The Morphosyntax of Albanian and Aromanian Varieties: Case, Agreement, Complementation 9781501505140, 9781501514326

Citation preview

M. Rita Manzini, Leonardo M. Savoia The Morphosyntax of Albanian and Aromanian Varieties

Studies in Generative Grammar

Editors Norbert Corver Harry van der Hulst Roumyana Pancheva Founding editors Jan Koster Henk van Riemsdijk

Volume 133

M. Rita Manzini, Leonardo M. Savoia

The Morphosyntax of Albanian and Aromanian Varieties Case, Agreement, Complementation

ISBN 978-1-5015-1432-6 e-ISBN (PDF) 978-1-5015-0514-0 e-ISBN (EPUB) 978-1-5015-0506-5 ISSN 0167-4331 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. © 2018 Walter de Gruyter, Inc., Berlin/Boston Typesetting: Integra Software Services Pvt. Ltd. Printing and binding: CPI books GmbH, Leck www.degruyter.com

Contents 1 1 1.1 1.2 2 2.1 2.2 3 3.1 3.2 4

Introduction: Ext, Agree, Parameters   1  3 EXT  A case study concerning proclisis/enclisis alternations  4 in Romance   8 The present work      Agree 9 Agree in the minimalist program: the [interpretable]/[valued]  9 asymmetry   15 The present work   16 Variation and parameters   16 Case study: Northern Italian person splits   19 The present work   20 Sources and aknowledgements 

I 

Nominal inflections, person and case and their syntactic projection

2 1 2 3 4

 27 Case categories in Albanian   28 The traditional case categories of Albanian      The lexicon of Albanian case 33  40 Combining inflections with one another   42 Residual problems and conclusions 

3

N morphology and its interpretation:  45 The neuter in Italian and Albanian varieties   46 A framework morphosyntactic theory for N   53 The Central Italian neuter   61 The Arbëresh neuter   66 Refinements of the data and the analysis   71 Count plurals of mass neuter nouns   73 Conclusions 

1 2 3 3.1 3.2 4 4 1

Person splits in the case systems of Geg Albanian and Arbëresh:  75 DOM and the PCC  The mapping from the lexicon to syntax: Universals  75 and variation 

VI  2 3 3.1 4 4.1 5 5.1 6 6.1 7

 Contents

 78 The data   83 The notion of case   85 DOM and the person split  What do case inflections externalize? Embedding case morphology  88 in the syntax   92 Pronouns and DOM   96 Prepositional contexts and the ablative   102 The ablative   104 Person case constraint (PCC) phenomena      Reinstating case in the PCC 107  111 Concluding remarks   113 Appendix A: Inverse Agreement   119 Appendix B: Clitic Doubling 

II

Lkrs, possessors and agreement in the DP

5 1 1.1 1.2 2 3 3.1 4 4.1 5

Lkrs in Aromanian in comparison with Albanian   130 Evidence     132 Aromanian  137 Comparison with Albanian   139 Previous analyses of Lkrs   142 Analysis of Lkrs in Albanian      Pre-genitival Lkrs 147  149 Lkrs in Aromanian   151 Pre-genitival Lkrs   153 Conclusions 

6

Case in Aromanian compared to Romanian: The Person split  155 and agreeing possessives  Overview of nominal inflections, linkers  155 and oblique case   159 Background assumptions   163 The person split in Romanian and Aromanian   167 Aromanian pronouns   173 Possessive pronouns and Suffixaufnahme      Conclusions 177

1 1.1 2 2.1 3 4

 129

Contents 

7 1 2 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 3 3.1 3.2 4 5

Oblique case in Punjabi: Ergativity splits and agreeing  178 possessors   179 Background   182 Ergative structures   184 The perfect   187 The progressive and the aspectual split      The nature of ergative case 189  193 Ergativity in Kurdish   197 Intermediate conclusions      Genitive structures 198  198 Agreement stacking   202 (Reduced) relative clauses   206 Stacking and predication   210 Conclusions 

III

Complementation: Particles, Complementizers, Prepositions

8

Finite control (and raising) in Albanian: The subjunctive  217 Prt as Lkr   217 Background: Diverging approaches to control  Control into finite and non-finite sentences: Tense  220 and agreement      Albanian tə 223  230 The interpretation of tə   233 Matrix verbs of obligatory control (and raising)  Matrix verbs of non-obligatory control and null subject  235 readings   237 Back to Lkrs   238 Extensions to infinitival languages      Conclusions 241

1 2 3 4 4.1 4.2 4.3 5 6 9 1 1.1

The finite complementation system of Aromanian, in comparison  243 to other Romance languages and Albanian      Finite complementizers 244  244 The Romanian context 

 VII

VIII  1.2 1.3 1.4 2 2.1 2.2 2.3 3 10

 Contents

 246 The Aromanian evidence   249 Comparison with Italian dialects and analysis   253 Motivating the analysis: intermediate conclusions   255 The subjunctive Prt   255 The subjunctive Prt and control   257 The Aromanian evidence and the split CP approach      Borrowing and reanalysis 263  265 Conclusions 

1 2 2.1 2.2 3 3.1 4

Non-finite complementation in Aromanian and Albanian:  267 prepositional introducers, infinitivals, supines   268 Prepositional introducers in Aromanian   275 The Geg Albanian paskajore ‘infinitive’   277 Perfect and progressive construals      The paskajore 281  288 Albanian long participles and Aromanian supines   293 The Romanian/Aromanian supine   295 Conclusions 

IV

Linguistic Contact

11

Notes on the contact between Italo-Albanian and Romance (Calabrian,  301 Lucanian) varieties: borrowings, code-mixing and convergence      Introduction 301  303 Romance relexification of Arbëresh   305 Conceptual categories in borrowing     307 Convergence in sentential embedding  309 Convergence in the complementizer system   310 Convergence in verbal structures  Convergence in the morphology of the perfect participle  312 and of the perfective past   314 Nominal structures: Albanian interacting with Romance   316 Embedding in NP: nominal complements   316 Romance adjectival borrowings in Albanian      Phonology 318  320 Consonantal phenomena  Diphthongization of the stressed nucleus in the Arbëresh  321 of Ginestra   323 Summing up: Models of bilingual competence 

1 2 2.1 3 3.1 4 4.1 5 5.1 5.2 6 6.1 6.2 7

Contents 

12 1 1.1 2 3 3.1 3.2 4 4.1 4.2 4.3 5

Causatives, case, passivization and agreement in the variety of Ginestra  326 (Arbëresh): Against VP-movement and monoclausality      Arbëresh causatives and the Ginestra data 327  334 Language contact   335 Case in the Arbëresh and Ginestra causatives   340 Middle-Passive in Arbëresh and Ginestra causatives      Against smuggling 341  345 Intermediate conclusions: Passive causatives   346 Agreement and the person split in the Ginestra variety  Agreement patterns in Arbëresh causatives: Agreement with  347 oblique subjects  Agreement patterns in Arbëresh causatives: The invariable  350 causative form   353 The Person agreement split in the Ginestra variety      Conclusions 356

References  Index 

 IX

 372

 357

1 Introduction: Ext, Agree, Parameters The title of this monograph highlights its focus on Albanian and Aromanian varieties, and on the empirical domains of nominal inflection, Case and agreement, complementation. The reason why we came to investigate these languages has to do both with their status of relatively little studied languages and with the availability of informants; microvariation data in turn facilitate investigations into domains of syntax closer to the externalization interface. All of this is useful to understand the external circumstances which shaped the monograph; the sources of several of the present chapters in occasional or hard to access publications are dutifully aknowledged at the end of this introduction. At the same time, both our work on Balkan dialects and our analyses of the morphosyntax of case, agreement and complementation cannot be understood without reference to Chomsky’s minimalist research program (Chomsky 1995, 2000a, 2001, 2008, 2013; Chomsky et al. 2018). In this sense, the themes of the monograph are those enunciated by the title of this chapter, namely the externalization interface EXT, as well as operations such as Agree whose properties have sometimes led theorists to attribute them to the EXT component, despite their strong ties to the computational core. On these topics, we have both objections to offer to some currently prevailing approaches and proposals to advance. The chapters that follow, taken in isolation, may be appreciated as studies of microvariation facts or as original proposals concerning specific phenomena. However it is important to realize that they address a consistent set of themes, and that the conclusions of each chapter not only are consistent with those of other chapters but are meant to cumulatively build a case in favour of a particular set of theoretical conclusions. The aim of this chapter is to bring the theoretical themes and conclusions to the fore. Because the matter is conceptually complex, we begin by designing a brief roadmap of the chapter. In section 1 of this chapter we focus on EXT, i.e. essentially the matching of PHON and SEM. This is a core problem of linguistics, and one where Chomsky’s model of the computational component underdetermines theoretical choices. We make one main point, which we believe current generative theory and pratice fail to appreciate and which on the contrary could in our opinion restrict the available options considerably. We hold that the role of PHON is not that of opacizing the output of the computational component, but rather of cooperating with the computational component in order to make SEM optimally legible. In other words, approaches such a Distributed Morphology (DM) that stress the internal organization of morphophonology to the detriment of its immediate legibility by syntax (and vice versa) take the wrong approach to the EXT problem. PHON does not https://doi.org/10.1515/9781501505140-001

2 

 1 Introduction: Ext, Agree, Parameters

increase noise, but rather works to overcome noise that may disturb the efficient work of the language faculty. This way of looking at the EXT interface has simplicity on its side. Another bonus is an insight into the role of functional optimization devices – these have a place precisely at the EXT interface, insuring the best interfacing of the PHON and SEM computational components. The main parts of the monograph that deal with EXT are Part I on the inflectional structure of Nouns and Part III on complementation, which reject morphological opacization and grammaticalization analyses. In section 2 of the present chapter we address Agree. We make a point which is potentially controversial, face to prevailing wisdom in generative grammar practice and theorizing. One of the questions that Chomsky et al. (2018) leave open is the status of Agree as computational process or as a process belonging to EXT, where its role would be that of repairing underspecified features clusters. We reject the latter approach. The simplest view of φ-feature clusters is that they are all alike, both positively specified for interpretability and valuation, and that the only Probe-Goal asymmetry is introduced by c-command (see the core definition of the operation by Chomsky 2000a). Note that neither Minimal Search, nor of course identity, depend on an intrinsic asymmetry in the definition of the feature cluster (±interpretable, ±valued). Minimal Search is indeed asymmetric but because c-command is. Agree may in fact be best conceived as an interpretive procedure at the SEM interface. SEM cannot return a well-formed interpretation unless φ-feature clusters denoting a single referent are properly identified as discontinous occurrences of the same item (rather like chains). Part II of the monograph is an extended argument in favour of this view of Agree, based essentially on agreement internal to the DP and in adnominal modification (Suffixaufnahme). Independently of our proposal, the latter are notoriously expensive to deal with in terms of asymmetric Agree of the type devised for sentential agreement with I and v. This part of the monograph in turn builds on the morphosyntactic analysis of nominal inflections in Part I and is relevant for the discussion of sentential complementation in Part III. In section 3 of this chapter we separately consider the issue of variation, which bears a strong conceptual relation to EXT, but also to the lexicon, hitherto unmentioned. It is the lexicon that carries the weight of variation according to early minimalist theorizing (Chomsky 1995). This is in principle consistent with the view that variation is located at EXT (Berwick and Chomsky 2011), since the lexicon traditionally is the locus for the pairing of PHON and SEM, i.e. EXT. Yet, unresolved questions lurk under such uncontroversial statements. One problem has to do with the exact locus where PHON is paired up with SEM. Notoriously, DM advocates Late Insertion. However, we judge the empirical evidence in favour of such a conclusion (syncretisms, portmanteau morphology etc.)

1 EXT 

 3

vastly overestimated (Manzini and Savoia 2005, 2007). If so, the conclusion that the lexicon, pairing up PHON and SEM, serves as input to the computational system remains possible. Needless to say, if the lexicon is prior to computation then different languages, having different lexicons, will have different syntactic structures. Late Insertion makes in principle available the idea of an universal abstract lexicon (prior to Vocabulary Insertion at EXT) and therefore effectively of a Universal Base – which we reject. A final often debated opposition, which our data evoke, pits micro- against macro-variation and hence potentially microparameters against macroparameters. Here we reiterate the position explicitly articulated by Manzini and Savoia (2011a), namely that these oppositions are merely descriptive, because there is of course a single set of parameters, exactly as there is a single set of rules. Specifically parameters are lexicalization choices open in the conceptual workspace. Certainly categorial splits may or may not be realized in a given language/lexicon and if they are, they may be instantiated in different domains and subdomains of the lexicon. The opposition of macro- vs micro-variation depicts the extent to which (the lexicon of) a language is affected by a certain parametric choice. Part IV of the monograph, concentrating on descriptive and theoretical issues arising from language contact, most directly relates to parametrization (and indirectly change).

1 EXT As foreshadowed by the original DM program (“syntax all the way down”, Halle and Marantz 1993), we assume that the traditional domain of morphological facts is largely to be subsumed by the syntax – in fact entirely, in the ideal case. PHON is a computational system with its own primitives and its own operations. The interface between PHON and CHL/SEM is optimized, so that PHON yields optimum legibility of CHL/SEM. Optimization devices of the type popularized by functionalist and typological studies (but see also Chomsky’s (2005) “third factor”) are likely to have a role precisely in insuring the matching of the two computational systems involved. This section is organized as follows. First, we will illustrate how we believe the phonology-to-syntax mapping is run by reference to a domain, that of Romance (3rd person) clitics, where a great deal is know about history, variation, phonological, morphological and syntactic restrictions of a easily delimited domain, creating conditions close to those of an experimental set-up. We will then highlight some of the chapter and sections of the monograph that bear most directly to the theses we set out.

4 

 1 Introduction: Ext, Agree, Parameters

1.1 A case study concerning proclisis/enclisis alternations in Romance In many Romance varieties, proclitic and enclitic position correlate with a number of morphophonological and morphosyntactic alternations. One source of alternations is segmental, involving for instance the presence in proclisis and the absence in enclisis of the l- segment of accusative 3rd person clitics. Thus in Corsican (1), the vocalic proclitic u/a/i alternates with the syllabic enclitic lu/la/ li, exemplifying segmental (l-) allomorphy. (1) a. u/a/i 'cammani him/her/them they.call ‘They call him/her/them’ b. 'cammalu/la/li callhim/her/them ‘Call him/her/them!’

Zonza

Another source of alternations are stress patterns. In Lucanian (2) the same segmental alternation as in (1) is exemplified by the alternation of singular u/a in proclisis with lə in enclisis (final vowels are neutralized in this variety). However, the enclitic shifts the word stress, which in (2b) is on the syllable immediately preceding the clitic, not on the verb root, as in (2a) and also in (1b); for reasons that will become apparent, in (2b) we show that the 1st person clitic has the same effect as the 3rd person one. In the enclitic group in (2c), the word stress is also shifted to the syllable immediately preceding the lə enclitic. The alternations may combine, but may also be observed independently of one another. (2) a. u/ a/ lə 'cə:mə him/her/them I.call ‘I call him/her/them’ b. ca'mə- :lə/ mə callhim-her-them/me ‘Call him/her/them/me!’ c. dana:-d'də-:lə give-to.him- it ‘Give him it!’

Accettura

Note that there is nothing especially dialectal or microparametric about the relevant facts. A standard Romance language like French in (3) illustrates allomorphy, involving nuclei, e.g. me>moi, and reordering, which Corsican dialects also display, but which is out of the scope of the present discussion. In equally well-known standard

1 EXT 

 5

Romance languages, on the other hand, nothing happens, e.g. Italian in (4). The alternations are Romance-wide and there is no external basis for their distribution. (3) a. Il me le donne He me it gives ‘He gives it to me’ b. Donne-le-moi! give-it-me ‘Give it to me!’

French

(4) a. Glielo do Him-it I.give b. Dateglielo! give-him-it ‘Give it to him!’

Italian

Manzini and Savoia (2005, 2017a) conclude that both the segmental and stress alternations are allomorphies, i.e. there are two different sets of clitics involved; the reader is referred to those works for detailed data and discussion of the rather extensive literature. Vocalic clitics of the form in (1a), (2a) consist merely of nominal class (gender) and number specifications, which in the appropriate context are sufficient to externalize reference to the 3rd person. In contexts that include the imperatives in (1b), (2b) the class and number specifications must be supported by the l- lexical base, introducing D properties, as in (5). (5) [D (l) [φ u/a]] As for stress shift patterns, we assume the existence of prosodic features such as [FOOT] in (6a). The requirement [FOOT] applies in an extended domain of the word including clitics, yielding trochaic stress in representations of the type in (6b), where F=Foot. Crucially, the allomorphic status of stress shifts, means that Lucanian has two series of clitics again, one with, and the other without, the feature [FOOT], as in (7). (6) a. [FOOT]: Construct a binary left-headed foot starting from the last vowel of the postlexical string. b. cam [F əmə] (7) [1/2 P m [φ ə ([FOOT])]

6 

 1 Introduction: Ext, Agree, Parameters

Assuming what precedes to be an adequate description of the alternations in themselves, the question is why a certain set of lexical characteristics should be matched to a certain set of contexts – and in fact, preliminarily, what exactly defines the contexts themselves. A prosodic characterization (pre-tonic vs. posttonic position) of the relevant contexts is inadequate, but so is a syntactic characterization based on the position of the verb in I (proclisis) or C (enclisis). The main reason is that in a subset of dialects, allomorphy is observed when clitics are in the syntactic domain of a negation, as in (8a), though they are phonologically proclitic and of course structurally higher than the verb. The reordering in (9), strengthens the conclusion that negation is an ‘enclitic’ context. (8) a. un lu/la/li 'cammani not him/her/them they.call ‘They do not call him/her/them’ (9) a. um ɖi llu/la/li ðani mikka not to.him it.m/it.f/them give not ‘They don’t give it/them to him’ b. u/a/i ɖɖi ðani it.m/it.f/them to.him give ‘They give it/them to him’

Zonza

Manzini and Savoia (2017a) conclude that the definition of the contexts triggering the allomorphies and reordering needs to make direct reference to the interpretive content, shared by a modal form of the verb like the imperative and by negation. Irrealis is an obvious candidate. They eventually settle on a category that has independent reflexes in the domain of D lexicalization, namely non-veridicality in the sense of Giannakidou (1998). Specifically, in order for allomorphies and reordering to be triggered the clitics of the relevant varieties need to be in the semantic scope of a non-veridical operator; they further need to be in its syntactic scope. A slightly weaker position may also be retreated to, as Manzini and Savoia mention – namely that the context for the alternations is indeed a syntactic one and that the negation triggers them in some languages to the extent that it is not attached to IP, but it is attached to CP. In any event, if one wants to avoid mere cartographic encoding of empirical issues, one would have to ultimately connect the position of Neg to modal properties of some sort and hence again to some notion of irreality/non-veridicality. Thus we get to the crucial question why modal/C environments should be coupled with l- forms and stressed forms of clitics – as opposed to the complement set of contexts. As far as we can tell, there is not a single Romance language

1 EXT 

 7

where these conditions are reversed. Note, importantly, that here is no PHON reason why this should be so – syllabic clitics are possible in proclisis as in Italian (3) and vocalic clitics are possible in enclisis (e.g. French y ‘there’). There is of course no syntax-internal reason for the distribution. In other words, of the two interfacing computational modules PHON and syntax/SEM, neither can explain the distribution of the facts in itself. What we are seeking is an account of a regularity lying squarely at their interface. Manzini and Savoia (2017a: 23) propose that “definiteness is overtly lexicalized by l- in those contexts where the surface scope relations, i.e. D lower than the modal verb, do not correspond to the interpreted scope relations, i.e. definiteness scoping out of modals. The same analysis applies to negation contexts. … lexicalization of the l- segment strengthens the visibility of D properties in those contexts where D properties must be read outside the scope of some modal/non-veridical operator that is nevertheless externalized higher than D. We read this requirement as a device to optimize visibility at the SM interface of two key operators (D and C/Neg) interacting at the CI interface”. The same analysis holds for stress shift patterns: “the modal V-in-C context requires D properties to be externalized both by an l- segment and by prosodic prominence associated with the tonic nucleus immediately preceding l-”, where the latter is lexically encoded on the l- alternant of the clitic. “Stress on the clitic or on the immediately preceding nucleus provides SM salience for the deictic properties that need to be read outside the scope of syntactically higher modal operators” (Manzini and Savoia 2017a: 24). In short, regularities at the interface of PHON and SEM, which are not amenable to an explanation within one of those two components, are natural candidates for functional optimizazion devices, of the kind that Chomsky (2005) would call third factor explanations. By hypothesis, such functional optimization devices will not work internally to each component and will therefore not govern any aspect internal to either SEM or PHON. More importantly, under the conception of Manzini and Savoia (2017: 23) “the general picture we obtain is far from the idea that allomorphies and other devices traditionally considered to be morphological simply disrupt the underlying regularity of syntactico-semantic structure. On the contrary they are seen to contribute to the externalization of complex CI information, here the relative scope of modal/non-veridical operators and definiteness”. In the present view, there are neither empirical insights, nor, crucially, formal simplifications to be gained by assuming that underlyingly uniform syntactic structures, comprising only abstract terminals, are pronounced after a series of PHON-internal computations that rearrange the syntactic nodes, in such a way as to inevitably render the SEM content more opaque. Both the syntactico-semantic component and the externalization component have their internal organization, but the mapping between them does not necessarily involve opacizing

8 

 1 Introduction: Ext, Agree, Parameters

operations. This view seems to us conceptually simpler. What we tried to show with our case study, furthermore, is that more complex views are not necessitated by the evidence, in fact they may be a hindrance in accounting for the observed facts.

1.2 The present work In Part I of this monograph, and especially in chapters 2 and 3, we reach below the word level to consider inflectional phenomena affecting nouns. Specifically, we consider the inflectional system of Albanian, concentrating on Case inflections in chapter 2 and on plural/mass inflections (hence on φ-features inflections) in chapter 3. Our research is informed by the assumption that PHON and SEM are transparently related, unless the reverse can be proven. Though this is simple and intuitive, it seems to us that current practice is often prejudiced in favour of the idea that some opacity is inevitable. Though simplicity is a factor in favour of the view we are pushing, it is not the decisive one. Rather, in chapter 2–3 we argue that considerable insights into the morphosyntax of case and number can be gained by taking so-called syncretisms at face value, as occurrences of the same lexical items with different meanings, i.e. as instances of ambiguity (Kayne 2010). Thus in chapter 2 we argue that the superficial identity of plural and oblique points to an underlying shared content, i.e part/whole. In chapter 3 we argue that so-called neuters and plurals share the same morphology because they belong to the same superclass [aggregate] (Chierchia 2010). Part III of the monograph, devoted to complementation, is equally relevant to this debate. In chapter 8, we reconsider the issue of finite control in Balkan languages and hence the status of the so-called subjunctive particle, namely të in Albanian. In chapter 9 our object is the overall complementation system of Aromanian, where an important part is played by the existence of two that-type complementizers. The general Indo-European coincidence of that-type complementizers with relative/interrogative pronouns, holding in Romance as well, leads us to construe that-clauses essentially as free relatives (in chapter 9). As for so-called subjunctive complements, we point out their formal and morphological coincidence with Linker structures (investigated in Part II). Specifically the të particle coincides with the basic form of the Linker; therefore we propose that its fundamental role is not that of introducing modality or of serving as a complementizer. Rather të is a Linker that introduces a predication and hence allows for control (and raising). These analyses are not necessarily correct because of the fact that they enforce transparency between SEM and PHON (though this

2 Agree 

 9

represents an advantage) – rather they stand or fall on the basis of their empirical predictions. One aspect of the discussion in these chapters, especially chapter 9, concerns grammaticalization. Roberts and Roussou (2003) try to build this notion into formal syntax by characterizing it as a derivation, from contentive status to purely functional status. In their terms, English that is a single lexical item, occurring in two positions, D (referential) and C (functional), related by the notion of grammaticalization. It seems to us that even so, more than one problem besets the grammaticalization analysis (one lexical item, two categorizations). In particular, there must be some kind of lexical content that enables the derivation from D to C. In other words, after a long detour, we are back to the very question we started with, that of the syncretism/ambiguity of that; grammaticalization, even as formalized by Roberts and Roussou (2003), provides a possible (re) statement of the problem, not a solution.

2 Agree As indicated above, Chomsky et al (2018), following much current debate, leave a fundamental question concerning the rule Agree open – namely whether it is best conceived as part of the computational component or of the EXT component. In section 1, in enucleating our theses on EXT we had recourse to a case study. In this section, we approach the issue of Agree by retracing some crucial passages in the history of this rule within the minimalist program.

2.1 Agree in the minimalist program: the [interpretable]/[valued] asymmetry The basic statement of Agree is provided by Chomsky (2000a: 122) as follows: “Matching is a relation that holds of a probe P and a goal G. Not every matching pair induces Agree. To do so, G must (at least) be in the domain D(P) of P and satisfy locality conditions. The simplest assumptions for the probe-goal system are shown in [10]. (10) a. Matching is feature identity. b. D(P) is the sister of P. c. Locality reduces to closest c-command. Thus, D(P) is the c-command domain of P, and a matching feature G is closest to P if there is no G’ in D(P) matching P such that G is in D(G’)”.

10 

 1 Introduction: Ext, Agree, Parameters

In the statement of the conditions for Agree in (10), the absence of any mention of [interpretable]/[valued] features is rather striking, when compared to subsequent minimalist practice. Only in the text surrounding (10) we are told that “the erasure of uninterpretable features of probe and goal is the operation we call Agree” (Chomsky 2000a: 122). In Chomsky (2001) the (un)interpretability asymmetry takes on a paramount role in the definition of Agree: “uninterpretable features … constitute the probe [K] that seeks a matching goal – another collection of features – within the domain of …K. What is the relation Match? The optimal candidate is identity; we therefore take Match to be Identity” (5). The latter is the definition of Agree adopted as the minimalist standard. Furthermore “the natural principle is that the uninterpretable features, and only these, enter the derivation without values, and are distinguished from interpretable features by virtue of this property” so that a further probe/goal asymmetry in terms of the property [valued] is superimposed to the original [interpretable] one. As far as we can tell the two are equivalent in Chomsky’s work, though in the subsequent literature, they are sometimes treated as independent features (Pesetsky and Torrego 2007), or [interpretable] is abandoned in favour of [valued] (Preminger 2014). Now, life may be simpler without [interpretable]/[valued] features, as in (10), but as Chomsky (2001: 4) points out “the existence of these features is a question of fact: does L have these properties or not? If it does (as appears to be the case), we have to recognize the fact and seek to explain it”. In other words, the question is whether there is independent evidence for these features – or to be more precise for their negative value, given that we take it for granted that there are interpretable, valued features (e.g. 1P, plural, etc.). For Chomsky (1995), the crucial empirical argument in favor of uninterpretability is that while verbs are routinely associated with singular or plural features, there is no sense in which the event they denote is singular or plural. However Manzini and Savoia (2007: 21) argue “that the so-called agreement inflection of the verb is categorized exactly as a subject clitic; what is more, it bears a structural relation to the verb root which parallels that of a subject clitic (or any other subject) to the verb”. Therefore Manzini and Savoia’s counterargument is that inflections can in fact be interpreted if construed as (EPP) arguments of the verb/event. Most of the issues connecting to Agree, as discussed in the minimalist literature, do not stem from any of the core properties in (10), namely identity, c-command and locality, nor do they interact with such properties – but rather connect to the [interpretable]/[valued] properties and the identification of probes with uninterpretable/unvalued feature sets. First, pre-encoding of probes allows for both downward and upward Agree to be expressed (probe higher than goal or lower than goal, cf. Zeijlstra 2012); the two directions are not expressible in the

 11

2 Agree 

absence of pre-encoding. Similarly, pre-encoding probes and goals allows manyto-one or one-to-many Agree to be expressed (one probe, many goals, cf. Carstens 2001– or many probes, one goal); in the absence of pre-encoding, a set of features α simply acts as a probe for a set of features β it minimally c-commands. If β in turns acts as a probe for γ, then we simply have a sequence of agreement pairs (α, β), (β, γ). In short, (10) not only is simpler than current minimalist practice in cutting out certain extra assumptions – it also has less expressive power, i.e. it is more restrictive. Our crucial proposal is abandoning the [interpretable]/[valued] properties and their pre-encoding on probes and goals (see also Manzini and Savoia 2005, 2007, 2011a), though we otherwise keep to the Chomskyan formulation of Agree in (10) in all of its aspects. In other words, Minimal Search and Match (the Agree computation), as in (11a), is to be retained, but its connections with [interpretable]/[valued] features is to be severed, as in (11b). (11) a. Agree is the Minimal Search and Match operation formalized by Chomsky (2000a) – cf. (10) b. Further stipulations about ±interpretable and ±valued features, and their pre-encoding on probe/goals are eliminated These apparently abstract questions take on empirical significance when we consider agreement within the DP. Take for instance Italian (12), which has the crucial property that an agreeing morpheme is found on every single DP-internal category (determiner, quantifier, adjective, noun). (12) l-e molt-e bell-e cas-e the-fpl many-fpl nice-fpl house-fpl ‘the many nice houses’

Italian

A preliminary question is whether what is sometimes called concord (DPinternally) is in fact the same phenomenon/rule as sentence-internal Agree. Some theorists (for instance Giusti 2008) recognize two separate phenomena, subject to two different rules; sentential agreement is deemed to fall under Chomskyan probe-goal Agree, while DP-internal concord responds to different processes. However sentential and DP-internal agreement obviously share what Chomsky calls Matching, i.e. the identity relation, and the locality conditions on it – indeed as laid out in (10). In this sense, it goes against commonly held measures of simplicity to postulate separate processes. Nor is there much PF evidence for the separation. In an Indo-Aryan language like Punjabi (see chapter 7), verbs are participial forms, agreeing in number and gender/nominal class. Therefore

12 

 1 Introduction: Ext, Agree, Parameters

morphologically it is impossible to separate agreement proper from concord (contrary to English). Nevertheless, theorists arguing for a single Agree process are faced by the issues of multiple probes/goals and directionality. First, while the canonical sentential agreement involves one probe and one goal, DP-internal agreement may involve an arbitrary number of categories (the head noun, its determiner, its quantifier, its adjectival modifier in the Italian example in (12)). Carstens (2001) argues that this type of agreement should be modelled by allowing one goal, i.e. N, to check several probes, i.e. the set of determiners and modifiers of N. This incidentally maintains the correct directionality of Agree, with the probe higher than the goal. However Carstens’s analysis meets considerable difficulties with respect to the fact that if we take interpretable features to be associated with N, we are forced to conclude that features associated with D are non-interpretable. Yet Ds alone appear perfectly capable of reference, implying the interpretability of their features (see Danon 2010 for more problems with D-N configurations). We may want to correct this state of affairs by changing the direction of agreement i.e. having the goal higher than the probe – but then we are facing a further enrichment of the model, plus potential empirical problems having to do with the fact that gender/nominal class is clearly determined by N. Now, (11) facilitates the discussion of agreement in DP-internal contexts. For instance, in (12), with the structure in (13), Agree creates pairs (belle, case), (molte, belle) etc. where a c-commanding element and a c-commanded element serve as probe and goal respectively with the consequence that their φ-feature sets are identified. (13)

DP D le

QP Q molte

NP A belle

N case

Among open empirical issues and potential problems, it is useful to distinguish those that are theory-neutral and those that are theory-specific. A theoryindependent issue in (13) is how morphologically expressed properties percolate to syntactically relevant node. In Chomsky (1995), syntactic merge takes as its

2 Agree 

 13

input entire words labelled by categories and sets of features; therefore it is natural to speak of Agree as taking place between the φ-features of, say, the Adjective and the Noun. However if we assume that Merge takes morphemes as its input, in a structure like (13), it is the inflection of the Noun, Adjective and Determiner that strictly speaking is associated with φ-features content and ought to enter Agree. The problem is that no c-command holds between the inflection of A and the inflection of N – and so on. Furthermore, if words are phases (Marantz 2007), word internal morphology is by definition isolated in its own phase. Therefore, in order for Chomsky-type Agree to work at all we must insure that φ-feature properties come to be part of the label of the word. We assume that the labelling algorithm will be able to effect the desired result, especially since φ-feature inflections are normally dominated directly by the word node. We leave this point open for future research. A problem that affects specifically the proposal in (11) is that it ignores the trigger problem, that induced Chomsky (2000a, 2001) to introduce [interpretable]/[valued] oppositions to begin with. This directly connects to the issue whether Agree is part of the core computational system or part of EXT. In the terms of Chomsky (2000a, 2001), [interpretable] properties interact not only with the computational component, but also with the LF interface. Technically, the deletion of uninterpretable features is necessary because their permanence at the LF interface would violate Full Interpretation; therefore the presence of such features effectively triggers AGREE. This technical implementation hides an important conceptual motivation, namely that at the LF interface there must be a single interpreted copy of any φ-feature set, potentially identifying a referential argument. The alternative suggested by Chomsky et al (2018) on the basis of much current literature is that Agree is in fact not enforced by Full Interpretation because it is not part of the computational component at all – rather it is a procedure to assign values to unvalued features. This proposal, like the original Chomskyan formulation, relies on the stipulation that certain bunches of features are positively specified (valued/interpretable) vs. negatively specified (unvalued/ uninterpretable). It simply substitutes an EXT repair (fixing of unvalued features for the sake of externalization) to the interpretive reasons originally invoked by Chomsky. It seems to us that given the original formulation of the rule in (10), which is not called into question by Chomsky et al. (2018), either it is shown that Minimal Search (i.e. c-command) is effectively irrelevant to Agree – or Minimal Search (i.e. c-command) must be shown to be relevant to EXT. The second possibility is very expensive, in that there are now two separate components for which Minimal Search is relevant. In fact, this duplication of the syntax into the EXT

14 

 1 Introduction: Ext, Agree, Parameters

component is essentially what we argue against in section 1 in proposing a unified morphosyntactic component as an answer to the EXT problem. Conversely, given the conception of EXT in section 1, it is impossible to entertain the hypothesis that Agree belongs to EXT (morphology) as separate from core syntax. This only leaves one option open, namely that Agree is part of the syntactico-semantic component. At the same time, we appear to have pitted ourselves in a corner since our avoidance of [interpretable] as well as [valued] features prevents us from adopting the trigger for Agree envisaged by Chomsky (2000a, 2001). Manzini and Savoia (2005, 2007) in fact address this latter issue. They propose that the conceptual motivation underlying Chomsky’s original proposals is correct, namely that at SEM only one φ-feature cluster per argument slot should survive. According to Manzini and Savoia however Agree does not delete superfluous clusters. Rather, Agree establishes equivalence classes of two or more copies of the same φ-features material – to be interpreted at the interface as individuating a single referent. In other words, Agree establishes that two sets of φ-features reduce in fact to two occurrences of the same set. Manzini and Savoia speak of chain-formation. In reality, the notion of chain is unnecessarily rich – all that is needed is an unordered set. If Agree is identity, its representational counterpart is an equivalence class. This equivalence class achieves the same interpretive result as the survival of a single φ-features set in Chomsky (2000a, 2001). At the same time, since it avoids having to designate a unique survivor cluster, it avoids a number of problems mentioned above. For instance, in DPs it is far from clear whether N or D ought to have the unique set of interpretable φ-features at LF predicted by Chomsky (2001); no such issue arises under the present proposal. We are aware of the issues of intelligibility and of compatibility with standard theories inherent in any new or non-standard proposal. Therefore for the purposes of this book we ask the sceptical reader to keep in mind that in this book we use the weakest possible construal of Agree, namely (10). We differ from canonical minimalist Agree in that we do not assume that Agree results in deletion of all identical feature clusters but one – rather Agree results in the creation of equivalence sets of identical feature clusters. It is rather obvious that by adding a requirement that all members of the set but one are deleted and by adding a stipulation as to which members survive, we are back to standard Agree. In other words, since we simply assume an impoverished version of standard Agree, compatibility issues with the minimalist framework do not arise. Given a sufficient set of additional assumptions, there presumably is a translation of whatever we say into canonical minimalism. Our claim nevertheless is that these additional stipulations are not needed, and may be counterproductive. In other words a simpler formulation of AGREE is empirically adequate and even preferable.

2 Agree 

 15

2.2 The present work Part II of this monograph is entirely devoted to agreement within the DP and in adnominal modification. In many Indo-European languages (here we study Aromanian and Albanian but also exemplify Kurdish and Punjabi) agreement of the Italian type in (12)–(13) is supplemented by linker structures. In Indo-European languages, the linker very often is lexically identical to the determiners/clitics of the language. What is more, DP modifiers such as genitives, besides displaying their own intrinsic φ-features, show agreement with the modified DP, either through a linker structure or through agreement stacking (Suffixaufnhame, Plank 1995). The simplified version of the standard model of Agree in (11) allows us to tackle the empirical evidence concerning agreement in adnominal modification without paying attention to matters such as the interpretable or uninterpretable (valued or unvalued) nature of any given agreeing node. The direction of the Agree operation is determined uniquely by c-command – so that in any agreement pair, the probe is simply the c-commanding category and the goal the c-commanded one. In Part I of the monograph we assume that Chomsky (2001) is essentially correct in characterizing direct case in terms of Agree. Our discussion of case as a result is mostly devoted to oblique case. In Part III, we take the classical view that sentential embedding involves nominalization (Rosembaum 1965) – unless it involves predication, as in control (Landau 2015). It is natural to conjecture that nominalization is necessary because sentential constituents by themselves lack φ-features and therefore cannot hook up with the Agree and direct case system. However this remains a conjecture in the present monograph. Since we consider it unlikely that DP-internal concord is separate from sentential Agree, this means that (11) ought to extend to sentential agreement (i.e. to I and v agreement). Sentential case and agreement structures are considered in greater depth in Part IV, in relation to causative structures in Arbëresh (Italo-Albanian) varieties. As indicated in chapter 12, these present finite embedding like Albanian, but case and agreement alignments typical of Romance (infinitival) relatives. In dealing with such structures, we also face the issue of default inflections. As Preminger (2014) points out, under Chomsky’s (2000a, 2001) approach, failure of Agree to apply ought to lead to ill-formedness, not to wellformed default inflections. In the present approach, we face a similar issue, namely how the SEM interface deals with φ-feature clusters (associated with default values) that are apparently left out of the equivalence classes created by Agree. Following Manzini and Savoia (2005, 2007) we may conclude that the simplest answer to this query is that default inflections, at least on I, are the inflectional counterpart of (Spec, IP) expletive pronouns – and undergo whatever fate is independently set out for them, for instance Chomsky’s (1995) rule of expletive replacement at SEM.

16 

 1 Introduction: Ext, Agree, Parameters

3 Variation and parameters The study of variation runs through the entire monograph – as implicitly does the issue of change, given that our empirical focus are minority languages spoken in contact. Specifically, the variation discussed in the monograph falls under the descriptive label of micro-variation, since it involves closely related varieties. Therefore, the question is whether this configures a corresponding theoretical notion of micro-parameter, in opposition to that of macro-parameter. The answer we give is negative. Once again, we illustrated our conclusions with a case study taken from highly controlled Romance data concerning the 1>2>3 Person hierarchy and the person splits it yields. The choice of this case study is not arbitrary, to the extent that Person splits figure prominently in this book (to the exclusion of Part III).

3.1 Case study: Northern Italian person splits Manzini and Savoia (2005: §2.3) provide subject proclitic paradigms for 187 Northern Italian varieties (as counted by Calabrese 2008b). Many of these dialects are characterized by partial pro-drop, namely the presence of no lexicalization for certain forms of the paradigm. The interest of the phenomenon is that only a minority of the logically possible patterns are actually attested. To begin with, 3P clitics (or a subset of them) are lexicalized in the quasi totality of Northern Italian dialects. Because of this, we illustrate variation in the P(erson) paradigm, keeping the presence of D (i.e. 3P) forms constant. The logical possibilities for combining four person denotations with two choices for lexicalization (P vs. zero) are sixteen. In the absence of further constraints, we expect to find all of them. However Manzini and Savoia (2005), Manzini (2015) tabulate only six possible proclitic patters, as shown in (14). This result remains constant if instead of considering null subjects slots, we consider slots taken by syncretic clitics lacking specialized P morphology. (14)

1st 1. Prali – 2. Corte/Sief – 3. Càsola – 4. * – 5. * P 6. * P 7. * P

2nd P P P P – – –

3rd D D D D D D D

4th P – – P P – –

5th P – P – P – P

6th D D D D D D D

3 Variation and parameters 

8. * 9. French 10. Sillano 11. * 12. * 13. Livo 14. * 15. * 16. *

P P P P P – – – –

– P P P P – – – –

D D D D D D D D D

P P – – P – P – P

– P – P – – P P –

 17

D D D D D D D D D

French in line 9 is the best-known Romance language that lexicalizes all P and D subject clitics. A language like Livo in line 13 further implies a 1/2P vs. 3P split, along the lines of (15). (15) P (Participant) vs. D (Definiteness) referent The other existing languages of table (14) externalize subject clitics along a finer fault line, that between speaker and hearer. This may result in the externalization of just hearer reference, as in line 3 (Càsola); importantly, the lexicalization of just speaker is unattested. In order to account for the speaker/hearer asymmetry, Manzini and Savoia (2011a), Manzini (2015) formulate the split between speaker and hearer (1P vs. 2P) as in (16), in terms of the salience of speaker reference. (16) Speaker reference is (pragmatically) salient (16), interacting with a universal rule/principle of grammar, namely Recoverability (17), explains why Càsola in line 3 of table (14) is a possible language, while its mirror image in line 8 is impossible. Recoverability is standardly conceived as a principle constraining the deletion operation. Equivalently one may construe it as a constraint on the enrichment of L(ogical)F(orm), as in (17); in either case its content remains constant, i.e. that of licencing lack of Externalization. The salience of 1P in (16) makes it (pragmatically) recoverable, in the sense of (17), independently of any other syntactic or semantic condition being satisfied – licencing its lack of externalization. This is not the case for 2P, which must therefore be lexicalized. (17) Recoverability Recover non-externalized LF content (referential etc.) Therefore (16) crossed with Recoverability yields the prevalence of 2P lexicalizations over 1P ones in table (14). To be more precise, rows 1–3 are allowed because

18 

 1 Introduction: Ext, Agree, Parameters

1P is not lexicalized and 2P is; rows 5 to 8 are excluded because 1P is lexicalized and not 2P; rows 4, 12 and 16 are excluded because this latter pattern holds in the plural. Nevertheless, there are patterns in table (14) which are excluded even though 2P is lexicalized, including rows 11 and 15. Descriptively, what seems to be relevant is that the speaker vs. hearer split is defined in the plural but not in the singular. We may therefore assume that (16) either applies to the singular, i.e. to speaker proper, or it cannot apply at all, as in (18). In other words, it is possible for it to be defined in the singular of a given language, and not in the plural– but not vice versa. Thus (18) is a statement about a value of a given categorial split (singular vs. plural) blocking another categorial split, namely the salience or prominence of speaker (vs. other referents). (18) (16) is not defined in the plural. The overall theoretical picture that emerges from this case study is that the underlying parameters that determine surface variation can be identified with categorial splits such as Participant vs. Definite/Demonstrative in (15), 1P vs. 2P in (16), Singular vs. Plural in (18). Activating a yes value of a parameter implies activating the categorial split – otherwise the split remains inactive, corresponding to the no/zero setting of the parameter. For Berwick and Chomsky (2011), in turn, parameters correspond to degrees of freedom open specifically in what concerns the EXT component, in other words the pairing of SEM with PHON. As a consequence, the idea that parameter values are associated with lexical items (the so-called Borer-Chomsky conjecture, Baker 2008) takes on better defined contours – since the lexicon is the main locus of externalization, pairing SEM and PHON content, as in (19). (19) EXT Pair a SEM content with a PHON content Putting our case study together with (19), we could say that externalization brings into effect parametric choices by providing PHON realization for certain SEM splits, such as Participant vs. Definite/Demonstrative, 1P vs. 2P, Singular vs. Plural. The categorial splits are the parameters; the parameter setting is their activation (or  not) in the externalization component (the lexicon). We are aware that there is at least one major source of parametric variation that is not lexicon-related, namely linearization, though if Chomsky (2001, 2013) is correct linear order is indeed a property of EXT. But the picture that we provided is not meant to be exhaustive, and simply depicts the kind of lexical parametrization that we actually consider in this monograph.

3 Variation and parameters 

 19

In frameworks such as DM, the existence of a postsyntactic Morphological Structure forces Vocabulary Insertion to take place after the syntax. The terminals on which syntactic structures are built are then abstract, i.e. features, endowed only with SEM. There is no doubt that Morhological Structure and Vocabulary Insertion, insofar as they belong to the EXT component, are subject to variation. But what it is not clear is how to conceive of the abstract lexicon serving as input to syntactic computation. If it is universal, then the syntactic derivation is invariant. The other possibility is that in fact the lexicon on the basis of which syntactic structures are built is already a language particular lexicon. But then the theory is further enriched by the existence of a source of language variation in the abstract lexicon. The position taken here is that there is no need for a rich repair and readjustment set of rules in EXT (Morphological Structure). If so, then it is perfectly possible to have a single lexical insertion point feeding the derivation. A very important consequence of this is that since the lexicon is language specific, then syntactic structures are not universal but differ, along lines dictated by the lexicon, hence ultimately by the EXT component. Only the SEM conceptual repository and the rules of computation (Merge) are truly universal. The universality of SEM is presumably connected to its unattainability; the universality of so-called formal universals is in keeping with the characterization of the Narrow Faculty of Language by Hauser et al (2002).

3.2 The present work Person splits are prominent in Part I of this monograph. In chapter 4 we investigate the fact that in Albanian 1/2P pronouns have a different case array than 3P pronouns or lexical nouns. Similarly in Part II of the monograph we will consider the different agreement pattern of 1/2P possessives in Albanian and Aromanian. The important point to be appreciated is that on the one hand these splits affect small areas of the lexicon, namely subject clitics or object pronouns. At the same time, in our conception they do not correspond to low-level morphological readjustments, but correspond to core syntax phenomena. In fact in chapter 4 we argue that 1/2P pronouns trigger DOM. This parallels the case study from Northern Italian dialects where only subject clitics are involved, but the parameters are arguably to be identified with categorial splits involving macrocategories of grammar (such as 1/2P vs. 3P etc.). In other words, as anticipated at the outset, it may be descriptively useful to refer to micro- and macro-variation – the former affecting very closely related languages and/or a small extension of the lexicon/grammar, while the latter covers comparison between different families and a considerable extension of

20 

 1 Introduction: Ext, Agree, Parameters

their grammar. However there is no sense in which one can defined an opposition between macroparameters and microparameters. Manzini and Savoia (2011a), discussing auxiliary selection (‘be’ vs. ‘have’), have this to say: “The distinction between micro-parametric and macro-parametric approaches to variation has been so often discussed that the contours of the debate have become somewhat blurred. It is evident that, to the extent that the primitives manipulated by variation are macrocategories like transitivity or voice, we could describe our approach as macroparametric – though the fact that the unit of variation can be as small as a single lexical item qualifies it as microparametric”. Categorial splits between 1/2P (Participant) and 3P (Demonstrative/Definite), between Speaker and Hearer, and so on may become externalized in small areas of the lexicon (Northern Italian partial subject clitic drop, Albanian pronominal case) or may have systemic consequences (ergativity splits) – but this difference has no theoretical import.1

4 Sources and aknowledgements The chapters of this book originate in occasional publications (Festschrifts, Proceedings), often published in hard-to-find books or journals, especially those published in Albania/Albanian, and generally required to comply with a fixed

1 In recent years, important research on parameters has centered on some of the themes raised by the discussion in the text, specifically the Parametric Comparison Method (PCM, Longobardi and Guardiano 2017) and the Rethinking Comparative Syntax project (ReCoS, Biberauer et al. 2014). Briefly, the approach adopted by ReCoS is to provide hierarchical schemas able to encode the best known extant parameters: the null subject parameter, the head-movement parameter, the (case) alignment parameter, the A’-movement parameter. The schemas are identically organized only at a very general level; in the detail, each parametric template imposes its own organization. It seems to us that, like all attempts at total ordering, parametric hierarchies contain an element of rigidity and lack of modularity – nor is it clear how the templates interact with one another. The PCM uses a parameter set concerning the internal structure of the noun phrase to predict linguistic philogenetic trees (under appropriate statistical measures). Importantly, according to Longobardi (2017), parameters are based on parameters schemata such as “Is F, F a feature, grammaticalized?”, “Is F, F a grammaticalized feature, spread on X, X a category?”, “Does a functional category … X have a phonological matrix Φ?” – which may in principle interact with one another. The approach taken in this chapter is even weaker. Thus even parameters schemata are epiphenomena, the conceptual workspace and the categorial cuts (parameters) that are or are not externalized by the lexicon is all there is. I t seems evident that the various approaches quoted share a fundamental attempt to free parameters fully from their connections with earlier models of generative grammar to bring them to bear on current minimalist theorizing. The introductory nature of this chapter does not allow us to discuss this important theme more in depth.

4 Sources and aknowledgements 

 21

word limit. In no case do they represent a merely edited version of those works, though the partial overlappings are hereby acknowledged. We take the opportunity to thank our close collaborators and sometimes coauthors Benedetta Baldi, Ludovico Franco and Paolo Lorusso. This work would not exist without the native informants who gave us their time and expertise. Chapter 2 builds on M.R. Manzini and L.M. Savoia. 2012. ‘Case’ Categories in the Geg Albanian Variety of Shkodër. Res Albanicae 1: 23–42 (a discontinued journal). Chapter 3 builds on M.R. Manzini and L.M. Savoia. 2017. N morphology and its interpretation: The neuter in Italian and Albanian varieties. In: Anna Bloch-Rozmej, Anna Bondaruk. Constraints on Structure and Derivation in Syntax, Phonology and Morphology, 213–236. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang (paper presented at LingBaW 2015: Linguistics Beyond And Within 2015 – International Linguistics Conference in Lublin) Chapter 4 builds on two Albanian publications: M. R. Manzini and L. M. Savoia. 2012. The Interaction of DOM and DiscourseLinking in Arbëresh Pronouns: Case as Nominal Property. In: Giuseppina Turano, Rami Memushaj, Flora Koleci (eds.), Theoretical and Empirical Studies in Albanian Syntax. Studime Teorike dhe Empirike në Fushën e Sintaksës së Shqipes, 119–139, Munchen: Lincom Europa. L. M. Savoia and M. R. Manzini. 2012. Case as Nominal Property: The Interaction of DOM and Discourse-Linking in Shkodër Pronouns. In: Rexhep Ismajli (ed.), Shqipja Dhe Gjuhët e Ballkanit – Albanian and Balkan Languages, 411–432. Prishtinë: Akademia e Shkencave dhe e Arteve e Kosovës – Akademia e Shkencave e Shqipërisë. Chapter 5 builds on M. R. Manzini and L. M. Savoia. 2014. Linkers in Aromanian in comparison to Albanian and Romanian. RGG. Rivista di Grammatica Generativa 36: 83–104 (paper presented at Workshop on Balkan-Romance Contact, Università Ca’Foscari Venezia, 25–26 November 2013). Chapter 6 builds on M. R. Manzini and L. M. Savoia. 2017. Case in the Nominal and Pronominal Systems in  Aromanian: Oblique Case and  its Interactions with the Person Split. Revue Roumaine de Linguistique LXII, 2: 115–142 (paper presented at the international Workshop On the syntax and interpretation of the DP: around the dative, held on June 2–4, 2016, at the English Department of the University of Bucharest). Chapter 7 builds on M. R. Manzini and L. M. Savoia. 2015. Oblique Case and IndoEuropean Ergativity Splits. Revue Roumaine de Linguistique LX: 297–315 (paper

22 

 1 Introduction: Ext, Agree, Parameters

presented at the workshop Syntactic variation, held in Bucharest on November 28–29 2014, within the 14th International Conference of the Department of Linguistics: Current Issues in Linguistic Variation). Chapter 8 is essentially new; some parts of it build on M. R. Manzini. 2009. PRO, pro and NP-trace (raising) are interpretations. In: K. Grohmann, Explorations of Phase Theory (2): Features and Arguments, 131–180. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. Chapter 9 builds on M. R. Manzini and L. M. Savoia. 2018. The Complementizer System of Aromanian (South Albania). In: Gabriela Pană Dindelegan, Adina Dragomirescu, Irina Nicula and Alexandru Nicolae (eds.), Comparative and Diachronic Perspectives on Romance Syntax, Cambridge Scholars Publishing, Newcastle upon Tyne. Chapter 10 builds on M. R. Manzini and L. M. Savoia. 2012. Morphosyntax of the participle and infinitive in the variety of Shkodër. In: Bardh Rugova (ed.), Studime për nder të Rexhep Ismajlit me rasin e 65-vjetorit të lindjes, 651–677. Prishtinë: Koha (Festschrift for Prof. Rexhep Ismajli). Chapter 11 builds on M. R. Manzini and L. M. Savoia (2015). Notes on the contact between Italo-Albanian and Romance (Calabrian, Lucanian) varieties: borrowings, code-mixing and convergence. Hylli i Dritës 35: 92–116. Chapter 12 is new; parts of it build on M. R. Manzini and L. M. Savoia. 2015. Causatives and ‘inverse’ agreement in Ginestra (Arbëresh). In: Bardhil Demiraj, Matteo Mandalà, Shaban Sinani (eds.), Studime në nderim të prof. Francesco Altimarit me rastin e 60-vjetorit të lindjes/Studi in onore del prof. Francesco Altimari in occasione del 60° compleanno, 345–364. Tiranë: Albpaper. (Festschrift for Prof. Francesco Altimari).

I Nominal inflections, person and case and their syntactic projection

I Nominal inflections, person and case and their syntactic projection 

 25

The empirical focus of Part I of the book is on Albanian, a language with a relatively complex nominal inflection system, including direct cases and oblique cases, inflectional classes and number. The first theoretical theme we consider is whether this morphological complexity (including a considerable amount of syncretism) must be expressed via a (partially) independent morphological component or can be conceived as a part of syntax. The standard approach to a (partially) independent morphology is Distributed Morphology (DM). In the DM framework, syntax includes only abstract terminals and Morphological Structure can apply readjustment rules (Impoverishment, etc.) prior to Vocabulary Insertion. The question is not whether this model is sufficient to account for the facts (it obviously is), but whether it is necessary. A more restrictive framework is in principle available, in which there are no specialized morphological rules opacizing syntax and the unified morphosyntactic component is subject to the principles of minimalist syntax. This framework makes projection of syntactic structures from the lexicon possible. The crucial question for a projectionist/unified morphosyntax framework is whether it is empirically adequate, in dealing with syncretisms and other complex morphological facts. Manzini and Savoia (2007, 2010a, 2011a, 2017a), Kayne (2010) argue that a reasonably complex system like that of Romance clitics is amenable to a purely syntactic treatment. In chapter 2–3 we aim at showing that the same is true of the nominal inflection system of Albanian. Nor do we require any modification of core minimalist syntax; it is obvious that there would be no point in a unified morphosyntax that weakens the syntactic component. There is however a trade-off, namely that some very traditional categorizations, essentially distributional or functional in nature, must be substituted by categorial contents capable of being handled by a minimalist syntax. A prime example of recategorization (or redefinition of a traditional category) is that of oblique case (genitive/dative) in chapter 2. We identify the fundamental oblique of natural languages with a part/whole or inclusion elementary predicate, establishing a relation between the DP to which it attaches and the DP it modifies (genitive) or a sentential DP object (dative). At the same time, in an effort to explain the oblique/plural syncretism we also identify plurality with a word-internal application of the same part/whole operator. We develop themes pertaining to the expression of number in chapter 3 where we introduce a number property [aggregate] to capture mass singulars, studying the syncretism of mass neuter inflections with plurals in Arbëresh (Italo-Albanian) dialects. We aim to show that even inflectional classes have sometimes a non-arbitrary content (as precisely in the so-called mass neuter). We argue that the various pieces needed in order to form a noun (root, nominal class, number, inflectional class, case) can be adequately matched with one another by

26 

 I Nominal inflections, person and case and their syntactic projection

simple selectional mechanisms, of the type employed in syntax to match predicates with appropriate complements. In short, our core proposal in chapters 2–3 is that syntactic computation is able to process morphology as well, but that in order to do so the latter has to be repackaged into syntax-efficient categories. This recategorization effort is not without consequences for the syntax. In chapter 4 we show that the different organization of 1/2P paradigms with respect to 3P paradigms are not due to arbitrary morphology-internal processes but rather reflect syntactic generalizations. Thus in Albanian 1/2P pronouns, a single form covers both accusative and oblique contexts. We take the relevant form to be oblique and we argue that it instantiates Differential Object Marking (DOM), which in Indo-European languages often takes the form of dativization. As part of our reassessment of the interaction between case, specifically oblique case, and 1/2P referents we take up the issue of the Person Case Constraint (PCC), which prevents a theme object from being more highly ranked referentially than a dative (i.e. *3Dat – 1/2PAcc). Generative attempts to reduce it to a Person intervention constraint are unsatisfactory, since they surreptitiously encode case via the stipulation that 3P datives have Person features, while 3P accusatives lack them. We favour recognizing that in the PCC referential status and case alignment interact to the effect that within the vP phase, the oblique slot must be matched with the 1/2P referent if there is one. In turn, both DOM and the PCC are part of a large set of phenomena which involve the matching of structural positions to referential status and which also include so-called inverse agreement, which we briefly address in an Appendix to chapter 4. We indicate how attempts at reducing this family of constraints to pure Person intervention does not yield satisfactory results when case is involved. In short, chapter 2–3 are focussed on morphological-level data, while chapter 4 switches to syntactic macrophenomena. The complexity of the very fine-grained data involved, advised us to split the morphologically focussed discussion into two chapters, 2 and 3. However, the two major topics of DOM and the PCC are compacted into the same chapter 4. In order to keep the latter within manageable proportions, we dealt with related issues concerning clitic doubling and inverse agreement in separate appendices.

2 Case categories in Albanian We propose an account of the morphosyntax of case in Albanian, in which case inflections are treated as ordinary lexical entries, characterized by a pairing of Conceptual-Intentional (C-I/SEM) and Sensory-Motor (SM/PHON) properties, and projecting syntactic structure (Chomsky 1995). In other words, there is no compelling reason to treat them as abstract matrices of features, lexicalized by exponents inserted after morphological operations (Halle and Marantz 1993, Halle and Vaux 1998). The technicalities of the discussion should not hide a few very general points. First, in current formal discussions, deeply influenced by Distributed Morphology (DM), it is generally taken for granted that morphological facts need to be dealt with independently of syntactic computation, as they contain massive amounts of information that opacizes syntax (fusion, fission, syncretism). We accept that the burden of proof is on us. If we are correct, the empirical argument in favour of a morphological component is less than cogent – since large chunks of morphology (here the nominal declensions of Albanian) can be processed directly in syntax. The second point is that the two models, namely the DM model and the “Occam’s syntactic razor” model (Arregi and Nevins 2017), are not notational variants. Rather, they rapidly lead to diverging empirical generalizations and predictions. Thus the present reorganization of the case categories yields a possible explanation of the syncretism between oblique case singular and direct case plural. Our results, if proven correct, can presumably be translated back into a DM-type framework, since the latter is by construction richer than minimalist syntax. However, the fact that certain results are forced in one model and merely statable in another is in itself worthy of note. Finally, a tenet of much current syntactic theorizing is that there is a fundamental distinction between the substantive lexicon (lexical categories) and the functional lexicon (functional categories). Thus within the DM framework, Embick (2000:187) assumes a “distinction between the functional and lexical vocabularies of a language”. Functional categories “merely instantiate sets of abstract syntacticosemantic features” and are therefore subject to Late Lexicalization. We follow Manzini and Savoia (2005, 2007, 2011a) in pursuing a unitary model of the lexicon of the type traditionally associated with the substantive lexicon: there is a conceptual and grammatical space to be lexicalized and variation results from the distinct partitioning of that space. So-called functional space is just like all other conceptual space; the distinction between functional (i.e. grammatical) contents and other concepts is an external one. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781501505140-002

28 

 2 Case categories in Albanian

1 The traditional case categories of Albanian We consider data concerning the Geg Albanian variety of Shkodër, for which we have a consistent set of phonetically transcribed data. Differences between this and the standard (Tosk) Albanian variety, though interesting in their own right, will not concern us here; see Manzini and Savoia (2011b) for more details, and Manzini and Savoia (2011a) for a comparison with Arbëresh (Tosk) varieties. Traditional case categories lie at the intersection of classical morphological and distributional criteria. Concretely, certain nominal morphologies have certain distributions; as long as there is at least a specialized morphology M for a given distribution D, one says that D is the context for assigning M case. For instance the internal argument (the theme) of transitive verbs as in (1)–(2) and a subset of preposition which includes mɛ ‘with’ uniquely corresponds to the -n ending in (1b) (the singular definite). Therefore the listed environments are traditionally singled out as assigning accusative case and -n is a non-syncretic exponent of that case. Here and in what follows, unless otherwise noted, (a) is the indefinite singular, (b) the definite singular, (c) the indefinite plural and (d) the definite plural. (2) illustrates definite DPs, (2b) pronominal forms. (1) Accusative a.  pɑ:ʃ ɲi vɑjz/ msus-ɛ/ burr/ dial I.saw  a girl/ teacher-f/ man/ boy ‘I saw a girl/teacher/man/boy’ b. pɑ:ʃ  vɑjz-ɛ-n/ msus-ɛ-n/ burr-i-n/       I.saw  girl-fsg-acc.def/teacher-fsg-acc.def/man-msg-acc.def/       dial-i-n       boy-msg-acc.def ‘I saw the girl/teacher/man/boy’ c. pɑ:ʃ ʃum vɑjz-a/ msus-ɛ/ burr-a/ diɛm I.saw many  girl-pl/ teacher-f/ man-pl/  boy.pl ‘I saw many girls/teachers/men/boys’ d. pɑ:ʃ vɑjz-a-t/  msus-ɛ-t/ burr-a-t/ I.saw  girl-pl-acc.def/teacher-f-pl.acc.def/man-pl-acc.def/ diɛm-t boy.pl-acc.def ‘I saw the girls/teachers/men/boys’ (2) Preposition – Accusative a. ɛ vuna mi/nɛn kmiʃ-ɛ-n/ kmiʃ-a-t it I.put on/under shirt-f-sg.acc.def/  shirt-pl-acc.def ‘I put it on/under the shirt/shirts’

1 The traditional case categories of Albanian 

 29

b. ai vien mɛ mu/ ty/ atɛ he comes with me.acc/ you. acc/ he.acc ‘He comes with me/you/him’ On the basis of traditional criteria, five cases can be distinguished in Albanian, namely nominative, dative, genitive and ablative besides the accusative. Nominative, uniquely characterized in particular by the -a inflection in the feminine singular, occurs as the noun phrase agreeing with the verb in main sentences and again as the object of prepositions, as in (3)–(4). In the masculine singular, the -i inflection does not uniquely characterize the nominative; rather it is the thematic vowel for the whole masculine declension (see the accusative in (1b)). Note that in the indefinite and in the plural, nominative and accusative coincide; in other words they are separate only in the definite singular (1b) vs (3b). (3) Nominative a. ɛɾði ɲi vɑjz/ msus-ɛ/ burr/ dial came a girl/ teacher-f/   man/   boy ‘There came a girl/teacher/man/boy’ b. ɛɾði vɑjz-a/   msus-ja/ burr-i/ came girl-fsg.nom.def/teacher-fsg.nom.def/man-msg.nom.def/ dial-i boy-msg.nom.def ‘There came the girl/teacher/man/boy’ c. ɛɾðən ʃum vɑjz-a/ msus-ɛ/ burr-a/ diɛm came many girl-pl/ teacher-f/ man-pl/  boy.pl ‘There came many girls/teachers/men/boys’ d. ɛɾðən vɑjz-a-t/  msus-ɛ-t/ burr-a-t/   came girl-pl-nom.def/teacher-f-pl.nom.def/man-pl-nom.def/ diɛm-t boy.pl-nom.def ‘There came the girls/teachers/men/boys’ (4) Preposition – Nominative a. ai ʃkan tɛ vɑjz-a/   diɑl-i he goes  to girl- fsg.nom.def/boy-msg.nom.def ‘He goes to the boy/the girl’ b. ai vien tɛ un/ ti/ ai he comes  to   me. nom/   you. nom/   he.nom ‘He comes to me/you/him’ Dative and genitive can be told apart only if we look at 1/2P pronouns. The form associated with the goal argument of a ditransitive verb like give (the traditional

30 

 2 Case categories in Albanian

dative), is different from the form associated with genitive contexts. In the latter, 1/2P pronouns have a so called possessive form, which we keep out of the picture for the time being (see chapter 6). With noun phrases other than 1/2P pronouns there is a complete coincidence between the endings of the dative in (5) and those of the genitive in (6). Correspondingly, we will say from now on that there is a unique oblique case for both (5) and (6). Endings that single out the oblique from other cases include crucially -s in the feminine singular. Note that in genitive contexts the oblique is preceded by a Linker (Lkr) as in (6) (see Part II of the monograph). To highlight the fact that the Lkr agrees with the modified N (and not with the modifying oblique) we have organized the examples according to the gender and number of the oblique, namely feminine singular in (6b), masculine singular in (6a) and plural in (6c). (5) Oblique (Dative) a. j-a ðɑ:ʃ ɲi vɑjz-ɛ/ msus(-ɛ)-jɛ/ burr-i/ her/him-it I.gave a girl-fsg.obl/teacher-fsg.obl/man-msg.obl/ dial-i boy-msg.obl ‘I gave it to a girl/teacher/man/boy’ b. j-a ðɑ:ʃ vɑjz-s/ msus-ɛ-s/ burr-i-t/ her/him-it I.gave girl-fsg.obl.def/teacher-f-sg.obl.def/man-msg-obl.def/ dial-i-t boy-msg-obl.def ‘I gave it to the girl/teacher/man/boy’ c. j-a ðɑ:ʃ ʃum vɑjz-a-vɛ/ msus-ɛ-vɛ/ them-it I.gave many girl-pl-obl/teacher-f-pl.obl/ burr-a-vɛ/  diɛm-vɛ man-pl-obl/boy.pl-obl ‘I gave it to many girls/teachers/men/boys’ d. j-a ðɑ:ʃ vɑjz-a-vɛ/ msus-ɛ-vɛ/ burr-a-vɛ/ diɛm-vɛ them-it I.gave girl-pl-obl/teacher-f-pl.obl/man-pl-obl/boy.pl-obl ‘I gave it to the girls/teachers/men/boys’ (6) Oblique (Genitive) a. libr-i/ ɲi libər i book-msg.nom.def/ a book lkr ‘the/a book of the teacher/of a girl’ b. kɑ:m-a/ ɲi kɑ:m ɛ leg-fsg.nom.def/ a leg lkr ‘the/a leg of the/of a dog’

msus-ɛ-s/ ɲi vɑiz-ɛ teacher-f-sg.obl.def/a girl-fsg.obl tʃɛn-i-t/ ɲi tʃɛn-i dog-msg-obl.def/a dog-msg.obl

1 The traditional case categories of Albanian 

 31

c. libr-i i diɛm-vɛ/ vɑiz-a-vɛ book- msg.nom.def lkr boy.pl-obl / girl-pl-obl ‘the book of the boys/of the girls’ The ablative is traditionally recognized as a case because there are prepositional contexts like (7a) where the -t inflection, shows up on feminine singular nouns of a locative class as well as on 1/2P singular pronouns. In similar contexts, the equally specialized -ʃ shows up on not just indefinite, but generic nouns, and again on 1/2P plural pronouns, as in (7b-b’). Hence, by the traditional criterion, a unique pairing of inflectional material and syntactic context defines a case. Note that with all other nouns but feminine singular locatives and 1/2P pronouns, the traditional ablative overlaps with the oblique (genitive/dative), as in (8). (7) Ablative a. pɾei/ poʃt/ para ʃpi-ɛ-t/ ðɔm-ɛ-t/ tɛ-jɛ-t from/under/before house-fsg-abl.def/room-fsg-abl.def/you-infl-abl.def ‘from/under/before the house/the room/you’ b. pun pɾej gɾɑ:-ʃ job for woman-pl.abl ‘a women’s job’ b’. pɾei/ poʃt/ para  nɛ-ʃ from/under/before us-pl.abl ‘from/under/before us’ (8) Oblique (Ablative) a. ɛ kam vu: paɾa/ poʃt/ sipəɾ libr-i-t/  karig-ɛ-s it I.have   put before/under/on book-msg-obl.def/chair-fsg-obl.def ‘I have put it before/under/on the book/chair’ b. pɾej/  mas/ para  vɑjz-s/ burr-i-t from/ behind/ before girl-fsg.obl.def/  man-msg.obl.def ‘from/behind/before the girl/man’ c. ɐʃt tʃɛp pɾej ʃum vɑiz-a-vɛ/ burr-a-vɛ it.is sewn by many  girls-pl-obl/ man-pl-obl ‘It was sewn by many girls/men’ d. ɐʃt tʃɛp pɾej vɑiz-a-vɛ/ burr-a-vɛ it.is sewn by girls-pl-obl/ men-pl-obl ‘It was sewn by the girls/men’ Assuming the five case categories that precede as well as gender (masculine, feminine) and number (plural) categories we obtain the traditional nominal declension

32 

 2 Case categories in Albanian

schemata in Table 1 for the definite and in Table 2 for the indefinite. Morphemic analysis is quite transparent, revealing the existence of three inflectional vowels -i, -a and -ɛ and of five consonantal/syllabic endings, namely -n, -t, -s, -vɛ and -ʃ. Table 1: Definite declensions.

Nom Acc Gen/Dat Abl

Masc

Fem

Pl

Pl(‘teacher’)

-i -i-n -i-t -i-t

-a -ɛ-n -ɛ-s -ɛ-t

-a-t -a-t -a-vɛ -a-vɛ

-ɛ-t -ɛ-t -ɛ-vɛ -ɛ-vɛ

Table 2: Indefinite declensions.

Nom/Acc Gen/Dat Abl

Masc

Fem

∅ -i -i

∅

Fem(‘teacher’) -ɛ -ɛ

-ɛ

Pl

Pl(‘teacher’)

-a -a-vɛ -a-ʃ

-ɛ -ɛ-vɛ -ɛ-ʃ

There are two major descriptive problems with nominal inflection systems like the one in Tables 1 and 2. One problem is generally recognized, namely how to represent syncretisms. For instance, an ending like -t covers a wide variety of slots, both oblique and non-oblique, both singular and plural. There are two classical solutions to this. One is to treat all of the different occurrences of -t as homophonous: there is a -t oblique singular, a -t accusative plural, etc. A more abstract solution characterizes the Hallean tradition in generative linguistics (e.g. Halle and Marantz 1993), namely that the same -t may be involved; however unification in this morphological tradition is achieved at the cost of underspecification. The idea is that the inflectional entry lies at the intersection of its properties; if the cases it lexicalizes are conflicting (oblique and non-oblique, like -t), then it cannot have any case. Therefore the Halle solution to the paradigm problem is such only of we accept that exponents, i.e. phonological terminals, have an opaque relation to the syntax they embody. This approach also ultimately leads to Late Insertion, hence to denying that syntax is projected from the (real) lexicon. From this point of view we aim at showing that an empirically adequate account of the nominal inflection of Albanian is possible even if lexical entries have only positive specifications and they are not allowed cover certain properties (abstractly present in syntactic structure) in virtue of their lack of specifications. The other descriptive problem with inflectional Tables 1 and 2 is both more fundamental and more subtle. Take even a dedicated case ending like Albanian -n. By

2 The lexicon of Albanian case 

 33

all that precedes, its content should be relational, i.e. ‘insert X-n in context Y’. This makes it unlike other nominal inflections we know such as English or Spanish -s (plural), whose content is an inherent property of the noun that bears it. This observation leads to two possible approaches. One is taken by Chomsky (2001), Pesetsky and Torrego (2007) and it is to reduce case to a reflex of Agree (feature-checking) relations involving inherent properties (φ-features for Chomsky, Tense features for Pesetsky and Torrego). The other possibility is to accept that the lexical entry of a case is indeed relational – which means that it is more like the entry for a predicate or an operator. This possibility is implicit in the classical generative treatment of case by Fillmore (1968), which establishes the formal (not merely functional) equivalence between case and prepositional embedders. For Fillmore, the K category could encompass both, prefiguring a treatment of case (at least oblique case) analogous to that routinely given to transitive predicates (i.e. relations). In fact, one of the two possibilities does not exclude the other, unless one insists that case should be reconstructed as a unitary notion, which given its theoretically problematic status is far from a foregone conclusion. What we are interested in here is maintaining the position that the lexicon is the basis for the projection of syntactic structures. Therefore, we aim at showing that case endings are bona fide lexical entries, endowed with an intrinsic interpretive content – whether reducing to a φ-features content or involving relational content.

2 The lexicon of Albanian case On the basis of the discussion that precedes, our task is pairing each component of the nominal inflection system of Albanian with (a) a bona fide lexical entry, characterized by interpretive content; (b) an entry which is positively specified in its entirety, i.e. does not simply register the absence of properties (no underspecification). In principle, we may expect that denying ourselves some of the most powerful mechanisms in linguistic description (e.g. default lexical items) could lead to intractable problems. On the contrary, we argue that we can do away with this richness without having to compensate for it somewhere else. In fact, there could even be empirical advantages in proceeding this way. For each morphological unit we will first introduce its lexical entry and then show how this corresponds to the data. Some lexical entries are constrained to certain declensions (e.g. feminine, masculine, plural); the matching of the endings to the inflectional classes will be considered separately in section 3. We begin with -t. Recall that -t surfaces as oblique singular and as direct case plural. Following Manzini and Savoia (2011a, 2011b) both oblique and plural correspond to the content ⊆, which we illustrate immediately below.

34 

 2 Case categories in Albanian

In all instances, -t renders DPs to which it attaches definite; so we take -t to be definite as well as ⊆, as in (9). (9) -t: ⊆, definite

The ⊆ content is easily explained as a characterization of the oblique (singular). The so-called genitive and the so-called dative are essentially possessors. This is the traditional characterization of genitives (see Part II of the monograph), but it is equally natural to construe ditransitive verbs as events causing a possession relation to hold, for instance ‘I give the book to John’ is ‘I cause the book to be in John’s possession’ (Kayne 1984, see chapter 4). Following Belvin and den Dikken (1997) on the verb have we take the relevant characterization of possession to be an inclusion one, here notated as ⊆. Under this proposal, the schematic LF for the genitive (10a) is as in (10b); for the dative in (11a) it is as in (11b). (10) a. libri i burr-i-t book-msg.nom.def lkr man-msg-obl.def ‘the book of the man’ b. book ⊆ the man i.e. ‘the book’ ‘included by/possessed by’ ‘the man’ (11)

a. j-a ðɑ:ʃ burr-i-t him-it I.gave man-msg-obl.def ‘I gave it to the man’ b. I give [it ⊆ the man], i.e. ‘it’ ‘included by/possessed by’ ‘the man’

⊆ inflections are therefore responsible for oblique case (genitive-dative), construed as a dyadic predicate yielding an inclusion/possession relation between the element to which it attaches and the internal argument of the verb (dative, cf. (11b)) – or between the element to which it attaches and the head of a noun phrase (genitive, cf. (10b)). What about -t as a so-called ablative? The conceptual closeness of the notions of possessor (genitive/dative, here inclusion) and of location is well-known. For instance, cross-linguistically possessive constructions can involve not only a descriptive genitive or a descriptive dative but also a descriptive locative (Freeze 1992). In present terms, this conceptual closeness, and the corresponding syncretic realizations, are taken to correspond precisely to inclusion, which yields the locative, when it is inclusion in a location, as in (12). Recall that 1/2P singular also display the specialized locative ending. In present terms, this amounts to saying that they are treated as locations. The conceptual closeness of speaker and

2 The lexicon of Albanian case 

 35

hearer to location is established among others by the existence of demonstrative systems using speaker and hearer reference to denote location. (12) a. ɛ kam vu: paɾa ʃpi-ɛ-t it I.have put before house-fsg-abl.def ‘I put it in front of the house’ b. I put [it in front ⊆ the house] i.e. ‘it’ ‘included by location (in front of)’ ‘the house’ Finally the oblique/locative (singular) that we have dealt with so far is syncretic with the direct cases, i.e. nominative and accusative, in the plural. Halle and Vaux (1997) dealing with the same syncretism in the Latin ending -i, end up with two homophonous items, one for oblique singular (e.g. lup-i ‘of the wolf’) and one for nominative plural (e.g. lup-i ‘the wolves’). But the entry in (9) allows us to capture the syncretism, without any recourse to underspecification/default. Indeed we propose that ⊆ can be construed as plural morphology as well. It contributes plurality to the noun it attaches to roughly as sketched in (13), namely by isolating a subset of the set (or set of sets) of all things that are ‘man’ – the latter taken to be the denotation of the predicate ‘man’. Therefore plural and oblique depend on two different interpretations of the ⊆ predicate. For the oblique we will refer to phrasal domain interpretation, while for the plural, we will refer to word domain interpretation. If intuitively the phrasal interpretation corresponds to the relation of possession, the word domain interpretation corresponds to the divisibility relation (see chapter 3). (13) a. burr-a-t man-pl-pl.def ‘the men’ b. the x [x (⊆) {man}] i.e. ‘the x such that x is a subset of the set of things with the property ‘man’ As anticipated, (9) provides a lexical entry for -t which is not underspecified. From this lexical entry, crucially involving the category ⊆, we derive the distribution of -t, as in (14); properties listed at the left of the arrow are those associated with the lexical entry, other properties follow from the interactions of the lexical specifications with the computational component. In particular, the mutual exclusion between locative/oblique and plural may be imputed to the fact that each occurrence of the ⊆ predicate has a single domain of application, either phrasal in (10)-(12) or the word in (13), but not both. The oblique singular-non oblique

36 

 2 Case categories in Albanian

plural syncretism is fairly pervasive in Indo-European (cf. Latin, the Romance languages, Russian); as far as we can tell, this is the one proposal extant in the literature as to why this should be the case. (14) -t: oblique/locative definite →singular definite plural →direct

Given our treatment of -t, the entries for -s and -vɛ are straightforward, as in (15a)(16a), corresponding in traditional terms to (15b)-(16b) respectively. It will be noted that in the entries in (15)-(16) we use the conventional label plural. This is not to imply that there are two different predicates for plurality involved in the language; we keep to the idea that ⊆ is the plural (in Albanian), and we use plural as a shorthand. Evidently entries that are both oblique and plural imply two ⊆ predicates (phrasal and word domain). (15) a. -s: ⊆: phrasal domain, definite b. oblique definite →singular

(16) a. -vɛ: ⊆: phrasal domain, (definite), plural b. oblique (definite) plural

We are then left with just two consonantal morphemes, namely -n and -ʃ. The former presents a complex descriptive problem, namely the distinction between the two direct cases, nominative and accusative – and we will leave it last. As for -ʃ, despite the common traditional label of ablative it is clear that the distribution of the -t feminine inflection and the -ʃ inflection is not identical. According to the data in our possession, the former attaches only to locative nouns while the latter attaches to non locatives (including gɾɑ:ʃ in (7b)). Conversely -ʃ contains a Generic operator, providing an overt lexicalization for the generic closure of the so-called indefinite plural. In other respects, we impute to it the ⊆ content described for -t in (9). The resulting lexical entry is as in (17a), corresponding in more traditional terms to (17b). (17) a. -ʃ: Generic, ⊆: phrasal domain, plural b. oblique indefinite plural Note that a generic interpretation attaches in particular to the 1P plural (e.g. English We are on earth but briefly as synonym of Humans/ creatures are on earth but briefly), but also to the 2P plural (e.g. You cannot remain indifferent close to A human being cannot remain indifferent). Hence we may expect that the -ʃ ending should attach to 1/2P plural pronouns, as in (7b’).

2 The lexicon of Albanian case 

 37

Consider next vocalic endings. There are essentially three relevant vowels, namely -a, -i, and -ɛ. For the time being, we will ignore the fact that they can combine with consonantal endings in the role of so-called thematic vowels and concentrate on their occurrences by themselves. The fact that they cooccur with consonantal endings is nevertheless of great importance when it comes to defining their lexical entry. Since they can more or less combine with any of the case/plurality endings defined so far, it is reasonable to associate them with no intrinsic property except the most elementary one, namely N (Nominal class). This N label will suffice to proceed quickly in the present discussion. In chapter 3 we will return to the relation of nominal class to inflectional vowels and we will provide a more articulate view of it. Consider -i. When taken alone, one of its possible readings is as nominative definite. Since definiteness is an operator, it is natural to assume that the definiteness of -i, which is not intrinsically associated with it, represents some sort of D closure. Indeed, it is a standard conclusion at least for null subject languages that the finite verb inflection is essentially a pronoun, hence a D element. We therefore take it that the D closure allowing for the definite reading of -i can be provided by the D argument of the finite verb, i.e. its inflection. This means that -i as definite will occur in the EPP environment, which is the canonical distribution for so-called nominative. This leaves us with the second reading of -i, as oblique singular indefinite. This oblique reading can be derived if ⊆ is also available as abstract closure of the -i morphology, though in this instance it is dissociated from definiteness. In short, -i intrinsically reduces to an N vowel, while D and ⊆ closures supply its two fundamental values, namely oblique (indefinite and singular) and nominative definite (singular), as in (18)–(19). (18) -i: N closed by D or ⊆: phrasal domain (19) nominative definite →singular oblique →indefinite singular

In (18), we have inserted a disjunction between the D and ⊆ abstract closures that apply to -i. However we may suppose that they are conjunctively stated and that their disjunction is derived by Economy, essentially in the sense of Chomsky (1995), i.e. operations in grammar are possible only if necessary. The advantage is that Economy need not be learned a part of the grammar of Albanian and it is presumably not even part of what Hauser et al (2002) call the Faculty of Language in the Narrow sense (FLN). It may very well be a principle operating on cognitive systems in general.

38 

 2 Case categories in Albanian

A note is in order also about prepositions selecting nominative in (4). Theories like Chomsky’s (2001), tying nominative to agreement with I will have difficulties with (4), since there is no evidence that the relevant prepositions have the I category or in fact any agreement inflection at all. Theories treating nominative as the non-dependent structural case (Marantz 2000, Baker 2014) will also have problems, since there is no evidence for any structural difference between nominative and accusative prepositional contexts. In present terms, on the other hand, prepositions selecting nominative select a D closure when taking a definite complement – leading to the lexicalizations of inflections, such as -i in (18), compatible with such a closure. Consider then the -a vocalic inflection. This is similar to -i in that it only ever occurs with some quantificational/predicative closure. In particular it can be closed by ⊆, but only with word domain, i.e. plural, interpretation. Alternatively, it can be closed by the D operator, yielding a definite nominative interpretation. This yields the lexical entry in (20), corresponding to the traditional feature clusters in (21). (20) -a: N, Condition: closed by D or ⊆: word domain (21) nominative definite → singular plural → direct indefinite

As before, closures are mutually exclusive, so that the nominative definite can only be read as a singular and the plural cannot be read as an oblique, nor as a definite. Let us consider for example the -a inflection in (3b) and (3c), repeated in (22a) and (23a) below. In the nominative definite (22a), the closure of the N vowel is provided by the D pronoun represented by the verb inflection, as schematized in (22b) – whence the nominative definite (singular) construal. In the plural (23a), -a is closed by ⊆ with word-bound interpretation, which cannot combine with a D closure by Economy – whence the indefinite plural (non-oblique) interpretation. In other words, it is immaterial that in the structure in (23b), -a is in a context in principle available for nominative definite assignment – because the plural blocks it. (22) a. ɛɾð-i vɑjz-a came-3sg girl-fsg.nom.def ‘The girl is coming’ b. came-D [D [girl-N]]

2 The lexicon of Albanian case 

 39

(23) a. ɛɾð-ən ʃum vɑjz-a came-3pl many girl-pl ‘Many girls are coming’ b. came-D [many [⊆ [girl-N]]] Finally, -ɛ occurs alone only in the indefinite, where it lexicalizes either the oblique singular or the non-oblique singular and plural. Therefore it is compatible with phrasal domain ⊆, yielding the oblique (singular, indefinite), and with word domain ⊆, yielding the plural (non-oblique, indefinite), as in (24)–(25). Vice versa, unlike -i and -a, -ɛ does not occur in the scope of sentential D with the import of a nominative definite singular. The latter prohibition is noted in its lexical entry in (24). This derives the fact that -ɛ may occur without any closure (direct indefinite singular) or closed by ⊆, either as an oblique or as plural (indefinite). Note that the content postulated for accusative in (26) below is not available as an abstract closure for any of the vocalic inflections. (24) -ɛ: N Condition: not closed by D (25) oblique → indefinite singular plural → direct indefinite direct indefinite singular We are now in a position to consider the -n ending. So far, we have only distinguished oblique from direct (i.e. non-oblique) case. There are essentially two theories currently available as to the nominative/accusative distinction. For Chomsky (2001) nominative is a reflex of agreement with the I category and accusative with the v category. The advantage of this approach is that it reduces (direct) case to independently needed computations. Another proposal, originally put forth by Marantz (2000) and recently picked up by Baker (2014), treats accusative as a dependent case, namely as the case assigned when (in the same cycle, phase, etc.) there remains a higher DP also to be assigned case. In turn, for the dependent case theory nominative is the Elsewhere case. This is a richer approach to the extent that case requires its own dedicated algorithm. Dependent case theories point to empirical problems met by Chomsky’s theory, for instance so called extended accusative, i.e. accusative assigned by unaccusative verbs in the absence of a Chomskyan v (Baker and Vinokurova 2010). But in dependent case frameworks, the analysis of nominative as the Elsewhere

40 

 2 Case categories in Albanian

does not sit well with the syntactic distribution of nominative and accusative. Thus (judging from Romance languages, English, etc.) accusative turns up in all sorts of contexts in place of nominative (focus, ellipsis, etc.), and not the other way round – which would seem to make accusative into the Elsewhere case. In short, empirical evidence is far from decisive, leading one to prefer the simpler Chomskyan alternative. Nevertheless, it is far from obvious how to translate the idea that accusative case is simply the byproduct of agreement with v into a lexical content for the -n ending. Suppose we take argument slots to be variables bound via a λ-operator (Heim & Kratzer 1998, see also Adger & Ramchand’s (2005) Λ feature). We may then assume that -n introduces the λ-operator, as in (26) – essentially denoting the opening of an argument slot filled by the DP to which -n attaches. In order to exclude -n from the traditional oblique and nominative environments we must assume that the ⊆ closure of oblique and the D closure of nominative are incompatible with λ. Thus (26) is constrained to the environments not closed by ⊆ and D, yielding (27). (26) -n: λ, definite, singular

(27) definite singular → accusative

Agreement with v is not incompatible with this conception of accusative, since we expect that a content as elementary as λ, simply signaling the opening of an argument slot, may require further licencing, notably by v.

3 Combining inflections with one another At this point of the discussion we can consider how the vocalic and consonantal inflections that we have analyzed in section 2 combine to provide the actual nominal inflections in Tables 1–2. When we combine the three vowels with the five consonantal endings, in principle we obtain 15 sequences, but not all of them are attested. Let us begin with -i. Of the five conceivable combinations, only two are possible, namely -i-t and -i-n. The unattested combinations involve merger with oblique -s or with the plurals -vɛ and -ʃ. The merger with -s is blocked by the fact that -s selects for feminine -ɛ. This can be made a part of its lexical entry, enriching (15a) above as in (28). The combination with -i (*-i-s) is then excluded. (28) -s: ⊆: phrasal domain, definite, singular Condition: selects -ɛ

3 Combining inflections with one another 

 41

Furthermore -i is incompatible with plurality, including plural -t, -vɛ and Generic -ʃ. The lexical entry for -i in (18) already implies this result, since word-domain (⊆) is not among its possible closures. In other words, only intrinsic and selection properties of the combining morphologies need to be invoked, to predict the possible and impossible combination of -i with consonantal endings, as summarized in (29). (29) -i-n: -i-t: *-i-s: *-i-vɛ: *-i-ʃ:

accusative definite singular oblique definite singular *-s selects -ɛ by (28) *plural by (18) *plural by (18)

Consider then the combinations of consonantal endings with the -a inflectional vowel. Its possible combinations are restricted to plurals, hence -a-t, -a-vɛ, -a-ʃ. Its lexical entry in (20) possibly already implies this, since it requires a D or a plural closure. Specifically, in the singular, oblique or accusative closures will be excluded, even though they include definiteness. In other words, the D closure must be understood as closure by a full pronominal element, endowed not just with definiteness (or deixis, encompassing 1/2P reference), but also with nominal class and number properties. This can be provided only under agreement with I (agreement with v lacks deixis/person), corresponding to the nominative. Hence -a will be restricted to plural consonantal endings, as desired, yielding the correct list of complex inflections in (30). (30) *-a-n: *-a-s: -a-t: -a-vɛ: -a-ʃ:

* singular, non-nominative by (20) * singular, non-nominative by (20) direct definite plural oblique (definite) plural oblique indefinite plural

Consider finally -ɛ. Under the lexical entry in (24), this inflectional vowel is compatible with all closures but D (nominative), and hence with all the combinations with consonantal endings in (31). (31) - ɛ-n: accusative definite singular - ɛ-t: locative definite singular direct definite plural - ɛ-s: oblique definite singular - ɛ-vɛ: oblique (definite) plural -ɛ-ʃ: oblique indefinite plural

42 

 2 Case categories in Albanian

One restriction is in fact implied by (31), namely that in the -ɛ class, -t endings with phrasal scope are only locative. We construe this as a selectional restriction. Recall that in (28) we have stated that the oblique -s selects for the -ɛ class. We now need to add a similar restriction on locative -t, enriching the original entry in (9) as in (32). (32) -t: ⊆, def Condition: ⊆: locative selects -ɛ

At this point, the complex morphemes in boldface in (29)-(31) together with the vocalic endings in (18), (20) and (24) cover all of the forms in Tables 1 and 2. Therefore, it seems fair to say that projecting morphological structure from lexical entries for the single morphemes is a feasible task. In other words, the data do not necessitate introducing abstract feature matrices, later realized though morphological readjustment and Late Insertion. No matter how artificious this exercise may appear in other respects, its interest lays in the fact that in order for our conclusions to hold, we need to articulate the primitive categories in terms of which case is defined in a quite specific way. Thus we cannot use traditional case diacritics such as nominative, accusative, oblique – nor are the primitives suggested by Halle and Vaux (1998), Calabrese (1998, 2008a), e.g. governed, structural, etc., adequate for our purposes. We really need a contentive conception of nominal inflections carrying referential properties (plural) or structure building predicates/operators. Vice versa, we are not suggesting that the categories we propose for the encoding of case must necessarily be aligned with the Albanian morphemes in the way we suggest. In other words, it is possible that more economical alignments could be devised, once other case systems are taken into account. In this respect, our core proposal in this chapter is the recategorization of the various cases – the account of the case system of Albanian in terms of these categories is simply a preliminary proof of their viability.

4 Residual problems and conclusions Before we can proceed to our conclusions, we need to show that a mechanism is also in place whereby the endings in (29)–(31) are matched with the correct lexical bases. Consider the morphology -i. Adopting a suggestion by Kayne (2010) (see chapter 3), we can express its distribution with respect to lexical bases by means of a selection restriction, i.e. -i selects a certain set of nouns listed in the mental lexicon, as in (33). The fact that -i cannot be plural (closed by a plural

4 Residual problems and conclusions 

 43

operator) means that it will only be found in the singular, a fact already reviewed in connection with (29). (33) -i selects the class {‘man’, etc.} In turn, we may assume that the set of lexical bases selected for by -ɛ is listed. There is however an additional problem. The ‘teacher’ class never appears without the -ɛ inflection, while with the ‘girl’ class the -ɛ inflection is present only in the singular. What is more with ‘girl’ -ɛ does not appear in the direct cases of the indefinite. In both classes, -ɛ is excluded in the nominative definite because of the entry in (24) (no D closure). The selectional restriction for the ‘teacher’ class is straightforward, namely (34), since the only context where -ɛ does not appear is excluded by its entry. (34) -ɛ selects the class {‘teacher’, etc.} Selection by -ɛ of the ‘girl’ class will have to be restricted to the singular definite and to the oblique of the singular indefinite. The simplest stipulation capable of insuring this result is that selection by -ɛ of the relevant class is restricted to the singular and to definite or oblique occurrences. As before, -ɛ is independently excluded in the nominative definite by its entry (24). (35) -ɛ selects the class {‘girl’, etc.} Condition: sg definite or ⊆: phrasal domain

We then get to -a, whose lexical entry in (20) restricts it to plurals or to nominatives. In the singular, -a is restricted to the feminine class, which we could stipulate as in (36), since the further restriction to nominative definite follows from the lexical entry of -a. In the plural -a takes all bases which are not specified for -ɛ. (36) -a selects for the class {‘girl’, etc, ‘teacher’, etc} Condition: sg Selects for the class {‘girl’, etc, ‘man’, etc} Condition: pl One final passage is needed in order to reconstruct the traditional cases in Tables 1 and 2, namely an account of bare nominal bases. These correspond to the direct indefinite singular cases, except for the ‘teacher’ class that has -ɛ. We should check that the various requirements on vocalic and consonantal endings insure that none of them can occupy the relevant slots. To begin with, -i is impossible

44 

 2 Case categories in Albanian

in the ‘man’ class because it requires a definiteness or an oblique closure under (18). Very much the same can be repeated for -a, which requires a definiteness or plural closure under (20). As for -ɛ, we have just stipulated in (35) that it will appear with the ‘girl’ class only in the singular and only when closed by certain predicate/operators, hence not in the direct indefinite singular cases. The issue of bare bases is interesting for its more general implications. The treatment that we have just provided amounts to saying that the use of zero morphemes is unnecessary (see Pesetsky 2013 on Russian case for a particularly wide use of them). It is true that morphosyntactic systems can express natural languages without a certain amount of interpreted, non-pronounced material, for instance traces, or existential closure. But the abstractness in the present analysis is all concentrated on closure by operators and elementary predicates, which can perhaps be conceived as enrichments at the C-I interface. Restricting silent categories to the functional lexicon (Kayne 2010) is not sufficient. In summary, the discussion in sections 2-3 treats nominal inflections as substantive entries, endowed with C-I as well as SM properties. This implies that models such as DM, which split abstract syntactic properties from possibly underspecified exponents are unnecessary. What is particularly relevant for present purposes is that the conclusion that SM externalization has an opaque relation to the C-I interface, impelling the separation of abstract C-I contents from PF exponents seems to crucially depend on the chosen categorization. If morphosyntactic categories are properly reconstructed, the opacity disappears, making it possible to maintain a unified morphosyntactic component projected from the positively specified lexicon. This is not to say that the categories that we have introduced in the present discussion cannot be translated into features of a conventional morphological system. It is perfectly possible to translate our ⊆ phrasal domain predicate into a ±⊆Possessor feature and the same ⊆ content applied at word domain into a ±⊆Plural feature. Syncretism between oblique and plural would then be a syncretism on the ±⊆ feature. The result we are claiming is not that ⊆ is inexpressible as a morphological feature – rather that it is not necessary to express it as such. We thus return to our initial point, namely that by Occam’s razor, an architecture of the type proposed here is to be preferred, and that further complications (Late Insertion, Impoverishment, default, zero exponents, etc.) are to be excluded.

