Advertisement

Morphology

, Volume 28, Issue 1, pp 1–23 | Cite as

Lexical splits within periphrasis: mixed perfective auxiliation systems in Italo-Romance

  • Pavel ŠtichauerEmail author
Article

Abstract

This paper addresses the phenomenon of mixed paradigms, i.e. mixed perfective auxiliation systems, attested in a wide range of Italo-Romance varieties (cf. Loporcaro 2001, 2007a, 2014; Manzini and Savoia 2005, among others). In these varieties, two auxiliary verbs, esse and habere, alternate within one and the same (sub)paradigm, displaying various patterns which can range from morphosyntactically motivated to apparently unmotivated distributions (here termed ‘morphomic’). I propose that, in these varieties, auxiliary selection is no longer a syntactically driven phenomenon, but becomes morphologized. I draw on the notion of ‘lexical split’ (cf. Corbett 2013, 2015, 2016) and describe the attested splits induced by intraparadigmatic auxiliary alternation. Following Bonami (2015), I put forward a typology of such splits. It is shown that, apart from motivated distributions, some morphomic patterns can also be found. The typology becomes more complex insofar as patterns with free variation between both auxiliaries are taken into account, as well as patently morphomic patterns which also seem to display external syntactic relevance (cf. Corbett 2013: 174–176). The phenomena reviewed and discussed in this paper are of major interest because they demonstrate the existence of competing exponence strategies within periphrasis, thus enriching the notion of ‘possible lexeme’ (cf. Corbett 2015: 146).

Keywords

Italo-Romance Mixed paradigms Periphrasis Auxiliary Selection Person-based systems Lexical Splits Morphomes Morphologization 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This paper has benefited enormously from valuable discussions with Martin Maiden, Adam Ledgeway, Greville Corbett, Olivier Bonami, Delia Bentley and Franck Floricic. I thank them all for their comments and constructive criticism. Previous versions of this paper were aired at two conferences: Décembrettes 9, Toulouse, December 2015, and 17 th International Morphology Meeting, Vienna, February 2016. I wish to thank the audience for helpful comments. In particular, I am indebted to Michele Loporcaro, Ingo Plag, Anna M. Thornton and Francesco Gardani for important feedback. I also thank Louise Esher and Martin Maiden for important linguistic and stylistic improvements of the present text. Finally, I express my gratitude to the editors of Morphology and to two anonymous reviewers for a fair number of critical comments on a previous version of the paper. Of course, any remaining errors and infelicities are my own responsibility. The support of the research project Mixed paradigms in Italo-Romance, funded by Czech Science Foundation (GAČR), n. 16-00236S, is gratefully acknowledged.

