Manual of Romance Morphosyntax and Syntax
 9783110376937

Table of contents :
Manuals of Romance Linguistics......Page 5
Table of Contents......Page 7
Abbreviations......Page 11
1. Introduction......Page 17
2. Subjects......Page 43
3. Objects......Page 105
4. Argument structure and argument structure alternations......Page 170
5. Clitic pronouns......Page 199
6. Voice and voice alternations......Page 246
7. Auxiliaries......Page 288
8. Causative and perception verbs......Page 315
9. Copular and existential constructions......Page 348
10. Infinitival clauses......Page 385
11. Tense, aspect, mood......Page 413
12. Negation and polarity......Page 465
13. Dislocations and framings......Page 488
14. Focus Fronting......Page 518
15. Cleft constructions......Page 552
16. Interrogatives......Page 585
17. Exclamatives, imperatives, optatives......Page 619
18. Coordination and correlatives......Page 663
19. Gender and number......Page 707
20. Determination and quantification......Page 743
21. Adjectival and genitival modification......Page 787
22. Relative clauses......Page 820
23. Syntheticity and Analyticity......Page 855
24. Basic constituent orders......Page 903
List of Contributors......Page 949
Index......Page 957

Citation preview

Manual of Romance Morphosyntax and Syntax MRL 17

Manuals of Romance Linguistics Manuels de linguistique romane Manuali di linguistica romanza Manuales de lingüística románica

Edited by Günter Holtus and Fernando Sánchez Miret

Volume 17

Manual of Romance Morphosyntax and Syntax Edited by Andreas Dufter and Elisabeth Stark

ISBN 978-3-11-037693-7 e-ISBN (PDF) 978-3-11-037708-8 e-ISBN (EPUB) 978-3-11-039342-2 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A CIP catalog record for this book has been applied for at the Library of Congress. Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at: http://dnb.dnb.de. © 2017 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston Typesetting: jürgen ullrich typosatz, Nördlingen Printing and binding: CPI books GmbH, Leck ♾ Printed on acid-free paper Printed in Germany www.degruyter.com

Manuals of Romance Linguistics The new international handbook series Manuals of Romance Linguistics (MRL) will offer an extensive, systematic and state-of-the-art overview of linguistic research in the entire field of present-day Romance Studies. MRL aims to update and expand the contents of the two major reference works available to date: Lexikon der Romanistischen Linguistik (LRL) (1988–2005, vol. 1–8) and Romanische Sprachgeschichte (RSG) (2003–2008, vol. 1–3). It will also seek to integrate new research trends as well as topics that have not yet been explored systematically. Given that a complete revision of LRL and RSG would not be feasible, at least not in a sensible timeframe, the MRL editors have opted for a modular approach that is much more flexible: The series will include approximately 60 volumes (each comprised of approx. 400–600 pages and 15–30 chapters). Each volume will focus on the most central aspects of its topic in a clear and structured manner. As a series, the volumes will cover the entire field of present-day Romance Linguistics, but they can also be used individually. Given that the work on individual MRL volumes will be nowhere near as time-consuming as that on a major reference work in the style of LRL, it will be much easier to take into account even the most recent trends and developments in linguistic research. MRL’s languages of publication are French, Spanish, Italian, English and, in exceptional cases, Portuguese. Each volume will consistently be written in only one of these languages. In each case, the choice of language will depend on the specific topic. English will be used for topics that are of more general relevance beyond the field of Romance Studies (for example Manual of Language Acquisition or Manual of Romance Languages in the Media). The focus of each volume will be either (1) on one specific language or (2) on one specific research field. Concerning volumes of the first type, each of the Romance languages – including Romance-based creoles – will be discussed in a separate volume. A particularly strong focus will be placed on the smaller languages (linguae minores) that other reference works have not treated extensively. MRL will comprise volumes on Friulian, Corsican, Galician, Vulgar Latin, among others, as well as a Manual of Judaeo-Romance Linguistics and Philology. Volumes of the second type will be devoted to the systematic presentation of all traditional and new fields of Romance Linguistics, with the research methods of Romance Linguistics being discussed in a separate volume. Dynamic new research fields and trends will yet again be of particular interest, because although they have become increasingly important in both research and teaching, older reference works have not dealt with them at all or touched upon them only tangentially. MRL will feature volumes dedicated to research fields such as Grammatical Interfaces, Youth Language Research, Urban Varieties, Computational Linguistics, Neurolinguistics, Sign Languages or Forensic Linguistics.  









VI

Manuals of Romance Linguistics

Each volume will offer a structured and informative, easy-to-read overview of the history of research as well as of recent research trends. We are delighted that internationally-renowned colleagues from a variety of Romance-speaking countries and beyond have agreed to collaborate on this series and take on the editorship of individual MRL volumes. Thanks to the expertise of the volume editors responsible for the concept and structure of their volumes, as well as for the selection of suitable authors, MRL will not only summarize the current state of knowledge in Romance Linguistics, but will also present much new information and recent research results. As a whole, the MRL series will present a panorama of the discipline that is both extensive and up-to-date, providing interesting and relevant information and useful orientation for every reader, with detailed coverage of specific topics as well as general overviews of present-day Romance Linguistics. We believe that the series will offer a fresh, innovative approach, suited to adequately map the constant advancement of our discipline. Günter Holtus (Lohra/Göttingen) Fernando Sánchez Miret (Salamanca) July 2017

Table of Contents Abbreviations

1

XI

Andreas Dufter and Elisabeth Stark Introduction 1

The verbal domain 2

Maria Lobo and Ana Maria Martins Subjects 27

3

Ioanna Sitaridou Objects 89

4

Richard Waltereit Argument structure and argument structure alternations

5

David Heap, Michèle Oliviéri and Katerina Palasis Clitic pronouns 183

6

Patricia Cabredo Hofherr Voice and voice alternations

7

Géraldine Legendre Auxiliaries 272

8

Marie Labelle Causative and perception verbs

9

Delia Bentley Copular and existential constructions

230

299

The clausal and sentential domains

10

Guido Mensching Infinitival clauses

11

Jan Lindschouw Tense, aspect, mood

369

397

332

154

VIII

Table of Contents

12

Pierre Larrivée Negation and polarity

13

Mara Frascarelli Dislocations and framings

14

Silvio Cruschina and Eva-Maria Remberger Focus Fronting 502

15

Anna-Maria De Cesare Cleft constructions 536

16

Olga Kellert Interrogatives

17

Xavier Villalba Exclamatives, imperatives, optatives

18

Cristina Sánchez López Coordination and correlatives

449

472

569

603

647

The nominal domain 19

Natascha Pomino Gender and number

20

Nigel Vincent Determination and quantification

21

Antonio Fábregas Adjectival and genitival modification

22

Cecilia Poletto and Emanuela Sanfelici Relative clauses 804

691

727

771

Table of Contents

Typological aspects 23

Adam Ledgeway Syntheticity and Analyticity

24

Manuel Leonetti Basic constituent orders

List of Contributors Index

941

933

839

887

IX

Abbreviations * # ? = > ∅ 1 2 3 A A’-position ABL ACC AC C

AcI AD Adv Ag Agr AmSp. AN

AP APP L

Arg. ART AR T

ASIt Ast. A-Topic AUG AUX

BC BPt. C Cal. Cat. CA US CAUS

CC CCl CD CG ch. CL

CLF CLLD ClP Clpro CLRD CollFr.

ungrammatical or unattested semantically and/or pragmatically inappropriate dubious form or usage cliticized to becomes null element first person second person third person adjective non-argument position ablative accusative accusativus cum infinitivo Anno Domini adverb Agent Agreement American Spanish animate adjectival phrase applicative Aragonese article Atlante Sintattico d’Italia Asturian aboutness-shift topic augmentative auxiliary Before Christ Brazilian Portuguese complementizer Calabrian Catalan causative cleft constituent, clitic climbing cleft clause clitic doubling common ground chapter clitic classifier clitic left dislocation classifier phrase clitic pronoun clitic right dislocation Colloquial French

DOI 10.1515/9783110377088-204

XII

COM COMP R COMP COND

Conj ConjP ContrP COP

Cors. CP C-Topic D DA T

DE DE F DEF DE M DEM DE T DET DIM DIST

Div DM DO DOC DOM DomSp. DP E ECM ED Eng. Enga. EPP EPt. EQ ESp. EXPL F(EM) FF FI FinP Foc FocP FP FPr. FR Fr. Friul. FUT

Gal.

Abbreviations

comitative comparative complementizer conditional conjunction conjunction phrase contrastive phrase copula Corsican complementizer phrase contrastive topic determiner dative Definiteness Effect definite demonstrative determiner diminutive distal divider Distributed Morphology direct object double object construction differential object marking Dominican Spanish determiner phrase eastern exceptional case marking ethic(al) dative English Engadinese extended projection principle European Portuguese echo question European Spanish expletive form feminine focus fronting faire-infinitive finiteness phrase focus focus phrase force phrase, faire-par Franco-Provençal free relative French Friulian future tense Galician

Abbreviations

GE N

Gen GenP Ger. GP Grk. Gsc. G-Topic HPSG HT I IL IMP IMPERS IMPF IND INDF INF

Infl IO IP IPA IPFV

IS It. L1 L2 Lad. Lat. LF LFG LIP corpus L-movement LOC

LPP L-Topic M ( ASC ) Maj.Cat. MidFr. Mil. ModFr. ModIt. ModSp. MRK

N Nap. NE NE G NEG NE UT NEUT

genitive gender gender phrase German Ground Phrase Greek Gascon familiar/given topic Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar hanging topic inflection individual-level imperative impersonal imperfect indicative indefinite infinitive inflection indirect object inflectional phrase International Phonetic Alphabet imperfective information structure Italian first language (acquired) second language (learned) Ladin Latin logical form Lexical-Functional Grammar corpus Lessico Italiano Parlato linearization-movement locative left-peripheral position limiting topic masculine Majorcan Catalan Middle French Milanese Modern French Modern Italian Modern Spanish marker noun, northern Neapolitan nominal expression negator neuter

XIII

XIV

NID NM

NNSL NOD NOM

NP NPI NSL NSP Num NumP n-word O OBL

OCat. Occ. OFr. OGsc. OLeo. OIt. ONap. OOcc. OPrv. OPt. OSp. OTsc. OVto. P PAR T PAS S

Pat PCC PEJ PF PFV

Pic. Pie. PL

PO POSS

PP PPI PRE D

pro PRO PROarb PROG

PRON PROX

Abbreviations

northern Italian dialect neutro de/di materia non null subject language northern Occitan dialect nominative noun phrase Negative Polarity Item null subject language null subject parameter number number phrase negative word object oblique Old Catalan Occitan Old French Old Gascon Old Leonese Old Italian Old Neapolitan Old Occitan Old Provençal Old Portuguese Old Spanish Old Tuscan Old Venetan preposition partitive passive Patient Person-Case Constraint pejorative existential pro-form perfective Picard Piedmontese plural prepositional object possessive prepositional phrase Positive Polarity Item predicative phonologically null subject pronoun in finite clauses phonologically null subject pronoun in non-finite clauses PRO with arbitrary reference progressive pronoun proximal

Abbreviations

PRS PRT PS T PST

Pt. PTC P PTCP

Q Q-FR QP REFL

REL RelC Rom. RtR. S SBJV

SCI SC L SG

ShiftP SI Sic. SL Sp. Spec Srd. StFr. SUB SUPERL

Surs. T TAM Top TopP TP UTAH V v V2 VP vP Vto. W WCO WMP X XP

present preterite past tense Portuguese participle quantifier, question marker question with a free relative structure quantifier phrase reflexive relativizer relative clause Romanian Rhaeto-Romance subject, southern subjunctive subject-clitic inversion subject clitic singular aboutness-shift phrase subject-DP inversion Sicilian stage-level Spanish specifier Sardinian Standard French subject superlative Sursilvan tense tense, aspect, mood topic topic phrase tense phrase Uniform Theta Assignment Hypothesis verb light verb, highest head of the vP shell verb second verb phrase light verb phrase, highest functional projection below TP Venetan western weak crossover WordMarkerPhrase unspecified head element unspecified phrasal category

XV

Andreas Dufter and Elisabeth Stark

1 Introduction Abstract: This chapter seeks to situate the contents of the volume within the larger context of comparative Romance linguistics, and with respect to cross-linguistic and theory-driven investigations into morphosyntax and syntax at large. To this end, the chapter will survey a selection of comparative Romance reference works and venture some remarks about Romance linguistics as a discipline. It will then take stock of some basic notions and widely accepted tenets of syntax and morphosyntax, before providing an overview of the structure and the contents of the volume. Finally, a number of acknowledgements will be made.  

Keywords: Romance linguistics, syntax, morphosyntax, syntactic categories, syntactic relations, constituency, dependency, null subject parameter, left periphery, grammaticalization  

1 Comparative Romance morphosyntax and syntax: remarks on the development of a discipline Romance languages and dialects are obviously related, yet differ from each other in a plethora of ways. In the transition from Late Latin to the medieval varieties dubbed volgari or romances, linguistic change set these emerging Romance vernaculars apart from Latin, and yielded significant diversification within the Romancespeaking territories. This diachronic development has come to be known as Ausgliederung ‘fragmentation’ since Walther von Wartburg’s seminal study (Wartburg 1936). It affected not only phonology and the lexicon, but also, and perhaps most interestingly, “core” aspects of grammatical systems, and in particular morphosyntax and syntax. Ever since their earliest attestations, the varieties of Romance have demonstrably continued to evolve, and grammatical change has been ongoing and fostered grammatical variation. Of course, geographical and social differentiation may not come as a surprise in languages boasting large communities of speakers on different continents, such as Spanish, Portuguese and French. However, morphosyntactic and syntactic variation is equally pervasive in Italian and Romanian, and in regional languages such as Catalan and Sardinian, to give but two examples. At the same time, variation has traditionally been frowned upon by prescriptive grammarians and other language observers. At least since the early modern period, and in particular since the invention of the printing press, processes of standardization have been operative. Typically at least, the protagonists of standardization aimed at reducing variability in grammar, prescribing “correct” variants and condemning all DOI 10.1515/9783110377088-001

2

Andreas Dufter and Elisabeth Stark

others. Nonetheless, the outcome of standardization has never been complete homogeneity. Rather, the situation of Romance languages in modern times is characterized by a co-existence of standard varieties, local and regional vernaculars, and emergent regional standard varieties, such as Regional Southern French. The implications for comparative Romance linguistics are clear enough: Ideally at least, it needs to investigate both variation between the individual Romance languages, i.e., cross-linguistic or “macro”-variation, and variation within individual Romance languages, i.e., regional (“diatopic”) and socio-stylistic (“diastratic” and “diaphasic”) “micro”-variation. Such comprehensive coverage of variation certainly constitutes a daunting task for a handbook on comparative Romance linguistics. Back in the nineteenth century, the founding fathers of the discipline already needed several hundred pages of text for their reference works, at a time when systematic dialectological investigations were in their infancy, and other types of micro-variation barely taken into consideration: Friedrich Diez published his famous Grammatik der romanischen Sprachen (1836–1839) in three volumes, focusing on Italian, Romanian, Spanish, Portuguese, French and Occitan. Some fifty years later, Wilhelm Meyer-Lübke presented another four-volume Grammatik der romanischen Sprachen (1890–1902). Meyer-Lübke’s grammar provides an admirably clear and informative account which reflected the theoretical advances of historical and comparative linguistics in the wake of the Neogrammarians (see also Swiggers 2014). The twentieth century, by contrast, is largely characterized by a relative scarcity of reference works devoted to the Romance language family as a whole. Mention should be made in this context of overviews such as Bourciez’s Éléments de linguistique romane (51967, 11910), Lausberg’s Romanische Sprachwissenschaft (3 vol., 1956– 1962) or Robert A. Hall Jr.’s Comparative Romance Grammar (3 vol., 1974–1983). While all these books offer structuralist accounts of phonology and morphology, they fail to describe morphosyntax and syntax in a systematic fashion. Other standard references, such as the widely cited volume The Romance Languages (Harris/Vincent 1988), provide a collection of portraits of individual languages rather than a panRomance perspective on the similarities and differences in their grammatical organization. To be fair, it must be acknowledged that a significant number of monographs and collected volumes on specific topics of comparative Romance grammar have been published since Lausberg’s and Hall’s times.1 All these publications attest to the fertility of investigating close linguistic relatives. Many of them offer fresh data and original analyses, often with important implications for grammatical theory at large.  



1 See, among others, the monographs by Thun (1986), Wanner (1987), Zanuttini (1997), Squartini (1998), Mensching (2000), Cruschina (2011), and Manzini/Savoia (2011), and volumes edited by Dahmen et al. (1998), Hulk/Pollock (2001), Stark/Wandruszka (2003), Kaiser (2005), Remberger/Mensching (2008), Stark/Schmidt-Riese/Stoll (2008), Dufter/Jacob (2009; 2011), and De Cesare/Garassino (2016).

Introduction

3

However, it would probably be misguided to try and consult these volumes as introductory surveys of some subfield of the discipline. At the same time, grammars of individual Romance languages and language varieties abound (see Dufter 2010 for a short overview of synchronic descriptive grammars in the Romania, and Seilheimer 2014 for historical grammars). As is to be expected, these grammars differ considerably in their theoretical ambition, empirical scope, and target audience. Some of them put a strong focus on syntactic theory, often within the generative framework,2 whereas other authoritative grammars, albeit theoretically informed, may be more easily accessible to a larger readership.3 Against the backdrop of such increasing specialization, and an ever-increasing diversity of theoretical backgrounds and research agendas, an uneasy feeling was gaining ground that Romance linguistics as a discipline might be threatened by fragmentation (see contributions to Dahmen et al. 2006). This is, however, but one of the reasons why the encyclopedic Lexikon der Romanistischen Linguistik (LRL, 8 vol., 1988–2005), edited by Günter Holtus, Michael Metzeltin and Christian Schmitt, may well be considered a landmark publication: As a timely state-of-the-art reference work, it has offered orientation and guidance to a whole generation of scholars interested in Romance languages and dialects, from both synchronic and diachronic vantage points. As far as comparative Romance morphosyntax and syntax are concerned, the LRL boasts two chapters (Oesterreicher 1996a,b), which offer an informed, accessible and admirably comprehensive overview in only 83 pages of text. More generally, the LRL has also served to update the field as a discipline, to reaffirm its aims and scope, and to reinstate the importance of studying “minor” varieties such as Astur-Leonese, Corsican or Friulian. No less than seventeen Romance languages are recognized by the LRL and described, albeit with varying degrees of precision, one by one. As a consequence, four of the eight volumes are devoted to the presentation of individual languages (and their dialects), while only three adopt more general linguistic and comparative perspectives (and volume 8 comprises a number of indices). The languages of publication are German and the major Romance languages, a fact which

2 See, in particular, the influential monographs by Kayne (1975), Jones (1996) and Rowlett (2007) on French, Rizzi (1982), Burzio (1986), Cinque (1995) and Samek-Lodovici (2015) on Italian, Jones (1993) on Sardinian, Zagona (2002) on Spanish, Gupton (2014) on Galician, Costa (2004) on European Portuguese, and Dobrovie-Sorin (1993) and Dobrovie-Sorin/Giurgea (2013) on Romanian. 3 For academic purposes, key references include Wilmet (52010), Riegel/Pellat/Rioul (52014) and Grevisse (162016) for French, Renzi/Salvi/Cardinaletti (1988–1995) and Serianni (1988) for Italian, Fernández Ramírez (1951; 1985–1987), Bosque/Demonte (1999) and RAE/ASALE (2009) for Spanish, Castilho (2010), Raposo et al. (2013) and Cunha/Cintra (62014) for Portuguese, Álvarez/Xove (2002) for Galician, Wheeler/Yates/Dols (1999) and Solà Cortassa et al. (2002) for Catalan, and Guţu Romalo (2005) and Pană Dindelegan (2013) for Romanian. In addition, there is a wealth of grammars written to fit the practical needs of language teaching, in particular second language learning. For reasons of space, we will only mention Mosegaard Hansen (2016) for French, Maiden/Robustelli (2000) for Italian, Butt/Benjamin (52011) for Spanish, and Hutchinson/Lloyd (22003) for Portuguese.

4

Andreas Dufter and Elisabeth Stark

regrettably might have hindered somewhat the accessibility of the LRL in linguistics at large. For historical Romance linguistics, the three-volume handbook Romanische Sprachgeschichte (RSG, Ernst et al. 2003–2008), published by De Gruyter, offers an impressive array of chapters, with a strong focus on external aspects of language use and language standardization in a historical perspective. Several of the chapters are devoted to the Romance language family as a whole, a few in volume 3 also address morphosyntactic and syntactic questions, though never in a comparative perspective. And, again, a majority of articles are written in German, the rest in either French, Italian, or Spanish. For those who do not read all of these languages, the two volumes of the Cambridge History of the Romance Languages (Maiden/Smith/Ledgeway 2011/2013) may come in handy. This reference work adopts a comparative, pan-Romance perspective in all chapters. It thereby succeeds in providing an up-to-date survey of the field, not least so in its chapters on morphosyntactic and syntactic change, and persistence. Finally, the most recent addition to the list of reference works is the Oxford Guide to the Romance Languages (Ledgeway/Maiden 2016). In one single large volume, this handbook contains chapters on individual Romance language varieties as well as comparative overviews, several of them pertaining to the domains of morphosyntax and syntax. All in all, then, one might very well assume that those seeking an accessible overview of some key topics in Romance morphosyntax and syntax will manage to find something in existing grammars, handbooks and, possibly, other published sources. Why add yet another manual to the set of existing reference works? To begin with, we strongly believe that Romance morphosyntax and syntax deserve – at the very least – a handbook volume of their own, comprising some 930 pages and 24 chapters, as happens to be the case with the volume at hand. There are probably many arguments to defend this point of view, but one of them is that over the last decades, grammatical descriptions of Romance varieties, including historical stages of the language and historical as well as present-day dialects, have had a significant impact on (morpho)syntactic theory at large. Conversely, theoretical and typological (morpho)syntax has inspired and guided new research into Romance varieties. In-depth investigations of older language stages have deepened our understanding of the mechanisms of grammatical change.4 On a synchronic level, investigations into the syntax of dialects and other “vernacular” varieties supposedly un-

4 Representative publications include Klausenburger (2000), Salvi (2004) and Ledgeway (2012) for new theoretical perspectives on grammatical change from Latin into Romance, Arteaga (2013) on Old French, Jensen (1986; 1990) on Old Occitan and Old French, Salvi/Renzi (2010), Benincà/Ledgeway/ Vincent (2014) and Poletto (2014) on Old Italian, Fischer (2010) on Old Catalan, Kato/Ordóñez (2016) on the evolution of Latin American Spanish and Brazilian Portuguese, and Pană Dindelegan (2016) on Old Romanian.

Introduction

5

affected by normative pressure have loomed large over the last few decades. This seems to hold in particular for Italo-Romance, where research activities have been vibrant, typically within the generative approach.5 In Europe, the Going Romance conference series has become a prominent annual venue. In a similar vein, the Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages constitutes an established conference series in North American academia in which issues pertaining to Romance morphosyntax and syntax have always enjoyed a prominent place. Such conferences are emblematic of the cross-fertilization of grammatical theory, new descriptive accounts of Romance varieties, and new methods of data collection, including sociolinguistic and experimental ones. Both the Going Romance and the Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages conferences regularly lead to publications of selected papers in edited volumes, published by John Benjamins. While it is true that a significant number of articles collected in these volumes concentrate on only one variety of Romance, the very fact that the entire family of Romance languages and dialects is accepted as an object of linguistic investigation may be taken as indicative of a shared interest in maintaining Romance linguistics as a discipline. In addition, there are a number of renowned journals such as Probus or Revue Romane which are exclusively devoted to the linguistic study of all Romance language varieties. Conferences and academic journals such as those mentioned have significantly promoted comparative investigations into Romance grammar, at a time when institutionalized academia would be more likely to encourage compartmentalized research agendas. The time is thus ripe, we would venture to say, to account for the results of this renewed interest, and for the new insights gathered in recent research, in an accessible handbook format. As linguists working in Romance departments, however, we sometimes feel that there continues to exist something like a “cultural gap” between, on the one side, theoretically minded linguists, of both formalist and functionalist persuasions, and, on the other side, scholars trained in the time-honored philological traditions of research into Romance languages and dialects. It may not be much of an overstatement to say that for each side, there exist separate conferences, networks, book series and journals. Given this, it is perhaps not coincidental that academic publishers such as De Gruyter provide separate catalogs for linguistics and for Romance studies. As editors, it was our ambition to compile a volume that would contribute towards bridging this cultural gap. Therefore, we would be delighted if the volume were of interest for both sides, and possibly for researchers working in neighboring fields. In addition, our contention is that it should be of use not only for established scholars, but also for younger researchers, including graduate and advanced undergraduate students.

5 See, in particular, Poletto (1993; 2000) on Northern Italian dialects, Ledgeway (2009) on Old Neapolitan, and Tortora (2003), Manzini/Savoia (2005) and D’Alessandro/Ledgeway/Roberts (2010) on Italian dialects in general.

6

Andreas Dufter and Elisabeth Stark

We endeavor to suggest, then, that this Manual of Romance Morphosyntax and Syntax is timely for a variety of reasons. From Diez’ Grammatik der romanischen Sprachen to Ledgeway/Maiden’s Oxford Guide to the Romance Languages, reference works need to cover much more than “just” morphosyntax and syntax. To the best of our knowledge, these fields have never received exclusive attention in a singlevolume handbook. Even those whose own research interests lie outside the areas of morphosyntax and syntax would probably admit that a total of 83 pages (Oesterreicher 1996a,b) in a volume of several thousands of pages such as the Lexikon der Romanistischen Linguistik is not a particularly fair share. While the Romanische Sprachgeschichte and the Cambridge History of the Romance Languages arguably fare somewhat better, they are by design limited to the historical dimension. Similarly, the Oxford Guide to the Romance Languages dedicates only about a fourth of its chapters to topics in Romance morphosyntax and syntax. In all likelihood, however, it is limitations of space rather than a presumed scarcity of interesting issues which preclude a more full-fledged presentation of these fields. As we said, those seeking information about individual language varieties of Romance have at their disposal a range of reference grammars, varying in their degree of theoretical sophistication and in the quantity of empirical observations they present. However, for those in search of overviews about cross-linguistic and cross-dialectal differences, and grammatical features characterizing the Romance language family as a whole, the Manual of Romance Morphosyntax and Syntax might be a welcome addition. It seeks to provide both theoretically informed and empirically grounded surveys of topics which have figured prominently in the field (see Sections 2 and 3). In addition to the “big five” in Romance linguistics, Spanish, Portuguese, French, Italian and Romanian, many chapters offer a variety of data from “smaller” languages, and from regional and local dialects. In light of all this, it may not come as a surprise that this handbook is somewhat hefty, probably more so than many other volumes within the Manuals of Romance Linguistics book series. In order to be accessible to a wide readership, all chapters are written in English. Furthermore, English glosses and/or translations of examples from Romance language varieties are offered throughout. Albeit with various degrees of detail, glosses generally follow the Leipzig Glossing Rules (www.eva. mpg.de/lingua/resources/glossing-rules.php). All authors were encouraged to avoid framework-internal discussions, overly technical jargon, and abbreviations which may not be familiar to a non-expert readership. In any event, the reader will find a list of abbreviations used at the beginning of the volume, and an index of linguistic terms, languages and dialects at the end. In the next section, we will introduce some fundamental notions of syntax and morphosyntax, before giving an overview of the structure and the contents of the volume in Section 3.

7

Introduction

2 Syntax and morphosyntax: some basic notions Both syntax and morphosyntax are ambiguous terms, designating, first, components (or “levels” or “modules”) of linguistic organization and, second, those subdisciplines of linguistics which investigate these levels. In line with standard assumptions about the organization of language, we take syntax to be the component of linguistic systems that defines the set of grammatical arrangements of words, and of certain meaningful subparts of them such as inflectional morphemes. These words and morphemes combine into larger units of grammar such as phrases, up to the level of clauses and sentences. More specifically, syntax as a discipline investigates, first of all, grouping relations (constituency) and ordering relations (linearization). An insight dating back to antiquity is that words may profitably be categorized into a small number of so-called word classes (also called “parts of speech”, echoing the Latin term partes orationis, in much of the older tradition). Linguistic typology has impressively shown that the inventory of word classes differs substantially across languages, and some formal accounts of morphology such as Distributed Morphology (Halle/Marantz 1993) even assume word classes to be syntactic products just like phrases. Yet probably no one would deny that at least on a descriptive level, nouns (N), verbs (V), adjectives (A) and possibly adverbs (Adv) may constitute fundamental lexical categories in Romance and Germanic languages. To these, we may add functional categories such as (at least some) prepositions (P), determiners (D), i.e., articles and their likes, and complementizers (C) such as Fr./Sp./Pt. que, It. che ‘that’ heading various types of subordinate clauses. Following Stowell (1981) and Williams (1981), the expression of morphosyntactic features of verbs is categorized as Inflection (I) or Tense (T), respectively. All lexical categories (N, V, A, Adv) and all functional categories (D, P, C, I, T) project, i.e., they can form the nuclei, or heads, of larger syntactic units. These larger syntactic units are formed according to a small set of abstract cross-categorial building principles, which became famous under the name of X-bar Theory (see Lasnik/Lohndal 2013, 41–47 for a concise overview). Without entering into details, we will only recall that those larger syntactic units which, intuitively, appear to be relatively complete and autonomous, are referred to as phrases. Phrasal categories, and their respective category symbols, are determined by their heads: Nouns head noun phrases (or NPs, for short), verbs head verb phrases (VPs), and so forth. A noun such as Fr. maison ‘house’, for example, can head a complex noun phrase of the type grande maison de Pierre ‘big house of Pierre’, with grande and de Pierre acting as adjectival and genitival modifiers of their head noun (see ↗21 Adjectival and genitival modification). Nominal groups introduced by a determiner, such as la grande maison de Pierre ‘Pierre’s big house’, lit. ‘the big house of Pierre’ are categorized as determiner phrases (DPs) in languages in which the presence of such a determiner before an NP is (near-)categorical in argument position (see ↗20 Determination and quantification). Moving on from NPs, DPs and VPs to the level of (simple) sentences, these have been analyzed as projections of their verbal  



8

Andreas Dufter and Elisabeth Stark

inflection or, alternatively, of their tense features (IPs or TPs). Finally, subordinate clauses such as que Pierre a une grande maison ‘that Pierre has a big house’ have been argued to be headed by their subordinating complementizer, thereby forming complementizer phrases (CPs). Taken together, lexical and functional categories and their projections constitute the set of syntactic categories of a language. Many, if not most syntacticians would probably subscribe to the principle according to which syntactic structure is strictly binary, i.e., every complex syntactic unit contains exactly two immediate constituents. It needs to be acknowledged, though, that binarity is not always self-evident, especially in cases of (symmetric) coordination such as Fr. Pierre et Marie ‘Pierre and Marie’ (see ↗18 Coordination and correlatives). Besides syntactic categories, traditional as well as many contemporary versions of syntactic theory make reference to a second set of notions, known as syntactic functions or, in other work, as grammatical relations. Many of these notions are familiar since primary school: subjects, objects, predicates and, possibly, adverbials may well seem concepts so obvious to the average language user that, so one might think, little needs to be said about them. On closer scrutiny, however, several issues connected to the exact definition of syntactic functions, as well as to their theoretical status and usefulness for language description, turn out to be anything but trivial (see ↗2 Subjects; ↗3 Objects). More generally, it can easily be shown that syntactic units which co-occur within a larger syntactic constituent enter into different types of relationships. Perhaps the most conspicuous type is dependency, a relation in which one unit renders obligatory the presence of another unit within the larger syntactic context. Other types may involve morphological categories with syntactic relevance, i.e., so-called morphosyntactic relations. In this volume, morphosyntax is understood not as the set union of morphology and syntax, but as the interface of grammar in which the components of morphology and syntax interact. There are reasons to believe that morphology constitutes a component of grammar in its own right, and not just a kind of word-internal syntax, as some researchers have maintained (see Selkirk 1982). Simplifying somewhat, we may say that morphosyntax typically makes reference to categories of inflectional morphology, such as person, number, gender, case, tense, aspect, and mood. The flip side of this conception of morphosyntax is that word formation, including compounding and derivation, does not fall within its purview, even if, at times, the boundaries between compositional, derivational and inflectional morphology may appear to be somewhat blurred (see Scalise 1988; Spencer 2000; Gisborne 2014). A relationship encompassing the domains of inflectional morphology and syntax is government, a concept going back to ancient grammarians and that aims to capture the insight that certain features of grammatical form, such as case features, can be unilaterally “imposed” by a co-constituent which in turn does not possess these features. A related, but distinct, type of relationship is agreement. Syntactic units are said to stand in a relationship of agreement when there is a systematic interdepen 



Introduction

9

dence with respect to grammatical features shared by both units. The example in (1) may serve as a simple illustration: (1) Fr. Pierre a déjà pardonné à son to his Pierre have.3SG already forgiven ‘Pierre has already forgiven his neighbor.’

voisin. neighbor

In (1), the presence of à son voisin is rendered obligatory by the choice of the verb pardonner ‘forgive’, since Pierre a déjà pardonné constitutes an incomplete, ungrammatical sentence. À son voisin is therefore dependent upon the verb. More specifically, this verb imposes that the constituent expressing who is being forgiven be introduced by the preposition à. In other words, pardonner governs à-marking (arguably a kind of syntactic dative marking) of the “sinner argument.” Finally, the finite auxiliary verb a ‘has’ is marked as third person singular, thereby agreeing in person and number with the “forgiver argument” Pierre.6 Yet another relationship concept which has become influential, especially for the study of dependency relations between verbs and their complements, is valency (Tesnière 1959; ↗4 Argument structure and argument structure alternations). While the exact definition of valency may differ somewhat between different authors, it seems to be commonly accepted that valency is a complex notion, which combines syntactic dependency and government with semantic and pragmatic facets of interrelatedness between a verb (or valency-bearing noun or adjective) and its dependent clause-mates. The notion of valency has occupied center stage in a predominantly European-based tradition of Dependency Grammar (see contributions to Ágel et al. 2003/2006; see Perini 2015 for a recent book-length account based on data from Brazilian Portuguese). By emphasizing the role of lexical information in clause structure, valency-based approaches may also be assimilated to theories advocating a continuum between grammar and the lexicon. This holds true in particular for a family of theories referred to as Construction Grammar (see Hoffmann/Trousdale 2013). Here again, the exact definition of what technically constitutes a construction varies between authors. In any event, constructions are “conventionalized pairings between meaning and form” (Goldberg 2006, 3), can be syntactically complex and display formal and/or semantic and pragmatic properties which are not fully predictable on the basis of their component parts alone. The identification of such constructions thus challenges, it has been claimed, the principle of compositionality according to which the meaning of complex

6 To be sure, a more comprehensive analysis of (1) would need to recognize additional types of interconstituent relations, such as the interpretation of the possessive son as referring back to Pierre. This type of relationships, known as binding, will not be addressed in this manual. Many scholars argue that binding is not exclusively syntactic in nature, but an interface phenomenon, extending beyond syntax into discourse semantics and pragmatics in complex ways. The interested reader is referred to Büring (2005) and references cited therein.

10

Andreas Dufter and Elisabeth Stark

linguistic signs, and in particular complex syntactic units, can be systematically computed from the meaning of the word forms it contains. By the same token, constructions have been argued to constitute counter-evidence to any linguistic framework which holds that the lexicon and the grammar of a language can be separated into distinct modules. Instead, proponents of Construction Grammar, in one form or another, maintain that the continuum between the lexicon and grammar in language calls for a non-modular, holistic theory of linguistic systems. Despite its initial attraction, Construction Grammar has not been exempt from criticism either (see Adger 2013). To begin with, no commonly accepted operational definition seems to exist of what exactly counts as a construction in a given language and what does not. Second, while compositionality may indeed not hold in many cases of complex word formation, the number of demonstrably non-compositional constructions in syntax is perhaps less impressive than one might think. More often than not, proponents of Construction Grammar resort to a modest number of set examples from English, such as the famous case of let alone (Fillmore/Kay/O’Connor 1988).7 Third, even if there are good reasons to attribute the status of construction to a given complex syntactic unit, this should be a starting point rather than an endpoint for linguistic analysis. Adding a complex unit to the list of constructions does not explain why this unit features just those idiosyncratic properties it features and not others. Nonetheless, the concept of construction may indeed have diagnostic and descriptive value, especially in cases of complex constructions which do appear to be hard nuts for compositional analyses to crack, such as clefts and pseudo-clefts (see ↗15 Cleft constructions). In one form or another, however, many of the contributions to this manual are indebted to concepts of Generative Grammar. Since Chomsky’s seminal earlier publications (see, e.g., Chomsky 1957; 1965) to Government-Binding Theory (Chomsky 1981) and the Minimalist Program (Chomsky 1995), Generative Grammar has witnessed an astonishing success in linguistics departments all over the globe, but also given rise to much debate, and radical criticism, especially from linguists and psychologists investigating the interplay of language and cognition. This is not the place to engage in theoretical discussion about the architecture of grammar. In our opinion, Generative Grammar has indeed provided a wealth of new insights into the structure of Romance languages and dialects. All we can do here, given space limitations, is to mention a few topics in which research conducted within the generative framework has contributed towards a deeper understanding of syntax, and comparative Romance syntax in particular. To begin with, much work has been done, before and after the advent of generative syntax, on unexpressed or “null” subjects in finite clauses. Their differential

7 Recently, however, Romance languages have gained ground in Construction Grammar; see Bouveret/Legallois (2012), Boas/Gonzálvez-García (2014), and several contributions to Yoon/Gries (2016).

11

Introduction

availability in Romance varieties, the interpretational restrictions associated to them, and the division of labor between morphology, syntax, and the lexicon in the expression of subjects have inspired various kinds of cross-linguistic and typological generalizations. While it is true that ambitious earlier claims about a categorical “pro-drop” or “null subject” parameter (Burzio 1986; Rizzi 1986) have not withheld empirical scrutiny, research aimed at refining the notion of null subject languages has considerably fostered our knowledge about the extent, and the limits, of co-variation between inflectional morphology and syntax (see contributions to Biberauer et al. 2010; Zimmermann 2014; ↗2 Subjects). Second, the identification of unaccusative verbs, dating back to Perlmutter (1978), has become highly influential in coming to grips with the interplay of subject positions, semantic roles of subjects, the availability of passive and other impersonal constructions, auxiliary selection, and past participle agreement (Loporcaro 1998; ↗2 Subjects; ↗6 Voice and voice alternations; ↗7 Auxiliaries). Moving on from subjects to objects, a third research topic in which Romance languages have played a prominent role is object and adverbial clitics. Their placement, their sequencing and their co-occurrence, in some varieties, with co-indexed non-clitic objects and adverbials, have figured prominently in generative work at least since Kayne (1975) and Rizzi (1982) (↗5 Clitic pronouns). Positions adjacent to the verb are also available for certain other, non-clitic adverbials, and for negating elements. There are, however, certain differences between languages such as English and French, when it comes to the ordering of auxiliaries, preverbal negation, adverbials such as already or its French counterpart déjà, and non-finite verbal forms such as past participles or infinitives. Such ordering properties led Pollock (1989) to propose a more articulate structure for the functional category of Inflection. This “Split Inflection Hypothesis” set the scene for a fourth topic of investigation, the relative order of verbs and adjacent syntactic units, in particular object clitics, non-clitic adverbs and negators. Following up on this, Cinque (1999) developed a particularly elaborate syntactic proposal in order to account for the different positions available for different types of adverbs. His analysis is based to a significant extent on data from Italian and French. Very soon, research went beyond clauses with simple finite verbs to investigate linearization with complex verbal predicates and infinitival verbs (↗8 Causative and perception verbs; ↗10 Infinitival clauses). Fifth, we should mention wh-movement, that is, the analysis of clauses which are introduced by a wh-element as being derived by long-distance movement. This analysis, originally developed by Ross (1967) and Chomsky (1977), has been instrumental in gaining a better understanding of the regularities, and constraints, observable in Romance wh-interrogatives and relative clauses (see ↗16 Interrogatives; ↗22 Relative clauses). Finally, data from Italian and French have also been adduced as evidence for splitting up the clause-initial complementizer position into what has come to be known as the “fine structure of the left periphery” since Rizzi (1997). By introducing additional  



12

Andreas Dufter and Elisabeth Stark

functional structure above IP, the left periphery can accommodate elements related to illocutionary force by virtue of a Force Phrase (ForceP), such as Sp. ojalá and Pt. oxalá ‘hopefully’. More generally, the establishment of a “cartography” of syntactic structure at the left edges of syntactic units such as clauses and sentences has fostered research into the syntax of non-declaratives (see ↗16 Interrogatives; ↗17 Exclamatives, imperatives, optatives). By the same token, syntactic cartography has also invited new reflections on the impact of information structure on syntactic linearization. The provision of recursively available Topic projections (TopP), and of a (non-recursive) Focus projection (FocP), provide new avenues of research into preverbal constituents exhibiting focus or topic properties (see ↗13 Dislocations and framings; ↗14 Focus Fronting). Again, Romance languages and dialects have played a prominent role in cartographic approaches to syntax (see in particular, contributions to Cinque 2002; 2006; Belletti 2004; Rizzi 2004; Benincà/Munaro 2011; Brugé et al. 2012; Shlonsky 2015). At the same time, alternative, less articulate models of syntactic structure have also been proposed on the basis of data from Romance. In particular, it has been argued that prosodic structure needs to be taken into account in order to account for the relationship between information structure and constituent orders in the left periphery of sentences (see, Zubizarreta 1998; 2009 for Spanish, and Costa 2009 for Portuguese). At least to some extent, the chapters in the present volume bear witness to the diversity of approaches. In the next section, we will outline the overall structure of the volume and briefly introduce the chapters one by one.  

3 Structure, contents and leitmotifs of the volume The volume at hand consists of five parts. Following this introduction (Part I, Chapter 1), it features chapters on topics related to the verbal domain (Part II, Chapters 2–9), the syntax of clauses and sentences (Part III, Chapters 10–18), and the nominal domain (Part IV, Chapters 19–22), before ending with two chapters on more general, typological aspects (Part V, Chapters 23–24). By verbal domain, we are referring to a syntactic domain that roughly corresponds to the Tense Phrase (TP) in generative approaches, and to the French notion of proposition and equivalent notions in other Romance languages. As might be expected, Part II comprises chapters devoted to subjects and object complements of verbs (chapters 2 and 3, respectively). Several formal subtypes of verbal arguments are distinguished. In addition, dependency relations, including valency and government, as well as argument drop, agreement regularities and differential object marking (DOM) are discussed. Argument structures and argument structure alternations, and their semantic effects, are presented in chapter 4. As already mentioned, clitic pronouns have always attracted particular interest among Romance linguists. Their inventories and placement properties form the subject of chapter 5. In chapter 6, the syntactic expression of semantic arguments in passive and related constructions is

13

Introduction

investigated, and a number of semantic and information-structural properties of such voice alternations are addressed. Auxiliary verbs, their inventories in Romance languages and dialects, the complex interplay of factors determining the choice of auxiliaries in analytic perfect tenses, and past participle agreement regularities are treated in chapter 7. Chapter 8 then provides information about the syntactic peculiarities of causative and perception verb constructions, which can display both monoclausal and biclausal properties. Part II concludes with chapter 9, on copular and existential constructions, which feature a gamut of different syntactic formats, each of which associated with specific interpretational characteristics. As already mentioned, Part III scrutinizes the clausal and sentential domains, i.e., issues related to what is called phrase in French, or Complementizer Phrase (CP) in generative terms. In particular, several of the chapters in this part zoom in on phenomena related to the left periphery in the sense of Rizzi (1997) and his followers. The part opens with chapter 10 on infinitival clauses, both in syntactically embedded contexts and as independent sentential units. Following up on this, chapter 11 moves on to finite clauses and surveys the morphosyntactic categories of tense, aspect, and mood (TAM). In Romance languages at least, these TAM categories turn out to be intimately related. We chose to discuss these categories in Part III rather than in Part II because at the level of morphosyntax and syntax, TAM features of a clause may entertain a range of grammatical and semantic relations with those of other clauses, thereby interacting at levels higher than their respective proposition or TP. Given that TAM systems in Romance have constituted a hotspot of grammatical research for many decades, the chapter will inevitably not be able to do full justice to all the findings in all varieties of Romance, focusing instead to a large extent on French, Italian, and Spanish. Next, chapter 12 presents basic facts about the expression of negation in Romance languages, surveying the range of negative word items (or “n-words”, for short) and Negative Polarity Items (“NPIs”). By NPI, we are referring to linguistic expressions such as English at all which, while not carrying negative semantics by themselves, are typically restricted to environments under the scope of negation or other contexts of “scale reversal”. The chapter tackles cross-linguistic differences in the expression of negation in Romance from both diachronic and typological angles, by introducing the concept of the Jespersen Cycle, a showcase of grammaticalization theory (see below). Different types of displacements to the left periphery are introduced and analyzed in chapters 13 and 14. Chapter 13 first investigates phenomena known as clitic left dislocations (CLLDs, for short), such as in Fr. Mon voisin, il a toujours été comme ça (lit. ‘My neighbor, he has always been like that’), before examining other types of “displacements” (or External Merge) in which constituents are analyzed as occurring outside the “core clause”. Simplifying somewhat, we may say that dislocations and their likes tend to target constituents with topic properties, whereas a different set of rules and constraints applies for the fronting of focused constituents to a left-peripheral position. The distribution of focus fronting, and the interpretational characteristics associated to it, form the subject matter of chapter 14.  



14

Andreas Dufter and Elisabeth Stark

Information structure has also been argued to motivate the existence of biclausal syntactic formats such as Fr. C’est mon voisin qui est venu ‘It is my neighbor who came’ and Ce qu’il lui faut, c’est de l’argent ‘What he needs is money’. These structures, known as clefts and pseudo-clefts, respectively, and some of their syntactic variants, form the topic of chapter 15. The next two chapters shift the focus from information structure to illocutionary force and its relation to syntax in sentence types such as interrogatives (chapter 16), exclamatives, imperatives, and optatives (chapter 17). Last but not least, chapter 18 studies coordination, distinguishing between copulative, disjunctive, and adversative semantic types, and correlative constructions such as Fr. Plus on mange, plus on a faim ‘The more you eat, the hungrier you get’. Coordinated constituents and correlative clause pairs present interesting theoretical challenges to syntactic theory, many of which are addressed in the course of the chapter. The four chapters which make up Part IV explore aspects of the nominal domain in Romance, i.e., the morphosyntax and syntax of determiner phrases (DPs) according to the standard generative view. To begin with, chapter 19 describes the categories of gender and number, and the morphosyntactic relations in which they engage. In particular, the chapter details types of nominal plural marking found within the Romance family, and develops a syntactic take on gender and number in DPs. Next, chapter 20 studies different subclasses of determiners and quantifiers, surveying their diachronic sources and their syntagmatic potential in modern Romance languages. The two remaining chapters of Part IV explore various types of adnominal modifiers, from adjectival and genitival ones (chapter 21) to relative clauses (chapter 22). Chapter 21 pays particular attention to issues of linearization, making reference to semantically grounded ordering principles wherever appropriate. Chapter 22, in turn, presents paradigms of relativizing elements found in Romance, and formulates a number of generalizations about categories of relativizers, agreement facts, and the presence or absence of resumptive elements inside the relative clause. Finally, the two chapters in Part V seek to provide a broader typological perspective on the panoply of observations and findings presented in Parts II, III and IV. Chapter 23 investigates the division of labor between morphology and syntax, in other words, the degrees of analyticity (syntactic coding) or syntheticity (morphological coding) found in Romance languages, and in their common ancestor Latin. Most notably perhaps, this chapter critically assesses standard assumptions of a continuous diachronic evolution towards innovative analytic modes of expressing grammatical categories. The upshot of this discussion is that the changes observed can be more insightfully related to a change in the relative ordering of heads and their modifiers than to some inherent grammatical “drift” away from inflectional markings. To conclude the volume, the relative orderings of major constituents, i.e., subjects, verbs and objects, are discussed in chapter 24. As is well-known, subject–verb–object (SVO) orders constitute the unmarked case in Romance declaratives featuring both a lexical subject and a lexical object. However, other arrangements do occur, albeit with language-specific restrictions. Specifically, the chapter investigates the constraints on  







15

Introduction

OV and VS orders, capitalizing on information structure and discourse structure as determinants of variation in the linear arrangement of major constituents. While this tour d’horizon may seem ambitious, the volume at hand cannot pretend to offer comprehensive coverage of all topics worthy of a chapter-length treatment.8 In many ways, both the structure of the volume and the choice of contents reflect our indebtedness to Oesterreicher’s (1996a,b) chapters on comparative Romance morphosyntax and syntax in the Lexikon der Romanistischen Linguistik (see Section 1). In line with Oesterreicher (1996a), we maintain that any analysis of morphosyntactic categories in Romance languages needs to take into account the following areas of semantics and pragmatics: reference to discourse participants (↗2 Subjects; ↗3 Objects), semantic roles (↗4 Argument structure and argument structure alternations; ↗21 Adjectival and genitival modification), deixis, definiteness, and quantity (↗20 Determination and quantification), temporal reference, aspectual perspectivization, and modality (↗11 Tense, aspect, mood; ↗17 Exclamatives, imperatives, optatives). The way we conceive of syntax, in turn, is guided by Oesterreicher (1996b). Syntactic encoding implies a selection and combination of lexical and grammatical items. At the clausal and sentential levels, certain linear arrangements of major constituents qualify as unmarked and “basic” (↗24 Basic constituent orders), under a given mapping of semantic arguments onto syntactic roles determined by argument structure and grammatical voice (↗4 Argument structure and argument structure alternations; ↗6 Voice and voice alternations). Additional provisions must be made to account for the syntax of clauses featuring complex, non-finite and/or negated verbal predicates (↗8 Causative and perception verbs; ↗10 Infinitival clauses; ↗12 Negation and polarity), and predicates involving copular verbs (↗9 Copular and existential constructions). The impact of information structure on syntax is particularly evident in “non-basic” sentence variants, e.g. those involving “displacement” outside the core clause, fronting to the left clausal periphery, and splitting up clauses into biclausal cleft structures (↗13 Dislocations and framings; ↗14 Focus Fronting; ↗15 Cleft constructions). Syntactic movement operations are arguably also at play in clauses and sentences headed by interrogative, exclamative or relative items (↗16 Interrogatives; ↗17 Exclamatives, imperatives, optatives; ↗22 Relative clauses). It follows that issues related to the interfaces that syntax entertains with both semantics and information structure recur throughout many chapters. However, the volume cannot attempt systematic descriptions of these interfaces. Instead, we refer the interested reader to the Manual of Grammatical Interfaces in Romance (Fischer/ Gabriel 2016), another volume from the Manuals of Romance Linguistics series.  





8 In particular, one may regret the absence of chapters specifically dedicated to adverbs and adverbial modification, both within the verbal and in “higher” clause and sentence level domains. Other lacunae we need to acknowledge include prepositional phrases, finite subordination and non-finite clausal units other than infinitival clauses, such as participial and gerundial constructions, as well as a chapter specifically dedicated to agreement facts.

16

Andreas Dufter and Elisabeth Stark

A second leitmotiv which cross-cuts the volume at hand is diachrony. Chapter 6, for example, devotes an entire section to the re-organization of grammatical voice from Latin to Early Romance. In a similar vein, chapter 7 starts out with an outline of the uses of Latin HABERE ‘have’ and ESSE ‘be’ and their historical evolution as auxiliaries from Latin to Romance, before taking stock of auxiliary systems found in modern Romance languages and dialects. Auxiliarization is a subcase of grammaticalization, a cover term to designate grammatical changes in which individual linguistic units, and sequences of them, evolve from autonomous lexical and syntactic codings towards less variable, and ultimately rigid grammatical and morphological structures. The literature on grammaticalization is vast (see Narrog/Heine 2011; Detges/Waltereit 2016 for concise overviews). The grammatical changes observed in the evolution from Latin to Romance have always occupied center stage in the field, a fact almost inevitably reflected in this volume. Chapter 12, on negation, likewise insists on longterm diachronic trends, and on cyclical change instantiated by the famous “Jespersen Cycle”, going from simple to reinforced and back to simple expressions of negation (for cyclical change in general, see Gelderen 2009; 2011; 2016). Chapter 18, on coordination, traces the historical fate of formal coordinating devices from Latin into Romance, and chapter 19 and 20 do the same for categories and exponents of gender and number, and for Romance determiners and their Latin sources, respectively. Finally, diachrony looms large in chapters 23 and 24. Both chapters offer a survey of changes in inflectional morphology and syntax, and some critical remarks on traditional attempts at explaining why these changes occurred. Again, however, we need to emphasize that exhaustive coverage of historical Romance morphosyntax and syntax is beyond the scope of a single-volume handbook which is dedicated to the modern Romance varieties in the first place. Last not least, the micro- and macro-variation observable within Romance has always been a privileged object of study for morphologists and syntacticians with an interest in linguistic typology (see Iliescu 2003; Jacob 2003; Ramat/Ricca 2016). Therefore, typological parameters and classifications constitute a third recurrent theme of this volume. In particular, a number of Romance linguists have argued for systematic correlations between different grammatical properties, with the ultimate aim of establishing more holistic types, and a typologically insightful classification of Romance varieties. Perhaps the most far-reaching claims were formulated by Körner (1987), who postulated the existence of two fundamental syntactic types in Romance, viz., “accusative” or “de-languages” such as French, and “ergative” or “a-languages” such as Spanish. In order to substantiate his claim, Körner adduces a range of phenomena which, ideally at least, should serve to establish the proposed dichotomy: In contrast to de-languages, a-languages exhibit differential object marking (DOM; see Bossong 1991; 1998; ↗3 Objects), clitic doubling (↗3 Objects; ↗5 Clitic pronouns), datives as agents of embedded infinitives (↗8 Causative and perception verbs; ↗10 Infinitival clauses), and inflected infinitives (↗10 Infinitival clauses). De-languages, in turn, are characterized by “partitive” articles (↗20 Determination and quantification), and past

17

Introduction

participle agreement in compound tenses (↗3 Objects; ↗7 Auxiliaries). Proposals such as Körner’s are certainly inspiring. Having said that, many chapters in this volume show that the actual range of syntactic variation between Romance varieties is considerably greater, especially when not only standard varieties, but also dialects are taken into account. Over the last decades, a number of more modest, but at the same time more “robust” correlative generalizations have been formulated, and explanatory accounts have been proposed. On a more general level, the advancement of typological research has also given rise to reflections about whether or not there is such a thing as a global “Romance type”. Posner (1996, 35) dismisses phonetic and phonological features as defining “Romanceness” and surmises that the best candidate for identifying a specifically Romance type of languages might be the lexicon. Indeed, a substantial number of lexical items are “shared” by many, or even all Romance languages. At the same time, many of these very same lexical items have also been borrowed into other languages, such as Albanian, Basque, and English. In morphosyntax and syntax, by contrast, a set of features does seem to exist which makes up a “typically Romance” language. This feature set should probably include binary systems of nominal gender (↗19 Gender and number; see Loporcaro forthcoming for a full-fledged account), certain recurring distributions of allomorphs in verb paradigms (cf. the notion of “N-pattern” in Maiden 2016), the grammaticalization of the definite article stemming from a Latin demonstrative (ILLE or IPSE ), as well as items of the “functional lexicon”, such as other types of determiners, clitics and full pronouns (↗5 Clitic pronouns; ↗20 Determination and quantification; see Posner 1996, 35–96 for a more comprehensive discussion). A number of chapters in this volume offer such global typological perspectives on Romance, by comparing features of Romance morphosyntax and syntax with those found in languages beyond the Romance language family. As we said at the beginning, Romance languages are obviously related – yet pinpointing their grammatical relatedness in typological terms will probably remain an intriguing enterprise for generations of linguists to come.  

4 Acknowledgements First of all, we would like to thank the directors of the Manuals of Romance Linguistics series, Günter Holtus and Fernando Sánchez Miret, for having had the courage and the vigor to launch and to direct such an important publishing project, and for having accepted our proposal for this volume. Second, special gratitude is due to the De Gruyter publishing house, especially to Ulrike Krauß and Gabrielle Cornefert. Without their professional guidance through the various stages of the publishing process, their encouragement and patience, this volume would not have been able to appear in an (almost) timely fashion.

18

Andreas Dufter and Elisabeth Stark

Third, we are deeply indebted to all our colleagues who were willing to act as internal or external reviewers of the chapter manuscripts, the latter group including Aria Adli, Nicholas Catasso, Georg A. Kaiser, Álvaro S. Octavio de Toledo, Javier Rodríguez Molina, Malte Rosemeyer and Armin Schwegler. Their constructive criticism has been instrumental in eliminating mistakes, clarifying many points, and optimizing the structure of the chapters and the presentation of contents. Fourth, the revised versions of the chapter manuscripts had to be proofread and prepared for submission to the publisher. Elizabeth Rowley-Jolivet deserves special mention for her excellent proofreading as a native speaker of English and linguist. Benjamin Meisnitzer, as well as Dumitru Chihaï and Aurelia Merlan were of great help with some of the Portuguese and Romanian examples, respectively. In addition, literally thousands of linguistic examples and references had to be checked, and the formatting of examples, glosses and bibliographical entries had to be harmonized according to stylesheet guidelines. All this would have been simply impossible without the unconditional help of our teams in Zurich and Munich over the past two and a half years. We feel privileged in being able to rely on such great young linguists. Thank you so much, Mathieu Avanzi, Lena Baunaz, Larissa Binder, Jan Davatz, Daniela Gabler, Isabel Geiger, David Gerards, Teresa Gruber, Klaus Grübl, Benjamin Massot, Joan Miralles, Aurélia Robert-Tissot and Thomas Scharinger. Fifth, several of the contributors to this volume wish to acknowledge help from colleagues and/or financial support. We reproduce these acknowledgements here following the ordering of chapters in the volume: Chapter 8 (Marie Labelle): We thank Aroldo Leal de Andrade, Maria Teresa Espinal, Paul Hirschbühler, Anne Rochette, and the reviewers for their comments on previous versions of this paper. Chapter 12 (Pierre Larrivée): I am grateful to the editors of this volume, who kindly forced me to think about the issue in a pan-Romance way. This could not have been done without the input of Elena Albu, Carmen Avram, Montse Batllori and Benjamin Fagard, and that of the anonymous reviewers, who I warmly thank without however forgetting to evoke the usual disclaimers. Chapter 14 (Silvio Cruschina & Eva-Maria Remberger): We would like to thank two anonymous reviewers and the editors of this volume for valuable comments and remarks. Chapter 17 (Xavier Villalba): This work has been supported by grants FFI201452015 and 2014SGR1013, awarded to the Centre de Lingüística Teòrica of the UAB. Chapter 20 (Nigel Vincent): I am grateful to Adam Ledgeway and Martin Maiden as well as to the editors of this volume and to Aurelia Merlan for their comments on an earlier draft of this chapter. Needless to say responsibility for any remaining errors of fact or interpretation is mine alone. Chapter 21 (Antonio Fábregas): We are grateful to Elisabeth Stark, João Costa, Sandra Ronai, Ana Maria Brito, Francesca Masini, Tammer Castro, Marie Laurence Knittel, Edwige Dugas, Maria Pilar Colomina, Peter Svenonius and one anonymous  





Introduction

19

reviewer for comments and suggestions on previous versions of this chapter. All disclaimers apply. Chapter 22 (Cecilia Poletto & Emanuela Sanfelici): We thank Elisabeth Stark and the audience of the Relativsätze Forschergruppe Linguistik Kolloquium at Goethe University, Frankfurt am Main, for their helpful feedback. For the concerns of the Italian academy, Emanuela Sanfelici takes responsibility for Sections 2, 3, and 4, whereas Cecilia Poletto takes responsibility for Sections 1 and 5. Chapter 24 (Manuel Leonetti): The investigation presented in this chapter corresponds to two research projects funded by the Spanish Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad (“Semántica procedimental y contenido explícito III” – SPYCE III, FFI2012-31785; “La interfaz Semántica / Pragmática y la resolución de conflictos interpretativos” – SPIRIM, FFI2015-63497-P). I am grateful to Elisabeth Stark, Andreas Dufter and an anonymous reviewer for their useful comments and suggestions. Thanks are due also to Vicky Escandell-Vidal for her help with Catalan data and to João Costa for providing me with published materials on Portuguese word order. Last but not least, our heartfelt gratitude goes to our much regretted academic maestro, Wulf Oesterreicher. Without his dedication to his students, research assistants and colleagues, without the unfailing support we received over many years, and without his enthusiasm for, and encyclopedic familiarity with Romance linguistics we would probably not have had the chance to end up as editors of a Manual of Romance Morphosyntax and Syntax. It is to him that this volume is dedicated.  

5 References Adger, David (2013), Constructions and grammatical explanation: comments on Goldberg, Mind and Language 28, 466–478. Ágel, Vilmos, et al. (edd.) (2003/2006), Dependency and Valency. An International Handbook of Contemporary Research, 2 vol., Berlin/New York, De Gruyter. Álvarez, Rosario/Xove, Xosé (2002), Gramática da lingua galega, Vigo, Galaxia. Arteaga, Deborah L. (ed.) (2013), Research on Old French: The State of the Art, Dordrecht, Springer. Belletti, Adriana (ed.) (2004), Structures and Beyond. The Cartography of Syntactic Structures Volume 3, Oxford, Oxford University Press. Benincà, Paola/Ledgeway, Adam/Vincent, Nigel (edd.) (2014), Diachrony and Dialects. Grammatical Change in the Dialects of Italy, Oxford, Oxford University Press. Benincà, Paola/Munaro, Nicola (edd.) (2011), Mapping the Left Periphery. The Cartography of Syntactic Structures Volume 5, Oxford, Oxford University Press. Biberauer, Theresa, et al. (edd.) (2010), Parametric Variation. Null Subjects in Minimalist Theory, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Boas, Hans C./Gonzálvez-García, Francisco (edd.) (2014), Romance Perspectives on Construction Grammar, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, Benjamins. Bosque, Ignacio/Demonte, Violeta (edd.) (1999), Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española, 3 vol., Madrid, Espasa Calpe.  

20

Andreas Dufter and Elisabeth Stark

Bossong, Georg (1991), Differential object marking in Romance and beyond, in: Douglas Kibbee/ Dieter Wanner (edd.), New Analyses in Romance Linguistics, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, Benjamins, 143–170. Bossong, Georg (1998), Le marquage différentiel de l’objet dans les langues de l’Europe, in: Jack Feuillet (ed.), Actance et valence dans les langues de l’Europe, Berlin/New York, Mouton de Gruyter, 193–258. Bourciez, Édouard (51967, 11910), Éléments de linguistique romane, Paris, Klincksieck. Bouveret, Myriam/Legallois, Dominique (edd.) (2012), Constructions in French, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, Benjamins. Brugé, Laura, et al. (edd.) (2012), Functional Heads. The Cartography of Syntactic Structures Volume 7, Oxford, Oxford University Press. Büring, Daniel (2005), Binding Theory, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Burzio, Luigi (1986), Italian Syntax. A Government-Binding Approach, Dordrecht, Reidel. Butt, John B./Benjamin, Carmen (52011, 11988), A New Reference Grammar of Modern Spanish, London, Arnold. Castilho, Ataliba Teixeira de (2010), Nova gramática do português brasileiro, São Paulo, Contexto. Chomsky, Noam (1957), Syntactic Structures, The Hague, Mouton. Chomsky, Noam (1965), Aspects of the Theory of Syntax, Cambridge, MA, MIT Press. Chomsky, Noam (1977), On “wh”-movement, in: Peter W. Culicover/Thomas Wasow/Adrian Akmajian (edd.), Formal Syntax, New York, Academic Press, 71–132. Chomsky, Noam (1981), Lectures on Government and Binding, Dordrecht, Foris. Chomsky, Noam (1995), The Minimalist Program, Cambridge, MA, MIT Press. Cinque, Guglielmo (1995), Italian Syntax and Universal Grammar, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Cinque, Guglielmo (1999), Adverbs and Functional Heads. A Cross-linguistic Perspective, Oxford, Oxford University Press. Cinque, Guglielmo (ed.) (2002), Functional Structure in DP and IP. The Cartography of Syntactic Structures Volume 1, Oxford, Oxford University Press. Cinque, Guglielmo (ed.) (2006), Restructuring and Functional Heads. The Cartography of Syntactic Structures Volume 4, Oxford, Oxford University Press. Costa, João (2004), Subject Positions and Interfaces. The Case of European Portuguese, Berlin/New York, Mouton de Gruyter. Costa, João (2009), A focus-binding conspiracy. Left-to-right merge, scrambling and binary structure in European Portuguese, in: Jeroen van Craenenbroeck (ed.), Alternatives to Cartography, Berlin/ New York, Mouton de Gruyter, 87–108. Cruschina, Silvio (2011), Discourse-related Features and Functional Projections, Oxford, Oxford University Press. Cunha, Celso/Cintra, Luís F. L. (62014), Nova gramática do português contemporâneo, Rio de Janeiro, Lexikon. Dahmen, Wolfgang, et al. (edd.) (1998), Neuere Beschreibungsmethoden der Syntax romanischer Sprachen, Tübingen, Narr. Dahmen, Wolfgang, et al. (edd.) (2006), Was kann eine vergleichende romanische Sprachwissenschaft heute (noch) leisten? Romanistisches Kolloquium XX, Tübingen, Narr. D’Alessandro, Roberta/Ledgeway, Adam/Roberts, Ian (edd.) (2010), Syntactic Variation: The Dialects of Italy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. De Cesare, Anna-Maria/Garassino, Davide (edd.) (2016), Current Issues in Italian, Romance and Germanic Non-canonical Word Orders. Syntax – Information Structure – Discourse Organization, Frankfurt etc., Lang.

Introduction

21

Detges, Ulrich/Waltereit, Richard (2016), Grammaticalization and pragmaticalization, in: Susann Fischer/Christoph Gabriel (edd.), Manual of Grammatical Interfaces in Romance (Manuals of Romance Linguistics 10), Berlin/Boston, De Gruyter, 635–657. Diez, Friedrich (1836–1839), Grammatik der romanischen Sprachen, 3 vol., Bonn, Weber. Dobrovie-Sorin, Carmen (1993), The Syntax of Romanian. Comparative Studies in Romance, Berlin/ New York, Mouton de Gruyter. Dobrovie-Sorin, Carmen/Giurgea, Ion (2013), A Reference Grammar of Romanian, vol. 1: The Noun Phrase, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, Benjamins. Dufter, Andreas (2010), Grammatik und Grammatikographie in der Romania, in: Dudenredaktion/ Gesellschaft für deutsche Sprache/Mechthild Habermann (edd.), Grammatik wozu? Vom Nutzen des Grammatikwissens in Alltag und Schule, Mannheim, Bibliographisches Institut, 390–404. Dufter, Andreas/Jacob, Daniel (edd.) (2009), Focus and Background in Romance Languages, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, Benjamins. Dufter, Andreas/Jacob, Daniel (edd.) (2011), Syntaxe, structure informationnelle et organisation du discours dans les langues romanes, Frankfurt etc., Lang. Ernst, Gerhard, et al. (edd.) (2003–2008), Romanische Sprachgeschichte. Ein internationales Handbuch zur Geschichte der romanischen Sprachen und ihrer Erforschung, 3 vol., Berlin/New York, De Gruyter. Fernández Ramírez, Salvador (1951), Gramática española. Los sonidos, el nombre y el pronombre, Madrid, Revista de Occidente. Fernández Ramírez, Salvador (1985–1987), Gramática española, 5 vol., Madrid, Arco Libros. Fillmore, Charles J./Kay, Paul/O’Connor, Mary Catherine (1988), Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: the case of “let alone”, Language 64, 501–538. Fischer, Susann (2010), Word-Order Change as a Source of Grammaticalisation, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, Benjamins. Fischer, Susann/Gabriel, Christoph (edd.) (2016), Manual of Grammatical Interfaces in Romance (Manuals of Romance Linguistics 10), Berlin/Boston, De Gruyter. Gelderen, Elly van (ed.) (2009), Cyclical Change, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, Benjamins. Gelderen, Elly van (2011), The Linguistic Cycle. Language Change and the Language Faculty, Oxford, Oxford University Press. Gelderen, Elly van (ed.) (2016), Cyclical Change Continued, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, Benjamins. Gisborne, Nikolas (2014), The word and syntax, in: John R. Taylor (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of the Word, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 196–220. Goldberg, Adele (2006), Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language, Oxford, Oxford University Press. Grevisse, Maurice (162016, 11936), Le bon usage: grammaire française, refondue par André Goosse, Paris, Duculot. Gupton, Timothy (2014), The Syntax–Information Structure Interface. Clausal Word Order and the Left Periphery in Galician, Berlin/Boston, De Gruyter. Guţu Romalo, Valeria (ed.) (2005), Gramatica limbii române, 2 vol., București, Ed. Academiei Române. Hall Jr., Robert A. (1974–1983), Comparative Romance Grammar, 3 vol., New York, Elsevier. Halle, Morris/Marantz, Alex (1993), Distributed Morphology and the pieces of inflection, in: Kenneth Hale/Samuel J. Keyser (edd.), The View from Building 20. Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger, Cambridge, MA, MIT Press, 111–176. Harris, Martin/Vincent, Nigel (edd.) (1988), The Romance Languages, London/New York, Routledge. Hoffmann, Thomas/Trousdale, Graeme (edd.) (2013), The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar, Oxford, Oxford University Press. Holtus, Günter/Metzeltin, Michael/Schmitt, Christian (edd.) (1988–2005), Lexikon der Romanistischen Linguistik, 8 vol., Tübingen, Niemeyer.

22

Andreas Dufter and Elisabeth Stark

Hulk, Aafke C. J./Pollock, Jean-Yves (edd.) (2001), Subject Inversion and the Theory of Universal Grammar, Oxford, Oxford University Press. Hutchinson, Amélia P./Lloyd, Janet (22003, 11996), Portuguese. An Essential Grammar, London/New York, Routledge. Iliescu, Maria (2003), La typologie des langues romanes. État de la question, in: Fernando Sánchez Miret (ed.), Actas del XXIII Congreso Internacional de Lingüística y Filología Románica, vol. 1, Tübingen, Niemeyer, 61–81. Jacob, Daniel (2003), Prinzipien der Typologie und der sprachinternen Klassifikation der romanischen Sprachen, in: Gerhard Ernst et al. (edd.), Romanische Sprachgeschichte. Ein internationales Handbuch zur Geschichte der romanischen Sprachen und ihrer Erforschung, vol. 1, Berlin/New York, De Gruyter, 137–155. Jensen, Frede (1986), The Syntax of Medieval Occitan, Tübingen, Niemeyer. Jensen, Frede (1990), Old French and Comparative Gallo-Romance Syntax, Tübingen, Niemeyer. Jones, Michael Allan (1993), Sardinian Syntax, London/New York, Routledge. Jones, Michael Allan (1996), Foundations of French Syntax, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Kaiser, Georg A. (ed.) (2005), Deutsche Romanistik – generativ, Tübingen, Narr. Kato, Mary A./Ordóñez, Francisco (edd.) (2016), The Morphosyntax of Portuguese and Spanish in Latin America, Oxford, Oxford University Press. Kayne, Richard (1975), French Syntax: The Transformational Cycle, Cambridge, MA, MIT Press. Klausenburger, Jürgen (2000), Grammaticalization. Studies in Latin and Romance Morphosyntax, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, Benjamins. Körner, Karl-Hermann (1987), Korrelative Sprachtypologie. Die zwei Typen romanischer Syntax, Stuttgart, Steiner. Lasnik, Howard/Lohndal, Terje (2013), Brief overview of the history of generative syntax, in: Marcel den Dikken (ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Generative Syntax, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 26–60. Lausberg, Heinrich (1956–1962), Romanische Sprachwissenschaft, 3 vol., Berlin, De Gruyter. Ledgeway, Adam (2009), Grammatica diacronica del napoletano, Tübingen, Niemeyer. Ledgeway, Adam (2012), From Latin to Romance. Morphosyntactic Typology and Change, Oxford, Oxford University Press. Ledgeway, Adam/Maiden, Martin (edd.) (2016), The Oxford Guide to the Romance Languages, Oxford, Oxford University Press. Loporcaro, Michele (1998), Sintassi comparata dell’accordo participiale romanzo, Torino, Rosenberg & Sellier. Loporcaro, Michele (forthcoming), Gender from Latin to Romance: History, Geography, Typology, Oxford, Oxford University Press. Maiden, Martin (2016), Morphomes, in: Adam Ledgeway/Martin Maiden (edd.), The Oxford Guide to the Romance Languages, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 708–721. Maiden, Martin/Robustelli, Cecilia (2000), A Reference Grammar of Modern Italian, London, Arnold. Maiden, Martin/Smith, John Charles/Ledgeway, Adam (edd.) (2011/2013), The Cambridge History of the Romance Languages, 2 vol., Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Manzini, M. Rita/Savoia, Leonardo M. (2005), I dialetti italiani e romanci. Morfosintassi generativa, 3 vol., Alessandria, Edizioni dell’Orso. Manzini, M. Rita/Savoia, Leonardo M. (2011), Grammatical Categories: Variation in Romance, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Mensching, Guido (2000), Infinitive Constructions with Specified Subjects: A Syntactic Analysis of the Romance Languages, Oxford, Oxford University Press. Meyer-Lübke, Wilhelm (1890–1902), Grammatik der romanischen Sprachen, 4 vol., Leipzig, Reisland.  



Introduction

23

Mosegaard Hansen, Maj-Britt (2016), The Structure of Modern Standard French. A Student Grammar, Oxford, Oxford University Press. Narrog, Heike/Heine, Bernd (edd.) (2011), The Oxford Handbook of Grammaticalization, Oxford, Oxford University Press. Oesterreicher, Wulf (1996a), Gemeinromanische Tendenzen V. Morphosyntax, in: Günter Holtus/ Michael Metzeltin/Christian Schmitt (edd.), Lexikon der Romanistischen Linguistik, vol. 2.1, Tübingen, Niemeyer, 273–309. Oesterreicher, Wulf (1996b), Gemeinromanische Tendenzen VI. Syntax, in: Günter Holtus/Michael Metzeltin/Christian Schmitt (edd.), Lexikon der Romanistischen Linguistik, vol. 2.1, Tübingen, Niemeyer, 309–355. Pană Dindelegan, Gabriela (ed.) (2013), The Grammar of Romanian, Oxford, Oxford University Press. Pană Dindelegan, Gabriela (ed.) (2016), Syntax of Old Romanian, Oxford, Oxford University Press. Perini, Mário A. (2015), Describing Verb Valency. Practical and Theoretical Issues, Cham etc., Springer. Perlmutter, David M. (1978), Impersonal passives and the unaccusativity hypothesis, in: Proceedings of the Fourth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, Berkeley, CA, Berkeley Linguistics Society, 157–189. Poletto, Cecilia (1993), La sintassi dei pronomi soggetto nei dialetti settentrionali, Padova, Unipress. Poletto, Cecilia (2000), The Higher Functional Field. Evidence from Northern Italian Dialects, Oxford, Oxford University Press. Poletto, Cecilia (2014), Word Order in Old Italian, Oxford, Oxford University Press. Pollock, Jean-Yves (1989), Verb movement, Universal Grammar, and the structure of IP, Linguistic Inquiry 20, 365–424. Posner, Rebecca (1996), The Romance Languages, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. RAE/ASALE = Real Academia Española/Asociación de Academias de la Lengua Española (2009), Nueva gramática de la lengua española, 3 vol., Madrid, Espasa Calpe. Ramat, Paolo/Ricca, Davide (2016), Romance: A typological approach, in: Adam Ledgeway/Martin Maiden (edd.), The Oxford Guide to the Romance Languages, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 50–62. Raposo, Eduardo, et al. (edd.) (2013), Gramática do português, 2 vol., Lisboa, Fundação Calouste Gulbenkian. Remberger, Eva-Maria/Mensching, Guido (edd.) (2008), Romanistische Syntax – minimalistisch, Tübingen, Narr. Renzi, Lorenzo/Salvi, Giampaolo/Cardinaletti, Anna (edd.) (1988–1995), Grande grammatica italiana di consultazione, 3 vol., Bologna, il Mulino. Riegel, Martin/Pellat, Jean-Christophe/Rioul, René (52014, 11994), Grammaire méthodique du français, Paris, Presses Universitaires de France. Rizzi, Luigi (1982), Issues in Italian Syntax, Dordrecht, Foris. Rizzi, Luigi (1986), Null objects in Italian and the theory of “pro”, Linguistic Inquiry 17, 501–557. Rizzi, Luigi (1997), The fine structure of the left periphery, in: Liliane Haegeman (ed.), Elements of Grammar. A Handbook of Generative Syntax, Dordrecht, Kluwer, 281–337. Rizzi, Luigi (ed.) (2004), The Structure of CP and IP. The Cartography of Syntactic Structures Volume 2, Oxford, Oxford University Press. Ross, John Robert (1967), Constraints on Variables in Syntax, MIT, Cambridge, MA, Ph.D. dissertation. Rowlett, Paul (2007), The Syntax of French, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Salvi, Giampaolo (2004), La formazione della struttura di frase romanza. Ordine delle parole e clitici dal latino alle lingue romanze antiche, Tübingen, Niemeyer. Salvi, Giampaolo/Renzi, Lorenzo (edd.) (2010), Grammatica dell’italiano antico, Bologna, il Mulino. Samek-Lodovici, Vieri (2015), The Interaction of Focus, Givenness, and Prosody: A Study of Italian Clause Structure, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

24

Andreas Dufter and Elisabeth Stark

Scalise, Sergio (1988), Inflection and derivation, Linguistics 26, 560–581. Seilheimer, Andrea (2014), Les grammaires historiques des langues romanes, in: Andre Klump/ Johannes Kramer/Aline Willems (edd.), Manuel des langues romanes (Manuals of Romance Linguistics 1), Berlin/Boston, De Gruyter, 118–145. Selkirk, Elisabeth O. (1982), The Syntax of Words, Cambridge, MA, MIT Press. Serianni, Luca (1988), Grammatica italiana. Italiano comune e lingua letteraria, con la collab. di Alberto Castelvecchi, Torino, UTET. Shlonsky, Ur (ed.) (2015), Beyond Functional Sequence. The Cartography of Syntactic Structures Volume 10, Oxford, Oxford University Press. Solà Cortassa, Joan, et al. (2002), Gramàtica del català contemporani, 3 vol., Barcelona, Empúries. Spencer, Andrew (2000), Morphology and syntax, in: Geert E. Booij/Christian Lehmann/Joachim Mugdan (edd.), Morphology: An International Handbook on Inflection and Word-Formation, vol. 1, Berlin/New York, De Gruyter, 312–334. Squartini, Mario (1998), Verbal Periphrases in Romance. Aspect, Actionality, and Grammaticalization, Berlin/New York, Mouton de Gruyter. Stark, Elisabeth/Schmidt-Riese, Roland/Stoll, Eva (edd.) (2008), Romanische Syntax im Wandel, Tübingen, Narr. Stark, Elisabeth/Wandruszka, Ulrich (edd.) (2003), Syntaxtheorien: Modelle, Methoden, Motive, Tübingen, Narr. Stowell, Timothy A. (1981), Origins of Phrase Structure, MIT, Cambridge, MA, Ph.D. dissertation. Swiggers, Pierre (2014), La linguistique romane, de Friedrich Diez à l’aube du XXe siècle, in: Andre Klump/Johannes Kramer/Aline Willems (edd.), Manuel des langues romanes (Manuals of Romance Linguistics 1), Berlin/Boston, De Gruyter, 43–64. Tesnière, Lucien (1959), Éléments de syntaxe structurale, Paris, Klincksieck. Thun, Harald (1986), Personalpronomina für Sachen. Ein Beitrag zur romanischen Textlinguistik, Tübingen, Narr. Tortora, Christina (ed.) (2003), The Syntax of Italian Dialects, Oxford, Oxford University Press. Wanner, Dieter (1987), The Development of Romance Clitic Pronouns. From Latin to Old Romance, Berlin/New York, Mouton de Gruyter. Wartburg, Walther von (1936), Die Ausgliederung der romanischen Sprachräume, Halle an der Saale, Niemeyer. Wheeler, Max/Yates, Alan/Dols, Nicolau (1999), Catalan. A Comprehensive Grammar, London/New York, Routledge. Williams, Edwin (1981), On the notions “lexically related” and “head of a word”, Linguistic Inquiry 12, 245–274. Wilmet, Marc (52010, 11997), Grammaire critique du français, Bruxelles, De Boeck/Duculot. Yoon, Jiyoung/Gries, Stefan Th. (edd.) (2016), Corpus-based Approaches to Construction Grammar, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, Benjamins. Zagona, Karen T. (2002), The Syntax of Spanish, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Zanuttini, Raffaella (1997), Negation and Clausal Structure. A Comparative Study of Romance Languages, Oxford, Oxford University Press. Zimmermann, Michael (2014), Expletive and Referential Subject Pronouns in Medieval French, Berlin/ Boston, De Gruyter. Zubizarreta, María Luisa (1998), Prosody, Focus, and Word Order, Cambridge, MA, MIT Press. Zubizarreta, María Luisa (2009), The left edge in the Spanish clausal structure, in: Pascual José Masullo/Erin O’Rourke/Chia-Hui Huang (edd.), Romance Linguistics 2007. Selected Papers from the 37th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages (LSRL), Pittsburgh, 15–18 March 2007, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, Benjamins, 339–357.  

The verbal domain

Maria Lobo and Ana Maria Martins

2 Subjects Abstract: This chapter deals with two main topics: constituent order (focusing on the interaction between subject positions and interpretation), and null subjects. Both issues relate to case, agreement and expletives. The chapter discusses what motivates and licenses verb-subject orders in Romance non-wh sentences and identifies focalization, theticity and non-degree exclamatives as unifying factors across Romance languages. Focalization of the subject derives VOS order, whereas theticity and nondegree exclamatives display VSO order. On the topic of null subjects, the chapter offers a critical review of the assumption of a pro-drop parameter (also called the Null Subject Parameter) for Romance, considering different types of null subject languages (consistent and partial pro-drop languages). It provides evidence that the pro-drop parameter cannot be maintained as originally formulated since the richness of grammatical variation between Romance languages requires a more intricate, fine-grained parametrization.  

Keywords: verb-subject order, null subjects, focus, theticity, exclamatives, case, agreement, pro-drop  

1 Introduction While it is generally agreed that in many languages subjects constitute a core element of grammar, there is no general agreement on how to define them in and across languages and linguistic theories (cf. Keenan 1976; Van Kampen 2005; Falk 2006).1 However, Romance languages are not among the languages that make the notion of “subject” particularly difficult to handle, especially if one defines “subject” on morphosyntactic grounds. In this chapter,2 we will make the simple assumption that Nominative Case and verbal agreement identify subjects in Romance languages, which typologically belong to the Nominative-Accusative type (cf. WALS 98A; 99A; 100A), and will then deal with apparent difficulties. We will further assume that every (well-formed) sentence has a subject, which in most Romance languages may be

1 Keenan (1976) discusses the behavior of arguments in a number of typologically diverse languages in order to identify the “universal” properties of subjects. Among the criteria that he proposes for identifying the subjects of basic sentences in any language are morphological case, subject-verb agreement, controlling, reflexivization and omission on identity in second conjuncts and in controlled infinitives. 2 The authors’ names at the beginning of this chapter appear in alphabetical order. The first author is primarily responsible for Sections 4 and 5, the second author for Sections 1, 2, 3 and 6.  

DOI 10.1515/9783110377088-002



28

Maria Lobo and Ana Maria Martins

overtly realized or null (as shown in (1) below, where Standard French contrasts with the other languages in disallowing a null subject).3 Sentences displaying the Subject-Verb (SV) order, as exemplified in (1), show clear instances of Nominative, agreeing subjects. Hence in (1a-f) the verb displays plural inflection because the DP-subject is plural. Moreover, both full DPs and null subjects (the latter signaled with ‘pro’) can be replaced with a Nominative pronoun under a substitution test. (1) a.

Pt.

{As crianças/pro/eles} já voltaram da escola. the children/–/they already returned-3PL from-the school b. Sp. {Los niños/pro/ellos} ya han regresado de from the children/–/they already have-3PL returned la escuela. the-school c. Cat. {Els nens/pro/ells} ja han tornat de l’escola. the children/–/they already have-3PL returned from the-school d. It. {I bambini/pro/loro} già sono tornati da scuola. the children/–/they already are-3PL returned from-the school e. Rom. {Copiii/pro/ei} deja s-au ȋntors de la returned from children-the/–/they already REFL = have-3PL şcoală. school f. Fr. {Les enfants/*pro/ils} sont déjà rentrés de l’école. the children/*–/they are-3PL already returned from the-school ‘The children have already got back from school.’

Postverbal subjects may behave exactly like preverbal ones as for case assignment and subject-verb agreement, as shown by the VS sentences in (2).4 Further evidence for the subjecthood of the postverbal constituents is provided by their ability to bind anaphoric se, control the subject of an infinitival clause and identify the reference of a null subject in the second member of a coordinate structure (cf. Keenan 1976), as illustrated in (3-B). French does not usually allow the type of VS sentences exemplified in (2).

3 European Portuguese and Brazilian Portuguese differ from each other in regard to word order flexibility and the pro-drop property, as will be discussed in the ensuing sections. In (1a) and (2a), “Portuguese” stands for European Portuguese. 4 The Case and agreement properties exhibited by ordinary subjects in Romance languages are inherited from Latin, which also licensed null subjects and displayed the alternation between SV and VS orders (cf. Bolkestein 1995; Devine/Stephens 2006; Pinkster 1990; 2015). Some of the Romance languages lost the null subject property and severely constrained the availability of postverbal subjects as a result of diachronic change.

Subjects

(2) a.

29

Pt.

Já chegaram {os rapazes/eles}. the boys/they already arrived-3PL b. Sp. Ya han llegado {los chicos/ellos}. arrived the boys/they already have-3PL c. Cat. Ja han arribat {els nois/ells}. arrived the boys/they already have-3PL d. It. Già sono arrivati {i ragazzi/loro}. arrived the boys/they already are-3PL e. Rom. Deja au ajuns {băieții/ei}. arrived boys-the/they already have-3PL ‘The boys have already arrived.’

(3) Pt. A:

B:

Elas não se riram. not REFL laughed-3PL they-F ‘They (the girls) did not laugh.’ elesi sem PROi disfarçar Riram-sei without disguise-INF laughed-3PL =REFL they-M e proi não pediram desculpa. apology and not asked-3PL ‘But they (the boys) laughed without hiding it and did not apologize.’

However, the postverbal constituent that surfaces in sentences with monoargumental verbs does not always behave as in (2) and (3) above. So in (4) below, the verb does not agree with the postverbal constituent (cf. (4a–b)) or agrees only partially (cf. (4c), where there is agreement in number but not in person),5 and may not control the subject of an infinitival clause, as in (4d), to be contrasted with (4e). The Brazilian Portuguese (BPt.) examples in (4a–b) are taken from Kato/Martins (2016); the French example in (4c) is taken from Bonami/Godard/Marandin (1999), and the European Portuguese (EPt.) examples in (4d–e) are taken from Carrilho (2003). (4) a.

Spoken BPt.

Chegou os arrived-3SG the ‘The eggs arrived.’

ovos. eggs

5 The French pattern of agreement in (4c) differs from what is found in other languages. Thus in European Portuguese, for example, first person plural agreement is available in a similar sentence whereas third person plural is not: (i) Pt. o prédio onde habitávamos /*habitavam a Maria e eu the Maria and I the building where lived-1PL / lived-3PL ‘the building where Maria and I lived’

30

Maria Lobo and Ana Maria Martins

b. Spoken BPt.

c.

Fr.

d. Dialectal EPt.

e.

Dialectal EPt.

Telefonou uns clientes. some clients called-3SG ‘Some clients called.’ l’immeuble où habitaient/*habitions Marie Marie the-building where lived-3PL /lived-1PL et moi and I ‘the building where Marie and I lived’ PROi dizer Chegou [muitas crianças]i (*sem without PRO say-INF arrived-3SG many children uma palavra). a word PROi dizer Chegaram [as crianças]i (sem without PRO say- INF arrived-3PL the children uma palavra). a word ‘The/many children arrived without saying anything.’

The postverbal constituents in (4) have been designated in the literature as “objectivized subjects” (Lambrecht 2000), “accusative subjects” (Bonami/Godard/Marandin 1999) or just “objects” (Carrilho 2003) depending on the theoretical framework that supports the analyses of the different authors. But for theory-neutral, descriptive purposes, the postverbal constituents in (4) are also often referred to in the literature just as “subjects”, which allows us to make the link between them and their correlates in an SV sentence. The structures in (4) will be part of the present chapter. We will discuss how they satisfy the requirement that all sentences have a subject, and clarify the contrast between (3) and (4) in this respect. This will lead to introducing the notion of expletive subject, which may be covert, as in (4a) above, or overt as in (5) below. The sentences in (5) also show that expletives may be of different types and so induce different agreement patterns. (5)

Fr. a.

b.

Il

est arrivé des milliers de personnes. EXPL is arrived ART . INDF - PL thousands of people ‘There arrived thousands of people.’ Ce sont des milliers de réfugiés qui EXPL are ART . INDF - PL thousands of refugees who frappent à la porte de l’Europe. knock at the door of the-Europe ‘There are thousands of refugees knocking at the door of Europe.’

All Romance languages used to be pro-drop languages, allowing both null referential subjects and null expletives, a property inherited from Latin. In the course of time,

Subjects

31

French6 lost the ability to license null subjects and Brazilian Portuguese severely restricted their availability. The varying behavior of current Romance languages with respect to the pro-drop property as well as their differences relative to the kinds of expletives they license have effects on word order. It is commonly said that pro-drop Romance languages allow “free” subject-verb inversion, while non-pro-drop Romance languages have lost such word order flexibility. In this chapter we intend to show that these claims are overly simplistic and highly debatable. The chapter is organized in five sections besides this introduction. Section 2 discusses the word order alternation SV/VS in Romance, with a special focus on the interpretive effects of the verb-subject order (i.e. VOS and VSO) in simple noninterrogative clauses, across Romance languages. It will include three subsections, respectively on focalization (2.1), theticity (2.2) and non-degree exclamatives (2.3). Section 3 considers morphological subject marking in Romance, focusing on nominative case, subject-verb agreement, and their interplay with ordering and expletives. Section 4 offers a critical review of the assumption of a pro-drop parameter for Romance, considering different types of null subject languages (consistent and partial pro-drop languages), different types of null subjects available in Romance languages, and a brief glance at the diachronic change in the availability of null subjects in Romance languages. Section 5 covers some of the properties usually linked to null subject languages, in particular the “optionality” of dropping referential subjects and the availability of subject extraction from embedded domains. Finally, Section 6 will offer a brief general summary of the chapter.  





2 Word order (SV/VS) This section addresses the topic of constituent order, essentially focusing on the different types of subject-verb inversion that are found across Romance languages (↗24 Basic constituent orders). We use here the term inversion to refer to the order verb-subject because it is widespread in the literature. It may not be descriptively correct for Romanian and Spanish, if the basic/unmarked constituent order in Romanian is VSO (cf. Dobrovie-Sorin 1994; Motapanyane 1994; Alboiu 2002) and in Spanish both SVO and VSO (cf. Zubizarreta 1998; 1999; Zagona 2005 vs Vanrell Bosch/Fernández Soriano 2013). For discussion of the topic of basic constituent orders, see ↗24 Basic constituent orders. We will not tackle it here. Nor will we deal with subject-verb inversion in topicalization, (contrastive) focus movement and wh-structures, since the issues related to these constructions will be addressed in later chapters in this volume (↗13 Dislocations and framings; ↗14 Focus  

6 But cf. Zimmermann (2014) who argues that French was a non-pro-drop language from the beginning.

32

Maria Lobo and Ana Maria Martins

Fronting; ↗15 Cleft constructions; ↗17 Exclamatives, imperatives, optatives). Finally, we will in general disregard word order in subordinate clauses, due to space limitations.7 Across Romance languages, main clause preverbal subjects are preferably interpreted as topics whenever VS is an alternative available option for constituent order.8 Thus a common feature of VS sentences is the non-topichood of their subject. But VS structures are not a unitary phenomenon. In this section we will consider three different kinds of motivation for VS configurations, namely: (i) narrow focus or informational prominence on the subject; (ii) theticity, in the sense of Kuroda (1965; 1972; 1992; 2005), and (iii) particular instances of non-degree exclamatives. In root sentences with transitive verbs, focalization of the subject derives VOS, whereas thetic sentences and non-degree exclamatives display VSO order.

2.1 Inversion as focalization In answers to wh-questions where the subject bears narrow focus, three syntactic patterns can be found in Romance languages, as exemplified below in (6) to (8).9 Patterns I and II display VS order, hence place the subject in the sentence-final position where the (unmarked) sentence nuclear stress falls (Zubizarreta 1998; 1999; Costa 1998; 2004; Costa/Silva 2006; among others). SV order is only found in the rarer pattern III, which involves marked prosodic prominence on the preverbal subject.  

Pattern I – Simple VS (European Portuguese, Spanish, Catalan, Italian, Romanian) (6) a.

EPt./Sp.

Q: Quem faz o jantar? / ¿Quién hace la cena? who makes the dinner / who makes the dinner ‘Who will cook dinner?’ A: Faz o Pedro. / La hace Pedro. makes the Pedro / it makes Pedro ‘Pedro will.’

7 On VS order in Spanish relative clauses, see Gutiérrez-Bravo (2005). On VS order in French subordinate clauses, see Lahousse (2003; 2006b; 2011). 8 We are not implying that preverbal subjects in Romance pro-drop languages are necessarily leftdislocated. On this highly debated controversial proposal, see Alexiadou/Anagnostopoulou (2001), Alexiadou (2006), Barbosa (1995; 2000; 2006; 2009), Cardinaletti (1997a; 2004; 2014), Corr (2012), Costa (1998; 2001a; 2004), Ordóñez (2000), Sheehan (2006; 2010), among others. 9 Cf. Alboiu (1999; 2002), Ambar (1992), Belletti (2001; 2004; 2005), Bonami/Godard/Marandin (1999), Costa (1998; 2004), Costa/Silva (2006), Dufter (2008), Kampers-Mahne et al. (2004), Kato (2000), Kato/ Martins (2016), Lahousse (2003; 2006a; 2011), Marandin (2011), Mensching/Weingart (2009), Rizzi (1997), Ordóñez (1997; 1999; 2007a, 2007b), Zubizarreta (1998; 1999), among others.

Subjects

b. It.

Q: Chi {è partito / who is left / ‘Who left/spoke?’ A: {È partito / ha is left / has ‘Gianni did.’

ha has

33

parlato}? spoken

parlato} spoken

Gianni. Gianni

Pattern II – VS in “reduced” clefts (Brazilian Portuguese, French)10 (7) a.

BPt.

b. Fr.

Q: Quem (é que) cozinha o jantar? who is that cooks the dinner jantar. A: É o Alex que cozinha o the dinner is the Alex that cooks Q: Qui prépare le dîner? who prepares the dinner le prépare. A: C’est Alex qui prepares it-is Alex that it ‘Who cooks dinner? It is Alex / Alex does.’

Pattern III – SV, with (marked) prosodic prominence on the subject (Brazilian Portuguese)11 (8) BPt.

Q: Quem que comeu o meu who that ate the my A: O Ruben comeu. the Ruben ate ‘Who ate my cake? Ruben did.’

bolo? cake?

Pattern I, displaying simple VS, is the most widespread across Romance languages. The subject becomes prominent by receiving the sentence nuclear stress, in compliance with the information structure requirement that focus be prominent. Alternative strategies arise in the languages that have restrictions regarding the type of verbs that license VS order, namely non-pro-drop French and partial pro-drop Brazilian Portuguese (cf. Section 4). However, Brazilian Portuguese allows the order VS in answers to wh-questions if the verb is of the unaccusative type (like cair in (9a)), in contrast with

10 Pattern II is also available in European Portuguese, but pattern I is the most common option in this language. 11 According to Belletti (2005), pattern III is not a preferred option in French, but it is admitted by some speakers. Pattern III is the regular pattern in English.

34

Maria Lobo and Ana Maria Martins

transitive verbs (like ver in (9b)), or unergatives, which exclude Pattern I (cf. Kato/ Martins 2016).12 (9) a.

BPt.

b. BPt.

Q: Quem caiu? who fell ‘Who fell?’ A: Caiu uma criança. fell a child ‘A child fell.’ Q: Quem foi que viu who was that saw ‘Who saw a cat?’ A: *Viu uma criança. saw a child ‘A child did.’

um a

gato? cat?

We may therefore conclude that all Romance languages use the strategy of placing the subject in sentence final position in order to give it focal prominence (be it through Pattern I or Pattern II), within the limits that independent grammatical constraints define. When the subject is focus, the order SV in answers to wh-questions is excluded by all the Romance languages that generally display Pattern I. This is because if placed preverbally the subject will be interpreted as topic, not as focus, leading to an infelicitous information structure configuration. The pragmatic oddity of SV in the relevant discourse context is exemplified in (10) below (cf. Alboiu 2002). Moreover, examples (11) and (12) show that SV sentences can be ungrammatical when contextual factors require narrow focus to fall on the subject (cf. Belletti 2001). (10)

Q: A:

[Who has come home?] Rom. a. A venit acasă mama. AUX - 3SG come home mother-the b. # Mama a venit acasă. mother-the AUX - 3SG come home EPt. c. Veio a mãe. came the mother d. #A mãe veio. the mother came VS: ‘Mother did.’ SV: ‘Mother, (I know that) she did …’

12 French displays unaccusative inversion, like Brazilian Portuguese, but differently from Brazilian Portuguese does not allow null expletive subjects.

Subjects

(11) a.

It. Q: A:

b. EPt.Q: A:

(12) a.

It. Q: A:

b. Sp. Q: A:

35

Pronto, chi parla? hello who speaks Parla Gianni / *Gianni parla. speaks Gianni / Gianni speaks Quem fala? who speaks Fala o Gabriel / *O Gabriel fala. speaks the Gabriel / the Gabriel speaks ‘(Hello,) who is speaking? It is Gianni/Gabriel.’ Chi è? who is a. Sono io. am I b. *Io sono. I am ¿Quién és? who is a. Soy yo. am I b. *Yo soy. I am ‘Who is it? It’s me.’

A sentence-final subject need not be narrow focus. It can display informational prominence within a broad focus sentence, whether such prominence is associated with contrast or not, as exemplified in (13) and (14). (13) EPt.

Q: O que é que foi? the what is that was ‘What was it?’ A: a. {Pousou / está pousada} no plátano uma águia. landed / is landed in-the maple-tree an eagle ‘An eagle has landed in the maple tree.’ b. Vêm de férias connosco para o Brasil to the Brazil come-3PL on vacation with us os teus pais (não o teu filho). the your parents (not the your son) ‘Your parents (not your son) will come with us to Brazil on vacation.’

36

Maria Lobo and Ana Maria Martins

(14) EPt.

Levantou-se no mar uma grande tempestade (não rose-SE in-the sea a big storm (not tsunami). tsunami) ‘A big storm (not a tsunami) rose out of the sea.’

um a

In a very restricted way, French also uses the sentence-final position to give informational prominence to the subject in VOS sentences. Sentences (15a–b) illustrate the type of VS structures referred to in the literature as “heavy subject NP inversion” (Bonami/Godard/Marandin 1999), “elaborative inversion” (Kampers-Mahne et al. 2004) or “focus VS” (Lahousse 2006a). According to Lahousse (2006a; 2007) and Lahousse/Lamiroy (2012), from which the examples in (15) are taken, the order VOS appears in French mostly in administrative and legal texts (maybe as an “archaic” survival) and is only licensed when the sentence-final subject has an exhaustive identification reading. (15) Fr. a.

Recevront un bulletin de vote les étudiants et card of vote the students and receive-FUT -3PL a le personnel académique. the staff academic ‘Students as well as academic staff will receive a ballot paper.’ b. Paieront une amende tous les automobilistes en infraction. fine all the drivers in infraction pay-FUT -3PL a ‘All drivers in breach of the law will pay a fine.’

Quotative inversion can also be analyzed as an instance of informational highlighting of the subject (cf. Matos 2013). So can locative inversion, depending on the discourse context. In both cases differences between Romance languages may not align with the split between pro-drop and non-pro-drop languages. For instance, inversion in quotatives is mandatory in both pro-drop European Portuguese and non-pro-drop “formal standard” French (Bonami/Godard 2008), while it is optional in partial pro-drop Brazilian Portuguese (Kato/Martins 2016). As for locative inversion, a constraint on verb-initial sentences separates Italian from other pro-drop languages, such as European Portuguese. Italian is subject to the V1 constraint with certain verbs (Pinto 1997; Belletti 2001; Corr 2012), whereas European Portuguese is not.13 In the European

13 The examples in (i) below are from Pinto (1997, 157). The Italian sentences marked as # are perfectly fine in European Portuguese. (i) It. a. In questo palazzo ha vissuto Dante. in this palace has lived Dante b. #Ha vissuto in questo palazzo Dante. has lived in this palace Dante

Subjects

37

Portuguese sentences in (16), the subject bears informational prominence in sentencefinal position, no matter whether the locative argument precedes or follows the verb. Recall that informational prominence is not restricted to narrow focus. (16) EPt.

Q: a.

O que é que estás a fazer aqui? here the what is that are-2SG to do ‘What are you doing here?’ b. Quem vive neste prédio tão degradado? who lives in-this building so degraded ‘Who lives in this dilapidated building?’ A: c. Aqui/ neste prédio vive a minha filha. here/ in-this building lives the my daughter d. Vive aqui/ neste prédio a minha filha. lives here/ in-this building the my daughter ‘My daughter lives in this building.’

The fact that locative inversion may be used as a strategy to assign informational prominence to the subject is confirmed precisely by the VOS order it sanctions in languages that otherwise disallow VOS in the same contexts. Italian and Brazilian Portuguese, which are a case in point, make use of this syntactic strategy to license subject-verb inversion with transitive (and some unergative) verbs.14 Moreover, both languages optionally allow the locative or spatio-temporal constituent to be a null deictic expression (cf. Pinto 1997; Belletti 2001; Pilati 2002; Kato/Martins 2016). The Brazilian Portuguese sentences in (17), taken from Pilati (2002), are to be compared with the Italian sentence in (18), taken from Belletti (2001). Crucially, all sentences display VOS order. (17) BPt.

c.

a.

Tem a palavra a senadora Heloísa Helena. has the word the senator Heloisa Helena ‘Senator Heloísa Helena has the floor.’ b. Abre o placar o time do Palmeiras. opens the match the team of-the Palmeiras ‘The Palmeiras team opens the match.’

#Ha vissuto Dante in questo palazzo. has lived Dante in this palace ‘Dante lived in this palace.’ 14 Cf. the following observation by Lahousse (2008, footnote 21) in a paper where she discusses French “nominal inversion” and proposes to unify “locative inversion” and “unaccusative inversion“: “Indeed, the contrastive focalization of the subject is one of the factors that favor nominal inversion in contexts where it is otherwise not allowed”. Cf. also Lahousse (2006b).

38

Maria Lobo and Ana Maria Martins

c.

(18) It.

Ergue o braço o raises the arm the ‘The judge raises his arm.’

juiz. judge

Mette la palla sul dischetto del puts the ball on-the point of-the ‘Ronaldo puts the ball on the penalty spot.’

rigore Ronaldo. penalty Ronaldo

In answers to wh-questions, the VOS order regularly arises in some Romance languages if the verb is transitive, the object is overtly realized and the subject is narrow information focus, as exemplified in (19) and (20) below. Only when both the subject and the object bear narrow focus, as in example (21), does VSO become available.15 But Romance languages appear to behave in diverse ways with respect to the naturalness of phonologically expressing the object in VOS answer-sentences. Portuguese, Spanish and Romanian are the Romance languages that most easily allow VOS, in contrast with Italian, Catalan and Brazilian Portuguese (cf. Wandruszka 1982; Costa 1998; Zubizarreta 1998; 1999; Alboiu 1999; 2002; Belletti 2001; Lahousse/Lamiroy 2012; Vanrell Bosch/Fernández Soriano 2013; Kato/Martins 2016). (19) Rom.

Q: Cine a venit acasă? who has come home? ‘Who came home?’ A: a. A venit acasă mama. AUX - 3SG come home mother-the b. #A venit mama acasă. AUX - 3SG come mother-the home ‘Mother did.’

15 Quotative inversion also displays VSO, because in the relevant syntactic configuration both verbal arguments fall under focus: (i) EPt. Q: O que aconteceu? – perguntou o leão à girafa. the what happened? – asked the lion to-the giraffe ‘What happened? – the lion asked the giraffe.’ Moreover, VSO order emerges as an exception when independent grammatical constraints block VOS, as discussed by Costa/Silva (2006). In (ii) below, binding requirements ban the subject from the sentence-final position. (ii) EPt. A: Quem recebeu os livros? who received the books? seui livro. B: a. Recebeu [cada autor]i o received each author the his book b. *Recebeu o seui livro [cada autor]i. received the his book each author ‘Who received the books? – Each authori received hisi book.’

Subjects

(20) EPt.

Q: Quem pagou a dívida? who paid the debt ‘Who has paid its debt?’ A: Pagou a dívida a Grécia. paid the debt the Greece ‘Greece has paid its debt.’

(21) EPt.

Q: Quem encontrou o quê? who found the what ‘Who has found what?’ A: Encontrou o João o anel found the João the ring ‘João has found Maria’s ring.’

da of-the

39

Maria. Maria

2.2 Inversion as theticity Kuroda’s (1965; 1972; 1992) work on Japanese introduced in the linguistics literature the conceptual distinction between sentences expressing thetic judgments and sentences expressing categorical judgments. Other authors have discussed roughly similar dichotomies while using different terminology. For instance: presentational/declarative (Suñer 1982, for Spanish); sentence-focus/predicate-focus (Lambrecht 1994 and 2000, for English and French); presentation/predication (Guéron 1980, for English); existential/declarative (Babby 1980, for Russian). Kuroda (2005) puts forth the terms predicational/descriptive as equivalents to categorical/thetic, but the latter have well-established usage and are less ambiguous than most of the alternative terminologies. Moreover, the term theticity was coined from thetic and gained space in the linguistics literature (cf. Sasse 1987; 1995; 1996; 2006; Lambrecht 1994; 2000; Matras/Sasse 1995; Leonetti 2014). In what follows “thetic sentence” will be used as a shorthand for “sentence that conveys a thetic judgment” and the same for “categorical sentence”. Sentences expressing a categorical judgment attribute a property to an entity, which may be codified as the subject or the topic of the sentence.16 In Romance languages, the unmarked order for simple declarative sentences of the categorical, or predicational, type is SV(O). A “thetic” sentence, on the other hand, describes a situation as a whole, in which no single entity is assigned a topic status or given any type of informational highlighting.17 The preferred order for the thetic, or descriptive,

16 In Kuroda’s terminology, topic is defined in semantic terms, not in pragmatic/discourse-theory terms. An aboutness relation is at the core of the concept topic, i.e. subject of predication, which must be “familiar” or “recognizable” or “presupposed” or “part of the common ground”, but need not be ‘old information’. 17 Thetic sentences are all-new, “broad focus” sentences.  

40

Maria Lobo and Ana Maria Martins

type can be VS(O).18 That is to say, subject-verb inversion can be used as a syntactic strategy to make a sentence unambiguously thetic, since it marks the subject as nontopic. Romance languages in general use it, but within the limits imposed on each of them by syntactic constraints on subject-verb inversion. In the languages with stronger limitations to the availability of VS order, alternative strategies may be used to grammatically express the thetic/categorical dichotomy, as will be clarified below. Cross-linguistically, a number of syntactic and semantic factors may facilitate or block the VS order in sentences expressing a thetic judgment. Monoargumental predicates, especially unaccusative verbs, indefinite subjects and, to a lesser extent, also oblique complements and object clitics are among the facilitating factors. Hence in French the VS order associated with theticity has been christened unaccusative inversion (Marandin 2001; Lahousse 2006a), because it is mainly licensed by unaccusative verbs. Also in Brazilian Portuguese unaccusative inversion constitutes the core of the VS order found in thetic sentences (a matter to which we will return). But, again, it would be simplistic to assume that non-pro-drop French and partial pro-drop Brazilian Portuguese group together against a cohesive group of pro-drop languages. Leonetti (2014) discusses data from Spanish, Catalan and Italian, three standard prodrop languages, and concludes for a non-uniform behavior with respect to the availability of subject-verb inversion to express theticity: “VSX is interpreted as a single informational unit, without internal partitions (topic-comment, focus-background); this typically results in a thetic, wide focus interpretation, related to a stage topic. Languages like Italian and Catalan reject the processing of marked orders as non-partitioned units, which rules out VSX. More permissive languages, like Spanish, allow for the absence of partitions in marked orders.” (Leonetti 2014, 37)

Leonetti’s (2014) comparative investigation deals with restrictions on subject-verb inversion in sentences involving two-argument predicates, which, as we said above, do not constitute a facilitating factor for thetic inversion. Italian and Catalan thus seem to usually require monoargumental predicates to permit the relevant type of VS order (cf., for Italian, Wandruszka 1982; Benincà 1988; Sornicola 1994; 1995; Belletti 2001; and, for Catalan, Solà 1992; Vallduví 2002; Ordóñez 2007a; 2007b). On the other hand, Romanian (Ulrich 1985) and European Portuguese (Martins 1994; 2010; Kato/ Martins 2016) are like Spanish in permitting the VSO order more easily.19 In the remainder of this section, we will first exemplify VS order in thetic sentences using data from European Portuguese. Then, we will comment on the languages with more

18 Kuroda (2005) refers to sentences expressing categorical judgments as topicalized sentences in a semantic sense, i.e. they are predications of the form conforming to classical Aristotelian logic, hence involve an aboutness relation. Sentences expressing thetic judgments, on the other hand, are nontopicalized because they are not predications. 19 We use here “O” in the broad sense of Larson (1988; 1990). Hence in this chapter “O” corresponds to Leonetti’s (2014) “X”.  

Subjects

41

restricted syntactic availability of VS order and show how they mark the thetic/ categorical distinction. Sentence (22) exemplifies the VS order with the copulative verb estar, or the unaccusative entrar, and a locative argument. The type of predicate and the prepositional object argument are both facilitating factors for VS (cf. Leonetti 2015 for copular sentences). The subject can be a definite or an indefinite DP without any effect on the grammaticality of the sentence and its thetic interpretation.20 In the situation described in (22), the speaker is concerned about the cat. Hence the/a dog is not given discourse prominence, which it would acquire in the corresponding SVO sentence. That is to say, the VSO sentence in (22) is a non-topicalized sentence whereas an SVO sentence would have the subject as the aboutness topic of which the property of being in the garden is predicated. In the SVO sentence, a (non-specific) indefinite subject (i.e. a dog) would be odd, in contrast to the definite one (the dog), due to semantic/ pragmatic constraints on what can be an appropriate aboutness topic.21  

(22) EPt.

Não deixes sair o gato. {Está/entrou} {o/um} is/entered the/a not let-2SG go-out the cat cão no jardim. dog in-the garden ‘Don’t let the cat out. The/a dog has come into the garden.’

The transitive verb morder, that can take an accusative or a dative object without changing its meaning, is used in (23) to show that the accusative object puts stronger limitations on VSO than the dative. This is the reason why there is a contrast of grammaticality between the sentences in (23B-a) and (23B-b). Cliticization of the accusative complement can rescue the ungrammatical sentence (23B-a), as illustrated in (23B-c). (23) EPt.

A: Porque é que estás a chorar? why is that are-2SG to cry ‘Why are you crying?’ B: a. *Mordeu um cão o nosso gato. (pointing to the cat) bit a dog the our cat b. Mordeu um cão ao nosso gato. (pointing to the cat) bit a dog to-the our cat

20 As for the inexistence of definiteness effects in unaccusative inversion, see Corr (2012). 21 Cf. Dobrovie-Sorin (1994), Motapanyane (1994), and Alboiu (2002) with regard to the semantic restrictions displayed by preverbal subjects in Romanian (in contrast to postverbal subjects), which leads the authors to claim that VSO is the basic/unmarked word order in Romanian and preverbal subjects are always topicalized/left-dislocated.

42

Maria Lobo and Ana Maria Martins

c.

Mordeu-o/lhe bit-it-ACC /him-DAT ‘A dog bit our cat.’

um a

cão. dog

(pointing to the cat)

It is not the case, however, that direct transitive verbs with a full DP object totally ban the availability of the VSO order, as shown in (24a). The sentence is a particular instantiation of the so-called narrative inversion, which also makes VS easily available to unergative verbs.22 The matrix clauses in (24) display the verb in the imperfect indicative and are articulated with an adverbial subordinate clause that locates the situation described by the VS(O) root clause in the speaker’s perceptual field. (24) EPt.

a.

Subia o bombeiro as escadas quando when climbed-IMPF the firefighter the stairs o homem se atirou da janela. REFL threw from-the window the man ‘The firefighter was climbing the stairs when the man threw himself out of the window.’ b. Diz que não dorme, mas ontem quando says that not sleeps but yesterday when cheguei a casa dormia ele a bom dormir. he to good sleep arrived.1SG at home slept ‘He says that he doesn’t sleep, but yesterday when I arrived home he was lying fast asleep.’

With unaccusative and some other typically mono-argumental verbs, the alternation between SV and VS can be optional and dependent only on the speaker’s attitude or communicative intentions, as exemplified in (25) with the verb telefonar ‘contact by phone’. But this is not always the case, as shown in (26), where the discourse/ pragmatic context induces topical salience on the subject, which induces the SV order. Furthermore, the fact that with verbs like telefonar (‘call’) or chegar (‘arrive’) the VS order is speaker-oriented, in the sense that the goal of the call or of the motion must be the (location of the) speaker (cf. Tortora 1997; 2001; Cardinaletti 2004; Martins 2010; Martins/Costa, 2016), contributes also to the ungrammaticality of (26B–b).

