Search

This paper addresses the phenomenon of mixed paradigms, i.e. mixed perfective auxiliation systems, attested in a wide range of Italo-Romance varieties (cf. Loporcaro 2001, 2007a, 2014; Manzini and Savoia 2005, among others). In these varieties, two auxiliary verbs, esse and habere, alternate within one and the same (sub)paradigm, displaying various patterns which can range from morphosyntactically motivated to apparently unmotivated distributions (here termed ‘morphomic’). I propose that, in these varieties, auxiliary selection is no longer a syntactically driven phenomenon, but becomes morphologized. I draw on the notion of ‘lexical split’ (cf. Corbett 2013, 2015, 2016) and describe the attested splits induced by intraparadigmatic auxiliary alternation. Following Bonami (2015), I put forward a typology of such splits. It is shown that, apart from motivated distributions, some morphomic patterns can also be found. The typology becomes more complex insofar as patterns with free variation between both auxiliaries are taken into account, as well as patently morphomic patterns which also seem to display external syntactic relevance (cf. Corbett 2013: 174–176). The phenomena reviewed and discussed in this paper are of major interest because they demonstrate the existence of competing exponence strategies within periphrasis, thus enriching the notion of ‘possible lexeme’ (cf. Corbett 2015: 146).

The aim of this paper is twofold: firstly it provides a detailed overview of the canonical approach to inflection (following Corbett 2007; 2009; 2015); secondly it attempts to analyze, within this approach, a typologically interesting phenomenon of mixed perfective auxiliation systems attested in a wide array of Italo-Romance dialects. First, the paper introduces the key notions of Canonical Typology (cf. Bond 2019) applied to inflectional morphology, along with a proposed working Czech terminology of basic terms such as requirements of form etc. Second, the paper proceeds to show that mixed systems, where two auxiliary verbs (corresponding to the derivatives of the Latin verbs habere/ esse) alternate within one and the same paradigm, representing a further way in which periphrastic exponence “splits” the inflectional realization of a lexeme. These systems thus constitute yet another interesting non-canonical inflectional phenomenon worth exploring from the perspective of Canonical Typology

Verb-noun compounds are typically considered to be one of the most important innovations in the domain of Romance word-formation (cf. Bauer 2011, among many others). This morphological innovation can also be seen as part of a general tendency in Romance languages to prefer head-initial structures across different levels of the language system (cf., e.g., Ledgeway 2012: 225). However, the question of the productivity of VN compounds arises immediately as there is evidence that the pattern has become extremely productive only recently. This paper investigates the question of the productivity of the VN compounds starting out with a distinction between availability of a word-formation pattern and its profitability (cf., e.g., Bauer 2001). This article shows that the structural presence—availability—of VN compounding seems to be diachronically constant, but that the quantitative exploitation of the pattern—its profitability—turns out to be a recent phenomenon. Following recent research on compounding in Spanish (Moyna 2011) and French (Rosenberg 2007, 2008, 2011), this paper takes one concrete example of the Italian VN compounds and proceeds to show its diachronic evolution from the 16th to the 19th century on the basis of data drawn from diachronic corpora as well as from major historical dictionaries. It demonstrates that the “dramatic increase” alluded to by Bauer (2011: 543) is not to be taken as a sign of a new structural innovation, but rather as a fortuitous exploitation of a well-settled word-formation pattern.

The article analyzes, in a diachronic perspective, the complementarity of two rival Italian suffixes -tore/-ante. It is shown how the selection of one or the other suffix is dependent on the semantic instruction of these suffixes. The different semantics is exemplified with two main couples parlatore/parlante and occupatore/occupante. It is assumed that the stronger agentive meaning tied up with -tore can also be seen in some texts of Old Italian. As an example, one couple – abitatore/abitante – nonexistent in present-day Italian, is presented and it is shown how these two formations display different meanings in Villani's Cronica. In fact, abitatore, in Villani's language, is always modified by the adjective primo 'first' which points to a stronger, active meaning corresponding roughly to settler more than to a passive inhabitant.