3 N morphology and its interpretation: The neuter in Italian and Albanian varieties The semantic literature (Chierchia 1998, 2010) and the theoretical syntax literature (Borer 2005) stress that the traditional opposition of singular and plural hides a tripartition between mass singulars, count singulars and count plurals, where mass singulars and count plurals form a natural class under certain semantic and syntactic tests. The present chapter is devoted to showing that morphology is sensitive to these deeper patterns, yielding not only dedicated lexicalizations for mass singulars as opposed to count singulars, but also common lexicalizations, i.e. syncretisms, between mass singulars and count plurals. In section 1 we introduce notions of gender and number, i.e. nominal class (Class), and of inflectional class (Infl) by reference to the Romance languages, where nominal/inflectional class is seen in the absence of case. In section 2 we consider the so-called neuter gender of Central Italian varieties (Rohlfs 1968 [1949]: §419) which has been observed to correlate with mass content, whence the traditional designation of neutro de materia. We account for the neuter by introducing the class property [aggregate] of which the -o inflection is a specialized realization. In section 3, we present data from Arbëresh varieties, where the neuter is externalized by the same morphology as the plural. We take this to reflect not a morphological syncretism but the existence of a common syntactico-semantic core between mass noun and plurals, namely [aggregate]. We are interested in the general implications of these proposals. It is uncontroversial that the class properties [masculine] and [feminine] are compositionally interpreted at least for a subset of nouns, namely in terms of sex. Under the present proposal, the so-called neuter of Romance and Albanian is also compositionally interpreted, since it corresponds to the property [aggregate], interpreted as a plurality of parts/individuals. The morphological constituents that externalize class properties, including Central Italian -o, are then (in part) endowed with interpretable content. Morphological exponents that do not introduce any semantic content, but simply fulfil the requirements of paradigmatic organization, are unexpected not just under our syntactic approach to morphology but in general under any morpheme and Merge based view of morphology, including DM (Blevins 2006). In this perspective, finding that inflectional vowels can in principle carry compositional meaning is a welcome result.

https://doi.org/10.1515/9781501505140-003

46 

 3 N morphology and its interpretation: The neuter in Italian and Albanian varieties

1 A framework morphosyntactic theory for N Our aim in this section is to introduce the internal structure of N, and to sketch the contribution of each of its constituents, taking caseless Romance languages as our empirical basis. After a brief introduction to some facts and to the issue of interpretability of nominal inflections, the constituents we consider include the root (5), gender/nominal class and inflectional class in (6). Number can either be introduced in the same Class slot as gender, as in (7), or realize a dedicated slot as in (8) or appear in both positions, as in (9). We then consider the selectional mechanisms required to combine the different constituents, and we reformulate the interpretability issue, removing it from the domain of morphosyntax. Thus, section 1 is entirely concerned with generalities and with the literature on them. The reader will find data and analyses of the neuter beginning in section 2. In the spirit of Hallean morphology and specifically of DM (Halle and Marantz 1993), we assume that the units listed in the lexicon are morphemes, and that words are best defined not as primitives, but as complex syntactic objects implying a structural organization akin to that of phrases. In keeping with the proposals of Chomsky (1995) we assume that morphosyntactic structures are projected from the lexicon, which we conceive in the classical way as a set of lexical items pairing Conceptual Intentional (C-I), or SEM, properties and Sensory Motor (SM), or PHON, properties. The morphosyntax of the noun has been more extensively studied in the Romance languages than in Albanian; the latter furthermore presents the added complexity of case. Therefore, we begin by considering well-known Romance languages like Italian or Spanish. A description of these Romance languages requires both a notion of inflectional class and a notion of gender or nominal class. Nouns with different inflections, i.e. -a and -o, may belong to the same gender, for instance masculine -o in (1b) vs. masculine -a in (2b) in Italian. Vice versa, nouns with the same inflectional ending may belong to different genders, for instance -a corresponds to either feminine in (1a) or masculine in (2b). The examples in (3) show that the nominal inflection -e lacks a preferential gender association. Throughout the examples (1)–(3), agreement is determined by gender or nominal class – not of course by inflectional class. (1) a. l-a the b. il the

cas-a house libr-o book

nuov-a new vecchi-o old

1 A framework morphosyntactic theory for N 

(2) a. l-a the b. il the

man-o hand poet-a poet

destr-a right famos-o famous

(3) a. l-a the b. il the

voc-e voice can-e dog

alt-a loud alt-o tall

 47

Italian

It should be added that in Italian, lacking a specialized plural ending -s, plurals are not fully predictable from singulars, complicating the empirical picture. Manzini and Savoia (2005) propose that Italian has a dedicated plural morphology -i, as in (4b), while other plurals correspond to a switch in inflectional class morphology, e.g. -a to -e, as in (4a). (4) a. l-e the b. i the

cas-e houses libr-i books

nuov-e new vecch-i old

Italian

Uncontroversially, number has interpretive import. In particular, we follow Borer (2005) in conceiving plural as endowed not with quantificational content, but rather with classifier content, roughly indicating count status. Furthermore, the literature agrees in the conclusion that count (or mass) status is not a property of the lexical base, but a property that derives from its syntactic construal. Thus formagg- ‘cheese’ can be construed both as a mass term, e.g. molto formaggio ‘a lot of cheese’ or as a count term, as in tre formaggi ‘three cheeses’ (e.g. cheese types). Mass/count nature cannot be deduced from the lexical content ‘cheese’ but depends on the quantifiers associated with it – as well as on morphological specifications such as plurality. The question whether gender has interpretive import, and what relation it entertains to the lexical base, is more complex. Gender is obviously interpreted in instances of natural gender, as in cugin-o ‘cousin-m’ vs. cugin-a ‘cousin-f ’. Nominal class inflections are also able to introduce interpretations fixing other quantificational-like specifications, as noted by several authors (Crisma et al. 2011), notably measure grade differences in pairs like mel-a ‘apple-f ’ vs. mel-o ‘apple tree-m’, or buc-o ‘hole-m’ vs. buc-a ‘pothole-f ’ (bidimensional vs. tridimensional according to Acquaviva 2009). Especially telling in this respect are masculine/feminine pairs of the type maʎ ‘apple’ vs. mail-a

48 

 3 N morphology and its interpretation: The neuter in Italian and Albanian varieties

‘aggregate of apples-f ’ documented for Sursilvan varieties by Manzini and Savoia (2017b). These facts bring to the fore an interesting correspondence between systems of nominal inflection that are superficially distinct, namely Indo-European gender and number, Bantu nominal classes and possibly Chinese classifiers (Kihm 2005, Ferrari-Bridgers 2008, Crisma et al. 2011, Déchaine et al. 2014). Kihm (2005: 486) compares Romance languages with the Bantoid language Manjaku. He concludes that “the basic difference ... appears thus to be at the same time limited and profound: limited because both language (UG) varieties share the category I term Class … profound because the lexical expressions of the said category are meaningful roots in Manjaku, but semantically empty functional items in Romance.” However Déchaine et al. (2014: 18) endorse a characterization of gender morphology in Romance as endowed with a semantic content, on a par with nominal class morphology in Bantu, in the following terms: “French class partition is based on biological gender, distinguishing FEMININE and MASCULINE ... class partition is subset formation, with each class/subset defined by a particular semantic feature ... And since the set of semantic features is not fixed, languages vary with respect to which features, and how many, they recruit for N-classes”, leading to the richer class system of Bantu languages. In short, gender has interpretive properties that draw it close to systems of nominal inflection such as nominal classes of the Bantu type (called genders by Carstens 2008) and to classifiers. But how do these conclusions translate into morphosyntactic structures? Consider the root constituent first. The morphemic analysis of Indo-European nouns is again uncontroversial, as far as we can tell (Halle and Vaux 1998, Calabrese 1998, 2008a). The first component is a root; following DM (Marantz 1997), we may think of the root √ as category-less. Next to the root a vocalic morpheme encodes properties that depending on the language, may include gender and/or number and/or declension class, as briefly illustrated by the Italian examples in (1)–(4). A third slot may be available, specialized for number (e.g. Spanish -s) or for number and case (e.g. Albanian). The consensus in the literature (Picallo 2008, Déchaine et al. 2014 on Bantu nominal classes, Fassi Fehri 2016 on Arabic) is that at least two functional projections are needed to host this material – corresponding roughly to gender and number. In homage to the cross-linguistic comparison with Bantu languages (and possibly with Chinese classifiers), the lower category is often labelled Class, the higher category is Num, as illustrated in (5). We do not pursue variants of the schema in (5) which take Class to identify with Marantz’s (1997) nominalizing category n (Kihm 2005, Ferrari Bridgers 2008, Kramer 2014, 2015).

1 A framework morphosyntactic theory for N 

(5)

 49

Num Class √

Num Class

Following Higginbotham (1985), the category-less root is interpreted as a predicate. The predicate represented by the root has one open argument place (the R-role, Williams 1994), which is ultimately bound by a D/Q operator. It is natural to assume that gender (and number) specifications, and in general classifiers, apply to the argument x open at the predicate. In other words, the category Class restricts the content of the argumental variable ultimately bound by D/Q. Similarly, Percus (2011) entertains the possibility of a conjunctive semantics for the (root, gender) pair. Let us turn to nominal class vs inflectional class. Extra complexity arises in Indo-European languages from the fact that there is no one-to-one mapping between the content of Class, which enters agreement with determiners and modifiers of N, and the inflections immediately following the root. The latter are instead sensitive to inflectional class. The standard DM treatment of inflectional class (Oltra-Massuet and Arregi 2005, Kramer 2015) has a Th(ematic vowel) node adjoined to Class/n postsyntactically. The content of Th are diacritics such as [I] for I inflectional class, etc. and the latter are in turn spelled out as -a, -o, etc. (e.g. in Latin, in Spanish, etc.). The countercyclic adjunction of Th after the syntactic derivation (contra Chomsky’s (1995) Extension Condition) provides a good illustration of the kind of richness in morphological models that we reject. The structures that we will be using throughout are introduced in (6) for Italian gatt-o ‘he-cat’ and gatt-a ‘she-cat’. In (6) the property ‘cat’ is compatible with both a feminine and a masculine Class, depending on the sex denoted. We tentatively assign the inflectional vowel of Italian to an Infl position which embeds both the root and the Class node. Infl

(6) Class √ gatt-

Infl -o/-a Class [masc]/[fem]

Italian

50 

 3 N morphology and its interpretation: The neuter in Italian and Albanian varieties

Number needs to be re-examined as well. Though we adopted the traditional Class/gender vs Number categorization in (5), Borer (2005) identifies number with a Div property falling within the set of classifiers. Déchaine et al. (2014) incorporate this conclusion in their structure for N(P), by assuming that Class is a field of categories including at least two projections for sortal Class, i.e. gender, and for count/mass Class, i.e. number. Following chapter 2 (see Manzini and Savoia 2011a, 2011b), we formalize the content of the plural node as ⊆, which says that the denotatum of the predicate can be partitioned into subsets. Recall that in Italian (4) above pluralization is obtained by a change of the inflectional morpheme. In present terms the plural of gatto/gatta in (6), namely gatti ‘cats’ gatt-e ‘she-cats’ has the structure in (7a). The ⊆ property contributes plurality as schematized in (7b) and discuseed in chapter 2 – namely by isolating a subset of the set (or set of sets) of all things that are ‘cat’; in other words, ⊆ says that subsets can be partitioned off the set (the property) denoted by the lexical base. (7)

a.

Infl Class √ gatt-

b.

∃x

Infl -e/-i Class [fem]/[masc], [⊆]

Italian

[x ⊆ {cat}]

i.e. ‘there is an x such that x is a subset of the set of individuals with the property ‘cat’ At the same time, if we keep identifying the vocalic inflection of Spanish with the Infl position, it is evident that the specialized -s segment for plurality in Spanish must occur on top of Infl itself in a dedicated position, as schematized for libros/libras ‘books/pounds’ in (8).1 We know from chapter 2 that this 1 Lampitelli (2011) suggests that Italian has a structure similar to Spanish where Gender and Number categories are however lexicalized by elements, in the sense of Government Phonology. Specifically, the element -A lexicalizes the singular and -I the plural. Thus plural -e is the effect of the phonological combination of gender -A with number -I. The -a plurals of Italian (Acquaviva 2008), which are more productive than Lampitelli acknowledges, represent a problem for this approach, e.g. uov-a ‘eggs’; similarly for the -e plurals of -u singulars (in Center-South Italian dialects) which Loporcaro and Paciaroni (2011), Manzini and Savoia (to appear a) discuss together with -a plurals.

1 A framework morphosyntactic theory for N 

 51

position, notated as ⊆, rather than as the traditional category Num, may in fact host other elementary predicates/operators, projecting what is traditionally called case. (8) Infl Class

⊆

Infl o/a

⊆ s

Class [fem]/[masc]

√ libr

Spanish

A prediction generated by (7)–(8) is that since number may be expressed either by Class/Infl or by the specialized ⊆ node, it may be realized by both nodes at once. The prediction is not difficult to verify. For instance, in the variety of Geg Albanian discussed in chapter 2, indefinite direct case Ns alternate between the root in the singular and the -a inflection in the plural, e.g. burr/burr-a ‘man/men’. This distribution is very similar to the Italian one, suggesting that -a in the Infl position lexicalizes the ⊆ class content – or is restricted/closed by it in the terminology of chapter 2. Yet this is only true of Ns interpreted as indefinites. In the definite interpretation, Albanian Ns have a much richer inflection. Specifically, in the direct cases, whatever form the N takes in the indefinite is followed by a  -t segment. In chapter 2 we argued that this is a lexicalization of plural, yielding representations of the type in (9) for burrat ‘the men’. (9) Infl Class √ burr

⊆

Infl a Class [masc], [⊆]

⊆ t

Geg Albanian

52 

 3 N morphology and its interpretation: The neuter in Italian and Albanian varieties

In other words, we propose a layered structuring for number. Such a structure is independently advocated for gender in the current literature. For Steriopolo and Wiltschko (2010), gender can be distributed over at least three nodes, namely the root, the n node and the D node (cf. also the Inner and Outer NAsp of Déchaine et al 2014). As for number itself, Fassi Fehri (2016) in his discussion of Arabic -at, suggests that singulative -at is merged in Class under Num. At the same time, -at can also be a plurative; according to Fassi Fehri this results from a reversal of the structure where gender takes scope over number. Let us then assume that we have an adequate working model of the categories and structures involved in nominal inflection – namely (a) the root, (b) nominal class, including traditional gender and number, (c) inflectional class, and (d) specialized number, where present. This still leaves the question of the correct pairing of roots with their nominal class. Indeed gender is not necessarily predictable from the root, even when sexed referents are involved. Thus Italian la guida ‘the guide’ is feminine even when referring to a male guide – and Italian il contralto is masculine even when referring to a female singer (as it normally does). As already noted in chapter 2, the required matches can be obtained, if necessary, by stipulation without recourse to anything but the standard syntactic mechanism of selection. Kramer (2015: 54) explicitly endorses the view that gender she terms ‘arbitrary’, is selected by the root. A similar approach is suggested by Acquaviva (2009: 5), namely that “morphological and semantic information can be dependent on the choice of a root without being encoded on the root itself”. To say “a noun has gender X”, for instance, means in this perspective “a root Vocabulary item is licensed in the context of [n] with gender X”. In other words, the standard syntactic notion of selectional restriction is powerful enough to encode the fact that a certain class content is associated with a certain lexical base and not with others. On the other hand, going back to the discussion at the beginning of this section, some (root, Class) combinations are interpreted compositionally, as indeed gatto, gatta in (6). Theorists generally do not question the fact that Class/n may sometimes be interpreted and sometimes not and simply seek to model it. For Kramer (2015), the difference is to be expressed via the [interpretable] feature. Yet this cannot be assimilated to Chomsky’s (2000a) feature of the same name. In Chomsky (2000a), a given category is never associated with optionally interpretable or uninterpretable features; for instance N is always associated with interpretable φ-features, while v or I are always associated with uninterpretable φ-features. In the same way, we would expect Class/n to be always interpretable or always uninterpretable – which is not the case. We keep to the original understanding of this feature and do not extend it to the distinctions required here. Recall from the previous discussion that there is also an analogous problem in pairing of (root, Class) units with their appropriate inflectional vowel. For Kramer

2 The Central Italian neuter 

 53

(2015) the diacritics [I], [II], [III] in, say, Spanish, are inserted under Th and then interpreted as vocalic endings, namely -a for [II], etc. Technically the rule that inserts the class diacritics is sensitive to the context determined by certain sets of roots: insert -e in the context √padr, √madr, etc. But this means that we are in the presence of a selectional restriction. Therefore, following Kayne (2010: 73-74), we assume that inflectional morphemes directly select for roots – or under the more articulated structures proposed here for (root, Class) units – essentially as we did in chapter 2. In the same way, when gender is not compositional, a given gender, i.e. [fem] or [masc], selects for a large class of roots bearing it. As for interpretability, we would like to formulate the issue differently from the way it is normally presented. The idea is to simplify matters by assuming that all gender is in principle interpretable. However, its composition with the root yields a sex interpretation only in case the root has the relevant, animate content. In other words, interpreted gender is a property of the (root, class) configuration or ultimately of the root, not of the class feature. In essence, we propose that the interpretation of [fem] and [masc] depends on the composition with the lexical base. If the latter is human, the [masc]/[fem] opposition is interpreted compositionally, as referring to sexual characters. Otherwise, lack of a compositional interpretation for the (nominal class, lexical base) pair leads to an idiom of sorts. This type of idiom, like all others, is listed in the mental lexicon.

2 The Central Italian neuter This section and the following one are devoted to two case studies concerning class properties of mass and count denotation, and support the introduction of the class property [aggregate]. In this section, we consider several Central Italian varieties, where N morphology appears to encode the count/mass distinction; specifically, mass denotation appears to be implied by what is traditionally called the neuter. In the variety of Monte Giberto (Marche) three genders are distinguished both on Ds and on lexical categories, namely nouns, adjectives, participles. (10)–(11) illustrate the distribution of feminine/masculine -a/-u classes inside the DP. In (10b)–(11b) the unaccusative predicate come agrees with the subject, in the masculine or feminine, displaying -u, -a morphology respectively. (10c)–(11c) show the masculine/feminine clitics. (10) a. l-a vokk-a rapɛrt-a the-fsg mouth-fsg open-fsg ‘the open mouth’

54 

 3 N morphology and its interpretation: The neuter in Italian and Albanian varieties

b. ɛ vvinut-a is come-fsg ‘She has come’ c. l-a ɣatt-a a l-a veðo the-fsg cat-fsg cl her-fsg I.see ‘I see the (she-)cat’ (11)

a. l-u nas-u ruʃʃ-u the-msg nose-msg red-msg ‘the red nose’ a’. kwill-u ka ɛ bbell-u that-msg dog is nice-msg ‘That dog is nice’ b. ɛ vvinut-u un ɔm-u has come-msg a man-msg ‘A man has come’ c. l-u ka a l-u veðo the-msg dog cl him-msg I.see ‘I see the dog’

Monte Giberto

Neuter -o is found in (12a–c) with the same distribution as feminine and masculine in (10)–(11). In addition it provides the invariable inflection on meteorological verbs as well as on unergative and transitive participles, in (12e–g). Importantly, the clitic example (12c) points to the fact that the underlying ontology expressed by the -o nominal class distinction does not exhausts itself in the mass/count distinction since what matters here is the eventive/propositional denotation of the argument lo ‘it’. Moreover, (12a”) shows that the mass interpretive content can be introduced independently of the inflectional class exponent -o on the Noun. So, the -e inflection combines with a mass/substance base latt- ‘milk’, triggering the -o inflection on the determiners and adjectives. In other words, the property to which agreement is sensitive is inherent to the nominal base. (12) a. l-o kaʃ-o the-nsg cheese-nsg ‘the cheese’ a’. kwell-o/l-o vi(n-o) vɛcc-o/roʃʃ-o that-nsg/the-nsg wine-nsg old-nsg/red-nsg ‘that/the old/red wine’

2 The Central Italian neuter 

 55

a”.l-o latt-e jattʃ-o the-nsg milk-sg cold-nsg ‘the cold milk’ b. ɛ kkaʃkat-o l-o pa has fallen-nsg the-nsg bread c.

d.

e.

f.

‘The bread has fallen’ l-o sapete it-nsg you.know ‘You know it’ sɔ ddurmit-o I.am slept-nsg ‘I have slept’ sɔ rrapɛrt-o l-a pɔrt-a I.am opened-nsg the-fsg door-fsg ‘I have opened the door’ a pjɔt-o has rained-nsg ‘It has rained’

Monte Giberto

The data in (13) illustrate a dialect, that of Mascioni (Abruzzo), in which the -o inflection is limited to the determiners. In this variety, the mass noun vin-u ‘wine’ is associated with the -u inflection, as is the adjective modifying it in (13b). However the determiners of the noun have a different -o inflection, which is uniquely associated with mass nouns determiners. Similarly in (13c) the pronoun can only refer to a mass/event referent (not to an individual). (13) a. l-o/kweʃt-o/kwell-o vin-u the-nsg/this-nsg/that-nsg wine-sg ‘the/that/this wine’ b. kwell-o vin-u vecc-u that-nsg wine-sg old-nsg ‘that old wine’ c. l-o viju it-nsg I.see ‘I see it’

Mascioni

56 

 3 N morphology and its interpretation: The neuter in Italian and Albanian varieties

In traditional terms, in the language of Monte Giberto there are three genders, namely masculine, feminine and neuter. The neuter characterizes mass nouns,2 and eventive/propositional contents. If we assume that the neuter corresponds to the Elsewhere gender, we predict that it will show up in environments where invariable inflections are selected in Romance varieties, such as in (12d–f). Within the theoretical literature, Kučerova and Moro (2011) address data of the type of (13). According to them, “a mass noun is structurally an NP, and as such has no number projection”, i.e. no DivP in the sense of Borer (2005). Furthermore, “since gender is dependent on number, mass nouns are necessarily genderless”. In their words, “if a mass noun can be interpreted as … the overt agreement is realized as the morphological default. In our case we obtain M.SG. on predicative adjectives. In contrast, if the structure requires type , … an additional structure must be introduced. The marked morphological realization we see in these cases – our ‘third’ gender – is a direct reflex of the last-resort semantic process implemented as a structural adjustment”. The authors acknowledge that there is an implementation problem concerning “structural adjustment”; in any event a realizational (Late Insertion) view of inflectional morphology is implied. Apart from this, Kučerova and Moro do not discuss the relation between languages with -o only on determiners, which they consider, and other types of Romance varieties, including that of Monte Giberto. In short, for Kučerova and Moro (2011) the -o ending is a mere morphophonological reflex of an interpretive operation, bearing no interpretive properties in itself. In this, they agree with Loporcaro and Paciaroni (2011), according to whom -o corresponds to neuter gender in the traditional sense of the terms, deprived of any interpretive significance. Pomino and Stark (2010) discuss standard Spanish, where only Ds have the special neuter inflection.3 In their terms, the traditional neuter corresponds to a non-individuated property; feminine and masculine are subclasses of [+individuated]. However, as pointed out by Loporcaro and Paciaroni (2011),

2 The literature quotes minimal pairs such as ferr-u ‘iron (instrument) vs. fɛrr-o ‘iron (material)’ for Borgorose (Latium), cf. Kučerova and Moro (2011); or pel-o ‘hair’ vs. pel-u ‘(single) hair’ in Asturian, cf. Hall (1968). 3 Other Romance varieties in which only a subset of D elements may encode the count-mass distinction include Portuguese, in which the distinction appears only in the demonstrative paradigm, e.g. isto/isso/aquilo (mass, singular) vs êste/êsse/aquêle (count, singular) (see Ledgeway 2012).

2 The Central Italian neuter 

 57

in dialects of the Monte Giberto type, where -o and -u are differentiated on Ns, not all -u Ns are count nouns; this means that -u is not associated with an individuated characterization, nor are feminine nouns, which include both mass and count. In proposing a characterization of the content associated with -o, it is useful to make reference to the conception of mass terms as aggregates of smaller non-atomic elements (Chierchia 1998, 2010, Wiese 2012). Thus the lexical root kaʃ- ‘cheese’ in (12a) together with the -o inflectional morphology denotes an aggregate. Now, the lexical root cheese is compatible with pluralization (cf. English cheeses, meaning ‘types of cheese’), hence with a count reading; this can be taken as evidence that the aggregate reading is not intrinsic to ‘cheese’. Vice versa, the -o morphology is not compatible with an individual, atomic reading (or a fortiori a plural count reading). This provides fairly solid grounds for associating the aggregate content with the functional structure of the noun. If we apply the structural analysis in section 1 to the Monte Giberto examples in (12a–a’), we obtain a representation like (14), where the -o Infl corresponds to the presence of a Class node denoting mass interpretation. Specifically, we propose that the [aggregate] ([aggr]) content applies to the denotation of kaʃ- ‘cheese’ in (14a) saying that it admits to be factored into smaller parts (under existential closure, there is some x such that x is a part of the whole ‘cheese’), as in (14b). Thus the structure in (14) does away with the traditional Class neuter (to complement masculine, feminine) in favour of the Class mass/aggregate. (14)

a.

Infl Class

cf. (12a) Infl -o

√ ka b.

Class [aggr]

there is an x such that x is a part of the whole ‘cheese’

As we saw in (10)–(12), and as indicated in the structure in (15), the -o inflection turns up not just on lexical roots but also on Ds/Qs and on As. In other words, the syntactic rule of Agree is sensitive to [aggr]. Therefore, as in traditional accounts, Monte Giberto appears to have three classes, except however that [aggr] defines the complementary class to [fem] and [masc].

58 

 3 N morphology and its interpretation: The neuter in Italian and Albanian varieties

(15)

cf. (12a)

DP Infl

D D

Infl -o Class [aggr]

D l-

Infl -o

Class √ ka -

Class [aggr]

Since in the Monte Giberto language, the -o nominal morphology is constrained to mass/aggregate contexts, it is furthermore possible to associate -o with class content, as we state in the lexical entry in (16). (16) -o: Infl, [aggr] As illustrated in (12c), an -o inflection on D can combine with an -e inflection on the noun, as in l-o latt-e ‘the milk’. We analyze this example as in (17). The mass base latt- is merged with the Class [aggr]; since agreement is governed by class, the specialized -o [aggr] inflection can be seen to surface on the Determiner. The reason why -e surfaces on latt- is that, as we have assumed in section  1, inflections partition lexical bases amongst themselves without any necessary correspondence with class content. Thus -e selects latt- independently its class content. However the D base, l-, is compatible with the -a, -u, -o set of inflections (or selected by them, if one prefers), leading to the agreement in class in (17). (17)

DP D Class √ l-

Infl Infl -o

Class [aggr]

cf. (12a”)

Class √ latt-

Infl -e Class [aggr]

Recall that -o also occurs on pronouns referring to an event or a situation, as in (12c), or as the invariable/default inflection with unergative/transitive verbs,

2 The Central Italian neuter 

 59

as in (12d). A tentative characterization of examples like (12c) can refer to the closeness between mass terms, as aggregates of smaller unindividuated elements (Chierchia 2010), and the representation of the temporal continuum underlying an event, as “aggregate[s] of components/atoms of imaginable continuums (substances/events)”. In other words, event/situation contents may be associated with the [aggr] class – which in turn surfaces as the -o inflection with lexical bases, such as the l- D base, that are compatible with it. Examples like (12d) are more complex, since they require a syntactic model of invariable agreement inflections. Suppose we make the standard assumption (Chomsky 2000a, 2001) that in (10b), (11b), (12b), where the clitic agrees with the participle, the participle in v has an agreement probe, whose closest goal is the internal argument clitic. In the examples in (12d), where the perfect participle takes the invariable -o inflection with unergative verbs, we may conclude that there is no suitable internal argument goal.4 In present terms, the so-called neuter inflection is associated with a semantic content [aggr]. In other words, the structure of the participial form in (18) is essentially like that of the mass noun in (14). The fact that [aggr] content is a natural candidate to represent an event, as “aggregate[s] of components/atoms of imagineable continuums (substances/events)” (Chierchia 2010) may suggest that the -o in (18) corresponds to a lexicalization of the event argument (cf. neo-Davidsonian frameworks, Higginbotham 1985, 2009).5 (18)

V V V durmit-

cf. (12d) Infl -o

Class [aggr]

4 Admittedly, it is not obvious why the lexical object in (12e) wouldn’t be such a goal. This however represents a separate problem, corresponding to the well-known generalization of Kayne (1989), whereby participial agreement in languages like Italian or French only takes place when the internal argument moves to the left of the participle. As is fairly well-known (Manzini and Savoia 2005, D’Alessandro and Roberts 2010), several Romance varieties present perfect participle agreement with the object in situ – making this into an issue of Romance-internal variation which can be set aside for the time being. 5 In chapter 12 we suggest that invariable I inflections are the inflectional counterpart of a (Spec.  IP) expletive pronoun, undergoing expletive replacement (Chomsky 1995) at the C-I interface. Further research is required.

60 

 3 N morphology and its interpretation: The neuter in Italian and Albanian varieties

Next, let us consider Mascioni in (13), where the distribution of -o is restricted to D categories (definite and demonstrative Ds). As in the Monte Giberto dialect, -o carries the [aggr] property, since only mass nouns admit the -o series of Ds or are picked up by -o pronouns. The issue is the agreement patterns that -o enters into, namely with -u inflected Ns, as in the simple example in (13a). In connection with Mascioni, it is useful to cast a glance back to Italian (7) or Albanian (9), where we assumed that gender properties and number properties could both be hosted in Class. The [aggr] characterization that we have proposed here for the Central Italian neuter has the advantage that since [aggr] is a count/mass class predicate, i.e. in traditional terminology a number property, it is not necessarily in complementary distribution with traditional gender properties. Therefore, we propose the structure in (19) for Mascioni’s (13a). The idea is that Mascioni’s nouns may be associated with two different class features, namely [aggr] and [masc] (see Ledgeway (2009) for a compatible approach to Neapolitan). The -o inflection is available only for a few D bases (l-, kweʃt-, kwill-) – with those bases, [aggr] agreement takes place. On the other hand, for the majority of bases [aggr] agreement is not possible; these fall back on [masc] agreement. (19)

DP

cf. (13a)

D D D l-

Infl Infl -o

Class [masc][aggr]

Class √ vin-

Infl -u

Class [masc] [aggr]

The structure in (19) raises the obvious question why -o wouldn’t also realize the class [fem][aggr]. At worst, the desired outcome can be stipulated, by adding the [masc] property to the entry for -o in Mascioni and similar languages. However, this may not be necessary. Manzini and Savoia (to appear a) argue that in the general economy of Central Italian inflectional systems, -a must able to realize [fem], [aggr] for independent reasons, namely the existence of -a plurals, which are also [aggr]. Therefore -o is restricted to the complementary [masc], [aggr] class.

3 The Arbëresh neuter 

 61

3 The Arbëresh neuter After the detour into Romance varieties taken in sections 1–2, we go back to Albanian varieties. Section 1 defined the notion of nominal class as it is used throughout this chapeter. Section 2 provided modivation for the nominal class [aggr], corresponding to the so-called neuter of some Romance varieties. In this section we argue that the class [aggr] can be used to characterize the syncretism of the so-called Arbëresh neuter with the plural. Arbëresh varieties spoken in Southern Italy preserve a neuter nominal class associated with mass nouns. In the neuter, the direct case definite singular inflection is -t, the demonstrative is ata/kta ‘that/this’, and the pre-adjectival Linker (Lkr) is tə, as shown in (20)–(22). All these forms coincide with those of the definite plural, as shown by the plural comparison data in (20a’–b’), (21a’–b’). The comparison with the masculine and feminine singular is provided in (22b’–b”). Descriptive glosses are used throughout; we avoid glossing direct case which does not correspond to overt morphological material. Vocalic morphemes are glossed by the conventional nominal class designations, masculine singular etc; however, for the neuter we gloss simply NC (Nominal Class).6 (20) a. at-a diaθ that-pl cheese ‘that cheese’ a’. at-a burr-a/gra: that-pl man-pl/woman.pl ‘those men/women’ b. diaθ-t/ mil-i-t əʃt cheese-pl.def/flour-nc-pl.def is ‘The cheese/flour is white’ b’. burr-a-t/ gra:-t men-pl-def/ woman-pl.def ‘the men/women’

tə lkr

barð white

Firmo

(21) a. miʃ-t meat-pl.def ‘the meat’

6 The -i- morpheme seen between the root and the -t inflection in the nouns (20b), (21c) is phonologically conditioned, since it is inserted in the presence of a root final coronal liquid. See also fn 8.

62 

 3 N morphology and its interpretation: The neuter in Italian and Albanian varieties

a’. burr-a-t/ gra:-t man-pl-def/ woman-pl.def ‘the men/women’ b. kt-a miʃ ɔʃt tə rɛʃkt this-pl meat is lkr rotten ‘This meat is rotten’ b’. kt-a burr-a/ gra: this-pl man-pl/ woman.pl ‘these men/women’ c. bar-i-t tə ʎart grass-nc-pl.def lkr tall ‘the tall grass’

Civita

(22) a. diaθ-t/ kət-a diaθ/ at-a diaθ ŋgə mə pəɾcɛn cheese-pl.def/this-pl cheese/that-pl cheese not to.me pleases ‘I don’t like the cheese/that cheese/this cheese’ b. at-a diaθ əʃt tə mir that-pl cheese  is lkr good ‘That cheese is good’ b’ aj-ɔ/kj-ɔ grua əʃt ɛ ʎart that-fsg/this-fsg woman is lkr tall ‘This/that woman is tall’ b” a-i/ k-i burr əʃt i ʎart that-msg/ this-msg man is lkr tall ‘This/that man is tall’ c. bieita diaθ-t/ kət-a diaθ frisku/ diaθ-t      tə I.bought cheese- pl.def/ that-pl cheese fresh/ cheese- pl.def lkr barð white ‘I bought the cheese/that fresh cheese/the white cheese’ S.Benedetto Ullano To repeat, in the direct case, the -t definite ending, that is independently known to externalize the plural of count Ns (chapter 2), also externalizes the so-called neuter with mass nouns. Furthermore, the ata/kta demonstratives and the Lkr in front of adjectives, also coincide with plural forms. The link between mass nouns and plural inflection surfaces in the morphology of a number of typologically diverse languages. In Shona (Bantu, Déchaine et al. 2014), a class of mass nouns is characterized by the mì N Class which in count nouns externalizes the plural. In Dagaare (Niger-Congo, Grimm 2012), the same -ri morpheme is the exponent of

3 The Arbëresh neuter 

 63

plural for individuated referents and of the singular for less or not individuated ones, including mass nouns. In Persian (Ghaniabadi 2012), the plural inflection -hâ can also combine with mass nouns, introducing a definite reading. Going back to the data in (20)–(22), recall that in chapter 2 we provided an account for the -t inflection, under which it carries both a Definiteness property and the property ⊆ – as schematized in the lexical entry in (23). (23) -t: ⊆, definite

Despite the traditional paradigmatic organization of Noun inflection in Albanian according to definiteness, number/gender and case, in chapter 2 we argued that the so-called direct cases are in fact characterized by a pure phi-features inflection, in the plural and in the indefinite. This is compatible with the standard minimalist account of direct cases (Chomsky 2001) which takes them to correspond to the checking of φ-features against the v and I projections of the verb. In other words, case reduces to Agree also in the sense that the externalization of direct case is carried by φ-features (so-called number and gender). Thus consider the direct case plural definite noun in (24a). Following chapter 2, its structure is as in (9) above, where -t contributes plurality to Nouns in virtue of its ⊆ content, along the lines of (24b) – namely by isolating a subset of the set (or set of sets) of all things that are ‘man’. (24) a. burr-a-t man-pl-def ‘the men’ b. the x [x ⊆ {man}] i.e. ‘the x such that x is a subset of the set of things with the property ‘man’ In chapter 2 we also provided an account of the occurrences of -t as oblique (singular masculine) which makes use again of the lexical entry in (23). To summarize the oblique occurs both in genitive contexts, i.e. as adnominal modifier, for instance in (25a), and in dative contexts, for instance the second object of a ditransitive in (25b). The idea is that the ⊆ relation, when applied to syntactic level constituents yields the meaning of genitives and datives. To see the point, it is useful to refer to the traditional characterization of the genitive relation as a possession relation (inherent, material, of a mental state or other). Following Kayne’s (1984) seminal work, the second object of ditransitives can in turn be characterized as entertaining a possessor relation to the first object (the theme) and similarly for the other characteristic dative environments (e.g. experiencers as possessors of mental states).

64 

 3 N morphology and its interpretation: The neuter in Italian and Albanian varieties

(25) a. libr-i i burr-i-t book-msg.def lkr man-msg-obl.def ‘the book of the man’ b. j-a ðɑ:ʃ burr-i-t to.him-it I.gave man-msg-obl.def ‘I gave it to the man’ In chapter 2 we take the relevant characterization of possession to be an ‘inclusion’ one, hence ⊆. Under this proposal, the interpretation for the genitive (25a) is as in (26a); roughly, the possessum the book is included by/part of the possessor the man. The interpretation for the dative in (25b) is as in (26b); in other words, I caused a possession relation to hold whereby the possessum it is again included by/part of the possessor the man.7 (26) a. [book [the man [⊆]]] i.e. ‘the book’ ‘included by/ possessed by’ ‘the man’ b. I gave [it [the man [⊆)]]] i.e. ‘it’ ‘included by/ possessed by’ ‘the man’ In short, the ⊆ inflection is responsible for oblique case (genitive-dative) when construed as a dyadic operator yielding a possession relation between the element to which it attaches and the internal argument of a verb (dative) or the head of a noun phrase (genitive). The different interpretations in (26) correspond simply to two different domains of application of ⊆, i.e. to two different contexts of attachment. So, the so-called dative reading depends on the VP-attachment of the ⊆ argument. In the genitive reading, the ⊆ argument is a complement of the head noun of the phrase. More importantly, the distinction between the plural reading in (24) and the oblique reading in (26) need not depend on different lexical entries but can be imputed to the different elements that the ⊆ relation holds of, namely referring DPs in (26) but a root and a variable argument in (24). Now, as we mentioned in introducing this chapter, the literature concerning the count/mass distinction stresses the syntactico-semantic behaviours that separate mass singulars like water from count singulars like horse

7 As briefly illustrated in chapter 2, oblique case is also selected by prepositions. Again we may assume that an abstract ⊆ relation is involved, typically between a location and individual (see also the discussion of so-called ablative case in chapter 2).

3 The Arbëresh neuter 

 65

(Chierchia 2010, Lasersohn 2011, Borer 2005). So, for example in English, different quantifiers take mass vs count nouns in their scope, cf. much water vs many horses, etc. The boundary line between the two noun types is generally taken to be defined by the (in)ability to pluralize. This can in turn be imputed to the fact that mass nouns denote some sort of inherent plurality of pieces of a substance (Chierchia 2010). In this sense, we can expect that a language could encode this property by assigning the same inflection to plural and mass nouns. In this perspective, the morphology of Arbëresh embeds a very revealing treatment of the count-mass distinction. More precisely, it corresponds to a system in which the same inflection externalizes the plural of count nouns and the singular of mass nouns, as schematized in (27a), contrary to the Germanic, Romance systems of the type in (27b), where mass nouns fall in the same inflectional class as the singular of count nouns. (27) a. plural count & singular mass nouns vs singular count nouns b. plural count nouns vs singular mass/count nouns As an instance of this, the same -t morphology characterizes the direct cases of the plural as in (24), and of so-called neuters – which as we have seen have mass denotation. A count plural is a set of atomic individuals, as in (24b). Following Chierchia (2010) a mass singular, e.g. cheese, is in fact a plurality of sorts, a whole made up of parts each of which is itself cheese. The surfacing of the same -t morphology on mass singulars as on plurals suggests that the same ⊆ content is relevant as for plurals. In this instance, however, it is used as the mereological part/ whole operator asserting the existence of non-atomic parts in the whole denoted by the root. Informally, a singular mass noun is like a plural count noun in that both include a multiplicity of some sorts – namely a multiplicity of individuals, or a multiplicity of parts. Recall that in our discussion of the Central Italian neuter, we proposed that the so-called mass neuter -o in the Monte Giberto variety realizes the property [aggr]. At the same time, we impute the ⊆ property to the -t inflection in (24). The two conclusions can be rendered compatible if we assume that ⊆ covers both the [aggr] property denoting an aggregate of parts and the subset property ⊆ in the narrow sense. As a consequence, Arbëresh definite neuters can be associated with structures like (28a) for example (20b). In more complex examples like (20a), the demonstrative takes the same form as in the plural, because again we assume that the noun and its determiners agree with respect to the property [aggr]. The same holds for the Lkr in (20b).

66 

 3 N morphology and its interpretation: The neuter in Italian and Albanian varieties

(28)

⊆

Class √ diaθ

Class [aggr]

cf. (20b) ⊆ t

Importantly, despite the presence of pervasive plural morphology on the noun and its determiners and modifiers, agreement with the verb, for instance the copula in (20b), is in the singular. This is reminiscent of the fact that in the languages we are studying agreement with respect to [masc] and [fem] is restricted to nominal heads, determiners and modifiers; finite verb agreement has no sensitivity to these classes. We must therefore assume that [aggr] nouns do not trigger agreement on the verb. 3.1 Refinements of the data and the analysis The empirical picture concerning Arbëresh mass neuters, or in present terms [aggr] nouns, is complicated by their interaction with oblique case and their interaction with gender classes. In the oblique (genitive/dative), the inflection of neuters like diaθ ‘cheese’ coincides with that of the masculine singular, seen in the comparison data in (29a’), (31a’), rather than with that of the plural. Determiners and adjectives associating with the noun also have masculine singular morphology in the variety of S. Benedetto in (31) – but not for instance in the variety of Firmo, where demonstratives occur both in the feminine and masculine singular form in the relevant contexts, as in (29b–c). (29) a. sapur-i i diaθ-i-t taste-msg.nom.def lkr cheese-nc-obl.def ‘the taste of the cheese’ a’. burr-i-t man-msg-obl.def ‘to/of the man’ b. vər ɛ piɾpaɾa asaj/atij diaθ-i put it before that.fsg.obl/that.msg.obl cheese-obl ‘Put it in front of that cheese!’

3 The Arbëresh neuter 

c. sapuɾ-i i ksaj/ktij miaʎ-i taste-msg.nom.def lkr this.fsg.obl/this.msg.obl honey-obl ‘the taste of this honey’ (30) piɾpara miʃ-i-t before meat-nc-obl.def ‘in front of the meat’

 67

Firmo

Civita

(31) a. ɛ vura pəɾpaɾa kətij/ atij diaθ-i/ miʃ-i/ it I.put before this.msg.obl/that.msg.obl cheese-obl/meat-obl/ miaʎ-i honey-obl ‘I put it in front of this/that cheese/meat/honey’ a’. ɛ vura purpaɾa atij cɛlc-i it I.put before that.msg.obl glass-msg.obl ‘I put it in front of that glass’ b. kɔrc-a e diaθ(-t)-i-t mə pəɾcɛn rind-fsg.def lkr cheese-nc-obl.def me pleases ‘I like the rind of the cheese’ S. Benedetto Ullano The masculine morphology in (29)–(31) leads us to consider whether we should associate mass neuters in Arbëresh with the [masc] class in addition to the [aggr] class after all. An additional set of facts is relevant in this respect. Arbëresh varieties have a small number of mass nouns whose case declension is identical to that of feminines like vajz ‘girl’ in chapter 2, while the demonstratives they combine with in the direct case coincide with plural forms, as in (32c–d). Furthermore, the Lkr alternates between the expected feminine form ɛ and the tə expected in the plural and neuter, as in (32b–b’). (32) a. vɛr-a ɛ barð mə pəɾcɛn wine-nom.def lkr white me pleases ‘I like the white wine’ b. vɛr-a    əʃt tə/ɛ mir wine-nom.def is lkr good ‘The wine is good’ b’. krip-a əʃt tə/ɛ barð salt-nom.def is lkr white ‘The salt is white’

68 

 3 N morphology and its interpretation: The neuter in Italian and Albanian varieties

c. at-a/kət-a vɛr ŋgə mə pəɾcɛn that-pl/this-pl wine not me pleases ‘I don’t like this/that wine’ d. a-m vɛr-ə-n/ krip-ə-n/ at-a vɛr/ at-a krip give me wine-nc-acc.def/ salt-nc-acc.def/ that-pl wine/ that-pl salt ‘Give me the wine/the salt/that wine/that salt’ d’. mir kəta vɛr take this.pl wine ‘Take this wine’ S. Benedetto Ullano In the oblique, mass nouns of the ‘wine’ class have the definite declension expected of the feminine singular. This is not true however of determiners. Thus in (33a) the demonstrative patterns with the masculine singular. In fact the noun itself optionally shows the same (masculine singular) form as mass nouns like ‘cheese’. (33) a. ɛ vura purpaɾa vɛr-ə-s/ ktij vɛr-i it I.put before wine-nc-obl.def/ this.msg.obl wine-obl ‘I put it in front of the wine/this wine’ a’. ɛ vura purpaɾa kəsaj triɛs it I.put before this.fsg.obl table ‘I put it in front of this table’ b. sapur-i i vɛr-ə-s taste-msg.nom.def lkr wine-nc-obl.def ‘the taste of (the) wine’ S. Benedetto Ullano We begin by considering the data in (32), which complete the picture of direct case patterns. In one important respect, these data confirm the analysis in section 3, namely that Arbëresh has an [aggr] class triggering agreement. This conclusion is supported by the fact that determiners take the same form in the examples in (32) and in (20)–(22), namely the form coinciding with the plural. This is shown in (34), where vɛr ‘wine’ and diaθ ‘cheese’ are seen to pattern alike. At the same time, with the nouns in (32) the [aggr] class, as seen on agreeing determiners, does not translate into -t inflections syncretic with the plural, unlike in (20)–(22). Rather vɛr ‘wine’ and the like fall back the ordinary vajz ‘girl’ declension. Perhaps this is connected to the fact that vɛr ‘wine’ cannot combine with consonant endings such as plural -t without an Infl vowel and -ɛ is independently excluded from combining with plural -t.

3 The Arbëresh neuter 

DP

(34)

cf. (22b), (32c)

D D √ at

 69

Class Infl a

√ vɛr/diaθ

Class [aggr]

Class [aggr]

Lkrs in (32a–b’) oscillate between the tə form expected under [aggr] agreement and the ɛ form expected under [fem] agreement. Evidently if Lkrs do not agree with respect to the [aggr] property, some form of singular gender agreement surfaces, and the natural candidate is feminine because of the -ɛ inflectional class of the noun. One may consider associating the class [fem] with vɛr ‘wine’ and similar nouns, but some data relating to the oblique advise against this, as we will see below. Let us then consider the oblique data in (29)–(31) and in (33). One obvious fact about them is that [aggr] bases cannot be associated with the oblique plural morphology -vɛ. In other words, the oblique plural morphology -vɛ externalizes only subset ⊆, i.e. only count plurals. It is possible that this is connected to the inherent complexity of the oblique plural, combining both words level and phrasal level ⊆ properties. In any event, singular inflections are forced to surface. Recall that vɛr ‘wine’, which is never able to combine with [aggr] inflections anyway, is selected by the inflectional vowel -ɛ. We therefore expect it to display the -s ending in the oblique like other -ɛ nouns, as in structure (35). (35) Infl Class √ vɛr

[⊆]

Infl ə Class [aggr]

cf. (33b) [⊆] s

70 

 3 N morphology and its interpretation: The neuter in Italian and Albanian varieties

On the other hand, diaθ ‘cheese’ combines with the -i inflectional vowel. We will take this to mean as before that the root is selected by -i. Since -i combines with t in the oblique singular, the oblique form in (36) is obtained. As already stated, this only sets in when [aggr] inflections are unavailable in the oblique.8 We may also consider the possibility of associating diaθ ‘cheese’ and the like with a [masc] class feature, but some of the agreement data to be reviewed immediately below advise against this. (36) Infl Class √ diaθ

[⊆]

Infl i

cf. (31b) [⊆] t

Class [aggr]

Unsurprisingly, determiners agreeing with (35)–(36) take the form of singular gendered obliques. At the same time, the data provide some evidence that the [fem] and [masc] classes are no more relevant to agreement in the oblique than they are in the direct cases. For instance, examples (29b-c) show that in the variety of Firmo both feminine and masculine forms of the demonstrative are possible with diaθ ‘cheese’, miaʎ ‘honey’. This is expected, if diaθ and miaʎ only have an [aggr] class property, which underdetermines the choice between [fem] and [masc]. In the variety of S. Benedetto Ullano, diaθ ‘cheese’ and the like are systematically associated with a form of the demonstrative coinciding with the masculine singular – however exactly the same form emerges with vɛr ‘wine’ in (33a). In fact, the -i ending of vɛr itself would put it in the -i class.

8 In fn 6 we noted that some of the nouns of the class of diaθ, for instance mil ‘honey’ display the inflectional vowel also in the direct case, yielding forms such as mil-i-t ‘the honey’ in (20c). This vowel is phonologically conditioned by the coronal in root final position. Evidently, it takes the form -i because -i is the inflectional vowel selecting these bases.

3 The Arbëresh neuter 

 71

Alternatively, in (33a) vɛr has the inflectional ending expected for the -ɛ class and the demonstrative is in the feminine singular form. Again, this suggests that selection of vɛr ‘wine’ by -i or -ɛ inflectional vowel is subject to some oscillation, because vɛr is in fact associated only with [aggr] and underdetermines gender properties. Summing up, the data introduced in this section do not change the conclusion that we reached in section 3, namely that so-called neuters with mass interpretation configure an [aggr] Class, determining agreement. In other words, despite considerable morphological differences, the Arbëresh neuter parallels the Central Italian neuter of section 2. In Arbëresh, the number-like nature of the Class [aggr] is reflected in the fact that it is plural morphology that externalizes it. The detailed discussion of this section was mostly devoted to environments where [aggr] inflections or agreement fails to show up. In these instances, a certain degree of optionality and variation emerges, which we interpret as a result of the fact that so-called neuters are not associated with [fem] or [masc] class specifications – or not necessarily.

3.2 Count plurals of mass neuter nouns Before concluding, a final set of facts must be examined. As the literature on the count/mass distinction emphasizes (Lasersohn 2011 for a review), count nouns can be plied to a mass syntax and interpretation (the so-called universal grinder effect) – and mass nouns can be plied to a count syntax, typically yielding interpretations such ‘piece of’, ‘type of’ (Cowper & Currie Hall 2012 a. o.). This is also true of the mass nouns we are investigating here. For instance, besides the [aggr] declension examined so far, diaθ can also appear in the ordinary [masc] declension, in which case however it has an obligatorily count interpretation, as in (37a). Similarly, a noun like vɛr can have a plural, as in (37b) – in which case the interpretation is very much the same as for English ‘wines’, i.e. ‘types of wine’. (37) a. diaθ-i cheese-msg.def ‘the block/wheel/type etc. of cheese’ b. at-a vɛr-a ŋgə mə pərcɛjin that-pl wine-pl not me please ‘I don’t like those wines’

S. Benedetto Ullano

72 

 3 N morphology and its interpretation: The neuter in Italian and Albanian varieties

On the other hand, since a noun like diaθ displays the -t ending with ⊆ content in the mass reading, cf. (28), one may wonder what the count plural of this lexical base looks like. The answer is that neuter nouns typically display a plural inflection -ər-a, as in in (38), coercing the count interpretation (‘types of’, ‘pieces of’ etc.). In the examples in (38)–(40), final -a,-at, -avɛ are the regular plural ending, -əɾ- appears to be a count suffix. (38) diaθ-ər-a-t cheese-count-pl-def ‘the cheeses’

Firmo

(39) miʃ-əɾ-a-t meat-count-pl-def ‘the meats’

Civita

(40) a. diaθ-əɾ-a-t jan tə ʃkalmuar-a cheese-count-pl-def are lkr spoiled-pl ‘The cheeses are spoiled’ b. ɛ vura purpaɾa diaθ-əɾ-a-vɛ it I.put before cheese-count-pl-obl.def ‘I put it in front of the cheeses’

S. Benedetto Ullano

Note that -əɾ- is not specialized for mass singulars, in other words, it is not a singulative. Rather it occurs with count singulars such as those in (41).9 (41) a. aʃt-i/ ɛʃt-əɾ-a-t ‘the bone/the bones’ b. ɟiʃt-i/ ɟiʃt-əɾ-a-t ‘the finger/the fingers’ c. biʃt-i/ biʃt-əɾ-a-t ‘the tail/ the tails’

S. Benedetto Ullano

In (42) we have tentatively represented -əɾ- by associating it with the Class category, where it externalizes ⊆ class content. The inflectional structure otherwises follows the lines already discussed in chapter 2, see also structure (9) in section 1 above.

9 The fact that it generally combines with nouns of body parts or “weakly differentiated” plurals, in the sense of Acquaviva (2008), seems to correspond to a collective-like plural interpretation.

4 Conclusions 

(42) Infl Class √ diaθ

⊆

Infl a

 73

cf. (38) ⊆ t

Class əɾ

4 Conclusions As already discussed in chapter 2, inflectional systems face the linguist with the classical problem how best to represent syncretisms. For instance, Albanian varieties present several contexts of occurrence and interpretations for the -t morpheme, covering a wide variety of slots, both oblique and nonoblique, both singular and plural. A classical solution is to treat all of the different occurrences of -t as homophonous: there is a -t oblique singular, a -t accusative plural, etc. One could easily describe the Romance data in this chapter by postulating a neuter gender with its own declensional properties; one could do exactly the same for Albanian, where possibly the neuter declension would have to be split into two subclasses (for diaθ and vɛr). A different, deeper approach characterizes DM (Halle and Marantz 1993), where syncretisms are targeted for principled explanation. However, DM analyses often require us to accept that exponents have an opaque relation to the syntax they embody, especially in the sense that they may be radically underspecified (see Trommer 2002 for an account of Albanian -t as the Elsewhere of the system). On the contrary, we are interested in maintaining the idea that the lexicon is the basis for the projection of syntactic structures. Therefore we aim to show that nominal endings are endowed with an intrinsic interpretive content, capable of projecting all and only the information that the syntax requires. For instance, a lexical base, expressing predicative content (‘cheese’) combines with inflectional elements that are traditionally labelled neuter. In present terms, the latter introduce descriptive content, restricting the lexical base (or rather its argument) prior to saturation by the Determiner or other operator. The characterization that we have proposed for this content is as “an aggregate

74 

 3 N morphology and its interpretation: The neuter in Italian and Albanian varieties

of components/atoms of imagineable continuums (substances/ events)”, or [aggr] for short. Thus syncretism of mass and plural inflections in Albanian is the reflex of a more primitive contrast between non-atomic, aggregate content (mass, plural) and atomic (count singular) denotation. An interesting aspect of the data we have examined in this chapter and in chapter 2 is that the traditionally separate notions of nominal class, number and case may merge in a single syntactic node. For instance the Albanian -t inflection encompasses traditional plural, oblique case and indeed [aggr]/ neuter categories.  Once again, one may interpret these data as indicating the application of morphological readjustments, for instance Fusion in the sense of DM. We take this evidence to show that the descriptive categories of number, gender and case need to be replaced by a better defined set of categories. Specifically, in this chapter we have argued that the so-called neuter in Central Italian and Arbëresh varieties involves coding of the mass/count distinction by class morphology, which is therefore actively involved at the C-I interface.

4 Person splits in the case systems of Geg Albanian and Arbëresh: DOM and the PCC This chapter presents a partial change of contents with respect to chapters 2 and 3, since it addresses syntactic evidence, including Differential Object Marking (DOM) and the Person Case Constraint (PCC). Nevertheless, it will become clear that the categories introduced in chapters 2-3, notably the category ⊆ for oblique, are crucial to the discussion in this chapter. We return to oblique case and DOM (as well as ergativity splits) in Part II of the book, where we deal with them in a more compact form (and occasionally a more explicit one, from a purely syntax-internal point of view). However, the perspective that we adopt in this chapter is in keeping with the themes developed in chapters 2-3 – i.e. focusing on the morphology/syntax continuum. Thus, the morphological analysis of inflections is found side to side with the discussion of the phrasal syntax the inflections enter into. The person split 1/2P vs 3P provides the unifying theme of the chapter, which notably contains an account of DOM as applied to the Person split (sections 4) and an account of the PCC (section 6). The core proposals of the chapter are found in sections 4-6. We argue that DOM takes the form of realization as an oblique (in Albanian of 1/2P pronouns) because it actually involves ⊆ (section 4). In section 6 we argue that attempts at reducing the PCC to a pure Person constraint (e.g. Anagnostopoulou 2005) end up surreptitiously reintroducing case (dative) via a dubious Person ontology (3P datives have a Person feature, 3P accusatives do not). Therefore, we reinstate case in the PCC, viewed as a constraint on the alignment of ⊆ with highly ranked referents. Both the PCC and DOM are connected with the important family of behaviours generally labelled as Inverse agreement, aimed at insuring that the Person hierarchy is aligned with agreement, case, thematic hierarchies (see É.Kiss 2013, 2017 for recent arguments to this effect). In this chapter, to ease an already complex presentation, we will ignore this issue, but we will briefly return to it in Appendix A. For the sake of readability, we also delay any discussion of clitic doubling till Appendix B, including the proposal by Kallulli (2008b, 2016) that Albanian DOM is to be identified with clitic doubling.

1 The mapping from the lexicon to syntax: Universals and variation Under what we may think of as the current generative synthesis, a particularly popular conception of the relation of syntax and semantics is what Culicover and https://doi.org/10.1515/9781501505140-004

76 

 4 Person splits in the case systems of Geg Albanian and Arbëresh

Jackendoff (2005: 6) characterize as Interface Uniformity. In other words, syntax includes interpretation and all semantically relevant information is translated into syntactic structure, in such a way that the same meaning always maps to the same syntactic structure. Several authors, from different perspectives, consider this solution inadequate to allow for the extent of linguistic variation and seek to endow the notion of UG with a more defensible characterization of universals. Evans and Levinson (2009) get to the point of asserting that linguistic diversity renders linguistic universals, and the notion of UG, a myth, devoid of explanatory power. This conclusion is ideological, in turn. Rather, we agree with Culicover and Jackendoff (2006: 416) on the idea that interpretation is “the product of an autonomous combinatorial capacity independent of and richer than syntax”, “largely coextensive with thought”, which syntax (and syntactic categorization) simply restricts in crucial ways. This view upholds the existence of linguistic universals and universal categories/properties, but it also distantiates us from current proponents of a sort of Universal Base Hypothesis. Let us briefly review some key conceptual points. According to Chomsky (2000b: 119), “the human language faculty and the (I-) languages that are manifestations of it qualify as natural objects”. This approach – that “regards the language faculty as an ‘organ of the body’” – has been labelled the “biolinguistic perspective” by Chomsky (2005: 1). Hauser et al (2002: 1570) base their discussion of the key biological question of evolution on the “biologically and individually grounded” use of the term language “to refer to an internal component of the mind/ brain (sometimes called ‘internal language’ or ‘I-language’)”. They distinguish two conceptions of the faculty of language, one broader (FLB) and one narrower (FLN): FLB includes FLN combined with at least two other organism-internal systems, which we call “sensory-motor” and “conceptual-intentional”… A key component of FLN is a computational system (narrow syntax) that generates internal representations and maps them into the sensory-motor interface by the phonological system and into the conceptual-intentional interface by the (formal) semantics system ... Most, if not all, of FLB is based on mechanisms shared with nonhuman animals … (Hauser et al 2002: 1571).

We may then wonder how the FLN and the FLB interact in domains such as language evolution, genetics, neurology, specifically as regards the issue of language variation, starting with the idea that: It may be that the computational system itself is (virtually) invariant, fixed by innate biological endowment, variation among languages and language types being limited to certain options in the lexicon; quite restricted options. (Chomsky 2000b:79)

We know that there exist languages that seem to cast a shadow over the more crucial tenets of FL/UG, like recursion/embedding (Evans and Levinson 2009, Pinker and

1 The mapping from the lexicon to syntax: Universals and variation 

 77

Jackendoff 2009, Everett 2005) or fundamental categorial distinctions like noun and verb (Jelinek 1995). This suggests that the traditional notion that UG is a container of a fixed list of categories, must be revised; we may think that UG contains a conceptual (and phonetic) categorial space which establishes the boundaries of linguistic variation. One of the key issues addressed in this monograph is how this linguistically relevant universal conceptual space yields different lexicons hence languages, beyond the obvious aspect of Saussurean arbitrariness. Suppose that the lexicon is the locus of linguistic variation – in the presence of an invariant repertory of interface primitives, both phonological and conceptual. Non-trivial questions arise: how can the lexicon vary on the basis of a universal inventory of properties? and how come that variation in the lexicon has as its consequence variation in order, agreement, selection, and other syntactically relevant relations? An answer pursued by various scholars is that there is a fundamental distinction between functional and non-functional elements. Thus within the Distributed Morphology framework, as already mentioned in chapter 2, Embick (2000:187) assumes a “distinction between the functional and lexical vocabularies of a language… functional categories merely instantiate sets of abstract syntactico-semantic features”, on which the derivational component operates. Variation is the result of the different ways of externalizing these abstract categorial primitives, which in themselves form a (potentially) universal repertory, via a morphological readjustment component and Late Insertion. We pursue a different picture, where all morphosyntactic structure is projected from lexical terminals. There is a conceptual and grammatical space to be lexicalized and variation results from the different partition of that space. There is no fixed functional lexicon which varies only along the axis of realization (overt vs. covert, autonomous vs. syncretic, etc.); so-called functional space is just like all other conceptual space. In other words, the distinction between functional, i.e. grammatical, contents and conceptual ones is an external one. In short, the lexicons of the different languages are formed on a conceptual universal basis, covering slightly different extensions of it and in slightly different ways. Linguistic variation depends on which pieces of the universal conceptual space the language-specific lexicon externalizes and how. The externalization process (Berwick and Chomsky 2011) creates the space of the variation. In all of this, categories themselves are not exempt from variation. For example, it is perfectly possible that a language, say Spanish or Albanian in chapter 3, may have a dedicated position for number within the inflectional projections of the noun – while Italian effectively has no such position hence no such autonomous category. What is invariant is the semantic content corresponding roughly to divisibility, but there is no universal compulsion to structurally project this content in a particular format. Case, as discussed chapter 2, is another example. There is no reason to believe that either K, or Oblique, or other

78 

 4 Person splits in the case systems of Geg Albanian and Arbëresh

case-related categories have a universal status, only because their existence is firmly verified in some languages. In English the category P subsumes all oblique specifications, while the direct cases reduce to Agree, along the lines of Chomsky (2000b, 2001). A fortiori, we see no reason why oblique should universally be represented by Appl functional projections of the verb (Pylkkänen 2008). The comparison between two Albanian varieties presented in this chapter is meant as a contribution to our understanding of the primitives underlying and feeding the morpho-syntactic component of UG. We examine the distribution of case morphology in the Geg variety spoken in Shkodër and the Arbëresh variety spoken in Greci (Campania); specifically we investigate the differences between the case paradigms which characterize 1/2P pronouns and 3P pronouns or nouns. The differences emerging in the pronominal system will then be related to phenomena like Differential Object Marking (DOM) and the Person Case Constraint (PCC).

2 The data As generally in Albanian (Camaj 1995, Beci 2004), in the Geg variety of Shkodër indefinite nouns distinguish direct case (nominative-accusative) from oblique, and, in the plural, also an ablative-locative. Definite nouns distinguish nominative and accusative at least in the singular (1)-(2). The same oblique inflection covers both dative and genitive (3)-(4); in genitive contexts, the oblique is introduced by a specialized article (4), i.e. a Linker (Lkr, see Part II of the monograph). These facts are summarized in (1)-(5) in more concise form than in chapter 2. Each example presents the indefinite form first and the definite form last; the (a) examples display the singular and the (b) examples the plural. For each of the cases in (1)-(5) there is at least a non-syncretic exponent, in particular -n for the definite accusative singular and -s for the definite oblique feminine singular. The ablative in (5) in turn is differentiated by the fact that -t appears in the feminine definite singular, distinguishing it in particular from the oblique, in a restricted set of locative nouns. The ablative is exemplified in prepositional contexts. (1) Nominative a. ɛɾði  ɲi vɑjz/ vɑjz-a/ ɲi burr/ burr-i came a girl/ girl-fs.def/ a man/ man-ms.def ‘A girl/the girl/a man/the man came’ b. ɛɾðən ʃum vɑjz-a/ vɑjz-a-t/ ʃum burr-a/ burr-a-t came many girl-pl/ girl-pl-def/ many man-pl/ man-pl-def ‘Many girls/the girls/many men/the men came’

2 The data 

 79

(2) Accusative a. pɑ:ʃ ɲi vɑjz/ vɑjz-ɛ-n/ ɲi burr/ burr-i-n I.saw a girl/ girl-fs-acc.def/ a man/ man-ms-acc.def ‘I saw a girl/the girl/a man/the man’ b. pɑ:ʃ ʃum vɑjz-a/ vɑjz-a-t/ ʃum burr-a/ burr-a-t I.saw many girl-pl/ girl-pl-def/ many man-pl/ man-pl-def ‘I saw many girls/the girls/many men/the men’ (3) Oblique a. j-a ðɑ:ʃ ɲi vɑjz-ɛ/ vɑjz-s/ ɲi burr-i/ her/him-it I.gave a girl-fs.obl/ girl-fs.obl.def/a man-ms.obl/ burr-i-t man-ms-obl.def ‘I gave it to a girl/the girl/a man/the man’ b. j-a ða:ʃ (ʃum) vɑjz-a-vɛ/ (ʃum) burr-a-vɛ them-it I.gave many girl-pl-obl/ many man-pl-obl ‘I gave it to many/the girls/men’ (4) Genitive context mɔtr-a ɛ kuʃrin-i-t sister-fs.def lkr cousin-ms-obl.def ‘the sister of the cousin’ (5) Ablative a. pɾei/mas/para ʃpi-ɛ-t from/behind/before house-f-abl.def ‘from/behind/before the house’ b. pun pɾej gɾɑ:-ʃ job for women-pl.abl ‘a women’s job’

Shkodër

3P pronouns present the same case system as lexical N(P)s, as summarized in (6), including the expression of the genitive/possessor via a Lkr structure, as in (7). (6)  3sg 3pl

Nom Acc Obl a-ꞌi/aꞌj-a aꞌt-ɛ aꞌt-ii/a-ꞌsɑi    aꞌt-a aꞌt-ynɛ

80 

 4 Person splits in the case systems of Geg Albanian and Arbëresh

(7) Genitive context mɔtr-a ɛ aꞌt-ii sister-fs.def lkr him-ms.obl ‘his sister’

Shkodër

With 1/2P pronouns matters are different. The same case (which we call oblique, for reasons to be seen later) shows up in accusative (9a) and dative (9b) contexts, including a subset of prepositional contexts (e.g. mɛ ‘with’ in (10b)). Furthermore, the oblique is different from the ablative, also associated with prepositional contexts, as in (10c). In the 2P plural the ju form lexicalizes all contexts but the ablative one. (8)

1sg. 2sg. 1pl. 2pl.

Nom un t-i n-a

ju

Obl m-u t-y n-e

Abl m-ej-ɛt t-ej-ɛt n-e-ʃ ju-ʃ

(9) a. ɛ/mə/na ʃɔfin at-ɛ/m-u/n-e him/me/us they.see him-acc/me-obl/us-obl ‘They see him/me/us’ b. j/m/n a japin at-ii/m-u/n-e to.him/to.me/to.us it they.give him-obl/me-obl/us-obl ‘They give it to him/me/us’ (10) a. P-Nom tɛ un/t-i/a-i at I.nom/you-nom/he-nom  b. P – 3P Acc, 1/2P Obl  mɛ m-u/t-y/at-ɛ  with me-obl/you-obl/him-acc  c. P – 3P Obl, 1/2P Abl  pɾei/poʃt/para  m-ejɛt/n-ɛʃ/at-ii  from/under/before me-abl/us-abl/him-obl

Shkodër

In the Arbëresh variety of Greci (Camaj 1971), nouns distinguish again oblique case from nominative-accusative in the indefinite form; definite nouns distinguish three case forms in the singular (nominative, oblique and accusative) and two forms in the plural (nominative-accusative vs. oblique). Oblique inflection

2 The data 

 81

includes genitive contexts as well. With nouns therefore the only notable difference with respect to mainland Albanian is the absence of the ablative. In (11)-(14), the data are ordered along the same lines as in (1)-(5). (11) Nominative a. ɛrθ ɲə vaz/ vaz-a/ ɲə burr/ burr-i s/he.came a girl/girl-fs.def/ a man/ man-ms.def ‘A girl/the girl/a man/the man came’ b. ɛrðən ʃum vars-a/ vars-a-t/ ʃum burr-a/ burr-a-t they.came many girl-pl/ girl-pl-def/ many man-pl/ man-pl-def ‘Many girls/the girls/many men/the men came’ (12) Accusative a. pɛ ɲə vaz/ vaz-a-n/ ɲə burr/ burr-i-n I.saw a girl/girl-fs-acc.def/ a man/ man-ms-acc.def ‘I saw a girl/the girl/a man/the man’ b. pɛ ʃum vars-a/ vars-a-t/ ʃum burr-a/ burr-a-t I.saw many girl-pl/ girl-pl-def/ many man-pl/ man-pl-def ‘I saw many girls/the girls/many men/the men’ (13) Oblique a. j-a ðɛ ɲə-ja vaz-ja/ vaz-ə-s/ ɲə-ja burr-i/ him/her-it I.gave a-obl girl-fs.obl/girl-fs-obl.def/a-obl man-ms.obl/ burr-i-t man-ms-obl.def ‘I gave it to a girl/ the girl/ a man/ the man’ b. j-a ðɛ ʃum vars-ui/ vars-ui-t/ ʃum burr-ui/ burr-ui-t them-it I.gave many girl-pl.obl/girls-pl.obl-def/many man-pl.obl/ man-pl.obl-def ‘I gave it to many girls/the girls/many men/the men’ (14) Genitive context libr-i (t) trim-i-t book-ms.def lkr boy-ms-obl.def ‘the book of the boy’

Greci

The same three-case system observed for definite nouns (nominative, accusative, oblique) characterizes 3P pronouns in (15)-(16). In (16), as expected the pronominal possessor is introduced by a Lkr.

82  (15)

 4 Person splits in the case systems of Geg Albanian and Arbëresh

Nom Acc Obl 3sg a-ꞌi/aꞌj-ɔ aꞌt-ə aꞌt-ia/a-ꞌsai-ta 3pl aꞌt-a aꞌt-ir-ua/aꞌt-ir-(v)ui

(16) Genitive context libr-i t at-ia/a-sai-ta/at-ir-ua book-ms.def lkr him-obl/her-obl/them-pl.obl ‘his/her/their book’

Greci

In the 1/2P singular a reduced system shows up, as in (17a). 1P singular only distinguishes a nominative and an oblique case, the latter encompassing accusative and oblique contexts; 2P singular has a single syncretic form. As in other Arbëresh varieties, the pronominal paradigm like the nominal paradigm lacks the ablative. 1/2P plural pronouns in (17b) separate an accusative from an oblique form, whose distribution is however different from that of the 3P. Thus Greci’s accusative ne/ju are restricted to some prepositional contexts, as in (19b). Oblique neui/juvui are inserted in all non-nominative verbal contexts, as in (18).1 (17) a.

Nom Obl 1sg u m-ua 2sg t-i b. Nom Acc Obl 1pl n-a n-e ne-ui 2pl ju ju-v-ui

(18) a. ʃɛhan at-ə/m-ua/ju-vui he.sees him-acc/me-obl/you-pl.obl ‘He sees him/me/you’ b. j/m/v a jɛpan at-ia/m-ua/ju-vui to.him/to.me/to.you it he.gives him-obl/me-obl/you-pl.obl ‘He gives it to him/me/you’ (19) a. P – Nom ka   ai/u/ju at    he.nom/I.nom/you

1 2P plural further presents a nominative/accusative syncretism, in other terms the ju form lexicalizes all direct case.

3 The notion of case 

b. P – Acc, 1Psg Obl ma at-ə/m-ua/n-e with him-acc/me-obl/us-acc c. P – Obl para at-ia/m-ua/ne-ui before him-obl/me-obl/us-pl.obl

 83

Greci

The nominal declensions of Shkodër are discussed in detail in chapter 2. The differences with the data of Greci are minor. The base for ‘girl’ alternates between the singular form vaz and the plural form vars-. This type of stem alternations is normal in Albanian varieties; see dial ‘boy’ vs diɛm ‘boys’ in Shkodër (chapter 2). More interestingly, the oblique plural -ui inflection in the Greci variety only introduces the indefinite interpretation, whereas the definite forms require suffixing to it the -t definite inflection. This is very easily accommodated in the system of chapter 2, since it amounts to treating the oblique plural as lacking definiteness, and that definiteness in the plural is contributed by -t (or by the lexical base). The -a morpheme in the feminine singular occurs not only in the nominative definite, but also between the base and the -n definite accusative inflection. The -(j)a inflection in turn occurs in the feminine singular indefinite oblique. Evidently the -a inflectional vowel is not restricted in its singular occurrences, occurring essentially in the contexts in which -ɛ does in the singular occurrences of Shkodër. Other occurrences of -(j)a include the indefinite article oblique, cf. ɲə-ja which in Shkodër does not display a case declension. We return to the morphological shape of both the Shkodër and the Greci pronominal system in section 4. Genitive contexts will be discussed in Part II of the book and therefore dropped in the rest of this chapter.

3 The notion of case In this section, we offer a discussion of the notion case and we introduce the idea that the case array observed in 1/2P depends on the fact that DOM applies to 1/2P pronouns. They therefore surface in the oblique rather than in the accusative, because this is the normal form of DOM in Indo-European languages (Romance, Indo-Iranian, cf. Torrego 1998, Manzini and Franco 2016). This section is a general presentation of our background and proposals. The relevant morphological entries have been detailed in chapter 2, while structural representations will be provided in section 4. The notion of case has a problematic status in the minimalist approach of Chomsky (1995). Syntactic structures are projected from lexical specifications and

84 

 4 Person splits in the case systems of Geg Albanian and Arbëresh

the latter correspond to intrinsic properties of lexical items. For instance, number and person features correspond to denotational properties of argumental expressions. Theta-roles, being relational, are not features at all, but are thought of as configurations. Therefore, it is potentially problematic to assimilate case, which is traditionally conceived of as a relational notion, to a feature. The fact that case is the only feature in Chomsky (1995) which is radically uninterpretable (i.e. which does not have an interpretable counterpart) is a reflex of the deeper difficulty of reconciling its relational core with its feature status. The solution of the problem to which Chomsky (2001, 2008) arrives is effectively to deny that case has a primitive feature status. In technical terms, case does not enter into any feature checking, rather it is a byproduct of φ-features Agree, or at least direct case is. Note that if case is reduced to other primitives, we may legitimately wonder why do we need to keep the case label at all. In other words, we may wonder what is the difference between a language which has just agreement (say, Italian or Spanish) and a language like Albanian which has the case reflex of agreement. Works such as Chomsky’s consider so-called abstract case (Vergnaud 2008 [1978]), i.e. a case property independent of morphological realization, and as such found by hypothesis in all languages. In turn, case inflections have been the target of morphological discussion, in particular in relation to syncretic morphology. If we maintain a syntactic level including universal abstract case features, syncretic forms end up concealing them somewhat, and hence the semantic properties that they express. In Distributed Morphology (DM, Halle and Marantz 1993), cases are abstract bundles of features to which Vocabulary Insertion associates lexical terminals, i.e. exponents, after morphological rules have applied (Late Insertion). One of the results of these morphological operations is the creation of syncretic surface forms. As already stated in previous chapters, we differ from DM in assuming a unified morphosyntactic component, where structure is projected from actual lexical items. In such a model there is no room for Late Insertion, hence for morphological rules applying to abstract terminals. Reasons of simplicity and restrictiveness of the theory suggest this move. Indeed the morphological rule component is partially redundant with the syntactic component, including for instance the same Merge rule, while it enriches it by introducing rules, like Impoverishment, whose effect is that of multiplying the possible clusters of syntactic features underlying any morphemic exponents. Here, therefore, we reject abstract terminals, in favour of projection from the lexicon. The analysis of Albanian phenomena in chapters 2-3 and in the present chapter aims to demonstrate that the sharp divide between the functional and substantive lexicons that generative literature often takes for granted does not have any real empirical motivation or advantage. Rather, syntactic computation is built on the properties of the actual lexical terminals – and it,

3 The notion of case 

 85

as already discussed in section 1, does not necessarily register every component of what we call the meaning of a sentence (Culicover and Jackendoff 2005). Returning to case, we assume with the minimalist program that features of lexical items must be bona fide properties, not concealed devices reconstructing relational primitives. In chapter 2, we argued that the traditional label of case attaches to morphological entries which in reality correspond to denotational primitives as different as nominal class, definiteness, elementary relators (possession/inclusion). If we assume that case consists entirely of these more primitive properties (nominal class, definiteness, predicative content), it is the latter that enter into the projection of the syntactic tree. Our approach can subsume other solutions to the commonly perceived case problem, such the reduction of direct cases to agreement in Chomsky (2001, 2008) – but ends up being more radical than them, in cutting away a lot of abstractness, including the feature case itself. The traditional notion of case can be reconstructed as a derived notion lying at the intersection between primitive contents of various nature (denotational, predicative) and different syntactic environments, which they contribute to projecting. So-called syncretisms are in fact instances of ambiguity, as we argue in chapter 2. In our examples in chapter 2 and in (1)-(19) above we find two types of syncretism: (i) some inflections correspond to two (or more) cases; (ii) some inflections correspond to both a case interpretation and a nominal class interpretation (the traditional gender and number). The underlying logic of DM is that if a Vocabulary Item inserts under different terminals, with properties incompatible among them, then the Vocabulary Item cannot be specified for any of these properties. In other words a given lexical element is able to occur in several environments (corresponding to a traditional syncretism) to the extent that it has no property incompatible with them. In the limit, the lexical item can be empty (i.e. a default). Our lexicon, as already discussed in chapter 2, differs from that of DM in important respects. Since structure is projected from actual lexical entries, the latter can hardly be devoid of properties; rather they must have the necessary and sufficient information to determine syntactic structure. Therefore in instances where a given lexical element can appear in different syntactic environments, as in all of the instances just listed, we must conclude that those environments have some fundamental property in common – that will form the positively specified core of the lexical element.

3.1 DOM and the person split Let us focus now on the split between the case systems of 1/2P pronouns and of nouns/3P pronouns. In particular, we have seen that 1/2P paradigms unify

86 

 4 Person splits in the case systems of Geg Albanian and Arbëresh

accusative and oblique, with the effect that direct objects are not distinguishable from datives. This split can be thought of as related to the existence in Albanian of different case systems for definite and indefinite DPs. Thus accusative is differentiated in the definite paradigm, but not in the indefinite one, where it is subsumed under the same direct case as nominative, as discussed in detail in chapter 2. In other words, the difference between the case systems of 1/2P pronouns and of nouns/3P pronouns and the difference between definite and indefinite declensions, can be conceptualized in terms of a hierarchy differentiating indefinite/inanimate reference, definite/animate reference, and reference to discourse participants. This can of course be connected with the “referential/person/animacy hierarchy” (Nichols 2001): 1P > 2P > 3P deictic > proper names > animates and definites > animates or definites > inanimates or indefinites. This ranking, as it interacts with objects, yields Differential Object Marking (DOM) (Aissen 2003 and references quoted there). In present terms, the gist of DOM is that certain types of referents, of which discourse participants are the fundamental subset, cannot be embedded as themes of V, i.e. as accusatives licenced by v agreement, but must be embedded with the possessor role, i.e. via the elementary relator ⊆ (dative/oblique). Thus in Albanian varieties 1/2P pronouns cannot be accusative (theme embedding), but rather require the oblique form which is associated with the possessor role, as schematized in (20); other languages may be associated with different specifications of DP (animate, etc.). (20) Differential Object Marking (DOM)    [VP V [*(⊆) DP]] if    a.  DP= 1/2P (Albanian)    … As for the theoretical status of the hierarchy, it is clear that 1/2P referents (speaker and hearer) are separate from other referents in that they are directly anchored at the universe of discourse, while 3P (and also possibly 1/2P plural, which involve reference to ‘others’ besides the ‘speaker’ and ‘hearer’) are not. Human referents are also a potential set of speakers and hearers – i.e. of potential discourse-anchored participants. In such terms, the prominence of animates does not involve their potential agentivity (pace Dixon 1994), but rather their referential saliency, or their potential control over discourse/the flow of information (cf. DeLancey 1981). Definiteness and indefiniteness establish a scale of referential saliency in turn. Less salient referents are able to satisfy sentential attachment by anchoring to the

3 The notion of case 

 87

structure of the event via simple complementation – more salient referents require a more complex structure of attachment provided in effect by the oblique. Henceforth we shall eschew traditional typological terminology referring to an animacy hierarchy and simply refer to the ranking from 1P to inanimates/indefinites as the referential hierarchy (see also Kiparsky 2008). The problem posed by the data in section 2 is not only why 1/2P referents split away from others, but also why their split presents the particular forms it does. One major question raised by the data is why 1/2P person referents (speaker, hearer) are associated with a different array of cases with respect to 3P referents. The other question is why 1/2P paradigms unify accusative and dative. As hinted by our glosses, we conclude that in the 1/2P, the first argument of a transitive is marked as an oblique – and as just suggested, this is an instance of DOM. In other words, DPs highest in the referential scale require a specialized manner of inserting them into argumental structures, making them into possessors rather than simple themes. A different proposal concerning DOM in Albanian is put forth by Kallulli (2008b, 2016), according to whom DOM is to be identified with clitic doubling. Discussing this here would take us too far afield; we refer the reader to Appendix B. Going back to our proposals, three types of split show up: 3P (nouns included) vs. 1/2P, as discussed in the text – but also 1/2P singular vs 1/2P plural (Greci); 1P vs 2P (Greci). Despite the strong split between 3P and 1/2P singular, in Greci 1/2P plural at least partially pattern with 3P. This can be derived from the fact that 1/2P plural, like 3P, involve individuals which are different from speaker and hearer (‘speaker and others’, ‘hearer and others’). On the other hand, the coincidence of 1/2P plural with the noun/3P system is only apparent, since the oblique forms appear as the internal arguments of transitives as well, thus contrasting with nouns/3P pronouns, which select the specialized accusative in this context. In fact, this provides important evidence that our analysis is correct, see section 4.1. In a nutshell, DOM morphosyntax is a reflection of the intrinsic denotational force of arguments. The reference of 3P lexical elements (or referentially less salient 3P elements, i.e. indefinites, inanimates) is not directly anchored at the universe of discourse. By contrast, the denotation of 1/2P (and by extension of referential salient arguments, i.e. humans, definites) is (more) directly anchored at the universe of discourse of which speaker and hearer are two coordinates. Crosslinguistic comparison with Romance varieties that have prepositional accusatives, like Spanish, Romanian and Southern Italian dialects, shows that DOM is externalized by means of a dative preposition a ‘to’. This preposition, like oblique case, introduces a possession or inclusion relation. Our proposal as to the nature of this relation is close to that advanced by Belvin & den Dikken

88 

 4 Person splits in the case systems of Geg Albanian and Arbëresh

(1997:170), according to whom “entities have various zones associated with them, such that an object or eventuality may be included in a zone associated with an entity without being physically contained in that entity… The type of zones which may be associated with an entity will vary with the entity”. Hence possession is zonal inclusion, formalized as ⊆ in chapter 2. In conclusion, therefore, 1/2P pronouns (or highly ranked referents) are either sources/agents of the event, i.e. nominative, or possessors including/locating the event, i.e. oblique.

4 What do case inflections externalize? Embedding case morphology in the syntax In this section, we review the main syntactic contexts of embedding of case morphology, providing explicit structures for each of them. We then focus on DOM which we treat as an oblique configuration. Indeed, though for the sake of completeness we offer a picture of direct cases as well, it should be kept in mind that our core proposal concerns obliques. Summarizing our main assumptions once again, syntactic and semantic content is directly imputed to morphological entries, see chapter 2. These entries specify a mapping between sound and meaning (Jackendoff 2002), avoiding the need for a morphological buffer of the DM type between syntax and the exponents that instantiate it. Nominal lexical items (pronouns, determiners and quantifiers of nouns, nouns themselves) are associated in the lexicon just with denotational properties, independent of their context of insertion, as in the minimalist program of Chomsky (1995). The so-called oblique case corresponds to a ⊆ inflectional content – effectively a dyadic predicate yielding a zonal inclusion (possession) relation between the element to which it attaches and the internal argument of the verb (dative) or the head of a noun phrase (genitive). The same ⊆ inflections are further responsible for plurality (Number), when taking just the nominal base in their scope. In this latter instance the ⊆ operator selects a subset out of the lattice (set of sets) denoted by the predicate. Nominal class inflections may be sufficient to satisfy direct case contexts (accusative, nominative), assuming with Chomsky (2001) that direct cases correspond to agreement with v and I. In a language with no case on nouns, like Italian or Spanish, a noun with a phi-features inflection can be analysed as a structure in which the lexical base, indicated as √ (root), expressing predicative content, combines with a class (gender and eventually number) content, along the lines of chapter 3. Languages like Albanian are slightly richer. More precisely, their so-called case inflections have a denotational content specialized for the satisfaction/projection of particular syntactic junctures (not only agreement but also possessor modification etc.).

4 What do case inflections externalize? Embedding case morphology in the syntax 

 89

Let us begin with Albanian -i and -a as the singular definite nominative endings in the masculine and feminine respectively, both in Geg varieties (1) and in Arbëresh (11). We assume that the finite inflection of a verb is akin to a verb-internal pronoun, to which we associate the categorial signature D. This assumption yields structures like (21) for the sentence ɛɾði vajza ‘the girl came’ exemplified in (1), where the noun phrase is embedded as the sole argument of the verb ɛɾði ‘(she) came’. The latter is analyzed as consisting of a predicative base ɛɾð- and of an -i verbal inflection that lexicalizes the argument (D) of the predicate.2 (21)

IP I √ ɛɾð

cf. (1a) ...

D ix

√ vɑjz

Class Class ax

In (21), the verbal inflection -i agrees with the nominal inflection -a. As discussed in more detail in chapter 1, for Chomsky (1995, 2000a) the agreement pair is defined by an operation of feature checking, deleting ϕ-features in the uninterpretable member of the pair (the verbal inflection). For Manzini and Savoia (2005 ff.) the same pair is defined as an equivalence class of interpretable φ-features, satisfying the argument slot of the verb. In either the feature checking or the equivalence class construal, Agree insures that multiple syntactic occurrences of the same ϕ-features cluster result in a single denoted referent. Since via the application of Agree, the nominal inflection -a concurs with the verb inflection to the satisfaction of Chomsky’s (1995) EPP, we conventionally call it a nominative. As we saw in chapter 2, class inflections are sufficient to satisfy this context. In the singular, -ɛ cannot occur with a definite interpretation, so that only -i (masculine singular) and -a (feminine singular) can surface as definites. In the plural, the -t ending adding to the nominal class morphology -a is a ⊆ specification with number interpretation. Thus it is indeed nominal class morphology that satisfies the so-called nominative contexts.

2 For ease of presentation, in (21) and following structures, we disregard the distinction between Class and Infl, i.e. nominal class and inflectional class made in chapter 3 – compacting the two nodes into a single node bearing gender (and number) properties and the appropriate inflectional class exponent.

90 

 4 Person splits in the case systems of Geg Albanian and Arbëresh

In turn, accusative is nothing but the traditional name given to the satisfaction of an internal argument slot by specialized nominal morphology, agreeing with v in Chomsky’s (2001) terms. The corresponding inflections may take the form of class morphology, namely when accusative and nominative coincide in a single direct form, as in the definite plural and in the indefinite. In chapter 2, on the other hand, we tentatively assumed that if argument slots are variables, then -n of the definite singular is an overt lexicalization of the λ-operator binding the lowest argument slot, and perhaps indeed licenced via Agree with v. This would correspond to syntactic representations of the type in (22). (22)

VP

cf. (2a)

V pɑ:ʃ(x,y)

λ Class √ burr

λy n Class i

The oblique case in nominal paradigms raises the question of the syncretism between the dative (the second argument of ditransitives) and the genitive (the possessor). The same syncretism between dative and genitive is attested also in 3P pronouns. In chapter 2 we sketched an explanation whereby the same content ⊆, namely inclusion/superset-of much in the sense of Belvin and den Dikken (1997:170), is associated with the different syntactic contexts. In particular, we can take that various types of possession, including inalienable possession and psychological state possession, fall under this relation. To repeat, the conceptual closeness of the notions of genitive, dative and in fact locative corresponds in present terms to ⊆ content. Therefore, the syncretism of dative and genitive, seen in the Albanian oblique, points to an inclusion ⊆ characterization for the relevant morphology, for instance -t in the masculine singular.3

3 Krapova and Cinque (2013) addressing DP-internal possessors in Bulgarian argue in favour of the more traditional conclusion that there are in fact two separate abstract cases, genitive and dative, underlying the Balkan morphological identity of genitives and datives; the latter is due to syncretism. We mention this as an example of the adoption of the traditional view (different underlying abstract cases and surface syncretism) within formal models – though addressing their argument is beyond the scope of the present chapter.

4 What do case inflections externalize? Embedding case morphology in the syntax 

 91

In this perspective, there is no oblique case, exactly as we suggested that there is no accusative case or nominative case, in keeping with Chomsky (2001). There is a ⊆ element, for instance -t, denoting an inclusion relation (roughly a possessive one) between the argument it attaches to and some other argument. As discussed in chapter 2, we further derive the coincidence of oblique singular and non-oblique plural readings on Albanian -t from its ⊆ nature.4 When -t is read as plural, it takes in its scope the noun. When it is read as possessor, its domain of application is the VP, relating the two internal arguments of a ditransitive verb and yielding the so-called dative – or it is DP-internal, yielding the so-called genitive. In the oblique plural, both definites and indefinites are associated with the oblique -vɛ inflection in the Shkodër variety. In the variety of Greci the -ui inflection lexicalizes the indefinite oblique plural interpretation, while definite interpretation is contributed by -t, yielding -ui-t for the oblique plural definite. Both -vɛ and -ui are then characterized by the inclusion denotation, projecting the ⊆ category. The same is true of the specialized oblique feminine singular -s. In the Greci variety -t is added to -ui either as an oblique definite or a plural definite – in any event because of its definiteness properties. 3P pronouns have the same syntactic distribution of cases as nouns. Providing a full-blown account of pronominal inflections, of the type provided in chapter 2 for nominal paradigms, would require a dedicated chapter. Nevertheless, it is easy to see the morphological correspondences between nouns and 3P pronouns, the latter built on the lexical base a(t)- of the demonstrative. As in nouns, we find the plural inflection -a (at-a ‘they’), the masculine singular nominative inflection -i (a-i ‘he’) and the feminine singular oblique morphology -s(Shkodër a-sɑi, Greci a-sai-ta ‘to/of her’). The form at-ir-u-a ‘to/of them’ of Greci combines the -u- oblique morpheme, occurring in nouns, with the -a plural inflection. Partial morphological differences include the realization of the 3P oblique singular. Indeed in 3P pronouns the syncretism between oblique (singular) and (direct case) plural is not present. In the variety of Shkodër, the masculine has the inflection -i-i (at-i-i ‘to/of him’), consisting in the doubling of the inflectional class formative -i. In the structure in (22), by analogy with structures like burr-i-t ‘to/of the man’, the inner occurrence of -i instantiates Class; we suggest that the more external -i instantiates ⊆. In the variety of Greci, a vocalic element -a is inserted, like in at-i-a ‘to/of him’ – ostensibly the same as the nominal class element -a of 4 The syncretism of the oblique (singular) with the (direct case) plural is independently attested in the Romance pronominal system, cf. -i as inflection of Italian gl-i ‘to him’ and l-i ‘them’ (Manzini and Savoia 2010b, 2014).

92 

 4 Person splits in the case systems of Geg Albanian and Arbëresh

the feminine (including the oblique, see the discussion at the end of section 2). Following the same logic as before, we must conclude that in at-i-a ‘to/of him’ it lexicalizes the ⊆ slot, as suggested in (23). Better consistency with the lexicon in chapter 2 can be achieved by assuming that the more external inflection doubles the Class node, where it is closed by ⊆. (23)

Class/⊆

Class √ at

cf. (6), (16)

Class/⊆ i/a Class i

One aspect of the syntax of case that we have set aside so far concerns the fact that the oblique also encompasses a locative (so-called ablative) reading. This has a -t lexicalization with feminine nouns of location, contrasting with the -s inflection of the general purpose oblique, at least in the variety of Shkodër (chapter 2). Otherwise, the locative is identical with the general purpose oblique. Now, in the genitive reading, the ⊆ specifications apply to a DP domain. In the dative interpretation, we take the inclusion reading of ⊆ to apply to two arguments in the VP domain. The locative interpretation is found under locative prepositions, hence corresponds to a ⊆ content specialized for the locative/PP context of insertion. We will return to prepositions in section 5 and to the locative/ablative in section 5.1. In conclusion, the notion of case reduces to more primitive denotational notions (nominal class, definiteness, elementary relators), associated with the relevant lexical entries in accordance with the general conception of the lexicon in a projectionist model (projection of the syntax from lexical items), as proposed in chapter 2. Different denotational properties satisfy different environments, yielding different interpretations. The lexical elements are not treated as an emergent property of underlying abstract distributions – on the contrary, whatever distributional regularities are observed are treated as an emergent property of the lexicon in its interaction with the computational system.

4.1 Pronouns and DOM Keeping the overall analysis in the previous section in mind, we will dwell somewhat longer on the contrast between accusative 3P objects and oblique

4 What do case inflections externalize? Embedding case morphology in the syntax 

 93

1/2P objects – which we take to be an instance of DOM. For ease of reference, we reproduce the examples illustrating the distribution of case inflection in nouns/3P pronouns and in 1/2P person pronouns below. (24a-b) displays accusative forms of nouns and of 3P pronouns as the internal arguments of transitive verbs for the variety of Shkodër. (24c-d) shows the occurrence of oblique inflections on the indirect object of ditransitive verbs. Finally, (25) shows the occurrence of the same oblique forms of 1/2P pronouns as direct objects of transitives. (24) a. pɑ:ʃ burr-i-n I.saw man-ms-acc.def ‘I saw the man’ b. ɛ ʃɔfin aꞌt-ɛ him they.see 3P-acc ‘They see him/her’ c. j-a ðɑ:ʃ aꞌt-i-i/ burr-i-t to.him-it I.gave 3P-ms-obl/ man-ms-obl.def ‘They give it to him/ to the man’ d. j/m/n a japin aꞌt-i-i/ m-u/ n-e him/me/us it they.give 3P-ms-obl/1P-obl/1P.pl-Obl ‘They give it to him/ me/ us’ (25) (mə) ʃikoin m-u/t-y me they.look-at 1P-obl/2P-obl ‘They look at me’

Shkodër

The data of Greci in (26) parallel those of Shkodër. In this variety, 1/2P pronouns do in fact have an accusative form that shows up as complement of prepositions selecting accusative (section 2). Nevertheless, it is the oblique form that appears in the internal argument position of transitive verbs in (26c). (26) a. ʃɛhan trim-i-n/ aꞌt-ə he.sees boy-ms-acc.def/3P-acc ‘He sees the boy/him/her’ b. j/m/v a jɛpan trim-i-t/ at-i-a/ m-ua/ ju-vui him/me/you it he.gives boy-ms-obl.def/ 3P-ms-obl/ 1P-obl/2P.pl-obl ‘He gives it to the boy/ him/me/you’ c. ʃɛhan m-ua/ju-vui he.sees 1P-obl/2P.pl-obl ‘He sees me/you’ Greci

94 

 4 Person splits in the case systems of Geg Albanian and Arbëresh

Consider first the contexts which embed the noun phrase as a traditional dative, as in (24c-d), (26b). In sections 3-4, we have proposed that the so-called dative interpretation accruing to trimit ‘to the boys’ in (26b) is an inclusion interpretation (roughly a possessor one) depending on the ⊆ inflection -t. More specifically, this interpretation arises when -t applies to the VP domain, i.e. to the elementary event resulting from the combination of the predicate with its internal argument(s), prior to the composition with the external argument. As a result ⊆ defines a relation between the argument it attaches to, trim-i ‘(the) boy’, and the internal argument of the predicate, i.e. the a ‘it’ pronominal clitic in the representation in (27), so that the former (‘boy’) includes the latter (‘it’), i.e. it possesses it. For ease of processing the direct object clitic is shown in its reconstructed position within the PredP complement of give (Kayne 1984, Pesetsky 1995 and subsequent literature). The structure in (27) further displays the internal morphological structure of the oblique complement, since it is part of the present proposal that syntactic and morphological structure are seamlessly interwoven; the internal structure of the 3P pronoun is as already detailed in (23). (27)

VP

cf. (26b)

V jɛpan

PredP D a Class √ trim at

⊆ Class i i

⊆ t a

As detailed in chapter 2, the -n inflection of the accusative definite singular simply externalizes a λ operator, binding the variable corresponding to the internal argument of the event, as in (21). The relevant structure is repeated in (28) for example (26a) above. (28) further shows that the 3P pronoun has an even simpler inflection, since it reduces to the nominal Class morphology -ə; definiteness is independently carried by the pronominal base at-.