22 But unergative verbs are less restrictive than direct transitive verbs concerning VS order associated with theticity. One further example with dormir ‘sleep’ is given below. (i) EPt. A: Mas se não havia camas, como é que fizeram? but if not had beds how is that did-3PL ‘But if there weren’t any beds, how did you manage?’ B: Dormiu o bébé no sofá e {eu dormi / dormi eu} no chão. slept the baby on-the sofa and I slept / slept I on-the floor ‘The baby slept on the sofa and I slept on the floor.’

Subjects

43

(25) EPt.

a.

A mãe telefonou. Queria falar contigo. the mother called wanted talk-INF with-you b. Telefonou a mãe. Queria falar contigo. called the mother wanted talk-INF with-you ‘Mother called. She wanted to talk with you.’

(26) EPt.

A: A mãe ainda não telefonou para a clínica? the mother yet not called to the clinic ‘Hasn’t mother called the medical center yet?’ B: a. A mãe telefonou mas ainda não tinham o the mother called but yet not had-3PL the resultado dos exames. result of-the exams b. *Telefonou a mãe mas ainda não tinham called the mother but yet not had-3PL o resultado dos exames. the result of-the exams ‘Mother called, but they haven’t got the results of the (medical) exams yet.’

As said above, French and Brazilian Portuguese do not display the flexibility of European Portuguese concerning the availability of subject-verb inversion. In French, VS order is still an option in declarative sentences mostly with unaccusative verbs, as exemplified in (27). But French displays a strong restriction on verb-initial sentences, possibly associated with its non-pro-drop nature (thus with the lack of a null expletive subject that may license the structural position(s) where the subject moves in SV, but not unaccusative VS, sentences). Temporal and locative adverbs license unnaccusative inversion hypothetically by filling the position that in the canonical SV order would be licensed by the subject (see (27a–c)). French unaccusative inversion also often appears in subordinate (adverbial, relative, complement, cleft) clauses (see (27d)).23 23 See Lahousse (2003; 2004; 2008) on verb-initial sentences. The sentences in (i)–(ii) are taken from Lahousse (2008) and exemplify so-called absolute inversion. Lahousse (2008) suggests that “nominal inversion” in French is always licensed by an overt or covert stage topic, and unifies under her analysis what Bonami/Godard/Marandin (1999) consider two different types of inversion, namely “accusative inversion” and “locative inversion”. In all the attestations of absolute inversion collected by Lahousse (2008), “the event denoted by the absolute inversion construction immediately follows the event in the previous context; it denotes the occurrence of a new event or moment, or the appearance of a new person with respect to the immediately preceding spatio-temporal context” (Lahousse 2008, §56). The author thus concludes that “absolute inversion occurs in a context where the content of a covert stage topic can be recovered from the discourse context” (Lahousse 2008, §56).

44

(27) Fr.

Maria Lobo and Ana Maria Martins

a.

Alors arriva Jean. then arrived Jean ‘Then, Jean arrived.’ (Lahousse 2006a) b. Odilon se leva soi-disant pour allumer la light the Odilon REFL got-up supposedly to terrasse. Dehors tombait une pluie venteuse (…) terrace outside fell a rain windy ‘Odilon got up, supposedly to turn on the terrace lights. Outside the rain fell and the wind blew.’ (Queffelec, Lahousse 2008) c. Le silence se fit. Alors sont entrés deux REFL emerged then are entered two the silence hommes. men ‘Silence fell. Then, two men entered.’ (Marandin 2001) d. Dès que se lève le soleil, le coq chante. the rooster sings since that REFL rises the sun ‘As soon as the sun rises, the rooster crows!’ (Bonami/Godard/Marandin 1999)

Uncommonly, VS order can be found in French with transitive verbs, but only if the object is a clitic, as illustrated in (28) with an example taken from Lahousse (2006a). More often, French (especially spoken French) resorts to a presentational cleft structure as a syntactic strategy to place the subject-constituent of the corresponding SVO sentence in postverbal position (↗15 Cleft constructions). Lambrecht (1988; 2000) amply discusses the use of the (il) y a clefts illustrated in (29)–(30) as a means to convey thetic judgments. These clefts are interpretatively equivalent to simple VS clauses in the Romance languages that license VS(O) more extensively than French.

Fr. Elle sonne. Arrive une infirmière: “Ah! Mais madame, ce n’est pas l’heure.” Lit. ‘She rings. Arrives a nurse.’ ‘She rings. A nurse arrives: “Oh! But madam, it’s not time yet.” ’ (Dolto) (ii) Fr. Cecilia avec son violon, Marco avec sa clarinette, ils sourient, nous font signe avec leurs instruments, de loin… Flottements… Accords… Tout le monde s’assoit… Arrive le chef d’orchestre, Eliahu Inbal, un Israélien… Lit. ‘Arrives the conductor, Eliahu Inbal, an Israeli…’ ‘Cecilia with her violin, Marco with his clarinet, smiling, bob their instruments at us, far away… Stirrings… Tuning… Everyone sits down… The conductor, Eliahu Inbal, an Israeli, arrives.’ (Sollers) (i)

Subjects

45

(28) Fr.

La morne champagne du nord (…), dont les quais the dreary country of-the north (…) whose the quays semblent plus larges et plus vides qu’ ailleurs, seem more wide and more empty than elsewhere quand les déserte la foule des champs de courses. when them deserts the crowd of-the race-track ‘The dreary north country (…), whose quays, when the race-track crowd leaves them, seem wider and emptier than those anywhere else.’ (Gracq, Lahousse 2006a)

(29) Fr.

a.

(30) Fr.

a.

Y a Jean qui a téléphoné. there has Jean who has called ‘Jean called.’ b. Il y a le téléphone qui sonne. it there has the phone which rings ‘The phone is ringing.’ c. J’ai une voiture qui est en panne. I-have a car that is in breakdown ‘My car broke down.’ (Lambrecht 2000, 653) Il y a mes voisins qui crient et j’entends it there has my neighbors that yell and I-hear tout. everything ‘My neighbors yell and I hear everything.’ b. Dimanche après-midi, je rentre en voiture avec mon sunday after-noon I return by car with my oncle, j’arrive à l’appart, il y a mon uncle I-arrive at the-apartment it there has my voisin qui est en train de réparer la porte … neighbor who is in the-middle of repair the door ‘Sunday afternoon, I drive back with my uncle, I arrive at the apartment, there’s my neighbor who is repairing the door…’ (Google search, 23-06-2015)

Brazilian Portuguese freely permits VS sentences with unaccusative verbs and some other monoargumental verbs, such as telefonar (‘call’), as exemplified in (31). Hence VS sentences can be used to express theticity. Because Brazilian Portuguese licenses null expletives, it does not require an overt constituent to precede the verb.

46

Maria Lobo and Ana Maria Martins

(31) BPt.

{Chegou / chegaram} três cartas pra você.24 arrived-3SG / arrived-3PL three letters for you ‘There arrived three letters for you.’ b. Nasceu o bebê de Kate Middleton. is-born the baby of Kate Middleton ‘Kate Middleston’s baby is born.’ c. Desapareceu o IPhone da minha bolsa. disappeared the IPhone from-the my purse ‘My IPhone disappeared from my purse.’ d. Telefonou uns clientes. some clients called-3SG ‘Some clients called.’

a.

But Brazilian Portuguese can also resort to a different strategy to signal the distinction between thetic and categorical sentences, which maintains constant the SVO order. In this case, the subject of the categorical sentence is syntactically marked as the topic through subject doubling, as exemplified in (32a). Parallel structures are also found in French (see (32b); cf. Lambrecht 1981; 1994; Stark 1997; 1999), which like Brazilian Portuguese puts stronger constraints on VS orders than other Romance languages.25 (32) BPt.

Fr.

a.

Os policiais, eles chegaram de moto the policemen they arrived-3PL on motorcycle ‘The police arrived on motorcycles and armed.’ b. Les policiers, ils en ont contre the policemen they of-it have against ‘The police, they have something against us.’ (Google search, 25-02-2016)

e armados. and armed nous. us

2.3 Inversion in non-degree exclamatives Marked VSO order is a characteristic feature of different types of non-degree exclamatives in Romance languages (↗17 Exclamatives, imperatives, optatives), as will be briefly illustrated in the present section. Degree exclamatives involve some gradable property and often take the shape of wh-clauses. Unlike degree exclamatives, non-degree exclamatives do not include a 24 Third person singular agreement is the ordinary option in spoken Brazilian Portuguese, but third person plural is found in written Brazilian Portuguese. 25 Cf. Berlinck (1996; 2000), Britto (1998; 2000), Kato (2000), Kato/Martins (2016) for further discussion of VS order in Brazilian Portuguese.

Subjects

47

wh-operator. Structurally, non-degree exclamatives are compatible with comparative structures and do not impose limitations on the occurrence of ordinary negation, unlike wh-exclamatives (Gutiérrez-Rexach/Andueza 2011; Andueza 2011; Martins 2013). Semantically, while degree exclamatives comment on properties and express the speaker’s emotive attitude towards their amount, extent or intensity, non-degree exclamatives comment upon a fact (or state of affairs) and express the speaker’s emotive attitude towards its unexpectedness. As Gutiérrez-Rexach/Andueza (2011, 294) phrase it: “[T]he content of an exclamative construction can be either a fact or a property, and the discourse contribution is the speaker’s emotional attitude towards it. The difference between what we have called propositional [i.e. non-degree] exclamatives and degree exclamatives relies in the trigger of the associated emotional attitude: an unexpected fact, in the case of propositional exclamatives, and the high or extreme degree of a property, in the case of degree exclamatives.”  

The topic of non-degree exclamatives and its interaction with constituent order (especially, subject position) is insufficiently covered in the literature and is definitely in need of further investigation and insight. Here we will briefly address it by considering two particular types of VSO exclamative sentences, each found in a different language and apparently displaying quite different syntax. First we will identify coordination exclamatives in European Portuguese (cf. Martins 2013), then the Romanian Subject Pronoun Inversion Construction (SPIC), also a type of VSO nondegree exclamative (cf. Hill 2006). Despite apparent dissimilarities, there is a significant common feature in the analyses of European Portuguese coordination exclamatives and Romanian SPICs, proposed respectively by Martins (2013) and Hill (2006). In both analyses the sentential left-periphery is activated and the verb moves to a position in the CP field in order to license functional features with a pragmatic import, which has consequences for word order besides the interpretive effect of conveying the speaker’s emotive attitude.26

26 In European Portuguese coordination exclamatives, coordination provides a configuration for comparison/contrast between two propositions and so makes explicit the unexpectedness relation that supports the speaker’s emotive reaction in non-degree exclamatives. But other types of VSO nondegree exclamatives exist in European Portuguese which do not require the contribution of coordination, as exemplified below. (i) EPt. A: A comunicação correu tão mal. the presentation went so badly ‘The presentation went so badly.’ B: Dizes tu (que correu mal)! say you (that went badly) ‘That’s what you say!!’ (implied: it was not a bad presentation) (ii) EPt. Agora perdeu a Maria a carteira! (Já não bastava now lost the Maria the wallet still not sufficed

48

Maria Lobo and Ana Maria Martins

European Portuguese coordination exclamatives are illustrated in (33) and (34) below. They are indicative structures, show non-recursive coordination (expressed by e ‘and’) and display VSO order in the first member of the coordinate structure (normally with adjacency between the verb and the subject). Interpretatively, they add to the propositional content of the sentence an implicit evaluative/emotive comment conveying a speaker’s attitude of disapproval towards the described state of affairs. They share with wh-exclamatives the factivity property (cf. Grimshaw 1979; Portner/Zanuttini 2000; Zanuttini/Portner 2003; Gutiérrez-Rexach/Andueza 2011; Martins 2013). (33) EPt.

a.

Convidei eu a Maria para jantar e ela não invited I the Maria for dinner and she not apareceu! appeared ‘I invited Maria for dinner and she didn’t show up!’ / ‘Although I invited Maria for dinner, she didn’t show up!’ (Implied: She should have shown up! or I shouldn’t have invited her!) b. Leu o miúdo os livros todos e o professor read the kid the books all and the professor dá-lhe esta nota! gives-him this grade ‘The kid read everything and the teacher gave him this (low) grade!’ / ‘Although the kid read everything, the teacher gave him this (low) grade!’ (Implied: The teacher should have given the kid a better grade! or There was no need to read everything after all!)

(34) EPt.

a.

Convidei eu toda a gente para jantar e afinal invited I all the people for dinner and after-all ainda não recebi o ordenado! yet not received the salary ‘I invited everybody for dinner but I still haven’t received my salary!’ (Implied: I shouldn’t have invited everybody for dinner!)

o João ter perdido ontem o casaco.) yesterday the jacket the João have-INF lost ‘Now, Maria has lost her wallet! (As if it wasn’t enough that João lost his jacket yesterday.)’

Subjects

49

b. Não fomos nós ao jardim zoológico e esteve not went we to-the garden zoological and was um dia de sol! a day of sun ‘We didn’t go to the zoo and after all it was a sunny day!’ (Implied: We should have gone to the zoo!) The VSO order in the first conjunct introduces the counterexpectational flavor characteristic of these coordination exclamatives and anticipates the contrast between the two propositions. The sentences in (33) specifically convey an unexpected result relation, and their implied evaluative/emotive comment targets preferentially the second conjunct, although it may equally well target the first one. The sentences in (34), on the other hand, convey an unexpected time-coincidence relation and their implied evaluative/emotive comment targets the first conjunct. The Romanian Subject Pronoun Inversion Construction (SPIC) is exemplified in (35) and (36) below. SPICs involve strong emphasis on the verb and display a subject pronoun that obligatorily follows and is adjacent to the verb. In SPICs a full DP subject may co-occur with the subject pronoun, as exemplified in (35), but its presence is not obligatory, as shown in (36). Moreover, the full-fledged DP may precede or follow the verb. In contrast to regular root clauses, the interpretation of SPICs “is speaker oriented” (Hill 2006, 157), i.e. “the peculiar intonation and word order of SPICS yield an interpretation of threat or reassurance that cannot be obtained from regular root clauses” (Hill 2006, 160).  

(35) Rom.

nu- i săracă DESCOPERĂ eai Mariai mereu adevărul, că discovers she Maria always truth-the that not is poor la minte! at mind ‘Maria will always discover the truth, because she’s not mentally challenged!’

(36) Rom.

ŞTIE ea tot! knows she everything ‘She knows everything!’

Hill’s (2006) analysis for SPICs departs from Cornilescu (2000) and demonstrates that SPICs are not instances of Subject Clitic Inversion as found in French. Crucially, according to Hill (2006), clitic doubling and overt clitic left dislocation chains are not available for subjects in Romanian declarative clauses: “This restriction follows from the status of the subject pronoun, which cannot act as a clitic or agreement marker doubling DP/NP subjects, in the way weak French pronouns do” (Hill 2006, 161).

50

Maria Lobo and Ana Maria Martins

2.4 Conclusion Inversion is never free and all Romance languages, be they pro-drop or non-pro-drop, use it in quite similar instances. Variation is a matter of grammatical constraints that do not affect the discourse/pragmatically-induced general tendencies described in this section. The order VS signals narrow-focus on the subject (or focus-prominence on the subject in wide focus sentences), but it also signals sentences with a thetic interpretation (i.e. sentences that exclude an aboutness topic). Romance languages use the word order device to disambiguate information-structural configurations and the categorical/thetic opposition whenever possible. With monoargumental verbs, the order VS emerges in both cases. But with transitive verbs, focus on the subject derives VOS whereas theticity derives VSO. Variation between Romance languages results from independent syntactic differences. Particular constructions, such as some types of non-degree exclamatives, may also involve VSO, as the result of the verb requiring a high position in clause structure (cf. Hill 2006; Martins 2013).  

3 Case and agreement SV sentences, as exemplified in (37), generally display Nominative, agreeing subjects. Nominative Case here is overtly signaled by the personal pronoun eles/ellos/ells/loro/ ei/ils (they-NOM ) and the agreement pattern is expressed by the third person plural morpheme on the verb since the subject is also third person plural. Postverbal subjects may behave exactly like preverbal ones in regard to case marking and subject-verb agreement, as shown by the VS sentences in (38). Nominative case and verbal agreement thus appear as the morphological hallmarks of subjecthood in Romance languages.27

27 The hypothesis that non-canonical, oblique subjects (comparable to Icelandic “quirky subjects”) can be found in Romance languages will not be addressed in this chapter (see, in support of this hypothesis, González 1988; Masullo 1993; Fernández Soriano 1999; 2000; Rivero/Geber 2003; Rivero 2004; Schäffer 2008; Fischer 2010; Fernández Soriano/Mendikoetxea 2013; and, against it, GutiérrezBravo 2006). Hence, the italicized constituents in sentences (i)–(iv) below, which the authors from which the examples are taken classify as dative subjects, will not be discussed here. On the proposal that Brazilian Portuguese displays agreeing locative prepositional subjects as a diachronic outcome of contact with Bantu languages, see Avelar/Cyrino (2008), Avelar/Cyrino/Galves (2009), Avelar/Galves (2013) and references therein. (i) Sp. A Juan no le gustan las rubias. like-3PPLL the blondes to Juan not him-DAT ‘Juan doesn’t like blondes.’ (González 1988) (ii) Sp. En Madrid nieva. in Madrid snows ‘It is snowing in Madrid.’ (Fernández Soriano 1999)

Subjects

(37) a. b. c. d. e.

f.

(38) a. b. c. d. e.

51

Pt.

{As crianças/pro/eles} já voltaram da escola. the children/–/they already returned-3PL from-the school Sp. {Los niños/pro/ellos} ya han regresado de la escuela. the children/–/they already have-3PL returned from the school Cat. {Els nens/pro/ells} ja han tornat de l’escola. the children/–/they already have-3PL returned from the-school It. {I bambini/pro/loro} già sono tornati da scuola. the children/–/they already are-3PL returned from-the school Rom. {Copiii/pro/ei} deja s-au ȋntors de la children-the/–/they already REFL -have-3PL returned from şcoală. school Fr. Les enfants/*pro/ils} sont déjà rentrés de l’école. the children/*–/they are-3PL already returned from the-school ‘The children have already got back from school.’ Pt.

Já chegaram {os rapazes/eles}. already arrived-3PL the boys/they Sp. Ya han llegado {los chicos/ellos}. already have-3PL arrived the boys/they Cat. Ja han arribat {els nois/ells}. already have-3PL arrived the boys/they It. Già sono arrivati {i ragazzi/loro}. arrived the boys/they already are-3PL Rom. Deja au ajuns {băieții/ei}. already have-3PL arrived boys-the/they ‘The boys have already arrived.’

As said in Section 1, further evidence for the subjecthood of the postverbal constituents is provided by their ability to bind anaphoric se, control the subject of an adjunct infinitival clause and identify the reference of a null subject in the second member of a coordinate structure, which again groups postverbal subjects together with preverbal ones, as illustrated in (39-B).

(iii)

Sp.

(iv)

Sp.

A Juan le pasa algo. / Aquí pasa happens something / here happens to Juan him-DAT ‘Something is going on with Juan/here.’ (Fernández Soriano 1999) A Pedro se le quemó la comida. burned the food to Pedro se him-DAT ‘Pedro has (unintentionally) burned the food.’ (Fernández Soriano/Mendikoetxea 2013)

algo. something

52

Maria Lobo and Ana Maria Martins

(39) Pt. A:

B:

Elas não se riram. REFL laughed-3PL they-F not ‘They (the girls) did not laugh.’ elesi sem PROi disfarçar e Riram-sei and laughed-3PL =REFL they-M without PRO disguise-INF desculpa. proi não pediram not asked-3PL apology ‘But they (the boys) laughed without hiding it and did not apologize.’

However, the postverbal constituent that corresponds to the subject-constituent of an SV sentence does not always behave as in (38) and (39) above. So in (40a–c) below, the monoargumental verb does not agree with the postverbal DP, which also does not bear Nominative Case, as demonstrated by the exclusion of the Nominative pronoun eles ‘they’ in (40a) and (40c). Moreover, as shown in (40d) versus (40e), the verb in the non-agreeing sentence (40d) may not control the subject of the adjunct infinitival clause.28 However, the postverbal DP retains the same semantic relation with the verb as in the corresponding SV sentence. Hence it behaves as a logical subject but not as a morphosyntactic subject, which supports Lambrecht’s (2000) designation of the relevant nominal constituents as “objectivized subjects”. (40) a. Spoken BPt.

b. Dialectal EPt.

Já chegou os convidados / *eles. *they-NOM already arrived-3SG the guests / ‘The guests have already arrived.’ (Google Search, 01-09-2015) Chegou as cadeiras. / Fechou muitas fábricas. closed-3SG many factories arrived-3SG the chairs /

28 Dialectal European Portuguese data extracted from the corpus CORDIAL-SIN (http://www.clul. ulisboa.pt/en/11-resources/314-cordial-sin-corpus-2) are provided by Carrilho (2003) and Cardoso/ Carrilho/Pereira (2011). A few examples are given below. (i) Dialectal EPt. Nunca mais apareceu esses cardumes aqui fish-schools here never more appeared-3SG those ‘Those fish schools never appeared here again.’ (CORDIAL-SIN, Vila Praia de Âncora) (ii) Dialectal EPt. Veio aqui (…) umas máquinas SG here some machines came-3SG ‘Some machines came here.’ (CORDIAL-SIN, Porto Santo) (iii) Dialectal EPt. Já tem pousado lá até aviões de emergência. there even planes of emergency already has-3SG landed ‘Even emergency planes have already landed there.’ (CORDIAL-SIN, Perafita)

Subjects

c. Dialectal EPt.

d. Dialectal EPt.

e. Dialectal EPt.

53

‘The chairs arrived. / Many factories have closed.’ (Costa 2001b, 8) *Chegou eles. / Chegaram eles. arrived-3SG they-NOM / arrived-3PL they-NOM ‘They have arrived.’ PROi Chegou [muitas crianças]i (*sem arrived-3SG many children without PRO dizer uma palavra). word say-INF a PROi dizer Chegaram [as crianças]i (sem without PRO say-INF arrived-3PL the children uma palavra). a word ‘The/many children arrived without saying anything.’ (Carrilho 2003, 175)

The European Portuguese tripartite paradigm in (41) below, displaying respectively a SV, a VS and a VX sentence (where X is an “objectivized subject” in the sense of Lambrecht), has a clear correlate in the French paradigm in (42). As French is not a null subject language, the French paradigm makes it clear that the VX sentence (c) (in contrast to the SV and the VS sentences) is an impersonal construction with an expletive pronoun as morphosyntactic subject. That X is not a grammatical subject (although its semantic relation to the verb is the same as that of S in the examples (a)–(b)) is further confirmed by its inability to control the subject of the adjunct infinitival clause in (43b), in contrast to (43a) but similarly to (40d). We may thus conclude that the only difference between the two paradigms resides in the fact that European Portuguese, like most Romance languages, has null expletive pronouns while French has overt ones.29 (41) EPt.

a.

As cadeiras chegaram. the chairs arrived-3PL b. Chegaram as cadeiras. the chairs arrived-3PL

29 French impersonal constructions like (42c) usually display unaccusative verbs, although they are also possible under certain conditions with unergative verbs, as illustrated in (i) – see Cummins (2000), Carlier/Sarda (2010), and references therein. In European Portuguese, non-agreeing VX sentences like (41c) are also mostly found with unaccusative verbs. See Cardoso/Carrilho/Pereira (2011) for empirical evidence and discussion. (i) Fr. Il nageait des enfants dans la piscine. EXPL swam-3S G ART . INDF - PL children in the pool ‘There were children swimming in the pool.’

54

Maria Lobo and Ana Maria Martins

c.

(42) Fr.

a.

(43) Fr.

a.

Chegou as cadeiras. the chairs arrived-3SG ‘The chairs arrived.’

Les tanks fascistes arrivèrent. the tanks fascists arrived-3PL ‘The fascist tanks arrived.’ b. Alors arrivèrent les tanks fascistes. (A. Malraux) tanks fascists then arrived-3PL the ‘Then came the fascist tanks.’ c. Il arriva des voitures de munitions. EXPL arrived-3SG ART . INDF - PL cars of ammunition ‘Ammunition cars arrived.’ (Erckmann-Cartier) (Examples taken from Carlier/Sarda 2010, 2063) huer [ces Alors survinrent pour PROi la PRO her-ACC jeer-INF those then came-3PL to adorent un crucifié. (M. Barrès) hommes]i qui men who worship a crucified huer [ces b. *Alors il survint pour PROi la PRO her jeer those then it came-3SG to adorent un crucifié. hommes]i qui men who worship a crucified ‘Then those men who worship a crucified man came to jeer at her.’ (Examples taken from Carlier/Sarda 2010, 2063)

Besides the expletive pronoun il, French also displays the expletive pronoun ce, which behaves differently from il relative to case and agreement properties (cf. Cardinaletti 1997b). As exemplified in (44), the verb does not agree with the expletive ce (compare (44a) with (42c)) and concomitantly ce allows the postverbal constituent in (44b) to be assigned Nominative case. (44) Fr.

a.

Ce

sont mes parents. are-3PL my parents ‘They are my parents.’ b. Les stars du défilé Chanel, ce sont the stars of-the défilé Chanel EXPL are-3PL ‘They are the (real) stars of the Chanel fashion show.’ (Google search, 01-09-2015) EXPL

elles. they-F . NOM

Overt expletives are therefore of different types, which allows us to hypothesize that covert expletives may also be of different kinds. Under the assumption that all

Subjects

55

sentences have a subject and a designated structural position for it (the Extended Projection Principle (EPP) of Chomsky 1982), the VS sentences in (38) above can be analyzed as containing a caseless, non-agreeing null expletive that licenses the preverbal subject position of SVO languages (see Corr 2012, for an updated overview of different perspectives on this issue). Variation between Romance languages in the availability of sentences departing from the canonical SV order may therefore be accounted for as a consequence of the types of expletives they license (overt/covert, with/without person-number features, with/without case, locative/non-locative, etc. – cf. ↗5 Clitic pronouns; ↗9 Copular and existential constructions). Besides lexical differences (i.e. (un)availability of a particular type of expletive), structural differences may also play a role (i.e. which positions in clause structure are accessible to particular types of subjects), which would explain, for example, why Romance null subject languages do not behave alike with respect to the (un)constrained availability of verb-initial sentences (cf. Sections 2.1 and 2.2; cf. ↗24 Basic constituent orders. See on these matters, among others, Cardinaletti (1997a; 2004; 2014), Tortora (1997; 2001), Mensching/Weingart (2009; 2016), Biberauer et al. (2010), Corr (2012), and references therein). Under Cardinaletti’s (2004) approach to subjecthood, three different structural positions for preverbal subjects are identified as part of the Infl domain: [SubjP [E P P P [AgrSP [VP SVO]]]]. SubjP bears a “subject-of-predication” feature (which attracts the aboutness topic subject of SVO categorical sentences, but not the nontopic subject of VSO thetic sentences), the EPP-related position requires filling of its specifier and AgrSP carries case and agreement features that must be checked. The three subject positions within the Infl domain are assumed to be universal, but languages differ on (i) how the EPP is satisfied (e.g. Spec,EPP P can be filled by a null expletive in null subject languages, whereas non null subject languages do not allow for a true (overt) expletive to occur in that same position, since agreeing expletives occur in AgrSP), (ii) how case and agreement features are checked (e.g. overt movement of the subject to the preverbal position can be triggered by the need to check case and agreement features in non null subject languages, whereas in null subject languages movement of the subject to the preverbal position can only be motivated by the need to check either the EPP or the subject-of-predication feature), (iii) how the mapping between syntactic structure and categorical/thetic interpretations is achieved (e.g. when a null “location-goal argument” selected by an unaccusative verb fills Spec,EPP P, null subject languages display thetic VS sentences, but non null subject languages typically display thetic SV sentences; the contrast arises because in the latter the subject moves to Spec,AgrSP to check case and agreement features while in the former these features can be checked long distance). At this point we may wonder why French, in spite of being a language that does not license null expletives, allows inversion without overt expletives. Recall from footnote (22) above that Lahousse (2008) proposes to unify “unaccusative inversion” and “locative inversion” (Bonami/Godard/Marandin 1999) under the label “nominal inversion” and analyzes this type of subject-verb inversion as involving a stage topic  





56

Maria Lobo and Ana Maria Martins

(cf. Gundel 1989; Erteschik-Shir 1997; 1999). The presence of the stage topic may constitute an alternative strategy to the regular licensing of the preverbal subject position in French, a speculation that allows different implementations (cf. Lahousse 2012; Mensching/Weingart 2016; Leonetti 2014). Moreover the stage topic may be covert, resulting in “absolute nominal inversion”, as illustrated in (i) in footnote 22, repeated here as (45). Cf. the availability of Topic-drop in non-pro-drop languages (Abeillé/Godard/Sabio 2008; Robert-Tissot 2015), which also creates an unexpected pattern in languages that essentially require an overt subject.  

(45) Fr.

Elle sonne. Arrive une infirmière: “Ah! Mais madame, ce n’est pas l’heure.” Lit. ‘She rings. Arrives a nurse.’ ‘She rings. A nurse arrives: “Oh! But madam, it’s not time yet.”’ (Dolto. Example taken from Lahousse 2008)

4 Null subjects As mentioned above, the ancestor of Romance languages, Latin, was a consistent null subject language, that is, a language with rich verbal agreement where referential subjects could be omitted in finite clauses.30 Most Romance languages (Portuguese, Galician, Spanish, Catalan, Italian, Romanian, Sardinian and Occitan) maintain this property, although there are differences between Latin and Modern Romance Languages in the distribution of overt subjects (Palermo 1997). Some Romance varieties, however, have undergone a grammatical change and are no longer null subject languages (French and Romansh dialects, cf. Kaiser/Hack 2010). Others seem to have become only partial null subject languages, behaving as split pro-drop or semi prodrop languages (some Italian dialects, some Occitan and Franco-Provençal dialects, Brazilian Portuguese and Dominican Spanish). Each one of these partial null subject languages, as we will see, shows different restrictions on null subjects (Duarte 1995; Poletto 2006; Kaiser/Oliviéri 2012; Camacho 2013; among others). The type of overt pronominal form that occurs in subject position is not the same in all Romance languages. Some languages have strong subject pronouns (Portuguese, Spanish, Catalan, Romanian, Italian); others have also weak pronouns (French, Northern Italian dialects) that in some cases function as (phonological) clitic pronouns and in others as agreement markers (see Cardinaletti/Starke 1999, and ↗5 Clitic pronouns, for the criteria that distinguish strong pronouns from weak and clitic pronouns). Although the morphosyntactic status of subject pronouns is very clear in some languages, in other cases, the status of subject pronouns has undergone an extensive debate, in particular the status of weak pronouns as subject clitics or  

30 As we will see below, not all null subject languages have rich agreement.

Subjects

57

agreement markers. The nature of weak subject pronouns (including in Standard French and in Colloquial French) and their diachronic path are discussed in ↗5 Clitic pronouns. In this section, we will just mention the phenomena that are relevant for the discussion on null subjects, in particular what concerns the emergence of subject clitics in languages where null subjects were syntactically more restricted in Old Romance (Vanelli/Renzi/Benincà 1985–1986; Poletto 2006; among others).

4.1 The pro-drop parameter and consistent pro-drop languages Traditional analyses for null subjects attribute this language variation property to a binary parameter known in the literature as the Null Subject Parameter or pro-drop Parameter (e.g. Chomsky 1981; 1982; Rizzi 1982; Jaeggli/Safir 1989; Barbosa 1995), which distinguishes languages such as Portuguese, Italian, Spanish, Catalan or Romanian from languages such as French or Swiss Romansh (e.g. Kaiser 2009): (46) a. b. c d. e.

Pt. (Ele) fala português. It. (Lui) parla italiano. Sp. (Él) habla español. Cat. (Ell) parla català. Rom. (El) vorbeşte româneşte. ‘He speaks Portuguese/Italian/Spanish/Catalan/Romanian.’

(47) a. Fr. *(Il) parle français. b. Romansh (Sursilvan) *(El) tschontscha romontsch. ‘He speaks French/Romansh.’ A cluster of properties was initially attributed to pro-drop languages (Chomsky 1981), including: i) rich verbal agreement; ii) so called free inversion; and iii) lack of thattrace effects, i.e. the possibility to move a subject from an embedded clause introduced by a complementizer.31  

31 Lack of overt expletives is usually also associated with pro-drop languages. There are languages that require overt argumental subjects but lack overt expletives (e.g. Capeverdean, Costa/Pratas 2013), but unexpectedly there are some null subject languages (such as non-standard varieties of European Portuguese) that allow overt expletives, although their status is arguably different from the one found in non-pro-drop languages (Carrilho 2005; 2008). In fact, overt expletives found in non-standard varieties of European Portuguese are different from expletive subjects found in English and French: they can co-occur with subjects and they can precede a wh-constituent. Carrilho (2005) argues that they are better analyzed as discourse particles that mark specific illocutionary values. We can also find partial null subject languages (such as Northern Occitan dialects) that have expletive subject clitics (see ↗5 Clitic pronouns).

58

Maria Lobo and Ana Maria Martins

Spanish, Italian and Portuguese, which are considered consistent pro-drop languages, all have a rich verbal system, with at least four (usually five) person distinctions in all tenses: Table 1: Verbal paradigms of some Romance languages (simple present of the verb ‘to sing’) Portuguese

Spanish

Italian

Catalan

Romanian

1SG canto

canto

canto

canto

cânt

2SG cantas

cantas

canti

cantes

cânţi

3SG canta

canta

canta

canta

cântă

1PL

cantamos

cantamos

cantiamo

cantem

cântăm

2PL

cantais/cantam

cantáis/cantan

cantate

canteu

cântaţi

3PL

cantam

cantan

cantano

canten

cântă

French, however, in its spoken form, has lost most person distinctions (e.g. Riegel/ Pellat/Rioul 42009): (48) Fr.

je chante I sing tu chantes you-SG sing il chante he sings

[ʃɑ͂ t] [ʃɑ͂ t] [ʃɑ͂ t]

on chante we sing vous chantez you-PL sing ils chantent they sing

[ʃɑ͂ t] [ʃɑ͂ te] [ʃɑ͂ t]

Although there are differences in writing, in the spoken modality, for most verbs there is no person distinction in the singular and the verb form is identical to the third person plural, as is illustrated for the simple present of the verb ‘to sing’ in (48). For the first person plural, although the standard form nous chantons ‘we sing’ has a different ending, the colloquial form on ‘we’ is similar to the third person singular. Therefore, in colloquial speech, only the second person plural has a different ending. The loss of person distinctions has been signaled as a possible cause for the loss of null subjects in the history of French. While an explanation resorting to the weakness of morphological distinctions may be valid for the transition to the Modern language, several authors have shown that changes in subject expression from Old French to Middle French correlate instead with word order changes (Adams 1987; Vance 1989; Roberts 2014; Prévost 2015) (see Section 4.6). Furthermore, there is an asymmetry in subject drop between subordinate clauses and main clauses in Old French: null subjects are much rarer in subordinate clauses than in main clauses. This

Subjects

59

challenges an explanation that relates subject drop to morphological richness (Schøsler 2002; Zimmermann 2014).32 Consider now “free inversion”. Although it is true that pro-drop languages allow postverbal subjects more easily than non-pro-drop languages, exemplified by English and French in (49), as we have seen in Section 2, inversion in pro-drop Romance languages (cf. 50) cannot be considered “free”. Rather, it is conditioned by discourse factors and limited to some specific syntactic configurations. It is also not the case that non-pro-drop languages totally lack subject-verb inversion (see Section 2 and references therein for French). (49) a. Eng. b. Fr.

Who has phoned? /*Has phoned John. Qui a téléphoné? / *A téléphoné Jean.

(50) a. b. c. d. e.

Quem telefonou? / Telefonou o João. ¿Quién ha llamado?/ Ha llamado Juan. Chi ha chiamato? / Ha chiamato Gianni. Qui ha trucat? / Ha trucat en Joan. Cine a sunat? / A sunat Ioan.

Pt. Sp. It. Cat. Rom.

The third property, lack of that-trace effects, refers to the ability to move an embedded subject out of a finite clause introduced by a complementizer. This property has been related to the fact that pro-drop languages can move their subject from a postverbal position, whereas non-pro-drop languages cannot (Rizzi 1982). Portuguese and Italian, for instance, allow subject extraction out of an embedded finite clause headed by a complementizer (51), whereas French disallows this type of movement, although for some speakers the structure is possible with qui introducing the embedded clause – see (52b) vs (52c) (cf. e.g. Rizzi/Shlonsky 2007): (51) a. b. c. d. e.

Pt. It. Cat. Sp. Rom.

(52) a. Eng. b. Fr. b’. Fr.

Quem pensas que __ escreveu este poema? Chi pensi che __ abbia scritto questo poema? Qui creus que __ va escriure aquest poema? ¿Quién crees que __ escribió este poema? Cine crezi că __ a scris acest poem? *Who do you think that __ has written this poem? *Qui crois-tu qu’ __ a écrit ce poème? Qui crois-tu qui a écrit ce poème?

32 Notice that we can still find some cases of null subjects in sixteenth-century French texts, that some authors relate to the enunciative context (Taddei 2013).

60

Maria Lobo and Ana Maria Martins

This cluster of properties as a characteristic of pro-drop languages was shown, however, to be too strong: typologically, not all languages that allow subject omission display these properties (Gilligan 1987). We will come back to these phenomena in Section 5. Although the classical distinction between pro-drop and non-pro-drop languages as a binary specification easily explained contrasts between French and the other main European Romance languages (Spanish, Italian, Portuguese and Romanian), it soon became clear that it did not account adequately for other systems. Soon, it was found that this typological division was too simplistic, considering not only data from languages from other language families (Chinese, Finnish), but also data from Romance dialects (Biberauer et al. 2010). Some Romance varieties, in fact, show a less clear-cut system, null subjects being restricted to some morpho-syntactic contexts.33 We will first consider Romance varieties that only allow subject dropping in some grammatical persons (Section 4.2) and then varieties where the null subject seems to be restricted to some syntactic environments (Section 4.3). We will then consider special cases of subject omission in French, a language that usually does not allow pro-drop (Section 4.4). An interim summary is offered in Section 4.5. Finally, in Section 4.6, we will briefly mention possible correlations between loss of pro-drop in French and northern Italian varieties, changes in word order and the type of licensing of pro.

4.2 Partial pro-drop languages: “split pro-drop” languages Although standard European Romance languages are relatively well behaved as far as the traditional dichotomy between pro-drop and non-pro-drop languages is concerned, there are several Romance dialects that show a split pattern of subject omission and properties that are unexpected in consistent pro-drop languages. As mentioned in several studies, there are Romance dialects that exhibit mixed patterns of pro-drop: null subjects are licensed only in some persons of the paradigm. These mixed patterns have been found in some Occitan dialects from transition areas (Oliviéri 2004; 2009; 2011; Kaiser/Oliviéri/Palasis 2013), in some Franco-Provençal dialects (Olszyna-Marzys 1964; Heap 2000; Diémoz 2007; Hinzelin/Kaiser 2012; among others) and in some Italian dialects (mostly northern Italian dialects) (Manzini/Savoia 2002; Poletto 2006; Savoia/Manzini 2010; among others). Diachronically, some of these partial pro-drop systems seem to have originated from medieval

33 Languages like Chinese correspond to another type of null subject language. In this case, there is no verbal agreement morphology and null subjects seem to be licensed by discourse conditions (Huang 1984; Jaeggli/Safir 1989; Sigurðsson 2011). No Romance language follows this pattern, although some authors have considered that Brazilian Portuguese has properties typical of a “discourse-oriented language” (Negrão/Viotti 2000).

Subjects

61

systems where pro-drop was allowed, but only under specific syntactic conditions (Vanelli/Renzi/Benincà 1985–1986), and they share the property of having weak subject pronouns (see Section 4.6). We illustrate some of the paradigms with data from some northern Occitan dialects reported in Oliviéri et al. (2015): Table 2: Verbal paradigms and obligatory subject pronouns of the verb ‘to be’ in some northern Occitan dialects Le Mont-Dore

Tayac

Eymoutiers

Coussac-Bonneval

1SG

s’e

sɛj

jo se

s’e

2SG

t s’e

tœ se

te se

ty se

3SG

‘e

ew ej

ej

u ‘e

1PL

sɑ̃

sɔ̃

ŋ

nu sũ

nu s’ũ

2PL



vuzaw se

vu se

vu s’e

sɔ̃

ŋ



s’ũ

3PL

zi sɔ̃

Data from Northern Italian dialects point in the same direction. Since there is a very rich diversity of paradigms (Brandi/Cordin 1989; Poletto 2006; Savoia/Manzini 2010; among others), we cannot mention them all. We will just illustrate some cases, to show that the presence of the clitic subject can be required only in some grammatical persons. We illustrate some of the paradigms with data from the northern Italian dialect Venetian, taken from Poletto (2006, 179) and with data from Trentino and Fiorentino, taken from Brandi/Cordin (1989, 113). Table 3: Verbal paradigms and obligatory subject pronouns of some Italian dialects Venetian

Fiorentino

Trentino

‘to eat’

‘to speak’

‘to speak’

1SG

magno

(e) parlo

parlo

2SG

ti magni

tu parli

te parli

3SG

el magna

e/la parla

el/la parla

1PL

magnemo

si parla

parlem

2PL

magnè

vu parlate

parlé

3PL

i magna

e/le parlano

i/le parla

In the first case, there is no clitic in first person singular and first and second person plural, but subject clitics are required in second and third person singular and third

62

Maria Lobo and Ana Maria Martins

person plural. In the case of Fiorentino, only the first person singular is optional. As for Trentino, the pronoun is required only in second and third person singular and in third person plural. These Italian dialects thus show asymmetrical pro-drop (Poletto 2006), that is, they only allow null subjects in some grammatical persons. The systems are somewhat complex, since the split does not correlate simply with verbal morphology and is not clearly divided between first and second vs third person. To account for these systems, a finer-grained feature specification in terms of binary features [+/- speaker] and [+/- hearer] or some other kind of feature specification seems to be necessary (Poletto 2006; Oliviéri/Lai/Heap 2017). The status of subject pronouns (clitics) in northern Italian varieties is controversial. In many cases, it has been argued that subject clitics are really agreement markers (Brandi/Cordin 1989; Manzini/Savoia 1997; among others). If so, these varieties would be another type of pro-drop language. Several facts point to the status of the subject constituents as functional morphemes (syntactic clitics) and not pronouns: i) subject clitics co-occur with a DP subject; ii) subject clitics are obligatorily present in coordination contexts; iii) subject clitics co-occur with a quantified subject (Rizzi 1986; Brandi/Cordin 1989). Rizzi (1986) and Brandi/Cordin (1989), for instance, show that subject pronouns in Trentino and Fiorentino are obligatory even in the presence of a full subject (53) or a strong pronoun (54), they can occur with a quantified subject (55), subject-verb inversion is possible with all kinds of verbs with an expletive clitic in preverbal position (56), and the pronoun is obligatory in coordination structures (57). They therefore argue that those dialects are also pro-drop languages that mark agreement in some persons both by verbal ending and by a preverbal morpheme. (53) Fiorentino

a.

La Maria *(la) parla. the Maria she speaks b. *(La) parla. she speaks ‘Maria/she speaks.’

(54) a. Fiorentino b. Trentino

(55) a. Fiorentino b. Trentino

Te tu parli. you you speak Ti te parli. you you speak ‘You speak.’ Nessuno gl’ha detto Nisun l’ha dit nobody he-has said ‘Nobody said anything.’

nulla. niente. nothing

Subjects

(56) Fiorentino

a.

(57) Fiorentino

*La canta e she sings and (Rizzi 1986, 406)

63

Gl’è venuto la Maria. it-is come the Maria ‘Maria has come.’ b. Gl’ha telefonato delle ragazze. it-has phoned some girls ‘Some girls have phoned.’ (Brandi/Cordin 1989, 113, 115 and 118) balla. dances

The Romance dialectal systems are quite diverse and complex and we cannot consider them all in detail. However, the cases we mentioned are sufficient to illustrate that there can be pro-drop languages that obey different restrictions in the persons that license null subjects.34 These Romance dialects force us to reconsider a pure binary distinction for the Null Subject Parameter (even though we have to take into account the special status of the subject pronouns as agreement markers in many of these varieties). They also provide evidence against a direct association between rich agreement and pro-drop.35

34 As we will see below (Sections 4.3 and 4.6), there are also differences concerning the syntactic contexts where null subjects are allowed in different kinds of null subject languages. 35 Another type of evidence for lack of a direct association between agreement and pro-drop comes from some Portuguese inflected infinitival structures where subjects are not licensed in spite of overt person agreement – see (i) below and Raposo (1989) – and from non-inflected non-finite structures from several Romance languages, such as so-called personal infinitives and adverbial gerunds, that license null subjects and full subjects – see (ii) and Brito (1984), Fernández Lagunilla (1987), Lobo (1995). (i) EPt. a. Obriguei as crianças a (*elas) lavar(em) os dentes. forced.1SG the children to (*they) wash.INF (3PL ) the teeth ‘I forced the children to brush their teeth.’ b. A mãe observou as crianças a (*elas) brincar(em). the mother observed the children to (*they) play.INF (3PL ) ‘The mother observed the children playing.’ (ii) a. Sp. Al llegar Juan, se assustó. RE FL scared to-the arrive Juan ‘When Juan arrived, he got scared.’ b. Pt. Estando as crianças doentes, temos de ficar em casa. home being the children sick have.1PL to stay at ‘As the children are sick, we have to stay home.’

64

Maria Lobo and Ana Maria Martins

4.3 Another type of partial pro-drop languages: “semi pro-drop” languages Another type of partial pro-drop language (or “semi pro-drop” language) corresponds to Brazilian Portuguese. Many authors have argued that this Portuguese variety is undergoing a progressive loss of pro-drop. Most studies relate this gradual change to impoverished morphology (cf. Duarte 1995; 2000). In fact, Spoken Brazilian Portuguese has an impoverished verbal system, partially induced by changes in the pronominal system, that lead to spreading third person morphological marking to other persons (Duarte 2000, 19). (58) BPt.

eu I você you- SG ele/ela he/she

amo love-1SG ama love-3SG ama loves-3SG

a gente the people vocês you-PL eles/elas they

ama love-3SG ‘we love’ amam love-3PL amam love-3PL

Duarte (1995; 2000) observes a progressive tendency to use more full pronouns in theatre plays written in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. The loss is more substantive with first and second persons and more gradual with third persons (Duarte 1995), an expected fact if the loss of null subjects is directly linked to impoverished morphology. In consistent null subject languages, such as Italian, Spanish or European Portuguese, null pronouns are the unmarked option and there is a “division of labor” between null and full pronouns. Although several factors may play a role,36 third person null pronouns usually recover a subject antecedent or a salient topic (59a) and third person full pronouns recover preferentially a non-subject antecedent or signal focus or contrast on the subject (59b)37 (Montalbetti 1984; Brito 1991; Carminati 2002; Lobo 2013; among others).

36 These are preferences and not categorical judgements. Several factors play a role in the overt or null realization of the pronoun, including information structure (in particular the type of topic marked by the pronoun), animacy restrictions or pragmatic constraints (see Alonso-Ovalle et al. 2002; Luegi 2012; Pešková 2014; among others). For first and second person, there may be different constraints and there can also be effects of grammaticalized structures (see Posio 2013). 37 There seems to be, though, some crosslinguistic variation in the tendencies found in different prodrop languages (Filiaci/Sorace/Carreiras 2013).

Subjects

(59) EPt.

a.

O chefei disse ao amigoj que proi the boss told to-the friend that descansar. rest amigoj que elej b. O chefei disse ao the boss told to-the friend that he descansar. rest ‘The boss told his friend that he needed to rest.’

65

precisava de needed to

precisava de needed to

In Brazilian Portuguese, the use of full pronouns is found in unexpected contexts for consistent null subject languages. Corpus data shows that the proportion of overt pronouns relatively to null pronouns is higher in Brazilian Portuguese than in other pro-drop Romance varieties and in European Portuguese in particular, and that full pronouns occur in unmarked contexts, unlike consistent pro-drop languages (Barbosa/Duarte/Kato 2005). In Brazilian Portuguese, thus, a full pronoun does not show the same obviation effects as in consistent pro-drop languages. A full pronoun can recover either the subject or another constituent, as shown in (60). Besides, overt pronouns can easily recover inanimate antecedents (Duarte 2000, 22), as exemplified in (61). (60) BPt.

(61) BPt.

disse à Rosaj que elai/j A Anai the Ana told to-the Rosa that she de descansar. of rest ‘Ana told Rosa that she needed to rest.’ que elei tem b. [O povo brasileiro]i acha the people Brazilian thinks that he has grave doença. bad disease ‘Brazilian people think that they are seriously ill.’ (Duarte 1993, apud Costa/Pratas 2013)

a.

precisava needed

uma a

A casa virou um filme quando ela teve de ir abaixo. the house became a movie when it-F had to go down ‘The house became a movie when it had to be demolished.’

Furthermore, third person null subjects in Brazilian Portuguese have a more limited distribution than in European Portuguese, as they can only recover a c-commanding antecedent in the closest clause (62). In European Portuguese, as in consistent null subject languages, third person null subjects can recover a more distant antecedent (63a), a non c-commanding antecedent (63b), or lack a clausal antecedent as in (64).

66

Maria Lobo and Ana Maria Martins

(62) BPt.

*A Lúcia conheceu alguns garotos na festa e ∅ the Lúcia met some boys at.the party and acharam ela bonita. found her pretty b. A Lúcia conheceu alguns garotos na festa e eles the Lúcia met some boys at.the party and they acharam ela bonita. found her pretty ‘Lúcia met some boys at the party and (they) found her beautyful.’ (Negrão/Viotti 2000, 110)

a.

(63) EPt./??BPt. a. Amália queria que os amigos dissessem que pro era Amália wanted that the friends said that was fadista. fado-singer ‘Amália wanted her friends to say that she was a fado singer.’ b. O médico disse à Ana que pro estava grávida. the doctor told to.the Ana that was pregnant ‘The doctor told Ana that she was pregnant.’ (64) a. EPt./??BPt. O chefe está atrasado. Acho que the boss is late think-1SG that b. EPt./BPt. O chefe está atrasado. Acho que the boss is late think-1SG that ‘The boss is late. I think he missed his train.’

pro perdeu o lost the

comboio. train

ele he

comboio. train

perdeu o lost the

Additionally, in Brazilian Portuguese subjects are frequently doubled by a full pronoun (Duarte 2000), as mentioned in Section 2.2 and illustrated in (65). This is unexpected in consistent null subject languages.  

(65) a. BPt.

A Clarinha ela cozinha que é uma the Clarinha she cooks that is a ‘Clarinha can cook wonderfully.’ (Duarte 2000, 28) b. Spoken Fr. Paul, il est pas encore arrivé. Paul he has not yet arrived ‘Paul has not arrived yet.’

maravilha. marvel

Subjects

67

On the basis of these facts, some authors have argued that null subjects in Brazilian Portuguese behave as variables or as deleted topics (Negrão/Müller 1996; Negrão/ Viotti 2000; Modesto 2000; 2008). Others analyze embedded referential null subjects as deleted copies of a movement chain (Ferreira 2000; 2004; 2009; Rodrigues 2002; 2004). For others (Silva 2000), there can be different types of null subjects in Brazilian Portuguese, including variable null subjects and anaphoric null subjects. The exact status of null subjects in Brazilian Portuguese is a complex matter that still deserves further investigation. On the other hand, Brazilian Portuguese has been progressively restricting the contexts of subject-verb inversion (Duarte 2000), setting it apart from consistent null subject languages, such as Italian, Spanish and European Portuguese. Holmberg/Nayudu/Sheehan (2009) attribute an additional property to this kind of partial null subject languages: the ability to have null arbitrary subjects. In this respect, Brazilian Portuguese resembles Finnish and diverges from European Portuguese, as exemplified in (66). (66) BPt.

EPt.

a.

É assim que faz o doce. is this.way that makes the sweet ‘This is how one makes the dessert.’ b. Nesse hotel não pode entrar na piscina bêbado. in.this hotel NEG can enter in.the swimming-pool drunk ‘In this hotel it is not permitted to use the swimming pool when drunk.’ (Rodrigues 2004, 72) c. É assim que *(se) faz o doce. is this.way that SE-IMPERS makes the sweet ‘This is how one makes the dessert.’ d. Nesse hotel não *(se) pode entrar na SE-IMPERS can enter in.the in.this hotel NEG piscina bêbado. swimming-pool drunk ‘In this hotel it is not permitted to use the swimming pool when drunk.’

Thus, although Brazilian Portuguese still has null subjects, it does not manifest the typical properties of a consistent null subject language.38

38 Dominican Spanish seems to be undergoing similar changes, with a higher use of overt pronouns than in other Spanish varieties and use of full pronouns in unmarked contexts, not directly related to rich agreement paradigms (Toribio 2000). Toribio (2000) argues that there is a linguistic change in progress and speakers of Dominican Spanish acquire two grammatical systems with different parametric specifications.

68

Maria Lobo and Ana Maria Martins

Some authors consider that Brazilian Portuguese is at an intermediate stage in the change from a null subject language to a non null subject language, similar to an ancient stage of French (e.g. Kato 1999). But there is reason to believe that the changes that Old French has undergone are not of the same type as the changes that occurred in Brazilian Portuguese, as argued by Roberts (2014). First, while changes in French were triggered mostly by changes in word order, changes in Brazilian Portuguese were triggered arguably by strong syncretism in the verbal paradigm due to a change in the pronominal system.39 Second, while the loss of null subjects in Old French correlates with the development of a system of weak pronouns (Vanelli/Renzi/Benincà 1985–1986; Poletto 2006), the same does not happen (at least not so clearly) in Brazilian Portuguese.40 There is arguably a reduced form of the strong pronoun você ‘you (SG )’ to a weak form cê (Kato 1999; among others), but the same reduction does not affect other personal pronouns. Costa/Duarte/Silva (2006) show that subject doubling structures in Brazilian Portuguese do not have the typical properties of left dislocation: doubling may occur in contexts where the subject cannot be a topic, as in (67a), and there are instances of doubling with quantified subjects that cannot be topicalized, as shown by the contrast between (67b) and (67c). (67) BPt./*EPt. a. Beginning of phone-call: O Edmilson, ele ’tá? the Edmilson he is?

39 European Portuguese also shows some changes in the pronominal system, but to a lesser extent: in the central and southern varieties, the second plural pronoun vós [you-PPLL ] is no longer used and has been replaced by vocês, which triggers third person plural agreement; for first person plural there is variation between nós ‘we’, which triggers first person plural verbal agreement, and a gente ‘the people’, which triggers third person singular verbal agreement (and for some speakers first person plural), but a gente is clearly socially marked as belonging to a non-standard or colloquial register. For second person singular, as in Italian, the familiar form tu [you-SG ] coexists with polite forms of address that trigger third person singular verbal agreement. 40 Kato (2000) makes the following generalization: languages with non-homophonous forms for subjects (nominative) and for stressed forms are non-pro-drop languages: “if the strong form is not nominative, then the language is [-null-subject]” (Kato 2000, 233). However, as Kato recognizes, the inverse is not necessarily true. Kato’s idea is that loss of null subjects and loss of subject inversion are a consequence of a change in the pronominal system: weak subject pronouns make the projection of the subject preverbal position obligatory, unlike in null subject languages. However, there are some problems with her account, since French subject pronouns are undoubtedly different from English subject pronouns: English subject pronouns can be coordinated, focused and separated from the verb (by an adverb, for instance), contrarily to French subject pronouns. The first behave as strong forms and the latter as weak forms. Also the phenomenon of subject doubling is much more frequent in French than in English, which suggests that subject pronouns have a different status in each language.

Subjects

‘Is Edmilson there?’ (Costa/Galves 2002, apud Costa/Duarte/Silva 2006) b. Cada criança ela leva seu livro para a each child she takes her book to the ‘Each child takes her book to school.’ c. *Cada criança, eu vi em sua escola. each child I saw at her school (Silva 2004, apud Costa/Duarte/Silva 2006)

69

escola. school

The authors also show that subject doubling in Brazilian Portuguese and in French have different properties and a different frequency: in Standard French doubling only occurs when the subject is a topic and it is not possible with a quantified subject; in Brazilian Portuguese, however, as the examples above illustrate, doubling may occur with quantified subjects (67b) and non-topical subjects (67a).41 Although the issue is debatable, it seems that Brazilian Portuguese (and possibly Dominican Spanish) is a partial null subject language different from the northern Occitan and northern Italian dialects.

4.4 Other types of subject omission When we look at some registers of French, we might think that null subjects may also be an option in this language: (68) Fr.

a.

M’ accompagne au Mercure. me accompanies to.the Mercure ‘S/he accompanies me to the Mercure.’ b. Revient à l’ affaire Alb … Me demande si … returns to the business Alb … me asks if … ‘S/he returns to the Alb business. S/he asks me if …’ (Léautaud, P. Le Fléau, Journal particulier, 1917–1930, 69–70, 20.3, apud Haegeman 2013, 90)

However, this type of subject omission (which can also be found in English) has been shown to be of a different kind. Subject omission in French (a non-pro-drop language) is clearly limited to some registers (it is christened as “diary-drop” by some authors) and is subject to specific syntactic constraints: i) there is no omission in embedded 41 In Standard French doubling seems to be a type of topicalization, where the topic is doubled by the subject pronoun (De Cat 2005). In non-standard varieties of French, however, sometimes called “Français avancé” (‘Advanced French’), doubling may be closer to the Brazilian Portuguese construction (Zribi-Hertz 1994).

70

Maria Lobo and Ana Maria Martins

clauses, as illustrated in (69); ii) there is no omission in clauses with a left dislocated constituent, as shown in (70), although we can find examples with initial adjuncts, as (71). Because this kind of subject omission is excluded from typical embedded domains, it has been considered a root phenomenon resulting from the possibility of having a truncated clause (Haegeman 2013). (69) Fr.

Maman lui dit que Mommy him tells that ‘Mommy tells him that I am ill.’

*(je) *(I)

suis am

(70) Fr.

Son frère, *(il/elle) l’ accompagne au his/her brother, *(he/she) him accompanies to.the ‘S/he accompanies his/her brother to the bistro.’ (Haegeman 2013, 94)

(71) Fr.

a.

malade. ill

bistro. bistro

puis __ se colle à moi et me tend sa bouche. me and me offers her mouth then __ REFL clings to ‘Then, she clings to me and offers me her mouth.’ (Léautaud 1933, 31, apud Haegeman 2013, 95) b. De nouveau ___ me tend sa bouche. again ___ me offers her mouth ‘She offers me her mouth again.’ (Léautaud 1933, 31, apud Haegeman 2013, 95) c. Tout de suite ___ m’ a parlé de ma visite my visit immediately ___ me have.3SG talked of chez elle dimanche. at her Sunday ‘Immediately she talks to me about my visit to her on Sunday.’ (Léautaud 1933, 45, apud Haegeman 2013, 95)

Zimmermann/Kaiser (2014) mention another context where subject omission is frequent in spoken Colloquial French. The authors observe that beside cases of subject omission restricted to a subset of epistemic verbs (connaître, croire), as in (72a), expletive subjects are frequently omitted in colloquial spoken French, as exemplified in (72b). The authors show that, although the phenomenon can also be found in embedded clauses, such as (73), it is more frequent in root contexts. (72) Fr.

a.

connais pas know.1SG not ‘I don’t know.’ (Gadet 21997, 70, apud Zimmermann/Kaiser 2014)

Subjects

71

b. faut voir see.INF must.3SG ‘We’ll see.’ (Gaatone 1976, 245, fn. 1, apud Zimmermann/Kaiser 2014)  

(73) Fr.

Quand faut y aller faut y aller. when must.3SG there go.INF must.3SG there go.INF ‘A man’s gotta do what a man’s gotta do!’ (movie title, French translation for the Italian movie Nati con la camicia, apud Zimmermann/Kaiser 2014)

Zimmermann/Kaiser (2014) establish a parallelism between the phenomenon exemplified in (72)–(73) and data from older stages of the language, and they argue that expletive omission in Colloquial French seems to be a continuation of a grammatical trait of Medieval French. Culbertson/Legendre (2014), however, have a different view on the null expletives of Colloquial French. Based on experimental data, the authors show that omission of expletives is accepted at different rates for different kinds of expletives and for different kinds of verbs: non-argumental expletives are more likely to be omitted than quasi-argumental expletives (such as subjects of weather verbs), and expletive drop is more likely to occur with modal verbs than with non-modal verbs. Differently from Zimmerman/Kaiser (2014), they argue that this is an innovation of Colloquial French, related to the grammaticalization of the subject clitics as agreement markers (for further details on the status of subject pronouns in different varieties of French, see ↗5 Clitic pronouns; for a comparison between the French data in (69)–(73) above and subject deletion in non-pro-drop English, see Horsey 1998; Nariyama 2004; Weir 2009; Holmberg 2010; Stark/Robert-Tissot forthcoming).

4.5 Typology of Romance (non) null subject languages – summary Summarizing, we can thus conclude that Romance languages provide interesting evidence in favor of a more refined typology of null subject languages, particularly when we take into account dialectal varieties. The typology of languages with respect to null subjects must take into account not only “rich” agreement morphology on the verb, but also different kinds of subjects with respect to argumental status (expletive/ argumental), person features and anaphoric properties: i) consistent null subject languages – null subjects allowed in all contexts (referential, expletive, all persons) [Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, Galician, Catalan, Occitan, Romanian] ii) partial (split) null subject languages – null subjects only allowed in some persons (and/or tenses) [some northern Occitan dialects, Franco-Provençal and northern Italian dialects]

72

Maria Lobo and Ana Maria Martins

iii) partial (semi) pro-drop languages – null expletives but limited use of referential null pronouns, that seem to behave as bound variables or copies of movement [Brazilian Portuguese] iv) non-pro-drop languages – null subjects forbidden [French] (but with marginal cases of subject omission in Colloquial French)

4.6 Loss of null subjects and pro-drop licensing What has caused the loss of null subjects in some Romance varieties? Some studies have established a correlation between the morphosyntactic status of subject pronouns in Romance languages, word order restrictions in the medieval languages and the Null Subject Parameter (Vanelli/Renzi/Benincà 1985–1986). According to several authors (Vanelli/Renzi/Benincà 1985–1986; Roberts 1993; Poletto 2006), the availability of null subjects was more restricted in medieval French and in the medieval Northern Italian dialects than in the medieval Ibero-Romance languages. The languages with a more restricted system of null subjects were, according to the same authors, verb second (V2) languages, that is, languages where verbs occupied the second position in the clause and could be preceded by objects, adverbs or subjects, as illustrated by (74) from Medieval French. In those languages, null subjects were mainly attested in postverbal environments, as in (75). In these varieties licensing of null subjects seems to be restricted to this syntactic context (Vanelli/ Renzi/Benincà 1985–1986; Roberts 1993; Poletto 2006). (For other perspectives on Old French word order and the loss of null subjects, see Rinke/Meisel (2009), Meisel/ Elsig/Rinke (2013), Zimmermann (2014), and references therein.) (74) Fr.

a.

Autre chose ne pot li rois trouver. another thing not can the king find.INF ‘The king cannot find anything else.’ (M. Artu, apud Vanelli/Renzi/Benincà 1985–1986, 53) b. Et ton nom revoel ge savoir and your name want I know.INF ‘And I want to know your name.’ (Erec, apud Vanelli/Renzi/Benincà 1985–1986, 53)

(75) Fr.

Sire, nouveles vos sei __ dire del from.the Sir news you know.1SG __ say ‘Sir, I can tell you news of the tournament.’ (M. Artu, apud Vanelli/Renzi/Benincà 1985–1986, 53)

tornoiement. tournament

The loss of null subjects or the change into asymmetric pro-drop systems would thus correlate with changes in word order, with the consequent inability to license subjects

Subjects

73

in the proper syntactic configuration (Roberts 2014; Poletto 2006). Furthermore, this change has been argued to correlate with the development of a system of weak subject pronouns, that in some cases (some northern Italian dialects and some colloquial varieties of French) then evolved into agreement markers (see ↗5 Clitic pronouns). In the medieval Ibero-Romance varieties, in contrast, null subjects were freer and could also be licensed in preverbal position. In these varieties, null subjects were maintained according to the Latin system and subject pronouns kept their status as strong pronouns (see ↗5 Clitic pronouns, and Vanelli/Renzi/Benincà 1985–1986). The case of Brazilian Portuguese seems to be different. In this variety, the raising in frequency of overt subject pronouns does not seem to follow from a change in word order and in the type of licensing of null subjects. It seems to be instead a consequence of changes in the pronominal system that induced a reduction in person distinctions in the verbal paradigm (Roberts 2014), although as we have seen it is difficult to establish a direct link between impoverished morphology and the use of overt pronouns (Negrão/Viotti 2000). There seem to be indeed different kinds of partial null subject languages (Biberauer et al. 2010). So from the simple binary distinction established in the 1980s between pro-drop languages, like Spanish or Italian, and non-pro-drop languages, like French or English, we have now come to a system that must consider fine-grained distinctions between different types of licensing of null subjects and different types of null subjects.

5 Reconsidering properties of null subject languages As mentioned above, traditional accounts of the Null Subject Parameter established a correlation between different properties: i) optional omission of pronominal subjects; ii) ‘free subject inversion’; and iii) lack of that-trace effects (Rizzi 1982). This correlation, however, seems to be too strong (cf. Gilligan 1987). In this section, we will reconsider some of these properties and some problems for the traditional view. See Section 2 above in regard to ‘free subject inversion’.

5.1 Are null subjects optional? Although in consistent null subject languages overt pronouns are judged optional, in reality null subjects and full pronouns do not alternate freely (Montalbetti 1984; Rigau 1988; Calabrese 1980; Lobo 1995; 2013; Carminati 2002; Camacho 2013; among others). There are contexts where overt pronouns are obligatory, contexts where they are forbidden and contexts where the use of a null pronoun or of an overt pronoun induces different readings, without any changes in verbal agreement. Whenever the subject is focused or contrasted, it has to be phonetically realized, as shown in (76):

74

(76) a. b. c. d.

Maria Lobo and Ana Maria Martins

It. Pt. Sp. Rom.

Chi è arrivato? / Quem chegou? / ¿Quién llegó? / Cine a ajuns? / who (has/is) arrived / ‘Who arrived? / I did.’

Sono arrivato *(io). Cheguei *(eu). Llegué *(yo). Am ajuns *(eu). (am/have) arrived(1SG ) *(I)

Conversely, when the subject is a bound variable it is usually omitted (Montalbetti 1984): (77) a. b. c. d.

It. Pt. Sp. Rom.

Ogni bambinoi pensava che lui*i / proi avrebbe vinto. / proi ia ganhar. Cada meninoi achava que ele*i / proi iba a ganar. Cada niñoi pensaba que él*i / proi va câştiga. Fiecare copili credea că el*i ‘Each childi thought that hei would win.’

In other contexts, such as indicative complement clauses, like (78), or adverbial clauses, like (79), null subjects are preferred for coreferential readings and full pronouns are preferred for disjoint readings: (78) a. b. c. d.

It. Pt. Sp. Rom.

Il pittorei ha detto al meccanicoj che proi/luij non poteva venire. O pintori disse ao mecânicoj que proi/elej não podia vir. El pintori dijo al mecánicoj que proi/élj no podía venir. Pictoruli i-a spus mecaniculuij că proi/elj nu poate să vină. ‘The painteri told the mechanicj that hei/j could not come.’

(79) a. b. c. d.

It. Pt. Sp. Rom.

Il pittorei ha sorriso al meccanicoj quando proi/luij è arrivato. O pintori sorriu ao mecânicoj quando proi/elej entrou. El pintori sonrió al mecánicoj cuando proi/élj entró. Pictoruli i-a zâmbit mecaniculuij când proi/elj a intrat. ‘The painteri smiled to the mechanicj when hei/j came in.’

In languages that do not allow null subjects, a subject pronoun is obligatory in these contexts and it has an ambiguous interpretation: (80) Fr. a. b. c.

Chaque enfanti croyait qu’*(ili/j) allait gagner. ‘Each childi thought that hei/j would win.’ Le peintrei a dit à l’ingénieurj qu’ *(ili/j) ne pourrait pas venir. ‘The painteri told the engineerj that hei/j could not come.’ Le peintrei a souri à l’ingénieurj quand *(ili/j) est entré. ‘The painteri smiled to the engineerj when hei/j came in.’

Subjects

75

So subject dropping in consistent null subject languages is not free. It is subject to specific discourse constraints.

5.2 Subject extraction and subject-verb inversion Another property that has been related to the null subject parameter is the ability to extract a subject from a finite subordinate clause introduced by a complementizer (see examples (6) and (7) in Section 4.1). According to Rizzi (1982), this property follows from the ability to extract subjects from a postverbal position. This would be possible in null subject languages, in which a null expletive may occur pre-verbally, but not in non-pro-drop languages. There are several arguments that support the hypothesis that subject extraction takes place from a postverbal position in null subject languages (Rizzi 1982; Burzio 1986; Rizzi/Shlonsky 2007). In Italian, for example, ne-cliticization is only possible when the clitic, which pronominalizes an NP complement of a quantifier, is moved from a postverbal position. As shown in (81a), ne-cliticization is possible with the internal argument of unaccusative verbs. However, when the internal argument occupies the preverbal position (81b), ne-cliticization is no longer possible. Crucially, when the internal argument undergoes wh-movement, as in (81c), ne-cliticization is possible. This suggests that the wh-subject is extracted from the postverbal position and not from the preverbal one: (81) Fr. a.

b.

c.

Ne sono cadute tre. of.them are fallen three ‘Three of them have fallen.’ *Tre ne sono cadute. three of.them are fallen ‘Three of them have fallen.’ Quante ne sono cadute? how.many of.them are fallen ‘How many of them have fallen?’

In French, a non null subject language, extraction of the subject out of a complement clause introduced by a complementizer is ungrammatical, but object extraction is possible (cf. (82a) vs (82b)):42

42 But see example (52b’) in section 4.1 and Rizzi/Shlonsky’s (2007) discussion on subject extraction in French.

76

Maria Lobo and Ana Maria Martins

(82) Fr. a.

*Qui crois-tu que va gagner? who think.2SG -you that go win ‘Who do you think will win?’ Qui crois-tu que Paul va aider? who think.2SG -you that Paul go help ‘Who do you think that Paul will help?’

b.

In so-called impersonal constructions, with verbs that allow the subject to remain in a postverbal position and with an overt expletive in preverbal position (83), only the extraction of the postverbal position is grammatical (84): (83) Fr. a.

Il est arrivé trois filles. it is arrived three girls ‘There arrived three girls.’ Trois filles sont arrivées. three girls are arrived-F . PL ‘Three girls arrived.’

b.

(84) Fr. a.

Combien de fillesi crois-tu qu’ il how.many of girls think.2SG -you that it que __i *Combien de fillesi crois-tu how.many of girls think.2SG -you that ‘How many girls do you think have arrived?’

b.

est is sont are

arrivé __i? arrived arrivées? arrived.F . PL

However, consideration of data from different languages has shown that the correlation between subject inversion and subject extraction is not as straightforward as initially thought (Gilligan 1987; Nicolis 2008). Some languages seem to allow subject extraction but disallow postverbal subjects, at least with the properties described for consistent null subject languages. In the Romance languages, Brazilian Portuguese has been argued to be one of these languages (Chao 1981; Rizzi/Shlonsky 2007). As mentioned in Section 2, Brazilian Portuguese has a limited use of subject inversion and usually does not like subject inversion with verbs that are not unaccusative. It allows, however subject extraction from embedded contexts. Although it has a more restricted use of subject inversion than consistent null subject languages, Menuzzi (2000) shows that even in Brazilian Portuguese subject extraction takes place from a postverbal position. This is visible when a floating quantifier is left behind, as in (85). (85) BPt.

a.

Que rapazesi, which boys [todos __i ] de all of

o Paulo the Paulo Maria? Maria

desconfia que suspects that

gostem like

Subjects

b. *Que rapazesi, o Paulo desconfia que which boys the Paulo suspects that gostem de Maria? like of Maria ‘Which boys does Paul suspect all like Maria?’ (Menuzzi 2000, 29)

77

[todos __i ]j all

In fact, extraction from a subject position of an embedded clause introduced by a complementizer seems to be possible in a language that has null expletives, as happens in Brazilian Portuguese (Nicolis 2008; Rizzi/Shlonsky 2007). Similar effects are found in Capeverdean, a Portuguese-based Creole that has null expletives but a very limited use of null argumental subjects (Nicolis 2008; Costa/Pratas 2013). So even in languages where there is no ‘free subject inversion’, subject extraction seems to be possible provided that the language has null expletives, which is the case of Brazilian Portuguese.

5.3 Summary As we have seen, properties traditionally associated with null subject languages have to be weakened to a certain extent. In null subject languages: i) null subjects are allowed only in specific discourse conditions (Section 5.1); ii) lack of that-trace effects seems to be present even when the language does not have a wide use of subject-verb inversion, provided that it allows null expletives (Section 5.2); and as we have seen before subject inversion is not completely free (Section 2).

6 General summary This chapter covers central topics in the morphosyntax of subjects. Discussion throughout the paper is theory-informed but kept as theory-neutral as possible, and substantial cross-linguistic empirical evidence is offered. The cornerstones of the chapter are word order, in particular subject-verb inversion, and null subjects, both issues relating to case, agreement and expletives. The chapter seeks to understand and systematize what motivates and licenses VS orders in Romance non-wh sentences (i.e. VOS and VSO) and identifies focalization, theticity and non-degree exclamatives as central ingredients (across Romance languages). On the other hand, the chapter provides evidence that the Null Subject Parameter (NSP) cannot be maintained as originally formulated since the richness of grammatical variation between Romance languages requires a more intricate, fine-grained parametrization. Some assumptions of the NSP relating to word order are also untenable.  

78

Maria Lobo and Ana Maria Martins

7 References Abeillé, Anne/Godard, Danièle/Sabio, Frédéric (2008), Two types of NP preposing in French, in: Stefan Müller (ed.), Proceedings of the 15th HPSG Conference, NICT, Keihanna, Japan, Stanford, CA, CSLI, 306–324. Adams, Marianne Patalino (1987), Old French, null subjects and verb second phenomena, University of California, Los Angeles, Ph.D. dissertation. Alboiu, Gabriela (1999), (De)-focusing and object raising in Romanian, Canadian Journal of Linguistics 44, 1–22. Alboiu, Gabriela (2002), The Features of Movement in Romanian, Bucharest, University of Bucharest Press. Alexiadou, Artemis (2006), On the properties of VSO and VOS orders in Greek and Italian: a study on the syntax – information structure interface, in: Antonis Botinis (ed.), Proceedings of ISCA Tutorial and Research Workshop on Experimental Linguistics, 28–30 August 2006, Athens, Greece, Athens, University of Athens, 1–8. Alexiadou, Artemis/Anagnostopoulou, Elena (2001), The subject-in-situ generalization and the role of case in driving computations, Linguistic Inquiry 32, 193–231. Alonso-Ovalle, Luis, et al. (2002), Null vs overt pronouns and the topic–focus articulation in Spanish, Journal of Italian Linguistics 14, 151–169. Ambar, Manuela (1992), Para uma Sintaxe da Inversão Sujeito-Verbo em Português, Lisboa, Edições Colibri. Andueza, Patricia (2011), Rhetorical exclamatives in Spanish, The Ohio State University, Ph.D. dissertation. Avelar, Juanito/Cyrino, Sonia (2008), Locativos preposicionados em posição de sujeito: uma possível contribuição das línguas Bantu à sintaxe do português brasileiro, Linguística: Revista de Estudos Linguísticos da Universidade do Porto 3, 55–75. Avelar, Juanito/Cyrino, Sonia/Galves, Charlotte (2009), Locative inversion and agreement patterns, in: Margarida Tadonni Petter/Ronald Beline Mendes (edd.), Exploring the African Language Connection in the Americas – Proceedings of the Special WOCAL (São Paulo, 2008), São Paulo, Humanitas, 207– 221. Avelar, Juanito/Galves, Charlotte (2013), Concordância locativa no português brasileiro: questões para a hipótese do contato, in: Denilda Moura/Marcelo Amorim Sibaldo (edd.), Para a História do Português Brasileiro, Maceió, Edufal, 103–132. Babby, Leonard (1980), Existential Sentences and Negation in Russian, Ann Arbor, MI, Karoma Publishers. Barbosa, Pilar (1995), Null Subjects, MIT, Ph.D. dissertation. Barbosa, Pilar (2000), Clitics: a window into the null subject property, in: João Costa (ed.), Portuguese Syntax: New Comparative Studies, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 31–93. Barbosa, Pilar (2006), Ainda a questão dos sujeitos pré-verbais em Português Europeu: uma resposta a Costa (2001), D.E.L.T.A. 22, 345–402. Barbosa, Pilar (2009), Two kinds of subject pro, Studia Linguistica 63, 2–58. Barbosa, Pilar/Duarte, Maria Eugênia Lamoglia/Kato, Mary A. (2005), Null subjects in European and Brazilian Portuguese, Journal of Portuguese Linguistics 4, 11–52. Belletti, Adriana (2001), “Inversion” as focalization, in: Aafke C. Hulk/Jean-Yves Pollock (edd.), Subject Inversion in Romance and the Theory of Universal Grammar, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 20–59. Belletti, Adriana (2004), Aspects of the low IP area, in: Luigi Rizzi (ed.), The Structure of IP and CP. The Cartography of Syntactic Structures Volume 2, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 16–51.

Subjects

79

Belletti, Adriana (2005), Answering with a “cleft”: The role of the null subject parameter and the VP periphery, in: Laura Brugè et al. (edd.), Proceedings of the Thirtieth “Incontro di Grammatica Generativa”, Venezia, Cafoscarina, 63–82. Benincà, Paola (1988), L’ordine degli elementi della frase e le costruzioni marcate, in: Lorenzo Renzi/ Giampaolo Salvi (edd.), Grande grammatica italiana di consultazione, vol. 1, Bologna, il Mulino, 129–194. Berlinck, Rosane Andrade (1996), La position du sujet en portugais: étude diachronique des varietés brésilienne et européenne, Leuven, Katholieke Universiteit, Ph.D. dissertation. Berlinck, Rosane Andrade (2000), Brazilian Portuguese VS order: a diachronic analysis, in: Mary A. Kato/Esmeralda Vailati Negrão (edd.), Brazilian Portuguese and the Null Subject Parameter, Madrid/Frankfurt, Iberoamericana/Vervuert, 175–194. Biberauer, Theresa, et al. (edd.) (2010), Parametric Variation: Null Subjects in Minimalist Theory, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Bolkestein, Machtelt (1995), Functions of verb-subject order in Latin, in: Yaron Matras/Hans-Jürgen Sasse (edd.), Verb-Subject Order and Theticity in European Languages, Berlin, Akademie-Verlag, 32–43. Bonami, Olivier/Godard, Danièle (2008), On the syntax of quotation in French, Paper presented at “The 15th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure (HPSG 2008)”, Keihanna, Japan, 30.07.2008. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.521.8876& rep=rep1&type=pdf (28.08.2016). Bonami, Olivier/Godard, Danièle/Marandin, Jean-Marie (1999), Constituency and word order in French subject inversion, in: Gossa Bouma et al. (edd.), Constraints and Resources in Natural Language Syntax and Semantics, Stanford, CA, CSLI, 21–40. Brandi, Luciana/Cordin, Patrizia (1989), Two Italian dialects and the Null Subject Parameter, in: Osvaldo Jaeggli/Kenneth J. Safir (edd.), The Null Subject Parameter, Dordrecht, Kluwer, 111–142. Brito, Ana Maria (1984), Sobre as noções de sujeito e de argumento externo: semelhanças entre a estrutura de F e de SN em português, Boletim de Filologia 29, 421–478. Brito, Ana Maria (1991), Ligação, co-referência e o princípio evitar pronome, in: Ana Maria Brito (ed.), Encontro de homenagem a Óscar Lopes, Lisboa, Associação Portuguesa de Linguística, 101–121. Britto, Helena (1998), Deslocamento à esquerda, resumptivo-sujeito, ordem SV e a codificação de juízos categórico e tético no português do Brasil, São Paulo, Universidade de Campinas, Ph.D. dissertation. Britto, Helena (2000), Syntactic codification of categorical and thetic judgments in Brazilian Portuguese, in: Mary A. Kato/Esmeralda Vailati Negrão (edd.), Brazilian Portuguese and the Null Subject Parameter, Madrid/Frankfurt, Iberoamericana/Vervuert, 195–222. Burzio, Luigi (1986), Italian Syntax: A Government and Binding Approach, Dordrecht, Reidel. Calabrese, Andrea (1980), Sui pronomi atoni e tonici dell’italiano, Rivista di Grammatica Generativa 5, 65–116. Camacho, José (2013), Null Subjects, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Cardinaletti, Anna (1997a), Subjects and clause structure, in: Liliane Haegeman (ed.), The New Comparative Syntax, London, Longman, 33–63. Cardinaletti, Anna (1997b), Agreement and control in expletive constructions, Linguistic Inquiry 28, 521–533. Cardinaletti, Anna (2004), Toward a cartography of subject positions, in: Luigi Rizzi (ed.), The Structure of CP and IP. The Cartography of Syntactic Structures Volume 2, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 115–165. Cardinaletti, Anna (2014), Cross-linguistic variation in the syntax of subjects, in: Carmen Picallo (ed.), Linguistic Variation in the Minimalist Framework, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 82–107.  

80

Maria Lobo and Ana Maria Martins

Cardinaletti, Anna/Starke, Michael (1999), The typology of structural deficiency: A case study of the three classes of pronouns, in: Henk van Riemsdijk (ed.), Clitics in the Languages of Europe, Berlin/New York, De Gruyter, 145–233. Cardoso, Adriana/Carrilho, Ernestina/Pereira, Sandra (2011), On verbal agreement variation in European Portuguese: syntactic conditions for the 3SG/3PL alternation, Diacrítica 25, 137–160. Carlier, Anne/Sarda, Laure (2010), Le complément de la localisation spatiale: entre argument et adjoint, in: Franck Neveu et al. (edd.), Actes du CMLF 2010 (Congrès Mondial de Linguistique Française), Paris, Institut de Linguistique Française, 2057–2073. Carminati, Maria Nella (2002), The processing of Italian subject pronouns, Amherst, University of Massachusetts, Ph.D. dissertation. Carrilho, Ernestina (2003), Ainda a “unidade e diversidade da língua portuguesa”: a sintaxe, in: Ivo Castro/Inês Duarte (edd.), Razões e emoção: Miscelânea de estudos em homenagem a Maria Helena Mira Mateus, Lisboa, INCM, 163–178. Carrilho, Ernestina (2005), Expletive “ele” in European Portuguese dialects, Universidade de Lisboa, Ph.D. dissertation. http://www.clul.ul.pt/en/researcher/129-ernestina-carrilho (16.05.2016). Carrilho, Ernestina (2008), Beyond doubling: overt expletives in European Portuguese dialects, in: Sjef Barbiers et al. (edd.), Microvariation in Syntactic Doubling, Bingley, Emerald, 301–323. Chao, Wynn (1981), Pro-drop languages and nonobligatory control, University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics 7, 46–74. Chomsky, Noam (1981), Lectures on Government and Binding, Dordrecht, Foris. Chomsky, Noam (1982), Some Concepts and Consequences of the Theory of Government and Binding, Cambridge, MA, MIT Press. Cornilescu, Alexandra (2000), The double subject construction in Romanian, in: Virginia Motapanyane (ed.), Comparative Studies in Romanian Syntax, Oxford, Elsevier, 83–134. Corr, Alice (2012), Subject inversion in Ibero-Romance, University of Cambridge, MA thesis. Costa, João (1998), Word Order Variation: A Constraint-based Approach, The Hague, Holland Academic Graphics. Costa, João (2001a), Spec-IP ou deslocado? Prós e contras das duas análises dos sujeitos pré-verbais, D.E.L.T.A. 17, 283–303. Costa, João (2001b), Postverbal subjects and agreement in unaccusative contexts in European Portuguese, The Linguistic Review 18, 1–17. Costa, João (2004), Subject Positions and the Interfaces: The Case of European Portuguese, Berlin/ New York, De Gruyter. Costa, João/Duarte, Inês/Silva, Cláudia (2006), Construções de redobro em português brasileiro: sujeitos tópicos vs. soletração do traço de pessoa, Leitura 33, 135–145. Costa, João/Galves, Charlotte (2002), External subjects in two varieties of Portuguese: evidence for a non-unified analysis, in: Claire Beyssade et al. (edd.), Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 2000, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, Benjamins, 109–125. Costa, João /Pratas, Fernanda (2013), Embedded null subjects in Capeverdean, Journal of Linguistics 49, 33–53. Costa, João/Silva, Maria Cristina Figueiredo (2006), On the (in)dependence relations between syntax and pragmatics, in: Valéria Molnár/Susanne Winkler (edd.), The Architecture of Focus, Berlin/ New York, De Gruyter, 83–104. Culbertson, Jennifer/Legendre, Géraldine (2014), Prefixal agreement and impersonal “il” in spoken French: experimental evidence, Journal of French Language Studies 24, 83–105. Cummins, Sarah (2000), The unaccusative hypothesis and the impersonal construction in French, Canadian Journal of Linguistics 45, 225–251. De Cat, Cécile (2005), French subject clitics are not agreement markers, Lingua 115, 1195–1219.

Subjects

81

Devine, Andrew/Stephens, Laurence D. (2006), Latin Word Order: Structured Meaning and Information, Oxford, Oxford University Press. Diémoz, Federica (2007), Le pronom personnel sujet de la 3e personne du singulier et le sujet neutre en francoprovençal valaisan: étude morphosyntaxique, in: Claudine Fréchet (ed.), Langues et cultures de France et d’ailleurs: Hommage à Jean-Baptiste Martin, Lyon, Presses Universitaires de Lyon, 177–193. Dobrovie-Sorin, Carmen (1994), The Syntax of Romanian: Comparative Studies on Romance, Berlin/ New York, De Gruyter. Duarte, Maria Eugênia Lamoglia (1993), O enfraquecimento da concordância no Português Brasileiro, in: Ian Roberts/Mary A. Kato (edd.), Português Brasileiro: uma viagem diacrônica, Campinas, Unicamp, 387–408. Duarte, Maria Eugênia Lamoglia (1995), A perda do Princípio “Evite pronome” no português brasileiro, Universidade de Campinas, São Paulo, Ph.D. dissertation. Duarte, Maria Eugênia Lamoglia (2000), The loss of the “Avoid pronoun” principle in Brazilian Portuguese, in: Mary A. Kato/Esmeralda Vailati Negrão (edd.), Brazilian Portuguese and the Null Subject Parameter, Madrid/Frankfurt, Iberoamericana/Vervuert, 17–36. Dufter, Andreas (2008), On explaining the rise of “c’est”-clefts in French, in: Ulrich Detges/Richard Waltereit (edd.), The Paradox of Grammatical Change, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, Benjamins, 31–56. Erteschik-Shir, Nomi (1997), The Dynamics of Focus Structure, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Erteschik-Shir, Nomi (1999), Focus structure and scope, in: Georges Rebuschi/Laurice Tuller (edd.), The Grammar of Focus, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, Benjamins, 119–150. Falk, Yehuda N. (2006), Subjects and Universal Grammar: An Explanatory Theory, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Fernández Lagunilla, Marina (1987), Los infinitivos con sujetos léxicos en español, in: Violeta Demonte/Marina Fernández Lagunilla (edd.), Sintaxis de las lenguas románicas, Madrid, Ediciones El Arquero, 125–147. Fernández Soriano, Olga (1999), Two types of impersonal sentences in Spanish: locative and dative subjects, Syntax 2, 101–140. Fernández Soriano, Olga (2000), Datives in construction with unaccusative “se”, Catalan Working Papers in Linguistics 7, 89–105. Fernández Soriano, Olga/Mendikoetxea, Amaya (2013), Non selected dative arguments in Spanish anticausative constructions: exploring subjecthood, in: Ilja A. Seržant/Leonid Kulikov (edd.), The Diachronic Typology of Non-Canonical Subjects, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, Benjamins, 3–34. Ferreira, Marcelo (2000), Argumentos nulos em português brasileiro, Universidade Estadual de Campinas, MA dissertation. Ferreira, Marcelo (2004), Hyperraising and null subjects in Brazilian Portuguese, MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 47, 57–85. Ferreira, Marcelo (2009), Null subjects and finite control in Brazilian Portuguese, in: Jairo Nunes (ed.), Minimalist Essays on Brazilian Portuguese Syntax, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, Benjamins, 93–120. Filiaci, Francesca/Sorace, Antonella/Carreiras, Manuel (2013), Anaphoric biases of null and overt subjects in Italian and Spanish: a cross-linguistic comparison, Language, Cognition and Neuroscience 29, 825–843. Fischer, Susann (2010), Word-order Change as a Source of “Grammaticalisation,” Amsterdam/Philadelphia, Benjamins. Gaatone, David (1976), Il doit y avoir - *Il faut y avoir. À propos de la montée du sujet, Revue Romane 11, 245–266. Gadet, Françoise (21997, 11992), Le français populaire, Paris, Presses Universitaires de France.

82

Maria Lobo and Ana Maria Martins

Gilligan, Gary (1987), A cross linguistic approach to the pro-drop parameter, Los Angeles, CA, University of Southern California, Ph.D. dissertation. González, Nora (1988), Object and Raising in Spanish, New York, Garland. Grimshaw, Jane (1979), Complement selection and the lexicon, Linguistic Inquiry 10, 279–326. Guéron, Jacqueline (1980), The syntax and semantics of PP extraposition, Linguistic Inquiry 11, 637–678. Gundel, Jeanette K. (1989), The Role of Topic and Comment in Linguistic Theory, New York, Garland. Gutiérrez-Bravo, Rodrigo (2005), Subject inversion in Spanish relative clauses: a case of prosodyinduced word order variation without narrow focus, in: Twan Geerts/Ivo van Ginneken/Haike Jacobs (edd.), Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 2003. Selected Papers from “Going Romance”, Nijmegen, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, Benjamins, 115–128. Gutiérrez-Bravo, Rodrigo (2006), A reinterpretation of quirky subjects and related phenomena in Spanish, in: Chiyo Nishida/Jean-Pierre Y. Montreuil (edd.), New Perspectives in Romance Linguistics, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, Benjamins, 127–142. Gutiérrez-Rexach, Javier/Andueza, Patricia (2011), Degree restriction in Spanish exclamatives, in: Luis A. Ortiz-López (ed.), Selected Proceedings of the 13th Hispanic Linguistics Symposium, Somerville, MA, Cascadilla, 286–295. Haegeman, Liliane (2013), The syntax of registers: diary subject omission and the privilege of the root, Lingua 130, 88–110. Heap, David (2000), La variation grammaticale en géolinguistique: les pronoms sujet en roman central, München, Lincom Europa. Hill, Virginia (2006), Stylistic inversion in Romanian, Studia Linguistica 60, 156–180. Hinzelin, Marc-Olivier/Kaiser, Georg A. (2012), Le paramètre du sujet nul dans les variétés dialectales de l’occitan et du francoprovençal, in: Mario Barra-Jover et al. (edd.), Actes du Colloque GalRom07. Diachronie du gallo-roman. Évolution de la phonologie et de la morphologie du français, du francoprovençal et de l’occitan, Nice, 15–16 janvier 2007, Saint-Denis, Presses Universitaires de Vincennes, 247–260. Holmberg, Anders (2010), Null subject parameters, in: Theresa Biberauer et al. (edd.), Parametric Variation: Null Subjects in Minimalist Theory, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 88–124. Holmberg, Anders/Nayudu, Aarti/Sheehan, Michelle (2009), Three partial null subject languages: a comparison of Brazilian Portuguese, Finnish and Marathi, Studia Linguistica 63, 59–97. Horsey, Richard (1998), Null arguments in English registers: a minimalist account, La Trobe University, B. A. dissertation. Huang, C.-T. James (1984), On the distribution and reference of empty pronouns, Linguistic Inquiry 15, 531–574. Jaeggli, Osvaldo/Safir, Kenneth J. (edd.) (1989), The Null Subject Parameter, Dordrecht, Kluwer. Kaiser, Georg A. (2009), Losing the null subject: a contrastive study of (Brazilian) Portuguese and Medieval French, in: Georg A. Kaiser/Eva-Maria Remberger (edd.), Proceedings of the Workshop “Null-subjects, expletives, and locatives in Romance”, Konstanz, Universität Konstanz, 131–156. Kaiser, Georg A./Hack, Franziska Maria (2010), Sujets et sujets nuls en romanche, in: Maria Iliescu/ Heidi Siller-Runggaldier/Paul Danler (edd.), Actes du XXVe Congrès International de Linguistique et de Philologie Romanes, Innsbruck 2007, vol. 7, Berlin/New York, De Gruyter, 83–91. Kaiser, Georg A./Oliviéri, Michèle (2012), On meteorological constructions at the boundaries of Occitania, in: Xosé Afonso Álvarez Pérez/Ernestina Carrilho/Catarina Magro (edd.), Proceedings of the International Symposium on Limits and Areas in Dialectology (LimiAr), Lisboa, Centro de Linguística da Universidade de Lisboa, 365–381. Kaiser, Georg A./Oliviéri, Michèle/Palasis, Katerina (2013), Impersonal constructions in northern Occitan, in: Ernestina Carrilho/Catarina Magro/Xosé Afonso Álvarez Pérez (edd.), Current Approaches to Limits and Areas in Dialectology, Newcastle upon Tyne, Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 345–366.

Subjects

83

Kampers-Mahne, Brigitte, et al. (2004), Subject NP inversion, in: Francis Corblin/Henriëtte de Swart (edd.), Handbook of French Semantics, Stanford, CA, CSLI, 553–577. Kato, Mary A. (1999), Strong and weak pronominals and the null subject parameter, Probus 11, 1–38. Kato, Mary A. (2000), The partial pro-drop nature and the restricted VS order in Brazilian Portuguese, in: Mary A. Kato/Esmeralda Vailati Negrão (edd.), Brazilian Portuguese and the Null Subject Parameter, Madrid/Frankfurt, Iberoamericana/Vervuert, 223–258. Kato, Mary A./Martins, Ana Maria (2016), European Portuguese and Brazilian Portuguese: an overview on word order, in: Leo Wetzels/Sergio Menuzzi/João Costa (edd.), The Handbook of Portuguese Linguistics, Malden, MA, Wiley-Blackwell, 15–40. Keenan, Edward (1976), Towards a universal definition of subject, in: Charles N. Li (ed.), Subject and Topic, New York, Academic Press, 303–333. Kuroda, Sige-Yuki (1965), Generative Grammatical Studies in the Japanese Language, MIT, Cambridge, MA, Ph.D. dissertation, published in 1979, New York, Garland. Kuroda, Sige-Yuki (1972), The categorical and the thetic judgments, Foundations of Language 9, 153–185. Kuroda, Sige-Yuki (1992), Japanese Syntax and Semantics, Dordrecht, Kluwer. Kuroda, Sige-Yuki (2005), Focusing on the matter of topic: a study on “wa” and “ga” in Japanese, Journal of East Asian Linguistics 14, 1–58. Lahousse, Karen (2003), The distribution of postverbal nominal subjects in French: a syntactic, semantic and pragmatic analysis, KU Leuven/Université de Paris 8, Ph.D. dissertation. Lahousse, Karen (2004), La complexité de la notion de topique et l’inversion du sujet nominal, Travaux de linguistique 47, 111–136. Lahousse, Karen (2006a), NP subject inversion in French: two types, two configurations, Lingua 116, 424–461. Lahousse, Karen (2006b), L’assertion et l’inversion du sujet nominal dans les subordonnées adverbiales, in: Kim Gerdes/Claude Muller (edd.), Ordre des mots et typologie de la phrase française, Lingvisticae Investigationes 29, 113–124. Lahousse, Karen (2007), Specificational sentences and word order in Romance: a functional analysis, Folia Linguistica 41, 357–404. Lahousse, Karen (2008), Implicit stage topics, Discours: Revue de linguistique, psycholinguistique et informatique 1|2007 (made available online on 02.04.2008). http://discours.revues.org/117 (20.05.2016). Lahousse, Karen (2011), Quand passent les cigognes: le sujet nominal postverbal en français moderne, Paris, Presses Universitaires de France. Lahousse, Karen (2012), Inversion in French: a cartographic approach, Paper presented at “GIST Subjects workshop”, Gent, October 2012. http://www.gist.ugent.be/file/305 (16.05.2016). Lahousse, Karen/Lamiroy, Béatrice (2012), Word order in French, Spanish and Italian: a grammaticalization account, Folia Linguistica 46, 387–415. Lambrecht, Knud (1981), Topic, Antitopic and Verb Agreement in Non-standard French, Amsterdam/ Philadelphia, Benjamins. Lambrecht, Knud (1988), Presentational cleft constructions in spoken French, in: John Haiman/Sandra A. Thompson (edd.), Clause Combining in Language and Discourse, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, Benjamins, 135–179. Lambrecht, Knud (1994), Information Structure and Sentence Form: Topic, Focus, and the Mental Representation of Discourse Referents, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Lambrecht, Knud (2000), When subjects behave like objects: an analysis of the merging of S and O in sentence-focus constructions across languages, Studies in Language 24, 611–682. Larson, Richard (1988), On the Double Object Construction, Linguistic Inquiry 19, 335–391.

84

Maria Lobo and Ana Maria Martins

Larson, Richard (1990), Double Object revisited: reply to Jackendoff, Linguistic Inquiry 21, 586–632. Léautaud, Paul (1956), Le Fléau, Journal particulier 1917–1930, ed. Edith Silve, Paris, Mercure de France. Léautaud, Paul (1986), Journal Particulier 1933, ed. Edith Silve, Paris, Mercure de France. Leonetti, Manuel (2014), Spanish VSX, in: Karen Lahousse/Stefania Marzo (edd.), Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 2012: Selected Papers from “Going Romance” Leuven 2012, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, Benjamins, 37–64. Leonetti, Manuel (2015), On word order in Spanish copular sentences, in: Isabel Pérez-Jiménez/ Manuel Leonetti/Silvia Gumiel-Molina (edd.), New Perspectives on the Study of “ser” and “estar”, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, Benjamins, 203–236. Lobo, Maria (1995), Para uma redefinição do parâmetro do sujeito nulo, Universidade de Lisboa, MA dissertation. Lobo, Maria (2013), Sujeito nulo: sintaxe e interpretação, in: Eduardo B. Paiva Raposo et al. (edd.), Gramática do Português, vol. 2, Lisboa, Gulbenkian, 2309–2335. Luegi, Paula (2012), Processamento de sujeitos pronominais em Português: efeito da posição estrutural do antecedente, Universidade de Lisboa, Ph.D. dissertation. Manzini, M. Rita/Savoia, Leonardo M. (1997), Null subjects without pro, UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 9, 303–313. Manzini, M. Rita/Savoia, Leonardo M. (2002), Parameters of subject inflection in Italian dialects, in: Peter Svenonius (ed.), Subjects, Expletives and the EPP, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 157–199. Marandin, Jean-Marie (2001), Unaccusative inversion in French, in: Yves D’hulst/Johan Rooryck/Jan Schroten (edd.), Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 1999, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, Benjamins, 195–222. Marandin, Jean-Marie (2011), Subject inversion in French. The limits of Information Structure, in: Stefan Müller (ed.), Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, University of Washington, Stanford, CA, CSLI, 327–347. Martins, Ana Maria (1994), Posições para o sujeito, in: Clíticos na História do Português, Ph.D. dissertation, Universidade de Lisboa, 385–429. http://www.clul.ulisboa.pt/bigfiles/Martins_ Tese_1994c.pdf (04.05.2017). Martins, Ana Maria (2010), Constituent order in simple (and root) declarative clauses, Ms., Universidade de Lisboa. http://alfclul.clul.ul.pt/wochwel/documents/Martins%20Constituent%20order. pdf (23.06.2015). Martins, Ana Maria (2013), The interplay between VSO and coordination in two types of non-degree exclamatives, Catalan Journal of Linguistics 12, 1–27. Martins, Ana Maria/Costa, João (2016), Ordem dos constituintes frásicos: sujeitos invertidos; objetos antepostos, in: Ana Maria Martins/Ernestina Carrilho (edd.), Manual de linguística portuguesa, Berlin/Boston, De Gruyter, 371–400. Masullo, Pascual J. (1993), Two types of quirky subjects: Spanish versus Icelandic, Conference Proceedings in Linguistics: North East Linguistic Society (NELS) 23, 303–317. Matos, Gabriela (2013), Quotative inversion in Peninsular Portuguese and Spanish, and in English, Catalan Journal of Linguistics 12, 111–130. Matras, Yaron/Sasse, Hans-Jürgen (edd.) (1995), Verb-Subject Order and Theticity in European Languages, Berlin, Akademie-Verlag. Meisel, Jürgen/Elsig, Martin/Rinke, Esther (2013), Language Acquisition and Change: A Morphosyntactic Perspective, Edinburgh, Edinburgh University Press. Mensching, Guido/Weingart, Anja (2009), Word order, pro and expletives in Romance: a comparative minimalist analysis, Paper presented at GGS 2009, Leipzig, 27.04.2009. http://www.uni-leipzig. de/~asw/ggs/Handouts/Weingart_Mensching.pdf (23.06.2015).

Subjects

85

Mensching, Guido/Weingart, Anja (2016), The Null Subject Parameter and the Lexicon in Minimalist Syntax, in: Luis Eguren/Olga Fernández-Soriano/Amaya Mendikoetxea (edd.), Rethinking Parameters, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 291–328. Menuzzi, Sergio (2000), That-trace effects in Portuguese, Fórum Lingüístico, FPolis 2, 13–39. Modesto, Marcello (2000), On the identification of null arguments, University of Southern Carolina, Ph.D. dissertation. Modesto, Marcello (2008), Topic prominence and null subjects, in: Theresa Biberauer (ed.), The Limits of Syntactic Variation, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, Benjamins, 375–410. Montalbetti, Mario Manuel (1984), After binding: on the interpretation of pronouns, MIT, Cambridge, MA, Ph.D. dissertation. Motapanyane, Virginia (1994), An A-position for Romanian subjects, Linguistic Inquiry 25, 729–734. Nariyama, Shigeko (2004), Subject ellipsis in English, Journal of Pragmatics 36, 237–264. Negrão, Esmeralda Vailati/Müller, Ana Lúcia (1996), As mudanças no sistema pronominal do português brasileiro, D.E.L.T.A 12, 125–152. Negrão, Esmeralda Vailati/Viotti, Evani (2000), Brazilian Portuguese as a discourse-oriented language, in: Mary A. Kato/Esmeralda Vailati Negrão (edd.), Brazilian Portuguese and the Null Subject Parameter, Madrid/Frankfurt, Iberoamericana/Vervuert, 105–125. Nicolis, Marco (2008), The Null Subject Parameter and correlating properties: the case of creole languages, in: Theresa Biberauer (ed.), The Limits of Syntactic Variation, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, Benjamins, 271–294. Oliviéri, Michèle (2004), Paramètre du sujet nul et inversion du sujet dans les dialectes italiens et occitans, Cahiers de Grammaire 29, 105–120. Oliviéri, Michèle (2009), La micro-variation en syntaxe dialectale, in: Brigitte Horiot (ed.), Actes du colloque “La dialectologie hier et aujourd'hui (1906–2006)”, Lyon, Centre d’études linguistiques Jacques Goudet, 95–101. Oliviéri, Michèle (2011), Typology or reconstruction: the benefits of dialectology for diachronic analysis, in: Tobias Scheer/Haike Jacobs/Janine Berns (edd.), Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 2009. Selected Papers from “Going Romance” Nice 2009, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, Benjamins, 239–253. Oliviéri, Michèle/Lai, Jean-Pierre/Heap, David (2017), Partial subject paradigms and feature geometry in Northern Occitan dialects, in: Silvia Perpiñan et al. (edd.), Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 11: Selected Papers from the 44th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages (LSRL), London, Ontario, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, Benjamins, 145–165. Oliviéri, Michèle, et al. (2015), Quand la dialectologie, la diachronie et l’acquisition se parlent: étude comparative des pronoms sujets en occitan et en français, Paper presented at the SyMiLa 2015: La microvariation syntaxique dans les langues romanes de France, Université Toulouse 2 – Jean Jaurès, 11–12 juin 2015. Olszyna-Marzys, Zygmunt (1964), Les pronoms dans les patois du Valais central. Étude syntaxique, Bern, Francke. Ordóñez, Francisco (1997), Word order and clause structure in Spanish and other Romance languages, CUNY, New York, Ph.D. dissertation. Ordóñez, Francisco (1999), Focus and subject inversion in Romance, in: Javier Gutiérrez-Rexach/ Fernando Martínez Gil (edd.), Advances in Hispanic Linguistics, vol. 2, Somerville, MA, Cascadilla Press, 502–518. Ordóñez, Francisco (2000), Clausal Structures of Spanish: A Comparative Study, New York, Garland. Ordóñez, Francisco (2007a), Observacions sobre la posició dels subjectes postverbals en català i castellà, Caplletra 42, 251–272. Ordóñez, Francisco (2007b), Cartography of postverbal subjects in Spanish and Catalan, in: Sergio Bauuw/Frank Drijkoningen/Manuela Pinto (edd.), Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory

86

Maria Lobo and Ana Maria Martins

2005: Selected papers from “Going Romance”, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, Benjamins, 259– 280. Palermo, Massimo (1997), L’espressione del pronome personale soggetto nella storia dell’italiano, Roma, Bulzoni. Pešková, Andrea (2014), Information structure and the use of pronominal subjects in Spanish, Grazer Linguistische Studien 81, 43–67. Pilati, Eloisa Nascimento Silva (2002), Sobre a ordem verbo-sujeito no português do Brasil, University of Brasilia, MA dissertation. Pinkster, Harm (1990), Latin Syntax and Semantics, London/New York, Routledge. Pinkster, Harm (2015), The Oxford Latin Syntax. Volume I: The Simple Clause, Oxford, Oxford University Press. Pinto, Manuela (1997), Licensing and Interpretation of Inverted Subjects in Italian, Utrecht, Utrecht Institute of Linguistics. Poletto, Cecilia (2006), Asymmetrical pro-drop in Northern Italian dialects, in: Peter Ackema et al. (edd.), Arguments and Agreement, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 159–194. Portner, Paul/Zanuttini, Raffaella (2000), The force of negation in wh exclamatives and interrogatives, in: Laurence R. Horn/Yasuhiko Kato (edd.), Negation and Polarity: Syntactic and Semantic Perspectives, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 193–231. Posio, Pekka (2013), The expression of first-person-singular subjects in spoken Peninsular Spanish and European Portuguese: Semantic roles and formulaic sequences, Folia Linguistica 41, 253–292. Prévost, Sophie (2015), Recul de la non-expression et de l’inversion du sujet pronominal du 12ème au 14ème siècle: une approche quantitative et qualitative, in: Anne Carlier/Michèle Goyens/ Béatrice Lamiroy (edd.), Le français en diachronie: nouveaux objets et méthodes, Bern, Lang, 431–460. Raposo, Eduardo Paiva (1989), Prepositional infinitival constructions in European Portuguese, in: Osvaldo Jaeggli/Kenneth J. Safir (edd.), The Null Subject Parameter, Dordrecht, Kluwer, 277–306. Riegel, Martin/Pellat, Jean-Christophe/Rioul, René (42009, 11994), Grammaire méthodique du français, Paris, Presses Universitaires de France. Rigau, Gemma (1988), Strong pronouns, Linguistic Inquiry 19, 503–511. Rinke, Esther/Meisel, Jürgen (2009), Subject-inversion in Old French: syntax and information structure, in: Georg A. Kaiser/Eva-Maria Remberger (edd.), Proceedings of the Workshop “Null-subjects, expletives, and locatives in Romance”, Konstanz, Universität Konstanz, 93–130. Rivero, María Luisa (2004), Spanish quirky subjects: person restrictions and the Person-Case constraint, Linguistic Inquiry 35, 494–502. Rivero, María Luisa/Geber, Dana (2003), Quirky subjects and person restrictions in Romance: Rumanian and Spanish, Cahiers Linguistiques d’Ottawa 31, 20–53. Rizzi, Luigi (1982), Issues in Italian Syntax, Dordrecht, Foris. Rizzi, Luigi (1986), On the status of subject clitics in Romance, in: Osvaldo Jaeggli/Carmen SilvaCorvalán (edd.), Studies in Romance Linguistics, Dordrecht, Foris, 391–419. Rizzi, Luigi (1997), On the fine structure of the left periphery, in: Liliane Haegeman (ed.), Elements of Grammar. A Handbook of Generative Syntax, Dordrecht, Kluwer, 281–337. Rizzi, Luigi/Shlonsky, Ur (2007), Strategies of subject extraction, in: Uli Sauerland/Hans-Martin Gärtner (edd.), Interfaces + Recursion = Language? Chomsky’s Minimalism and the View from Syntax-Semantics, Berlin/New York, De Gruyter, 115–160. Robert-Tissot, Aurélia (2015), Le sujet et son absence dans les SMS français. Une analyse syntaxique basée sur le corpus sms4science suisse, Universität Zürich, Ph.D. dissertation.

Subjects

87

Roberts, Ian (1993), The nature of subject clitics in Francoprovençal Valdotain, in: Adriana Belletti (ed.), Syntactic Theory and the Dialects of Italy, Torino, Rosenberg & Sellier, 319–353. Roberts, Ian (2014), Taralden’s Generalisation and language change: two ways to lose Null Subjects, in: Peter Svenonius (ed.), Functional Structures from Top to Toe. The Cartography of Syntactic Structures Volume 9, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 115–147. Rodrigues, Cilene (2002), Morphology and null subjects in Brazilian Portuguese, in David Lightfoot (ed.), Syntactic Effects of Morphological Change, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 160–178. Rodrigues, Cilene (2004), Impoverished morphology and A-movement out of Case domains, University of Maryland, Ph.D. dissertation. Sasse, Hans-Jürgen (1987), The thetic/categorical distinction revisited, Linguistics 25, 511–580. Sasse, Hans-Jürgen (1995), “Theticity” and VS order: a case study, in: Yaron Matras/Hans-Jürgen Sasse (edd.), Verb-Subject Order and Theticity in European Languages, Berlin, Akademie-Verlag, 3–31. Sasse, Hans-Jürgen (1996), Theticity, Arbeitspapier 27 (Neue Folge), Köln, Universität zu Köln, Institut für Sprachwissenschaft. Sasse, Hans-Jürgen (2006), Theticity, in: Giuliano Bernini/Marcia L. Schwartz (edd.), Pragmatic Organization of Discourse in the Languages of Europe, Berlin/New York, De Gruyter, 257–308. Savoia, Leonardo M./Manzini, M. Rita (2010), Les clitiques sujets dans les variétés occitanes et francoprovençales italiennes, Corpus 9, 165–189. Schäfer, Florian (2008), The Syntax of (Anti-)Causatives: External Arguments in Change-of-State Contexts, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, Benjamins. Schøsler, Lene (2002), La variation linguistique: le cas de l’expression du sujet, in: Rodney Sampson/ Wendy Ayres-Bennett (edd.), Interpreting the History of French: A Festschrift for Peter Rickard on the Occasion of his Eightieth Birthday, Amsterdam/New York, Rodopi, 187–208. Sheehan, Michelle (2006), The EPP and Null Subjects in Romance, University of Newcastle, Ph.D. dissertation. Sheehan, Michelle (2010), “Free” Inversion in Romance and the Null Subject Parameter, in: Theresa Biberauer et al. (edd.), Parametric Variation: Null Subjects in Minimalist Theory, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 231–262. Sigurðsson, Hállador Ármann (2011), Conditions on argument drop, Linguistic Inquiry 42, 267–304. Silva, C. Tavares (2004) A natureza de Agr e suas implicações na ordem VS: um estudo comparativo entre o português brasileiro e o português europeu, Universidade Federal de Alagoas, Ph.D. dissertation. Silva, Maria Cristina Figueiredo (2000), Main and embedded null subjects in Brazilian Portuguese, in: Mary A. Kato/Esmeralda V. Negrão (edd.), Brazilian Portuguese and the Null Subject Parameter, Madrid/Frankfurt, Iberoamericana/Vervuert, 127–145. Sornicola, Rosanna (1994), On word-order variability: A case study from a corpus of Italian, Lingua e Stile 29, 25–57. Sornicola, Rosanna (1995), Theticity, VS order and the interplay of syntax, semantics and pragmatics, in: Yaron Matras/Hans-Jürgen Sasse (edd.), Verb-Subject Order and Theticity in European Languages, Berlin, Akademie-Verlag, 72–83. Solà, Jaume (1992), Agreement and subjects, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Ph.D. dissertation. Stark, Elisabeth (1997), Voranstellungsstrukturen und “topic”-Markierung im Französischen, Tübingen, Narr. Stark, Elisabeth (1999), Antéposition et marquage du thème (topique) dans les dialogues spontanés, in: Claude Guimier (ed.), La thématisation dans les langues. Actes du colloque de Caen, 9–11 octobre 1997, Frankfurt etc., Lang, 337–358. Stark, Elisabeth/Robert-Tissot, Aurélia (forthcoming), Subject drop in French text messages, Linguistic Variation.

