Teza Doctorala Despre Infinitiv In Limbile Romanice 10395o

Pragmatic Causation in the Rise of the Romance Prepositional Infinitive A statistically-based study with special reference to Spanish, Portuguese and Romanian Dissertation submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

Kim Schulte Trinity College Department of Spanish & Portuguese University of Cambridge

30 September, 2004

Contents Preface Declaration . . . . . . . . Acknowledgements . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . A brief r´esum´e of chapters

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

v v v vi vii

1 Motivation and theoretical parameters 1.1 Why Romance? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2 The choice of languages examined . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2.1 Spanish and Portuguese: internally motivated divergence . . . 1.2.2 Romanian: evolution in isolation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3 Theoretical parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3.1 Categories and constructions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3.2 Categories in diachrony . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3.3 Dependent clauses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3.4 Prepositional constructions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3.5 Compound prepositions and conjunctions . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3.6 Arguments for the continued use of traditional category labels 1.4 Pragmatic causation in syntax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.4.1 Synchrony: pragmatic factors in syntactic choice . . . . . . . . 1.4.2 Diachrony: pragmatic factors in syntactic change . . . . . . . . 1.5 Statistical analysis: reasons and methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.5.1 Why statistics? – The motivation for a statistical approach . . 1.5.2 Data selection and statistical procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1 1 2 3 5 6 6 8 9 14 16 17 19 20 21 23 23 26

2 From Latin to Romance 2.1 Finite subordination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1.1 Conjunctional subordination . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1.2 Asyndetic finite dependent clauses . . . . . . . . . . 2.1.3 Hypotaxis with underspecified subordinator . . . . . 2.2 Infinitival subordination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.1 Subject infinitives without overt subject S 2 . . . . . 2.2.2 Object infinitives without overt subject S 2 . . . . . . 2.2.3 Infinitives with overt subjects: the AcI . . . . . . . . 2.3 Non-infinitival nominal dependent clauses in Latin . . . . . 2.3.1 The gerund . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.2 Participial dependent constructions . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.3 The gerundive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.4 The supine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4 The fate of Latin nominal dependent structures in Romance 2.4.1 Loss of the gerundive in Romance . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

31 31 31 34 35 36 36 37 37 41 41 43 45 46 47 47

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

i

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

ii

CONTENTS

2.5

2.4.2 The supine in Romance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4.3 Underspecified gerundial and participial clauses . . 2.4.4 Prepositional gerunds and participles in Romance 2.4.5 Overt subjects in gerundial and participial clauses Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

3 The infinitive in Spanish and Portuguese today 3.1 Non-overt subjects of infinitival clauses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1.1 Some different approaches to the syntax of infinitival clauses . . 3.1.2 An integrated syntactico-pragmatic approach . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1.3 The dominant role of coreferentiality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2 Infinitives with overt subject in Spanish . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.1 Overt S2 in finite clauses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.2 Overt S2 in Spanish infinitival clauses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.3 Referential properties and discourse pragmatic function . . . . . 3.2.4 Distribution of the OSI in Spanish . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.5 Position of the overt subject in Spanish . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3 Overt subject marking in Portuguese infinitival clauses . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.1 The syntax of the inflected infinitive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.2 The OSI-construction as alternative to finite dependent clauses? 3.3.3 The ambiguity parameter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.4 Position of the overt subject in Portuguese . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4 The infinitive: nominal or verbal? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4.1 The one-dimensional continuum model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4.2 Classification of the Latin infinitive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4.3 Is the Romance infinitive verbal or nominal? . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

47 49 51 52 56

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

57 57 57 63 69 73 73 75 76 79 81 84 85 88 91 93 95 95 96 98

4 Diachronic development of the infinitive in Spanish 4.1 Prepositional and non-prepositional infinitives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2 Prepositional infinitives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.1 Semantically underspecified constructions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.2 Decreasing frequency of por + infinitive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.3 Increasing frequency of existing prepositional infinitives . . . . . . . . 4.2.4 A special case: al + infinitive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.5 The rise of new prepositional infinitives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.6 Semantic grouping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3 Infinitival clauses and their finite counterparts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.1 Prepositional infinitives postdating their finite counterparts . . . . . . 4.3.2 Prepositional infinitives predating their finite counterparts . . . . . . . 4.3.3 Conjunctional and prepositional clauses present from the earliest texts 4.3.4 Finite and infinitival clauses by semantic class . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4 Discussion of the Spanish diachronic data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4.1 The central role of subject reference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4.2 Coreferentiality and pragmatic relevance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4.3 Statistical peculiarities during the Golden Age . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

105 105 107 108 109 110 112 113 118 120 121 123 124 125 128 130 132 134

5 Portuguese and Spanish developments compared 5.1 Similarities and differences in diachronic development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1.1 A comparison of the overall frequency of prepositional infinitives . . . . 5.1.2 Similar developments in Spanish and Portuguese . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1.3 Portuguese prepositional infinitives predating their Spanish counterparts 5.1.4 Underspecified prepositional infinitives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . .

137 137 137 138 140 142

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

CONTENTS

5.2

iii

5.1.5 Discussion of the data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . OSIs and the inflected infinitive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2.1 History of the Portuguese personal infinitive . . . . . . . . . . 5.2.2 The history of Spanish OSI construction . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2.3 OSI in Spanish and Portuguese: the larger diachronic picture

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

143 144 144 149 152

6 The infinitive in Romanian 6.1 The present-day situation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.1.1 Exclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.1.2 Temporal and modal auxiliary verbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.1.3 Infinitival indirect Wh-questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.1.4 Intrinsically coreferential verbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.1.5 Optionally coreferential main verbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.1.6 Non-coreferential main verbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.1.7 Subject complements and impersonal expressions . . . . . . 6.1.8 Prepositional complementizer or morphological marker? . . 6.2 Synchronic use of prepositional infinitives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2.1 Finite and non-finite adjuncts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2.2 Noun complements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2.3 Summary and analysis of the synchronic data . . . . . . . . 6.3 Diachronic development of the prepositional infinitive . . . . . . . 6.3.1 The situation in Old Romanian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3.2 The evolution of the prepositional infinitive . . . . . . . . . 6.3.3 The proportion of infinitival and finite clauses through time 6.4 Pragmatic causation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.4.1 The subject of Romanian infinitival clauses . . . . . . . . . 6.4.2 Romanian in comparison with Spanish and Portuguese . . . 6.5 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

157 157 158 158 161 162 164 165 166 167 168 168 169 170 171 171 173 176 177 177 179 183

7 Relevance and reanalysis: prepositional complementizers 7.1 The emergence of prepositional complementizers . . . . . . . . 7.1.1 The origin of prepositional infinitives . . . . . . . . . . . 7.1.2 From adjunct to complement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.2 Subsequent development of prepositional complementizers . . . 7.2.1 Romanian: analogical levelling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.2.2 Maintaining a balance between several complementizers 7.3 Diachronic statistical development of de and a . . . . . . . . . . 7.4 Ongoing grammaticalization of para/pra in Portuguese . . . . . 7.5 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

185 185 185 186 188 188 190 191 193 194

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

8 Conclusion and scope for future work

195

References

197

Appendix A: Spanish texts

207

Appendix B: Portuguese texts

213

Appendix C: Romanian texts

221

Preface Declaration This dissertation is the result of my own work and includes nothing which is the outcome of work done in collaboration. It does not exceed the limit of 80,000 words set by the Modern and Medieval Languages Degree Committee.

Acknowledgements I would like to thank my supervisor Chris Pountain, as well as Teresa de Carlos, Rosalina Gul˜ao, Martin Maiden, Peter Matthews, April McMahon, and Francis Nolan for making my university education a pleasant and interesting experience. I am also grateful to my first Spanish teacher, Monika Palm-Coenen, and to Dominic Church, Guy Deutscher, Paul Heggarty, Luisa Miceli, Marcus Meyer, Urs Schulte, Alexandra Stavinschi, and Janick Wrona for their personal and academic . Special thanks to Kai for his indispensable assistance in all computational matters, to Marcus Br¨ uggen for his help with SympaTeX, and of course to my mother and father. Finally, I am also grateful to Trinity College for the vast amount of money ungrudgingly spent on me. Virtus vera nobilitas.

v

vi

PREFACE

Summary The dissertation examines the development of ‘prepositional infinitive’ constructions, which are absent from Latin but have since developed in the majority of the Romance languages. After a discussion of the motivation for a statistically-based approach and some theoretical issues this involves, the dissertation begins by comparing the types of clausal subordination available in Latin with those available in modern Romance, and with a detailed analysis of the factors triggering the choice of dependent infinitives, with and without overt subject, in modern Spanish and Portuguese. This is followed by a diachronic statistical analysis in which the evolution of individual prepositional infinitive constructions in Spanish, Portuguese, and Romanian is charted from the time of the earliest preserved documents onwards. The analysis of the data reveals that the relative chronology of these constructions’ emergence and rise in frequency is very similar within each of the three languages; what differs considerably is the point in time at which prepositional infinitives appear in the respective languages, and their rate of expansion. This is linked to the fact that, across all three languages, the statistical likelihood of speakers using certain constructions more frequently than others plays a central role in the way prepositional infinitives have evolved, and consequently also in their present-day distribution.

´ ´ OF CHAPTERS A BRIEF RESUM E

vii

A brief r´ esum´ e of chapters Chapter 1: Motivation and theoretical parameters The first chapter begins by explaining why the Romance languages are a valuable field of study in Historical Linguistics, and why the specific languages chosen for this study were picked. This is followed by a section discussing some fundamental theoretical parameters and definitions of . The final two sections illuminate how pragmatics can interact with syntactic change, and how diachronic statistical analysis can reveal such processes, leading on to a discussion of the sources used to provide the data, and of the principles and procedures applied.

Chapter 2: From Latin to Romance Chapter 2 provides a survey of the different types of finite and non-finite dependent clauses in Latin, and to what extent they have survived into Romance. Special attention is paid to the link between the syntactic construction chosen for a dependent clause and the semantic as well as pragmatic implications of this choice. In particular, the mechanism of semantic underspecification is found to be exploited for the purpose of pragmatic backgrounding.

Chapter 3: The infinitive in Spanish and Portuguese today Chapter 3 consists of four main sections. The first section examines the ways in which a subject is assigned to infinitival clauses. After a presentation of a number of existing syntactic and semantic models, a decision tree model integrating syntactic and pragmatic factors into a single system is presented and exemplified. It is then discussed how the pragmatically most likely pattern, coreferentiality, becomes entrenched as the default pattern of subject assignment, and how the existence of such established patterns are exploited semantically. The second and third sections examine infinitival clauses with overt subjects in present-day Spanish and Portuguese, respectively. Several existing analyses regarding this area of syntax are presented, as well as statistical analyses that suggest that the primary function of these constructions is pragmatic, though a different one in each of the two languages. The final section discusses the question whether it can be said that the infinitive has become more nominal or more verbal today than it was in Latin. An approach placing the infinitive along a continuum between the two extremes is discussed, and an alternative two-dimensional classificatory model is proposed. This model, which looks at the internal and the external syntax of infinitival clauses as two separate parameters, is then applied to the infinitive in Latin, modern Spanish, and medieval Spanish. Finally, a possible link between the demise of morphological case and an increase in the use of infinitives is discussed.

Chapter 4: Diachronic development of the infinitive in Spanish Chapter 4 consists mainly of a statistical analysis of the evolution of the prepositional infinitive in Spanish since the early Middle Ages. In the first section, usage frequencies of the prepositional

viii

PREFACE

infinitive are presented, sorted both by individual preposition and by semantic criteria. This is followed by a statistical comparison of finite and infinitival dependent clauses through time, and by a discussion of the results and possible reasons for the developments observed.

Chapter 5: Portuguese and Spanish developments compared The first part of Chapter 5 compares the diachronic statistical development of a number of individual prepositional infinitives, as well as of this group of constructions as a whole, in Spanish and Portuguese, pointing out similarities and differences in the chronology of developments in the two languages. In the light of this data, the likelihood of the previously suggested pragmatic mechanisms being the driving force behind the spread of the prepositional infinitive in both languages is then reassessed and confirmed. The second part of the chapter consists of a detailed diachronic analysis of infinitival clauses with overt subjects. A separate diachronic analysis of these constructions for Spanish and Portuguese is followed by a comparison of those developments, in which it is concluded that their origin is largely similar, but the subsequent development has led to their differing present-day usage patterns.

Chapter 6: The infinitive in Romanian Chapter 6 begins with a discussion of the status of the infinitive in Romanian, and of the claim that it plays only a marginal role in modern Romanian syntax. This is followed by a survey comparing the use of the infinitive in Romanian with that in the other Romance languages. Attention then focuses on the prepositional infinitive, both on its synchronic distribution and on its diachronic development. The final section analyses and evaluates the data and compares the findings with the corresponding results for Spanish and Portuguese in the previous chapters. The similarities that can be observed are shown to be the result of more frequent pragmatic usage patterns becoming entrenched at the expense of less frequent ones.

Chapter 7: Relevance and reanalysis: prepositional complementizers Chapter 7 traces the prepositional complementizers a and de, which often have a purely functional role in modern Romance, back to their origin as a meaningful part of adverbial clauses via a progressive process of reanalysis and semantic bleaching, and offers a tentative explanation for the different results of this process in Ibero- and Daco-Romance. This is ed by the presentation of a similar, ongoing process, the incipient reanalysis or grammaticalization of Portuguese para/pra, which may currently be on a path towards becoming a complementizer.

Chapter 8: Conclusion and scope for future work In the final chapter, the differences and similarities between the individual languages, presented in the previous chapters, are summarized. The results lead to the conclusion that the pragmatics of language usage have played an important role in the development of the prepositional infinitive, regarding the way it has spread as well as the functional shifts it has experienced through time. Though there are certain differences in the way prepositional infinitives are used in the

´ ´ OF CHAPTERS A BRIEF RESUM E

ix

three languages, it is observed that the pragmatic mechanisms involved in their development are in many ways the same. This raises the question whether we may be dealing with universally valid pragmatic principles. To determine whether this is the case, a more extensive cross-linguistic analysis going beyond the Romance domain is called for.

Chapter 1

Motivation and theoretical parameters 1.1

Why Romance?

This dissertation is a study of a specific area in the syntax of one branch 1 of a particular language family, but many of the observations and conclusions drawn are not necessarily limited to the Romance languages, as they illuminate more general mechanisms in the syntactic and semantic evolution of languages. As Jaeggli (1986: ix) points out, the Romance languages “have [in recent years] been investigated in depth to gain insights into issues concerning abstract formal structures, matters of linguistic variation [...] and theories concerning language change”, and their study has had an “impact on the development of ideas in linguistics.” The Romance languages traditionally have a privileged position among the languages subjected to linguistic analysis. This is partly due to the fact that, for cultural reasons, many linguists are well acquainted with certain Romance varieties, particularly French, and with their historical source language, Latin. However, there are also more scientific reasons that make Romance a particularly rewarding area of research, especially for the linguist with diachronic interests. First, this branch of IndoEuropean is among the best documented of the world’s languages, with the earliest Latin texts dating back to well before the third century B.C., and we have a rich and varied range of documents from many geographically diverse Latinized areas. This does not mean that the available documents provide information about all stages or s of the language or languages spoken by the population. In particular, there is a large gap in our knowledge of the period between the first century A.D. and the appearance of the first vernacular texts. Though “written Latin from every century survives on manuscript” (Wright, 1982: ix), they do not represent the precursors of what became the Romance Languages, but a continuation of an older linguistic norm. The exact linguistic situation during this period is subject to a great deal of controversy; for instance, it is not clear when speakers began consciously to distinguish between their vernacular and the formal Latin used in official contexts. Indeed, there is evidence that even during the ‘Classical Latin’ period, an evolved form of popular Latin was already in use, either only in some less educated classes of the population, or perhaps in 1

The Romance languages, a branch of the Indo-European language family, can of course be subdivided into further sub-branches.

1

2

CHAPTER 1. MOTIVATION AND THEORETICAL PARAMETERS

everyone’s spoken language. The situation is further complicated by the fact that regional features would have started to develop even during the time of the Roman empire, and there is considerable disagreement among scholars as to whether there was widespread Latin/vernacular bilingualism, and what the exact relationship between Late Latin and Early Romance was. In his article on the highly variable use of the term ‘Vulgar Latin’, Lloyd (1979) presents a wide range of theories on the exact nature of the language linking Classical Latin and the Romance languages; Wright (1982) examines the period between the end of the Roman Empire and the appearance of the first vernacular documents, concluding that speakers did not, before that point, understand the variety of Latin they spoke as anything other than Latin. That the spoken language of the day differed increasingly from Classical Latin is documented by the fact that the Council of Tours in 813 refers to the common spoken language of the day as RUSTICA ROMANA LINGUA, which is understood to have a linguistic status similar to that of THEOTISCA LINGUA, i.e. German. By the time of the first preserved documents in local vernacular, i.e. in the 9th century in 2 , in the 12th century in Iberia, and as late as the 16 th century in Romania, we are clearly dealing with languages that are different both from Latin and from each other. Though some information about the earlier stages of Romance is provided by regularly occurring ‘mistakes’ and glosses in Latin texts, many details of the linguistic evolution during this period can only be reconstructed. But whilst most linguistic reconstruction arrives at a hypothetical protolanguage, the Romance languages offer the advantage that the Classical Latin documents provide ample information where a reconstruction must ultimately lead; its accuracy can thus easily be verified. For instance, the absence in Classical Latin of the construction examined in this thesis, the ‘prepositional infinitive’, means that its emergence must be reconstructed as part of the interim linguistic stages. A further reason why the Romance languages are of particular value in Historical Linguistics is the fact that the documented development of several sister languages can be compared over a period of several centuries between the Middle Ages and today. Beyond the mere observation that branching development has led to the numerous differences between the modern Romance varieties, this allows us to trace back some of these developments to their point of origin. This may allow us to pinpoint the factors involved in causing a change to occur in one variety but not in another, and to identify which conditions may be responsible for similar but independent developments in more than one variety. Such findings will add to our understanding of linguistic change and its causes on a more general level, and be of assistance in the reconstruction of less well-documented language families.

1.2

The choice of languages examined

A detailed analysis of the evolution of the syntactic structure under investigation cannot, here, be undertaken for all Romance languages and varieties, even if it was possible to define a series of discrete varieties. This study will focus mainly on Spanish, Portuguese, and Romanian; the differences and parallels observable between these sample languages can provide particularly valuable insights into the processes involved, for the following reasons.

2

The Serments de Strasbourg (842 A.D.) are the earliest known Romance vernacular text.

1.2. THE CHOICE OF LANGUAGES EXAMINED

1.2.1

3

Spanish and Portuguese: internally motivated divergence

According to one of the traditional classificatory systems of the Romance languages, Spanish and Portuguese are representatives of Western Romance 3 , and geographically located in the extreme West of the Romance-speaking area in Europe. Not only are the territories in which these two languages are spoken adjacent, but also largely isolated from non-Romance languages from a geographic point of view. Two pre-Latin substrate languages of Iberia, Basque and IberoCeltic have left some phonological, morphological and lexical traces, but no substrate features are known to have entered the Romance syntactic system (Lapesa, 1980: 36-52), so syntactic differences between Spanish and Portuguese cannot be attributed to different substrate influence. It is unlikely that the varieties (or mixtures of different varieties) spoken by the Roman colonizers varied greatly or in any systematic way between the areas that now constitute Spain and Portugal. Nor did the subsequent impact of linguistic with non-Romance languages, in particular with Arabic, have a significant differentiating effect across the Iberian Peninsula. On the one hand, the territories of modern-day Spain and Portugal were not separate countries under Moorish rule, and thus subjected to broadly the same cultural influence. On the other hand, though the Moors invaded Iberia in 711 A.D., had occupied most of it by 718 A.D., and remained a powerful cultural influence until the end of the 15 th century, the linguistic impact of their presence did not go much beyond lexical borrowing. Galm´es de Fuentes (1996) identifies a number of syntactic and stylistic Arabisms in medieval Castilian prose, many of which are, however, merely an increased use of structures already present in Old Spanish, such as an increased use of infinitives as true verbal nouns (ibid., 174-179). Some Arabisms, such as paranomastic constructions of the type burla burlando, he says, entered the popular language and resurfaced in the popular literature of the Golden Age, but “los arabismos sint´acticos, que de la lengua literaria del XIII no hab´ıan pasadao a la coloquial, desaparecen definitivamente, por lo general, en los siglos de presi´on latinizante.”(Galm´es, 1996: 233) Most historical s of Spanish and Portuguese (e.g. Green, 1988; Parkinson, 1988) do not note any significant lasting syntactic influence of Arabic, whilst Lapesa (1980: 151-152) mentions that verb-first word order is more common in Spanish and Portuguese than in other Romance varieties, which may be attributable to Arabic or Hebrew influence (Crabb, 1955). With a common ancestor language and common external influence, Spanish and Portuguese have nevertheless developed in markedly different ways in some areas, most obviously perhaps in their phonology, but also in certain areas of morpho-syntax. One of these areas, the differing use of the infinitive, is the topic of this study. As the external conditions and influences do not differ significantly, the motivation for their diverging development must – barring random or spontaneous changes – be differing patterns of usage in the different speech communities. If, for instance, a structure is used in a potentially ambiguous way more frequently by the of one of the communities, this will increase the likelihood of its reanalysis, as illustrated in the following example of ambiguity between pluperfect indicative and imperfect subjunctive: 1. Span.: Me inform´o que talvez lo hiciera el d´ıa anterior. me inform3rd.sg.pret that perhaps it do3rd.sg.past.subj the day previous.

He informed me that perhaps he did it the previous day.

3 This classification is originally put forward by Wartburg (1950) based on the merger of the Latin vowels ˘I/E ¯ and U/ ˘ O ¯ in ‘Western Romance’. The validity of a genetic classification based on a single vowel merger is dubious and much disputed; numerous alternative classifications based on lexical and syntactic features have been proposed, a number of which are listed in Posner (1996: 196-202). Nevertheless, the similarity between Spanish and Portuguese in comparison with other Romance varieties is largely undisputed.

4

CHAPTER 1. MOTIVATION AND THEORETICAL PARAMETERS 2. Port.: Informou-me que o fizera talvez no dia anterior. inform3rd.sg.pret that it do3rd.sg.pluperf.indic perhaps in.the day previous

He informed me that perhaps he had done it the previous day.

In the Spanish example, hiciera is past subjunctive; in the Portuguese sentence, the cognate fizera is pluperfect indicative. Both sentences are, nevertheless, grammatically correct and semantically virtually equivalent. Until the end of the Middle Ages, Spanish, like Portuguese to the present day, preserved the pluperfect indicative function of the -ra-paradigm inherited from Latin (FECERAT) 4 , but it subsequently came to be used as the imperfect subjunctive. 5 There is no compelling structural need for such a shift; on the contrary, it leaves Spanish without a synthetic pluperfect, while the -ra-form takes on a function for which the (largely) 6 synonymous -se-form is already available. So what might the motivation for such a shift be? A facilitating factor is definitely the crosslinguistically attested conceptual link between temporal remoteness and non-assertion/counterfactuality, as found, for instance, in the English backshift of tenses in counterfactual conditions. But if this were the only factor, and if we accept that the source language and the external influences were the same for both languages, we should expect the same development in Portuguese. The decisive difference lies not in the structure itself, but in its actual usage by of the two speech communities. The examples above illustrate the potential structural ambiguity between a pluperfect and a past subjunctive, but give no indication how likely it is that such ambiguity will actually arise in real communicative contexts. Occasional ambiguity is unlikely to have a structural effect, but if structure A (the pluperfect) can equally be understood to be structure B (the imperfect subjunctive) in a large number of pragmatic contexts, this can lead language s to perceive a lack of functional opposition, which in turn facilitates full reanalysis. What this implies is that structural differences between Spanish and Portuguese are the consequence of differences in actual language usage, which consists of individual utterances. Each utterance is itself the result of an individual cognitive process by a speaker, in the course of which he can make certain choices. Such a choice can be arbitrary, but may frequently be determined by social and cultural factors, such as whether the speaker feels that one construction is situationally more appropriate in of style, , expressive force, etc. than the other. These social conventions will unavoidably vary between different linguistic communities, and therefore so will the overall usage frequency. But the more often a certain construction is used in a language, the more likely it is to become entrenched as the typical or default construction, which in the case of originally ambiguous constructions results in reanalysis and syntactic change. The fact that usage-based pragmatic differences are likely to be the main factor responsible for differential developments in Spanish and Portuguese makes the two languages a valuable object of comparative linguistic research, since a wider range of potential causes would unavoidably obscure the role played by each one.

4

Penny (1991: 171) Note that the -ra-form retains numerous non-subjunctival uses in different varieties of Spanish; for a full , see Hermer´en (1992). 6 Martinell Gifre (1985) argues that the degree of subjunctivity of the -ra-form is weaker than that of the -se-form. 5

1.2. THE CHOICE OF LANGUAGES EXAMINED

1.2.2

5

Romanian: evolution in isolation

The situation of the third language examined, Romanian 7 , stands in marked contrast to that of Spanish and Portuguese described above. In the traditional division of the Romance-speaking world into Eastern and Western Romance 8 , Romanian falls into the Eastern Romance category, but it differs particularly strongly from other Romance languages (including Eastern Romance varieties) due to its geographical and long-lasting cultural isolation from the rest of the Romancespeaking area. There are two principle sources for non-Romance features in Romanian. On the one hand, Roman rule in the Dacia province was limited to a period of approximately 150 years, a fact that may be credited for the comparatively high degree of substrate influence from the local pre-Roman Thracian, Illyrian, Getian and Dacian populations. Substrate influence is understood to be responsible not only for a considerable number of lexical items (cf. Poghirc, 1969: 327-356; Russu, 1981), but also for phonological, morphological and syntactic features shared with Albanian, such as the morpheme //-ne// on the disjunctive pronouns mine, tine, sine, and the ‘possessive article’ (cf. du Nay, 1996: II.F). On the other hand, Romanian has been strongly influenced by areal convergence within the Balkan Sprachbund. Sprachb¨ unde or linguistic convergence areas, as first identified by Trubetzkoy in 1928 (Trubetzkoy, 1930: 17-18) 9 , contain “languages belonging to more than one family but showing traits in common which are found not to belong to the other of (at least) one of the families” (Emeneau, 1956: 16). The Balkans are one of the most frequently studied Sprachb¨ unde, in which varying degrees of convergence between Greek, Albanian, Slavic, Romance, Turkish and Hungarian have been identified. Under these circumstances, it comes as no surprise that many structural changes, among which the area of clausal subordination has acquired a prominent position, have been attributed either to straightforward borrowing or to linguistic convergence (e.g. Joseph, 1983). This has, in fact, been such a dominant theory that scholars like Bari´c (1961) often feel the need to justify any theory that proposes independent development and language-internally motivated changes. It can, however, be argued that the long period of isolation from other Romance varieties, especially in its formative phase during which an absence of linguistic norms and standards prevailed in the speech of the people, makes Romanian a particularly valuable object of comparative Romance philology. Though influence from the extremely varied surrounding linguistic area presents us with a wide range of potential factors contributing to structural changes, a central concept in the Sprachbund theory is the idea of mutual influence and t parallel development, rather than unidirectional borrowing. This implies that there is some likelihood of structural shifts being internally motivated, even if they occur in a similar fashion in surrounding areas. If it can be shown that comparable internally motivated changes have taken place in Ibero- and Daco-Romance, particularly if the resulting structures in Romanian are not Sprachbund features shared with other Balkan languages, this would suggest that linguistic drift may be involved. This could either be the type of drift described by Sapir (1921: 150 ff.), in which the linguistic structure inherited from an earlier stage of a language, in this case Latin, favours certain types 7

I will be primarily concerned with Daco-Romanian. Any reference to a different Daco-Romance variety will be pointed out as such. 8 cf. footnote 3. 9 In fact, Trubetzkoy had previously already coined the Russian term jazykovoj sojuz in 1923, but as the publication was concerned mainly with theological rather than linguistic issues, linguists adopted the corresponding German term, first used by him in 1928.

6

CHAPTER 1. MOTIVATION AND THEORETICAL PARAMETERS

of change. Alternatively, we may be dealing with a more universal or “natural” drift, explained by Aitchison (1991: 133-134) as the indirect result of “universal mental tendencies” that cause similar patterns of change in different, not necessarily related languages. Romanian can thus provide linguistic insights not available from any of the varieties in the dialect continuum between Apulia and the Algarve, in which cross-dialectal influence and borrowing is much more difficult to disprove 10 . One point to keep in mind in any study comparing Romanian and other Romance varieties is the fact that certain strata of Romanian society were subjected to intense with French, and to a lesser degree with Italian, in the 19 th and the first half of the 20th century. Apart from vast amounts of vocabulary, this has allowed some French syntactic patterns to enter the language. In literary this is indisputable 11 , but as the use of French was essentially limited to the educated classes, it is doubtful how much genuine syntactic borrowing into the spoken language of the people took place. It appears more likely that independently evolved cognate structures were already present, and that French influence merely reinforced or modified their usage. In fact, Sørensen (1957: 133) even goes as far as claiming that “it is a necessary condition that there should exist in the receiving language certain innate tendencies and possibilities with which the foreign idiom does not clash”.12 It is, however, necessary to take this ‘re-Romancing tendency’ (Mallinson, 1988: 418) into to avoid premature conclusions about parallel developments in the two languages.

1.3

Theoretical parameters

The approach chosen for this dissertation is a cognitive, construction-based one. Though reference to work conducted within other frameworks will be made at various points, the object and methodology of the present study differs fundamentally from that of many formalist approaches in that its primary aim is not to provide an abstract description of linguistic structures beyond the observable level. Instead, it attempts to provide explanations for syntactic changes by focusing on the effects of observable usage patterns, usage frequency and the role of the language .

1.3.1

Categories and constructions

Whilst grammarians and linguists traditionally attempt to subdivide language into discrete categories, Croft (2004) convincingly proves that uniform syntactic categories can neither be established among different languages, nor within a single language. Syntactic categories are generally understood to consist of elements that have the same syntactic distribution; hip of a particular category can be established by ing whether or not an element does or does not participate in the same range of constructions or transformations as its fellow category . However, Croft shows that hip of classes established by this method varies considerably, depending on which distributional tests one chooses to consider 10

This is not to say that the same feature cannot arise independently in separate dialects of the continuum. The inflected infinitive in Portuguese and Old Neapolitan (cf. Ledgeway, 2000: 109-14) is just one example. 11 An example of this is the influence of French on the resurgence of the ive with a fi, (Mallinson, 1988: 418) 12 A similar observation is made by Pountain (1994: 121; 1999: 36-38), stating that syntactic influence from English does not lead to significant structural innovation in Spanish, but rather encourages the fuller and more effective use of similar structures already present.

1.3. THEORETICAL PARAMETERS

7

diagnostic of class hip. A simple Spanish example of this is the distinction between the classes ‘direct object’ and ‘oblique object’. One distributional test to establish which of these two classes a constituent belongs to is whether or not it is linked to the verb by a preposition. According to this criterion, ‘el gato’ in (3a) and ‘cien kilos’ in (5a) are direct objects, whereas el profesor in (4a) is not. 3. a. Pedro acaricia el gato. Peter strokes the cat. b. El gato es acariciado por Pedro. The cat is stroked by Peter. 4. a. Pedro habla con el profesor. Peter talks to the teacher. b.∗El profesor es hablado por Pedro. 13 The teacher is talked (to) by Peter. 5. a. Pedro pesa cien kilos. Peter weighs 100 kg. b.∗Cien kilos son pesados por Pedro. 100 kg are weighed by Peter. A second test that might be applied to determine hip of the class ‘direct object’ is ivization: direct objects can appear as the subject of a corresponding ive sentence, whereas oblique ones cannot. According to this criterion, ‘el gato’ in (3b) is again classified as direct object, and ‘el profesor’ in (4b) once again does not fall into this class. But ‘cien kilos’ in (4b), which the previous test identified as a direct object, is not a direct object according to the second test, as it cannot appear as the subject of the ivized sentence. In other words, whether or not something can be classified as a direct object depends on the distributional tests we choose to apply; different tests provide conflicting classifications. One way of dealing with this difficulty is simply to pick one distributional test as the authoritative one. For instance, one might decide that the absence or presence of a preposition is the determining factor for classification, and that ‘cien kilos’ is thus a direct object, but that some exceptional feature prohibits it from participating in the ive construction. However, this would arbitrarily give primacy to one distributional test over another: had we decided that participation in the ive construction is the determining factor for classification, ‘cien kilos’ would not be considered a direct object. As there is no good reason why one of the distributional patterns should be given primacy over the other, Croft concludes that syntactic categories are construction-specific, rather than being valid for a language as a whole. According to this approach, (3-5) can be said to represent three different constructions: (I) one that permits a prepositionless argument and also permits this argument to appear as the subject in the corresponding ive sentence (3), (II) one that permits a prepositionless argument but does not permit it to appear as the subject in the corresponding ive sentence (5), and (III) one that permits neither a prepositionless argument, nor its appearance as as the subject in the corresponding ive sentence (4). Each of these three constructions is restricted in of the range of verbs14 that can participate in it. Verbs such as acariciar ‘to stroke’, ver ‘to see’, 13

This sentence becomes no more grammatical in Spanish if one were to incorporate the preposition con in any way. 14 The category such as ‘verb’ and ‘transitive verb’ are, of course, themselves construction-specific. Traditional terminology is used here for the sake of simplicity.

8

CHAPTER 1. MOTIVATION AND THEORETICAL PARAMETERS

leer ‘to read’ can participate in (I), as can pesar ‘to weigh’ (e.g. ‘Pedro pesa la fruta.’/‘La fruta es pesada pr Pedro.’ (Peter weighs the fruit./The fruit is weighed by Peter.)) In construction (II), a wide range of verbs can participate, including most transitive verbs. The range of verbs that can participate in (III) is somewhat smaller; it includes pesar ‘to weigh’, medir ‘to measure’ and costar ‘to cost’. It should be noted that the meaning of each construction goes beyond the sum of its components’ meaning; for instance construction (I) with pesar has a somewhat different meaning than construction (III) with pesar. In this section it has been argued that there are no absolute syntactic categories. That is not to say that it is pointless or impossible to group together certain elements that show certain parallels in their syntactic behaviour across constructions (cf. Section 1.3.6). But rather than defining hip in a category for the language as a whole on the basis of one randomly chosen distributional test, it is more appropriate to establish classes of elements on the basis of their distribution pattern in a particular construction.

1.3.2

Categories in diachrony

As already mentioned in Section 1.2.1, it is largely uncontroversial that most syntactic change is triggered by various types of reanalysis. The principle of reanalysis is such that the semantic contributions of the components in a particular construction, itself conveying a particular meaning, are remapped among these components. Crucially, the construction as a whole does not take on a radically new meaning in this process, nor can any formal changes be observed. In other words, reanalysis is initially only a mental remapping of which components within the construction correspond to which components of its meaning. The reanalysis first becomes visible in the subsequent process of ‘actualization’, constituted by the use of the construction in novel ways that are compatible with the reanalysed structure, but would be incompatible with the original one. An important point to be made is that change triggered by reanalysis is not an abrupt process that causes a sudden switch from one category to another. Consider the case of the Romance definite article, derived from the Latin demonstrative ILLE. Its increasing use in Late Latin, in contexts that do not require a demonstrative pronoun, is a clear instance of reanalysis. But rather than suddenly switching from the category ‘pronoun’ to the category ‘article’, it was used in a gradually increasing number of contexts, initially where a demonstrative pronoun might have been appropriate at an earlier stage, then gradually spreading to contexts where Classical Latin would under no circumstances have permitted the demonstrative pronoun. In other words, neither the category ‘demonstrative pronoun’, nor the category ‘definite article’, as defined on the basis of modern Romance, would be an appropriate choice for its status during the transitional period. Other cases of reanalysis show a similar defiance of categorizability. In early French, for instance, the particle pas appears to fall somewhere between the categories of ‘emphatic particle’ and ‘negative marker’ (cf. e.g. Price, 1984: 252; McMahon, 1994: 163). The gradual nature of the increase in the negative force of pas was made possible by the continuing presence of the original negative marker ne, so that varying degrees of negative force could be attributed to each of the elements while the negative force of the complete construction ‘ne...pas’ remained unaffected. Similarly, a+infinitive in the earliest Romanian documents must be situated somewhere on the borderline between final adjunct and complement (cf. Section 6.3.1, example (310)). What these examples show is that in a diachronic syntactic study of any kind, much care has

1.3. THEORETICAL PARAMETERS

9

to be taken with the use of concepts that may be appropriate for synchronic linguistic analysis. Following Croft (2001, 2004), it was argued in Section 1.3.1 that syntactic categories are construction-specific; this section has provided evidence that, diachronically speaking, constructions themselves are variable entities which are subject to gradual, non-discrete change. A synthesis of these two observations must lead to the conclusion that using a fixed set of discrete categories would be methodologically inappropriate for the examination of syntactic change. It would, in fact, defeat the purpose of diachronic linguistic analysis, which is to examine the path along which structures have evolved, if we were to force all evolutionary stages into a single, rigid syntactic framework. Syntactic categories can, however, be a useful descriptive tool if they are not used as a straitjacket that a language must be forced into at any cost, but are understood merely as cornerstones between which the elements of a language are located and can move around freely; in Section 1.3.6 it will be further discussed in how far the concept of syntactic categories is compatible with the description and analysis of syntactic change.

1.3.3

Dependent clauses

In a study that investigates the development of constructions involving clausal subordination, it is important to discuss some different proposals regarding the nature and categorizability of subordinate clauses. The discussion in this section will centre on whether a discrete subdivision is realistic and useful, especially in a framework that assumes structural changes to be gradual and construction-specific. The term dependent clause will be used to refer specifically to subordinate clauses that are dependent on a main clause15 . The term ‘dependent clause’ covers all clauses which, depending on theoretical framework or personal preference, are variably referred to as complement clause or clausal argument on the one hand, as well as those known as adjuncts, adverbial clauses or peripheral elements on the other. Such a categorical distinction between different types of dependent clauses is not made by all linguists; the term complement, from French compl´ement, has traditionally been used in Romance linguistics to refer to both types of dependent clauses 16 but the use of which clashes with the more restricted use of complement in recent syntactic theories. Doubts concerning the validity of a clear distinction between these two types of dependent clauses have also been raised by cognitive linguists over the past years (cf. e.g. Langacker, 1987). As the distinction between complements and adjuncts is usually understood to be semantic as well as syntactic, these two areas will be discussed separately. The semantic complement <—> adjunct continuum Among the semantic criteria most frequently proposed for the distinction between complements and adjuncts (e.g. Matthews, 1981: 124-25) is the clearly semantic notion of whether the respective element is necessary as an integral participant or part in an event, or whether it provides circumstantial or additional background information to the event. For instance, in a sentence such as (6), ‘su cartera’ is a necessary part of the event, whereas the location ‘en el parque’ is a circumstantial dependent that provides additional background information about the event; 15 These will be used throughout most of the present dissertation, but when discussing generative theories, I will adopt the corresponding labels ‘embedded clause’ and ‘matrix clause’. 16 Pountain (1998: 395-405), for example, subdivides complement clauses into ‘object complements’, ‘subject complements’ and ‘prepositional complements’, the latter (e.g. ‘...sin ella decir nada.’) largely corresponding to what in other frameworks might be considered an adjunct.

10

CHAPTER 1. MOTIVATION AND THEORETICAL PARAMETERS

hence the term peripheral element, which is often used interchangeably with adjunct.

6. Juan busca su cartera en el parque. John searches his wallet in the park

John is looking for his wallet in the park. The standard formal semantic analysis of the complement/adjunct distinction is that the complement [su cartera] is a semantic argument of the head [busca], whereas the adjunct [en el parque] is a functor that has the searching event [Juan busca su cartera] as its argument. This explains why a verb such as buscar can semantically require an object that is searched for, but cannot require an adjunct. Instead, it is the adjunct [en el parque] that requires an event as its argument. Langacker (1987: 278 ff.) argues that such unidirectional semantic valence relations are an inissible oversimplification, because localizable activities such as buscar necessarily require a location, as well as a searcher and an object that is being looked for. This is not the case for all predicates, as the unacceptability of (7) shows. 7. ∗Juan hered´o mil millones de pesetas en el parque. John inherited 1000 million of pesetas in the park

∗John inherited a billion pesetas in the park. One might say that verbs like heredar ‘to inherit’ and enviudar ‘to be widowed’ are not semantically subcategorized for place, nor for purpose, as shown in (8). 8. ∗Juan enviud´o para...

John be-widowed3rd.sg.subj in-order-to...

∗John was widowed in order to... Langacker (1987: 300) observes that the distinguishing feature between typical ‘complements’ and typical ‘adjuncts’ is their degree of importance in the characterization of the event, which he refers to as ‘salience’. Thus, ‘en el parque’ is less salient, i.e. less central to the event, than ‘su cartera’ in (6). As the entities involved in an event can have a varying degree of salience, this implies that, from a semantic perspective, the complement–adjunct distinction is also gradient (cf. also Deutscher, 2000: 9; Croft 1988: 108, 2001: 280). What must also be taken into is the pragmatic level, as the discourse situation is a crucial element in determining how central (salient) or relevant a particular piece of information is for a satisfactory description of an event. If we consider, for instance, a verb such as Spanish leer ‘to read’, the central or relevant additional information will frequently refer to the item or information that is being read, as in (9) or (10). Alternatively, many discourse situations do not require this additional information, and providing it would in fact flout the Gricean ‘maxim of relevance’, as in (11). 9. Estoy leyendo un libro. I am reading a book. 10. Estoy leyendo que el presidente est´a muerto. I am reading that the president is dead. 11. ¡No quiero escuchar m´ usica! ¡Estoy leyendo! I don’t want to listen to music! I’m reading!

1.3. THEORETICAL PARAMETERS

11

But there are, similarly, discourse situations in which it is irrelevant to the interlocutors what is being read, but highly relevant, and thus central to the event, where the reading takes place, as in (12). 12. - ¿Por qu´e no te llevas el libro a casa? - Prefiero leer en la biblioteca. (∗Prefiero leer. ∗Prefiero leer el libro Coraz´ on tan blanco.)

- Why don’t you take the book home? - I prefer to read in the library. (∗I prefer to read. ∗I prefer to read the book A Heart so White.)

In (12), [location] is thus the most central and salient element; in this particular discourse situation it is so crucial that it must obligatorily be mentioned. Mentioning the [patient], on the other hand, is unacceptable due to a lack of situational relevance. Sentences (11-12) illustrate the variability of the salience parameter. The event or activity of reading necessarily involves something being read, but it also necessarily involves a place, a time, etc. Which of these pieces of information are sufficiently relevant to be mentioned is primarily a matter of discourse pragmatics; it would be inappropriate to claim that any particular one of them is a priori more central, necessary or obligatory for the description of the event. It would, however, be an overstatement to claim that the choice of dependents is governed entirely by the discourse context. There are, for instance, transitive verbs like perseguir ‘to chase’, which obligatorily require the [patient] role to be filled, even in contexts where it might not be of any pragmatic relevance. 13. ∗Est´an persiguiendo. They’re persecuting. Est´an persiguiendo a alguien. They’re persecuting someone. Such apparently arbitrary lexical restrictions can be explained in of entrenchment and conventionalization. Depending on the meaning of a verb, a certain type of additional information may be particularly relevant in the majority of contexts in which the verb is used. With perseguir, for instance, it is highly likely that the ‘chased object or being’, i.e. the [patient] will be mentioned, since it is usually of central importance to the act of chasing. Similarly, both the [theme] and [goal] of poner ‘to put’ are generally sufficiently relevant to be mentioned. As a result, these lexically specific patterns become entrenched and conventionalized, thus turning into syntactic rules or argument structures. This leads straight into the next section, the discussion of syntactic criteria for the distinction of complements and adjuncts. Complements and adjuncts as syntactic categories It is an undeniable fact that certain verbs require certain semantic roles to be obligatorily filled, as discussed above for perseguir and poner. First of all, it must be pointed out that such rules are synchronic, and by no means cast in stone, but merely the result of the way the individual verb is most frequently used. If, for instance, ‘following’ became a popular sporting activity (like ‘hunting’) in which the object to be followed was highly predictable or irrelevant, it is likely that speakers would at some point start omitting this information, as its predictability would make it redundant in the context of the sporting activity. This pragmatically triggered change in usage could then easily become generalized, leading to a change in the argument structure of the verb and allowing the use of perseguir without an overt direct object.

12

CHAPTER 1. MOTIVATION AND THEORETICAL PARAMETERS

Nevertheless, synchronically perseguir requires the semantic role [patient] to be filled, whereas others, such as [time], need not be. But, as a consequence of the argument against universal categories presented in Section 1.3.1, this has no further implications for the status of the [patient] role. All it tells us is that Spanish has a construction containing a verb and an obligatory [patient] which perseguir can participate in. The usual way of determining whether an element has the status of complement or adjunct is by means of a number of distributional tests (cf. e.g. Radford 1988: 226-86). In Section 1.3.1, a logical argument against the usefulness of distributional tests for the purpose of syntactic categories was presented, based on the fact that distributional patterns in different constructions do not match, which makes it is an essentially arbitrary decision which test should be diagnostic of syntactic category. This is confirmed, for the classification of dependent elements, by the following examples. The ‘do so’ (pro-V-bar ) test As briefly mentioned above, the verb poner ‘to put’ requires both the semantic roles [theme] and [goal] to be occupied (14); for the verbs comprar ‘to buy’ and olvidar ‘to forget’, on the other hand, only [theme] is obligatory (15-16). 14. Pedro pone el libro en la mesa. Peter puts the book on the table. ∗Pedro pone el libro. Peter puts the book. 15. Pedro compra el libro en la tienda. Peter buys the book in the shop. Pedro compra el libro. Peter buys the book. 16. Pedro olvida el libro en la mesa. Peter forgets the book on the table. Pedro olvida el libro. Peter forgets the book. If we were to take obligatoriness as the criterion for complement status, the dividing line would have to be drawn between the complement ‘en la mesa’ in (14) on the one hand, and the adjunct ‘en la mesa/tienda’ in (15-16) on the other. A different test to determine complement status, based on the generativist assumption that adjuncts are structurally more distant from the verb than complements, predicts that hacerlo ‘do so’ cannot stand for constituents below the V-bar-level. This means that hacerlo can replace either the verb with its complements and adjuncts, or the verb with its complements but without its adjuncts, but not the verb without its complements. The ungrammaticality of (17b), in which hacerlo cannot replace ‘poner su libro’ without ‘en la mesa’, thus confirms the status of ‘en la mesa’ as complement of poner, while the fact that it can replace ‘comprar su libro’ without ‘en el mercado’ in (18b) confirms the status of ‘en el mercado’ as an adjunct of comprar. 17. a. Pedro va a [poner su libro en la mesa]V¯ y Juan va a hacerloV¯ tambi´en. Peter will put his book on the table and John will do so, too. b. ∗Pedro va a [poner su libro en la mesa]V¯ y Juan va a hacerlo en la silla. Peter will put his book on the table and John will do so on the chair.

1.3. THEORETICAL PARAMETERS

13

18. a. Pedro va a [[comprar su libro]V¯ en la tienda]V¯ y Juan va a hacerloV¯ tambi´en. Peter will buy his book in the shop and John will do so, too. b. Pedro va a [[comprar su libro]V¯ en la tienda]V¯ y Juan va a hacerloV¯ en el mercado. Peter will buy his book in the shop and John will do so in the market. However, if we consider (19), this test for complement/adjunct status fails to match the results of the test for obligatoriness illustrated in (14-16): according to the pro-V-bar test, en la mesa in (19) is a complement of olvidar, whilst the obligatoriness test categorizes it as an adjunct. 19. ∗Pedro va a [olvidar su libro en la mesa]V¯ y Juan va a hacerlo en la silla. Peter will forget his book on the table and John will do so on the chair. Once again, it has been shown that syntactic categories are not definable beyond the level of individual constructions, as their distribution among constructions does not match. Clausal complements The final example of a distributional mismatch in the area of complements and adjuncts concerns clausal complementation. Clausal complements are frequently defined either as “clauses which are arguments of a predicate” or as “clauses that function as subject and/or object of a verb”. Despite the fact that ‘argument’ is an essentially semantic notion, whilst ‘subject’ and ‘object’ are purely syntactic categories, there is a tendency to equate the two definitions. Giv´on (1993: 515), for instance, claims that “sentential complements are propositions functioning in the role of either subject or object argument of the verb.” Even more explicitly, Noonan (1985: 42) writes: “By complementation we mean the syntactic situation which arises when a notional sentence or a predication is an argument of a predicate. For our purposes, a predication can be viewed as an argument of a predicate if it functions as the subject or object of that predicate.” Noonan’s examples further imply that object complements function as direct objects of verbs. Leaving subject complements aside for the time being, the general assumption that a complement ‘functions as’ the (direct) object of the main verb is accurate for sentences such as (20-22). 20. Direct object NP: Quiero un caf´e. I want a coffee. 21. Finite DO complement: Quiero que tomes un caf´e. I want you to have a coffee. 22. Infinitival DO complement: Quiero tomar un caf´e. I want to have a coffee. There is, however, a class of main verbs that participate in a less straightforward complementation pattern. Consider example (23). 23. Pedro cuenta que has fracasado. Peter tells that you have failed. ∗Pedro cuenta tu fracaso. Peter tells your failure. Pedro cuenta de/sobre tu fracaso. Peter tells of/about your failure.

14

CHAPTER 1. MOTIVATION AND THEORETICAL PARAMETERS

If ‘functioning as’ is to be understood as ‘having the same distribution as’, then we face a serious problem explaining why the clausal complement does not require the preposition that the corresponding NP does. Ascribing ‘dummy status’ to the preposition does not resolve the issue, as it nevertheless constitutes an additional element that cannot be ed for if object NPs and complement clauses are considered to occur in the same syntactic environment. The reason for this mismatch is a conflation of the semantic and the syntactic level. The sentences in (23) are semantically, but not syntactically equivalent. Deutscher (2000: 7-13) draws a clear distinction between an object, “a syntactic surface category, recognizable (with varying degrees of confidence across languages) by factors such as case marking, word order, or ivization”, and an argument, which is “a (semantic) category which denotes intimacy in the relation between an element and its predicate.” If we understand complements only to be the same type of argument as the corresponding nominals, but not the same type of object, this can for the absence of the oblique marker (i.e. the preposition) in the examples above. While different semantic case-roles are explicitly marked by prepositions such as de and sobre, the corresponding finite complements with que do not always require this overt marking; they merely mark an “intimate link between the predicate and its clausal argument.” 17 (Deutscher, 2000: 10) This constitutes yet another distributional mismatch: clausal complements, so-called ‘object clauses’, occur in a far wider range of syntactic environments than canonical NP direct objects. Whilst the construction in (20-21) assigns them to the same category, thus making them interchangeable, the two different constructions in (23) require a clear distinction between dependent clauses and object NPs.

1.3.4

Prepositional constructions

In line with the argument that categories are defined in of the constructions they participate in, presented in Sections 1.3.1 and 1.3.2 following Croft (2004), I will limit my definition of the term ‘preposition’ to its role in relation to the constructions under investigation, dependent clauses.18 I will adopt a broad formal definition of the term ‘preposition’ as a component of Spanish constructions involving a dependent clause; the same definition also holds for Portuguese and Romanian. In general , a preposition can be defined as the element [P] in constructions of the generic type shown in (24). 24. [ [MAIN CLAUSE] [P] [INFINITIVAL DEPENDENT CLAUSE] ] A construction of this type is presented in (25), in which the [INFINITIVAL DEPENDENT CLAUSE (IDC)] represents the purpose of the [MAIN CLAUSE (MC)]. 25. [ [MC] [para] [IDC] ] [ [Trabaja] [para] [ganar dinero] ] He works to earn money. 17

With reference to the corresponding English that. This does not in anyway imply a denial of the fact that the same lexical elements also participate in other constructions, notably in connection with NPs. However, there is no uniform class of prepositions shared by both construction types, which is evidenced by the fact that certain ‘NP-prepositions’ available for the nominal construction are not available for the prepositional infinitive construction; for Spanish this group includes detr´ as ‘behind’, sobre ‘over’, durante ‘during’, etc. 18

1.3. THEORETICAL PARAMETERS

15

That the overall meaning of this construction depends partly on the lexical meaning of the preposition itself is clearly visible from the fact that para has final meaning in other constructions as well. But at the same time, it is the construction as a whole that carries the following relational meaning: {[IDC] stands in relation to [MC] in the way specified by [para]} How much the preposition’s lexical meaning contributes to the meaning of the construction as a whole is a construction-specific parameter 19 ; this is illustrated by the construction in (26). 26. [ [MC] [a] [IDC] ] [ [Aprende] [a] [leer] ] He learns to read. In contrast to the construction with [para], this construction carries the meaning: {[IDC] stands in relation to [MC] in a way specified by [MC]}, not ∗{[IDC] stands in relation to [MC] in the way specified by [a]}. It is not difficult to see that the relation expressed in [[MC] [a] [IDC]] corresponds closely to what might be termed a typical ‘complement relation’ 20 , while [[MC] [para] [IDC]] corresponds to an ‘adjunct relation’. The advantage of this construction-based model, however, is that it can also for the intermediate stages between the two extremes, as the following analysis of the diachronic development of the construction [[MC] [a] [IDC]] exemplifies. 21 Originally, the meaning of the construction [[MC] [a] [IDC]] can be assumed to have been: {[IDC] stands in relation to [MC] in a way specified by [a] (in its final meaning)}. But this meaning gradually evolved to finally arrive at its present-day meaning: {[IDC] stands in relation to [MC] in a way specified by [MC]}. This is due to a process of reanalysis, described in more detail in Chapter 7, during which the semantic contribution of a to the meaning of the construction gradually diminished. During the transitional stage, the semantic contribution of the construction as a whole can be assumed to have been neither the original one, nor the present-day one, but rather a combination of the two, something like: 19

That the lexical meaning of the preposition is not necessarily linked to the meaning of the construction is corroborated by the cognate construction in Old Romanian, where the preposition had disappeared from the language as a whole, but occurred in the infinitival construction in a range of variably complement- and adjunctlike usages (cf. Section 6.3.1). 20 However, according to Giv´ on (1984: 519), the presence of a complementizer of this kind nevertheless tends to constitute a lesser degree of integration between the main clause and its complement than there would be in the absence of a complementizer. 21 Cf. Chapter 7. for a detailed of this process.

16

CHAPTER 1. MOTIVATION AND THEORETICAL PARAMETERS

[IDC] stands in relation to [MC] (a)in a way specified by [a] (in its final meaning) AND/OR 22 (b)in a way specified by [MC]}. The weighting between the components (a) and (b) gradually shifted from predominantly (a) to predominantly (b), until (a) was finally lost altogether. This process will be discussed in more detail in Sections 4.4 and 7.1. The fact that it has been possible for the construction with [a] to evolve independently, acquiring an overall meaning that differs from that of other similar constructions such as the one with [para], indicates that we are, indeed, dealing with two separate constructions. Whilst these constructions do, in the modern language, represent opposite ends of the semantic complement– adjunct continuum, the construction-based model proposed here provides a method of analysis that can for less clear-cut cases as well as gradual transition between the two extremes of the continuum. A currently incipient case of this kind, the Portuguese construction with [para], will be presented in Section 7.4. The fact that the preposition a has, in this construction, lost its lexical content and become a purely functional element justifies giving it a separate label; as the construction it forms part of expresses a prototypical semantic complement relation, I will use the term prepositional complementizer, retaining the element ‘prepositional’ to indicate that it is nevertheless located on the continuum shared with other prepositional dependent clauses.

1.3.5

Compound prepositions and conjunctions

Compound prepositions The term ‘preposition’ will, in this study, be understood to include etymologically monomorphemic prepositions as well as ‘compound prepositions’ such as Spanish ‘en vez de’ ‘insted of’, Portuguese ‘apesar de’ ‘despite’ or Romanian ‘ˆın loc de’ ‘instead of’. Though it is uncontroversial that such ‘compound prepositions’ contain an element that corresponds etymologically to a noun, they have become fully grammaticalized prepositions. A range of features of these ‘compound prepositions’ s this analysis. Most importantly for this study, ‘compound prepositions’ occur in the same construction type as the etymologically monomorphemic ones. For instance, the constructions in (27) are entirely parallel, both in form and in the meaning their constructional meaning. 27. [ [MC] [para] [IDC] ] [ [Trabaja] [para] [ganar dinero] ] He works to earn money. [ [MC] [en vez de] [IDC] [ [Trabaja] [en vez de] [dormir] ] He works instead of sleeping. The meaning in both cases is: {[IDC] stands in relation to [MC] in the way specified by [P]}. 22

The juxtaposition of AND and OR represents the gradient nature of the weighting between these components: even when one component is the predominant one (OR), the other one may also apply to a lesser extent as well (AND).

1.3. THEORETICAL PARAMETERS

17

Regarding the semantic status of the noun, its literal meaning is no longer present: neither does the notion ‘despite’ contain a component of regret or worry, nor does ‘instead of’ necessarily involve a turn, place, or location. Syntactically, too, such ‘compound prepositions’ are fully grammaticalized. Their distribution is equivalent to that of non-compound prepositions, and they consist of invariable morphological sequences with no possibility of other lexical or morphological elements being inserted. Furthermore, if the etymologically separate elements were still to be understood as separate syntactic constituents, the lack of an article would constitute a syntactic anomaly in all three languages. 23 The fact that they retain an orthographic form that to some extent reflects their etymological origin must thus not be understood as indication of non-prepositional syntactic status. Compound conjunctions In the statistical section of this study, comparisons will be drawn between the diachronic development of prepositional infinitives and the corresponding finite dependent clauses. The constructions these finite clauses occur in are similar to the prepositional construction(s) introduced in Section 1.3.4 and can, correspondingly, be described generically as in (28). 28. [ [MAIN CLAUSE] [CONJUNCTION] [FINITE DEPENDENT CLAUSE] ] In the same way that was explained for the prepositional construction, all elements that can occupy the [CONJ] position can be defined as conjunctions; again, this is a construction-specific classification. The majority of conjunctions are, from an etymological point of view, ‘compound conjunctions’, e.g. sin que ‘without’, antes de que ‘before’; also porque ‘because’ and aunque ‘though’. The meaning of the constructions that these conjunctions participate in is similar to that of constructions with the semantically (and often morphologically) related prepositions. It is perhaps worth mentioning that the construction for the conjunction que has a meaning that semantically resembles that of the construction of prepositional complementizers such as a.

1.3.6

Arguments for the continued use of traditional category labels

Having rejected the principle of uniform syntactic categories, synchronically among different constructions as well as within individual constructions through the course of their development, the traditional category labels are nevertheless useful. This is because in many cases, a correspondence among distributional patterns can be identified for a comparatively large group of elements that do show a correspondence in their behaviour across constructions and through time; these elements can be considered prototypical elements of a traditional ‘cross-constructional’ syntactic category. A prototypical member of such a traditional category would be one that es a certain number of distributional tests. Which specific tests we choose to include in the list will remain essentially arbitrary, but we would be guided by the aim to group together a relatively large number of elements that show a relatively high degree of cross-constructional correspondence. A prototypical Spanish direct object complement, for instance, might be defined as one that is obligatory, must appear in a position right-adjacent to the verb, and can function as the subject of a ive sentence; semantic criteria can also be included, so we might add the requirement for it to have the semantic role [theme]. This selection of criteria is based purely on the fact that all of them are satisfied in a relatively large number of cases in a specific language 24 ; the 23 24

sal.

Normally, a noun that has a (prepositional) modifier must also have an article. Certain distributional correspondence patterns are also cross-linguistically common, but by no means univer-

18

CHAPTER 1. MOTIVATION AND THEORETICAL PARAMETERS

more criteria we pick, the smaller the number of prototypical cases we will be left with. Having defined a prototypical member of such a cross-constructional category, it is also possible to identify less typical cases that satisfy some, but not all of the criteria selected. If a sufficient number of criteria are satisfied, we might still include these non-prototypical cases in the cross-constructional category. However, there will also be cases that share certain features with the prototypical of one cross-constructional category, but a similar number of features with the prototypical of another or several other cross-constructional categories. It must be emphasized that such a classificatory system contains several arbitrary elements and therefore has no analytic value in itself; it is nothing more than a convenient shorthand way of saying that a group of elements shares a certain number of features which happen to co-occur quite often; non-prototypical can further be defined in of the specific features they do not share with the prototypical . As long as the syntactic elements we are analyzing generally match the syntactic prototypes we have defined, using the established category labels is convenient and largely unproblematic, especially if they are defined on the basis of what is common and typical in the analyzed language. But applying the same category labels to diachronic syntactic analysis can prove more problematic. If the category labels we try to use are defined on the basis of typical combinations of features and distributions of the modern language, this must not necessarily match the most typical combinations at an earlier stage of the same language. Indeed, it is the very object of diachronic syntactic analysis to identify and examine those elements that have changed, which includes changes in individual distribution patterns. A second difficulty is that syntactic change is a gradual process, and it is not necessarily clear whether a criterion for hip in a cross-constructional category is satisfied or not. In the case of semantic criteria, this is uncontroversial, as semantic shift is in most cases gradient; recall the case of French pas in Section 1.3.2, in which the particle pas took on a gradually increasing degree of negative force over the centuries. That the semantic distinction between traditional categories such as complement and adjunct is also gradient was discussed in detail in Section 1.3.3. Similar problems arise when checking whether a specific distributional criterion is satisfied. A very practical difficulty is the fact that native speaker judgements are unavailable for earlier stages of the language. Though it is possible to determine whether a syntactic structure was grammatical at the time on the basis of the documents we have, the absence of a structure from the available corpus cannot be understood as proof that the construction was ungrammatical at the time; the strongest legitimate conclusion would be that it was not particularly commonly used. This leads straight to a second, more fundamental issue: even if a few sporadic instances of a structure can be found, does this make it a fully integrated part of the language? Throughout the statistical sections of this study, it will become apparent that syntactic structures do not appear suddenly as a fully-fledged part of the language, but enter it gradually, their frequency increasing over time. This permits an analysis by which the grammaticality of a structure is gradient, its rise in frequency mirroring an increasing degree of grammaticality. Though rejected by some theoretical frameworks, the gradient nature of grammaticality is a well-known fact that can frequently be observed when asking informants for native speaker judgements about a structure that occurs only sporadically; the answer in such cases will often be something like: “One might say that, but one wouldn’t normally.” Though the non-discrete nature of linguistic change adds to the difficulty of applying traditional

1.4. PRAGMATIC CAUSATION IN SYNTAX

19

category labels, these problems are not necessarily insurmountable; where a criterion for hip in a particular cross-constructional category is only partially satisfied, such cases can be understood to be less prototypical than other cases that fully satisfy the same criterion. It may therefore be concluded that traditional category labels, though essentially arbitrary, can be usefully applied in the description of language change, as long as we keep in mind that hip in these categories is not a binary property. This is particularly important when examining changes in which an element shifts from being a prototypical member of one category to being a prototypical member of a different one; in such cases, there is bound to be a stage of ambiguity somewhere along the way, for which neither of the two labels would be adequate. Such a situation will be presented in Chapter 7.

1.4

Pragmatic causation in syntax

Pragmatics is perhaps the subdiscipline of linguistics most closely related to semantics, and is “usually conceived as a branch of semantics concerned with the meanings that sentences have in particular contexts in which they are uttered” (Matthews, 1997: 290). At the same time, however, it is perceived as opposed to truth conditional semantics based on Frege’s (1892) Principles of Compositionality, which constitutes the core of much of modern semantics 25 . It was originally conceived by Morris (1971: 43-54) as opposed to syntax as well as semantics, covering the field of relations between signs and their interpretants. A discussion of the intricate subdivision of language into such categories is not the aim of this dissertation. It will be assumed throughout that the meaning of any utterance is the compositional product of the semantic content of the individual words it contains, the syntactic structures chosen to combine them, and the (linguistic and extra-linguistic) pragmatic context of the utterance. The focus will be on the interface between meaning and syntax. It is assumed that the objective of any normal utterance is to convey information as precisely as necessary but also as economically as possible, in line with the Gricean Maxims of Conversation (Grice, 1989). To attain this objective, the language can make syntactic choices, and these choices are influenced by the semantic content as well as the pragmatic context of the individual utterance. An important factor in this process is speaker expectation: everyone has certain patterns of expectations concerning the way in which the elements of a sentence are likely to interact; these expectation patterns are a reflection of our knowledge and experience of the way the things represented by the words interact in the real world. Speaker expectation is, thus, the product of word and construction meaning plus the individual speaker’s experience. The relative predictability of how entities in the real world tend to interact allows the speaker to develop his own expectation patterns, but such expectation patterns cannot themselves be understood as part of semantics, as they are merely a default interpretation that is applied if no contextual indications specify a different pattern of interaction, as illustrated in the following Spanish example. 29. Las dos chicas se miran. the two girls REFL look3rd.sg.pres

The two girls look at each other. 25

“Formal semantics ... is generally taken to be complementary with pragmatics, ... the study of that part of meaning which is not purely truth conditional...” (Lyons, 1981: 170-171)

20

CHAPTER 1. MOTIVATION AND THEORETICAL PARAMETERS

30. Las dos chicas se miran en el espejo. the two girls REFL look3rd.sg.pres in the mirror

The two girls look at themselves in the mirror. It can be observed that, according to our knowledge of the real world, the default assumption (29) for mirarse with two agents is one of reciprocity, but that certain contexts can override this default interpretation in favour of a literal reflexive interpretation (30). Throughout this dissertation, it will become apparent that default assumptions, conditioned by what is perceived to be the pragmatically most likely relationship between constituents, are a crucial factor synchronically in the choice and analysis of syntactic structures, and consequently also diachronically in syntactic change.