4 What do case inflections externalize? Embedding case morphology in the syntax 

(28)

VP

 95

cf. (26a)

V ʃɛhan

λ Class

λ n Class i ə

√ trim at

1/2P person forms remain to be considered. Obviously enough, 1/2P oblique forms in dative contexts in (24c-d), (26b) project the same structures as datives of nouns and of 3P elements. Thus, in the structure in (29) the oblique ⊆ content of the -u(a) inflection applies to the VP domain, i.e. to the elementary event resulting from the combination of the predicate with its internal argument(s), prior to the composition with the external argument. As a consequence, it introduces an inclusion relation between the denotatum of the base to which it attaches (the speaker) and the pronominal possessee represented by the clitic a ‘it’. (29)

VP V japin/jɛpan

cf. (24d), (26b) PredP D a

√ m

⊆

⊆ u/ua

Let us now examine the contexts where the same 1/2P forms that appear in ditransitive structures externalize the internal argument of a transitive clause, as in (25). Our idea, outlined in section 3.1, is that discourse participants are embedded in the event only as agents/EPP arguments (nominatives) or as possessors, experiencers, etc., i.e. as obliques. In this latter instance, a discourse participant is represented as including another DP, hence as a possessee in a ditransitive structure, or else as including a VP (sub)event. Semantically our proposal is to be understood in terms of the formal literature (Hale and Keyser 1993, Chomsky 1995) that treats transitive predicates as consisting of a double structural layer, as if look in (30) really was take/have/give a look. In such paraphrases, even English inserts a dative argument, cf. They gave a look to me. We surmise that this is exactly what obligatorily happens in Albanian with a 1/2P internal argument, as schematized in (30a), where the two arguments of the oblique ⊆ relator are the

96 

 4 Person splits in the case systems of Geg Albanian and Arbëresh

1/2P pronoun and the elementary event VP (‘look’) embedded under the causation layer v, see (30b). (30)

a.

VP V ʃikoin

b.

[vp CAUSE

cf. (25) ⊆

√ ⊆ m u t y [vp look [⊆ me/you]]]

In a nutshell, the split between 1/2P and 3P can be related to different manners of embedding the participants of the event. The embedding of 1/2P arguments requires making reference to the splitting of the predicate into subevents, as in (30). The embedding of 3P arguments requires a treatment of the structure causative predicate + stative event as an incorporated whole. The essence of DOM under the present approach is that highly ranked referents attached under VP must be possessors of the VP subevent. We already discussed in section 3 what we take to be the essence of the referential prominence hierarchies that regulate DOM embedding. Needless to say, a certain amount of problems, both descriptive and theoretical, can be raised in this connection, beginning with the possibility of passivizing DOM obliques as opposed to goal obliques (in Albanian, in Spanish etc.). Manzini and Franco (2016) discuss the passive problem in some detail, arguing that it does not undermine the solution proposed here (see also Torrego 2010, Pineda 2016), We return to this point briefly in chapter 6, where we discuss (Eastern) Romance. In the next section we review cases embedded under prepositions. We pick up again the thread of referential prominence effects on case in section 6, on the PCC.

5 Prepositional contexts and the ablative The range of cases that have been investigated in sentential contexts in section 4 also characterizes PPs. Indeed, prepositional contexts, no less than verbal ones, are not restricted to a single case. The present section, devoted to PPs, will give us an opportunity to review the problems and conclusions of sections 3-4 by applying them to a different syntactic domain. Our discussion will be complete by a review of the ablative case, only found in PP contexts. In Albanian, prepositions assign all the cases that are independently found in sentential contexts, as detailed for the variety of Shkodër in examples

5 Prepositional contexts and the ablative 

 97

in (31)-(35), which expand the data already presented in section 2. Thus there are prepositions like tɛ, which select nominative, as in (31). The data in (32) illustrate prepositions selecting the accusative with nouns and 3P pronouns. The same prepositions which require accusative with 3P elements in (32) embed the oblique of 1/2P pronouns in (34). In turn, the oblique inflection of nouns and 3P elements is selected by the subset of prepositions exemplified in (33). Finally, in (35) we present the data of Shkodër concerning prepositions that select the ablative. In the singular definite, the ablative ending -t for the feminine is restricted to a set of locative nouns, besides being found with 1/2P pronouns, as in (35a). In the plural the specialized -ʃ ablative ending occurs only with 1/2P plural in (35b) or as the indefinite in semantically restricted contexts, as in (35c). (31) Nominative a. a-i ʃkan tɛ vɑjz-a/ diɑl-i he-ms.nom goes at girl-fs.nom.def/boy-ms.nom.def ‘He goes to the boy/the girl’ b. a-i vien tɛ un/ti/a-i he-ms.nom comes at I/you/he-ms.nom ‘He comes to me/you/him’ (32) Accusative a. ɛ vuna mi/nɛn kmiʃ-ɛ-n/ kmiʃ-a-t/ at-a it I.put on/under shirt-fs-acc.def/ shirt-pl-def/ they-pl ‘I put it on/under the shirt/shirts/them’ b. kam ɑ:rð mɛ vɑjz-ɛ-n/ diɑl-i-n I.have come with girl-fs-acc.def/ boy-ms-acc.def ‘I have come with the girl/the boy’ c. ɛ bɐna pəɾ at-ɛ it I.made for he-acc ‘I made it for him’ (33) Oblique (3P/nouns) a. əʃt bə: pɾej diɑl-i-t/ diɛm-vɛ it.is done by boy-ms-obl.def/ boy.pl-obl ‘It has been done by the boy/boys’ b. ɛ kam vu: paɾa/poʃt/sipəɾ it I.have put before/under/on libr-i-t/ karig-ɛ-s /   ati-i-i book-ms-obl.def/ chair-fs-obl.def/he-ms.obl ‘I have put it before/under/on the book/the chair/him’

98 

 4 Person splits in the case systems of Geg Albanian and Arbëresh

(34) Oblique (1/2P) a-i vien mɛ m-u/t-y he-ms.nom comes with me-obl/you-obl ‘He comes with me/you’ (35) Ablative a. pɾei/poʃt/para ʃpi-ɛ-t/ ðɔm-ɛ-t/ mɛ-jɛ-t/ tɛ-jɛ-t from/under/before house-fs-Abl.def/room-fs-Abl.def/me-Abl/you-Abl ‘from/under/before the house/the room/me/you’ b. pɾei/poʃt/para nɛ-ʃ from/under/before us-Abl ‘from/under/before us’ c. pun pɾej gɾɑ:-ʃ job for woman-Abl.pl ‘a women’s job’ Shkodër In (36)-(37) we present parallel data from the variety of Greci, ordered in the same way as those of Shkodër. The most notable difference between the two varieties is that the Greci variety lacks ablative, which is subsumed under the general oblique. (36) Nominative a. kjɛ i bən ka trim-i/ u/ti/ a-i/ na it.was lkr made by boy-ms.def/ I/you/he-ms.nom/we ‘It was made by the boy/me/you/him/us’ b. a-i vjɛn ka u he-ms.nom comes at i.nom ‘He comes to me’ c. u vɛta ka a-i I go at he-ms.nom ‘I go to him’ (37) a. Accusative a-i ɛrða ma vaz-a-n/ at-ə he-ms.nom came with girl-fs-acc.def/he-acc ‘He came with the girl/him’ b. Oblique (3P/nouns) a vura para trim-i-t/ trim-ui-t/ at-ia/ atir-vui it I.put before boy-ms-obl.def/ boy-pl.obl-def/ he-ms.obl/they-pl.obl ‘I put it before the boy/the boys/him/them’

5 Prepositional contexts and the ablative 

c. Oblique (1/2P) a-i vjɛn ma m-ua he-ms.nom comes with me-obl ‘He comes with me/us’

 99

Greci

The fact that prepositional phrases licence all cases that sentences do is inconsistent with Chomsky’s (1995) suggestion that prepositions assign an oblique case. One may nevertheless object that the incompatibility of data such as (31)(35) with the oblique case proposal disappears if the morphological component is taken into account. In the DM framework, it could be assumed that the insertion of at least some of the cases embedded by prepositions is due to impoverishment rules. Thus we could assume that Impoverishment rule (38a) deletes oblique case specifications from the object of prepositions, like nɛn ‘under’, mi ‘on’ which take the accusative. Suppose that what is descriptively called the specialized accusative morphology for the singular, namely -n, in reality is only a definite singular. If so, -n is compatible with insertion in the impoverished prepositional contexts, as in (38b); in fact, the insertion of other endings specified for case (e.g. oblique) is not possible. (38)

a. [oblique] → ∅ / [P mi] ____

b. [singular, definite] → V-n /

[Tprep]

_____

Unfortunately, prepositions in Albanian can also select nominative, i.e. they can select not one, but two different non-oblique cases. For the nominative context, we can postulate a rule of oblique impoverishment parallel to that formulated in (38a). We can further attribute to the nominative morphology an underspecified entry, which allows it to be inserted under an impoverished node. But the problem is that the system now has two different underspecified entries (i.e. the nominative and the accusative) whose distribution in prepositional contexts can no longer be described. The fact that the nominative is selected by prepositions is also problematic for syntactic models that construe nominative as a reflex of agreement with I, like Chomsky (2001, 2008). Specifically, Pesetsky and Torrego (2004) suggest that in structures of the type in (39), the preposition Tprep, endowed with an interpretable iT feature, checks the uninterpretable uT features associated with the D head of the noun phrase. But it is far from clear that Tprep in (39) can instantiate properties parallel to those of sentential T, as would be needed in order to predict nominative.

100 

 4 Person splits in the case systems of Geg Albanian and Arbëresh

(39)

TP (=PP) TPrep [iT]

DP D [uT]

TP tPrep

NP

(Pesetsky and Torrego 2004)

At the same time, morphological treatments like (38), based on Impoverishment, have an interesting consequence from the present point of view. Indeed the existence of morphemes associated with more than one case context (i.e. of syncretic case morphemes) requires them to be treated as elements deprived of case properties, and therefore endowed only with referential properties, such as number or gender (nominal class). This is the point at which our proposals step in, since we combine similar conclusions about the actual content of lexical items with the postulate of projection from the lexicon. This means that the properties made available by the lexicon must be sufficient to project syntactic structure, without the intervention of abstract functional structures to be impoverished by morphological rules. Let us consider what can be said about cases selected by prepositions within the present approach. Prepositions are two place predicates whose internal argument is lexicalized by their DP complement, while the external argument is controlled by some argument of the matrix predicate. For instance the external argument of mi ‘on’ in ɛ vuna mi kmiʃɛn/kmiʃat ‘I put it on the shirt/shirts’ in (32) is controlled by the matrix accusative clitic ɛ ‘it’. What mi ‘on’ denotes is a spatial relation between ɛ ‘it’ and kmiʃɛn/kmiʃat ‘the shirt(s)’. Therefore, the prepositions that require the accusative simply behave like transitive verbs. Their internal argument is attached, if definite, via the specialized (λ) morphology -n in the singular and by the nominal class and number inflection -at in the plural. As for prepositional contexts selecting the oblique, in (33), in present terms they require their internal argument to be embedded under ⊆ specifications. According to the analysis in sections 3-4, these ⊆ specifications correspond to an inclusion interpretation. Indeed, there is independent evidence that prepositions do select these specifications. Thus in Italian and in many Romance languages, several prepositions, e.g. prima ‘before’, davanti ‘in front’, are obligatorily followed by di ‘of’/a ‘to’, which play the same role as the oblique case in Albanian.5

5 In the terminology of Svenonius (2006,) elements such as (in) front (of) do not belong to the category Preposition but to a category Axial Part which forms part of the functional sequence of

5 Prepositional contexts and the ablative 

 101

One way to describe the Italian data is to say that di/a are case markers and that like case, they lack any content. In present terms, on the contrary, we conclude that certain spatial/temporal relations (on, before, in front) have an obligatory ⊆ component, which is externalized by oblique case in Albanian and by elementary relator heads (di/a) in Romance. 1/2P pronouns are characterized by oblique morphology even when occurring in simple transitive contexts, i.e. where 3P arguments display accusative morphology, as illustrated in (34). This configures the presence of DOM phenomena within PPs. Romance languages provide independent evidence that this conclusion is correct. Thus given the discussion of Italian di/a in what precedes, we may predict that 1/2P or, more generally, highly ranked referents may be embedded under them, whereas 3P, or any event lower ranked referents, are not. This prediction is correct (Garzonio and Rossi 2016). For instance, su ‘on’ directly embeds DPs un articolo sulla guerra/su Chomsky ‘an article on the war/on Chomsky’, whereas it combines with di in embedding pronouns as in un articolo su di me/su di lui ‘an article about (of) me/about (of) him’. Prepositions requiring so-called nominative in (31) support the conclusion that there really are no case inflections conceived as realizations of primitive case features, but only denotational properties capable of satisfying certain syntactic contexts – i.e. as already stated, case lies at the intersection of denotational (referential, predicative) primitives and of syntactic contexts of insertion. For Chomsky (2001, 2008) nominative case is a byproduct of checking the uninterpretable features of the I head against the corresponding interpretable features of the subject. As suggested by Pesetsky and Torrego’s (2004) approach to case in PPs, we then need to postulate uninterpretable agreement properties on prepositions in order to justify nominative case on their objects. But agreement on P is absent in the overt morphology of Albanian. Following Manzini and Savoia (2005, 2007) and chapter 2 here, the finite verb inflection defines an interpretable D element; so-called nominative inflections consist of pure nominal class and gender properties associated with contexts where they are in the domain of the D inflection. As discussed in relation to structure (20), agreement is the process responsible for establishing that there is a single referent for the φ-features occurring on the nominal inflection and on the D inflection of the verb, both equally interpretable. conventional PPs. There is no principled incompatibility between a Svenonius-style analysis and what we are saying here about the nature of the elementary relators di/a in Italian or of oblique case in Albanian. Rather the inner layer of complex PP structures, which is simply referred to as K (Case) is clarified by the present discussion (see also Svenonius 2017). Highly relevant in this respect is the detailed discussion of Italian complex PPs by Garzonio and Rossi (2016).

102 

 4 Person splits in the case systems of Geg Albanian and Arbëresh

Now, the same nominal inflections that satisfy subject contexts, also satisfy the prepositional contexts defined by ka ‘by/at’ in (36) or tɛ ‘at’ in (31). If the present approach is correct, these nominal inflections are endowed just with nominal class and number properties. In fact, the 1/2P pronominal forms u(n), ti, na in (31)/(36) consist just of the deictic base. Therefore nominal class and number properties are sufficient to satisfy the context defined by ka in the Greci variety, tɛ in the Shkodër variety. In other words, these prepositions provide an appropriate closure for those properties, so that they do not need a ⊆ layer (oblique) or even an accusative (λ) layer. This must be learned, but the advantage is that it requires neither abstract agreement categories nor morphological readjustments.

5.1 The ablative We consider next the prepositional contexts selecting ablative in the Shkodër variety in (35). As noted in introducing the data, the -t ablative morphology for the feminine singular is found on a subset of nouns denoting locations, for instance house, room in (35a); other relevant nouns include door, chair etc.6 We assume that the -t morphology externalizes ⊆ inclusion specifications, exactly as it does in the oblique (dative/genitive) masculine singular. The conceptual closeness of the notions of possessor and location is well-known in the literature. Thus cross-linguistically, possessive constructions can involve a descriptive genitive, or a descriptive dative, or a descriptive locative (Freeze 1992). In present terms this conceptual closeness, and therefore the syncretisms it may lead to, correspond fundamentally to inclusion properties, which, when spatially defined lead to the locative interpretation. Specifically, in chapter 2 and again in section 4 we have proposed that the ⊆ relation may be locatively restricted. When this locative 6 The set of nouns relevant for the specialized ablative in Albanian is significant cross-linguistically. For instance, Italian singular count nouns are generally preceded by determiners (as in English). This does not hold for nouns denoting locations (roughly the same subset as in Albanian) introduced by locative prepositions, which can appear without determiner, as in (i), (iii), as opposed to nouns not intrinsically designating locations in (ii). (i) L’ ha messo in/a casa/terra it he.has put in/at house/ground ‘He put it in/at the house/on the ground’ (ii) L’ ha messo *in/nel sugo/documento it he.has put in/in.the sauce/document ‘He put it in the sauce/in the document’

5 Prepositional contexts and the ablative 

 103

restriction is activated, only locations may be embedded under -t (we refer to chapter 2 for the mechanism further restricting locative ⊆ to the feminine class). The same locative -t morphology also appears on 1/2P singular pronouns, as illustrated in (35a). The question then arises what 1/2P singular referents, i.e. speaker and hearer, share with nominal bases denoting locations. Speaker and hearer are two necessary coordinates of the universe of discourse. A locative specification, here, must also be among such coordinates, denoting essentially the position of the speaker. We propose therefore that what 1P has in common with locations such as house, room, is simply that it itself fixes a location, namely here. Something similar will have to be said of 2P. Recall indeed that many demonstrative systems are tripartite, including not only here and there but also a specialized form for at the hearer (e.g. Italian costì, as opposed to qui ‘here’ and là ‘there’). We then come to the -ʃ inflection for the so-called ablative plural. This morphology is present in prepositional contexts of the type in (35c), where the reference of the indefinite plural women is generic, i.e. close to a universal. On the basis of these observations, in chapter 2 we construed -ʃ as providing a generic closure, which we suggest represents the core of the interpretation contributed by -ʃ to examples like (35c). In other respects, we imputed to it the ⊆ content described for -t. Indeed the relation between job and women in (35c) can also be expressed by the genitive in a language like English, as in a women’s job. It may appear problematic that -ʃ also combines with 1/2P plural bases for we and you (plural). In reality, generic uses of we are well-known, e.g. we are on earth for a brief time, referred to the human species of which the speaker is part. Something similar holds of the 2P plural in utterances such as you (men) are all mad! referred to the hearer and the generic set (of men) of which he is part. In other words, the generic interpretation coexists with the deictic (here and now) interpretation.7 This goes some way in explaining why both indefinite plurals and 1/2P plural combine with the same -ʃ specification. For the rest, the occurrence in so-called ablative contexts depends on the ⊆ content of -ʃ. A final point to be borne in mind is the difference between the variety of Shkodër, characterized by the differentiation of oblique and ablative, and Arbëresh varieties like Greci, lacking ablative. In both varieties 1/2P pronouns have a form for nominative, which is in fact a bare pronominal base, and one or two ⊆ forms (except for the 2P singular of Greci). In both varieties an oblique form is found in the prepositional contexts in (34), where 3rd person pronouns and 7 Chierchia (1995), Manzini and Savoia (2005, 2007) similarly discuss the coincidence of two different referential values on the Italian si clitic – namely the generic (near universal) and what Chierchia calls episodic (i.e. spatio-temporally restricted).

104 

 4 Person splits in the case systems of Geg Albanian and Arbëresh

nouns appear in the accusative; it is therefore a prepositional DOM lexicalization. The variety of Shkodër however introduces a second divide, by distinguishing a locative inclusion interpretation, externalized by the ablative, from other inclusion interpretations, expressed by the oblique. In general, there is a strict correlation between the referential content of lexical bases and the range of so-called cases that they are associated with. The particular shape that the person split takes in our data has different case specifications associated with the lexical bases denoting elements of the universe of discourse (i.e. hearer and speaker) and other lexical bases. We take this to argue in favour of our overall construal of case, in terms of elementary denotational properties satisfying contexts of lexical insertion. Specifically, they are sensitive not only to the sentential slots where they are embedded – which was the focus of section 4. They are sensitive also to the properties of the nouns and pronouns they embed – which was the focus not only of our discussion of sentential DOM in sections 3.1 and 4.1, but also of the discussion of prepositional embedding, prepositional DOM and the ablative case in this section.

6 Person case constraint (PCC) phenomena The case syncretism between accusative and dative in 1/2P pronouns, exemplified in section 2, feeds the Person Case Constraint (PCC). The constraint usually observed in the literature is restricted to clitic or inflectional elements and prevents 1/2P accusatives from combining with 3P datives (weak PCC) or with any dative, including 1/2P ones (strong PCC). The PCC is at work also in Albanian. In the variety of Shkodër, 1/2P singular clitics have an accusative/dative syncretic form mə/tə, while 3P clitics distinguish singular accusative ɛ/a from dative and accusative plural i. The co-occurrence of a 1/2P clitic with a 3P dative or another 1/2P clitic is excluded (strong PCC), as in (40). The weak PCC, barring the co-occurrence of a 1/2P clitic with a 3P dative is also enforced in the variety of Greci. In the latter variety again the accusative/ dative syncretic form mə/tə contrasts with the distinct 3P singular forms for accusative a and dative i. (40) a. *ai  m  i    kɑ  prezanꞌtu: he  me  him  has  introduced ‘He has introduced me to him’ b. *m  tə    kɑ    prezanꞌtu: me  you   he.has  introduced ‘He has introduced me to you/you to me’

Shkodër

6 Person case constraint (PCC) phenomena 

(41) *ai m i prəzəntuacən he me to.him introduced ‘He introduced me to him’

 105

Greci

In the variety of Shkodër the combination between full 1/2P pronouns is only marginally possible, as in (42a). The sequence 1/2P pronouns – 3P dative is excluded also with full pronouns, as in (42b). (42) a. ai m/t kɑ prezanꞌtu: ?mu: ty/ ??ty mu: he me/you has introduced me to.you/ you to.me ‘He has introduced me to you/you to me’ b. *ai kɑ prezanꞌtu: mu:/ty atii/asɑi he has introduced me/you to.him/to.her ‘He has introduced me/you to him/her’

Shkodër

Two 1/2P objects are admitted if the goal argument is introduced by a locative preposition, as in (43a). The same is true in (43b) of the combination of a 1/2P pronoun with a 3P pronoun. (43) a. m/t kan prezanꞌtu: mu tɛ ti/ ty tɛ un me/you they.have introduced me at you/ you at I ‘They have introduced me to you/you to me’ b. m/t kan prezanꞌtu: mu/ty tɛ ai to.me/to.you they.have introduced me/you at he ‘They have introduced me/you to him’

Shkodër

The insertion of a 1/2P pronoun is allowed in the context of a 3P accusative, as  in (44a), where the locative is correspondingly excluded. However if the 1/2P  pronoun is not doubled by a clitic, it is again realized as locative, as in (44b). (44) a. m/t a kan prezanꞌtu: aꞌtɛ mu/ty/ *tɛ un/*tɛ ti to.me/to.you him they.have introduced him to.me/you/ at I/at you ‘They have introduced b. ɛ kan prezanꞌtu: aꞌtɛ tɛ un/ti him they.have introduced him at me/you ‘They have introduced him to me/you’ Shkodër In the variety of Greci the combination between full pronouns, as in (45), is normally accepted.

106 

 4 Person splits in the case systems of Geg Albanian and Arbëresh

(45) a. mə prəzəntɔci mua ti me he.introduced me to.you ‘He introduced me to you’ b. mə/a  prəzəntɔci mua atirui/atə mua me/him he.introduced me to.them/him to.me ‘He introduced me to them/him to me’

Greci

In recent generative literature (Anagnostopoulou 2005, Bianchi 2006, Rezac 2008), the PCC is an effect of the competition between two forms in checking person features. This literature shares the idea that the PCC depends entirely on person features – in other words the notion of case essentially disappears from the formal reconstruction of the phenomenon. For Rezac (2008: 68-69), what he calls the Case/Agree account of the Person Case Constraint “aims to explain the Person Case Constraint as a consequence of Relativized Minimality, whereby the intervening X in [(46)] blocks person Agree between Y and ... H”. Specifically “dative X prevents H-Y person Agree”. Hence Y is disallowed in a dative configuration if it is 1/2P. (46) [H [X-DAT [Y The problem is “the nature of the intervention of the dative for person Agree ... Much work seeks to solve the riddle of this quirky partial intervention of the dative” (Rezac ibid.). For instance Anagnostopoulou (2008: 18) assumes that “1st, 2nd and reflexive pronouns are [+person] pronouns ... while the person specification of 3rd person pronouns depends on the type of Case they have. Accusative-nominative/ direct object 3rd person pronouns lack person features altogether ... On the other hand, 3rd person dative/indirect object arguments are understood as animate/ affected, they encode point of view, properties encoded through person features”. Because of this, the dative checks the Person feature of v in (47), which prevents checking by the 1/2P pronoun, and ultimately yields illformedness. (47) [ v[P] [ Dat [V 1st/2ndP Under Anagnostopoulou’s tripartite feature ontology, 1/2P are [+person], 3P datives are [-person], 3P accusatives lack a [person] feature. This feature ontology seems to us questionable, since it is difficult to see the difference between having the non-person feature and not having the person feature. From an empirical point of view, there are reasons to doubt the connection between dative and animacy. Thus in Italian, datives clearly occur with inanimates, as in (48a), and – we may add – locatives with animates, as in (48b).

6 Person case constraint (PCC) phenomena 

 107

(48) a. (Al vestito) gli/ci ho rifatto  l’orlo (to.the dress) to.it/there I.have re-made the hem ‘I sew the dress’s hem on again.’ b. (A mio padre) ci/gli somiglio (to my father) there/to.him I.resemble ‘I resemble my father.’ Adger and Harbour (2007) assume that in the internal argument position of a ditransitive verb, only a 3P can occur, because it lacks [participant] features – while 1/2P pronouns, which have this feature, are excluded. This is because datives (including 3P ones) also have a [participant] feature, determining a competition with the internal argument that can only result in failure in the process of agreeing with v. Suppose we grant these scholars their feature ontologies. Another problem is that the relevance of the notion of dative, overtly denied, is surreptitiously reintroduced through the [person] feature. In other words, in the absence of any additional constraints, we expect features and functional specifications to recombine freely: how is then the link between dative case and [person] predicted? If it is just stated, then [person] becomes a diacritic for the very notion of dative that one is intent on avoiding. Finally, when it comes to the weak/strong PCC divide, for Anagnostopoulou (2005) the strong PCC depends on Agree, along the lines of (14), while in weak PCC grammars it is Multiple Agree that applies, subject to a constraint that blocks dishomogenous features in the search space of the v probe. This filters out combinations of 3P with 1/2P, as opposed to combinations of 1/2P. Therefore “the strong and the weak PCC both arise in configurations in which the two objects enter Agree with a single Probe. However, they should be seen as separate constraints” (Anagnostopoulou 2008:18), since the mode and/or the content of the probing differ. Nevins (2007) in turn generalizes Multiple Agree; variation is defined by the constraints placed on the search space of the v probe, which are however stipulated for each case (dishomogenous features or other).

6.1 Reinstating case in the PCC In short, for the literature just reviewed the PCC entails reference to intrinsic denotational properties of the elements involved (pronouns, agreement morphemes), while the notion of case is not involved. In section 2, we noted that there is a link between referential hierarchy phenomena and case inflection

108 

 4 Person splits in the case systems of Geg Albanian and Arbëresh

syncretism. As we saw, 1/2P pronouns serving as internal arguments exclude the canonical transitive event structure comprising an agent and a theme, and require instead to be embedded as obliques, yielding the DOM phenomenon. Only 3P elements yield a canonical transitive event structure comprising an agent and a theme. In general, we have seen that 1/2P and 3P have different ways of lexicalizing argumental contexts (not only object but also argument of prepositions). We have argued that these morphological differences are not different surface manifestations of underlyingly identical categories. On the contrary, they correspond to truly different types of categorization (within the same universal space of interface primitives). We have construed the split between 1/2P and 3P pronouns as a different manner of lexicalizing the participants in the event. In particular, lexical bases denoting discourse participants are embedded in the event as agents or possessors/locations, corresponding to nominative subjects or to oblique/locative VP-internal arguments, requiring the presence of the ⊆ morphology. The latter is associated with 3P as well, but only for goals. In this perspective, we may also pursue an explanation for the PCC, as seen in the clitic/pronoun combinations in (40)-(45). 1/2P clitics make the ⊆ elementary predicate unavailable for 3P clitics, as suggested in structure (49) for Greci’s example in (41) – in the absence of which the 3P clitic cannot be read as goal. This is because 1/2P, in virtue of their intrinsic speaker/hearer denotations, take priority for ⊆ attachment, depriving a 3P referent of the necessary means for anchoring at the event as a goal. Roughly no 3P referent can be associated with ⊆ if there is a 1/2P referent around. (49)

IP 1/2P m

cf. (41) IP ⊆ *i

IP I prəzəntuacən

In Arbëresh varieties like Greci, the combination of full 1/2P pronouns and of a 3P dative is interpretable. This means that the referential hierarchy interferes with argument attachment only in the clitic domain – imposing the unique association of ⊆ with the 1/2P referent. Outside the clitic domain structure (50) for example (45b) is possible to the extent that the two ⊆ elements have two logically different domains of application. The lower ⊆, i.e. the one attached to the 3P goal at-,

 109

6 Person case constraint (PCC) phenomena 

introduces an inclusion relation between the 3P argument itself (the possessor) and the 1P argument (the possessee). The higher ⊆, i.e. the one attached to the 1P argument m-, relates the 1P argument itself to the the VP sub-event. Recall that he introduced me to them is paraphrasable roughly as He made an introduction of me to them’ – and this is exactly how (50) is construed. IP

(50) 1P mə

cf. (45b) IP

I prəzəntɔci

vP v

VP V

PredP 1/2P

1P m

D (⊆) ua

D at

(⊆) ir-ui

The grammar of Shkodër is more restrictive than that of Greci. Recall that Arbëresh varieties display the weak PCC, while Geg varieties display the strong PCC. In either instance, the present discussion is based on the idea that the weak PCC requires a referentially higher element present in the vP phase to associate with ⊆, to the exclusion of referentially lower elements. Under the strong PCC the presence of a 1/2P (highest ranked) argument blocks any association with ⊆ even of another 1/2P pronoun. This is summarized in (51). In order for the formulation in (51) to work, the assumption must be made that the external argument at the phase edge (and evacuated from there to the Spec, IP position) is not relevant; so the PCC in (51) holds in the Spell-Out domain of the vP phase.8 (51) Person Case Constraint (PCC) Given the referential ranking 1/2P > 3P, [ v [VP V … ⊆ DP …] only if a. there no other DP in the domain, DP= highest ranked (strong PCC). b. there no other DP in the domain, DP= higher ranked (weak PCC).

8 See Manzini (2012) for an application of the same basic conception to languages different from Albanian.

110 

 4 Person splits in the case systems of Geg Albanian and Arbëresh

The conceptual, if not causal, link between PCC and DOM becomes evident if we compare (51) to (20). DOM in (20) requires certain elements to be embedded under ⊆; the PCC poses conditions on the embedding under the same ⊆ element. What (51) does not take into account is the fact that, for instance in Greci, the PCC holds of clitics in (49) but not of full pronouns in (50). However the Shkodër variety provides an example of the PCC holding of full pronouns, certainly in its weak version in (42b). The incompatibility deriving from the PCC is resolved by introducing a locative, which allows the 1/2P objects to combine with a goal externalized by the locative, as in structure (52) for sentence (43a). (52)

IP 1P mə

cf. (43a) IP

kan

vP v

VP

V prezantu

1/2P m

PredP 1/2P

LocP (⊆) u

Loc tɛ

(⊆) ti

That a PCC violation can be circumvented by inserting a locative in place of the dative has been observed for other languages, for instance some varieties of French. Rezac (2006) advocates a model under which the violation of the PCC is repaired in the course of the derivation, technically by the merger of an additional probe, cf. Bejar and Rezac (2009). However adopting the view that a violation is first introduced and then repaired is quite expensive. Specifically, it involves backtracking. In other words, the derivation survives point of crashing (namely, the Relativized Minimality violation yielding the PCC according to Rezac), the repair is applied and only after that, well-formedness is achieved. It also involves Late Insertion (excluded here) since it is the derivation that decides what lexicalization the argument will have, and therefore lexicalization is forced to take place at the end of it. Because of these reasons, we embrace the view that sentences like (52) involve no violation (of Relativized Minimality or other) and no repair – but only alternative means of lexicalization.

7 Concluding remarks 

 111

Vice versa, Rezac (2006) explicitly excludes that the locative may be treated as what he calls a “paraphrase” for the 3P dative, i.e. without passing through violation and subsequent repair. The reason is that the paraphrase/alternative lexicalization is restricted to a particular context, defined by a potential PCC violation. However, there is no contradiction between the notion of alternative lexicalization and that of contextual restriction. In (52) the locative lexicalizes the second internal argument of prezantu ‘introduced’ only in the context defined by the 1/2P clitic, which is interpreted as the internal argument of ⊆. This suggests that the second argument of a ditransitive is lexicalized by a locative in the domain of an independently satisfied ⊆. To repeat, in (52) the 1/2P clitic introduces a ⊆ possessor structure. The ⊆ context so created allows the lexicalization of the second argument of the ditransitive as a locative at the same time as it blocks other lexicalizations (i.e. as a dative). In the absence of a 1/2P clitic, a dative clitic introduce ⊆ and the more complex locative phrase is not required. Therefore, there is no violation (of Relativized Minimality or other) and no repair  – but a set of contextually defined lexicalization choices, guided by Economy considerations (i.e. simpler lexicalization preferred if possible), which encompass both descriptive violation and descriptive repair. Summing up, we propose a syntactic account of the PCC based on the alignment of highly ranked referents with ⊆. As desired, this allows us to dispense with the rich ontologies of person reference implied by accounts that (quite interestingly) try to reduce the PCC to a Person intervention constraint. In this way the PCC is conceptually, though not causally, connected to split accusativity (DOM) phenomena which also involve the association of 1/2P pronouns with the possessor (i.e. argument of ⊆) role. In this respect, the relatively shallow formulation of the PCC advocated here contains elements of explanation that more abstract formulations lack.

7 Concluding remarks This chapter presents an account of case morphology in Albanian varieties, proposing in particular that DOM follows from deeper referential properties, namely that only nouns and 3P pronouns yield a canonical transitive event structure comprising an agent and a theme. Deictic referents are introduced not as themes, but as possessors/locatives. This corresponds to the fact that the denotation of 1/2P is fixed in virtue of their being coordinates of the universe of discourse. In general, we have examined case phenomena from a lexicalist viewpoint, assuming the existence of bona fide lexical entries understood as functions from sound to interpretation (and vice versa). The notion of case reduces to denotational

112 

 4 Person splits in the case systems of Geg Albanian and Arbëresh

primitives (person, nominal class, definiteness, elementary predicates), associated with the relevant inflectional entries – where different denotational properties satisfy different syntactic environments. In this perspective, morphological differences point to authentically different conceptualizations, within a single universal space of interface primitives. In the same framework, we also proposed an approach to the PCC, as linking the referential properties of the lexical items involved to the case array. This way of thinking of the PCC is consonant with descriptive statements, and rejects attempts made in the generative literature to reduce the PCC to a pure person intervention constraint. The latter end up stipulating that different person features are associated with different cases, which amounts to a surreptitious reintroduction of case anyway.

Appendix A: Inverse Agreement In chapter 4, we formulated DOM as in (1). In other words, DOM requires a highly ranked referent to be embedded with a role at least as high as that of possessor/locator of the VP subevent. In Albanian, what counts as highly ranked for the purposes of DOM is a 1/2P referent. DOM applies in the SpellOut domain of the vP phase, since evacuation of the object to Spec, IP (passive) preempts DOM. (1) DOM [VP V [*(⊆) DP]] if a. DP= 1/2P (Albanian) … The PCC in turn is a constraint on the association of arguments with ⊆, again applying when the vP phase undergoes Spell-Out. In essence, under (2), ⊆ can be associated only with the higher ranked DP (weak PCC) and cannot be associated with a DP at all if a 1/2P is also present. (2) Person Case Constraint (PCC) Given the referential ranking 1/2P > 3P, [ v [VP V … ⊆ DP …] only if a. there no other DP in the domain, DP= highest ranked (strong PCC). b. there no other DP in the domain, DP= higher ranked (weak PCC). There is a third kind of phenomenon, not attested in Albanian, that also relies on the referential hierarchy, namely inverse agreement. In the canonical manifestation of inverse agreement processes referential prominence is not matched to case, but to agreement. Thus in Algonquian languages (Bianchi 2006, Bejar and Rezac 2009), the prefixed agreement morphology of the verb always picks up the higher ranked person among direct arguments, independently of their thematic role: this is 1P in the Plains Cree examples in (3). Suffixal morphology varies between so-called direct forms, when the agreement prefix coincides with the external argument, as in (3a), and so-called inverse forms, when the agreement prefix coincides with the internal argument, as in (3b) (3) a. ni-wa.pam-a.-na.n 1-see-direct-1pl ‘We see him’

114 

 Appendix A: Inverse Agreement

b. ni-wa.pam-iko-na.n 1-see-inverse-1pl ‘He sees us’

Plains Cree (Algonquian, Aissen 1997 :707-708)

According to Bianchi (2006), the Person hierarchy Participant>non-Participant is structurally encoded so that in the IP domain of the sentence (between C and v) there are Person projections where 1/2P is higher than 3P. Arguments must be licenced within this Person field. If the EA is 1/2P and the IA is 3P, when they are moved from their thematic position (IA and EA) to their Person position, the movement dependencies cross, which is consistent with Relativized Minimality (Rizzi 1990). However if the IA is 1/2P and the EA is 3P, the dependency formed by the movement from EA to 3P is wholly contained within the (1/2P, IA) dependency. The morpheme descriptively known as Inverse Agreement provides an intermediate stepping stone for the dependency, allowing Relativized Minimality to be satisfied. For Bejar and Rezac (2009), inverse agreement languages bear an agreement probe on v; π-features (person features, formally structured) are discharged as soon as possible in the derivation, hence by the IA, even if only partially. Take for instance ‘We see him’ in (35a). The IA checks the [person] feature of the probe; the [participant] feature remains active and is checked by the EA. The added complexity of ‘He sees us’ in (35b) is that the IA checks all of the π-features of v so that the EA remain unlicensed by Agree. Therefore an added probe is inserted on v and it is this added probe, checked by agreement with the EA, which is spelled out by morphological agreement. What is more directly relevant to the present study is that in Kashmiri the same abstract patterns seen in inverse agreement proper governs the distribution of direct and oblique (dative) case (Nichols 2001, Bianchi 2006, Béjar and Rezac 2009). In Kashmiri transitive sentences, when the external argument is 1P, the internal argument appears in bare case, as in (4a-b); the same holds in (4c) where the external argument is 2P and the internal argument is 3P. However when the external argument is 3P the internal argument appears in the dative, as in (5b-c); the same holds when the external argument is 2P and the internal argument is 1P, as in (5a). In other words a direct case object cannot be more highly ranked than the subject; when such a configuration would arise, the object is dativized. (4) a. bI chu-s-ath I be-cl(1)-cl(2) ‘I am teaching you’

tsI you

parInaavaan teaching

Appendix A: Inverse Agreement 

b. bI chu-s-an I be-cl(1)-cl(3) ‘I am teaching him’ c. tsI chi-h-an you be-cl(2)-cl(3) ‘You are teaching him’

su he

parInaavaan teaching

su he

parInaavaan teaching

 115

(5) a. tsI chuk-kh me  parInaavaan you be-cl(2) I-dat teaching ‘You are teaching me’ b. su  chu-y tse parInaavaan he  be-cl(2) you-dat teaching ‘He is teaching you’ c. su  chu   təmis   parInaavaan he  be   he-dat   teaching ‘He is teaching him’ Kashmiri (Indo-European, Wali and Koul 1997: 155-156) For Nichols (2001), both the nominative and the highest ranking direct argument of the sentence agree with T. If the highest ranking argument and the nominative do not coincide an agreement conflict arises, which is resolved through raising of the accusative to the oblique – hence out of the set of direct arguments of the verb. Note however that the analysis requires backtracking. First, an agreement conflict must arise in T; then, the conflict is resolved by repairing accusative to dative. Béjar and Rezac (2009) argue that (4)-(5) is the same agreement patterns as in Algonquian. Exactly like Rezac (2008) tries to eliminate the case component of the PCC in favour of a pure Person intervention constraint, so Bejar and Rezac attempt an account of the data in (4)-(5) in pure Agree terms. For these theorists, Kashmiri (like Algonquian) has a single locus of agreement, namely v. In the Cyclic Agree framework π-features are discharged as soon as possible in the derivation, namely by the internal argument, even if only partially. Take for instance ‘You teach him’ in (4c); ‘him’ checks the [person] feature of the probe. The [participant] feature remain active on a further projection of v (notated vII) and is checked by ‘you’. The added complexity of ‘He teaches you’ in (5b) is that ‘you’ checks all of the π-features of v so that ‘he’ remain unlicensed by Agree. Therefore an added probe is inserted on vII and it is this added probe, checked by agreement with the external argument, which is spelled out by the morphological dative on the internal argument.

116 

 Appendix A: Inverse Agreement

Our focus here is the dative repair. Béjar and Rezac take the morphological dative repair to be an underlyingly different case from the goal dative, labelled the R-case. They support their conclusion that “R-case is radically different from homophonous inherent case” with the following observations: “true inherent case on a DP is introduced at base-generation, is not sensitive to the π-specifications of any other DP and remains under passivization”. From the point of view of the present work, most of these motivations can be circumvented. Nothing prevents oblique from being structurally assigned, as it is in (2) under DOM, as opposed to being selected by a predicate (inherent). Furthermore, passivization is independently predicted of structural, as opposed to inherent oblique (Manzini and Franco 2016, see chapter 6 here). Vice versa, it is not obvious that Cyclic Agree is empirically adequate. Consider (5c) again; the clash of two animate 3P arguments is resolved by having the internal argument spelled out as a dative/R-case. But suppose both arguments are inanimate; the Cyclic Agree mechanism should predict repair by dative spellout of the inanimate internal argument. However, the literature clearly states that only animate/definite internal arguments are dative marked. Thus compatibility of the Kashmiri data with the Cyclic Agree analysis requires some further stipulation; for instance, since we assume that the dative (qua R-case) is a special spell-out of agreement with v, we can also state that this spell-out is confined to animates.9 In present terms, Bejar and Rezac miss out on the fact that the dative repair seen in examples (5) is just what we have called a DOM dative. If we are correct, this is an ordinary dative relator ⊆ which allows referentially high ranked elements to be embedded as possessors/locators of the VP subevent rather than as themes. In Albanian, or in the Romance language that will considered in chapter 6, DOM applies to any sufficiently high ranked theme. In Kashmiri there is a further condition, namely not only that the internal argument be sufficiently high ranked (animate), but also that the external argument be even more highly ranked than the internal argument. In fact, the pattern in (4)-(5) is adequately described by the two statements in (6). First, 1P (highest referent) object is always embedded as a dative. Second, a 3P external argument requires a dative object, if the latter is animate or higher in the referential hierarchy. In practice, dative

9 Similarly, in Algonquian inverse agreement, as reported by Aissen (1997: fn. 13) “it is possible for the subject of a TI [Transitive with Inanimate object] to be inanimate. The apparatus set up so far would predict the possibility of both a direct and an inverse form in such cases, depending on which of the two arguments was selected as proximate. This expectation appears not to be realized, as there seems to be only one form, probably to be identified with the direct form”.

Appendix A: Inverse Agreement 

 117

is restricted to the highest ranking internal argument (1P) or to an internal argument in the context of the lowest ranking external argument (3P). (6) Inverse Alignment [vP DPE [v v [VP V [*(⊆) DPI]]]] Kashmiri: DPI = 1P or DPI = animate and DPE =3P In essence what we have called Inverse Alignment in (6) is just a sophisticated DOM. Vice versa, DOM of the Albanian type can be construed as a special instance of Inverse alignment in which there is a flat opposition between 1/2P and 3P. Therefore, 1/2P is systematically dativized, because the subject is necessarily less highly or equally ranked. To take another example, in Punjabi (see chapter 7) there is a flat opposition between animate DPs and inanimate DPs, so that object animates are DOMed, because the subject will be equally ranked or lower. From this perspective the specialty of Kashmiri, and of inverse agreement languages, is that they are sensitive to a finer grained referential hierarchy, so that dativization in Kashmiri will affect, say, 2P referents if the subject is 3P, and not if it is 1P. Summarizing so far, DOM (in Albanian) involves obliquization of the highly ranked object, for reasons that we have detailed in chapter 4. In turn, interesting attempts have been made in the current generative literature to simplify both the PCC and Inverse Agreement by avoiding reference to case. Thus the PCC is reduced to a Person intervention constraint (see chapter 4), while Inverse Agreement is modeled by Agree even when ostensibly involving case (in Kashmiri). We believe these attempts to be ultimately unsuccessful with respect to the PCC because because they need to attribute different person status to the same 3P referent according to case. With respect to what we have called Inverse Alignment, there is not only the impossibility of capturing the connection of the repair dative case to DOM (only animates display it). For all of this, even leaving aside issues of explanatory adequacy, the question arises whether under the present description the case facts of Kashmiri can be related at all to the agreement facts of Algonquian. We begin by noting that Nichols (2001) chooses to compare Kashmiri not with Algonquian languages, but rather with Picurìs (Tanoan). In (7) we reproduce data from Klaiman (1992) which show how in the Picurìs inverse pattern, the external argument is realized as an oblique, cf. (7b). Therefore in Tanoan inverse agreement corresponds to a case realignment. In other words, there is evidence independent of Kashmiri that case realignment can be dictated by the relative prominence of the direct arguments of a predicate.

118 

 Appendix A: Inverse Agreement

(7) a. Sənene ’ą- ’moÍn- ’ąn man you see past ‘You saw the man’ b. ’ą- ’mon- mia  ’ąn sənene-pa you see   inverse past man-by ‘The man saw you’

Picurìs (Tanoan, Klaiman 1993)

Descriptively, then, Inverse alignment can affect case as well as agreement.10 In the perspective of Béjar and Rezac (2009) (or of Bianchi 2006 in a Relativized Minimality framework), this convergence is to be explained by reducing case to agreement. There is however a second logical possibility, namely that case is paramount and agreement simply follows case. We know for instance that in many languages obliques do not agree, including structural obliques (DOM, ergative, see especially the discussion of Punjabi in chapter 7). Therefore shifting an argument from direct to oblique case is tantamount to shifting Agree patterns. We conclude that the issue of the formal (as opposed to merely conceptual) connections between DOM, PCC and Inverse alignment phenomena cannot be settled without an investigation of this second logical possibility. We leave this for future research.

10 Complex agreement (or cliticization) facts hold in Kashmiri as well, as annotated in the glosses to (4)-(5); the discussion in the literature concentrates on the dative repair.

Appendix B: Clitic Doubling The Albanian examples provided in Part I of the book to illustrate nominal and pronominal paradigms, DOM and the PCC present several instances of clitic doubling. However, clitic doubling played no role in our analysis. Indeed data from the Romance languages show that there is no necessary association between clitic doubling and DOM, as realized by prepositional objects (Anagnostopoulou 2006). Nevertheless, work by Kallulli (2008b, 2016), Dočekal and Kallulli (2012) identifies clitic doubling with DOM in the language of our study, Albanian. In this Appendix, we briefly address this literature. There is no controversy as to the data. Datives are obligatorily doubled, as in (1). By contrast, accusatives are only optionally doubled and neither definiteness nor animacy seem to be relevant, as in (2). 1/2P pronouns are obligatorily doubled, as in (3). (1) a. Ev-a *(i) dergoi An-es lule. Ev-fsg.def to.her sent An-fsg.obl.def flowers ‘Eva sent Ana flowers.’ b. Ben-i *(i) dergoi nje vajz-e lule. Ben-msg.def to.him sent a girl-obl flowers ‘Ben sent a girl flowers.’ c. Ku-jt *(i) foli mesues-i? who-msg.def to.him talked teacher-msg.obl ‘Who did the teacher talk to?’ Albanian (Kallulli 2016) (2) a. (E) botoi libr-in më në fund. it published book-msg.acc.def at long last ‘S/he published the book at long last’ b. (E) botoi një libër më në fund. it published a book at long last ‘S/he published a book at long last’ (3) Mua *(me)/ty *(te)/ne *(na)/ ju *(ju) pyeti. me me.cl/you you.cl/us. us cl/ you you.cl asked ‘S/he asked me/you/us’ Albanian (Kallulli 2008b) According to Kallulli (2016), “(at least direct object) clitic doubling is a topiclicensing operation”. It is true that since “datives in Albanian are invariably clitic doubled, as are direct objects instantiated by local pronouns, it seems sensible to describe the function of doubling clitics as mere object agreement markers in

120 

 Appendix B: Clitic Doubling

such configurations”. However “these two seemingly different functions are not that different after all”; rather “clitic doubling is always agreement with a topic (object) DP”. Furthermore, because of its link with topichood “clitic doubling is a form of Differential Object Marking (DOM)” and that “PCC effects … in Albanian and other languages arise due to the competition for topic-prominence” (passim). In itself, the conception of clitic doubling as a topic licencing operation does not intersect with present proposals. Nevertheless, even if we restrict ourselves to direct objects, the prediction that clitic doubling is excluded in focal environments is not without problems. Thus D-linked wh-phrases may be doubled, as in (4a). Other focal elements that can be clitic doubled are negations of the type in (4b). (4) a. Cil-in liber (e) solli Ana? which-msg.acc.def book it brought Ana ‘Which book did Ana bring?’ b. Nuk (e)  lexova asnjer-in liber not it I.read  neither-msg.acc.def book ‘I read neither book’ Albanian (Kallulli 2008b, Dočekal and Kallulli 2012) Wh-doubling is addressed by Kallulli (2008b), who provides a syntactic explanation, namely that “(apparent) clitic doubling of so-called “D(iscourse)-linked” wh-phrases … is restricted to (sometimes concealed) relative clauses”.11 For examples like (4b), on the other hand, Dočekal and Kallulli (2012) have recourse to a semantic explanation. Thus the reason for clitic doubling in (4b) “is the presuppositional behavior of determiners like neither …i.e., they presuppose the non-emptiness of the set denoted by their noun argument” (Dočekal and Kallulli 2012). However, presuppositionality does not imply topichood. Definite descriptions are presuppositional, but this doesn’t mean that they have topic status, as in The King of France has arrived or Italian E’ arrivato il re di Francia ‘lit: has arrived the King of France’ where the definite description is unambiguously within the sentential focus. Perhaps, the presuppositionality of the negative expression in (4b) is to be understood as topic-worthiness, as suggested by Kallulli (2016) for dative clitic doubling (see the last page of this Appendix).

11 We do not fully understand Kallulli’s discussion at this point since she “contend[s] that the sentence in [i] has the same structure as the overtly bi-clausal one” in (4a). However Giuseppina Turano (p.c.) informs us that (i) is not a grammatical sentence in Albanian. (i) Cil-i liber eshte i tille qe e solli Ana? which-msg. def book is such that it brought Ana ‘Which book is such that Ana brought it?’

Appendix B: Clitic Doubling 

 121

Everything considered, whether clitic doubling is a means for licencing topichood seems to us at best an open issue.12 What is directly relevant for present purposes is that in view of the link with topichood, clitic doubling should be recognized as a form of DOM, according to Kallulli (2016). This potentially interferes with our proposal in chapter 4 that DOM in Albanian takes the form of obliquization of 1/2P objects, based on the referential Person split. Reference to the Romance languages helps us clarify why we believe that the equation of clitic doubling and DOM is problematic at least in a crosslinguistic perspective. Many Romance languages present an uncontroversial form of DOM consisting in the prepositional marking of human and/or specific objects. Since most Romance languages have clitic doubling (including non-normative Italian, which has clitic doubling with datives and 1/2P) we can easily check whether the two phenomena exactly overlap in the languages where they are attested, or not. Instances of prepositional accusative not coupled with clitic doubling, include many Ibero-Romance varieties, including standard Spanish, as in (5), and all Italo-Romance varieties that have the relevant phenomena (e.g. Southern Italian dialects, Manzini and Savoia 2005). (5) (*Lo) vimos a Guille. him we.saw to Guille ‘We saw Guille.’

Standard Spanish (Anagnostopoulou 2006)

Examples of clitic doubling not associated with prepositional accusatives include Rioplatense Spanish, as pointed out in the important work of Suñer (1988), and briefly illustrated in (6). (6) a. Yo la tenía prevista esta muerte. I it had foreseen this death ‘I had foreseen (it) this death b. Claro que la encontré pesada la audición obvious that it I.found boring the radio-program ‘Of course I found the radio program boring Rioplatense Spanish (Suñer 1988)

12 In general, it may be noted that in this entire monograph there is scarcely any mention of topic or focus. This is because we hold that they are not categories of (morpho)syntactic analysis, unlike in the cartographic tradition (Rizzi 1997), but rather interface pragmatic interpretations, in keeping with Chomsky (2013), Chomsky et al (2018).

122 

 Appendix B: Clitic Doubling

If we take it for granted that prepositional accusative is a form of DOM, the different distribution of prepositional accusative and of clitic doubling in Romance exclude that the latter is DOM, at least not in the same sense as prepositional accusatives. This is relevant to Albanian to the extent that the historico-typological and formal continuity between Romance and Albanian suggests that clitic doubling should have a unified analysis in the two language families. At the same time, it should be recognized DOM is not a formal construct, but an umbrella term for potentially disparate morphosyntactic phenomena unified at best by the referential hierarchy as it applies to objects. In principle, therefore formally distinct object constructs in the same language could realize different breaks along the referential hierarchy. In this sense clitic doubling could be a DOM-spectrum behavior. Having said this, we would like to reiterate our conclusion that, leaving aside merely functional considerations, all of the formal hallmarks of the Romance prepositional accusative or of the Hindi postpositional marked objects (Torrego 1998, Manzini and Franco 2016, see chapter 7 here) are displayed in Albanian by the treatment of 1/2P pronouns. Specifically, the relevant formal hallmarks involve the obliquization (hence the case realignment) of the object involving the use of the ⊆ elementary predicate. Recall that in chapter 4 we have propose that the PCC is an effect of 1/2P taking precedence on goals for attachment at the ⊆ slot open in the v/VP. Needless to say, this analysis of the PCC depends on our conception of DOM as embedding under ⊆. Kallulli’s (2016) idea is that “PCC effects within and across languages … arise due to competition for the first slot (occupied by local pronouns) in the D-hierarchy”. It is difficult to evaluate this proposal since as far as we can tell, no formal implementation, i.e. no explicit structure, is provided. Nevertheless, in this connection, we may usefully go back to a question that we have not properly reviewed so far, namely why datives are systematically clitic doubled. The idea is that datives “are always DPs (i.e., they always contain a D-projection) … Consequently, datives (and subjects) are presuppositional (or, in Kiparsky’s 2008 terminology “topic-worthy”/“individuated”) in a way that direct objects are not, and this is precisely what their marking (via clitic doubling) relates to” (Kallulli 2016). Our main concern with the line of research proposed by Kallulli goes back to the discussion in chapter 4, where we considered attempts to reduce the Person Case Constraint to a Person constraint (Anagnostopoulou 2005, Rezac 2006). Recall that despite their formal appeal, these approaches are forced to attribute to datives, including 3P ones, Person features that they deny to 3P objects. We argued that the resulting Person ontology is dubious and seems simply a way to surreptitiously encode case into Person. More or less the same holds for Kallulli’s line of research. Thus it is not clear how dative could be presuppositional in

Appendix B: Clitic Doubling 

 123

sentences like (1c), where it corresponds to a non-D-linked wh-phrase. Therefore saying that dative is always topic-worthy/individuated becomes a way of surreptitiously encoding case into topichood status/potentiality. In short, the first conclusion we evaluated is the equation of clitic doubling and topichood/topic-worthiness. To the extent that in this monograph, topics and foci are given hardly any consideration, we left the matter open.13 As for DOM, it is obvious that in Romance, prepositional objects are DOM. Therefore, clitic doubling cannot be identified with DOM crosslinguistically – nor can it be in Albanian, where DOM corresponds to obliquization of 1/2P referents, as already concluded in chapter 4. As for the PCC, the attempt of Kallulli (2016) to reduce it to topichood is directly comparable to the attempts to reduce it to Person. These proposals are extremely interesting, but they ultimately require a surreptitious reintroduction of case, via the assumption that dative is Person in one instance or that dative is topic/topic-worthy in the other.

13 We are committed to the irrelevance of notions of topic and focus, but in the more specific terms of fn. 21.

II Lkrs, possessors and agreement in the DP

II Lkrs, possessors and agreement in the DP 

 127

In Part I of this book we focussed on whether there is a realistic way to build the syntax of natural languages from elementary morphological constituents. The standard morphology for minimalist syntax (Distributed Morphology, DM) holds that phenomena like syncretisms, defaults, meaningless inflections make it empirically necessary to have abstract terminals in the syntax, externalized by vocabulary items only after morphological readjustment. In this respect our aim has been to show that moderately complex morphosyntactic systems, such as the case, number, gender and inflectional class system of Albanian, can be reasonably built from morphological terminals (chapters 2–3). A grammar so constructed is more restrictive at the PHON interface and precisely because of this it has empirical advantages. In particular, phenomena such as inflectional splits between 1/2P vs 3P referents cannot be constructed as mere morphological quirks, but must receive an integrated morphosyntactic treatment. In chapter 4 we argued that this is correct; inflectional splits really configure syntactic person splits, relating to phenomena of DOM and ultimately to the PCC. In Part II of the book we focus our attention on a restricted set of environments involving adnominal modifiers, both adjectives (chapter 5) and genitives/ possessives (chapter 6). Our empirical domain will partially switch from Albanian to Aromanian, a Romance language belonging to the Eastern branch, for which we have data from Southern Albanian speakers. Because of the Aromanian/Albanian contact, and more generally because of the Balkan common characters, we will generally compare the Aromanian data to those of Albanian. In chapter 7 we will conclude our survey of possessor structures by reviewing the link between them and the ergative alignment. More importantly, we will take the opportunity offered by our foray into Indo-Aryan languages (Punjabi) to consider agreeing possessors in those languages. From a theoretical point of view, one of the reasons to be interested in adnominal modification is the so-called Linkers (Lkrs, Greek articles, Iranian ezafe, etc.) appearing in front of adnominal modifiers. These are traditionally treated as contentless terminals, and this characterization carries over to some generative treatments; again, our stance on the projection of syntax from lexical items predicts that Lkrs must have some syntactico-semantic content, however elementary. Indeed we conclude that in Aromanian and Albanian Lkrs are Ds, exactly as their morphology seems to indicate (chapters 5-6). The other major theoretical reason to be interested in adnominal modification, hence in Lkrs, is agreement and its encoding in the minimalist rule of Agree. As outlined in chapter 1, the latter was originally formulated by Chomsky (1995, 2000a, 2001) with I-subject agreement (and v-object agreement) in mind. It is well-known that when applied inside DPs, which present multiple copies of the same agreement material (e.g. in Romance and indeed in Albanian) Agree raises descriptive problems. This is

128 

 II Lkrs, possessors and agreement in the DP

all the more so in that both N and D have considerable claims as holding interpretable features. Therefore, it is not infrequent for recent literature on Agree to set so-called concord aside. Following chapter 1 we adopt a particularly simple thesis on agreement within DPs, namely that it correctly captured by the original statement of Agree in Chomsky (2000a), once the surrounding discussion of the interpretable/uninterpretable (valued/unvalued) distinction is removed. Among specific analyses provided in these chapters, in addition to the analysis of Lkrs, we mention in particular the analysis of possessive pronouns (chapter 6), which display a strong 1/2P vs 3P split. Their particularly rich agreement pattern in Aromanian (as in Romanian) sheds some light on agreeing Romance possessive pronouns in general. Finally, one of the foci of the discussion in chapter 7 is the relation between the Lkrs phenomenon, the phenomenon of agreeing possessors and other phenomena collected under the label of Suffixaufnahme in the typological literature (Plank 1995). Thus chapters 5–6 contain detailed evidence from both Albanian and Aromanian, while chapter 7 widens the typological picture.

5 Lkrs in Aromanian in comparison with Albanian In many languages, a Linker (Lkr) element is inserted between a noun and an adjective that modifies it or an oblique complement that the noun embeds or a relative clause (not considered here). Among Indo-European languages, the Iranian ezafe is generally taken to be such an element. According to traditional descriptions (e.g. Lazard 1992), the ezafe indicates nothing about the precise semantic or syntactic nature of the relation holding between the modifier/complement and the head-noun. While in Persian the ezafe is invariable (-e), in Kurdish varieties, the ezafe agrees with the head noun (Holmberg and Odden, 2008; Haig, 2011); thus, any account of Lkrs must encompass a certain amount of variation. How much variation is admissible, and what kind, depends on the theory. For instance den Dikken and Singhapreecha (2004: fn. 31) explicitly exclude that Greek polydefiniteness counts as an instantiation of Lkr structure. On the other hand, Androutsopoulou and Español-Echevarria (2007) start from Greek in their survey of the phenomenon, and Larson and Yamakido (2008) also include Greek in theirs. Franco et al. (2015) discuss the similarity between another Balkan language, namely Albanian, and Kurmanji Kurdish. In present terms, both Aromanian and Albanian have preadjectival Lkrs, unlike Romanian and in general Romance languages. Furthermore, Aromanian has Lkrs in front of datives and genitives, agreeing with the datives/ genitives themselves. Both Albanian and Romanian have Lkrs in front of genitives, but not of datives, and the Lkrs agree with the head noun. From a theoretical point of view, the fact that the same elements that appear as Lkrs in Aromanian (and in Albanian, Romanian) also occur as demonstratives/articles leads us to categorize them as Ds. We propose that the pre-adjectival Lkr provides a (partial) saturation for the argument of adjectival predicates, to be ultimately satisfied by the head DP. Following chapters 2-4 we characterize oblique case as introducing an inclusion/part-whole relation, which takes the oblique DP as one of its arguments (i.e. the whole, or possessor, etc.). The Lkr normally provides a (partial) lexicalization of the second argument (i.e. the part, or possessee etc.), i.e. the head noun in adnominal modification constructs. This is what happens in Romanian and in Albanian; however, as we just briefly mentioned, in Aromanian the Lkr agrees with its genitive/dative complement. The presentation of the data and of the microvation between closely related languages (here Romanian, Aromanian) and languages in contact (here Albanian, Aromanian) takes up section 1. Section 2 provides a concise https://doi.org/10.1515/9781501505140-005

130 

 5 Lkrs in Aromanian in comparison with Albanian

review of the generative literature on Lkrs, rejecting conceptions of Lkrs as copulas, as case assigners, as means of identity avoidance. In section 3, we note problems with the construal of Lkrs as uninterpretable agreement probes and we build an account of Lkrs based on their overt D characteristics. In our account Lkrs provide a partial saturation of an argument slot (of an adjective or of a genitive, i.e. possession, relation), which is ultimately bound by the D closing the DP. While the discussion in section 3 is mainly based on Albanian, in section 4 we show how it applies to Aromanian. In section 5 we revert to the crucial problem of accounting for the agreement properties of Lkrs; we argue that they are best considered in the context of the “multiple” agreement or “concord” phenomena displayed by DPs. We argue that the simplest approach to the relevant phenomena is to construe Agree in terms of c-command, locality and identity, i.e. as in Chomsky (2000a), but removing from the theory any pre-encoded interpretable/uninterpretable or valued/unvalued asymmetry (see chapter 1).

1 Evidence The Albanian article (as it is called in traditional grammars) has the same fundamental distribution observed for the ezafe, namely before adjectives and genitives.1 Albanian has a specialized series of nominal endings, inflected for definiteness as well as for φ-features and case;2 the pre-adjectival/pre-genitival articles are related to these definite endings with which they often coincide. This is illustrated in (1) for pre-adjectival contexts and in (2) for pre-genitival contexts.3

1 To be precise, it is a lexically defined subset of adjectives that takes the article (Camaj 1995, Solano 1972, Turano 2004, Campos 2008). We have nothing to say on those adjectives that do not take it. If uniformity of structures is desired, then we must conclude that apparently article-less (post-nominal) adjectives have an empty article. 2 The formal literature treats these endings as post-nominal articles derived via movement of N to D (Dimitrova-Vulchanova and Giusti 1998, Turano 2002, 2003; see also Dobrovie-Sorin 1994 on Romanian). However, Albanian has prenominal articles with kinship terms, which can combine with definite inflections. This co-occurrence of the prenominal and postnominal articles renders the N-to-D movement analysis of the latter less likely. Here we assume direct Merge of definiteness morphemes in inflectional position. 3 Data are taken from an informant of Gjirokastër, in South Albania and reflect essentially standard Albanian.

1 Evidence 

(1)

a. ɛrði dial-i came boy-msg.def ‘The big boy came’ b. ɛrði vaiz-a came girl-fsg.def ‘The big girl came’ c. ɛrðən diɛm-t came boy.pl-def ‘The big boys came’

i lkr.msg

mað big

ɛ lkr.fsg

mað-ɛ big-f

tə lkr.pl

mə'ðiɲ-t big-pl

(2) a. libr-i i Book-msg. def lkr.msg ‘the book of the brother’ b. putr-a ɛ leg-nom.f.def lkr.fsg ‘the leg of the dog’

 131

və'ða-it brother-msg.obl.def cɛn-it dog-msg.obl.def Albanian (Gjirokastër)

In Romanian, no Lkr needs to appear between a noun and an adjective – though the so-called strong, i.e. non-clitic, form of the definite article (cel etc.) may appear in Lkr position, as in (3a). Importantly, cel is mutually exclusive with demonstratives, as in (3b) pointing to an operator-like content for it, denoting familiarity (Cornilescu and Giurgea 2013: 408), which seems to be missing from, say, the Albanian article. (3) a. maşin-a (ce-a) nou-ă car-fsg.def the.fsg new-fsg ‘the new car’ b. *acele case cele vechi those houses the old ‘those old houses’

Romanian

On the other hand, Romanian genitives, as in (4), are generally introduced by a Lkr agreeing with the head noun (al etc.), which can be left out under adjacency with a definite head noun. As in Albanian, al is a form of the definite article (Lat. ille) (Giurgea 2013). (4) două kămăş-i ale two shirts-fpl lkr.fpl ‘two shirts of the boy’

băiat-ul-ui boy-def-obl

Romanian

132 

 5 Lkrs in Aromanian in comparison with Albanian

1.1 Aromanian Against the background of Albanian and Romanian, we focus on the discussion of Lkrs in Aromanian, explored per se and in comparison with the distribution of Lkrs in the cognate language Romanian and in the language in contact, Albanian. We begin by illustrating the system of nominal inflections in Aromanian; our data refer to Aromanian varieties spoken in areas of South Albania, including the towns of Divjakë and Fier. 4 The direct vs. oblique case distinction in Aromanian is not preserved in the masculine singular, except for the 3P pronoun. The definite inflection -u contrasts with the zero inflection for indefinites. The oblique in turn is syncretic between the dative (5b) and the genitive (5c). Both are preceded by an element o, essentially the same element as the Romanian pre-genitival al seen in (4) above. (5) a. ari vənitə/am vəzutə fitʃor-u/ un fitʃor/ atse-u has come/I.have seen boy-msg.def/ a boy/ that-msg ‘The boy/a boy/he has come’, ‘I have seen the boy/a boy/him’ b. i o am datə o fitʃor-u/ o un fitʃor/ o ts-ui him it I.have given lkr boy-msg.def/ lkr a boy/ lkr that-msg.obl ‘I gave it to the boy/a boy/him’ c. libr-a o fitʃor-u/ o ts-ui book-fsg.def lkr boy msg.def/ lkr that-msg.obl ‘the boy’s/his book’ The feminine singular presents the case distinctions direct vs. oblique as well as a definiteness distinction, as illustrated in (6). The pre-oblique Lkr takes the form ali – proving us with clear evidence that the Lkr agrees with the embedded modifier DP and not not with the modified head noun (as in Albanian, Romanian). (6) a. ari vənitə/am vəzutə fɛt-a/ unə fɛt-ə/ atse-a has come/I.have seen girl-fsg.def/ a girl-fsg/ that-fsg ‘The girl/a girl/she has come’, ‘I have seen the girl/a girl/her’

4 The variety of Aromanian we present is essentially what Campos (2005) calls Arvantovlaxika; our field data on pre-adjectival Lkrs are consistent we the data he gathers from written texts. Data on pre-oblique Lkrs are not discussed by Campos.

1 Evidence 

 133

b. i o   am datə ali    fet-i/ ali unə fet-i/ her it  I.have given lkr.fsg girl-fsg.obl/ lkr.fsg a girl-fsg.obl/ o ts-jei lkr that-fsg.obl ‘I gave it to the girl/a girl/her’ c. libr-a ali fet-i/ o ts-jei book-fsg.def lkr.fsg girl-fsg.obl/lkr that-fsg.obl ‘the girl’s/her book’ Case (direct vs. oblique) and definiteness distinctions are present in the plural both for the masculine (7) and for the feminine (8). In the oblique plural, there is a single form for the masculine and feminine pronoun.5 (7) a. ari vənitə/am vəzutə fitʃor-jə/ ndoi fitʃor/ atse-i have come/I.have seen boy-mpl.def/ some boy/ that-mpl The ‘boys/some boys/they have come’, ‘I saw the boys/some boys/them’ b. i o am datə o fitʃor-ju/ o ts-u’ɣor him it I.have given lkr boy-pl.obl.def/ lkr that-pl.obl ‘I have given it to the boys/them’ c. libr-a o fitʃor-ju/ o ts-u’ɣor book-fsg.def lkr boy-pl.obl.def/ lkr that-pl.obl ‘the boys’/their book’ (8) a. ari vənitə/am vəzutə fɛtə-li/ ndawə fet-i/ atse-li have come/I.have seen girl-fpl.def/ some girl-fpl/ that-fpl ‘The girls/some girls/they have come’, ‘I have seen the girls/some girls/them’ b. i o am datə o fɛt-uɣu/ o ts-u’ɣor her it I.have given lkr girls-pl.obl.def/ lkr that-pl.obl ‘I have given it to the girls/them’ c. libr-a o fet-uɣu/ o ts-u’ɣor the book lkr girls-pl.obl.def/ lkr that-pl.obl ‘the girls’/their book’ Tables 1 and 2 shows a summary of φ-features, definiteness and case inflections in Aromanian, limited to the inflectional classes that we have chosen to illustrate here. In the oblique only the direct declension has been exemplified, see chapter 6 for complementary examples.

5 In order to process the data it is useful to keep in mind that -γ- is a phonological alternant of -l-.

134 

 5 Lkrs in Aromanian in comparison with Albanian

Table 1: Aromanian definite inflections.

Nom/Acc Dat/Gen

msg

fsg

mpl

fpl

-u -u

-a -i

-jə -ju/uɣu

-li -uɣu

Table 2: Aromanian indefinite inflections.

Nom/Acc Dat/Gen

msg

fsg

mpl

fpl

∅ ∅

-ə -i

∅ ∅

-i -i

In Table 3 we schematize oblique introducers, found in front of genitives and of datives. They differ from Romanian in two important respects. First in Romanian, as seen in (4) the pre-genitival Lkr agrees with the head noun; in Aromanian the Lkr agrees with the genitive, as seen in the (c) examples in (5)–(8). The other difference is that in Romanian the Lkr series related to (15) only appears in genitive contexts of the type in (5c), (6c) etc.; dative complements are externalized by the oblique DP without any Lkr. In Aromanian, on the contrary, Lkrs are obligatory in front of datives, as illustrated in the (b) examples of (5)–(8). Table 3: Aromanian pre-genitive/dative Lkrs. msg

fsg

mpl

fpl

o

ali

o

o

The demonstrative series, seen in (5)-(8) in its pronominal usage, is also deployed as a pre-adjectival Lkr. The Lkr agrees with the head noun in gender, number, and case as shown in (9) for the masculine singular. The Lkr is generally excluded in contexts with an indefinite noun, cf. (9c), recalling the polydefinite distribution of Greek. It is also excluded in the presence of the comparative element ka-ma ‘lit: how-more’, though the Lkr may optionally combine with the simple form ma ‘more’, as in (9b). The adjective in turn agrees in gender and number. It is also sensitive to the definite or indefinite nature of the head DP. Thus in definite direct contexts the adjective combines with -u in the singular masculine in the definite (9a), but is inflectionless in the indefinite (9c). This seems to indicate that it agrees with the head noun in definiteness as well.

1 Evidence 

(9)

 135

a. fitʃor-u (a)tse-u mar-u/ ɣuŋg-u/ ʃkurt-u boy-msg.def lkr-msg big-msg.def/ tall-msg.def/ msg.def ‘the big/tall/short boy’ b. fitʃor-u kama mari/ atse-u ma mar-u boy-msg.def more big/ lkr-msg more big-msg.def ‘the bigger boy’ c. un fitʃor mari a boy big ‘a big boy’ d. o fitʃor-u ats(-uɣ)ui mar-u/ ɣuŋg-u/ lkr boy-msg.def lkr-msg.obl.def big-msg.def/ tall-msg.def/ ʃkurt-u short-msg.def ‘to the big/tall/short boy’

Very similar considerations apply to the masculine plural in (10). In the oblique, it can be seen that the adjective may agree with the head noun in case, though it need not do so, as in (10c-c’).6 (10)

a. fitʃor-jə (a)tse-jə mar-jə boys-mpl.def lkr-mpl big-mpl.def ‘the big boys’ b. fitʃor-jə kama mari boy-mpl.def more big ‘the bigger boys’ c. o fitʃor-ju ots-uɣor mar-jə lkr boy-mpl.obl.def lkr-pl.obl big-mpl.def ‘to the big boys’ c’. o fitʃor-əɣu otsə-ɣoru mar-uɣu lkr boy-mpl.obl.def lkr-pl.obl big-mpl.obl.def ‘to the big boys’

The feminine singular is illustrated in (11). Case is present on adjectives only optionally in (11d). By contrast, the nominalized adjective in (12) is obligatorily inflected for case; therefore the example in (12) shows that the reduced declension 6 In demonstrative-noun structures, the demonstrative may be followed by the definite or indefinite form of the noun. Thus, we can find atse-li məjer next to atse-li məjer-li ‘those women’. This may be relevant for the fact that case inflections are possible but not necessary on the adjective following the Lkr.

136 

 5 Lkrs in Aromanian in comparison with Albanian

realized on adjectives (generally only φ-features) does not correspond to a morphological limitation. (11)

a. fɛt-a ats-ɛ mar-ɛ/ ɣuŋg-a/ ʃkurt-a girl-fsg.def lkr-fsg big-fsg.def/ tall-fsg.def/ short-fsg.def ‘the big/tall/short girl’ b. fɛt-a kama mari girl-fsg.def more big ‘the bigger girl’ c. un fɛt-ə mari a girl-fsg big ‘a big girl’ d. ali fɛt-i ats-jei mari/ɣuŋg(-i) lkr.fsg girl-fsg.obl lkr-fsg.obl big/tall-fsg.obl ‘to the big/tall girl’

(12)

ali ʃkurt-i lkr-fsg.obl short-fsg.obl ‘to the short one’

Feminine plural examples are provided in (13). The fact that there is no agreement in case, but only in φ-features (and eventually definiteness), between the adjective and the Lkr/head noun is particularly evident in (13b). (13)

a. fɛtə-li atse-li marə-li girl-fpl.def lkr- fpl big-fpl.def ‘the big girls’ b. o fɛt-uɣu ots-uɣor marə-li lkr girl-pl.obl.def lkr-pl.def big-fpl.def ‘to the big girls’

Pre-adjectival linkers, lexicalized by the demonstrative, are summarized in Table 4. Morphologically, the declension of ats- seen in (16) is the same when it plays a referential role, for instance as the 3P pronoun in (5)-(8), and when it functions as a pre-adjectival Lkr, for instance in (9)-(13). We take it that the change in colour of the vocalic initial from a- in the direct cases to o- in the oblique is due to the fact that the Lkr o- is present in the oblique. 7 7 We have separated o and glossed it as Lkr in examples where the demonstrative has pronominal reference, in (5)-(8). We have avoided this in Lkr contexts for reasons of readability.

1 Evidence 

 137

Table 4: Aromanian pre-adjective Lkrs.

Nom/Acc Dat/Gen

msg

fsg

mpl

fpl

atse-u o ts-(uɣ)ui

atse(-a) o ts-jei

atse-jə o ts-uɣor

atse-li

The ats- element can also occur in a demonstrative function proper, as in (14) and it can combine with a homophonous pre-adjectival Lkr. Of the two occurrences of ats- is the first one that determines the demonstrative reading of the DP; the Lkr does not. The data in (14) once again differentiate Aromanian from Romanian, as reported in (3b) above, where the cel element that optionally appears in pre-adjectival position in Romanian is in complementary distribution with other demonstratives, pointing to the fact that it maintains (part of) the D force of the demonstrative. (14)

jo m datə ats-əɣor doi fitʃor-jə ats-əɣor marə to.them it I.have given that-pl.obl two boy-mpl.def lkr-pl.obl big ‘I have given it to those two big boys’

1.2 Comparison with Albanian The Aromanian data concerning pre-adjectival Lkrs parallel closely those of Albanian, as already illustrated in (1), which shows the distribution of the definite inflections of the noun and of the pre-adjectival Lkr in the Albanian nominative. In (15) we provide examples in the accusative. The comparison between (1) and (15) shows that the form of the linker is sensitive to the case of the head noun, while comparison between (15a) and (15b) shows that it is sensitive to the definiteness of the head noun. As seen in (1), the pre-adjectival Lkr takes the form i for the masculine singular, ɛ for the feminine singular and tə for the plural when embedded under a nominative noun. An accusative singular noun embeds the Lkr ɛ when definite and tə when indefinite, as in (15). In (16) we exemplify an oblique context. (15)

a. patʃ dial-i-n/ vaiz-ə-n ɛ mað/mað-ɛ I.saw boy-msg-acc.def/ girl-fsg-acc.def lkr.acc big/big-f ‘I saw the big boy/girl’ b. patʃ ɲə dial/vaiz tə mað/mað-ɛ I.saw a boy/girl lkr big/big-f ‘I saw a big boy/girl’

138  (16)

 5 Lkrs in Aromanian in comparison with Albanian

j-a ðatʃ diaʎ-i-t/ vaz-ə-s tə/sə mað/mað-ɛ him/her-it I.gave boy-msg-obl.def/ girl-fsg-obl.def lkr big/big-f ‘I gave it to the big boy/girl’ Albanian (Gjirokastër)

The examples in (17) involve pre-genitival Lkrs. If the embedding noun is oblique masculine singular the Lkr is tə, as in (17a); the Lkr is sə, when the head noun is feminine singular oblique as illustrated in (17b). (17)

a. j-a ðatʃ diaʎ-i-t tə mɔtr-ə-s him-it I.gave boy-msg-obl.def lkr sister-fsg-obl.def ‘I gave it to the child of the sister’ b. para putr-ə-s sə cɛn-i-t before leg-fsg-obl.def lkr dog-msg-obl.def ‘before the leg of the dog’ Albanian (Gjirokastër)

The same Lkr paradigm characterizes pre-adjectival and pre-genitival contexts, as schematized in Tables 4 and 5 (see Franco et al. (2015) for the full relevant set of examples). It is worth noting that ɛ for the accusative singular corresponds to the form pronominal clitic (‘him/her/it’). Table 5: Albanian Lkrs with definite head nouns.

Nom Acc Obl

msg

fsg

pl

i ɛ tə

ɛ ɛ sə

tə tə tə

Table 6: Albanian Lkrs with indefinite head nouns.

Nom Acc Obl

msg

fsg

pl

i tə tə

ɛ tə tə

tə tə tə

Let us summarize the evidence presented so far. In both Aromanian and Albanian, pre-adjectival Lkrs agree with the head noun in φ-features and case. In both languages they are sensitive to the definiteness of the head noun. Specifically in Aromanian only definite head nouns admit of Lkrs while in Albanian

2 Previous analyses of Lkrs 

 139

the definite and indefinite Lkrs paradigms differ along the lines of Tables 5 and 6. In both languages the adjective takes on nominal class (gender) and number inflection agreeing with the head noun, though in Aromanian it also marginally displays case. The same Lkrs (essentially definite articles) precede both adjectives and genitives in Albanian; however Aromanian has demonstrative-based Lkrs in front of adjectives, and a different set of article(-related) elements in front of obliques. On the basis of the morphological evidence seen so far, but also of syntactic and interpretive evidence to be analyzed in later sections, Lkrs (at least in the languages considered) seem close to what is usually called agreement. A key theoretical question then is why they would surface in the form of D morphology, namely articles in Albanian and even demonstratives in Aromanian, despite not having the semantic force of D operators.

2 Previous analyses of Lkrs There are good reasons for rejecting various theoretical proposals on Lkrs, as case assigners, as copulas, as means for identity avoidance – which we will review in this section. The construal of Lkrs as copulas, proposed by den Dikken and Singhapreecha (2004) is undermined by the observation that in Albanian the pre-adjectival Lkr is not restricted to DP-internal contexts, but appears in copular constructions, as in (18), where the copula is independently lexicalized. The same is true of the pre-genitival Lkrs, as illustrated in (19). (18)

(19)

a. a-'i ɐʃt that-msg is ‘It(m) is red’ b. a'j-ɔ ɐʃt that-fsg is ‘It(f) is red’ b. a't-a/a't-ɔ those-m/those-f ‘They are red’

i lkr.msg

kuc red

ɛ lkr.fsg

kuc-ɛ red-f

jan are

tə kuc/kuc-ɛ lkr.pl red/red-f

a. ky ɐʃt i this-msg is lkr.msg ‘This(m) is of the boy’s’ b. kj-ɔ ɐʃt ɛ this-f is lkr.fsg

dial-i-t boy-msg-obl.def dial-i-t boy-msg-obl.def

140 

 5 Lkrs in Aromanian in comparison with Albanian

c. kə't-a/kə't-ɔ jan these-m/these-f are ‘These are of the boy’s’

tə dial-i-t lkr.pl boy-msg-obl.def Albanian (Gjirokastër)

Similar data are found in Iranian languages, often taken as paradigmatic examples of Lkr structures. In the Bahdînî dialect of Kurmanji Kurdish in (20) a Lkr je(t)/jɑ: agreeing with the subject precedes the adjective and the enclitic copula.8 The fact that in predicative contexts the Lkrs are not in complementary distribution with the copula, but combine with it, is an argument in favour of separating Lkrs from copulas. (20)

a. au je/jɑ: mazən-e 3p.sg lkr.m/lkr.f big-is ‘(S)he is big’ b. au jet sur-ən 3p.pl lkr.pl red-are ‘They are red’

Kurmanji Kurdish, Bahdînî dialect

Incidentally, Aromanian adjectives are not preceded by Lkrs in copular context. However, Lkrs still precede post-copular genitives, as in (21). (21)

atse esti o fitʃor-u/ ali məjer-i this is lkr boy-msg.def/ lkr-fsg woman-fsg.obl ‘This belongs to the boy/the woman’

Aromanian

Campos (2005), Campos and Stavrou (2005) propose a construal of Lkrs as copulas for Greek and Aromanian. For these authors, each modifier of N is introduced as part of a small clause PredP. The article in Greek is a lexicalization of the Pred head; according to Campos (2008), the pre-genitival Lkr of Albanian follows the same model, as schematized in (22a) for example (2a) above. 9 As we just saw, this 8 These Lkrs are labelled “tense” ezafes by Haig (2011), who also reports the use of “stand alone” ezafes (essentially demonstratives). Our informants give us the same forms as Haig’s for feminine singular and for plural; in the masculine singular we obtained the form jet, slightly different from the form (y)e recorded by Haig. See Franco et al. (2015) for a full set of data and in depth discussion. 9 Campos (2008:1027) argues that “Albanian constructions with adjectival articles … should be better analysed as containing a complex adjectival head”. This forces him to invoke a process of grammaticalization in order to relate pre-adjectival Lkrs to pregenitival ones: “adjectival articles could have originated as polydefinite constructions, parallel to the structures in Greek and Aromanian […] where the (adjectival) article later got grammaticalized […] This would explain why

2 Previous analyses of Lkrs 

 141

idea clashes with the fact that the Lkr co-occurs with a true copula in sentences like (19). For Campos and Stavrou (2005), on the other hand, the demonstrative in Aromanian is the subject of the predication, as in (22b) – which seems a much more natural role for a D element. (22)

a. [DP libri [PredP [Pred i [DP vəða-it cf. (2a) b. … [PredP atseu [Pred φ [AP maru cf. (9a) (cf. Campos and Stavrou 2005, Campos 2008)

A different line of work, takes Lkrs to licence the possession relation. For Larson and Yamakido (2008), Lkrs are necessary to case licence +N complements of N heads, including adjectives. The data of Albanian suggests a different conclusion, namely that the oblique case morphology of Albanian is sufficient to support the possession relation, as shown by the fact it is sufficient to externalize dative contexts, for instance in (16) or in (23) below. Indeed datives have been treated like possessors in the formal literature at least since Kayne (1984) (see Part I of the monograph). Furthermore, the Albanian Lkr reproduces the agreement features of the head noun, so that in (23) it is morphologically identical the inflection of the head noun, i.e. non-ambiguously an oblique feminine definite. One may wonder why the Lkr would solve any problem with +N embedding that the nominal inflection couldn’t itself solve. (23)

ja ðatʃ vaiz-ə-s sə mað-ɛ to.her-it I.gave girl-fsg-obl.def lkr.fsg.obl big-f ‘I gave it to the (big) girl’ Albanian (Gjirokastër)

Larson and Yamakido’s construal of Lkrs as case licencers has a certain prima facie plausibility for Persian, where there is no overt case morphology. Nevertheless, in Kurmanji Kurdish the direct vs. oblique case distinction is overtly realized and the possessor is invariantly marked oblique, as expected. Furthermore, the oblique inflection alone is able to lexicalize the possessor in dative environments, as in (24b). Despite this, the possessor in genitive environments is still introduced by the Lkr (traditionally called ezafe), as in (24a).

the same set of adjectival articles is used with possessives” (1029). For Campos, as a consequence of the grammaticalization process, “the adjectival article and the adjective form a complex adjectival head A in modern Albanian” (1026).

142  (24)

 5 Lkrs in Aromanian in comparison with Albanian

a. dest-e kurk-i/ ketʃk-e hand-lkr.msg boy-msg.obl/ girl-fsg.obl ‘the hand of the boy/girl’ b. de qalam-ak-i dama ketʃk-e/ kurk-i progr pen-one-msg.obl I.give girl-fsg.obl/ boy-ms.obl ‘I am giving a pen to the girl/boy’ Bahdînî Kurmanji

One last family of accounts for Lkrs takes them to be means for identity avoidance. This approach has recently been revived by Richards (2010) as part of a more general account of identity avoidance/syntactic haplology in morphosyntax (Yip 1998; Neeleman and van de Koot 2006; van Riemsdijk 2008; Manzini 2014a). Empirical reasons lead us to doubt that Lkrs are part of this phenomenon, since Lkrs occur in copular context, in (18)-(21) above, where they do not avoid any type of N-N identity. In short, much of the theoretical literature about Lkrs reviewed in this section provides important insights into the nature of the elementary components that enter into adjectival modification and predication and into possessor embedding. However, there are empirical reasons why none of the analyses of Lkrs (as copulas, as case assigners, as identity avoidance devices) reviewed so far is entirely adequate.

3 Analysis of Lkrs in Albanian The literature on Albanian (Dimitrova-Vulchanova and Giusti 1998, Turano 2002, 2003, Giusti and Turano 2007) agrees that the pre-adjectival article/Lkr is part of the AP constituent. Copular sentences provide us with a straightforward argument for constituency. As we saw, the Albanian Lkr-adjective sequence is not restricted to noun phrase internal contexts, but appears in predicative contexts with an overt copular be. Evidently, the Lkr that appears in front of the adjective, following the copula, is part of the structure of the AP. By extension, in complex nominals it is not a functional projection of the head noun, but rather of the modifier AP – or of the modifier genitive DP, as indicated in structure (25) for example (1b). In (25) we assign the Lkr head to the D category, based on the morpholexical identity of Lkr elements with definite nominal inflections, often analysed as postposed definite articles (cf. fn 24) as well as with clitic pronouns, e.g. accusative ɛ (see the discussion surrounding Table 5). Following chapter 2 we categorize the adjectival φ-features inflection as an N exponent (for nominal class); we refer the reader to chapter 3 for a more detailed study of the internal structure of nominal inflections (distinguishing nominal class, labelled Class, from inflectional class, labelled Infl).

3 Analysis of Lkrs in Albanian 

(25) [D ɛ [A mað [N -ɛ ]]]

 143

cf. (1b)

The data of Aromanian are also telling, since this language recruits as an adjectival Lkr the demonstrative, i.e. an element standardly associated with definite denotation and with the D position of the DP. The analysis in (25) then extends to Aromanian, as in (26). (26) [D (a)tse [N -u]] [A ɣuŋg [N -u]]

cf. (9a)

Recall that Lkrs most often vary according to the φ-features, case and definiteness properties of the head noun being modified (section 1). Second, the same elements that appear as Lkrs also occur with demonstrative/determiner interpretation, as we have just seen. The second fact has led us to categorize them as Ds; the first fact suggests that, whatever else they may be, they are agreement elements. The theoretical question we are faced with is what a referential category like D may have to do with agreement morphology, which is taken not to contribute to interpretation, in descriptive approaches (see Lazard 1992 quoted at the beginning of this chapter) and in formal approaches. Thus for Dimitrova-Vulchanova and Giusti (1998), writing on Albanian, the pre-adjectival article is just a “redundant” agreement. As discussed at some length in chapter 1, one of the tenets of current minimalist theory is that agreement results from an uninterpretable set of features (a probe) seeking a matching interpretable set of features (a goal) for checking (i.e. deletion or valuation of the uninterpretable set). According to Toosarvandani and van Urk (2012), writing on the Iranian language Zazaki, Lkrs are probes, i.e. they are associated with uninterpretable φ-features. This captures the connection between Lkrs and agreement morphology, in terms of the notion of (uninterpretable) probe. Similarly, Philip (2012) in a crosslinguistic study, argues that Lkrs are the head counterpart to uninterpretable φ-features inflections, i.e. uninterpretable (probe) heads. However, this may not be the right way to go if we want to explain why Lkrs overlap with Ds, i.e. (interpretable) definite determiners and pronouns.10 It is true that clitic pronouns have been treated in the minimalist literature as pure bundles of φ-features (i.e. as ϕPs, cf. Roberts 2010), but demonstratives, as in Aromanian, seem unlikely candidates for such a status. There are also technical problems,

10 In Zazaki, the language considered by Toosarvandani and van Urk, the ezafe is identical to the demonstrative and to the 3P singular agreement marker, as in Kurmanji Kurdish exemplified here.

144 

 5 Lkrs in Aromanian in comparison with Albanian

that are brought out by the discussion of Philip (2012). If the Lkr is an uninterpretable probe, then it ought to be deleted at the LF interface; but because it is a head, this would lead to the destruction of the projection it supports, violating principles of structure preservation (Inclusiviness). The other logical option is to start from the D, hence presumably interpretable, status of Lkrs and see whether the continuity of Lkrs (determiners, demonstratives) with agreement can be captured this way. Following chapter 3, we assume that nouns, even non-eventive ones, are predicates and have an argument slot (called the R-role, Williams, 1994). In English, the determiner D saturates the argument of N according to Higginbotham (1985). The same role is played by definite nominal inflections, in Albanian and Romanian/Aromanian (so-called postposed articles). Adjectives in turn are predicates. When embedded under DPs their argument slot is ultimately bound by D; according to Higginbotham (1985), this takes place via an operation of theta-identification between the argument slots of N and A. We propose that in Lkr structures like (25), the Lkr element ɛ provides a partial saturation for the argument slot of the predicate mað ‘big’, to be ultimately bound by the D head of the DP. The resulting syntactic configuration lays the basis for the common lexicalization of Lkrs and determiners/pronominal clitics. Like pronominal clitics or determiners, Lkrs are Ds saturating argument slots of predicates. More precisely, Lkrs are like pronominal clitics in so-called resumptive clitic configurations, in that they serve as bound variables of higher operator Ds. Correspondingly distributional differences are observed between D as a determiner and as a Lkr. For instance in English, the D determiner is higher than the material with which it can co-occur, including quantifiers, and therefore occurs to its left, as in the three/many/few children. Alternatively, determiner Ds are in complementary distribution with other quantifiers, as in the/every/no child. However, in Albanian elements quantifying over the adjective are higher than the D Lkr, preceding it, as illustrated in (27). (27)

mɛ/ʃum ɛ mað-ɛ more/much lkr big-f ‘bigger/very big’

Albanian

More evidence on the low position of the Lkr D as opposed to determiner D in Albanian, comes from instances where the same lexical bases that we have considered so far as adjectives are nominalized. As other nouns, they are inflected for case and definiteness, displaying the full system of nominal inflections. At the same time, they are also preceded by the Lkr. The latter is embedded under quantifiers, including the indefinite article, as in (28). In the structure in (29) the Lkr D

3 Analysis of Lkrs in Albanian 

 145

and the indefinite determiner D co-occur – the Lkr in a lower position and the determiner in a higher position. A very similar picture of the distribution of determiners and Lkrs is proposed by Lekakou and Szendrői (2012), in their account of Greek. They however associate two different categories with Lkrs (D) and with determiners (Def). We propose that the two elements have the same categorial content and only differ because of their distribution. (28)

ɛrð ɲə ɛ mað-ɛ she.came a lkr.f big-f ‘A big one came’

(29)

Albanian (Gjirokastër)

DP D ɲə

AP D ɛ

A maðɛ

The question now is how a structure where two Ds are present, as in (29), is to be interpreted. The higher D, i.e. the determiner, is interpreted in the standard way – i.e. as a quantifier, indicating that there is an individual (or a set of individuals, or a unique/familiar/etc. individual) on which the properties of the NP predicate and those of the sentential predicate overlap. On the other hand, the lower D, i.e. the Lkr, values the argument slot of A, but does not provide a quantificational closure, nor lead to a referential interpretation. The latter is provided by the higher D. One could of course take the path indicated by Lekakou and Szendrői, namely identifying two semantically separate, though homophonous elements. However if we are to maintain the more economical single categorization, we must show that interpretive distinctions are entirely based on distribution. As already mentioned, the relation of determiner and Lkr Ds is essentially the same as between pronominal clitics and doubling/resumptive clitics within the sentential domain. We noticed that in Albanian not only articles overlap with nominal inflections, but also with pronominal clitics. Two interpretations are available to pronominal clitics. In non-doubling contexts the clitic has referential import, and is capable of deictic or anaphoric pronominal reference. On the other hand, when a doubling DP is present, the clitic is interpreted as a bound variable of it; analogously it is interpreted as a bound variable of a wh- operator in so-called resumptive clitic configurations.

