> eneoeari (outcast) Ceuranics ed rscetteale Sula seletione dept aslian ¢ Marrantecrd sccsses Aseetht drscpets ESuacyouces Michela Comamo Dept of Madern Philology University of Naples Federico It ‘micennam@unina lt Aspectual and thematic constrains on auxiliary selection and spit intransiivity ‘In southern Italo-Romance: synchronic and diachronic aspects ‘Cambridge, 9 March 2009 1. Irtroduction* ‘+ Discussion of auliay selection and split itransitivty in some Italian varieties inthe perfect and the pluperfect Comparisou of Wie. patlews of invariance and variation emerging from the analysis of the distribution of perfective auniliarles with intransitive verbs in today's dialects, with the (eregularties appearing in dats from 14" and 154 century texts. Claims: ‘© Although auxiliary distribution in the varieties investigated does not clearly identify two subclasses of intransitves, corresponding to unergativeselass S, verbs, unaccusatives/lass So ‘tbs, either syachronically or diacronially, the variation is structured and neatly accountable within Sorace's (2000) gradient model of spit intransitivity, instantiated by the Audiary Selection Hierarchy (ASH). + A gaadient approach to split intransitivity offers interesting insights into the striking convergence between the synchronic distribution and the diachronic path of development of perfective auxiliaries in southern Itlo-Romance. + There exist espectual and thematic constraints in the use of perfective auxiliaries not only in the perfect, but also in the plupertect. ‘Change in progress in some Campanian varieties: reintroduction of an active system marked through auxiliary selection, sensitive to a gradient model of split intransitivity (Sorace 2000, Bentley 2006). ‘Abbreviations: COND=conitonal: DATedati, Peleminin, FUT=fure, MPPimpertct “IND=indicative; INinin tive; NOMrnominaive, Memascline, PERF=perfet, PL/pplual PLUPPeplupereet: P=pest participle, PRES&presen, Slsgesingulr, SUBJ=subjnctive. 2. dsiliary selection and split mtransitvity: some current views and issues 21. Unocenpaivitysplsintransitvity Different morpbosyntactc behaviour of intransitive vers in several languages, which subdivide into two subclasses, so-called unerentivescass S,, unaccusttves/lass So verbs, according Yo whether their subject (S) shares semantic, morphological and/or syntactic properties with the subject (A) of canonical transitive verbs (unergatves/class S, vetbs) or withthe abject (0) of transitive verbs (unaceusatves/class So verb). 5, A, Or syotnctionsemantic primitives. S: the sole argument of an intransitive predicate; A, Or the ‘Ageat and Patent argumens of & transitive predicate, coinciding with the grammatical categories of subject and abject in their prototypical realizations (Dixon 1994: 6-8, Mithun and Cafe 1999, int a). ‘The phenomenon ie variously oalled split intransitivity, stive-tative, active-inactive, agent-patieat patterning (Merlan 1985; Mithun 1991) or unergativityhinaccusatvity (Perimutter 1978; 1989; among others and recent discussion in Alexiadou etal, 2004), (Class Sy/umergatives = intransitive verbs whose subject is marked/behaves like the subject (A) of ‘wansitive verbs; (Class Sofunaccusctives = intransitive verbs whose subject shares morphologica/syntacic properties wit the object (0) of canonical transitive vecbs. ‘Morphological coding: Guarant (daa from Mithun 1991) (1). Sorat (Class Sofunaceusatives) Tam sick’ b.feeraht "Tewill eary me off (@)a. xd (Class S,mergarives) tg" b.a-gwerd sina ‘Tam bringing them now’(Moroho)syntacte eading: Halon: 8) xailary selection inthe perfect: BE ~ unaccusatives (32), HAVE ~ unergatves (4a); b) past participle agreement with the subject with unaccusatives (38); lack of past participle fgreement withthe subject with unergatives (4a); ©) nevltichation of & quantified (post verbal) subject possible with umaccusetves (3b), ‘ungrammatical with unergatives (4b): 9S) participial absolute constructions: possible with unaccusatives (3), impossible/ungrammatical with unergatives (4c) @)e sono parti 41 ragaszi (Class Sohmaccusatives) bePRESIND pl. leavePPPLM the boy PLM “The boys ave lt (li Are lt) bine sono parttt molt ahem b.PRESIND FL leaveY.PLM many PLM “Alotof them have let it ofthem ar left mary) o.paritt regen og esiun cosemite preg leave PP.PLM the boys “The boys having lf ile the boy) (a1 ragazt hanno omminato lunge I vate (Class Sy/energcies) theboys have PRES.INDSPL walk.PP.MSG along the pth-way “The boys have walked along the path-way bene hanno camminatl mol ofthem have PRES.IND 3PL walk PP.M.SC many “A ltof them ave walked” © Yeamminatl 4 ragec walk PP.MPL the boys “The boys having walked” a1 vegas kano smangioto mole mel rans) the boys have PRESINDIPLearPP.MSG many apne “The boys have eaten many epples* Cidtanee 81 rogantine hanno smangiste molte the boys ofthem have PRESIND.PL est PPMSG many “The boys have enten many of them (e. apples tar € possibile un "be! +past participle b. Elsewhere ‘have’ ~past participle Bentley & Eythérsson 2003; 463) + Ranking of properties: Dynamicity + tlicity (DT (telie change of location/stte) > dynamicity-tlicity (D=T) (attic change of state) > stativty-dynamicity (St-D) (continuation of pre-exstimg state) > stativty ($0 (state) ‘The selection of perfective auxiliaries is an instance of allomorphy. HAVE and BE are allomorps of a tnse/espect morpheme, which in combination withthe pat prtiiple forms the analytic prfet Axlliay seletion according to person is part ofa person mazking system on the verb (Bentley ‘& Eythirsson 2001) In the varieties in which auxiliary selection does not depend on verb lasses, auxiliaries are person markers on the verb. ‘The spread of be into the have domains (well-tested in sevarl varieties of Molise, Abruzzo, Lazio) is determined by the phonetic identity between the atonic forms of have in the 2nd and 5rd person singulr 4.3. Symtactico-semantic approaches: (Geirnshaw 1987; 1991; Rappaport 1988; Zaenen 19RR; Levin & Rappaport 1995; Sorace 1995; 2000; 2006, emong others), ‘The diferent morphosyatactic behaviour of intransitive verbs reflets the different syntactic status of the surface subject at some level of representation, but is determined by semantic factors, such &s inherent lexical aspect and subject Contol (Protagonist Control)