited to elaborate on an overall account of Grammar(s). I would like to thank them for their patience, their hard work, and their ability to react to the editorial requirements. I wish to thank Viktor Andreevski (University of Lyon 3, France) for his editorial and technical support. Finally, I would like to express my thanks to my Research institution: the UMR 7023 “Formal Structures of Language” (CNRS) of the University of Paris 8.

Michela Russo Paris, the 14th of May 2021

In: The Emergence of Grammars Editor: Michela Russo

ISBN: 978-1-53619-888-1 © 2021 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

Chapter 1

THE SECONDARY LOCATIVE CASES IN THE LITHUANIAN DIALECT OF ZIETELA Daniel Petit* Department of Antiquities, École Normale Supérieure, Paris, France

ABSTRACT The Lithuanian dialect of Zietela (Belorussia) is one of the few dialects that have preserved the Common Baltic system of secondary locative cases. Originally built on postpositional structures, these secondary locative cases were structured in Old Lithuanian along two parameters [±CONTACT], [±MOTION]. In the dialect of Zietela, two additional parameters were introduced in the distribution of the locative cases [±ANIMACY], [±NUMBER]. The aim of this chapter is to describe this new configuration and to account for its historical development both formally and functionally.

Keywords: Lithuanian, dialect, Zietela, case system, locative roles

*

Corresponding Author’s E-mail: [email protected].

Daniel Petit

2

ABBREVIATIONS INESS ADESS ILL ALL

inessive adessive illative allative

INTRODUCTION Owing to its late standardization (beginning of the 20th century), the Lithuanian language offers extraordinary conditions for the description of dialectal diversity within a relatively small territory. The position of the Lithuanian language, largely shared with Latvian, the other language of the Baltic family preserved to this day, was long considered fragile or even endangered both by the existence of powerful superstrates (Polish, German and more recently Russian) and by the relative scarcity of the written culture until the 19th century. It is only thanks to the two periods of independence of the Baltic states (first independence in 1918–1940 and second independence from 1990 onwards) that Lithuanian became an official language and could develop a solid literary tradition. Understandably enough, the consequence of this late standardization has been an exceptional diversity of dialects still preserved, for most of them, to the present day, even if the most recent years have witnessed a sensible decay of their usage which will probably result in the disappearance of some of them in the years to come. The Lithuanian language is not limited to the three million speakers in the Republic of Lithuania (plus a sizeable diaspora); it also includes dialectal islands scattered in the neighboring countries, Latvia, Poland and Belorussia. These dialects were thoroughly described during the Soviet period and their position was recognized from the outset as more problematic than that of the dialects spoken in Lithuania, due to their integration in a foreign country, with no official linguistic status. Some of these dialects have disappeared in the meantime. It can be assumed that the extension of the Lithuanian language was once greater than historically

The Secondary Locative Cases in the Lithuanian Dialect of Zietela

3

documented; as a result, some of these dialects remained isolated, separated from all cognate dialects, due to the extinction of the varieties of Lithuanian once spoken in the intermediate areas. The Lithuanian dialect of Zietela (Belorussia) is probably the most fascinating of these dialectal islands of Lithuanian. The aim of this chapter is to describe a morphosyntactic peculiarity of the Lithuanian dialect of Zietela — the system of secondary synthetic cases — and particularly to show how this system survived in a typically peripheral linguistic island within the context of intensive linguistic contacts. This study is empirically oriented and not connected to any kind of theoretical framework. It is but one modest contribution to the description and analysis of an original dialect which has discreetly left the history, but still deserves the attention of linguists interested in the emergence of grammatical structures and their evolution in contact-driven situations.

GENERAL INFORMATION ABOUT THE LITHUANIAN DIALECT OF ZIETELA To begin with, it is necessary to give some overall information about the dialect itself.1 Zietela (Beloruss. Dzjatlava, Russ. Djatlovo, Lith. Zietela, Pol. Zdięcioł) is a small town in the northwestern part of Belorussia, with approximately 7900 inhabitants (in 2013). It belongs to Belorussia and is now populated exclusively by speakers of Belorussian; the Lithuanian dialect has disappeared during the second part of the 20th century. If one looks at the map given on the next page, which reflects the distribution of the Lithuanian dialects at the mid-20th century, one clearly sees that the situation of Zietela, approximately 80 kms from the Lithuanian border and separated from other Lithuanian dialects, created favorable conditions for linguistic isolation and, as a result, for intensive linguistic interference. The Lithuanian dialect of Zietela has long attracted the attention of linguists. Apart from first mentions dating back to the beginning of the 19th century, there was a series of ethnographic and linguistic journeys 1

More details are given by Zinkevičius (2006, 119–131).

4

Daniel Petit

undertaken by famous scholars, Eduard Volter (1856–1941) in 1886, 1888 and 1896, Jan Rozwadowski (1867–1935) in 1901 and 1903, Kazimieras Būga (1871–1924) in 1906, Georg Gerullis (1888–1945) in 1929 and 1930, Peter Arumaa (1900–1986) in 1930, Christian Stang (1900–1977) in 1930, Ernst Fraenkel (1881–1957) in 1934, Juozas Balčikonis (1885–1969) in 1955–1957, Vladimir Toporov (1928–2005) and Viačeslav Ivanov (1929– 2017) in 1958, Tamara Sudnik (1939) in 1964, Anatolii Nepokupnyj (1932– 2006) in 1970 and, last but not least, Aloyzas Vidugiris (1928–2016) on several occasions in the 1950s and 1960s. Vidugiris became the best expert in the dialect of Zietela and, at the turn of the 20th and the 21th centuries, shortly after the extinction of the dialect, published three major sources based on his own field research: a dictionary (Zietelos šnektos žodynas, Vilnius, 1998), a grammar (Zietelos lietuvių šnekta, Vilnius, 2004) and a collection of oral texts (Zietelos šnektos tekstai, co-editor with Danguolė Mikulėnienė, 2 vol., 2005–2010).

Source: Visuotinė lietuvių enciklopedija, K. Morkūnas. Figure 1. The Lithuanian dialect of Zietela.

The Secondary Locative Cases in the Lithuanian Dialect of Zietela

5

The reason for the attractivity of the Lithuanian dialect of Zietela lies in its archaism: it is famous for having preserved grammatical features of Old Lithuanian lost in most other modern dialects, particularly the complex system of secondary locative cases. Nevertheless, owing to its isolation and the constant pressure of Belorussian, the dialect displays remarkable innovations, some of which are unparalleled in any other Lithuanian dialect. The aim of this paper is to assess one of the most striking peculiarities of the dialect of Zietela which can shed light both on the evolution of the Lithuanian language and on the linguistic contacts it has developed in the course of its history.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY CASES IN LITHUANIAN The Baltic languages have largely preserved the inflectional structure inherited from Proto-Indo-European (PIE). In Lithuanian, for example, we still find 6 primary synthetic cases: nominative, vocative, accusative, genitive, dative and instrumental (the locative will be discussed below). The PIE ablative disappeared, having merged by syncretism with the PIE genitive: this evolution is shared by all other Baltic languages as well as by the Slavic languages and must therefore go back to a very ancient date. The fusion of genitive and ablative is complete both formally and functionally: some genitive forms (e.g., fem.sg. -os) go back to ancient genitives, others (e.g., masc.sg. -o) to ancient ablatives, and ablative and genitive functions are conveyed by a single case, traditionally called ‘genitive’ (Lith. kilminiñkas from kilmė̃ ‘origin’) in grammatical descriptions of Lithuanian. All other cases can be traced back to PIE and have generally retained their original functions. The only problematic case is the locative: while it is clearly preserved in Slavic, it has undergone substantial changes in Baltic, due to the competition with the system of secondary cases. In Latvian, the system of primary cases was reduced to 5 cases (nominative, accusative, genitive, dative and partly vocative). To judge from its limited documentation (a few Lutheran Catechisms from the 16th century), Old Prussian, the only West Baltic language documented by written texts, but

Daniel Petit

6

now extinct since the 17th century, had a case system entirely copied on the German model, with 4 cases (nominative, accusative, genitive, dative); it is difficult to determine whether this reduction is due to the nature of the documentation, consisting of slavish word-for-word translations from German, or reflects a genuine evolution of the language itself. As it stands, Lithuanian is the best witness of the Proto-Baltic case system. Apart from its 6 primary cases, Lithuanian has developed a rich system of secondary locative cases. The same system has left significant traces in Latvian, so that its development can reasonably be traced back to the Common East Baltic period at least; the position of West Baltic (Old Prussian) in this respect is disputed. The system was in full use in Old Lithuanian (16th-18th centuries), but was significantly reduced in Modern Lithuanian. The secondary cases are structured along two parameters: [±CONTACT], [±MOTION]. This can be represented in a tetrachoric table as follows (model: rankà ‘hand’): Table 1. The Old Lithuanian Secondary Cases Position IN-CASES (WITH CONTACT) AD-CASES (WITHOUT CONTACT)

Motion

INESSIVE (to be in) SG rañkoje PL rañkose ADESSIVE (to be at,

ILLATIVE (to go into) SG rañkon(a) PL rañkosn(a) ALLATIVE (to go to,

near) SG rankáip(i) PL rankósemp(i)

towards) SG rañkosp(i) PL rankum̃p(i)

The reason why these four locative cases are traditionally called ‘secondary cases’ is that they were created quite recently in the prehistory of East Baltic on the basis of originally postpositional constructions reanalyzed as synthetic forms. As a rule, they derive from inflected case forms + postpositions, which regularly represent the postpositional counterparts to historically documented prepositions:

The Secondary Locative Cases in the Lithuanian Dialect of Zietela

7

Table 2. The Secondary Cases and their Postpositional Origin Reconstruction [LOC=*ēn]

Plural rañkose

Reconstruction [LOC=*ēn]

ILLATIVE rañkon(a) (to go into)

[ACC=*nā]

rañkosn(a)

[ACC=*nā]

ADESSIVE (to be at)

rankáip(i)

[LOC=*p(r)ēi̯ ]

rankósemp(i)

[LOC=*p(r)ēi̯ ]

ALLATIVE (to go to)

rañkosp(i)

[GEN=*p(r)ēi̯ ]

rankum̃p(i)

[GEN=*p(r)ēi̯ ]

INESSIVE (to be in)

Singular rañkoje

There are still some grey areas in this table. Several problematic aspects have been omitted for the sake of simplicity. Sometimes, the parallelism between the secondary case and its prepositional counterpart is perfect, as in the allative [GEN=*p(r)ēi̯ ] exactly matching the prepositional construction [*p(r)ēi̯ + GEN] = Lith. priẽ + GEN ‘near, at, by’. Sometimes, however, the parallelism does not work, either because there is no preposition corresponding to the postpositional construction (e.g., illative [ACC=*nā] ≠ no preposition [*nā + ACC]) or because the inflected case form disappeared in the language (e.g., inessive and adessive based on the inherited locative, which was ousted by the inessive itself). In spite of these formal imbalances, the original structure of the secondary cases is clear. As they show up in the historical documentation, however, they were certainly analyzed as synthetic case forms rather than as postpositional structures. This analysis is suggested by the fact that in complex noun phrases the secondary ending is repeated on both members, as in (1), taken from an Old Lithuanian text from the end of the 16th century: (1) Old Lithuanian: Mikalojus Daukša, Postilla Catholicka (DP), 1599, 48534 idánt’ estúmbite ir giartumbite so that

you would eat-COND.2PL and

skomiáip

manáip

table-ADESS.SG

my-ADESS.SG

you would drink-COND.2PL

‘so that you could eat and drink at my table’

Daniel Petit

8

The adessive ending -(ai)-p is expressed twice, on the noun skomiáip ‘table’ and on the possessive adjective manáip ‘my’. A postposition would have been expressed only once at the end of the noun phrase. The double marking shows that -(ai)-p was treated as an inflectional ending, replicated on each member of the noun phrase. The evolution from PIE to East Baltic can be described differently for in-cases (inessive and illative) and ad-cases (adessive and allative). From a broad perspective, in-cases seem to have undergone a spiral development from synthetic to analytic and later on from analytic to synthetic (corresponding to Haspelmath’s anasynthetic evolution):2 EVOLUTION OF IN-CASES: [SYNTHETIC] (PIE synthetic locative cases: locative and accusative) → [ANALYTIC] (East Baltic postpositional structures) → [SYNTHETIC] (new synthetic in-cases)

In-cases ultimately go back to PIE synthetic forms (locative of position resp. accusative of goal), later on replaced by postpositional constructions, which eventually merged in East Baltic to new synthetic forms. On the other hand, already in PIE the meaning of ad-cases (adessive, allative) was conveyed by adpositional constructions; there was no dedicated synthetic case form to convey their specific meaning. As a result, we have to reconstruct for ad-cases a different, non-cyclic scenario: EVOLUTION OF AD-CASES: [ANALYTIC] (PIE adpositional structures) → [ANALYTIC] (East Baltic postpositional structures) → [SYNTHETIC] (new synthetic ad-cases)

In the history of the Lithuanian language, the fate of in-cases (inessive, illative) and ad-cases (adessive, allative) was different: in-cases were largely preserved in the modern language, whereas ad-cases disappeared, replaced by prepositional constructions. In Modern Lithuanian, the inessive is in full use; it is called ‘locative’ (Lith. vietiniñkas from vietà ‘place’) in descriptive 2

Haspelmath (2018).

The Secondary Locative Cases in the Lithuanian Dialect of Zietela

9

grammars, which might create some confusion, since it clearly reflects the East Baltic secondary inessive, not the PIE primary locative. The illative is still widespread in most Lithuanian dialects, but, in the standard language, at least in its urban usage, it is often replaced by an analytic construction with the preposition į̃ ‘into’ + ACC (< *in < PIE *n̥); cf. ‘to go to the meadow’ = both Lith. eĩti píevon (illative *-ān=nā) and eĩti į̃ píevą (preposition į̃ + ACC). On the other hand, ad-cases disappeared in the modern language, apart from lexicalized vestiges (e.g., Lith. eĩti galóp ‘to go to the end’), and were regularly replaced by the prepositional construction Lith. priẽ + GEN ‘near, at, by’ (both adessive and allative). The different evolution of in-cases and ad-cases reflects the distinction between semantically primary and secondary locative roles, in-cases being largely preserved as synthetic, adcases being conveyed by adpositional constructions. It is striking that incases, involving contact with the spatial landmark, are treated as more primary than ad-cases, involving contiguity, but no contact with the spatial landmark. In this configuration, [+CONTACT] is the unmarked member, [-CONTACT] the marked member. This distribution is found in most modern Lithuanian dialects, with the exception of Zietela and a few other dialects.

SECONDARY CASES IN THE DIALECT OF ZIETELA The Lithuanian dialect of Zietela is one of the few dialects that have retained the four secondary cases to the present day. 3 Their distribution, however, displays curious features which have not yet been paid the attention they deserve. Vidugiris (2004, 146) gives the following paradigm of the secondary locative cases illustrated with feminine ā- and ī-stems (models: rankà ‘hand’, martì ‘daughter-in-law’):

3

A similar system can be found in Lazūnai, Gervėčiai and Dieveneniškės, other isolated Lithuanian dialects located in Belorussia or Lithuania, a few kilometers north of Zietela.

Daniel Petit

10

Table 3. The secondary cases in the Lithuanian dialect of Zietela

IN-CASES (WITH CONTACT) AD-CASES (WITHOUT CONTACT)

Position

Motion

(to be in) SG rαŋ̃.ko.i̯ PL rαŋ̃.ko.sa ADESSIVE (to be at, near)

ILLATIVE

INESSIVE

SG mαr.̃ č’eip, PL —

mαr.č’ǝĩ.p

(to go into) SG rαŋ̃.ko.n PL rαŋ̃.ko.sna ALLATIVE (to go to, towards) SG mαr.̃ č’õ·s, mαr.̃ č’àp PL —

As in the other dialects, in-cases (inessive, illative) are well preserved in the dialect of Zietela; ad-cases are said to be considerably less frequent.4 Globally speaking, the distribution between in-cases and ad-cases in Zietela seems to be congruent with the Old Lithuanian evidence, reproducing the same distinction between [+CONTACT] (in-cases) and [-CONTACT] (adcases). Two points, however, warrant particular emphasis. The first one is the semantic distribution of the two sets of secondary cases. Due to their core meaning, which implies being inside resp. entering a closed area, in-cases are regularly limited to inanimate beings: they normally refer to concrete places defined by clear boundaries (like ‘house’, ‘forest’, ‘city’, etc.). For obvious reasons, animate beings, especially human beings, are not typical landmarks for in-cases. As a result, in the declension tables of his grammar (2004), Vidugiris does not provide inessive and illative forms for words like v’í·ras ‘man’, su·nùs ‘son’ or mαrt’ì ‘daughterin-law’, which suggests that these forms are not documented in the dialect. He states explicitly (2004, 129): Paprastai šiuos vietininkus turi tik negyvus daiktus reiškiantys daiktavardžiai. ‘Usually only nouns referring to non-living objects have these locatives [in-cases].’

4

Cf. Vidugiris (2004, 129).

The Secondary Locative Cases in the Lithuanian Dialect of Zietela

11

Ad-cases could be expected to be more open from a semantic point of view, since proximity without contact could refer both to inanimate and to animate landmarks. Vidugiris notes, however, that ad-cases are limited in the dialect of Zietela to animate landmarks (2004, 129): (Juos) turi dažniausiai gyvus asmenis ar gyvulius reiškiantys daiktavardžiai. ‘Most often nouns referring to living human beings or animals have them [ad-cases].’

As a result, in the declension tables of his grammar, he does not provide adessive and allative forms for words like p’ir.̃ štas ‘finger’, tur.̃ gus ‘market’ or rαŋkà ‘hand’. The animacy constraint clearly shows up in table 3, where in-cases are illustrated with the inanimate word rαŋkà ‘hand’, ad-cases with the animate word mαrt’ì ‘daughter-in-law’. The distinction between [+CONTACT] and [-CONTACT] thus seems to have been largely superseded by a stronger distinction between [-ANIMATE] and [+ANIMATE]. The second point worthy of particular attention is that ad-cases are, to a certain extent, sensitive to the category of number: whereas in-cases are widely used both in the singular and in the plural, ad-cases are usually limited to the singular and considerably much rarer (or even completely absent) in the plural, where they are most often replaced by in-cases.5 The distinction between in-cases and ad-cases does not work completely for the plural, where in-cases are often used instead of ad-cases, regardless of the degree of contact with the landmark and of the distinction between inanimate and animate landmarks. The system can thus be described to a large extent as fundamentally unbalanced:

5

Cf. Vidugiris (2004, 129).

Daniel Petit

12

Table 4. Animacy and contact in Zietela

POSITION

IN-CASES (WITH CONTACT) AD-CASES (WITHOUT CONTACT)

MOTION

IN-CASES (WITH CONTACT) AD-CASES (WITHOUT CONTACT)

Singular inessive for inanimates adessive for animates illative for inanimates allative for animates

Plural inessive for inanimates inessive for (in)animates illative for inanimates illative for (in)animates

In order to understand this table, it is necessary to bear in mind that four factors play a role in the distribution of the secondary locative cases: position/motion; contact/non-contact; inanimate/animate; singular/plural. Some of these factors are closely correlated with each other, sometimes for obvious reasons (e.g., in-cases are normally incompatible with animacy), but sometimes without clear motivation (the neutralization of in-cases and adcases in the plural is unexplained). In addition, the table given above leaves aside a number of possible configurations: it remains unclear, for example, how to express inessive resp. illative functions for animates or adessive resp. allative functions for inanimates in the singular. Globally speaking, these preliminary observations are corroborated by the dialectal texts, but with some specific details which require a more finegrained analysis. In what follows, I shall examine the dialectal evidence from Zietela through a detailed reading of volume 1 of Zietelos šnektos tekstai (2005), supplemented with data from Vidugiris (1998, 2004). Most of the data that will be provided below result from the intensive field research conducted by Vidugiris at the end of the 1950s and at the beginning of the 1960s in Zietela. The informers were generally born in the 1860– 1890s and can thus provide us with a reliable picture of the usage of the Lithuanian dialect of Zietela at the end of the 19th century.6 In addition, I 6

The main informers of the dialect of Zietela documented in Vidugiris (2005) are Petronėlė Dicevičiūtė-Chaleckienė (1864–1962) = PDC; Stanislava Kaškaitė-Kaškienė (1866–1958) = SKK; Regina Dargevičiūtė (1876–1958) = RD; Marija Dicevičiūtė-Vasiukevičienė (1878– 1962) = MDV; Juzefas Žukelis (1883–1978) = JŽ; Katryna Žukelytė-Žukelienė (1884–1965)

The Secondary Locative Cases in the Lithuanian Dialect of Zietela

13

shall mention earlier data from Rozwadowski’s field research in 1901–1903 (edited by Gregorski in 1995), some of which may have specific traits, as they consist not only of conversations with native speakers, but also of ancient folktales and folksongs with an archaic coloration. In both cases, most of the informers were simple peasants, with few literacy skills. Some of them travelled during their lifetime to different places in Russia or even in Lithuania, which may have had some influence on their dialect. The interference of the written medium is also a factor to take into account: some of the informers, especially those interviewed by Vidugiris, may have had the possibility to hear the Lithuanian radio or to read Lithuanian newspapers more or less regularly. The majority of the informers were women, who had very few opportunities to leave their village and thus remained relatively unaffected by foreign influence. One should note, however, that the population of the village was mixed, including Lithuanians, Belorussians, Poles and, until 1945, Jews (3500 of them were killed during the Second World War); it is therefore quite reasonable to think that, however isolated they might have been, speakers of the Lithuanian dialect of Zietela were all plurilingual and had full command of other languages (at least Belorussian, Russian and Polish). The use of the secondary cases in Zietela according to Rozwadowski and Vidugiris is congruent with the grammatical description provided by the same Vidugiris (2004), at least to some extent. In-cases are regular in the dialect. We have extensive evidence for the inessive (to be in), both in the singular (ex. 2-4): (2) Rozwadowski (1995, 75 [1901–1903]) Bazńī́č́oj zvā́ d’ino church-INESS.SG

called-IND.PST.3

žmóńes. people-ACC.PL

‘In the church, they called people.’

= KŽŽ; Paulina Kaškaitė-Samuolinkienė (1885–1974) = PKS; Jonas Laurukevičius (1886– 1972) = JL; Juzefa Žukelytė-Kaškienė (1890–1966) = JŽK.

Daniel Petit

14

(3) Zietelos šnektos tekstai I 68 (PDC) Dùkαrt buvåũ. V′íl′n′o.i̯ . twice-ADV

I was-IND.PST.1SG

Vilnius-INESS.SG

‘I was twice in Vilnius.’ (4) Zietelos šnektos tekstai I 209 (PKS) Mã·nas žmõ·gus b′ìt my-NOM.SG

man-NOM.SG

Am′èriko.i̯ .

was-IND.PST.3

America-INESS.SG

‘My man was in America.’ and in the plural (ex. 5–6 with pluralia tantum): (5) Zietelos šnektos tekstai I 77 (PDC) V′ienà ži.dåuk′ẽ ̣·lε·

kõ·p′ẹ·s′i

one-NOM.SG

Jewish woman-NOM.SG

po.

du·b′ès

P′etrùkuͦsa.

was

buried-IND.PST.3

under

grave-GEN.SG

Petrukai-INESS.PL

‘A Jewish woman was buried in a grave in Petrukai (a place name).’ (6) Zietelos šnektos tekstai I 87 (SKK) Àš Nαrč′uõs buvåũ. I-NOM.SG

Narčiai-INESS.PL

was-IND.PST.1SG

‘I was in Narčiai (a place name).’ Most inessive forms documented in the Lithuanian dialect of Zietela refer to place names (cities, villages) or to separate buildings (churches, houses), i.e., to closed areas with clear boundaries which constitute prototypical landmarks for a location with contact (penetrability). I have found no instance with animate landmarks. Like the inessive, the illative (to go into) is widely attested in the dialect. We have extensive evidence for the illative singular (ex. 7-9) (7) Rozwadowski (1995, 24 [1901–1903]) Ȧi̯ sȕ ioau̯ sfĭetȧn. I shall go-IND.FUT.1SG

already, well

‘I shall go to the world.’

world-ILL.SG

The Secondary Locative Cases in the Lithuanian Dialect of Zietela (8) Zietelos šnektos tekstai I 51 (PDC) O.͜ v′íenas nuvažá.u̯ and one-NOM.SG

went-IND.PST.3

15

Αrgαnt′ìno.n. Argentina-ILL.SG

‘And one (of my sons) went to Argentina.’ (9) Zietelos šnektos tekstai I 69 (PDC) Àš αimù bazn′ĩ·č′o.n. I-NOM.SG

go-IND.PRS.1SG

church-ILL.SG

‘I am going to the church.’ and for the illative plural (ex. 10-12): (10) Rozwadowski (1995, 50 [1901–1903]) It atai̯ dińéjä̰ ãńēs v́is’ı̏

trĩs

and came-IND.PST.3 they-NOM.PL all-NOM.PL

namũosna

tũosna

houses-ILL.PL

those-ILL.PL

three-NOM.PL

‘Then all three of them came to those houses.’ (11) Zietelos šnektos tekstai I 58 (PDC) O.͜ m′æ̃·z dá.r to·l′ì k′itúosna and we-NOM.PL still

namúosna

far away other-ILL.PL houses-ILL.P

àtαimαm. we come-IND.PRS.1PL

‘And we come a little bit far away to other houses.’ (12) Zietelos šnektos tekstai I 160 (JŽ) O.͜ mó·t′eris tαi ͜ kúl′b′ẹsna and woman-NOM.SG it-ACC.SG gunstocks-ILL.PL

instã·to·. puts-IND.PRS.3

‘And the woman puts it into the gunstocks.’ As with the inessive, we observe a limitation to inanimate landmarks, usually referring to closed areas (like cities, villages or houses) or closed objects (like ‘gunstocks’ in 12) that can be entered by the trajectory (the object in movement) and thus represent prototypical landmarks for motion with contact (penetrability). Animate landmarks are usually inappropriate

Daniel Petit

16

for this meaning and rarely found in the illative, with only a few exceptions (ex. 13–15): (13) Rozwadowski (1995, 13 [1901–1903]) V́ íe̯nas sūnū̏s nuv́ei̯ one-NOM.SG

son-NOM.SG

went-IND.PST.3

maskōlũȯsna. soldiers-ILL.PL

‘One son went to the soldiers (to the army).’ (14) Zietelos šnektos tekstai I 180 (KŽŽ) N′ẽ ̣·jo masko.l′úosna. NEG=went-IND.PST.3

soldiers-ILL.PL

‘He did not go to the soldiers (to the army).’ (15) Zietelos šnektos tekstai I 280 (JŽK) Ir ͜ atvažú·ok kadαĩ.k sv′eč′úosna. and come-IMPER.2SG one day

guests-ILL.PL

‘And come one day and visit us.’ (literally: ‘come to the guests’) It is likely that the usage illustrated in (13-14) is calqued from Russian, where we find a parallel expression idti v soldaty ‘to go to the soldiers’ (literally: ‘into’), ‘to become a soldier’. This expression was also calqued in Polish iść w sołdaty ‘to go (in)to the soldiers’, now commonly replaced by iść do wojska ‘to go to the army’. The Russian phrase is striking, not only because of the use of the illative preposition v ‘into’, but also because the animate noun soldaty is not marked in the genitive-accusative, which supposes that it is treated as inanimate.7 We have a similar construction in Russian idti v gosti ‘to go to the guests’, ‘to become a guest’, which is certainly the source of (15). Interestingly enough, the Russian prepositional construction was rendered in the Lithuanian dialect of Zietela by the synthetic illative, reproducing the same shift to inanimacy as in Russian, but by different means.

7

See Bilý (1988) and Mel’čuk (1985, 461–489) for the Russian type.

The Secondary Locative Cases in the Lithuanian Dialect of Zietela

17

As already said, ad-cases are less frequent in Zietela and extremely rare, or even virtually absent, in the plural. We have evidence for the adessive singular (ex. 16-20): (16) Rozwadowski (1995, 5 [1901–1903]) Manȁi̯ p momȕt́ei̯ p my-ADESS.SG mother-ADESS.SG

ir also

v́eč́ ãrōt

śédō.

spend the evening-INF

sat-IND.PST.3

‘She also sat close to my mother to spend the evening.’ (17) Jan Rozwadowski (1995, 30 [1901–1903]) Bȕvo Aléŋka dvaŕȅ

põńip.

was-IND.PST.3 Alenka-NOM.SG garden-INESS.SG master-ADESS.SG

‘Alenka was in the garden beside her master (or at her master’s).’ (18) Zietelos šnektos tekstai I 52 (PDC) Anà ko.plõ.n′ip b′ìt. she-NOM.SG

priest-ADESS.SG was-IND.PST.3

‘She was at the priest’s.’ (19) Zietelos šnektos tekstai I 175 (KŽŽ) P′ir.̃ ko.m põ·n′ip dαr.̃ žin′e·. bought-IND.PST.1PL

master-ADESS.SG barn-ACC.SG

‘We bought a barn at the master’s (from the master).’ (20) Zietelos šnektos tekstai I 74 (PDC) kàd ã·nas pas′iklá·ustu.p savá.mp that he-NOM.SG ask-COND.3

bró·l′ip.

own-ADESS.SG brother-ADESS.SG

‘(I said) him to ask his brother.’ Examples (16-19) show the prototypical use of the adessive, expressing proximity to an animate landmark, usually a human being beside whom the main argument is located. Example (20) shows a conventionalized use of the adessive introducing the object of the verb pasikláusti ‘to ask’ (instead of

Daniel Petit

18

the genitive or accusative in other Lithuanian varieties). In all cases, the landmark is animate (human being). Examples of adessive plural are extremely rare. A few instances are found in Rozwadowski (1901–1903, ed. 1995), but they are even much rarer in Vidugiris (2004). Taken at face value, this could suggest that the limitation to the singular is a recent phenomenon in the history of the dialect, but the matter is probably more complicated than that, as we have to distinguish different kinds of usages. In Rozwadowski (1995 [1901–1903]) and in Zietelos šnektos tekstai (2005), I have only found instances with personal pronouns, like (21-23): (21) Rozwadowski (1995, 5 [1901–1903]) Anȁ mūśı̏ p us stàłō she-NOM.SG us-ADESS.PL at ńe pas’édi. NEG=sits-IND.PRS.3

table-GEN.SG

‘She is not sitting beside us at the table.’ (22) Rozwadowski (1995, 68 [1901–1903]) Muśı̏ p śeńı̏ ũtarinō. us-ADESS.PL

old-NOM.PL

said-IND.PST.3

‘Among us (in our village) old men used to say….’ (23) Zietelos šnektos tekstai I 168 (KŽŽ) B′ìt mu·s′ìp ži·dá.uka. was-IND.PST.3 us-ADESS.PL Jewish woman-NOM.SG

‘There was a Jewish woman among us (in our village).’ It seems to be the case that ad-cases were better preserved with personal pronouns than with nouns. It is for the moment impossible to determine whether this is due to a formal feature of personal pronouns or to the fact that personal pronouns are characterized by a higher degree of animacy. An interesting feature of the Lithuanian dialect of Zietela is the use of the adessive case in a possessive construction ‘to be’ + ADESS, corresponding to the meaning conveyed in Standard Lithuanian by the verb turė́ ti ‘to have’. The dialect uses the verb turė́ ti ‘to have’, but also developed

The Secondary Locative Cases in the Lithuanian Dialect of Zietela

19

with the same meaning the construction ‘to be’ + ADESS, obviously calqued from the Russian equivalent ‘to be’ + u ‘at’ + ACC = ‘to have’. From a typological point of view, the Lithuanian dialect of Zietela has undergone the very uncommon evolution from a HAVE-language to a BE-language (using Isačenko’s 1974 terminology). The possessive construction with the adessive case is extremely frequent in Zietela, both in the singular (ex. 2427): (24) Rozwadowski (1995, 31 [1901–1903]) Tā́ m pṓńip b’ĭt this-ADESS.SG master-ADESS.SG was-IND.PST.3

p’irmō̃s

pač́ ōs̃ .

first-GEN.SG

wife-GEN.SG

dukt́i̯ḗ daughter-NOM.SG

‘This master had a daughter from his first wife.’ (literally: ‘at this master was a daughter’) (25) Zietelos šnektos tekstai I 50 (PDC) Man′im̃.p b′ìt k′eturì at me-ADESS.SG

were-IND.PST.3

ir ͜ v′ienà

m′ǝrg′í·t’ẹ.

and one-NOM.SG

girl-NOM.SG

su·nαĩ.

four-NOM.PL sons-NOM.PL

‘I had four sons and one girl.’ (literally: ‘at me were four sons and one girl’) (26) Zietelos šnektos tekstai I 59 (PDC) K′eturì αr ͜ š′ešì slũ·gαi

òt

four-NOM.PL

or six-NOM.PL

servants-NOM.PL look

b′ìt

tαĩ.p

põn′ǝip.

were-IND.PST.3 this-ADESS.SG

g′erαĩ. well

mistress-ADESS.SG

‘This mistress, look, had four or six servants.’ (literally: ‘at this mistress were four or six servants’) (27) Zietelos šnektos tekstai I 74 (PDC) V′íenas man′im̃.p vαĩ.kas one-NOM.SG

at me-ADESS.SG child-NOM.SG

nùm′irẹ. died-IND.PST.3

‘One of my children died.’ (literally: ‘at me one child died’, extended use)

Daniel Petit

20

and in the plural (ex. 28-30), with personal pronouns: (28) Zietelos šnektos tekstai I 52 (PDC) Mú·s′ip b′ìt palã·cus

ir ͜

põ·nas.

at us-ADESS.PL were-IND.PST.3 castle-NOM.SG and master-NOM.SG

‘We had a castle and a master.’ (literally: ‘at us were a castle and a master’, the meaning is still more adessive ‘in our village’ than strictly possessive) (29) Zietelos šnektos tekstai I 69 (PDC) Mú·s′ip b′ìt at us-ADESS.PL

dv′ì

were-IND.PST.3

trĩ·s

slũ·gu.

two-NOM.PL three-NOM.PL

maids-GEN.PL

‘We had two or three maids.’ (literally: ‘at us were two or three maids’) (30) Zietelos šnektos tekstai I 54 (PDC) B′ìt k′æ̃·tv′eras vαikũ· was-IND.PST.3 group of four-NOM.SG

children-GEN.PL

jú ͦsm′i. at them-ADESS.PL

‘They had four children.’ (literally: ‘at them were four children’) Semantically, there is no perceptible difference between ‘to be’ + ADESS and turė́ ti ‘to have’, the latter being used in the same contexts (ex. 31): (31) Zietelos šnektos tekstai I, 73 (PDC) P′ǝŋk′ìs vαikùs turé ̣jåu five-ACC.PL

nuk͜

from

sã·vo.

children-ACC.PL

I had-IND.PST.1SG

v′í·ro.

own-GEN.SG husband-GEN.SG

‘I had five children from my husband.’ The only thing one can say is that turė́ ti ‘to have’ is more frequent with material objects than with abstract relationships (like kinship, for example),

The Secondary Locative Cases in the Lithuanian Dialect of Zietela

21

which is reminiscent of the distribution observed in Latin between the mihi est-type (often connected with non-material possession) and the habeō-type (often connected with concrete inanimate objects).8 In any case, the calque of the Russian possessive construction ‘to be’ + u ‘at’ + ACC in the Lithuanian dialect of Zietela has considerably enhanced the survival of the adessive case. Probably a majority of the occurrences of the adessive are attested in possessive constructions. The allative is extremely rare in the Lithuanian dialect of Zietela. Vidugiris (2004, 133) mentions only a few instances (ex. 32-33): (32) Vidugiris (2004, 133) Kun′igó·p važúoja. priest-ALL.SG

goes-IND.PRS.3

‘He goes to the priest.’ (33) Vidugiris (2004, 133) Aimù Kaškàp. go-IND.PRS.1SG

Kaška-ALL.SG

‘I am going to Kaška (name of a woman).’ In the texts themselves, it is difficult to find reliable examples, and my impression is that the allative was residual in the dialect from the very beginning. Significantly enough, Adam Gregorski, in his edition of Rozwadowski’s manuscripts (1901–1903), does not present the allative as a living case of the dialect (1995, 117sq.) and only mentions three secondary locatives (inessive, illative, adessive). Wherever it appears, the allative is characterized by two limitations. First, it is restricted to animate landmarks, usually human beings (as in 32-33). There is only one exception, which is otherwise quite frequent, with namóp ‘towards the house, home’ (ex. 3435): (34) Rozwadowski (1995, 3 [1901–1903]) Aš namuõp tav́ȅ užv́ä̰sȕ. I-NOM.SG

8

home-ALL.SG you-ACC.SG

On this distinction see Bauer (2000, 183 and 185).

will lead-IND.PST.1SG

Daniel Petit

22

‘I shall take you back home.’ (35) Zietelos šnektos tekstai I 93 (RD) Atajåũ. aš ͜ namó·p went-IND.PST.1SG

I-NOM.SG home-ALL.SG

‘I went home.’ The form namó·p ‘home’ (with movement) is probably adverbialized and reflects, in the dialect of Zietela, an earlier stage of the Lithuanian language prior to the limitation of ad-cases to animate landmarks. Second, the allative is usually limited to the singular and does not appear in the plural. There are a few exceptions, with personal pronouns (ex. 3637): (36) Zietelos šnektos tekstai I 183 (KŽŽ) Žmó·n′ẹ.s b′ijó.i̯ people-NOM.PL

αĩ.t

feared-IND.PST.3

mu.sum̃.

go-INF us-ALL.PL

‘People feared to come to us.’ (37) Zietelos šnektos tekstai I 254 (JL) Tαi ͜ b′ié ̣ga m′ǝrgùč′o.s paz ͜ mùs, then

run-IND.PRS.3 girls-NOM.PL at

žmó·n′ẹ.s

αĩ.t

us-ACC.PL

mú·sump.

people-NOM.PL go-IND.PRS.3 to us-ALL.PL

‘Then girls run to us, people come to us.’ or extremely rarely with nouns (ex. 38): (38) Vidugiris (2004, 133) paαĩ.t b′ǝrnum̃.p go-INF

boys-ALL.PL

‘to go to the boys, to go to see boys.’

The Secondary Locative Cases in the Lithuanian Dialect of Zietela

23

The most striking point is the tendency to replace ad-cases by in-cases in the plural. In my corpus, I have found a few instances of this tendency. The inessive plural is sometimes used instead of the adessive plural both in the primary adessive meaning (ex. 39): (39) Zietelos šnektos tekstai I 67 (PDC) Àš põ.nuos prismó·k′inåu I-NOM.SG

lords-INESS.PL

kã·

d′írpt′i.

how

work-INF

learned-IND.PST.1SG

‘I learned at masters’, with masters how to work.’ or in the possessive construction (‘to be’ + INESS instead of ‘to be’ + ADESS = ‘to have’, ex. 40-41): (40) Rozwadowski (1995, 50 [1901–1903]) Ńḭ̈ -bit jūosȁ NEG=were-IND.PST.3

them-INESS.PL

vai̯ kũ. children-GEN.PL

‘They did not have children.’ (literally: ‘in them were no children’, instead of ‘at them’) (41) Zietelos šnektos tekstai I 252 (JL) B′ìd vαikũ· were-IND.PST.3

children-GEN.PL

bõ·č′uos. fathers-INESS.PL

‘The fathers had children.’ (literally: ‘in the fathers were children’, instead of ‘at the fathers’) As a result, the inessive can alternate with the adessive in the same micro-context, as in (42), where at a distance of two lines we find the inessive (plural) and the adessive (singular) to express exactly the same function:

Daniel Petit

24

(42) Rozwadowski (1995, 67 [1901–1903]) Ir b′ĭ́t juo̯sȁ dukt́ẽ them-INESS.PL

[…]

daughter-NOM.SG Ir

and

was-IND.PST.3

Ir

jḕi

b′ĭt

móč́ ekai̯ p

and

PCLE

was-IND.PST.3

mother-ADESS.SG

dukt́ẽ. daughter-NOM.SG

‘And they had a daughter […] The mother had a daughter.’ (literally: ‘and in them was a daughter’, vs ‘at the mother was a daughter’) To sum up, the data collected by Rozwadowski and Vidugiris confirm in its main lines the presentation given by Vidugiris (2004) and draw attention to the following features: 1. Inessive and illative are well preserved in the dialect, and their usage is consistent with what is described as the canonical usage of in-cases in Old Lithuanian. 2. The animacy constraint (in-cases = inanimates / ad-cases = animates) is usually respected, exceptions being due either to Russian influence (the Russian type idti v soldaty in 13-15) or to the adverbialization of ancient case forms (namóp in 34-35). 3. Ad-cases are rare in the plural (and often replaced by in-cases), but they are a little more often used with personal pronouns. There are, however, blind spots in this description, especially due to the fact that some configurations are not covered by the synthetic locative cases. It is necessary to look at other potential strategies which can convey the same meaning in the dialect of Zietela, in the first instance prepositions.

The Secondary Locative Cases in the Lithuanian Dialect of Zietela

25

LOCATIVE PREPOSITIONS IN THE DIALECT OF ZIETELA Apart from the synthetic locative cases, which can be traced back to originally postpositional structures, the Lithuanian dialect of Zietela displays, like Standard Lithuanian, a wide range of prepositions whose meaning can be very close to that of the synthetic cases. The following prepositions can be listed as equivalents to the secondary locative cases: Table 5. Spatial prepositions in the Lithuanian dialect of Zietela Position WITH CONTACT

INESSIVE

Motion (to be in)

WITHOUT CONTACT

ADESSIVE

(to go into) añ + gen, iñ + acc, dõ ALLATIVE (to go to, towards) añ + GEN, pàs + acc, piẽ, priẽg, prìg ILLATIVE

añ + gen (to be at, near)

añ + GEN, pàs + acc, piẽ, priẽg, prìg

While dõ ‘to, towards’ is borrowed from Slavic do and limited to the incorporation of Slavic phrases into the dialect (as in išvažá.u̯ do. Pòl′sk′ẽ ̣·i̯ ‘he went to Poland’),9 the remaining prepositions are genuinely Lithuanian, but may diverge in some aspects from their equivalents in the standard language. The most striking divergence is that two different prepositions, añt ‘on, over’ + GEN (both positional and motional) and iñ ‘into’ + ACC (motional), have progressively merged (añ, iñ) in the dialect of Zietela, or at least came closer to each other, with two consequences. First, the specific meaning of añ ‘on, over’ was partly blurred and the preposition came to be used with the inessive or illative functions (implying being inside resp. entering a closed area). An example with the inessive meaning is (43): (43) Zietelos šnektos tekstai I 181 (KŽŽ) B′ìt αn ͜ p′irk′õ·s. was-IND.PST.3

on, over

home-GEN.SG

‘He was at home.’ 9

Vidugiris (1998, 154). Cf. Zietelos šnektos tekstai I 52 (PDC).

Daniel Petit

26

to compare with the synthetic inessive in (44): (44) Zietelos šnektos tekstai I 188 (KŽŽ) B′ìt k′itõ·i̯ p′irk′õ·i̯ . was-IND.PST.3

other-INESS.SG

house-INESS.SG

‘He was in the other house.’ An example of añ with the illative meaning is (45): (45) Zietelos šnektos tekstai I 183 (KŽŽ) Išl′iñ.do dùkαrt αn ͜ went out-IND.PST.3

twice

on, over

sũ·do. tribunal-GEN.SG

‘He went twice to the tribunal.’ Añ is also attested with the adessive or allative meanings (implying proximity without contact), which is more compatible with the superficial meaning ‘on, over’. An example with the adessive meaning is (46): (46) Zietelos šnektos tekstai I 137 (JŽ) An ͜ tõ·s ùp′ẹs near

that-GEN.SG

river-GEN.SG

b′ìt was-IND.PST.3

štã·bas. stick-GEN.SG

‘Near that river there was a stick.’ It is likely that the semantic evolution of añ in Zietela (‘on, over’ > ‘in’, ‘into’, ‘at’) was not only triggered by its formal proximity to iñ, but also, more crucially, influenced by the model of the Slavic preposition na, which originally means ‘on, over’, but can be used more widely in reference to open spaces one can come across, i.e., with a meaning quite close to the inessive or the illative meanings. One may compare, for example, Polish na niebie ‘in the sky’ (literally: ‘on the sky’), directly calqued in the Lithuanian dialect of Zietela αn dαŋgåũ.s.10 On the other hand, the proximity between añ and iñ is responsible for the fact that iñ, originally construed with the accusative and specialized in the illative meaning ‘into’ (like Standard Lith. 10

Vidugiris (2004, 303).

The Secondary Locative Cases in the Lithuanian Dialect of Zietela

27

į̃ ‘into’ + ACC), is sometimes construed in Zietela with the genitive and moreover displays a superficial meaning, e.g., iŋ gαlvõ·s ‘on the head’.11 It comes, finally, as no surprise that iñ, like añ, can introduce animate landmarks, e.g., atã·i̯ in žen′ĩ·ko ‘she came to a husband, got married’.12 Quite close to the meaning of ad-cases (adessive and allative) are two prepositions which are widely used in the dialect of Zietela: *p(r)iẽ ‘near, at, by, to’ and pàs ‘id.’. The former has various formal realizations in the dialect, piẽ, priẽg or prìg, with or without internal -r-, and with or without the particle -g (Standard Lith. has priẽ). The coexistence of these variants is probably due to secondary analogies between preposition, verbal prefix and nominal prefix, but the details of these analogies go beyond the scope of this paper. Suffice it to say that their meaning is exactly the same. In Standard Lithuanian, the distinction between pàs + ACC and priẽ + GEN is relatively clear. Whereas the preposition priẽ conveys the notion of proximity in general, in reference to any kind of spatial landmark (‘near, at, by’ = French à, près de), both in positional and motional contexts, the preposition pàs has a more limited meaning and refers to a location ‘at someone’s house’ (= French chez), both in positional and motional contexts. In comparison with Standard Lithuanian, the dialect of Zietela is characterized by the extension of pàs, which can convey the basic meaning ‘near, at, by’. As a result, we find pàs not only with human beings, in reference to a location in resp. a motion to someone’s house (ex. positional in 47, motional in 48-50): (47) Vidugiris (1998, 458) Nu.naĩk b′ìt today

was-IND.PST.3

ãnas

paz

man′è.

he-NOM.SG

at

me-ACC.SG

‘Today he was at home (at my home).’ (48) Zietelos šnektos tekstai I 220 (JL) Ẹ.jåũ. paz ͜. dã·kto.ri·. went-IND.PST.1SG

‘I went to the doctor.’

11 12

Vidugiris (2004, 317). Vidugiris (2004, 317).

at

doctor-ACC.SG

Daniel Petit

28

(49) Zietelos šnektos tekstai I 70 (PDC) Tαĩ. αimù pas põ·na·. then

go-IND.PRS.1SG

at

master-ACC.SG

‘I am going to my master’s.’ (50) Zietelos šnektos tekstai I 74 (PDC) Anà atvažá.u̯ pas ͜ man′è she-NOM.SG went-IND.PST.3

to

sa ͜

me-ACC.SG

.

with

vαikù child-INSTR.SG

‘She went to me with her child.’ but also with inanimate landmarks defined by their proximity, where Standard Lithuanian would not use pàs, but priẽ (ex. 51): (51) Zietelos šnektos tekstai I 70 (PDC) Po·n′ẽ ̣· pasã·k′ẹ kàd that

àš

mistress-NOM.SG

said-IND.PST.3

paduod′iné ̣·č′ap

pas ͜

stã·la·.

I-NOM.SG

would give-COND.1SG

at

table-ACC.SG

‘My mistress ordered me to serve at table.’ (~ Standard Lith. priẽ stãlo) The preposition pàs can also be used in Zietela with the same possessive meaning as the adessive, ‘to be’ + pàs + ACC = ‘to be’ + ADESS = ‘to have’ (ex. 52): (52) Zietelos šnektos tekstai I 175 (KŽŽ) Č′à ir ͜ ká.rv′ẹs mã·no.s here are-IND.PRS.3

cows-NOM.PL

ir ͜

v′ìšto.s.

and

hens-NOM.PL

pas ͜ man′è

my-NOM.PL at

me-ACC.SG

‘Here I have my cows and hens.’ (literally: ‘here are at me my cows and hens’) In its different realizations (piẽ, priẽg, prìg), the preposition priẽ + DAT or + ACC (or + GEN) conveys a meaning of proximity to a landmark, which can be inanimate (ex. 53-54):

The Secondary Locative Cases in the Lithuanian Dialect of Zietela (53) Zietelos šnektos tekstai I 137 (JŽ) ÷n′i.s dåug′á.us′a prik they-NOM.PL

mostly

at, near

29

p′íevαi. meadow-DAT.SG

‘They were mostly at the meadow.’ (54) Vidugiris (1998, 476) Anà b′ìt she-NOM.SG

was-IND.PST.3 ‘She was near the church.’

p′ie

bazn′ĩč′ai.

near

church-DAT.SG

or animate (ex. 55): (55) Zietelos šnektos tekstai I 171 (KŽŽ) O.͜ to.k′õ·s p′ir.̃ k′o.s and such-NOM.PL

p′ie ͜

houses-NOM.PL

b′ìt were-IND.PST.3

mú·su.

near, at us-GEN.PL

‘And such houses were around us.’ With the accusative (or the genitive), the same preposition can have the allative meaning (ex. 56-57): (56) Zietelos šnektos tekstai I 230 (JL) P′ie namùs ͜ gan′åũ. near, at

house-ACC.PL

herded-IND.PST.1SG

‘I herded cattle back home.’ (57) Zietelos šnektos tekstai I 153 (JŽ) Àš prieg ͜ dαrbũ· I-NOM.SG

at, near

works-GEN.PL

påuzó·ju. drag oneself-IND.PST.1SG

‘I dragged myself to my work.’ Whatever their distribution, the prepositions añ, iñ, pàs and priẽ have in common to encroach, at least partly, on synthetic locative cases. There are overlapping zones where both synthetic cases and prepositional constructions can be used with exactly the same meaning. This equivalence

Daniel Petit

30

is particularly visible when the two possibilities are attested side by side in the same micro-context, as in (58-59): (58) Zietelos šnektos tekstai I 111 (MDV) Pas ͜ põ·nus buvåũ. […] at

masters-ACC.SG

I was-IND.PST.1SG

Põ·n′ip

slũ·žinåu.

master-ADESS.SG

I served-IND.PST.1SG

‘I was at masters’, I served at a master’s.’ (pàs + ACC = adessive) (59) Zietelos šnektos tekstai I 254 (JL) Tαi ͜ b′ié ̣ga m′ǝrgùč′o.s then run-IND.PRS.3

girls-NOM.PL

paz ͜

mùs,

at

us-ACC.PL

žmó·n′ẹ.s

αĩ.t

mú·sump.

people-NOM.PL

go-IND.PRS.3

to us-ALL.PL

‘Then girls run to us; people go to us.’ (pàs + ACC = allative) The range of contexts where we observe this equivalence between a synthetic locative case and a prepositional construction can be described as follows: 1. Inessive function (to be in) + inanimate: inessive case (ex. 44) / añ + GEN (ex. 43) 2. Illative function (to go into) + inanimate: illative (ex. 9) / añ + GEN (ex. 45) 3. Adessive function (to be at, near, next to)  with the adessive meaning (to be at, near, next to) + animate: adessive (ex. 16) / piẽ + DAT or GEN (ex. 55)  with the apudessive meaning (to be at someone’s home) + animate: adessive (ex. 18) / pàs + ACC (ex. 47)  with the possessive meaning (to be at X = X has) + animate: adessive (ex. 24) / pàs + ACC (ex. 52) 4. Allative function (to go to, near, next to) + animate: allative (ex. 32) / pàs + ACC (ex. 48)

The Secondary Locative Cases in the Lithuanian Dialect of Zietela

31

It is difficult to determine the reasons for selecting the synthetic locative cases or their prepositional equivalents. Judging from the data available to me, with all the reservations required by the limitations of my corpus, it can be noted that synthetic in-cases are very frequent in the dialect of Zietela. Their replacement by prepositions is possible, but not predominant. In some cases, it can be seen as contact-driven: the extension of the preposition añ, for example, is influenced by its Slavic model na. On the other hand, adcases are considerably less frequent and correlatively often replaced by prepositions, especially in the plural. The possessive construction (‘to be’ + ADESS) is probably an exception, the synthetic case being recorded very regularly in the dialect and only sporadically replaced by a preposition (pàs + ACC ‘at’). More informative are contexts in which prepositional constructions are used alone, without synthetic counterparts. For example, whereas the synthetic adessive is limited to animate landmarks, the use of the prepositions pàs and priẽ (piẽ, priẽg, prìg) is more open and can be applied to inanimate landmarks (as in 51, 53-54), which suggests that the gap created by the incompatibility of ad-cases with inanimacy is filled up by the prepositional construction. Put differently, this means that proximity to inanimates can be expressed only by a preposition, whereas proximity to animates can be expressed both by the adessive and by a preposition.

