Paradigmi misti in alcuni dialetti italoromanzi: un approccio morfologico

This paper addresses the problem of mixed paradigms, i.e. cases of intraparadigmatic auxiliary alternation (esse/habere), as attested in some Italo-Romance varieties. It aims to show that, in some specific cases, auxiliary selection ceases to be motivated on syntactic grounds, where the traditional active/inactive verb classes are opposed, and begins to operate on a purely morphological basis. The paper represents one of the first attempts to deal with the issue of mixed paradigms in morphological terms. The aim is to show that auxiliary alternation within one and the same paradigm may follow both motivated and coherent patterns of distribution (e.g., singular versus plural) and unmotivated patterns of distribution, traditionally termed ‘morphomic’. This article thus intends to put forward yet another case of morphologization of previously motivated distributional patterns.

1. Aronoff, M. (1994): Morphology by Itself. Stems and Inflectional Classes. Cambridge (MA): The MIT Press.

2. Bentley, D. (2006): Split Intransitivity in Italian. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossRef

3. Bentley, D. – Eythórsson, T. (2001): Alternation according to person in Italo-Romance. In: L. J. Brinton (ed.), Historical Linguistics 1999. Selected papers from the 14th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Vancouver, 9–13 August 1999. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 63–74. CrossRef

4. Biberauer, T. – D'Alessandro, R. (2006): Syntactic Doubling and the Encoding of Voice in Eastern Abruzzese. In: D. Baumer – D. Montero – M. Scanlon (eds.), Proceedings of the 25th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. Somerville (MA): Cascadilla Proceedings Project, pp. 87–95.

5. Cennamo, M. (2010): Perfective auxiliaries in the pluperfect in some southern Italian dialects. In: R. D'Alessandro – A. Ledgeway – I. Roberts (eds.), Syntactic Variation: The dialects of Italy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 210–224.

6. Corbett, G. G. (2013): Periphrasis and possible lexemes. In: M. Chumakina – G. G. Corbett (eds.), Periphrasis. The Role of Syntax and Morphology in Paradigms. Proceedings of the British Academy, 180. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 169–189.

7. Corbett, G. G. (2015): Morphosyntactic Complexity: A Typology of Lexical Splits. Language, 91, 1, pp. 145–193. CrossRef

8. Corbett, G. G. (2016). Morphomic splits. In: A. R. Luís – R. Bermúdez-Otero (eds.), The morphome debate. Diagnosing and analysing morphomic patterns. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 64–88. CrossRef

9. Cruschina, S. (2013): Beyond the stem and inflectional morphology: an irregular pattern at the level of periphrasis. In: S. Cruschina – M. Maiden – J. C. Smith (eds.), The Boundaries of Pure Morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 262–283. CrossRef

10. D'Alessandro, R. – Roberts, I. (2010): Past participle agreement: split auxiliary selection and the null-subject parameter. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 28, pp. 41–72. CrossRef

11. Ledgeway, A. (2009): Grammatica diacronica del napoletano. Tübingen: Niemeyer. CrossRef

12. Ledgeway, A. (2012): From Latin to Romance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

13. Ledgeway, A. (2014): Romance Auxiliary Selection in Light of Romanian Evidence. In: G. Pană Dindelegan – R. Zafiu – A. Dragomirescu – I. Nicula – A. Nicolae (eds.), Diachronic Variation in Romanian. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, pp. 3–35.

14. Ledgeway, A. (in stampa): From Latin to Romance: The Great Leap. In: P. Crisma – G. Longobardi (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Diachronic and Historical Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

15. Ledgeway, A. (di prossima pubblicazione): From Coordination to Subordination: The Grammaticalisation of Progressive and Andative Aspect in the dialects of Salento. In: A. Cardoso – A. M. Martins – S. Pereira – C. Pinto – F. Pratas (eds.), Coordination and Subordination. Form and Meaning. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

16. Loporcaro, M. (2001): La selezione dell'ausiliare nei dialetti italiani: dati e teorie. In: R. Sornicola – E. Stenta Krosbakken – C. Stromboli (eds.), Dati empirici e teorie linguistiche: Atti del XXXIII Congresso della Società di Linguistica Italiana, Napoli, 28–30 ottobre 1999. Roma: Bulzoni, pp. 455–476.

17. Loporcaro, M. (2007): On triple auxiliation in Romance. Linguistics, 45, 1, pp. 173–222. CrossRef

18. Loporcaro, M. (2014): Perfective auxiliation in Italo-Romance. In: P. Benincà – A. Ledgeway – N. Vincent (eds.), Diachrony and Dialects. Grammatical Change in the Dialects of Italy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 48–70. CrossRef

19. Maiden, M. (2005): Morphological autonomy and diachrony. In: G. Booji – J. van Marle (eds.), Yearbook of Morphology 2004. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 137–175. CrossRef

20. Maiden, M. (2011): Morphophonological innovation. In: M. Maiden – J. C. Smith – A. Ledgeway (eds.), The Cambridge History of the Romance Languages. Volume I. Structures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 216–267.

21. Manzini, R. – Savoia, L. (2005): I dialetti italiani e romanci: Morfosintassi generativa (I–III). Alessandria: Edizioni dell'Orso.

22. Pirrelli, V. – Battista, M. (2000): The paradigmatic dimension of stem allomorphy in Italian verb inflection. Italian Journal of Linguistics / Rivista di Linguistica, 12, 2, pp. 307–380.

23. Pirrelli, V. (2000): Paradigmi in morfologia. Un approccio interdisciplinare alla flessione verbale italiana. Pisa: Ist. Editoriali e Poligrafici.

24. Torcolacci, G. (2015): Marking the Default. Auxiliary selection in Southern Italian dialects. Tesi di dottorato discussa all'Università di Leida, 2015. Utrecht: LOT.

25. Vincent, N. (2011): Non-finite Forms, Periphrases, and Autonomous Morphology in Latin and Romance. In: M. Maiden – J. C. Smith – M. Goldbach – M.-O. Hinzelin (eds.), Morphological Autonomy. Perspectives from Romance Inflectional Morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 417–435. CrossRef