146 

 5 Lkrs in Aromanian in comparison with Albanian

At this point of the discussion, we are ready to define what a Lkr D is, as opposed to a determiner D. What a Lkr D and a determiner D have in common is that they are both able to satisfy argument slots. What they do not share depends on their different position of merger. A determiner D, closing off the DP is an operator, establishing a relation between a restrictor (the NP) and a domain of quantification (a VP). A Lkr D is a bound variable of the higher D – it provides a satisfaction for a theta-role ultimately bound by the higher D. Let us then consider the embedding of an AP under a larger DP, for example in (1b), with the structure in (30). We treat the N-A order as basic in (30), though much generative literature assumes that the order A-N is basic and the order N-A is derived (Cinque 1994).11 We follow Chomsky (2013) in assuming that the syntactic component only encodes dominance relations, and not precedence relations. Thus the syntactic merger structure for A and N is simply {N, A} where N and A are unordered with respect to one another. The language particular rule that determines the order N-A vs. A-N is part of the externalization component operating at the SM interface (see also Abels and Neeleman 2012). (30)

DP Dx=y

cf. (1b) NP

NP N vaizλy

AP D ay

D ɛx

A A maðλx

N ɛ

In (30) the adjective mað- ‘big’ has a single, obligatory argument position, suggested in (30) by the λx notation (cf. Adger and Ramchand’s (2005) Λ feature). Crucially for present purposes, the pre-adjectival Lkr ɛ provides a satisfaction of the argument slot of the predicate. The -a definite inflection of the noun in turn satisfies the R-role of the noun (here λy). Its scope position is notated by the D

11 For Dimitrova-Vulchanova and Giusti (1998), the N-A order in Albanian is generated by movement of the Noun to a Focus position, due to the need to licence the D position. For Turano (2002, 2003), the N-A order is derived directly by movement of N to D.

3 Analysis of Lkrs in Albanian 

 147

closing the DP. Following Higginbotham (1985), we assume that adjectival modification involves the identification of the theta-role of the adjective with that of the noun. Therefore, in (30) there is ultimately a single argument D, satisfying both the predicate ‘girl’ and the predicate ‘big’. The definite referent denoted by the complex DP correspondingly lies at the intersection of the ‘big’ and ‘girl’ properties. In (30), we may further connect the fact that the two argument slots of the adjective and of the noun are identified to the agreement which holds between these two categories. These elements are in a c-command configuration, since the noun N c-commands the adjective A and its associated Lkr; furthermore, locality holds, in that all relevant material is within the same DP phase. Standard minimalist Agree however requires an indication of where interpretable/ valued and uninterpretable/unvalued features reside. In chapter 1 we reviewed the issues arising from the application of Chomsky’s (2000a, 2001) Agree in the nominal domain, especially in language families like Bantu or Romance (or here Albanian) where essentially every lexical category within the DP bears agreement. These problems have led to complications of the original Agree rule, for instance Multiple Agree (Carstens 2008), without resulting in a standardized approach. Indeed several recent works on Agree (e.g. Preminger 2014) simply declare that concord, meaning agreement within the DP, is not included in their discussion. In chapter 1, we addressed the descriptive questions just raised, concluding that Chomsky’s (2000a) original Agree holds within DPs, however deprived of the interpretable/uninterpretable or valued/unvalued distinction. At least within the DP, all φ-features are interpretable/valued; in fact, if Manzini and Savoia (2005, 2007, 2011a) are correct, the same holds of Agree as applied to sentential constituents. In structure (30), then, abstracting from any pre-encoding of features and of probe/goal status, Agree applies under c-command, locality and identity. Thus N agrees with the Lkr D, and the Lkr D agrees with A, φ-features being interpretable throughout. As discussed in chapter 1, the result of Agree is the creation of an equivalence set of different occurrences of the same φ-features cluster for purposes of SEM interpretation; thus each equivalence set individuates a single referent.

3.1 Pre-genitival Lkrs In order to understand the role of pre-genitival Lkrs, it is necessary to consider the nature of genitive case – or of the oblique case, which in languages like Albanian subsumes both genitive and dative. As already discussed at length in Part I of this

148 

 5 Lkrs in Aromanian in comparison with Albanian

monograph, we retain the traditional characterization of genitives as possessors. It is also natural to construe ditransitive verbs as events causing a possession to hold (Kayne 1984); in other words, I give the book to John translates as I cause the book to be in John’s possession. We take this shared interpretive content to be the origin of the widespread syncretism between genitive and dative – holding in Albanian, in Romanian/Aromanian, in Iranian languages (e.g. Kurmanji Kurdish) which still have a case declension. In chapters 2, 4 we take the relevant characterization of possession to be an inclusion one, that we notate as ⊆. Under this proposal, and adopting for pre-genitival Lkrs the same position and structure as for pre-adjectival ones, the representation of an Albanian Noun-genitive DP structure, for instance (2b), is as in (31). The genitive noun is formed by the N base cɛni- (the predicate cɛn- ‘dog’ followed by the N ending -i) merged with the ⊆ oblique ending -t. As detailed in chapters 2, 4 the latter is an elementary two-place predicate, establishing a possessor/inclusion relation between the noun to which it attaches and the head noun, so that the dog possesses/includes the leg. (31)

DP

cf. (2b)

Dx

NP N N putr

DP D a

D ɛx

N N cɛniy

⊆ -tλx, λy

The role of the pre-genitival Lkr in (31) is essentially the same as that of the pre-adjectival Lkr, namely to provide a partial saturation of an argument slot. In this instance, the predicate of which it satisfies an argument is the inclusion predicate ⊆. Though the external argument is ultimately supplied by the head noun putra ‘the leg’, in Albanian it is necessary to provide a saturation of the external argument of ⊆ within the embedded complement DP, namely by the Lkr ɛ. This is parallel to the analysis provided in (30) for pre-adjectival Lkrs. Though in (30) the argument slot of maðɛ ‘big’ is ultimately satisfied via theta-identification with the argument slot of vajza ‘the girl’, a Lkr language like Albanian imposes a (partial) satisfaction of the argument slot within the AP projection.

4 Lkrs in Aromanian 

 149

Needless to say, the same theoretical issues concerning agreement within DPs raised in connection with pre-adjectival Lkrs arises with pre-genitival ones. The N putra ‘the leg’ and the D Lkr ɛ are in a c-command relation; locality also holds, since all elements involved are inside the DP phase. But our discussion has been conducted without reference to any valued/unvalued or interpretable/uninterpretable asymmetry in φ-features. Indeed we hold that the result of agreement is best conceived as the creation of an equivalence set of occurrences of identical (or non distinct) feature clusters. The effect is that of individuating a single referent at the SEM interface, i.e. essentially the same as under the checking (i.e. deletion) of uninterpretable features.

4 Lkrs in Aromanian As briefly indicated in section 1, standard Romanian may position what is traditionally called a strong article (cel) between a noun and a modifying adjective, cf. example (3). However this element is not obligatory and it is in complementary distribution with prenominal determiners, showing that it partakes of their nature – and is not a Lkr. From an external point of view, therefore, the presence of pre-adjectival Lkrs in Aromanian seems to be a contact phenomenon with non-Romance Balkan languages including Albanian (and Greek). At the same time, Aromanian presents differences with respect to Albanian. In Aromanian, pre-adjectival demonstratives either precede quantifiers like ma or they are in complementary distribution with them, as shown in (9b). Therefore the demonstrative Lkr lexicalizes a higher D position in the AP than the Albanian article, as shown in (32), to be compared with Albanian (29). (32)

DP

cf. (9b)

Dx=y

NP N N fitʃor λx

DP D ux

D atseuy

QP Q ma

A A mar λy

N u

150 

 5 Lkrs in Aromanian in comparison with Albanian

Nevertheless, the interpretation of (32) is the same as that of Albanian (30). Two predicative bases are present, namely the adjective mar-‘big’ and the head noun fitʃor- ‘boy’. They both have an argument slot and the Lkr is necessary to provide a satisfaction for the argument of the adjective prior to theta-unification with the argument of the noun. In short, a relatively high D position (lower in any event than that of the D determiner of the whole DP) is compatible with a Lkr reading. The structural difference between Albanian and Aromanian may be plausibly connected to the different lexical properties of their Lkrs. Specifically, we suggest that the clitic nature of the Albanian Lkr allows it to merge in the inflectional domain of the adjective; the Aromanian demonstrative takes the position normally taken by demonstratives in phrasal syntax, namely above quantifiers.12 A second difference between the Lkr in Albanian and Aromanian is that in Aromanian the Lkr cooccurs only with definite head nouns, behaving in this respect like Greek Lkrs, i.e. so-called polydefiniteness. Recall that in Albanian Lkrs cooccur both with definite and with indefinite head nouns. At the same time, tables 5-6 show that in Albanian a partially different series of Lkrs is instantiated depending on the definite or indefinite nature of the head noun. Similarly, we may see the definiteness restriction holding of the Lkr construction in Aromanian (or Greek) as a consequence of the fact that the Lkr (the demonstrative) agrees in definiteness with the DP – and is only compatible with definite inflections on the head noun. In other words, Albanian Lkrs in (22) have two different formats according to the (in)definiteness of the head noun; in Aromanian the alternation is between externalized Lkrs and no Lkrs at all. In short, from the viewpoint of language contact, there is an alignment of Aromanian on Albanian in what concerns pre-adjectival Lkrs, which are not present in the cognate language Romanian, or in other Romance languages; an even better match is Greek, which has pre-adjectival Lkrs only in definite DPs, as in Aromanian. At the same time, this alignment of Aromanian on contact languages makes use of existing lexical resources, i.e. demonstratives, as well as existing structural possibilities, i.e. the independently attested position of the demonstrative in front of quantifiers seen also in (32).

12 Campos (2008) uses the contrast between the position of quantifiers in Albanian and in Greek vs Aromanian to argue that in Albanian the article is incorporated into the adjective. The discussion in the texts shows that this particularly strong conclusion is not necessary. See also fn. 31 for an argument that the present theory is simpler in that it does require recourse to grammaticalization.

4 Lkrs in Aromanian 

 151

4.1 Pre-genitival Lkrs Cross-linguistically, pre-genitival Lkrs normally agree with the head noun of the DP embedding the genitive. This generalization is central for instance to Philip’s (2012) understanding of Lkrs. Albanian is a typical language consistent with the generalization; in the structure in (31), agreement between the Lkr and the head noun corresponds to the fact that the Lkr satisfies the external argument of the ⊆ elementary predicate introduced by the genitive case. Another examples of the relevant pattern is provided by Romanian, as in examples (4) whose structure is sketched in (33). Oblique case introduces the ⊆ possession/inclusion predicate. The internal argument of ⊆ is băiatul ‘the boy’, i.e. the possessor. The ale Lkr provides a low level lexicalization of the possessee, i.e. the external argument of ⊆, acting essentially as a bound variable (a doubling clitic) of the DP două kămăşi ‘two shirts’, with which it agrees (in the feminine plural). (33) două kămăşi [DP ale [băiatul [⊆ -ui]]]

cf. (4)

Aromanian differs from the typical state of affairs illustrated by Albanian (31) and Romanian (33), in that pre-genitival Lkrs agree with the genitive DP. A certain amount of theoretical literature has been devoted to pre-genitival al, ale etc. in Romanian. Grosu (1994), d’Hulst et al. (2000), Dobrovie-Sorin (2000) distinguish in it an invariable element a followed by the suffixal definite article. For Grosu (1994), a is the preposition a followed by the enclitic article. For d’Hulst et al. (2000) and Dobrovie-Sorin (2000), a is an invariable N constituent, so that the categorial signature of the al series is D (see also Cornilescu 1992), as proposed here. The fact that for Grosu, the al series results from the a preposition followed by the enclitic article, leads him to assign a Case-marking role to these elements. Cornilescu (1992:126–127) identifies the al series with the category D, but her conclusion is also that its role is that of a case-marker. In her words “AL is a functional D head which assigns Gen[itive] to its QP/DP complement” (see also Giurgea 2012). Other notable proponents of the D categorization like d’Hulst et al. (2000), Dobrovie-Sorin (2000) argue instead that the al elements are essentially agreement heads. The structure in (33) implies that we side with the construal of the Romanian al series as agreeing Ds. At the same time, this is far from a foregone result for Aromanian. In structure (34), for example (6c), the feminine singular Lkr ali agrees with the embedded genitive. Following the literature just quoted we take a- as an invariable nominal base to which the definite l- inflection is attached. Importantly, the latter is followed by the oblique inflection -i, since the Lkr agrees with the embedded oblique in case.

152 

 5 Lkrs in Aromanian in comparison with Albanian

(34)

NP

cf. (6c)

N libr-a

D N a-

⊆P

⊆

N fet-

⊆ i

D l-

N ⊆ i

Interpretively, we have seen that Albanian and Romanian Lkrs seen in (31) and in (33) provide a lower level satisfaction for the external argument slot of ⊆, ultimately bound by the head DP. The pre-oblique Lkr of Aromanian, cannot play any role in introducing the external argument of ⊆ precisely because it agrees with the oblique DP it embeds. Rather its role may be that of doubling ⊆ itself. The conclusion that the Lkr of Aromanian, atypically from a crosslinguistic point of view, concurs to introducing the oblique relation ⊆ is supported by two main observations. First, the Lkr introduces not just the oblique in genitive contexts, but all obliques. Second, at least in the masculine singular where there no longer is any direct vs oblique inflectional case distinction (the -u inflection only externalizes N class properties). Therefore the o Lkr is entirely responsible for externalizing ⊆ in dative and in genitive contexts. In other respects, Aromanian is once again similar to Albanian. Thus in Aromanian (6b), the pre-genitival Lkr can embed a whole DP, including an indefinite article, as can be seen in structure (35). The same holds in Albanian (Franco et al. 2015). (35) ⊆ ali

⊆P

QP Q unə

N N fet

⊆ i

By contrast, in Romanian, the presence of pre-genitival Lkrs depends on the absence of determiners preceding the genitive. Thus the Lkr is lexicalized in

5 Conclusions 

 153

(36a), but not in (36b) where the genitives preceded by an indefinite article is embedded under the preposition a (Giurgea 2012). (36) a. haine ale avocat-ului clothes-f lkr.f lawyer-msg.obl ‘clothes of the lawyer’ b. haine a   mai multe persoane clothes- f to  several people ‘the clothes of several people’ Let us summarize. In Albanian and in Romanian, the ⊆ relator, externalized by the oblique case, is satisfied by the DP it embeds (its internal argument, i.e. the possessor) and by a Lkr (the external argument, i.e. the possessee). The role of the latter is to provide a local copy of the modified DP. Aromanian also has a preoblique Lkr, which however doubles the oblique DP. In other words, its role is not that of providing a local saturation for the external argument of the ⊆ elementary predicate, but rather that of concurring to externalize ⊆ itself.

5 Conclusions One set of conclusions relates to Aromanian as a language in contact. As such, it displays alignment phenomena (Gumperz and Wilson 1971, see also chapter 11) with Albanian, with which it is in contact – specifically the use of the demonstrative as a preadjectival Lkr. In theoretical terms, existing lexical resources (i.e. the demonstrative) find a new structural collocation in Aromanian (reanalysis), in conditions of systematic bilingualism with Albanian (contact). For pre-genitival Lkrs, Aromanian has a separate lexical series which it shares with Romanian. At the same time, structures that are present neither in Romanian nor in the contact language Albanian also emerge – namely Lkrs in front of datives as well as of genitives, and agreeing with the genitive, rather than with the head noun. Thus the pressures of language contact (the potential tension between structural alignment and existing lexical resources in the language) brings about a result which is different from both Romanian and Albanian, namely agreement of the Lkr with the genitive – even though both Romanian and Albanian themselves have agreement of the Lkr with the head noun. In theoretical terms, these outcomes are especially interesting, to the extent that they are attributable directly to UG. More specifically, we concluded that Lkrs (in Indo-European languages) are D elements. Their role is providing a saturation of an open argument slot of an

154 

 5 Lkrs in Aromanian in comparison with Albanian

adjective, a genitive relator (case) and so on, within the projection of that element, i.e. prior to closure by definiteness or quantification. Binding of the Lkr by a higher operator requires identity of their referentially relevant features, i.e. agreement. We propose adopting the Minimal Search and Match conception of Agree in Chomsky (2000a) – except for the absence of the interpretable/uninterpretable contrast (or equivalently the valued/unvalued one). This allows us to disregard issues relating to what plays the role of probe and goal within a DP and also to eliminate the need for Multiple Agree (or for upward Agree etc.). As a consequence, Agree can no longer be triggered by the need to delete or value uninterpretable/unvalued features before the application of Full Interpretation at the C-I interface. We suggest that the trigger for Agree still is Full Interpretation, but because it forces feature sets that concur to the satisfaction of the same argument slot to be identified. In other word, Agree picks up a single set of referential features for each argument slot – however it does so not by deleting uninterpretable sets, but rather by grouping together all locally identical sets, and interpreting them as a single referent with multiple occurrences.

6 Case in Aromanian compared to Romanian: The Person split and agreeing possessives This chapter lies at the intersection of several lines of inquiries developed in previous chapters. The data are provided by Aromanian varieties spoken in South Albania, as in chapter 5. The data from chapter 5 are presented in section 1, without the extra complexity introduced in chapter 5 by the comparison with Albanian; they are instead briefly compared to Romanian. As in previous discussion, oblique cases are two-place predicates; specifically, genitive in the DP domain and dative in the sentential domain introduce a part-whole relation between a whole (the possessor) and a part (the possessee). Linkers in front of both genitive and dative obliques are connected to the presence of this predication, in that linkers provide a lexicalization of one of the arguments of the relator. In section 2 we extend to Aromanian the discussion of pronominal systems undertaken in chapter 4 for Albanian, where we saw that they often include a Person split differentiating 1/2P(erson) from 3P. We argue that these facts are not mere morphological quirks; rather they externalize Person splits with respect to case at the underlying syntactic level. In section 3, on the basis of previous results, we  tackle 1/2P possessives in Aromanian (and Romanian), which are endowed with an inflection agreeing with the head noun, unlike 3P possessives. We construe their inflection as a doubling of the linker (or vice versa), and argue that both belong to the larger set of so-called Suffixaufnahme phenomena, as do possessives in Romance generally.

1 Overview of nominal inflections, linkers and oblique case As we saw in chapter 5, Aromanian distinguishes direct from oblique case – where the latter covers dative and genitive contexts. In chapter 5 we took as our basis the varieties of Fier and Diviakë in South Albania; in this chapter we present data from the variety of Libofshë, as well as from the two other varieties. The examples in (1) contain the definite inflection paradigm, of I and II class nominal bases. In the masculine singular, the -u inflection externalizes properties only of nominal class (gender). The externalization of oblique case depends entirely on the presence of the Linker (Lkr) element that precedes the noun, namely  o. In the feminine singular, -a in the direct case contrasts with -i in the oblique. The masculine plural presents either palatalization of the final consonant of the lexical base or palatal ʎ; in either instance nominative -i alternates with oblique -u(ru). In the feminine plural there is no palatalization; case endings are https://doi.org/10.1515/9781501505140-006

156 

 6 Case in Aromanian compared to Romanian

l-i for the direct cases and r/l-u for the oblique. The Lkr takes the form ali in the feminine singular and o in the plural.1 (1) a. ari vənit/am vədzut fitʃor-u/ bərbat-u/ fet-a/ has come/I.have seen boy-msg.def/ man-msg.def/ girl-fsg.def/  məjɛr-a woman-fsg.def ‘The boy/the man/the girl/the woman has come’/ ‘I have seen the man etc.’ b. arə vənit/ am vədzut  fitʃor-ʎi/  bərbats(-i)/  fət-li/ have come/I.have seen boy-mpl.def/ men-mpl.def/ girl-fpl.def/ məʎer-li women-fpl.def ‘The boys/the men/the girls/the women have come’/ ‘I have seen the men etc.’ c. i o ded o fitʃor-u/ o bərbat-u/ ali fət-i/ him/her it I. gave lkr boy-msg.def/ lkr man-msg.def/lkr girl-fsg.obl/ ali məjɛr-i lkr woman-fsg.obl ‘I gave it to the boy/the man/the girl/the woman’ d. i o ded o fitʃor-ʎu/ o bərbats-uru/ o fət-ru/ them it I. gave lkr boy-pl.obl.def/lkr men-pl.obl.def/lkr girl-pl.obl.def/ o məʎer-lu lkr women-pl.obl.def ‘I gave it to the boys/the men/the girls/the women’ Libofshë The definite inflection paradigm corresponding to I and II class nominal bases is summarized in Table 1. In Table 2 we schematize the inflectional system of III class nouns (e.g. keni ‘dog’), not illustrated in the examples. Aromanian obliques in both genitive and dative contexts are introduced by Lkrs, which take the form indicated in Table 3. It may be useful to dwell briefly on the comparison with Romanian inflections, summarized in Table 4 for the I, II class. Final -i is associated with the oblique singular only in the feminine in Aromanian, but it is part of the inflection of the masculine as well in Romanian. In both languages it also forms part of the direct case plural. In its double role as a plural and as an oblique, -i continues

1 The varieties of Diviakë and Fier in chapter 5 yield the same paradigm, with minimal differences, certainly also depending on different habits of the single informants – for instance in the masculine plural one finds fitʃor-jə/-ju rather than fitʃor-ʎi/-ʎu in (1), without the ʎ segment.

1 Overview of nominal inflections, linkers and oblique case 

 157

Table 1: Aromanian definite nominal declension: I/II class.

Direct Oblique

msg

fsg

mpl

fpl

-u -u

-a -i

Palatal/-ʎi -ʎu/Palatal -uru

-li -ru/-lu

Table 2: Aromanian definite nominal declension: III class.

Direct Oblique

sg

pl

-li -li

(Palatal) -li (Palatal) -uru

Table 3: Aromanian pre-oblique Lkrs. msg

fsg

pl

o

ali

o

Table 4: Romanian definite nominal declension (I, II class).

Direct Oblique

msg

fsg

mpl

fpl

-ul -ului

-a -ei

(Palatal) -ii (Palatal) -ilor

-ele -elor

Latin -i (nominative plural and genitive/dative singular). Similarly, the oblique plural Romanian -lor of and Aromanian -ru/lu are transparently connected to the Latin plural oblique (genitive) -ru(m). Indefinite nouns in Aromanian have a reduced set of inflections, which differentiate direct and oblique case only in the feminine singular, as illustrated in (5). Since indefinite articles are not case inflected either, the difference between direct and oblique case is externalized by the Lkr in front of the oblique.2 (2) a. ari vənit/am  vədzut un fitʃor/ un bərbat/ unə fɛt-ə/   unə məjɛr-ə Has come/I.have seen a boy/ a man/ a girl-fsg/ a woman-fsg ‘A boy/a man/a girl/a woman has come’, ‘I have seen a boy etc.’

2 The varieties of Diviakë and Fier in chapter 5 display the same inflectional system.

158 

 6 Case in Aromanian compared to Romanian

b. arə vənit/am vədzut mult bərbats/ mult fitʃor(-i)/ mult fet-i/ have come/I.have seen many men/ many boy-pl/ many girl-pl/ mult məʎɛr-i many women-pl ‘Many boys/men/girls/women have come’,‘I have seen many boys etc.’ c. i o ded o un fitʃor/   ali un fet-i him/her it I.gave lkr a boy/  lkr a girl-fsg.obl ‘I gave it to a boy/a girl’ d. i o ded o doi bərbats/ o dau məʎɛr-i them it I.gave lkr two men/ lkr two women-pl ‘I gave it to two boys/women’ Libofshë The indefinite is summarized in Table 5 for the I/II class. III class inflections, not exemplified here, are summarized in Table 6. Pre-oblique Lkrs take the form already displayed in table 3. Table 5: Aromanian indefinite nominal declension: I/II class.

Direct Oblique

msg

fsg

mpl

fpl

∅ ∅

-ə -i

(Palatal/-i) (Palatal/-i)

-i -i

Table 6: Aromanian indefinite nominal declension: III class.

Direct Oblique

sg

pl

-i -i

Palatal/-i Palatal/-i

The indefinite paradigm in Aromanian may be usefully compared to that of Romanian. In both languages, only feminine singular displays a residual case alternation between direct case -ă [ə] and oblique -i, as schematized for Romanian in Table 7. On the other hand Romanian has a specialized plural/oblique inflection -e for the feminine, while in Aromanian the plural is -i both in the feminine and masculine, and so is the feminine singular oblique. From a syntactic point of view, a notable difference between Aromanian and Romanian is introduced by the Lkr elements present in Aromanian in dative contexts, exemplified in (1c-d), (2c-d). These should not be confused with the

1 Overview of nominal inflections, linkers and oblique case 

 159

Table 7: Romanian indefinite nominal declension: I/II class.

Direct Oblique

msg

fsg

mpl

fpl

∅ ∅

-ă -e

(Palatal) -i (Palatal) -i

-e -e

preposition la ‘to’ which can introduce datives in Romanian. Specifically, in normative Romanian, “an indirect object whose first component of the nominal phrase … cannot receive the specific dative case-marker will be realized as a PP headed by the preposition la” (Pana Dindelegan 2013: 153). However “in spoken Romanian the indirect object is realized by the preposition la ‘to’ even in configurations in which the first component of the phrase has case inflections” (ibid.), for instance in (3). Historically, pre-dative la continues the Latin preposition ad ‘to’ (Pana Dindelegan 2013: 375), while the Lkr of Aromanian continues the demonstrative ille, illa etc. Formally, the Lkr of Aromanian has agreement properties, while la is invariable. (3) Le-am dat bomboane la cop-ii/cop-ii-lor them-I.have given sweets to children-pl/children-pl-obl.def ‘I gave sweets to (the) children’ Romanian

1.1 Background assumptions In this section, we will provide an essential summary of the conclusions reached in chapter 5. In Romanian, no Lkr is found between a noun and an adjective, though the so-called strong form of the definite article (cel etc.) may appear in Lkr position, as in (4a). Importantly, cel is mutually exclusive with demonstratives, as in (4b), pointing to an operator-like content for it, denoting familiarity, which is missing from Lkrs (Cornilescu and Giurgea 2013:408). (4) a. maşin-a (ce-a) nou-ă car-fsg.def the-fsg new-fsg ‘the new car’ b. *acele case cele vechi those houses the old ‘the old houses’

Romanian

160 

 6 Case in Aromanian compared to Romanian

Romanian genitives are introduced by a Lkr agreeing with the head noun, namely al (msg), a (fsg), ai (mpl), ale (fpl), as seen in (5). Several restrictions apply to the construction in (5). First, the Lkr element is normally left out under adjacency with a definite head noun (Dobrovie-Sorin et al 2013: 314-317). Furthermore the presence of the Lkr element in Romanian depends on the inflectional properties of the genitive DP; if the latter is without case inflection, the preposition a is used (Cornilescu 1992, Giurgea 2012), as in (6). (5) a. un pahar al băiat-ul-ui a glass lkr-msg boy-msg.obl.def ‘a glass of the boy’ b. două kămăş-i ale băiat-ului two shirts-pl lkr-fpl boy-msg.obl.def ‘two shirts of the boy’ (6) haine a mai multe persoane clothes to several people ‘clothes of several people’

Romanian

In Aromanian, there are two sets of Lkrs. The Lkrs in front of adjectives correspond to the demonstrative pronouns. As pointed out in relation to (5), the position between N and Adj is available to demonstratives in Romanian, which however are in complementary distribution with pre-nominal demonstratives; this is not the case in Aromanian. In (7) we reproduce just the singular masculine and feminine from the complete data sets of chapter  5, to illustrate the fact that head noun, Lkr and modifying adjective are in an agreement relation with respect to φ-features and case. In fact, the Lkr is sensitive also to definiteness, since it cooccurs only with definite head nouns, behaving in this respect like Greek polidefiniteness. Thus there is no Lkr in (8). (7) a. fitʃor-u (a)tse-u mar-u boy-msg.def lkr-msg big-msg.def ‘the big boy’ b. o fitʃor-u ats(-uɣ)ui mar-u lkr boy-msg.def lkr-msg.obl big-msg.def ‘to the big boy’ c. fɛt-a ats-ɛ mar-ɛ girl-fsg.def lkr-fsg big-fsg.def ‘the big girl’

1 Overview of nominal inflections, linkers and oblique case 

 161

d. ali fɛt-i ats-jei mar-i lkr girl-fsg.obl lkr-fsg.obl big-fsg.obl ‘to the big girl’ (8) a. un fitʃor mari a boy big ‘a big boy’ b. un fɛt-ə mari a girl-fsg big ‘a big girl’

Fier/Diviakë

In chapter 5 we argued that the structure of (7a) is as in (9). Two predicative bases are present, namely the adjective mar- ‘big’ and the head noun fitʃor- ‘boy’. They both have an argument slot and the Lkr is necessary to provide a satisfaction for the argument of the adjective. Following Higginbotham (1985), adjectival modification involves the identification of the theta-role of the adjective with that of the noun; correspondingly, the referent denoted by the complex DP lies at the intersection of the ‘big’ and ‘girl’ properties (see also Parsons 1979, Partee 1995). The syntactic correlate of theta-unification is Agree, whence the adjective, the noun and their Ds all agree. (9)

DP

cf. (7a)

D

NP N N fitʃor

DP D u

D atseu

A maru

Crucially, the Lkr D does not provide a quantificational closure, leading to a referential interpretation – the latter is provided by the determiner. What a Lkr D and a determiner D have in common is that they are both able to satisfy argument slots. What they do not share depends on their different position of merger. A D closing off the DP is an operator, establishing a relation between a restrictor (the NP) and a domain of quantification (a VP). A Lkr D is a bound variable of the higher D – it provides a satisfaction for a theta-role ultimately bound by the higher D. In other words, it has the meaning of a bound pronominal that satisfies the adjectival role, prior to the introduction of higher operators.

162 

 6 Case in Aromanian compared to Romanian

We extend this conception of Lkrs to the embedding of oblique complements, by characterizing obliques as elementary two-place predicates, which introduce a part/whole or inclusion relation between the argument they select and another argument found locally. Abstracting for a moment from linkers, in (10b) we provide a structure for Romanian (10a), where the ⊆ partwhole content is associated with the case ending -or. The ⊆ element takes as its complement its sister DP băieţil- ‘the boys’ and as its external argument the theme DP, here represented by the clitic l ‘it’, and says that it is included/ located/possessed by the boys (it is in their material possession, or in their vicinity, etc.). (10) a. I-l am dat băieţ-i-l-or them-it I.have given boy-mpl-def-obl ‘I gave it to the boys’ b. … dat [DP l ] [⊆P băieţil [⊆ or]]

Romanian

The structure in (11) for Romanian (5b) parallels (10b) in that oblique case introduces the ⊆ possession/inclusion predicate. The internal argument of ⊆ is the DP to which the oblique case attaches, i.e. the possessor. In the DP-internal context in (11), however, the ale Lkr provides a lexicalization of the external argument of ⊆, i.e. the possessee, acting essentially as a bound variable (i.e. a doubling clitic) of the head noun or more precisely of the quantifier closing it. (11)

două kămăşi [ale [băiatul [⊆ -ui]]]

cf. (5b)

Aromanian differs from Romanian (and from the most frequently observed cross-linguistic pattern) in that pre-oblique Lkrs agree with the oblique DP. Furthermore, the Lkr occurs in dative contexts, as in (1c-d) and (2c-d), as well as in genitive contexts, which we exemplify in (12). In (12) the head N remains fixed, namely məna ‘hand’; the form of the Lkr changes according to whether the oblique is masculine (o) or feminine (ali) singular. (12) mən-a o fitʃor-u/ al-i fət-i the hand lkr boy-msf.def/ lkr-fsg.obl girl-fsg.obl ‘the hand of the boy/the girl’

Libofshë

According to the conclusions reached in chapter 5, the Lkr doubling the φ-features of the genitive DP and its case properties corresponds to structures of the type in (13). In (13), the pre-oblique Lkr helps introducing the oblique case, i.e. the ⊆ relation, doubling lower lexical material. We follow

2 The person split in Romanian and Aromanian 

 163

d’Hulst et al. (2000), Dobrovie-Sorin (2000), in assuming that the al series of Lkrs results from an a nominal base followed by the enclitic article, namely li in (13). (13)

NP

cf. (12)

N məna

D N a-

⊆ D l-

⊆P ⊆ i

N N fet

⊆ i

A similar structure holds when the Lkr introduces the dative, i.e. the possessor in a sentential context, as schematized in (14) for example (1c) above; the clitic o ‘it’ is shown in its thematic position for the sake of readability. Though in (14) we exemplify a feminine singular definite modifier, recall that in Aromanian the Lkr is the only overt exponent for ⊆ in the masculine singular definite (as well as well as in a number of indefinite contexts), adding plausibility to its ⊆ categorization. (14) … ded [[DP O] [(⊆)P ali [ fət [(⊆)- i]]]

cf. (1c)

Within the framework outlined above, in the rest of the chapter we consider the interaction of case distinctions with the intrinsic referential properties of arguments. Specifically in section 2 we extend to Aromanian (and Romanian) the discussion of Person splits introduced in chapter 4 for Albanian focussing especially on possessives in section 3.

2 The person split in Romanian and Aromanian In chapter 4 we saw that in Albanian 3P pronouns are exactly aligned with the case system of nouns, but this is not true of 1/2P pronouns. Many Romance languages which lack inflectional case in nouns, preserve it in the pronominal system and specifically in 1/2P pronouns, which therefore come to differ from 3P pronouns (Loporcaro 2008, Manzini and Savoia 2014 on Italian varieties).

164 

 6 Case in Aromanian compared to Romanian

The standard Romanian pronominal system is a case in point. The 3P case system reflects the two-case organization (direct/oblique) described for lexical nouns – however 1/2P pronouns distinguish more cases, as seen in Table 8. First, 1/2P singular have an accusative case distinct from the nominative, though it must be kept in mind that the accusative only occurs embedded under prepositions (Pana Dindelegan 2013: 385), including the pe preposition that introduces Differential Object Marking (DOM). Second, while 3P pronominal forms are embeddable in both dative and genitive contexts, 1/2P forms are restricted to dative contexts. Genitive contexts are given over to so-called possessive adjectives/pronouns, whose inflectional endings agree with the head N. Table 8: Romanian pronouns.

Nom Acc Dat Gen

1sg

2sg

3sg

3pl

1pl

2pl

eu mine mie me-u/a/i/ie

tu tine ţie tă-u/a/i/ie

el/ea el/ea lui/lei lui/lei

ei/ele ei/ele lor lor

noi noi nouă nostr-u etc.

voi voi vouă vostr-u etc

In (15a) we exemplify nominative contexts. In (15b) we display the typical contexts in which 1/2P accusative forms are found, namely embedded under the pe preposition that introduces DOM in Romanian; here they alternate with the direct forms of 3P pronouns also seen in (15a). (26c) illustrates dative contexts. (15) a.

b.

c.

Eu dorm/tu dormi/el dorme/ea dorme I sleep/you sleep/he sleeps/she sleeps ‘I/you sleep’, ‘S/he sleeps’ m-/t-/ne/v-/la văzut pe me/you/us/you/him/her he.has seen dom mine/tine/noi/voi/el/ea me/you.sg/us/you.pl/him/her ‘He saw me/you/us/him/her’ Mi/ţi/ni/vi/i l-a dat to.me/you/us/him/her/them it has given mie/ţie/nouă/vouă/lui/lei/lor to.me/ you.sg/us/you.plhim/her/them ‘He gave it to me/you/us/him/her/them’

Romanian

2 The person split in Romanian and Aromanian 

 165

In genitive contexts, 1/2P possessive pronouns, like 3P oblique pronouns and nouns, must be preceded by linkers, as in (16a), unless they are adjacent to a definite head N, as in (16b). The 1/2P possessive pronoun is set apart by the fact that it agrees with the head noun casa ‘house’. Thus it is in feminine singular independently of the understtod gender of the speaker. (16) a. cas-a de vacanta a me-a/ professor-ului house-fsg.def for vacation lkr-fsg mine-fsg/ professor-msg.obl.def ‘my/the professor’s vacation home’ b. cas-a me-a/ professor-ului house-fsg.def mine-fsg/ professor-msg.obl.def ‘my/the professor’s house’ Romanian Most prepositions embedding oblique 3P pronouns/nouns, require 1/2P pronouns in the possessive form, as illustrated in (17). To be more precise, the prepositional expression appears to contain a nominal expression (‘back’, ‘face’), which in Romanian is inflected like an ordinary noun. It is with the latter that the genitive pronoun agrees (Mardale et al. 2013: 535).3 (17)

in spate-le nostr-u/ in faţ-a noastr-a in the back our-msg/ in the face our-fsg ‘at our back (behind us)/in our face (in front of us)’

Romanian

The classical way to approach pronominal paradigms such as that of table 8 is in terms of some morphological notion of syncretism. The underlying case paradigm is fixed for the whole language and different nominal or pronominal subsystems may obfuscate this underlying regularity because of morphological readjustments (syncretisms). On the contrary, we view morphological patterns such as those considered in this section as clues to syntactically significant patterns. Not dissimilarly, Kayne (2010) views syncretisms as forms of “ambiguity”, i.e. the syncretic form has a syntactic-semantic core content that gets disambiguated according to the context of insertion. Specifically, in chapter 4 we argued that 1/2P pronouns exclude accusative case in Albanian and only have nominative or oblique inflections. In turn, this state of affairs,

3 This kind of prepositional expressions is found in other Romance languages (e.g. Italian alle spalle della catena alpina ‘lit: at the shoulders of the alpine range’, i.e. ‘behind’) and nuance the picture opposing AxPart to nouns according to Svenonius (2006).

166 

 6 Case in Aromanian compared to Romanian

far from representing a morphological quirk of the language, is due to the fact that 1/2P pronouns are systematically subject to DOM, which in Indo-European languages generally takes the form of obliquization. Thus Albanian 3P object, whether nominal or pronominal, are in the direct case, but 1/2P pronouns are in the oblique case (the same case that surfaces in dative contexts) because this is the form that DOM takes in the language. In the Romance languages, the application of DOM is uncontroversially seen in phrasal syntax, for instance in Romanian (15b). Applying to Romanian the conclusions of chapter 4, we argue that the oblique morphology of DOM objects in (18) corresponds to the fact that these forms are not directly embedded as the internal argument of the event. Rather, their embedding requires the presence of a case layer dedicated to the expression of possessors. To be more precise, the preposition pe that introduces the DOM object in Romanian warrants some more discussion. This preposition is independently attested in Romanian with the locative meaning ‘on’. Now, if DOM is associated with obliquization, we in principle expect that a range of oblique prepositions or cases will be able to introduce DOM arguments. This range includes the a ‘to’ dative preposition familiar from DOM in Ibero-Romance, South-Italian dialects, etc, but also in principle locative Romanian pe. Specifically, having assumed that the fundamental content of oblique cases/ prepositions is ⊆, i.e. part/whole or inclusion, we may speculate that locative cases/prepositions, are characterized by locative restrictions on the ⊆ content, along the lines anticipated in chapter 2 for the so-called ablative case of Albanian. In other words the book in the box, the book on the shelf etc, are essentially ‘the book ⊆Loc the box/the shelf’ where different prepositions (‘in, ‘on’, etc.) specify different locative restrictions, i.e. spatial configurations. These assumptions make it easy to relate the locative use of pe to its occurrence as the DOM introducer. It is sufficient to say that the locative restriction depends on the locative content of the complement noun. In DOM contexts, the locative restriction on pe is removed, leaving just the elementary ⊆ content. In these terms, the structure of (15b) is as in (18). In (18) the two arguments of ⊆ are the pronoun and the event; this adapts in part an idea of the applicative literature (Pylkkänen 2008), see Torrego (2010) for a similar intuition expressed within the Appl framework. Informally, transitive predicates can be paraphrased by an elementary predicate associated with an eventive name. Thus call alternates with make/give a call to, see with have a sight of. Hale and Keyser (1993) formalize this intuition about the complex nature of transitive predicates by assuming that they result from the incorporation of an elementary state/event into a transitivizing (typically causative) predicate. Within such a conceptual framework it becomes clearer what we mean when we say that in (18), ⊆ takes

2 The person split in Romanian and Aromanian 

 167

as its arguments the elementary state/event and the pronoun. Thus (18) can be informally rendered as He had a sight of me. The claim is that the only way the pronoun in (19) can be introduced as an object is by making it into a possessor i.e. an element that takes in its inclusion domain the elementary VP event. (18) [vP v [VP văzut [PP(⊆) pe [el]/[mine]]]

cf. (15b)

The formal assimilation of DOM arguments to goal datives or other obliques has long been held impossible because DOM arguments can passivize, while goal datives do not in Romance. This problem is discussed in some detail by Manzini and Franco (2016). They argue that the discriminating factor is that the dative case is inherent with verbs like give, i.e. it is selected by the verb as in Chomsky (1986). By contrast the dative case with see in (18) is structural, since it depends not on the selection properties of the lexical items involved, but on the syntactic configuration. Since goal obliques are selected by certain predicates, this requirement cannot be circumvented derivationally. On the contrary, DOM obliques are enforced by a requirement on VP-internal high ranked referents. This constraint can be circumvented derivationally, i.e. by extracting the highly ranked referent to a VP-external position, as in passive. Going back to the Romanian pronominal paradigm table 8, we must also consider the fact that while 3P pronouns have a single form for both nominative and accusative environments 1/2P singular pronouns have accusative forms mine/tine. The simplest possibility open to us is to take this piece of data at face value and associate with the -ne, the extra λ layer of structure proposed for –n accusative in Albanian (see chapter 2). We have no special insight as to why should be so. Finally, it remains for us to address 1/2P possessive pronouns. Before we do so, however, we complete our survey of Aromanian data, by presenting its pronominal system. The analysis of possessive pronouns in Romanian and Aromanian, and especially their agreement properties, form the focus of section 3.

2.1 Aromanian pronouns Aromanian pronouns largely reproduce Romanian ones. In this section we reproduce Aromanian data in great detail, to serve also as a documentation of this language. The theoretical discussion picks up again section 3. In Aromanian, all pronouns, like nouns, have a single form for all direct case contexts. In (19) we exemplify the subject pronoun paradigm of Aromanian with the conjugation of ‘I sleep’. The same series of pronouns, in all persons is found in the direct object position in (20) or as the object of the DOM prepositional introducer

168 

 6 Case in Aromanian compared to Romanian

pe/pi in (21). Evidently, in non-standardized Aromanian varieties bare embedding of a highly ranked object and pe/pi embedding are both possible, even with the same matrix verb; in other words, DOM with highly ranked objects is possible, but not enforced. It is worth noting that in the 1/2P singular, the form mini/tini, found only in the accusative in Romanian, is extended to nominative contexts. (19) mini dorm(u) tini dorɲ atse-u/atsɛ-u/eu/ia dɔrmi noi durɲim voi durɲits atsei dɔrm I/you/s/he etc. sleep ‘I sleep, you sleep, s/he sleeps, we sleep, you sleep, they sleep’ (20) a. mi/ti/u/nə/və/li arə vədzutə me/you/him-her they.have seen mini/tini/atseu/atsɛu/noi/voi/atse-ʎi/atse-li me/you.sg/him/her/us/you.pl/them-m/them-f ‘They have seen me/you/him/her’ b. mi/ti/ni vedi mini/tini/noi me/you/us he.sees me/you/us ‘He sees me/you/us’ (21) a. mini gresku pe tseu I call dom him ‘I call him’ b. atseu ni/vi vedi pi noi/voi he us/you sees dom us/you ‘He sees us/you’

Libofshë

Fier

Diviakë

Besides pe/pi, several prepositions select the direct case both with nouns and with pronouns. These include di/ti ‘for’ in (22a-b),4 ɣa ‘to’ in (22c-d), ku ‘with’ in (22e) and dup ‘after’ in (22f).

4 In these varieties ti/di is also the prepositional introducer of infinitival sentences (see Part III of the monograph).

2 The person split in Romanian and Aromanian 

 169

(22) a. mini o fakə ti/di məjɛr-a/ fitʃor-u I it do for woman-fsg. def/boy-msg.def ‘I do it for the woman/the boy’ b. mini o fakə ti/di mini/tini/ atse-u/noi/voi/atse-ʎi/atse-li/ I it do for me/you.sg/ him/us/you.pl/them-m/them-f/ ‘I do it for myself/you/him/us/them’ c. mini vas nɛg ɣa fɛt-a/ fitʃor-u I am going to girl-fsg.def/ boy-msg.def ‘I am going to the girl/the boy’ d. eu ini ɣa mini/tini/ noi/voi/ atse-u/atsɛ-u he comes to  me/you.sg/ us/you.pl/ him/her ‘He comes towards me/you/us/them/him’ e. vini ku tini/mini/noi/atse-u/ məjɛr-i/ fitʃor-u he.comes with you.sg/me/us/him/ woman-fsg.def/ boy-msg.def ‘He comes with me/you/us/him/the woman/the boy’ f. dup mini/tini/noi/atse-u/atse-ʎi after me/you/us/him/them-m Libofshë In dative contexts, on the basis of the general parallelism between 3P pronouns and lexical Ns, we may expect that 3P pronouns are preceded by Lkr elements agreeing with them (i.e. o in the masculine and ali in the feminine, cf. section 1). This seems to be the case, since masculine and plural forms are introduced by o, as in (23b), while the feminine singular is introduced by a, as in (23a). On the other hand, in (23)-(24), 1/2P are preceded by the invariable element a. Recall from chapter 5 that the agreeing pre-genitival Lkr al etc. of Romanian is analyzed as consisting of an invariable base a followed by the enclitic article. In turn, some scholar take a to be the preposition ‘to’ (Grosu 1994) while others consider a to be the invariable nominal base to which the enclitic article attaches (d’Hulst et al. 2000, Dobrovie-Sorin et al. 2013). In (37)-(38) therefore a could be an invariable Lkr, or a preposition. In our glosses we note both possibilities. (23) a. ɲ/ts/j u ar datə a ɲ-ia/ts-ea/ts-iei/jei me/you/him it they.have given lkr/to me/you/her/her ‘They gave it to me/you/her’ b. j u ar datə o ts-ui/ɣ-ui/ɣ-ɔrə him it they.have given lkr him/him/them ‘They gave it to him/them’ c. atse-ʎi va s n/v u da a n-au/v-au they-m will Prt us/you it give lkr/to us/you.pl ‘They will give it to us/you/them’

Libofshë

170 

 6 Case in Aromanian compared to Romanian

(24) ɲ/ts/n u da a ɲ-ia/ts-əja/n-au me/you/us it he.gives lkr/to me/you/us ‘He gives it to me/you/us’

Diviakë

It remains for us to consider the genitive context of embedding, In Aromanian, as in Romanian, 3P pronouns present the same oblique form as is found in dative contexts, reproducing in this respect the pattern of lexical Ns. This is illustrated for instance in (25). On the other hand, 1/2P pronouns are associated with specialized possessive forms agreeing with the head N. For instance, the inflection on the possessives in (26a) and (26b) differs depending on the number of the head noun ‘book(s)’; the same holds of (26c) and (26d). These possessive pronouns are preceded by the invariable Lkr/preposition a, namely the same form found in dative contexts. (25) librə o ts-ui/ts-uɣɔrə books lkr his/their ‘his/their books’ (26) a. libr-a/ mən-a a mɛ-u/ta-u/nɔst book-fs.def/ hand-fs.def lkr/to my-sg/your-sg/our ‘my/your/our book/hand’ b. libr-ə a mɛ-li/ta-li/nɔst-i book-pl lkr/to my-fpl/your-fpl/our-pl ‘my/your books’ c. kɛn-li a ɲe-u/to-u/nɔst dog-def lkr/to my-sg/your-sg/our ‘my/your/our dog’ d. kɛɲ-li a ɲe-ʎi/to-ʎi/nɔst-i dogs-def lkr/to my-mpl/your-mpl/our-pl ‘my/your/our dogs’ e. ar vənit frat-ʎi/surɛr-li a te-ʎ/ta-li they.have come brother-mpl.def/sister-fpl.def lkr/to your-mpl/your-fpl ‘Your brothers/sisters came’ Libofshë The examples in (27)-(28) show agreement of the 1/2P possessive pronoun with the head noun, when the latter is embedded in an oblique position.

2 The person split in Romanian and Aromanian 

 171

(27) a. i o dəd ali sor-i/ o surɛr-li a her/them it I.gave lkr sister-fsg-obl/lkr sister-fpl.def lkr/to ta-u/ ta-li your-sg/your-fpl ‘I gave it to your sister/sisters’ b. i o dəd o fratʃ-ʎu a to-ʎi them it I.gave lkr brother-mpl.obl.def lkr/to your-mpl ‘I gave it to your brothers’ Libofshë (28) j u dəd o hij-u a ɲe-u/tə-l him it I.gave lkr son-msg.def lkr /to my-msg/your-msg ‘I gave it to my/your son’

Fier

In copular, predicative contexts, 1/2P possessive pronouns again agree with the possessee, namely with the subject, which may be represented simply by the finite verb inflection as in (29b-c). That the referent of the subject is feminine is inferable just from the agreement properties of the possessive in (29b). 3P pronouns, on the other hand, display the same format as in datives, i.e. the Lkr followed by the (non-agreeing) oblique form. (29) a. atsɛ esti a mɛ-u/ ta-u/ jei it.f is lkr/to my-sg/your-sg/her ‘It is mine/yours/his/hers’ b. sənə a mɛ-li/ ta-li/ nɔst-i/ jei they.are lkr/to my-fpl/your-fpl/our-pl/her ‘They are mine/yours/hers/ours’ c. sənə o ɣ-ui/ɣ-ɔrə they.are lkr his/their ‘They are his/theirs’

Libofshë

1/2P possessive pronouns are also embedded under spatial/temporal predicates such as behind, in front, as in (30)-(31b), otherwise selecting the oblique form of 3P pronouns or of nouns. Following the analysis of these phrases in Romanian (Mardale et al 2013), the agreement of the possessive element depends on the head of the spatial/temporal phrase, which is nominal in character (cf. also fn. 37).

172 

 6 Case in Aromanian compared to Romanian

(30) esti dəninti/dənepoi a mɛ-u/ta-u/nɔst/vɔst is behind/front lkr/to my-sg/your-sg/our/your ‘He/she/it is behind/in front of me/you/us’ (31) a. deninte o fitʃor-u/ un fitʃor-u front lkr boy-msg/ a boy-msg ‘in front of the/a boy’ b. deninti a me-u/ta-u/ nostər/vostər/ts-jei front lkr/to my-sg/your-sg/our/your/her ‘in front of me/you/us/her’ c. deninti o tsuɣ-or front lkr their ‘in front of them’

Libofshë

Diviakë

The pronominal case system of Aromanian varieties can be summarized as in table 9, where all pronouns are associated with a single direct case, but 1/2P pronouns differ from 3P pronouns in the expression of the oblique. 3P pronouns behave like nouns in that they have a single oblique form for both dative and genitive contexts. On the contrary, in genitive contexts 1/2P pronouns take the form of possessives, whose inflection agrees with the head N. With 1/2P possessive pronouns but also with oblique pronouns in general the role of Lkr/prepositional introducer is played by the invariable element a. Table 9: Aromanian pronouns.

Direct Dat Gen

1sg

2sg

3sg

3pl

1pl

2pl

mini a ɲia a mɛ-u/-li/etc.

tini a tsea a ta-u/-li/etc.

eu/ia o ɣui/a jei o ɣui/a jei

eʎ/eli o ɣor(ə) o ɣor(ə)

noi a nau a nɔst/etc.

voi a vau a vɔst/etc.

From a syntactic point of view, the structure of the dative embedding for all pronouns is the same reviewed in section 1; recall that in the dative no Person split is observed. The embedding of pronouns under DOM structures also proceeds as detailed in section 2 for Romanian. Finally, 3P pronouns enter into genitive structures of the type detailed in section 1 for lexical nouns. The issue that remains to be analysed is the status of 1/2P possessive pronouns, which agree with the head noun, replicating in this the common state of affairs in Romance languages. We turn to agreeing possessives in section 3.

3 Possessive pronouns and Suffixaufnahme 

 173

3 Possessive pronouns and Suffixaufnahme Summarizing so far, the pronominal systems of Romanian and Aromanian display a Person split observed in the expression of obliques – specifically the emergence of 1/2P possessors characterized both by a Lkr(-like) introducer and by inflectional agreement with the head N. In this brief section we sketch our proposal, which will be further developed in chapter 7 for Punjabi (Indo-Aryan). In typological work (Plank 1995), the Suffixaufnahme label covers a number of phenomena, which include Lkrs, as in Albanian and Romanian/Aromanian. It also includes case stacking, i.e. the phenomenon whereby an oblique DP can be seen to have a double case – namely its own case and the case of a noun it modifies (e.g. in Pama-Nyungan languages, Dench and Evans 1988 a.o.). Structural criteria confirm the identification of the various phenomena. Specifically, stacked suffixes and Lkr heads display the same syntactic distribution, occurring essentially in adnominal modification contexts. Furthermore, Lkr heads and stacked suffixes have the same constituent structure, since both are internal to the projection of the modifier phrase (say, the genitive phrase); this is obvious for suffixation and has been discussed at length for Lkrs in chapter 5. Linear order differs, since Lkrs precede the genitives or other modifiers while stacked cases are suffixed to them. Furthermore, Lkr heads normally bear φ-feature agreement properties, while stacking in Australian languages does not. The potential formal differences between Lkrs and case stacking are bridged by intermediate phenomena, such as inflected genitive postpositions in Indo-Aryan languages, which we will consider in detail in chapter 7. Consider Punjabi, which has a residual case inflection in the masculine. As can be seen in (32), Punjabi stacks a case and agreement inflection on the PP postpositional genitive. Thus in (32a) the most external morpheme on the genitive ‘of the boys’ is an -a masculine singular agreement with ‘the door’; this varies if the modified noun is a feminine singular ‘the book’, as in (32b), but also if the modified noun is a masculine singular oblique, as in (32c). (32) a. munɖ-ea-d-a dərwaddʒ-a boy-mpl.obl-of-msg door-msg ‘the door of the boys’ b. munɖ-e-d-i kita:b boy-msg.obl-of-fsg book.fsg ‘the book of the boy’ c. munɖ-e-d-e pra-d-i kita:b boy-msg.obl-of-msg.obl brother.msg-of-fsg book.fsg ‘the book of the brother of the boy’

Punjabi

174 

 6 Case in Aromanian compared to Romanian

In the context just outlined, the possessive pronouns of Romance languages are naturally understood as a residual agreement stacking phenomenon. The evidence for this line of analysis is particularly strong in Romanian/Aromanian where, in the words of Dobrovie-Sorin and Giurgea (2011) “agreeing pronominal possessors occupy the same syntactic position as genitive marked pronouns”. They conclude that “inherent φ-features (i.e., features that give indications regarding the referent of the Possessor itself) may co-occur with inherited φ-features (i.e., features that are inherited from the N-head, which give indications regarding … the grammatical features of N°”. In the technical detail, Giurgea (2011) suggests that in Romanian “the agreement morpheme does not attach directly to the root, but the root is first extended by an element … that can be analyzed as a possessive suffix […] Given this decomposition, the agreement morpheme of agreeing possessors does not attach to DP, but rather to a Case projection”. Concretely, consider the Aromanian example in (26e). In present terms, the structure of surɛrli a tali ‘the sisters of yours’ is as in (33), adopting the idea that the extension of the 2P root t- by -a is a form of genitive marking. In present terms, the genitive case is the relational predicate ⊆ taking as its internal argument the 1/2P pronoun ‘you’, represented by the root t- and as its external argument the head N surɛr-li ‘the sisters’. The -li ending on surɛr-li is doubled on ta-li, where it provides a representation of the external argument of the ⊆ predicate internal to the maximal projection ⊆P.

(33)

DP

surɛr-lix ⊆ a

cf. (26e)

⊆P

1/2P ty

⊆

⊆

D lix

⊆ aλx, λy

Under the account we just gave of it, the role of the suffixal agreement -li in the structure in (33) is the same played by the Lkr of the Albanian or Romanian type, i.e., agreeing with the head noun (see chapter 5). This role is to provide an instantiation (a copy) of the external argument of the genitive relation ⊆ internal to the maximal projection of ⊆ itself. In other words, we conclude that Lkrs and

3 Possessive pronouns and Suffixaufnahme 

 175

agreeing possessive pronouns are unified by the generalization in (34), at least in so far as genitive/dative case, i.e. ⊆, environments are concerned. (34) Stacking generalization Both arguments of the ⊆ predicate are instantiated within the ⊆P phrase.

We will dwell on the generalization in (34) in chapter 7. Here we conclude our discussion with a comparison with Albanian. By way of an example, we illustrate the 1/2P singular forms from the Shkodër variety in (35)-(36). In keeping with the analysis suggested in Demiraj (1985), we segment these forms into an initial element j/e/t which lexicalizes definiteness and is sensitive to the case and φ-features of the head noun, like other Lkrs. This is followed by an element fixing the 1/2P referent and by a final agreement element occurring only with feminine head nouns. Thus the internal structure of possessives in Albanian, as in Aromanian (33), includes three parts, namely an initial Lkr, the 1/2P pronominal element and an agreement inflection. The morphemes carrying 1/2P reference consist of a simple radical form in singular DPs in (35). However, in plural DPs in (36) we can further distinguish the m-, tu- root from an -i inflection which we may identify with a ⊆ genitive morpheme.5 (35) a. tʃɛn-i j em/at dog-msg.def lkr my/your ‘my/your dog’ b. tʃɛn-in/ tʃɛn-it t em/and dog-msg.acc.def/dog-msg.obl.def lkr my/your ‘(to) my/your dog’ c. ʃpi-a j em-e/ɔt-e house-fsg.nom.def lkr my-f/your-f ‘my/your house’ d. ʃpi-n/ ʃpi-s t em-e/and-e house-acc.def/house-fsg.obl.def lkr my-f/your-f ‘(to) my/your house’

5 A further point of interest is that in the singular DPs in (35), the possessive morphology opposes nominative contexts in (35a, c) with accusative and dative ones in (35b, d). This does not reflect the nominative-accusative-oblique organization of the nominal paradigm, but rather the opposition nominative-oblique found in the 1/2P paradigm, as detailed in chapter 4. In plural DPs in (36), the split is between direct case contexts in (36a, c) and oblique case contexts in (36b, d), as throughout the nominal paradigm.

176 

 6 Case in Aromanian compared to Romanian

(36) a. tʃej-t e m-i/tu-i dog-pl.def lkr my/your ‘my/your dogs’ b. tʃej-vɛ t m-i/tu-i dog-pl.obl lkr my/your ‘to my/your dogs’ c. ʃpi-t e m-i-a/tu-i-a house-pl.def lkr my-fpl/your-fpl ‘my/your houses’ d. ʃpi-vɛ t m-i-a/tu-i-a house-pl.obl lkr my-fpl/your-fpl ‘to my/your houses’

Geg Albanian (Shkodër)

The structure in (37) for (36d) largely parallels that in (33). Specifically, the case form merged with the 1/2P element seems to coincide with the one present in Aromanian/ Romanian. Crucially (37) satisfies the requirement in (34) by representing the external argument of ⊆ inside the possessor phrase, via the Lkr element and here also via the suffixed agreement. This allows us to clarify that Lkrs and suffix stacking are not in complementary distribution; indeed this is not implied by the generalization in (34). (37)

DP ʃpi-vɛx

cf. (36d) DP

D tx

1/2P my

⊆

⊆

D ax

⊆ iλx, λy

In the structure in (37’) for (35c) it is more difficult to segment away a ⊆ morpheme. However, the essence of what we have called the Lkrs/agreement stacking generalization holds in this simplified representation as well, namely the presence of both arguments of the possessive relation inside the possessive phrase. The possessor is of course the 1/2P pronoun, the possessee is represented by the Lkr j and the inflection -e agreeing with the head noun. (37’) [DP ʃpi-ax [DP jx [½ P [em] [ex]]]

cf. (35c)

4 Conclusions 

 177

4 Conclusions In this chapter, as in the rest of this book, inflection and case categories have been investigated on the basis of the idea that the morphological organization of the noun projects its syntactic structure, in strict adherence to the minimalist principle of projection of syntax from the lexicon. This theoretical framework aims to get over the richness of cartographic abstract trees combined with a realizational morphology of the DM type. From an empirical point of view, in the chapters so far we have introduced a comparison between Aromanian and Romanian, and between Aromanian and Albanian. This crosslinguistic perspective allowed us to obtain a clearer view of the relevant phenomena, specifically in the case of Lkrs. In a nutshell, we provide a treatment of oblique case as a lexicalization of the part-whole or possessee-possessor relation that we formalize as the inclusion predicate ⊆. This conceptualization makes it possible to unify genitive and dative on the basis of a shared semantico-syntactic content. We have extended this analysis to DOM phenomena in chapter 4, assuming that the oblique form taken by DOM objects in Albanian, Romanian etc. reflects the fact that they are introduced by ⊆. As for Lkrs, interesting differences between Aromanian and Romanian/Albanian emerge, for example in the fact that in Aromanian the Linker introducing a genitive agrees with the complement and not with the head of the DP. Another difference between Aromanian and Romanian/Albanian is the presence of the Linker element also in dative contexts. As discussed in chapter 5, the copular nature of Linkers cannot be defended; it is the ⊆ oblique case that introduces the predication, while Linkers provide partial satisfactions of one of the arguments of the predication (normally the possessee) within the ⊆ projection. Finally, we have examined possessive structures. In Aromanian, as in Romanian and in Albanian, 3P pronouns patterns with lexical DPs. However, 1/2P have specialized possessive forms, which show a complex internal structure, including an initial Linker, the 1/2P pronoun proper and an inflectional element agreeing with the possessee (i.e. the head noun). Based on these forms, we have argued for the continuity of agreeing possessive pronouns with Suffixaufnahme phenomena. In general, we have tried to reach an analysis based on the morphemic organization of the various elements considered, assuming that morphological structure is normally isomorphic to the syntactic organization it externalizes.

7 Oblique case in Punjabi: Ergativity splits and agreeing possessors In previous chapters, we argued that the fundamental oblique case of natural languages (the genitive/dative) corresponds to an elementary inclusion or partwhole predicate. Its internal argument (the whole, or possessor) is the DP which the case embeds, while its external argument is a DP (the part or possessum) coinciding either with the head noun of a genitive construction or with the theme of a ditransitive verb. We have seen how the same oblique comes to externalize DOM with highly valued referents, especially 1/2P pronouns (chapter 4). We have further explored the connection between oblique case, construed as an elementary relator and agreement phenomena in adnominal modification such as Lkrs and so-called possessive adjectives (chapters 5–6). In this chapter, after a review of our previous proposals in section 1, we take a detour into Eastern Indo-European language where a specialized oblique, i.e. the ergative (as in Punjabi), lexicalizes the (transitive) subject of perfect sentences – or the all-purpose oblique, i.e. the genitive/dative, does (as in Kurdish).1 In section 2, we propose that (in these languages) perfect predicates correspond to a VP projection; external arguments are introduced by means of an oblique case, saying that the event is included by/located at’ the argument. In other words, we endorse the idea, independently proposed both in the historical and in the theoretical literature, that ergative structures are possessive structures. A  more complex organization is found with imperfective/progressive predicates, where a head Asp projects a functional layer and can introduce the external argument, determining nominative type agreement. In our analysis, ergative is a bona fide oblique, not a structural dependent case, and we provide a characterization for it that allows us to understand the common syncretism with possessor cases (dative, genitive). In section 3 of the chapter we consider nominal modification structures. Adnominal obliques (genitives) in Punjabi systematically agree with the head noun; since genitive is introduced by the postposition d-, the latter systematically bears agreement with the head noun. This takes us back to the issue of Suffixaufnahme that we already touched upon in chapter 6 (section 4). Participial relatives also display agreement with the head noun. In the present context it is interesting to note that the subject of the participial relative alternates between the ergative and the genitive case, realizing a potential prediction of our analysis of ergativity splits in terms of possession structures. 1 Data of Punjabi are transcribed in a broad IPA from the (Doabi) variety spoken in Hoshiarpur (India). We thank Miss Rajvir Kaur and her family for their collaboration. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781501505140-007

1 Background 

 179

1 Background We begin by briefly summarizing some relevant results of previous chapters. Within the minimalist approach (Chomsky 1995, 2001, 2013), properties such as gender (nominal class), number and person, which are intrinsically associated with nominal constituents, are features. However relations, for instance theta-roles, are not features, but correspond simply to syntactic configurations. From this perspective, it is potentially problematic to find that case is treated as a feature, i.e. as nominal class or as number rather than as theta-roles. The fact that case is the only feature in Chomsky (1995) which is radically uninterpretable (i.e. which does not have an interpretable counterpart) is a reflex of the deeper difficulty in reconciling the traditionally relational core of this notion with its feature status. The solution to which Chomsky (2001) arrives is that the real underlying relation between case assigner and case assignee is an agreement relation, involving φ-features; case is but a reflex of this relation which appears on nominal constituents. Chomsky’s proposal only directly covers nominative and accusative (reflexes of φ-feature checking on T and v respectively). If we ask ourselves how Chomsky’s approach could be applied to obliques, the Applicative literature comes naturally to mind (Pylkkänen 2008). According to this literature a functional head Appl checks the descriptive dative. We could therefore say that dative is but the reflex of φ-feature agreement between Appl and a DP. Yet the morphosyntactic reality of Indo-European languages is that cases are uniquely represented in the morphology of nouns (and nominal constituents) and not on the verb or verbal constituents. Therefore, at least for obliques, in previous chapters we have followed a different tradition, equally represented in formal approaches (cf. originally Fillmore 1968) – namely that they are inflectional counterparts of Ps – in other words elementary predicates mediating the attachment of DPs to the eventive core of the sentence. For example, in a French expression like le livre de Jean ‘the book of Jean’ the preposition de can be taken to introduce the possession relation, between Jean (the possessor) and le livre ‘the book’. Similarly, in the German expression Johann-s Buch ‘John’s book’, we take the -s ending to realize the possession relation as a morphological inflection. This does not contradict Chomsky’s (2001) conclusion as to the incompatibility of feature status with relational content – rather it derives different consequences from it, namely that oblique case is not a feature. In fact, the present approach can be seen as an implementation of deeper insight of Chomsky (2001) that case is not a primitive category. In previous chapters, we studied in particular the case systems of Albanian (chapters 2–4) and of Romanian and Aromanian (chapters 5–6). Romanian for instance displays a two case declension, contrasting nominative/accusative and

180 

 7 Oblique case in Punjabi: Ergativity splits and agreeing possessors

oblique; the latter covers sentential (dative) and nominal (genitive) embeddings. In (1) we exemplify the Romanian dative plural with an embedding under give. In (2) we show that the forms of the dative are identical to those of the genitive, illustrated by an embedding under N. Since the syncretism of genitive and dative is absolute (in the sense of Calabrese 2008a), one ordinarily speaks of a single oblique case. The oblique forms in (1)–(2) have three separate layers of inflection. The leftmost layer is the nominal class morphology -i for the masculine plural and -e for the feminine plural. The second layer is an -l definiteness specification; though Romanian is often described as a language with post-nominal articles, here we assume that the definiteness morphology is generated as an inflection within the noun. Finally the -or ending lexicalizes oblique (dative/genitive) case. (1) (I)-l am dat băieţ-i-l-or/ fet-e-l-or him.it I.have given boy-mpl-def-obl/ girl-fpl-def-obl ‘I gave it to the boys/girls.’ (2) pahar-ul băieţ-i-l-or/ fet-e-l-or glass-msg.def  boy-mpl-def-obl/ girl-fpl-def-obl ‘the glass of the boys/girls’

Romanian

The direct case, i.e. nominative/accusative, of Romanian is exemplified in (3). Its morphological externalization has the gender and plural number morphemes -i/-e doubled on the right of the noun base (in the masculine -i-i ) or on either side of the -l- definiteness morphology (in the feminine -e-l-e). In other words, it lacks any specialized formative for case. In chapter 3, we adopted the analysis in Higginbotham (1985) whereby nominal bases are predicates, whose obligatory argument is ultimately saturated by Definiteness and other quantifiers. Nominal class (gender/number) provides a descriptive content for the argument. Thus in (3) the lexical base fet- denotes the property ‘girl’, and the nominal class (feminine)/plural morphology (reflected by the inflectional ending -e) and definiteness morphology -l- provide a descriptive content and quantificational closure for the argument of the predicative base. In other words, the nominal class and number properties of the noun do not conceal abstract case properties. Rather they are able to satisfy direct argument contexts without need to resort to case specifications at all. (3) Au venit/am văzut băieţ-i-i/ fet-e-l-e have come/I.have seen boy-mpl-mpl/ girls-fpl-def-fpl ‘There came/ I saw the boys/ girls’

Romanian

1 Background 

 181

In (1)–(2), in standard minimalist terminology the case ending -or would be the lexicalization of an uninterpretable feature, which is either checked against a similar uninterpretable feature of the head of the construct (verb or noun), as in Chomsky (1995), or is checked as part of an independently defined Agree process (Chomsky 2001, 2008). In present terms, however, -or in (1)–(2) is the inflectional equivalent of the prepositions to or of, i.e. a predicate introducing a possession relation between the argument it selects and another argument. An idea put forth in very similar terms by various strands of literature is that possession is in fact a surface manifestation of the more elementary part-whole relation. Thus Manzini and Savoia (2007) propose that the Romance clitic ne (syncretic in some varieties between genitive and dative) introduces a pronominal set which is a “superset-of” some other argument of the sentence (the internal argument, cf. Burzio 1986). Belvin and den Dikken (1997: 170) define the relation introduced by have as “zonal inclusion” in the following terms: “Entities have various zones associated with them, such that an object or eventuality may be included in a zone associated with an entity without being physically contained in that entity”. Therefore we take inclusion/part-whole to be the primitive content of dative/oblique case. We notate inclusion with ⊆, though as indicated by the discussion that precedes, the inclusion relation is to be construed not mathematically but as a looser zonal inclusion one. Let us then go back to (1). The line of analysis of ditransitive verbs initiated by Kayne (1984) is characterized by the assumption that verbs like give take a predication as their complement; the content of this predication is a possession relation between the accusative direct object (the possessum) and the dative (the possessor) (see also Pesetsky 1995, Beck and Johnson 2004, Harley 2002). In (4) we provide a structure for (1), where the ⊆ content is associated with the case ending -or. The ⊆ element takes as its complement its sister DP băieţil-/ fetel- ‘the boys/the girls’ and as its external argument the sister DP to its projection, i.e. the clitic l ‘it’, and says that ‘it’ is included by ‘the boys’ or ‘the girls’ (it is in their material possession, or in their vicinity, etc.). (4) l am dat [PredP l   ↑

[⊆P băieţil-/fetel- [⊆ or]]]

The same oblique case illustrated in a sentential embedding (dative) in (4), is also found in nominal embeddings (genitive). Applying the same analysis as in (4), we obtain structure (5) for example (2). The interpretation is also the same, namely that ‘the glass’ is in the domain of inclusion of the possessor ‘the boys’. This approach, that unifies genitive and dative is not invalidated by languages with specialized genitive and dative. For instance in English the

182 

 7 Oblique case in Punjabi: Ergativity splits and agreeing possessors

oblique content (⊆) is lexicalized as of or as to depending on whether it is dominated by NP or VP. (5) pahar-ul [⊆P băieţil [⊆ or]]

In short, in previous chapters we have taken the fairly traditional view that oblique cases such as genitive or dative have the same content as elementary Ps – thus the Romanian oblique and the English Ps to or of provide alternative lexicalizations of the same fundamental content, namely ⊆. In chapter 4, we have in fact argued that the oblique (dative/locative) form taken by DOM in many (Indo-European) languages corresponds to an oblique syntax. In the next section, based largely on Punjabi data, we address the nature of ergative case. Indeed as we shall see, one of the major hypothesis advanced by the literature on ergative alignments is that they correspond to possession structures.

2 Ergative structures We review some basic facts about Punjabi, beginning with oblique cases, which are by now well understood. The -nu suffix lexicalizes the goal argument of ditransitives, i.e. the dative, as in (6). The genitive in turn is realized as d- (on lexical nouns), as in (7).2 (6) mɛ: ti-nnu kita:b din-d-i (a) I.f.abs you-obl book.abs.fsg give.progr.fsg be.pres ‘I give you the book’ (7) muɳɖ-ed-i/-ĩã kita:b/ kitabb-a boy-obl.msg-of-fsg/-fpl book.abs.fsg/ book-abs.fpl ‘the book/books of the boy’

Punjabi

In (6), the -nu dative case introduces a possessor/inclusion relation ⊆, taking as its internal argument the DP to which it attaches, ti- ‘you’, and as its external argument the local DP kita:b ‘book’. The genitive, as in (7), which is canonically taken to correspond to possession, is also a candidate for ⊆ content in present terms. We propose that the two different lexicalizations -nu and -de for the same 2 The genitive also bears an inflection agreeing with the head noun, which will form the main topic of section 3.

2 Ergative structures 

 183

⊆ category correspond to a contextual sensitivity of ⊆ in Punjabi. Thus ⊆ is lexicalized as -nu when attached to sentential projections (dative), as in (8), while it is lexicalized as -d- when it is attached to nominal categories (genitive), as in (9). (8) [VP [PredP ti [⊆nnu] kita:b] dindi] (9) [DP muɳɖe [⊆ di] kita:b ]

Coming to the point that interests us here directly, in Punjabi the perfect of a transitive sentence has the external argument in the ergative case, while the internal argument bears the so-called absolutive case, as in (10a); the perfect participle agrees with the internal argument. In the progressive, both the external and the internal argument may occur in the absolutive form and the verb agrees with the external argument, as in (10b). (10) a. o-ne (oval-e) muɳɖ-e dekkh-e s/he-erg (that-mpl.abs) boy-mpl.abs see.perf-mpl ‘S/he saw those boys’ b. muɳɖ-e dərvaddʒ-a khol-d-e boy-abs.mpl door-abs.msg open-progr-mpl ‘the boy/the boys is/are opening the/a door’

Punjabi

In Punjabi the so-called absolutive case coincides with the nominal base inflected for nominal class (gender) and for number. We extend to this language the conclusions sketched for Romanian (3), namely that the number and nominal class properties of the so-called absolutive/nominative DPs are sufficient to lexicalize the direct arguments of the verb (the internal argument, i.e. sister of V, and the external argument, i.e. Spec, vP). This conclusion is consistent with the approach taken by Chomsky (2000a, 2001) to direct cases, namely that they reduce to φfeatures checking (with v, I). Following Bailey (1904), we will speak of the absolute form of the noun in Punjabi rather than of absolutive case. Now, the research question we want to ask is what relation there is, if any, between the subject oblique in (10a) and the complement obliques in (6)–(7). We are prompted to ask this question by the existence of an important stream of (formal and historico-typological) literature which connects ergative structure with possession structures. Montaut (2004: 39) quotes Benveniste’s (1966: 176−186) conclusion that “the Old Persian structure … is intrinsically possessive in its meaning, and is analogical with the periphrastic perfects in Latin (mihi id factum, me-DAT this done)”. In other words, the external argument is treated as the possessor of a state – the relation of the external argument to the predicate is

184 

 7 Oblique case in Punjabi: Ergativity splits and agreeing possessors

formally identical to that found with nominal predicates. In the words of Johns (1992: 68), “similarities in case and agreement between transitive clauses and possessive phrases is a long-standing issue in Eskimo linguistics… The first of these similarities is that the case assigned to the specifier (possessor) of a possessed noun is the relative case, the same case that is assigned to the actor in the transitive construction”. Before we can come back to our proposal on this matter we need however to investigate in some detail the aspectual split, on which the presence of oblique/ ergative subjects depends. 2.1 The perfect Recent generative work has explored the idea that ergative alignments corresponds to a somewhat more elementary organization of the predicate, or of the sentence, than nominative alignments. For Baker and Atlamaz (2014), the perfect is passive-like and differs from the imperfective in that it involves a nonphasal v. Laka (2006) proposes that nominative alignment implies a biclausal structure in Basque. Coon (2013) has a similar analysis of Chol (Mayan). In Coon’s analysis, both perfectives and imperfectives have the same underlying predicate structure. Imperfectives however are embedded under an aspectual auxiliary, determining the switch in alignment. According to Nash (2014) the Georgian aorist is characterized just by the v-V structure and all arguments are introduced within this structure. By contrast, imperfective aspect is introduced by a specialized aspectual node Event, which is also responsible for licencing the external argument of transitives; in this respect Nash thinks of the Event node as akin to Voice in the sense of Harley (2013), Legate (2014), Alexiadou et al (2015). Nash concludes that: “the deficient perfectivity of sentences in Georgian aorist… is rather a result of the absence of any Aspect category in the clausal functional structure”. In the perfect “the event is just named without referring to the specifics of its internal temporal organisation as if it were “nominalised” in some sorts”. Recall that in chapter 1 we proposed abandoning uninterpretable (or unvalued) features, though so far we limited this proposal to the DP. Now, in Punjabi, the perfect and progressive verbs are participial, i.e. adjectival forms, bearing number and nominal class (i.e. gender) inflections; this participial form may be embedded under a be auxiliary, which is however optional. Given the morphological identity of sentence-internal agreement and DP-internal agreement, it would seem undesirable to have two partially different syntactic processes operating in the two domains.

2 Ergative structures 

 185

In transitive sentences like (11), with a perfect verb, the internal argument is in the absolute form, the external argument bears the ergative case, and the perfect agrees with the internal argument. With perfect participles of unaccusative verbs, the internal and sole argument also is in the absolute form and agrees with the verb, as shown in (12a). By contrast, the sole argument of unergatives is in the ergative case, i.e. it behaves like the external argument of transitives, as in (12b). The perfect turns up in an invariable, non-agreeing form, confirming that the perfect inflection picks up the internal argument. (11)

o-ne roʈʈ-i khadd-i si s/he-erg bread-abs.fsg eat.perf-fsg be.past ‘S/he ate the/some bread’

(12) a. su-i degge-i needle-abs.fsg fall.perf-fsg ‘A/the needle/the needles has/have fallen’ b. kuɾ-i-ne / muɳɖ-e-ne hass-ea si girl-fsg-erg/ boy-obl.msg-erg laugh.perf-msg be.past ‘The girl/the boy laughed’

Punjabi

In (11), the noun roʈʈ-i ‘(the) bread’ consists of the predicative base roʈʈ- ‘bread’ and of the nominal inflection -i for the feminine, as in (13b). Following the conclusions of chapter 3, the lexical base roʈʈ- ‘bread’ has predicative content, and the nominal class (feminine) specifications ultimately externalized by the morphology -i provide descriptive content for the argument of the predicative base. Similarly, the perfect participle khadd-i ‘eaten’ consists of the V root, khadd- and the -i inflection, as in (13a). (13)

a.

V V khadd

b. N i

N N roʈʈ

cf. (11) N i

Our key assumption is that in (13a), -i provides a morphological level saturation for the internal argument of the participle khadd-. In standard minimalist terms, Agree is responsible for matching the features of roʈʈi with those of khaddi in (11) and the procedure is driven by the presence of uninterpretable φ-features on the verb, acting as probes for the interpretable φ-features of DP. However, Chomsky’s (1995) empirical arguments that φ-features are

186 

 7 Oblique case in Punjabi: Ergativity splits and agreeing possessors

uninterpretable on I lack cogency, since as Manzini and Savoia (2007) argue, they are interpretable as (a copy of) the EPP argument. Correspondingly, we call into question the role of uninterpretability in Agree, as it applies in the predicative domain as well. In the terms suggested by Manzini and Savoia (2005, 2007), both -i inflections in (13) have interpretable pronominal-like content, capable of contributing to the satisfaction of the open argument slots of the N and V predicative bases. Agreement corresponds to the fact that the semantic content of both -i elements is bound by the same operator, namely the (abstract) D definite determiner of roʈʈi in (14). The latter ultimately satisfies the internal theta-role both of the noun and of the verb. For the time being, the ergative external argument is missing from the structure. (14)

IP

VP

…

DP D

I si V

N N roʈʈ-

cf. (11)

V khadd-

N i

N i

As discussed in chapter 1, eliminating uninterpretable/unvalued features need not result in any modification of the computational core of Agree, as explicitly formulated by Chomsky (2000a); Agree still is an identity relation (Match) established between a c-commanding probe and a c-commanded goal within the same phase and under minimal search (i.e. no intervention). It is these purely structural criteria, especially the minimal search/no intervention one, that insure that V can only agree with its nearest argument, i.e. the internal argument. As for the differences between the two approaches, in Chomsky’s model uninterpretable features trigger Agree in that they need to be deleted prior to Full Interpretation. If there are no uninterpretable (or unvalued) features, we can assume that Agree is triggered by the need to create equivalence classes of interpretable feature bundles, interpreted as different occurrences of the same referent at the C-I interface.

2 Ergative structures 

 187

2.2 The progressive and the aspectual split In contrast with the perfect, the progressive participle in Punjabi agrees in gender and number with the external argument of transitives, in the absolute form, as illustrated in (15). With unergatives and unaccusatives, the sole argument surfaces in the absolute form and agrees with the verb, as in (16). Therefore (15)–(16) taken together display the nominative alignment also seen in English or Romance. (15) o muɳɖ-a dekh-d-a/-i (a) s/he.abs boy-abs.msg see-progr-msg/-fsg be.pres ‘S/he is seeing a boy’ (16) a. kuɾ-i ron-d-i (a) girl-abs.fsg cry-progr-fsg be:Pres ‘A/the girl is crying’ b. muɳɖ-e deg-d-e boy.abs.mpl fall-progr-mpl ‘(The) boys are falling’

Punjabi

As indicated in section 2.1, ergative alignments are often taken to correspond to a more elementary organization of the sentence than nominative alignments, in generative work as well. Therefore, the Punjabi progressive must include some layer of structure which is not projected in perfects. Consider the internal structure of the Punjabi progressive participle, as detailed in (17) for dekh-d-a ‘seeing-msg’. The lexical base combines with the aspectual (Asp) specification -d- for the progressive, and with the φ-features inflection -a. Following the discussion of the perfect, the inflection contributes to the saturation of an argument of the verb, though in this instance the external argument is involved, rather than the internal argument as in the perfect, for reasons that remain to be seen. (17)

Asp Asp V dekh

cf. (15) N a

Asp d

188 

 7 Oblique case in Punjabi: Ergativity splits and agreeing possessors

If we compare the morphological structures in (13a) and in (17) and maintain the idea that syntactic structures are projected from morphological ones, the presence of Asp (i.e. progressive) morphology in (17) requires the projection of a two-tiered syntactic structure [Asp [V]]. The mapping from the morphological structure in (17) onto syntactic constituent structure can be implemented in several ways. Chomsky (1995) has syntactic head-movement, Chomsky (2001) has PF-movement. How the latter is to be conceived is a separate issue. We will take it to mean that an inflected lexical head can be externalized in any of the syntactic heads that its inflections project (see also Brody 2003). We adopt the tree in (18) for sentence (15) which is the syntactic head movement representation, just because it is easier to work with. The VP structure in (18) is similar to that postulated for perfects, with muɳɖa ‘a boy’ satisfying the internal argument slot of the predicate. However the extra Asp structure allows a further level of structure to be projected, namely AspP, and a further argument to be introduced as Spec of AspP, namely o ‘he’. This is interpreted as the external argument, i.e. as the argument (causer or other) applied to the elementary VP event, defined by the predicate and its internal argument. (18)

IP I a

AspP DP o

DP muɳɖa

cf. (15)

Asp’ VP

Asp V dekhda V dekh

Asp

N a Asp d

What interests us here directly is the case and agreement alignment. Consider agreement first. The φ-features inflection -a in (18) merges not with the verb base V, but with the V-Asp complex. This morphological structure, and the resulting syntactic structure in (18) evidently implies that the φ-features inflections picks up the argument introduced by Asp, namely the external argument – or alternatively the sole argument of intransitives in (16). Two structural possibilities for Agree are open in (18) under c-command and locality, namely (o, Asp), and (V, muɳɖa). Reversing the Agree relation would be impossible under locality, since o could not Agree with V across muɳɖa. At the same time, when

2 Ergative structures 

 189

only one argument is present, namely the internal argument, we may assume that agrees with both V and Asp. Summarizing so far, the perfect participle in languages like Punjabi is a VP predicate, as indicated in structure (14). By contrast, the progressive participle has a more complex internal configuration including an Asp head, as in structure (18). This reflects the overt morphological structuring of the language, so that the external argument is introduced by progressive Aspect. The absence of the Asp layer of structure in (14) means that the causer/agent is not licensed by Asp and can only be merged under VP as an oblique case, namely the ergative – to which we turn immediately below in section 2.3. In essence, in ergativity splits, one-layered structures like (14) and two-layered structures like (18) alternate according to Aspect. Agreement in the ergative alignment, i.e. one-layered structures like (14), always involves the internal argument. In two-layered structures like (18), agreement of the higher layer is with the external argument if present, and otherwise with the internal argument, yielding the familiar nominative alignment. This is not incompatible with standard minimalist models of a language like English. One-layered structure for passive and unaccusative predicates have the internal argument agreeing. Two-layered structures with transitive predicates display two direct arguments and the higher argument agrees. Thus one way to look at the relation between English and Punjabi is that the one-layered vs two-layered structure contrast is associated with Aspect in Punjabi and with valency (passive/unaccusative vs transitive) in English.3

2.3 The nature of ergative case In order to understand the Punjabi data, it is useful to have a sketch of Punjabi morphosyntax at hand (Bhatia 2000). In Punjabi, there are two genders, masculine and feminine. A sub-set of masculine nouns present the inflection -a in the non-oblique singular form (19a) and -e in the oblique singular, i.e. when it is followed by postposition, and in the non-oblique plural (19b). The oblique plural masculine, i.e. followed by postposition, is in turn realized as -ea (19c). The feminine does not display a specialized oblique form. At least some feminine nouns 3 In fact, in current minimalist practice it is perhaps more standard to have a two layered structure v-V for unaccusatives (Alexiadou et al 2015, Harley 2013, Legate 2014) and a three-layered structure Voice-v-V for transitives. We discussed the two-layered version of the theory for simplicity; as far as we can tell, there is no incompatibility with the three layered version (see the brief discussion of Nash (2014) above).

190 

 7 Oblique case in Punjabi: Ergativity splits and agreeing possessors

present the inflection -a in the plural as in (20a-a’); another sub-set of them alternates between a singular form with final -i and a plural with -ĩã, as in (20b-b’). (19) a. muɳɖ-a ‘boy-msg’ b. muɳɖ-e ‘boy-msg.obl/boy-mpl’ c. muɳɖ-ea ‘boy-mpl.obl’ (20) a. kita:b a’ kitabb-a b. kuɾ-i b’. kuɾ-ĩã

‘book.fsg’ ‘book-fpl’ ‘girl-fsg’ ‘girl-fpl’

Oblique case suffixes, or postpositions, attach to a stem inflected for φ-features, but also (in the masculine) for the absolute vs. oblique distinction. Thus the absolute form of the masculine singular ‘boy’ is muɳɖ-a. However oblique cases such as dative -nu, genitive -de attach to the oblique stem muɳɖ-e; these include the -ne ergative suffix, cf. muɳɖ-e-ne. Thus there is no doubt that ergative is morphologically an oblique case/adposition. A considerable amount of external evidence is available on the Indo-European ergative. The historical literature often connects the -ne ergative suffix to the Sanskrit instrumental. Nevertheless Butt and Ahmed (2011), Verbeke and de Cuypere (2009) argue that a much better origin is to be sought in the -ne dative, still preserved in some Indo-Aryan languages. Thus in Haryani (Butt and Ahmed 2011), -ne externalizes both the ergative and the goal dative (cf. Punjabi -nu). More to the point, we can argue against ergative as an instrumental/agent case on internal grounds as well. Consider Punjabi necessity constructions, based on a non-finite form of the verb traditionally called the infinitive (optionally followed by the auxiliary be). The case and agreement alignment of transitives and unergatives is the same as in the perfect. Thus, the internal argument is in the absolute form and the infinitive agrees with it in number and nominal class; the external argument is in the ergative, as in (21a). However, the sole argument of unaccusatives (an internal argument) is also in the ergative, as in (21b); the verb agreement is in the invariable masculine singular – as always when only oblique arguments are present. (21) a. muɳɖ-e-ne roʈʈ-i kha-n-i a/ si boy-obl.msg-erg bread-abs.fsg eat-inf-fsg be.pres/be.past ‘The boy is/was to eat the bread’ b. kuɾ-i-ne ɔ-n-a/ dʒa-n-a girl-fsg-erg come- inf-msg/go-inf-msg ‘The girl was to come/go’ Punjabi

2 Ergative structures 

 191

The evidence in (21) is sufficient in itself to exclude that -ne is connected to the expression of external arguments, since it covers the internal argument in (21b) as well. Furthermore, the idea that ergative may be an instrumental/agent case strictly connects to the traditional idea that the perfect is passive-like (cf. Baker and Atlamaz 2014 for a recent endorsement). Yet, apart from other consideration, in Punjabi, perfect and passive have different lexicalizations, since the verb in the passive in (22) is in the root form, not in the perfect. Furthermore, the agent is introduced by the post-position -to, excluding a link between ergative -ne and by-phrases. (22) aval-i kita:b sar-e muɳɖ-ea-to hameʃapaɾ that-fsg.abs book.fsg.abs all-mpl boy-mpl.obl-by always hun-d-i a read-inf-fsg be.pres ‘That book is always being read by all the boys’

Punjabi

If the ergative case is connected to the dative (Butt and Ahmed 2011 and related literature), in present terms this is tantamount to connecting it to possession/inclusion. This leads us back to the stream of literature, both historical (Benveniste’s 1966) and generative (Johns 1992, Alexiadou 2001), that connects ergative structure with nominal possession structures. Suppose that this literature is substantially correct. We have already seen that the inclusion category ⊆ is externalized as -de (the conventional genitive) when embedded in DPs, as in (8b), and as -nu (the conventional dative) when embedded under VP, as in (8a). We are now lead to conclude that the same ⊆ content characterizes -ne, i.e. the descriptive ergative, in perfects. Combining this characterization for ergative case with the structure of the perfect VP in (14), we obtain (23). We again treat ⊆ as a predicate, with two argument places. Its internal argument, namely o ‘s/he’, to which ⊆ morphologically attaches, is interpreted as including (or  locating etc.) not another DP, as in the genitive and dative contexts, but rather a state/event, represented by the VP ‘eaten the bread’, which is the second argument of ⊆. (23)

VP

cf. (11)

VP

DP D o

⊆ ne

DP roʈʈi

V khaddi

192 

 7 Oblique case in Punjabi: Ergativity splits and agreeing possessors

In other words, identifying the ergative with the fundamental oblique relation ⊆ implies assuming that this relation may hold not only between two DPs but also between a DP and a predicate. The idea that an oblique head may relate two DPs, but also a DP and an event/state has precedents in the generative literature, specifically in the characterization of low and high Appls by Pylkkänen (2008). Low Appls, corresponding roughly to goal datives, introduce a relation between the goal DP and the theme DP; high Appls, corresponding for instance to experiencer datives, introduce a relation between the experiencer DP and the predicate. In chapter 4 and again in chapter 6 we treat Differential Object Marking (DOM, Bossong 1985, Aissen 2003) in the same terms. In Punjabi, the DOM alignment is necessary if the internal argument of transitives is animate and definite (or at least one of the two), including of course pronouns, as in (24). As expected on the basis of previous discussion, DOM is lexicalized by the same -nu inflection as the goal dative, as illustrated in (24a) for the progressive and in (24b) for the perfect. In the progressive (24a), the verb agrees with the external argument in the absolute form. In the perfect (24b), the DOM case on the internal argument determines lack of agreement between it and the participle. Since the participle does not agree with the ergative external argument either, it surfaces in an invariable masculine singular form. (24) a. mɛ: muɳɖ-e-nu/ti-nnu dekh-d-i a I.f.abs boy-obl.msg-obl/you-obl see-progr-fsg be.pres ‘I am seeing the boy/you’ b. o-ne mi-nnu/ti-nnu dekkh-ea s/he-erg me-obl/you-obl see.perf-msg ‘S/he saw me/you’

Punjabi

Though the DOM case is traditionally glossed as an accusative, its coincidence with the dative is not a matter of mere homophony. A syntactic argument in favour of its oblique status is provided precisely by the fact that it is incompatible with agreement in the perfect, as in (24b). Furthermore, the expression of DOM systematically coincides with that of the dative across the Indo-European languages, including Romance languages, Hindi, and many Iranian varieties. Following previous chapters, therefore, we take the lexical coincidence with dative at face value and propose that DOM introduces a ⊆ relation between the animate/ specific internal argument to which it attaches and the V elementary event. Consider structure (25) for sentence (24a). The deictic DP ti- ‘you’ is attached to the core of the sentence by the ⊆ case, lexicalized by -nu – as if one were to say

2 Ergative structures 

 193

‘I give/have (a) sight to/of you’ where the internal argument ‘you’ is in an abstract possessor/inclusion to the elementary state/event ‘see/sight’. (25)

AspP Asp’

DP mɛ: DP DP ti-

Asp dekhdi

VP V dekhdi (⊆) nnu

Summarizing our core proposal, the same predicate-argument complex can be introduced by a two-layered predicate in the progressive or by a one-layered predicate plus an oblique case (an elementary predicate) in the perfect. Crucially, the external argument is introduced by the ergative, oblique case as including/locating/possessing the event; this consonant with both historical-typological and formal characterizations of ergativity (in the relevant languages) as involving possession of a state/event.4

2.4 Ergativity in Kurdish An obvious prediction of the present approach to ergative case is that we ought to find fairly systematic syncretisms with dative and/or genitive case. In section 2.3 we mentioned that some Indo-Aryan languages display a syncretism between ergative and dative -ne. In this section we briefly consider Kurmanji Kurdish, an Iranian language which maintains an elementary two case system distinguishing direct case and oblique case. In Kurmanji, the case inflections -i for masculine singular, -e for feminine singular and a for plural, traditionally characterized as obliques can lexicalize goal (thematic) datives, as in (26–a), and possessor genitives in the DP, as in (26b).5 4 Other aspects of the syntax of Punjabi cannot be dealt with here, in particular the person split, see Manzini et al. (2015). In the perfect, 1/2P external argument are found in the absolute form, rather than in the ergative case obligatory with 3P referents. On the face of it, the attachment of 1/2P in the structure takes place by simple argument application (via a lambda-operator). In other words, Participants denotation, anchored to the universe of discourse, seems to dispense with specialized means of attachment to the structure of the event. 5 Kurdish data are obtained through interviews with Northern Iraqi native speakers of the Bahdini variety of Kurmanji. Bahdini Kurmanji has a system of tense ezafes (Haig 2011) in the

194 

 7 Oblique case in Punjabi: Ergativity splits and agreeing possessors

(26) a. aʊ je: partuk-e də-da-ta ʒəŋk-e he.nom lkr.m book-obl progr-give-3sg woman-obl ‘He is giving the book to the woman’ b. dest-e ketʃk-e hand-lkr.m  girl-obl ‘the hand of the girl’ Kurmanji Kurdish The same oblique turns up as the case of the (transitive) subject in the perfect (27a). In the progressive (27b) the external argument is in the nominative and agrees with the verb, while the internal argument bears the oblique case. In the perfect (27a) agreement is with the internal argument in the nominative form. (27) a. ʒəŋk-e zɔruk nəχoft-ən woman-obl children.nom cover.perf-3pl ‘The woman covered the child/ the children’ b. ʒənək jɑ: kamis-i də-ʃʊ-t woman.abs lkr.f shirt-obl progr-wash-3sg ‘The woman is washing the shirt’

Kurmanji Kurdish

Therefore Kurmanji Kurdish is characterized by a contrast between a nominative alignment in the present and an ergative one in the perfect. Since the oblique case lexicalizes the goal argument of ditransitives (dative) in (26a), the possessor of nouns (genitive) in (26b) and the external argument of transitives/sole argument of intransitives in the ergative alignment, it provides prima facie support for our central analysis, that ergative is essentially a contextual differentiation of the basic possessor/inclusion/location oblique of natural languages. Because Kurmanji presents certain differences with respect to Punjabi we will briefly review its fundamental structures. In comparison with Punjabi, and differently from it, Kurmanji presents a classical ergative alignment, which opposes the external argument of transitives to other arguments (the internal argument of transitives and the sole argument of all intransitives). The alignment of Punjabi is what is more properly characterized as active/inactive.

non-perfect tenses, glossed here Lkr, which agree with the nominative subject, for instance in (26a). A canonical instance of an ezafe, i.e. a Lkr, is present in (26b), agreeing with the head noun and introducing a genitive modifier. As briefly discussed in chapter 5, a D characterization of Lkrs is particularly apt at capturing the subject clitic-like nature of tense ezafes.

