Ledgeway, Adam, 2011. ‘Adverb Agreement and Split Intransitivity: Evidence from Southern Italy’,...

ARCHIVIO GLOTTOLOGICO

ITALIANORivista fondata

nel 1873da Graziadio Isaia Ascoli

Volume XCVI

PERIODICI LE MONNIER

2011

00AGI1_11_Frontes.indd 1 08/11/11 15:27

PROPRIETà LETTERARIA RISERVATA

TMB Grafiche s.r.l. Gorgonzola (MI) Dicembre 2011

00AGI1_11_Frontes.indd 2 08/11/11 15:27

adverb agreement and split intransitivity: evidence from southern italy

Riassunto

Quest’articolo esplora la distribuzione dell’accordo degli avverbi aggettivali nei dia letti dell’Italia meridionale, dove la funzione dell’avverbio di maniera viene regolarmente svolta dalla categoria di aggettivo, e non da una formazione con il suffisso in ‑mente (< abl. mens) come succede altrove nella Romània. Sotto determinate condizioni strutturali e semantiche tali avverbi aggettivi si possono concordare con nominali specifici. In particolare, si dimostrerà come le condizioni strutturali determinanti tale accordo siano affini a quelle che operano, ad esempio, sull’accordo del participio nelle varietà romanze, dove si osserva una scissione attivostativa nella distribuzione dell’accordo participiale controllato da un nominale che, a qualche livello di rappresentazione, funge anche da complemento del verbo. I dati esposti serviranno a mettere in luce non solo un riflesso in passato non indagato dell’intransitività scissa (spiegando nel contempo la distribuzione dell’accordo avverbiale dei dialetti meridionali finora passato quasi inosservato), ma anche ad evidenziare come in alcuni di questi dialetti, dove è andata persa un’originaria scissione intransitiva nell’ausiliazione perfettiva e nell’accordo participiale, tale distinzione possa tuttavia sopravvivere vitalmente in altre aree della grammatica come nell’ambito dell’accordo avverbiale.

1. Introduction (1)

In the transition from Latin to Romance there is abundant evidence of an ongoing and as of yet unresolved conflict between two competing

(1) Special thanks go to Alessandra Lombardi and Roberta D’Alessandro who not only provided the data for the dialects of Cosenza and Arielli, respectively, but who also generously shared their intuitions and interpretations of the data with me. I should also like to thank the Editorial Board of the Archivio for their valuable com‑ments on an initial draft.

02AGI1_11_Ledgeway.indd 31 08/11/11 15:29

32 adam ledgeway

alignments in the marking of arguments (La Fauci 1988; 1991; 1997; 1998; Zamboni 1998; 2000; Bentley 2006; Ledgeway 2011: §6; Ledge‑way (forthc.), ch.s 7‑8). Thus, although classical Latin and modern Ro‑mance display a predominantly nominative/accusative orientation in their morphosyntactic systems, this does not represent a case of uninterrupted continuity but masks an intermediate stage, only in part inferable from documented sources, of an active/stative orientation (Zamboni 1998: 130). For example, classical Latin combines a nominative/accusative ori‑entation in the nominal system with a partially active/stative orientation in certain areas of the verb system (La Fauci 1997: 17‑19). In the later Latin period and continuing into early Romance, there is initially a de‑cline in the nominative/accusative orientation of the nominal and verbal systems, paralleled by a corresponding expansion in the range of the ac‑tive/stative alignment in the verbal and nominal domains. In the verb system, reflexes of an expanding active/stative alignment (also termed ‘split intransitivity’) can be observed in the genesis of the perfective aux‑iliary construction and concomitant patterns of participle agreement (La Fauci 1988: 51f.). There thus emerges a split in the perfective forms of the verb between a periphrasis with auxiliary habere for transitive/uner‑gative predicates with Agent (viz. A/SA) subjects on the one hand (cf. 1a), and a periphrasis with auxiliary esse for unaccusative and passive predi‑cates with Undergoer (viz. SO) subjects on the other (cf. 1b).

(1) a. Il sindaco ha fumato (una sigaretta) (It.) ‘The mayor has smoked (a cigarette)’ b. È caduto il sindaco (It.) is fallen the mayor ‘The mayor fell over’

In parallel, there emerges an identical alignment in the novel system of participle agreement (Loporcaro 1998), where in the esse periphrasis the participle variously agrees in gender and number with the subject (cf. 2a), while in the habere periphrasis the participle potentially agrees with the direct object (cf. 2b), but not with the subject (cf. 2c):

(2) a. ma mareta s’ és aufegada(Majorcan Cat.) my mother.dim self= is suffocated.fsg ‘my poor mother has suffocated’


adverb agreement and split intransitivity 33

b. Una altra cosa m’ ha dita aquella (Majorcan Cat.) an other thing.f me= has told.fsg that.one.fsg ‘Another thing she told me’ c. vui fer lo que ha fet (*feta) aquesta (Majorcan Cat.) I.want do.inf the what has done.msg done.fsg this.one.fsg ‘I want to do what she has done’

The agreement paradigm evidenced in (2a‑c) is that of a classic active/stative alignment, in which agreement marks all types of O (in‑cluding those which subsequently surface as S), but never A (including SA). These patterns, in turn, provide the necessary impetus for compa‑rable realignments within the nominal system surfacing at first in the late Latin so‑called extended accusative (Cennamo 2001; Rovai 2005; Ledgeway 2011: §6.2.2.1), and ultimately in the gradual generalization of the accusative as the universal, unmarked case form in Romance. In the former, the distribution of the accusative is extended beyond ob‑jects to also include non‑agentive subjects, in short a generalized case for all Undergoer participants (cf. 3a‑b):

(3) a. nascitur ei genuorum contractionem aut claudicationem (Lat., Chiron) is.born him.dat knees.gen contraction.f.acc or limp.f.acc ‘his knees are developing a contraction or a limp’ b. ipsas portas aperiuntur (Lat., Peregrinatio Aetheriae) sames.fpl.acc gates.fpl.acc are.opened ‘the(se) gates are opened’

At the level of the sentence too, the effects of an active/stative alignment are clearly observable in emergent word order patterns, as witnessed in (4a‑c) where the unmarked postverbal position marks all types of O (including those which subsequently surface as S), but not A (including SA):

(4) a. Guillermo perdió la llave (Sp.) ‘Guillermo lost the key’ b. Guillermo perdió (Sp.) ‘Guillermo lost’ c. Se perdió la llave(Sp.) self= lost the key ‘the key got lost’


34 adam ledgeway

A similar active/stative split is also claimed to characterize the dis‑tribution of inde‑cliticization (Burzio 1986; cf. though Bentley 2006: ch. 6), where reflexes of inde can only reference transitive objects (cf. 5a) and unaccusative subjects (cf. 5b), but not unergative/transitive subjects (cf. 5c):

(5) a. He vist tres [NP nois]⇒ N’ he vist tres [NP nois] (Cat.) I.have seen three boys of.them= I.have seen three ‘I’ve seen three boys’ ⇒ ‘I’ve seen three of them’ b. Han vingut tres[NPnois]⇒ N’ han vingut tres [NP nois] (Cat.) have come three boys of.them=have come three ‘Three boys came’ ⇒ ‘Three of them came’ c. Tres[NP nois]menjan (tomàquets) ⇒*Tres[NP nois] en menjan (tomàquets) (Cat.) three boys eat (tomatoes) three of.them= eat (tomatoes) ‘Three boys are eating (tomatoes)’ ⇒ ‘Three of them are eating (tomatoes)’

While facts like these have been widely discussed in the literature as representative diagnostics for Romance split intransitivity, one area which has barely received any attention, apart from some preliminary observations in Ledgeway (2000: 272‑275; 2003: 116‑119; 2009: 724‑726; 2011: §6.2.4; cf. also Bentley 2006: 247‑248), is adver‑bial syntax. As we shall see in greater detail below, in the dialects of southern Italy manner adverbs are typically expressed by the corre‑sponding adjective:

(6) a. può mannà libb´r' a ppasc´ l´ pèch´r’ a la mundagn´

(Abruzzo, Rohlfs 1969: 243) you.can send.inf free to graze.inf the sheep ‘you can freely send the sheep out to graze’ b. ’o ffaccio accussì naturale ca ce credo (Naples, DeFil. 332) it= I.do so natural that there.in= I.believe ‘I do it so realistically that I believe it’ c. jam´ buon´ / àrd´n´ bbòn´ (Apulia, Rohlfs 1969: 243) we.go good.m they.burn good.f ‘we’re getting on well’ / ‘(the pieces of firewood) burn well’ d. Si capiscivi giustu è cosa fatta? (Nicotera, JM 47) if I.understood just.msg is thing done ‘If I’ve understood correctly, hasn’t it already been taken care of?’



e. segretu nu’ parlàamu (Salento, Rohlfs 1969: 243) sceret.msg we.spoke ‘we were talking secretly’ f. càntanu biellu / ma bruttu vestutu (Sicily, Rohlfs 1969: 243) they.sing beautiful.msg but ugly.msg dressed ‘they sing beautifully’ / ‘dressed badly’

Significantly, as some of the examples in (6) above illustrate, in certain cases adjectives in adverbial function may also agree for gender and/or number. In what follows, we shall demonstrate that, rather than being unconstrained, the distribution of agreement in the adjec‑tival adverb proves sensitive to specific syntactic configurations, in turn correlated with particular semantic interpretations. Significantly, these facts will be shown to bear directly on the phenomenon of split intransitivity, with the licensing of agreement in such cases retraced to familiar semantico‑syntactic constraints on the transitive/ergative vs. unaccusative split. In short, the distribution of adverbial agreement in these dialects is ultimately to be interpreted as a further diagnostic and reflex of split intransitivity, even in those dialects that have since lost other surface manifestations such as auxiliary selection and par‑ticipial agreement.

