Abstract
In this paper we consider the grammaticalization of subject agreement adducing first-hand synchronic evidence from presentational VS constructions in Italo-Romance dialects. While the existing literature has placed emphasis on the pragmatic properties of the controller, we explore its semantic properties. We argue that variation in subject agreement can only be fully captured with reference to an independently established semantic scale of subjecthood that is based on the position of arguments in semantic representation, and hence on their lexical entailments. Unaffected actor is the default controller in accusative alignment. The patterns of dialect microvariation arise, in our analysis, from variation in macrorole assignment in presentational focus. Our proposal formalizes at the discourse-semantics-syntax interface the idea that, in presentational VS constructions, the core argument S may be treated as part of the predicate, thus failing to control grammatical subject agreement. This happens in presentational focus because the predication is about an implicit topic. The latter can trigger a type of pronominal agreement that is comparable to Bresnan and Mchombo’s (Bresnan, Joan & Sam A. Mchombo. 1987. Topic, pronoun and agreement in Chichewa. Language 63. 741–782) anaphoric agreement. This study provides robust arguments in support of an understanding of subject agreement as the grammaticalization of semantic-relation contrasts, as well as pragmatic-role distinctions.
References
Abbott, Barbara. 1992. Definiteness, existentials, and the “list” Interpretation. In Chris Barker & David Dowty (eds.), Proceedings of semantics and linguistic theory II, 1–16. Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University.10.3765/salt.v2i0.3028Search in Google Scholar
Abbott, Barbara. 1993. A pragmatic account of the definiteness effect in existential sentences. Journal of Pragmatics 19. 39–55.10.1016/0378-2166(93)90069-2Search in Google Scholar
Beavers, John. 2011. On affectedness. Natural Language & Linguistics Theory 29. 335–370.10.1007/s11049-011-9124-6Search in Google Scholar
Benincà, Paola. 1983. II clitico “a” nel dialetto padovano. In Paola Benincà, Manlio Cortelazzo, Aldo Prosdocimi, Laura Vanelli & Alberto Zamboni (eds.), Scritti linguistici in onore di Giovan Battista Pellegrini, 25–32. Pisa: Pacini.Search in Google Scholar
Benincà, Paola. 1988. L’ordine degli elementi della frase. Costruzioni con ordine marcato degli elementi. In Lorenzo Renzi (ed.), Grande grammatica italiana di consultazione: Volume 1: La frase: I sintagmi nominale e preposizionale, 129–194. Bologna: il Mulino.Search in Google Scholar
Benincà, Paola. 1994a. Tipologia dei pronomi soggetto nelle lingue romanze. In Paola Benincà (ed.), La variazione sintattica: Studi di dialettologia romanza, 195–211. Bologna: il Mulino.Search in Google Scholar
Benincà, Paola. 1994b. Punti di sintassi comparata dei dialetti italiani settentrionali. In Paola Benincà (ed.), La variazione sintattica: Studi di dialettologia romanza, 105–138. Bologna: il Mulino.Search in Google Scholar
Benincà, Paola. 2001. The Position of topic and focus in the left periphery. In Guglielmo Cinque & Giampaolo Salvi (eds.), Current studies in Italian syntax: Essays offered to Lorenzo Renzi, 39–64. Amsterdam: Elsevier.10.1163/9780585473949_005Search in Google Scholar
Benincà, Paola. 2007. Clitici e ausiliari: gh ò, z é. In Delia Bentley & Adam Ledgeway (eds.), Sui dialetti italo–romanzi: Saggi in onore di Nigel B. Vincent (Special supplement number 1 to The Italianist 27), 27–47. King’s Lynn, Norfolk: Biddles Ltd.Search in Google Scholar
Bentley, Delia. 2006. Split intransitivity in Italian. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110896053Search in Google Scholar
Bentley, Delia. 2013. Subject canonicality and definiteness effects in Romance there sentences. Language 89(4). 675–712.10.1353/lan.2013.0062Search in Google Scholar