1.4.1

Synchrony: pragmatic factors in syntactic choice

Syntactic choice is an omnipresent feature of language, as a speaker is obliged to choose a particular structure for every sentence he utters. In the majority of cases, the semantic content of a sentence is directly responsible for determining, or at least severely limiting, the syntactic options a speaker has. A transitive verb like Spanish castigar ‘to punish’, for instance, projects the semantic need for the semantic roles [Agent] and [Patient] to the syntactic level, at which the corresponding [Subject] and [Object] represent the semantic roles. An alternative projection would be the corresponding ive clause, in which the prepositional phrase represents the agent and the subject represents the patient. 31. Pedro castiga al perro. [Peter punishes]S [DO-MARKER+the dog]D O

Peter punishes the dog. 32. El perro es castigado por Pedro. [the dog]S is punished [by Peter]P O

The dog is punished by Peter. Banal as this example may be, the point is that while part of the syntactic structure is determined by the semantic content of the sentence, the speaker is left with more than one syntactic option for his sentence. Whilst even strict followers of formal syntactic models generally accept that argument structure and verbal subcategorization are at the interface between semantics and syntax, the corresponding interface between pragmatics and syntax is less widely recognized. This is partly due to the fact that pragmatic meaning is an even less uniform category than straightforward semantics. For the choice between the active and the ive construction in the example above, there are at least two rather different pragmatic factors involved. One is , the other is topicalization. Colloquial Spanish has a certain resistance to the use of the ser-ive, whilst journalistic involves a much more frequent use of the structure. Furthermore, ‘el perro’ is topicalized in sentence (32) but not in (31). It is obvious that such notions cannot be integrated into any syntactic theory in which syntax is an autonomous entity; the fact that speakers can choose among structures calls for an analysis of what influences or determines this choice, be it the linguistic or social context, discourse pragmatics, or speaker expectation. Until not too long ago, pragmatics was often sidelined by linguists because it was regarded as intrinsically difficult to systematize, due to its dependence on individual contexts and utterances. Indeed, during most of the 20 th century, Structuralists as well as Generativists were

1.4. PRAGMATIC CAUSATION IN SYNTAX

21

almost exclusively concerned with understanding and describing the abstract underlying system in language(s), consciously disregarding the role of the speaker in their analysis. In recent years, however, a renewed interest in pragmatic causation within syntax has arisen, and linguists have begun to follow in the footsteps of such scholars as Whitney (1875) and Br´eal (1983 [1897]), who “believed that language has to be defined in relation to human thought and action.”(Nerlich, 1996: 70-71) In Romance Linguistics, the pragmatic approach to syntax has been revived by such scholars as Manoliu-Manea, Klein-Andreu, Silva-Corvalan, and Pountain, and it has successfully been applied to such complex areas as the choice of mood in the finite complement (Klein, 1975), the various syntactic functions of the reflexive verbal structure (Pountain, 2000). Person assignment in infinitival clauses, an area that is of direct relevance to this study, has been examined from a pragmatic point of view by Comrie (1984, 1985) crosslinguistically, and by Pountain (1995, 1998a) for Spanish and Portuguese.

1.4.2

Diachrony: pragmatic factors in syntactic change

It is widely accepted that reanalysis, as briefly exemplified in Section 1.2.1 above, is a major factor in syntactic change, whether seen as a component of grammaticalization (following Meillet, 1912), or as an autonomous mechanism in its own right (cf. e.g. Harris & Campbell, 1995: 61-93, Croft 2000: 117-44). In fact, Harris & Campbell argue that “Alteration of syntactic patterns takes place by means of specific mechanisms of change. We hypothesize that there are only three basic mechanisms: reanalysis, extension, and borrowing.” There appears to be less clarity or consensus regarding the reasons for language s to reanalyse some structurally ambiguous constructions, but not others; explanations range from the influence of language to increased functional efficiency or linguistic optimality (cf. e.g. Langacker, 1977). With the renewed interest in pragmatics and the interface between linguistic performance and underlying structure, the important role of pragmatics as a central factor in language change has also gained widespread recognition. Traugott & Dasher (2002: 1), for instance, “show that there are predictable paths for semantic change [which] recur so often and across totally unrelated languages [because they are] intrinsically bound up with the cognitive and communicative processes by which pragmatic meanings come to be conventionalized and reanalysed...”. Similar principles are also understood to be involved in many instances of syntactic change, such as structural reanalysis, as exemplified in Harris & Campbell (1995: 61-96). One way in which pragmatics contributes to the process of reanalysis is by virtue of the fact that, in the real-world context of utterances, certain patterns of interaction or relation between the entities represented by the constituents of a sentence are more likely to occur than others. As these patterns are generally known to the language , he can, therefore, expect particularly common or likely relational patterns to be the norm. Confronted with structurally ambiguous utterances, it is thus only natural for him to choose the interpretation that most closely represents the expected default situation. This is a specific form of the mechanism of pragmatic inference (Croft, 2000: 133), in which a contextual parameter that frequently co-occurs with a structure is reanalysed as part of the structure itself, and the former meaning of the structure eventually gets lost. A simple illustration is the currently ongoing process of reanalysis of the verb tener in Spanish. The original meaning of tener is ‘to have, to hold’, but it is currently acquiring the additional

22

CHAPTER 1. MOTIVATION AND THEORETICAL PARAMETERS

function of auxiliary marker of perfectivity when used with the past participle of a growing number of transitive verbs26 . In sentence (33), it is used in its original meaning. 33. Ahora tengo el coche, comprado y pagado. now I.hold the car, bought and paid

Now I’ve got the car, bought and paid for. Relatively frequently, for example in the presence of a pronominal object, the verb tener and the past participle will appear next to each other, as in (34). 34. Ahora lo tengo [comprado]. now it I.have bought

Now I’ve got it, bought. Anyone who knows how the real world functions will realize that if someone has got something that has been bought, the most likely scenario is that he/she has bought it. In the vast majority of communicative situations, tengo in sentence (34) can thus be understood to express perfective aspect without jeopardizing the functionality of the communicative process. Whilst the speaker may intend to say sentence (34), the hearer may inadvertently parse it as (35). 35. Ahora lo [tengo comprado]. now it [I.have bought]

Now [I have bought] it. The final step in this process of reanalysis is for the re-parsed structure to be transferred from such ambiguous contexts to sentences with a structure that does not allow for ambiguity, as in (36). 36. Ahora [tengo comprado] el coche. now [I.have bought] the car

Now [I’ve bought] the car. In this case, an important precondition for reanalysis is the fact that the language knows, from his experience of the real world, that the possession of an object usually entails its previous acquisition. But this alone may not be sufficient to trigger reanalysis. A second pragmatic factor that comes into play are the Gricean maxims of quantity and relevance, according to which the hearer will expect any utterance not to contain more information than required, and only relevant information, and he will interpret the utterance to best satisfy these maxims. Thus, sentence (34) is reanalysed as (35) because the latter contains information about the process of buying as well as the status of ownership; in the absence of any contextual cue to the contrary, the hearer must therefore assume that all extractable information is deemed relevant by the speaker. In Chapter 7, it will be shown that the relevance parameter is a crucial factor in the development of Romance prepositional complementizers. At this point it must be pointed out that we are talking about individual utterances, reanalyzable only where the pragmatics of the available linguistic and extra-linguistic context do not eliminate the structural ambiguity. Syntactic change will, however, not be triggered by any single individual utterance. But if the proportion of contexts in which reanalysis can and does take place is high, this will lead to a situation in which the reanalysed interpretation becomes 26

For a detailed synchronic description of its usage, see Harre (1991).

1.5. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: REASONS AND METHODS

23

the default analysis, as mentioned in Section 1.2.1 above and discussed further in 1.5.1. The final step, the analogical extension of the reanalysed structure to syntactic contexts in which the original usage would not be possible, can be seen as part of a grammaticalization process, with several of the typical hallmarks described by Lehmann (1985: 306-308). Among other things, reanalysed tener is becoming increasingly semantically bleached, turning into a functional aspect marker that can be used in an increasing number of syntactic and semantic contexts. Sentence (36) illustrates how the syntagmatic variability of auxiliary tener is reduced, as it must immediately precede the past participle. In what manner the extension of the perceived equivalence to other contexts proceeds is one of the central questions this dissertation examines. The data regarding the evolution of the Romance prepositional infinitive suggest a gradual extension, item by item, in a way similar to lexical diffusion of sound changes, as proposed by Sturtevant (1917) and Wang (1969). Crucially, such diffusional extension does not mean that a change must necessarily spread in a regular fashion to all structurally equivalent environments. Such gradual diffusion is linked to the fact that reanalysis is itself not a discrete process. A single structure can, even synchronically, be used in its original and its newly acquired, reanalysed sense. In genuinely ambiguous contexts, (34) and (35) are not distinguishable, either syntactically or pragmatically, and there is, indeed, no reason to assume that the speaker makes a clear choice between the two. This non-discrete nature is also reflected semantically by the fact that, depending on the context, the auxiliary tener can retain a variable degree of the semantic notion ‘to hold’. ‘Lo tengo pensado’ ‘I’ve thought it out’, for instance, retains some sense of holding the result of ones thoughts in ones mind. On the other hand, in ‘hace como tres meses lo tengo perdido en este maldito cuarto’ 27 , ‘it’s about three months since I lost it in this damned room’, the semantics of the verb perder and our knowledge of the way things interact in the real world makes it obvious that losing something generally rules out still holding it. Summing up, it can be said that syntactic changes of this type are made possible by the fact that a construction is used ambiguously in certain pragmatic contexts. If such ambiguity occurs frequently, this allows for a gradual extension to contexts in which the reanalysed meaning is more central than the original one, and finally to contexts in which the original meaning is pragmatically unlikely or logically impossible. As the process of extension is a gradual one, the contexts it spreads to first are those that are most similar to the originally ambiguous one. For instance, the fact that tener can, at present, only function as auxiliary with transitive verbs shows how a certain link to its original meaning and argument structure still exists.

1.5 1.5.1

Statistical analysis: reasons and methods Why statistics? – The motivation for a statistical approach

Much of this study is based on statistical data. Contemporary syntacticians sometimes argue that statistics are not relevant in syntax, as the primary object of syntactic analysis is to determine the grammaticality or ungrammaticality of constructions, and to identify the underlying structures they are governed by. However, such a narrow approach to syntax overlooks the fact that some structures are used more commonly than others, and that acceptability or grammaticality of a structure can be 27

Sergio Madrigal Gonz´ alez: Los amantes, http://www.geocities.com/albisamm/1999/v-30/serg-30.html

24

CHAPTER 1. MOTIVATION AND THEORETICAL PARAMETERS

gradient, as briefly discussed in Section 1.3.6. Furthermore, such a limited approach cannot do justice to the diachronic dimension. It delivers a series of separate synchronic snapshots, but is unable to relate them to one another in a meaningful way. If we accept that pragmatically-based syntactic changes do not occur in a discrete fashion, then the transitional period must be ed for as a process, not a series of discrete grammars, especially if the aim is to explain, rather than merely describe, the change. A different approach is thus necessary to analyse development through time, which, as described in section 1.4, is linked to the frequency with which a particular construction is used: more frequent use of a structure means that the structure has become more acceptable or normal for language s; such increased ‘normality’ generally leads to loss of expressive force, to semantic bleaching and grammaticalization. The concept that the quantitative study of language is important for our understanding of linguistic structure and change, as first proposed by Zipf in his Introduction to Dynamic Philology (1935), was only adopted sporadically by others until the late 1970s. In recent years, however, the renewed interest in pragmatics, paired with the advent of digital technology and the availability of large annotated text corpora, has led to a marked rise in studies of token frequency 28 . Wanner (2003) goes so far as to claim that all linguistic research is overtly or implicitly corpusbased, as the utilization of linguistic data without corpus (or questionnaire) is merely anecdotal, producing accidental results. In current theories of language change, frequency plays an important role. In cognitive linguistics, a central notion is that of the ‘construction’ (eg. Langacker, 1987), essentially a conventionalized, entrenched routine (Croft, 2004). Viewed diachronically, new constructions thus emerge when a particular pattern occurs often enough to become entrenched and conventionalized. In grammaticalization, which by some linguists has been elevated to a theory in its own right (Bybee et al., 1994: 4; Heine, 1997: 6), one of the central principles is an increase in the frequency of the structure undergoing grammaticalization, which is seen as a cause for semantic and phonological bleaching (cf. e.g. McMahon, 1994: 160-173). One way of applying and testing such theories is by means of synchronic corpus analysis, which can yield valuable information concerning changes in progress, as shown in numerous contributions to a collection of papers on Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure (Bybee & Hopper, 2001). However, such s fall short of revealing long-term developments and can often merely speculate what the eventual outcome of a change in progress will be. Partly due to the technical difficulties involved in compiling the appropriate corpora, statisticallybased diachronic studies were, for a long time, comparatively scarce, but this has been changing in recent years. Dealing with pragmatic factors involved in changing patterns of clausal complementation, there are textually-based studies by Deutscher (2000) on the emergence of finite complementation in Akkadian, and by Schøsler (2000) and Van Reenen & Schøsler (1993) on infinitival complementation in Old French. These recent advances make a comparative study based on the diachronic development of token frequency particularly timely, as the additional comparative dimension will not only allow for a more informed evaluation and interpretation of the data for individual languages, but also enable us to identify more general, cross-linguistic patterns of development. 28

Token frequency is based on the real number of occurrences of a particular feature, conceptually opposed to the number of types of structures the feature is found in.

1.5. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: REASONS AND METHODS

25

The usefulness of comparative diachronic statistics Tracing back the usage of a structure can be expected to provide information about the contexts it originally emerged in, as well as the way in which it subsequently evolved in the respective languages. As pointed out in Section 1.4.2, a crucial variable in pragmatically-based change is how frequently utterances containing the structure occur in actual language usage. If the usage of the same structure differs among related languages, tracing it back as far as possible in the individual languages may allow us to establish whether it is likely that there is a common origin, or whether it might be safe to claim that it has emerged independently in each language. Such polygenesis can be coincidental, or it can be due to the presence of the same factors in all the languages involved. Even if the structure only evolves after the languages are clearly separated, this does not necessarily rule out common causation: as pointed out in Section 1.2.2 above, common inherited structures may predispose the respective languages to change in similar ways, or independent but similar changes in more than one language may be caused or favoured by more general pragmatic and cognitive principles which are not specific to any one language or even language family. Parallel changes in more than one language, even if they take place independently, can therefore well have a common cause 29 . Diachronic statistics, i.e. charting the frequency of a construction through time, is a method to reveal its evolutionary path. The limited amount of textual data from the past makes it impossible to determine the exact point in time at which the construction was first used. If we do find a single token, it might nevertheless not be an integral part of most speakers’ language at that time. On the other hand, the structure might have already been in use long before it first appears in a preserved document. If, however, a statistically relevant change in usage frequency can be detected, this provides information about more general trends in the overall way speakers use the language. These trends can then be compared across languages to reveal similarities and differences in the way the structure has evolved. Where the use of the structure diverges between two languages, usage frequency data allows us to pinpoint at what stage of a structure’s development, and in which contexts, speakers of language A began regularly to use it in a way that speakers of language B did not. Parallel developments are likely to be triggered by the presence of similar conditions or principles in both languages; by comparing the paths along which related constructions emerge and gain popularity in each of the two languages, the principles and conditions common to both can be identified as the relevant ones. This will be one of the objectives of the comparison of the Spanish and Portuguese data in Chapter 5. A further use of comparative statistical analysis is the fact that it has some predictive potential: if the distribution and development of a structure in language A resembles that found during earlier stages of development in languages B and C, this suggests not only similar causation, but also that the future development in A may proceed along similar lines as it has done in B and C. This situation, it will be seen in Chapter 6, applies to the use of prepositional infinitives in present-day Romanian.

29

between the languages can complicate the analysis; see Section 1.2.2.

26

1.5.2

CHAPTER 1. MOTIVATION AND THEORETICAL PARAMETERS

Data selection and statistical procedures

The diachronic corpora analysed in this dissertation are made up of the texts listed in appendices A, B and C for Spanish, Portuguese, and Romanian, respectively. 30 Though some effort has been made to provide a varied sample of texts, any such selection must be arbitrary to a certain extent. Due to the relatively large number of texts and the length of the period under investigation, it is hoped that any local imbalances will not have a significant effect on the general conclusions that can be drawn from the statistical analysis. The corpora do not contain Latin American texts, as including them indiscriminately would risk distorting the data by ignoring split developments between the Old and New World varieties. A separate analysis of the differences between the Iberian varieties and their Latin American counterparts would, nevertheless, be of great interest and a promising object of future research, particularly because any split development could be compared to the earlier split between Spanish and Portuguese. Any approach concerned with the usage frequency of linguistic structures should be based on the greatest possible corpus of data, so that it can be assumed to be largely representative of the language as a whole. Being representative does not merely require a large number of texts or words; the corpus must also be made up of a balanced mixture from a variety of backgrounds, linguistic s, specialist jargons, and other varieties that make up the language in question, as it is beyond the scope of this study to produce differentiated series of data for such individual subvarieties. The need for a balanced mixture faces us with a number of practical difficulties. Any diachronic study will unavoidably suffer from a lack of varied data for past periods. In particular, it is generally impossible to find extensive documentation that accurately represents the spoken language of past periods 31 ; this is particularly deplorable because spoken language is generally (but not always32 ) the source of innovation. As a rule of thumb, the further we go back, the less likely it is for a text to reveal features of the popular, spoken language: the earliest Romance prose texts tend to be written in formal , as they are generally legal, theological/religious and historical. Whilst a great deal of work has been done to compile corpora of modern spoken language and other linguistic s, the absence of equivalent diachronic data leads to an unavoidable discrepancy between contemporary and historical surveys. With this in mind, care is called for in evaluating any apparent sudden structural changes that coincide with the transition from historical textual data to the more comprehensive modern corpora. Many innovations originally arise in the spoken language and later permeate the written s. On the other hand, structures can remain present in the oral domain for a long period of time without gaining more formal status. In addition, must be taken of the fact that the presence of a tangible pragmatic context allows speech to be less precise and far more deictically determined. Though invaluable for the analysis of synchronic choices and their causes, spoken corpora must, thus, be taken cum grano salis from a diachronic perspective. The limited number of texts available from some earlier periods does not give the linguist a great range of choice. Text type, , and many other parameters that have a direct ef30

More extensive digitalized diachronic corpora have become available in recent years, most notably Mark Davies’s fully annotated Corpus del Espa˜ nol, but were not yet in the public domain at the time the statistical work for this dissertation was begun. 31 Baum (2003: 49) goes as far as to say that there can be no authentic documents of (spontaneous) spoken language before the advent of the “new media”, thus implicitly doubting the reliability of any written representation of the spoken language. 32 Learn`ed features, in the Romance languages generally borrowed from or calqued on Classical Latin, usually enter the language via the written medium, cf. Pountain (1998b)

1.5. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: REASONS AND METHODS

27

fect on stylistic and syntactic choices (linguistic conservatism, incorporation of learned features, etc.) vary considerably. Even in the most comprehensive of corpora such variation cannot be avoided, as certain text types are often limited to, or dominant in, a certain period, but may be rare, obsolete, or still a thing of the future at another time. Particularly problematic in this respect is the fact that there are so few early medieval texts at our disposal that it is necessary to use lyrical material, despite the well-known fact that poetic licence allows the use of atypical structures, with the purpose of maintaining poetic parameters such as rhythm, rhyme, and assonance. Word order is among the greatest sufferers in this respect. It might therefore be argued that texts of such diverse types represent ‘separate grammars’, and basing a statistical analysis on them would be an artificial conflation of these grammars. But this could be said of any statistical analysis, as variation in grammatical usage among speakers means that any language or variety, viewed beyond the idiolectal level, consists of multiple grammars to some extent. It is, indeed, one of the strengths of the statistical approach that such variation is taken into , without giving undue weight to structures that are marginal for the language as a whole. Nevertheless, it must be acknowledged that the somewhat unbalanced use of texts from the earlier stages of the languages under investigation might distort the analysis. To minimize the effects of any such potential distortion, two mathematical algorithms, described in detail below, will be applied to the data gathered. Another issue that must be addressed in a study making extensive use of historical literary material is the subdivision of languages into discrete historical periods such as Old Portuguese, Golden Age Spanish, or Post-war Romanian, tacitly implying that these are uniform entities. This is clearly an idealization, as there is social, regional and diachronic variation in any language at any time. At the same time, there is some justification for such a classification, especially when dealing with literary writing: during culturally comparatively uniform periods, certain stylistic and linguistic norms become the accepted standard, and it becomes almost obligatory for authors to comply with these norms if they want to gain recognition in society (cf. Baum 2003: 49-50); such norms can remain comparatively unchanged over a period of time. for the idea that there is less potential for linguistic change during periods of social and cultural cohesion also comes from anthropological linguistics. According to the punctuated equilibrium model, applied to historical linguistics by Dixon (1997), languages tend to diversify in short periods of intense social upheaval, remaining in a relatively stable state of equilibrium during periods of social stability. However, the diachronic data presented in this thesis, it will be seen, suggest no such obvious correlation between social or cultural and linguistic stability; on the contrary, the long-term developments investigated here appear to be largely unaffected by changes in society. Variation in content and between individual texts, combined with the author’s personal style and preferences, possible regional elements 33 , and learned or foreign influence34 , has the effect that, even in texts written at virtually the same time, a particular syntactic structure can be far more frequent in one than in the other. As the objective of this study is not the 33

The very earliest text in this study, the Cantar de m´ıo C ¸ id, is an example of a text that has been argued to have regional Aragonese features. Men´endez Pidal (Cantar de mio Cid, 1908-1911) believes that it was written in the region of Medinaceli, in the border area between Castile and Arag´ on. But Colin Smith (Poema de mio Cid, 1972) claims it is equally likely to have been written in Burgos, by a “poeta burgal´es”. It has also been claimed by some that certain supposedly Aragonese features might be the result of the text being translated from Aragonese. 34 Learned influence can be expected to be stronger in more formal , particularly in religious and legal texts; foreign influence is particularly likely in texts that are translations into Spanish, such as Dichos de Sabios y Phil´ osofos by Jacob C ¸ adique de Ucl´es translated from Catalan (1402) and De las mujeres ilustres en romance (Zaragoza: 1494) as well as Laberinto de amor (1546), originally written in Tuscan by Boccaccio.

28

CHAPTER 1. MOTIVATION AND THEORETICAL PARAMETERS

description and characterization of individual texts or authors, but general trends of linguistic development, it is desirable to eliminate the potentially distorting effect of individual texts that can never be a precise representation of the way language was generally used at the time. One way to eliminate such distortion would be to simply not include a text in a graph if its token frequency deviates from that in other texts from roughly the same time period by more than a certain percentage. The drawbacks of such a method are that any cut-off point would necessarily be arbitrary, and that it would completely ignore the eliminated texts for formal reasons, without taking into consideration that they are, nevertheless, representative of the way the language was used by certain speakers in certain contexts, and that the usage they document is thus equally part of the language as a whole. To avoid discarding any of the gathered data, but to nevertheless generate graphs that are sufficiently smoothed to allow the viewer to visualize the respective construction’s long-term development, two different methods of converting the data from individual texts into representations of the general trend of the respective construction’s linguistic development are chosen. One standard statistical way of identifying trends is by means of a linear regression line based on the values of a scatter plot. The goal of linear regression is to adjust the values of gradient and of intercept with the y-axis to find the line that best predicts y from x. This is done by minimizing the sum of the squares of the vertical distances of the points from the regression line. The gradient (m) of the regression line and its intersection point with the y-axis (c) can be calculated with the equations

m=

P i

(yi −y)(xu −x)

P i

(xu −x)2

P

(yi )

and c = y − mx, where y =

i

n

and x =

P

(xi )

i

n

in which x ¯ and y ¯ are the mathematical means of the year and the construction’s usage frequency, respectively. The disadvantage of using regression lines is that they are by definition linear, but syntactic development must not necessarily proceed in a linear way. In order not to ignore the fact that the usage of a structure may increase, decrease or remain stable at different times during the investigated period, a second algorithm providing moving averages over shorter time periods is used. The equation for this curve is as follows:

yj0 =

1 9

j+4 P

i=j−4

yij

For the beginning and the end of the time scale, where the number of preceding or following texts is insufficient for the basic equation above, this must be refined to form averages over correspondingly shorter periods: P

max[j+4,n]

yj0

=

yij

i=min[1,j−4]

max[j+4,n]−min[1,j−4]

The intervals for which this algorithm generates averages are small enough to show any significant steps in the curve, but large enough to give it a sufficient degree of smoothness for the

1.5. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: REASONS AND METHODS

29

viewer to be able to identify a coherent development. In the graphs presenting the development of one single structure on its own, the actual values from the individual texts are shown as points in the diagram; this is generally omitted in comparative diagrams for the sake of clarity.

The problem of statistical classification A fundamental problem in diachronic statistical analysis is the apparent paradox between having to classify constructions into discrete categories on the one hand, and using the results of this analysis to draw conclusions about changes in language that proceed in an essentially gradual fashion. In order to chart the evolution of a specific construction, it is necessary to decide, for each individual token, whether or not to count it as an instance of the examined construction or not. Where there is a clear one-to-one correspondence between form and meaning, classification is comparatively straight-forward. But meaning is frequently context-dependent; examples (37-40) illustrate how clauses dependent on a main verb such as tener cuidado ‘to be careful’ can be linked by a number of different prepositions. 37. Tienen que tener cuidado de poner multiplicadores o divisores comunes a ambos t´erminos de la fracci´on.35 must3rd.pl que have care of putinf numerators and denominators common to both of the fraction

You have to be careful to add the same numerators and denominators in both of the fraction. 38. Los grupos de rock-punk deben tener mucho cuidado con hacer algo que pueda ser considerado comercial.36 the groups rock-punk must3rd.sg have much care with doinf something that can be considered commercial

Punk rock groups must be very careful of doing things that might be considered commercial. 39. S´olo ten cuidado en no hacer apuestas demasiado arriesgadas. 37 only haveimptv care in not doinf bets too risky

Only be careful not to make too risky bets. 40. Tenga cuidado para no escoger el mismo color para el fondo y el texto. 38 haveimptv care for not pickinf the same colour for the background and the text

Be careful not to pick the same colour for the background and the text. From a truth-conditional perspective 39 , it would be difficult to claim that the choice of preposition in these sentences makes a semantic difference: in all four cases, the respective preposition introduces the matter in which care has to be taken. But merging infinitival clauses with these four prepositions into a single semantic class would nevertheless be a fallacy, as they are frequently in semantic opposition, e.g. in ‘vuelve de/para hacer compras’ ‘she comes back from shopping/to go shopping’. 35

Lola Archive, Oral Corpus http://www.mtvla.com/news/noticias/articulos\ completos/2000/mayo/0518\ deadken\\nedys.htm 37 http://www.comal.com.mx/horos34.html 38 http://www.aciprensa.com/t-animo.htm 39 Rather than changing the truth-conditional meaning of the dependent clause, the choice of preposition is here determined by pragmatic factors. Para, con and en give a more vivid quality to the dependent clause than the default complementizer de, which is pragmatically neutral. Out of a sample of 667 instances of tener cuidado+de/con/en+infinitive, 90.5% take de, 7.4% en, and 2.4% con. 36

30

CHAPTER 1. MOTIVATION AND THEORETICAL PARAMETERS

On the other hand, formally equivalent constructions can be used to mean different things, depending on context, or they can be genuinely ambiguous, leaving us with no means of discrete classification. A good example of such a structure is de/di/da+infinitive, which in all Romance languages has multiple semantic functions. It can link direct object complements as well as conditional, temporal, causal, and numerous other circumstantial clauses to the main verb, and in many cases neither the construction, nor the pragmatic context, allows an unambiguous classification. In the Spanish sentence (41), for example, it is not clear whether the infinitival clause is temporal or conditional; in this context, the distinction is in fact hardly relevant, and it may be doubted whether even the speaker unambiguously means one or the other. 41. De pensar que a mi ni˜ na le pudieran hacer algo parecido se me ponen los peso ... pelos 40 de punta. DE thinkinf that to my girl to.her they.could do something similar...

When/if I imagine that they could do something similar to my girl, it makes my hair stand on end. The fact that certain structures cannot be assigned to discrete semantic classes poses a problem for statistical analysis, which by its very nature depends on categorization of the gathered data. There are two simple yet unsatisfactory strategies to overcome this difficulty. One possibility is to count only those instances of the construction that are sufficiently close to one of the semantic prototypes, and discarding all ambiguous tokens. However, keeping in mind that this study is based on the assumption that pragmatically-based syntactic change progresses via a stage of ambiguity, this would mean discarding the tokens carrying the greatest significance in this process. An alternative solution, creating a separate class for ambiguous tokens, would also miss the point, as ambiguity is not a discrete category (cf. Section 1.4), and differing degrees of ambiguity are, indeed, a central part of reanalysis. This dilemma, for which there is no simple, wholesale solution, can only be resolved by examining each ambiguous instance of a construction in its context. It can then be decided whether the context provides sufficient additional information to allow us to assign a particular token to one or the other semantic category, or alternatively to consider it genuinely ambiguous, in which case the strategy adopted in this thesis is to count it as half a token for each of the two respective semantic categories. In this way, a gradual statistical shift from one semantic prototype towards the other can be represented in of the two predefined semantic types. A change in the overall number of tokens of a construction that is undergoing a semantic shift can also provide useful insights. The extension of a construction’s use to an increased number of contexts will be reflected by an increased overall frequency of the structure. In particular, this applies to constructions undergoing grammaticalization, as one of the typical features of this process is an increase in obligatorification (Lehmann, 1985: 307-308), resulting in more frequent usage. In the statistical sections of this thesis, it will be seen that tracing the overall usage frequency of individual construction types through time allows us to draw conclusions about the causes behind their evolution, in particular by comparing their statistical development, both language-internally and among languages.

40

Lola Archive, Oral Corpus

Chapter 2

From Latin to Romance In Classical Latin, the system of complementation and clausal dependency is, in principal, similar to that of modern Romance, in that it includes finite and infinitival clauses as well as other nominal1 dependent structures. Their distribution, however, is somewhat different from that in any modern Romance variety. The fact that the general typology in this area remains similar does not necessarily mean that all present-day structures are inherited, or indeed that all Latin structures have survived in some form or another. On the contrary, as a closer look will reveal, infinitival complementation, for instance, shows a partial or complete loss of its main Latin pattern, the AcI 2 , whilst its modern use following a preposition constitutes an innovation. Prepositional infinitives are, in fact, a structure that is patently absent from Classical Latin, but appears to be the driving force behind the overall increase of infinitival dependent clauses. The range of nominal constructions, on the other hand, has undergone dramatic reduction as well as functional shifts, but appears to have escaped complete extinction 3 .

2.1 2.1.1

Finite subordination Conjunctional subordination

Compared with the developments in the area of non-finite subordination, finite subordination in Latin does not differ greatly from the corresponding systems in modern Romance in its overall structure, though certain differences are worth noting. In addition to the purely functional 4 complementizing particles QUOD5 and UT/NE for indicative and subjunctive complements, respectively, there is a range of other hypotactic conjunctions with varying semantic content. The choice of mood6 for the dependent verb V2 is partially predictable from the conjunction, as certain conjunctions entail a certain modality. For instance, the semantics of QUASI ‘as if’ logically require V2 to be irrealis, a modality that generally triggers the use of subjunctive mood. QUONIAM, which expresses an affirmative ‘because’, on the other hand, is closely asso1

I will, generally, treat infinitival structures as distinct from other nominal dependent structures. In how far the Latin and Romance infinitives can be considered non-nominal will be examined in Section 3.4. 2 ¯ AT ¯ ¯IVUS CUM ¯INF¯IN¯IT¯IVO, ¯ Accusative and Infinitive; see section 2.2.3 for a more detailed discussion ACCUS of this phenomenon. 3 It should be noted that Romanian does follow all of these trends, but not always to the same degree. 4 Functional is to be understood as opposed to particles that have semantic content. 5 QUOD can also function as a causal conjunction, and it is not always possible to categorize it unambiguously as one or the other, as shown in sentence (45) below. 6 Verbal mood is generally retained the standard Romance languages, though some (e.g. Romanian, French) have undergone a partial erosion of the corresponding morphological marking.

31

32

CHAPTER 2. FROM LATIN TO ROMANCE

ciated with assertive7 statements. For other conjunctions that require a specific mood, such as SIMULATQUE+indicative ‘as soon as’, the semantic motivation is less obvious. The majority of conjunctions, however, do not predetermine the mood of V 2 , which is instead determined by the semantics and the pragmatic context of the sentence. 8 Despite a general correspondence of the indicative mood with assertive statements and of the subjunctive with desiderative, potential, irrealis and interrogative content, this is not an absolute rule. One of the reasons for this lack of straightforward correspondence 9 is a general tendency towards analogical levelling, with the subjunctive being the unmarked or default mood for dependent clauses. A similar trend can be observed today, e.g. Spanish ‘el hecho de que’ (‘the fact that’), which usually requires use of the subjunctive despite the fact that its complement is, in many cases, very much realis. A further reason for the imperfect correspondence between semantic modality and morphosyntactic mood is the polysemy of UT, which can function as both a desiderative and a consecutive dependency marker. Use of the subjunctive with desiderative UT can be assumed to have spread first to sentences with consecutive UT, and once consecutive UT-clauses regularly took the subjunctive, to other consecutive conjunctions. This development is ed by the fact that there is an area of overlap between the desiderative and consecutive notions, i.e. wishing for something to happen and causing it to happen. 42. desiderative UT ¯ N¯ITEB ¯ ATUR ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ARIST¯IDES UT COGNOMINE IUSTUS SIT APPELLATUS. A strove that epithet just wassubjctv named

Aristide strove to be given the epithet The Just. 43. consecutive UT ¯ ADEO ¯ EXCELLEBAT ¯ ¯ UT COGNOMINE ¯ ¯ ARIST¯IDES ABSTINENTIA, IUSTUS SIT 10 ¯ APPELLATUS. A so.much excelled abstinenceAbl.Sg that epithet just wassubjctv named

Aristide excelled by his integrity to such an extent that he was given the epithet The Just. 44. Other consecutive conjunctions ¯ ADEO ¯ CORRUPTUS ERAT, QUIN COGNOMINE ¯ ¯ ARIST¯IDES IUSTUS SIT APPEL¯ LATUS. A so.much corrupt was that.not epithet just be3rd.sg.subj named

Aristide was so corrupt that he was not given the epithet The Just. A further instance of extension of subjunctive usage is found in complements containing the opinion of someone other than the speaker. ¯ ENS ¯ ES ¯ SOCRAT ¯ ¯I CR¯IMIN¯I DEDERUNT, ¯ ¯ ¯ COR45. ATHENI QUOD ADULESCENT ES 11 RUMPERET. Athenians SocratesDat.Sg crimeDat.Sg gave that adolescentsAcc.P l corrupt3rd.sg.subj

The Athenians accused Socrates of corrupting the young generation. 7

Assertion can be understood as realis through a pragmatic filter: the speaker is convinced of the reality of his statement, or wants to convince the listener of it. 8 Only with these conjunctions does mood actually carry any meaning of its own. 9 “Im obliquen Konjunktiv treten ferner (an sich indikativische) Glieds¨ atze auf...” (Bayer & Lindauer, 1974: 210) 10 Cit. Ernstberger & Ramersdorfer (1997, L.72) 11 Cit. Bayer & Lindauer (1974: 210)

2.1. FINITE SUBORDINATION

33

Sentence (45) raises the question what this oblique subjunctive has in common with the core irrealis notion of the subjunctive. Modern Romance usage of the subjunctive with declarative verbs may supply a clue here: it conveys an absence of assertion by a speaker who does not wish to commit himself to the validity of the quoted opinion (46), or even wishes to express his disagreement with it (47). 46. Cree que tenga que regresar con el padre de mi hijo... 12 He thinks he has to return with the father of my son. 47. ¿Qui´en dice que tenga que ser como otros dicen? ¿Qui´en dice que tenga que ser transparente?13 Who says that it has to be like others say? Who says it has to be transparent? The fact that a subjunctival dependent clause introduced by QUOD as in (45) can be either a direct object complement, a causal adjunct, or really something in between the two 14 paves the way for a further erosion of the clear pattern QUOD+indicative, thereby facilitating the extension of QUOD to other types of subjunctival clauses and eventually allowing QUOD and its Romance reflexes to oust UT/NE completely. The differences with respect to Romance: typological observations The functional merger of the semantically unmarked conjunctions QUOD and UT/NE to QUE 15 might be seen as a structural shift in the system of conjunctional dependency marking, but considering that mood is usually marked unambiguously on the verb in most Romance varieties, the merger is merely a reduction of redundant mood marking. French and Romanian are two notable exceptions to this: whilst in French “the present subjunctive is differentiated from the indicative only in comparatively few forms” (Posner, 1996: 141) as the result of regular phonological developments, which in connection with the absence of mood-specific subordination particles has led to a de facto loss of a consistent overt mood opposition, Romanian mood is also syncretized in large parts of the verbal paradigm, but overt mood distinction is maintained by means of two distinct conjunctions, c˘ a for the indicative and s˘ a<SI for the subjunctive 16 . This brief outline of the basic parameters of Latin conjunctional subordination shows that, by and large, the system has survived into modern Romance surprisingly unscathed 17 . The basic parameters for the choice of mood are largely similar, and the mechanisms by which these usages spread to other environments and grammaticalize are also similar to later Romance developments.18 . 12

Dr. Love: entre dos amores (http://www.buscamigos.com/drlove/consulta/entre dos amores/home.htm) 13 Diario La Hora, section Nacional (http://www.lahora.com.gt/26-01-01/paginas/nac 2.htm) 14 This further exemplifies the impossibility of making binary distinctions between complements and adjuncts. 15 QUE stands for the varying modern reflexes of QUOD, que, che, c˘ a, probably derived from QUI(D), which came to replace QUOD. It has been argued that Romanian c˘ a may be derived from the QU(I)A (Herman, 1963: 166), which, like QUOD, was a causal conjunction in Classical Latin. The etymological origin of the conjunctional dependency marker is, however, not the focus of this discussion. 16 S˘ a is, in modern Romanian, strongly grammaticalized and on the verge of being nothing more than a morphological marker of the subjunctive. A comprehensive discussion of the origin and evolution of the Romanian complementizer s˘ a can be found in Bari´c (1961); cf. also Section 6.1, footnote 2, regarding an analysis of the Romanian subjunctive as an infinitive. 17 This does not by any means imply that no changes have taken place; mood adjustment, for instance, which requires V2 to be subjunctival whenever V1 is infinitival or itself subjunctival, has not survived into Romance. 18 One such area currently involved in a process of change is the complement of factive nominals, which increasingly take the subjunctive. Woehr (1975: 13-19) argues the choice is syntactically determined; other studies suggest pragmatically based analogical extension as the cause for the use of subjunctive.

34

CHAPTER 2. FROM LATIN TO ROMANCE

The remarkable stability of the system is emphasized by the fact that, despite the fact that of the large number of semantically differentiated conjunctions in Latin only five (QUANDO, QUOMODO, SI, QUOD, QUIA) survive into Romance 19 , the majority of those Latin conjunctions that have disappeared from use have been replaced by newly evolved conjunctional expressions that typically consist of a preposition or prepositional expression followed by QUE, the default marker for finite subordination. Thus, a striking discrepancy can be noted between the extremely stable syntactic structure of finite dependent clauses on the one hand, and the much more volatile morphology of the hypotactic conjunctions on the other. The morphological shift from predominantly synthetic to analytic conjunctions is, clearly, very much in line with the general evolution of the Romance languages. The system of exploiting prepositions to specify the type of relation between a dependent clause and its main clause is paralleled by the emergence of a similar use of the corresponding prepositions with the infinitive. The possibility of using the same morphological component (i.e. a specific preposition) to express the same logical relationship between two clauses, irrespective of varying syntactic environments, in combination with the creation of a relatively symmetrical pattern for finite and infinitival dependent clauses, represents a typologically novel system that, being analytic, is not only more transparent, but also allows for flexible, virtually ad hoc creation of subordinators to suit the individual semantic context.

2.1.2

Asyndetic finite dependent clauses

Whilst finite dependent clauses in Classical Latin are predominantly conjunctional, asyndetic structures also occur occasionally. In formal written , which most of our Latin documents are in, this asyndetic pattern is most commonly found in sentences with impersonal main verbs that have a subject complement (48), and in sentences with imperative main clause (49-50). ¯ OPORTET20 48. ANIMUM QUOQUE RELAXES soulAcc.Sg. also relax2nd.sg.subj. proper be3rd.sg.

It is also proper for you to relax. ¯ 21 49. FAC VENIAS! doimp.sg. come2nd.sg.subj.

Come here! ¯ ¯ PUTES ¯ AUTEM MARE ULLUM 50. CAVE AUT FLAMMAM ESSE TANTAM...22 bewareimp.sg. believe2nd.sg.subj. however seaAcc.Sg or flameAcc.Sg beinf so.big... But beware of believing that any sea or flame is so big... Whilst sentence (48) has its complement in subject position and thus differs structurally from direct object complementation, sentences (49) and (50) are the tip of an iceberg of asyndetic finite complementation that must have been very common in less formal and colloquial s. The phenomenon of “primitive asyndetic” 23 expressions entering more formal s includes commands, and by extension wishes, which are not formally imperatives (51). ¯ FACIAS ¯ 24 51. ILLUD VOLO DEM.PRONAcc.Sg want1st.sg.ind. do2nd.sg.subj.

I want you to do that. 19

V¨ aa ¨n¨ anen (1981: 161) Cicero, DE RE PUBLICA I, 14 21 Cicero, Epistulae ad familiares 14,4 22 Cicero, DE RE PUBLICA I, 65 23 V¨ aa ¨n¨ anen (1981: 158) 24 Augustinus Hipponensis: Verbum Dei mandatum Patris 6: Aequalitas Filii cum Patre.

20

2.1. FINITE SUBORDINATION

35

Commands and orders, and particularly such expressively reinforced imperative expressions as (51) are, for pragmatic reasons, most commonly found in the spoken language. It therefore comes as no surprise that asyndetic structures enter more formal s via this path. It is, furthermore, cross-linguistically common for commands and orders to take the shortest possible form, as immediate action by the recipient of a command is often required in critical moments; linguistic concision can help cut down the time it takes before the command is executed. But whilst these examples show that asyndetic subordination is available for commands and wishes even in formal and literary texts, their incidence is very limited, and it is only the semantically neutral complementizer UT that can be omitted in these specific contexts. However, it is probable that even during the classical period, the spoken language made more extensive use of asyndetic structures, omitting both para- and hypotactic conjunctions, provided that pragmatic factors made an unambiguous understanding possible. Consider the following inscription or ‘graffiti’ found among the ruins of Pompeii, in which our pragmatic knowledge of the world allows for an unambiguous interpretation of the inscription despite a lack of overt marking of the logical relationship between the two clauses. ¯ BELLE FACIS, SOLUM ¯ ¯ RELINQUIS25 52. SARRA, NON ME proper.name, negator niceadv. do

2nd.sg. ,

alone ppAcc.1st.sg. leavepres.2nd.sg.

Sarra, you don’t act correctly, you leave me alone. This type of asyndetic juxtaposition of two clauses in the appropriate pragmatic conditions is a natural, cross-linguistic phenomenon. Finite dependent clauses without an overt subordinator do not, however, catch on in most Romance varieties 26 on a large scale; in Spanish, for instance, the use of such structures in the modern language is largely restricted to very formal, highly stylized , such as official correspondence, and can be traced back to learn`ed borrowing and subsequent extension of the Latin pattern exemplified in sentence (48) above: 53. Impersonal expressions: Es necesario tenga a la mano su disco con el sistema operativo el cual tenga instalado en su maquina.27 is necessary have2nd.sg.pres.subj at the hand...

It is necessary that you have your disk with the OS that you have installed on your machine at your disposal. 54. Extension to semantically equivalent contexts that do not involve impersonal expressions: ..., le rogamos retire de la oficina en cuesti´on ... el recibo correspondiente al per´ıodo actual.28 PRONIndir.Obj.3rd.sg request1st.pl.pres.indic collect2nd.sg.pres.subj from the office...

We request that you collect the receipt for the current period from the above-mentioned branch office.

2.1.3

Hypotaxis with underspecified subordinator

As described in Section 2.1.2, a certain tendency to omit overt specification of the relationship between main and dependent clause can be observed in Latin, particularly in popular usage. An 25

Cit. Inscriptions de Pomp´ei et Herculanum, Suppl. III, 4; ed. F.Weber and P.Ciprotti (1951-56) Asyndetic complementation is, however, a widespread phenomenon in the dialects of southern Italy (cf. Ledgeway, 1997). 27 http://www.zamora.podernet.com.mx/soporte.html 28 From an official letter sent by the Banco de Salamanca, 1995. 26

36

CHAPTER 2. FROM LATIN TO ROMANCE

alternative to asyndetic juxtaposition of clauses is the use of underspecified conjunctions, which function as clear markers of hypotaxis, but do not specify the exact logical relationship between the two clauses. In Classical Latin, UT can function as underspecified subordinator for a number of different types of dependent clauses. Apart from its primary function as purely functional, semantically neutral complementizer for direct object complements, it can also convey a number of circumstantial notions, such as manner, time (as soon as), purpose, and concession. 29 Though UT itself has no continuation in Romance, the principle of underspecified subordinators is not lost. The predominantly analytic morphology of the Romance conjunctional system makes it possible to use the semantically neutral, unmarked QUE as underspecified QUE, to mark hypotaxis without any overt specification of the exact type of its semantic value. Sentence (55) is an example of this from modern colloquial Spanish. 55. ¡Putas al poder, que sus hijos ya lo est´an! 30 whores to.the power QUE their sons already it are

Whores into power — their sons already are! Diachronic statistical analysis shows that hypotactic structures with underspecified QUE are particularly common in medieval times and up to the 16 th century, a phenomenon that must be seen as closely related to the relatively small inventory of more specific subordinators. After the demise of the majority of Classical Latin conjunctions in Vulgar Latin, a continuous increase in the inventory of conjunctions expressing differentiated circumstantial notions has led to a relative decrease of the use of underspecified QUE; however, the Spanish Oral Corpus 31 offers clear evidence that it continues to be a typical feature of the spoken language even today.

2.2

Infinitival subordination

In Classical Latin, the syntactic range of infinitive usage is relatively limited; the infinitive complement can function only as the subject or the direct object of a main verb. This implies that, in opposition to the Romance system, Latin does not have prepositional infinitives, i.e. dependent clauses introduced by a preposition, followed by an infinitive.

2.2.1

Subject infinitives without overt subject S2

The Latin infinitive can function as the subject of impersonal verbs and expressions: ¯ ¯ ANUM ¯ 56. ERRARE HUM EST. errinf human be3rd.sg.

To err is human. For this type of construction, which incidentally survives into virtually all modern Romance varieties, the fact that infinitives lack person inflection is unproblematic, as no subject reference to any concrete subject in or outside the sentence is intended. The subject of both V 1 and V2(Inf ) is indefinite, and the availability of the infinitive, a form with no morphological subject agreement, offers a convenient iconic way of representing the indefinite nature of the subject. In a corresponding finite construction, the verb form would have to be rendered explicitly indefinite (57) to avoid unintended subject coreference with an NP in the contextual vicinity of the clause (58). 29

Habenstein, Hermes & Zimmermann (1970: 24) Seen scribbled on an ment in a Madrid underground train, 1993. 31 cf. Appendix A

30

2.2. INFINITIVAL SUBORDINATION

37

¯ ANUM ¯ 57. HUM EST UT QU¯ IV¯ IS HOMO ERRET. human be-3rd.sg. that any person err-3rd.sg.subj.

It is human that any person should err. ¯ ANUM ¯ 58. HUM EST UT ERRET. human be-3rd.sg. that err-3rd.sg.subj.

It is human that he should err. If semantically or pragmatically necessary, the subject of V 2(Inf ) can be specified by raising S2 to DO1 (59) or IO1 (60). ¯ PAENITUIT32 59. TACUISSE NUMQUAM ME be.silentinf.past never PRONAcc.1st.sg. cause.remorse3rd.sg.past

Having been silent has never caused me remorse. ¯ PUBLIC ¯ ¯ NEMIN ¯ ¯I NEGLEGENT¯I ESSE LICET33 60. IN RE A in polity nobodyDat negligentDat beinf be.permitted3rd.sg

In a polity nobody may be negligent. Without going into further detail, it is, for the scope of this study, sufficient to conclude that there has been little systematic change regarding the structure of infinitival subjects of impersonal verbs or impersonal expressions. A different type of infinitival subject complement, the Nominative and Infinitive, will be treated separately, as a function of the AcI, in Section 2.2.3.

2.2.2

Object infinitives without overt subject S2

As in the case of the subject complement, subject reference is a crucial factor in the use of infinitives without an overt subject. Since the infinitive cannot be inflected to agree with its semantic subject, it is assigned its subject by a strict syntactic rule of coreferentiality, which makes it predictable that the complement subject is identical to the main clause subject. The only verbs that, by definition, must be coreferential with their V 2(Inf ) are auxiliary verbs, and in Latin the use of infinitive without overt subject is restricted to exactly this group of verbs. In most Romance varieties, this reference pattern has been extended to other coreferential dependent clauses, even where coreference is not predetermined by the semantics of the (optionally coreferential) main verb.

2.2.3

Infinitives with overt subjects: the AcI

Syntactic status of the AcI In addition to coreferential infinitival complementation with auxiliary main verbs (cf. section 2.2.2), a typical construction in Latin is the Accusative and Infinitive, or AcI hereafter, in which the verb V2(Inf ) is infinitival, and its overt subject takes the accusative case. Whether the AcI is a clausal complement or a simple object 34 of V1 is a somewhat complex issue, but one that 32 Valerius Maximus: VALERI MAXIMI FACTORVM ET DICTORVM MEMORABILIVM LIBER VII, 7.2.ext.6 33 Cicero: M. TULLI CICERONIS EPISTULARUM AD ATTICUM LIBER PRIMUS, I.17 34 Traditional grammars claim that the AcI is not a clausal constituent:“Da der AcI kein Gliedsatz, sondern nur ein Satzglied ist...”(Bayer & Lindauer, 1974: 179)

38

CHAPTER 2. FROM LATIN TO ROMANCE

requires some discussion in order to assess in how far apparently similar structures found in the Romance languages can be considered to be equivalent or even inherited from Latin. I propose the following analysis: the complete dependent AcI clause, including its verb V 2(Inf ) and its subject S2 , occupies the direct object slot of a transitive verb as a single unit. In accordance with the syntactic requirement that direct objects must appear in the appropriate case, accusative case is projected onto the entire clausal object. Since infinitive verb forms, though nominal in some respects, cannot be morphologically marked for case, the accusative is only overtly visible on the subject of the AcI. The fact that adjuncts and internal arguments of V 2(Inf ) (within the AcI-clause) do not appear in the accusative can be explained in syntactic by assuming that case is assigned within the AcI after it has been assigned to the arguments of V 1 , at a separate, later stage. From a less formally oriented point of view, it can be argued that the pragmatic need to unambiguously identify the semantic relationship between various arguments and the verb they are arguments of makes it necessary for their overt case marking not to be obscured by superimposed accusativity, whilst the superimposition of accusative case onto the subject of the AcI is fully predictable and thus offers less potential for misunderstanding in of semantic roles. The view that the AcI functions as the direct object of the main verb is ed by the existence of a corresponding NcI35 structure. An AcI (61) can be converted into an NcI (62) in the same way as a direct object is turned into a subject when the verb V 1 is ivized. ¯ ¯ 61. PATER COEGIT F¯ ILIUM CURRUM LAVARE fatherN om.Sg. forcepast.3rd.sg.act. sonAcc.Sg. carriageAcc.Sg. washinf.

The father forced his son to wash the carriage. ¯ PATRE COACTUS ¯ ¯ 62. F¯ ILIUS CURRUM LAVARE A EST sonN om.Sg. carriageAcc.Sg. washinf. by fatherAbl.Sg. forcepast..

The son was forced by his father to wash the carriage. A potential counterargument to viewing the AcI as a direct object NP comes from the fact that ¯ verbs such as CREDERE can take an AcI but otherwise assigns dative case. But this argument does not hold, as the dative case is assigned to the [source] of the information, not the content; ¯ in a sentence like VERB¯IS TU¯IS CREDO ‘I believe your words’, VERB¯IS TU¯IS ‘your words’ constitute the provider of the information, in the same way as TIBI is the provider of informa¯ tion in TIBI CREDO ‘I believe you.36 This is confirmed by the ungrammaticality of ∗VERB¯IS ¯ ¯ TU¯IS TIBI CREDO, as this would imply two different sources, whereas CR EDO TIBI + AcI is grammatical. A further indication that the syntactic status of the AcI is, in some respects, closer to that of an object NP than a clausal complement, is the choice of the reflexive pronoun as subject of the infinitive. Traditional grammars state that the reference domain of the reflexive pronoun is limited to the clause it is in, and more specifically that it can only refer to the subject of this clause, whereas other anaphoric pronouns can refer to elements outside their own clause. The use of the reflexive pronoun in a sentence like (63) would thus suggest that the AcI is not a separate clause, as SE refers to the subject of the main clause, which is outside the AcI: ¯ ¯ ¯IVUS CUM ¯INF¯IN¯IT¯IVO, ¯ Nominative and Infinitive NOMIN AT This is in no way unusual cross-linguistically; compare German ‘Ich glaube dirDat/deinen WortenDat ’, but ‘Ich glaube dirDat deine WorteAcc . 35

36

2.2. INFINITIVAL SUBORDINATION

39

¯ ¯ 63. LOCUTUS EST ... DIVICIACUS AEDUUS ... OB EAM REM SE EX C¯IVITATE 37 ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ PROFUGISSE ET ROMAM AD SENATUM VENISSE. say3rd.sg.past ... proper.name ... because.of dem.pronAcc.Sg. thingAcc.Sg. refl.pron.Acc.Sg. out.of stateAbl.Sg. fleeinf.past and RomeAcc. to SenateAcc. comeinf.past

Diviacus Aeduus said ... that for this reason he had fled from the state and had come to Rome, to the Senate. However, a study by Diver38 argues that the use of reflexive SE in Latin is not so strictly syntactically determined. He gives examples of SE referring to the subject of the superordinate clause (indirect reflexive), to a referent within the same predicate, and even to a referent outside the sentence. His alternative analysis leads to the conclusion that SE is in competition with other pronouns that can function as reflexives, in particular with IS, and that the choice of one or the other depends heavily on discourse pragmatic factors. Essentially, he claims that SE is used to indicate reference in a maximally unmarked way, i.e. it refers to the NP that is most salient or in focus at that point. IS, on the other hand, refers to NPs other than the most prominent, which means that it is used for marked reference patterns. This pragmatically based analysis weakens the claim that the use of SE as semantic subject of the AcI structure proves its non-clausal status. It can, indeed, be expected that in the majority of cases the subject of the main clause is the most prominent NP at the time of the AcI’s utterance, so it is not surprising that SE is the anaphoric pronoun most commonly found in AcIs, for pragmatic rather than syntactic reasons. Other features of the AcI also appear to indicate that it does, to some extent, have clausal characteristics. The infinitive’s resistance to nominal morphology and the fact that it can be inflected for aspect/tense (relative time reference) 39 and voice make it appear more verbal than nominal in morphosyntactic , as does the fact that its semantic subject does not receive genitive case. If we accept the definition that a clause is “a structure ... which includes a verb and the elements that accompany it” 40 , the typically verbal features of the infinitive suggest an analysis of the AcI as a dependent clause. The most appropriate analysis, therefore, is to view the AcI as a hybrid structure that combines some clausal features with others that are more typical of nominal arguments. As discussed in the previous chapter in some detail, the distinction between this kind of prototype is usually not binary, and the analysis of the above facts must lead to the conclusion that the AcI is located somewhere between the extremes of the continuum. Extension through reanalysis An analysis of the AcI as a clausal direct object entails a need for the following two conditions to be satisfied: the main verb must be transitive, and it must be possible for its object to be a clause, rather than a simple nominal expression or NP. From a semantic viewpoint, a clause represents an event or state of affairs. The class of verbs that commonly have an event or state of affairs as their direct object are declaratives (64) and verbs that can be used declaratively, such as verbs of perception and thinking (verba sentend ¯i) (65): 37

Caesar: DE BELLO GALLICO, 1 31 9 Diver (1986: 321-341) 39 ¯ Use of the ‘perfect infinitive’ of the type LAUDAVISSE implies perfective aspect, but also anteriority to the main clause. Together with the ‘present indicative’ (simultaneity) and the analytic ‘future indicative’ (posteriority), the full set of time relations can be encoded morphologically in the infinitive. 40 Matthews (1997: 55) 38

40

CHAPTER 2. FROM LATIN TO ROMANCE

¯ M¯ILESIUS ¯ ¯ 64. THALES ... AQUAM D¯IXIT ESSE INITIUM RERUM

41

proper.name waterAcc. saypast.3rd.sg. [beinf. beginningAcc. thingGen.P l. ]

Thales Milesius said that water is the beginning of all things. ¯ 65. PUTO AQUAM ESSE INITIUM RERUM believepres.1st.sg. waterAcc. [beinf. beginningAcc. thingGen.P l. ]

I believe that water is the beginning of all things. As a consequence of a high incidence of the combination [declarative verb + AcI], a reanalysis of what it is that triggers the AcI takes place. The trigger is no longer the fact that the infinitival clause functions as an object, but the fact that it is the complement of a verb belonging to a specific semantic class. Once this reanalysis has taken place, it is only a small step for the AcI to spread to a group of verbs that is semantically very close to the verbs of perception such as ¯ GAUDERE ‘to be happy’: these verba affect¯ us, used to express emotion, take an AcI-complement despite the fact that they cannot have a nominal direct object. ¯ AQUAM ESSE INITIUM RERUM ¯ 66. GAUDEO be.happypres.1st.sg. waterAcc. [beinf. beginningAcc. thingGen.P l. ]

I am happy that water is the beginning of all things. The association of the AcI with these specific, semantically defined classes of main verbs is so strong that its original function as a direct object is pushed into the background. Even impersonal expressions, which otherwise take subject complements, trigger the use of AcI if ¯ they belong to one of the semantic verb classes listed above. In sentence (67), APP ARET ‘it appears’ is semantically equivalent to PUTO ‘I believe’, and despite its fundamentally different argument structure, this similarity gives rise to the use of AcI. ¯ ¯ SCR¯IBERE 67. APPARET AULUM NIHIL AD ME appear3rd.sg. proper.nameAcc. nothing to me writeinf.

It appears that Aulus doesn’t write to me. A subsequent step in the extension of the AcI’s range of usage is its detachment from declaration. Sentences (64) to (66) are linked by the fact that the AcI is essentially a quotation of an utterance, declared in a way specified by the main verb. But once we move away from the 1 st person, it becomes apparent that many of these verbs can but need not imply declaration. There is, at the very least, a possibility of ambiguity as to whether a verb of emotion involves the declaration of this emotion; the ambiguity can be resolved lexically as in sentence (68), in which the declarative element is explicitly negated. Here, the function of the AcI is closer to that of a causal adjunct than to that of a direct object, although the construction is syntactically the same as (66); it is the changed pragmatic context that triggers a modified analysis. ¯ 68. GAUDEBAT PATREM REVERTISSE, SED NIHIL DIXIT. be.happypast.3rd.sg fatherAcc. returnpast.inf. , but nothing saypast.3rd.sg.

He was happy father had returned, but he said nothing. Summing up, the AcI can be characterized as a construction subjected to reanalysis and subsequent analogical extension of the environments it occurs in, while preserving a strict and rigid internal morphosyntactic structure that functions as a single syntactic unit with respect to the clause it is dependent on. It is this internal indifference to the syntax of the main clause that sets the Latin AcI apart from so-called AcI constructions in Romance, which show much stronger interaction with the argument structure of the main verb. 41

Cicero: DE NATURA DEORUM, 25

2.3. NON-INFINITIVAL NOMINAL DEPENDENT CLAUSES IN LATIN

2.3

41

Non-infinitival nominal dependent clauses in Latin

A comparatively rich inventory of (non-infinitival) nominal dependent clause-like constructions is found in Classical Latin. The traditional labels given to these nominal constructions are gerund, gerundive, supine, and participial constructions. In this section, an overview of the syntactic and semantic properties of these constructions in Latin will be compared with the surviving inventory in modern Romance, and the extent to which their properties have evolved or remained unchanged will be examined.

2.3.1

The gerund

Contrasting sharply with the infinitive, the gerund functions as the verbal element of clauses in oblique object position, filling the gap created by the restrictions on infinitival subordination. Its oblique use is facilitated by the fact that it can be morphologically inflected for case, so that the rich Latin case system can be exploited to specify the logical or semantic relationship between main and dependent clause in a way very similar to that in which prepositions specify the relationship between main clause and prepositional infinitive in Romance. Gerund constructions can be equivalent to genitive, dative, ablative and prepositional NPs. 42

Gerunds without preposition In its genitival form, which is the most frequent and therefore often considered the basic form, the gerund functions as an attributive element of an NP in constructions such as ARS LEGEND¯I, ‘the art of reading’, a notion rendered by de in Romance, as e.g. in Spanish ‘el arte de leer’. The attributive nature of the genitive excludes this genitival gerund construction from functioning as the dependent of a clause. The dative gerund gives the dependent clause final meaning (69), a notion that is typically rendered by final preposition+infinitive in Romance, as shown in the Spanish example (70). ¯ CULINAM INTRAVIT 69. COQUENDO cookger.Dat. kitchenAcc.P l. enter3rd.sg.past

He entered the kitchen in order to cook. 70. Entr´o en la cocina para cocinar. enter3rd.sg.past in(to) the kitchen prep.f inal cookinf.

He entered the kitchen in order to cook. The relatively rare use of the dative gerund construction 43 can be explained by its syncretism with the more common ablative form and the resulting potential for ambiguity; in sentences such as (69), however, in which it is highly improbable that the dependent structure is instrumental, ambiguity is minimized because of the pragmatic real-world-likelihood-filter that language s automatically apply to utterances. In the ablative case, the gerund can have a number of different semantic roles, which are a subset of the general semantic range of the ablative. As the gerundial phrase is semantically clausal, representing an action, event, or state of affairs, there are some semantic and logical restrictions 42 Gerundial prepositional clauses can appear in the accusative and ablative; this is, however, wholly dependent on the case syntactically required by the respective prepositions and thus devoid of deeper structural or semantic significance. 43 “Der Dativ ist selten und fehlt in C¨ asars Bellum Gallicum ganz.” (http://www.ph-erfurt.de/ ∼lingua/renzi/ latein/ZKONLINE/grammar/nd.htm)

42

CHAPTER 2. FROM LATIN TO ROMANCE

regarding the types of semantic relationships it can have to its main clause. The relationship is usually temporal (71), instrumental (72), or causal (73). 44 ¯ ¯ QUOD EFFUSUS ¯ ¯ ¯ QUOD 71. EST CRUOR VOCATUS AB EO DECURRIT, VEL AB EO 45 CURRENDO CORRUAT ..., or because runger.Abl. fall.to.the.ground3rd.sg.pres

It is also called cruor because when it has been spilled, it runs down, or because when it runs, it flows to the ground. 46 ¯ ET AUDENDO ¯ RES ¯ ROM ¯ ANA ¯ ¯ 72. AGENDO CREVIT actger.Abl. and dareger.Abl. thing Roman growpast.3rd.sg.

By doing and daring, Rome became great. ¯ LABORAND ¯ ¯ CAESAR GEMUIT 73. MORBO O illnesAbl.Sg sufferger.Abl. proper.nameN om. groan3rd.sg.past

Being ill, Caesar groaned. Prepositional gerundial constructions The prepositional gerund is only a marginal construction, occurring with the accusative and the ablative of the verbal noun. The two relatively common constructions [AD+accusative gerund] (74) and [IN + ablative gerund](75) express finality and simultaneity of the dependent clause, respectively. ¯ ¯ AD INTELLEGENDUM ET AD AGENDUM ESSE N AT ¯ OS ¯ 47 74. APPARET NOS appear3rd.sg we AD understandger.Acc. and to actger.Acc. be3rd.sg born.

It appears we are born to understand and to act. 75. PRAECLARA LAUDATIO, CUM DUABUS IN REBUS LEGATORUM UNA OPERA CONSUMITUR, IN LAUDANDO ATQUE REPETENDO 48 ..., in praiseger.Abl and demand.backger.Abl .

