Abstract
Syntactic variation can be ascribed to a range of factors. The Borer-Chomsky conjecture, as Mark Baker (2008) refers to it, states for instance that all parameters of variation are attributable to differences in the features of particular items (e.g. functional heads) in the lexicon. In this paper, this hypothesis is carefully considered in relation to a group of Abruzzese dialects that exhibit three seemingly unrelated syntactic patterns: split auxiliary selection, split differential object marking, and omnivorous participial agreement in number/argumental agreement mismatch marking. It will be proposed that these three patterns are closely interrelated, and can be attributed to the presence of an unvalued bundle of φ-features (π). Depending on which XP this head is merged with, different agreement patterns will emerge. Furthermore, these dialects will be shown to differ from another macrogroup of northern Italian dialects purely in the locus of Merge of this extra functional head: it will also be shown that the almost perfect areal complementary distribution between languages with subject clitics and languages with person-driven auxiliary selection is not accidental, but is the result of the presence of an extra φ-probe doubling the features of the subject in different parts of the syntactic spine. A microtypology of v will be presented, unifying many phenomena that were previously considered unrelated, such as auxiliary selection, participial agreement, differential object marking and subject clitics.
Highlights
In traditional dialectological studies, split auxiliary selection, i.e. the selection of have or be according to the subject person, has always been considered to be a completely separate phenomenon from subject clitics
This study concentrates on the latter: the phenomena illustrated in detail here are split-person related phenomena found in some upper southern Italian dialects
Agreement9); in the T-v field, in which case it takes the form of a subject-oriented auxiliary (and we see person-driven auxiliary selection, like in (1)); and in the v-V field, which is the internal argument field, in which case it emerges as split differential object marking (DOM)
Summary
Split auxiliary selection, i.e. the selection of have or be according to the subject person, has always been considered to be a completely separate phenomenon from subject clitics. Esse e risa they.3pl.f be. laughed.pl.f. the finite verb (or the participle) carries an agreement mismatch ending (-ə) whenever the external argument and the internal argument have different gender/number specification:. Agreement9); in the T-v field, in which case it takes the form of a subject-oriented auxiliary (and we see person-driven auxiliary selection, like in (1)); and in the v-V field, which is the internal argument field, in which case it emerges as split DOM. This in turn means that split auxiliary selection and participial agreement can be attributed to the same factor, π, and are not unrelated (contra what has been claimed in D’Alessandro & Roberts 2010) This new analysis brings to light a previously unobserved parallelism between northern Italian dialects, which exhibit subject clitics, and southern Italian dialects, which exhibit person-driven auxiliary selection.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
