Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-21T23:34:31.006Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Unaccusativity and auxiliary choice in non-native grammars of Italian and French: asymmetries and predictable indeterminacy*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 October 2008

Antonella Sorace
Antonella Sorace
Affiliation:
Department of Applied Linguistics, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH8 9LN, Scotland
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In the diachronic development of the modern Romance languages, reflexes of the Latin verb habere have replaced reflexes of esse, to a greater or lesser extent in particular languages. In this article it will be argued that the distribution of esse-reflexes is determined by a hierarchy of unaccusativity based on the semantic distinctions concreteness/abstracteness and movement/staticity, and that habere-reflexes have been spreading systematically from the periphery of this hierarchy towards the core. This process has affected Italian and French to different degrees: Italian has largely retained a syntactically and semantically consistent auxiliary system, whereas the French system, at a more advanced stage of the evolution, shows greater variation and inconsistency.

Evidence is presented from the linguistic intuitions of very advanced Italian non-native speakers of French and French non-native speakers of Italian about equivalent unaccusative verbs, and it is argued that the unaccusative hierarchy conditions both the degree and the directionality of difficulty in second language acquisition. The findings reveal an asymmetric pattern: it is easier for the French learners to fully acquire the facts of essere-selection than for the Italian learners to internalize the facts of être-selection, and the degree of difficulty experienced by the Italian learners with individual unaccusative verbs is correlated to their position along the hierarchy.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of French Language Studies , Volume 3 , Issue 1 , March 1993 , pp. 71 - 93
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1993