2. Adverbs in the dialects of southern Italy

In western Romance, including Italian and northern Italian dia‑lects, manner adverbs are productively forged through suffixation of the erstwhile noun ment(e) (< mens ‘mind.abl.fsg’; Bauer 2001; 2003; 2010) to the fsg form of the adjective (e.g. It. lenta ‘slow.fsg’ ⇒ lentamente ‘slowly’, Ptg. rápida ‘quick.fsg’ ⇒ rapidamente ‘quick‑ly’). By contrast, adverb formations in mente/menti prove on the whole rather rare in the modern dialects of southern Italy (Radtke 1997: 92; Verratti 1998: 121‑122; Bonner 2001: 91‑92; Ruffino 2001: 63; Ledgeway 2009: 721‑722; Cruschina 2010: 23‑24), and are prin‑cipally limited, and increasingly under Italian influence (Iandolo 2001: 251‑252; Ledgeway 2009: 721‑722; Cruschina 2010: 24), to a number


36 adam ledgeway

of lexicalized forms, and not exclusively of the manner class. Below follow some (literary) examples:

(7) a. Io ve dico sulamente lassate ’a i’! (Naples, DiGiac. 58) I you= say only let.imp her= go.inf ‘I’m just telling you, let her go!’ b. lu pòi canùsciari facilmenti (Reggio Calabria, RPC 40) him= you.can know.inf easily ‘you can recognise him easily’ c. L’ àggiu duvutu tire tistrattamente (Lecce, TDL4 12) it= I.have had.to say.inf distractedly ‘I must have said it without thinking’ d. Sempri malamenti mi tratta ma cugnatu (Agrigento, SA 3) always badly me= treats my brother‑in‑law ‘My brother‑in‑law always treats me badly’

It is generally claimed that, as a result of Greek linguistic influ‑ence originating from the period of extensive Greek‑Latin bilingual‑ism in Magna Graecia, there never emerged a distinct class of manner adverbs south of an isogloss Gaeta‑Rieti‑Teramo (Rohlfs 1969: 243‑245) (2). Consequently, in southern Italy (as in Romanian), manner adverbs form a syncretistic category with adjectives, the adjectival form equally performing adverbial functions (3), an example of what Ježek & Ramat (2009) term transcategorization, namely “a diachron‑ic process consisting in a categorial shift of a lexical item without any

(2) Rohlfs’ claim that mente adverb formation is not indigenous to southern Italy is not supported by early textual evidence (cf. Ledgeway 2003: 137‑138 n. 21; 2009: 720‑721). Nonetheless, the adverbial use of adjectives would appear to have a long history in the South judging by the early 14th‑century Neapolitan examples of buono/buona [sic] ‘good.m/fsg’ in Boccaccio’s Epistola:(i) a. Quant’ a Machinti, buona sta (Naples, Epist. 182.17) as.for to Machinti, good.fsg she.is ‘As for Machinti, she is well’b. e sòmmene boluto incagnare con isso buono buono (Naples, Epist. 183.4) and I.am=me=of.it wanted get.angry.inf with him good.msg good.msg ‘and I wanted to have it out with him properly’

(3) Cf. Altamura (1956: 26); Corti (1956: CLXXI); Perrone (1977: 222); Com-pagna (1990: 212); Iandolo (1994: 229); Leone (1995: §23); Radtke (1997: 92); De Blasi and Imperatore (2000: 84); Iandolo (2001: 251); Maturi (2002: 165).



superficial marking” (p. 395; cf. also p. 409). Consequently, in the dialects of southern Italy we typically find the corresponding adjec‑tive in the function of manner adverb according to a productive pattern apparently not limited by morphological, syntactic or seman‑tic factors, as witnessed by the following representative selection of adverbial adjectives:

(8) a. steveme cammenanno tantu bellu tutte e tre (Naples, Scarp.1 140) we.were walking so beautiful.msg all and three ‘all three of us we were walking along nicely’ b. non parrati pulitu (Siderno, FC 46) not you.speak clean.msg ‘you are not speaking correctly’ c. me vatte carmu mpiettu (Soveria Mannelli, VDA 31) me= beats calm.msg in.chest ‘it (= my heart) is beating calmly’ d. li wagliune fatijeve bbone (Arielli) the boys were.working good.sg ‘the boys were working well’ e. Mìtimelu scusu scusu intra llu baùgliu (Lecce TDL3 69) put.imp=me.it hidden.msg hidden.msg in the trunk ‘place it secretly in the trunk for me’ f. nu’ bau né bonu né fiaccu (Matino, SIV2137) not I.go nor good.msg nor bad.msg ‘I’m faring neither well nor badly’ g. nuatri siguemu precisi i cosi ca ni dissi (Pedara, RDP 11) we follow precise.pl the things that us= he.said ‘we’ll follow precisely the things that he told us’ h. Ma lo dovete dire bellu, forti e chiaru but it= you.must to.say.inf beautiful.msg loud.msg and clear.msg pirchì ’u curatu e i testimoni l’ hanu a sentiri bonu (Catania, PS 14) so.that the preist and the witnesses it= they.have to hear.inf good.msg ‘But you have to say it nicely, loudly and clearly so that the priest and the witnesses can it hear properly’

The relevance of the southern dialect data challenges head‑on a widely‑held view in the literature regarding the cross‑linguistic be‑haviour of adverbs which, according to the communis opinio, are incapable of displaying agreement, witness the following representa‑tive quotes:


38 adam ledgeway

(9) a. “Since adverbs do not even manifest agreement, they are even simpler in inflectional structure than adjectives.” (Anderson 1985: 200) b. “Adverbs never agree in number or gender with an NP, unlike adjectives.” (Alexiadou 1997: 8) c. “nel caso di lingue come il tedesco […], come è noto, il modificatore verbale coincide con il modificatore nominale nella sua forma non marcata morfologicamente, usata nella funzione predicativa, mentre il modificatore nominale in funzione attributiva presenta anche marche flessive.” (Ricca 1998: 458)

However, in contrast to other languages which use adjectives in adverbial function (Ramat & Ricca 1998: 201‑203), notably Latin, German and Romanian, adjectival adverbs in southern Italy may agree with their associated nominal, despite the universal claims to the con‑trary noted above in (9) (4). By way of example, consider the following eastern Sicilian sentences from the dialect of Pedara:

(10) a. tu li sa canusciri buoni li disturbi di saluti (RDP 7) you them.m know know.inf good.mpl the.mpl complaints.m of health ‘you can recognize health problems expertly’ b. Maria ma tu chi dici ca ficimu bonu […]? (RDP 17) Maria but you what you.say that we.did good.msg ‘Maria, do you think we acted correctly?’ c. havi tri ghiorna ca mi priparu, ma bona nisciu, averu? (RDP 17) it.has 3 days that me= I.prepare but good.fsg I.come.out true ‘I’ve been preparing for 3 days, but I’ll do alright, won’t I?’ d. Prisidenti sbagghiai, ancora m’ haia ’ mparari bona (RDP 12) president I.erred still me= I.must learn.inf good.fsg ‘President, I made a mistake, I still have to learn properly’

In all the examples in (10) the manner adverb ‘well’ is expressed by a form of the adjective b(u)on ‘good’, agreeing with the mpl object comple‑ment in (10a) and the fsg subject in (10c‑d), whereas in (10b) it fails to show any agreement appearing in the default msg form, despite the pres‑ence of a mpl subject. The distributional patterns of agreement witnessed in these examples, which, save very few exceptions to be discussed below,

(4) For a discussion of some similar more restricted cases in Italian, although notoriously difficult to characterize systematically across speakers, no doubt due to underlying dialectal influence, see Napoli 1975 and Antrim 1994.



broadly hold across all southern dialects, are not random but are subject to precise semantic and structural conditions which can ultimately be identified with a canonical active/stative split similar to those observed in (1)‑(5) above. The details of this split and the concomitant agreement patterns are discussed in the following sections.

3. Agreement patterns

Formally adjectives in adverbial function do not always surface in uninflected form, but may also display agreement. The distribution of agreement in such cases varies partly according to structural factors and partly according to semantic factors, giving rise to interpretive distinc‑tions which find no formal parallel in other Romance varieties (Ledge‑way 2000: 273‑274; 2003: 117‑119; Maturi 2002: 165). By way of example, consider the minimally contrasting pairs in (11)‑(12), where adverb agreement makes it possible to mark a distinction between the subject‑oriented and object‑oriented interpretations of the manner adverb ‘well’ (cf. discussion in Cinque 1999: 19ff.), which otherwise generally remains ambiguous in other varieties such as Italian (cf. 13):

(11) a. Anna miscava buonu ’i carte (Cosenza) Anna shuffled good.msg the.pl cards.f b. Anna miscava bone ’i carte (Cosenza) Anna shuffled good.fpl the.pl cards.f ‘Anna shuffled the cards well’

(12) a. ’A prufessuressa appreperaie buono ê guaglione all’ esamme (Naples) the.fsg teacher.fsg prepared good.m(sg) to.the girls at.the exam b. ’A prufessuressa appreperaie bone ê guaglione all’ esamme (Naples) the.fsg teacher.fsg prepared good.f(pl) to.the girls at.the exam ‘the teacher prepared the girls well for the exam’

(13) a. Anna mischiava bene le carte (It.) Anna shuffled well the.fpl cards.f b. La professoressa preparò bene le ragazze all’ esame (It.) the.fsg teacher.fsg prepared well the girls at.the exam


40 adam ledgeway

The msg form of the adjective, whenever it fails to assume a mor‑phologically distinct form, also functions as the unmarked or default adverbial form. Consequently, in the (a) examples above the default m(sg) agreement displayed by the adjectival adverb buonu/o overtly sig‑nals that the adverb is not to be interpreted as taking scope over the fpl object (5). Rather, it is to be interpreted as modifying the (fsg) subject, giving rise to a subject‑oriented reading of the adverb which conse‑quently takes scope over the entire event specifying the manner in which the process was carried out, namely ‘Anna was adept at shuffling the cards’ and ‘the teacher was competent in preparing the girls for the exam’. In the (b) examples, on the other hand, the overt f(pl) agreement dis‑played by the adjectival adverb signals that it now enters into an agree‑ment relation with the fpl direct object, narrowly qualifying the manner in which the latter is affected by the activity carried out upon it, hence the appropriateness of the English passive translations ‘the cards were shuffled well by Maria’ and ‘the girls were prepared well by the teacher’. In the Italian equivalent sentences (13a‑b), by contrast, these two read‑ings are not formally distinguished and the distinction between subject‑oriented vs. object‑oriented readings remains structurally ambiguous.

