![Exploring features and arguments 5
(4) Phase Impenetrability Condition (PIC; Chomsky 2004: 108)
At the phase ZP containing phase HP, the domain of H is not accessi-
ble to operations, but only the edge of HP.
In essence this means that after the phase of some phase head PH1 is com-
plete (HP in (4)) and elements from the next higher phasal lexical array are
merged, that phase becomes inaccessible for further computation at the
point at which the next higher phase head PH2 is merged (ZP). To be more
precise, what becomes inaccessible, or impenetrable, is the domain of the
phase head, defined as its sister and everything contained (i.e. c-command)
– the so-called edge remains accessible, crucially so. The edge includes the
phase head itself and its specifiers, in a way recreating the kind of escape
hatch that became popular in the Barriers-framework (Chomsky 1986); con-
cerning (3c) and related issues, see Boeckx & Grohmann (2007) for recent
discussion and further references.
One immediate effect for the syntactic derivation is the necessity of
built-in ‘escape hatches’ (not unlike those from the Barriers-model of
Chomsky 1986), through which those syntactic objects must move that
need to get out of one phase to target a higher phase. As a simple way of
illustration, this can be sketched for wh-questions, as in (5):
(5) a. [vP John v [VP kiss who ]]
b. [vP who [vP John kiss-v [VP V who ]]
c. will-T [vP who [vP John kiss-v [VP V who ]]
d. [TP John will-T [vP who [vP John kiss-v [VP V who ]]
e. C [TP John will-T [vP who [vP John kiss-v [VP V who ]]
f. [CP who will-C [TP John T [vP who [vP John kiss-v [VP V who ]]
Once all theta-roles are assigned within the vP (5a), V raises to v and the
wh-phrase moves into an outer specifier of v (5b). (Allowing such an addi-
tional Spec-position is referred to as the ‘P(eripheral)-feature’ (Chomsky
2000) or ‘EPP-property’ (Chomsky 2001 et seq.) of phase-heads – as many
as needed.) The usual T-insertion (5c) and subject raising applies (5d) be-
fore the next higher phase head, interrogative C, is merged into the struc-
ture (5e). Now the PIC (4) applies and the only way who can move to
[Spec,CP] is from the edge of the vP-phase, as in (5f). Had who not moved
to [Spec,vP] previously, it would now be frozen in place. That is, an analy-
sis as assumed in earlier versions of minimalism, according to which the
object wh-phrase moves straight from its base to [Spec,CP] is not available
anymore.](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/25132489-250520043821-57aba5c9/85/Explorations-Of-Phase-Theory-Features-And-Arguments-Kleanthes-K-Grohmann-Editor-15-320.jpg)
![6 Kleanthes K.Grohmann
Additional debate surrounds the details of (3b) – just what or which op-
erations exactly cannot apply over a lower phase? This question leads us to
another staple of phase-theoretic innovations of the Minimalist Program:
grammatical licensing mechanisms. Where in earlier instantiations, Move
took care of feature checking through Spec-Head configurations (Checking
Theory of Chomsky 1993) or Attract was responsible for displacement
(Chomsky 1995), current approaches employ a Probe-Goal system of fea-
ture checking known as Agree (Chomsky 2000). Agree checks features be-
tween a Probe and a lower Goal with matching features through long-
distance, through c-command. Bošković (2007), for example, argues that
only Move is subject to the PIC, but not Agree as Chomsky suggests; for
additional details and discussion, see the next section (and a number of
chapters in the following).
(3a) seems to be the least controversial aspect of phases, unless one
considers the relation between NS and LEX in more detail, or from the per-
spective of Distributed Morphology (Halle & Marantz 1993 and much sub-
sequent research), for example, which may lead so quite a different charac-
terization. But this property was one of the core arguments in favour of a
cyclic, piecemeal derivation and has in public been discussed as early as
Wilder & Gärtner (1997) in the context of a proceedings volume for a con-
ference held in February 1995 – thus even predating any discussion of Mul-
tiple Spell-Out models or other aspects of dynamic computations. This
concerns data, such as the following:4
(6) a. There was [a rumor [that a mani was ti in the room]] in the air.
b. [A rumor [that there was a man in the room]]i was ti in the air.
This pair of examples offers an apparent case of optionality that is puzzling
for a single-numeration view of the derivation and the assumption that
Merge is more economical than Move. (6a) and (6b) are presumably de-
rived from the same lexical pre-selection. If now ‘Merge-over-Move’ were
real (the focus of Castillo et al. 1999), (6b) should always block the deriva-
tion of (6a). If each phase has its own lexical pre-selection (the lexical ar-
ray), this problem is solved: there is in different lexical arrays (or sub-
arrays) in the two examples.
4
Apart from Wilder & Gärtner’s (1997) presentation and the one independently
arrived at in Uriagereka (1999), see also Castillo et al. (1999), Hornstein et al.
(2005), and references cited for further discussion.](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/25132489-250520043821-57aba5c9/85/Explorations-Of-Phase-Theory-Features-And-Arguments-Kleanthes-K-Grohmann-Editor-16-320.jpg)
![14 Kleanthes K.Grohmann
standing syntax and phonology interface is becoming more and more im-
portant (Deguchi & Kitagawa 2002; Ishihara 2002, 2004; Kitagawa & Fodor
2006; among many others). For example, Kitagawa & Fodor examine tradi-
tionally considered subjacency violation examples in Japanese wh-move-
ment, and claim that unacceptable examples of wh-movement are not due
to subjacency violation, but rather assigning wrong prosody to the relevant
examples. Phonological information is relevant to interpretations as well as
grammatical judgments. Kamiya’s contribution is to show that this is true
with the interaction of a universal quantifier and negation in Japanese. First,
Kamiya demonstrates that Japanese (either nominative or dative marked)
subject must move to [Spec,TP] for EPP reasons, following Miyagawa
(2001). This movement is motivated by syntactic side, and the relevant in-
terpretations between a universal quantifier and negation are examined. In a
normal reading, a universal quantifier takes scope over negation. However,
stressing negative morpheme in the same sentence can produce a reading
where negation takes scope over a universal quantifier. Kamiya assumes
that negative feature which resides in NegP moves to the left periphery po-
sition in which negation takes scope over a universal quantifier. He tests to
see if this is the case in other environments such as nominalization. Kamiya
claims that as long as C or sentential left edge exits, stressing on negative
morpheme produces negation-over-universal-quantifier reading is possible,
but this is not true to nominalization (obviously, there is not C). In addition,
negative affix, not negative morpheme which projects NegP, cannot under-
go a feature movement. In the end, Japanese data show that negative feature
can move to the left peripheral position for focus feature checking, and this
is the case only to negative morpheme. The key point is that stressing causes
this movement. Hence this chapter suggests that phonological information
feeds meaning. At the same time, this paper questions if CP and DP are
identical with respect to left periphery, which must be more thoroughly
investigated in the future.
In view of Chomsky’s (2000) proposal that there is a single cycle to
syntactic derivations called a phase, Jonathan MacDonald observes in
“Inner Aspect and Phases” that the aspectual interpretation of a predicate is
conditioned by this single cycle. Since Verkuyl (1972) it has been known
that an NP can affect the aspectual interpretation of the predicate. Tenny
(1987) showed that only the internal argument NP can do so; in effect, she
showed that syntax plays a role in aspectual interpretation. MacDonald
notes that Tenny’s observations go beyond the aspectual effect of an NP.
He argues for the existence of an aspectual projection between vP and VP,
AspP, that has specific aspectual properties dependent on it (cf. Travis 1991,](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/25132489-250520043821-57aba5c9/85/Explorations-Of-Phase-Theory-Features-And-Arguments-Kleanthes-K-Grohmann-Editor-24-320.jpg)
![Exploring features and arguments 17
1981 Lectures on Government and Binding: The Pisa Lectures. Dordrecht:
Foris. [Subsequent editions published by Berlin/New York: Mouton
de Gruyter.]
1986 Barriers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
1993 A minimalist program for linguistic theory. In The View from Build-
ing 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger, Ken-
neth Hale and Samuel Jay Keyser (eds.), 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press. [Reprinted in Chomsky 1995: 167–217.]
1995 The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
2000 Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Step by Step: Essays on
Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik, Roger Martin, David
Michaels and Juan Uriagereka (eds.), 89–155. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.
2001 Derivation by phase. In Ken Hale: A Life in Language, Michael
Kenstowicz (ed.), 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
2004 Beyond explanatory adequacy. In Structures and Beyond – The Car-
tography of Syntactic Structures, vol. 3, Adriana Belletti (ed.), 104–
131. New York: Oxford University Press.
2008 On phases. In Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory: Essays in
Honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud, Robert Freidin, Carlos P. Otero and
Maria Luisa Zubizarreta (eds.),133–166. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Deguchi, Masanori and Yoshihisa Kitagawa
2002 Prosody in syntactic analyses. Ms., Indiana University, Bloomington.
den Dikken, Marcel
2007 Phase extension: Contours of a theory of the role of head movement
in phrasal extraction. Theoretical Linguistics 33: 133–163.
Epstein, Samuel David, Erich M. Groat, Ruriko Kawashima and Hisatsugu Kitahara
1998 A Derivational Approach to Syntactic Relations. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Gallego, Ángel J.
2007 phase theory and parametric variation. Ph.D. dissertation, Universitat
Autònoma de Barcelona.
Grohmann, Kleanthes K.
2003 Prolific Domains: On the Anti-Locality of Movement Dependencies.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
2009a Phases and interfaces. In Grohmann (2009b), 1–22.
Grohmann, Kleanthes K. (ed.)
2009b InterPhases: Phase-Theoretic Investigations of Linguistic Interfaces.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Grohmann, Kleanthes K. and Phoevos Panagiotidis (eds.)
2009 Selected Papers from the 2006 Cyprus Syntaxfest. Newcastle-upon-
Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/25132489-250520043821-57aba5c9/85/Explorations-Of-Phase-Theory-Features-And-Arguments-Kleanthes-K-Grohmann-Editor-27-320.jpg)
![18 Kleanthes K.Grohmann
Halle, Morris and Alec Marantz
1993 Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. In The View
from Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Brom-
berger, Kenneth Hale and Samuel Jay Keyser (eds.), 111–176. Cam-
bridge, MA: MIT Press.
Hiraiwa, Ken
2005 Dimensions of Symmetry in Syntax: Agreement and Clausal Architec-
ture. Ph.D. dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cam-
bridge.
Hornstein, Norbert
1999 Movement and control. Linguistic Inquiry 30: 69–96.
2001 Move! A Minimalist Theory of Construal. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
2003 On control. In Minimalist Syntax, Randall Hendrick (ed.), 6–81.
Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Hornstein, Norbert, Jairo Nunes and Kleanthes K.Grohmann
2005 Understanding Minimalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ishihara, Shinichiro
2002 Invisible but audible Wh-scope marking: Wh-constructions and de-
accenting in Japanese. WCCFL 21: Proceedings of the 21st West
Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics: 180–193.
2004 Prosody-scope match and mismatch in Tokyo Japanese Wh-ques-
tions. Ms., Universität Potsdam.
Kaye, Jonathan
1992 On the interaction of theories of lexical phonology and theories of
phonological phenomena. In Phonologica 1988, Uli Dressler, Hans
Luschützky, Oskar Pfeiffer and John Rennison (eds.), 141–155. Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press.
1993 Derivations and interfaces. SOAS Working Papers in Linguistics and
Phonetics 3: 90–126. [Published 1995 in Frontiers of Phonology,
Jacques Durand and Francis Katamba (eds.), 289–332. London: Long-
man.]
Kitagawa, Yoshihisa and Janet Dean Fodor
2006 Prosodic influence on syntactic judgments. In Gradience in Gram-
mar: Generative Perspectives, Gisbert Fanselow, Caroline Féry,
Matthias Schlesewsky and Ralf Vogel (eds.), ch. 17. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Landau, Idan
2003 Movement out of control. Linguistic Inquiry 34: 471–498.
Lasnik, Howard
1995 Last resort and attract F. Proceedings of FLSM 6: 62–81. [Reprinted
2003 in Minimalist Investigations in Linguistic Theory, Howard
Lasnik (ed.), ch. 3. London: Routledge.]](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/25132489-250520043821-57aba5c9/85/Explorations-Of-Phase-Theory-Features-And-Arguments-Kleanthes-K-Grohmann-Editor-28-320.jpg)
![Remarks on features
Halldór Ármann Sigurðsson
This paper pursues the idea that uninterpretable features are not present in
syntax, but are instead a product of the interfaces. In particular, it argues
that formal feature values belong to PF only, i.e., that they are not syntactic
objects but PF ‘translations’ of more abstract syntactic structures and corre-
lations. It follows that case is nonexistent in syntax and it also follows that
agreement is a PF copying process, differing radically from abstract, syntac-
tic Agree. Accordingly, much of the ‘labor’ of traditional syntax happens in
PF and is thus invisible to the semantic interface, SF, that is, the computation
proceeds on the PF side after transfer.
1. Introduction
If the syntactic computation proceeds in a single cycle (Chomsky 2000 et
seq.), it must be interpretable to both the interfaces, that is, semantic form
and perceptible form, SF and PF, for short, where perceptible form refers to
PF in a broad sense, including the ‘sign form’ of sign languages.
From this general interpretability or legibility condition, it follows that
syntax cannot produce any information that is visible but uninterpretable to
the interfaces. By necessity, however, linguistic objects contain features
that are interpretable to only one of the interfaces, like +HUMAN and
[+labial]. Chomsky’s solution to this Interpretablity Puzzle is basically to
have uninterpretable features removed or eliminated prior to or under the
operation transfer, that hands the derivation over to the interfaces. In this
work, I will pursue the ‘obvious’ alternative, namely, that uninterpretable
features are not present in syntax, but are instead a product of the interfaces
or of their interplay with language external motoric and conceptual subsys-
tems. Such features are functional in a broad sense, but superfluous from a
narrow syntactic perspective. Syntax itself contains features that get inter-
preted or valued through matching, but it contains no features that remain
uninterpreted and thus need to be deleted.1
1
See in particular Sigurðsson (2006b), where it is argued that syntax operates with
abstract features and roots, ROOT99, etc., that do not get any phonological feature](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/25132489-250520043821-57aba5c9/85/Explorations-Of-Phase-Theory-Features-And-Arguments-Kleanthes-K-Grohmann-Editor-31-320.jpg)
![32 Halldór Ármann Sigurðsson
seem to make much sense to assume that languages differ syntactically with
respect to these categories. Rather, genders are lexical classification fea-
tures, serving the general ‘purpose’ of reducing ambiguity on the PF side of
language. If so, gender agreement must also belong to PF rather than to
Narrow Syntax, an issue I will return to.9
As in many other formal gender languages (see Corbett 1991: 51ff.),
gender selection in Icelandic is frequently affected by phonological factors,
most roots in -óC or -íC, for instance, combining with feminine gender,
most nouns with the -un suffix also combining with feminine, and so on.10
That is, gender selection is affected by phonologial factors, and it shows
‘combinatory tendencies’ that resemble tendencies commonly seen in pho-
notactics. Moreover, gender feeds phonological processes like the so-called
u-mutation, shifting [a] to [œ] or [Y] under certain conditions (see Rögn-
valdsson 1981 for a detailed account):
(20) a. [a] → [œ] in (mostly) stressed syllables
b. [a] → [Y] elsewhere
The relevant conditions are somewhat varying, but, strikingly, there are
cases where they regularly and productively involve gender information, as
illustrated in (21):
(21) a. lat- [la:t(h)
-] → löt [lœ:t(h)
] in F.SG.NOM & N.PL.NOM/ACC
‘lazy’
b. byrjað- [pIrjað-] → byrjuð [pIrjYð] in F.SG.NOM & N.PL.NOM/ACC
‘begun’
Facts of this sort do not provide an unmabiguous argument against gender
being syntactic, but they show, at least, that gender is visible to phono-
logical processes.
Before proceeding to other features, let us briefly summarize our central
findings for gender. A noun may either have or not have semantic gender.
9
On the antecedent movement approach to pronominal binding pursued in Kayne
(2002), gender agreement can be analyzed as clause-bounded across the board
(which it cannot in other approaches, as far as I can see). All other problems re-
main, though, and Kayne’s approach also has its own, rather serious internal
problems, so I will not discuss this here.
10
Bók ‘book’, rót ‘root’, vík ‘small bay’, hlíð ‘slope’, verslun ‘shop’, hönnun ‘de-
sign’, and so on.](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/25132489-250520043821-57aba5c9/85/Explorations-Of-Phase-Theory-Features-And-Arguments-Kleanthes-K-Grohmann-Editor-42-320.jpg)
![Remarks on features 39
(30) [__ and ___] have just taken part in one of these workshops on
Asian food.
a. He and I… 45/91 = 49%
b. Him and I… 35/91 = 38%
c. Me and him… 9/91 = 10%
d. Him and me… 2/91 = 2%
e. I and he… 0/91
f. I and him… 0/91
g. Me and he… 0/91
h. He and me… 0/91
(31) If Morris is late, would you mind taking [__ and __] to the airport?
a. … him and I… 30/92 = 33%
b. … him and me… 29/92 = 32%
c. … me and him… 27/92 = 29%
d. … he and I… 4/92 = 4%
e. … I and he… 0/92
f. … I and him… 0/92
g. … me and he… 0/92
h. … he and me… 0/92
If English subject and object case was decided by syntactic argument fea-
tures like +NOM and +ACC, this kind of variation would be hard or impossi-
ble to explain. According to Quinn (2005), the case variation found in coor-
dinates relates to a morphological distinction between weak and strong pro-
nouns in English and is at least partly influenced by the relative phono-
logical heaviness or ‘robustness’ of strong pronoun forms. Evidently, the
‘structural’ cases, better referred to as the relational cases (see Sigurðsson
2006a), are diactritic features in PF.
Case is always a PF interpretation or expression of a complex syntactic
correlation, that is, there seems never to be a one-to-one correlation between
a particular morphological case and a single feature in syntax. Thus, the Ice-
landic dative is used for multiple purposes, marking at least the following
nine types of elements (Sigurðsson 2003: 230):
(32) a. Quirky subjects (e.g. ‘me feels good’ = ‘I feel good’)
b. Indirect objects (e.g. ‘she gave me the book’)
c. Direct objects (e.g. ‘she invited me’)
d. Free benefactives (e.g. ‘she wrote me a poem’)
e. Possessors (e.g. ‘she looked into eyes me’ = ‘into my eyes’)](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/25132489-250520043821-57aba5c9/85/Explorations-Of-Phase-Theory-Features-And-Arguments-Kleanthes-K-Grohmann-Editor-49-320.jpg)
Explorations Of Phase Theory Features And Arguments Kleanthes K Grohmann Editor
- 1. Explorations Of Phase Theory Features And Arguments Kleanthes K Grohmann Editor download https://ebookbell.com/product/explorations-of-phase-theory- features-and-arguments-kleanthes-k-grohmann-editor-50264978 Explore and download more ebooks at ebookbell.com
- 2. Here are some recommended products that we believe you will be interested in. You can click the link to download. Explorations Of Phase Theory Features And Arguments 1st Edition Grohmann https://ebookbell.com/product/explorations-of-phase-theory-features- and-arguments-1st-edition-grohmann-1663074 Explorations Of Phase Theory Interpretation At The Interfaces Kleanthes K Grohmann Editor https://ebookbell.com/product/explorations-of-phase-theory- interpretation-at-the-interfaces-kleanthes-k-grohmann-editor-50264980 Explorations Of Phase Theory Interpretation At The Interfaces 1st Edition Grohmann https://ebookbell.com/product/explorations-of-phase-theory- interpretation-at-the-interfaces-1st-edition-grohmann-1379792 Explorations Of Variability In Australian Prehistoric Rock Engravings Natalie R Franklin https://ebookbell.com/product/explorations-of-variability-in- australian-prehistoric-rock-engravings-natalie-r-franklin-49989106
- 3. Explorations Of The Syntaxsemantics Interface Jens Fleischhauer Editor Anja Latrouite Editor Rainer Osswald Editor https://ebookbell.com/product/explorations-of-the-syntaxsemantics- interface-jens-fleischhauer-editor-anja-latrouite-editor-rainer- osswald-editor-51930130 Explorations Of Language Transfer Terence Odlin https://ebookbell.com/product/explorations-of-language-transfer- terence-odlin-51976712 Explorations Of Mathematical Models In Biology With Maple 1st Edition Shahin https://ebookbell.com/product/explorations-of-mathematical-models-in- biology-with-maple-1st-edition-shahin-55199804 Explorations Of The Lifeworld Continuing Dialogues With Alfred Schutz 1st Edition Martin Endress Auth https://ebookbell.com/product/explorations-of-the-lifeworld- continuing-dialogues-with-alfred-schutz-1st-edition-martin-endress- auth-2167392 Explorations Of Mathematical Models In Biology With Matlab 1st Edition Shahin https://ebookbell.com/product/explorations-of-mathematical-models-in- biology-with-matlab-1st-edition-shahin-5393384
- 5. Explorations of Phase Theory: Features and Arguments ≥
- 6. Interface Explorations 18 Editors Artemis Alexiadou T. Alan Hall Mouton de Gruyter Berlin · New York
- 7. Explorations of Phase Theory: Features and Arguments edited by Kleanthes K. Grohmann Mouton de Gruyter Berlin · New York
- 8. Mouton de Gruyter (formerly Mouton, The Hague) is a Division of Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG, Berlin. 앪 앝 Printed on acid-free paper which falls within the guidelines of the ANSI to ensure permanence and durability. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Explorations of phase theory : features and arguments / edited by Kleanthes K. p. cm. ⫺ (Interface explorations ; 18) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-3-11-020520-6 (hardcover : alk. paper) 1. Minimalist theory (Linguistics) 2. Generative grammar 3. Gram- mar, Comparative and general ⫺ Syntax. I. Grohmann, Kleanthes K. P158.28.E97 2009 4151.0182⫺dc22 2009002411 Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available in the Internet at http://dnb.d-nb.de. ISBN 978-3-11-020520-6 ISSN 1861-4167 ” Copyright 2009 by Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG, 10785 Berlin All rights reserved, including those of translation into foreign languages. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechan- ical, including photocopy, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, with- out permission in writing from the publisher. Cover design: Christopher Schneider, Laufen. Printed in Germany.
- 9. Contents Exploring features and arguments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Kleanthes K.Grohmann Remarks on features. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Halldór Ármann Sigurðsson Feature valuation by sideward movement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 Bartosz Wiland On Incrementality, overt agreement, theta-roles and Spec,Head relations in the phase-based framework. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 Iván Ortega-Santos Structural case, locality, and cyclicity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 Thomas McFadden PRO, pro, and NP-trace (raising) are interpretations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131 M.Rita Manzini Movement of arguments and negative feature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181 Masaaki Kamiya Inner aspect and phases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207 Jonathan E. MacDonald How to become passive. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231 Berit Gehrke and Nino Grillo Ergativity, accusativity, and the order of Merge and Agree . . . . . . . . . . . 269 Gereon Müller Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 309 Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 311
- 11. Exploring features and arguments Kleanthes K. Grohmann 1. Introduction The InterPhases conference, held at Casteliotissa Hall in the Old Town of Nicosia, Cyprus 18–20 May 2006, was an attempt to bring together linguists working on all kinds of interface-related issues (the inter-part of the title) pertaining to current, generative syntactic theory (such as the eponymous phases). It was also many things beyond this narrow aim; in particular, the event sparked a lot of interest and discussion. At the conference, 25 papers were delivered orally (incl. Noam Chomsky’s keynote address and three in- vited lectures; see also Grohmann 2009b) and another 25 posters presented. All in all, close to 200 linguists got together, interacted lively, and ex- changed ideas for a good week, if the Edges in Syntax conference immedi- ately preceding is taken into consideration as well (on this combined Cyprus Syntaxfest, see the introduction to Grohmann & Panagiotidis 2009). Above all, the hope was that the conference was also successful intellectually. The present collection, and its sister volume Explorations of Phase Theory: Inter- pretation at the Interfaces, is one effort to give testimony to that hope.1 The present compilation is assembled from work accepted for presenta- tion at the InterPhases conference. Apart from an invited speaker’s work (Müller), selected oral (Manzini, Sigurðsson) and poster presentations (Geraci, Gehrke & Grillo, Kamiya, MacDonald, Ortega-Santos), as well as one that unfortunately had to be canceled (McFadden), have been specially prepared for this volume by the authors, having benefited greatly from the feedback received at the conference and afterwards. In addition, one more chapter was solicited explicitly for this volume (Wiland). The selection criterion for this collection is that each chapter explicitly address issues con- cerning Features and Arguments – the sub-title of this volume – all framed 1 This ‘sister volume’ volume on “Explorations of Phase Theory” also derived from the InterPhases conference (Interface Explorations 17). Note that the two introductions share large parts, in particular sections 1 and 2 as well as the overall arrangement, but, of course, differ in sections 3 and 4, the volume-specific the- matic and contributions overviews.
- 12. 2 Kleanthes K.Grohmann within the leading theme of this volume (and the previous, the above- mentioned sister volume), “Explorations of Phase Theory”. Before briefly presenting each contribution in turn, and putting it in per- spective to this collection, I will introduce the volume with a sketch of the fundamental properties of Phase Theory and of what kind of interesting or relevant aspects features and arguments provide, also with respect to those contributions that take a more critical stance towards Phase Theory as un- derstood in current research. 2. Phase theory For the purposes of the present collection, I take ‘Phase Theory’ to be rep- resentative of the leading developments within the current, generative frame- work collectively referred to as the Minimalist Program, instigated by Noam Chomsky’s early minimalist work, then published as Chomsky (1995). Phase Theory – employed here sometimes in alternation with the term ‘phase- based approach’ and other synonyms – collectively refers to Chomsky’s (2000) proposal, originally circulated in 1998, his subsequent work over the past 10 years, and various extensions by other scholars, which I will briefly sketch in this section.2 Chomsky’s formulation of the syntactic derivation by phase addresses certain aspects of a ‘dynamic’ approach to the computation, originally ad- vanced by Uriagereka in the mid-1990s (published as Uriagereka 1997, 1999), the so-called ‘Multiple Spell-Out Hypothesis’ (see the sister volume to the present collection for more discussion). The major point of departure from earlier instantiations of the Minimalist Program here lies in the archi- tecture of the grammar. While minimalism as conceived of in Chomsky (1993, 1995) adhered to a slightly modified form of the Y- or T-model from the GB era (Chomsky 1981, 1986), where the interpretive interface levels LF (Logical Form) and PF (Phonetic or Phonological Form) were accessed once through the single application of the operation Spell-Out, as in (1), 2 For textbook introductions, see Adger (2003: ch. 10), Radford (2004: ch. 10), and Hornstein et al. (2005: ch. 10), Lasnik & Uriagereka with Boeckx (2005: section 7.4), and Boeckx (2008: section 3.2), among others. More elaborate expositions, including interesting extensions, of Phase Theory include the recent dissertations by Richards (2004), Hiraiwa (2005), and Gallego (2007), to name but a few, and a host of research monographs and collected volumes (see also den Dikken 2007 and peer responses).
- 13. Exploring features and arguments 3 (1) LEX (qua numeration or lexical array) Spell-Out PF (instructing the SM system) LF (instructing the C-I system) Phase Theory explores a more intricate view of Transfer. The major dif- ference lies in the (new) operation Transfer, that is, from narrow syntax (NS) to the interpretive interface levels LF and PF. Access on all other sides remains as conceived before, that is (finer details aside), NS starts off with some kind of pre-selection from the Lexicon (LEX) in the form of a numeration or, as it is now known in Phase Theory, lexical array and the interpretive – or, as used here (see Grohmann 2009a for discussion), modu- lar – interface levels still feed the linguistic interfaces known as the Sen- sorimotor (SM) system and Conceptual-Intentional (C-I) system, respec- tively. Transfer is the ‘super-operation’ (Lasnik & Uriagereka with Boeckx 2005) feeding the modular interfaces, made up of Transfer to LF (Interpret) and Transfer to PF (Spell-Out). Within Phase Theory, Transfer thus under- stood is assumed to apply more than once, throughout the derivation – which leads to a dynamic evaluation of NS, to use a popular term. This can be captured by the diagram in (2), adapted from Boeckx (2008). (2) lf pf lf pf lf pf . . . . . .
- 14. 4 Kleanthes K.Grohmann From such a dynamic conception of the derivation, several paths can be ex- plored – Uriagereka’s (1999) Multiple Spell-Out model is one, Grohmann’s (2003) framework based on Prolific Domains is another, and further alter- natives exist as well. But Chomsky’s (2000 et seq.) Phase Theory seems to be the dominant one these days and constitutes the focus of the present col- lection, at least as a benchmark or term of comparison. This means, applied to (2), that the relevant unit of the derivation subject to Transfer is the phase – simply put, each phase undergoes Transfer. To be more precise, Chomsky distinguishes strong and weak phases in that only the former are relevant for the computation (Transfer). A phase (ignoring weak phases from now on, this refers to ‘strong phase’) is thus the very local unit for computation from at least three per- spectives: (3) a. A phase contains only the lexical array that is needed for its assembly. b. A phase constitutes a local computational domain for narrow syntax. c. A phase undergoes Transfer as soon as possible after its completion. Again taking some shortcuts in the interest of a brief presentation, the Lexi con thus pre-selects several numerations, namely, one lexical array per phase head. Each lexical array is then depleted by subsequent applications of the operation (External) Merge, providing the derivation with a narrow, local domain relevant for subsequent computation. Eventually, the phase acts as a Spell-Out domain of sorts, which means that it undergoes Transfer (to both LF and PF, actually) – and which means that it then becomes impenetrable for further computation, freezing the material contained within it. The freezing part – perhaps a remnant of pre-GB-theoretical concepts, as recently suggested3 – is formulated in terms of the Phase Impenetrability Condition (PIC) in (4), taken from Chomsky (2004), updating earlier ver- sion (see also Nissenbaum 2000). 3 Scheer (2008), for example, classifies this condition as a ‘no look-back device’ and traces its history to the Strict Cycle Condition (Chomsky 1973) and its im- plementation in phonological theory, all the way up to Government Phonology (Kaye 1992, 1993) – but subsequently “forgotten in GB syntax” (see his contri- bution to the sister volume for more). Note also that Abels (2003) finds a pre- cursor of the PIC in van Riemsdijk’s (1978) Head Constraint, in this way coin- ciding with Scheer’s assessment that it predates GB.
- 15. Exploring features and arguments 5 (4) Phase Impenetrability Condition (PIC; Chomsky 2004: 108) At the phase ZP containing phase HP, the domain of H is not accessi- ble to operations, but only the edge of HP. In essence this means that after the phase of some phase head PH1 is com- plete (HP in (4)) and elements from the next higher phasal lexical array are merged, that phase becomes inaccessible for further computation at the point at which the next higher phase head PH2 is merged (ZP). To be more precise, what becomes inaccessible, or impenetrable, is the domain of the phase head, defined as its sister and everything contained (i.e. c-command) – the so-called edge remains accessible, crucially so. The edge includes the phase head itself and its specifiers, in a way recreating the kind of escape hatch that became popular in the Barriers-framework (Chomsky 1986); con- cerning (3c) and related issues, see Boeckx & Grohmann (2007) for recent discussion and further references. One immediate effect for the syntactic derivation is the necessity of built-in ‘escape hatches’ (not unlike those from the Barriers-model of Chomsky 1986), through which those syntactic objects must move that need to get out of one phase to target a higher phase. As a simple way of illustration, this can be sketched for wh-questions, as in (5): (5) a. [vP John v [VP kiss who ]] b. [vP who [vP John kiss-v [VP V who ]] c. will-T [vP who [vP John kiss-v [VP V who ]] d. [TP John will-T [vP who [vP John kiss-v [VP V who ]] e. C [TP John will-T [vP who [vP John kiss-v [VP V who ]] f. [CP who will-C [TP John T [vP who [vP John kiss-v [VP V who ]] Once all theta-roles are assigned within the vP (5a), V raises to v and the wh-phrase moves into an outer specifier of v (5b). (Allowing such an addi- tional Spec-position is referred to as the ‘P(eripheral)-feature’ (Chomsky 2000) or ‘EPP-property’ (Chomsky 2001 et seq.) of phase-heads – as many as needed.) The usual T-insertion (5c) and subject raising applies (5d) be- fore the next higher phase head, interrogative C, is merged into the struc- ture (5e). Now the PIC (4) applies and the only way who can move to [Spec,CP] is from the edge of the vP-phase, as in (5f). Had who not moved to [Spec,vP] previously, it would now be frozen in place. That is, an analy- sis as assumed in earlier versions of minimalism, according to which the object wh-phrase moves straight from its base to [Spec,CP] is not available anymore.
- 16. 6 Kleanthes K.Grohmann Additional debate surrounds the details of (3b) – just what or which op- erations exactly cannot apply over a lower phase? This question leads us to another staple of phase-theoretic innovations of the Minimalist Program: grammatical licensing mechanisms. Where in earlier instantiations, Move took care of feature checking through Spec-Head configurations (Checking Theory of Chomsky 1993) or Attract was responsible for displacement (Chomsky 1995), current approaches employ a Probe-Goal system of fea- ture checking known as Agree (Chomsky 2000). Agree checks features be- tween a Probe and a lower Goal with matching features through long- distance, through c-command. Bošković (2007), for example, argues that only Move is subject to the PIC, but not Agree as Chomsky suggests; for additional details and discussion, see the next section (and a number of chapters in the following). (3a) seems to be the least controversial aspect of phases, unless one considers the relation between NS and LEX in more detail, or from the per- spective of Distributed Morphology (Halle & Marantz 1993 and much sub- sequent research), for example, which may lead so quite a different charac- terization. But this property was one of the core arguments in favour of a cyclic, piecemeal derivation and has in public been discussed as early as Wilder & Gärtner (1997) in the context of a proceedings volume for a con- ference held in February 1995 – thus even predating any discussion of Mul- tiple Spell-Out models or other aspects of dynamic computations. This concerns data, such as the following:4 (6) a. There was [a rumor [that a mani was ti in the room]] in the air. b. [A rumor [that there was a man in the room]]i was ti in the air. This pair of examples offers an apparent case of optionality that is puzzling for a single-numeration view of the derivation and the assumption that Merge is more economical than Move. (6a) and (6b) are presumably de- rived from the same lexical pre-selection. If now ‘Merge-over-Move’ were real (the focus of Castillo et al. 1999), (6b) should always block the deriva- tion of (6a). If each phase has its own lexical pre-selection (the lexical ar- ray), this problem is solved: there is in different lexical arrays (or sub- arrays) in the two examples. 4 Apart from Wilder & Gärtner’s (1997) presentation and the one independently arrived at in Uriagereka (1999), see also Castillo et al. (1999), Hornstein et al. (2005), and references cited for further discussion.
- 17. Exploring features and arguments 7 However, this now leads to yet another question not mentioned so far – and arguably even more controversial than (3c), but certainly (3b) and es- pecially (3a): What constitutes a phase? I will only sketch this issue here.5 Chomsky (2000) originally suggested that v and C, but not V and T, are (strong) phase heads, and later, citing research by other scholars, alludes to the possibility that D (Chomsky 2008), perhaps even P, may also constitute phase heads. This is a hot item of contention within Phase Theory and with- out. Regarding the latter, for example, Grohmann (2003) suggests an alter- native dynamic framework in which vP, TP, and CP are relevant Spell-Out domains (although not subject to the PIC) and Uriagereka’s (1999) original model suggested so-called command units to be impenetrable and frozen (basically, left branches, but again without assuming a condition like the PIC). Within phase-theoretic approaches, Marušič (2005), for example, argues for the concept of ‘non-simultaneous Spell-Out’, where a given phase may undergo Transfer to one modular interface level (such as the phono- logical component PF) but not the other (such as the semantic component LF). Gallego (2007), to mention another such example, suggests the process of ‘phase sliding’, which may turn TP into a phase under given circum- stances. The literature on the identity, and the properties, of phases – and prob- lems the standard view may face as well as solutions how these may be overcome – grows steadily. What all such dynamic approaches have in common is the search for local, economical, and computationally efficient mechanisms in the syntax. Some of these will be addressed throughout this collection (and its sister volume), others will have to be collected else- where. Let’s take a closer look at the theme of the present volume. 3. Features and arguments It was alluded to above already that (what I called there) ‘grammatical li- censing mechanisms’ have undergone considerable change within the Minimalist Program. Many, if not all, aspects of such grammatical licensing is going to be picked up on the next pages – checking, agreement, and Agree as well as the right structural configurations, with locality concerns, theta- roles, and A-(movement-)constructions at large playing a role in several contributions. The reason for this is obvious: Formal features have, all along 5 Again, I refer the reader to the critical discussion in Boeckx & Grohmann (2007), including the literature cited, beyond basic expositions elsewhere (see fn.2).