A noble panegyric; when the one business of the ambassadors is discharged by two operations, praising the man and demanding back what has been stolen by him. 49 Semantically, neither of the Latin prepositional gerund constructions is particularly remarkable, as final and simultaneous temporal relationship can also be expressed by means of nonprepositional gerund clauses, as outlined above. It is, however, precisely this absence of a particular semantic need for a prepositional gerund that makes this construction interesting. It appears to be a precursor of developments to come, namely of the use of prepositions to specify the semantic relation between dependent and main clause, with the preposition functioning both as syntactic marker of dependency and as an indicator of the semantic relation between main and dependent clause. This syntactic pattern appears to be incipient in the Latin prepositional gerund construction. However, it is not so much with the gerund as with the infinitive that specification of clausal relations by prepositions catches on. 44

“Bloßer Ablativ des Gerundiums wird mit durch, mit, bei, beim u ¨bersetzt.” (http://www.kreienbuehl.ch/lat/ latein/uebersetz/sallust.html) 45 The Aberdeen Bestiary, Folio 89r, l.13-14, probably 12th century, (http://www.clues.abdn.ac.uk:8080/ besttest/alt/translat/trans89r.html) 46 Livius, Titus: HISTORIAE ROMANAE DECADES, ed.: Electronic Text Center, University of Virginia Library, Vol.III (http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new) 47 Cicero, DE FINIBUS, XXI.58 48 Cicero: ACTIONIS IN C. UERREM SECUNDAE, LIBER SECUNDUS, cit. http://patriot.net/ ∼lillard// cic.verres.2.2.html 49 Translation: http://www.ancientlanguages.org/claslattexts/cicero/inverrems2e.html

2.3. NON-INFINITIVAL NOMINAL DEPENDENT CLAUSES IN LATIN

2.3.2

43

Participial dependent constructions

Latin participial inflectional morphology combines tense and voice. The present participle has active force and simultaneous time reference, the past participle has ive force and anterior time reference, and the future participle has posterior time reference and active force. In the participial dependent constructions discussed in this section, their respective voice and time reference patterns are projected onto the clause centred around them. Conjunctional participial constructions Participles can function as the verb of a temporal, and arguably of a conditional, dependent clause, linked to their main clause by an appropriate conjunction. 76. NEC ANTE IN PRAETORIUM REDIIT QUAM FLAGRANTE TRICLINIO 50 neg. before to headquartersAcc. return3rd.sg.past conj. burnpres.part.Abl.Sg. dining.roomAbl.Sg.

And he did not return to his headquarters before the dining room was ablaze. 77. DECEMVIRI ... NON ANTE QUAM PERLATIS LEGIBUS ... DEPOSITUROS IMPERIUM SE AIEBANT51 decemvirsN om.P l. ... NEG before conj. enactpast.part.Abl.P l. lawAbl.P l. ... lay-downf ut.part.Acc.P l. authorityAcc.Sg. refl. claim3rd.pl.past

The decemvirs ... claimed that they would not lay down their authority before the laws ... were duly enacted. Nutting (1930: 213) discusses similar constructions with conditional conjunctions of the type NISI URBE CAPTA, but offers an alternative analysis in which NISI is understood as an adverb ‘except’, and URBE CAPTA is thus a non-conjunctional, absolute participial construction. However, considering that it appears to be unproblematic for ablative participial clauses to be linked to their main clause by a temporal conjunction, it appears unnecessarily restrictive to rule out a similar syntactic pattern for conditional conjunctions, particularly in the light of the semantic proximity of temporality and conditionality.

Absolute participial constructions: PARTICIPIUM CONIUNCTUM and ABLATIVUS ABSOLUTUS Two structurally different types of absolute participial constructions can be distinguished. The PARTICIPIUM CONIUNCTUM (PC) or ‘coned participle’ is coreferential, sharing its subject with its main clause, whilst the ABLATIVUS ABSOLUTUS (AA) or ‘dist ablative’ has a subject distinct from the main clause subject. These different reference patterns are reflected formally in that the participle in the PC construction receives its case (as well as gender and number) by agreement with its subject in the main clause, whilst the AA assigns ablative case to the subject of the dependent clause and the participle. In both constructions, the participle agrees with its semantic subject. 78. Participium Coniunctum: ¯ ¯ H¯ IS REBUS COMMOTUS, CAESAR PROFECTUS EST DEM.PRONAbl.P l. thingAbl.P l. persuadepp.N om.Sg. Caesar

Persuaded by this, Caesar set off. 50 51

C. Suetonius Tranquillus: Vita Vitellii, 8.2 Titus Livius: Liber III, 51.13

N om.Sg.

set-off3rd.sg.past

44

CHAPTER 2. FROM LATIN TO ROMANCE

79. Ablative Absolute: ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ TRIBUN IS INTERCEDENTIBUS SENATUS LEGEM PERFERRE NEQU¯IVIT

52

tribuneAbl.P l. objectpp.Abl.P l. senateN om.Sg. lawAcc.Sg. push-throughinf.pres. couldn’t

Because the tribunes objected, the senate could not push the law through. The way in which case is assigned in these constructions is significant because it is essentially syntactically, not semantically determined. This fact gives some insight into the nature and development of this structure in Latin, and also facilitates our interpretation of the corresponding Romance structures. In his study of the ablative absolute, Nutting (1930: 203-217) shows that its use is characterized by its lack of explicit or overt marking of the logical relationship between the participial clause and the main clause: The Ablative Absolute is an ablative phrase, the logical relation of whose content to that of the main statement is not explicit in the choice of case. (Nutting, 1930: 205)

The logical relation between the main clause and its dependent participial clause can be conditional, concessive, adversative, causal, temporal, explanatory-appositional, temporal, or it can even lack any particular connection at all, simply juxtaposing two events. Nutting observes that while some of these relations are covered by the functional range of the ablative case, others, such as temporal relations or mere juxtaposition of events, are not. He explains the use of ablative for the absolute construction by the fact that there is no obvious one-to-one relationship between the ablative and any one particular meaning or logical relation 53 ; this “loss of caseconsciousness” would pave the way for its use where a specification of the logical relation is not required or intended. The clear lack of any single semantic or logical relation between the main clause and the absolute participle raises the question whether it has a single, characteristic semantic feature at all. From a formal point of view, Cauer (1912: 42) characterises it as a condensed expression 54 , and Nutting (1930: 215) coins the term Stenographic Ablative, which can be understood to refer to its formal concision as well as its pragmatic function. On the one hand, it is exploited stylistically to give an impression of “businesslike promptitude” (Nutting, 1930: 216), which appears to become increasingly fashionable with later Latin authors. Here an interesting parallel with the comparatively frequent use of the equivalent structure in Modern Romance journalese style can be observed, which is generally characterized as a typical ‘economical’ feature of journalistic . On the other hand, Nutting (1930: 217) concludes that an important function of the Ablative Absolute is the description of “a sketchy background”. The parameter of fore- and backgrounding, an important component of modern discourse pragmatics, marks events as central or subsidiary to the main action or sequence of events. In the case of absolute constructions, the absence of an overt or implied specification of the relationship between participial and main clause is an iconic way of rendering the notion of backgrounding: a structure that is underspecified in this way reflects the speaker’s attitude to the content of the backgrounded clause. It is not primarily 52

Cit. Bayer & Lindauer (1974: 187) “That the question of the case used is a very subsidiary matter is indicated by the fact that similar [...] expressions employ the genitive in Greek, the Dative in Gothic, the locative in Sanskrit, etc.” (Nutting, 1930: 215) 54 “diese bequeme Form einer zusammengedr¨ angten Ausdrucksweise” 53

2.3. NON-INFINITIVAL NOMINAL DEPENDENT CLAUSES IN LATIN

45

a high degree of precision that is crucial, just like a stage setting can be blurred and imprecise but still be sufficient to provide a context for the action in a scene of a play. At this point, it should be noted that what has so far been discussed with reference to the AA is largely the same for the PC: it, too, is semantically underspecified, expressing such differential notions as temporality, modality, causality, concession, and conditionality. With transitive verbs, the participial construction can occasionally even resemble a direct object complement: ¯ LAR SUM FAMILIARIS ¯ ¯ FAMILIA ¯ UNDE EXEUNTEM ME ¯ ASPEX80. EGO EX HAC 55 ISTIS ... out.of demonstr.pron.Abl.Sg familyAbl.Sg. whence leavepart.Acc.Sg me observe2nd.pl.past

I am the patron goddess of the family whose house you saw me leave/ that I left.

2.3.3

The gerundive

The gerundive is a nominal verb form with a ive, and frequently a modal sense. Apart from its adjectival use as attribute of a noun and as a component of impersonal expressions (eg. INDUSTRIA LAUDANDA EST ‘diligence must/should be praised’), it can also be dependent on a another verb or clause, though morphosyntactically it behaves like an adjective, agreeing with its syntactic subject, which due to the gerundive’s ive force is its semantic object. A logical entailment of this is the fact that only transitive verbs can form a gerundive. The gerundive without preposition The semantic role of a non-prepositional gerundive depends on the case assigned to its semantic object, which by extension is also the case assigned to the (agreeing) gerundive itself. In the nominative, the gerundive expresses purpose, as exemplified in (81): ¯ PATRE ARISTOTEL¯I EDUCANDUS ¯ ¯ 81. ALEXANDER A TRADITUS EST56 Alexander from fatherAbl.Sg. proper.nameDat.Sg. educategrndv.N om.Sg. hand.over3rd.sg..past

Alexander was handed over to Aristotle by his father to be educated. With other cases, the final meaning is largely lost or superseded by the semantics of the respective case. The accusative of the gerundive, for instance, is semantically equivalent to a direct object complement (82), and the ablative can be used to express cause or means (83). ¯ 82. CAESAR PONTEM IN FLUMINE FACIENDUM CURAT57 proper.name bridgeAcc.Sg. in riverAbl.Sg. makegrndv.Acc.Sg. see.to3rd.sg.pres.

Caesar orders a bridge to be built across the river. ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ 83. POMPEIUS P¯ IRAT IS PERSEQUEND¯ IS MARE TUTUM REDDIDIT58 proper.mameN om.Sg. pirateAbl.P l. chasegrndv.Abl.P l. seaAcc.Sg. safeAcc.Sg. gave.back

Pompey made the sea safe again by chasing the pirates. 55

Plautus: Aulularia; Prologus - Lar Familiaris, l.3 Cit. Bayer & Lindauer (1974: 183) 57 ibid. 58 ibid. 56

46

CHAPTER 2. FROM LATIN TO ROMANCE

The prepositional gerundive The meaning of the gerundive can further be modified prepositionally. This is unproblematic, as the gerundive – unlike, for example, the infinitive – is syntactically adjectival, forming part of an NP. Syntactically, the preposition applies to the entire NP, whilst semantically specifying the exact relationship between V1 and the gerundival V2 . ¯ SAEPE NEGLIGENTES ¯ ¯ ¯ 84. IN AM¯ IC¯ IS ELIGEND IS HOMINES 59 SUNT in friendsAbl.P l chooseGrndv.Abl.P l people often negligent are

In choosing their friends people are often thoughtless. ¯ TANTUM EGO ¯ IMPENDERE ¯ ¯ QUANTUM TU AUT VIDES ¯ AUT AD 85. NON VIDEO 60 ¯ ¯ ME CONSOLANDUM ADFERS. not as.much I impendinf see1st.sg as.much you either

2nd.sg

or to me encourageGerndv.Acc.Sg bring2nd.sg

I see as many threatening things as you either see or put forward to incite me.

2.3.4

The supine

Supine is a traditional term referring to two vaguely similar verbal nouns. The term, derived from SUP¯INUM ‘bent backwards’, does not provide much information about the characteristics of the forms bearing this name.

The final supine The supine ending in -UM expresses the purpose of main clauses centred around verbs of motion. ¯ 86. SPECTATUM VENIUNT, VENIUNT SPECTENTUR UT IPSAE 61 watchSup they.come, they.come watch3rd.pl..subj that themselves

They come to watch, and come to be watched themselves. The final supine derives from an accusative of direction, and the restricted range of main verbs that it can occur with shows that it has retained some of this physical directionality.

The supine of assessment The use of the supine of assessment is relatively limited, as it must be accompanied by certain ¯ assessing adjectives such as FACILIS/DIFFICILIS EST ‘it is easy/difficult’, INCR EDIBILIS ¯ EST ‘it is unbelievable’, or M¯IRABILIS EST ‘it is wonderful’. ¯ EST UTRUM FACILIUS AM¯ISERIT POPULUS 87. SED HANC DIFFICILE DICTU 62 ROMANUS AN RECUPERAVIT but this difficultAcc.Sg. saysup. is whether easier let.go3rd.sg.past people Roman or reconquered

But this is difficult to say, whether the Roman people let go or recaptured more easily. ¯ AM¯ ¯ DIALOGUS, Ch.XVII, 62. Cit. Bayer & Lindauer (1974: 183) from: Cicero LAELIUS S¯ IVE DE ICITIA Cicero: M. TULLI CICERONIS EPISTULARUM AD ATTICUM LIBER TERTIUS: [VIII] Scr. Thessalonicae iv K. Iun. a. 696 (58), cit. http://patriot.net/∼lillard//cic.att3.html 61 Ovid: ARS AMATORIA, 1.99 62 Livy: Flori epitomae de Tito Livio, Bellorum omnium annorum DCC, Libri duo liber primus, XXXV 59

60

2.4. THE FATE OF LATIN NOMINAL DEPENDENT STRUCTURES IN ROMANCE

2.4

47

The fate of Latin nominal dependent structures in Romance

2.4.1

Loss of the gerundive in Romance

The gerundive does not survive into Romance. Vincent (1999: 4) explains this with its reliance on morphological case: “If this disappears, the construction goes with it.” This explanation alone may, however, be an oversimplification. Similar to the novel patterns of prepositional infinitive usage, an extension of the – existing – prepositional gerundive construction could have compensated for the loss of morphological case. An important factor contributing to its disappearance is its formal and semantic similarity to the gerund. Sentences (88) and (89) show the equivalence of both constructions under specific circumstances, namely if a gerund with a direct object appears in the genitive or non-prepositional ablative. 88. CUPIDUS SUM URBEM VIDEND¯ I63 eager be1st.sg.pres. RomeAcc.Sg. seeger.Gen.Sg.

I am eager to see Rome. 89. CUPIDUS SUM URBIS VIDENDAE64 eager be1st.sg.pres. RomeGen.Sg. seegdv.Gen.Sg.

I am eager for Rome to be seen (by me). Keeping in mind that the entire system of clausal subordination undergoes a process of restructuring, it can be expected that two separate constructions with such a high degree of formal and semantic similarity or even overlap would not survive. What is more, the emerging prepositional infinitive construction is capable of replacing the gerundive in all its clause-like constructions, leaving no structural gap. The characteristic ive force is either pragmatically implied, as with manipulative verbs such as in Span. mandar construir algo ‘to order something to be built’, or alternatively explicitly by means of the periphrastic be-ive with ser, ˆetre, etc.

2.4.2

The supine in Romance

The supine of purpose Even within Classical Latin, the use of the supine of purpose is restricted to a small number of main verbs. The availability of prepositional infinitives for purpose clauses seals its fate, preventing its survival into Romance and simplifying the system: Purpose being only one of numerous possible logical relations between main and dependent clause, it is to be expected that, once the mechanism of expressing all logical relations by preposition+infinitive is established, a separate morphological form for one particular logical relation would have little chance of survival, particularly in view of the transparency and iconicity of the analytic principle underlying the prepositional infinitive construction. More relevant for this study than the moribund form itself is the mechanism by which the notion of physical directionality turns into abstract directionality or purpose, which is reflected by the fact that the supine of purpose is only used with main verbs of motion. The extension of morphological markers of direction turning into markers of purpose is cross-linguistically extremely common, and in Chapter 7 its central role in the emergence of prepositional complementizers 63 64

Cit. Bayer & Lindauer (1974: 184) ibid.

48

CHAPTER 2. FROM LATIN TO ROMANCE

and its relevance in the differential development of prepositional infinitives in Ibero- and DacoRomance will be discussed.

The supine of assessment The supine of assessment has also disappeared from the majority of Romance varieties, to be replaced by prepositional infinitive constructions as in the following Spanish example. 90. Esto es importante de hacer. This is important DE doinf.

This is important to do. In this type of clause, the preposition does not specify the logical relationship between the two clauses, but functions merely as a formal marker of dependency. Different Romance languages choose different prepositions as dependency markers: French: important a ` faire Italian: importante da fare The fact that there is no visible semantic motivation for the choice of preposition is evidence that this construction exploits the availability of prepositional dependency markers by expanding their use, in a process involving semantic bleaching, to other contexts that call for a default complementizer. In sentences such as (90), the motivation for the insertion of the prepositional complementizer is the fact that the subject of the main clause, esto, is the semantic object or [theme] of the infinitive hacer. This discrepancy between semantic role and syntactic function, often referred to as object-to-subject raising, entails that there is no single, unambiguous logical relation between the unit [main clause] and its dependent infinitive clause, because the main clause contains the raised object of its dependent infinitive. As the subject position is already occupied by the raised object esto, the material remaining in the dependent clause must occupy a different position at surface level. This is achieved by inserting a complementizer without semantic content of its own, by which the formal requirements can be satisfied without altering the semantic content of the sentence. This analysis is ed by the fact that in Spanish (and Italian), no complementizer appears when no raising has taken place (91). 91. Es importante [hacer esto]Subject . be3rd.sg. important doinf. this

It is important to do this. Romanian, on the other hand, does not make use of the infinitive in this context. In its place, a construction labelled supine, consisting of de followed by a special invariable form of the verb, is used. (‘Aceea e important de f˘ acut.’) 65 How the use of the Romanian supine relates to that of the infinitive is discussed further in Chapter 6. 65

Whether the form derives directly from the Latin supine or whether it is an acquired use of the past participle is a contentious issue that lies beyond the scope of this survey. Intriguingly, the Romanian supine also covers some areas that coincide with the Latin gerundive.

2.4. THE FATE OF LATIN NOMINAL DEPENDENT STRUCTURES IN ROMANCE

2.4.3

49

Underspecified gerundial and participial clauses

A functional overlap in Latin between participial clauses and the ablative of the gerund is obvious: both, it has been shown, are typically used to add information related to the main clause in some way, but without making explicit reference to the exact type of relation. The respective suffixes -NTE and -NDO also being phonetically similar, Romance only retains a single form in place of the two, the gerund. As discussed in section 2.3.2 above, underspecification of the logical relation to their main clause is characteristic of participial constructions in Latin. This underspecifying quality of the gerund/participle has survived into modern Romance – a fact that is particularly significant because it shows that the overall shift away from synthetic verb forms, combining lexical and grammatical meaning, towards analytic structures with a separate prepositional element for grammatical meaning, is not a universal process in Romance. The gerund retains, or even expands, the low degree of semantic precision that the ablative gerund has in Latin. Traditional grammars often list different possible semantic values of the gerundial clauses, such as temporal, instrumental, final, concessive, and conditional 66 , but thereby miss the important fact that the choice of a structure that omits the precise marking of any logical relation between main and dependent clause is, in itself, significant at the pragmatic level. The following Portuguese sentences are just a few examples of how varied the semantic roles of the backgrounded gerundial clause can be: 92. Temporal (simultaneous): Lavando a roupa, contou-me o que tinha acontecido. Doing the laundry, she told me what had happened. 93. Instrumental: Tem tamb´em de zelar pela seguran¸ca da sua equipa de pilotos, ajudando-os sempre que est˜ ao em dificuldade.67 They also have to be vigilant for the security of their team of pilots, helping them whenever they are in trouble. 94. Causal: Sendo o u ´ nico aluno que n˜ ao tinha escrito nada, foi repreendido. Being the only pupil who hadn’t written anything, he was scolded. 95. Conditional: Mas n˜ ao conhecendo bem os meios, n˜ao se torna mais dif´ıcil para si resistir a eventuais press˜oes ou manipula¸co˜es?68 But not knowing their methods, doesn’t it become harder for you to resist possible pressure or manipulation? 96. Concessive: Os fundos comunit´arios pagam os projectos, o mesmo n˜ ao acontecendo quando eles s˜ ao feitos pelos GAT.69 The communal funds pay for the projects, which is not the case if/when they are organized by the GAT. 66

cf. Butt & Benjamin (2000: 306-308) from Cetem 01 68 ibid. 69 Cetem 01 67

50

CHAPTER 2. FROM LATIN TO ROMANCE

97. Final: Chamou-nos, pedindo dinheiro. He called us to ask for money. Similar to the gerund, coreferential past participle clauses offer a way of underspecifying the logical relationship between the two clauses, giving clear information only with regard to the time relation between the two verbs: 98. Portuguese: Esgotada, a minha m˜ae se deitou. Exhausted, my mother lay down. 99. Romanian: Facut˘ a ˆıntr-un moment ˆın care ziarul nu mai are de pierdut decˆ at subvent¸iile, aceast˘a ˆıntoarcere nu are alt˘a semnificat¸ie decˆat una care dezvaluie mizeria moral˘a a ziaristului...70 Brought about at a time at which the newspaper has nothing more than subsidies to lose, this return has no significance except one that devalues the journalist’s moral plight. But while anteriority is predictable as time reference with the past participle, simultaneity is merely the default temporal pattern of the gerund, which can be overruled pragmatically in contexts that require different time reference. Consider (100): 100. Esclarecendo que a ideia de rasgar esta rua partiu do -geral do distrito [...], o dito relat´orio a a enumerar as virtudes do projecto. 71 Clarifying that the idea to tear up this street came from the district governor, the said report continues by listing the virtues of the project. The relationship between esclarecendo and a a enumerar is, if anything, one of anteriority. The auxiliary ar a is a clear indicator of temporal sequence; this is sufficient to override the unmarked interpretation pattern of simultaneity. That lexical items frequently give clues regarding the semantic role of the gerundial clause can also be seen in sentence (96), where o mesmo n˜ ao triggers a concessive reading, as language s rightly expect that a dependent clause negating a component of its main clause in this way is likely to be concessive. Such overt relation markers are, however, not required, as exemplified in the remaining examples above. This absence of overt specification of the semantic relationship between two clauses is not exclusive to the gerund/participle, as previous sections in this chapter have shown. Exploiting the fact that the hearer’s real world knowledge will often allow him to reconstruct the logical connection between two clauses, asyndetic and underspecified finite dependent structures occur in Latin and Romance, and underspecified paratactic constructions also frequently exploit pragmatic factors in the same way: 101. O dito relat´oriu esclarece que a ideia de rasgar esta rua partiu do -geral do distrito, e enumera as virtudes do projecto. Said report clarifies that the idea of tearing up this street came from the district , and it lists the advantages of the project. 70 71

Romˆ ania Literar˘ a 49, 1996: ‘Revista revistelor – Un viraj murdar’. Cetem 1

2.4. THE FATE OF LATIN NOMINAL DEPENDENT STRUCTURES IN ROMANCE

2.4.4

51

Prepositional gerunds and participles in Romance

The use of prepositional markers to specify the relation between gerundial and prepositional clauses and their matrices did not spread in the same way as it did with the infinitive. Whilst the gerund with AD (74), though common in Latin 72 , has not survived into Romance at all, having been replaced by final prepositional infinitive constructions, this is not the case for the ablative gerund with IN (75). In several Romance varieties, a cognate structure is still used in dependent clauses with simultaneous time relation and punctual aspect. Modern French, as well as some Spanish varieties73 make use of this structure. 102. En arrivant a` l’´ecole, il l’a vu brˆ uler. En llegando a la escuela, vi´o que se quemaba. On arriving at the school, he saw it burning. The choice of preposition for this construction is of some significance. Whilst the choice of preposition with the infinitive determines the logical relation between the two clauses, en does not give any specific relational information beyond the relative temporal setting of the two events – semantically redundant information, since the choice of the gerund verb form would be sufficient to clarify this time relation. Instead of more specific prepositions expressing simultaneity such as Fr. pendant or Sp. durante, en with its literal locative meaning reflects and even reinforces the underspecified nature of the gerund, merely indicating an imprecise notion of closeness between the two clauses. This is very much in keeping with the non-prepositional, pragmatically backgrounded use of the gerund in Romance, inherited from the Latin gerund and participial constructions. The past participle is also occasionally used with a preposition indicating time reference. 103. Despu´ es de vendida la casa, nos arrepentimos. 74 After the house had been sold, we regretted it. 104. El legado caduca tambi´en cuando la cosa determinada perece en su totalidad [...] despu´ es 75 de muerto el testador, y antes de llegada la condici´ on, por caso fortuito. The bequest also expires if the determined object perishes in its entirety [...] after the testator has died and before this condition has been brought about coincidentally. Such prepositional structures are, however, very much isolated in a structural framework that is dominated by underspecified gerund/participle constructions on the one hand, and overtly specified prepositional adjunct clauses on the other. A likely reason for this distribution is the fact that the ablative gerund already has a wide range of established functions without overt prepositional marking in Latin, and that this pattern remains dominant. The emergence of the prepositional infinitive as an alternative non-finite verb form allows for a clearer distribution, in which the gerund/participle becomes even more closely associated with formal and semantic underspecification, thus lending itself to pragmatic backgrounding, often supplying contextual information that is logically related to the main sequence of events more loosely than the central elements. The infinitive, on the other hand, is more 72

“Es findet sich h¨ aufig [...] im Akkusativ mit der Pr¨ aposition AD” (Bayer & Lindauer, 1974: 182) This construction is “virtually extinct in modern educated usage”(Butt & Benjamin, 2000: 308) 74 Cit. Seco (1967: 246) 75 C´ odigo Civil de la Rep´ ublica de Nicaragua, Arto. 1159; cit. http://www.ibw.com.ni/∼ gilberto/CODIGOS/CIVIL/civil07.htm 73

52

CHAPTER 2. FROM LATIN TO ROMANCE

closely associated with the main sequence of events in discourse. This can be traced back to Latin, where one of its central usages is in the AcI complement of verbs of perception. Complements of verbs of perception very often describe central events in narrative or discourse, as it is frequently the things seen, heard, or felt by the speaker or the person spoken about that constitute a chain of events worth narrating. Thus, the distribution in Latin of the gerund/participle and the infinitive complement appears to deliver an explanation for why the gerund did not extend its prepositional usage; the two constructions essentially share out the pragmatic ground among themselves, with the gerund/participle covering underspecified, pragmatically backgrounded clauses, whilst the infinitive, with its greater degree of formal and semantic precision, is used in clauses that form part of the main course of events.

2.4.5

Overt subjects in gerundial and participial clauses

Similar to the Latin ablative absolute, the Romance languages have participial and gerundial clauses that have their own subject, and are thus independent of the main clause in of subject reference. Though the subject of the dependent clause (S 2 ) is not equivalent to the main clause subject S1 in the following examples (105 - 111), there is generally a semantic or pragmatic link to an element in the main clause – very rarely is the possibility of having an overt subject in absolute gerund or participial clauses exploited to introduce a completely new referent that is not in some way overtly or implicitly present in the immediate context. This is very much in keeping with the pragmatics of the gerund/participle as a backgrounding device with the primary function of providing a general setting for the main clause. In the Spanish example (105), the referent of S2 is the same entity as the subject of the relative clause a que el jud´ıo tiende, also dependent on the main clause; in (106) S2 has the same referent as DO1 lo. 105. Porque el fin a que el jud´ıo tiende es el predominio del negro africano en toda Am´erica del Sur y del Norte, siguiendo ´ el mismo una estricta pol´ıtica racial... 76 Because the goal the Jew strives for is supremacy over the African Negro in all of South and North America, he himself following a strict racial policy... 106. Yo mismo record´e una vez por escrito la u ´ nica ocasi´on en que lo hab´ıa visto en persona, siendo ´ el Pr´ıncipe treinta˜ nero y yo un adolescente... 77 I myself once put down in writing the only occasion on which I had seen him in person, him being a prince in his thirties and me a youngster... In the Romanian example in (107), the element in the main clause that S 2 is coreferent with is particularly distant from S1 if considered along the lines of a traditional syntactic tree diagram: femeii ‘of the women’ is the attribute of the noun nefiint¸a, which in turn is part of an adverbial phrase of V1 . However, there is a clear semantic link between the generic term femeii and the different types of women that S2 ea ‘she’ is equated with. The referential closeness of femeii and the gerundial clause is also represented iconically by the fact that the two elements occur next to each other in the sentence. 76 77

http://www.actionweb.net/∼ orden/chile\ protocolos.htm Javier Mar´ıas: El papel del Rey in El Pa´ıs Digital, 8.2.2001.

2.4. THE FATE OF LATIN NOMINAL DEPENDENT STRUCTURES IN ROMANCE

53

107. O s˘a m˘a ˆıntrebat¸i, cum de s-au decis schivnicii s˘a ne lase ˆın pace, dup˘a ce au predicat ˆın fiecare zi foarte violent, despre nefiint¸a femeii, fiind ea mam˘a, sor˘a sau logodnic˘a. 78 You will ask me how it came about that the hermits decided to leave us in peace, after they had every day preached violently about woman’s non-existence, be she a mother, a sister or a fianc´ee. In (108), on the other hand, the overt S 2 la mejora de la educaci´ on ‘the improvement of education’ is not explicitly present as an argument of the main clause, but nevertheless very much implicit by association with centros de preescolar ‘preschool centres’. 108. Siendo la mejora de la educaci´ on su obsesi´on [...], Bush propone invertir m´as en 79 centros de preescolar. The improvement of education being his obsession, Bush proposes to invest in preschool centres. Example (109) is, to some extent, a hybrid of sentences such as (106) and (108): it has a multiple S2 , of which one element la poes´ıa refers to the same entity as DO 1 , but the other two (la pintura, la m´ usica) are only linked by virtue of belonging to the same semantic field. 109. Siendo la pintura, la m´ usica y la poes´ıa las tres artes m´as finas y sutiles, ¿C´omo es que Vd. no cultiva la poes´ıa con asiduidad? 80 Painting, music and poetry being the three most subtle art forms, why is it that you do not cultivate poetry assiduously? Semantic relatedness is also the element linking the overt subjects of the two gerundial clauses al patrulea ‘the fourth’ and altul ‘the other’ to S 1 trei volume ‘three volumes’ in (110). Since the three subjects do not refer to the same referent, they cannot be considered coreferential in a strict sense. Nevertheless, the subjects of the gerunds are defined through reference to S 1 trei volume: though the individual volumes are separate referents, they all form part of a single, more comprehensive referent group, a series of volumes in which ‘the fourth’ and ‘the other’ are defined in relation to the first three. 110. Neobosit, din 1991 se dedic˘a elabor˘arii unei lucr˘ari de proport¸ii enciclopedice, Biografia ideii de literatur˘a, din care au ap˘arut, pˆın˘a ˆın 1994, trei volume, al patrulea fiind anuntat, urmind altul cu care aceasta capodopera ˆın cinci volume se va fi ˆıncheiat. 81 Untiring, from 1991 onwards he devotes himself to the production of a work of encyclopedic dimensions, the Biography of Literary Ideas, of which, until 1994, three volumes had appeared, the fourth being announced, another one following, with which this masterpiece in five volumes will have been completed. Having no subject, impersonal verbs rule out coreference a priori. There is no single subject assignment pattern for such gerund clauses; the subject can appear overtly (111), or PRO (the empty subject of the gerund) can be controlled either by any NP within the main clause (112) or outside it (113). In the absence of an overt subject in the dependent clause, agreement can make the identity of the controller syntactically unambiguous, as in (112). But where such an indicator is not available, determining the controller is a matter of what is pragmatically the most likely candidate in the given context. In (113), for instance, the entire preceding sentence functions as the controller of siendo. 78

Romˆ ania Literar˘ a 3, 24.1.2001, Paul Miron: ‘Ochean – Marele R˘ azboi’ Javier Valenzuela: Filadelfia - La campa˜ na d´ıa a d´ıa, in El Pa´ıs Digital, 8.2.2001. 80 Los Foros de El Pa´ıs Digital, Entrevista con Mario Vargas Llosa, 8.2.2001. 81 Romˆ ania Literar˘ a 40, 9.10.1996, Cronica Edit¸iilor C Z. Ornea: O nou˘ a carte a domnului Adrian 79

54

CHAPTER 2. FROM LATIN TO ROMANCE

111. Siendo la situaci´ on del pa´ıs buena, parece l´ogico que el electorado se sienta m´as atra´ıdo por la visi´on de futuro de Clinton. 82 being the situation of.the country good, seem3rd.sg. logical that the electorate REFL feels more attracted by the vision of future of C.

The country’s situation being good, it seems logical that the electorate feels more attracted by Clinton’s vision of the future. 112. Siendo tan raras, es probable que nunca encuentres una de estas flores sin saber donde buscarlas.83 being so raref em.pl , is3rd.sg probable that never find3rd.sg.subj one of these flowerf em.pl without knowinf where searchinf .them

Being so rare, it is probable that you will never find one of these flowers without knowing where to look for them. 113. Parece que no hay mejor indicador del nivel alcanzado que el tiempo que se ha dedicado al estudio formal. Siendo as´ı, parece imprescindible analizar c´omo se puede fomentar y mantener muchas horas de pr´actica. 84 seems3rd.sg.pres that not exists better indicator of.the achieved level than the time that REFL has dedicated to.the study formal k being so, seems3rd.sg.pres essential analyse

inf

how REFL3rd.sg can encourage and maintain many

hours of practice

It seems that there is no better indicator of the level achieved than the time that has been dedicated to formal study. That being so, it seems essential to analyse how one can encourage and keep up many hours of practice. Whilst these examples illustrate strategies of subject assignment where coreferentiality is syntactically impossible, the use of overt subjects in dependent clauses as in (111) is not limited to non-coreferential contexts. Much more commonly – as is the case with infinitives with overt subjects and/or person inflection – the syntactic pattern described in section 2.4.3 above, in which S1 and S2 have the same referent, is in place even where the gerund/participle has its own overt subject. There are two reasons for an overt coreferential subject to occur: disambiguation and emphasis. Both are essentially pragmatic notions that depend on the wider textual and extralinguistic context, the knowledge and expectations regarding the specific discourse situation that the speaker expects the hearer to have, the degree of clarity and expressiveness the speaker wishes to convey, and similar factors. Where S2 appears overtly to increase emphasis, this is frequently further supplemented lexically by addition of an intensifier (cf. Section 3.2.3) – mismo in the Spanish example (114), ˆınsu¸si in the Romanian example (115): 114. Unas veces teclando ´ el mismo, otras dictando las respuestas a una secretaria, Almunia respondi´o durante casi una hora a la avalancha de preguntas que iban llegando... 85 Sometimes typing himself, at other times dictating his answers to a secretary, Almunia answered the flood of questions that continuously arrived for almost an hour. 82

‘La campa˜ na d´ıa a d´ıa’, in El Pa´ıs Digital, 8.2.2001. Librer´ıa Agr´ıcola Jerez: Gu´ıa bot´ anico-ecolol´ ogica, http://www.agricolajerez.com/web/guia/ 84 J. Sloboda: ¿Qu´e es lo que hace a un m´ usico? http://metodosuzuki.eresmas.com/sloboda.htm 85 El Pa´ıs Digital, 29.2.2000.

83

2.4. THE FATE OF LATIN NOMINAL DEPENDENT STRUCTURES IN ROMANCE

55

115. Declarˆ and el ˆınsu¸si c˘a mai degrab˘a se supune limbajului decˆat ˆıl domin˘a, Heaney se a¸saz˘a singur ˆın descendent¸a lui Swift, Wilde ¸si Shaw. 86 He himself declaring that he submits to language rather than dominating it, Heaney alone takes his place as a successor to Swift, Wilde and Shaw. A lexically reinforced overt subject is also found in defective sentences such as (116), where a gerundial construction appears independently, without a main clause: 116. O hot˘arˆıre dificil˘a mai ales cˆınd viitoare mam˘a se dovede¸ste o creatur˘a ciudat˘a, filmul M´artei M´esz´aros alunecˆınd el ˆınsu¸si pe un f˘aga¸s discutabil. 87 A difficult decision, especially when the expectant mother proves to be a strange creature, Marta M´esz´aros’ film itself takes a dubious turn. Disambiguation is very much a context-dependent phenomenon, heavily dependent on the speaker’s intuitive impression of whether increased clarity is particularly relevant for his discourse objective in a particular pragmatic context. However, three syntactic environments increase the likelihood of a need for disambiguation. a) Long interpolation between coreferential subjects 117. Din acest punct al demonstrat¸iei Mihai Zamfir face un pas mai departe decˆat au f˘acut cei care identificaser˘a afinit˘a¸ti sau asem˘an˘ari de tactici ˆıntre comunism ¸si fascism, el vorbind ferm despre originea lor...88 From this point of the demonstration onwards, Mihai Zamfir goes one step further than those who had identified afinities or tactical similarities between communism and fascism, him speaking firmly about their origin... b) Interpolation of a pronoun with different referent between coreferential subjects 118. Cel mai mult, din tot ce-mi povestise mie umblˆınd el repede pe str˘azile l˘aturalnice ale Bucure¸stiului, au fost dou˘a relat˘ari [...] mult mai complexe ¸si mai complicate... 89 At the very most, of everything that he told me, (him) walking quickly through the side streets of Bucharest at a quick pace, there were two much more complex and complicated stories... c) The dependent gerund/participial clause precedes the main clause If the gerund/participle precedes the main clause, the coreferential subject frequently appears pre-emptively in the dependent clause, to avoid a situation in which the hearer has to wait for the subject of the main clause to occur before he can unambiguously interpret the preceding dependent clause. S1 , which in this case follows S2 , can either appear as an anaphoric pronoun referring back to S2 , as in (119), or it can be a repetition of S 2 . The latter is helpful if (c)-type need for disambiguation coincides with (a)- or (b)-type syntax. – Sentence (120) is an instance of a gerundial clause preceding the main clause, and at the same time a long string of lexical material comes between S2 mitropolitul Nifon and S1 Nifon. 86

Romˆ ania Romˆ ania 88 Romˆ ania 89 Romˆ ania

87

Literar˘ a Literar˘ a Literar˘ a Literar˘ a

41, 18.10.1995, Lidia Vianu: Un Nobel pentru Irlanda ˘ – Femei despre femei. 15, 14.4.1999, Irina Coroiu: CINEMA ˘ – In absenta cenzurii. 7, 25.2.1998, Gabriel Dimisianu: CRONICA LITERARA ˆ 7, 25.2.1998, Constantin Toiu: Prepleac – In amintirea lui Belu Silber

56

CHAPTER 2. FROM LATIN TO ROMANCE

119. Invitat ¸si Mihai M˘alaimare ˆın calitate de pre¸sedinte al Comisiei de Cultur˘a a Camerei Deputat¸ilor, acesta ˆı¸si motiveaz˘a absent¸a ˆıntr-o scurt˘a scrisoare. 90 Mihai Malaimare also having been invited in his function as president of the Culture Commission of the House of Representatives, he explains his absence in a short letter. 120. ...fiind ˆın¸stiint¸at mitropolitul Nifon despre plecarea ta din viat¸a aceasta ¸si venind el la tine cu smerita dragoste, ai spus c˘a ‘¸si pentru Nifon este n˘adejde de mˆantuire’ ¸si ai proorocit c˘a la ¸sapte ani cˆand tu vei fi dezgropat, Nifon va ˆıntra ˆın mormˆant. 91 The metropolitan Nifon being informed about your departure from this life, and him coming to you with humble love, you said ‘for Nifon there is hope for salvation, too’, and you prophesied that after seven years, when you will be exhumed, Nifon will enter the tomb. In Section 3.3.3, it will be seen that very similar parameters are involved in the choice between the bare or the inflected infinitive in Portuguese.

2.5

Conclusion

In this chapter, it has been seen that both Latin and the Romance languages have a variety of different ways in which dependent clauses can be formed. Their distribution is not explicable in purely semantic , as many of the logical or semantic relations between main clause and dependent clause can be rendered by more than one construction. This lack of a one-to-one relationship between form and meaning clears the path for system-internal shifts along the lines of reanalysis and analogical extension, a mechanism that appears to be responsible not only for various distributional patterns in Classical Latin, but also for subsequent developments into Romance. The reorganization of dependent clause patterns in Romance is at least in part structurally motivated. The reduction of nominal inflectional morphology, paired with the new availability of analytic finite and non-finite subordinators, allow for a more symmetrical system in which the logical relationship between two clauses is expressed and reflected by the choice of a prepositional element, both in finite and infinitival subordination. Complementing this system in which semantic relationships are overtly and precisely specified, there is a range of formally and semantically underspecified constructions. This is found in the area of finite subordination to some extent, but in the non-finite domain the principle of underspecification is the central feature setting gerund and participle constructions apart from precisely specified infinitival clauses. Syntax alone cannot for this phenomenon; to understand the reasons behind the choice between overtly specified and underspecified constructions, discourse pragmatic factors have to be integrated into the grammatical analysis. After this brief outline of how the overall system of subordination has evolved from Latin to Romance, it is now time to concentrate in more detail on the construction that has undergone the most dramatic change: the infinitive.

90

Romˆ ania Literar˘ a 4, 31.1.2001, Maneaua la romˆ ani. Icosul 11, Condacele ¸si Icoasele, Acatistul sfˆ antului Ierarc Calinic de la Cernica, http://www.math.psu.edu/ chirica/Acatist/SfCalinic.html 91

Chapter 3

The infinitive in Spanish and Portuguese today In this chapter, three separate aspects of the syntax of infinitival clauses are discussed, all of which, it will be seen in the following chapters, play a role in the diachronic development of the prepositional infinitive. The lack of an overtly marked subject person is probably the most thoroughly analysed aspect of dependent infinitival structures, perhaps due to the fact that the ‘non-finiteness’ of the infinitive is often understood as equivalent to a lack of “overt marking of subject person”. (Pountain, 1998a: 393) For Spanish and Portuguese, this characterisation of the infinitive is not entirely accurate: though the Spanish infinitival forms cannot be inflected for person agreement (nor for anything else), an overt subject can appear in prepositional infinitives. Portuguese permits both inflectional subject marking, and overt subjects with the infinitive, to a much greater extent. The first two sections show the importance of pragmatic factors in the way infinitival clauses receive their non-overt or overt subjects. The third section investigates the question of whether it can be said that the infinitive has become more nominal or more verbal today than it was in Latin.

3.1 3.1.1

Non-overt subjects of infinitival clauses Some different approaches to the syntax of infinitival clauses

There have been countless attempts and theories aiming to resolve the difficulties surrounding the syntax of infinitival clauses. In line with the linguistic zeitgeist that saw syntax as a largely independent dimension of language, an extensive tradition of primarily syntactic approaches to the analysis of infinitival clauses has developed since the late 1960s, of which I shall briefly outline an exemplary selection here. An early attempt to for the absence of overt subjects in infinitival clauses was the principle of Equi-NP-deletion or obligatory subject deletion (e.g. Rosenbaum, 1967; Lakoff, 1968, 1971), a straight-forward rule that requires the subject of the dependent clause to be deleted at at surface level if it is identical with that of the main clause. In sentence such as (121), with the underlying structure (122), S 1 and S2 are identical.

57

58

CHAPTER 3. THE INFINITIVE IN SPANISH AND PORTUGUESE TODAY

121. (Yo) quiero comer arroz. I want to eat rice. 122. [yo querer e] [yo comer arroz]. Therefore, the rule of Equi-NP-deletion requires S 2 not to appear at surface level, which in turn requires V2 to be non-finite, so that no person reference, which would flout the rule, needs to appear. Thus (123) is not an acceptable surface level representation of (122): 123. ∗ (Yo) quiero que (yo) coma arroz. I want that I eat rice. On the other hand, if the subject is not identical (or ‘Equi’) in both clauses, the sentence must have a finite complement with overt person marking at surface level, since the absence of overt S2 (-marking) is interpreted as the result of equi-NP-deletion, which is unique to coreferential complements with S1 =S2 : 124. (Yo) quiero que (t´ u) comas arroz. I want that you eat rice. Versions of the equi-NP-deletion rule vary to some degree. Whilst Lakoff (1968: 30) states that “the rule deleting the subject of the main clause, equi-NP-deletion, operates, as its name implies, only in the case that the subject of the lower sentence is identical to that of the higher sentence”, implying that it covers only cases of subject coreference, other versions include equi-NP-deletion of a subject S2 that is identical with an object in the main clause, such as (125). uS2=O1 salir de la casa.] 125. PedroS1 teO1 prohibe [t´ Peter forbids you [you to leave the house]. A purely formal attempt to predict which NP in the main clause the deleted subject of the infinitival clause (co)refers to was the Minimal Distance Principle introduced by Rosenbaum (1967), stating that the complement subject is identical to that of the NP that it is syntactically closest to it in syntactic structure (i.e. from which it is separated by the least nodes in the tree diagram). However, this principle is not universally correct, as Comrie (1984: 450) points out: in complements of verbs such as prometer, the object O 1 is closer to V2 , but the subject of the infinitival clause is nevertheless identical to S 1 . Whilst some more recent generative s (cf. e.g. Larson, 1988) eliminate this problem by asg different structures to sentences such as (126) and (127), with the subject in (127) located structurally closer to the embedded verb than the object, Jackendoff & Culicover (2003: 528-30) provide a detailed argument why such sentence pairs “are completely parallel in syntactic structure” and that “there is no overt basis for the difference in control”, concluding that “no principle based on syntactic structure can for controller position, since apart from control [the sentences] are syntactically identical.” 126. JuanS1 teO1 hace [PROS2=O1 salir.] 127. JuanS1 teO1 promete [PROS2=S1 salir.] In most versions of generative grammar, particularly in Government & Binding (G&B) theory, a simple deletion of the agentive NP in the infinitival clause is not possible, as the Extended Projection Principle (EPP) (Chomsky 1982: 10) requires every clause to have a subject. Also, argument structure requires the slot for the agentive semantic role to be filled at all levels of

3.1. NON-OVERT SUBJECTS OF INFINITIVAL CLAUSES

59

representation. In order to satisfy those requirements for the infinitive clauses without overt subject reference, the presence of the empty category PRO, functioning as the infinitive’s subject, is assumed. PRO has no phonetic realisation, is both pronominal and anaphoric, and is normally co-indexed with an NP outside the dependent clause, with which it is semantically identical. It is, however, neither governed, nor necessarily c-commanded by its antecedent; instead, it is ‘controlled’ by the NP outside the infinitival clause with which it is co-indexed (i.e. semantically identical). Haegeman (1994: 285) states that “with respect to the interpretation of PRO we see that it is either controlled by an argument NP or is arbitrary in interpretation.” This is reflected in four different types of control, of which subject control and object-control co-index PRO with an argument in the matrix clause, pragmatic control co-indexes it with an argument outside the matrix clause or one that is pragmatically understood, and arbitrary control leaves PRO without co-indexation, as shown in examples (128-131): 128. Subject control: PRO is co-indexed with S 1 . El hombrei quiere [PROi nadar] The man wants to swim. 129. Object control: PRO is co-indexed with O 1 . El hombrei mej prohibe [PROj nadar]. The man forbids me to swim. 130. Pragmatic control: PRO is co-indexed with an external NP. Nosotrosi no sabemos nada. Es preciso [PROi estudiar]. We don’t know anything. It is necessary (for us) to study. 131. Arbitrary control: no coindexation of PRO Es dif´ıcil sobrevivir [sin PROØ comer]. It is difficult to survive without eating. Subject and object control are typically found in sentences where control is obligatory (i.e. the controller is predictably an NP present in the matrix clause), and this requires the controller to c-command PRO (128 - 129). The absence of argument NPs in the matrix clause of (130 - 131), on the other hand, rules out obligatory control. Optional or non-obligatory control allows PRO to be co-indexed either with a pragmatically determined external NP, or to remain without specific coindexation. Subsequently, Control Theory has been subject to continuous discussion and modification, often focusing on purely theory-internal problems. For instance, under the standard G&B analysis, an infinitival complement containing PRO must be a (with a null complementizer) in order to be protected from government by the matrix verb 1 ; this is necessitated by the fact that PRO must remain ungoverned. One of the problems this analysis raises is that “it is based on the 1

IPs.

This contrasts fundamentally with the complements of ECM verbs such as ‘believe’, which are analysed as

60

CHAPTER 3. THE INFINITIVE IN SPANISH AND PORTUGUESE TODAY

assumption that, in contrast to all other NPs, PRO is not Case-marked” (Boˇskovi´c 1997: 10). This specific problem is resolved in Chomsky & Lasnik (1993: 561) by proposing that PRO is, in fact, always Case-marked, receiving ‘null Case’, which is reserved exclusively for PRO 2 and checked by agreement with ‘nonfinite I’ (i.e. the non-overt inflection on the infinitive). This Case-theoretical analysis is further refined by Martin (1994), who adopts a proposal by Stowell (1982) that control infinitives (but not ECM infinitives) are specified for tense, specifically denoting a potential future event. Introducing this essentially semantic aspect into the hitherto purely syntactic theory, Martin suggests that it is this feature [+tense] on some infinitives that Case-checks PRO in some infinitival clauses, but not in others, which consequently cannot contain PRO. Boˇskovi´c (1997) expands this idea, proposing that the presence or absence of [+tense] on an infinitive depends on s-selection by the matrix verb. Among other things, this allows him to abolish both the mechanism of c-selection and the notion of government, which he considers to be theoretically problematic and dispensable as part of minimalist theory. His analysis also allows him to discard the theory-internally motivated division of complementizerless infinitival clauses into s and IPs: his “Minimal Structure Principle” (MSP) calls for maximum economy in the complexity of syntactic structure, and analysing ‘control infinitival complements’ as IP satisfies this requirement. Whilst Boˇskovi´c’s primary aim is to update and simplify the syntactic description of infinitival complements, it should be noted that he incorporates semantic criteria into his analysis. The more recent proposals presented so far are mainly or exclusively concerned with the internal structure and constituency of infinitival clauses, but do not attempt to provide any insights about controller selection, i.e. which NP PRO is coindexed with. While Chomsky (1981: 78-9) concedes that control theory goes beyond the purely syntactic domain and “involves a number of different factors: structural configurations, intrinsic properties of verbs, other semantic and pragmatic considerations”, there have been some attempts to explain control as a purely syntactic phenomenon. Manzini (1983, 1986), for instance, claims that the type of control depends essentially on the syntactic position of the complement, with free control limited to complements in subject position, whereas complements in object position require PRO to be “bound in the first sentence which contains the control sequence” (Manzini 1986: 322). That this does not reflect linguistic reality is easily shown by the difference between examples (132) and (133), in both of which the complement of proponer is an object clause. 132. Subject control: Como los estudiantes estaban preocupados, yo i propuse [PROi repasar los ejercicios con ellos]. As the students were worried, Ii proposed [PROi to go over the exercises with them]. 133. Pragmatic/free control: ¿No sabesj d´onde ir en EEUU? Yoi propondr´ıa [PROj ir a Nueva York]. Youj don’t know where to go in the US? Ii ’d suggest [PROj to go to New York]. In a more recent attempt to explain control within the Minimalist Program, Hornstein (1999) proposes that in cases of obligatory control (coreference with an antecedent in the matrix clause), the infinitival subject moves upward from the complement IP to the matrix VP to the matrix IP. For non-obligatory control, on the other hand, he proposes the presence of the phonetically null pronominal, small pro. Hornstein’s proposals are quite revolutionary within generativist/minimalist theory because they imply that PRO is not as radically different from ‘trace’ as 2

PRO “is the sole NP that can bear null Case (though it may have other Cases as well [...]).” (Chomsky & Lasnik 1993: 561)

3.1. NON-OVERT SUBJECTS OF INFINITIVAL CLAUSES

61

previously thought. They also necessitate the abandonment of the long-established θ-Criterion, instead allowing θ-roles to license movement. However, this analysis is based on the crucial assumption that “OC [obligatory control] and NOC [non-obligatory control] are effectively in complementary distribution” (Hornstein, 1999: 92), which, as can be seen from sentence pairs such as (132) and (133), is incorrect. The only way of upholding the theory would be to propose two separate, structurally different [proponer+infinitive] constructions, but this would effectively be the same as itting that with certain verbs, the two sentence structures are in free variation, which brings us no further in understanding how the identity of the infinitive’s non-overt subject is determined. The fact that syntactically equivalent sentences can have differing patterns of control is, indeed, the fundamental problem of all purely syntactic attempts to explain control. Jackendoff & Culicover (2003: 520) provide sentence pairs such as ‘John i persuaded Sarahj to j/∗i dance’ and ‘Johni promised Sarahj to i/∗j dance’ and conclude that “should one wish to find a relevant syntactic difference between [these two sentences], it has to be motivated by the dogma that control is syntactic; there is no independent motivation.” For a detailed of why purely syntactic s of control are unsatisfactory, I refer the reader to Jackendoff & Culicover (2003: 519-24, 528 ff.). A simple way of dealing with distinct control patterns such as those triggered by the verbs ‘promise’ and ‘persuade’ is to accept that the choice between subject and object control is lexically determined. In one such lexically-based theory by R˚ uˇziˇcka (1983a,b), control verbs are apparently arbitrarily divided into those requiring thematic distinctness and others requiring thematic identity. Thematic identity-verbs require the two coreferential NPs to share the same semantic role, while thematic distinctness-verbs require them to have distinct semantic roles. This approach is, however, not very satisfactory, as assignment to the two groups “remains an idiosyncratic lexical specification” (Comrie 1985: 54), and it ignores control by NPs outside the subordinating clause. The issue of apparent arbitrariness can be resolved by incorporating meaning into the analysis; since Jackendoff (1969, 1972), a long tradition of semantically-based proposals has developed. Generally, such proposals share the basic principle that the lexical semantics of the verb or predicate selecting an infinitival complement are partly or fully responsible for the pattern of subject reference in the complement. Jackendoff & Culicover’s (2003) recent semantically-based of control, for instance, shows that the type of control a complement displays is a consequence of the semantic role it is assigned by the head that selects it. Their central claim is that when a head selects a complement of the semantic type Action, it also imposes unique control3 , the controller being the individual to which the head assigns the role of Actor for the action described, no matter what its syntactic position is. The thematic role that the controller fills in the main clause depends on the semantic class of the head. For example, the Action complement of verbs containing intention as a semantic component will impose subject control because the actor of the Action argument must necessarily be the same as the intender. Verbs containing obligation as a semantic component, on the other hand, are object control verbs because they impose an obligation on someone other than the obligor to perform an action. Jackendoff & Culicover’s semantically-based model is clearly a step forward, as it explains many cases of unique subject or object control. However, it leaves certain questions unanswered. To begin with, the semantic restrictions imposed by semantic verb types are not, in all cases, as 3

Jackendoff & Culicover use the term unique control as opposed to free and nearly free control; it is roughly equivalent to the more established term obligatory control.

62

CHAPTER 3. THE INFINITIVE IN SPANISH AND PORTUGUESE TODAY

absolute as this theory suggests. With a verb expressing intention, for instance, we will usually find a complement in which the actor is also the intender, but a sentence like ‘I i intend himj to j help me with this job.’4 shows that the control pattern of intention-verbs is not uniquely predictable on the basis of the semantic notion intend. The claim that verbs which permit only Action class complements must always impose unique control is not true in all cases, either. Examples (132) and (133) above, as well as (134), show that there is a class of verbs, expressing proposals or suggestions, which allow generic or free control. 134. Yoi propondr´ıa [gen proteger el medio ambiente m´as]. Ii ’d suggest [to gen protect the environment more]. (non-obligatory, free/generic control) With this class of verbs, the subject of the infinitival clause can be coreferent with an NP outside the matrix clause, and its identity can either be determined pragmatically within the immediate discourse (133), or it can be generic (134). For control patterns as in (133), Jackendoff & Culicover (2003: 533) uphold their generalization by claiming that there is an intended addressee implicitly present in the matrix clause. Whilst conceding that discourse pragmatic effects are involved in determining the addressee in the matrix clause of (133), they maintain that these pragmatic effects are not themselves involved in how control is determined. No explanation is offered for generic control patterns as in (134). Pragmatic approaches to the problem of control, e.g. Comrie (1984, 1985), and Pountain (1998a) with reference to Spanish, tend to focus on the same fact as the semantic approaches, namely that the meaning of the subordinating verb is involved in determining the control pattern. But rather than claiming that different verb types impose rigid patterns of control, pragmatic approaches take into the discourse context as well as “the dictates of common sense knowledge about what is more or less likely” (Pountain, 1998a: 394). Within the framework of Searle’s (1969) approach to speech acts, Comrie (1985: 57-60) argues that certain control patterns are more likely to make an utterance felicitous than others. For example, with verbs belonging to Searle’s class of commissives, such as ‘promise’, the normal expectation will be for the person undertaking a promise also to be the person capable of bringing the promise about; hence the verb ‘promise’ typically imposes subject control. The advantage of such a pragmatic approach to control is that it allows for deviations from the default control pattern if the pragmatic context makes an alternative pattern more likely. By incorporating the speech act as a variable, it makes correct predictions where other approaches fail to do so without resorting to asg idiosyncratic control properties. For instance, the variable control patterns of proponer exemplified in (132 - 134) can be easily ed for in of pragmatic likelihood in the respective discourse context. However, proponents of pragmatic approaches do generally acknowledge that there are limitations to the role of discourse pragmatics in determining the identity of the understood subject in infinitival clauses. For example, even though object control in (135) would be pragmatically possible, and indeed likely, such a reading is impossible. 135. Juani lej prometi´o i/∗j comer un helado. Johni promised herj to i/∗j have an ice cream. 4

N.b.: In Spanish and Portuguese, verbs of intention such as pensar, tencionar do have obligatory subject control; not even the presence of an overt subject to modify this pattern is permitted.

3.1. NON-OVERT SUBJECTS OF INFINITIVAL CLAUSES

63

Such restrictions on the availability of certain readings are pragmatic only from a diachronic point of view, as they are the result of the predominant, typical, pragmatically most likely control pattern becoming entrenched. Due to the fact that, in the vast majority of discourse situations, it is implausible for someone receiving a promise to be the agent fulfilling that promise, the corresponding control pattern is not only the default reading in ambiguous cases, but has become conventionalized as the only possible reading.

3.1.2

An integrated syntactico-pragmatic approach

Motivation None of the approaches discussed above is fully satisfactory in explaining the wide range of existing control patterns. Generalizations regarding obligatory control by an argument of the matrix verb prove not to be universally valid, and virtually no attempt is made to investigate nonobligatory or free control in any detail. A central reason for their deficiencies is the fact that most theories focus primarily on one level of linguistic description, and though they do generally acknowledge the role of the other levels, particularly the pragmatic one, in ing, this is all too often brushed aside because it is perceived as too difficult to formalize. Purely pragmatic approaches, on the other hand, miss the fact that certain formal rules and restrictions are undeniably involved in control assignment. In this section I propose an integrated model of control that unites syntactic and pragmatic criteria, as well as a third component which I refer to as Entrenchment Restrictions. The model has several advantages over other approaches, which I will outline here briefly. The integrated model does not resort to invoking different levels of linguistic description in an ad hoc fashion. As seen in the previous section, many theories attempt to explain control in a purely syntactic, semantic or pragmatic framework, but leave aside phenomena that are inconsistent with their theory, relegating them to a different level of description. For instance, obligatory control is often treated as an entirely separate issue from non-obligatory/free control, though it has been shown above that such a discrete division is unrealistic. The model proposed here is capable of ing for cases that straddle the boundary between these ‘classes’ of control, by applying criteria belonging to different levels of linguistic description in an orderly way. Disposing of unnecessary categories and subdivisions also makes the model more economical; for instance, the classification of main verbs into different classes, depending on the control patterns they permit, can largely be abolished in favour of pragmatic plausibility judgement, which results from a synthesis of lexical semantics and discourse context. A strongly reduced classificatory system may, however, be a useful tool in organizing those subordinating constructions whose control patterns are subject to Entrenchment Restrictions. Finally, a great advantage of the proposed model is the fact that it makes accurate predictions not only for what is traditionally termed complement clause (whether containing a prepositional complementizer or not), but also for prepositional infinitive clauses that fall into the traditional category adjunct. Not treating these clause types as radically different from each other is in line with Jackendoff & Culicover (2003: 523), who merely point out that certain object complements and certain prepositional adjunct clauses share the same control patterns. In Section 1.3.3, I have argued against drawing a strict distinction between these two clause types; the fact that the model presented here is valid for both s this claim.

64

CHAPTER 3. THE INFINITIVE IN SPANISH AND PORTUGUESE TODAY

The decision tree model The syntactic component of this model is a hierarchically ordered list of default patterns, as shown in Table 3.1.1. Table 3.1.1. Level Type of control

Identity of S2

1 2 3 4

S2 =S1 S 2 =DO1 /IO1 S2 =PO1 S2 6∈ main clause

Subject Control Direct/Indirect Object Control Prepositional Object Control Indefinite/Pragmatic Control

Each of the patterns represents control by a different NP, and the default is to always choose the first possible pattern from this list. Three factors determine whether a control pattern is possible or not: a) The presence of the respective NP in the main clause. b) The pragmatic plausibility of the respective NP to function as subject of the dependent clause, which is determined mainly by two factors: our knowledge of the ways in which people and things interact in the real world, and the concrete discourse situation. c) Specific control restrictions (resulting from entrenchment of a common, pragmatically highly likely control pattern).

Figure 3.1: Decision tree for subject reference assignment

3.1. NON-OVERT SUBJECTS OF INFINITIVAL CLAUSES

65

The cyclical mechanism by which the correct type of control is selected is shown in Fig. 3.1. In order to determine which NP the non-overt subject of the infinitival clause is co-indexed with (i.e. which NP=S2 ), syntactic availability, pragmatic plausibility and applicability of specific restrictions are verified for each level of the hierarchy, beginning with level one and ending as soon as both conditions are satisfied. If, however, any one of them is not satisfied, a new cycle begins, in which the next default pattern in the control hierarchy undergoes the same process. If, finally, none of the patterns in the hierarchy satisfy both conditions, the final default is control by an element outside the the sentence; depending on the concrete discourse situation, it may refer to a previously mentioned NP, to one of the interlocutors, or it may be generic.

Application of the model This section illustrates how the decision tree mechanism is applied to different types of sentences in order to explain the way it functions, and to demonstrate that it provides accurate predictions regarding the identity of the non-overt subject in infinitival clauses. All the demonstration sentences provided here are Spanish, but the model can be applied to Portuguese in exactly the same way. For the sake of notational clarity and convenience, PRO will be used to represent these non-overt subjects, but this should not be understood as an indication of adherence to a generative framework.5

Subject and object control The most basic pattern is found in (136). 136. El hombreS1 quiere [PROS2=S1 salir]. The man wants [to leave]. The syntactic requirements of the first hierarchy level, i.e. availability of S 1 , and the pragmatic plausibility of its coreferentiality with PRO, are both satisfied. No specific Entrenchment Restrictions rule out this control pattern. Hence, S 2 is interpreted as identical to S1 . 137. MeIO1 gusta [PROS2=IO1 salir contigo]. I like [going out with you.] 138. MeDO1 molesta [PROS2=DO1 ver esta basura]. It disturbs me [to see this rubbish]. In (137) and (138), the absence of a subject NP in the main clause makes it necessary to proceed to the second level of the hierarchy, which in both cases satisfies the syntactic as well as the pragmatic requirement. As no specific restrictions rule out this control pattern, PRO is co-indexed with O1 .6 A generalization that can be made on formal grounds is that subject control must be ruled out in any sentence in which the infinitival clause itself fills the subject slot, since the main verb cannot have more than one subject. The subject complement itself functioning as controller can be ruled out for two reasons: (a) it is not an NP, which is a requirement for a controller; (b) the infinitival clause being its own subject would lead to a recursive structure. 5 According to some generative approaches (e.g. Rigau 1995, Torrego 1998: 211-2), the null subject in infinitival clauses that also allow overt subjects, which essentially covers all instances of ‘non-obligatory’ control, is pro, not PRO. Here, PRO will simply represent any non-overt subject of an infinitival clause. 6 The distinction between direct and indirect object is arguably disappearing from many varieties of modern Spanish, but this does not affect the model, as it locates DO and IO at the same level of the hierarchy.

66

CHAPTER 3. THE INFINITIVE IN SPANISH AND PORTUGUESE TODAY

139. El hombreS1 meIO1 manda [PROS2=IO1 salir]. The man orders me [to leave]. In (139), the syntactic requirement of the first cycle (availability of S 1 ) is satisfied. The next step, verification of pragmatic plausibility, must however lead to rejection of subject control, as someone giving orders to himself is by no means what our knowledge of the world would suggest as a likely interpretation of the sentence. Thus, we return to the top of the decision tree, moving on to object-control as the second default choice. The IO 1 is available as well as being a pragmatically plausible candidate for S 2 . Hence, the model correctly predicts that PRO is controlled by the IO1 me. The important role of the parameter of pragmatic plausibility is also demonstrated in the prepositional infinitive clauses in sentences (140 - 142). 140. A esa mujer, Mar´ıaS1 leIO1 envidia su suerteDO1 por [PROS2=S1 ser una persona envidiosa]. Mary is envious of this woman’s fortune because [she is an envious person]. 141. A esa mujer, Mar´ıaS1 leIO1 envidia su suerteDO1 por [PROS2=IO1 ser tan afortunada.] Mary is envious of this woman’s fortune because [she is so lucky]. 142. A esa mujer, Mar´ıaS1 leIO1 envidia su suerteDO1 por [PROS2=DO1 ser tan buena]. Mary is envious of this woman’s fortune because [it is so good]. In (140), the subject of the main clause, Mar´ıa, is available as controller, and Mar´ıa is also a pragmatically plausible subject for the infinitival clause, since someone who is said to be envious of someone else is likely to be an envious person. In (141) and (142), the presence of the main clause subject Mar´ıa would make the same control pattern as in (140) possible, but the pragmatic plausibility is not given: in most real-world situations it would be unlikely for someone to be envious because they themselves are lucky. Thus, the cycle is repeated at the next level of the control hierarchy. Both a direct and an indirect object are available as potential controllers at this level, but in (141) it is pragmatically highly implausible for DO 1 , suerte, to be the subject of the infinitival clause, whilst our knowledge of the world suggests that it is much more plausible for someone to be envied due to his good luck; hence the indirect object is correctly predicted to be the controller. In (142), on the other hand, the reverse applies: the direct object, suerte, is the pragmatically more plausible subject of the two objects, so the model correctly predicts direct object control.

Prepositional object control In (143), the absence of a subject as well as a direct or indirect object allows the mechanism to proceed to the next hierarchy level, where the availability of the prepositional object and the semantic plausibility of its functioning as S 2 allow it to function as controller. 143. Es costumbre entre [los s del correo electr´onico] P O1 [PROS2=P O1 incluir a pie de todos sus mensajes una marca personal.] 7 It is customary among s of e-mail [to include a personal signature at the end of their message]. (144) provides evidence that indirect object control has priority over prepositional object control. The mechanism of control assignment is essentially the same as in (139), O 1 being both 7

web.bemarnet.es/software/eudora6.html

3.1. NON-OVERT SUBJECTS OF INFINITIVAL CLAUSES

67

available and a pragmatically plausible choice. However, example (144) proves that direct object control precedes prepositional object control in the hierarchy of default patterns: there is no reason why PO1 , mi hermana, should be ruled out as controller on pragmatic grounds, so the reason for it not to be the ‘understood’ S 2 must be its lower position in the default hierarchy.