SYNTHETIC CASES AND THEIR CONSTRAINTS The question we have to address now is why synthetic cases are limited in the dialect of Zietela by the two constraints identified above:  

Animacy constraint: in-cases = inanimates / ad-cases = animates Number constraint: ad-cases replaced by in-cases in the plural

These two constraints have a different scope, the former being stronger than the latter, which is subject to some exceptions, especially with personal

Daniel Petit

32

pronouns. A comparison with the most ancient texts from the 16th century suggests that the animacy constraint was already inceptive in Old Lithuanian, but not completely established, whereas the limitation of adcases to the singular is a recent tendency proper to the dialect of Zietela. In Old Lithuanian, the correlation between in-cases and inanimacy resp. between ad-cases and animacy was not absolute. In Mikalojus Daukša’s Postilla Catholicka (1599), we can easily find instances of in-cases with animate landmarks, but exclusively in the inessive and always with a figurative meaning, as in (60): (60) Old Lithuanian: Mikalojus Daukša, Postilla Catholicka (DP), 1599, 53732 Mes / giwe̗ntú̗ Diéwe Wieſʒpatiié. we-NOM.PL would live-COND.1PL God-INESS.SG

Lord-INESS.SG

‘We would live in the Lord God.’ Even if God is akin to a human being, it is presented in (60) by metonymy as a place to live in. I have not found any comparable instance with the illative. Ad-cases are semantically more open in Old Lithuanian and can appear both with inanimate and with animate landmarks (ex. adessive with inanimate landmark in 61, allative with inanimate landmark in 62): (61) Old Lithuanian: Mikalojus Daukša, Postilla Catholicka (DP), 1599, 48534 idánt’ estúmbite so that you would eat-COND.2PL

ir

giartumbite

and

you would drink-COND.2PL

skomiáip

manáip

table-ADESS.SG

my-ADESS.SG

‘so that you could eat and drink at my table’ (62) Old Lithuanian: Mikalojus Daukša, Postilla Catholicka (DP), 1599, 3357 W. Chriſtus tů mętú̗ miéſtoṗ Lord God-NOM.SG that-INSTR.SG time-INSTR.SG

city-ALL.SG

The Secondary Locative Cases in the Lithuanian Dialect of Zietela

33

ęio. went-IND.PST.3

‘At that time, the Lord God went to a city.’ Even if ad-cases are often connected with animacy, as argued by Kavaliūnaitė (2001, 2003), instances like (61) and (62) show that this was not an absolute constraint in Old Lithuanian, or at least not developed to the same extent as in Zietela. The Old Lithuanian evidence thus points to an unbalanced system which can be summarized as follows: 1. Inessive and illative are usually limited to inanimate (penetrable) landmarks. The inessive can be applied to animates, but mostly in figurative meanings. 2. Adessive and allative do not display any strong restriction and can be used both with animate and with inanimate landmarks, with only a strong preference for animate landmarks. The reason why the animacy constraint is stronger with in-cases than with ad-cases is obvious: in-cases imply penetration into the spatial landmark, which must be permeable (this explains the resistance of animate landmarks to in-cases), whereas ad-cases do not affect the spatial integrity of the landmark to which the argument is adjacent. In other words, in-cases presuppose a certain quality of the spatial landmark, whereas ad-cases do not make any such presupposition. In comparison with Old Lithuanian, the dialect of Zietela has retained the inherited constraint on in-cases (virtually excluding animate landmarks), but established a new constraint on ad-cases (excluding inanimate landmarks, which was not completely the case in Old Lithuanian). It can be suggested that this semantic reconfiguration results from a mirror effect operating between in-cases and ad-cases: from an unbalanced system opposing [IN-CASES = -ANIMATES] and [AD-CASES = FREE], the dialect of Zietela developed a balanced system with two symmetric constraints opposing [IN-CASES = -ANIMATES] and [AD-CASES = +ANIMATES]. Originally, in-cases were marked, ad-cases unmarked; at the final stage, both were marked in a similar way by the same feature defined negatively or positively. This evolution was sparked by the internal logic of

Daniel Petit

34

the dialect and does not result from its contact with Belorussian, Russian or Polish. The other constraint is more difficult to account for. Ad-cases are well preserved in the dialect of Zietela, but almost exclusively in the singular and very rarely in the plural. We have seen that the possessive construction ‘to be’ + ADESS = ‘to have’ provides a context favorable to the use of the adessive even in the plural. This could suggest that the low frequency of adcases in the plural is a recent phenomenon and was not yet established as the possessive construction in the adessive came to acquire its autonomy under Belorussian influence. In Old Lithuanian, ad-cases were regularly used in the plural as in the singular, without any perceptible restriction (e.g., adessive in 63, allative in 64): (63) Old Lithuanian: Mikalojus Daukša, Postilla Catholicka (DP), 1599, 4549 Stówi dúriſia̗mp mu̗ſu̗. stand-IND.PRS.3

doors-ADESS.PL

of us-GEN.PL

‘They stand at our doors.’ (64) Old Lithuanian: Mikalojus Daukša, Postilla Catholicka (DP), 1599, 44341 Ir grábumṗ ſʒwe̗ntu̗iu̗ a̗nt ȧtłaidu̗ and graves-ALL.PL

saints-GEN.PL

on

remissions-GEN.PL

wáikſʒiodawo. used to go-IND.PST.3

‘And they used to go to the graves of saints for the remission of their sins.’ The rarity, or quasi-absence, of the plural of ad-cases in the dialect of Zietela is not the only striking point. What is more surprising is the tendency to replace ad-cases by in-cases in the plural, as shown by instances like (3942). There must be something special in the plural, or in plurality in general, to explain the avoidance of plural ad-cases in Zietela. Surprisingly enough, we observe in some Old Lithuanian texts a reverse tendency to replace incases by ad-cases (both in the singular and in the plural); this tendency was already noticed and duly described by several authors, especially Fraenkel (1947: 13), Laigonaitė (1957, 26–27), Gelumbeckaitė (2002, 96–97),

The Secondary Locative Cases in the Lithuanian Dialect of Zietela

35

Žilinskaitė (2004, 48–50) and Bukantytė (2007, 226), and is generally ascribed to the influence of the prepositional constructions of the original languages from which these Old Lithuanian texts are translated. There can hardly be any organic link between this sporadic merger of in-cases with adcases in Old Lithuanian and the reverse tendency to replace ad-cases by incases in the dialect of Zietela. In order to explain this oddity of the plural forms of ad-cases, it is worth recalling that personal pronouns seem to have better preserved ad-cases in the plural than nouns. The special position of personal pronouns with regard to plurality may be explained by a striking detail of their morphology: as a rule, in most inflectional Indo-European languages, personal pronouns express plurality twice, both by their stem and by their ending. This difference is conspicuous in Modern Lithuanian (illustrated in Table 6 with the genitive): Table 6. Plurality in personal pronouns and nouns in Lithuanian Personal pronoun (1st person) ‘of me’ ‘of us’ man-ę̃s mū́ s-ų stemSG-endingSG stemPL-endingPL

Noun (diẽvas ‘God’) ‘of god’ ‘of gods’ diẽv-o diev-ų̃ stemX-endingSG stemX-endingPL

Plurality is marked twice in personal pronouns, by the stem (SG man- vs PL mūs-) and by the ending (SG -ęs vs PL -ų), whereas it is marked only once

in nouns, by the ending (SG -o vs PL -ų), not by the stem (SG and PL diev-). Considering that ad-cases are better preserved in the plural of personal pronouns than in that of nouns, one may suspect that this better preservation is due to the double marking of plurality in personal pronouns and correlatively that the weakness of the plural of ad-cases has something to do with the simple marking of plurality in nouns. Originally, the adessive endings were built on primary locatives + the postposition *p(r)ēi̯ ‘at, near, by’. There was in the locative, and

Daniel Petit

36

consequently also in the adessive, a clear distinction between the singular and the plural; this is confirmed by the Old Lithuanian evidence13: Table 7. Adessive endings in old Lithuanian Singular -aip

Origin *-āi-píe

Plural -osemp

o-stems

-iep -ip

*-ie-píe *-i-píe

-uosemp

ē-stems

-eip

*-ēi-píe

-ėsemp

u-stems

-up

*-u-píe

-usemp

consonant and istems personal pronouns (e.g., 1st person)

-ip -iep

*-i-píe or *-ie-píe

-isemp

manip’ (DP 60511) manîmp’ (DP 13351)

*mani-píe (secondarily *manim-píe after the adessive plural)

músip (DP 60745) músimp’ (DP 2437)

ā-stems

Origin *-āsu-píe (secondarily *-āsēm-píe after the inessive plural) *-uosu-píe (secondarily *-uosēm-píe after the inessive plural) *-ēsu-píe (secondarily *-ēsēm-píe after the inessive plural) *-usu-píe (secondarily *-usēm-píe after the inessive plural) *-isu-píe (secondarily *-isēm-píe after the inessive plural) *mūsi-píe (secondarily *mūsim-píe after the inessive plural)

Adessive endings are clearly different in the singular and in the plural. But there is an exception. The adessive endings of personal pronouns are instable in Old Lithuanian and usually identical for the singular and the plural: 

13

Ending -ip: SG manip’ (Daukša, Postilla Catholicka, 1599, 60511) vs PL músip (Daukša, Postilla Catholicka, 1599, 60745)

The presentation is simplified. More details are given in Petit (2007).

The Secondary Locative Cases in the Lithuanian Dialect of Zietela 

37

Ending -imp: SG manîmp’ (Daukša, Postilla Catholicka, 1599, 13351) vs PL músimp’ (Daukša, Postilla Catholicka, 1599, 2437)

The origin of this formal confusion, which is extremely well attested in Old Lithuanian, is complicated and certainly points to recent analogies. A possible scenario could be to assume that the adessive singular ending of personal pronouns (and of consonant stems in general) was originally *-ip (< locative singular ending *-i + postposition *p(r)ēi̯ ), whereas the adessive plural ending was originally *-isup (< locative plural ending *-i-su + postposition *p(r)ēi̯ ), secondarily reshaped with a nasal as *-isēmp on the model of the inessive plural (*-isēn), and finally phonetically reduced to *-ip or *-imp. As a result, singular and plural endings merged into a single form *-ip and, correlatively, the merger of both numbers was extended to the alternative plural ending *-imp. In any case, this formal indistinction is never detrimental to the morphological legibility of the forms, since the number distinction is already ensured in personal pronouns by the stem. Let us now examine the adessive endings in the dialect of Zietela, as they are presented in Vidugiris (2004): Table 8. Adessive endings in the dialect of Zietela

ā-stems o-stems ē-stems u-stems consonant and i-stems personal pronouns (e.g., 1st person)

Singular -əip -ip, -iep -əip -ip, -iep -ip, -iep man′ìp, man′im̃.(p), man′ímp

Plural — — — — — mu·s′ìp, mu.s′im̃.(p)

We clearly see that the adessive of personal pronouns has the same ending in the singular and in the plural. As already said, this creates no harm, since number marking is already ensured by the stem: man′ìp is anyway distinguished from mu·s′ìp. But the situation is quite different with nouns since the number distinction can only be assumed by the ending, not by the

38

Daniel Petit

stem. As a result, the systemic extension of the same ending to both numbers, potentially triggered by the model of man′ìp (SG) / mu·s′ìp (PL), could hardly be applied to the adessive forms of nouns like bró·l′ip (SG) / †bró·l′ip (PL) ‘brother(s)’, because this would have jeopardized the morphological legibility of the nouns affected by this analogy. On the other hand, the inherited adessive plural endings (e.g., *brólisup or *brólisēmp) could hardly be preserved as such: a pattern *-ip (SG) / *-isēmp (PL), for example, was at odds with the model of personal pronouns in which the dialect had developed the homonymy of *-ip (SG) and *-ip (PL). My assumption is that the disappearance of the adessive plural in nouns was caused by the impossibility of incorporating its forms into a balanced and coherent system of morphological markers. There was a conflict between the necessity to ensure number marking and the analogical model of personal pronouns. The situation was different with the allative, where singular and plural endings could always be distinguished (e.g., SG -o-p vs PL -um-p in ostems), but they are extremely rare in the dialect and usually replaced by prepositions. Several options were possible at this point. The tendency to replace the adessive plural by the inessive plural in the dialect of Zietela can be seen as a lesser evil, since the distinction between [+CONTACT] and [-CONTACT] is in a certain sense less crucial, i.e., easier to supplement by the context, than that between [SG] and [PL], which cannot be dispensed with. We find the same tendency in the dialect of Gervėčiai, situated north of the Lithuanianspeaking area in Belorussia (approximately 25 kms from the Lithuanian border). 14 In this dialect, ad-cases are preserved in the singular (e.g., adessive Antonẽlik ‘near Anton, at Anton’s’, allative Juzók ‘towards Juozas’, with -k instead of -p), and, in the plural, only for personal pronouns (e.g., adessive mu·sùk ‘near us’, allative mu·suñk ‘towards us’). With nouns, adcases are often replaced in the plural by in-cases (adessive > inessive), exactly as in Zietela. Alternatively, ad-cases are replaced in the dialect of Gervėčiai by prepositional constructions (adessive meaning = par + ACC < ‘along’, allative meaning = ingi, ungi + GEN < *an(t) ‘on, over’, *in ‘into’).15 14 15

Cf. Vidugiris (2014, 114–117). Cf. Kardelytė (1975, 41–43).

The Secondary Locative Cases in the Lithuanian Dialect of Zietela

39

In the dialect of Lazūnai, another Lithuanian dialect of Belorussia, located between Zietela and Gervėčiai (approximately 40 kms from the Lithuanian border), there is no adessive plural in nouns, apart from a few relics like žmonėspi ‘near people’, recorded in 1958 (< *žmonēsēm-pi); in personal pronouns, a distinction is retained between the adessive singular and plural (SG manìp or manim̃.p vs PL mú·s(p)). The allative plural is better preserved in the dialect, e.g., vaikum̃.p ‘near the children, beside the children’. In the dialect of Dieveniškės, situated in Lithuania a few kilometers from the Belorussian border, ad-cases are preserved in the singular for nouns (adessive t′iév′ip ‘near the father, at the father’ resp. allative kun′igó·p′i ‘towards the priest’); only personal pronouns have plural ad-cases, but with the particularity that the allative form is used for the two functions (e.g., mu·sum̃.p both adessive and allative plural < originally allative). 16 A comparison between the four Lithuanian dialects that have preserved the secondary locative cases (Zietela, Gervėčiai, Lazūnai, Dieveniškės) shows several parallel tendencies: 1. In-cases are well preserved. 2. Ad-cases are preserved in the singular, the adessive more robustly than the allative (probably due to the predominance of the structure ‘to be’ + ADESS = ‘to have’). 3. In the plural, ad-cases are preserved only in personal pronouns. 4. Defective ad-cases are usually replaced by prepositions, sometimes by in-cases, or rarely the adessive by the allative. The initial challenge posed to the adessive case — the homonymy between the adessive singular and plural in personal pronouns — was common to all four dialects and the solutions developed by them were therefore largely parallel.

16

Cf. Mikulėnienė and Morkūnas (2005, XX).

40

Daniel Petit

CONCLUSION The Lithuanian dialect of Zietela has many original features, some of which are conspicuous archaisms, whereas others are recent, particularly contact-induced innovations. Special attention has been paid to the preservation of the secondary locative cases of Old Lithuanian in Zietela and a few other dialects of the same area, but what I tried to show in this paper is that, beyond the glaring archaism, the system of locative cases underwent a profound reconfiguration due to both functional and formal factors: first, the fixation of the animacy constraint modified the distribution between incases and ad-cases; second, the weakness of adessive plural forms was remedied by various stop-gap measures, the replacement by in-cases or by prepositions. Far from being relevant only for the limited concerns of Baltic philology and linguistics, the data of these peripheral Lithuanian dialects are of high interest for all linguists concerned with the diachronic evolution of case systems and the restructuring of locative roles over time.

REFERENCES Bauer, Brigitte. (2000). Archaic Syntax in Indo-European. The Spread of Transitivity in Latin and French. Berlin: de Gruyter. Bilý, Milan. (1988). “Russian quantification expressed via grammatical number and the construction idti v soldaty”. Scando-Slavica, 34/1, 69– 93. Bukantytė, Eglė. (2007). Martino Lutherio Naujojo Testamento (1522-1546) įtaka Jono Bretkūno Naujojo Testamento vertimui (1579-1580) sintaksės aspektu. Klaipėda: Klaipėdos universiteto leidykla. [The Influence of Martin Luther’s New Testament (1522-1546) on John Bretkūnas’ Translation of the New Testament (1579-1580) from a syntactic perspective.] Daukša, Mikalojus. (1599). Postilla Catholicka (DP), edited by J. Palionis, 2000. Mikalojaus Daukšos 1599 metų Postilė ir jos šaltiniai. Vilnius:

The Secondary Locative Cases in the Lithuanian Dialect of Zietela

41

Baltos lankos. [Postilla Catholicka (DP), edited by J. Palionis, 2000. The Postille of Mikalojus Daukša from 1599 and Its Sources.] Fraenkel, Ernst. (1947). Sprachliche, besonders syntaktische Untersuchung des kalvinistischen litauischen Katechismus des Malcher Pietkiewicz von 1598. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. [Linguistic, especially syntactic, study of the Calvinistic Lithuanian catechism of Malcher Pietkiewicz from 1598.] Gelumbeckaitė, Jolanta. (2002). Linksnių ir prielinksnių konstrukcijų sintaksė Jono Bretkūno Biblijos Evangelijoje pagal Luką. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas. [Syntax of inflectional and prepositional constructions in the Bible Gospel of John Bretkūnas according to Luke.] Haspelmath, Martin. (2018). “Revisiting the anasynthetic spiral.” In Grammaticalization from a Typological Perspective, edited by B. Heine, H. Narrog, 97–115, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Isačenko, Alexander V. (1974). “On ‘have’ and ‘be’ languages. A typological sketch.” In Slavic Forum essays in linguistics and literature, edited by M. S. Flier, 43–77. The Hague, Paris: Mouton de Gruyter. Kardelytė, Jadvyga. (1975). Gervėčių tarmė (Fonetika ir morfologija). Vilnius: Mintis. [The dialect of Gervėčiai (Phonetics and morphology).] Kavaliūnaitė, Gina. (2001). “Adesyvas Chylinskio Naujojo Testamento vertime.” Acta Linguistica Lithuanica, 45, 93–111. [“Adessive in Chylinski’s New Testament Translation.”] —. (2003). “Postpozicinių vietininkų Sistema Chylinskio Naujojo Testamento vertime.” Acta Linguistica Lithuanica, 49, 33–49. [“The System of Postpositional Locatives in Chylinski’s New Testament Translation.”] Laigonaitė, Adelė. (1957). “Pašalio vietininkai dabartinėje lietuvių kalboje.” Kai kurie lietuvių kalbos gramatikos klausimai, 21–39. Vilnius: Valstybinė politinės ir mokslinės literatūros leidykla. [“Ad-locatives in the contemporary Lithuanian language.” Some questions of Lithuanian grammar.] Mel’čuk, Igor. (1985). Poverxnostnyj sintaksis russkix čislovyx vyraženij. Wien: Wiener Slawistischer Almanach.

42

Daniel Petit

Mikulėnienė, Danguolė. & Morkūnas, Kazys. (2005). Dieveniškių šnektos žodynas. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas. [Dictionary of the dialect of Dieveniškės.] Petit, Daniel. (2007). “Syncrétisme, sous-spécification et création casuelle dans les langues baltiques.” Bulletin de la Société de linguistique de Paris, 102.1, 325–366. [“Syncretism, underspecification and case creation in the Baltic languages.” Bulletin of the Linguistic Society of Paris.] Range, Jochem D. (1995). “Allativ und Adessiv in altlitauischen Texten des 16. Jahrhunderts.” Linguistica Baltica, 4, 93–102. [“Allative and Adessive in Old Lithuanian Texts of the 16th Century.” Linguistica Baltica.] Rozwadowski, Jan. (1995). Litewska gwara okolic Zdzięcioła na Nowogródczyźnie, edited by A. Gregorski. Kraków: Polska Akademia Nauk. [Lithuanian dialect of the vicinity of Zdzięcioł in the Nowogródek region.] Vidugiris, Aloyzas. (1998). Zietelos šnektos žodynas. Vilnius: Mokslas. [Dictionary of the dialect of Zietela.] —. (2004). Zietelos lietuvių šnekta. Vilnius: Presvika. [The Lithuanian dialect of Zietela.] —. (2014). Lazūnų šnekta. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas. [The Lithuanian dialect of Lazūnai.] Vidugiris, Aloyzas. & Mikulėnienė, Danguolė. (2005–2010). Zietelos šnektos tekstai, 2 volumes Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas. [Zietela's dialect texts.] Zinkevičius, Zigmas. (2006). Lietuvių tarmių kilmė. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas. [Origin of Lithuanian dialects.] Žilinskaitė, Eglė. (2004). “M. Daukšos Postilės postpozicinių vietininkų ir jiems sinonimiškų prielinksnių konstrukcijų vartosena ir vertimo šaltiniai. “ Baltistica, 39.1, 33–53. [“The use of the postpositional locatives and the synonymous prepositional constructions in Daukša’s Postille and their translation sources. ” Baltistica.]

In: The Emergence of Grammars Editor: Michela Russo

ISBN: 978-1-53619-888-1 © 2021 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

Chapter 2

FIRST CONJUNCT AGREEMENT IS NOT AN ELLIPTICAL ILLUSION: A CASE OF PRENOMINAL ADJECTIVES Nadira Aljović* University of Zenica, Bosnia and Herzegovina

ABSTRACT The goal of this chapter is to argue on the basis of a number of NPinternal phenomena related to first conjunct agreement and ellipsis that this agreement pattern is not an “elliptical” illusion. The chapter presents agreement patterns of attributive adjectives in Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian standing prenominally and agreeing with the first conjoined noun. The central claim of this study is that accounting for first conjunct agreement cannot be based on ellipsis, i.e., that this agreement pattern is not a mere illusion resulting from an elliptical process affecting the prenominal element in the second conjunct. Instead, it is claimed that first conjunct agreement can arise within a structure in which the prenominal element scopes semantically and syntactically over a conjunction noun phrase.

*

Corresponding Author’s E-mail: [email protected].

44

Nadira Aljović

Keywords: ellipsis, attributive adjective, first conjunct agreement, closest conjunct agreement, vocabulary items, agree

1. INTRODUCTION The phenomenon of agreement with the linearly closest agreement target (also called Closest Conjunct Agreement or CCA) has been studied considerably in recent years, both theoretically and experimentally. CCA arises in a configuration involving an agreeing element (e.g., a verb) related syntactically and semantically to a conjoined noun phrase (ConjP); the agreeing element can agree either with the entire ConjP or with the linearly closest noun of ConjP. If the agreeing element precedes ConjP, CCA states it should agree with the first conjunct (this pattern will be referred to as First Conjunct Agreement or FCA); if the agreeing element follows ConjP, CCA states it should agree with the last conjunct in ConjP (this pattern will be referred to as Last Conjunct Agreement or LCA). South Slavic languages are known to allow CCA patterns with verbal or adjectival predicates (agreeing with ConjP subjects) and FCA patterns with attributive adjectives (agreeing with an NP-internal nominal conjunction). The two CCA patterns have been confirmed both by written corpus data and experimentally for Slovenian and Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian, as involving agreeing verbs (see Corbett 1983; 1991; Marušič et al. 2007, Marušič and Nevins 2009, Marušič et al. 2015; Willer-Gold et al. 2016)1. Slovene: 1

Abbreviations used: F – feminine M – masculine N – neuter (gender) SG – singular PL – plural PlA – plural agreement (with ConjP) SE – pronominal clitic formally identical to the reflexive pronoun se, but which need not have the reflexive meaning AUX – auxiliary FCA – first conjunct agreement (as involving a linearly closest conjunct) LCA – last conjunct agreement (as involving a linearly closest conjunct) CCA – closest conjunct agreement

First Conjunct Agreement Is Not an Elliptical Illusion

45

(1) a. Podražile so se knjige FCA become-more-expensiveF.PL AUXPL SE booksF.PL in peresa. and pensN.PL ‘Books and pens have become more expensive.’ b. Knjige in peresa so se podražila. LCA booksF.PL and pensN.PL AUXPL SE become-more-expensiveN.PL (Willer–Gold et al. 2016, 188, 190, ex. 2b, 4c) Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian: (2) a. Oglasile su se trube i zvona. FCA soundedF.PL AUXPL SE trumpetF.PL and bellN.PL ‘Trumpets and bells resounded.’ b. Trube i zvona su se oglasila. LCA trumpetF.PL and bellN.PL AUXPL SE soundedN.PL (Willer–Gold et al. 2016,189, 190, ex. 3b, 5c) As Marušić et al. (2007) point out, FCA is found in many languages, unlike LCA. Even in languages that allow LCA (like Slovene or BCS), this pattern has a more restricted distribution than the FCA pattern (in the sense that FCA is far more acceptable than LCA). Marušič et al. (2007) deal with this distributional asymmetry by proposing that LCA and FCA result from entirely independent mechanisms so that there could be, in principle, languages that have the mechanism(s) generating FCA, but lack the mechanism(s) generating LCA. Their analysis of the LCA pattern in Slovene is based on separate probing mechanisms for gender and number features of the agreement target. In fact, the LCA pattern in (1b, 2b) is not predicted under standard assumptions about the Agree relation and the way it is established in Chomsky (2000) - with the Probe restricted to search for local and c-commanded Goals. The LCA pattern seems to suggest that linear order has incidence on calculating agreement. One way of addressing this issue is to propose more intricate and elaborate syntactic mechanisms governing the Agree relation (as in Bošković 2009, a.o.); another way is to shift part of the

46

Nadira Aljović

agreement calculation into the postsyntactic component. 2 This latter approach has been taken by van Marušić et al. (2015), Begović and Aljović (2015), Aljović and Begović (2016), Willer-Gold et al. (2016) and Arsenijević et al. (2019). The FCA pattern, on the other hand, can be dealt with within the Agree model developed by Chomsky (2000) as amended either by the concept of equidistant Goals (see Citko 1999; van Kopen 2005; Bošković 2009), i.e., ConjP and its Spec (the first conjunct), or along the clausal reduction/ellipsis scenario, under which the agreement with the first conjunct rather than with the entire ConjP is an “elliptical” illusion. This would occur in a structure including two conjoined clauses, each containing one conjunct and identical verbs agreeing with these nominals. If everything but the subject in the second clause is elided, we get an illusion of two conjoined nouns with the verb agreeing with the first noun. However, this scenario implies that the verb agrees regularly and not exceptionally with the apparent first conjunct. This configuration is depicted in (3) with the elliptical material struck through3: (3) Oglasile su se trube soundedF.PL AUXPL SE trumpetF.PL oglasila su se zvona soundedN.PL AUXPL SE bellN.PL ‘Trumpets and bells resounded.’

i and

However, Munn (1999) shows that clausal ellipsis cannot be the only source of the FCA pattern illustrated in (1a, 2a) (and CCA in general) since it incorrectly predicts that predicates requiring plural or collective interpretation of ConjP (e.g., together) should not be available in a configuration similar to (3): a sentence with two conjoined clauses should not contain any element that would refer to the two nouns. Marušič et al. 2

The idea of agreement being calculated in the postsyntactic (PF or morphological component) is argued for by Bobaljik (2008), too. This author defends the idea that the copying of features from an NP to a verb takes place in the morphology (i.e. after Spellout). 3 The clausal reduction approach is adopted in Aoun et al. (1994) for Moroccan and Lebanese Arabic.

