West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL) (38th : 2020)

Nested agree : auxiliary selection and participle agreement in Italian Amato, Irene 2020

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Notice for Google Chrome users:
If you are having trouble viewing or searching the PDF with Google Chrome, please download it here instead.

Item Metadata


73804-Amato_l_Nested_WCCFL38_2020_poster.pdf [ 153.6kB ]
JSON: 73804-1.0389829.json
JSON-LD: 73804-1.0389829-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 73804-1.0389829-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 73804-1.0389829-rdf.json
Turtle: 73804-1.0389829-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 73804-1.0389829-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 73804-1.0389829-source.json
Full Text

Full Text

Nested Agree: auxiliary selection and participle agreement in ItalianIrene Amato (irene.amato@uni-leipzig.de)WCCFL 38 - University of British Columbia1. In a nutshellAuxiliary selection is Agree for person features.•Auxiliary switch: emergence of the unmarked, due to:– failed Agree,–Agree with pi-defective items.•Both argument structure-based split (Standard Italian) andperson-driven split (Southern dialects) are pi-Agree.•Nested Agree (Amato 2020): for features ordered on the samehead, the locality domain of a subsequent operation dependson the previous operation:1. Try to probe the same goal. If no result:2. Scan c-command domain from the latest checked position.5. Complicating the picturePerson-driven auxiliary selection (Tuttle 1986, Kayne 1993)• Southern Italian dialects: auxiliary alternations depend onlyon the feature of the subject (sometimes on tense and aspect).•Different ordering of features on Perf: [upi] Â [uInfl] →Perfalways probes the subject.• Language variation captured by reordering of features.• ex. Ariellese (D’Alessandro & Roberts 2010): 1.BE, 2.BE,3.HAVE: /HAVE/ ↔ Perf0[pi:3], /BE/ ↔ Perf0 elsewhereRestructuring (Cinque 2004, Wurmbrand 2012, Grano 2015)•A modal verb embeds a non-finite verb (monoclausal).•“Transparent auxiliary selection”: if the embedded verb is aBE-verb, the auxiliary of the modal is optionally BE or HAVE.+ vrestr: [uInfl:non-fin] Â [upi: ] Â [Infl: ]: it probes lower v forpi-feature, it is probed by Perf for pi-feature.•Different complement sizes (vP / TP) determine the searchdomains for Agree and the interaction with clitic climbing.References• Bjorkman, B. A. M. (2011) BE-ing default: The morphosyntax of aux-iliaries, PhD thesis, MIT. • Chomsky, N. (2001) Derivation by Phase, In:Ken Hale. A Life in Language. Cambridge, Mass., MIT Press, 1-52 •D’Alessandro, R. & I. Roberts (2008), Movement and agreement in Italianpast participles and defective phases, LI 39(3), 477-491 • D’Alessandro, R.& I. Roberts (2010), Past participle agreement in Abruzzese: split auxiliaryselection and the null-subject parameter, NLLT 28(1), 41-72 • Georgi, D.(2014) Opaque interactions of Merge and Agree: On the nature and order ofelementary operations, PhD thesis, University of Leipzig. • Mu¨ller, G. (2010)On deriving CED effects from the PIC, LI 41(1), 35-82. • Van Urk, C. &N. Richards (2015) Two components of long-distance extraction: Successivecyclicity in Dinka, LI 46(1), 113–155.2. Argument-driven auxiliary selection•Auxiliary selection: alternation between BE and HAVE auxiliaries in the perfect (Kayne 1993, Cocchi 1995, Sorace 2000, 2004,McFadden 2007, Bjorkmann 2011).(1) a. MariaMariahahave.prs.3sglavatowash.prtclathecamicia.skirt‘Maria has washed the skirt.’b. MariaMarial=ha3sg.f.acc=have.prs.3sglavat-a.wash.prtc-sg.f‘Maria has washed her/it.’c. MariaMariahahave.prs.3sglavatowash.prtcseherselfstessa.‘Maria has washed herself.’