- 18. 8 Kleanthes K.Grohmann in minimalist investigations, been assumed to be the driving force behind displacement in natural language for one reason or another – in particular, through the specific technical implementation of licensing this grammatical property, also known as feature checking. In this sense, all contributions to this volume say something about fea- tures – their nature, their licensing, their role in the syntactic computation, their interface interpretation effects. In this way, the present volume also constitutes a thematic match to the sister volume, especially where the con- tributors explicitly address interface properties relating to features. Beyond features, arguments throw up similar questions – how can they be defined in a phase-based approach to the derivation, what movement steps and other processes do they underlie in such a model, how are they licensed, i.e. interpreted, and so forth. The next section summarizes each chapter briefly, more or less in isolation. What I intend to do in this section is to capture larger themes that hold some of the chapters more closely together than others. As it turns out, the volume can be conceived of an even tripartition in the order of assembly in this volume. Concerning the nature of features, a major issue has been since the ear- liest minimalist conceptions (Chomsky 1993) the strength of a feature, and its input for the computation. Originally, Chomsky distinguished ‘strong’ from ‘weak’ features, where the former had to move overtly, prior to Spell- Out, and the latter covertly, i.e. at LF. Another property of such formal fea- tures (whether they’re categorial or intrinsic) is their interpretability: Some features can be interpreted at an interface level, others cannot. By definition, semantic features can be interpreted at LF, for example, and phonetic fea- tures at PF. But the formal features involved in ‘feature checking’ (whatever the exact nature of such grammatical licensing) are presumably more ab- stract. So it has been argued that the phi-features of nominal expressions do get interpreted at LF (book vs. books or me vs. you, for example), whereas the corresponding phi-features of verbal elements do not – and consequently must be deleted before they reach the interface. Much more can be said about this simplified presentation of affairs, and several colleagues do so on the next few pages (Sigurðsson most clearly, also with respect to inter- pretation at the interfaces and the nature of interface levels). On the techni- cal side of implementing grammatical licensing mechanisms, Phase Theory has abolished earlier Checking Theory, as briefly sketched above. The Probe- Goal system of Agree or feature valuation is also the concern of some con- tributors. Here one issue of discussion, if not even contention, is Chomsky’s (2004) recent rejection of the Spec-Head relation as the structural configu- ration in which features get licensed (discussed by Ortega-Santos). Another
- 19. Exploring features and arguments 9 aspect of feature valuation is the role the licensing mechanism plays for displacement, i.e. movement (discussed especially by Wiland). In both these chapters, the other conjunct of the volumes sub-title enjoys some dis- cussion as well, namely, thematically marked arguments and the question how theta-roles are best integrated into the grammar. In all of Chomsky’s writings, theta-roles have always taken a special place in that they are con- figurationally licensed. An alternative would be to relegate them to the level of a more or less regular formal feature, in the spirit of work by Horn- stein (2001) and others. The second implicit part of this volume discusses the connection be- tween features and specific types of arguments and nominal expressions. Just as theta-roles have caused some confusion over the years, so have case properties in languages. Case is arguably the formal feature par excellence, without any tangible interpretive effect. Still, languages differ in whether they mark case morphologically or ‘only’ abstractly. But as a typical prop- erty of A-movement – as grammatical constructions such as passive, exple- tive-associate, raising, and so on have become known in GB – local clause- boundedness has always been around. This leads to a potential problem for the checking replacement of Agree as the one and only grammatical licens- ing mechanism on grammar (see McFadden’s chapter for a thorough dis- cussion). Other aspects of argument movement and the interplay with other properties in Phase Theory – also from an interface perspective, and extend- ing to A’-syntax – concerns negation, quantifiers, and scope (as Kamiya dis- cusses). Likewise, it has been argued – again by Hornstein (2001) and other works – that a typical rule of construal such as (obligatory) control may boil down to independently needed operations of the computation, namely, Move and as such be the product of displacement rather than construal. This likes control, at first glance, to raising rather than anything else, and has serious implications for empty nominal expressions such as case-less PRO or case-marked pro. The interplay of all of these, and a cross-linguistic angle, is also provided in what follows (Manzini does so in her chapter). The final chapter triplet forms another implicit theme, which can be characterized as aspect at large. At the thematic part of the clause, that is, the vP phase in Phase Theory (or the Θ-Domain in the terminology of Groh- mann 2003), so-called ‘inner aspect’ gets computed – the calculation of telicity (the topic of MacDonald’s chapter). Moving up, the thematic part of the derivation interacts with the higher inflectional part – not a phase in Phase Theory (TP), but constituting the Φ-Domain in Grohmann’s frame- work – when it comes to passivization, again one of the paradigmatic ex- amples of A-movement. Apart from pure formal facets that have been a
- 20. 10 Kleanthes K.Grohmann staple of passives in generative theorizing for decades, such as movement of the passivized object to the grammatical subject position in a language like English, eventive properties, as exponents of aspect at large, can be observed as well. Working this out shows not only that there is more move- ment than meets the eye, but allows interesting observations beyond core grammar (done by Gehrke & Grillo). Lastly, there aspect plays an obvious role in determining argument encoding in terms of accusative vs. ergative patterns – or so it has been argued. Phase Theory in both is structure (local domains) and properties (Merge and Agree operations) may lead to a dif- ferent analysis of this long-standing problem in the grammatical description of languages. Müller, one of the invited speakers at InterPhases (although with a different presentation), argues exactly for that, as summarized be- low. This chapter forms a nice closure of the volume in incorporating the implicit thematic anchor ‘aspect’ on the one hand, but also in addressing technical issues Phase Theory brings up. 4. Explorations I will now summarize each chapter and put it in perspective with the above introduction to the topic (and, where appropriate, issues that were not men- tioned), thereby relating it to other contributions, where relevant. The latter should already be reflected in the arrangement of the contributions to this volume, which is not alphabetical but intended to follow a certain thematic proximity. Instead of dividing the collection further into several distinct parts, it is my hope as the editor that the arrangement makes some sense to the reader, and where it does not, this section should clarify the editorial arrangement decision. Halldór Sigurðsson provides detailed “Remarks on Features”. Chomsky (2000 et seq.) develops an approach where uninterpretable features are de- leted prior to (or under) Transfer. In his chapter, Sigurðsson pursues the ‘obvious’ alternative, namely, that such features are not present in syntax, but are instead a product of the interfaces. In particular, he argues that for- mal features belong to PF only. In support of his approach, Sigurðsson dis- cusses nominal features in Icelandic and some other languages, arguing that gender, number, and case are not operative in syntax, but that they rather are morphological PF interpretations of syntactic correlations – thus assuming and arguing for a sharp distinction between discrete features in morphology and abstract relations in syntax (a radically disentangled morphology ap- proach). Sigurðsson concludes that PF (qua Perceptible Form), including
- 21. Exploring features and arguments 11 the ‘sign form’ of sign languages, is not part of or a direct extension of Universal Grammar (i.e. Narrow Syntax + Transfer). Rather, syntax coop- erates with motoric systems which provide audible and/or visible means to ‘broadcast’ or externalize complex symbols that are processable as incom- plete expressions or translations of syntax. Language externalization thus makes use of conceptual/motoric systems that are not or at least not exclu- sively species-specific. By scrutinizing externalization and externalized lin- guistic systems, including complex morphological systems, linguistics can further our understanding of the relations and the borderland between the internal language of homo sapiens sapiens and some of the abilities of hu- mans as motorically skilled animals. It seems to be fundamental property of the internal language faculty to relate to and interpret regular but largely ar- bitrary external patters (audible and/or visible or even only tactile) as mean- ingful reflections of the language faculty itself. Bartosz Wiland’s chapter “Feature Valuation by Sideward Movement” considers the status of sideward movement in the theory. Sideward move- ment – originally motivated by checking a θ-role and Case in the matrix clause – has been proposed to derive a number of constructions (like para- sitic gaps or adjunct control). However, relying on a claim that θ-roles are checkable features that trigger movement has been since considerably prob- lematic. Using arguments from asymmetric distribution of structurally spe- cified and deficient DPs and its consequences for donkey anaphora, parasitic gaps, and across-the-board constructions, Wiland argues that inter-arboreal movement should be purified from its dependence on a θ-role. Instead, an element that moves sideward values the full set of phi- and Case-features on a matrix probe, with a θ-role as a trigger being redundant. Consequently, only elements that are present on a syntactic workbench and constitute com- plete goals for a probe in the matrix clause can undergo sideward move- ment. This approach can account for the fact that only phi-complete DPs produce parasitic gaps, while certain other θ-marked phrases never do so. Once movement to the θ-position is eliminated, sideward movement turns out to share all the relevant properties of (feature-driven) internal Merge. In the chapter “On Long Distance Agreement, the Spec-Head Configu- ration and Overt Agreement”, Ivan Ortega-Santos focuses on the status of Spec-Head relations within the phase-based theory. Within this framework, it is argued that minimal search conditions ban the existence of grammati- cally significant Spec-Head relations or checking relations under m-com- mand (cf. Chomsky 2001 and subsequent work). There are, however, argu- ments to the contrary. Specifically, a cross-linguistic tendency has been noticed for A-moved elements to trigger agreement as opposed to in situ
- 22. 12 Kleanthes K.Grohmann ones, a fact that calls for an explanation in any framework. Similar issues arise if theta-roles are features (cf. Bošković 1994; Bošković & Takahashi 1998; Hornstein 2003; and Lasnik 1995). In view of these and related facts, Ortega-Santos argues that a Multiple Spell-Out system (Uriagereka 1999, 2008), when combined with the phase-based system, allows for checking relations in the Spec-Head configuration. The resulting framework is shown to be compatible with minimal search conditions on probing in con- trast to an approach in terms of m-command. Furthermore, some remaining issues concerning the cross-linguistic distribution of agreement morphology are argued to follow from the incremental nature of production following Barlow (1992). This would solve the problems that the phase-based frame- work faces. In view of these and related facts, Ortega-Santos argues that a Multiple Spell-Out system (Uriagereka 1999, 2008), when combined with the phase-based system, allows for checking relations in the Spec-Head con- figuration. The resulting framework is shown to be compatible with minimal search conditions on probing in contrast to an approach in terms of m-com- mand. Furthermore, some remaining issues concerning the cross-linguistic distribution of agreement morphology are argued to follow from the incre- mental nature of production following Barlow (1992). This would solve the problems that the phase-based framework faces. In his contribution “Structural Case, Locality and Cyclicity”, Thomas McFadden considers technical issues that arise in the analysis of two mor- phological case phenomena. The first is the apparent existence of long- distance case-assignment. At least some DPs in embedded object positions seem to get case in a way that violates expectations of locality, even in- volving unbounded dependencies. The second issue arises with the assign- ment of structural accusative. This depends, under a number of recent analyses, on information about the case assigned to a higher DP. This would violate expectations of strict cyclicity, which has led Sigurðsson (2006) to propose that subjects first-merge lower than objects. McFadden argues that both of these phenomena can in fact be handled in ways consistent with standard notions of phase-based locality and cyclicity, once the empirical situation is correctly understood. The examples that have been analyzed in terms of long-distance case-assignment all turn out to involve the nomina- tive case, which McFadden argues is appearing in its capacity as the default case, where normal forms of case-assignment have failed. Actual assign- ment of non-default case, on the other hand, is always phase-local. The ac- cusative case can also be dealt with once we realize that it depends not on a specific case (nominative) on a higher DP, but on the presence of a higher DP with any structural case. Crucially, whether a DP will be assigned a
- 23. Exploring features and arguments 13 structural or a non-structural case, McFadden argues, can be determined on the basis of purely syntactic information that is available at a relatively early stage of the derivation. He then shows that the dependency relationship can be formulated in strictly cyclic terms if we assume that case is assigned at a later stage of the derivation, in the post-syntactic morphological component. Case-assignment can thus be handled in strictly local and cyclic terms, and without any unorthodox assumptions about phrase-structure. “PRO, pro and NP-Trace (Raising) Are Interpretations”, the chapter by Rita Manzini, connects to several current debates within minimalist the- ory. First, there is the proposal by Hornstein (1999) that control (or at least obligatory control) can be reduced to movement – and the ensuing debate with more conservative approaches (Landau 2003). A further debate (in fact not explicitly addressed by Manzini) involves raising, with scholars arguing that movement proceeds in one fell swoop from the embedded thematic position to the matrix sentence, either because there is no EPP (Epstein & Seely 2006) or because the satisfaction of the EPP yields Criterial Freezing (Rizzi & Shlonsky 2007). Finally, these various issues interact with the pa- rameter opposing the best known Germanic and Romance languages to so- called Balkan languages displaying raising and control from finite sentences. This means that the embedded ‘subjunctive’ sentences of Balkan languages must somehow correspond to defective phases – a result which is generally achieved by invoking the defective nature of the embedded temporal speci- fications. This debate is essential to an understanding of Manzini’s pro- posal – yet the proposal itself is somewhat eccentric with respect to it, since it assumes a strongly representationalist view of grammar (Brody 2003). The other original aspect of this contribution is that it draws evidence from one of the least familiar Balkan languages, namely Albanian. According to Manzini, Albanian ‘subjunctive’ complements are bona fide tensed sen- tences, making notions of defectiveness difficult to apply. An important part of Manzini’s chapter is devoted to a close examination of the so-called subjunctive particle of Albanian, të, which she argues to be the same lexical item as the article të. On this basis, she suggests that its role in the economy of the sentence is to provide a lexicalization of the EPP argument. In Manzini’s terms, të acts as a lambda abstractor reopening the EPP argument, otherwise closed by the finite verb inflection. At the LF interface the open position that të introduce can then be bound by an antecedent – yielding raising or control, according to whether they do or do not share a single theta-role. “Movement of Arguments and Negative Feature”, the chapter by Masaaki Kamiya, investigates syntax and phonology interface. Presently, under-
- 24. 14 Kleanthes K.Grohmann standing syntax and phonology interface is becoming more and more im- portant (Deguchi & Kitagawa 2002; Ishihara 2002, 2004; Kitagawa & Fodor 2006; among many others). For example, Kitagawa & Fodor examine tradi- tionally considered subjacency violation examples in Japanese wh-move- ment, and claim that unacceptable examples of wh-movement are not due to subjacency violation, but rather assigning wrong prosody to the relevant examples. Phonological information is relevant to interpretations as well as grammatical judgments. Kamiya’s contribution is to show that this is true with the interaction of a universal quantifier and negation in Japanese. First, Kamiya demonstrates that Japanese (either nominative or dative marked) subject must move to [Spec,TP] for EPP reasons, following Miyagawa (2001). This movement is motivated by syntactic side, and the relevant in- terpretations between a universal quantifier and negation are examined. In a normal reading, a universal quantifier takes scope over negation. However, stressing negative morpheme in the same sentence can produce a reading where negation takes scope over a universal quantifier. Kamiya assumes that negative feature which resides in NegP moves to the left periphery po- sition in which negation takes scope over a universal quantifier. He tests to see if this is the case in other environments such as nominalization. Kamiya claims that as long as C or sentential left edge exits, stressing on negative morpheme produces negation-over-universal-quantifier reading is possible, but this is not true to nominalization (obviously, there is not C). In addition, negative affix, not negative morpheme which projects NegP, cannot under- go a feature movement. In the end, Japanese data show that negative feature can move to the left peripheral position for focus feature checking, and this is the case only to negative morpheme. The key point is that stressing causes this movement. Hence this chapter suggests that phonological information feeds meaning. At the same time, this paper questions if CP and DP are identical with respect to left periphery, which must be more thoroughly investigated in the future. In view of Chomsky’s (2000) proposal that there is a single cycle to syntactic derivations called a phase, Jonathan MacDonald observes in “Inner Aspect and Phases” that the aspectual interpretation of a predicate is conditioned by this single cycle. Since Verkuyl (1972) it has been known that an NP can affect the aspectual interpretation of the predicate. Tenny (1987) showed that only the internal argument NP can do so; in effect, she showed that syntax plays a role in aspectual interpretation. MacDonald notes that Tenny’s observations go beyond the aspectual effect of an NP. He argues for the existence of an aspectual projection between vP and VP, AspP, that has specific aspectual properties dependent on it (cf. Travis 1991,
- 25. Exploring features and arguments 15 2000). He provides evidence that for an element (not just an NP) to be able to contribute to the aspectual interpretation of a predicate, it must be below AspP, within a domain of aspectual interpretation. Interestingly, the aspec- tual effect of the external argument in fake reflexive constructions suggests that these elements cannot be calculated until the external argument merges in the derivation. Observations by Svenonius (2005) regarding idioms and phases together with observations by McGinnis (2002) and Glasbey (2007) suggest that the aspectual properties are not calculated after vP either. Mac- Donald concludes that, although only elements below AspP can contribute to the aspectual interpretation of a predicate, the calculation of these ele- ments cannot take place until Transfer to the C-I system (via LF) at the vP phase. In their paper “How to Become Passive”, Berit Gehrke & Nino Grillo propose to shift the perspective on passive formation from the commonly held argument structure/DP perspective to an analysis based on event struc- ture. They argue that this shift accounts for several syntactic and semantic properties of the passive construction, some of which remain unexplained under previous proposals. The general idea is implemented through move- ment of a consequent state sub-event to a discourse-related position at the edge of the VP. The tight relation between the availability of a consequent state and passivization is highlighted by examples showing that the possi- bility to passivize a predicate depends on its event structure in a crucial way. Evidence from word order in constructions involving secondary resultative predicates, floating quantifiers, ditransitives, and there-expletives strengthen the idea that more than the internal argument moves in passives. Finally, the analysis proposed makes new predictions with respect to impoverished syntactic representation in agrammatic Broca’s aphasia, which are borne out, and unifies the treatment of some of the most typical deficitarian com- prehension patterns in this syndrome. Gereon Müller discusses “Ergativity, Accusativity, and the Order of Merge and Agree” in a novel way and presents the core aspects of a mini- malist analysis of accusative vs. ergative patterns of argument encoding, be it via Case-marking or through agreement. The central observation is that indeterminacies may arise in the application of the two elementary opera- tions Merge and Agree (Chomsky 2000, 2001), given that they both obey an Earliness requirement (in the sense of Pesetsky 1989). The central claim Müller puts forth is that a principled resolution of one such indeterminacy (on the vP cycle) in one or the other direction yields an accusative or erga- tive encoding pattern for arguments. Müller also shows how his analysis can be extended so as to cover various types of splits that have been noted
- 26. 16 Kleanthes K.Grohmann in the literature (among them, tense/aspect-based splits and clause type- based splits). Acknowledgements Editorial thanks go to all the contributors to this volume for their work, their patience, and their cooperation in the publication process, which was not always easy. In addition, I’m extremely grateful to Artemis Alexiadou, one of the series editors, and Ursula Kleinhenz from Mouton de Gruyter, who not only evaluated the original publication idea as very promising but also guided me along the way with useful advice and immediate responses. References Abels, Klaus 2003 Successive cyclicity, anti-locality, and adposition stranding. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs. Adger, David 2003 Core Syntax: A Minimalist Approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Barlow, Michael 1992 A Situated Theory of Agreement. London: Garland. Boeckx, Cedric 2008 Understanding Minimalist Syntax: Lessons from Locality in Long- Distance Dependencies. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Boeckx, Cedric and Kleanthes K.Grohmann 2007 Putting phases in perspective. Syntax 10: 204–222. Bošković, Željko 1994 D-structure, theta criterion, and movement into theta positions. Lin- guistic Analysis 24: 247–286. 2007 Agree, phases, and intervention effects. Linguistic Analysis 33(1–2): 54–96. Bošković, Željko and Daiko Takahashi 1998 Scrambling and last resort. Linguistic Inquiry 29: 347–366. Castillo, Juan Carlos, John Drury and Kleanthes K. Grohmann 1999 Merge over Move and the extended projection principle. University of Maryland Working Papers in Linguistics 8: 63–103. Chomsky, Noam 1973 Conditions on transformations. In A Festschrift for Morris Halle, Stephen R. Anderson and Paul Kiparsky (eds.), 232–286. New York: Holt, Reinhart & Winston.