First Conjunct Agreement Is Not an Elliptical Illusion

47

(2007), Marušič and Nevins (2010), Marušič et al. (2015), Aljović and Begović (2016) and Arsenijević et al. (2019) show that this prediction is not borne out in Slovene or BCS, as shown by the well-formdness of (4a,b): (4) a. Včeraj so trčile druga ob drugo yesterday AUXPL collidedF.PL other into another krave in tele(ta) cowsF and calf(es)N ‘Yesterday cows and calves bumped into each other.’ (Marušič et al. 2007, ex. 27) b. Negdje u šumi zajedno živi lisica i somewhere in forest together live3SG.PRES fox and lav. lion ‘Somewhere in the forest, live together the/a fox and lion.’ (Aljović and Begović 2016, 10, ex. 2a) The relevant interpretation of (4a), which is unpredicted if the structure in (3) is assumed, is the one denoting a single event involving cows bumping into calves and calves bumping into cows; the other available interpretation - denoting two events with a group of cows bumping into each other (one event), and a group of calves bumping into each other (another event) - can be associated with a structure similar to the one in (3). As for example (4b), the collective adverb zajedno ‘together’ requires a plural controller, and under the hypothesis that the sentence is a reduction of two clauses, neither clause could provide a valid controller for this adverb (since only singular nouns would be available as subjects in these clauses). Given the acceptability of the sentence, we have to conclude that it is not a reduction of two clauses (with ellipsis in the second clause) but a single clause with a conjoined subject capable of satisfying the plural controller requirement of the adverb zajedno. Begović and Aljović (2015) and Aljović and Begović (2016) use similar logic to claim that ellipsis is not a likely explanation of FCA with attributive adjectives in BCS noun phrases. In this chapter, I explore further FCA with

48

Nadira Aljović

attributive adjectives in order to argue on the basis of a number of NPinternal phenomena related to attributive adjectives and ellipsis that this agreement pattern is not an elliptical illusion, and that more likely explanations of this phenomenon are to be found in syntactic approaches using elaborated mechanisms of Agree and/or in distributed morphosyntactic accounts allowing certain agreeing mechanisms to operate in the PF branch of the derivation. The chapter is organized in the following way: section 2 gives a brief overview of FCA with attributive adjectives and the gist of the morphosyntactic analysis proposed by Begović and Aljović (2015) and Aljović and Begović (2016). In section 3, I address problems arising if an ellipsis-based account of FCA with attributive adjectives is adopted. A set of problems revolve around morpho-syntactic and interpretative properties of noun phrases that the ellipsis approach creates, and another set of problems arise around licensing ellipsis in noun phrases. In section 4 I give concluding remarks.

2. ATTRIBUTIVE ADJECTIVES AGREEING WITH THE CLOSEST CONJUNCT BCS attributive adjectives resemble adjectives in some other languages, such as Spanish and Polish, and also some determiners in English, in that they can agree with the first conjunct of a conjunction phrase (ConjP) while scoping semantically over both conjuncts. This is most clearly visible when the conjoined nouns are singular and when the adjective surfaces in the singular, that is, agrees in number with the first conjoined noun rather than with the entire ConjP; compare BCS (5a) with Spanish (5b), and English (5c): (5) a. polarna polarF.SG

lisica i foxF.SG and

sova owlF.SG

First Conjunct Agreement Is Not an Elliptical Illusion

49

‘the/a polar fox and owl’ b. […] cuya madre y padre […] whoseF.SG motherF.SG and fatherM.SG (Demonte and Perez–Jimenes 2012, 2) c. this table and chair The singular forms of prenominal elements in (5a-c) is what I will call the NP-internal adjectival First Conjunct Agreement (FCA). In this section I present the core properties of this agreement pattern found in BCS noun phrases and the gist of the morpho-syntactic account proposed by Begović and Aljovć (2015) and Aljović and Begović (2016). Firstly, the adjectival FCA is subject to much inter- and intraspeaker variation in acceptability. A gender mismatch between the conjoined nouns may degrade the acceptability of FCA for some speakers. This is witnessed by the absence of the reading whereby the adjective scopes over both conjuncts (and not in the overall unacceptability of the relevant structure), which is signalled by % in (6a). A considerable degradation in the acceptability of FCA (i.e., the absence of the scoping interpretation) is caused by a number mismatch between the two conjuncts, as in (6b), which is marked by?*. With no gender or number mismatches between the conjuncts, the FCA pattern is generally well-formed as illustrated in (5a) above (for more details about this gradient acceptability see Aljović and Begović 2016). (6) a. (%)polarna lisica i medvjed polarF.SG foxF.SG and bearM.SG ‘the/a polar fox and bear’ b. ?*polarna lisica i medvjedi polarF.SG foxF.SG and bearM.PL (intended: the/a polar fox and polar bears) Moreover, not all languages allow NP-internal FCA. For example, English and Dutch allow it, while Italian and French seem not to (see Heycock and Zamparelli 2000). BCS belongs to the former group of

50

Nadira Aljović

languages. Languages that allow it impose different restrictions on NPinternal FCA (morpho-syntactic, lexical and/or semantic; for example, in Dutch, FCA seems to be restricted by the choice of the prenominal element: definites and demonstratives allow it, but indefinites do so only marginally; for more details see Heycock and Zamparelli 2000, Dalrymple and Nikolaeva 2006, Willim 2012). Another property that sets apart the NPinternal FCA form the predicate FCA (on verbs agreeing with subjects) concerns the availability of the so-called resolution or default agreement (see Corbet 1983, 1991). A verb agreeing with a postverbal subject ConjP composed of nouns of different genders can agree with the first conjunct (as in 4b) or show the default agreement morphology: masculine plural in BCS. In case the two conjoined nouns have the same gender, this gender value will be inherited by the entire ConjP and the plural agreement on the verb will show this gender value (and not the default masculine). For an attributive adjective in BCS, however, these two possibilities are in complementary distribution: when FCA is available, plural agreement is not, and vice versa. Thus, the FCA pattern is the only option when the two conjoined nouns are singular and of the same gender (example 7), singular and of different genders (example 8), and of different numbers and genders if their agreement exponents are syncretic (example 9): (7) koja/*koje tašna i whichF.SG /F.PL purseF.SGand ‘which purse and bag’

torba bagF.SG

(8) skupa/*skupi tašna i nalivpero expensiveF.SG /M.PL purseF.SGand fountain-penN.SG ‘the/an expensive purse and fountain pen’ (9) a. zlatna/*zlatni tašna i nalivpera godlenF.SG/N.PL /M.PL purseF.SGand fountain-penN.PL ‘the/a golden purse and the/Ø golden fountain pens’ b. zlatna/*zlatni nalivpera i tašna godlenN.PL/F.SG /M.PL fountain-penN.PL and purseF.SG

First Conjunct Agreement Is Not an Elliptical Illusion

51

‘the/Ø golden fountain-pens and the/a golden purse’ Even for those BCS speakers who do not readily accept FCA for all prenominal elements in contexts such as (7–9), the plural agreement is clearly unacceptable. On the other hand, in certain contexts, plural can be required semantically, in which case plural agreement (with the entire ConjP) overrides the FCA pattern. This happens in the presence of collective expressions requiring syntactic and semantic plural licensing, such as the adverb međusobno ‘with each other’, or the reciprocal expression jedandrugi ‘each other’. If such an element occurs in the attributive AP, the adjective will need to agree in plural number, while singular agreement with the first (singular) conjunct is unacceptable, as shown in (10-12): (10)[AP međusobno zavađene/*zavađena] princeza with-each-other quarreling F.PL /F.SG princess F.SG kraljica queen F.SG ‘the princess and queen in conflict with each other’

i and

(11) [AP jedno s drugim zapakovani/*zapakovana] one with another packed M.PL / F.SG i nalivpero and fountain-pen N.SG ‘the purse and fountain pen packed together’

tašna purse F.SG

(12) a. [AP jedno s drugim zapakovani/*zapakovana] tašna one with another packed M.PL / F.SG/N.PL purse F.SG i nalivpera and fountain-pen N.PL ‘the purse and the fountain pens packed together’ b. [AP jedno s drugim zapakovana/zapakovani] nalivpera one with another packed N.PL/F.SG / M.PL fountain-pen N.PL

52

Nadira Aljović i tašna and purse F.SG ‘the fountain pens and the purse packed together’

Finally, as shown in example (6b) above, a number (and gender) mismatch between the two conjuncts leads to unacceptable FCA. Importantly, these structures cannot be always ‘rescued’ by plural agreement – plural rescuing is available only in case of morphological syncretism, as in (9a,b) and (12b). On the basis of such contrasts, Begović and Aljović (2015) and Aljović and Begović (2016) conclude that both plural (default) agreement with the entire ConjP and agreement with the first conjunct (illustrated as singular agreement in the above data) are calculated in the syntax since they can bleed and feed semantic requirements (therefore, they must arise before Spellout). On the other hand, data such as (6a) are considered as cases of ineffability (syntactic inputs without valid morphological outputs, see Pesetsky 1997), i.e. as being morphologically unacceptable. As such, we expect syncretic exponents, when available, to be able to rescue ineffable cases, as confirmed by 9a,b and 12b). Further evidence that both agreement patterns (with ConjP and with the first conjunct) can and must be calculated in the syntax (prior to Spellout) is witnessed by (12a,b) where FCA is instantiated by zapakovana ‘packed-N.PL/F.SG’ and plural agreement with ConjP by zapakovani ‘packed-M.PL’. Both agreement patterns are acceptable: the FCA neuter plural adjective is able to license the reciprocal and at the same time is syncretic with the second conjunct’s phi-features; the default masculine plural is acceptable since it licenses the reciprocal. Aljović and Begović (2016) propose that a Probe (AP) can establish agreement with two equally distant Goals (ConjP and Conjunct 1 in Figure 1) prior to Spellout, and that an additional mechanism, operating postsyntactically, can filter out certain morphological forms.

First Conjunct Agreement Is Not an Elliptical Illusion

53

Figure 1.

The proposed morphological filter operates on vocabulary items realizing morpho-syntactic feature bundles created in syntax, not on the morpho-syntactic features themselves. The filter, called Vocabulary Item Feature Harmony, states that harmony is expected to hold between features of vocabulary items realizing a feature’s multiple instances which appear in a link of case-feature instances, and that features are harmonious when their values are identical. Basically, this means that within a certain domain (defined by morphological case, essentially) exponents of morpho-syntactic feature bundles are expected to be ‘harmonious’ i.e., to have identical morphological values. The greater the harmony between vocabulary items, the greater acceptability. Let’s take the vocabulary items in (7): the acceptable sequence is F.SG – F.SG – F.SG; the unacceptable sequence is M.PL – F.SG – F.SG, with M.PL disrupting feature harmony. In (8) the acceptable sequence is F.SG – F.SG – N.SG. Feature harmony is distrupted by the last vocabulary item and only by one feature (gender) (some speakers find this distruption of feature harmony more or less problematic, some find it unproblematic, as indicated in 6a). In (6b) however, the last vocabulary item disrupts feature harmony by two features, gender and number (the relevant sequence is F.SG – F.SG – M.PL) and the result is far more degraded than in (6a). Interestingly, the harmony disruptions in (7) and (6b) are not equally degraded: the unacceptable sequence of (7) seems more seriously degraded, that is clearly unacceptable; compare *M.PL – F.SG – F.SG vs. ?*F.SG – F.SG – M.PL. I suppose that this could be an effect created by processing: the former sequence is processed as implying the lack of agreement between the adjective and the noun and consequently as a

54

Nadira Aljović

syntactic problem; while in the latter sequence the processing of the disrupted harmony cannot signal any lack of expected or required syntactic agreement since no agreement is ever expected to hold between the two conjoined nouns. Only in cases with syncretic exponents, such as -a in zlatna ‘godlen’ standing for N.PL or F.SG’ in (7a,b), harmony will not be disrupted even if the second conjunct is different in gender and number from the first. It is precisely this morphological syncretism, capable of cancelling the disruption of harmony, that shows harmony is a pure morphological phenomenon, independent of syntactic agreement.

3. ELLIPSIS AND FIRST CONJUNCT AGREEMENT An elegant and simple way of accounting for the NP-internal FCA and for the reading whereby the adjective is shared by the two conjuncts would be by deriving (5a) from (3) and Figure 2, i.e., by postulating ellipsis of the adjective in the second conjunct (ellipsis is signalled by strike-through). Under this view, FCA is just an illusion, with regular agreement of adjectives taking place with their respective nouns, the second adjective being elided. (5a) polarna lisica i polarF.SG foxF.SG and ‘the/a polar fox and owl’ (13) polarna lisica i polarna sova

Figure 2.

sova owlF.SG

First Conjunct Agreement Is Not an Elliptical Illusion

55

However, the analysis implied by (13) and the tree diagram in Figure 2 produce a number of problems. A set of problems revolve around the fact that this view fails to predict some important morpho-syntactic and interpretive properties of the phrases such as those in (5a, 6a). Another set of problems are related to the licensing of adjectival ellipsis. Moreover, the initial appeal of the ellipsis account weakens when we take into consideration the possibility for adjectives to license ellipsis of the entire ConjP. In the remainder of this study I present evidence against the ellipsis account of NP-internal first conjunct agreement.

3.1. Semantic Plurality The ellipsis account cannot explain the availability of the reciprocal reading in (15). Rather, it predicts, given the reading of (14), that the reciprocal reading should be absent in (15), contrary to facts. Namely, the adjectives in (14) require a semantic plural controller and can have a discourse-linked reading: they can imply a shirt ill matched with something and a tie ill matched with something. The same reading is available in (15). However, (15) can also be interpreted as implying a shirt and a tie that are ill matched with each other (reciprocal interpretation, the relevant controller being supplied for by the conjunction itself). Surprisingly, this reading is absent in (14), which is unexpected if we assume that (15) is derived from (14) by ellipsis of the adjective in the second conjunct (as represented in Figure 2 above) and that ellipsis is a PF process affecting syntactic structure, meaning that it cannot alter interpretation (as implied by Kenedy and Merchant 2000, Kenedy 2003): (14) loše sparena košulja i loše sparena ill matchedFSG shirtFSG and ill matchedFSG ‘an ill-matched shirt and an ill matched tie’ discourse-linked reading of ill-matched

kravata tieFSG

56

Nadira Aljović (15) loše sparena košulja i kravata ill matchedFSG shirtFSG and tieFSG ‘the/an ill-matched shirt and tie’ 1) reciprocal meaning of ill matched 2) discourse linked meaning of ill matched

3.2. Syntactic Plurality If FCA were the result of an elliptical process in the second conjunct in Figure 2 and a mere elliptical illusion, we would not expect an adjective requiring syntactic plurality to be able to agree in plural with ConjP. However, plural agreement is obligatory in (16) (as well as in 10, 11 and 12a,b above): (16) međusobno zavađeni / *zavađena doktorica i with-each-other quarrellingM.PL / F.SG doctorF.SG and ‘the doctor and patient in conflict with each other’

pacijent patientM.SG

A possible solution (along the view adopted in Abels 2004) would be to posit an independent semantic mechanism - a covert movement of the adjective in the first conjunct to a position above ConjP - in order to ensure the correct scopal interpretation of the adjective (as modifying the two conjuncts) and also the reciprocal reading for cases such as (15). However, in order to obtain plural agreement in (16), this movement would have to be overt and precede any agreement operation, contrary to what is standardly assumed about Agree and movement operations (see for example Chomsky 2000). Otherwise, adjectives would be expected to always agree with the first conjunct, and in case of singular conjuncts, this means singular agreement, contrary to what we see in (16). Thus, the possibility of plural agreement strongly disfavours the structure in Figure 2 (whether combined or not with the movement of the adjective according to Abels 2005).

First Conjunct Agreement Is Not an Elliptical Illusion

57

3.3. Split/Joint Reference Another problem faced by the ellipsis approach in Figure 2 concerns the predictions about possible and impossible referential interpretations of ConjP (see also Aljović and Begović 2016). Nominal conjunction structures can receive two types of interpretation, the so called split reading and the joint reading. Heycock and Zamparelli (2000, 2005) propose a single nominal structure capable of accounting for these readings where the coordination takes place DP-internally (their model refers primarily to English, hence DP) which contains a prenominal element (typically a determiner in English) that is ‘shared’ by the two lower conjoined projections. Now, they also observe that, when coordination repeats identical structures, the split reading is predominant. I illustrate this in (17)4: (17) a. jedan prijatelj i one friend and ‘a friend and colleague’ b. jedan prijatelj i jedan one friend and one ‘a friend and a colleague’

kolega (joint reading possible) colleague kolega (split reading only) colleague

As we can see in Figure 2, the ellipsis approach to NP-internal FCA implies the repetition of identical structure in the two conjuncts. We expect the joint reading to be unavailable in much the same way it is unavailable in (17b). However, the joint reading in (18b) is fully available: (18) a. moja engleska prijateljica i engleska myF.SG EnglishF.SG friendF.SG and EnglishF.SG kolegica colleagueF.SG (split reading only: my English friend and English colleague) b. moja engleska prijateljica i kolegica (joint reading possible: my English friend and colleague) 4

For more details regarding the split/joint readings argument see Aljović and Begović (2016).

58

Nadira Aljović

If (18b) were derived through ellipsis from (18a), as implied by Figure 2 above, we would expect for the joint reading to be unavailable as in (18a) since the relevant derivation that is sent to LF for interpretation contains a repetition of identical structures. The adjective ellipsis affects phonological material only at PF and thus is by definition unable to affect the interpretation at LF.

3.4. Licensing Ellipsis In this section we will see that licensing ellipsis in the structure represented in Figure 2 creates problems for the ellipsis account of FCA.

3.4.1. FCA with Multiple Adjectives An ellipsis-based account of FCA faces the problem of licensing ellipsis of two adjectives since it would imply ellipsis of a non-constituent. Look at (19b) which, under the ellipsis view, underlies (19a): the two adjectives to be elided are indicated by square brackets: (19) a. ona polarna lisica i zec thatF.SG polarF.SG foxF.SG and hareM.SG ‘that polar fox and hare’ b. ona polarna lisica i [onaj polarni] thatF.SG polarF.SG foxF.SG and thatM.SG polarM.SG 'that polar fox and that polar hare'

zec hareM.SG

Under standard assumptions about attributive adjectives (see for example Aljović 2010; Talić 2017; Cinque 2010, among many others), stacked attributive adjectives are assumed to be multiple adjunctions or specifiers of a nominal projection, or different specifiers of multiple nominal functional projections. In such structures multiple adjectives do not form a single constituent, hence are not ‘deletable’ as a single constituent. Sailor and Thoms (2014) propose to resolve similar problems of non-constituent ellipsis by first extracting the visible material and then deleting the phrase

First Conjunct Agreement Is Not an Elliptical Illusion

59

containing the trace(s) of the moved constituent(s). (20a) shows the problematic deletion of a non-constituent; (20b) shows Sailor and Thoms’s (2014) proposal to solve this problem; (20c) shows the actual sentence: (20) a. I spoke to John on Thursday and I spoke to [Mary] [on Friday] b. I spoke to John on Thursday and [Mary]i [on Friday]j [I spoke to ti tj] c. I spoke to John on Thursday and Mary on Friday. (Sailor and Thoms 2014:361) In (21) I am applying this scenario to the example in (19a). (21) [ona polarna lisica] i [zeci [onaj polarni ti]]

(=19a)

While the structure in (21) could solve the problem of apparent nonconstituent ellipsis, it creates some problems and would ultimately lead to a non-unified account of first conjunct agreement of attributive adjectives. Firstly, like ‘regular’ ellipsis of a single adjective, this ellipsis scenario faces the problem of not being able to derive the reciprocal interpretation of the example (15). Namely, in order to derive this reading, the adjective in front of the first noun requires a plural controller (the conjunction of nouns) and the structure in (21) would have it sitting inside the first conjunct without the second conjunct being available to it, as shown in (22b). Given that (22c) cannot have the reciprocal reading, (22b) should not have it either. For this reason, a more likely structure seems to be the one in (22a), with no ellipsis at all: (22) a. [ona [loše sparena [košulja i kravata]]] thatF.SG ill matchedF.SG shirtF.SG and tieF.SG ‘that ill-matched shirt and tie’ (reciprocal: ‘with each other’) b. [ona loše sparena košulja] i [kravatai [ona lose sparena ti]] c. ona loše sparena košulja i ona loše sparena kravata (discourse linked reading only, see 14)

60

Nadira Aljović

Second, even without this interpretative problem, the treatment of NPinternal FCA in terms of ellipsis would lead to a non-unified analysis of the phenomenon since none of the ellipsis approaches can tackle the issue of obligatory plural agreement (as in example 16) and would need to allow prenominal adjectives to syntactically scope over the conjunction of two nouns and to agree with it in the plural. Should such a structure be allowed at all, then a special mechanism would be needed to prevent adjectives to agree with the equally distant and available first conjunct (Conjunct 1 in Figure 1).

3.4.2. Gender-Number Mismatches As shown by Kennedy and Merchant (2000) and Kennedy (2003), ellipsis of attributive adjectives occurs when contiguous with (pseudo-)gapping and stripping: (23) a. Pico wrote a more interesting novel than he did [e] a play. (pseudo-gapping) b. Pico wrote a more interesting novel than Brio, [e] a play. (gapping) c. Pico wrote a more interesting novel than [e] a play. (stripping) (Kennedy and Merchant 2000, 98) Similarly, to the English data in (23), BCS allows elliptical processes affecting attributive adjectives, as illustrated in (24)5:

5

Under proper conditions, BCS allows pseudogapping and stripping, too, and both processes can include attributive adjectives: (i) Senad je napisao lošiji rječnik nego što Senad AUX written worse dictionary than what bismo mi [e] gramatiku. (pseudogapping) AUX we grammar 'Senad has written a worse dictionary than we would [e] a grammar.' (ii) Senad je napisao lošiji rječnik nego [e] gramatiku. Senad AUX written worse dictionary than grammarACC 'Senad has written a worse dictionary than [e] a grammar.' (stripping)

First Conjunct Agreement Is Not an Elliptical Illusion

61

(24) Senad je napisao loš rječnik, a Senad AUX written badMSG dictionaryMSG, and Vlado [e] gramatiku. (gapping) Vlado grammarFSG ‘Senad has written a bad dictionary, and Vlado has [e] a grammar. As noticed by Kennedy (2003) two interpretations can be associated with the pseudogapping structure illustrated by the English translation in (24); the same is true for the BCS sentence in (24), one of them being Senad has written a bad dictionary and Vlado has written a bad grammar, the other is given in (25a,b). Crucially, the structures of (25a,b) cannot be interpreted as implying ellipsis of the attributive adjective (they cannot mean something like Vlado has written a bad grammar). The adjective cannot be elided alone but only under (pseudo-)gapping or stripping. (25) a. Senad je napisao loš rječnik a Vlado je napisao gramatiku. b. Senad has written a bad dictionary and Vlado has written a grammar. Now, remember that NP-internal FCA is sensitive to featural mismatch between the two conjoined nouns: in (6b) we have seen that a gender and number mismatch creates unacceptable FCA, that is, it becomes difficult to interpret the adjective as scoping over both nouns if it agrees only with the first. Under the ellipsis view of FCA, this is difficult to explain in a consistent way as a condition imposed on ellipsis. In fact, testing adjective ellipsis in (pseudo)gapping or stripping contexts shows that it is insensitive to the different gender and number features of the noun following the ellipsis site and of the noun providing the appropriate ellipsis context, i.e., the one that precedes the ellipsis site; the two relevant nouns are given in bold in example (26):

62

Nadira Aljović (26) Senad je napisao lošiji rječnik, nego što Senad AUX written worseM.SG dictionaryM.SG than what je Vlado [e] gramatike. AUX Vlado grammarsF.PL ‘Senad has written a worse dictionary than Vlado has [e] grammars.’

On the basis of the contrast between (6b) and (26), I conclude that defending an ellipsis account of the data such as (6b), and all other examples of NP-internal FCA presented above, becomes all the more difficult as it would make it necessary to explain why adjectival ellipsis should be sensitive to gender/number mismatches in some contexts but not in others.

3.5. Nominal Ellipsis Given the problems that an ellipsis-based account of FCA faces, I propose that the structure depicted in Figure 3 is the basis for NP-internal FCA and that the adjective that modifies ConjP can indeed establish agreement with the first conjunct or with ConjP itself.

Figure 3.

A final piece of evidence supporting this view concerns the licensing of nominal ellipsis. In BCS adjectives precede the head noun, agree in phifeatures with it, and they also license ellipsis of the following noun (under proper contextual conditions and when they appear in the so-called ‘long’ form). Aljović (2010) argues that the ellipsis site involves a nominal projection which is a complement of a functional head standing in a Spechead agreement relation with the adjective. In general, agreement is standardly assumed to play an important role in licensing nominal ellipsis

First Conjunct Agreement Is Not an Elliptical Illusion

63

(see Lobeck 1995; Kester 1996). Given this perspective, it is tempting to verify whether an adjective showing FCA can license ellipsis of the following nominal conjunction. The data in (27) indicate that this is indeed possible6: (27) (?) Mijenjam staru četku i ogledalo change1SGPRES oldF.SG brushesF.SG and mirrorsN.SG za novu četku i ogledalo for new F.SG brushesF.SG and mirrorsN.SG ‘I’m exchanging the old brush and mirror for a new brush and mirror.’ (28) Mijenjam stare četke i ogledala change1SGPRES oldF.PL brushesF.PL and mirrorsN.PL za nove četke i ogledala for new F.PL brushesF.PL and mirrorsN.PL ‘I’m exchanging the old brush and mirror for a new brush and mirror.’ If we go back to Figure 2, we can see that ellipsis of the kind illustrated in (27, 28) cannot be predicted by the structure in which the adjective in the first conjunct, which agrees with the first-conjunct noun, licenses the ellipsis of the material containing this noun, the coordinator and the second conjunct – a non-constituent. I thus conclude that the data in (27, 28) strongly support the structure in Figure 3 and the view that agreement is possible between the AP in this structure and the first conjunct.

