Cover not available
Part of
Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 2013: Selected papers from 'Going Romance' Amsterdam 2013
Edited by Enoch O. Aboh, Jeannette Schaeffer and Petra Sleeman
[Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 8] 2015
► pp. 159–174

The perfect between Latin and Romance

The rise of perfective periphrases and the active/inactive contrast

 | Leiden University
The development of Romance periphrastic perfect forms, in particular of HABERE + Past Participle, has often been claimed to be the result of a grammaticalization process. Proponents of this approach argue that the Latin verb HABERE (‘to have’) gradually underwent a change of status from lexical to functional, following a systematic path (Harris 1982, a.o.). This study will present evidence to show that this hypothesis comes up against both empirical and theoretical issues. Conversely, it will illustrate that the emergence of Romance perfective periphrases might be more correctly considered a consequence of the active/inactive alignment characterizing the Latin verbal system. This approach will also pave the way to an understanding of the rise of modern auxiliation patterns from a diachronic point of view.
Published online: 2 December 2015
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/rllt.8.09mig
References (47)
References
Adams, James. 2013. Social Variation and the Latin Language. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Alexiadou, Artemis, and Elena Anagnostopoulou. 1999. “Non-active Morphology and the Direction of Transitivity Alternations.” NELS 29: Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society: 27-40.Google Scholar
. 2004. “Voice Morphology in the Causative-inchoative Alternation: Evidence for a Non-unified Structural Analysis of Unaccusatives.” In The Unaccusativity Puzzle: Explorations at the Syntax-Lexicon Interface, ed. by Artemis Alexiadou, Elena Anagnostopoulou, and Martin Everaert, 114-136. Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Alexiadou, Artemis, Elena Anagnostopoulou, and Florian Schäfer. 2006. “The Properties of Anti-causatives Crosslinguistically.” In Phases of Interpretation, ed by Mara Frascarelli, 187-212. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baerman, Matthew. 2006. The Location of Deponency. Essex Research Reports in Linguistics 48: 1-19.Google Scholar
Βaerman, Matthew. 2007. “Morphological Typology of Deponency.” In Deponency and Morphological Mismatches, ed. by Matthew Βaerman, Greville Corbett, Dunstan Brown, and Andrew Hippisley, 1-19. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bentley, Delia. 2006. Split Intransitivity in Italian. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Burzio, Luigi. 1986. Italian Syntax: A Government-Binding Approach. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cennamo, Michela. 1998. “The Loss of the Voice Dimension between Late Latin and Early Romance.” In Historical Linguistics 1997, ed. by Monika Schmid, Jennifer Austin, and Dieter Stein, 77-100. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1999.“Inaccusatività tardo-latina e suoi riflessi in testi italiani antichi centro-meridionali.” Zeitschrift für Romanische Philologie 115 (2): 300-331. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2002. “La selezione degli ausiliari perfettivi in napoletano antico: fenomeno sintattico o sintattico-semantico?” Archivio Glottologico Italiano 87 (2): 175-222.Google Scholar
. 2008. “The Rise and Development of Analytic Perfects in Italo-Romance.” In Grammatical Change and Linguistic Theory. The Roosendaal Papers, ed. by Thorhallur Eythórsson, 115-142. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cyrino, Sonia. 2009. “XP-movement of Participles and the Rise of Periphrastic Tenses in Romance.” Paper presented at the 19th Colloquium of Generative Grammar, University of the Basque Country, April 2009.
D’Alessandro, Roberta, and Ian Roberts. 2010. “Past Participle Agreement in Abruzzese: Split Auxiliary Selection and the Null Subject Parameter.” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 28: 41-72. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dowty, David. 1979. Word Meaning and Montague Grammar. Dordrecht: Reidel. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Embick, David. 1997. Voice and the Interfaces of Syntax. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
. 2000. “Features, Syntax, and Categories in the Latin Perfect”. Linguistic Inquiry 31 (2): 185–230. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Folli, Raffaella, and Heidi Harley. 2005. “Flavours of v: Consuming Results in Italian and English.” In Aspectual Inquiries, ed. by Paula Kempchinsky, and Roumyana Slabakova, 95-120. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gianollo, Chiara. 2005. “Middle Voice in Latin and the Phenomenon of Split Intransitivity.” In Latina Lingua! Proceedings of the 12th International Colloquium on Latin Linguistics, ed. by Gualtiero Calboli, 97-109. Roma: Herder.Google Scholar