2 Ergative structures 

 195

In the nominative alignment, seen in the present, the nominative/absolute form of the noun lexicalizes the external argument of transitive verbs, as in (28a), and the sole argument of intransitives, including unergatives, as in (28b). The verb agrees with this absolute argument in person and number. The internal argument of transitives in (28a) is in the oblique. (28) a. ɛz kurk-(æk-)i jɑ: də-bin-əm I.nom boy-(indef)-obl lkr.f progr-see-1sg ‘I(f) am seeing the/a boy’ b. ʒənək jɑ: də-nəv-it woman.nom lkr.f progr-sleep-3sg ‘The woman is sleeping’

Kurmanji Kurdish

In the ergative alignment, seen in the past, the absolute form characterizes the internal argument of transitives as in (29a), and the sole argument of intransitives, including unergatives, as in (29b), with which the verb agrees in person and number. The external argument of transitives in (29a) is lexicalized by the oblique. (29) a. ʒəŋk-e ɛz nəχoft-əm woman-obl I.nom cover.perf-1sg ‘The woman covered me’ b. tu nəvəst-i you.nom sleep.perf-2sg ‘You have slept/he has slept’

    Kurmanji Kurdish

We tentatively assume that the ergativity split of Kurmanji has the same basic shape as that of Punjabi. We maintain that the organization of the predicate  is simpler in the perfect, which in present terms corresponds to a VP.6  In

6 We are aware that the split between (28) and (29) is traditionally described as a present vs past split, see also Baker and Atlamaz (2014). The identification of the traditional past with a perfective, assumed here, does not explain why it can combine with the dı- prefix, if the latter is construed as the progressive. Nevertheless, Thackston (2006) shows that dı- is in complementary distribution with the subjunctive prefix bı- and with the negative prefix in the present, leading him to label dı- as a “modal prefix”. In structural terms, the interaction with negation and subjunctive morphology, which is external to the predicate (VP/AspP), supports the conclusion that the dı- (də-) morphology is introduced when the basic shape of the predicate, either VP or AspP, is defined. The issue requires further research.

196 

 7 Oblique case in Punjabi: Ergativity splits and agreeing possessors

the absence of an Asp layer, the external argument is introduced by the oblique case/elementary predicate ⊆, denoting a relation between the argument itself and the V(P) event, as in (30). The agreement on the verb targets the internal argument, which correspondingly surfaces in the absolute form. (30)

VP

N ʒəŋk

⊆P

cf. (29a) VP

⊆ e

DP ɛz

V nəχoft-əm

We model Kurmanji unergatives by assuming that the verb inflection lexicalizes the closest argument (internal or external). The structure of the unergative sentence in (31), cf. example (29b), is similar to that of an unaccusative, since the sole argument of intransitives is the first syntactically merged argument. (31)

VP

cf. (29b) V nəvəst-i

DP tu

Let us turn to imperfective sentences. If we apply to them the same analysis as for the Punjabi progressive, we obtain structures like (32) for the transitive example (28a). Assuming that the verb inflection composes with Asp, we expect that it will agree with the outer argument of the predicate, i.e. the external argument in a transitive or unergative structure or the internal argument if the verb is unaccusative. In this respect, therefore, Kurmanji poses no difficulty, replicating the pattern already studied for Punjabi. (32)

AspP

cf. (28a) Asp’

DP ɛz

VP DP kurki

Asp də-bin-əm

V də-bin-əm

There is a final notable property of Kurmanji that requires some attention. The internal argument in transitive structures like (32) does not in fact receive the

2 Ergative structures 

 197

direct case, but the oblique case. It is tempting to extend to it previous proposals on Punjabi DOM, attaching it through the ⊆ case, as in (33). The interpretation that we impute to the structure in (33) is the one already outlined for Punjabi DOM objects, in the sense that the internal argument is treated as a possessor of the elementary predicate (included in) V. (33)

VP

N kurk

⊆P

cf. (28a) V də-bin-əm

⊆ i

The problem is that the treatment in (33) must be extended to all internal arguments of transitive structures since oblique is in fact necessarily associated with arguments in this position. We would like to stress that this proposal is technically feasible. Alternatives are available in the literature. Baker and Atlamaz (2014) propose that oblique case in Kurmanji is the default case. However note that it is neither a morphological default (the morphological default is obviously the absolute form) – nor the semantic default (an empty feature matrix), since it can alone support the dative/genitive interpretation. Though the notion of an Elsewhere case is technically available to us (and only avoided in the name of restrictiveness), the lack of interpretive plausibility for the proposed notion of oblique as Elsewhere leads us to prefer the (stronger) hypothesis in (33).

2.5 Intermediate conclusions In previous chapters we proposed that the standard oblique complement cases, like dative and genitive, have a predicative content. Specifically they introduce an inclusion or part/whole relation whereby the DP they attach to is taken to include (hence possess) a local DP. We illustrated this point in section 1 with data from Romanian. We link this analysis of complement obliques to the analysis of ergative alignments, in Punjabi and in Kurdish. Perfects denote properties; therefore, while they introduce the internal argument of the predication, the external argument can only be introduced as an oblique. On the contrary, the progressive aspect introduces an eventive organization of the sentence, corresponding to the projection of an Asp level of structure. Given these assumptions, we predict the basic shape of the aspectual split, whereby the progressive presents a nominative-accusative alignment (i.e.

198 

 7 Oblique case in Punjabi: Ergativity splits and agreeing possessors

two direct cases), while the perfect presents the ergative alignment (an oblique and a direct case). The reverse is not possible because of the intrinsic characters of the aspectual properties involved. Importantly for present purposes there is evidence that in the languages considered the oblique introducing the external argument in perfect shares the ⊆ content with genitives and datives, i.e. it is ultimately characterized as a possessors/locator of the event/state depicted by the perfect.

3 Genitive structures In this section, we consider in some detail genitive structures, taking Punjabi again as our core language. Punjabi genitive structures provide an important addition to the study of Lkrs and agreeing possessives in chapters 5-6 (section 3.1). On the other hand, we will show that in a particular set of examples genitive and ergative subjects alternate (section 3.2), further confirming the predictions of section 2. In section 4 we return to the phenomena captured by the Stacking Generalization in chapter 6, whereby adnominal modifiers, including obliques, agree with their head noun via inflections or Lkrs, discussing its typological implications in a more comprehensive fashion.

3.1 Agreement stacking In Punjabi, a genitive modifying a noun bears its own inflection, followed by the case postposition d- and then by a φ-features inflection agreeing with the modified noun. For instance, in (34a) and (34c) munɖ- ‘boy’ bears the masculine plural inflection -ea; in (34b) it bears the oblique masculine singular inflection -e. These inflected forms are embedded under the genitive d- postposition.7 What we are interested in is that d- is followed in turn by an inflection which agrees with the head noun. Thus in (34a) the masculine singular -a

7 Genitive in Punjabi yields a person split of sorts, since it is realized as d- on 3P lexical nouns and pronouns, but as r- on 1/2P pronouns, as in (i). In either instance, the genitive postposition is followed by an inflection agreeing with the head noun. (i) te-r-i/-ĩã kəmidʒ/kəmidʒ-a you-of-fsg/-fpl shirt.fsg/shirt-fpl ‘your shirt(s)’

3 Genitive structures 

 199

inflection following d- agrees with dərwaddʒ-a ‘door’; in (34b-c) the inflection varies according to whether feminine kita:b ‘book’ is in the singular or plural (-i singular and -ia plural) (34) a. munɖ-ead-a dərwaddʒ-a boy-mpl.obl-of-msg door-msg ‘The boys’ door is new’ b. munɖ-ed-i kita:b boy-msg.obl-of-fsg book.fsg  ‘The boy’s book is new’ c. munɖ-ead-ia kitabb-a boy-mpl.obl-of-fpl book-fpl  ‘The boys’ books are new’

nam-a a new-msg be nam-i  a  new-fsg   be nam-ia a new-fpl    be

Punjabi

The structure illustrated in (34) is recursive, as witnessed by the examples in (35). Thus in the sequence of two genitives in (35a), the most embedded genitive munɖ-e-d-i ‘of the boy’ bears the -d postposition followed by a feminine singular -i inflection, agreeing with the feminine singular dost-d-i ‘of the friend’. The latter in turn bears a feminine singular -i agreement with pɛn-ne ‘the sister’. (35) a. munɖ-ed-i dostd-i pɛn-ne kitt-a a boy-msg.obl-of-fsg friend.fsg-of-fsg   sister.fsg-erg   done-msg   be ‘The sister of the friend of the boy did it’ b. munɖ-ed-i dost- d-i pɛn-nu me kita:b boy-msg.obl-of-fsg friend.fsg-of-fsg sister.fsg-obl I book.fsg ditt-i a given.fsg be ‘I gave the book to the sister of the friend of the boy’ Punjabi

Apart from dative nu, genitive de/re and ergative ne, other postpositions of Punjabi do not attach directly to the oblique form of the noun, but rather to the noun followed by genitive morphology, which surfaces in the invariable form de/re, as in (ii). In the brief discussion of Prepositional embedding in Albanian in chapter 4, we commented on analogous phenomena in Italian (e.g. prima *(di) ‘lit: before of’). (ii) o-de-nal him-of-with ‘with him’

200 

 7 Oblique case in Punjabi: Ergativity splits and agreeing possessors

Recall from the declension schemas provided at the beginning of section 2 that in the feminine, the noun is only inflected for φ-features; in the masculine, however, direct case is differentiated from oblique. This case distinction is recorded by the feature set which inflects the genitive postposition. Consider for instance the example in (35’a). The most embedded genitive, i.e. munɖ-e-d-e ‘of the boy’ agrees with the head it modifies, which is the genitive pra-d-i ‘of the brother’. Therefore in munɖ-e-d-e ‘of the boy’ the inflection on the genitive postposition d- is oblique masculine -e. (35’) a. munɖ-ed-e prad-i kita:b nam-i a boy-msg.obl-of-msg.obl brother.msg.obl-of-fsg book. fsg new-fsg be ‘The book of brother of the boy is new’ b. munɖ-ed-e pram-ad-i kita:b boy-msg.obl-of-mpl.obl brother-mpl.obl-of-fsg book.fsg nam-i    a new-fsg  be ‘The book of brothers of the boy is new’ Punjabi From a functional-typological point of view (Plank 1995), there is continuity between the inflection on the genitive postposition in Punjabi, agreeing with the head noun, and pre-genitival Lkrs (agreeing again with the head noun) in languages like Albanian or Romanian in chapters 5-6. An perhaps obvious continuity seems to exist between the genitives agreeing with the head nouns in (35) and the agreement of possessive/genitive pronouns in Albanian and in Romanian/ Aromanian in chapter 6. On the basis of the parallelism observed between DPinternal and postcopular genitives in Albanian and Aromanian in chapters 5-6, we expect that the postcopular genitives will present the same agreement structure as genitives embedded in DPs. This prediction is verified by the data in (36). (36) a. munɖ-ed-i kita:b-d-e paper me-r-e a boy-msg.obl-of-fsg book.fpl-of-mpl sheet.mpl me-of-mpl be ‘The sheets of the boy’s book are mine’ b. ghar-d-e dərwaddʒ-ea- d-ia tʃabb-ia me-r-ia house-of-mpl.obl door-mpl.obl-of-fpl key-fpl me-of-fpl ‘The keys of the house’s door are mine’ Punjabi Here of course we are not interested in the functional equivalence between Lkrs, and agreeing genitive postpositions, but rather in whether they share formal properties, including their constituent structure and the rules that apply to it.

3 Genitive structures 

 201

Following the discussion of chapters 5-6, we take genitive case in Punjabi to correspond to the part-whole elementary predicate, notated ⊆. As argued by Payne (1995), and reflected in our descriptive terminology, oblique relators in Indo-Aryan correspond to postpositions, rather than inflections. Thus in the coordination in (37a), the d- genitive postposition takes a coordination of two DPs as its complement. This shows that the nature of d- is phrasal, akin to English ‘s, rather than inflectional. A similar argument can be built from genitive nouns modified by an adjective. As can be seen in (37b), the d- postposition appears only once in the structure, embedding the whole genitive NP kull-e dərwaddʒ-e ‘the open door’. (37) a. rami e ran d-a pra Rami and Ran of-msg brother.msg ‘Rami and Ran’s brother’ b. kull-e dərwaddʒ-e d-i tʃabb-i len-d-i a open-msg.obl door-msg.obl of-fsg key-fsg take-progr-fsg be ‘I(f) am taking the key of the open door’ Punjabi Consider then structure like (38), for sentence (34a). It interpretation is that a ⊆ relation, lexicalized by the postposition d-, holds between the argument to which the genitive morphology attaches, i.e. munɖea ‘the boys’ (the whole or possessor), and the head DP dərwaddʒa ‘the door’ (the part or possessum). A partial lexicalization of the external argument of ⊆ is inserted within the maximal projection ⊆P in the form of the inflection -a agreeing with munɖea ‘the boy’. In (38) we assign to the latter the categorization N which we use a shorthand to indicate φ-features inflections throughout (as opposed to D inflections bearing definiteness properties). (38)

cf. (34a)

NP

⊆

N munɖea

⊆P

N dərwaddʒa N a

⊆ d

The ⊆P structure in (38) can be embedded under another oblique, yielding recursive structures of the type illustrated in (39) for example (35’a). Recall that

202 

 7 Oblique case in Punjabi: Ergativity splits and agreeing possessors

in the masculine the inflection displays sensitivity to direct vs. oblique case. Importantly, the oblique inflection of the masculine never appears as a standalone form of the noun. In other words, its only occurrences are as a bound form selected by a postposition. Based on this observation we conclude that the oblique masculine inflections, for instance -e on munɖed-e ‘of the boy’ in (39), simply bear N (i.e. nominal class/number) categorical content. Using the selectional mechanisms argued for in chapter 2 (for Albanian), we will then say that the choice of N vowel is sensitive (among other things) to the operator material closing it (i.e. ⊆ for the oblique).

(39)

NP

⊆

N munɖe

⊆P

⊆ N pra

⊆P

cf. (35’a)

N i

⊆ d

N e

⊆ d

In conclusion, the Punjabi data reviewed in this section, no less than the Lkrs and possessive agreement data from Albanian and Romanian, fall under the Lkrs/agreement stacking generalization in chapter 6, to the effect that “the arguments of the ⊆ predicate are instantiated within the ⊆ P”. This generalization deserves to be discussed in a crosslinguistic perspective. We will briefly do this in section 4.

3.2 (Reduced) relative clauses Together with adjectives and genitives, which have formed the focus of the discussion in chapters 5-6, a third type of adnominal modifiers is known to be introduced by Lkrs, namely relative clauses. The typical example of this is provided by the Iranian ezafe. In (40) we reproduce just one example from Kurmanji Kurdish,

3 Genitive structures 

 203

where the e Lkr can be seen to have the same morphology as the e pre-genitival Lkr in (26b).8 (40) aw ḱase: (ku) awwilī b-e:-t that person Lkr.m (that) first subj-come-3sg ‘That person who shall come first.’ Kurmanji Kurdish (McKenzie 1961:203) The general parallelism between Lkrs and stacked agreement of the Punjabi type leads us to expect that relative clauses in Punjabi may also be affected by agreement stacking, in some form or other. Indeed Payne (1995: 295) reports the existence of reduced relative clauses headed by perfect participles, where the external argument of the perfect participle surfaces in the genitive and agrees with the head noun. In our corpus, this pattern is attested by data like (41). Recall that Punjabi is a head final language. The fact that mi:tə ‘meat’ in (41a) follows the participle bəna-ea ‘done’, of which it is the object, suggests that at least in (41a), mi:tə ‘meat’ heads a DP, modified by a prenominal reduced relative consisting of the participle ‘cooked’ and of the genitive ‘the girl’ that precedes it. (41) a. mɛ kuɾ-i-d-a/ kuɾ-i-ne bəna-ea mi:tə khan-d-i a I.f girl-fsg-of-msg/girl-fsg-erg done-msg meat.msg eat-progr-fsg be ‘I am eating the meat cooked by the girl’

8 Albanian has two separate strategies for the formation of relative clauses. One involves the relative pronoun që, comparable to English ‘that’ used to relativize direct arguments. A second strategy uses the relative expression i cili etc. inflected for φ-features and case and introduced by an article, namely i in the masculine singular nominative, e in the feminine singular nominative and të elsewhere, as in (i)–(ii). It is certainly tempting to treat them as Lkrs, as in the glosses in (i)–(ii). (i) ?Kam parë burrin të cilin e thirre I.have seen the.man lkr whom him you.called ‘I saw the man whom you called’ (ii) Kam parë burrin të cilit i ke dhënë librin I.have seen the.man lkr to.whom him you.have given the.book ‘I saw the man to whom you gave the book’ On the other hand the Lkrs in (i)–(ii) agree with the case of the embedded relative pronoun, which is unlike what happens with pre-genitival Lkrs. Because of this and because of the relation (or lack thereof) with French lequel, Italian il quale, etc. we leave Albanian relative clauses aside. See Kallulli (2008a) for independent discussion.

204 

 7 Oblique case in Punjabi: Ergativity splits and agreeing possessors

b. mɛ kuɾ-i-d-a/ kuɾ-i-ne mi:tə bəna-ea khan-d-i a I.f girl-fsg-of-msg/girl-fsg-erg meat.msg done-msg eat-progr-fsg be ‘I am eating the meat cooked by the girl’ Punjabi What interests us here directly is the fact that the genitive subject in (41) kuɾ-id-a ‘(of) the girl’ agrees with the head of the relative, mi:tə ‘meat’, yielding an instance of agreement stacking. The other point of interest of the data in (41) is that in both examples the genitive alternates with the ergative (which does not bear any stacked agreement) – potentially providing a direct connection between possessive and ergative structures of the type predicted by the discussion in section 2. Main sentences can also be constructed with a perfect participle taking a genitive external argument, as in (42a). The stacked agreement of the genitive, o-d-i ‘(of) him’ picks up the internal argument of the verb, kəmidʒə ‘the shirt’ as does the verb itself. Stronsky (2013), discussing a range of Indo-Aryan languages, characterizes the meaning of sentences like (42a) as resultative. For ease of comparison, (42b) displays a perfective sentence, with the internal argument in the absolute form and the external argument in the ergative. As again highlighted by Stronsky, the resultative form requires the presence of the participle of ‘be’, o in Punjabi, which we also see in the stative predication in (42c). (42) a. o-d-i kəmidʒə tott-i o a he-of-fsg shirt.fsg wash.perf-fsg been be ‘He has the shirt washed’ b. o-ne/mɛ kəmidʒə tott-i (a/si) he-erg/I shirt.fsg wash.perf-fsg be/be.past ‘He has washed the shirt’ c. eval-i kəmidʒə tott-i (o) a this-fsg shirt.fsg wash.perf-fsg been be ‘This shirt is washed’

Punjabi

In section 2 we argued that the ergative case has the same ⊆ content as genitives/ datives. Thus in structure (43) for sentence (42b) it introduces a relation between the DP it embeds one ‘he’ and a nominal-like participial predicate, kəmidʒə totti ‘washed the shirt’. In essence, the ⊆ relation lexicalized by the ergative says that the state/event denoted by the VP (the perfect and its internal argument) is included by/located at the external argument. Other aspects of the ergative structure in (43) such as agreement of the perfect participle with the internal argument, are as detailed in section 2.

3 Genitive structures 

(43)

VP

D o

⊆P

 205

cf. (42b) VP

⊆ ne

DP kəmidʒə

V totti

As already mentioned in section 2, in the generative literature, the existence of a connection between ergative structures and nominalizations – hence between ergative subjects and possessors is proposed notably by Johns (1992, cf. Yuan 2013 for a minimalist update) for Inuktikut. Concretely, consider the example in (44). In the words of Johns (1992: 61) the sentence in (44) “is constructed syntactically along the lines of ‘The bear is the man’s stabbed one’”. Thus in Johns’s proposal the verb is a nominalization, which agrees with the genitive/ergative possessor; the morphology of the agreement suffix on the verb is exactly the same found on nouns agreeing with a possessor. (44) anguti-up nanuq kapi-ja-nga man-erg polarbear.abs stab-perfprt-3sg/3sg ‘The man stabbed the bear.’ Inuktitkut (Johns 1992: 61) Punjabi (42a) matches quite closely the Inuktikut example in (44).9 We take our bearings from Johns’s treatment of Inuktikut and treat the internal argumentparticiple complex as a nominalization. To be more precise, in the structure in (45) we advance the hypothesis that the embedded predicate is a modifier of the noun kəmidʒə ‘shirt’. Following our established practice, we treat the genitive as an elementary ⊆ predicate, which implies that the argument it embeds is 9 There is another possible parallel between reduced relatives of the type in (42a) and structures of Japanese (Miyagawa 2011 and references quoted there), Turkic languages (Kornfilt 2008), Dagur (Mongolian, Hale 2002), Polynesian (Herd et al. 2011), where (reduced) relatives also present a genitive subject. In several of these languages, though not in all (for instance not in Japanese or in standard Turkish) the genitive agrees with the head noun of the relative. Dagur in (i) illustrates the agreement between the head of a relative and the embedded genitive subject. This opens an avenue of research which cannot be pursued here. sain (i) [[mini au-sen] mery-miny] 1sg.gen buy-perf horse-1sg.gen good ‘The horse I bought (bought by me) is good’ Dagur, Mongolian (Hale 2002: 109-110)

206 

 7 Oblique case in Punjabi: Ergativity splits and agreeing possessors

interpreted as a possessor. The reading is akin to that indicated by Johns for Inuktikut, namely a possession predication between o-d-i ‘of him’ and kəmidʒə totti ‘the shirt washed’ – of the type rendered by the possession verb have in English: He has the shirt washed. (45)

DP

D o

⊆

⊆P

cf. (42a) DP

N i

DP kəmidʒə

VP totti

⊆ d

In (45), the outer agreement slot of the genitive registers agreement with the nominal predicate. Going then back to what we have described as reduced relatives in (41) we propose that they involve the embedding of the structure in (43) or in (45), depending on the presence of a genitive or of an ergative. Recall that beginning with our investigation into the Albanian case system in chapter 2, we have proposed that genitive and dative have essentially the same relator content, but though they are often syncretic (as in Albanian, Romanian) etc. they may also receive different lexicalizations, based on the context embedding the relator. Thus dative specializes for sentential embedding and genitive for nominal embedding. We are now proposing that essentially the same distinction accounts for the alternation of genitive and ergative.

4 Stacking and predication So far we have seen configurations where Lkrs (Albanian) or agreement stacking (agreeing postpositions, Punjabi) correspond to the embedding of a genitive inside a DP. In this section we will briefly consider these configurations in the wider context of so-called Suffixaufnahme phenomena investigated by the historical and typological literature (Plank 1995). As briefly mentioned in chapter 6, one of the core crosslinguistic manifestations of Suffixaufnahme is case stacking in Pama-Nyungam languages; these languages have rich case systems, while lacking overt φ-features agreement. Therefore the stacking of specifications of the head noun on top of the intrinsic specifications of a genitive phrase can be seen in the form of a double case. For

4 Stacking and predication 

 207

instance in Lardil, in (46) the DP marun-ngan-ku ‘boy-gen-instr’ is inflected both for genitive and for instrumental cases, reflecting its status as the possessor (genitive) of the instrumental maarnku ‘spear- instr’. (46) Ngada latha karnjin-i marun-ngan-ku maarn-ku I spear  wallaby-acc boy-gen-instr spear-instr ‘I speared the wallaby with the boy’s spear.’   Lardil (Richards 2013: 43) Three typical case stacking configurations where the inner case is not genitive are provided in (47) for the Western Australian language Martuthunira, studied by Dench and Evans (1988), Dench (1995). In (47b), the inner case on kurryarta ‘spear’ is proprietive, essentially the equivalent of English with (instrumental), and the accusative stacked case refers back to the demonstrative pronoun ngurnaa ‘that one’. In (47a), the inner case on tharnta ‘kangaroo’ is privative – i.e. the negation of with (without). In (47c) the inner case on kalyaran ‘tree’ is locative. (47) a. … ngurnu-marta kanyara-marta tharnta-wirriwa-marta … that.obl-prop man-prop kangaroo-priv- prop ‘… the man without a kangaroo’ b. nhawu-layi ngurnaa kurryarta-marta-a-rru see-fut that.acc spear-prop-acc-now ‘I’ll see that one with a spear now’ c. ngali panyu-ngka-a warra kalyaran-ta-a thuur.ta-a manku-layi 1du.incl good-loc-acc cont tree- loc-acc fruit-acc get-fut ‘We’ll get fruit in a better tree’ Martuthunira (Dench and Evans 1988: 7ff) Therefore stacked morphology, agreeing with a modified noun, attaches to potentially any oblique case, not just a genitive one. Evidence for the same distribution, though less robust, is found in Indo-Aryan languages. As shown by Payne (1995), in Kashmiri the benefactive postposition k’ut ‘for’ agrees with the noun it modifies, namely gari ‘house’ in (48a) and gur’aw ‘horses’ in (48b). Payne (1995) further reports the existence of locative postpositions in Punjabi such as vicc ‘in’ in (49) or əndər ‘inside’ that also bear agreement with the modified noun. (48) a. [paranas k’ut] gari reading.obl for. dct.msg house.dct.msg ‘house for reading’

208 

 7 Oblique case in Punjabi: Ergativity splits and agreeing possessors

b. [cur’an k’it’aw] gur’aw thieves.obl for.obl.fpl horse.obl.fpl ‘horses for thieves’ (49) [pənjāb vicl-ī] hālət Punjab in-fsg situation.fsg. ‘the situation in the Punjab’

Kashmiri (Payne 1995: 293)

Punjabi (Payne 1995: 289)

Furthermore, the descriptive and theoretical literature agrees that an oblique case is necessary in order to see a case or an agreement (or a Lkr) stacked on top of it, as reflected by the descriptive generalization in (50). Thus in (47b-c), Acc is stacked on top of Prop and Loc respectively – but there are no structures where Prop or Loc are stacked on top of Acc. The same of course holds in languages like Albanian or Aromanian where Lkrs and agreement stacking can be seen only on genitives and eventually datives (Aromanian). In morphological terms, the generalization is that direct cases can only be stacked as outermost in a stacking configuration, which is Richards’s (2013) formulation: “if a structural case morpheme is to appear, it must be on the periphery’s of the DP’s inflection”.10 Nevertheless it is hard to believe that such a strong cross-linguistic generalization reflects some morphological quirk, and not some deeper syntactic property – which the morphology externalizes. (50) Stacking descriptive generalization Case/φ-features stacking (by affixes or Lkr heads) is restricted to oblique DPs (genitives, datives, instrumentals, locatives). A possible way to conceptualize the state of affairs in (50), suggested by the typological literature is that case/agreement stacking is restricted to structure involving adnominal modifiers. Dench (1995: 386) expresses essentially this generalization by saying that “The NP is defined as a sequence of adjacent nominals over which some nominal suffix is distributed”. In other words the spreading of nominal suffixes (case stacking) is possible to the extent that a

10 Richards (2013) assumes this generalization, which he does not seek to derive. Pesetsky (2013) draws a parallel between overt case stacking as described by Richards (2013) and case inflections in Russian, which according to him result from the stacking of several cases and deletion of all but the outermost case. However stacking of the traditionally recognized kind requires agreement of the modifier phrase with a modifiee head – which is not true of Pesetsky’s generalized case stacking approach to Russian case. Therefore we doubt that overt case stacking brings any support to Pesetsky’s analysis.

4 Stacking and predication 

 209

nominal constituent underlies it. The canonical example of adnominal modification is by genitives, but instrumentals/ comitatives or locatives are equally possible adnominal modifiers. However, this characterization is too restrictive. While the adnominal modification relation is generally clear when genitives are involved, it is much laxer with other obliques. Specifically, it seems from examples like (47c) that the notion of adnominal modification must be stretched to cover environments where the noun and its modifier do not form a single DP constituent. The same point can be made with genitives in postcopular position, such as Punjabi (36) (see also Albanian and Romanian in chapters 5-6), assuming that the subject of the copula is raised from within a small clause predication (Moro 1997). In other words, Dench’s suggested generalization does not really explain (50) in terms of more primitive notions – rather substitutes for the descriptive notion of oblique in (50) the equally descriptive notion of “adnominal modification”. In present terms, explaining (50) amounts to providing a theoretical content for the notion of oblique. The approach we have adopted here led us to assume that what sets oblique cases apart from direct case is their relational nature. Specifically, we propose a construal of the genitive/dative oblique in terms of the relation ⊆. Furthermore, in dealing with Albanian ablatives, i.e. locatives, of Albanian in chapters 2, 4 we proposed that they also have the same basic inclusion content ⊆, locatively restricted. Franco and Manzini (2017) argue that instrumentals/comitatives instantiate the reverse relation ⊇. This is briefly illustrated by the comparison between English (51a) and (51b). (51a) instantiates the by now familiar genitive relation; English with in (51b) introduces the reverse relation (Levinson 2011). The object of with is a possessum of the head noun of the DP, which is instead interpreted as the possessor; hence the relevant relation is ⊇. (51) a. the hat [⊆P of  [the girl]] b. the girl [⊇P with [the hat]]

Recall that our goal here is explaining the generalization in (50) restricting case/ agreement stacking to oblique arguments. What we have now proposed is that there is a common denominator in the oblique system genitive-dative-locative-instrumental, namely the ⊆/⊇ elementary relator. In the languages where the relevant parameter is active, ⊆/⊇ supports – and in fact it requires – a lexicalization of both its arguments within its maximal projection (its phase). The internal argument is the DP to which it attaches, the external argument is introduced as a Lkr or a stacked agreement and/or case inflection. In terms of this proposal the generalization in (50) can be restated as in (52), i.e. a structural constraint holding on a parametric basis.

210 

 7 Oblique case in Punjabi: Ergativity splits and agreeing possessors

(52) Stacking parameter The external argument of the ⊆/⊇ relator (part/whole) is instantiated within the relator’s maximal projection (phase). In evaluating the proposal in (52), it is worth keeping in mind what the range of possible alternatives is. The DM literature that endeavours to decompose traditional cases into a system of elementary features, recognizes [obl] as a primitive (Halle and Vaux 1998, Calabrese 2008a). However, in terms of [obl], the best generalization we can reach about Suffixaufnahme is the descriptive statement in (50) which makes reference to oblique. The formal syntax literature, in turn, focusses on Chomsky’s (1986) distinction between structural case (depending on a syntactic configuration) and inherent case (depending on the selection properties of a predicate). Though the canonical structural cases are the direct cases, genitive is also typically treated as structural by the generative literature. In present terms, this means that the ⊆/⊇ content does not necessarily depend on the inherent properties of the predicate head, but rather on a structural configuration. Therefore, the structural/inherent distinction has no relevance for the Suffixaufnahme generalization. Case/agreement stacking examples may involve selected, i.e. inherent, obliques or what would count as structural obliques. What (52) suggests is that more primitive syntactic notions underlie the descriptive notion of oblique, namely that of elementary relator (with the part/ whole content); in turn case/agreement stacking corresponds to the presence of complete or partial copies of the arguments satisfying the relator within its phrasal projection/phase. Recall now that Lkrs/stacking occurr not only in oblique contexts but also in adjectival contexts and in relative clauses. We conclude by proposing that this corresponds to the generalization of the constraint in (50)/(52) to a range of nominal predicates, as in (53), effectively subsuming den Dikken’s (2006) insight on the connection between Lkrs and predication. (53) Stacking parameter generalized The external argument of a nominal predicate (⊆/⊇, Adj, wh-CP) is instantiated within the predicate’s maximal projection/phase.

5 Conclusions In this chapter, based on data from Indo-Aryan (Punjabi) we have addressed two main issues. In section 2 we have extended to ergative case the treatment of genitive/dative case as an elementary (part/while) relator proposed in previous chapters. In accounting for agreement in ergativity split, we have also extended

5 Conclusions 

 211

to sentential contexts ideas about agreement developed in chapter 1 in connection with DP-internal agreement, specifically the idea that Agree makes no reference to features being (un)interpretable or (un)valued. Agree is necessary for the establishment of equivalence classes between two or more copies of the same φ-features material – to be interpreted at the interface as individuating a single referent. Indeed in Punjabi verbal agreement involves participial forms and hence displays the same overt nominal class (gender and number) agreement as adjectives or other DP-internal categories – making a separation between DP-internal and sentential agreement particularly stipulative. In putting forth the idea that ergative structures (in Punjabi) are possessive structures we are following a considerable tradition of typological-historical and formal studies; in this respect what we are contributing is a formalization of the notion of possessor or of the oblique cases that externalize it. The other main proposal we adopt is connected to the previous one, namely that ergatively aligned perfects have a more elementary internal structure than progressives, displaying nominative alignment. This idea is also variously developed in the formal literature, for different languages. In sections 3-4 we have come back to the issue of stacking, including Lkrs, already introduced and developed in chapters 5-6. Ultimately, stacking and Lkrs provide an argument in favour of the syntactic relevance of the notion of oblique. We have argued that more primitive syntactic notions underlie the descriptive label oblique. We have proposed that there is a common denominator in the oblique system (genitive-dative-instrumental) of natural languages. Specifically, obliques are elementary predicates/relators with a part/whole content, whose internal argument is the DP they embed, i.e. the modifier, and whose external argument is the modified D/NP. Stacked morphemes and Lkrs introduce partial copies of the external argument (the modifiee) at the edge of the relator phrase. The same conception can be extended to Lkrs and stacking involving other nominal predicates, i.e. adjectives and relative clause.

III Complementation: Particles, Complementizers, Prepositions

III Complementation: Particles, Complementizers, Prepositions 

 215

Part III of the book is ideally linked to Part II by chapter 8, which considers the role played by Balkan subjunctive particles (Prts) and the complements they embed in the general economy of complementation. Specifically, based on our investigation of Lkrs in chapter 5, we propose that the so-called subjunctive Prt of Albanian, tə, is not accidentally homophonous to the (plural and oblique) Lkr tə, but it is actually the same lexical element. Therefore, subjunctives are introduced not by a modal Prt or a complementizer, but by a D category, i.e. a Lkr. The Lkr does exactly the same as in pre-adjectival or pre-genitival position  – namely it introduces a variable to be bound by a higher D(P). The latter is interpreted as the subject of the predicate, i.e. an adjective or an oblique relator in the case of conventional Lkrs. The so-called subjunctive Prt introduces a variable corresponding to the EPP argument of the sentence, leading to control by a higher argument; in other words, a Lkr construal of subjunctive Prts implies a predication theory of control (Williams 1980, Chierchia 1984). Chapter 9 considers the complementation system of Aromanian. Aromanian has two that-type complementizers, reminiscent of Romanian, but also of Central and Southern Italian varieties (Ledgeway 2005, Manzini and Savoia 2005, 2011a). We argue that so-called complementizers are not functional categories of the verb, but rather nominalizers of various sorts, which enable the embedding of sentences within other sentences or nominals. The idea that complementation involves nominalization is an old one in generative grammar (Rosenbaum 1967), though it was supplanted early on by the construal of sentential introducers as complementizers (Bresnan 1972), i.e. a specialized verb-related category, eventually organized into articulated C-fields, typical of cartographic approaches (Rizzi 1997). Following Manzini and Savoia (2005, 2011a), Arsenjievic (2009), Kayne (2010), we argue that the that-complementizers of Romance, which belong to the same morphological series as wh-pronouns, create a sort of relativization, introducing a variable, whose content is restricted by the embedded proposition. In chapter 9, we propose that the reason for this relativization strategy is to be sought in the fact that sentential constituents lack φ-features – while visibility of direct arguments requires them to enter Agree with v or I in order to receive case. We dub this property Agree Resistance and we argue that relativization is just one strategy to circumvent it. The connection between the Lkr construal of so-called subjunctive Prts in chapter 8 and the Agree Resistance generalization is provided by the predication theory of control; evidently, the embedding of a predicate does not require further nominalization strategies to be adopted. In chapter 10, we show that Balkan languages lacking morphological infinitives, often display productive non-finite embedded sentences involving either a

216 

 III Complementation: Particles, Complementizers, Prepositions

verb stem or a participial form. The two types effectively coincide in the Geg Albanian paskajore which is a verb stem (root plus inflectional vowel) also lexicalizing the perfect participle. The so-called short infinitive of Romanian, embedded under a restricted range of verbs, is a bare verb stem. Tosk Albanian and Romanian/Aromanian also present embedded inflected participles (with an active reading), which in Romanian traditionally go under the name of supines.

8 Finite control (and raising) in Albanian: The subjunctive Prt as Lkr In Balkan languages lacking a morphological infinitive, control and raising are associated with a subset of finite embedded sentences, introduced by a so-called subjunctive particle (Prt), namely tə in Albanian (të in standard orthography). Manzini and Savoia (2007), based on a close examination of Albanian, identify tə in subjunctive sentences with Lkr tə. On this basis, they argue that the role of tə is that of introducing a predication structure satisfied by a matrix argument, hence control. In a parallel analysis, Roussou (2009) argues that Greek Prt na is a deictic element (Loc), based on its occurrence in presentational structures. As far as we can tell, these proposals, removing so-called subjunctive particles from the functional spine of the verb and reassigning them to the domain of nominal operators, have not been picked up by the literature. We therefore present these ideas anew in the context of two relevant developments. One is the analysis of Lkrs in Albanian and other Balkan languages proposed in Part II of this book, supporting the view of Lkrs as introducing a predication. The other is the adoption of a predication approach to control even by the staunchest proponent of the PRO analysis (Landau 2015). In section 1, we review the formal literature on control. In section 2, we introduce data from Albanian showing that control sentences are endowed with tense, though they obey sequence of tenses restrictions, as non-control subjunctives do. Comparison data from an infinitival control language like Italian show that infinitivals allow nominative subjects, hence agreement with I in Chomsky’s (2001) terms. Because it relies on lack of tense and/or agreement, the PRO analysis is therefore problematic; so is the movement approach, for essentially the same reasons. In section 3, we articulate our main proposal concerning the status of Prts based on a close examination of the morphosyntax of Albanian. On the basis of our treatment of Prts as Lkrs, we propose an analysis of control in terms of predication (section 4). We briefly apply this model to an infinitival language (Italian) in section 5.

1 Background: Diverging approaches to control At least three different strands of theorizing on control are recognizable in generative literature, namely theories based on a specialized empty category PRO, theories equating control with movement (hence equating the controlled empty category with a trace) and finally theories based on predication (i.e. treating the controlled element as an open variable, and the control sentence effectively as a predicate). In this section, we briefly review them for ease of reference in the rest of the chapter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781501505140-008

218 

 8 Finite control (and raising) in Albanian: The subjunctive Prt as Lkr

In the Government and Binding framework, the interpreted unpronounced position involved in control corresponds to a base-generated empty category. An algorithm partitions empty categories into the ±anaphoric, ±pronominal classes (Chomsky 1982). In particular, +anaphoric e.c.’s are subject to Binding Principle A and pronominal ones to Binding Principle B – determining a contradiction for [+pronominal, +anaphoric] empty category, i.e. PRO, which can only be avoided if the latter is in ungoverned position (hence not subject to Binding Theory), in practice if it is the subject of an infinitival sentence. In the minimalist framework of Chomsky (1995), movement does not introduce an empty category, but is conceived in terms of an operation re-merging material already merged and deleting (not pronouncing) its original copy. At the same time, there is no attempt at reverting to a derivational account for PRO, which is kept as a base generated empty category. Because there is no longer an empty category space that can be interestingly partitioned, the properties that determine the insertion of PRO are associated with it in the lexicon. Thus PRO must have a “null case”, matching that of infinitival inflections. The ad hoc character of PRO within minimalism, notably the fact that it is endowed with such features as null case, has often been remarked upon (Hornstein 1999, Manzini and Roussou 2000). Landau (2004, 2006, 2013) abandons any attempt at defining PRO and pro in terms of the notions of government or case, turning instead to interpretive features such as tense(less)ness. Specifically, Landau proposes that control depends on Agree between a matrix functional category (I for subject control, v for object control), which acts as the probe, and an embedded PRO, which acts as the goal. The distribution of PRO is governed by an algorithm, whereby finite tensed clauses (+Agr, +T) are incapable of being controlled. The presence of a -Agr clause or of a -Tns one licences PRO, hence control. Infinitival sentences are a typical example of -Agr control, while finite complements in Balkan languages allow control in virtue of their -Tns properties. The solution proposed by Hornstein (1999) is quite different, namely that the common properties of control and A-movement (raising) are to be unified under a movement derivation. Control is the interpretation of the resulting chain when more than one theta-role is assigned to it. Normally, movement (hence control) is disallowed out of embedded sentences because of the presence of a C phase, blocking it. However defective C phases do allow A-movement. In order to get control into finite complements it is sufficient for them to be defective phases. Indeed Boeckx and Hornstein (2006) allow for control and raising into finite clauses in Balkan languages by assuming that tenselessness gives them (i.e. their C phase) a defective character. A third line of analysis originates with Williams (1980), who proposes that control involves the embedding of a predicative expression (not a proposition),

1 Background: Diverging approaches to control 

 219

which is closed by the matrix subject. Manzini and Roussou (2000) are usually considered within the bracket of movement theories of control, because they propose that the same structure underlies both control and raising. Theirs is in reality an attempt at reviving predication theories of control, in which control amounts to the closure of an open variable in the embedded complement (a predicate rather than a sentence). In a recent development, Landau (2015) himself proposes a predicational take on control. In discussing English predicates which obligatorily take control complements, for instance (1a), Landau (2015: 26) argues in favour of the structure in (1b). PRO is a “minimal pronoun”, interpreted as a variable in its Merge position  – and as an operator (a λ abstractor) in the [Spec, Fin] position it moves to. The projection FinP is therefore a predicate, which gets saturated by the matrix argument John. Landau further argues that predication control is not disrupted by the presence of a finite I. The latter may very well transmit φ-features to PRO by Agree, but this does not prevent predication from taking place. (1) a. John managed to stay healthy b. … managed [FinP PRO [Fin [TP PRO to stay healthy

(Landau 2015)

For Landau (2015) control complements selected by propositional attitude verbs, as exemplified in (2a) for English, have a more complex structure than the control complements considered so far. This increased complexity is determined by the fact that the left periphery of the embedded sentence hosts a logophoric centre, including crucially a representation of Author and Addressee. Nevertheless, the inner core of the embedded sentence has the same structure as for predication control. According to Landau (2015: 44) the matrix subject binds of the embedded Author variable; the embedded predicative structure is then satisfied by the embedded Author, along the lines of (2b). (2) a. John intends to visit Athens b. John intends [CP pro C [Fin PRO [Fin [TP PRO to visit… vbl binding

predication

In section 2 we argue that there are empirical reasons to reject the PRO algorithm and the movement view of control. This leaves us with the predication approach, which we pursue from the rather unusual perspective of accounting for the properties of the subjunctive Prt, starting in section 3.

220 

 8 Finite control (and raising) in Albanian: The subjunctive Prt as Lkr

2 Control into finite and non-finite sentences: Tense and agreement In this section, based on Albanian (see fn.1), we show that in finite control, embedded sentences are associated with tense properties; sequence of tenses is observed, but so it is in Romance where subjunctives cannot be controlled. Furthermore, based on Italian, we show that in infinitival control languages, nominative can in fact be assigned within the infinitival clause, which must therefore have an agreeing I if we adopt Chomsky’s (2001) account of nominative case. The two sets of facts taken together tend to discount the idea that the environment for PRO/control is defined by -Tns/-Agr properties. To begin with, Albanian finite sentences introduced by the tə Prt, are like all other finite sentences in allowing a null pronominal (pro) reading of their subject, for instance in (3). Note that in (3) the embedded verb is overtly inflected for the subjunctive, as shown by the palatalized final consonant, which means that tə is not necessary to externalize subjunctive.1 (3) u dua t ɛ bɐtʃ I want prt it you.do.subj ‘I want you to do it’

Arbëresh, Vena di Maida

One of the properties of tə is that it does not allow for the lexicalization of the subject in the immediately preverbal position. A subject can instead be lexicalized in the postverbal position, as in (4) – which means that if there is a preverbal subject position in the embedded sentence, it is a null expletive. (4) dua tə viɲ a'i I.want prt come.subj he  ‘I want him to come’

Arbëresh, Carfizzi

1 In this and the following examples, tə alternates between the syllabic form tə and the elided form t on phonological grounds. The Albanian complementation data presented in this chapter consistently come from Tosk varieties of Albanian including standard Albanian, represented by Gjirokastër speakers, and several Italo-Albanian (Arbëresh) dialects. Geg Albanian data (Shkodër) are introduced for comparison, or to illustrate non complementation phenomena.

2 Control into finite and non-finite sentences: Tense and agreement 

 221

Coreference between the matrix subject and the embedded subject is also possible, as in (5a). The coreferential reading is actually obligatory with verbs of obligatory control, such as the deontic modal in (5b). If the subject in (5b) was pro, we would expect disjoint reference from the matrix subject to be equally possible – contrary to fact. Vice versa, the presence of a PRO in the subject position of the embedded clause can guarantee the control reading. But this means that PRO can be the subject of a sentence where I determines agreement and nominative case is assigned. (5) a. jam kuntjɛnt t ɛ ʃɔx I.am happy prt him I.see ‘I am glad to see him’ b. kiʃ/ pa t ɛ I.had.imperf/I.had. perf prt it ‘I had to do it’

bəja I.did

Arbëresh, Civita

Landau (2004) takes care of the potential problem in (5b) by proposing that the presence of PRO can be determined either by lack of agreement or by lack of independent temporal specification, the latter relevant for the example in (5b). The line of explanation based on lack of tense is also followed by Boeckx and Hornstein (2006), in connection with their unification of raising and control. The basic idea goes back at least to Iatridou (1993) who argues that Greek na sentences (the counterpart to tə sentences in Albanian) lack temporal properties. Iatridou’s (1993) evidence concerns the impossibility of embedding past tense under Greek na. However, temporal specifications can be embedded in Albanian, for instance the past tense in (5b). It is true that the embedded past specification in (5b) appears to be in a sequence of tense relation to the matrix one. But this is true also of subjunctives in Romance languages like Italian (Giorgi and Pianesi 1997, Giorgi 2009), where subjunctive sentences do not enter into control configurations. Thus the sequence of tenses configuration displayed by examples such as (5b) does not indicate tenselessness  – because, as we noted, it is displayed by Italian subjunctives as well, which do not support the (purportedly tenseless) control reading. A similar problem arises if an embedded tə sentence can receive a raising reading. A possible example is in (6), assuming that be is a raising verb (Moro 1997). If so, its argumental subject must be raised from the embedded tə sentence. Note that in (6) clitics are normally positioned under tə, both verbs are inflected, etc., confirming that a bisentential structure is involved.

222 

 8 Finite control (and raising) in Albanian: The subjunctive Prt as Lkr

(6) a. jam tə tə srɛs I.am prt you I.call ‘I am (about) to call you’ b. iʃi tə mə srisi he.was prt me he.called ‘He was (about) to call me’

Arbëresh, Portocannone

In standard minimalist terms, raising depends on the fact that the raised constituent has a case to be checked (it is active). But as already argued in discussing the control sentence (5b), agreement with I and nominative case are obviously available in tə sentences. Therefore it should be impossible to raise the 1P pronoun in (6a) and the 3P pronoun in (6b) from embedded subject position to matrix subject position.2 Anagnostopoulou (2003), discussing raising in Greek subjunctive (na) sentences, argues that the case problem should be circumvented along the lines of Iatridou (1993). Once again, independently of other implementation details, the absence of tense properties on the embedded verb appears not to be verified in Albanian, as indicated by the alternation of present and past tense in the two examples in (6). And once again, the sequence of tenses relation in (6) is shared with a number of environments (such as Italian subjunctives) where no raising is possible. To complete the picture, it is worth considering briefly languages which have infinitives, for instance Italian. In Italian, nominative is in fact available in infinitival clauses. In particular, as pointed out by Burzio (1986), the controlled subject of an infinitival clause can be doubled by an emphatic, i.e. focussed, pronoun, which in Italian surfaces in the nominative, as in (7). Belletti (2001) analyzes io in (7) as occupying the ordinary focussed position of a postverbal subject, while assuming that its nominative case is simply the default in Italian. However it is far from clear that nominative is the Italian default case. See for instances sentences like (8) where a nominative is expected in front of the deletion site and an accusative shows up – indicating that accusative might be the default (as presumably in English). (7) Tentai di andarci io I.tried to go.there I ‘I tried to go there myself’

2 Only the agreement inflections are visible in (6) because of the null subject properties of Albanian. The verb duket ‘seem’ presents a different complementation structure; Turano (2018) argues that it does not involve raising.

3 Albanian tə 

(8) E’ alto quanto me/*io he.is tall how.much me/I ‘He is as tall as me’

 223

Italian

Furthermore, Borer (1989) discusses the lexicalization of controlled subjects by overt pronouns crosslinguistically, as does Szabolcsi (2007) more recently. Mensching (2000) discusses attestations of overt subjects of infinitives in many Romance varieties. The overall picture casts serious doubts on the second half of Landau’s (2000, 2013) PRO generalization, namely that PRO/control is available in infinitival sentences, independently of tenselessness, because of the lack of agreement properties. This at least if we follow Chomsky (2000a, 2001) in assuming the nominative case on subjects is licenced by agreement with I. In general, both Albanian and Romance facts are hardly supportive of Landau’s (2000, 2013) PRO theory of control, or of movement theories of control. In section 4, we consider the alternative predication approach. However, we first discuss the morphosyntactic properties of the subjunctive Prt in section 3.

3 Albanian tə The literature contains various proposals concerning the status of Prts of the type of Albanian tə. One conclusion generally agreed upon is that Prts cannot be identified with I, for more than one reason. First, the verb is itself inflected and hence presumably appears in I; furthermore, Prt always precedes object clitics, which instead precede the verb (in I). On the other hand, in theories with only one C position at their disposal, Prt cannot be assigned to the C position either, because the that-type complementizer can cooccur with it, as illustrated in (9)-(10). Note that there appears to be a specialized complementizer for embedding tə, namely sa in Arbëresh (9a) or tʃə in Albanian (10a). The complementizer is sɛ in examples like (9b) or (10b) in the absence of tə. What sa and tʃə appear to have in common is that they are independently attested as wh-elements, as illustrated in (9c) and (10c)  – a fact that we examine in chapter 9. (9) a. i kɔm prɔmɛtirtu to.him I.have promised ‘I promised him to go’ b. i kɔm prɔmɛtirtu to.him I.have promised ‘I promised him to go’

sa t vɛtɛ that prt I.go sɛ vɛtɛ that I.go

224 

 8 Finite control (and raising) in Albanian: The subjunctive Prt as Lkr

c. sa gra jɔn how.many women are ‘How many women are they?’ (10) a. tə θatʃ tʃə t a laɲɛ to.you I.said that prt him/her you.washed ‘I told you to wash him/her’ b tə kam prəmtuaɾ sɛ dɔ vi to.you I.have promised that fut I.come ‘I promised you that I will come’ c. tʃə mən’dɔn sɛ tʃə bən a'i what you.think that what do he ‘What do you think that he is doing?’

Arbëresh, Carfizzi

Albanian, Gjirokastër

In order to host Prt, Rivero (1994) postulates a M(ood) node between I and C; this treatment is also advocated for Albanian by Turano (1993). On the other hand, within an articulated theory of the C field (Rizzi 1997), different C positions are in principle available to host both Prt and the that-type complementizer. Within this framework, Roberts and Roussou (2003) propose an analysis of Greek in which the Prt na appears in an Op position, forming part of the C field of the left periphery, where it can be preceded by a declarative complementizer like pou inserted in a higher position of the same C field. The min negation, when present, lexicalizes the lowest position of the C field, namely M(ood), following therefore na. Within the same framework, Roberts and Roussou propose that other Prts – i.e. mu/mi in Southern Italian dialects – appear in the lowest complementizer position M, where they can be preceded by the negation. Relevant literature on Romanian (Dobrovie-Sorin 1994, Hill 2013a, 2013b, Isac 2015) will be discussed in chapter 9. All analyses mentioned so far agree in associating a modal value to Prt, either through direct insertion in a M(ood) position, or through insertion in the modal C field. Thus the combination of the verb with Prt is predicted to yield modal properties, which may not be present in the verb morphology. In particular, Greek does not embed a morphological subjunctive under na, but rather an ordinary indicative. There are two types of objections that one can raise against this analysis, at least when applied to Albanian. The first one is that, as we pointed out in section 2, at least in Albanian the verb independently carries subjunctive morphology; therefore, a modal characterization of Prt is not necessary to express the modal character of the construction it enters into. The other objection is more directly pertinent to the topic under discussion here  – namely that

3 Albanian tə 

 225

a modal construal of Prt is not sufficient to explain why obligatory control and raising interpretations are licensed in the contexts where Prt is present, contrary to other finite, subjunctive contexts both in Albanian and in other languages. In order to overcome these difficulties, here we take a different approach to tə. As it turns out, there is another major occurrence of the morpheme tə in Albanian, namely as Lkr. As we saw in chapter 2, Albanian nouns and adjectives generally bear an inflection that is specified not only for number and gender, but also for case and for definiteness, and is therefore often characterized as a postposed article. More importantly for present purposes, adjectives require a so-called preposed article or Lkr. Thus tə is the preadjectival Lkr for the plural, among others, as exemplified in (11). (11)

a't-a/a't-ɔ jan tə kuc/kuc-ɛ those-m/those-f are lkr.pl red/red-f ‘They are red’

Albanian, Gjirokastër

In chapter 5, we assigned the Lkr that appears in front of adjectives to a D position, as shown in (12). The interpretation associated with pre-adjectival Lkrs as well as pre-genitival Lkrs is discussed in chapter 5 and will become relevant again shortly. (12)

AP

cf. (11)

D tə

A A kuc

N (ɛ)

Other contexts presenting Lkrs have not been mentioned so far. To begin with, a subset of kinship terms do not occur with a 3P pronominal possessor. “In its stead, the pre-nominal definite article is used” (Stolz et al. 2008: 330). The kinship terms themselves bear the definite inflection, with which the prenominal article/Lkr agrees (Camaj 1995: 62). The example in (13) is from the Geg variety of Shkodër. (13) pɑ:ʃ t mɔtɾ-ɛ-n I.saw lkr sister-fsg-acc.def ‘I saw his/her sister’

Geg Albanian, Shkodër

226 

 8 Finite control (and raising) in Albanian: The subjunctive Prt as Lkr

Next, tə shows up in front of nominalized adjectives and participles (Camaj 1995: 64). We exemplify this with a nominalized participle in (14). As we will see shortly, the -ɾ ending of the lexical base ðafɔsuɾ ‘chatted’ in (14) is the Tosk Albanian perfect participle morpheme. The nominal inflections parallel those of the mass neuters in chapter 3; therefore our descriptive glosses use the neuter label.3 Specifically (14a) illustrates the nominative form, (14b) the accusative form and (14c) the oblique (genitive) form. In (14c), the first Lkr is the pre-genitival Lkr agreeing with the head of the noun phrase; the tə element that follows is the pre-participial Lkr. (14) a. mə pəl'cɛn tə ða'fɔsuɾ-it to.me likes lkr chatted-nsg.def ‘I like a chat’ b. ɛ dua tə ða'fɔsuɾ-it it I.want lkr chatted- nsg.def ‘I want a chat’ c. əʃt kɔh-a ɛ tə ða'fɔsuɾ-it it.is time-fsg.def lkr.fsg lkr chatted-nsg.def ‘It is time for (of) a chat’ Albanian, Gjirokastër An analysis of the nominalizations in (14) is beyond the scope of the present chapter – and so is the possessive interpretation of kinship terms expressions like (13). What is more directly relevant are contexts where tə introduces clausal material. For these we adopt the descriptive gloss Prt, which we have used in connection with occurrences of tə with subjunctives. To begin with, the purpose clauses in (15) are formed by means of the preposition pər followed by tə, followed in turn by the participle. In (15a), the latter has the participial inflection -ɾ also seen in the nominalization in (14), while it does not have the -it nominal inflection. Clitics are inserted between tə and the participle, exactly as in subjunctive sentences; specifically, the examples in (15) introduce the middle-passive (MP) u clitic, similar to Italian si (Kallulli and Trommer 2011, Manzini et al. 2016). Interestingly, purpose clauses do alternate between the pəɾ tə – participle

3 Recall from our discussion in chapter 3 that event nominals are mass rather than count nouns (Chierchia 2010).

3 Albanian tə 

 227

sentences just described, and pə tə – subjunctive sentences, as in the Arbëresh example in (16). (15) a. aɾðtʃ pəɾ t u laɾə I.came for prt mp washed ‘I came to wash myself’ b. əʃt ɲə ɉə pəɾ t u bənə it.is a thing for prt mp made ‘It is a thing to be done’ (16) ɛrða pə t ɛ ʃɔrə I.came for prt him I.see ‘I came to see him’

Albanian, Gjirokastër

Arbëresh, Vena di Maida

A direct link between the nominalized participles in (14), participial sentences as in (15) and subjunctive sentences is provided by complements of a small class of verbs, including finish. As can be seen in (17), in the Geg variety of Shkodër this is constructed with a nominalized participle of the type in (14). Interestingly, in the Arbëresh dialect of Civita, a tə  – participle complement with a non nominalized participle is equally attested, as shown in (18a). The fact that the verb form in (18a) is not nominalized is evident from the lack of the -it suffix present in (17) – which leaves only the ordinary participial inflection in -ɾ. In the same dialect of Civita, the complement of fiɾnɔva ‘I finished’ can be a subjunctive sentence, as in (18b). (17)

maɾɔva t hɑ̃ŋɾn-it I.finished lkr eaten-nsg.def ‘I finished (the) eating’

(18) a. fiɾnɔva tə bənuɾ ət ʃuɾ'bɛs I.finished prt done that thing ‘I finished doing that thing’ b. fiɾnɔva t ɛ diɛvasja I.finished prt it I.read ‘I finished reading it’

Geg Albanian, Shkodër

Arbëresh, Civita

The data briefly reviewed allow us to draw some negative conclusions, and gain some relevant insights. The negative conclusion has to do with the supposed subjunctive status of Prt tə. Indeed the embedded verbs in (15), (18) are clearly inflected with the -ɾ participle suffix. The same -ɾ form, when

228 

 8 Finite control (and raising) in Albanian: The subjunctive Prt as Lkr

embedded under the auxiliary, yields the perfect, both in the active with kam ‘I have’, as in (19a), and in the middle-passive with jam ‘I am’, as in (19b). In adjectival contexts the participle is further inflected for number and nominal class (gender) features, and preceded by a Lkr, as in (19c), according to the adjectival pattern. (19) a. ɛ kam zɉuaɾ him-her I.have woken.up ‘I have woken him/her up’ b. jan vɛʃuɾ they.are dressed.up ‘They have dressed up’ c. jan tə vɛʃuɾ/ 'vɛʃuɾ-a they.are lkr dressed.up/ dressed.up-f ‘They(m./f.) are dressed up’

Albanian, Gjirokastër

For all of this, the occurrences of tə with the -ɾ participle in (15), (18) have the basic distributional properties of its occurrences with the finite (subjunctive) verbs. For instance tə immediately precedes object clitics. This provides us with perhaps the clearest argument that tə is not necessarily connected with subjunctive, despite its usual descriptive label of “subjunctive” Prt. Against this negative conclusion, the data reviewed in this section also afford us an interesting insight. In a number of instances where tə appears in front of participles, the divide between Lkr tə, analysed in chapter 5 and briefly in (12) above, and Prt tə, which forms the object of the present study, appears to be quite fluid. This kind of observation establishes a certain degree of plausibility for the proposal we are about to make – namely that the identity between Lkr tə and Prt tə is not a mere matter of homophony but reflects the existence of a common lexical entry. In the structure in (20), we position the verb, as usual, in the I head of the sentence and the accusative clitic in an immediately superordinate D position, adjoined to IP. Suppose that following the structure that we have assigned to Lkr tə in Part II of this monograph, we assign tə to an IP-adjoined D position as well, as tentatively indicated in (20). This amounts to saying that the so-called subjunctive Prt tə is in reality a clitic. Intuitively, the D  position assigned to all occurrences of tə should be understood on a par with that assigned to clitics in Romance (also of course coinciding with definite determiners).

3 Albanian tə 

(20)

IP

D t

 229

cf. (3) IP

D ɛ

IP

I bɐtʃ Recall then that in Part II of this monograph we rejected the idea that Lkrs are uninterpretable agreement heads – and we proposed instead that they play an interpreted role in predication structures, namely the role of subjects of predication. If Prt tə is in reality a D clitic, like its Lkr counterpart, then in structure in (20) it is like a Romance subject clitic, closing off the argumental domain of a sentence. Therefore tə is not directly connected to the modal properties of the sentence, but rather to its EPP argument. Given the contexts of the present discussion, this is tantamount to saying that tə is responsible for the control and raising readings otherwise unattested in finite sentences, even subjunctive ones. We return to interpretive matters in section 4. Before concluding this section, let us mention briefly that based on distributional evidence, Manzini and Savoia (2007) conclude that tə does not in fact occur in the clitic sequence immediately above I, but rather lexicalizes one of the clitic positions that must be available above C (or higher) on the independent evidence of Romance languages. Therefore, structures like (20) should be revised as in (20’). We return to the issue of the exact position of the Prt in chapter 9 in connection with Aromanian. Under (20’), the modal character that previous theories have commonly assumed for tə may depend not on the category tə projects, but rather on the fact that the C field of the sentence, where it is merged, is associated with modal properties. Along the same lines as in (20’) we can also analyse tə introducing participial sentences. In fact, the distributional evidence indicates that the position of tə in participial sentences is the same as in finite sentences; thus pronominal clitics appear immediately before the participle and after tə, and so on. We return to participial sentences in chapter 10.

230 

 8 Finite control (and raising) in Albanian: The subjunctive Prt as Lkr

(20’)

cf. (3)

CP CP

D t C

IP D ɛ

IP I bɐtʃ

Roussou (2009), based on evidence independent from that presented here, reaches compatible conclusions on Greek Prt na. One of her core observations is that Greek na shows up in presentational contexts of the type in (21a). Her proposal, embodied in structure (21b) is that “na merges in the C domain, but in its own designated position, Loc … Under this approach we maintain a single na, whose association with mood (and clause-typing) partly derives from the fact that na merges in the relevant domain” (Roussou 2009:1822), essentially as proposed here. The Loc(ative) categorization of na connects to the need to account for the presentational reading which arises “when na takes a DP complement” and is essentially meant to capture the “deictic” (demonstrative-like) content of the Prt. In this sense, Roussou’s Loc and our D may very well turn out to be unifiable – though we must leave this possibility open for further research. (21) a. Na o Kostas! prt the Kostas ‘There is Kostas!’ b. [Loc na [C C [I I VP]]]

Greek

What we need to consider next is whether the idea that the subjunctive Prt is in reality a specialized EPP clitic, motivated on strictly morphological and distributional grounds, can lead us to a better understanding of control and raising in finite clauses – and by extension to a better understanding of control in general. In section 4, we argue this to be the case.

4 The interpretation of tə In section 4.1, based on the morphosyntax of tə developed in section 3, we propose that in subjunctive sentences tə behaves as a λ-operator, turning

4 The interpretation of tə 

 231

the finite sentence into a predicate with an open EPP variable. This licences predication (hence control, understood now as predication) and movement (hence raising). Before entering into the discussion of control we briefly consider the fact that in the absence of tə, Albanian null subjects in finite sentences have the same range of interpretation as null subjects in Italian or Spanish. Thus they allow for the classical pro pronominal readings to the exclusion of the bound control readings. This is illustrated in (22)-(25) with the matrix verb say, whose control and non-control readings are sharply distinguished in Albanian as in English. As shown in the (a) examples, complements introduced by tə induce the typical object control reading, close to that of verbs like order and associated with infinitival complements in English. By contrast, complements introduced by the se complementizer, as in the (b) examples, are associated with the declarative reading typical of that complements in English and characterized by the absence of control properties. (22) a. tə θaʃ tə viʃ mbjatu to.you I.said prt you.come quickly ‘I told you to come quickly’ b. mə θa:n sɛ vijin mə’nat to.me they.said that they.came tomorrow ‘They told to me that they came the day after’ (23) a. tə θɔm t ɛ bɔ:tʃ to.you I.say prt it you.do ‘I am telling you to do it’ b. mə kɔn θɔ:n sɛ viɛn to.me they.have said that he.comes ‘They told me that he comes’ (24) a. tə θatʃa t ɛ bəjɛ to.you I.said prt it you.did ‘I told you to do it’ b. mə θa:n kɛ ti u zɉuovɛ to.me they.said that you mp woke.up ‘They told me that you woke up’ (25) a. i θatʃ tə mə fliɾte to.him I.said prt me he.called ‘I told him to call me’

Arbëresh, Civita

Arbëresh, Carfizzi

Arbëresh, Portocannone

232 

 8 Finite control (and raising) in Albanian: The subjunctive Prt as Lkr

b. θuai mə sɛ tʃ ha say to.me that what s/he.eats ‘Tell me what s/he eats’

Albanian, Gjirokastër

According to the view endorsed by Chomsky (1995), the EPP is satisfied by a noun phrase in Spec, IP, and by an empty category (pro) in the absence of independent lexicalization. An alternative view allows the EPP to be satisfied by the verb inflection. Manzini and Savoia (2007), in advocating this second view, argue in particular, contra Chomsky (1995), that there is no reason to take the φ-features of the verb to be uninterpretable. A viable alternative theory treats the morphological constituent carrying the φ-features of the verb as interpretable, namely as a lexicalization of the EPP argument of the verb, as already mentioned in chapter 7. Thus for instance we propose structure (26) for the embedded verb vij-in ‘they came’ in (22b). (26)

I I vij

cf. (22b) D in

If the inflection in (26) has pronominal properties, we can further assume that the pronominal pro interpretation simply arises when no independent lexicalization of the EPP argument is present. Suppose on the other hand that the EPP argument is independently lexicalized by a DP. The morphological-level EPP argument (i.e. the verb inflection) and the syntactic level one (i.e. the lexical subject) enter Agree. As discussed in chapter 1, the fact that the verb inflection has interpretable pronominal features, is not a problem if we accept that Agree works not by deleting features under identity, but rather by creating equivalence sets of identical features, interpreted as denoting a single argument. This model applies both for lexical subjects in canonical Spec,IP position and for so-called inverted subjects, in what Belletti (2001) calls a low Focus position, perhaps identifiable simply with an edge of vP position (see Manetta 2010 on Indo-Aryan wh-phrases). In any event, the behaviour of the (b) examples in (22)-(25) does not appear to be problematic. By contrast, when a null subject sentence is embedded under tə, while the pronominal interpretation of the EPP argument remains in principle possible (depending on the matrix verb), a bound interpretation (control or raising) also becomes available. These bound readings are not possible in null subject sentences not introduced by tə. We turn to the connection between the tə and control (or raising) in the next sections.

4 The interpretation of tə 

 233

4.1 Matrix verbs of obligatory control (and raising) Let us consider a tə sentence embedded under an obligatory control verb, say (18b), repeated below in (27a), with the structure in (27b). In section 3, we suggested that tə represents not a modal Prt of the verb, but rather a subject clitic of sorts. An implication of this analysis is that tə and the inflection of the verb agree. Therefore the intrinsic referential context of tə must be impoverished enough to be compatible with the referential features associated with any finite inflection. Correspondingly, we may suggest that what tə introduces is a variable. This conclusion in turn suggests that control can be obtained by having the tə variable bound by a matrix argument. (27) a. fiɾnɔva t ɛ diɛvasja I.finished prt it I.read ‘I finished reading it’ b. fiɾnɔva   [cp [d t] C [ip ɛ diɛvasja]]

=(18b)

Now, Manzini and Roussou (2000) effectively treat theta-roles as variables and control as a variable binding (theta-role binding) operation. Butler (2004) notices that this treatment recalls semantic approaches where there is no syntactically represented controlled argument (PRO in conventional terms) such as Williams’s (1980) or Chierchia’s (1984). At the same time, Manzini and Roussou (2000) do not consider finite control; the fact that the EPP argument is independently lexicalized at least by the verb inflection would seem to close off the theta-roles/variables in the argumental structure and make the predication approach impossible. The structure in (27b) may prospect a solution to this impasse in the sense that finite control languages are characterized by a clitic-like, Lkr-like subject, namely tə in Albanian, which is itself an open variable. More precisely, if we assume that variables correspond to theta-roles, i.e. argument slots of predicates, it is natural to construe tə as introducing not so much a variable as a λ-operator. The latter turns the embedded sentence into a predicate-abstract assigned a value by a matrix argument. In (27b), then, the finite verb inflection has a φ-features content sufficient to establish reference to 1P singular, i.e. the speaker; however the variable structures created by the presence of Prt tə (a λ operator) needs to be satisfied by a matrix argument, as in (28). Agreement between the matrix controller and the the embedded finite inflection is required in order for the EPP argument of the embedded verb to be identified with the matrix argument. (28) fiɾnɔv[1/2  px a]

[cp [dx t]

[ip x ɛ diɛvasja]]

234 

 8 Finite control (and raising) in Albanian: The subjunctive Prt as Lkr

The structure in (28) and its interpretation is broadly compatible with Landau’s (2015) analysis, reproduced in (1) in section 1, whereby he postulates an abstract “minimal pronoun”, which evacuates the Spec, IP position and creates the predicate necessary for control. The discussion taking us from structure (1) to structure (28) is grounded in the morphosyntax of Albanian as much as it is guided by the control interpretation. If we are on the right track, morphosyntactic evidence concerning the true nature of the so-called subjunctive Prt optimally fits a predication approach to control and therefore provides independent evidence for it. Finally, tə subjunctives in Albanian support not only (obligatory) control, but also raising. The progressive contexts in (6), repeated in (29) for ease of reference, is a possible example (see also fn 51). In (29), raising should not take place from the embedded Spec, IP position because this position is assigned nominative case by the finite verb and is no longer active as a goal of movement in the sense of Chomsky (2001). (29) iʃi tə mə srisi he.was prt me he.called ‘He was (about) to call me’

= (6b)

In the light also of the discussion of case in Part I of this book, the simplest solution may be to remove the activity condition, so that movement is possible from a case-marked position. Recall that nominative case is simply a contextual closure of the φ-features of DP by a finite D inflection. If the DP is moved, then the D closure ceases to hold, and technically the DP has one case, that of the landing site. What is important from the present point of view is that the resulting structure is consistent with our characterization of tə. Indeed, we may assume that in the structure in (29’) tə binds a variable, namely that resulting from trace conversion at the interface.4 (29’) DP iʃ-[1/2 px i]

[cp [dx tə]

[ip DP = x [vp mə srisi]]]

4 This solution leaves open the question of the unification of control and A-movement. Rather than control being reduced to movement (Hornstein 1999), Manzini and Roussou (2000) propose that raising (and by extension A-movement) are forms of control, i.e. do not involve any deplacement, but only the binding of variables at the C-I interface. In other words, the structure in (29’) would be simplified, since the movement part would be missing. These matters are interesting in our view, but as far as we can tell, they have no immediate empirical consequence.

4 The interpretation of tə 

 235

4.2 Matrix verbs of non-obligatory control and null subject readings We consider next how our proposals concerning control and raising in section 4.1 are compatible with verbs that do not have obligatory control, for instance want in example (3), say/tell in examples (22)–(25). In languages with infinitives (English, French, Italian) these verbs, alternate between an infinitive embedding with a control reading, for instance Italian (30a), and a finite embedding without such a reading, for instance Italian (30b). In (30b) the embedded subject is coreferential with the matrix subject, but it does not have the de se reading displayed by the infinitival control example in (30a). (30) a. Mi ricordo di aver fatto quel discorso myself I.remember to have made that speech ‘I remember making that speech’ b. Mi ricordo che ho fatto quel discorso myself I.remember that I. have made that speech ‘I remember that I made that speech’

Italian

As far as we can tell, subjunctive complements in languages like Albanian are ambiguous between the control and the mere coreference reading. In other words, as far as we can tell, our informants routinely offer finite tə sentences for contexts which have a de se interpretation. The equivalent status of finite and infinitival control is particularly evident in Aromanian, as discussed in chapters 9-10, where Balkan-type subjunctive sentences are in free alternation with infinitives, characterized by the Romance morphological -re ending. The data in our possession show that the finite subjunctive complement can always convey the same meaning as the infinitive. Suppose that control complements of verbs of believing, saying etc., for instance Albanian (31a), involve the same structure as we have seen for complements of obligatory control verbs, as in (31b). (31) a. tə prəm'dɔɲ tə viɲ nɛsər to.you I.promise prt I.come tomorrow ‘I promise you to come tomorrow’ b. prəmd[1/2 px ɔɲ] [cp [dx tə] [ip x viɲ nɛsər]]

Arbëresh, Portocannone

The question now is how non-control readings are equally allowed for tə complements of attitude and other verbs, as for instance in (3), reproduced below in (32).

236 

 8 Finite control (and raising) in Albanian: The subjunctive Prt as Lkr

(32) u dua t ɛ bɐtʃ I want prt it you.do.subj ‘I want you to do it’

= (3)

In previous sections, we have rejected analyses that treat tə as Mood or a modal C, because they yield no understanding of its contribution to control (and raising). Retreating somewhat from our stance, we may reconsider the contribution of tə to the subjunctive. One natural idea is that the Lkr/Prt introduces a predication on the complex of categories represented at the C phase head, hence not only the EPP/subject argument but also notably Tense. The embedded sentence obligatorily inherits the utterance time of the matrix sentence (i.e. the speaker’s temporal coordinates in the sense of Giorgi 2009) against which the event time is set. The EPP argument may be involved, as in the control reading in (31b) or it may not be, yielding (32), for which we may more accurately propose a structure like (32’). (32’) dua

[CP [Dx t] [Cx T]

[IP ɛ

bɐ[1/2 Ptʃ]]]

In short, the tə element introduces a variable on the C phasal head and is obligatorily associated with a dependent tense interpretation – which is what a subjunctive is. At the same time the EPP argument may be affected by tə or not. The first possibility yields control and raising readings; the second possibility yields ordinary null subject readings. The question is why certain matrix verbs impose the bound variable reading of the embedded subject, i.e. obligatory control, while other verbs don’t. Ultimately any analysis will have to depend on selection properties of the matrix predicates, eventually motivated on semantic bases. Hence the consistency of the account requires that obligatory control corresponds to some structural configuration that selection is capable of enforcing. In present terms, the difference between a control/raising structure and a non-control structure (including those embedding coreferential subject) is that in the former the EPP position is open – in the latter it is not. Therefore verbs of obligatory control are those that select an open EPP. 5

5 Landau’s (2015) idea, as illustrated in section 1, is that complements of non-obligatory control verbs have extra structure, in the form of a logophoric center. However this idea has the consequence that “predicative control is witnessed in inflected complements …, but logophoric control … is blocked once inflection is added” – which is incompatible with the data we have for Albanian and Aromanian.

4 The interpretation of tə 

 237

Recall finally that a lexical subject can also be present in tə clauses. Specifically, it may be found in the left periphery of the sentence, above tə and below a that-type complementizer (in a topicalized position) – or in the right periphery of the sentence (in focused position). The latter configuration is illustrated in (4) repeated in (33a) for ease of reference; an example of the former configuration is provided in (33b). (33) a. dua tə viɲ a’i I.want prt come. subj he ‘I want him to come’ b. u dua hɛ  ti  t   ɛ  bɔtʃ I want that you prt it do ‘I want you to do it’

Arbëresh, Carfizzi

Arbëresh, Vena di Maida

Both configurations in (33) are explained in terms of agreement of the embedded finite inflection with a lexical DP as in any ordinary null subject sentence. The reason we mention the data in (33) here is that on the contrary, it is impossible for the subject to be positioned between the Prt and the verb. This is hard to explain if the subjunctive Prt is construed as a manifestation of Fin or Mood. On the other hand, it follows under the assumption that the subjunctive Prt introduces an EPP/T variable, since this excludes that the Spec, IP position could have lexical content.

4.3 Back to Lkrs Recall that in section 3 the plausibility of a nominal treatment for Prt tə was established through a comparison with Lkr tə. Having now developed basic structural representations and interpretive rules for Prt tə we can return to the issue whether it is in fact formally identifiable with Lkr tə, in the analysis we proposed for it and similar Lkrs in chapter 5. Some potential difficulties with the identification of Lkr tə and Prt tə are morphological. As shown in chapter 5, Albanian preadjectival and pregenitival Lkrs vary according to the φ-features, case and definiteness of the head noun. Thus tə in the nominative plural in (11), repeated in (34) for ease of reference, alternates with i in the masculine nominative singular, e in the feminine nominative singular. By contrast, Prt tə is invariable. Now, crosslinguistic comparison shows that Lkr element may be inflected (such as the Albanian article) or not inflected (such as the Persian ezafe). In languages in which the Lkr can be inflected, the extent of which it is may vary depending on the context of insertion (e.g. pre-adjectival or pre-genitival), as discussed for Albanian dialects by Franco et al. (2015).

238 

 8 Finite control (and raising) in Albanian: The subjunctive Prt as Lkr

Therefore the lack of an inflectional paradigm associated with Prt tə does not seem to represent an unsurmountable obstacle to its unification with Lkr tə. (34) a't-a/a't-ɔ jan tə kuc/kuc-ɛ those-m/those-f are lkr.pl red/red-f ‘They are red’

= (11)

The structure of (34) is as in (12), repeated as (35) below. In the terms of chapter 5, the Lkr projects a DP functional layer above the AP, providing a lexicalization for the argument slot of the predicate kuc ‘red’ within its maximal projection. However the predicate is ultimately satisfied by a higher DP (here the subject of the copular sentence/its inflection), of which the Lkr D is a bound variable. The discussion of Prt tə in this chapter would suggest a slightly modified approach. Thus the variable closed by predication would correspond to the argument slot open at the adjective. The Lkr would represent a lexicalization of the λ-operator. Either way Lkrs/Prts introduce predications, following the insight of den Dikken (2006) – though a different realization. (35) [ap t

[a kuc-ɛ]]

= (12)

In conclusion, it seems that no major obstacles stand in the way of a unification of Lkr tə and Prt tə – which in turn strengthens predication approaches to control. Participial structures form the object of chapter 10.

5 Extensions to infinitival languages Even within the Balkan languages it is difficult to find the (partial) lexical coincidence between Lkr and Prt that we have supported for Albanian. Despite of this, it is natural to assume that the same basic treatment of Albanian tə can be extended to other Prts, see Roussou (2009) for independent evidence in Greek and chapter 9 for the si Prt of Aromanian. The question then arises how infinitival languages work. Our language of exemplification will be Italian. We will assume that lack of finite inflections leaves the only option open of having the EPP argument as an open variable, subject to binding by a higher operator. We can in fact generalize to languages like Italian the conclusion that λ-abstraction over the embedded EPP argument is involved in control. Saying that the infinitival inflection introduces a variable denotation on the EPP argument (or alternatively has a variable denotation) does not imply anything on whether it is sufficient to determine nominative case (via Agree) or not. For all we know it may determine agreement and nominative case – a point to which we return shortly.

5 Extensions to infinitival languages 

 239

Under the assumptions that precede, the structure of an obligatory control sentence like (36a) is as in (36b). What is immediately relevant here is that in (36b) control corresponds to the binding of the variable by the matrix EPP argument (or by its inflectional realization). A further point to be noted is that in (36a) the infinitival verb precedes the object clitic ci ‘there’  – though the finite verb would follow it. Following Kayne (1991) we conclude that the infinitive verb is externalized in a C position – which is probably connected to the modal (irrealis) properties displayed by the infinitive. Object clitics remain in their ordinary position in the inflectional domain of the sentence and therefore are enclitic to the verb, as in (36b). As for the di infinitival introducer, here it is assigned to the P category; we will discuss prepositional introducers in connection with Aromanian in chapter 10. (36) a. Tentai di andarci I.tried to go.there ‘I tried to go there’ b. tenta-[1/2 Px i] [PP di [CP Dx andar [IP x ci andar

Italian

In short, a language like Albanian deploys embedded finite sentences and overt Lkrs/Prts; a language like Italian uses the infinitival form of the verb. The interface result is the same, i.e. an embedded predicate with an open EPP variable closed by a matrix argument. This we take to be the essence of control. Nominative case is compatible with obligatory control sentences, as seen on the postverbal focused pronoun in (7), repeated as (37a). This type of examples was briefly discussed in section 2 because they create a problem for theories in which control/PRO depends on lack of nominative case  – or on lack of agreement with I, which determines nominative case according to Chomsky (2001). As already mentioned, the present construal of the infinitival inflection as introducing a variable EPP argument leaves open the possibility that Agree of some sort may take place, and that nominative case may be assigned. Suppose then that in (37a) the focussed element in the vP periphery agrees with I, while control goes through as already detailed for (36b). The resulting structure is (37b), whose derivation requires therefore no special stipulation. (37) a. Tentai di andarci io I.tried to go.there I ‘I tried to go there myself’ b. tenta-[1/2px i] [pp di [cp Dx andar [ip x ci andar [vp iox...

= (7)

240 

 8 Finite control (and raising) in Albanian: The subjunctive Prt as Lkr

As in Albanian, in Italian the configurations licencing control also licence raising, leading in fact to a control/raising ambiguity in a sentence like (38a). Nothing stands in the way of a conventional movement derivation; the variable notated in (38b) is simply the LF conversion of the copy of Gianni left by movement. (38) a. Gianni minaccia di non imparare John threatens to not  learn ‘John threatens that he will not learn’/‘There is a threat of John not learning’ b. minacci-[Dx a] [PP di [CP Dx non imparare [IP x imparare]]] Finally, if the lack of agreement properties of the verb determines a variable subject, we expect non-control construals of infinitival sentences to be impossible in Italian. This is in fact correct. Lack of control (disjoint reference) requires switching from an infinitival to a finite complement, with complements of attitude verbs and other verbs selecting infinitivals optionally. There is however at least one additional possibility, namely so-called arbitrary control. The latter is impossible in complement infinitival sentences, but turns up in environments as different as embedded questions (39a), main clause infinitives (39b), subject sentences (39c) and adjuncts. (39) a. Mi chiedo quando andarsene myself I.ask  when to.go-oneself-from.it ‘I wonder when to go’ b. Andarsene al mare! Che sogno! to.go-oneself-from.it to.the sea what dream ‘Going to the sea! What a dream!’ c. Andarsene ora sarebbe impossibile to.go-oneself-from.it now would.be impossible ‘To go now would be impossible’ The generalization proposed by Manzini (1983a), namely that arbitrary control is found in infinitival sentences that are movement islands, is correct. Taking current minimalist theory into account, we may say that arbitrary control occurs when the control variable is inside the complement of a (C-) phase head. In those instances, the LF interface provides a generic closure for the variable, yielding so-called arbitrary control. The presence of an agreement inflection in finite sentences blocks generic closure, which is therefore excluded in Albanian tə complements. There is however a complication, namely that the same environments that allow arbitrary control also seem to licence a pronominal interpretation for the

6 Conclusions 

 241

empty subject, as illustrated in (40). Note that this also means that postverbal (focussed) lexical subjects may be present, as in (40a). (40) a. Mi  chiedo perché andarcene  anche noi myself I.ask why  to.go-ourselves-from.it also we ‘I wonder why we should go as well’ b. Andarmene       al mare! Che sogno! to.go-myself-from.it to.the sea what dream ‘For me to go to the sea! What a dream!’ c. Andartene ora sarebbe impossibile to.go-yourself-from.it now would.be impossible ‘For you to go now would be impossible’ Movement approaches to control (Hornstein 1999) conclude that the infinitivals in (39)-(40) cannot have the same structure as complement clauses subject to control. Specifically, Hornstein (1999) adopts the view that the null subject in both (39) and (40) is a pro. However, there are no independently demonstrable structural difference between complement infinitival sentences and arbitrary control ones that would allow us to derive the different status of their empty category EPP argument. PRO approaches (Chomsky 1981), while unsatisfactory in other respects, have the advantage of assigning the same syntax to all null subject infinitivals, despite the range of interpretations. If we want to pursue syntactic unification, then, within the present framework we seem to be committed to the conclusion that an EPP variable is involved in (39)-(40). This commitment is advantageous when considering generic closure of the type in (39) which is directly compatible with the free variable status of the infinitival subject (see Lebeaux 1984 in an earlier PRO framework). As for the pronominal readings in (40), they may involve closure by a null topic, as originally suggested for Chinese null pronouns by Huang (1984). If the topic is associated with the matrix sentence, control will always take precedence on locality grounds whenever it is possible.

6 Conclusions The subjunctive syntax of Albanian and the infinitival syntax of Italian converge on the licencing of free variables in EPP position, introduced either by the absence of agreement properties on infinitival I (Italian) or by the use of a specialized morphological element, a Lkr, namely tə in Albanian. Our attention was primarily focussed on Albanian and specifically on the Prt tə. We argued that

242 

 8 Finite control (and raising) in Albanian: The subjunctive Prt as Lkr

the latter should not be conceived as a Mood/C head, but rather as a D. In other words, the lexical coincidence of Lkr tə and of so-called subjunctive Prt tə is not a matter of mere homophony, but of lexical identity. Specifically, the role of Prt tə is that discussed in chapter 5 for Lkrs, namely of enabling predication, hence control, which we take to be a predication structure.

9 The finite complementation system of Aromanian, in comparison to other Romance languages and Albanian In this chapter, we present an outline of finite complementation in varieties of Aromanian spoken in South Albania, setting them in the context of standard Romanian, of Italo-Romance varieties and of Albanian. Eastern Romance lies at the intersection of several phenomena independently known from the other Romance languages and from Balkan languages – which means that it is a particularly rich source of empirical evidence. In section 1, we discuss that-type embedded sentences. Like Romanian, Albanian and some Italian varieties, Aromanian has two that-type complementizers, connecting roughly to indicative and subjunctive mood. We show that the subjunctive complementizer is homophonous with the wh-pronoun ‘what/which’, reproducing a pattern independently documented for Italian dialects such as Abruzzese or Sardinian. The fact that homophony with wh-pronouns is not distributed randomly provides support for current proposals to the effect that finite complementation in Romance involve a relativization strategy. In other words, what superficially appear to be finite embedded sentences are in reality nominalizations, i.e. free relatives. This makes Indo-European languages consistent with what we know about other language families (e.g. Turkic) where nominalization patterns are visible both in the verb morphology and in the case array of the arguments (genitive subjects). At the same time, one wonders why straight embedding of sentential  complements is impossible. We briefly suggest that the reason is to be found in what we call the Agree Resistance Principle. Recall that for Chomsky (2001), embedding of nominal arguments proceeds via Agree with v/I which allow it to check case, satisfying visibility. Sentences lack the φ-features whereby they can hook on to v/I; hence they cannot be embedded at all. Relativization is one of the strategies whereby sentences are nominalized and this is why finite sentences in Romance (in Germanic, etc.) are introduced by relative pronouns (the so-called complementizers). This proposal represents a framework theory for the discussion of Part III of this monograph. We apply it to the subjunctive Prt (in reality a Lkr) in chapter 8 and in section 2 in this chapter; we return to non-finite complements (in Albanian and Aromanian) in chapter 10. In section 2 we pick up the thread of the discussion from chapter 8, investigating microvariation patterns in the distribution of subjunctive Prts. The https://doi.org/10.1515/9781501505140-009

244 

 9 The finite complementation system of Aromanian

latter are treated as low complementizers (Fin) in cartographic approaches to Romanian and to other Balkan-type languages (Greek, Southern Italian varieties); according to chapter 8, however, the subjunctive Prt is not connected to the complementizer or modality system, but rather to the expression of the EPP (control and raising). Complementing and concluding the discussion in chapter 8, we show that distributional facts (for instance the Prt position with respect to negation) are at best neutral between the two solutions and contrary to what one may expect, do not favour the cartographic solution. We also indicate how the complementation system of Aromanian bears signs of the contact with Albanian, for instance in the borrowing of the Albanian subjunctive Prt tə as a complementizer in Aromanian (ta), and in the borrowing of Albanian në for the expression of hypotheticals.

1 Finite complementizers 1.1 The Romanian context Romanian has two finite complementizers namely că and ca. The former introduces indicative sentences, complement to verbs of knowing, saying etc. In (1) we report both a 17th century example (Early Romanian, ER) and a current day one (Standard Romanian, SR). (1) a. Cunoaşti-se că au fost neaşezaţi know-mp comp have been unsettled ‘One can tell that they were not settled’ b. Stiu că mama a plecat I.know comp mother has left ‘I know that mother has left’

ER (Hill 2013a: 552)

SR (Dobrovie-Sorin 1994: 84)

More complex evidence attaches to the other complementizer of Romanian, namely ca. This introduce subjunctive complements and hence cooccurs with the subjunctive Prt să, as exemplified for ER in (2a). Note that ca să are adjacent in (2a); in SR, adjacency is not allowed, but ca and să must be separated by topic/ Focus material as in (2b). (2) a. Vrîndŭ Cazimir crai ca să dobîndească  ţara … wanting  Cazimir  prince comp prt grab.subj  country.def ‘Prince Cazimir wanting to grab the country…’ ER (Hill 2013a: 552)

1 Finite complementizers 

 245

b. Vreau ca  mîine  să  vină Ion. I.want comp  tomorrow  prt  come John ‘I want that tomorrow John comes’ SR (Dobrovie-Sorin 1994: 109) As anticipated, one focus of the theoretical literature is on the exact status of the să element. Dobrovie-Sorin (2001: 55) summarizes the known evidence about it. First “like Comp elements, subjunctive Prts are sentence initial, preceding negation as well as clitics, and may head embedded clauses in the absence of any other Comp element; but like Infl elements, subjunctive Prts are strictly adjacent to the verb cluster … and can co-occur with wh-elements”. An example of să introducing a clause alone from ER is provided in (3a); in (3b) we provide a SR example. In (3c) we provide an example of co-occurrence with a wh-pronoun. (3) a. i-au zis în taină să o ia him-has told in  secret prt her take ‘He told him in secret to take her’ ER (Hill 2013a: 549) b. Doresc să trăiască România. I.wish prt live in.Romania ‘I wish I lived in Romania’ c. Am cu cine să plec. I.have with whom prt I.leave ‘I have someone to leave with’ SR (Dobrovie-Sorin 1994: 98, 108) In short, the various sentential introducers just reviewed include the kforms ca and că and the subjunctive Prt să. A dedicated projection hosting the subjunctive Prt, namely MoodP, has been proposed by Rivero (1994) (see Jordan (2009) for a more recent endorsement). However both Dobrovie-Sorin (1994) and Hill (2003a, b) attribute the status of complementizers to all finite introducers of Romance – arguing that the I-like character of the subjunctive Prt can be gotten around by other means. Dobrovie-Sorin (1994), assuming a standard [CP [IP]] structure of the sentence, has essentially two positions to choose from to locate them, namely I and C; indeed she takes a cautious stance with respect to “the proliferation of functional projections such as TenseP, AGRP, NegP” (100). The two k- forms are fairly obviously Cs, on ground of continuity with other Romance language and on grounds of simple internal evidence, for instance the fact that they precede all sentential material, including Topics and Foci. The matter of să is more complex. For Dobrovie-Sorin să may be generated in C, thus accounting for its C-like

246 

 9 The finite complementation system of Aromanian

characteristics, insofar as it incorporates with I (thus accounting for its I-like properties). In order to accommodate ca, one must then have recourse to CP-recursion. Hill (2013a, b) works in a different framework, including the split CP analysis of Rizzi (1997), which implies the existence of several C positions, namely CForce, CFocus and CFin, in this sequence. Within this framework, Roberts and Roussou (2003) propose that subjunctive Prts including na of Greek and mu in Southern Italian dialects appear in the lowest C position, where they can be preceded by other complementizers in superordinate C positions. Though Hill’s results are ultimately not very different from Dobrovie-Sorin’s, she does have at her disposal two different C positions for Romanian sentential introducers, namely Rizzi’s Fin(iteness) and Force. The subjunctive Prt să merges in the lower C position, i.e. Fin, while the ca complementizer (and of course the că complementizer as well) merge in Force. This means specifically that Topic and Focus material precedes să while it follows ca/că.