CONCLUSION Accounting for NP-internal FCA by postulating ellipsis of the adjective(s) in the second conjunct has an initial appeal of trivially 6

Some of my informants felt that (28) was slightly better than (27), although they accepted (27) as well. Pending a better understanding of this contrast (if there is any); (27) is with a question mark.

64

Nadira Aljović

explaining the fact that the pre-modifying adjective scopes over both conjuncts and agrees with the first conjunct. However, this view creates a series of incorrect predictions. The ellipsis-based account of FCA cannot explain the fact that attributive adjectives that require semantic plurality can exhibit agreement with the first conjunct. Furthermore, this account is not able to predict plural agreement on the adjective without postulating a distinct structure, not based on ellipsis. Third, the ellipsis account predicts the split referential reading of the conjunction to be available while the joint reading should not be available, contrary to facts. Fourth, certain facts about licensing elliptical pre-modifying adjectives cause certain problems and disfavour the ellipsis account of NP-internal FCA. When multiple adjectives are present, they can agree with the first conjunct and scope over both conjuncts. But, under the ellipsis view, we would have to assume ellipsis of two stacked adjectives which clearly do not form a constituent. Moreover, contexts allowing ellipsis of attributive adjectives involve (pseudo-)gapping or stripping. This means that adjectives are never elided alone but only with other sentence material. In structures involving this type of ellipsis, gender and/or number mismatches between the relevant nouns do not affect the adjectival ellipsis. FCA, on the contrary, is gender/number-sensitive, since number (and gender) mismatches between the conjoined nouns block the scoping of an FCA adjective over the conjunction. This suggests a different origin for FCA on attributive adjectives. Finally, an interesting piece of evidence against the ellipsis account of NP-internal FCA is related to the possibility of attributive adjectives showing FCA to license ellipsis of the conjunction phrase. This possibility is predicted straightforwardly if the structure underlying FCA contains an adjectival position above the conjunction phrase (Figure 3). In conclusion, the exploration of adjectival FCA and its semantic and morphological properties, as well as certain facts about licensing adjectival ellipsis, support the view that this agreement pattern is not an ‘elliptical illusion’ and that more likely explanations of this phenomenon are to be found in syntactic approaches using elaborated mechanisms of Agree and/or in distributed morpho-syntactic accounts allowing certain agreeing

First Conjunct Agreement Is Not an Elliptical Illusion

65

mechanisms to operate in morphology, that is, in the PF branch of the derivation.

REFERENCES Abels, Klaus. 2005. “Right Node Raising: Ellipsis or Across the Board Movement.” In Proceedings of NELS 34, edited by K. Moulton and M. Wolf, 45–59. Amherst. MA: GLSA. Aljović, Nadira. 2010. Syntactic positions of attributive adjectives. In Adjectives, Formal analyses in syntax and semantics, edited by Cabredo Hofherr, P. and Matushansky, O., John Benjamins, 29–52. Aljović, Nadira, Begović, Muamera 2016. “Morphosyntactic aspects of adjectival and verbal first conjunct agreement.” Journal of Slavic Linguistics 24–1, 7–39. Arsenijević, Boban, Willer‐Gold, Jana, Aljović, Nadira, Čordalija, Nermina, Kresić, Marijana, Leko, Nedžad, Malenica, Frane, Marušič, F., Lanko, Milićev, Tania, Milićević, Natasa, Mišmaš, Petra, Mitić, Ivana, Peti‐ Stantić, Anita, Stanković, Branimir, Tušek, Jelena, and Nevins, Andrew. 2019. “Elided Clausal Conjunction Is Not the Only Source of Closest‐ Conjunct Agreement: A Picture‐Matching Study.” Syntax 23.3. doi:10.1111/synt.12171. Aoun, Joseph, Benmamoun, Elabbas, and Dominique Sportiche. 1994. “Agreement, word order, and conjunction in some varieties of Arabic.” Linguistic Inquiry 25: 195–220. Begović, Muamera and Aljović, Nadira. 2015. “Accounting for agreement patterns in coordinate noun phrases with a shared modifier.” In Slavic languages in the perspective of formal grammar: Proceedings of FDSL 10.5, edited by M. Ziková, P. Caha, and M. Dočekal, 39–58. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Bobaljik, Jonathan. 2008. “Where’s Phi? Agreement as a Postsyntactic Operation.” In Phi Theory, edited by D. Harbour, D. Adger, and S. Béjar, 295–328. Oxford: OUP.

66

Nadira Aljović

Bošković, Željko. 2009. “Unifying first and last conjunct agreement.” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 27.3: 455–496. Chomsky, Noam. 2000. “Minimalist inquiries: The framework.” In Step by step: Essays on minimalist syntax in honour of Howard Lasnik, edited by M. Roger, D. Micheals, and J. Uriagereka Cambridge, 89–115. MA: MIT Press. Cinque, Guglielmo. 2010. The Syntax of Adjectives: A Comparative Study. Cambridge Mass: MIT Press. Citko, Barbara. 1999. “Case and agreement in Slavic predicates.” Formal approaches to Slavic Linguistics 7: The Seattle Meeting, edited by Dziwirek, Katarzyna, Coats, Herbert, Vakareliyska, Cynthia, 17–37. Ann Arbor, Michigan: Slavic Publications. Corbett, Greville. 1983. “Resolution rules: Agreement in person, number, and gender”. In Order, concord, and constituency, edited by G. Gazdar, E. Klein, and G. K. Pullum, 175–206. Dordrecht: Foris. Corbett, Greville. 1991. Gender. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dalrymple, Mary and Nikolaeva, Irina. 2006. “Syntax of natural and accidental coordination: Evidence from agreement.” Language 82.4: 824–49. Demonte, Violeta and Pérez-Jiménez, Isabel. 2012. Closest-conjunct agreement in Spanish DPs: Syntax and beyond. Folia linguistica 46.1: 21–73. Heycock, Caroline, Zamparelli, Roberto. 2000. “Friends and colleagues: Plurality and NP coordination.” In Proceedings of the Thirtieth Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society, edited by M. Hirotani, A. Coetzee, N. Hall, and J, 341–52. Kim Amherst: GSLA. Heycock, Caroline, Zamparelli, Roberto. 2005. “Friends and colleagues: Plurality, coordination, and the structure of DP.” Natural Language Semantics 13: 201–270. Kennedy, Christopher, Merchant, Jason. 2000. Attributive comparative deletion. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 18: 89–146. Kennedy, Christopher. 2003. “Ellipsis and Syntactic Representation.” In The Interfaces – Deriving and interpreting omitted structures, edited by K. Schwabe, S. Winkler, 29–54. John Benjamins: Amsterdam– Philadelphia.

First Conjunct Agreement Is Not an Elliptical Illusion

67

Kester, Ellen–Petra. 1996. The nature of adjectival inflection. PhD Diss., University of Utrecht. Lobeck, Anne. 1995. Ellipsis: functional heads, licensing and ellipsis. Oxford: Oxoford University Press. Marušič, F. Lanko Nevins, Andrew, and Badecker, William. 2015. “The grammars of conjunction agreement in Slovenian.” Syntax 18.1: 39–77. Marušič, F., Lanko. Nevins, Andrew, Saksida, Amanda. 2007. “Lastconjunct agreement in Slovenian.” In Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics 15, edited by Compton, R., Goledzinowska, M., and Savchenko, U. (The Toronto Meeting), 210–227. Ann Arbor: Mich. Michigan Slavic Publications. Marušič, F. Lanko, Nevins, Andrew. 2010. “Two Types of Neuter: ClosestConjunct Agreement in the Presence of 5 and Ups.” In Annual Workshop on Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics (The Second Cornell Meeting 2009), W. Browne, M. Despic, N. Enzinna, S. Harmath-de Lemos, R. Carlin, D. Zec, 301–317. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications. Munn, Alan. 1999. “First conjunct agreement: Against a clausal analysis.” Linguistic Inquiry 30: 643–68. Pesetsky, David. 1997. “Syntax and optimality.” In Optimality theory, D. Archangeli and T. Langendoen, 134–170. London: Blackwell. Sailor, Craig, Thoms, Gary. 2014. “On the Non-existence of Nonconstituent Coordination and Non-constituent Ellipsis.” In Proceedings of the 31st West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, edited by R. E. Santana-LaBarge, 361–370. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project. Talić, Aida. 2017. From A to N and Back: Functional and Bare Projections in the Domain of N and A. Diss., University of Connecticut. van Kopen, Marjo. 2005. One probe—two goals: Aspects of agreement in Dutch dialects. Diss. University of Leiden (LOT 105).

68

Nadira Aljović

Willer-Gold, J., Arsenijević, Boban, Batinić, Mia, Čordalija, Nermina, Kresić, Marijana, Leko, Nedžad, Marušić, F. Lanko, Milićev, Tania, Milićević, Natasa, Mitić, Ivana, Nevins, Andrew, Peti-Stantić, Anita, Stanković, Branimir, Šuligoj, Teina, Tušek, Jelena. 2016. “Conjunct Agreement and Gender in South Slavic: From Theory to Experiments to Theory.” Journal of Slavic Linguistics 24–1, 187–224. Willim, Ewa. 2012. Concord in Polish coordinate NPs as Agree. In Slavic languages in formal grammar: Proceedings of FDSL 8.5, edited by M. Ziková and M. Dočekal, 233–53. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.

In: The Emergence of Grammars Editor: Michela Russo

ISBN: 978-1-53619-888-1 © 2021 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

Chapter 3

NULL SUBJECTS AND SUBJECT PRONOUNS IN DIACHRONY: EVIDENCE FROM TEXTUAL SOURCES OF NORTHERN OCCITAN (VELAY) Vincent Surrel UMR 7023 SFL CNRS/University of Paris 8 École Nationale des Chartes, Paris (ENC), France

ABSTRACT Although modern Occitan is considered a null subject language, it is remarkable that uses of subject pronouns are frequent in the texts of Velay that we are currently updating and that they are far from always corresponding to emphasizing strategies as suggested by the grammars. It is tempting to interpret these uses as layers of French syntax, but we wish to show here that, according to the clues provided by our corpus, subject pronouns have constituted free syntactic variants and that their grammaticalization as an obligatory element has been blocked because of their ambiguous morphophonological status.



Corresponding Author’s E-mail: [email protected].

70

Vincent Surrel

Keywords: Occitan language (Velay), null subject, subject pronouns, linguistic philology

INTRODUCTION The question of subject pronouns has given rise to a very extensive literature in general linguistics and remains a very lively field of investigation for Romance languages; see Heap (2000) and Heap and Oliviéri (2013). As far as Occitan is concerned, there do not seem to be any particular difficulties, given that this language belongs to the southern continuum that has retained the null subject parameter of the source language. However, this typological description contradicts historical textual sources which produce a large number of constructions with expressed subject pronouns; see Stroh (1971), Sauzet (2007) and Oliviéri and Sauzet (2016, 238–240). The problem then arises is to understand the status of these subject pronouns in a diachronic perspective, the temptation being to consider them either as simple layers of the French syntax that innovated by cliticizing the subject forms, or as morphemes necessarily semantically marked in order to preserve the validity of the parameter [+NULL SUBJECT]. The noncliticization of subject pronouns in modern Occitan should lead us to consider the possibility of an incomplete grammaticalization cycle, which must be clarified at the interface of syntax, morphology, phonology and semantics. While in French the analysis of subject clitics ultimately allows us to interpret them as marks of verbal agreement (see Auger 2003), the question that remains problematic for us for the former Occitan, in view of the abundance of attestations, is whether subject pronouns are necessarily generated in syntax as strong phonological forms, always semantically marked, as considered by modern grammars. The study of subject pronouns we propose here is based on a corpus of Occitan texts from a linguistic area that is little exploited in diachrony, namely the former Velay, which today corresponds approximately to the Haute-Loire department (Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes region). The surrender of

Null Subjects and Subject Pronouns in Diachrony

71

editorial projects has logically led to the creation of an invisible area of historical Romance linguistics (see Lodge 1991 and Pfister 2002). The updating of textual data allows us here to propose a descriptive study of the linguistic phenomena related to the expression of the subject pronoun, for a domain located on the fringe of the Occitan domain, early francized and on the edge of the Franco-Provençal dialectal zone.

1. BACKGROUND: THE NULL SUBJECT PARAMETER IN OCCITAN LANGUAGE 1.1. Synchronic Descriptions The pro-drop parameter, that has been very successful with authors, has been reformulated in a minimalist perspective by a [+NULL SUBJECT] category, because it seems impossible to maintain a pro element, without phonetic realization, in a theory based on Agree, requiring to take into account all the nominal formal features. Consequently, for Rouveret (2015, 235) “c’est la matrice pronominale sur T (Tense) qui est finalement réalisée et prononcée, rendant inutile et redondante la prononciation du pronom luimême” 1 . Thus, in null subject languages, the verbal agreement has an unvalued Definiteness feature, which allows the pronoun to be erased. This Agree based model avoids the use of a pro category, which is not a primitive of grammar, but only a descriptive entity. Occitan is generally considered as a language with no pronominal subject. In his typology of Romance languages, Bossong (2008, 144) can write that “[i]m Okzitanischen gibt es keine Subjektklitika. Dies ist ein wichtiges Unterscheidungsmerkmal gegenüber dem Französischen”2. This parameter therefore distinguishes Occitan from the innovative northern Galloroman continuum (French and Franco-Provençal), but also from North

1

Trad. “it is the pronominal matrix on T (Tense) that is finally realized and pronounced, making the pronunciation of the pronoun itself unnecessary and redundant.” 2 Trad. “[i]n Occitan there are no subject clitics. This is an important distinguishing feature from French.”

72

Vincent Surrel

Italian varieties, Santo Domingo Spanish and Brazilian Portuguese, according to Posner (1996, 51). However, this categorisation is based on taking into account the central varieties of Occitan, generally taken as reference varieties, and the neutral assertive sentence. The non-use of subject pronouns is generally justified by the existence of a verb-rich inflectional paradigm that does not require the use of a pronoun to express the different features (person and number). Thus Alibert (1976, 282) notes that “en occitan, la distinccion entre las divèrsas personas del vèrb es plenament assegurada per las desinénsias. Ataben los pronoms subjèctes son pas exprimits davant lo vèrb, coma o son en francés”3 and he produces the following examples: (1) a. Leg-issi .........mentre qu’ estúdi-as. ....read-PRS.1SG while ........study-PRS.2SG ‘I read while you study.’ b. Semen-an ........e ....culh-issètz ...spread-PRS.1PL and pick-PRS.2PL ‘We spread and you harvest.’ The existence of subject pronouns in other contexts is generally interpreted as particular functionalities, always well distinguished from the French syntax. For Ronjat (1930–1941, § 770–772), the use of subject pronouns allows: (i) avoid amphibologies since verbal inflections do not distinguish nominal referents by gender: (2) a. dóu tèms qu’eilamount Elo risié ..................jitant de siéule, ....while ...........up there ...she laugh.PAST.3SG throw.PTCP Vincèn escalè ..........l’aubre V. ........climb.PST.3SG the=tree ‘While she was laughing up there, V. climbed the tree.’ 3

Trad. “In Occitan, the distinction between the two persons of the verb is fully justified by the inflectional endings. Moreover, the subject pronouns are not expressed before the verb, as they are in French.”

Null Subjects and Subject Pronouns in Diachrony

73

(ii) for stylistic reasons, to emphasize or oppose: b. elo èi ...............saureto, E ...iéu siéu, ...........lou vesès, ...she be.PRS.3SG blondie and I ....be.PRS.1SG that=see.PRS.2PL brun ...comme un courcoussoun brown like ......a ...weevil ‘She’s blonde and I’m, you see, brown as a weevil.’ In most studies, it is mentioned that the use of subject pronouns varies from a geolinguistic point of view and that it is to be related to contact situations. Wheeler (1988, 258) notes: “Most varieties of Occitan are ‘prodrop’ languages but subject pronoun usage is commoner as one moves towards the French dialect boundary, and obligatory in the northernmost varieties.” For modern dialects, Ronjat (ibid.) notes that subject pronouns are required or very frequent in the Occitan valleys of Piedmont (Italy), in La Mure (Isère department), in Limousin Occitan and in Les Martres-deVeyres (Puy-de-Dôme department), i.e., the north-eastern and northern borders. Modern dialectological surveys make it difficult to document syntactic facts, but ongoing surveys should help to fill some of these gaps4. More recently, the question of subject pronouns in Occitan dialects has given rise to formalizations, particularly within a generative framework, in a contrastive and crosslinguistic perspective 5 . Oliviéri (2004) studies the correlation between the null subject parameter and occurrences of subject inversion (or postverbal subject), with the possibility of drawing syntactic isoglosses. This theoretical model is based on the Extended Projection Principle (EPP) according to which there must be a subject in a finite sentence, with an inflectional mark that assigns a subject function. The 4

See SYMILA NES (SYMILA Nouvelles Enquêtes Syntaxiques) and THESOC . 5 Sibille (2012, 410) notes in his study on subject pronouns in Occitan varieties of Piedmont that “il n’y a donc pas coïncidence entre catégories typologiques et parenté génétique, mais diffusion d’innovations ou résistances à l’innovation dans une zone d’intense contact linguistique entre des parlers appartenant à différentes branches romanes.” Trad. “there is therefore no coincidence between typological categories and genetic kinship, but rather the diffusion of innovations or resistance to innovation in an area of intense linguistic contact between languages belonging to different Romance branches.”

74

Vincent Surrel

absence of an expressed subject seems to violate this constraint and the author discusses on the one hand the possibility of an empty category, without phonological realization, but present in D-structure, and on the other hand the possibility of subjects generated on the right or on the left periphery, according to the argument structure. The comparison of syntactic structures of standard Italian, northern Italian dialects and alpine Occitan involves micro-parameterization and allows the author to account for syntactic variations, considering a specialized head Definiteness. In the same perspective, Oliviéri (2009, 2015) is interested in two other Occitan dialectal marginal areas, namely La Roya (Alpes-Maritimes department) and Auvergne and Limousin Occitan (documented by ALAL) as part of the THESOC project. Savoia and Manzini (2010) study clitic subjects in Occitan and FrancoProvençal varieties from Italy, which can duplicate lexical subjects. They produce an exhaustive exemplification of the syntactic configurations. They also identify a Definiteness feature and the left periphery is associated with modal and pragmatic properties. Dialectal variation requires for them too a micro-parameterization, which does not call into question the fundamental linguistic properties, and which implies differences at the lexical level. For their part, Hinzelin and Kaiser (2012) conclude, on the basis of a reduced questionnaire, that it is difficult to consider a binary parameter in the Occitan and Franco-Provençal dialects observed, where the use of the expletive subject pronoun is not necessarily parallel to the use of the referential subject pronouns.

1.2. Diachronic Descriptions of Subject Pronouns The question of subject pronouns in Occitan is not normally a problem, because it does not imply a parametric change as is the case for French (see Roberts 2007, 24–40). Indeed, we can consider that modern Occitan has inherited the syntactic system of medieval Occitan. Syntactic descriptions confirm the identity of structures, involving a general parameter [+NULL SUBJECT]. For Jensen (1994, 82–86), the non-expression of the subject

Null Subjects and Subject Pronouns in Diachrony

75

pronoun is the norm in ancient Occitan, as can be seen from the example given: (3) ar ....auzires ...........qu’ ..........ai respondut now listen.FUT.2PL PRON (Ø) answer.PST.1SG ‘Now you will hear what I said.’ The author writes that “le pronom sujet est souvent exprimé pour des raisons d’ordre rythmique, syntactique ou stylistique qui ne sont pas toujours faciles à débrouiller” (op.cit.: 86)6 . The pronoun can thus, as in modern Occitan, mark insistence and opposition. It is in any case assumed that the subject pronoun is always phonologically tonic, which is confirmed by the morphology, because subject pronouns are derived from the Latin strong paradigm, and by the syntax, since the pronouns can be separated from the verb: they can be used in coordination with another pronoun and they can be placed as the initial element of a sentence, which requires a tonic element, especially in front of a clitic preverbal object. For an update of the uses of null subjects and subject pronouns in old Occitan, see Sitaridou (2005) and Donaldson (2016)7. However, it is difficult to neglect the high frequency of subject pronouns in old Occitan, which must question a greater integration into the syntactic structure than the parameter [+NULL SUBJECT] alone assumes, especially since some subject pronouns have been grammaticalized in Occitan varieties at the margins. 6

Trad. “the subject pronoun is often expressed for rhythmic, syntactic or stylistic reasons that are not always easy to understand.” 7 It is interesting to note that in the metalinguistic commentary of the Leys d’Amors, a 14th century prescriptive grammar, it is recommended in some cases to use the subject pronoun (cited by Sauzet 2007): “Generalment en la primiera singular persona deu hom segon latin entendre yeu; e en la segonda singular tu; et en la primiera del plural nos; et en la segonda del plural vos. Enpero, segon romans, alcunas vets es miels dig can li dig pronom son expressat en las dichas personas; et aysso pot hom leumen coneysher a la maniera del parlar, coma yeu fau aysso, e no seria ben dig: fau aysso ses yeu.” Trad. “Generally, in the first person singular one must by Latin hear yeu (= I); and in the second singular tu (= you); and in the first plural nos (= we); and in the second plural vos (= you). However, in Romance, sometimes it is preferable when these pronouns are used with these persons; and this can easily be recognized from the manner of speaking, as yeu fau aysso (= I do this), and it would not be well said: fau aysso ses yeu (= do this without me).”

76

Vincent Surrel

The most advanced explanation model is Lafont (1967, 413–446), which seeks to unify data in diachrony and synchrony, following Brusewitz’s study (1905). His interpretation, of a psychomechanical nature, leads us to consider that, if many uses of subject pronouns attested since the medieval period can be considered as processes of clarification, they find an explanation in the fundamental structure of the Occitan sentence. For him, it is based on the notion of ‘orientation syntaxique,’ involving a tonic-atone successiveness, that is to say a rhythmic definition. The opening of the sentence by a tonic element can thus be assumed by a pronoun, that can be a substitute for other introductory words. The thrust of subject pronouns as introductory elements, perceptible from the emergence of Occitan texts, declined from the 18th century onwards, leading to a simple removal for the most part of the linguistic domain or to a cliticization at the margins mentioned, sometimes to the substitution by an enunciative element as in Gascon (especially que). Through these various elements “se dévoile la tendance générale de la langue à soutenir (sauf exceptions) l’actualisation verbale par un morphème-palier. Cette tendance a abouti en n[ord] oc[citan] (comme en fr[ançais]) à la généralisation du pronom sujet, sans qu’on puisse alléguer l’homophonie des formants personnels du verbe” (op. cit.: 446). The main difficulty in diachrony is of course the impossibility of verifying the syntactic properties by grammaticality tests, but it is especially striking that explanatory models assume a fundamental syntactic and phonological unity, what can be discussed.

2. NULL SUBJECT AND SUBJECT PRONOUNS IN MODERN DIALECTS OF VELAY It is known that dialectal monographs rarely deal with syntax. For the field of interest to us, which is particularly well known from a phonetic point of view (see Nauton 1957–1963 and 1974), there is no specific study. At the southern limit of our linguistic domain, Marcon’s study (1987, 72) notes that subject pronouns are not usually expressed. If they are used, it is to draw attention to the person being referred to. They are then separated from the

Null Subjects and Subject Pronouns in Diachrony

77

verb in the pronunciation and their place is not necessarily before the verb. They correspond to the tonic pronouns in French: Ièu, los ai viste ‘Moi, je les ai vus/ I have seen them’ Los ai vistes, ièu ‘Je les ai vus, moi/ I have seen them’ Los ai vistes ‘Je les ai vus/ I have seen them’

However, atlantography provides us with interesting data. Those provided by the SYMILA ALF database confirm the absence of a subject pronoun in neutral sentences 8. The map9 below (Figure 1) represents the geolinguistic distribution of the [+/-NULL SUBJECT] parameter from the sentence of type 44 J’allume ma pipe (‘I light my pipe’):

Figure 1. Occitan dialectal space of Velay and null subject parameter.

It is noteworthy that the syntactic isogloss draws compact areas, which quite strictly intersect the dialectal border with the Franco-Provençal, but 8

SYMILA (Syntactic Microvariation in the Romance Languages of France) - . Pt 813 = Monistrol-d’Allier, pt 814 = Solignac-sur-Loire, pt 815 = Chamalièressur-Loire, pt 817 = Riotord. 9 We used the map base provided by Hans Goebl (), obtained by polygonizing the dialectal space; see Goebl (2002).

78

Vincent Surrel

which form along the border with the Oïlic zone a narrow band encroaching on the Occitan domain. Our linguistic domain studied here, at the borders of the Franco-Provençal Forez, belongs entirely to the area of the null subject, but borders on the area of the obligatory subject10. The ALMC maps (Nauton 1957–1963) offer us a series of sentences corresponding mainly to grammatical persons 1SG and 3SG. It appears that subject pronouns are not expressed at all points of the domain, in simple clauses and in both matrix and embedded clauses. (i) Referential pronouns: ALMC 1887* pt 21S (Je veux que tu ailles à... = ‘I want you to go to...’) .....vwˈɔle ...........k .............ˈɔniz .............a (Ø) want.PRS.1SG COMP (Ø) go.SBJV.2SG to ALMC 1597 pt 21 (Il délire) .....despˈarla (Ø) rave.PRS.3SG (ii) Expletive pronouns ALMC 1874* pt 21NE (Pourvu qu’il ne grêle pas = ‘as long as it doesn’t hail’) ma kə ..................ɡrˈele ............pa provided that (Ø) hail.SBJV.3SG NEG In modern Occitan dialects of Velay, the non-expression of subject pronouns generally seems to be the norm in neutral sentences, but documentation is lacking for discourse-related issues such as Focus or Topic. Our goal is now to describe the uses and non-uses of subject pronouns attested by our corpus of Occitan texts from the ancient Velay, and, given the current state of dialects, to suggest indicators of linguistic evolution.