- 27. Exploring features and arguments 17 1981 Lectures on Government and Binding: The Pisa Lectures. Dordrecht: Foris. [Subsequent editions published by Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.] 1986 Barriers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 1993 A minimalist program for linguistic theory. In The View from Build- ing 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger, Ken- neth Hale and Samuel Jay Keyser (eds.), 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. [Reprinted in Chomsky 1995: 167–217.] 1995 The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 2000 Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik, Roger Martin, David Michaels and Juan Uriagereka (eds.), 89–155. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 2001 Derivation by phase. In Ken Hale: A Life in Language, Michael Kenstowicz (ed.), 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 2004 Beyond explanatory adequacy. In Structures and Beyond – The Car- tography of Syntactic Structures, vol. 3, Adriana Belletti (ed.), 104– 131. New York: Oxford University Press. 2008 On phases. In Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory: Essays in Honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud, Robert Freidin, Carlos P. Otero and Maria Luisa Zubizarreta (eds.),133–166. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Deguchi, Masanori and Yoshihisa Kitagawa 2002 Prosody in syntactic analyses. Ms., Indiana University, Bloomington. den Dikken, Marcel 2007 Phase extension: Contours of a theory of the role of head movement in phrasal extraction. Theoretical Linguistics 33: 133–163. Epstein, Samuel David, Erich M. Groat, Ruriko Kawashima and Hisatsugu Kitahara 1998 A Derivational Approach to Syntactic Relations. New York: Oxford University Press. Gallego, Ángel J. 2007 phase theory and parametric variation. Ph.D. dissertation, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona. Grohmann, Kleanthes K. 2003 Prolific Domains: On the Anti-Locality of Movement Dependencies. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 2009a Phases and interfaces. In Grohmann (2009b), 1–22. Grohmann, Kleanthes K. (ed.) 2009b InterPhases: Phase-Theoretic Investigations of Linguistic Interfaces. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Grohmann, Kleanthes K. and Phoevos Panagiotidis (eds.) 2009 Selected Papers from the 2006 Cyprus Syntaxfest. Newcastle-upon- Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
- 28. 18 Kleanthes K.Grohmann Halle, Morris and Alec Marantz 1993 Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. In The View from Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Brom- berger, Kenneth Hale and Samuel Jay Keyser (eds.), 111–176. Cam- bridge, MA: MIT Press. Hiraiwa, Ken 2005 Dimensions of Symmetry in Syntax: Agreement and Clausal Architec- ture. Ph.D. dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cam- bridge. Hornstein, Norbert 1999 Movement and control. Linguistic Inquiry 30: 69–96. 2001 Move! A Minimalist Theory of Construal. Malden, MA: Blackwell. 2003 On control. In Minimalist Syntax, Randall Hendrick (ed.), 6–81. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Hornstein, Norbert, Jairo Nunes and Kleanthes K.Grohmann 2005 Understanding Minimalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ishihara, Shinichiro 2002 Invisible but audible Wh-scope marking: Wh-constructions and de- accenting in Japanese. WCCFL 21: Proceedings of the 21st West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics: 180–193. 2004 Prosody-scope match and mismatch in Tokyo Japanese Wh-ques- tions. Ms., Universität Potsdam. Kaye, Jonathan 1992 On the interaction of theories of lexical phonology and theories of phonological phenomena. In Phonologica 1988, Uli Dressler, Hans Luschützky, Oskar Pfeiffer and John Rennison (eds.), 141–155. Cam- bridge: Cambridge University Press. 1993 Derivations and interfaces. SOAS Working Papers in Linguistics and Phonetics 3: 90–126. [Published 1995 in Frontiers of Phonology, Jacques Durand and Francis Katamba (eds.), 289–332. London: Long- man.] Kitagawa, Yoshihisa and Janet Dean Fodor 2006 Prosodic influence on syntactic judgments. In Gradience in Gram- mar: Generative Perspectives, Gisbert Fanselow, Caroline Féry, Matthias Schlesewsky and Ralf Vogel (eds.), ch. 17. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Landau, Idan 2003 Movement out of control. Linguistic Inquiry 34: 471–498. Lasnik, Howard 1995 Last resort and attract F. Proceedings of FLSM 6: 62–81. [Reprinted 2003 in Minimalist Investigations in Linguistic Theory, Howard Lasnik (ed.), ch. 3. London: Routledge.]
- 29. Exploring features and arguments 19 Lasnik, Howard and Juan Uriagereka with Cedric Boeckx 2005 A Course in Minimalist Syntax: Foundations and Prospects. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Marušič, Franc Lanko 2005 On non-simultaneous phases. Ph.D. dissertation, Stony Brook Uni- versity, NY. MacDonald, Jonathan E. 2006 The syntax of inner aspect. Ph.D. dissertation, Stony Brook Univer- sity, NY. 2008 Domain of aspectual interpretation. Linguistic Inquiry 39: 128–147. McGinnis, Martha 2002 On the systematic aspect of idioms. Linguistic Inquiry 33: 665–672. Miyagawa, Shigeru 2001 The EPP, Scrambling, and Wh-in-situ. In Ken Hale: A Life in Lan- guage, Michael Kenstowicz (ed.), 293–338. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Nissenbaum, Jonathan W. 2000 Investigation of covert phrase movement. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA. Pesetsky, David 1989 Language-Particular Processes and the Earliness Principle. Ms., MIT, Cambridge, MA. Radford, Andrew 2004 Minimalist Syntax: Exploring the Structure of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Richards, Marc 2004 Object shift and scrambling in North and West Germanic: A case study in symmetrical syntax. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Cam- bridge. van Riemsdijk, Henk 1978 A Case Study in Syntactic Markedness: The Binding Nature of Prepo- sitional Phrases. Dordrecht: Foris. Rizzi, Luigi and Ur Shlonsky 2007 Strategies of subject extraction. In Interfaces +Recursion =Language? Chomsky’s Minimalism and the View from Syntax-Semantics, Uli Sauerland and Hans-Martin Gärtner (eds.), 115–160. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Scheer, Tobias 2008 Intermodular argumentation: Piece-driven phase and one single phon- ology. Paper presented at WCCFL 27, University of California, Los Angeles (16–18 May 2008). Sigurðsson, Halldór Ármann 2006 The nominative puzzle and the low nominative hypothesis. Linguistic Inquiry 37: 289–308.
- 30. 20 Kleanthes K.Grohmann Svenonius, Peter 2005 Extending the extension condition to discontinuous idioms. Linguistic Variation Yearbook 5: 227–263. Uriagereka, Juan 1997 Multiple spell-out. Groninger Arbeiten zur germanistischen Linguistik 40: 109–135. 1999 Multiple spell-out. In Working Minimalism, Samuel David Epstein and Norbert Hornstein (eds.), 251–282. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 2008 Syntactic Anchors: On Semantic Structuring. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wilder, Chris and Hans-Martin Gärtner 1997 Introduction. In The Role of Economy Principles in Linguistic Theory, Chris Wilder, Hans-Martin Gärtner and Manfred Bierwisch (eds.), 1–35. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.
- 31. Remarks on features Halldór Ármann Sigurðsson This paper pursues the idea that uninterpretable features are not present in syntax, but are instead a product of the interfaces. In particular, it argues that formal feature values belong to PF only, i.e., that they are not syntactic objects but PF ‘translations’ of more abstract syntactic structures and corre- lations. It follows that case is nonexistent in syntax and it also follows that agreement is a PF copying process, differing radically from abstract, syntac- tic Agree. Accordingly, much of the ‘labor’ of traditional syntax happens in PF and is thus invisible to the semantic interface, SF, that is, the computation proceeds on the PF side after transfer. 1. Introduction If the syntactic computation proceeds in a single cycle (Chomsky 2000 et seq.), it must be interpretable to both the interfaces, that is, semantic form and perceptible form, SF and PF, for short, where perceptible form refers to PF in a broad sense, including the ‘sign form’ of sign languages. From this general interpretability or legibility condition, it follows that syntax cannot produce any information that is visible but uninterpretable to the interfaces. By necessity, however, linguistic objects contain features that are interpretable to only one of the interfaces, like +HUMAN and [+labial]. Chomsky’s solution to this Interpretablity Puzzle is basically to have uninterpretable features removed or eliminated prior to or under the operation transfer, that hands the derivation over to the interfaces. In this work, I will pursue the ‘obvious’ alternative, namely, that uninterpretable features are not present in syntax, but are instead a product of the interfaces or of their interplay with language external motoric and conceptual subsys- tems. Such features are functional in a broad sense, but superfluous from a narrow syntactic perspective. Syntax itself contains features that get inter- preted or valued through matching, but it contains no features that remain uninterpreted and thus need to be deleted.1 1 See in particular Sigurðsson (2006b), where it is argued that syntax operates with abstract features and roots, ROOT99, etc., that do not get any phonological feature
- 32. 22 Halldór Ármann Sigurðsson It is a truism that individual languages systematically express categories like Tense, Person, Number, etc., by overt elements. Regardless of whether the elements in question are suprasegmental patterns, morphemes, words, phrases or whole clauses, they are parts of the audible or visible form of language and thus products of PF in the broad sense. It is commonly as- sumed that these PF products somehow reflect elements of a more abstract and general system traditionally referred to as syntax, and I adopt this tradi- tional view. The central question that arises is how exactly these PF ele- ments relate to the putative underlying syntactic objects. I believe it is fair to say that the most general assumption is that syntactic features are inter- preted or translated in a fairly straightforward manner by morphological categories, such that for instance English present and past tense are direct exponents of syntactic Tense, say, simply the two morphological values of the T head of the clausal TP projection that are lexically and parametrically available in English, standing in a direct two-to-one relationship with T. This conception is not often explicitly stated or formulated, and different ideas abound in the literature, but, I believe it is nonetheless fair to say it is the prevailing conception in many or even most generative approaches. I will pursue a different approach here, where the so-called formal fea- tures belong to broad PF only. On this view, there is for instance no syntac- tic masculine feature, no syntactic nominative case feature, and so on. Rather, morphological features of this sort are PF-translations of abstract syntactic relations.2 It follows from the present approach that morphological agreement can- not be a narrowly syntactic phenomenon. Another important consequence is that the standard economy argument (see, e.g., Chomsky 1995) loses much of its force, that is, there is no simple mapping from syntax to morphology and hence also no general economy in PF translations of syntax. Syntax as values (uninterpretable to SF) until on the PF side (much as assumed by propo- nents of Distributed Morphology (Halle & Marantz 1993, etc.)). A reviewer raises the question of what drives syntactic movement if formal features do not belong to syntax. There are two relevant answers to the question. First, the matching and valuing of syntactic features drives syntactic movement (under the condition of weak or ‘inactive’ intervention). Second, many instances of move- ment that have traditionally been taken to be syntactic, arguably or even evi- dently take place in PF. Much work remains to be done on these issues, but see Sigurðsson (2004a,b,c, 2006b,c) for some discussion. 2 PF is evidently layered, with several sub-interfaces, including, roughly, Sign For- mation, morphophonology, phonology and phonetics (at least in oral languages, see Sigurðsson 2006b:204).
- 33. Remarks on features 23 such is sensitive to economy and so is PF as such, but PF does not heed or preserve syntactic economy, as it were. In view of the variation observed in the languages of the world, it might seem obvious that their common denominator, Universal Grammar or Nar- row Syntax, cannot possibly operate with complex entities that are physi- cally present in individual languages, like for instance agreement features in oral languages or eyebrow markers in sign languages. The state of the art is however such that the ‘obvious’ conclusion that Narrow Syntax must be ‘atomic’ and therefore cannot operate with entities overtly expressed in the grammars of individual languages is everything but obvious to most lin- guists. It must be argued for. In support of the approach pursued here, I will present and discuss data on gender, number and case from Icelandic and some other languages. Many of these data are well-known and simple, but have nonetheless been neglected in mainstream generative approaches. It is high time that these facts be taken seriously and accounted for in some coherent manner. 2. Gender: Some observations Gender is a mixed category. Many languages have relatively transparent gender systems, based on central categories like MALE, FEMALE, ANIMATE, HUMAN. There are however also some languages that base their gender sys- tems on less expected categories, like the NON-FLESH FOOD category in Dyirbal or the LIQUID category in Fula or Fulfulde (Corbett 1991: 30–31).3 More importantly for our purposes, there are also many languages that have a largely arbitrary gender system. I will illustrate the pervasive arbitrariness of many gender systems with examples from mainly Icelandic and German. Both Icelandic and German have the common three gender system type, consisting of masculine, feminine and neuter. As in most gender languages, many nouns denoting people and domestic animals have natural gender. In a three gender system this will be masculine for adult male beings, feminine for adult female beings and often neuter for young animals, which are there- by treated as not yet sex-differentiable. This is illustrated in (1) for some Ice- landic nouns: 3 In Corbett’s approach, these are gender categories in the languages in question since they enter into agreement relations (including pronominal reference), as opposed to classifiers in classifier languages. I adopt this understanding here for convenience, but it is not of any importance for what I have to say.
- 34. 24 Halldór Ármann Sigurðsson (1) Masculine Feminine Neuter maður ‘man’ kona ‘woman’ barn ‘child’ strákur ‘boy’ stelpa ‘girl’ hestur ‘horse’ meri ‘mare’ folald ‘foal’ hrútur ‘ram’ ær ‘sheep’ lamb ‘lamb’ tarfur ‘bull’ kýr ‘cow’ etc. Most nouns, however, do not have natural gender. Consider (2): (2) Masculine Feminine Neuter bátur ‘boat’ skúta ‘yacht’ skip ‘ship’ stóll ‘chair’ hilla ‘shelf’ borð ‘table’ kafli ‘chapter’ bók ‘book’ blað ‘(news)paper’ kofi ‘hut’ höll ‘palace’ hús ‘house’ fótur ‘foot’ hönd ‘hand’ læri ‘thigh’ kappi ‘champion’ hetja ‘hero’ poppgoð ‘pop idol’ hlébarði ‘leopard’ gaupa ‘lynx’ ljón ‘lion’ þorskur ‘cod’ ýsa ‘haddock’ hrognkelsi ‘lumpfish’ svanur ‘swan’ álft ‘swan’ máni ‘moon’ tungl ‘moon’ etc. For these and most other nouns, gender is evidently a plain classificational feature with no semantic import.4 That is, it is like a phonological feature in making a distinction between items without itself adding or reflecting any semantics.5 There are several further kinds of clear evidence that the grammatical gender of most nouns does not belong to or affect their semantics. One simple type of evidence is that one and the same noun may have different genders (see Kvaran 2005: 173): 4 In the narrow sense. Gender may have psychological effects, an interesting issue that is however not relevant in the present context. 5 Making overt distinctions of this sort is not only a derivational cost but also a communicative gain, much as it is a gain to phonologically distinguish between e.g. cable and table. See also section 5 on the disambiguating effects of agree- ment.
- 35. Remarks on features 25 (3) sykur ‘sugar’: M or N skúr ‘shower of rain’: F or M bjúga ‘sausage’: N or F fress ‘tomcat’: N or M etc. Another indication of the semantic emptiness of formal gender is that, ex- ceptionally, one and the same noun may have different genders in the sin- gular and plural, a phenomenon known as inquorate genders (Corbett 1991: 170): (4) foreldri ‘parent’, sg.: N foreldrar ‘parents’, pl.: M fótur ‘foot’, sg.: M fætur ‘feet’, pl.: F (for some speakers) Yet another indication of formal gender’s semantic vacuousness is the fact that even closely related languages, with the same gender system type, show numerous gender contrasts. Consider the German-Icelandic constrasts in (5): (5) German Icelandic ‘horse’ Pferd N hestur M ‘lion’ Löwe M ljón N ‘lynx’ Luchs M gaupa F ‘sea’ Meer N sjór M (poetic: mar, M) ‘cloud’ Wolke F ský N ‘autumn’ Herbst M haust N ‘summer’ Sommer M sumar N ‘table’ Tisch M borð N ‘shelf’ Regal N hilla F ‘train’ Zug M lest F ‘car’ Auto N bíll M ‘telephone’ Telefon N sími M ‘bank’ Bank F banki M ‘boat’ Boot N bátur M ‘book’ Buch N bók F etc. Gender mismatches of this sort between these two closely related languages are strikingly pervasive, so this list could easily be made much longer.
- 36. 26 Halldór Ármann Sigurðsson The grammatical gender of most nouns in formal gender languages like Icelandic and German is clearly invisible to the semantic interface. Two interpretations of this fact are conceivable. First, the gender feature might be present in syntax but eliminated under transfer, as are agreeing features in most minimalist approaches. Second, the gender feature might not be present in syntax, in which case it would have to be added after transfer to PF. It is this second position that I am taking here.6 The prevailing assumption, I believe, is that formal gender does belong to syntax (cf. the notion ‘syntactic gender agreement’ in Corbett 1991, see also the approach in e.g. Kayne 2005). However, it is not optimal engineer- ing to first provide all nouns with some specific gender feature and then to delete the same feature of most nouns under transfer to SF. Notice also that this putative feature deletion does not involve agreement, of course. Moreover, if grammar deletes the feminine feature of German Bank ‘bank’ and the masculine feature of Icelandic banki under transfer to SF, it is un- clear how it would avoid deleting the gender of natural gender nouns like German Mann and Frau and Icelandic maður ‘man’ and kona ‘woman’. We have to sharply distinguish between the semantic FEMALE/MALE or HE/SHE features and grammatical or formal gender features. Most nouns that have semantic gender, either HE or SHE, have natural formal gender, but there are many exceptions, higlighting that semantic and formal gender are distinct features even in animate nouns. This is illustrated with only a few Icelandic examples in (6): 6 There might seem to be a third alternative here, such that grammatical gender is just a formal classifier, unrelated to or at least independent of semantic gender. On this approach, one might want to say that the formal gender classifier of all nouns is deleted under transfer to SF, whereas their semantic gender is not, and, conversely, that semantic gender is deleted under transfer to PF whereas formal gender is not. As we shall see, however, semantic gender is PF visible in certain cases. Evidently, also, it is not the case that formal gender is generally inde- pendent of semantic gender. Rather, it is a ‘PF-translation’ of semantic gender, showing sloppiness that is typical of the overt, socially conventionalized PF side of language. Saying that grammatical features come in pairs in syntax, consist- ing of a semantic and a formal member, is tantamount to saying that the form- meaning relationship of language must be taken as an unexplainable axiom, which, in turn, raises the question of why the form member of such pairs should vary across languages. In effect, this position would take us back to pre- Chomskyan structuralism, with Universal Grammar as an impossible subject of inquiry.
- 37. Remarks on features 27 (6) Masculine Feminine Neuter kvenmaður karlugla karlmenni ‘woman’ ‘fool of a man’ ‘(strong) man’ kvenskörungur mannfýla fljóð ‘powerful woman’ ‘bastard of a man’ ‘girl’ (poetic) stelpukjáni karlpersóna naut ‘fool of a girl’ ‘male person’ ‘bull’ Thus, saying that formal gender is a syntactic feature that is generally SF un- interpretable except when it combines with another feature, like ANIMATE or HUMAN, does not help. On the contrary, that approach would make numer- ous wrong predictions, not only for nouns like the ones in (6). Thus, most Icelandic nouns denoting professions and nationalities are masculine, regard- less of the sex of the person referred to, an issue I will return to shortly. Corbett (1991) refers to nouns like the ones in (6) as HYBRID NOUNS. Many such nouns are compounds or suffixed. Derivational morphology usually overrides semantic gender features, as seen in, e.g., the famous German neuter noun for ‘girl’, Mädchen, where -chen is a derivational mor- pheme deciding the formal, neuter gender of the derived noun, irrespective of the noun’s semantic gender. Formal gender features are normally visible through agreement but they are often only indirectly visible on the noun itself, through its effects on the selection of case/number endings (that is, through its effects on inflectional classification). Thus, feminine ausa ‘scoop, ladle’ is ausu in the oblique singular cases and ausur in nominative and accusative plural, whereas neu- ter auga ‘eye’ is the same in the other singular cases and augu in nomina- tive and accusative plural: (7) F ‘scoop’ N ‘eye’ Sg.Nom ausa auga Sg.Acc/Dat/Gen ausu auga Pl.Nom/Acc ausur augu Pl.Dat ausum augum Pl.Gen ausna augna
- 38. 28 Halldór Ármann Sigurðsson For a handful of kinship nouns, though, no such effects of gender on case/ number endings are observed, that is, bróðir, dóttir, faðir, móðir, systir ‘brother, daughter, father, mother, sister’, which all inflect the same:7 (8) ‘mother’ ‘brother’ Sg.Nom móðir bróðir Sg.Acc/Dat/Gen móður bróður Pl.Nom/Acc mæður bræður Pl.Dat mæðrum bræðrum Pl.Gen mæðra bræðra Thus, these few kinship terms seem to be exceptional in having only a se- mantic gender feature and no formal gender feature. An alternative way of stating this is to say that these nouns have a zero formal gender feature that is interpreted as formal masculine vs. feminine by agreement morphology. See further below. Most nouns in a formal gender language like Icelandic evidently select and incorporate a formal gender feature (+/–M, +/–F), even when they have semantic gender. As we shall see shortly, this has the effect that semantic gender becomes invisible to PF when a noun has a specified formal gender feature. This incorporation of formal gender may be thought of as a ‘word formation’ process, as it were (cf. Josefsson 1998), but, rather than taking place in Narrow Syntax, it takes place after transfer to PF. That is, lexicali- zation, combining phonetic material with formal features, is post-syntactic, syntax in contrast operating with only abstract features and roots. Thus, morphology is all post-syntactic (‘radically disentangled’ from syntax).8 We can distinguish between four classes of Icelandic nouns in terms of semantic and formal gender, as sketched in (9): (9) A. Nouns that have both semantic and formal gender A1. Natural gender nouns A2. Hybrid nouns, with contrasting semantic and formal genders B. Nouns that have only formal gender C. A handful of kinship terms that have semantic gender and a zero formal gender 7 As opposed to sonur ‘son’, mamma ‘mom’, pabbi ‘dad’ and many other kinship terms. 8 See further Sigurðsson (2006b).