88

Maria Lobo and Ana Maria Martins

Suñer, Margarita (1982), Syntax and semantics of Spanish presentational sentences, Washington, D.C., Georgetown University Press. Taddei, Edith (2013), Émergence de la servitude subjectale au XVIe siècle. Textes narratifs en prose (1504–1585), Paris, Université Sorbonne Nouvelle – Paris 3, Ph.D. dissertation. Toribio, Almeida Jacqueline (2000), Setting parametric limits on dialectal variation in Spanish, Lingua 10, 315–341. Tortora, Christina (1997), The syntax and semantics of the weak locative, University of Delaware, Newark, Ph.D. dissertation. Tortora, Christina (2001), Evidence for a null locative in Italian, in: Guglielmo Cinque/Giampaolo Salvi (edd.), Current Studies in Italian Syntax: Essays offered to Lorenzo Renzi, Amsterdam, Elsevier, 313–326. Ulrich, Miorita (1985), Thetisch und Kategorisch, Tübingen, Narr. Vallduví, Enric (2002), L’oració com a unitat informativa, in: Joan Solà et al. (edd.), Gramàtica del català contemporani, Barcelona, Empúries, 1221–1279. Vance, Barbara Sue (1989), Null Subjects and syntactic change in Medieval French, Cornell University, Ph.D. dissertation. Vanelli, Laura/Renzi, Lorenzo/Benincà, Paola (1985–1986), Tipologia dei pronomi soggetto nelle lingue romanze, Quaderni Patavini di Linguistica 5, 49–66 [first published as Vanelli, Laura/ Renzi, Lorenzo/Benincà, Paola (1985), Typologie des pronoms sujets dans les langues romanes, in: Actes du XVIIème Congrès international de linguistique et philologie romanes (Aix-enProvence, 29 août-3 septembre 1983), III, Aix-en-Provence, Publications de l’Université de Provence, 163–176]. Van Kampen, Jacqueline (2005), Subjects and the (Extended) Projection Principle, in: Keith Brown (ed.), Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, 2nd edn, Oxford, Elsevier, 242–248. Vanrell Bosch, Maria del Mar/Fernández Soriano, Olga (2013), Variation at the Interfaces in IberoRomance. Catalan and Spanish prosody and word order, Catalan Journal of Linguistics 12, 1–30. WALS – Dryer, Matthew S./Haspelmath, Martin (edd.), The World Atlas of Language Structures Online, Leipzig, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. http://wals.info/ (14.06.2015). Wandruszka, Ulrich (1982), Studien zur italienischen Wortstellung, Tübingen, Narr. Weir, Andrew (2009), Subject pronoun drop in informal English, Richard M. Hogg Prize winning essay. http://www.isle-linguistics.org/resources/weir2009.pdf (accessed 28.08.2016). Zagona, Karen (2005), The Syntax of Spanish, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Zanuttini, Raffaella/Portner, Paul (2003), Exclamative clauses: at the syntax-semantics interface, Language 79, 39–81. Zimmermann, Michael (2014), Expletive and Referential Subject Pronouns in Medieval French, Berlin/ Boston, De Gruyter. Zimmermann, Michael/Kaiser, Georg A. (2014), On expletive subject pronoun drop in Colloquial French, Journal of French Language Studies 24, 107–126. Zribi-Hertz, Anne (1994), The syntax of nominative clitics in Standard and Advanced French, in: Guglielmo Cinque et al. (edd.), Paths Towards Universal Grammar, Washington, D.C., Georgetown University Press, 453–472. Zubizarreta, María Luisa (1998), Prosody, Focus, and Word Order, Cambridge, MA, MIT Press. Zubizarreta, María Luisa (1999), Las funciones informativas: tema y foco, in: Ignacio Bosque/Violeta Demonte (edd.), Gramática Descriptiva de la Lengua Española, vol. 3, Madrid, Espasa Calpe, 4215–4244.

Ioanna Sitaridou

3 Objects Abstract: This chapter provides an overview of objects in Romance, presenting descriptions and proposals for formal analyses of particular Romance object(-related) properties, which reveal a great deal of variation. After having given some basic definitions and properties of objects in all languages, the chapter presents some “object markers” in a broad sense, which never coexist in a single variety, but which enable different subgroups of Romance languages to be distinguished – only Romanian, for example, has maintained morphological case distinctions for some lexical categories to date; most Romance varieties have developed Differential Object Marking (DOM) for a subset of DOs whose properties are (mainly) semantically defined, and Romance varieties can also mark DOs by (overt marking of) past participle agreement. The agreement triggering conditions differ across the varieties, but often agreement on the participle marks some kind of “special”, i.e., non canonical (= lexical, postverbal) DO. In contrast to most Romance varieties, Romanian does admit Double Object Constructions (DOC), and much variation is observed for clitic doubling and clitic climbing. Furthermore, object drop is frequently found in Romance varieties (especially for non-human and non-specific object referents), with Brazilian Portuguese also admitting object drop for definite, specific referents. Subject-object asymmetries are finally observed with respect to the distribution of bare nouns, wh-extraction asymmetries being confined to non-pro-drop languages such as French and some Rhaeto-Romance varieties.  





Keywords: object, unaccusativity, case, differential object marking, double object constructions, past participle agreement, (ethical) datives, clitic doubling, clitic climbing, null objects, subject-object asymmetries  

1 Definition In the generative framework, the grammatical function of an object can be defined in terms of theta-theory and subcategorization. Like all arguments, objects must be realized (excepting some particular cases, see Section 5) for the verbal expressions to be syntactically well-formed and semantically interpretable. In contrast to the subject argument, object arguments are part of the verbal complements. These are more closely related to the verbal meaning than the subject, whose presence largely depends on the formal property of the verb to be inflected. Hence, the complements “complete” the verbal utterance even if the latter is an infinitival construction and, therefore, lacks inflection; normally under the same conditions a subject would not be realised. Another distinction we have to make is the one between objects and other DOI 10.1515/9783110377088-003

90

Ioanna Sitaridou

verbal complements: While circumstantial complements, for example, only have to satisfy the semantic requirements of the verb, the formal properties of the objects are defined by the verb itself. For instance, in (1) sur toi ‘on you’ is the prepositional object of the verb compter ‘count’. The preposition cannot be changed or omitted without shifting the verb’s meaning or resulting in ungrammaticality. This relation of the verb determining the formal relation of its object is referred to as government (i.e. the verb governs the object) or subcategorization (i.e. the verb subcategorizes for a certain type of object).  



(1)

Fr.

Je compte sur I count on ‘I count on you.’

toi. you

In (2) à l’école ‘to the school’ is also a complement of the verb aller ‘go’, since it is required in order for the sentence to be well-formed and interpretable. However, the circumstantial complement could also take the form of chez ma mère ‘to my mother’s place’, i.e. its formal properties are not imposed by the verb.  

(2)

Fr.

Je vais à l’ I go to the ‘I go to school.’

école. school

For Romance languages, we distinguish three types of objects: the direct object (DO), the indirect object (IO) and the prepositional object (PO). These are syntactic functions, which are to be kept apart from the semantic roles of objects and arguments in general (↗4 Argument structure and argument structure alternations). Verbs denote an event, action or state and determine which participants have to take part in the described event/action/state. The verb defines, first, the number of participants and, second, their semantic function, called the thematic role or theta role. Moreover, each theta role must be assigned to only one argument and each argument must receive only one theta role by the verb, a restriction which is referred to as the theta criterion or the theta filter (Chomsky 1981, 35). In the literature we find a variety of lists of semantic roles ranging from rather exhaustive ones (↗4 Argument structure and argument structure alternations, and references therein) to the bipartite distinction between the Proto-Agent and the ProtoPatient roles proposed by Dowty (1991). All arguments are endowed with thematic roles but there is in principle no one-toone mapping of a role with a specific syntactic function, nor with a specific morphological (visible) case or prepositional marker (see Section 2). This is the so-called “linking” problem (Maling 2001), namely the problem of explaining what the possible mappings between thematic roles, grammatical functions, and morphological case are. Independently of the morphological case, in the generative framework it is

Objects

91

assumed that the objects as well as the subject bear Case1 whether it is morphologically realized or not. The nominative and the accusative case are associated with syntactic positions, namely the specifier of the Tense phrase (TP) and the specifier of the verb phrase (VP) respectively. As they are linked to a specific structural position, these two cases are called structural Cases, whereas the dative case is an inherent Case which is linked to a certain constituent rather than to a syntactic position. The structural Cases, nominative and accusative, identify the subject and the direct object. The indirect object usually receives inherent Case – be it active (uCase) or inactive (iCase) which in its purest form will be lexical case – or structural Case depending on cross-categorial and cross-linguistic variation; in fact, Torrego (1998) argued that Romance datives have both inherent Case and structural Case. Under the Uniform Theta Assignment Hypothesis (UTAH) (Baker 1988), the thetaroles assigned by the predicate are also associated with a specific syntactic position. Thus, the Theme is assigned to the syntactic position of the specifier of VP, the Goal to the complement of VP and the Agent outside the VP, i.e. to the specifier of the functional verb phrase (little) vP. In Figure 1 we represent the structural positions that are linked with specific thematic roles and/or Cases.  

Figure 1: The association of Case and semantic role with structural positions

1 If spelt with a capital C, the Case is understood as abstract Case, not obligatorily morphologically marked.

92

Ioanna Sitaridou

From these observations it follows that, if there is an Agent, it must be the subject of an active sentence, and the Agent is base-generated in Spec,vP (whereas a subject can also bear another role if there is no A GENT , e.g. E XPERIENCER ). We will also see that only transitive verbs can assign accusative Case.2 Let us consider the derivation of a ditransitive clause with a French example (see Figure 2). In recent versions of generative grammar (AGREE operation following Chomsky 2001), merged constituents have features whose values are either defined or undefined. Each constituent with an undefined value for a feature can act as a probe in a c-commanding relation, hence looking for a goal from which it can “copy” the missing feature values. If there is such a feature matching constituent, the probe and the goal agree and the goal may move. The movement is triggered by a so-called EPP-feature (Extended Projection Principle). For the sake of clarity, in the following figures, we will represent the AGREE operation using a simple arrow going from the probe to the goal. In Figure 2, the verb donner ‘give’ is first merged in the V° head where it assigns dative Case and the Beneficiary role to its complement Marie. Since Marie can be substituted by a dative clitic (see below for objecthood tests), it is the IO here and we consider the prepositional à as a dative marker rather than a preposition. The verb also assigns accusative case and the Theme role to the constituent in its specifier, le livre ‘the book’. The functional properties of the verb are defined by the little v° head. In our example, the verb is ditransitive which means that it must assign accusative Case as well as an Agent role. It is important to note that only if the verb assigns a role to the Spec,vP position can it also assign the accusative Case (so-called Burzio’s Generalization 1986). As already mentioned above, the property of showing a subject is linked to the finiteness of the verb, which is determined by the temporal head T°. In other words, the properties of the verb encoded in T° decide if the nominative Case will be assigned to the constituent in the Spec,vP, i.e. to the external argument. The EPP-feature of Spec,TP will then attract the nominative argument that has become mobile after the positive match with the probe of T°. When dealing with monotransitive and ditransitive verbs, the VP-internal argument is encoded as the DO and the complement of V°,3 and the goal/beneficiary, if any, as the IO or PO, respectively. The subject of the sentence is the so-called external argument which is base generated in Spec,vP, i.e. outside the lexical verbal domain VP. However, sometimes the internal argument, base generated in Spec,VP, is encoded as the subject in the Romance languages. This is the case with unaccusative verbs, which cannot assign accusative Case, and in passive constructions.  





2 The Romance languages are uniformly accusative languages with one notable exception, namely upper southern Italian varieties, as argued by D’Alessandro (2011). 3 Note that nouns may also take complements, which however differ from the complements of verbs.

Objects

93

Figure 2: The structure of a French ditransitive sentence

(i) Unaccusative verbs: Intransitive verbs can be split in two categories: (a) intransitive verbs with external arguments (unergatives), e.g., John smiles; (b) intransitive verbs with internal arguments (unaccusatives), e.g., John dies. Thus, unaccusative verbs have only an internal argument merged as the specifier of VP. In the framework of Relational Grammar the unergative verbs have a subject, whereas unaccusative verbs have an object but no subject in the initial layer of grammatical relations (cf. Perlmutter’s 1978 Unaccusative Hypothesis). In the same vein, the subjects of unaccusative verbs do not receive the Agent role but rather the Patient or Theme role, a property that brings them closer to the DO of transitive verbs. Figure 3 illustrates the derivation of the unaccusative structure Jean arriva ‘Jean arrived’ in French. As already mentioned above, unaccusative verbs take an internal argument which is merged in Spec,VP. This argument receives its thematic role from the verb. However, since the verb is an unaccusative one, it cannot assign accusative Case to the argument. Following Burzio’s Generalization (see above), it cannot assign the Agent role either. However, since the verb is finite, the Spec,TP position, i.e. the subject position, is predestined to host an argument which receives the nominative Case. We can think of this position as having a probe which finds its target in the internal argument that needs to be assigned Case. The probe and the target match and since in French Spec,TP is endowed with an EPPfeature, the internal argument moves overtly to Spec,TP and surfaces as the sentence’s subject.  

94

Ioanna Sitaridou

Figure 3: The derivation of a French unaccusative structure

In Figure 4 we show the derivation for the corresponding sentence Llegó Juan in Spanish. The computation is roughly the same, with the exception that in Spanish, the empty pronoun pro, unavailable in French, can satisfy the EPP-feature of Spec,TP. This leads to the different word order (↗24 Basic constituent orders): after AGREE, the internal argument receives nominative Case, but it can remain in situ.

Figure 4: The derivation of a Spanish unaccusative structure

Objects

95

Thus, the unmarked verb-subject order with unaccusative verbs in most of the Romance languages is, in essence, the consequence of the fact that the subjects of these clauses are internal arguments which get promoted to subjects without, however, the need to move overtly to the subject position (unless there is an EPP requirement as is the case in French or Brazilian Portuguese). This can also be seen with a compound verb form including a past participle (3); here too, the subject follows the past participle. (3)

It.

È arrivat-a Maria. Maria is arrived-FSG ‘Maria has arrived.’

It can also be shown empirically that the subjects of unaccusative verbs behave like the objects of transitive verbs. ABERE / ESSE alternation, show In general, Romance languages which have the HHABERE participial agreement with the subject of unaccusative constructions (i.e. with ESSE auxiliary). Interestingly, they also show it to different degrees with the moved internal arguments of transitive clauses (direct objects): roughly stated, the participle will agree if the direct object precedes the verbal form. However, overall, the syntax of participles and auxiliaries in Romance is extremely complex, as we shall see in Section 2.3 and ↗7 Auxiliaries. Furthermore, INDE (or more commonly ne)-cliticization in French (en) and Italian (ne) can be used to show the identity of subjects of unaccusative verbs and direct objects of transitive ones. This has long been considered a split-intransitivity diagnostic (unergatives vs unaccusatives; cf. Belletti/Rizzi 1981; Burzio 1986) according to which ne – a proform of a quantified noun – can only originate from an internal argument. Consider (4a,b) and (4a’,b’): the internal argument of both the transitive and the unaccusative verb allows for the ne-cliticization by which the quantifier is stranded. In contrast, the external argument of an unergative verb cannot be pronominalized (4c,c’) with ne leaving the quantifier behind:  



(4)

It.

a.

Studi-o molti libri. study-1SG many books ‘I study/am studying many books.’ a’. Ne studi-o [molti tne]. NE study-1SG many ø ‘I study many (of them).’ b. Arriv-ano molt-e signore. ladies arrive-3PL many- FPL ‘Many ladies are arriving.’ b’. Ne arriv-ano [molt-e tne]. NE arrive-3PL many- FPL Ø ‘Many (of them) are arriving.’

96

Ioanna Sitaridou

c.

Molti studenti legg-ono. many students read-3PL ‘Many students read/are reading.’ c’. *[Molti tne] ne legg-ono. NE read-3PL many Ø ‘Many (of them) read/are reading.’

(ii) Passive constructions: The second case in which the internal argument shows up as the subject is in passive constructions. The derivation of passive structures is quite similar to that of unaccusative constructions in that in both, the functional specifications of the verb (v°) prohibit the assignment of the Agent role and the accusative Case or vice-versa. Since in passive constructions the Agent remains implicit if not made explicit by a periphrasis with adjunct status, this thematic role is not assigned. In consequence, there cannot be an accusative Case in the sentence, even if there is an internal argument. The latter has to agree with the probe of Spec,TP in order to get Case, i.e. the nominative. So in passive constructions, too, we have a subject which originates from an internal argument and hence shares properties with the internal arguments of active transitive clauses (i.e. direct objects). Finally, there are also some object-like complements of psych verbs (see Belletti/ Rizzi 1987) that are underlyingly subject-like in that they denote Experiencers, a thematic role which is more often assigned to the subject. We see this, for example, with some Romance verbs meaning ‘like’: gustar in Modern Spanish (5), agradar in Modern Catalan, piacere in Modern Italian and PLACĒRE in Latin. The experiencer of these verbs receives dative Case (i. e. quirky subject), unlike Modern Portuguese and Modern French, in which the Experiencer of gostar and aimer, respectively, displays subject (nominative) morphological case. Historically, taking Spanish as an example, verbs inherited from Latin did not develop these structures with datives until Golden Age Spanish (6) (see Masullo 1993; Fernández Soriano 1999; Rigau 1999, among others).  



(5)

Sp.

A Juan le to Juan him.DAT ‘Juan likes coffee.’

gusta likes

el the

café. coffee

(6)

Golden Age Sp. para dar mayor claridad para que todo-s lo to COMP all-PL it.ACC to give.INF greater clarity gust-en y entiend-an taste-SBJV . 3PL and understand-SBJV . 3PL ‘so as to shed more light for everybody to savour and understand it’

Objects

97

[Juan de Arfe y Villafañe (1585), Varia Conmensuración para la Escultura y la Arquitectura. (CORDE)] (Batllori Dillet/Gibert Sotelo/Pujol Payet 2016, 1) To sum up what has been said so far, we distinguish several types of arguments, of which only a subpart are called objects, namely those which depend closely on the verbal semantics and which are governed by the verb, i.e. whose formal properties are determined by the verb. Figure 5 gives an overview of the different types of constituents.  

Figure 5: Delimitation of the objects inside the argumental structure4

In terms of syntactic category, we find the following types of objects across Romance: (i) Nominal objects. The non-subject NPs must take a determiner (definite or indefinite) or a quantifier, except in some specific cases. Singular count nouns almost never occur without a determiner or a quantifier (apart from proper names). Only plural object NPs and mass nouns can occur without a determiner when they are not specified and/or not definite. However, French, Francoprovençal, many Occitan and northern Italian dialects (Stark 2016) do not allow such arguments to be bare, cf. (7a)

4 The indirect object in Figure 5 can also be analyzed as base-generated in Spec, ApplP in the theories which use applicative heads.

98

Ioanna Sitaridou

and (7b), and show an indefinite determiner, traditionally called “partitive article” (glossed as PART in the examples). Standard Italian has this element as an optional marker for mass nouns, but Spanish has no morphological device to mark them, cf. (8a) and (9a). For indefinite plurals, both Italian and Spanish have an optional article with different semantic effects, cf. (8b) and (9b): (7)

Fr.

a.

J’ ai acheté *(du) vin. wine I have bought PART . MSG ‘I’ve bought (some) wine.’ b. J’ ai vu *(des) photos. photos I have seen PART . PL ‘I saw (some) photos.’

(8)

It.

a.

(9)

Sp.

a.

Ho comprato (del) vino. bought PART . MSG wine have.1SG ‘I bought (some) wine.’ b. Ho visto (delle) foto. photos have.1SG seen PART . FPL ‘I saw (some) photos.’ Compr-é vino. wine buy- PST . 1SG ‘I bought (some) wine.’ b. Vi (unas) ART . INDF . F . PL saw.1SG ‘I saw (some) photos.’

fotos. photos

Lexical IOS are either marked by a prepositional element, most commonly a, or their determiners/quantifiers or quantifiers show morphological dative case (in modern Romanian, see Section 2.1). (ii) Clitic pronouns. Nominal or phrasal objects in general can be substituted by anaphoric clitic pronouns in almost all Romance varieties (the Rhaeto-Romance variety of Sursilvan does not have clitic pronouns). Morphologically, the Romance object pronoun system is transparent to gender, number and, sometimes, Case. So, DO can be replaced by accusative clitics (except for leísmo in some Spanish varieties, ↗5 Clitic pronouns), and IO by dative clitics: (10)

Fr.

a.

Jean a donné le livre Jean has given the book ‘Jean has given the book to Marie.’

à to

Marie. Marie

Objects

b. Jean le lui Jean ACC . 3SG . M DAT . 3SG ‘Jean has given it to her.’

a has

99

donné. given

It is important to note that only IO can be replaced by a dative clitic (11), whereas prepositional objects can sometimes be replaced by so-called adverbial clitics (in the varieties which have them, i.e. mainly French, Italian, Catalan) (12) and sometimes a clitic substitution is not possible or only marginally acceptable with stranding prepositions or adverbs (13); this depends on the semantics of the object.  

(11)

It.

a.

Ho dato il libro a Giovanni. book to Giovanni have. 1SG given the ‘I’ve given the book to Giovanni.’ b. Gli ho dato il libro. DAT . 3SG have. 1SG given the book ‘I’ve given him the book.’

(12)

It.

a.

(13)

Fr.

a.

Pens-o al tuo compleanno. think- 1SG at.the your birthday ‘I’m thinking of your birthday.’ b. Ci pens-o. LOC think- 1SG ‘I’m thinking of it.’

Je compte sur toi. I count on you ‘I count on you.’ b. *J’ y/en compte. LOC / GEN count I’ dessus. c. ?Je compte I count above ‘I count on it.’

Note that the substitution by an adverbial clitic is not a test for objecthood of a prepositional complement, since circumstantial or predicative complements can also be replaced by adverbial clitics: (14)

a. b.

Fr. Je suis à It. Sono a I am at ‘I’m at home.’

la the

maison. casa. house

100

Ioanna Sitaridou

c. d.

Fr. J’ y suis. It. Ci sono. LOC am I ‘I’m there.’

There is a further substitution possibility for quantified objects with ne-cliticization, as we have already seen above. For the positions and internal ordering of object clitics, see ↗5 Clitic pronouns. (iii) Clausal objects are quite common in Romance. The complement clauses are infinitival if the A GENT remains the same as in the main clause (these are so-called control constructions, see ↗10 Infinitival clauses): (15)

a. b.

It. Pens-o di aver=lo visto. have.INF = him.ACC seen think-1SG of Fr. Je pense l=avoir vu. I think him. ACC =have.INF seen ‘I think I saw him.’

In contrast, if the A GENT changes or is newly introduced, the complement clause will be finite (16) unless an inflected infinitive is selected in Portuguese (17) (which is the case also in Galician or Sardinian) or a personal infinitive in Spanish (also in Catalan, Brazilian Portuguese, Campidanese, Sicilian, see Sitaridou 2009b; among others): (16)

It.

Mi dispiace che abbi-a COMP have.SBJV . 2/3SG me.DAT displeases speso quei soldi per niente. spent that money for nothing ‘I’m sorry that you have/s/he has spent that money for nothing.’

(17)

Pt.

É perigoso eles brincar-em nos on.the is dangerous they.NOM play.INF .3PL ‘It’s dangerous for them to play on the tracks.’

trilhos. tracks

2 Object marking strategies In current generative thinking, a DO is viewed as a DP that receives structural Case by means of being in a particular structural configuration, namely by being generated in Spec,VP. This is in contrast with case being sanctioned by virtue of being in a relationship with a lexical head, for instance, a preposition that assigns inherent Case to its

Objects

101

complement. As is well known, Romance languages have maintained only extremely limited morphological case marking, solely in the pronominal domain and on Romanian determiners and partially nouns, thus notably departing from Latin (see Section 2.1). However, there are still some overt object marking strategies available, such as Differential Object Marking (DOM) (see Section 2.2) and past participle agreement (see Section 2.3), which will be the subject of this section.

2.1 Case Latin displayed rich nominal case morphology (alongside number and gender distinctions), which by way of suspected phonological erosion simplified greatly, further aided by imperfect second language acquisition by the Roman-conquered population. Observing synchronic stages, one notes that Gallo-Romance and Rhaeto-Romance varieties maintained nominal case morphology until the thirteenth century, and Romanian to this day. Let us consider Old Gallo-Romance first. Both main groups of varieties spoken in the French territory, namely langue d’oïl, spoken in the north of France, and langue d’oc, spoken in the south of France, reduced the Latin case system from six cases to two, collapsing all non-nominative cases into a single one dubbed “oblique”5 —hence the binary “nominative-oblique” or cas sujet – cas régime system. For Old French, the masculine paradigm is shown in Table 1 (see Laubscher 1921; Plank 1979; Schøsler 1984; Pearce 1986; Arteaga 1995; van Reenen/Schøsler 2000; Gianollo 2009): Table 1: The masculine nominal paradigm in Old French Old French masculines

Singular

Plural

Nominative

murs/pere(s)/emperére(s) ‘wall/father/emperor’

mur-Ø/pere/emperëór ‘walls/fathers/emperors’

Oblique

mur-Ø/pere-Ø/emperëór-Ø ‘wall/father/emperor’

murs/peres/emperëórs ‘walls/fathers/emperors’

As we can see from table 1, Old French distinguished the nominative from the oblique case in masculine nouns, which derived from Latin second declension masculine nouns (murs ‘wall’). It is also reported that, due to analogy, many masculine nouns deriving from Latin third declension nouns (pere ‘father’, emperére ‘emperor’) also

5 The term is attested from the third century BC: ptoseis plagiai ‘slanting cases’ according to the Stoic Grammarians.

102

Ioanna Sitaridou

acquired case distinctions (see Foulet 1919; Price 1998; Buridant 2000). However, case distinctions in the nominal paradigm of Old French are not only declension-sensitive, but also reflect gender. Consider Table 2: Table 2: The feminine nominal paradigm in Old French Old French feminines

Singular

Plural

Nominative

flor(s) ‘flower’

flors ‘flowers’

Oblique

flor ‘flower’

flors ‘flowers’

In the feminine, the nominative-oblique distinction very soon collapsed into a single form, namely the accusative one, especially for nouns ending in a vowel. For nouns ending in a consonant other than -s or -z [ts], like flor ‘flower’, an analogical -s is sometimes found. Finally, note that there is case and number syncretism, since nominative singular and oblique plural share the same form (as do oblique singular and nominative plural in the masculine). While a fair amount of syncretism was still evident in the already reduced case system, the most robust expression of case distinctions continued to be found in the paradigm of determiners (Detges 2009, 116). However, morphological case reduction became evident both in the masculine definite article and, most notably, in the feminine definite article —progressing to complete loss of case distinctions— since the forms available essentially distinguish only number and gender but not case. The definite article forms in Old French are shown in Table 3: Table 3: The Old French definite article Singular

Cases

Masculine

Feminine

Nominative

li

la

Oblique

le (lo/lou)

la

Cases

Masculine

Feminine

Nominative

li

les

Oblique

les

les

Plural

As for the distribution of the oblique forms, according to Foulet (1919), they were used: (i) after all complements to prepositions; (ii) for the DO; (iii) occasionally for the IO (e.g., Li nums Joiuse l’espée fut dunét ‘The name of Joyeuse was given to the sword’) in competition with à-phrases; (iv) with certain nouns, especially personal names and

Objects

103

titles (Dieu, seigneur, roi, etc.); (v) as a possessive (li filz Marie ‘the son of Marie,’ la niece le duc ‘the duke’s niece’). This is abundantly attested in the Vulgar Latin documents of what is France today, although there was a growing tendency to use prepositions, e.g., de ‘from/of’ and a ‘to/of’, to mark possession; (vi) in adverbial functions (chascun jor ‘every day’, li chevaliers s’en part les granz galos ‘the knight sets off at a great gallop’); and (vii) in exclamations (quel pecié! ‘what a sin!’). A similar situation is found in Old Occitan, see Table 4: Table 4: The case paradigm of Old Occitan Old Occitan

Singular

Plural

Nominative

mólher (f)/dolors (m) ‘woman’/‘pain’

molhèrs/dolors ‘women’/‘pains’

Accusative

molhèr/dolor ‘woman’/‘pain’

molhèrs/dolors ‘women’/‘pains’

Likewise, Old Sursilvan (Rhaeto-Romance) shows retention of case morphology (Haiman/Benincà 1992, 142); however, only on adjectives, past participles and possessive pronouns, but crucially not on nouns, see Table 5: Table 5: The case paradigm in Old Sursilvan Old Sursilvan

Singular

Plural

Nominative

sauns ‘healthy’

sauni ‘healthy’

Accusative

saun ‘healthy’

sauns ‘healthy’

Finally, Modern Romanian distinguishes “Nominative-Accusative” case from “Genitive-Dative” case in feminine nouns and in many determiners, some of which are suffixed to nouns – see (18) for an illustration: (18)

Rom. a.

Capr-a a mâncat iarb-a. goat-NOM . FSG . the.NOM .F SG has eaten grass-ACC . FSG .the.ACC . FSG ‘The goat ate the grass.’ b. El i-a dat nişte iarb-ă capr-e-i. he DAT -has given some grass-ACC . FSG goat-DAT . FSG - the.DAT . FSG ‘He gave some grass to the goat.’

104

Ioanna Sitaridou

Altogether, the case morphology developments, analysed diachronically from Vulgar Latin to various incipient stages in Romance, are among the most syntactically important. Traditionally, the loss of morphological case distinctions is generally thought to lead to rigidity of word order to compensate for the increase in ambiguity induced by the loss of case. This morphophonological change is, quite often, viewed as exogenous, namely the result of contact-induced change. Meillet (1928) considered the loss of case to be of cataclysmic proportions for the Romance languages, since for him, only intense language contact of the creolisation type could have led to such a dramatic loss of inflectional morphology: “En cessant d’être la langue d’une cité pour s’étendre à un empire le latin ne pouvait garder ses délicatesses et son originalité […] les oppositions ainsi marquées étaient trop fines pour être observées par des gens pour qui le latin n’était pas une langue maternelle et qui l’apprenaient avec une certaine grossièreté. On sait ce que sont devenues les langues européennes chez les esclaves transportés dans les colonies: les divers ‘créoles’, français, espagnol, hollandais, sont des langues où la grammaire est réduite à presque rien et d’où les nuances anciennes ont été supprimées.” (Meillet 1928, 236)

Contact aside, it is trivially assumed that the “free” word order of Latin was made possible thanks to a rich case system. However, “as Kiparsky (1996) has pointed out, rich case marking seems to be a necessary, but not a sufficient condition for word order freedom” (Kroch 2001,727). The issue has since remained highly controversial and touches upon the bigger issue of how morphology interacts with syntax; in particular, whether morphological case has syntactic effects (see Meillet 1949; Neeleman/Weerman 2009). Various proposals have been made through the years to address this, for instance Roberts (1997), Kiparsky (1997) and Neeleman/Weerman (1999). They have all in common that overt case marking allows for the DPs to move and, consequently, for a more flexible word order (for more details see ↗23 Syntheticity and Analyticity and ↗24 Basic constituent orders). A consequence of such analyses would be that Old French, for instance, which preserved the bi-casual system, would allow for a relatively flexible placement of the object (see Marchello-Nizia 1995). This is prima facie confirmed by the data, which show various permutations – consider object fronting in (19) (see also ↗14 Focus Fronting): (19)

OFr. Le fonoil-Ø maingoit on-s ate one-NOM . SG the fennel-ACC . MSG ‘The fennel, one ate in order to lose weight …’ (Méd 163v, 464) (Sitaridou 2012, 567)

por for

engraillier …. slim.INF

Interestingly, however, Sitaridou (2004; 2009a; 2012) has shown that Old French has a smaller number of fronted objects than Old Spanish, despite the latter having lost nominal morphological case prior to Old French.

Objects

105

Turning our attention now to pronominal objects, it is well-known that morphological case distinctions survive in the Modern Romance pronominal paradigm (with the exception of first and second person plural where cases have been syncretized except for Romanian). The gender distinction is only available for the third person for DO: Table 6: Direct object clitics in some Romance languages Direct object clitics SG

PL

1

2

3

1

2

3

Fr.

me

te

le/la

nous

vous

les

It.

mi

ti

lo/la

ci

vi

li/le

Sp.

me

te

lo/la

nos

os

los/las

Pt.

me

te

o/a

nos

vos

os/as

Rom.



te

îl/o

ne



îi/le

Table 7: Indirect object clitics in some Romance languages Indirect object clitics SG

PL

1

2

3

1

2

3

Fr.

me

te

lui

nous

vous

leur

It.

mi

ti

gli

ci

vi

loro

Sp.

me

te

le (se)

nos

os

les

Pt.

me

te

lhe

nos

vos

lhes

Rom.

îmi

îţi

îi

ne



le

Importantly, as the result of the rise of Romance clitic objects, we now observe strong word-order constraints being introduced, such as the Person-Case Constraint (herein PCC). PCC is a morphological condition against particular combinations of clitics marking the DO and the IO (Perlmutter 1971; Bonet 1991; 1994; Laka 1993; Adger/ Harbour 2007; Nevins 2007; Ormazabal/Romero 2007; Rezac 2011). This is illustrated below with data from French (20) and Catalan (21), which show that when accusative and dative clitics co-occur, the accusative clitic must be third person:

106

Ioanna Sitaridou

(20)

Fr.

a.

On me le montr-er-a. me.DAT = it.ACC = show-FUT - 3SG one. NOM ‘They will show it to me.’ b. *On me lui montr-er-a. me.ACC = him.DAT = show-FUT - 3SG one.NOM ‘They will show me to him.’

(21)

Cat.

a.

En Josep, me ’l va recomanar the Josep me.DAT = him.ACC = goes recommend.INF la Mireia. the Mireia ‘She (Mireia) recommended him (Josep) to me.’ b. *A en Josep, me li va to the Josep.DAT me.ACC = him.DAT = goes recomanar la Mireia. the Mireia recommend.INF ‘She (Mireia) recommended me to him (Josep).’ (Bonet 1991, 178)

So, even if there is no clear cause and effect relationship between the loss of case marking and the loss of flexibility in the Romance languages, we will observe that alternative marking strategies have emerged for marking objects, for example fixed word order (cf. Section 3), Differential Object Marking and past participle agreement.

2.2 Differential Object Marking The Romance phenomenon of marking a certain type of DO with a preposition/ marker, attested crosslinguistically in a large range of languages, is a pattern generally known as Differential Object Marking (herein DOM), since Bossong (1985). Non-standard Catalan (Moll 1952; Badia i Margarit 1980; 1994; Bel 2002), Spanish (Lazard 1984; Bossong 1985; 1991; 1998; de Hoop 1992; Escandell-Vidal 2002; Aissen 2003a,b; Næss 2004a; de Swart 2007), Romanian (Niculescu 1965; Cornilescu 2000; Farkas/von Heusinger 2003; Mardale 2008; Stark 2011), Portuguese (Bossong 2008, but with considerable optionality), Sicilian (Iemmolo 2010), Sardinian (Bossong 1985; Jones 1995; Floricic 2003; Mensching 2005), non-standard varieties of Galician (Pensado 1995, 14–16; de Jong 1996, 53–93), Corsican (Neuburger/Stark 2014), and Neapolitan (Ledgeway 2000) all require DOM at least for strong specific human pronominal DOs. Gallo-Romance varieties, Standard Catalan, Standard Italian and most varieties of Rhaeto-Romance (with the exception of Engadine) do not.

Objects

107

According to Bossong (1985), Laca (1987; 2006), and Aissen (2003a,b), DOM is controlled by (the interaction of) different features, such as: (i) animacy, (ii) definiteness, (iii) specificity, (iv) topicality, and even (v) properties of the predicate, such as transitivity (Næss 2004b). There are some cross-linguistic similarities in the DOM systems in Romance, namely that strong personal pronouns are the first to be marked and the most resistant to diachronic change, i.e. also the last to lose the marker. This is also shown in Figure 6 where human pronouns are the most probable candidates to be marked by DOM, whereas inanimate non-specific indefinite NPs are not marked at all in the Romance languages. But, cross-linguistically, the Romance DOM-marking languages diverge as to which feature may well be more prominent. Within Ibero-Romance, for instance, animacy seems to be the most important one in Spanish (García García 2014), while for some varieties of Catalan it is definiteness and animacy, yet in Balearic Catalan it is topicality (Escandell-Vidal 2009). Contrastingly, in Romanian and Corsican, DOM is more sensitive to definiteness (Stark 2011; Neuburger/Stark 2014), although they do not otherwise pattern in exactly the same way. Generally speaking, the more an entity is considered to be animate, definite and specific, the more it becomes a candidate for bearing a DOM marker. Pronouns also seem to be more likely to be marked than lexical expressions.  

Figure 6: Interaction of animacy, referentiality and topicality for DOM (Aissen 2003b, 459)

Still, there is considerable variation, as the following examples illustrate. In the pronominal domain, strong human personal pronouns are marked with DOM (and clitic-doubled, in many varieties, at the same time, see Section 3.2) (22) even in languages like Portuguese in which DOM is at best optional (23). (22)

Rom. Lai him.ACC have.2SG ‘You invited him.’

invitat invited

*(pe) *(DOM )

el. him

108

(23)

Ioanna Sitaridou

Pt.

Vej-o=te see-1SG = you.ACC ‘I see you.’

*(a)

ti. you

DOM

When the object is a universal human quantifier, DOM is optional in Catalan (24), but obligatory in Spanish (25) (and likewise in Romanian): (24)

Cat.

Hi he saludat there have.1SG greeted ‘There, I greeted everyone.’

(a) ( DOM )

(25)

Sp.

He saludado *(a) greated *(DOM ) have.1SG ‘I’ve greeted everyone.’

tothom. everyone

todos. everyone

For negative indefinite human pronouns, we also find varieties in which DOM is obligatory (e.g. Sardinian (26)) whereas it is generally optional e.g. in Portuguese (27) (Bossong 2008, 68): (26)

Srd. No

app-o bidu NEG have-1SG seen ‘I didn’t see anybody.’

(27)

Pt.

*(a) *(DOM )

Nunca odi-ei (a) DOM never hated-1SG ‘I never hated anyone.’

nesciune. nobody

ninguém. nobody

With proper nouns, humans are obligatorily marked in most of the varieties, but there is variation concerning non-human animates (e.g. pets). (28)

Sp.

Pedro mató *(a) Pedro killed *( DOM ) ‘Pedro killed Juan.’

Juan. Juan

Note that in Corsican, despite the referent of the proper name U Scupatu being [+human], the DOM marker, à, is not possible, as it is incompatible with the determiner (also with quantifiers or numerals), even if the latter is part of a proper noun (see Neuburger/Stark 2014): (29)

Cors. Cunniscit-i (*à) U Scupatu? (*DOM ) DET Scupatu know-2SG ‘Do you know the Scupatu [‘cracked’; nickname]?’ (Marcellesi 1986, 137)

Objects

109

Definite and/or specific human NPs are obligatorily marked e.g. in Spanish (30) and (31), usually used in Vallader Engadinese (32) (Bossong 2008, 186), but only optionally in certain cases in Sardinian (33) (Mardale 2008, 459). (30)

Sp.

No

he-mos visto *(a) have-1PL seen *( DOM ) ‘We haven’t seen his/her father.’

su his

NEG

(31)

Sp.

(32)

Enga. El salüda a l’ the he greets DOM ‘He greets the friend.’

(33)

Srd. An assessinatu (a) assassinated (DOM ) have.3PL ‘They have assassinated the King.’

padre. father

Busc-o *(a) una cocinera (que cook that look.for-1SG *( DOM ) a ‘I am looking for a cook who speaks English.’

sab-e inglés). know.IND -3SG English

ami. friend

su the

re. king

In contemporary Portuguese, DOM is largely restricted to human pronominals and Deus ‘God’, even if it was more widespread in the seventeenth century. But still, DOM is used with proper nouns or animate referents for emphatic or disambiguation purposes: (34)

Pt.

Nem João ama Maria nem Maria a João. Maria neither Maria DOM João nor João love.3SG ‘João does not love Maria and Maria does not love João either.’ (Bossong 2008, 68)

Also in the case of inanimate DO referents, DOM may serve as a disambiguation device (García García 2014). This becomes relevant whenever the subject and object referents are equal on the animacy scale: compare Spanish (35), with DOM, with Romanian (36), without, probably because morphological case-marking provides adequate disambiguation: (35)

Sp.

Los ácidos atacan the acids attack ‘Acids attack metals.’

*(a) *( DOM )

los the

metales. metals

110

(36)

Ioanna Sitaridou

Rom. Metal-e-le atac-ă attack-3PL metal-N . PL - the. N . PL ‘Acids attack metals.’

aciz-i-i. acid-MPL - the. MPL

However, if in Spanish, the NP is left-dislocated, the marker becomes optional: (37)

Sp.

(A) la sacristía la traspasaba (DOM ) the vestry it.ACC passed sablazo de sol. stroke of sun ‘A strong shaft of sunlight pierced the vestry.’ (Mardale 2008, 451)

un a

buen good

In Romanian, DOM has spread to some deictic and anaphoric pronouns [+/–animate]. This may be linked to the quasi-automatic co-occurrence of clitic doubling and the DOM marker in this language (Roberts 2016; see also Section 3.2). (38)

Rom. Lam it.ACC - have.1SG ‘I saw this one.’

văzut seen

*(pe) *( DOM )

acesta. this

According to von Heusinger/Kaiser (2003; among others), DOM in Latin American Spanish is currently undergoing expansion to [–animate] DPs, as shown in (39), since the verbs ver and cosechar, respectively, allow for DOM with objects that are inanimate: (39)

a.

b.

Puerto Rican Sp. Vi-o a las sierras. mountains saw-3SG DOM the ‘S/he saw the mountains.’ Argentinian Sp. Cosecha-ron al maíz. harvested-3PL DOM . the corn ‘They harvested the corn.’

In sum, it is clear that there is no categorical cross-Romance valid rule constraining DOM to appear only with animate DOs. Naturally, because of the range of semanticsyntactic constraints on DOM, the phenomenon further interacts with other domains, for instance, restrictive relative clauses and specificity/mood: busco a una secretaria que sabe francés ‘I am looking for a secretary who knows French’ vs busco una secretaria que sepa francés ‘I am looking for any secretary who knows French’. Furthermore, the phenomenon is likely to diverge further in terms of triggers and the

Objects

111

nuances it expresses, as it has been evolving in distinct ways in each Romance DOMmarking language and variety since at least the Medieval stages (see e.g. Octavio de Toledo y Huerta 2007 for a diachronic development of DOM in Spanish; von Heusinger/Onea 2008 for the diachronic development of DOM in Romanian). The third marking strategy for objects we discuss in Section 2.3 is past participle agreement (see also ↗7 Auxiliaries).

2.3 Past participle agreement In the Romance languages, there is considerable variation in terms of past participle agreement (Cinque 1975; Perlmutter 1978; 1989; Rosen 1981; 1990; 1997; La Fauci 1988; 1989; Kayne 1989b; Loporcaro 1998; Belletti 2001; among others). However, we can make the generalisation that if there is agreement on the past participle, it is triggered by the internal argument, i.e. with DO or “object-like” subjects (internal arguments promoted to the subject position: unaccusative and passive constructions, see Section 1). In most cases, agreement correlates with movement of the internal argument out of its canonical position (Spec,VP), e.g. when it is cliticized or if it is encoded as the subject. In this vein, we could argue that past participle agreement is a morphosyntactic device to mark non-canonical internal arguments. As mentioned above, not all Romance varieties show agreement in the same structures. To start with, all Romance languages exhibit past participle agreement with passives, regardless of whether the variety displays HABERE / ESSE alternation, cf. e.g. (40) in Spanish which does not show agreement in active compound tenses.  

(40) Sp.

Últimamente son costruid-as/*-o built- F . PL /-MSG lately be.3PL ‘Lately, many houses have been built.’

much-as many-F . PL

cas-as. house-F . PL

While passive constructions trigger ESSE auxiliary in almost all Romance languages (at least the standard varieties), for unaccusative constructions there is more variation: some show auxiliary alternation whereas others have only one auxiliary for all active constructions. Even if the ESSE / HABERE alternation is not a necessary condition for past participle agreement, the varieties which show alternation (Italian, French, Majorcan Catalan, some varieties of Occitan) largely fall into the following pattern (however, if we include dialectal varieties, especially Italian dialects, the picture becomes much more complex): Past participle agreement is usually obligatory with: (i) Unaccusative verbs selecting ESSE (Italian, French, Catalan, southern Italian dialects (SIDs), northern Italian dialects (NIDs), Sardinian, Occitan):

112

(41)

Ioanna Sitaridou

Maj.Cat. L’ Anna és the Anna is ‘Anna has left.’

partid-a. left- FSG

The choice of the auxiliary ESSE itself however does not strictly correlate with participle agreement (see ↗7 Auxiliaries). (ii) DO pro- and enclitics (42), also in Absolute Small Clauses in Italian (43) (however, see Loporcaro 2008; 2010; D’Alessandro/Roberts 2010 for the rich variation found in Italo-Romance): (42)

It.

L’ ho have.1SG her.ACC . FSG ‘I have seen her.’

(43)

It.

Conosciut-a=la, known-FSG =her.ACC . FSG ‘Having known her …’ (Belletti 2010, 131)

(iii)

Reflexive/reciprocal clitic DOs (including the inherent reflexive/ergative si):

(44) It.

a.

vist-a/*-o. seen-FSG /*- MSG



Mi

sono guardat-a am watched-FSG ‘I looked at myself in the mirror.’ REFL . 1SG

allo to.the

specchio. mirror

In contrast to this rather clear picture, variation is found in many other respects. Importantly, the Romance languages that allow past participle agreement are differentiated with regards to whether they allow agreement with postverbal objects (A), whether they handle DOs and IOs differently (B) and which kind of preverbal objects trigger agreement (C–D): A. Availability of past participle agreement with a lexical DO in situ; on the one hand, Standard Italian (45) and Standard French (46) do not allow any agreement; on the other hand, Rouergat Occitan (47) and Friulian (48) optionally allow it (the former less optionally than the latter); and in Neapolitan (49) agreement is even obligatory: (45)

It.

Ho mangiat-*e/-o eaten-FPL /- MSG have.1SG ‘I have eaten two pears.’

due two

per-e. pear-FPL

Objects

(46)

Fr.

J’ ai écrit-Ø/*-es I have.1SG written-MSG /- F . PL ‘I wrote letters.’

des ART . INDF . PL

(47)

Occ. (Rouergat) Ai escrich-as e mandad-as and sent-F . PL have.1SG written- F . PL ‘I’ve written and sent those letters.’ (Stroh 2002, 9) Piero el a serâ-s / Piero he has shut-PL / ‘Piero has shut the windows.’ (Paoli 1997, 10)

(49)

addʒ-ə kɔttə / *kwottə have-1SG cooked.FSG / cooked.MSG ‘I’ve cooked the pasta.’ (Loporcaro 1998, 68–69)

Nap.

lettre-s. letter[ F ]- PL

aquel-as those-F . PL

(48) Friul.

serât shut

113

i the. PL

letr-as. letter-F . PL

barcôn-s. window-PL

a the. FSG

pastə. pasta.FSG

B. Italian allows past participle agreement even with indirect pronominal (reciprocal) objects (50a), whereas French does not (50b): (50)

a. b.

It. Si

sono scritt-e/*-o delle letter-e. REFL are.3PL written-FPL /- MSG ART . INDF .FPL letter-FPL Fr. Elles se sont écrit-Ø/*-es des lettre-s. ART . INDF .PL letter[F ]- PL they REFL are.3PL written- MSG /- F . PL ‘They wrote some letters to each other.’ / ‘They wrote each other some letters.’

C. Relativized objects: Standard Italian (like most Romance varieties) does not accept participle agreement across a relativized complement (51) (but this may well be different in very high registers and southern Italian dialects, see Salvi 2001), whereas in Standard French (52), this kind of agreement is required: (51)

It.

le per-e che ho COMP have.1SG the pear-FPL ‘the pears that I have eaten’

(52)

Fr.

les lettre-s que the. PL letter[F ]-PL COMP ‘the letters that I wrote’

j’ I

mangiat-o/?-e eaten- MSG / -FPL

ai have.1SG

écrit-es/*-Ø written- F . PL /- MSG

114

Ioanna Sitaridou

D. Partitive clitics: Italian allows for both agreement and non-agreement with the ne clitic (53). In principle, French (54) does not require agreement with the en clitic, but Deprez (1998) and Riegel/Pellat/Rioul (21994) show that some speakers accept it when the DO referent is specific (54a), especially when its lexical expression precedes the verb (54b): (53)

It.

Io ne ho I PART have.1SG ‘I ate two (of them).’

(54)

Fr.

a.

mangiat-o/-i eaten-MSG /-MPL

due. two

Il en a pris-Ø deux. has taken-MSG two he PART ‘He has taken two (of them).’ a pris-es deux. b. ?Il en has taken- F . PL two he PART ‘He has taken two (of them).’ c. Des pomme-s il en a ART . INDF . PL apple[F ]- PL he PART has ‘Apples, he has taken two (of them).’

prises deux. taken- F . PL two

The Ibero-Romance languages, which have progressively ousted ESSE ( RE ) and generalized HABERE as the only perfect auxiliary (see ↗7 Auxiliaries), have developed an innovative auxiliary, namely tener (which is in ongoing competition with haber). This auxiliary triggers obligatory object-participle agreement in Spanish (55) and optional agreement in Portuguese and Galician (56): (55)

Sp.

Teng-o estudiad-as/*-o studied-F . PL /- MSG have-1SG ‘I have studied twenty lessons.’

veinte twenty

(56)

Gal. Teñ-o lid-o/-os have-1SG read.PST . PTCP -MSG /- MPL ‘I have read many books.’ (Santamarina 1974, 161)

leccion-es. lesson[F ]- PL

muit-os many-MPL

libr-os. book-MPL

The vast variety of past participle agreement possibilities in Romance is documented in Loporcaro (1998; 2010). Loporcaro proposes a Relational Grammar account to explain the conditions that have to be met in order to trigger agreement in different varieties. Its starting point is the simple fact that the argument which controls the agreement has to be a DO. This trigger condition is the most encompassing and corresponds probably to an initial state of a diachronic development. The diachronic evolution is also reflected by several Romance varieties which differ in how restrictive

115

Objects

the trigger conditions for participial agreement have become. For instance, in Latin as well as in contemporary Neapolitan, all kinds of DO trigger agreement on the past participle. In Old French and Old Tuscan texts, there is variation showing the transition from the Latin state to posterior, more restrictive varieties. The emergent restrictive conditions can be divided into (i) incipit conditions, i.e., (semantic) conditions on the beginning of the computation (base structure); (ii) explicit conditions, i. e., conditions on the end of the computation by which the lexical unmarked DO is substituted by a more marked option of a DO, and (iii) global conditions, i.e. “conditions that have scope on the entire structural representation” (Loporcaro 2010, 231). Standard Italian, for example, is more restrictive compared to Neapolitan in that agreement in Italian is not triggered by in situ DO, but only by DOs which have undergone a transformation such as pronominalization. The most restrictive explicit condition can be found in Spanish, where the participle only agrees with subjects of passives, which are underlyingly DOs promoted to the subject position (see Section 1). The incipit semantic conditions on the other hand are most restrictive in French, where the DO must be the initial (semantic) object of the agreeing participle. This precludes agreement in causative constructions in French (57), but not in southern Italian dialects, where the auxiliary participle can show agreement (58) (Loporcaro 2010, 238–239):  



(57)

Fr.

Marie, ce garçon l’a Marie this boy her=has ‘Marie, this boy made her fall.’ (Loporcaro 2010, 237)

(58)

Calabrian (Catanzarese) a pittʃuliɖʐa ɔn l ava the[F ] little.girl[F ] not her= has.3SG ‘The little girl, he never made her cry.’ (Loporcaro 2010, 238)

fait/*-e made.MSG /- F . SG

ma ever

tomber. fall. INF

hatt-u/-a made-MSG /-FSG

tʃandʒira. cry.INF

Likewise, in Spanish and Portuguese the agreement on the causative past participle is preferred in passive causative constructions; the oddity of example (59a) is due to the unusual passive with causative constructions: (59)

Sp.

a.

??Esta casa ha This house.F has mi abuelo. my grandfather.

sido been.

hecha made.FSG

arreglar fix.INF

por by

116

Ioanna Sitaridou

b. *Esta casa ha sido hecho made.MSG This house.F has been.MSG mi abuelo my grandfather. ‘This house has been fixed by my grandfather.’ (Loporcaro 1998, 159)

arreglar por fix.INF by

The combination of incipit and explicit conditions also leads to the well-known fact that French participles agree with DO reflexive constructions only, whereas Italian participles agree in all reflexive constructions, whether the reflexives are DOs or IOs (cf. (60a) vs (60b)). (60) a. b.

It. Maria si è lavat-a/-*o is washed- FSG /- MSG Maria REFL Fr. Marie s’ est lav-é/*-ee has washed-MSG / FSG Marie REFL ‘Maria/Marie washed her hands.’

le the les the

mani. hand.FPL mains. hand. FPL

Formal analyses of past participle agreement (see also ↗7 Auxiliaries) have also been proposed in generative frameworks. Kayne (1989b) suggests that past participle agreement is parallel to subject-verb agreement: it is mediated via an Agr[eement] phrase. He proposes that languages like French, which show past participle agreement, realise an AgrP to which clitics raise as phrases (to the Spec,AgrP) or through which relativized DOs in Standard French, which trigger past participle agreement, move, whereas languages like Spanish do not realize such a phrase. As for agreement with lexical DOs in situ, this must be accounted for by assuming some special mechanism, such as right dislocation with subsequent deletion of a DO clitic, as proposed by Kayne (1989b, 96). In other analyses, some other syntactic entity is postulated such as the abstract object pro in Spec,AgrOP in Egerland (1996, 86), also followed by Manzini/Savoia (2005, II, 561), triggering agreement with the past participle. However, such analyses account less well for Italo-Romance data. D’Alessandro/Roberts (2010) have shown that participial agreement in upper southern Italian varieties does not follow the aforementioned patterns in several significant ways, and offer a phase-based approach for the postsyntactic realization of generalized past participle agreement with internal arguments in these varieties. In sum, we can see that agreement is triggered by internal arguments which either are promoted to subjects or are cliticized and hence precede the verb. However, not all Romance varieties are equally sensitive to the triggering factors. In addition, there seems to be an interaction with auxiliary selection properties, i.e. the ESSE auxiliary favours agreement.  

Objects

117

3 Word order properties of objects In declarative unmarked sentences, the canonical word order in Romance is SVO; the subject precedes the DO as well as the IO. However, this is only true for lexical subjects, which have moved out of their base-generated position. Both Old and Modern Romance are known to allow for word order permutations (for a detailed discussion regarding under which syntactic and discourse conditions the permutations obtain, see ↗24 Basic constituent orders, ↗13 Dislocations and framings, and ↗14 Focus Fronting). In this section we consider (i) the syntax of double object constructions (DOCs); and (ii) how various clitic-related phenomena contribute to word order flexibility.

3.1 Ordering constraints in Double Object Constructions Traditionally, the Romance languages are considered not to have any double object constructions (herein DOC) (Kayne 1984) (61), i.e. free ordering of DO and IO and/or accusative encoding of the IO. English, in contrast, allows dative alternation (62a,b) whereby both surface orders (IO-DO and DO-IO) are licit. In Romance, the structural position of IO DPs is fixed relative to DOs. Mainly as a consequence of this fixed order, only the DO can be the subject of a passive structure (62e,f), contrary to English which also shows dative passives (62c,d).  

(61)

It.

(62)

Sp.

a.

Gianni ha dato un libro Gianni has given a book ‘Gianni has given a book to Maria.’ b. *Gianni ha dato a Maria Gianni has given to Maria *‘Gianni has given (to) Maria a book.’

a. b. c. d. e.

f.

a to

Maria. Maria

un a

libro. book

John gave the book to Mary. John gave Mary the book. The book was given to Mary. Mary was given the book. El libro fue dado a María. the book was given to María ‘The book was given to María.’ *María fue dad-a el libro. the.MSG book.MSG María was given- FSG ‘María was given the book.’

118

Ioanna Sitaridou

The only exception among the Romance languages which lack dative alternations is Romanian (63), which has DOC (Diaconescu/Rivero 2007). This is rather unsurprising given that it has morphological case-marking, DOM and clitic doubling (CD) at its disposal to mark the syntactic function of all arguments. (63)

Rom. a.

Mihaela îi trimite Mari-e-i Mihaela her.DAT sends Maria-the.DAT . FSG scrisoare. letter ‘Mihaela sends Maria a letter.’ b. Mihaela îi trimite o scrisoare letter Mihaela her.DAT sends a Mari-e-i. Maria-the.DAT . FSG ‘Mihaela sends Maria a letter.’ (Diaconescu/Rivero 2007, 210)

o a

Some researchers have also defended the position that Spanish has DOC (Strozer 1976; Masullo 1993; Demonte 1995; Romero 1997; Cuervo 2003) as well as Portuguese (Torres Morais/Moreira Lima Salles 2010). According to Pineda (2013; 2014), the Spanish (64) and Catalan (65) constructions can be explained in a similar way to the ones in French (66) (with parallels in Italian), which thus all show evidence for DOC (because of weak crossover, i.e. possible coreferential readings of bound anaphoric elements in the DO and the binder in the IO, which thus precedes the DO on some level of representation):  

la estima de tratamiento devolvió [DO treatment returned the esteem of Maríai]. mismai] [IO a REFL . 3SG self to María la estima b. El tratamiento le devolvió [DO DAT . 3SG returned the esteem the treatment a Maríai]. de sí mismai] [IO REFL . 3SG self to María of ‘The treatment gave María back her self-esteem.’ (Demonte 1995, 10)

(64)

Sp.

a.

El the sí

(65)

Cat.

a.

El the si

l’ tractament va tornar [DO the treatment goes return.INF a la Mariai]. mateixai] [IO REFL . 3SG self to the Maria

estima esteem

de of

Objects

119

b. El tractament li va tornar [DO l’ return.INF the the treatment him.DAT goes la Mariai]. estima de si mateixai] [IO a self to the Maria esteem of REFL . 3SG ‘The treatment gave Maria back her self-esteem.’ (Pineda 2012, 2) (66)

Fr.

[chaque garçon]i. Marie a donné soni crayon à Marie has given his pencil to each boy ‘Marie gave each boy his pencil.’ sesi b. Jean a présenté [chaque institutrice]i à Jean has presented each teacher to his élèves. students ‘Jean introduced each teacher to her students.’ (Harley 2003, 62)

a.

Therefore, despite the fact that Spanish, French, and Catalan seemingly appear to lack dative alternation, (64)‒(66) are counterevidence to this claim, aligning them with English and Romanian. In order to explain the differences in final word order and the impossibility of promoting the IO to the subject position in Romance in contrast to English, Pineda (2014) assumes different case-assignment properties of the functional heads involved.

3.2 Object (Clitic) Doubling structures Clitic Doubling (CD) (see also ↗5 Clitic pronouns) is a construction in which a clitic co-occurs with a full DP in argument position, thereby forming a discontinuous constituent. CD has often been associated with three constructions that look very similar to it, namely Clitic Left Dislocation (CLLD), Clitic Right Dislocation (CLRD) and Hanging Topic (HT). Even if all these constructions (less so in the case of the latter) involve the simultaneous occurrence of a clitic and a lexical or strong pronominal constituent which are coreferential, CD in a strict sense has to be kept separate from them (cf. Frascarelli 2000 for the interaction of CD with Information Structure; see ↗13 Dislocations and framings). The dislocated constituents of CLLD and HT are considered to be base-generated in the left periphery (CP) (Cinque 1990; Frascarelli 2000; Giorgi 2015) and the full DP of CLRD to the right of the verb is considered to be a dislocated phrase, resulting from rightward movement or base-generated adjunction followed by remnant movement (among other analyses). Hence, CLLD, HT and CLRD are all three dislocation structures, they are said to be either topic (e.g. Cardinaletti 2002; De Cat 2002) or background or contrast marking devices (e.g. Zwart 2001; Arregi  

120

Ioanna Sitaridou

2003), and they often interact with prosody, obligatorily requiring an intonational break. In contrast to this, CD structures are analyzed as originating from one and the same base constituent which splits into two surface strings or, alternatively, the clitic is analyzed as an object-agreement marker on the verb, as will be discussed below. The doubled object remains in its canonical position, while the coreferential clitic attaches to the verb (cf. Uriagereka 1995; Sportiche 1996; among others). In the past, clitic doubling has been associated with the “prepositional” (IO and DOM) marking of an object. Kayne’s Generalization, formulated in Jaeggli (1982, 20), states that only a “prepositionally” marked NP can be doubled by a clitic. In fact, there is a preference for doubling DOM-marked objects and indirect objects in some varieties, but “prepositional” marking is not a necessary condition for CD in every Romance variety, as we will see below. The correlation between CD and DOM arises rather from the fact that both phenomena are triggered by similar semantic factors such as telicity, agentivity, and affectedness (Roberts 2016), or specificity, animacy, and topicality (Dragomirescu/Nicolae 2016, 922). According to Dragomirescu/Nicolae (2016), CD with DOs is found in Romanian (Hill 2013 and Diaconescu/Rivero 2007), Aromanian, standard and non standard Spanish as well as Rioplatense Spanish (Kayne 1994; Torrego 1995; Uriagereka 1995; Sportiche 1996; Belletti 1999; Cardinaletti 2002; Feldhausen 2010), central-southern Italian dialects and Rhaeto-Romance, thus in the varieties with DOM. Similarly to the variation found in DOM marking, CD distribution also differs across the Romance varieties allowing it. The most widespread doubling trigger is a strong pronominal human object. It is obligatory in Romance languages for a neutral (non-focused) reading of the DO, except in French (see Doetjes/Delais-Roussarie/Sleeman 2002 and De Cat 2002; 2007 for accounts of CD in Colloquial French), Standard Italian and Portuguese, where doubling leads obligatorily to a right-dislocation reading of the object. (67)

a.

Sp.

*(Lo) invit-é *(a) él. DOM him him.ACC invited-1SG b. Cat. *(El) vaig convidar a ell. invite.INF to him him.ACC go.1SG c. Rom. *(L-) am invitat (*pe) el. invited DOM him him.ACC have.1SG d. It. L’ ho invitato, lui. invited him him.ACC have.1SG e. Fr. Je l’ ai invité, lui. I him.ACC have.1SG invited him f. Pt. Convideio, a ele. to him invited. 1SG him.ACC ‘I invited him.’

Objects

121

With DO which are proper nouns, lexical and also definite non-human objects, the picture is less uniform. In Rioplatense Spanish, but not in Peninsular Spanish, DOMmarking and CD usually co-occur hence allowing for doubling of animate DOs (68). In Chilean Spanish (69) and in Andean varieties, CD can appear optionally with an inanimate object without DOM-marking (69) (see Lipski 1994). Furthermore, CD appears obligatorily with clausal complements in Nicaraguan Spanish (70): (68)

Rioplatense Sp.

*(Lo) conozc-o know-1SG him.ACC ‘I know Juan.’ (Lipski 1994, 174)

a DOM

Juan. Juan

(69)

Chilean Sp.

(Lo) he leído it.ACC have.1SG read ‘I have read the book.’

el the

libro. book

(70)

Nicaraguan Sp.

*(Lo) tem-o que se COMP REFL . 3SG it.ACC fear-1SG ‘I fear that s/he’s going to die.’ (Lipski 1994, 292)

muer-a. die.SBJV - 3SG

Daco-Romanian behaves like Latin American Spanish in that DOM and CD are both either present or absent, whether the object be animate (71a) or inanimate (71b,c), while Aromanian has quasi-generalized CD of the DO, even without DOM (72) (Dragomirescu/Nicolae 2016): (71)

Rom. a.

*(L-) am văzut pe Ion. DOM Ion him. ACC have.1SG seen ‘I have seen Ion.’ b. Am citit*(o) pe asta. it.ACC DOM this have.1 SG read ‘I have read this one.’ c. Am văzut (*pe) altceva. DOM something.else have.1SG seen ‘I have seen something else.’ (Roberts 2016, 801)

(72)

Aromanian Rom.

?(lu) ávdu fiĉór-lu. Nuhear.1SG boy-the not him.ACC ‘I don’t hear the boy.’ (Dragomirescu/Nicolae 2016, 922)

122

Ioanna Sitaridou

Neapolitan shows widespread CD with DOs, too, which also affects inanimate objects – similarly in Peruvian and Bolivian Spanish (Lipski 1994, 191):  

(73)

Nap.

Ll’ av-immo appilata’a 3SG . F . ACC have-1PL blocked- F ‘We have blocked the tap.’ (Roberts 2016, 801)

funtana. the tap

Turning our attention to CD of the IO, it occurs in Spanish, Catalan, Romanian, northern Italian dialects (Dragomirescu/Nicolae 2016, 923) and to a lesser extent in Portuguese. Again, the pronominal IO is the strongest trigger for CD: it is obligatorily doubled in Spanish, Catalan and Romanian. In Portuguese, CD is optional in these contexts, while in Italian and French (but not Colloquial French), it is ungrammatical. (74)

a. Sp. b. c. d.

e. f.

*(Le) di un regalo a él. gift to him him.DAT gave. 1SG a Cat. *(Li) vaig donar un regal a ell. give. INF a present to him him.DAT go.1SG Rom. *(I-) am dat lui un cadou. given him.DAT a present him.DAT have. 1SG Pt. Dei(lhe) um presente a ele. present to him gave.1SG him.DAT a ‘I gave him a gift.’ It. (*Gli) ho dato un regalo a lui. given a present to him him.DAT have. 1SG StFr. (CollFr. OK) Je (*lui) ai donné un cadeau à lui. given a present to him.DAT I him.DAT have. 1SG

Again, in (74c) we can observe that a prepositional marking is not necessary for CD to occur: the Romanian strong pronoun is transparent to the nominative/accusative vs dative/genitive case distinction, i.e. the dative is not marked with a prepositional element as in Spanish in (74a), and yet CD occurs. We observe the same phenomenon in (75c) below: Romanian dative/genitive proper names are accompanied by a casetransparent pronoun. With lexical IOs, we observe that CD is obligatory in Spanish and Catalan, whereas in Romanian it is optional. In Standard French, Italian and Portuguese, CD is not possible, the corresponding structures are dislocation structures. Colloquial French seems marginally to accept CD:  

Objects

(75)

123

a. Sp. b. c. d. e. f.

*(Le) di un regalo a Juan. present to Juan him.DAT gave. 1SG a Cat. *(Li) vaig donar un regal a en Joan. give. INF a present to the Joan him.DAT go.3SG Rom. (I)am dat un cadou lui Ion. a present him.DAT Ion him.DAT have. 1SG given CollFr. ?Je lui ai donné un cadeau à Jean. present to Jean I him.DAT have. 1SG given a Fr. Je lui ai donné un cadeau, à Jean. present to Jean I him.DAT have. 1SG given a Pt. Deilhe um presente, a=o João. him.DAT a present to=the João gave.1SG ‘I gave a present to Juan/Joan/Ion/Jean/João.’

As briefly mentioned above, one of the most prominent approaches to CD structures, proposed by Uriagereka (e.g. 1995), analyzes the doubled object as a complex element, containing both the lexical object (with the “prepositional” marker) and the doubling clitic when it is merged into the derivation. Then, the clitic moves out of this complex constituent but leaves behind the lexical object, yielding the linear structure with CD. Other approaches emphasize the fact that in some Romance varieties, CD seems to become obligatory. If this is really the case, the clitic could be interpreted as an object agreement marker on the verb in the sense of an objective conjugation (Koch 1993). This would also be the explanation for Colloquial French, but not Standard French, allowing CD: in the same vein as it is discussed for subject clitics in Colloquial French, object clitics seem to become agreement markers (↗2 Subjects, ↗5 Clitic pronouns).

3.3 Clitic Climbing Clitic Climbing (herein CC) is considered to be a hallmark of restructuring (or “clause union” phenomena, see also ↗5 Clitic pronouns). Emonds (1999, 291) offers the following definition of the phenomenon: “Clitics skip over non-finite complement verbs with null subjects, apparently optionally, and attach to a closed subset of higher governing verbs.” In the varieties in which CC is optional, it often occurs with a defined set of matrix verbs, the so-called restructuring verbs, namely: (i) Modals (76) It.

a.

Dev-o must-1SG

far=lo. do.INF = it.ACC

124

Ioanna Sitaridou

b. Lo dev-o it.ACC must-1SG ‘I must do it.’

fare. do. INF

(ii) Aspectuals (77) Sp. a.

Estoy comiéndo=lo. am eating= it.ACC b. Lo estoy comiendo. eating it.ACC am ‘I am eating it.’

(iii) Volitionals (78) Sp. a. Quier-o comer=lo. eat.INF = it.ACC want-1SG b. Lo quier-o comer. eat.INF it.ACC want-1SG ‘I want to eat it.’ (iv) Causatives6 (79) Fr. a. *Jean a fait le= manger (à Paul). to Paul Jean has made it.ACC eat.INF b. Jean l’ a fait manger (à Paul). done eat.INF to Paul Jean it.ACC has ‘Jean made (Paul) eat it.’ c. Je le lui ai fait faire (à I it.ACC him. DAT have.1SG done do.INF to élève son devoir). student his homework ‘I made him (the student) do it (his homework).’

l’ the

Romance languages diverge as to whether they allow CC and under what circumstances. Since Cinque (2006, 31‒32), the following typology of languages with regard to CC is acknowledged: (i) varieties in which CC is mostly optional (e.g., Spanish, European Portuguese, Asturian); (ii) varieties with pervasive and obligatory CC (e.g., many central Italian varieties, Sardinian); (iii) varieties with little or no CC (e.g., French, Romanian, Brazilian Portuguese, many northern Italian varieties);

6 In French, CC is obligatory with causatives.

Objects

125

(iv) varieties with clitics which surface in several positions at the same time (e.g., Chilean Spanish, Neapolitan, certain Piedmontese varieties, certain Occitan varieties). Type (ii) languages have been the subject of many analyses (Cardinaletti/Shlonsky 2004; among others). Type (iii) varieties receive the explanation that either the null subject property has been relaxed (i.e., Brazilian Portuguese) (Cyrino 2008; 2010a; among others) or lost entirely (i.e., French) (Rochette 1988; Kayne 1989a; Martineau 1990): this would preclude the clitics climbing in order to avoid clitic clusters with the subject clitic. However, this view has been contested by Martins (2000) because although Spanish, Italian and European Portuguese did not undergo loss of null subjects, CC has still moved in the same direction, namely, narrowing the set of CC predicates. Martins accounts for this as a case of degrammaticalization, whereby the s(emantic)-selectional properties of the predicates are underspecified and progressively become specified, thus corresponding to a semantic strengthening of CC verbs. Another analysis is that infinitives are on the decline (i.e., Romanian) (Monachesi 1998) and, therefore, climbing cannot be triggered across biclausal domains. Type (iv) and type (i) varieties are even less well-understood. Regarding type (iv), consider (80) from Peruvian and Bolivian Spanish, and (81) from Occitan, where we attest the reduplication of clitics in contexts where they could appear in one position or the other:  





(80) a.

b.

(81)

Peruvian Sp. Me está castigándo=me. is punishing=me.ACC me.ACC ‘S/he is punishing me.’ Bolivian Sp. No la he podido conocer=la. NEG her. ACC = have.1SG been.able.to know.INF = her. ACC ‘I’ve not been able to meet her.’ (Lipski 1994, 191)

Occ. Lo vòl-i estripar=lo. want-1SG gut.INF =him. ACC him. ACC ‘I want to kill him (lit. to gut him).’ (Sauzet 2006, 1)

Within type (i) languages, namely those with optional clitic climbing, there is a certain degree of variation regarding the landing site on the higher verb(s), as can be seen comparing Spanish and Italian ((76) and (78) above) with Portuguese and Asturian: (82)

Pt.

a.

O João quer ver=me. the João wants see.INF = me.ACC ‘João wants to see me.’

126

Ioanna Sitaridou

b. O João quer=me the João wants= me.ACC ‘João wants to see me.’ (83)

Ast.

ver. see.INF

a.

Quier ve=lu. want.3SG see=him.ACC b. Quier=lu ver. want.3SG = him.ACC see.INF ‘S/he wants to see him.’

The reason for this is that CC interacts with the proclisis/enclisis in these languages; the climbed clitics attach enclitically to the finite matrix verbs in Portuguese and Asturian, and proclitically in Spanish and Italian. Second, in type (i) languages, there is a high degree of variation regarding which matrix verbs allow an optional climbing, even in two closely cognate languages; for instance, (84a) is possible in both Standard Peninsular Spanish and Argentinean Spanish, whereas (84b) is not possible in Standard Peninsular Spanish, but is possible in Argentinean Spanish: (84) a.

b.

Argentinean Sp./ Standard Peninsular Sp. Seguramente, necesit-ar-án lavar =se surely need-FUT - 3PL wash.INF =3REFL ‘They will surely need to have their teeth cleaned.’ Argentinean Sp./*Standard Peninsular Sp. Seguramente, se necesit-ar-án lavar need-FUT - 3PL wash. INF surely 3REFL ‘They will surely need to have their teeth cleaned.’ (Sitaridou/Whimpanny/Ayres 2015, 279)

los the

los the

dientes. teeth

dientes. teeth

Sitaridou/Whimpanny/Ayres (2015) review a variety of accounts for optional CC, and note that the theories can be split into two approaches: internal and external motivation. Internal motivation implies the semantics of the matrix verb (Rizzi 1976; 1982; Aissen/Perlmutter 1983; Myhill 1988; Kayne 1989a; Davies 1995; Cinque 1999), the tense of the matrix verb (Gudmestad 2005; Sinnott/Smith 2007), the form of the nonfinite verb (Emonds 1999), preceding material (Keniston 1937; Ramsden 1963), various characteristics of the clitic pronoun,7 and the null-subject status of the language (Kayne 1989a; Roberts 1997). External factors include diatopic variation (Davies 1995; Sinnot/Smith 2007), diastratic variation (Gudmestad 2005) and diamesic variation

7 These characteristics include, in particular, animacy of the clitic (Leal de Andrade 2010), the person/ number of the clitic (Gudmestad 2005), and clitic clusters (Davies 1995).

Objects

127

(Davies 1995; Iglesias 2012). However, the main issue taken with all of these theories is that, while they are descriptive of the empirical findings, they fail to offer a sound explanation for the syntactic optionality. Sitaridou/Whimpanny/Ayres (2015) have recently argued that in Argentinean Spanish, and in type (i) languages more generally, the parameter setting makes a pool of variants (+CC/˗CC) (in the spirit of Adger 2014 and Adger/Smith 2007) available even on the level of a lexical head within the same category, e.g. poder behaving differently from deber despite both belonging to the modal verbal category. Crucially, these options do not yield interpretive effects, but are lexically triggered. The probability with which one of the clitic positions is selected in preference to the other is therefore claimed to depend, at least in part, on frequency of use (the higher frequency variants are more likely to be selected), behind which we expect to find a variety of sociolinguistic factors. It is suggested that nanoparametric variation responsible for CC optionality is quite unstable diachronically.

4 Object clitics: argumental vs free datives In Romance, pronominal object markers may replace (or double) object arguments. They are transparent to person, number and sometimes gender, as well as Case; they surface to the left of the finite verb in declarative sentences – with the notable exception of European Portuguese, Asturian and Old Romance. In Romance, object markers are traditionally treated as clitic pronouns (Kayne 1975; Zwicky 1977; Grevisse 162016), but the affixal approach (i.e. they are analyzed as affixes on the verb) is equally popular (Tesnière 1959, 85; Blanche-Benveniste 1975, 41; Borer 1986; Roberge/ Vinet 1989; Roberge 1990; Auger 1995; Miller/Sag 1997; Miller/Monachesi 2003). For a detailed discussion of the argumental vs affixal nature of object clitics, see ↗5 Clitic pronouns. Our objective in this section is to show how a certain category of dative clitics can be non-argumental; that is, they do not replace an argument of the verb, contrary to the other clitic pronouns. The “ethic(al) dative” (herein ED) is the traditional label for this special class of optional and non-argumental dative clitics (85), whose function and interpretation has often been described in various contradictory ways. Pragmatically, EDs are traditionally thought to convey affection: the speaker’s affectionate interest, the active involvement of the speaker, oblique involvement, or solidarity.  

(85)

Sp.

No

me come ED . 1SG eats ‘My son won’t eat.’ NEG

mi my

hijo. son

EDs are a real puzzle because: (i) they are distinct from recipients, benefactives and possessives, from both the syntactic and the semantic perspective; (ii) they cannot be straightforwardly accounted for by theta-theory and argument structure theory since

128

Ioanna Sitaridou

it is not clear at all whether an ED forms part of the argument structure of any verb. On the other hand, even if EDs are independent of the s(emantic)-selectional properties of the verb, they are not compatible with every predicate; (iii) there is considerable variation in the grammaticality judgments on such constructions among native speakers. In what follows, we discuss the main properties of EDs in Romance (see Michelioudakis/Sitaridou 2009): (i) EDs are practically compatible with any type of predicate/argument structure, except passives (subject to variation, see Jouitteau/Rezac 2008, 98) (86), aspectuals (87), modals (88) or impersonals (89): A. Passives (86) Sp. *Los niños me fueron abrazad-os ED . 1SG be.PST .3PL hugged- MPL the kids ‘The kids were hugged by Juan.’ B. Aspectuals (87) Sp. *Me has empezado a ED . 1SG have.2SG started to ‘You started eating too much to my regret.’ C. Modals (88) Sp.

comer eat.INF

por by

Juan. Juan

demasiado. too.much

*Me deb-e casar= se. ED . 1SG must-3SG marry.INF = REFL ‘He must get married on me.’

D. Impersonals (89) Sp. *Me hay que ED . 1SG have.LOC COMP ‘You must work on/for me.’

trabajar. work.INF

Crucially, object clitics do not exhibit these kinds of restrictions. (ii) EDs cannot be interpreted as affected participants. Thus, EDs are distinct from IOs (either goals/recipients (90a) or sources (90b)), benefactives (90c), and malefactives (90d) in that the referent of the ED does not affect the truth conditions of the proposition or the model of the situation described at all. Instead, they express a (detached) evaluative attitude of a discourse participant (90e).

129

Objects

(90) Sp.

a.

Juan me ha dado un libro. (goals) a book Juan me.DAT has given ‘Juan gave me a book.’ b. Juan me ha tomado un libro. (sources) Juan me.DAT has taken a book ‘Juan took a book from me.’ c. Juan me ha comprado un libro. (benefactives) a book Juan me.DAT has bought ‘Juan bought me a book.’ d. Juan me ha destruido la carta antes de Juan me.DAT has destroyed the letter before of leer=la. (malefactives) read.INF = it. ACC ‘Juan destroyed the letter (to my detriment) before I read it.’ e. Juan me manchó su pantalón. (ED) ED . 1SG stained his trouser Juan ‘Juan stained his trousers to my regret.’

(iii) EDs are always pronominal. In particular, in Romance, they are exclusively realised as clitics and no (co-indexed) XP can appear in an A-position – i.e., the ED cannot be doubled with the full NP – although CLLD/CLRD is marginally acceptable. For instance, in Spanish, there can sometimes be a phrasal part present (91a), but, crucially, not instead of the ED clitic (91b).  

(91)

Sp.

a.

El niño, le estudi-ó mucho #a María. studied-3SG a.lot to María the child ED . 3SG b. *El niño __ estudi-ó mucho a María. a.lot to María the child __ studied- 3SG ‘To María’s delight, the child studied a lot.’ (Masullo 1992, 45)

(iv) EDs are different from possessive datives (i.e., genitive/dative clitics encoding possession – usually, but not necessarily, inalienable) which are commonly treated as a subset of EDs. However, it seems that while possessive datives pattern with IOs, benefactives/malefactives (in the sense of co-indexation with the possessor of the DO of a transitive verb (92)) and dative experiencers, EDs do not align with the abovementioned object clitics; therefore they are compatible with a possessive (93) in at least some Romance varieties such as Peruvian Spanish:  

(92)

Sp.

a.

duele hurt.3SG ‘I have a headache.’ Mei

POSSDAT . 1SG

lai the

cabezai. head

130

Ioanna Sitaridou

b. *Mei

duele suj hurt.3SG his ?*lei c. ¿A quiéni POSSDAT . 3SG to whom ‘Who has a headache?’ ?*lei d. A Juani to Juan (POSSDAT . 3SG ) ‘Juan has a headache.’ POSSDAT . 1SG

(93)

Peruvian Sp.

cabezaj. head duele lai hurt.3SG the

cabezai? head

duele hurt.3SG

cabezai. head

lai the

¡Mei

ensucia-s tuj pantalónj! stain-2SG your trouser ‘You are staining your trousers (and I am somewhat inconvenienced)!’

ED . 1SG

(v) EDs cannot undergo wh-questioning nor, in fact, any kind of A'-movement (94) unlike other datives (95): (94)

Sp.

a.

Te=

he hecho una torta. (benefactive) have.1SG made a cake ‘I have made a cake for you.’ b. ¿A quién has hecho una torta? made a cake to whom have. 2SG ‘Who have you made a cake for?’ BENDAT . 2SG

(95)

Sp.

a.

Bésa=me a María. (ED) to María kiss.IMP = ED . 1SG ‘Kiss María for my sake.’ b. *¿De quién/ *a quién/ ?*para from whom/ to whom/ for quién has besado a María? María whom have.2SG kissed to ‘For whose sake did you kiss María?’

(vi) EDs cannot bind (into) the DO (96a,b) (and, in fact, as Borer/Grodzinsky 1986 observed, they cannot be co-indexed with any other argument), by apparently obviating Binding Principle A, unlike argumental datives (96c): (96)

Sp.

a.

¡Que

tej

mei

COMP

REFL . 2SG

ED . 1SG

cuid-e-s take.care-SBJV -2SG ‘Take care of yourself for my sake!’

a ti to you

mismoj! self

131

Objects

b. *¡Que tej

cuid-e-s take.care-SBJV - 2SG ‘*Take care of myself for my sake!’ ha mostrado a mí mismoi Mei REFL . 1SG has showed to me self ‘He showed me myself in the mirror.’ COMP

c.

REFL . 2SG

mei

a mí to me

ED . 1SG

en in

el the

mismoi! self espejo. mirror

Once again we see that EDs do not align with the rest of Romance object clitics. (vii) EDs are marginally compatible with pronominal IO datives and IO-like benefactives/malefactives in active transitive contexts (but not with “free” benefactives/ malefactives): (97)

Fr.

Je te lui cass-er-ai I ED . 2SG him.DAT break-FUT - 1SG ‘(Be sure that) I will beat him up.’ (Kayne 1975, 170)

la the

figure. face

To summarize the structural properties discussed so far, consider Table 8: Table 8: Syntactic properties of Romance clitic datives contrasting IOs and EDs IO

ED

Affecting truth conditions



X

Phrasal / prepositional counterparts



X

Clitic doubling



X

Clitic left/right dislocation



%

wh-movement



X

Binding of the direct object



X

Co-occurrence with other datives

X



In terms of the semantics of EDs, Bonet (1991), Cuervo (2003), Adger/Harbour (2007), Jouitteau/Rezac (2008), Michelioudakis/Sitaridou (2009) and Boneh/Nash (2012) all agree that EDs are non-truth functional and, therefore, distinct from other types of datives. They encode the evaluative attitude of a discourse participant towards the proposition. Following Reinhart’s (2002) theta system, such a semantic role can be identified with the thematic cluster that Reinhart has theoretically postulated and termed as “sentient” ([+m(ental state)]). Thus, the cluster must be positively marked [+m] since the involvement of the referent of an ED is always conscious. Given that the

132

Ioanna Sitaridou

participants referred to by EDs neither cause anything, nor are caused to suffer what the verb means, it follows that they are not specified for [cause change], i.e., Reinhart’s (2002) [+/˗c] feature. In structural terms, EDs are either analyzed as vP-adjuncts (Catsimali 1989) or are considered to be licensed by a (very high) Appl[icative] head whose Appl’s attachment site in, for example, transitive constructions, is the same as that of applicatives that introduce “free” benefactives/malefactives. Such a head would be just below T and above the highest argument-structure-related projection, say VoiceP or vP. However, what differentiates EDs from these truth-functional datives is the kind of Appl head licensing them and, more specifically, that the difference lies in Appl’s probe in each case, i.e., its uninterpretable features: argumental dative “experiencers” are ([+c+m]), while EDs are ([˗c+m]) (Michelioudakis/Sitaridou 2009). EDs may be further parameterized (Michelioudakis/Sitaridou 2009), depending on the actual discourse orientation of EDs in a given language. For example, Brazilian Portuguese (Bastos 2007) (98) and (many varieties of) Spanish (e.g., Peruvian Spanish) seem to have only speaker-oriented EDs, hence ED may bear [+Author]. In contrast to that, certain varieties of French, perhaps including Standard French, seem to favour hearer-oriented ethical clitics (99), hence there may be an ED specified as [(u)Hearer] in these varieties. Some other varieties allow both (100):  



(98)

BPt. Não. O João não me=/ *te= tava NEG ED . 1SG / ED . 2SG = be.IMPF . 3SG no the João vendendo a casa da Marta pra Maria! the house of-the Marta to Maria sell.PROG ‘No. João wasn’t selling Marta’s house to Maria on me!’

(99)

Fr.

Paul te=/ *me= fabrique une ED . 2SG =/ ED . 1SG = make.3SG a Paul vingt minutes. twenty minutes ‘Paul can make a table in 20 mins for anyone.’ (Leclère 1976; in Jouitteau/Rezac 2008, 106)

(100) Argentinian Sp.

table table

en in

Ya me/le camina. ED . 1SG / ED . 3SG walk.3SG already ‘She’s already walking to my/his/her delight.’ (adapted from Cuervo 2003, 27)

In sum, EDs have the same morphology as dative object clitics, but their syntactic properties are quite different: they do not qualify as internal arguments, but are rather used to expand the sphere of influence of a sentient participant (in the sense of Matushansky/Boneh/Nash/Slioussar 2017).

Objects

133

5 Object topic drop In addition to the pan-Romance object syntactic categories (Section 1), there is some divergence as to which varieties further allow a phonologically null representation of objects, and the type of objects that can be dropped in speech. Null objects have received a range of syntactic explanations, particularly with regard to the nature of this empty category, which can be viewed as an instance of topic drop, among other analyses. Raposo (1986), Rizzi (1986) and Roberge (1987) were among the first to notice the presence of phonetically unrealized internal arguments, cf. (101), (102) and (103), already common in Latin (104) (Luraghi 1997; Vincent 2000), in languages like European Portuguese (Raposo 1986; Costa/Lobo 2007), Brazilian Portuguese (Galves 1989; Farrell 1990; Kato 1993; Cyrino 1997; 2010b; 2013 and references therein), Italian (Schaeffer 1997) and French (Authier 1989; Schøsler 2000; Cummins/Roberge 2005; Lambrecht/Lemoine 2005; Donaldson 2012): (101) EPt. A Joana viu __ na tele television the Joana saw-3SG __ in.the ‘Joana saw __ (them) on the TV yesterday.’ (Raposo 1986, 373)

ontem. yesterday

(102) It.

II bel tempo invoglia __ a restare. stay.INF the nice weather induce.3SG __ to ‘The nice weather induces to stay.’ b. La buona musica riconcilia con se stessi. the good music reconcile.3SG with REFL . IMPS self ‘Good music reconciles with oneself.’ c. Questa musica rende __ allegri. happy this music render.3SG __ ‘This music renders happy.’ (Rizzi 1986, 507)

(103) Fr.

Wild Guns est un jeu wild guns is a game ‘Wild Guns is a game that destresses.’ (Larjavaara 2000, 88)

(104) Lat.

a.

A: No-v-isti-ne __ get.to.know-PST - 2SG - Q ‘Do you know the man?’

qui COMP

homin-em? man-ACC . MSG

défoule __ . destress.3SG __

134

Ioanna Sitaridou

B: No-v-i __. __ get.to.know-PST - 1SG ‘I do.’ [Plautus, Bacchides 837] (Luraghi 2004, 242) Although null objects do not exist in Standard Peninsular Spanish, in many Spanish varieties (Argentina, Bolivia, Ecuador, Peru, Uruguay, Paraguay, Rioplatense Spanish) they are, indeed, common (Kany 1945; Campos 1986; Franco/Landa 1996; Sánchez 1998; Schwenter 2006), as (105) and (106) show: (105) Rioplatense Sp. A: Quere-mos el postre. the dessert want-1PL ‘We’d like some dessert.’ B: Ya __ traig-o. already __ bring-1SG ‘I’ll bring (it).’ (106) Bolivian Sp. A: (Aquí est-án los medicamentos.) the medicines here are-3PL ‘Here’s the medicine.’ B: ¿Cómo has traído __? brought __ how have.2SG ‘How did you bring (it)?’ (Lipski 1994, 191) Depending on the Spanish variety (Kany 1945), we often find that null objects alternate with clitics in root contexts (107), on a par with European Portuguese (108): (107) Latin American Sp. (varieties licensing null-objects) a. Fui a la tienda a comprar café pero to the shop to buy.INF coffee but went.1SG no tenían __. NEG have. IMPF . 3PL __ ‘I went to the store to buy coffee but they didn’t have (any).’ b. Fui a la tienda a comprar el periódico to the shop to buy.INF the newspaper went.1SG pero no lo tenían. NEG it.ACC have.IMPF . 3PL but

Objects

135

‘I went to the store to buy the newspaper but they didn’t have it.’ (Schwenter 2006, 27) (108) EPt. Tir-ei os óculos da gaveta e pus from.the drawer and put.PST . 1SG took-1SG the glasses pu=los no bolso. put.PST . 1SG =them.ACC in.the pocket ‘I took the glasses from the drawer and put them in my pocket.’ (Costa/Lobo 2007, 61)

__/ __/

Interestingly, most varieties of Spanish with null objects only allow them when the referent of the DO is non-specific and non-human (but not necessarily indefinite; cf. Campos 1986), cf. (109) – a condition that seems also to hold for both Italian and French: (109) Andean Sp.

A: ¿Viste a María? DOM María saw.2SG ‘Did you see María?’ B: *Vi __ . __ saw.1SG ‘Yes(, I did.)’

However, this does not seem to be the case in either European or Brazilian Portuguese (110) or Comelico ( a northeastern dialect of the province of Venice, cf. Paoli 2014): (110) EPt./BPt. A: O João comprou the João bought ‘Did João buy a car?’ B : Compr-ou __. bought-3SG __ ‘Yes(, he did.)’

um a

carro? car

(111) Comelico A: As =t vist Rosa? have.2SG you seen Rosa ‘Have you seen Rosa?’ B: Si, __ ei vistu. seen yes __ have.1SG ‘Yes, I saw __(her).’ (Paoli 2014, 148) At this stage, it becomes obvious that a typology of null objects may be hindered by: (i) the very syntax-discourse interface nature of the phenomenon which creates richer

136

Ioanna Sitaridou

variation in the judgements; (ii) the crosslinguistic data which show no clear-cut generalization such as the existence of a null object parameter which would parallel the null subject parameter (although more recent research has actually shown that the picture here too is more complex; see for instance partial pro-drop languages – cf. ↗2 Subjects); (iii) competing syntactic analyses of null objects. In particular, the issue is whether the empty category is: (i) a null pronominal pro; or (ii) a null variable.8 The features of (i) are arbitrary and cannot be inherited by the discourse, thus the null object is bound by a sentence-internal argument. This is the case of Italian (112) where we see that there is no available discourse referent and where, therefore, it could be argued that the null object is pro and has to be licensed under agreement with a licensing head. Likewise for Brazilian Portuguese (113), which can only be acceptable under a pro analysis given that strong crossover effects are expected under a variable analysis which would, therefore, render (113) ungrammatical (despite the fact that it can be grammmatical in certain contexts at least): (112) It.

La buona musica riconcilia the good music reconcile ‘Good music reconciles with oneself.’ (following Rizzi 1986, 514)

__ __

disse que Maria não (113) BPt. Elei he said COMP Maria NEG ‘Hei said that Maria didn’t kiss (himi).’ (Cyrino 2000, 2)

con with

se REFL . IMPERS

beijou kissed

stessi. self

__i __

In the latter proposal, (ii), a null variable is bound/receives identity by a null or overt antecedent (namely, an Operator), for instance, an overtly realized Topic (see Huang 1984 for Chinese) or a discourse salient referent (also a Topic). Therefore, the interpretation of the null object in European Portuguese in (114) is coreferential with the HT, esse jogo, indicating that the null category could be generated as a variable. The same arguably holds for Spanish varieties featuring null objects (see Campos 1986), cf. (115). (114) EPt. Esse jogo, a Joana viu __ na that match the Joana saw-3SG __ to.the ‘That match, Joana saw (it) on TV yesterday.’ (Cyrino/Matos 2016, 298; following Duarte 1987)

TV TV

8 More recent approaches treat this kind of empty category as null constant (Rizzi 1994).

ontem. yesterday

Objects

137

(115) Quito Sp. Bueno yo te saco __. I you.DAT take.of __ good ‘Well, I’ll remove __ from you (=el vestido, ‘the dress’ being mentioned earlier in the discourse).’ (Suñer/Yépez 1988, 513) An important diagnostic for the pro versus the null variable analysis is the fact that null objects are ruled out in strong island contexts in European Portuguese (116) but are perfectly fine in Brazilian Portuguese (117), thus giving support to a pro analysis of Brazilian Portuguese null objects (although both strict and sloppy readings, as pointed out in Cyrino 2013, cannot be accounted for under a pro proposal): (116) EPt. a.

*Eu informei à polícia da possibilidade de I informed to.the police of.the possibility of no cofre o Manel ter guardado __k kept __ in.the safe the Manel have.INF da sala de jantar. of.the room of dining ‘I informed the police of the possibility of Manel having kept __(it) in the safe of the dining room.’ b. *O rapaz que troux-e __k mesmo agora da COMP brought-3SG __ same now of.the the boy pastelaria era o teu afilhado. pastry.shop was the your godson ‘The boy that brought __(it) just now from the pastry shop was your godson.’ (Raposo 1986, 381–382)

(117) BPt. a.

Eu informei à polícia da possibilidade de I informed to.the police of.the possibility of no cofre o Manuel ter guardado __k kept __ in.the safe the Manuel have.INF da sala de jantar. of.the room of dining ‘I informed the police of the possibility of Manuel having kept (it) in the safe of the dining room.’ b. O rapaz que troux-e __k agora mesmo da __ now same of.the the boy comp brought-3SG pastelaria era o teu afilhado. pastry.shop was the your godson ‘The boy that brought (it) just now from the pastry shop was your godson.’ (Cyrino 2000, 1)

138

Ioanna Sitaridou

Moreover, a connection has been made between null objects and the availability of VP ellipsis with auxiliaries, modals and main verbs – the latter a case of V-stranding VP ellipsis (designating the lack of the phonological expression that includes the verbal complement of a verb or verbal sequence and, optionally, its adjunct), as in (118). According to Lopes/Cyrino (2016), they are both licensed by a lexicalized aspectual head, as a consequence of the loss of generalized verb movement in Brazilian Portuguese. (118) BPt. João comprou as maçãs no supermercado, mas João bought the apples in.the supermarket but Maria não comprou __. NEG bought __ Maria ‘João bought the apples in the supermarket, but Maria didn’t.’ Within a broader crosslinguistic context, however, the emerging typology is even more complex – as Cyrino’s (2013) categorization of available accounts shows – ranging from pro to variables to null objects being bundles of features which are not pronounced at PF, to object ellipsis as the result of V-stranding VP ellipsis, to Argument Ellipsis.

6 Object vs subject extraction asymmetries While in Romance, preverbal subjects are generally not allowed to be bare in contrast to objects (with the exception of French objects, see Section 2 and Chierchia 1998; Stark 2008; among others), objects and subjects behave symmetrically vis à vis other types of extractions. In most Romance varieties, we observe that both subject (119) and object wh-extractions (120) are possible from within embedded clauses. This is noteworthy since embedded subject extraction is often ungrammatical cross-linguistically: (119) a. Cat.

b. Sp.

Hi there va goes Ahí there te you.ACC

ha la noia que pens-o que think-1SG COMP has the girl that.REL conèixer. know.INF está la chica que cre-o believe-1SG is the girl that.REL conoci-ó. knew- 3SG

et you. ACC

(que) ( COMP )

Objects

c. It.

C’ è la ragazza che there is the girl that.REL abbi-a incontrato. met have.SBJV - 3SG ‘There’s the girl that I think met you.’

cred-o believe-1SG

139

ti you.ACC

(120) a. Sp.

Ahí está la chica que cre-o que conoc-iste. there is the girl that.REL think-1SG COMP knew-2SG b. It. C’ è la ragazza che cred-o (che) think-1SG COMP there is the girl that. REL tu abbi-a incontrato. you have.SBJV - 2SG met c. Rom. Iată fata pe care cred c=ai DOM that.REL believe.1SG COMP =have.2SG there girl întâlnit=o. met=her.ACC ‘There’s the girl that I think you met.’

As is expected syntactically, neither subject (121) nor object extractions (122) are possible from syntactic islands, although Spanish shows some marginal acceptability with regards to extraction from object islands (122a): (121) a. Sp.

*Ahí está la chica que me pregunt-o there is the girl that.REL REFL . 1SG ask-1SG cuándo te conoci-ó. knew-3SG when you.ACC b. It. *C’ è la ragazza che mi chied-o there is the girl that. REL REFL . 1SG = ask-1SG quando ti abbia incontrato. met when you.ACC = have.SBJV .3SG c. Rom. ??Iată fata care mă întreb când when there girl that.REL REFL . 1SG ask.1SG te=a întâlnit. met you.ACC =have.3SG ‘There’s the girl that I wonder when she met you.’

(122) a. Sp.

??Ahí está la chica que, there is the girl that.REL cuándo la conoc-iste. knew-2SG when her.ACC

me REFL .1SG

pregunt-o, ask-1SG

140

Ioanna Sitaridou

b. It.

*C’ è la ragazza che mi chied-o ask- 1SG there is the girl that.REL REFL . 1SG quando tu l’ abbia incontrat-a. have.SBJV . 2SG met- FSG when you her.ACC c. Rom. ??Iată fata pe care mă întreb când DOM that. REL REFL . 1SG ask.1SG when there girl ai întâlnit=o. met= her.ACC have.2SG ‘There’s the girl that I wonder when you met her.’ Still, Rizzi/Shlonsky (2007) remark that there is an important extraction asymmetry between wh-objects and wh-subjects in French: while wh-object extraction is possible, wh-subject extraction is often ungrammatical (for adiscussion of extractions out of wh-clauses, see ↗22 Relative clauses; see also Starke 2001 and Baunaz 2011 for longdistance object-extractions in wh-in situ-constructions in French). The traditional explanation given for this asymmetry, with cross-linguistic validity, is that subject traces fail to be properly governed by a lexical head (123a).9 Crucially, objects can be properly governed, hence the grammaticality of (123b): (123) Fr.

a.

*Qui crois-tu que tqui va __ goes who believe=you COMP ‘Who do you believe that will win?’ b. Qui crois-tu que Paul va Paul goes who believe= you COMP ‘Who do you believe that Paul will help?’ (Rizzi/Shlonsky 2007, 119)

gagner? win.INF aider help.INF

tqui? __

To account for the asymmetry in (123) Rizzi/Shlonsky (2007) propose an analysis according to which the thematic subjects move to a position where they are “frozen”, i.e. they cannot move further. The idea is based on Rizzi’s (1996) Criterial Freezing, which states that an argument in an A'-position always moves there to satisfy a Criterion (= a particular scope-discourse interpretive property which is ensured by an obligatory position in the left periphery). Once the Criterion is satisfied (= the position reached), the argument cannot move further. Hence, thematic subjects move to Spec,SubjP, which is the position where the “subject Criterion” is checked (and the subject-predicate articulation is determined). However, Spanish and Italian do not seem to have this extraction asymmetry – compare (124) and (125) with French (123) above:  

9 According to Rizzi/Shlonsky (2007), the variant qui crois-tu qui va gagner? is acceptable at least for some speakers.

Objects

(124) Sp.

a.

(125) It.

a.

141

¿Quién cre-es que va a ganar? COMP goes to win. INF who believe-2SG ‘Who do you believe is going to win?’ b. ¿A quién cre-es que Pablo va a ayudar? Pablo goes to help.INF to who believe-2SG COMP ‘Who do you think Pablo is going to help?’ Chi cred-i che vinc-er-à? who believe-2SG COMP win-FUT - 3SG ‘Who do you believe is going to win?’ b. Chi cred-i che Paolo aiut-er-à? COMP Paolo help-FUT - 3SG who believe-2SG ‘Who do you think Paolo is going to help?’

As explained above, in the French example (123a) the subject has reached its licensing (criterial) position and, therefore, no further movement to a distinct, higher position is possible (Rizzi 2003). Crucially, in Spanish and Italian, by virtue of being null subject languages, the wh-subject can skip the subject position and obviate this freezing condition on movement: a null pronoun pro can be used to satisfy the subject criterion ((124a) and (125a)). French, however, is not a null subject language and, thus, cannot bypass this condition due to the lack of pro. A further difference between subjects and objects arises with regards to wh-movement of NP-internal arguments. Spanish diverges from French, Italian and Catalan in that specific object DPs introduced by the definite article constitute a domain from which extraction of certain types of elements is impossible (cf. (126a) vs (126b,c)). (126) a. Sp.

b. Fr.

c. It.

he visto [el retrato *Rembrandt, del quei COMP have. 1SG seen the portrait Rembrandt of.the de Aristóteles ti] of Aristotle ‘Rembrandt, whose portrait of Aristotle I have seen’ (Ormazabal 1992, 274) j’ ai vu [le portrait Rembrandt, donti the portrait Rembrandt of-whom I have.1SG seen d’ Aristote ti] of Aristotle ‘Rembrandt, of (by) whom I have seen the portrait of Aristotle’ Rembrandt, di cui ho visto il ritratto seen the portrait Rembrandt of who have.1SG di Aristotele … of Aristotle ‘Rembrandt, of (by) whom I have seen the portrait of Aristotle’

142

Ioanna Sitaridou

Overall, we have seen some evidence for subject-object asymmetries in Romance. The divergence among the Romance languages regarding the extraction asymmetry between wh-objects and wh-subjects can be explained in terms of the null subject status of the respective language: in non null subject languages and varieties, an asymmetry arises.

7 Conclusions In this chapter, various aspects of, and phenomena relating to, Romance objects have been presented. There is considerable variation across this family of languages, be it in synchronic or diachronic terms. Concluding this discussion on Romance objects, we can retain the following major points: 1 Objects are arguments of the verb that receive a semantic role and are governed by the verb. They can be divided into direct objects (DO), indirect objects (IO), and prepositional objects (PO). Lexical DOs are defined by their structural position (in the specifier of VP under unmarked discourse conditions), whereas IOs and POs can be identified mainly by their thematic role and morphologic marking properties. 2 DOs are further associated with accusative Case and IOs with dative Case; lexical DOs and IOs can be substituted by clitic pronouns which are more transparent to Case. Only Romanian has maintained morphological case distinction for some lexical categories. Some Romance varieties have developed Differential Object Marking (DOM) for a subset of DOs whose properties are (mainly) semantically defined. Romance varieties can also mark DOs by an agreement feature on the past participle. The agreement triggering conditions differ across the varieties, but often agreement on the participle marks some kind of “special”, i.e., noncanonical DO. 3 Ordering constraints of pronominal objects can be observed. Typically, Romance has been deemed not to have the English type of Double Object Construction (DOC), although this is certainly not the case for Romanian, and may well be the case for a number of other Romance varieties depending on the analysis. Some varieties also show systematic clitic doubling, again with a (mainly) semantically defined subset of objects. However, IOs are more susceptible to be doubled than DOs. Finally, in the varieties with pronominal clitics, these can show up in different positions when the predicate consists of more than one verb, as in modal, aspectual, volitional, or causative constructions. The restrictions concerning clitic placement, e.g., on the inflected auxiliary verb rather than on the main verb (a phenomenon known as clitic climbing (CC)) range from little or no CC to obligatory CC or even the simultaneous occurrence of the clitic in two different positions. 4 Not all dative pronouns are argumental. Ethical datives (EDs) also exist in Romance, which are non-truth functional and, therefore, semantically distinct  

Objects

5

6

143

from argumental datives. The use of EDs is subject to diatopic and inter-speaker variation. Some Romance objects do not receive any phonological realization, especially those that are non-specific and non-human. There are a number of theories that aim to account for the variation witnessed, namely classifying the empty category either as pro, or as a null variable, or for specific varieties (namely Brazilian Portuguese), as an unpronounced feature bundle, or as various types of ellipses. Finally, Romance, in general, displays an object-subject asymmetry with regards to bare arguments in lexically non-governed positions. But objects and subjects behave symmetrically with respect to wh-extractions, the exceptions being French and some dialects of Rhaeto-Romance, i.e., non-pro-drop varieties.  

8 References Adger, David (2014), Variability and grammatical architecture, in: Maria Carme Picallo (ed.), Linguistic Variation in the Minimalist Framework, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 179–196. Adger, David/Harbour, Daniel (2007), Syntax and syncretisms of the Person Case Constraint, Syntax 10, 2–37. Adger, David/Smith, Jennifer (2007), Variation in agreement: a lexical feature-based approach, Lingua 120, 1109–1134. Aissen, Judith L. (2003a), Differential coding, partial blocking, and bidirectional OT, in: Pawel Nowak/ Borey Yoquelet (edd.), Proceedings of the Twenty-Ninth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, Berkeley, CA, Berkeley Linguistics Society, 1–16. Aissen, Judith L. (2003b), Differential object marking: Iconicity vs economy, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 21, 435‒483. Aissen, Judith L./Perlmutter, David M. (1983), Clause reduction in Spanish, in: David. M. Perlmutter (ed.), Studies in Relational Grammar, vol. 1, Chicago, The University of Chicago Press, 360–403. Arregi, Karlos (2003), Clitic left dislocation is Contrastive Topicalization, University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 9, 31–44. Arteaga, Deborah (1995), On Old French genitive constructions, in: Jon Amastae et al. (edd.), Contemporary Research in Romance Linguistics, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, Benjamins, 79–90. Auger, Julie (1995), Les clitiques pronominaux en français parlé informel: une approche morphologique, Revue Québécoise de Linguistique 24, 21–60. Authier, Marc (1989), Arbitrary null objects and unselective binding, in: Osvaldo A. Jaeggli/Kenneth J. Safir (edd.), The Null Subject Parameter, Dordrecht, Kluwer, 45‒67. Badia i Margarit, Antoni Maria (1980), Gramática Catalana, 2 vol., Madrid, Gredos. Badia i Margarit, Antoni Maria (1994), Gramàtica de la llengua catalana: descriptiva, normativa, diatòpica, diastràtica, Barcelona, Enciclopèdia Catalana. Baker, Mark (1988), Incorporation: A Theory of Grammatical Function Changing, Chicago, IL, The University of Chicago Press. Bastos, Ana (2007), Ethical pronouns in Brazilian Portuguese, Paper presented at Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics 2007, March 8–11, 2007. Batllori Dillet, Montserrat/Gibert Sotelo, Elisabeth/Pujol Payet, Isabel (2016), Changes in the event structure of psych verbs in the history of Spanish, Paper presented at the 18th Diachronic Generative Syntax conference (DiGS 18), University of Ghent.  



144

Ioanna Sitaridou

Baunaz, Lena (2011), The Grammar of French Quantification, Dordrecht, Springer. Bel, Aurora (2002), Early verbs in the acquisition of tense features in Spanish and Catalan, in: Ana Teresa Pérez-Leroux/Juana Liceras (edd.), The Acquisition of Spanish Morphosyntax. The L1/L2 Connection, Dordrecht, Kluwer, 1–34. Belletti, Adriana (1999), Italian/Romance clitics: structure and derivation, in: Henk van Riemsdijk (ed.), Clitics in the Languages of Europe, Berlin/New York, De Gruyter, 543–579. Belletti, Adriana (2001), (Past) participle agreement, Ms., University of Siena. Belletti, Adriana (2010), Structures and Strategies, London/New York, Routledge. Belletti, Adriana/Rizzi, Luigi (1981), The syntax of “ne”: some theoretical implications, The Linguistic Review 1, 117–154. Belletti, Adriana/Rizzi, Luigi (1987), Los verbos psicológicos y la teoría temática, in: Violeta Demonte/ Marina Fernández Lagunilla (edd.), Sintaxis de las lenguas románicas, Madrid, El Arquero, 60–122. Blanche-Benveniste, Claire (1975), Recherche en vue d’une théorie de la grammaire française: essai d’application à la syntaxe des pronoms, Paris, Champion. Boneh, Nora/Nash, Léa (2012), Core and non-core datives in French, in: Beatriz Fernández/Ricardo Etxeparre (edd.), Variation in Datives, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 22–49. Bonet, Eulàlia (1991), Morphology after syntax: pronominal clitics in Romance, MIT, Cambridge, MA, Ph.D. dissertation. Bonet, Eulàlia (1994), The Person-Case Constraint: a morphological approach, MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 23, 33–52. Borer, Hagit (1986), Parametric Syntax: Case Studies in Semitic and Romance Languages, Dordrecht, Foris. Borer, Hagit/Grodzinsky, Yosef (1986), Syntactic cliticization and lexical cliticization: the case of Hebrew dative clitics, in: Hagit Borer (ed.), Syntax and Semantics, New York, Academic Press, 175–217. Bossong, Georg (1985), Empirische Universalienforschung. Differentielle Objektmarkierung in den neuiranischen Sprachen, Tübingen, Narr. Bossong, Georg (1991), Differential object marking in Romance and beyond, in: Dieter Wanner/ Douglas A. Kibbee (edd.), New Analyses in Romance Linguistics. Selected Papers from the XVIII Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages 1988, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, Benjamins, 143–170. Bossong, Georg (1998), Le marquage différentiel de l’objet dans les langues d’Europe, in: Jack Feuillet (ed.), Actance et valence dans les langues d’Europe, Berlin/New York, De Gruyter, 193–258. Bossong, Georg (2008), Die romanischen Sprachen. Eine Einführung, Hamburg, Buske. Buridant, Claude (2000), Grammaire nouvelle de l’ancien français, Paris, Sedes. Burzio, Luigi (1986), Italian Syntax, Dordrecht, Reidel. Campos, Héctor (1986), Indefinite object drop, Linguistic Inquiry 17, 354–359. Cardinaletti, Anna (2002), Against optional and null clitics. Right Dislocation vs Marginalization, Studia Linguistica 56, 29–57. Cardinaletti, Anna/Shlonsky, Ur (2004), Clitic positions and restructuring in Italian, Linguistic Inquiry 35, 519–557. Catsimali, Georgia (1989), Genikes pu prosdiorizun ti rimatiki frasi/protasi, in: Proceedings of the 9th Annual Meeting of the Department of Linguistics, Aristotelian University of Thessaloniki, 18–20 April 1988, Thessaloniki, Kyriakides, 257–275. Chierchia, Gennaro (1998), Reference to kinds across languages, Natural Language Semantics 6, 339–405. Chomsky, Noam (1981), Lectures on Government and Binding, Dordrecht, Foris.  



Objects

145

Chomsky, Noam (2001), Derivation by Phase, in: Michael Kenstowicz (ed.), Ken Hale. A Life in Language, Cambridge, MA, MIT Press, 1–52. Cinque, Guglielmo (1975), The shadow pronoun hypothesis and “chopping” rules in Romance, Linguistic Inquiry 6, 140–145. Cinque, Guglielmo (1990), Types of Ā-Dependencies, Cambridge, MA, MIT Press. Cinque, Guglielmo (1999), Adverbs and Functional Heads: A Cross-linguistic Perspective, Oxford, Oxford University Press. Cinque, Guglielmo (2006), Restructuring and functional structure, in: Guglielmo Cinque (ed.), Restructuring and Functional Heads. The Cartography of Syntactic Structures Volume 4, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 11–34. Cornilescu, Alexandra (2000), Notes on the interpretation of the prepositional accusative in Romanian, Bucharest Working Papers in Linguistics 2, 91–106. Costa, João/Lobo, Maria (2007), Clitic omission, null object or both in the acquisition of European Portuguese?, in: Sergio Baauw/Frank Drijkoningen/Manuela Pinto (edd.), Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 2005, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, Benjamins, 59–72. Cuervo, María Cristina (2003), Datives at Large, Universidad de Buenos Aires, doctoral dissertation. Cummins, Sarah/Roberge, Yves (2005), A modular account of null objects in French, Syntax 8, 44–64. Cyrino, Sonia (1997), O objeto nulo no português do Brasil: um estudo sintático – diacrônico, Londrina, Editora da UEL. Cyrino, Sonia (2000), The null object in Brazilian Portuguese, Paper presented at the University of Hamburg. Cyrino, Sonia (2008), The loss of clitic climbing in Brazilian Portuguese revisited, Paper presented at Cornell University. http://conf.ling.cornell.edu/DiGSX/abstracts/Cyrino.pdf (24.07.2016). Cyrino, Sonia (2010a), On complex predicates in Brazilian Portuguese, IBERIA 2, 1–21. Cyrino, Sonia (2010b), Null objects in Romania Nova, paper presented at the Romania Nova IV Conference, São Paulo. Cyrino, Sonia (2013), Null objects in Brazilian Portuguese revisited, Paper presented at the Workshop on Portuguese Syntax, Università Ca’ Foscari di Venezia. Cyrino, Sonia/Matos, Gabriela (2016), Null objects and VP ellipsis in European and Brazilian Portuguese, in: W. Leo Wetzels/João Costa/Sergio Menuzzi (edd.), The Handbook of Portuguese Linguistics, Malden, MA, Wiley-Blackwell, 294–317. D’Alessandro, Roberta (2011), Non-Romance features in Italo-Romance. A look into southern Italian dialects, Paper presented at the Cambridge Italian Dialect Syntax Meeting 5, University of Cambridge. D’Alessandro, Roberta/Roberts, Ian (2010), Past participle agreement in Abruzzese: split auxiliary selection and the null subject parameter, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 28, 41–72. Davies, Mark (1995), Analyzing syntactic variation with computer based corpora: the case of Modern Spanish clitic climbing, Hispania 78, 370–377. De Cat, Cécile (2002), French Dislocation, University of York, Ph.D. dissertation. De Cat, Cécile (2007), French dislocation without movement, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 25, 485–534. Demonte, Violeta (1995), Dative alternation in Spanish, Probus 7, 5–30. Deprez, Viviane (1998), Semantic effects of agreement: the case of French participle agreement, Probus 10, 1–67. Detges, Ulrich (2009), How useful is case morphology? The loss of the Old French two-case system within a theory of Preferred Argument Structure, in: Jóhanna Barđdal/Shobhana L. Chelliah (edd.), The Role of Semantic, Pragmatic, and Discourse Factors in the Development of Case, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, Benjamins, 93–122. Diaconescu, Constanţa Rodica/Rivero, María Luisa (2007), An applicative analysis of double object constructions in Romanian, Probus 19, 209–233.

