2019.1.2

 ČASOPIS PRO MODERNÍ FILOLOGII 2019 (101) 1

Kanonická typologie a smíšené časování v románských jazycích

CANONICAL TYPOLOGY AND MIXED PERFECTIVE AUXILIATION SYSTEMS IN ROMANCE
Pavel Štichauer

 

 FULL TEXT   

 ABSTRACT (en)

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.

 KEYWORDS (en)

canonical typology; inflection; periphrasis; compound tenses; mixed paradigms; Romance languages; Italian; Italian dialects

 KLÍČOVÁ SLOVA (cs)

kanonická typologie; flexe; perifráze; složené časy; smíšené paradigma; románské jazyky; italština; italské dialekty

 DOI

https://doi.org/10.14712/23366591.2019.1.2

 REFERENCES

Ackerman, F. — Stump, G. T. (2004): Paradigms and periphrastic expression. In: L. Sadler — A. Spencer (eds.), Projecting Morphology. Stanford: CSLI, s. 111–157.

Acquaviva, P. (2008): Lexical Plurals. A Morphosemantic Approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Baerman, M. — Brown, D. — Corbett, G. G. (2017): Morphological Complexity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bentley, D. — Eythórsson, T. (2001): Alternation according to person in Italo-Romance. In: L. J. Brinton (ed.), Historical Linguistics 1999. Selected papers from the 14th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Vancouver, 9–13 August 1999. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, s. 63–74.

Benveniste, É. (1966): Problèmes de linguistique générale, 1. Paris: Gallimard.

Blevins, J. P. (2016): Word and Paradigm Morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Bonami, O. (2015): Periphrasis as collocation. Morphology, 25, 1, s. 63–110.

Bond, O. (2019): Canonical Typology. In: J. Audring — F. Masini (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Morphological Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press, s. 409–431.

Brown, D. — Chumakina, M. — Corbett, G. G. — Popova, G. — Spencer, A. (2012): Defining ‘periphrasis’: key notions. Morphology, 22, 2, s. 233–275.

Cennamo, M. (2001): L’Inaccusatività in alcune varietà campane: teorie e dati a confronto. In: R. Sornicola — E. Stenta Krosbakken — C. Stromboli (eds.), Dati empirici e teorie linguistiche: Atti del XXXIII Congresso della Società di Linguistica Italiana, Napoli, 28–30 ottobre 1999. Roma: Bulzoni, s. 427–453.

Cennamo, M. (2010): Perfective auxiliaries in the pluperfect in some southern Italian dialects. In: R. D’Alessandro — A. Ledgeway — I. Roberts (eds.), Syntactic Variation: The Dialects of Italy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, s. 210–224.

Corbett, G. G. (2007): Canonical typology, suppletion, and possible words. Language, 83, 1, s. 8–42.

Corbett, G. G. (2009): Canonical inflectional classes. In: F. Montermini — G. Boyé — J. Tseng (eds.), Selected Proceedings of the 6th Décembrettes: Morphology in Bordeaux. Somerville (MA): Cascadilla Proceedings
Project, s. 1–11.

Corbett, G. G. (2012): Features. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Corbett, G. G. (2013): Periphrasis and possible lexemes. In: M. Chumakina — G. G. Corbett (eds.), Periphrasis. The Role of Syntax and Morphology in Paradigms. Proceedings of the British Academy, 180. Oxford: Oxford University Press, s. 169–189.

Corbett, G. G. (2015): Morphosyntactic Complexity: A Typology of Lexical Splits. Language, 91, 1, s. 145–193.

Cvrček, V. a kolektiv autorů (2010): Mluvnice současné češtiny. Praha: Karolinum.

Haspelmath, M. (2000): Periphrasis. In: G. Booij — Ch. Lehmann — J. Mugdan (eds.), Morphologie/Morphology. Ein internationales Handbuch zur Flexion und Wortbildung/An international handbook on inflection and word-formation, vol. 1. Berlin: Mouton de Gryuter, s. 654–664.

Hončová, M. (2011): La scelta del verbo ausiliare nei dialetti di Corropoli e Nereto. Nepublikovaná Ph.D. dizertace. Univerzita Karlova: Filozofická fakulta.

Karlík, P. — Migdalski, K. (2016): Futurum (budoucí čas). In: P. Karlík — M. Nekula — J. Pleskalová (eds.), Nový encyklopedický slovník češtiny, Praha: NLN 2016, s. 551–557.

Ledgeway, A. (2012): From Latin to Romance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Legendre, G. (2010): A Formal Typology of Person-based Auxiliary Selection in Italo-Romance. In: R. D’Alessandro — A. Ledgeway — I. Roberts (eds.), Syntactic Variation: The Dialects of Italy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, s. 186–200.

Loporcaro, M. (2001): La selezione dell’ausiliare nei dialetti italiani: dati e teorie. In: R. Sornicola — E. Stenta Krosbakken — C. Stromboli (eds.), Dati empirici e teorie linguistiche: Atti del XXXIII Congresso della Società di Linguistica Italiana, Napoli, 28–30 ottobre 1999. Roma: Bulzoni, s. 455–476.

Loporcaro, M. (2007): On triple auxiliation in Romance. Linguistics, 45, 1, s. 173–222.

Loporcaro, M. (2014): Perfective auxiliation in Italo-Romance. In: P. Benincà — A. Ledgeway — N. Vincent (eds.), Diachrony and Dialects. Grammatical Change in the Dialects of Italy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, s. 48–70.

Maiden, M. (2018): The Romance Verb. Morphomic Structure and Diachrony. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Manzini, M. R. — Savoia, L. M. (2005): I dialetti italiani e romanci. Morfosintassi generativa. Vol. I-III. Alessandria: Edizioni dell’Orso.

Sims, A. (2015): Inflectional Defectiveness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Spencer, A. — Popova, G. (2015): Periphrasis and Inflection. In: M. Baerman (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Inflection. Oxford: Oxford University Press, s. 197–230.

Spencer, A. (2013): Lexical Relatedness. A Paradigm-based Model. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Stump, G. (2001): Inflectional Morphology. A Theory of Paradigm Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Stump, G. (2015): Inflection classes. In: M. Baerman (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Inflection. Oxford: Oxford University Press, s. 113–139.

Stump, G. (2016): Inflectional Paradigms. Content and Form at the Syntax-Morphology Interface. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Štichauer, P. (2016): Paradigmi misti in alcuni dialetti italoromanzi: un approccio morfologico. AUC Philologica, Romanistica Pragensia XXI, s. 9–20.

Štichauer, P. (2018): Lexical splits within periphrasis: mixed perfective auxiliation systems in Italo-Romance. Morphology, 28, 1, s. 1–23.

Štichauer, P. (2019): Mixed paradigms in Italo-Romance: a case of morphologization of auxiliary selection? In: S. Cruschina — A. Ledgeway — E.-M. Remberger (eds.), Italian Dialectology at the Interfaces. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, s. 79–100.

Thornton, A. M. (2010–2011): La non canonicità del tipo it. braccio//braccia// bracci: Sovrabbondanza, diffettività o iperdifferenziazione? Studi di grammatica italiana, 29–30, s. 419–477.

Torcolacci, G. (2015): Marking the Default. Auxiliary selection in Southern Italian dialects. Ph.D. dizertace, Univerzita Leiden. Utrecht: LOT.

Úvod > 2019.1.2