Bentley, Delia. 2015a. Existentials and locatives in Romance dialects of Italy: Introduction. In Delia Bentley, Francesco M. Ciconte & Silvio Cruschina (eds.), Existentials and locatives in Romance dialects of Italy, 1–42. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198745266.003.0001Search in Google Scholar
Bentley, Delia. 2015b. Predication and argument realization. In Delia Bentley, Francesco M. Ciconte & Silvio Cruschina (eds.), Existentials and locatives in Romance dialects of Italy, 99–160. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198745266.003.0003Search in Google Scholar
Bentley, Delia, Francesco M. Ciconte & Silvio Cruschina. 2015. Existentials and locatives in Romance dialects of Italy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198745266.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Bentley, Delia & Cruschina, Silvio. 2016. Existential Constructions. In Susann Fischer and Christoph Gabriel (eds), Manual of Grammatical Interfaces in Romance, 487–516. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110311860-019Search in Google Scholar
Bentley, Delia & Þórhallur Eyþórsson. 2003. Auxiliary selection and the semantics of unaccusativity. Lingua 114. 447–471.10.1016/S0024-3841(03)00068-8Search in Google Scholar
Benveniste, Émile. 1966. Problémes de linguistique générale. Paris: Gallimard.Search in Google Scholar
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, 269–282. Udine: Forum.Search in Google Scholar
Brandi, Luciana & Patrizia Cordin. 1989. Two Italian dialects and the null subject parameter. In Osvaldo Jaeggli & Kenneth Safir (eds.), The null subject parameter, 111–142. Dordrecht: Foris.10.1007/978-94-009-2540-3_4Search in Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan & Sam A. Mchombo. 1987. Topic, pronoun and agreement in Chichewa. Language 63. 741–782.10.2307/415717Search in Google Scholar
Burzio, Luigi. 1986. Italian syntax: A government–binding approach. Dordrecht: Kluwer.10.1007/978-94-009-4522-7Search in Google Scholar
Cardinaletti, Anna & Lori Repetti. 2010. Proclitic vs enclitic pronouns in northern Italian dialects and the null–subject parameter. In Roberta D’Alessandro, Adam Ledgeway & Ian Roberts (eds.), Syntactic variation: The dialects of Italy, 119–134. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Carlson, Gregory. 1977. A unified analysis of the English bare plural. Linguistics and Philosophy 1. 413–456.10.1007/BF00353456Search in Google Scholar
Cennamo, Michela. 1999. Late Latin pleonastic reflexives and the Unaccusative Hypothesis. Transactions of the Philological Society 97. 103–150.10.1111/1467-968X.00046Search in Google Scholar
Centineo, Giulia. 1986. A lexical teory of auxiliary selection in Italian. Davis Working Papers in Linguistics 1. 1–35.Search in Google Scholar
Ciconte, Francesco M. 2010. Existential constructions in the early Italo–Romance vernaculars. Manchester: The University of Manchester dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Ciconte, Francesco M. 2015. Historical context. In Delia Bentley, Francesco M. Ciconte & Silvio Cruschina (eds.), Existentials and locatives in Romance dialects of Italy, 217–260. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198745266.003.0005Search in Google Scholar
Corbett, Greville. 2003. Agreement: The range of the phenomenon and the principles of the Surrey database of agreement. Transactions of the Philological Society 101(2). 155–202.10.1111/1467-968X.00117Search in Google Scholar
Corbett, Greville. 2006. Agreement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Cornilescu, Alexandra. 2009. Restructuring strategies of the Romanian verb fi ‘be’ and the analysis of existential sentences. In Georg A. Kaiser & Eva–Maria Remberger (eds.), Null subjects, expletives and locatives in Romance (Konstanzer Arbeitspapiere des Fachbereichs Sprachwissenschaft 123), 199–230. Konstanz: Universität Konstanz.Search in Google Scholar
Corr, Alice. 2016. Wide–focus subject–verb inversion in Ibero-Romance: A locative account. Glossa: a Journal of General Linguistics 1(1): 11. 1–33.10.5334/gjgl.85Search in Google Scholar