Clearly, these agreement patterns have their origins in original re‑sultative constructions, inasmuch as adverbial agreement with the di‑rect object signals a resultative reading of the adjective functioning as the predicative complement of the direct object. Illustrative in this respect are examples such as (14a‑f ), where the adjectival adverb clear‑ly denotes the resultant state reached by the object following an action performed on it by the subject and, by extension, the manner in which it was carried out.

(14) a. Va’ da longe da cqua, acciò possa io figliar li mei figlioli securi (Naples, Branc. 84.16‑17) go.imp.2sg from far from here so.that can I bear.inf the my children.m safe.mpl ‘Go far from here so that I may give birth to my children safely’

(5) Because of the neutralization of all final vowels to schwa, number in these Neapolitan examples is only marked overtly on the adjectival adverb in orthogra‑phy. In the spoken variety, the only perceptible distinction is one of gender marked through the metaphonetic alternation ‑uó (m.) vs ò (f.).



b. la lavarraje pulita pulita (Naples, Caval. 45‑46) it.fsg= you.will.wash clean.fsg clean.fsg ‘you will wash it (until it is) thoroughly (clean)’ c. li cunti me li sacciu fare bueni (Lecce, TDL4 125) the.mpl accounts.m me= them.m= I.know do.inf good.mpl ‘I can add up okay’ d. le cose l’ imu fare precise precise! (Scorrano, SVI1 31) the.fpl things.fpl them.fpl we.have do.inf precise.fpl precise.fpl ‘we have to do things precisely’ e. A voi Lenticchi vi cucinu boni boni! (Catania, GR 19) to you Lentils.mpl you= I.cook good.mpl good.mpl ‘I’ll cook you Lentils well!’ f. i sarvai accussì boni ca non m’ arrivordu unni sù (Pedara, DPV 23) them.mpl= I.saved so good.mpl that not me= I.recall where they.are ‘I stored the money away so well that I can’t remember where it is’

Similarly, in intransitive clauses of the unaccusative kind (cf. 15a‑f) the adjectival adverb, even if most readily expressed by a distinct man‑ner adverbial form in, for example, Italian (e.g. bene ‘well’, spontaneamente ‘spontaneously’, male ‘badly’), conveys a resultative reading of the surface subject, ultimately functioning as a predicative complement of the same and specifying at the same time the manner in which the situation, accomplishment or achievement comes about.

(15) a. Sta jurnata non fenesce bona (Naples, Scarp.1 480) this.fsg day.fsg not finishes good.fsg ‘This day will not finish well’ b. nèscia spontanea (Catanzaro, CNM 93) it.comes.out spontaneous.fsg ‘it just comes out spontaneously’ c. Campài tantu tempu mala (Reggio Calabria, Meliadò 1994: 52) I.lived so.much time bad.fsg ‘I lived badly for such a long time’ d. Quiddu spiccia fiaccu (Lecce, TDL2 68) that.one.msg finishes bad.msg ‘He’ll finish badly (= it doesn’t bode well for him)’ e. staggiona bonu bonu (Scorrano, SIV1 15) it.matures good.msg good.msg ‘it is maturing well’


42 adam ledgeway

f. Bona accuminciau a jurnata! (Acireale, MI 15) good.fsg began the.fsg day.fsg ‘What a good way for the day to have begun!’

In contrast to other Romance varieties where the predicative re‑sultative and manner readings are usually kept distinct by virtue of the maintenance of a robust formal categorial distinction between adjec‑tives and adverbs, respectively (6), we see that in both (14) and (15) the two readings fall together in southern Italy where the two categories also fall together formally. Revealing in this respect are examples like (16a) which, according to the intended meaning, can be expressed in other Romance varieties such as Italian both by a canonical adverbial structure (16b) or by a predicative complement structure with the cor‑responding adjective (16c):

(16) a. ttocca nne lu tanimu bonu (Matino, SIV2 20) it.is.necessary us= him= we.keep good.msg b. bisogna che ce lo teniamo bene (It.) it.is.necessary that we= him= we.keep well ‘we’ve got to take good care of him’ c. bisogna che ce lo teniamo buono (It.) it.is.necessary that us= him= we.keep good.msg ‘we’ve got to keep him favourable(‑ly)’

This interpretation of the agreeing adjectival adverb in terms of an underlying resultative predicative relation with the object (14a‑f ) or subject (15a‑f ) also explains the failure of the adjectival adverb to agree with the object in the examples in (17), where the semantics of the sentence exclude a resultative interpretation of the complement and therefore agreement on the adjective. In (17a), for instance, although the object clitic me ‘me’ references a fsg object, namely the speaker, the adverbial adjective is unable to agree with the latter (viz. fsg bona), since the meaning of the sentence is not that the speaker be listened to properly (object‑oriented), but, rather, that the interlocutor should pay full attention in listening to her (subject‑oriented). Similarly, in the

(6) There are occasional exceptions in other Romance varieties such as penin‑sular Spanish estar malo/mal ‘to be bad, unwell’, where both the adjective malo ‘bad’ and the adverb mal ‘badly’ can be used to refer to one’s state of health.



causative example (17b) the adjectival adverb fails to agree with the fsg referent of the object clitic me ‘me’, since the latter references the semantic subject, and not the object, of the infinitive capì ‘to under‑stand’ and is therefore not amenable to a resultative interpretation (hence, the intended meaning ‘let me get this straight’, and not ‘let me be understood properly’). By the same token, in the examples (17c‑d), agreement fails once more because the adverbial adjective does not predicate a resultant state performed on the object, namely that ‘the subject still needs to be mastered’ and ‘the refuse tax needs to be cal‑culated accurately’, but refers to the subjects’ ability to correctly per‑form the event denoted by the verb.

(17) a. Giuliè, sienteme buono (Naples, Scarp.2 I.4) Giulietta.voc, listen.imp.2sg=me good.msg ‘Giulietta, listen to me well’ b Ma famme capì buono (Naples, Di Maio I) but make.imp.2sg=me understand.inf good.msg ‘Just let me get this straight’ c. è na cosa, ca ncora aje mparare bonu (Matino, SIV2 79) it.is a.fsg thing.fsg that still I.must learn.inf good.msg ‘it’s something which I still need to master’ d. E si facemu bonu li cunta di quantu pagu di tassa di and if we.do good.msg the.mpl accounts.m of how.much I.pay of tax of munnizza (Belmonte Mezzagno, PDG 6) refuse ‘And if we correctly work out how much I pay in refuse tax’

Structurally, then, the examples studied so far demonstrate that, apart from unaccusative subjects, all other subjects, whether masculine or feminine or singular or plural, give rise to default msg agreement whenever they fall within the scope of the adjectival adverb (cf. 11a, 12a) (7), whereas only specific objects that fall under the scope of the adjectival adverb are able to control its agreement features. In particu‑lar, we have seen that in the latter case agreement signals that underly‑ingly the adjective functions as a resultative predicative complement

(7) No evidence has been found for the claim in Radtke (1997: 92) that the adverb is sometimes expressed by the corresponding feminine form of the adjective in Campanian varieties.


44 adam ledgeway

of the verb’s direct object (11b, 12b, 14a‑f ) or its unaccusative subject (15a‑g) (8). From this we can deduce that, semantically, agreement of the adverbial adjective, together with the concomitant resultative read‑ing, is licensed exclusively by Undergoer participants.

4. Active/Stative Split

Our conclusion that agreement of the adjectival adverb in southern Italy is a consequence of its underlying function as a resultative predica‑tive complement, and hence can only be controlled by Undergoer participants, naturally suggests that adverb agreement in the dialects of southern Italy should be analyzed as a case of split intransitivity. Indeed, resultatives have often been recognized in the literature as a robust diag‑nostic for establishing active/stative splits (van Voorst 1985; Tsujimura 1994; Levin & Rappoport Hovav 1995: 33‑81; Rappoport Hovav & Levin 2001; Alexiadou, Anagnostopoulou & Everaert 2004: 5; Veenstra 2004; Bentley 2006: 339‑361), insofar as resultative phrases can only be predicated of a transitive object (cf. 18a) or unaccusative subject (cf. 18b), but never of a transitive (cf. 18c) or unergative (cf. 18d) subject:

(18) a. On lui avait coupé courts les cheveux (Fr.) one to.him= had cut short.mpl the.pl hairs.m ‘They cut his hair short’ b. Ses cheveux ont été coupés courts (Fr.) his.pl hairs.m have been cut.mpl short.mpl ‘His hair was cut short’ c *Ils ont chanté les chansons fatigués (Fr.) they.m have sung the.pl songs.f tired.mpl ‘They sang themselves tired with the songs’ (9)

(8) This conclusion finds further support in the observation that under the ob‑ject‑oriented (but not the subject‑oriented) reading adjectival manner adverbs very frequently occur in reduplicated form (e.g. buono/u buono/u ‘well (lit. good good)’, sano/u sano/u ‘completely (lit. whole whole)’, preciso/u preciso/u ‘precisely (lit. pre‑cise precise)’, ritto/u ritto/u ‘directly (lit. straight straight)’, pulito/u pulitou ‘prop‑erly (lit. clean clean)’), a finding which, not by chance, coincides with Bentley’s (2006: 340) observation that Italian adjectives only allow a resultative interpretation if reduplicated (or modified by derivational suffixes).