144. [Por mi hermana]P O1 , meIO1 es importante [PROS2=IO1 saber lo que le va a pasar.] For the sake of my sister it is important to me to know what is going to happen to her. Control from further afield 145. Los terroristas me hab´ıan capturado. Era importante [PRO S2=external escapar]. The terrorists had captured me. It was important [to escape]. 146. ¡Ya es hora de [PROaddressee dormir]! (e.g. said to a child) It’s time to go to sleep! 147. Es interesante [PROS2=gen estudiar idiomas]. It’s interesting [to study languages]. In (145 - 147), PRO is co-indexed with elements outside the main clause. All previous levels of the default hierarchy have been run through without any positive results, due to the absence of any subject or direct, indirect or prepositional object. What remains is the choice between control by an NP in the discourse vicinity 8 (so-called ‘pragmatic control’) (145), by the speaker or listener (which might be termed interlocutor control) (146), or generic/arbitrary control with an impersonal or unspecified controller (147). The type of control, as well as the identity of the controller, are determined on the basis of a combination of the same pragmatic principles that apply at the earlier stages of the control assignment mechanism, namely plausibility in view of the specific discourse context and our knowledge of the way things are likely to interact in the world. So in (145), our pragmatic knowledge that the agent of escapar is usually not the capturer but the captured, is what allows us to determine that me, and not los terroristas, is the controller. In (146) and (147), the choice between interlocutor control and generic control depends primarily on the discourse situation. If said to a child or an unwilling language student, respectively, the understood subject is the addressee. But if uttered in a more general context, the understood subject is generic ‘one’, ‘anyone’ or ‘everyone’.

Entrenchment Restrictions In the final step of the mechanism, the control pattern that has been established on syntactic and pragmatic grounds is checked against specific restrictions that rule out control patterns which are generally highly implausible in the majority of discourse contexts. These restrictions could be described as ‘fossilized pragmatics’. The most important class of verbs affected by these Entrenchment Restrictions are verbs of perception (ver, oir, etc.) and a number of directive verbs, including such notions as commanding or ordering, forbidding, teaching, requesting, assuring, causing, persuading, etc. Infinitival complements of these verbs follow the pattern of sentence (139) above (repeated here as (148)), ruling out subject control. 8

So-called long-distance control by an element within the same sentence, but outside the main clause, can be included in this category.

68

CHAPTER 3. THE INFINITIVE IN SPANISH AND PORTUGUESE TODAY

148. El hombreS1 meIO1 manda [PROS2=IO1 salir]. The man orders me [to leave]. The crucial property shared by these directive verbs is the fact that one does not usually do them to oneself. A coreferential (subject control) reading is pragmatically unacceptable, simply because it is common knowledge that it is highly unusual to order, forbid or teach oneself to do something. In the first decision tree cycle, this Entrenchment Restriction, automatically rules out subject control, even if a pragmatically plausible subject is available. A coreferential reading is therefore impossible even in sentences such as (149), where the necessary pragmatic plausibility would be given. 149. El robotS1 ense˜ na [a PROS2=Ø/∗S1 bailar.] The robot teaches to dance. If we apply the decision tree mechanism to this sentence, it becomes clear why the only possible reading is generic control. In the first cycle, the availability of an NP would make subject control possible, and it would also be pragmatically plausible (cf. 150). However, the specific restriction for ense˜ nar rules out subject control, so we must repeat the cycle at the second level of the hierarchy. As no direct or indirect object is available, the cycle is repeated once again at the third level of the hierarchy, but again without success, as no prepositional object is available, either. So we finally proceed to the last level of the hierarchy, where, being pragmatically plausible, generic control is assigned. To express semantic identity of S1 and S2 , a reflexive object pronoun (co-indexed with S 1 ) must be inserted in the main clause, as in (150). 150. El robotS1 seIO1=S1 ense˜ na [a PROS2=IO1 bailar.] The robot teaches himself to dance. In (150), the specific restriction for ense˜ nar still rules out subject control in the first cycle, but the availability of an object NP, which is also a pragmatically plausible controller, permits object control. It must be pointed out that it is not predictable, purely on the grounds of lexical semantics, whether a specific verb is associated with such control restrictions. Thus, a directive verb such as exigir, ‘to demand’, permits subject control (151) as well as the expected object control (152). 151. Los turistasS1 exigen [PROS2=S1 comer muy temprano.] The tourists demand to eat very early. 152. El jefeS1 leIO1 exige [PROS2=IO1 trabajar much´ısimo.] The boss demands of him that he works very much. The fact that the subject control restriction observed in connection with other directive verbs does not apply to exigir is an indication that discourse situations in which the demander is also the agent of the demanded action are sufficiently common for the restriction on coreferential control not to have become entrenched. With verbs of perception, the situation is very similar to that of directive verbs. They, too, generally rule out subject control. There is, however, a slight difference in the pragmatic causation behind this entrenched restriction: whilst it is generally rather implausible or unlikely that someone orders, forbids or advises himself to do something, it is perfectly normal for someone

3.1. NON-OVERT SUBJECTS OF INFINITIVAL CLAUSES

69

to hear, see or feel himself doing something. But in the vast majority of situations, it is not relevant to mention that the person who says something also hears himself speaking, or that someone falling down the stairs feels how he is falling down the stairs. Normally, our knowledge of the world is sufficient to know these things, and the Gricean maxims of economy and relevance forbid us to utter things that are obvious. Therefore, the likelihood of encountering coreferential infinitive complements with verbs of perception is very low, and this absence has become entrenched and generalized. For the rare cases in which it is relevant to the discourse situation that someone perceives himself doing something, this is resolved by means of object control by an inserted reflexive (153), as with the directive verbs (150). 153. PedroS1 seIO1=S1 o´ıa [PROS2=IO1 respirar.] Peter heard himself breathe. In addition to verbs with entrenched restrictions on subject control, there is a group of verbs such as prometer ‘to promise’, aceptar ‘to agree to’, jurar ‘to swear’, that permit only subject control. Their common property is the fact that, under normal circumstances, the person to whom a promise or an oath is made is highly unlikely to be the person who will act to bring about the promised state of affairs. Therefore, the subject control pattern has become so strongly entrenched that this group of verbs does not permit object control, even when pragmatically plausible. 154. (=135.) Juani lej prometi´o i/∗j comer un helado. Johni promised herj to i/∗j have an ice cream. As levels 2, 3 and 4 in the hierarchy (Table 3.1.1.) are ruled out for this class of verbs, there is no alternative to asg subject control in the first decision cycle of Fig. 3.1. Entrenchment Restrictions are, however, not uniquely associated with verbs or certain verb classes; certain prepositions impose comparable restrictions as well. In (140 - 142), it has been shown that the preposition por permits various control patterns, depending on what is pragmatically plausible. Pountain (1998a: 405) attempts to explain this by arguing that prepositional infinitive clauses have a looser relation to the main clause and are thus more susceptible to contextual pragmatic influences than object complements, which form a much tighter unit with the main verb. On the other hand, there are several prepositional infinitive constructions that (when used without an overt subject in the infinitival clause), strictly require subject control, such as para+infinitive, sin+infinitive, antes de+infinitive, despu´es de+infinitive, etc. Throughout the rest of this study, it will be seen that the link between certain prepositional infinitive constructions and subject control or subject coreference is of crucial importance for their synchronic distribution, as well as their diachronic development. In Section 3.2, it will be seen that subject coreference remains dominant even when the infinitive has its own overt subject. The pragmatic causes for this close link between prepositional infinitives and coreference are discussed in Sections 4.4.1 and 4.4.2, after the presentation of the relevant diachronic data. But first, it is time to take a closer look at (subject) coreference and coreferentiality.

3.1.3

The dominant role of coreferentiality

While the discussion of the decision tree model has shown that non-overt S 2 (equivalent to PRO) in an infinitival clause can be identical (co-indexed) with a number of different NPs inside and outside the main clause itself, infinitival structures are, in traditional grammatical s, frequently equated with coreferentiality: “The infinitive should be used only if the subject of the

70

CHAPTER 3. THE INFINITIVE IN SPANISH AND PORTUGUESE TODAY

subordinate verb is the same as the main verb’s. [...] If the subjects are different, the subjunctive or indicative must be used” (Butt & Benjamin, 2000: 293). Where the object-control pattern found in connection with the class of manipulative or directive V 1 -verbs (ordering, permitting, influencing), as well as verbs of perception, is mentioned at all, it tends to be characterised as exceptional9 . Though it has been shown above that these so-called exceptions can, when considered from a pragmatic perspective, be fully integrated into a single system of S 2 assignment, the fact that subject coreference constitutes the default control pattern is no coincidence, as a statistical look at control patterns reveals. Coreferentiality is by far the most frequently occurring person reference pattern. The data extracted from the modern sections of the Spanish and Portuguese text corpora reveal that in Spanish, the ratio of coreferential to non-coreferential infinitival clauses is 79%:21%. In Portuguese, the discrepancy is even slightly greater, with a ratio of 83%:17%. These figures include infinitival object and subject clauses as well as prepositional infinitive clauses. In Section 3.1.1 above, the link between the meaning of control verbs on the one hand, and the pragmatic plausibility of either their subject or object functioning as subject of the dependent infinitival clause on the other hand, has been shown to be crucial for specific control patterns to establish themselves. However, not every verb imposes such restrictions on who or what might plausibly be the understood subject of the complement. Verbs that are capable of taking a coreferential complement can be subdivided into three classes, based on how predictable coreferentiality of the complement is. a) Intrinsic coreferentiality This group contains the verbs traditionally labelled as auxiliaries and modal verbs such as poder, deber, ir a, soler, and a group of verbs that function as an aspectual modifier of V 2 , such as acabar de, empezar a. Verbs of these two types must by definition be coreferential because they form a semantic unit with V2 , merely adding modal or aspectual information about the event described in the complement. They are ed by a group of verbs such as atreverse a ‘to dare’, abstenerse de ‘to abstain from’, for which it can confidently be said that anything but coreferentiality would be highly implausible. Compare (155) and (156): 155. [El hombre]S1 se atreve a [PROS2=S1 gritar.] The man dares to scream. 156. ∗El hombreS1 se atreve a [que algoS26=S1 pase.] ∗The man dares that something happens. Intrinsically coreferential V1 -verbs make up the far greatest part of all coreferential V 1 -verbs. In Spanish, 77% of coreferential infinitival clauses are intrinsically coreferential; for Portuguese, the corresponding figure is 70%. b) Optional coreferentiality Verbs belonging to this class can take either a coreferential or a non-coreferential complement, the latter typically being a finite clause. Which of the two possibilities is chosen is entirely a question of what is to be expressed semantically, i.e. whether S 1 and S2 are identical. 9

E.g. Halm (1971: 101) “Ausnahmsweise ist hier das Objekt des Hauptsatzes Subjekt des Infinitivs.”(my emphasis)

3.1. NON-OVERT SUBJECTS OF INFINITIVAL CLAUSES

71

157. [El hombre]S1 quiere [PROS2=S1 gritar.] The man wants [to scream]. 158. El hombreS1 quiere [que [su esposa]S26=S1 grite.] The man wants [that his wife screams]. The absence of an overt S2 is automatically interpreted as an indication of coreferentiality. c) Semi-coreferentiality A small class of verbs frequently take a complement in which S 2 is not identical with, but includes, S1 . Such verbs, e.g. contribuir a, participar en, ayudar a semantically imply S 1 ’s participation in the action of V2 : 159. [El hombre]S1∈S2 contribuye a [PROS2 pagar tus deudas.] The man contributes to paying your debts. Infinitival complementation is found where S 1 ∈S2 ; in some special contexts it may, however, it may be possible for S1 to contribute something to a process without being involved in it as such. Overt mention of S2 is required to explicitly excludes S 1 from S2 , as in (160): 160. [El hombre]S1 contribuye a [que [la polic´ıa]S2 encuentre su hija.] The man contributes to the police finding his daughter. All in all, semi-coreferentiality differs very little from optional coreferentiality; semi-coreferential verbs are, indeed, optionally semi-coreferential. Despite the subtle difference of full vs. partial coreferentiality that distinguishes these two groups of verbs, they are most conveniently treated as a single class here.

Semantic exploitation of the coreferentiality pattern The close link between coreferentiality, particularly intrinsic coreferentiality, and dependent infinitives leads to some interesting instances of semantic exploitation. Several Spanish declarative verbs, among them sentir, saber, and pensar, always take a finite complement when used as declaratives, even if the complement is coreferential, as in (161): 161. JuanS1 sabe que [(´el)S2=S1 tiene dinero.] Juan knows [that he has money]. This can be explained by the fact that these verbs semantically exploit the close association of dependent infinitives with intrinsic coreferentiality, as they acquire a slightly modified meaning that makes them intrinsically coreferential, as seen in (162): 162. JuanS1 sabe [PROS2=S1 nadar.] Juan [is able to swim]. Infinitive complementation causes a similar semantic shift 10 for sentir and pensar: 10

Whether we are, in fact, dealing with a lexical split here is hard to determine.

72

CHAPTER 3. THE INFINITIVE IN SPANISH AND PORTUGUESE TODAY

declarative

intrinsically coreferential

pensar que - to think that sentir que - to feel that saber que - to know that

pensar+inf. - to intend sentir+inf. - to regret saber+inf. - to be able to

Another declarative, negar ‘to deny’, behaves in much the same way, but its coreferential counterpart, negarse a ‘to refuse to’ is additionally marked by a feature typical of intrinsically coreferential control-verbs: it is reflexive (thus iconically reflecting the self-reference). 163. JuanS1 niega que [(´el)S2=S1 sea un ladr´on.] Juan denies [that he is a thief]. 164. JuanS1 se niega a [PROS2=S1 ser un ladr´on.] Juan refuses [to be a thief].

With decir ‘to say’, a similar semantic shift can also be observed; decir+infinitive is typically used in the meaning ‘to claim that’, as in the following example. 165. [El embajador en Kinshasa]S1 dijo [PROS2=S1 desconocer las circunstancias del fallecimiento de los misioneros.11 The ambassador in Kinshasa claimed not to know the circumstances of the missionaries’ death. Crucially, decir+infinitive implies no commitment by the speaker to the truth value of the complement, whereas an indicative form in a finite complement would imply assertion 12 on the part of the speaker (or journalist, in this case). Though ‘to claim’ cannot be said to be intrinsically or exclusively coreferential, it is understandable that speakers would be particularly keen not commit themselves to something that someone else has said about himself, and which may be difficult to confirm objectively. Spanish tener que and Portuguese ter de ‘to have to’ are the result of a slight variation on the exploitation pattern illustrated above. The basic meaning of tener/ter ‘to have, to hold’ is pragmatically incompatible with a verbal object complement, as in (166): 166. ∗Juan tiene [estudiar]. ∗Juan holds [to study]. The absence of a pragmatically meaningful interpretation of such sentences facilitates its semantic exploitation, replacing the original possessive meaning by a related 13 , but intrinsically coreferential one (167). 11

El Pa´ıs, 9.11.96, cit. Pountain 1998b: 170. There is an extensive body of work on the semantic implications of mood choice in Spanish; the observation that the use of the indicative implies “assertion of the occurrence expressed by the verb” is based on Klein (1975); Lunn (1989) provides a similar analysis, and Zlotchew (1977) characterizes the indicative/subjunctive distinction as one of experience/non-experience. The infinitive, on the other hand, being underspecified for mood, is neutral in of assertion. 13 Similar structures found in many languages of the world, e.g. English to have/to have to+infinitive suggest that there is a psychological connection between the notions of possession and obligation. 12

3.2. INFINITIVES WITH OVERT SUBJECT IN SPANISH

73

167. JuanS1 tiene que [PROS2=S1 estudiar.] Juan has [to study]. The above instances of semantic exploitation provide further evidence for the link between coreferentiality and the choice of an infinitival structure. In this section it has been shown that infinitival clauses are, indeed, predominantly coreferential, in the majority of cases because V2 is intrinsically incapable of having a complement subject other than S1 . The fact that intrinsic coreferentiality is by far the most frequent predictable relation between main and dependent clause, (its predictability making the absence of overt person marking in the dependent clause possible in the first place), can be seen as the factor triggering the association of infinitive with coreferentiality as a default pattern, which is valid not only for infinitival object clauses, but also for (adverbial) prepositional infinitive clauses. In the following chapters, it will become evident that it is precisely this link between coreferential subject reference and clausal infinitives that plays a crucial part in the order in which prepositional infinitives enter the language, and in the extent to which different prepositions form prepositional infinitive clauses.

3.2

Infinitives with overt subject in Spanish

In Section 3.1.2 above, a model explaining the combined syntactic and pragmatic mechanism by which the identity of non-overt subjects of infinitival clauses can be determined was presented. For object complementation with intrinsically coreferential V 1 , no need for marking of an alternative complement arises, as non-coreferentiality would be pragmatically nonsensical. However, for the case of object-complementation with optionally coreferential and intrinsically non-corefrential V1 -verbs, as well as subject and adjunct clauses, the situation is different: S 2 -assignment in accordance with the model in Fig. 3.1 is merely one possibility. If an S 2 other than the (pragmatically plausible) one assigned by the default mechanism is to function as subject of the infinitival clause, this must be indicated by its overt presence within the dependent clause, so as to overrule the automatic default assignment.

3.2.1

Overt S2 in finite clauses

The most common way of overtly expressing a subject of a dependent clause, in Spanish as well as in Portuguese14 , is by the use of a finite dependent clause, in which the verb is morphologically inflected and a subject NP can freely appear. (168-169) show how the finite construction can allow any NP as S2 , while that of the infinitival clause is syntactically predetermined: 168. [El hombre]S1 quiere [PROS2=S1 salir.] The man wants [to leave]. 169. El hombreS1 quiere...

...[que la mujerS26=S1 salga.] ...[que sus hijosS26=S1 salgan.] ...[que t´ uS26=S1 salgas.]

The man wants the woman/his children/you to leave. 14

Especially regarding Portuguese, this may appear surprising in view of the widely discussed inflected infinitive construction that can optionally have its own subject; Section 3.3.2 provides figures confirming the statistical dominance of finite subordination in Portuguese.

74

CHAPTER 3. THE INFINITIVE IN SPANISH AND PORTUGUESE TODAY

This device of overt S2 -marking is universally applicable wherever a need to clarify the identity of S2 arises, in adverbial clauses as well as subject complements (170 - 173). 170. El hombreS1 lo hace [para PROS2=S1 ganar dinero.] The man does it [to earn money]. 171. El hombreS1 lo hace [para que mi hijoS26=S1 gane dinero.] The man does it [so that my son earns money]. 172. MeIO1 gusta [PROS2=S1 comer.] It pleases me [to eat]. 173. MeIO1 gusta [que mi hermanaS26=S1 coma.] It pleases me [that my sister eats.] Generally, finite and infinitival dependent clauses are mutually exclusive 15 : the infinitive is the only possible choice wherever the default pattern allows it to receive the correct S 2 ; a finite dependent clause must be used wherever the S 2 assigned to the infinitive would not correspond to the correct sentence meaning. (174), for example, is not a possible alternative to (168): 174. ∗El hombreS1 quiere [que S2=S1 salga.] ∗The man wants that he (himself) leaves. V1 -verbs that permit subject-raising are exceptional in that finite and infinitival complements are not mutually exclusive, but in complementary distribution: an infinitive is required when S 2 is raised (or the presence of an infinitival complement causes S 2 to be raised), as in (175-176). 175. El alumno parece [estudiar.] The student seems [to study]. 176. Parece [que el alumno estudia.] It seems [that the student studies]. The use of a finite clause can also serve as a disambiguating device for those cases in which the decision tree model (Fig. 3.1) does not lead to an unequivocal assignment of S 2 . In (177), PRO can be interpreted as either pragmatically controlled by a concrete NP outside the sentence, or as arbitrarily controlled. (178), on the other hand, leaves no doubt whatsoever about the identity of S2 . 177. No s´e por qu´e Juan no lo hace. Es importante [PRO S2=N P ?/Ø? hacerlo.] I don’t know why John doesn’t do it. It is important [to do it]. 178. No s´e por qu´e Juan no lo hace. Es importante [que pro S2 lo haga.] I don’t know why John doesn’t do it. It is important [that he S2 does it]. 15

According to Davies (1996), use of the finite structure is favoured whenever the infinitival alternative would force the speaker to make a syntactic choice between two structures of which he does not know which one to pick, e.g. clitic raising. (Parece saberlo. – Lo parece saber.)

3.2. INFINITIVES WITH OVERT SUBJECT IN SPANISH

3.2.2

75

Overt S2 in Spanish infinitival clauses

In addition to finite dependent clauses with an overt subject, Spanish also permits infinitival clauses with overt subjects. This Overt Subject Infinitive (OSI) construction, often referred to as the personal infinitive16 , which “challenges the traditional dichotomy between finite and non-finite verb forms” (Ledgeway, 2000: 116), is found in various Romance varieties, including Castilian, Catalan, Romanian, as well as a number of Italian varieties 17 . Though the OSI in these languages resembles the inflected infinitive in many respects, there are some important differences that will be discussed in more detail in Section 3.3. The overt subject in OSI clauses is obligatorily nominative, as exemplified in Al salir yo/*m´ı/*me de la escuela,... (cf. e.g. Torrego 1998: 207). How the overt subject NP is governed, and how its nominative case can be licensed in a clause that lacks a finite verb form, has attracted much attention in generative linguistics in recent years, and various explanations have been proposed, of which I shall briefly mention some here. Making use of insights gained from the fact that the grammatical person of a ‘null subject’ is morphologically mirrored in the reflexive element of ‘reflexive verbs’, Rigau (1995) argues that infinitival clauses which are not subject to obligatory control by a specific antecedent within the matrix clause have pro, not PRO, as their null subject. Because pro requires strong Agr, she proposes that such a strong Agr is present in INFL of such infinitival clauses that can have overt (lexical) subjects, or pro if the subject is non-overt. Torrego (1998) follows Rigau’s analysis that lexical subjects alternate with pro in this construction, and she points out that we must further distinguish expletive from argumental pro. She proposes that D (the D-feature of Tense, encoded in a separate head) can lack agreement features, in which case it can license only expletive pro (e.g. in Italian), or it can have ‘rich’ agreement, in which case it can license argumental pro (e.g. in Spanish and Catalan). She s this analysis by drawing a parallel to clitic doubling, for which she suggests that the clitic has a Case licensing function similar to that of the ‘null D’ node she proposes, which can license either nominative pro or lexical subjects. An analysis along similar lines for OSI clauses in French, where the distribution of this construction is far more restricted than in Spanish, is proposed by Vinet (1984). She suggests separate structures for infinitival clauses with and without overt subjects. Those with overt subjects have [+Agr] at the INFL-node, whilst there is no [+Agr] in infinitival clauses without an overt subject. Fern´andez Lagunilla (1987), on the other hand, believes that in prepositional infinitive clauses, the (infinitival) verb moves to a position left of the overt subject. This way, the verb can be properly governed by COMP, a node occupied by the preposition in this type of clause. The overt subject, in turn, receives its government by COMP via the verb on its left. Because the overt subject is not an object of COMP, it receives nominative case by default. Fern´andez Lagunilla s her analysis with the observation that OSI constructions are ungrammatical if the infinitive is a subject-raising verb, which she explains by the paradoxical circularity that would arise from the conflicting requirements that the subject NP should move to the left of the verb (raising requirement), and that the verb should move to the left of the subject NP (OSI government requirement). 16

The term ‘personal infinitive’ is not used consistently in the literature: whilst Ledgeway (2000: 115) sees it as opposed to the inflected infinitive, Posner (1996: 165) equates the two. 17 To a more limited extent, French (cf. Vinet, 1984; Maurer Jr., 1968) and standard Italian (cf. Rizzi, 1982) also allow overt subjects in infinitival clauses.

76

CHAPTER 3. THE INFINITIVE IN SPANISH AND PORTUGUESE TODAY

It should be noted that the issue of how the overt subject receives nominative case is largely theory-internally motivated. From a functional semantic point of view, it can be expected that the subject∼agent of a clause receives the typical subject case by virtue of its function within the clause; the analysis for languages like English, where this is not the case, is more problematic. In what follows, four different, aspects of the OSI in Spanish will be looked at in more detail: referential properties of the overt subject, its discourse pragmatic function, distribution of the construction, and the relevance of the position of the overt subject within the clause. It will be seen that all these issues are closely linked.

3.2.3

Referential properties and discourse pragmatic function

The function most commonly associated with OSI constructions is that of ‘dist reference’, in which the overt subject is not coreferential with the subject of the main clause. So for instance in (179), the subject of abrir is not the same as the subject of estaba cerca, whereas both verbs share a subject in the absence of an overt S 2 (180). 179. Al abrir yoS2 los ojos, mi hermanoS1 ya estaba cerca. When I opened my eyes, my brother was already close. 180. Al abrir PROS2=S1 los ojos, mi hermanoS1 ya estaba cerca. When he opened his eyes, my brother was already close. It might then be said that the OSI is a way of overriding the entrenched default control pattern, coreferentiality. Similarly, the default ‘generic’ or ‘arbitrary’ control pattern found in subject clauses can be overridden by means of an overt subject (181). 181. [Cantar yoS26=gen ahora la Traviata] ser´ıa interesante. 18 [singinf. I now the Traviata] would.be interesting

[For me to sing the Traviata now] would be interesting. However, the normal method of individuating (non-default) dependent clause subjects is by means of a finite clause, e.g. ‘cuando abr´ı los ojos’, ‘si yo cantara ahora la Traviata’. We must thus ask ourselves what triggers the choice of OSI over the finite structure. The answer to this is threefold: on the one hand, OSI constructions are chosen because of their economy or perceived concision, especially in journalistic and scientific writing. The more important trigger for the use of the OSI, however, is its contrastive focus 19 on S2 . This contrastive focus, evident for instance in (179) and in (181), which sets apart the majority of OSIs from their finite counterparts, is caused by a number of factors. Firstly, the typical postverbal position of the OSI subject is generally a position of topicalizatian or focus in Spanish; more evidence for a link between post-infinitival position and focus will be provided in Section 3.2.5 below. Secondly, the OSI construction frequently involves the presence of a subject pronoun, which is obligatory and necessary to determine the identity of S 2 in the absence of a full nominal subject NP; overt realization of subject pronouns in Spanish is, however, also closely associated with emphasis or focus. Finally, the presence of an overt subject in an infinitival clause is statistically rare 20 and therefore marked; this mark`edness also translates into increased focus on the subject. 18

Example taken from Yoon & Bonet-Farran 1991: 353 This may not be so in the case of the highly frequent, ‘redundant’ occurrence of overt pre-infinitival subjects in Caribbean Spanish, discussed by Su˜ ner (1986), Morales de Walters (1988). 20 Less than 1% of infinitives have an overt subject. 19

3.2. INFINITIVES WITH OVERT SUBJECT IN SPANISH

77

Having identified contrastive focus as a feature of OSI constructions, it comes as no great surprise that we can find sentence pairs such as (182) and (183), which do not differ from each other in any fundamental or categorically way, despite the fact the overt subject yo in (183) is coreferential with the main clause subject, whereas ´el in (182) is not. 182. Le ayudo [por ser ´ elS26=S1 mi mejor amigo]. I help him because he (and nobody else) is my best friend. 183. Le ayudo [por ser yoS2=S1 su mejor amigo]. I help him because I (and nobody else) am his best friend. Apart from the issue of identity/non-identity of S 1 and S2 , both sentences are exactly parallel in structure, both overt subject pronouns have exactly the same focusing function, and both sentences share exactly the same intonation pattern. On the other hand, OSIs can serve to individuate the subject not only of non-coreferential, but also of coreferential infinitival clauses. The coreferential OSI in (184), for instance, closely resembles the non-coreferential one in (179) in that there is a degree of contrastive focus, but primarily a need to identify the subject of the infinitival clause, which would remain ambiguous without the overt subject. 184. La mujerS1 le hace tropezar con una piedra [sin quererlo ella S2=S1 ]. The woman makes him stumble over a stone [without her wanting to]. It would therefore be inappropriate to claim that coreferential and non-coreferential (‘dist reference’) OSIs are fundamentally different. An alternative division, grouping together all focusbearing OSIs on the one side, and non-focus-bearing non-coreferential OSIs on the other, must also fail because a binary distinction between these two classes is impossible: even in sentences such as (179), a typical ‘dist reference’ example, the overt subject bears a certain degree of contrastive focus and would therefore have to be grouped with the coreferential OSIs. A categorical distinction of coreferential vs. non-coreferential OSI as two separate constructions can thus be said to be an artificial construct that should be abandoned; both focus and subject individuation can be found in coreferential as well as non-coreferential OSIs, and in most cases both these features are present at the same time. Statistically speaking, coreferentiality is, in fact, by far the most common reference pattern 21 in prepositional OSI clauses, as e.g. (185), in which there is clearly some contrastive focus on yo, but its overt presence also has the individuating function of pre-empting the identity of the main clause subject. Due to the prevalence of subject continuity in narrative discourse situations of this type, the initial expectation is for Pepe to be the subject of the following sentence, which is why the clause ‘para llegar ah´ı’ without the yo, a temporary misreading of S 2 would be highly likely. 185. Pepe me convence casi siempre. Pero [para llegar yo ah´ı], tengo que convencerme de que no quedan obst´aculos.22 [for arrive I there] Pepe almost always convinces me. But for me to get there, I have to convince myself that there are no more obstacles. 21

This figure varies considerably, depending on and discourse context. Journalistic exploits the economy and concision offered by non-coreferential OSI constructions; in spoken and colloquial language (e.g. weblogs), coreferential OSIs for more than 90% of all prepositional OSIs. 22 http://lists.albura.net/efe.es/apuntes-kpn/1999-10/0617.html

78

CHAPTER 3. THE INFINITIVE IN SPANISH AND PORTUGUESE TODAY

Nevertheless, despite sentences such as (184), the existence of coreferential OSIs is flatly denied by Fern´andez Lagunilla (1987: 135), who claims that “la presencia del sujeto l´exico no depende s´olo de que el infinitivo no est´e regido, sino tambi´en de que no haya correferencia.” (The presence of the lexical subject depends not only on the infinitive not being governed, but also on there being no coreference.) In a similar vein, Ledgeway (2000: 123) states that “the personal infinitive [is] restricted to marking non-coreferentiality and never surfacing in contexts of coreferentiality, where subject reference is already independently recoverable”. This can only be maintained if we define as ‘personal infinitive’ only those cases with ‘dist reference’, in which case the statement would be tautological. It has been seen above that the marking of subject reference is only one function of the OSI construction, and possibly a peripheral one. Whilst finite subordination is a readily available alternative to unambiguously individuate subjects, the pragmatic function of topicalization with contrastive focus has been identified as a characteristic feature of the OSI. This is further ed by the fact that overt subjects are very frequently accompanied by intensifiers. K¨onig identifies intensifiers as follows: Intensifiers evoke alternatives to the referent of their focus and structure the set of referents under consideration (referent of the focus + set of alternatives) in of center and periphery. (K¨ onig 2001: 57)

Intensifiers typically accompanying overt pronominal subjects are mismo ‘himself’, solo ‘alone’, and tambi´en ‘also, too’, as in (186-188). Whilst solo includes the focused referent and excludes any alternative referent, mismo includes the focused referent but is less exclusive of alternative referents; tambi´en includes the focused referent as well as other non-focused referents. 186. Los pol´ıticos tocan las partes m´as sensibles de la ciudadan´ıa, [sin ellos mismos ofrecer soluciones].23 The politicians pull the people’s most sensitive strings [without offering solutions themselves]. 187. Pero todo empez´o mucho antes de que tuviera edad [para ir yo solo al campo] con mis amigos. 24 But everything began long before I was old enough [to go to the pitch on my own] with my friends. 188. Me inscrib´ı en la lista [para poder yo tambi´ en participar en la competici´on]. I put my name in the list [so I, too, could take part in the competition]. It can thus be said that an important function of the OSI construction is a pragmatic one: contrastive focus25 . The subject of the infinitival clause can either be contrasted with a concrete NP in the discourse vicinity (185), or with any possible alternative referent evoked by the presence of an intensifier (186). It is sometimes claimed that the use of OSIs is, in Spanish, largely restricted in of . Butt & Benjamin (2000: 293) characterise it as typical of “spontaneous” and “colloquial language”, though in the latest edition they no longer claim that “native speakers often on 23

Alejandra Fosado: Pena de muerte – enfoque. 18.2.2003, http://mexicoposible.org.mx Javier Mart´ın: ¡Hay Copiiiiiitas de Co˜ nac! (http://www.edicionpersonal.com 25 This pragmatic function is occasionally acknowledged, e.g. by Morales de Walters (1988: 85), who mentions “algunos usos contrastivos”. 24

3.2. INFINITIVES WITH OVERT SUBJECT IN SPANISH

79

reflection reject such utterances as badly formed” (Butt & Benjamin, 1988: 253). Comparison of data from the Oral Corpus26 and journalistic texts does not confirm these claims. What can, rather unsurprisingly, be observed is that the pragmatic function is the dominant one in the spoken language, whereas the disambiguating/individuating function is found somewhat more frequently in texts belonging to more formal s, with longer and more complex sentences.

3.2.4

Distribution of the OSI in Spanish

OSIs are most commonly prepositional infinitive clauses, functioning as typical adverbial clauses or adjuncts (189), as well as clauses filling the subject slot of the main clause (190). 189. Mientras yo iba en camino, [sin yo saberlo], mi esposa estaba preparando las maletas. while I went on way [without I knowinf. .it] my wife was preparing the suitcases

While I was on my way, [without me knowing], my wife was packing the bags. 190. (=181.) [Cantar yoS26=gen ahora la Traviata] ser´ıa interesante. 27 [singinf. I now the Traviata] would.be interesting

[For me to sing the Traviata now] would be interesting. It is generally acknowledged that the OSI is subject to certain syntactic restrictions. Skydsgaard (1977: 17), for instance, notes that “el espa˜ nol [...] permite que el infinitivo, en ciertas situaciones muy precisas, tenga su propio sujeto sint´actico.” (Spanish allows the infinitive to have its own syntactic subject in certain specific situations.) Fern´andez Lagunilla (1987: 128) claims that “la cl´ausula de infinitivo con un SN l´exico como sujeto [...] no debe ser un argumento del verbo principal”. (The infinitival clause with a lexical NP as subject cannot be an argument of the main verb.) Referring to Hernanz Carb´o (1982: 351-3), Morales de Walters (1988: 90), Yoon and Bonet-Farran (1991: 357), Torrego (1998: 209) and others, Ledgeway (2000: 120) similarly states that “in line with the dialects of southern Italy, the Spanish personal infinitive is restricted to non-subcategorized positions, occurring in subject and adverbial clauses, but never in complement position.” Section 3.2.3 has provided strong arguments that it would be inappropriate to make a categorical distinction between coreferential and non-coreferential OSIs. However, if we do not ignore coreferential OSIs, the claim that OSIs cannot occur in complement position can no longer be upheld. Whilst it is less common for object clauses to have an overt subject, it is by no means impossible, as the following examples illustrate. 191. Espero [no ser yo uno de los elegidos para recibir tu llamada]. 28 I.hope [not beinf. I one of the chosen for receiveinf. your call]

I hope [I’m not one of those that have been picked to receive a call from you]. 192. Como nunca me sent´ı Robin Hood ni el Chapul´ın Colorado, creo [no ser yo el que asigne responsabilidades a ese respecto.] 29 ..., I.believe [not beinf. I he that assigns responsibilities to this respect]

Since I never felt like Robin Hood or Superman, I don’t think [it’s me who should hand out responsibilities in this matter]. 26

cf. Appendix A Example taken from Yoon & Bonet-Farran 1991: 353 28 http://www.zonalibre.org/blog/lobo/archives/048163.html (Spain) 29 Osvaldo Daniel Medina (Argentina): Yo redimensiono...tu redimensionas...: mentaci´ on. http://www.efdeportes.com/efd3/tato2.htm 27

educaci´ on f´ısica y docu-

80

CHAPTER 3. THE INFINITIVE IN SPANISH AND PORTUGUESE TODAY

193. Lamento [no poder yo responder a su presente con otro de igual val´ıa]. 30 I.regret [not be.ableinf. I respond to your present with another of equal value]

I regret [I can’t return the favour of your present with one of equal value]. 194. El adorador siempre lamenta [no ser ´ el el adorado]. 31 The irer always laments [not beinf. he the ired]

The irer always bemoans [that it’s not him who is the ired one.] The verbs that permit OSI clauses as their complement tend to be declarative verbs with emotive force (hope, regret, etc.); the verb in the infinitival complement is typically existential ser (191, 192, 194), but not necessarily (193). Ledgeway (2000: 125) dismisses two Sicilian examples in which OSI clauses appear to function as object complements, suggesting that the respective matrix verbs fail to subcategorize for one of the arguments in their subcategorization frame, and that the OSI clause is, in fact, an adjunct rather than a complement. For the examples presented here, such a solution is not possible; not only do they lack the obligatory preposition of an adjunct clause, but they also fill exactly the same semantic role as object complements without overt subject. 32 An analysis of yo in examples (191-193) as the dislocated subject of the main clause can also be dismissed, due to the overt presence of a separate overt subject el adorador in the main clause of (194). It might also be tempting to analyse the subject pronoun in these sentences as an apposition to PRO, but this must be ruled out due to the absence of the characteristic intonational cues33 that mark such appositions, as well as by the fact that subject pronouns can only occur as the first element in an appositional sequence. The “strong emphasis or contrast” (Pountain, 1995: 21) supplied by the presence of overt intensifiers further licenses the presence of overt subjects in object complements of a wider range of main verbs expressing notions such as intention (decidir, intentar, querer), obligation, and ability. 195. Entonces decidi´o [ir ella misma en busca de agua]. 34 Then she decided [to go and look for water herself]. 196. Mar´ıaS1 quiere [ir ella solaS2=S1 al cine.]35 Mar´ıa wants to [go to the cinema alone]. What can be clearly observed in all cases is that OSI object complements do not lead to a divergence from the standard control pattern found in infinitival complements of optionally coreferential verbs, namely coreferentiality (cf. Section 3.1.3). Nor is it possible for OSIs to override entrenched direct or indirect object control patterns (197), (198). 197. ∗ TeDO1 mandaba [hacer ellaS2 este trabajo]. He ordered you that she do this work. 30

Lucas Vasur (Spain): Carta abierta a Javier Arenas, 17.12.2003. Sergio Docal (transl.): Individualidad (Robert G. Ingersoll) 32 This can be proven by removing the overt subject from the complements, which causes no (truth-conditional) semantic difference whatsoever. 33 In such sentences, the pause that typically precedes appositional elements is not present. 34 Juan E. Bosch Gavi˜ no: Dos pesos de Agua, ‘Cuentos Escritos Antes del Exilio’ Santo Domingo: Editora Alfa y Omega (1989). 35 Example taken from Hernanz Carb´ o (1986: 344). 31

3.2. INFINITIVES WITH OVERT SUBJECT IN SPANISH

81

198. ∗ MeIO1 gustar´ıa [hacer t´ uS2 este trabajo]. It would please me for you to do this work. In Section 3.2.3 it has been shown that in prepositional adjuncts and subject clauses, the presence of an overt subject can individuate or disambiguate the infinitive’s subject, optionally overriding the default control pattern; this is not possible in object complements. However, the close association of the infinitive with coreferentiality, coupled with the availability of finite subordination as an unmarked alternative, relegates the subject-individuating function of the OSI construction to a secondary role. In Section 5.2 it will be argued that ‘S 2 -individuating OSIs’ and ‘pragmatic focus OSIs’ were originally distinct structures, but that the former have gradually been structurally assimilated by the latter.

3.2.5

Position of the overt subject in Spanish

Whether the overt subject surfaces pre- or postverbally is an issue that has attracted a good deal of attention in the literature. Mensching (2000: 26) notes that Modern Spanish allows preinfinitival subjects only in prepositional adverbial clauses (199), though they were more frequent during earlier stages of Spanish. He observes that “this type of construction also regularly its other constituents on the left of the infinitive, for example, adverbs” (200), which leads him to the conclusion that, like clause-initial adverbs, preposed overt infinitive subjects are adjunctions to AgrP (Mensching, 2000: 152-3). 199. Lo hizo sin yo saberlo. it he.did without I knowinf. .it

He did it without my knowledge. 200. Lo hizo sin antes avisarme. it he.did without before warninf. .me

He did it without warning me beforehand. “Though most studies highlight the obligatory postverbal position of the subject” 36 (Ledgeway, 2000: 129), a more differentiated analysis shows that this is an overstatement. Fern´andez Lagunilla (1987: 127) speaks of ‘some apparent exceptions’ to this rule with the preposition sin (and perhaps also con), which permits a pronominal overt subject left of the infinitive; nominal subjects in this position, she observes, are less acceptable. She suggests that sin+pronoun+saberlo may, to some degree, be lexicalized. Mensching (2000: 26) adds that “documentary evidence and the inquiry of speakers shows that [preposed subjects] can frequently be found with por ‘because of’, para ‘for’ and antes de ‘before’.” Examples of pre-infinitival subjects with temporal al, e.g. ‘al yo hacerlo’, and occasionally with despu´es de ‘after’ can also be found. An important distinction must be made between nominal and pronominal OSI subjects. It is generally said that nominal subjects cannot normally occur pre-infinitivally in Spanish. Torrego (1998: 207) notes that preposing a nominal subject of the type [al EL JUEZ leer el verdicto] implies special focus, which is ed by intonational focus stress (represented here by use of capitals). As positioning a constituent in a marked, non-standard position is a common strategy to add focus, her observation s the claim that the default position for OSI subjects is post-infinitival. Whether pre-infinitival nominal subjects necessarily carry special focus in all cases is, however, doubtful; an (ittedly rare) counterexample is (201), where focus lies on saberlo, not the pre-infinitival mi coraz´ on. 36

e.g. “When the subject is lexical, it must appear after the infinitive.” (Su˜ ner, 1986: 190)

82

CHAPTER 3. THE INFINITIVE IN SPANISH AND PORTUGUESE TODAY

201. Yo vivo [...] por amar [sin mi coraz´on saberlo]. 37 I live [...] for.the.sake.of loveinf. [without my heart knowinf. .it]

I live [...] for love, without my heart knowing it. Another class of nominal subjects that regularly precede the infinitive are generic la gente (literally ‘the people’) and kinship , as in ‘Al mi abuelo estar enfermo...’. Ledgeway (2000: 150-1) suggests that these nominal subjects have pronominal status, which would license their pre-infinitival position. Regarding pronominal OSI subjects, it has already been shown above that they can occur preinfinitivally, at least in connection with certain prepositions. It has been observed that such pre-infinitival overt pronominal subjects are typical of Caribbean Spanish 38 . Drawing parallels with Sicilian, Ledgeway (2000: 147-54) suggests that (in)issibility of pre-infinitival pronominal subjects is linked to obligatory/optional selection of ‘expletive clitic pro’. Analysing all pre-infinitival subjects as clitics 39 , this position can either be obligatorily occupied by expletive pro, in which case the overt subject must appear post-infinitivally, or the pre-infinitival expletive clitic pro can be optional, which means that an overt subject clitic can occupy the position instead. If this analysis is accurate, then the fact that pre-infinitival overt subjects are also found in non-Caribbean Spanish with a number of prepositions, though somewhat less frequently, would imply that expletive clitic pro is optional in those cases as well, but in some way ‘less optional’. 202. He tenido el virus Redlof, pero [antes de yo saber que lo ten´ıa] borr´o todos los archivos del disco duro.40 I’ve had the Redlof virus, but before I knew I had it, it deleted all the files on the hard disk. 203. ¡Si quieres ser uno de mis afiliados, primero af´ıliame a tu web y luego llena el siguiente formulario [para yo hacer lo mismo]! 41 If you want to be linked by me, first link me to your website and then fill in the following form [for me to do the same]. Table 3.2.1. shows the statistical distribution of pre- and post-infinitival overt subject pronouns yo and ellos with the verbs hacer and saber. Table 3.2.1. Position of 1st sg. and 3rd pl. subject pronouns with the verbs hacer and saber Preposition sin para al antes de despu´es de 37

Preverbal 68% (601) 46% (322) 28% (23) 21% (10) 17% (3)

Postverbal 32% (277) 54% (372) 72% (58) 79% (37) 83% (15)

Gabriel Segura Ugalde: Dedico. http://www.rincondepoesia.com cf. Su˜ ner (1986); Morales de Walters (1988: 85): “Dichas construcciones [...] se dan con m´ as frecuencia que en otras a ´reas del mundo hisp´ anico. My own research suggests that it is also common in other parts of Latin America, with numerous attested instances from Mexico, Venezuela, Peru, Chile and Argentina. 39 He further suggests that infinitival forms with preverbal pronominal subjects could feasibly be analysed as inflected infinitives. (Ledgeway, 2000: 151-2) 40 http://www.zonavirus.com (Spain) 41 http://s.lycos.es/reinodoubt/afiliate.html (Chile) 38

3.2. INFINITIVES WITH OVERT SUBJECT IN SPANISH

83

The table shows that there is, indeed, a statistical preponderance of post-infinitival pronominal subjects, with the exception of sin clauses. However, the pre-infinitival position is by no means as rare or exceptional as suggested in much of the literature. In particular, there is a clear correlation between the overall frequency of a particular prepositional OSI and its tendency to allow pre-infinitival pronominal subjects. Thus, sin and para participate in OSIs far more frequently than the temporal prepositions, and they also permit pre-infinitival subjects in a far greater proportion of cases. Fern´andez Lagunilla’s (1987: 127) judgement that we are dealing with an exceptional ‘fixed construction’ in the case of sin+pronoun+infinitive only has relative validity. A more appropriate analysis would be to position sin at the upper end of a continuum of prepositional OSIs, as in the following diagram. despu´es de antes de al para sin <—————————————————————> low OSI frequency high low tendency to allow pre-infinitival subjects high I shall argue in Section 5.2 that from a diachronic point of view, the different positions along this continuum are due to a different degree of entrenchment of the respective constructions. However, identifying which prepositions are more or less likely to take pre-infinitival pronominal subjects does not, on its own, answer the question what factors are involved in the synchronic choice of the subject position. One such factor appears to be whether or not the overt subject is employed for the purpose of pragmatic focus. As summed up by Ledgeway (2000: 137-40), both Su˜ ner (1986: 193) and Morales de Walters (1998: 95) deny any focusing effect of the pre-infinitival position in the Caribbean varieties, and Rizzi (1998) argues that a topicalized or focused element should have to appear left of the preposition. My statistical analysis confirms this: the position typically associated with contrastive focus is, in fact, the post-infinitival one. This is reflected in the distribution of overt subjects accompanied by an intensifier, of which 96% occur post-infinitivally, and only 4% pre-infinitivally with para 42 . Somewhat unexpectedly, there also appears to be a link between the presence of an enclitic object pronoun on the infinitive and the position of the subject pronoun, as seen in Table 3.2.2. Table 3.2.2.: Correlation between clitic object pronouns and subject pronouns Preposition sin hacer/saber sin hacerlo/saberlo para hacer/saber para hacerlo/saberlo al hacer/saber al hacerlo/saberlo antes de hacer/saber antes de hacerlo/saberlo despu´es de hacer/saber despu´es de hacerlo/saberlo 42

Preverbal 53% (211) 81% (390) 61% (282) 17% (40) 27% (16) 33% (7) 41% (9) 4% (1) 27% (3) 0% (0)

Postverbal 47% (187) 19% (90) 39% (179) 83% (193) 73% (44) 67% (14) 59 (13)% 96% (1) 73% (8) 100% (7)

The situation is less clear-cut with sin, with which around 20% of intensifiers occur pre-infinitivally. This can be explained by the special status of this entrenched construction

84

CHAPTER 3. THE INFINITIVE IN SPANISH AND PORTUGUESE TODAY

The presence of an object pronoun appears to favour post-infinitival subject pronouns. The reason for this pattern is once again the fact that contrastive focus is associated with the post-infinitival position: since clitic pronouns cannot be topicalized, but nevertheless occupy an argument position, the statistical likelihood of one of the remaining arguments being the (focalized) topic is greater in clauses containing a clitic. In clauses with a nominal object NP rather than a clitic, on the other hand, the possibility of this object NP being the topicalized element of the clause lowers the chances for one of the remaining arguments to be topicalized. Consequently, the relative proportion of topicalized overt subjects in clauses containing a clitic is greater. The greater proportion of postverbal pronominal subjects in the presence of an object clitic can therefore be understood as further evidence for the link between topicalization/focus and post-infinitival subject position. Stylistic factors are also involved in the choice of position; for example, ‘sin saberlo ella’ is generally considered less colloquial than the inverse. Mensching (2000: 26) remarks that preinfinitival subjects are “characteristic for the spoken language”, with most literary examples occurring in direct speech. Overall, the OSI construction in Spanish is a marginal phenomenon; less than 1% of infinitives have an overt subject. With prepositional infinitives, it can serve to individuate a subject other than the default coreferential one, but at the same time, it functions as a pragmatic marker of contrastive focus.

3.3

Overt subject marking in Portuguese infinitival clauses

Portuguese, too, allows OSI constructions. They differ from the Spanish ones in that the infinitive not only has its own subject, but can also itself be inflected for person agreement. When the OSI clause contains a subject NP, either a full noun or subject pronoun, morphological agreement of the infinitive is obligatory43 (cf. Cintra & Cunha, 1984: 485; Cˆamara, 1977: 130-31; Quicoli, 1982: 30 ff.), except in the 1 st and 3rd person singular, where the inflectional morpheme is null, i.e. there is no morphological difference between the inflected and the non-inflected form. This also makes it impossible to clearly distinguish the two paradigms in the absence of an overt subject, as the syntactic and pragmatic context does not necessarily make it predictable whether such infinitives are part of the inflected or the non-inflected paradigm. There is probably no other aspect of Portuguese grammar that has received as much attention, since the earliest days of Romance philology, as the ‘inflected infinitive’ (‘infinitivo flexionado’), often also referred to as ‘personal infinitive’ (‘infinitivo pessoal’), though these two are strictly distinguished by proponents of theories that have different syntactic structures for OSI clauses with and without morphological inflection of the infinitive. Maurer’s (1968: 8) term ‘infinitivo subjetivo’, originally attributed to Carolina Micha¨elis de Vasconcelos, is rarely used but perhaps the most fitting designation, as the characteristic feature of these infinitives, overt subject reference, can be achieved by means of inflection as well as the optional presence of a subject NP. Though often considered a typical feature of Portuguese, inflected infinitives are found in several other Romance varieties, too: Galician, the Logudorese-Nuorese dialects of Sardinian, as well as 43

However, Molho (1959: 37) observes that a lack of such agreement can be observed, in clauses such as ‘apois de meus irm˜ aos chegar’, in Brazilian Portuguese (Rio de Janeiro), where the use of the inflected form would be considered ‘slightly pedantic’.

3.3. OVERT SUBJECT MARKING IN PORTUGUESE INFINITIVAL CLAUSES

85

Old Leonese and Old Neapolitan.44 .

3.3.1

The syntax of the inflected infinitive

There are many attempts to define syntactically based constraints on the use of the OSIstructure, but it is usually not difficult to find counterexamples to such rules. Cˆamara (1977), for instance, lists three syntactic contexts in which, he claims, the inflected infinitive cannot be used. It cannot be used: a) in real compound tense structures, to which he counts expressions involving auxiliaries, such as ter de+infinitive: temos de fazer, not ∗temos de fazermos. b) when a clitic object pronoun that is coreferential with S 2 is part of the main clause: vi-os avan¸car, not ∗vi-os avan¸carem. c) when the infinitive is the adjunct of an adjective carrying emphasis: capazes de exigir, not ∗capazes de exigirem. Martin (1976) Martin (1976), working in a transformational framework, discusses a number of similar syntactic constraints. His basic assumption is that a ‘concordance affix’ (-C) is generated in a subject NP and then attaches to an affix-receiving VP that it is structurally adjacent to. For a sentence like (204), he postulates a Deep Structure (DS) in which as flores occurs twice, once as the subject of the VP acabar, and once as the subject of the VP ser fr´ ageis, each of which provides a ‘-C’ affix for the adjacent VP. Subsequently, an NP-reduction rule reduces the right-most subject NP to a subject pronoun (which need not surface). 204. As flores acabam por as flores →(eles) serem fr´ageis. The flowers die because they are delicate. Martin contrasts this type of sentence with the one in (205), which does not permit the infinitive to be inflected, due to its different syntactic structure. 205. Eles come¸cavam a resmungar/∗resmungarem. They began to growl. In (205), he claims, there is only a single subject NP at DS, and the VP resmungar moves out of the Proposition (P) that contains the subject (NP-C). Resmungar is thus separated from NP-C before the rule that attaches -C to an ading VP applies. It can be assumed that Martin would use the same explanation for all the cases covered by Cˆamara’s rule (a) above, in which the inflected infinitive is claimed to be unacceptable. Within the same framework, Martin (1976: 26) also provides an explanation why the inflected infinitive is not permissible whenever the subject of the infinitival verb is raised to the object position of the matrix verb, as in (206), corresponding to Cˆamara’s rule (b) above. 44

More comprehensive s of OSI structures in Romance can be found in K¨ orner (1983), Ledgeway (1998, 2000), Mensching (2000), Pountain (1995). Bourciez (1956: 505) also provides examples of inflected infinitives used as negative imperative, e.g. nu mentiret¸i, in pre-16th century Romanian.

86

CHAPTER 3. THE INFINITIVE IN SPANISH AND PORTUGUESE TODAY

206. Jair mandou-os voltar/∗voltarem. Jair ordered them to return. The explanation is that NP-C moves from the lower P which contains voltar into the object position within the higher P, thus removing -C from the lower P. This rules out the possibility of affixation of -C onto the VP voltar, as the two are no longer structurally adjacent. Martin (1976: 27-9) further formulates a rule that deletes the dependent clause subject NP-C if a coreferential NP occurs in a (structurally) adjacent P, on the condition that both NPs are subjects. Deletion of the subject NP-C entails that the -C cannot attach to the infinitive, so that the inflected infinitive is ruled out in such cases. Thus, (207) cannot, according to Martin, have an inflected infinitive. 207. [Os homens] [para poder os homens-C justificar-se/∗justificarem-se] [falam ao juiz]. [The men] [to be able to explain themselves] [talk to the judge]. Because the two Ps containing the coreferential NPs are not adjacent in (208), the NP-C is not deleted, but merely ‘partially reduced’ to an (optionally surfacing) subject pronoun. As a consequence of this, -C is available and therefore must attach to the infinitive, making the inflected infinitive obligatory in this construction. 208. [Os homens] [para que seja poss´ıvel] [os homens→(eles) justificarem-se/∗justificar-se] [falam ao juiz]. [The men] [for it to be possible] [to explain themselves] [talk to the judge]. It is perhaps worth noting that, according to Martin’s approach, the inflected infinitive is little more than an optional alternant of (subjunctival) finite clauses. This is not a new idea, discussed e.g. by Hampejs (1959: 55), but it is interesting in the light of recent Generativist analyses of the subjunctive forms in Greek and southern Italian dialects as inflected infinitives (Miller, 2001: 94 ff.; Ledgeway, 1998). More recent approaches The similarity of the inflected infinitive and finite clauses, in particular with respect to null subjects, is also highlighted in more recent analyses, e.g. Quicoli (1996b: 91). Based on the assumption that every Inflection Phrase (IP) contains an element INFL, which in turn contains binary features such as tense [+/-TENSE] and agreement [+/-AGR] (Chomsky, 1981: 209), most Generative approaches consider the presence of [+AGR] to be a crucial precondition for the presence of inflected infinitive forms. Quicoli (1996a), for instance, postulates [-TENSE, -AGR] for non-inflected infinitives, but [-TENSE,+AGR] for inflected infinitives. The [+AGR] assigns nominative case to its subject, which means that it can license a lexical subject, avoiding the Case filter that would prohibit the presence of lexical NPs lacking case. By proposing, contrary to orthodox theory, that Case filter applies not only to lexical NPs but also to pro, Quicoli (1996a: 52) explains why inflected infinitives with and without overt subjects have exactly the same distribution, which he contrasts with the distribution of non-inflected infinitives, which lack [+AGR] and can therefore license neither a lexical subject, nor pro. This, he claims, s for the fact that the Portuguese inflected infinitive, but not its non-inflected counterpart, can be used in a number of constructions that require finite complements in closely related languages such as Spanish, for instance factive complements of the type ‘Lamento [(o fato de) eles terem/∗ter abandonado a equipe].’ (‘I regret that they’ve left the team.’)

3.3. OVERT SUBJECT MARKING IN PORTUGUESE INFINITIVAL CLAUSES

87

According to Quicoli’s analysis, the structure of synonymous sentences in which either the inflected or the non-inflected infinitive can be used must have fundamentally different underlying structures. In a sentence such as ‘Jos´e via os problemas crescer/crescerem entre os assessores.’ (‘Jos´e saw the disagreement among the committee grow.’), the embedded subject os problemas receives nominative case from the inflected infinitive crescerem, but object case from the matrix verb via in sentences with the non-inflected infinitive, which cannot itself assign case because it lacks [+AGR]. His analysis also s for certain restrictions on subject raising that can be observed in connection with the inflected infinitive. Just like finite complementation, inflected infinitive complements do not allow subject-to-subject raising, the reason being that, according to Binding Theoretical principles, the raised NP would have to leave an unbound anaphoric trace in the local domain. A very similar explanation s for Cˆamara’s rule (b) above. Following Zubizarreta (1982), Quicoli (1986: 68-9) explains the inissibility of inflected infinitives in sentences such as ‘Vios avan¸car/avan¸carem.’, where the embedded subject is raised to the object position of the matrix clause, by the fact that the clitic would have to leave a trace in the subject position of the embedded clause, which would, however, be ungoverned in the local domain. Though certain aspects of Quicoli’s proposal, particularly the claim that pro must receive Case, are not shared by all Generativists (cf. e.g. Safir, 1996: 82), the fundamental assumption that inflected infinitives license their own pro is the standard analysis and has survived into Minimalist theory: “[...] inflected infinitives allow either an embedded or a null subject with non-obligatory control interpretation [because] T of the inflected infinitive [...] carries a full set of θ-features (as indicated by the overt person/number morphology), which can check the Case feature of a null subject or overt DP occurring in the subject position of the infinitival clause, blocking any further movement. (Pires, 2002: 151)

However, neither Cˆamara’s rules, nor Martin’s or Quicoli’s predictions about the grammaticality or ungrammaticality of inflected infinitive constructions, have absolute validity, as shown in counterexamples (209-211). 209. Temos de aprontar sempre um sorriso e mostrarmo-nos af´aveis. 45 We must always have a smile ready and be courteous. 210. Suponho que me chamaste a fim de me expores o plano. 46 I suppose you called me in order to explain the plan to me. 211. ...at´e eu adormecer de sonhos lavrados pelo ancinho dos seus dedos apaziguadores, capazes de me expulsarem do corpo os fantasmas desesperados ou aflitos que o habitam. 47 ...his pacifying fingers, capable of driving out the desperate ghosts... 212. ...e quem sabe se tal novidade despertar´a neles humores h´a muito tempo adormecidos, e os leve a engancharem-se, a` maneira das pe¸cas desses puzzles japoneses... 48 ...and who knows if it [...] might cause them to get hooked together... 45

Example from Molho (1959: 31). Taken from Maurer (1972: 170) 47 Taken from Antunes, ibid. 48 A.L. Antunes, Os cus de Judas Lisbon: Dom Quixote, 5th ed. (1988). 46

88

CHAPTER 3. THE INFINITIVE IN SPANISH AND PORTUGUESE TODAY

213. ...tomar dois temas e opˆo-los, fazˆe-los lutarem, embolarem, ferirem-se e estra¸calharem-se e dar a vit´oria a um...49 ...to take two themes and contrast them, make them fight, get at each other, wound each other and tear each other to pieces...

(212) is a counterexample to Cˆamara’s rule (a) and to Martin’s claim that intrinsically coreferential verbs like come¸car cannot have an inflected infinitive complement. (210) does not match Martin’s prediction that it should be ungrammatical because subject NPs in adjacent propositions require the rightmost one to be deleted. (211) shows a case where Cˆamara’s rule (c) does not apply. (212-213), finally, exemplify how ‘raised’ clitic pronouns that are coreferential with the dependent clause’s non-overt subject do not necessarily require the infinitive to be uninflected, thus casting some doubt on the reliability of all the syntactic analyses outlined above. With such counterexamples in mind, Cintra & Cunha (1984: 482) prefer to speak of “tendencies in its usage rather than rules.”50 Martin (1976: 57), acknowledging that the rules he sets up are frequently flouted in actual language usage, has the honesty to it that his position “is at odds with [that of] other grammarians [who] base themselves on the evidence of their ‘corpus’”, whilst his, by contrast, is based on “a coherent theory of grammar”. However, such an attitude, ignoring the way in which language is really used and prioritising the coherence of the system over the observable facts, must of course be rejected. In the following, I shall attempt to provide a more comprehensive model reflecting linguistic reality, incorporating not only the syntactic ‘tendencies’, but also highlighting the important role of pragmatic factors.

3.3.2

The OSI-construction as alternative to finite dependent clauses?

As demonstrated in some detail in Section 3.1.2 above, non-OSI infinitive clauses are assigned their subject according to a syntactic and pragmatic default pattern. If S 2 is to be identical with an NP other than the one assigned by the default mechanism, this must be overtly marked, for which purpose both finite subordination and the OSI-construction are possible candidates. Indeed, the general tendency in the Romance languages towards an increasing use of the infinitive51 would suggest that the latter of the two might be favoured, where available as an alternative. A statistical analysis of contemporary Portuguese 52 suggests that the opposite is the case. Table 3.3.1. shows the proportion of finite and infinitival dependent clauses. It also shows the number of cases in which the OSI construction could feasibly have a disambiguating function, i.e. where S2 is not the subject that would be assigned by the default mechanism described in Section 3.1.2. 49

M. Bandeira: Poesia completa e prosa, Rio de Janeiro: Nova Aguilar 4th ed. (1990). “...parece-nos mais acertado falar n˜ ao de regras, mas de tendˆencias que se observam no emprego de uma e de outra forma do Infinitivo.” 51 One instance of this is the diachronic increase of prepositional infinitives, to be discussed in the following chapters. 52 A mixed corpus of journalistic and literary texts written after 1950 was used for this count. (P´ ublico online, incl. Oporto and Lisbon local sections, May 12th and 15th , 1997; 181942 words; Appendix B) 50

3.3. OVERT SUBJECT MARKING IN PORTUGUESE INFINITIVAL CLAUSES

89

Table 3.3.1.: Finite and infinitival subordination in Portuguese Construction total overt S2 finite S2 total OSI OSI with non-default S2

Token percentage 100% 87% 12% 5%

Though these percentages are subject to a degree of variation depending on text type, style and author53 , it is clear that the OSI-structure is much less frequent than finite dependent clauses. In particular, the low proportion of OSI-clauses with an S 2 that would not have been assigned to a bare, uninflected infinitive clause as default anyway, is worth noting; the phenomenon of ‘redundant’ S2 -marking will be examined in more detail in Section 3.3.3 below. The figures in Table 3.3.1. show that the OSI-construction is not the unmarked way of identifying a dependent clause subject in breach of the default pattern; finite clauses are generally used for that purpose. This is corroborated by the fact that declarative V 1 -verbs such as pensar, achar, jurar and crer as well as desiderative∼causative V 1 -verbs such as precisar and querer, which are the classes of verbs that most often require overt S 2 because the identity of S2 is least predictable, nevertheless show a clear preference for the finite structure. Table 3.3.2. shows the distribution of ‘dist reference’ complements of these verbs.

Table 3.3.2.: Finite and OSI ‘dist reference’ complements Main verb querer achar precisar jurar crer pensar

Finite complement >99% (580) 98% (5479) 87% (929) 72% (46) 67% (1180) 60% (1752)

OSI complement <1% (2) 2% (114) 13% (140) 28% (13) 33% (388) 40% (709)

All the verbs in Table 3.3.2. are more likely to take a finite complement than an inflected infinitive, but a considerable amount of variation in the degree of this preference for finite complements can be observed. It appears that in addition to the general preference for the finite structure, there are also lexically specific preference patterns. In prepositional adjunct clauses, the inflected infinitive is the preferred strategy, whether the dependent clause subject is identical to the one that would have been independently recoverable by the decision tree mechanism in a non-inflected infinitival clause (214), or whether the default pattern is overridden (215). 214. ... as f´emeas do cl˜a forneciam a` missa dos domingos um contrapeso pag˜ao a dois centavos o ponto, quantia nominal que lhes servia de pretexto para expelirem o´dios [...] antigos pacientemente segregados.54 ...a nominal quantity that served them as an excuse to drive out the old hatred... 53

Frequent use of the inflected infinitive is sometimes considered ‘educated’ and thus typical of certain types of literary . 54 Taken from A.L. Antunes, Os cus de Judas

90

CHAPTER 3. THE INFINITIVE IN SPANISH AND PORTUGUESE TODAY

215. ...o caralho de puta que os pariu combinados para nos foderem os cornos em nome de interesses que me escapam,...55 ...the damned mother who gave birth to all of them to screw us in the name of interests that escape me... In contrast to the complements of declarative verbs charted in Table 3.3.2., adjunct clauses show a clear preference for the inflected infinitive over the corresponding finite clause. However, in a way similar to what was observed regarding complements, it appears that on top of this general trend, individual preposition/conjunction pairs show a stronger or weaker preference for the inflected infinitive, a seen in Table 3.3.3.