10

About linguistic boundaries, see also Bouvier (1971).

Null Subjects and Subject Pronouns in Diachrony

79

3. NULL SUBJECT AND SUBJECT PRONOUNS: DIACHRONIC EVIDENCE FROM THE CORPUS OF OCCITAN TEXTS OF VELAY 3.1. Binary or Gradual Parameterization? The first question to be solved is: can the language of texts from Velay be described using a binary parameterization ([+/-NULL SUBJECT]) or should a gradual parameterization, such as split pro-drop, be used? The answer is not obvious because the uses with expressed subject pronouns are very frequent in our texts. Our textual documentation knows limits that are obviously linked to the very constitution of genres and it would be interesting to look for correlations between linguistic structures and generic constraints, which is not our purpose here. In any case, medieval documentary genres confirm generally the quantitative domination of uses with no pronominal subject: from a pragmatic perspective, non-equivocal referential systems do not require the use of a pronoun, as in feudal registers (4a) or in tax registers (4b): (4) a. Peyre Cluzel per Katarina Bessas, per sa meyso (Ø) deu de argent XV d. ob. (Ø) deu de pebre meja liure (Ø) deu de avena ung ferrat (LièveÉvêqPuy, 16th) ‘P. C. for K. B. for his house owes of silver 15 deniers obole owes of pepper half pound owes of oatmeal one bucket’ b. Sen Guinot Coly, merchant, ung hostal ont ista en las Farghas, que (Ø) hac de la molier de sen Aymar Davino (CompoisPuya1464, 15th) ‘Sir Guinot Coly, merchant, one house where he lives in las Farghas, which he had from sir Aymar Davino’s wife.’

80

Vincent Surrel

Conversely, notarial documents use subject pronouns at the beginning of the sentence, in imitation of Latin legal phraseology, to which it should be added that the appositive function seems not to be possible for clitic pronouns: (5) hieu, Joh. Austorc, donat et governador de-l-espital de Nostra Dona, cofesse et reconoysse a dever et de aver agut de Joh. la Chassa, merchant et drapier del Peu, la soma de onse marcz et sex onsas d-argent (ObligLachasaAust, 15th) ‘I, J. A., donat (= the one who gave himself and his belongings to a monastery) and ruler of the hospital of N. D., confess and acknowledge that I owe and must have had from J. la Chasa, merchant and drapery of Le Puy, the sum of eleven marcs and six ounces of silver.’ In general terms, it is clear that there is no syntactic structure with an obligatory subject pronoun in our corpus and we have also found no construction with a pronoun that doubles the nominal subject, which are strong indicators of the non-grammaticalization of pronouns. However, it is remarkable that in neutral sentences, i.e., without any perceptible focusing, the coexistence of sentences with null subject and sentences with expressed subject pronouns is frequent and noted as soon as the scriptae emerge, around 1200. The majority of our texts allows this double possibility, for all grammatical persons that can be documented. The oldest texts are mainly records written in objective form, more rarely in subjective form, allowing a documentation for 1SG, 3SG and 3PL persons. For example, the seventeen Occitan texts of the Templar cartulary (13th century) show the possibility of both types of uses, in both independent and dependent clauses: (6) 1SG a. per aquesta sivada (Ø) redei-lor-en ......................for .this ......oatmeal ....give.back-PERF.1SG=them=it una pessa de terra one piece of land ‘And for this oatmeal, I gave them back one land’ b. done ..............a-Deu ..e ....a-la-maiso ......del .....Temple

Null Subjects and Subject Pronouns in Diachrony

81

...give-PRS.1SG to=God and to=the=House of=the T. tot aquo qu-eu ei .....a-Chantoen all that ..that=I have in=C. ‘I give to God and to the Templars everything I have in C.’ 3SG c. Pons Comarcz a-fait .........definement de la-rancura ...P. C. ...............do-PST.3SG end ............of the=quarrel (Ø) que avia .....a-Chantoen ........that have-IMPF in=C ‘P. C. put an end to the quarrel he had in C.’ d. e ....per aquet do ...........el .......ac ..................de ....la ...and for this ....donation he-SBJ have-PST.3SG from the maiso del .....Temple ....XXX e ....VII lib. house of=the Templars 30 ....and 7 ...pounds ‘And for this donation he had from the Templars thirty-seven pounds.’ 3PL e. Iteirius de Mirmanda e Na Peironela de Rafael venderunt loprat Archimbaut LX sol. de-poges e (Ø) an jurat ambedui sobre-sains qu-en pas o fasant portar a-la maso del Temple ‘I. de M. and Lady P. de R. sold the A.’s meadow sixty pennies (from Le Puy) and they both swore on Gospels they wouldn’t bring it to the Templars.’ f. [lo] Temples ..compret lo-vilanatge del Steve e ....de W. de ...Templars bought ..the=tenure ...of=the S. and of W. de Chantoent de la-terra ..que-il ......aviant ..............a-Chantoent C. .............of the=land that=they have-IMPF.3PL in=C. ‘The Templars bought the tenure of S. and W. de C. for the land they had in Chantoent.’ Thus, it seems possible to us to interpret these subject pronouns, in many neutral sentences, as expletive forms for the medieval period. Similar observations can be made for the literary genres that developed after 1500. Indeed, if syntactic structures with null subject remain the most numerous, it is generally not possible to affirm that the referential subject pronoun has an emphatic value: in most cases it is positioned in the preverbal zone,

82

Vincent Surrel

immediately in front of the verb, without any indication of semantic marking such as the use of punctuation. There is no objective reason, by analyzing the discourse, to assume absolutely an emphatic value of the subject pronoun in a sentence as in (7), whose type is quite common: (7) Yeu voulié ..paya la ...peno / Qu-o pre ..aquel angiavou I ......wanted pay ..the trouble that=took this ...cherub ‘I wanted to thank this cherub.’ (NoëlsCordat, 17th) This syntactic variation can be used to interpret the different readings given by Antoine Clet’s texts. His two bilingual plays, composed in the years 1750–1760, are known by manuscripts and printed witnesses that indicate linguistically interesting rewritings. In many cases, it can be seen that the rewriting process is aimed at improving the literary quality of these plays, in particular by correcting the metric. The elimination of subject pronouns can be interpreted in two ways: for (8a-b), it could be a procedure for correcting very common hypermetrical verses of the oldest manuscript witness A of the play Le Sermon manqué (CletSM), if si iau is disyllabic, but, at any rate, this elimination can plead for a change in the language structure: (8) a. A si iau arrape un bastou b. BCE si (Ø) attrape un bastou if (I) catch ...a ..staff In the same way, a more recent witness (D) adds a subject pronoun to form a correct hemistich, perhaps to compensate for the loss of the hiatus in the suffix of the imperfect indicative (here /ˈias/ > /ˈjas/): c. D tiu me poudias bé creyre d. ABCE (Ø) me poudias bé creyre .............(You) me could right believe ‘You could believe me.’

Null Subjects and Subject Pronouns in Diachrony

83

As the rewritings progress, which extend over about a century, the tendency is mainly towards the erasure of pronouns, and E, the most recent witness of CletSM (after 1845), prefers in some cases to erase the subject pronoun, which constitutes the variant shared by the other witnesses, but creates an hypometric verse: e. E

quant (Ø) l-ey vi .....marcha when .......him=see-PST.1SG walk ‘When I saw him walking.’

In the case of interrogative sentences, subject pronouns can also be interpreted as expletive forms and, when expressed, they always appear in postverbal position: (9) a. Aguessat ........vous dit ..........aquo? (NoëlsCordat, 17th) ...AUX.SBJV.2PL you ..tell.PTCP this ‘Would you have said that?’ b. Sabet (Ø) .......q’uno ....pioucello / Ayo fayt ....un effon? (id.) ...know-PRS.2PL COMP=a virgin .......do-PST.3SG a ...child ‘Did you know that a virgin had a child?’ c. que ..cresias .............tu ...de fayre? (ChansonMallon, 17th) ...what think-IMPF.2SG you to do ‘What did you think you were doing?’ We have noted only one example of a postposed interrogative morpheme ti, reduplicating the subject pronoun (see similar examples in Chabaneau 1877): (10)

àquo n’est ....ty .........pas bien ..liour dever? that ..NEG=is INTERR NEG right their duty ‘Isn’t that their duty?’ (SocConstPuy, 18th)

In parallel with syntactic structures with referential pronouns, the use of subject pronouns is developing in impersonal constructions, with so-called

84

Vincent Surrel

expletive pronouns, and in constructions marking indefiniteness. The impersonal is most often expressed using the neutral pronoun lo (< lat. ĬLLUM) as in (11), and never with a masculine personal pronoun (el), like in French: (11)

vos fant ...asaber que ...lo es inhibit ....et ...deffendut you CAUS know ..COMP it is forbidden and prohibited ‘We let you know that it is forbidden and prohibited.’ (ProclamChastel1422, 15th)

Indefinite constructions with pronouns use two grammatical means. On the one hand, the neutral subject pronoun from lat. HŎMO, giving the forms hom/on/l-on/l-om, interpreted as non-person with a 3SG verbal inflection (12a) or sometimes 3PL (12b): (12) a. es advis ...que ....on ..deu ..far ....visitar los arneitz ........de la ....is opinion COMP one must CAUS visit ....the adornments of the viala city ‘We are of the opinion to show the adornments of the city.’ (PardonPuy, 15th) b. quant on .apportariant .......a ladicta ...moneda lo profeict ....when one bring-COND.3PL to the=said money the benefit ‘When the profit would be brought to that currency.’ (ForgeMonnaiePuy, 15th) Furthermore, indefiniteness is frequently expressed by passive pronominal constructions: (13)

non se .....a trobat ........argent .contant prestament ....quickly ‘We didn’t find any money quickly.’ (ForgeMonnaiePuy, 15th) NEG REFL find-PST.3SG money cash

Null Subjects and Subject Pronouns in Diachrony

85

The pronouns of pronominal verbal forms are traditionally interpreted as object clitics, but in these indefinite uses their syntactic status is more ambiguous. It should be noted that in cases where the internal argument is expressed, it may govern verbal inflection: (14)

que ...devers ...Sainct Johan ce .....fassant ........grans COMP towards S. J. ..............REFL do-SBJV.3PL big barreyras fortes barriers ...solid ‘it is required to build large barriers in S. J.’ (PardonPuy, 15th)

There are many constructions in our corpus with neutral demonstrative pronouns of the aiso/so type, especially in medieval times, and aco, which extends considerably after 1500: (15)

a. aiso es lo .ces .de la ..segel del .....chastel ...here is the due of the rye ...of=the castle ‘Here is the rye contribution due to the lord.’ (CensChom, 12th–14th) b. en verita aquo es une chause indigne ...in .truth .this ..is a .....thing ...shameful ‘In truth, it’s a shameful thing.’ (CletSM, 18th)

While aiso clearly has a deictic role, the neutral demonstrative pronoun aco is originally anaphoric. On his part, Marcon (1987, 73) notes for the modern dialect of Pradelles, at the southern limit of our domain: “Aucun mot ne remplace le pronom impersonnel français il, même pour les verbes exprimant des notions météorologiques où l’on n’emploie pas aquo comme dans les parlers du Velay et d’Auvergne”11. The grammaticalization of a demonstrative pronoun as subject is unfortunately not well documented by

11

Trad. “No word replaces the French impersonal pronoun il, even for verbs expressing meteorological notions where aquo is not used as in the Velay and Auvergne languages.”

86

Vincent Surrel

dialectological sources, but we have here a clue, easily explicable for reasons of textual coherence. In addition to that, it can be mentioned that the neutral demonstrative pronoun so is used essentially in the introductory phrase of the type so es assaber, documented from the 14th to the 16th century. It is quite clear that in our corpus (i) constructions with null subject are largely majority; (ii) there is no case of an obligatory pronoun; (iii) one can never speak of split pro-drop since there is no trace of restriction for referential or non-referential pronouns, which allows us to postulate a general parameter [+NULL SUBJECT] consistent with modern data. This setting could be compatible with the inflectional verbal system that remains ‘rich’ in diachrony, i.e., with very few grammatical homophones. On the other hand, many constructions show a significant syntactic fact, namely the possibility of using a referential pronoun as a subject that is not semantically marked and the recurrence of conctructions using pronouns on the left periphery, expressing impersonality or indefiniteness, except in cases of interrogative modality. It is not possible at this stage to identify clearly the status of these different types of pronouns that must be carefully distinguished. In any case, the pronominal system as a whole should be observed to determine the phonological and morphosyntactic value of the subject pronouns.

3.2. Morphosyntax and Prosodic Status of Subject Pronouns If our corpus can attest to the use of subject pronouns as unmarked syntactic variants, with a possible grammaticalization for some constructions (maybe for neutral demonstratives?), we can think that the language has allowed a tendency towards cliticization of subject pronouns, but that has not yet been completed. We know that the Occitan subject pronouns are derived from the tonic Latin nominative forms. In our texts, this tonicity seems preserved in uses such as:

Null Subjects and Subject Pronouns in Diachrony

87

(i) coordination with another pronoun or nominal syntagm, attested only in the 13th century: (16) E ..juret ...el e-sos .....fils Raimons sobre sains avangelis que and swore he and=his son R. ..........on .....holy .Gospels ... COMP gamais re ..........no-i ....demandesunt (CartTempPuy, 13th) never ...nothing NEG=it claim-SBJV.3PL ‘And he and his son R. swore on the holy Gospels they wouldn’t claim for anything.’ (ii) the possibility of separation to the left (inducing a Focus or Topic effect?), by inserting an adverbial group: (17) a. ant-o ...jurat ...........qu-il ...........d-aisi ........aenant .re ....AUX=it swear.PTCP COMP=they from=here onward nothing no-i ....queirant (VenteCollStAgr, 13th) NEG=it claim-COND.3PL ‘They swore that from now on they would’t claim anything.’ b. et ...hieu sur aquela pena .....vous ho deffende a vous autres que ...and I ......on this .....sentence you it ..prohibit .to you others .who ces presens are present ‘And for this sentence I defend it to you who are here.’ (ProclamChastel1422, 15th) c. Et ..hieu eyssi sobre li ...mota Me ..vauc ...........eyvarsar ....and I .....here .above the clod REFL go-PRS.1SG set ‘And as for me, I’m going to lie down on this clod.’ (MystèreNDPuy, 16th) d. et ...ioou çaï ..crebe de fon (TradParabolePuy, early 19th) ....and I ......here die ....of hunger ‘And I’m starving here.’ by inserting a co-referential nominal phrase:

88

Vincent Surrel (18) Hieu Maurici Valete baile et recebedour del Vialar per ma dame de Guodet soy content de Peire Roby (LivreAffaire1452, 15th) ‘I, M. V., bailiff and receiver of le Vialar for my lady of G., am satisfied of P. R.’

by inserting a relative clause: (19) Z-ey, qu’es toujour esta en paou farceur, Diguait be tout naou amay de bon coeur (ChantLoire*, 18th) ‘He, who has always been a bit joker, said out loud and heartily.’ (iii) If postposing the subject pronoun without semantic value exists until about 1500 (this is especially true for indefinite constructions as in (20)): (20) Item et si era advisat eytal, devria on faire de la gleysa de Sainct Peire lo Monestier (PardonPuy, 15th) ‘Likewise, if it has been so advised, it should be done for the church of S. P.’ after 1500, the possibility of postposition must be interpreted as a semantic value of the type [+FOCUS]: (21) a. Mas parbiou non farey ...........pas .hiou (MystèreNDPuy, 16th) ....but ..INTERJ .NEG do-FUT.1SG NEG I.SBJ ‘But, my Goodness! I won’t do it.’ b. et ...si te ...paye ............pas, tan ..nous faray ..........pas yau ...and if you pay-PRS.3SG NEG also NEG do-FUT.1SG NEG I.SBJ ‘And if she doesn’t pay you, I’ll do the same.’ (CletSM, 18th) In addition, the non-cliticization of referential subject pronouns can be supported by two morphosyntactic events: in the singular, the substitution, attested since the 17th century, of subject forms to oblique forms in prepositional groups:

Null Subjects and Subject Pronouns in Diachrony

89

(22) 1SG a. ha ..la ..commayre Margarida de ....me ung anel d-or ....has the godmother M. ............from me a ....ring of=gold ‘the godmother M. received from me a gold ring.’ (MedPrivada, 16th) b. Chias .........toudzour embe ioou ....be-PRS.2SG always ...with ..me ‘You will always stay with me.’ (TradParabolePuy, early 19th) 2SG c. iou proteste contre .te (LettresChalencon, 14th) ...I ....protest ..against you d. Tout .......se .....mouque ..........de tiu (CletML, 18th) ...everyone REFL mock-PRS.3SG of you ‘Everyone laughs at you.’ 3SG e. Dona ............de pencions lodit .....sen Matheu de Monpeyros ...give-PRS.3SG of pensions .the.said sir .M. de M. per se ...a sa ..sor for him to his sister ‘M. de M. gives pension for him to his sister’ (CompoisPuy1408, 15th) f. Sont .....el ...tout serié ..............pardut (NoëlsCordat, 17th) ...without him all .be-COND.3SG lost ‘Without him all would be lost.’ (ii) corollary, in the plural, the extension of marked pronominal forms as subject pronouns: pronominal forms doubled with the adjective altre (only for 1PL and 2PL) (23) 1PL a. nous-autres refusen ...........pas .de ly ...estre fidèles ....we=others .refuse-PRS.1PL NEG to him be ....faithful ‘We do not refuse to be faithful to him.’ (SocConstPuy, 18th) 2PL b. Vous autres seriat ...........be ....sours

90

Vincent Surrel ....you=others be-COND.2PL right deaf ‘You’d be very deaf.’ (NoëlsCordat, 17th) The subject pronoun can be specified by a quantifier of the type tot: c. ont refusa ........de presta un sérament que toutes vous-autres ....refuse-PST.3PL of swear .a ..oath ........that all=you=others avez presta swear-PST.2PL ‘They refused to take an oath that you took.’ (SocConstPuy, 18th)

a disyllabic pronoun used as subject pronoun for 3PL, that can be derived either from the plural suffixation of a diphthongized form (els > eus > ieus > ieusses) or from the demonstrative lat. ĬPSE (cf. Jensen 1994, 126): (24) Yeusses .......poudien be ...courna (NoëlsCordat, 17th) .they-SBJ.3PL can .......right toot ‘They could toot.’ These different morphosyntactic phenomena seem to argue for a nonclitic value of subject pronouns, and it should also be noted that they do not undergo any phonological alteration in these positions, being on the contrary reinforced by grammatical means developed around the 17th century and still alive in today’s dialects. For his part, Sauzet (2007) analyses some of these substitution phenomena as an indication of a particular functioning of pronouns in the transition from a non-configurative linguistic system to a configurationnal system: in modern Occitan, he assumes that pronouns derived from the Latin subject forms maintain a casual nominative marking, making them available to explain the valential structure, but not typically in a specific position like preverbal position. Pronouns, which are redundant with verbal inflections, cannot constitute obligatory elements and they can freely alternate with a null element. However, it is clear that, from a positional point of view and despite the blocking of grammaticalization, the majority tendency is the immediate

Null Subjects and Subject Pronouns in Diachrony

91

anteposition before the verb, which leads us to make some remarks on the relationship between pronouns and word order.

3.3. Subject Pronouns and Word Order We noted in 3.1. that the use of subject pronouns not semantically marked, which is the most frequent syntactic construction, favours a preverbal position. This position on the left periphery could be conditioned by the general structure of the sentence, which involves all linguistic levels, as informational structure, the agent to be placed on the left, or even the prosodic structure. The data in our corpus show us that the position of pronominal subjects is more constrained than that of the nominal subjects, that alone can be located on the right periphery at all periods, as in the examples below12: (25) a. aquel an ...donnet lo rey ....los privileges a .la ..viala del Peu ....this ...year gave ...the king the privileges to the town of=the P. ‘That year the king gave privileges to the city of Le Puy.’ (ChronPuy, 14th?) b. S-en .....sequen .............las terras et possessions ...que tenen ...REFL=it follow-PRS.3PL the lands and possessions that have los hommes de Mons (TerrMons, 16th) the men .......of M. ‘Here follow the lands owned by the men of M.’ c. Per ana’n la ..meysouneto Que ly’avié eyseniat ...to ..go=in the little.house ..that him=indicate-PST 12

Here we mention an undocumented morphosyntactic fact, attested by the text CompoisPuy1408 (15th), namely that placed on the right periphery, the nominal subjects take a nominative mark, here a morpheme /-s/: Item un hostal en Montpeyros ont demora l-esperoners, Also a house in M. where lives the-spur.maker-SBJ seyssanta sous per an que lhi laisset sos payres sen Johan. sixty cents for year which him left his father.SBJ Sir J. ‘Also, a house in Montpeyros where the spur maker lives, sixty cents a year left to him by his father Sir John.’

92

Vincent Surrel l’angiau the=angel.SBJ ‘To go to the little house that the angel had indicated to him.’ (NoëlsCordat, 17th)

During the medieval period, the possibility of postposing is extended to the object pronouns, even in the case as in (26a) where the verb is not in the first position: (26) a. E-l Temples .........torna .......me I .....champ ....and=the Templars give.back me one field ‘And the Templars give me back a field.’ (CartTempPuy, 13th) b. Et ..beilet las ...lo reys ...........a messire Guillaume ...and gave .them the=king.SBJ to sir G. ‘And the king gave them to Sir G.’ (ChronPuy, 14th?) c. P. Faures per las terras que foro .............Jo. Symeon ...P. F. .......for the lands .that be-PERF.3PL J. S. Ia ...emina ..las quals .so .sotz ...l-estrada, e ...ac one hemina the PRON are under the=road and have-PERF.3SG las ....pel .......mairatge de son fihl them for=the wedding .of his son ‘P. F., (owes) one hemina for the lands that belonged to J. S., which are below the road and he had them when his son married.’ (CensChom, 12th-14th) This postposition is also possible for reflexive pronouns: (27) Sec ....se .....so ...que .es ....istat pagat a sen Joh. Rochier ..follow REFL DEM that AUX been paid .to sir J. R. ‘Then follows what was paid to Sir J. R.’ (LeydeSelPuy*, 15th)

Null Subjects and Subject Pronouns in Diachrony

93

However, it can be seen that the general trend is the migration of pronouns in the preverbal zone and that after 1500 the position and the order of pronouns are fixed. Object clitics are systematically in the preverbal zone and are inserted between the subject and the verb in the finite sentence, even in cases where the clitic is governed by an infinitive verb: (28) a. lli ...soutet ...............ei .......couei et ..l’embrasset ....him jump-PERF.3SG to=the neck and him=embrace-PERF.3SG ‘He jumped on him and embraced him.’ (TradParabolePuy, early 19th) b. quo .lou .fatchet ...............et ..se .....voulio ..............pas .saca ....DEM him anger-PERF.3SG and REFL want-IMPF.3SG NEG enter This phenomenon of pronoun migration to the left has an impact on the grammaticalization of subject pronouns and may be related to the general structure of the sentence. Indeed, for many authors, both medieval and modern Occitan are languages with a predominance of the V2 type; see Lafont (1991, 14)13 and Wolfe (2018). As such, the preverbal position can be occupied by various elements and the subject pronoun then plays the role of introductory as Camproux once suggested (1958, 132). There are many examples of sentences with initial verbs in our corpus, like in (29): (29) a. Sapchant .........tuit ..........que-la ....presens cedula .....know.SBJV.3PL everyone who=the present schedule veyrant see-FUT.3PL ‘All those who will see this schedule know.’ (ObligLachasaAust, 15th) 13

“Le verbe, qu’il fût impersonnel absolu ou impersonnel par économie d’actant, a été senti unité tonique insuffisante à ouvrir une séquence syntaxique. (...) Le pronom doit ainsi être considéré comme un véritable ‘introductif du verbe,’ imposant un syntagme verbal complexe.” Trad. “The verb, whether it was absolute impersonal or impersonal by economy of actant, was felt to be an insufficient tonic unit to open a syntactic sequence. (...) The pronoun must thus be considered as a real ‘introducer of the verb,’ imposing a complex verbal syntagm.” For Holmberg (2015), the V2 structure assumes a functional verbal head requiring a constituent to take place as a specifier.

94

Vincent Surrel b. Vouole ..........d’aqueste pas anar troubar moun païre ....want-PRS.1SG of=this ...step go ...find ....my ....father ‘I’m going to find my father right now.’ (TradParabolePuy, early 19th)

but the fixing of the position of the subject pronouns on the left is maybe to be related to this general trend. Ultimately, the syntactic structure remains fundamentally ambiguous: if on the one hand the general tendency is a non-null preverbal zone, which can be occupied by an adverbial syntagm, a conjunction and even more so by a subject pronoun, this same zone can also be a weak position attracting clitics. This syntactic ambiguity may have led to the elimination of referential and non-referential subject pronouns, whereas they seemed to be able to enter the orbit of the verb and merge with the clitic group. Around 1800, constructions with expressed subject pronouns are no longer well documented. The various grammatical means of expressing indefiniteness, which favoured the use of (preverbal) subject pronouns, are generally replaced by a construction with a verbal inflection 3PL, as in (30), compatible with modern dialectological data (see Marcon 1987, 74): (30) Troisiemoment, liour damondount d’estre fidèles .à [lo] lei ..thirdly ..............them ask-PRS.3PL to=be ..faithful to the law ‘Third, they are asked to be faithful to the law.’ (SocConstPuy, 18th)

CONCLUSION Our corpus of Occitan texts from the ancient Velay, which necessarily provides incomplete documentation since it is constrained by the contingencies of transmission and preservation, allows us to understand the main trends of the history of subject pronouns in the geolinguistic field of interest. The difficulty in interpreting these pronouns is that they are

Null Subjects and Subject Pronouns in Diachrony

95

complex phenomena, but it is appropriate to distinguish between syntactic and phonological levels. What clues are given by our corpus? First of all, subject pronouns have not been integrated into the syntactic structure as clitics. Their grammaticalization as clitics has been blocked because they are governed by a double tension: if they tend to integrate the left periphery which can be a weak zone, they seem to keep their status as tonic elements and we follow Sauzet (2007) who interprets them as morphosyntactically underspecified forms. The use of subject pronouns is therefore less a matter of semantic processes such as focusing than of the non-obligatory expression of agentivity. While dialectally the cliticization of subject pronouns can lead to success, it seems that in our linguistic field we are witnessing a retraction movement, but which in reality is maybe not general, since unlike referential and indefinite pronouns, constructions with the neutral demonstrative pronoun aco seem to have completed its grammaticalization cycle. Thus, from a diachronic perspective, it seems appropriate to consider the continuity of a (binary) parameter [+NULL SUBJECT], supported by the maintenance of a rich verbal inflectional system, while assuming parametric microvariations that need to be further investigated14. Despite its situation on the fringes of the Oïlic and Franco-Provençal domains and its early francization, it seems that syntactic loan phenomena cannot be envisaged: the use of subject pronouns is present as soon as the scripta emerges, i.e., before the integration of French into the linguistic architecture, and they decline when the francization is the most massive. Comparison with neighbouring linguistic domains would shed light on the general processes at work in this complex structure, but similar data provided before us suggest a global phenomenon that excludes only a few margins.