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

REFERENCES

Benzing, J. (1931). Zur Geschichte von ser als Hilfszeitwort bei den intransitiven Verben im Spanischen. Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie, 51:385–460.Google Scholar
Berruto, G. (1987). Sociolinguistica dell'Italia contemporanea. Firenze: La Scuola.Google Scholar
Burzio, L. (1986). Italian Syntax. A Government-Binding Approach. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Canale, M., Mougeon, R. and Bélanger, M. (1978). Analogical leveling of the auxiliary être in Ontarian French. In: Suñer, M. (ed.), Contemporary Studies in Romance Linguistics. Washington: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Centineo, G. (1986). A lexical theory of auxiliary selection in Italian. Davis Working Papers in Linguistics, 1:1–35.Google Scholar
Gougenheim, G. (1951). Grammaire de la langue française du seizième siècle. Lyons: Editions I.A.C.Google Scholar
Grewendorf, G. (1989). Ergativity in German. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grimshaw, J. (1987). Unaccusatives: an overview. Proceedings from the North East Linguistic Society, 17:244–258.Google Scholar
Guerssel, M., Hale, K., Laughren, M., Levin, B. and White Eagle, J. (1985). A cross-linguistic study of transitivity alternations. Papers from the Parasession on Causatives and Agentivity at the 21st Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Hoekstra, T. (1984). Transitivity. Grammatical Relations in Government-Binding Theory. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Kayne, R. (1980). *J'ai voulu lire, j'ai tout voulu lire. Langue Française, 46:32–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keenan, E. (1987). Semantic correlates of the ergative/absolutive distinction. In: Keenan, E. L. (ed.), Universal Grammar: 15 Essays. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Keyser, S. J. and Roeper, T. (1984). On the middle and ergative constructions in English. Linguistic Inquiry, 15:381–416.Google Scholar
Labelle, M. (1990). Unaccusatives and pseudo-unaccusatives in French. NELS, 20:303–317.Google Scholar
Legendre, G. (1989). Unaccusativity in French. Lingua, 79:95–164.Google Scholar
Levin, L. S. (1988). Operations on Lexical Form: Unaccusative Rules in Germanic Languages. New York and London: Garland.Google Scholar
Lodge, M. (1981). Magnitude Scaling. Quantitative Measurement of Opinions. Sage University Paper series on Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences, series no. 07–025. Beverly Hills and London: Sage Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Napoli, D. J. (1988). Review article of Burzio (1986). Language, 64:130–142.Google Scholar
Parisi, D. (1976). The past participle. Italian Linguistics, 1:77–106.Google Scholar
Pearce, E. (1990). Parameters in Old French Syntax. Infinitival Complements. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perlmutter, D. (1978). Impersonal passives and the Unaccusative Hypothesis. In: Proceedings of the Fourth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley: University of California.Google Scholar
Perlmutter, D. (1989). Multiattachment and the unaccusative hypothesis: the perfect auxiliary in Italian. Probus, 1:63–119.Google Scholar
Perlmutter, D. and Postal, P. (1988). The 1-Advancement Exclusiveness Law. In: Perlmutter, D. and Rosen, C. (eds.), Studies in Relational Grammar 2. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Pollock, J-Y. (1985). On case and the syntax of infinitives in French. In: Guéron, J., Obenauer, H-G. and Pollock, J-Y. (eds.), Grammatical Representation. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Porena, M. (1938). Sull'uso degli ausiliari essere e avere in italiano. ID, 14:1–22.Google Scholar
Rappaport, M. and Levin, B. (1988). What to do with θ-roles. In: Wilkins, W. (ed.), Syntax and Semantics. Thematic Relations. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Rizzi, L. (1982). Issues in Italian Syntax. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rohlfs, G. (1969). Grammatica storica della lingua italiana e dei suoi dialetti. Torino: Einaudi.Google Scholar
Rydén, M. and Brorström, S. (1987). The Be/Have Variation with Intransitives in English. With Special Reference to the Late Modern Period. Acta Universitatis Stockholmiensis. Stockholm Studies in English LXX.Google Scholar
Sankoff, G. and Thibault, P. (1977). L'alternance entre les auxiliaires avoir et être en français parlé à Montréal. Langue Française, 34:81–108.Google Scholar
Sorace, A. (1988). Linguistic intuitions in interlanguage development: the problem of indeterminacy. In: Pankhurst, J.Sharwood Smith, M. and van Buren, P. (eds.), Leamability and Second Languages. A Book of Readings. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Sorace, A. (1991a). Predictable indeterminacy in Italian auxiliary selection: evidence from native and non-native intuitions. Paper presented at the Spring Meeting of the Linguistic Association of Great Britain, March 1991.Google Scholar
Sorace, A. (1991b). Incomplete vs divergent representations of unaccusativity in non-native grammars of Italian. Paper presented at the Autumn meeting of the Linguistics Association of Great Britain, September 1991 (to appear in Second Language Research).Google Scholar
Sorace, A. (1991c). Magnitude estimation techniques for the elicitation of non-native acceptability judgments. Parper presented at the ‘Theory Construction and Methodology in Second Language Acquisition Research’, Michigan State University, October 1991.Google Scholar
Sorace, A. and Bard, E. G. in preparation. Magnitude estimation procedures for the elicitation of native and non-native acceptability judgments. Department of Linguistics Occasional Papers. University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Stevens, S. S. (1975). Psychophysics: Introduction to its Perceptual, Neural, and Social Prospects. New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Tuttle, D. (1986). The spread of esse as universal auxiliary in central Italo-Romance. Medioevo Romanzo, XI.Google Scholar
Van Valin, R. D. (1990). Semantic parameters of split intransitivity. Language, 66:221–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wexler, K. and Manzini, M. R. (1987). Parameters and learnability. In: Roeper, T. and Williams, E. (eds.), Parameter Setting. Dordrecht: Reidel, 41–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, L. (1989). Universal Grammar and Second Language Acquisition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google 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.Google Scholar
Zaenen, A. (1988). Unaccusative verbs in Dutch and the syntax-semantics interface. Report no. CSLI-88-123, Center for the Study of Language and Information, April 1988.Google Scholar
Zobl, H. (1989). Canonical typological structures and ergativity in English L2 acquisition. In: Gass, S. and Schachter, J. (eds.), Linguistic Perspectives on Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 203–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zubizarreta, M-L. (1987). Levels of Representation in the Lexicon and in the Syntax. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar