Cross-Romance variations: alternatives in the aspectual type of deadjectival verbs

MANGIALAVORI RASIA, MARÍA EUGENIA

Bruselas

Conferencia; Search CRISSP BCGL 11: The syntax and semantics of aspect; 2018

CRISSP - KU Leuven

Cross-Romance variations: alternatives in the aspectual type of deadjectival verbsM. Eugenia Mangialavori Rasia ? CONICET (Argentina)PROBLEM: A morpheme, derived from the present infinitive form of Latin *-idiō (Tronci 2015, Cockburn 2012), has become part of the very core of derivational morphology, rendering a qualitative and quantitative productive alternative for verb formation across the board in major Romance languages (Ita.-eggiare; Cat./Port/ Prov. -ejar; Fr. -oyer; Sp. -ear; Gal. -izar, Friul. -iar, Surs. -egiar, Cerd.-iare) with parallels in Greek ízō (Necker&Tronci 2012). Its grammaticalization, however, has led to different results in each case, giving verbs with significantly distinct semantic and syntactic properties. Notably, the role of this verbalizer in Italian poses an empirical question if pared against other Romance languages, but especially with Catalan; both being differing from Spanish and Portuguese by producing stative types. Here, four observations are key: (i)-eggiare participates in the Italian subsystem of verbal derivation as a highly productive verbalizer (vo) yielding denominal and deadjectival verbs with coherent structural properties; (ii)these properties define a maximal contrast in event/argument structure from the transitive/unaccusative, change-of-state (COS) verb that obtain in other Romance varieties; (iii)the opposition motivates in Italian a nontrivial derivational alternative producing a significant set of minimal pairs like (1), which define a morphotactically transparent contrast between zero-suffixed fientive COS verbs (?become √?)) with causative alternation, and (unergative) similative essive variants (?be/look like √?)) given by -eggiare; (iv)the unergative-stative variant is either missing (Sp./Br.Prt.) or morphologically indistinguishable in other Romance varieties. UPSHOT OF THIS EMPIRICAL OBSERVATIONS: (A) the derivational alternative (1) defines a consistent crosscut in event/argument structure, with (non)eventivity correlating with (a)transitivity. (B) This option either unavailable (Spanish, BRPortuguese) or collapsed under the same morpheme (Catalan), with eventive type correlating to argument structure realizations regardless.(A) Italian&Catalan. -eggiare/-ejar verbs (EV) convey a state resembling or close enough to the property/ thing named by the root (√), but with a strong implication of never fully reaching this condition (Carratta&D'Alberti 2013, Necker&Tronci 2012). This derivational alternative defines a contrast in event structure correlated with a contrast in argument structure. ASPECT: zero-suffixed verbs generally show variable telicity bearing on the type of scale associated to the lexicalized property, following a well-known relation long noted in deadjectivals (Hay et al. 1999 i.a.) (7)a. EVs break this pattern by yielding invariably atelic forms, independent of lexicalized scale (7)b. Atelicity is nonetheless expected, given the stative nature of these similative variants and also, to some extent, given their (i) unergativity (vs. the transitive/unaccusative layout of verbs generally denoting COS (Levin & Rappaport 1995) and causative alternation and consequent (ii) lack of affected entity (COS undergoer).(B) Dedicated/Nondedicated verbalizer. ASPECT Italian statives seem to lack the event variable noted in their stative Catalan counterparts, where nonresultativity rather follows from by a never-ending (approaching Oltra&Catroviejo 2013) transition towards the property named by √ (Note the GO-√gloss). Catalan EVs show mixed stative/eventive status (as expected in D[avidsonian] states) and a sense of incremental scalarity (and gradability) crucially missing from Italian EVs (3). Italian EVs are odd in progressive tenses (11), do not allow nor location in space, manner and progression adverbials (4), as expected from pure (Kimian) states (Rothmayr 2009). Italian EVs fail tests for scalarity of gradable attributes (Levin 2009), like comparative, superlative, and degree modifiers (5) (vs. Catalan). Anaphoric reference (Maienborn 2008: 114) is not related to an event in Italian, also in contrast to Catalan (cf. El cereal grogueja [...això continuarà durant un mes] ?The cereal is going yellow [this will go on for a month]?) (6). Italian EVs yield states that may extend over a limited time span (but not one that progresses over time, even statively (vs. Catalan)). SYNTAX: Italian offers a set of well-(1)√white√flat√black√round√blueMEANINGBEHAVIORsbiancareappianareannerirearrotondareazzurrare?become √(er))?