Table 3.3.3.: Finite and OSI ‘dist reference’ adjuncts Conjunction/preposition antes (de) que/antes de para que/para apesar de q ˜., ainda q ˜./apesar de depois (de) que/depois sem que/sem porque/por

Finite clause 5% (1,321) 25% (57,002) 25% (5,707) 27% (1,749) 32% (6,184) 47% (71,228)

OSI clause 95% (23,401) 75% (174,021) 75% (16,898) 73% (4,720) 68% (12.975) 53% (81,550)

S2 can also be overtly marked in the complement of intrinsically non-coreferential V 1 -verbs (216217); verbs of indirect command have a tendency to take para as prepositional complementizer in this specific type of subordination. 56 216. Julio disse para os meninos n˜ao sairem de casa. 57 Julio told the children not to leave the house. 217. Ele viu-as entrarem, prostrarem-se de bra¸cos estendidos, chorando, e n˜ao se comoveu... 58 He saw them enter, prostrate themselves, crying, and it didn’t touch him... Similarly, complements of impersonal expressions, which do not have a subject of their own, frequently take the inflected infinitive, thus marking their subject overtly. Here, the overt person marking often has a disambiguating function, as it rules out the possibility of S 2 being arbitrary or universal. Compare (218) and (219): ´ tempo de [PROS2=gen. come¸car a governar.] 218. E It’s time to start governing. ´ tempo de [[o senhor primeiro-ministro e o Governo] S2 come¸carem a governar.]59 219. E It is time the Prime Minister and the government [started governing]. Pountain (1995: 16) understands cases such as (218) as being coreferential in a special way: “Because the main verb does not have a personal subject (the infinitive itself being the subject), the bare infinitive is understood as itself impersonal, while the inflected infinitive is personal.” 55

Taken from Antunes, ibid. This may be related to the emphatic nature of most commands, which is iconically represented by the choice of a more prominent subordinating particle. The diachronic move of para towards functioning in complementizer-like way is investigated in Section 7.4. 57 Example from Quicoli (1982: 30). 58 From Coelho Netto (1958: 1328). 59 P´ ublico, May 12, 1997. 56

3.3. OVERT SUBJECT MARKING IN PORTUGUESE INFINITIVAL CLAUSES

91

A special case of this phenomenon is 3 rd person plural inflection which, in the absence of an overt nominal S2 , can also “indicate the subject’s indeterminate nature” (Cintra & Cunha, 1984: 486)60 , as seen in (220): 220. Ouvi dizerem que Maria Jeroma, de todas a mais impressionante, [...] ganhara o sert˜ao. 61 I heard sayinf.3rd.P l that Maria Jeroma, the most impressive of all, [...] had won the back-woods. The Portuguese OSI is far more versatile than its Spanish counterpart, especially with regards to its capability of marking ‘dist reference’ in object complements, which the Spanish OSI cannot do. But the statistical analysis reveals that it is nevertheless not a serious competitor to finite subordination, as it only overrides the default reference pattern of infinitival clauses in 5– 6% of all dependent clauses. Only in prepositional adjuncts is the OSI the first choice, which can perhaps be explained by the “looser pragmatic relation between a prepositional complement 62 and the main verb” (Pountain, 1998a: 16), which causes patterns of S 2 -assignment to be less entrenched, allowing the frequent use of overt subjects even in Spanish.

3.3.3

The ambiguity parameter

Having established that the OSI-construction is primarily in competition with the bare, uninflected infinitive, not with finite dependent clauses, it must next be examined which factors are responsible for the choice of one or the other. Ali (1957: 112-3), summarizing the different cases in which the inflected infinitive occurs, identifies two pragmatic functions that it can have. According to him, the ‘infinitivo emf´ atico’ pragmatically highlights the subject and gives it contrastive emphasis (‘realce intencional’). This will be discussed in more detail in Section (3.3.4). The ‘infinitivo de clareza’, on the other hand, serves to ‘facilitate comprehension’ by unambiguously clarifying the identity of the dependent clause subject, wherever the speaker feels this may be helpful. A similar approach is taken by Sim˜oes Fr˜oes (1995), who argues that one of the parameters is the pragmatic clarity of S2 ’s identity: the more obvious S2 ’s identity is, the less likely it is to be overtly marked. Potential ambiguity, or ‘opacity’, of S 2 , on the other hand, favours use of the OSI. Two factors are likely to cause such opacity: a) Absence of a controller for PRO

S2

in the main clause (219).

b) Distance between the main clause (which contains the controller) and the infinitive, V2 (221). 221. Os dirigentes zairensesS1 deviam agora encontrar por si os meios de se verem frente a frente.63 The Zairean leaders should now find the means to meet face to face among themselves. The opacity is even greater in (222), where the first (uninflected) infinitive is located right next to the main verb (and consequently does not require inflection), whereas the second infinitive is separated from it not only by a considerable amount of lexical material, but also by an intonational break noticeable enough to merit a full stop. 60

“Na 3a pessoa do plural, indica a indetermina¸ca ˜o do sujeito.” From G. Amado: Hist´ oria da minha infˆ ancia, Rio de Janeiro (1966: 143). 62 Pountain does not distinguish complements and adjuncts. 63 P´ ublico, May 15, 1997. 61

92

CHAPTER 3. THE INFINITIVE IN SPANISH AND PORTUGUESE TODAY

222. Devem fazer, todas as noites, uma fric¸ca˜o t´onica e fortificante a todo o corpo com agua e espuma de sab˜ao. E alimentaremse bem. 64 They must, every night, give their whole body a tonic and fortifying rub-down with water and soapsuds. And eat well. ‘Opacity’ between main clause and V 2 is, according to Sim˜oes Fr˜oes, also increased by interpolation of prepositions65 other than (the prepositional complementizer) de, i.e. in typical prepositional adjunct clauses. As greater ‘opacity’ is equivalent to a greater potential for ambiguity, this observation suggests that the identity of the subject of adjunct clauses is less clearly predictable than in complement clauses. A statistical analysis confirms the claim that the inflected infinitive is more likely to occur in adjunct clauses than in complements: three quarters (76%) 66 of inflected infinitives occur in adjuncts. What is interesting is that only slightly more than half (58%) of these inflected infinitives have a non-coreferential subject, which leaves 42% that are coreferential and would not require an overt subject if coreferentiality in itself provided a sufficient degree of clarity. This means that the mere possibility of ambiguity is sufficient to trigger the use of the inflected infinitive. Potentially redundant clarity of S 2 ’s identity, on the other hand, can make the OSI-construction unacceptable. Sim˜oes Fr˜oes speaks of “cases in which the use of the personal infinitive is unacceptable because the infinitive’s proximity to its subject would make the grammatical redundancy problematic.”67 Following her line of argumentation, this comprises Cˆamara’s rules (b) and (c) above: the proximity of adjective (with clear morphological marking identifying which NP it refers to) and infinitive in capazes de exigir/∗exigirem makes the use of the inflected form redundant and therefore unacceptable (but see (211)). Similarly, the proximity of the clitic pronoun in vi-os avan¸car/∗avan¸carem would make an additional marking of S2 by inflection of the infinitive pleonastic. Coreferentiality, being the most frequent relation between S 1 and S2 , is the generally expected pattern and therefore rarely requires disambiguating OSI. 68 Intrinsic coreferentiality generally makes overt marking of S2 superfluous and thus unacceptable, as no disambiguation can usually be required. Cˆamara’s first rule, forbidding OSI-complements with auxiliary V 1 , can be subsumed in this category, since modal auxiliaries must always be intrinsically coreferential. Example in (223) shows that, within the clarity/ambiguity-parameter, different factors can counteract each other: 223. (=209) Temos de aprontar sempre um sorriso e mostrarmo-nos af´aveis. 69 we.must have-readyuninf l.inf. always a smile and showinf l.inf.1st.pl. +refl. courteous.

We must always have a smile ready and be courteous. Here the interpolation of a ‘heavy’ complement clause “leads to the pragmatic need for reestablishing the subject of the infinitive” (Pountain, 1995: 19), thus overriding the tendency for 64

Example from K¨ orner (1983: 88) “As preposi¸co ˜es tendem a gerar opacidade entre o infinitivo e o predicado.” (Sim˜ oes Fr˜ oes, 1995) 66 These figures are based on the same text sample as Table 3.3.1. and take into only prototypical adjunct clauses, not complement clauses introduced by the prepositional complementizers a and de. 67 “Casos em que o emprego do infinitivo n˜ ao ´e aceit´ avel [porque] a proximidade do infinitivo ao sujeito tornaria a redundˆ ancia gramatical enfadonha.” 68 Sim˜ oes Fr˜ oes (1995):“...se os sujeitos dos verbos conjugados e no infinitivo s˜ ao coincidentes, a tendˆencia ´e o infinitivo n˜ ao ser flexionado.” 69 Example from Molho (1959: 32). 65

3.3. OVERT SUBJECT MARKING IN PORTUGUESE INFINITIVAL CLAUSES

93

modal auxiliaries such as ter de generally to reject OSI-complementation. Furthermore, person marking of mostrar-se is already secured by virtue of its reflexivity, as the clitic -nos unambiguously assigns subject reference to this infinitive. The avoidance of redundant person marking thus appears to have lower priority than the entrenched routine by which infinitives normally receive person inflection if they are far away from the finite main verb. What this section has shown is that overt subject marking in infinitival clauses does not, primarily, stand in competition with finite complementation, but is usually restricted to those areas in which non-inflected infinitives would be the alternative. It is primarily used as a disambiguating variant of the bare infinitive, the likelihood of overt marking increasing with the increase of opacity of the relation between main clause and V 2 . The more obvious the identity of S2 is, the less likely it is for an OSI to be used. Comparing the ways in which Spanish and Portuguese overt S 2 -marking works, it appears that the differences are not as great as initially expected: Portuguese exploits its wider availability mainly for the disambiguation of those types of clauses that can be infinitival in Spanish, too. In prepositional adjunct clauses, OSIs are used to clarify the identity of S 2 in both languages, though they are used to a far greater extent in Portuguese. Other usages in Portuguese merely add to the clarification of S2 -assignment, with the effect that the subject of infinitival clauses can remain unambiguous in longer and more complex sentences.

3.3.4

Position of the overt subject in Portuguese

In Section 3.2.5, some complexities of the position of OSI subjects relative to the OSI verb were discussed for Spanish. Nominal overt subjects were shown to occur (almost) exclusively postinfinitivally. Pronominal overt subjects, with the exception of abessive adjuncts with sin, also occur more frequently post-infinitivally, though preverbal pronominal subjects are also possible, their frequency depending on the individual preposition introducing the clause. With the exception of epistemic and declarative verbs, which permit only post-infinitival subjects (cf. Raposo, 1987: 98; Ambar, 1994; Mensching, 2000: 28), it is a well-known fact that preinfinitival OSI subjects in Portuguese are far more common than in Spanish.

[The Portuguese] construction with a nominative subject its postverbal subjects. An extremely striking syntactic difference, especially in comparison to Spanish, is the high frequency of preverbal subjects [...]. In most constructions, both positions are possible, the postverbal one being rather marked and used for focalizing and emphasizing purposes.

(Mensching, 2000: 25)

The results of a statistical analysis of the position of pronominal subjects (Table 3.3.4.) confirms this.

94

CHAPTER 3. THE INFINITIVE IN SPANISH AND PORTUGUESE TODAY

Table 3.3.4.: Position of pronominal subjects in prepositional OSIs in Portuguese 70 Preposition ao por para apesar de sem at´e antes de depois de

Subject Pronoun postverbal preverbal preverbal postverbal preverbal postverbal preverbal postverbal preverbal postverbal preverbal postverbal preverbal postverbal preverbal postverbal

Incidence 7 0 71 646 85 1310 9 213 3 120 4 168 8 343 3 351

Percentage 100% 0% 11% 89% 6.5% 93.5% 4.2% 95.8% 2.5% 97.5% 2.4% 97.6% 2.3% 97.7% <1% >99%

Overt Intensifiers 5 (71%) 37 (52%) 56 (66%) 4 (44%) 3 (100%) 3 (75%) 7 (88%) 3 (100%)

In Section 3.2.3 it was argued that contrastive focus is an important feature of Spanish OSIs, and that it is associated particularly with subjects in post-infinitival position. For Portuguese, the case is even clearer: the rightmost column in Table 3.3.4. shows that the majority of postinfinitival subjects are accompanied by an overt intensifier. Around 60% of these are lexical intensifiers of the type ‘ele mesmo’, ‘elas pr´ oprias. In addition to these standard intensifiers, intensifying phrases such as ‘ele e s´ o ele’ are also found. In approximately 30% of cases, the intensifying construction ser+subject pronoun+a+infinitive can be found, as in (224). 224. Ao fim e ao cabo, veio um do Brasil, especialista com certeza na mat´eria, para ser ele a esse acordo. Finally, there came an from Brazil, certainly a specialist on the matter, so that it would be him (and nobody else) who signed the agreement. The association of the post-infinitival position with contrastive focus is undeniable: intensifying mesmo and pr´ oprio virtually never accompany pre-infinitival subjects, but even in the absence of an overt intensifier, contrastive focus/intensification is implicit in the Portuguese post-infinitival subject. The exceptional pattern of ao, which shows a striking resistance to pre-infinitival subjects, deserves special attention; it is probably due to the unacceptability of the potential sequence of two definite articles. Etymologically, ao is a contraction of the preposition a and the definite article o; this remains transparent to speakers because the same contraction applies synchronically, too. Sequences such as ?∗‘Ao o pol´ıtico fazer uma visita ao estado, disse...’ are thus simply avoided by postposing the subject. This pattern is analogically extended to all ao-clauses, thus also ruling out ?∗‘Ao eu/eles fazer uma visita ao estado, disse...’; Table 3.3.4. provides evidence for this. It should be noted that such analogical extension cannot be predicted, as shown by the corresponding situation in Spanish, where a similar avoidance of al+definite article can be observed (∗‘Al el pol´ıtico hacer una √ visita al estado, dijo/dije...’), but preverbal pronominal subjects are not necessarily avoided: ‘Al yo hacer una visita al estado, dijo/dije...’ (cf. Table 3.2.1.). 70

Data extracted from the 1.6 million word Cetem P´ ublico journalistic corpus, cf. Appendix B.

3.4. THE INFINITIVE: NOMINAL OR VERBAL?

95

The clear contrast between the preferred subject positions in Spanish and Portuguese OSIs will be further discussed, from a diachronic perspective, in Section 5.2, where the reasons and mechanisms leading to these differences between the present-day distribution patterns will also be investigated.

3.4

The infinitive: nominal or verbal?

The previous sections of this chapter have illustrated and discussed the mechanisms by which infinitival clauses receive their subject, whether it appears overtly or not. The assumption that infinitives have, and indeed require, a subject of some sort would suggest that we are dealing with a verbal element. On the other hand, it was argued in Section 2.2.3 that the Latin AcI construction is, in some respects, more like a nominal phrase than a clause. The primary focus of this study, prepositional infinitives, would also appear to indicate nominality, as prepositions typically take NPs as their complements. In addition to resolving this apparent contradiction, the multilayered analysis of the infinitive’s nominality status proposed here allows for a gradual shift of individual parameters, which in turn enable it to spread gradually to an increasing number of contexts.

3.4.1

The one-dimensional continuum model

It is a widely accepted fact that the nominal/verbal or nominal/clausal distinction is not a binary one, but that they are merely the end points of a continuum (Lehmann, 1988; Vincent, 1999; Giv´on, 1984: 515-61). Vincent (1999: 1) understands the finite/non-finite continuum as covering part of the clausal–nominal continuum, as follows: CLAUSAL <————————–> NOMINAL FINITE <—> NON-FINITE Verb forms or their clauses appear in the finite/non-finite sub-scale in the following order: INDICATIVE > SUBJUNCTIVE > INFLECTED INFINITIVE > BARE INFINITIVE Giv´on’s (1984: 519) observations about semantic and syntactic integration of main and dependent clause, in which the scale [-integrated] <—> [+integrated] roughly corresponds to the FINITE <—> NON-FINITE scale regarding the complement verb, provides additional to this scalar model by intertwining morphology, syntax and semantics. Regarding the infinitive, Vincent (1999: 1-2) points out, this scalar model allows for an approach that integrates both the traditional view that the infinitive is essentially nominal 71 , and the generative view that it is essentially verbal or sentential, as infinitival clauses are understood to belong to the category IP, despite the fact that they are headed by an I that is [-T, -AGR]. Vincent proposes a hybrid solution and argues that “the thing we label the infinitive can have different properties in different languages and at different historical moments. What we can call the r-form of the verb in Latin and Romance originates as a nominal element, develops verbal properties in Latin and as it es into Romance comes increasingly to show clausal properties.” 71

“L’infinitif sert a ` exprimer la notion verbale sans plus, sans consid´eration de personne, de nombre ni de mode, le plus souvent aussi sans consid´eration de temps et de voix. Si on qualifie souvent l’infinitif de ‘forme substantive du verbe’, on veut dire par l` aa ` peu pr`es la mˆeme chose...”, Sandfeld (1965: 1).

96

CHAPTER 3. THE INFINITIVE IN SPANISH AND PORTUGUESE TODAY

Shortcomings of the one-dimensional continuum model While this scalar model is, if understood as an idealization, a clear step forward because it replaces the unnecessarily restrictive and unrealistically idealized binary model, it can be argued that the one-dimensional scalar model is fundamentally flawed because it attempts to artificially subsume a variety of features under a single label. Labels such as nominal and verbal, finite and non-finite stand for combinations of several features. [+nominal], for instance, can be characterised by genitival subject, nominal inflectional morphology, by the absence of typical verbal morphology and morphosyntax (e.g. tense, voice, person agreement), by its use in typically nominal syntactic environments, e.g. with prepositions, etc. Similarly, finite is often equated with tensed, but languages such as Latin do have tensed infinitives. 72 An alternative definition, distinguishing infinitives from finite verb forms on the grounds that the latter are inflected for person and number (Matthews, 1997: 129), showing subject agreement (Koptjevskaja-Tamm, 1993: 256) is similarly flawed, as shown by the ‘inflected infinitive’ examined in Section 3.3. In the one-dimensional scalar model, any non-prototypical verb form is located somewhere between the two ends of the scale. However, due to the differential nature of the various criteria and features involved, the exact position must, in the absence of a uniform method of quantification, necessarily be subjectively or arbitrarily determined. Not only is it doubtful whether morphological, syntactic, and semantic features can ever be merged into a single ‘value’ that would allow exact positioning along the scale, but such an approach would, in fact, distort the real facts by disregarding the disjunction between the individual features of a particular verb form. An alternative approach, in which no attempt is made to determine an artificial degree of overall nominality, finiteness, etc., but which instead concentrates on each feature individually, can provide valuable insights into the shifts in the area of dependent clauses from Latin to Romance.

3.4.2

Classification of the Latin infinitive

There appears to be a general consensus that the infinitive has developed from being relatively nominal in Latin to something much less nominal in modern Romance. Brugmann (1888-95) shows that Latin infinitives have their origin in Indo-European nomina actionis, full nouns that describe an action or state. Though he sees the infinitive as the final result of an evolutionary process, he does recognize that, during the transition, “they ed through a number of intermediate stages, and hence it is often hard to say whether any particular form should be called an infinitive in the strict sense of the word.” This view is strikingly similar to that expressed by Vincent (1999: 5), except that it refers to a different period, and the end points of the scale are not exactly the same; for Brugmann, it appears, there is a continuum between the extremes noun and infinitive. Beardsley (1920: 1) states that “in Latin the infinitive showed close similarity to the noun]”, but he qualifies the statement by adding that it “was capable of use only in the nominative and accusative cases.”73 72

“...the [tensed and finite] are not equivalent, since e.g. a language may have infinitives which are also inflected for tense.”, Matthews (1997: 375). 73 He presumably refers to the fact that it could only function as the subject or direct object of the main clause.

3.4. THE INFINITIVE: NOMINAL OR VERBAL?

97

Vincent (1999: 5) also implies that the Latin infinitive is more nominal than its modern Romance counterpart, claiming that “..the [Romance] infinitive, [is] a by now purely verbal form.” (my italics) An objective analysis of the infinitive in Latin and Romance casts some doubt on the view that it has undergone a straight-forward shift along a nominal/verbal continuum.

Non-verbal features of the Latin infinitive On the one hand, there are, indeed, certain features that give the Latin infinitive a stronger nominal quality in comparison with its later reflexes in Romance. One of these is the syntactic restriction on its use, which allows it only to appear as the subject or object of a sentence. Though this is not a typical feature of Latin nominal elements in general, it does, nevertheless, show a distributional dependency on case structure, which is something typically associated with NPs. Secondly, the fact that the semantic subject of the Latin infinitive does not take nominative case is an indication that the infinitive is not a prototypical verb form. Though the subject in AcI-clauses appears in the accusative (not the genitive, as it does with prototypical nominals), the fact that the infinitive does not assign nominative case to its subject can be interpreted as an indication of reduced verbal character.

Verb-like or clausal features of the Latin infinitive Whilst not as verbal as finite verb forms, the Latin infinitive does have clearly verb-like properties. It can appear, on its own as well as within an AcI, as the complement of main verbs ¯ ARE ¯ ¯ that semantically require a sentential object, such as REC US ‘to refuse’ and COGERE ‘to coerce’. The fact that Latin does not have prepositional infinitives is a further mark of the infinitive’s verbal nature, as prepositions typically occur with nouns or NPs. Though lacking morphological person and number agreement, the Latin infinitive does have morphologically inflected forms for tense and voice, both of which are typical verbal inflection classes. A further typically verbal characteristic is the fact that the infinitive cannot be pluralized – a feature it shares with finite verb forms 74 as well as the gerund, as neither Latin nor Romance verbs are marked for the number of actions or states they represent. (This does not mean that a verb cannot express more than one action; aspectual marking by means of the ‘imperfect tense’ or by auxiliaries such as SOLERE can be used to express repetition, and in clauses with a plural subject it is frequently the case that the verbal action is executed individually by each member of the subject NP. But there is no structure reserved exclusively for marking the number of actions.) So far, these observations are in line with locating the Latin infinitive somewhere along the continuum between prototypical noun and verb, though perhaps rather closer to the verbal end than traditional grammars would suggest. 74

The so-called plural forms of finite verbs do not pluralize the verb itself, but merely constitute number agreement with the subject.

98

3.4.3

CHAPTER 3. THE INFINITIVE IN SPANISH AND PORTUGUESE TODAY

Is the Romance infinitive verbal or nominal?

As mentioned in Section 3.4.2, there appears to be a general consensus that the infinitive has become more verbal, and implicitly less nominal, in the course of the development of the Romance languages. This section will take a closer look at the degree to which such a claim can be upheld. This analysis will separately consider the evolution of the infinitive clause’s relation to outside elements, in particular the main clause it is dependent on, on the one hand, and its internal structure on the other hand. It will become apparent that we are dealing with two diverging trends, and that it is therefore inappropriate to speak of a single development towards or away from nominality.

Increased nominality in relation to the main clause The overall number of contexts in which the infinitive can occur has steadily increased to the present day. Much emphasis is placed on its increased coreferential usage. Harris (1978: 226) states that “the infinitive has extended its role in Romance compared to Latin [...], particularly when the subject of the two underlying sentences is identical.” This is doubtlessly an important observation, but nevertheless merely a quantitative shift, as coreferential infinitive complements did exist in Latin, too. More innovative is the use with prepositions. The details of this development will be discussed in the following chapters. At this point it is sufficient to point out that the creation of a novel syntactic pattern, the prepositional infinitive, is a clear shift towards nominality, as the prototypical prepositional structure is undoubtedly [preposition+noun]. Pre-empting some results from subsequent sections, it can be observed that the overall number of prepositional infinitives, as well as the number of different prepositions the infinitive can combine with, has seen a continuing rise to the present day, which can be interpreted as an indication that, in relation to its main clause, the infinitive is still in the process of becoming more nominal. 75 The noun-like qualities of the infinitive are also pointed out by Raposo (1987: 239), who argues infinitival clauses are nominal projections, and that the infinitival morpheme “-r nominalizes the grammatical category to which it attaches”. This is shown by the fact that infinitival clauses cannot appear in a position subcategorized by non-Case asg categories, such as nouns (225). 225. ∗O receio [chumbar o exame]] VP. 76 The fear (of) [failing the exam] VP. Instead, a dummy Case-asg preposition, de, is required for infinitival clauses (226), as it is for NPs (227). 226. ∗O receio de [chumbar o exame]] VP. 77 The fear of [failing the exam] VP. 227. ∗O receio de [os exames]...78 The fear of the exams... 75

An interesting issue is whether those prepositional infinitives that have evolved from prototypical adjuncts to complements (cf. Chapter 7) have reversed the trend, becoming less nominal in the process. According to the theoretical parameters presented in Section 1.3, the construction remains the same, the shift being a purely semantic one. 76 Raposo, 1987: 237 77 ibid.: 238 78 ibid.

3.4. THE INFINITIVE: NOMINAL OR VERBAL?

99

A further area in which the infinitive’s verbal character has decreased is in the area of overt marking of the time relation between the main clause and the infinitive. Whilst Latin infinitives are obligatorily tensed – a typically verbal feature – modern Romance infinitives are, by default, not overtly tensed. Anteriority and posteriority of the infinitive can be rendered periphrastically by the standard auxiliary constructions 79 of the respective languages, but in modern Romance this only occurs as a disambiguating strategy in marked contexts. A reduction of the need for morphological temporal marking can even be observed in Spanish since the Middle Ages: whilst prepositional infinitives marked as anterior by despu´es de were usually marked analytically as past by means of haber, a steady decline of this redundant marking for relative time reference can be observed, and in the modern language only a fraction of prepositional infinitives with despu´es de use the past tense auxiliary construction. The same also applies to marking of voice, which the Latin infinitive is obligatorily inflected for, but which is only exceptionally expressed overtly in modern Romance, whilst usually determined pragmatically through contextual cues.

Increased verbal character within the dependent clause Within the dependent clause, the situation is rather different, both morphologically and syntactically. In the majority of Romance languages, infinitival clauses have developed an internal structure that, under certain circumstances, allows the subject of the infinitive to appear overtly, and in subject case. This Overt Subject Infinitive or OSI is found throughout the Romance-speaking world (cf. Section ComplementswithovertSubject), in several varieties with the possibility of morphological agreement between the infinitive and its overt or non-overt subject – a fact that casts some doubt on whether the absence of person agreement is a necessary characteristic of the infinitive.80 Both these features – morphological person/number agreement and asg nominative case to its subject – are typically verbal. A further verbal characteristic is the case assigned to direct objects of the infinitive. If we were dealing with a noun, we would again expect a genitival construction with de, but in the infinitive complement, the DO is assigned accusative case. Compare the de-construction for the object of the noun b´ usqueda in (228) with the direct object construction for the object of buscar in (229): 228. La b´ usqueda de un cohete sucesor [...] se complica. 81 The search for a successor rocket is becoming more complicated. 229. El gobierno se esfuerza por buscar un cohete sucesor/buscarlo. The government is making an effort to find a successor rocket/find it. The degree of nominality in the medieval language Beardsley (1920: 3-12) devotes an entire chapter of his survey of the infinitive in Old Spanish to the “infinitive as substantive”, i.e. functioning as a noun, which is more widely used in Medieval Spanish than in the modern language, but also its that “there is no distinct line between the verb and noun uses of the infinitive, since even in the types called verbal the substantival 79

When used in infinitival clauses, the inflectable verbal element within the auxiliary construction appears in its infinitive form, e.g. the infinitive of ‘to have’ followed by the past participle for anteriority. 80 To claim, on such formal grounds, that the ‘personal infinitive’ is not really an infinitive at all would be misleading, as such a claim would miss the fact that its syntactic behaviour and its distribution is very similar to that of OSI constructions with non-inflected infinitives in those varieties that do not allow morphological agreement of the infinitive. 81 El Pa´ıs, 10.1.2001

100

CHAPTER 3. THE INFINITIVE IN SPANISH AND PORTUGUESE TODAY

sense can be felt, and vice versa” (Beardsley, 1920: 13). The most obvious distinction between the two uses is presence or absence of an article or adjectival pronoun. Expressions like el morir era malo 82 and en su versificar83 convey an implicit dynamism of the respective event by semantically exploiting the verbal nature of the infinitive, whilst sticking to a nominal syntactic structure. Similar examples abound in medieval Portuguese texts, too: 230. pois aquestes olhos meus por el perderan o dormir 84 Thus these eyes of mine lost the capacity to sleep because of him.

A number of these nomina actionis extend their semantic range beyond the action itself to its object. El/o cantar ‘the singing’> ’the song’, el/o comer ‘the eating’>’the meal’, el/o aver ‘the owning’>’the possessions’, el pares¸cer ‘the appearing’>’the opinion’ exemplify this semantic extension, with some of the secondary meanings so far removed from the original meaning of the verb that they are reanalysed as fully independent lexical items, as can be seen with el/o parecer ‘the opinion’, el/o andar ‘the walk’ and el/o poder ‘the power’ from medieval times to the present day: 231. Levadeiro dos moinhos com poder de acoimar os que tomasem a agoa. 85 A miller with the power to name and shame those who take the water. However, even the highly noun-like use of infinitive form in Medieval Spanish and Portuguese has a varying degree of nominality with regards to its arguments. As would be expected with a noun, both its subject and direct object are usually rendered genitivally by means of the preposition de, which indicates that this use of the infinitive is more noun-like than in Latin: Genitival Subject: 232. El cuydar de los omnes todo es vanidat. 86 The worrying of man is all vain. Genitival Object: 233. el usar de sus leyes...87 the use of their laws... There are, on the other hand, also instances of direct objects without de, giving the infinitive a more verbal touch despite the fact that it has an article: 234. mando [...] el refazer los muros de las uillas 88 He gave orders to rebuild the walls of the towns. This construction, which is halfway between nominal and verbal use, survives into the modern language: 82

Cit. Beardsley (1920): Libro de Alixandre 1052 ibid.: 232, 2077 84 Nuno Perez Sandeu, Cantiga de Amigo 6, end of 13th century. 85 Verea¸co ˜es no. 1309, fl. 48 86 Cit. Beardsley (1920: 11): Libro de Alixandre 968 87 Cit. Beardsley (1920: 12): Primera Cr´ onica General 103b19 88 Cit. Beardsley (1920: 12): Primera Cr´ onica General 293b32 83

3.4. THE INFINITIVE: NOMINAL OR VERBAL?

101

235. Tendr´a la consideraci´on de estudiante el extranjero cuya venida a Espa˜ na tenga como fin u ´ nico o principal el cursar o ampliar estudios o realizar trabajos de investigaci´on o formaci´on.89 A foreigner whose coming to Spain has as its only or principle objective to pursue or deepen his studies or to carry out research or educational work will be considered a student. The infinitive preceded by a contraction of definite article and the preposition a deserves special attention in view of its later development. Beardsley rightly includes this construction in the ‘infinitive as substantive’ class, implicitly equating constructions such as (236) with other prepositional constructions such as (237). 236. Al posar...todos se esperaban. 90 at.the restinf. ...all refl. wait3rd.pl.past

When they rested...everyone was waiting. 237. Del minguar dize...91 of.the diminishinf. say3rd.sg.pres ...

About discrediting he says... At the time, this al-construction is no more verbal than any other infinitive with a definite article, as its genitival subject (al so mandar 92 , ‘at his ordering’) and object (Al cargar de las archas veriedes gozo tanto.93 ‘at the loading of the chests’) underlines. The subsequent development, in both Spanish and Portuguese, to the present-day situation, in which al/ao+infinitive is a clearly verbal construction (with a particularly high incidence of overt subjects), is exceptional in that it has formally retained the definite article. Nevertheless, it has to be included in the list of prepositional infinitives examined in their development between the Middle Ages and today in the next chapters. Though the ‘nominal infinitive’ is not the primary object of this study, it helps illustrate that we are not dealing with a single, uniform shift of the infinitive along the [nominal]<—>[verbal] continuum. Overall, it may be most appropriate to classify the infinitive used in this way as a noun, but closer examination has shown that its range, from lexicalized full noun that has lost all its verbal force, to the incipiently verbal use with a non-genitival direct object, spans a considerable spectrum. ‘Verbal’ usage of the infinitive in medieval texts is, in principle (though not in all details, as the following chapters show), similar to that in the modern language. With regards to its ‘external’ relationship to its main verb, it can function as subject, object, or as various types of adjunct. Nor has the internal structure of infinitival complements changed dramatically since medieval times; in a very verb-like way, the infinitive can have direct objects and overt subjects. 94 In Portuguese, the inflected infinitive, agreeing morphologically with an overt or implicit subject, is also already well established in the Middle Ages. It is only in of distribution and quantity that the usage of infinitival clauses has changed since the Middle Ages; these changes, which will be examined in some detail in the following chapters, offer crucial insights into an ongoing process, which is already well underway in the 12 th century. 89

El Pa´ıs, 10.1.2001. Beardsley (1920: 5), cit. Milagros de Nuestra Se˜ nora 8 91 ibid., p. 5, from Primera Cr´ onica General 66a10 92 Cit. Beardsley (1920): Primera Cr´ onica General 66b41 93 Cit. Beardsley (1920: 12): C ¸ id 170 94 Some changes have occurred regarding the possible position of overt subjects, cf. Section (3.2.2) and Mensching (2000: 15-38, 101-28) 90

102

CHAPTER 3. THE INFINITIVE IN SPANISH AND PORTUGUESE TODAY

Impact of the demise of the Latin case system The previous section shows that it is impossible to say that the Romance infinitive, as a whole, has become more nominal or more verbal. In relation to the main clause, nominal features have become more pronounced, but clause-internally, a clear increase in verbal characteristics is evident. One factor that favours the increase in nominality is the overall structural shift that Romance has undergone. (Classical) Latin syntax depends heavily on overt inflectional marking of the relations between constituents, rather than relying on word order or the consistent use of lexical relation markers95 . Prepositional constructions are no exception to this requirement. IN ‘in’ and SUB ‘below, under’, for instance, have locative meaning with the ablative, but typically 96 directional meaning with the accusative. The Latin infinitive, however, does not participate in standard nominal morphology, which makes it impossible to overtly specify its semantic relation to other constituents. As a consequence, it can only be used in place of an NP where its semantic role within the sentence can nevertheless be unambiguously identified, as the subject or direct object of certain verbs that make the semantic role of the infinitive highly predictable (cf. Section 2.2). Such a degree of predictability is not provided for other semantic roles, which therefore require unambiguous inflectional marking97 . This general requirement for oblique nominals to be inflected for case can be seen as crucial for the fact that infinitives cannot appear in prepositional phrases in Latin. With the Romance shift away from morphological case marking (Penny, 1991: 101 ff.), nominal morphology conveniently adapted to that of the infinitive: whether direct, indirect, or prepositional object, neither nouns nor infinitives are morphologically inflected for case in most modern Romance varieties, and it appears that this structural shift has, more or less per chance, led to a morphosyntactic convergence of nouns and infinitives, thereby facilitating a greater syntactic overlap between the two in certain areas. The deviant pattern in Romanian, which does have a two-term morphological case distinction 98 , s this structurally based theory. Languages without case inflection, such as Spanish, tend to have a single infinitive form that can function both as the verb of a dependent clause and as a full noun or “infinitive as substantive” (Beardsley, 1920: 1-12). These two usages of the infinitive can be distinguished by the different syntactic contexts they require. Sentence (238) is an example of the infinitive obrar ‘to work, to function, to act’ used as a full noun. Both the article el and the fact that its semantic subject is expressed genitivally by means of the preposition de99 are clear indicators of nominality: 238. Espa˜ na es hoy un pa´ıs libre. Libre [...] como nunca lo fue antes en su historia, libre [...] en el obrar de sus partidos pol´ıticos. 100 Spain is today a country free. free [...] like never it was before in its history, free [...] in the working of its parties political 95 Classical Latin does make use of lexical relation markers, but the inventory is defective, with many interconstituent relations requiring morphological inflection. 96 IN with the accusative very frequently has the figurative meaning ‘against’. 97 A number of prepositions do, however, also assign semantic roles in an unambiguous way. 98 Romanian distinguishes one form for the nominative and accusative, and a second oblique form. This overt distinction applies to all articulated forms as well as non-articulated feminine singular forms. 99 With regard to direct objects, even the more noun-like infinitive does not usually require ‘genitival’ de. Compare el negar la existencia but la negaci´ on de la existencia. 100 El Pa´ıs, 8.2.2001.

3.4. THE INFINITIVE: NOMINAL OR VERBAL?

103

Today, Spain is a free country. Free [...] as it has never been before in its history, free [...] in the working of its political parties. Sentence (239) shows the same infinitive form in a prototypically verbal syntactic structure, with the auxiliary verb poder: 239. Nunca pens´e que Israel pudiera obrar as´ı. 101 never I.thought that Israel could actinf so

I never thought that Israel could act like that. In Romanian, this syncretism between verbal and nominal infinitive is resolved morphologically. Verbs have a ‘short infinitive’, corresponding to the verbal character of obrar in sentence (239), and a ‘long infinitive’102 , which is in all syntactic and morphosyntactic respects a fully nominal nomen actionis that participates in normal (feminine) case morphology. 240. Verbal or ‘short’ infinitive: Niciodat˘a nu m-am gˆandit c˘a cineva poate vopsi ou˘a a¸sa. never not REFL1st.sg -I.have thought that somebody can dyeinf.verbal eggsAcc so

I never thought anybody could dye eggs like that. 241. Nominal or ‘long’ infinitive (non-oblique): Am adus vopseaua pentru vopsirea ou˘alelor. I.have fetched dye.the for dyeing.the eggs.theGen.P l

I have brought the dye for the dyeing of the eggs. 242. Nominal or ‘long’ infinitive (oblique): Am adus vopseaua din cauza vopsirii ou˘alelor care are loc aici. I.have fetched dye.the out.of reason dyeing.theGen.Sg eggs.theGen.P l ...

I have brought the dye because of the dyeing of the eggs that takes place here. The verbal character of a vopsi in sentence (240) is particularly obvious in the presence of an overt subject in the dependent clause (243), which appears in the nominative: 243. Verbal or ‘short’ infinitive with overt subject: Am adus vopseaua pentru a vopsi ¸si noi ouale. we.have fetched dye.the for A dyeinf also weN om. eggs.theAcc.P l

I have brought the dye for us to dye the eggs, too. Like Latin, Romanian has prepositions that require a specific case. 103 And, as in Latin, these prepositions cannot be used to form prepositional infinitives, whilst in Romanian prepositions requiring non-oblique case frequently take an infinitival clause. For example, Romanian does not have causal infinitival clauses, as both causal prepositions, din cauza and din pricina, assign oblique case.104 Other Romance languages with a less developed case structure permit prepositional infinitives, even with cognate prepositional expressions. Compare the grammatical Spanish construction (244) and the corresponding ungrammatical Romanian sentence (245): 101

El Pa´ıs, ibid. ‘Infinitivul scurt’ and ‘infinitivul lung’, respectively. 103 Traditionally, these prepositions are subdivided into those requiring the genitive and those requiring the dative (Pop & Moldovan, 1997: 207), but this distinction is an artificial one, as there can be no morphosyntactic distinction between the two cases in a prepositional environment. 104 A similar resistance to concessive infinitival clauses can be found with ˆın ciuda, but as discussed in Section 6.3.2, a comparable resistance in other Romance languages suggests a different cause. 102

104

CHAPTER 3. THE INFINITIVE IN SPANISH AND PORTUGUESE TODAY

244. F´acilmente podr´ıamos pensar que el Dios cruel [...] mat´o a 24,000 personas solamente por causa de haber fornicado.105 easily we.can think that the God cruel [...] killed DIR.OBJ.MARKER 24,000 persons only for reason of PAST.AUXinf fornicated

We can easily think that the cruel God killed 24,000 people only because they had fornicated. 245. ∗ Cu u¸surint¸a˘ putem gˆandi c˘a Dumnezeu crud a omorˆat pe 24,000 de persoane, numai din cauza (de) a fi p˘ ac˘ atuit.106 with ease we.can thinkinf that God cruel has killed DIR.OBJ.MARKER 24,000 of persons, only out.of reason.the A PAST.AUXinf fornicated

We can easily think that the cruel God killed 24,000 people only because they had sinned. The evidence thus suggests that the disappearance of case inflection after prepositions is a prerequisite for the emergence of prepositional infinitives, and that once the requirement for morphological case marking no longer exists, the hybrid nominal/verbal nature of the infinitive allows it to function syntagmatically like an NP. The disjunction between this external nominality and its internal verbal character is crucial in allowing infinitival clauses to function as a nominal constituent, but simultaneously to impinge upon the domain of finite dependent clauses. However, even with the structural conditions in place, it remains to be explained what actually triggers this impingement, and along which path the construction spreads. The statistical data presented in the following chapters provide answers to the latter, on the basis of which a reconstruction of the earlier, undocumented stages of development will be attempted.

105

http://www.goodnews.or.kr/buenasnuevas/sermon/ley.htm It would appear tempting to copy the Spanish prepositional expression by adding de here. In fact din cauza does, very rarely, combine with de+unoblique case (19 web pages found by altavista), but never with de+infinitive. 106

Chapter 4

Diachronic development of the infinitive in Spanish 4.1

Prepositional and non-prepositional infinitives

Fig. 4.1 shows the overall development of infinitive usage in Spanish since the Middle Ages. Each point represents one text or author (as listed in appendix A), sorted diachronically along the x-axis, with the position along the y-axis reflecting the number of infinitives per 100,000 words of text. The approximation curve, generated by the algorithm described in section 1.5.2, shows the overall development trend.

overall number of infinitives 4000

per 100000 words

3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 1100

1150

1200

1250

1300

1350

1400

1450

1500

1550

1600

1650

1700

1750

1800

1850

1900

1950

2000

year

Figure 4.1: Overall frequency of infinitives through time

Up to the beginning of the 16th century, a remarkable stability at around 2250 infinitives per 100,000 words can be observed. At this point, a relatively steady rise sets in, reaching an average of around 2800/100,000 words in the 20 th century. This represents a significant rise of approximately 25%. In this chapter, the development of the various infinitival constructions this graph incorporates will be analysed and compared in some detail. A fundamental distinction can be made between prepositional and non-prepositional infinitives. Figs. 4.2 - 4.4 show the differential overall development of these two construction types. 105

106

CHAPTER 4. DIACHRONIC DEVELOPMENT OF THE INFINITIVE IN SPANISH

prepositional infinitives prep. infinitives per 100000 words

2000 1750 1500 1250 1000 750 500 250 0 1100

1150

1200

1250

1300

1350

1400

1450

1500

1550

1600

1650

1700

1750

1800

1850

1900

1950

2000

year

Figure 4.2: Prepositional infinitives through time

non−prepositional infinitives 2500

per 100000 words

2250 2000 1750 1500 1250 1000 750 500 1100

1150

1200

1250

1300

1350

1400

1450

1500

1550

1600

1650

1700

1750

1800

1850

1900

1950

2000

year

Figure 4.3: Non-prepositional infinitives through time

prepositional / non−prepositional infinitives 1700 1600

per 100000 words

1500 1400 1300 1200

Plain Infinitive

1100

total prepinf

1000 900 800 700 600 500 1100

1150

1200

1250

1300

1350

1400

1450

1500

1550

1600

1650

1700

1750

1800

1850

1900

1950

2000

year

Figure 4.4: Prepositional vs. non-prepositional infinitives through time A strong increase in the use of prepositional infinitives sets in around 1500, peaking just over a century later. This increase from ca. 600/100,000 words to ca. 1550/100,000 words represents a rise of nearly 160%. This is to some extent counterbalanced by reduced usage of non-prepositional infinitives, dropping well below the level of prepositional infinitives during the same period, from ca. 1700/100,000 words to ca. 1000/100,000 words. Though this fall does not fully cancel out the increase in prepositional infinitives, it does show a fundamental shift in favour of prep.+inf. However, the extreme divergence during this period is only temporary. After acquiring almost equal shares towards the end of the 17 th century, prepositional infinitive usage subsequently increases relatively steadily up to the beginning of the 20 th century, whilst non-prepositional infinitives experience a slight decline up to this point, followed by a sudden rise after 1900, again bringing about an almost equal share of prepositional and non-prepositional infinitives in

4.2. PREPOSITIONAL INFINITIVES

107

present-day Spanish. The most important observation, however, is the overall development, as illustrated by the linear regression lines in Figure 4.5. prepositional / non−prepositional infinitives 1700 1600

per 100000 words

1500 1400 1300

Plain Infinitive

1200

total prepinf

1100

Linear regression, Plain Infinitive

1000

Linear regression, total prepinf

900 800 700 600 500 1100

1150

1200

1250

1300

1350

1400

1450

1500

1550

1600

1650

1700

1750

1800

1850

1900

1950

2000

year

Figure 4.5: Prepositional vs. non-prepositional infinitive: linear regressions Essentially, in medieval times, the use of the plain infinitive exceeds that of prepositional infinitive by a factor of nearly three, whereas there is no longer a significant numeric difference today. If at all, prep+inf. can be said to have been slightly dominant since the mid-16 th century. In order to identify the causes for this shift, it is necessary to analyse the changing internal distribution within these two construction types.

4.2

Prepositional infinitives

Two different classificatory approaches to prepositional infinitives will be taken. The first is lexically based, tracing the use of individual prepositions through time. The second is semantically based, which means that prepositions are grouped together depending on their meaning, or more precisely on the semantic value that the dependent clause they introduce, has within its sentence. Both approaches have drawbacks. The formal, morphological approach ignores the fact that individual prepositions can, themselves, be polysemous, as discussed in Section 1.5.2. Is conditional de really the same preposition as de meaning ‘about’ or de meaning ‘beginning with’ ? Most obviously, the de as a complementizer clearly differs from the other uses. Diachronic shifts must also be taken into . Thus por and para 1 are diachronically unstable; por gradually cedes its final meaning to para.2 It must, therefore, be critically considered whether por in the Middle Ages can be seen as the same preposition as por used today. However, it is exactly this kind of semantic overlap and lack of discreteness that causes changes in usage patterns (cf. Sections 1.3, 7) , and it is thus necessary to obtain an overview of their development as a whole. The semantic approach, on the other hand, is limited by the same factors, as it is often not possible to sort prepositional infinitives into discrete semantic categories. Whether en hacerlo ‘in doinf. -it’ is temporal or causal3 varies from context to context, but in the majority of cases the meaning is a combination of both, in varying proportions. Thus, any categorization involves arbitrary or subjective decisions as to which is the primary or central meaning in a specific context. But a semantic classification is, nevertheless, of interest for the purpose of evaluating the status of the prepositional infinitive construction through time. In particular, the correlation 1

Pora and pera initially also participate in this complex shift. For a study about the origins of their current distribution, see Riiho (1979). 3 The causal meaning component can acquire a distinctly conditional flavour in a context of future reference.

2

108

CHAPTER 4. DIACHRONIC DEVELOPMENT OF THE INFINITIVE IN SPANISH

between semantic bleaching and increased frequency provides valuable information about the way in which an originally pragmatic mechanism ultimately leads to syntactic change. How this type of shift occurs is discussed in depth in Section 1.5.2.

4.2.1

Semantically underspecified constructions

The general trend for all prepositional infinitives is to increase in frequency. One construction suffering a (slight) overall decline is en+infinitive (Fig. 4.6), which initially follows the general trend, rising from ca. 62/100,000 words to a peak of nearly 100/100,000 words, but subsequently falls to below 50/100,000 words in present-day Spanish. en + infinitive incidence per 100000 words

150 125 100 75 50 25 0 1100

1150

1200

1250

1300

1350

1400

1450

1500

1550

1600

1650

1700

1750

1800

1850

1900

1950

2000

year

Figure 4.6: en+infinitive through time This can be explained by the rise in alternative, semantically more precise constructions which have come to replace en+infinitive. As described above, en+infinitive conveys a somewhat imprecise notion of temporal simultaneity and causality/conditionality. In section 2.4.5 it has been argued that such underspecification of semantic relationships is typically found when events are pragmatically backgrounded, and that a way of achieving such pragmatic backgrounding is by using gerundial constructions rather than prepositional infinitives. It might thus be expected that the decline of en+infinitive is counterbalanced by an increase in clausal gerunds. As Fig. 4.7 shows, this is not the case. Their development greatly resembles that of en+infinitive, peaking slightly later, but then also declining to a level below that of medieval times.

clausal gerunds per 100000 words

clausal gerunds 1100 1000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 1100

1150

1200

1250

1300

1350

1400

1450

1500

1550

1600

1650

1700

1750

1800

1850

1900

1950

2000

year

Figure 4.7: Clausal gerunds through time This leads to the conclusion that underspecified pragmatic backgrounding has, to some extent, declined in favour of more semantically precise, more foregrounded clause types, i.e. conjunctional and/or infinitival clauses. In the following, it will be examined in how far, and in what way, prepositional infinitives have gained dominance, both in comparison to the underspecified,

4.2. PREPOSITIONAL INFINITIVES

109

backgrounded gerund and en+infinitive, and to finite dependent clauses introduced by the conjunctions that semantically correspond to the respective prepositions.

Decreasing frequency of por + infinitive

4.2.2

Por+infinitive is also subject to falling usage frequency through time, as shown in Fig. 4.8: por + infinitive incidence per 100000 words

275 250 225 200 175 150 125 100 75 50 25 0 1100

1150

1200

1250

1300

1350

1400

1450

1500

1550

1600

1650

1700

1750

1800

1850

1900

1950

2000

year

Figure 4.8: por + infinitive through time As explained in the introductory section of this chapter, por has been subjected to a reduction of its semantic range, as the separate preposition para, a compound of por and a, both of which could carry final meaning at the time, came into existence in the Middle Ages. A comparaison of por and para (pera, pora)+infinitive (Fig. 4.9) suggests that the fall in por+infinitive is linked to the rise in para+inf.

por vs. para (pera, pora) + infinitive 300

per 100000 words

275 250

para,pera,pora

225

por

200 175 150 125 100 75 50 25 1100

1150

1200

1250

1300

1350

1400

1450

1500

1550

1600

1650

1700

1750

1800

1850

1900

1950

2000

year

Figure 4.9: por+infinitive vs. para+infinitive Almost until the 15th century, the ratio remains relatively stable at approximately 2.5:1 in favour of por. But from around 1400 onwards, an increasingly steep rise in the frequency of para causes it to draw even with por by the second half of the 16 th century, despite a simultaneous rise of por by around 35%. At this point, it can clearly be seen, para has got the upper hand: a sudden drop in the use of por is paralleled by a similarly steep increase in para, both of which slack off, again arriving at a largely stable ratio of ca. 3.5:1 in favour of para, from around 1800 onwards. The detailed study of por and para by Riiho (1979: 235-257) reveals that during the “classical period”, i.e. the 16th and 17th century, para gradually takes over the final domain, particularly in the semantic area he calls “finalidad propiamente dicha”, i.e ‘finality in the strict sense’. Whilst por is used for dependent clauses with a combination of final+causal and final+substitutional meaning to the present day, the purely final use becomes increasingly rare during this period,

110

CHAPTER 4. DIACHRONIC DEVELOPMENT OF THE INFINITIVE IN SPANISH

and only survives sporadically afterwards. 4 This semantic shift is responsible for the sudden change in frequency during the 17th century. It is important to note that the decline of por+infinitive is, thus, not motivated by wider structural factors, but caused by a local morphological and lexico-semantic phenomenon. The overall trend of the fluid por/para/pora-domain is illustrated by Fig. 4.10, which shows their combined frequency:

por & para + infinitive incidence per 100000 words

700 650 600 550 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 1100

1150

1200

1250

1300

1350

1400

1450

1500

1550

1600

1650

1700

1750

1800

1850

1900

1950

2000

year

Figure 4.10: por/para/pora + infinitive

The picture provided by this graph is fairly straightforward. Relative stability before the 15 th and after the 18th century contrasts with an increase from ca. 170/100,000 words to ca. 350/100,000 words, i.e. a rise by more than 100% between the 15 th and the 18th century. A drop by approximately 15% in the course of the 20th century can also be observed. This development pattern, it will be seen, is a typical one found with a number of other prepositions.

4.2.3

Increasing frequency of existing prepositional infinitives

The majority of prepositional infinitives occur with increasing frequency through time. Two groups can be distinguished: a number of prepositional infinitives first appear during the time period under investigation; these can be traced from their very beginning. The other group is already present in the earliest documents, and the information gleaned from the first group may be of assistance in reconstructing their origin. The subset of prepositional infinitives already present in early medieval Spanish consists of por/para, con, de, en, and a. Their development is illustrated in Fig. 4.10 above and in Figs. 4.11 - 4.13 below.

4

One author who uses final por regularly as late as the end of the 19th century is Emilia Pardo Baz´ an in Los pazos de Ulloa (1886, 2a ed. Madrid: C´ atedra, 1999).

4.2. PREPOSITIONAL INFINITIVES

111 con + infinitive

incidence per 100000 words

55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 1100

1150

1200

1250

1300

1350

1400

1450

1500

1550

1600

1650

1700

1750

1800

1850

1900

1750

1800

1850

1900

1850

1900

1950

2000

year

Figure 4.11: con + infinitive

de+infinitive 900

per 100000 words

800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 1150

1200

1250

1300

1350

1400

1450

1500

1550

1600

1650

1700

1950

2000

year

Figure 4.12: de + infinitive a + infinitive incidence per 100000 words

700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 1100

1150

1200

1250

1300

1350

1400

1450

1500

1550

1600

1650

1700

1750

1800

1950

2000

year

Figure 4.13: a + infinitive When comparing the evolutionary patterns of these prepositional infinitives, the most striking observation is the similarity of all the curves, irrespective of whether the prepositional infinitive is a prototypical adjunct (por/para), mostly used as a prototypical complementizer (de), or moving between the two extremes of the continuum (a): after a more or less unchanging period in the earlier part of the Middle Ages, an increase gradually sets in, which intensifies around the year 1500 and peaks round about a hundred years later. Though similar in principle, the development is not simultaneous. por/para+infinitive reaches its zenith between 1550 and 1600, but de only between 1600 and 1650. On the other hand, the gradual rise in frequency begins around 1300 for de, more than a hundred years earlier than for por/para. This is a clear indication that we are not dealing with a wholesale development, but that every preposition follows its own course of development – but that these individual courses of development have a surprising resemblance to each other.

112

CHAPTER 4. DIACHRONIC DEVELOPMENT OF THE INFINITIVE IN SPANISH

Their subsequent development confirms this interpretation. After a drop around 1650, a relatively stable period follows, in which por/para experiences a rise of ca. 25% by the end of the 19th century, but then falls back to the level of the 17 th century. De also rises (ca. 10%) and falls back to a level below that of 1650 during the 20 th century. This trend is far stronger with con+infinitive, with a very marked rise (50%) that takes it above the peak of the ‘classical period’ in the 19th century, but then falls to a pre-classical level during the 20 th century. Whilst por/para, de, and con behave similarly in principle, a experiences a slight rise instead of a fall in the 20th century. All of this shows that each prepositional infinitive has its own individual, not precisely predictable evolution, but nevertheless conforms to a broad pattern. It should be noted that the common trend is independent of absolute frequency. Fig. 4.14 gives an impression of the differences in frequency between the respective prepositional infinitives. a, de, por/para, con + infinitive 600 550 a

per 100000 words

500

con

450

de por + para

400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 1150

1200

1250

1300

1350

1400

1450

1500

1550

1600

1650

1700

1750

1800

1850

1900

1950

2000

year

Figure 4.14: a, de, por/para,con + infinitive

4.2.4

A special case: al + infinitive

A difficult issue is the temporal construction al+infinitive. It occurs from the earliest medieval texts, as in (246). 246. al exir de Sal´on mucho ovo buenas aves 5 when leaving Sal´on, there were many good augurs However, the status of this infinitive with article is not clear. Medieval Spanish regularly uses infinitives in a very noun-like way6 , as illustrated by (247), in which the nominal nature of the infinitive is demonstrated by the fact that the patient or object is linked by ‘genitival’ de, a structure typically used for objects of nouns. 247. Al tirar de la lan¸ca...7 At the throwing of the lance... Both the definite article contained in al and the fact that the [patient] is linked by de would appear to indicate nominality, and initially this is surely the case. But the construction’s increasingly verbal nature, reflected by an incipient rise in frequency from about 1500 onwards, becomes unmistakable in sentences such as (248) from Don Quijote, where the overt subject of the infinitive is not linked by genitival de, but takes the form of a clausal subject. 5

C ¸ id, 859 Beardsley (1921: 3-12) 7 C ¸ id, 3686 6

4.2. PREPOSITIONAL INFINITIVES

113

248. Al subir el duque y la duquesa en el teatro... 8 al ascendinf. the duke and the duchess in the theatre...

When the duke and the duchess entered the theatre... The question of such infinitives’ nominality is discussed in more depth in Section 3.4.3 above. But whilst the infinitive in other prepositional clauses tends to behave largely like a verb in relation to the other constituents of the dependent clause, the overt morphological presence of the article in al appears to block this split between internal verbal character and external nominality for a long time, as can be seen in Figure 4.15, which shows a marked difference to the development of the other prepositional infinitives discussed above. al + infinitive incidence per 100000 words

175 150 125 100 75 50 25 0 1100

1150

1200

1250

1300

1350

1400

1450

1500

1550

1600

1650

1700

1750

1800

1850

1900

1950

2000

year

Figure 4.15: al + infinitive The typical rise between 1400 and 1600 is much less significant than with other prepositional infinitives; this can be explained by the continued presence of nominal usage during the classical period, as in (249). 249. ...y al ar de un arroyo levant´o la falda... 9 ...and al nominal/inf. of a brook lifted the skirt...

...and as she ed a brook, she lifted her skirt... This continuing strongly nominal use during the classical period appears to retard the typical rise of the curve, because only a limited number of verbs regularly appear as ‘verbal nouns’ in this construction. These are mostly verbs of motion (salir, pasar, andar, llegar, cabalgar etc.), verbs of eating and drinking (comer, cenar, beber etc.), impersonal verbs denoting times of the day (amanecer, anochecer) and some other notions such as pesar ‘to grieve’, parecer ‘to seem’. Some of these eventually become fossilized in their nominal form and are fully nominal in the modern language. The crucial point, however, is that as long as the al-construction retained its special, more nominal status, it was not freely available to be used with any verb in the way that other prepositional infinitives allowed. Only after al+infinitive becomes fully integrated into the system of prepositional infinitives does the expected increase in frequency set in, accelerating during the 19th century and easing off in the 20th .

4.2.5

The rise of new prepositional infinitives

Throughout the documented history of Spanish, new prepositions are created. They are often analytic, consisting of more than one word; a productive pattern is the combination of an – 8 9

Don Quijote, 35535 Fructus Sanctorum, Ejemplos de las sagradas escrituras, Ejemplos Cristanos, 20

114

CHAPTER 4. DIACHRONIC DEVELOPMENT OF THE INFINITIVE IN SPANISH

often nominal – element followed by de as a marker of prepositionality.

The first preposition to begin forming prepositional infinitives during the documented history of Spanish is, however, morphologically inherited from Latin. Sin+infinitive first appears sporadically at the beginning of the 13th century, and its frequency rises sharply from 1450 onwards. After a peak and a subsequent drop between 1550 and 1700, a renewed, more gradual increase up to the end of the 19th century and a slightly steeper decline during the 20 th century follow.

sin + infinitive incidence per 100000 words

160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 1100

1150

1200

1250

1300

1350

1400

1450

1500

1550

1600

1650

1700

1750

1800

1850

1900

1950

2000

year

Figure 4.16: sin + infinitive

Despu´es de (Fig. 4.18) and antes de+infinitive (Fig. 4.17) follow a similar development. They first appear considerably later than sin+inf, in the late 15 th century. The structural symmetry between these two temporal prepositional infinitives is reflected by the fact that they first appear around the same time, and their subsequent development is also largely parallel until the beginning of the 20th century. However, up to around 1900 the absolute frequency of antes de+inf. is only around 50% of that of despu´es de+inf.; during the 20 th century, a rise of the former and a similarly strong drop of the latter leads to approximate numeric parity between the two.

Ante(s de) + infinitive incidence per 100000 words

45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 1100

1150

1200

1250

1300

1350

1400

1450

1500

1550

1600

1650

1700

1750

year

Figure 4.17: antes de + infinitive

1800

1850

1900

1950

2000

4.2. PREPOSITIONAL INFINITIVES

115

despues de + infinitive incidence per 100000 words

60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 1100

1150

1200

1250

1300

1350

1400

1450

1500

1550

1600

1650

1700

1750

1800

1850

1900

1950

2000

year

Figure 4.18: despu´es de + infinitive Desde and hasta might be expected to develop in a similar way to despu´es/antes de. For hasta+infinitive this is, broadly speaking, the case, as shown in Fig. 4.19, except for a marked decline in the early 20th century.

hasta + infinitive incidence per 100000 words

90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 1100

1150

1200

1250

1300

1350

1400

1450

1500

1550

1600

1650

1700

1750

1800

1850

1900

1950

2000

year

Figure 4.19: hasta + infinitive However, there is clear resistance to desde+infinitive. One isolated instance can be found in Larra (1832), and beyond this it is only to be found in the journalistic and oral corpora of the late 20th century, with a very low frequency of 0.21/100,000 words. What is more, not a single infinitival clause with desde has temporal sense. 10 It is used exclusively to express conceptual, not temporal, distance, usually in combination with a to indicate the opposite end. A typical example is sentence (250). 250. ...desde poner aborto gratuito y pr´acticamente obligatorio a convertirlo en delito... 11 ...from putinf. abortion free and practically obligatory to convertinf. +it into an offence...

...from offering free and practically obligatory abortion to turning it into a criminal offence... When compared to those of de, a, por/para, and con above, Figs. 4.18 - 4.19 appear to suggest that there is no intrinsic, fixed time scale for the statistical development of prepositional infinitives. Once established, their development becomes synchronized with that of the other, much older prepositional infinitives. This comes as no great surprise, as language s generally do not have diachronic information at their disposal; they are not aware that one construction is many centuries older than another. 10

A partir de, synonymous with desde in its temporal usage, is also extremely rare; it appears to be more popular in Latin America than in Spain. 11 Oral Corpus, TV programme Hablando Claro

116

CHAPTER 4. DIACHRONIC DEVELOPMENT OF THE INFINITIVE IN SPANISH

Absolute frequency does vary considerably among different prepositional infinitives, but as Fig. 4.14 above shows, this is not a crucial factor in their relative statistical development – the curves have a similar shape whether we are dealing with a range of 100-400, or of 0-10 instances per 100,000 words. Other prepositional expressions follow in the footsteps of despu´es de and antes de. Many of the prepositional expressions we take for granted as typical prepositional infinitives in the modern language have, in fact, only very recently acquired this function, and even many of those which have been in use for longer are found only sporadically before the 20 th century. En lugar de and en vez de are virtually synonymous and interchangeable in the modern language, with a similar frequency of around 5 per 100,000 words. But their evolution has not been as similar. In the texts this analysis is based on, en lugar de+infinitive first appears in the early 15th centuryin the Libro de Gatos in five instances, and subsequently with some regularity until 1650. A gap of 150 years follows, before it reappears just before 1800, gradually increasing its frequency to the current level of ca. 5/100,000 words. En vez de, on the other hand, is much less popular during the classical period 12 , but rises to almost twice the frequency of en lugar de during the 19th and the first half of the 20th century. Fig. 4.20 sketches the differential development after 1500.

en lugar de vs. en vez de + infinitive 30 27,5 25

en lugar de en vez de

per 100000 words

22,5

en lugar de

20

en vez de

17,5 15 12,5 10 7,5 5 2,5 0 1500

1550

1600

1650

1700

1750

1800

1850

1900

1950

2000

year

Figure 4.20: en lugar de + infinitive / en vez de + infinitive

It should be noted that the two prepositional expressions appear to coexist with no apparent danger of one ousting the other, despite their semantic and syntactic similarity. However, the Oral Corpus suggests that particularly in the spoken language, en vez de is twice as popular as en lugar de; in journalistic style, this discrepancy is much less extreme, with around 10% more en vez de than en lugar de. A fin de is another prepositional expression found sporadically in texts from the mid-15 th century onwards, as shown in Fig. 4.21.

12

Merely one instance in El Busc´ on, 4 in Calder´ on de la Barca.

4.2. PREPOSITIONAL INFINITIVES

117

a fin de + infinitive 11

incidence per 100000 words

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1100

1150

1200

1250

1300

1350

1400

1450

1500

1550

1600

1650

1700

1750

1800

1850

1900

1950

2000

year

Figure 4.21: a fin de + infinitive As a fin de+infinitive is semantically all but synonymous with para+infinitive, its use is primarily stylistically and pragmatically motivated: two characteristics that contrast sharply with para are the vivid way in which a fin de ‘with (the) end of’ literally explains the concept of finality, and the fact that it has more morphological weight than para. Not only does it consist of three separate morphemes, but one of these morphemes is derived from a noun, i.e. a ‘heavy’ (and originally stressed) element. These two features make a fin de a more expressive, emphatic, but at the same time a somewhat formal, stilted way of introducing a final clause. The latter is the reason why a fin de is virtually absent from the Oral Corpus (0.11/100,000 words), whilst journalese embraces it (1.74/100,000 words). Other prepositional expressions with the same morphosyntactic structure the inventory of prepositional infinitives at later points in time. Aspectual a punto de+infinitive ‘about to’ (4.22) is first found at the end of the 16th century, but regular usage only sets in during the 20 th century.

a(l) punto de + infinitive incidence per 100000 words

15 12,5 10 7,5 5 2,5 0 1100

1150

1200

1250

1300

1350

1400

1450

1500

1550

1600

1650

1700

1750

1800

1850

1900

1950

2000

year

Figure 4.22: a punto de + infinitive Concessive a pesar de and cognate pese a are very recent additions to the inventory; before the 19th century there are no instances of concessive infinitival clauses. A single instance of a pesar de+infinitive is found in each of Larra (1832), Giner de los R´ıos (1875), and Unamuno (1909); only in the journalistic and spoken corpus of the 1990s does the frequency pick up, reaching 1.83/100,000 words and 0.74/100,000 words respectively. Pese a+infinitive is even later in coming, with no instances at all before the 1990s, but with a surprisingly high frequency13 of 9.16/100,000 words in Mar´ıas. In the journalistic corpus its frequency is the same as that of a pesar de+infinitive (1.83/100,000 words), which indicates that the two stand in direct competition in this . However, the fact that there is only a single 13

This is exactly the same frequency as that of en vez de and a punto de.