(9) Irrelevant here is the grammatical predicative reading ‘Tired, they sang the songs’.



d *Ils ont chanté rauques (Fr.) they.m have sung hoarse.mpl ‘They sang themselves hoarse’

Thus, just as we witness a split between Undergoers (O and SO) and Actors (A, SA) in (18a‑b) vs (18c‑d), the distribution of adverb agreement in the dialects of southern Italy produces an identical split between unaccusative subjects (cf. 19a‑b) and transitive objects (cf. 19c) with agreement on the one hand, and transitive and unergative subjects (cf. 19d) with no agreement on the other:

(19) a. Maria haddi cada bona (Cosenza) Maria will fall.inf good.fsg ‘Maria will come down well and truly with a bump’ b. Maria si litica bona ccu ra suoru (Cosenza) Maria self= argues good.fsg with the sister ‘Maria argues fiercely with her sister’ c. Maria un’ criscia buoni a ri figli (Cosenza) Maria not raises good.mpl to.acc the children.mpl ‘Maria does not bring the children up properly’ d. Maria studia buonu /*bona (’u libbru) (Cosenza) Maria studies good.m.sg /good.f.sg the.msg book.m) ‘Maria studies (the book) hard’

In example (19d), buonu occurs in the default msg form, failing to manifest agreement with the fsg subject of transitive/unergative studia ‘to study’. In the remaining examples, on the other hand, the adverb displays agreement. More specifically, in (19c) buoni enters into an agreement relation with the mpl direct object a ri figli ‘the children’ of transitive criscia ‘to bring up, raise’, whereas in (19a‑b) bona agrees with the fsg surface subject Maria. Although superficially they appear to instantiate two distinct rules, the agreement relations manifested in example (19c) on the one hand and examples (19a‑b) on the other are however amenable to a unified analysis once we realize that the latter two examples involve unaccusative predicates, the subjects of which are standardly assumed to be associated with or originate in the verb’s complement position. The correct structural configuration for adverb agreement can therefore be identified in all cases quite simply with the verb’s complement position which, if filled by a nominal at some level


46 adam ledgeway

of representation, will enter into an agreement relation with any ad‑jectival adverb adjoined to the verb phrase (Ledgeway 2000: 274‑275). By the same token, the impossibility of adverb agreement with the subject in transitive/unergative clauses like (19d) is a direct conse‑quence of the subject’s complete disassociation with the complement position at all levels of representation.

Adverb agreement therefore obeys the same structural conditions as those traditionally operative on Romance participle agreement (Ledgeway 2000: 273‑274), where again only nominals associated with the direct object position (viz. Undergoers) can license agreement (Loporcaro 1998; Bentley 2006: 189ff.):

(20) a. Maria è caduta/*-o bene (It.) Maria is fallen.fsg/msg well ‘Maria came down well and truly with a bump’ b. Maria si è litigata/*-o bene con la sorella (It.) Maria self= is argued.fsg/msg well with the sister ‘Maria argued fiercely with her sister’ c. I figli, Maria non li ha tirati/*-o su bene (It.) the kids Maria not them= has pulled.mpl/msg up well ‘The kids, Maria didn’t bring them up properly’ d. Maria ha studiato/*-a (il libro) Maria has studied.msg/fsg the.msg book.m ‘Maria studied (the book) hard’

Indeed, the parallel with participle agreement proves remarkably apt. As is well known, the distribution of participle agreement displays differ‑ent degrees of retrenchment across Romance (Smith 1993; 1995; 1999; Loporcaro 1998; Bentley 2006: 189ff., 242‑247). There are conservative varieties such as Occitan which, besides agreement with unaccusative subjects, retain participle agreement with all transitive objects, be they pronominal clitics (cf. 21a) or full NPs in postverbal (cf. 21b) or prever‑bal (cf. 21c) position. This distributional behaviour is directly replicated by adverbial agreement in most dialects of southern Italy, where, in addition to unaccusative subjects, agreement is also controlled both by all types of transitive object, including pronominal clitics (cf. 22a) and by full NPs in postverbal (cf. 22b) and preverbal (cf. 22c) positions:



(21) a. vos ai menats a Lorda (Lengadocien) you= I.have led.mpl to Lourdes ‘I took you to Lourdes’ b. avèm visitadas fòrça vilas coma Lorda (Lengadocien) we.have visited.fpl many towns.f like Lourdes ‘we have visited many towns like Lourdes’ c. los vilatges qu’ avèm traversats (Lengadocien) the.mpl villages.m that we.have crossed.mpl ‘the villages we’ve passed through’

(22) a. L’ à’ uardata bona? (Lecce, TDL4 125) her= you.have looked.at good.fsg ‘Did you take a good look at her?’ b. quannu faci e cose bone le faci a metà (Matino, SIV2 16) when you.do the.fpl things.f good.fpl them.f= you.do at half ‘when you do things well you don’t finish them off ’ c. na canzuna ca saccciu sunà bona a ra chitarra (Cosenza) a.f song.f that I.know play.inf good.fsg at the guitar ‘a song that I can play well on the guitar’

In less conservative varieties such as modern Italian, by contrast, the licensing of participle agreement with transitive objects is restrict‑ed to pronominal clitics, where it proves obligatory only with 3rd person clitics (cf. 23a) and optional, though generally more often ab‑sent, with 1st and 2nd person object clitics (cf. 23b):

(23) a. l’ /li /le avevano visto/a/i/e (It.) it.m/f= them.m= them.f= they.had seen‑msg/-fsg/-mpl/-fpl ‘they had seen him/her/them’ b. mi/ti avevano vist-o/-a / ci/vi avevano vist-o/-i/-e (It.) me=/you.sg= they.had seen‑msg/‑fsg us=/you.pl= they.had seen‑msg/‑ mpl/‑fpl ‘they had seen me/you (= fsg) / they had seen us/you (= m/fpl)’

With remarkable similarity, this same distributional pattern is mir‑rored with adverbial agreement in the eastern Abruzzese dialect of Arielli (Roberta D’Alessandro p.c.). More specifically, in Ariellese agreement of the adjectival adverb bbone/bbune (sg/pl) ‘well’ is control‑led by unaccusative subjects (cf. 24a), but only by a subset of transitive objects. For example, in contrast to the other dialects examined above,


48 adam ledgeway

full NP objects never qualify as agreement controllers, witness the singular default form of the adjectival adverb bbone in (24b‑c) despite the presence of a plural NP object:

(24) a. Tutte li cose a riscite bbune (Arielli) all the.pl things.f have turned.out good.fpl ‘Everything has turned out well’ b. Sacce priparà bbone / *bbune li spaghitte (Arielli) I.know prepare.inf good.sg / good.pl the.pl spaghetti.mpl ‘I can cook spaghetti well’ c. Chiude subbete bbone / *bbune le fenestre! (Arielli) I.close at.once good.sg good.pl the.pl windows.f ‘I’ll close the windows properly at once’

However, agreement becomes obligatory if the object is represent‑ed uniquely by a pronominal clitic. By way of illustration, consider the following minimal pair where default singular agreement obtains in the presence of a full plural NP object (cf. 25a), but is replaced by full plural agreement when the object is referenced by the corresponding pronominal clitic (cf. 25b):

(25) a. Giorge pittineve bbone / *bbune li fije (Arielli) Giorgia combed good.sg good.pl the children ‘Giorgia combed the children’s hair well’ b. Giorge li pittineve bbune / *bbone (Arielli) Giorgia them= combed good.pl good.sg ‘Giorgia combed them well’

Although agreement obtains with a non‑doubling clitic, signifi‑cantly this only proves obligatory with 3rd person accusative clitics as in (25b) and (26a‑b), but is at best optional, though often absent, with 1st and 2nd clitics (cf. 26c‑d), as well as with 3rd person reflexive clit‑ics (cf. 26e) (10).

(10) The situation in Ariellese is actually even more complicated than this and further research is required to establish which kind of reflexive clitics are able to control adverbial agreement. For instance, while full agreement proves entirely felici‑tous when controlled by the argumental reciprocal clitic of transitive minà ‘to hit’ in (26d), it is much degraded in conjunction with the non‑argumental inherent clitic of middle ’ngazzarese ‘to get angry’ in (26c). In many other cases, agreement with



(26) a. falle bbune / *bbone (Arielli) do.imp2sg=them good.pl good.sg ‘do them well!’ b. ji li seme ’mbarite bbune / *bbone (Arielli) us= them= we.are learnt good.pl good.sg ‘we learnt them well’ c. dope je seme ’ngazzite bbone bbone / ?bbune bbune (Arielli) after us= we.are got.angry good.sg good.sg good.pl good.pl ‘afterwards we got really angry’ d. z’ a mminite bbone bbone / bbune bbune (Arielli) selves= they.have hit good.sg good.sg good.pl good.pl ‘they gave one another a good thrashing’

4.1. Summary of findings

Summing up, then, we have seen that adjectival adverbs invariably present default msg agreement when they take scope over transitive (cf. 27a‑d) and unergative (cf. 28a‑d) subjects, but may agree with transitive objects (cf. 29a‑d) or the subjects of unaccusatives, reflexive (cf. 30a‑d) or otherwise (cf. 31a‑d) (11). The result is an unmistakable split in the distribution of agreement along the lines of the familiar active/stative

non‑argumental middle reflexives proves entirely ungrammatical (cf. i.a‑b) and, somewhat inexplicably, also with some apparent argumental reflexive clitics (cf. i.c).

(i) a. Cumberteteve bbone / *bbune, wagliu’! (Arielli) behave.imp.2pl=you good.sg good.pl boys.voc ‘Behave properly, guys!’b. nin z’ avé ddurmite bbone / *bbune (Arielli) not selves= they.had slept good.sg good.pl ‘they hadn’t fallen asleep properly’c. nin zi sa spijgà bbone / *bbune (Arielli) not selves= they.know explain.inf good.sg good.pl ‘they can’t explain themselves well’

(11) It goes without saying that unaccusative subjects also include passive sub‑jects, witness the cases of adverb agreement in the following passive sentences:

(i) a. Tu fusti mala cunsigghiata (Reggio Calabria, Meliadò 1994: 52) you were.2sg bad.fsg advised.fsg ‘you were badly advised’ b. l’ elezioni non foru fatti boni (Pedara, VTN 32) the elections not were done.pl good.pl ‘the elections were not carried out properly’


50 adam ledgeway

distinction between A/SA‑participants (Actors) and O/SO‑participants (Undergoers) that frequently surfaces elsewhere in Romance syntax.