146

Ioanna Sitaridou

Doetjes, Jenny/Delais-Roussarie, Elisabeth/Sleeman, Petra (2002), The prosody of left detached constituents in French, in: Bernard Bel/Isabelle Mariel (edd.), Proceedings of the Speech Prosody 2002 Conference, Aix-en-Provence, April 11–13, 2002, Aix-en-Provence, Université de Provence, 247–250. http://sprosig.isle.illinois.edu/sp2002/pdf/doetjes-etal.pdf (06.08.2016). Donaldson, Bryan (2012), Null objects in Old French: the state of the art, in: Deborah Arteaga (ed.), Research on Old French: The State of the Art, Berlin, Springer, 61–86. Dowty, David (1991), Thematic proto-roles and argument selection, Language 67, 547–619. Dragomirescu, Adina/Nicolae, Alexandru (2016), Case, in: Adam Ledgeway/Martin Maiden (edd.), The Oxford Guide to the Romance Languages, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 911–923. Duarte, Inês (1987), A construção de topicalização na gramática do Português: Regência, ligação e condições sobre movimento, Universidade de Lisboa, doctoral dissertation. Egerland, Verner (1996), The Syntax of Past Participles. A Generative Study of Nonfinite Constructions in Ancient and Modern Italian, Lund, Lund University Press. Emonds, Joseph (1999), How clitics license null phrases: a theory of the lexical interface, in: Henk van Riemsdijk (ed.), Clitics in the Languages of Europe, Berlin/New York, De Gruyter, 291–367. Escandell-Vidal, María Victoria (2002), Echo-syntax and metarepresentation, Lingua 112, 871–900. Escandell-Vidal, María Victoria (2009), Differential object marking and topicality: the case of Balearic Catalan, Studies in Language 33, 832–844. Farkas, Donka/Heusinger, Klaus von (2003), Stability of Reference and Object Marking in Romanian, Ms., University of Stuttgart. Farrell, Patrick (1990), Null objects in Brazilian Portuguese, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 8, 325–346. Feldhausen, Ingo (2010), Sentential Form and Prosodic Structure of Catalan, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, Benjamins. Fernández Soriano, Olga (1999), El pronombre personal: formas y distribución. Pronombres átonos y tónicos, in: Ignacio Bosque/Violeta Demonte (edd.), Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española, vol. 1, Madrid, Espasa Calpe, 1209–1273. Floricic, Franck (2003), Notes sur l’accusatif prépositionnel en sarde, Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 98, 247–303. Foulet, Lucien (1919), Petite syntaxe de l’ancien français, Paris, Champion. Franco, Jon/Landa, Alazne (1996), Two issues in null objects in Basque Spanish: morphological decoding and grammatical permeability, in: Karen Zagona (ed.), Grammatical Theory and Romance Languages, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, Benjamins, 159–168. Frascarelli, Mara (2000), The Syntax-Phonology Interface in Focus and Topic Constructions in Italian, Dordrecht, Kluwer. Galves, Charlotte (1989), L’objet nul et la structure de la proposition en portugais du Brésil, Revue des Langues Romanes 53, 305–336. García García, Marco (2014), Differentielle Objektmarkierung bei unbelebten Objekten im Spanischen, Berlin/Boston, De Gruyter. Gianollo, Chiara (2009), Prepositional genitives in Romance and the issue of parallel development, Paper presented at XI Diachronic Generative Syntax Conference, Universidade Estadual de Campinas. Giorgi, Alessandra (2015), Discourse and the syntax of the left periphery: Clitic Left Dislocation and Hanging Topic, in: Josef Bayer/Roland Hinterhölzl/Andreas Trotzke (edd.), Discourse-oriented Syntax, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, Benjamins, 229–250. Grevisse, Maurice (162016, 11936), Le bon usage: grammaire française, refondue par André Goosse, Paris, Duculot. Gudmestad, Aarnes (2005), Clitic climbing in Caracas Spanish: A sociolinguistic study of “ir” and “querer”, Indiana University Linguistics Club Working Papers 6, 1–14.

Objects

147

Haiman, John/Benincà, Paola (22009, 11992), The Rhaeto-Romance Languages, London/New York, Routledge. Harley, Heidi (2003), Possession and the double object construction, Yearbook of Linguistic Variation 2, 29–68. Heusinger, Klaus von/Kaiser, Georg A. (2003), Animacy, specificity and definiteness in Spanish, in: Klaus von Heusinger/Georg A. Kaiser (edd.), Proceedings of the Workshop “Semantic and Syntactic Aspects of Specificity in Romance Languages”, Konstanz, Universität Konstanz, 41–66. Heusinger, Klaus von/Onea, Edgar (2008), Triggering and blocking effects in the diachronic development of DOM in Romanian, Probus 20, 71–116. Hill, Virginia (2013). The direct object marker in Romanian: a historical perspective, Australian Journal of Linguistics 33, 140–151. Hoop, Helen de (1992), Case configuration and noun phrase interpretation, Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, Ph.D. dissertation. Huang, C.-T. James (1984), On the distribution and reference of empty pronouns, Linguistic Inquiry 15, 531–574. Iemmolo, Giorgio (2010), Topicality and differential object marking: evidence from Romance and beyond, Studies in Language 34, 239–272. Iglesias, Olivier (2012), Le placement des clitiques dans les complexes verbaux en espagnol: une nouvelle approche de la question, Université de Vincennes à Saint-Denis, doctoral dissertation. Jaeggli, Osvaldo A. (1982), Topics in Romance Syntax, Dordrecht, Foris. Jones, Michael Allan (1995), The prepositional accusative in Sardinian: its distribution and syntactic repercussions, in: Martin Maiden/John Charles Smith (edd.), Linguistic Theory and the Romance Languages, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, Benjamins, 37–75. Jong, Jelly Julia de (1996), The Case of Bound Pronouns in Peripheral Romance, Groningen University, Ph.D. dissertation. Jouitteau, Mélanie/Rezac, Milan (2008), The French ethical dative: 13 syntactic tests, Bucharest Working Papers in Linguistics 9, 97–108. Kany, Charles (1945), American-Spanish Syntax, Chicago, IL, The University of Chicago Press. Kato, Mary A. (1993), The distribution of pronouns and null elements in object position in Brazilian Portuguese, in: William Ashby/Marianne Mithun/Giorgio Perissinotto (edd.), Linguistic Perspectives on the Romance Languages, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, Benjamins, 225–236. Kayne, Richard (1975), French Syntax: The Transformational Cycle, Cambridge, MA, MIT Press. Kayne, Richard (1984), Connectedness and Binary Branching, Dordrecht, Foris. Kayne, Richard (1989a), Null subjects and clitic climbing, in: Osvaldo A. Jaeggli/Kenneth J. Safir (edd.), The Null Subject Parameter, Dordrecht, Kluwer, 129–154. Kayne, Richard (1989b), Facets of Romance past participle agreement, in: Paola Benincà (ed.), Dialect Variation and the Theory of Grammar, Dordrecht, Foris, 85–103. Kayne, Richard (1994), The Antisymmetry of Syntax, Cambridge, MA, MIT Press. Keniston, Hayward (1937), The Syntax of Castilian Prose: The Sixteenth Century, Chicago, IL, The University of Chicago Press. Kiparsky, Paul (1996), The shift to head-initial VP in Germanic, in: Hoskuldur Thrainsson/Steve Peter/ Samuel David Epstein (edd.), Comparative Germanic Syntax, Dordrecht, Kluwer, 140–179. Kiparsky, Paul (1997), The rise of positional licensing, in: Ans van Kemenade/Nigel Vincent (edd.), Parameters of Morphosyntactic Change, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 460–494. Koch, Peter (1993), Le “chinook” roman face à l’empirie. Y a-t-il une conjugaison objective en français, en italien et en espagnol et une conjugaison subjective prédéterminante en français?, in: Gerold Hilty (ed.), Actes du XXe Congrès International de Linguistique et Philologie Romanes, vol. 3: Typologie des langues romanes, Tübingen/Basel, Francke, 169–190. Kroch, Anthony (2001), Syntactic Change, Ms., University of Pennsylvania.

148

Ioanna Sitaridou

Laca, Brenda (1987), Sobre el uso del acusativo preposicional en español, Romanistisches Jahrbuch 38, 290–313. Laca, Brenda (2006), El objeto directo. La marcación preposicional, in: Concepción Company Company (ed.), Sintaxis histórica de la lengua española, vol. 1: La frase verbal, México D.F., Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México/Fondo de Cultura Económica, 421–475. La Fauci, Nunzio (1988), Oggetti e soggetti nella formazione della morfosintassi romanza, Pisa, Giardini. La Fauci, Nunzio (1989), Ausiliari perfettivi e accordo del participio passato in italiano e in francese, in: Fabio Foresti/Elena Rizzi/Paola Benedini (edd.), L’italiano tra le lingue romanze. Atti del XX Congresso Internazionale di Studi della Società di Linguistica Italiana, Bologna, 25–27 settembre 1986, Roma, Bulzoni, 213–242. Laka, Itziar (1993), The structure of inflection: A case study in X0 syntax, in: José Ignacio Hualde/Jon Ortiz de Urbina (edd.), Generative Studies in Basque Linguistics, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, Benjamins, 21–70. Lambrecht, Knud/Lemoine, Kevin (2005), Definite null objects in (spoken) French, in: Mirjam Fried/ Hans C. Boas (edd.), Grammatical Constructions: Back to the Roots, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, Benjamins, 13–55. Larjavaara, Meri (2000), Présence ou absence de l’objet. Limites du possible en français contemporain, Helsinki, Academia Scientiarum Fennica. Laubscher, Gustav George (1921), The Syntactical Causes of Case Reduction in Old French, Paris, Champion. Lazard, Gilbert (1984), Actance variations and categories of the object, in: Frans Plank (ed.), Objects, London, Academic Press, 269–292. Leal de Andrade, Aroldo (2010), The application of clitic climbing in European Portuguese and the role of register, in: Claudia Borgonovo/Manuel Español-Echevarría/Philippe Prévost (edd.), Selected Proceedings of the 12th Hispanic Linguistics Symposium, Somerville, MA, Cascadilla Proceedings Project, 97–108. Leclère, Christina (1976), Datifs syntaxiques et datifs éthiques, in: Jean-Claude Chevalier/Maurice Gross (edd.), Méthodes en grammaire française, Paris, Klincksieck, 73–96. Ledgeway, Adam (2000), A Comparative Syntax of the Dialects of Southern Italy. A Minimalist Approach, Oxford, Blackwell. Lipski, John M. (1994), Latin American Spanish, London/New York, Longman. Lopes, Ruth E. V./Cyrino, Sonia (2016), On null objects and ellipses in Brazilian Portuguese, in: Christina Tortora et al. (edd.), Romance Linguistics 2013: Selected Papers from the 43rd Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages (LSRL), New York, 17th–19th April, 2013, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, Benjamins, 257–276. Loporcaro, Michele (1998), Sintassi comparata dell’accordo participiale romanzo, Torino, Rosenberg & Sellier. Loporcaro, Michele (2008), Variation and change in morphology and syntax: Romance object agreement, in: Franz Rainer et al. (edd.), Variation and Change in Morphology: Selected Papers from the 13th International Morphology Meeting, Vienna, February 2008, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, Benjamins, 149–176. Loporcaro, Michele (2010), The logic of Romance past-participle agreement, in: Roberta D’Alessandro/Adam Ledgeway/Ian Roberts (edd.), Syntactic Variation. The Dialects of Italy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 225–243. Luraghi, Silvia (1997), Omission of the direct object in Classical Latin, Indogermanische Forschungen 102, 239–257. Luraghi, Silvia (2004), Null objects in Latin and Greek and the relevance of linguistic typology for language reconstruction, in: Karlene Jones-Bley et al. (edd.), Proceedings of the Fifteenth Annual UCLA Indo-European Conference, Washington, D.C., Institute for the Study of Man, 234–256.  



Objects

149

Maling, Joan (2001), Dative: the heterogeneity of the mapping among morphological case, grammatical functions, and thematic roles, Lingua 111, 419–464. Manzini, M. Rita/Savoia, Leonardo M. (2005), I dialetti italiani e romanci. Morfosintassi generativa, 3 vol., Alessandria, Edizioni dell’Orso. Marcellesi, Jean Baptiste (1986), Le “complément d’objet direct” en Corse, in: Jean-Claude Bouvier (ed.), Actes du XVIIe Congrès International de Linguistique et Philologie Romanes (Aix-en-Provence, 29 août–3 septembre 1983), vol. 4: Morphosyntaxe des langues romanes, Aix-en-Provence, Université de Provence, 128–137. Marchello-Nizia, Christiane (1995), L’évolution du français. Ordre des mots, démonstratifs, accent tonique, Linx 32, 197–199. Mardale, Alexandru (2008), Microvariation within differential object marking: data from Romance, Revue roumaine de linguistique 53, 448–467. Martineau, France (1990), La montée du clitique en moyen français: une étude de la syntaxe des constructions infinitives, Université d'Ottawa, Ph.D. dissertation. Martins, Ana Maria (2000), A minimalist approach to clitic climbing, in: João Costa (ed.), Portuguese Syntax: New Comparative Studies, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 169–190. Masullo, Pascual J. (1992), Incorporation and Case Theory in Spanish: A Crosslinguistic Perspective, University of Washington, Ph.D. dissertation. Masullo, Pascual J. (1993), Two types of quirky subjects: Spanish versus Icelandic, Proceedings of NELS 23, 303–317. Matushansky, Ora, et al. (2017), Intersecting PPs and the locative semantics of possession, Paper presented at the conference on Morphosyntactic variation in adpositions, Queens’ College, Cambridge, 8–9 May 2017. Meillet, Antoine (1928), Esquisse d’une histoire de la langue latine, Paris, Hachette. Meillet, Antoine (1949), Introduction à l’étude comparative des langues indo-européennes, Paris, Hachette. Mensching, Guido (2005), Remarks on specificity and related categories in Sardinian, in: Klaus von Heusinger/Georg A. Kaiser/Elisabeth Stark (edd.), Proceedings of the Workshop “Specificity and the evolution/emergence of nominal determination systems in Romance”, Konstanz, Universität Konstanz, 81–106. Michelioudakis, Dimitris/Sitaridou, Ioanna (2009), The ethic dative in Greek and Romance, Studies in Greek Linguistics 29, 355–370. Miller, Philip/Monachesi, Paola (2003), Les pronoms clitiques dans les langues romanes, in: Danièle Godard (ed.), Les langues romanes: problèmes de la phrase simple, Paris, Éditions du CNRS, 1–55. Miller, Philip/Sag, Ivan (1997), French clitic movement without clitics or movement, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 15, 573–639. Moll, Francesc de Borja (1952), Rudiments de gramàtica normativa, Palma, Moll. Monachesi, Paola (1998), On certain properties of Romanian auxiliary (and modal) verbs, in: Gosse Bouma/Geert-Jan M. Kruijff/Richard Oehrle (edd.), Proceedings of the Joint Conference on Formal Grammar, Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar and Categorial Grammar, Stanford, CA, CSLI, 196–206. Myhill, John (1988), The grammaticalization of auxiliaries: Spanish clitic climbing, in: Shelley Axmaker/Helen Singmaster (edd.), Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, February 13–15, 1988, Berkeley, CA, Berkeley Linguistics Society, 352–363. Næss, Åshild (2004a), Transitivity: From Semantics to Structure, Radbout University Nijmegen, Ph.D. dissertation. Næss, Åshild (2004b), What markedness marks: The markedness problem with direct objects, Lingua 114, 1186–1212.

150

Ioanna Sitaridou

Neeleman, Ad/Weerman, Fred (1999), Flexible Syntax, Dordrecht, Kluwer. Neeleman, Ad/Weerman, Fred (2009), Syntactic effects of morphological case, in: Andrej L. Malchukov/Andrew Spencer (edd.), The Oxford Handbook of Case, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 276–289. Neuburger, Kathrin Anne/Stark, Elisabeth (2014), Differential object marking in Corsican. Regularities and triggering factors, Linguistics 52, 365–389. Nevins, Andrew (2007), The representation of third person and its consequences for the person-case constraint, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 25, 273–313. Niculescu, Alexandru (1965), Individualitatea limbii române între limbile romanice. Contribuţii gramaticale I, Bucureşti, Editura Ştiinţifică. Octavio de Toledo y Huerta, Álvaro S. (2007), Un rasgo sintáctico del primer español moderno (ca. 1675–1825): las relaciones interoracionales con “ínterin (que)”, in: Marta Fernández Alcaide/ Araceli López Serena (edd.), Cuatrocientos años de la lengua del Quijote: estudios de historiografía e historia de la lengua española: Actas del V Congreso Nacional de la Asociación de Jóvenes Investigadores de Historiografía e Historia de la Lengua Española, (Sevilla, 31 de marzo, 1 y 2 de abril de 2005), Sevilla, Universidad de Sevilla, 421–442. Ormazabal, Javier (1992), Asymmetries on “wh”-movement and specific DPs, in: Anuario del Seminario de Filología Vasca “Julio de Urquijo” 27, 273–294. Ormazabal, Javier/Romero, Juan (2007), The object agreement constraint, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 25, 315–347. Paoli, Sandra (1997), Agreement: A Functional Projection or a Relational Property? Evidence from Past Participle Agreement in Friulian, University of York, MA thesis. Paoli, Sandra (2014), Defective object clitic paradigms and the relation between language development and loss, Journal of Linguistics 50, 143–183. Pearce, Elizabeth (1986), Language Change and Infinitival Complements in Old French, Michigan, University Microfilms. Pensado, Carmen (1995), El complemento directo preposicional: estado de la cuestión y bibliografía comentada, in: Carmen Pensado (ed.), El complemento directo preposicional, Madrid, Visor, 11–59. Perlmutter, David M. (1971), Deep and Surface Structure Constraints in Syntax, New York, Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Perlmutter, David M. (1978), Impersonal passives and the unaccusative hypothesis, in: Jeri Jaeger (ed.), Proceedings of the 4th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, Berkeley, CA, Berkeley Linguistics Society, 157–190. Perlmutter, David M. (1989), Multiattachment and the Unaccusative Hypothesis: the perfect auxiliary in Italian, Probus 1, 63–120. Pineda, Anna (2012), Explaining Romance accusative / dative alternations, Paper presented at Going Romance, Leuven, December 2012. http://www.academia.edu/9565131/_Explaining_ Romance_accusative_dative_alternations_Going_Romance_Leuven_December_2012_ Pineda, Anna (2013), Double object constructions in Spanish (and Catalan) revisited, in: Sergio Baauw et al. (edd.), Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory. Selected Papers from “Going Romance”, Utrecht 2011, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, Benjamins, 193–216. Pineda, Anna (2014), Looking for double object constructions in Romance and Basque, Paper presented at the workshop Ditransitive Constructions in a Cross-linguistic Perspective, Pavia. Plank, Frans (1979), Ergativity. Towards a Theory of Grammatical Relations, London, Academic Press. Price, Glanville (1998), Encyclopedia of the Languages of Europe, Oxford, Blackwell. Ramsden, Herbert (1963), Weak Pronoun Position in the Early Romance Languages, Manchester, Manchester University Press.

Objects

151

Raposo, Eduardo (1986), On the null object in European Portuguese, in: Osvaldo A. Jaeggli/Carmen Silva-Corvalán (edd.), Studies in Romance Linguistics, Dordrecht, Foris, 373–390. Reenen, Pieter van/Schøsler, Lene (2000), Declension in Old and Middle French. Two opposing tendencies, in: John Charles Smith/Delia Bentley (edd.), Historical Linguistics 1995: Selected Papers from the 12th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Manchester, August 1995, vol. 1: General Issues and Non-Germanic Languages, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, Benjamins, 327–344. Reinhart, Tanya (2002), The theta system: an overview, Theoretical Linguistics 28, 229–290. Rezac, Milan (2011), Phi-features and the Modular Architecture of Language, Dordrecht, Springer. Riegel, Martin/Pellat, Jean-Christophe/Rioul, René (21994), Grammaire méthodique du français, Paris, Presses Universitaires de France. Rigau, Gemma (1999), Los predicados impersonales relativos en las lenguas románicas, Revista Española de Lingüística 29, 317–356. Rizzi, Luigi (1976), Ristrutturazione, Rivista di grammatica generativa 1, 1–54. Rizzi, Luigi (1982), Issues in Italian Syntax, Dordrecht, Foris. Rizzi, Luigi (1986), Null objects in Italian and the theory of “pro”, Linguistic Inquiry 17, 501–557. Rizzi, Luigi (1994), Early null subjects and root null subjects, in: Teun Hoekstra/Bonnie D. Schwartz (edd.), Language Acquisition Studies in Generative Grammar. Papers in Honor of Kenneth Wexler from the 1991 GLOW Workshops, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, Benjamins, 151–176. Rizzi, Luigi (1996), Residual verb second and the “wh”-criterion, in: Adriana Belletti/Luigi Rizzi (edd.), Parameters and Functional Heads. Essays in Comparative Syntax, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 63–90. Rizzi, Luigi (2003), Some elements of the study of language as a cognitive capacity, in: Nicola Dimitri/ Marcello Basili/Itzhak Gilboa (edd.), Cognitive Processes and Economic Behaviour, London/New York, Routledge, 104–136. Rizzi, Luigi/Shlonsky, Ur (2007), Strategies of subject extraction, in: Hans-Martin Gärtner/Uli Sauerland (edd.), Interfaces + Recursion = Language? Chomsky’s Minimalism and the View from Syntax-Semantics, Berlin/New York, De Gruyter, 115–160. Roberge, Yves (1987), Clitic-chains and the definiteness requirement in doubling constructions, in: David Birdsong/Jean-Pierre Montreuil (edd.), Advances in Romance Linguistics, Dordrecht, Foris, 353–369. Roberge, Yves (1990), The Syntactic Recoverability of Null Arguments, Montréal, McGill-Queen’s University Press. Roberge, Yves/Vinet, Marie-Thérèse (1989), La variation dialectale en grammaire universelle, Montréal, Les Presses de l’Université de Montréal. Roberts, Ian (1997), Comparative Syntax, London, Arnold. Roberts, Ian (2016), Object clitics, in: Adam Ledgeway/Martin Maiden (edd.), The Oxford Guide to the Romance Languages, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 786–801. Rochette, Anne (1988), Réseau de corrélations: sujet nul, montée et placement des clitiques et le caractère nominal des infinitives, Revue Québécoise de Linguistique Théorique et Appliquée 7, 175–192. Romero, Juan (1997), Construcciones de doble objeto y gramática universal, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Ph.D. dissertation. Rosen, Carol (1981), The Relational Structure of Reflexive Clauses: Evidence from Italian, New York, Garland. Rosen, Carol (1990), Italian evidence for multi-predicate clauses, in: Katarzyna Dziwirek/Patrick Farrell/Errapel Mejias-Bikandi (edd.), Grammatical Relations: A Cross-theoretical Perspective, Stanford, CA, CSLI, 415–444. Rosen, Carol (1997), Auxiliation and serialization: On discerning the difference, in: Àlex Alsina/Joan Bresnan/Peter Sells (edd.), Complex Predicates, Stanford, CA, CSLI, 175–202.

152

Ioanna Sitaridou

Salvi, Giampaolo (22001), L’accordo, in: Lorenzo Renzi/Giampaolo Salvi/Anna Cardinaletti (edd.), Grande grammatica italiana di consultazione, vol. 2, Bologna, il Mulino, 227–244. Sánchez, Liliana (1998), Unmarkedness: the source of null objects in Contact Spanish, Paper presented at 16th Conference on Spanish in the US, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque. Santamarina, Antonio (1974), El verbo gallego. Estudio basado en el Valle de Suarna, Santiago de Compostela, Universidad de Santiago de Compostela. Sauzet, Patrick (2006), Doubling phenomena in Occitan, Paper presented at the Workshop on Syntactic Doubling in European Dialects, Amsterdam, Meertens Institute. [www.dialectsyntax. org/mediawiki/images/4/43/Abstract_Sauzet.pdf] Schaeffer, Jeannette C. (1997), Direct object Scrambling in Dutch and Italian Child Language, University of California at Los Angeles, Ph.D. dissertation. Schøsler, Lene (1984), La déclinaison bicasuelle de l’ancien français: son rôle dans la syntaxe de la phrase, les causes de sa disparition, Odense, Odense University Press. Schøsler, Lene (2000), Le statut de la forme zéro du complément d’objet direct en français moderne, in: Hanne Leth Andersen/Anita Berit Hansen (edd.), Le français parlé: corpus et résultats. Actes du colloque international de l’Université de Copenhague du 29 au 30 Octobre 1998, Copenhagen, Museum Tusculanum Press, 105–129. Schwenter, Scott (2006), Null objects across South America, in: Timothy Face/Carol Klee (edd.), Selected Proceedings of the 8th Hispanic Linguistics Symposium, Somerville, MA, Cascadilla Press, 23–36. Sinnott, Sarah/Smith, Ella (2007), ¿Subir o no subir? A look at clitic climbing in Spanish, Ms., The Ohio State University and Pikeville College. Sitaridou, Ioanna (2004), A corpus-based study of null subjects in Old French and Occitan, in: Claus D. Pusch/Johannes Kabatek/Wolfgang Raible (edd.), Romance Corpus Linguistics II. Corpora and Diachronic Linguistics, Tübingen, Narr, 359–374. Sitaridou, Ioanna (2009a), The structural underpinnings of (linear) OV in Old French, Paper presented at “Modelling Change: The paths of French”, Grands Travaux de Recherche Concertée, Université de Montréal. Sitaridou, Ioanna (2009b), On the emergence of personal infinitives in the history of Spanish, Diachronica 26, 36–64. Sitaridou, Ioanna (2012), A comparative study of word order in Old Romance, Folia Linguistica 46, 553–604. Sitaridou, Ioanna/Whimpanny, Helen/Ayres, Laura (2015), Variation and optionality in clitic climbing in Argentinean Spanish, Isogloss 1, 247–291. Sportiche, Dominique (1996), Clitic constructions, in: Johan Rooryck/Laurie Zaring (edd.), Phrase Structure and the Lexicon, Dordrecht, Kluwer, 213–276. Stark, Elisabeth (2008), The role of the plural system in Romance, in: Ulrich Detges/Richard Waltereit (edd.), The Paradox of Grammatical Change. Perspectives from Romance, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, Benjamins, 57–84. Stark, Elisabeth (2011), Fonction et développement du marquage différentiel de l’objet direct en roumain, en comparaison avec l’espagnol péninsulaire, in: Société de Linguistique de Paris (ed.), L’évolution grammaticale à travers les langues romanes, Leuven, Peeters, 35–61. Stark, Elisabeth (2016), Nominal morphology and semantics – Where’s gender (and “partitive articles”) in Gallo-Romance?, in: Susann Fischer/Mario Navarro (edd.), Proceedings of the VII Nereus International Workshop “Clitic Doubling and other issues of the syntax/semantic interface in Romance DPs”, Konstanz, Universität Konstanz, 131–149. Starke, Michael (2001), Merge Dissolves into Move, Université de Genève, doctoral dissertation. Stroh, Hans (2002), L’accord du participe passé en Occitan rouergat et en français, Rodez, Grelh Roergàs.

Objects

153

Strozer, Judith R. (1976), Clitics in Spanish, University of California at Los Angeles, Ph.D. dissertation. Suñer, Margarita/Yépez, María (1988), Null definite objects in Quiteño, Linguistic Inquiry 19, 511–519. Swart, Henriette de (2007), A cross-linguistic discourse analysis of the perfect, Journal of Pragmatics 39, 2273–2307. Tesnière, Lucien (1959), Éléments de syntaxe structurale, Paris, Klincksieck. Torrego, Esther (1995), On the nature of clitic doubling, in: Héctor Campos/Paula Kempchinsky (edd.), Evolution and Revolution in Linguistic Theory, Washington, D.C., Georgetown University Press, 399–418. Torrego, Esther (1998), The Dependencies of Objects, Cambridge, MA, MIT Press. Torres Morais, Maria Aparecida/Lima Salles, Heloisa M. M. (2010), Parametric change in the grammatical encoding of indirect objects in Brazilian Portuguese, Probus 22, 181–209. Uriagereka, Juan (1995), Some aspects of the syntax of clitic placement in Western Romance, Linguistic Inquiry 26, 79–123. Vincent, Nigel (2000), Competition and correspondence in syntactic change: null arguments in Latin and Romance, in: Susan Pintzuk/George Tsoulas/Anthony Warner (edd.), Diachronic Syntax: Models and Mechanisms, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 25–50. Zwart, Jan-Wouter (2001), Syntactic and phonological verb movement, Syntax 4, 34–62. Zwicky, Arnold (1977), On Clitics, Bloomington, IN, Indiana University Linguistics Club.

Richard Waltereit

4 Argument structure and argument structure alternations Abstract: This chapter discusses argument structure in Romance languages. After a brief review of some of the main issues that current descriptions of argument structure are faced with, and of some of the most prominent answers to address these issues (Section 1), I discuss the major types of grammatical relations in Romance relevant for argument selection, and the problem of identifying the valency of lexical items (Section 2). Section 3 is an excursus about the argument structure of nouns and adjectives. Section 4 is devoted to the main descriptive problem of argument structure in Romance (or any language or language family), namely the identification of linking patterns. Section 5 addresses argument alternations. Section 6 is a brief summary.  



Keywords: transitivity, valency, argument, semantic role, event structure  

1 What is argument structure? Historically, the notion of argument structure is grounded in the recognition that there are no consistent semantic correlates to grammatical relations (in particular, subjects and objects). Consider the following Italian examples, from Salvi (2001, 64‒66): (1)

It.

Giovanni profuma il Giovanni perfume.3SG the ‘Giovanni scents his dog.’

(2)

It.

Il sasso ruppe la the the rock smashed. 3SG ‘The rock smashed the window.’

finestra. window

(3)

It.

La pietra rotolò giù down the stone rolled.3SG ‘The stone rolled down the slope.’

per across

(4)

It.

Maria ha sentito heard Maria have.3SG ‘Maria heard Bergonzi sing.’

DOI 10.1515/9783110377088-004

suo his

cane. dog

cantare sing.INF

il the

Bergonzi. Bergonzi

pendio. slope

Argument structure and argument structure alternations

(5)

It.

Il giardino pullula di the garden abound.3SG of ‘The garden abounds with wasps.’

155

vespe. wasps

The semantic contribution made by the subject is very different in each of these sentences. In (1), it is an AGENT performing the action of ‘scenting’; in (2), it represents the INSTRUMENT of an action which implies an agent; in (3), it has a relatively passive role, often referred to as THEME or OB JECT ; in (4), it refers to the EXPERIENCE (as opposed to agency) of a sentient being; and in (5) it refers to a LOCATION . Despite this diversity, the syntax-semantics relationship in verbal arguments is far from arbitrary. An argument with a THEME role can be a subject as in (3), but THEME would also appear to characterize the direct objects il suo cane in (1) and la finestra in (2), and the prepositional phrase di vespe in (5). By contrast, in the non-subject arguments there does not seem to be any AGENT ; the AGENT role is represented only by a grammatical subject, whether in combination with a finite verb in (1) or a non-finite one in (4). Thus, the object is quite variable in its semantic role, though not as much as the subject. Oblique relations, though, i.e. grammatical relations other than subject and object, are less variable in their semantic import. Thus, grammatical relations such as subject, object etc. do not (fully) determine their semantic contribution; rather, a separate layer of information is involved – argument structure, a layer where a predicate (usually, a verb, but also nouns or adjectives) is described according to the number and type (semantic role, morphosyntactic properties) of its arguments. A number of approaches exist with respect to how this layer of information is organized, and how it interacts with the selection of grammatical relations, and with other components of grammatical information. An argument can be defined as an expression that completes the respective predicate semantically, is considered to be obligatory and receives a semantic role from the predicate. Although there is considerable overlap between the notion of argument and that of complement (= obligatory modifier of a head), they can be distinguished on the basis of the last criterion: whereas both denote obligatory elements, there are complements, but not arguments, without a semantic role (predicative complements). The question of how syntactic and semantic layers of predicates interact derives, in turn, from a more fundamental property of human language underlying the representation of events. Individual events are expressed by combining an event-type with a selection of designated participant-types. They reflect an underlying verbal “scene” (cf. Fillmore 1977). The event-types are predicates; their participants are arguments. Prototypically, predicates are verbs, and arguments are nouns or pronouns; but both can also be expressed by other word-classes (cf. Section 3). In other words, events are normally expressed by articulating several lexical items. This pattern is implied in the very concept of argument structure. Note that such an arrangement, whatever its specifics may be, involves a certain amount of typification and of analysis, where the event is broken down into identified component-types. The  



156

Richard Waltereit

choice of predicate implies categorization as a type of event, and the choice of argument implies categorization as a type of participant. Endeavours to characterize the semantic layer of predicates, and its interaction with the syntactic layer, have led to a number of types of theoretical constructs that address the following questions (Levin/Rappaport Hovav 2005; Croft 2012): i. Participant roles: How can the inventory of participant roles be characterized? ii. Event structure: How are events typified in the semantic layer of predicates? iii. How do participant roles map onto syntactic arguments? Note that answers to these questions interlock, since any attempt to characterize event structure will have an impact on how the participant roles slotting into these event structures are to be defined, and vice versa. The first approach to argument structure (Fillmore 1968; 1971) conceived of it as selection from a list of semantic argument-types. Many lists have been proposed; other than the argument-types mentioned at the beginning of this section, Fillmore (1971) included COUNTER - AGENT (the force or resistance against which the action is carried out), RESULT (the entity that comes into existence as a result of the action), SOURCE (the place from which something moves), and GOAL (the place to which something moves). Other proposals include, for example, FUNCTION (I used the stick as a club, cf. Comrie/Smith 1977, 29‒33), PURPOSE (He made a manger for the church play, cf. Jackendoff 1990, 184), or REPRESENTATION SOURCE (I photocopied the article, cf. Dowty 1991, 569). All lists have in common, though, that they are finite and relatively small (Croft 2012, 180). The list-model addresses the relative semantic indeterminacy of grammatical relations by implicitly assuming an analogy between a finite set of grammatical relations and an equally finite set, of comparable size, of semantic argument-types. One of the main research questions for the list model, then, is the mapping of semantic onto syntactic arguments, i.e. linking. Some of the key difficulties that have beset the debate are that several labels may be applicable to one syntactic argument, and, more importantly, that a semantic role-label may not always be found to be appropriate for a given syntactic argument. Underlying these difficulties is the issue that the role labels were construed as primitives (Croft 2012, 176). An interesting approach to this problem is offered by Koch (1981). He argued that role labels proposed in accounts of argument structure should be conceived of as abstractions over components of individual verb meanings. Koch’s model is distinctive in that he derives his role labels from the meaning of pro-verbs (verba vicaria) in the language under consideration, thus avoiding the potential circularity inherent in positing role-labels as primitives that are then used to analyse actual verb meanings. A variant of this line of thought can be seen in the macro-role approach (Van Valin 1999), where lower-level primitive roles are grouped into progressively more abstract higher-level roles. At the most abstract level, there are  

Argument structure and argument structure alternations

157

only two macro-roles: ACTOR and UNDERGOER . Agency, or the lack thereof, guides the abstraction process. A partial alternative to the list-type model of argument structure are theories of event structure. Rather than categorizing events exclusively by the type of participant involved, this approach gives some weight to categorizing events by breaking them up into types of sub-events. This usually takes the form of assuming two tiers of meaning: one containing a small set of primitive predicates, including CAUSE, DO/ACT, BECOME (cf. Jackendoff 1990; Rappaport Hovav/Levin 1998), and another one containing a larger set of verbal “roots”. The combination of elements from the two tiers, via some form of logical calculus, yields actual verb meanings. For example, Spanish romper ‘to break’ can be decomposed into [[X ACT] CAUSE [Y BECOME ]] (Mateu 2012, 334). ACT, CAUSE, and BECOME are primitive predicates not specific to Spanish, whereas is a Spanish-specific root. Event decomposition puts the linking between syntactic arguments and semantic argument structure on a more principled footing than a mere list approach does, since the semantic arguments of the primitive predicates are matched with designated grammatical relations. This matching is either absolute (for each argument of the primitive predicate a designated grammatical relation, cf. Levin/Rappaport Hovav 2005, 146‒147), or relative (allowing for the interdependence of designation of grammatical relations, cf. Levin/Rappaport Hovav 2005, 147‒152). In any case, though, since the primitive predicates recur across a great number of verbs, the linking procedure should be more consistent than when operating with a list of rolelabels only. A potential weakness of this approach, of course, is that the primitive predicates will again need to be posited. Koch (1981) avoids some of these pitfalls by working with constituent predicates that are themselves verbs of the language and can be used as pro-verbs. For example, French demander ‘to ask’ is considered to contain, at the most general level of its event structure, the constituent verb y avoir ‘to occur’ ‘to exist’; at a slightly less general level the constituent verb se passer ‘to happen’; down to the more specific demander. A key reference in contemporary thinking about argument structure continues to be Dowty’s (1991) proto-role theory. It is an ingenious combination of the list and the event-structure approach, while avoiding some of the weaknesses of both. The key element here is entailment of contributing properties from predicates. Contributing properties of event participants are entailed from the predicate; these entailments are then grouped into one of two sets, the AGENT proto-role and the PATIENT proto-role (based on Dowty 1991, 572):  

158

Richard Waltereit

Table 1: Agent and patient proto-role contributing properties (Dowty 1991) Agent proto-role contributing properties

Patient proto-role contributing properties

volitional involvement in the event or state sentience causing an event or change of state in another participant movement relative to another participant existence independent of event

undergoes change of state incremental theme (affected object changes proportionally as event proceeds) causally affected by another participant stationary relative to another participant does not exist independently of event

A participant with a greater number of agent proto-role properties than with patient proto-role properties will be realized as a subject; in the opposite case it will be realized as an object (Dowty 1991, 576). Thus, there are agent and patient prototypes; crucially, this allows for some variability in subject vs object realization, and diachronic change, if predicates have an equal number of proto-agent and protopatient properties. We will return to this in Section 4.3. Dowty’s model is a major advance over the potentially circular role-list models; and the reference to predicate properties contains an element of event structure, while avoiding the rigidity of the two-tier event decomposition approach. A limitation of Dowty’s model, however, is that it applies only to those predicates, and by extension languages under consideration, that have a syntactic subject and a syntactic direct object (Croft 2012, 191). The growing importance of event structure in analysing the relation between grammatical relations and their semantic contribution (Croft 2012, 3) reflects a reversal of perspective. Whereas early research, beginning with Tesnière (1959), tended to be “semasiological” in that it sought generalizations over the semantic import of grammatical relations, researchers are increasingly adopting an “onomasiological” perspective where events are taken as the starting point and the linguistic realization of their participants as arguments of predicates (argument selection) is the focus of inquiry. Du Bois (2003, 27‒30) distinguishes distinct components in the overall process of argument selection: inclusion, linking, targeting, and realization. Inclusion specifies which participants of the event will be verbalized in the sentence. Targeting defines the grammatical roles that are available for association with event participants, that is, in the case of verbal predicates, subject, (prepositional) object, and so on. Linking matches, in a general way, function with grammatical relation. Realization spells out the matching of functions with roles for the specific predicate. Du Bois’ analytical dissection of argument selection shows that the process applies to the individual event, to the predicate as a lexical unit, as well as to patterns of selection and linking generalized over verbs. The selection process and the relationship between the individual and the patterns of the general level are referred to as argument structure.

159

Argument structure and argument structure alternations

2 Argument structure and valency in Romance languages 2.1 Syntactic expressions of arguments A number of form-types (grammatical relations) are relevant for argument structure in Romance languages. Apart from subject (cf. ↗2 Subjects) and object, including indirect objects (cf. ↗3 Objects), the following are characteristic for Romance languages.

2.1.1 Prepositional objects “Prepositional object” is a cover term for prepositional phrases that are selected as arguments by their head not by virtue of occupying a designated structural position (cf. ↗3 Objects), but by virtue of the head subcategorizing for a preposition. Traditionally, the prepositional object covers all such phrases headed by a preposition, other than the preposition used for the indirect object. Note, however, that direct objects that carry a preposition as a result of Differential Object Marking (DOM) (cf. ↗3 Objects) are not prepositional objects. Some examples:  

(6)

Fr.

Je compte sur mes my. PL I count.1SG on ‘I’m counting on my friends.’

(7)

Sp.

Ese trabajo carece de this work lack.3SG of ‘This work lacks preparation.’

amis. friends

preparación. preparation

French à, while being the preposition (or case marker) that heads indirect objects, is considered able to head prepositional objects also (Kotschi 1981). The feature distinguishing à as head of an indirect object phrase from à as head of a prepositional object phrase is that for the prepositional object, the anaphor is the locative pronoun y or à plus a stressed strong pronoun (à lui/elle) (8a), whereas for the indirect object, the anaphor is the personal pronoun lui/elle (8b): (8)

Fr.

à sa ville natale; il y Pierre pense his town natal he Y Pierre think.3SG A ‘Pierre thinks of his hometown. He thinks of it.’ b. Pierre donne un cadeau à sa mère; il le lui Pierre give.3SG a present A his mother he it LUI ‘Pierre gives a present to his mother. He gives it to her.’ a.

pense. think.3SG donne. give.3SG

160

Richard Waltereit

2.1.2 Measure complements Measure complements are arguments that are not direct objects; i.e., they do not receive structural case merely by occupying a designated structural position (cf. ↗3 Objects). They share this characteristic with prepositional objects and indirect objects. However, unlike these, they are not PPs; rather, they are DPs or QPs. Unlike direct objects, they do not easily lend themselves to cliticization (9)–(10), although cliticization is not categorically impossible (11) (data from Smith 1992):  



los them.ACC

pesa. weigh.3SG

(9)

Sp.

?Cien kilos, Juan hundred kilos Juan ‘Juan weighs 100 kilos.’

(10)

Fr.

??Trois heures, ce concert les three hours this concert them.ACC ‘This concert will well last three hours.’

(11)

Fr.

Trois aunes? Ce drap les three ells this cloth them.ACC ‘Three ells? This cloth measured them.’

durera last.FUT . 3SG

a have.3SG

bien. well

mesuré. measured

As Smith (1992) shows, measure complements do not behave like objects, either, where causativization, passivization, and agreement (11) are concerned. As a further distinction, Rizzi (1990) demonstrates that they cannot be extracted from wh-islands, again unlike direct objects: (12)

a. b.

What did John wonder how to weigh? Apples. What did John wonder how to weigh? *200 pounds.

Smith (1992) suggests that in French, and in Romance more generally, the same contrast holds: (13)

Fr.

a.

Qu’est-ce qu’ il a décidé comment what he have.3SG decided how Des pommes. ART . PL . INDF apples ‘What did he decide how to weigh? Apples.’ b. Qu’est-ce qu’ il a décidé comment what he have.3SG decided how *Cent kilos. hundred kilos ‘What did he decide how to weigh? 100 kilos.’

peser? weigh.INF

peser? weigh.INF

Argument structure and argument structure alternations

161

2.2 Distinguishing arguments from non-arguments As indicated in Section 1 above, early research into argument structure took lexical entries of verbs as the starting point, and sought to characterize the semantic contribution associated with their grammatical relations. When adopting this semasiological perspective, a natural question arises: what are the semantic roles associated with the respective grammatical relations that are actually required by a given verb at the level of its lexical entry? For example, in (14), it is quite straightforward to assume that the subject (je) is required as an AGENT by the lexical entry of remercier ‘to thank’. (14)

Fr.

Je vous remercie de tout of all I you.ACC . PL thank. 1SG ‘I thank you from the bottom of my heart.’

mon my

cœur. heart

However, can the same be said about the PP de tout mon cœur, even when generalizing over verb meanings? Of course, similar questions can be asked for just about any verb. This was the starting point for a long and distinguished research programme into valency, to use Tesnière’s (1959) term – how many grammatical relations, and of which type, come with a predicate? Historically, this research programme was pursued particularly vigorously in German Romance linguistics. In particular, it gave rise to valency dictionaries for a number of standard Romance languages: Busse/Dubost (1983) for French, Blumenthal/Rovere (1998) for Italian, Busse et al. (1995) for Portuguese, and Engel/Savin (1983) for Romanian. These dictionaries aim at itemizing the valency of the language’s verbal inventory items. Despite this, though, it has never been possible to settle the underlying question in any given clause, is a given phrase lexically selected by the predicate or not? in a principled way. A number of criteria as a means to answering this question have been discussed. The original valency criterion is obligatoriness, so that failure to verbalize a putative argument would result either in an ungrammatical utterance (15c,d) or in a reading where the non-verbalized argument is understood as implied (cf. (16c,d)). This contrasts with the optionality of non-arguments ((15a,b), (16a,b)): (15)

Sp.

a.

Ayer, el golpe destrozó el the yesterday the blow shattered.3SG ‘Yesterday, the blow shattered the vase.’ b. El golpe destrozó el jarrón. the vase the blow shattered.3SG ‘The blow shattered the vase.’ c. *Ayer, el golpe destrozó. yesterday the blow shattered.3SG ‘Yesterday, the blow shattered.’

jarrón. vase

162

Richard Waltereit

d. *El golpe destrozó. the blow shattered.3SG ‘The blow shattered.’ (16)

Sp.

a.

Pedro bebe una cerveza todos los Pedro drink.3SG a beer all.PL the ‘Pedro has a beer every day.’ b. Pedro bebe una cerveza. beer Pedro drink.3SG a ‘Pedro has a beer.’ c. Pedro bebe todos los días. the days Pedro drink.3SG all.PL ‘Pedro drinks every day (something/habitually).’ d. Pedro bebe. Pedro drink.3SG ‘Pedro drinks (something/habitually).’

días. days

Thus, it is claimed, Spanish destrozar ‘to destroy’ and beber ‘to drink’ are verbs with two arguments. The availability of a non-specific reading for a dropped complement/ argument as in (16d), though, makes obligatoriness a slightly less compelling criterion for argumenthood. After all, the non-specific reading implies that the argument is still there but not realized; this seems, at least in the first instance, to conflict with obligatoriness as essential to argumenthood. In addition, clauses with a dropped argument that would be unacceptable when considered in isolation may be perfectly acceptable in context (Koch/Oesterreicher 1990, 77): (17)

Fr.

une fumée pas possible CRAC je me gare, possible I myself stop.1SG a smoke NEG je soulève, ouh plus de moteur no.more of engine I raise.1SG ouh ‘an incredible cloud of smoke, I stop, I open [the hood], oh no engine any more’

The verb soulever ‘to raise’ would normally require a direct object; nevertheless, in this context, where it is used without one, it is understood that the car’s hood is the implied object, and the sentence is indeed acceptable. This makes obligatoriness a very unreliable criterion. Findings like this led Thompson/Hopper (2001) to question the very concept of argument structure. On the basis of frequency data, they argued that the co-occurrence of DPs and verbs in discourse is not so much guided by the selectional characteristics of lexical entries (as the notion of argument structure would suggest), but rather by speakers’ stored knowledge of surface patterns of collocation.

Argument structure and argument structure alternations

163

The obligatoriness criterion construes argumenthood as very close in nature to complementhood. Complements are obligatory modifiers of syntactic heads. For example, pasteur in French son père est pasteur ‘his/her father is a minister’ is a predicative complement, without however being an argument (as it does not have a semantic role assigned). More narrowly, complements are sister nodes of heads. Another criterion for the distinction between arguments (and complements) and non-arguments is syntactic mobility. Adjuncts are said to be more flexible in their syntactic position than arguments/complements. Consider the event of thanking. It seems reasonable to assume that what somebody is thanked for is more specific to the event of thanking than the attitude of mind the thanking person has. This can correlate with a contrast in flexibility of position, cf. (18b) vs (18d): (18)

Fr.

a.

Je vous remercie de tout mon cœur. whole my heart I you.ACC . PL thank. 1SG of ‘I thank you from the bottom of my heart.’ b. De tout mon cœur, je vous remercie. of whole my heart I you.ACC . PL thank. 1SG ‘I thank you from the bottom of my heart.’ c. Je vous remercie d’ être venu. be.INF come. PTCP I you.ACC . PL thank. 1SG of ‘I thank you for coming.’ d. *D’ être venu, je vous remercie. I you.ACC . PL thank. 1SG of be.INF come. PTCP ‘I thank you for coming.’

We appear therefore to have established that what is being thanked for is an argument (d’être venu), whereas the attitude of mind adopted when thanking is an adjunct (de tout mon cœur). However, the criterion of syntactic flexibility is not wholly reliable, either. Sometimes what appear to be non-arguments cannot be pre-posed: (19)

Fr.

a.

Le poème se développe REFL develops the poem ‘The poem unfolds harmoniously.’ b. *Harmonieusement, le poème harmoniously the poem ‘The poem unfolds harmoniously.’

harmonieusement. harmoniously se REFL

développe. develops

Conversely, sometimes phrases that arguably are arguments may be pre-posed: (20)

Fr.

a.

J’ ai offert ce livre I have.1SG offered this book ‘I offered this book to my brother.’

à to

mon my

frère. brother

164

Richard Waltereit

b. A mon frère, j’ ai to my brother I have.1SG ‘I offered this book to my brother.’

offert offered

ce this

livre. book

More tests for argumenthood are reviewed in Jacobs (1994). The very fact that grammatical tests for argumenthood have been deemed unreliable affords one key insight: argumenthood is, ultimately, an intuitive notion that grammatical tests are merely trying to approximate; it reflects linguists’ intuition about what they see as integral to an event-type. By the same token, the valency of any given verb cannot be determined with certainty. In fact, Jacobs (1994) argues in his critical discussion of valency theory, in particular of its long quest for a hard-and-fast test of the argument/adjunct distinction, that grammatical criteria such as obligatoriness or syntactic flexibility cannot actually reveal argumenthood; rather, he suggests, they reflect an interpretation of what argumenthood means. The difficulties in establishing criteria for argumenthood, and for valency of individual verbs, ultimately stem from the tension, referred to in Section 1, that arises from matching generalized and typified patterns of language structure to unique events. Thus, one might say that diverging tests for argumenthood reflect competition between theories of argument structure. Indeed, the reversal of perspective from a more semasiological (taking surface forms as the starting point) to a more onomasiological perspective (taking events as starting points), alluded to in Section 1, has meant that current research is now much less concerned with establishing testable criteria for argumenthood.  

3 Argument structure of nouns and adjectives While verbs are specialized in the linguistic representation of events and are therefore the prototypical word class for argument structure, other word classes may also have an argument structure, in particular nouns and adjectives. By morphological derivation, many verbs can be turned into nouns: French laver ‘to wash’ > lavage ‘washing’; Italian elaborare ‘to elaborate’ > elaborazione ‘elaboration’. Also, nouns can refer to the event described in a verb without being in a relation of morphological derivation with them in the contemporary grammar of the language: French chute ‘fall’ – tomber ‘to fall’. These nouns are often called simple event nominals (Grimshaw 1990). With both nominalizations and simple event nominals, there can be a distinction between process and result readings. For example, Spanish aparcamiento can be both the ‘action of parking a car’ (21a) and the ‘car park’ (21b):

165

Argument structure and argument structure alternations

(21)

Sp.

a.

Enrique no obtuvo su permiso de conducir got.3SG his license of drive. INF Enrique NEG porque falló en el aparcamiento. in the parking because failed. 3SG ‘Enrique did not get his driving license because he failed the parking test.’ b. Esperaban en el aparcamiento. the car.park waited.IPFV .3 PL in ‘They were waiting in the car park.’

Likewise, the French noun achat can refer to the purchase as a process (22a) and the item bought (22b): (22)

Fr.

a.

La saisie du code valide l’ achat. the purchase the input of.the code validate.3SG ‘Entering the PIN completes the purchase.’ b. Suzanne et Jean transportaient leurs achats their purchases Suzanne and Jean carried.IPVF .3PL en métro. in metro ‘Suzanne and Jean carried their purchases on the metro.’

There is a link between the action of parking and the place where this action happened, and there is a link between the action of buying and the merchandise bought: they belong respectively to the same scenes or frames (cf., e.g., Detges 2004). Nominalizations and event nominals can both have the same arguments as the verbs to which they are morphologically or conceptually related: (23)

Fr.

a.

Le téléphone était tombé sur le the the phone be.IPFV .3SG fallen.MSG on ‘The phone had fallen on the floor.’ b. la chute du téléphone sur le sol the fall of.the phone on the floor ‘The fall of the phone on the floor’

(24)

It.

a.

sol. floor

Abbiamo elaborato il programma dell’ evento. elaborated the programme of.the event have.1PL ‘We created the event’s programme.’ b. la nostra elaborazione del programma dell’ evento elaboration of.the programme of.the event the our.F ‘our creation of the event’s programme’

166

Richard Waltereit

What is the relationship between the argument structure of the verb and that of its corresponding event nominal or nominalization? According to the argument inheritance model (Grimshaw 1990; Olsen 1992; Harley 2009; among others), this relationship is a grammatical one, where morphological derivation involves, in some form, a transfer of the verb’s argument structure to the derived noun. Lieber/Baayen (1999, 176) distinguish a “loose” version of argument inheritance from a “strict” one. In the “loose” version, nominalizing affixes perform operations on the underlying verb’s argument structure, thus allowing for some variance between the underlying verb’s and the resulting nominalization’s argument structures. In the “strict” version, the underlying verb’s argument structure is copied either faithfully to the nominalization’s argument structure, or not at all. Detges (2004) argues that the apparent similarity in participants observed in e.g. (23a) and (23b), and (24a) and (24b) respectively, is not the result of a transfer of argument structure by way of grammatical operation (argument inheritance), but a side-effect of something else, namely that morphologically related words, and in fact the various readings of polysemous lexical items, refer to aspects of meaning that are related by virtue of being about the same scene (cf. Detges 2004, 33). An argument for this hypothesis is that nouns that are neither morphologically nor semantically related to a base verb can apparently take arguments in a similar way to those that are (cf. Detges 2004, 30‒31 for this point): (25)

Pt.

a.

o planeador desta the planner of.this ‘the planner of this house’ b. o arquitecto desta the architect of.this ‘the architect of this house’

casa house casa house

The verb planear ‘to plan’ denotes an event; the noun planeador is morphologically derived from it, and it can take an argument that is very similar to one the verb planear would take as in, say, planear uma casa ‘to plan a house’. Now, the morphologically simple noun arquitecto, similar in meaning to the noun planeador, can take what appears to be the same argument, even though it cannot conceivably have inherited this argument in a morphology-based grammatical process. In fact, it is common for nouns to take arguments of their own, in particular relational nouns (mother, colleague, etc.). Thus, the argument Detges is making is that the capacity of nouns to head dependent phrases is based on the conceptual scene they are profiled against, just as in fact with verbs, rather than being the result of a designated grammatical process of argument inheritance. A similar argument can be made about adjectives. Adjectives modify nouns and verbs (cf. ↗21 Adjectival and genitival modification). In turn, they can be the head of PPs and complement clauses (Noailly 1999):

Argument structure and argument structure alternations

(26)

Fr.

167

a.

une maison identique à une autre a house identical to a other ‘a house identical to another one’ b. désireux que tout se passe bien REFL goes well eager that everything ‘wishing that everything goes well’

As Noailly (1999, 70) points out, complement clauses governed by French adjectives, even if not headed by a preposition, behave syntactically not like direct objects, since their anaphor is the adjunct pronoun en, rather than the direct object pronoun le. Compare (27a) and (27b): (27)

Fr.

a.

Blaise est désireux que tout se passe bien. well Blaise is eager that everything REFL goes Il (en/*l’) est désireux. is eager he (EN /*it. ACC ) ‘Blaise is wishful for everything to go well. He is wishful of this.’ b. Blaise désire que tout se passe bien. REFL goes well Blaise wishes that everything Il (le/*en) désire. wishes He (it.ACC /EN ) ‘Blaise wishes that everything goes well. He wishes it.’

However, Noailly (1999, 73) also points out that the pronouns en and y can be anaphors of adjectival complements only if these adjectives are used in combination with copular verbs, as is indeed the case in (27a).

4 Linking in Romance languages We saw in Section 1 that the linguistic representation of events relies on generalized patterns of splitting events into predicates and arguments, where the surface expression of arguments (grammatical relations) and their function (semantic role) are paired. The pairing patterns are called the linking process. We will now look at some of the main issues of linking found in Romance languages.

4.1 The accusative linking type Typologically speaking, Romance languages belong, at the highest level of generalization, to the “accusative” linking-type. In this linking-type, verbs have obligatory subject arguments, which can host a large variety of semantic roles (cf. ↗2 Subjects).

168

Richard Waltereit

In particular, predicates with (28a) or without (28b) an AGENT role have a grammatical subject: (28)

Sp.

a.

Carlos trabajaba todos los all. PL the Carlos work. IPFV . 3SG ‘Carlos was working every day.’ b. Ana estaba en su piso. in her flat Ana be.IPFV . 3SG ‘Ana was in her flat.’

días. days

This is in contrast to another major high-level linking pattern found across languages, the “ergative” type. In this linking-type, most generally speaking, the “subject of an intransitive clause is treated in the same way as the object of a transitive clause, and different from transitive subject” (Dixon 1994, 1). One example for this is Basque: (29)

Basque

a.

Gizon-ak mutil-a ikusi.du. boy-ABS saw man-ERG ‘The man saw the boy.’ b. Gizon-a etorri da. has arrived man-ABS ‘The man has arrived.’

The default argument form-type is the absolutive case (mutila in (29a), gizona in (29b)). If the predicate has an agent, as in (29a), then this AGENT is encoded in the ergative form-type, while the other role is still encoded in the default “absolutive” argument type. Having said this, there is one distinctive feature that figures prominently in discussions about the top-level linking type that Romance languages belong to: past participle agreement. Past participle agreement can be seen as a form of object agreement: (30)

It.

(La sua decisione) Gianni l’ ha his. F decision. F Gianni it.F . ACC has the. F ‘Gianni has made his decision.’ (Loporcaro 2010a, 150)

presa. taken. F

In modern Romance standard languages, past participle agreement with the direct object obtains only in a subset of syntactically defined contexts (cf. Loporcaro 2010b for a detailed breakdown, including a pattern of implicational relations between these contexts). However, in some varieties, it obtains across the board, including with lexical direct objects in canonical post-verbal position, as in the following example from Neapolitan, from Loporcaro (2010b, 226):

169

Argument structure and argument structure alternations

(31)

Nap.

Addʒə kɔttə/ cooked.F have. 1SG ‘I cooked the pasta.’

*kwottə cooked.M

a the. F

pastə. pasta. F

In other varieties, it is optional in that context, as in Périgord Occitan (cf. Miremont 1976, 53; apud Loporcaro 2010b, 233): (32)

Périgord Occ.

Avem fach/ have.1PL made.M ‘We made peace.’

facha made. F .

la the. F

paz. peace. F

Also, La Fauci (1994) and Loporcaro (e.g. 2010a,b) assume that in Proto-Romance, past participle agreement of lexical direct object with transitive verbs was obligatory. This assumption crucially hinges on another assumption, though, namely that in Proto-Romance, the past participle in combination with transitive verbs had already been reanalysed from a resultative construction to a perfective tense (cf. ↗11 Tense, aspect, mood). Otherwise the past participle agreement would not reflect agreement with the verb (i.e., indicating object agreement), but merely agreement within the DP. See the following example from the Novellino (late 13th c.), from Loporcaro (2010b, 232):  

(33)

OIt.

se tu hai trovati o veduti or seen.MPL if you have.2SG found. MPL mattina di questi uccelli birds.MPL morning of these.MPL ‘if you found or saw such birds this morning’

in in

questa this

In other words, Neapolitan, as in (31), may simply be a particularly conservative Romance variety, while Périgord Occitan (32) has moved a little closer towards the present standard Romance pattern. La Fauci (1994) and Bentley (2006) see the object agreement inherent in past participle agreement as indicative of a partial departure from the accusative coding pattern during the transition from Latin to Romance. They cast their analyses in Relational Grammar terms. The “pure” accusative type does not grammatically reflect the semantic relatedness of direct objects of transitive verbs on the one hand, and subjects that are “middle” on the other hand (see ↗6 Voice and voice alternations). This was arguably the situation in Latin. In Relational Grammar, a “middle” construction has a surface subject that is also a direct object at some earlier stage in the structural derivation (La Fauci 1994, 41). Examples for “middle” constructions are passives and reflexive clauses. Past participle agreement, now, is shared by direct objects of transitive verbs and subjects of middle constructions, namely when the latter have a perfect auxiliary whose linguistic ancestor is Latin ESSE (La Fauci 1994,

170

Richard Waltereit

50). Past participle agreement (whether with the auxiliary H ABERE or with the auxiliary ESSE ) thus creates a link between transitive direct objects and middle subjects, and its assumed obligatoriness in Proto-Romance would indicate a partial shift from the accusative type towards the ergative type. The later retreat of direct object past participle agreement in most, though not all, Romance varieties is indicative of a reversal (albeit incomplete) of this shift, moving back towards the accusative type (La Fauci 1994). More broadly, Loporcaro (2011) argues that object agreement is only one example of active alignment in Romance, i.e., a grammatically encoded prominence of the AGENT (as opposed to not overtly distinguishing between unergative and unaccusative subjects, as is characteristic of accusative languages). As a further example, he cites perfect auxiliary choice. With pure accusative alignment, there would be only one perfect auxiliary. The choice between ESSE and HABERE auxiliaries in Romance languages, however, reflects a fine gradation between the unaccuative and the unergative type. In other words, active alignment is not as uncommon in Romance as the accusative linking-type would imply.  

4.2 Impersonal verbs One exception to the obligatoriness of the subject as implied by the accusative linking-type is impersonal verbs (cf. also ↗2 Subjects). Impersonal verbs can come with (34a) or without (34b) an expletive subject. (34)

a. Fr.

b. It.

Il pleut. it. EXPL rains ‘It rains.’ Nevica. snows ‘It snows.’

In some varieties, there are strong pronouns that can be used as expletive subjects, including in the null subject languages. (35a) is from Dominican Spanish (Henríquez Ureña 1940, 226–228; cited in Hinzelin/Kaiser 2006); whereas (35b) is from Colloquial French: (35)

a. DomSp.

b. Fr.

Ello hay maíz. it has maize ‘There is maize.’ Ça flotte. it floats ‘It is raining cats and dogs.’

Argument structure and argument structure alternations

171

Chomsky (1981) proposed that there are two types of impersonal pronouns (whether surfacing as an expletive subject or not): those that are neither referential nor occupying an argument position, and those that are not referential but occupy an argument position. The latter are also called quasi-arguments. Kaiser/Oliviéri/Palasis (2013) argue that this distinction is morphologically reflected in the Corrèze variety of northern Occitan: whereas the expletive pronoun ko is used with quasi-arguments (36a), there is no pronoun at all with entirely impersonal verbs (36b) (data from Kaiser/ Oliviéri/Palasis 2013): (36)

Occ. a.

kɔ pl'øj rains it.EXPL ‘it is raining’ b. s'ɛbl seems ‘it seems’

Kaiser/Oliviéri/Palasis (2013) also suggest that this morphological split between quasi-arguments and entirely impersonal verbs is, diachronically speaking, an intermediate stage, since in the neighbouring variety of Creuze Occitan, the pronoun ko has spread to a large number of those contexts that have no pronoun at all in Corrèze Occitan.

4.3 Transitivity As a generalization concerning linking in accusative languages, whenever a predicate has an overtly expressed AGENT , the agent will be the subject of the active clause. As suggested in Section 1, the subject is semantically the most flexible type of grammatical relation, followed by the direct object. The indirect object, most commonly, represents a BENEFICIARY role. Prepositional objects are often very transparent in their role-semantic meaning; more specifically, when this meaning reflects the lexical meaning of the preposition that heads the prepositional phrase. Not only are Romance languages accusative languages and have thus obligatory subjects (whether overtly expressed or pro), they also widely use the direct object in active transitive sentences irrespective of the latter’s semantic role, thus generalizing the subject-direct object pattern (syntactic transitivity). Geisler (1988, 27) pointed out that a number of Modern French verbs with a subject-direct object pattern had different form-types in previous stages of the language:  

172

Richard Waltereit

Table 2: Changes in transitivity in French (Geisler 1988) Old French

Modern French

Gloss

X me poise

je regrette X

‘I regret X’

X me loist

je peux faire X

‘I am at liberty to do X’

m’estuet faire X

je dois faire X

‘I need to do X’

Table 2 shows that in Old French, the EXPERIENCER role was encoded as indirect object (me ‘to me’); in Modern French, it is a subject (je ‘I’). Taken together, Modern French has a split linking pattern where the subject and direct object function are relatively unmotivated (i.e., they are compatible with a wide range of semantic roles), whereas indirect and prepositional objects are more transparent (i.e., they are compatible only with a small range of semantic roles). Where Spanish is concerned, Vázquez Rozas (2006) argues that that language continues to have a more motivated linking pattern, with a more systematic mapping of EXPERIENCER roles to indirect objects, thus eschewing the relative uniformity of the French-type subject-object structure. Some examples for this pattern (from Vázquez Rozas 2006, 80):  



(37)

Sp.

Me gustó me. DAT enjoyed.3SG ‘I liked the book.’

el the

libro. book

(38)

Sp.

A Miguel ya no le apetecía NEG him.DAT tempted.IPFV . 3SG to Miguel already al parchís. at.the Parcheesi ‘Miguel did not feel like playing Parcheesi anymore.’

jugar play.INF

However, when the experiencer participant has greater agency and the event is dynamic and telic, the subject-object coding pattern is preferred (examples from Vázquez Rozas 2006, 99): (39)

Sp.

a.

Intentó olvidar a María. forget.INF A María tried.3SG ‘S/he tried to forget María.’ b. *Intentó que se le olvidara REFL him.DAT forget. PST . SBJV . 3SG tried.3SG that ‘S/he tried to forget María.’

María. María

173

Argument structure and argument structure alternations

More broadly, with the argument structure of “psych”-verbs like Spanish gustar ‘to enjoy’, there is a linking conflict that can be expressed in terms of Dowty’s (1991) proto-role entailments. Both the experiencer participant and the phenomenon participant have AGENT proto-role as well as PATIENT proto-role characteristics. The experiencer participant may have the AGENT proto-role properties of volitional involvement, sentience, and existence independent of the event. However, it also may have the PATIENT proto-role characteristics of being causally affected by another participant, undergoing a change of state, and being stationary relative to another participant. Conversely, the phenomenon participant may have the AGENT characteristics of causing an event and existence independent of the event; and it may have the PATIENT characteristics of not existing independently of the event, and undergoing a change of state. This conflict leads to a good deal of inter-linguistic variability in the matching of EXPERIENCER and PHENOMENON with the subject grammatical relation, even among closely related Romance languages (examples from a comparison of translations, Koch 2001): (40) Pt.

Mas gostava but enjoyed.3SG

mais dela more of.her.DAT

(41)

It.

Ma a me piaceva di più but to me.DAT pleased.IPFV . 3SG of more capelli liberi. free. PL hair. PL ‘But I liked her better with her hair loose.’

(42)

Fr.

J’ aime la I like.1SG the champêtre […] rustic

(43)

Cat.

M’ agrada la frescor dels me.DAT please.3SG the coolness of.the tranquil·litat campestre […] tranquillity rustic ‘I love cool forests and rustic tranquillity.’

fraîcheur coolness

des of.the

com os with the

bois woods

cabelos soltos. hair.PL loose.PL con with

et and

la the

boscos woods

i the

tranquillité tranquillity

i and

la the

The coding conflict can also be held responsible for diachronic change within languages. Latin inodiare ‘to hate’, with an EXPERIENCER subject, is the etymon of French ennuyer, Spanish enojar, and Italian annoiare ‘to be bored’, all of which have a PHENOMENON subject (Koch 2001, 74):

174

Richard Waltereit

(44) a. Fr. b. Sp. c. It.

Ce travail Este trabajo Questo lavoro this job ‘This job is boring.’

m’ me mi me.DAT

ennuie. enoja. annoia. bore.3SG

Romanian a plăcea ‘to please’ has a long-standing linking pattern with a PH ENOMENON subject (cf. Koch 2001, 75): (45)

Rom.

Îmi place muzica me.DAT please.3SG music.the ‘I like symphonic music’.

simfonică. symphonic

However, this verb also has a more recent use with an 2001, 75): (46)

Rom.

Eu nu te NEG you. ACC I ‘I don’t like you.’

EXPERIENCER

subject (cf. Koch

plac. please. 1SG

Similarly, but proceeding in the opposite direction, Spanish gustar had a transitive linking pattern with an experiencer subject (examples from Vázquez Rozas 2006, 110): (47)

Sp.

[…]

si ya no gustas que la discreción y if already NEG please.2SG that the discretion and sciencia de Tirsi y de Demón te alumbren enlight.SBJV .3PL science of Tirsi and of Damon you.ACC de la ceguedad en que estás […] of the blindness in that be. 2SG ‘if you don’t like it that the discretion and science of Tirsi and Damon enlighten your blindness’

It is only since the eighteenth century that Spanish has had the current pattern with the PHENOMENON subject (Vázquez Rozas 2006, 96).

5 Argument alternations Very often, verbs do not have just a single arrangement of arguments. Some of this is idiosyncratic polysemy or homonymy. For example, the French verb tirer ‘to pull, to draw’ allows the following constructions:

Argument structure and argument structure alternations

(48) Fr.

175

a.

Luc tire la sonnette d’ alarme. Luc pulls the bell of alarm ‘Luc sounds the alarm bell.’ b. Marie tire sur la cible. Marie shoots on the target ‘Marie shoots at the target.’

(48a) has a direct object, (48b) a prepositional object, and the two verbs have very different meanings. This kind of alternation is not repeated across French verbs, and it appears to be relatively idiosyncratic. Some alternations are not repeated across verbs of the same language, but the same or a similar type of alternation may recur in other languages. For example, across Romance languages, the verbs for ‘to rent’ and ‘to rent out’ allow, up to a point, a shuffling of the “tenant” and “landlord” roles (cf. Koch 1991): (49)

(50)

Fr.

It.

a.

Michel a loué un appartement. Michel has rented a flat ‘Michel has rented a flat.’ b. Bernard a loué un appartement à un Bernard has rented a flat to a ‘Bernard has rented out a flat to a student.’

étudiant. student

a.

Gianni ha affittato una casa in via Garibaldi. Gianni has rented a house in via Garibaldi ‘Gianni has rented a place in via Garibaldi.’ b. Affittavano la loro casa mentre stavano in stayed. IPFV . 3PL in rented.IPFV . 3PL the their house while Inghilterra. England ‘They rented out their flat while they stayed in England.’

More importantly though, there are relatively “generalized” patterns of variation recurring across many verbs in the language, where the difference in perspective on the same event described in Section 1, reflected in the choice of different verbs referring to the same scene, is replicated at a lower level by different argument patterns of the same verb. In other words, generalized alternation is rooted in the selectivity and perspective inherent in the verbalization of events. Generalized alternation, where it is available, reflects the frequency that the distinctions it implies have in conversation. For example, many French verbs allow variation along the following lines:  

176

(51)

Richard Waltereit

Fr.

a.

La voiture sortait du garage. of.the garage the car go-out. IPFV . 3SG ‘The car left the garage.’ b. Marie a sorti sa voiture du garage. Marie has taken-out her car of.the garage ‘Marie drove out of the garage.’

(51a) and (51b) can represent the same event; whereas (51a) only implies an agent, though, that agent is made explicit in (51b). (51a) is the anticausative variant of (51b). An explanation for the fact that the anticausative alternation is so widespread can be sought in the communicative importance of distinguishing between events with an identified agent and those without one. In the following, some of the most well-known types of generalized alternation will be discussed.

5.1 Anticausatives Anticausatives are argument structure alternations in which the same verb has a transitive variant with an agent and a (transitive or intransitive) variant without an agent. The object of the transitive variant has the same semantic role as the subject of the anticausative variant. In Romance languages, anticausatives are of two main types: an intransitive unmarked (i.e., anticausativity is not signalled by a special morpheme) and a transitive reflexive one (cf. Oesterreicher 1992; Heidinger 2010). The unmarked anticausative is also an unaccusative verb, i.e., an intransitive verb whose single argument is not an AGENT (cf. ↗2 Subjects). The following pairs or triplets of examples show the transitive variant with the unmarked intransitive anticausative (52), the reflexive anticausative (53), or both (54).  



(52)

It.

a.

Luigi ha uscito la Maserati dal parcheggio. Luigi has taken-out the Maserati of.the car-park ‘Luigi drove the Maserati out of the car park.’ b. La Maserati è uscita dal parcheggio. the Maserati is left of.the car-park ‘The Maserati left the car park.’

(53)

Sp.

a.

La piedra rompió la ventana. the stone break.PST .3SG the window ‘The stone broke the window.’ b. La ventana se rompió. REFL break.PST .3SG the window ‘The window broke.’

Argument structure and argument structure alternations

(54)

Fr.

177

a.

Gérard a cassé la branche. Gérard has broken the branch ‘Gérard broke the branch.’ b. La branche a cassé. the branch has broken ‘The branch broke.’ c. La branche s’ est cassée. REFL is broken. F the branch. F ‘The branch broke.’

All Romance languages have the reflexive anticausative alternation. The unmarked anticausative alternation is quite common in French (54b), where the verbs allowing it are also known under the name of “symmetrical verbs” (Rothemberg 1974). Another name for verbs affected by this alternation are “ergative verbs”, inspired by the name for the ergative coding pattern as used in linguistic typology (cf. Comrie 1978; Plank 1979; Dixon 1994). Rothemberg (1974) lists more than 300 French verbs of this type. The alternation is not available across the board, though: (55)

Fr.

a.

Luc coupe le fromage. Luc cut.3SG the cheese ‘Luc cuts the cheese.’ b. *Le fromage coupe. the cheese cut.3SG ‘The cheese cuts.’

The unmarked anticausative is more restricted in the other Romance languages – there are only about 30 such verbs in Spanish (Kailuweit 2012). Heidinger (2010) found that in French, the reflexive anticausative began to compete with the unmarked one from the twelfth century as a synonymous alternative. Over the history of French, the relative frequency of the reflexive anticausative, as opposed to the unmarked anticausative, has greatly increased. While Heidinger found no hard-andfast rule governing the choice between unmarked causative and reflexive anticausative (both are available, in principle, in all the semantic verb classes he distinguishes), he notes that reflexive anticausatives are increasingly dominating in change-of-state verbs (e.g. durcir ‘to harden’, renouveler ‘to renew’, gonfler ‘to swell’) and with inanimate subjects. Geisler (1988, 31‒32) sees the apparently increasing reliance on reflexive anticausatives (as opposed to unmarked, intransitive anticausatives) as part of the broad diachronic trend towards the generalization of the transitive subject-object coding pattern. The idea here is that, as subjects in Modern French transitive clauses do not need to be as high in agency as in Old French, let alone Latin, they become available for the representation of less semantically transitive (Hopper/Thompson 1980) events. As a result, the subject-object coding

178

Richard Waltereit

pattern can accommodate events with just one participant, as anticausatives indeed are.

5.2 Locative alternations A number of French verbs allow alternations in the expression of the relation between ‘containers’ and ‘contents’: (56)

Fr.

a.

Ils chargent le bateau de charbon. the ship of coal they load.3PL ‘They load the ship with coal.’ b. Ils chargent du charbon sur le bateau. PART coal on the ship they load.3PL ‘They load coal onto the ship.’

In (56a), the direct object represents the “container”; in (56b), it represents the “content”. Other examples for this alternation are: (57)

(58)

Fr.

Fr.

a.

Max perce le mur de trous. Max drill.3SG the wall of holes ‘Max drills holes in the wall.’ b. Max perce des trous dans le the Max drill.3SG some holes in ‘Max drills holes in the wall.’

Léa incruste le métal d’ émail. metal of enamel Léa encrust.3SG the ‘Léa encrusts the metal with enamel.’ b. Léa incruste de l’ émail dans the enamel in Léa encrust.3SG of ‘Léa encrusts enamel on the metal.’

mur. wall

a.

le the

métal. metal

There is a holistic effect with the “container” direct object (the ‘b’ variant in (56)‒(58)): the “container” (the ship, the wall, the piece of metal) is wholly affected. That is, the ship is fully loaded, the wall has been penetrated, the piece of metal is fully encrusted. Note, however, that there is some leeway for variation left. In other words, the ship need not be loaded to maximum capacity; it is sufficient that it carries what can pragmatically be accepted as a “full load”. The verbs relevant to this alternation have an incremental theme (Dowty 1991), i.e., the degree of completion of the event is reflected in the extent to which the THEME object is affected. The loading process is half complete when half of the ship’s  

Argument structure and argument structure alternations

179

loading compartment is filled, and it is complete when the loading compartment is filled. The alternation ultimately reflects the close semantic relationship that exists between containers and their contents. This motivates a change in perspective for the otherwise same kind of event.

5.3 The “swarm”-alternation Another generalized alternation relying on the container-content relationship is the “swarm”-alternation, where arguments can switch between subject and a prepositional object: (59)

Fr.

a.

(60) Fr.

a.

(61)

a.

It.

Le ciel brille d’ étoiles. stars the sky shine.3SG of ‘The sky is glistening with stars.’ b. Les étoiles brillent au ciel. at.the sky the stars shine.3PL ‘Stars are glistening in the sky.’ La baignoire déborde d’ eau. water the bathtub overflow.3SG of ‘The bathtub is overflowing with water.’ b. L’ eau déborde de la baignoire. the bathtub the water overflow.3SG of ‘Water is overflowing from the bathtub.’ La casa risuona di voci allegre. happy. PL the house resound.3SG of voices ‘The house is resounding with happy voices.’ b. I canti risuonano nella casa. in.the house the songs resound.3PL ‘The singing is resounding in the house.’

There is much debate about the precise semantic requirements for a verb to be capable of this alternation (e.g., Levin/Rappaport Hovav 1995; Mayoral Hernández 2007; Hoeksema 2008). In particular, the relationship of this alternation to the locative alternation is not fully understood. Clearly it is not every containercontent relationship that can enter it; there are additional requirements that seem to make verbs of sound and light emission (e.g. resounding, glistening) particularly suitable. As with the locative alternation, there is a holistic effect in the “swarm”-alternation, which is strongest when the “container” is in the subject

180

Richard Waltereit

position. Unlike locative alternations, though, there is no incremental theme here.

6 Conclusion Argument structure is a focal point for the understanding of grammatical structure. Whereas it was mostly regarded as an interface between syntax and lexicon in the 1970s and 1980s, linguists now appreciate the richness of argument structure and the diversity of its ramifications that resists any easy categorization. In particular, what perhaps sets argument structure apart from other domains of grammatical description are the vast differences in granularity at which it operates – from high-level generalizations, that amount to typological differences between sets of languages, to very low-level ones that may apply to just one verb. Perhaps argument structure is the domain of grammar that most directly reflects extra-linguistic experience and information.

7 References Bentley, Delia (2006), Split Intransitivity in Italian, Berlin/New York, Mouton de Gruyter. Blumenthal, Peter/Rovere, Giovanni (1998), Wörterbuch der italienischen Verben. Konstruktionen, Bedeutungen, Übersetzungen, Stuttgart, Klett. Busse, Winfried/Dubost, Jean-Pierre (1983), Französisches Verblexikon. Die Konstruktion der Verben im Französischen, Stuttgart, Klett. Busse, Winfried, et al. (1995), Dicionário sintáctico de verbos portugueses, Coimbra, Almedina. Chomsky, Noam (1981), Lectures on Government and Binding, Dordrecht, Foris. Comrie, Bernard (1978), Ergativity, in: Winfred P. Lehmann (ed.), Syntactic Typology: Studies in the Phenomenology of Language, Austin, TX, University of Texas Press, 329–394. Comrie, Bernard/Smith, Norval (1977), Lingua Descriptive Studies: questionnaire, Lingua 42, 1–72. Croft, William (2012), Verbs. Aspect and Causal Structure, Oxford, Oxford University Press. Detges, Ulrich (2004), Argument inheritance as a metonymic effect, Metaphorik.de 6, http://www. metaphorik.de/sites/www.metaphorik.de/files/journal-pdf/06_2004_detges.pdf (28.04.2016). Dixon, Robert M. W. (1994), Ergativity, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Dowty, David (1991), Thematic proto-roles and argument selection, Language 67, 547–619. Du Bois, John W. (2003), Argument structure. Grammar in use, in: John W. Du Bois/Lorraine E. Kumpf/ William J. Ashby (edd.), Preferred Argument Structure. Grammar as Architecture for Function, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, Benjamins, 13–59. Engel, Ulrich, et al. (1983), Valenzlexikon Deutsch-Rumänisch. Dicţionar de valenţă german-român, Heidelberg, Groos. Fillmore, Charles J. (1968), The case for case, in: Emmon Bach/Robert T. Harms (edd.), Universals in Linguistic Theory, New York, Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1–88. Fillmore, Charles J. (1971), Types of lexical information, in: Danny D. Steinberg/Leon A. Jakobovits (edd.), Semantics, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 370–392.

Argument structure and argument structure alternations

181

Fillmore, Charles J. (1977), Scenes-and-frames semantics, in: Antonio Zampolli (ed.), Linguistic Structures Processing, Amsterdam, North-Holland, 55–81. Geisler, Hans (1988), Das Verhältnis von semantischer und syntaktischer Transitivität im Französischen, Romanistisches Jahrbuch 39, 22–35. Grimshaw, Jane (1990), Argument Structure, Cambridge, MA, MIT Press. Harley, Heidi (2009), The morphology of nominalizations and the syntax of vP, in: Monika Rathert/ Anastasia Giannadikou (edd.), Quantification, Definiteness and Nominalization, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 320–342. Heidinger, Steffen (2010), French Anticausatives. A Diachronic Perspective, Berlin/New York, De Gruyter. Henríquez Ureña, Pedro (1940), El español en Santo Domingo, Santo Domingo, Editora Taller. Hinzelin, Marc-Olivier/Kaiser, Georg A. (2006), Das neutrale Pronomen “ello” im dominikanischen Spanisch und die Nullsubjekteigenschaft, Konstanz, Universität Konstanz. Hoeksema, Jack (2008), The swarm-alternation revisited, in: Erhard Hinrichs/John Nerbonne (edd.), Theory and Evidence in Semantics, Stanford, CA, CSLI, 53–80. Hopper, Paul J./Thompson, Sandra A. (1980), Transitivity in grammar and discourse, Language 56, 251–299. Jackendoff, Ray S. (1990), Semantic Structures, Cambridge, MA, MIT Press. Jacobs, Joachim (1994), Kontra Valenz, Trier, Wissenschaftlicher Verlag. Kailuweit, Rolf (2012), Construcciones anticausativas: el español comparado con el francés, in: Valeriano Bellosta von Colbe/Marco García García (edd.), Aspectualidad – transitividad – referencialidad. Las lenguas románicas en contraste, Frankfurt etc., Lang, 133–158. Kaiser, Georg A./Oliviéri, Michèle/Palasis, Katerina (2013), Impersonal constructions in Northern Occitan, in: Ernestina Carrilho et al. (edd.), Current Approaches to Limits and Areas in Dialectology, Newcastle upon Tyne, Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 345–367. Koch, Peter (1981), Verb – Valenz – Verfügung. Zur Satzsemantik und Valenz französischer Verben am Beispiel der Verfügungs-Verben, Heidelberg, Winter. Koch, Peter (1991), Semantische Valenz, Polysemie und Bedeutungswandel bei romanischen Verben, in: Peter Koch/Thomas Krefeld (edd.), Connexiones Romanicae. Dependenz und Valenz in romanischen Sprachen, Tübingen, Niemeyer, 297–306. Koch, Peter (2001), As you like it. Les métataxes actancielles entre expérient et phénomène, in: Lene Schøsler (ed.), La valence, perspectives romanes et diachroniques, Stuttgart, Steiner, 59–81. Koch, Peter/Oesterreicher, Wulf (1990), Gesprochene Sprache in der Romania: Französisch, Italienisch, Spanisch, Tübingen, Niemeyer. Kotschi, Thomas (1981), Verbvalenz im Französischen, in: Thomas Kotschi (ed.), Beiträge zur Linguistik des Französischen, Tübingen, Narr, 80–122. La Fauci, Nunzio (1994), Objects and subjects in the formation of Romance morphosyntax, Bloomington, IL, Indiana University Linguistics Club. Levin, Beth/Rappaport Hovav, Malka (1995), Unaccusativity: At the Syntax-semantics Interface, Cambridge, MA, MIT Press. Levin, Beth/Rappaport Hovav, Malka (2005), Argument Realization, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Lieber, Rochelle/Baayen, Harald (1999), Nominalizations in a calculus of lexical semantic representations, in: Geert Booij/Jaap van Maarle (edd.), Yearbook of Morphology 1998, Dordrecht, Kluwer, 175–198. Loporcaro, Michele (2010a), Variation and change in morphology and syntax. Romance object agreement, in: Franz Rainer et al. (edd.), Variation and Change in Morphology. Selected papers from the 13th International Morphology Meeting, Vienna, February 2008, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, Benjamins, 149–175.

182

Richard Waltereit

Loporcaro, Michele (2010b), The logic of past participle agreement, in: Roberta D’Alessandro/Adam Ledgeway/Ian Roberts (edd.), Syntactic Variation. The Dialects of Italy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 225–243. Loporcaro, Michele (2011), Two euroversals in a global perspective: auxiliation and alignment, in: Peter Siemund (ed.), Linguistic Universals and Language Variation, Berlin/New York, De Gruyter Mouton, 55–91. Mateu, Jaume (2012), Structure of the verb phrase, in: José Ignacio Hualde/Antxon Olarrea/Erin O’Rourke (edd.), The Handbook of Hispanic Linguistics, Oxford, Blackwell, 333–353. Mayoral Hernández, Roberto (2007), A variation study of verb types and subject position: Verbs of light and sound emission, in: José Camacho et al. (edd.), Romance Linguistics 2006. Selected Papers from the 36th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages (LSRL), New Brunswick, March–April 2006, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, Benjamins, 213–226. Miremont, Pierre (1976), La syntaxe occitane du Périgord, Toulouse, Miremont. Noailly, Michèle (1999), L’adjectif en français, Paris, Ophrys. Oesterreicher, Wulf (1992), SE im Spanischen. Pseudoreflexivität, Diathese und Prototypikalität von semantischen Rollen, Romanistisches Jahrbuch 43, 237–260. Olsen, Susan (1992), Zur Grammatik des Wortes. Argumente zur Argumentvererbung, Linguistische Berichte 137, 3–32. Plank, Frans (ed.) (1979), Ergativity: Towards a Theory of Grammatical Relations, London, Academic Press. Rappaport Hovav, Malka/Levin, Beth (1998), Building verb meanings, in: Miriam Butt/Wilhelm Geuder (edd.), The Projection of Arguments: Lexical and Compositional Factors, Stanford, CA, CSLI, 97–134. Rizzi, Luigi (1990), Relativized Minimality, Cambridge, MA, MIT Press. Rothemberg, Mira (1974), Les verbes à la fois transitifs et intransitifs en français contemporain, The Hague, Mouton. Salvi, Giampaolo (2001), La frase semplice, in: Lorenzo Renzi/Giampaolo Salvi/Anna Cardinaletti (edd.), Grande grammatica italiana di consultazione, vol. 1, Bologna, il Mulino, 37–127. Smith, John Charles (1992), Circumstantial complements and direct objects in the Romance languages: configuration, case, and thematic structure, in: Iggy Roca (ed.), Thematic Structure. Its Role in Grammar, Berlin/New York, De Gruyter, 293–316. Tesnière, Lucien (1959), Éléments de syntaxe structurale, Paris, Klincksieck. Thompson, Sandra A./Hopper, Paul J. (2001), Transitivity, clause structure, and argument structure: evidence from conversation, in: Joan L. Bybee/Paul Hopper (edd.), Frequency and the Emergence of Linguistic Structure, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, Benjamins, 27–60. Van Valin, Robert D. (1999), Generalized semantic roles and the syntax-semantics interface, in: Francis Corblin/Carmen Dobrovie-Sorin/Jean-Marie Marandin (edd.), Empirical Issues in Formal Syntax and Semantics 2. Selected Papers from the Colloque de Syntaxe et Sémantique à Paris (CSSP 1997), The Hague, Thesus, 373–389. Vázquez Rozas, Victoria (2006), “Gustar”-type verbs, in: J. Clancy Clements/Jiyoung Yoon (edd.), Functional Approaches to Spanish Syntax. Lexical Semantics, Discourse and Transitivity, Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan, 80–114.

David Heap, Michèle Oliviéri and Katerina Palasis

5 Clitic pronouns Abstract: This chapter provides an overview of the rather heterogeneous category of pronominal clitics in a range of Romance languages from a morpho-syntactic perspective. We describe the shapes of Romance clitic paradigms, including distinctions of person, number, gender, case, and animacy, as well as markedness restrictions and syncretism. Different types of clisis, clitic placement, and alternations between proclisis and enclisis, as well as allomorphic variations and clitic clusters are all placed in their theoretical contexts. In addition to considering clitic ordering with finiteness and their distribution in different types of clauses, we examine the distinction between clitic / weak pronoun / strong pronoun and present a typology of Romance subject clitics, including expletives and partial subject paradigms.  

Keywords: clitic pronouns, object, subject, features, clitic clusters, templates, partial paradigms, gradual emergence  

1 What is a clitic pronoun? The modern term “clitic”1 is backformed from enclitic, from the Ancient Greek ενκλίνειν ‘to lean on’ used by the second century grammarian Apollonius Dyscolus to describe pronouns which in prosodic terms “lean” on the preceding item (Householder 1981). From a phonological point of view, a clitic is a linguistic item which lacks independent stress. Hence, it cannot be used in isolation and needs to be attached to a stressed element, i.e., its host, in order to appear in an utterance.2 Clitics and hosts can belong to different grammatical categories, e.g., determiners and nouns, respectively. Nevertheless, it is the category of pronominal clitics (nominative, accusative, dative, genitive/ablative/partitive and locative, as well as reflexive), which has mainly caught the attention of Romance philologists and linguists over the years (as reported in Nevis et al. 1994; Heap/Roberge 2001; Spencer/Luís 2012), and which is still highly debated at least in phonology (prosodic structure), morphology (affix or word), syntax (structure, placement, order, status), interfaces, language acquisition, and language change  

1 This chapter deals with clitic pronouns and, where applicable, negation clitics. Other clitics, such as determiners, are therefore left aside. See ↗12 for full details on “Negation and polarity” and ↗20 on “Determination and quantification”. 2 A clitic can however be stressed if it occurs in a position which requires stress (e.g., after French imperatives: prends-le ‘take it’), but in such cases the clitic bears group stress and does not supply a stress of its own. See Wanner (1987a, 418) for other examples of clitics which may receive stress in certain contexts, but do not supply their own stress to a phonological word. DOI 10.1515/9783110377088-005

184

David Heap, Michèle Oliviéri and Katerina Palasis

(Hopper/Traugott 1993; van Riemsdijk 1999; Gerlach/Grijzenhout 2000; Heggie/Ordóñez 2005; van Gelderen 2011; Grohmann/Neokleous 2015, among others). Romance clitic pronouns have also been investigated in various theoretical frameworks, e.g., in Distributed Morphology (Bonet 1995; Dobrovie-Sorin 1999; Goldbach 2007; Pescarini 2010; Sandalo/Galves 2013), in Generative Syntax (Kayne 1975; Rizzi 1986; Uriagereka 1995; Sportiche 1996; Belletti 1999), in Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar (Miller 1992; Miller/Sag 1997), in Lexical-Functional Grammar (Luís/Sadler 2003), in Optimality Theory (Legendre 2000; Grimshaw 2001; Gerlach 2002), and in Paradigm Function Morphology (Bonami/Boyé 2007, among others). Romance philologists and linguists traditionally distinguish strong pronouns, which pattern syntactically with nominal phrases, from clitic pronouns, which have reduced phonological forms compared to the strong paradigm, and sometimes have distinct syntactic positions. One of the modern benchmarks in the study of clitichood was set by Kayne (1975), who formalized the fact that French object and subject clitics have “some special syntactic status” compared to strong pronouns and nominal phrases. Both series of clitics share a number of characteristics (Kayne 1975), which are often referred to in the literature. Although Kayne initially analyzed French, some of the properties can be extended across Romance languages (with rare exceptions, see Section 3.1), as illustrated for French and Spanish (1) where the clitics are ungrammatical without a verbal host: (1) a.

Definitional characteristics of clitic pronouns: Clitics cannot appear without a verb: i. Fr. Qui viendra avec nous? who come-FUT . 3SG with us ‘Who will come with us? ii. Sp. ¿A quién ven? to whom see-PRS . 3PL ‘Who do they see?

Moi. me Me.’ A mí. to me Me.’

/ /

*Je=. I=

/ /

*Me=. me=

b.

Nothing can take place between a clitic and its host (except another clitic): i. Fr. Jean / *Il=paraît=il, est fou. be-PRS . 3SG crazy Jean / he= seem-PRS . 3SG = it ‘Jean / He, so it seems, is crazy.’ ii. Sp. Lo=veo a veces / *Lo=a veces veo. times / him=at times see-PRS . 1SG him=see-PRS . 1SG at ‘I see him sometimes.’

c.

Clitics cannot be coordinated: i. Fr. Jean et lui / *il=partiront Jean and him / he=leave-FUT . 3PL ‘Jean and he will leave soon.’

bientôt. soon

Clitic pronouns

ii. Sp.

d.

*La=y Juan veo / *La=y / her=and her=and Juan see-PRS . 1SG ‘I see her and Juan. / I see her and him.’

185

lo=veo. him=see-PRS . 1SG

Clitics cannot receive contrastive stress: i. Fr. LUI / *IL=partira le premier. first him / he=leave-FUT . 3SG the ‘HE will leave first.’ ii. Sp. *LO=veo, pero no LA=veo. NEG her=see-PRS . 1SG him=see-PRS . 1SG but ‘I see HIM but I don’t see HER.’

The “special syntax” described in Kayne (1975) is also highlighted in Zwicky (1977). Zwicky defined “special clitics” as forms with a stressed counterpart, e.g., French me vs moi ‘me’, and a different syntax from the full counterpart, e.g., je connais Jean ‘I know Jean’ vs je le connais ‘I know him’.3 Zwicky (1977, 5) distinguished these “special clitics” from “simple clitics”, which are cliticized for stylistic reasons and do not have a specific syntax, e.g., he sees her vs he sees’r. Following Givón (1971), Zwicky (1977) considered special clitics as “remnants of an earlier system of simple clitics”, since object proclitics reflect earlier object-verb orders found for instance in French and Spanish.4 As illustrated above, the host of a clitic pronoun in modern Romance is always a verb, which can be finite or non-finite (Ramsden 1963; Wanner 1987b). Three possibilities for the clitic to attach to the verb are attested in modern Romance languages (see examples in (2)): (a) proclisis, when the clitic precedes its host, (b) enclisis, when the clitic follows its host, and (c) mesoclisis, when the clitic is inserted between its host and inflectional affixes.5 Described since the second century by the Greek grammarian Apollonius Dyscolus (cf. Householder 1981), pronominal enclisis was initially the dominant pattern in the early Indo-European and Romance languages (Wackernagel 1892; Meyer-Lübke 1897). Proclisis came later in the evolution of Romance languages from Latin, first as a competitor to enclisis, then as the dominant pattern with finite 3 Special clitics are mainly found in Romance and Slavic languages, according to Zwicky, though as a descriptive category, clitics can be found in many language families. 4 The third class described by Zwicky (1977) is that of “bound words”, which are clitic forms with no full counterparts, e.g., the Latin conjunction –que ‘and’. These forms necessarily cliticize to one word and form a semantic unit with the entire phrase or clause. 5 Among modern Romance languages, mesoclisis is specific to Portuguese (see Section 3.2), though it is more widely attested in Old Spanish and Old Catalan (Ramsden 1963). The term “proclitic” was coined during the nineteenth century by the German philologist Gottfried Hermann (Lambert 2001, 28). The term “clitic” is consensually attributed to Eugene A. Nida (1949, vii; as in Anderson 2005, 1). Romance languages do not display endoclitics (but see Zwicky 1977 and Harris 2002 for examples of endoclitics in Indonesian and Caucasian languages).

186

David Heap, Michèle Oliviéri and Katerina Palasis

verbs, except in European Portuguese, Galician and Asturian. Dating the transition remains controversial however, depending on the language under investigation.6 (2) a.

b.

c.

Types of clisis: Proclisis: Fr. Je=ne=te=le=donne pas.7 I=NEG =you.DAT =it.ACC =give-PRS . 1SG NEG ‘I do not give it to you.’ Enclisis: It. Voglio dar=ti un libro. give.INF =you.DAT a book want-PRS .1SG ‘I want to give you a book.’ Mesoclisis: EPt. Levar=vo=los=ia. take-INF =you.PL =them.ACC =COND . 1SG ‘I would take them to you.’

Another significant step in the study of clitics was introduced by Cardinaletti/Starke (1999), who defined clitics in opposition to two classes of pronouns, i.e., strong and weak pronouns, considering the standard bipartition strong vs clitic as “descriptively insufficient”, as illustrated in (3) (examples from Cardinaletti 1991).  

(3) a.

b.

c.

Cardinaletti/Starke’s (1999) tripartition of pronominal systems (It.): A strong paradigm: Non *a lui dirò mai *a lui tutto NEG to him say-FUT . 1SG never to him everything ‘I will never say everything to him.’ A weak paradigm: Non *loro= dirò mai =loro tutto NEG them.DAT = say-FUT . 1SG never =them.DAT everything ‘I will never say everything to them.’ A clitic paradigm: Non gli= dirò mai *=gli tutto NEG him.DAT = say-FUT . 1SG never =him.DAT everything ‘I will never say everything to him.’

a to

lui. him

*=loro. =them.DAT

*=gli. =him.DAT

6 For French, both the thirteenth through sixteenth centuries and the seventeenth century have been proposed (Meyer-Lübke 1897 vs Geisler 1982, as reported in Pusch 2001, 383), whereas the fourteenth century seems consensual for Occitan (Ronjat 1908), and the fifteenth century has been proposed for Spanish (Fontana 1993). 7 Since our approach here is morpho-syntactic rather than phonological, all the clitics cited are glossed showing cliticization to their syntactic hosts.

Clitic pronouns

187

The authors consider syntactic, morphological, phonological, and semantic characteristics throughout different languages (as recapitulated in Table 1), and rank the three classes of pronouns in terms of “structural deficiency”, i.e., missing functional projections (C the locus of referential features and Σ the locus of prosodic features). In this framework, (i) all languages display three classes of pronouns (but some are homophonous, e.g., il ‘he’ in French can be weak or clitic), (ii) there are always two classes of deficient pronouns (clitic and weak) vs one class of non-deficient pronouns (strong), and (iii) clitics are considered as “severely deficient” elements (lacking C and Σ) compared to weak pronouns, which are “mildly deficient” (lacking only Σ). The latter are intermediate elements and share some properties with clitics and others with strong pronouns, as shown in Table 1. The relevant pronoun is chosen following the “Minimize Structure” economy principle (Cardinaletti/Starke 1999, 198).  



Table 1: Cardinaletti/Starke’s (1999) classes of pronouns Classes

Strong

Weak

Clitic

Syntax

Phrase (XP)

Phrase (XP)

Head (X)

Missing projections

None

C

C and Σ

Position

Non derived

Derived

Derived

Distribution

+





Morphology

lui

8

≥ 9

il





il

Semantics

[+ human] [–expletive]

[± human] [±expletive]

[± human] [±expletive]

Restructuring10



+

+

Word-accent

+

+



Cardinaletti/Starke (1999) claim that their three-way distinction sheds light on a number of matters, such as the form of object enclitics in French imperatives, e.g., aide-moi ‘help me’, which are analyzed as weak pronouns in this framework, not strong ones. The authors also address doubling, and claim that doubling can only be clitic-doubling. Example (4b) shows that French preverbal subject pronouns can be analyzed as clitics in the variety of French which also requires repetition in coordination, but are analyzed as weak pronouns in other varieties.11

8 Refers to isolation, separation, and coordination, as exemplified in (1a), (1b) and (1c), respectively. 9 This characteristic is controversial. See our discussion in Section 2. 10 Refers to phonological processes such as liaison (e.g., Fr. elle[z] ont ‘they have’) and reduction phenomena, such as contraction (e.g., I saw ’ya). 11 French postverbal subject pronouns are also analyzed as clitics in this framework. A discrepancy between pre- and postverbal subject pronouns in French is also highlighted in Sportiche

188

(4) a.

b.

David Heap, Michèle Oliviéri and Katerina Palasis

Doubling can only be clitic-doubling (Cardinaletti/Starke 1999): Northern Italian Dialect: strong + clitic Ela la=canta. she it.FEM =sing-PRS . 3SG ‘She sings.’ Colloquial French: NP + clitic Jean il=mange. John he=eat-PRS . 3SG ‘John eats.’

Doubling vs dislocation is also a topic of much debate in Romance languages (since e. g. Jaeggli 1982).12 Doubling is generally defined as the obligatory co-occurrence of a clitic and a co-referential nominal phrase or strong pronoun, as exemplified in (5a,b) with Spanish. This phenomenon is also observed in dialects of Spanish and in Romanian (Strozer 1976; Rivas 1977; Jaeggli 1986; Suñer 1988, and Borer 1984; Dobrovie-Sorin 1990, respectively), considered impossible in Italian (5c), and controversial in French (5d,e), where grammaticality depends to a large extent on the (standard vs colloquial) register used: (5) a.

b.

c.

d.

e.

Clitic doubling in Romance languages: una carta a ellai. Sp. Lei=mandé letter to her her.DAT =send-PRF . 1SG a ‘I sent a letter to her.’ (Fontana 1993, 44) Sp. *Mandé una carta a ella. a letter to her send-PRF . 1SG ‘I sent a letter to her.’ (Fontana 1993, 44) domani Giannii. It. *Loi=vedrò him=see-FUT .1SG tomorrow Gianni ‘I will see Gianni tomorrow.’ (Anagnostopoulou 2006, 524) Jeani. Fr. *Marie lei=voit Jean Marie him=see-PRS .3SG ‘Marie sees Jean.’ (Jaeggli 1986, 18) moii. Fr. Jean mei=connaît me Jean me=know- PRS .3SG ‘Jean knows me.’ (Kayne 2000, 164)

(1999) and Roberts (2010). The status of subject clitics in French is further discussed in Section 4.2.2. 12 This chapter will limit itself to doubling since dislocation is dealt with in ↗13 Dislocations and framings.

Clitic pronouns

189

The co-occurrence of the clitic with a co-referential constituent raises a number of questions with regard to movement or base-generation of the clitic, case-assignment, interpretational features of the nominal phrase/strong pronoun (specificity, animacy), and the morpho-syntactic status of the clitic (syntactic argument or agreement marker). A number of characteristics have therefore been put forward in order to disentangle these matters, among which the presence or not of a preposition preceding the nominal phrase/strong pronoun (known as “Kayne’s Generalization”, Kayne 1975),13 and the presence or not of an intonational break between the nominal phrase/strong pronoun and the clitic (Jaeggli 1986). Both arguments are discussed by Anagnostopoulou (2006), and Deshaies/Guilbault/Paradis (1993), Rossi (1999), and De Cat (2007), respectively. This introduction aimed at sketching the backdrop: clitics are heterogeneous, paradoxical and fascinating linguistic elements which have been examined by philologists and linguists for quite a while now and which are still the focus of many investigations. Let us now move forward, and get into the detail of more specific matters revolving around the morphology of clitics (Section 2), object clitics (Section 3), subject clitics (Section 4) and their interaction with negation (Section 5). Section 6 concludes this chapter on clitic pronouns.  





2 Clitic morphology As seen above, across Romance languages, pronominal paradigms distinguish strong (also called “stressed” or “disjunctive”) pronouns from clitic (“unstressed”, “conjunctive”) forms. Clitics often have distinct forms according to grammatical person, number, often case, sometimes gender and other features.

2.1 Case, person, and number Romanian is exceptional in having a fully parallel set of distinct dative and accusative clitics in all six persons, and two genders in the third singular, with minimal syncretism: third plural dative has the same form for masculine and feminine, otherwise all forms are distinct (Table 2):14 13 “Kayne’s Generalization” (Kayne 1975) states that clitic doubling is possible only when the coreferential constituent to the clitic is a prepositional phrase, e.g., Sp. loi vimos a éli ‘we saw him’. The generalization holds for direct objects in Spanish and Romanian, and indirect objects in French (e.g., Paul la luii présentera à Juani ‘Paul will introduce her to Juan’, Borer 1984, 40). The preposition assigns Case to the nominal phrase/strong pronoun, which is also assigned a theta role. The clitic is generated directly to the left of the verb, absorbs the Case assigned by the verb, but bears no theta role. It has no argument status. 14 Table 2 includes only clitic pronouns: like most Romance languages, Romanian also contrasts clitics with strong pronouns (in the nominative, there is no distinction).

190

David Heap, Michèle Oliviéri and Katerina Palasis

Table 2: Romanian clitic pronouns Accusative clitics

Dative clitics

P115



îmi (mi)16

P2

te

îţi (ţi)

P3m

îl

P3f

o

P4

ne

ne (ni)

P5



vă (vi / v-)

P6m

îl

P6f

le

îi (i)

le (li)

In most Romance languages (see below for French, Spanish and Italian), first and second person (singular and plural) clitics show syncretism for case. In (6) the clitics te (Spanish and French) and ti (Italian) have identical forms in each language, whether the clitic is an accusative or a dative one: (6)

a. Sp. b. It. c. Fr.

Cuando te=ve, te=habla. Quando ti=vede, ti=parla. 2SG . DAT =speak-PRS . 3. SG when 2SG . ACC =see-PRS . 3SG Quand elle te=voit, elle te=parle. when she 2SG . ACC =see-PRS . 3SG she 2SG . DAT =speak-PRS . 3. SG ‘When she sees you, she speaks to you.’

Along with Romanian, distinct dative and accusative forms are also found in some varieties of Rhaeto-Romance (Haiman 1988), and in Galician only for second person singular accusative te vs second person singular dative che. Otherwise, case distinctions only appear with third person (singular or plural) clitics. Table 3 illustrates this distinction in a paradigm where there is just a single series of strong pronouns with no case distinctions, a subject/object contrast among clitics in all persons except first and second plural, and distinct nominative, accusative and dative clitics in the third person singular and plural:

15 These tables number grammatical persons using P1 through P6, rather than using the corresponding glosses, to underline that 1PL forms are not really plurals of 1SG forms, etc. 16 Short forms of the dative clitics are used in contact with vowels and with certain verbal moods.

191

Clitic pronouns

Table 3: French personal pronoun paradigms17 Strong pronouns

Nominative clitics

P1

moi

je

me

P2

toi

tu

te

P3m

lui

il

P3f

Accusative clitics

le

elle nous

P5

vous eux

lui

la

P4

P6m

Dative clitics

ils

P6f

les

elles

leur

While the French paradigm shows a single strong pronoun for all cases, in all six grammatical persons, the Spanish (Table 4) and Italian (Table 5) paradigms have a subject/object contrast in some or all of the strong pronouns, and case distinctions among third person (singular and plural) clitics: Table 4: Spanish personal pronoun paradigms18 Strong subject pronouns

Strong object pronouns

Accusative clitics

Dative clitics

P1

yo



me

P2

tú (vos)19

ti (vos)

te

P3m

él

lo (le)

P3f

ella

la

P4

nosotros / nosotras

nos

P5

vosotros / vosotras

os

P6m

ellos

los

P6f

ellas

las

le

les

17 This table does not include the reflexive clitic se, nor the generic subject pronoun on, the locative y or the genitive-ablative-partitive en. 18 Table 4 does not include the clitics corresponding to the formal usted, ustedes, which share P3 and P6 forms respectively, nor the reflexive se. 19 The second person singular vos is regularly used in River Plate (Argentine, Uruguayan) and some Central American (Nicaraguan, Guatemalan) varieties of Spanish and sporadically in a few others, instead of tú, with distinct verbal morphology but an identical clitic form te.

192

David Heap, Michèle Oliviéri and Katerina Palasis

Table 5: Italian personal pronoun paradigms20 Strong subject pronouns

Strong object pronouns

Accusative clitics

P1. SG

io

me

mi (me)

P2

tu

te

ti (te)

P3m

egli/lui

lui

lo

gli (glie)

P3f

ella/lei

lei

la

le (glie)

P4

noi

ci (ce)

P5

voi

vi (ve)

Dative clitics

P6m

essi/loro

loro

li

loro/gli (glie)

P6f

esse/loro

loro

le

loro/gli (glie)

In addition to dative and accusative case marking in third person singular and plural clitics, a number of Romance languages have distinct clitics for genitive-partitive (French and Catalan en, Italian ne, Occitan n’en, Oliviéri 1991–1992) and for locative arguments and/or adjuncts (Italian vi, Catalan hi, French y). In French, Occitan and Catalan, genitive-partitive forms can also be used as ablatives, while in some Sardinian varieties there is a unique three-way distinction amongst these “adverbial” clitics: locative bi, genitive-ablative nde, and non-initial -nke, which could once only be ablative but became a general locative in other varieties (Lai 1996, 44). Ethical or non-argumental datives do not correspond to any argument of the verb in question, but rather express how a participant is involved in or affected by an action, as in (7) from Gasiglia (1984): (7)

Nissart (Occ.) Lou=mi=pènsi. it.ACC = me.DAT = think-PRS . 1SG ‘I think it over.’

Very common in Ibero-Romance, Occitan varieties and Italian, ethical datives are less frequent in French (where however they can be responsible for otherwise ungrammatical sequences, cf. Goldbach 2007). They can occur alone (8a) or grouped with other clitics as in (8b) from Hourcade (1986). In Galician two datives can occur in the same clause (8c):

20 Again, reflexives are omitted. The parenthetical forms correspond to a regular vowel alternation before sonorants (me, te, ce, ve) or to more colloquial alternate forms (glie, gli) rather than to paradigmatic differences in clitic forms.

193

Clitic pronouns

(8)

a. Sp.

b. Gsc.

c. Gal.

Me=apagaste la tele. the.F TV 1SG . DAT = shut.off-PST . 2SG ‘You shut the TV off on me.’ Que u= se= t= at= QUE it.M = himself.DAT = you.DAT = it.N = ‘He ate it all up on you.’ Non che=me=gustou nada. NEG 2SG . DAT =1SG . DAT =pleased nothing ‘I didn’t like anything.’

mingè eat-PST . 3SG

tot. all

Note that in (8b) there are two different clitics expressing it, the masculine u and the neuter at (see Section 2.2). Bastida (1976) and Smith (2001) characterize forms like (8c) as “datives of solidarity”.

2.2 Gender and animacy Across Romance, gender is never explicitly marked on participant clitics (first and second persons, singular and plural), regardless of whether they have masculine or feminine reference. In (9), the clitic can trigger feminine agreement with its intended referent, despite not showing any overt marking of a gender feature: (9)

a. Sp.

b. Fr.

Te=veo cansada. tired.FSG 2SG . ACC =see.PRS .1SG ‘You seem tired to me.’ (said to a person of feminine gender) On=me=croyait heureuse. happy. FSG one= 1. SG . ACC =believe.PST ‘People thought I was happy.’ (said by a person of feminine gender)

On the other hand, gender is widely marked in non-participant clitics, i.e., third persons singular and (less often) plural, particularly accusative forms (see French, Spanish and Italian paradigms above). These third person accusative forms are often identical to definite articles (typically descended from the same Latin etyma: ILLUM , ILLA , ILLOS , ILLAS ). Romanian is unique in having also distinct third person feminine forms for both singular and plural dative clitics (see Table 2 above). In other Romance languages, this is a common area of syncretism: French and Spanish have no gender distinctions among third person dative clitics, singular or plural, while Italian only has distinct gender forms in the third person singular objects. Many varieties of Colloquial French show syncretism by neutralizing 3F forms to 3M (Moignet 1965, 158). Since there is no systematic neuter gender in modern Romance in the sense of a third nominal class that parallels feminine and masculine for a group of  



194

David Heap, Michèle Oliviéri and Katerina Palasis

nouns,21 the mixed gender nouns in Italian, Romanian and Rhaeto-Romance take masculine agreement in the singular and feminine agreement in the plural, and therefore the corresponding clitics are either masculine or feminine, accordingly: no ‘neuter’ clitic is needed. Among Romance clitics, Catalan ho (and various equivalent forms in different Occitan dialects, see for instance (8b) above) used for non-lexical or clausal objects may be called “neuter” pronouns to distinguish them from other third singular feminine and masculine forms (10a); in other Romance languages, these functions are fulfilled by third singular masculine forms, as in (10b,c): (10)

a. Cat. b. Fr. c. Sp.