14

For micro-parameterization in other Romance varieties, see Roberts (2014).

96

Vincent Surrel

REFERENCES ALAL = Potte 1975–1992. Alibert, Louis. 1976 [11935]. Gramatica occitana segon los parlars lengadocians. Montpelhièr: CEO. [Occitan grammar according to Languedocian dialect.] ALMC = Nauton 1957–1963 Auger, Julie. 2003. “Les pronoms clitiques sujets en picard: une analyse au confluent de la phonologie, de la morphologie et de la syntaxe.” Journal of French Language Studies 13: 1–22. [“Subject clitic pronouns in Picard: an analysis at the interface of phonology, morphology and syntax.”] Bossong, Georg. 2008. Die romanischen Sprachen. Eine vergleichende Einführung. Hamburg: Buske. [The Romance languages. A comparative introduction] Bouvier, Jean-Claude. 1971. “Le pronom personnel sujet et la frontière linguistique entre provençal et francoprovençal.” Revue de linguistique romane 35: 1–17. [“The personal subject pronoun and the linguistic border between Provençal and Franco-Provençal.” Revue de linguistique romane] Brusewitz, Victor. 1905. Étude historique sur la syntaxe des pronoms personnels dans la langue des Félibres. Stockholm: Marcus. [Historical study on the syntax of personal pronouns in the language of Félibres] Chabaneau, Camille. 1877. “Ti interrogatif en provençal moderne.” Romania 6: 442–443. [“Ti interrogative in modern Provencal.” Romania] Donaldson, Bryan. 2016. “Preverbal subjects, information structure, and object clitic position in Old Occitan.” Journal of Linguistics 52: 37–69. Goebl, Hans. 2002. “Analyse dialectométrique des structures de profondeur de l’ALF.” Revue de linguistique romane 66: 5–63. [“Dialectometric analysis of ALF depth structures.” Romance linguistics review] Heap, David. 2000. La variation grammaticale en géolinguistique: les pronoms sujets en roman central. Munich: Lincom Europa.

Null Subjects and Subject Pronouns in Diachrony

97

[Grammatical variation in geolinguistics: subject pronouns in central Romance.] Heap, David, and Oliviéri, Michèle. 2013. “On the emergence of nominative clitics in Romance dialects.” Presentation at the Workshop on European Dialect Syntax VII, University of Constance, 13-15 June. http://ling.unikonstanz.de/pages/home/edisyn2013/EDISYN_HeapOlivieri_2013.pdf. Hinzelin, Marc-Olivier, and Kaiser, Georg. 2012. “Le paramètre du sujet nul dans les variétés dialectales de l’occitan et du francoprovençal.” In Études de linguistique gallo-romane, edited by Mario Barra-Jover, Guylaine Brun-Trigaud, Jean-Philippe Dalbera, Patrick Sauzet, and Tobias Scheer, 247–260. Saint-Denis: Presses Universitaires de Vincennes. [“The null subject parameter in the dialectal varieties of Occitan and Franco-Provençal.” In Gallo-Roman linguistics studies] Holmberg, Anders. 2015. “Verb second.” In Syntax - Theory and Analysis: An International Handbook, Volume 1, edited by Tibor Kiss, and Artemis Alexiadou, 342–383. Berlin/Munich/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. Jensen, Frede. 1994. Syntaxe de l’ancien occitan. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. [Medieval Occitan syntax] Lafont, Robert. 1967. La phrase occitane: Essai d’analyse systématique. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. [The Occitan phrase: An essay of systematic analysis.] Lafont, Robert. 1991. “Okzitanisch: Interne Sprachgeschichte I. Grammatik.” In Lexikon der Romanistischen Linguistik (LRL). Band V/2. Okzitanisch, Katalanisch, edited by Günter Holtus, Michael Metzeltin, and Christian Schmitt, 1–18. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag. [“Occitan: Internal Language History I. Grammar.” In Lexicon of Romance Linguistics (LRL). Volume V / 2. Occitan, Catalan] Lodge, Robert A. 1995. “Okzitanische Skriptaformen II. Auvergne.” In Lexikon der Romanistischen Linguistik (LRL). Band II/2. Die einzelnen romanischen Sprachen und Sprachgebiete vom Mittelalter bis zur Renaissance. Les différentes langues romanes et leurs régions d’implantation du Moyen Âge à la Renaissance, edited by Günter

98

Vincent Surrel

Holtus, Michael Metzeltin, and Christian Schmitt, 420–424. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag. [“Occitan script forms II. Auvergne.” In Lexicon of Romance Linguistics (LRL). Volume II / 2. The individual Romance languages and language areas from the Middle Ages to the Renaissance. The different Romance languages and their regions from the Middle Ages to the Renaissance] Marcon, Guy. 1987. Étude phonétique, morphologique, syntaxique et lexicale du parler occitan de Pradelles (Haute-Loire). Lille: ANRT. [Phonetic, morphological, syntactic and lexical study of the Occitan language of Pradelles (Haute-Loire).] Nauton, Pierre. 1957-1963. Atlas linguistique et ethnographique du Massif Central. Paris: CNRS. [Linguistic and ethnographic atlas of the Massif Central.] Nauton, Pierre. 1974. Géographie phonétique de la Haute-Loire. Paris: Les Belles Lettres. [Phonetic geography of Haute-Loire] Oliviéri, Michèle. 2004. “Paramètre du sujet nul et inversion du sujet dans les dialectes italiens et occitans.” Cahiers de grammaire 29: 105–120. [“Null subject parameter and subject inversion in Italian and Occitan dialects.” Grammar notebooks] Oliviéri, Michèle. 2009. “Syntactic Parameters and Reconstruction.” In Workshop on Null-Subjects, Expletives and Locatives in Romance, edited by Georg Kaiser, and Eva-Maria Remberger, 27–46. Konstanz: Fachbereich Sprachwissenschaft Universität Konstanz. Oliviéri, Michèle. 2015. “Le statut des pronoms sujets dans les dialectes du nord de l’Occitanie.” In Paroddi varghji. Mélanges offerts à Marie-José Dalbera-Stefanaggi, edited by Stella Retali-Medori, 289–302. Alessandria: Edizioni dell’Orso. [“The status of subject pronouns in the dialects of northern Occitania.” In Paroddi varghji. Volume in Honor of Marie-José Dalbera-Stefanaggi] Oliviéri, Michèle, and Sauzet, Patrick. 2016. “Southern Gallo-Romance (Occitan).” In The Oxford guide to the Romance Languages, edited by Adam Ledgeway, and Martin Maiden, 319–349. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Null Subjects and Subject Pronouns in Diachrony

99

Pfister, Max. 2002. “L’area galloromanza.” In Lo spazio letterario del Medioevo. II. Il Medioevo volgare. Volume II. La circolazione del testo, edited by Piero Boitani, Mario Mancini, and Alberto Vàrvaro, 13–96. Roma: Salerno. [“The Galloromanza area.” In The literary space of the Middle Ages. II. The vulgar Middle Ages. Volume II. The circulation of the text] Posner, Rebecca. 1996. The Romance languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Potte, Jean-Claude. 1975-1992. Atlas linguistique et ethnographique de l’Auvergne et du Limousin. Paris: CNRS. [Linguistic and ethnographic atlas of Auvergne and Limousin.] Roberts, Ian. 2007. Diachronic syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Roberts, Ian. 2014. “Subject clitics and macroparameters.” In Diachrony and Dialects: Grammatical change in the dialects of Italy, edited by Paola Benincà, Adam Ledgeway, and Nigel Vincent, 177–201. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ronjat, Jules. 1930-1941. Grammaire istorique (sic) des parlers provençaux modernes. Montpellier: Société des langues romanes. [Historical grammar (sic) of modern Provençal dialects.] Rouveret, Alain 2015. Arguments minimalistes. Une présentation du Programme Minimaliste de Noam Chomsky. Lyon: ENS Éditions. [Minimalist arguments. A presentation of the Minimalist Program by Noam Chomsky] Sauzet, Patrick. 2007. “L’emplec dels pronoms subjèctes e la lenga d’Augièr Galhard.” Lengas 62: 77–114. [“The use of subject pronouns and the language of Augièr Galhard. ” Lengas] Savoia, Leonardo M., and Manzini, Rita. 2010. “Les clitiques sujets dans les variétés occitanes et francoprovençales italiennes.” Corpus 9: 165–189 https://journals.openedition.org/corpus/1904. [“Subject clitics in Italian Occitan and Franco-Provençal varieties.” Corpus] Sibille, Jean. 2012. “Les clitiques sujets dans le parler occitan de Chiomonte et des Ramats (Italie).” Revue de linguistique romane 76: 401–435. [“The clitics subjects in the Occitan dialect of Chiomonte and Ramats (Italy).”]

100

Vincent Surrel

Sitaridou, Ioanna. 2005. “A corpus-based study of null subjects in Old French and Old Occitan.” In Romance corpus linguistics II: Corpora and diachronic linguistics, edited by Claus D. Pusch, Johannes Kabatek, and Wolfgang Raible, 359–374. Tübingen: Gunter Narr. Stroh, Hans. 1971. “Remarques sur l’emploi du pronom personnel sujet en rouergat moderne.” Revue de linguistique romane 35: 271–278. [“Notes on the Use of the Subject Personal Pronoun in Modern Rouergat.” Romance linguistics review] Wheeler, Max W. 1988. “Occitan.” In The Romance Languages, edited by Martin Harris and Nigel Vincent, 246–278. London: Croom Helm. Wolfe, Sam. 2018. “Occitan, verb second and the Medieval Romance word order debate.” In Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 13: Selected papers from ‘Going Romance’ 29, Nijmegen, edited by Janine Berns, Haike Jacobs, and Dominique Nouveau, 315–336. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

In: The Emergence of Grammars Editor: Michela Russo

ISBN: 978-1-53619-888-1 © 2021 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

Chapter 4

ACCOUNTING FOR THE DEFINITE ARTICLES IN MEDIEVAL ITALIAN AND MODERN DIALECTS. NO ALLOMORPHY A COMMON UR Michela Russo1,* and Shanti Ulfsbjorninn2 1

Linguistics Department, Lyon 3 University and UMR 7023 SFL CNRS, France 2 Modern Languages and Basque Studies Department Deusto University, Spain

ABSTRACT Italo-Romance presents a complex array of definite articles, proclitically bound and often listed in descriptive grammar as allomorphic forms. In this article we explain the variation in shape of the definite articles in multiple systems without resorting to allomorphy. This includes dialectal forms with ‘unexpected’ gemination before vowel-initial stems (never previously analysed) and indefinite/mass articles. We show that a

*

Corresponding Author’s E-mail: [email protected] and [email protected].

102

Michela Russo and Shanti Ulfsbjorninn bisyllabic underlying representation for the definite article is surprisingly uniform across time and space in Italy. Our major claim is that this underlying form and its morphological exponents have remained virtually unchanged since Medieval ItaloRomance and the only important changes have been to the phonological processes that affect its surface realisation. This analysis brings together diachrony, many modern dialects and Standard Italian under a shared, morphologically unified, decompositional analysis that is compatible with Distributed Morphology assumptions.

Keywords: allomorphy, bisyllabic UR, (in)definiteness, bare articles, φfeatures

1. INTRODUCTION. THERE IS NO ALLOMORPHY IN THE ITALO-ROMANCE DEFINITE ARTICLES Standard Italian articles are governed by well-known phonologicallyconditioned allomorphic rules, especially in the masculine form 1 . The complexity of the synchronic articles distribution is ‘listed’ in reference and descriptive grammars according to a paradigm of gender and number, and in the frame of syllabification rules which govern the insertion of the articles with the following onset. The basic assumption behind the allomorphic articles’ selection is that certain segmental combinations word-initial are constrained by phonotactic rules, thus the allomorph selection is based on syllable structure. Our claim is that the allomorphic forms of the articles are not lexically stored, and instead it is possible to reduce them to a single underlying representation (UR). The surface variants are therefore derived rather than listed as separate lexical entries. The shape of the proclitic article varies in accordance with the shape of the stem, for instance, the definite masculine singular surfaces as in (1): 1

See among others: Repetti (2020); Faust (et al. 2018); Kramer (2009, 86–87); Russi (2006); McCrary (2004); Tranel and Del Gobbo (2002); Russo (2002); Del Gobbo (2001); Nikiema (2000); Davis (2000); Larsen (1998); Vanelli (1992); Marotta (1993, 1988); Nespor (1993); Kaye (1992, 4–5); Davis (1990); Chierchia (1986); Dressler (1985); Muljačić (1974, 1971); Stammerjohann (1973); Romeo (1969).

Accounting for the Definite Articles in Medieval Italian …

103

(1) Standard Italian articles allomorphic rules Masculine definite singular [il/lo/l] a. C-initial and TR clusters (T = any obstruant, R = sonorant) [il] + C1 (C2) C2 = sonorant [il + ˈtavolo] ‘il tavolo/the table’ [il + ˈtrɛ:no] ‘il treno/the train’2 b. [l] + V-initial [l + ˈalbero] ‘l’albero/the tree’ [l + opeˈrajo] ‘l’operaio/the worker’ c. [lo] + sC-initial and [lo] + SC1 (C2) C2 = sonorant [lo + sˈta:to] ‘lo stato/the state’ [lo + skwa:lo] ‘lo squalo/the shark’ [lo + sˈtrappo] ‘lo strappo/the sprain’ d. Initial Geminate and Bogus clusters [lo] + C1= C2 C2 = /ts dz ʎ ʃ ɲ/ [lo tˈs:i:o] ‘lo zio/the uncle’ [lo ʃˈʃɔkko] ‘lo sciocco/the stupid’ [lo ʃˈʃ a:me] ‘lo sciame/the beehive’ [lo ɲˈɲɔ:mo] ‘lo gnomo/the gnome’ [lo] + Bogus clusters [lo psiˈkɔlogo] ‘lo psicologo/ the psychologist’3 Feminine definite singular [la/l] a. C-initial and TR clusters [la ˈkanna] ‘la canna/the hosepipe’ b. [l] + V-initial [ˈlɔ:ka] ‘l’oca/the goose’ c. sC-initial [la skwɔ:la] ‘la scuola/the school’ d. Initial Geminate and Bogus clusters 2

See also [il ˈkwa:dro] ‘il quadro/the painting’, [il ˈtroŋko] ‘il tronco/the trunk’, etc. and masculine plural [i ˈkwa:dri] ‘i quadri/the painting’, [i ˈtroŋki] ‘i tronchi/the trunk’. 3 The consonant /p/ can be followed in Standard Italian by /n s t/, see also [lo pneuˈmatiko] ‘lo pneumatico/the tire’, [lo ptjaˈlizmo] ‘lo ptialismo/the ptyalism’.

104

Michela Russo and Shanti Ulfsbjorninn [la ʃˈʃi:a] [la psiˈkɔloga]

‘la scia/the streak’ ‘la psicologa/the psychologist’

Given the basic facts in (1), it may seem impossible to derive the variants of the masculine singular [il, lo, l] from each other, let alone the plural forms [i, ʎi]. Therefore, the conclusion has been that the various forms /il, lo, l/ are selected in accordance with the phonological shape of the base. However, contrary to the expectations of phonologically conditioned allomorphy, the allomorph selection in this case is not optimizing: *[lo tre:no] would have been more optimal than [il tre:no] *CC. It is no clear why the allomorph [il], which introduces a coda is preferred in the singular before a consonant. The correlation of the variants in (1) states that the allomorph definite masculine article [il] ‘il/the’ is selected before consonantal onsets ([il +ˈtavolo] ‘il tavolo/the table’) and before rising-sonority consonant clusters such as [il +ˈtre:no] ‘il treno/the train’ (1a)4, unless those rising-sonority clusters are from an ‘irregular’ set of exceptions: [lo + pneuˈmatiko], see below. The allomorph definite article [l] is selected before vowels [l + ˈalbero] ‘l’albero/the tree’ (1b). The general explanation is that certain segmental sequences are prohibited, Italian phonotactic seems to disfavour onsetless syllables with initial V (hence [ˈlalbero]). Likewise, rhymeless syllables with an initial extrasyllabic segment (/s/ in /sC/ sequences) or initial geminates, which are naturally heterosyllabic segments, are equally disfavoured by selecting [lo], which allows for the coda syllabification of such segments (Nikiema 2000; Baroni 2011). The allomorph definite article [lo] is selected before s + C-initial sequences (as in (1c) [lo + sˈta:to] ‘lo stato/the state’), where /s/ could be argued to be extrasyllabic, certain consonant clusters (bogus clusters: [lo + psiˈkɔlogo] ‘lo psicologo/the psychologist’) and inherent initial geminates ([lo + tˈs:i:o] ‘lo zio/the uncle’), as in (1d). For bogus clusters we mean a particular type of branching onsets, with rising sonority /ps, pt, pn, tl…/ more susceptible to be split up

4

For the very rare exceptions such as [lo zˈla:vo] ‘lo slavo/the Slav’, [lo zradikaˈmento] ‘lo sradicamento/the eradication’, see Muljačić (1974).

Accounting for the Definite Articles in Medieval Italian …

105

by epenthesis /pVs/: (Harris 1994; Sheer 2004; Ulfsbjorninn 2017; Russo 2019a)5. The feminine definite article surfaces as ‘la’ if nouns start in a consonant, but the determiner also lacks the vowel ( = [l]) if nouns start in a vowel: [l+u:va] > [ˈlu:va] ‘l’uva/the grape’. The elision of the final /-o/ or /-a/ from [lo] and [la], which results in = [l] is due to the tendency to avoid hiatus (heterosyllabic VV sequences). As for [lo + tˈs:i:o] ‘lo zio’ in (1d), [lo] is selected by the nouns beginning with the Italian five initial consonants /ts dz ʎ ʃ ɲ/ for which the pronunciation is always geminate at the beginning of the word and wordinternally: they are the palatals [ʎʎ], [ɲɲ], [ʃʃ] and the alveolar affricates [tts] and [ddz] (Muljačić (1969, 411–412)6. Nouns having these five consonants in initial position, /sC/sequences and bogus clusters always select [lo] in the singular and gli [ʎi] in the plural (1d) and (2): (2) Behavior of /ts dz ʎ ʃ ɲ/ underlying long segments combined to the allomorphic article7 5

Within the Strict CV theory (an offspring of Government Phonology, see below), the bogus clusters template is made by an empty nucleus between the two members of the cluster, with no licensing relationship between the two elements. 6 The palatal glide /j/ is also a potential geminate. Thus, the allomorph [lo] is also selected before words beginning with the /j/: [lo jˈja:to] ‘lo iato/the hiatus’ or [lo jˈjo:ne] ‘lo ione/the ion’. The palatal glide /j/ is also considered an underlying long segment in the literature, Russo (2002); Loporcaro (2001); Schmid (1999, 169), Marotta (1988); Muljačić (1969, 411); for a parallel in Gallo-Romance, see Scheer and Ségéral (2020). To support the argument of /j/ as long segment, the distributional selection of [lo] is crucial: the article distribution makes us to distinguish the structures of the sequences [jV] from the sequences of [wV], which select [l] (lo iato [lo jˈja:to] vs. l’uomo). This indicates on one side a consonantal status of the onset /j/, on the other side, it shows that /j/ behaves as long palatals and affricates not only in the regional variaties, but also in Standard Italian, namely it is phonologically long (Russo 2002). We also recall that [il] and [l] are variants not in use anymore before the nuclear glide /j/, even if there exist a few cases mentioned by Serianni (1989, 116): l’iato (Italo Calvino, Ti con zero) and il Jugoslavo ‘the Yugoslav’, Primo Levi). Muljačić (1974, 69) also reports this fact: “il sottoallomorfo l’ si usa facoltativamente se la parola inizia con il legamento nongrave (/j/)” (= the sub-allomorph is used optionally if the word begins with the non-labiovelar glide). The indefinite article un/uno ‘a’ is more uncertain before /j/ in the usage of Italian litterature Serianni (1989, 116): [un jettaˈtore] ‘un iettatore/a jinxer’, D’Annunzio, Gozzano). Finally, the feminine article la and una do not get elided before /j/: la Juve [la jˈju:ve] ‘the Juve’. This argument strengthens to the phonological status of long /j/, that brings the palatal glide /j/ closer to /ts dz ʎ ʃ ɲ/. 7 We must recall that synchronically /ʎʎ/-initial geminate concerns only Italo-Romance dialectal variation. The few words that have entered Standard Italian are borrowed, such as the Neapolitan [ʎˈʎɔmmero] ‘gliommero/skein’, entered in Italian with the meaning of a

106

Michela Russo and Shanti Ulfsbjorninn a. [lo] + Initial Geminate [tts ddz ʎʎ ʃʃ ɲɲ] MSG MPL [lo tˈs:i:o] [ʎitˈtˈs:i:i] ‘gli zii / the uncles’ [loʃˈʃa:me] [ʎiʃˈʃa:mi] ‘gli sciame/ the swarms’ [loɲˈɲɔ:mo] [ʎiɲˈɲɔ:mi] ‘gli gnomo / the dwarfs’ [lo ddzɔkkolo] [ʎidˈdzɔkkolo] ‘gli zoccoli/ wooden shoe’ b. Geminate Word-Internally [tts ddz ʎʎ ʃʃ ɲɲ] [ˈlaʃʃa] ‘lascia/he leaves’ [ˈbaɲɲo] ‘bagno/bath’ [ˈfiʎʎo] ‘figlio/son’ [ˈpɛttsa] ‘pezza/rag’ [ˈmɛddzo] ‘mezzo/means’

The masculine plural forms of the definite articles are [i] ‘i’ and [ʎi] ‘gli’ such as in (2) and in (3)8. Summing up, the articles ‘lo’ and the correlated masculine plural ‘gli’ [ʎi] are selected before sC-initial sequences and codified by the Italian grammar next to ‘il’ and its correlated masculine plural ‘i’ [i]. Before vowels we always find [l] in the singular (1b), as well as [ʎi] ‘gli’ in the masculine plural: (3) Masculine plural definite articles (Standard Italian) [i/ʎi] [ʎi + sˈta:ti] ‘the states’ MSG [lo + sˈta:to] [lo/ʎi] [ʎi +ˈalberi] ‘the tree’ MSG [l + ˈalbero] [l/ʎi] [i ˈtrɛ:ni] ‘the trains’ MSG [il + ˈtrɛ:no] [il/i] [i ˈtavoli] ‘the tables’ MSG [il + ˈtavolo] [il/i] particular poetic composition, sense already existing in Neapolitan. In standard Italian /ʎ/ is only found intervocalically realized as a geminate, see (2b), and in the masculine plural definite article [ʎi]. 8 We deal in section 4 with the syntactico-semantic correlation in the same nominal paradigm between the MSG definite article ‘il’ and FPL ‘le’ such as Standard Italian ‘il braccio/le braccia’ = ‘the arm/the arms’ (see Russo 2007, 2009, 2021; Acquaviva 2008; Franco et al. 2015; Cavirani 2018).

Accounting for the Definite Articles in Medieval Italian …

107

Once again, the allomorphic selection is not optimal: it is unclear why the onsetless syllable allomorph [i] is preferred in the plural, nor why the allomorph [ʎi] co-occurs with the coda in the plural. In both cases, the representation of plural involves a φ-maker [i]. Faust et al. (2018), building on Larsen (1998), propose that this is not strictly speaking allomorphy because all Italian articles share a common underlying form that varies in shape according to phonological conditions. Along these lines, we focus on the allomorphic correlation of definite articles, aiming to review the traditional interpretation of the distribution usually given in Italian grammars in terms of synchronic and diachronic reality. We particularly concentrate on the shape of definite articles through Italo-Romance dialectal variation. Furthermore, in Southern Italo-Romance varieties, the existence of the mass/count distinction within the Determiner Phrases (DPs), for both (in)definite articles and mass nouns, shows the insufficiency of a purely phonological analysis (Russo and Ulfsbjorninn 2018; Russo 2019b, 2021). We assume that the articles distribution in ItaloRomance varieties is morphophonological, not only phonological, although the underlying form of the article always has the phonological shape of two CV units. In the following sections, we offer a decompositional analysis of the determiner (within Government Phonology, Kaye et al. 1990; and within the Strict CV model, Lowenstamm 1996, 1999, 2000; Scheer 2004, 2011, 2015) that is consistent with the Distributed Morphology (DM) assumptions (Morris and Marantz 1993; Marantz 1997, 2007; Lowenstamm 2008; Franco et al. 2015). Crucially, we assume that the underlying form of the definite article is composed of two CV units (‘bisyllabic’): C1V1C2V2. Definiteness is marked by a floating vowel under V1 and a floating /l/ sits under C2, while V2 expones -features.