1.2 The Aromanian evidence The finite complementation system of Aromanian closely recalls that of Romanian, but also contains interesting elements of variation. Our Aromanian data come from a corpus collected by fieldwork in the South Albanian neighbouring towns of Diviakë, Libofshë and Fier, and from the more distant town of Këllez, also in South Albania. Unless otherwise noted, data reported here are from the variety of Fier. We use descriptive glosses, notating that-type introducers as Comp, and the so-called subjunctive particle as Prt. To begin with, Aromanian has a finite complementizer kə which has the same general properties as standard Romanian că /kə/, introducing indicative complements to verbs of knowing, saying etc, as in (4). (4) a. ɲ ar dzəs kə eu vini to.me they.have said comp he came ‘They told me that he came’ a’. dzɛk kə va z in they.say comp fut prt they.come ‘They say that they will come’ b. nu o ʃtiu kə tsi məki eu not it I.know comp what eats he ‘I do not know what he eats’

Aromanian, Fier

1 Finite complementizers 

 247

A second finite complementizer co-occurs with the subjunctive Prt. In Aromanian, this second finite complementizer, with essentially the same distribution as Romanian ca, takes the form tsi, as in (5), while the subjunctive Prt with which it often (but not always) cooccurs takes the form s(i). In most examples tsi and the subjunctive Prt are directly adjacent, recalling the situation described for ER, and contrasting with SR. The two introducers can of course also be separated by a Topic or Focus. The Prt is compatible with control and non-control readings of the embedded sentence – and this remains true when the tsi complementizer is present. For instance, with ‘say’ object control in (5a’) alternates with absence of control in (5a). Control and non-control readings alternate with ‘want’ in (5f-f’), and control is also found with ‘forget’ in (5e). In addition, tsi embedded under ‘not know’ in (5b) has the reading of English if (the polarity complementizer, Adger and Quer 2001)  – contrasting with (4b) above. (5) a. ɲ ar dzəs tsi eu vini to.me they.have said comp he came ‘They told me that he should come’ a’. tsə dzəʃ (tsi) s (nu) tə puɲ to.you I.told comp prt not you sit ‘I told you to sit down’ b. atsei nu o ʃti tsi mini esk a'o they not it know comp I am here ‘They don’t know if I am here’ c. mini mənduɛsk tsi s (nu) u vɛd I think comp prt   (not) him  I.see ‘I think that I am (not) seeing him’ d. eu vini dənint tsi s və'nɛm mini he came before comp prt came I ‘He came before I did’ e. eu agərʃɛ (tsi) si z ɣa kəmɛʃa he forgot comp prt prt he.wash shirt-def ‘He forgot to wash the shirt’ f. mini vɔi tsi eu z in I want comp he prt comes ‘I want him to come’ f’. mini vɔi (tsi) s dɔrm (mini) I want comp prt sleep I ‘I want to sleep’

248 

 9 The finite complementation system of Aromanian

g. tə ɣas (tsi) s u fats you I.let comp prt it you.do ‘I let you do it’

Aromanian, Fier

We shall return to the subjunctive Prt in section 2. For the time being, we are interested in the distribution of the two complementizers and also in the observation that the second complementizer, tsi, contrary to both SR and ER, coincides lexically with the interrogative pronoun for ‘what’, as in (6b-b’). Specialized interrogatives pronouns like kai ‘who’, o kui ‘to whom’, ju ‘where’ are equally present in the language, as in (6a, c, d). In addition, tsi occurs as a relative pronoun in (6f-f’), taking animate antecedents as well. The distribution of tsi recalls French que, which is inanimate as an interrogative, but takes both animate and inanimate restrictors as a relative (Sportiche 2011, Manzini 2014b). (6) a. kai jini/vin who comes/came ‘Who comes/came?’ b. tsi fats what you.do ‘What do you do?’ b’. nu ʃtiu tsi (s) fak not I.know what prt I.do ‘I dont know what I do/what to do’ c. nu ʃtiu o kui s i grɛsk not I.know to.whom prt to.him I.call ‘I don’t know who to call’ d. nu ʃtiu ju va s nɛdz/nɛg not I.know where fut prt he.goes/I.go ‘I don’t know where he goes/to go’ e. esti atseu tsi ɲə grɛsti he.is that which to.me he.calls ‘He is the one who calls me’ e’. esti atseu tsi mini o vəd tətuna he.is that who I him see always ‘He is the one whom I always see’

Aromanian, Fier

The embedded sentences in (6b’-e’) reproduce some of the patterns already examined in (4)–(5). Thus in (6b’) the subjunctive Prt introduces a control reading; both control and non-control readings are possible with the subjunctive

1 Finite complementizers 

 249

Prt in (6d). From the point of view of the distribution of wh-pronouns it will be noticed that they normally co-occur with subjunctive Prts. In (4b) above, furthermore, we illustrated an example where kə precedes interrogative tsi. However in our corpus of Aromanian there are no examples where the complementizer tsi embeds a wh-item (including non-homophonous ones). We may take this to support the conclusion that pronoun tsi and complementizer tsi are not merely homophonous, but instantiate the same wh- lexical item, leading to the mutual exclusion of complementizer tsi and other wh-elements. We shall review further arguments in favour of the lexical identity of wh-pronoun and complementizer tsi in the next section.

1.3 Comparison with Italian dialects and analysis Within the Romance family, languages which are like SR, ER and Aromanian in presenting two k-(ts-/tʃ-) complementizers have been documented and analyzed by Ledgeway (2003, 2005), Manzini and Savoia (2005, 2011a) in Central and Southern Italy. In these Italian varieties, one of the k- complementizers occurs with indicative complements and/or with matrix verbs of knowing, saying, etc.; this is normally /ka/. The other complementizer introduces subjunctive complements and/or verbs of wanting, commanding, etc.; this is normally /kə/ or /ki/. In Ledgeway’s (2003, 2005) analysis both complementizers are merged in Fin, where /ka/ checks indicative and /kə/ checks subjunctive. However, in the presence of topics and foci, C moves from Fin to Force. Crucially Force is always spelled out as /kə/. Reference to Fin and Force by Ledgeway implies the adoption of Rizzi’s (1997) model of the left periphery, already mentioned in connection with Hill (2013a, b) above. In general, cartographic approaches are based on the idea that once morphemes and lexical items are properly sequenced, there is only one possible mapping to the universal template of functional categories. Therefore the correct sequencing of morphemes/lexical items maps reveals their intrinsic properties as well, as encoded in the universal functional hierarchy. For Ledgeway, /ka/ can only be sequenced as Fin, since it occurs to the right of left peripheral material, while /kə/ can also be sequenced as Force. Thus their sequence effectively yields their content. However Manzini and Savoia (2011a) find that the varieties they consider do not display the asymmetries observed by Ledgeway, since both foci and topics appear under ka as under kə/ki. The examples in (7)–(8) illustrate the relevant facts with a Center-South variety and with a Sardinian variety. Note the selection of the two complementizers by different types of matrix verbs, as well as

250 

 9 The finite complementation system of Aromanian

the possibility of an embedded left periphery with both. From data like (7)–(8), Manzini and Savoia (2005, 2011a) conclude that the two complementizers occupy the same position. (7) a. m annə ðəttə ka krɛ mənənə to.me they.have said comp tomorrow you.came ‘They told me that tomorrow you would come’ b. m annə ðəttə ka u kɛʃə tsə l annə tɔtə i ɣwajjɛunə to.me they. have said comp the cheese mp it they.have taken the boys ‘They told me that the cheese was taken by the boys’ c. vujjə kə krɛ purə lɔrə mənəssənə I.want that tomorrow also they come.subj ‘I want them as well to come tomorrow’ Guglionesi (Abruzzi) (8) a. m anta nau ka ɣraza bbenizi to.me they.have said comp tomorrow you.come ‘They told me that you will come tomorrow’ b. m anta nau ka u libru ɖ aza to.me they.have said comp the book it you.have ‘They told me that the book you read’ c. Estɛ mmendzus ki fintsaza juanni bɛndzɛðɛ it.is better comp even John comes ‘It is better that John as well comes tomorrow’

leddzju read kraza tomorrow Paulilatino (Sardinia)

The data in SR (2b), where ca can only co-occur with să when they are separated by topic or focus material, seem to support the idea that ca obligatorily occupies the Force position. However this distribution appears to be connected to normative Romanian, and is not true in ER or in Aromanian. Manzini and Savoia propose a characterization of systems with two finite complementizers that abstracts from Rizzi’s distinction between Fin and Force. They argue that better insights into their distribution can be gained from looking at their intrinsic lexical content. In Abruzzese and Sardinian dialects, while ka specializes in the complementizer role, the kə/ki complementizer overlaps with wh-pronouns in interrogatives and in relatives, as in (9), or at least in relatives, as in (10). (9) a. kə ffi what you.do ‘What are you doing?’

1 Finite complementizers 

b. ɛ kkullə kə vvadə sɛmbrə he.is that that I.see always ‘He is the one that I see all the time’ (10) a. ɛs kussu ki bbiɔ zɛmpɛrɛ he.is that that I.see always ‘He is the one that I see all the time’ b. kiɛ bbeniði who comes ‘Who comes?’

 251

Guglionesi (Abruzzi)

Paulilatino (Sardinia)

The data in (9)–(10) connect to ideas in the literature to the effect that kcomplementizers in Romance are wh-quantifiers, whether they lexically overlap with wh-pronouns or not. Specifically Arsenijevic (2009), Kayne (2010) argue that complementizers are relative pronouns introducing a relative clause headed by an abstract noun with propositional content. Manzini and Savoia’s (2003, 2011a) proposal is that no abstract propositional Noun is involved, therefore complement sentences in Romance are more like free relatives; the difference between an ordinary wh-pronoun and a complementizer is that the former introduces an individual variable, the so-called complementizer introduces a propositional variable. Consider for instance the direct question of Fier in (6b) and the complement sentence in (5f’). In (6b), with the structure in (11a), tsi introduces an individual variable corresponding to the internal argument of the verb. The structure of tsi is the same in (11b), corresponding to example (5f’) – except that its variable has propositional content. (11)

a. [tsi x [fats x]] b. [mini vɔi [tsi x, x: s dɔrm mini]]

In relation to the Abruzzese and Sardinian data in (7)–(10), Manzini and Savoia further argue that “the ka complementizer is a definiteness element, effectively the counterpart to a definite determiner, so that the LF of the Guglionesi example in [7a] would be of the type in [12a]. By contrast, the LF of a sentence like the Guglionesi example in [7c] could include an indefinite quantification, corresponding to a free variable bound by existential closure, as sketched in [12b]”. (12) a. I think the x: x he comes tomorrow  b. I think for some x: x he comes tomorrow

252 

 9 The finite complementation system of Aromanian

In terms of (12), Manzini and Savoia (2011a) predict that “of the two complementizers present in languages like Guglionesi … it is always the indefinite complementizer that overlaps with a wh-quantifier. This is because the other complementizer effectively introduces a definite description, which is hardly compatible with wh-quantification – while the indefinite complementizer introduces a propositional variable subject to existential closure, more or less like the argumental wh-variable”. Manzini and Savoia (2018) revise somewhat their characterization of the two complementizers, in order to avoid postulating the abstract definiteness element in (12a). They adopt work by Giorgi (2009) according to which complement sentence may or may not include independent Speaker/T anchoring. In some languages, like standard Italian or Sardinian, the morphological indicative vs. subjunctive distinction externalizes the two different structures, i.e. independent anchoring/no independent anchoring. In other languages, like Abruzzese the morphological subjunctive appears to be restricted to irrealis; this however does not mean that the relevant interpretive contrast between Speaker/T anchored contexts and non-anchored contexts is not observed. For Abruzzese and Sardinian, Manzini and Savoia (2018) keep kə/ki as the unrestricted complementizer and while ka is restricted to Speaker/T anchored propositions. The latter, being so restricted, is excluded from abstracting over individual variables. Manzini and Savoia (2005, 2011a) support their analysis with a comparative study of the complementizer and wh-system in over two hundred Italian dialects. The declarative complementizer generally presents the same lexical base k- as wh-pronouns, though it may or may not coincide with a wh-phrase (generally ‘what’, but sometimes also ‘who’). Crucially, about a quarter of all varieties (55 of them) have two finite declarative complementizers; in these varieties only the complementizer introducing subjunctive sentences can coincide with a wh-pronoun. Aromanian, on a different branch of the Romance family, can now be seen to comply with the prediction as well. As we saw, not only it has two finite complementizers – but one of them also overlaps with the wh-interrogative and relative. As expected, it is the subjunctive complementizer (i.e. the one cooccurring with si) that displays the overlapping with the wh-system. Of course, it is also logically possible to have double complementizer systems in which no overlap with the wh-system is found. As it turns out, SR is of this latter type. Thus the various sentential introducers that we have reviewed in section 1.1 differ from both wh-pronouns, including ce ‘what’, cine ‘who’, care ‘which’. These systems are compatible with a treatment along the lines of (11)–(12), though they provide no evidence for it. Finally, a two-complementizer system similar to that of Aromanian is documented for the in-contact language, Albanian. In the variety of Gjirokastër,

1 Finite complementizers 

 253

sentential complements are introduced by sɛ and tʃə; sɛ is excluded from most contexts including the subjunctive Prt tə, as in (13a), which require tʃə, as in (13b). The latter overlaps with the wh-pronoun for ‘what’, as in (13d); this holds true despite the fact that standard orthography distinguishes që (the complementizer) from ç ‘what’. In any event tʃə/që also introduces relative clauses, as in (13c). The similarity of Aromanian and Albanian does evoke a contact scenario; yet Romance varieties of Central and Southern Italy and Sardinia show that the Aromanian distribution is a Romance feature not depending on contact. (13) a. jam ɛ sigurt sɛ dɔ vijə I.am lkr sure comp fut he.comes ‘I am sure that he will come’ b. tə θatʃ tʃə t a laɲɛ to.you I.said comp prt him/her you.washed ‘I told you to wash him/her’ c. ai ɐʃt buri tʃə tə θərrɛt ʃpɛʃ he is the man comp you he.calls always ‘He is the man that always calls you’ d. tʃə məndɔn sɛ tʃə bən ai what you.think comp what do he ‘What do you think that he is doing?’

Albanian, Gjirokastër

1.4 Motivating the analysis: intermediate conclusions Suppose that so-called complementizers are in reality wh-pronouns, as they superficially seem to be in many languages where they lexically coincide with the wh-pronoun for ‘what’, ‘which’. What we have failed to address so far is the question why. Why couldn’t propositional content be embedded without the benefit of a wh-operator? In this connection, it is worth remembering that typologically, it is normal for embedded sentences to take a format quite radically different from that of main sentences. One strategy that is particularly widespread and well-studied involves the nominalization of the sentence. While the verbal form takes on a nominal inflection, the case array is rearranged, so that the subject turns up as an oblique (genitive). This kind of complementation is well-known for instance from Turkish (Kornfilt 1997). Similarly, we argue that the embedding of a finite sentence in Romance is a form of nominalization. This is particularly evident in approaches such as Kayne (2010), Arsenjievic (2009) where finite embedded sentences are relative clauses headed by an abstract

254 

 9 The finite complementation system of Aromanian

noun; but the same is true of Manzini and Savoia’s (2011a) approach where the embedded complement is effectively a free relative. In another variant of this type of analysis, Krapova and Cinque (2016) argue that in Bulgarian there are two types of sentential complements of nouns, one of which originates from a nominally headed relative clause, while the other is a relativization over a propositional variable. In this perspective, the question why (in Romance, in Albanian) finite sentential embedding takes the form of a relativization translates into the more general question why nominalization is necessary for propositional embedding. The standard minimalist theory of argument embedding provides a fairly intuitive answer to this question. Embedding of a DP in one of the core argument positions of the sentence involves an Agree operation; in an ordinary transitive sentence, the internal argument agrees with v, licencing accusative case, while the external argument agrees with I licencing nominative case. Now, suppose that instead of DP we tried to embed a CP. A DP has a φ-feature set that can satisfy the v or I probe – but CP is radically deprived of such features. Therefore, it cannot enter into an Agree relation, which deprives the sentential complement of case and hence of Visibility. From this point of view, there is no Case Resistance of CPs in the sense of Stowell (1981) – rather a resistance to Agree, formulated by Manzini and Savoia (2018) as in (14). (14) Agree Resistance Theorem CPs cannot enter into Agree relations with v or I probes because of their lack of φ-features. The nominalizing strategies adopted by many languages in order to embed sentential complements are a way to circumvent the impossibility of embedding true CPs. The treatment of sentential complements as (free) relatives, either headed by an abstract nominal or by a wh-element (the so-called complementizer), is the way of nominalizing sentential content adopted by the Romance languages. In conclusion, the two finite complementizers system of Aromanian, while generally similar to that of Romanian, has an interesting additional property, namely that the subjunctive complementizer tsi lexically overlaps with the wh-pronoun for ‘what’. This reproduces the distribution of Central and Southern Italian varieties and Sardinian. The fact that omophony with wh-pronouns is not randomly distributed is taken by Manzini and Savoia (2011a) as an argument in favour of the wh- status of complementizers. In this respect, Aromanian adds an interesting tassle to the overall picture.

2 The subjunctive Prt 

 255

2 The subjunctive Prt 2.1 The subjunctive Prt and control Subjunctive Prts with the general characteristics of Romanian să are present in Balkan languages, including Albanian (chapter 8) and Greek (Roussou 2009), but also Romance languages of Calabria, Sicily and Salento (Manzini and Savoia 2005). We have already seen in section 1.1 that in Romanian/Aromanian the literature has associated Prts with an I-related nodes (say MoodP, Rivero 1994) or with a C node (Dobrovie-Sorin 1994). In split CP approaches, where the k- complementizer occupies the highest C node (Force), the Prt is naturally construed as the lowest C node, i.e. Fin (Hill 2013a). Issues relating to the categorization and position of Prt are connected to the issue of control into finite sentences. The facts of SR are clearly laid out by Jordan (2009). Basically, with obligatory control verbs, să clauses display obligatory coreference of the embedded subject with the matrix subject, as shown in (15a). să complements of non-obligatory control verbs, on the other hand, can either display control or disjoint reference, as in (15b-c). Note that even when a non-control reading is available, as in (15c) and a nominative subject can therefore be lexicalized, the latter can only appear in peripheral position. Thus it can be postverbal as in (15c) or it can be topicalized between ca and să, but it cannot intervene between the Prt and the verb. (15) a. Mara încearcă să scrie o scrisoare Mara tries prt writes a letter ‘Mara tries to write a letter’ b. Mara vrea să plece Mara wants prt leaves ‘Mara wants to leave’ c. Mara vrea să plece Radu Mara wants prt leaves Radu ‘Mara wants Radu to leave’

SR

Dobrovie-Sorin (1994) suggests that control into Romanian subjunctive clauses is made possible by the same incorporation between I and C that is responsible for the mixed properties of the subjunctive Prt. The binding domain for PRO is the matrix sentence, not the embedded sentence, determining the possibility (and necessity) of control by a matrix argument. As already discussed in chapter 8, in Landau’s (2004, 2006) theory the presence of PRO, hence of control, can be

256 

 9 The finite complementation system of Aromanian

determined either by lack of agreement (as in English infinitivals) or by lack of independent temporal specification (as in Balkan finite control). Within a movement theory of control, Boeckx and Hornstein (2006) allow for control into finite clauses by assuming that tenselessness gives them (i.e. their C phase) a defective character. In these latter two models, presumably, Prt plays a role in the determination of the tenseless character of the embedded sentence, hence in its control status. A number of questions remain open, as discussed in chapter 8. First, at least in Albanian the verb independently carries subjunctive morphology; therefore a modal characterization of the Prt is not necessary to express the modal character of the construction it enters into. Vice versa, a modal construal of the Prt is not sufficient to explain why obligatory control and raising interpretations are licensed in the contexts where it is present, as opposed to languages where subjunctive is externalized by other means. The comparison between Romanian and other Romance languages is particularly telling. Let us assume that for some reason in Romanian (as in other Balkan languages) the expression of the subjunctive requires a Prt as well. Why wouldn’t Romance languages like Italian or French or Spanish licence control into their subjunctive sentences, despite the lack of a Prt? If the crucial property for control is modality and the subjunctive Prt (or lower complementizer) is simply an end towards the expression of the relevant modal system – why wouldn’t languages endowed with purely inflectional subjunctives also licence control into finite sentences? The same query holds if for modality we substitute tenselessness (Landau), defective phases (Boeckx and Hornstein) or C-I incorporation (Dobrovie-Sorin). In which way exactly does the subjunctive Prt determine these properties? Why aren’t subjunctive inflections sufficient to determine them? In answer to these questions, in chapter 8 we removed the subjunctive Prt entirely from the domain of modality or modal complementizers and suggested that at least in Albanian it should be connected to the expression of the EPP/ subject of predication. The basic data of Albanian are worth repeating briefly; (16a)–(16b) are examples of object and subject control respectively, (16c) illustrates the alternation with disjoint reference. (16) a. i θatʃ tə mə fliste to.him I.said prt me he.called ‘I told him to call me’ b. ɛɾða tə t a jap I.came prt to.you it I.give ‘I came to give it to you’

2 The subjunctive Prt 

 257

c. ɐʃt mə miɾə t a θəratʃ/ t a bətʃ it.is more good prt her/him you.call.subj/prt it you.do’ It is better that you call her/him/you do it’ Albanian, Gjirokastër A sizeable part of the discussion of chapter 8 is devoted to establishing that Prt tə is not merely homophonous with the Lkr tə of Albanian but they are the same item (ultimately going back to the IE demonstrantive, cf. the neuter Greek article/clitic to). Prt tə exactly like Lkr tə is categorized as D and is taken to turn the embedded sentence into a predicate, by abstracting on the EPP argument and opening a variable corresponding to it. Hence the proposed structure for (16a) is as in (17). In (17) IP is a potentially closed proposition (including an EPP argument represented by the finite verb inflection) which is reopened by the D variable/λ-operator. The tə variable can be identified with the matrix subject, mediating therefore the coreference between the matrix subject and the embedded subject. (17) i θatʃ [CP [D tə] C [IP mə fliste]] Landau (2015) also proposes a predicational analysis of control, including (to some extent) finite control. However, for Landau an abstract “minimal pronoun” corresponds to the D variable in the structure in (17). Prt presumably corresponds to an instantiation of CFin, whose Spec hosts the D variable. Vice versa, the present proposal that Prt represents the EPP variable links up with the proposal in section 1, according to which finite complementizers are wh-pronouns of sort. In both instances, the proposed account revolves around on the idea that so-called complementizers are pronominal-like, introducing a variable bound either by sentential content (finite complementizers) or by argumental content (so-called subjunctive Prts).

2.2 The Aromanian evidence and the split CP approach In this section, we evaluate proposals concerning the categorization and position of Prt based on its distribution. We conclude that associating it with one of the C positions of a cartographic C field does not have any clear advantage. The D/Lkr analysis of Prt seems as viable as its CFin/Mood analysis from the point of view of distributional facts. Aromanian examples where the s Prt co-occurs with the tsi/ta complementizer have already been provided in (5). Sentences introduced only by s, are

258 

 9 The finite complementation system of Aromanian

provided in (18)–(19)1; they allow both a control and a non-control reading, for instance in the causatives in (19). The division between the two sets of examples in (5) and in (18)–(19) is purely a matter of convenience. Their interpretive properties, and also the range of matrix verbs that licence the constructs is similar. A notable exception is the construal of the future tenses via a non-inflected auxiliary va which introduces Prt and a finite verb, as in (18a). In this auxiliary-like structure, the complementizer is not found. (18) a. mini/ voi va z dɔrm/ durɲits I/you fut prt I.sleep/you.sleep ‘I/you will sleep’ b. mini filli (tsi) s lədzɛsk un libər I began comp prt I.read a book ‘I began to read a book’ c. eu mbari s lədzɛi libru he stopped prt he.reads the.book ‘He stopped reading the book’ d. vɔi s o fak/ dɔrm/ u vɛdz/ mi ɣau I.want prt it I.do/ I.sleep/him I.see/ me I.wash ‘I wanto to do it/to sleep/to see him/to wash myself’ d’. mini vrɛm s o və'dɛm I wanted prt him I.saw ‘I wanted to see him’ d”. mini am vrut s dur'ɲɛm I have wanted prt I.slept ‘I have wanted to sleep’ f. mini nu pɔt z və'nɛm məninti asɛra I not can prt I.came earlier yesterday ‘I was not able to come earlier yesterday’ (19) a. nu tə ɣas s o fats not you I.let prt it you.do ‘I don’t let you do it’ b. mini u fak s arəd I him I.make prt he.laughs ‘I made him laugh’

1 z is the alternant occurring before voiced consonants.

Aromanian, Fier

2 The subjunctive Prt 

 259

As already illustrated in (5), the s(i) Prt occurs lower than the complementizer tsi/ta, cf. also (18b), and lower than left dislocated material (Topic, Focus), cf. also (20b) below, while it precedes all object clitics. On the other hand, there is considerable variation in the relative position of si and of the negation. In Fier, if there is a single copy of si, it yields the order si nu. The Prt however can also be doubled, in which case si s nu in (20a) and s nu s in (20c) are equally possible orders. The doubling of si in the absence of the negation is also attested, for instance in (20c’). If we turn to the nearby variety of Libofshë we also find a preference for the order si nu, but the examples in (21) show that the alternative order nu si is allowed in the same context in the absence of doubling of the si element. (20) a. mini mənduɛsk si s nu o vɛd I think prt prt not him I.see ‘I don’t think I see him’ b. mini vɔi tsi tini si s nu dɔrɲ I want comp you prt prt not you.sleep ‘I don’t want you to sleep’ c. tsə dzəʃ tsi s nu s o fats/ məts to.you I.told comp prt not prt it you.do/ eat ‘I told you not to do it/eat anything’ c’. tsə dzəʃ si s o fats to.you I.told prt prt it you.do ‘I tell you to do this’

ni ts un tsəva nothing

Aromanian, Fier

(21) a. ɲ ar dzɛs tsi s nu/ nu s dɔrm to.me they.have said comp prt not/not prt I.sleep ‘They told me not to sleep’ b. ma tsə dzɛk atsea tsi nu s/ s nu o bei progr to.you I.say to.you comp not prt/prt not it you.drink ‘I am telling you not to drink it’ Aromanian, Libofshë An early attempt at discussing and capturing microvariation is Roberts and Roussou’s (2003), who compare the evidence on Greek to that on Calabrian. For Calabrian, they propose that the Prt mu/mi occupies the MoodP position (Rizzi’s Fin), where it is preceded by Neg and by the complementizer in C/Op (Rizzi’s Force), for instance the prepositional complementizer pe ‘for’ as in (22b). On the contrary, the Greek Prt moves from Mood to C/Op, as in (22a), and this accounts for its complementary distribution with the complementizer oti and for the fact that it precedes Neg.

260 

 9 The finite complementation system of Aromanian

(22) a. [C/OpP oti/na [NegP b. [C/OpP pe [NegP

[MP tna [TP . . . [MP mu/mi [TP . . .

Greek Calabrian (Roberts and Roussou 2003)

On the basis of (22a), one may surmise that double occurrences of the Aromanian Prt si are to be imputed to movement from Mood to C/Op, without deletion of the lower copy. However, doubled si can be preceded by tsi (i.e. the complementizer), for instance in (20b-c) which means that the highest occurrence of si is lower than Rizzi’s Force, or Roberts and Roussou’s C/Op. Furthermore, on the basis of a single Neg position we cannot account for the fact that Neg in Aromanian can either be sandwiched between two copies of si, as in (20c) or follow both of them as in (20b); more than one Neg position must be involved. In other words, the descriptive generalization concerning our Aromanian data looks like (23). It looks like there is no obious way of matching the different occurrences of si and the complementizer tsi to cartographic Force and Fin positions. (23) [tsi [ si [Neg nu [ si [Neg nu [IP Clitics Condition: only one nu externalized

Aromanian

Manzini and Savoia (2007) analyze partially similar microvariation in Albanian and Arbëresh varieties. In Albanian (24) the subjunctive Prt tə may precede or follow the negation mɔs, specialized for modal environments (imperatives, subjunctives, etc.). In the Arbëresh vatrieties of Ginestra and Barile in (25) the Prt tə may be doubled to the right and to the left of mɔs, and in fact it may be doubled independently of the presence of the negation, as in (25b). (24) a. tə mɔs ɛ vɛʃim prt not him/her we.dress ‘Let us not dress him/her’ b. mɔs t a vɛʃim not prt him/her we.dress ‘Let us not dress him/her’ (25) a. iʃ mə mir tə mɔs t a bətʃ it.is more good prt not prt it you.do ‘It is better for you not to do it’

Albanian, Gjirokastër

Arbëresh, Ginestra

2 The subjunctive Prt 

b. jamən kundɛnt tə (mɔs) t a ʃɔ I.am happy prt not prt him I.see I am glad not to see him’

 261

Arbëresh, Barile

Manzini and Savoia (2007) conclude that the mɔs negation is specialized for the C field, as suggested in (26) by the label NegC. Contrary to (23), no lower copy of Neg is available, hence Neg cannot follow the lower copy of Prt. Therefore, the overall string takes the simplified form in (26). Despite the simplification introduced by (26) with respect to (23), the basic fact remains that at least two positions are available to Prt. This makes a match to theories of the left periphery such as Rizzi’s (1997), Roberts and Roussou’s (2003) not immediately obvious, as discussed above for (23). (26) [ tə [NegC mɔs [ tə

Albanian

Nothing prevents us from inscribing microvariation facts in a revised, more complex hierarchy including perhaps Fin1 and Fin2, as proposed by Hill (2013b) for other, non-finite contexts. However, this weaken the cartographic model. In general, cartography postulates that if one sequences the morphemes right, then because of the existence of a universal categorical template, one has considerably restricted the field of assumptions as to what the morphemes are, in fact in the ideal case found a unique match for their content. If one allows the template to be enlarged every time an inconsistent sequence shows up, then the template itself loses in predictive power. The alternative to cartography is to take a more traditional stance – namely to start with individual lexical items and with the properties of those lexical items, in themselves and as they interact with other contents under syntactic merge and semantic composition. What core grammar does is enforce certain scopal and selectional constraints, apart from which morpheme order may vary and not in such a way as to reveal any deep generalization. In practice, in Aromanian, the complementizers tsi and ke precede all sentential material with which they can co-occur. In other words, they close off sentential material, as one expects under their construal as propositional relativizers. The si Prt occurs lower, though it always precedes all object clitics, hence it is at least as high as the edge of IP. As we saw in section 2.1, the evidence concerning specifically Albanian tə suggests that Prts may not be associated with categories such as Mood or C. Rather, they should be reanalysed as pronominal-like Lkrs, enabling a predication relation between the embedded predicate they introduce

262 

 9 The finite complementation system of Aromanian

and a matrix argument – i.e. control. Suppose we conclude that si is in turn dealt with as a D element.2 From this perspective, we expect that the position of si is comparable to that of the EPP argument, closing the inflectional domain (including subject clitics in the Romance languages), and it is therefore lower than complementizers, topics and foci. The doubling of subjunctive Prts can be equated to the doubling of subject clitics, involving the CP domain according to Manzini and Savoia (2005, 2007) for Northern Italian varieties. This is illustrated in (27) for example (20c’); si is a D Lkr enabling predication and its positions are those independently observed for Romance (Northern Italian) subject clitics. (27) … [CP [D si] [IP [D s] o fats]]

cf. (20c’)

Furthermore, our microvariation data reveal that basically all logically possible orders between Prt and the negation are attested, without any prejudice for the working of either. In other words, the negation clitic can also vary between an IP-internal lexicalization and a CP-internal one. This is schematized in (28a) for example (20b) and in (28b) for example (20c). The structures in (28) support the full sequence observed in (23). (28) a. … tsi [CP [D si] b. … tsi [CP [D s] [Neg nu]

[IP [D s] [Neg nu] … [IP [D s] …

cf. (20b) cf. (20c)

The full sequence observed in (26) for Albanian can be fitted to the same structure as (28), as shown in (28’). (28’) … [CP [D tə] [Neg mɔs] [IP [D t] ...

cf. (25)

2 The subjunctive Prts si of Aromanian and să of Romanian are historically connected to the Latin and Romance si/se ‘if’ elements, i.e. the polarity complementizers. In several Italian varieties, polarity si incorporates a pronominal element iɖɖu (Manzini and Savoia 2005), as in the examples in (i)–(ii), providing independent evidence for the nominal character of se/si. (i) s-iɖɖu ɣi (tu) vɛni t aspɛttu      if-it that (you) come you I.wait.for    ‘If you are coming, I am waiting for you’ Trinità d’Agultu (Sardinia) (ii) s-iɖɖu  ki ɈɈɛ vulissi vinissi    if-it that I wanted I.came    ‘If I wanted to, I would come’ Camporeale (Sicily)

2 The subjunctive Prt 

 263

Importantly, our argument is not necessarily that (28)–(28’) is more restrictive than standard cartographic approaches. On the contrary, we are saying that cartographic hierarchies must be relaxed to make room for the observed variation – so that they have no predictive edge over a theories not encompassing them. Everything else equal, then, the question becomes one of simplicity. We essentially agree with Chomsky et al (2018) that cartographic hierarchies are too complex to either be evolved or learned. Structures like (28) are based on much weaker (and traditionally held) assumptions. In other word, the subjunctive particle can be categorized as Lkr/D on the basis of its occurrence in contexts of predication  – which further determines its occurrence in the IP inflectional domain or at the edge of the C phase head.

2.3 Borrowing and reanalysis Though the Aromanian data we have presented in this chapter are all from bilingual Aromanian-Albanian speakers, we have so far not commented on the contact between Aromanian and Albanian. This is because the alignment phenomena that we observed are all inscribed within the more general alignment of so-called Balkan languages, including control into finite sentences and the presence of subjunctive Prts. We discuss the general issue of language contact from the perspective of Arberesh varieties, and hence of Italian/Albanian contact, in Part III of the book. As for the Aromanian/Albanian contact, more specific interactions can be seen in lexical borrowings, including the functional lexicon. A fact worth signaling is the presence of an optional ta introducer in the variety of Fier considered here which optionally precedes the subjunctive complementizer tsi, as in (29). In the variety of Këllez, ta substitutes for tsi, as illustrated in (30). (29) mini iʃai dininti (ta) tsi z vənɛi I went.out before comp comp prt you.came ‘I left before you came’ (30) a. u s vram ta z vina mɛni fut prt I.want comp prt he.come tomorrow ‘I would want him to come tomorrow’ b. i dzɛk ta s zjinə to.him I.say comp prt he.come ‘I told him to come’

Aromanian, Fier

264 

 9 The finite complementation system of Aromanian

c. am vinitə ta s ti ved I.have come comp prt you I.see ‘I have come to see you’

Aromanian, Këllez

There are no obvious counterparts for ta in other Romanian/Romance varieties – but an obvious match for it in Albanian, namely the tə Prt. The borrowing of tə into Aromanian leads to a redefinition of this element, which no longer represents the subjunctive Prt, hence in present terms a D operator introducing an individual variable, but rather a complementizer, namely an operator introducing a propositional variable. In other words, we are not in the presence of a simple borrowing but of a reanalysis of the tə/ta head. Specifically, its operator status is preserved, though now it is associated to a propositional content. One may wonder whether the reverse is attested, namely the reanalysis of a complementizer into a Prt. Indeed the subjunctive Prts si of Aromanian and să of Romanian are connected to the Latin and Romance si/se ‘if’ element, i.e. the polarity complementizer (Adger and Quer 2001). In this instance, historical change causes a complementizer, i.e. an operator introducing a propositional variable, to shift to the role of Prt, i.e. in present terms a D element introducing an individual variable. Something similar happens with Ancient Greek hina vs. Modern Greek na (Roberts and Roussou 2003). As far as we can tell, cartographic theories of CP would account for the kind of phenomena just described by saying that C elements can change their collocation in the C field (without modifying their general C categorization). Thus tə/ta would shift from Fin (Albanian) to Force (Aromanian) – and vice versa for si (from Force to Fin). Once again, we are not implying that cartographic models are insufficient – simply that they are not necessary to account for the facts. It is also interesting to consider how if is expressed in Romanian/Aromanian. In Romanian, hypotheticals are introduced by a complex form dacă. The place of the polarity complementizer in Aromanian hypotheticals appears to be taken by ma, as in (31b), which is also attested as progressive in main sentences, as in (31a). The English equivalent would be if one expressed hypotheticals by gerunds, e.g. ‘you coming, I will wait for you’, as in (31b). The data from Libofshë in (32) show that ma can also introduce indirect yes/no questions. Incidentally, example (32b) shows that as we may expect of an aspectual element, ma is embedded lower than the Focus mini ‘I’. (31) a. ma o fak prt/prog it I.do ‘I am doing it’

3 Conclusions 

b. ma vəniʃ va s t ɛstept prt/prog you.came fut prt you I.wait.for ‘If you came, I would wait for you’

 265

Aromanian, Fier

(32) a. nu ʃtiu ma viɲ/   vin     eu not I.know prt/prog you.come/comes he ‘I don’t know whether you are coming/he is coming’ b. nu ʃtiu mini ma o/ti ved not I.know I prt/prog it/you see ‘I don’t know if I am seeing it/you’ Aromanian, Libofshë In the variety of Fier, the all purpose polarity complementizer në ‘if’ of Albanian (Turano 2004: 97) is borrowed to introduce just embedded interrogatives, as in (33). (33) nu ʃtiu nə jin/ n i grɛsk not I.know if I.come/if to.him I.call ‘I don’t know whether I am coming/I am calling him’

Aromanian, Fier

While (33) is a straight borrowing, the examples in (31)–(32) seem to imply that progressive aspect shares in the non-veridical modality (Giannakidou 1998) of both hypothetical and interrogative contexts. In fact, we know that even in English progressives are non-veridical environments licencing negative polarity items, cf. I am accepting any proposal/*I accepted any proposal. In chapter 10 we will discuss progressives and progressive Prts more in detail – we leave the lexical coincidence with polarity complementizers open for further research.

3 Conclusions In section 1, we argued that Romance complementizers, i.e. CForce in the framework of Rizzi (1997), are in reality wh-pronouns which turn the propositional content into a free relative. The reason for this state of affairs is the inability of sentences to serve as complements (Agree Resistance), and hence the necessity to nominalize sentences in order to embed them. In section 2, we considered subjunctive Prts, which within cartographic models represent lower complementizer positions, i.e. CFin. Here they are reanalysed as Lkr elements connected to the lexicalization of the subject of the sentence, along the lines of chapter 8.

266 

 9 The finite complementation system of Aromanian

The picture of sentential organization that we propose is inspired by the IP-CP structure of Chomsky (1995) rather than by cartographic proposals. Specifically, we argued that microvariation evidence does not favour a refinement of functional hierarchies (e.g. two Fin positions) over weaker solutions not involving a precompiled functional sequence. The same conclusion holds of borrowing and reanalysis phenomena.

10 Non-finite complementation in Aromanian and Albanian: prepositional introducers, infinitivals, supines Balkan languages generally lack a morphological infinitive and hence infinitival complements. Thus in environments where English or Romance employ an infinitive, notably control, they have recourse to the so-called subjunctive Prt followed by the finite verb. Nevertheless, we do find morphological infinites in Aromanian, and the so-called short infinitive in Romanian. Furthermore, Geg varieties of Albanian have the so-called paskajore ‘infinitive’ consisting of the preposition mɛ ‘with’ followed by an invariable verb form, which turns up in the same contexts as Balkan-type subjunctives or English/Romance-type infinitives. Nonfinite complement sentences headed by the perfect participle are also attested, notably by the so-called supine of both Romanian and Aromanian. In the present chapter, we complete our survey of Balkan complementation by accounting for these constructions. We start with an analysis of Aromanian, which has kept the so-called long infinitive, i.e. the morphological infinitive with the -re Romance inflection. Contexts of embedding include all classical control and raising environments. These afford us the opportunity to discuss the prepositional introducers of infinitival complements typical of Romance – and how they fit into the Agree Avoidance strategies postulated in chapter 9 (section 1). We then consider the Geg Albanian paskajore, consisting of an invariable verb form, corresponding to the verb base (root and thematic vowel) preceded by the instrumental preposition mɛ ‘with’. The same invariable verb form lexicalizes perfect participle contexts and turns up embedded in the progressive periphrasis under the preposition tu ‘at’. Syntactically, in sentential embeddings (paskajore, progressive) the verb is preceded at least by the sequence of argumental clitics. We take the mɛ head of the paskajore construct and the mɛ element that enters instrumental prepositional phrases to have a single lexical entry (section 2.2), as we do for progressive/locative tu (section 2.1). We finally analyze non-finite complements which involve the morphologically specialized form of the participle, introduced by a preposition. These are found in Albanian as well as in Romanian/Aromanian, where they bear the traditional label of supine (section 3).

https://doi.org/10.1515/9781501505140-010

268 

 10 Non-finite complementation in Aromanian and Albanian

1 Prepositional introducers in Aromanian In Standard Romanian, non-finite embedded verbs can take the form of the so-called short infinitive. This is an invariable verb form corresponding to  the verb  root followed by the thematic vowel (i.e. what we call here the verb base) – without the morphological -re ending of the Romance infinitive. As succinctly stated by Dobrovie-Sorin (1994: 82) “the short infinitive takes on two different forms: it can be preceded by the Prts a, or can lack it, be ‘bare’”. Examples of bare infinitives include those in (1). We follow Dobrovie-Sorin (1994) in assuming that the examples in (1) involve auxiliary verbs that take CP complements – even though for Hill (2013a: 566) bare infinitive structures are monoclausal, along the lines of Cinque (2006). (1) a. Copiii nu-l vor respecta. children-def not-him will respect ‘The children will not respect him’ b. Copiii nu l-ar respecta. children-def not him-would respect ‘The children would not respect him’ Romanian (Dobrovie-Sorin 1994: 82) Short infinitives preceded by a are exemplified in (2). Dobrovie-Sorin treats the preposition a in a way akin to să. In other words, a is generated under C and its I-like properties derive from incorporation between C and I. (2) Am început a citi “Cei trei muşchetari”. I.have started to read “The Three musketeers” ‘I began to read The three musketeers’ Romanian (Dobrovie-Sorin 1994: 91) Early Romanian had a larger repertory of infinitival structures, since it also admitted of so-called long infinitives, i.e. infinitive which maintain the -re inflection. Long infinitives were preceded by a; furthermore the de preposition could precede a, as in (3). Hill (2013a: 563) identifies the prepositional complementizers a and de with Fin; in Early Romanian where the two co-occur it is assumed that the Fin position splits into two, with the higher Fin taken by de and the lower Fin taken by a. It should be mentioned that infinitivals had an altogether wider distribution in Early Romanian, progressively eroded by the subjunctive.

1 Prepositional introducers in Aromanian 

 269

(3) Iar turcii…   au lăsat pre moscali de-a-i mai gonire and Turks-def have quit dom  Russians-def of-to-them more chase ‘And the Turks … quit chasing the Russians’  Early Romanian (Hill 2013a: 562) In Standard Romanian, -re (long) infinitives in fact survive, but only as nominalizations, for instance in (3’). (3’) consecinţele plecarii imediate a lui Ion consequences-def leaving-obl.def immediate of him Ion ‘the consequences of Jon’s immediate leaving’ Romanian (Pana Dindelegan 2013) Interestingly, Aromanian has kept the long infinitive in its sentential construal. In externalist terms, then, Aromanian appears to be more conservative than Romanian; this is particularly notable, in that Aromanian is spoken in contact with languages (Albanian, Greek) that have fully undergone the shift to infinitival-less languages. While differing from Romanian, Aromanian is far from atypical in the Romance panorama. For instance, the Calabrian varieties with mu/mi Prt complements, preserve the morphological infinitive –re, typically under modals, and sometimes extended to other obligatory control contexts. The Aromanian –re infinitive occurs in a productive way in control clauses, where the infinitive alternates with the subjunctive Prt construction already exemplified in chapter 9. The examples of infinitives in (4)–(7) display control by an antecedent, or so-called arbitrary control (i.e. generic closure of the control variable), except for causative embeddings, for instance (5e), (6e). Control environments include complements of aspectual, modal and attitude verbs, as in (5a–c) and (6b), as well as infinitival relatives, where the infinitive, as in (4b), (7a), also alternates with the subjunctive Prt construction. In all instances, the long infinitive is preceded by the Preposition ti/di, related to pan-Romance di/de, ordinarily used as a genitive/partitive (or a motion-from preposition, for instance in French). In Aromanian, where genitive is a case, the basic meaning of ti/di appears to be close to English for, as in (4a). (4) a. esti libra ti tʃələməɲ is book-def for children ‘It is the book for children’ b. esti pənə ti məkari/ tsi s mə'kəm is bread for eat-inf/ that prt we.eat ‘There is bread to eat’

270 

 10 Non-finite complementation in Aromanian and Albanian

c. aist jinu esti ti vəndɛri that wine is for sell-inf ‘That wine is for selling’ d. vin ti vədɛri (atseu) I.came for see-inf (him) ‘I came to see him’

Aromanian, Diviakë

(5) a. mbari ti məkari I.stopped for eat-inf ‘I stopped eating’ b. ɲ ɛrəseʃti di/ ti vədɛri to.me it.likes for see-inf ‘I like seeing him’ c. ma tsə dzɛk di fətsɛri progr to.you I.say for do-inf ‘I am telling you to do it’ d. esti unə kəmiʃa di ɣari is a shirt for wash-inf ‘It is a shirt to be washed’ e. i-o fɛtʃ kəmiʃa otsui di ɣari to.him-it I.made shirt-def to.him for wash-inf ‘I made him wash the shirt’ Aromanian, Libofshë (6) a. mini viɲ di vədɛri (tini) I came for see-inf you ‘I came to see you’ b. eu mbari di (u) lədzɛri libru he stopped for it read-inf book-def ‘He finished reading the book’ c. aist kəmɛʃ esti di ɣari this shirt is for wash-inf ‘This shirt is to be washed’ d. mini u fak d ardɛri I him make for laugh-inf ‘I made him laugh’

Aromanian, Fier

(7) a. aistə esti jin ti (ni) bɛʁi/ ta s nu s u bɛm this is wine for not drink-inf/ that prt not prt it we.drink ‘This is wine not to be drunk’

1 Prepositional introducers in Aromanian 

b. aistə libʁə esti ti (ni) kəntaʁi this book is for not read-inf ‘This book is not to be read’

 271

Aromanian, Këllez

Two types of questions are raised by this complex of data. One has to do with the fact that non-finite sentential embedding does not just involve the dedicated infinitive form, as in Aromanian – but can be carried out by bare verb bases, as in Romanian. This question will be left for section 2, where it will be discussed in connection with the Geg Albanian so-called infinitive (paskajore). The second question has to do with the nature of the P introducers of non-finite sentences. The question is interesting in the context of the present discussion, in view of the fact that in chapter 9 we have argued against the idea that there is a dedicated category C to introduce finite sentences. Instead, we have supported the conclusion that languages deploy a (wh-) operator system to allow propositional contents to be embedded via relativization. Therefore, it would be problematic if we had to revert to C for the introducers of infinitival sentence, especially since they clearly belong to the category P in other contexts of occurrence. If on simplicity grounds we reject the conclusion that elements like Aromanian ti/di bear the double categorization P and C (or Fin), then we are faced with the question why non-finite complement in the Romance languages are embedded by prepositions. In order to answer this question, we must go back to the proposal of chapter 9 as to why finite sentences in Germanic or Romance (Albanian etc.) are (free) relatives, namely the Agree Resistance Theorem. In standard minimalist theory, embedding of a DP in one of the core argument positions of the sentence involves an Agree operation. If so, it stands to reason that sentential embedding is impossible, give the impossibility of associating φ-features with sentences. The treatment of sentential complements as (free) relatives is a way of nominalizing sentential content, so as to allow for its merger as complement or a subject of a verb. Next, we note that the standard minimalist case licencing via Agree (with v, I) only applies to direct cases. If we adopt the approach advocated in Part I-II of the book, embedding under an oblique case does not involve an Agree mechanism, but rather the deployment of an elementary predicate, namely ⊆ for genitive, dative. In turn, the P elements that we have seen to introduce infinitival and participial clauses in Romance all are exponents of ⊆, namely a ‘to’ and di/de ‘of’. It is reasonable to conclude that in the Romance languages one way to get around the impossibility of licencing sentential constituents via Agree is to turn infinitival sentences into obliques, by introducing them with prepositions, as schematized in (8) for sentence (6b) above.

272 

 10 Non-finite complementation in Aromanian and Albanian

(8) … mbari

[PP(⊆) di [IP lədzɛri libru]]

cf. (6b)

This proposal raises a certain number of issues. To begin with, we refer to Part I-II of the book for the general idea that direct arguments of a verb could be embedded under oblique operators if the syntax of the language required it. This is the proposal we put forth for DOM objects in chapter 4, as well as for ergative subjects in chapter 7. More to the point, if di/de or a sentential complements in Romance are obliques we expect them to behave as ordinary di/de-DP or a-DP expressions in a number of contexts. This is not necessarily true. For instance, in Italian, resumption by partitive/genitive ne is possible for di/de-DPs but not for di/de-CPs, as in (9). However, this contrast is mitigated by the observation that both can be resumed by accusative clitics. The possibility of the accusative clitic in both sentences in (9) can be interpreted as result of two factors. First, the di oblique is not selected by the verb, but structural, depending on the presence of a mass term in (9a) (an [aggr] in the sense of chapter 3) and on Agree Resistance in (9b). Second, clitics and the arguments they double do not necessarily share case though they must agree in φ-features, if any are present. Under conditions in which an oblique is not selected by the verb, the clitic can show up in the direct case, as is independently known from clitic doubling in Spanish DOM.1 The oblique clitic is possible in (9a) under a partitive interpretation, which is not available in (9b). (9) a. Ne/l’ ho trovata, dell’acqua of.it/it I.have found of.the water ‘I found it, water’ b. Lo/*ne penso, di essere malato it/of.it I.think of be-inf sick ‘I think it, that I am sick’

Italian

1 In the Rioplatense dialect (Jaeggli 1982), a DOM a-phrase is doubled by an accusative clitic, as in (i) – though nothing prevents it from being doubled by a dative in so-called leista dialects, for instance in (ii). (i)

(ii)

Lo vio (a Juan) him he.saw dom Juan ‘He saw him/Juan’

Spanish (Rioplatense)

Le vi (al niño/a la niña) to.him/her I.saw dom the boy/dom the girl ‘I saw him/her/the boy/the girl’ Spanish (Basque Leista Dialect, Ormazabal and Romero 2013)

1 Prepositional introducers in Aromanian 

 273

In (10a–b), a a-CP complement and an inanimate a-DP complement can both be resumed by a locative clitic. It seems that dative clitics cannot be plied to resume sentential contents to the extent that can resume only animates, as in (10a–b) vs (10c). (10) a. Ci/*gli ho provato, ad andarci to.it I.have tried to go.inf-there ‘I tried, to go there’ b. Ci/*gli ho mandato Piero, a Roma to.it I.have sent Peter to Roma ‘I sent Peter, to Rome’ c. *Ci/gli ho mandato Piero, a Gianni to.it I.have sent Peter to Gianni ‘I sent Peter, to Gianni’

Italian

Another potential problem has to do with subject sentences. To the extent that they can surface bare in languages like Italian (11a) we may invoke the Topic status of subjects in null subject languages. In fact, it is well-known that in other Romance languages subject infinitives also must be introduced by de, for instance in French (11b). (11) a. Mangiare bene è importante eat-inf well is important ‘It is important to eat well’ b. Il est important de bien manger it is important of well eat-inf ‘It is important to eat well’

Italian

French

A different type of question is why generally in Romance wh- introducers would be constrained to finite environments and Ps to non-finite environments. As it turns out, Eastern Romance shows that there is no necessary connection between P introducers and non-finite complements. Indeed in Early Romanian the de preposition could also precede finite complements, as in (12), besides heading “possessives, complements of origin, ‘by’ phrases, complements of location” (Hill 2013a: 559). In Standard Romanian, the possessive use of de is documented by Pana Didelegan (2013), Dobrovie-Sorin et al. (2013). (12) a. au poruncitŭ de au făcut un sicreiu has ordered of have made a coffin ‘He has ordered them to make a coffin’

274 

 10 Non-finite complementation in Aromanian and Albanian

b. să tîmplasă de nu ştiè nemic mp happened of not he.knew nothing ‘It happened that he did not know anything’  Early Romanian (Hill 2013a: 559–560) Early Romanian is not isolated among Romance languages. Sardinian (Jones 1993) also provide examples of finite complement sentences which can equally be introduced by a k- complementizer or by a preposition, namely so-called inflected infinitives, as illustrated in (13). Therefore, there really is no principled tenseness or finiteness constraint on the obliquization strategy. A different issue is whether the wh-type complementizer is in fact restricted to finite/tensed sentence. We will see this is not the case cross-linguistically in examining the Geg Albanian paskajore in section 2.2. (13) l an fattu innantis dɛ/ki ɛnnɛrɛ-ɕɛ it they.have done before of/that come-2sg ‘They did it before you came’

Dorgali (Sardinia)

Finally, in introducing our Agree Resistance Principle in chapter 9 we evoked the Case Resistance Principle of Stowell (1981). The relativization and obliquization strategies that are used to circumvent Agree Resistance fly in the face of Stowell’s conclusions, since they amount to saying that sentences are either nominalized and assigned direct case or assigned oblique case. The clash is particularly direct with respect to what we claim to be prepositional embedding in Romance, since one of the crucial pieces of evidence provided by Stowell is the impossibility for finite sentential complements to be embedded under prepositions  –  which in his terms depends precisely on Case Resistance. However, the Romance languages show that embedding of finite sentence under oblique assigning prepositions is not excluded in principle, as in Italian (14). (14) Ho provveduto a che tutti ne fossero informati I.have seen to that all of.it were informed ‘I saw to it, that all were informed of it’

Italian

In short, it seems to us that there no obvious grounds for dismissing the idea that prepositions introducing non-finite sentences in Romance are anything other than the genitive, dative, etc. case markers that also appear in front of DPs. In the present account, the bases for such a construct are posed by the Agree Resistance principle in chapter 9, which can be circumvented either by nominalizing

2 The Geg Albanian paskajore ‘infinitive’ 

 275

complement sentences  –  or else by rendering them obliques. However in Part I-II of the book, we proposed that dative and genitive case or the di/de ‘of’, a ‘to’ prepositions are not just dummy case elements, but instantiate a positively specified, albeit highly general content, namely inclusion. The question is whether the same content is expressed by these prepositions as sentential introducers. In Part I-II of the book we argued that the notion of inclusion provides a reasonable characterization of oblique objects and subjects as possessors/locators of events. It is hard however to extend this kind of conceptualization to sentential complementation. It seems that the best path to be followed, both in keeping with the analyses of Parts I-II of the book and with the facts observed here, seems admitting that the inclusion meaning is weakened to a compatible, but even more elementary identificational content – essentially the copula characterization that den Dikken (2006) invokes for relators and Lkrs. In other words, ‘I want/desire to see him’ would mean ‘I have a desire, and the desire is seeing him’. In deciding whether to proceed in the direction just sketched, we also consider what the available alternatives are. As mentioned in introducing the data, the leading alternative is that elements such de/di, a lexicalize C positions, perhaps Fin in an articulated left periphery of the type proposed by Rizzi (1997). This amounts to saying that these elements systematically belong to two categories, namely C and P. The question then is why this is so. Asking why certain lexical elements can be merged as both P and C amounts to seeking what properties P and C may have in common. In other words, one must eventually explain why P properties translate into Fin status. As far as we can tell, the literature treating Ps as complementizers provides no answer. Introducing the notion of grammaticalization doesn’t help much, unless typological-functionalist approaches are correct in saying that internal explanations cease to hold whenever historical processes intervene. The line we take here is that, though of course variation and change are unpredictable, the internal reasons of grammatical competence always intervene in shaping them.

2 The Geg Albanian paskajore ‘infinitive’ In contexts where the Romance languages insert an infinitive and other Balkan languages have the subjunctive, Geg Albanian also has the option of lexicalizing the syntactic construct traditionally described as paskajore (Cordignano 1931, Demiraj 1985, 1997, Joseph 1983, Pellegrini 1995). The class of elements that can introduce the paskajore includes mɛ ‘with’ in (15a), pɑ ‘without’ in (15b) and the progressive tu(i) in (15c). These introducers can be identified with prepositions; indeed mɛ e pɑ also introduce DPs, as in (16). As for the Prt tu(i), yielding

276 

 10 Non-finite complementation in Aromanian and Albanian

a gerund interpretation, it must be connected with the preposition tu, tek ‘at’ (Demiraj 1985). (15) a. kɑ fiꞌɫu mɛ hɑ̃ŋəɾ he.has finished with eat ‘I finished eating’ b. dola pɑ u lɑ: I.went.out without mp wash ‘I went out without washing myself’ c. jam tu ɛ lɑ/tʃu/mlu/ve:ʃ I.am at him/her wash/wake.up/cover/dress ‘I am washing/waking up/covering/dressing him/her’ d. t kam pɑ tui ka'lu you I.have seen at pass.by ‘I saw you passing by’ (16) ɛ kam bɑ̃ mɛ kry:p/ pɑ kry:p it I.have made with salt/ without salt ‘I made it with salt/without salt’

Geg Albanian, Shkodër

The same invariable verbal form which combines with the prepositions mɛ/pɑ/ tu also appears in combination with the auxiliaries kam ‘I have’ e jam ‘I am’, in contexts which in English or the Romance languages require a participle. Specifically, it forms the present perfect active together with kam, as in (17a), while with jam it forms the present perfect middle-passive, as in (17b). (17) a. ɛ kan mlu him/her they.have covered ‘They have covered him/her’ b. jan mlu (pɾɛi s ɑms) they.are covered  by lkr mother ‘They have covered up/been covered (by mother)’ Geg Albanian, Shkodër The invariable verb form in (17) is normally called a participle (Cordignano 1931, Demiraj 1985, 1997). Its morphology varies according to verbal class (Solano 1972, Camaj 1995, Hoxha 1990). Specifically, verbal bases in -a and -ɔ present a final -u vowel, for instance mlu ‘cover(ed)’ in (15c). With verbal bases in -ɛ, -ɑ, -i, the participle maintains the vowel, for instance lɑ ‘wash(ed)’ in (15c). With verbal

2 The Geg Albanian paskajore ‘infinitive’ 

 277

bases ending in consonant the participle is formed without a thematic vowel, for instance ve:ʃ ‘dress(ed)’ in (15c). Some verbal subclasses have invariable participle forms characterized by specialized inflections for instance –n, as in ðɑ̃:n ‘give(n)’. Geg varieties also possess a specialized participle, but this only occurs in adjectival contexts of the type in (18). Morphologically, stems ending in vowel combine with an –m suffix, for mlu:-m ‘covered’ in (18a), lɑ-m ‘washed’ in (18b). Stems ending in consonant take –un, for instance veʃ-un ‘dressed’. These combine with the normal morphology of adjectives, i.e. a preposed Lkr and a suffixal agreement. (18) a. jam i mlu:-m/ ɛ mlu-m-ɛ (pɾɛi s ɑms) I.am lkr cover-ed/ lkr cover-ed-f by lkr mother ‘I am covered (by mother)’ b. i kam kmiʃ-at ɛ/t lɑ-m-ɛ them I.have shirt-pl.def lkr wash-ed- f ‘I have the shirts washed’ Geg Albanian, Shkodër In section 2.1 we concentrate on occurrences of the invariable verb form surveyed in (15)–(17) in contexts where it receives perfect participle or progressive interpretation. In section 2.2 we consider the data that more directly concern us here, namely the occurrences of the same verb form heading non-finite complement clauses.

2.1 Perfect and progressive construals The participle/infinitive of Geg Albanian has a particularly simple morphology. The verb base may end with -ɛ, -ɑ, -i, or if it ends with other vowel, the latter is substituted by -u. In turn, the verbal bases ending in consonants are characterized by a long stressed nucleus in the participle/infinitive, as in ve:ʃ, contrasting with the pure verbal base veʃ which has a short stressed nucleus. Manzini and Savoia (2007) treat the final vowel of vocalic bases as the thematic vowel. They further suggest that the same property externalized by thematic vowels is externalized on consonantal bases by the lengthening of the tonic vowel. Here we will essentially adopt their ideas; however following the analysis of the internal structure of the Noun in chapter 3, we will notate as Infl the category realized by the inflectional vowel, by the specialized -u vowel, for instance in (19), or by the lengthening of the nucleus. A systematic investigation of the internal structure of verbs, comparable to that of nouns in chapters 2–3 is beyond the scope of the present work.

278 

 10 Non-finite complementation in Aromanian and Albanian

(19)

Infl √ ml

cf. (15c), (17) Infl u

Verbal bases of the form in (19) have a perfect participle value in contexts where they follow the auxiliary, while in constructs introduced by mɛ they lexicalize what in other languages is the infinitive. Nor should we forget that the same verbal bases are compatible with the progressive reading, found in combination with the preposition tu. In this section we consider the aspectual interpretations of forms like (19), including the apparently incompatible perfective and progressive. The discussion of chapter 7 familiarized us with the idea that perfect ergativity splits are based on the fact that the so-called perfect participle is in reality a stative, property-denoting predicate which does not project the Event/Aspect/ Voice layer supporting the external argument. In Geg Albanian varieties, then, the property-like character of the so-called perfect participle “produces an ‘ergative’, nominal version of the … predicate” (Manzini and Savoia 2007). Let us then to go back to the idea that perfect participles have a reduced structure not involving the Asp/Event/Voice layer which supports the attachment of a DP external argument. If this reduced structure is embedded under the be auxiliary nothing happens to alter it; the external argument surfaces as an oblique. This is a passive, as for instance in (17b), with the structure in (20a). Short passive is also possible. In this instance, an external argument slot made available by the predicate remains unsaturated; this is read as an open variable at the C-I interface and is interpreted by existential closure, as in (20b). (20) a. jan [[VP mlu DP] [PP pɾɛi s ɑms]] b. jan [∃x, x [VP mlu DP]]

cf. (17b)

The passive structures in (20) need now to be compared to active perfects. By hypothesis, perfect active sentences have the same structure as in (20), lacking an Asp/Event/Voice layer capable of hosting an external argument. One may then wonder how the auxiliary have introduces nominative alignment. In the context of the present discussion of obliques, it is particularly tempting to adopt Kayne’s (2000) suggestion that have results from the incorporation into be of an oblique preposition, leading to possessor raising out of the participial clause. Thus kan in (21) would be the pronunciation of jan+P in (20a), making the nominative alignment possible. (21) DP kan [[PP P DP] [VP mlu ɛ]]

cf. (17a)

2 The Geg Albanian paskajore ‘infinitive’ 

 279

We return to passives, detailing specifically the nature of the agent PP, in chapter 12. What interests us here is that the same form found as perfect participle in (20)–(21) is compatible with the progressive reading, in combination with the Preposition tu ‘at’. Pronominal clitics occur between the tu introducer and the verb it embeds, suggesting that the participial structure embedded by tu is a sentence, as sketched in (22) for example (15c). Further corroboration as to the sentential status of the tu complement come from the fact that it can also embed the modal negation mas, as in (22’), which is associated with the modal C area of the sentence. (22) [IP jam … [PP tu [IP ɛ mlu (22’) … tu mas ɛ …. at not it ‘… not doing it’

bɑ̃ do

cf. (15c)

Geg Albanian, Shkodër

The embedded sentence in (22) has nominative-accusative syntax. In fact, in Albanian as in English or the Romance languages a VP with an oblique external argument (ergative/passive) cannot be associated with sentential (C-phase) projections. Thus either an auxiliary is provided, as in (20), or a Voice layer is added. In this latter instance, the predicate loses its stative/perfective interpretation, as in (22). The progressive meaning is further contributed by its embedding under tu. In the typological literature, progressives are known to often involve locative constructions (Bybee, Perkins and Pagliuca 1994). As Higginbotham (2009: 54) points out, the historical origin of the English progressive is a locative construction: “…the relic of the preposition is still heard, of course, in those English speakers who say John is a’crossing (of) the street”. Manzini et al (2017) consider the matter in connection with Apulian and Sicilian varieties where the progressive is constructed by the verb stare ‘stay’ followed by the a ‘at/to’ dative/locative preposition and by a finite form of the verb. Recall that according to Parts I–II of the book, dative instantiates a relation ⊆ whose content is part/whole or inclusion. In other words, in sentence like I gave the book to Peter, to introduces a relation between its object ‘Peter’ and the theme of the verb the book such that Peter includes the book, i.e. possesses it. Locative is a specialization of the part-whole relation, which involves instances where the internal argument of (⊆) is a location (i.e. ‘x included by y, y location’) or is otherwise locatively restricted. Manzini et al (2017) observe that a locative syntax is fairly naturally mapped to by Landman’s (1992) treatment of the progressive, if location is constructed in terms of inclusion. Landman (1992) summarizes his approach as the Part-of

280 

 10 Non-finite complementation in Aromanian and Albanian

Proposal, namely that “Mary is crossing the street is true iff some actual event realizes sufficiently much of the type of events of Mary’s crossing the street”. For instance, the sentence in (23a) is true “iff some event is realized in w in the past and that event stands in the PROG relation to the type of events of Mary building a house”, as indicated in (23b), where PROG is the relation between events and types (sets) of events mentioned in the part-whole proposal. (23) a. Mary was building a house b. ∃e’ [t(e’) < now & PROG(e’, λe.∃y [house(y) & Build(e) & Agent(e)=Mary & Theme(e)=y ])] (Landman 1992) Two points about Landman’s treatment are salient for present purposes. First of all the logical syntax of the progressive in (23) is bi-eventive, making it particularly suited to the bi-clausal syntax that we proposed in (22). An operation of λ-abstraction at the C-I interface, which turns the embedded clause/predicate/ event into an event type (set), is necessary in order to map the syntax in (22) to a semantics like (23). But this is the kind of enrichment that can reasonably be expected to take place at the interface. The second important point concerns the nature of PROG. In Landman’s terms, “E, the set of events, is ordered by … a relation of ‘part-of’”. For instance “if an event is a complete accomplishment event (Mary’s building of a house), the result (the house being built) is part of that event”. Importantly for present purposes, this is true in exactly the same sense in which “Hanny’s hand at a certain interval is part of Hanny at that (or a larger) interval”. In terms of the notation introduced by Higginbotham (2009), the tu progressive structure in (15c) looks like (24) at the syntax-semantics interface. The responsibility for introducing a relation between the event introduced by the main verb and the event property introduced by the embedded sentence falls to the tu Preposition, for which we postulate ⊆ part-whole content. As detailed in chapter 4, the ⊆ relation holds between individuals, but also between events and participants in the event. Suppose now that the ⊆ part/whole relation may hold of event pairs, saying that one event is part of, or a stage of, a second event – or rather a set of events/an event type. This is (part of) the semantics required by Landman’s PROG. (24) … [VP jam [PP tu [IP DP ɛ mlu ]]]

cf. (15c)

In short, the bare verb bases of Geg Albanian which have a stative, property-like (perfective) interpretation in (17), do not really take on a progressive interpre-

2 The Geg Albanian paskajore ‘infinitive’ 

 281

tation in sentences like (15c). Nor is it necessary to postulate that underlyingly different verb forms are involved in (17) and in (15c), while processes of Impoverishment yield a surface syncretism between them (the DM solution). Rather, the progressive interpretation is contributed in (15c) by the embedding context, specifically by the part/whole locative preposition tu – while λ-abstraction leads the bare verb base to receive a type interpretation. The same general treatment can be extended to other contexts of occurrence of Geg Albanian bare verb bases. Verb bases ending in vowel occur as the 3P singular of the middle-passive perfective past, as in (25a), where the u clitic like the si/se clitic of Romance, externalizes the middle-passive voice. Consonantal verb bases involving long stressed vowels of the type of ve:ʃ occur as the 2P/3P person of the present indicative, as in (25b). (25) a. u mlu mp cover ‘He covered himself’ b. ɛ ve:ʃ him/her dress.2sg/3sg ‘You dress him/her’/‘S/he dresses him/her’

Geg Albanian, Shkodër

According to Manzini and Savoia (2007), “what would traditionally be described as a ‘syncretism’ is explained here as an instance of ambiguity” (see also Kayne 2010). In other words, the informations that are not externalized by the verb base must be available contextually, yielding the relevant interpretations. In essence, both Past (perfective, i.e. time of event preceding time of utterance) and present (imperfective i.e. time of event surrounding time of utterance) are available as contextual enrichments in (25a) and (25b) respectively. 3P singular interpretation is further available in the absence of φ-features specifications – as must be one of the two Participant denotations namely Hearer in (25b). In the words of Manzini and Savoia (2007) “in all cases the bare stem is not so much lexicalizing these meanings, but rather proves compatible with them due to the very elementarity of its morphology”, in essence due to absence of Tense/Aspect/Mood specification of any sort. In section 2.2 we consider the occurrences of bare verb bases as the head of infinitive-like complement sentences, that more directly concern us here.

2.2 The paskajore The structures traditionally known as paskajore ‘infinitive’ occur in subject control contexts with modals as in (27a), and with aspectuals as in (27b), in

282 

 10 Non-finite complementation in Aromanian and Albanian

object control contexts as in (26c), as well as in arbitrary control contexts, as in (27d), and in embedded wh-questions as in (27e). They further lexicalize complements to causative verbs, as in (28), where no control is involved but rather an accusative embedded subject. In all of these respects they have the distribution of Balkan subjunctives, including the Albanian and Aromanian Prt-verb constructions examined in chapters 8–9; as the latter they may occur in matrix sentences, with modal meaning (imperative, optative, etc), as in (26). Note that the modal negation mas precedes mɛ, though we saw that it follows tu in progressives in (22’). However, in the discussion in chapter 9, the position of functional elements of the inflectional/left-peripheral field of the sentence was argued to vary without necessarily affect the categorization of surrounding elements. (26) mɛ ɑ:ɾð with come ‘If he came!’ (27)

a. doin mɛ ɛ bɑ̃ they.want with it do ‘They want to do it’ b. kam fi’ɫu mɛ hɑ̃ŋəɾ I.have begun with eat ‘I have begun to eat’ c. t kam θɑ̃:n mɛ ɛ mlu to.you I.have said with it do ‘I told you to cover it’ c’. i kan θɑ̃:n (tʃi) (mas) mɛ ɛ bɑ̃ to.him they.have said that not with it do ‘They told him not to do it’ d. ɐʃt mɐ miɾ mas mɛ ɛ ʃkɾu it.is more good not with it write ‘It is better not to write it’ e. nuk di (sɛ) tʃa mɛ bɑ̃ not I.know that what with do ‘I don’t know what to do’

(28) ɛ kam bɑ̃ m u tʃu him I.have made with mp wake.up ‘I made him wake up’

Geg Albanian, Shkodër

2 The Geg Albanian paskajore ‘infinitive’ 

 283

The paskajore, like the Balkan subjunctives, also occurs in adverbial control sentences such as purpose sentences in (29a–c) and in temporal adjuncts in (29d). (29) a. kam ɑ:ɾð mɛ t a ðɑ̃:n I.have come with to.you it give ‘I came to give it to you’ b. kam ɑ:ɾð (tʃi) mɛ ɛ pɑ I.have come that with him/her see ‘I came to see him/her’ c. kam i:k pəɾ mas mɛ ɛ/t pɑ I.have left for not with him-her/you see ‘I left to see him/her/you’ d. kam dɑ:l paɾa sɛ mɛ ʃku I.have got.out before that with go ‘I got out before going’

Geg Albanian, Shkodër

The embedded sentences in (27)–(29) show that mɛ can be introduced by the finite complementizers, namely tʃi, as in (27c’), (29b) or sɛ, as in (27e), (29d). We briefly reviewed the two complementizers of Albanian in chapter 9, where the tʃə complementizer of Tosk Albanian (Gjirokastër) was seen to cooccur with tə subjunctives; this remains true of the co-occurrence of tʃi with the paskajore.2 At the same time, in Albanian it is possible to have a wh-phrase embedded under the finite complementizer sɛ (Turano 1995); this is what we find in (27e). A second noteworthy set of facts is that in (29) mɛ can be preceded by other prepositions such as pəɾ in (29c) or paɾa (sɛ) in (29d); it may be the latter that select sɛ. The paskajore further supports nominative lexical subjects as well as null subject pros with pronominal (non anaphoric) interpretation. Specifically a lexical subject can insert between the complementizer and the paskajore, as illustrated in (30a–b); the other possible position for the subject is postverbal, as in (30c–d). The null subject reading is exemplified with the hypothetical sentence in (30e), where mɛ is embedded under bɑ̃ ‘if’. As already noted in relation with tu progressives in section 2.1, the participle/infinitive form yields a nominative-

2 In Tosk varieties (Gjirokastër) the tʃə complementizer coincides with the relative pronoun for ‘what’. In (27e) the wh-phrase for ‘what’ is tʃa highlighting the lack of lexical coincidence with the tʃi complementizer. However in Geg dialects spoken for instance in Montenegro/Macedonia this coincidence can be seen in examples like tʃi bən? ‘what are you doing?’ (Flora Koleci, p.c.).

284 

 10 Non-finite complementation in Aromanian and Albanian

accusative syntax in contexts of sentential embedding  –  which is now further confirmed by the presence of nominative subjects. (30) a. du tʃi ti mɛ ɛ bɑ̃ I.want that you to it do ‘I want you to do it’ b. du tʃi vɫa-i    jat mɛ ɛ bɑ̃ I.want that brother-the yours to it do ‘I want your brother to do it’ c. doin (tʃi) mɛ ɑ:ɾð a'ta they.want that to come they ‘They want to come’ d. kam dɑ:l paɾa  sɛ mɛ ɑ:ɾð ti I.have gone.out before that to come you ‘I went out before you came’ e. bɑ̃ mas mɛ ɑ:ɾð s t pɾɛs if not with come not you I.await ‘If you don’t come, I am not waiting for you’

Geg Albanian, Shkodër

The element that generally introduces the paskajore, namely mɛ, also introduces noun phrases, taking the meaning of the preposition ‘with’. An argument in favour of the conclusion that this coincidence is not mere homophony comes from the fact that the negative counterpart of mɛ, i.e. pɑ ‘without’, can also introduce the invariable participle/infinitive. Franco and Manzini (2017) propose a characterization of the content of instrumental case or with-type prepositions compatible with the present framework. They observe that the hat of the girl and the girl with the hat introduce essentially the same relation between the hat and the girl, roughly the girl has the hat. They assume that the genitive/dative case or the of/to prepositions realize the ⊆ relation. Therefore they propose that the instrumental case or the with preposition are responsible for the reverse relation, which they notate ⊇. The genitive/dative relator says that its object has a possessor relation to some constituent of the sentence – the instrumental relator says that its object has a possessee relation to some constituent of the matrix sentence. Pursuing the analysis of oblique propositional embedding, we expect that the preposition mɛ can be dealt with as a two-place predicate whose internal argument is the paskajore, while the external argument is a matrix argument or predicate. Specifically, in the examples in (26)–(30) the evidence points to the complement of the Preposition mɛ being an IP, since the modal negation mas and wh-phrases are external to it. On the basis of these assumptions, we obtain a structure like (31) for example (27c).

2 The Geg Albanian paskajore ‘infinitive’ 

(31)

PP(⊇) P(⊇) mɛ

 285

cf. (27c) IP

D ɛ

IP I

√ ml

I u

The structure in (31) raises the same questions examined at the end of section 1 for Romance oblique infinitives – namely whether the same content (⊇) is actually present in (31) as in instances where mɛ embeds DPs (instrumentals, comitatives, etc.). The answer is the same as at the end of section 1, namely that if necessary the (reverse) inclusion meaning can be weakened to a compatible, but even more elementary identificational content – essentially the copula characterization that den Dikken (2006) invokes for relators and Lkrs. Next, the preposition mɛ can be preceded by a tʃi or sɛ complementizer. From a structural point of view the complementizer embeds the paskajore as its complement, as in (32), introducing a propositional variable whose value is specified by the paskajore itself. Therefore the so-called complementizer is a relativizer, exactly as detailed in chapter 9 for the Romance languages, whence its Q categorization. What it embeds is a non-finite sentence embedded under a case layer (the P relator). Interestingly, no finiteness constraint is observed  –  which means that the typical Romance/Germanic restriction of demonstrative/wh-complementizers to finite sentences is a parametric accident. (32)

QP Q tʃi

cf. (29b) PP(⊇)

P(⊇) mɛ

IP IP

D ɛ I pɑ

286 

 10 Non-finite complementation in Aromanian and Albanian

As indicated in structure (32’), it is also possible to combine the paskajore with a further prepositional introducer. Indeed we know from much recent literature that what are conventionally known as PPs have complex internal structures (Svenonius 2006, 2017) where the lowest layers is represented by the prepositions that we have been discussing throughout, roughly corresponding to the fundamental oblique cases – while higher levels denote more complex spatial or other relations. The embedding of mɛ under purposive pəɾ in this sense instantiates an independently known type of structure. (32’)

PP P pəɾ

cf. (29c) PP(⊇)

P(⊇) mɛ

IP D ɛ

IP I pɑ

A further descriptive issue is raised by wh-elements and the negation, which are merged lower than complementizers, e.g. sɛ in (33), but higher than mɛ. We have already pointed out in presenting the data that the wh-phrase follows the complementizer in finite contexts as well, hence this is independent of the paskajore (Turano 1995) and has to do with the relative order of individual and propositional wh- operators – which is not addressed here. The fact that the (individual) wh-phrase is found above the mɛ, as is the negation, would seem to imply that these elements are merged above PP, as in (33). (33)

QP Q (sɛ)

cf. (27e) PP(⊇)

QP tʃa

PP(⊇) IP

P(⊇) mɛ I bã

2 The Geg Albanian paskajore ‘infinitive’ 

 287

Let us then turn to matters pertaining to the internal structure of the paskajore. The nominative alignment of the arguments is what we expect on the basis of the discussion of tu sentences in section 2.1. Much as for infinitives in English or Romance we further assume that the presence of an open EPP variable is the normal construal for a non-finite predicate. This yields control and raising interpretations along the lines of chapter 8. Indeed, the progressive tu embedding in section 2.1 must involve raising from the embedded to the matrix subject. As illustrated in (30) the paskajore also allows null subject pro construals. In chapter 8 for Italian we suggested a topic drop mechanism. In fact, a lexical subject in the nominative case may appear above mɛ and below an eventual complementizer, or in the lower predicative domain of the embedded sentence, surfacing postverbally. This left-peripheral or right-peripheral nominative argument is then interpreted as filling the variable open at the embedded predicate. The possibility of having nominative subjects is not surprising in light of the discussion of Italian in chapter 8. Nominative subject can surface in Italian control infinitives in the form of so-called emphatic pronouns (Burzio 1986, see Borer 1989, Szabolcsi 2007), while in non-standard Romance languages/dialects, lexical subjects crop up in non-obligatory control environments, notably adjuncts (Mensching 2000). This raises the not secondary question how the nominative case is licenced, in view of Chomsky’s (2001) approach to direct cases in terms of φ-features agreement with v (accusative) and with I (nominative). Solutions proposed in the literature include that nominative is the default case (Belletti 2001 on so-called emphatic pronouns); but this conflicts with other evidence (see chapter 8). In chapter 8, we suggest that agreement with I does not necessarily involve φ-features but a more abstract D property. Thus the presence or absence of overt agreement properties on the verb is essentially irrelevant, or relevant only in some languages that indeed do not admit nominative subjects in nonfinite sentences (English). In conclusion, at the end of section 2.1 we noted that there is no need to postulate any form of homophony or syncretism between the bare verb base occurring in participial contexts and the bare verb base occurring in progressive contexts; this is also true of the paskajore. The minimally specified nature of the predicate is compatible with the ergative/passive alignment and its perfective interpretation. At the same time it compatible with the enrichment by aspectual and modal operators, yielding the kind of interpretations associated in Romance or Germanic languages with the gerund (progressive) or infinitive (control/raising).

288 

 10 Non-finite complementation in Aromanian and Albanian

3 Albanian long participles and Aromanian supines Tosk varieties of Albanian (including the standard) provide an interesting comparison with the Geg varieties considered so far. Morphologically, Tosk Albanian differs from Geg Albanian in that the participle always take the specialized inflection -ɾ. Non-agreeing participles receive a perfect active reading in combination with the auxiliary kam ‘I have’, as in (34a), and a perfect passive reading in combination with the auxiliary jam ‘I am’ as in (34b). Agreeing participles receive a passive or adjectival reading, as in (34c). (34) a. ɛ kam zɟua-ɾ/ vɛʃu-ɾ him-her I.have wake-ptcp/ dress-ptcp ‘I have woken/dressed him/her up’ b. jan vɛʃu-ɾ they.are dress-ptcp ‘They have dressed up’ c. jan tə   vɛʃu-ɾ/vɛʃu-ɾ-a they.are lkr dress-ptcp/dress-ptcp-pl ‘They are dressed up’

Albanian, Gjirokastër

What we are interested in is the fact that in Tosk dialects we find the -ɾ participles in a small but consistent subset of environments where the bare verb base is found in Geg Albanian. These include the progressive preceded by dukɛ/tuɾɛ/ tuɾa, and adjunct sentences introduced by pa ‘without’ (Turano 1999), as illustrated in (35)–(36).3 (35)

a. tə patʃ dukɛ u la-ɾ you I.saw at mp wash-ptcp ‘I saw you washing youself’ b. dɔla pa ɛ la-ɾ I.went.out without it wash-ptcp ‘I went out without without washing it’ c. kam dalə i pa ŋgɾənu-ɾ I.have gone.out lkr without eat-ptcp ‘I left without eating’

Albanian, Gjirokastër

3 In (35c) the pɑ participial sentence is preceded by a Lkr agreeing with the matrix subject. This supports the conclusions of chapter 7, that Lkrs potentially attach to any oblique relator, hence not only to genitive/dative phrases, but also to phrases introduced by the instrumental pa ‘without’.

3 Albanian long participles and Aromanian supines 

(36) a. tuɾɛ ɛ diɔvasu-ɾ msɔkɛm at it read ptcp I.learn ‘Reading it, I learn’ b. dɔla pa ɛ bənu-ɾ I.went.out without it do-ptcp ‘I left without doing it’

 289

Arbëresh, Firmo

These structures should be compared to the sentences in chapter 8 where the -ɾ participle was seen to occur embedded under tə. In Tosk varieties, this type of embedding characterizes in particular purpose sentences introduced by pəɾ, as in (37). As shown in (37), tə has the same position as in finite subjunctive sentences, preceding object clitics and the modal negation mɔs. (37)

a. aɾðtʃ pəɾ tə ŋgɾənu-ɾ/t a vɛʃu-ɾ I.came for prt eat-ptcp/prt him/her dress-ptcp ‘I came in order to eat/dress him/her’ b. ika pəɾ tə mɔs tə/ɛ zdʒua-ɾ I.went for prt not you/him wake-ptcp ‘I went away in order not to wake you/him up’ Albanian, Gjirokastër

In chapter 8, we have proposed that the so-called subjunctive Prt tə is to be identified with the Lkr tə with which it is homophonous. Both are D elements and tə surfaces in sentential complementation is order to enable finite sentences to be predicated of some matrix argument, i.e. to undergo control. Similarly, Lkrs enable predication in adjectival and oblique modification. Nevertheless the Tosk particles in (35)–(37) are not nominalized, i.e. they are not DPs. Nominalizations formed from participles may exist both in Tosk varieties in (38) and in Geg varieties in (39), but display quite distinct characters. In Geg varieties nominalizations are formed with the -m/-un suffixed long participle; this is then inflected for φ-features and case, specifically oblique case in the examples in (39). In the Albanian example in (38a) the -ɾ participle also bears full nominal inflections. In both types of variety no lexical material can insert between the Lkr and the participle, such as a clitic or a negation. The participle keeps enough of its verbal nature to licence an accusative clitic (cf. English gerund like my seeing them) – but the latter is positioned on the matrix verb in (38a)–(39b). The Arbëresh example in (38b) is tentatively included in this typology because of lexical parallels, though neither nominal inflections nor clitic climbing are observable. The recent detailed discussion of these structures by Turano (2017) centers specifically on clitic climbing.

290  (38)

(39)

 10 Non-finite complementation in Aromanian and Albanian

a. ɛ mbaɾɔva sə vɛʃu-ɾ-i him/her I.finished lkr dress-ptcp-obl ‘I finished dressing him/ her’ b. furnɔva tə ŋgɾən I.finished lkr eat-ptcp I finished the food/ eating’ a. maɾɔva s ʃkɾu-m-it I.finished lkr write-ptcp-obl ‘I finished writing’ b. ɛ maɾɔva s/t ʃkɾum-un-it it I.finished lkr write-ptcp-obl ‘I finished writing the letter’

Albanian, Gjirokastër

Arbëresh, Firmo

Geg Albanian, Shkodër

Let us return to non-nominalized participles. The inner core of their morphological structure consists of the verb root followed by a thematic vowel Infl, as already detailed for the short participles of Geg Albanian in (19). Long participles are formed in the Tosk varieties by adding the specialized participial inflection, namely -ɾ. Traditional assumptions about the nature of participles and their inflections suggest that we assign -ɾ to an Asp category, as in (40). (40)

ASP Infl √ veʃ

cf. (34b) Asp ɾ

Infl u

In adjectival contexts the structure in (40) can further be inflected for φ-features and case as well as embedded under a Lkr, as indicated in (40’a). In the same contexts, the long participles of Geg varieties shows up; the latter has the same structure as its Tosk counterpart, except that the Asp morpheme is -m/-n, as in (40’b).4 4 In the Tosk nominalizations in (38), or in their Geg counterparts in (39), the participle is associated with full nominal inflections, including case. As already commented in chapter 8, when introducing the Tosk data, the inflections observed on nominalized participles are consistent with those of the neuter [aggr] class studied in chapter 3. This is expected if events are treated like mass terms, as also mentioned in chapter 3. They are also preceded by Lkrs, as schematized in (i)–(ii). (i) (ii)

[D sə] [D s/t]

[[Asp vɛʃu-ɾ] [⊆ i]] [[Asp ʃkɾum-un] [⊆ it]]

cf. (38a) cf. (39b)

3 Albanian long participles and Aromanian supines 

(40’) a. [D tə] a. [D ɛ]

[[Asp vɛʃu-ɾ] [N a]] [[Asp mlu-m] [N ɛ]]

 291

cf. (34c) cf. (18a)

Following the discussion in section 2, so-called perfect participles are in reality stative, property-denoting forms of the verb. These interpretive properties correspond to the ergative alignment of perfect participles embedded under the copula in passives, which represent their simplest construal. At the same time the long participle of Tosk Albanian has a considerably more restricted range of sentential embeddings than the bare verb base of Geg Albanian. It is natural to connect this difference to the presence of an Asp inflection on the Tosk Albanian participle. The -ɾ morphology turns out to be compatible with the aspectual interpretation introduced by dukɛ/tuɾɛ in the progressives in (35a), (36a). The dukɛ/tuɾɛ elements are directly related to the prepositional type tu, tek ‘at’; we may consider them a specialization of these locative elements for the purposes of participial embedding. In the analysis proposed in section 2.1 for the Geg Albanian progressive, we adopted Landman’s (1992) semantics for progressives which matches the locative ‘at’ syntax closely. In essence a progressive is taken to mean that there is an event at the matrix time which is part of a set of events/event-type denoted by the embedded predicate. Progressive interpretation is therefore not a property of the participle (which might be puzzling given its perfective occurrences), but rather of the locative construction that embeds it. In Geg Albanian, we further assumed that the progressive embedding was made possible by the elementary nature of the verb base. When it comes to Tosk Albanian, on the other hand, we had to postulate an Asp-type projection to host the specialized participial inflection -ɾ in (40). The crucial point therefore cannot be whether we are dealing with a bare verb base or with an aspectually-specified one. The crucial point is the nature of the aspectual specification. Rather than the traditional perfective label, in section 2.1 we suggested a characterization in terms of stative, resultative, property-like aspect. We must conclude that this that allows both the reading of resulting state required by the present perfect, as in (34), and the possibility of being abstracted over by a λ-operator, as required by the progressive construction in Landman’s (1992) approach. The main difference between the Geg Albanian short participle and the Tosk Albanian long participle is that the former can be found embedded in a range of contexts with modal rather than aspectual interpretation, including a number of complement sentences which require the infinitive in the Germanic or Romance languages. The bare verb base of Geg Albanian is compatible with modal operators over situations/events; it is natural to surmise that the more specialized, aspectually inflected nature of the Tosk Albanian long participles makes them unavailable to this end. There are two exceptions to this state of affairs, namely

292 

 10 Non-finite complementation in Aromanian and Albanian

pɒ complements and pəɾ complements. Manzini and Savoia (2007) insight is that these are able to embed a participle to the extent that modal properties are overtly lexicalized by the prepositional introducers. We adopt their approach here. Specifically pɑ ‘without’ incorporates a negation; thus its English counterpart without licences negative polarity items exactly as the negation does, e.g. I left without having seen Peter/anybody vs. I left (after) having seen Peter/*anybody. If we now turn to pəɾ sentences we note that they must obligatorily embed the tə Prt/Lkr. As discussed at length in chapter 8, there are no independently observable differences between this tə element and the tə element found in so-called subjunctives. Specifically, object clitics and the modal negation occur between the element tə and the participle, reproducing the order in front of subjunctives. These parallels between the subjunctive construction and the pəɾ tə  –  participle constructions supports an analysis of the latter in which tə is treated as the subjunctive Prt tə, hence associated to a D position, as in (41). Here it precedes the modal negation and object clitics while it is embedded in turn under the preposition pəɾ, selecting the entire participial clause. Following Manzini and Savoia (2007), we propose that future/irrealis, purpose interpretation associated with structures like (41) is introduced by the preposition pəɾ. (41)

PP

cf. (37b) CP

P pəɾ

CP

D tə Neg mɔs

C’ IP

C

I’

D ɛ I zdʒuaɾ

In chapter 8, in analyzing the subjunctive Prt tə, we abandoned the analysis generally assumed in the literature, whereby tə connects to the modal properties of the construction it enters into. Instead we proposed that its role is that of introducing a variable corresponding to the subject argument of the embedded sentence, here D. The control property, i.e. the co-reference between a matrix argument and

3 Albanian long participles and Aromanian supines 

 293

the embedded D argument, is mediated through this variable. At the same time, note that while the presence of the Lkr/Prt is necessary to enable control in finite sentences, non-finite sentences such as the ones at hand do have a variable EPP argument anyway, making tə redundant. In these terms, the presence of tə under pəɾ is less econominal than the bare embedding of the participle under pa; we have no further insights into this alternation. Let us summarize so far. The Balkan languages present interesting complementation systems, in part mimicking the better known Germanic and Romance languages, but presenting also completely original characters. One well-known construction involves so-called subjunctive Prts followed by finite verbs, studied in detail in chapter 8. As we saw in section 1, these are not necessarily in complementary distribution with infinitives, as witnessed by Aromanian. In this chapter, we have further seen that Geg Albanian has a verb form available for both perfect/ passive participle embeddings and for sentential (infinitival-like) embeddings; to a limited extent the pattern is found in Tosk Albanian as well. In section 3.1 we will complete this picture, by looking very briefly at Romanian and Aromanian sentences headed by so-called supines.

3.1 The Romanian/Aromanian supine In standard Romanian, a number of structures that present the infinitive in other Romance languages or in English are constructed by means of the so-called supine. As anticipated, the latter is the perfect participle form, which takes the specialized label supine in that has active, nominative-accusative alignment rather than the passive/ergative alignment of other perfect participles, for instance adjectival modifiers. According to Hill (2013b) “the supine starts in non-finite relatives, expands to predicative BE structures, and displays timid distribution as sentential complement to verbs by the end of the 18th century. All these supine constructions occur in free alternation with infinitives in the written language”. In (42) we exemplify the three main context for supine in Standard Romanian, noticing also that all three are introduced by de. For Hill (2013a), as may be expected in a cartographic framework, de is an exponent of the Fin projection of the C field. (42) a. Asta-i bluza de spălat this-is blouse-def of wash-ptcp ‘This is the blouse to wash’ b. Bluza e de spălat blouse-def is of wash-ptcp ‘This blouse is to be washed’

294 

 10 Non-finite complementation in Aromanian and Albanian

c. Am terminat de spălat podelele I.have finished of wash-ptcp floors-def ‘I have finished washing the floors.’

Romanian (Hill 2013b)

The distribution of the standard Romanian supine encompasses two contexts where the Geg Albanian paskajore is strongly attested, namely modal relatives and complements to aspectual verbs. In Aromanian, which has productive infinitives, the distribution of the supine is further restricted to adjuncts introduced by ni ‘without’, as illustrated in (43)–(46). Interestingly, this coincides with one of the sentential contexts of embedding of the Tosk Albanian -ɾ participle, as in (35)–(36) above. Control is possible in the supine, but not obligatory, as in (44a) – again in line with what we know of the Geg Albanian paskajore in section 2.2 but also of Romance infinitives, including the Aromanian long infinitive in section 1. (43) a. mini am inʃətə ni məkatə I have go-ptcp without eat-ptcp ‘I went out without eating’ b. atseu fudzi ni vədzutə (pi mini) he went without see-ptcp (dom me) ‘He left without seeing me’ (44) a. am fudzit ni vənit tini I.have go-ptcp not come-ptcp you ‘I left without you coming’ b. ɲisai ni vədzut tini I.went.out without see-ptcp you ‘I went out without seeing you’ (45) a. mini iʃɛjə ni  ti vidzut (tini) I went.out without you see-ptcp you ‘I went out without seeing you’ b. mini fudzi ni məkat pəni I went without eat-ptcp bread-def ‘I left without eating the bread’

Aromanian, Diviakë

Aromanian, Libofshë

Aromanian, Fier

(46) a. am iʃatə ni durɲit/ məkatə pɛna I.have go-ptcp not sleep-ptcp/ eat-ptcp bread-def ‘I went out without sleeping/eting the bread’ b. ei fudzire ni gʁitə a ɲia they went without call-ptcp lkr/to me ‘They left without calling me’ Aromanian, Këllez

4 Conclusions 

 295

As far as we can tell, we can repeat for the Aromanian data most of what we have said in particular for the Tosk Albanian -ɾ participle in this section. The participle is a stative, property-like form of the verb, whose basic construal is the passive. Nevertheless, its intrinsic properties make it compatible also with more complex embeddings, yielding aspectual construals (the perfect, essentially a resultative aspect) or in principle also modal construals (infinitive-like). The latter are possible in Aromanian only in embeddings under the negative introducer ni ‘without’. We interpret this restriction along the same lines already suggested for Tosk Albanian, namely that modal interpretation requires the participle (supine) to be embedded by a non-veridical operator, in this instance the negation. A special reason of interest in the Aromanian data is that the embedded verbs in (43)–(46) all have the –tV morphology which characterizes both the Romance and the Latin participle. The evidence of Aromanian, therefore, supports the conclusion that the -t Romance participle is neither intrinsically perfect, nor intrinsically passive, but rather stative/resultative, as is the Albanian participle and the Punjabi one.

4 Conclusions One of the best known features of so-called Balkan languages are subjunctive sentences introduced by Prts and available for control readings. We have considered those in chapter 8–9 and we have seen in section 1 of this chapter that they are not necessarily in complementary distribution with morphological infinitives. In sections 2–3 of this chapter, we have examined in detail the behavior of nonfinite verb forms that on the one hand serve as perfect and passive participles, but on the other hand also yield sentential embeddings with active alignment and no perfective interpretation. These sentential embeddings are distinctive enough to deserve special names in the grammatical tradition of each language; thus they correspond to the paskajore of Geg Albanian and to the supine of Romanian/ Aromanian. This chapter, therefore, continued our general review of Balkan complementation, in relation to the theoretical hypotheses about control in chapter 8 and about the Agree Resistance Principle in chapter 9. However, in considering the paskajore and the supine, our discussion in this chapter reached back to the discussion in chapter 7 on the ergative alignment and the properties of the participles that yield it. The study of the paskajore/supine in this chapter confirm that the best characterization for these participles is as stative, property-like forms of the verb. This is connected to the ergative alignment (oblique subject) which we take to be basic to it, hence to its passive construal. The nominative alignment is determined by embedding under auxiliary structures (typically have), progressive periphrases etc.

296 

 10 Non-finite complementation in Aromanian and Albanian

Thus we exclude mere homophony between the perfect participle of Geg Albanian and the paskajore  –  and we also exclude that underlyingly different forms of the verb are syncretically realized via morphological readjustments (in a DM-like model). Rather, we consider that progressive and modal interpretations are made possible by complex forms of embedding, building on the elementary semantics of the stative (passive/perfective) verb form.