- 39. Remarks on features 29 This is illustrated in (10): (10) Semantic gender Formal gender A1. kona ‘woman’ SHE F A2. kvenmaður ‘woman’ SHE M B. ausa ‘scoop’ Ø F C. móðir ‘mother’ SHE Ø B-type nouns, with no semantic gender, are by far the most numerous ones, but the natural gender type in A1 is also common, of course. In the rare (Icelandic) case of a zero formal gender feature, agreement morphology interprets it as masculine vs. feminine in accordance with the semantic gender of the noun in question. Thus, móðir ‘mother’ triggers femi- nine agreement whereas bróðir ‘brother’ triggers masculine agreement: (11) Móðir mín er gáfuð og bróðir minn er líka gáfaður. mother my.F is smart.F and brother my.M is also smart.M ‘My mother is smart and my brother is also smart.’ Similarly, first and second person pronouns have zero formal gender, also triggering this kind of ‘natural agreement’: (12) a. (María sagði:) Ég er gáfuð. (Mary said:) I am smart.F b. (Haraldur sagði:) Ég er gáfaður. (Harold said:) I am smart.M In formal gender languages, a masculine hybrid noun that is used to refer to a woman may either be referred to as he or she in discourse. A well-known and much cited example is masculine vrač, the Russian noun meaning ‘doctor’, which can be referred to in discourse as either on ‘he’ or ona ‘she’ when denoting a female doctor (Corbett 1991: 232). The same applies to Icelandic læknir ‘doctor’. Similarly, the Icelandic masculine noun forseti ‘president’ is usually referred to with hann ‘he’, but when Iceland’s presi- dent was a woman, Vigdís Finnbogadóttir, hún ‘she’ could also be used: (13) a. Núna gengur forsetinn í salinn. Hún er í bláum kjól. now walks president.the in hall.the. she is in blue dress ‘The president now enters the hall. She is wearing a blue dress.’ b. Núna gengur forsetinn í salinn. Hann er í bláum kjól. now walks president.the in hall.the. he is in blue dress
- 40. 30 Halldór Ármann Sigurðsson There seems to be a rather general preference for the formal gender to con- trol pronominal reference in Icelandic, but in this particular context of a typical female behavior, the feminine pronoun is in fact much preferred. Some languages, including German and most Romance varieties, make numerous derivational sex-distinctions in nouns denoting professions and nationalities. Consider (14): (14) Italian German Icelandic MALE FEMALE MALE FEMALE MALE FEMALE ‘doctor’ medico medica Arzt Ärztin læknir =læknir ‘lawyer’ avocato avocatessa Anwalt Anwältin lögmaður =lögmaður ‘baron(ess)’ barone baronessa Baron Baronin barón barónessa ‘Italian’ italiano italiana Italiener Italienerin Ítali =Ítali ‘Icelander’ islandese =islandese Isländer Isländerin Íslendingur =Íslendingur ‘Englishman’ inglese =inglese Engländer Engländerin Englendingur =Englendingur etc. Grammaticized sex-marking of this sort is a very general trait of German, somewhat less so of Italian and largely absent from Icelandic. One way of analysing this difference is to say that almost all Icelandic nouns and many Italian nouns denoting professions and nationalities of women have a silent feminine marker, call it SHE, corresponding to the overt -in marker in German. If so, one can say that the variation betwen masculine and femi- nine pronominal reference in (13) reflects this duality, as sketched in (15) (where I do not show the definite article -nn): (15) a. … /forseti+Ø.M/… Hann / *Hún… b. … /forseti+SHE.M/… Hann / Hún… At some level of abstraction, this is presumably the correct analysis. The silent marker SHE can be taken to be the semantic gender feature of any noun that has female semantics, for instance the hybrid noun kvenmaður ‘woman’ in (10)A2 above (literally ‘woman-person’): (16) a. */kvenmaður+Ø.M/ b. /kvenmaður+SHE.M/ The difference between forseti and kvenmaður, then, is that the silent SHE marker is obligatory in kvenmaður but only optional in forseti, i.e., there are in a sense two forseti nouns but only one kvenmaður noun. In the same
- 41. Remarks on features 31 fashion, Italian nouns like islandese and inglese have an optional SHE marker, but at the same time they differ from Icelandic hybrid nouns in only having a zero formal gender feature: (17) a. /islandese+Ø.Ø/ b. /islandese+SHE.Ø/ Accordingly, agreement morphology ‘sees’ the semantic gender feature in Italian, whereas (clause-internal) agreement is controlled by the specified formal gender feature in Icelandic: (18) a. María è una islandese simpatica. Mary is an Icelander sympathetic ‘Mary is a sympathetic Icelander.’ b. Haraldur è un islandese simpatico. (19) a. María er viðkunnanlegur/*viðkunnanleg Íslendingur. Mary is sympathetic.M/*F Icelander.M b. Haraldur er viðkunnanlegur Íslendingur. That is, in the presence of a specified formal gender, as in masculine Íslend- ingur, semantic gender becomes PF invisible (clause-internally). As we saw above, however, Icelandic first and second person pronouns and a handful of kinship terms are like Italian nouns of the islandese class in not having a specified formal gender feature, cf. the agreement facts in (11) and (12) above. Thus, both languages operate with both semantic and formal gender, that is, they both have nominals that are specified for only semantic gender (HE or SHE), nominals that are specified for only formal gender and nomi- nals that are specified for formal as well as semantic gender. Many languages, including for example Finnish, Hungarian, languages of the Philippines and many languages of the Americas, lack gender as an overt category, whereas Fula or Fulfulde (Niger-Congo) has been claimed to have “about twenty genders” (Corbett 1991: 191), triggering different agree- ment patterns (thus being grammaticized in a way that differs from classifi- ers in classifier languages, which do not trigger agreement). Reasonably, however, all languages have access to the semantic categories, on which gender systems are based, including MALE, FEMALE, ANIMATE and HUMAN. Even though Icelandic and Finnish have not grammaticized the category of INSECTS, as has the Rikvani dialect of (the North Caucasian) Andi or the category of LIQUIDS, as has Fula/Fulfulde (Corbett 1991: 30–31), it does not
- 42. 32 Halldór Ármann Sigurðsson seem to make much sense to assume that languages differ syntactically with respect to these categories. Rather, genders are lexical classification fea- tures, serving the general ‘purpose’ of reducing ambiguity on the PF side of language. If so, gender agreement must also belong to PF rather than to Narrow Syntax, an issue I will return to.9 As in many other formal gender languages (see Corbett 1991: 51ff.), gender selection in Icelandic is frequently affected by phonological factors, most roots in -óC or -íC, for instance, combining with feminine gender, most nouns with the -un suffix also combining with feminine, and so on.10 That is, gender selection is affected by phonologial factors, and it shows ‘combinatory tendencies’ that resemble tendencies commonly seen in pho- notactics. Moreover, gender feeds phonological processes like the so-called u-mutation, shifting [a] to [œ] or [Y] under certain conditions (see Rögn- valdsson 1981 for a detailed account): (20) a. [a] → [œ] in (mostly) stressed syllables b. [a] → [Y] elsewhere The relevant conditions are somewhat varying, but, strikingly, there are cases where they regularly and productively involve gender information, as illustrated in (21): (21) a. lat- [la:t(h) -] → löt [lœ:t(h) ] in F.SG.NOM & N.PL.NOM/ACC ‘lazy’ b. byrjað- [pIrjað-] → byrjuð [pIrjYð] in F.SG.NOM & N.PL.NOM/ACC ‘begun’ Facts of this sort do not provide an unmabiguous argument against gender being syntactic, but they show, at least, that gender is visible to phono- logical processes. Before proceeding to other features, let us briefly summarize our central findings for gender. A noun may either have or not have semantic gender. 9 On the antecedent movement approach to pronominal binding pursued in Kayne (2002), gender agreement can be analyzed as clause-bounded across the board (which it cannot in other approaches, as far as I can see). All other problems re- main, though, and Kayne’s approach also has its own, rather serious internal problems, so I will not discuss this here. 10 Bók ‘book’, rót ‘root’, vík ‘small bay’, hlíð ‘slope’, verslun ‘shop’, hönnun ‘de- sign’, and so on.
- 43. Remarks on features 33 Limiting ourselves to only FEMALE vs. MALE or HE vs. SHE, leaving, ANI- MATE, HUMAN, and so on out of the discussion, this gives us the three possibilities in (22): (22) a. HE b. SHE c. –HE, –SHE Now, if morphology would heed or preserve syntactic economy, this would be all that is needed in three gender languages like Icelandic and German. As we have seen, however, that is very far from being the case. A fact that has not been generally appreciated is that morphology reinterprets these feature values or ‘translates’ them, as it were, into its own terms. Thus, as we have seen, each of the feature settings in (22) may combine with all three formal genders. In addition, a few elements, including the first and second person pronouns, have a zero or an unspecified formal gender fea- ture, their semantic gender thus being interpreted by agreement morphology as if it were formal. The relevant facts are summarized in (23): (23) Semantic G Formal G a. HE a1. M hrútur ‘ram’ a2. F mannfýla ‘bastard of a man’ a3. N naut ‘bull’ a4. Ø ég ‘I’; bróðir ‘brother’ b. SHE b1. M kvenmaður ‘woman’ b2. F kona ‘woman’ b3. N fljóð ‘girl’ (poetic) b4. Ø ég ‘I’; móðir ‘mother’ c. –HE, –SHE b1. M bátur ‘boat’ b2. F skúta ‘yacht’ b3. N skip ‘ship’ For formal gender, then, it is evident that morphology is not just a repro- duction or preservation of syntax/semantics, as it were, but an autonomous system, translating syntax into its own terms. It is of some interest here to notice that even closely related languages may have very different gender systems. Swedish, for instance, generally makes a two-way distinction in its agreement system, between common and neuter gender, but a four-way distinction in its singular pronominal system, as illustrated in (24) in a somewhat simplified fashion:
- 44. 34 Halldór Ármann Sigurðsson (24) han ‘he’: MALE HUMANS (plus some other small categories) hon ‘she’: FEMALE HUMANS (plus some other small categories) den ‘it’: most non-neuter NON-HUMAN nouns det ‘it’: neuter nouns Thus, the distinction between +/-HUMAN has been grammaticized in the Swedish pronominal gender system, whereas it has not in the Icelandic sys- tem. Generally, gender is a much more ‘natural’ or transparent category in Swedish than it is in Icelandic and German.11 Semantic features like HUMAN, ANIMATE, FEMALE, LIQUID, INSECT, etc., map differently onto different grammars, some languages being grammati- cally silent (but typically not lexically silent) about certain features that other languages grammaticize. Also, even when two closely related lan- guages opt for grammaticizing two related features such as HUMAN and FEMALE they typically map these features differently onto formal features like masculine and feminine. Such mapping differences are responsible for much of the typological or parametric variation between languages. Plausi- bly, there is a universal cartography of syntactico-semantic features like HUMAN, ANIMATE, FEMALE, etc., that are the building blocks of nouns, such that a formal feature like masculine is a PF translation or interpretation of a part of a complex feature tree structure, expressing different parts of the tree structure in different languages, often arbitrarily so but sometimes in a more predictable or transparent manner. 3. A note on number Number is usually a ‘better behaved’ category than gender, as it were, that is, most semantically plural nouns are also morphologically plural. Never- theless, there are also numerous mismatches, illustrating that we need to distinguish between semantic and formal number. Consider the following Icelandic pluralia tantum and singularia tantum nouns, that is to say, ‘plural only’ and ‘singular only’ nouns: 11 The Swedish gender system has other interesting properties, alien to Icelandic, that I will however not address here (but see Källström 1993; Teleman et al. 1999; Josefsson 2006).
- 45. Remarks on features 35 (25) Plural only Singular only hjón ‘married couple’ fólk ‘people’, jól ‘Christmas’ stóð ‘pack of horses’, páskar ‘easter’ ös ‘crowd, throng’ lög ‘law’ fyndni ‘humor’ laun ‘salary’ hugrekki ‘courage’ buxur ‘trousers’ barátta ‘struggle’ innantökur ‘internal pain(s)’ kjöt ‘meat’ aftökur ‘extremely bad weather’ smjör ‘butter’ As for many related languages, this list could be made much longer (cf. Thráinsson 1983, Kvaran 2005: 174–175; Corbett 2000), but these examples suffice to illustrate the point. It is evident that the plural feature of, e.g., jól ‘Christmas’ or the singular feature of, e.g., fólk ‘people’ are invisible to the semantic interface, that is, these nouns have ‘reverse’ number semantics, as it were. Nonetheless, it is the formal number feature that controls all kinds of agreement, regardless of the actual number of Christmases or people one may be talking about. This is illustrated in (26):12 (26) a. Lengstu jólin voru skemmtilegust. longest.PL Christmas.the.PL were.PL most-fun.PL ‘The longest Christmas was the most fun.’ b. Gamla fólkið var skemmtilegast. old.SG people.the.SG was.SG most-fun.SG ‘The old people were the most fun.’ Thus, morphology sees formal number while the semantic interface does not.13 12 Any other forms would be ungrammatical here. Pronominal reference across clause boundaries is normally also controlled by the formal number, although plural reference to singularia tantum nouns seems to be acceptable to some speakers. 13 However, even morphology may ‘turn a blind eye’ to formal number. Thus, ‘corporate’, formally singular nouns may trigger plural agreement in some lan- guages, including varieties of English (The government are not really fighting crime, etc., cf. Corbett 2000:187ff.).
- 46. 36 Halldór Ármann Sigurðsson Semantic number is a complex phenomenon, not only involving number or plurality as such but also categories like individuation, countability, dis- tributivity, collectivity and definiteness (see Corbett 2000). In relatively simple number systems like the English or the Icelandic one, the grammati- cal singular / plural distinction most commonly relates to the basic notion of ONE IN NUMBER, 1, and MORE THAN ONE IN NUMBER, >1. Referring to this notion as semantic number for Icelandic, thereby allowing us the simpli- fication of disregarding all other semantic categories, we get the six map- pings in (27), exhausting the logical possibilities: (27) Semantic N Formal N a. 1 SG hestur ‘horse’ b. >1 SG fólk ‘people’ c. Ø SG hugrekki ‘courage’ d. 1 PL jól ‘Christmas’ buxur ‘trousers’ e. >1 PL hestar ‘horses’ jól ‘Christmases’ buxur ‘trousers’ f. Ø PL innantökur ‘internal pain(s)’ Again, it is immediately clear that morphology is not a one-to-one repro- duction or preservation of syntax/semantics, but an autonomous system, translating syntax into its own terms. The features ONE and MORE THAN ONE are clearly interpretable to the semantic interface, and they are often straigtforwardly translated into the language of morphology. For morphol- ogy, however, the most central interest is not to serve or satisfy syntax or processing (although it usually does that), but to see to it that any noun have some value for formal number, sometimes regardless of the noun’s number semantics or even in direct contrast with it. Anomalies of this sort often have a natural historical explanation, but from the point of view of lan- guage aquisition that is of course immaterial. It is evident that morphology is selfish, serving its own narrow interests in addition to the interests of processing. The reason why language is organized like this is arguably that “humans are endowed with innate syntactic elements and structures that are independent of whether or how they are expressed” (Sigurðsson 2004a: 251), that is, processing is to a large extent internally given. A certain amount of mismatch between the form of a message and its semantic inter-
- 47. Remarks on features 37 pretation is a built in property of natural languages, as opposed to artificial languages.14 An alternative take on the semantics-morphology incongruity in (27) would be to say that formal number is a syntactic feature that may however arbitrarily or chaotically opt for being invisible to the semantic interface or even for being reversely interpreted. If so, it is pointless to discuss the or- ganization of language, so I will not consider this view here. 4. A note on case: The No Case Generalization Icelandic attributive and predicative agreement of adjectives, quantifiers and past participles involves not only gender and number but also case, as illustrated in (28); the suffixed definite article also agrees in the same way, but, for simplicity, I do not indicate this: (28) a. Báðir mennirnir höfðu verið kosnir. both men.the had been elected N.M.PL N.M.PL 3PL N.M.PL b. Ég taldi báða mennina hafa verið kosna. I believed both men.the have been elected A.M.PL A.M.PL INF A.M.PL If gender and number are morphological PF translations of abstract syntac- tic objects or structures, then case in agreement configurations of this sort must also be post-syntactic, an issue I will return to. In a simple morphopho- nological sense, this is trivially obvious, but I claim that case is radically non-syntactic in the sense that there are no syntacic features like +/–NOM, nor are there any ‘deep’ case features.15 If case was a property or a feature of Narrow Syntax, we would expect closely related languages to be more or less identical with respect to case- marking, but that expectation is of course not borne out. This is abundantly evident for many case-rich languages, both synchronically and diachroni- cally, e.g., Icelandic and German, Russian and Polish, Latin, Romanian and 14 Plausibly, this is the basic reason why language is subject to constant and irre- sistible change. 15 See also McFadden (2004) and Platzack (2006). I’m here abandoning the as- sumption in Sigurðsson (2003) that language has some deep cases in the Fill- morian sense.
- 48. 38 Halldór Ármann Sigurðsson Italian, to mention only a few well-known Indo-European languages. Even closely related case-poor languages like Danish and Swedish show some striking differences with respect to case-marking, as in (29): (29) a. Det er os. Danish it is us.ACC ‘It is us.’ b. Det är vi. Swedish it is we.NOM ‘It is us.’ Arguably, there is no Narrow Syntax difference between Danish Det er os and its Swedish translation Det är vi. Rather, it seems that exactly the same syntactic structure gets different interpretations or translations in PF mor- phology. In recent work on variation of this sort across the Germanic lan- guages (Sigurðsson 2006a), I come to the conclusion that the so-called ‘structural’ cases (regular nominatives and accusatives in accusative sys- tems) must be understood as PF features serving the purpose to overtly dis- tinguish either between the arguments or between the DPs of a predicate, where nominative is simply CASE1 and accusative CASE2.16 The argument distinguishing strategy is prevailing in e.g. Icelandic, German and Swedish, while the DP distinguishing strategy is in e.g. English and Danish. On this approach, it becomes at least partly understandable that many speakers of English, Danish and some other languages have extended the diacritic func- tion of the cases (in colloquial speech) so as to even distinguish between adjacent DPs. Consider the following results from an extensive study on case-marking in New Zealand English (Heidi Quinn p.c., see further Quinn 2005). The 90 informants that took part in the survey were asked to fill the slots with the preferred pronominal forms, in for instance the sentences in (30) and (31):17 16 This captures NOM–ACC conversion phenomena, as in passives. However, the underlying ‘argument structure conversion’ is a syntactic phenomenon. 17 Many thanks to Heidi Quinn for these data (which are not found in this form in her book). 91 and 92 are the numbers of relevant answers given by the 90 in- formants.