Michela Russo and Shanti Ulfsbjorninn

108

2. PHONOLOGICAL ALTERNATIONS IN ITALIAN ARTICLES 2.1. Why No Allomorphy? This analysis describes a process called: phonologically conditioned allomorphy (see Nevins 2011). Architecturally, it implies that vocabulary insertion makes direct reference to the phonological shape of lexical objects. Though this is certainly not unprecedented (Paster 2005, 2014, 2015, 2017; Nevins 2011), it is essential to confirm that this is the best analysis for the data (excluding architecturally simpler options). Insightfully, Larsen (1998) proposed a different type of analysis, which undercuts the ‘selectional’ allomorphy account and is architecturally simpler. He proposes that the masculine singular determiners are all derived from a common underlying form: [il, lo, l] = l. The analysis relies on the notion of floating objects, the contrastive status of melody/features being attached to a skeletal position (C/V) (fixed = yes, floating = no) (cf. Charette 1991; Zoll 1993; Guerssel and Lowenstamm 1996; Zimmermann 2017). Along the lines of Larsen (1998) and Faust et al. (2018), the underlying representation of [il]/[lo]/[l] is /(i)l+(o)/ as in (4): (4) The UR of the masculine determiner C1

V1 i

C2 | l

V2 o

In (4), the featural material under V1 and V2 is floating. The material under C2 is fixed. We have a template of two CV units, definiteness is realized by /(i)l/ and the final vowel realize the φ-features. We briefly recall some theoretical autosegmental principles of the framework called Strict CV that are used to build templatic structures such as in (4) (Lowenstamm 1996; Scheer 2004). The CV template is a strict alternation of non-branching nuclei and non-branching onsets. The distribution of empty V-positions is constrained by the Empty Category Principle (ECP) and Proper Government (PG) (Kaye et al. 1985,

Accounting for the Definite Articles in Medieval Italian …

109

1990)9. According to the notion of Government (Kaye et al. 1990; Charette 1991), empty positions must be followed by ungoverned positions that ‘govern’ them. C/V positions can be filled with melody/features or be empty. Floating melody cannot link to governed positions. The representational configuration presented in (4) and its conditions are all independently required in this framework to handle other general phonological processes (vowel-zero alternations), none of this machinery is specific to the reanalysis of allomorphy. The realization of [i] and [o] depends on governement. (5) Derivation of /il, lo, l/ (a) UR in C-initial stem Def + φ-feature

[il pakko] ‘il pacco/the pack’

(b) il + C-initial stem

(c) UR in Bogus cluster-initial stem [lo psiˈkɔlogo] ‘lo psicologo/the psychologist’

9

The Empty Category Principle (ECP) states that an empty V position may be phonetically noninterpreted if and only if it is properly governed. According to Proper Government (PG), A properly governs B if and only if A governs B from the right to the left, and A is not properly governed.

110

Michela Russo and Shanti Ulfsbjorninn (d) [lo] + Bogus cluster-initial stem

Because the variation in form is being derived from a single underlying form, the pattern does not constitute true allomorphy (Faust et al. 2018). There is no competition between variants for insertion (such as ‘PRIORITY’ Bonet et al. 2007), the scenario under which the same grammatical information is associated to more than one lexical representation. In this more architecturally streamlined model of the phenomenon, vocabulary insertion does not have to consult the phonological form of the morphemes to generate the surface variation of the articles. The basic shape of the definite article in Standard Italian is shown to be as represented in Faust et al. (2018). Crucially, in this analysis, the apparently monosyllabic variants [il, lo, l]10 are all underlyingly ‘bisyllabic’ (composed of 2 CV units) (see 6). (6) Standard Italian decompositional analysis

10

Faust et al. (2018) also derive the masculine plural variants: [ʎi, ʎ(i)] and we show in section 4 the phonological evidence for the underlying bisyllabicity of the indefinite feminine plural and mass articles through Italo-Romance dialectal variation.

Accounting for the Definite Articles in Medieval Italian …

111

Similarly, the plural [i/ʎ] derive from two CV units and palatalization /il + i/. The second /i/ acts as a palatal licensor (Faust et al. 2018) as shown in (7). This occurs whenever V2 cannot be governed and the /i/ of the plural masculine links to V2. This occurs before /sC/ sequences, with initial geminates, bogus clusters, and in vowel-initial stems ([ʎi ˈalberi]). Where there is no palatal licensor attached in V2, as shown in (8), the palatalized /l/ of the article is simply deleted: [i ˈtavoli] ‘the tables’. In the following structures, the palatalized /l/ is shown with its palatalizing trigger with { }. This ‘palatal complex’ is licensed by the /i/ in V2. (7) [ʎi + sˈta:ti] ‘gli stati/the states’

(8) [i ˈtavoli] complex deleted)

‘the tables’

Palatal Licensor

No Palatal Licensor (palatal

The Standard Italian feminine articles SG [la] and PL [le] do not show allomorphy according to the following onset: C-initial [la ˈkanna] ‘the hosepipe’, /sC/ [la skwɔ:la] ‘the school’, initial geminate [la ʃˈʃi:a] ‘the streak’ or bogus clusters [la psiˈkɔloga] ‘the psychologist’, since de first V is always governed as in (9):

112

Michela Russo and Shanti Ulfsbjorninn (9) /(i) l a/ [la] C V1 C | i l

/l/ = Def V2 | a

/a/ = φ-feat

We find the feminine article [l] + V-initial [ˈlɔ:ka] ‘the goose’. However, in many varieties of Southern Italian we find feminine plural and mass uncountable forms of the (in)definite article with gemination of /l/ DEF before vowel-initial stems. These forms are discussed in sections 2.2, 2.3 and 4. Especially for the indefinite/mass article, we will show some additional issues and morphosyntacic strategies to express uncountability within DPs including a mass N(oun) and the prenominal indefinite determiner (section 4). For all these forms, definite singular and plural articles, as well as the indefinite singular and indefinite feminine plural, we reduce the allomorphy to one underlying representation. In the following section, we will show that the bisyllabic structure is surprisingly uniform across time and space in Italy. Our analysis can be extended to Medieval Italo-Romance varieties and many modern dialects.

2.2. (Underlying) Bisyllabic Articles in Medieval Italian and Modern Dialects The definite masculine article come from the Latin pronoun ILLUM, shifted from ‘that’ to ‘the’ and truncated in ‘lo’/’la’ (Baroni 2011ms; Vanelli 1992; Dressler 1985), while the allomorphic masculine plural forms [i] and [ʎi] derive from Latin ILLI. Between [lo] and [il], the form /l/ + V [lo] is the oldest, according to the literature the form V + /l/ [il] derived from the truncated one, and the initial vowel is considered epenthetic (Baroni 2011ms; Vanelli 1992; Formentin 2010).

Accounting for the Definite Articles in Medieval Italian …

113

The Standard Italian [lo] form surfaced in Medieval Italian as head of a DP structure at the beginning of a phrase before any onset: < lo giorno > [lo ˈdʒorno] ‘the day’ or [lo ˈpasso] ‘the step’ (Formentin 2010). It was also the only form after a final consonant: < rimirar lo passo > ‘admire the pass’. Conversely, after a vowel, [il/l] was selected: < paura il cor> ‘fear the heart’ or < che ‘l > [kel] ‘that the’11: (10) Medieval Distribution of Italian Definite Article lo giorno sen’andava (Dante Inf. II,1) ‘the day went by’ si volse a retro a rimirar lo passo (Dante Inf. I,27) ‘Turned himself behind to admire the pass’ [...] di paura il cor [...] (Dante Inf. I.15) ‘of fear the heart’ [...] che ‘l piè [...] (Dante Inf. I.30) ‘that the foot’ We recall that according to Gröber’s law [l] is an enclitic to the previous lexical item ending in a vowel: = [kel] ‘that the’. This strengthens the mentioned hypothesis that in the [il] form [i] is epenthetic before [l], not etymological (Gröber 1877; Vanelli 1998, 169–214; Formentin 2010). Furthermore, this gives just one marker of definiteness DEF D°, the segment [l] generated from the [lo] form after apocope of [o] in the enclitic contexts: [kel]. We have shown in the previous section that these two allomorphic realizations depend on government and dependency relationships in the autosegmental framework. The current geographical and typological distribution of articles within DPs [DP D° [NP N]] shows that in Northern Italian dialects, before consonantinitial nouns, we get the so called ‘weak type’ [il] (as in Standard Italian),

11

The period to which the (Dante) examples date is before 1321. These examples are taken from Formentin (2010).

114

Michela Russo and Shanti Ulfsbjorninn

whereas in Southern Italian dialects we find the so called ‘strong type’: [lu/o]12. This distribution is generally motivated as follows: in Northern Italian dialects apocope occurred after a sonorant, while Southern dialects kept the vowel after the defineteness marker [l] (e.g., Neapolitan masculine definite article [o], section 4). Interestingly, we also find the strong type [lV] in a few Northern peripheral areas, such as in Ligurian modern dialects. Additionally, some other varieties such as Veneziano, Central Friulano changed from the strong type to the weak type in recent times (Benincà and Vanelli 1998, 72–73). In addition, there are also shapes of the definite article that spell out, diachronically and synchronically, as bisyllabic forms from the underlying representation (UR), which we are dealing with in this section. These variants of the definite article are typically found before vowelinitial stems (D + #_V) in medieval and modern dialects, from Tuscany to Sicily, and are characterised by a geminate [ll] and sometimes by an extended form of the DEF D° where the geminate in preceded by an epenthetic vowel [i/e/a]: [ill]/[ell]/[all]13. The data in (11) on Medieval Italian dialects have been taken from the Corpus TLIO via a direct search (= Tesoro della Lingua Italiana delle Origini www.vocabolario.org). We have selected data from modern Tuscan dialects from the online NavigAIS maps, illustrated in Table 114:

12

‘°’ as exponent of D° indicates the functional head of the DP phrase, the Determiner Phrase. Rohlfs (1966–1969, II, § 416 and § 420). For the [ill] forms in Tuscany, see Agostiniani (1980, 84–87), Renzi and Vanelli (1993, 296); Formentin (2002, 14, n° 17, 2010). For the Southern Italo-Romance forms, see Formentin (1996, 259–260, 2002, 13–14 and n.16; Russo 2021). Some epenthetic forms in Tuscany (senesi) [ell-] are also mentioned by Castellani (2000, 358, n. 202). 14 From the AIS maps n° 1539 ‘l’ago/gli aghi/the needle/the needles’, n° 1129 ‘l’ala/le ali/the wing/the wings, n° 524 ‘l’amo/the fishhook’, n° 917 ‘l’esca/the bait’, n° 1149 ‘l’oca/the duck’, n° 1132 ‘l’uovo/le uova/the egg/the eggs, n° 1125 ‘far l’uova/laying eggs’, n° 827 ‘l’anno passato/last year’. See also Rohlfs (1966–1969, II, § 420). 13

Accounting for the Definite Articles in Medieval Italian …

115

Table 1. Tuscan forms of the extended DEF D° [vll] (with different nominal agreement) Tuscan Pitigliano (pt. 582)

Seggiano (pt. 572) Pisa Montecatini (pt. 542)16 Florence Vinci (pt. 522) Livorno Elba/Pomonte (pt. 570) Elba/Capoliveri17

[ilˈl ɔ:ka] [ilˈl a:la] [ilˈl a:le] [ilˈl a:ko] [ilˈl a:mu] [ilˈl ɔ:vu] [elˈleska] [elˈl an:o]

FSG FSG FPL MSG MSG MSG FSG MSG

St. Italian [ˈl ɔ:ka] [ˈl a:la] [ˈle a:li] [ˈl a:go] [ˈl a:mu] [ˈl wɔ:vo] [ˈl eska] [lˈanno]

[ɛlˈl a:mi]

MPL

[ʎi ˈa:mi]

‘gli ami/the fishhooks’

[ɛlˈl eska]

FSG

[ˈl eska]

‘l’esca/the bait’

[ilˈl u:va] [ilˈl ɔs:e]

FSG FPL

[ˈl u:va] [le ˈɔssa]

‘l’uva/ the grape’ ‘le ossa/ the bones’

‘l’oca/the duck’ ‘l’ala/the wing’ ‘le ali/the wings’ ‘l’ago/the needle’15 ‘l’amo/the fishhook’ ‘l’uovo/the egg’ ‘l’esca/the bait’ ‘l’anno/the year’

(11) Extended DEF D° [vll] Medieval Tuscan (13-14th c.) V-Initial [ell] = < ell’amore > ‘l’amore/the love’ Medieval Senese < ell’acqua > ‘l’acqua/the water’ < ell’occhio > ‘l’occhio/the eye’ Medieval Lucchese We have also found the extended form of the definite article in the Central dialects of Umbria, AIS map n° 1539 pt. 564 (Panicale/Perugia) [alˈl a:ko] ‘l’ago/the needle’, of Lazio, AIS 1149 pt. 603 (Acquapendente/Viterbo) [elˈlɔ:ka] ‘l’oca/the duck’. From field investigations conducted by the first author, the extended form of the

See also AIS Map n° 1539 pt. 590 Porto Santo Stefano (Grosseto) [elˈl a:d͡ʒi] ‘gli aghi’ ‘the needles’. 16 For the AIS map n° 524, see also pt. 532 (Montestertoli/Florence), pt. 534 (Incisa/Florence) [ɛlˈl a:mi] MPL ‘the fishhooks’, pt. 545 (Chavaretto/Arezzo), pt. 554 (Cortona/Arezzo) [elˈlɛ:mo] MSG ‘the fishhook’, pt. 572 (Seggiano/Grosseto) [elˈla:mo]. 17 Capoliveri on the Elba island in the province of Livorno is pt. 568 de l’ALI = Atlante Linguistico Italiano, http://www.atlantelinguistico.it/. 15

Michela Russo and Shanti Ulfsbjorninn

116

definite with the initial epenthetic vowel is found in several localities in the Campania region, Table 218: Table 2. Extended D° forms with epenthetic initial vowel – Campania Region [alˈla:k:w̥] [alˈlu:na] [ilˈlu:na] [ilˈlu:na] [ilˈlu:na] [ilˈla:pə]

‘l’acqua/the water’ ‘l’una/one o’clock’

‘l’ape/the bee’

Pozzuoli (Naples) Pozzuoli (Naples) Ottaviano (Naples) Somma Vesuviana (Naples) Squille (Caserta) Squille (Caserta)

Cross-dialectally, the extended forms of the article are found across Central and Southern Italian dialects under a shape of a lateral geminate [ll] + V-initial or with an epenthetic vowel preceding the lateral geminate [e/i/a/ll] + V-initial. For example the form with epenthesis [alˈl a:k:w̥] ‘l’acqua/the water’ (Pozzuoli) correspond to the Neapolitan with a geminate without epenthesis [lˈl a:k:w̥] and to the Standard Italian [l] without gemination or epenthesis: [ˈl + a:k:wa] ‘l’acqua’. A systematic and comprehensive description and interpretation of the extended bisyllabic articles ([(v)ll]) in Italian dialects (in synchrony and diachrony) had never been carried out before. These forms are not easy to interpret and are much more widespread than one might imagine. Unlike definite Italian article, which is inflected for number [l] SG / [ʎi] PL, the extended form [ll] can be singular and plural. In some dialects, gemination involves the subsequent hardening of /l/ into a stop or its palatalization. We find a consonantal hardening of [-ll-] (see section 4), for instance in Garfagnana and in Lunigiana (Nord-West Tuscany) we have

18

The extended D° [Vll] form does not vary according to the syntactic positions, e.g., SPEC/Subjet vs. Object. We find the extended definite article [alˈla:k:w̥] in all positions (Pozzuoli/Naples): [TP[SPEC alˈla:k:w̥] [T' sˈte:və [PP ˈsott [DP a funˈda:nə]]] ‘the water stood under the fountain’ or [TP si jˈje:və a ppiʎˈʎa [DP alˈla:k:w̥]] ‘(somebody) was going to fetch water’ / or in postverbal subject [TP ˈeranə [DP alˈl ewnaacc]] ‘era l’una’/it was one o’ clock’ (in the last exemple there is lazy concord between subject (SG) and verb (3rd PL) (Russo’s fieldwork).

Accounting for the Definite Articles in Medieval Italian …

117

[edˈd u:va] ‘l’uva/the grape’ [edˈd ɛrba] ‘l’erba/the grass’ (at Antona and Lucca). The ‘extended’ bisyllabic article appears closer to the Lat. ILLU than to the initial aphaeretic form of Standard Italian: [ˈl a:k:wa] ‘the water’. There is a correspondence between Tuscan definite article [ill/ell] ‘the’ and the forms with an aphaeretic initial syllable [ll] ‘the’ found in Southern Italian, that recall the extended forms. In general, what needs to be explained is why, in these forms, the definite article takes on this special extended shape. In line with what we have explained in the previous section, in the next section we will interpret the full range of extended bisyllabic forms. We will show that they are all surface instances of an underlying C1V1C2V2 representation.

2.3. Extended Bisyllabic Forms before Vowel-Initial Stems We will now focus on deriving the surface variation of the pre-vocalic extended forms. As we have seen in section 2.2, these are the variants in which we find gemination occurring before vowel initial stems: [ill/ell/all/ll]. Analysing the extended forms from a single UR has not previously been attempted. Diachronically, these forms correspond to a bisyllabic etymological geminate Lat. -LL-, however, nothing in the synchronic phonology should favor gemination in this position. Phonological optimization of a VC + V sequence would standardly produce V.CV. This proclitic is not a gemination/Raddoppiamento Sintattico trigger (see section 4). Since there is no synchronic motivation for gemination here, we term it ‘unexpected’. (12) Det. Vl + i/e/a//l

Stem V.C… + ombra ‘shadow’

Optimised form Actual form → V.lVC… Vl.lVC… *e.lombra [eˈl:ombra] ‘the shadow’

Michela Russo and Shanti Ulfsbjorninn

118

In fact, unexpected gemination in these dialects is simply understood as another surface instance of the C1V1C2V2 underlying bisyllabic representation of the article. In Faust et al. (2018)’s analysis, the vowel-initial variant (/l-/) is the result of hiatus induced truncation before vowel-initial roots. In (13) beneath, the floating melody is shown as superscripts, and the empty syllable. (13) /iloV + Cago/

→ iloVCago → lago → [l-ˈa:go] ‘the needle’

As shown above, the second CV of C1V1C2V2 is truncated before vowelinitial roots due to hiatus. This is the case for Standard Italian, however, it is categorically not the case in these dialects. Instead, in Medieval and modern Italian dialects, the preference is to expone the full bisyllabic structure of the determiner. Therefore, in these varieties the full skeletal content of the article’s UR C1V1C2V2 is maintained, the C2V2 is not truncated. In fact, it is Standard Italian that has an extra process of truncation, rather than the dialects having an ‘extended’ variant. The empty syllabic structure of the article’s UR C1V1C2V2 remains as part of the derivation and leads to gemination. The initial geminate also leads to initial epenthesis, again something which is predictable based on the derivation already shown, and the proposed UR is common to all the forms. (14) Deriving gemination in the ‘extended’ variants (a) Bisyllabic UR + stem /ila +uva/ (‘l’uva/the grape’)

(b)

[ilˈl u:va] ‘the grape’ (Elba, Table 1)

Accounting for the Definite Articles in Medieval Italian …

119

This analysis follows directly also for the ‘extended forms’ of the article accompanied by hardening of the geminate /l/ (such as [edˈd u:va], section 2.2). The phonological exponents of the morpho-syntactic features are essentially identical. The variation in surface forms is merely the effect of the micro-parametric differences in the phonological processes that interpret this UR according to its phonological context: Truncation or Gemination.

3. THE ‘EXTENDED’ MEDIEVAL VARIANTS AND PADOVAN VARIANT The same single bisyllabic UR has fully overt reflexes in some Medieval Italian areas, from Northern to Southern Italian, before vowels and consonants, see (15)19: (15) Fully overt reflexes of the ‘bisyllabic’ article UR in some Medieval Italian areas: (a) Medieval Veronese

‘i filosofi/the philosophers’ ‘i/the’ MPL (b) Medieval Padovano20

‘gli uomini/the men’ ‘i/the’ MPL (c) Medieval Marchigiano

‘il fanciullo/the child’ ‘il/the’ MSG

19 20

The following data on medieval dialects come from Formentin (1996 and 2002). Ruzante. Graphical is pronounced as a voiced palatal affricate in this area: = [d͡ʒ].

120

Michela Russo and Shanti Ulfsbjorninn (d) Medieval Lucano

‘il padre/the father’ ‘lo/the’ M/SG (e) Medieval Lucano

‘la carne/the meat’ ‘la/the’ FSG (f) Medieval Salentino

‘codardi/ the cowards’ ‘i/the’ MPL (g) Medieval Salentino

‘la donna/the woman’ ‘la/the’/the’ FSG

As we see in (15), traces of the ‘bisyllabic’ form are also found in Northern Italy. We provide in this section an analysis for Medieval Padovan’s allomorphy. It is not only the case of the full ([id͡ʒi]) in (15), but in Veneto, there exists a special palatalized form of the masculine plural article from Latin ILLĪ. It is widespread especially in Medieval Padovano and Veronese. This form is also underlyingly bisyllabic. The form ILLĪ has palatalized the geminate /-ll-/, something which has happened also in some lexical words of the same area, see (16). To be palatalized, /l/ shares its position with the palatalizer /i/ and precede the palatal licensor /i/ (see for [ʎ] section 2.1). (16) = [d͡ʒi] in Medieval Northern Italian Forms from Veneto Latin (a) ‘belli/beautiful’ BELLI (b) ‘capelli/hair’ CAPILLI (c) ‘quelli/those’ (EC)CUM ILLI (d) ‘uccelli/birds’ AUCELLI

Adj MPL N MPL D MPL N MPL

The extended bisyllabic variant in Northern Italy ‘i/the’ (15), as the Tuscan plural masculine [ʎi] ‘gli/the’, is a case of palatalization by spreading, and is linked to the Northern forms like ‘belli/beautiful’ in (16). The extended bisyllabic variant in Northern Italy ‘i/the’, as the Tuscan plural masculine [ʎi] ‘gli/the’, is a case of palatalization by

Accounting for the Definite Articles in Medieval Italian …

121

spreading, and is linked to the Northern forms like in (14). These forms are related, in terms of palatal licensing which creates a palatal /l/ (as in the definite article [ʎi] ‘the’), to Modern Standard Italian pronoun [eʎˈʎi] ‘he’ (Latin ILLE) and e to the allomorphic prenominal adjective ‘belli/beautiful’ (masculine plural), which shows the allomorphy such as in (17), where the allomorph begli is prevocalic and bei is pre-consonantal ( [bɛʎˈʎandʒeli] ‘beautiful angels’, vs. [ˈbɛj ˈkwadri] ‘beautiful paintings’): (17) Phonotactic (prenominal) distribution of ‘belli/beautiful’ in Standard Italian V-Initial Adj MPL (a) [bɛʎˈʎandʒeli] ‘beautiful angels’ (b) [bɛʎˈʎɔkki] ‘beautiful eyes’ C-Initial (c) [ˈbɛj ˈkwadri] ‘beautiful paintings’ In Standard Italian today, the prenominal adjective allomorphic form begli ‘beautiful’ still exists V-initial in phonotactically restricted distribution with bei C-initial. As we saw for the medieval dialectal form ‘quelli/those’(16c) from the Latin (EC)CUM ILLI, Standard Italian has another allomorphie of this type among determiners, the phonotactic prenominal alternation between the demonstrative D° masculine plural V-initial [ˈkweʎʎi anˈtsja:ni] ‘those old people’ and C-initial [ˈkwej ˈdu:e] ‘those two’, which alternate in complementary contexts with the non palatal form ‘those’ (Serianni 1998). (18) Phonotactic (prenominal) distribution of / Latin (EC)CUM ILLI V-Initial D° MPL (a) [ˈkweʎʎi anˈtsja:ni] ‘those old people’ C-Initial (b) [ˈkwej ˈdu:e] ‘those two’

122

Michela Russo and Shanti Ulfsbjorninn

This kind of palatal licensing (in 17a/b, 18a) affects also lexical items for which /-illi/ and /-elli/ are underlying, such as the Northern Italian forms ‘capelli/hair’ from Latin CAPILLI and ‘uccelli/birds’ AUCELLI in (16)), or such as the archaic Tuscan suppletive nominal forms for ‘capelli/hair’: [kaˈvaʎʎi], capegli [kaˈpeʎʎi] and cavai [kaˈvaj], capei [kaˈpej]. All these examples have a lexical geminate and a palatal licensor /i/ in the UR (/-vlli/). Regarding the northern forms, we need to understand if diachronically the starting point of the palatalized lateral is a Latin geminate /illi/ or /ili/. The question arises since to deal with a geminate in Northern Italy is not straightforward: it is assumed that in the Northern Italo-Romance area historical degemination applied already before the medieval period21. Yet, this palatalized form seems to go back to a lateral geminate /-ll-/ distinct from a form with a single lateral /-li/. This view is also supported by the evidence that the lexical forms with a simple /-li/ are never palatalized in medieval Padovano: [ˈpi:li], [ˈso:li] in front of [d͡ʒi], [ˈbɛ:d͡ʒi], [ˈkwi:d͡ʒi] etc. (according to Formentin 2002, 5). Some classical bibliographical sources express themselves on this point, e.g., Ascoli (1873) studied the Medieval Padovano and Veronese forms, see (19): (19) Medieval Padovano forms (and the same typology in Veronese) = [d͡ʒi] (a) ‘gli anni/the years’ (b) ‘i luoghi / the places’ (c) ‘gli asini/ the donkeys’ (d) ‘li arda/ burn them’22 Ascoli supposes that the gi form goes back to the Latin geminate -LL, and so does Mussafia (1873, 233). In his analysis of Medieval Veronese 21

Even if sonorant degemination applied later than for the obstruents (Zamboni 1976; Giannini and Marotta 1989). 22 With gi = [d͡ʒi] as proclitic pronoun in prevocalic context.

Accounting for the Definite Articles in Medieval Italian …

123

texts, Ascoli traces back the palatalized forms, (i)gi pronoun and gi article, to ILLI with a lexical geminate. Regarding the reasons for the palatalization in the article gi, the traditional hypothesis suggested by Ineichen (1957) is that the vocalic onset of the following nucleus is the trigger of the non-syllabicity of the final i in the atonic /-li/ = [lj], with a consequent palatalization of the lateral. Ineichen did not come to a decision on the status of the lexical geminate (see for more details Formentin 2002). This traditional hypothesis also implies that /-li/ (which can be reduced to i) and gi are just two variants of the /-li/ form in a prevocalic context. This hypothesis is also supported by Rohlfs (§ 280 and § 414), who brought Northern forms such as prevocalic gi aseni [d͡ʒi ˈaseni] ‘gli asini/the donkeys’ closer to the Tuscan Italian/Standard Italian [ʎi aˈmit͡ʃi] ‘gli amici/the friends’ (see Formentin ib.). However, a problem arises from the phonotactic hypothesis concerning the Padovano forms in (15, 16 and 19), such as , , , , etc., since palatalization only occured in these forms and never in the case of a singleton /l/ preceding a final [-i/j]. In this dialect, the prevocalic context cannot be the trigger of palatalization in the 14th century. In Padovano, as we have seen in (19), in the 14th c. we also find [d͡ʒi] C-initial: ‘i luoghi/the places’ with [d͡ʒi] before a consonantal onset. Once it has been established that the phonotactic hypothesis does not work, we must believe that there is an active palatalization process involving the final /-i/ as palatal licensor. Moreover, in the same medieval texts Padovano shows allomorphy in the masculine plural articles, and we find (Stussi 1995) 23 . The allomorph is rare in Padovano during the 14th century, compared to other Northern varieties such as Trevisano; furthermore, the forms