(27) a. non sapea buono le strate (Naples, Cort.1 9.24) not he.knew good.msg the.fpl roads.f ‘he didn’t know the roads well’ b. mammata un sa guidà buonu ’a machina (Cosenza) mum=you not knows drive.inf good.msg the.fsg car.f ‘your mum is not a good driver’ c. trasi ca trei sicuru la Catarina (Lecce, TDL2 11) enter.imp2sg that you.find sure.msg the.fsg Catarina ‘go in and you’ll surely find Catarina’ d. sentimi bonu (Librizzi, MPMF 6) listen.imp.2sg=me good.msg ‘listen to me (obj. = fsg) properly!’

(28) a. fa’ che ste ccrape buono pascoleiano (Naples, Rocco 106.46) do.imp.2sg that these.fpl goats.fpl good.msg graze ‘make sure that these goats graze well’ b. Cci aviti conzatu biellu alla casa (Soveria Mannelli, VDA 26) there= you.have prepared beautiful.msg at.the house ‘You’ve done the house up nicely’ c. Comu sai asare bellu! (Lecce, TDL3 125) how you.know kiss.inf beautiful.msg ‘What a wonderful kisser you are!’ d. ficimu bonu a dirici si o nannu ppi s’ we.did good.msg to say.inf=to.him yes to.the grand.father for these elezioni? (Pedara, VTN 17) elections ‘did we do well to give grandad the all‑clear for these elections?’

(29) a. ogne parola la dice annascosa? (Naples, Cort.2 6.4) each word.f it.f= he.says hidden.fsg ‘he says each word secretly’ b. m’ ha dittu u farmacista de leje bbone l’istruzioni (Mendicino, Barca 9) me= has said the pharmacist of read.inf good.fpl the.instructions.f ‘the pharmacist told me to read the instructions thoroughly’ c. Cce llu tici bruttu! (Lecce, TDL2 68) what it.m= you.say ugly ‘How horribly you say it!’



d. Veni ccà, fatti taliari bona (Catania, ADB 8) come.imp2sg here make.imp2sg=you look.at.inf good.fsg ‘Come here so that we can see you properly’

(30) a. si se porta bona (Naples, Sarn. 202) if self= she.carries good.fsg ‘if she behaves well’ b. mi signu piazzatu bbuenu (Mendicino, Barca 11) me= I.am placed good.msg ‘I’m favourably placed c. sta me zziccava ssantire fiaccu (Matino, SIV2 155) prog me= I.began feel.inf bad.msg ‘I was beginning to feel unwell’ d. Cunfessati bona, ‘u senti? (Catania, ADB 18) confess.imp.2sg=you good.fsg it= you.hear ‘Confess thoroughly, do you hear me?’

(31) a. ’E ssentite comme sòneno belle ’e zampogne? (Naples, DiGiac. 134) them.f= you.hear how they.sound fine.pl the. pl bagpipes.f ‘Can you hear just how beautifully the bagpipes are being played?’ b. la lena sècch´ gard´ bòn´ (Abruzzo, Rohlfs 1969: 243) the.fsg wood.fsg dry.f burns good.f ‘the dry wood burns well’ c. s’ u vestutu no vi cala bonu (Nicotera, JM 41) if the.msg dress.msg not you= falls good.msg ‘if the dress doesn’t quite suit you’ d. nnu mboi ca rrimane fiacca (Scorrano, SIV1 69) not you.want that she.reamins bad.fsg ‘you don’t want her to be disappointed’

Finally, we must consider a number of apparent exceptions to the observed active split which have emerged in the corpus. In particular, there are several apparent examples of adverbial agreement with uner‑gative subjects, as demonstrated in (32a‑g):

(32) a. cammina deritta, cammina onestamente! (Naples, Scarp.3 III.7) walk.imp.2sg straight.fsg walk.imp.2sg honestly ‘behave well and with honesty!’ b. tu dovresti camminare un poco piú diritta (Naples, DeFil. 80) you should walk.inf a little more straight.fsg ‘you should behave with a little more decency’


52 adam ledgeway

c. Iddi sunu. Boni travagghianu (Catania, PS 28) they are good.mpl they.work ‘It’s them. They are good workers’ d. Io’ non sugnu scimunitu capemu? A mia a testa mi ragiuna I not am stupid we.understand to me the.fsg head.f me= reasons bona (Librizzi, VDP 11) good.fsg ‘I’m not stupid, have you got it? I’ve got a good head on my shoulders’ e. mi pari ca tuttu sommato a famigghia camina bona (Pedara, VTN 5) me= it.seems that all summed.up the.fsg family.fsg walks good.fsg ‘I don’t think, after all, that our family is so badly off ’ f. tutto apposto con le radioline? Funzionanu boni, abberu? (Catania, ONV 13) all well with the radios they.work good.pl true ‘how are things with the pocket radios? They work well, don’t they?’ g. alla mia età a prostata non funziona bona (Ribera, AFD 11) at.the my age the.fsg prostate.f not works good.fsg ‘at my age your prostate gland doesn’t work very well’

All the examples above involve predicates which are standardly considered unergatives (namely, walk, work, reason, function) which select for an Actor subject that carries out an intransitive activity. In the examples above, however, the predicates are not employed in their canonical unergative acceptation, but, rather, are used to denote an intransitive state, achievement or accomplishment with an Under-goer subject. In short, they function as unaccusatives. For instance, in (32a‑b) cammina (deritta) does not mean ‘walk (straight / upright)’, but rather is employed figuratively to mean ‘behave (upright)’, hence the reading ‘behave with honesty/decency’. Similarly, in (32c) (boni) travagghianu does not denote an activity, namely ‘they are working (well)’, but refers instead to an abiding quality of the subject, namely ‘they are good workers’. Not too dissimilar considerations apply to (32d) where ragiuna does not refer to an event‑bound activity with an Actor subject, but refers to the intrinsic intellectual capabilities pred‑icated of the dative experiencer, hence the reading ‘I’m clever, I’ve got a good head on my shoulders’. Finally, in (32e‑g) cammina ‘walk’ and funziona(nu) ‘function(s)’ denote a state characterizing a non‑Actor subject, namely ‘to be in good working condition’.



Data like these highlight that split intransitivity cannot be under‑stood in rigid structural terms alone, but, rather, must also make refer‑ence to semantic properties to allow for a certain degree of fluidity in the active/stative split. Indeed, the data observed in (32a‑g) above are not in any sense exceptional within Romance, in that similar cases of fluidity in the active/stative split, often involving many of the same predicates (e.g. work, function), have been widely noted in the literature for other Italo‑Romance varieties in relation to such phenomena as ne‑cliticization (Lonzi 1986; Cresti 2003; Penello 2004; Bentley 2006: 267‑286) and finite verb agreement in presentational sentences (Burzio 1986: 122‑126; Brandi & Cordin 1989; Saccon 1992; Parry 2000; Bentley 2006: 230‑242). Within this same category seem to fall oc‑casional Italian examples of adjectival adverbs like those in (33) re‑ported in Antrim (1994):

(33) a. Maria parla svelto (It.) Maria speaks swift.msg b. Maria parla svelta (It.) Maria speaks swift.fsg c. Ho fatto parlare ?*svelta / svelto Maria (It.) I.have made speak.inf swift.fsg swift.msg Maria ‘I made Maria speak quickly’ d. (Maria) parla *svelta / svelto! (It.) Maria speak.imp2sg swift.fsg swift.msg ‘(Maria), speak quickly!’

For those speakers of Italian who allow agreement at all with ad‑jectival adverbs, Antrim (1994: 132‑133) found in her sample that such speakers make a subtle but important distinction between (33a) and (33b). In the former where the adjectival adverb fails to agree with the feminine singular subject, the sentence is interpreted as an event‑bound activity performed by an Actor subject, namely ‘Maria is speaking quickly’, whereas in the agreeing (33b) the sentence is inter‑preted as a generic statement relating to an ongoing quality/condition that holds of an Undergoer subject, namely ‘Maria is a quick‑talker’. Thus, to all intents and purposes, the distribution of agreement in these examples correlates directly with the differential categorization of the verb parlare ‘to talk’ as an unergative in (33a) and as an unac‑


54 adam ledgeway

cusative in (33b). This observation, in turn, explains the ungrammat‑icality of the agreeing form in the causative and imperative examples in (33c‑d), where the unaccusative reading of parlare ‘to talk’ is not available (Antrim 1994: 135), witness the pragmatically infelicitous *‘I made Maria be(come) a quick‑speaker’, *‘Maria, be a quick‑speaker!’.

Finally, similar considerations (for those speakers of Italian that allow agreement of adjectival adverbs) apply to the contrasts in (34)‑(36) taken from Napoli (1975: 423‑424):

(34) a. Maria corre svelta / svelto (It.) Maria runs swift.fsg swift.msg ‘Maria runs fast’ b. La rondine vola alta / alto (It.) the.fsg swallow.f flies high.fsg high.msg ‘The swallow flies high’

(35) a. Maria ha corso *svelta / svelto (It.) Maria has run.msg swift.fsg swift.msg ‘Maria ran fast’ b. La rondine ha volato *alta / alto (It.) the.fsg swallow.fsg has flown.msg high.fsg high.msg ‘The swallow flew high’

(36) a. Maria è corsa svelta / *svelto (It.) Maria is run.fsg swift.fsg swift.msg ‘Maria ran fast’ b. La rondine è volata alta / *alto (It.) the.fsg swallow.fsg is flown high.fsg high.msg ‘The swallow flew high’

The examples in (34a‑b) apparently demonstrate that adjectival agreement in these cases is free. However, the verbs in question correre ‘to run’ and volare ‘to fly’ are well known to be ambiguous in Italian, insofar as they may be construed as denoting atelic activities with an Actor subject (viz. ‘to do (some) running/flying’), in which case they behave as canonical unergatives, or telic accomplishments with an Un-dergoer subject (viz. ‘to go somewhere by running/flying’), in which case they behave as canonical unaccusatives. Consequently, in the com‑pound perfective examples in (35)‑(36) in which the unergative and unaccusative uses of both predicates are clearly marked by their selec‑



tion of auxiliary avere ‘have’ versus essere ‘be’, respectively, we note that only the non‑agreeing forms of the adjectival adverb prove grammati‑cal in the former and the agreeing forms in the latter. These facts therefore provide further compelling evidence for our claim in relation to the dialects of southern Italy that the distribution of adjectival agree‑ment is sensitive to the active/stative split.