±telic COSbiancheggiarepianeggiarenereggiarerotondeggiareazzurreggiare?be/look{√}(ish)atelic SIMILknown tests for split intransitivity. Auxiliary distribution (8), unaccusative/refl. morphology 0, ne-cliticization(9), passive/ middle formation, indicate that lack of event progression/endpoint (10)-(11), restriction to generic tenses (cf. arrossì [√RED.PRF] vs. ??rosseggiò [√RED.egg.PRF]) and oddity in progressive (11) correlate to unergativity. In Catalan, scalar progression correlates to unaccusativity (as opposed as the pure state give by the unergative variant, both with -ejar)(2) El cel fosqueja (en el fondal de l'horitzó/gradualment/naturalment/com sempre). (Cat)?The sky is going dark(er) (at the back of the horizon/gradually/naturally/as always)?(3) a. La camisa ha groguejat una mica #(des de la primera rentada). (Cat)?The t-shirt has gone yellow #(since the first wash)?. (Oltra & Castroviejo 2013: (19))b. La camicia ?ha gialleggiato un po? (#dal primo lavato). (Ita)?The t-shirt has looked yellow(ish) (#since the first wash).(4) I pomodorini datterini rosseggiano (#sul balcone#omogeneamente/#naturalmente/#gradualmente). ?The date tomatoes look red(ish) in the balcony/homogeneously//naturally/gradually??(5) a. La camisa cada dia {grogueja més/grogueja més que la samarreta}. (Cat)?The t-shirt {goes yellower each day/ is turning yellower than the jacket}?b. La camicia (??ogni giorno) gialleggia/ingiallisce (#più). (Ita)?The t-shirt looks yellow(ish) (#more) each day?c. Il suo viso {arrossisce/#rosseggia} più dei ciliegi. (Ita)?His face {reddens more/#looks red(ish) more} than the cherry trees?(6) Adesso i pomodori rosseggiano. Questo non continua a lungo.?Now the tomatoes look red(ish). This will not last long?.(7) a. sbianchire (#per/okin un?ora) | schiarire (okper/#in un?ora). ?whiten?|?lighten? (in/for an hour)?b. biancheggiare (*in/per un?ora) |chiareggiare (*in/per un?ora). ?be white/light(ish) (for/*in an hour)?(8) a. {ha/*è} rosseggiato/verdeggiato/biancheggiato.b. {*ha/è} arrossito/inverdito/sbiancato/ingiallito.La pelle {*(si) arrossa /(*si) rosseggia}. ?The skin (inch) reddens? ?The skin (*inch) looks red(ish)?(9) Anche i più impudichi ne {arrossano/*rosseggiano}.?Even the most indecent ones go red (redden)?(10) {annerire/#nereggiare} (gradualmente/completamente)?blacken/look black(ish) (gradually/completely)(11) Il vetro {nereggiava/#stava nereggiando}?The glass looked /was looking blackish? (cf. (1)a)(B) Cross-Romance results: strikingly unsystematic. As for the overall (panRomance) picture, it is interesting to note that Italian generally preserves the stative-unergative status in EVs (drawing the nontrivial contrast between transitive/unaccusative COS sbiancare ?whiten? and the stative unergative biancheggiare ?look white(ish)?), Spa. and BRPort. analogues give instead inchoative/causative COS (SP blanquear/ BrPRT.alvejar ?whiten?), with variable telicity according to √ type, thus collapsing the contrast, noted in Italian, between -ear/ejar (-eggiare analogues) and zero-suffixed forms. In turn, Catalan speakers report a nontrivial ambiguity between (a) an atelic, non-resultative unergative stative, somehow paralleling Ita. biancheggiare, and (b) a transitive/unaccusative fientive COS variant amenable to Spa. blanquear/BRPrt. alvejar (12). The alternative in event and argument structure realization accommodates otherwise puzzling behavior like compatibility with ne/se-cl. (reported in Oltra & Castroviejo 2013) and the unavailability of unergative reading in perfective tenses (14). If correct, this means that Catalan somehow retains the event/argument structure crosscut and alternation which is derivationally nontrivial in Italian (cf. (12)vs.(1)). French (15) and EUPortuguese allow the stative atelic alternative, which is, however, visibly restricted in productivity (vs. Italian (1))(12) a. La camisa blanqueja. ?The shirt looks white(ish)? (ATELIC (UNERGATIVE) SIMILATIVE)b. Ha blanquejat la camisa/La camisa s'ha blanquejat. (COS)?[he] whitened the shirt/the shirt whitened?(13) Estava blanquejant *(diners negre) ?(He) was laundering (lit. ?[he] whitening) black money?(14) Ha blanquejat tota la paret→ ?[he] whitened the whole wall?/*?The whole wall looked white(ish)?(15) blanchir/blanchoyer, rougir/rougeoyer, verdir/verdoyer, noircir/*noiroyer, bleuir/*bleuoyer (Fr.)