Cruschina, Silvio. 2012. Focus in existential sentences. In Valentina Bianchi & Cristiano Chesi (eds.), Enjoy linguistics! Papers offered to Luigi Rizzi on the occasion of his 60th Birthday, 77–107. Siena: CISCL Press.Search in Google Scholar
Cruschina, Silvio. 2015. Focus structure. In Delia Bentley, Francesco M. Ciconte & Silvio Cruschina (eds.), Existentials and locatives in Romance dialects of Italy, 43–98. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198745266.003.0002Search in Google Scholar
Diedrichsen, Elke. 2013. Auxiliary selection in German: Constructional gradience with perfect formation. In Elly van Gelderen, Michela Cennamo & Jóhanna Barðdal (eds.), Argument structure in flux: The Naples/Capri papers, 405–434. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins.10.1075/slcs.131.15dieSearch in Google Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. 2010 [1982]. Where have all the adjectives gone? And other essays in semantics and syntax (Janua Linguarum. Series Maior 107). Berlin & New York: De Gruyter Mouton.Search in Google Scholar
Dowty, David R. 1979. Word meaning and Montague Grammar. Dordrecht: Reidel.10.1007/978-94-009-9473-7Search in Google Scholar
Dowty, David R. 1991. Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language 67. 547–619.10.1353/lan.1991.0021Search in Google Scholar
Enç, Mürvet (1991). The Semantics of specificity. Linguistic Inquiry 22: 1–25.Search in Google Scholar
Erteschik-Shir, Nomi. 1997. The dynamics of focus structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511519949Search in Google Scholar
Francez, Itamar. 2007. Existential propositions. Stanford: Stanford University dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Francez, Itamar. 2010. Context dependence and implicit arguments in existentials. Linguistics and Philosophy 33(1). 11–30.10.1007/s10988-010-9073-2Search in Google Scholar
Fuchs, Anna. 1980. Accented subjects in ‘all–new’ sentences. Wege zur Universalienforschung (Festschrift für Hansjakob Seiler), 449–461. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Search in Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1976. Topic, pronoun and grammatical agreement. In Charles N. Li (ed.), Subject and topic, 149–188. New York: Academic Press.Search in Google Scholar
Harris, Alice & Lyle Campbell. 1995. Historical syntax in crosslinguistic perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511620553Search in Google Scholar
Hazout, Ilan. 2004. The syntax of existential constructions. Linguistic Inquiry 35. 393–430.10.1162/0024389041402616Search in Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1976. Toward an explanatory semantic representation. Linguistic Inquiry 7. 89–150.Search in Google Scholar
Keenan, Edward L. 1976. Towards a universal notion of “subject”. In Charles N. Li (ed.), Subject and topic, 247–333. New York: Academic Press.Search in Google Scholar
La Fauci, Nunzio & Michele Loporcaro. 1997. Outline of a theory of existentials on evidence from Romance. Studi italiani di linguistica teorica e applicata 26. 5–55.Search in Google Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud. 1994. Information structure and sentence form: Topic, focus, and the mental representation of discourse referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511620607Search in Google Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud. 2000. When subjects behave like objects: A markedness analysis of sentence focus constructions across languages. Studies in Language 24. 611–682.10.1075/sl.24.3.06lamSearch in Google Scholar
Lehmann, Christian. 1982. Universal and typological aspects of agreement. In Hansjakob Seiler & Franz Joseph Stachowiak (eds.), Apprehension: Das sprachliche Erfassen von Gegenständen: Teil II: Die Techniken und ihr Zusammenhang in der Einzelsprachen, 201–267. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Search in Google Scholar