5. Structural interpretation of agreement patterns

In this final section, we sketch a brief structural analysis of how the agreement facts observed above for the dialects of southern Italy might be accounted for formally. We start by observing with Cinque (1999: 19ff.), following observations in Jackendoff (1972), that the distinct subject‑oriented and object‑oriented (in his terminology, manner‑oriented) interpretations of manner adverbs correlate with distinct positions (cf. also Ramat & Ricca 1998). As exemplified by the follow‑ing English sentences, the former correlates with a high clausal position (cf. 37a) and yields the reading ‘John has been clever in answering their questions’, whereas the latter interpretation correlates with either a preverbal position immediately above the verb phrase (cf. 37b) or a VP‑final position (cf. 37c), both of which yield the reading ‘their ques‑tions have been answered in a clever way by John’.

(37) a. John has cleverlybeen answering their questions b. John has been cleverly answering their questions c. John has been answering their questions cleverly

Formally, these three positions can be associated with distinct clausal projections, the first occurring in a dedicated position for sub‑ject‑oriented adverbs associated with a root modal projection ModP‑

Volitional (Cinque 1999: 89‑90), and the second with a dedicated position for manner adverbs associated with the verb’s voice and transitivity termed VoiceP (Cinque 1999: 101‑103) or, more generally in the lit‑erature, light vP, and the third with a VP‑final argument position that I shall informally term here ResultP. Significantly, Cinque (1999: 19) notes that only an adverb in the latter VP‑final position (but not in the


56 adam ledgeway

preverbal Voice/v position) can satisfy the verb’s subcategorization re‑quirements (cf. 38a) and license a middle‑interpretation (cf. 38b. See also Ramat & Ricca 1998: §4.2):

(38) a. John has (*carefully) worded the letter carefully b. This bag (*easily) opens up easily

Now, in the dialects of southern Italy we have argued in §3 that the object‑oriented reading of the adjectival manner adverb is to be related to its underlying function as a resultative predicative complement mod‑ifying the verb’s object. Thus, unlike in other Romance varieties where manner adverbial readings and predicative resultative readings are kept distinct through their use of separate adverbial and adjectival formal categories, in southern Italy both categories, and hence their associated readings, fall together formally through the use of the syncretistic adjec‑tival category. To capture these facts, we therefore propose that under the object‑oriented reading the adjectival adverb bona ‘good/well’ in an example such as (11b), repeated here as (39a), originates in the lower VP‑final position (ResultP) as a canonical resultative complement of the higher verbal object ’i carte ‘the cards’ (cf. 39b), from where it raises to the higher preverbal position associated with vP (cf. 39c), where it is correctly predicted to precede the verb’s direct object (12).

(39) a. Anna miscava bone ’i carte (Cosenza) Anna shuffled good.fpl the.pl cards.f b. …[vP [Subj Anna] miscava [VP [DO ’i carte] miscava [ResultP bone] ]] c. Anna miscava…[vP [bone] [Subj Anna] miscava [VP [DO ’i carte] miscava [ResultP bone] ]]

We thus see that while in English the two lower manner adverb positions remain lexically distinct at all levels of representation, in southern Italy they are derivationally related with obligatory raising from the lowest VP‑final resultative position to the preverbal manner

(12) Unlike in English, in the dialects finite verbs raise to a relatively high posi‑tion within the clause and in any case above manner adverbs (Ledgeway & Lom-bardi 2005; Ledgeway (forthc.) §4.3.2).



position, thereby producing the observed hybrid resultative‑manner reading. This explains why, in contrast to English (cf. 38a‑b), the ad‑jectival adverb in dialects of southern Italy can satisfy the verb’s subcate‑gorization requirements (cf. 40a) and license a middle interpretation (cf. 40b) from the higher preverbal position (13), and why both lower manner adverb positions can be independently lexicalized in English (cf. 41a; Cinque 1999: 19‑20), but not in southern Italy (cf. 41b).

(40) a. Cicciu trattava buoni a ri clienti sua (*buoni) (Cosenza) Ciccio treated good.mpl to the.pl clients.m his.pl good.mpl ‘Ciccio used to treat his customers well’ b. si stiranu buoni ssi cavuzi (*buoni) (Cosenza) selves= wash good.mpl these trousers.m good.mpl ‘these trousers iron well’

(41) a. John has cleverly been answering the questions stupidly b. *a pittatu bona ’a casa sana sana(Cosenza) he.has painted good.fsg the.fsg house.f whole.fsg whole.fsg c. * a pittatu sanasana’a casa bona (Cosenza) he.has painted whole.fsg whole.fsg the.fsg house.f good.fsg ‘he expertly/completely painted the house completely/expertly’

We now also have an explanation for the observed agreement pat‑terns. In most dialects of southern Italy the adjectival adverb and NP object enter into an agreement relation in their in situ positions lo‑cally within the VP, where the adjectival adverb qua resultative predica‑tive complement directly modifies the NP object:

(42) …[VP NP‑Obji (V) AP‑Resultativei]

In the case of subject‑oriented readings of manner adverbs as in (11a), repeated here as (43a), no agreement obtains since the adjectival adverb and NP object do not enter into a predicative relation either locally within the VP or more remotely elsewhere in the clause, with

(13) Irrelevant in (40a‑b) are the grammatical readings in which postverbal buoni is preceded by a pause and focused bearing the nuclear stress of the sentence (Cinque 1999:13‑16), or in which it functions as a contrastive postnominal attributive adjec‑tival modifier of the preceding nominal head.


58 adam ledgeway

the adjectival adverb base‑generated directly in the highest position associated with the root modal projection ModPVolitional (cf. 43b) (14).

(43) a. Anna miscava buonu ’i carte (Cosenza) Anna shuffled good.msg the.pl cards.f b. Anna miscava [ModPVolitional [buonu] [vP [Subj Anna] miscava [VP miscava [DO ’i carte] ]]]

By the same token, we can now also offer an explanation for the Ariellese agreement facts examined in (24)‑(26). Recall that in this variety agreement is excluded under the object‑oriented reading of the adjectival adverb when the object is represented by a non‑clitic doubled full NP (cf. 44a), but is obligatory when the object is represented by a non‑doubling clitic pronoun (cf. 44b).

(44) a. a pittite bbone / *bbune chili mure (Ariellese) he.has painted good.sg / good.pl those walls ‘he painted those walls well’ b. l’ a pittitte bbune / *bbone (Arielli) them= he.has painted good.pl / good.sg ‘he painted them well’

These facts lead us to assume then that in Ariellese the configura‑tion produced by the in situ positions of the NP object and its associ‑ated resultative adjectival adverb within the VP are not sufficiently

(14) Our corpus and informants offer us no confirmation of the pattern found in the Sicilian dialect of Mussomeli (province of Caltanisetta) reported by Cruschina (2010: 28‑29), in which under the subject‑oriented reading the adjectival adverb can agree with the subject (cf. i).

(i) l’ abbocati parlaru chiari (Mussomeli) the lawyers. spoke clear.pl ‘the lawyers spoke clearly (= the lawyers were clear in their speech)’

It might be that cases like these should be assimilated to the not too dissimilar Italian examples discussed in (33) above, such that parlaru in (i) could be inter‑preted as denoting, not an intransitive activity, but an intransitive accomplishment. Alternatively, another way to account for this particular agreement type would be to assume that the subject‑oriented manner adverb is base‑generated in an adjoined position to TP hosting the subject (hence the observed agreement with the subject), rather than base‑generated within ModPVolitional.



local to license agreement (cf. 45a). Rather, for agreement to obtain the agreement features of the adjectival adverb have to be overtly li‑censed by a more local checking configuration. Parallel to the classic accounts of Romance participle agreement (cf. Kayne 1989) (15), we therefore propose that this can only happen when the NP object is realized by a clitic pronoun which, in order to cliticize to the verb higher up in the clause, has to move through the specifier position of the adjectival adverb once raised to the preverbal position giving rise to Head‑Spec(ifier) agreement (cf. 45b) (16).

(45) a. …[VP [DO chili mure]i pittite [ResultP bbonek] ] those walls painted good.sg b. l’ a pittite [vP [[Spec lii] bbunei] pittite [VP [DO li] pittite [ResultP

them= he.has painted them good.mpl painted them painted bbone] ]] good.sg

Significantly, clitic‑controlled agreement of this sort is only li‑censed when the clitic represents, and originates in, the verb’s comple‑ment position from where it has to move through the adjectival ad‑verb’s specifier position in order to cliticize to the verb. By way of il‑lustration, consider the contrasting pair in (46a‑b):

(46) a. l’ a vattute bbune, chili wagliune (Arielli) them= he.has beaten good.pl those boys ‘he gave them a good thrashing, those boys’ b. Chili wagliune l’ a vattute bbone (Arielli) those boys them= he.has beaten good.sg ‘those boys, he gave them a good thrashing’

Agreement obtains in examples of apparent right‑dislocation such as (46a), where we can assume that the clitic originates in the comple‑

(15) The same facts can also be accounted for within D’Alessandro & Roberts (2008) phase‑bound analysis of participle agreement, in that raising of the clitic to the specifier position of the adjectival adverb in the left edge of the vP will imply that the clitic and adverb are sent to PF together on the same cycle.