Això que dieu, ho faré. that what say-PRS .2PL it.NEUT do-FUT . 1SG Ce que vous dites, je= le=ferai. Lo que ustedes dicen, yo lo=haré. that what you.2PL say-PRS . 2PL I it.ACC =do-FUT . 1SG ‘What you say, I will do it.’

Another place where a clitic called “neuter” occurs is in Asturian, where there is indeed a systematic morphological feature which is distinct from feminine and masculine, not as a nominal class but as a morphological category. These so-called “neuters” are used to mark uncountable or “mass” readings of nouns, as opposed to count readings, which are necessarily either masculine or feminine. While not really a lexically “neuter” gender (despite the traditional term neutro de materia used in this area as well as for an analogous phenomenon in central Italian dialects, see Hall 1968; Haase 2000), non-countable reference in these varieties is used for antecedents that are understood to be part of a “mass”, as in (11a,b), rather than discrete countable individuals, as in (11c,d).22 (11)

Ast.

a.

El vino, vendemos=lo / sell- PRS .1PL =it.NEUT . ACC the.M wine ‘Wine, we sell it.’

*=lu. =it.M . ACC

21 Some Romance languages have traditionally used the term ‘neuter’ for nouns that have masculine MS G , le dita ‘the fingers’ agreement in the singular and feminine in the plural, e.g. It. il dito ‘the finger’ MSG FPL , Rom. loc ‘place’ MSG MS G , locuri ‘places’ FP L . Although in some cases these nouns are descended etymologically from Latin neuter nouns, they do not in fact form a distinct nominal class which is morphologically separate from masculine and feminine, and so they are in fact more accurately described as ‘mixed gender’. 22 These eastern Asturian data are drawn from Fernández-Ordóñez (2012, 82–83), but similar distinctions are found in other Asturian varieties.

Clitic pronouns

195

b. La lana, vendemos=lo / *=la. wool sell- PRS .1PL =it.NEUT . ACC =it.F . ACC the.F ‘Wool, we sell it.’ c. El coche, vendemos=lu / *=lo. sell-PRS .1PL =it.M . ACC =it.NEUT . ACC the.M car ‘The car, we sell it.’ d. La moto, vendemos=la / *=lo. motorbike, sell-PRS .1PL =it.F . ACC =it.NEUT . ACC the.F ‘The motorbike, we sell it.’ A mass/count distinction similar to the one in Asturian carries over into some Spanish varieties of Northern Spain, where loísta varieties use lo in “mass” or uncountable contexts analogous to (11a,b) above, regardless of gender (12a) or case (12b), see Heap (2002b) for a Feature Geometry analysis: (12)

Sp.

a.

La cerveza lo=tomamos con it. NEUT = drink-PRS .1PL with the.F beer ‘Beer, we drink it with tapas.’ b. Lo=añaden de todo hoy everything today it.NEUT =add-PRS . 3PL of ‘They add all sorts of things to it nowadays.’

tapas. tapas.PL día. day.

In such varieties of Spanish, le is no longer used only for dative contexts, but also in masculine accusative cases, where the object is definite and (archetypically) human: animate leísmo as in (13a) and (more rarely) inanimate leísmo (13b). Feminine accusative clitic la is used for dative contexts, or laísmo (13c): (13)

Sp.

a.

Le=conocí. him.DAT = meet-PST .1PL ‘I met him.’ b. Le=compramos. it.ACC = buy-PST .1PL ‘We bought it.’ c. La=di un her.DAT =give-PST . 1SG a.M ‘I gave her a gift.’

regalo. gift

Most speakers of Spanish varieties from Northern Spain accept (13a) with definite animate objects, especially humans, but the acceptance of (13b) with inanimates is much less widespread. It has been proposed by Kayne (1975) and Cardinaletti/Starke (1999) that while clitics can refer to inanimates (14b, Table 1), such readings are not so

196

David Heap, Michèle Oliviéri and Katerina Palasis

felicitous with strong pronouns (14a).23 What is however clear is that the feature [human] plays a role in for example the selection of French dative animate lui (14c) vs its inanimate counterpart y (14d): (14)

Fr.

pense plus qu’ à euxi. ?Ses livresi, il=ne to them his books he.NOM =NEG think-PRS .3SG only ‘His books, he can only think of them.’ partout, ton bouquini. b. On lei=lit one.NOM it.ACC =read-PRS .3SG everywhere your book ‘One reads it everywhere, your book.’ c. Son fils lui=ressemble. his son 3. SG . DAT =resemble-PRS .3SG ‘His son looks like him.’ d. Ça y=ressemble. that 3. SG . DAT =resemble-PRS .3SG ‘That looks like it.’

a.

A similar effect applies in Catalan for the selection of locative hi and dative li (Rigau 1982). Thus, the role of features relating to [+/– animate] or [+/– human] referents in clitic paradigms still needs further study.  

2.3 Syncretism and allomorphy As the above non-exhaustive sampling of forms makes clear, clitics potentially mark an accumulation of different morphological features: grammatical person-number, combined with case and gender. These combinations make for a high level of syncretism in clitic paradigms: as noted, gender is uniformly absent from first and second persons, and case is mostly absent. Masculine and feminine genders are typically marked in third person singular clitics, but not always in third person plural: gender marking is less likely in the marked (plural) number. As seen above, gender is also less likely to be marked with dative forms than with accusative forms. Syncretism is generally more likely in plurals, with shared forms predominating in first and second persons plural, in many paradigms. There is also a tendency in some areas (dialects of North Western Italy, Eastern Spain, and Valencian) for reflexive clitics to spread from third plural to second plural and first plural (Bonet 1991; Parry 1997; de Benito Moreno 2015), leading to an invariable reflexive clitic in some cases (e.g. Sursilvan RhaetoRomance, Haiman 1988).

23 This proposal is however controversial: see Dannell (1973) and Zribi-Hertz (2001) on French; Tasmowski/Reinheimer (2001) on Portuguese and Romanian.

Clitic pronouns

197

Allomorphic variation in clitic systems can be relatively trivial, as in the case of the morphophonological process (called elision or apocope in different philological traditions) whereby final vowels of clitics are dropped before a vowel initial host: (15)

Fr.

Elle me=parle et and she 1SG . DAT =speak-PRS .3SG ‘She speaks to me and she calls me.’

elle she

m’=appelle. 1SG . DAT = call-PRS . 3SG

This can be seen as a syllabification process that is not specific to clitic pronouns, since something similar happens with other stressless words, such as definite articles, in similar circumstances. Syllabic conditioning is carried even further in Catalan, where a given clitic can have up to four different forms: preceding a consonant, preceding a vowel, following a consonant or following a vowel (16).24 (16)

Cat.

a.

M=apropava a casa i em=vaig REFL . 1SG = approach-PST . 1SG to home and REFL . 1SG = AUX . PST . 1SG enutjar. angry ‘I was approaching home and I got angry.’ b. Puc apropar=me a casa. to home. can-PRS . 1SG approach=REFL . 1SG ‘I can get myself home.’ c. Apropa=m a casa. to home approach- IMP . SG =1SG ‘Take me home.’

Somewhat more complex is the case of Italian clitics ending in -i in the absence of other clitics (17), which regularly end in -e before certain other clitics (17b): (17)

It.

a.

Gianna mi=parla. Gianna me.DAT =speak-PRS . 3SG ‘Gianna speaks to me.’ b. Gianna me=lo=da. Gianna me.DAT =it.ACC =give-PRS . 3SG ‘Gianna gives it to me.’

The precise reasons that govern this vowel lowering are subject to some debate (see for example Pescarini 2011).

24 Bonet (2002, 954) suggests that these clitics are in fact underlyingly asyllabic, and that the schwa is supplied where needed as a default vowel in order to create licensed syllables.

198

David Heap, Michèle Oliviéri and Katerina Palasis

Because of multiple syncretisms and allomorphy, some Romance clitics can be quite ambiguous in reference, especially when in sequences or clusters (see below).

3 Object clitics 3.1 Typology of object clitics across Romance According to Wanner (1987a) almost all modern Romance languages have clitic pronoun systems that share (in varying degrees) two basic groups of properties: (i) stresslessness: “attachment in prosodic and segmental terms to some element(s) in the surrounding string, and unavailability for expressive purposes” (1987a, 415), and (ii) placement of the clitic with respect to the verb in its clause: “linearization of clitic and anchor according to some distribution key, cluster internal ordering restrictions, various types of co-occurrence limitations” (1987a, 415). The only (qualified) exceptions Wanner cites are Brazilian Portuguese (which appears to be replacing clitic object pronouns with non-emphatic strong forms) and Sursilvan Rhaeto-Romance (where clitic object pronouns have been completely replaced by strong forms). Creoles (sometimes called neo-Romance languages e.g., by Posner 1996) would be other exceptions, to the extent that they are viewed as part of the Romance family. So, object clitics can be broadly viewed as a characteristic property of most of the Romance family, though of course one shared by some other language families, whether geographically nearby or related, or more distant.  

3.2 Object clitic placement While the overwhelming trend in modern Romance is for pronominal clitics to appear as proclitics on finite verbs as in (18a,b,c), there are a few cases (European Portuguese, Galician, Asturian) where pronominal clitics can appear as enclitics to finite verbs in certain contexts, as in (18d). (18)

a. Sp. Ella te=ha b. Rom. Ea te=a c. Fr. Elle t=a she you.2SG . ACC = AUX - PRS . 3SG ‘She called you.’ d. EPt. Ela chamou=te. she call-PST . 3SG =you.SG . ACC ‘She called you.’

llamado. sunat. appelé. call- PTCP

Clitic pronouns

199

By having proclisis with infinitives (19a), French sets itself apart from other Romance languages, where enclisis is the norm (19b), whether negated or not (Hirschbühler/ Labelle 1994; 2001): (19)

a. Fr. b. Sp.

Tu peux le=faire you can-PRS . 2SG it=do-INF Puedes hacer=lo o or can-PRS . 2SG do-INF =it ‘You can do it or not do it.’

ou or no NEG

ne

pas

NEG

NEG

le=faire. it=do-INF

hacer=lo. do-INF =it

With multi-verb constructions, possible positions for clitics increase. Typically clitic pronouns can procliticize (or “raise”) to a higher finite verb or encliticize to the lower infinitive (20). With causatives as well, Spanish allows two positions (21), as do other Romance languages other than French. Standard French however allows only one position for clitics, leading to some potential ambiguity, (22): (20)

Sp.

a.

Me=lo=puedes hacer./ me. DAT = it.ACC = can-PRS 2SG do-INF / b. Puedes hacér=me=lo. do-INF =me. DAT = it.ACC can-PRS . 2SG ‘You can do it for me.’

(21)

Sp.

a.

(22)

Fr.

Tu peux me=le=faire peindre. you can-PRS . 2SG me. DAT = it.ACC = do-INF paint-INF ‘You can have it painted for me.’ / ‘You can have me paint it.’

Me=lo=puedes hacer pintar. me. DAT = I t.ACC = can- PRS .2SG do-INF paint-INF b. Puedes hacér=me=lo pintar. can-PRS . 2SG do-INF =me. DAT = it.ACC paint-INF ‘You can have it painted for me.’

Again, Modern Standard French is the exception in requiring the proclitic on the infinitive (23a), though earlier and regional varieties allow a clitic to “climb” to the higher verb (23b), and Standard French still displays “clitic climbing” to the higher verb in the case of causatives (23c), see ↗8 Causative and perception verbs, for more detail: (23)

a.

Modern Standard French Je peux le=faire. it.ACC = do-INF I can-PRS . 1SG

200

David Heap, Michèle Oliviéri and Katerina Palasis

b.

c.

Southern Regional French Je le=peux faire. do.INF I it.ACC = can-PRS . 1SG ‘I can do it.’ Modern Standard French Je le=lui=fais I it.ACC = him.DAT = make-PRS . 1SG ‘I make her/him write it (the book).’

écrire write.INF

(le livre). the book

In Occitan dialects, the constructions in (23a,b) are attested but the most frequent one has clitic climbing to above the finite verb, as in (24): (24)

Occ. Vous=lou=dève you.PL . DAT = it.ACC = must-PRS . 3SG ‘She/he must say it to you.’

dire. say-INF

In some languages, multiple verb constructions provide more possible sites for clitics to appear: (25)

Cat.

a.

Hi=vaig voler contribuir. LOC = AUX - PST . 1SG want-INF contribute-INF b. Vaig voler=hi contribuir. AUX - PST . 1SG want-INF = LOC contribute-INF c. Vaig voler contribuir=hi. AUX - PST . 1SG want-INF contribute-INF = LOC ‘I wanted to contribute to it.’

Positive imperatives regularly show enclisis (26a,b), while negative imperatives (in some situations these forms are actually subjunctives) usually show proclisis (26c,d), again with a few exceptions (26e): (26)

a. Sp. b. Fr.

c. Sp. d. Fr.

Di=lo! Dígan=lo! Digámos=lo! Dis=le! Dites=le! Disons=le! say-IMP . 2PL =it say-IMP . 1PL =it say-IMP . 2SG =it ‘Say it, let’s say it!’ No lo=digas! No lo=digamos! NEG it=say-IMP . 2SG NEG it=say-IMP . 1PL Ne le=dis pas! Ne le=disons NEG it=say-IMP . 2SG NEG NEG it=say-IMP . 1PL ‘Don’t say it, let’s not say it.’

pas! NEG

Clitic pronouns

e. Québécois, Colloquial French Dis=le pas! Disons=le NEG say-IMP . 1PL =it say-IMP . 2SG =it ‘Don’t say it, let’s not say it.’

201

pas! NEG

The Italian imperatives present a mixed case, with enclisis in affirmative imperatives as in French and Spanish above, but mixed proclisis and enclisis with negative imperatives (27):25 (27)

It.

a.

Non

dir=lo! Non say-INF =it NEG b. Non lo=dire! Non NEG it=say-INF NEG ‘Don’t say it, let’s not say it!’ NEG

diciamo=lo! say-IMP . 1PL =it lo=diciamo! it=say-IMP . 1PL

The normal position for clitics is of course “outside” finite verbal morphology, but in some vernacular varieties of Spanish, the formal imperative third person plural verbal morpheme -n can be found “doubled” after a clitic, as in (28a) and in some cases this “outside” -n can replace the normal verbal morpheme “inside” the clitic, as in (28b). (28)

Vernacular Sp.26

a.

Siénten=se-n! sit-IMP .3 PL = REFL -3 PL b. Siénte=se -n! sit-IMP = REFL -3. PL ‘Sit down!’ (plural)

vs

Sp.

siénten=se! sit-IMP .3 PL = REFL

This phenomenon is particularly common following se, but can also occur with other clitics in some varieties. Harris/Halle (2005) analyze such forms as ‘Kopy’ (28a) or Verbal Inflection Metathesis (28b), which in turn are seen as cases of either full or partial reduplication in a Distributed Morphology framework (see Halle/Marantz 1993). They do not however extend their account to cover cases where plural -n inflection occurs after pronouns which are encliticized to nonfinite forms such as infinitives (29a) or gerundives (29b) (Harris/Halle 2005, 213–214), although Pato/Heap (2012) show that in Spain the dialects which allow structures like (29a) are a subset of those which allow (28a,b):

25 There is also proclisis with formal affirmative imperatives Lo dica! Lo dicano!, but as Russi (2008, 64) points out, these can be considered subjunctive, i.e., finite forms. 26 As Harris/Halle (2005, 196, note 2), “Examples of this sort are documented in regions of Spain and every Latin American country as well as in dialects of contemporary Ladino (diaspora JudeoSpanish).”

202

(29)

David Heap, Michèle Oliviéri and Katerina Palasis

Vernacular Sp.27

a.

Quieren ver=me-n. want-PRS .3 PL see.INF =1 SG -3 PL ‘They want to see me.’ b. Están besándo=se-n. kissing=3REFL -3 PL are-3PL ‘They are kissing each other.’

These nonstandard Spanish constructions are somewhat reminiscent of cases of mesoclisis in European Portuguese, where one or more clitics can appear after a verb stem but before future or conditional morphology: (30)

EPt. Mostrar=t=o-emos. show.FUT =2SG . DAT = 3MSG . ACC - 1PL ‘We will show it to you.’

With compound tenses, on the whole, the overall trend follows the generalization of proclisis to the finite verb. (31)

a. Sp. b. It.

Lo=he L=ho it=have.1SG ‘I saw it.’

visto. visto. see.PTCP

In Standard French and Italian, proclitics are among the class of preverbal nominal objects which can trigger past participle agreement (see also ↗3 Objects, and ↗7 Auxiliaries).28  

(32)

a. Fr. b. It.

La pomme, je l=ai mise sur la table. I it=have.1SG put. PTCP . F on the.F table. the.F apple La mela, l=ho messa sulla tavola. it=have.1SG put. PTCP . F on-the.F table. the.F apple ‘The apple, I put it on the table.’

Romanian, where there is no participle agreement, follows the general pattern of clitics preceding the auxiliary, but with one idiosyncratic exception, the feminine singular object clitic, which instead follows the past participle:

27 Vernacular forms found in a number of Peninsular Spanish varieties (Pato/Heap 2012). 28 According to Tsakali/Anagnostopoulou (2008), there is a correlation between clitic doubling and agreement of past participles, such that if a language has clitic doubling, it lacks participle agreement, and if a language has participle agreement, it lacks clitic doubling. They propose that this correlation “provides the key to an understanding of the clitic doubling parameter” (2008, 322).

Clitic pronouns

(33)

203

Rom. a.

L=am văzut. see-PTCP 3MSG . ACC =have-PRS . 1SG ‘I saw him.’ b. Am văzut=o. see-PTCP = her. ACC have- PRS .1SG ‘I saw her.’

Piedmontese clitic “inversion” (Wanner 1987a; Parry 1997) provides another example of exceptional clitic placement in compound tenses (34a), as does clitic placement under negation in Albidona Calabrian (34b) (Manzini/Savoia 2008). (34)

a.

b.

Piedmontese Ha tirato=mi un sasso. throw-PTCP =me a stone. have-PRS . 3SG vs Italian Mi=ha tirato un sasso. throw-PTCP a stone. me=have-PRS . 3SG ‘S/he threw a stone at me.’ Calabrian [ ɔ llə=ddʒ u=βistə ] NEG him=have-PRS . 1SG him=see- PTCP ‘I have not seen him.’

French is also distinct from other Romance languages in having fixed-form presentational structures which are derived from verbal proclisis as in (35a), while the Spanish (35b) and Italian (35c) equivalents attest enclisis from earlier stages of the language: (35)

a. Fr.

b. Sp. c. It.

Me=voici. Me=voilà. me=here.is me=there.is ‘Here I am. There I am.’ He=me aquí. here.is=me here. Ecco=mi. here.is=me ‘Here I am.’

3.3 Clitic clusters When more than one pronoun is cliticized to the same verb, the clitics usually appear in a fixed order. In most cases, this fixed order is the same in both proclisis and enclisis, as in Spanish and Catalan (36a,b,c,d). In Standard French (36e,f) the order is

204

David Heap, Michèle Oliviéri and Katerina Palasis

reversed in enclisis, but not in Québec French and some varieties of Colloquial French (36g): (36)

a. Sp. b. Cat.

c. d.

e. f.

g.

Se=me=lo=ha podido llevar. Se=m=ho =va poder endur. REFL =me.DAT =it. ACC = AUX - 3SG can(-PTCP ) take.away-INF ‘S/he was able to take it away from me.’ Sp. Ha podido llevár=se=me=lo. Cat. Va poder endur=se=m=ho. AUX . 3SG can-(PTCP ) take.away-INF =REFL =me.DAT =it. ACC ‘S/he was able to take it away from me.’ Fr. Elle me=les=envoie. she me.DAT =them. ACC =send-PRS . 3SG Fr. Envoie=les=moi! send-IMP =them. ACC =me.DAT ‘She sends them to me. Send them to me!’ Québec French Envoie=moi=les! send-IMP =me.DAT =them. ACC ‘Send them to me!’

Since at least Perlmutter (1971), this (largely) fixed order has been described in terms of a morphological “template” with slots for each clitic or class of clitics. This approach corresponds to the recognition that the order of clitics in a cluster cannot be determined solely by syntactic roles, since it is typically sensitive to morphological features (person, number, etc.) as well. This leads to the template or “output condition on clitic pronouns” proposed by Perlmutter (1971, 45) for Spanish clitic pronouns, where II, I and III represent grammatical persons: (37)

Surface structure constraint for Spanish clitic pronouns: se II I III

As Perlmutter (1971, 51) shows, this template allows the sequences in (38) but filters out any sequence of clitics which is not ordered according to the template, as in (39): (38)

Sp.

a.

Se=me=le=perdió

el pasaporte al niño. the passport to.the boy ‘The boy’s passport went missing on me. / I lost the boy's passport.’ b. Nuestra finca, te=nos=la=robaste. farm you. DAT = us. DAT = it. F . ACC =robbed-2SG our. F ‘You stole our farm from us.’ REFL =me.DAT =it.M . DAT = lost-3SG

Clitic pronouns

c.

(39)

Sp.

Te=le=comiste el pan, pero a to you. DAT =him.DAT =ate-2SG the bread but no te=me=lo=comas. NEG you. DAT =me. DAT =it. ACC =eat-IMP ‘You ate his bread up, but don't eat mine up as well.’

205

mí me

a.

*Se=le=me=perdió el pasaporte al niño. REFL =it.M . DAT =me.DAT =lost-3SG the passport to.the boy ‘The boy’s passport went missing on me. / I lost the boy's passport.’ b. *Nuestra finca, la=te=nos=robaste. farm it.F . ACC =you.DAT =us.DAT =robbed-2SG our.F ‘You stole our farm from us.’ c. *Le=te=comiste el pan, pero a mí you. DAT =ate-2SG the bread but to me him.DAT = no lo=me=te=comas. NEG it. M . ACC =me.DAT =you. DAT =eat. IMP ‘You ate his bread up, but don’t eat mine up as well.’

In some cases, such as French and Occitan, case distinctions also play a role, but in all cases morphological features come into play as well. The equivalent template for French, from Perlmutter (1971, 57), relies on specific clitic forms, except for third person clitics, where reference to grammatical function (accusative vs dative in third person) is necessary: (40) French Template: Nominative ne

me/te/nous/vous/se

III

III

ACC

DAT

y

en

Note however that in some regional varieties of French, the order for third person clitics can differ from the standard one described in (40), and the order DAT - ACC is also attested, even if less frequent (see Avanzi/Stark 2016). Clusters of two third person clitics often present challenges for templates, as their order can vary, one or the other can be deleted, or the two can be combined into another opaque form, in regional French (Heap/Kaminskaïa 2001) as in other Romance varieties. In Occitan we find both orders: third person dative followed by third person accusative in some dialects, and third person accusative followed by third person dative in others. Often one or the other can be omitted. For Italian clitics, Vincent (1988, 291) gives the following relative order:

206

(41)

David Heap, Michèle Oliviéri and Katerina Palasis

Italian Template

1S G

3SG /PL ( DA T )

2PL

2SG

1PL

R EFL

3SG S G / PL

IM PERS

PA RT

mi

gli (m.) le (f)

vi

ti

ci

si

lo, la, li, le

si

ne

This template in fact requires a number of stipulations in interpretation (Wanner 1987a, 423–424). In addition, the third person plural clitic loro always follows verbal expressions (Wanner 1987a, 425), not clustering with other clitics. There have been decades of debate with arguments in favor of and opposed to a filter or template-based approach (summarized in Heap/Roberge 2001; see also Goldbach 2007 for a review and a Distributed Morphology treatment of French preverbal clitics using impoverishment and filters; and e.g. Heger 1966, Bossong 2003 for treatments of clitic objects in e.g. French, Spanish and Romanian as “object conjugation”). Templates have been criticized as purely descriptive devices which do not motivate clitic orders in any way, and do not predict why a given order should be allowed while others are filtered out. Alternative approaches which attempt to derive the order of clitic clusters from syntactic movements have never been entirely successful either (Kayne 1975; Uriagereka 1995; Heap/Roberge 2001). In the Optimality Theory framework, constraints of the A LIGN family have been used to describe possible clitic orderings (Grimshaw 2001; Gerlach 2002; Anderson 2005). But again, without underlying principles which explain why one order should be preferred or ranked higher than another, such mechanisms remain purely descriptive. Some authors have proposed that the internal order of clitic sequences reflects the relative morphological markedness of the pronoun’s internal featural makeup, from least to most specification (Harris 1995; Heap 2005), but this hypothesis has yet to be generalized and tested with a broad range of Romance clitic data. Other researchers (e.g. Sportiche 1996; Manzini/Savoia 2008) attempt to correlate clitic order with positions of different functional heads, but as in other cases these solutions are only partially satisfactory. When we consider the Romance languages as a whole, clitic clustering remains a puzzle: partial solutions appear promising in some areas but less than adequate in others. The robust generalization across the Romance family appears to be that the ordering of clusters cannot rely on syntactic information or on morphological features or specific phonological forms alone, but that clitic linearization must be able to access these different types of information at various times and in different ways. While the overwhelming majority of clitic clusters appear with fixed orders, a certain number of Spanish varieties allow vernacular orders (42a) to appear variably alongside standard orders (42b), just for a subset of clitics:

Clitic pronouns

(42)

a.

b.

Vernacular Spanish29 Si no riego, me=se=seca water- PRS . 1SG me. DAT =REFL =dries-PRS . 3SG if NEG Standard Spanish Si no riego, se=me=seca water- PRS .1SG REFL =me. DAT =dries- PRS .3SG if NEG ‘If I don’t irrigate, everything dries up on me.’

207

todo. all todo. all

Such variable orders occur in various vernacular varieties of Spanish and they affect a fairly small part of the clitic paradigm: just the order of the reflexive se with first singular and second singular clitics (se me / me se; se te / te se), but not for example with first plural and second plural clitics. These variable ordering data present serious challenges for syntactic movement, template or constraint-based accounts of clitic ordering, but an analysis using Feature Geometry allows for just the attested range of variation at least in these varieties (Heap 2005). Opacity is a related phenomenon which arises when a sequence of underlying clitics produces a surface form which cannot be directly derived from the input. The most well-known example is the so-called “spurious se” (Perlmutter 1971) in Spanish, where a third person dative le or les, when followed in a cluster by a third person accusative la, lo, las or los, surfaces as se: (43)

Sp.

a.

Les=doy las flores. the.F . PL flowers them.DAT . 3PL =give- PRS . 1SG Se=las=doy. REFL = them. ACC . F . PL = give- PRS . 1SG ‘I give the flowers to them. I give them to them.’ b. Las flores, a ellas, puedo flowers to them.F . PL can-PRS . 1SG the.F . PL dár=se=las pronto. give-INF = REFL = them.ACC . F . PL soon ‘The flowers, to them, I can give them to them soon.’

While it may be the most (in)famous instance, spurious se is certainly not the only case of opacity amongst Romance clitic clusters. In Italian the sequence reflexive si + impersonal si becomes ci si (Wanner 1987a). Bonet (1991, 88) offers a striking Catalan example of clitic opacity, in which the combination of the neuter object clitic ho (44a) and the ablative clitic en (44b) does not produce what might appear to be the

29 These “inverted” or variable sequences are documented in a number of nonstandard Peninsular Spanish varieties (Heap 2005), and they have also been reported in various South American varieties as well.

208

David Heap, Michèle Oliviéri and Katerina Palasis

combination of the two, *n’ho (44c) but rather a cluster of completely different clitics, a third person direct object and locative l’hi (44d). Similarly, Soto-Corominas (2017) examines sequences of clitics which are transparent in Standard Catalan, combining a second-person object clitic with an inherent reflexive as in (44e), but are opaque in vernacular Central Catalan, where the equivalent nonstandard cluster has the first person reflexive me (which is recoverable because it shares the φ-features of the coindexed subject) replaced by the default reflexive se as in (44f): (44) Cat.

a.

Això, ho=vaig treure de la caixa. this it.NEUT . ACC =AUX . 1SG take- INF from the.F box ‘This, I took it out of the box.’ b. De la caixa, en=vaig treure això. box ABL = AUX . 1SG take- INF this from the.F ‘Out of the box, I took this out.’ c. Això, de la caixa, *n=ho=vaig treure. box ABL =it.NEUT . ACC = AUX . 1SG take- INF this from the.F d. Això, de la caixa, l=hi= vaig treure. box, it.3= LOC =AUX . 1SG take- INF this from the.F ‘That, from the box, I took it out.’ e. Standard Cat. Te=m=acosto. 2SG =REFL . 1SG =approach-PRS . 1SG f. Central Cat. Se=t=acosto. REFL . 3=2SG =approach-PRS .1SG ‘I approach you.’

These sorts of data are among the evidence which leads Bonet to propose what has been called “Bonet’s generalization” about surface opaque clitic sequences more generally: (45)

Bonet’s generalization: “nontransparent output forms will have the same surface form as other clitics of the language instead of becoming an arbitrary phonological sequence.” (1991, 2–3)30

30 The few exceptions to this otherwise fairly robust generalization include the historical predecessor of the spurious se. In Old Spanish this combination surfaces as gelo, gela, gelos, gelas, where the first element ge- /ʒe/ does not correspond to anything else in the grammar (it is a phonetic reflex of the corresponding Latin pronoun ILL I ( S ) in this position, before another clitic). Significantly, this outlier form did not survive, but instead was replaced by se, another clitic existing in the system (not the result of any regular sound change), thus bringing it into line with Bonet’s generalization (see Heap 2005).

Clitic pronouns

209

In a number of Spanish dialects, the standard “spurious se” construction has vernacular variants in which the plural feature of an underlying indirect object surfaces instead of the direct object clitic los, despite its singular antecedent: (46)

Vernacular Spanish31 El libro, a los chicos, the book to the.M . PL boys ‘The book, to the boys, I give it.’

se=los=doy. REFL = them. M . PL = give-PRS . 1SG

Even more surprising, in a subset of these varieties it is not only the plural feature that can transfer from one clitic to another, but also the feminine gender: (47)

Vernacular Spanish El libro, a las chicas, the book to the.F . PL girls ‘The book, to the girls, I give it.’

se=las=doy. REFL =them.F . PL =give-PRS .1SG

Harris/Halle (2005) see phenomena like (46) and (47) as outside their Distributed Morphology analysis, since in this case the plural -s “moves” before Vocabulary Insertion, unlike the forms in (28a,b) above, which analyze as (fully or partially) reduplicative. In addition to the constraints mentioned so far, there exist in a number of Romance languages morpho-syntactic filters that bar certain sequences of clitics, such as the well-known person case or me lui constraint (e.g., Bonet 1994), which bans sequences where first or second person clitics precede a third person dative clitic (see also the French and Italian Templates in (40) and (41) above).

4 Subject clitics 4.1 Typology of subject clitics across Romance While all Romance languages display a full paradigm of strong pronouns (see Tables 3, 4, 5), most of them lack a full paradigm of clitic pronouns in subject position. Strong subject pronouns are usually optional and grammatical person is normally marked by the (rich) verbal morphology as shown in Table 6:32

31 See note 29. 32 Note that Swiss Rhaeto-Romance stands out here since (strong) subject pronouns are almost always obligatory although the language possesses quite strong verbal morphology (see Haiman 1988). These varieties reportedly also have inverted subject clitics or particles, especially in interrogation and other V2 contexts, that do not directly correspond to a preverbal particle in form or regularity. These elements

210

David Heap, Michèle Oliviéri and Katerina Palasis

Table 6: Present indicative of verb ‘to speak’, showing no obligatory subjects Italian

Spanish

Catalan

(European) Portuguese

Romanian

Nissart (Occitan dialect)

P1

parlo

hablo

parlo

falo

vorbesc

parli

P2

parli

hablas

parles

falas

vorbeşti

parles

P3

parla

habla

parla

fala

vorbeşte

parla

P4

parliamo

hablamos

parlem

falamos

vorbim

parlan/-èn

P5

parlate

habláis

parleu

falais

vorbiţi

parlas/-ès

P6

parlano

hablan

parlen

falam

vorbesc

parlon

As shown in ↗2 Subjects, the verbal endings in these languages seem to be sufficient to distinguish the persons, at least for this mood-tense (present indicative). Indeed, in other mood-tenses, such as the imperfect or the subjunctive, the verbal endings can display syncretisms and a strong subject pronoun can be inserted in the subject position in order to specify the person (e.g., It. che io parli, che tu parli, che egli/ella parli, Sp. que yo hable, que él/ella hable, EPt. que eu fale, que ele/ela fale, etc.). Moreover, the gender for P3 is not marked by the verbal ending and again, speakers can resort to a strong pronoun if they want to disambiguate the form (It. che egli/lui parli, che ella/lei parli). In the generative tradition, the observation that overt subject agreement morphology tends to correlate with the optionality of overt subject pronouns is attributed to Taraldsen’s Generalization (1980), though Chomsky (1981; 1982) is often cited as a source for the hypothesis of a Null Subject Parameter (see below). By contrast, other Romance languages, most notably Standard French, display a full paradigm of subject clitic pronouns (see Table 3). In Standard French, these elements are obligatory, unless a full referential nominal phrase or a strong referential pronoun occupies the subject position ((48a) vs (48b)). Consequently, (48c) without dislocation of the first subject, is ungrammatical in this system. (48) Fr.

a.

*(Il) parle. he speak-PRS . 3SG ‘He speaks.’ b. Tom / Lui / Le professeur Tom him the teacher ‘Tom/He/The teacher speaks.’

parle. speak-PRS . 3SG

are formally distinct from the preverbal subject clitics and cannot just be derived via syntactic inversion (Dieter Wanner, p.c.).

Clitic pronouns

c.

211

*Tom il parle. Tom he speak-PRS . 3SG ‘Tom he speaks.’

This division between languages that require the presence of a subject (either a pronoun or a noun phrase) and those that do not is postulated to reflect the “Null Subject Parameter” or “Pro-drop Parameter” said to distinguish “Non Null Subject Languages” (NNSL) like Standard French from “Null Subject Languages” (NSL) like Italian (Perlmutter 1971; Chomsky 1981; 1982; Rizzi 1982).33 Safir (1985), Wanner (1993) and Heap (2000) among others argue that the various properties this “parameter” is claimed to “bundle” together do not in fact constitute a unified grammatical phenomenon. The parameter is generally conceived of as binary. However both values can appear in the history of a given language (e.g., Adams 1987; Vance 1997; Kaiser 2009, for French). In such cases, transitions from one value to the other are obviously not sudden, and the progressive change can be evidenced by the intermediate stages represented by the dialects. In fact, apart from the clear-cut distinction between NSLs, located in the South of the Romance area, and NNSLs, in the North, a number of Romance systems display frequent subject pronouns but not for all persons, nor all moods or tenses or all syntactic contexts. Many scholars have studied the behavior of these varieties, notably of the Northern Italian Dialects (henceforth “NIDs”, see among others Renzi/Vanelli 1983; Rizzi 1986; Brandi/Cordin 1989; Renzi 1992; Poletto 1995; 1999; 2000; Manzini/Savoia 2005), the Northern Occitan Dialects (henceforth “NODs”, see Heap 2000; 2002a; Oliviéri 2010; 2011; Kaiser/Oliviéri/Palasis 2013; Oliviéri/Lai/Heap 2014; Oliviéri/Lai/Heap 2017) or Franco-Provençal (see Diémoz 2007; Hinzelin/Kaiser 2012), where different configurations are observed.34 Firstly, when broken down by the Person feature (P1 through P6), subject clitic paradigms can show from one to almost all clitics, as shown in Table 7.35

33 See ↗2 Subjects. 34 For a complete presentation of the Brazilian pronoun system, see ↗2 Subjects. 35 Unless otherwise indicated, all the examples in this section are from Manzini/Savoia (2005) and from the T HESOC database (Dalbera et al. 1992–).  



212

David Heap, Michèle Oliviéri and Katerina Palasis

Table 7: Subject paradigms in northern Italian Dialects (NIDs) and northern Occitan Dialects (NODs) NIDs

P1

NODs

Chioggia

Tende

Firenze

St-Sauves d’Auvergne

Vélines

St-Pardouxla-Rivière

to sleep

to sing

to sleep

to be

to be

to be

(e) 'dɔrmo

jo se

'dɔrmɔ

'kantu

sej te ʃɛʲ



P2

ti 'dɔrmi

ti 'kanta

tu d'dɔrmi

si

P3m

a 'dɔrme

aɻ 'kanta

e 'dɔrme

e

ej

ue

P3f

la 'dɔrme

a 'kanta

la 'dorme

e

ej

le

e si 'dɔrme

sɔ̃

sɔ̃

nu sũ

vu ddor'mihe

si

P4

dor'mimo

kan'tamu

P5

dor'mi

kan'tai

ty se

bu ʃej

vu se

P6m

i 'dɔrme

li 'kantaᵑ

e 'dɔrmano

sɔ̃

sɔ̃

i sũ

P6f

le 'dɔrme

le 'kantaᵑ

le 'dɔrmano

'sɔ̃

sɔ̃

la sũ

aɻ 'tʃou

e 'ɸjɔve

plɛɔ

kɔ plɔ

'pjɔve

it rains

kwɔ plø

Secondly, the data in Table 7 (last row) indicate that expletives can be present or not in meteorological constructions (Kaiser/Oliviéri/Palasis 2013; Oliviéri/Lai/Heap 2014). Thirdly, at least for NODs, the clitic has not yet become completely obligatory, hence the contrasts in (49), where forms with and without subject clitics coexist in the same grammar: (49)

a.

b.

Eyvirat [j=a'bite dɛ̃ la the I=live-PRS . 1SG in [aˈbite dɛ̃ la in the live-PRS . 1SG ‘I live in the next street.’ Bugeat [kɔ=ˈpløu] that=rain-PRS . 3SG [ˈpløu] rain-PRS . 3SG ‘It rains.’

ʁy 'a street ʁy'a street

a at da at

ku 'tɑ] side kuˈtɑ] side

Fourthly, in many NIDs, the subject clitic (50a) can or must double referential noun phrases like (50b) and indefinites (50c):

Clitic pronouns

(50)

a.

b.

c.

Pigna [eɾ u=ˈdɔɾme] him he=sleep-PRS . 3SG ‘He sleeps.’ Firenze [la mi fiʎˈʎola la=sˈtudja the my daughter she=study-PRS . 3SG ‘My daughter studies too much.’ Grizzo [niˈsun al=ˈveŋ] nobody he=come-PRS . 3SG ‘Nobody comes.’

213

ˈθrɔppo] too much

There are many research questions still to be investigated regarding partial subject paradigms, particularly in under-studied vernacular varieties, but it seems clear that reducing the presence or absence of subjects to a single binary parameter is not a descriptively adequate approach.

4.2 The status of subject clitics The question of the morpho-syntactic status of subject clitics is a longstanding one. Indeed, while the term “clitic” refers in principle to a phonological property, these elements can be analyzed as syntactic arguments (Kayne 1975; Rizzi 1986; De Cat 2005; Roberts 2010) or as morphological agreement markers (Roberge 1990; Auger 1995; Culbertson 2010).36 The debate is very vigorous, in particular with respect to French, where both analyses compete. Under the latter analysis, some authors consider French to have become a null subject language once again, with subject clitics reanalyzed as inflectional prefixes (Roberge 1990). Throughout the years, key studies on standard and dialectal systems have devised criteria in order to assess the morpho-syntactic status of these subject clitics (e.g. Kayne 1975; Zwicky/Pullum 1983; Rizzi 1986; Auger 1994; Poletto 2000, 15‒30). These properties are synthesized in Table 8:

36 See Section 4.3 on their emergence.

214

David Heap, Michèle Oliviéri and Katerina Palasis

Table 8: Criteria for the morpho-syntactic status of clitics Property

Tests

Syntactic argument

Morphological marker

(i)

Obligatory clitic

α: coordination β: doubling



+

(ii)

Fixed preverbal position

γ: interrogation



+

(iii)

No intervening elements between clitic and verb

δ: negation



+

Property (i) focuses on the contexts of appearance of the clitic, i.e., coordination (test α) and doubling (test β). An agreement marker, unlike a syntactic argument, should always appear in both these contexts. Property (ii) hinges upon the placement of the clitic with regard to the verb in interrogative structures (test γ). An agreement marker should remain preverbal, whatever the position of the verb. Finally, Property (iii) concentrates on the type of constituents found between the clitic and the verb. Only other agreement markers can intervene between the verb and an agreement marker, which excludes intervening negative markers (test δ). Recent research on micro-variation in Romance dialects and oral French helped shed new light on this controversial point, since it now appears that the status of the clitic is not the same in all the different systems.  



4.2.1 Dialects: NIDs and NODs Italian scholars generally agree that subject clitics in the various NIDs are morphological affixes or agreement markers in these languages (see among others Renzi/ Vanelli 1983; Rizzi 1986; Brandi/Cordin 1989; Renzi 1992; Poletto 1993; 1995; 2000; Manzini/Savoia 2005).37 More precisely, Poletto (1999; 2000) proposes that the subject clitics are different functional heads in the inflectional domain. The facts on which their conclusions rely are illustrated in (51), where the NIDs are submitted to the different tests listed above. The clitic is obligatorily present (tests α and β), even with an indefinite pronoun like nobody, it is always preverbal (test γ) and cannot be separated from the verb by the negative marker (test δ).

37 However, for an alternative analysis, see Cardinaletti/Repetti (2010).

Clitic pronouns

(51)

The NIDs (α) Obligatory clitic?: coordination Trento La=magna pan e *(la) beve bread and she drink-PRS . 3SG she=eat-PRS . 3SG ‘She eats bread and (she) drinks wine.’ (β) a.

b.

215

vin. wine (Poletto 1993)

Obligatory clitic?: doubling Fontanigorda [a=maˈria *(a)=ˈduɔrme] the=Maria she=sleep-PRS . 3SG ‘Mary sleeps.’ Pozzaglio [niˈsøn *(i)=ˈdorma] nobody he=sleep-PRS . 3SG ‘Nobody sleeps.’

(γ)

Fixed preverbal position?: interrogation Airole [ke ˈlibru ty=ˈvøi] what book you=want-PRS . 2SG ‘What book do you want?’

(δ)

Intervening elements between clitic and verb?: negative markers Longare [non te=ˈðɔrmi] NEG you=sleep-PRS . 2SG ‘You do not sleep.’

Contrastively, the same tests all turn out negative when applied to the NODs (see (52), details in Oliviéri 2015). Indeed, tests α and β show that clitic subjects can be omitted in coordinated structures and with referential subject noun phrases. Moreover, the clitic can be manipulated by a syntactic operation, since it is either preverbal or postverbal (test γ reveals that the two constructions alternate freely), and it can be separated from the verb by the negative marker in dialects which display a preverbal negative marker (test δ). (52)

The NODs (α) Obligatory clitic?: coordination a. Sencenac ju=me=sjˈet a ˈtawlɔ e I=REFL . 1. SG =sit-PRS . 1SG at table and

ju=eˈpɛre lo I=wait-PRS . 1SG the

ʃuˈpa] dinner

216

David Heap, Michèle Oliviéri and Katerina Palasis

b.

c.

d.

Faux-Mazuras [i=meˈsicie a ˈtablə e aˈtɛ̃ de la I=REFL . 1. SG =sit-PRS . 1SG at table and wait-PRS . 1SG the ‘I sit down at the table and I wait for the dinner.’ Sencenac [ty=riˈzja e paʁˈlaj tu lø tɛ̃ ] speak-PST . 2SG all the time you=laugh-PST . 2SG and Biras [ty=riˈʒja e pɛrˈlavi tu lø tɛ̃ ] speak-PST . 2SG all the time you=laugh-PST . 2SG and ‘You laughed and spoke all the time.’

(β)

Obligatory clitic?: doubling No occurrence of this construction has been found in the NODs.

(γ) a.

Fixed preverbal position?: interrogation La Chassagne [ki kø ty=sɛ] who that you=be-PRS . 2SG [ki sɛj=ty] who be-PRS . 2SG =you ‘Who are you?’ Faux-Mazuras [ˈkaw tɛ̃ fɛ=ko] what weather do- PRS . 3SG =that [ˈkau tɛ̃ ka=ˈfɛĕ] what weather that=do-PRS . 3SG ‘What is the weather like?’

b.

(δ) a.

b.

suˈpo] soup

Intervening elements between clitic and verb?: negative markers La Chassagne [i n=ɑ̃ saˈbɛ̃ ʁɛ] know-PRS .3 SG nothing he NEG =of-it ‘He does not know anything about that.’ Sorges [kɒ nø pˈlɔŭ pa] rain-PRS . 3SG NEG that NEG ‘It does not rain.’

Therefore, unlike the NIDs and despite the fact that they only constitute partial paradigms, the NODs’ subject clitics behave like syntactic arguments. The obvious variability of these elements’ status among languages leads us to reconsider the

Clitic pronouns

217

longstanding controversy about other languages like French, taking into account the different systems coexisting in this language.

4.2.2 The case of French The debate around the status of subject clitics in French is lively. A central problem arises from the fact that “French” does not constitute a uniform and unique system worldwide, but manifold systems incorrectly called just “French” in a simplifying way (in Quebec, Ontario, Switzerland, Belgium, various African countries, as well as in different regions of Metropolitan and Overseas France). It is thus not possible to establish a single status for these elements and so different analyses are proposed, depending on the variety considered. Another confusion concerns the French spoken in France, conflating Standard French and Colloquial French. Indeed, the two varieties do not behave identically, in particular with respect to subject clitics (Lambrecht 1981; Renzi 1992; Blanche-Benveniste 1994; 2003; Zribi-Hertz 1994; 2011; Auger 1995; Cabredo Hofherr 2004; Culbertson 2010; Roberts 2010; Massot 2010; Palasis 2013; 2015). Recent analyses lead to the diglossic hypothesis following Ferguson’s (1959) original work according to which speakers manage two distinct grammars when confronted with a diglossic situation (here between Colloquial and Standard French). Applying the above-mentioned tests to acquisition data, Palasis (2015) proposes that the subject clitics behave like agreement markers in the initial, colloquial grammar and like syntactic arguments in the second, standard grammar. Concerning criterion (i), the clitic is always present in Colloquial French in coordination (53a) and with a full nominal phrase (53b,c,d), while it is not in Standard French (53a’,b’,c’,d’). Moreover (53a) shows that the form of the third singular masculine clitic is not the same in both systems. In Standard French, it is always il, while in Colloquial French, there are two allomorphs: il before a vowel and i before a consonant. As a result, a sentence like *Tom il dort is definitively ungrammatical, since it would be either Tom i dort in Colloquial French or Tom, il dort in Standard French, with a left dislocation of the noun phrase Tom. (53)

Two Grammars: obligatory clitic? (α) Coordination I=dort et *(i)=rêve. a. CollFr.38 a’. StFr. Il=dort et (il)=rêve. he=sleep-PRS . 3SG and (he)=dream-PRS . 3SG ‘He sleeps and (he) dreams.’

38 The Colloquial French examples are from Palasis (2012).

218

David Heap, Michèle Oliviéri and Katerina Palasis

(β) Doubling b. CollFr. L’ escargot i=dort. the snail he=sleep-PRS . 3SG ‘The snail sleeps.’ c. CollFr. Lui i=s=appelle Raphaël. Raphaël him he=REFL . 3=call-PRS . 3SG ‘Him, his name is Raphael.’ d. CollFr. Personne i=m=l=a dit. tell-PTCP nobody he=me.DAT =it.ACC =has ‘Nobody told me that.’ b’. StFr. Il/Tom/Lui dort. he/Tom/him sleep-PRS . 3SG ‘He/Tom sleeps.’ c’. StFr. Tom/Lui, il=dort. Tom/him he=sleep-PRS . 3SG ‘Tom/him, he sleeps.’ d’. StFr. *Personne, il=dort. nobody he=sleep-PRS . 3SG ‘Nobody sleeps.’ The test γ for criterion (ii) shows the same contrast between Colloquial and Standard French, since the clitic is always preverbal in Colloquial French (54a), while it can be postverbal in Standard French (54b). (54)

Two Grammars: fixed preverbal position? (γ: interrogation) a. CollFr. Où elle=est where she-be-PRS . 3SG b. StFr. Où est-elle where be-PRS . 3SG =she ‘Where is the car?’

la the.F la the.F

voiture? car voiture? car

Finally, test δ for criterion (iii) reveals that there is no preverbal negative marker in Colloquial French, hence no intervening syntactic head between the clitic and the verb (55a). On the contrary, with the introduction of the preverbal ne in Standard French, the subject clitic can be separated from the verb and the third person singular masculine clitic displays the allomorph il although it is before a consonant (55b). (55) Two Grammars: intervening elements between clitic and verb? (δ: negation) a. CollFr. I=pleure plus. anymore he=cry-PRS . 3SG

219

Clitic pronouns

b. StFr.

Il=ne=pleure plus. anymore he=NEG =cry-PRS . 3SG ‘He does not cry anymore.’

All these tests reveal that if subject clitics are indeed syntactic arguments in Standard French, they behave as morphological agreement markers in Colloquial French, which is then a Null Subject Language. In this perspective, Quebec and Swiss French are then similar to Colloquial French (Roberge 1990; Auger 1995; Fonseca-Greber 2000), while Belgian French described in De Cat (2002; 2007) is more like Standard French. Related matters, such as the status of intervening object and adverbial clitics, interrogative and relative pronouns, are dealt with in Auger (1994) and Palasis (2015).

4.3 A progressive emergence Both dialectal and colloquial data of French varieties suggest evidence in favor of a diachronic change that leads progressively from a NSL (Latin) to a NNSL (French) then back to a NSL (Colloquial French), with intermediary stages. Thus, subject clitics in contemporary Romance languages are at different stages of the “cline of grammaticality” as described by Hopper/Traugott (1993), see also Lehman (1985): content item > grammatical word > clitic > inflectional affix (see Table 9). During this grammaticalization process, the personal pronoun – which is initially a full nominal phrase, a “personal substantive” according to Tesnière (1959), thus an argument – first becomes a phonological clitic and then acquires the status of a morphological agreement marker. The first step of this emergence might be in subordinate clauses (in the subjunctive mood) in the NIDs, where even NSLs like Italian or Spanish introduce a Table 9: The successive stages of subject clitic grammaticalization Languages

Full paradigm

Phonologically cliticized



Syntactic argument

stage 1

NSL (Italian, Southern Occitan, Spanish, …)

+

stage 2

NODs and Old French



+

+

stage 3

Standard French, Belgian French

+

+

+

stage 4

NIDs

–/+

+



stage 5

Colloquial French, Quebec French

+

+



220

David Heap, Michèle Oliviéri and Katerina Palasis

strong pronoun, or the meteorological subject ko in the NODs (Oliviéri/Lai/Heap 2017). Then the mechanism can spread to other contexts, and gradually generalize to constitute a (partial or full) paradigm, these elements becoming clitics. The last stage is illustrated by the change of status of the clitics, which can finally become verbal affixes or agreement markers. Additionally, in grammars displaying partial paradigms of subject clitics, the order of appearance of the clitics is also controversial. First, from the observation of NIDs, Renzi/Vanelli (1983) established the following generalization, where the subject clitics successively emerge depending on the verbal person (56): (56)

P2 > P3 > P6 > P5 > P4 > P1

However, this progression does not hold for other systems such as the NODs (where P3 or P1 can appear first) and it has been successively refined by Heap (2000; 2002a), Cabredo Hofherr (2004), Kaiser/Oliviéri/Palasis (2013) and Oliviéri (2010; 2011), the latter proposing an analysis based upon the progressive introduction of features (57) which incorporates observations of the acquisition of subject clitics in Colloquial French: (57)

[person] > [speaker] > [plural] > [feminine]

It appears then that this progression cannot be formulated in terms of the emergence of pronouns but rather the introduction of features based on distinctive oppositions (for an alternative analysis within a Feature Geometry framework, see also Oliviéri/ Lai/Heap 2017).

5 Clitics and negation Many Romance languages display preverbal negative markers. These preverbal markers can surface either alone, as in Italian, Spanish, Catalan, (European) Portuguese, Romanian, Galician, some Italian and Occitan dialects, and varieties of eastern Rhaeto-Romance, or along with a postverbal marker, as in Standard French and some Occitan (Oliviéri/Sauzet 2016) or Italian dialects (Zanuttini 1997). Interestingly, different relative orders are observed when these preverbal markers occur with preverbal subject and/or object clitics. Indeed, in some varieties preverbal negative markers precede all complement clitics (58a), whereas in others they follow them (58b) (Zanuttini 1997, 18‒19). Tasmowski/Reinheimer (2001, 328) further point out that (European) Portuguese also permits a clitic to be separated from its verbal host by the negation não which is considered a stressed form (58c).

221

Clitic pronouns

(58)

a. Sp.

Maria no se=lo=dio. REFL = 3SG . M . ACC =give-PST . 3SG Maria NEG ‘Maria did not give it to her/him/it/herself.’ b. Cairese (Northwestern Italy) U mi=n sent nent. NEG he me. ACC =NEG hear-PRS . 3SG ‘He does not hear me.’ c. EPt. Descubro uma coisa de que me=não a thing of which REFL . 1SG = NEG discover-PRS . 1SG lembrava já. anymore recall-PST . 1SG ‘I discover something which I no longer remembered.’

The linear order also varies according to person and type of clitic. Some negative markers precede all complement clitics, whereas others follow first- and secondperson complement clitics and reflexives (CL-1), but precede third-person, locative and partitive clitics (CL-2). Thus Zanuttini (1997, 21) suggests that complement clitics and preverbal negative markers each have two possible structural positions, i.e., Neg1 CL-1 Neg-2 CL-2. In this framework, the preverbal markers which can negate by themselves are always in the highest position (e.g., Italian non), whereas the others (“the weak negative markers”) can be in either Neg-1 or Neg-2 (e.g., French proclitic ne or Cairese enclitic n). The facts are equally intricate when it comes to languages which also display subject clitics, e.g., NIDs and French. On the one hand, the NID preverbal negative marker can surface either higher or lower than the subject clitic (Poletto 2000), as exemplified in (59). This relative position therefore became one of the tests (along with coordination and inversion, as mentioned in Section 4.2) that led Poletto (2000) to hypothesize four different positions for subject clitics, i.e., invariable and deictic clitics located in the CP field, and number and person clitics in the lower IP field.  



(59)

Ligurian (Cosseria) I=n=te=n=dan 3PL . NOM = NEG = 2SG . DAT = NEG = give-PRS . 3PL ‘They do not give you the book.’

nent NEG

u the

libru. book

Parry (1997, 251) points out that these multiple negative markers are also sensitive to person distinctions: the second negative marker only occurs with first person singular, second person singular and third person reflexive object clitics. On the other hand, French displays no optionality with regard to ordering, since the preverbal negative marker always follows the subject clitic and precedes the other clitics. Nevertheless, the presence or the absence of the preverbal negative marker has served for a while now (at least since Ashby 1977) as an uncontroversial indicator of

222

David Heap, Michèle Oliviéri and Katerina Palasis

the register/grammar a French speaker is using, and more recently as a more controversial indicator of the morpho-syntactic status of the subject clitic (details in Section 4.2.2).

6 Conclusion As should be clear from the (necessarily constrained) overview presented in this chapter, the term clitic covers a highly heterogeneous range of phenomena. Even limiting ourselves to just pronominal clitics, as we do here, it seems more useful to think of “clitic” as a descriptive cover term rather than a single, unified theoretical concept which can be rigorously defined (Wanner 1987b). That said, there are many strong trends and near-universals about clitic pronouns which are shared by almost all Romance languages. Recurring patterns in the forms of object clitic paradigms and their placement with respect to verbs are among the characteristics that give them all a recognizable Romance “family resemblance”. As with all trends (and language families) there are always outliers that do not follow overall patterns. Understanding how exceptional cases fit into the wider panorama of Romance clitic phenomena is one of the important functions of an overview such as this one, which endeavors to paint as detailed a portrait of clitic pronouns across Romance languages as space allows. It is precisely these exceptions and the variability of clitic pronouns which make them so important to the study of this language family. As an alternative to a single unified phenomenon defined by recurring patterns or parametric categories, we suggest that it is most helpful to view clitics and cliticization as a process (or a series of processes) in progress, with the grammars of individual varieties being situated at different points along a gradual cline.

7 References Adams, Marianne (1987), From Old French to the theory of pro-drop, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 5, 1–32. Anagnostopoulou, Elena (2006), Clitic doubling, in: Martin Everaert/Henk van Riemsdijk (edd.), The Blackwell Companion to Syntax, Oxford, Blackwell, 519–581. Anderson, Stephen R. (2005), Aspects of the Theory of Clitics, Oxford, Oxford University Press. Ashby, William J. (1977), Clitic Inflection in French: A Historical Perspective, Amsterdam, Rodopi. Auger, Julie (1994), Pronominal clitics in Québec Colloquial French: A morphological analysis, University of Pennsylvania, Ph.D. dissertation. Auger, Julie (1995), Les clitiques pronominaux en français parlé informel: une approche morphologique, Revue Québécoise de Linguistique 24, 13–60. Avanzi, Mathieu/Stark, Elisabeth (2016), A crowdsourcing approach to the description of regional variation in French clitic clusters, Paper presented at New Ways of Analyzing Syntactic Variation 2, Ghent University, 19.–20.05.2016.

Clitic pronouns

223

Bastida, Salvador (1976), Restricciones de orden en las secuencias de clíticos del castellano: dos requisitos, in: Víctor Sánchez de Zavala (ed.), Estudios de gramática generativa, Barcelona, Labor, 59–99. Belletti, Adriana (1999), Italian/Romance clitics: structure and derivation, in: Henk van Riemsdijk (ed.), Clitics in the Languages of Europe, Berlin/New York, De Gruyter, 543–579. Blanche-Benveniste, Claire (1994), Quelques caractéristiques grammaticales des “sujets” employés dans le français parlé des conversations, in: Marina Yaguello (ed.), Subjecthood and Subjectivity. Proceedings of the Colloquium “The Status of the Subject in Linguistic Theory”, London, Ophrys, 77–107. Blanche-Benveniste, Claire (2003), Les formes grammaticales de réalisation des sujets et leur inégale représentation en français contemporain, in: Jean-Marie Merle (ed.), Le sujet, Paris, Ophrys, 73–90. Bonami, Olivier/Boyé, Gilles (2007), French pronominal clitics and the design of Paradigm Function Morphology, in: Geert Booij et al. (edd.), Proceedings of the Fifth Mediterranean Morphology Meeting, Bologna, University of Bologna, 291–322. Bonet, Eulàlia (1991), Morphology after Syntax: Pronominal Clitics in Romance Languages, Cambridge, MA, MIT Press. Bonet, Eulàlia (1994), The person-case constraint: A morphological approach, MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 22, 33–52. Bonet, Eulàlia (1995), Feature structure of Romance clitics, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 13, 607–647. Bonet, Eulàlia (2002), Cliticització, in: Joan Solà et al. (edd.), Gramàtica del català contemporani, vol. 1, Barcelona, Empúries, 933–989. Borer, Hagit (1984), Parametric Syntax: Case Studies in Semitic and Romance Languages, Dordrecht, Foris. Bossong, Georg (2003), Nominal and/or verbal marking of central actants, in: Giuliana Fiorentino (ed.), Romance Objects: Transitivity in Romance Languages, Berlin/New York, De Gruyter, 17–48. Brandi, Luciana/Cordin, Patrizia (1989), Two Italian dialects and the null subject parameter, in: Osvaldo Jaeggli/Kenneth Safir (edd.), The Null Subject Parameter, Dordrecht, Kluwer, 111–142. Cabredo Hofherr, Patricia (2004), Les clitiques sujets du français et le paramètre du sujet nul, Langue Française 141, 99–109. Cardinaletti, Anna (1991), On pronoun movement: the Italian dative “loro”, Probus 3, 127–153. Cardinaletti, Anna/Repetti, Lori (2010), Proclitic vs enclitic pronouns in Northern Italian dialects and the null-subject parameter, in: Roberta D’Alessandro/Adam Ledgeway/Ian Roberts (edd.), Syntactic Variation: The Dialects of Italy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 119–134. Cardinaletti, Anna/Starke, Michael (1999), The typology of structural deficiency: a case study of the three classes of pronouns, in: Henk van Riemsdijk (ed.), Clitics in the Languages of Europe, Berlin/New York, De Gruyter, 145–233. Chomsky, Noam (1981), Lectures on Government and Binding, Dordrecht, Foris. Chomsky, Noam (1982), Some Concepts and Consequences of the Theory of Government and Binding, Cambridge, MA, MIT Press. Culbertson, Jennifer (2010), Convergent evidence for categorial change in French: from subject clitic to agreement marker, Language 86, 85–132. Dalbera, Jean-Philippe, et al. (1992–), Thesaurus Occitan, “THESOC”, Univ. Nice Sophia Antipolis, CNRS, BCL, UMR 7320, http://thesaurus.unice.fr. Dannell, Karl Johan (1973), L’emploi des formes fortes des pronoms personnels pour désigner des choses en français moderne, Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis. Studia Romanica Upsaliensia 13, 1–78.  

224

David Heap, Michèle Oliviéri and Katerina Palasis

de Benito Moreno, Carlota (2015), Pero se escondíamos como las ratas: syncretism in the reflexive paradigm in Spanish and Catalan, Isogloss. A Journal on Variation of Romance and Iberian Languages 1, 95–127. De Cat, Cécile (2002), French dislocation, University of York, Ph.D. dissertation. De Cat, Cécile (2005), French subject clitics are not agreement markers, Lingua 115, 1195–1219. De Cat, Cécile (2007), French Dislocation. Interpretation, Syntax, Acquisition, Oxford, Oxford University Press. Deshaies, Denise/Guilbault, Christian/Paradis, Claude (1993), Prosodie et dislocation à gauche par anaphore en français québécois spontané, in: André Crochetière/Jean-Claude Boulanger/Conrad Ouellon (edd.), Actes du XVe Congrès International des Linguistes, Sainte-Foy, Presses de l’Université Laval, 31–34. Diémoz, Federica (2007), Morphologie et syntaxe des pronoms personnels sujets dans les parlers francoprovençaux de la Vallée d’Aoste, Tübingen/Basel, Francke. Dobrovie-Sorin, Carmen (1990), Clitic doubling, “wh”-movement, and quantification in Romanian, Linguistic Inquiry 21, 351–397. Dobrovie-Sorin, Carmen (1999), The typology of pronouns and the distinction between syntax and morphophonology, in: Henk van Riemsdijk (ed.), Clitics in the Languages of Europe, Berlin/New York, De Gruyter, 249–255. Ferguson, Charles A. (1959), Diglossia, Word 15, 325–340. Fernández-Ordóñez, Inés (2012), Dialect areas and linguistic change: pronominal paradigms in Ibero-Romance dialects from a cross-linguistic and social typology perspective, in: Gunther De Vogelaer/Guido Seiler (edd.), The Dialect Laboratory: Dialects as a Testing Ground for Theories of Language Change, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, Benjamins, 73–106. Fonseca-Greber, Bonnibeth (2000), The Change from Pronoun to Clitic and the Rise of Null Subjects in Spoken Swiss French, University of Arizona, Ph.D. dissertation. Fontana, Josep M. (1993), Phrase structure and the syntax of clitics in the history of Spanish, University of Pennsylvania, Ph.D. dissertation. Gasiglia, Rémy (1984), Grammaire du nissart, Nice, Institut d’études niçoises. Geisler, Hans (1982), Studien zur typologischen Entwicklung: Lateinisch, Altfranzösisch, Neufranzösisch, München, Fink. Gelderen, Elly van (2011), The Linguistic Cycle: Language Change and the Language Faculty, Oxford, Oxford University Press. Gerlach, Birgit (2002), Clitics between Syntax and Lexicon, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, Benjamins. Gerlach, Birgit/Grijzenhout, Janet (edd.) (2000), Clitics in Phonology, Morphology and Syntax, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, Benjamins. Givón, Talmy (1971), Historical syntax and synchronic morphology: An archeologist’s field trip, Chicago Linguistic Society 7, 394–415. Goldbach, Maria (2007), The Distributed Morphology of object clitics in Modern French, Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 26, 41–81. Grimshaw, Jane (2001), Optimal clitic positions and the lexicon in Romance clitic systems, in: Géraldine Legendre/Jane Grimshaw/Sten Vikner (edd.), Optimality-theoretic Syntax, Cambridge, MA, MIT Press, 205–240. Grohmann, Kleanthes K./Neokleous, Theoni (edd.) (2015), Acquisition of clitics, Lingua 161, 1–158. Haase, Martin (2000), Reorganization of a gender system: the central Italian neuters, in: Barbara Unterbeck/Matti Rissanen (edd.), Gender in Grammar and Cognition, Berlin/New York, De Gruyter, 221–236. Haiman, John (1988), Rhaeto-Romance, in: Martin Harris/Nigel Vincent (edd.), The Romance Languages, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 351–390. Hall, Robert A. Jr. (1968), Neuters, mass nouns and the ablative in Romance, Language 44, 480–486.

Clitic pronouns

225

Halle, Morris/Marantz, Alec (1993), Distributed Morphology and the pieces of inflection, in: Ken Hale/ Samuel J. Keyser (edd.), The View from Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honour of Sylvain Bromberger, Cambridge, MA, MIT Press, 111–176. Harris, Alice C. (2002), Endoclitics and the Origins of Udi Morphosyntax, Oxford, Oxford University Press. Harris, James (1995), The morphology of Spanish clitics, in: Héctor Campos (ed.), Evolution and Revolution in Linguistic Theory, Georgetown, Georgetown University Press, 168–197. Harris, James/Halle, Morris (2005), Unexpected plural inflections in Spanish: reduplication and metathesis, Linguistic Inquiry 36, 195–222. Heap, David (2000), La variation grammaticale en géolinguistique: les pronoms sujet en roman central, München, Lincom Europa. Heap, David (2002a), Split subject pronoun paradigms: feature geometry and underspecification, in: Teresa Satterfield/Christina M. Tortora/Diana Cresti (edd.), Current Issues in Romance Languages: Selected Papers from the 29th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages (LSRL), Ann Arbor, 8–11 April 1999, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, Benjamins, 129–144. Heap, David (2002b), Morphological complexity and Spanish object clitic variation, in: Caroline Wiltshire/Joaquim Camps (edd.), Romance Phonology and Variation, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, Benjamins, 55–68. Heap, David (2005), Constraining optimality: clitic sequences and Feature Geometry, in: Lorie Heggie/ Francisco Ordóñez (edd.), Perspectives on Clitic and Agreement Affix Combinations, Amsterdam/ Philadelphia, Benjamins, 81–102. Heap, David/Kaminskaïa, Svetlana (2001), Variable clitic sequences in Nonstandard French: Feature Geometry or Optimality?, University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 7.3, 101–114. Heap, David/Roberge, Yves (2001), Cliticisation et théorie syntaxique, 1971–2001, Revue québécoise de linguistique 30, 63–90. Heger, Klaus (1966), La conjugaison objective en français et en espagnol, Langages 3, 19–39. Heggie, Lorie/Ordóñez, Francisco (edd.) (2005), Clitic and Affix Combinations: Theoretical Perspectives, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, Benjamins. Hinzelin, Marc-Olivier/Kaiser, Georg A. (2012), Le paramètre du sujet nul dans les variétés dialectales de l’occitan et du francoprovençal, in: Mario Barra-Jover et al. (edd.), Études de linguistique gallo-romane, Saint-Denis, Presses Universitaires de Vincennes, 247–260. Hirschbühler, Paul/Labelle, Marie (1994), Changes in verb position in French negative infinitival clauses, Language Variation and Change 6, 149–178. Hirschbühler, Paul/Labelle, Marie (2001), La position des clitiques par rapport au verbe à l’impératif dans l’évolution du français, Recherches linguistiques de Vincennes 30, 13–37. Hopper, Paul J./Traugott, Elizabeth Closs (1993), Grammaticalization, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Hourcade, André (1986), Grammaire béarnaise, Pau, Association Los Caminaires. Householder, Fred W. (1981), The Syntax of Apollonius Dyscolus, translated, and with commentary by Fred W. Householder, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, Benjamins. Jaeggli, Osvaldo (1982), Topics in Romance Syntax, Dordrecht, Foris. Jaeggli, Osvaldo (1986), Three issues in the theory of clitics: Case, doubled NPs, and extraction, in: Hagit Borer (ed.), The Syntax of Pronominal Clitics, New York, Academic Press, 15–42. Kaiser, Georg A. (2009), Losing the null subject. A contrastive study of (Brazilian) Portuguese and (Medieval) French, in: Georg A. Kaiser/Eva-Maria Remberger (edd.), Null-subjects, Expletives, and Locatives in Romance, Konstanz, Universität Konstanz, 131–156. Kaiser, Georg A./Oliviéri, Michèle/Palasis, Katerina (2013), Impersonal constructions in northern Occitan, in: Xosé Afonso Álvarez Pérez/Ernestina Carrilho/Catarina Magro (edd.), Current

226

David Heap, Michèle Oliviéri and Katerina Palasis

Approaches to Limits and Areas in Dialectology, Newcastle upon Tyne, Cambridge Scholars Press, 345–366. Kayne, Richard S. (1975), French Syntax. The Transformational Cycle, Cambridge, MA, MIT Press. Kayne, Richard S. (2000), Parameters and Universals, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 163–186. Lai, Jean-Pierre (1996), La particule “Ke” dans la construction verbale du parler de Nuoro (Sardaigne): proposition d'analyse, Université Stendhal-Grenoble 3, Mémoire de D.E.A. Lambert, Frédéric (2001), Aux sources de l’enclise: réflexions sur les théories d’Apollonios Dyscole, in: Claude Muller (ed.), Clitiques et cliticisation, Paris, Champion, 17–29. Lambrecht, Knud (1981), Topic, Antitopic and Verb Agreement in Non-standard French, Amsterdam/ Philadelphia, Benjamins. Legendre, Géraldine (2000), Positioning Romanian verbal clitics at PF: an Optimality-theoretic analysis, in: Birgit Gerlach/Janet Grijzenhout (edd.), Clitics in Phonology, Morphology and Syntax, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, Benjamins 219–254. Lehmann, Christian (1985), Grammaticalization: synchronic variation and diachronic change, Lingua e stile 20, 303–318. Luís, Ana R./Sadler, Louisa (2003), Object clitics and marked morphology, in: Claire Beyssade (ed.), Empirical Issues in Formal Syntax and Semantics 4, Paris, Presses de l’Université de ParisSorbonne, 177–228. Manzini, M. Rita/Savoia, Leonardo M. (2005), I dialetti italiani e romanci: morfosintassi generativa, Alessandria, Edizioni dell’Orso. Manzini, M. Rita/Savoia, Leonardo M. (2008), Clitics: between arguments and inflections, in: M. Rita Manzini/Leonardo M. Savoia (edd.), Work Notes on Romance Morphosyntax, Alessandria, Edizioni dell’Orso, 297–321. Massot, Benjamin (2010), Le patron diglossique de variation grammaticale en français, Langue Française 168, 87–106. Meyer-Lübke, Wilhelm (1897), Zur Stellung der tonlosen Objektspronomina, Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie 21, 313–334. Miller, Philip H. (1992), Clitics and Constituents in Phrase Structure Grammar, New York, Garland. Miller, Philip H./Sag, Ivan A. (1997), French clitic movement without clitics or movement, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 15, 573–639. Moignet, Gérard (1965), Le pronom personnel français. Essai de psycho-systématique historique, Paris, Klincksieck. Nevis, Joel A., et al. (1994), Clitics: A Comprehensive Bibliography 1892–1991, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, Benjamins. Nida, Eugene A. (1949), Morphology: The Descriptive Analysis of Words, Ann Arbor, University of Michigan Press. Oliviéri, Michèle (1991–1992), La forme “n’en” nissarde: aperçu sur quelques problèmes morphologiques, syntaxiques et diachroniques, Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Nice 13–14, 61–76. Oliviéri, Michèle (2010), From dialectology to diachrony: Evidence from lexical and morpho-syntactic reconstruction in Romance dialects, in: Barry Heselwood/Clive Upton (edd.), Proceedings of Methods XIII. Papers from The Thirteenth International Conference on Methods in Dialectology, 2008, Frankfurt etc., Lang, 42–52. Oliviéri, Michèle (2011), Typology or reconstruction: the benefits of dialectology for diachronic analysis, in: Janine Berns/Haike Jacobs/Tobias Scheer (edd.), Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 2009. Selected Papers from “Going Romance” Nice 2009, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, Benjamins, 239–253. Oliviéri, Michèle (2015), Le statut des pronoms sujets dans les dialectes du nord de l’Occitanie, in: Stella Retali-Medori (ed.), Paroddi varghji, mélanges offerts à Marie-José Dalbera-Stefanaggi, Alessandria, Edizioni dell’Orso, 289–302.

Clitic pronouns

227

Oliviéri, Michèle/Lai, Jean-Pierre/Heap, David (2014), Meteorological subjects in transitional Northern Occitan dialects, Paper presented at the 44th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages, Western University, 02.–04.05.2014. Oliviéri, Michèle/Lai, Jean-Pierre/Heap, David (2017), Partial subject paradigms and Feature Geometry in Northern Occitan dialects, in: Romance Linguistics 2014: Selected Proceedings of the 44th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages (LSRL), London, Ontario, May 2014, Amsterdam/ Philadelphia, Benjamins, 145–165. Oliviéri, Michèle/Sauzet, Patrick (2016), Southern Gallo-Romance (Occitan), in: Adam Ledgeway/ Martin Maiden (edd.), The Oxford Guide to the Romance Languages, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 319–349. Palasis, Katerina (2012), Romance French Child Corpus 1 (2;5–4;0), CHILDES, http://childes.talkbank. org/access/French/Palasis.html. Palasis, Katerina (2013), The case for diglossia: describing the emergence of two grammars in the early acquisition of metropolitan French, Journal of French Language Studies 23, 17– 35. Palasis, Katerina (2015), Subject clitics and preverbal negation in European French: variation, acquisition, diatopy and diachrony, Lingua 161, 125–143. Parry, M. Mair (1997), Preverbal negation and clitic ordering, with particular reference to a group of North-West Italian dialects, Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie 113, 243–270. Pato, Enrique/Heap, David (2012), Plurales anómalos en los dialectos y en la historia del español, in: Emilio Montero Cartelle (ed.), Actas del VIII Congreso Internacional de Historia de la Lengua Española, Madrid, Arco Libros, 1765–1776. Perlmutter, David M. (1971), Deep and Surface Structure Constraints in Syntax, New York, Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Pescarini, Diego (2010), Elsewhere in Romance: evidence from clitic clusters, Linguistic Inquiry 41, 427–444. Pescarini, Diego (2011), Romance clitics: cluster formation and allomorphy, in: Angella Ralli (ed.), On-Line Proceedings of the Eighth Mediterranean Morphology Meeting (MMM8), Cagliari, vol. 8, 223–235. Poletto, Cecilia (1993), La sintassi del soggetto nei dialetti italiani settentrionali, Padova, Unipress. Poletto, Cecilia (1995), The diachronic development of subject clitics in North Eastern Italian dialects, in: Adrian Battye/Ian Roberts (edd.), Clause Structure and Language Change, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 295–324. Poletto, Cecilia (1999), The internal structure of AgrS and subject clitics in the Northern Italian dialects, in: Henk van Riemsdijk (ed.), Clitics in the Languages of Europe, Berlin/New York, De Gruyter, 581–620. Poletto, Cecilia (2000), The Higher Functional Field: Evidence from Northern Italian Dialects, Oxford, Oxford University Press. Posner, Rebecca (1996), The Romance Languages, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Pusch, Claus D. (2001), Prosthèse préclitique et morphogénèse. Le cas de l’énonciatif “e” en gascon, in: Claude Muller (ed.), Clitiques et cliticisation, Paris, Champion, 381–393. Ramsden, Herbert (1963), Weak-Pronoun Position in the Early Romance Languages, Manchester, Manchester University Press. Renzi, Lorenzo (1992), I pronomi soggetto in due varietà substandard: fiorentino e français avancé, Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie 108, 72–98. Renzi, Lorenzo/Vanelli, Laura (1983), I pronomi soggetto in alcune varietà romanze, Scritti linguistici in onore di G.B. Pellegrini, Pisa, Pacini, 42–56. Riemsdijk, Henk van (ed.) (1999), Clitics in the Languages of Europe, Berlin/New York, De Gruyter. Rigau, Gemma (1982), Inanimate indirect objects in Catalan, Linguistic Inquiry 13, 146–150.

228

David Heap, Michèle Oliviéri and Katerina Palasis

Rivas, Alberto M. (1977), A Theory of Clitics, Cambridge, MA, MIT Press. Rizzi, Luigi (1982), Issues in Italian Syntax, Dordrecht, Foris. Rizzi, Luigi (1986), On the status of subject clitics in Romance, in: Osvaldo Jaeggli/Carmen SilvaCorvalán (edd.), Studies in Romance Linguistics, Dordrecht, Foris, 391–419. Roberge, Yves (1990), The Syntactic Recoverability of Null Arguments, Montréal, McGill-Queen’s University Press. Roberts, Ian (2010), Varieties of French and the null subject parameter, in: Theresa Biberauer et al. (edd.), Parametric Variation: Null Subjects in Minimalist Theory, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 303–327. Ronjat, Jules (1908), Sur l’enclise des pronoms personnels et leurs formes assillabiques spécialement en Gascogne, Revue des Langues Romanes 51, 501–511. Rossi, Mario (1999), L’intonation, le système du français: description et modélisation, Paris, Ophrys. Russi, Cinzia (2008), Italian Clitics: An Empirical Study, Berlin/New York, De Gruyter. Safir, Kenneth (1985), Syntactic Chains, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Sandalo, Filomena/Galves, Charlotte (2013), Clitic placement and grammaticalization in Portuguese, in: Christine Meklenborg Salvesen/Hans Petter Helland (edd.), Challenging Clitics, Amsterdam/ Philadelphia, Benjamins, 119–134. Smith, John Charles (2001), Illocutionary conversion, bystander deixis, and Romance “ethic” pronouns, Working Papers in Functional Grammar 74, 1–24. Soto-Corominas, Adriana (2017), Impoverishment but only so far: vernacular Catalan clitic clusters, Probus 29, 181–204. Spencer, Andrew/Luís, Ana R. (2012), Clitics. An Introduction, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Sportiche, Dominique (1996), Clitic constructions, in: Johan Rooryck/Laurie Zaring (edd.), Phrase Structure and the Lexicon, Dordrecht, Kluwer, 213–276. Sportiche, Dominique (1999), Subject clitics in French and Romance, complex inversion and clitic doubling, in: Kyle B. Johnson/Ian Roberts (edd.), Beyond Principles and Parameters: Essays in Memory of Osvaldo Jaeggli, Dordrecht, Kluwer, 189–222. Strozer, Judith Reina (1976), Clitics in Spanish, University of California at Los Angeles, Ph.D. dissertation. Suñer, Margarita (1988), The role of agreement in clitic-doubled constructions, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6, 391–434. Taraldsen, Knut Tarald (1980), On the Nominative Island Condition, Vacuous Application, and the “that”-trace Filter, Bloomington, IL, Indiana University Linguistics Club. Tasmowski, Liliane/Reinheimer, Sanda (2001), Pronoms forts, pronoms faibles et formes zéro dans les langues romanes, in: Claude Muller (ed.), Clitiques et cliticisation, Paris, Champion, 327–342. Tesnière, Lucien (1959), Éléments de syntaxe structurale, Paris, Klincksieck. Tsakali, Vina/Anagnostopoulou, Elena (2008), Rethinking the clitic doubling parameter: The inverse correlation between clitic doubling and participle agreement, in: Dalina Kallulli/Liliane Tasmowski (edd.), Clitic Doubling in the Balkan Languages, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, Benjamins, 321– 357. Uriagereka, Juan (1995), Aspects of the syntax of clitic placement in Western Romance, Linguistic Inquiry 26, 79–124. Vance, Barbara S. (1997), Syntactic Change in Medieval French: Verb-second and Null Subjects, Dordrecht, Kluwer. Vincent, Nigel (1988), Italian, in: Martin Harris/Nigel Vincent (edd.), The Romance Languages, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 279–313. Wackernagel, Jakob (1892), Über ein Gesetz der indogermanischen Wortstellung, Indogermanische Forschungen 1, 333–436. Wanner, Dieter (1987a), Clitic pronouns in Italian: a linguistic guide, Italica 64, 410–442.

Clitic pronouns

229

Wanner, Dieter (1987b), The Development of Romance Clitic Pronouns. From Latin to Old Romance, Berlin, De Gruyter. Wanner, Dieter (1993), L’expression du sujet dans les langues romanes, in: Gerold Hilty (ed.), Actes du XXe Congrès international de linguistique et philologie romanes, Tübingen, Francke, vol. 3, 447–460. Zanuttini, Raffaella (1997), Negation and Clausal Structure: A Comparative Study of Romance Languages, Oxford, Oxford University Press. Zribi-Hertz, Anne (1994), The syntax of nominative clitics in Standard and Advanced French, in: Guglielmo Cinque et al. (edd.), Paths towards Universal Grammar: Studies in Honor of Richard S. Kayne, Washington, D.C., Georgetown University Press, 453–472. Zribi-Hertz, Anne (2001), L’opposition ± clitique est-elle visible en syntaxe?, in: Claude Muller (ed.), Clitiques et cliticisation, Paris, Champion, 133–146. Zribi-Hertz, Anne (2011), Pour un modèle diglossique de description du français: quelques implications théoriques, didactiques et méthodologiques, Journal of French Language Studies 21, 231–256. Zwicky, Arnold M. (1977), On Clitics, Bloomington, IL, Indiana University Linguistics Club. Zwicky, Arnold M./Pullum, Geoffrey K. (1983), Cliticization vs inflection: English “n’t”, Language 59, 502–513.  

Patricia Cabredo Hofherr

6 Voice and voice alternations Abstract: In the transition from Latin to Early Romance the synthetic passive forms were lost, followed by a restructuring of the voice system. The reinterpretation of originally perfective passive forms as imperfective passive resulted in a periphrastic be-passive that was ambiguous between an imperfective and a perfective reading. This ambiguity favoured the rise of innovated passive auxiliaries that grammaticalised from verbs such as venire ‘come’, fieri ‘become’, facere ‘do’, or stare ‘stand’. In parallel, Romance languages generalised argument reduction processes using the weakened reflexive se/si (from Latin sibi) and developed pronominal agent-backgrounding strategies, based on third person plural and second person singular personal pronouns, the numeral one and the noun homo ‘man’.  

Keywords: voice, passive auxiliaries, reflexive passives, passives, impersonal constructions, middles, anticausatives  

1 Introduction This chapter examines the expression of voice-alternations across Romance. Voice is understood as a super-category expressing the degree of implication of an agent in an event, including reflexive and auxiliary passives, middles, anticausatives and pronominal agent-backgrounding strategies. In the transition from Late Latin to Early Romance, the system of Latin voice distinctions was fundamentally restructured. The imperfective synthetic passive forms like amatur ‘s/he is loved’ disappeared and the temporal interpretation of periphrastic forms combining a passive past participle and a present form of the auxiliary esse (amatus est) shifted from a perfective past passive to a present passive. In the wake of these changes, a variety of alternative expressions of passive and middle meaning arose in Romance, including alternative passive auxiliaries, the extension of the reflexive to mark anti-causatives, stative middles and eventive passives and pronominal agent-backgrounding strategies such as the impersonal third person plural and the French impersonal human pronoun on. Section 2 gives a summary of the changes in the voice system from Latin to Early Romance and the concomitant aspectual changes. Section 3 presents a range of passive periphrases found in Modern Romance. Section 4 examines valency changing uses of the reflexive se/si, including reflexive anticausatives, middles and passives and the later development of the reflexive impersonal. Section 5 reviews pronominal agentbackgrounding strategies: impersonal uses of the third person plural, generic second person singular, generic uses of un/uno and reflexes of the generic noun homo ‘man’. DOI 10.1515/9783110377088-006

Voice and voice alternations

231

2 Restructuring of voice from Latin to Early Romance In Classical Latin the imperfective passive was expressed by synthetic forms containing a marker -R (1a) (-R-forms) while the perfective passive forms were periphrastic, combining an imperfective form of the auxiliary esse ‘be’ and a past participle (1b): (1)

Lat. a.

b.

Imperfective passive: present amatur ‘s/he is loved’ imperfective past amābātur ‘s/he was loved.IPFV ’ future amābitur ‘s/he will be loved’ Perfective passive: perfective past amatus est ‘s/he was loved.PFV ’ pluperfect amatus erat ‘s/he had been loved’ future perfect amatus erit ‘s/he will have been loved’

In the transition from Late Latin to Early Romance the -R-forms of the imperfective passive in (1a) disappeared. The originally perfective periphrastic passive forms with imperfective tenses on the auxiliary were reanalysed as imperfective (2a) and the auxiliary became compatible with perfective tenses (2b) (Cennamo 2006, 316). (2)

Restructured passive in Late Latin a. i. present: amatus love.PTCP ii. past imperfective: amatus love.PTCP b. past perfective: amatus love.PTCP

est be.PRS . IND . 3SG erat be.PST . IPFV . IND . 3SG fuit be. PST . PFV . IND . 3SG

In the innovated passive the temporal and aspectual values were marked on the auxiliary esse (Cennamo 2006; Salvi 2011, 350). As the -R-forms in Classical Latin were not exclusively passive, the repercussions of this change went beyond the passive paradigm. In addition to the passive use, the -R-forms had anticausative1 uses (3a) and marked verbs with non-agentive subjects (3b) (Cennamo 1998, 79; Salvi 2011, 345).2

1 Passive interpretations imply an agent (the door was opened/the ball was moved) while in the anticausative interpretation the event is presented as a spontaneous process without an implied agent (the door opened/the ball is moving) (see Haspelmath 1990, 33; Keenan/Dryer 2007, 352). 2 Unlike other functions of the -R-morpheme, the passive is marked by -R-forms in the texts until much later (see Wright 2014).

232

(3)

Patricia Cabredo Hofherr

Lat.

a.

Corrumpitur iam cena (Plaut. Pseud. 890) already dinner.NOM . SG spoil.IND . PRS . PASS . 3SG ‘Dinner is spoiling already.’ (Cennamo 1998, 80) b. convortor domum (Plaut. Stich. 402) home.ACC return.IND . PRS . PASS . 1SG ‘I return home.’ (Cennamo 1998, 79)

R-marked verbs with non-agentive subjects as in (3a,b) are related to the deponent verbs of Latin. Deponents have active semantics but only morphologically passive forms. The loss of the -R-form, characteristic of deponent verbs in the imperfective, led to two types of innovation in the verbal system. For some originally deponent verbs, the imperfective part of the paradigm was aligned on active verbs, while the perfective preserved the forms with the esse-auxiliary. This development is reflected in the use of être/essere as a perfect auxiliary in French and Italian (Vincent 1982). The resulting pattern of a be-auxiliary for verbs with a non-agentive subject then spread to non-deponent intransitive verbs (Banniard 1997). For other deponent verbs the non-agentive semantics came to be expressed by the reflexive pronoun resulting in inherent reflexives like Fr. s’évanouir ‘to faint’ and se souvenir ‘to remember’.

3 Periphrastic passives Following the loss of the synthetic middle/passive -R-form in Late Latin the auxiliary esse spread from the perfective tenses to the entire paradigm of the passive, giving rise to the be-passives still found across Romance (Section 3.1). The innovated forms with imperfective tenses on the auxiliary were ambiguous between the Classical Latin past perfective and the innovated analytic imperfective passive forms. As the copula esse had stative properties, eventive interpretations of the imperfective esse + past participle forms were disfavoured, however. This situation of aspectual ambiguity and inherent stativeness may have favoured the development of aspectually specialized passive periphrases combining past passive participles with passive auxiliaries such as Latin fieri ‘to become, to be done/ made’, facere ‘to do, to make’, venire ‘to come’ as markers of the passive voice (Cennamo 2006), auxiliaries that still exist in some Romance varieties. It is plausible that passive auxiliaries develop from a use as a quasi-copula (Giacalone Ramat/Sansò 2014; Sansò/Giacalone Ramat 2016 for venire ‘come’, andare ‘go’; Cennamo 2014 for facere ‘do’ and fieri ‘become’) (Section 3.2). Other passive auxiliaries arose from verbs meaning ‘want’ yielding deontic passives (Section 3.3), with reflexive causative verbs and with reflexive uses of the verb

Voice and voice alternations

233

for see (Section 3.4) (see Keenan 1985, 257–261, for diachronic sources for passive auxiliaries).

3.1 Auxiliary be + past participle With the extension of the Late Latin *essere + passive participle to the imperfective forms of the passive paradigm, the originally perfect passive auxiliary became a passive auxiliary more generally. Where in Latin the tense information was contributed by the past participle and the aspectual information by the imperfective forms of the auxiliary, in the innovated be-passive tense and aspect information were both marked on the auxiliary, a change reflected in the appearance of perfective forms of *essere with the past participle, which were unattested in Latin (see (2), Cennamo 2006). Across Romance, the *essere + past participle construction gave rise to the bepassive, which is generally the most grammaticalised periphrastic passive. It was only in Balkan Romance that the be-passive did not survive, being reintroduced into Romanian from French only in the nineteenth century (Vincent 1988, 58).

3.1.1 Syntactic properties Across Romance, the passive auxiliary in the be + past participle construction has the same morphological paradigm as the copula be. The past participle has a passive function independently of the auxiliary be: it combines with the theme of the verb in its adnominal use (4) and in absolute participial uses (5). (4)

a. Fr. b. Cat.

un problème un problema a problem.MSG ‘a solved problem’

résolu solucionat solved.MSG

(5)

a. Fr. b. Cat.

une fois le problème résolu un cop solucionat solved.MSG one time (the problem. MSG ) ‘once the problem has been solved’

el problema (the problem.MSG )

The passive auxiliary be and the past participle are syntactically independent of each other, as manner adverbs can intervene between the participle and the auxiliary (6) (Abeillé/Godard 2000; on Catalan, see Bartra Kaufmann 2002, 2123).

234

(6)

Patricia Cabredo Hofherr

a. Fr. Les livres lui sont rapidement b. It. I libri gli sono rapidamente c. Rom. Cărţile îi sunt rapid rapidly the books him.DAT are ‘The books are rapidly sent to him.’ (Abeillé/Godard 2000, 11)

envoyés. inviati. trimise. sent

In French, Italian and Romanian, passive participles and adjectives can be coordinated under a single verb be, supporting the hypothesis that passive auxiliary and copula be are identical ((7a,b), Abeillé/Godard 2000). (7)

a. Fr. b. It.

c. Sp.

Jean est convoqué par Marie et amoureux d’ elle. Giovanni è chiamato da Maria e innamorato di lei. J./G. is summoned by M. and in-love of her ‘Jean/Giovanni is summoned by Maria and in love with her.’ *Fue enfermizo y cuidado por una enfermera. and looked-after by a nurse be.PRF . 3SG sickly ‘He was sickly and looked after by a nurse.’

In Spanish, however, coordination of adjective and participle under the copula ser ‘be’ is not felicitous (7c). This may be related to the fact that Spanish has two semantically differentiated copulas, ser and estar (see ↗9 Copular and existential constructions). It is controversial in the Spanish grammatical tradition whether the passive auxiliary and copula ser should be analysed as the same lexical item synchronically (see Brucart 1990). In Romance, periphrastic be-passives are in general only possible for transitive verbs, excluding passives of intransitives3 (8) (see, for Spanish, Mendikoetxea 1999b, 1620; for Portuguese, Azevedo 2005, 119; for Catalan, Bartra Kaufmann 2002; for Italian, Rohlfs 1969, 127‒128; for Romanian, Dobrovie-Sorin 1994, 128), contrasting with the periphrastic passives in Germanic (9) (Vikner 1995):

3 Dobrovie-Sorin (1986) distinguishes IMPERSONAL PAS PASS SIVES IVES from PASSIVES PASS IVES OF INTRANSITIVE S . In impersonal passives the subject position is occupied by an expletive, possibly combined with a post-posed DP (i), while passives of intransitives contain no lexical DP (8a,b). Across Romance verbs with prototypical zero objects like eat behave like intransitives (8a,b) (Dobrovie-Sorin 1994). (i) Fr. Il a été abattu des arbres. EXPL has been felled DE T trees ‘Trees have been felled.’

Voice and voice alternations

(8)

a. Fr. *Il b. Rom.

(9)

Ger. Gestern wurde gespielt/ AUX . PASS . PST . 3SG played yesterday ‘Yesterday playing/eating was going on.’

235

a été joué. / *Il a été mangé. *A fost jucat. / *a fost mâncat. EXPL has been played EXPL has been eaten ‘It has been played. / It has been eaten.’ (Dobrovie-Sorin 1994, 128) gegessen. eaten

French, however, allows the passivisation of intransitive verbs if a subcategorized element is present (Zribi-Hertz 1982; Gaatone 1998): (10)

Fr.

a été abouti à un compromis has been arrived at a compromise ‘An acceptable compromise was arrived at.’

Il

EXPL

acceptable. acceptable

The be-passive constructions in Romance admit agentive phrases introduced by different prepositions (da in Italian, de (către) in Romanian and par in French, per in Catalan, por in Spanish and Portuguese): (11)

a. It. b. Fr.

La casa è stata La maison a été is/has been the house.FSG ‘The house was built by Gianni/Jean.’

costruita construite built.FSG

da par by

Gianni. Jean. G./J.

Certain predicates allow more than one form of the agent phrase (see, for Catalan, Bartra Kaufmann 2002, 2132; for French, Carlier 2002, 54; for Latin, Cennamo 1998, 80): (12)

Fr.

Jean est surveillé de Jean is supervised DE ‘Jean is supervised of all/by all.’

tous/ all/

par PAR

tous. all

The acceptability of an agentive phrase may depend on the referential properties of the DP. For Italian reflexive passives, e.g., Sansò (2011) shows that agentive phrases with definite complements (by the king) were possible in Old Italian but were lost well before agentive phrases with generic or indefinite complements (by soldiers/by everyone). A similar preference for generic agentive complements is found in Modern Romance varieties (13): (13)

Fr.

?de Marie. Jean est surveillé de tous/ ?DE Marie Jean is supervised DE all/ ‘Jean is supervised by all/by Marie.’ (Carlier 2002, 54)

236

Patricia Cabredo Hofherr

3.1.2 Aspectual restrictions Be-passives are restricted to eventive verbs (see, for Spanish, Mendikoetxea 1999b, 1620; for Catalan, Bartra Kaufmann 2002, 2137; for French, Lamiroy 1993; for Italian, Sansò 2011). In Italian, Spanish and Catalan, the periphrastic be-passive is preferred for perfective punctual events, while imperfective or habitual events are preferentially expressed by a reflexive passive (see, for Italian, Sansò 2011; for Spanish, Mendikoetxea 1999a, 1668; for Catalan, Bartra Kaufmann 2002, 2139). Spanish ser-passives are subject to further aspectual restrictions. Firstly, when combined with telic verbs expressing events or changes of state, the ser-passive can only refer to single events (14a); with atelic transitives, ser-passives are limited to an iterative or habitual interpretation (14c) (Mendikoetxea 1999b, 1622‒1623). Secondly, the passives of telic verbs allow imperfective tenses on the auxiliary, but these forms are preferentially interpreted as iterative or habitual (14b); passives of atelic verbs are less acceptable with perfective tenses on the auxiliary (14d) (Mendikoetxea 1999b, 1617 and 1622‒1623). (14)

Sp.

a.

La puerta fue abierta. was.PFV . 3SG opened.FSG the door.FSG ‘The door was opened.’ (single event) b. La puerta es abierta por el portero todos los by the porter all the the door.FSG is opened.FSG días a las 7 de la mañana. days at the 7 of the morning ‘The door is opened by the porter every day at 7am.’ c. Antonio es/era (muy) estimado por todos. everyone Antonio is/was.IPFV . 3SG (much) appreciated by ‘Antonio is/was (much) appreciated by everyone.’ d. ?Antonio fue estimado. appreciated Antonio was.PFV . 3SG ‘Antonio was appreciated.’

This interaction between lexical and grammatical aspect goes beyond the periphrastic passive (Mendikoetxea 1999b, 1618): the active forms abre/abría ‘opens/opened. IMPFV ’ are used with an iterative interpretation, except for the narrative present and a similar use of the imperfective past, which allows punctual readings (15). (15)

Sp.

En ese momento el portero abre/ abría la puerta. in this moment the porter opens/ opened.IPFV the door ‘At this moment, the porter opens/was opening the door.’

237

Voice and voice alternations

The aspectual restrictions on the be-passive in Italian, Catalan and Spanish cannot be reduced to competition with the reflexive passive. Firstly, the reflexive passive in Old Italian did not display a strong preference for imperfective or habitual contexts, unlike its Modern Italian counterpart (Sansò 2011). Secondly, French does not have an eventive passive use of the reflexive, but still shows aspectual restrictions for the être-passive (Lamiroy 1993; Carlier 2002). With a present or imperfective past auxiliary être the passive of a telic process tends to mark the resulting state (16a) or an iterative reading (16b). With the auxiliary in the passé simple and the passé composé, however, the be-passive of telic predicates is interpreted as a single event (16c). Atelic predicates such as aider ‘help’, in contrast, allow an eventive interpretation with a present passive auxiliary (16d) (Carlier 2002, 41–43). (16)

Fr.

a.

Le vin est servi/ était servi. the wine is served/ was.IPFV served ‘The wine is served/was served.’ b. Le vin est servi/ était servi par le the wine is served/ was. IPFV served by the ‘The wine is/was (usually) served by the sommelier.’ c. Le vin fut/ a été servi (par le served by the the wine was.PFV / has been ‘The wine was served (by the sommelier).’ d. Pierre est aidé par Marie. Pierre is helped by Marie ‘Pierre is helped by Marie.’ (Carlier 2002, 41–42)

sommelier. sommelier sommelier). sommelier

The following table summarises the interaction between lexical and grammatical aspect observed for be-passives in French and Spanish: Table 1: The interaction between lexical and grammatical aspect for be-passives in French and Spanish Grammatical aspect

Perfective

Imperfective

Lexically perfective/ telic

+ punctual passive + resultative Sp. (14a) Fr. (16c)

– punctual passive + iterated/habitual Sp. (14b) Fr. (16b)

Lexically imperfective/ atelic

+ punctual passive – resultative Sp. (14d)

– punctual passive Sp. (14c) Fr. (16d)

Lexical aspect

238

Patricia Cabredo Hofherr

Circumscribing the exact nature of the lexical and grammatical aspectual restrictions is difficult since the passive auxiliary is homophonous with the copula. Stative interpretations can therefore potentially be analysed as copula + adjectival participle constructions. In the Iberian Romance languages, the correlations are further complicated by the aspectual differentiation between the copulas ser and estar (see ↗9 Copular and existential constructions).  

3.2 Other passive auxiliaries Other passive auxiliaries in Romance have developed from verbs of movement or verbs of change. Unlike the passive be-auxiliary, these auxiliaries are generally subject to morpho-syntactic, semantic and/or lexical restrictions: (17)

Morpho-syntactic restrictions on the auxiliary a. compatible with compound tenses b. compatible with non-finite forms c. compatible with all persons d. compatible with the participial absolute construction

(18)

Lexical, syntactic and semantic restrictions a. deontic meaning component b. unexpectedness c. empathy of the speaker d. limitation to a closed class of verbs e. possibility of a by-phrase

The following sections examine passive auxiliaries other than be, with particular attention to the additional restrictions they are subject to.

3.2.1 Venire ‘to come’ Venire appears as a passive auxiliary in Italo-Romance (Giacalone Ramat 2000; Cennamo 2007; Sansò/Giacalone Ramat 2016), Rhaeto-Romance (Haiman/Benincà 1992, 95), Romanian (Dragomirescu/Nicolae 2014) and marginally in Catalan (Bartra Kaufmann 2002, 2124). (19)

a. It.

La casa viene the house come.3SG ‘The house is being built.’

costruita. built

Voice and voice alternations

239

b. Rom. Partea asta a feţei de masă vine part.DEF . FSG this POSS . ART . FSG tablecloth.DEF . GEN come.3SG festonată. hemmed.FSG ‘This part of the tablecloth must/should/would have to be hemmed.’ (Dragomirescu/Nicolae 2014, 72) Unlike the Italian venire-passive, the Romanian veni-passive imposes a modal deontic interpretation (Dragomirescu/Nicolae 2014, 75). The Italian venire-passive is preferred with telic predicates in imperfective contexts, since it is unambiguously eventive, unlike the aspectually ambiguous esserepassive (Giacalone Ramat/Sansò 2014). (20)

It.

In quel momento veniva chiuso il closed the in that moment came.IPFV . 3SG ‘At that moment the main door was being closed.’ [passive interpretation] (Giacalone Ramat/Sansò 2014, 22)

portone. main.door

The Italian venire-passive allows an agentive by-phrase introduced by da: (21)

It.

La casa venne distrutta came destroyed.FSG the house.FSG ‘The house was destroyed by the earthquake.’ (Giacalone Ramat 2000, 147)

dal terremoto. by-the earthquake

In standard Italian, the venire-passive is excluded from compound tenses (Giacalone Ramat 2000, 138) and in these contexts the compound forms of essere are used: (22)

It.

La casa è *venuta/ stata the house.FSG is come.FSG / been.FSG ‘The house was built by my father.’ (Giacalone Ramat 2000, 138)

costruita built.FSG

da by

mio padre. my father

3.2.2 Andare/ir/anar ‘to go’ Italian, Catalan and Spanish have passive uses of the verb go (andare/ir) + past participle. (23)

a. It.

Lo the

stipendio salary.MSG

va go.PRES . 3SG

speso spent. MSG

in in

libri. books

240

Patricia Cabredo Hofherr

b. Sp.

c. Cat.

i. ‘The salary must be spent on books.’ ii. ‘The salary is usually spent to buy books.’ (Giacalone Ramat 2000, 131) Van vendidas la mitad de las acciones. go.PRS . 3PL sold. FPL the half of the shares. FPL ‘Half of the shares have already been sold.’ (Yllera 1999, 3432, ex 175a) L’ ària del tenor va anar seguida of.the tenor goes go. INF followed. FSG the aria. FSG d’ aplaudiments. of applause.PL ‘The aria of the tenor was followed by applause.’ (Bartra Kaufmann 2002, 2124)

The Spanish ir+past participle construction conveys a meaning comparable to the passive combined with the adverb ya ‘already’ (23b). This construction is incompatible with compound tenses or the imperative (Yllera 1999, 3432). In Catalan, the construction with anar + past participle is limited to verbs with locative semantics such as seguir ‘to follow’ (23c) or acompanyar ‘to accompany’ (Bartra Kaufmann 2002, 2124). Italian has two andare + past participle constructions: a lexically restricted nonmodal passive and a deontic passive (Sansò/Giacalone Ramat 2016). The non-modal passive interpretation of andare + past participle in Italian (interpretation ii. of (23a)) is compatible with compound tenses and absolute constructions, but it is lexically limited to a closed class of verbs of disappearance, destruction and damage to the patient, such as perdere, smarrire, disperdere ‘to lose’, distruggere ‘to destroy’, spendere ‘to spend’, buttare ‘to throw away’ (Giacalone Ramat 2000, 146; Cennamo 2007). The deontic passive andare + past participle (interpretation (23a.i)) expresses an obligation corresponding to a passive embedded under a deontic auxiliary, as in the English translation of (24) (Giacalone Ramat 2000, 131). (24)

It.

Questo lavoro va finito goes finished.MSG this work. MSG ‘This work must be finished by tomorrow.’ (Giacalone Ramat 2000, 131)

entro until

domani. tomorrow

The deontic passive interpretation of andare + past participle is limited to the simple imperfective tenses and therefore morphosyntactically more restricted than the nonmodal passive construction. At the same time, the deontic andare-passive is lexically less restricted than the non-modal andare-passive, as it is not limited to verbs of loss and destruction (Giacalone Ramat 2000, 132):

Voice and voice alternations

(25)

It.

Questa lettera va scritta goes written.FSG this letter. FSG ‘This letter is to be written immediately.’

241

subito. immediately

The deontic and the non-modal andare + past participle constructions also contrast with respect to agent phrases. The deontic andare-passive allows generic agent phrases with the preposition da (e.g., da tutti gli aventi diritto ‘by anyone entitled to x’) but is degraded with specific agents (e.g., da Paolo ‘by Paolo’) (Sansò/Giacalone Ramat 2016, footnote 6). Agent phrases with da are impossible with non-modal andare (26) (Giacalone Ramat 2000, 147): (26)

It.

La casa andò distrutta *dal/ nel terremoto. the house. FSG went destroyed. FSG by.the/ in.the earthquake ‘The house was destroyed in the earthquake.’ (Giacalone Ramat 2000, 147)

3.2.3 Fieri ‘to become’/facere ‘to do’ In Early Romance other passive auxiliaries developed from Late Latin fieri ‘to become’ (27a) (Michaelis 1998; Cennamo 2006; 2007) and occasionally facere ‘to do’ (27b) (Cennamo forthcoming). (27)

a.

b.

Old Florentine Non ne fia mai nessuno ingannato. NEG CL . PART become. FUT . 3SG never nobody deceived ‘None of them will ever be deceived.’ (Trecentonovelle, Florence, 2nd half 14th c., Pernicone 1946, LXVII.85) (Cennamo 2007, 79) Old Logudorese Sardinian Mariane de Maroniu binkitu nonde fekit. not.thereof did.3SG Mariane of Maroniu defeat.PTCP . MSG ‘Mariane of Maroniu was not defeated.’ (11th–13th c., Cennamo forthcoming)

3.2.4 Resultar ‘to result’/salir ‘to come out’ Other auxiliaries that allow eventive passive interpretations are resultar ‘to result, to end up as’ and salir ‘to come out’ + past participle in Spanish expressing difficulty or surprise of the result (Yllera 1999, 3433).

242

(28)

Patricia Cabredo Hofherr

Sp.

Resultó/ salió elegido en in resulted.PFV / came.out.PFV elected ‘S/he ended up being elected to parliament.’ (Yllera 1999, 3433)

la the

asamblea. assembly

3.3 Stative passives Some Romance languages developed a stative resultative construction combining estar + past participle (see, for Spanish, Mendikoetxea 1999b, 1623–1625; Conti Jiménez 2004; Jurado Salinas 2000; for Catalan, Bartra Kaufmann 2002, 2123; for Portuguese, Azevedo 2005, 120). It is controversial, however, whether this construction should be analysed as a passive or as a copular construction with an adjectival participle. (29)

a. Cat. b. Pt.

La casa està construïda. A casa está construída. house.FSG is built.FSG the. FSG ‘The house is built.’ (resultative)

3.4 Deontic passives In some Romance varieties, the deontic modal want (or need, a semantic equivalent of a trebui in Romanian) grammaticalised as a deontic passive auxiliary (30) (for the deontic andare-passive see Section 3.2.2). (30)

a. Friul. La çhosse la ul fate. 3FSG .NOM wants done.FSG the thing.FSG ‘This thing has to be done/it is necessary to do this thing.’ (Salvioni 1912, in Ledgeway 2000, 244) b. Vto. Sta roba a vol fata. 3FSG .NOM wants done.FSG this thing.FSG ‘This thing needs/has to be done.’ (Berizzi/Rossi 2011, 41) c. Rom. Articolele trebuiau citite. had-to.IPFV . 3PL read.PTCP . NEUTPL articles.DEF . NEUTPL . NOM ‘The articles had to be read.’ (Dragomirescu 2013, 198)

Voice and voice alternations

243

Deontic passives can appear with an agentive by-phrase: (31)

a. Fossaltino Sta camisa a ghe vol lavada 3FSG .NOM CL . OBL wants washed.FSG this shirt.FSG da to mare. by your mother ‘This shirt has to be washed by your mother.’ (Berizzi/Rossi 2011, 47) b. Srd. Sa makkina keret accontzada dae unu meccánicu. wants fixed. FSG by a mechanic the car. FSG ‘The car has to be fixed by a mechanic.’ (Jones 1993, apud Remberger 2006, 259) c. Rom. Trebuie citit articolul de (către) (towards) needs read. PTCP . MSG article.DEF . MSG de cineva competent. someone competent ‘This article has to be read by someone competent.’ (Elena Soare, p. c.)

The deontic want-passives differ with respect to their morphosyntactic restrictions. The want + past participle in Basso Polesano is restricted to simple tenses (32a) rejecting compound tenses and non-finite verb forms (32b,c). Moreover, the construction generally only appears in the third person (32d) (Benincà/Poletto 1997). (32)

Basso Polesano a. El vole/ voeva/ voria/ vorà magnà. 3MSG . NOM wants/ wanted. IPFV / want.PRS . COND / want. FUT eaten ‘It has/had/would have/will have to be eaten.’ b. *El ga volesto magnà. has wanted eaten 3MSG . NOM ‘It has had to be eaten.’ c. *El podaria voler magnà./ *Volendo magnà, …. could want eaten./ wanting eaten 3MSG . NOM ‘It could have needed to be eaten./ Having to be eaten,…’ (Berizzi/Rossi 2011, 44) d. *Mi voio petenà / *Ti te voi petenà want combed/ you 2SG . NOM want combed 1SG . NOM ‘I need to be combed./You need to be combed.’ (Benincà/Poletto 1997, 102)

244

Patricia Cabredo Hofherr

In contrast, the deontic ghe vol-passive in Fossaltino allows compound (33a) and nonfinite tenses (33b,c) and combines with the first and second person (33d) (Berizzi/ Rossi 2011, 48). (33)

Fossaltino a. Sta roba a g=a voest fata. CL . 3FSG . NOM CL =has wanted done.FSG this thing. FSG ‘It has been necessary to do this thing.’ (compound tense) b. Voendo=ghe firmada sta carta, … signed this document wanting=CL ‘Being necessary to sign this document, …’ (present participle) c. Sta carta qua, a podaria voer=ghe here CL . 3FSG . NOM could want= CL this document. FSG firmada come no. as NEG signed. FSG ‘It could be necessary to sign this document or not.’ (infinitive) d. ?Noaltri/ voaltri ghe voen/ voè petenai. want.1PL / want.2PL combed.MPL we/ you.PL CL ‘We/you need to be combed.’ (Berizzi/Rossi 2011, 48–49)

The Romanian a trebui-passive allows simple ((30c) and (31c)), compound (34a,b) and non-finite tenses (34c). (34)

Rom. a.

Articolele au trebuit citite repede. articles.DEF . NEUTPL have need.PTCP read.PTCP . NEUTPL quickly ‘The articles had to be read quickly.’ b. Articolele ar fi trebuit citite articles.DEF . NEUTPL COND .3PL be.INF need.PTCP read.PTCP . NEUTPL ieri. yesterday ‘The articles should have been read yesterday.’ c. Articolul trebuind citit, l=am read.PTCP it.ACC -have.1SG article.DEF . MSG want.GER fotocopiat. photocopied.PTCP . MSG ‘The article having to be read, I copied it.’ (Elena Soare, p.c.)

The deontic passive constructions further vary with respect to the arguments targeted by promotion. Southern Italo-Romance allows dative passives with want as shown by the masculine singular agreement on the participle in (35a), while this

Voice and voice alternations

245

construction is excluded in northern varieties and in standard Italian (Ledgeway 2000). (35)

a. Cosentino Mariu vo mannatu chira littera. that letter.FSG Mario wants sent.MSG ‘Mario wants to be sent that letter.’ (Ledgeway 2000, 236–237) b. It. *Mario vuole essere mandato/a la lettera. sent.MSG / FSG the letter.FSG Mario wants be.INF ‘Mario wants to be sent the letter.’ (Ledgeway 2000, 237)

Ledgeway (2000, 236–237) shows that the southern Italian varieties allowing dative passives with want vary with respect to the presence of the passive auxiliary essere (36) and the agreement pattern on the participle (37). While in the dialects of Northern Calabria and Salento the auxiliary essere is absent and the agreement on the participle is controlled by the underlying object, in the other dialects the passive auxiliary is required and the participle can be either in the default masculine singular form or show agreement with the underlying object (37), with changes in interpretation. (36)

a. Cosentino b. Nap.

Vo mannata chira littera. Vô esse mannata chella lettera. that letter.FSG wants (be.INF ) sent.FSG ‘That letter must be sent/needs sending.’ (Ledgeway 2000, 236)

(37)

Cosentino a. Mariu vo mannata chira that Mario wants sent. FSG ‘Mario wants that letter sent.’ b. Mariu vo mannatu chira that Mario wants sent.MSG ‘Mario wants to be sent that letter.’ (Ledgeway 2000, 236–237)

littera. letter.FSG littera. letter.FSG

3.5 Reflexive auxiliary passives A further source of passive auxiliaries are the reflexivised verb to see and, in French, the reflexivised causative faire. The passive construction based on the reflexive verb to see taking a past participle as complement is attested for a variety of Romance

246

Patricia Cabredo Hofherr

languages (see, for French, Bat-Zeev Shyldkrot 1981; for Italian, Giacalone Ramat 2016; for Portuguese, Lehmann/Pinto de Lima/Soares 2010): (38)

a. Fr. b. Cat.

Le pays s=est vu frappé par le cyclone. the country REFL =AUX . 3SG seen affected by the cyclone El país va veure=s afectat pel cicló. the country AUX see.INF =REFL affected by.the cyclone ‘The country found itself affected by the cyclone.’

In (38), the subjects are inanimate, excluding the perception reading of the verb to see. In Italian, the vedersi-passive is restricted to verbs affecting the subject, typically adversely (Giacalone Ramat 2016). Italian vedersi + participle and French se voir + participle have additional semantic content as they imply unexpectedness and empathy on the part of the speaker. French is the only Romance language that has a passive construction combining the reflexivised causative verb faire with an infinitival complement (39) (Labelle 2013, 236). (39)

Fr.