- 49. Remarks on features 39 (30) [__ and ___] have just taken part in one of these workshops on Asian food. a. He and I… 45/91 = 49% b. Him and I… 35/91 = 38% c. Me and him… 9/91 = 10% d. Him and me… 2/91 = 2% e. I and he… 0/91 f. I and him… 0/91 g. Me and he… 0/91 h. He and me… 0/91 (31) If Morris is late, would you mind taking [__ and __] to the airport? a. … him and I… 30/92 = 33% b. … him and me… 29/92 = 32% c. … me and him… 27/92 = 29% d. … he and I… 4/92 = 4% e. … I and he… 0/92 f. … I and him… 0/92 g. … me and he… 0/92 h. … he and me… 0/92 If English subject and object case was decided by syntactic argument fea- tures like +NOM and +ACC, this kind of variation would be hard or impossi- ble to explain. According to Quinn (2005), the case variation found in coor- dinates relates to a morphological distinction between weak and strong pro- nouns in English and is at least partly influenced by the relative phono- logical heaviness or ‘robustness’ of strong pronoun forms. Evidently, the ‘structural’ cases, better referred to as the relational cases (see Sigurðsson 2006a), are diactritic features in PF. Case is always a PF interpretation or expression of a complex syntactic correlation, that is, there seems never to be a one-to-one correlation between a particular morphological case and a single feature in syntax. Thus, the Ice- landic dative is used for multiple purposes, marking at least the following nine types of elements (Sigurðsson 2003: 230): (32) a. Quirky subjects (e.g. ‘me feels good’ = ‘I feel good’) b. Indirect objects (e.g. ‘she gave me the book’) c. Direct objects (e.g. ‘she invited me’) d. Free benefactives (e.g. ‘she wrote me a poem’) e. Possessors (e.g. ‘she looked into eyes me’ = ‘into my eyes’)
- 50. 40 Halldór Ármann Sigurðsson f. Prepositional objects (e.g. ‘she stayed by me’) g. Objects of adjectives (e.g. ‘she was me nice’ = ‘nice to me’) h. Instrumental DPs (e.g. ‘she stuck him a knife’ =‘with a knife’) i. Other DP adverbials (e.g. ‘she was me older’ = ‘older than me’) All these elements may however be differently marked, that is, with different cases or with prepositions, depending on various factors. In spite of this, it is possible to formulate many nice generalizations about the distribution of the dative and the other cases in Icelandic (see Jónsson 2003, 2005), as in other case languages, but the relevant point here is that all such generalizations are complex statements, involving many factors. That is, generalizations of this sort basically take the form: A + B + C > CASEX, D + F > CASEX, G + H + I > CASEX, and so on, were A, B, etc., denote syntactic factors and relations and CASEX is some particular case in morphology. Thus, not all agents are nomi- native in Icelandic, not all subjects are agentive and not all subjects are DPs, but the complex statement in (33) holds true:18 (33) If a. X is a DP & b. X is a subject & c. X is an agent then d. X is morphologically nominative Similarly, one can formulate several (albeit less accurate) complex state- ments for nominative non-subjects, including nominative objects and nomi- native predicates (in non-finite as well as finite clauses). However, saying that all these complex statements together in fact are syntactic +NOM is just a pointless word-game, blurring instead of increasing our understanding of grammar. Renaming the cases, saying for instance that nominative “is Tense” in a disguise, is even farther off the track. The core of the matter is that syntax does not operate with case features, that is, the NO CASE GEN- ERALIZATION in (34) holds: (34) Syntax has no case features, that is, it has no rule or process saying “you carry nominative case in morphology if and only if you are +NOM in syntax, you carry dative case in morphology if and only if you are +DAT in syntax”, and so on. 18 But notice that ‘subject’ is not a syntactic primitive, so (33) is actually a meta- linguistic statement, on notions of classical grammar and not on syntax.
- 51. Remarks on features 41 Notice that this is not to say that case is unlinked to or does not reflect syn- tactic structures, but it is to say that these structures themselves do not con- tain or operate with case, neither as features nor as syntactic objects of any other sort. Actually, it seems to be a fundamental property of language that it never applies one-to-one mappings between any levels or derivational stages. Assuming that it does is a contradiction in terms, since it suggests that the derivation is in fact non-derivational, simply reproducing an input as an equivalent albeit a differently looking output. The alleged syntactic effects of nominative case are real, of course, but they are not brought about by case but by matching and valuation of inter- pretable features, above all Person in accusative systems (Sigurðsson 2003 and subsequent work) but often Aspect, Tense or Focus in different systems (cf. Miyagawa 2005). Nichols (1990) contains an interesting study of dependency marking with respect to the typological notions of A(gent)-S(ubject)-P(atient). In her sample of 155 (relevant) languages, 148 or 95,5% had some such marking, and these in turn split into about equally large groups, with and without case-marking (see Nichols 1990: 90). Proponents of case features in Universal Grammar might want to use statistics like these as an argument in favor of their standpoint, but so might their opponents: – If case is not part of UG, why is it so common in the languages of the world? – If case is part of UG, why is it absent from so many of the languages of the world? Case is but one of many available strategies for PF marking the relations be- tween an argument and its linguistic environment. Consider the following list of simple facts: – The most common strategy, across languages and constructions, is not to make any PF marking at all. – Closely related languages, with the same basic case system, like Ice- landic and German, often use different cases to mark the (to the best of our knowledge) same syntactic relation.
- 52. 42 Halldór Ármann Sigurðsson – Even within one and the same language, there may be extensive varia- tion in case-marking, depending on either linguistic or social variables (constructions, dialects, idiolects,…).19 – Where one language uses case to mark a relation, another language may opt for suprasegmental marking (cf. Sigurðsson 2003: 326 on Swedish) or marking of non-argument members of the relevant syntactic relation (prepositions, particles, verbs, complementizers, adverbs,…). I believe we should look for an understanding of these facts in PF, the me- dium that ‘broadcasts’ Narrow Syntax. Narrow Syntax itself is a much more abstract or ‘semantic’ system that does not operate with PF visible units like inflectional features in oral languages or facial expressions in signed languages, nor does it have features that stand in simple one-to-one mapping relations to elements in the perceptible form of language. Understandably, it is tempting to seek explanations in Narrow Syntax, since Narrow Syntax explanations should hold generally, across languages, and are thus more ambitious and elegant than alternative accounts could ever be. In hastily seeking such explanations, however, linguistics has too often been overzealous, producing ‘generalizations’ that bear on wishful thinking and other human shortcomings rather than on language. 5. A note on agreement While person evidently differs from formal gender, number and case in be- ing a syntactic category, its values, 1st, 2nd and 3rd person, are not syntactic objects. Rather, they are PF expressions, not of individual objects or features in syntax but of complex matching correlations, as I have argued elsewhere (Sigurðsson 2004a,b). If formal feature values are strictly speaking non-syntactic, then mor- phological agreement must be non-syntactic as well, and this is what I have argued for in considerable detail in earlier work (e.g. Sigurðsson 2004c, 2006b).20 If so, morphological agreement is only an indirect reflection of ab- stract, syntactic Agree. Reasonably, there is a syntactic Agree or Selection correlation between any two syntactic elements that are merged. However, 19 Jónsson and Eythórsson (2005) study case marking variation in Icelandic and Faroese, presenting evidence that some of the variation is actually based on op- tionality in the grammar of individual speakers. 20 Bobaljik (2006) comes to the same conclusion, also basing his arguments partly on facts from Icelandic.
- 53. Remarks on features 43 as is evident, only some such correlations are overtly expressed by morpho- logical agreement. Consider the following simple facts from a few Germanic languages: (35) a. They would be elected. English b. Sie würden gewählt werden. German they would.3PL elected be c. De skulle bli valda. Swedish they would be elected.PL d. Þeir mundu verða valdir. Icelandic they would.3PL be elected.NOM.M.PL English shows no agreement at all here, German has finite verb agreement only, Swedish has only plural agreement of the predicative participle, and Icelandic has finite verb agreement as well as case, gender and number agreement of the participle. There does not seem to be any syntactic motivation for having or not having these agreement types. As will be discussed below, agreement is functional in the sense that it reduces ambiguity, but reducing ambiguity is not the ‘job’ or ‘goal’ of syntax (or else we would not expect grammars to produce large amounts of ambiguity). Rather, various agreement types are different PF options, and the truth of the matter is that we have little under- standing or knowledge of why languages choose one over the other (or, in general, of why languages opt for different disambiguating strategies). Even internally to individual languages there is abundant evidence that morphological agreement does not usually relate to semantics or directly to syntax, instead involving processes or ‘adjustments’ that are internal to mor- phology or broad PF. Consider the variation in (36), discussed by Rögn- valdsson (1982): (36) a. Við hlökkum til jólanna. we.NOM look.1PL to Christmas.the ‘We look forward to Christmas.’ b. Okkur hlakkar til jólanna. us.DAT look.3SG to Christmas.the ‘We look forward to Christmas.’ In the standard (36a), the subject is nominative, triggering regular, full agreement in person and number of the finite verb. In the common but sub- standard (36b), on the other hand, the verb hlakka til ‘look forward to’
- 54. 44 Halldór Ármann Sigurðsson takes a dative subject and this non-nominative case selection automatically ‘switches off’ the person and number agreement of the verb, which thus shows up in the default 3rd person singular instead of 1st person plural. This is in full accordance with the well-known fact that phi-feature specified nominative subjects trigger finite verb agreement in Icelandic, whereas the finite verb regularly shows up in the default 3rd person singular in the ab- sence of a nominative argument (see, e.g., Sigurðsson 2004c and the refer- ences cited there). Tellingly, however, both versions in (36) seem to have the same semantics, as highlighted by the fact that many speakers can use them both, not depending on semantics but on social factors (as far as can be judged).21 For these speakers, clauses with the verb hlakka til may either show up with a nominative or a dative subject, and the presence vs. absence of full agreement is an automatic morphological reaction to the case selec- tion, independent of the underlying semantic/syntactic structure. To an ex- tent, this is in fact reminiscent of phonological assimilation processes across word or constituent boundaries: these processes are fed by syntax, leading to adjacency of the sounds involved, but they do not take place in syntax nor are they directly controlled by syntactic factors. Consider also the fact that Modern Icelandic has agreement of participles selected by vera ‘be’, as opposed to participles selected by hafa ‘have’, as illustrated in (37): (37) a. Þær eru ekki lesnar. they.F are not read.NOM.F.PL ‘They are not being read (by somebody). / They are not well-read.’ b. Bækurnar hafa þær ekki lesið. books.the.F have they.F not read.DEFAULT(=NOM/ACC.N.SG) ‘The books, they have not read.’ In Old Norse, on the other hand, participles selected by hafa ‘have’ could but did not have to agree with direct objects (see Nygaard 1906: 188). Again, there does not seem to be any syntactic reason for the variation. In particu- lar, it does not correlate with word order, as related phenomena do in some other languages.22 21 Thanks to Eríkur Rögnvaldsson for reminding me of the import of facts of this sort. On speaker-internal case variation, not involving any semantic differences, see Jónsson and Eythórsson (2005: 235f.). 22 In this respect, Old Norse was similar to Fruilian, a Rhaeto-Romance language spoken in north-eastern Italy (see Paoli 2006).
- 55. Random documents with unrelated content Scribd suggests to you:
- 56. premendo la faccia su i guanciali, scossa dai sussulti, senza potersi frenare. — Tal, tel, til, tol, tul... VI. Le erano ricresciuti tutti i capelli, crespi e castanei, come prima. Ella aveva ora una curiosità grande di guardarsi nello specchio; perchè Rosa Catena, con uno di quei lezii che sempre svelavano in lei l'antica femmina impudica, passandole la mano sul corpo le aveva detto: — Bellezza! Aspettò dunque che Camilla uscisse; poi scese dal letto, staccò dalla parete uno di quelli specchi rococò a cornice d'oro appannati di macchie verdi; con un lembo della coperta tolse la polvere e si guardò dentro, sorridendo. Ella aveva tutto il collo nudo e pe 'l collo certe vene azzurrognole quasi in rilievo, e nella testa piccola e lunga qualche cosa di caprino, la bocca fine, il mento acuto, gli occhi castanei come i capelli, ma più tendenti al giallo. Il pallore trasparente e il sorriso davano una grazia nuova, una nuova giovinezza ai suoi ventisette anni. Ella restò a guardarsi a lungo; e si piaceva di allontanare lentamente lo specchio e di veder sparire l'imagine in quella luce un po' glauca come in un velo d'acqua marina e quindi riemergere. La vanità la conquistava, la occupava. Ella si accorse di tante piccole cose a cui prima non aveva badato mai; per esempio, di un neo simile a una lenticchia, che le macchiava la pelle su la tempia sinistra, e di una cicatrice leggera che le attraversava l'arco di un sopracciglio. Restò così, a lungo. Poi, assalita da una gioia repentina cercò in torno un qualche diletto. Quella capsula vegetale, ch'ella aveva trovato in fondo a un repostiglio, s'era aperta come in due valve scoprendo un grappolo denso di semi nerastri. Ogni seme pareva legato a filamenti
- 57. sottilissimi d'una lucidità argentea; e il grappolo si manteneva compatto. Ma a pena la Vergine vi mise un soffio, un nuvolo di piumoline bianche si levò nell'aria e si sparpagliò qua e là brillando: erano le spie. I semi parevano alati, parevano insetti ésili ed evanescenti che si dissolvessero incontrando i raggi del sole o parevano lanugini di cigno a pena visibili; ondeggiavano, ricadevano, si mescolavano ai capelli di Orsola, le sfioravano la faccia, la coprivano tutta. Ella rideva, difendendosi da quell'invasione, cercando di scacciare quella pelurie che le vellicava la pelle e le si attaccava alle mani, ma le risa le impedivano i soffii. Alla fine si distese lunga sul letto, lasciò che tutta quella molle nevicata le scendesse sopra lentamente. Teneva gli occhi semichiusi per prolungare la dolcezza; e a mano a mano che il sopore la invadeva, si sentiva come sommergere in un giaciglio alto di piume. La luce che entrava nella stanza era una di quelle pallide chiarità pomeridiane del mese di marzo, ove il sole ride modestamente estinguendosi come un indizio di aurora in un gran cielo albeggiante. Camilla trovò la sorella ancora addormentata con accanto lo specchio, con ne' capelli le spie. — Oh, Signore Gesù! oh Signore Gesù! — mormorò tra i denti, congiungendo le mani, in atto di compassione amara. La cristiana veniva dalla chiesa, dove aveva cantate le litanie per l'Annunciazione e aveva ascoltata la predica sul messaggio dell'Arcangelo all'ancella di Dio. Ecce ancilla Domini. L'eloquenza sonora del frate predicante l'aveva inebriata; le restavano ancora negli orecchi certe parole ammonitrici. Orsola si destava in quel momento con un lungo sbadiglio voluttuoso, e stirava le membra. — Ah! sei tu, Camilla? — disse ella un po' confusa da quella presenza. — Sono io, sono io! Tu ti perderai, sciagurata, tu ti perderai — irruppe la devota, additando lo specchio sul letto. — Tu hai tra le mani lo strumento del demonio...
- 58. Ed eccitata dalla prima invettiva, ella seguitava, sollevava la voce, gittava le frasi ardenti della predica con grandi gesti nell'aria, incalzava nelle minacce dei castighi eterni, non si rivolgeva soltanto alla pericolante, assorgeva ad ammonire l'universo dei peccatori. — Memento! Memento! Orsola non intendeva più nulla, poichè tutta quella vociferazione l'aveva stordita. D'un tratto dall'angolo della piazza scoppiò la fanfara militare con uno squillo di venti trombe. VII. L'ultima stanza della casa era stretta e bassa, con le travi del soffitto annerite dal fumo, piena d'un lezzo di cipolle, di rigovernatura e di carbone spento. I vasi di rame pendevano alla parete in ordine, senza luccichìo; i piatti di Castelli stavano in ordine su la mensola con le loro gioconde pitture di fiori, di uccelli e di teste ridenti; le antiche lucerne di ottone, le bottiglie vuote, le foglie di erbaggio non più fresche erano sparpagliate per le tavole; e su tutto dominava proteggitore San Vincenzo effigiato con il gran libro in una mano e la fiamma rossa in mezzo al cranio. Là, un tempo, Orsola stando in mezzo ai vapori dell'acqua bollente e alle esalazioni dei cibi vegetali, spesso aveva sentito giungersi sul capo dalla piccola finestra alta i ritornelli d'una canzone libertina e certi larghi schiamazzi di risa che s'inseguivano. I canti e le risa crescevano nelle sere di estate, tra i passagalli delle chitarre, fra gli urti della danza sul terreno. Tutti i romori della vita d'una suburra infima salivano, in certe ore, a quella altezza e facevano tremare d'orrore le povere spose di Gesù chine in umiltà su i tegami d'argilla pieni dell'eremitica innocenza dei legumi e delle verdure. Ma ora, al novel tempo e gaio, come un giorno udì Orsola le voci, una voglia nell'animo le corse di spinger la vista fuori.