References

  1. Abeillé, A., & Godard, D. (2001). Varieties of ESSE in Romance languages. In D. Flickinger & A. Kathol (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th international HPSG conference, UC Berkeley, 22–23 July 2000 (pp. 2–22). Stanford: CSLI Publications. Google Scholar
  2. Ackerman, F., & Stump, G. T. (2004). Paradigms and periphrastic expression. In L. Sadler & A. Spencer (Eds.), Projecting morphology (pp. 111–157). Stanford: CSLI Publications. Google Scholar
  3. Aronoff, M. (1994). Morphology by itself: stems and inflectional classes. Cambridge: The MIT Press. Google Scholar
  4. Bentley, D. (2006). Split intransitivity in Italian. Amsterdam: Benjamins. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bentley, D., & Eythórsson, T. (2001). Alternation according to person in Italo-Romance. In L. J. Brinton (Ed.), Historical linguistics 1999. Selected papers from the 14th international conference on historical linguistics, Vancouver, 9–13 August 1999 (pp. 63–74). Amsterdam: Benjamins. Google Scholar
  6. Bermúdez-Otero, R., & Luís, A. R. (2016). A view of the morphome debate. In A. R. Luís & R. Bermúdez-Otero (Eds.), The morphome debate: diagnosing and analysing morphomic patterns (pp. 309–340). Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bonami, O. (2015). Periphrasis as collocation. Morphology, 25(1), 63–110. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brown, D., Chumakina, M., Corbett, G., Popova, G., & Spencer, A. (2012). Defining ‘periphrasis’: key notions. Morphology, 22(2), 233–275. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cappellaro, C. (2013). Overabundance in diachrony: a case study. In S. Cruschina, M. Maiden, & J. C. Smith (Eds.), The boundaries of pure morphology (pp. 209–220). Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Carstairs-McCarthy, A. (2010). The evolution of morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  11. Cennamo, M. (2010). Perfective auxiliaries in the pluperfect in some southern Italian dialects. In R. D’Alessandro, A. Ledgeway, & I. Roberts (Eds.), Syntactic variation: the dialects of Italy (pp. 210–224). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  12. Corbett, G. G. (2007). Canonical typology, suppletion, and possible words. Language, 83(1), 8–42. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Corbett, G. G. (2012). Features. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Corbett, G. G. (2013). Periphrasis and possible lexemes. In M. Chumakina & G. G. Corbett (Eds.), Periphrasis: the role of syntax and morphology in paradigms, Proceedings of the British Academy, vol. 180. (pp. 169–189). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  15. Corbett, G. G. (2015). Morphosyntactic complexity: a typology of lexical splits. Language, 91(1), 145–193. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Corbett, G. G. (2016). Morphomic splits. In A. R. Luís & R. Bermúdez-Otero (Eds.), The morphome debate: diagnosing and analysing morphomic patterns (pp. 64–88). Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cruschina, S. (2013). Beyond the stem and inflectional morphology: an irregular pattern at the level of periphrasis. In S. Cruschina, M. Maiden, & J. C. Smith (Eds.), The boundaries of pure morphology (pp. 262–283). Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. D’Alessandro, R., & Roberts, I. (2010). Past participle agreement: split auxiliary selection and the null-subject parameter. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 28(1), 41–72. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. De Gregorio, I. (1939). Contributo alla conoscenza del dialetto di Bisceglie (Bari). L’Italia dialettale, 15, 31–52. Google Scholar
  20. Giancarli, P.-D. (2011). Les auxiliares ÊTRE et AVOIR: étude comparée corse, français, acadien et anglais. Rennes: Presses universitaires de Rennes. Google Scholar
  21. Giammarco, E. (1973). Selezione del verbo ausiliare nei paradigmi dei tempi composti. Abruzzo, 11, 152–178. Google Scholar
  22. Haiman, J., & Benincà, P. (2002). The Rhaeto-Romance languages. London: Routledge. Google Scholar
  23. Juge, M. L. (2013). Analogy as a source of suppletion. In R. Kikusawa & L. A. Reid (Eds.), Historical linguistics 2011. Selected papers from the 20th international conference on historical linguistics, Osaka, 25–30 July 2011 (pp. 175–197). Amsterdam: Benjamins. Google Scholar
  24. Kayne, R. S. (1993). Towards a modular theory of auxiliary selection. Studia Linguistica, 47, 3–31. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ledgeway, A. (2011). Grammaticalization from Latin to Romance. In H. Narrog & B. Heine (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of grammaticalization (pp. 719–728). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  26. Ledgeway, A. (2012). From Latin to Romance. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  27. Ledgeway, A. (2014). Romance auxiliary selection in light of Romanian evidence. In G. Pană Dindelegan, R. Zafiu, A. Dragomirescu, I. Nicula, & A. Nicolae (Eds.), Diachronic variation in Romanian (pp. 3–35). Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Google Scholar
  28. Ledgeway, A. (2016). From coordination to subordination: the grammaticalisation of progressive and andative aspect in the dialects of Salento. In F. Pratas, S. Pereira, & C. Pinto (Eds.), Coordination and subordination. form and meaning: selected papers from CSI LIsbon 2014 (pp. 157–184). Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Google Scholar
