Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-hvd4g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-29T22:14:06.263Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

18 - Alignment

from Part Four - Syntax

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 June 2022

By
Sonia Cyrino  and
Michelle Sheehan
Edited by
Adam Ledgeway  and
Martin Maiden
Adam Ledgeway
Affiliation:
University of Cambridge
Martin Maiden
Affiliation:
University of Oxford
Get access

Summary

The term ‘alignment’ is used in the typological literature to characterize the morphosyntactic behaviour of arguments and their relationship to the predicate. The term usually refers to case, agreement, and word order. Within the Romance family, Latin and its descendants are considered to display basic nominative-accusative alignment. However, Latin also has a split intransitive subject alignment in certain paradigms of the verbal system. This split alignment continues in a variety of guises into later Romance varieties. In this chapter, we discuss these phenomena in some detail, highlighting microvariation within the Romance family and discussing their importance for our broader understanding of alignment. We focus on the diachrony of alignment, as a backdrop for the discussion of the synchronic situation in Romance languages. We discuss auxiliary selection and the alignment of past participle agreement, charting both frequent and rare splits. Subsequently, we focus on alignment in SE-passives and word order in Romance. Finally, we briefly discuss two other potentially relevant phenomena: INDE-cliticization and absolute participles/participial adjectives. As we shall see, in many of these cases, the Romance language family displays a remarkable array of alignment patterns which raise interesting challenges for theories of split-intransitivity and alignment more generally.

Keywords

argument structuresplit-intransitivitypartitive cliticsabsolute participlesauxiliary selectionpast participle agreement
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Romance Linguistics , pp. 544 - 570
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2022

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Selected References

Alboiu, G., Barrie, M., and Frigeni, C. (2004). ‘SE and the unaccusative-unergative paradox’. In Coene, M., de Cuyper, G., and D’Hulst, Y. (eds), Antwerp Working Papers in Linguistics: Current Studies in Comparative Romance Linguistics 107: 109–39.Google Scholar
Cennamo, M. (2000). ‘Patterns of active syntax in late Latin pleonastic reflexives’. In Smith, J. C. and Bentley, D. (eds), Historical Linguistics 1995: Selected Papers from the 12th International Conference on Historical Linguistics. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 35–56.Google Scholar
Cinque, G. (1988). ‘On si constructions and the theory of arb’, Linguistic Inquiry 19: 521–81.Google Scholar
D’Alessandro, R. and Roberts, I. (2010). ‘Past participle agreement in Abruzzese: split auxiliary selection and the null-subject parameter’, Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 28: 41–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gianollo, C. (2010). ‘I verbi deponenti latini e l’unità della flessione in -r’. Incontri Triestini di Filologia Classica VIII, 2008–09. Trieste: Edizioni Università di Trieste, 23–49.Google Scholar
Ledgeway, A. (2012). From Latin to Romance. Morphosyntactic Typology and Challenge. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Loporcaro, M. (2007). ‘On triple auxiliation in Romance’. Linguistics 45: 173–222.Google Scholar
Migliori, L. (2016). Argument Structure, Alignment and Auxiliaries between Latin and Romance. A Diachronic Syntactic Account. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
Perlmutter, D. (1989). ‘Multiattachment and the Unaccusative Hypothesis: the perfect auxiliary in Italian’, Probus 1: 63–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pinto, M. (1997). Licensing and Interpretation of Inverted Subjects in Italian. UiL OTS Dissertation Series. Utrecht: LED.Google Scholar
Sorace, A. (2000). ‘Gradients in auxiliary selection with intransitive verbs’, Language 76: 859–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vincent, N. (1982). ‘The development of the auxiliaries habere and esse in Romance’. In Vincent, N. and Harris, M. (eds), Studies in the Romance Verb. London: Croom Helm, 71–96.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×