(2) a. MariaMariae`be.prs.3sgarrivat-a.arrive.prtc-sg.f‘Maria has arrived.’b. Si=sonoself=be.prs.3pllavat-ewash.prtc-pl.flethecamicie.skirts‘One has washed the skirts.’c. MariaMariasi=e`self=be.prs.3sglavat-a.washed.prtc-sg.f‘Maria washed herself.’•Transitive, unergative verbs: HAVE • Unaccusative verbs: BELUnexpected switch to BE if impersonal argument (2b), reflexive (in-)direct object (2c).3. Auxiliary selection is pi-AgreePrevious analyses: incorporation of D/P0 to T0 (Kayne 1993, Cocchi 1995), types of v (D’Alessandro & Roberts 2010), externalargument (Bjorkman 2011) → L Problems in root clauses and in restructuring.+We need to track the pi-features of the object:– object: /HAVE/– no object: /BE/–pi-defective object: /BE/•Person Agree: pi-features realized not as inflection, but as lexical selection.•BE inserted when Agree on Perf has failed (Perminger 2014): either no goal, ordefective goal.LMinimality violation: Perf agrees with v across the subject.Nested Agree (Amato 2020): Let F1 and F2 be two ordered probes on the same head H. The locality domain of F1 is the sister ofH. An Agree operation A2 for the feature F2 must target the goal G if G has been targeted by a previous Agree operation A1 for thefeature F1. If G is not a matching goal for F2, the locality domain of F2 is the sister of G.• Features on the same head are extrinsically ordered (Mu¨ller 2009, Georgi 2014).(i) Try to Agree with the same goal: cf. Maximize Matching Effect (Chomsky 2001), General Specificity Principle (Lahne 2012),Multitasting (Van Urk & Richards 2015).(ii) You cannot backtrack: the latest goal becomes the upper boundary of the nested operation (Amato 2020).+ Solution to the minimality problem: the intervener lies outside the locality domain of the nested Agree operation.•The perfective auxiliary spells out thehead Perf0: [uInfl:perf] Â [upi: ]• (3) [Infl] checking: Perf targets v• (4) Nested Agree for [upi: ]:Perf targets v instead of DPsubj•Vocabulary entries (metarule):/HAVE/ ↔ Perf0[pi:α],/BE/ ↔ Perf0 elsewhere+And participle agreement (ppAgree)?(3) PerfPvPv ′VPv[Infl: ][φ:3sg.f]DPsubj[φ:3pl.m]Perf[uInfl:Perf][upi: ]3(4) PerfPvPv ′VPv[Infl:Perf][φ:3sg.f]DPsubj[φ:3pl.m]Perf[Infl:Perf][upi: ]37• ppAgree (Kayne 1989, D’Alessandro and Roberts 2008, Belletti 2017) spells out an edge feature on v : /ppAgree/ ↔ v0[γ:α],[#:α]•Each v is a phase (Legate 2003, Mu¨ller 2011); it can be assigned an edge feature (EF) if a XP in its complement bears an uncheckedfeature (Chomsky 2001, Mu¨ller 2010) + EF comes with a flat gender and number probe that targets that XP.4. Deriving the alternation(1a) Transitive v : [Infl: ] Â [case:acc] Â[uφ: ] Â [·D·]PerfPvPv ′VPDPobj[φ:α][case:acc]Vv[Infl:perf][case:acc][upi:α][·D·]DPsubj[φ:β][case:nom]Perf[uInfl:perf][upi:α]1: pi2: Infl, 3: pi(2a) Unaccusative v : [Infl: ]PerfPvPv ′VP<DPobj>[φ:α][case: ]Vv[Infl:perf][uγ:β],[u#:β]DPobj[φ:α][case: ]Perf[uInfl:perf][upi: ]2: pi1: EF• [case: ] on DP → EF insertion: v [uγ:α],[u#:α] → ppAgree•Perf probes v for [Infl] Â [pi]: (i) no value on v (ii) the searchstarts downwards from the sister of v , but the DP has moved+ PIC: [pi]-Agree fails → BE insertion(2c) Reflexive clitic: it enters the derivation with unvalued φ-feature (Reuland 2001); [uT] triggers its movement to T.vPv ′v ′VP<DPobj>[uT][φ: ][case:acc]Vv[Infl: ][case:acc][upi: ][·D·][uγ:β],[u#:β]DPsubj[φ:β][case: ]DPobj[uT][φ:β][case:acc]1: pi2: binding3: EF(2b) Impersonal si has unvalued pi-feature (Cinque 1988).• si behaves similarly to a by-phrase: introduced by Voice thatbears a [Infl: ]-feature and unvalued [pi: ] (Legate 2014).•Perf probes Voice for [Infl] Â [upi] → BE insertionHAVEinsertionppAgreeBEinsertion


Citation Scheme:


Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics



Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            async >
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:


Related Items