118

CHAPTER 4. DIACHRONIC DEVELOPMENT OF THE INFINITIVE IN SPANISH

occurrence in the Oral Corpus indicates that pese a+infinitive has not (yet) entered the spoken language. Another recent addition is luego de+infinitive, which appears to be restricted to journalistic . Whilst not present in any of the other texts, it occurs sporadically, with a frequency of 0.38/100,000 words in the 2001 journalistic corpus. The origin of this construction appears to be the journalists’ tendency to avoid repetition and vary their expressions; luego de is a straight-forward calque on despu´es de, based on the synonymity of the adverbs despu´es and luego meaning ‘afterwards’. Journalists appear to favour the economy of the prepositional infinitive to replace slightly less concise finite clauses. Another prepositional infinitive benefiting from this ‘economical style’ in the 20th century is tras+infinitive (‘after’). Whilst tras+noun is a popular preposition during the classical period, the texts in Appendix A from this period contain only a single instance of tras+infinitive, in Calder´ on de la Barca (1651). But in the 20 th century tras begins to be used in infinitival clauses, with one instance in Unamuno, a frequency of 18.33/100,000 words in Mar´ıas (1992) and 16.75/100,000 words in the 2001 journalistic corpus – these frequencies are similar to those of the synonymous despu´es de+infinitive. However, like pese a+infinitive, tras+infinitive has only entered the spoken language sporadically (0.42/100,000 words).

4.2.6

Semantic grouping

The impossibility of clearly classifying certain prepositional clause types along semantic lines has been discussed above. The overlap between final, causal and substitutional sense of por and para has been mentioned, as has the continuum between the full, clearly delimitable senses of a and de and their bleached, weaker, less clearly defined usages. Other prepositional infinitives do, however, have a clearer, more stable semantic value. Fig. 4.23 compares three such semantic areas.

temporal, exclusive and consessive prepositional infinitives 140

per 100000 words

120 100

temporal prep+inf. concessive prep+inf.

80

exclusive prep+inf. (sin)

60 40 20 0 1150

1200

1250

1300

1350

1400

1450

1500

1550

1600

1650

1700

1750

1800

1850

1900

1950

2000

Figure 4.23: Temporal/concessive/exclusive preposition + infinitive This comparison shows how temporal and exclusive 14 prepositional infinitives have undergone a very similar, parallel development, even in absolute frequency. In stark contrast to this, concessive prepositional infinitives are all but negligible. The concept of temporality is, in Spanish as in most Indo-European languages, tripartite. It can be subdivided into anterior, simultaneous, and posterior. Fig. 4.24 illustrates how these areas of temporality are represented within the larger category of temporal prepositional infinitives. 14

The preposition used to form exclusive prepositional infinitives is sin.

4.2. PREPOSITIONAL INFINITIVES

119

anterior, simultaneous, posterior prepositional infinitives 110 100

per 100000 words

90

anterior matrix prep+inf. (hasta, antes de)

80

posterior matrix prep+inf. (después de etc.)

70

simultaneous time ref. prep+inf.

60 50 40 30 20 10 0 1150

1200

1250

1300

1350

1400

1450

1500

1550

1600

1650

1700

1750

1800

1850

1900

1950

2000

year

Figure 4.24: Anterior, simultaneous, posterior prepositional infinitives

Whilst prepositions expressing anteriority and posteriority of the dependent clause in relation to its main clause develop in a relatively similar way, emerging in the 15 th century, and remaining at a relatively stable level from the 17 th century onwards, temporal prepositional infinitives expressing simultaneity of main and dependent clause show a very different development after the classical period, increasing almost fivefold within 200 years, and then remaining stable at this level throughout the 20th century. Infinitival clauses expressing simultaneity are generally formed with al (94%), the above explanation for the rapid increase in the use of al+infinitive after 1700 also applies to the class of simultaneous prepositional infinitives as a whole. It may, at first sight, seem surprising that the ratio between anterior/posterior prepositional infinitives on the one hand, and their simultaneous counterparts on the other, can be subject to such drastic change, as the pragmatic context, the real world, does not change. Though it is possible for speakers’ interest in expressing anterior, posterior, or simultaneous time reference to change slightly through time if their attitudes and ways of viewing the world change, the necessities imposed by the pragmatics of the real world should be expected to make any drastic shifts impossible.

So how can the increase in frequency, not just of al+infinitive, but of every single prepositional infinitive examined here, be explained? There are two possibilities: the prepositional infinitive might either have increased at the expense of paratactic structures, or at the expense of finite subordination. To a certain extent, both explanations hold: in medieval Spanish, clausal subordination is less frequent than during later periods; the inventory of subordinating conjunctions and prepositions is not yet developed to the same degree as today. Therefore, Old Spanish resorts more to the juxtaposition of main clauses, and to lexically underspecified dependent clauses where the pragmatic context makes the overt marking of logical relations redundant.

Fig. 4.25 illustrates the overall rise in the use of dependent clauses, and the proportion of infinitival and finite ones.

120

CHAPTER 4. DIACHRONIC DEVELOPMENT OF THE INFINITIVE IN SPANISH

Figure 4.25: Infinitival and finite dependent clauses in Spanish The frequency of finite and infinitival dependent clauses combined rises by 14% from 1150 to 2000, with a sudden increase at the beginning of the 15 th century. During the classical period, it is up to 7% more frequent than today. The sudden increase around the year 1500 is caused by increases of both finite and infinitival dependent clauses, though the increase of infinitival clauses is the more marked of the two. Even in this very general graph it is visible that, after 1650, a gradually decreasing frequency of finite dependent clauses is offset by a comparable increase in infinitival ones. The following section will examine the interplay between these two clause types in more depth.

4.3

Infinitival clauses and their finite counterparts

Fig. 4.26 contrasts the development of the prepositional infinitives discussed in the previous section with that of the semantically (and in most cases morphologically) corresponding hypotactic conjunctions. Prepositional Infinitives vs. Corresponding Conjunctions 2000 total prepinf

1800

total conj.

per 100000 words

1600 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 1150

1200

1250

1300

1350

1400

1450

1500

1550

1600

1650

1700

1750

1800

1850

1900

1950

2000

year

Figure 4.26: Prepositional infinitives vs. corresponding conjunctions In the early Middle Ages, finite dependent clauses are around twice as frequent as prepositional infinitives. Until the 16th century, both types experience an overall increase. This is, as discussed above, mainly at the expense of paratactic structures. Rising at a stronger rate than its finite counterpart, the infinitive draws equal between 1550 and 1650, but only around 1800 does the frequency of prepositional infinitives finally exceed that of the corresponding finite clauses. It should be noted that, after 1600, the two clause types behave very much as a counterpoint to each other, which indicates that they are in direct competition, with any gain by one competitor offset by a corresponding loss for the other. This competition, it appears, is still open: in the 20th century, the continued increase of the prepositional infinitive has lost its momentum,

4.3. INFINITIVAL CLAUSES AND THEIR FINITE COUNTERPARTS

121

and finite dependent clauses have begun to regain some ground. A simple continuation of the current trend would allow the prediction that, within the next century, the number of infinitival and semantically corresponding finite clauses will reach approximately the same level, around 1300/100,000 words.

4.3.1

Prepositional infinitives postdating their finite counterparts

An examination of individual pairs of finite and infinitival clauses reveals that there is no single development pattern. Two fundamental classes of conjunction/preposition pairs can be distinguished: those with the conjunction predating the prepositional infinitive, and those with the prepositional infinitive predating the corresponding conjunction. Antes de/antes (de) que, despu´es de/despu´es (de) que, and hasta/hasta que (Figs. 4.27 - 4.29) are good examples of the former class. In all three cases, the conjunction is already present in the very earliest texts, but the prepositional infinitive first occurs around or after 1400. A considerable increase in the frequency of the conjunction prior to the rise of the infinitive is reversed as the infinitive gains ground; indeed, the drop in conjunctional usage is around twice as great as the rise in infinitival usage during the classical period, until around 1650. Following this convergence of the two frequencies, they remain relatively stable in comparison to the pre-Golden Age period. This does not mean that no further changes occur: antes de+inf. and antes de que experience a simultaneous gradual increase during the 20 th century, whilst despu´es de+inf appears to be more successful than hasta+inf. and antes de+inf. in replacing its finite counterpart.

antes (de) que / antes de + infinitive 35

per 100000 words

30

ante(s de) ante(s) (de) que

25 20 15 10 5 0 1150

1200

1250

1300

1350

1400

1450

1500

1550

1600

1650

1700

1750

1800

1850

1900

1950

2000

year

Figure 4.27: antes (de) que vs. antes de + infinitive

despues (de) que / despues de + infinitive 45

per 100000 words

40 después de

35

después (de) que

30 25 20 15 10 5 0 1150

1200

1250

1300

1350

1400

1450

1500

1550

1600

1650

1700

1750

1800

1850

1900

year

Figure 4.28: despu´es (de) que vs. despu´es de + infinitive

1950

2000

122

CHAPTER 4. DIACHRONIC DEVELOPMENT OF THE INFINITIVE IN SPANISH

hasta que / hasta + infinitive 70

per 100000 words

60

hasta hasta que

50 40 30 20 10 0 1150

1200

1250

1300

1350

1400

1450

1500

1550

1600

1650

1700

1750

1800

1850

1900

1950

2000

year

Figure 4.29: fasta/hasta que vs. fasta/hasta + infinitive Luego de/luego (de) que (Fig. 4.30) and desde/desde que (Fig. 4.31) might arguably also be included in this class. Like hasta que, antes (de) que and despu´es (de) que, luego que is present from the earliest texts onwards, whilst desde que is first found in the 15 th and 16th century.

luego (de) que / luego de +infinitive 9 8

luego de luego (de) que

per 100000 words

7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1150

1200

1250

1300

1350

1400

1450

1500

1550

1600

1650

1700

1750

1800

1850

1900

1950

2000

year

Figure 4.30: luego que vs. luego de + infinitive

desde que / desde + infinitive 16 14

per 100000 words

desde 12

desde que

10 8 6 4 2 0 1150

1200

1250

1300

1350

1400

1450

1500

1550

1600

1650

1700

1750

1800

1850

1900

1950

2000

year

Figure 4.31: desde que vs. desde + infinitive Both graphs show the typical overall rise in frequency, followed by downturn. In the case of luego (de) que, this downturn during the 17 th century is particularly sudden and abrupt, but nevertheless generally in line with the trend illustrated in Figs. 4.27 - 4.29 above. The crucial difference, however, is that this drop does not coincide with a continued rise in the usage of the corresponding prepositional infinitive. Indeed, the corresponding prepositional infinitive luego de+inf. is patently absent, and – as discussed in the previous section – only comes into use in the late 20th century. However, the fact that despu´es de+infinitive (Fig. 4.28) occurs more frequently then the corresponding conjunction despu´es de que can for the absence of luego de+infinitive: Figure 4.32 shows how the synonymous conjunctions luego que and despu´es

4.3. INFINITIVAL CLAUSES AND THEIR FINITE COUNTERPARTS

123

(de) que combined compare to despu´es de+infinitive and tras+infinitive combined. These two prepositional infinitives appear to step in for the absent luego de+infinitive, leaving us with an interestingly asymmetrical pattern.

posterior matrix: despues de, luego de, tras+inf. vs. despues (de) que, luego (de) que 50 posterior matrix prep+inf. (después de, luego de, tras)

45

per 100000 words

40

posterior matrix conjunctions (después de que, luego (de) que)

35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 1150

1200

1250

1300

1350

1400

1450

1500

1550

1600

1650

1700

1750

1800

1850

1900

1950

2000

year

Figure 4.32: luego/despu´es (de) que vs. tras / despu´es de / luego de + infinitive Not only does this overview of conjunctional and prepositional use in temporal dependent clauses with posterior main clause explain the fact that despu´es de+infinitive is atypically more frequent than finite despu´es de que, as well as ing for the virtual absence of luego de+infinitive, but it also shows that it is not sufficient to look at isolated pairs of prepositional infinitives and corresponding conjunctions – to obtain a fuller picture, it is important to take into not just morphological correspondence, but also semantic correspondences between infinitival and conjunctional dependent clauses. As for desde que, it has already been pointed out in Section 4.2.5 that the corresponding desde+infinitive is extremely rare even today, and never used temporally. Whether it will eventually establish itself, bringing down the frequency of the corresponding finite construction in the same way as has occurred with antes, despu´es and hasta is difficult to predict.

4.3.2

Prepositional infinitives predating their finite counterparts

The clearest example of a prepositional infinitive becoming established prior to the corresponding finite structure is sin + infinitive. Fig. 4.33 shows how this infinitival structure powerfully establishes itself between 1400 and 1600, subsequently continuing its growth more gradually until the late 19th century. Sin que follows, but always remains well below the frequency of the infinitival construction, at approximately 20-25% of its level.

sin + infinitive / sin que 90

per 100000 words

80 sin

70

sin que

60 50 40 30 20 10 0 1100

1150

1200

1250

1300

1350

1400

1450

1500

1550

1600

1650

1700

1750

1800

year

Figure 4.33: sin + infinitive Vs. sin que

1850

1900

1950

2000

124

CHAPTER 4. DIACHRONIC DEVELOPMENT OF THE INFINITIVE IN SPANISH

A less clear, but in principle similar development is found with a fin de+infinitive: though the overall frequency of this preposition/conjunction pair is so low that the text corpus this study is based on is not sufficiently large to give reliable average frequencies, it can nevertheless be observed that a fin de+infinitive is found as early as 1460 15 , whereas the first instance of a fin de que is slightly later, in 149416 , and that, during the last two centuries, a fin de+infinitive is found three times as frequently as a fin de que 17 . Some other prepositional infinitives predate and outnumber the corresponding conjunctional construction more significantly. Ever since their emergence several centuries ago, en lugar de+inf., en vez de+inf. (Fig. 4.20) and a punto de+inf. (Fig. 4.22) are only very sporadically ed by their finite counterparts. A punto que is found in the late 16 th and early 17th century18 , but does not catch on, and only occurs rarely afterwards (below 0.05/100,000 words). Only one single example of en lugar de que19 and none of en vez de que appear in the entirety of the texts analysed here. A somewhat exceptional case is concessive a pesar de+infinitive, which starts off in the 18 th century in a way similar to a punto de or en lugar/vez de, without a corresponding finite construction. But very recently and suddenly, after 1980, a pesar de que appears with a surprisingly high frequency of approximately 4/100,000 words, almost twice the frequency of a pesar de+infinitive. This is a highly idiosyncratic development: not only is it the only prepositional infinitive outperformed by a corresponding finite structure that it predates, but the availability of synonymous aunque as a finite alternative makes this sudden increase in the use of a pesar de que all the more surprising. What we should expect is a situation similar to that of the third concessive construction, pese a, where the frequency of finite pese a que lies far below that of pese a+infinitive; the ratio is, in fact, about 1:20.

4.3.3

Conjunctional and prepositional clauses present from the earliest texts

Both por(que) and para/pora (que) occur in infinitival and finite dependent clauses from the earliest Spanish texts. Despite the semantic overlap discussed above, a very clear contrast in the distribution of finite and non-finite clauses can be identified. From the early Middle Ages, para+infinitive is twice as frequent as para que. From the early 15th century onwards, the numeric dominance of the infinitival construction increases, and by the 19th century it is more than four times as frequent as the finite construction.

15

Siete Edades 121: ‘a fin de ganar aquel vello¸cino’ Mujeres Ilustres, Opis: ‘el hermano hav´ıa fijos que los hoviesse de matar, a fin que a sus fijos el reyno bolviesse.’ 17 A fin de que is the modern cognate of older a fin que; this tendency to incorporate the overtly prepositional element de can be observed in a number of analytic prepositional expressions, e.g. antes (de) que and despu´es (de) que. It is a comparatively recent innovation, first found in the 19th century. 18 11 instances in Fructus Sanctorum, 5 in Don Quijote 19 Oral Corpus: ‘yo puedo llegar a un convenio contigo y en lugar de que sea tuya la mitad sea para el Ayuntamiento’ 16

4.3. INFINITIVAL CLAUSES AND THEIR FINITE COUNTERPARTS

125

para + infinitive / para que 300 275

per 100000 words

250

para,pera,pora

225

para que

200 175 150 125 100 75 50 25 0 1150

1200

1250

1300

1350

1400

1450

1500

1550

1600

1650

1700

1750

1800

1850

1900

1950

2000

year

Figure 4.34: para + infinitive vs. para que

Por, on the other hand, shows an inverse development to that of para. Throughout the history of Spanish, the instances of porque outnumber those of por+infinitive, and the difference begins to increase even before the end of the Middle Ages. From the 17 th century onwards, the frequency of por+infinitive drops below its medieval level, and by the year 2000 it is at a mere 40% of its usage in the Middle Ages. Porque also peaks during the Golden Age, in the early 16th century, and the subsequent decrease in frequency temporarily brings it down to the same level as in the Middle Ages, before the 20 th century sees a renewed, if gradual, increase.

por + infinitive / porque 450

per 100000 words

400 por 350

porque

300 250 200 150 100 50 1150

1200

1250

1300

1350

1400

1450

1500

1550

1600

1650

1700

1750

1800

1850

1900

1950

2000

year

Figure 4.35: por + infinitive vs. porque

Whilst it is argued above that for the semantic field of posterior main clause time reference it is necessary to look at all the prepositions/conjunctions involved, choosing an essentially semantically-based approach, por and para suggest that there is also a lexical factor involved, as even during the period in which porque and por are used for final clauses and thus to some extent interchangeable with para que and para, their finite-infinitival ratio is inverted.

4.3.4

Finite and infinitival clauses by semantic class

In certain semantic areas, finite dependent clauses are vastly dominant. It has already been observed that concessive prepositions have only very recently begun to be used with the infinitive, and Fig. 4.36 shows that, in comparison to finite concessive clauses, their share is negligible. Concessive clauses overwhelmingly make use of the conjunction aunque.

126

CHAPTER 4. DIACHRONIC DEVELOPMENT OF THE INFINITIVE IN SPANISH concessive preposition+inf. / conjunction 175

per 100000 words

150

concessive prep+inf. concessive conjunctions

125 100 75 50 25 0 1150

1200

1250

1300

1350

1400

1450

1500

1550

1600

1650

1700

1750

1800

1850

1900

1950

2000

year

Figure 4.36: Concessive finite and infinitival clauses

A similar situation is found with conditional clauses, due to the predominance of the archetypical conditional conjunction si as seen in Fig. 4.37.

conditional preposition+inf. / conjunction 700

per 100000 words

600 500 400 conditional prep+inf.

300

conditional conjunctions

200 100 0 1100

1150

1200

1250

1300

1350

1400

1450

1500

1550

1600

1650

1700

1750

1800

1850

1900

1950

2000

year

Figure 4.37: Conditional finite and infinitival clauses

In the temporal domain, it is necessary to differentiate. Overall, temporal clauses are finite more often than infinitival, as seen in Figure 4.38.

temporal prep+inf. / temporal conjunction 400

per 100000 words

350 300 250 200 temporal prep+inf.

150

temporal conjunctions

100 50 0 1100

1150

1200

1250

1300

1350

1400

1450

1500

1550

1600

1650

1700

1750

1800

1850

1900

1950

2000

year

Figure 4.38: Temporal finite and infinitival clauses

This predominance of finite dependent clauses is, however, not uniform throughout the temporal domain. Fig. 4.32 above and Fig. 4.39 show that since its emergence in the 15 th century, infinitive usage in non-simultaneous temporal clauses have caught up with their finite counterparts in this area.

4.3. INFINITIVAL CLAUSES AND THEIR FINITE COUNTERPARTS

127

anterior matrix: preposition+inf. / conjunction 100 90

anterior matrix prep+inf. (hasta, antes de)

per 100000 words

80

anterior matrix conjunctions (hasta que, antes de que)

70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 1100

1150

1200

1250

1300

1350

1400

1450

1500

1550

1600

1650

1700

1750

1800

1850

1900

1950

2000

year

Figure 4.39: Temporal finite and infinitival clauses with anterior main clause

The area in which finite subordination continues to dominate is simultaneous time reference, largely due to the high frequency of cuando. Though the incidence of temporal prepositional infinitives with al and al punto de increases steadily, and finite cuando does experience a comparable decrease in frequency, the finite construction is still 75% more frequent.

simultaneous temporal prep+inf. / conjunctions 250 225

per 100000 words

200 175 150 simultaneous time ref. prep+inf.

125

simultaneous temporal reference conjunctions

100 75 50 25 0 1100

1150

1200

1250

1300

1350

1400

1450

1500

1550

1600

1650

1700

1750

1800

1850

1900

1950

2000

year

Figure 4.40: Temporal finite and infinitival clauses with simultaneous main clause

It must, however, be ed that a third type of temporal clause has not been taken into consideration: the gerund/participle. It has been discussed in previous chapters that this type of dependent clause is a semantically underspecified construction, used in all kinds of logical relations between main and dependent clause. However, a temporal component is always present. Every gerundial clause, whether the pragmatic context gives it a causal, concessive, or exclusive colouring, refers to two simultaneous notions, just as every participial clause is anterior to its main clause. Fig. 4.41 reveals that if gerundial clauses are added to the equation, dependent clauses with simultaneous time reference are, on the whole, far more frequently non-finite than finite. The strong increase of non-finite clauses between 1350 und 1600 is largely due to the increasing tendency to replace the medieval paratactic style. For simultaneous time reference of two clauses, parataxis is very common in medieval texts, as simple juxtaposition will, under normal pragmatic circumstances, be interpreted as implying simultaneous time reference by default. The subsequent steady decline of gerundial usage is due to an increasing trend towards semantic precision, as discussed in section 4.2.1 above.

128

CHAPTER 4. DIACHRONIC DEVELOPMENT OF THE INFINITIVE IN SPANISH

Figure 4.41: Finite and non-finite dependent clauses with simultaneous time reference

4.4

Discussion of the Spanish diachronic data

The most fundamental observation to be made is the overall increase in prepositional infinitives. This increase is not limited to the frequency of existing structures, but also involves a steady increase in the range of prepositions participating in this construction. On the other hand, Figs. 4.4 and 4.5 above showed an almost symmetrical mirror image for non-prepositional infinitives. Though the non-prepositional decline is not quite as great as the prepositional increase (which is explicable by the overall increase in the usage of dependent clauses as shown in Fig. 4.25), it does suggest a direct link between the two, with prepositional infinitives replacing non-prepositional ones. To some extent, there is a straight-forward replacement. In particular a+infinitive, which s for between 20% and 30% of prepositional infinitives (see Fig. 4.13 and Fig. 4.14), increasingly replaces certain plain infinitives. One of the significant constructions in this respect is ir (a)+infinitive: both in the literal motional meaning and the emerging figurative auxiliary (future) usage of ir, the dependent clause is not necessarily linked by a in Old Spanish, as exemplified in (251) and (252); this prepositionless construction subsequently becomes increasingly less common, particularly in written texts. 251. Literal use: ...que el martes quisiese ir ver el su mercado. 20 that def.art. want3rd.sg.past.subjnct. goinf. seeinf def.art. his market. ...that on Tuesday he wanted to go to see his market. 252. Use for future reference: ...vay´ amoslos ferir en aquel d´ıa de cras. 21 go1st.pl.pres.subjnct.+them woundinf. in that day of tomorrow ...we are going to wound them tomorrow. The original final meaning of ir a+infinitive, ‘to go in order to’, undergoes a process of grammaticalization through time. This involves several of the typical symptoms, including an en20 21

Libro de Buen Amor, 1372 C ¸ id, 676

4.4. DISCUSSION OF THE SPANISH DIACHRONIC DATA

129

trenchment of the original structure into an increasingly fixed morphological unit 22 , incipient phonetic reduction 23 , and the replacement of the original semantic content of both elements by a t functional content (future tense marking, in this case), and an increase in usage frequency. However, it must not be forgotten that, depending on the context, the prepositional infinitive with a also retains its full final meaning, as in the short Spanish dialogue in (253). 253. - ¡Hasta luego, me voy! - ¿Te vas – af inal hacer qu´e? - Voy ableached encontrarme con mi novia. -“Bye, I’m going!” -“You’re going (in order) tof inal do what?’ -“I’m going tobleached meet my girlfriend” Though it is not logically or syntactically necessary for the purpose of going somewhere to lie in the future24 , our pragmatic knowledge of the real world tells us that there is an overwhelming likelihood of this being the case. Consequently, a+infinitive lends itself to a semantically bleached reanalysis as purely temporal structure. The shift from semantic to functional also explains the absolute numeric increase of this particular structure, which s for around 50% of a+infinitive in modern spoken Spanish 25 , though considerably less in the written language. (20% in modern literary texts, 12% in journalistic .) Fig. 4.42 shows how a+infinitive relates to the total of a+infinitive: up to the 20th century, the share of ir a does not for a significant share of the total; this is in part due to the tendency in modern texts to use a less formal – the significantly higher frequency in the Oral Corpus shows that ir a can primarily be seen as a feature of the spoken language. a+infinitive / ir a + infinitive 450 400 a

per 100000 words

350

ir a + infinitive

300 250 200 150 100 50 0 1150

1200

1250

1300

1350

1400

1450

1500

1550

1600

1650

1700

1750

1800

1850

1900

1950

2000

year

Figure 4.42: a+infinitive / ir a+infinitve Beardsley (1921: 21-86) gives detailed information on other verbs that can take non-prepositional infinitival clauses in the Middle Ages; several of these verbs link their infinitival complement by means of an obligatory preposition in later periods. To name just a few examples aiudar, enbiar, guiar, mouer, ir can take complementizerless infinitival complements describing goal or purpose. Verbs of starting and finishing, such as c¸essar, comen¸car, empe¸car, compe¸car, as 22

The analysis of [ir a+infinitive] as a single morphological (verbal) unit is ed by the fact that elements such as temporal adverbs are not normally inserted: ∗?‘Voy ma˜ nana a hacerlo.’ is more likely to have the literal reading ‘I’m going tomorrow, to do it.’ than a grammaticalized temporal one. 23 Especially in rapid colloquial speech, the ‘a’ is becoming increasingly weakened. 24 A sentence such as the following shows that there is no logical need for future reference:“I am going so that I was right when I said that I wouldn’t be here at 4 o’clock.” 25 Oral Corpus

130

CHAPTER 4. DIACHRONIC DEVELOPMENT OF THE INFINITIVE IN SPANISH

well as psychological verbs such as atreuerse, ensayar, which commonly take a prepositional infinitive with a or de in the modern language, can also occur with a plain infinitive in Old Spanish. The increase in the number of verbs taking prepositional rather than plain infinitival clauses is ongoing. In modern spoken Spanish, verbs such as dejar can take prepositional infinitives, as in (254). 254. D´ejamelo a ver.26 letimp. +meDat. +it a seeinf.

Let me see it. This continuing process, in which direct object infinitives become prepositional infinitives, is a fundamentally pragmatically based phenomenon, resulting from a semantic overlap between semantic roles such as [theme] and [purpose]. The details of this process will be discussed further in Chapter 7. However, this straight-forward replacement of plain infinitives by prepositional ones can only partially for the increase in prepositional infinitive usage. Despite the fact that ir a is, numerically speaking, the most significant instance of this, its overall contribution to the increase in prepositional infinitives is small, as seen in Fig. 4.42. Some main verbs take other prepositions to link an infinitive to which they stand in a direct-object-like semantic relation: apostar por alcanzar algo ‘to bet on achieving something’ empe˜ narse en hacer ‘to insist on doing’ so˜ nar con hacer ‘to dream of doing’ But whilst a and de frequently tend to form grammaticalized units with various main verbs, this tendency is far weaker with other prepositions. This includes por and para, which nevertheless have a similar frequency as a+infinitive (Fig. 4.14), as well as the whole range of prepositional infinitives that emerge in the course of the subsequent history of Spanish. In order to find an explanation for their development, we have to look further afield. Some of the factors have already been mentioned in ing above. In the context of the increasing frequency of prepositional infinitives with simultaneous time reference (Fig. 4.41 above), and in Section 4.2.6, it has been observed that the use of dependent clauses, both finite and infinitival, increases at the expense of parataxis. Which type of hypotactic structure is chosen in its place is determined by a combination of syntactic and pragmatic factors.

4.4.1

The central role of subject reference

As discussed in some detail in the previous chapter, subject reference is a crucial factor in the choice of dependent clause type. But whilst non-prepositional infinitival clauses are highly restricted by this constraint, it has been shown that pragmatically assigned control by external NPs is more common in prepositional infinitival clauses. Not only does pragmatic context play a crucial role in asg subject reference in prepositional infinitive clauses, but there is also the possibility of including an overt subject in the prepositional clause. However, the predominant pattern for prepositional infinitives is subject coreference with the main clause, found in around 80% of all cases, and it is therefore also the typical, unmarked environment for infinitival clauses. 26

Oral Corpus

4.4. DISCUSSION OF THE SPANISH DIACHRONIC DATA

131

Finite dependent clauses, on the other hand, are generally avoided in the case of coreferentiality in the modern language. Before the emergence of the respective prepositional infinitive, however, the conjunction carries the combined functional load of both coreferential and non-coreferential clauses. Sentences (255 - 257) present a few medieval examples of coreferential finite clauses, as used before the corresponding prepositional infinitives had come into use. 255. To padre comendo ante que muriesse e dixo:... 27 Your father gave advice before he died, and he said:... 256. Et comen¸c´e a leer sus libros fasta que los entend´ı. 28 And I started to read his books until I understood them. 257. Dize Sant Agost´ın que con la fortuna deue ombre luchar sin que no se dexe ven¸cer por ella.29 Saint Augustine says that one has to fight with fate without letting oneself be defeated by it. In Modern Spanish, coreferential clauses of this type generally make use of the available prepositional infinitive constructions. On the other hand, there does appear to be an occasional incipient tendency to avoid coreferential finite clauses, even when no infinitival alternative is yet available. This is achieved by constructing the dependent clause in such a way that the two syntactic subjects do not coincide, usually by means of a ive construction. 258. ...et non me demandes la raz´on de lo que te yo mandar´e fazer fasta que sea acabado. 30 ..and don’t ask me for the reason of what I will order you to do until it is finished. In sentence (259), the somewhat over-complex syntax of the dependent clause also appears to be deliberately chosen to avoid coreference. 259. Porque sepas que non estor¸cer´as sin que sea tomada de ti vengan¸ca. 31 That you may know that you will not escape without revenge being taken on you. Sentence (260) shows a different avoidance strategy, by means of an idiomatic expression equivalent to morir ‘to die’. 260. Fue [...] enfermo el fijo de la bibda [...] de enfermedat grant fasta que non remaso en ´el alma.32 The son of the widow [...] was sick with a great illness until no soul remained within him. These examples show that it is, at this stage, only a matter of time before the respective prepositional infinitives emerge, as the strategies to avoid coreferentiality in finite dependent clauses 27

Fazienda de Utramar, p.61(faz) Calila e Dina, p.104. 29 Dichos de Sabios, 269; Though dated 1402, approximately 100 years after sin+infinitive is first found in other texts, the construction does not appear to have entered the language of the person who translated it from Catalan, or perhaps its absence might be a syntactic calque on Catalan. 30 Calila e Dina, p.346. 31 Calila e Dina, p.187. 32 Fazienda de Utramar, p.121. 28

132

CHAPTER 4. DIACHRONIC DEVELOPMENT OF THE INFINITIVE IN SPANISH

already pre-empt its presence. The fact that conjunctional dependent clauses cede the coreferential domain to the infinitive as soon as, or even slightly before, the respective prepositional infinitive emerges is visible in almost all the graphs comparing finite and infinitival dependent clauses in section 4.3, where a new prepositional infinitive tends to coincide with a fall in the frequency of the corresponding conjunction. It should, then, be expected that – after a transitional phase – an equilibrium sets in. But it would be a false premiss to expect that this equilibrium should see an equal number of finite and infinitival clauses. Indeed, it is surprising that such an equinumeric balance is achieved in some cases.

4.4.2

Coreferentiality and pragmatic relevance

The ratio between finite and non-finite clauses of a certain type is fundamentally determined by the pragmatics of the contexts they are used in. This is due to the fact that the purpose of using language is, on the whole, to speak about referents in the real world, and about how these referents interact. As the patterns of interaction are, to a certain degree, statistically predictable, so are their linguistic representations. As a result of this, certain relational patterns between the constituents of a sentence can be expected to occur more frequently than others. Two contrasting examples of which relational patterns are more or less likely are final and concessive clauses. In final clauses, linked to their main clause by the final preposition para (Fig. 4.34), chances are that the subject of the main clause (S 1 ) will do V1 in order for himself, (S1 ) to do, have or get something. In some pragmatic contexts, S 1 will do V1 in order for the subject of the dependent clause (S2 ) to do, have or get something, but this situation is statistically less frequent. In the concessive domain, on the other hand, the opposite applies. In the vast majority of cases, S1 does V1 despite the fact that someone else (S 2 ) does something. Again, this is merely statistically more common; in some pragmatic contexts, S 1 will do V1 despite also doing V2 , but this occurs less frequently. The degree to which the subject reference patterns of final and concessive clauses differ can be seen in Fig. 4.43: the ratio of coreferential to non-coreferential clauses, final as well as concessive, remains remarkably stable over time in both languages, with around 40% of all concessive clauses and around 80% of all finite clauses being coreferential.

Figure 4.43: Percentage of coreferential final and concessive dependent clauses in Spanish

4.4. DISCUSSION OF THE SPANISH DIACHRONIC DATA

133

The stability of this likelihood ratio can be explained by the fact that it is primarily determined by the way in which people and objects interact in the real world, and by whether language s generally deem these interaction patterns relevant enough to mention. This principle of pragmatic relevance can be explained as follows: almost every action undertaken by a human agent has a purpose. However, this purpose is often very predictable from the verb describing the action. For instance, if we talk about somebody eating, we will automatically assume that the reason is to satisfy his hunger, if no indications to the contrary are given. Therefore, it is, in most pragmatic situations, not necessary to make explicit reference to the purpose of eating. If, on the other hand, the purpose of eating is not mere satisfaction of hunger, but something less usual, the likelihood of this purpose being put into words is far greater. Even so, however, relevance is determined by the particular situation. Imagine someone eating, not because he is hungry, but in order to get fat. Normally, this non-default purpose cannot be automatically assumed, and thus merits mention. But if the non-default purpose is (a) probably known by the hearer, or (b) not relevant to what the speaker wants to say, then it may still not be expressed. Thus, (a) if the eater is a sumo wrestler, or (b) if the reason for talking about his eating is the fact that the speaker would prefer to have some of the food himself, no matter what the eater’s reasons for eating might be, the non-default purpose is not pragmatically relevant. Anything that is pragmatically irrelevant will usually be omitted in the interest of economy. The use of clauses with sin (‘without’) exemplifies the importance of this principle. Every action, event or state of affairs that can be described takes place while certain other things are not happening. For instance, someone may be driving a car without wearing a pink shirt, or he may be driving without the Prime Minister having given a speech that day. But in the majority of contexts, this information is likely to be irrelevant for the speaker’s communicative purposes, and will thus not be mentioned. The present-day ratio of sin que to sin+infinitive, as seen in Fig. 4.33 above, which roughly corresponds to the ratio of non-coreferential to coreferential sin-clauses, shows that in this semantic domain, ‘non-action’ by the main clause subject is considered relevant enough to mention far more often than ‘non-action’ by an entity other than the subject of the main clause (S1 ). Whilst the overall distribution between finite clauses and the corresponding prepositional infinitives is, to some extent, a reflection of the number of non-coreferential and coreferential clauses, there are several factors working against this idealized correspondence pattern. One powerful factor is analogical levelling, a common process in language change. Once a semantic or relational concept, such as finality, becomes strongly associated with a particular syntactic structure, there is a tendency towards an increased use of the respective structure, even in contexts that would normally call for the use of the numerically weaker structure. This can, for instance, be observed with para+infinitive, which occasionally appears even in non-coreferential contexts. Such spreading of prepositional infinitives is made possible by two things: pragmatic control and the Overt Subject Infinitive construction. Wherever the subject of the dependent clause is not the NP predicted by means of the syntactic default pattern, either the context allows an unambiguous asg of S 2 -reference, or alternatively the subject can be specified overtly within the infinitival clause. These two mechanisms of clarifying the identity of S 2 are found most commonly with those prepositional infinitives that already have a dominant position in relation to their finite counterparts, in particular para+infinitive and sin+infinitive, which together for 75% to 85% of all prepositional OSI constructions in present-day Spanish. A similar analogical tendency is visible for semantic relations which favour finite dependent

134

CHAPTER 4. DIACHRONIC DEVELOPMENT OF THE INFINITIVE IN SPANISH

clauses. One such case is the conditional domain, in which the conjunction si is clearly dominant (Fig. 4.37), even in coreferential finite clauses. Despite the gradual emergence of al+infinitive as a non-finite alternative, si remains firmly established as the standard way of rendering conditionality; the special status of si as the marker for conditional clauses par excellence is further reinforced by the special temporal syntax of conditional clauses, and by the fact that si is morphologically unrelated to its potential competitors. Similarly, aunque has, at least until recently, been so dominant as the typical marker of concession that it is frequently found in coreferential concessive clauses, as in sentence (261). 261. ...la mujer hablaba y se deten´ıa mirando al suelo [...] aunque ella no estuviera desocupada.33 ...the woman talked and remained staring at the floor [...] though she was not idle. A further, and somewhat unusual example of the finite structure retaining its dominant position is desde que. Unlike the semantically similar despu´es de+infinitive, desde+infinitive is virtually absent from Spanish before the end of the 20 th century, whereas desde que is found frequently from the 16th century onwards. There does not appear to be any particular pragmatic motivation for this, as coreferentiality is common in this type of temporal construction. What is more, hasta+infinitive, the corresponding prepositional infinitive for future time reference, has been around since the 15th century (cf. Fig. 4.19). The reasons for this dominance of finite desde que, even for coreferential clauses, remain to be determined.

4.4.3

Statistical peculiarities during the Golden Age

During the Golden Age or classical period of Spanish, roughly the 16 th and 17th centuries, the majority of graphs presented above show some irregularity and almost erratic variation in comparison with the periods before and afterwards. This is the result of the combination of two separate features of Golden Age Spanish. It is generally accepted that the classical period is a period of linguistic transition and change in Spanish34 , and as the result of this, texts written within years of one another will often vary considerably in the degree to which they preserve old structures or introduce the newly evolving ones. Though it cannot be claimed that prepositional infinitives are a novel structure during this period (with the exception of al+infinitive, which starts becoming more frequent round about 1500), texts looking back to the older language tend to avoid the more recently introduced prepositional infinitives. More significant for the purpose of this study is the fact that the usage of most prepositional infinitives experiences a temporary peak during the Golden Age, and subsequently drops back to a lower level around the mid 17th century, from where the overall, more gradual rise continues. 35 An explanation for this can be found in the fact that Golden Age authors generally favour a style of comparatively complex syntax. Fig. 4.25 above shows that not only infinitival clauses have a peak during this time; final subordination also suddenly increases by around 10% around the year 1500. Gerund clauses (Fig. 4.7) are even more affected by this, increasing by 50% before 33

Mar´ıas, p.76. E.g. Riiho (1979: 235):‘En muchos aspectos [...] la lengua cl´ asica puede considerarse como une especie de l´ınea divisoria que separa la fase antigua de la moderna.’ 35 Local factors can counteract this pattern, as in the case of para+infinitive, which completes its takeover of the final domain from por during this time. Once established as the prototypical final construction, its usage continues to rise at the expense of alternative finite constructions such as a+infinitive, which in turn becomes increasingly associated with its grammaticalized, semantically bleached use as a complementizer. 34

4.4. DISCUSSION OF THE SPANISH DIACHRONIC DATA

135

dropping back to their previous level, all during the 150 years between 1500 and 1650. The reasons behind this stylistic preference are primarily socio-cultural and thus beyond the scope of this study, but there also appears to be a more general, linguistic tendency for newly emerged structures to enjoy such popularity among language s that they temporarily ‘overshoot the aim’36 before dropping back to a more sustainable level. A similar phenomenon is visible with en vez de+infinitive (Fig. 4.20) during a much later period. An afterthought to these observations about the statistical peculiarities of Golden Age syntax is the possibility that we might, from a syntactic point of view, currently be in the midst of a ‘Second Golden Age’. A number of diagrams presented in this chapter certainly show unexpected changes in curve shape at the beginning of, or during, the 20 th century. In view of the recent emergence of several new prepositional infinitives, it does appear that the system may be going through a renewed period of accelerated change, the outcome of which is yet unknown. Judging by the fact that many of the new prepositional infinitive constructions are found first, and most frequently, in journalistic texts, it appears likely that an important factor in this process is the increased importance of the mass media in modern society, which by their presence in all walks of life allow their stylistic features to permeate the whole language more easily.

36

This is a cross-linguistic phenomenon. A recent example from English is the ubiquitous ‘looking to’+infinitive.

Chapter 5

Portuguese and Spanish developments compared As discussed in Section 3.1, Spanish and Portuguese infinitival subordination follows roughly the same combination of syntactically and pragmatically based rules, despite the fact that the Portuguese infinitive is more versatile than its Spanish counterpart because it can be morphologically inflected for person (cf. Section 3.3). In this chapter, a closer look will be taken at the differences between the development of prepositional infinitive constructions in the two languages from a diachronic perspective. In the figures of this section, the dashed lines represent the Portuguese structure, the continuous line stands for its Spanish counterpart.

5.1

Similarities and differences in diachronic development

5.1.1

A comparison of the overall frequency of prepositional infinitives

Fig. 5.1 shows the differential development of the prepositional infinitive in Spanish and Portuguese.

Spanish / Portuguese total preposition+infinitive 1600 1500

per 100000 words

1400 1300 1200 1100 1000 900 800 700 600 500 1150

1200

1250

1300

1350

1400

1450

1500

1550

1600

1650

1700

1750

1800

1850

1900

1950

2000

year

Figure 5.1: Spanish and Portuguese prepositional infinitives through time Whilst Spanish sees a steady increase from a comparatively low level up to around 1600, prepositional infinitives are already well established in Portuguese in the early middle ages, and their frequency remains relatively stable until the 19 th century. During this period of stability in Portuguese, Spanish does not merely catch up; the number of prepositional infinitives rises from around 55% of that in Portuguese during the Middle Ages to around 140% in the Spanish Golden Age; only in the 19th century does Portuguese infinitive usage close this gap, to reach a level 137

138

CHAPTER 5. PORTUGUESE AND SPANISH DEVELOPMENTS COMPARED

similar to that found in Spanish. How this overall development pattern translates to that of the individual prepositional infinitives will be discussed in the following sections.

5.1.2

Similar developments in Spanish and Portuguese

Considering the common history and the degree of synchronic similarity between Spanish and Portuguese, one might initially expect syntactic structures shared by both languages to have developed parallely. This is, indeed, the case for a number of prepositional infinitive constructions, applying to structures that have emerged or increased in of frequency, but also to structures that have suffered a decline. A good example of this is the temporal domain of main clause anteriority, represented largely by antes de+infinitive and Sp.fasta/hasta, Ptg.at´e. Fig. 5.2 illustrates this. The temporary peak in Spanish during the Golden Age has been discussed in the previous section; a renewed split can be observed during the 20th century, with an increase in Portuguese since the mid 19 th century. But of course we cannot expect developments in separate languages to run parallel indefinitely, as we have already seen in the previous chapter that each prepositional infinitive construction has its own dynamics and follows an individual trajectory, though usually within a roughly predictable general pattern. In this particular case, the Portuguese increase is due to an increase in antes de+OSI since the mid 19 th century by around 35%, which must be understood as a clear instance of this construction becoming increasingly entrenched at the expense of the corresponding finite clauses.

Spanish / Portuguese temporal preposition+inf. with anterior matrix 30 27,5

per 100000 words

25 22,5 20 17,5 15 12,5 10 7,5 5 2,5 0 1150

1200

1250

1300

1350

1400

1450

1500

1550

1600

1650

1700

1750

1800

1850

1900

1950

2000

year

Figure 5.2: Spanish and Portuguese temporal prepositional infinitive, anterior main clause

The recent decline in Spanish, on the other hand, is entirely due to a strong drop in hasta+infinitive, as seen in Fig. 5.3. A reduction in frequency of a prepositional infinitive construction is somewhat unexpected in view of the overall development pattern and is thus likely to have been triggered by a local factor. A possible explanation is that, in view of the morphosyntactic and semantic correspondence between desde+infinitive and hasta+infinitive, the virtual absence of desde+infinitive might have started causing some analogical resistance to hasta+infinitive.

5.1. SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES IN DIACHRONIC DEVELOPMENT

139

antes de+infinitive / hasta+infinitive in Spanish 20

per 100000 words

17,5 antes de

15

hasta

12,5 10 7,5 5 2,5 0 1150

1200

1250

1300

1350

1400

1450

1500

1550

1600

1650

1700

1750

1800

1850

1900

1950

2000

year

Figure 5.3: Spanish hasta+infinitive vs. antes de+infinitive Fig. 5.4 shows that this does not occur in the same way in Portuguese, where at´e continues to enjoy increasing popularity.

Spanish hasta+infinitive / Portuguese ate+infinitive 22,5 20

per 100000 words

17,5 15 12,5 10 7,5 5 2,5 0 1150

1200

1250

1300

1350

1400

1450

1500

1550

1600

1650

1700

1750

1800

1850

1900

1950

2000

year

Figure 5.4: Spanish fasta/hasta+infinitive vs. Portuguese at´e+infinitive A further examples of very similar development in both languages from its emergence onwards is Span.al+infinitive/Ptg.ao+infinitive (Fig. 5.5), the frequency and increase of which is almost equal in the two languages from the earliest texts onwards until approximately the end of the 19th century. During the 20th century, the frequency of the construction remains relatively stable in Spanish, whilst in Portuguese it falls to a level clearly below that of Spanish. Span. al+inf. / Port ao+inf. 100 90

per 100000 words

80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 1150

1200

1250

1300

1350

1400

1450

1500

1550

1600

1650

1700

1750

1800

1850

1900

1950

2000

year

Figure 5.5: Spanish al+infinitive vs. Portuguese ao+infinitive The infinitival concessive construction with Span.a pesar de, pese a/Ptg.apesar de also develop along very similar lines. Comparatively infrequent in both languages (not exceeding 10 per 100,000 words in any text, which with the amount of data processed here is too low to produce a statistically reliable graph), they first appear in the latter half of the 19 th century and subsequently experience an increase in usage frequency in the second half of the 20 th century.

140

CHAPTER 5. PORTUGUESE AND SPANISH DEVELOPMENTS COMPARED

More surprisingly, perhaps, por undergoes a remarkably similar development in both languages (5.6), despite the semantic shift it undergoes (cf. Section 4.2), and despite the fact that, from a purely semantic perspective, it has a powerful competitor in the gerund.

Spanish / Portuguese por+infinitive 180

per 100000 words

160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 1150

1200

1250

1300

1350

1400

1450

1500

1550

1600

1650

1700

1750

1800

1850

1900

1950

2000

year

Figure 5.6: por+infinitive in Spanish and Portuguese

5.1.3

Portuguese prepositional infinitives predating their Spanish counterparts

A considerable number of prepositional infinitives that are only present to a limited extent or not at all in medieval Spanish texts are already well-established in Portuguese during the same period. This is particularly significant because it includes several of the prepositional infinitives found most frequently in later Spanish texts, such as sin/sem+infinitive (Fig. 5.7), despu´es/depois de+infinitive (Fig. 5.8), as well as para+infinitive (Fig. 5.10).

Spanish sin+infinitive / Portuguese sem+infinitive 90 80

per 100000 words

70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 1150

1200

1250

1300

1350

1400

1450

1500

1550

1600

1650

1700

1750

1800

1850

1900

1950

2000

1950

2000

year

Figure 5.7: Spanish sin+infinitive vs. Portuguese sem+infinitive

Span. despues de+inf. / Port. depois de+inf. 17,5

per 100000 words

15 12,5 10 7,5 5 2,5 0 1150

1200

1250

1300

1350

1400

1450

1500

1550

1600

1650

1700

1750

1800

1850

1900

year

Figure 5.8: Span. despu´es de+infinitive vs. Ptg. depois de+infinitive

5.1. SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES IN DIACHRONIC DEVELOPMENT

141

Span./Port. ante(s de) + infinitive 14

per 100000 words

12 10 8 6 4 2 0 1150

1200

1250

1300

1350

1400

1450

1500

1550

1600

1650

1700

1750

1800

1850

1900

1950

2000

year

Figure 5.9: Spanish and Portuguese temporal prepositions + infinitive

Spanish / Portuguese para,pora,pera+infinitive 300 275

per 100000 words

250 225 200 175 150 125 100 75 50 25 1150

1200

1250

1300

1350

1400

1450

1500

1550

1600

1650

1700

1750

1800

1850

1900

1950

2000

year

Figure 5.10: para+infinitive in Spanish and Portuguese Spanish despu´es de+infinitive attains the same frequency as Portuguese depois de+infinitive within a hundred years of its emergence (Fig. 5.8), and sin draws equal with sem by the 16 th century (Fig. 5.7). Similarly, temporal ante(s de) only appears in Spanish around 1500, but experiences a dramatic increase within a hundred years (Fig. 5.9), but after a parallel drop by 1700 and two hundred years of relative stability, by the beginning of the 20 th century, antes de is once again more frequent in Portuguese than in Spanish, with Spanish catching up towards the end of the same century. Interestingly, the pattern of the Portuguese development predating that in Spanish repeats itself a second time here, which might be seen as an indication that the Portuguese remains the more innovative of the two languages regarding prepositional infinitives. The relative frequency in Spanish and Portuguese of para with its early variants pora and pera, on the other hand, develops in a somewhat different way (Fig. 5.10): after an initial period of far lower frequency than in Portuguese, the Spanish construction with para then increases at a steady rate between the 15th and the 18th century, far exceeding its Portuguese counterpart, and remains at this high level to the present day. The stronger performance in medieval Portuguese can be explained in part by the fact that para, pera started to take over the final domain from por earlier in Portuguese than in Spanish. 1 The examples in this section show that the semantic shift between por and para is not the only area in which linguistic developments come earlier in Portuguese than in Spanish. As illustrated in Fig. 5.1 above, Portuguese already has a strong prepositional infinitive at the time of the earliest documents, whereas Spanish is still in the midst of developing it. This instance of syntactic conservatism of Old Castilian in comparison to Old Portuguese is somewhat contrary to the traditional view that Portuguese is the more conservative of the two languages 2 , but it is in 1 2

Riiho (1979: 211-213). “Portuguese is another so-called conservative language, allegedly owing to its geographical distance from the

142

CHAPTER 5. PORTUGUESE AND SPANISH DEVELOPMENTS COMPARED

keeping with the – also innovative – inflected infinitive, both of which fit into the picture of a structural framework in which the infinitive plays an important part in the syntax of subordination. A similar development pattern can be identified for prepositional infinitives that are currently experiencing increasing popularity in the modern language. A good example is the final Sp.a fin de/Ptg.a fim de+infinitive, which has been latently present in both languages since the Middle Ages, but only extremely sporadically.

Spanish a fin de + infinitive / Portuguese a fim de + infinitive 11 10

per 100000 words

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1700

1725

1750

1775

1800

1825

1850

1875

1900

1925

1950

1975

2000

year

Figure 5.11: a fin/fim de+infinitive in Spanish and Portuguese

Fig. 5.11 illustrates how Portuguese experiences a much more vigorous rise in this structure, whilst in Spanish a similar increase has not (yet) set in. Judging by the past development of other prepositional infinitives, it appears likely that a similar rise in Spanish will follow eventually.

5.1.4

Underspecified prepositional infinitives

Whilst there is no widely used prepositional infinitive that first appears in Portuguese much later than its cognate in Spanish, Portuguese com+infinitive and em+infinitive are far less commonly used than their Spanish counterparts con+inf. and en+inf., as seen in Figs.(5.12) and (5.13). Span. con+inf. / Port. com+inf. 27,5 25

per 100000 words

22,5 20 17,5 15 12,5 10 7,5 5 2,5 0 1150

1200

1250

1300

1350

1400

1450

1500

1550

1600

1650

1700

1750

1800

year

Figure 5.12: Span.con+inf. vs. Ptg. com+inf. innovatory centres.”, Posner (1996: 327).

1850

1900

1950

2000

5.1. SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES IN DIACHRONIC DEVELOPMENT

143

Span. en+infinitive / Port. em+infinitive 100

per 100000 words

90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 1150

1200

1250

1300

1350

1400

1450

1500

1550

1600

1650

1700

1750

1800

1850

1900

1950

2000

year

Figure 5.13: Span.en+inf. vs. Ptg. em+inf. Even though com+inf. is already present in Portuguese at the time when con+inf. is only just emerging in Spanish, it soon becomes considerably more frequent in Spanish. En/em+inf. is already present in both languages from the very earliest texts, but it remains, on average, around twice as frequent in Spanish as it is in Portuguese throughout the examined period. As this pattern differs considerably from the one found for most other prepositional infinitives when comparing their development in Spanish and Portuguese, an explanation must be sought by establishing what sets these two prepositional infinitives apart from the rest. The feature they share is their comparative imprecision, or semantic underspecification. In Section 4.2.1 it was observed that in Spanish, such semantically underspecified prepositional infinitives do not experience an increase in frequency in the same way as the rest, because the central function of the prepositional infinitive is the specification of the logical relation between the main and dependent clause, with the gerund being chosen for non-finite clauses where no such precision is intended (cf. Section 2.4.3). The even lower incidence of underspecified prepositional infinitives in Portuguese suggests that the association of the prepositional infinitive with an overt and clear marking of interclausal relations is even stronger. This analysis is confirmed by the fact that the lower incidence of underspecified prepositional infinitive constructions in Portuguese, such as those with em and com, is counterbalanced by a stronger use of gerundial clauses, as shown in Fig. 5.14.

Figure 5.14: Gerundial clauses in Spanish and Portuguese

5.1.5

Discussion of the data

What the comparison between the diachronic development of different prepositional infinitives in this section has shown is, first and foremost, that their evolution has, by and large, proceeded in a similar way, irrespectively of whether the respective preposition already participated in this construction type at the time of the first available documents, or whether it emerged at a later

144

CHAPTER 5. PORTUGUESE AND SPANISH DEVELOPMENTS COMPARED

stage. This observation applies to both Spanish and Portuguese. As the degree of cultural exchange or bilingualism during most of the examined period was not sufficiently significant to make large-scale syntactic borrowing or convergence a feasible explanation, it must be assumed that these parallel developments occurred independently. This is ed by the fact that several, but not all prepositional infinitives emerged in Portuguese at an earlier date than their Spanish counterparts. Despite the overall similarities in their development, characterized by a development that roughly resembles the S-curve predicted for processes of diffusional change by Kroch (2001), each prepositional infinitive follows its own trajectory. There is no wholesale syntactic shift, as new prepositions continue to the group that takes infinitives, and it appears that the structure of both languages remains open to the addition of new prepositional infinitives. At the same time, it has been observed that there is a clear resistance to certain types of prepositional infinitives. Whilst semantically underspecified prepositional infinitives have to compete with the gerund, and therefore show a different, more subdued development than the more semantically specific constructions, certain semantic types of dependent clauses the use of the infinitive frequently and at an early stage, whilst others remain largely or completely resistant to this syntactic type. The clear correspondence between Spanish and Portuguese in this respect suggests that the same pragmatic principles described for Spanish in Section 4.4.1 are a crucial factor in encouraging or inhibiting the use of the infinitive in dependent clauses, depending on their type of semantic relation to the main clause: in actual language usage, some clause types, such as purpose, are typically used coreferentially, whilst others, like concessivity, appear more frequently with dist subject reference. Evidence that this is true for Portuguese, too, is provided in Fig. 5.15 which largely mirrors the corresponding Spanish distribution seen in Fig. 4.43: on average, around 75% of final clauses are coreferential, compared to around 30% of concessive clauses.

Figure 5.15: Overall percentage of coreferential final and concessive clauses in Portuguese white = final, black = concessive

5.2 5.2.1

OSIs and the inflected infinitive History of the Portuguese personal infinitive

The morphological origin of the Portuguese inflected infinitive has been widely discussed in the literature. The oldest and probably most popular theory, proposed by early Romance philologists such as Diez (1881) and Meyer-L¨ ubke (1894), is that the inflectional endings are formed on the

OSIs AND THE INFLECTED INFINITIVE

145

basis of those found in the future subjunctive paradigm. 3 . According to Vasconcelos (1900) and Bourciez (1956), this would have been facilitated by the homonymy, in regular verbs, of the infinitive and the future subjunctive in the 1 st and 3rd person singular. In a similar vein, Zauner (1921) suggests that both the future subjunctive and the inflected infinitive forms are based on the Latin perfect subjunctive paradigm. An alternative source, the Latin imperfect subjunctive paradigm, was first suggested by Wernecke (1885) and has found in Gamillscheg (1913), Rodrigues (1914), Micha¨elis (1918), Meier (1950) and Sten (1952). On the other hand, Otto (1888), Micha¨elis (1891) and Maurer (1951, 1968) have suggested that the inflectional endings are the result of paradigmatic extension of a suffixed 1 st person plural subject pronoun -nos > -mos. To the present day, this question has not been conclusively resolved. The most plausible source, from a usage-based point of view, would appear to be the future subjunctive, as there is a considerable amount of semantic overlap between it and the infinitive, as exemplified in (262), which would facilitate an extension of future subjunctive forms to infinitival contexts.

262. Quando chegarem os meus pais, falar-lhes-ei. when arrive3rd.pl.f ut.subjctv. the my parents, talk.to.them1st.sg.f ut.indic.

Ao chegarem os meus pais, falar-lhes-ei. at.the arrive3rd.pl.pers.inf. the my parents, talk.to.them1st.sg.f ut.indic.

When my parents (will) arrive, I’ll talk to them.

Though the emergence of the inflected infinitive predates the earliest documents, there is some evidence that it may have been a recent innovation in Old Galaico-Portuguese, as inflection appears not yet to be obligatory4 in the presence of an overt subject, as seen in (263).

263. Era costume [...] de os cavaleiros andantes seer recebidos em lugares estranhos. 5 it.was custom [...] of the knights errant be noninf l.inf. received in places strangepl.

It was customary for the errant knights to be received in strange places.

The existence of the personal/inflected infinitive in Portuguese could, theoretically, pose a threat to finite subordination, especially since tense and mood of dependent clauses are frequently predictable from the semantic context as well as the discourse situation. It has been shown in Section 3.3.2 that this is not the case synchronically, and that the personal infinitive more frequently impinges upon the domain of the ‘plain’ uninflected infinitive. It is therefore interesting to determine whether a diachronic tendency for the personal infinitive to gain ground at the expense of the impersonal infinitive. Fig. 5.16 shows that this is not the case, thus disproving an unsubstantiated claim to the contrary by Dias (1959: §313). 3 “Es [...] wird nach dem Muster des Fut. Konj. zu -ar als Inf. bei der 3. Sing. als Subj. gebildet 1. -ar, 2. -ares, Plur. -armos -ardes -arem.” (Meyer-L¨ ubke, 1894: 158) 4 Cf. also Molho’s modern example from Brazilian Portuguese (Section 3.3, Footnote 43), which is, however, probably a modern regional development. 5 A demanda do Santo Graal, §423, quoted by Maurer (1968: 152).

146

CHAPTER 5. PORTUGUESE AND SPANISH DEVELOPMENTS COMPARED

Figure 5.16: Personal and impersonal infinitives in Portuguese Whilst a slight, gradual rise in the frequency of impersonal infinitives can be observed since medieval times, the number of personal infinitives is far lower, and declines further over the same period. The larger scale of Fig. 5.17 makes it possible to identify a steady drop from the middle ages until around 1800; whether the subsequent slight increase constitutes a permanent reversal of the trend remains to be seen. As illustrated by Fig. 5.20, the recent rise can be attributed entirely to a rise in prepositional infinitives with a, which will be discussed further below.

Figure 5.17: Overall frequency of personal infinitives in Portuguese The decline in the overall usage of personal infinitives is also visible if we look specifically at prototypical adjunct clauses. Representative for these, Fig. 5.18 charts the development of two typical, well-established infinitival adjunct types with the personal infinitive, with sem and para.

Figure 5.18: Personal infinitives with para/pora and sem in Portuguese

OSIs AND THE INFLECTED INFINITIVE

147

Whilst it has been seen that the impersonal prepositional infinitive adjuncts with para and sem have been increasing in frequency over the centuries, in Portuguese as well as Spanish (Fig. 5.7 and Fig. 5.10), the corresponding adjuncts with the personal infinitive appear to be going the opposite way, experiencing a gentle long-term decrease (Fig. 5.18). This is probably due to the trend towards using finite clauses for genuinely non-coreferential cases, whilst the personal infinitive is used mainly in cases where the subject could potentially be non-coreferential, but is in fact coreferential (cf. Section 3.3.2). Fig. 5.19 shows how, in contrast to sem and para, the concessive adjunct with apesar de is gaining ground. But viewed in perspective, apesar de with the personal infinitive does, nevertheless, not have a major role in the language as a whole: despite the increase illustrated in Fig. 5.19, it occurs approximately a hundred times less frequently than para+personal infinitive, and only approximately one in twenty non-coreferential concessive clauses use the infinitival construction. Similar to what was observed regarding para and sem, there appears to be a tendency to use finite clauses with ainda que or embora for cases of genuine dist subject reference, whilst apesar de with the personal infinitive is often chosen to clarify the identity of a coreferent subject, for example if the concessive adjunct is at a distance from the main verb.

Figure 5.19: The personal infinitive with apesar de Fig. 5.20, on the other hand, presents an interesting contrast. On the one hand, there is a slight decline of de with the personal infinitive. Since de has prototypical complementizer status in most cases, the decrease of its use with the personal infinitive is not unexpected, as it is primarily adjuncts, not complements, that make use of the possibility of marking a non-coreferential subject (S2 ).

Figure 5.20: Personal infinitives with a and de in Portuguese

148

CHAPTER 5. PORTUGUESE AND SPANISH DEVELOPMENTS COMPARED

The sudden rapid increase in the use of a with the personal infinitive in the 19 th century is more surprising, as a is also a typical complementizer. However, what a closer analysis of the data reveals is that the sudden increase in popularity of [a+personal infinitive] is not due to an increased tendency to use personal infinitives in complement clauses. On the contrary, the construction triggering this frequent use of a with the personal infinitive is the typically peripheral use of a+infinitive that has come to replace the gerund in European Portuguese, and which is employed to provide additional circumstantial, pragmatically backgrounded information, as in (264). 264. Chegaram as meninas de fazer compras na cidade, a falarem alegremente. arrived the girls from making purchases in.the town, a talkinf l.inf.3rd.pl happily

The girls came back from shopping in town, talking happily. In Section 3.3.2 it was shown that the OSI is more typically used in adjuncts than in complements because its main purpose is to disambiguate the identity of the dependent clause subject. The pragmatically backgrounded ‘gerund-like’ use of a+infinitive is particularly susceptible to potential ambiguity regarding its subject, as it is often located far away from the main verb within the sentence, and is frequently even separated from the main clause by a short pause. The increase of [a+personal infinitive] is fully in line with the personal infinitive’s primary function of increasing pragmatic clarity (cf. Section 3.3.3); it should be noted that in the vast majority of cases, the a-clause is coreferential and would therefore not, strictly speaking, require overt subject marking, as seen in (264). What makes this construction atypical in comparison with other infinitival adjuncts is the fact that it is pragmatically backgrounded, which has been shown to be a domain in which prepositional infinitives have otherwise been losing ground over the centuries (cf. Section 5.1.4).