Lehmann, Christian. 2014 [1982]. Universal and typological aspects of agreement. http://www.christianlehmann.eu/publ/lehmann_agreement.pdf (accessed March 2016).Search in Google Scholar
Levin, Beth & Malka Rappaport Hovav. 1995. Unaccusativity: At the syntax–lexical semantics interface. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar
Loporcaro, Michele. 1998. Sintassi comparata dell’accordo participiale romanzo. Turin: Rosenberg & Sellier.Search in Google Scholar
Maiden, Martin & Mair Parry (eds.). 1997. The dialects of Italy. London: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar
Manzini, Maria Rita & Leonardo Savoia. 2005. I dialetti italiani e romance: Morfosintassi generativa, 3 vols. Alessandria: Edizioni Dell’Orso.Search in Google Scholar
Mithun, Marianne. 2003. Pronouns and agreement: The information status of pronominal affixes. Transactions of the Philological Society 101. 235–278.10.1111/1467-968X.00119Search in Google Scholar
Moravcsik, Edith. 1978. Agreement. In Joseph Greenberg (ed.), Universals of human language, vol. 4, 331–374. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Parry, Mair. 1993. Piedmontese subject clitics: A diachronic perspective. Vox Romanica 52. 96–116.Search in Google Scholar
Parry, Mair. 1997. Piedmont. In Martin Maiden & Mair Parry (eds.), The dialects of Italy, 237–244. London: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar
Parry, Mair. 2000. Accordo e soggetti postverbali in piemontese. In Actes du XXIIe congrés international de lingüistique e philologie romane, Bruxelles 1998, VI. De la grammaire des formes à la grammaire du sens, 391–402. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Search in Google Scholar
Parry, Mair. 2005. Sociolinguistica e grammatica del dialetto di Cairo Montenotte: Parluma ‘d Coiri. Savona: Società Savonese di Storia Patria.Search in Google Scholar
Parry, Mair. 2013. Variation and change in the presentational constructions of North–Western Italo-Romance varieties. In Elly van Gelderen, Michela Cennamo & Jóhanna Barðdal (eds.), Argument structure in flux: The Naples/Capri papers, 511–548. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins.10.1075/slcs.131.19parSearch in Google Scholar
Perlmutter, David. 1978. Impersonal passives and the Unaccusative Hypothesis. Berkeley Linguistic Society 4. 157–189.10.3765/bls.v4i0.2198Search in Google Scholar
Perlmutter, David. 1989. Multiattachment and the Unaccusative Hypothesis: The perfect auxiliary in Italian. Probus 1. 63–120.10.1515/prbs.1989.1.1.63Search in Google Scholar
Pinto, Manuela. 1997. Licensing and interpretation of inverted subjects in Italian. Utrecht: UiL OTS Dissertation series.Search in Google Scholar
Poletto, Cecilia. 1993. La sintassi del soggetto nei dialetti italiani settentrionali. Padua: Unipress.Search in Google Scholar
Poletto, Cecilia. 2000. The higher functional field. Evidence from Northern Italian dialects. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Poletto, Cecilia & Christina Tortora. 2016. Subject clitics: Syntax. In Adam Ledgeway & Martin Maiden (eds.), Oxford guide to the Romance languages, 772–785. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199677108.003.0047Search in Google Scholar
Renzi, Lorenzo & Laura Vanelli. 1983. I pronomi soggetto in alcune varietà romanze. In Paola Benincà, Manlio Cortelazzo, Aldo Prosdocimi, Laura Vanelli & Alberto Zamboni (eds.), Scritti linguistici in onore di Giovan Battista Pellegrini, 121–145. Pisa: Pacini.Search in Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 1986. On the status of subject clitics in Romance. In Osvaldo Jaeggli & Carmen Silva-Corvalan (eds.), Studies in Romance linguistics, 391–419. Dordrecht: Foris.10.1515/9783110878516-025Search in Google Scholar
Roberts, Ian. 2014. Subject clitics and macroparameters. In Paola Benincà, Adam Ledgeway & Nigel Vincent (eds.), Diachrony and dialects: Grammatical change in the dialects of Italy, 177–201. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198701781.003.0009Search in Google Scholar