. 2010. “I verbi deponenti latini e l’unità della flessione in –r.” Incontri Triestini di Filologia Classica VIII: 23-49.Google Scholar
Harley, Heidi. 2013. “External Arguments and the Mirror Principle. On the Distinctness of Voice and v.” Lingua 125: 34-57. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harre, Catherine E. 1991. Tener + Past Participle. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Harris, Martin. 1982. “The ‘Past Simple’ and the ‘Present Perfect’ in Romance.” In Studies in the Romance Verb, ed. by Nigel Vincent, and Martin Harris, 42- 70. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J, and Elisabeth Closs Traugott. 2013. Grammaticalization. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard. 1993. “Toward a Modular Theory of Auxiliary Selection.” Studia Linguistica 47: 381-405. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kallulli, Dalina. 2013. “(Non)-canonical Passives and Reflexives.” In Non-canonical Passives, ed. by Artemis Alexiadou, and Florian Schäfer, 337-358. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 1996. “Severing the External Argument from its Verb.” In Phrase Structure and the Lexicon, ed. by Johan Rooryck, and Laura Zaring, 109 – 137. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
La Fauci, Nunzio. 1988. Oggetti e soggetti nella formazione della morfosintassi romanza. Pisa: Giardini.Google Scholar
. 1997. Per una teoria grammaticale del mutamento morfosintattico. Dal latino verso il romanzo. Pisa: Edizioni ETS.Google Scholar
. 1998. “Riflettendo sul cambiamento morfosintattico: nel latino verso il romanzo.” In SintAnt. La sintassi dell’italiano antico, ed. by Maurizio Dardano, and Gianluca Frenguelli, 237-252. Roma: Aracne.Google Scholar
Lazzeroni, Romano. 1990. “La diatesi come categoria linguistica: studio sul medio indoeuropeo.” In Studi e saggi linguistici XXX, 1-22.Google Scholar
Ledgeway, Adam. 1998. “Avé(re) and Esse(re) Alternation in Neapolitan.” In Studies on the Syntax of Central Romance Languages,ed. by Olga Fullana, and Francesc Roca, 123– 147. Università di Girona.Google Scholar
. 2000. A Comparative Syntax of the Dialects of Southern Italy: A Minimalist Approach. Oxford/New York: Blackwell.Google Scholar
. 2009. Grammatica diacronica del napoletano. Tübingen: Max Neymeier Verlag. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. From Latin to Romance. Morphosyntactic Typology and Change. Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Loporcaro, Michele. 2007. “On Triple Auxiliation.” Linguistics 45: 173-222. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Manzini, Rita, and Leonardo Savoia. 2005. I dialetti italiani e romanci. Morfosintassi generativa. Alessandria: Edizioni dell’Orso.Google Scholar
Migliori, Laura. 2014. “v as a Field. Evidence from the Latin Verbal System.” In NELS 44: Proceedings of the Forty-fourth Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society, vol. 2, ed. by Jyoti Iyer, and Leland Kusmer, 27-38. University of Massachusetts.
. In press. “Alcune note diacroniche sull’ausiliazione perfettiva nei dialetti italiani centro-meridionali.” In Actes du XXVIIe congrès international de linguistique et de philologie romanes, ed. by Alain Lemaréchal, Peter Koch, and Pierre Swiggers. Strasbourg: Société de linguistique romane/ÉLiPhi.
Panhuis, Dirk. 2006. Latin Grammar. The University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Pinkster, Harm. 1987. “The Strategy and Chronology of the Development of Future and Perfect Tense Auxiliaries in Latin”. In The Historical Development of Auxiliaries, ed. by Martin Harris, and Paolo Ramat, 193-223. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ramchand, Gillian. 2008. Verb Meaning and the Lexicon. A First Phase Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya. 2002. “The Theta System–An Overview.” Theoretical Linguistics 28: 229-290.Google Scholar
Stolova, Natalya. 2006. “Split intransitivity in Old Spanish.” Revue roumaine de linguistique LI (2): 301-320.Google Scholar
Tuttle, Edward F. 1986. “The Spread of ESSE as Universal Auxiliary in Central Italo-Romance.” Medioevo romanzo 11: 229-287.Google Scholar
Vincent, Nigel. 1982. “The Development of the Auxiliaries habere and esse in Romance”. In Studies in the Romance Verb, ed. by Nigel Vincent, and Martin Harris, 71-96. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Zamboni, Alberto. 2000. Alle origini dell’italiano. Dinamiche e tipologie della transizione dal latino. Roma: Carocci.Google Scholar