Position of the overt subject It has been seen in Section 3.3.4 that in modern Portuguese, the pre-infinitival position is generally preferred, whilst the post-infinitival position is reserved for pragmatically marked purposes such as topicalization or contrastive focus. Mensching (2000: 28) notes that “the high frequency of preverbal subjects [is] a fact that already seems to have been the case in the oldest medieval texts.” An analysis of the diachronic corpus in Appendix B confirms this for pronominal subjects: up to the 17th century, very few instances of post-infinitival pronominal subjects can be found, while the pre-infinitival subject position is the norm (265). ´ 265. Primeiramente, disse Alvaro Pais, por v´os serdes irm˜ao del-rei,... 6 firstly said A.P. for you beinf l.inf.2nd.pers brother of.the.king

´ In the first place, said Alvaro Pais, because you are the king’s brother... During the 16th century, a striking discrepancy between the position of pronominal and nominal OSI subjects can be seen. From the complete works of Luis de Cam˜oes (1524-1580), Otto (1888: 92-4) lists a total of 37 instances of personal infinitives with overt subjects. A closer analysis of his data reveals that of these, 34 are prepositional adjuncts with de, por, para and sem, while the remaining three are subject clauses of the type ‘Me atormenta ver eu que...’ 7 ; the latter all have 6

Fern˜ ao Lopes: Cr´ onica de El-rei D. Joo I de Boa Mem´ oria., Pt. 1, Chapter 14: O Mestre de Avis comprometese a matar o Andeiro, (ca. 1430), cf. Appendix B. 7 Cf. Otto (1888: 93)

OSIs AND THE INFLECTED INFINITIVE

149

a post-infinitival pronominal subject. In the prepositional OSI clauses, all seven instances of overt pronominal subjects are pre-infinitival, whilst only two of the 27 non-pronominal subjects occupy that position. In other words, there is a very clear tendency for pronominal subjects to occur preverbally and nominal subjects postverbally in OSI clauses. Though not making specific reference to this distribution pattern, Otto believes that Cam˜oes, a renaissance author, is likely to have been strongly influenced by the syntax of Italian, the language serving as the literary model of the time. An interesting parallel may thus be drawn to the fact that of the Italo-Romance varieties that have an OSI construction, none allows preverbal nominal subjects, but some do allow preverbal pronominal ones (cf. Ledgeway, 2000: 126-30). 8 From the 17th century onwards, however, the proportion of pronominal subjects that occur post-infinitivally also gradually increases. A possible explanation for how this position became available is by structural reanalysis of copular clauses such as (266), where the predicative pronoun v´ os is coreferent with the subject (‘...por [v´ os]serdes v´ os’). In the semantically similar sentence (267), v´ os occupies the post-infinitival position even though it is only the subject, the predicative element being ‘quem sois’. 266. ...´ unica e puramente por serdes v´ os. only and purely for beinf l.inf.2nd.pers you.

...solely because it’s you (and nobody else). 267. ...´ unica e puramente por serdes v´ os quem sois. 9 only and purely for beinf l.inf.2nd.pers you who you.are.

...solely because you are who you are. Such reanalysis, followed by subsequent extension to non-copular contexts, might also have contributed to the fact that a post-infinitival subject generally carries contrastive focus, since the copular construction is in itself a focalizing construction 10 . But irrespective of the possible influence of the copular construction, it must be kept in mind that quite generally, not just in OSI clauses, postverbal position causes topicalization and pragmatic focus. (‘Eu vou para a escola’ vs. ‘Vou eu para a escola’)

5.2.2

The history of Spanish OSI construction

In the very earliest Spanish documents, such as the C ¸ id, the OSI construction is not attested (cf. K¨orner, 1983: 78). Considering the relatively small number and size of these documents, as well as the low overall proportion of OSI constructions in Spanish throughout its history (<1% of infinitives) we should, however, not jump to the conclusion that its absence in these texts necessarily implies that the construction was not yet present in the language as a whole. It should also be noted that even in the C ¸ id, structurally ambiguous sentences that may or may not be OSIs are found (cf. e.g. (274)); the relevance of such ambiguous structures will be discussed further in Section 5.2.3. In Old Spanish, the OSI construction was subject to less restrictions than in the modern language. Similar to the situation that still pertains in Portuguese today, it could individuate a non-coreferential subject in typical complement clauses, as in (268). 8 N.b. in Old Italian, however, nouns as well as pronouns could occur pre-infinitivally (Mensching, 2000: 18, 102). 9 Ant´ onio Vieira: Serm˜ oes Escolhidos, §10: Exorta¸ca ˜o e Ora¸ca ˜o Final (1655). S˜ ao Paulo: Edameris, 1965. 10 The related construction of the type ‘para ser ele a fazer’ (so that it is him who does) is a very common intensifying/focalizing construction (cf. Section 3.3.4.)

150

CHAPTER 5. PORTUGUESE AND SPANISH DEVELOPMENTS COMPARED

268. los quales creer´ıan [yo no haber leido las reglas]. 11 the which would.believe [I not haveinf. read the rules]

(Those) who would believe I hadn’t read the rules. The diachronic trend, it can be seen in Fig. 5.21, is for its usage to become increasingly restricted to prepositional adjunct clauses, as discussed in Section 3.2.5, where it was further pointed out that subject clauses and coreferential object clauses also continue to allow its use.

Figure 5.21: Prepositional and non-prepositional OSIs in Spanish According to Mensching (200: 25), the position of the subject in relation to the infinitive has also become increasingly restricted. [...] earlier stages of Spanish allowed preverbal subjects in addition to postverbal position, although the latter already prevailed in Old Spanish and its frequency is even higher in Classical Spanish. Unlike Italian, there were no restrictions to the environments where either position occurs. [...] From the 18th century onwards, preverbal subjects no longer occur in almost any infinitival environments. The only construction where preverbal subjects are still grammatical today are adverbial clauses. (Mensching, 2000: 25)

The claim that overt subjects have always been predominantly post-infinitival in Spanish is somewhat weakened by Keniston (1937: 550), who observes “a fairly strong tendency to place the subject before the infinitive” in 16 th century Spanish; Ledgeway (2000: 292) points out that Keniston provides only examples of pronominal pre-infinitival subjects, which would suggest that nominal subjects were restricted to the postverbal position in 16 th century Spanish12 . The present-day data provided in Table 3.2.1., reproduced here for convenience (Table 5.2.1.), cast further doubt on whether the restriction is as absolute as often claimed, even in the modern language. Table 5.2.1.: Position of 1st sg. and 3rd pl. subject pronouns with the verbs hacer and saber Preposition sin para al antes de despu´es de 11

Preverbal 68% (601) 46% (322) 28% (23) 21% (10) 17% (3)

Postverbal 32% (277) 54% (372) 72% (58) 79% (37) 83% (15)

Santillana Prov. 23, cf. Diez (1882: 946) An interesting parallel to the use of the Portuguese personal infinitive by Cam˜ oes during the same period should also be noted, cf. Section 5.2.1. 12

OSIs AND THE INFLECTED INFINITIVE

151

A more differentiated analysis must take into the fact that the proportion of pre- and post-infinitival pronominal subjects depends on the individual preposition involved. In Section 3.2.5 it was proposed to locate the different prepositions along a continuum. In this continuum, those prepositions that participate in OSI constructions most frequently, which are also the ones that most commonly have a pre-infinitival subject, were located at one end. Chapter 4 has provided details on the time of emergence and the rise in frequency of individual prepositional infinitive constructions: final (pora>)para+inf. is documented since the earliest texts (Fig. 4.10), as is al+inf. (Fig. 4.15); sin+inf. (Fig. 4.16) also s these two relatively early on, its frequency rapidly rising to a level comparable with al+inf. Antes de+inf. (Fig. 4.17), Despu´es de+inf. (Fig. 4.18) and hasta+inf. (Fig. 4.19) emerge and gain popularity slightly later, during the 16th century, and have, though gradually rising in frequency since then, remained far less common than the former group. A clear correlation between the age and the rate of dissemination of the individual prepositional infinitives on the one hand, and their present-day OSI properties on the other hand, is evident: the older and historically more widespread a particular prepositional infinitive is, the more commonly it participates in the OSI construction, and the more likely it is also to have a preverbal pronominal subject in this construction. This trend is further confirmed if we look at prepositional infinitives that never gained a high degree of popularity, such as hasta+inf. (Fig. 4.19) or en lugar de+inf. (Fig. 4.20), and at prepositional infinitives that have only emerged recently, such as a punto de+inf. (Fig. 4.22) or a pesar de+inf. Table 5.2.2., an extension to Table 5.2.1. and based on the same extensive corpus of modern Spanish, shows that OSI constructions with these prepositions are negligible; the small number of occurrences allows no further valid statistical conclusions. Table 5.2.2.: Position of 1st sg. and 3rd pl. subject pronouns with the verbs hacer and saber Preposition hasta en lugar de a punto de a pesar de

Preverbal 2 1 0 1

Postverbal 2 4 3 3

The above facts find a coherent explanation if we recall that the position of overt subjects in relation to the infinitive, at least pronominal ones, was relatively free up to the 16 th and perhaps the 17th century. It can be assumed that until this time, the post-infinitival position was the pragmatically marked one, being used for topicalization/contrastive focus, as it still is in Portuguese (cf. Section 3.3.4), and in modern Spanish (cf. Section 3.2.3) to the extent that there remains a positional choice. What the subsequent development suggests is that the most frequent prepositional infinitives at the time became entrenched and conventionalized as separate constructions that allow either a pre-infinitival or a post-infinitival pronominal subject; together with the individual construction itself, language s learn whether it is more or less permissive of preverbal subjects. The OSI-construction with sin is a particularly revealing instance of this entrenchment process: by the 16th century, sin+inf. had become relatively frequent since its emergence 300 years earlier, but its frequency nevertheless remained far below that of para+inf. (cf. Fig. 4.16, Fig. 4.10). However, the construction with pre-infinitival pronominal subject was particularly frequent, especially in expressions such as the following:

152

CHAPTER 5. PORTUGUESE AND SPANISH DEVELOPMENTS COMPARED sin yo saberlo sin yo merecerlo sin yo pensarlo

‘without my knowing it, unwittingly’ ‘without my deserving it, undeservedly’ ‘without my thinking about it, unexpectedly’

A typical feature of these expressions is the fact their subject is typically the experiencer of an event that has a different agent, necessitating the presence of a disambiguating subject pronoun, which is more likely to appear preverbally, as exemplified in (269) and (270). 269. ...me comenzaron [...] a inclinarme a lo que fue, sin yo pensarlo, mi perdici´on. 13 ..they began to incline me towards what was, even though I didn’t think so, my downfall. 270. el cielo [...], sin yo merecerlo, me envia [...]algunas personas [...]. 14 The sky sends me some people without my deserving it. The comparatively high frequency of these expressions leads to an entrenchment of the sequence [sin+subj.pron.+inf.(+clitic)], explaining why the sin-construction uniquely prefers preverbal subject pronouns today, especially in the presence of a clitic pronoun. On the other hand, prepositional infinitives that were used less frequently did not become entrenched to the same extent, and show a far stronger tendency to conform to the general modern trend of postposing overt subjects. It can further be observed, with reference to Table 5.2.1. and Section 3.2.5, that the entrenchment is not binary, but scalar: the more frequently a particular prepositional infinitive occurred (with preposed subject), the stronger its tendency to preserve the optional pre-infinitival subject position. As a consequence of the individual degree of entrenchment each prepositional OSI underwent, it is impossible to formulate a general syntactic or pragmatic rule that would equally do justice to the whole range of prepositional infinitives; a more realistic approach would be to view each one, with its own idiosyncratic syntactic patterning, as a separate sub-construction of the generic construction ‘overt subject infinitive’ (OSI). Following Croft’s (2000: 117-44) classification of types of form–function reanalysis, the facts described here suggest that we are dealing with an instance of hyperanalysis, in which the meaning or function of one constructional component becomes reanalysed as being contained in a different component of the same construction, due to frequent overlap of both meanings or functions. The frequent overlap of the two separate functions of the OSI, individuation of a non-coreferential subject on the one hand and contrastive focus on the other (cf. Section 3.2.3), has given rise to a remapping of these functions within the construction, in which the post-infinitival position gradually came to be associated with both of these functions. To what degree this shift has applied to individual OSI sub-construction is dependent on the degree of entrenchment of the pre-infinitival subject position in that particular construction.

5.2.3

OSI in Spanish and Portuguese: the larger diachronic picture

The synchronic analysis of the infinitive in present-day Spanish and Portuguese in Chapter 3, as well as the two diachronic sections above, have shown that in most respects, the two languages do not differ fundamentally in their use of the infinitive. In both languages, prepositional infinitives have been present since the earliest texts, but there has been an increase both in the number of types and tokens. The main difference is the fact that the Portuguese developments frequently 13 14

Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra: El ingenioso hidalgo Don Quijote de la Mancha, cf. Appendix A. ibid.

OSIs AND THE INFLECTED INFINITIVE

153

predate similar ones in Spanish, and that infinitives with overtly present and/or marked subjects are more widely used in Portuguese. It was observed in Chapter 2 that no construction corresponding to the OSI existed in Latin, the ‘Nominative and Infinitive’ (NCI) having an entirely different structure and function. Nevertheless, K¨orner (1983) argues that the Romance OSI construction is nothing typologically new, as Latin did have infinitival clauses containing their own subject, both the ‘Accusative and Infinitive’ and the ‘Dative and Infinitive’, the latter frequently used with causative verbs. He suggests that the continuations of these Latin constructions (‘Yo la Acc. veo comer.’, ‘Yo leDat. mando comer.’) could easily have been reanalysed as OSIs, given the absence of morphological case marking on Romance nouns. Evidence for a certain degree of uncertainty regarding case is provided by the fact that in Portuguese, a verb such as mandar ‘to order’ can take either a direct or an indirect object pronoun in this construction, as in (271). 271. Mandei-o/lhe escrever uma carta. 15 I ordered himDO/IO to write a letter. However, there is no reason why the source of the OSI should be restricted to those specific constructions. There are, and have always been, vast numbers of structurally ambiguous sentences in which the subject of the main clause is, perhaps with a minimal misreading of the intonation pattern, equally analysable as the subject of a coreferential dependent clause, as in the modern Spanish (272) and Portuguese (273) examples, and the Old Spanish and Golden Age Spanish examples (274) and (275). 272. Para conseguirlo yo [tengo que trabajar m´as]. Para conseguirlo [yo tengo que trabajar m´as]. To manage it, I have to work more. 273. N˜ao me interessa o que prometeste tu. [Prometi eu] assisti-lo. N˜ao me interessa o que prometeste tu. Prometi [eu assisti-lo]. I don’t care what you’ve promised. I’ve promised to help him. 274. cansados son de [ferir] ellos amos cansados son de [ferir ellos amos]16 Both of them are tired of beating. 275. confesando yo [no ser mas santo que mis vecinos] confesando [yo no ser mas santo que mis vecinos] 17 confessing that I was no more saintly than my neighbours That such structurally ambiguous cases have been common throughout the history of Spanish is illustrated in Fig. 5.22, which shows that the number of cases where the reading as OSI is possible but not necessary tends to be approximately similar to the number of clear-cut OSIs. 15

Example from Dunn (1928), quoted by Roegiest (1979: 41). C ¸ id, 2745. 17 Lazarillo 1554, 2r, quoted by Mensching (2000: 102), who analyses it as an OSI. 16

154

CHAPTER 5. PORTUGUESE AND SPANISH DEVELOPMENTS COMPARED

Figure 5.22: Ambiguous/unambiguous OSIs in Spanish As the absence of an overt subject in the main clause is syntactically unproblematic in pro-drop languages such as Spanish and Portuguese, such reanalysis is the most likely source of the OSI. It is perhaps noteworthy that the reanalysis can occur in prepositional adjunct clauses (272) as well as in prototypical complement clauses (275). An important point to make is also that in Sentences (272-275), the subject is necessarily in the pragmatically marked topicalizing or focalizing position in one of the two possible readings, which facilitates reanalysis in discourse contexts in which topical or contrastive focus is plausible. This, in turn, contributes to the fact that the OSI construction itself is often associated with topical or contrastive focus (cf. 3.2.3). Once the OSI construction has become conventionalized and infinitives with overt subjects are an available structure, it is no great step to extend the pattern to non-coreferential situations, allowing the OSI to mark dist subject reference. At this stage, a split between Spanish and Portuguese must have taken place. In Portuguese, the pragmatic mark`edness of the construction gradually decreases; such ‘bleaching’ processes generally go hand in hand with an increase in frequency as well as an increasing integration into the grammatical system of the language. A visible sign of this grammatical integration is the fact that the infinitive receives a morphological person marker, bringing it in line with all other verb forms that have their own subject; as a consequence of this, an overt subject is no longer required. This allows for a further reduction of pragmatic mark`edness of the construction, as the previously required overt presence of a subject pronoun is generally a marker of topicalization in pro-drop languages. The rules governing the position of the subject also become increasingly similar to those of other inflected verb forms, with the preverbal position being unmarked, whilst the postverbal position implies contrastive topical focus. Most of these shifts must have taken place before the time of the earliest preserved documents, at the time of which the inflected infinitive was already a fully integrated, common part of the language, with the subject already appearing predominantly in pre-infinitival position. Only the fact that it was, in old Galaico-Portuguese, possible for an overt subject to occur without the corresponding inflection on the infinitive might be understood as an indication that the grammaticalization process was not yet fully completed. The synchronic statistical analysis presented in Section 3.3.2, as well as certain diachronic developments discussed in Section 5.2.1, indicate an incipient shift in the usage of the personal infinitive, suggesting a growing trend to use finite structures for genuinely non-coreferential

OSIs AND THE INFLECTED INFINITIVE

155

cases, whilst the inflected infinitive is used increasingly to provide additional clarity regarding the identity of coreferential subjects, standing in direct competition with the uninflected infinitive in these contexts. In Spanish, the relative freedom with which OSIs were used during earlier stages of the language suggests that a development along the lines of the Portuguese construction was incipient, but this trend appears to have been reversed. Today, the construction generally retains its original pragmatic mark`edness (cf. Section 3.2.3). The postverbal position being the default position for subject topicalization and focus, this is where the subject of the OSI tends to appear. This high frequency of post-infinitival subjects gradually became conventionalized, whilst the pre-infinitival position (of pronouns) remains more acceptable with certain prepositions and in certain expressions (e.g. ‘sin yo saberlo’) that frequently occurred with a pre-infinitival subject for the purpose of subject individuation rather than contrastive focus (cf. Section 5.2.2). Always having been little more than a marginal phenomenon in of usage frequency, the OSI appears to be losing ground as a fully integrated part of Spanish syntax. Yet whilst the range of syntactic contexts it occurs in is diminishing, it survives primarily as a pragmatic focus marker. All in all, it must be observed that the availability of OSI constructions has not been able to break the general and deeply engrained link between the infinitive and coreferentiality. This is reflected in the fact that both languages generally avoid concessive prepositional infinitives, which are typically non-coreferential, but also by the fact that in both languages, the OSI construction is frequently used, as a marker of focus or as a disambiguator, where a subjectless infinitive would otherwise be found.

Chapter 6

The infinitive in Romanian Vestea mort¸ii mele este ˆın mare m˘ asur˘ a exagerat˘ a. (Mark Twain)

6.1

The present-day situation

A widespread view of the infinitive’s role in modern Romanian is that its use is marginal. Especially in typologically oriented work, it is often stated that “one of the well-known features [of Romanian] is the loss of the infinitive” (Trudgill, 201: 710), while Romance linguists have generally characterized the use of infinitival structures as extremely limited. 1 Generally, this restriction in usage is understood as directly linked to an increased use of the subjunctive. Camproux (1974: 106), for instance, bluntly states that “[le roumain] remplace l’infinitif par le subjonctif”, and Posner (1996: 164) claims that “...on the whole, Rumanian [...] has not favoured the more ‘Romance’ use of the infinitive in ‘control’ constructions, preferring a subjunctive clause...”. With more attention to detail, Joseph (1983: 149) states that Romanian “has come to restrict the use of this form, replacing it with finite subjunctive clauses headed with the conjunction s˘ a, or, in some cases, with finite indicative clauses headed by the conjunction c˘ a.” This ‘replacement’ of infinitival clauses by subjunctival finite clauses is most frequently attributed to areal convergence within the Balkan Sprachbund, possibly originating from the fact that regular sound change in Greek caused a great degree of syncretism between infinitive and subjunctive forms, leading to a large-scale reanalysis of infinitives as subjunctive forms 2 , which subsequently spread throughout the linguistic area. In this vein, McMahon (1994: 219) claims that “Balkan languages have characteristically lost the infinitive, replacing it with a finite subordinate clause...”, and Guillermou (1953: 172) writes: “L’emploi du subjonctif au d´etriment de l’infinitif est un trait de syntaxe qui n’est pas propre au roumain et dont on peut rendre compte par la linguistique balkanique.” I shall not, here, discuss in any depth the extent to which the Romanian infinitive can convincingly be argued to be a Balkanism. Though it would be hard to deny some influence from the other languages from the area, which in their majority make only very limited or no use of the infinitive, it will become evident below that its use in Romanian is far less restricted than often suggested. My analysis here will be limited to Daco-Romanian 3 , but it should be 1

I clearly do not wish to deny that some Romance linguists are aware of the fact that Romanian has the option of employing the infinitive in a wide range of contexts. 2 A somewhat unusual proposal by Miller (2001: 94 ff.), analyses the Greek subjunctive (which structurally resembles the Romanian subjunctive) as an inflected infinitive, based on the fact that, according to his analysis, it can have PRO as its subject and the embedded clause can be selected by a determiner. This analysis appears inappropriate for Romanian, as there is a separate infinitive form that can itself have an overt subject. 3 Daco-Romanian is the branch of the Daco-Romance subgroup spoken in Romania and the Republic of Moldova.

157

158

CHAPTER 6. THE INFINITIVE IN ROMANIAN

noted that there is some controversy regarding the question whether or not in Arumanian, a Daco-Romance variety spoken in the southern Balkans in areas surrounded by Slavic, Greek, or Albanian speakers, finite clauses have supplanted the infinitive completely. Mallinson (1988: 411) claims “this phenomenon is complete in Arumanian, but Daco-Rumaian, situated much further from the centre of the Sprachbund, has resisted it to a greater extent”, Sandfeld (1930: 174) and Papahagi (1963: 39) both cite instances of verbal usage of the infinitive in Arumanian, and Joseph (1983: 174-176) discusses the “various claims and counterclaims” in this matter. That the infinitive has not been completely lost in Daco-Romanian is undisputed by most linguists. Interestingly, however, the constructions they produce as evidence for its ‘limited’ survival tend to differ from to . To give just one example, Mallinson (1988: 411) rightly mentions the common appearance of infinitives in extraposed subject clauses, which most other s omit, and which Joseph (1983: 153) mentions only as a construction typical of Old Romanian. In this section, a detailed comparison of the Romanian and the ‘typical Romance’ uses of the infinitive will be attempted, in order to establish in how far Romanian really differs systematically from the mainstream Romance patterns.

6.1.1

Exclusions

This chapter will not be concerned with the so-called long infinitive, which must more correctly be considered a deverbal noun. Synchronically, it behaves like a noun in every way, taking the definite article, undergoing regular morphological case inflection, and asg genitive case to its subject and direct object. Though it can, indeed, be productively derived from the infinitive of most verbs by suffixing the derivational morpheme //-re//, its label stems from the fact that it originates from, and resembles, the Latin infinitive, which was itself in many respects more nominal than modern Romance infinitives are (cf. Section (3.4.2)). A further reason for the use of this inaccurate label may be the lack of a comparable clear morphological, or indeed categorial, distinction between infinitives and deverbal nouns in the other Romance languages, which has led Romanists to use infinitive as a cover term for verbal and nominal uses, as well as the ambiguous cases in between. Nor shall I discuss the singular negative imperative or ‘prohibitive’ of the type Nu fuma! ‘Don’t smoke!’, which, as in Latin and Italian, is morphologically equivalent to the infinitive. Synchronically this is best analysed as a case of syncretism, as it is fully integrated in the imperative paradigm in which the infinitive does not, otherwise, play a role. Additionally, the fact that it has fixed person, number, and time reference (2nd pers. singular, future time reference) casts serious doubts on its analysis as an infinitive. For a discussion of the use of infinitives and infinitive-like forms in the imperative paradigm, I refer the reader to Joseph (1983: 159-160; 164) and Pop (1948: 263).

6.1.2

Temporal and modal auxiliary verbs

The most commonly acknowledged use of the infinitive is in temporal and modal auxiliary constructions. As in other Romance languages, it is possible to form an analytic future by means of the combination of an inflected auxiliary verb followed by an infinitive. The auxiliary verb participating in this construction is most likely a combination of phonologically reduced

6.1. THE PRESENT-DAY SITUATION

159

versions of the present tense paradigms of volitional a vrea and a voi (276). 4 The choice of the volitional verb as future auxiliary is rare the modern standard Romance languages, and the presence of equivalent periphrastic future constructions in the surrounding linguistic area is understood by many to be the cause for this. However, a similar future construction is also found in northern Piedmontese dialects, Rhaeto-Romance and some southern Italian dialects (cf. e.g. Rohlfs, 1949: 337). Further, Iliescu (1965: 97-98; 1966: 399-400) shows that it may simply be a retention, as the synthetic future construction with reflexes of UOLO+infinitive also appears in Dalmatian, Franco-Proven¸cal, and Old Surselvan. 276. Voi/vei/va/vom/vet¸ i/vor c˘a¸stiga. future.aux1st.sg/2nd.sg/3rd.sg/1st.pl/2nd.pl/3rd.pl wininf.

I/you/he/she/we/you/they will win.

Romanian also forms the conditional/optative paradigm by means of auxiliary+infinitive. The common Late Latin development of forming a synthetic conditional by suffixing a reduced form of HABERE onto the infinitive survives in the synthetic conditional paradigm of Arumanian and Istroromanian (cf. Caragiu-Mariot¸eanu, 1969: 270; Pu¸scariu, 1997 [1940]: 267, 278), as in Romance in general. But in modern Daco-Romanian this paradigm has been fully supplanted by an auxiliary construction consisting of the infinitive preceded by an inflected verb of somewhat obscure etymology, perhaps deriving from “the clitic imperfect form of a vrea/a voi” (Joseph 1983: 163). 277. A¸s/ai/ar/am/at¸i/ar c˘a¸stiga. condit.aux1st.sg/2nd.sg/3rd.sg/1st.pl/2nd.pl/3rd.pl wininf.

I/you/he/she/we/you/they would win.

In addition to these two basic auxiliary constructions, there are auxiliary constructions for the future perfect, past conditional, as well as the present and past (epistemic) ‘presumptive’, all based on the analytic future and conditional of a fi ‘to be’: 278. Future perfect Voi fi citit. future.aux1st.sg beinf. readpast.part.

I will have read. 279. Past conditional A¸s fi citit. condit.aux1st.sg beinf. readpast.part.

I would have read. 280. Present presumptive R˘aspunsul va fi fiind simplu. answer+def.art. fut.aux3rd.sg beinf. begerund simple.

The answer is probably simple. 281. Past presumptive Vet¸i fi f˘acut pr˘ajituri. fut.aux2nd.pl beinf. makepast.part cakes

You have probably baked cakes. 4

It should be noted that these two verbs have distinct sources, a voi deriving from Slavic voliti, whilst a vrea is from Latin VOLERE < VELLE (cf. Pop, 1948: 257).

160

CHAPTER 6. THE INFINITIVE IN ROMANIAN

Overall, the auxiliary constructions with the infinitive are in no way atypical of Romance in general. Not only is the modern synthetic future and conditional the result of suffixation of an auxiliary to the infinitive5 , but the widespread analytic future formation with ‘go’(+a)+infinitive is extremely similar. The fact that in Romanian the aux+inf. construction is used for an even wider variety of modal notions indicates that the infinitive is clearly a central part of Romanian linguistic structure. However, it can be disputed whether these constructions should be considered genuine instances of the infinitive in modern Romanian, as they differ from other infinitival constructions in Romanian, most visibly due to the absence of the particle a 6 . They may perhaps be better analysed as a single morphological unit 7 , resulting from the grammaticalization of a former8 prepositional construction. The verbs a putea ‘to be able to’ and a ¸sti ‘to know how to’ can be analysed as of the same class. Semantically, a putea can be used to express epistemic modality, and verbs of ability arguably always contain a modal component. Formally, these two verbs group with the future and conditional auxiliaries because they are the only other verbs that take an infinitive without the preposed particle a. What does, however distinguish both the periphrastic future and a putea/a ¸sti is that they have corresponding 9 finite counterparts with the subjunctive. 282. Voi veni mˆaine. fut.aux1st.sg comeinf. tomorrow

Am/o s˘a vin mˆaine. have1st.sg /fut.auxinvar. subjnctve.marker come1sr.sg tomorrow

I will come tomorrow. 283. Pot veni mˆaine. can1st.sg comeinf. tomorrow

Pot s˘a vin mˆaine. can1st.sg subjnctve.marker come1sr.sg tomorrow

I can come tomorrow. Guillermou (1953: 111) believes there is an aspectual difference between the infinitival and the finite future constructions. The former “indique simplement un ´ev´enement qui doit arriver dans l’avenir”, whilst the latter implies “une intervention du sujet parlant”. Whether this aspectual nuance is necessarily always present is disputable; with a putea, in any case, the infinitive and subjunctive appear to occur in free variation, and the choice appears to have no semantic implications. Meyer-L¨ ubke (1895: 89) notes that in Old Romanian, coned complements of a single main verb a putea can alternate between s˘ a-clause and infinitive in the same sentence, citing sentence (284) from Gaster (1891: 114). 284. poate vedea ¸si s˘a cunoasc˘a can3rd.sg seeinf and subjnctve.marker recognize3rd.sg.subj

He can see and recognize. 5

In Portuguese, this process of syntheticization is arguably not completed, as clitic pronouns are placed between the infinitival and the auxiliary component. 6 Some theoretical implications of the absence of a are discussed in Section 6.1.8. 7 One reason for such an analysis is the fact that no element, not even clitics, can be inserted. 8 This would also explain the absence of a, which only became an obligatory element of the infinitive relatively recently, cf. Section 6.3.1. 9 The finite periphrastic future construction uses either a avea ‘to have’, or far more frequently invariant o, which “appears to be a special treatment of the third person singular form va of voi”(Joseph, 1983: 163).

6.1. THE PRESENT-DAY SITUATION

161

This is, in fact, still found in modern Romanian, as shown in example (285): 285. Pot¸i fi foarte bine ˆınalt funct¸ionar ˆıntr-un stat republic˘a ¸si s˘a crezi c˘a statului tau i s-ar potrivi mai curˆınd sistemul monarhic. 10 can2nd.sg beinf very well high official in.a state republic and subjnctve.marker believe2nd.sg.subj that the.stateDat.Sg Pers.PronDat.Sg Refl.Pron+Pres.Condit.Aux.3rd.sg be.appropriate more soon the.system monarchist.

You can very well be a top official in a republican state and believe that for your state the monarchic system would be rather more appropriate. This said, it must be pointed out that both the periphrastic future and a putea-clauses are constructed with the infinitive far more frequently than with the subjunctive: in written, but not excessively formal, present-day Romanian, ca. 96% of future tokens take the infinitive, and only 4% a subjunctive complement. For a putea 11 the ratio is less extreme, with around 89% infinitival clausal complements. Which factors are involved in this choice, and whether this ratio is substantially different in colloquial spoken language, are interesting questions worthy of further research, which would, however, require the availability of a spoken corpus. A ¸sti, on the other hand, takes infinitival complements in only 4 to 5% of cases; there may however be some regional variation that is not taken into in this figure, as this construction is typically associated with Transylvanian speakers.

6.1.3

Infinitival indirect Wh-questions

Similar to the way in which Spanish and Portuguese allow saber ‘to know’ and tener/ter ‘to have’ to take a coreferential indirect wh-question as complement, Romanian makes extensive use of the corresponding construction with a avea ‘to have’. Compare the Romanian sentences in (286) to (287). 286. Nu are cu cine lucra.12 not has with who workinf

He hasn’t got anyone to work with. ...no tengo con quien bailar descalzos por Madrid. 13 ...not I.have with who danceinf barefootP l through Madrid

...I haven’t got anyone to dance barefoot through Madrid with. 287. Am cumparat bere [...] si n-am unde duce ambalajele. 14 I.have bought beer [...] and not-I.have where takeinf packaging.the

I’ve bought beer, but I haven’t got anywhere to take the packaging. Tengo miedo y no tengo donde ir.15 I.have fear and not I.have where goinf

I’m scared and I don’t have anywhere to go. 10

Romˆ ania Literar˘ a 51, 1997; Revista Revistelor – La Microscop. Cristian Teodorescu: Refuzul regal. This count excludes the construction poate (ca) + indicative, as this has been semantically bleached to mean ‘perhaps’. 12 http://www.curier.ro/curier/02-01/01-08/sport.htm 13 tr.terra.com.co/cultura/musica/cancionero/home artista.php?id artista=161&id cancion=501 14 http://romania.thebans.com/readers/scrisori2.asp 15 http://www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/Club/5121/otros\ temas.html 11

162

CHAPTER 6. THE INFINITIVE IN ROMANIAN

This construction is possible with a variety of wh-interrogatives, including ce ‘what’, cine ‘who’, cu cine ‘who with’, cum ‘how’, unde ‘where’. It is particularly common with cˆ and ‘when’, meaning ‘not to have sufficient time’ (288). 288. Uite, femeie, eu nu am cˆand veni mˆaine la tine s˘a o iau,... 16 lookimpertv. woman I not have1st.sg.pres when comeinf tomorrow that itAcc.F em take1st.sg.pres

Look here, woman, I don’t have the time to come to you tomorrow to take it... This specific usage has been claimed to be a calque on the corresponding Albanian expression nuk kam kur ‘I haven’t got time’(du Nay, 1996: II.F). However, considering that Spanish and Portuguese also share this construction type 17 with Romanian, it might equally well be an inherited Romance feature, or of polygenetic origin. In of frequency, the relative proportion of finite and infinitival clauses varies considerably. Table 6.1. shows that, depending on the type of interrogative, the percentage of tokens using the infinitive varies between approximately 4% and 50%. Table 6.1. – a (nu) avea + indirect Wh-Interrogative Main verb a (nu) avea ce a (nu) avea unde a (nu) avea cˆ and a (nu) avea cu cine a (nu) avea cum

6.1.4

‘to ‘to ‘to ‘to ‘to

have have have have have

nothing to’ no place to’ no time to’ no-one with whom to’ nothing way of [doing]’

% inf. 56.36 28.13 20.25 20.00 3.60

% finite 43.64 71.87 79.75 80.00 96.40

Intrinsically coreferential verbs

In addition to the abovementioned auxiliaries, there are a number of further intrinsically coreferential verbs that can take infinitival complements. This class of verbs serves to add a semantic component to the complement verb; to what extent this class of verbs can or should be considered auxiliaries is open to discussion, but not of immediate relevance here. The subject of the dependent verb must therefore by definition also be the subject of the main clause, as both verbs describe the same action or event. As can be seen from the list in Table 6.4. below, the additional information can have an aspectual character, but it can also add more specific information, such as the subject’s attitude towards the action (s)he is undertaking. Good examples of the latter are a ˆındr˘ azni a ‘to dare to’ and a binevoi a ‘to be happy to’. This class of verbs is of particular interest in the Romance perspective because in the traditionally studied Romance varieties, the strong link between coreferentiality and infinitival complementation means that these verbs cannot take a finite complement. Understandably, therefore, the emphasis in much of the literature is on the fact that Romanian has no such rule, allowing finite complementation with all intrinsically coreferential verbs. It is often also pointed out that Romanian makes use of the supine to form non-finite complements with these verbs, a form that is not part of the inventory of other Romance languages (Manoliu-Manea, 1985: 279-291; Sandfeld & Olsen, 1936: 254-254). 16

http://destine.etopia.ro/cgi-bin/povestiri.pl?name=030\&page=4 Note that Spanish no tengo cu´ ando+inf. has a slightly different meaning from the Romanian expression, as it refers to the absence of a specific point in the future, rather than to a lack of time in general. 17

6.1. THE PRESENT-DAY SITUATION

163

Given these two alternatives, little attention is paid to the fact that infinitival complementation is, nevertheless, a perfectly grammatical alternative with a considerable number of intrinsically coreferential verbs. A notable exception to this attitude is Niculescu’s (1978: 267/268) of Romanian complementation. Table 6.2. lists a number of intrinsically coreferential verbs that can take infinitival as well as finite complements; the percentages, reflecting relative token frequency in a modern Romanian corpus of 17 million words, show that the infinitive is not the most common choice, but that it nevertheless constitutes an integral component of the syntactic system. Table 6.2. – Intrinsically coreferential main verbs Verb a binevoi a ‘to be happy to’ a cuteza a ‘to dare to’ a cerca a ‘to attempt to’ a prinde a ‘to begin to’ a se deprinde a ‘to get accustomed to’ a conteni a ‘to cease to’ a primi a ‘to consent to’ a ˆıncerca (de) a ‘to try to’ a ˆınceta (de) a ‘to cease to’ a aspira a ‘to aspire to’ a ˆındr˘ azni a ‘to dare to’ a urma a ‘to go on to’ a ˆıncepe (de/prin) a ‘to begin to’ a ajunge a ‘to succeed in [doing]’ a c˘ auta a ‘to try to’ a continua a ‘to continue [doing]’ a uita a18 ‘to forget to’ a apuca (de) a ‘to begin to’ a termina de a ‘to finish [doing]’

% inf. 42.86 40.00 35.71 33.33 25.51 22.22 21.05 20.05 17.09 15.79 10.13 9.79 8.57 8.20 7.69 5.31 4.59 0.54 0.23

% finite 57.14 60.00 64.29 66.67 74.49 77.77 78.95 79.95 82.91 84.21 89.87 90.21 91.43 91.80 92.31 94.69 93.58 92.43 3.17

% supine

1.83 7.03 96.61

Interestingly, the verbs that are more likely to take infinitival complements are not predominantly those with the most typically aspectual meaning, as for instance Giv´on’s hierarchy of integration would appear to predict. It should be noted that subject-raising verbs such as a p˘ area a ‘to appear to’, which according to G&B Theory require an entirely different sentence structure, do not behave differently in of distribution, with all three complement options available. (Table 6.3.) Table 6.3. – Subject-raising verbs Verb a merita a a p˘ area a a r˘ amˆ ane a 18

% inf. ‘to deserve to/be worth’ 14.29 ‘to appear to’ 7.14 ‘to remain to be [done]’ 3.62

% finite 81.31 90.54 50.00

% supine 4.40 19 1.19 46.38

I consider intrinsically coreferential a uita a/s˘ a/de ‘to forget to’ (with implicitly irrealis complement), a lexical entry distinct from a uita c˘ a ‘to forget that’, the complement of which is necessarily realis.

164

CHAPTER 6. THE INFINITIVE IN ROMANIAN

6.1.5

Optionally coreferential main verbs

Table 6.4. shows the relative frequency of infinitival and finite complements of a number of main verbs that can, but need not, have a subject shared by main and dependent verb. Table 6.4. – Optionally coreferential main verbs

Verb a dori a ˆınv˘ a¸ta a cere a decide a crede

‘to ‘to ‘to ‘to ‘to

wish’ learn’ ask’ decide’ believe’

% inf. 7.69 4.76 2.80 1.90 1.12

% finite % supine 92.31 95.24 96.26 0.93 98.10 98.85 0.03

The lower frequency of infinitival complementation with these verbs is due to the fact that, as a rule, the infinitive is used only in coreferential complements, which means that the proportion of potential contexts for infinitives is reduced considerably. There are, however, sporadic cases of non-coreferential infinitival complements when the reference is pragmatically sufficiently clear, as in sentence (289). 289. M-a fascinat dintotdeauna ceea ce cred a fi lect¸ia fundamental˘a pe care i-o d˘a calul eroului (sau eroinei) din unele basme romˆane¸sti. 20 me-has fascinated from.always that which believe1st.sg to beinf lesson.the fundamental...

I’ve always been fascinated by what I believe to be the fundamental lesson which the horse teaches the hero (or heroine) of some Romanian fairytales. When main clause and complement are coreferential, use of the infinitive is optional from a syntactic point of view, though marked as somewhat formal or even stilted (290). 290. Autorul crede a putea ataca [...] controversata tez˘a maiorescian˘a... 21 author.the believes to be.able.toinf attackinf [...] controversial.the thesis Maiorescan

The author believes to be able to attack the controversial Maiorescan thesis... Autorul crede c˘a poate ataca teza. author.the believes that can3rd.sg.pres.indic attack

inf

thesis.the

The author believes he can attack the thesis. In principle, this distribution resembles that in other Romance languages like Spanish to a considerable extent. Optionally coreferential verbs like creer ‘to believe’ can, but need not, take infinitival complements when the subjects of the main clause and the complement are the same, as shown in sentences (291) and (292). 291. Yo creo haber hecho lo mejor en cada una de mis tareas. 22 I believe1st.sg haveinf the best in each one of my duties.

I believe to have done the best I could in each one of my duties. 19

A merita takes supine complements without the default supine complementizer de. Romˆ ania Literar˘ a 14, 12.4.2000, Eseu; Mariana Net: Chipul, moartea si oglinda 21 Corina Popescu: Verisimul italian si literatura romana (Teatrul italian in Romania 1871-1911). 22 http://www.informador.com.mx/lastest/2001/Febrero/03feb2001/03ar06c.htm

20

6.1. THE PRESENT-DAY SITUATION

165

292. Creo que he hecho lo mejor que pod´ıa hacer. 23 I believe1st.sg that have1st.sg done the best that can1st.sg.imperf

I believe I’ve done the best I could. Sentence (289) is particularly reminiscent of Portuguese, where the identity of the infinitive’s subject frequently appears overtly, thus eliminating the potential ambiguity regarding the complement subject (293). However, even in Portuguese, infinitival clauses are, in their majority, coreferential (cf. Section 3.1). 293. Acredito no ser humano e creio ser ele a u ´ nica ‘imortalidade’ vi´avel. 24 believe1st.sg.pres in.the being human and believe1st.sg.pres beinf PERS.PRON3rd.sg.masc the only immortality viable.

I believe in the human being, and I think it is the only viable immortality. Finally, it must be mentioned that, in contrast to its Spanish and Portuguese counterpart querer ‘to want/wish’, Romanian a vrea never has an infinitival complement, even when coreferential. As this is a relatively frequently occurring verb, the ungrammaticality of a vrea+infinitive superficially lends to those who claim that infinitival complementation is marginal in Romanian. However, a vrea is better analysed as an exception 25 , as even the semantically largely equivalent a dori can take infinitival complements, as seen in (294). 26 294. Nu dore¸ste a se auzi pe sine.27 not wish2nd.sg to CLIT.REFL. hearinf PERS.DIR.OBJ.MARKER REFL.PRON

He does not wish to hear himself.

6.1.6

Non-coreferential main verbs

Certain verbs, such as causative verbs, are unlikely to have coreferential subjects for pragmatic reasons, as a person will not normally ask, order, or force himself to do something. In Section 3.1.2, it has been argued that it is for this reason that this class of verbs has developed its own reference pattern for complement subject assignment, in which PRO is not controlled by the main verb’s subject, but instead by its direct object. A similar pattern is also found in Romanian for this verb type; sentences (295)-(297) illustrate such usage with three different types of causative verbs. 295. Legile nu m˘ a opresc a c˘ al˘ atori ˆın Ungaria, dar nu garanteaz˘a sigurant¸a mea acolo. 28 laws.the not meAcc.Sg stop to travelinf in Hungary [...]

The laws don’t stop me from travelling to Hungary, but they don’t guarantee my security there. 296. Nu exist˘a a¸sa dar nici un spirit al timpului care s˘a-i oblige a fi compatibili pe fizicieni ¸si pe filosofi, pe biologi ¸si pe criticii literari! 23

http://www.elsenordelosanillos.aurum.es/film/news/ne\ entcannes\ eq1.html http://www.freipedro.pt/tb/231299/opin5.htm 25 The restriction on the complement selection properties of a vrea may be linked to the fact that the analytic future is formed with an auxiliary verb derived from a voi/a vrea (cf. Section 6.1.2), the ungrammaticality of a vrea+inf. in the literal meaning ‘to want’ being a remnant of this functional split. 26 The preferred Romanian construction with a finite complement (‘Nu dore¸ste s˘ a se aud˘ a pe sine.’) is not possible in Spanish or Portuguese, as coreferentiality requires infinitival complementation with querer, whilst the infinitive is always optional in Romanian (cf. Section 6.2.3). 27 Romˆ ania Literar˘ a 31, 5.8.1998, Cronica literar˘ a; Gheorghe Grigurcu: Amorul sacru ¸si amorul profan 28 CONVIETUIREA 2-3/1997, http://www.jgytf.u-szeged.hu/tanszek/roman/cv239723.htm 24

166

CHAPTER 6. THE INFINITIVE IN ROMANIAN NEG exists therefore NEG a spirit POSESS.ART timeGen.Sg which COMP+him oblige3rd.sg.subjctv to be compatible DIR.OBJ.MARKER physicists and philosophers...

There is, thus, not a spirit of the times that obliges physicists and philosophers, biologists and literary critics, to be compatible. 297. V˘a rug˘am a nu fuma ˆın sal˘a.29 PERS.PRONAcc.2nd.P l request1st.pl to not smokeinf in hall

We ask you not to smoke in the hall. Table 6.5. shows the proportion of infinitival to finite complements for a number of non-coreferential verbs. Table 6.5. – Non-coreferential main verbs Verb a deprinde a a opri (de/din) a a ˆımpiedica (de) a a ruga a a constrˆ ange a a fort¸a a a obliga a

6.1.7

‘to ‘to ‘to ‘to ‘to ‘to ‘to

accustom to’ stop from [doing]’ prevent from [doing]’ ask to’ force to’ force to’ oblige to’

% inf. 25.51 19.05 15.38 8.88 5.36 3.70 2.16

% finite % supine 74.49 65.10 15.87 30 84.62 91.12 94.64 96.30 97.64

Subject complements and impersonal expressions

Coreferentiality between the subjects of the main clause and its complement is logically impossible when the main verb is subjectless, and when the complement clause itself serves as the main clause’s syntactic subject. As discussed in Section 3.1, the normal pattern of reference assignment in Spanish and Portuguese in these constructions is for PRO to be controlled by a direct or indirect object of the main verb if available, and otherwise PRO is subject to ‘arbitrary control’. Romanian, too, allows infinitive complementation in both these constructions, as shown in sentences (298)-(300). 298. Direct object control: A pierde m˘a demoralizeaz˘a. to loseinf meAcc demoralizes

Losing demoralizes me. 299. Indirect object control: ˆImi place a crede c˘a nu ˆıntˆımpl˘ator ultima mea ˆıntˆılnire cu Florin Mugur s-a produs la gr˘adina de var˘a de la Muzeul literaturii. 31 meDat pleases to believeinf that...

I am pleased to think that coincidentally my last meeting with Florin Mugur took place in the summer garden of the Museum of Literature. 29

Request commonly found on notices in libraries etc. Supine complements of a opri are not linked by the default supine complementizer de, but instead by the compounded preposition din < de ˆın. 31 Romˆ ania Literar˘ a 8, 26.2.1997, Cronica literar˘ a; Gheorghe Grigurcu: Nedrep˘ a¸t itul Florin Mugur 30

6.1. THE PRESENT-DAY SITUATION

167

While sentence (299) is somewhat literary in , the equivalent construction with negated main verb, as in ‘Nu-mi place a c˘ al˘ atori’ ‘I don’t enjoy travelling’ is frequently found in popular, spoken language. This applies in the same way to a number of idiomatic expressions in which the [Experiencer] appears as indirect object, such as the following: Nu-mi vine a crede. ‘I just can’t believe it.’ Nu-mi arde a citi. ‘I’m not terribly keen on reading.’ A m˘ a plˆ ange nu-mi trece prin cap. ‘To complain wouldn’t enter my mind.’

300. Arbitrary control with impersonal expressions: A vorbi e u¸sor, (a cˆanta mai ˆınvat¸a˘.) 32 to talkinf is simple, to sing more learnimpertv.sg

It’s easy to talk, but you still have to learn to sing. As previously seen in sentence (289), control assignment patterns do not have obligatory status, as demonstrated by (301): 301. Impulsionarea mediului investit¸ional intern [...], care ne ˆıntereseaz˘a a se dezvolta ˆın ritm superior celorlalte r˘amuri nat¸ionale... 33 ..., which usAcc interests to REFL developinf in rhythm superior otherGen.P l branches national...

Kickstarting internal investment [...], [regarding] which we have an interest that it should develop at a quicker rate than the other sectors of the national economy.

6.1.8

Prepositional complementizer or morphological marker?

From a diachronic point of view, the particle a, used by the verbs examined in the previous section to connect infinitival clauses, is a grammaticalized preposition (cf. Section 7.2.1). Synchronically, it can be seen either as the default complementizer, or as a morphological marker of the infinitive, similar to to in English. Many s of complementation, e.g. Giv´on’s hierarchy of integration between main and complement clause (Giv´on, 1984: 519), distinguish infinitive complements with the morphological marker on the one hand from bare stem complements without it on the other. Absence of the marker tends to coincide with a higher degree of semantic integration. This accurately predicts the situation in Romanian: temporal and modal notions are semantically highly integrated with the complement verb, and this semantic integration is iconically reflected by the absence of the subordinating morpheme and the increased proximity between the two verbs involved. Thus Mallinson (1988: 411) argues that ‘pot veni’ (‘I can come’) can be treated as an auxiliary+stem construction.’ However, some doubt is cast upon the applicability of Giv´on’s hierarchy, based on a correlation between semantic integration of main and complement verb on the one hand, and the complement clause’s syntax on the other, by the fact that both the periphrastic future and a putea/a ¸sti have corresponding finite counterparts with the subjunctive (cf. Section 6.1.2). According to Giv´on, subjunctive complements should be far less integrated with their main verb than “barestem” complements, but this does not hold for Romanian. 32 33

Title of a 1997 rap song by Parazit¸ii. Activitatea ˆın ¸tar˘ a a AOAR, http://www.aoar.ro/pozitii/in2\ ro.htm

168

CHAPTER 6. THE INFINITIVE IN ROMANIAN

The analysis of a as a general morphological marker of the infinitive is further called into doubt by its absence in the construction with a avea + infinitival indirect question, as discussed in Section (6.1.3) above. Though a cannot, therefore, be understood to be an integral morpheme of the infinitive, perhaps the most compelling argument to analyse it as a largely obligatory component of the infinitive, rather than an independent complementizer, is the fact that a number of main verbs, such as a opri din a+inf. and a impiedica de a+inf. have their own, lexically determined prepositional complementizers (cf. Table 6.5). This analysis is further corroborated by the fact that all prepositional infinitives are preceded by the respective preposition and the particle a, as will become evident in the following section.

6.2 6.2.1

Synchronic use of prepositional infinitives Finite and non-finite adjuncts

Apart from the auxiliary/modal constructions in Section (6.1.2), by far the most common environment for the use of the infinitive in Romanian is in prepositional clauses. As Table 6.6. shows, this construction stands in serious competition with its finite counterpart. Table 6.6. – Prepositional Infinitives Preposition/Conjunction spre a/s˘ a ‘in order to’ pentru a/ca s˘ a ‘in order to’ ˆınainte de a/s˘ a ‘before’ prin a/faptul c˘ a ‘by means of’ f˘ ar˘ a a/s˘ a ‘without’ pˆ an˘ a (la) a/ce,s˘ a,cˆ and ‘until’ ˆın loc de a/s˘ a ‘instead of’ dup˘ a a/ce ‘after’

% inf. 98.75 90.17 81.33 62.71 39.45 18.85 6.51 0.05

% finite 1.25 9.15 18.44 36.46 60.55 81.15 93.49 99.5

% supine 0.67 0.22 8.83

Table 6.6. shows that the proportion of infinitival to finite clauses introduced by morphologically cognate preposition/conjunction pairs varies considerably. For instance, a strong tendency for adjuncts introduced by the typical [purpose] markers such as pentru and spre to be infinitival can be observed. To determine whether this is, in fact, due to the semantic properties of these prepositions, a separate, semantically-based analysis is required, as there is a certain asymmetry between the inventory of prepositions and corresponding conjunctions in Romanian. For example, the finite counterpart of spre a, i.e. the final conjunction spre s˘ a, is extremely rare; on the other hand, the common final conjunction ca s˘ a has no prepositional equivalent, and the underspecified conjunction s˘ a is also often used to introduce final adjuncts. A further construction not to be overlooked in this context is la+supine, which frequently carries final meaning34 . The overall distribution of final clauses in the 17 million word corpus of modern Romanian examined here, as seen in Table 6.7., shows that the infinitive is used in more than half of all final dependent clauses. Table 6.7. – Final Constructions 34

Though often best translated by a final clause, de+supine expresses possibility, not purpose.

6.2. SYNCHRONIC USE OF PREPOSITIONAL INFINITIVES

169

Final construction Percentage pentru a+infinitive 45.77 % ca s˘ a+subjunctive 25.18 % s˘ a+subjunctive 15.73 % spre a+infinitive 7.62 % pentru ca s˘ a+subjunctive 4.65 % la+supine 0.62 % pentru+supine 0.34 % spre s˘ a+subjunctive 0.09 % —————————————————— total infinitive construction 53.39 % total finite construction 45.56 % total supine construction 1.05 %

6.2.2

Noun complements

A further area in which infinitive complements are clearly preferred over their finite counterparts is in prepositional complements of nouns, as seen in Table 6.8. Table 6.8. – Noun + complement: Complement Type noun + de a + infinitive noun + c˘ a + finite verb noun + de + supine noun + s˘ a+finite verb

Percentage 56.78 % 25.79 % 11.01 % 6.42 %

Nouns do not necessarily have a specific agent or subject, and this would appear to be conducive to the use of infinitival complements sharing the non-specific or ‘arbitrary’ subject of the head noun, similar to (300) above. But while subjectless or ‘ive’ noun complementation is one of the functions of the infinitive in other Romance languages such as Spanish, this domain is covered by the supine in Romanian35 . This is true for lexicalized constructions such as Span. goma de mascar, Ital. gomma da masticare, Rom. gum˘ a de mestecat ‘chewing gum’, as well as new concepts (302). 302. Span.: En efecto: para ´el, la casa es ‘una m´ aquina de vivir’ y reconcibe la manera de construir.36 in effect, for him, the house is a machine DE liveinf and reconceives the way of constructing

In effect, for him the house is a ‘dwelling machine’ and he conceives a new way of building. Rom.: Locuint¸a nu este un obiect, o ma¸sin˘a de locuit,...

37

dwelling.place.the not is an object, a machine DE dwellsupine ...

The dwelling place isn’t an object, a dwelling machine,... The Romanian infinitive, in contrast, is typically used coreferentially, as the complement of nouns with a specific agent, either explicit as genitival agent (303), or pragmatically implied 35

For an in-depth survey of the exact usage and limitations of the supine, see Manoliu-Manea (1985: 279-291). http://www.tam.itesm.mx/art/arquit/earqui05.htm 37 Mircea Eliade: Sacrul si profanul, Cap.1, Cosmogonie ¸si sacrificiu de construct¸ie Bucure¸sti: Humanitas, 1995. 36

170

CHAPTER 6. THE INFINITIVE IN ROMANIAN

(304). 303. capacitatea sa de a cˆınta la toate instrumentele 38 ability.the his DE to playinf on all instruments.the

his ability to play any instrument 304. G˘asise o metod˘a ingenioas˘a de a evita acest cuvˆant. 39 find3rd.sg.P luperf a method ingenious DE to avoidinf this word

He had found an ingenious way of avoiding this word. With nouns that cannot have an agent, thus making coreferentiality impossible, finite clauses (305) are the more common alternative, but infinitival complementation is also found (306), particularly when there is a link such as ownership of the head noun by the complement subject. 305. Cred c˘a a venit timpul s˘a semneze cu adev˘aratu-i nume.

40

I.believe that has come time.the SA sign3rd.sg.pres.subjctv with true.the-DAT.PRON3rd.sg name

I think the time has come for him to sign with his real name. 306. Am cel putin timpul de a-mi bea cafeaua.

41

I.have the little time.the DE to-DAT.PRON1st.sg drinkinf coffee.the

At least I have the time to drink my coffee. However, with this type of head noun, infinitival complementation is comparatively rare; for example, ocazia de a ‘the occasion to’ takes the infinitive in a quarter of cases, and timpul de a ‘the time to’ in only 6% of all tokens. This suggests that there is a link between coreferentiality and the choice of an infinitival clause, even when the agent of the noun does not appear as a syntactic subject. This will be examined in more detail in Section 6.4.1 below.

6.2.3

Summary and analysis of the synchronic data

The synchronic data presented in this section provides clear evidence that infinitival clauses are an integral part of modern Romanian syntax; whilst infinitival complements, apart from the doubtful case with a putea, are a relatively marginal phenomenon, mostly restricted to very formal , this cannot be said of prepositional infinitival adjuncts. In the following section (6.3), it will indeed be seen that at least one type of infinitival construction, the prepositional infinitive, is on the increase. Romanian does not differ fundamentally from the majority of Romance varieties regarding the type of constructions that the infinitive can occur in. Examples have been provided to illustrate the various types of shared infinitival constructions. There are two things that do set Romanian apart from most other Romance languages. 42 The first is the fact that a number of verbs and prepositions rule out the use of an infinitival clause, 38

Romˆ ania Literar˘ a 3, 24.1.1996; Lecturi. Monica Spiridon: Introducere in metoda lui Paul Cornea. Romˆ ania Literar˘ a 41, 18.10.1995; Centenar Alexandru Rosetti. Toma Pavel: Un incoruptibil al culturii romˆ aane. 40 Romˆ ania Literar˘ a 34, 26.9.1998; Dorin Tudoran: Pupat tot¸i piat¸a unive’sit˘ a¸ti – Riscul de ¸tar˘ a ¸si riscul de tat˘ a. 41 Romˆ ania Literar˘ a 7, 19.2.1997; Iordan Chimet¸: Scrisori printre grat¸ii Odysseas Elytis. 42 However, the southern Italian dialects that were traditionally believed to have lost the infinitive almost completely (cf. Rohlfs, 1922: 219) appear to use the infinitive in much the same way as Romanian (cf. Ledgeway, 1998). 39

6.3. DIACHRONIC DEVELOPMENT OF THE PREPOSITIONAL INFINITIVE

171

most notably a vrea ‘to want’, or concessive prepositions. However, similar local restrictions are found in other Romance languages, too. For instance, the Spanish prepositions a pesar de ‘despite’ and temporal desde ‘since’ also show a strong resistance to infinitival use, and it can be argued decir ‘to say’ cannot take infinitival complements, since the construction decir+infinitive is a seperate, aspectually different verb meaning ‘to claim’ 43 . The second difference is the optionality of the infinitive construction. In Section 3.1, it has been shown that in the majority of Spanish and Portuguese constructions, specific reference patterns trigger obligatory replacement of a finite clause with its infinitival counterpart. In Romanian, in contrast, there is (except in certain auxiliary constructions) no syntactically binding context necessitating use of the infinitive. This means that the principle difference between Romanian and its western sister languages is merely one of obligatoriness, and as a result also one of quantity. This is particularly notable with regard to subjects and direct object complements, whilst prepositional adjunct constructions appear to be a more favourable environment for the infinitive. It is these prepositional infinitives that will be examined in more detail in the following sections of this chapter.

6.3

Diachronic development of the prepositional infinitive

It is sometimes suggested (eg. Close, 1974: 227) that the present-day usage of infinitives is largely the result of foreign influence, in particular the imitation of similar French structures, by certain influential 19th century authors44 . Close (1974: 220) argues that “by the beginning of the 19th century, [the infinitive] was practically confined to certain constructions”, but that it was revived (not calqued) in other constructions due to the influence of Western European languages. Whether a fashionable stylistic feature, used by one particular group of authors, is likely to permeate a language that, at the time, was largely that of an illiterate population, is debatable. Furthermore, even authors from the same period who are known not to have been influenced by Western European style use the corresponding infinitive structures. Whilst the literary and sociological aspects of the issue are beyond the scope of this study, this section will provide statistical information on the development of one type of infinitive construction, the prepositional infinitive, which will, in turn, shed some new light onto the possible motivation for its emergence and evolution.

6.3.1

The situation in Old Romanian

From the earliest preserved Old Romanian (i.e. 16 th century) texts, the infinitive is normally preceded by a, except with modal/auxiliary verbs and the construction a avea+indirect whquestion. A certain variation is found even with the future auxiliary a vrea 45 and the deontic modal a putea46 , which occasionally link their infinitive complements with a; with the epistemic/future a avea a, the subordinator is obligatory 47 . 43

Cf. Section 3.1.3 Among these famous authors are Ion Eliade R˘ adulescu, Barbu Paris Mumuleanu, Iana V˘ ac˘ arescu, Grigore Alexandrescu, according to Close (1974). 45 E.g. c˘ a vet¸i cu adev˘ ar a afla ‘that you will surely A find’, preface of the Palia de la Or˘ a¸stie (1581-1582), as edited by M. Avram in Iordan (1962: 166). 46 E.g. cum s˘ a poatˆ a ¸si ei propovedui ¸si a spune... ‘how they, too, can preach and A say’, epilogue of the Tˆılcul Evanghelilor (1564), as edited by M. Avram in Iordan (1962: 162). 47 E.g. s˘ a aib˘ a a dar˘e ‘that he should A give’, Sentint¸a ˘ din 1588, as edited by M. Avram in Iordan (1962: 151). 44

172

CHAPTER 6. THE INFINITIVE IN ROMANIAN

A also functions as a semantically bleached infinitival complementizer, both for object complements (307) and subject complements (308).

307. ...c˘a uitaiu a m˘anca p˘anr˘e mea 48 that I.forgot to eatinf bread.the POS.PRON1st.sg

...that I forgot to eat my bread 308. ˆIn sf˘anta bes˘erecˆa mai bine e a grˆ ai cinci cuvinte cu ˆınt¸eles decˆat 10 mie de cuvinte 49 neˆınt¸el˘ese ˆın limbˆa striinˆa. in holy.the church more good is to speakinf five words with sense...

In the holy church it is better to say five words with sense than ten thousand incomprehensible words in a foreign language. But at the same time, a still retains its final meaning in other contexts, introducing purpose adjuncts (309).

309. ... ce-mi era d˘aruit de Dumnezeu a da la acest lucru. 50 ... REL.PRON.-to.me was given from God A giveinf to this work

... which was given to me by God to dedicate to this work. Such infinitival purpose adjuncts are found relatively frequently; in fact, they occur in Old Romanian with almost exactly the same frequency as pentru/spre a+infinitive in the modern language, with approximately 9 instances per 10,000 words. In addition to these clear-cut cases, there are also numerous instances where a clear classification of a as either a final preposition introducing an adjunct, or as the complementizer of a complement with a final nuance, can be made, as in a fi ˆınv˘ a¸tat a51 (‘to be taught (in order) to’) or example (310). 310. ...ca s˘a fie tare ¸si put˘arnece a ¸tin˘e part˘e de ocen˘a de acol˘e52 as that be3rd.sg.subjnctv strong and powerful to holdinf part.the of property.the of there

...so that he may have the strength and power to keep that part of the property What is crucial for the further development is that Old Romanian did not have prepositional infinitives apart from the final construction with a. This is a result of the hybrid function of a as a grammaticalized, semantically bleached marker of the infinitive on the one hand, but as an introducing element for final adjuncts on the other. The (in most contexts) obligatory nature of the sequence a+infinitive rules out replacing a by a different preposition; at the same time, the fact that a also still functions as a fully semantic preposition appears to make the sequence preposition+a+infinitive unacceptable. 53 Therefore, the modern Romanian prepositional infinitive construction can only start evolving freely after a has all but lost its prepositional function. 48

Psaltirea Hurmuzaki, Psalm of David No.101, as edited by F. Dimitrescu in Iordan (1962: 170). Epilogue of the Tetraevanghelul by Hans Benker (1561), as edited by M. Avram in Iordan (1962: 151). 50 From the introduction to an edition of Coresi’s Evanghelia cu ˆınv˘ a¸ta ˘tur˘ a printed in 1580/81, as edited by M. Avram in Iordan (1962: 164-165). 51 ibid. 52 Sentint¸a ˘ din 1588, as edited by M. Avram in Iordan (1962: 151). 53 Note that this is not a necessary consequence; German um zu or older English for to is acceptable in these languages, even though zu/to retains a separate prepositional function. 49

6.3. DIACHRONIC DEVELOPMENT OF THE PREPOSITIONAL INFINITIVE

6.3.2

173

The evolution of the prepositional infinitive

In accordance with a retaining its prepositional status in some usages, one of the first prepositions to take infinitives is de, as it is semantically imprecise or “transparent” (Sim˜oes Fr˜oes, 1995). As Fig. 6.1 shows how de gradually begins to gain significance in the 18 th century, increasing in frequency rapidly from the 19th century onwards. de a + infinitive 250 225

per 100,000 words

200

de a + infinitive

175

Linear regression, de a + infinitive

150 125 100 75 50 25 0 1560

1580

1600

1620

1640

1660

1680

1700

1720

1740

1760

1780

1800

1820

1840

1860

1880

1900

1920

1940

1960

1980

2000

year

Figure 6.1: de a + infinitive Even earlier, at the beginning of the 18 th century, the first appearance of abessive f˘ ar˘ a a + infinitive can be found. Significantly, it is from the very beginning not restricted to formal or literary , but can, for instance, be found in the cook book O lume ˆıntr-o carte de bucate, in a recipe for cooked bottle gourds (311).

311. Apoi las˘a s˘a stea un ceas - doao, pˆan˘a ce-¸si va l˘asa bine zeama, f˘ ar˘ a a-l pune pe foc. 54 then leaveimprtv.sg that remains one hour - two, until that-REFLDat will leave well juice.the, without to-it putinf on fire

Then, leave it to stand for one to two hours, until it is well juiced, without putting it onto the fire. Like de a +inf., f˘ ar˘ a a also becomes significantly more frequent towards the end of the 19 th century, as seen in Fig. 6.2. fara a + infinitive 27,5 25

per 100,000 words

22,5 20

fãrã a+infinitive

17,5

Linear regression, fãrã a+infinitive

15 12,5 10 7,5 5 2,5 0 1560

1580

1600

1620

1640

1660

1680

1700

1720

1740

1760

1780

1800

1820

1840

1860

1880

1900

1920

1940

1960

1980

2000

year

Figure 6.2: f˘ ar˘ a a+ infinitive Temporal pˆ an˘ a (la) a+infinitive is also found as early as the 18 th century (312), used in a slightly different sense than its modern meaning ‘until’. To the present day, it appears to be a matter of personal preference whether or not authors use pˆ an˘ a (la) a+inf., but it has, in any case, been available since the 18th century. 54

O lume ˆıntr-o carte de bucate – Tigve, Brˆ ancovenesc manuscript.