Rosemeyer, Malte. 2013. Tornar and volver: The interplay of frequency and semantics in compound tense auxiliary selection in Medieval and Classical Spanish. In Elly van Gelderen, Michela Cennamo & Jóhanna Barðdal (eds.), Argument structure in flux: The Naples/Capri papers, 435–457. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins.10.1075/slcs.131.16rosSearch in Google Scholar
Saccon, Graziella. 1992. VP–internal arguments and locative subjects. Proceedings of the 22nd meeting of the North Eastern Linguistic Society. 383–397.Search in Google Scholar
Saccon, Graziella. 1993. Post–verbal subjects: A study based on Italian and its dialects. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Samek-Lodovici, Vieri. 2002. Agreement impoverishment under subject inversion: A crosslinguistic analysis. In Gisbert Fanselow & Caroline Féry (eds.), Resolving conflicts in grammar (Linguistiche Berichte Sonderheft 11), 49–82. Hamburg: Helmut Buske Verlag.Search in Google Scholar
Sasse, Hans-Jürgen. 2006. Theticity. In Giuliano Bernini & Marcia L. Schwartz (eds.), Pragmatic organization of discourse in the languages of Europe, 255–308. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Search in Google Scholar
Savoia, Leonardo. 1997. The geographical distribution of the dialects. In Martin Maiden & Mair Parry (eds.), The dialects of Italy, 225–234. London: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar
Schwartz, Linda. 1993. On syntactic and semantic alignment of attributive and identificational constructions. In Robert Van Valin Jr (ed.), Advances in Role and Reference Grammar, 433–463. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins.10.1075/cilt.82.11schSearch in Google Scholar
Siewierska, Anna. 1999. From anaphoric pronoun to grammatical agreement marker: Why objects don’t make it. Folia Linguistica 33(1/2). 225–251.10.1515/flin.1999.33.1-2.225Search in Google Scholar
Smith, Carlota. 1997. The parameter of aspect. Dordrecht: Kluwer.10.1007/978-94-011-5606-6Search in Google Scholar
Sorace, Antonella. 2000. Gradients in auxiliary selection with intransitive verbs. Language 76(4). 859–890.10.2307/417202Search in Google Scholar
Tortora, Christina. 1997. The syntax and semantics of the weak locative. Newark, DE: University of Delaware dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Tortora, Christina. 2014. A comparative grammar of Borgomanerese. New York: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199945627.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Vanelli, Laura. 1997. Personal pronouns and demonstratives. In Martin Maiden & Mair Parry (eds.), The dialects of Italy, 106–115. London: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D., Jr. 1990. Semantic parameters of split intransitivity. Language 66. 221–260.10.2307/414886Search in Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D., Jr. 2005. Exploring the syntax–semantics interface. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511610578Search in Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D., Jr. & Randy LaPolla. 1997. Syntax: Structure, meaning and function. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139166799Search in Google Scholar
Vendler, Zeno. 1967. Linguistics in philosophy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.10.7591/9781501743726Search in Google Scholar
Wehr, Barbara. 1984. Diskursstrategien in Romanischen. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Search in Google Scholar
Wehr, Barbara. 1995. SE-Diathese im Italienischen. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Search in Google Scholar
Zamparelli, Roberto. 2000. Layers in the determiner phrase. New York: Garland.Search in Google Scholar
Zeller, Jochen. 2013. Locative inversion in Bantu and predication. Linguistics 51. 1107–1146.10.1515/ling-2013-0046Search in Google Scholar
© 2018 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