IV Linguistic Contact

IV Linguistic Contact

  299

In previous chapters, we mentioned that Italo-Albanian (Arbëresh) varieties are spoken in contact with Romance varieties, including standard Italian and Southern Italian dialects. Similarly, Aromanian is spoken in contact with Albanian, and often with Greek, in Southern Albania. Both Arbëresh and Aromanian varieties have the status of minority languages, in contact with national languages. The notion of contact, at least as it applies to the varieties studied here, can be given a precise content in terms of a mentalist grammar, involving speakers with two (or more) compentences. In the course of the discussion, we have also referred to Balkan languages, forming a linguistic group determined not by genetic proximity, but by a long history of contact in the Southern Balkans (and in Southern Italy). This underlying layer of linguistic contact adds further depth to the contact phenomena observed in our bilingual speakers. Now, while we have dutifully noted the sociolinguistic status of the languages we analyse, the latter has largely been disregarded in the discussion. What matters for our investigation of language variation (and hence of language universals) is the speaker’s competence, i.e. his linguistic knowledge, independently of the external context in which this knowledge is expressed. This is not to say that we are not aware either of the descriptive properties of in-contact languages or of the conceptual issues they raise. Chapter 11 surveys contact phenomena in two Arbëresh varieties, compared to the local Romance varieties. The chapter sets some of the facts characterizing Arbëresh varieties in the general contexts of lexical borrowing, syntactic alignment, and code-mixing phenomena, reviewing inflection, agreement and case within the DP and complementation, but also the shape of the vP/VP and some phonological and lexical facts that are otherwise excluded from the present work. We briefly consider both functional-typological approaches, in particular to lexical borrowing, and approaches seeking to impose formal constraints specifically on code mixing. Our data cast doubts on implicational hierarchies concerning the likelihood of borrowing from both lexical and functional categories; rather we stress the importance of the conceptual organization underlying the lexicon. Our data also provide counterexamples to generalizations such as the Free Morpheme Constraint (Poplack 1980, McSwan 1999, 2010). In fact, they make it difficult to uphold the distinction between lexical borrowing and syntactic mixed sentences, in keeping with the present model where morphology and syntax are effectively a single component. In chapter 12, we focus on a single phenomenon, namely causative constructions. In Arbëresh causative structures the causative verb embeds a finite sentence; nevertheless, in a subset of varieties one finds case realignment of the Romance type, with the embedded subject surfacing as a dative or as a by-phrase (Savoia 1989b, Brandi and Savoia 1990, Turano 1994, 2015, Manzini and Savoia

300 

 IV Linguistic Contact

2007). Long passivization is also possible in some varieties, from the embedded object position to the matrix subject. Finally, the matrix causative verb may reduce to an invariable, non-agreeing form  –  in which case the matrix subject may agree with the embedded verb. Specifically, in the variety of Ginestra, agreement with the embedded verb is dictated by the relative prominence of the causer and causee in terms of the Person hierarchy 1/2>3 – yielding a pattern reminiscent of inverse agreement (see the Appendix to chapter 4). Thus, the pressures of syntactic alignment may bring about parametric choices not attested in either the parent language nor in the language in contact.

11 Notes on the contact between Italo-Albanian and Romance (Calabrian, Lucanian) varieties: borrowings, code-mixing and convergence In this chapter we investigate hybridization, borrowing and grammatical reorganization phenomena in the linguistic communities of Ginestra (Lucania), and especially Vena di Maida (Calabria), characterized by the compresence of Arbëresh and Romance dialects. Several domains of grammar will be reviewed, namely the lexicon (section 2), complementation (section 3), the structure of the VP (section 4), the structure of the DP (section 5) and phonology (section 6). In relation to the lexicon in section 2, we introduce functional/typological approaches based on implicational scales defining for instance the ease of borrowing among lexical and functional categories, which we critically discuss also in connection with the treatment of adjectival bases and evaluative morphology in section 5. In section 7 we discuss a different set of approaches, aiming at setting formal constraints on code-mixing, such as the Free Morpheme Constraint (Poplack 1980). Our data do not uphold the constraint, nor can they be explained away by distinguishing code mixing from borrowing (see especially section 5 on VP structure).

1 Introduction Because of the political and cultural factors that for centuries have kept the Italian peninsula in conditions of great administrative and social fragmentation, dialectal differentiation in Italy has been preserved up to the present day, longer than in other areas of Western Europe, including Romance speaking ones. This specifically holds for minority languages like the Arbëresh varieties, i.e. the Albanian varieties spoken by communities fleeing from Albania as a consequence of the Ottoman occupation. Thus, Arbëresh varieties present the kind of variation from one another that we expect in natural languages in the absence of external constraints. At the same time, their long-term contact with neighbouring Romance varieties is reflected in the extensive code-mixing phenomena that characterize their lexicon and their morphosyntactic organization (Savoia 1984, 2008, Turano 2011, 2012, Baldi and Savoia 2016). The Greek/ Romance contact in Southern Italy (Guardiano and Stavrou 2014) presents a parallel case study. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781501505140-011

302 

 11 Notes on the contact between Italo-Albanian and Romance

Code-mixing and other variation processes raise questions concerning the nature of variation and its significance for the theory of language, in other words about the internal factors that drive it. According to Chomsky (2000a: 119), “the human language faculty and the (I-)languages that are manifestations of it qualify as natural objects”. This approach, that “regards the language faculty as an ‘organ of the body’”, has been labelled the “biolinguistic perspective” (Hauser, Chomsky and Fitch 2002, Chomsky 2005). Furthermore, according to Chomsky “There is reason to believe that the computational component is invariant, virtually … language variation appears to reside in the lexicon” (Chomsky 2000a: 120). Suppose then that the lexicon is the locus of linguistic variation – in the presence of a uniform, that is, invariant, computational component, and of an invariant repertory of interface primitives, both phonological and conceptual. We take this to mean that there is a universal conceptual space to be lexicalized and variation results from different partitions of that space. So-called functional space is just like all other conceptual space and there is no fixed functional lexicon which varies only along the axis of overt vs. covert realization (Kayne 2010). Given projection of the syntax from the lexicon (Chomsky 1995), different lexicons will generate slightly different syntaxes, even though constrained by the operations and principles of Universal Grammar. In the internalist (i.e. biologically, individually grounded) perspective that we adopt, variation and contact between two or more languages/linguistic communities is not qualitatively different from variation within the same dialect/ community, or even within the productions of a single speaker. To the extent that even notionally monolingual speakers alternate, say, between stylistic levels according to the situation of use, they will have a bilingual competence of sorts – which given the lexical parametrization hypothesis adopted here, can be accounted for as the co-existence of different lexicons with a single computational component (MacSwan 2000). Ultimately, the mechanisms of variation stem from the fundamental structures of human language rather than from the simple external pressure of cultural and communicative necessities, as functionalist conceptions would maintain. We are aware that the socio-cultural context and communicative relevance requirements may motivate linguistic variation, directing the attention of the speakers and driving their communicative intentions. Nevertheless, the way in which language mixing, borrowing and change work, depends on the cognitive constraints that define the Faculty of Language as well as the Sensory-Motor (SM) and Conceptual-Intentional (CI) interface levels, which associate phonological and semantic interpretations to the linguistics objects created by the mental grammar of the speaker.

2 Romance relexification of Arbëresh 

 303

2 Romance relexification of Arbëresh According to the literature, in mixed languages the lexical bases of one language combine with the inflection system of the other one (“language intertwining”, Bakker and Muysken 1994). Matras and Bakker (2003:1) provide the following characterization of their object of study: “In the discussion context on Mixed Languages, we are concerned […] with varieties that emerged in situations of community bilingualism, and whose structures show an etymological split that is not marginal, but dominant”. The relation between the language which supplies morphology and syntax and the language which supplies the lexical items is fixed in the distinction between “embedded language” and “matrix language” (Myers-Scotton 2003). Contact, mixing, pidginization/creolization and other mechanisms like “setting” factors (Hymes 1974) and bilingual interaction provide the external factors of variation. The Arbëresh varieties considered here are associated with extensive relexification by Romance (Savoia 2008, 2009, 2010). In (1a)–(2a) we illustrate some Romance nominal stems which take on the nominal class, case, number and definiteness morphology of Arbëresh. For instance in the right hand column in (1a), the -a indefinite plural is clearly visibile; in the definite inflection, furtʃein‘fork’ presents an -ətə plural. For comparison, we provide selected examples of the same Romance bases associated with Romance inflections, in (1b)–(2b). For instance, furtʃein- ‘fork’ in (1b) displays an -ə ending with plural value. (1) a. furtʃinn-ə furtʃinn-a kɔts-ə kanarunn-ə məlunn-ə kriateur-ə vətrinn-ə məsal-ə martiʎʎ-ə b. furtʃein-a

furtʃinn-a furtʃinn-ətə kɔts-a kanarunn-a məlunn-a kriateur-a vətrinn-a məsaʎ-a martiʎʎ-a furtʃein-ə

‘fork/forks’ ‘the fork/the forks’ ‘head/heads’ ‘neck/necks’ ‘melon/melons’ ‘boy/boys’ ‘glass/glasses’ ‘tablecloth/tablecloths’ ‘hammer/hammerss’ ‘fork/forks’

(2) a. hɔrmikul-ə hɔrmikul-a kanarɔts mɛlun sɛdʒ stip martɛʎ

hormikul-a hɔrmikul-ətə kanarɔts-ɛ mɛlun-ɛ sɛdʒ stip-ɛ martɛʎ-ɛ

‘ant/ants’ ‘the ant/the ants’ ‘throat/throats’ ‘melon/melons’ ‘chair/chairs’ ‘sideboard/sideboards’ ‘hammer/hammers’

Arbëresh, Ginestra Romance, Ginestra

304 

 11 Notes on the contact between Italo-Albanian and Romance

hadalic b. hɔrmikul-a

hadalic-ɛ hɔrmikul-i

‘apron/aprons’ ‘ant/ants’

Arbëresh, Vena di Maida Romance, Vena di Maida

Romance verbal bases similarly take on Arbëresh inflections in (3a)–(4a). For comparison, we provide selected examples of the same Romance bases with Romance inflections in (3b)–(4b). We also provide examples of the same inflections as in (4a) associated with native Albanian bases in (4c). We may single out for special mention the Romance base associated with the Middle-Passive -əmə inflection (Manzini, et al. 2016), whereas Middle-Passive inflections are altogether missing in Romance. (3) a. tsumb-ɔɲ/tsumb-Onnə fum-ɔɲ fərm-ɔɲ turn-ɔɲ fərn-ɔɲ sfriʒ-ɔɲ b. tsumb-ə/tsumb-a

‘I jump/he jumps’ ‘I smoke’ ‘I wait’ ‘I come back’ ‘I finish’ ‘I fry’ ‘I jump/ he jumps’

(4) a. krið-iɲa/krið-in rispund-iɲa ʃund-iɲa kamin-aɲa pɛndz-aɲa kapiʃ-iɲa lɛj-iɲa prɛɣ-aɲa sɛtah-əmə kardz-ɛɲa ripɛtts-aɲa frij-iɲa hum-aɲa b. krij-u/krið-ɛ rispund-u ʃund-u kamin-u c. priɟɛəm ʒgʎið-iɲa ik-iɲa

‘I believe/he believes’ ‘I answer’ ‘I untie’ ‘I go away’ ‘I think’ ‘I understand’ ‘I read’ ‘I pray’ ‘I sit down’ ‘I jump’ ‘I darn’ ‘I fry’ ‘I smoke’ Arbëresh, Vena di Maida ‘I believe/ he believes’ ‘I answer’ ‘I untie’ ‘I go away’ Romance, Vena di Maida ‘I answer’ ‘I untie’ ‘I go away’ Arbëresh (Albanian bases), Vena di Maida

Arbëresh, Ginestra Romance, Ginestra

2 Romance relexification of Arbëresh 

 305

Hybrid forms give rise to morphosyntactic structures of the type in (5)–(6), where all the inflections and structures of syntactic embedding are Albanian, for instance the case inflection or the Lkrs – while many bases are Romance, e.g. vətrina (It. vetrina), kristalirəsə (It. cristalliera), stipin (It. stipo), aɲɛʎin (It. agnello). (5) vətrin-a kristalir-əsə display-fsg.def cabinet-fsg.obl.def ‘the display of the cabinet’ (6) a. brɛsta stip-in i ri I.bought sideboard-msg.acc.def lkr new ‘I bought the new sideboard’ b. hɐŋgra aɲɛʎ-in I.ate lamb-msg.acc.def ‘I ate the lamb’

Arbëresh, Ginestra

Arbëresh, Vena di Maida

2.1 Conceptual categories in borrowing In the literature, the acquisition of loans into a language is connected with functional generalizations, like the one in (7), from Romaine (1995: 64). According to (7) the borrowing of lexical items and the borrowing of syntax are at the opposite side of a spectrum defining ease of borrowing; inflectional borrowing is in between, but definitely lower than lexical borrowing. (7) Hierarchy of borrowing Ease of borrowing Lexical items High Derivational morphology ↑ Inflectional morphology ↓ Syntax Low There are also hierarchies describing the likelihood of borrowing from different lexical categories. Thus the literature suggests that nouns are favoured over verbs as possible borrowings, as indicated by the hierarchy in (8). The tendency to prefer nouns is related by various authors to the wider autonomy that nouns have in discourse (Romaine 1995). On the contrary, verbs need to be integrated in the morpho-syntactic system of the host language. Another generalization concerns the fact that loan processes would tend to spare the nuclear lexicon  –  nouns denoting body parts, numbers, personal pronouns, conjunctions, etc. (Romaine 1995, Muysken 2000).

306 

 11 Notes on the contact between Italo-Albanian and Romance

(8) nouns > adjectives > verbs > prepositions (Appel and Muysken 1987; Muysken 2000; Myers-Scotton 2006). This complex of generalizations reflects the conceptual outlook of functionalist approaches, inspired by notions of economy, ease of processing, and so on  –  which are not necessarily supported by the data. Romance borrowings into Arbëresh varieties show that nouns are regularly integrated into case paradigms, as in (5)–(6)  –  so that it is far from obvious in which sense nouns would be less integrated into morphosyntax than verbs. Besides, a clear preference for nominal borrowings in comparison with verbal ones does not show up in our data, as sampled in (1)–(2) vs. (3)–(4). The borrowing of grammatical elements is also frequent, including forms such as the complementizer, which should be immune from borrowing. The Aromanian complementizer ta in chapter 9 (from Albanian tə, i.e. the subjunctive Prt) is a case in point. In short, lexical borrowing is traditionally dealt with as an external phenomenon, determined by extralinguistic pragmatic and cultural mechanisms. On the contrary, we may see lexical borrowing as driven by internal constraints inherent to the language faculty. The psycholinguistic literature highlights the fact that in acquisition, the word-world relation favours words that refer to concrete things or events, perceptible and identifiable in the experience stream. Hence dog or jump are preferred over believe or know (Gleitman et al. 2005). We may therefore expect that this basic level of conceptual organization causes the corresponding subparts of the lexicon to favour hybridization (concrete nouns, action verbs) or to be more resistant to it (non-action verbs). Various further types of splits observed in the literature on language disorders and acquisition are relevant for the different status of nouns and verbs (Luzzati and Chierchia 2002, Gleitman et al. 2005, Caramazza 1997). Caramazza and Shelton (1998) provide experimental evidence supporting the hypothesis that the animate/inanimate distinction is basic in the organization of conceptual space, relating this categorial split to evolutionary pressure. Other relevant categories include the imageability of a referent and the frequency of the words, though Luzzatti and Chierchia (2002) warn that the verb-noun dissociations cannot “be simply discarded as an artifact resulting from unbalanced word frequency or imageability, but have to be accepted as a genuine part-of-speech effect”. Further dissociations can be related to semantic properties of the event such as the number of arguments, hence the contrast between transitives and intransitives, etc. In general, the results of researches into noun/verb dissociations in linguistic disorders suggest that

3 Convergence in sentential embedding 

 307

the noun/verb split is translatable (largely) in terms of primitives like imageability, animacy, argumental structure, and frequency. We conclude that such categories belong to the system of cognitive devices that organize our lexical knowledge, thus affecting acquisition processes that create mixed or secondary languages as well. The distribution of loanwords in the Arbëresh lexicon in (1)–(4) bears witness to differential access to borrowing and code-mixing, whereby the majority of the loanwords denote artefacts and actions. The fact that the biological lexicon (body parts, animals, plants, etc.) resists borrowing can be connected to the precocity of its acquisition, which in turn reveals the crucial role played by genetically determined conceptual primitives in acquisition. By contrast, artefacts imply external socio-cultural and pragmatic factors and their acquisition involves properties like imageability and frequency of use of the relevant lexical elements, as already mentioned. As for verbal borrowings, imageability seems to be again a relevant component: indeed, psychological and directional verbs, i.e. the less imageable events, are the most resistant ones. The greater availability to borrowing of action verbs can be related to clearer imageability.

3 Convergence in sentential embedding Gumperz and Wilson (1971) call convergence a type of grammatical reorganization associated with mixing and bilingualism, whereby languages coexisting in a given community of speakers come to have coinciding morphosyntactic systems. Some of the correspondences between Albanian and Romance varieties in Arbëresh areas are not due to the specific contact between them, but are general areal features, shared by Balkan languages and by Romance varieties of the extreme South of Italy. In sections 3, 3.1, 4 we consider some of these areal convergence phenomena, as a background to more specific examples of Arbëresh/ Italo-Romance contact. The absence of the infinitive and the use of subordinate sentences introduced by a particle in control contexts has already been discussed in Part III of this book for Albanian. The same syntactic constructions are found in Romance varieties of the extreme South of Italy (Calabrian, Eastern Sicilian, Salentine). This areal convergence yields the alignment of the Romance and Arbëresh varieties of Vena, shown in (9a-f) for Arbëresh and in (9a’-f’) for Romance. The subordinate clause preceded by the Prt can be inserted under a finite complementizer, as in (9c-c’). The subject of the embedded sentence can occur in a post-verbal or topicalized position preceding the Prt, for instance

308 

 11 Notes on the contact between Italo-Albanian and Romance

in (9b-b’), but it cannot surface between the complementizer and the embedded verb. Arbëresh pə tə ‘for Prt’ corresponds to Romance pɛ mu ‘for Prt’ as in (9e-f). Some differences nevertheless remain: in negative structures Albanian uses the specialized negation mɔs, in (9d), while Romance has the all-purpose negation nɔ (9d’). (9) a. dua tə ha a’. vɔɟɟu mu maɲdʒu I.want prt I.eat ‘I want to eat’ b. bɐɲa (kria'turatə) tə frɐnə (kria'turatə) b’. hattsu (li hiɟɟi) mu 'ðɔrmɛnu (li hiɟɟi) I.make the children prt sleep the children ‘I make the children sleep’ c. dua (hɛ) a'i tə viɲɲa ndzitu c’. vɔɟɟu (ka) iʎu mu vɛnɛ prɛstu I.want that he prt comes soon ‘I want him to come soon’ d. ka tə ri cɛtu pə mɔs ɛ zɟɔɲa d’. aju mu stau tʃittu nɔ mu lu rizbiɟɟu I.have prt I.stay silent for not prt him I.wake.up ‘I must be silent not to wake him up’ e. ju harrɔva (pə) tə lɛjiɲ e’. mi skɔrdai (pɛ) mu lɛjia me I.forgot for prt I.read ‘I forgot to read’ f. ka tə daʎ pə t ɛ hir'rɛs f’. aju mu nɛʃʃu pɛ mu lu camu I.have Prt go.out for prt him I.call ‘I have to go out to call him’ Arbëresh/Romance, Vena di Maida For the purposes of the present discussion, we may concentrate on the sequence pɛ mu/pə tə observed in purpose clauses and infinitival relatives. Following chapter 10, the combination of a tə/mu sentence with the preposition pə/pɛ gives rise to a structure like (10). In (10), the preposition represents an independent relator head, taking the sentence as its complement. In turn, the particle is a D element allowing for the predicative, i.e. control, interpretation of the embedded sentence. The Romance and Albanian terminals are inserted under the same structure, highlighting their strict parallelism.

3 Convergence in sentential embedding 

(10)

PP P pə pɛ

 309

(cf. 9f-f’) CP

D tə mu

IP D ɛ lu

IP I hirrɛs camu

The fact that tə/mu is not in complementary distribution with sentential introducers, including prepositions, as in (10), and finite complementizers, as in (9c-c’) provides an obvious argument for treating it as a different category.1 As we saw in chapter 8, the literature on subjunctive constructs identifies the particle with a Mood head (Rivero 1994) or with a Modal complementizer in a split CP field (Roberts and Roussou 2003). In chapter 8, we argued that introducers of the type of tə in Albanian (or mu in South Calabrian varieties) are neither. Rather, they contribute to the embedded clause properties involved in control and raising interpretations. Briefly, in this analysis, tə and mu are λ-operators introducing a variable. The tə/mu variable may be identified with the matrix subject, therefore mediating the co-reference between the matrix subject and the inflection of the embedded verb (control/raising). Alternatively, the variable introduced by tə/mu may be identified locally by an overt subject in the right or left periphery of the sentence, as in (9b-b’). The lexicalization of an overt subject between tə/mu and the verb is predicted to be excluded, on the assumption that this is the position taken by the variable.

3.1 Convergence in the complementizer system In this section, we present a further convergence between the Romance and Arbëresh varieties of Vena which does not reflect the specific contact between Albanian and Romance. The existence of two finite complementizers, one of which coincides with a relative (and eventually interrogative) pronoun, has been discussed in chapter 9 for Aromanian and characterizes not only standard Albanian, but also Romance varieties not in contact with Balkan languages, for instance Abruzzese. 1 Note also the complementary distribution of the negation and tə (9d) despite the fact that the negation normally combines with pə or with the finite complementizer, for instance in (9c).

310 

 11 Notes on the contact between Italo-Albanian and Romance

Thus, the wh-pronoun/complementizer occurs in various environments shared by the Albanian and Romance varieties of Vena, including sentences embedded under temporal specifications (11b-b’) and the progressive structure in (11c-c’). The coincidence of the complementizer with the interrogative wh-phrase is seen in in (11e-e’). (11) a. θɔnə hɛ/sɛ 'viɲɲənə a’. 'ðitʃɛnu ka vinnɛ they.say that they.came/he.came ‘They say that they/he came’ b. dɔla ðɔpu tʃə ɛrðɛ ti b’. nɛʃʃivi ðɔpu ki vɛnisti tu I.went after that came you ‘I went out after you came in’ c. jan tʃə han c’. sunu ki 'mantʃanu they.are that they.eat ‘They are eating’ d. ai ɐʃt ɲɛriu tʃə mə hər'rɛt d’. ɛ kkiʎʎ ɔmu ki mi cama he is the man that me calls ‘He is the man who is calling me’ e. tʃə bbɐn e’. ki hai what you.do ‘What do you do?’ Arbëresh/Romance, Vena di Maida Ledgeway (2005) takes systems with two finite complementizer in Romance to overtly instantiate the Force-Fin positions available under the Split CP hypothesis of Rizzi (1997). On the contrary, in chapter 9 we argue in favour of the conclusion that finite complement sentences are a sort of free relatives, requiring a relative pronoun embedding – whence the possible lexical coincidence of the so-called complementizer with the wh-pronouns. This latter analysis can be applied to Albanian along the same lines detailed in chapter 9 for Aromanian.

4 Convergence in verbal structures In order to set the stage for a specific Arbëresh/Romance contact in section 4.1, we briefly review the convergence in auxiliation system, which again characterizes all Albanian varieties and many South-Italian varieties, as well as Ibero-Romance.

4 Convergence in verbal structures 

 311

As part of this larger picture, the Romance and Arbëresh varieties of Vena share a scheme of auxiliary selection which requires have with all verb classes, namely transitives in (12a) and inaccusatives in (12b-c); in these constructions the participle has the invariable masculine singular agreement. (12) a. ɛ kɛʃ ripɛttsa-r-ə a’. sta kamisa l avia ripɛttsa-t-u this shirt it I.had darn-ptcp-msg ‘(This shirt) I had darned it’ b. ju kiʒə sɛta-r-ə b’. m avia sɛtta-t-u mp they.had/I.had sit-ptcp-msg ‘I/They had sat down’ c. avianu vɛnu-t-u they.had come-ptcp-msg ‘They had come’ Arbëresh/Romance, Vena di Maida The be auxiliary occurs with agreeing participles in Romance (13b) and in Arbëresh (13a), where Arbëresh further displays a pre-participial Lkr. The case alignment is passive in both instances. Interestingly, despite the unambiguously adjectival morphology, the Arbëresh example in (13a) has an event reading (i.e. ‘the shirt is being washed/she is washing the shirt’). This undermines the standard identification of adjectival morphology with a property reading (Wasow 1977), i.e. so-called adjectival passive. (13) a. kjɔ kumiʃ ɐʃt/ki'ʎɛ ɛ ʎa-r-ə/ʎaʃtu-r-ə (ŋga ajɔ) this shirt is/was lkr wash-ptcp-fsg by her ‘This shirt is/was washed (by her)’ Arbëresh, Vena di Maida b. sta kamisa ɛ ripɛttsa-t-a this shirt is darn-ptcp-fsg ‘This shirt is darned’ Romance, Vena di Maida The parallelism in auxiliation and agreement patterns in (12)-(13) is again largely independent of specific contact. Romance varieties not in contact with any Balkan language present an active voice with have and no perfect participle agreement – in contrast with a passive voice with be and perfect participle agreement (Spanish, South-Italian varieties, cf. Manzini and Savoia 2005). More interesting is the fact that Arbëresh forms the middle-passive voice of the imperfective past in (12b’) with (j)u, comparable to the si clitic of Romance. The u clitic is present also in standard Albanian; nevertheless the latter is extended in Arbëresh at the expenses of another

312 

 11 Notes on the contact between Italo-Albanian and Romance

construction not independently available in Romance – namely the jam ‘I am’ auxiliary followed by a non-agreeing perfect participle. The auxiliary selection systems and the structure and agreement of participles in both Albanian and Romance are discussed by Manzini and Savoia (2007, 2011a), Manzini et al. (2016) and we will not enter into this complex matter here in any further detail.

4.1 Convergence in the morphology of the perfect participle and of the perfective past The preceding sections depict a backdrop of shared phenomena between Balkan languages and at least some Romance languages (not always the same), possibly because of larger areal contact (lack of infinitives) or more simply because of parallel developments in what are genetically related languages to begin with. Starting with this section, we consider more direct evidence of Arbëresh/Italo-Romance contact. The Arbëresh grammar of Vena has acquired a participial suffix -t from Romance, specialized for jam ‘I am’ contexts. This -t inflection appears on verbal bases of Romance origin, where it alternates with the Albanian inflection -r(ə), as can be seen from the comparison of sɛta-ta in (14a) with sɛta-rə in (12b). The -t participle displays the Albanian agreement inflection -a for the plural in (14a) and (14c), but on the other hand it lacks a Lkr. Participles in -t(ə) are independently documented in Albanian in some verbal classes (Demiraj 1985); however these forms, unlike -t participles considered here, select the preposed Lkr, as in (15). (14) a. jiʒə sɛta-t-a they.were sit-ptcp-pl ‘They were seated’ b. kjɔ kumiʃ aʃt/ki'ʎɛ ripɛtsa-t (ŋga ai) this shirt is/was darn ptcp by him ‘This shirt is/was darned (by him)’ c. kitɔ kumiʃ jan/ki'ʎɛn ripɛttsa-ta (ŋga ai) these shirts are/were darned by him ‘These shirts are/were darned (by him)’ (15) a. ki'ʎɛ i ʎag-t he.was Lkr soaked ‘He was soaked’ b. jan/ki'ʎɛn tə ʎag-ta (ɲga ai) they.are/they.were lkr soaked by him ‘They are/were soaked (by him)’

Vena di Maida

4 Convergence in verbal structures 

 313

The participial structure in (16) highlights the structural parallelism underlying the Albanian and Romance participle. This parallelism leads to the possibility of eventually mixing the -t Romance participle (Asp) inflection with an Albanian inflection like -a for the plural. In other words, in (16) the borrowed Romance morpheme -t selects a nominal agreement exponent -a belonging to the native Albanian grammar. What is worthy of note from the point of view of contact is that the borrowing processes can touch also the morphological structure of the word. (16)

Asp Asp V √ sɛt

Infl a-

cf. (12b), (14a) N a

Asp trə

Similar conclusions can be reached on the basis of independent evidence. Arbëresh verbs with thematic vowel -a, -ɛ, -i form the past (perfective) by the addition of the suffix -ʃt/-st in all persons, as in the left hand column in (17). This suffix corresponds to Romance -st/-ʃt, which is however found only in the 2nd person in the right hand column in (17). Arbëresh also shows the morphological alternant -v in the 1/2P singular and -u in the 3P singular, again present in the corresponding Romance paradigms in the 1P singular in (17b’) and in the 3P singular respectively. Both verbal bases with Romance etymology in (17a-b) and native Albanian bases, as in (17c) are characterized by these innovations. (17) a. ripɛttsa-st-a/ripɛttsa-v-a ripɛttsa-st-ɛ/ripɛttsa-v-ɛ ripɛttsa-st-i/ripɛttsa-u ripɛttsa-st-əmə ripɛttsa-st-ətə ripɛttsa-st-ərə ‘I darned’, etc. b. kriði-st-a/kriði-v-a kriði-st-ɛ/kriði-v-ɛ kriði-st-i/kriði-u kriði-st-əmə kriði-st-ətə

a’. ripɛttsa-i ripɛttsa-st-i ripɛttsa-u ripɛttsa-mɛ ripɛttsa-sti-vu ripɛttsa-ru b’. kriði-v-i kriði-st-i kriði-u kriði-mɛ kriði-sti-vu

314 

 11 Notes on the contact between Italo-Albanian and Romance

kriði-st-ərə ‘I believed’, etc. c. ʎa-st-a ʎa-st-ɛ ʎa-st-i/ʎa-u ʎa-st-əmə ʎa-st-ətə ʎa-st-ərə ‘I washed’, etc.

kriði-ru

Arbëresh/Romance, Vena di Maida

The internal structure of the forms in (17) brings to light once again an inflectional system being shared by Arbëresh and Romance, as illustrated in (18) with the 2P singular of kriði-‘believe’. As with the participles in (16), the point-by-point correspondence between the morphological structures of Albanian and Romance makes word-internal mixing possible. In (18) the lexical base and the –st perfective suffix are shared – except that the agreement inflection reveals the alternation between Albanian morphology (-ɛ) and Romance morphology (-i). Thus an Albanian native inflection can be attached to a borrowed lexical base and more to the point to a borrowed perfective suffix. (18)

Asp Asp Infl √ krið

Asp st

cf. (17b), (17b’) D ɛ i

Infl i

We return to structures like (16) and (18) in section 7, where we highlight their significance for models of code-mixing and borrowing.

5 Nominal structures: Albanian interacting with Romance We begin our review of the DP domain with (clitic) pronouns. 3P accusative clitics in Romance varieties of Calabria generally distinguish masculine singular, feminine singular and plural, as illustrated in (19) for the Calabrian variety of Iacurso.

5 Nominal structures: Albanian interacting with Romance 

(19) lu/la/li 'viðɛnu him/her/them they.see ‘They see him/her/them’

 315

Romance, Iacurso (Calabria)

By contrast, the Romance (Calabrian) variety of Vena reproduces the Albanian accusative clitic paradigm, which includes one form for the accusative singular, namely ɛ, contrasting with the accusative plural and dative i, as in (20a-d). Thus the Romance clitic paradigm of Vena has only two forms, la for the singular, both masculine and feminine, and li for plural, as in (20a’-c’). The Romance dative is lexicalized by (ɲ)tʃi, syncretic with the locative, as in (20d’). In predicative contexts, la allows agreement with adjectives both in the masculine (–u nominal class) and in the feminine (–a nominal class), as in (20b’). (20) a. ɛ ʎaʃta a’. la lavai him/her I.washed ‘I washed him/her’ b. ɛ mɔra mə i b’. la piɟɟai ccu it I.took more lkr ‘I took it shorter’ c. i mɔra mə tə c’. li piɟɟai ccu them I.took more lkr ‘I took them shorter’ d. j a ðɛ d’. ɲtʃi la dɛtsi to.him it I.gave ‘I gave it to him’

maθ/ ɛ mað-ɛ vaʃʃ-u/ vaʃʃ-a short-msg/ lkr short-fsg mbiðɛɲ vaʃʃ-i short-mpl

Arbëresh/Romance, Vena di Maida

The choice of -a as inflection for the gender-neutral accusative clitic in (20a’-b’) is worthy of note, given that the Romance -a inflection generally specializes for the feminine. This choice may relate to the properties of the Albanian accusative clitic ɛ. The latter occurs as feminine singular inflection in some nominal classes, e.g. dɛʎ-ɛ ‘sheep’ (see chapter 2), and represents the pre-adjectival Lkr for the feminine singular nominative, including copular contexts (Franco et al. 2015, see chapter 5). In clusters with the dative, furthermore, the a allomorph shows up for the accusative in Albanian in (20d), and this may influence the Romance alignment in turn. Unlike clitics, Vena’s Romance articles maintain the morphological distinction between la (feminine) and lu (masculine). We connect this to the fact that the article systems of

316 

 11 Notes on the contact between Italo-Albanian and Romance

the two varieties are not homogeneous, since Romance has a pre-nominal D, while Albanian has a post-nominal definiteness inflection in addition to prenominal Lkrs. The different treatment of articles is consistent with the conclusion that lexical alignment has taken place between the Albanian clitics and the Calabrian ones. In this instance, it is the relexifying, majority language (Romance) which aligns on the relexified, minority language (Albanian). Therefore, as the term convergence suggests, linguistic contact does not work unidirectionally.

5.1 Embedding in NP: nominal complements In Albanian varieties, the genitive complement of a noun is introduced by a Lkr agreeing with the head noun and followed by the genitive, as for instance in (22a) below (see Part II of this monograph). Arbëresh however admits of constructions shaped on Romance syntax, in which the complement is introduced by a preposition, which in some dialects can be ðə ‘of’, namely a Romance borrowing, as in (21). In other instances, the Albanian preposition ŋga ‘by’ is used, as in (22b). Having recourse to a preposition (either borrowed or native) suggests a strong degree of unification between the two lexicons and grammars (Arbëresh and Romance) leading to the projection of the same syntactic structures in the two languages. (21)

(22)

ɲə bukir ðə vitrə a glass of glass material ‘a glass made of glass’ a. tə biçətə the children ‘her children’ b. tə biçətə the children ‘her children’

Arbëresh, Ginestra

ɛ saçə lkr hers ŋga ajɔ by her

Arbëresh, Vena di Maida

5.2 Romance adjectival borrowings in Albanian Adjectival borrowings from Romance into Albanian are generally characterized by an inflection -u, invariable in many varieties  –  or possibly inflected in the plural, where an -a ending may be inserted, as optionally in Vena’s (23a). The -u formative is independently present in the inflectional system of Albanian, but it has a restricted distribution, after noun bases ending in velar obstruent.

5 Nominal structures: Albanian interacting with Romance 

(23)

singular a. aut-u vaʃ-u kruð-u b. grass-u magr-u mbunn-u

plural aut-u/aut-a ‘tall’ vaʃ-u/vaʃ-a ‘short’ kruð-u/kruð-a ‘raw’ ‘fat’ ‘thin’ ‘deep’

 317

Arbëresh, Vena di Maida

Arbëresh, Ginestra

Crucially, loaned adjectives lack the preposed Lkr selected by the native adjectives (see Part II of this monograph), as seen in the copular sentences in (24)–(25). (24) a. iʃt mbunn-u it.is deep ‘It is deep’ b. jan mbunn-u they.are deep ‘They are deep’ (25)

Arbëresh, Ginestra

a. ɐʃt kruð-u/aut-u it.is raw/tall ‘It is tall/raw’ b. jan kruð-u/kruð-a/aut-u/aut-a they.are raw/raw-pl/tall/tall-pl ‘The are raw/tall’

Arbëresh, Vena di Maida

In Romaine’s (1995) hierarchy in (8), adjectival borrowings are in an intermediate position between nouns and verbs. In our corpus, adjectival borrowings include individual-level predicates denoting spatial properties or dimensions, like magru/ autu ‘thin/tall’ as well as stage-level predicates like kundɛnd/kuntɛnt ‘happy’. If anything, the properties of these adjectives recall the distribution of verbal borrowings, in privileging spatial/dimensional properties or inherent, perceptible ones. In fact, we expect that other similar types of predicative elements may be borrowed, independently of the category they belong to. This may be true for the (spatial/dimensional) evaluative suffixes borrowed from Romance, like the diminutive -(ar)ɛʎ- combining with native Albanian bases and inflections in (26). (26) a. krax-u vaiz-a b. krah-u dɔr-a

krax-ariʎ-i vaiz-arɛʎ-a krah-arɛʎ-i dɔr-arɛʎ-a

‘arm/little arm’ ‘girl/little girl’ ‘arm/little arm’ ‘hand/little hand’

Arbëresh, Ginestra Arbëresh, Vena di Maida

318 

 11 Notes on the contact between Italo-Albanian and Romance

In chapter 3, we analysed Nouns as predicates with an open argument position, ultimately satisfied by D (Higginbotham 1985). We may think of evaluative suffixes as secondary predicates, introducing elementary properties concerning body size, affective components and so on (Savoia et al 2017a, 2017b), which further restrict the argument of the noun. Thus in structure (27) for (26a), the diminutive individuates a sub-set of dɔr- ‘hand’ referents, characterized as ‘little/small’. In the structure in (27), the Class inflection similarly introduces a set of specifications, concurring to individuate the referent by classifying it in terms of elementary properties such as gender (nominal class) and number (i.e. countability) (see chapter 3). As for the -a ending, it externalizes Infl. Case and definiteness (-a is descriptively a nominative definite) are obtained by D closure (see chapter 2). (27)

Infl Class Dim √ [aggr] dɔr-

cf. (26b) Infl -a

Class [fem] Dim [size] - areʎ

Crucially, evaluatives, in so far as they are morphological elements, escape the restriction that favours borrowing of complete lexical items (the Free Morpheme Constraint), confirming that this generalization is extremely superficial – as discussed more in detail in section 7. A characterization of evaluatives as (size) predicates comes much closer to predicting their availability for borrowing.

6 Phonology We conclude our review by addressing some phonological facts, beginning with the varieties of Vena. The vowel system of the Romance variety of Vena presents three height distinctions [i ɛ a ɔ u], as generally Calabrian varieties do. There is, however, an important difference with respect to other Calabrian varieties, namely that the Romance of Vena in (28a-a’) does not have metaphony. In this respect it parallels the Arbëresh variety in (28b).

6 Phonology 

(28)

 319

a. ['pɛðɛ] a’. ['pɛði] ‘foot/feet’ [mar'tɛʎʎu] [mar'tɛʎʎi] ‘hammer/hammers’ ['dɔrmu]/['dɔrmɛ] ['dɔrmi] ‘I sleep/he sleeps/you sleep’ ['rɔta] ['rɔti] ‘wheel/wheels’ Romance, Vena di Maida b. [mar'tɛʎ-i] ‘the hammer’ [lɛn'dzɔl-i] ‘the sheet’ Arbëresh, Vena di Maida

In order to understand the data in (28), we briefly consider metaphony (Savoia and Maiden 1997, Savoia 2015, 2016) in North and Central Calabrian varieties, including those neighbouring Vena. In these varieties, stressed [ɛ ɔ] are not licenced when followed by unstressed [i u]. Rather, the metaphonic diphthongs [iɐ, uɐ, uɔ] occur, as in (29b). By contrast, (29a) shows that stressed [ɛ ɔ] occur in the context of word-final [a ɛ]. (29)

a. [kur'tɛɽa] [lan'tsɔla] ['pɛðɛ] ['rɔta]

‘knives’ ‘sheets’ ‘foot’ ‘wheel’

b. [kur'tiɐɽu] [lan'tsuɐlu] ['piɐði] ['ruɐti]

‘knife’ ‘sheet’ ‘feet’ ‘wheels’ Romance, Iacurso (Calabria)

In government phonology terms, metaphony, for instance in (29), stems from the fact that the height feature of an unstressed vowel (here the final vowel) must be licensed by the same feature associated to the stressed nucleus, as stated in (30), see Savoia (2015). This constraint yields harmony (i.e. metaphony), as in structure (31) for [’piɐði] ‘feet’ in (29b). (30)

(31)

ATR metaphony [+high] and [+ATR] in the stressed nucleus license [+high, +ATR] in the following vowel. O

R N

p

i

ɐ

O

R N

ð

i

[+high] [+low]

[+high]

cf. (29b)

320 

 11 Notes on the contact between Italo-Albanian and Romance

We are now in a position to go back to the lack of metaphony in (28a’). This can now be seen as a contact phenomenon with Arbëresh, which of course lacks metaphony. Specifically, the Romance dialect of Vena lacks the constraint in (30), which characterizes other Calabrian dialects like Iacurso in (29). Therefore in the Romance dialect of Vena low-mid vowels [ɛ ɔ] occur also in contexts where they precede final [i u], as in (28a’) – paralleling the Arbëresh dialect in (28b).

6.1 Consonantal phenomena Turning to consonants, we observe that the consonantal inventory of the Romance variety of Vena lacks retroflexes which are normally present in Calabrian dialects. For instance, the words ‘knife/knives’ in the example set (28) for Iacurso, includes the ɽ retroflex. Instead in (32a) we find the palatal lateral [ʎʎ], which also characterizes Romance borrowings into Arbëresh, as in (32b). (32)

a. [kur'tɛʎʎu]/[kur'tɛʎʎi] ‘knife/knives’ ['iʎʎu] ‘he’ b. [mar'tɛʎ-i] ‘the hammer’

Romance, Vena di Maida Arbëresh, Vena di Maida

Furthermore, [h] corresponds to etymological *f in the Romance variety of Vena in (33a). This outcome surfaces in the Arbëresh variety in (33b) as well. Interestingly, [h] in place of original *f characterizes some bases of the native Albanian lexicon, as in (33c), suggesting that a phonological rule weakening *f has been incorporated into the grammar of Arbëresh. (33)

a. [had'dalɛ] ‘apron’ [hɔr'mikula] ‘ant’ ['humu] ‘I smoke’ ['buha] ‘toad’ ['himini] ‘women’ ['hɔku] ‘fire’ Romance, Vena di Maida b. [hada'lic-i] ‘the apron’ [hɔr'mikul-a] ‘the ant’ [hu'maɲa] ‘I smoke’ ['buh-a] ‘the toad’ Arbëresh, Vena di Maida) c. [i 'hɔrtə] (Albanian i fortë) ‘hard’ ['cah-a] (Albanian cafa) ‘the neck’ Arbëresh, Vena di Maida (native Albanian bases)

In short, Albanian consonantism, in the shape of the absence of retroflexes, may cause the alignment of Romance consonantism. Vice versa, Romance consonantism

6 Phonology 

 321

may trigger Arbëresh alignment, as in the case of f>h. As already commented for clitic morphology in section 5, convergence under contact is not unidirectional.

6.2 Diphthongization of the stressed nucleus in the Arbëresh of Ginestra Let us then turn to vocalic phenomena again. Stressed vowels in open syllables diphthongize in the Romance dialect of Ginestra in (35) as they do in neighbouring Lucanian dialects. The same diphthongization affects Ginestra’s Arbëresh variety in (34). The data in (34)–(35) compare stressed syllables occurring in penultimate position in (a-d), and in antipenultimate position in (e-f); the Arbëresh data show a subtly different diphthongization pattern, in that diphthongization takes place in antepenultimate position in (34e-f), contrary to the Romance pattern, for instance in (35e). (34)

(35)

a. t a beimi to.you it we.bring ‘We bring it to you’ b. əm a meua give it to.me ‘Give it to me!’ c. a/u ðəbɛura it/mp I.lost ‘I lost it/I got lost’ d. dɛirə hand e. dɛirə-nə hand-acc.def ‘the hand’ f. kriateurə-tə boy-pl.def ‘the boys’ a. sə deitʃə mp says ‘It is said’ b. nu məlɛunə a melon c. lu mɛuvə it I.move ‘I move it’

Arbëresh, Ginestra

322 

 11 Notes on the contact between Italo-Albanian and Romance

d. lu steutə it I.turn.off ‘I turn it off’ e. lu stutənə it they.turn.off ‘They turn it off’

Romance, Ginestra

In Romance Lucanian varieties, including Ginestra, diphthongization takes place when the stressed vowel is followed by only one moraic position ‘μ’, as (36), which provides the structure for ['deitʃə] ‘he says’ in (35a). In government phonology terms, the requirement is that the head of the nucleus must govern a second vocalic position, as in (36), or a coda in the rhyme (e.g. [’fɪʎʎə] ‘son’) or a second mora in the foot (e. g. [’dɪtʃənə] ‘they say’). (36)

O

N

O

N

x

x x

x

x

d

[e i]

tʃ

ə

cf. (35a)

μ Diphthongization in antepenultimate position in Arbëresh corresponds to structures of the type in (37), cf. ['dɛirənə] ‘the hand (acc.)’ in (34e). One difference between the Romance and the Arbëresh dialect of Ginestra is that in the latter, the diphthongization process is triggered before a coronal or a sonorant adjacent to the nucleus, as in (37). The reduced phonological content of coronals and sonorants seems to be involved in this restriction. (37)

Word │

cf. (34e)

Foot │ O │ x │ d

N │

O │

N │

O │

N │

x x x x │ │ │ │ [ɛ i ] r ə │ [coronal]

x │ n

x │ ə

7 Summing up: Models of bilingual competence 

 323

What is of interest here is also the fact that the vocalism of Vena and Ginestra provide symmetrical case studies in convergence. In the Ginestra variety, Arbëresh becomes aligned with Romance (diphthongization), as we just saw. In the Vena variety Romance becomes aligned to Arbëresh in displaying no metaphony, as we aw at the beginning of this section.

7 Summing up: Models of bilingual competence In the discussion that precedes we considered the lexicon (section 2), complementation (section 3), the structure of the VP (section 4), the structure of the DP (section 5) and phonology (section 6) in the Arbëresh and Romance varieties of Vena di Maida (Calabria) and of Ginestra (Lucania). We provided a critical discussion of functionalist ideas on lexical borrowing in section 2 (see also section 5). In this section we will briefly comment on formal approaches to (morpho)syntactic code-mixing. Poplack (1980), in classical work examining the code-switching between Spanish and English in a Portorican community in New York, concludes that code-mixing is structurally restricted by the constraints in (38). The Equivalence Constraint (38a) excludes examples like (39a), given the incompatible linearizations of English and Spanish in (39b-c). The Free Morpheme Constraint (38b) excludes (40), namely morphological code-mixing. (38)

a. The equivalence constraint. Codes-switches will tend to occur at points in discourse where juxtaposition of L1 and L2 elements does not violate a syntactic rule of either language, i.e. at points around which the surface structures of two languages map onto each other. b. The free morpheme constraint. Codes may be switched after any constituent in discourse provided that constituent is not a bound morpheme.

(39)

a. *told le/*le told b. le dije him I.told c. I told him

(40) *eat-iendo (39b) is taken up again by MacSwan (1999, 2010) in the context of an interesting attempt to model code-mixing within a competence-based minimalist

324 

 11 Notes on the contact between Italo-Albanian and Romance

framework. MacSwan (2005: 5) assumes that “Code-switching is formally the union of two (lexically-encoded) grammars, where the numeration may draw elements from the union of two (or more) lexicons”. He further assumes that “the PF component consists of rules/constraints which must be (partially) ordered/ ranked with each other, and these orders vary cross-linguistically” and that these “ordering relations are not preserved under union”. This means that “code-switching within a PF component is not possible”  –  effectively yielding the Free Morpheme Constraint. MacSwan is of course aware of the potential counterexamples to the Free Morpheme Constraint represented for instance by the Albanian-inflected Romance bases in (1)–(4) above. In his terms, hybrid forms of this type are simply loans of lexical bases. However in section 3 we saw that the intertwining between Arbëresh and Romance lexical material involves not just lexical bases but also inflectional devices, for example the inflection of the perfect participle -t or the perfective past -st- in (16), (18), which find themselves sandwiched between an Albanian base and an Albanian ending. There is no way round the counterexample these structures provide to the Free Morpheme Constraint. Furthermore, mixing includes aspects of phonology, for instance the [h] outcome for *f in the native Albanian lexicon of Vena in section 6 – or the shared vocalism and consonantism of Vena’s Romance lexical bases in the context of both Romance and Albanian inflectional and syntactic structures, as in (31)–(32). Throughout this monograph, we aim at capturing the relation between lexical elements and syntactic structures in a simpler theoretical framework than that assumed by McSwan, requiring a dedicated Morphological Structure (MS) component of the DM type. In our approach, syntax is projected directly from lexical items, including both lexical bases and inflectional material. As for variation, it results from the different partitions of the conceptual and grammatical space to be lexicalized, without any distinction between the substantive and functional lexicon. Within this general outlook, it is possible to entertain the hypothesis that in a bilingual grammar, such as those of Vena’s speakers, the lexical bases which are identical in the Romance and Arbëresh dialects, are registered once in the grammar of the speaker. The separation between the two lexicons concerns morpho-syntactic devices, differentiating the structures in (41)–(42) at the inflectional level. Thus [hɔr'mikul] ‘ant’ in (41) alternates between the Romance -i plural and the Albanian -a plural, cf. (2). [krið] ‘believe’ in (42) alternates between the 3P singular inflections -ɛ (Romance) and -in (Albanian), cf. (4).

7 Summing up: Models of bilingual competence 

(41)

Infl √ hɔrmikul

(42)

cf. (2) Infl i a

I √ krið

 325

cf. (4) Infl ɛ in

In conclusion, in conditions of systematic bilingualism (contact), change results from the fact that existing lexical resources are deployed towards new structural collocations. At the same time, adopting the present viewpoint on the unification of morphology and syntax, we pave the way for a unified conception of borrowing and code-mixing – which seems to be supported by the phenomena observed in this chapter. It is also significant that the reorganization deriving from language contact and mixing is not necessarily due to the transfer of one grammar to the other one, since the process is often bidirectional, and in some instances has no clear directionality at all.

12 Causatives, case, passivization and agreement in the variety of Ginestra (Arbëresh): Against VP-movement and monoclausality Causative sentences in Arbëresh present a peculiar mix of Albanian and Romance characters. As in other Albanian varieties, the causative predicate embeds a tensed sentence. As in Romance, the subject of the embedded verb may surface as a dative or as a by-phrase; in the more innovative varieties, long passivization is possible from the embedded object to the matrix subject. Here we concentrate on the variety of Ginestra, which presents all of the innovative characters just listed. In addition the causative predicate reduces to an invariable form and the matrix subject (the causer) as well as the embedded subject (cause) may agree with the embedded verb. This agreement is sensitive to the split between Participant argument and non-Participant arguments, favouring 3P over 1/2P. In section 1, we present the generalizations on Arbëresh causatives arrived at in Manzini and Savoia (2007) on the basis of Savoia (1989a, 1989b), illustrating the more innovative parametric choices with data from the variety of Ginestra. The reason for taking up the topic of Arbëresh causative constructions is in part its interest from the point of view of language contact. More importantly, however, the discussion of oblique subject in chapter 7 allows us to introduce a different analysis of the rearrangement of cases observed in Romance-type causatives. Specifically, oblique case assignment is argued to be assigned to the embedded subject independently of VP-movement or incorporation or other restructuring operation(s) (section 2). In section 3 we address the issue of long-distance passivization, i.e. from the embedded object to the matrix subject. Here again we conclude that no VP-movement (smuggling), incorporation or other restructuring operations are required for long (or short) distance passive. Removal of the embedded subject by obliquization (or arbitrarization) is sufficient. Finally, in section 4 we consider agreement. Specifically, we discuss reduced causative predicates invariant in either agreement or tense, in relation to monoclausal treatments of causatives proposed by Cinque (2006). We argue that monoclausality has no special edge in dealing with invariable causative predicates. Following Manzini et al. (2017) on progressive/andative constructions in Southern Italian dialects, we argue that invariable predicates are endowed with an expletive inflection (interpreted by expletive substitution at the CI interface). We tentatively impute the preference for 3P agreement of the embedded verb in Ginestra to the presence of the expletive inflection on the causative verb. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781501505140-012

1 Arbëresh causatives and the Ginestra data 

 327

1 Arbëresh causatives and the Ginestra data In the absence of non-finite embedding in Tosk Albanian (see Part III of the monograph), the causative predicate embeds a finite sentence and more precisely a subjunctive sentence. The latter may be introduced by the subjunctive Prt tə, or alternatively the Prt may be incorporated into an invariable form of the verb make, e.g. bəta/bita/bitə, formed by the lexical base bə ‘make’ and tə. Manzini and Savoia (2007) summarize the data concerning agreement in Arbëresh causatives by reference to the structural schema in (1). Agreement of the causative verb I1 is always with its own subject, i.e. the causer, while agreement of I1 with the causee is excluded, as in the first two columns of Table 1. Albanian varieties where the causative verb is an invariable form have been notated by 0. The major parameter then is whether the agreement of the lower verb I2 is with the causee or with the causer – corresponding to the last two columns of Table 1. The 0 value for Italian and English reflects the fact that the lower verb is a non-agreeing infinitival. (1) Causer I1-make [Causee I2-V … ] Table 1: Agreement of I1 and I2 with Causer and Causee arguments.

Standard (Gjirokastër) Firmo, Civita, S.Benedetto U. Vena di M., Piana degli A. Barile Ginestra Italian English

I1-Causer

I1-Causee

I2-Causer

I2-Causee

+ 0 + 0 0 + +

− 0 − 0 0 − −

− − − + + 0 0

+ + + − + 0 0

There is an implication between parameter values in Table 1, namely that in order for the agreement of I2 with the matrix subject (causer) to take place (Barile, Ginestra) an invariable causative I1 is necessary. In the Ginestra variety, agreement of I2 with the causer or the causee appears to be equally possible. In reality, as we will see, a Person split is involved, whereby 3P prevails over 1/2P independently of their roles, as causee or causer. A second major parameter concerns the case alignment of the embedded subject (the causee). In Table 2, following Kayne (1975), faire-par labels the constructions in which the causee is lexicalized by a by-phrase; faire-à labels the constructions in which the causee is in the accusative or dative according to the transitivity of the lower verb. With faire-Acc, we label the construction in which

328 

 12 Causatives, case, passivization and agreement in the variety of Ginestra

the causee is always in the accusative, i.e. effectively an instance of Exceptional Case Marking (ECM), as in English; standard Albanian has faire-Acc. On the other hand, several Arbëresh varieties are notable in that they adopt the full set of case realignments of Romance (faire-à, faire-par). This holds of languages like Vena, with a conservative agreement pattern, cf. Table 1, and of more innovative varieties like Barile. Conservative Arbëresh dialects like Firmo also have embedded nominative subjects; we notate this option as faire-Nom. Faire-Nom is indicated by Rrokaj and Turano (1998) as one of the available strategies in standard Albanian. Table 2: Case alignment of the Causee.

Gjirokastër Firmo Vena Barile Ginestra Italian English

faire-par

faire-à

faire-Acc

faire-Nom

− + + + + + −

− − + + + + −

+ − − − − − +

(+) + + − + − 0

The full data supporting the complex parametrization in Tables 1–2 are provided by Savoia (1989a, 1989b), Manzini and Savoia (2007). In what follows we reproduce the Ginestra examples which illustrate all of the Arbëresh innovations. As indicated in Table 1, the embedded verb I2 is inflected in Ginestra, while the matrix causative verb T1 is uninflected. I2 can agree either with its own subject, the causee, or with the causer, i.e. the matrix subject. In the Ginestra variety, this alternation depends on the denotation of the matrix and embedded subjects, and more specifically on their Person. In the examples in (2)–(3), the causer is a 1/2P. In all instances in which it is crossed with an embedded 3P causee it is the latter that determines the agreement of I2. To facilitate reading, the right hand column lists the person of the causer and of the causee; the argument that determines agreement is underlined. The esamples are broken into two sets corresponding to singular causers (2) and plural causers (3). (2) a. ɣu bitə t a zɟʎɛðətʃ I make you it you.read ‘I make you read it’ a’. ɣu bəta tə skruɲə ɲə lɛtərə I make you I.write a letter ‘I make you write a letter’

(1, 2)

(1, 2)

1 Arbëresh causatives and the Ginestra data 

b. ɣu bəta ikənə I make he.runs ‘I make him run’ c. ɣu bita və fʎɛjə I make you I.sleep ‘I make all of you sleep’ d. ɣu bita a θrasɲənə I make him they.call ‘I make them call him’ e. ti bita mə fʎɛitʃ you make me you.sleep ‘You make me sleep’ f. ti bəta nə fɔʎətʃə you make us you.speak ‘You make us speak’ g. ti bəta mbiɬən dɛir-ənə you make he.closes door-acc.def ‘You make the boy close the door’ h. ti bita tə ndihtən you make you they.helped ‘You made those people help you’ (3) a. nɛira bəta tə mbilətʃə we make you you.close ‘We make you close the door’ a’. nɛira bəta tə foʎmi we make you we.speak ‘We make you speak’ b. nɛira bəta fɔʎənə we make he.speak ‘We make him speak’ c. ju bəta mə ra: you make me I.broke ‘You made me break the glasses’ d. ju bəta nə fɔʎni you make us you.speak ‘You make us speak’

 329

(1, 3)

ɟiθ-va jur-va all-pl.obl you-pl.obl

(1, 5)

atɔ they

(1, 6)

mewa me

(2, 1)

(2, 4)

atɔ those

kriatʏr-i boy-msg.def

(2, 3)

tir-t other-pl.def

(2, 6)

dɛir-ənə door-acc.def

(4, 2)

(4, 2)

(4, 3)

bukir-t glasse-pl.def

(5, 1)

(5, 4)

The examples in (4)–(5) display instances of a 3P causer, singular in (4) and plural in (5). When the latter is crossed with an embedded Participant causee, I2 agrees

330 

 12 Causatives, case, passivization and agreement in the variety of Ginestra

with the causer. In other words, 3P always determines agreement, no matter how counterintuitive it may seem for the logical argument of make to determine agreement on the lower verb. (4) a. vɛt bəta mə/ tə fɔʎənə he make me/ you he.speaks ‘He makes me /you speak’ b. ai bita nə ŋgrihən tir-t he make us he.lifts others-pl.def ‘He makes those people lift us up’ c. vɛt bəta və dɔɟi buk-ən     jur-va he make you he.roasted bread-acc.def you-pl.obl ‘He made you roast the bread’ d. vɛt bita a ndihtən tir-tə krɛstəirə he make him they.helped other-pl.def people ‘He made those people help him’ d’. vɛt bəta zɟʎɛðənə (atɔ) he make he.reads (they) ‘He makes them read’ (5) a. atɔ bəta mə fɔʎɲənə they make me they.speak ‘They make me speak’ b. atɔ bəta t a dzəɲənə tejə they make you it they.know you.obl ‘They let you know it’ c. atɔ bəta ikɲənə (ai) they make they.run (he) ‘They make him run’ d. atɔ bita n a bən nɛira they make us it they.did us.obl ‘They made us do it’ e. atɔ bəta və mbiɬɲənə dɛir-ənə they make you they.close door-acc.def ‘They make you close the door’

(3, 1/2)

(3, 4)

(3, 5)

(3, 6)

(3, 6)

(6, 1)

(6, 2)

(6, 3)

(6, 4)

(6, 5)

In (6), we illustrate the faire-par pattern that has the embedded subject, be it a lexical DP or a full pronoun, expressed through an agentive phrase embedded under ŋga ‘by’. Again the agreement pattern governed by Person is observed, with the result that the verb may agree with the by-phrase.

1 Arbëresh causatives and the Ginestra data 

(6) a. ɣu bəta ʎajti pɛrk-ət ŋga ajɔ I make she.washed pant-pl.def by her ‘I made her wash the pants’ b. ti bəta mə ndihɲənə ŋga atɔ   gra: you make me they.help by those women ‘You make those women help me’ c. vɛt pəta zu latrunən ŋga nɛj he make he.caught the thief by us ‘He made us catch the thief’ d. ju bəta mirni paʎʎ-ənə ŋga mewa you make you.take ball-acc.def by me ‘You make me take the ball’ e. ju bəta a diɲɲən ŋga atɔ diʎmərə you make it they.know by those children ‘You let those children know it’

 331

(1, 3)

(2, 6)

(3, 4)

(5, 1)

(5, 6)

When the causee is a Participant it is lexicalized as an object clitic on the lower predicate – unless it is a by-phrase as in (6). According to Manzini and Savoia (2007), “a 3rd person causee does not show up as an accusative or dative clitic”. In reality, as illustrated in (7), 3P causees can surface as object clitics, specifically as the dative i (syncretic with the accusative in the plural), which can also be doubled by a dative full pronoun, as in (7a). What remains true is that the 3P accusative clitic a is not found after the causative verb bita/bəta as a lexicalization of the causee, but only as a lexicalization of the theme of the embedded verb, for instance in (6e). (7) a. ɣu bit i a hapɲən atir-va (1, 6) I make to.them it they.open them-pl.obl ‘I make them open it’ b. ju/ti bəta i dɔitən/dɔiti buk-ən (2/4, 3/6) you.pl/sg make to.them/him they.toast/he.toasts bread-acc.def ‘You made them/him toast the bread’ c. vɛt bəta i fɔʎɲənə (3, 6) he make them they.speak ‘He makes them speak’ In order to process the examples in (4)–(7) it is useful to keep in mind the basic organization of pronominal systems in Albanian varieties, as outlined in chapter 4. The case system of lexical DPs and 3P full pronouns distinguishes nominative, accusative and oblique. The case system of 1/2P pronouns, on

332 

 12 Causatives, case, passivization and agreement in the variety of Ginestra

the other hand, distinguishes a nominative from an objective case, where the latter encompasses both accusative and oblique. Thus 3P pronouns have differentiated oblique and accusative forms; 1/2P pronouns have the same form both as goals of the ditransitive verb in (8) and as themes of the transitive verb in (9). What is more, 1/2P syncretic forms are in fact obliques, cf. the -va ending on the 3P dative atir-va and on the 2P plural object jur-va. In chapter 4 we have interpreted these facts as showing that 1/2P pronouns are systematically subjected to DOM, surfacing as obliques even as objects of transitive verbs. (8) aji m a aji t a aji j a aji n a aji v a aji j a he me it ‘He gives it to me’

jɛp jɛp jɛp jɛp jɛp jɛp gives  etc.

mewa tejə atəitə nɛira jurva atirva me etc.

(9) mə pan mewa tə pan tejə a pan atə nə pan nɛi(ra) və pan jurva i pan atɔ me they.saw me etc. ‘They saw me’ Summing up, Ginestra faces us with two main issues so far. The first is accounting for the oblique alignment of the embedded subject. This is systematic in the 1/2P, since the latter occurs only as a clitic doubled oblique pronoun or as a by-phrase, but it is at least possible in the 3P. The second problem is accounting for the agreement of the embedded verb, to which both causers and causes have access. Manzini and Savoia (2007) also discuss the interaction of causatives with middle-passive (M-P) morphology, which can in principle be associated with I1 (causative verb) or with I2 (embedded verb), as we summarize in Table 3. The comparison with Italian and English involves the si clitic or the be passive in Italian, and the be passive in English. When the M-P morphology is instantiated on the causative verb I1, as in the first two columns in Table 3, passivization takes place

1 Arbëresh causatives and the Ginestra data 

 333

to the matrix subject position, in principle from the embedded subject or from the embedded object position; we notate the matrix subject as highS and the embedded subject and object as lowS and lowO respectively. When the M-P morphology is instantiated on I2, as in the last two columns in (10), the target of passivization is the lower object, while movement can take place to the embedded or to the matrix subject position. With M-P morphology associated with I1 (the only option available in Italian or English), long-distance passivization (lowO→highS) is possible in Italian. In Albanian varieties with M-P morphology on I2, long-distance passivization (lowO→highS) is attested in Barile and optionally in Ginestra. Table 3: Passivization patterns with M-P morphology on I1 and I2. M-P on I1

Gjirokastër Firmo Vena Barile Ginestra Italian English

M-P on I2

lowS→highS

lowO→highS

lowO→highS

lowO→lowS

+ 0 + 0 0 + +

− 0 − 0 0 + −

− − − + + 0 0

+ + + − + 0 0

As before, Table 3 is based on the data published in Savoia (1989a, 1989b), Manzini and Savoia (2007), which will not be reproduced here, except for those of Ginestra. In the examples in (10), the M-P embedded morphology implies reflexivization involving embedded subject and object; the addition of mewa vɛtəm ‘by myself’ in (10c) disambiguates this reading. Verb agreement follows the usual person governed pattern. (10) a. ɣu bita tə ʎahətʃ I make you you.wash.mp ‘I make you wash yourself’ b. ti bəta mə ʎahətʃə you make me you.wash.mp ‘You make me wash myself’ c. vɛt bita mə ʎahət mewa vɛtəm he make me he.washes mp me alone ‘He makes me wash up by myself’

(1, 2)

(2, 1)

(3, 1)

The examples in (11) show that the M-P morphology on the embedded verb also allows reflexivization to apply between the matrix subject and the embedded

334 

 12 Causatives, case, passivization and agreement in the variety of Ginestra

object (lowO→highS). The by-phrase does not seem to compete for agreement; indeed in (11a) agreement is with the 1/2P argument despite the presence of a 3P by-phrase. (11)

a. ti bita ʎahətʃ ŋga jat ʃɔc you make you.wash.mp by your wife ‘You have yourself washed by your wife’ b. vɛt bəta ndihət ŋga atɔ he make he.helps.mp by them ‘He has himself helped by them’

1.1 Language contact Before approaching the theoretical discussion, the data that precede may be usefully set in the context of language contact phenomena, as outlined in chapter 11. The causative constructions that we are examining can be seen as a specific instance of linguistic variation in conditions of contact and mixing, and as a testing ground for the analysis of linguistic change. Linguistic variation has always been at the core of linguistic research, starting with the initial formation of the conceptual and methodological devices of modern linguistics. Historical linguistics of the XIX century, dialectology, typological models and sociolinguistics have as their central concern the explanation of the varying and changing of languages – and ultimately this is a crucial issue for theoretical approaches as well. Assuming a Universal Grammar or a common Faculty of Language requires an adequate treatment of variation, as highlighted by the discussion on ways of capturing variation that has accompanied the debate within generative grammar in the last decades. Our understanding of variation is therefore shaped by two equally important factors, namely the theoretical model and the nature of the empirical data, specifically micro-variation data. As we mentioned in chapter 11, the set of Arbëresh languages considered in this chapter present the kind of variation that we expect in natural languages in the absence of the external constraints reflecting mechanisms of social and political control over language. The same general characters of variation observed in Italian dialects hold for minority languages like Arbëresh; recall that the latter are the Albanian varieties spoken in Italy by communities fled from Albania as a consequence of the Ottoman occupation. Like Italian dialects, Arbëresh varieties provide a rich and articulated picture of language variation, that at first sight differ from the slower and more hidden change of standardized languages. In addition, Arbëresh varieties have long been in contact with neighbouring

2 Case in the Arbëresh and Ginestra causatives 

 335

Romance varieties; this condition is reflected in the extended mixing phenomena which characterize their lexicon and their morphosyntactic organization (see chapter 11). In the internalist (i.e. biologically, individually grounded) perspective that we adopt, variation in situations of contact between two or more dialects (linguistic communities) is in fact not qualitatively different from variation within the same community, or even within the productions of a single speaker. According to Chomsky “There is a reason to believe that the computational component is invariant, virtually . . . language variation appears to reside in the lexicon”. (Chomsky 2000b: 120). The lexicon then is the locus of linguistic variation – in the presence of a uniform, that is, invariant, computational component, and of an invariant repertory of interface primitives, both phonological and conceptual. We take this to mean that there is a universal conceptual space to be lexicalized and variation results from different partitions of that space. So-called functional space is just like all other conceptual space and there is no fixed functional lexicon which varies along the axis of overt vs. covert realization (pace Kayne 2010). Categories of variation relevant for the discussion in this chapter include Person, case, agreement. Gumperz and Wilson (1971) note that contact favours the alignment of the morphosyntactic devices of a language on the contact language; in conditions of contact, the existing lexical resources of a language are seen to find a new structural collocation. Such an alignment seems to characterize causatives in Arbëresh varieties. Indeed faire-à causatives in Arbëresh involve the obliquization of a transitive subject, as in contact Romance varieties; the alignment on Romance involves the redeployment of Arbëresh oblique forms to cover this new context. However, alignment cooccurs with outcomes absent from both input languages, which evidently correspond to readjustments within UG. For instance, we observe that the Ginestra variety, though conforming to Romance causatives in selecting agreement with the causer, introduces a split between 1/2P and 3P, diverging in this from Romance, cf. Table 1.

2 Case in the Arbëresh and Ginestra causatives Several extant treatments of Arbëresh causative constructions adopt the framework of Baker (1988). Within this framework, Brandi and Savoia (1990) take into account the full extent of the data presented by Savoia (1989a, 1989b) and summarized in Tables 1–3. Guasti (1993) restricts herself to a subset of these data, while Turano (1994) considers the data of her native dialect of S. Nicola dell’Alto. By contrast, Rrokaj and Turano (1998) account for standard Albanian without

336 

 12 Causatives, case, passivization and agreement in the variety of Ginestra

having recourse to incorporation, explicitly arguing against a solution based on Baker’s (1988) theory for the specific variety they consider. A problematic aspect of the Baker (1988) framework that warrants a mention here, is that in effect it leaves us without an account for the fair-par constructions, in the sense of Kayne (1975), where an embedded active verb is coupled with an external argument expressed through a by-phrase (Baker 1988: 487, fn. 38). We believe that this issue points to a more general lack of understanding as to the nature of the obliquization of the embedded subject. Consider the common way of describing what goes on in, say, (7a) ‘I make them open it’, reproduced in (12) below. This implies that a complex predicate, e.g. make-open conflating the causer, causees and theme roles aligns them in the common way of trivalent predicates i.e. nominative-accusative-dative. Unfortunately, trivalent predicates consistently interpret the dative as a goal, cf. chapter 4. By contrast, goal interpretation does not characterize the causee. The treatment of the dative causee as an oblique complement of the complex predicate is even more problematic in Arbëresh – where it overtly agrees with the embedded predicate at least in Vena and in Ginestra, as in (12). The agreement of the finite predicate with the oblique shows that agreement with a finite verb is not sufficient to trigger nominative. More importantly for present purposes, agreement with the verb conflicts with the demotion of the causee to complement status, and favours a subject-like position for the oblique. (12) ɣu bit i a hapɲən atir-va I make to.them it they.open them-pl.obl ‘I make them open it’

= (7a)

Suppose that causative constructions correspond to bi-clausal structures where no incorporation takes place, nor the VP-movement that feeds it in the framework of Baker (1988). In other words, the two verbs are lexicalized in the T position of their respective sentences. If the causee turns up in the nominative this is what is expected in a tensed sentence, so that we can set the faire-Nom pattern in Table 2 aside without further discussion, e.g. in varieties like Firmo. More interestingly, one of the options open to standard Albanian (Gjirokastër) is to introduce the causee in the accusative. According to Iatridou’s (1993) analysis of Greek this is comparable to the English ECM pattern, since she argues that the embedded verb, despite bearing a finite inflection, is not temporally independent from the matrix verb. The absence of independent T licences the assignment of accusative from the matrix causative verb, due to the presence of a defective C phase and to the inapplicability of the Phase Impenetrability Condition. Manzini and Savoia (2007) argue against the tenselessness

2 Case in the Arbëresh and Ginestra causatives 

 337

of the embedded sentence, based on the fact that overtly tensed (past) verbs are possible in Arbëresh. In any event, faire-Acc in Table 2 seems truly to be an instance of ECM, i.e. of licencing of the accusative case on the embedded subject by the matrix causative verb, made possible by the defectivity of the intervening C phase. Whether lack of tense is involved or simply sequence-of-tenses is a matter that we can leave aside here. Let us then consider the obliquization of the embedded external argument, which is externalized as a dative or as a by-phrase in several Arbëresh varieties, including Ginestra. Manzini and Savoia (2007) comment that “dativization of the causee in turn is difficult to conceptualize in terms of the traditional category of dative”. This is not necessarily true in the light of the discussion of obliques in previous chapters of this monograph. Specifically, recall from chapter 7 that in Indo-Aryan languages, oblique is assigned to external argument; internal arguments are introduced VP-internally and show up in the direct case/absolute form. In the approach of chapter 7, an oblique subject is a possessor/locator – establishing an inclusion/location relation between the DP to which it attaches and the predicate. Our idea then is that the oblique case associated with the external argument of transitive or unergative predicates embedded under causative verbs reflects simply a process of obliquization of subjects (see also Bellucci 2017). Therefore, we go further than previous literature in our modularized approach to causatives, treating case realignment as a phenomenon independent of causativization. In so doing, we are pursuing a line of inquiry distinctively associated with generative grammar (Chomsky 1981), which does not recognize any reality to the constructions of traditional grammar, here causatives. In this modular approach to causativization, the faire-à and faire-par patterns are further understood as the alternation between two different obliques while the predicate displays active voice throughout. This fact has been the source of difficulty for less modular (partially construction-led) analyses (see the discussion of Baker (1988) above). Let us begin by considering the example sentence reproduced in (12) above and in (13) below for ease of reference. These are very similar to one another and essentially only differ by the oblique that introduces the external argument, which is a dative in (12) and a by-phrase in (13). (13) ju bəta a diɲɲən ŋga atɔ diʎmərə you make it they.know by those children ‘You let those children know it’

=(6e)

Structure (14) encompasses both examples in (12) and (13). In (14), the event is located at/included by the oblique external argument; as throughout this

338 

 12 Causatives, case, passivization and agreement in the variety of Ginestra

monograph, the relevant inclusion relation is notated ⊆. We provisionally assume that the same is true of the by-phrase, to which we return in section 3. Other aspects of the structure in (14) are routine. Specifically, the internal argument attached as the complement of the embedded V surfaces as the accusative clitic a. (14)

IP DP ɣu ju

cf. (12)(13) I’

I bit bəta

....

⊆ i

IP IP D a a

I’ I hapɲən diɲɲən

VP v’

⊆P atir-va ŋga atɔ diʎmərə

What we must explain is why the IP in (14), with the oblique alignment of the external arguments, could not be embedded under anything other than the causative verb. From the discussion of control in chapter 8 we know that subjunctive sentences in languages like Albanian allow a predication construal. In other words the tə Prt (eventually incorporated into the matrix predicate bit) acts as a λ-operator over the embedded sentential material, turning it into a predicate. This is possible to the extent that there is no nominative argument binding the variable and closing the predication. From this perspective, the property that distinguishes the causative verb in Ginestra is selection for an embedded predicate, as opposed to an embedded proposition. Full Interpretation at the interface will presumably close the variable via existential closure and identification with the oblique external argument. One may further inquire why, of all verbs, it is the causative one which selects this particular embedding. It is tempting to speculate that, since the matrix verb has a pure CAUSE content, it selects a result. There is no reason why the latter could not be introduced by a proposition – at the same time we know that results embedded under the causative v head are VP predicates.

2 Case in the Arbëresh and Ginestra causatives 

 339

Thus our conjecture is that the selection properties of the causative verb are connected with the ability for CAUSE to be the content of a v node. The case array realignment is simply a consequence of this selection property and does not require any further movement/incorporation operation, as already indicated in (14). We return to the fact that the embedded oblique agrees with the finite verb in section 4. To complete the empirical pictures, what holds of the structure in (14), where the causee is 3P, holds of structures where the causee is 1/2P. We reproduce an example very similar to (12) in (15a) with the structure in (15b). (15) a. ɣu bitə t a zɟʎɛðətʃ I make you it you.read ‘I make you read it’ b.

= (2a)

IP DP ɣu

I’ I bitə

....

⊆ t

IP IP D a

I’ I zɟʎɛðətʃ

vP

In short, we have treated the syntax of causatives in Arbëresh, and specifically in innovative dialects like Ginestra, as bi-clausal, and we have excluded that operations of VP-movement or V incorporation or complex predicate formation are involved. The subjunctive embedded sentence may be construed as a proposition closed by a nominative/accusative subject (standard Albanian, conservative Arbëresh varieties) or as a predicate. Under the latter option, the embedded external argument is introduced as an oblique adjunct. In a language like Italian infinitives are used for predicative embeddings in causatives as in obligatory control environments. In contact with Italian, innovative Arbëresh varieties ply subjunctive structures to the same end.

340 

 12 Causatives, case, passivization and agreement in the variety of Ginestra

3 Middle-Passive in Arbëresh and Ginestra causatives The interaction of middle-passive voice with causativization, briefly illustrated by the Ginestra data in (10)–(11) poses several problems. Some have to do with the middle-passive voice itself and with what Manzini, Roussou and Savoia (2016) call the many-to-many mapping problem. On the one hand, M-P voice has several exponents, which include a specialized inflection as in (10)–(11), but also other morphological devices such as an u clitic (comparable to Romance si) and the auxiliary jam ‘I am’. On the other hand, independently of the chosen morphological exponent, M-P voice yields a number of interpretations that include passive, reflexive, anticausative, impersonal. The need to unravel this complex pattern means that Manzini and Savoia (2007) do not devote much specific discussion to the single issue that ever since Baker (1988) has been at the forefront of treatments of causativization, namely the possibility (or impossibility) of long-distance passivization of the embedded object to the matrix subject position. In this chapter, we adopt the conclusions on Albanian and Greek M-P voice, as well as on Romance si, put forth by Manzini et al (2016). Their focus is showing that specific morphological devices (inflections, clitics, auxiliaries) can project the structures yielding the relevant set of interpretations. In their analysis, the interpretive essence of middle-passive voice is the removal of one of the core arguments of a predicate, specifically the external argument, via suppression (anticausative), via identification with another core argument (reflexive), via arbitrarization or via obliquization (passive). This is compatible with recent approaches (see Legate 2014 for generalized Voice facts). Perhaps more controversially, Manzini et al (2016) argue that their approach also applies to impersonal contexts. Here we assume their results without further discussion, especially as they apply to specialized M-P inflections of the type seen in examples (10)–(11). Against this background, we focus on the fact that in sentences like (11) reflexivization, passivization etc. link the embedded object to the matrix subject. This type of long-distance relation or operation takes place across the embedded subject, which ought to block it by Minimality. Thus long-distance passivization in causatives may be seen as an argument in favour of incorporation or at least of VP-movement. For, if the embedded VP moves past the causee, the latter no longer intervenes on the movement path of the embedded object to the subject position of the causative verb paving. Here we reject this argument, as Manzini and Savoia (2007) implicitly do. Vice versa, Collins (2005) concludes that VP-movement is necessary to insure even clause-bound (short-distance) passivization. In section 3.1 we address the more basic claim of Collins and then we briefly come back to causativization in section 3.2.

3 Middle-Passive in Arbëresh and Ginestra causatives 

 341

3.1 Against smuggling The classical Government-Binding analysis of passive assumes that the -en passive morphology absorbs accusative case and external theta-role (a non-obvious cluster of properties), yielding movement of the internal argument to Spec, IP position as a result. How the external theta-role (agent/causer) comes to be associated with the by-phrase is solved by Baker, Johnson and Roberts (1989) by saying that -en behaves as a clitic, the by-phrase being its doubling DP/PP. Collins (2005) argues that this is really too complex. No special capability of taking the accusative case and the external theta-role is associated with the -en/-ed participial morphology – which is in fact identical for passives and perfects. Rather, a passive vP has exactly the same shape as an active vP at first Merge. However, there must be a reason why the internal argument and not the external argument moves to the Spec, IP position. For Collins the reason is that VP moves to Spec, VoiceP; this positioning of VP removes the intervention of the external argument in Spec, vP from the movement path of the internal argument – i.e. it smuggles the internal argument in the position from where it moves. Part of this analysis is that there is no by-phrase. By is the head of VoiceP, which as such is immediately followed by the external argument in Spec, vP. There are two types of problem with the smuggling proposal. The first problem is that Collins assumes what we may call Kayne-type movement (Kayne 1994), not necessarily endowed with any relevance at the Conceptual-Intentional (C-I) interface. Chomskyan movement is never semantically empty. This problem is addressed by Gehrke and Grillo (2009) who suggest that VP movement to Spec, VoiceP is necessary for VP to become associated with the event time. The latter is hosted in an Asp projection immediately above Voice. As for the reason why this movement takes place only in passives, Gehrke and Grillo mention Focus, but this seems an inappropriate notion to invoke, since there is no sense in which the participial structure is focused in passives. In short, Collins doesn’t consider what motivates VP movement and Gehrke and Grillo, while addressing this issue, give at best a partial answer (i.e. the movement is Asp-related). More importantly, there is no obvious independent evidence that we can think of, either interpretive or syntactic, that VP moves in passives. The main evidence consists of the very fact that VP-movement is supposed to explain, namely the possibility of moving the internal argument to EPP position. There is a second problem with the smuggling analysis, concerning the sequence by – external argument. For reasons of restrictiveness, we side with Chomsky’s (1995) requirement that heads must bear interpretable content. This bars saying that by is a “dummy preposition” (i.e. one consisting entirely of uninterpretable features) selecting for vP. Furthermore, there is plenty of evidence that

342 

 12 Causatives, case, passivization and agreement in the variety of Ginestra

by-DP is a constituent; therefore some Kaynian type of movement is necessary to reconstitute it from the merely adjacent by-DP sequence in Collins’s analysis (presumably moving DP to the Spec of by and then adjoining by to DP). We consider a grammar of this type to be unnecessarily rich. Bruening (2012) makes the point that the by-phrase is hosted by the same projection as any other external argument (a Kratzerian VoiceP), but also takes the view that it is a constituent. In his proposal, the Pass projection responsible for passive is syntactically compatible with the oblique, while it is not compatible with a non-oblique external argument. Unfortunately, this introduces a rather undesirable disjunction between syntactic selection, which distinguishes oblique and non-oblique external arguments, and semantic selection, under which they are alike. We also dismiss a couple of concerns that loom large in Collins (2005) precisely because his general outlook is consonant with Kayne (1994). First, Chomsky’s (1995) Inclusiveness forbids notations such as projection bars, so that the X-bar theoretic difference between a Spec, XP and an adjunction to XP is not obviously statable. Therefore, saying that an agent/causer merges with a given projection as a Spec or as an adjunct are not clearly distinguishable statements. Second, we follow Chomsky (2013) in assuming that dominance is the only order relevant for core syntax, while rightward or leftward orientation of headcomplement pairs is a matter for the SM interface. Since all complements of the v-V head sequence are ordered to its right, an oblique causer/agent will also be ordered to the right. In Part I-II of this monograph, we laid out an analysis of the syntax and interpretation of genitive of, dative to based on the assumption that these elements are endowed with interpretive properties interacting with the internal organization of the predicate/event. This is further extended to instrumental with by Franco and Manzini (2017) (see chapter 10). Against this background, the crucial question is what the content of English by is and how it interacts with the event structure to yield agent/causer interpretations. We take our bearings from Manzini, Franco and Savoia (to appear) who address the motion-to meaning of Italian a ‘to’ and the motion-from meaning of Italian da ‘from/by’, which also introduces the agent of passives, as in (16). (16) a. Vado a scuola I.go to school ‘I go to school’ b. Esco  da scuola I.get.out from school ‘I get out from school’

3 Middle-Passive in Arbëresh and Ginestra causatives 

c. Fu ucciso da Gianni he.was killed by John ‘He was killed by John’

 343

Italian

Manzini et al assume that location can be conceived as inclusion in location and is therefore captured by a locative restriction on ⊆, namely ⊆(Loc) (see Part I of this monograph). They go on to propose that in telic events, a ‘to’ expresses location at the telos of the event, i.e. at the result clause implied by it, as in ‘I go to school’ in (17a). By contrast, da ‘from’ implies location outside the telos of the event, hence at its causal component, as in ‘I get out from school’ in (17b). Once the locative restriction is factored away, the structure in (17a) is consistent with what we know of dative ‘to’. (17)

a. CAUSE [VP go I [⊆(Loc) to school]] b. [vP CAUSE [VP get out I]  [⊆(Loc) from school]]

Therefore we expct that once the locative restriction is removed (17b) is consistent with the fact that Italian da introduces causers and agents, as in (16c). In other words, suppose that the structure for Italian (16c) is as in (18). The da-phrase attaches to the vP projection providing a lexicalization for the argument which owns/locates the causation event. Thus (18) can be paraphrased as ‘there is a caused event of him being killed and John is the owner/locator (author) of this causation’. (18) [vP CAUSE [VP killed he] [⊆ by John]]

In short, da/by is a Preposition with the basic relator content of other oblique prepositions/cases. For the sake of falsifiability, we associated this content with the notion of possession/inclusion/part-whole. This elementary content works in combination with a structured predicate, where by-phrases are adjoined to vP. In this position, what the by-phrase does is insert the external argument causer/agent as a possessor/ locator of the causation event. Next, we must account for the fact that the structure in (18) is only available with perfect/passive participles (further embedded under a copula). In other words, one can’t say *There killed him/he by John. The answer is to be sought in the range of ideas, relating to the reduced structure of perfect participles, and to the emergence of ergative alignment in perfectivity splits. Following chapter 7, perfect participles lack the Asp/Event/Voice layer which supports the attachment of a DP external argument. Following chapter 10, if this reduced structure is embedded under the be auxiliary nothing happens to alter it; the external argument surfaces as an oblique. In the long passive (19a), the external

344 

 12 Causatives, case, passivization and agreement in the variety of Ginestra

argument is introduced as an oblique. Short passive is also possible. In this instance, an external argument slot made available by the predicate remains unsaturated; this is read as an open variable at the C-I interface and is interpreted by existential closure, as in (19b). Parallel structures are provided for Geg Albanian in chapter 10. (19) a. … was [[VP killed he] [⊆ by John]]     b. … was [VP ∃x, x [VP killed he]]

By hypothesis, perfect active sentences have the same participial structure as in (19), lacking an Asp/Event/Voice layer capable of hosting an external argument. However, the auxiliary have introduces nominative alignment, as in (20). Kayne’s (2000) suggestion is that have results from the incorporation into be of an oblique preposition, leading to possessor raising out of the participial clause. Thus has in (20) would be the pronunciation of is+P in (19a), yielding the nominative alignment. An alternative version of the same general idea, avoiding the idea that have is lexically complex, is that have is itself ⊆, as indicated by Belvin and den Dikken (1997) and is able to identify with the ⊆ content of the preposition. Once again, a parallel structure for Geg Albanian is provided in chapter 10. (20) John has [[⊆P ⊆ John ] [VP killed him]]

Summarizing so far, there is no specialized passive participle, since the passive participle is in fact the perfect participle, adopting the insight of Collins (2005) in this respect. The basis for passive is aspectual, as correctly perceived by Gehrke and Grillo (2009). However, aspect does not determine VP-movement, but rather it triggers the oblique or existential treatment of the external argument without need for intermediate operations. The by element is a bona fide preposition, with a relational content and this content interacts with event structure to express agent/causer interpretation in the same way as happens for any of the other obliques considered in this monograph. It remains for us to address one last issue, namely whether VP-movement is necessary, despite what we have seen so far, in order for promotion of the internal argument to the EPP position to comply with Minimality. In order for this question to have a positive answer we would have to show that the oblique by-phrase in (19a) or the variable in (19b) count as interveners. This seems excluded for the variable which is existentially closed at the C-I interface. Hence, what the syntax sees is a free variable, which we assume does not create an intervention effect, lacking φ- and other referential features. As for the oblique, in present terms, the preposition/oblique case creates a structural layer embedding the DP, so that DP embedded under ⊆ does not

3 Middle-Passive in Arbëresh and Ginestra causatives 

 345

c-command the direct object DP and the definition of intervention fails. This means that in (21) the by-phrase, i.e. the only other argument present, is not in a position to block the movement of the internal argument. (21) He was [[VP killed he] [⊆P by John]]

In short, the crucial step in Collins’s (2005) argument whereby external arguments, by-phrases and agent implicit arguments (variables) are equated from a structural point of view cannot be taken for granted. It is possible that Collins takes it for granted because of some version of what Culicover and Jackendoff (2005) call Interface Uniformity, namely that to the same meaning must necessarily correspond the same syntax. However, Interface Uniformity introduces a rigidity between syntax and interpretation that is not be warranted by the facts. We conclude that VP-movement is not necessary to circumvent Minimality. It also enriches grammar, to the extent that core instances of movement have interpretive motivation and interpretive import which VP-movement is lacking. What is more, it can be argued to stand in the way of a proper understanding of the nature of oblique subjects/by-phrases. For all of these reasons we exclude a VP-movement derivation of passives. In section 3.2 we return to the VP-movement derivation for causatives.

3.2 Intermediate conclusions: Passive causatives The discussion of the VP-movement analysis of passives in section 3.1 was prompted by VP-movement analyses of causatives, dating back at least to Rouveret and Vergnaud (1980) but especially associated in the literature with incorporation in the sense of Baker (1988). This classical line of analysis for causatives is based on two main sets of facts. The first relevant set of facts is the apparent realignment of causative structures on the case pattern of ditransitive predicates – of which we may take the rearrangement in word order to a correlate. This evidence has been dealt with in section 2, where we have proposed that the dativization/obliquization of the embedded external argument is to be related to independent phenomena of dative/oblique realization of external arguments, for instance in ergativity splits. The second potential argument in favour of a VP-movement (incorporation) derivation comes from those causatives that allow long passivization (lowO→highS in Table 3). The argument is that VP-movement is necessary to smuggle lowO high enough to move to highS without lowS playing the role of Minimality intervener. Consider however Ginestra’s example (22a). By the discussion in section 4.1, the embedded agent is a by phrase oblique which is not an intervener

346 

 12 Causatives, case, passivization and agreement in the variety of Ginestra

on the movement path from the embedded internal argument position to the matrix subject position, IP, as schematized in (22b). (22) a. ti bita ʎahətʃ ŋga jat ʃɔc you make you.wash.mp by your wife ‘You were made to wash by your wife’ b. [IP ti bita [IP ʎahətʃ [[VP ʎahətʃ ti] ŋga jat ʃɔc]]] ↑_____________________________|

=(11a)

One may further wonder why long passivization is allowed only in a subset of languages which have some form of obliquization of the embedded external argument. In minimalist terms, the answer is in principle the same as for any raising across sentence boundaries. Such raising requires the absence of an intervening CP phase (or the presence of a defective CP phase) – which we implied in (22b) by indicating the embedded sentence as an IP constituent. The presence of a CP blocks long-distance passivization in other varieties. In conclusion, neither case alignment (section 2) nor long passivization/reflexivization (this section) require VP-movement or a fortiori incorporation in the sense of Baker (1988). In rejecting the VP-movement derivation, we followed based generated approaches to causatives proposed by Manzini (1983b), Manzini and Savoia (2007). Several recent developments facilitate the formalization of ideas along these lines. Manzini et al. (2016) analyze middle-passive voice as arbitrarization/obliquization of the external/highest argument (cf. Legate 2014) – while in this monograph oblique case and adpositions are given a principled content, compatible with the expression of external arguments in ergative(-like) alignments. More generally, Chomsky (2001) argues that non-interpreted movement is not syntactic, but merely a matter of externalization – as are word order phenomena in general according to Chomsky (2013). In this perspective, the lack of independent interpretive motivation for VP-movement, and a fortiori incorporation, disfavor derivations à la Baker (1988).

4 Agreement and the person split in the Ginestra variety In sections 2–3 we have considered case realignment and long passivization that characterize causativization in various Arbëresh varieties. The reason why we have chosen Ginestra as our example language depends on the fact that it displays the extra complexity of agreement based on person prominence. In order to be able to address the question of the agreement Person split in Ginestra, we will first address the agreement patterns commonly displayed by Arbëresh varieties and summarized in Table 1 in section 1.

4 Agreement and the person split in the Ginestra variety 

 347

4.1 Agreement patterns in Arbëresh causatives: Agreement with oblique subjects The agreement pattern associated with standard Albanian as well as with Arbëresh varieties like Vena or Piana in Table 1, has both the causative and the embedded verb inflected and each agreeing with its own subject. There are two subtypes of this. In standard Albanian, there is no oblique case realignment so agreement is with a direct case, whether nominative or accusative. Specifically, in example (23a) from standard Albanian, the matrix causative verbs agrees with its pro (nominative) subject; the embedded verb agrees with the embedded subject (accusative under ECM). This is just standard agreement (Chomsky 2000a, 2001) taking place between the I head and the closest argument in the vP/VP. The latter is then eventually raised to Spec, IP (EPP) position or to Spec, CP (Topic) position, as in (23b). (23) a. ɛ bəɲ cɛn-in tə piɲ cumʃt-in it I.make dog-acc.def prt drink milk-acc.def ‘I make the dog drink the milk’ b. [IP pro bəɲ [vP [CP cɛnin [CP tə [IP piɲ [vP cɛnin … ↑_______|     ↑________|

Albanian, Gjirokastër

A variant of the schema in (23) is offered by Arbëresh dialects that present realignment of the embedded external argument in the oblique, either dative or by-phrase, for instance (24a-b).1 For all we know the schema for the application of Agree is identical to the one already in (23). In (24c) we reproduce only the embedded sentence. (24) a. u bɐɾa tə piçə krumiʃt-inə 'buʃtr-itə I made prt he.drunk milk-acc.def dog-obl.def ‘I made the dog drink the milk’ b. u bɐɾa tə piçə krumiʃt-inə ŋga buʃtr-i I made prt he.drunk milk-acc.def by dog-nom.def ‘I made the dog drink the milk’ Arbëresh, Vena di Maida c. …. [IP tə piçə [vP [VP piçə krumiʃtinə] buʃtritə/ŋga buʃtri]]]       ↑_________________________|

1 The pattern of agreement with dative is not robust in the corpus of Manzini and Savoia (2007), leading an anonymous reviewer to question example (24a). However, the pattern of agreement with the by-phrase is quite robust.

348 

 12 Causatives, case, passivization and agreement in the variety of Ginestra

From the perspective of the Romance contact languages, or of the Germanic languages, (24c) has a potentially troublesome property, namely that the oblique external argument is in the search domain of the finite inflection and ends up agreeing with it. Indeed in Romance or Germanic there are no agreeing obliques (even in instances where the latter have subject-like properties, such as the Icelandic so-called quirky subjects). However, crosslinguistically, there is considerable variation concerning accessibility of oblique arguments to agreement. This has been labelled by Anand and Nevins (2006) as the Visibility of Inherent-Case to Verbal Agreement (VIVA) Parameter. Recall from chapter 7 that Indo-Aryan languages present agreement of the perfect participle with the internal argument, for instance in Punjabi (25a), where the internal argument is absolutive and the external argument ergative. Furthermore, they are characterized by DOM, generally opposing animates to inanimates, realized by means of a postposition, which in Punjabi is -nu, as in (25b). What is relevant here is that the DOM object in (25b) does not agree with the perfect participle. Therefore in Punjabi DOM obliques are inaccessible to agreement. Nor are ergative arguments accessible to it, since in (25) the participle shows up in the (default) masculine singular, no matter which arguments are involved. (25) a. o-ne roʈʈ-i s/he-erg bread-fsg ‘S/he ate the/some bread’ b. o-ne mi-nnu/ti-nnu s/he-erg me-obl/you-obl ‘S/he saw me/you’

khadd-i si eat.perf-fsg be.past dekkh-ea see.perf-msg

Punjabi

In other Indo-Aryan languages, DOM objects, also realized by an oblique postposition, agree with the perfect participle, exactly as absolutive objects do. Thus in Kutchi Gujarati in (26) “the differential object marker, if present, does not block object agreement (a core difference between Kutchi Gujarati/Standard Gujarati/ Marwari on the one hand and Hindi-Urdu on the other hand)” (Patel-Grosz and Grosz 2014). (26) Reena kutro(-ne) mar-y-o Reena.f dog.m-dom hit-pfv-m ‘Reena hit a/the dog.’ Kutchi Gujarati (Patel-Grosz and Grosz 2014) The same parameter also affects ergative arguments. In Nepali, ergative subjects agree with the verb (Bickel and Yadava 2000) as illustrated in (27). Indeed Nepali

4 Agreement and the person split in the Ginestra variety 

 349

has an agreement system close to that of English, to the extent that when two nominative/absolutive arguments are present, as in (27a), it is the higher one that agrees. In (27b) where the higher argument is ergative, it again agrees. (27) a. ma yas pasal-ma patrika kin-ch-u. 1sg.nom dem.obl store-loc newspaper.nom buy-npt-1sg ‘I buy the newspaper in this store.’ b. maile yas pasal-ma patrika kin-e. 1sg.erg dem.obl store-loc newspaper nom buy-npt-1sg ‘I bought the newspaper in this store.’ Nepali (Bickel and Yadava 2000) In essence, therefore, a language like Vena di Maida in (24), where the embedded subject agrees with the embedded verb, whether it is nominative or oblique, is like Nepali. In standard minimalist terms it can be modelled by a probe on I which will target either a nominative subject or an oblique/by-phrase as its closest goals; the accusative internal argument is unaccessible because it is in the complement of the v phase. The approach of Chomsky (2001) to direct case must therefore be weakened to the effect that agreement with I is allowed to licence nominative case, it is not forced to, being compatible in particular with the ⊆ structural layer. In fact, though we haven’t dwelled on this, the agreement of the embedded verb with the accusative causee in (23) independently calls into question the idea that agreement with I is sufficient to trigger nominative case assignment (see also Turano 2015). More importantly, recall that in section 3, we strongly argued that the by-phrase does not count as an intervener on the promotion of the internal argument to EPP position in passives. This is potentially contradicted by the view taken here that the by-phrase is accessible to a probe on the C/I phase head. Specifically, derivation (24c) conflicts directly with derivation (22b), also referred to Albanian. Technically, we can propose that Arbëresh alternates between two slightly different grammars in which the case/P layer under which the agent/ causer is embedded is either opaque to probing and intervention, as required by the passive derivation in (22b), or transparent to it, as requirement by agreement in (24c). We are perfectly aware that this corresponds to an especially rich account of Arbëresh competence. However this is perhaps just the result to be expected in a contact situation. Summarizing so far, in mainland Albanian and in some Arbëresh varieties both the causative verb and the embedded verb agree with their own subjects. Whether the target subject must be nominative or may be oblique depends on a broader parameter, whose complexities are duly noted, but go beyond the scope of the present work.