(16) As we saw in (24a), agreement also obtains with a full NP unaccusative subject which, like pronominal clitics, must also pass through the specifier position of the raised adjectival adverb en route to the preverbal subject position.


60 adam ledgeway

ment position within the VP and the coreferential NP in some VP‑external adjunction position, with subsequent movement of the clitic from its base position to cliticize to the verb passing en route through the specifier position of the adjectival adverb triggering the observed agreement. However, agreement is invariably ruled out in examples of clitic left‑dislocation such as (46b), where we can assume that the surface position of the clitic is not a derived one as in (46a), but represents its base‑generated position from where it licenses an empty pro(nominal) in the verb’s complement position. Thus, the differ‑ences in agreement witnessed in right‑ and left‑dislocation can been retraced, respectively, to whether the clitic is derivationally related to the verb’s complement position from where it has to pass through the adjectival adverb (cf. 47a), or whether it is representationally related to the verb’s complement position in which it licenses a null pro(nominal) object (cf. 47b):

(47) a. [cli+V… [vP [[cli] Advi] [VP cli V Adv]], NPi ] (right‑dislocation) b. [NPi, [cli+V…[vP [Adv] [VP proi V Adv]]]] (left‑dislocation)

Finally, we can now relate this finding to our previous, albeit tenta‑tive, observation in footnote 10 above regarding adverbial agreement with reflexive predicates. Essentially, we noted there a greater propen‑sity for agreement to obtain in conjunction with argumental reflexive clitics (cf. 48a), where the clitic represents a true argument of the verb and can be assumed to originate in the verb’s complement position from where it has to move through the adverb to cliticize to the verb. With inherent/middle reflexives, by contrast, we observed that agree‑ment proved extremely marginal and in most cases impossible (cf. 48b), an observation which we can now directly relate to the fact that the reflexive clitic in such cases is not argumental, but is base‑generat‑ed in its surface position and hence not derivationally‑related to the verb’s complement position.

(48) a. z’ a mminite bbune bbune (Arielli) selves= they.have hit good.pl good.pl ‘they gave one another a good thrashing’



b. Cumberteteve bbone / *bbune, wagliu’! (Arielli) behave.imp.2pl=you good.sg good.pl boys.voc ‘Behave properly, guys!’

Adam [email protected]

TEXTUAL SOURCES AND ABBREVIATIONS

ADB = Lo Castro, A. Arte della beffa. Available at: www.teatrodeglispecchi.it/copioni.aspx.

AFD = Maurici, C. A famigghia diffitusa. Available at: www.gttempo.it/Copioni_M.htm.

APO = Gemelli, N. (1990), ’A porta ’e l’ortu. Calabria letteraria, Soveria Mannelli.Barca = Barca, F. (1996), Teatro dialettale. Commedie. Santelli, Mendicino.Branc. = Gentile, S. (ed.) (1988), Giovanni Brancati, Vita e favole di Esopo.

Volgarizzamento del secolo XV (Glossario di Rosa Franzese). Liguori, Naples.Caval. = Cavalcanti, I (1837), Cucina casareccia in dialetto napoletano. Tommaso

Marotta, Naples.CF = Lo Castro, A. Lu Ciclopu Polifemu. Available at: www.teatrodeglispecchi.it/

copioni.aspx.CNM = Colacino, E. (1994), E cchi ni manca? VIP Comunicazione, Reggio

Calabria.Cort.1 = Cortese, G. (1976), Micco Passaro, in Opere di Giulio Cesare Cortese (1o

tomo). Centro Editoriale del Mezzogiorno, Naples, 1‑97.Cort.2 = Cortese, G. (1976), Lo cerriglio ncantato, in Opere di Giulio Cesare Cortese

(1o tomo). Centro Editoriale del Mezzogiorno, Naples, 99‑170.DeFil. = De Filippo, E. (1973), I capolavori di Eduardo. Einaudi, Turin.DiGiac. = Di Giacomo, S. (1991), Di Giacomo: tutto il teatro. Newton, Rome.Di Maio = Di Maio, G. and Di Maio, O. Ce penza mammà. http://www.gliantinati.

it/copioni2.php.DPV = Bonanno, A. Don Pippino u varberi. Available at: www.gliantinati.it/

copioni2.php.Epist. = Boccaccio, G. (1996), L’epistola napoletana, in Sabatini, F. (ed.), Prospettive

sul parlato nella storia linguistica italiana (con una lettura dell’Epistola napoletana del Boccaccio), in Coletti, V. – Coluccia, R. – D’Achille, P. – De Blasi, N. – Petrucci, L. (eds.), Francesco Sabatini. Italia linguistica delle origini. Saggi editi dal 1956 al 1996. Argo, Lecce, 425‑466.

FC = Filocamo, S. (1984), Farse canevalesche. Rubbettino, Soveria Mannelli.GR = Lo Castro, A. Giulietta & Romeo. Available at: www.teatrodeglispecchi.it/

copioni.aspx.


62 adam ledgeway

Jm = Carè, P. (1982), ’Ju matrimoniu. Barbaro, Oppido Maritimo.IDG = Leotta, A. L’isola dei girasoli. Available at: www.gliantinati.it/copioni2.php.mI = Leotta, A. Missione Impossibile. Available at: www.gliantinati.it/copioni2.php.mPmF = Vassallo, N. Un marito per mia figlia. Available at: www.gttempo.it/

Copioni_V.htm. OnV = Lo Castro, A. Occhio non vede. Available at: www.teatrodeglispecchi.it/

copioni.aspx.PDG = Chinnici, R. Pitrinu e lu ddisiu de li gucciddata. Available at: www.

buonoasapersi.info/copioni1/copion.htm.PS = Lo Castro, A. Promessi sposi. Available at: www.teatrodeglispecchi.it/copioni.

aspx.RDP = Bonanno, A. A repubblica ri patati. Available at: www.gliantinati.it/copioni2.

php.Rocco = Perrone, C., ed. (1994), Michele Rocco, Virgilio napoletano. La buccoleca de

Vergilio. La greogeca de Vergilio. Benincasa, Rome.RPC = Falcone, G. (1979), Racconti popolari calabresi con prolegomeni linguistici.

Casa del libro, Reggio Calabria.SA = Cuffaro, A. Serafinu Addummisciutu. Available at: www.gttempo.it/

Copioni_C.htm.Sarn. = Malato, E., ed. (1962), Pompeo Sarnelli, Posilecheata. Sansoni, Florence.SAZ = Chinnici, R. Sta arrivannu u ziu d’America. Available at: www.gliantinati.it/

copioni2.php.Scarp.1 = Marrone, R., ed. (1992), Scarpetta. Tutto il teatro. Newton, Rome.Scarp.2 = Scarpetta, E. Duje marite ’mbrugliune. Available at: www.gliantinati.it/

copioni2.php.Scarp.3 = Scarpetta, E. La nutriccia. Available at: http://www.gliantinati.it/copioni2.

php.SIV1 = Musio, C. (1995), Il Salento in vernacolo. Commedie – volume primo.

Congedo, Galatina.SIV2 = Fiorentino, F. (1998), Vernacolo Salentino. Commedie. Congedo, Galatina.TDL2 = Protopapa, R. (1990), Teatro dialettale leccese. Volume secondo. L’acchaitura.

La riforma. Eulalia. Le mbrogghie te lu requenzinu. Le corne d’argentu. Capone, Cavallino di Lecce.

TDL3 = Protopapa, R. (1991), Teatro dialettale leccese. Volume terzo. L’àncura. La furtuna. Lu rre te Lecce. Filippu e ppanaru. Nna causa alla pretura. Capone, Cavallino di Lecce.

TDL4 = Protopapa, R. (1992), Teatro dialettale leccese. Volume quarto. Li do’ cumpari. Le do’ cummari. Salvatore lu rapinatore. Epigrammi. Capone, Cavallino di Lecce.

VDA = Pascuzzi, U. (1982), ’A vrigogna d’a gente. Rubbettino, Soveria Mannelli.VDP = Cocivera, N. Vita di parrocchia. Available at: www.compagniaolympus.it/

lettera%20C.htmVTN = Bonanno, A. Vota a To’ Nannu. Available at: www.gliantinati.it/copioni2.

php.



REFERENCES

Alexiadou, A. (1997), Adverb placement. A case study in antisymmetric syntax. Benjamins, Amsterdam.

Alexiadou, A., Anagnostopoulou, E. & Everaert, M., (ed.) (2004), The unaccusat ivity puzzle. Explorations of the syntaxlexicon interface. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Altamura, A. (1956), Dizionario dialettale napoletano. Fausto Fiorentino, Naples.Anderson, S. (1985), ‘Inflectional morphology’, in Shopen, T. (ed.), Language

typology and syntactic description. Volume III: Grammatical categories and the lexicon. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 150‑201.

Antrim, N. (1994), ‘Italian adverbial agreement’, in Mazzola, M. (ed.), Issues and theory in Romance linguistics: Selected papers from the Linguistic symposium on Romance languages XXIII April 14, 1993. Georgetown University Press, Washington D.C., 129‑140.

Bauer, B. (2001), ‘Syntactic innovation in Latin poetry? The origins of the Romance adverbial formation in ‑ment(e)’, in Orbán, A. & van der Poel, M. (eds.), Ad Literas. Latin studies in honour of J. H. Brouwers. Nijmegen University Press, Nijmegen, 29‑43.

Bauer, B. (2003), ‘The adverbial formation in mente in vulgar and late Latin. A problem in grammaticalization’, in Solin, H., Leiwo, M. & Halla‑aho, H. (eds.), Latin vulgaire et latin tardif VI, Actes du VIème colloque international sur le latin vulgaire et tardif, 29 août2 septembre 2000 Helsinki. Olms, Hildesheim, 439‑457.