- 59. Camilla non stava nella casa; era la domenica quinta di Lazzaro. Urgeva nell'aria, dopo le brevi piogge, con un più dolce alito di calore l'imminenza dell'aprile; e in quell'aria la pulzella più aveva pieno e chiaro il senso del suo rinascimento. E, in ozio, girando per le stanze, ebbe ella naturalmente la curiosità di guardare, presa al fascino malsano che gli spettacoli di lascivia esercitano anche sugli animi verecondi. Ella salì su una sedia all'altezza dell'apertura; ma prima di spingere lo sguardo innanzi, fu invasa da un turbamento di tremiti, e ritta su la sedia si volse intorno temente se non qualcuno la sorprendesse nell'atto. Intorno tutto era quieto; ogni tanto una gocciola d'acqua cadeva dall'alto in un bacile, sonando. Di fuori salivano le voci ed allettavano. La vergine rassicurata, guardò. Nel vicolo, sotto la pioggia il fradiciume aveva fermentato come un lievito; una melma nera copriva il lastrico, ove spoglie di frutta, residui di erbe, stracci, ciabatte marce, falde di cappello, tutto il ciarpame sfatto che la miseria gitta nella strada, si mescolavano. Su quella cloaca, in cui il sole suscitava insetti e miasmi, una fila di case nane pareva ansare addossata alla Caserma. Da tutte le finestre però, da tutti gli spiragli si riversavano le piante dei garofani non più contenute nei vasi; e i grandi fiori rosei e rossi penzolavano al sole aperti magnificamente. E tra quei fiori apparivano le facce flosce e dipinte delle meretrici, passavano le oscenità delle canzonette, le risa gutturali; e giù sul lastrico, sotto le inferriate della caserma, altre femmine si tendevano verso i soldati parlando a voce alta, provocandoli. E i soldati, che sentivano nel sangue alla primavera rifiorire i mali di Venere, allungavano le mani di tra le sbarre pur di brancicare qualcosa, divoravano con gli occhi in fiamme quelle femmine disfatte già per anni dalla lascivia di tante ciurme briache e di tanti facchini fradici. Orsola stette lì stupidita allo spettacolo di tutta quella corruzione fermentante pe'l buon sole di quaresima e saliente fino a lei. Non si ritraeva ancora; ma come alzò gli occhi, vide in un abbaino sul tetto
- 60. della caserma un uomo biondo che la guardava e sorrideva. Ella scese dalla sedia a precipizio, più pallida di prima, credendo di sentire la voce di Camilla. Corse nella sua stanza, e si gettò sul letto, sbigottita, senza respiro, come se l'avesse perseguitata qualcuno minacciandola. VIII. Da quel giorno, tutte l'ore, tutti i momenti in cui Camilla non era nella casa, la tentazione diabolica la trascinava a quello spettacolo. Ella prima pugnava, vanamente, senza forze, lasciandosi vincere. Andava là con l'ansia sospettosa di chi va a un ritrovo di amore; ci restava lungo tempo, dietro la persiana quasi cadente, mentre i miasmi del lupanare la turbavano e la corrompevano. Ella spiava tutto, acuendo lo sguardo, cercando di penetrare negli interni, cercando di scoprire qualche cosa tra i garofani che chiudevano le finestre. Il sole era caldo e pesante: sciami d'insetti turbinavano nell'aria. Ad intervalli, quando entrava nel vicolo qualche uomo, venivano dalle finestre i richiami delle aspettanti: femmine discinte, con il seno scoperto, uscivano fuori ad offerirsi. L'uomo spariva in una delle porte oscure con l'eletta. Le deluse gittavano scherni e risa dietro la coppia, e si rimettevano all'agguato tra i garofani. Così nella vergine si accendeva la brama. Il bisogno dell'amore, prima latente, si levava ora da tutto il suo essere, diventava una tortura, un supplizio incessante e feroce da cui ella non sapeva difendersi. Un fiotto di sanità caldo la riempiva; certe sùbite allegrezze le muovevano il sangue, le suscitavan nel petto quasi battimenti d'ale, le inspiravano canti nella bocca. A volte un soffio, uno di quei piccoli fremiti dell'aria che si dilata sotto il sole, una canzone di mendicante, un odore, un nulla bastava a darle smarrimenti vaghi, abbandoni in
- 61. cui le pareva di sentire su tutte le membra come il passaggio carezzevole del velluto d'un frutto maturo. Ella era così librata e perduta in abissi ignoti di dolcezza. L'irritazione della continenza, la sovrabbondanza insolita de' succhi, quel distendersi continuo dei nervi sotto gli stimoli la tenevano in una specie di stordimento simile al primo stadio dell'ebrezza. Il passato si dileguava, si assopiva in fondo alla memoria, non risorgeva più. E in ogni ora, in ogni luogo il desiderio le tendeva insidie: i santi delle mura, le madonne, i cristi crocefissi ignudi, le piccole figure di cera deformi, tutte le cose in torno, prendevano per lei apparenze impure. Da tutte le cose l'impurità emanava e le alitava su la persona, affocantemente. — Ecco, ora scendo nella strada — diceva ella a sè stessa, non reggendo più. Poi le mani le tremavano su la porta, nell'aprire. Lo stridore del chiavistello scorrente negli anelli la sbigottiva. Ella tornava in dietro, si gettava sul letto quasi svenendosi, livida, sotto una larva d'uomo. IX. La domenica delle Palme ella uscì dopo tanti mesi, per la prima volta; poichè Camilla voleva condurla a render grazie della guarigione al Signore. Quando le campane si misero a squillare, Orsola s'affacciò. Tutto il paese era ridente nel grande riso pasquale del sole d'aprile. Tutto il contado invadeva le vie con il segno pacifico dei rami di olivo. Ella ora doveva vestirsi in festa: la gente nelle vie l'avrebbe guardata passare. Una furia di vanità sùbito la prese: si chiuse nella stanza, cercò in fondo alla cassa le vesti più chiare. Un odore acuto di canfora saliva da quei vecchi tessuti conservati là dentro per anni: erano grandi gonne di seta a fiorami, verdi e violette e cangianti, che un tempo la crinolina avea forse gonfiate in torno alle anche di una sposa novella; erano lunghi busti con màniche ampie, mantelline
- 62. color di tortora orlate di merletti bianchi, veli intrecciati di fili d'argento, collari di tela fina ricamati a giorno; tutte cose morte per l'uso, goffe, macchiate dall'umido. Orsola sceglieva, come guidata da un nuovo istinto, profumandosi di canfora le mani nel cercare. Tutta quella seta inutile e quei veli la irritavano. Non trovava alfine nulla che le andasse alla persona! Chiuse la cassa irosamente, la respinse sotto il letto con un urto del piede. Le campane sonavano per la terza volta. Ella si mise in furia il consueto abito triste color di cenere, in conspetto di Camilla, mordendosi le labbra per ricacciare in giù le lacrime. Le campane chiamavano. Per le vie i fasci delle palme mettevano un mobile luccicore argenteo; da ogni gruppo di villici sorgeva una selva di ramoscelli; e la candida clemenza della benedizione cristiana si diffondeva per tutta l'aria da quelle selve, come se si appressasse il Galileo, il re povero e dolce sedente su l'asina fra la turba dei discepoli, in contro agli osanna del popolo redento. Benedictus qui venit in nomine Domini. Hosanna in excelsis! Nella chiesa la folla era immensa, sotto la selva delle palme. Per una di quelle correnti che si formano irresistibili nelle masse di popolo, Orsola fu divisa da Camilla; restò sola in quel rigurgito, in mezzo a tutti quei contatti, in mezzo a tutti quegli urti e quegli aliti. Ella tentava d'aprirsi un varco: le sue mani incontravano la schiena d'un uomo, altre mani tiepide il cui tocco la turbava. Ella si sentiva sfiorare il volto da una foglia d'olivo, contrastare il passo da un ginocchio, spingere il fianco da un gomito, offendere il petto, offendere le spalle da pressioni incognite. Sotto l'odore dell'incenso, sotto le palme benedette, nella penombra mistica, in tutto quell'ammasso di cristiani e di cristiane, piccole scintille erotiche scoccavano per attrito e si propagavano; amori segreti si ritrovavano e si congiungevano. Passavano accanto a Orsola fanciulle della campagna con palme sul petto, con un riso fuggente nel bianco degli occhi vòlto ad amatori che dietro le insidiavano; ed ella sentiva in torno a sè così passare l'amore, poneva il suo corpo tra quei corpi che si cercavano, era un ostacolo a quei gesti che tentavano
- 63. toccarsi, separava le strette di quelle mani, i legami di quelle braccia. Ma qualche cosa di quelle carezze interrotte le penetrava nel sangue. In un punto ella s'incontrò a faccia a faccia con un soldato biondo; quasi gli posò il capo su la tunica, perchè una colonna di gente dietro la spingeva. Ella levò gli occhi; e il giovine sorrise come aveva sorriso un giorno dall'abbaino della caserma. Dietro, l'urto seguitava: il vapore dell'incenso si spandeva più denso, e il Diacono dal fondo cantò: — Procedamus in pace. E il coro rispose: — In nomine Christi. Amen. Era l'annunzio della processione, che mise un sommovimento enorme in tutto il popolo. Per istinto, senza pensare, Orsola si attaccò all'uomo, come se già gli appartenesse; si lasciò quasi sollevare da quelle braccia che la prendevano ai fianchi, si sentì ne' capelli quel fiato virile che sapeva lievemente di tabacco. Ella andava così, indebolita, sfinita, oppressa da quella voluttà che l'aveva colta d'improvviso, non vedendo se non un barbaglio dinanzi a sè. Allora dall'altare maggiore si mosse il turiferario spargendo nuvoli di fumo cerulo e dolce sul popolo; e una processione candida si svolse nel mezzo della chiesa. I celebranti portavano in mano rami d'olivo e cantavano. X. Tutta la settimana santa protesse delle sue complici ombre l'amore della vergine Orsola. Le chiese erano immerse nel crepuscolo della Passione, i crocifissi sugli altari erano coperti di drappi violacei; i sepolcri del Nazareno erano circondati di grandi erbe bianche cresciute nei sotterranei; un profumo di fiori e di belzuino pesava nell'aria.
- 64. Là Orsola, inginocchiata, attendeva, fin che un passo leggero dietro di lei la faceva trasalire. Ella non poteva volgersi, perchè Camilla la vigilava; ma si sentiva tutta abbracciare dallo sguardo di quell'uomo, come da un fuoco sottile, e una tenerezza torbida le scendeva nella carne. Allora fissava i ceri digradanti su un triangolo di legno presso l'altare. I preti cantavano dinanzi a un gran libro; e ad uno ad uno i ceri venivano spenti. Non ne rimanevano che cinque, non ne rimanevano che due; l'oscurità si avanzava dal fondo delle cappelle su la gente in preghiera. L'ultima fiammella finalmente spariva; tutte le panche risonavano sotto le battiture delle verghe. Orsola nel buio, a pena si sentiva toccare da due mani cercanti, scattava dal pavimento, con un sussulto, smarrita. Poi, quando usciva dalla chiesa, il pensiero d'aver violato un luogo sacro la empiva di rimorso: subitamente, la paura del castigo risorgeva. Ella s'inabissava poi come in un sogno dove la figura livida di Gesù morto e lo scroscio delle battiture e i brividi della carne sollecitata e l'odor grave dei fiori e gli aliti di quell'uomo biondo si mescolavano in un senso dubbio di dolore e di piacere. XI. Ma come Gesù trionfante risalì alla gloria dei cieli, gli aromi pasquali non più confortarono l'amore della vergine Orsola. Scena dell'amore fu allora il dominio dei gatti randagi e dei colombi torraioli. Dall'abbaino alla finestra i dolci segni correvano: tra mezzo, il lupanare si sprofondava come un fossato d'acque limacciose a' cui cigli crescessero fiori alimentati dalla putredine. I colombi sorvolavano con il luccichio verde e grigio delle loro piume. L'amadore aveva un bel nome antico, si chiamava Marcello, e aveva un bel fregio rosso e d'argento su le maniche della tunica. Scriveva epistole piene di fuoco eterno, con frasi impetuose che davano all'amatrice deliquii di tenerezza e fremiti di voluttà mal contenuta. Orsola leggeva quei fogli in segreto, li teneva notte e giorno nel
- 65. seno: pe 'l calore la scrittura violetta le s'imprimeva su la pelle, ed era come un gentile tatuaggio d'amore, di cui ella gioiva. Le risposte di lei non finivano mai: tutta la sapienza grammaticale di una maestra, tutto il tesoro delle apostrofi psalmistiche di una devota, tutta la fluente sentimentalità di una pulzella tardiva si riversava su la carta de' quaderni scolastici rigati di turchino. Ella scrivendo si obliava, si sentiva trascinare in un'onda di verbosità sonore. Pareva quasi che una facoltà novella si esplicasse in lei e prendesse forme maniache, d'improvviso. Quel gran sedimento di lirismo mistico accumulato per la lettura de' libri di preghiera in tanti anni di fedeltà allo Sposo Celeste, ora, scosso dal tumulto dell'amore terreno, si levava su confusamente per assumere sapori di profanità nuovi. Così le lacrimose implorazioni a Gesù si mutavano in sospiri di speranza verso letizie d'amplessi non eterei, le offerte del fior dell'anima al Sommo Bene si mutavano in tenere dedizioni della carne al disio del biondo amante, e il lume afrodisiaco della luna si cingeva di tutti gli epiteti per cui va radioso lo Spirito Santo, nè gli zefiri della primavera mancavan di rapire gli aromi alle mense del Paradiso. XII. Era messaggero uno di quegli uomini che paion cresciuti su, come funghi, dall'umidità della strada immonda ed hanno in tutta la figura quasi una nativa tinta di fango; di quelli uomini bigi, che s'insinuano per tutto, che si trovano per tutto ov'è un centesimo da guadagnare, un po' di untume da leccare, uno straccio da sottrarre, oggi rigattieri e domani procaccianti in atto di serve o di male femmine, oggi falsi sensali di mercatanzia e domani accalappiatori di cani erratici. Costui aveva un nome melodrammatico, si chiamava Lindoro: dal quartiere dell'Ospedale al bastione di Sant'Agostino una popolarità grande s'era fatta in torno a questo nome. Nasceva costui dall'accoppiamento d'un sonatore ambulante di clarinetto con una piazzaiuola rivenditrice di fruttaglia, ereditando l'istinto nomade del
- 66. padre e la naturale avarizia della madre. S'era prima strascicato per gli immondezzai di tutte le case, con la scopa o il canestro; aveva poi fatto il guattero in una bettola, dove soldati e marinai gli gettavano sul viso gli sgoccioli del bicchiere e le spine del pesce mal fritto. Dalla bettola era caduto in un forno, dove spingeva i pani con la lunga pala dentro le fiamme, tutta la notte, in sudore, accecandosi. Dal forno era passato all'uffizio di accenditore pubblico de' fanali, logorandosi una spalla sotto il peso della scala portatile. Scacciato da quell'uffizio perchè sottraeva il petrolio dalle grandi casse di zinco bianco, si mise alla ventura della strada, comprando e rivendendo abiti vecchi, facendo in tutte le case popolane i servigi più vili, offrendo ai soldati e ai forestieri i suoi ruffianesimi, lottando così per il tozzo. Nel suo corpo e nella sua anima ogni mestiere aveva impresso una traccia, aveva lasciato un gesto abituale, uno sviluppo di singoli muscoli, l'indebolimento di un organo, una callosità, una cadenza di voce, una frase del gergo. Egli era di piccola statura, magro, con una testa enorme e quasi calva, con chiazze di peli radi su le guance, con pustole tra i peli. Il suo vestito era ibrido e mutevole; tutte le fogge passavano su la sua persona, si sovrapponevano a contrasto: nobili zimarrine verdognole e calzoni carichi di toppe, cappelli di feltro arrossenti e ciabatte servili, bottoni di metallo lucido, formelle d'osso bianco, galloni militari, trine, quel miscuglio di ricchezza sfatta e di miseria ignobile, che ingombra la bottega di un rigattiere ebreo. XIII. Ora costui fu il galeotto. Portava le epistole di Marcello con le conche piene d'acqua della Pescara su alla casa di Orsola e tornava giù con le conche vuote e con epistole di risposta. Orsola, quando lo sentiva salir le scale, si faceva pallida; cercava pretesti per allontanare Camilla, per essere sola con l'uomo portatore d'acqua e di gioia. Avvenivano allora contatti rapidi, nel sotterfugio; passavano allora tra
- 67. lei e il galeotto quegli sguardi obliqui d'intesa, quei fuggevoli accenni dei muscoli faciali, quei monosillabi sommessi, che son gli aiuti dell'astuzia umana e che a lungo andare stringono legami tra gli ingannatori. A poco a poco nell'amore di Orsola penetrava qualche cosa della viltà di Lindoro; una specie di domestichezza a poco a poco si stabiliva tra l'amatrice e l'ambasciatore. Ella, se costui giungeva nell'assenza di Camilla, lo incalzava di domande, gli parlava da presso facendogli sentire l'alito, qualche volta inavvedutamente gli posava su la spalla una mano. Lindoro scioglieva i freni della sua loquacità, intramezzando parole di gergo, reticenze impudiche, furbi sorrisi rivelatori, gesti ambigui, piccoli schiocchi di lingua e di labbra. Egli ruffianeggiava con arte, sapeva insinuare sottilmente la corruzione nell'animo di Orsola, sapeva trascinare lentamente all'insidia di Marcello quella preda. E la vergine stava ad ascoltarlo intenta, con in fondo agli occhi una fiamma che cresceva, con in bocca l'aridezza prodotta dall'orgasmo lascivo, senza più interrompere. Lindoro s'accorgeva subito di aver suscitato nella femmina la brama; e dinanzi a quella figura tutta protesa e tutta sconvolta si risvegliava in lui il maschio d'un tratto e l'assaliva la tentazione di cogliere quel fiore ch'egli apprestava al piacere di un altro. Ma la paura sorgente dal fondo della sua viltà lo tratteneva e gli ghiacciava l'ardore. Così Orsola al fine aveva concesso a Marcello un ritrovo. Si sarebbero ritrovati in una casa remota del sobborgo, in fondo a un vico deserto, dove nessuno li avrebbe spiati, una domenica di giugno, stando Camilla nella chiesa più lungo tempo, facendo buona guardia Lindoro. Nei giorni precedenti quel gran fatto, Orsola era tenuta da una eccitazione amara, da una specie di febbre che a volte le dava il battito dei denti e le vampe alla faccia e i brividi alla radice dei capelli, alla nuca. Ella non poteva più star ferma, non poteva più star seduta; poichè una furia di mobilità le sollecitava tutte le membra. Nella scuola, in mezzo al coro eguale dei discepoli, in mezzo a quello stillicidio continuo di sillabe, uno spirito di ribellione le abbagliava la
- 68. vista all'improvviso, ed ella avrebbe voluto balzare tra i fanciulli, sconvolgere con le mani tutte quelle capigliature, rovesciare la lavagna, le tabelle, le panche, rompere in grida, spezzare qualche cosa, stordirsi. Sotto lo sguardo freddo e scrutatore di Camilla, poco mancava che ella non svenisse per lo spasimo, per la bile, per l'immenso sforzo interiore di dissimulazione. Poi, quando Camilla usciva, ella si agitava per tutte le stanze, moveva le sedie, morsicchiava un fiore, beveva d'un fiato un gran bicchier d'acqua, si guardava nello specchio, si affacciava alla finestra, si abbatteva a traverso il letto, sfogava in mille modi l'irrequietudine, l'esuberanza della vitalità sensuale. Tutto il suo corpo, nel tardivo fermento della verginità, si era arricchito ed espanto. La sua testa non era bella, non aveva la quadratura vigorosa, lo splendore olivastro di certe razze d'Abruzzo, quelle pure linee del naso e del mento svolgentisi grecamente nella latina ampiezza della faccia. Ma ella, inconsapevole, sotto la goffaggine delle vesti grige, sotto la cascaggine delle pieghe incomposte, celava un bel corpo delicato. Erano i giorni primi di giugno: sorgeva l'estate dalla primavera, come da un campo d'erbe un àloe. Tra il mare e il fiume tutto il paese di Pescara godeva nella ventilazione salina e nel refrigerio fluviale, come distendendo le braccia verso quei naturali confini d'acqua amara e d'acqua dolce. Salivano alla stanza di Orsola allora le blandizie della temperie; insetti lucidi urtavano ai vetri e rimbalzavano, come una grandine d'oro. La vergine, se era sola, provava un bisogno di distendersi, di gettare lungi le vesti, di giacere, e di raccogliere su la pelle quella blandizia ignota che fluttuava nell'aria. Cominciava lentamente a spogliarsi, con gesti pigri, indugiando con le dita in torno alle allacciature e ai fermagli, facendo piccoli sforzi svogliati nel cacciar fuori le braccia dalle maniche, fermandosi a mezzo e abbandonando in dietro la testa dai capelli crespi e corti, quella sua testa di giovincello. Lentamente, sotto l'amorosa fatica, dalla informità delle vesti, come dalla scoria del tempo una statua
- 69. diseppellita, il corpo ignudo si rivelava. Un mucchio di lana e di tela vile era ai piedi della pulzella così purificata, e da quel mucchio ella come da un piedestallo sorgeva nella luce coronandosi con le braccia, mentre al contatto dell'aria una vibrazione a pena visibile le correva a fior della pelle. In quell'attitudine momentanea tutte le linee del torso si distendevano e salivano verso il capo ricinto: si appianava la leggera onda del ventre non anche deturpato dalla concezione; gli archi delle coste si disegnavano in rilievo. Poi, se un insetto entrava nella stanza, il ronzìo aliante in torno ed accennante ad attingere la nudità, il ronzìo sbigottiva Orsola; ed era allora un difendersi dalla puntura mal temuta, erano movimenti serpentini, scatti di muscoli sotto la cute, paurosi raggruppamenti di membra, falli dei malleoli non bene forti al gioco. Poi, così eccitata dal moto e calda, ella aveva voglie nuove. Apriva l'uscio, cauta in sospetto; e metteva fuori il capo guardando nell'altra stanza. C'era un odore di chiuso, quello squallore inanimato che hanno le scuole senza fanciulli. Nelle tabelle quadrate l'alfabeto cubitale e i gruppi dei dittonghi e delle sillabe stavano muti dominatori del luogo. Orsola si avanzava evitando co' piedi nudi gli interstizii del pavimento smosso, provando la titubanza di chi cammina scalzo per la prima volta su un piano aspro e la confusione di una donna che non sente più in torno al suo passo l'impedimento abituale della veste. Andava così fino alla terza stanza, dov'era l'acqua. Intingeva le mani, si spruzzava tutta, coraggiosamente, sussultando se una gocciola più grossa le rigava l'epidermide. Usciva di là, tutta sparsa di rugiada: andava verso lo specchio di un antico canterano. Restavano in quel canterano ancora frammenti d'intarsio qua e là. Lo specchio, che celava un armario sovrastante, aveva in torno fregi misti d'oro e di colori e in alto due puttini decapitati. Orsola saliva fin là, attratta da una irresistibile curiosità di vedersi nuda. La sua persona tutta ancora fresca di gocciole sorgeva nell'offuscamento dello specchio come in un verdazzurro fondo marino. Ella si guardava sorridendo. Il sorriso, ogni movimento dei muscoli pareva far tremolare tutte le linee della nudità nello specchio come quelle di
- 70. una imagine dentro le acque. Allora ella cominciava una specie di mimica vanitosa, guardando riprodursi tutti i suoi gesti nella lastra, aprendo le labbra per mostrare i denti, alzando le braccia per mostrare le ascelle, presentando la schiena arcata e forzando il capo a volgersi in dietro; fin che un pazzo impeto di ilarità, dinanzi a quello spettacolo di sè, le scuoteva tutta la persona. In fondo in fondo, dietro la donna, si rifletteva dalla parete avversa la tabella dell'alfabeto. XIV. Ora avvenne che in uno di quei momenti battesse alla porta della scala Lindoro venuto su con le conche. Orsola gridò: — Aspetta! E raccolse da terra le vesti, in furia; se le mise addosso, in furia; andò ad aprire. Erano le sei di sera: il riverbero bianco del palazzo di Brina entrava nella stanza; tutto il paese di Pescara, grande ospizio di rondini, cantava. I due, in mezzo, ritti, parlarono del ritrovo imminente. Lindoro con la sua loquacità cercava di vincere le estreme esitazioni della pulzella; poichè egli già teneva una parte della mercede, e l'adescava il resto. L'artifizio persuasore gli avvivava le parole, gli occhi, i gesti. Egli aveva nel fiato l'odore del vino, e nella faccia, su le tempie, pe 'l passaggio recente del rasoio, piccole macchie rosee e violacee. Mentre parlava gli si scopriva la fila dei denti eguale e schietta, una di quelle forti chiostre che spesso armano le bocche plebee; e la singolarità emergeva vivacemente dalla generale turpitudine dell'uomo. Orsola opponeva dubbii, paure, ad interrompere; ma già, poi che l'impudicizia a mano a mano sorgendo più calda dal fòmite del vino bevuto si insinuò nelle persuasioni del galeotto, ella cominciava a
- 71. turbarsi. S'era ritirata a poco a poco verso il muro, appoggiandovisi. Dalle aperture, lasciate qua e là nell'abito per la furia del rivestirsi, si intravedevano i lembi del lino. La gola era tutta scoperta, i piedi senza calze nascondevano nelle pianelle soltanto le dita. Ma ella, a un punto, involontariamente, per quel cieco istinto da cui una donna è avvertita d'essere innanzi a un uomo bramoso, corse con la mano a chiudere sotto la gola, sul petto gli uncinelli. Quell'atto, col quale Orsola così riconosceva nel mezzano l'uomo, quell'improvviso atto fece scattare dall'abbiezione di Lindoro un impeto di orgoglio maschile. — Ah, egli dunque aveva potuto per sè stesso turbare una donna! — E si fece più da presso; e, come il coraggio del vino lo animava, quella volta nessun ritegno di viltà trattenne il bruto. XV. Orsola rimase inerte, lunga su i mattoni, con nelle vesti, con in tutta la figura lo scompiglio della donna violata. Ma, quando udì i passi di Camilla nella scala, dal fondo della sua languidezza si levò su un gomito; rapidamente passò le mani su le vesti sconvolte; ritrovò le parole per dire alla sorella che una sùbita mancanza di forze l'aveva fatta cadere nel mezzo della stanza. Fuori, annottava. Sul paese si spandeva la grande frescura glauca della sera di giugno, originante dall'Adriatico. Voci e risa empivano la piazza; giù pe 'l casamento cantava la gioia sabatina degli abitanti sollevati. Dal secondo pianerottolo Teodora La Jece gridò: — Comare Camilla, comare Orsola, venite? Orsola seguì la sorella, senza parlare, senza pensare. Durava fatica a ricordarsi: una specie di ebetudine le teneva ancora la memoria. Teodora le empiva gli orecchi del suo chiacchierio di femmina maldicente e petulante.