Jean s=est fait écraser (par CAUS run-over.INF (by Jean REFL = AUX . 3SG ‘Jean was run over /got himself run over by a car.’

une voiture). a car)

The se + faire passive no longer has causative meaning: The structural subject need not be human (40a) or responsible for the event (40b) (Kupferman 1995). (40) Fr.

a.

Son dernier livre s’est fait descendre REFL =AUX . 3SG CAUS descend.INF his last book par la critique. by the criticism ‘His last book was badly reviewed by the critics.’ b. Les trois touristes se sont fait surprendre REFL AUX . 3PL CAUS surprise.INF the three tourists par la marée montante. by the tide rising ‘The three tourists were caught by the rising tide.’

The se + faire passive and the reflexive + see passives in Italian and French differ from other passive auxiliaries in allowing the promotion of a dative object to subject position from an infinitival complement (see, for French, Bat-Zeev Shyldkrot 1981; Labelle 2013; for Italian, Giacalone Ramat 2016).

Voice and voice alternations

(41)

Fr.

247

Pierre s=est fait offrir un poste par Louise. CAUS offer a job by Louise Pierre REFL =AUX . 3SG ‘Pierre was offered a job by Louise.’ (Labelle 2013, 242) b. Le régisseur s=est vu décerner un prix. REFL = AUX .3 SG seen award.INF a prize the director ‘The director was awarded a prize.’

a.

4 Reflexives and argument reduction Cross-linguistically, reflexive constructions commonly give rise to anticausative, passive and impersonal constructions. (42)

Grammaticalisation: Reflexive > anticausative > passive > impersonal (Haspelmath 1990, 44; Kemmer 1993, 166)

Passive and anticausative uses of the reflexive se were attested in Late Latin (43a) and Archaic Latin (43b) and spread in the Early Romance languages. (43)

a. Lat.

Mala rotunda toto anno servare se possunt. apples round. PL all year keep REFL can.3PL ‘Round apples can be kept all year.’ (Palladius, 4th c.; Ernout/Thomas 1953, §234) b. Arc.Lat. eaeipsae se patinae fervefaciunt ilico REFL pans heat-up instantaneously these-self ‘The pans heat up automatically and instantaneously.’ (Plaut. Pseud. 831‒833, Cennamo 1998, 83)

By the end of the fourth century AD (Late Latin), reflexive anticausative marking had spread to practically all verbs (Cennamo 1998, 88). The passive reflexive interpretation was initially limited to inanimate patients and examples of passive se with human participants only arose later (Cennamo 1998, 95). The following sections examine four types of reflexive readings: (44) Sp.

a.

Anticausative: La casa se quemó. REFL burnt.PFV . 3SG the house ‘The house burnt down.’

248

Patricia Cabredo Hofherr

b. Middle: Este libro se lee fácilmente. REFL reads easily this book ‘This book is easy to read.’ c. Passive: Se tradujeron tres novelas. REFL translated.PFV . 3PL three novels ‘Three novels were translated.’ d. Impersonal: Se convocó a los alumnos. REFL summoned. PFV . 3SG A the students ‘The students were summoned/they summoned the students.’ Reflexive anticausatives (44a) differ from the other uses of the reflexive in that no agent is implied for the event. Stative middle reflexives ascribe a stative property to the subject DP and generally appear with a modifier (44b). In the literature different analyses of the range of uses of se/si in different Romance languages have been proposed. The status of se/si in the different constructions is a matter of considerable debate (see Dobrovie-Sorin 2005). The following sections summarise the main properties of reflexive anticausatives (Section 4.1), reflexive stative middles (Section 4.2), reflexive passives (Section 4.3) and impersonal reflexives (Section 4.4).  



4.1 Reflexive anticausatives Reflexive anticausatives are eventive but do not imply an agent ((45), (46a)).4 Inherent reflexives (45a) are a subclass of reflexive anticausatives that lack a transitive variant (compare (45b) and (46)).5 (45)

Sp.

a.

María se desmayó. fainted.PFV . 3SG María REFL ‘María fainted.’ (inherent reflexive) b. El florero se rompió. REFL broke.PFV . 3SG the vase ‘The vase broke.’

4 For a comparison of anticausatives with and without reflexives, see Zribi-Hertz (1987). 5 Many inherent reflexives have affected non-active subjects, patterning with middle verbs in other languages (Kemmer 1993, 152).

Voice and voice alternations

(46)

Sp.

María rompió María broke.PFV . 3SG ‘María broke the vases.’

los the

249

floreros. vases

Reflexive anticausatives and reflexive middles differ in their aspectual properties: reflexive anticausatives are eventive, appearing in the perfective and the progressive (47), while reflexive middles are stative and limited to present and imperfective forms (48). (47)

Sp.

(48) Sp.

El bosque se quemó/ se está quemando. REFL burnt.PFV . 3SG / REFL is burning the forest ‘The forest burnt down/is burning.’ (reflexive anticausative) En verano, los bosques se queman REFL burn. PRS . 3PL in summer the forests ‘In summer, forests burn easily.’ (reflexive middle)

fácilmente. easily

Unlike reflexive passives, reflexive anticausatives do not imply the presence of an agent or cause. Ambiguous forms can be disambiguated by adding modifiers like spontaneously, that exclude an implicit agent and consequently the passive reading (49); inversely, agentive adverbs and purpose clauses exclude an anticausative reading (50) (Labelle 1992; Mendikoetxea 1999b; Ackema/Schoorlemmer 2005). (49)

Sp.

La puerta se abrió REFL opened.PFV . 3SG the door ‘The door opened spontaneously.’

espontáneamente. spontaneously

(50)

Cat.

S=han destruït totes les proves intencionadament/ REFL =have.3PL destroyed all the proofs intentionally/ per enganyar els inspectors. to deceive the inspectors ‘All the evidence was destroyed intentionally/to deceive the inspectors.’ (Bartra Kaufmann 2002, 2153)

Reflexive anticausatives and inherent reflexives (51) differ from middle, passive and impersonal reflexives in allowing first and second person subjects: (51)

a. Fr. b. Pt.

Tu

te

(you) (REFL .2SG ) ‘You complain.’

plains. Queixas complain.PRS .2SG

-te. (-REFL .2SG )

250

Patricia Cabredo Hofherr

4.2 Reflexive middles Reflexive middles have an implicit agent, allowing subject oriented adverbials like carefully (see, for Romanian, Cornilescu/Nicolae 2014, 330; for Spanish, Mendikoetxea 1999b), in contrast with reflexive anticausatives. Reflexive middles are stative and limited to habitual or generic contexts in which a property is attributed to the subject DP (52a) (see, for Italian, Salvi 2001, 108; for Spanish, Mendikoetxea 1999a, 1664– 1665; for French, Stefanini 1962; Zribi-Hertz 1982), thus contrasting with reflexive passives, which do not imply an inherent property of the subject DP (52b,c). (52)

Sp.

a.

Este libro se vende bien. REFL sells well this book ‘This book sells well.’ (middle, inherent property) b. Este libro se vende en todas partes. REFL sells in all parts this book ‘This book is sold everywhere.’ (passive, habitual event) c. Este cuadro se vendió ayer. REFL sell.PFV .3SG yesterday this painting ‘This painting was sold yesterday.’ (passive, single event)

Owing to their stative semantics, reflexive middles are limited to imperfective tenses (Mendikoetxea 1999a, 1663; see (47) and (48) above): (53)

Sp.

Ese coche se conducía/ conduce/ this car REFL drove. IMPFV / drives. PRS / ‘This car was/is/will be easy to drive.’

conducirá drive. FUT

bien. well

Reflexive middles often require adverbial modification (54a), negation (54b) or focus on the predicate (54c) to facilitate a stative interpretation (see, for French, Fellbaum/ Zribi-Hertz 1989; for Spanish, Mendikoetxea 1999a, 1665). (54)

Fr.

Ce fruit se mange facilement/ avec eats easily/ with this fruit REFL ‘This fruit is easy to eat/is eaten with one’s hands.’ b. Ce fruit ne se mange pas. REFL eats NEG this fruit NEG ‘This fruit is not edible.’ c. Ce fruit se mange. eats this fruit REFL ‘This fruit is edible.’

a.

les the

mains. hands

Voice and voice alternations

251

In Spanish, reflexive middles differ from reflexive passives with respect to the interpretation of the subject. The implicit argument of the middle reflexive cannot be an experiencer (55a) (Mendikoetxea 1999a, 1656), while passive reflexives and impersonal reflexives also allow the demotion of experiencer (55b,c) (Mendikoetxea 1999a, 1661): (55)

Sp.

a.

*Las acelgas se detestan en el momento de REFL detest.3PL in the moment of the chard.PL probar=las por primera vez. for first time try. INF =them. ACC ‘One detests chard when trying it for the first time.’ b. Cuando se detestan las acelgas, se aborrecen REFL detest.3PL the chard.PL REFL abhor.3PL when también las espinacas. also the spinach. PL ‘When one detests chard one also abhors spinach.’ c. A los criminales se les detesta con intensidad. A the criminals REFL them.ACC detest. 3SG with intensity ‘One abhors criminals intensely.’ (Mendikoetxea 1999a, 1656 and 1661)

Stative reflexive middles only allow first and second person subjects in very marked contexts, contrasting with reflexive anticausatives (see (51)): (56)

Fr.

Je me range n’importe où, je me transporte anywhere I REFL . 1SG transport.1SG I REFL . 1SG stow.1SG facilement, je vous suis indispensable. am indispensable easily I you.PL . DAT ‘I can be stowed anywhere, I am easy to carry and I am indispensable for you.’ (suitcase speaking in an advertising) (Zribi-Hertz 1982, 365)

4.3 Reflexive passives Reflexive passives imply an agent and have an eventive interpretation, differing from reflexive anticausatives and reflexive middles respectively. The reflexive passive is attested in Old Italian, Old Spanish and Old Portuguese (see, for Old Italian, Salvi 2011; for Old Spanish, Lapesa 2000; for Old Portuguese, Naro 1976). The impersonal reflexive was a later innovation (see, for Italian, Giacalone Ramat/Sansò 2011, 199; for Spanish, Brown 1931; for Portuguese, Naro 1976, 781) that emerged in some Romance languages (e.g., Italian, Portuguese, Spanish) but not in others (e.g., French and Romanian, Dobrovie-Sorin 1998; 2005).

252

Patricia Cabredo Hofherr

The reflexive passive construction is characterized by the following properties: (57)

Reflexive passive a. The verb agrees with the patient DP. b. The patient DP is pronominalised by a subject pronoun.

Reflexive passives were initially only possible with transitive verbs (see, for Old Portuguese, Naro 1976; for Old Italian, Sansò 2011). Subsequently the construction extended to intransitive verbs. In Old Portuguese, Old Catalan and Old Italian, se-passives were possible with agent phrases (see, for Old Portuguese, Naro 1976; for Old Catalan, Bartra Kaufmann 2002, 2155; for Old Italian, Sansò 2011): (58)

a. OPt.

b. OIt.

Como Josep se conheceu pelos irmãaos. REFL know.PFV .3SG by-the brothers how Josep ‘How Josep was recognized by his brothers.’ (Naro 1976, 789) …si debbiano chiamare da-la Compagnia due call. INF by-the company two …REFL should.3PL capitani … captains … ‘Two captains should be called by the company.’ (shortened from Sansò 2011, 228)

Of the Modern Romance languages only Modern Romanian freely allows agentive phrases with reflexive passives (Pountain 2000; Cornilescu/Nicolae 2014, 311 and 323): (59)

Rom. O asemenea cercetare s=a făcut the such research REFL =has done ‘Such research has been done by many scholars.’ (Pountain 2000, 15)

de DE

mulţi many

erudiţi. scholars

In Spanish reflexive passives with agentive phrases are found in literary and journalistic texts and limited to generic agents (Mendikoetxea 1999a, 1682–1684): (60) Sp.

firmó la paz por REFL sign.PFV .3SG the peace by ‘The peace was signed by the ambassadors.’ (Mendikoetxea 1999a, 1682)

Se

los the

embajadores. ambassadors

Voice and voice alternations

253

In Catalan (Bartra Kaufmann 2002, 2155), Italian (Sansò 2011), French (Melis 1992; Lamiroy 1993) and Portuguese (Martins 2005), reflexive passives no longer allow agentive phrases. In the Modern Romance languages reflexive passives are limited to the third person (see, for Portuguese, Naro 1976, 780; for Spanish, Mendikoetxea 2012, 478; for French, Zribi-Hertz 1982; for Italian, Salvi 2001, 116; for Romanian, Dragomirescu 2013, 203).6 Reflexive passives with animate patients are ambiguous between a reflexive/reciprocal reading and a passive reading. The preverbal animate DPs favour a reflexive/reciprocal interpretation, while post-verbal DPs favour a passive interpretation (see, for Spanish, Mendikoetxea 1999a, 1674; for Catalan, Bartra Kaufmann 2002, 2153).7 In Spanish, reflexive passives contrast with ser-passives with respect to bare NP subjects (Mendikoetxea 1999a, 1675): only the se-passive allows bare post-verbal subjects (61b). (61)

Sp.

En el barco in the ship a. *fueron encontradas armas. weapons.FPL were.PFV .3 PL found.PTCP . FPL b. se encontraron armas. REFL found.PFV .3PL weapons.FPL ‘Weapons were found on the ship.’ (Mendikoetxea 1999a, 1675).

Mendikoetxea (1999b) attributes this contrast to a difference in topicality: the theme of the periphrastic passive is generally a topic, while reflexive passives correspond to active sentences with non-specific themes. In Spanish, the reflexive passive shows fewer aspectual restrictions than the periphrastic passive, and is consequently used more widely (Mendikoetxea 1999b, 1673). In Italian, punctual events are expressed by the periphrastic passive while habitual or iterated events are expressed with the reflexive passive (Sansò 2011). In Catalan, the reflexive passive is acceptable with iterated events (62a), but less so with punctual events (62b):

6 Nineteenth-century Romanian allowed first and second person reflexive passives (Cornilescu/Nicolae 2014): (i) Mă bat eu de către tine. REFL . 1SG beat I by you ‘I am beaten by you.’ (Iordache Golescu 1840, 150) (Cornilescu/Nicolae 2014, 311) 7 This is a simplification. Raposo/Uriagereka (1996) show that in Portuguese preverbal DPs in agreeing se-constructions can occupy a subject position or a topic position.

254

(62)

Patricia Cabredo Hofherr

Cat.

a.

S=han traduït força novel·les de X en REFL = have.3PL translated many novels by X in els últims anys. the last years ‘In the last few years many novels by X have been translated.’ b. *?La porta es va obrir perquè sortís REFL AUX . 3SG open.INF in-order go-out. SBJV the door el fum. the smoke ‘The door was opened to let the smoke out.’

Reflexive passives with first and second person reflexives are not interpreted as passives but as referential reflexives (63) (see, for Spanish, Mendikoetxea 1999a, 1640; for Catalan, Bartra Kaufmann 2002, 2150; for Italian, Salvi 2001, 115; for Romanian, Cornilescu/Nicolae 2014, 335). (63)

Rom. Eu mă păcălesc repede. REFL . 1SG deceive quickly I ‘I deceive myself quickly.’ (referential reflexive) ‘I am easily deceived.’ (reflexive anticausative) (Cornilescu/Nicolae 2014, 336)

4.4 Reflexive impersonals The distinction between passive se/si and impersonal se/si is not drawn uniformly across the literature. Certain analyses take the difference between passive se/si and impersonal se/si to be a semantic distinction between object-oriented and agentoriented readings (cf. Cennamo 2014). Here the distinction is based on syntactic criteria. In the reflexive passive construction the verb agrees with the patient DP, the DP behaves like a grammatical subject and the reflexive marks argument reduction, like a passive morpheme. In the impersonal reflexive construction, in contrast, the DP patient behaves like a syntactic object, suggesting that the reflexive has been reanalysed as an impersonal subject clitic (Dobrovie-Sorin 1998; 2005; Salvi 2001, 117). Blevins (2003) shows that the possibility to combine with modals provides a further diagnostic distinguishing passives from impersonal verb forms: passives do not apply to modals, copulas and passive constructions, while impersonal verb forms and impersonal subjects routinely combine with modal verbs, copulas and auxiliary passives. For the reflexive in Romance, this test has to be applied with a transitive verb in the complement of the modal, since otherwise the reflexive on the modal verbs could be due to clitic climbing. So, while for Romance auxiliary passives there is a

Voice and voice alternations

255

clear contrast between passivising the modal or passivising the main predicate (64a,b), it is difficult to establish whether the reflexive se/si passivises the main predicate or the modal in (65a), as a passive se on the main predicate is possible (65b) and Romance has clitic climbing with modals (65c): (64)

(65)

Fr.

Sp.

a.

*Les pommes sont pu manger. eat.INF the apples are.3PL can.PTCP b. Les pommes ont pu être can.PTCP be. INF the apples have.3PL ‘It was possible to eat the apples.’

mangées. eaten.FPL

Las manzanas se pueden comer. the apples REFL can.3PL eat.INF b. Las manzanas pueden comer=se. eat.INF = REFL the apples can.3PL ‘The apples can be eaten.’ c. Lo puedo ver./ Puedo ver=lo. see.INF can.1SG see.INF = him. ACC him. ACC can.1SG ‘I can see him.’

a.

The following table summarises the diagnostics used to distinguish reflexive passives from reflexive impersonals in what follows. Table 2: Diagnostics distinguishing reflexive passives from reflexive impersonals Reflexive passive

Reflexive impersonal

+



+





+



+



+

∙ modals



+

∙ periphrastic passives



+

Patient DP has subject properties ∙ agreement with patient DP ∙ pronominalised by subject pronoun Patient DP has object properties ∙ pronominalised by object pronoun ∙ allows differential object marking Compatible with ∙ copulas

Notice that compatibility with intransitive verbs as in It. si dorme ‘REFL sleeps’ is not a reliable indicator of reanalysis of the reflexive as an impersonal subject (DobrovieSorin 1986 and 2005, §2.4) as in languages like German auxiliary passives can combine with intransitives (66) (Keenan/Dryer 2007).

256

(66)

Patricia Cabredo Hofherr

Ger. Nebenan wird gerade gesungen. AUX . 3SG just.now sung.PTCP next-door ‘Next door there is singing going on.’

As (67) shows, the Romanian reflexive construction systematically patterns with reflexive passives on the criteria in Table 2 (cf. Dobrovie-Sorin 1998; 2005) (67), while Italian si is compatible with all environments diagnostic of a reflexive impersonal (68). (67)

Rom. a.

se + no agreement with DP *În această universitate se predă ştiinţele REFL teaches studies.DET in this university umane. human ‘At this university they teach the humanities.’ b. se + accusative clitic: *(Ştiinţele umane) le se predă în REFL teaches in (studies.DET human) them.ACC această universitate. this university ‘The humanities, they teach them at this university.’ c. se + differential object marking pe: *În şcoala asta se pedepseşte pe elevi. this REFL punishes PE students in school.DET ‘In this school they punish the students.’ d. se + copula: *Nu se este niciodată mulţumit. NEG REFL is never content ‘One is never satisfied.’ e. se + auxiliary passive: *Adesea se este trădat de prieteni falşi. is betrayed by friends false frequently REFL ‘One is frequently betrayed by false friends.’ (Dobrovie-Sorin 2005, §2.3, (36) and (38))

(68)

It.

a.

si + no agreement with DP: In questa università si studia le studies the in this university REFL letterarie. literary.FPL ‘In this university one studies the humanities.’ (Belletti 1988)

materie subjects.FPL

Voice and voice alternations

b. si + accusative clitic: Li si vede. REFL sees them. M . ACC ‘One sees them.’ (Cennamo 2014, 73) c. si + copula: Non si è mai contenti. NEG REFL is ever satisfied. MPL ‘One is never satisfied.’ (Cinque 1988, 522) d. si + passive: Si è spesso trattati REFL is frequently treated.MPL ‘One is frequently treated badly.’ (Cinque 1988, 522)

257

male. badly

The diagnostics in Table 2 need not always line up neatly, however (see Salvi 2008 for Italian). Spanish reflexive constructions, e.g., are compatible with copulas, modals and passives and allow the patient DP to be an accusative clitic or carry differential object marking (Mendikoetxea 1999a, 1638–1639), while the agreement-less construction is not freely available. (69)

Sp.

También se les vio en la gala REFL them.ACC saw.3SG in the gala also solidaria Life Ball de Viena. solidary Life Ball of Vienna ‘They were also seen at the charity gala Life Ball in Vienna.’ b. En esta escuela se castiga a los alumnos. REFL punishes A the students in this school ‘In this school they punish the students.’ (Dobrovie-Sorin 2005, §2.3, (37)) c. Cuando se es tonto se es tonto. REFL is stupid REFL is stupid when ‘When one is stupid one is stupid.’ d. Se puede ser generoso. REFL can.3SG be generous ‘One can be generous.’ e. Es fácil simular una enfermedad cuando no a illness when NEG is easy simulate.INF se es examinado por especialistas expertos. REFL is examined by specialists experts a.

258

Patricia Cabredo Hofherr

‘It is easy to simulate an illness when one is not examined by expert specialists.’ The most acceptable examples of the reflexive without agreement in Spanish involve postverbal bare patient DPs and receive an interpretation reminiscent of a sign or an announcement (70a,b); definite and preverbal subjects are not felicitous without agreement (70c,d) (Mendikoetxea 1999a). (70)

Sp.

a.

Se

vende casas. sells houses ‘Houses sold/for sale.’ b. Se necesita aprendices. REFL needs apprentices ‘Apprentices needed.’ c. ?*Aquí se vende los mejores REFL sells the best here ‘Here are sold the best cars.’ (Mendikoetxea 1999a, 1677) d. *Los mejores coches se vende REFL sells the best cars ‘The best cars are sold here.’ (Mendikoetxea 1999a, 1678) REFL

coches. cars

aquí. here

Lack of agreement with the DP becomes acceptable in examples in which lexical material separates the agreeing verb from the patient DP: (71)

Sp.

Se

conoce en la mayoría de los casos los knows in the majority of the cases the nombres de los culpables. names of the culprits ‘In the majority of cases the names of the culprits are known.’ (Mendikoetxea 1999b, 1678) REFL

Other restrictions can be lexical: in Catalan impersonal reflexives are possible with the copulas ser and estar but not with semblar ‘to seem’ (Bartra Kaufmann 2002): (72)

Cat.

Si s=és amable (s=obtenen moltes coses). REFL = is nice (REFL =obtain.3PL many things) if ‘If one is nice (many things are obtained).’ b. Quan s=està cansat (no es pot menjar). (NEG REFL can. 3SG eat.INF ) When REFL = is tired ‘When one is tired (one cannot eat).’ a.

259

Voice and voice alternations

c.

*Quan se sembla ruc (s=obté el REFL seems donkey (REFL = obtains the when menyspreu de tothom). disdain of everyone) ‘When one seems a donkey (one is disdained by everyone).’ (Bartra Kaufmann 2002, 2157)

In Italian passive and impersonal reflexives differ in their agreement properties: with the impersonal, the participle agreement is plural (73a) (Salvi 2001, 98), while with the passive reflexive, the participle agrees with the patient DP (73b). (73)

It.

a.

Si

è partiti all’ alba. is left. MPL at.the dawn ‘One left at dawn.’ (Cennamo 2014, 74) b. Si è evitata una tragedia. REFL is avoided. FSG a tragedy.FSG ‘A tragedy was avoided.’ (Sansò 2011, 221) REFL

In Italian, the combination of an impersonal si and a reflexive si or an inherent si is replaced by the sequence ci si (see Salvi 2001; Cennamo 2014, 76) (see ↗5 Clitic pronouns). The diagnostics discriminating passive and impersonal reflexives presented in Table 2 above are by no means uncontroversial. In particular, lack of agreement with the DP is not always considered a defining property of impersonal si (see, for Italian, D’Alessandro 2007; for Catalan, Bartra Kaufmann 2002, 2161). In contrast, in Borgoromanese impersonal reflexives differ syntactically from passive and anticausative reflexives (Manzini/Savoia 2005): the anticausative and passive reflexives are postverbal (74a,b), while the impersonal reflexive appears preverbally on the discourse clitic a (74c).8  

(74)

Borgoromanese a. I’rumpu-si i pjati. SCL = break-REFL the plates ‘The plates break.’ (Manzini/Savoia 2005, 70)

8 For similar patterns in Piedmontese, see Parry (1998).

260

Patricia Cabredo Hofherr

b.

c.

passive reflexive: Iø i vøŋgu=si sempri pasondu. going they SCL see.3PL = REFL always ‘They are always seen going …’ (Manzini/Savoia 2005, 71) impersonal reflexive: A=s môngia bej chilonsé. eats well here A= REFL ‘One eats well here.’ (Benincà/Tortora 2009, 19)

Cross-linguistically, there are arguments for a tripartite distinction between passives, impersonal verb forms and impersonal subjects, suggesting that the binary distinction between a reflexive passive morpheme and a homophonous impersonal subject clitic may be insufficient (Cabredo Hofherr forthcoming).

5 Agent backgrounding without argument reduction Apart from back-grounding devices operating on the verbal domain, Romance also has a number of pronominal agent backgrounding strategies that leave valency unchanged.

5.1 Impersonal third person plural Impersonal uses of the third person plural are limited to subjects (75a,b). Contexts with impersonal third person plural pronouns in oblique positions are only possible with an impersonal antecedent (75c) (Cabredo Hofherr 2006). (75)

Sp.

a.

En esta mina pro trabajan mucho. in this mine work.3PL a-lot ‘In this mine, they work a lot.’ b. #En esta mina el patrón les paga poco. little in this mine the boss them. ACC pays ‘In this mine, the boss pays them little.’ trabajan mucho y el patrón c. En esta mina proi and the boss in this mine work.3PL a-lot paga poco. lesi pays little. them.ACC ‘In this mine they work a lot and the boss pays them little.’

Voice and voice alternations

261

Third person plural impersonal subjects can have quasi-universal or quasi-existential interpretations, that can be paraphrased by someone (76), or people in general (77) respectively. Quasi-existential interpretations only arise with transitive and ergative verbs and are excluded with passives and unergatives (Cinque 1988). (76)

(77)

It.

It.

a.

Hanno bussato. have.3PL knocked ‘Someone knocked.’ b. Mi hanno rubato stolen me.DAT have ‘They stole my bike.’

In Francia mangiano in France eat.3PL ‘In France they eat snails.’

le the

la the

bici. bike

lumache. snails

Siewierska/Papastathi (2011, 585) show that third person plural forms of the verb say like (78) have to be treated separately, as they are possible in languages that do not use impersonal third person plural constructions elsewhere. (78)

a. Sp. b. Pt.

Dicen que … Dizem que … say.3PL that ‘They say that …’

In pro-drop languages like Italian, (European) Portuguese and Spanish, impersonal readings are excluded with lexical third person plural pronouns (79a,b). Brazilian Portuguese, however, is losing pro-drop (Modesto 2008, see ↗2 Subjects) and impersonal readings of third person plural pronouns show a split: the lexical pronoun is compatible with quasi-universal impersonals (80a) but not with quasi-existential impersonals ((80b) vs (80c)): (79)

Sp.

Ellos me han robado la bici. stolen the bike they me.DAT have.3PL Only: ‘They (previously mentioned) stole my bike.’ b. En Francia ellos comen caracoles. snails in France they eat.3PL Only: ‘In France they (previously mentioned) eat snails.’

a.

(80) BPt. a.

Na França, eles comem in.the France they eat.3PL ‘In France they eat snails.’

caracois. snails

262

Patricia Cabredo Hofherr

b. Roubaram minha bicicleta. my bike stole.PFV .3PL ‘They/someone stole my bike.’ c. Eles roubaram minha bicicleta. my bike they stole.PFV .3PL ‘They (previously mentioned) stole my bike.’

5.2 Generic second person singular Second person singular pronouns allow generic uses in all major Romance languages, corresponding to a reading roughly paraphrasable by people in general. Generic uses of the second person singular contrast with impersonal third person plural pronouns with respect to two properties. First, unlike impersonal third person plural pronouns (75b), generic uses of the second person singular can appear in non-subject positions in isolation (81). Secondly, in pro-drop languages, lexical second person singular pronouns allow a generic reading in certain contexts (82), while third person plural pronouns do not (79) (see, for Spanish, Hernanz 1990; for Catalan, Bartra Kaufmann 2002, 2170). (81)

Sp.

En este hospital siempre te in this hospital always you.2SG .ACC ‘In this hospital they always treat you well.’

(82)

Sp.

Si tú dices eso en una reunión, la if you say this in a meeting the escandaliza. scandalize ‘If you say this in a meeting people are shocked.’ (Hernanz 1990, 157)

atienden take-care.3PL

gente people

bien. well

se REFL

5.3 Generic uno The generic use of the pronoun un/uno is possible in Spanish, Catalan and Italian (83), but excluded in French, Portuguese and Romanian. (83)

a. Sp. b. Cat. c. It.

Uno necesita agua Un necessita aigua Uno ha bisogno di acqua one needs (of) water ‘One needs water to survive.’

para per per to

sobrevivir. sobreviure. sopravvivere. survive.INF

263

Voice and voice alternations

Unlike the generic pronoun on in French, Occitan and Francoprovençal, in Spanish generic uno is also possible in non-subject positions. (84) Sp.

Somos viejos, y cuando uno es viejo, hacen con UNO is old do.3PL with are.1PL old.PL and when uno lo que quieren. UNO 3SG . MSG . ACC that want.3PL ‘We are old and when one is old they do with one what they want.’

The impersonal uses of un/uno in Spanish, Catalan and Italian differ with respect to their anaphoric properties: in Spanish, uno allows co-reference with a null pronoun or a second occurrence of uno (85a), in Catalan repetition of un is degraded, whereas in Italian only the null pronoun is possible. (85)

a. Sp. b. Cat. c. It.

Cuando uno está enfermo, (uno) quedarse en la cama. Quan un està malalt, (??un) quedar-se al llit. Quando uno è malato, (*uno) UNO is ill (UNO ) when restare a letto. stay in (the) bed ‘When one is ill, one should stay in bed.’

tiene

que

ha

de

deve MODAL .3SG

In Spanish and Catalan the impersonal un/uno allows gender-marking if the referents are limited to women (see, for Catalan, Bartra Kaufmann 2002, 2174). (86)

Sp.

y cuando una está feliz o presiente que UNO . F is happy or feels that and when la felicidad está cerca, pues se mira en REFL looks in the happiness is near well los espejos sin ninguna reserva … the mirrors without any reserve ‘and when one is happy or feels that happiness is near, well one looks at oneself in the mirror without any inhibition.’ (Roberto Bolaño, Amuleto, Ediciones Anagrama 1999)

There is variation across dialects of Catalan: for some speakers the impersonal use of un is felt to be a calque from Spanish.

264

Patricia Cabredo Hofherr

5.4 Reflexes of HOMO Dedicated impersonal pronouns provide a further agent-backgrounding strategy. Synchronically, only French, Franco-Provençal and Occitan varieties have a dedicated impersonal pronoun on/om (see, for French, Nyrop 1925; for Franco-Provençal, Tintou 1973, 34; for Occitan, Weerenbeck 1943; Sauzet 2015), which developed from the Latin noun homo (Nyrop 1925, vol. 5: §368; Welton-Lair 1999). In Modern Occitan om is rarely used (cf. Meyer-Lübke 1899, 107; Comitat Sestian d’Estudis Occitans 1983, 59) and mostly appears with reflexive verbs and the copula that are incompatible with the otherwise widely used reflexive passive strategy (Sauzet 2015). In Catalan the impersonal pronoun hom is an archaic construction that is no longer used in Colloquial Catalan (cf. Bartra Kaufmann 2002, 2172–2173). D’Alessandro/Alexiadou (2006) document the pronoun nome in Abruzzese that was used until about 50 years ago, and recently reanalysed as a plural marker by younger speakers (D’Alessandro 2014). French on is a clitic pronoun: undergoing clitic inversion (87a), with a strong form soi (87b) (Nyrop 1925, 371). (87)

Fr.

a.

Peut-on y accéder? get-to.INF can.3SG -ON LOC ‘Can one get there?’ b. On n’ aime jamais vraiment que ON NEG loves never really but ‘One never really loves anyone but oneself.’

soi. REFL

Soi can only appear as a locally bound reflexive ((87b) vs (88a)) and is also used as the reflexive for the null subject of infinitives (PRO) (88b) (Zribi-Hertz 2008): (88) Fr.

a.

*Oni

s’=inquiète quand la police fait des ON REFL =worries when the police makes ART . INDF . PL enquêtes sur soii. REFL inquiries on Intended: ‘One worries when the police makes inquiries about oneself.’ Parler de soii] n’ est pas toujours évident. b. [PROi REFL NEG is NEG always obvious talk.INF of ‘Talking about oneself is not always easy.’

French on allows quasi-existential and quasi-universal readings (89a,b), contrasting with pronouns like Spanish uno that only allow quasi-universal uses (see (83) and (85a)).

Voice and voice alternations

(89)

Fr.

a.

265

On

a volé mon vélo. has stolen my bike ‘Someone stole my bike.’ b. En Espagne on mange tard. ON eats late in Spain ‘In Spain one eats/they eat late.’ ON

French on has further developed into a nominative first person plural pronoun. This use of on appears with third person singular verbal agreement but takes first person plural possessive pronouns (90a). A third person reflexive possessive does not have a first person plural reflexive interpretation (90b) (Cabredo Hofherr 2008; see Creissels 2008 for a discussion of binding properties of French on): (90) Fr.

a pris nos chaussures. has taken POSS . REFL . 1PL shoes ‘We took our shoes.’ b. On a pris ses chaussures. ON has taken POSS . 3PL shoes ‘Somebodyi took his*i/j shoes./ We took his shoes.’

a.

On ON

It is unclear whether on under its first person plural reading grammaticalised from the quasi-universal or the quasi-existential use of on (cf. Egerland 2010). Cross-linguistically, quasi-existential and first person plural readings are not correlated. Brazilian Portuguese a gente ‘people’ grammaticalised to a first person plural pronoun (Menuzzi 1999; Taylor 2009), but does not allow a quasi-existential reading (91). Inversely, German has quasi-universal and quasi-existential readings of man but no first person plural readings. (91)

BPt. *A gente me roubou minha me.DAT stole.PFV .3SG my the people.SG Not: ‘Somebody stole my bicyle.’ (compare to (89a)) (R. Bertucci, p.c.)

bicicleta. bike

Various older varieties of Romance display an impersonal use of homo, which was subsequently lost. According to Brown (1931, 272), Old Spanish had indefinite uses of omne. However, this use was not clearly different from the (definite or bare) noun (Kärde 1943, 14). Old Italian varieties had a pronoun uomo (Giacalone Ramat/Sansò 2007a,b; Egerland 2010) which contrasts with Modern French on in several respects. Firstly, Old Italian uomo can be modified by relative clauses and adjectives (Giacalone Ramat/ Sansò 2007a). Secondly, while on/man are taken up by on/man for co-reference (92b,c), uomo is always referred to by third person singular pronouns (92a) (Giacalone

266

Patricia Cabredo Hofherr

Ramat/Sansò 2007a). Finally, Egerland (2010) shows that Old Italian uomo was restricted to imperfective tenses and perfective tenses embedded in a generic context, suggesting that an episodic reading of uomo was not possible. (92)

a. OIt.

b. Ger. c. Fr.

ove che l’ uom vada, o stea, stays.SBJV where that the man goes.SBJV or e’ dee vivere onestamente live.INF honestly he must.3SG ‘Wherever “man” goes or stays, he must live honestly.’ (Pistole di Seneca, 21, Giacalone Ramat/Sansò 2007a, 110) Wenn man ein Kind ist, will man erwachsen sein. when MAN a child is wants MAN adult be Quand on est enfant, on veut être adulte. when ON is child ON want be adult ‘When one is a child one wants to be an adult.’

6 Conclusion The Early Romance languages lost the synthetic imperfective passive of Latin, and generalised the be + past participle construction to the entire passive paradigm. Due to the homophony between the copula and the new passive auxiliary, the resulting innovated be-passives were in principle aspectually ambiguous, but favoured stative interpretations in the imperfective. The Romance languages developed an array of aspectually unambiguous passive auxiliaries from different semi-auxiliaries and extended reflexive marking for anticausative, stative middle and passive interpretations. In some Romance languages, passive reflexives subsequently grammaticalised as impersonal reflexives. Furthermore, Romance languages allow impersonal uses of third person and second person pronouns and some Romance languages grammaticalised impersonal pronouns from the numeral one or the noun homo ‘man’.

7 References Abeillé, Anne/Godard, Danièle (2000), Varieties of ES SE in Romance languages, in: Dan Flickinger/ Andreas Kathol (edd.), Berkeley Formal Grammar Conference, Stanford, CA, CSLI, 2–22. Ackema, Peter/Schoorlemmer, Maaike (2005), Middles, in: Martin Everaert/Henk van Riemsdijk (edd.), The Blackwell Companion to Syntax, vol. 3, Oxford, Blackwell, 131–203. Azevedo, Milton M. (2005), Portuguese. A Linguistic Introduction, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Banniard, Michel (1997), Du latin aux langues romanes, Paris, Nathan. Bartra Kaufmann, Anna (2002), La passiva i les construccions que s’hi relacionen, in: Joan Solà et al. (edd.), Gramàtica del català contemporani, vol. 2, Barcelona, Empúries, 2111–2179.

Voice and voice alternations

267

Bat-Zeev Shyldkrot, Hava (1981), À propos de la forme passive “se voir+Vinf”, Folia Linguistica 15, 387–407. Belletti, Adriana (1988), The Case of unaccusatives, Linguistic Inquiry 19, 1–34. Benincà, Paola/Poletto, Cecilia (1997), The diachronic development of a modal verb of necessity, in: Ans van Kemenade/Nigel Vincent (edd.), Parameters of Morphosyntactic Change, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 94–118. Benincà, Paola/Tortora, Christina (2009), Towards a finer-grained theory of Italian participial clausal architecture, University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 15, 17–26. Berizzi, Mariachiara/Rossi, Silvia (2011), Deontic “ghe vol” with past participle in some varieties of eastern Veneto, Quaderni di Lavoro ASIt 12, 41–62. Blevins, James (2003), Passives and impersonals, Journal of Linguistics 39, 473–520. Brown, Christopher Barrett (1931), The disappearance of indefinite “hombre” from Spanish, Language 7, 265–277. Brucart, José Maria (1990), Pasividad y atribución en español: un análisis generativo, in: Violeta Demonte/Beatriz Garza (edd.), Estudios de lingüística de España y México, Ciudad de México, UNAM/El Colegio de México, 179–208. Cabredo Hofherr, Patricia (2006), “Arbitrary” pro and the theory of pro-drop, in: Peter Ackema et al. (edd.), Arguments and Agreement, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 230–260. Cabredo Hofherr, Patricia (2008), Les pronoms impersonnels humains – syntaxe et interprétation, Modèles linguistiques 57, 35–56. Cabredo Hofherr, Patricia (forthcoming), Impersonal passives, in: Martin Everaert/Henk van Riemsdijk (edd.), The Blackwell Companion to Syntax, 2nd edn, Oxford, Blackwell. Carlier, Anne (2002), Les propriétés aspectuelles du passif, Cahiers Chronos 10, 41–63. Cennamo, Michela (1998), The loss of the voice dimension between Late Latin and Early Romance, in: Monika S. Schmid/Jennifer R. Austin/Dieter Stein (edd.), Historical linguistics 1997. Selected Papers from the XIII International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, Benjamins, 77–100. Cennamo, Michela (2006), The rise and grammaticalization paths of Latin FIERI and FACERE as passive auxiliaries, in: Werner Abraham/Larisa Leisiö (edd.), Passivization and Typology, Amsterdam/ Philadelphia, Benjamins, 311–336. Cennamo, Michela (2007), Auxiliaries and serials between Late Latin and Early Romance, in: Delia Bentley/Adam Ledgeway (edd.), Sui Dialetti Italo-Romanzi. Saggi in onore di Nigel B. Vincent, The Italianist, Special Supplement, vol. 1, Cambridge, University of Cambridge, 63–87. Cennamo, Michela (2014), Passive and impersonal reflexives in the Italian dialects: Synchronic and diachronic aspects, in: Paola Benincà/Adam Ledgeway/Nigel Vincent (edd.), Diachrony and Dialects. Grammatical Change in the Dialects of Italy, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 71–95. Cennamo, Michela (2016), Voice, in: Adam Ledgeway/Martin Maiden (edd.), The Oxford Guide to the Romance Languages, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 967–980. Cinque, Guglielmo (1988), On “si” constructions and the theory of “arb”, Linguistic Inquiry 19, 521–583. Comitat Sestian d’Estudis Occitans (1983), Grammaire du provençal rhodanien et maritime (graphie classique), La Calade/Aix-en-Provence, Edisud. Conti Jiménez, Carmen (2004), Construcciones pasivas con “estar”, Estudios de Lingüística 18, 21–44. Cornilescu, Alexandra/Nicolae, Alexandru (2014), The grammaticalization of a constraint on passive reflexive constructions in Romanian, in: Gabriela Pană Dindelegan/Rodica Zafiu/Adina Dragomirescu (edd.), Diachronic Variation in Romanian, Newcastle upon Tyne, Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 309–362. Creissels, Denis (2008), Impersonal pronouns and coreference. The case of French “on”, Ms., Laboratoire DDL, Université de Lyon.

268

Patricia Cabredo Hofherr

D’Alessandro, Roberta (2007), Impersonal “si” Constructions. Agreement and Interpretation, Berlin/ New York, De Gruyter. D’Alessandro, Roberta (2014), Death and contact-induced rebirth of impersonal pronouns. A case study, Probus 26, 249–274. D’Alessandro, Roberta/Alexiadou, Artemis (2006), The syntax of the indefinite pronoun “nome”, Probus 18, 189–218. Dobrovie-Sorin, Carmen (1986), À propos du contraste entre le passif morphologique et “se” moyen dans les tours impersonnels, Lingvisticae Investigationes 10, 289–330. Dobrovie-Sorin, Carmen (1994), The Syntax of Romanian, Berlin/New York, De Gruyter. Dobrovie-Sorin, Carmen (1998), Impersonal SE in Romance and the passivization of unergatives, Linguistic Inquiry 29, 399–437. Dobrovie-Sorin, Carmen (2005), SE / SI constructions, in: Martin Everaert/Henk van Riemsdijk (edd.), The Blackwell Companion to Syntax, vol. 4, Oxford, Blackwell, 181–279. Dragomirescu, Adina (2013), Complex predicates, in: Gabriela Pană Dindelegan (ed.) (2013), The Grammar of Romanian, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 191–203. Dragomirescu, Adina/Nicolae, Alexandru (2014), The multiple grammaticalization of Romanian V ENI ‘to come’. Focusing on the passive construction, in: Maud Devos/Jenneke van der Wal (edd.), “COME” and “GO” off the Beaten Grammaticalization Path, Berlin/Boston, De Gruyter, 69–101. Egerland, Verner (2010), On Old Italian “uomo” and the classification of indefinite expressions, in: Roberta D’Alessandro/Adam Ledgeway/Ian Roberts (edd.), Syntactic Variation. The Dialects of Italy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 71–85. Ernout, Alfred/Thomas, François (1953), Syntaxe latine, Paris, Klincksieck. Fellbaum, Christiane/Zribi-Hertz, Anne (1989), La construction moyenne en français et en anglais: étude de syntaxe et de sémantique comparées, Recherches Linguistiques à Vincennes 18, 19–57. Gaatone, David (1998), Le passif en français, Paris/Bruxelles, De Boeck & Larcier. Giacalone Ramat, Anna (2000), On some grammaticalization patterns for auxiliaries, in: John Charles Smith/Delia Bentley (edd.), Historical Linguistics 1995, vol. 1: General Issues and Non-Germanic Languages. Selected Papers from the 12th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Manchester, August 1995, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, Benjamins, 125–154. Giacalone Ramat, Anna (2016), Passives and Constructions that resemble passives, Ms., Univ. Pavia. Giacalone Ramat, Anna/Sansò, Andrea (2007a), The indefinite usage of “uomo” (‘man’) in Early ItaloRomance. Grammaticalization and areality, Archivio Glottologico Italiano 92, 65–111. Giacalone Ramat, Anna/Sansò, Andrea (2007b), The spread and decline of indefinite MAN -constructions in European languages: an areal perspective, in: Paolo Ramat/Elisa Roma (edd.), Europe and the Mediterranean as Linguistic Areas. Convergencies from a Historical and Typological Perspective, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, Benjamins, 95–131. Giacalone Ramat, Anna/Sansò, Andrea (2011), From passive to impersonal. A case study from Italian and its implications, in: Andrei Malchukov/Anna Siewierska (edd.), Impersonal constructions, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, Benjamins, 189–228. Giacalone Ramat, Anna/Sansò, Andrea (2014), “venire” (‘come’) as a passive auxiliary in Italian, in: Maud Devos/Jenneke van der Wal (edd.), “COME” and “GO” off the Beaten Grammaticalization Path, Berlin/Boston, De Gruyter, 21–44. Haiman, John/Benincà, Paola (1992), The Rhaeto-Romance Languages, London/New York, Routledge. Haspelmath, Martin (1990), The grammaticization of passive morphology, Studies in Language 14, 25–71. Hernanz, María Luisa (1990), En torno a los sujetos arbitrarios: la 2ª persona del singular, in: Violeta Demonte/Beatriz Garza Cuarón (edd.), Estudios de lingüística de España y México, Ciudad de México, UNAM/COLMEX, 151–178. Jones, Michael Allan (1993), Sardinian Syntax, London/New York, Routledge.

Voice and voice alternations

269

Jurado Salinas, Martha (2000), Las construcciones pasivas con “ser” y con “estar”, Revista española de lingüística aplicada 1, 175–192. Kärde, Sven (1943), Quelques manières d’exprimer l’idée d’un sujet indéterminé ou général en espagnol, Uppsala, Appelbergs Boktryckeriaktiebolag. Keenan, Edward L. (1985), Passive in the world’s languages, in: Timothy Shopen (ed.), Language Typology and Syntactic Description, vol. 1: Clause Structure, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 243–281. Keenan, Edward L./Dryer, Matthew S. (2007), Passive in the world’s languages, in: Timothy Shopen (ed.), Language Typology and Syntactic Description, vol. 1: Clause Structure, 2nd edn, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 325–361. Kemmer, Suzanne (1993), The Middle Voice, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, Benjamins. Kupferman, Lucien (1995), La construction passive en SE FAIRE , Journal of French Language Studies 5, 57–83. Labelle, Marie (1992), Change of State and Valency, Journal of Linguistics 28, 375–414. Labelle, Marie (2013), The passive “se faire” construction in French: The anticausative of a causative, in: Artemis Alexiadou/Florian Schäfer (edd.), Non-Canonical Passives, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, Benjamins, 235–260. Lamiroy, Béatrice (1993), Pourquoi il y a deux passifs, Langages 109, 53–72. Lapesa, Rafael (2000), Estudios de morfosintaxis histórica del español, Madrid, Gredos. Ledgeway, Adam (2000), A Comparative Syntax of the Dialects of Southern Italy: A Minimalist Approach, Oxford, Blackwell. Lehmann, Christian/Pinto de Lima, José/Soares, Rute (2010), Periphrastic voice with “see” in Portuguese, in: Gabriele Diewald/Elena Smirnova (edd.), Paradigmaticity and Obligatoriness, London/New York, Routledge, 75–100. Manzini, M. Rita/Savoia, Leonardo M. (2005), I dialetti italiani e romanci: Morfosintassi generativa, 2 vol., Alessandria, Edizioni dell’Orso. Martins, Ana Maria (2005), Passive and impersonal “se” in the history of Portuguese, in: Claus D. Pusch/Johannes Kabatek/Wolfgang Raible (edd.), Romance Corpus Linguistics II: Corpora and Diachronic Linguistics, Tübingen, Narr, 411–430. Melis, Ludo (1992), Ça ne se décide que par moi-même. À propos de l’agent dans les tours pronominaux à interprétation passive, in: Liliane Tasmowski/Anne Zribi-Hertz (edd.), De la musique à la linguistique, Hommages à Nicolas Ruwet, Gant, Communication et Cognition, 373–386. Mendikoetxea, Amaya (1999a), Construcciones con “se”: medias, pasivas e impersonales, in: Ignacio Bosque/Violeta Demonte (edd.), Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española, vol. 2, Madrid, Espasa Calpe, 1631–1722. Mendikoetxea, Amaya (1999b), Construcciones inacusativas y pasivas, in: Ignacio Bosque/Violeta Demonte (edd.), Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española, vol. 2, Madrid, Espasa Calpe, 1575–1629. Mendikoetxea, Amaya (2012), Passive and “se”-constructions, in: José Ignacio Hualde/Antxon Olarrea/Erin O’Rourke (edd.), The Handbook of Hispanic Linguistics, Oxford, Blackwell, 477–502. Menuzzi, Sergio de Moura (1999), Binding theory and pronominal anaphora in Brazilian Portuguese, Leiden, Ph.D. dissertation. Meyer-Lübke, Wilhelm (1899), Grammatik der romanischen Sprachen, vol. 3: Syntax, Leipzig, Reisland. Michaelis, Susanne (1998), Antikausativ als Brücke zum Passiv: “fieri”, “venire” und “se” im Vulgärlateinischen und Altitalienischen, in: Wolfgang Dahmen et al. (edd.), Neuere Beschreibungsmethoden der Syntax romanischer Sprachen, Tübingen, Narr, 69–98. Modesto, Marcello (2008), Topic prominence and null subjects, in: Theresa Biberauer (ed.), The Limits of Syntactic Variation, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, Benjamins, 375–410.  



270

Patricia Cabredo Hofherr

Naro, Anthony (1976), The genesis of the reflexive impersonal in Portuguese: a study in syntactic change as a surface phenomenon, Language 52, 779–811. Nyrop, Kristoffer (1925), Grammaire historique de la langue française, vol. 5: Syntaxe: Noms et pronoms, Genève, Slatkine. Parry, Mair (1998), The reinterpretation of the reflexive in Piedmontese: “impersonal” “se” constructions, Transactions of the Philological Society 96, 63–116. Pernicone, Vincenzo (ed.) (1946), Franco Sacchetti, Il Trecentonovelle. A cura di Vincenzo Pernicone, Firenze, Sansoni. Pountain, Christopher J. (2000), Pragmatic factors in the evolution of the Romance reflexive (with special reference to Spanish), Hispanic Research Journal 1, 5–25. Raposo, Eduardo/Uriagereka, Juan (1996), Indefinite “se”, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 14, 749–810. Remberger, Eva-Maria (2006), Syntax and semantics of the deontic WANT-passive in Italo-Romance, in: Benjamin Lyngfelt/Torgrim Solstad (edd.), Demoting the Agent: Passive, Middle and Other Voice Phenomena, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, Benjamins, 249–274. Rohlfs, Gerhard (1969), Grammatica storica della lingua italiana e dei suoi dialetti, vol. 3: Sintassi e formazione delle parole, Torino, Einaudi. Salvi, Giampaolo (2001), La frase semplice, in: Lorenzo Renzi (ed.), Grande grammatica italiana di consultazione, vol. 1, Bologna, il Mulino, 37–128. Salvi, Giampaolo (2008), Imperfect systems and diachronic change, in: Ulrich Detges/Richard Waltereit (edd.), The Paradox of Grammatical Change: Perspectives from Romance, Amsterdam/ Philadelphia, Benjamins, 127–146. Salvi, Giampaolo (2011), Morphosyntactic persistence, in: Martin Maiden/John Charles Smith/Adam Ledgeway (edd.), The Cambridge History of the Romance Languages, vol. 1, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 318–381. Salvioni, Carlo (1912), Note sintattiche II, Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie 35, 378–381. Sansò, Andrea (2011), Grammaticalization and prototype effects. A history of the agentive reflexive passive in Italian, Folia Linguistica Historica 32, 219–252. Sansò, Andrea/Giacalone Ramat, Anna (2016), Deictic motion verbs as passive auxiliaries: the NDA RE ‘go’ (and VE V ENIRE NIRE ‘come’), Transactions of the Philological Society 114, case of Italian AANDA 1–24. Sauzet, Patrick (2015), Conjugaison occitane, Tolosa, Institut d’Estudis occitans. Siewierska, Anna/Papastathi, Maria (2011), Towards a typology of third person plural impersonals, Linguistics 49, 575–610. Stéfanini, Jean (1962), La voix pronominale en ancien et en moyen français, Aix-en-Provence, Ophrys. Taylor, Michael (2009), On the pronominal status of Brazilian Portuguese “a gente”, New York University Working Papers in Linguistics 2, 1–36. Tintou, Michel (1973), Grammaire limousine, Tulle, Lemouzi. Vikner, Sten (1995), Verb Movement and Expletive Subjects in the Germanic Languages, Oxford, Oxford University Press. Vincent, Nigel (1982), The development of the auxiliaries HAB ERE and ES SE in Romance, in: Nigel Vincent/Martin Harris (edd.), Studies in the Romance Verb, London, Croom Helm, 71–96. Vincent, Nigel (1988), Latin, in: Martin Harris/Nigel Vincent (edd.), The Romance Languages, London, Croom Helm, 26–78. Weerenbeck, Bernardus H.J. (1943), Le pronom “on” en français et en provençal, Amsterdam, NoordHollandsche Uitgevers Maatschappij. Welton-Lair, Lisa Kay (1999), The evolution of the French indefinite pronoun “on”: a corpus-based study in grammaticalization, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, Ph.D. dissertation.

Voice and voice alternations

271

Wright, Roger (2014), Passive Morphology in Late Latin, in: Alessandro Garcea et al. (edd.), Polyphonia Romana: Hommages à Frédérique Biville, Hildesheim, Olms, 81–90. Yllera, Alicia (1999), Las perífrasis verbales de gerundio y participio, in: Ignacio Bosque/Violeta Demonte (edd.), Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española, vol. 2, Madrid, Espasa Calpe, 3391–3442. Zribi-Hertz, Anne (1982), La construction “se-moyen” du français et son statut dans le triangle moyenpassif – réfléchi, Lingvisticae Investigationes 6, 345–401. Zribi-Hertz, Anne (1987), La réflexivité ergative en français moderne, Le français moderne 55, 23–54. Zribi-Hertz, Anne (2008), From intensifier to reflexive: the prosodic factor, in: Ekkehard König/Volker Gast (edd.), Reciprocals and Reflexives. Theoretical and Typological Explorations, Berlin/New York, De Gruyter, 591–631.

Géraldine Legendre

7 Auxiliaries Abstract: The focus of this chapter is on the two perfect auxiliaries (Latin esse and habere), which emerged alongside inherited passive and copula esse out of the restructuring of the Classical Latin voice and aspectual systems. The two perfect auxiliaries created a pervasive split among intransitives in all Romance languages, at least at some stage in their diachronic development. Overall, the auxiliary split shows a high degree of synchronic complexity as well as a clear global diachronic trend towards eliminating inherited esse while retaining habere, a perfect auxiliary which qualifies as a Romance innovation. The auxiliary split has played a central role in the modern understanding of basic syntactic structure thanks to the Unaccusative Hypothesis and has deepened our understanding of the syntax/semantics interface. The present chapter is organized as follows. Section 1 gives an overview of the changes in the perfect auxiliary system from Latin to Early Romance and their main alternative explanations. Section 2 focuses on modern languages and dialects and the complex synchronic picture they offer. Section 3 considers the impact of the Unaccusative Hypothesis while Section 4 examines how the auxiliary split is best positioned at the syntax/semantics interface. Section 5 considers whether the traditional association of auxiliary selection with two other phenomena, past participle agreement and clitic climbing, withstands empirical scrutiny.  



Keywords: perfect auxiliaries, auxiliary split, diachrony, Unaccusative Hypothesis, syntax/semantics interface, past participle agreement, clitic climbing  

1 A brief diachronic perspective on auxiliary selection in Romance Romance languages are well-known for their auxiliary system on which a paradigm of periphrastic tenses is built. The perfect system in particular developed along two main paths – extending the use of esse (E) ‘be’ (restricted to deponents and past perfect passives in Classical Latin; see ↗6 Voice and voice alternations) to also serve as a perfect auxiliary on the one hand, and innovating with habere (A) ‘have’ as an alternate perfect auxiliary replacing the Classical Latin synthetic perfect tense in -vi on the other. Unique to Romance and Germanic languages, the spread of have-verbs as a perfect auxiliary may be related to the Carolingian scribal tradition of the Charlemagne Sprachbund (Drinka 2013). The emergence of the A periphrasis in Romance is traditionally held to have resulted from the reanalysis of an original aspectual periphrasis denoting a present DOI 10.1515/9783110377088-007

Auxiliaries

273

state resulting from a past action in (1) to a temporal periphrasis, as proposed in Vincent (1982). See also Cennamo (2008). (1)

Lat.

In ea prouincia pecunias magnas collocatas in that province money.ACC big.ACC placed.ACC ‘They have large sums invested in that province.’ (Cicero, Oratio pro lege Manilia)

habent. have.3PL

The reinterpretation would have started with transitive verbs given their implied agent/experiencer. It would have exploited the inference that the possessor of the A auxiliary and the implied agent/experiencer of the participle could denote the same referent with verbs of cognition and perception (see Ledgeway 2012, 130–134 for further discussion). Left out of the reanalysis were morphologically active intransitive verbs selecting undergoer subjects to be absorbed into the preexisting semantically compatible periphrasis of deponents and passives with E. According to Adams (2013, 625) Latin periphrases involving habeo and a perfect participle were typically open to multiple interpretations, with a perfective interpretation emerging in Classical Latin (Cicero) with verbs of cognition, mental activity, and acquisition, followed by a wide range of ambiguous examples in the post-Ciceronian period. The perfective interpretation is available again in Late Latin (Gregory of Tours, sixth century) but continuity between the two periods cannot be assumed. Adams (2013, 646) concludes that there is no sign of grammaticalization within the Latin record. Buridant (2000) shows that the periphrasis was still somewhat ambiguous in twelfth-century Old French. The general explanation outlined above does not tie the development of the A periphrasis to the existing E periphrasis in Latin; rather it is intrinsic to A and its dual status as a verb of possession and an auxiliary. An alternative hypothesis is that the A periphrasis is integral to a global change towards a general realignment of grammatical functions already underway in Classical Latin (Ledgeway 2012, following La Fauci 1994; Adams 2013). Different alignments of grammatical functions traditionally characterize different case systems in the languages of the world. In particular, all subjects (S) (regardless of semantic agent or undergoer status or transitivity) bear nominative case while direct objects (DO) bear accusative case in nominative/accusative languages like English (S = he/she vs DO = him/her). In contrast, active/stative languages (e.g. Acehnese, cf. Durie 1987) display an intransitive split whereby the agentive argument (SA) of an ‘active’ verb like intransitive go bears the same case-related properties as the subject of transitive verbs in the language, while the undergoer argument (SO) of a ‘stative’ verb like intransitive change of state fall bears the same case-related properties as the object of transitive verbs. In the Latin perfectum a morphological active/stative alignment obtained, resulting in a split among syntactically intransitive verbs. The periphrastic ‘E + past participle’ morphology was characteristic of a subset of intransitives (passives and

274

Géraldine Legendre

deponents, whose subject is an undergoer analyzed syntactically as an underlying direct object) while synthetic morphology (in -s- and -ui-) was characteristic of typically agentive intransitives. The rise of the A periphrasis can thus alternatively be seen as an analogical response to the E periphrasis within the perfect paradigm. The active/stative alignment was complete in Romance once the original E periphrasis was extended to intransitives with an undergoer argument/underlying direct object under the Unaccusative Hypothesis (Perlmutter 1978); see further discussion below. On this view the double periphrasis does not have its roots in the reinterpretation of the original resultative construction. A separate dimension of the split pertains to irrealis or counterfactual modality. In Old Romance varieties the new A periphrasis was used relatively more frequently in irrealis contexts compared to realis ones (e.g. Ledgeway 2003; Bentley 2006; Stolova 2006; Mateu/Massanell i Messalles 2015). According to Alexiadou (2015) the grammaticalization of A into a perfect tense marker, with E retaining a resultative interpretation in some Old Romance varieties, may have played a role in the eventual disappearance of E from the periphrastic tense system. This is echoed by Rosemeyer (2014) and Kailuweit (2015), who identify a resultative meaning for E versus an anterior meaning for A in the diachronic evolution of French auxiliary selection and in Old Spanish, respectively. Overall, these recent avenues of research promise to shed much needed light on the evolution of the Romance periphrastic tense system and they may challenge theoretical conclusions largely based on the modern varieties. As a general diachronic trend, the Romance auxiliary split system has been evolving since its emergence towards eliminating E as a perfect auxiliary altogether. For example, the gradual evolution of the split in the history of Spanish (Benzing 1931), Catalan (Batlle 2002), Portuguese,1 and Sicilian has resulted in the exclusive use of A, regardless of argument structure and reflexive/non-reflexive morphology. Table 1 documents the disappearance of E in Spanish by the seventeenth century, as analyzed by Aranovich (2003) in terms of lexico-semantic classes, based largely on observations by Benzing (1931).

1 Portuguese developed two new periphrastic auxiliaries in parallel until the fifteenth century, e.g. haver + past participle and ter + past participle, with ter ultimately replacing haver, except in the written form of the past perfect. Interestingly enough, Schmitt (2000) argues that the past perfect in Portuguese has the same temporal semantics as the present perfect in Italian with A (event time preceding reference time). In contrast the Portuguese present perfect with ter forces the iteration of the eventuality described.

Auxiliaries

275

Table 1: Last attested occurrence of ser (E) in Spanish (Benzing 1931; Aranovich 2003) Spanish

13th c.

14th c.

Stative appearance/ existence

fincar ‘stay’ quedar ‘remain’ restar ‘remain’

holgar ‘rest’

Dynamic appearance/ existence

cuntir ‘happen’

Manner of motion

15th c.

16th c.

17th c.

aparecer ‘appear’ acaecer ‘happen’ desaparecer ‘disappear’ errar ‘wander’

correr ‘run’

caminar ‘walk’

Directed change of location

exir ‘leave’ viar ‘return’ desviar ‘change direction’

arribar ‘arrive’

descender ‘descend’ tornar ‘return’

venir ‘come’ pasar ‘go by’ ir ‘go’ llegar ‘arrive’ partir ‘depart’ caer ‘fall’ entrar ‘enter’ salir ‘leave’ huir ‘run away’ escapar ‘escape’ volver ‘return’ subir ‘climb’ avenir ‘reconcile’

Change of state

cenar ‘dine’ yantar ‘eat’

transir ‘die’

fallir ‘fail, die’ despertar ‘wake up’

fallecer ‘die’ finar ‘die’ fenecer ‘die’ adormir ‘fall asleep’ adormecer ‘fall asleep’ amanecer ‘dawn’ anochecer ‘grow dark’ acabar ‘finish’

nacer ‘be born’ crecer ‘grow’ morir ‘die’

Other Romance languages are following a similar path. This is the case in French, based on a comparison of auxiliary selection across dialectal varieties. In Standard Continental French, about 20 intransitive verbs denoting a change of location or state select E (Abeillé/Godard 2002; Grevisse 162016), as do all reflexive verbs regardless of argument structure. In North American varieties, Acadian French (e.g. Péronnet 1991;

276

Géraldine Legendre

King/Nadasdi 2001) and Louisiana French (Smith 1994) near-categorically use A with all intransitive verbs and categorically with reflexives. (2)

Acadian Fr. a. Alle a sorti, alle a été trouver le capitaine. she has exited she has been find the captain ‘She has left; she went to find the captain.’ (Péronnet 1991, 89, (2a)) b. Les autres s’aviont pas aparçu de rien. of anything the others CL have NEG noticed ‘The others haven’t noticed anything.’ (Péronnet 1991, 91, (6c))

Montréal French is less diachronically advanced than other North American varieties, with all reflexives selecting E and about 5 verbs of change of location still favoring E over A (Sankoff/Thibault 1980). As shown in Table 2, the intransitive verbs still favoring E in Montréal French in the 1980s are a small subset of the change of location verbs selecting E in Standard Continental French.  

Table 2: E in Montréal French vs Standard Continental French Montréal French (Sankoff/Thibault 1980)

Standard Continental French (Abeillé/Godard 2002)

Verbs still favoring E

Verbs selecting E

aller ‘go’ revenir ‘come back’ venir ‘come’ entrer ‘enter’ arriver ‘arrive’

aller ‘go’ (r)entrer ‘(re)-enter’ arriver ‘arrive’ mourir ‘die’ décéder ‘die’ naître ‘be born’ apparaître ‘appear’ (re)sortir ‘go out (again)’

(re)venir ‘come (back)’ advenir ‘happen’ intervenir ‘intervene’ parvenir ‘get to’ survenir ‘happen’ (re)devenir ‘become (again)’ (re)descendre ‘go down (again)’

demeurer ‘remain’ rester ‘remain’ éclore ‘hatch’ (re)partir ‘leave (again)’ (re)tomber ‘fall (back)’ retourner ‘return’

Comparatively less common in Romance are varieties that make use of E across the board, including intransitives, reflexives, and transitives, e.g. the central Italian dialect of Terracina (Tuttle 1986). This complete elimination of A in Terracinese is quite recent – 1980s –, as can be seen from the first two columns of Table 3 in the next section. While this evolution is somewhat puzzling within Romance it fits the typological reality; some language families, e.g. Slavic, exclusively select E in periphrastic tenses (see Legendre 2007b for a comparative Romance-Slavic analysis).

Auxiliaries

277

2 Auxiliary selection today: a complex synchronic reality Most Romance languages and dialects present today a complex system of splits based on a number of factors, including argument structure, reflexive/non-reflexive morphology, person/number, tense, mood, or lexico-semantic factors (telicity, agentivity, etc.), as well as combinations of these factors. These splits typically result in binary systems (E vs A) but triple auxiliation systems (E vs A vs free E/A variation) are also found in Italo-Romance dialects. Among binary systems are Romance languages and dialects in which A is used with transitive verbs, E when the verb carries reflexive morphology regardless of argument structure, as is the case, for example, in French, Italian, Piedmontese, and Provençal (Occitan), while retaining an E/A split with intransitive verbs. The Italian examples from Rosen (1984), who provides lists of A-selecting and E-selecting intransitive verbs, illustrate this well-known binary system. (3) It.

a. Mario ha difeso Luigi. (A) ‘Mario defended Luigi.’ b. Mario si è difeso. (E) ‘Mario defended himself.’ c. Mario ha esagerato. (A) ‘Mario exaggerated.’ d. La pressione è aumentata. (E) ‘The pressure increased.’

Other languages, including Sardinian, Corsican, Gascon (Occitan), Friulian (RhaetoRomance), have also retained the E/A split among reflexive-marked verbs, depending on the subtype of reflexive (transitive, ditransitive, inherent, of interest, etc.). The E/A split among reflexives is exemplified in (4) for Sardinian (Jones 1993). The reflexive of interest (e.g. ‘build oneself something’; see (4d)) selects A, the transitive reflexive (e.g. ‘wash oneself’) selects E (but A in the third person in Friulian), while the ditransitive reflexive (‘write oneself letters’) selects A in Sardinian but E in Corsican (Giancarli 2011). (4) Srd.

a.

Juanne s’est vistu in s’isprecu. Juanne REFL E.3SG seen in the mirror ‘Juanne saw himself in the mirror.’ (Jones 1993, 131, (137a))

278

Géraldine Legendre

b. Sa janna s’est abberta. REFL E.3SG opened the door ‘The door opened.’ (Jones 1993, 131, (138)) c. Sas pitzinnas si sun faeddatas. REFL E.3PL talked the girls ‘The girls talked to one another’ (Jones 1993, 132, (144a)) d. Juanne s’at fraicatu una bella REFL A.3SG built a beautiful Juanne ‘Juanne built himself a beautiful house.’ (Jones 1993, 131, (140b)) e. Tonina s’ at fertu s’anca. the leg Tonina REFL A.3SG hurt ‘Tonina hurt her leg.’ (Jones 1993, 131, (141a))

domo. house

Rarer in Romance are tense-based and mood-based binary auxiliary splits. The former is found in the Neapolitan variety of Procida – A/present perfect (5a) vs E/pluperfect (5b) – as well as in Campanian varieties (Ledgeway 2000). (5) a. Procidano Hó visto a Ciro A.1SG . PRS seen at Ciro ‘I have seen Ciro arrive.’ b. Procidano Fove visto a Ciro E.1SG . PST seen at Ciro ‘I had seen Ciro arrive.’ (Ledgeway 2000, 186, (4a,b))

larrèveto. arrive.PTCP

larrèveto. arrive.PTCP

A mood-based split is operative in Romanian (Avram/Hill 2007): fi ‘E’ occurs in contexts with non-specific time frame (modal clauses) and irrealis interpretation, e.g. (6a,b), while am/ai/a ‘A’ appears in contexts with definite time setting (indicative clauses) and realis interpretation, e.g. (6b). However, the Romanian pattern seems unrelated to the trend in Old Romance varieties discussed above, where A was more common than E in irrealis contexts. (6) Rom. a. Îşi

doreşte să fi cumpărat wishes SA E bought ‘S/he wishes s/he had bought a house.’ (Avram/Hill 2007, 54, (9a))

REFL . DAT

o a

casă. house

Auxiliaries

279

b. A murit înainte de a-şi fi cumpărat o casă. before of REFL . DAT E bought a house A.3SG died ‘He died before having bought himself a house.’ (Avram/Hill 2007, 54, (9f)) Most familiar among these binary systems – because of the role it has played in the formulation of the Unaccusative Hypothesis; see below – is the split among intransitives exemplified by Italian, French, Sardinian, and Paduan, which is grounded in lexico-semantic and aspectual factors (e.g. Sorace 2000; Legendre/Sorace 2003; Bentley/Eythórsson 2004; Cennamo/Sorace 2007; Legendre 2007a). Sorace (2000), for example, identifies ‘telic change’ at the core of verbs selecting E in Italian, French, and Sardinian (7) and ‘atelic non-motional activity’ at the core of verbs selecting A in these three languages (8). See further discussion in the next section. (7) a. It.

Paolo è/*ha venuto in ritardo. Paolo E /*A come late ‘Paolo came late.’ b. Fr. Ma soeur est arrivée/*a arrivé My sister E/*A arrived ‘My sister arrived yesterday.’ c. Srd. Maria est/*at arrivata a domo. Maria E/*A arrived at home ‘Maria arrived at home.’

hier. yesterday

(8) a. It.

I delegati hanno parlato/*sono parlati tutto il giorno. the delegates A/*E spoken all the day ‘The delegates spoke all day.’ b. Fr. Les délégués ont parlé/*sont parlés toute la nuit. the delegates A/*E spoken all the night ‘The delegates spoke all night.’ c. Srd. Los profesores ont faeddadu/*son faeddados totu su die. the professors A/*E spoken all the day ‘The professors spoke all day.’ (Legendre/Sorace 2003, 192–193, (6)–(8))

Italo-Romance dialects in general (plus some dialects of Catalonia, cf. Tuttle 1986) are known for the complexity of their person/number-based splits, e.g. Abruzzese (Tuttle 1986), Apulian (La Fauci/Loporcaro 1989), Sonnino, Morcone, Aliano, Giovinazzo, etc. (Manzini/Savoia 2007). In the Sardinian dialect Bornovese, the person-based split is found only among reflexive-marked verbs (La Fauci/Loporcaro 1989). The set of ItaloRomance dialects in Table 3 illustrates person-based variation in auxiliary selection that is independent of argument structure or any lexico-semantic factors. Among the

280

Géraldine Legendre

varieties in Table 3 are triple auxiliation systems, e.g. in Castro dei Volsci and Lanciano dialects. Triple auxiliation systems also include the Apulian variety of Altamura (Loporcaro 2007).  

Table 3: Italo-Romance dialects (based on Tuttle 1986) Person/number 1 SG

2 SG

3 SG

1 PL

2 PL

3 PL

1980

E

E

E

E

E

E

1950

E

E

A

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

A

E

E

A

E

E

A

E

E

A

E

E

A

Castro dei Volsci

E/A

E

A

E/A

E

A

Lanciano

E/A

E

A

E/A

E/A

A

Introdacqua

A

E

A

A

A

A

Valle d’Orte

A

A

A

A

A

A

Terracina

Cori (LT) Roiate

Zagarolo

L’Aquila

Avezzano

Pescara

3 Auxiliary selection and the Unaccusative Hypothesis The theoretical import of the Romance auxiliary split is closely tied to the emergence of the Unaccusative Hypothesis or UH2 (Perlmutter 1978) according to which there are two types of intransitive verbs – unergative and unaccusative – associated with different underlying syntactic configurations of their single core argument – subject/ external argument or direct object/internal argument, respectively. In unaccusative structures, the underlying direct object surfaces as subject, due to an operation on grammatical relations (Perlmutter 1978; 1989) or movement motivated by Abstract Case considerations (Burzio 1986). In other words, unaccusatives receive a passivelike syntactic analysis.

2 Several early versions of the Unaccusative Hypothesis actually predate Perlmutter (1978), including Postal (1963) and Hall-Partee (1965). See Pullum (1988) on its history.

Auxiliaries

(9)

281

Intransitive structures underlyingly (implemented in configurational terms, e.g. Burzio 1986) a. Unergative: NP [VP V] b. Unaccusative: ___[VP V NP]

The syntactic distinction is grounded in the systematic, cross-linguistic patterning of unergative subjects with transitive subjects on the one hand, and unaccusative subjects with passive subjects or direct objects on the other. Italian, in particular, has long served as the poster child of the UH due to the overlap among several syntactic properties that have served as diagnostics for unergativity/unaccusativity. These include auxiliary selection (10), partitive ne cliticization (11), and participial constructions (12) (Burzio 1986; Perlmutter 1989). (10) It.

a. Molti studenti sono spariti. (E) ‘Many students disappeared.’ b. Molti studenti furono arrestati. (E) ‘Many students were arrested.’ c. Hanno lavorato molti studenti. (A) ‘Many students worked.’ d. Hanno fatto domanda molti studenti. (A) ‘Many students made an application.’

(11) It.

a. Ne arrivano molti. ‘Many of them arrived.’ b. Giovanni ne ha insultati due. ‘Giovanni insulted two of them.’ c. Ne furono arrestati molti. ‘Many of them were arrested.’ d. *Ne telefonano molti. ‘Many of them called.’ e. *Ne hanno fatto domanda molti. ‘Many of them made an application.’

(12) It.

a. Rimasto senza soldi, non sapevo cosa fare. ‘(Having) remained without money, I didn’t know what to do.’ b. Perduti i soldi, non c’era niente da fare. ‘The money (having) been lost, there was nothing to be done.’ c. *Gridato ai bambini, Giorgio è uscito. ‘(Having) shouted to the children, Giorgio left.’ d. *Scoperto lo sceicco la congiura, bisognava agire. ‘The sheik (having) discovered the plot, action had to be taken.’

282

Géraldine Legendre

As shown in (10)–(12), these properties are uniquely shared by the subject of E-selecting intransitive verbs, and direct objects of transitives typically under passivization, but not by the subject of A-selecting intransitive verbs, and the subject of transitives (but see Mackenzie 2006 for evidence against this generalization). The fact that reflexive verbs, regardless of argument structure, select E, was also made to follow from the UH (Burzio 1986; Rosen 1988; Perlmutter 1989). The UH provides a syntactic basis for the A/E split in the form of an auxiliary selection rule, either tied directly to grammatical relation status, as in the original Relational Grammar proposal (Perlmutter 1978; 1989), or syntactic movement in its Government-Binding implementation (Burzio 1986). Alternatively, there is no auxiliary selection rule per se and the split A/E follows from a difference in syntactic representation for the auxiliaries themselves. Building on the alternation between two possessive structures in French, one associated with A (Jean a la voiture bleue ‘Jean has the blue car’) and the other with E (La voiture bleue est à Jean ‘The blue car is (=belongs) to Jean’), plus the idea that auxiliary A evolved from possessive have (Benveniste 1966), Kayne (1993) analyzes both auxiliaries A and E as allomorphs, resulting from a shared underlying syntactic structure with alternative derivations of the surface structure by syntactic movement. Growing evidence that auxiliary selection is sensitive to modality in many Romance varieties (e.g. Rosemeyer 2014; Alexiadou 2015) represents a challenge to any analysis of the A/E alternation in terms of allomorphy. Regardless of their implementation, all purely syntactic analyses leave open the question of whether the split is semantically determined or arbitrary, an important question that is examined separately below. Overall, despite the broad explanatory impact of the UH in generative syntax, further examination of auxiliary selection (and related phenomena) across Romance varieties, together with the complexities outlined above, have exposed a number of challenges to the original syntactic analysis. The consensus today is that neither subclass of intransitive verbs – unergatives and unaccusatives – can easily be characterized in a uniform way, due to the existence of verbs with variable behavior in auxiliary selection, mismatches among unaccusativity tests within a given language/ dialect, and mismatches for a given unaccusativity test across related languages/ dialects. Verbs may show variable behavior by appearing with either A or E in a given language/dialect. In Italian this is the case for many verbs, including those denoting a change of state, cf. (13) and (14), as well as stative verbs (15). A sub-classification within change of state verbs is proposed in Sorace (2000), which distinguishes change of condition verbs (e.g. morire ‘die’), which categorically select E in Italian, from verbs of appearance and happening (13), and indefinite change in a particular direction (14) which allow A to various extent. ??, ?* reflect graded grammaticality judgments. The preference strength for E in (13)–(15) is a function of the inherent telicity of the verb (Sorace 2000; Legendre/Sorace 2003).

Auxiliaries

(13) It.

283

Lo spettro è apparso/?*ha apparso nel castello. (E/?*A) ‘The ghost appeared in the castle.’

(14) It.

a. La temperature è salita/?*ha salito improvvisamente. (E/?*A) ‘The temperature suddenly rose.’ b. Mia figlia è cresciuta/?*ha cresciuto molto quest’anno. (E/?*A) ‘My daughter has grown a lot this year.’ c. I pomodori sono marciti/hanno marcito al sole. (E/A) ‘The tomatoes rotted in this sun.’

(15) It.

a. I primi mammiferi sono esistiti/??hanno esistito molti milioni di anni fa. (E/??A) ‘The first mammals existed many millions of years ago.’ b. La sua dichiarazione non è servita/?ha servito a nulla. (E/?A) ‘His declaration didn’t serve any purpose.’ c. Questo palazzo ha appartenuto/è appartenuto alla mia famiglia. (A/E) ‘This palace once belonged to my family.’

The original insight behind the UH was that it captures generalizations across two syntactic classes of verbs, which cut across several syntactic phenomena within a language, e.g. auxiliary selection, partitive cliticization, and participial constructions (Perlmutter 1989). While this is generally accepted for Italian, it is clearly not the case in French. Verbs deemed unaccusative by virtue of selecting E are only a small subset of unaccusative verbs determined on the basis of participial constructions in French (Legendre 1989; Legendre/Sorace 2003). The following examples capture the similar behavior of two verbs of change of condition (mourir ‘die’, bouillir ‘boil’) in participial constructions though they categorically select different perfect auxiliaries. (16) Fr.

a. Son père est mort d’une crise cardiaque. (E) ‘His father died of a heart attack.’ b. L’eau a déjà bouilli. (A) ‘The water already boiled.’

(17) Fr.

a. La personne morte hier soir sera enterrée demain matin. ‘The person who died last night will be buried tomorrow morning.’ b. Le père mort, les enfants vendirent la propriété familiale. ‘With the father dead, the children sold the family property.’ c. Mort d’une crise cardiaque à 20 ans, son frère n’avait pu reprendre la direction de la ferme familiale. ‘Dead of a heart attack at age 20, his brother was unable to take over the family farm.’

284

(18) Fr.

Géraldine Legendre

a. L’eau bouillie sert à préparer le thé. ‘Boiled water is used to prepare tea.’ b. Une fois l’eau bouillie, il prépara le thé. ‘(Once) the water boiled, he prepared the tea.’ c. Une fois bouillie, l’eau sert à préparer le thé. ‘(Once) boiled, water can be used to prepare tea.’

Because participial constructions provide the very distribution that defines the UH, separating a subset of French intransitives and passives on the one hand (19) from a distinct subset of intransitives and transitives on the other (20), they can be used as a diagnostic to determine the broadest class of unaccusative verbs in French3 (Legendre 1989). (19) Fr.

a. La neige fondue, il mit ses skis de côté. ‘The snow (having) melted, he put his skis aside.’ b. Ses décisions critiquées par tous ses collègues, il décida de démissioner. ‘His decisions (being) disliked by all his colleagues, he decided to resign.’

(20) Fr.

a. *Ses ouvriers travaillé toute la matinée, il leur donna congé l’après-midi. ‘His workers (having) worked all morning long, he gave them the afternoon off.’ b. *Ses collègues critiqué toutes ses décisions, il décida de démissionner. ‘His colleagues (having) disliked all his decisions, he decided to resign.’

One consequence of establishing participial constructions as a reliable diagnostic test for unaccusativity in French is that a subset of reflexive verbs turn out to be unergative despite their selecting E (e.g. telic controlled processes including s’embraser ‘blaze up’, s’évaporer ‘evaporate’, s’étouffer ‘suffocate’ and psychological states, including se souvenir de ‘remember’, s’adonner à ‘take to’, se moquer de ‘laugh at’, etc.; cf. Legendre/Sorace 2003; see also Reinhart/Siloni 2004). Nor can selecting A, given (18), be construed as a diagnostic test for unergativity in French, contra Labelle (1992). Similarly, a subset of verbs selecting A are positively identified as unaccusative verbs in Spanish thanks to their occurrence in participial and bare NP subject constructions (Torrego 1989; Aranovich 2003).

3 Partitive cliticization does not fare much better than auxiliary selection in directly supporting the Unaccusative Hypothesis as it too fails to distinguish unaccusative from unergative verbs in French (Legendre 1989). So do other diagnostic tests proposed for French in the literature, including impersonal constructions (e.g., Labelle 1992; Cummins 1996) and unaccusative inversion (Marandin 2001). See Legendre/Sorace (2003) for further discussion.

Auxiliaries

285

Further comparison of French with Italian reveals mismatches between the two languages, which serves to exemplify the general issue of cross-linguistic mismatches among verbs. As shown in Table 4, only a subset of verbs with similar meanings that select E in Italian also select E in French. Table 4: Auxiliary selection in French and Italian (Legendre/Sorace 2003) Auxiliary

Verb classes (based on the Auxiliary Selection Hierarchy; Sorace 2000)

French

Italian

E

E

Change of location: arriver/arrivare ‘arrive’, venir/venire ‘come’

E E/A E/A A

E E E E/A

Change of state a. Change of condition: mourir/morire ‘die’ b. Appearance: apparaître/apparire ‘appear’ c. Indefinite change in a particular direction: monter/salire ‘go up’, descendre/scendere ‘go down’ faner/appassire ‘fade’, empirer/peggiorare ‘worsen’  





A

E/A

Continuation of pre-existing state: durer/durare ‘last’

A A

E E/A

Existence of state: a. être/essere ‘be’ b. exister/esistere ‘exist’, suffire à/bastare ‘suffice’

A A A

A/E A A/E

Uncontrolled processes a. Emission: résonner/risuonare ‘resonate’ b. Bodily functions: suer/sudare ‘sweat’ c. Involuntary actions: trembler/tremare ‘tremble’  

A

A/E

Motional controlled processes: nager/nuotare ‘swim’

A

A

Non-motional controlled processes: travailler/lavorare ‘work’

In addition, French categorically selects A where Italian selects E or A, e.g. with verbs denoting motional controlled processes. In Italian, correre’s selection of E vs A depends on the presence of a stated goal, hence sentential aspect (Van Valin 1990). French courir selects A, regardless of whether a goal is specified or not. (21) a. It. b. Fr.

Il bambino è corso a scuola. (E) L’enfant a couru à l’école. (A) ‘The child ran to school.’

(22) a. It. b. Fr.

Il bambino ha corso nel giardino. (A) L’enfant a couru dans le jardin. (A) ‘The child ran in the garden.’

286

Géraldine Legendre

Table 4, however, does not capture one further property that distinguishes Italian from French, that is the number of verbs in each subclass. This is particularly true of the class of change of state verbs, which mostly categorically select A in French (fondre ‘melt’, bouillir ‘boil’, sombrer ‘sink’, périr ‘perish’, geler ‘freeze’, sécher ‘dry’, noircir ‘blacken’, etc.). Very few verbs may optionally select E (apparaître/disparaître ‘appear/disappear’, monter ‘go up’, descendre ‘go down’) or categorically (mourir/ décéder ‘die’, naître ‘be born’, (re)devenir ‘become’). French and Italian do share an important auxiliary selection property. Reflexive verbs, regardless of argument structure and/or lexico-semantic class, categorically select E in both languages. Some reflexive verbs display the characteristic syntactic behavior of unergatives, as discussed above. This overall distribution supports the conclusion that in these two languages (at least) reflexive morpho-syntax overrides any other consideration in determining auxiliary selection (e.g. Legendre/Sorace 2003; Loporcaro 2015). To the extent that different reflexives involve distinct syntactic structures auxiliary selection cannot be reduced to semantic factors. Any account of the alternation must involve the interface between syntax and semantics. The UH profoundly changed the syntactic representations of the most basic types of sentences, those involving intransitive verbs. At the outset it did so largely on the basis of binary grammaticality judgment data. The on-going deepening of our understanding of the phenomena associated with auxiliary selection has benefited from other research methodologies, including analyses of large corpora, e.g. for Old Romance varieties (e.g. Rosemeyer 2014), as well as experimental investigations of online processing, neurological signature, L2 acquisition, and heritage language abilities (e.g. Keller/Sorace 2003; Montrul 2005; Bard/Frenck-Mestre/Sorace 2010). Together they have validated the claim that auxiliary selection in Romance displays both ‘gradualness’ (a slow diachronic process whereby a construction intrudes into the usage contexts of another) and ‘gradience’ or smaller/greater susceptibility to variable auxiliary selection behavior depending on (classes of) verbs, including satisfying unaccusativity diagnostics in a consistent way. These new sources of data have also confirmed the psychological reality of the basic binary distinction embodied in the UH (Sorace 2015).  

4 Auxiliary selection and the semantics question Overall, the simplicity and elegance of the UH stands in sharp contrast with the many, largely unsuccessful, attempts at formulating a solid and systematic semantic basis for such a syntactic distinction and establishing its cross-linguistic validity. The earliest formulations of the UH noted that the distinction is systematically related to certain semantic characteristics of the verb: ‘Agentivity’ tends to correlate with unergativity and ‘patienthood’ correlates with unaccusativity (Perlmutter 1978; Dowty 1991). Much subsequent research has shown, however, that the alignment

Auxiliaries

287

between syntactic and semantic properties is not 100%, nor is it as consistent as originally predicted (Rosen 1984). Some verbs with similar semantics show different syntactic behavior across languages: For example, ‘blush’ is unaccusative in Italian but unergative in French, on the basis of their auxiliary selection and appearance in participial constructions. Some verbs are classified as both unaccusative and unergative by the same diagnostic. Thus, Italian continuare and French paraître can take both auxiliaries E and A. Despite some views to the contrary (e.g. Van Valin 1990; Bentley/Eythórsson 2004; Bentley 2006), most theories maintain that a syntactic characterization of unaccusativity is necessary to account for phenomena not easily reducible to purely semantic explanations, such as the similarity between unaccusatives and passives, cliticization of the partitive clitic pronoun ne in Italian, auxiliary selection with reflexives, etc. It is therefore crucial to explain how lexical semantic, modal, and aspectual representations underlying individual verbs are mapped onto the binary syntactic representations defining the UH. Two alternative general approaches to the semantics-syntax mapping have tended to dominate the early theoretical landscape. According to the ‘projectionist’ approach (e.g. Levin/Rappaport Hovav 2005) the lexical semantics of a verb specifies the hierarchical classification of its arguments as internal or external argument, and that this in turn produces the syntactic behavior associated with unaccusativity or unergativity. In the model of Levin and Rappaport Hovav, four linking rules map lexical semantic components of verb meaning onto positions at argument structure. These rules are mostly ordered, with Rules (23a) and (23b) taking precedence over Rule (23c), which in turn takes precedence over Rule (23d). Levin/Rappaport Hovav (1995, 165–166) leave open the possibility that different languages might order the rules differently, but the rules themselves are deterministic. (23)

Linking rules (Levin/Rappaport Hovav 1995) a. Directed Change Linking Rule: The argument of the verb that corresponds to the entity undergoing the directed change described by that verb is its internal argument. b. Existence Linking Rule: The argument of a verb whose existence is asserted or denied is its direct internal argument. c. Immediate Cause Linking Rule: The argument of a verb that denotes the immediate cause of the eventuality described by that verb is its external argument. d. Default Linking Rule: An argument of a verb that does not fall under the scope of any of the other linking rules is its direct internal argument.

Within this approach, verbs with variable behavior have different meanings, and therefore different lexical semantic representations, each with its own regular argument structure realization. The proposed mapping rules, however, make problematic

288

Géraldine Legendre

predictions for auxiliary selection in French. Rule (23a) incorrectly predicts that change of state verbs (externally caused brûler ‘burn’, geler ‘freeze’, pourrir ‘rot’, etc. and internally caused rougir ‘blush’, pâlir ‘become pale’) select E. Rule (23b) incorrectly predicts that verbs of existence, e.g. exister ‘exist’, durer ‘last’ select E. Rule (23d) incorrectly predicts that non-agentive manner of motion verbs, e.g. rouler ‘roll’, rebondir ‘bounce’, tournoyer ‘whirl’ also select E. More generally, confronted with the complexities of Romance auxiliary selection, the projectionist approach faces the challenge of accounting for variation without resorting to systematic duplication in the lexicon. Alternatives to the projectionist view can be collectively identified as ‘constructional’ approaches (e.g. McClure 1995; Cummins 1996; Van Hout 2000; Borer 2005). These models regard unaccusativity and unergativity not as lexical properties of verbs, but rather as clusters of properties derived from the syntactic configurations in which verbs appear, which in turn determine their aspectual interpretation. Since the lexical entries of verbs do not contain any specification of whether an argument is internal or external, any verb is free to enter into more than one syntactic configuration and consequently to receive multiple aspectual interpretations. Unlike the projectionist model, the constructional approach predicts flexibility in the syntactic realization of arguments, but at the price of overgeneration. Constraints on over-generation therefore have to be present at other levels (e.g. Cummins 1996; Van Hout 2000). A third alternative developed in Sorace (2000) takes an overall gradient perspective on auxiliary selection and proposes to distinguish core from more peripheral unaccusative and unergative verbs on a continuum dubbed the Auxiliary Selection Hierarchy (ASH). (24)

The Auxiliary Selection Hierarchy (Sorace 2000) Change of location categorical E selection Change of state Continuation of state Existence of state Uncontrolled processes Motional processes Non-motional processes categorical A selection

The basic insights behind the ASH are the following: (a) Across languages, some verbs tend to show consistent unaccusative/unergative behavior, whereas others do not; (b) within languages, some verbs are invariably unaccusative/unergative regardless of context, whereas others exhibit variation. Based mostly on experiments testing native speakers’ intuitions about auxiliary selection in Italian, Paduan, Dutch, and German, unaccusative verbs tend to select E and unergative verbs tend to select A; (c) native intuitions on auxiliary choice are categorical and consistent for certain types of verb, but much less stable for other types. For example, native speakers have a very  



Auxiliaries

289

strong preference for E with change of location verbs, but express a weaker preference for the same auxiliary (or have no preference at all) with stative verbs. Sorace’s account of these systematic differences within the syntactic classes of unaccusative and unergative verbs is that there exists a hierarchy that distinguishes ‘core’ unaccusative and unergative monadic verbs from progressively more ‘peripheral’ verbs. This hierarchy, which is based on (potentially universal) aspectual parameters, places the notion of telic dynamic change at the core of unaccusativity and that of agentive non-motional activity at the core of unergativity. The extremes of the hierarchy thus consist of maximally distinct core verbs – verbs of change of location (e.g. arrivare/arriver ‘arrive’) and verbs of agentive non-motional activity (e.g. lavorare/travailler ‘work’) – which systematically display the greatest degree of consistency in auxiliary selection. In contrast, peripheral verb types between the extremes are susceptible to variation. Selection of E in French thus identifies only core unaccusative verbs. The ASH is a generalization that reveals different cut-off points for the unergative/unaccusative distinction e.g. in French and Italian. It does not automatically translate into a set of mapping rules referring to the verb classes in Table 4, for two main reasons. A single verb class may not map onto a single auxiliary – as in the case of change of state verbs in French. Furthermore classes do not by themselves reveal what is common to two verb classes selecting one and the same auxiliary. A solution explored in Legendre (2007a) is that the ASH arises from an optimization-based view of grammar whereby the verb classes listed in Table 4 and the hierarchy itself emerge from a competition among well-formedness constraints on mapping a given lexicosemantic or aspectual feature (e.g. telicity, direction, volitionality, etc.) onto E selection, plus one single constraint favoring the alternative auxiliary A. All constraints are soft and highly conflicting (and thus amount to preferences) but the ones that favor E are arranged into a fixed universal hierarchy, permitting different A/E cut-off points for different languages. For example, verbs denoting existence of state select different auxiliaries in the two languages: E in Italian vs A in French. In optimality-theoretic terms, such variation results from re-ranking the constraint favoring A among the hierarchy of constraints favoring E. See Legendre/Sorace (2003) for a brief presentation of the analysis and Legendre (2007a,b) for a full analysis. Among other things, the analysis is shown both to account for auxiliary selection developments in the history of Spanish (based on Aranovich 2003) and to predict a small typology of possible basic auxiliary selection systems in terms of constraint reranking. The overall approach is extended to account for person-based auxiliary selection in Italo-Romance dialects in Legendre (2010). An alternative, truly gradient, implementation of auxiliary selection in French in terms of lexico-semantic properties predates its optimality-theoretic implementation (Legendre/Miyata/Smolensky 1991). The essence of both approaches grounded in soft constraints is that the unaccusative/ unergative distinction is both syntactically encoded and semantically determined. They differ on how they handle the gradience of auxiliary selection.

290

Géraldine Legendre

5 Related phenomena – Past participle agreement and clitic climbing Two other syntactic phenomena are often associated with Romance auxiliaries. One is past participle agreement, the other is clitic climbing (↗5 Clitic pronouns for the latter). Past participle agreement with perfect E is similar to that found with the E passive but agreement can be more complex as it may appear with A under certain conditions. (25) and (26) exemplify French (in canonical non-causative contexts). In the presence of E, the past participle agrees in gender and number with the undergoer subject (25). In the presence of A, the past participle agrees in gender and number with the direct object, subject to configurational restrictions. Postverbal les fenêtres does not trigger agreement on the past participle (26a) while its preverbal object clitic counterpart les or wh-counterpart que does (26b,c). (25) Fr.

(26) Fr.

a. Sa mère est morte pendant dead.F during his mother.F is ‘His mother died overnight.’ b. Sa mère s’est éteinte pendant his mother.F REFL is passed.F during ‘His mother passed away overnight.’

la nuit. the night la nuit. the night

a. Jean a peint les fenêtres. Jean a painted the window.F . PL ‘Jean painted the windows.’ b. Jean les a peintes. Jean them.F . PL has painted.F . PL ‘Jean painted them.’ c. les fenêtres qu’il a peintes has painted.F . PL the window.F . PL that he ‘the windows that he painted’

Overall, the past participle agreement paradigm has been characterized in Ledgeway (2012, 326–327) as a classic active/stative alignment in which agreement marks direct objects as well as passive and unaccusative subjects (DO, SO) but not unergative and transitive subjects (SA), reinforcing the diachronic tie to the active/stative split in auxiliary selection discussed in Section 1. There are counterexamples to this correlation though, e.g. in dialects of central and southern Italy. Kayne’s (1989; 1993) account of auxiliary selection in terms of allomorphy and a shared underlying syntactic structure for both auxiliaries is in fact largely designed to capture the basic past participle agreement pattern in Romance. Kayne’s analysis relies on base-generating the object clitic les in (26b) and the wh-phrase qu’ in (26c) in

Auxiliaries

291

postverbal position and moving them to adjoin to a high inflectional T head, triggering agreement on the participle as the clitic passes through an AgrOP projection. D’Alessandro/Roberts (2008; 2010) offer an updated analysis that is compatible with the Agree-based system of Chomsky (2001). Their basic claim is that the Agree relation is realized overtly only if the elements that are in such a relation belong to the same Spell-Out domain. The focus is on the contrast between say Standard Italian (or French) in which there is no participle agreement with the postverbal direct object or the preverbal subject in the presence of A, and Eastern Abruzzese where the past participle agrees with either a plural direct object in its original postverbal position (27a) or even a plural subject (27b). (27) Eastern Abruzzese a. Giuwanne a pittite ddu mure. walls Giovanni have.3SG painted.PL two ‘Giovanni has painted two walls.’ b. Giuwanne e Mmarije a pittite painted.PL Giovanni and Maria have.3SG ‘Giovanni and Maria have painted a wall.’

nu mure. a wall

D’Alessandro/Roberts’ analysis relies on a syntactic difference between the two varieties. In Standard Italian the participle occupies a higher position with the consequence that the participle and the direct object are not in the same Spell-Out domain. In Eastern Abruzzese the participle occupies a lower syntactic position and is thus within the Spell-Out domain of the direct object. A number of past participle agreement generalizations have been proposed in the literature, which are invalidated when Romance varieties beyond a few main languages are taken into consideration. External arguments may trigger participle agreement in Romance; for example, the past participle agrees in number with any plural argument in Eastern Abruzzese, as shown in (27). Contra Lois (1990) an A/E split is not a necessary condition for past participle agreement with A; for example, central Rhaeto-Romance Engadine dialects (Haiman/Benincà 2005), which have generalized A to transitives and reflexives, show agreement in gender and number with the subject. Vallader reflexives are exemplified in (28). Agreement is presumably with the subject rather than the preposed reflexive object, which exhibits no gender or number marking in the third person. (28) Rhaeto-Romance: Vallader a. εla s a lavá-da. washed.F . SG she REFL A ‘She washed herself.’

292

Géraldine Legendre

b. εl s a lava. REFL A washed he ‘He washed himself.’ Extensive analyses of Italo-Romance dialects, in particular, have led instead to the conclusion that past participle agreement is in fact independent of auxiliary selection (Manzini/Savoia 2005; 2007; Legendre 2010). Table 5: Auxiliary selection vs past participle agreement in Romance (sample based on Legendre 2010) Language/dialect/source

Auxiliary selection

Agreement

Piglio (Bentley 2003)

person split

with subject with A and E

Gerona Catalan (Badía Margarit 1962)

person split

none with either A or E

Eastern Abruzzese (D’Alessandro/Roberts 2010)

person split

with subject or object

French, Italian

verb class split

with subject with E and preverbal object with A

Introdacqua Old Neapolitan (Cennamo 2008)

verb class split

with subject with A and E

Cremonese (Rossini 1975)

verb class split

none with E

Old Italian, Occitan

verb class split

with object with A

Soazza (Tessin) (Manzini/Savoia 2005) verb class split

with subject with E (non-reflexives) with subject with A (reflexives)

Sonnino (Manzini/Savoia 2005)

person/verb class split with subject with E

Genzano (Bentley 2003)

person/verb class split with subject with A and E

Montecello Ionico (Manzini/Savoia 2005)

free variation A/E



Terracina (Tuttle 1986)

E only



Balear, Valenciano Catalan (Badía Margarit 1962)

A only

with object

Carmiano (Manzini/Savoia 2007)

A only

with subject and object

Calabrian (Pace 1993/1994)

A only

with subject in some varieties; with object in others

Spanish, Walloon, Calascibetta (Manzini/Savoia 2007)

A only



Engadine, Rhaeto-Romance (Loporcaro 1998; Haiman/ Benincà 2005)

A only

with subject in reflexives; with object clitics

Auxiliaries

293

As Table 5 shows, even a relatively small sample of Romance varieties highlights the fact that past participle agreement is present/absent across Romance along with any auxiliary selection pattern attested. Patterns are even more complex if non-canonical contexts, e.g. causatives and passives, are taken into consideration (Loporcaro 1998); in fact the internal argument of passive constructions triggers agreement also in Spanish, Portuguese, Romanian, and some French and Italian dialects, which otherwise show no past participle agreement. Particularly relevant to the debate is the contrast amongst varieties exclusively selecting A in active contexts between, say, Spanish, where A combines with an invariable participle form, while Carmiano (Apulia) illustrates A co-occurring with participle agreement in gender and number (Manzini/Savoia 2007, 193–194). In particular, (29a) illustrates the Carmiano combination of A with an unaccusative verb, agreeing with the subject, while (29b) illustrates A with an unergative verb with default singular agreement only. Participle agreement with the postverbal lexical object is illustrated in (29c). (29) Apulian (Carmiano) a. Addʒu/a/e/imu/iti/anε I.A/you-SG .A/he.A/we.A/you-PL .A/they.A ‘I/you-SG /he/we/you-PL /they have come.’ b. Addʒu/a/e/imu/iti/anε I.A/you-SG .A/he.A/we.A/you-PL .A/they.A ‘I/you-SG /he/we/you-PL /they have slept.’ c. E b’biʃti a t’tutti. he.A. seen.M . PL to all ‘He has seen everybody.’

i’nutu /i’nuti. come.M . SG /come.M . PL tur’mutu. slept.M . SG

But the pattern in question cannot be simply tied to A because Corsican reflexives show an agreement pattern which appears to be its counterpart with E. Reflexive unaccusatives with E in (30a) show plural agreement with a semantically plural si subject according to Giancarli (2015, 115–117) while reflexive unergatives with E show singular agreement. In light of the Carmiano pattern the latter may be best characterized as default singular agreement. What both varieties have in common then is that they use semantic agreement with unaccusatives but default agreement with unergatives. (30) Corsican a. Si hè andati. REFL E.3SG leave.PTCP . M . PL ‘One has left.’ (Giancarli 2015, 115, (30)) b. Si hè travagliatu. REFL E.3SG work.PTCP . M . SG ‘One has worked.’ (Giancarli 2015, 115, (29))

294

Géraldine Legendre

The other syntactic phenomenon traditionally associated with auxiliaries in Romance is ‘clitic climbing’, exemplified for French in (31b), where the direct object clitic la/ l’ procliticizes to the auxiliary rather than the dependent verb it is an argument of. The generalization is that the host of the object clitic must be a finite verbal form, forcing the clitic to climb in periphrastic tenses. (31) Fr.

a. Paul Paul b. Paul Paul

la mange. it eats l’a mangée. it has eaten

Clitic climbing in periphrastic verb forms is subject to independent restrictions on the class of main auxiliary verbs, which permit it. In Italian, clitic climbing extends to modal auxiliaries (32a), which (Modern) French forbids. Overall, clitic climbing gives rise to complex predicates combining an auxiliary (tense, modal, aspectual, causative, perception etc.) and a non-finite verb (Abeillé/Godard 2010). Which auxiliary type allows/requires clitic climbing varies across Romance varieties and is lexically specified in each language – with French being more restrictive than most. The original analysis of Rizzi (1982) is that the contrast in (32) is due to the existence of a special restructuring rule for the non-finite complement which has the effect of erasing the clausal boundary between matrix and complement clauses, and ensures satisfaction of the Specified Subject Condition (SSC, Chomsky 1973), which would otherwise be violated in Italian. The effect of the SSC is that an object clitic cannot move across a null PRO subject, as is the case in French. Restructuring is a repair strategy, which voids the effect in Italian with the relevant (e.g. modal) auxiliaries, essentially turning the SSC into a violable structural constraint. (32) a. It. b. Fr.

Paolo la vuole mangiare. Pauli veut [PROi la manger]. ‘Paolo/Paul wants to eat it.’

A final observation concerns the interaction of auxiliary selection (E vs A) and restructuring, which does not appear to have a unique signature. In some Romance varieties (e.g. Italian, Occitan), restructuring triggers the generalization of the auxiliary selected by the dependent non-finite verb to the matrix auxiliary. For example, a non-finite dependent unaccusative verb triggers E while an unergative verb triggers A (Burzio 1986). In contrast, Neapolitan restructuring invariably triggers A, irrespective of the verb class of the dependent verb, according to Ledgeway (2000, 286, footnote 16). Little is known about the extent of variation in this syntactic domain across Romance languages and dialects, but the reported variation already underscores the relative independence of various constraints on phenomena traditionally associated with auxiliary selection in Romance.

Auxiliaries

295

6 References Abeillé, Anne/Godard, Danièle (2002), The syntactic structure of French auxiliaries, Language 78, 404–452. Abeillé, Anne/Godard, Danièle (2010), Complex predicates in the Romance languages, in: Danièle Godard (ed.), Fundamental Issues in the Romance languages, Stanford, CA, CSLI, 107–170. Adams, James N. (2013), Social Variation and the Latin Language, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Alexiadou, Artemis (2015), On the irrealis effect on auxiliary selection, in: Rolf Kailuweit/Malte Rosemeyer (edd.), Auxiliary Selection Revisited. Gradience and Gradualness, Berlin/Boston, De Gruyter, 123–144. Aranovich, Raúl (2003), The semantics of auxiliary selection in Old Spanish, Studies in Language 27, 1–37. Avram, Larisa/Hill, Virginia (2007), An irrealis BE auxiliary in Romanian, in: Raúl Aranovich (ed.), Split Auxiliary Systems: A Cross-linguistic Perspective, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, Benjamins, 47–64. Badía Margarit, Antonio M. (1962), Gramática catalana, 2 vol., Madrid, Gredos. Bard, Ellen/Frenck-Mestre, Cheryl/Sorace, Antonella (2010), Processing auxiliary selection with Italian intransitive verbs, Linguistics 48, 325–362. Batlle, Mar (2002), L’expressió dels temps compostos en la veu mitjana i la passiva pronominal. El procés de substitució de l’auxiliar “ésser” per “haver”, Barcelona, Institut d’Estudis Catalans/ Publicacions de l’Abadia de Montserrat. Bentley, Delia (2003), Sur la force d’une approche non-dérivationnelle de l’analyse linguistique: quelques données de l’italo-roman, Les Cahiers du CRISCO 13, 51–75. Bentley, Delia (2006), Split Intransitivity in Italian, Berlin/New York, De Gruyter. Bentley, Delia/Eythórsson, Thórhallur (2004), Auxiliary selection and the semantics of unaccusativity, Lingua 114, 447–471. Benveniste, Émile (1966), Problèmes de linguistique générale, vol. 1, Paris, Gallimard. Benzing, Joseph (1931), Zur Geschichte von “ser” als Hilfszeitwort bei den intransitiven Verben im Spanischen, Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie 51, 385–460. Borer, Hagit (2005), The Normal Course of Events, Oxford, Oxford University Press. Buridant, Claude (2000), Grammaire nouvelle de l’ancien français, Paris, Sedes. Burzio, Luigi (1986), Italian Syntax: A Government-Binding Approach, Dordrecht, Foris. Cennamo, Michela (2008), The rise and development of analytic perfects in Italo-Romance, in: Thórhallur Eythórsson (ed.), Grammatical Change and Linguistic Theory: The Rosendal Papers, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, Benjamins, 115–142. Cennamo, Michela/Sorace, Antonella (2007), Auxiliary selection and split intransitivity in Paduan: variation and lexical-aspectual constraints, in: Raúl Aranovich (ed.), Split Auxiliary Systems: A Cross-linguistic Perspective, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, Benjamins, 65–99. Chomsky, Noam (1973), Conditions on transformations, in: Stephen Anderson/Paul Kiparsky (edd.), A Festschrift for Morris Halle, New York, Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 232–286. Chomsky, Noam (2001), Derivation by phase, in: Michael Kenstowicz (ed.), Ken Hale: A Life in Language, Cambridge, MA, MIT Press, 1–52. Cummins, Sarah (1996), Meaning and Mapping, University of Toronto, Ph.D. dissertation. D’Alessandro, Roberta/Roberts, Ian (2008), Movement and agreement in Italian – past participles and defective phases, Linguistic Inquiry 39, 477–491. D’Alessandro, Roberta/Roberts, Ian (2010), Past participle agreement in Abbruzzese: split auxiliary selection and the null subject parameter, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 28, 41–72. Dowty, David (1991), Thematic proto-roles and argument selection, Language 67, 547–619.

296

Géraldine Legendre

Drinka, Bridget (2013), Sources of auxiliation in the perfects of Europe, in: Hendrik de Smet/Lobke Ghesquière/Freek van der Velde (edd.), On Multiple Source Constructions in Language Change (Special Issue Studies in Language 37(3)), Amsterdam/Philadelphia, Benjamins, 599–644. Durie, Mark (1987), Grammatical relations in Acehnese, Studies in Language 11, 365–399. Giancarli, Pierre-Don (2011), Les auxiliaires “être” et “avoir”. Étude comparée: corse, français, acadien et anglais, Rennes, Presses Universitaires de Rennes. Giancarli, Pierre-Don (2015), Auxiliary selection with intransitive and reflexive verbs, in: Rolf Kailuweit/ Malte Rosemeyer (edd.), Auxiliary Selection Revisited. Gradience and Gradualness, Berlin/ Boston, De Gruyter, 79–120. Grevisse, Maurice (162016, 11936), Le bon usage: grammaire française, refondue par André Goosse, Paris, Duculot. Haiman, John/Benincà, Paola (edd.) (2005), The Rhaeto-Romance Languages, London/New York, Routledge. Hall-Partee, Barbara (1965), Subject and Object in Modern English, MIT, Cambridge, MA, Ph.D. dissertation. Jones, Michael Allan (1993), Sardinian Syntax, London/New York, Routledge. Kailuweit, Rolf (2015), BE or HAVE in Contemporary Standard French – residua of semantic motivation, in: Rolf Kailuweit/Malte Rosemeyer (edd.), Auxiliary Selection Revisited. Gradience and Gradualness, Berlin/Boston, De Gruyter, 249–275. Kayne, Richard (1989), Facets of Romance past participle agreement, in: Paola Benincà (ed.), Dialect Variation and the Theory of Grammar, Dordrecht, Foris, 85–104. Kayne, Richard (1993), Toward a modular theory of auxiliary selection, Studia Linguistica 47, 3–31. Keller, Frank/Sorace, Antonella (2003), Gradient auxiliary selection and impersonal passivization in German: an experimental investigation, Journal of Linguistics 39, 57–108. King, Ruth/Nadasdi, Terry (2001), How auxiliaries be/have in Acadian French, in: Patricia Balcom/ Louise Beaulieu/Gisèle Chevalier (edd.), Papers from the Twenty-fourth Annual Meeting of the Atlantic Provinces Linguistic Association, Moncton, Université de Moncton, 61–72. Labelle, Marie (1992), Change of state and valency, Linguistics 28, 375–414. La Fauci, Nunzio (1994), Objects and Subjects in the Formation of Romance Morphosyntax, Bloomington, IN, Indiana University Linguistics Club. La Fauci, Nunzio/Loporcaro, Michele (1989), Passifs, avancements de l’objet indirect et formes verbales périphrastiques dans le dialecte d’Altamura (Pouilles), Rivista di Linguistica 1, 161–196. Ledgeway, Adam (2000), A Comparative Syntax of the Dialects of Southern Italy: A Minimalist Approach, Oxford, Blackwell. Ledgeway, Adam (2003), L’estensione dell’ausiliare perfettivo “avere” nell’antico napoletano: intransitività scissa condizionata da fattori modali, Archivo Glottologico Italiano 88, 29–71. Ledgeway, Adam (2012), From Latin to Romance. Morphosyntactic Typology and Change, Oxford, Oxford University Press. Legendre, Géraldine (1989), Unaccusativity in French, Lingua 79, 95–164. Legendre, Géraldine (2007a), Optimizing auxiliary selection in Romance, in: Raúl Aranovich (ed.), Split Auxiliary Systems: A Cross-linguistic Perspective, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, Benjamins, 145–180. Legendre, Géraldine (2007b), On the typology of auxiliary selection, Lingua 117, 1522–1540. Legendre, Géraldine (2010), A formal typology of person-based auxiliary selection in Italo-Romance, in: Roberta D’Alessandro/Adam Ledgeway/Ian Roberts (edd.), Syntactic Variation: The Dialects of Italy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 186–200. Legendre, Géraldine/Miyata, Yoshiro/Smolensky, Paul (1991), Unifying syntactic and semantic approaches to unaccusativity: a connectionist approach, in: Proceedings of the 17th Annual Meeting

Auxiliaries

297

of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. General Session and Parasession on the Grammar of Event Structure, Berkeley, CA, Berkeley Linguistics Society, 156–167. Legendre, Géraldine/Sorace, Antonella (2003), Auxiliaires et intransitivité en français et dans les langues romanes, in: Danièle Godard (ed.), Les langues romanes: problèmes de la phrase simple, Paris, CNRS Éditions, 185–233. Levin, Beth/Rappaport Hovav, Malka (1995), Unaccusativity. At the Syntax-Lexical Semantics Interface, Cambridge, MA, MIT Press. Levin, Beth/Rappaport Hovav, Malka (2005), Argument Realization, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Lois, Ximena (1990), Auxiliary selection and past participle agreement in Romance, Probus 2, 233–255. Loporcaro, Michele (1998), Sintassi comparata dell’accordo participiale romanzo, Torino, Rosenberg & Sellier. Loporcaro, Michele (2007), On triple auxiliation in Romance, Linguistics 45, 173–222. Loporcaro, Michele (2015), Perfective auxiliation with reflexives in Medieval Romance: syntactic vs semantic gradients, in: Rolf Kailuweit/Malte Rosemeyer (edd.), Auxiliary Selection Revisited. Gradience and Gradualness, Berlin/Boston, De Gruyter, 43–77. Mackenzie, Ian (2006), Unaccusative Verbs in Romance Languages, Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan. Manzini, M. Rita/Savoia, Leonardo M. (2005), I dialetti italiani e romanci: morfosintassi generativa, vol. 1, Alessandria, Edizioni dell’Orso. Manzini, M. Rita/Savoia, Leonardo M. (2007), A Unification of Morphology and Syntax. Studies in Romance and Albanian Dialects, London/New York, Routledge. Marandin, Jean-Marie (2001), Unaccusative inversion in French, in: Yves D’hulst/Johan Rooryck/Jan Schroten (edd.), Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 1999, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, Benjamins, 195–222. Mateu, Jaume/Massanell i Messalles, Mar (2015), A constructional approach to auxiliary selection: evidence from existential constructions, in: Rolf Kailuweit/Malte Rosemeyer (edd.), Auxiliary Selection Revisited. Gradience and Gradualness, Berlin/Boston, De Gruyter, 183–211. McClure, William (1995), Syntactic Projections of the Semantics of Aspect, Tokyo, Hitsujishobo. Montrul, Silvina (2005), Second language acquisition and first language loss in adult early bilinguals: exploring some differences and similarities, Second Language Research 21, 199–249. Pace, Anna (1993/1994), Ricerche di morfosintassi sui dialetti di Trebisacce e Castrovillari, Università della Calabria, Tesi di Laurea. Perlmutter, David M. (1978), Impersonal passives and the Unaccusative Hypothesis, in: Proceedings of the Fourth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistic Society, Berkeley, CA, Berkeley Linguistics Society, 157–189. Perlmutter, David M. (1989), Multiattachment and the Unaccusative Hypothesis: the perfect auxiliary in Italian, Probus 1, 63–119. Péronnet, Louise (1991), Système des modalités verbales dans le parler acadien du sud-est du Nouveau-Brunswick, Journal of the Atlantic Provinces Linguistic Association 13, 85–98. Postal, Paul (1963), Some syntactic rules in Mohawk, Yale University, Ph.D. dissertation. Pullum, Geoffrey (1988), Citation etiquette beyond thunderdome, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6, 579–588. Reinhart, Tanya/Siloni, Tal (2004), Against the unaccusative analysis of reflexives, in: Artemis Alexiadou/Elena Anagnostopoulou/Martin Everaert (edd.), The Unaccusativity Puzzle: Explorations of the Syntax-Lexicon Interface, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 159–180. Rizzi, Luigi (1982), Issues in Italian Syntax, Dordrecht, Foris.