Bauer, B. (2010), ‘Forerunners of Romance –mente adverbs in Latin prose and poetry’, in Dickey, E. & Chahoud, A. (eds.), Colloquial and literary Latin. Cambriidge University Press, Cambridge, 339‑353.

Bentley, D. (2006), Split intransitivity in Italian. Mouton, Berlin.Bonner, J. (2001), Introduction to Sicilian grammar. Legas, Brooklyn.Brandi, L. and Cordin, P. (1989), ‘Two Italian dialects and the null‑subject

parameter’, in Jaeggli, O. & Safir, K. (eds.), The null subject parameter. Kluwer, Dordrecht, 111‑142.

Burzio, L. (1986), Italian syntax: A governmentbinding approach. Foris, Dordrecht.Cennamo, M. (2001), ‘L’extended accusative e le nozioni di voce e relazione

grammaticale nel latino tardo e medievale’, in Viparelli, V. (ed.), Ricerche linguistiche tra antico e moderno. Liguori, Naples, 3‑27.

Cinque, G. (1999), Adverbs and functional heads. A crosslinguistic perspective. University Press, Oxford, Oxford.

Compagna, A.M., (ed.) (1990), Lupo de Spechio, Summa dei re di Napoli e Sicilia e dei re d’Aragona. Liguori, Naples.

Corti, M. (ed.) (1956), Pietro Jacopo De Jennaro, Rime e lettere. Carducci, Bologna.Cresti, D. (2003), ‘Aspects of the syntax an semantics of ne’, in Tortora, C. (ed.),

The syntax of Italian dialects. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 67‑101.Cruschina, S. (2010), ‘Aspetti morfologici e sintattici degli avverbi in siciliano’, in

Garzonio, J. (ed.), Studi sui dialetti della Sicilia (Quaderni di lavoro ASIt n.11). Unipress, Padua, 21‑42.


64 adam ledgeway

D’Alessandro, R. & Roberts, I. (2008), ‘Movement and agreement in Italian past participles and defective phases’, Linguistic Inquiry, 39: 477‑491.

De Blasi, N. & Imperatore, L. (2000), Il napoletano parlato e scritto. Con note di grammatica storica (Nuova edizione). Dante & Descartes, Naples.

Iandolo, C. (1994), ’A lengua ’e Pulecenella. Grammatica napoletana. Franco Di Mauro, Castellammare di Stabia.

Iandolo, A. (2001), Parlare e scrivere in dialetto napoletano. Tempolungo, Naples.Jackendoff, R. (1972), Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. MIT Press,

Cambridge, Mass.Ježek, E. & Ramat, P. (2009), ‘On parts of speech transcategorization’, Folia

linguistica, 43: 391‑416.Kayne, R (1989), ‘Facets of Romance past participle agreement’, in Benincà, P. (ed.),

Dialect variation and the theory of grammar. Foris, Dordrecht, 85‑103.La Fauci, N. (1988), Oggetti e soggetti nella formazione della morfosintassi romanza.

Giardini, Pisa.La Fauci, N. (1991), ‘La continuità nella diversità formale: aspetti di morfosintassi

diacronica romanza’, in Orioles, V. (ed.), Innovazione e conservazione nelle lingue. Giardini, Pisa, 135‑158.

La Fauci, N. (1997), Per una teoria grammaticale del mutamento morfosintattico. Dal latino verso il romanzo. ETS, Pisa.

La Fauci, N. (1998), ‘Riflettendo sul mutamento morfosintattico. Nel latino, verso il romanzo’, in Ramat, P. & Roma, E. (eds), Sintassi storica. Atti del XXX congresso internazionale della Società di linguistica italiana. Bulzoni, Rome, 519‑545.

Ledgeway, A. (2000), A comparative syntax of the dialects of southern Italy: A minimalist approach. Blackwell, Oxford.

Ledgeway, A. (2003), ‘Linguistic theory and the mysteries of Italian dialects’, in Lepschy, A.L. & Tosi, A. (eds), Multilingualism in Italy: Past and present. Legenda, Oxford, 108‑140.

Ledgeway, A. (2009), Grammatica diacronica del napoletano (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie Band 350). Niemeyer, Tübingen.

Ledgeway, A. (2011), ‘Morphosyntactic typology and change’, in Maiden, M. & Smith, J.C. & Ledgeway, A. (eds.), The Cambridge history of the Romance languages. Volume 1: Structures. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 382‑471, 724‑734.

Ledgeway, A. (forthc.), From Latin to Romance. Morphosyntactic typology and change. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Ledgeway, A. & Lombardi, A. (2005), ‘Verb movement, adverbs and clitic positions in Romance’, Probus, 17: 79‑113

Leone, A. (1995), Profilo di sintassi siciliana. Centro di studi filologici e linguistici siciliani, Palermo.

Levin, B. & Rappoport Hovav, M. (1995), Unaccusativity: at the syntaxlexical semantics interface. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.

Lonzi, L. (1986) ‘Pertinenza della struttura tema‑rema per l’analisi sintattica’, in Stammerjohanna, H. (ed.), Temarema in italiano. Narr, Tübingen, 91‑120.

Loporcaro, M. (1998), Sintassi comparata dell’accordo participiale romanzo. Rosenberg & Sellier, Turin.



Maturi, P. (2002), Dialetti e substandardizzazione nel Sannio beneventano. Peter Lang, Frankfurt.

Meliadò, R. (1994), Le radici linguistiche e psicoantropologiche del dialetto reggino (seconda edizione ampliata). Jason, Reggio Calabria.

Napoli, D. (1975), ‘A global agreement phenomenon’, Linguistic Inquiry, 7: 413‑435.Parry, M. (2000), ‘Accordo e soggetti posverbali in piemontese’, in Englebert, A.,

Pierrard, M., Rosier, L. & van Raemdonck, D. (eds.), Congrès internatinoal de linguistique et philologie romanes, Bruxelles 1998. Vol. 6: De la grammaire des formes à la grammaire du sens. Niemeyer, Tübingen, 391‑402.

Penello, N. (2004), ‘I clitici locativo e partitivo nelle varietà italiane settentrionali’, Quaderni di lavoro dell’Atlante sintatico dell’Italia settentrionale, 4: 37‑103. Available at: http://asis‑cnr.unipd.it/ql‑4.it.html.

Perrone, C. (ed.) (1977), Francesco Oliva, Opere napoletane. Bulzoni, Rome.Radtke, E. (1997), I dialetti della Campania. Il Calamo, Rome.Ramat, P. & Ricca, D. (1998), ‘Sentence adverbs in the languages of Europe’, in

van der Auwera, J. (ed.), Adverbial constructions in the languages of Europe. de Gruyter, Berlin, 187‑275.

Rappoport Hovav, M. & Levin, B. (2001), ‘An event structure account of English resultatives’, Language, 77: 766‑797.

Ricca, D. (1998), ‘La morfologia avverbiale tra flessione e derivazione’, in Bernini, G. (ed.), Ars linguistica. Studi offerti a Paolo Ramat. Bulzoni, Rome, 447‑466.

Rohlfs, G. (1969), Grammatica storica della lingua italiana e dei suoi dialetti. Sintassi e formazione delle parole. Einaudi, Turin.

Rovai, F. (2005), ‘L’estensione dell’accusativo in latino tardo e medievale’, AGI, 90: 54‑89.

Ruffino, G. (2001), Sicilia. Laterza, Rome‑Bari.Saccon, G. (1992), ‘VP‑internal arguments and locative subjects’, Proceedings of the

22nd annual meeting of the north eastern linguistics society. Graduate Linguistics Student Association, Amherst, University of Massachusetts, 383‑397.

Smith, J.C. (1993), ‘La desaparición de la concordancia entre participio de pasado y objeto directo en castellano y catalán: aspectos geográficos e históricos’, in Penny, R. (ed.), Actas del primer congreso anglohispano I. Lingüística. Castalia, Madrid, 275‑285.

Smith, J.C. (1995), ‘Perceptual factors and the disappearance of agreement between past participle and direct object in Romance’, in Smith, J.C. & Maiden, M. (eds), Linguistic theory and the Romance languages. Benjamins, Amsterdam, 161‑180.

Smith, J.C. (1999), ‘Markedness and morphosyntactic change revisited: The case of Romance past participle agreement’, in Embleton, S., Joseph, J. & Niederehe, H‑J. (eds.), The emergence of the modern language sciences: Studies on the transition from historicalcomparative to structural linguistics in honour of E. F. K. Koerner. 2: Methodological perspectives and applications. Benjamins, Amsterdam, 203‑215.

Tsujimura, N. (1994), ‘Resultatives and motion verbs in Japanese’, Studies in the Linguistic Sciences, 24: 429‑440.

van Voorst, J. (1985), ‘Unaccusativity revisited’, Cahiers linguistiques d’Ottowa, 14: 97‑109.


66 adam ledgeway

Veenstra, T. (2004), ‘Unaccusativity in Saramaccan: The syntax of resultatives’, in Alexiadou, A., Anagnostopoulou, E. & Everaert, M. (eds.), The unaccusativity puzzle. Explorations of the syntaxlexicon interface. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 269‑287.

Verratti, V. (1998), Fonologia e morfologia del volgare abruzzese. Con rimarioglossario. Itinerari, Lanciano.

Zamboni, A. (1998), ‘Dal latino tardo al romanzo arcaico: aspetti diacronico‑tipologici della flessione nominale’, in Ramat, P. & Roma, E. (eds.), Sintassi storica. Atti del XXX congresso internazionale della Società di linguistica italiana. Bulzoni, Rome, 127‑146.

Zamboni, A. (2000), Alle origini dell’italiano. Dinamiche e tipologie della transizione dal latino. Carocci, Rome.


Ledgeway, Adam, 2011. ‘Adverb Agreement and Split Intransitivity: Evidence from Southern Italy’,...

Documents

Transcript of Ledgeway, Adam, 2011. ‘Adverb Agreement and Split Intransitivity: Evidence from Southern Italy’,...