  29. Ledgeway, A. (in press) From Latin to Romance: the great leap. In P. Crisma & G. Longobardi (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of diachronic and historical linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  30. Legendre, G. (2010). A formal typology of person-based auxiliary selection in Italo-Romance. In R. D’Alessandro, A. Ledgeway, & I. Roberts (Eds.), Syntactic variation: the dialects of Italy (pp. 186–200). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  31. Loporcaro, M. (2001). La selezione dell’ausiliare nei dialetti italiani: dati e teorie. In R. Sornicola, E. Stenta Krosbakken, & C. Stromboli (Eds.), Dati empirici e teorie linguistiche: atti del XXXIII congresso della società di linguistica italiana, Napoli, 28–30 ottobre 1999 (pp. 455–476). Rome: Bulzoni. Google Scholar
  32. Loporcaro, M. (2007a). On triple auxiliation in Romance. Linguistics, 45(1), 173–222. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Loporcaro, M. (2007b). Italian dialects in a minimalist perspective. Italian Journal of Linguistics/Rivista di Linguistica, 19(2), 327–366. Google Scholar
  34. Loporcaro, M. (2009). In Profilo linguistico dei dialetti italiani, Bari-Roma: Laterza. Google Scholar
  35. Loporcaro, M. (2014). Perfective auxiliation in Italo-Romance. The complementarity of historical and modern cross-dialectal evidence. In P. Benincà, A. Ledgeway, & N. Vincent (Eds.), Diachrony and dialects: grammatical change in the dialects of Italy (pp. 48–70). Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Maiden, M. (2005). Morphological autonomy and diachrony. In G. Booij & J. van Marle (Eds.), Yearbook of morphology 2004 (pp. 137–175). Dordrecht: Springer. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Maiden, M. (2011). Morphophonological innovation. In M. Maiden, J. C. Smith, & A. Ledgeway (Eds.), The Cambridge history of the Romance languages, volume I: structures (pp. 216–267). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  38. Maiden, M. (2016a). Some lessons from history: morphomes in diachrony. In A. R. Luís & R. Bermúdez-Otero (Eds.), The morphome debate: diagnosing and analysing morphomic patterns (pp. 33–63). Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Maiden, M. (2016b). Morphomes. In A. Ledgeway & M. Maiden (Eds.), The Oxford guide to the Romance languages (pp. 708–721). Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Manzini, R., & Savoia, L. (2005). I dialetti italiani e romanci: morfosintassi generativa I–III. Alessandria: Edizioni dell’Orso. Google Scholar
  41. Manzini, R., & Savoia, L. (2011). Grammatical categories: variation in Romance languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. O’Neill, P. (2013). The morphome and morphosyntactic/semantic features. In S. Cruschina, M. Maiden, & J. C. Smith (Eds.), The boundaries of pure morphology (pp. 221–246). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  43. O’Neill, P. (2014). The morphome in constructive and abstractive models of morphology. Morphology, 24(1), 25–70. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Pirrelli, V., & Battista, M. (2000). The paradigmatic dimension of stem allomorphy in Italian verb inflection. Italian Journal of Linguistics/Rivista di Linguistica, 12(2), 307–380. Google Scholar
  45. Pirrelli, V. (2000). Paradigmi in morfologia: un approccio interdisciplinare alla flessione verbale italiana. Pisa: Ist. Editoriali e Poligrafici. Google Scholar
  46. Siewierska, A. (2004). Person. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Sorace, A. (2000). Gradients in auxiliary selection with intransitive verbs. Language, 76(4), 859–890. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Spencer, A., & Popova, G. (2015). Periphrasis and inflection. In M. Baerman (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of inflection (pp. 197–230). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  49. Stump, G. (2001). Inflectional morphology: a theory of paradigm structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Stump, G. (2016). Inflectional paradigms: content and form at the syntax-morphology interface. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Thornton, A. M. (2011). Overabundance (multiple forms realizing the same cell): a non-canonical phenomenon in Italian verb morphology. In M. Maiden, J. C. Smith, M. Goldbach, & M.-O. Hinzelin (Eds.), Morphological autonomy: perspectives from Romance inflectional morphology (pp. 358–381). Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Thornton, A. M. (2012). Reduction and maintenance of overabundance: a case study on Italian verb paradigms. Word Structure, 5(2), 183–207. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Torcolacci, G. (2015). Marking the default: auxiliary selection in Southern Italian dialects. PhD dissertation, University of Leiden. Utrecht: LOT. Google Scholar
  54. Tuttle, E. F. (1986). The spread of ESSE as a universal auxiliary in central Italo-Romance. Medioevo Romanzo, 11, 229–287. Google Scholar
  55. Vincent, N. (2011). Non-finite forms, periphrases, and autonomous morphology in Latin and Romance. In M. Maiden, J. C. Smith, M. Goldbach, & M.-O. Hinzelin (Eds.), Morphological autonomy: perspectives from romance inflectional morphology (pp. 417–435). Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Romance StudiesCharles University, Faculty of ArtsPraha 1Czech Republic

Personalised recommendations