298

Géraldine Legendre

Rosemeyer, Malte (2014), Auxiliary Selection in Spanish. Gradience, Gradualness, and Conservation, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, Benjamins. Rosen, Carol (1984), The interface between semantic roles and initial grammatical relations, in: David M. Perlmutter/Carol Rosen (edd.), Studies in Relational Grammar 2, Chicago, IL, The University of Chicago Press, 38–77. Rosen, Carol (1988), The Relational Structure of Reflexive Clauses: Evidence from Italian, Oxford, Taylor & Francis. Rossini, Giorgio (1975), Capitoli di morfologia e sintassi del dialetto cremonese, Firenze, La Nuova Italia. Sankoff, Gillian/Thibault, Pierrette (1980), L’alternance entre les auxiliaires “avoir” et “être” en français parlé à Montréal, Langue Française 34, 81–108. Schmitt, Cristina (2000), Cross-linguistic variation and the present perfect: the case of Portuguese, ZAS Papers in Linguistics 16, 68–99. Smith, Jane (1994), A morphosyntactic analysis of the verb group in Cajun French, University of Washington, Ph.D. dissertation. Sorace, Antonella (2000), Gradients in auxiliary selection with intransitive verbs, Language 76, 859–890. Sorace, Antonella (2015), The cognitive complexity of auxiliary selection: from processing to grammaticality judgments, in: Rolf Kailuweit/Malte Rosemeyer (edd.), Auxiliary Selection Revisited. Gradience and Gradualness, Berlin/Boston, De Gruyter, 23–42. Stolova, Natalya (2006), Split intransitivity in Old Spanish: irrealis and negation factors, Revue Roumaine de Linguistique 51, 301–320. Torrego, Esther (1989), Unergative-unaccusative alternations in Spanish, MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 10, 253–272. Tuttle, Edward (1986), The spread of “esse” as universal auxiliary in central Italo-Romance, Medioevo Romanzo 11, 229–287. Van Hout, Angeliek (2000), Event semantics in the lexicon-syntax interface: verb frame alternations in Dutch and their acquisition, in: Carol Tenny/James Pustejowsky (edd.), Events as Grammatical Objects, Stanford, CA, CSLI, 239–282. Van Valin, Robert (1990), Semantic parameters of split intransitivity, Language 66, 221–260. Vincent, Nigel (1982), The development of the auxiliaries “habere” and “esse” in Romance, in: Nigel Vincent/Martin Harris (edd.), Studies in the Romance Verb, London, Croom Helm, 71–96.

Marie Labelle

8 Causative and perception verbs Abstract: In Romance languages, causative and perception verbs are found in a biclausal Exceptional Case Marking (ECM) construction and in two monoclausal faire faire constructions, faire-infinitive (FI) and faire-par (FP). The present chapter describes these constructions and discusses the main avenues of analysis. Cross-linguistic differences are pointed out.  

Keywords: causative, perception verbs, complex predicate, exceptional case marking, raising-to-object  

1 Introduction This chapter surveys the main analyses of causative and perception verb constructions in Romance. We focus on the verbs and the Romance languages in Table 1. The French word in small capitals in the first column will be used as a label for the set of roughly equivalent words (e.g. FAIR E ={fer, faire, fare, fazer, mandar, hacer}). The Portuguese examples will be from European Portuguese. Table 1: Causative and perception verbs in the main Romance languages Catalan

French

Italian

Portuguese

Spanish

FA IRE ‘to cause’ (causative)

fer

faire

fare

fazer, mandar

hacer

LA ISSER

‘to let’ (permissive)

deixar

laisser

lasciare

deixar

dejar

VOIR ‘to see’ (perception)

veure

voir

vedere

ver

ver

We will first discuss a biclausal construction (Section 2), then two monoclausal faire faire constructions: faire-infinitive and faire-par (Section 3).

2 The biclausal construction In Romance languages other than Romanian, VOIR and other perception verbs may take an infinitival complement with a preverbal subject. Examples parallel to (1a) exist in Italian (Burzio 1986, 229), Portuguese (Bossaglia 2013, 221), and Catalan DOI 10.1515/9783110377088-008

300

Marie Labelle

(Alsina 2002; Ciutescu 2013a,b). In Spanish, (1b), a, homonymous with the dative marker, introduces human direct objects (see ↗3 Objects). (1)

a. Fr.

b. Sp.

Jean a vu Marie réparer la voiture. Marie repair.INF the car Jean have.3SG seen ‘Jean saw Marie repair the car.’ Vimos a los niños cantar la canción. 1 DOM the children sing.INF the song see.PST .1PL ‘We saw the children sing the song.’ (Abeillé/Godard 2003, 134 (10a))

The subject of the embedded verb is accusative. It surfaces as an accusative clitic on the tensed verb, past participle agreement being triggered in languages where it applies (Mathieu 2003; Bentley 2006; Rowlett 2007). (2)

It.

Mario l’ ha vista have.3SG seen.F . SG Mario 3SG . ACC ‘Mario saw her wash the motorbike.’ (Bentley 2006, 220 (46b))

lavare wash.INF

il the

motorino. motorbike

The same construction exists with LAISSER in French, Portuguese, and Spanish, but is considered marginal in Italian (Burzio 1986, 229 and 287) and in Catalan (Alsina 2002, 2428). We will come back to FAIRE below. (3) Fr.

Nous laisserons les enfants aller we let.FUT . 1PL the children go.INF ‘We will let the children go the station.’

à la to the

gare. station

The standard account of (1) is in terms of Exceptional Case Marking (ECM) (e.g. Rowlett 2007). The infinitival complement is a complementizer-less clause (a Tense Phrase (TP)), and the main verb case-marks the embedded subject either directly, as in (4), or as a result of Raising-to-Object: the embedded subject moves to an object position in the main clause where it receives accusative Case (e.g. Postal 1974; Bošković 1997).2

1 The abbreviation DOM is used for the marker of differential object marking, e.g. a in Spanish. 2 Abeillé/Godard/Miller (1997) defend a control structure.

Causative and perception verbs

301

(4) Jean a vu Maria réparer la voiture.

The construction is biclausal: a functional domain hosting object clitics (5), auxiliaries (6), and clausal negation (7) dominates the embedded verb. This property distinguishes this construction from faire faire (Section 3). With VOIR , auxiliaries and negation are not easily compatible with direct perception reports and have been claimed to be ungrammatical (Guasti 1993, 117; Gonçalves 1999), but auxiliaries are fine with intratextual uses (6b), and negation is not excluded (7b). When negation appears on the embedded verb, clitics remain on the infinitive.3 (5) a. Fr.

b. Sp.

(6) Fr.

Nous l’ avons vu [les manger]. seen 3PL . ACC eat.INF we 3SG . ACC have.1PL ‘We saw him eat them.’ Dejamos a los niños [cantar la canción.] / DOM the children sing.INF the song / let.1PL [cantarla]. sing.INF =3F . SG . ACC ‘We let the children sing the song. / sing it.’ (Abeillé/Godard 2003, 134 (10a)) a. Je vous laisse [être bercés par sa magie]. I 2PL .ACC let.1SG be.INF lulled by his magic ‘I let you be lulled by his magic.’ (L’Express, 27.12.2012) b. Nous avons vu [Jean être frappé we have.1PL seen Jean be.INF struck de stupeur à cette nouvelle.] with astonishment at this news ‘We saw (above) that Jean was shocked by this information.’

3 See Ciutescu (2013b) for examples of negation in other Romance languages.

302

Marie Labelle

(7) Fr.

a. Je le laisse [ne pas les manger]. I 3M . ACC let.1SG NEG not 3PL . ACC eat.INF ‘I let him not eat them.’ b. J’ ai cru voir [Pierre ne pas I have.1SG believed see.INF Pierre NEG not s’ arrêter au feu rouge]. REFL stop.INF at.the light red ‘I think I have seen Pierre not stop at the red light.’ (Labelle 1996, 91 (26a))

Since the main verb assigns accusative Case to the embedded subject, we expect passivization to be possible. With VOIR , the passive is possible in Italian ( 8a) , but, although attested (8b), it tends to be rejected in French, unless the progressive expression en train de precedes the infinitive (Veland 1998; Miller/Lowrey 2003, 155).4 (8) a. It.

b. Fr.

Alcuni prigionieri furono visti fuggire. some prisoners were seen.M . PL flee.INF ‘A few prisoners were seen to flee.’ (Burzio 1986, 290 (146a)) Hurley et Grant ont été vus faire Hurley and Grant have.3PL been seen.M . PL do.INF des emplettes ensemble. ART . INDF . PL purchases together ‘Hurley and Grant were seen out shopping together.’ (Rowlett 2007, 779 (78a))

With FAIRE , the ECM construction exists in Portuguese, where it is preferred to faire faire, particularly when the infinitive is transitive (Gonçalves/Duarte 2001, 659; Soares da Silva 2012, 531; Bossaglia 2013, 224).5 (9) EPt. A Maria fez/mandou os miúdos ler esse the Maria made/ordered the children read.INF that ‘Maria made/ordered the children to read that book.’ (Soares da Silva 2012, 526 (7b))

livro. book

4 In European Portuguese, the passive involves an infinitival complement introduced by a, which has a gerundive meaning (Hornstein/Martins/Nunes 2008, 216, fn. 18). 5 In Portuguese, a distinct construction, preferred to ECM and faire faire in Brazil, involves an inflected infinitive agreing with a nominative subject (Raposo 1987). (i) EPt. A Maria viu/ fez/ mandou/ deixou [eles correrem]. the Maria saw/ made/ ordered/ let 3PL . NOM run.3P L ‘Maria saw/made/ordered/let them (to) run.’

Causative and perception verbs

303

In French, Italian, and Catalan, however, the embedded subject cannot intervene between the two verbs (10), but when it is cliticized, the construction – rejected by purists – is attested, particularly when the complement is negated (11), or when faire faire would yield an unacceptable sequence of clitics (12) (Hyman/Zimmer 1976; Rouveret/Vergnaud 1980, 130; Bailard 1982; Burzio 1986, 232–238; Reed 1991; Abeillé/ Godard/Miller 1997; Baschung/Desmets 2000; Gonçalves/Duarte 2001, 663). (10) Fr.

*Le professeur fera les enfants the professor make.FUT . 3SG the children lire le livre. the book read.INF ‘The professor will have the children read the book.’

(11) Fr.

a. Le professeur les fera the professor 3PL . ACC make.FUT . 3SG le lire. read.INF 3M . SG . ACC ‘The professor will have them read it.’ b. Le manque de temps les fait the lack of time 3PL .ACC make.3SG le lire. read.INF 3M . SG . ACC ‘Lack of time makes them not read it.’ (Abeillé/Godard/Miller 1997, 65–66, (9), (15))

(12) Fr.

a. *Elle nous vous fera she 1PL . ACC 2PL . ACC make.FUT . 3SG b. Elle nous fera vous she 1PL . ACC make.FUT . 3SG 2PL . ACC ‘She will have us scold you.’ (Abeillé/Godard 2003, 174 (76c))

ne NEG

pas not

gronder. scold.INF gronder. scold.INF

This ECM construction with FAIRE expresses direct causation (Bordelois 1974; Hyman/ Zimmer 1976; Reed 1992; Treviño 1994, 107), and imposes an agentive interpretation on the embedded subject, which may not be inanimate (Bailard 1982, 271; Authier/ Reed 1991; Bossaglia 2013, 225; Enghels/Roegiest 2013 on LAISSER ). Abeillé/Godard/ Miller (1997, 66) define direct causation as a relation where the causer is in a position of power allowing him to coerce the causee to do some action, and the causee has control over the realization of the action. As for Spanish, some speakers accept (13), analyzed as ECM by Ciutescu (2013a), but as involving a dative constituent by Torrego (2010).

304

(13) Sp.

Marie Labelle

La entrenadora hizo a la make.PST .3SG DOM / DAT the the trainer.F el ejercicio. the exercise ‘The trainer made the athlete repeat the exercise.’ (Torrego 2010, 448 (3))

atleta athlete

repetir repeat.INF

There is little evidence against an ECM analysis. Negation (14), auxiliaries (15) and object clitics (16) appear in the complement; the causee must be animate according to Torrego (2010),6 and the interpretation is one of direct causation (Treviño 1994). (14) Sp.

El jefe hizo a sus clientes no divulgar the boss make.PST .3SG DOM his clients not spread.INF la noticia. the news ‘The boss made his clients not spread the news.’ (Torrego 2010, 451 (9))

(15) Sp.

El jefe hizo a su hijo ser the boss make.PST .3SG DOM his son be.INF por su empleada. by his employee.F ‘The boss made his son be hired by his employee.’ (Torrego 2010, 454 (18))

(16) Sp.

Marta hizo a su hijo arreglarla. Marta make.PST .3SG DOM her son repair.INF =3SG . F . ACC ‘Marta made her son repair it.’ (Treviño 1994, 79 (17a))

contratado hired

Spanish speakers alternate between accusative and dative clitics for human causees, and it is the case here too (cf. Section 3.1). Passivization of FAIRE is possible in Italian (even though preverbal subjects are rejected), but not in the other Romance languages (Alsina 2002, 2434; Torrego 2010, 454; Tubino Blanco 2011, 230).

6 Some authors accept dative-marked inanimate causees (Franco/Landa 1995; Tubino Blanco 2011, 256).

Causative and perception verbs

(17) It.

Gianni fu fatto riparare Gianni be.PST .3SG make.PST .3SG repair.INF ‘Gianni was caused to repair the car.’ (Burzio 1986, 232 (9))

(18) Cat.

*L’ enginyer ha estat fet modificar the engineer have.3SG been made modify.INF ‘The engineer was caused to modify the design.’ (Alsina 2002, 2434)

305

la macchina. the car

el the

disseny. design

To summarize, the ECM construction is biclausal. The infinitival complement contains a functional domain hosting negation, auxiliaries and object clitics. The subject of the infinitive is accusative and it cliticizes onto the main verb. This sets the stage for a discussion of faire faire.

3 Monoclausal constructions: faire faire In his seminal study on French, Kayne (1975) distinguished two different faire faire constructions, faire-infinitive (FI) and faire-par (FP), a terminology that has been adopted since. Later studies showed that Kayne’s description applies to Catalan (Alsina 1993; 2002; Ciutescu 2013a), Italian (Burzio 1986), Portuguese (Gonçalves 1999), and Spanish (Bordelois 1974; Aissen 1979; Rosen 1990; Treviño 1994). The FI construction is discussed in Section 3.1, and FP in Section 3.2.

3.1 Faire-infinitive In the FI construction, the semantic subject of the infinitive is postverbal, and its case is determined by the transitivity of the verb: accusative with intransitive verbs (19), dative with transitive verbs (20).7 This case-marking pattern characterizes morphologically derived causatives in many languages (Comrie 1981; Baker 1988). (19) Fr.

Marie fit travailler Jean. Marie make.PST .3SG work.INF Jean ‘Marie made Jean work.’

7 In European Portuguese, transitive complements are not always accepted (Gonçalves 2001, 228; Gonçalves/Duarte 2001, 659). In Brazilian Portuguese, only intransitives are possible since the dative marker a has been lost.

306

Marie Labelle

(20) Fr.

Marie fit réparer Marie make.PST .3SG repair.INF ‘Marie made Jean repair the car.’ (Guasti 2006b (3))

la voiture the car

à Jean. to Jean

FI is possible with LAISSER , VOIR and other perception verbs. (21) Fr.

a. Il a laissé partir son he have.3SG let leave.INF his ‘He let his friend leave.’ (Kayne 1975, 203 (3a)) b. J’ ai entendu dire cela à say.INF that to I have.1SG heard ‘I heard one of your friends say that.’ (Kayne 1975, 206 (12b))

amie. friend

un de tes one of your

amis. friends

In FI, the complement may contain neither clausal negation (22) nor auxiliaries (23) (Kayne 1975, 231; Bordelois 1988; Guasti 1993; 2006b; Gonçalves 1999, 340; Baschung/Desmets 2000, 221; Alsina 2002, 2432; Abeillé/Godard 2003, 143). (22) Fr.

(23) a. It.

b. Sp.

*Jean l’ y fait Jean 3SG . ACC LOC make.3SG ‘Jean makes him not go there.’

ne NEG

pas aller. not go.INF

*Marco farà aver pulito le toilette Marco make.FUT .3SG have.INF cleaned the toilets al generale. to.the general ‘Marco will make the general have cleaned the toilets.’ (Guasti 1993, 39 (53)) *Esto lo hizo ser fusilado. this 3SG . M . ACC make.PST .3SG be.INF shot ‘This made him be shot.’ (Bordelois 1988, 88 (73))

Moreover, the subject and objects of the infinitive cliticitize onto the main verb (24). The ECM construction corresponding to (24) is On le laissa la réparer ‘We let himA C C repair itA C C ’. With intransitive complements, there is ambiguity between ECM and FI because the clitic on FAIRE may represent a preverbal or postverbal causee.

Causative and perception verbs

(24) Fr.

On la lui we 3SG . F .ACC 3SG .DAT ‘We let him repair it.’

(25) Sp.

La hizo 3SG .F . ACC make.PST .3SG ‘He made it work.’

laissa let.PST .3SG

307

réparer. repair.INF

funcionar. function.INF

In Spanish, where both human direct objects and dative objects are marked with a, speakers alternate between accusative and dative clitics referring to human causees. This masks the difference between transitive and intransitive complements. (26) Sp.

a. El gitano lo /le hizo comprar the gipsy 3SG . M . ACC / 3SG . DAT make.PST .3SG buy.INF inventos. inventions ‘The gipsy made him buy his inventions.’ (Treviño 1994, 53 (52)) b. Pedro la /le hizo llorar. Pedro 3SG . F . ACC / 3SG . DAT make.PST .3SG cry.INF ‘Pedro made her cry.’

sus his

The difference between ECM (lo) and FI (le) explains (26a). But in (26b), la is standardly expected, whether the source is ECM or FI. Some speakers prefer the dative (le) regardless of the transitivity of the verb (Tubino Blanco 2011, 215). For speakers who alternate between lo/la and le, the crucial factor is directness of causation (Treviño 1994, 127; Enghels 2012). According to Moore (2010, 369) “if the embedded predicate is intransitive, and the causee is an IO instead of the expected DO, then the causation is indirect; if the embedded predicate is transitive and the causee is DO instead of the expected IO, then the causation is direct.” For French speakers who accept both ECM and FI with FAIRE , a dative causee (FI) has also been claimed to express a more indirect causation than an accusative one (ECM) (Hyman/Zimmer 1976; Reed 1992).8 The fact that clausal negation, auxiliaries, or object clitics do not appear in the complement shows that FI is monoclausal: there is no functional domain between FAIR E and the infinitive. FAIRE In single predicate accounts, there is only one lexical verb. Some authors posit that FAIRE and the infinitive form a compound verb, e.g. [V0 faire travailler] in (19) (e.g. Rowlett 2007). After merger of the argument structures of the two verbs, the subject

8 On L AISSER , VOIR , cf. Labelle (1996), Enghels (2009), Enghels /Roegiest (2013).

308

Marie Labelle

and object arguments of the infinitive become objects of the compound verb (Zubizarreta 1985; Di Sciullo/Rosen 1991): (27) It.

fare ((x)) + leggere (e (y,z)) => fare leggere (e (x, y, z)) make read make-read (Di Sciullo/Rosen 1991, 28)

This explains the postverbal position of the causee and the fact that its case depends on the transitivity of the infinitive. Kayne (1975, 217) argued against a [V0 V0 V0] compound, however, because the two verbs may be separated (i) by subject and object enclitics (28); (ii) by adverbial expressions (29); (iii) in coordinated infinitival VPs (30): (28) Fr

a. Fera-t-il partir Marie? Marie make.FUT .3SG =3SG . NOM leave.INF ‘Will he have Marie leave?’ b. Fais-lui lire ce livre. make.IMP .2SG =3SG . DAT read.INF this book ‘Have him read this book.’ (Kayne 1975, 218 (38a), (39a))

(29) Fr.

Ils la feront sans they 3SG . F . ACC make.FUT .3PL without ‘They will no doubt make her cry.’ (Kayne 1975, 219 (45a))

(30) Fr.

Elle fera lire des livres et she make.FUT .3PL read.INF ART . INDF . PL books and boire du vin à la sœur de son meilleur ami. friend drink.INF PART 9 wine to the sister of her best ‘She will have her best friend’s sister read books and drink wine.’ (Kayne 1975, 219 (42a))

aucun any

doute doubt

pleurer. cry.INF

These arguments apply to the other Romance languages (Burzio 1986; Alsina 1993, 286; Guasti 1993, 35; Gonçalves 1999, 344 and 400), although in Spanish adverbs may not be intercalated (Aissen 1979, 65; Abeillé/Godard 2003, 154). A single predicate approach solving the separability problem is to treat FAIRE / LAISSER / VOIR as auxiliaries (Aissen 1979, 65; Abeillé/Godard 2003, 154; Tily/Sag 2006), and to merge them in the functional domain of the clause (Cardinaletti/Shlonsky

9

PART

is used for the so-called partitive article in French.

Causative and perception verbs

309

2004;10 Cinque 2006). However, contrary to auxiliaries, causative and perception verbs add an external argument to the base verb, and may add an adjunct. Therefore a bipredicative analysis, where FAIR E and the infinitive are independent lexical heads with their own argument structure, is to be preferred (Guasti 2006b). In a bipredicative account, FAIRE and the infinitive are generated under their own verbal projection, each contributing their arguments. The clause contains only one functional domain, above the higher vP. The embedded subject may be generated leftward (31), or rightward (Folli/Harley 2007, 207). (31) Gianni ha fatto riparare la macchina a Mario. ‘Gianni made Mario repair the car.’

In (31), both FAIRE and the infinitive project a subject. This accounts for an important characteristic of FI, not accounted for by single predicate accounts; the causee exhibits subject properties. Anaphors refer to the causee, and not to the subject of FAIR E (32), and subject-oriented expressions may refer to either subject (33) (for FAIRE French, see Kayne 1975, 214). (32) Fr.

a. Il fera parler ces jeunes fillesi he make.FUT .3SG speak.INF those young girls l’ une de l’ autrei. the one of the other ‘He’ll have those girls speak of one another.’ parler cette jeune fille b. *Ilsi feront speak.INF that young girl they make.FUT .3PL l’ un de l’ autrei. the one of the other ‘They’ll have that girl speak of each other.’ (Kayne 1975, 263 (168a), 266 (175a), 264 (171a))

10 For Cardinaletti/Shlonsky (2004), causative and perception verbs are “quasi-functional”.

310

(33) Cat.

Marie Labelle

He fet beure el vi a contracor a la Maria. have.1SG make.PST .3SG drink.INF the wine unwillingly to the Maria ‘I have made Maria drink the wine against her/my will.’ (Alsina 1993, 268 (112a), (85a))

In addition, the reflexive construction is ungrammatical, a fact that follows if the dative causee is an embedded subject blocking, in (34), the establishment of the chain [Maria … si … e]. (34) It.

è fatta [[accusare ei] *Mariai sii REFL be.3SG made accuse.INF Maria ‘Maria made Giovanni accuse herself.’ (Burzio 1986, 249 (46))

a to

Giovanni]. Giovanni

Treating a Giovanni as a dative complement of a compound verb fare-accusare would predict the grammaticality of (34), since a dative complement should not intervene in the relation between Maria, si, and the empty category. Moreover, if we causativize a subject control verb, the controller of the embedded PRO is the dative causee, not the sentence subject (Villalba 1992, 353 for Catalan). (35) It.

vista Ho fatto affermare di PROi aver=la have=3SG . F . ACC seen have.1SG made claim.INF of a Ugoi. to Ugo ‘I made Ugo claim to have seen her.’ (cf. Burzio 1986, 263 (73a))

The dative causee asymmetrically c-commands the object of the infinitive: it may bind an anaphoric expression within the infinitival verb phrase, but the converse is not possible11 (Zubizarreta 1985, 270; Burzio 1986, 263–265; Villalba 1992). This is predicted by (31) (Costantini 2010). (36) Cat.

a. No vaig fer castigar PST . 1SG make.INF punish.INF not professor a cap alumne. professor to no student ‘I made no student punish his teacher.’

el the

seu his

11 According to Gonçalves (1999, 390; 2002) this does not carry over to European Portuguese.

Causative and perception verbs

311

b. *No vaig fer castigar cap alumne PST . 1SG make. INF punish.INF no student not al seu professor. to.the his professor ‘I made his teacher punish no student.’ (Villalba 1992, 351 (12b), (13b)). Let us turn to the Case of the causee. Assuming that the structure creates a complex predicate, the standard account posits that, when the infinitive is transitive, the complex predicate treats the object of the infinitive as its first object and assigns it accusative Case. Since accusative cannot be assigned twice, the causee becomes the second object, marked by default as dative. If accusative Case has not been used for the object of the infinitive, it is assigned to the causee. This standard account requires answers to the following questions: How is the complex predicate formed if there is no verb compounding? Which head assigns accusative Case? Baker (1988, Section 4.3) proposed an analysis along the following lines. The verbal projection containing the direct object (if there is one) moves over its subject to be next to FAIRE , and the verbal complex formed by the two verbs case-marks the object or, if there is no object, the causee, under adjacency. (37) Fr.

Marie fit [[réparer la voiture] à Jean [réparer la voiture]]. (= (20))

A leftward movement of the infinitival verb or verbal projection over its subject has often been postulated to account for postverbal causees (e.g. Kayne 1975; Rouveret/ Vergnaud 1980; Burzio 1986; Rochette 1988, 227; Reed 1991; Gonçalves 1999, 401; 2002; Pitteroff/Campanini 2013). The necessity of adjacency for accusative Case assignment is demonstrated by (38): the causee is accusative if it is adjacent to the infinitive, but dative if it follows the PP (Villalba 1992; for examples similar to (38d) in other languages, see Kayne 1975, 210 fn. 9; Cannings/Moody 1978; Bailard 1982, 257; Manandise/Marin-CallejoManandise 1983; Burzio 1986, 252; Bordelois 1988, 68). (38) Cat.

a. Farem creure/confiar la Maria en l’atzar. b. *Farem creure/confiar a la Maria en l’atzar. make.FUT . 1PL believe. INF /rely.INF (to) the Maria in the chance c. *Farem creure/confiar en l’atzar la Maria. d. Farem creure/confiar en l’atzar a la Maria. make.FUT . 1PL believe. INF /rely. INF in the chance (to) the Maria ‘We shall make Maria believe in/rely on chance.’ (Villalba 1992, 364 (31)−(32))

312

Marie Labelle

In Italian, passivizing FAIRE affects the accusative causee (39a) and the object of the infinitive (39b). This indicates that FAIRE assigns Case to these DPs. An analysis in terms of a discontinuous complex predicate seems therefore required, given the adjacency requirement and the separability of the two verbs. (39) It.

a. In alcune occasioni è stato fatto piangere. in some occasions be.3SG been made cry.INF ‘A couple of times (the boy) was made to cry.’ (Frenda 2015, 431 (12)) b. La macchina sarà fatta riparare a Giovanni. the car be.FUT .3SG made repair.INF to Giovanni ‘The car will be made to be repaired by Giovanni.’ (Burzio 1986, 254 (57))

Unexpectedly, while equivalents of (39) exist in Catalan (Alsina 2002, 2434) and Portuguese (Gonçalves 2002), they are generally rejected in Spanish and French (Zubizarreta 1985, 284; Miller 1993, 274; Molinier 2005, 203–204). (40) Sp.

a. *La casa fue hecha construir a Casimiro. the house be.PST .3SG made construct.INF to Casimiro ‘The house was made to be constructed by Casimiro.’ (Zubizarreta 1985, 284 (92b)) b. *Bruno fue hecho trabajar /telefonear /saltar. Bruno be.PST .3SG made work.INF /telephone.INF /jump.INF ‘Bruno was made work/telephone/jump.

Moving the infinitive to the left explains why it precedes postverbal matrix subjects in Spanish (Ordóñez 2007) (41), and floated quantifiers stranded by the matrix subject in Catalan and in Italian (42) (but not in French). Notice that the adjacency between the infinitive and its object is disrupted in these examples. (41) Sp.

leer Ayer nos hizo yesterday 1PL make.PST .3SG read.INF ‘Yesterday Juan made us read the book.’ (Ordóñez 2007, 274 (72))

Juan el Juan the

(42) It.

facevano commentare I professorii the professors make.IMPF .3PL comment.INF quel libro a Ugo. that book to Ugo ‘All the professors made Ugo comment on that book.’ (Guasti 1993, 34 (32))

libro. book

tuttii all

Causative and perception verbs

313

Inspired by Baker’s (1988) analysis of suffixal causatives, Guasti (1993; 1996; 2006a,b) and Villalba (1994) account for such word orders by incorporating the infinitive into FAIR E . This creates a compound verb in syntax, while preserving the idea that the FAIRE lower vP contains a structural subject. (43) It.

[IP I professorij [v0 facevano commentarei]k [vP tuttij tk [vP ti quel libro a Ugo]]]. (Guasti 2006b (53))

The incorporation approach is not without problems, since the two verbs may be separated: (44) It.

I professori fanno spesso commentare tutti comment. INF all the professors make.3PL often il libro a Ugo. the book to Ugo ‘The professors all make Ugo often comment on the book.’ (Guasti 2006b (54))

In order to maintain an incorporation analysis, Guasti first incorporates the infinitive into FAIR E , then excorporates FAIR E from this verbal complex to move it to T. But the analysis wrongly predicts that the leftover infinitive will follow tutti: (45) I professori fanno spesso commentare tutti quel libro a Ugo

Baker (1988), for his part, postulates incorporation in Romance causatives, but at LF.

314

Marie Labelle

Concerning the thematic role of the causee, it has been claimed to be a Patient of the complex predicate when it is accusative (Ackerman/Moore 1999; Gonçalves 2002), and a Goal or Benefactive/Malefactive complement when it is dative (Cannings/ Moody 1978; Morin 1978; Bailard 1982; Bordelois 1988; Guasti 1993; 1996; 2006b).12 A recent trend is to treat dative causees as introduced by an applicative head giving them a Benefactive/Malefactive role (Torrego 2010; Pitteroff/Campanini 2013).13 To explain why the causee has subject properties, it may be moved from its vP internal subject position to the applicative projection (46), perhaps to check dative case. Reorganization is required to get the final word order. (46) Fr.

à Marie [Appl Ø [vPMarie Jean fait [ApplP to Marie Marie Jean make.3SG ‘Jean makes Marie write a letter.’

écrire une lettre]]]. write.INF a letter

An important but largely ignored characteristic of FI is that dative complements do not cliticize. Kayne (1975) attributed the impossibility of cliticizing the dative complement of téléphoner in (47) to the presence of an embedded subject (leur fils),14 but other clitics are not blocked in the same context (Burzio 1986, 244). (47) Fr.

*Cela leur fera téléphoner that 3PL .DAT make.FUT .3SG telephone.INF ‘That will make their son telephone to them.’ (Kayne 1975, 288, (43))

leur their

(48) Fr.

On y fait jouer les enfants. one LOC make.3SG play.INF the children ‘We/they have the children play there.’

fils. son

It turns out that, in FI, a dative clitic is always interpreted as the causee. In sentences with two datives, when one of them is cliticized (49a) or extracted by wh-movement (49b), it can only be interpreted as the causee (Kayne 1975, 290; Aissen 1979, 162; Burzio 1986, 243; Alsina 1993, 235). When the two datives are fronted (49c), the sentence is unambiguous, the clitic is the causee and the wh-element, the dative object (Milner 1982, 160).15, 16

12 However, dative causees do not behave like indirect object controllers (e.g. Treviño 1994; López 2001; Moore 2010). 13 This idea is attributed to Ippolito in an unpublished paper (Folli/Harley 2007, 205). 14 For other languages, see Treviño (1994, 90), Gonçalves (1999, 330), Alsina (2002, 2429). 15 Such double dative sentences are not compatible with single predicate accounts. 16 Gonçalves (1999, 405; 2002) rejects double datives in European Portuguese.

Causative and perception verbs

(49) Fr.

a. Jean lui fait porter une lettre letter Jean 3SG .DAT make.3SG bring.INF a ‘Jean makes him take a letter to Marie.’ (Burzio 1986, 243 (35)) b. À qui Pierre fera-t-il to whom Pierre make.FUT . 3SG =3SG . M . NOM donner ce livre à Jean? give.INF that book to Jean ‘By whom will Pierre have that book given to Jean?’ (Alsina 1993, 235 (67)) c. À qui lui feras-tu to whom 3SG .DAT make.FUT . 2SG =2SG . NOM porter ces livres? those books bring.INF ‘To whom will you have him take those books?’ (Kayne 1975, 290 fn. 15)

315

à Marie. to Marie

Moreover, one may cliticize on FAIRE a dative causee and an accusative object (50a), but not an accusative causee and a dative object (the * reading of (50b)). In the FP construction in (51a), the clitics refer respectively to the theme and goal of the infinitive, and the causee is expressed in a by-phrase par le facteur. But in the parallel FI sentence (51b), the dative clitic cannot correspond to the goal and the dative constituent au facteur to the causee. (The accepted reading of (50b) is FP without a by-phrase.) (50) Fr.

a. Je la lui ai fait écrire. I 3SG . F . ACC 3SG .DAT have.1SG made write.INF ‘I had him/her write it.’ b. Je la lui ai fait téléphoner. I 3SG . F . ACC 3SG .DAT have.1SG made telephone.INF *‘I had herACC call him/herDAT.’ ‘I had it (=the news) telephoned to him/her (by someone).’

(51) Fr.

a. Cette lettre, je la lui ai fait this letter I 3SG . F . ACC 3SG .DAT have.1SG made par le facteur. by the mailman ‘This letter, I had it sent to him/her by the mailman.’ b. Cette lettre, je la lui ai fait this letter I 3SG . F . ACC 3SG .DAT have.1SG made au facteur. to.the mailman ‘This letter, I had him/her send it to the mailman.’

apporter bring.INF

apporter bring.INF

316

Marie Labelle

These facts could support an applicative approach like (46) if dative clitics pass through the applicative projection, where they get interpreted as causees. Another topic of interest is the question of downstairs clitics. When the infinitival phrase is reflexive, the clitic SE ( si in Italian) does not appear on FAIRE , since its binder is the embedded and not the matrix subject. S E must appear on the infinitive in French, Spanish and Catalan, but it cannot do so in Italian or Portuguese (Kayne 1975, 403; Zubizarreta 1985; Rosen 1990, 28; Villalba 1992; Gonçalves 1999, 404). (52) Fr.

On a fait se raser we have.3SG made REFL shave.INF ‘We made Pierre shave himself.’ (Zubizarreta 1985, 274 (72a))

Pierre. Pierre

(53) It.

*Mario ha fatto accusar=si Mario have.3SG made accuse.INF = REFL ‘Mario made Piero accuse himself.’ (Zubizarreta 1985, 274 (72c))

Piero. Piero

In Italian, the reflexive interpretation is obtained via the non-clitic anaphor se stesso ‘himself’: (54) It.

Con le minacce, fecero accusare with the threats make.PST .3PL accuse.INF se stesso a Giovanni. himself to Giovanni ‘With threats, they made Giovanni accuse himself.’ (Burzio 1986, 264 (74))

When SE does not confer a reflexive interpretation, but marks semantically intransitive predicates, it is present in Spanish and absent in Italian, but it may be omitted in French (Enzinger 2010, 244) and in Catalan (Alsina 2002, 2436–2437).17 Catalan is more permissive: the French equivalent of (55d) would require SE . (55) a. Sp. b. It.

El viento hizo disipar=se las the wind make.PST .3SG dissipate.INF =SE the Il vento ha fatto dissipare le nubi. the wind have.3SG made dissipate.INF the clouds

nubes. clouds /*dissiparsi. /*dissipate=SE

17 In many languages, these ‘naturally reflexive verbs’ do not require a reflexive marker.

Causative and perception verbs

c. Fr.

d. Cat.

317

Le vent a fait (se) dissiper les nuages. the wind have.3SG made SE dissipate.INF the clouds ‘The wind made the clouds dissipate.’ (Zubizarreta 1985, 282 (89a) and 266 (57a)) Per què no li deixes rentar(?-se) les mans? let.2SG wash.INF =SE the hands why not 3SG .DAT ‘Why don’t you let him wash his hands?’ (Alsina 2002, 2436–2437)

Surprisingly, in Italian, when the main verb is VOIR instead of FAIRE , the reflexive clitic is allowed on the infinitive. (56) It.

Ho {visto /*fatto} svegliar=si have.1SG seen /made wake-up.INF =SE ‘I saw/*made the girl wake up.’ (Guasti 1993, 115)

la ragazza. the girl

Kayne (1975, 406) observed that the reflexivized verb behaves like an intransitive. In (57), the causee is accusative even though SE seems to lexicalize to the direct object. This behavior led to the hypothesis that reflexive SE is an intransitivizing verbal affix (Grimshaw 1982; Marantz 1984, 152; see Labelle 2008 for a criticism). (57) Fr.

a. La crainte du scandale a fait se the fear of.the scandal have.3SG made SE le frère du juge. the brother of.the judge b. *La crainte du scandale a fait se the fear of.the scandal have.3SG made SE au frère du juge. to.the brother of.the judge ‘Fear of scandal made the judge’s brother kill himself.’ (Kayne 1975, 407 (12))

tuer kill.INF

tuer kill.INF

It is probably not a coincidence that reflexive clitics are allowed on the infinitive precisely in languages where other clitics may remain downstairs. In Spanish and in Catalan, the objects of the infinitive may optionally remain downstairs (e.g. Bordelois 1988; Villalba 1992; 1994; Treviño 1994; Alsina 2002, 2433; Tubino Blanco 2011, 233). The resulting construction has features of ECM (downstairs clitics) and of FI (postverbal dative causee).

318

(58) Cat.

Marie Labelle

El Joan va fer comprar-ne the Joan PST .3SG make.INF buy.INF =GEN ‘Joan made Maria buy some of it.’ (Villalba 1992, 361–362 (29))

a la to the

Maria. Maria

In French this is marginally possible when the causee is cliticized: (59) Fr.

Je lui ai fait le made 3SG .M . ACC I 3SG .DAT have.1SG ‘I made him read it.’ (Baschung/Desmets 2000, 214 (23a))

lire. read.INF

This construction merits an independent study. If (58)−(59) are monoclausal, object clitics do not always target the functional domain, but may attach directly to V (cf. Cardinaletti/Shlonsky 2004 for restructuring verbs). This would explain the postverbal dative causee, but not why, when passivizing the main verb affects an embedded object, a dative clitic may not remain on the infinitive: (60) Cat.

a. La medalla de la ciutat li va the medal of the city 3SG .DAT PST .3SG feta donar. made give.INF b. *La medalla de la ciutat va ser PST .3SG be.INF the medal of the city feta donar-li. made give.INF =3SG .DAT ‘The medal of the city was caused to be donated to him.’ (Alsina 2002, 2435)

ser be.INF

If downstairs clitics signal a biclausal structure, (60) follows (the promotion of the embedded object requires a monoclausal structure), but not (58)−(59), nor (61), an FP construction with a downstairs clitic: (61) Sp.

Hicieron examinar=lo por make.PST .3PL examine.INF = 3SG . M . ACC by ‘They had him examined by a specialist.’ (Treviño 1994, 48 (49a))

un a

especialista. specialist

To account for the optionality of clitic climbing, Villalba (1994) relies on two independent operations: clitic adjunction and verb incorporation. When clitic adjunction precedes verb incorporation, object clitics surface on the infinitive. When verb incorporation precedes clitic adjunction, object clitics surface to the left of the complex predicate.

Causative and perception verbs

319

To summarize, the FI construction is monoclausal and bipredicative. The complement of FAIRE contains a structural subject whose case depends largely on the transitivity of the infinitive. The subject and objects of the infinitive normally cliticize on FAIRE ( excepted dative objects and reflexive clitics). There are crosslinguistic differences with respect to passivization and to the possibility of leaving clitics downstairs.

3.2 Faire-par In FP, the infinitival complement is a traditional VP, a constituent without external argument. The by-phrase is an optional adjunct. (62) Fr.

Elle fera [VP manger cette that she make.FUT .3SG eat.INF ‘She’ll have that apple eaten by Jean.’ (Kayne 1975, 235 (89a))

pomme (PP par apple by

Jean)]. Jean

In support of a VP complementation, it can be shown that the logical subject of the FP complement is not syntactically active. While in passives, the expression in a byphrase can control a null subject in an adjunct (63a), this is impossible in FP (63b) (Guasti 1993; 2006b). (63) It.

a. Questo edificio fu costruito (da Gaudìi) per PROi this building be.PST .3SG built by Gaudi to ottenere un premio. prize obtain.INF a ‘This building was built (by Gaudì) to obtain a prize.’ (Guasti 2006b (37a)) ha fatto attaccare i b. Il comandantei made attack.INF the the commanding.officer have.3SG PROi/*j avvisare nemici dal generale Custerj senza enemies by.the General Custer without inform.INF il governo. the government. ‘Without informing the government, the commanding officer made General Custer attack the enemies.’ (Guasti 1993, 100 (23))

The relation between causer and causee is more indirect in FP than in FI (Kayne 1975, 239–242). Hyman/Zimmer (1976, 199) observed that in (64a), the speaker’s objective is to affect the general, but in (64b), it is to get the toilets cleaned. The difference follows

320

Marie Labelle

if au Général in (64a) is an applied object with a Malefactive role (cf. 46), but (64b) contains only a bare VP. (64) Fr.

a. J’ ai fait [vP [VP nettoyer les clean.INF the I have.1SG made au Général]. to.the General ‘I made the General clean the toilets.’ les b. J’ ai fait [VP nettoyer clean.INF the I have.1SG made (par le Général)]. by the General ‘I had the toilets cleaned (by the General).’

toilettes] toilets

toilettes toilets

The causee in a by-phrase does not have subject properties and it does not c-command into the VP. No phrase anaphoric to the causee is possible in FP, contrary to FI (Kayne 1975, 236; Zubizarreta 1985; Burzio 1986, 250; Alsina 1993, 268; Folli/Harley 2007, 199). (65) Fr.

Elles ont fait peindre they have.3PL made paint.INF ‘They made Jean paint his house.’ (Zubizarreta 1985, 270 (47))

saj maison his house

à Jeanj. /*par Jeanj. to Jean /by Jean

The label faire-par is not optimal, since par ‘by’ is not always possible. Thus, a VP complementation is a logical option for complements lacking an external argument: unaccusative (66) (Burzio 1986, 228; Alsina 1993, 212; Guasti 2006b), or impersonal verbs (67), with which a by-phrase is impossible. (66) Fr.

On le fera one 3SG . M . ACC make.FUT .3SG ‘Someone will make him come.’

(67) Fr.

Cela a fait pleuvoir. that have.3SG made rain.INF ‘That made it rain.’ (Rouveret/Vergnaud 1980, 128 (108))

venir. come.INF

Moreover, Portuguese, Spanish, and Catalan speakers tend to reject sentences with a by-phrase, but accept them without it (Gonçalves 1999, 318; Moore 2010, 373; Espinal p.c.; Alsina 2002, 2430 for VOIR ). FP is monoclausal: the complement may contain neither auxiliaries nor clausal negation (68), and there is clitic climbing of the objects of the infinitive (69):

321

Causative and perception verbs

(68) Fr.

(69) Fr.

a. *Elle fera être bue cette that she make.FUT .3SG be.INF drunk par son chien. by her dog ‘She will have that water be drunk by her dog.’ (Kayne 1975, 25 (142)) b. *Elle la fera ne pas NEG not she 3SG . F . ACC make.FUT .3SG par son chien. by her dog ‘She will have it not be drunk by her dog.’ Marie l’ a faite Marie 3SG . ACC have.3SG made ‘Marie had it repaired by Jean.’

réparer repair.INF

eau water

boire drink.INF

par by

Jean. Jean

Contrary to FI, there is no constraint on cliticizing dative objects (see also (51a)): (70) It.

Glii fecero [VP sparare addosso ei da un upon by an 3SG .DAT make.PST .3PL fire.INF ‘They had him fired upon (by an agent).’ (Burzio 1986, 270–271 (92b))

agente]. agent

If accusative Case is assigned by a head introducing an external argument (Burzio 1986; Wurmbrand 2001; Pesetsky/Torrego 2011; Shimamura/Wurmbrand 2015), it must be assigned by FAIRE in, for instance, (62) and (66), since the VP does not contain an external argument. Indeed, the passive is possible in the various Romance languages (Burzio 1986, 254; Alsina 1993, 275; Rowlett 2007, 782; Tubino Blanco 2010, 337), except Portuguese (Gonçalves/Duarte 2001, 660). (71) Sp.

El edificio será hecho construir {por made build.INF {by the building be.FUT .3SG por los obreros}. by the workers} ‘The building will be made to be built {by the king/ by the workers}.’ (Tubino Blanco 2010, 337 (32))

el the

rey/ king/

The by-phrase may express the causer or the causee in Spanish (71), Catalan and Italian (Burzio 1986, 254; Alsina 1993, 275; Tubino Blanco 2010, 337), but in French, only the causee interpretation is possible.

322

Marie Labelle

In Spanish (72) and in French, the passive of FP is not always accepted, however (Kayne 1975, 244; Zubizarreta 1985; Rosen 1990, 28; Bouvier 2000; Rowlett 2007), and in Italian, it is ungrammatical with VOIR . It is unclear why the passive is not always possible. (72) Sp.

*Esos pasajes fueron hechos leer read.INF these passages be.PST .3PL made ‘These passages were made to be read (by Juan).’ (Rosen 1990, 28 (16c))

(por (by

(73) It.

La macchina fu {fatta /*vista} riparare repair.INF the car be.PST .3PL {made /seen} ‘The car was made/seen to be repaired (by Ugo).’ (modified from Guasti 1993, 116 (5))

Juan). Juan)

(da by

Ugo). Ugo

Although FP does not contain a passive auxiliary, when the complement is transitive, there are similarities with the passive. Some verbs with locative direct objects, which may not passivize, do not appear in FP although they are possible in FI (Kayne 1975, 247): (74) Fr.

a. Jean quittera ma maison demain. my house tomorrow Jean leave.FUT .3SG ‘Jean will leave my house tomorrow.’ b. *Ma maison sera quittée par Jean demain. left by Jean tomorrow my house be.FUT .3SG c. Je ferai quitter ma maison {à Jean /*par Jean} demain. I make.FUT .1SG leave.INF my house {to Jean /by Jean} tomorrow ‘I’ll have Jean leave my house tomorrow.’ (Kayne 1975, 237 (103)–(105))

French verbs that form a passive in de occur in a faire … de construction: (75) Fr.

a. Marie est haïe de tout le monde. Marie be.3SG hated of all the people ‘Marie is hated by everybody.’ b. Marie est arrivée à se faire haïr to SE make.INF hate.INF Marie be.3SG arrived de tout le monde. of all the people ‘Marie managed to get herself hated by everybody.’ (Kayne 1975, 238 (109))

Causative and perception verbs

323

In addition, non-passivizable idioms do not occur in FP. The Italian expression fare un tubo ‘make a tube’ has an idiomatic reading ‘achieve something’ that disappears in the passive. This reading is possible in FI, but not in FP (Burzio 1986, 265; Folli/Harley 2007; Alsina 1993, 194 for Catalan). (76) It.

a. Marco non ha fatto fare Marco NOT have.3SG made make.INF ‘Marco didn’t let Maria achieve anything.’ b. Marco non ha fatto fare Marco NOT have.3SG made make.INF ‘Marco didn’t have a tube made (by Maria).’ (Folli/Harley 2007, 200 (6)–(7))

un tubo a tube

a to

Maria. Maria

un tubo a tube

(da by

Maria). Maria

(76b) allows us to conclude that null causee sentences are instances of FP, contrary to Moore’s (2010) suggestion that they are ambiguous between FP and FI with an arbitrary null subject. If the version of (76b) without a by-phrase were ambiguous, the idiomatic reading should be available. This reasoning leads us to analyze (77) as an instance of FP, even though the by-phrase is impossible (Zubizarreta 1985, 264; Alsina 1993; 2002, 2430): (77) Cat.

En aquella escola fan treballar molt (*pels alumnes). in that school make.3PL work.INF much by.the students ‘In that school they make {(people)/*students} work a lot.’ (Alsina 1993, 208 (40))

The distribution of the by-phrase is slightly different in FP and in passives. Perception and psychological verbs form a passive with a by-phrase, but the by-phrase is usually rejected in FP (Alsina 1993; Guasti 2006b). (78) Cat.

a. La ciutat va ser vista pels turistes. PST .3SG be.INF seen by.the tourists the city ‘The city was seen by the tourists.’ b. He fet veure la ciutat (*pels turistes). by.the tourists have.1SG made see.INF the city ‘I had the city seen by the tourists.’ (Alsina 1993, 202 (34)–(35))

Alsina (1993, 194) and Guasti (2006b) argue that, in FP, the by-phrase is licensed when the infinitive has an object affected by the action.18 Folli/Harley (2007), for

18 For Guasti (2006b), this is a condition on the suppression of the external argument.

324

Marie Labelle

their part, propose that, in FP, (79).

FAIRE

selects a nominal complement, VPNom in

(79) Gianni ha fatto riparare la macchina da Mario. (Folli/Harley 2007, 208 (16b))

It has been claimed that the by-phrase in nominals introduces only an Agent whereas the passive by-phrase introduces the verb’s external argument whatever its thematic role.19 Therefore, a structure like (79) would explain why, neither in (80a) nor in (80b)/(78b), a by-phrase can introduce the external argument, which is not an Agent, but an Experiencer: (80) Sp.

a. *la vista de la ciudad por los turistas the sight of the city by the tourists b. *Hizo ver la ciudad por los turistas. by the tourists make.PST . 3SG see.INF the city ‘He made the city seen by the tourists.’ (Bordelois 1988, 89 (81) and (83))

Casting doubts on the nominal analysis is the fact that some Experiencer subjects may be realized with a by-phrase: (81) Cat.

Finalment, la Maria s’ ha fet finally the Maria SE have.3SG made seus alumnes. her students ‘Finally, Maria got her students to love her.’ (Alsina 1993, 207 (42a))

19 See Bruening (2013) for a critical review and an interesting analysis.

estimar love.INF

pels by.the

Causative and perception verbs

325

Serious problems with (79) arise when one tries to spell out what a nominal VP is. If V is nominalized, that is, inserted under a D node, its objects should be introduced by de ‘of’ as in nominals (e.g. Fr. l’arrivée de Pierre ‘the arrival of Pierre’). If nominalization takes place at the phrasal level, by inserting VP under DP, this DP should be opaque. FAIRE should case-mark it and not the object of the infinitive, passivizing FAIR E should affect the whole DP, and clitic climbing out of DP should be excluded. FAIRE Moreover, a nominal complement should not allow a reflexive pronoun on FAIRE to be associated with a position within the DP; but (82) shows that the reflexive construction is possible in FP (Burzio 1986, 249; Bordelois 1988, 74 fn. 12; Alsina 1993, 193; 2002, 2436; Tubino Blanco 2010, 344) – whereas FI excludes it, as we saw in (34). (82) It.

fatta [accusare ei (da Mariai sii è accuse.INF (by Maria SE be.3SG made ‘Maria made herself be accused by Giovanni.’ (Burzio 1986, 249 (46))

Giovanni)]. Giovanni)

In particular, the passive se faire construction is not explained by a nominal complement. In that construction, attested in French but not in the other Romance languages, the subject of se faire is associated with an empty position within the infinitival complement, accusative (83) or dative (84). The meaning is passive-like. (83) Fr.

Les habitants se sont fait surprendre pendant leur their the inhabitants SE be.3PL made surprise.INF during sommeil par l’ éruption du volcan. sleep by the eruption of.the volcano ‘The inhabitants were taken by surprise during their sleep by the eruption of the volcano.’ (Labelle 2013, 238 (7))

(84) Fr.

Pendant qu’ il était dans le coma, Paul s’ est the coma Paul SE be.3SG while that he be.IMPF .3SG in fait voler sa montre. made steal.INF his watch. ‘While he was in a coma, Paul had his watch stolen.’ (Washio 1995, 104 (63))

Labelle (2013) argued that there is no causative component of meaning, and no implicit causer in that construction. Since dative objects do not move to subject position in Romance, she proposed an analysis framed within Distributed Morphology that may be summarized as follows. Despite appearances, FAIRE is not a causative operator. It lexicalizes a CHANGE OF STATE verbal head meaning approximately come-to-be. The causative meaning of faire faire results from the introduction by Active Voice of an

326

Marie Labelle

external argument interpreted as the causer of the change of state (85). In passive se faire, SE heads a Non-Active Voice head that (i) prevents the merge of an external argument and (ii) selects an open predicate whose subject merges in the specifier of Non-ActiveVoice. The meaning of (86) is that Paul comes to be offered a position. (85) Fr.

[VoiceP LouiseCause Voice+Act [vP [VP √FAI - V [ V P offrir un poste LouiseCause (come-to-be) offer a position à Paul.]]]] to Paul

(86) Fr.

[VoiceP Paul [Voice–Act se] [VP √FAI - V Paul (come-to-be) (Labelle 2013, (39)–(40))

[ V P offrir un poste x]]] offer a position

This analysis changes our perspective on causative constructions.20 To summarize, FP is a monoclausal construction whose complement is a subjectless VP. There is clitic climbing of the embedded objects, including datives. Passivizing and reflexivizing FAIRE affects the internal argument of the infinitive. There are constraints on the use of the by-phrase.

4 Conclusion This chapter focused on three infinitival constructions involving causative and perception verbs. A summary of the characteristics of these three constructions is presented in Table 2. In a nutshell, the ECM construction is biclausal. The subject of the infinitive is marked accusative by the main verb, and the infinitival complement may contain a number of inflectional projections (auxiliaries, negation, object clitics). In the FI and FP constructions, the infinitival complement does not contain negation or auxiliaries, and clitics usually appear on the main verb. We argued that these constructions are monoclausal but bipredicative. The difference between the two is that in FI the complement contains a subject, but in FP it is a bare VP. In FI, the causee is usually accusative if the infinitive is intransitive, and dative if the infinitive is transitive. In FP, the external argument of the infinitive, if there is one, may be expressed in a by-phrase under certain conditions.

20 Se voir also has a passive interpretation (e.g. Gaatone 1998, 70; François 2000): (i) Fr. Il s’ est vu chasser de son pays par les autorités. he SE be.3SG seen throw.out of his country by the authorities ‘He was thrown out of his country by the authorities.’ Labelle (2003) suggested that (i) involves a bleached version of voir expressing a cognitive experience undergone by its subject (Lit. ‘He saw himself be thrown out …’).

Causative and perception verbs

327

Table 2: Summary of the main properties of the ECM, FI and FP constructions Faire faire ECM

FI

FP

Clausal structure

Biclausal

Monoclausal

Monoclausal

Domain

TP

vP

VP

• Position:

Preverbal

Postverbal



• Case:

Accusative

Accusative (intr. V) or dative (tr. V)

Optional by-phrase (where possible)

Object clitic climbing

No

Yes (except datives, reflexives)

Yes

Passivizing the main verb affects

Embedded subject

Embedded subject or object

Embedded object

Reflexive on the main verb



*



Reflexive on the infinitive



(cross-linguistic variation)

*

External argument of the infinitive

Many aspects of the constructions remain poorly understood. Among the unsolved problems are questions regarding case-assignment, cross-linguistic differences in passivization and reflexivization, and downstairs clitics. We hope to have succeeded in providing the reader with a relatively clear picture of the main aspects of the constructions, and a desire to solve some of the problems identified.

5 References Abeillé, Anne/Godard, Danièle (2003), Les prédicats complexes dans les langues romanes, in: Danièle Godard (ed.), Les langues romanes: problèmes de la phrase simple, Paris, CNRS Éditions, 125–184. Abeillé, Anne/Godard, Danièle/Miller, Philip (1997), Les causatives en français, un cas de compétition syntaxique, Langue française 115, 62–74. Ackerman, Farrell/Moore, John (1999), Syntagmatic and paradigmatic dimensions of causee encodings, Linguistics and Philosophy 22, 1–44. Aissen, Judith (1979), The Syntax of Causative Constructions, New York, Garland. Alsina, Alex (1993), Predicate Composition: A Theory of Syntactic Function Alternations, Stanford University, Ph.D. dissertation.

328

Marie Labelle

Alsina, Alex (2002), L’infinitiu, in: Joan Solà et al. (edd.), Gramàtica del català contemporani, Barcelona, Editorial Empúries, vol. 3, 2389–2454. Authier, Jean-Marc/Reed, Lisa (1991), Ergative predicates and dative cliticization in French causatives, Linguistic Inquiry 23, 197–205. Bailard, Joëlle Stépien (1982), Diachronic evidence and the form of French grammar, University of California at Los Angeles, Ph.D. dissertation. Baker, Mark (1988), Incorporation: A Theory of Grammatical Function Changing, Chicago, IL, The University of Chicago Press. Baschung, Karine/Desmets, Marianne (2000), On the phrasal vs clausal syntactic status of French infinitives: causative constructions and subject inversion, Journal of French Language Studies 10, 205–228. Bentley, Delia (2006), Split Intransitivity in Italian, Berlin/New York, De Gruyter. Bordelois, Ivonne A. (1974), The grammar of Spanish causative complements, MIT, Cambridge, MA, Ph.D. dissertation. Bordelois, Ivonne (1988), From lexicon to syntax, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6, 57–93. Bošković, Željko (1997), Coordination, object shift and V-movement, Linguistic Inquiry 28, 357– 365. Bossaglia, Giulia (2013), Inflected/non-inflected infinitive alternation in causative and perception constructions of contemporary European Portuguese: a corpus-based study, Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences 95, 220–230. Bouvier, Yves-Ferdinand (2000), How to passivize French causatives, Snippets 2, 6–7. Bruening, Benjamin (2013), “By”-phrases in passives and nominals, Syntax 16, 1–41. Burzio, Luigi (1986), Italian Syntax. A Government-Binding Approach, Dordrecht, Reidel. Cannings, Peter/Moody, Marvin D. (1978), A semantic approach to causation in French, Lingvisticæ Investigationes 2, 331–362. Cardinaletti, Anna/Shlonsky, Ur (2004), Clitic positions and restructuring in Italian, Linguistic Inquiry 35, 519–557. Cinque, Guglielmo (ed.) (2006), Restructuring and Functional Heads. The Cartography of Syntactic Structures Volume 4, Oxford, Oxford University Press. Ciutescu, Elena (2013a), Micro-parametric variation in Romance causative constructions, Bucharest Working Papers in Linguistics 15, 45–60. Ciutescu, Elena (2013b), Remarks on the infinitival subject of perception verb complements: evidence for two syntactic configurations, Revue roumaine de linguistique 53, 299–312. Comrie, Bernard (1981), Language Universals and Linguistic Typology, Oxford, Blackwell (Second edition 1989, Chicago, IL, The University of Chicago Press). Costantini, Francesco (2010), On the argument structure of the causative construction: evidence from scope interactions, in: Irene Franco/Sara Lusini/Andrés Saab (edd.), Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 2010: Selected Papers from “Going Romance”, Leiden 2010, Amsterdam/ Philadelphia, Benjamins, 203–220. Di Sciullo, Anna-Maria/Rosen, Sara T. (1991), Constructions à prédicats légers et quasi-légers, Revue québécoise de linguistique 20, 13–36. Enghels, Renata (2009), The syntactic position of the perceived participant as indicator of the internal structure of the Spanish and French infinitival complement, Linguistics 47, 759–791. Enghels, Renata (2012), Acusativo y dativo en la construcción factitiva: hacia un replanteamiento en términos multifactoriales, Revue Romane 47, 1–24. Enghels, Renata/Roegiest, Eugeen (2013), Voir passer et laisser passer: la syntaxe de la perception visuelle et de la causation négative en contraste, Revue roumaine de linguistique 58, 251–274. Enzinger, Stefan (2010), Kausative und perzeptive Infinitivkonstruktionen: Syntaktische Variation und semantischer Aspekt, Berlin, Akademie-Verlag.

Causative and perception verbs

329

Folli, Raffaella/Harley, Heidi (2007), Causation, obligation, and argument structure: on the nature of little v, Linguistic Inquiry 38, 197–238. Franco, Jon/Landa, Alazne (1995), An analysis of AGRo projections for Spanish causatives, Anuario del Seminario de Filología Vasca “Julio de Urquijo” 29, 199–218. François, Jacques (2000), Désémantisation verbale et grammaticalisation: “(se) voir” employé comme outil de redistribution des actants, Syntaxe et sémantique 2, 159–175. Frenda, Alessio S. (2015), The “fare” causative derivation in Italian, in: Brian Nolan/Gudrun Rawoens/ Elke Diedrichsen (edd.), Causation, Permission, and Transfer. Argument Realization in GET, TAKE, PUT, GIVE and LET Verbs, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, Benjamins, 425–461. Gaatone, David (1998), Le passif en français, Bruxelles, De Boeck/Duculot. Gonçalves, Anabela (1999), Predicados complexos verbais em contextos de infinitivo não preposicionado do Português Europeu, Universidade de Lisboa, doctoral dissertation. Gonçalves, Anabela (2001), Predicados complexos com verbos causativos e perceptivos do Português europeu, in: Clara Nunes Correia/Anabela Gonçalves (edd.), Actas do XVI Encontro Nacional da Associão Portuguesa de Linguística, Lisboa, APL, 227–239. Gonçalves, Anabela (2002), The causee in the faire-Inf construction of Portuguese, Journal of Portuguese Linguistics 1, 197–214. Gonçalves, Anabela/Duarte, Inês (2001), Construções causativas em Português europeu e em Português do Brasil, in: Clara Nunes Correia/Anabela Gonçalves (edd.), Actas do XVI Encontro Nacional da Associação Portuguesa de Linguística, Lisboa, APL, 657–671. Grimshaw, Jane (1982), On the lexical representation of Romance reflexive clitics, in: Joan Bresnan (ed.), The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations, Cambridge, MA, MIT Press, 87–148. Guasti, Maria Teresa (1993), Causative and Perception Verbs: A Comparative Study, Torino, Rosenberg & Sellier. Guasti, Maria Teresa (1996), Semantic restrictions in Romance causatives and the incorporation approach, Linguistic Inquiry 27, 294–313. Guasti, Maria Teresa (2006a), A cross-linguistic study of Romance and Arberesh causatives, in: Adriana Belletti (ed.), Parameters and Functional Heads: Essays in Comparative Syntax, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 209–238. Guasti, Maria Teresa (2006b), Analytic causatives, in: Martin Everaert/Henk van Riemsdijk (edd.), The Blackwell Companion to Syntax, Oxford, Blackwell, vol. 1, 142–172. Hornstein, Norbert/Martins, Ana Maria/Nunes, Jairo (2008), Perception and causative structures in English and European Portuguese: φ-feature agreement and the distribution of bare and prepositional infinitives, Syntax 11, 198–222. Hualde, José Ignacio (1992), Catalan, London/New York, Routledge. Hyman, Larry M./Zimmer, Karl (1976), Embedded topic in French, in: Charles N. Li (ed.), Subject and Topic, New York, Academic Press, 191–211. Kayne, Richard S. (1975), French Syntax: The Transformational Cycle, Cambridge, MA, MIT Press. Labelle, Marie (1996), Remarques sur les verbes de perception et la sous-catégorisation, Recherches linguistiques de Vincennes 25 (Numéro spécial Structure et interprétation), 83–106. Labelle, Marie (2003), Passive-like constructions in French, Paper presented at the 13th Colloquium on Generative Grammar, April 2–4, 2003, Ciudad Real, Spain. Labelle, Marie (2008), The French reflexive and reciprocal “se”, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 26, 833–876. Labelle, Marie (2013), Anticausativizing a causative verb: The passive “se faire” construction in French, in: Artemis Alexiadou/Florian Schäfer (edd.), Non-Canonical Passives, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, Benjamins, 235–260.

330

Marie Labelle

López, Luis (2001), The causee and the theory of bare phrase structure, in: Javier Gutiérrez-Rexach/ Luis Silva-Villar (edd.), Current Issues in Spanish Syntax and Semantics, Berlin/New York, De Gruyter, 221–241. Manandise, Daniel/Marin-Callejo-Manandise, Esmeralda (1983), Bad news about the “faire”-construction in French, Coyote Papers 4, 129–139. Marantz, Alec P. (1984), On the Nature of Grammatical Relations, Cambridge, MA, MIT Press. Martins, Ana Maria (1999), On the origin of the Portuguese inflected infinitive: a new perspective on an enduring debate, in: Laurel J. Brinton (ed.), Historical Linguistics 1999: Selected Papers from the 14th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Vancouver, 9–13 August 1999, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, Benjamins, 207–222. Mathieu, Éric (2003), French object agreement with verbs of perception, in: William E. Griffin (ed.), The Role of Agreement in Natural Language: TLS 5 Proceedings, Texas Linguistics Forum 53, 85–94. Miller, D. Gary (1993), Complex Verb Formation, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, Benjamins. Miller, Philip/Lowrey, Brian (2003), La complémentation des verbes de perception en anglais et en français, in: Philip Miller/Anne Zribi-Hertz (edd.), Essais sur la grammaire comparée du français et de l’anglais, Paris, Presses Universitaires de Vincennes, 133–190. Milner, Jean-Claude (1982), Ordres et raisons de langue, Paris, Seuil. Molinier, Christian (2005), Sur les constructions causatives figées du français, Linx 53, 197–216. Moore, John C. (2010), Object controlled restructuring in Spanish, in: Donna B. Gerdts/John C. Moore/ Maria Polinsky (edd.), Hypothesis A/Hypothesis B: Linguistic Explorations in Honor of David M. Perlmutter, Cambridge, MA, MIT Press, 361–381. Morin, Jean-Yves (1978), Une théorie interprétative des causatives en français, Lingvisticæ Investigationes 2, 363–417. Ordóñez, Francisco (2007), Cartography of postverbal subjects in Spanish and Catalan, in: Sergio Baauw/Frank Drijkoningen/Manuela Pinto (edd.), Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 2005: Selected papers from “Going Romance”, Utrecht, 8–10 December 2005, Amsterdam/ Philadelphia, Benjamins, 259–280. Pesetsky, David/Torrego, Esther (2011), Case, in: Cedric Boeckx (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Minimalism, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 52–72. Pitteroff, Marcel/Campanini, Cinzia (2013), Variation in analytic causative constructions: a view on German and Romance, Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 16, 209–230. Postal, Paul (1974), On Raising, Cambridge, MA, MIT Press. Raposo, Eduardo (1987), Case theory and Infl-to-Comp: The inflected infinitive in European Portuguese, Linguistic Inquiry 18, 85–109. Reed, Lisa (1991), The thematic and syntactic structure of French causatives, Probus 3, 317–360. Reed, Lisa (1992), On clitic case alternations in French causatives, in: Paul Hirschbühler/Konrad Koerner (edd.), Romance Languages and Modern Linguistic Theory, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, Benjamins, 205–223. Rivero, María Luisa (1991), Exceptional Case Marking effects in Rumanian subjunctive complements, in: Dieter Wanner/Douglas A. Kibbee (edd.), New Analyses in Romance Languages, Amsterdam/ Philadelphia, Benjamins, 273–298. Rochette, Anne (1988), Semantic and syntactic aspects of Romance sentential complementation, MIT, Cambridge, MA, Ph.D. dissertation. Rosen, Sara T. (1990), Argument Structure and Complex Predicates, New York, Garland. Rouveret, Alain/Vergnaud, Jean-Roger (1980), Specifying reference to the subject: French causatives and conditions on representations, Linguistic Inquiry 11, 97–202. Rowlett, Paul (2007), Cinque’s functional verbs in French, Language Sciences 29, 755–786.  

Causative and perception verbs

331

Shimamura, Koji/Wurmbrand, Susi (2015), The features of the voice domain: actives, passives, and restructuring, Ms., University of Connecticut. https://www.academia.edu/10345288/ The_features_of_the_voice_domain_actives_passives_and_restructuring (28.03.2015). Soares da Silva, Augusto (2012), Stages of grammaticalization of causative verbs and constructions in Portuguese, Spanish, French and Italian, Folia Linguistica 46, 513–552. Tily, Harry/Sag, Ivan A. (2006), A unified analysis of French causatives, in: Stefan Müller (ed.), Proceedings of the HPSG06 Conference, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Sofia (held in Varna), Stanford, CA, CSLI, 339–359. Tomić, Olga Mišeska (2006), Balkan Sprachbund Morpho-syntactic Features, Dordrecht, Springer. Torrego, Esther (2010), Variability and the case patterns of causative formation in Romance and its implications, Linguistic Inquiry 41, 445–470. Treviño, Estela (1994), Las causativas del español con complemento infinitivo, México, Colegio de México. Tubino Blanco, Mercedes (2010), Contrasting causatives: A minimalist approach, University of Arizona, Ph.D. dissertation. Tubino Blanco, Mercedes (2011), Causatives in Minimalism, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, Benjamins. Veland, Reidar (1998), Une construction dite ne pas exister en français moderne: le passif suivi d’un infinitif nu, Journal of French Language Studies 8, 97–113. Villalba, Xavier (1992), Case, incorporation, and economy: An approach to causative constructions, Catalan Working Papers in Linguistics 2, 345–389. Villalba, Xavier (1994), Clitic climbing in causative constructions, Catalan Working Papers in Linguistics 3, 123–152. Washio, Ryuichi (1995), Interpreting Voice: A Case Study in Lexical Semantics, Tokyo, Kaitakusha. Wurmbrand, Susi (2001), Infinitives: Restructuring and Clause Structure, Berlin/New York, De Gruyter. Zubizarreta, María Luisa (1985), The relation between morphophonology and morphosyntax: the case of Romance causatives, Linguistic Inquiry 16, 247–289.

Delia Bentley

9 Copular and existential constructions Abstract: This chapter discusses copular and existential constructions, starting from the assumption that the common property of these structures is that they have a nonverbal predicate. We introduce an inventory of Romance copulas and of semantically and syntactically different copular constructions, and we consider the syntax, morphosyntax and semantics of the complement of these structures. After providing a definition of existential construction, we examine the variation in copula agreement, the relationship between locative and existential predications, the Definiteness Effects and some information-structure properties of copular constructions.  

Keywords: copula, agreement, copular construction, existential construction, locative construction, specifying, identifying, ascriptive  

1 Introduction This chapter deals with copular and existential constructions. In the analyses that are adopted below, the property shared by these structures is that they have a non-verbal predicate. This is exemplified by the post-copular noun phrases in the following examples. (1)

It.

a. L’opzione A era la risposta the option A be.IMPF . 3SG the answer ‘Option A was the best answer.’ b. C’era una risposta migliore. PF be.IMPF . 3SG a answer better ‘There was a better answer.’

migliore.1 best

Apart from some negligible exceptions to be mentioned in due course, the constructions under investigation also exhibit a copula. However, we do not subsume existential structures under the generic label of copular construction because of their noncanonical morphosyntax, which is the manifestation of distinctive semantic and syntactic properties. In particular, Romance existentials do not have a canonical subject in pre-copular position, and their copula may host an etymologically locative

1 In the glosses we use the Leipzig abbreviations (https://www.eva.mpg.de/lingua/resources/ glossing-rules.php), with the following additions: SCL = subject clitic; EXP L = expletive form; IMPF = imperfect; IMPS = impersonal; PF = existential proform. DOI 10.1515/9783110377088-009

Copular and existential constructions

333

clitic (see ci in (1b)), which we call the existential proform. The latter is not found in all the Romance languages, as shown by the following European Portuguese example. (2)

EPt. (Nesta fruta) há muitas sementes. in.this fruit have.3SG many seeds ‘(In this fruit) there are many seeds.’

Unlike existentials, copular constructions have a canonical subject. The contrast between existential and copular constructions in Romance can thus provisionally be represented as in Table 1. Table 1: Copular and existential constructions Copular constructions

Existential constructions

subject + copula + non-verbal predicate

(proform+) copula + non-verbal predicate

The chapter introduces an inventory of Romance copulas and of semantically and syntactically different copular constructions. It also considers the syntax, morphosyntax and semantics of the complement of copular constructions; the variation in copula agreement; the relationship between locative and existential copular predications; the Definiteness Effects and information-structure related properties of the structures under investigation. After providing definitions for the various types of copular construction to be analyzed in the chapter (Section 2.1), we deal with their typology and syntax (Section 2.2), and then we discuss the Romance copulas (Section 2.3). In Section 3, we define existential constructions and introduce the relevant terminology (Section 3.1), we discuss the typology and syntax of existentials in Romance (Section 3.2), and, lastly, we address the issue of the Definiteness Effects (Section 3.3).

2 Copular constructions 2.1 Definitions We define copular constructions as structures with a subject, a copula and a nonverbal predicate. The copula spells out subject agreement features, alongside tense, aspect and mood (see ses ‘you.are’ in (3a)). It is thus obligatory in Romance, an exception being found in Romance-based creoles, which do not tend to exhibit a copula in the present tense if the predicate is an adjective (Green 1988, 454–457), cf. (3b).

334

Delia Bentley

(3) a. Nuorese Srd.

Ses kuntentu. be.IND .2SG happy ‘You are happy.’ Li gwo. he big ‘He is big.’ (Green 1988, 455)

b. Haitian Creole

There is no universally accepted criterion for distinguishing copulas from other verbs that combine with non-verbal predicates (Hoekstra/Mulder 1990, 2; FernándezLeborans 1999, 2359–2365). We place emphasis on copular constructions where the copula has zero valency, although in some cases it may have an aspectual function or impose selectional restrictions on its complement. Observe in passing that some verbs have copulative uses, i.e., can combine with non-verbal predicates, but can also subcategorize arguments of their own. An example of this is Spanish seguir ‘follow, continue’, which marks continuous aspect when it combines with a non-verbal predicate (cf. (4a,b)), but can also be a predicate with arguments of its own (cf. (4c)).  

(4) Sp.

a. Juan sigue enfermo. Juan continue.3SG ill ‘Juan is still ill/continues to be ill.’ b. Ahí sigue. there continue.3SG ‘S/he is still there.’ c. Juan sigue el ejemplo de Juan follow.3SG the example of ‘Juan follows his father’s example.’

su padre. his father

We consider three principal types of copular construction: predicative, specifying and identifying ones. Table 2: Principal types of copular constructions Copular constructions

Predicative

Specifying

Identifying

We define predicative constructions as copular structures that assign a property, a location or a possessor to an individual or an entity. Therefore, we further divide them into the subtypes illustrated in Table 3.

Copular and existential constructions

335

Table 3: Principal subtypes of predicative copular constructions

Predicative constructions

Ascriptive

Locative

Possessive

We call ascriptive (Huddleston 2002, 266) the copular constructions that ascribe a property to an individual or an entity. This property can be expressed by a nonreferential noun, an adjective or an adverb in post-copular position (cf. (5a)), exception being made for focalisation and topicalisation strategies which have limited grammaticality across the Romance languages (cf. (5b)). (5) a. Fr.

Il est un bon médecin. good doctor he be.3SG a ‘He is a good doctor.’ b. Rom. Vinovat numai Ion este. Ion be.3SG guilty.NOM . M . SG only ‘Only Ion is guilty.’ (Dragomirescu 2013b, 165–166)

A second subtype of predicative copular constructions is the one that Feuillet (1998a, 673) calls situatif ‘situating’. This is a structure that assigns a spatial or temporal location to an individual or an entity, and we therefore call it locative. (6) Cat.

a. Les tovalloles són al calaix. the towels be.3PL at.the drawer ‘The towels are in the drawer.’ b. La cursa serà demà. tomorrow the race be.FUT . 3SG ‘The race will be tomorrow.’

A third subtype of predicative construction is the possessive one, which assigns a possessor to a possessed entity. (7) Fr.

À qui est ce livre? to whom be.3SG this book ‘Whose book is this?’

Differently from predicative copular constructions, specifying ones are structures that define a variable, spelled out by a noun phrase in pre-copular position, and specify its value with a noun phrase in post-copular position (Huddleston 2002, 266).

336

(8) Sp.

Delia Bentley

El culpable soy the culprit be.1SG ‘I am the culprit.’

yo. I

Lastly, identifying copular constructions are copular structures that predicate a relation of identity between two individuals or entities described by two referential noun phrases. (9) It.

Quell’uomo è il collega con that man be.3SG the colleague with ‘That man is the colleague I work with.’

cui whom

lavoro. work.1SG

Although specifying constructions can be said to be inverse identifying constructions (Fernández-Leborans 1999, 2398; see also Moro 1997, 24–25), we keep these two types apart because they have different discourse and syntactic properties. In the next section, we analyze in more depth the constructions defined above, providing syntactic criteria to distinguish between predicative copular structures from the other two types of copular construction.

2.2 Romance copular constructions: typology and syntax The modern Romance languages exhibit unmarked subject-predicate word order in predicative copular constructions.2 While the predicand is a referential subject in subject position, the predicate is a post-copular adjectival, nominal, prepositional or adverbial phrase. (10) Cat.

a. En Tomeu és alt, ros, i fort de cames. and strong of legs the Tomeu be.3SG tall fair ‘Tomeu is tall, fair, and strong-legged.’ b. La Marta era mestra d’ escola. the Marta be. IMPF . 3SG teacher of school ‘Marta was a primary school teacher.’ c. Aquestes bicicletes són dels veïns. of.the neighbours these bicycles be.3SG ‘These bicycles belong to the neighbours.’ (Wheeler/Yates/Dols 1999, 522–525)

2 We refer to Dryer (²2007, 253–258) for a discussion of the complexities involved in the identification of basic or unmarked word orders in a language. By unmarked, in this context, we mean the word order that marks structures characterized by a topic vs (non-contrastive) comment bipartition.

337

Copular and existential constructions

(11) It.

Gianni sta bene. Gianni stay.3SG well ‘Gianni is well.’

In ascriptive predicative constructions, the post-copular phrase describes a property of the subject-referent. This can be an underived property (cf. (10a)) or a result state (cf. (12)) (Dixon 1982, 50). While underived properties are intrinsic properties of an individual or an entity, result states ensue from a prior event giving rise to them. (12) Cat.

El gerro està trencat. broken the jug be.3SG ‘The jug is (in the state of being) broken.’ (Wheeler/Yates/Dols 1999, 526)

The post-copular phrase can be considered to be a predicative complement, i.e., a grammatically and semantically distinct complement of the verb expressing a semantic predicate (Huddleston 2002, 252). Typically, predicative complements only combine with a restricted class of verbs (Huddleston 2002, 260), and indeed in ascriptive constructions we can only find a limited number of verbs (‘be’, ‘become’, ‘remain’). Case testifies to the status of the complement of ascriptive constructions as a subject predicative complement. Indeed, in Latin, it takes nominative case (cf. (13)), and this is also the case with Romanian. The adjectival phrase of ascriptive constructions furthermore agrees in gender and number with the subject (cf. (14a)), and so does the post-copular noun phrase, when the head noun varies for gender (cf. (14b)).  

(13) Lat.

Rosa pulchra beautiful.NOM . FSG rose.NOM . FSG ‘The rose is beautiful.’

est. be.3SG

(14) Rom. a. Ana este frumoasă. Ana be.3SG beautiful. NOM . FSG ‘Ana is beautiful.’ b. Ana este profesoară. Ana be.3SG teacher. NOM . FSG ‘Ana is a teacher.’ (Dragomirescu 2013b, 160) Vestiges of nominative case are also found in ascriptive constructions in Surselvan (Rhaeto-Romance), where an originally nominative masculine singular ending -s is now found on adjectives in predicative – though not attributive – function (Haiman 1988, 366–367; Haiman/Benincà 1992, 206–207).

338

Delia Bentley

(15) Sursilvan

/il um ej bun-s/ the man be.3SG good-PRED ‘The man is good.’ (Haiman 1988, 367)

The locative noun phrase which follows the copula in locative predicative constructions is also a predicative complement, since it is a distinct complement of the copula, whose semantic function of assigning a location to the subject-referent is comparable to that of assigning a property (Huddleston 2002, 257). (16) It.

Il mio ufficio è in centro. the POSS office be.3SG in centre ‘My office is in the city centre.’

Possessive copular constructions are comparable to locative ones, with the oblique possessor classifying as a predicative complement, insofar as it assigns a possessor to the subject-referent, it is a complement of V (be), and it only combines with a limited group of verbs (‘be’, or ‘become’, ‘remain’). (17) Rom. Casa este a Anei. house. DEF . NOM be.3SG POSS . ART . FSG Ana.GEN ‘The house is Ana’s.’ (Dragomirescu 2013b, 163) Specifying copular constructions specify a value for a given variable and, by contrast with predicative constructions, have default predicate-subject word order. The subject status of the post-verbal phrase is testified by its control of the finite – i.e., person and number – agreement features on the copula (cf. (18a)), as well as the ungrammaticality of extraction of an embedded constituent from this position (cf. (18b)) (Salvi 1991, 168–169; Moro 1997, 23–30; Fernández-Leborans 1999, 2415). The predicate-subject order reflects the discourse status of the post-verbal phrase, which is the comment or focus, i.e., the part of the assertion that is disclosed when the sentence is uttered. (In the translations of the examples, small caps indicate focus.)  



(18) It.

a. Il suo tesoro più prezioso sono due POSS treasure most precious be.3PL two the figli della sorella. children of.the sister W O CHILDREN OF HER SISTER ’ S are her most precious treasure.’ ‘T WO

Copular and existential constructions

339

b. *Di quale sorella pensi che il suo the POSS of which sister think.2SG that tesoro più prezioso siano due figlİ? children treasure more precious be.SBJV .3PL two ‘Of which sister do you think that her most precious treasure are two children?’ In French the copula seemingly agrees in number with the post-verbal phrase if it agrees with the pre-verbal one (cf. (19a)). Otherwise, the predicative phrase is dislocated, in which case the copula can agree with a neuter subject pronoun (ce) or with the post-copular phrase (cf. (19b)). (19) Fr.

a. Mes plus chères amies sont Marie et Aurélie. my most dear friends be.3PL Marie and Aurélie ‘M ARIE AND A URÉLIE are my dearest friends.’ b. Son problème le plus grave, c’ est / POSS problem the most serious CL be.3SG ce sont ses dettes. CL be.3PL POSS debts ‘H IS / HER DEBTS are his / her most serious problem.’

The Romance languages that allow non-contrastive focus in a pre-verbal position can exhibit subject-copula order in specifying copular constructions. (20) Sic.

U fissa si’ tu the idiot be.2SG you ‘Y OU are the idiot.’

/

tu si’. you be.2SG

There is a range of syntactic tests to tell apart predicative constructions from specifying ones. In a number of Romance languages (Spanish, Catalan, French, Occitan, see Wheeler 1988, 271, Italo-Romance, etc.), the complement of predicative copular constructions can be replaced by a pro-predicative pronoun (cf. (21a,b)), while the postverbal noun phrase of specifying constructions cannot (cf. (22a,b)). This test is not available in Romanian (Dragomirescu 2013b, 162). (21) It.

a. Anna è insegnante. Anna be.3SG teacher ‘Anna is a teacher.’ b. Anna lo è. Anna it be.3SG ‘Anna is it.’

340

(22) It.

Delia Bentley

a. L’ insegnante di matematica è Anna. Anna the teacher of maths be.3SG ‘A NNA is the maths teacher.’ b. *L’ insegnante di matematica lo è. the teacher of maths it be.3SG ‘The maths teacher is it.’ [intended reading: … is Anna]

The complement of predicative constructions can also be clefted and relativized (Salvi 1991, 168) (cf. (23a)), whilst the post-copular phrase of specifying constructions cannot (cf. (23b)). (23) It.

a. È la mia insegnante di matematica che of maths that is the POSS teacher Anna è sempre stata. always been Anna be.3SG ‘It is my maths teacher that Anna has always been.’ b. *È Anna che la mia insegnante di POSS teacher of is Anna that the matematica è sempre stata. always been maths be.3SG

Furthermore, extraction of an embedded constituent from the post-copular position of predicative constructions is grammatical (cf. (24a,b)), while, as was pointed out above, this is not the case with specifying constructions (cf. (18b)). This suggests that, in specifying constructions only, the post-copular position is taken by the subject. (24) It.

a. Quel collegao di mio marito è un amico a friend that colleague of POSS husband is di mia sorella. of my sister ‘That colleague of my husband’s is a friend of my sister’s.’ b. Di chi pensi che quel collega di colleague of of who think.2SG that that mio marito sia un amico? POSS husband be.SBJV . 3SG a friend ‘Whose friend do you think that colleague of my husband’s is?’

Bosque (1993) and Fernández-Leborans (1999, 2381–2382) also note that only the subject of predicative constructions can have cataphoric reference in Spanish.

Copular and existential constructions

(25) Sp.

El __i del casino era un presidentei president the of.the casino be.IMPF .3 SG a ‘That of the casino was a charismatic president.’

341

carismático. charismatic

Identifying copular constructions establish a relation of identity between two referential expressions. They have subject-predicate order and are not easily distinguished from predicative copular sentences. However, if the post-copular noun phrase is highly specific, in the sense that it is co-referential with an established discourse referent (Enç 1991), or otherwise modified by a restrictive relative clause (Salvi 1991, 166; Fernández-Leborans 1999, 2371–2375), the construction lends itself to being analyzed as identifying.3 (26) Sp.

It.

a. Si yo fuese tú… if I be.IMPF . SBJV .3 SG you ‘If I were you…’ b. Gianni è lo zio di mio marito che abita my husband REL live.3SG Gianni be.3SG the uncle of a New York. in New York ‘Gianni is the uncle of my husband who lives in New York.’

In addition, identifying constructions reject progressive aspect and imperative mood. (27) Sp.

a. *Pedro está siendo el Pedro be.3SG be.PROG the ‘Pedro is being Malena’s brother.’ b. *No seas el hermano NEG be.SBJV .2 SG the brother ‘Don’t be Malena’s brother.’

hermano de Malena. brother of Malena de Malena. of Malena

In Chomskyan frameworks, the predicative complement of copular constructions has been claimed to be part of a Small Clause, which, in turn, is a sister of the copula V (be) (see, e.g., Hoekstra/Mulder 1990). (28) S [NPi [VP V(be) [SC ti XP]]] The pre-copular NP is the argument of the XP in the Small Clause, from which it moves to the subject position. This analysis correctly treats the post-copular XP as the

3 Some accounts of identifying constructions claim that these must have a pronominal deictic subject (cf. Roy 2009, 50–51, and references therein).

342

Delia Bentley

predicate, rather than an object in the sister of V position, reflecting also the failure for the copula to assign an external theta role (Hoekstra/Mulder 1990, 2, 10). As for specifying copular constructions, which have their subject in post-copular position, Moro (1997, 35) proposes that these are inverse copular constructions in which it is the predicate that moves out of the Small Clause in the sister of V position to reach the SpecIP position.4 This analysis is extended to ci- ‘there’ constructions in Italian, as will be seen in Section 3. Here we also provide an example of the treatment of copular constructions in Van Valin’s (2005) framework, which captures linguistic structure in terms of the discourse-semantics-syntax linking. In this analysis, the argumental and, respectively, predicative status of the two non-verbal phrases is shown in the semantics. (29) a. b.

This man is my brother. be' (this man, [my brother'])

In the semantic representation in (29b), be' is not the copula, but rather the marker of the predicative relation between the two non-verbal phrases. The pre-copular phrase takes an argument position and bears the thematic role assigned by the predicate. The post-copular phrase takes a predicative position, as indicated by its occurrence within square brackets, describing a property of the argument. In syntax, the predicative phrase is mapped to the Nucleus, which is the syntactic locus of the predicate. The pre-copular argument takes the immediately pre-nuclear position, which is the default subject position in SVO languages. (30) [Clause [Core This man [Nucleus is my brother]]] The same semantic analysis captures specifying constructions, their different word order being motivated in terms of the role of discourse in the linking. In particular, the argument takes the immediately post-nuclear position in syntax, i.e., the default position of focal subjects in SVO languages that allow subject-verb inversion.  

2.3 The Romance copulas In classical Latin, the principal copula of predicative copular constructions is ESSE ‘be’. While FIERI is primarily attested in the sense of ‘become’, STARE ‘stand’ as a copula is marginal (Bentley/Ciconte 2016). Indeed, STARE has two principal meanings in Classical Latin, ‘stand’1, with animate subjects, in the sense of ‘being in an upright position’, and ‘stand’2, with inanimate subjects, in the sense of ‘being situated’, and

4 Observe that Moro (1997) does not use the term “specifying” for these constructions.

Copular and existential constructions

343

‘stay’ (Pountain 1982, 144; see also Peral Ribeiro 1958, 149–150). Possessives can be formed with ESSE ‘be’ or HABERE ‘have’, the latter becoming predominant in Late Latin.5 HABERE ‘have’ is then replaced by TENERE ‘hold’ in some Italo-Romance and Ibero-Romance languages. In the transition to Romance, the copula STARE progressively loses its original meaning ‘stand’1, and is more frequently attested in ascriptive and locative structures. Although STARE is found in Old Provençal (Blasco Ferrer 2003, 57–58), this verb is not as successful as a copula in early Gallo-Romance as it is in early Ibero-Romance and Italo-Romance (Pountain 1982, 146–159). The past participle of STARE is, however, part of the paradigm of ESSE in a number of Romance languages (French été, Provençal and Catalan estat, Italian stato, Rhaeto-Romance štaus, stat, etc.; see Peral Ribeiro 1958, 153–159). In Modern Ibero-Romance, including Catalan, and in Southern Italo-Romance, 6 ESSE and STARE alternate in predicative copular constructions. This alternation can be analyzed in terms of the individual-level vs stage-level contrast. Thus, copular constructions with ESSE can be said to describe inherent properties of individuals, while copular constructions with STARE describe stages or contingent properties (Carlson 1977; Kratzer 1995). (31) Sp.

a. Juan es aburrido. Juan be.3SG boring ‘Juan is boring.’ b. Juan está enfermo. Juan be.3SG ill ‘Juan is ill.’

Another influential view is that the ser/estar alternation in Spanish is aspectually determined, although there is no agreement on whether estar selects predicates that indicate perfectivity or change of state (Camacho 2015, 174). Importantly, it is not clear whether the alternation can be reduced to a single principle (Leonetti/Pérez-Jiménez/Gumiel-Molina 2015). Leonetti (2015) offers an explanation of the contrast between ser and estar that relies on the interplay of lexical aspect with focus structure. He claims that Spanish predications with estar are linked to a contextually salient circumstance or situation (see also Maienborn 2005). This explains why such predications are found in VSX order, since this order is indicative of wide focus, where a contingent event or state is predicated of a contextually salient

5 We will only discuss HABE RE as a copula of existential constructions, since its status as a predicate or HABE RE as a a copula in possessive constructions is not uncontroversial. For an analysis of possessive HABERE non-predicative verb that inherits its argument see La Fauci/Loporcaro (1997). 6 This alternation is virtually unknown to a number of Italo-Romance dialects (Gallo-Italian in the North, Sicilian in the extreme South, etc.), French and Romanian. For some very limited evidence of it in Italian and Romanian, we refer to Bentley/Ciconte (2016).

344

Delia Bentley

circumstance or situation. Ser, on the other hand, is normally incompatible with VSX order, since it is the copula of individual-level predicates. We provide some evidence of the ESSE /STARE alternation here. In Spanish, an adjective following estar cannot be construed as a classificatory or inherent property of the subject referent (Pountain 1982, 141). The same holds true of adjectives following estar in European Portuguese, although this copula is claimed to figure more scarcely in Portuguese than in Spanish (Peral Ribeiro 1958, 175–176). Similar considerations are valid for Galician and Catalan. (32) a. Sp.

María es española/ está cansada/ está be.3SG tired be.3SG María be.3SG Spanish comprometida. engaged b. Gal. Maria é española/ está cansa/ está be.3SG tired be.3SG Maria be.3SG Spanish comprometida. engaged c. Majorcan Cat. Na Maria és espanyola/ està cansada/ Spanish be.3SG tired the Mary be.3SG està promesa. be.3SG engaged ‘Maria is Spanish/tired/engaged.’

Such alternations suggest that ESSE and STARE can select for different classes of lexical predicates as their complement (see Leonetti/Pérez-Jiménez/Gumiel-Molina 2015 for in-depth discussion of this issue). E SSE and STARE alternate with some adjectival predicates, in which case the meaning of the construction changes accordingly: Sp. ser/estar borracho ‘be a drunk/be drunk’, ser/estar pálido ‘have white complexion/be (become) pale’, ser/estar listo ‘be intelligent/be ready’, ser/estar guapo ‘be goodlooking/look good’, etc. The compatibility of estar with some individual-level predicates is explained by Leonetti (2015) in terms of an evidential construal, which links the predication to a source, for example a person’s experience, thus relativizing the predication and providing the contextually salient situation required by estar. (33) Sp.

John Goodman está genial en John Goodman be. 3SG great in ‘John Goodman is great in that film.’

esa película. that film

We should add that STARE does not figure in specifying or identifying constructions, as shown in (34a) and (34b), respectively.

Copular and existential constructions

La Presidenta es / *está ella. be.3SG she the President be.3SG ‘S HE is the President.’ b. Gal. Este é / *está o doutor que be.3SG the doctor who this be.3SG curou. healed ‘This is the doctor who healed me.’

345

(34) a. Sp.

me me

A challenge for the account of the ESSE -vs-STARE alternation in terms of the stage-level vs individual-level dichotomy is posed by the occurrence of the latter copula in predications indicating permanent location in Spanish and Galician, though not Catalan. (Valencian does exhibit estar in copular expressions of location and time, see Wheeler/Yates/Dols 1999, 523). (35) a. Sp.

La casa que se quemó está cerca. be.3SG close the house which REFL burnt b. Gal. A casa que ardeu está preto daquí. of.here the house which burnt be.3SG close c. Majorcan Cat. Sa casa que se va cremar REFL AUX burn the house which és aquí prop. be.3SG here close ‘The house which burnt down is nearby.’

Notably, predications of origin require ESSE in Spanish, in accordance with the alleged restriction to individual-level predicates. (36) Sp.

Soy de Madrid. from Madrid be.1SG ‘I am from Madrid.’

In European Portuguese, ser indicates permanent position, whereas estar indicates temporary position (Willis ²1971; Feuillet 1998a, 695). In this language ficar ‘be situated’ is another copula of predicative copular constructions which indicate permanent position.7

7 For the EESSE SSE / STARE alternation in southern Italo-Romance we refer to Ledgeway (2008; 2009, 648– 658). For a more detailed treatment of the copulas of locative copular predications in other Romance languages we refer to Bentley/Ciconte (2016).

346

Delia Bentley

While ESSE is the auxiliary of the verbal passive, the copula STARE figures with adjectival passives, where it co-occurs with adjectival participles expressing result states (Dixon 1982, 50). This copular construction with STARE is not only found in Ibero-Romance (cf. (37a)), but also in southern Italo-Romance (cf. (37b)). (37) a. Cat.

El gerro està trencat. broken the jug be.3SG ‘The jug is broken.’ (Wheeler/Yates/Dols 1999, 526) b. Nap. Stiveve nu poco vìppeto. little drunk be.PST . 2PL a ‘You were a little drunk.’ (Bentley/Ledgeway 2014, 78)

In addition to resultative copular constructions with STARE , Romance exhibits a number of inchoative or resultative constructions with copulative verbs followed by an adjectival phrase (e.g., Fr. se faire, (re)tomber, tourner, EPt. ficar, Sp. acabar, meter (se), quedar(se), volver(se), Cat. quedar(-se), posar(-se), It. restare, rimanere, Rom. a deveni, a se face ‘become’). In addition, there is a continuative type (Sp. seguir, Fr. rester, It. restare, rimanere, Rom. a rămâne ‘continue, remain’). In these structures, the verb can be said solely to contribute an aspectual meaning to the construction, whilst the subject is the argument of the non-verbal predicate phrase, in agreement with the analyses discussed in Section 2.2. (38) a. Fr.

Elle est tombée malade. ill she be.3SG fall.PTCP . F ‘She got ill.’ b. Pt. Fiquei assombrado ao ouvir as notícias. become.PST .1SG astonished at.the hear.INF the news ‘I was astonished to hear the news.’ c. Rom. Ei au rămas prieteni. friends they have.3PL remain.PTCP ‘They have remained friends.’ (Dragomirescu 2013a, 80)

3 Existential constructions 3.1 Definitions and relevant terminology Drawing upon McNally (2011, 1830), we define Romance existential constructions as copular structures with specialized or non-canonical morphosyntax which describe existence or presence (or lack thereof) in a contextual domain. Observe the contrast between (39a) and (39b). Whereas the existential construction in (39a) exhibits the proform-plus-copula cluster and the marked V(be)-NP order, the copular construction

Copular and existential constructions

347

in (39b) has a canonical subject in pre-copular position and no proform. In addition, the content of (39a) can only be understood with reference to an implicit spatiotemporal context, whereas the content of (39b) is not limited to an implicit domain. The latter observation also holds true of the sentence with the lexeme EXIST in (39c). (39) It.

a. Non

è caffè be.3SG coffee ‘There is no good coffee.’ b. Il caffè non è be.3SG the coffee NEG ‘The coffee is not good.’ c. Il caffè buono non NEG the coffee good ‘Good coffee does not exist.’ NEG

c’

PF

buono. good buono. good esiste. exist.3SG

Rather than postulating an unexpressed predicate of existence in existential constructions, we follow Francez (2007; 2010) in analyzing the post-copular non-verbal phrase of these structures as their predicate and in treating their contextual domain as an implicit – or semantically unspecified – argument (see also Cruschina 2012; 2015; Bentley 2015a,b). In accordance with this analysis, existentials contrast with the other types of copular construction in terms of their argument structure, as well as their overt morphosyntax, and, thus, Table 1 from Section 1 can be revised as follows. Table 4: Copular and existential constructions (revised) Copular constructions

specified argument + non-verbal predicate subject + copula + non-verbal predicate

Existential constructions

implicit argument + non-verbal predicate (proform +) copula + non-verbal predicate

The components of the existential construction are normally referred to with the following terminology. (40) (PP = coda +) (expletive +) (proform +) copula + XP = pivot (+ PP = coda) The coda is a prepositional phrase, which can occur in pre- or post-copular position (see in sa früta ‘in this fruit’ in (41));8 the expletive is a non-referential and non-argumental subject pronoun (Fr. il, Ligurian u, etc.); the existential proform is a putatively locative

8 We analyze putatively existential constructions with an adjectival coda (e.g., There are firemen available) as pseudo-existential presentational constructions. These will be briefly discussed below.

348

Delia Bentley

clitic hosted by the copula (Cat. hi, Fr. y, It. ci, Ligurian i, etc.). Finally, the pivot (terminology from Milsark 1974; 1977) is the post-copular noun phrase. (41) Rocchetta Cairo, Ligurian

In sa früta chì u i in this fruit here EXPL PF tante smenze. many seeds ‘In this fruit there are many seeds.’

è be.3SG

Cross-linguistically, the pivot is the only obligatory component, and hence the defining feature, of the existential construction. Whilst the copula is a pan-Romance feature of the construction, the other components listed above are not, a point to which we return in Section 3.2. Enumerative or contextualized existentials (Abbott 1992; 1993; see also Rando/ Napoli 1978) are existential constructions by the definition provided above, their peculiarity being that they express a proposition about the presence or availability of an individual or an entity in a context that is explicit and pre-determined in discourse. In these structures, the pivot is only new and relevant in relation to the given context. While being focal, i.e., introduced as part of the assertion, it can however already be known to the hearer.  

(42) Salentino Apulian

Pe stu problema m’ eri dittu for this problem to.me were said ca avia a tie. that have.IMPF . 3SG ACC you ‘For this problem you had said to me that you would be available.’

One needs instead differentiate between existentials proper and pseudo-existential presentational constructions (Cruschina 2012; 2015; see also Berruto 1986; Leonetti 2008; Villalba 2013), which consist of a post-copular noun phrase and a following adjectival/prepositional phrase or pseudo-relative clause. (43) Nuorese Srd. B’est su direttore (ch’ est) PF be.3SG the director who be.3SG arrennegato oje. angry today Menzus a non brullare. NEG joke.INF better to ‘T HE DIRECTOR IS ANGRY TODAY . We’d better not mess about.’

Copular and existential constructions

349

These sentences only differ in information structure terms from their counterparts without a copula and a relative pronoun. The post-copular noun phrase is not a predicate here, but rather an argument, which is marked as part of the focus by the copula-NP word order, whereas the following phrase serves as the predicate of the construction.

3.2 Romance existential constructions: typology and syntax The existential proform is exhibited by many Romance languages: northern ItaloIC / ILLIC / IBI / ILLI , Benincà 2007), Logudorese/Nuorese bi, Italian Romance gh(e) (< j < HHIC vi (< IBI , Wagner 1960, 610; Blasco Ferrer 2003, 61), Italian ci (< ECCE HIC , Rohlfs 1969, 249; or HINCE , Maiden 1995, 167), Catalan hi (< IBI , Badía Margarit 1951, 266), French y, Provençal i (< IBI , HIC , Blasco Ferrer 2003, 61), Aragonese en (< HINC , Blasco Ferrer 2003, 61), Logudorese/Nuorese/Campidanese (n)che, (n)ci (< HINC ( E ), Wagner 1960, 624), Italo-Romance nd(i), ne (< INDE , Maiden 1995, 167). (44) a. Fr.

Il

y

EXPL

PF

a have. 3SG

plusieurs several

pépins seeds

dans ce in this

fruit. fruit b. It. Ci sono molti semi in questa frutta. PF be.3PL many seeds in this fruit c. Genoa, Ligurian In sta früta u gh’ é EXPL PF be.3SG in this fruit tanti ossi. many seeds ‘There are many seeds in this fruit.’ The proform is not found in Romanian, which maintains the Latin existential pattern,9 European and Brazilian Portuguese, as well as a number of Friulian, Venetan, and southern Italo-Romance dialects. (45) a. Rom. În in b. EPt.

acest fruct sunt multe many this fruit be.3PL Nesta fruta há muitas many in.this fruit have.3SG c. BPt. Tem muitos caroços nessa fruta. many seeds in.this fruit have.3SG

seminţe. seeds sementes. seeds

9 Although the copula HABE RE surfaces in concomitance with negation in this language (see Lombard 1994, 273).

350

Delia Bentley

d. Belluno, Venetian Te sti fruti qua l’ é tanti be.3SG many in these fruits here SCL semi. seeds e. Genzano, Lucanian Entə a sta frottə stannə inside to this fruit be.3PL tanta semə. many seeds. ‘In this fruit there are many seeds.’ In Ibero-Romance, the proform is either missing or lexicalized as part of present tense forms of the paradigm of the copula H ABERE (European Spanish, Galician, Asturian). Thus, the final segment of present tense ha-i in Galician derives from a locative clitic (Blasco Ferrer 2003; Benincà 2007; cf. (46a)), and it is absent both from the imperfect tense of the same copula (cf. (46c)) and from the present tense of non-copular ‘have’ (cf. (46b)). Catalan does exhibit the proform hi (cf. (46d)). (46) a. Gal. Non ha-i ningún problema. NEG have.3SG -PF any problem ‘There’s no problem.’ b. Gal. Ha de estar canso. be.INF tired have.3SG of ‘He must be tired.’ c. Gal. Había un presidente na reunión. president in.the meeting have.IMPF .3SG a ‘There was a President in the meeting.’ d. Cat. Hi havia un estudiant a la reunió. PF have.IMPF . 3SG a student at the meeting ‘There was a student at the meeting.’ Although the existential proform does not normally have a deictic function, deictic existential proforms have been found in Logudorese and Campidanese Sardinian dialects (Bentley 2011). Thus, ddoi is a distal proform in the dialect of Villacidro, and, as a consequence, it does not combine with a locative phrase indicating proximity to the speaker. (47) Campidanese Srd. In *custa/cussa (v)ia ddoi at PF have.3SG in this that road unas cantus domus. some houses ‘In this/that road there are some houses.’

Copular and existential constructions

351

Ddoi has also acquired the function of an evidential strategy, marking the content of the existential proposition as reported information (Bentley 2011). Those among the Romance languages that do not license phonologically null subjects require an expletive subject in existentials (Fr. il, cf. (48a)). Many northern Italo-Romance dialects require a non-agreeing subject clitic in these structures; see Ligurian u, in (48b), which is the third person singular masculine form of the subject clitic in this dialect (Forner 1997, 250). Some such dialects exhibit the form a, which does not have canonical subject-clitic properties (Benincà 1994; Bernini 2012, cf. (48c)). Finally, some Friulian dialects require copula-pivot agreement, exhibiting an agreeing subject clitic in existentials (Benincà 1997, 123; Vanelli 1987, 184). (In the glosses we indicate all non-agreeing clitics in subject position as EXPL . ) (48) a. Fr.

Il

n’

y

EXPL

NEG

PF

a have.3SG

‘There is no hope.’ b. Rocchetta Cairo, Ligurian U

pas NEG

d’ espoir. of hope

è der pòsc-t per be.3SG some space for di otre cà int es paìs chì. some other houses in this village here ‘There is space for other houses in this village.’ A gh’ è di pac ind’el EXPL PF be.3SG some parcels in the magasì. storehouse ‘There are some parcels in the storehouse.’ EXPL

c. Bergamo, Lombard

i

PF

As for the copulas, ESSE is the sole agreeing or non-agreeing copula in a number of Romance languages (cf. (45a) and, respectively, (48c)). An exception to the pattern with no agreement is found in existentials with pivots that are personal pronouns, since these systematically control agreement on the copula ESSE , though variation is found in the third person. (49) Genoa, Ligurian

Maria Maria Ghe

l’

é no sola. be.3SG NEG alone semu nui atri. PF be. 1PL we others Ghe sun gli atri. PF be. 3PL the others. ‘Maria is not alone (in life). There’s us/them.’ SCL . 3SG

352

Delia Bentley

H ABERE ‘have’ can be considered to have been a proper existential copula since Late Latin (Zamboni 2000, 106). It is attested as a sole copula or in alternation with ESSE or STARE . It is normally a non-agreeing copula (cf. (45b)), although it does exhibit person and number agreement with the pivot in the Franco-Provençal dialect spoken in Celle di San Vito, Puglia (Manzini/Savoia 2005, vol. 3, 66), central Catalan dialects (Rigau 1997), and several varieties of European and Latin American Spanish (Rodríguez Mondoñedo 2006; Brown/Rivas 2012). S TARE is usually an agreeing copula (cf. (45f)), although number agreement is optional in the Abruzzese (ItaloRomance) dialect of Castiglione Messer Marino (Bentley/Ciconte/Cruschina 2015, 177). Spoken Brazilian Portuguese has the invariant, third person singular, copula tem ‘hold/have.3SG ’ (cf. (45c)), while, in higher registers, STARE alternates with HABERE . We discuss agreement in Section 3.3. In Table 5 (drawn from Bentley/ Cruschina 2016) we provide a synopsis of the patterns discussed so far, abstracting away from expletives. Table 5: Patterns of variation in Romance existentials Proform

Copula

Agreement Languages

+

esse

+

Italian and some central and southern Italo-Romance dialects; Corsican; Sardinian (in most Nuorese and Logudorese varieties only with definite pivot); Catalan (with personal pronouns).

+

esse



Northern Italo-Romance dialects and Tuscan (+agr with 1st/2nd or 1st/2nd/3rd pronouns).



esse

+

Romanian, some Friulian dialects.



esse



Northern Venetan dialects (+agr with 1st/2nd pronouns), Ladin, Romansh.



habere



Spanish, Asturian, Galician and European Portuguese (indefinite pivot); Salentino and Calabrian dialects (also with definite pivots, including personal pronouns).

+

habere



Sardinian (indefinite pivots); Catalan (not with personal pronouns); French, some Calabrian dialects (also with definite pivots, including personal pronouns).

+

habere

+

Some central Catalan dialects (not with personal pronouns), Celle di San Vito (Puglia).



tenere



Brazilian Portuguese.

+

stare

+

Central and upper southern Italo-Romance dialects.



stare

+

Capri and some Apulian dialects.

Copular and existential constructions

353

In many Romance languages pronominal pivots take nominative case.10 This is expected when the pivot is also the controller of finite agreement on the copula (cf. (50a)), thus behaving as a post-verbal subject. Observe, however, that in Spoken Brazilian Portuguese, the invariant copula tem ‘have.3SG /hold.3SG ’ co-occurs with nominative pronominal pivots (cf. (50b)). Contrastingly, the southern Italo-Romance dialects with invariant HABERE as their sole copula unambiguously mark the pivot with accusative case, as testified by differential object marking (Sornicola 1997; Bossong 1998, among others) (cf. (50c)). (50) a. Isernia, Molisan

N’



NEG

REFL

preoccupà ca worry that

cə PF

stenghə i. 1SG . NOM be.1SG ‘Do not worry: there’s me.’ b. Spoken BPt. Tem eu. 1SG . NOM hold.3SG ‘There’s me.’ c. Salentino Apulian Ave a mie. ACC I have.3SG ‘There’s me.’ In semantics, the pivot is the predicate of existential sentences (La Fauci/Loporcaro 1993; 1997; Zamparelli 2000; Francez 2007; Cornilescu 2009; Cruschina 2012; Bentley 2015b,c), since it is the only component of the construction that is specified semantically, as well as the provider of the implicit argument. This argument is semantically required to make sense of the existential construction, as was pointed out in the discussion of (39a), and hence part of the semantic valence of the predicate. Important evidence in support of the analysis of the pivot as a predicate is found in some southern Italo-Romance dialects that exhibit adjectival pivots (cf. (51a)). Existentials are thus comparable to ascriptive constructions (cf. (51b)), allowance being made for the implicit status of their argument. The pivot is a predicative complement of this argument. (51) S. Tommaso, Calabrian

a. A Torinu c’ è togu. PF be.3SG nice.ADJ at Turin ‘There is niceness in Turin.’ b. Torinu è toga. nice.ADJ Turin be.3SG ‘Turin is nice.’

10 In French and northern Italo-Romance dialects disjunctive pronouns are unmarked for case (Vanelli 1987; Parry 2005, 161).