- 72. — Sapete, comare, la figlia di Rachela Catena si marita. — Ah. — Sapete, piglia Giovannino Speranza, quel rosso che tiene locanda alla Pesceria e ha il mal di San Donato, liberanosdòmine. — Ah. — Sapete, comare; Checchina Madrigale se n'è scappata un'altra volta a Francavilla. Voi la conoscete: quella grassa che sta di casa a Gloria, nera, col naso a becco.... quella. Teodora seguitando aveva preso il passo di Orsola. Camilla veniva un poco in dietro, a capo chino, senza badare ai peccati di mormorazione che la lingua della tessitrice commetteva contro il prossimo. Per le vie tutta la gente godeva l'aria; gruppi di donne passavano, in vesti di tela, con braccia nude sino al gómito. — Comare, guardate Graziella Potavigna che falbalà s'è messo! Guardate Rosa Zazzetta, con un sergente avanti e uno dietro.... Ah, voi non sapete? E qui una storia d'amorazzi piena d'indiscrezioni salaci, susurrata quasi all'orecchio. Per obliare, Orsola si immerse nel pettegolezzo intieramente, con una specie di furia convulsa, non dando a sè stessa il tempo di ripensare, interrogando, eccitando Teodora alla chiacchiera, temendo gli intervalli di silenzio, riempiendoli con sussulti di riso. Ella aveva quasi un godimento amaro a sentire i vituperii degli altri. — Oh! ecco Don Paolo! Veniva in contro con la sua bella placidezza Don Paolo Seccia, un ottuagenario ancora aspro e verde come un ginepro. — Venite con noi, Don Paolo: usciamo fuori. Tutti i macelli per la via di qua, di là, avevano i loro manzi freschi penzolanti in mezzo alla porta: l'odore della carne bovina si spandeva dalle ventraie aperte e assaliva le nari. Più in su, lunghe file di maccheroni stavano attelate al lume della luna che le guardava
- 73. dalla cima di un'antenna soperchiante la caserma. Gruppi di soldati si affollavano in torno alle rivenditrici di frutta, vociferando. — Andiamo alla Bandiera — disse Teodora, dando la precedenza a Don Paolo ed a Camilla. Orsola passò in mezzo a tutti quei romori e quegli odori forti, stordita. Cominciava alfine uno sbigottimento vago a sommuoversi dal fondo, a torcerle la bocca nel riso, nelle parole, a impedirle la lingua. Anche certi piccoli tormenti fisici la molestavano e la richiamavano alla realità delle cose. Ella non sapeva più sfuggire a sè stessa: le moriva la voce fra i denti, l'angoscia le serrava la gola, il fantasma del peccato enorme e irrimediabile le si drizzava dinanzi. Ella ora si sentiva morire dalla fatica di reggersi in piedi, di mettere i passi: si sentiva percossa dalla spietata animazione della vita nella strada che è di tutti. — Dunque, comare mia, quel guercio del marito senza saper nulla di nulla... — diceva Teodora riannodando la maldicenza interrotta. Andavano per la Bandiera. Il ponte a battelli, su la sinistra, cavalcava il fiume. Dall'altro lato, la mole cupa e grave del bastione si disegnava nel chiarore. I vecchi cannoni di ferro, piantati con la bocca nel terreno, si dilungavano in fila trattenendo le gómene; grandi áncore di ferro ingombravano lo scalo. Nelle tolde, a riva, i marinari sotto le tende mangiavano e fumavano: le tende illuminate contrastavano con un rossore sanguigno l'albore della luna. Intorno alle proe, su l'acqua larghe chiazze come di materia liquefatta fluttuavano lentamente. — ... mandò a chiamare Don Nereo Memma, figuratevi! — seguitava Teodora, implacabile. — Chi parla del dottor Dulcamara? — fece Don Paolo, a cui era giunto quel nome, ridendo dalla franca bocca ancora armata di avorii. Orsola non sentiva più: ella era pallida come la faccia della luna. Da prima, tutta quella gran pace luminosa piovente dal cielo sul fiume e tutte quelle lunghe vene di odore marino correnti pe 'l fresco le
- 74. avevano dato sollievo; poichè dinanzi a quello spettacolo di dolcezza i fantasmi vagheggiati dell'amore in fondo a lei si risollevavano e le sommità del sentimento al raggio lunare riscintillavano. Fu, súbito dopo, un tumulto confuso in cui ella udiva battere le arterie con un susurrìo assordante che parve dilatarsi e riempire tutta l'aria d'un tratto. Le mancava sotto i piedi il suolo fermo. Il limite delle acque si confuse, per la vertigine; il fiume invase la strada; acque acque acque si spársero in torno. Poi, d'un tratto, uno scintillìo di bagliori si accese dentro gli occhi di lei, un tremolìo crescente di fiammelle fatue che rompevano, si intrecciavano, si allontanavano, e si fondevano e perdevano serpentinamente nell'ombra. In quella illuminazione la figura di Marcello compariva e spariva, con una rapidità e una mutabilità di sogno. La vertigine cessò. Orsola riconobbe i riflessi della luna nel fiume placido; continuò a camminare, stupefatta, indebolita, quasi in punto di venir meno. — Stanca, eh? comare; voi non siete abituata, si sa. Appoggiatevi a me, appoggiatevi — diceva Teodora. — La figlia di Donna Mentina Ussoria, quella più piccola, butterata, stava proprio innanzi alla bottega, sapete, su la piazzetta... Erano alla caserma dei finanzieri. Grandi mucchi di carrùbe mandavano un odore forte come di pelli conciate; e la strada seminata di scaglie d'ostriche scricchiolava sotto i passi. Due sciàbiche, presso la riva, facevano pesca d'anguille, in silenzio, con la luna propizia. Ma la sonorità del mare empiva di grandezza il silenzio. Annunziavano la foce gli ondeggiamenti del sale superanti il lieve fiore dell'acqua dolce. — Torniamo in dietro, belle figliuole — disse Don Paolo, prendendo una carruba dal mucchio vicino. Orsola si lasciava condurre. Ella durava fatica a rattenere l'ansia del respiro; poichè ora il suo stato, con una terribilità incalzante, le si ripresentava dinanzi e schiacciava tutti gli aneliti e i tumulti del sentimento suscitati dalla voluttà della notte lunare. Ella vedeva, nella fissazione del suo pensiero, la figura di Lindoro levarsi e vivere; si sentiva un'altra volta afferrare e palpare da quelle mani aspre,
- 75. soffocare da quel fiato caldo di vino e di libidine, violare su i mattoni della stanza. Ma in quel momento, pensava, ella non aveva resistito, non aveva gridato, non aveva fatto nessun moto per opporsi; ella aveva soggiaciuto, senza forze, non distinguendo più nulla, non sentendo se non una gran gioia mista di dolore inondarle le fibre. Allora il ribrezzo e il languore si avvicendarono nella sua carne, agghiacciandola, affocandola. Inconsapevole, guardava innanzi a sè, pallida e con gli occhi ingranditi e più neri. — Sentite come il vino canta! — disse Don Paolo, soffermandosi. Nelle barche i marinai stavano distesi tra i cordami, in mezzo al fumo del tabacco di Dalmazia, e cantavano di femmine belle, in gran coro. XVI. Camilla, su l'inginocchiatoio, pregò a voce bassa, co 'l capo prostrato, con giunte le mani, lungamente; poi accese la lampada votiva a Maria Vergine, per la notte; piegò poi nel sonno tenendo il dolce cuore di Gesù tra i fiori vizzi del seno. Il suo respiro di dormiente era religioso come se sfiorasse l'ostia sacra su la paténa d'argento. Nella volta le ombre seguivano le oscillazioni della fiammella alimentata dall'olio. I rumori del legno che si dilata e dei tarli che ródono, le voci misteriose dei vecchi mobili nella calma notturna, rompevano il silenzio. Orsola stava nello stesso letto, a fianco di Camilla, distesa, senza muoversi, senza chiudere gli occhi, poichè una grande stanchezza insonne le occupava le membra e la vigilanza assidua dell'angoscia le martoriava l'anima tapina. Ella ascoltava il silenzio; spiava sè stessa con una curiosità ansiosa, come per sentire qual mutamento si fosse compiuto nell'essere suo. A un tratto, Camilla nel sonno cominciò a mormorare parole confuse, frammenti di parole incomprensibili, movendo appena le labbra, mettendo lunghi respiri. La testa di lei, scarna, affilata, scolpita
- 76. rigidamente dalla penitenza e dal digiuno, ingiallita dal lume della lampada, posava su la bianchezza del guanciale come una effigie mal dorata di santa sopra una raggiera. Piccole ombre violacee segnavano l'interno delle narici, i solchi del collo teso e pieno di corde, le fosse delle gote, le occhiaie d'onde sporgeva grande il globo coperto dalla pelle molle della pálpebra. Ella pareva così il cadavere di una martire, dentro cui scendesse lo spirito di Dio. Benchè quello dei soliloquii notturni non fosse il primo, Orsola sentì freddo in mezzo ai capelli: un terrore improvviso l'assalì e la oppresse. Ella istintivamente si rannicchiò, cercò di allontanarsi dal corpo della sorella ritraendosi su l'orlo della sponda; stette immobile, sospesa negli intervalli di silenzio, con gli occhi fissi su la bocca della dormiente, provando un sordo sussulto in mezzo al petto se quelle labbra si movevano a profferire nuove parole. Ella non comprendeva; ma qualche cosa di lontanamente profondo e di solenne era in quel mormorìo interrotto, un mistero soprannaturale si levava da quel corpo inerte e inconsapevole che parlava senza udire la propria voce. Nella stanza passava l'alito del sepolcro; per la fantasia sconvolta dell'insonne le ombre oscillanti prendevano forme spaventose e minacciose di spettri; l'aria pareva solcata da romori ignoti. Tutte le cose su cui l'allucinata si rifugiava con lo sguardo, tutte le cose si trasformavano e si animavano ed andavano verso di lei. Allora l'idea del castigo e della pena eterna ancora una volta le risorse nella conscienza e la incalzò. Ella si abbattè sotto l'incubo del suo peccato, mettendo in croce le braccia sul petto per difendersi dalle minacce dei demoni, tentando pregare con la lingua impedita dal terrore, aggrappandosi con un supremo slancio all'áncora del pentimento, all'ultima salvezza. Ella si sentiva perduta, chiedeva misericordia dall'intimo del suo cuore al divino Sposo tradito, a Gesù buono e grande, a Colui che perdona. La voce di Camilla si esalava in sospiri, si confondeva in un borboglìo tremulo, si spegneva nella respirazione lenta ed eguale, a mano a mano che l'entusiasmo del sogno mistico si andava placando. Le ombre seguitavano ad oscillare. Non ancora il Crocefisso discendeva
- 77. dalla parete a raccogliere con le dolcissime braccia la pecorella tornante all'ovile. XVII. — Ha detto il Signore per bocca del profeta Gioele, figlio di Petuel: «Avverrà che io spanderò il mio Spirito sopra ogni carne, e i vostri figliuoli e le vostre figliuole profetizzeranno; i vostri vecchi sogneranno sogni, i vostri giovani vedranno visioni.» Questo Spirito di cui gli Apostoli ebbero le primizie e la beatitudine, fu per essi e per noi uno Spirito di verità, uno Spirito di santità e uno Spirito di forza... O divino amore, o sacro legame che unisci il Padre e il Figlio, Spirito onnipotente, fedele consolatore degli afflitti, pénetra negli abissi profondi del nostro cuore e infondici la tua gran luce! — Così predicava Don Gennaro Tierno nella Pentecoste, dall'altare maggiore, volto al popolo ascoltante. Sopra di lui, in alto, la terza persona della SS. Trinità apriva l'arco radioso delle ali d'oro, e nella chiesa l'illuminazione dei ceri spandeva un rossore simile a un riflesso d'incendio. Gli enormi pilastri di pietra sostenenti le due navate, coperti di barbare sculture cristiane, cavalcavano verso l'altare pesantemente; su le pareti gli avanzi dei mosaici rilucevano: qualche testa di Apostolo, qualche braccio rigido di santa, qualche ala d'angelo emergeva ancora nell'offuscamento e nello scrostamento operato dai secoli. Tra i mosaici pendevano piccole navi ex-voto dedicate al tempio dai naufraghi supérstiti. E in mezzo alle pietre rudi e alle croste fosche si elevava agile un gruppo di colonne rosee a spira sorreggenti il pergamo anche marmoreo fiorito di acanti e animato di bassirilievi. — Spandi la tua dolce rugiada su questa terra deserta, a fin che cessi la sua lunga aridità. Manda i raggi celesti del tuo amore fino al santuario dell'anima nostra, a fin che penetrandoci accendano
- 78. fiamme consumatrici delle nostre debolezze, delle nostre negligenze, dei nostri languori! — seguitava il prete, salendo ai supremi culmini della sua eloquenza e della sua potenza vocale. Orsola, da presso, ascoltava, tutta raccolta. Ella si era rifugiata nella casa del Signore, era tornata al talamo; voleva che il Signore la purificasse e la ricevesse un'altra volta nella benignità del suo grande abbracciamento. Quel barbaglio subitaneo di fede la abbacinava, le faceva quasi dimenticare ogni fallo anteriore. Le pareva che subitamente dalla sua anima le macchie si cancellassero e dalla sua carne cadessero le scorie della impurità terrena. Giammai ella si era accostata all'altare di Dio con un più profondo tremito di speranza; giammai aveva ascoltato la parola di Dio con una più lunga ebrezza. Dall'istante in cui l'orrore della dannazione le si levò nella conoscenza, ella si compresse in una specie di raccoglimento cupo, sorvegliando sè stessa, sorvegliando i propri atti, i propri pensieri, i minimi moti pe 'l timore che quella veemenza di pentimento si esalasse, per l'ansia di conservare intatto dentro di sè quel fiore di fede rigermogliato d'improvviso. Fu una specie d'assunzione verso Gesù, con un ripudio di ogni legame umano. Ella si esaltò nella lettura dei libri sacri; si gettò nella contemplazione delle imagini e dei misteri; lottò contro le molli viltà della carne, contro i calori della giornata, contro l'insidie della notte, contro i profumi che le portava il vento, contro il soffio che saliva dai suoi ricordi impuri, contro le voci che parevano vellicarle l'udito e susurrarle segreti nuovi di piacere. Dopo quella settimana solitaria di passione, ella ora deponeva il sacrificio ai piedi dell'altare; beveva il balsamo della parola di Dio, fissando gli occhi in alto alla colomba radiosa e sentendosi a poco a poco naufragare nel pèlago dell'estasi. — Vieni dunque, vieni, dolce consolatore delle anime desolate, rifugio nei pericoli, protettore nella sventura. Vieni, o tu che purifichi l'anime da ogni macchia e ne guarisci le piaghe. Vieni, forza del debole, appoggio di quegli che cade. Vieni, stella dei naviganti, speranza dei poveri, salute di chi è per morire — incalzava Don
- 79. Welcome to our website – the perfect destination for book lovers and knowledge seekers. We believe that every book holds a new world, offering opportunities for learning, discovery, and personal growth. That’s why we are dedicated to bringing you a diverse collection of books, ranging from classic literature and specialized publications to self-development guides and children's books. More than just a book-buying platform, we strive to be a bridge connecting you with timeless cultural and intellectual values. With an elegant, user-friendly interface and a smart search system, you can quickly find the books that best suit your interests. Additionally, our special promotions and home delivery services help you save time and fully enjoy the joy of reading. Join us on a journey of knowledge exploration, passion nurturing, and personal growth every day! ebookbell.com