350 

 12 Causatives, case, passivization and agreement in the variety of Ginestra

4.2 Agreement patterns in Arbëresh causatives: The invariable causative form In Arbëresh dialects, a second major pattern of agreement is found, in which the matrix causative verb does not have any agreement features. Following what we have seen so far, we expect that the embedded inflected verb agrees with its own subject. This is indeed what happens in several varieties, as illustrated in (28). (28) a. u bitɛ ɛ sərritin a'tɔ I make him they.called they ‘I made them call him’ b. ... [IP ɛ sərritin [vP VP a'tɔ]]       ↑_____________|

Arbëresh, S. Benedetto Ullano

However, the variety of Barile, again lacking agreement on the matrix causative verb, has agreement of the embedded verb with the matrix subject, i.e. the causer, for instance in (29). Examples like (29) present a challenge to the standard theory of agreement, in the sense that the matrix subject is not even in the search domain of the embedded verb. (29)

i pata hapɲən dɛr-ən a'tit to.him make they.open door-acc.def him-obl ‘They make him open the door’

Arbëresh, Barile

As highlighted in Table 1, an invariable causative verb is a necessary precondition for agreement of the lower verb with the causer. It may be tempting to account for agreement patterns like (29) by building on the informal observation that in the Barile variety, as in the Romance contact languages, causative contexts display case and agreement behaviours which are otherwise found with simple verbs. Thus, though we have argued against this solution in section 2, one may compare the case array in (29) to that found in simple ditransitive sentences. One may then consider that the agreement pattern suggests pretty much the same conclusion, namely that causative constructions like (29) are monoclausal – there is a single inflected verb, which is the lexical verb, and the causative form is an auxiliary; needless to say, agreement of the lexical verb is with the subject of this monoclausal entry. Indeed, monoclausal analyses of causative constructions have been proposed in the generative framework by Cinque (2006). Cardinaletti and Giusti (2003) discuss progressive and andative constructions in dialects of Sicily and Apulia, characterized by a lexical verb embedded

4 Agreement and the person split in the Ginestra variety 

 351

under an invariable form of be, go, as illustrated with just one example in (30). Their idea is that there is a single sentence, where the lexical verb is in I and introduces agreement with the subject (here ‘I’) – while sta/va are not verbs but exponents of aspectual auxiliaries (progressive/andative). Manzini et al (2017) argue at some length the arguments against such a solution and in favour of a biclausal structure. Here we limit ourselves to the observation that in (29)-(30) the higher verb is not inflected and the lower verb is. Crucially this is the reverse of what happens in other auxiliation structures. Cardinaletti and Giusti’s cartographic framework gives them the power to reorder I below certain auxiliaries; but this amounts to encoding the facts, not explaining them. (30) lu sta/va ffatts-u/ffatʃ-i/ ffatʃ-i it stay/go do-1sg/2sg/3sg ‘I am doing/going to do it’

Romance, Mesagne (Apulia)

We will then seek an analysis of the causative agreement pattern in (29) compatible with a biclausal structure. Morphological analysis by Brandi and Savoia (1990), Manzini and Savoia (2007), shows that forms such bitɛ (S. Benedetto Ullano), pata (Barile), bita/bəta (Ginestra) have a complex internal structure. Only the bə-/bi- element corresponds to the lexical base for ‘make’; -t is related to the subjunctive Prt tə incorporated into the matrix verb. The vocalic ending -a or -ɛ can be construed as an invariable nominal inflection. This is schematized in (31) for bəta/bita of Ginestra. (31)

V D a

V V bə/bi

Prt t

The analysis of -a in (31) amounts to saying that it is inadequate to speak of the invariable verb form as uninflected. Rather the verb is endowed with an elementary, invariable inflection, whose content includes at least nominal class. This characterization draws some support from the observation that at least some varieties and speakers alternate between the ending -a of the causative verb and object clitics, as in the examples in (32) from Ginestra. Note that final -a is equally missing in front of vocalic clitics and consonantal ones. By contrast, we have no

352 

 12 Causatives, case, passivization and agreement in the variety of Ginestra

examples in our corpus where -a is deleted in front of a verb. These facts suggest, first, that the -a element is an autonomous morpheme – and that it is the same nominal class morpheme as the 3P singular accusative clitic a, justifying mutual exclusion with other clitics. (32)

a. mɔs bit mə fɔʎətʃə not make me you.speak ‘Don’t make me speak’ b. vɛt bət m a prɛvi barə-nə mewa he make me it he.cuts grass-acc.def to.me ‘He makes me cut the grass’ c. ju bət və ɟʎiðənə dur-t ŋga vɛtə you.pl make you.pl he.ties hands-pl.def by him ‘You make him tie your hands’ d. atɔ bit m a/ ia bəɲɲənə they make to.me it/to.him it they.do ‘They make me/him do it’

Ginestra

Our proposal then is that the elementary nominal inflection of verb forms like (31) is the verbal inflection counterpart of an expletive pronoun. In turn, we may assume that the content of expletives, hence of the nominal inflection in (31), is to be equated to that of a free variable. This is essentially the analysis of Manzini and Savoia (2007) for expletives such as English there in there came a man, or its subject clitic counterparts in Northern Italian dialects. Their proposal is that there is an open variable, which is closed by predication at LF, yielding the focus reading associated with there/expletive sentences, roughly ‘x came, x is/= a man’. The identification of x by a man can be thought of in terms of expletive replacement (Chomsky 1995) or whatever mechanism is sufficient to insure that the free variable receives an interpretation/is replaced by interpretable material. The net effect of having an expletive inflection is not dissimilar from that of having an agreement inflection, except that Match (Identity) is the mechanisms that applies to specified agreement inflections, while expletive replacement applies to open valued (variable) inflections. More importantly, not only agreement, but also Tense/Mood/Aspect (TMA) properties of the invariable causative verb are akin to free variables, to be fixed by the TMA properties of the lexical verb. In this respect, we assume without discussion that this is achieved by the formation of a (causative, lexical verb) chain, whereby the TMA properties of the lexical verb replace the open values of the causative verb. We refer to Manzini et al. (2017) on progressive/andative constructions for a technical implementation

4 Agreement and the person split in the Ginestra variety 

 353

compatible Higginbotham’s (2009) framework for temporal reference, which would take us too far afield here. Let us then consider the structure in (33) for example (29) of Barile, under the assumption that the matrix causative introduces an expletive (free variable) inflection that needs to be replaced/ interpretively closed at the CI interface. We suggest that in Barile’s structure (33) the TMA chain between the causative and the lexical verb as a whole acts as an agreement probe. This forces the lexical verb to agree with the higher subject (the causer), which is the only local goal of agreement with respect to the whole (expletive, associate) probe. (33) [IP pro pat-a [vP  [IP hapɲ-ən [vP [VP hapɲən dɛr-ən] atit]]]] |____|_________________|

cf. (29)

Let us go back next to example (28), where agreement of the embedded verb is with its own subject. This means that the embedded lexical verb alone acts as a probe. The reference of the nominal inflection of bitɛ may then get fixed by the matrix subjet (still by expletive replacement), as in (34), completing structure (28b) in this respect. Nevertheless, the necessity to attribute TMA properties to the causative verb forces the creation of an (expletive, associate) chain with the lexical verb. (34) [IP u [IP bitɛ [vP    [IP ɛ sərritin [vP  [VP ɛ sərritin] atɔ]]     |____| |______________| |________________________|

cf. (28)

Intuitively, examples like Barile’s (29) suggest that the matrix invariable predicate and the inflected embedded predicate act as a single entity in agreeing with the higher subject. This intuition admits of several formal treatments. The treatment suggested here is to retain the biclausal structure of causative constructions and to associate the causative verb with an expletive inflection. Adopting the alternative idea that the language of Barile has monoclausal causatives is at least as complex, since it involves adopting a cartographic framework where I can be freely reordered with respect to auxiliaries – yielding both configurations with I on the auxiliary and configurations with I on the lexical verb.

4.3 The Person agreement split in the Ginestra variety We are finally in a position to confront the sensitivity to person of the Ginestra pattern. Both of the patterns instantiated by Ginestra, i.e. agreement of the embedded verb with the causee and agreement of the embedded verb with the causer are

354 

 12 Causatives, case, passivization and agreement in the variety of Ginestra

in themselves analysed in section 4.2. The question is why they would alternate according to Person. One may be tempted to look for an explanation in the phenomenon of Inverse agreement, which characterizes a number of languages “sweeping a broad area from northeastern Asia eastward and southward across North America. Apart from Algonquian languages – the best-described instances of the inverse type – inverse patterning has also been identified in … Tanoan (Kiowa-Tanoan) … Athapaskan languages … and a number of others” (Klaiman 1992: 231). In the Appendix to chapter 4 we have illustrated Inverse agreement with the Plains Cree (Algonquian) examples in (35). The prefixed agreement morphology of the verb always picks up the higher ranked person among direct arguments, independently of their thematic role, namely as External Argument (EA) in (35a) or as Internal Argument (IA) in (35b). A distinct suffixal morphology varies between so-called direct forms, when the agreement prefix coincides with the EA, as in (35a) and so-called Inverse forms, when the agreement prefix coincides with the IA, as in (35b). (35)

a. ni-wapam-a-nan 1-see-direct-1pl ‘We see him’ b. ni-wapam-iko-nan 1-see-inverse-1pl ‘He sees us’

Plains Cree (Bianchi 2006: 2024)

The facts of Ginestra reviewed in section 1 face us however with a serious difficulty – namely that Ginestra does not attest an application of Inverse agreement but rather of its mirror image. In Inverse agreement languages, the whole point is that 1/2P has priority in agreement; in other words, if there is a single agreement it is taken by a 1/2P argument when present, independently of its role. In Ginestra the reverse is observed, i.e. 3P has priority, in the sense that the single agreement on the embedded verb T2 is taken by a 3P argument when present, independently of its role. Apart from this, another major difficulty arises – namely it is difficult to see a reason why Inverse agreement (or its mirror image) in Ginestra would be seen only in causatives. Manzini and Savoia (2015) attempt an account based on the idea that the invariable causative verb is a participle-like form and as such it triggers object agreement. In an example like (36a) it agrees with the 1/2P clitic, leaving the embedded verb to agree with the matrix subject (the causee). In (36b) there is no possibility of object agreement for the causative, and the embedded verb agrees with its local subject. In turn, the causative verb presumably must fall back on agreement with its local argument, the subject.

4 Agreement and the person split in the Ginestra variety 

(36)

a. vɛt bəta mə/tə fɔʎənə he make me/you he.speaks ‘He makes me/you speak’ b. ɣu bəta ikənə I make he.runs ‘I make him run’

 355

=(4a)

=(2b)

Unfortunately, it is difficult to see why an invariable verb form would be a participle and/or agree with the object. Another possibility is suggested by the present conclusion that invariable verb forms involve an expletive inflection. Recall that in many languages, expletive subjects are only compatible with 3P correlates. Northern Italian dialects are a case in point, for instance Florentine (37); the definite/deictic properties of the 3P associate in (37) make it clear that a Person constraint is involved in the exclusion of the 1/2P pronoun, not a definiteness constraint. (37)

e viene quei ragattsi/*te it comes those boys/ you ‘Those boys/you are coming’

Romance, Firenze (Tuscany)

Consider example (36a). This has essentially the same shape as Barile’s (34), as indicated in (38). The causative-lexical verb sequence acts as a probe, yielding agreement with the matrix subject (the causer). Crucially for present purposes, agreement with the causer is optimal, to the extent that its 3P specifications (or the 3P specifications of the lexical verb) satisfy the expletive inflection of the causative verb. (38) [IP vɛt [IP bəta [vP  [IP mə/tə fɔʎənə      |______|_________________|

cf. (36a)

Consider then example like (36b), where the embedded verb agrees with its subject, as indicated by the structure in (39). A causative – lexical verb chain is independently required by the need to determine the TMA properties of the causative construction as a whole. An optimal configuration from the point of view of expletive replacement by a 3P element can be achieved by having the expletive inflection of the causative verb valued by the embedded 3P inflection within the causative-lexical verb chain. This means that the 1/2P matrix subject is not assigned case by matrix verb – but its case is licenced configurationally, by being in the domain of a D inflection.

356 

 12 Causatives, case, passivization and agreement in the variety of Ginestra

(39) [IP ɣu [IP bəta [vP [IP pro [IP ikənə |_________|_______|

cf. (36b)

The optionality observed when both causer and causee are 3P would seem to be a consequence of the availability of both of the patterns in (38) and in (39). Since the optimization device equally favours the two structural possibilities, they are randomly distributed. Similarly, the presence of 1/2P causer and causee equally leads to optionality, again due to the indifferent application of (38) or (39) under the optimization device. The empirical base that we have at our disposal is too restricted to allow us to draw cogent conclusions. Agreement of the causer with the lexical verb certainly requires an invariable causative verb. We may further surmise that Barile and Ginestra have essentially the same grammar, in which the causative verb-lexical verb chain functions as a unit from the point of view of agreement properties, as it indeed does in (38)-(39). The 3P preference of Ginestra is an added complexity. If this makes the language more unstable, we may eventually witness a convergence of Ginestra causatives on the Barile type. In other words, verifiable predictions can be made, but to be settled by change rather than mere variation data.

5 Conclusions The causative constructions that we have examined in this chapter represent an instance of linguistic variation (and change) in conditions of contact and mixing. Contact favours the alignment of the morphosyntactic devices of a language with those of the contact language. Such an alignment seems to characterize case and passivization patterns in Arbëresh varieties. Indeed we analyze faire-à and fairepar causatives in Arbëresh as involving the obliquization of a transitive subject, as in contact Romance varieties (section 2). A few varieties even have long passivization from the embedded object to the matrix subject, as found in Italian causatives (section 3). However, this kind of alignment cooccurs with outcomes absent from both input languages. In section 4, we observe that the variety of Barile, though conforming to Romance causatives in selecting agreement with the causer, realizes it on the embedded verb, diverging from Romance as much as from Albanian. Similarly, neither Romance nor Albanian present the agreement pattern based on the Person split 1/2P vs 3P, which characterizes the variety of Ginestra.

References Abels, Klaus & Ad Neeleman. 2012. Linear asymmetries and the LCA. Syntax 15. 25–74. Acquaviva, Paolo. 2008. Lexical plurals. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Acquaviva, Paolo. 2009. Roots and lexicality in Distributed Morphology. In Alexandra Galani, Daniel Redinger & Norman Yeo (eds.), York Working Papers - Special Issue York-Essex Morphology Meeting May 2009, 1–21. Adger David & Daniel Harbour 2007. The syntax and syncretisms of the Person Case Constraint. Syntax 10. 2–37. Adger, David & Joseph Quer. 2001. The syntax and semantics of unselected embedded questions. Language 77. 107–133. Adger, David & Gillian Ramchand. 2005. Merge and Move: Wh-dependencies revisited. Linguistic Inquiry 36. 161–193. Aissen, Judith 1997. On the syntax of obviation. Language 73. 705–750. Aissen Judith. 2003. Differential object marking: iconicity vs. economy. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 21. 435–483. Alexiadou, Artemis. 2001. Functional structure in nominals: nominalization and ergativity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Alexiadou, Artemis, Elena Anagnostopoulou & Florian Schäfer. 2015. External arguments in transitivity alternations. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Anagnostopoulou, Elena. 2003. The syntax of ditransitives. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Anagnostopoulou, Elena. 2005. Strong and weak person restrictions: A feature checking analysis. In Lorie Heggie & Fernando Ordoñez (eds), Clitics and affixation, 199–235. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Anagnostopoulou, Elena. 2006. Clitic doubling. In Martin Everaert & Henk van Riemsdijk (eds.), The Blackwell companion to syntax. Anagnostopoulou, Elena. 2008. Notes on the Person Case Constraint in Germanic (with special reference to German). In Roberta D’Alessandro, Susann Fischer & Gunnar Hrafn Hrafnbjargarson (eds.), Agreement Rrestrictions, 15–47. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Anand, Pranav & Andrew Nevins. 2006. The locus of ergative case assignment: Evidence from scope. In Alana Johns et al (eds.), Ergativity: emerging issues, 3–25. Dordrecht: Springer. Androutsopoulou, Antonia & Manuel Español-Echevarría. 2007. Attributive modification and definiteness. Handout, Biolinguistic perspectives on language evolution and variation, 4–6 June 2007, Università Ca’ Foscari, Venice. Appel, René & Pieter Muysken 1987. Language contact and bilingualism. London: Arnold. Arregi, Karlos & Andrew Nevins. 2017. Beware Occam’s syntactic razor: morphotactic analysis and Spanish mesoclisis. https://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/003365 (accessed 25 November 2017). Arsenijević, Boban. 2009. Clausal complementation as relativization. Lingua 119. 39–50. Baker, Mark 1988. Incorporation. Chicago: Chicago University Press. Baker, Mark. 2008. The syntax of agreement and concord. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Baker, Mark. 2014. Types of crosslinguistic variation in case assignment. In Carme Picallo (ed.), Linguistic variation in the minimalist program. New York: Oxford University Press. Baker, Mark & Ü. Atlamaz. 2014. On the Rrelationship of case to agreement in split-ergative Kurmanji. http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~ua46/assets/pdf/mb_ua_draft.pdf. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781501505140-013

358 

 References

Baker, Mark, Kyle Johnson & Ian Roberts. 1989. Passive arguments raised. Linguistic Inquiry 20. 219–252. Baker, Mark & Nadezhda Vinokurova. 2010. Two modalities of case assignment in Sakha. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 28. 593–642. Bakker, Peter & Pieter Muysken. 1994. Mixed languages and language intertwining. In J. Arends, P. Muysken & N. Smith (eds.), Pidgins and creoles. An introduction, 41–52. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Bailey, Thomas Grahame. 1904. Panjabi grammar. Lahore: Saaddi Panjabi Academy. Baldi, Benedetta & Leonardo M. Savoia. 2016. Fenomeni di code-mixing e di prestito nei sistemi arbëreshë. In Benedetta Baldi and Leonardo M. Savoia (eds.), La lingua e i parlanti. Studi e ricerche di linguistica, 145–163. Alessandria: Edizioni dell’Orso. Beci, Bahri 2004. Gramatika e Gjuhës Shqipe për të gjithë. Tiranë: EDFA. Beck, Sigrid & Kyle Johnson. 2004. Double objects again. Linguistic Inquiry 35. 97–124. Bejar, Susan & Milan Rezac, 2009. Cyclic agree. Linguistic Inquiry 40. 35–73. Belletti, Adriana. 2001. ‘Inversion’ as focalization. In Aafke Hulk and Jean-Yves Pollock (eds.), Inversion in Romance and the theory of Universal Grammar. New York: Oxford University Press. Bellucci, Giulia. 2017. Oblique arguments: theoretical and experimental perspectives.Doctoral Dissertation. Firenze: Università di Firenze. Belvin, Robert & Marcel Den Dikken. 1997. There, happens, to, be, have. Lingua 101. 151–183. Benveniste, Émile. 1966, Problèmes de linguistique générale 1. Paris: Gallimard. Berwick, Robert & Noam Chomsky. 2011. The biolinguistic program: The current state of its evolution and development. In Anna-Maria Di Sciullo and Cedric Boeckx (eds.), The biolinguistic enterprise, 19–41. New York: Oxford University Press. Bhatia, T. K. 2000. Punjabi. A cognitive-descriptive grammar. London: Routledge. Bianchi, Valentina. 2006. On the syntax of personal arguments. Lingua 116. 2023–2067. Biberauer, Theresa, Anders Holmberg, Ian Roberts & Michelle Sheehan. 2014. Complexity in comparative syntax: the view from modern parametric theory. In Frederic Newmeyer & L. Preston (eds.), Measuring linguistic complexity, 103–127. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bickel, Balthasar & Yogendra P. Yadava. 2000. A fresh look at grammatical relations in Indo-Aryan Lingua 110. 343–373. Blevins, James. 2006. Word-based morphology. Journal of Linguistics 42(3). 531–573. Boeckx, Cedric & Norbert Hornstein. 2006. The virtues of control as movement. In William Davies & Stanley Dubinsky (eds.), Special Issue on Raising and Control, Syntax 9. 118–130. Borer Hagit. 1989. Anaphoric Agr. In Osvaldo Jaeggli & Ken Safir (eds.), The null subject parameter. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Borer, Hagit 2005. Structuring sense, Vol. 1: In name only. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bossong, Georg. 1985. Empirische Universalienforschung. Differentielle Objektmarkierung in der neuiranischen Sprachen. Tübingen: Narr. Brandi, Luciana & Leonardo M. Savoia. 1990. Proprietà morfosintattiche e assegnazione del Caso nel causativo arbëresh. Rivista di Grammatica Generativa 15. 29–121. Bresnan, Joan. 1972. Theory of complementation in English syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT PhD dissertation. Brody, Michael. 2003. Towards an elegant syntax. Routledge: London. Bruening, Benjamin. 2012. By phrases in passives and nominals. Syntax 16. 1–41. Burzio, Luigi. 1986. Italian syntax. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

References 

 359

Butler, Jonny 2004. On having arguments and agreeing: semantic EPP. York Papers in Linguistics Series 2(1). 1–27. Butt, Miriam & T. Ahmed. 2011. The redevelopment of Indo-Aryan case systems from a lexical semantic perspective. Morphology 21. 545–572. Bybee, Joan, Revere Perkins & William Pagliuca. 1994. The evolution of grammar. tense, aspect, and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago/London: The University of Chicago Press. Calabrese, Andrea. 1998. Some remarks on the Latin case system and its development in Romance. In J. Lema & E. Trevino (eds.), Theoretical advances on Romance languages, 71–126. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Calabrese, Andrea. 2008a. On absolute and contextual syncretism. In Andrew Nevins & A. Bachrach (eds.), The bases of inflectional identity, 156–205. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Calabrese, Andrea. 2008b. On the shyness of the first person: Investigations on markedness and underspecification in morphology. Storrs, CT: University of Connecticut manuscript. Camaj, Martin. 1971. La parlata Albanese di Greci in provincia di Avellino. Firenze: Olschki. Camaj, Martin. 1995. Grammatica albanese. Cosenza: Edizioni Brenner. Campos, Hector. 2005. Noun modification, pseudo-articles, and last resort operations in Arvantovlaxika and in Romanian. Lingua 115. 311–347. Campos, Hector. 2008. Some notes on adjectival articles in Albanian. Lingua 119. 1009–1034. Campos, Hector & Melita Stavrou. 2005. Polydefinites in Greek and Aromanian. In Olga M. Tomić (ed.), Balkan syntax and semantics, 137–173. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Caramazza, Alfonso. 1997. How many levels of processing are there in lexical access? Cognitive neuropsychology 14(1). 177–208. Caramazza, Alfonso & J. F. Shelton 1998, Domain-specific knowledge systems in the brain: the animate-inanimate distinction. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 10(1). 1–34. Cardinaletti, Anna & Giuliana Giusti. 2003. Motion verbs as functional heads. In Christina Tortora (ed.), The syntax of Italian dialects, 31–49. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Carstens, Vicki. 2001. Multiple agreement and case deletion: against phi-(in)completeness. Syntax 4.147–163. Carstens, Vicki. 2008. DP in Bantu and Romance. In Cécile De Cat & Katherine Demuth (eds.), The Bantu-Romance Connection, 131–166. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Chierchia, Gennaro. 1984. Topics in the syntax and semantics of infinitives and gerunds. University of Massachusetts at Amherst PhD dissertation. Chierchia, Gennaro. 1995. Impersonal subjects. In Emmon Bach, Eloise Jellinek, A. Kratz & Barbara H. Partee (eds.), Quantification in natural languages, 107–143. Dordrect: Kluwer. Chierchia, Gennaro. 1998. Plurality of mass nouns and the notion of ‘semantic parameter’. In Susan Rothstein (ed), Events and grammar, 53–103. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Chierchia, Gennaro. 2010. Mass nouns, vagueness and semantic variation. Synthese 174. 99–149. 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. Chomsky, Noam. 1986. Knowledge of language. its nature, origin, and use. New York, Praeger. Chomsky Noam. 1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge MA: MIT Press. Chomsky, Noam. 2000a. Minimalist inquiries: the framework. In Roger Martin, David Michaels & Juan Uriagereka (eds.), Step by step: essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, 89–155. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

360 

 References

Chomsky Noam. 2000b. New horizons in the study of language and mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Michael Kenstowicz (ed.), Ken Hale: A life in language, 1–52. Cambridge MA: MIT Press. Chomsky, Noam. 2005. Three factors in language design. Linguistic Inquiry 36. 1–22. Chomsky, Noam. 2008. On phases. In Robert Freidin, Carlos Otero & Maria-Luisa Zubizarreta (eds.), Foundational issues in linguistic theory. essays in honour of Jean-Roger Vergnaud, Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Chomsky, Noam. 2013. Problems of projection. Lingua 130. 33–49. Chomsky, Noam, Ángel Gallego & Dennis Ott. 2018. Generative grammar and the faculty of language: insights, questions, and challenges. In Ángel Gallego and Dennis Ott (eds.), Generative syntax: questions, crossroads, and challenges. Special issue of Catalan Journal of Linguistics. Cinque, Guglielmo. 1994. On the evidence for partial N movement in the Romance DP. In Gugliemo Cinque, Jan Koster, Jean-Yves Pollock, Luigi Rizzi & Raffaella Zanuttini (eds.), Paths toward Universal Grammar, 85–110. Georgetown: Georgetown University Press. Cinque, Guglielmo. 2006. Restructuring and functional heads. New York: Oxford University Press. Collins, Chris. 2005. A smuggling approach to the passive in English. Syntax 8. 81–120. Coon, Jessica. 2013. Aspects of split ergativity. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Cordignano, Fulvio 1931. Lingua albanese (dialetto ghego). Milano: Hoepli. Cornilescu, Alexandra. 1992. Notes on the structure of the Romanian DP and the assignment of the Genitive Case. Venice Working Papers in Linguistics (1992). 107–133. Cornilescu, Alexandra & Ion Giurgea. 2013. The adjective. In Carmen Dobrovie-Sorin & Ion Giurgea (eds.), A reference grammar of Romanian volume 1: The noun phrase, 97–174. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Cowper, Elizabeth & Daniel Currie Hall. 2012. Aspects of individuation. In Diane Massam (ed.), Count and mass across languages, 27–53. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Crisma, Paola, Lutz Marten & Rint Sybesma. 2011. The point of Bantu, Chinese and Romance nominal classification. Italian Journal of Linguistics 23. 251–299. Culicover, Peter & Ray Jackendoff. 2005. Simpler syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Culicover, Peter & Ray Jackendoff. 2006. The simpler syntax hypothesis. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 10. 413–418. D’Alessandro, Roberta & Adam Ledgeway. 2010. At the C-T boundary: Investigating Abruzzese complementation. Lingua 120(8). 2040−2060. Danon, Gaby. 2010. Agreement and DP-internal feature distribution. Syntax 14. 297–319. Déchaine, Rose-Marie, Raphaël Girard, Calisto Mudzingwa & Martina Wiltschko. 2014. The internal syntax of Shona class prefixes. Language Sciences 43. 18–46. DeLancey, Scott 1981. An interpretation of split ergativity and related patterns. Language 57. 626–657. Demiraj, Shaban. 1985. Gramatikë historike e gjuhës shqipe. Tiranë: 8 Nëntori. Demiraj, Shaban. 1997. La lingua albanese. Origine, storia, strutture. Cosenza: Centro Editoriale Librario dell’Università della Calabria. den Dikken, Marcel. 2006. Relators and linkers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. den Dikken, Marcel & Pornsiri Singhapreecha. 2004. Complex Noun Phrases and linkers. Syntax 7. 1–54. Dench, Alan 1995. Suffixaufnahme and apparent ellipsis in Martuthunira. In Frans Plank (ed.), Double case. Agreement by suffixaufnahme, 380–395. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

References 

 361

Dench, Alan & Nicholas Evans. 1988. Multiple case-marking in Australian languages. Australian Journal of Linguistics 8. 1–47. d’Hulst, Yves, Martine Coene & Liliane Tasmowski. 2000. Last resort strategies in DP: Article reduplication in Romanian and French. In V. Motapanyane (ed.), Comparative studies in Romanian syntax, 135–176. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Dimitrova-Vulchanova, Mila & Giuliana Giusti. 1998. Fragments of Balkan nominal structure. In Artemis Alexiadou & Chris Wilder (eds.), Possessors, predicates and movement in the determiner phrase, 333–360. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Dixon, R. M.W. 1994. Ergativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dobrovie-Sorin, Carmen. 1994. The syntax of Romanian. Berlin: Walter De Gruyter. Dobrovie-Sorin, Carmen. 2000. (In)definiteness spread: from Romanian genitives to Hebrew construct state nominal. In Virginia Motapanyane (ed.), Comparative studies in Romanian syntax, 177–226. Amsterdam: Elsevier, Dobrovie-Sorin, Carmen. 2001. Head-to-head merge in Balkan subjunctives. In Maria Luisa Rivero & Angela Ralli (eds.), Comparative syntax of Balkan languages, 44–73. New York: Oxford University Press. Dobrovie-Sorin, Carmen & Ion Giurgea. 2011. Pronominal possessors and feature uniqueness. Language 87. 127–157. Dobrovie-Sorin, Carmen, Ion Giurgea & Isabela Nedelcu. 2013. Genitive DPs and pronominal possessors. In Carmen Dobrovie-Sorin & Ion Giurgea (eds.), A reference grammar of Romanian volume 1: The noun phrase, 309–354. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Dočekal, Mojmír & Dalina Kallulli. 2012. More on the semantics of clitic doubling: principal filters, minimal witnesses, and other bits of truth. Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics 9. 113–128. http://www.cssp.cnrs.fr/eiss9/. É. Kiss, Katalin. 2013. The inverse agreement constraint in Uralic languages. Finno-Ugric Languages and Linguistics 2 (1). 2–21. É. Kiss, Katalin. 2017. The person-case constraint and the inverse agreement constraint are manifestations of the same inverse topicality constraint. The Linguistic Review. Embick, David. 2000. Features, syntax and categories in the Latin perfect. Linguistic Inquiry 31. 185–230. Evans, Nicholas & S. Levinson. 2009. The myth of language universals: language diversity and its importance for cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 32. 429–448. Everett, Daniel L. 2005. Cultural constraints on grammar and cognition in Pirahã. Current Anthropology 46(4). 621–646. Fassi Fehri, Abdelkader. 2016. Semantic gender diversity and its architecture in the grammar of Arabic. Brill’s Journal of Afroasiatic Languages and Linguistics 8. 154–199. Ferrari Bridgers, Franca. 2008. A unified syntactic analysis of Italian and Luganda nouns. In Cécile De Cat and Katherine Demuth (eds.), The Bantu-Romance connection, 239–260. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Fillmore, Charles. 1968. The case for case. In Emmon Bach and Robert Harms (eds.), Universals in linguistic theory, 1–88. London: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Franco, Ludovico & M. Rita Manzini. 2017. Instrumental prepositions and case: contexts of occurrence and alternations with datives. Glossa 2(1). 8. 1–47. Franco, Ludovico, M. Rita Manzini & Leonardo M. Savoia. 2015. Linkers and agreement. The Linguistic Review 32. 277–332. Freeze, Ray. 1992. Existentials and other locatives. Language 68. 553–595.

362 

 References

Garzonio, Jacopo & Silvia Rossi. 2016. Case in Italian complex PPs. In Ernestina Carrilho, Alexandra Fiéis, Maria Lobo & Sandra Pereira (eds.), Romance languages and linguistic theory 10, selected papers from ‘going Romance’ 28, 121–137. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Gehrke, Berit & Nino Grillo. 2009. How to become passive. In Kleanthes Grohmann (ed.), Phase theory: features, arguments, interpretations. Amsterdam/Oxford: Elsevier. Ghaniabadi, Saeed. 2012. Plural marking beyond count nouns. In Diane Massam (ed.), Count and mass across languages, 112–128. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Giannakidou, Anastasia. 1998. Polarity sensitivity as (non-)veridical dependency. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Giorgi, Alessandra. 2009. About the speaker: towards a syntax of indexicality. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Giorgi, Alessandra & Fabio Pianesi. 1997. Tense and aspect. From semantics to morphosyntax. New York: Oxford University Press. Giurgea, Ion. 2011. Agreeing possessors and the theory of case. Bucharest Working papers in Linguistics. Giurgea, Ion. 2012. The origin of the Romanian “possessive-genitival article” al and the development of the demonstrative system. Revue roumaine de linguistique 56. 35–68. Giurgea, Ion. 2013. The syntax of determiners and other functional categories. In Carmen Dobrovie-Sorin & Ion Giurgea (eds.), A reference grammar of Romanian volume 1: the noun phrase, 355–530. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Giusti, Giuliana. 2008. Agreement and concord in nominal expressions In Cécile de Cat & Katherine Demuth (eds.), The Bantu–Romance connection: a comparative investigation of verbal agreement, DPs, and information structure, 201–237. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Giusti, Giuliana & Giuseppina Turano. 2007. Case assignment in the pseudo-partitives of Standard Albanian and Arbëresh. A case for micro-variation. Quaderni del Dipartimento di Linguistica dell’Università di Firenze 17. 33–51. Gleitman, Lila R., C. Kimberly, R. Nappa, A. Papafragou & J. C. Trueswell. 2005. Hard words. Language Learning and Development 1(1). 23–64. Grimm, Scott. 2012. Individuation and inverse number marking in Dagaare. In Diane Massam (ed.), Count and mass across languages, 75–98. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Grosu, Alexander. 1994. Three studies in locality and case. London: Routledge. Guardiano, Cristina & Melita Stavrou. 2014. Greek and Romance in Southern Italy: history and contact in nominal structures. L’Italia Dialettale 75. 121–147. Guasti, M. Teresa. 1993. Causative and perception verbs: a comparative study. Torino: Rosenberg and Sellier. Gumperz, J.J. and R. Wilson. 1971. Convergence and creolization. A case from the Indo-Aryan/ Dravidian Border in India. In Dell Hymes (ed.), Pidginization and creolization of languages, 151–167. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Haig, Geoffrey. 2011. Linker, relativizer, nominalizer, tense-particle: On the Ezafe in West Iranian. In Foong Ha Yap, Karen Grunow-Hårsta & Janick Wrona (eds.), Nominalization in Asian languages: diachronic and typological perspectives, 363–390. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Hale, Kenneth. 2002. On the Dagur object relative: some comparative notes. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 11. 109–122. Hale, Kenneth & Samuel J. Keyser, 1993. On argument structure and the lexical expression of syntactic relations. In Ken Hale and Samuel J. Keyser (eds.), The view from Building 20. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

References 

 363

Hall, Robert. 1968. ‘Neuters’, mass-nouns, and the ablative in Romance. Language 44. 480–486. Halle, Morris & Alec Marantz. 1993. Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. In Ken Hale & Samuel J. Keyser (eds.), The view from Building 20, 111–176. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Halle, Morris and Bert Vaux. 1998. Theoretical aspects of Indo-European nominal morphology: the nominal declensions of Latin and Armenian. In Jay Jasanoff, H. Craig Melchert & Lisi Oliver (eds.), Mír Curad: studies in honor of Calvert Watkins, 223–240. Innsbruck: Innsbrucker Beitraege zur Sprachwissenschaft. Harley, Heidi. 2002. Possession and the double object construction. Linguistic Variation Yearbook 2. 29–68. Harley, Heidi. 2013. External arguments and the mirror principle: on the distinctness of voice and v. Lingua 125. 34–57. Hauser, Marc, Noam Chomsky & W. Tecumseh Fitch. 2002. The faculty of language: what is it, who has it and how did it evolve? Science 298. 1569–1579. Heim, Irene & Angelika Kratzer. 1998. Semantics in generative grammar. Oxford, Blackwell. Herd, Jonathon, Catherine Macdonald & Diane Massam. 2011. Genitive subjects in relative constructions in Polynesian languages. Lingua 121. 1252–1264. Higginbotham, James. 1985. On semantics. Linguistic Inquiry 16. 547–621. Higginbotham, James. 2009. Tense, aspect, and indexicality. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hill, Virginia. 2013a. The emergence of the Romanian subjunctive. The Linguistic Review 30. 547 – 583. Hill, Virginia. 2013b. The emergence of the Romanian supine. Journal of Historical Linguistics 3. 230–271. Holmberg, Anders & David Odden. 2008. The noun phrase in Hawrami. In Simin Karimi, Vida Samiian & Donald Stilo (eds.), Aspects of Iranian Linguistics, 129–151. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Hornstein, Norbert. 1999. Movement and control. Linguistic Inquiry 30. 69–96. Hoxha, Shefqet 1990. E follia e Arrnit. In Dialektologjia Shqiptare VI, 57–188. Akademia e Shkencave e RPS Të Shqipërisë. Huang, C.-T. James. 1984. On the distribution and reference of empty pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 15. 531–574. Hymes, Dell. 1974. Foundations in sociolinguistics. An ethnographic approach. London: Tavistock. Iatridou, Sabine. 1993. On nominative case and a few related things. In Papers on case and agreement II, MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 19. 175–196. Isac, Daniela. 2015. The morphosyntax of imperatives. Oxford: Blackwell. Jackendoff, Ray. 2002. Foundations of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Jaeggli, Osvaldo. 1982. Topics in Romance syntax. Dordrecht: Foris. Jelinek, Eloise. 1995. Quantification in Straits Salish. In Emmon Bach, Eloise Jelinek, Angelika Kratzer &Barbara Partee (eds.), Quantification in natural languages, 487–540. Dordecht: Kluver. Johns, Alana. 1992. Deriving ergativity. Linguistic Inquiry 23. 57–87. Jones, Michael. 1993. Sardinian syntax. London: Routledge. Jordan, Maria. 2009. Loss of infinitival complementation in Romanian diachronic syntax. University of Florida PhD dissertation. Joseph, Brian D. 1983. The synchrony and diachrony of the Balkan infinitive. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

364 

 References

Kallulli, Dalina. 2008a. Resumption, relativization, null objects and information structure. In J. Hartmann, V. Hegedus & H. van Riemsdijk (eds.), Sounds of silence: empty elements in syntax and phonology, 235–264. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Kallulli, Dalina. 2008b. Clitic doubling, agreement, and information structure. In Dalina Kallulli & Liliane Tasmowski (eds.), Clitic doubling in the Balkan languages, 227–255. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Kallulli, Dalina. 2016. Clitic doubling as differential object marking. RGG Rivista di Grammatica Generativa 38. 161–171. Kallulli, Dalina & Jochen Trommer. 2011. Closest c-command, agree and impoverishment: the morphosyntax of non-active voice in Albanian. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 58. 277–296. Kayne, Richard. 1975. French syntax: the transformational cycle. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Kayne, Richard. 1984. Connectedness and binary branching. Dordrecht: Foris. Kayne, Richard. 1989. Facets of Romance past participle agreement. In Paola Benincà (ed.), Dialect variation and the theory of grammar, 85–103. Dordrecht: Foris. Kayne Richard. 1991. Romance clitics, verb movement and PRO. Linguistic Inquiry 22. 647–686. Kayne, Richard. 1994. The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Kayne, Richard. 2000. Parameters and universals. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kayne, Richard. 2010. Comparisons and contrasts. New York: Oxford University Press. Kihm, Alain. 2005. Noun class, gender, and the lexicon/syntax/morphology interfaces: a comparative study of Niger-Congo and Romance languages. In Guglielmo Cinque & Richard Kayne (eds.), The Oxford handbook of comparative syntax, 459–512. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kiparsky, Paul. 2008. Universals constrain change, change results in typological generalizations. In J. Good (ed.), Linguistic universals and language change, 23–53. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Klaiman, Mimi H. 1992. Inverse languages. Lingua 88. 227–261. Kornfilt, Jaklyn.1997. Turkish. London: Routledge. Kornfilt, Jaklin. 2008. Subject case and Agr in two types of Turkish RCs. In Proceedings of the 4th Workshop on Altaic Formal Linguistics, 145–168. MITWPL, vol. 56. Kramer, Ruth. 2014. Gender in Amharic: a morphosyntactic approach to natural and grammatical gender. Language Sciences 43. 102–115. Kramer, Ruth. 2015. The morphosyntax of gender. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Krapova, Ilyiana & Guglielmo Cinque. 2013. The case for genitive case in Bulgarian. In Lilia Schürcks, Anastasia Giannakidou, Urtzi Etxeberria (eds.), The nominal structure in Slavic and beyond, 237–274. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Krapova, Ilyiana & Guglielmo Cinque. 2016. On noun clausal ‘complements’ and their non-unitary nature. Annali di Ca’ Foscari. Serie occidentale 50. 77–107. Kučerová, Ivona & Anna Moro. 2011. On mass nouns in Romance: semantic markedness and structural underspecification. In Proceedings of the 2011 annual conference of the Canadian Linguistic Association. Laka, Itziar. 2006. Deriving split ergativity in the progressive: the case of Basque. In Alana Johns, Diane Massam & J. Ndayiragije (eds.), Ergativity: emerging issues, 173–196. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Lampitelli, Nicola. 2011. Forme phonologique, exposants morphologiques et structures nominales: étude comparée de l’italien, du bosnien et du somali. Université de Paris 7 thèse de doctorat.

References 

 365

Landau, Idan, 2000. Elements of control: structure and meaning in infinitival constructions. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Landau, Idan. 2004. The scale of finiteness and the calculus of control. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 22. 811–877. Landau, Idan. 2006. Severing the distribution of PRO from Case. William Davies a& Stanley Dubinsky (eds.), Special Issue on Raising and Control, Syntax 9. Landau, Idan. 2013. Control in generative grammar. A research companion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Landau, Idan. 2015. A two-tiered theory of control. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Landman, Fred. 1992. The progressive’. Natural Language Semantics 1. 1–32. Larson, Richard & Hiroko Yamakido. 2008. Ezafe and the deep position of nominal modifiers. In Louise McNally & Chris Kennedy (eds.), Adjectives and adverbs. Syntax, semantics, and discourse, 43–70. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lasersohn, Peter. 2011. Mass nouns and plurals. In Klaus von Heusinger, Cludia Maienborn & Paul Portner (eds.), Semantics: an international handbook of natural language meaning, 1131–1153. Berlin: De Gruyter. Lazard, Gilbert. 1992. Grammar of contemporary Persian. Costa Mesa, CA: Mazda Publisher. Lebeaux, David. 1984. Anaphoric binding and the definition of PRO. In C. Jones & P. Sells (eds.), NELS 14, GLSA, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Ledgeway, Adam. 2003. Il sistema completivo dei dialetti meridionali: La doppia serie di complementatori. Rivista Italiana di Dialettologia 27. 89–147. Ledgeway, Adam. 2005. Moving through the left periphery: the dual complementiser system in the dialects of Southern Italy. Transactions of the Philological Society 103. 339–396. Ledgeway, Adam. 2009. Grammatica diacronica del dialetto napoletano. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Ledgeway, Adam. 2012. From Latin to Romance: morphosyntactic typology and change. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Legate, Julie Anne. 2014. Voice and v. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Lekakou, Marika & Kriszta Szendrői. 2012. Polydefinites in Greek: Ellipsis, close apposition and expletive determiners. Journal of Linguistics 48. 107–149. Levinson, Lisa. 2011. Possessive WITH in Germanic: HAVE and the Role of P. Syntax 14(4). 355–393. Longobardi Giuseppe. 2017. Principles, parameters, and schemata. A radically underspecified UG. Linguistic Analysis 41. 517–555. Longobardi, Giuseppe & Cristina Guardiano. 2017. Phylogenetic reconstruction in syntax: the parametric comparison method. In Adam Ledgeway & Ian Roberts (eds.), The Cambridge handbook of historical syntax, 241–271. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Loporcaro, Michele. 2008. Opposizioni di caso nel pronome personale: i dialetti del mezzogiorno in prospettiva romanza. In A. De Angelis (ed.), I dialetti meridionali tra arcaismo e interferenza, 207–235. Palermo: Centro di Studi filologici e linguistici siciliani. Loporcaro, Michele & Tania Paciaroni. 2011. Four gender-systems in Indo-European. Folia Linguistica 45. 389–433. Luzzatti, Claudio and Gennaro Chierchia. 2002. On the nature of selective deficit involving nouns and verbs. Rivista di Linguistica 14. 43–71. McKenzie, David N. 1961. Kurdish dialect studies, I. Oxford: Oxford University Press. MacSwan, Jeff. 1999. A minimalist approach to intrasentential code switching. New York: Garland Press.

366 

 References

MacSwan, Jeff. 2000. The architecture of the bilingual language faculty: evidence from intrasentential code switching. Bilingualism: language and cognition 3(1). 37–54. MacSwan, Jeff. 2005. Codeswitching and generative grammar: A critique of the MLF model and some remarks on “modified minimalism”. Bilingualism: language and cognition 8(1). 1–22. MacSwan, Jeff. 2010. Plenary address: Unconstraining codeswitching theories. Proceedings from the Annual Meeting of CLS 44. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Manetta, Emily. 2010. Wh-expletives in Hindi-Urdu: the vP Phase. Linguistic Inquiry 41(1). 1–34. Manzini, M. Rita. 1983a. On control and control theory. Linguistic Inquiry 14. 421–446. Manzini, M. Rita. 1983b. Restructuring and reanalysis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Ph D dissertation. Manzini, M. Rita. 2012. From Romance clitics to case: Split accusativity and the Person Case Constraint. In Irene Franco et al, Romance languages and linguistics 2010. Selected papers from ‘Going Romance’ Leiden 2010. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Manzini, M. Rita. 2014a. Unifying Minimality and the OCP: local anti-identity as economy. In Kuniya Nasukawa & Henk van Riemsdjik (eds.), Identity relations in grammar, 123–160. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Manzini, M. Rita. 2014b. Grammatical categories: Strong and weak pronouns in Romance. Lingua 150. 171–201. Manzini, M. Rita. 2015. On the substantive primitives of morphosyntax and their parametrization: Northern Italian subject clitics. In Marc van Oosterdorp & Henk van Riemsdijk, Representing structure in phonology and syntax, 167–194. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Manzini, M. Rita. 2017. Passive, smuggling and the by-phrase. In Nicholas LaCara, Keir Moulton & Anne-Michelle Tessier (eds.), A Schrift to Fest Kyle Johnson, 233–244. Amherst, MA: UMass Scholarworks. Manzini, M. Rita. To appear. Parameters and language design. Evolutionary Linguistic Theory 1. Manzini, M. Rita & Ludovico Franco. 2016. Goal and DOM datives. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 34. 197–240. Manzini, M. Rita, Paolo Lorusso & Leonardo M. Savoia. 2017. a/bare finite complements in Southern Italian varieties: Mono-clausal or bi-clausal syntax? Quaderni di Linguistica e Studi Orientali (QULSO) 3. Manzini, M. Rita & Anna Roussou. 2000. A minimalist theory of A-movement and control. Lingua 110. 409–447. Manzini M. Rita, Anna Roussou & Leonardo M. Savoia. 2016. Middle-passive voice in Albanian and Greek. Journal of Linguistics 11: 1–40. Manzini, M. Rita & Leonardo M. Savoia. 2003. The nature of complementizer. RGG. Rivista di Grammatica Generativa. 28. 87–110. Manzini, M. Rita & Leonardo M. Savoia. 2005. I dialetti italiani e romanci. Morfosintassi generativa Alessandria: Edizioni dell’Orso. Manzini, M. Rita & Leonardo M. Savoia. 2007. A unification of morphology and syntax. Studies in Romance and Albanian varieties. London: Routledge. Manzini, M. Rita & Leonardo M. Savoia. 2010. Case as denotation: variation in Romance. Studi Italiani di Linguistica Teorica e Applicata XXXIX 3. 409–438. Manzini, M. Rita & Leonardo M. Savoia. 2011a. Grammatical categories. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Manzini, M. Rita & Leonardo M. Savoia. 2011b. Reducing ‘case’ to denotation: Nominal inflections in Albanian. Linguistic Variation 11. 76–120. Manzini, M. Rita & Leonardo M. Savoia. 2014. From Latin to Romance: case loss and preservation in pronominal systems. Probus 26. 217–248.

References 

 367

Manzini, M. Rita & Leonardo M. Savoia. 2015. Causatives and ‘inverse’ agreement in Ginestra (Arbëresh). In Bardhil Demiraj, Matteo Mandalà & Shaban Sinani (eds.), Studime në nderim të prof. Francesco Altimarit me rastin e 60-vjetorit të lindjes. STUDI In onore del prof. Francesco Altimari in occasione del 60° compleanno, 345–364. Tiranë: Albpaper. Manzini, M. Rita, Leonardo M. Savoia & Ludovico Franco. 2015. Ergative case, Aspect and Person splits: two case studies. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 62(3). 1–55. Manzini, M. Rita, Leonardo M. Savoia & Ludovico Franco. To appear. DOM and Dative in Italo-Romance. In A. Bárány & L. Kalin (eds.), Case, agreement, and their interactions: New perspectives on Differential Object Marking. Berlin: De Gruyter. Manzini, M. Rita & Leonardo M. Savoia. 2017a. Enclisis/Proclisis Alternations in Romance: Allomorphies and (Re)Ordering. Transactions of the Philological Society. 115. 98–136. Manzini, M. Rita & Leonardo M. Savoia. 2017b. Gender, number and inflectional class in Romance: Feminine/plural -a. In Joseph Emonds & Markéta Janebova (eds.), Language use and linguistic structure, 263–282. Olomouc: Palacky University Olomouc. Manzini, M. Rita & Leonardo M. Savoia. 2018. Finite and non-finite complementation, particles and control in Aromanian, compared to other Romance varieties and Albanian. Linguistic Variation. Manzini, M. Rita & Leonardo M. Savoia. To appear. N inflections and their interpretation: Neuter –o and plural –a in Italian varieties. In Roberto Petrosino et al (eds.), Under the veil of Maya. Studies in honor of Andrea Calabrese. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Marantz, Alec. 1997. No escape from syntax: Don’t try morphological analysis in the privacy of your own lexicon. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 4. 201–25. Marantz, Alec. 2000. Case and licensing. In Eric Reuland (ed.), Arguments and Case, 11–30. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Marantz, Alec. 2007. Phases and words. In Sook-Hee Choe (ed.), Phases in the theory of grammar, 191–222. Seoul: Dong In. Mardale, Alexandru, Carmen Dobrovie-Sorin & Ion Giurgea. 2013. Adnominal prepositional phrases. In Carmen Dobrovie-Sorin & Ion Giurgea (eds.), A reference grammar of Romanian volume 1: the noun phrase, 531–564. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Matras, Yaron & Peter Bakker. 2003. The study of mixed languages. In Yaron Matras and Peter Bakker (eds.), The mixed language debate, 1–20. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Mensching, Guido. 2000. Infinitive constructions with specified subjects. A syntactic analysis of the Romance languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Miyagawa, Shigeru. 2011. Genitive subjects in Altaic and specification of phase. Lingua 121. 1265–1282. Montaut, Annie. 2004. Oblique Main Arguments in Hindi/Urdu as localizing predications. questioning the category of subject. In P. Bhaskararao & K.V. Subbarao (eds.), Non nominative subjects (Vol. 1), 33–56. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Moro, Andrea. 1997. The raising of predicates. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Muysken, Pieter. 2000. Bilingual speech. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Myers-Scotton, Carol. 2003. What lies beneath: Split (mixed) languages as contact phenomena. In Yaron Matras &Peter Bakker (eds.), The mixed language debate, 73–106. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Myers-Scotton, Carol. 2006. Multiple voices. An introduction to bilingualism. Oxford: Blackwell. Nash, Lea. 2014. The structural source of split ergativity and ergative case in Georgian. Ms. Université de Paris 8.

368 

 References

Neeleman, Ad & Hans van de Koot. 2006. Syntactic haplology. In Martin Everaert & Henk van Riemsdjik (eds.), The Blackwell companion to syntax, Vol. IV, 684–710. Oxford: Blackwell. Nevins, Andrew. 2007. The representation of third-person and its consequences for person-case effects. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 25. 273–313. Nichols, Lynn. 2001. The syntactic basis of referential hierarchy phenomena: clues from languages with and without morphological case. Lingua 111. 515–537. Ormazabal, Javier & Juan Romero. 2013. Object agreement, clitics and dialectal variation. Probus 25(2). 301–344. Oltra-Massuet, Isabel & Karlos Arregi. 2005. Stress-by-structure in Spanish. Linguistic Inquiry 36(1). 43–84. Pana Dindelegan, Gabriela. 2013. The grammar of Romanian. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Parsons, Terence. 1979. An analysis of mass terms and amount terms. In Francis. J. Pelletier (ed.), Mass terms: some philosophical problems, 137–166. Dordrecht: Springer. Partee, Barbara H. 1995. Lexical semantics and compositionality. In Lila R. Gleitman & Mark Liberman (eds.), An invitation to cognitive science (2nd edn.). Volume 1: language, 311–360. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Patel-Grosz, Pritty and Patrick Grosz. 2014. Agreement and verb types in Kutchi Gujarati. In Pritha Chandra and Richa Srishti (eds.), The Lexicon–Syntax Interface: perspectives from South Asian languages, 217–244. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Payne, John R. 1995. Inflecting postpositions in Indic and Kashmiri. In Frans Plank (ed.), Double case. Agreement by suffixaufnahme, 283–298. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pellegrini, Giovanni Battista.1995, Avviamento alla linguistica albanese. Università di Palermo. Percus, Orin. 2011. Gender features and interpretation: a case study. Morphology 21. 167–196. Pesetsky, David. 1995. Zero syntax. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Pesetsky, David. 2013. Russian case morphology and the syntactic categories. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Pesetsky, David & Esther Torrego. 2004. Tense, case and the nature of syntactic categories. In Jacqueline Guéron & J. Lecarme (eds.), The syntax of time. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Pesetsky, David & Esther Torrego. 2007. The syntax of valuation and the interpretability of features. In Simin Karimi, Vida Samiian & Wendy Wilkins (eds.), Phrasal and clausal architecture. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Philip, Naomi Joy. 2012. Subordinating and coordinating linkers. University College London. PhD dissertation. Picallo, Carme. 2008. Gender and number in Romance. Lingue e Linguaggio VII. 47–66. Pineda, Anna. 2016. Les fronteres de la (in)transitivitat. Estudi dels aplicatius en llengües romàniques i basc. Barcelona: Institut d’Estudis Món Juïc. Pinker, Steven & Ray Jackendoff. 2009. The reality of universal language faculty. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 32. 465–466. Plank, Frans. 1995. (Re-)Introducing suffixaufnahme. In Frans Plank (ed.), Double case. Agreement by sSuffixaufnahme, 3–112. Oxford, Oxford University Press. Pomino, Natascha & Elizabeth Stark. 2010. How the Latin neuter pronominal forms became markers of non-individuation in Spanish. In Katerina Stathi, Elke Gehweiler & Ekkehard König (eds.), Grammaticalization: current views and issues, 273–293. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Poplack, S. 1980. ‘Sometimes I’ll start a sentence in Spanish y termino en Español’. Linguistics 18. 581–618. Preminger, Omer. 2014. Agreement and its failures. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

References 

 369

Pylkkänen, Liina. 2008. Introducing arguments. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Rezac, Milan. 2006. Escaping the Person Case Constraint. Linguistic Variation Yearbook 6. 97–138. Rezac, Milan. 2008. The syntax of eccentric agreement: The Person Case Constraint and absolutive displacement in Basque. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 26. 61–106. Richards, Norvin. 2010. Uttering trees. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Richards, Norvin. 2013. Lardil ‘‘case stacking’’ and the timing of case assignment. Syntax 16. 42–76. Riemsdijk, Henk van. 2008. Identity avoidance: OCP-effects in Swiss relatives. In Robert Freidin, Carlos Otero & Maria Luisa Zubizarreta (eds.), Foundational issues in linguistic theory. Essays in honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud, 227–250. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Rivero, Maria-Luisa. 1994. Clause structure and V-movement in the languages of the Balkans. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 12. 63–120. Rizzi, Luigi. 1990. Relativized minimality. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In Liliane Haegeman, Elements of grammar, 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Roberts, Ian. 2010. Agreement and head movement: Clitics, incorporation,and defective goals. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Roberts, Ian & Anna Roussou. 2003. Syntactic change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rohlfs, Gerhard. 1968 [1949]. Grammatica storica della lingua italiana e dei suoi dialetti. Morfologia. Torino: Einaudi. Romaine, Suzanne. 1995. Bilingualism. Oxford: Blackwell. Rosenbaum, Peter. 1967. The grammar of English complement constructions. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Roussou. Anna. 2009. In the mood for control. In Josep Quer (ed.), Special Issue on Mood. Lingua 119. 1811–1836. Rouveret, A. & Jean-Roger Vergnaud. 1980. Specifying reference to the subject : French causatives and conditions on representations. Linguistic Inquiry 11. 97–202. Rrokaj, Shezaj & Giuseppina Turano. 1998. Strategia del Causativo in albanese. Studi Italiani di Linguistica Teorica e Applicata 3-1998. 551–565. Savoia, Leonardo M. 1984. Grammatica e pragmatica del linguaggio bambinesco (baby talk). Bologna: CLUEB. Savoia, Leonardo M. 1989a. Processi morfologici, proprietà di caso e accordo nel causativo arbëresh. Zjarri 33. 186–293. Savoia, Leonardo M. 1989b. Alcune caratteristiche del causativo arbëresh. In: Le minoranze etniche e linguistiche. Atti del 2° Congresso Internazionale, 363–420. Comune di Piana degli Albanesi. Savoia, Leonardo M. 2008. Studi sulle varietà arbëreshe. Dipartimento di Linguistica, Università della Calabria. Savoia, Leonardo M. 2009. Variazione linguistica e bilinguismo: la mescolanza linguistica nell’arbëresh di Ginestra. In: C. Consani, P. Desideri, F. Guazzelli, C. Perta (eds.), Alloglossie e comunità alloglotte nell’Italia contemporanea. Teorie, applicazioni e descrizioni, prospettive, 121–141. Roma: Bulzoni. Savoia, Leonardo M. 2010. Prestiti lessicali e code-mixing nei sistemi arbëreshë. In N. Prantera, A. Mendicino, C. Citraro (eds.), Parole. Il lessico come strumento per organizzare e trasmettere gli etnosaperi, 717–738. Rende (Cosenza): Università della Calabria.

370 

 References

Savoia, Leonardo M. 2015. I dialetti italiani. Sistemi e processi fonologici nelle varietà di area italiana e romancia. Pisa: Pacini. Savoia, Leonardo M. 2016. Harmonic processes and metaphony in some Italian varieties. In: Francesc Torres-Tamarit, Kathrin Linke, Marc van Oostendorp (eds.), Approaches to metaphony in the languages of Italy, 9–53, Berlin: De Gruyter. Savoia, Leonardo M. & Martin Maiden. 1997. Metaphony. In Martin Maiden and Mair Parry (eds.), The dialects of Italy, 15–25. London: Routledge. Savoia, Leonardo M., M. Rita Manzini, Benedetta Baldi & Ludovico Franco. 2017a. Nominal evaluative suffixes in Italian. In Roberta d’Alessandro, Gabriele Iannàccaro, Diana Passino & Anna M. Thornton. Di tutti i colori. Studi linguistici per Maria Grossmann, 283–300. Utrecht: Utrecht University Repository. Savoia, Leonardo M., M. Rita Manzini, Benedetta Baldi & Ludovico Franco. 2017b. A morphosyntactic analysis of evaluatives in Italian. Studi Italiani di Linguistica Teorica ed Applicata 46. 413–440. Solano, Francesco. 1972. Manuale di lingua albanese. Corigliano Calabro: Arti Grafiche Ioniche. Sportiche, Dominique. 2011. French relative qui. Linguistic Inquiry 42. 83–124. Steriopolo, Olga & Martina Wiltschko. 2010. Distributed Gender hypothesis. In Gerhild Zybatow, Philip Dudchuk, Serge Minor & Ekaterina Pshehotskaya (eds.), Formal studies in Slavic linguistics, 155–172. New York: Peter Lang. Stolz, Thomas, Sonja Kettler, Cornelia Stroh & Aina Urdze. 2008. Split possession. An areal-linguistic study of the alienability correlation and related phenomena in the languages of Europe. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Stowell, Timothy. 1981. Origins of phrase structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Ph.D dissertation. Suñer, Margarita. 1988. The role of agreement in clitic-doubled constructions. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6. 391– 434. Svenonius, Peter. 2006. The emergence of axial parts. Nordlyd 33. 1–22. Svenonius, Peter. 2017. The emergence of the extended projection of P. Paper presented at Morphosyntactic variation in adpositions, Queen’s College, Cambridge, 8–9 May. Szabolcsi. Anna. 2007. Hidden in plain sight : Overt subjects in infinitival control and raising complements. Ms., New York University (http://ling.auf.net/lingBuzz/000445). Thackston, W. M. 2006. Kurmanji Kurdish: a reference grammar with selected readings. Harvard University. Toosarvandani, Maziar & Coppe van Urk. 2012. Directionality and intervention in nominal concord: Evidence from Zazaki ezafe. Poster, 43rd Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society (NELS), City University of New York, Graduate Center, October 19. Torrego, Esther. 1998. The dependencies of objects. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Torrego, Esther. 2010. Variability in the case patterns of causative formation in Romance and its implications. Linguistic Inquiry 41(3). 445–470. Trommer, Jochen. 2002. The post-syntactic morphology of the Albanian pre-posed Article: Evidence for Distributed Morphology. Balkanistica 15. 349–363. Turano. Giuseppina. 1993. Subjunctive constructions in Arbëresh and standard Albanian. Rivista di Grammatica Generativa 18. 101–133. Turano, Giuseppina. 1994. Assegnazione di caso e proprietà strutturali nelle costruzioni causative e percettive del dialetto arbëresh di S. Nicola dell’Alto. In Francesco Altimari & Leonardo M. Savoia (eds.), I dialetti italo-albanesi, 387–410. Roma: Bulzoni Editore. Turano, Giuseppina. 1995. Dipendenze sintattiche in albanese. Padova: Unipress.

References 

 371

Turano, Giuseppina. 1999. Il costrutto ‘pa+participio’ nella varietà Arbëreshe di S.Nicola dell’Alto (KR). In Matteo Mandalà (ed.), Studi in onore di L. Marlekaj, 564–578. Bari: Adriatica. Turano, Giuseppina. 2002. On modifiers preceded by the article in Albanian DPs. University of Venice Working Papers in Linguistics 12. 169–215. Turano, Giuseppina. 2003. Similarities and differences between standard Albanian and Arbëresh numerals. A case of microparametric variation. University of Venice Working Papers in Linguistics 13. 155–177. Turano, Giuseppina. 2004. Introduzione alla grammatica dell’albanese. Firenze: Alinea. Turano, Giuseppina. 2011. Rapporto lessico-sintassi e contaminazione di forme linguistiche. Il caso dell’arberesh. Hylli i dritës 31(2). 103–118. Turano, Giuseppina. 2012. Strategie di assimilazione lessicale e morfosintattica nei dialetti arbëreshë: regolarità e devianze. In Bardh Rugova (ed.), Studime për nder të Rexhep Ismajlit, 729–747. Prishtina: Koha. Turano, Giuseppina. 2015. Quando caso e accordo sono disgiunti: soggetti accusativi e dativi nell’albanese e nei dialetti arbëreshë. Hylli i dritës 35(1–2). 129–154. Turano, Giuseppina. 2017. Modal particles in Albanian subjunctive, infinitive and supine constructions: presence vs absence of clitic climbing. Quaderni di Linguistica e Studi Orientali 3. 61–86. Turano, Giuseppina. 2018. Movement in Albanian (pseudo)-raising constructions. Ms, Università di Venezia Ca’ Foscari. Verbeke, Saartje & Ludovic De Cuypere. 2009. The rise of ergativity in Hindi. Assessing the role of grammaticalization. Folia Linguistica Historica 30. 367–390. Vergnaud, Jean-Roger. 2008 [1978]. Letter to Noam Chomsky and Howard Lasnik on “Filters and Control”, April 17, 1977. In Robert Freidin, Carlos. P. Otero & Maria-Luisa Zubizarreta (eds.), Foundational issues in linguistic theory, 3–15. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Wali, Kashi and Omkar N. Koul. 1997. Kashmiri: a cognitive-descriptive grammar. London: Routledge. Wasow, Thomas. 1977. Trasformations and the lexicon. In Peter Culicover, Thomas Wasow & Adrian Akmajian (eds.), Formal syntax, 327–360. New York: Academic Press. Wiese, Heike. 2012. Collectives in the intersection of mass and count nouns: A cross-linguistic account. In Diane Massam (ed.), Count and mass across languages, 54–74. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Williams, E. 1980. Predication. Linguistic Inquiry 11. 203–238. Williams, Edwin. 1994. Thematic structure in syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Yip, Moira. 1998. Identity avoidance in phonology and morphology. In Steven Lapointe, Diane Brentari & Patrick Farrell (eds.), Morphology and its relation to phonology and syntax, 216–246. Stanford, CA: CSLI. Yuan, Michelle. 2013. A phasal account of ergativity in Inuktikut. University of Toronto MA thesis. Zeijlstra, Hedde. 2012. There is only one way to agree. The Linguistic Review 29. 491–539.

Index ⊆ (category) 33–44, 50, 51, 63, 64, 65, 69, 72, 75, 86, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 94, 95, 100, 101, 102, 103, 108–111, 113, 116, 117, 122, 148, 151–153, 162, 163, 166, 167, 174–177, 181–183, 191, 192, 196, 197, 198, 201, 202, 204, 205, 209, 210, 271, 272, 279, 280, 284, 338, 343, 344, 349 ⊇ (category) 209, 210, 284, 285 λ (operator) 40, 90, 94, 230, 233, 238, 257, 291, 309, 338 1/2P (category) 17, 19, 20, 26, 29, 30, 31, 34, 36, 41, 75, 78, 80, 82, 83, 85, 86, 87, 88, 93, 95–99, 101–111, 113, 114, 117, 119, 121, 122, 123, 127, 128, 155, 163–177, 178, 193, 198, 239, 313, 326, 327, 328, 331, 332, 334, 335, 339, 354, 355, 356 Ablative 29, 31, 34, 36, 64, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 92, 96–104, 166, 209 Absolute 180, 183, 185, 187, 190, 192, 193, 195, 196, 197, 204, 337 Absolutive 183, 348, 349 Accettura (Lucania) 4 Accusative 4, 26, 28, 29, 32, 35, 36, 38–42, 53, 73, 75, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 86–88, 90–93, 97, 98, 99–102, 104–106, 115, 119, 121, 122, 137, 138, 142, 164, 165, 167, 168, 175, 179, 180, 181, 192, 197, 207, 222, 226, 228, 254, 272, 279, 282, 284, 287, 289, 293, 314, 315, 327, 328, 331, 332, 336–339, 341, 347, 349, 352 Adjective 11, 13, 53, 54, 55, 56, 62, 66, 127, 129, 130, 131, 134–137, 139–142, 144, 146, 147, 149, 150, 154, 159, 160, 161, 164, 178, 201, 202, 211, 215, 225, 226, 238, 277, 306, 315, 317 Aggregate (Aggr) 8, 25, 45, 48, 53, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 73, 74, 272, 290 Agree 1–21, 33, 56, 57, 63, 65, 69, 76, 78, 84, 89, 90, 106, 107, 114–118, 127, 128, 129, 130, 135, 138, 147, 151, 154, 161, 162, 164, 171, 172, 178, 181, 185, 186, 188, 192, 194, 196, 198, 203, 211, 215, 218, 219, 224, 232, 233, 238, 239, 243, https://doi.org/10.1515/9781501505140-014

254, 263, 265, 267, 271, 272, 274, 295, 300, 326, 328, 330, 347, 348, 349, 353, 354, 355 Agree Resistance (Theorem) 215, 243, 254, 265, 271, 272, 274, 295 Albanian 1, 8, 15, 19, 20, 25, 26, 27–44, 45–74, 75–112, 113, 116, 117, 119–123, 127, 128, 129–154, 155, 163, 165–167, 173–177, 179, 199, 200, 202, 203, 206, 208, 209, 215, 216, 217–242, 243–266, 267–296, 299, 301–325, 326–328, 331, 333–336, 338, 339, 340, 344, 347, 349, 356. See also Arbëresh; Geg Albanian; Gjirokastër Allomorphy 4, 5, 6 Andative 326, 350, 351, 352 Animate 53, 86, 106, 116, 117, 192, 248, 306, 348 Anticausative 340 Appl(icative) 78, 166, 179 Arabic 48, 52 Arbëresh 15, 25, 28, 45–74, 75–112, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 227, 231, 235, 237, 260, 261, 263, 289, 290, 299, 301, 303–324, 326–356. See also Barile; Carfizzi; Civita; Firmo; Ginestra; Greci; Portocannone; S. Benedetto Ullano; Vena di Maida Arbitrary (control) 240, 241, 269, 282 Aromanian 1, 8, 15, 19, 127, 128, 129–154, 155–177, 179, 200, 208, 215, 216, 229, 235, 236, 238, 239, 243–266, 267–296, 299, 306, 309, 310.See also Divjakë; Fier; Këllez; Libofshë Asp(ect) 7, 9, 74, 77, 92, 184, 189, 197, 265, 278, 281, 291, 295, 336, 344, 352 Asturian 56 Auxiliary 20, 184, 190, 228, 258, 268, 278, 279, 288, 295, 311, 312, 340, 343, 344, 350, 353 Axial Part (AxPart) 100, 165 Barile (Arbëresh) 260, 261, 327, 328, 333, 350, 351, 353, 355, 356 Bilingualism 153, 303, 307, 325 Biolinguistic 76, 302 Borrowing 244, 263–266, 299, 301–325

Index 

By-phrase 191, 299, 326, 327, 330, 331, 332, 334, 336, 337, 338, 341, 342, 343, 344, 345, 347, 349 Calabrian 259, 260, 269, 301–325 Camporeale (Sicily) 262 Carfizzi (Arbëresh) 220, 224, 231, 237 Cartographic 244, 249, 257, 260, 261, 263–266, 293, 351, 353 Case. See Ablative; Absolutive; Accusative; Dative; Ergative; Genitive; Instrumental; Locative; Nominative; Oblique Case Resistance (Principle) 254, 274 Causative 15, 96, 166, 258, 269, 282, 299, 300, 326–356 Causee 300, 327–329, 331, 336, 337, 339, 340, 349, 353, 354, 356 Causer 188, 189, 300, 326, 327, 328–330, 332, 335, 336, 341, 342–344, 349, 350, 353, 356 Chain 14, 352, 353, 355, 356 Change 16, 50, 75, 136, 264, 275, 302, 325, 334, 356 Civita (Arbëresh) 62, 67, 72, 221, 227, 231 Classifier 47–50 Clitic 3–7, 10, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 25, 26, 53, 54, 59, 75, 87, 94, 95, 100, 104, 105, 108, 110, 111, 119–123, 138, 142–145, 150, 162, 163, 181, 221, 223, 226, 228, 229, 230, 233, 239, 245, 257, 259, 261, 262, 267, 272, 279, 281, 289, 292, 311, 314, 315, 316, 321, 331, 332, 338, 340, 341, 351, 352, 354 Clitic doubling 26, 75, 87, 119–123, 272 Code-mixing 299, 301–325 Code-switching 323, 324 Complementizer 8, 215, 223, 224, 231, 237, 243, 244, 246–260, 263, 264, 265, 274, 283, 285, 286, 287, 306, 308–310 Concord 11, 12, 15, 128, 130, 147 Contact 3, 16, 21, 127, 129, 132, 149, 150, 153, 244, 252, 253, 263, 269, 299, 301–325, 326, 334–335, 339, 348–350, 356 Control 8, 15, 86, 215–242, 244, 247, 248, 255–258, 262, 263, 267, 269, 281–283, 287, 289, 292–295, 307–309, 334, 338, 339

 373

Convergence 118, 307–310, 312–314, 316, 321, 323, 356 Copula 66, 139, 140–142, 209, 275, 285, 291, 343 Count 45, 47, 50, 53, 54, 57, 60, 62, 64, 65, 69, 71, 72, 74, 102, 210, 226, 344, 349 Cyclic Agree 115, 116 D (category) 17, 60, 142, 215 Dagur (Mongolian) 205 Dative 25, 26, 29–31, 34, 63, 64, 66, 75, 78, 80, 86, 87, 88, 90–92, 94, 95, 102, 104–108, 110, 111, 114–117, 119, 121–123, 129, 132, 134, 141, 147, 148, 152, 153, 155–159, 163, 164, 166, 167, 169–172, 175, 177–183, 190–194, 197, 198, 204, 206, 208–210, 271, 273–275, 279, 284, 299, 315, 326, 327, 331, 332, 336, 337, 342, 343, 345, 347 de se (interpretation) 235 Default 15, 33, 35, 44, 56, 58, 85, 197, 222, 287, 348 Definite 18, 20, 28, 29, 32, 34, 36–41, 43, 51, 60, 61, 63, 65, 68, 78, 80, 81, 83, 86, 89, 90, 91, 94, 97, 99, 100, 116, 120, 130–132, 134, 137–139, 141, 142–144, 146, 147, 150, 155–157, 159, 160, 163, 165, 186, 192, 225, 228, 251, 252, 303, 318, 355 Demonstrative 18, 20, 35, 60–62, 65–68, 70, 71, 91, 103, 129, 131, 134, 136, 137, 139, 141, 143, 144, 149, 150, 153, 159, 160, 207, 230, 285 Dependent (case) 39, 178 Determiner 13, 58, 73 Differential Object Marking (DOM) 19, 21, 26, 75–112, 113, 116–123, 127, 164, 166, 167, 168, 172, 177, 178, 182, 192, 197, 272, 332, 348 Diminutive 317, 318 Diphtongization 321, 323 Direct (case) 15, 27, 33, 35, 36, 39, 43, 51, 61–63, 65, 67, 68, 70, 78, 84, 85, 86, 88, 91, 114, 134, 136, 155, 156, 158, 166, 167, 168, 172, 180, 183, 193, 197, 198, 200, 208–210, 271, 272, 274, 287, 337, 347, 349

374 

 Index

Distributed Morphology, DM 1, 2, 3, 19, 25, 27, 29, 44–46, 48, 49, 73, 74, 77, 84, 85, 88, 99, 127, 177, 210, 281, 296, 324 Divjakë (Aromanian) 132 Dominance 146, 342 Dorgali (Sardinia) 274 Early Romanian 244, 268, 269, 273, 274 Economy 37, 38, 60, 111, 215, 306 Enclitic 4, 6, 151, 163, 169, 239 EPP (variable) 231, 239, 241, 257, 287 Equivalence Constraint 323 Ergative 127, 178, 182–198, 204, 205, 206, 210, 211, 272, 278, 279, 287, 291, 293, 295, 343, 346, 348, 349 Event 6, 10, 34, 55, 56, 58, 59, 69, 87, 88, 91, 94–96, 101, 108, 109, 111, 148, 150, 166, 167, 178, 184, 188, 191–193, 196, 198, 204, 232, 236, 253, 275, 278, 280, 281, 290, 291, 306, 307, 311, 337, 341, 342–344 Exceptional Case Marking (ECM) 328, 336, 337, 347 Existential 44, 251, 252, 278, 338, 344 Expletive 15, 59, 220, 326, 352, 353, 355 External argument 94, 95, 100, 109, 113–117, 148, 151–153, 162, 174, 176, 178, 181–198, 201, 203, 204, 209–211, 254, 278, 279, 284, 336–348, 354 Externalization, EXT 1–22, 44, 63, 77, 146, 155, 180, 346 Ezafe 129, 130, 140, 141, 143, 193, 194, 202 Faire-à 327, 328, 335, 337, 356 Faire-Acc 327, 328, 337 Faire-Nom 328, 336 Faire-par 327, 328, 330, 337 Feminine (Fem) 29, 30, 31, 36, 40, 43, 45–47, 49, 52–54, 56, 57, 60, 61, 66–71, 78, 83, 89, 91, 92, 97, 102, 103, 132, 133, 135, 136, 137, 138, 141, 151, 155–158, 160, 162, 163, 165, 169, 171, 173, 175, 180, 185, 189, 193, 199, 200, 237, 314, 315 Fier (Aromanian) 132, 155, 161, 168, 171, 246, 248, 251, 258, 259, 263, 265, 270, 294

Fin (category) 219, 237, 244, 246, 249, 250, 255, 259, 260, 264, 268, 271, 275, 293, 310 Firenze (Tuscany) 355 Firmo (Arbëresh) 61, 66, 67, 70, 72, 289, 290, 328, 336 Focus 1, 16, 25, 85, 88, 104, 116, 120, 127, 132, 202, 232, 244, 245, 246, 247, 250, 259, 264, 299, 340, 341, 352 Force 87, 137, 139, 140, 154, 246, 249, 250, 255, 259, 260, 264, 310, 353 Free Morpheme Constraint 299, 301, 318, 323, 324 French 4, 5, 17, 59, 110, 179, 203, 248, 256, 273 Full Interpretation 13, 154, 186, 338 Geg Albanian 21, 28, 51, 75–112, 176, 216, 220, 225, 227, 267, 271, 274–284, 288, 290, 291, 293, 294, 295, 296, 344. See also Shkodër Generic 31, 36, 41, 103, 240, 241 Genitive 15, 29, 30, 34, 63, 64, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 88, 90, 91, 92, 102, 103, 127, 129, 130, 131, 132, 134, 139–142, 147, 148, 151–154, 155–157, 160, 162, 164, 165, 170, 172–175, 177, 178, 180–183, 191, 193, 194, 197–210, 269, 271, 272, 274, 275, 284, 288, 316, 342 Ginestra (Arbëresh) 22, 260, 300, 303, 304, 305, 316, 317, 321, 322, 323, 326–356 Gjirokastër (Albanian) 130, 220, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 232, 252, 253, 257, 260, 283, 288, 289, 290, 336, 347 Goal 9–12, 15, 29, 59, 96, 105, 108, 110, 116, 122, 147, 154, 167, 182, 186, 190, 192, 193, 194, 209, 218, 234, 332, 336, 349, 353 Government phonology 50, 319, 322 Grammaticalization 2, 9, 140, 141, 150, 275 Greci (Arbëresh) 81, 82, 83, 91, 93, 98, 99, 103, 105, 106 Greek 129, 134, 140, 145, 149, 150, 160, 217, 221, 222, 224, 230, 238, 244, 246, 255, 259, 260, 264, 299, 301, 336, 340 Guglionesi (Abruzzi) 250, 251, 252 Gujarati 348

Index 

Haplology 142 Hypothetical 244, 264, 265, 283 Iacurso (Calabria) 314, 315, 319, 320 Idiom 53 Imperfective 178, 184, 196, 311 Impersonal 340 Impoverishment 44, 84, 99, 100, 281 Inanimate. See Animate Inclusion. See ⊆ Inclusiveness 342 Incorporation 166, 255, 256, 268, 278, 326, 336, 339, 340, 344, 345, 346 Indefinite. See Definite Indicative 224, 243, 244, 246, 249, 252, 281 Infinitive 22, 190, 215, 216, 217, 222, 223, 235, 239, 240, 267, 268, 269, 271, 273, 274, 275, 277, 278, 281, 283, 284, 285, 287, 291, 293, 294, 295, 307, 339 Inflectional Class 25, 33, 45, 46, 47, 49, 52, 54, 65, 69, 89, 91, 127, 133, 142 Inherent (case) 14, 33, 54, 65, 69, 116, 167, 210, 306, 317 Instrumental 190, 191, 207, 208, 209, 211, 267, 284, 285, 342 Interface Uniformity 76, 345 Interpretable 2, 9–15, 45, 52, 53, 84, 89, 99, 101, 108, 128, 130, 143, 144, 147, 149, 154, 179, 185, 186, 232, 341, 352 Interrogative 8, 248, 249, 250, 265, 310 Inuktikut 205, 206 Inverse Agreement 22, 26, 75, 113–118, 300, 354 Inverse Alignment 117, 118 Irrealis 6, 252, 292 Italian 5, 7, 11, 12, 15, 16, 19, 21, 45–74, 77, 87, 88, 91, 100–103, 106, 121, 165, 199, 215, 217, 220–224, 226, 231, 235, 238, 239, 240, 241, 243, 244, 246, 249, 252, 254, 256, 262, 263, 272, 273, 274, 287, 299, 301, 326, 327, 332, 333, 334, 339, 342, 343, 356 Italian dialects. See Accettura; Camporeale; Firenze; Guglionesi; Iacurso; Mascioni; Mesagne; Monte Giberto; Trinità d’Agultu; Zonza

 375

Kashmiri 114, 115, 116, 117, 207, 208 Këllez (Aromanian) 246, 263, 264, 271, 294 Kinship (term) 130, 225, 226 Kurmanji (Kurdish) 129, 140–143, 148, 193–197, 202, 203 Lardil (Australia) 207 Late Insertion 2, 3, 32, 42, 44, 56, 77, 84, 110 Late Lexicalization 29 Latin 35, 36, 49, 157, 159, 183, 262, 264, 295 Leista (Spanish) 272 Lexicon 2, 3, 18, 19, 20, 25, 27, 29, 32, 33, 42, 44, 46, 53, 73, 75, 77, 84, 85, 88, 92, 100, 177, 218, 263, 299, 301, 302, 305, 306, 307, 316, 320, 323, 324, 335 Libofshë (Aromanian) 155, 156, 158, 162, 168–172, 246, 259, 264, 265, 270, 294 Linker (Lkr) 8, 30, 61, 62, 65, 67, 78, 79, 81, 129, 131, 132, 134, 136–154, 155–163, 169, 170–176, 177, 203, 208, 209, 215, 217–242, 257, 262, 263, 265, 277, 289, 290, 292, 293, 311, 312, 315–317 Locative 31, 34–36, 42, 78, 90, 92, 97, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 108, 110, 111, 166, 207, 209, 267, 273, 279, 281, 291, 315, 343 Logophoric (centre) 219, 236 Martuthunira (Pama-Nyungan) 207 Mascioni (Abruzzo) 55, 60 Masculine (Masc) 29, 30, 46, 47, 49, 52–54, 56, 57, 60, 61, 66–68, 70, 71, 89–91, 102, 132–135, 137, 138, 152, 155, 156, 158, 160, 162, 163, 169, 173, 180, 189, 190, 192, 193, 198, 200, 202, 237, 311, 314, 315, 348 Mass 8, 25, 45, 47, 50, 53–68, 71, 72, 74, 226, 272, 290 Match 10, 11, 26, 150, 186, 261, 264, 352 Mesagne (Apulia) 351 Metaphony 318, 319, 320, 323 Middle-Passive (M(-)P) 226, 228, 276, 281, 304, 311, 332, 333, 340–346 Minimal Search 2, 11, 13, 154, 186 Minimality 106, 110, 111, 114, 118, 340, 344, 345

376 

 Index

Minority Language 16, 229, 301, 316, 334 Modal 6, 7, 195, 215, 221, 224, 225, 229, 233, 236, 239, 256, 260, 269, 279, 281, 282, 284, 287, 289, 291, 292, 294, 295, 296, 309 Monte Giberto (Marche) 53–58, 60, 65 Mood 230, 236, 237, 242, 243, 257, 259, 260, 261, 281, 309 Multiple Agree 107, 130, 147, 154 Negation 6, 7, 120, 195, 207, 224, 245, 259–262, 279, 282, 284, 286, 289, 292, 295, 308 Nepali 348, 349 Neuter 8, 21, 25, 45–74, 226, 257 Nominal Class 5, 11, 12, 25, 37, 41, 45–49, 52, 54, 61, 74, 85, 88, 89, 91, 92, 94, 100, 101, 102, 112, 139, 155, 179, 180, 183–185, 190, 211, 228, 303, 315, 351, 352 Nominalization 15, 205, 215, 226, 243, 253, 254, 269, 289 Nominative 29, 35–43, 78, 81–83, 86, 89–91, 97–99, 101, 103, 108, 115, 137, 155, 157, 164, 165, 167, 168, 178, 179, 180, 183, 184, 187, 189, 194, 195, 197, 203, 211, 217, 220–223, 226, 234, 237, 238, 239, 254, 255, 278, 279, 283, 284, 287, 295, 315, 328, 331, 332, 336, 338, 339, 344, 347, 349 Non-veridical 6, 7, 265, 295 Northern Italian (dialects) 16–19, 262, 352, 355 Null Subject 16, 20, 37, 222, 231, 232, 235, 236, 237, 241, 273, 283, 287 Null Topic 241 Number 4, 5, 11, 12, 14, 25, 30, 31, 41, 45–52, 56, 60, 62, 63, 67, 74, 77, 84, 88, 89, 100, 102, 127, 134, 139, 163, 170, 173, 179, 180, 183, 184, 187, 190, 195, 202, 222, 225, 228, 256, 272, 291, 293, 303, 305, 306, 318, 340, 354 Oblique 8, 15, 21, 25, 26, 27, 30–44, 63, 64, 66, 68–70, 73, 74, 75, 77–83, 86–88, 90, 91–104, 108, 114–118, 129, 132–139, 141, 147, 148, 151–153, 155–158, 162,

165–167, 170–173, 177, 178–211, 253, 271, 272, 274, 275, 278, 279, 284–286, 289, 326, 331, 332, 335–339, 342–345, 349 Optimization 2, 3, 7, 356 Order 6, 13, 17, 18, 25, 26, 38, 40, 42, 43, 77, 99, 101, 109, 146, 147, 173, 189, 208, 215, 218, 224, 225, 231, 233, 246, 252, 254, 259, 261, 262, 265, 271, 280, 286, 289, 292, 310, 319, 324, 327, 331, 342, 344, 345, 346 Parameter 1–22, 209, 210, 327, 348, 349 Participant 17, 18, 20, 86, 95, 96, 107, 108, 114, 115, 193, 280, 281, 325, 329, 331 Participle 53, 54, 59, 183, 185, 187, 189, 192, 203–205, 216, 226–229, 267, 276, 277, 278, 279, 283, 284, 288–296, 311–314, 324, 343, 344, 348, 354, 355 Particle (Prt) 8, 215, 217–242, 243–249, 253, 255–265, 269, 275, 289, 292, 293, 307–309, 327, 338, 351 Partitive 269, 272 Part-whole. See ⊆ Paskajore 216, 267, 271, 274, 275, 281, 283, 284–287, 294, 295, 296 Passive 96, 116, 167, 184, 189, 191, 278, 279, 287, 288, 291, 293, 295, 300, 311, 326–356 Past 195, 221, 222, 280, 281, 311, 312, 313, 324, 337, 340 Paulilatino (Sardinia) 250, 251 Perfect 59, 178, 183, 184–186, 187–195, 198, 203, 204, 216, 228, 267, 276, 277, 278, 279, 288, 291, 293, 295, 296, 311, 312, 324, 341, 343, 344, 348 Person 4–5, 16, 19, 21, 26, 75, 84, 87, 93, 95, 103, 104, 106, 107, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 117, 121, 122, 123, 127, 155, 163, 167, 173, 179, 193, 195, 281, 305, 313, 328, 330, 331, 333, 335, 346, 353, 354, 355 Person Case Constraint (PCC) 26, 75–112, 113, 115, 117, 118, 119, 120, 122, 123, 127 Phase 13, 26, 39, 109, 113, 147, 149, 186, 210, 218, 236, 240, 256, 263, 336, 337, 346, 349 Picurìs (Tanoan) 117, 118

Index 

Plains Cree (Algonquian) 113, 114, 354 Plural 8, 10, 18, 25, 27–33, 35–44, 45, 47, 50, 51, 61–69, 71–74, 78, 80, 82, 83, 86–91, 97, 100, 103, 104, 133, 135–137, 155–158, 169, 175, 180, 189, 190, 193, 198, 199, 225, 237, 303, 312, 313, 314–316, 324, 328, 332 Polarity 247, 262, 264, 265, 292 Portocannone (Arbëresh) 222, 231, 235 Portuguese 56 Possession 34–36, 63, 64, 87, 88, 90, 130, 141, 148, 151, 162, 178, 179, 181, 182, 183, 191, 193, 206, 235, 343 Possessive 19, 30, 34, 91, 102, 127, 128, 155–177, 178, 183, 184, 198, 200, 202, 204, 211, 226, 273 Postposition 173, 178, 189, 190, 198–202, 206, 207, 348 Precedence 122, 146, 241 Predication 8, 15, 141, 142, 155, 177, 181, 197, 204, 206–210, 215, 217, 219, 223, 229, 231, 233, 234, 236, 238, 242, 256, 261–263, 289, 338, 352 Preposition 28, 29, 38, 64, 84, 92, 93, 96, 97, 99, 100–102, 105, 121–123, 151, 153, 159, 160, 164–166, 168–170, 179, 181, 226, 267–271, 273–276, 278–280, 283–286, 292, 306, 308, 309, 316, 341, 343, 344 PRO 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 223, 233, 239, 241, 255 Pro 218, 220, 221, 231, 232, 241, 287, 347 Probe 9–12, 15, 59, 107, 110, 114, 115, 130, 143, 144, 147, 154, 185, 186, 218, 254, 349, 353, 355 Proclitic 4, 6, 16 Pro-drop 16 Progressive 178, 183, 184, 187–189, 192–197, 211, 234, 264, 265, 267, 268, 275, 277–283, 287, 288, 291, 295, 296, 310, 326, 350–352 Pronoun 8, 15, 19, 21, 26, 29–31, 36–38, 55, 58, 60, 78, 79, 81–83, 85–97, 101, 103–111, 119, 122, 128, 132, 133, 136, 143, 160, 163–172, 174–177, 192, 200, 207, 222, 223, 239, 241, 243, 248, 251, 287, 305, 309, 310, 314, 330–332, 352, 355

 377

Punjabi 11, 117, 118, 127, 173, 178–211, 295, 348 Purpose (clause) 226, 289, 292, 308 Raising 115, 218, 219, 221, 222, 225, 229, 230, 232, 234, 235, 236, 240, 244, 256, 267, 278, 287, 309, 344, 346 Recoverability 17 Referential/person/animacy hierarchy 86 Referential hierarchy 87, 107, 108, 113, 116, 117, 122 Reflexive 106, 340 Relative 8, 15, 117, 178, 184, 203–206, 243, 248, 250, 251, 252, 253, 254, 259, 265, 269, 271, 286, 294, 300, 308, 309, 310 Relative clauses 202–206, 210, 211, 253 Repair 19, 110, 111, 116, 117 Result(ative) 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 26, 27, 41, 43, 44, 45, 52, 71, 77, 84, 89, 107, 143, 149, 151, 153, 155, 163, 166, 179, 184, 186, 204, 239, 246, 272, 278, 280, 291, 295, 302, 306, 324, 325, 330, 335, 338, 340, 341, 343, 344, 349 Rioplatense (Spanish) 121, 272 Romanian 21, 87, 129, 131, 132, 134, 137, 144, 148, 151–153, 155–177, 179, 180, 182, 183, 197, 200, 202, 224, 243, 244, 246, 250, 254–256, 264, 267–269, 273, 293–295. See also Early Romanian Root 4, 10, 46, 48, 49, 51, 52, 53, 57, 64, 65, 70, 88, 174, 175, 185, 191, 268, 290 R-role 49, 144, 146 S. Benedetto Ullano (Arbëresh) 62, 67, 68, 70, 71, 72, 350, 351 Sardinian. See Dorgali; Paulilatino Selection 20, 41, 42, 43, 52, 53, 71, 77, 167, 202, 210, 236, 249, 261, 311, 312, 338, 339, 342 Sequence of Tenses 217, 220, 221, 222, 337 Shkodër (Geg Albanian) 21, 22, 28, 78–80, 83, 91–93, 96–98, 102–105, 109, 110, 175, 176, 220, 225, 227, 276, 277, 279, 281–284, 290 Smuggling 326, 341–345

378 

 Index

Spanish 33, 46, 50, 51, 53, 56, 77, 87, 88, 121, 231, 256, 272, 323. See also Leista; Rioplatense Speaker 17, 18, 20, 34, 35, 86, 87, 95, 103, 108, 127, 165, 233, 236, 252, 263, 279, 299, 302, 307, 324, 335, 351 Stacking 173, 174, 175, 176, 203, 204, 206–210 Stacking (Descriptive) Generalization 175, 176, 198, 202, 208 Stacking Parameter (generalized) 210 Stress 1, 4, 5, 7, 45, 64, 197, 299 Strong PCC 104, 107, 109, 113 Structural (case) 167, 210 Subjunctive 8, 215, 217, 220, 221, 222, 224–230, 234, 235, 236, 243, 249, 252, 254, 256, 263, 267, 268, 275, 282, 283, 289, 292, 295, 309, 327, 338, 339 Suffixaufnahme 128, 155, 173–176, 178, 206, 210 Supine 216, 267–295 Sursilvan 48 Syncretism 8, 9, 25, 27, 32, 35, 36, 44, 45, 61, 73, 74, 85, 90, 91, 102, 104, 108, 127, 148, 165, 178, 180, 193, 281, 287 Tense 217, 220–223, 236, 258, 326, 337 Tenseless/tenselessness 218, 221, 223, 256, 336

Thematic vowel 29, 37, 49, 268, 277, 290, 313 Theta-identification 144, 148 Theta-role 84, 146, 147, 161, 179, 186, 218, 233, 341 Topic 1, 26, 120, 121, 224, 244, 245, 246, 247, 249, 250, 262, 273, 287 Trinità d’Agultu (Sardinia) 262 Underspecification 2, 32, 35, 44, 73, 99 Uninterpretable. See Interpretable Universal Base Hypothesis 76 Unvalued. See Valued Valued 2, 9–14, 15, 128, 130, 147, 149, 154 Vena di Maida (Arbëresh) 220, 227, 237, 304, 305, 310–312, 314–317, 319, 320, 347, 349 Visibility of Inherent-Case to Verbal Agreement (VIVA) Parameter 348 Vocabulary Insertion 19, 25, 84 Voice 184, 189, 278, 279, 340–344 VP-movement 326–356 Weak PCC 104, 107, 109, 113 Wh- 243, 245, 249–254, 257, 265, 310 Zero (morpheme) 44 Zonza (Corsica) 4, 6