354

Delia Bentley

In syntax, the pivot ought, therefore, to take a predicative position. A major challenge for syntactic theory is then the fact that, in a number of languages, the pivot controls finite agreement (see Table 5), which is normally a behavioural property of subjects. This challenge has been tackled in various ways. In Relational Grammar (La Fauci/ Loporcaro 1993; 1997), the pivot is, at the same time, the predicate and the argument of the existential construction. In the non-derivational framework introduced in Section 2.2, the pivot takes a predicative position in both semantics and syntax, while serving as the controller of finite agreement in semantics-syntax linking in languages that require a semantically specified controller (Bentley 2015b). Lastly, in a Small Clause analysis, the pivot takes the predicative position (Hazout 2004; Cruschina 2012), while the copula exhibits third singular agreement when it agrees with an expletive in the canonical subject position SpecIP. Otherwise, the copula agrees with the pivot as the only constituent within its domain endowed with agreement features, directly or through feature inheritance to the subject position. (We return to this analysis below.) Since there are existentials without a coda (e.g., There is one even prime number, McNally 2011, 1830), the latter must be considered to be an optional modifier of the predication. In syntax, the coda can be assumed to be an adjunct (Leonetti 2008; Francez 2009). However, some analyses of existentials place the pivot in the subject position of a Small Clause, with the coda as its predicate (Safir 1985, 96). HABERE existentials with accusative pivots have been analyzed as transitive constructions with the pivot in object position (Suñer 1982; Rigau 1997; Manzini/Savoia 2005, vol. 3, 69–70; Bentley/Cruschina 2016). It should be pointed out, however, that there is no synchronic evidence for transitive HABER E , in languages with this existential copula, for example a number of dialects spoken in Salento (Italy). In addition, when HABERE alternates with ESSE as the copula of existential constructions, the pivot is not assigned accusative case, as testified by the absence of prepositional accusative marking in (52a), which contrasts with (52b). (52) Orgosolo, Nuorese Srd. a. Maria no est sola. B’at alone PF have.3SG Maria NEG be.3SG Carminu. Carminu ‘Maria is not alone. There’s Carminu.’ b. Apo vidu a Carminu. Carminu have.1SG seen ACC ‘I have seen Carminu.’ Any transitive analysis of HABERE existentials must capture the lack of accusative marking in structures like (52a). According to a well-established scholarly tradition, existentials are locatives (Freeze 1992; see also Lyons 1967; Clark 1978). Following Cruschina (2012; 2015) and

Copular and existential constructions

355

Bentley (2015a,b), we contrast Romance existentials with a seemingly identical structure that is instead to be analyzed as a locative predicative copular construction with a topical locative predicate and a focal noun-phrase argument. This construction is exemplified in (53a), which is comparable with the existential sentence in (53b). (53) Turin, Piedmontese a. (Còs j è sota ’l let?) what PF be.3SG under.to the bed A j è le pantofle. EXPL there be.3SG the slippers ‘What’s under the bed? T HE SLIPPERS (are under the bed).’ b. (Còs j è për fé dël bòsch?) what PF be.3SG for do of.the fire A j’ è dij mòbil. EXPL PF be.3SG some furnit.PL ‘What is there to make a bonfire? There is some furniture.’ The structure in (53a), which we refer to as inverse locative construction, has a ‘there’ word in Romance languages that have an existential proform, requires VS order, and lacks number agreement between the copula and the post-copular noun phrase in the languages that also lack such agreement in existentials. Nonetheless, Cruschina (2012; 2015) and Bentley (2015a,b) argue that, despite appearances, this construction differs from existentials in both syntactic and semantic terms. Their claim is based on the following evidence. First, some Romance languages do not exhibit a proform in existentials (cf. (54a)), whilst they require a locative adverb in inverse locatives (cf. (54b)). (54) EPt. a. Há os teus pais. POSS parents have.3SG the ‘There are your parents (your parents are available for a purpose).’ b. Estão ali os teus pais. there the POSS parents be.3PL ‘Y OUR PARENTS are there.’ Second, Leonetti’s (2008) Coda Constraint, which states that the presence of a locative coda within the VP blocks the insertion of a definite noun phrase, brings to light a difference between locatives and existentials. (The comma in (55b) indicates a prosodic and syntactic break.) (55) Cat.

a. ??Hi havia there have.IMPF . 3SG

el the

degà Dean

a la at the

reunió. meeting

356

Delia Bentley

b. Hi havia el degà, there have.IMPF . 3SG the Dean ‘T HE D EAN was at the meeting.’

a la at the

reunió. meeting

The ‘there’-word of inverse locatives is a locative clitic that resumes a locative predicate. Since resumptive clitics can only resume topics, this ‘there’-word cannot double a focal locative phrase. This is why (55a), unlike (55b), is not a well-formed sentence: only in (55b) does the pro-predicative clitic resume the topical and dislocated locative predicate. By contrast with the ‘there’-word of (55a,b), the existential proform in (56) is not locative, and hence it can co-occur with a locative coda within the same syntactic and prosodic domain. (56) Cat.

Hi

havia un estudiant a la have.PST . 3SG a student at the ‘There was a student at the meeting.’ PF

reunió. meeting

Third, drawing upon Jones (1993) and Leonetti (2008), Cruschina (2015) notes that pro-predicative ‘there’ is incompatible with a locative wh-word (cf. (57a)), whereas the same is not true of the existential proform (cf. (57b)). (57) Logudorese Srd. a. Inue (*bi) son sos duos sindigos? the two mayors where there be.3PL ‘Where are the two mayors?’ b. Inue b’ at duos sindigos? have.3PL two mayors where PF ‘Where is it that there are two mayors?’ Again, this evidence suggests that only the ‘there’-word of inverse locatives is locative, and hence cannot resume the focal locative wh-word, whereas the existential proform is not locative. Inverse locatives (cf. (58a)) are locative copular constructions in semantic terms, since they predicate location, though they differ from the locative predicative copular constructions analyzed in Section 2.2 in information structure and syntax. (58) It.

a. Ci sono i bambini, in giardino. PF be.3PL the children in garden ‘T HE CHILDREN are in the garden.’ b. I bambini sono in giardino. in garden the children be.3PL ‘The children ARE IN THE GARDEN .’

Copular and existential constructions

357

In information structure, the locative predicate of inverse locatives is topical, while the noun phrase argument is focal. In syntax, the latter noun phrase normally figures post-verbally, i.e., in the default position of foci, while the predicate is dislocated or silent, but obligatorily resumed by locative ‘there’ in a number of Romance languages, for example Italian (cf. (58a)). Contrastingly, in locative predicative constructions the argument is topical and pre-verbal, while the locative predicate is focal and postverbal (cf. (58b)). Recall now that, in Section 2.2, it was mentioned in passing that Moro (1997) extends his inverse Small Clause analysis of specifying copular constructions to ci ‘there’ sentences in Italian. Cruschina (2012; 2015) proposes that this inverse analysis solely ought to be adopted for inverse locatives, and not for existentials. The syntactic contrast between existentials and inverse locatives can thus be captured as follows.  



(59) a. Existential Small Clause: [ci NP] b. Inverse locative Small Clause: [NP ci] Ci is the morphosyntactic spell-out of the implicit argument in existentials, where the post-copular noun phrase is the predicate, and of the topical locative predicate in inverse locatives, where the post-copular noun phrase is the argument. Since it is a clitic, ci raises to the Inflection in both cases. The post-copular position of the noun phrase is explained by its focal status in discourse, whereas the comparable agreement patterns that are found in existentials and inverse locatives are captured with reference to properties of this noun phrase (Bentley 2015b,c). We discuss this point in Section 3.3.

3.3 The Definiteness Effects (DE) Although the Romance languages do not exhibit the same evidence for the DE as English (Milsark 1974; 1977), since definites are admitted quite freely in there-sentences, in-depth analysis brings to light two kinds of morphosyntactic evidence for the DE. First, a definite post-copular noun phrase cannot be followed by the coda within the same prosodic unit in inverse locatives (see Leonetti’s 2008 Coda Constraint discussed in Section 3.2). Second, a wide number of Romance languages differentiate between definite and indefinite post-copular noun phrases in there sentences by means of copula selection and/or agreement (Jones 1993; La Fauci/Loporcaro 1993; 1997; Bentley 2011; 2013; 2015c). (60) Bono, Logudorese Srd. a. B’ at piseddas. PF have.3SG girls ‘There are girls.’

358

Delia Bentley

b. Bi sun sas piseddas. PF be.3PL the girls ‘T HE GIRLS are (t)here/There are the girls.’ The contrast between English and Romance depends on differences in the interface of focus structure and syntax in these languages (cf. Bentley 2015c and references therein). While English allows any position in the clause to be marked as focal by means of the main pitch accent (Ladd 1996), the Romance languages do not. The default panRomance focal position is a post-verbal position, which explains the post-copular position of the noun phrase in copular constructions where this is focal, including those with post-copular definites. The Romance there-sentences with definite post-copular noun phrases have been claimed to be inverse locatives (Moro 1997; Zamparelli 2000; Remberger 2009; Cruschina 2012, among others). This hypothesis captures the prosodic and syntactic constraints on the coda, in that if the pro-predicative proform is a resumptive locative pronoun, it is predicted not to be allowed as a clitic double of a locative phrase within the same syntactic and prosodic domain (cf. (55a)). In this hypothesis, the contrast between English and Romance reduces to the lack of inverse locatives in the former language, where focal definites figure in pre-verbal position. The locative analysis of copular constructions like (60b), however, does not capture the case of contextualized existentials, i.e., genuine existentials with a definite pivot. The structure in (60b) could indeed be construed as a contextualized existential in an appropriate context: for example, a context in which we ask who is available to help. Thus, this analysis does not offer a rationale for the differential marking of definite and indefinite noun phrases in post-copular position in theresentences. There are three principal patterns of agreement in Romance there-sentences: generalized lack of finite number agreement between the copula and the post-copular noun phrase (type i, cf. (61a,b)), differential agreement (type ii, cf. (62a,b)), and generalized agreement (type iii, cf. (63a,b)).  

(61) Fr.

a. Nous ne NEG we il y

pouvons pas divorcer: can.1PL NEG divorce.INF a les enfants. EXPL PF have.3SG the children ‘We cannot divorce: there are the children.’ b. Il y a plusieurs pépins dans ce EXPL PF have. 3SG several seeds in this fruit. fruit ‘There are several seeds in this fruit.’

Copular and existential constructions

359

podimus bessire fora ‘e can go.out out of pare: bi sun sos piseddos. be.3PL the children couple PF ‘We cannot divorce: there are the children.’ b. In custa frutta b’ at PF have.3SG in this fruit medas semenes. many seeds ‘There are many seeds in this fruit.’

(62) Bono, Logudorese Srd. a. Non NEG

(63) It.

a. Non

possiamo divorziare: ci sono i can divorce PF be.3PL the bambini. children ‘We cannot divorce: there are the children.’ b. In questa frutta ci sono molti semi. many seeds in this fruit PF be.3PL ‘There are many seeds in this fruit.’ NEG

Building upon Beaver/Francez/Levinson (2005), Bentley (2013) claims that these facts witness the cross-linguistic variation in subject canonicality, i.e., the variation in the properties that count towards subjecthood across languages. Finite agreement is a behavioral property of the subject. Type-(i) languages (cf. (61a,b)) do not treat the post-copular noun phrase as a subject because they avoid non-topical subjects (see Lambrecht 1986 with reference to French).11 As for type-(ii) languages (cf. (62a,b)), these treat a subclass of post-copular noun phrases as controllers of finite agreement. The subclass of controllers can be defined in terms of specificity, normally spelled out by definiteness, this being a property of subjects cross-linguistically (Enç 1991; Beaver/Francez/Levinson 2005). The subclasses of specifics that behave as controllers vary across Romance as shown in Table 6, which is adjusted from Bentley (2013).  

11 There are also type-(i) languages that do not treat existential pivots as controllers, while admitting verb-subject inversion – and agreement – in non-copular constructions with a focal subject. This is the case with the Salentino dialects that mark the existential pivot with accusative case (see Section 3.2, e.g. (50c)). In this case the failure for the existential pivot to control agreement has been accounted for with reference to its predicative function (Bentley 2015c).

360

Delia Bentley

Table 6: Specificity of post-copular NP and its control of finite agreement Specificity of post-copular NP

Language-specific control threshold (agreement obtains with classes above threshold)

← French, Spanish, Brazilian Portuguese Specifics: 1st, 2nd personal pronoun ← Gallo-Italian, Nuorese Sardinian (Orgosolo) st

nd

rd

Specifics: 1 , 2 , 3 personal pronoun ← Catalan, Florentine, Gallo-Italian 12

Specifics: identity (Enç 1991)

← Spanish Specifics: identity, inclusion (Enç 1991) ← Logudorese Sardinian Non-specifics ← Italian, Romanian, Friulian

Finally, in type-(iii) languages, all post-copular noun phrases in there-sentences are controllers (cf. (63a,b)). In this case, a controller endowed with its agreement features is required regardless of its semantic and pragmatic properties. While the morphosyntactic behavior of the existential pivot as a controller of number agreement varies across Romance alongside subject canonicality, the semantic rationale of the DE can be assumed to be invariant across languages. It is nonsensical to predicate the existence of an individual or an entity whose existence is already established in discourse, as is the case with specifics (Enç 1991). Indeed, definite existential pivots are only found in contextualized existentials, which predicate the presence of a specific individual or entity in a pre-determined and salient context. To return to copula and agreement alternations, on the one hand, the copula and agreement alternations mark the language-specific subject canonicality threshold (cf. (61) to (63) and Table 6) with the consequence that existentials and inverse locatives exhibit the same copula selection and agreement patterns. This is shown in (64) (cf. (60b)), which can not only be construed as an inverse locative, but also, in an appropriate context, as a contextualized existential.

12 Following Enç (1991), specificity in the sense of identity with a previously introduced discourse referent is to be distinguished from specificity in the sense of inclusion in such a referent.

Copular and existential constructions

361

(64) Bono, Logudorese Srd. Bi sun sas piseddas. PF be.3PL the girls ‘There are the girls.’ [Intended reading: ‘The girls are available for a purpose.’] On the other hand, these alternations can differentiate between locatives and existentials, as is clear in varieties of European Portuguese that only select agreeing STARE in inverse locatives (cf. (54a,b)). (65) EPt. a. Estão ali os teus pais. be.3PL there the POSS parents ‘Y OUR PARENTS are there.’ b. Há os teus pais. have.3SG the POSS parents ‘There are your parents.’ [Intended reading: ‘Your parents are available for a purpose.’] In these varieties the existential pivot must be assumed to fail to control agreement because semantically it is a predicate, and not an argument, and thus it is not realized as a subject in syntax.

4 Conclusion Copular and existential constructions have one property in common, namely a nonverbal predicate. While copular constructions have a specified argument and canonical morphosyntax, Romance existentials have an implicit argument and non-canonical morphosyntax. We have introduced an inventory of semantically and syntactically different copular constructions: predicative, specifying and identifying. Within the predicative type, we have further distinguished between ascriptive, locative and possessive structures. We have discussed the Romance copulas, paying particular attention to the ESSE vs STARE alternation in Modern Ibero-Romance and southern Italo-Romance. In addition, we have considered the syntax, morphosyntax and semantics of the complement of copular constructions. With reference to Romance existentials, we have examined the presence or absence of a proform, the selection of the copula, whether the latter agrees with the post-copular noun phrase, and the definiteness restrictions on this noun phrase. Finally, we have considered some information-structure properties of copular constructions.

362

Delia Bentley

5 References Abbott, Barbara (1992), Definiteness, existentials, and the “list” interpretation, in: Chris Barker/David Dowty (edd.), Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory II, Columbus, OH, The Ohio State University, 1–16. Abbott, Barbara (1993), A pragmatic account of the definiteness effect in existential sentences, Journal of Pragmatics 19, 39–55. Badía Margarit, Antonio M. (1951), Gramática histórica catalana, Barcelona, Editorial Noguer. Beaver, David/Francez, Itamar/Levinson, Dmitry (2005), Bad subject: (Non-)canonicality and NP distribution in existentials, in: Effi Georgala/Jonathan Howell (edd.), Proceedings of Semantic and Linguistic Theory XV, Ithaca, NY, Cornell University Press, 19–43. Benincà, Paola (1994), Il clitico “a” nel dialetto padovano, in: Paola Benincà, La variazione sintattica: studi di dialettologia romanza, Bologna, il Mulino, 15–27. Benincà, Paola (1997), Sentence word order, in: Martin Maiden/Mair M. Parry (edd.), The Dialects of Italy, London/New York, Routledge, 123–130. Benincà, Paola (2007), Clitici e ausiliari: “gh ò, z é”, in: Delia Bentley/Adam Ledgeway (edd.), Sui dialetti italoromanzi. Saggi in onore di Nigel B. Vincent (The Italianist 27, Special Supplement 1), King’s Lynn, Biddles, 27–47. Bentley, Delia (2011), Sui costrutti esistenziali sardi. Effetti di definitezza, deissi, evidenzialità, Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie 127, 111–140. Bentley, Delia (2013), Subject canonicality and definiteness effects in Romance “there” sentences, Language 89, 675–712. Bentley, Delia (2015a), Existentials and locatives in Romance dialects of Italy: an introduction, in: Delia Bentley/Francesco Maria Ciconte/Silvio Cruschina, Existentials and Locatives in Romance Dialects of Italy, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1–42. Bentley, Delia (2015b), Predication and argument realization, in: Delia Bentley/Francesco Maria Ciconte/Silvio Cruschina, Existentials and Locatives in Romance Dialects of Italy, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 99–160. Bentley, Delia (2015c), Definiteness effects and linking, in: Delia Bentley/Francesco Maria Ciconte/ Silvio Cruschina, Existentials and Locatives in Romance Dialects of Italy, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 161–216. Bentley, Delia/Ciconte, Francesco M. (2016), Copular and existential constructions, in: Adam Ledgeway/Martin Maiden (edd.), The Oxford Guide to the Romance Languages, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 847–859. Bentley, Delia/Ciconte, Francesco Maria/Cruschina, Silvio (2015), Existentials and Locatives in Romance Dialects of Italy, Oxford, Oxford University Press. Bentley, Delia/Cruschina, Silvio (2016), Existential constructions, in: Susann Fischer/Christoph Gabriel (edd.), Manual of Grammatical Interfaces in Romance, Berlin/Boston, De Gruyter, 487–516. Bentley, Delia/Ledgeway, Adam (2014), “Manciati siti?” Les constructions moyennes avec les participes résultatifs-statifs en italien et dans les variétés italo-romanes méridionales, Langages 194, 63–80. Bernini, Giuliano (2012), Il clitico a nell'italo-romanzo settentrionale: osservazioni metodologiche, in: Vincenzo Orioles (ed.), Per Roberto Gusmani. Linguistica storica e teorica. Studi in ricordo, Udine, Forum, 269–282. Berruto, Gaetano (1986), Un tratto sintattico dell’italiano parlato: il “c’è” presentativo, in: Klaus Lichem/Edith Mara/Susanne Knaller (edd.), Parallela 2. Aspetti della sintassi dell’italiano contemporaneo, Tübingen, Narr, 61–73. Blasco Ferrer, Eduardo (2003), Tipologia delle presentative romanze e morfosintassi storica. Fr. “c’est” e prov. “-i” (estai, fai, plai), Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie 119, 51–90.

Copular and existential constructions

363

Bosque, Ignacio (1993), Este es un ejemplo de predicación catafórica, Cuadernos de Lingüística del Instituto Universitario Ortega y Gasset 1, 27–57. Bossong, Georg (1998), Le marquage de l’expérient dans les langues d’Europe, in: Jack Feuillet (ed.), Actance et valence dans les langues de l’Europe, Berlin, Mouton de Gruyter, 259–294. Brown, Esther L./Rivas, Javier (2012), Grammatical relation probability: how usage patterns shape analogy, Language Variation and Change 24, 317–341. Camacho, José (2015), What do Spanish copulas have in common with Tibetan evidentials?, in: Isabel Pérez-Jiménez/Manuel Leonetti/Silvia Gumiel-Molina (edd.), New Perspectives in the Study of “ser” and “estar”, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, Benjamins, 173–202. Carlson, Gregory (1977), A unified analysis of English bare plurals, Linguistics and Philosophy 1, 413–456. Clark, Eve (1978), Locationals: existential, locative, and possessive constructions, in: Joseph H. Greenberg (ed.), Universals of Human Language, vol. 4: Syntax, Stanford, CA, Stanford University Press, 85–121. Cornilescu, Alexandra (2009), Restructuring strategies of the Romanian verb “fi” ‘be’ and the analysis of existential sentences, in: Georg A. Kaiser/Eva-Maria Remberger (edd.), Proceedings of the workshop “Null-subjects, expletives, and locatives in Romance”, Konstanz, Universität Konstanz, 199–230. Cruschina, Silvio (2012), Focus in existential sentences, in: Valentina Bianchi/Cristiano Chesi (edd.), Enjoy Linguistics! Papers Offered to Luigi Rizzi on the Occasion of his 60th Birthday, Siena, CISCL Press, 77–107. Cruschina, Silvio (2015), Focus structure, in: Delia Bentley/Francesco Maria Ciconte/Silvio Cruschina, Existentials and Locatives in Romance Dialects of Italy, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 43–98. Dixon, Robert M. W. (1982), Where Have all the Adjectives Gone? And Other Essays on Semantics and Syntax, Berlin, Mouton de Gruyter. Dragomirescu, Adina (2013a), Copula verbs, in: Gabriela Pană Dindelegan (ed.), The Grammar of Romanian, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 78–82. Dragomirescu, Adina (2013b), The subjective predicative complement, in: Gabriela Pană Dindelegan (ed.), The Grammar of Romanian, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 160–166. Dryer, Matthew S. (22007), Clause types, in: Timothy Shopen (ed.), Language Typology and Syntactic Description, vol. 1: Clause Structure, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 224–275. Enç, Mürvet (1991), The semantics of specificity, Linguistic Inquiry 22, 1–25. Fernández-Leborans, Maria Jesús (1999), La predicación: Las oraciones copulativas, in: Ignacio Bosque/Violeta Demonte (edd.), Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española, vol. 2, Madrid, Espasa Calpe, 2357–2460. Feuillet, Jack (1998), Typologie de “être” et phrases essives, in: Jack Feuillet (ed.), Actance et valence dans les langues de l’Europe, Berlin/New York, Mouton de Gruyter, 663–751. Feuillet, Jack (ed.) (1998), Actance et valence dans les langues de l’Europe, Berlin/New York, Mouton de Gruyter. Forner, Werner (1997), Liguria, in: Martin Maiden/Mair Parry (edd.), The Dialects of Italy, London/New York, Routledge, 245–252. Francez, Itamar (2007), Existential propositions, Stanford University, Ph.D. dissertation. Francez, Itamar (2009), Existentials, predication, and modification, Linguistics and Philosophy 32, 1–50. Francez, Itamar (2010), Context dependence and implicit arguments in existentials, Linguistics and Philosophy 33, 11–30. Freeze, Ray (1992), Existentials and other locatives, Language 68, 553–595.

364

Delia Bentley

Green, John (1988), Romance creoles, in: Martin Harris/Nigel Vincent (edd.), The Romance Languages, London/New York, Routledge, 420–473. Haiman, John (1988), Rhaeto-Romance, in: Martin Harris/Nigel Vincent (edd.), The Romance Languages, London/New York, Routledge, 351–390. Haiman, John/Benincà, Paola (1992), The Rhaeto-Romance Languages, London/New York, Routledge. Hazout, Ilan (2004), The syntax of existential constructions, Linguistic Inquiry 35, 393–430. Heim, Irene (1987), Where does the definiteness restriction apply? Evidence from the definiteness of variables, in: Eric J. Reuland/Alice G. B. ter Meulen (edd.), The Representation of (In)definiteness, Cambridge, MA, MIT Press, 21–42. Hoekstra, Teun/Mulder, René (1990), Unergatives as copular verbs: locational and existential predication, The Linguistic Review 7, 1–79. Huddleston, Rodney (2002), The clause: complements, in: Rodney Huddleston/Geoffrey Pullum (edd.), The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 213–321. Jones, Michael Allan (1993), Sardinian Syntax, London/New York, Routledge. Koch, Peter (2012), Location, existence, and possession: a constructional-typological exploration, Linguistics 50, 533–603. Kratzer, Angelika (1995), Stage-level and individual-level predicates, in: Gregory N. Carlson/Francis Jeffry Pelletier (edd.), The Generic Book, Chicago, IL, The University of Chicago Press, 125–175. Ladd, Robert (1996), Intonational Phonology, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. La Fauci, Nunzio/Loporcaro, Michele (1993), Grammatical relations and syntactic levels in Bonorvese morphosyntax, in: Adriana Belletti (ed.), Syntactic Theory and the Dialects of Italy, Torino, Rosenberg & Sellier, 155–203. La Fauci, Nunzio/Loporcaro, Michele (1997), Outline of a theory of existentials on evidence from Romance, Studi italiani di linguistica teorica e applicata 26, 5–55. Lambrecht, Knud (1986), Topic, focus and the grammar of spoken French, University of California at Berkeley, Ph.D. dissertation. Ledgeway, Adam (2008), Sulla storia dei verbi copulari nei dialetti dell’alto Meridione: il caso del napoletano, The Italianist 28, 281–301. Ledgeway, Adam (2009), Grammatica diacronica del napoletano, Tübingen, Niemeyer. Leonetti, Manuel (2008), Definiteness effects and the role of the coda in existential constructions, in: Henrik Høeg Müller/Alex Klinge (edd.), Essays on Nominal Determination, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, Benjamins, 131–162. Leonetti, Manuel (2015), On word order in Spanish copular sentences, in: Isabel Pérez-Jiménez/ Manuel Leonetti/Silvia Gumiel-Molina (edd.), New Perspectives in the Study of “ser” and “estar”, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, Benjamins, 203–235. Leonetti, Manuel/Pérez-Jiménez, Isabel/Gumiel-Molina, Silvia (2015), “Ser” and “estar”, outstanding questions, in: Isabel Pérez-Jiménez/Manuel Leonetti/Silvia Gumiel-Molina (edd.), New Perspectives in the Study of “ser” and “estar”. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, Benjamins, 1–20. Levin, Beth/Rappaport Hovav, Malka (1995), Unaccusativity: At the Syntax-Lexical Semantics Interface, Cambridge, MA, MIT Press. Lombard, Alf (1994), La langue roumaine. Une présentation, Paris, Klincksieck. Lyons, John (1967), A note on possessive, existential and locative sentences, Foundations of Language 3, 390–396. Maiden, Martin (1995), A Linguistic History of Italian, London, Longman. Maienborn, Claudia (2005), A discourse-based account of Spanish “ser/estar”, Linguistics 43, 155–180. Manzini, M. Rita/Savoia, Leonardo M. (2005), I dialetti italiani e romanci. Morfosintassi generativa, 3 vol., Alessandria, Edizioni Dell’Orso.

Copular and existential constructions

365

McNally, Louise (2011), Existential sentences, in: Claudia Maienborn/Klaus von Heusinger/Paul Portner (edd.), Semantics: An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning, vol. 2, Berlin/ New York, Mouton de Gruyter, 1829–1848. Milsark, Gary L. (1974), Existential sentences in English, MIT, Cambridge, MA, Ph.D. dissertation. Milsark, Gary L. (1977), Toward an explanation of certain peculiarities of the existential construction in English, Linguistic Analysis 3, 1–29. Moro, Andrea (1997), The Raising of Predicates, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Parry, Mair M. (2005), Sociolinguistica e grammatica del dialetto di Cairo Montenotte. Parluma ‘d Còiri, Savona, Società Savonese di Storia Patria. Peral Ribeiro, José A. (1958), “Essere”, “sedere”, e “stare” nas linguas romanicas, Boletim de Filologia 17, 147–176. Pérez-Jiménez, Isabel/Leonetti, Manuel/Gumiel-Molina, Silvia (edd.) (2015), New Perspectives in the Study of “ser” and “estar”, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, Benjamins. Pountain, Christopher (1982), *E SSER E / STARE as a Romance phenomenon, in: Nigel Vincent/Martin Harris (edd.), Studies in the Romance Verb, London, Croom Helm, 139–160. Ramos Alfajarín, Joan Rafael (2002), Els usos dels verbs “ser”, “estar” i “haver-hi”, in: Joan Solà et al. (edd.), Gramàtica del català contemporani, vol. 2: Sintaxi, Barcelona, Empúries, 1993–2005. Rando, Emily/Napoli, Donna Jo (1978), Definites in “there” sentences, Language 54, 300–313. Remberger, Eva-Maria (2009), Null subjects, expletives and locatives in Sardinian, in: Georg A. Kaiser/ Eva-Maria Remberger (edd.), Proceedings of the Workshop “Null-subjects, Expletives, and Locatives in Romance”, Konstanz, Universität Konstanz, 231–261. Rigau, Gemma (1997), Locative sentences and related constructions in Catalan: “ésser/haver” alternation, in: Amaya Mendikoetxea/Myriam Uribe-Etxebarría (edd.), Theoretical Issues at the Morphology-Syntax Interface, Bilbao, Universidad del País Vasco, 395–421. Rodríguez Mondoñedo, Miguel (2006), Spanish existentials and other accusative constructions, in: Cedric Boeckx (ed.), Minimalist Essays, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, Benjamins, 326–394. Rohlfs, Gerard (1969), Grammatica storica della lingua italiana e dei suoi dialetti, vol. 3: Sintassi e formazione delle parole, Torino, Einaudi. Roy, Isabelle (2009), Nonverbal Predication. Copular Sentences at the Syntax-Semantics Interface, Oxford, Oxford University Press. Safir, Kenneth J. (1985), Syntactic Chains, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Salvi, Giampaolo (1991), Le frasi copulative, in: Lorenzo Renzi/Giampaolo Salvi/Anna Cardinaletti (edd.), Grande grammatica italiana di consultazione, vol. 2, Bologna, il Mulino, 163–189. Sornicola, Rosanna (1997), L’oggetto preposizionale in siciliano antico e in italiano antico. Considerazioni su un problema di tipologia diacronica, Italienische Studien 1, 45–59. Suñer, Margarita (1982), Syntax and Semantics of Spanish Presentational Sentence Types, Washington, D.C., Georgetown University Press. Vanelli, Laura (1987), I pronomi soggetto nei dialetti settentrionali dal Medio Evo a oggi, Medioevo Romanzo 12, 173–211. Van Valin Jr., Robert (2005), Exploring the Syntax-Semantics Interface, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Villalba, Xavier (2013), Eventive existentials in Catalan and the Topic-Focus articulation, Italian Journal of Linguistics 25, 147–173. Wagner, Max L. (1960), Dizionario etimologico sardo, vol. 1, Heidelberg, Winter. Wheeler, Max. W. (1988), Occitan, in: Martin Harris/Nigel Vincent (edd.), The Romance Languages, London/New York, Routledge, 246–278. Wheeler, Max W./Yates, Alan/Dols, Nicolau (1999), Catalan. A Comprehensive Grammar, London/New York, Routledge. Willis, R. Clive (21971), An Essential Course in Modern Portuguese, London/New York, Nelson.

366

Delia Bentley

Zamboni, Alberto (2000), Alle origini dell’italiano. Dinamiche e tipologie della transizione dal latino, Roma, Carocci. Zamparelli, Roberto (2000), Layers in the Determiner Phrase, New York, Garland.

The clausal and sentential domains

Guido Mensching

10 Infinitival clauses Abstract: This chapter surveys the range of infinitival clause types that exists in Romance languages, both in embedded and non-embedded contexts. It then discusses the status of left peripheral prepositional elements, which will be roughly divided into complementizers and real prepositions. A larger part is dedicated to the subject of infinitive constructions, including basic aspects of the theory of control that are necessary for the interpretation of silent (covert) subjects, and the different types of lexically expressed (overt) subjects. The latter are so-called raising constructions and accusative-and-infinitive constructions, which exist besides the characteristic property of many Romance languages to license an overt nominative subject in infinitive clauses. Finally, some remarks will be made on the internal structure of infinitive clauses, including the notion of restructuring. The examples are mostly taken from French, Italian, and Spanish, but other languages (Portuguese, Catalan, Occitan, Sardinian, and Romanian) are also discussed. The general aim of the chapter is to show the basic typology of Romance infinitive constructions, highlighting the aspects that are common to most or even all Romance languages, but also pointing out the “parameters” of cross-linguistic variation.  

Keywords: infinitive, subordination, complementizers, raising constructions, accusative and infinitive, exceptional case marking, control, PRO, subjects, restructuring  

1 Introduction Infinitival clauses are clauses whose verb is in the infinitive, such as the bracketed parts of (1): (1)

a. It. b. Sp. c. Fr.

Pietro mi ha detto [di lavare la macchina]. ‘Pietro told me to wash the car.’ [Para ver la película] necesitas una entrada. ‘In order to see the film, you need a ticket.’ Je veux [ne pas le faire]. ‘I am willing not to do it.’ (Rowlett 2007, 162)

These are also called infinitive constructions in a broad sense, whereas infinitive constructions in a narrow sense include infinitives that do not project a clause of their own (monoclausal structures). The latter – which lie mostly beyond the scope of this chapter – are typically certain auxiliary constructions that involve infinitives instead of other non-finite forms such as participles. Thus, the examples in (2) are monoclausal: DOI 10.1515/9783110377088-010

370

(2)

Guido Mensching

a. Fr.

Pierre va arriver demain. ‘Pierre will arrive tomorrow.’ b. Sp. Juan va a comprar un coche. ‘Juan will buy a car.’ c. Srd. As a mandigare sa peta. ‘You will eat the meat.’ d. Cat. En Josep va veure la Maria. ‘Josep has seen Maria.’

A valid test for identifying a monoclausal structure is the insertion of negation, i.e., for (2a–d), Fr. *va ne pas arriver, Sp. *va a no comprar, Srd. *as a non mandigare, Cat. *va no veure are ungrammatical (here, the negator(s) must obligatorily accompany the inflected verb). This test is positive for the examples in (1), as is exemplified in (1c), which motivates the assumption of a biclausal status; similarly, for (1a) it is possible to say di non lavare la macchina, and, for (1b), para no ver la película. I will return to this issue in Section 5 within the context of “restructuring”. The lack of an explicit subject is held to be a characteristic property of infinitive constructions. Some well-known exceptions in many languages have classically been interpreted as “accusative-and-infinitive” constructions, in which the subject of the infinitive is in the accusative case. In languages such as English or German, nominative subjects can only appear outside the infinitive clause in so-called raising constructions, and a similar behavior can be observed for French. But almost all other Romance languages permit nominative subjects inside the infinitive clause in certain language-specific environments (cf. Section 4.2.3). The infinitive itself is usually uninflected, which is mostly thought to be a reflex of the fact that infinitives lack agreement with the subject and a tense of their own, i.e., tense is either absent or dependent on the main verb. However, Portuguese/ Galician and Sardinian have infinitives that are inflected for subject agreement (a possibility also documented in Old Neapolitan and Old Leonese), cf. Maurer (1968), Loporcaro (1986), Jones (1992), Mensching (2000), Scida (2004), among many others. There are also examples of infinitives that clearly have a tense of their own, although this is never overtly marked on the infinitive, such as the so-called historical infinitive (cf. Section 2.2). It must be noted that in Romanian and many southern Italian dialects, some infinitive constructions have been supplanted by finite constructions containing a subjunctive, a phenomenon that I will not discuss in this chapter. In what follows, I first provide an overview of the types of dependent (embedded) and independent (non-embedded) Romance infinitive clauses (Section 2). A separate section (Section 3) is dedicated to the left peripheral “prepositions” that often introduce infinitive clauses. I then turn to implicit and explicit subjects (Section 4) and finally to some aspects of the internal structure of infinitive clauses and the phenomenon of restructuring (Section 5). I will mostly use examples from French, Italian, and Spanish, but will also consider Portuguese, Catalan, Occitan, Sardinian, and Romanian.  



Infinitival clauses

371

2 Types of infinitive clauses 2.1 Dependent infinitive clauses Most infinitive clauses do not occur in isolation, but in some way or another depend on a matrix clause containing a finite verb or – as we shall see at the end of this subsection – are embedded in a noun phrase. One common type is generally known as “complement clauses”, which represent an argument of a verb and are thus also referred to as “argumental clauses”. Its most important subtypes are object clauses and subject clauses. For these and other types, presented in more detail below, cf., e.g., Hernanz (1999, 2269–2303) and Salvi/Skytte (2001, 497–553). Argumental infinitive clauses often represent the direct object of a clause, as in (1a,c) in Section 1. Many other examples will be seen in the rest of this chapter. Infinitival object clauses are not always declarative clauses, but can also be indirect interrogatives, with an interrogative element at the left edge of the infinitive clause (as in Fr. Il ne savait plus où aller ‘He no longer knew where to go’, which can be translated almost word for word into other Romance languages). Infinitival object clauses do not necessarily represent a direct object; they often follow the preposition selected by a certain verb, and thus function as prepositional objects, as shown in (3): (3) a. Fr. b. Sp. c. It.

Il s’agissait de [tout faire sans bruit]. ‘It was a matter of doing everything without noise.’ Mi marido sueña con [hacer un viaje al Caribe]. ‘My husband dreams of making a trip to the Caribbean.’ Ti ricordi di [essere stato qui l’anno scorso]? ‘Do you remember having been here last year?’

Similarly, infinitive clauses can be complements of relational nouns as in (4), or adjectives as in (5), where the preposition is the same as the one these items usually select: (4) a. Fr. b. It. c. Sp.

(5) a. Fr. b. It.

une inclination à [trop travailler] ‘a tendency to work too much’ la paura di [sbagliare tutto] ‘the fear of doing everything wrong’ la consecuencia de [haber bebido demasiado] ‘the consequence of having drunk too much’ Je suis content/heureux de [vous aider]. ‘I am glad/happy to help you.’ Sono pronto/disposto [a partire subito]. ‘I am ready to leave at once.’

372

Guido Mensching

c. Sp.

Estoy listo para [presentarme al examen]. ‘I am ready to attend the exam.’

In the examples in (6), the infinitive clause appears as a subject: (6) a. Fr. b. Sp. c. It.

[Voyager en avion] est plus bon marché aujourd’hui. ‘Traveling by plane is cheaper nowadays.’ [Fumar en un espacio público] significa hacer daño a los demás. ‘Smoking in a public space means harming others.’ [Mangiare i gelati] piace ai bambini. ‘Children like to eat ice-cream.’ (Manzini 2001, 493)

Subject clauses often appear after the main verb, in a kind of impersonal construction (cf. (17) and (19) in Section 3). Note that infinitival subject clauses in Spanish show a tendency to use the definite article el (a construction that will be further discussed below), so that (6b) can be reformulated as El fumar en un espacio público. . . (cf. Hernanz 1999, 2274). However, this seems to be a general tendency of subject clauses in Spanish, and speakers may prefer to use the article even in finite subject clauses (El que tú fumes. . .). Infinitive clauses are also used as predicative expressions; see the examples in (7). These must not be confused with subject clauses (for the elements de, di that appear in (7), cf. Section 3): (7) a. Fr. b. Sp. c. It.

Le plus important est [de rester en bonne santé]. ‘The most important thing is to stay healthy.’ La idea era [de hacerlo yo]. ‘The idea was that I should do it.’ La sua meta era [di risolvere questo problema]. ‘His goal was to solve this problem.’

Another big group comprises infinitive clauses that are not arguments but adjuncts, mostly corresponding to adverbial clauses (cf. Hernanz 1999, 2304–2332; Salvi/Skytte 2001, 553–557). Whereas finite adverbial clauses are headed by conjunctions, infinitival adverbial clauses are usually introduced by prepositions: (8) a. Fr. b. It.

Je sais tout cela [sans avoir lu des milliers de livres]. ‘I know all this without having read thousands of books.’ Ho chiesto le vacanze [per farti piacere]. ‘I asked for vacations in order to do you a favor.’ (Salvi/Skytte 2001, 483)

Infinitival clauses

c. Sp.

373

[Pese a estar enferma], irá a clase. ‘In spite of being ill, she will go to her classes.’ (Hernanz 1999, 2323)

Infinitival relative clauses usually express possibility, which can be seen in the English translations in (9a,b) (Jones 1996, 512–513): (9) a. Fr.

b. It.

c. Sp.

Je cherche un prêtre [à qui me confesser]. ‘I am looking for a priest to whom I can confess.’ (Jones 1996, 512) Ho trovato un amico [con cui andare in vacanza]. ‘I have found a friend with whom I can go on vacation.’ (Salvi/Skytte 2001, 483) No tengo nada [que ponerme]. ‘I have nothing to wear.’ (Hernanz 1999, 2297)

Note that, in French and Italian, relative pronouns are used only after prepositions, as shown in (9a,b), although French à and Italian da also license infinitival relative clauses without a relative pronoun (un livre à lire, un libro da leggere); these items probably have the status of complementizers (cf. Section 3). As (9c) shows, Spanish allows the relative element que without a preposition (for prepositional relative clauses in Spanish, cf. Hernanz 1999, 2299–2303). A final remark must be made for infinitive constructions that are embedded in NPs (or DPs in modern generative frameworks), usually with the masculine definite article, as in (10): (10) a. Sp.

b. It.

[NP/DP El [compartir las penas]] siempre es un consuelo. ‘To share the sorrow is always a consolation.’ (Hernanz 1999, 2205) [NP/DP Il suo [non voler firmare]] ci aveva scocciati. ‘The fact that he does not want to sign had bothered us.’ (Bottari 1992, 73)

The clausal status of the infinitive clause is confirmed for (10b) by the presence of negation; for further criteria and discussion cf. Bottari (1992), Hernanz (1999, 2203– 2208) and Mensching (2000, 62 and 215). Such constructions are often found in subject positions, but in principle they can occupy all positions that a NP (or DP) can have. Note that infinitives with a clausal status embedded in nominal constituents are not available in all Romance languages (e.g., French lacks this construction).

374

Guido Mensching

2.2 Independent infinitive clauses (root infinitive clauses) As we have seen, infinitives typically occur together with a finite verb, which is found either in the same clause (see the monoclausal infinitive structures illustrated in (2)), or in a matrix clause on which the infinitive clause depends in some way or another as in the cases described in 2.1. However, there are several constructions in which an infinitive can occur as the only verb in a clause, so that they must be considered as infinitival main clauses (also called root infinitive clauses). Consider the following extract from a French novel, contained in a passage written in free indirect speech: (11) Que devenir maintenant? Se lever tous les matins, se coucher tous les soirs. Ne plus attendre Durande, ne plus la voir partir, ne plus la voir revenir. Qu’est-ce qu’un reste d’existence sans but? Boire, manger, et puis? ‘What could he do now? Rise every morning: go to sleep every night. Never more to await the coming of the Durande; to see her get under way, or steer again into the port. What was a remainder of existence without object? To drink, to eat, and then?’ (V. Hugo, Les Travailleurs de la mer, quoted in Lombard 1936, 178; translation by W. Moy Thomas (Hugo 1866, 88–89)) Note that the infinitive clauses in this passage have no definite temporal reference, but describe hypothetical actions or states. This construction is called “descriptive infinitive” in the literature and must be distinguished from the “narrative infinitive”, traditionally known as “historical infinitive” (cf., e.g., Hernanz 1999, 2341; Mensching 2000, 97–98; Salvi 2001). The narrative infinitive is illustrated in the examples in (12): (12) a. Fr.

b. It.

Et [tous de rire], et [la conversation de se mettre docilement sur un autre sujet]. ‘And (then) they all laughed, and the conversation compliably changed to another subject.’ (Lombard 1936, 82) E [noi tutti a ridere], che si voleva mettere la pancia in terra. ‘And (then) we all laughed, so as to be convulsed with laughter.’ (Il Gattopardo; cf. Fava 2001, 53)

From a structural point of view, these infinitival root clauses are different from those in (11) in having an overt subject followed by a prepositional element. The latter has been considered in the literature as being connected to the fact that such infinitive constructions are clearly marked for tense (cf., e.g., Mensching 2000, 98–99); in fact, they mark a punctual occurrence in the past (similar to a passé simple), with an additional ingressive aspect. Other infinitival root clauses that can frequently be found in Romance languages mark non-declarative illocutions (exclamations, questions, orders), cf. Hernanz (1999, 2335–2342).

Infinitival clauses

375

3 “Bare” infinitives vs introduced infinitives In languages such as English and German, a common distinction is that between bare and introduced infinitives (go vs to go/gehen vs zu gehen). The introductory items in these languages (to/zu) are often interpreted as belonging to the inflectional system (e.g., Chomsky 1981; von Stechow/Sternefeld 1988). By contrast, in Romance languages, the infinitival inflection seems to be solely represented by the morpheme {r (+vowel)}, giving rise to endings such as -er, -re etc. in French, or -ar(e), -ir(e), -er(e) in other Romance languages. Prepositional elements are either left peripheral elements (complementizers) of the infinitive clause or elements outside the infinitive clause proper (belonging to a higher PP), as we will see below. Romanian is the only language that behaves differently, since infinitives have lost their ending (so-called “long infinitives” like plecare ‘departure’ are nouns, not verbs, cf. Dobrovie-Sorin 1993, 82). Instead, the infinitive has no clear ending. Interestingly, it is most frequently accompanied by the element a, which appears adjacent to the infinitive and can be combined with a preposition to its left: (13) Rom. Este important [a avea un loc de muncă stabil]. ‘It is important to have a permanent job.’ The exact status of the element a, which resembles Germanic to/zu, is controversial; for discussion cf. Dobrovie-Sorin (1993, 82–89). An issue that is of concern for all Romance languages is how to interpret the element de in (13) and de/di in (7) of Section 2.1. This has been widely discussed in the literature (cf. Rizzi 1982; Kayne 1984; Jones 1996, 59–60; Mensching 2000, 62–65; Salvi/Skytte 2001, 522–524, 529–530, among many others). The fact that the prepositional elements in (14a) and (14b) below do not have the same status can be seen if we substitute the infinitive construction for a (pro)nominal element, as shown in (15a,b): (14) It.

a. Mi ha detto di venire alle 10. ‘He told me to come at 10 o’clock.’ b. Sono contento di venire. ‘I am glad to come.’

(15) It.

a. Mi ha detto (*di) questo. ‘He told me this.’ b. Sono contento *(di) questo. ‘I am glad about this.’

The element di that introduces the infinitive clauses in (14) is ungrammatical in (15a), whereas it is obligatory in (15b). In a generative framework, these facts are interpreted

376

Guido Mensching

as follows: the item di in (14a) is a complementizer (analogous to che in a finite complement clause), whereas it is a preposition in (14b), in this case selected by the adjective contento (cf. Section 2.1). Similar tests can be used for other languages and for other items (mostly à/a), which also appear sometimes as complementizers. The syntactic environments of infinitival complementizers are not uniform across the Romance languages, although some cases can be identified in which all Romance languages behave in a similar way. Thus, the complementizer de/di usually appears in the predicative infinitive construction, as can be seen in the examples in (7) in Section 2.1 above, as well as in infinitival complement clauses to abstract nouns in cases in which the noun does not lexically select a preposition of its own (i.e., unlike the cases in (4) of Section 2.1):  

(16) a. It.

b. Sp.

c. Fr.

Il fenomeno [di aggrapparsi è tipico dei piccoli di scimmia]. ‘The phenomenon of clutching at one another is typical of baby monkeys.’ (Salvi/Skytte 2001, 545) El juez dio la orden [de detener al agresor]. ‘The judge gave the order to arrest the aggressor.’ (Hernanz 1999, 2280) J’adore le fait [de pouvoir nager dans la mer]. ‘I love the fact of being able to swim in the sea.’

A similar behavior can be seen with certain adjectives (cf. Hernanz 1999, 2285). Complementizers in subject or in object clauses are seldom found in Spanish, whereas in Italian and French they frequently appear, but do not behave in a uniform way. In subject clauses, complementizers normally appear only when the subject clause is postverbal. In this case, the complementizer de is obligatory in French, whereas in Italian the presence of di depends on the superordinate predicate, as shown in (17). The Italian examples stem from Salvi/Skytte (2001, 538–540): (17) a. Fr. a.’ It. b. Fr. b.’ It. c. Fr. c.’ It. d. Fr. d.’ It.

Il est impossible [d’y croire]. È impossibile [crederci]. ‘This is impossible to believe.’ Il te conviendra [de répéter l’exercice précédent]. Ti converrà [ripetere l’esercizio precedente]. ‘It will be better for you if you repeat the previous exercise.’ Il arrivait souvent [de rencontrer des mendiants en bas]. Succedeva spesso [di incontrare mendicanti sotto casa]. ‘It often happened that beggars were found downstairs.’ Cela ne l’intéresse pas [de le savoir]. Non gli interessa [(di) saperlo]. ‘S/he is not interested in knowing this.’

Infinitival clauses

377

In Italian, the complementizer is normally absent when the infinitive clause is the subject of essere+adjective as in (17a’). With some unaccusative predicates, di is absent, as in (17b’), with others it is obligatory, as in (17c’), and with still others it is optional, as in (17d’). In Italian infinitival object clauses, the complementizer di shows up when the infinitive clause is selected by one of the numerous verbs of saying and mental activity (cf. Salvi/Skytte 2001, 524–525; cf. the examples (1a) and (14a)). In French, the complementizer de appears in infinitive clauses of other verbs, whereas de is usually missing after verbs of saying and mental activity. Cf. (18a) vs (18b) – in the latter, the same verb does not mean ‘to say’, but ‘to request; to order’ (cf. Jones 1996, 416; Spanish behaves in a similar way): (18) Fr.

a. Pierre dit [avoir lu ce livre]. ‘Pierre says he has read this book.’ b. Pierre nous dit [de lire ce livre]. ‘Pierre tells us to read this book.’

Elements other than di/de, including à/a (and Italian da, Spanish por) are often real prepositions selected by the superordinate verb, noun, or adjective (cf. (3b), (4a), (5b,c)). However, some cases may be identified in which such items might rather be regarded as complementizers. Some examples for à are given below. (19) a. Fr. b. Sp. c. It.

Il me reste [à vous remercier]. (Jones 1996, 456) ‘I still have to thank you.’ Queda [por ver si es verdad]. ‘It remains to be seen if it is true.’ Ho continuato [a farlo]. ‘I have continued doing it.’ (similarly in the other languages)

(19a,b) are cases of an infinitival subject clause after intrinsically impersonal verbs, in which French shows some isolated cases of à as a complementizer (Jones 1996, 456). More frequent are cases of object clauses such as those in (19c), with some specific (mostly aspectual) verbs; cf. Salvi/Skytte (2001, 530–531) for some other semantically determined groups, to which the verbs meaning ‘to teach’ and ‘to learn’ seem to belong in most Romance languages.

378

Guido Mensching

4 The subject of infinitives 4.1 Silent subjects In infinitive clauses, the subject is mostly not expressed, but must be assumed to exist on a semantic/logical level, which can be seen in a sentence such as (20): (20) Fr.

Pierre a promis à Marie [de venir avec elle au cinéma]. ‘Pierre has promised Marie to go with her to the movies.’

Each of the two verbs in this sentence assigns a subject theta role (AGENT in the case of promettre, and THEME / PATIENT in the case of the unaccusative verb venir). However, only the subject theta role of promettre is expressed (Pierre), whereas that of venir is not expressed, although the speaker/hearer of (20) knows that it also corresponds to Pierre. Although, at least in some cases, there might be other ways of formalization, in what follows I adopt the generative view of a silent (implicit/covert/phonologically empty) subject of the infinitive. In the generative tradition, this subject is a kind of empty pronoun called PRO (in capital letters, i.e., “big” PRO, to distinguish it from “small” pro, the null subject that is typically found in most Romance languages in utterances such as Sp./It./Pt. canto ‘I sing’). The sentence in (20) is thus represented as in (21):  

(21) Fr.

Pierrei a promis à Mariej [de PROi venir avec ellej au cinéma].

The index (i) is the same for Pierre and PRO, meaning that both refer to the same entity in the extra-linguistic world. In a sentence such as (21), we say that the subject of the matrix clause “controls” PRO. Control by a matrix subject is a mostly semantically determined property of certain verbs. Apart from promettre and its counterparts in other languages, other subject control predicates are those meaning ‘to want’, ‘to hope’, ‘to regret’, ‘to threaten’ (cf. Jones 1996, 412–413; Manzini 2001, 486–488; cf. Hernanz 1999, 2216 for a much longer list, including also adjectival predicates). With other verbs, PRO is obligatorily controlled by an object (“object control verbs”, cf. Manzini 2001, 488–495; Hernanz 1999, 2216–2218). The group of object control verbs, logically, only comprises verbs that select another complement besides the infinitive clause (for adjectival predicates, cf. Manzini 2001, 493–495). The controller can be a direct object as in (22a) or an indirect object as in (22b): (22) It.

a. Giannii ha aiutato la vicinaj [a PROj portare le borse della spesa]. ‘Gianni helped the neighbor to carry the shopping bags.’ b. Giannii chiese a Pieroj [di PROj non fumare]. ‘Gianni asked Piero not to smoke.’

Infinitival clauses

379

Apart from aiutare and its other Romance equivalents, this group comprises, among others, predicates that express an order, a request or a prohibition, as well as those meaning ‘to counsel’, ‘to incite someone to do something’ (such as Sp. empujar, impulsar, inducir, cf. Hernanz 1999, 2217; It. istigare, spingere; Fr. inciter, pousser etc.). A special subgroup of object control verbs contains verbs expressing affection that select an indirect object corresponding to an EXPERIENCER theta role, mostly meaning something like ‘to please’ or its contrary (Sp. gustar, agradar, encantar/repugnar; It. piacere/(di)spiacere, Fr. plaire/déplaire, dégoûter). In this case, it is the experiencer that must control PRO. The verbs illustrated in (23) and some others can be used without expressing the RECIPIENT theta role: (23) a. Fr.

b. Sp.

Les pompiers ont ordonné [d’évacuer l’immeuble]. ‘The firemen gave the order to evacuate the building.’ (Jones 1996, 418) Su maestra enseña [a hablar correctamente]. ‘Her teacher teaches to speak correctly.’ (Hernanz 1999, 2215)

Most scholars seem to agree that, here, PRO is controlled by an implicit dative object of the main clause (cf. Rizzi 1986), which must be identified within the context of the utterance. Thus, for (23a), once it is clear that the firemen’s order was directed to the inhabitants of the building, the subject of the infinitive must also refer to the same group of people. (23b) is a general statement, the most logical interpretation of which is that the teacher teaches her pupils (and not, say, her colleagues or people in general); thus the subject of the infinitive hablar must also be the pupils. We can formalize this by using an empty object (Ø), which is obligatorily coindexed with PRO, so only the semantic content of Ø needs to be retrieved from the context: (24) a. Fr. b. Sp.

Les pompiersi ont ordonné Øj [d’ PROj évacuer l’immeuble]. ‘The firemen gave the order to evacuate the building.’ Su maestrai enseña Øj [a PROj hablar correctamente]. ‘Her teacher teaches to speak correctly.’

For further discussion, cf. Jones (1996, 416–420), Hernanz (1999, 2224–2229) and Manzini (2001, 490–491). The cases we have seen so far are cases of obligatory control. The literature on control (cf. Landau 2013 for a recent overview) distinguishes two other cases: nonobligatory or optional control, and arbitrary control. Arbitrary control means that PRO has a meaning like ‘one’ or ‘people in general’ (PROarb). The concept of obligatory vs optional control is discussed controversially in the literature (cf., e.g., Williams 1980; Koster 1987, 109–119; Haegeman 1994, 277; Manzini/Roussou 2000). In any case, it is

380

Guido Mensching

important to note that obligatory control structures involve coindexing of PRO in a narrow syntactic domain, with a unique argument, usually of a matrix verb. In optional control structures, PRO can be coindexed with an element in the same sentence (without any specific locality conditions and not necessarily with an argument of the matrix clause). Alternatively, PRO can either be coindexed with an element of the broader textual context, or it is not coindexed at all (PROarb). Cases of optional control are typical in adjunct clauses (for possible cases of obligatory control, cf. Manzini 2001, 496). Here, although it is often the case that PRO is coindexed with an argument of the matrix clause, as in (25a), this is not necessarily the case, as (25b) shows: (25) Sp.

a. [Al llegar PROi a Paris], Juliai se quedó desilusionada. ‘On arriving in Paris, Julia was disappointed.’ b. [Al llegar PROi a Paris], [NP los sueños [PP de Julia i]] se desvanecieron. ‘On arriving in Paris, Julia’s dreams vanished.’ (Hernanz 1999, 2221).

In the following examples, we see that PRO, in the same basic structure (a temporal adjunct clause), can either be coindexed with a subject or an object of the matrix clause: (26) It.

a. Giannii è partito [prima di PROi salutare Maria]. ‘Gianni left before saying good-bye to Maria.’ (Manzini 2001, 496) b. Glii è passato di mente [dopo PROi aver salutato Maria]. ‘He forgot about it after having said good-bye to Maria.’

Infinitival subject clauses behave in a similar way: (27) It.

a. [PROi Fumare] nuoce ai bambinii. ‘Smoking is harmful for children.’ (Manzini 2001, 491) b. [PRO#i Fumare durante la gravidanza] nuoce ai bambinii. ‘Smoking during pregnancy is harmful for children.’ (Manzini 2001, 491) c. [PROarb Fumare] è pericoloso. ‘Smoking is dangerous.’

(27a) shows that (apart from interpretations such as PROarb or coindexing with an element of the context), PRO can be controlled by the indirect object of the verb nuocere, whereas in (27b), this reading does not seem to be acceptable (for reasons of world knowledge), and the most probable reading determined by pragmatics is that PRO refers to the pregnant mother, who is not overtly expressed in the sentence (Manzini 2001, 491; cf. also Hernanz 1999, 2227–2229). By contrast, in (27c), an

Infinitival clauses

381

arbitrary interpretation of PRO is the most probable interpretation. Even clearer cases of arbitrary control in subject clauses are those in (28): (28) a. Sp. b. Fr.

Más vale [PROarb prevenir] que [PROarb curar]. ‘Prevention is better than a cure.’ (Hernanz 1999, 2222) Il est intéressant de [PROarb lire les autobiographies]. ‘It is interesting to read autobiographies.’ (Jones 1996, 417)

For further discussion of subject clauses, cf. Hernanz (1999, 2224–2227).

4.2 Overt subjects Despite the typical property of infinitive constructions of having a silent subject, there are several cases of overt subjects, which, as far as the Romance languages are concerned, can be divided into three main types: accusative-and-infinitive constructions, raising constructions and constructions with nominative subjects within the infinitive clause. Whereas the two former are typologically quite widespread (and can thus also be found in English or German), the latter seem rather to be a characteristic property of many Romance languages. Note that there are still other cases of (apparently) overt subjects such as the one in (29): (29) Fr.

Je te promets [d’aller moi(-même) te défendre au tribunal]. ‘I promise to go and defend you in court myself.’

The expression moi(-même) in the infinitive clause is a so-called emphatic pronoun (cf. Ronat 1979). This type of subject or subject-like expression seems to be possible in all Romance languages, and virtually in all contexts in which PRO occurs; in fact, the verb promettre selects an infinitive clause with obligatory subject control (cf. 4.1). Emphatic pronouns have been argued to be bound by PRO (thus: d’ PROi aller [moimême]i . . .), e.g., by Burzio (1986, 110–115), or to be overt counterparts of PRO (Cardinaletti 1999; Mensching 2000, 59–62; Alonso-Ovalle/D’Introno 2001; for a recent discussion cf. Herbeck 2015). In any case, these elements occur in a subset of the environments that I have described for PRO in Section 4.1 and will therefore not be discussed in what follows. The basis for understanding the constructions presented in 4.2.1–4.2.3 is the idea of generative grammar that infinitive clauses cannot license nominative case, a fact that is true for many languages, including English or German. Thus, sentences such as *I want [he to come] or *It seems [he to be angry] are ungrammatical. The accusative-and-infinitive and raising constructions that will be described in 4.2.1 and 4.2.2 are thus seen as devices to make such sentences grammatical, either by choosing a case other than nominative or by removing the nominative subject from the infinitive

382

Guido Mensching

clause. Although the generalization that infinitives cannot have nominative subjects is not true for most Romance languages, we shall see in Section 4.2.3 that such subjects cannot occur in all syntactic environments.

4.2.1 Accusative-and-infinitive constructions (exceptional case marking) The term accusative-and-infinitive comes from the grammar of Latin and designates an infinitive clause with a subject in the accusative case. In Romance languages, nouns do not have a morphological accusative case, but at least some pronouns do. A Romance construction that is often considered as an accusative-and-infinitive structure is that in (30): (30) Fr.

a. Je vois Jean venir. ‘I see Jean coming.’ b. Je le vois venir. ‘I see him coming.’

If Jean in (30a) is substituted by a clitic as in (30b), it takes the accusative form le (cf. Section 5 for an explanation of why the clitic appears on the matrix verb; also note that, in the Spanish equivalent of (30a), the accusative would be identified by the differential object marker a). The analysis of such structures as an infinitive construction with an explicit subject is based on the assumption that verbs of perception have only one argument besides the subject, which can either be a noun phrase as in Je vois Jean/l’homme or a clause (either finite or non-finite). The structure of (30a) is thus as in (31): (31) Fr.

Je vois [Jean venir].

Since voir is a transitive verb, it usually assigns accusative case to its nominal complement. Here, the complement is phrasal, and a reasonable assumption is that the accusative case is “exceptionally” assigned to the subject of the infinitive instead. In generative grammar, this mechanism is called exceptional case marking (ECM). An analysis along these lines, which is favored here (cf. Ciutescu 2013 for some recent support), can be found, e.g., in Guasti (1989), Belletti (1990), Hernanz (1999), Mensching (2000), but is far from being uncontroversial. For other kinds of analyses, cf., e.g., Hernanz (1999, 2236–2241) and Salvi/Skytte (2001, 509–511). This kind of construction is found mostly with verbs of perception, e.g., French voir, regarder, écouter, sentir, apercevoir (Jones 1996, 430), Italian intendere, sentire, udire, vedere, ascoltare, avvertire, ascoltare, guardare (Salvi/Skytte 2001), Spanish ver, oír, escuchar, sentir, mirar, observar (Hernanz 1999, 2241). There are some non-perception verbs that can select this construction, the most important ones being those

Infinitival clauses

383

meaning ‘to let (someone do something)’, i.e., Fr. laisser, Sp. dejar, It. lasciare. The construction at issue allows, in principle, both a preverbal and a postverbal subject:  

(32) a. Fr. a.’ Fr. b. It. b.’ It. c. Sp. c.’ Sp.

Paul a vu/laissé [Marie danser]. (cf. Jones 1996, 431) Paul a vu/laissé [danser Marie]. (cf. Jones 1996, 430) Paolo ha visto/lasciato [Maria ballare]. Paolo ha visto/lasciato [ballare Maria]. Pablo ha visto/dejado [a María bailar]. Pablo ha visto/dejado [bailar a María]. ‘Paul/Paolo/Pablo has seen/let Marie/Maria/María dance.’

However, when the infinitive is a transitive verb with a direct object, a postverbal subject is no longer possible in French and Italian; instead the subject of the infinitive appears as a dative after the direct object, as shown in (33) (the Spanish facts are more intricate and possibly dialect specific, cf. Moore 2014). (33) a. Fr. a.’ Fr. a.” Fr. b. It. b.’ It. b.” It.

Paul a entendu/laissé [Marie raconter cette histoire]. *Paul a entendu/laissé [raconter Marie cette histoire]. Paul a entendu/laissé [raconter cette histoire à Marie]. Paolo ha sentito/lasciato [Maria raccontare questa storia]. *Paolo ha sentito/lasciato [raccontare Maria questa storia]. Paolo ha sentito/lasciato [raccontare questa storia a Maria]. ‘Paul/Paolo has heard/let Marie/Maria tell this story.’

These facts have received different interpretations in the literature (cf. Mensching 2000, 69–72). The most reasonable solution seems to be that, when the infinitive is adjacent to the matrix verb, the sequence matrix verb+infinitive is reinterpreted (or “restructured”, cf. Section 5) as one verbal unit that selects a direct object, with an (optional) dative representing the original subject of the infinitive (Belletti 1990, 136; Guasti 1996; Hernanz 1999, 2249–2264; Mensching 1999, among others). The impossibility of negation illustrated in (34b), when the subject is postinfinitival, may be explained by the same mechanism, or, alternatively by assuming that these verbs can either select a clause (as in (34a), or a reduced structure (e.g., a VP, cf., e.g., Labelle 1996; Mensching 2000, 70–72; Ciutescu 2013): (34) Fr.

a. J’ai vu [Pierre ne pas chanter]. b. *J’ai vu [ne pas chanter Pierre]. (Labelle 1996)

Typically, the causative construction with verbs meaning to ‘make someone do something’ does not allow the preverbal position of the subject in French and Italian (Jones 1996, 431; Salvi/Skytte 2001, 501–502; for exceptions with quantifiers cf. Mensching 2000, 70; and for other languages cf. Jones 1993, 273 (Sardinian); Mensching 1999

384

Guido Mensching

(Catalan)). For these Romance languages, we can therefore say that the processes or structures such as complex predicate formation or the selection of a reduced/nonclausal structure are obligatory with the relevant causative verbs and optional with perception verbs. Spanish is different, because a preverbal subject is allowed with hacer, although this is a marked option (Hernanz 1999, 2248 and 2256–2257). The verbs meaning ‘to let someone do something’ (cf. above) do not behave in a uniform way, in the sense that, language-specifically, they pattern with the causative verbs, either completely, partially, or not at all. Differently from older stages of several Romance languages (cf. Mensching/ Popovici 1997; Mensching 1999; 2000), accusative-and-infinitive constructions after declarative, epistemic and volitional verbs as well as in postverbal subject clauses selected by impersonal verbs are possible in almost none of the present day Romance languages. A potential explanation is that, in Modern Romance languages, such clauses have a more complex clause structure, which, in fact, often shows an overt complementizer, as we have seen in Section 3. If the mentioned predicate types always select complementizer phrases (CPs), we can assume that the complementizer or the CP border somehow blocks external case assignment (for an additional argument stemming from certain cases in French and Italian, in which a clitic or an interrogative pronoun representing the subject of the infinitive can appear in the matrix clause, cf. Kayne 1981; Rizzi 1982; Mensching 2000, 72). An exception is Occitan (cf. Camproux 1958, 273–283; Sauzet 1989; Mensching 2000, 33–34), as is shown in the following examples (for arguments in favor of an analysis of the subjects in these examples as accusatives, cf. Mensching 2000, 176–177): (35) Occ. a. Se ditz [aqueles òmes èsser braves]. ‘It is said that these men are wild.’ (Sauzet 1989, 248) b. Calguèt [los òmes anar trabalhar]. ‘It was necessary that the men go to work.’ (Sauzet 1989, 247) To explain this, we can either assume that the predicates at issue select a somehow reduced clause structure (an IP in generative terms) or that, in Occitan, a CP does not block ECM (for another account, cf. Sauzet 1989).

4.2.2 Raising constructions The examples in (36) represent a special construction that occurs with some matrix verbs that do not assign a subject theta role, either by principle, such as verbs meaning ‘to seem’, or in special, non-personal readings of some verbs, such as French risquer:

Infinitival clauses

(36) Fr.

385

a. Oscar semble [s’évanouir/écrire]. ‘Oscar seems to faint/to write.’ (Rooryck 1988, 1) b. La pierre risque [de tomber]. ‘The stone is in danger of falling.’ (Rooryck 1988, 1)

Here, the subject of the main clause corresponds to a theta role of the infinitive clause (cf. paraphrases with finite clauses such as ‘It seems that Oscar is fainting.’/‘There is a risk that the stone will fall.’). This is called a “subject raising” construction because of the standard generative analysis sketched in (37): (37) __ semble [Oscar s’évanouir] → Oscar semble [ __ s’évanouir] ↑_____________| Because of the impossibility of nominative subjects in French infinitive clauses (or, for other Romance languages, their limited availability, cf. Section 4.2.3), the subject must be extracted (“raised”) to the subject position of the matrix verb, which is, in fact, available, as the verbs at issue do not select a subject theta role. Examples of raising predicates in French are sembler, être censé, être susceptible, faillir (Jones 1996, 421– 430), in Italian sembrare, (ap)parere, risultare (Salvi/Skytte 2001, 544), in Spanish parecer, semejar, resultar (Hernanz 1999, 2234). Raising constructions have also been assumed for some modal verbs, in particular those meaning ‘may’, especially in the sense of ‘to be possible’ (Fr. pouvoir, It. potere, Sp. poder) and ‘must’ (Fr. devoir, It. dovere, Sp. deber), as well as for verbs meaning ‘to begin’, ‘to stop’, ‘to continue’ (Kayne 1975, 254–260; Hernanz 1999, 2230; Salvi/Skytte 2001, 544, among many others; these analyses are not uncontroversial, cf. Fábregas 2014 for a recent discussion). One of the several tests for showing that a verb is a raising verb and not a control verb is illustrated in (38) (from Salvi/Skytte 2001, 543): (38) It.

a. Il governo deve [annientare la mafia]. ‘The government must destroy the Mafia.’ a.’ La mafia deve [essere annientata dal governo]. ‘The Mafia must be destroyed by the government.’ b. Il governo vuole [annientare la mafia]. ‘The government wants to destroy the Mafia.’ b.’ La mafia vuole [essere annientata dal governo]. ‘The Mafia wants to be destroyed by the government.’

Whereas (38a) and (38a’) are synonymous, (38b) and (38b’) are not. If dovere is a raising verb, and volere a control verb, the underlying structures can be represented as follows: (39) It.

a. Il governoi deve [ __i annientare la mafiaj]. a.’ La mafiaj deve [ __j essere annientata dal governoi].

386

Guido Mensching

b. Il governoi vuole [PROi annientare la mafiaj]. b.’ La mafiaj vuole [PROj essere annientata dal governoi]. Recall that, in an active clause and a corresponding passive clause, the theta roles AGENT and THEME / PATIENT remain the same; thus, the infinitive clauses in (39a,a’) must be synonymous: in a raising construction, the apparent subject of the matrix verb is, in reality, the subject of the infinitive clause, which has just changed its position. The theta role is therefore still the one that was assigned by the infinitive (recall that raising verbs do not assign a subject theta role themselves). But in a control construction, there are two subjects, an overt one, which receives its theta role from the matrix verb, and a silent subject (PRO) that receives its theta role from the infinitive. In (39b), the one who wants to destroy is the government, which – via coindexation with PRO – is also the agent of the verb; by contrast, in (39b’) it is the Mafia who wants the action to be performed, and at the same time, the Mafia is the patient of the infinitive. Subject raising constructions must not be confused with so-called object gap constructions (Jones 1996, 332–334): (40) Fr.

Ces livres sont difficiles à trouver. ‘These books are difficult to find.’

Here, the subject corresponds to a raised direct object of the infinitive clause, whose subject (either PROarb, or PRO) is controlled by an implicit EXPERIENCER argument of difficile (cf. Section 4.1), as argued by Jones (1996, 332–334): (41) Ces livres sont difficiles Øi [PROi à trouver __ ]. ↑__________________________________| For other languages and discussion, cf. Hernanz (1999, 2300) and Salvi/Skytte (2001, 552–553).

4.2.3 Clause internal nominative subjects Almost all Romance languages, except for French and most varieties of Occitan (but cf. Mensching 2000, 34, 124 and 176 for Gascon) allow nominative subjects in certain environments; this is known as the “personal infinitive” construction. The most common configurations show the subject obligatorily in a postverbal position. There are basically two different types to be distinguished (cf. Mensching 2000), illustrated in (42) and (43) (I have deliberately chosen pronouns that clearly show the nominative case; however all these constructions are also possible with full NPs/DPs):

Infinitival clauses

(42) It.

387

La commissione ritiene [aver io superato l’esame]. ‘The commission thinks that I have passed the exam.’ (Giorgi/Pianesi 2004, 193)

(43) a. Sp.

[Ir yo a la facultad mañana] va a ser imposible. ‘For me to go to the Faculty tomorrow will be impossible.’ (Demonte 1977, 185) b. Cat. El millor seria [anar-hi jo també]. ‘The best thing would be for me to go there, too.’ (Mensching 1998) c. Srd. At segadu sos pratos [pro non mandigare(s) tue]. ‘He broke the plates in order for you not to eat.’ (Blasco Ferrer 1986) d. Rom. Am plecat [înainte de a ajunge ea]. ‘I arrived before she came.’ (Dobrovie-Sorin 1993, 89)

The type in (42) is the so called “Aux-to-Comp” construction (Rizzi 1982) and is stylistically restricted to literary and formal registers of Standard Italian. It is only possible with infinitival clauses that contain the auxiliaries avere and essere, which are located in clause-initial position, immediately followed by the subject. The auxiliary is held to occupy the complementizer position, which would be filled with di in the corresponding control structure (cf. Section 3). Older stages of Tuscan Italian and related varieties also knew the structure in (43) (cf. Mensching 2000), which does not have these restrictions, and which is still grammatical in other Romance languages. The languages that license the structure illustrated in (43) include Sardinian, which (except for Campidanese varieties) can optionally use the inflected infinitive as seen in (43c). As the examples show, these constructions can occur without an auxiliary. If an auxiliary is present, the subject usually follows the participle (for the marked option of placing the subject after the auxiliary in Spanish, cf. Fernández Lagunilla 1987; Mensching 2000, 128 and 221–222): (44) Sp.

[De haberse ido Juan], no habría andado lejos. ‘If Juan had left, he wouldn’t have walked far.’ (Mensching 2000, 113)

Although the examples in (42) to (44) might suggest that personal infinitives could be restricted to unaccusative verbs, this is not the case, cf. (45): (45) Sp.

El hecho [de abrir Julia la puerta] mereció un premio. ‘The fact that Julia opened the door merited a prize.’ (Fernández Lagunilla/Anula Rebollo 1995, 193; quoted in Hernanz 1999, 2268)

388

Guido Mensching

It is clear that the “classical” generative case theory, according to which only a finite inflectional head (containing tense and agreement features) can assign nominative case, does not hold for these languages. Most analyses (e.g., Rizzi 1982; Jones 1992; 1993; Dobrovie-Sorin 1993; Mensching 1999; 2000; Sitaridou 2002) argue that an incomplete inflectional head (Infl° in generative grammar) or impoverished tense and/ or agreement features can license nominative case, but not in its canonical preverbal position (note that this generalization is comparable to the typological notion of semisubjects, cf. Mensching 2000, 13–14). For an early and a modern minimalist account, cf., respectively, Mensching (2000, 179–198), and Sitaridou (2002). Whereas Aux-to-Comp can only occur in infinitival complement clauses after epistemic and declarative predicates and in final and causal adverbial clauses introduced by per, the construction illustrated in (43) to (45) is typically not found in object clauses (except for Sardinian, cf. Jones 1993, 252–253), but appears in subject clauses as in (43a,b) and in infinitival clauses that are complements of nouns (as in (45)). However, the most common environment is that in adverbial infinitive clauses (cf. (43c,d) and (44)). It can also appear in infinitival root clauses (cf. Hernanz 1999, 2226), except for the historical infinitive, which has a preverbal subject as explained in Section 2.2. The absence of the structure in object clauses seems to be related to the issues of transparency briefly addressed in Sections 4.2.1 and 4.2.2, e.g., in the sense that a penetration of control or (accusative) case-assigning properties of the matrix verb into the infinitive clause would interfere with the presence of an independent subject of the infinitive or the nominative assignment mechanism. The penetration of such properties from the matrix clause to the infinitive clause can be blocked by overt complementizers in Sardinian, which obligatorily show up in this language, hence the possibility to license nominative subjects in some types of infinitival object clauses (cf. Sitaridou 2002 for discussion and a theory). The system of Portuguese and Galician is different from that illustrated in (42) to (45), as the subject of the infinitive preferably appears in a preverbal position. It seems that the distribution of preverbal and postverbal subjects in Portuguese and Galician infinitive clauses is nearly the same as in finite clauses (cf. Mensching 2000, 155–157), with the exception of object clauses selected by declarative and epistemic verbs. The latter show a pattern that is very similar to that of the Italian Aux-to-Comp construction in (42) and may possibly be subsumed under the latter (cf. Raposo 1987; Madeira 1994; cf. Mensching 2000, 89–91 and 157–162 for discussion). Here are some Portuguese examples with preverbal subjects, which normally go along with the inflected infinitive: (46) EPt. a. Incomoda-me a circunstância [de estas pessoas não viverem mais na cidade]. ‘The fact that these people do not live any longer in the city bothers me.’ (Mensching 2000, 103)

Infinitival clauses

389

b. Lamentou [essas actividades serem úteis para o país]. ‘He deplored the fact that these activities were useful for the country.’ (Mensching 2000, 159) c. Eu espero [até tu acabares o livro]. ‘I wait until you finish the book.’ (Madeira 1994, 180) With respect to the licensing mechanisms of nominative case, it is obvious that, here, the overtly visible agreement features on the infinitive play a crucial role, as already assumed by Raposo 1987 (for further discussion, cf., e.g., Mensching 2000; Sitaridou 2002). However, this correlation of the licensing of preverbal subjects and the existence of inflected infinitives cannot be generalized, since Sardinian has the latter property without permitting preverbal subjects (cf. above), whereas Sicilian also licenses preverbal subjects without having inflected infinitives (cf. Mensching 2000, 30–31, 102–106 and 173–176). The Portuguese inflected infinitive in connection with specified subjects shows some further interesting properties. For example, the structure in (46) is also licensed after verbs of perception, as an alternative to the ECM construction of Section 4.2.1. Thus, (47a) shows a nominative subject with an inflected infinitive, whereas (47b) shows an accusative subject marked by ECM, crucially with a non-inflected infinitive (Hornstein/Martins/Nunes 2006). The case properties can be seen with the tests involving clitic and non-clitic pronouns in (48): (47) EPt. a. A Maria viu [os meninos saírem]. b. A Maria viu [os meninos sair]. ‘Maria saw the boys leave.’ (Hornstein/Martins/Nunes 2006, 99) (48) EPt. a. A Maria viu-te sair. b. A Maria viu tu saíres. c. *A Maria viu-te saíres. ‘Maria saw you leave.’ (Hornstein/Martins/Nunes 2006, 99) Another interesting fact that follows from the ability of inflected infinitives to assign nominative case is the possibility of the subject of inflected infinitives after raising verbs to stay in the matrix clause (Raposo 1987; Mensching 2000, 74 and 158; for further discussion and some complications, cf. Martins/Nunes 2006).

390

Guido Mensching

5 The internal structure of infinitive clauses and restructuring Some final words are in order concerning the internal structure of Romance infinitive clauses, including the concept of restructuring. We have already seen in Sections 3 and 4 that infinitive constructions may vary with respect to their clausal status, e.g., in the sense that they may be complementizer phrases (CPs) or not, or, in some cases, maybe not clauses at all (e.g., if they are just VPs). Another aspect to be considered is word order. In French, infinitives of lexical verbs (as other non-finite verb forms) usually occupy a rather low position in the clause (in generative terms below the inflectional head Infl°/Tense°; cf. Pollock 1989), as can be seen in (49a,b), where the infinitive is located after the negation and the adverb presque, respectively: (49) Fr.

a. [Ne pas posséder de voiture en banlieue] rend la vie difficile. ‘Not having a car in the suburbs makes life difficult.’ (Pollock 1989, 374) b. [Presque oublier son nom], ça n’arrive pas fréquemment. ‘It does not happen frequently to almost forget one’s name.’ (Pollock 1989, 374)

A low position of the infinitive has also been assumed for Romanian (cf. Motapanyane 1989), under the hypothesis that a (cf. Section 3) occupies the Infl° node in a nu vorbi ‘not to speak’ (but cf. Dobrovie-Sorin 1993, 85–97). To determine the position of the infinitive, it has been claimed that the different position of clitics in different Romance languages may be indicators of different verb positions (cf. Kayne 1991). I will not elaborate on this here but just show the different clitic positions with respect to the verb and negation for some languages: (50) a. b. c. d. e.

Fr. Rom. Srd. It. Sp.

[ne rien lui donner] [a nu-i da nimic] [non li dare nudda] [non dargli niente] [no darle nada] ‘not to give him anything’

The clitic is preverbal in French, Romanian and Sardinian and postverbal in Italian and Spanish. Differently from Romanian and Sardinian, in French most elements that undergo negative concord are placed after the negative head and before the clitic. In (50), the clitics are proclitic or enclitic to the infinitive, as is expected in a biclausal infinitive structure. However, clitics that belong to the infinitive can also appear attached to the matrix verb. This phenomenon is called “clitic climbing” (cf.

Infinitival clauses

391

Rooryck 2000, ch. 5, for a theoretical overview), and is often taken as evidence for a very reduced or even a monoclausal structure. Clitic climbing typically occurs with modal verbs. Concerning this property, the Romance languages can be divided into three groups: languages in which clitic climbing is (a) obligatory, (b) not possible, (c) optional. Sardinian and French are examples of (a) and (b), respectively:  



(51) a. Srd. Juanne lu cheret/potet/ischit/devet [fákere]. a.’ Srd. *Juanne cheret/potet/ischit/devet [lu fákere]. (Jones 1993, 142) b. Fr. *Jean le veut/peut/sait/doit [faire]. b.’ Fr. Jean veut/peut/sait/doit [le faire]. ‘Juanne/Jean wants/can/must do it.’ In Sardinian, but not in French, the bracketed constituent in (51) would therefore be a VP rather than a clause (Jones 1993, 142–145). Independent evidence for this is the fact that negation cannot occur inside the infinitive construction in Sardinian (Jones 1993, 143, cf. *Juanne podet non bénnere vs Fr. Jean peut ne pas venir, meaning ‘It is possible that Jean won’t come’). Spanish and Italian are examples for (c), i.e., clitic climbing can optionally occur:  

(52) a. Sp. a.’ Sp.

Juan puede [hacerlo]. ‘Juan can do it.’ Juan lo quiere [hacer]. ‘Juan wants to do it.’

b. It. b.’ It.

Gianni può [farlo]. ‘Gianni can do it.’ Gianni lo vuole [fare]. ‘Gianni wants to do it.’

This phenomenon is referred to as “restructuring”. There is a whole range of different approaches (for an overview, cf., e.g., Wurmbrand 2001), so I follow here the simplified account by Salvi/Skytte (2001), which can illustrate the basic idea of “restructuring”. For (52), take a version with a full NP or a demonstrative such as (53): (53) Sp.

Juan puede [hacer este trabajo/esto]. ‘Juan can do this work/this.’

The bracketing here indicates a biclausal structure. Another interpretation of the same clause (the “restructured” variant) is the monoclausal one in (54), where the modal verb and the infinitive are taken to be grouped together: (54) Sp.

Juan [puede hacer] este trabajo/esto.

Variant (54) functions as if the modal plus the infinitive were only one verb, so, logically the clitic must attach to this complex and not to the infinitive alone. There is no consensus in the literature on whether (53) and (54) are independent constructions

392

Guido Mensching

or whether they are derived from each other. As is to be expected, the infinitive of the restructured variant cannot be negated (Salvi/Skytte 2001, 516). The matrix predicates that license restructuring in Romance are, generally speaking, a subgroup of those predicates that have been classified as control and raising predicates (cf. Sections 4.1 and 4.2.2). Apart from modal verbs, they also comprise aspectual verbs such as those meaning ‘to begin’ and ‘to stop’ (also in Sardininan, cf. Jones 1993, 149) as well as motion verbs such as It. andare a fare qualcosa (Salvi/ Skytte 2001, 514 and 516; Wurmbrand 2001, 7). The exact distribution is, however, language-specific. As we have seen in Section 4.2.1, the verbs that license accusative-and-infinitive constructions may be added to the list of restructuring verbs under certain interpretations. As for clitic climbing, in accusative-and-infinitive constructions, it is usually the subject of the infinitive and not an object that undergoes this operation, as has been seen in (30) in Section 4.2.1. Since a clitic has to attach to the next higher verb (i.e., to its left), a clitic representing a subject cannot be attached to an infinitive (which is located lower than the subject). Thus, unlike (52), in such cases, we do not have two options (cf. Sp. Te veo llegar/*Veo llegarte ‘I see you coming’).  

6 Conclusions Infinitive constructions are very productive in Romance languages and appear in a variety of syntactic configurations. In this chapter, we have mostly been concerned with infinitive constructions in a narrow sense, i.e., those that have a clausal status and usually appear subordinated to a matrix clause. As I have shown in Section 2, such constructions appear in several syntactic functions that are common to all Romance languages, such as subject clauses, object clauses, predicative clauses and clauses that depend on verbs, adjectives and nouns that select a preposition, where the infinitive clause is embedded in the corresponding prepositional phrase ([PP P [INF . CLAUSE ]]). This structure is also frequently found with non-selected prepositions, thus forming adverbial subclauses of time, cause, manner, etc. Finally, most Romance languages (but crucially not French) also permit infinitive clauses to be introduced by a determiner, and in particular, the definite article, thus forming structures of the type [NP/DP D [INF . CLAUSE ]], an option that is particularly frequent in Spanish, but also in Portuguese and Catalan. Romanian only permits the infinitive in a subset of the environments mentioned, having substituted some types of infinitive constructions by finite constructions. The infinitive itself is morphologically marked by a suffix {-r (+vowel)}, with the exception of Romanian, which lacks this morpheme and uses the preposed (unbound) morpheme {a}, which seems to have a similar status as English to. While these morphemes are usually unspecified for personal features and tense, Portuguese and Sardinian allow the suffix to be inflected for person and number, a typologically  

Infinitival clauses

393

marked option. Infinitive clauses of all Romance languages display a strong tendency to be preceded by some left peripheral element, i.e., when they are not embedded in a PP or a determined NP/DP, they are often introduced by a kind of default preposition (mostly de/di), which is interpreted as a complementizer in the generative tradition (cf. Section 3). This is regularly the case with predicative infinitive clauses and rightattached subject clauses, whereas left-attached subject clauses lack this property and non-prepositional object clauses vary language-specifically. Summarizing some of the insights of Section 4.1, we might say that, similar to other languages, Romance languages use infinitive constructions instead of finite constructions for a kind of economy reason; i.e., when the tense and the subject of the infinitive clause are recoverable from the syntactic or textual context, an infinitive clause permits a more compact way of expression than a finite clause: the subject is not expressed even in a non null subject language like French, and there is no agreement and tense morphology. Such an approach, however, would only partially explain the choice of an infinitive clause, as is evidenced by the presence of overt subjects in some constructions and the inflected infinitive in some languages. In any case, the recovery of the tense of the infinitive (which we have not considered in this chapter) and of the reference of the non-expressed subject is not arbitrary but follows some rules that are not specific to Romance. The silent subject of infinitive clauses is of a special type, called PRO in the generative literature, and the recovery of its content is governed by rules of “control”, which are probably universal. In Section 4.2 we considered those cases in which the subject of the infinitive is overtly expressed. These include a series of constructions that can be found in many non-Romance languages, too, such as subject raising and accusative-and-infinitive structures. The latter are found with verbs of perception and permission as well as with causative verbs in almost all Romance languages, although there is some language-specific variation with respect to word order and to the predicates that select this structure. A characteristic Romance type of structure found in all Romance languages except for Gallo-Romance (French and Occitan) shows nominative subjects in infinitive clauses, which mostly occur post-verbally, i.e., to the right of the infinitive. Finally, Section 5 was dedicated to the internal structure of the infinitive clause. We have seen that we can distinguish Romance languages in which the infinitive itself is located very low in the clause structure (French, and maybe Romanian and Portuguese) versus others in which it is in a higher position (Spanish, Italian), as can be seen with tests using adverbs, negation, and clitics. Clitics and negation are realized within the infinitive clause, but can be raised to the matrix verb. With modal verbs, most Romance languages freely allow this phenomenon (called “restructuring”), which is, however, absent from French, whereas it is obligatory in Sardinian. Thus, Romance infinitive constructions can be said to be generated from an inventory of properties that is common to all Romance languages, but are, however, not distributed in a uniform way. As is the case with other domains of language, on  





394

Guido Mensching

one hand, we often find a deviant behavior of French versus the “southern” Romance languages. On the other hand, with respect to a series of phenomena, it is rather the peripheries of the Romania (Romanian, Sardinian, and sometimes Portuguese) that diverge from more “central” languages (Spanish, Italian, French). The “parameters of variation” are often more fine-grained than could be presented here. Nevertheless I hope to have provided an overview that can serve as a basis for more in-depth studies in the domain of Romance infinitive constructions.

7 References Alonso-Ovalle, Luis/D’Introno, Francesco (2001), Full and null pronouns in Spanish: the zero pronoun hypothesis, in: Héctor Campos et al. (edd.), Hispanic Linguistics at the Turn of the Millennium, Somerville, MA, Cascadilla Press, 189–210. Belletti, Adriana (1990), Generalized Verb Movement, Torino, Rosenberg & Sellier. Blasco Ferrer, Eduardo (1986), La lingua sarda contemporanea. Grammatica del logudorese e del campidanese. Norma e varietà dell’uso. Sintesi storica, Cagliari, Edizioni della Torre. Bottari, Piero (1992), Structural representations of the Italian nominal infinitive, in: Elisabetta Fava (ed.), Proceedings of the XVII Meeting of Generative Grammar, Trieste 22–24 February 1991, Torino, Rosenberg & Sellier, 71–96. Burzio, Luigi (1986), Italian Syntax. A Government-Binding Approach, Dordrecht, Reidel. Camproux, Charles (1958), Étude syntaxique des parlers gévaudanais, Montpellier, Presses Universitaires de France. Cardinaletti, Anna (1999), Italian emphatic pronouns are postverbal subjects, University of Venice Working Papers in Linguistics 9, 59–92. Chomsky, Noam (1981), Lectures on Government and Binding, Dordrecht, Foris. Ciutescu, Elena (2013), Remarks on the infinitival subject of perception verb complements: evidence for two syntactic configurations, Revue roumaine de linguistique 58, 299–312. Demonte, Violeta (1977), La subordinación sustantiva, Madrid, Cátedra. Dobrovie-Sorin, Carmen (1993), The Syntax of Romanian. Comparative Studies in Romance, Berlin/ New York, Mouton de Gruyter. Fábregas, Antonio (2014), A guide to subjunctive and modals in Spanish: questions and analyses, Borealis. An International Journal of Hispanic Linguistics 3, 1–94. [DOI 10.7557/1.3.2.3064] Fava, Elisabetta (2001), Tipi di frasi principali. Il tipo dichiarativo, in: Lorenzo Renzi/Giampaolo Salvi/ Anna Cardinaletti (edd.), Grande grammatica italiana di consultazione, new edition, vol. 3, Bologna, il Mulino, 49–53, 55–69. Fernández Lagunilla, Marina (1987), Los infinitivos con sujetos léxicos en español, in: Violeta Demonte/Marina Fernández Lagunilla (edd.), Sintaxis de las lenguas románicas, Madrid, El Arquero, 125–147. Fernández Lagunilla, Marina/Anula Rebollo, Alberto (1995), Sintaxis y cognición, Madrid, Síntesis. Giorgi, Alessandra/Pianesi, Fabio (2004), Complementizer deletion in Italian, in: Luigi Rizzi (ed.), The Structure of CP and IP. The Cartography of Syntactic Structures Volume 2, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 190–210. Guasti, Maria Teresa (1989), Romance infinitive complements of perception verbs, MIT Working Papers in Lingustics 11, 31–45. Guasti, Maria Teresa (1996), Semantic restrictions on Romance causatives and the incorporation approach, Linguistic Inquiry 27, 294–313.

Infinitival clauses

395

Haegeman, Liliane (1994), Introduction to Government and Binding Theory, 2nd edn, Oxford, Blackwell. Herbeck, Peter (2015), Overt PRO in Romance, in: Rachel Klassen/Juana M. Liceras/Elena Valenzuela (edd.), Hispanic Linguistics at the Crossroads: Theoretical Linguistics, Language Acquisition and Language Contact, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, Benjamins, 25–48. Hernanz Carbó, María L. (1999), El infinitivo, in: Ignacio Bosque/Violeta Demonte (edd.), Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española, vol. 2, Madrid, Espasa Calpe, 2197–2356. Hornstein, Norbert/Martins, Ana Maria/Nunes, Jairo (2006), Infinitival complements of perception and causative verbs: a case study on agreement and intervention effects in English and European Portuguese, University of Maryland Working Papers in Linguistics 14, 81–110. Hugo, Victor (1866), Toilers of the Sea, authorized English translation by W. Moy Thomas, vol. 2, London, Sampson Low, Son & Marston. Jones, Michael Allan (1992), Infinitives with specified subjects in Sardinian, in: Christiane Laeufer/ Terrell A. Morgan (edd.), Theoretical Analyses in Romance Linguistics. Selected Papers from the Nineteenth Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages (LSRL XIX), The Ohio State University, 21–23 April 1989, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, Benjamins, 295–309. Jones, Michael Allan (1993), Sardinian Syntax, London/New York, Routledge. Jones, Michael Allan (1996), Foundations of French Syntax, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Kayne, Richard (1975), French Syntax: The Transformational Cycle, Cambridge, MA, MIT Press. Kayne, Richard (1981), On certain differences between French and English, Linguistic Inquiry 12, 349–371. Kayne, Richard (1984), Connectedness and Binary Branching, Dordrecht, Foris. Kayne, Richard (1991), Romance clitics, verb movement, and PRO, Linguistic Inquiry 22, 647–686. Koster, Jan (1987), Domains and Dynasties, Dordrecht, Foris. Labelle, Marie (1996), Remarques sur les verbes de perception et la sous-catégorisation, Recherches Linguistiques de Vincennes 25, 83–106. Landau, Idan (2013), Control in Generative Grammar: A Research Companion, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Lombard, Alf (1936), L’infinitif de narration dans les langues romanes. Études de syntaxe historique, Uppsala, Almqvist & Wiksell/Leipzig, Harassowitz. Loporcaro, Michele (1986), L’infinito coniugato nell’Italia centromeridionale: ipotesi genetica e ricostruzione storica, L’Italia Dialettale 49, 173–240. Madeira, Ana Maria (1994), On the Portuguese inflected infinitive, UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 6, 179–203. Manzini, M. Rita (2001), Il soggetto delle frasi argomentali all’infinito, in: Lorenzo Renzi/Giampaolo Salvi/Anna Cardinaletti (edd.), Grande grammatica italiana di consultazione, new edition, vol. 2, Bologna, il Mulino, 485–497. Manzini, M. Rita/Roussou, Anna (2000), A minimalist theory of A-movement and control, Lingua 110, 409–447. Martins, Ana Maria/Nunes, Jairo (2006), Raising issues in Brazilian and European Portuguese, Journal of Portuguese Linguistics 4, 53–77. Maurer, Theodoro E. (1968), O infinito flexionado português – estudo histórico-descritivo, São Paulo, Ed. Nacional/Ed. da Univ. de São Paulo. Mensching, Guido (1998), Infinitivo con sujeto léxico en la historia de la lengua española, in: Claudio García Turza/Fabián González Bachiller/José Javier Mangado Martínez (edd.), Actas del IV Congreso Internacional de Historia de La Lengua Española, La Rioja, Universidad de La Rioja, 597–610. Mensching, Guido (1999), Infinitivkonstruktionen mit explizitem Subjekt im Katalanischen, in: HansIngo Radatz/Rolf Kailuweit (edd.), Katalanisch: Sprachwissenschaft und Sprachkultur, Frankfurt, Vervuert, 191–217.

396

Guido Mensching

Mensching, Guido (2000), Infinitive Constructions with Specified Subjects: A Syntactic Analysis of the Romance Languages, Oxford, Oxford University Press. Mensching, Guido/Popovici, Victoria (1997), Constructions infinitives à sujet explicite en roumain, Studii şi cercetări lingvistice 48, 219–243. Moore, John C. (2014), Reduced Constructions in Spanish, London/New York, Routledge. Motapanyane, Virginia (1989), La position du sujet dans une langue à l’ordre SVO/VSO, Rivista di grammatica generativa 14, 75–103. Pollock, Jean-Yves (1989), Verb movement, Universal Grammar, and the structure of IP, Linguistic Inquiry 20, 365–424. Raposo, Eduardo (1987), Case theory and Infl-to-Comp: the inflected infinitive in European Portuguese, Linguistic Inquiry 18, 85–109. Rizzi, Luigi (1982), Issues in Italian Syntax, Dordrecht, Foris. Rizzi, Luigi (1986), Null objects in Italian and the theory of “pro”, Linguistic Inquiry 17, 501–557. Ronat, Mitsou (1979), Pronoms topiques et pronoms distinctifs, Langue française 44, 106–128. Rooryck, Johan (1988), Montée et contrôle: une nouvelle analyse, Le français moderne 58, 1–28. Rooryck, Johan (2000), Configurations of Sentential Complementation: Perspectives from Romance Languages, London/New York, Routledge. Rowlett, Paul (2007), The Syntax of French, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Salvi, Giampaolo (2001), Tipi di frasi principali. Il tipo dichiarativo. L’infinito, in: Lorenzo Renzi/ Giampaolo Salvi/Anna Cardinaletti (edd.), Grande grammatica italiana di consultazione, new edition, vol. 3, Bologna, il Mulino, 53–55. Salvi, Giampaolo/Skytte, Gunver (2001), Frasi subordinate all’infinito, in: Lorenzo Renzi/Giampaolo Salvi/Anna Cardinaletti (edd.), Grande grammatica italiana di consultazione, new edition, vol. 2, Bologna, il Mulino, 483–485, 497–569. Sauzet, Patrick (1989), Topicalisation et prolepse en occitan, Revue des langues romanes 93, 235–273. Scida, Emily E. (2004), The Inflected Infinitive in Romance Languages, London/New York, Routledge. Sitaridou, Ioanna (2002), The Synchrony and Diachrony of Romance Infinitives with Nominative Subjects, University of Manchester, doctoral dissertation. Stechow, Arnim von/Sternefeld, Wolfgang (1988), Bausteine syntaktischen Wissens, Opladen, Westdeutscher Verlag. Williams, Edwin (1980), Predication, Linguistic Inquiry 15, 203–238. Wurmbrand, Susanne (2001), Infinitives: Restructuring and Clause Structure, Berlin/New York, Mouton de Gruyter.

Jan Lindschouw

11 Tense, aspect, mood Abstract: This chapter reviews the most typical uses of tense, aspect and mood in Romance languages. Our discussion will concentrate on French, Italian and Spanish since these languages can be considered to form a continuum with French being the most innovative and Spanish the most conservative language in relation to their common source, Latin. The main focus is on regularities across the Romance languages, but important variations are also discussed. The chapter is divided into four parts. The first part deals with the tense system with special emphasis on the analytic and synthetic future and past forms and their relationship. The second part focuses on the aspectual opposition between the imperfect and the preterite and their interaction with lexical aspect (Aktionsart). The third part considers different mood forms, especially the opposition between the indicative and the subjunctive and their uses in different types of subordinate clauses. The last part discusses the use of tense and mood in reported speech (the so-called consecutio temporum).  

Keywords: tense, analytic forms, synthetic forms, aspect, lexical aspect, mood, (non-) assertion, temporal/modal use of the conditional, reported speech, continuum of development  

1 Introduction This chapter treats the complex area of tense, aspect and mood choices in Romance languages. General trends will be exemplified in French, Spanish and Italian throughout the chapter; the remaining Romance languages will be referred to only when important divergences appear. Comments on variation between dialects and registers of these languages will also be mentioned where relevant. It has generally been acknowledged that Romance languages form a continuum between more conservative, and normally “less grammaticalised”, languages and more innovative and normally “more grammaticalised” languages when compared to their common source, Latin; see Table 1, where the languages on the left side are more conservative and those on the right more innovative (Loengarov 2006, 23):1

1 It should be mentioned that there exists another (and rather old) classification of Romance languages with respect to their geographical position in Europe: languages situated at the center are more innovative than those situated at the periphery. This classification, especially based on studies of the lexicon (Bartoli 1925; 1945), will however not be dealt with in this contribution. DOI 10.1515/9783110377088-011

398

Jan Lindschouw

Table 1: Continuum of development within the Romance languages Sardinian

Portuguese

Spanish

Catalan

Italian

French

Rhaeto-Romance

According to this table, French is one of the more innovative Romance languages, Spanish one of the more conservative (together with Sardinian and Portuguese), while Italian occupies an intermediate position.2 This distribution has been established on the basis of studies at different levels of analysis, for instance on the phonological level (Delattre 1966) and the morphosyntactic level with respect to the partitive article (Lamiroy 1993), prepositions (Lamiroy 2001), auxiliaries (Lamiroy 1994; 1999) and the so-called non-lexical dative (Lamiroy 2003, 419–422). In addition, the continuum is based on studies of the finite verb system, which is relevant to the tense-aspect-mood system. Squartini/Bertinetto (2000) speak of an aoristic drift of the compound, i.e. analytic, perfect, which is more advanced in innovative than in conservative Romance languages. The analytic perfect has almost entirely replaced the synthetic perfect in Modern French, at least in spoken and informal written French, while in Modern Spanish the two forms are employed for different purposes, the synthetic perfect being used for remote past events and the analytic perfect for present relevance. However, in some Spanish varieties, especially in Alicante and Madrid, a similar aoristic drift is beginning to appear (see Schwenter 1994 and Schwenter/Torres Cacoullos 2008). In Modern Italian, an intermediate case can – roughly speaking – be observed, because the two forms, at least in southern Italian dialects, are used to designate different past events as in Spanish, but at the same time the analytic perfect is gradually replacing the synthetic perfect when referring to remote past events, at least in northern Italian spoken dialects (see Section 2.2). As to the mood system, the studies by Boysen (1966), Harris (1974) and Loengarov (2006) also confirm the continuum shown in Table 1. Harris (1974) demonstrated that the subjunctive called potential, which existed only in main clauses in Latin to indicate reservation and uncertainty, has been replaced in Modern French by the conditional belonging to the indicative paradigm. In Modern Spanish, on the other hand, Harris observed that the conditional still alternates to some extent with the potential subjunctive as in Old French. Furthermore, on the basis of a large text corpus, Loengarov (2006, 183–338) studied the alternation between the indicative and the subjunctive mood in complement clauses embedded under a predicate of opinion, volition and communication in French, Spanish, Italian and Romanian. He observed two opposite tendencies in these languages: either the  

2 Romanian has not been included in this continuum since – to our knowledge – few systematic studies of the Romanian system compared to the other Romance languages have been conducted. As stated by Loengarov (2006, 338), Romanian has traditionally been le parent pauvre ‘the poor relation’ when it comes to systematic linguistic studies of this language. See, however, the contributions to Pană Dindelegan (2013), and references cited therein.

Tense, aspect, mood

399

alternation indicative/subjunctive is semantically-pragmatically motivated or the modal alternation shows a tendency to disappear or is not triggered by a semantic/ pragmatic principle. According to Loengarov, the degree to which these tendencies are present in the observed languages is in accordance with the proposed continuum. Modern Spanish is the Romance language that most frequently exploits the semanticpragmatic potential offered by the mood system, whereas Modern French uses it least frequently. Italian occupies an intermediate position (see Section 4.2). However, the proposed continuum of Romance languages is not entirely convincing and has given rise to criticism. Loengarov (2006, 23) himself states that the system is too general and that the place attributed to a language on the continuum is highly dependent on the language phenomenon taken into consideration. For instance, as far as the use of auxiliaries in compound tenses is concerned, Spanish, Catalan and Portuguese are much more innovative than Italian and French. In fact, French and Italian have two auxiliaries être/essere ‘to be’ and avoir/avere ‘to have’, while Spanish, Catalan and Portuguese have only one auxiliary (haber, haver and ter ‘to have’). In Old Spanish, two auxiliaries haber and ser ‘to be’ coexisted, but ser has gradually been superseded by haber as auxiliary (Lamiroy 1999, 33–34; Rosemeyer 2014). A similar development seems to have taken place in Catalan (Loengarov 2006, 24) and in Portuguese (Mattoso Câmara 41985, 168; see also Squartini/Bertinetto 2000, 428; ↗7 Auxiliaries). The distribution of the two forms of the future system in Romance languages is another weakness of the proposed continuum. In French and Spanish, the two future tenses, the analytic and the synthetic future, have the same semantic distribution: the analytic future expresses two semantic values, a future action linked to the moment of utterance and a future action with no connection to the moment of utterance. By contrast, the synthetic future has a single value only, a future action with no connection to the moment of utterance. Furthermore, they seem to have undergone the same linguistic development at more or less the same rate (Aaron 2006; Lindschouw 2011b; 2012) (see Section 2.1). In spite of these important limitations, the continuum has its clear advantages. One could argue that language comparisons constitute a means of verifying changes that have occurred in genetically related languages. If a change in language x is also observed at an earlier stage of language y, there is a great probability that the observed changes have not occurred accidentally, but are due to a general evolutionary tendency common to both languages. Another advantage of this approach is that it enables the linguist to predict future changes in the more conservative languages. Finally, it offers the researcher a holistic overview which enables us to better understand differences and similarities between the Romance languages with respect to their common source, Latin. As a consequence of the fact that French can to a large extent be considered more innovative than Italian and Spanish, reference will sometimes be made to Old French in cases where Modern French differs considerably from Modern Italian and Spanish, but where Old French corresponds to stages observed in Modern Italian and/or

400

Jan Lindschouw

Spanish. Since this article primarily adopts a synchronic perspective, no systematic reference will be made, however, to Old Spanish and Italian, even though important work has been conducted within these fields (see for instance Company Company 2006; 2009; 2014 for diachronic data on Spanish, and Salvi/Renzi 2010 for diachronic data on Italian). The first part of this chapter deals with the tense system of Romance languages. In this section, special attention will be devoted to the synthetic and analytic future tense categories (which are not equally distributed across the Romance languages), though topics such as simple and compound past tense categories, pluperfect, past anterior and analytic pluperfect categories will also be considered. In the second part, an outline of aspectual distinctions will be provided before the complex interplay between these distinctions and lexical aspect, the so-called Aktionsart, is addressed. The third section is devoted to the mood system, more specifically to the use of the subjunctive and conditional forms. Special attention will be paid to different lexical and grammatical triggers of the subjunctive mood in Romance languages in the different types of clauses in which the subjunctive mood appears, i.e. nominal, relative and adverbial clauses. In the last section, the use of tense and mood in reported speech, more specifically the use of the consecutio temporum, will be discussed.  

2 Tense in Romance languages To give a complete overview of the tense system in the Romance languages would be an almost insurmountable task. This section will focus primarily on the relation between synthetic and analytic future tense categories, which reveal interesting similarities and differences across the Romance languages. Section 2.1 will be devoted to the synthetic and analytic future tense categories, while Section 2.2 will treat the interplay between simple (synthetic) and compound (analytic) past tense categories. Finally, Section 2.3 will deal with past tense categories such as the pluperfect, the past anterior and the analytic pluperfect, i.e. surcomposé categories.3  

3 Throughout this article, reference will be made to foreign language standard reference grammars of French, Spanish and Italian, especially in order to provide illustrative examples. This is for practical reasons, because these grammars follow to a large extent the same structure and are based on the same organisational principles (Butt/Benjamin 1994 and Maiden/Robustelli 2000 are even published in the same book series), which easily allows for comparisons between the Romance languages. We are perfectly aware that there are numerous normative and descriptive grammars for each Romance language, for instance Grevisse (162016) for French, Bosque/Demonte (1999), RAE/ASALE (2009) for Spanish and Salvi/Vanelli (1992) for Italian. Reference will sometimes be made to several of these grammars throughout the article, especially to Salvi/Vanelli (1992) and to relevant chapters in Bosque/ Demonte (1999).

Tense, aspect, mood

401

2.1 Synthetic and analytic future tenses The majority of Romance languages have two future tense categories, a synthetic and an analytic future. The synthetic form consists of the infinitive and reduced endings of the verb to have inflected in the present indicative: Fr. je parlerai (< parler + ai), Sp. hablaré (< hablar + é), It. parlerò (< parlare + ò) ‘I will speak’. According to Fleischman (1982, 52), the fusion of the two linguistic elements took place in Vulgar Latin. The analytic form is composed of an auxiliary verb in the present tense signifying ‘to go’ and the infinitive of the main verb: Fr. je vais parler, Sp. voy a hablar, It. vado a parlare ‘I am going to speak’. The difference between these tenses has generally been described as being connected with the moment of the speaker’s utterance. While the analytic future establishes a close link between the future action and the moment of utterance, the synthetic future indicates an action in the future which is not linked to the moment of utterance (Fleischman 1982, 87; Togeby 1982, 396; Schrott 1997, 26–40; 2001, 160; Confais 2002; Lindschouw 2011b). This semantic opposition is illustrated in examples (1)–(6), where the future adverb Fr. un jour/Sp. un día/It. un giorno ‘one day’ in (1)–(3) clearly localizes the action in the future, whereas the future action is motivated by the moment of utterance in (4)–(6): examples (4)–(5) can only be uttered in a context where the woman referred to is actually pregnant, and example (6), taken from an Italian oral text corpus, refers to a forthcoming party: (1)

Fr.

Un jour, Laure aura un enfant. ‘One day Laure will have a baby.’4

(2)

Sp.

Un día, Laura tendrá un hijo. ‘One day Laura will have a baby.’

(3) It.

Un giorno, Laura avrà un bambino. ‘One day Laura will have a baby.’

(4) Fr.

Tu as appris la nouvelle? Laure va avoir un enfant. ‘Have you heard the news? Laure is going to have a baby.’

(5) Sp.

¿Te has enterado de la noticia? Laura va a tener un niño. ‘Have you heard the news? Laura is going to have a baby.’

4 Examples in this chapter are either invented or taken from reference grammars or research articles. In the latter case, a reference is provided for each example.

402

(6) It.

Jan Lindschouw

Bastava ricordarsi che / la festa comincia a mezzogiorno / ma va a finire la notte […]. (C-ORAL-ROM, ifammn03; Hansen/Strudsholm 2006, 212) ‘It is sufficient to remember that the party begins at midday, but will continue until the night.’

A number of formal markers help identify the values of the two future tenses. For instance, adverbs of futurity, as in (1)–(3), clearly show that the future action is not linked to the moment of utterance, but is assumed to take place at some point in the future. In contrast, formal markers of “close futurity” could be adverbs or adverbial expressions of the present (e.g. maintenant ‘now’, ce soir5 ‘tonight’), demonstratives, imperatives and locative adverbs of proximity (for instance French ici ‘here’) (cf. Lindschouw 2011b, 65–70). The future system of the Romance languages has undergone important changes since the Middle Ages. In French, the synthetic future has been attested since the first written text in French, Les Serments de Strasbourg, from 842; until the eighteenth century it was the dominant future tense with a double semantic value: a future action linked to the moment of utterance and a future action disconnected from the moment of utterance. The first attested occurrences of the French analytic construction date back to the fifteenth century, where it was used for future actions linked to the moment of utterance, but it was not until the eighteenth century that it really began to compete with the synthetic future. In Modern French, the analytic future has replaced parts of the notional domain of the synthetic future. Although the synthetic future was used with two distinct semantic values in Middle French, it is primarily used with a single value in Modern French: a future action with no link to the moment of utterance. By contrast, the analytic future has increased its notional domain passing from a single value in the fifteenth century to two values in Modern French (a future action linked to the moment of utterance and a future action disconnected from this point) (cf. Lindschouw 2011b; 2012). The evolution of the Spanish future system is very similar to the development of its French counterpart. According to Lyons (1978, 227), the synthetic future was already attested in the first vernacular text, the Glosas Emilianenses from the eleventh century, but the analytic future did not appear in Spanish until the end of the Middle Ages and did not increase in frequency until the nineteenth century (cf. Aaron 2006, 124 and 136–137). Thus, the dissemination of the analytic future in Spanish appears to have taken place much later than that in French. However, Aaron (2006) shows that

5 Fr. ce soir and its equivalent forms (cet après-midi ‘this afternoon’, cette nuit ‘this night’, etc.) can be considered an adverbial expression of the present because of the presence of the deictic determiner ce, which establishes a link to the time of utterance.

Tense, aspect, mood

403

the same evolution as the one observed in French affects the future system of Spanish, because historically the synthetic future is being superseded by the analytic future. The situation in Italian is interesting compared to the other two Romance languages, because it is debatable whether Italian actually possesses an analytic future tense. Maiden/Robustelli (2000, 290) mention that andare a + infinitive only indicates actual motion (7), but an interpretation of (close) futurity would be “practically nonsense”: (7) It.

Vado a comprare il giornale. ‘I’m on my way to buy a paper.’ (Maiden/Robustelli 2000, 290)

However, Bazzanella (1994, 109) observes that the use of andare a ‘to go to’ + infinitive to indicate futurity is on the increase in Modern Italian, especially in the oral medium. Strudsholm (2005, 277–279) and Hansen/Strudsholm (2006, 197) have documented that andare a + infinitive was grammaticalised as a periphrasis of temporality as early as the thirteenth century. However, the synthetic future, as in other Romance languages, is attested in texts dating back to the Middle Ages. According to Rohlfs (1969), this form was introduced in Central and Northern Italy (see also Squartini 2003, 325 for attestations of the synthetic future in Old Italian). Many synchronic and diachronic grammars do not even mention the analytic future in Italian, but only devote space to the synthetic future (Soave 1805, 49–50; Rohlfs 1969, 52–54 and 331–338; Bertinetto 1986; Salvi/Vanelli 1992; Squartini 2001; 2003). Even though certain grammars accept the existence of an analytic future tense in Italian, especially in oral varieties, it should be mentioned that its frequency is very limited.6 As in many other languages, the Italian present tense very often expresses future actions (8), and it even seems that this is the neutral marker of futurity, at least when preceded or followed by an adverbial expression of futurity. This is not a purely Italian phenomenon, but is also widely attested in other Romance languages, for instance French (9) and Spanish (10):7 (8) It.

Poi, quando se n’è andato, gli si possono fare gli sberleffi dietro. ‘Then, when he’s gone, we’ll be able to make faces at him behind his back.’ (Maiden/Robustelli 2000, 288)

6 In a comparative study on the use of future tense forms in French and Italian, Hansen/Strudsholm (2006, 202) show that the periphrasis andare a + infinitive to express futurity is found only in 1.2% of the occurrences, while the synthetic future is used in 25.1% and the present tense in 73.7%. 7 This analysis holds for all Romance languages that possess a morphological marker of futurity. However, in an interlinguistic perspective, it would be more appropriate to define the present tense as the neutral marker of non-past, since many languages do not have a morphological marker of futurity (see Dahl 1985).

404

Jan Lindschouw

(9) Fr.

Un jour pourtant le hasard l’amène à se risquer dehors sans ses cothurnes. (Tournier, Le Vent Paraclet 1977, 185; FRANTEXT) ‘One day however fate will lead him to venture outside without his buskins.’

(10) Sp.

Vamos a España el año que viene. ‘We’re going to Spain next year.’ (Butt/Benjamin 1994, 218)

The Romance languages also possess another analytic future often referred to as the future perfect or the compound future. This form consists of an auxiliary verb (‘to have’ or ‘to be’) in the simple (synthetic) future and the past participle of the main verb. This form expresses a point in time later than the present but before some reference point in the future: (11) It.

Avremo raccolto tutti i dati fra qualche ora. ‘We will have gathered all the data in a few hours’ time.’ (Maiden/Robustelli 2000, 286)

(12) Sp.

Vendrá a las cinco. Entonces habré comido. ‘He will come at five o’clock. Then I will have eaten.’ (Jensen 1990, 100)

(13) Fr.

Marie est en train de manger un pamplemousse. Je crois qu’elle l’aura terminé av