174

CHAPTER 6. THE INFINITIVE IN ROMANIAN

312. Am socotit, pˆına ˆımi sˆınt mint¸ile ˆıntregi ¸si pˆına a nu m˘a cuprinde de tot sl˘abiciunea, de mi-am f˘acut diiata...55 I.have thought, until meDat are minds.the complete and until to not meDat gripinf of all weakness.the, PREP meDat -I.have made will.the

I have decided, as long as my mind is sane and as long as weakness hasn’t completely taken hold of me, to make my will...

In the early 19th century, final spre a+infinitive also catches on (Fig. 6.3). This is of some significance in the sequence of emerging prepositional infinitives, as the use of a new final preposition in combination with a means that the latter is likely to have lost all or most of its final force at this stage. spre a + infinitive 27,5 25

per 100,000 words

22,5 20

spre a+infinitive

17,5

Linear regression, spre a+infinitive

15 12,5 10 7,5 5 2,5 0 1560

1580

1600

1620

1640

1660

1680

1700

1720

1740

1760

1780

1800

1820

1840

1860

1880

1900

1920

1940

1960

1980

2000

year

Figure 6.3: spre a+ infinitive

Following on the heels of spre a+inf., final pentru a+inf. appears (Fig. 6.4). Once available, it rapidly becomes the most frequent prepositional infinitive, and together with the largely synonymous spre a it effectively takes on the role of Old Romanian final a+infinitive; the t development of these two final prepositional infinitives can be seen in Fig. 6.5.

pentru a + infinitive

100 90

per 100,000 words

80 70 60 50

pentru a+infinitive Linear regression, pentru a+infinitive

40 30 20 10 0 1560 1580 1600 1620 1640 1660 1680 1700 1720 1740 1760 1780 1800 1820 1840 1860 1880 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000

year

Figure 6.4: pentru a+ infinitive

55

Diata Stanc˘ ai (1784).

6.3. DIACHRONIC DEVELOPMENT OF THE PREPOSITIONAL INFINITIVE

175

final preposition + infinitive 110 100

per 100,000 words

90 80

final prep + infinitive

70

Linear regression, final prep + infinitive

60 50 40 30 20 10 0 1560

1580

1600

1620

1640

1660

1680

1700

1720

1740

1760

1780

1800

1820

1840

1860

1880

1900

1920

1940

1960

1980

2000

year

Figure 6.5: final prepositions + infinitive Instrumental prin a and temporal ˆınainte de a follow suit, gradually gaining popularity from the end of the 19th century onwards. (Figs. 6.6 and 6.7, respectively.)

prin a + infinitive 7

per 100,000 words

6 5 prin a+infinitive 4

Linear regression, prin a+infinitive

3 2 1 0 1560

1580

1600

1620

1640

1660

1680

1700

1720

1740

1760

1780

1800

1820

1840

1860

1880

1900

1920

1940

1960

1980

2000

year

Figure 6.6: prin a+ infinitive

inainte de a + infinitive 20

per 100,000 words

17,5 15

înainte de a+infinitive

12,5

Linear regression, înainte de a+infinitive

10 7,5 5 2,5 0 1560

1580

1600

1620

1640

1660

1680

1700

1720

1740

1760

1780

1800

1820

1840

1860

1880

1900

1920

1940

1960

1980

2000

year

Figure 6.7: ˆınainte de a+ infinitive Interestingly, no counterpart to ˆınainte de a with anterior main clause has, to the present day, gained comparable popularity. Neither of the temporal prepositions dup˘ a or ˆın urma (de) commonly introduces an infinitival clause. On a smaller scale, a similar development can be observed for the prepositional expression ˆın loc de a+infinitive ‘in place of, instead of’. This is significant because it shows that the prepositions taking infinitves are not necessarily monomorphic; however, the development visible in Fig. 6.8 does show a delayed onset of the rise in frequency, which only becomes evident in the mid-20 th century.

176

CHAPTER 6. THE INFINITIVE IN ROMANIAN in loc de a + infinitive

5,5

per 100,000 words

5 4,5 4

în loc de a + infinitive

3,5

Linear regression, în loc de a + infinitive

3 2,5 2 1,5 1 0,5 0 1560

1580

1600

1620

1640

1660

1680

1700

1720

1740

1760

1780

1800

1820

1840

1860

1880

1900

1920

1940

1960

1980

2000

year

Figure 6.8: ˆın loc de a + infinitive To complete this survey, it must be mentioned that no concessive infinitival structure has emerged to the present day, the conjunction de¸si covering the entire concessive domain. The concessive preposition ˆın ciuda does not take infinitival clauses. This may be due to the fact that it requires its argument to take genitive case, for which the infinitive has no morphological provisions, as discussed in Section 3.4.3. On the other hand, a similar resistance to concessive infinitival clauses in Spanish and Portuguese, as illustrated in the respective chapters, would suggest a common reason in all three languages; this will be discussed further in Section 6.4. The causal domain has similarly remained exclusively finite and gerundial; the preposition din cauza does not take infinitival clauses, and the clausal conjunctions pentru c˘ a, fiindc˘ a, deoarece and ˆıntrucˆ at do not have prepositional counterparts.

6.3.3

The proportion of infinitival and finite clauses through time

An important question raised by the increase in prepositional infinitives over the last two centuries is how this has affected the frequency of the alternative finite constructions. Due to limitations of space, the relative proportion of finite and infinitival clauses cannot be examined for each prepositional infinitive separately. However, their interdependence can be exemplified with reference to the most common prepositional infinitive, pentru a+inf. and its finite counterpart pentru ca (s˘ a) (Fig. 6.9). final "pentru ca" + finite clause VS. pentru a + infinitive 100 90

per 100,000 words

80 70 pentru a+infinitive

60

pentru ca

50

Linear regression, pentru a+infinitive

40

Linear regression, pentru ca

30 20 10 0 1800

1810

1820

1830

1840

1850

1860

1870

1880

1890

1900

1910

1920

1930

1940

1950

1960

1970

1980

1990

2000

year

Figure 6.9: pentru ca (s˘ a) + finite clause vs. pentru a + infinitive Both the finite and the infinitival construction increase in frequency, but the infinitival one rises from zero to a number far exceeding that of its finite counterpart. The comparison of the overall usage of finite and infinitival final clauses (cf. Table 6.7. above) in Fig. 6.10 shows how their respective frequencies converge, leading to approximate parity between the finite and infinitival construction in the modern language.

6.4. PRAGMATIC CAUSATION

177

final conjunction + finite clause VS. final preposition + infinitive 225

per 100,000 words

200

final prep + infinitive

175

final conjunctions

150 125 100 75 50 25 1880

1890

1900

1910

1920

1930

1940

1950

1960

1970

1980

1990

2000

year

Figure 6.10: final conjunction + finite clause vs. final preposition + infinitive

6.4

Pragmatic causation

6.4.1

The subject of Romanian infinitival clauses

In the previous chapters, a link between the pragmatic likelihood of subject coreference on the one hand, and the increase in prepositional infinitives on the other, was observed for Spanish and Portuguese. In order to establish whether similar mechanisms are responsible for the developments in Romanian, the first step must be to take a closer look at typical subject reference patterns in infinitival clauses. In Section 6.2.3, it was observed that unlike the majority of Romance languages, Romanian never requires the use of the infinitive in coreferential dependent clauses except in auxiliary constructions. On the other hand, these auxiliary constructions and the verbs in Table 6.2. suggest that there is, nevertheless, a connection between coreferentiality and the infinitive, whilst with the causative verbs in Table 6.5. the dependent clause subject is coreferent with the direct object of the main verb. These patterns resemble the pragmatically-based default patterns established for Spanish and Portuguese in Section 3.1, but as in Spanish and Portuguese, they are not exclusive. On the one hand, these default patterns are not binding. As seen in sentences (289) and (301), if there is sufficient pragmatic clarity regarding the identity of the subject of the dependent clause, there is no need for PRO to receive the coindexation that would be assigned by default. On the other hand, Romanian allows infinitives to have overt subjects. Mensching (2000: 37) goes so far as to claim that “[g]enerally, it seems that whenever speakers accept an infinitive construction, they also accept the fact that it may have a specified subject.” Though this is technically the case, overt subjects in infinitival direct object complements of verbs such as those in Tables 6.2., 6.4. and 6.5. are virtually always those predicted by the standard assignment pattern. Their function is merely to repeat and emphasize the subject, and they are typically accompanied by an emphatic pronoun ˆınsu¸si ‘himself’, or by ¸si ‘too, also’. Sentence (313) illustrates the use with an intrinsically coreferential verb; it remains ambiguous whether ¸si eu is, in fact, an overt infinitival subject or the postposed subject of the main verb ˆındr˘ aznesc, as these must always be identical. 313. Cˆand a venit momentul [...] s˘a ˆındr˘aznesc a semna ¸si eu o astfel de rubric˘a,... 56 when has come moment.the [...] that I.dare to f also I a such rubric

When the time has come [...] that I, too, dare to sign such a rubric,... Sentences (314-315) illustrate how causative verbs can also have emphatic overt subjects, but that this subject must obligatorily be coreferent with the direct object of the main verb. 56

Romˆ ania Literar˘ a 19, 17.5.2000, Aniversare Geo Dumitrescu; Constant¸a Buzea: Scrisoarea r˘ at˘ acit˘ a

178

CHAPTER 6. THE INFINITIVE IN ROMANIAN

314. M-a obligat a-l ajuta ¸si eu/∗tu pe fratele meu. meacc.sg -has obliged to-himacc.sg helpinf also I/∗you ACC.PARTCL. brother.the my

He put it upon me that I/∗you, too, should help my brother. 315. M-a sf˘atuit a-l c˘auta eu ˆınsumi/∗tu ˆınsut¸i pe preotul satului ca s˘a ˆıl ˆıntreb de infinitive. meacc.sg -has advised to-himacc.sg searchinf I myself/∗you yourself ACC.PARTCL priest.the...

He advised me that I myself should find the village priest to ask him about infinitives. Whilst in the above two examples it is logically, or at least pragmatically, impossible for the complement to have a subject other than the one predictable from the main verb, optionally coreferential verbs such as those in Table 6.4. do not take infinitival complements with overt non-coreferential subjects, either; the association of the infinitive with subject coreference appears to prevail with these verbs. Overt infinitive subjects have a more meaningful role in constructions that lack these relatively strict patterns of subject assignment. Impersonal expressions, for one, do not themselves contain any information as to the identity of the subject of their complement, so there is a greater pragmatic need to express it overtly, as seen in sentence (316). 316. E b˘arb˘a¸tie ¸si curagiu a ˆınfrunta cineva valurile lumii minciunoase. 57 is manliness and courage to faceinf someone waves.the world.theGen.Sg. full.of.lies

It is manliness and courage (for one) to face the waves of a world full of lies. Even more commonly, overt subjects specify the subject in complements of nouns, as the noun itself does not normally assign a subject to its complement in a predictable way (317). 317. Obt¸ine de la rege agrementul de a forma el un guvern... 58 obtains from PREP king commission.the PREP to forminf he a government

He receives the king’s commission that he should form a government. Prepositional infinitives can also be accompanied by overt subjects, either for emphasis, or because it is not coreferent with the main clause subject (318),(319). 318. V˘a rug˘am nu mai parcat¸i decˆat la domiciliul dv. pentru a putea ¸si noi s˘a parc˘am la domiciliul nostru.59 youAcc.polite ask1st.pl not more park2nd.polite except at home your for to be.ableinf also we that park1st.pl at home our

Would you please not park anywhere except outside your house, so that we, too, can park outside our house. 319. Cu put¸in timp ˆınainte de a ajunge eu ˆın T ¸ ara Sfˆant˘a, Sebastian Costin facuse un infarct. 60 with little time before DE to arriveinf I in land.the holy, S.C. made a heart.attack

Shortly before I arrived in the Holy Land, Sebastian Costin had a heart attack. However, the possibility of having overt subjects does not mean that they occur very frequently. On the contrary, only about one in 400 infinitives has an overt subject. Of these, about half are merely emphatic, while the rest actually specifies a subject other than the one that would otherwise have been assigned. Even though the majority of those instances occur with prepositional infinitives, it remains a minute proportion of the total number of prepositional infinitives. 57

Romˆ ania Literar˘ a 34, 25.8.2000, Lecturi la zi; Ioana Pavulescu: Riscurile meseriei Romˆ ania Literar˘ a 50, 20.12.2000, Cronica edit¸iilor; Z. Ornea: Patronul ‘Universului’ 59 Note left behind my windscreen wiper in Bucharest, 1998. 60 Romˆ ania Literar˘ a 10, 18.3.1998; Gheorghe Schwartz: Amurgul unei literaturi 58

6.4. PRAGMATIC CAUSATION

179

Consequently, by far the most common pattern of subject assignment in prepositional infinitive clauses is coreferentiality, and as in Spanish and Portuguese, this link plays an important part in the readiness of certain prepositions to take infinitival clauses. As discussed in Section 3.2, a similar tendency for the availability of overt subjects not to be exploited for the purpose of introducing subjects other than those predicted by the normal assignment patterns is also apparent in Spanish and Portuguese.

6.4.2

Romanian in comparison with Spanish and Portuguese

The most obvious and striking observation when comparing the Romanian data with those of Spanish and Portuguese is that, on the whole, the prepositional infinitives corresponding to those that evolved earliest and strongest in Spanish and Portuguese are also the ones found most frequently in Romanian. As the timing of their first appearance rules out cultural borrowing or calquing from other Romance languages, it must be assumed that we are dealing with an independent development. A further argument in of independent development is the fact that Romanian prepositional infinitives obligatorily involve the particle a interpolated between preposition and infinitive, which gives the construction an appearance rather unlike its French or Italian counterparts. Indeed, in the 19th century, when Romanian was subjected to strong cultural influence from , authors did, occasionally, use calqued infinitive constructions without the a, as seen in Sentence (320) taken from Ion Ghica’s Scrisori cˆ atre V. Alecsandri, written in 1887. 320. Porunce¸ste de-i aduce ˆındat˘a un caftan ¸si-l ˆımbrac˘a. order3rd.sg DE-himDat. immediately a caftan...

He gives order to bring him a caftan immediately and puts it on. Romanian prepositional infinitives having emerged independently and at a later stage than in the other Romance languages, a detailed comparison can be expected to reveal similarities in their distribution, which in turn will allow conclusions about cross-linguistic factors facilitating this parallel development.

Synchronic comparison Table 6.9. shows the present-day proportion of prepositional infinitives to their finite counterparts in Romanian, Spanish and Portuguese. Table 6.9. – Percentage of prepositional clauses Preposition/Conjunction

% inf.

% finite

final

Romanian Spanish Portuguese

53.39 % 45.56 % 84.44 % 15.56 % 89.95 % 10.05 %

‘before’

Rom. ˆınainte de a / ˆınainte s˘ a Span. antes de / antes (de) que Port. antes de / antes (de) que

81.33 % 18.44 % 59.50 % 40.5 % 90.77 % 9.23 %

180

CHAPTER 6. THE INFINITIVE IN ROMANIAN

‘without’

Rom. f˘ ar˘ a a / f˘ ar˘ a s˘ a Span. sin / sin que Port. sem / sem que

39.45 % 60.55 % 84.79 % 15.21 % 79.74 % 20.26 %

‘until’

Rom. pˆ an˘ a (la) a / pˆ an˘ a ce/s˘ a/cˆ and Span. hasta / hasta que Port. at´e / at´e que

18.85 % 81.15 % 28.99 % 71.01 % 48.62 % 51.38 %

‘instead of’ Rom. ˆın loc de a / ˆın loc (ca) s˘ a Span. en vez,lugar de / en vez,lugar (de) que Port. em vez,lugar de / e vez,lugar (de) que

6.51 % 93.49 % 99.39 % 0.61 % 99.89 % 0.11 %

‘after’

0.05 % 99.5 % 57.42 % 42.58 % 97.74 % 2.26 %

Rom. (dup˘ a a), ˆın urma de a / dup˘ a ce Span. despu´es/luego de, tras / despu´es de que Port. depois(de)/segundo/ap´ os / depois (de) que

‘concessive’ Rom. (ˆın/cu ciuda de a)/de¸si, cu toate c˘ a Span. a pesar de, pese a / aunque, a pesar de que Port. apesar de / apesar (de), ainda, embora que

0.00 % 61 100.00 % 4.61 % 95.39 % 16.92 % 83.08 %

On the whole, Table 6.9. shows that the proportion of prepositional infinitives is generally lower in Romanian than it is in Spanish and Portuguese. This is, however, not surprising, as the infinitive is never obligatory in the Romanian constructions. It is, therefore, perhaps more surprising that in the final domain, as well as the temporal domain with anterior main clause (‘before’), the prepositional construction dominates in all three languages. Similarly, abessive ‘without’ often takes the infinitive, though not in the majority of cases in Romanian. The infinitival construction with ‘until’ is less dominant in all three languages, but nevertheless it s for a significant proportion of this type of temporal clause. At the other end of the scale, similarities can also be observed: in the concessive domain, the infinitive is of far less importance in all three languages. Significant differences are found in the usage of ‘instead of’ and ‘after’, which commonly take the infinitive in Spanish and Portuguese, but not in Romanian. A comparative look at the historical development of these prepositional infinitives provides some clues why this may be the case.

Diachronic comparison Parallels between Romanian, Spanish and Portuguese are evident in the development of the more frequently occurring prepositional infinitives: de a+inf. appears early on in Romanian (Fig. 6.1), and de+inf. is also present from the earliest Spanish and Portuguese texts (Fig. 4.12). Similarly, f˘ ar˘ a a+inf. and ˆınainte de a+inf. appear early on in Romanian (cf. Figs.6.2 and 6.7), and so do the corresponding constructions in Spanish and Portuguese (cf. Figs.5.7 and 5.2). In the final domain, the situation is more complex, as the final preposition itself changes in both Ibero-Romance and Romanian. In Fig. 4.9 it has been shown how para takes over the final domain from por in Spanish in the 16th and 17th century; this is subsequently ed by Span. a fin de+inf. (cf. Fig. 4.21, and Port. a fim de+inf. (cf. Fig. 5.11) the latter having experienced a strong increase since the late 19 th century. From a semantic point of view, however,

6.4. PRAGMATIC CAUSATION

181

it is important to note that final prepositional infinitives have been present, and comparatively common, from the very earliest texts. This is also true for Romanian, which has also experienced a replacement of the final preposition involved in the construction. In Section (6.3.1), it has been illustrated how a still frequently functions as a preposition introducing final infinitival clauses in the 16th century, and it is argued that its continuing grammaticalization and semantic bleaching leads to the rise of spre a+inf. and pentru a+inf. (cf. Figs. 6.3 and 6.4). The final domain can therefore be said to be particularly closely linked to the prepositional infinitive, as this construction is not only the first, or among the first, to emerge, but also remains the construction in which infinitival clauses are most dominant compared to finite ones. At first sight, there appears to be less similarity regarding the substitutional domain (‘instead of’). In Spanish and Portuguese, the infinitive is used in these clauses in almost every case (Table 6.9)., while in Romanian there is a clear dominance of the finite structure in this domain. But the diachronic development in Spanish, as charted in Fig. 4.20 to compare the differential development of en lugar de+inf. and en vez de+inf. and conflated into a single graph in Fig. 6.11, shows how the synchronic discrepancy between Romanian and Spanish might be explained from a diachronic perspective. en lugar/vez de 30

per 100000 words

25 20 15 10 5 0 1100

1150

1200

1250

1300

1350

1400

1450

1500

1550

1600

1650

1700

1750

1800

1850

1900

1950

2000

year

Figure 6.11: Span. en lugar/vez de + infinitive Fig. 6.11 shows that it took ‘two attempts’ for the Spanish construction to gain today’s degree of acceptance and usage, having occurred in the 16 th and the first half of the 17th century to some extent, but only re-entered the language to reach its current usage frequency relatively recently, around the beginning of the 19 th century. The ‘two attempts’ show that in this domain there is little predictability regarding the evolutionary trajectory, and that no clear or natural tendency towards the dominance of either the finite or the infinitival construction in the ‘substitutional’ domain. Since prepositional infinitives have emerged much more recently in Romanian, it is possible that ˆın loc de a+inf. is yet to gain the popularity that Span. en vez/lugar de+inf. has acquired over the last 200 years or so. Concessive prepositional infinitives have also only appeared comparatively recently in Spanish (cf. Section 4.2.5), and their overall share of concessive clauses (Fig. 4.36) remains very small, so here, too, a parallel between Romanian and Spanish can be observed, and it may be speculated that, in time, concessive prepositional infinitives will begin to enter Romanian, too. For ‘after’, on the other hand, no such explanation seems likely. In Figs. 4.27 and 4.28, it was shown that Span. antes de+inf. and despu´es de+inf. emerged at roughly the same time, and subsequently continued to develop along similar lines. The asymmetry between commonly used ˆınainte de a+inf. (‘before’) and virtually non-existent dup˘ a a+inf. or ˆın urma de a+inf. (‘after’) in Romanian is more reminiscent of the asymmetry between frequently used hasta+inf.

182

CHAPTER 6. THE INFINITIVE IN ROMANIAN

and virtually non-existent desde+inf. in Spanish, and also the corresponding Portuguese and Romanian pairs of prepositions (at´e – desde k pˆ an˘ a (la) a – de a 62 ). Coreferentiality and pragmatic likelihood The degree of similarity between Romanian, Spanish, and Portuguese in of the order in which the different prepositional infinitives enter the languages, and in of their present-day distribution, suggests that the parallels are unlikely to be coincidental. If between the respective languages cannot be held responsible, then the data presented for Romanian in this chapter provides strong for the pragmatically-based hypothesis proposed for Spanish in Section 4.4. Throughout this chapter, it has been shown that the patterns by which the subject of infinitives are assigned in Romanian resemble those found in Spanish and Portuguese: whilst some particular main verbs trigger object control, the default pattern with most verbs and prepositions is subject coreferentiality between main and dependent clause. In all three languages, infinitives are capable of taking their own, overt subject, by which the default pattern of subject assignment may be broken. However, the number of cases in which this happens is comparatively small, and even those infinitives with overt subjects regularly conform to the default pattern, the overt subject merely having an emphatic or contrastive function. This close association of prepositional infinitives with coreferentiality plays a central role in their rise and frequency, as the main verb and the prepositional clause are more likely to share the same subject with some prepositions than with others in actual language use. Perhaps the two most extreme examples are the final construction on the one end of the scale, and the concessive one on the other: in all three languages examined here, final prepositional clauses are in their majority coreferential, whilst concessive ones share the main clause subject much less frequently. This was illustrated for Spanish in Fig. 4.43 (reproduced in Fig. 6.12 for convenience) and for Portuguese in Fig. 5.15 (6.13); Fig. 6.14 63 shows that in Romanian, too, final clauses are usually coreferential, whilst concessive clauses do not, in their majority, share the subject of their main clause. It should, in particular, be noted that the ratio of coreferential to non-coreferential clauses, final as well as concessive, remains remarkably stable over time in all three languages, with around 40% of all concessive clauses and around 80% of all finite clauses being coreferential.

Figure 6.12: Percentage of coreferential final and concessive dependent clauses in Spanish 62

De a+inf. is, of course, a very common construction in its other meanings, but it is never used to mean ‘since’. 63 Fig. 6.14 does not include verbless NPs or PPs, which might, arguably, be understood to be dependent clauses with copula ellipsis.

6.5. CONCLUSION

183

Figure 6.13: Overall percentage of coreferential final and concessive clauses in Portuguese white = final, black = concessive

Figure 6.14: Percentage of coreferential final and concessive dependent clauses in Romanian Similarly consistent rates of coreferential usage appear to apply for several of the clause types listed in Table 6.9. above, and more detailed classification according to this parameter may provide further insights into the relation between usage frequency and a preference or resistance to infinitival structures.

6.5

Conclusion

To conclude this chapter, it is at this point sufficient to observe that in Romanian, as in Spanish and Portuguese, there is a clear connection between the types of dependent clause favouring use of the infinitive on the one hand, and the likelihood of the respective construction being coreferential on the other. That is not to say that coreferentiality automatically triggers the use of the infinitive, as seen in the case of concessive constructions in all three languages, and all prepositional infinitives in Romanian. Nor does it rule out the use of the infinitive in noncoreferential clauses, if the identity of the subject can be determined by other strategies, such as overt person marking within the dependent clause or unambiguous contextual cues. The link between coreferentiality and prepositional infinitives manifests itself most clearly at a different level: the greater the number of coreferential tokens of a semantic type in actual language usage, the more likely it is for a prepositional construction to emerge at an early stage and become widely used.

Chapter 7

Relevance and reanalysis: prepositional complementizers 7.1

The emergence of prepositional complementizers

As discussed in Section 1.3.3, no clear dividing line can be drawn between what is traditionally referred to as peripheral clause or adjunct on the one hand, and clausal object or complement on the other, but it is nevertheless possible to identify prototypical instances of both. Whilst the previous chapters have largely concentrated on tracing the history of constructions that are relatively clearly classifiable as one or the other, this section will take a closer look at the grey area between the two prototypes. In particular, the usage of two prepositions, a and de, which in the modern language frequently function as complementizers of prototypical infinitival complements, will be examined diachronically in order to explain how they acquired this purely syntactic function in certain constructions, shedding their semantic content. The presented in this chapter is based on the assumption that individual ‘prepositional infinitives’ with a specific preposition can be subject to reanalysis processes of the kind described in Section 1.3.2, taking on the status of an independent construction (cf. Section 1.3.4) in which semantic and functional status is reassigned among its constituent elements.

7.1.1

The origin of prepositional infinitives

In Chapter 2 it was shown that the overall typology of Latin was different from that of Romance: Latin used inflectional morphology as its primary strategy to express the logical and semantic relationships between the constituents of a sentence, but large-scale reduction or loss of this morphology rendered this system non-functional. The Romance languages developed alternative strategies to clarify sentence-internal constituent relations, among which the use of prepositions figures prominently. Where Latin used a wide range of specific ‘nominal’ verb forms 1 whose morphological shape gave an indication of the dependent structure’s logical relation to the main verb, Romance expresses such relations by exploiting the originally purely physical sense of prepositions, widening their range of usage to cover semantically similar, but more abstract notions. This is already well established in the earliest surviving texts, as shown in the following 1 ¯ This includes prolative infinitives such as FACERE VOLO/POSSUM, where the infinitive is the direct object complement. The prepositionless prolative infinitive survives into Romance virtually unchanged, but it must be seen as entirely separate from prepositional infinitives constructions; it is obvious that prepositional infinitival complements are not based on the prolative construction, which had and has no need for a preposition to introduce a direct object clause.

185

186

CH. 7. RELEVANCE AND REANALYSIS: PREPOSITIONAL COMPLEMENTIZERS

examples from the Primera Cr´ onica General. 321. Abstract use of de
He had got up from sleeping. 322. Abstract use of a
The king rode together with him to escort him out of town. 323. Abstract use of pora
Then he and his sons rode on horseback to go there.

7.1.2

From adjunct to complement

Initially, such prepositional infinitives function only as typical adjuncts, providing additional information to the sentence that may be required pragmatically in the context of the utterance, but not syntactically by the argument structure of the main verb. But it is precisely these pragmatic (contextual) requirements that eventually lead to the gradual change in syntactic status of the prepositional infinitive, and thereby implicitly to a change of the preposition’s function. The semantic content of certain verbs makes it likely that the average language will be interested in a certain type of additional, ‘circumstantial’ information particularly frequently. Use of the Spanish verb aprender ‘to learn’, will often not just raise the question what is being learnt, but also what the [purpose] of this learning is. – Learning something does, after all, require an effort, and is thus unlikely to be done without a good reason or purpose; such a good reason is frequently worth mentioning. In other words, for the verb aprender, [purpose] very frequently has a high degree of pragmatic relevance 5 . At the same time, a great deal of semantic overlap between the [content] 6 (i.e. the material being learnt) and the [purpose] of learning can be expected: someone who acquires the skill of reading will do this for the primary purpose of being able to read. So in sentence (324), ‘a leer’ could be said to represent both the semantic [content] and the [purpose] of aprender. 324. Mi hermanito est´a aprendiendo a leer. my brotherdim learn3rd.sg.pres.cont to read

My little brother is learning to read. Originally, prepositional ‘a leer’ in such a sentence would have been used purely to express [purpose] (cf. 323). The frequent relevance of both [purpose] and [content], combined with their 2

Primera Cr´ onica General: 632a49 Primera Cr´ onica General: 624a24 4 Primera Cr´ onica General: 516b12 5 Pragmatic relevance is used here in a way that is largely compatible with the basic conditions for relevance proposed by Sperber & Wilson (1986; 1987: 702-704), but this study is not primarily concerned with its cognitive aspects. 6 [content] will be used here to refer to a semantic role not exactly corresponding to the more commonly used label [patient], as the [patient] is generally understood to be affected by the action in some way; material being learnt is, however, not itself affected by the learning process. 3

THE EMERGENCE OF PREPOSITIONAL COMPLEMENTIZERS

187

frequent semantic overlap, gives rise to a conflation of the two: where [purpose] and [content] are identical, ‘a leer’ is initially reanalysed as containing both those notions at the same time. This is an instance of hypoanalysis (cf. Croft 2000: 126-30), in which the frequent contextual overlap of the two meanings is reanalysed as an inherent property of the syntactic unit. Once ‘a leer’ is understood to contain information about the [purpose] as well as the [content] of aprender, in varying proportions depending on the individual discourse context, a gradual shift towards the most frequently relevant notion sets in: though [purpose] is often relevant in the context of ‘learning’, the most typically relevant information is, nevertheless, the [content] of the learning activity. This leads to gradually increasing interpretation of [content] as the central notion of ‘a leer’, eventually ousting the [purpose]-notion completely. The (construction-specific) semantic bleaching of a that this process of double reanalysis entails is facilitated by the availability of a phonetically stronger, and thus more expressive, final preposition para, which can be used to unambiguously and explicitly convey the notion of purpose (325). 325. Mi hermanito est´a aprendiendo a leer para entender la Biblia. My brotherdim learn3rd.sg.pres.cont to read in.order.to understandinf the Bible

My little brother is learning to read in order to understand the Bible. Other verbs can stand in a different logical relationship to the information that is, or was at an earlier stage, most frequently of pragmatic relevance, as illustrated in (326) and (327). 326. Pedro insiste en escribir la carta. Peter insist3rd.sg.pres in writeinf the letter

Peter takes a rigid position on writing the letter. =⇒Peter insists on writing the letter. The verb insistir ‘to insist’ might synchronically be viewed as a typical transitive verb requiring a [Theme] argument or complement. However, from a diachronic perspective it is obvious that the present-day complement originated as a prototypical place adjunct. In Latin, ¯INSISTERE had the very concrete meaning ‘to stand, to position oneself, to take up a fixed position’, which would typically be accompanied by a pragmatically relevant place adjunct. The verb subsequently acquired an increasingly figurative, more abstract sense, implying a fixed mental rather than physical position, whilst retaining the locative preposition IN rel="nofollow">en for its adjunct∼complement, somewhat similar to English ‘to take a stance on’. So here, too, a gradual shift from prototypical adjunct to prototypical complement has taken place. 327. Mi t´ıa goza de comer queso azul. my aunt takes.pleasure of eatinf. cheese blue

My aunt takes pleasure from eating blue cheese. =⇒ My aunt enjoys eating blue cheese. With the verb gozar ‘to take pleasure, enjoy’, the [source] of pleasure is relevant, and therefore overtly mentioned, in such a high proportion of cases that its presence becomes entrenched and eventually conventionalized, allowing it to shift in status from prototypical adjunct to prototypical complement. In many cases, a parallel development can be observed between the construction [[V][P][V inf ]] and [[V][P][NP]], for instance ‘gozar de buena salud’ ‘to enjoy good health’, which can similarly

188

CH. 7. RELEVANCE AND REANALYSIS: PREPOSITONAL COMPLEMENTIZERS

be attributed to the reanalysis of an original adjunct NP 7 . While there is undoubtedly a great degree of parallel development, they must nevertheless be considered separate, independent constructions, as the correspondence pattern is not regular or predictable. In all Romance languages, there are numerous mismatches, as seen in the following examples. French Italian Romanian Spanish

promettre (∗de) quelque chose sperare (∗di) qualcosa a ˆıncerca (∗de) ceva acabar (∗de) algo empezar (∗a) algo

promettre de faire sperare di fare a ˆıncerca de a face acabar de hacer empezar a hacer

‘to ‘to ‘to ‘to ‘to

promise’ hope’ try’ finish’ begin’

It cannot, therefore, be legitimately argued that we are dealing with a single construction which can optionally take either an NP or an infinitive as its complement, nor can it be claimed that the argument of such verbs requires the preposition as a case marker. Further evidence for this is provided by examples such as Spanish tener miedo ‘to fear’, which links an infinitival complement with de (tener miedo de hacer), but typically assigns dative case to nominal arguments (le tiene miedo a su padre). Since the infinitival and the nominal argument have the same semantic/thematic role in the above construction pairs, the conclusion must be that the choice of preposition is, from a synchronic point of view, an arbitrary one. Neither does the preposition retain its original semantic content, nor does it have a unique case-marking function; it is thus best analysed as a purely formal complementizing particle.

7.2

Subsequent development of prepositional complementizers

While the mechanism of reanalysis by which prepositional complementizers develop from lexical prepositions is likely to have been similar in all languages that have such prepositional complementizers, the way in which the usage patterns of these complementizers have subsequently evolved differs considerably among the Romance languages.

7.2.1

Romanian: analogical levelling

It is often claimed (e.g. Haspelmath, 1989: 287-310) that the Indo-European infinitive is not semantically neutral, but intrinsically linked to the notion of purpose. In the Germanic Languages, for instance, there is a clear tendency for the directional or final preposition (Engl. to, Dutch te, German zu) to become a grammaticalized marker of the infinitive (cf. e.g. Porter, 1913: 1513). In Romanian, the function of a evolves along similar lines, but its grammaticalization has progressed even further, as it has all but lost its prepositional value in the modern language, except in a few entrenched, lexically fossilized expressions such as a mirosi a ‘to smell of’. According to the mechanism described in Section 7.1.2 above, it can be assumed that in the evolution of Romanian the most frequently relevant type of information conveyed by means of infinitival adjuncts was [purpose], leading to the predominant use of a with the infinitive. Due to its high frequency, this pattern was then analogically extended to other structurally equivalent 7

In many formalist frameworks, a preposition such as de in this case, found with all arguments that occupy a specific thematic role, is often understood to be an overt marker of abstract case. The reason why certain complements require a specific prepositional case-marker is found in the diachronic explanation offered here.

SUBSEQUENT DEVELOPMENT OF PREPOSITIONAL COMPLEMENTIZERS

189

contexts.8 Once this has taken place and a is no longer uniquely associated with the semantic notion of [purpose], this paves the way for its reanalysis as a syntactically required element – first as a complementizing particle, and eventually as little more than a morphological marker of the infinitive (cf. Section 6.1.8). As in English, the typical citation form of a verb in modern Romanian is with its infinitival marker, e.g. a zice ‘to say’. The philological evidence from the earliest available Romanian texts, from the 16 th century, appears to confirm this sequence of events. At this stage, the transition is not yet completed, and several examples of a+infinitive used as a purpose adjunct can be found, as in example (328). 328. (=309) ... ce-mi era d˘aruit de Dumnezeu a da la acest lucru. 9 ... REL.PRON.-to.me was given from God A giveinf to this work

... which was given to me by God to dedicate to this work. Crucially, purpose clauses with a are the only type of infinitival adverbial found regularly at this time, as discussed in Chapter 6. Whilst this construction is no longer available in modern Romanian, usages in which there is a degree of semantic overlap or ambiguity as to whether the infinitive is a purpose adjunct or a complement, as discussed for Spanish aprender in Section 7.1.2, survive. In the 16 th century we find carei s˘ ant [...] ˆınv˘ a¸tat¸i a+infinitive 10 ‘those who are taught to’, used much in the same way as a ˆınv˘ a¸ta a+infinitive ‘to learn/teach to’ today. But already in the 16th century, a+infinitive has extended its domain to contexts in which it is devoid of any final meaning, as for instance following the impersonal expression mai bine e ‘it is better’ as a subject clause, as in (329). 329. (=308) ˆIn sf˘anta bes˘erecˆa mai bine e a grˆ ai cinci cuvinte cu ˆınt¸eles decˆat 10 mie de cuvinte neˆınt¸el˘ese ˆın limbˆa striinˆa. 11 in holy.the church more good is to speakinf five words with sense...

In the holy church it is better to say five words with sense than ten thousand incomprehensible words in a foreign language. At the same time, there are cases where a+infinitive is used to express something in between purpose adjunct and complement, as in (330). 330. (=310 ...ca s˘a fie tare ¸si put˘arnece a ¸tin˘e part˘e de ocen˘a de acol˘e 12 as that be3rd.sg.subjnctv strong and powerful to holdinf part.the of property.the of there

...so that he may have the strength and power to keep that part of the property This synchronic snapshot of the different usages of the infinitive in 16 th century Romanian s the assumption that the predominant association of infinitival adjuncts with final meaning would have been the basis for a to be the only preposition regularly found with the infinitive, 8

For a discussion of syntactic contexts in which a does not precede the infinitive, see Section 6.1.2. From the introduction to an edition of Coresi’s Evanghelia cu ˆınv˘ a¸ta ˘tur˘ a printed in 1580/81, as edited by M. Avram in Iordan (1962: 164-165). 10 From a 16th century translation of Coresi’s Evanghelia cu ˆınv˘ a¸ta ˘tur˘ a (1561), as edited by S.Pu¸scariu & A.Procopovici (1914), reproduced in Iordan (1962: 184-186). 11 Epilogue of the Tetraevanghelul by Hans Benker (1561), as edited by M. Avram in Iordan (1962: 151). 12 Cf. Chapter 6, footnote 52. 9

190

CH. 7. RELEVANCE AND REANALYSIS: PREPOSITONAL COMPLEMENTIZERS

allowing it to become the sole complementizer/marker of the infinitive. In modern Romanian, the link between a and the notion of purpose is entirely severed. Niculescu (1978: 267/268) lists a number of verbs that attach an infinitival complement with a, for which reinterpretation of a purpose clause is not a likely origin, as for instance in the case of a ˆınceta a+inf., a sfˆ ar¸si a+inf. (both ‘to finish’) 13 . Even more strikingly, a obligatorily precedes the infinitive even in the presence of a different, semantically unrelated preposition, a fact providing further evidence that it has become fully grammaticalized (331). 331. Am ˆınceput-o ˆınainte de a cˆa¸stiga. have1st.sg begun.it before of A wininf

I began it before winning. Whilst a has become uniquely associated with the infinitive, it should be noted that other prepositions, typically de (but also la and ˆın), function as complementizers for the supine (cf. Section 6.2.1).

7.2.2

Maintaining a balance between several complementizers

While we have seen that Romanian goes down the path of analogical levelling and complete grammaticalization, in most other Romance varieties the development of prepositional complementizers is somewhat different. As illustrated in Section 7.1.2 above, the initial shift from prototypical adjunct to prototypical complement, including the corresponding semantic bleaching of the prepositional element, depends primarily on the lexical semantics of the main verb. Whilst a verb such as aprender will experience semantic overlap between its [purpose] and its [content], a verb such as gozar ‘to take pleasure, to enjoy’ experiences semantic overlap between the [source] and the [content] of the pleasure. As a result, individual verbs have become associated with a particular prepositional complementizer on a lexical basis. Analogical levelling, as seen in Romanian in the previous section, has not taken place across the board, and we are left with a number of different prepositional complementizers. There also remain numerous verbs that take a complement without a complementizer. (Port. crer+inf. “to believe”, Cat. deixar+inf. “to leave, let”). 14 That is not to say that each verb has one unique or unchangeable pattern for forming its infinitival complement. A great deal of change and fluidity can be observed, both diachronically and synchronically, among different Romance varieties, and even in the speech of a single speaker. Such variation between prepositional complementizers is especially visible in medieval texts; this would suggest that the process of grammaticalization was not yet entirely completed at the time, and speakers still chose different complementizing prepositions to make subtle meaning differences. A verb such as acordar ‘to decide’, e.g., can take any of the prepositions a, de, por, or en as a complementizer for the infinitive in Old Spanish. 15 13 These infinitive usages are not commonly found in the spoken language, as they are generally perceived to be literary or archaic. 14 To claim that there is, in fact, a null-complementizer present is not a helpful approach in a study attempting to trace the origin of each individual complementizer. 15 (Beardsley, 1921: 106, 168, 208, 247).

DIACHRONIC STATISTICAL DEVELOPMENT OF ‘DE’ AND ‘A’

191

The majority of Romance languages have, up to now, maintained a balance between several competing prepositional complementizers, which to some extent still reflect their origin in adjunct clauses. There is, however, evidence for incipient analogical levelling similar to that observed in Romanian in a number of Romance varieties; for instance, Yates (1984: 194) observes that Catalan appears to favour the prepositional complementizer de in an increasing number of contexts, and similar tendencies are observable in French.

7.3

Diachronic statistical development of de and a

The balance between the most important complementizers in Spanish and Portuguese, a and de, as well as a statistical increase in their usage as a direct result of increasing grammaticalization, are illustrated in Figs. 7.1 and 7.2, and the overall development in the two languages of both complementizers combined is contrasted in 7.3, with Portuguese represented by the dotted line. a+inf. and de+inf. in Spanish 1000 900 a

per 100000 words

800

de

700

a + de

600 500 400 300 200 100 0 1150

1200

1250

1300

1350

1400

1450

1500

1550

1600

1650

1700

1750

1800

1850

1900

1950

2000

year

Figure 7.1: de+infinitive and a+infinitive in Spanish

Portuguese de+inf. and a+inf. 1200 1100

a + inf.

per 100000 words

1000

de + inf. de & a + inf.

900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 1150

1200

1250

1300

1350

1400

1450

1500

1550

1600

1650

1700

1750

1800

1850

1900

1950

2000

year

Figure 7.2: de+infinitive and a+infinitive in Portuguese

de+inf. & a+inf. in Spanish and Portuguese 1200

per 100000 words

1100 1000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 1150

1200

1250

1300

1350

1400

1450

1500

1550

1600

1650

1700

1750

1800

1850

year

Figure 7.3: de+inf.&a+inf in Spanish and Portuguese

1900

1950

2000

192

CH. 7. RELEVANCE AND REANALYSIS: PREPOSITONAL COMPLEMENTIZERS

The most important observation regarding Figs. 7.1 and 7.2 is the fact that the increase of the two prepositional complementizers progresses in a remarkably parallel way in each language during most of their history, which can be seen as evidence of the fine balance in their structure and patterns of complementation. However within the last 50 years in Spanish, and the last 150 years in Portuguese, a significant shift of this balance in favour of a+infinitive has occurred. This is a further instance of a development setting in earlier in Portuguese than in Spanish, in a way similar to the initial emergence and increase of numerous prepositions discussed in the previous chapter. In addition to confirming the vanguard role of Portuguese in the area of infinitival complementation, this recent shift in the balance between de+inf. and a+inf. is potentially the beginning of a more fundamental change that might ultimately lead to a distribution in which a is clearly dominant. In Romanian, it has been seen that the result is a full grammaticalization of a to such an extent that it has been reanalysed as morphological component of the infinitive (cf. 7.2.1); it is too early to speculate whether a similar evolution will ultimately take place in Ibero-Romance. One indication that a is on its way to becoming increasingly associated with the infinitive is the rising frequency of analytic tense/aspect-structures of which a+infinitive forms an integral part, leading to an ever greater association of a with the infinitive, combined with a relative statistical decrease in the number of cases in which a followed by an infinitive has a semantic function of its own. Fig. 7.4 illustrates the development of the Spanish ‘periphrastic future construction’ ir a+infinitive, experiencing an unprecedented increase in usage during the 20 th century, and of the Portuguese ‘present progressive’ estar a+infinitive, which has been on the rise for the last three centuries.

Spanish ir a+infinitive / Portuguese estar a+infinitive 200

per 100000 words

175 150 125

ir a + infinitive estar a + inf

100 75 50 25 0 1150

1200

1250

1300

1350

1400

1450

1500

1550

1600

1650

1700

1750

1800

1850

1900

1950

2000

year

Figure 7.4: Spanish ir a+inf. / Portugueseestar a+inf The fact that the aspectual notions expressed by means of these two structures are virtually unrelated is a further indication that the semantic bleaching process of a is well underway. The pragmatic motivation for the emergence of grammaticalized ir a+infinitive as temporal auxiliary construction has been discussed in section 4.4 above, but this explanation, which is based on reanalysis of finality as futurity because the two notions overlap in the majority of pragmatic contexts, is not valid for estar a+infinitive. Estar a+infinitive extends a different usage of a, the notion of juxtaposition. Similar to the way in which Ptg.ao+infinitive is used to express temporal juxtaposition of two events, estar a+infinitive is originally a juxtaposition of an agent’s physical presence (estar) and the activity undertaken by him during this physical presence. Ambiguous cases of this kind are found in the very earliest Portuguese texts, eg. sentence (332), where physical presence and continuous aspect coincide.

ONGOING GRAMMATICALIZATION OF ‘PARA/PRA’ IN PORTUGUESE

193

332. Item Pero Gon¸calluez nom veio escuso esta verea¸cam por estar a prover sua fazenda e lhe deram lugar.16 ...for beinf. at attendinf. his estate...

Also Pedro Gon¸calves did not come, excused from this town-council to attend his estate, and he has been granted permission. It should be noted that in a similar study by Schøsler (2000: 197) on French, a somewhat different development of a `+inf. and de+inf. is observed, the number of construction types and tokens with a ` rising in Old French, but then dropping to a comparatively low level since the 14 th century, whilst de only begins to spread from the 14 th century onwards, becoming the dominant prepositional complementizer in the modern language. Unfortunately, an analysis of the pragmatic factors involved in this evolutionary pattern is beyond the scope of this paper.

7.4

Ongoing grammaticalization of para/pra in Portuguese

Up to this point it has mainly been attempted to reconstruct a sequence of events that could have led to the present-day distribution of prepositional complementizers, but our lack of documents from the time during which the greater part of this change took place makes definite conclusions virtually impossible. However, if it is possible to identify and analyse similar processes that are currently observable, this will lend credibility to the reconstruction put forward above. In standard Portuguese, verbs expressing orders or commands generally do not require a prepositional complementizer (333). 333. Deus a todos manda ser bons. God to all orders beinf goodP l

God orders everyone to be good. But the preposition para (or rather its phonologically bleached form pra) is increasingly coming into use as complementizer for infinitival complements of verbs expressing a command (334). 334. A palavra de Deus nos ordena para crescer e multiplicar.

17

The word of God us commands for growinf and multiplyinf

The Word of God orders us to grow and multiply. The two sentences in (335) are semantically equivalent: 335. Ordena fazer ora¸ co ˜es. Ordena pra fazer ora¸ co ˜es. orders (for) doinf prayers

He gave orders to pray. This development can be explained as follows: in sentence (336), the pronoun -o is the direct object of ordenar, whilst the phrase in square brackets is a purpose adjunct. (n.b.: The purpose of a command is of frequent pragmatic relevance.) 336. Ordenou-o [para o Jo˜ao fazˆe-lo.] ordered+it [for art. John doinf +it]

He gave the order, so that John would do it. 16

Anais, xxb. julho 1520. European Portuguese speakers prefer the use of ordenar without the complementizer; the usage in sentence (334) is more typical of Brazilian Portuguese. 17

194

CH. 7. RELEVANCE AND REANALYSIS: PREPOSITONAL COMPLEMENTIZERS

Sentence (337) is semantically equivalent to (336); phonologically it differs only very slightly, but the structure is rather different, as para o Jo˜ ao is now the indirect object of ordenar, and fazˆe-lo is its direct object. 337. Ordenou [para o Jo˜ao] [fazˆe-lo]. ordered [for art. John] [doinf +it]

He gave the order for John to do it. The next step is a reanalysis of o Jo˜ ao as the subject of the infinitive fazˆe-lo; infinitives regularly have overt subjects in Portuguese. This would effectively leave para without a function, but the problem is resolved by reanalysing it as a complementizer (338). 338. Ordenou [pra [o Jo˜ao fazˆe-lo]]. ordered [C [art. John doinf +it]]

He gave the order that John do it. Once para is reanalysed as a complementizer, it can occur in this function with less complex infinitival complements, too (339). 339. Ordenou-lhe [pra [fazˆe-lo]]. ordered+IO.pron. [C [doinf +it]]

He gave him the order to do it. We can thus observe how a process very similar to that described in section 7.1.2 is taking place in modern Portuguese. In both cases, significant semantic overlap between [purpose] and [content], both of them providing information that is frequently of great pragmatic relevance, causes the final adjunct to be analysed as increasingly complement-like. In this process, the original semantic content of the final preposition is eroded, and it develops into a purely functional element.

7.5

Conclusion

The examples provided in this chapter have shown that various prepositional infinitive constructions have experienced, or are at present experiencing, grammaticalization. In previous chapters, it was shown how pragmatic relevance is a central factor in the differential evolution of individual prepositional infinitives (cf. Section 4.4), because in some semantic contexts it is more likely for a coreferential adjunct to be relevant for the purpose of efficient communication, whilst in other semantic contexts non-coreferential adjuncts are typically the more relevant. This chapter has identified a different way in which the same pragmatic principle of relevance affects the system of prepositional infinitives as a whole, based on reanalysis and progressive grammaticalization of the most frequently relevant, and thus also the statistically most common, usage patterns. This means that usage is not only in important factor in favouring or impeding the extension of existing structures, but that it can also be a trigger for the emergence of novel syntactic structures, as shift of certain prepositions along the adjunct–complement continuum has led to increasing functional divergence of the ‘prepositional infinitive’ construction. The varying degree to which the prepositional complementizer has become grammaticalized has further led to a typological divergence between Romanian and most other Romance languages.

Chapter 8

Conclusion and scope for future work Throughout this dissertation, it has become apparent that the evolution of the Romance prepositional infinitive is intimately linked to the way in which speakers use language in real-world situations. It has been argued that the pragmatic principles of likelihood and relevance are an important factor in the changes that have taken place: speakers generally include in their utterances only information they consider relevant for their communicative purposes, and hearers generally analyse them according to what, in view of their knowledge of the way the world around them works, appears to be the most likely interpretation in a given context. This pragmatic phenomenon, it has been seen, is involved in syntactic change by virtue of the fact that the pragmatically most likely patterns occur most frequently in actual language use. Patterns that are statistically particularly frequent are reanalysed as the norm or default, which in turn leads to their analogical extension to further contexts. The data presented in this thesis shows that one of the central parameters in the choice between the prepositional infinitive and the corresponding finite construction is subject reference and the predictability of the identity of the dependent clause subject. Infinitival clauses are associated with certain reference patterns, most importantly with coreferentiality, to such an extent that these patterns generally apply even in the presence of an overt subject in the infinitival clause. For all three languages examined here, the order in which prepositions begin to participate in the prepositional infinitive construction has been seen to be roughly similar: generally, the more likely it is for a complement type to be coreferential, the earlier it appears as an infinitival clause. On the other hand, complement types that are statistically less likely to be coreferential begin participating in the prepositional infinitive construction at a later stage or not at all, even in cases in which coreferentiality is given. What this implies is that the order in which prepositional infinitives have emerged is a function of the pragmatic likelihood of the respective clause type being coreferential. The fact that this parameter is determined mainly extralinguistically, i.e. by the way in which real-world entities interact, offers an explanation why the order in which individual prepositional infinitives appear in Spanish, Portuguese and Romanian is so remarkably similar. A further fundamentally pragmatic process described in this thesis is that of certain prepositions being used as increasingly functional, semantically ‘bleached’ complementizers in a range of infinitival constructions. This grammaticalization process is triggered by a relatively high frequency of pragmatic contexts in which constructions with these prepositions are semantically ambiguous, blurring the distinction between prototypical syntactic categories and thus paving the way for further extension beyond the ambiguous constructions. 195

196

CHAPTER 8. CONCLUSION AND SCOPE FOR FUTURE WORK

The central role of pragmatic usage patterns in this area of syntax has far-reaching implications for the historical study of the Romance languages: whilst it is usually assumed that features shared by several closely related languages are inherited from a time prior to their split, this study has clearly shown that the similarities in of distribution in the three languages examined here evolve independently. The fact that their basic linguistic structure is comparatively similar can be understood as a precondition for such similar developments to be structurally possible, but the fact that these constructions evolved at very different times in the different languages, and that each prepositional infinitive has its own, individual evolutionary trajectory clearly show that we cannot be dealing with a single process. It therefore comes as a surprise that the overall patterns of development in the three languages resemble each other to an extent that cannot feasibly be attributed to chance. The pragmatic explanation offered here, which brings actual language usage into the equation, can for these similarities: what people generally consider relevant and worth mentioning in a certain context, and how the referents they talk about relate to each other, is not languagespecific. If certain relational patterns are more likely to be uttered than others and we accept that the frequency with which a construction is used plays a central part in linguistic change, then we can expect these pragmatically-based factors to have a similar impact on different languages. It would be of great interest to to what extent the causation patterns identified in this thesis as relevant in the emergence of prepositional infinitives are cross-linguistically common or even universal. If it turns out that infinitival complementation has developed along a similar evolutionary path in languages outside the Romance subfamily, or indeed outside the IndoEuropean family, this would confirm that the – essentially extra-linguistically determined – pragmatic usage patterns play a central part in this syntactic development. A further direction in which this research could be expanded is to investigate whether other syntactic innovations that are known to have taken place independently in several languages might, similarly, be attributable to universal patterns of pragmatic likelihood. Ultimately, such a study could lead to the creation of a unitary framework of cross-linguistically valid principles of causation in syntactic change.

References Aitchison, Jean. 1991. Language change: progress or decay?, 2 nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ali, Manuel Said. 1957. Dificuldades da l´ıngua portuguesa. Rio de Janeiro: Livraria Acadˆemica. Ambar, Maria Manuela. 1994. ‘‘Aux to COMP’ and lexical restrictions on verb movement’, in Paths towards Universal Grammar: Studies in honor of Richard S. Kayne, ed. Guglielmo Cinque, Jan Koster, Jean-Yves Pollock and Luigi Rizzi. Washington D.C.: Georgetown University Press, pp. 1-21. Baum, Richard. 2003. ‘Periodisierung in der romanistischen Sprachgeschichtsschreibung’, in Romanische Sprachgeschichte/Histoire linguistique de la Romania, ed. Gerhard Ernst, MartinDietrich Gleßgen, Christian Schmitt, Wolfgang Schweickard. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Bari´c, Henrik. 1961. ‘La Perte de l’infinitif dans les langues balkaniques’, Godi˘snjak, vol. 2. Sarajevo: Godi˘snjak Balkanolo˘ski Institut, pp. 1-11. Bayer, Karl & Josef Lindauer. 1985. Lateinische Grammatik (Auf der Grundlage der lateinischen Schulgrammatik von Landgraf-Leitschuh). Bamberg/M¨ unchen: C.C.Buchner/J.Lindauer/ R.Oldenbourg. Beardsley, Wilfred A. 1921. Infinitive constructions in Old Spanish. New York: Columbia University Press. ´ ´ ements de linguistique romane. Quatri`eme ´edition r´evis´ee par Jean Bourciez, Edouard. 1956. El´ Bourciez. Paris: Klincksieck. ˇ Boˇskovi´c, Zeljko. 1997. The syntax of nonfinite complementation. An economy approach. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Br´eal, Michel J.A. 1983 [1897]. Essai de s´emantique. Brionne: Monfort [Paris: Hachette]. Brugmann, Karl. 1888-1895. Elements of the comparative grammar of the Indo-Germanic languages, 5 vols. New York: Westermann. Butt, John & Carmen Benjamin. 1988. A new reference grammar of modern Spanish. London: Arnold. —— 2000. A new reference grammar of modern Spanish, 3/rd edn. London: Arnold. Bybee, Joan L., Revere D.Perkins & William Pagliuca. 1994. The evolution of grammar: tense, aspect and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. —— & Paul Hopper (eds.). 2001. Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure (Typological studies in language 45). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Cˆamara Jr., Joaquim Mattoso. 1972. The Portuguese language. Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press. Camproux, Charles. 1974. Les langues romanes. Paris: Presses Universitaires de . Caragiu-Mariot¸eanu, Matilda. 1969. ‘Romˆana comun˘a’, in Istoria limbii romˆ ane, vol. 2, ed. A. Rosetti. Bucure¸sti: Editura Academiei Republicii Socialiste Romˆane, pp. 254-278. Cauer, Paul. 1912. Grammatica militans: Erfahrungen und W¨ unsche im Gebiete des lateinischen und griechischen Unterrichtes. Berlin: Weidmann. Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris. —— 1982. Some concepts and consequences of the theory of government and binding. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. 197

198

REFERENCES

—— & Howard Lasnik. 1993. ‘The theory of principles and parameters’, in Syntax: An international handbook of contemporary research, ed. Joachim Jacobs, Arnim von Stechow, Wolfgang Sternefeld, Theo Vennemann. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, pp. 506-69. Cintra, Luis Filipe Lindley & Celso Ferreira da Cunha. 1984. Nova gram´ atica do Portuguˆes contemporˆ aneo. Lisboa: Edi¸co˜es S´a da Costa. Close, Elizabeth. 1974. The development of modern Rumanian. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Comrie, Bernard. 1984. ‘Subject and object control: syntax, semantics, pragmatics’, in Proceedings of the Tenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, ed. Claudia Brugmann & Monica Macaulay. Berkeley, Ca.: Berkeley Linguistics Society, University of California, pp. 450-464. —— 1985. ‘Reflections on subject and object control’, Journal of Semantics 4: 47-65. Crabb, Daniel M. 1955. A comparative study of word order in Old Spanish and Old French prose works. Washington: The Catholic University of America Press. Croft, William. 1988. ‘Agreement vs. case marking and direct objects’, in Agreement in natural language: approaches, theories, descriptions, ed. Michael Barlow, Charles A. Ferguson. Stanford, Ca.: CSLI, pp. 159-79. —— 2000. Explaining language change. An evolutionary approach. London: Longman. —— 2001. Radical construction grammar. Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. —— 2004. ‘Logical and typological arguments for Radical Construction Grammar’, in Construction grammar(s): cognitive and cross-language dimensions, ed. Mirjam Fried & Jan-Ola ¨ Osterman. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Davies, Mark E. 1996. ‘The diachronic interplay of finite and nonfinite verbal complements in Spanish and Portuguese’, Bulletin of Hispanic Studies (Glasgow) 73: 137-158. —— 1997. ‘The history of Spanish subject raising with parecer’, Bulletin of Hispanic Studies (Liverpool) 74: 399-411. Deutscher, Guy. 2000. Syntactic change in Akkadian: the evolution of sentential complementation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Dias, Augusto Epiphanio da Silva. 1959. Syntaxe hist´ orica portuguesa. 4 th ed. Lisboa: Livraria Cl´assica. Diez, Friedrich. 1882. Grammatik der romanischen Sprachen, 3 vols. Bonn: Eduard Weber. Diver, William. 1986. ‘The Latin precursors of the Romance reflexive’, in Studies in Romance linguistics, ed. Osvaldo Jaeggli & Carmen Silva-Corval´an. Dordrecht: Foris, pp. 321-42. Dixon, Robert M. W. 1997. The rise and fall of languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dunn, Joseph. 1928. A grammar of the Portuguese language. Washington, DC: National Capital Press. Emeneau, Murray B. 1956. ‘India as a linguistic area’, Language 32: 3-16. ¨ Ernstberger, Reinhold & Hans Ramersdorfer. 1997. Roma B I — Texte und Ubungen, 2nd edn. M¨ unchen: Lindauer. Fern´andez Lagunilla, Marina. 1987. ‘Los infinitivos con sujetos l´exicos en espa˜ nol’, in Sintaxis de las lenguas rom´ anicas, ed. Violeta Demonte and Marina Fern´andez Lagunilla. Madrid: El Arquero, pp. 125-47. ¨ Frege, Gottlob. 1892. ‘Uber Sinn und Bedeutung’, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Philosophie und philosophische Kritik, C: 25-50. ´ Galm´es de Fuentes, Alvaro. 1996 [1956]. Influencias sint´ acticas y estil´ısticas del a ´rabe en la nd prosa medieval castellana, 2 edn. Madrid: Gredos. Gamillscheg, Ernst. 1913. Studien zur Vorgeschichte einer romanischen Tempuslehre. Wien: H¨older.

199 Gaster, Moses. 1891. ‘La versione rumena del Vangelo di Matteo, tratta dal tetraevangelion del 1574’, in Chrestomathie roumaine, 2 vols, ed. M. Gaster. Leipzig/Bucure¸sti, pp. 197-254. Giv´on, Talmy. 1984. Syntax. A functional-typological introduction., 2 vols. Amsterdam: Benjamins. —— 1993. English grammar: a function-based introduction. Amsterdam: J. Benjamins. Green, John N. 1988. ‘Spanish’, in The Romance languages, ed. M. Harris & N. Vincent. London: Routledge, pp. 79-130. Grice, Herbert P. 1989. Studies in the way of words. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Guillermou, Alain. 1953. Manuel de langue roumaine. Paris: Klincksieck. Habenstein, Ernst, Eberhard Hermes & Herbert Zimmermann. 1970. Grund- und Aufbauwortschatz Latein. Stuttgart: Ernst Klett. Haiman, John. 1985. Natural syntax: iconicity and erosion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Haegeman, Liliane. 1994. Introduction to government and binding theory, 2 nd edn. Oxford: Blackwell. Halm, Wolfgang. 1971. Moderne spanische Kurzgrammatik. M¨ uunchen: Hueber. Hampejs, Zdenˇek. 1959. ‘Acerca de la infinitividad del infinitivo portugu´es conjugado.’ Annali 1, 53-7. Napoli: Instituto Universitario Orientale. Harre, Catherine E. 1991. Tener + past participle: a case study in linguistic description. London: Routledge. Harris, Alice C. & Lyle Campbell. 1995. Historical syntax in cross-linguistic perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Harris, Martin. 1978. The evolution of French syntax: a comparative approach. London: Longman. Hartshorne, Charles, Paul Weiss & Arthur W. Burks (eds.). 1997. Collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce, 8 vols. Bristol: Thoemmes Press. Haspelmath, Martin. 1989. ‘From purposive to infinitive – a universal path of grammaticalization’, Folia Linguistica Historica 10: 287-310. Heine, Bernd. 1997. Possession: cognitive sources, forces, and grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Herman, J´ozsef. 1963. La formation du syst´eme roman des conjonctions de subordination. (Deutsche Akademie der Wissenschaften: Ver¨offentlichungen des Instituts f¨ ur romanische Sprachwissenschaft 18). Berlin: Akademie-Verlag. Hermer´en, Ingrid. 1992. El uso de la forma en ra con valor no-subjuntivo en el espa˜ nol moderno. Lund: Lund University Press. Hernanz Carb´o, Mar´ıa Luisa. 1982. El infinitivo en espa˜ nol. Barcelona: Universidad Aut´onoma de Barcelona. Hornstein, Norbert. 1999. ‘Movement and control’, Linguistic Inquiry 20 (1): 69-96. Iliescu, Maria. 1965. ‘Du latin au roumain – sur quelques traits m´econnus de la langue roumaine’, Revue Roumaine de Linguistique 10: 91-100. —— 1966. ‘Zur Bildung des Futurums in den romanischen Sprachen’. Revue Roumaine de Linguistique 11: 395-400. Iordan, Iorgu, Mioara Avram & N. Danila (eds.). 1962. Crestomatie romanic˘ a, vol. 1. Bucharest: Editura Academiei Republicii Populare Romˆıne. Jackendoff, Ray. 1969. Some rules of semantic interpretation for English. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT dissertation. —— 1972. Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT press. —— & Peter W. Culicover. 2003. ‘The semantic basis of control in English’, Language 79 (3): 517-56.

200

REFERENCES

Jaeggli Osvaldo & Carmen Silva-Corval´an. 1986. Studies in Romance linguistics. Dordrecht: Foris. Joseph, Brian D. 1983. The synchrony and diachrony of the Balkan infinitive: a study in general, areal and historical linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Keniston, Hayward. 1937. The syntax of Castilian prose. The sixteenth century. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Klein, Flora. 1975. ‘Pragmatic constraints on distribution: the Spanish subjunctive’, in Papers from the eleventh regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society, pp. 353-365. Chicago: Chicago Linguistics Society. K¨onig, Ekkehard. 2001. ‘Intensifiers and reflexive pronouns’, in Language typology and language universals. An international handbook., ed. Martin Haspelmath, Ekkehard K¨onig, Wulf Oesterreicher and Wolfgang Raible. Berlin and New York: De Gruyter, 747-60. Koptjewskaya-Tamm, Maria. 1993. Nominalizations. London: Routledge. K¨orner, Karl-Hermann. 1983. ‘Wie originell ist der flektierte Infinitiv des Portugiesischen? Eine Studie zum Subjekt in den romanischen Sprachen’, in Portugiesische Sprachwissenschaft (T¨ ubinger Beitr¨age zur Linguistik 212), ed. J¨ urgen Schmidt-Radefeldt. T¨ ubingen: Narr, pp.77-103. Kroch, Anthony. 2001. ‘Syntactic change’, in Handbook of contemporary syntactic theory, ed. Baltin, Mark & Chris Collins. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 699-729. Lakoff, Robin T. 1968. Abstract syntax and Latin complementation. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. —— 1971. Irregularity in syntax. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Langacker, Ronald W. 1977. ‘Syntactic reanalysis’, in Mechanisms of syntactic change, ed. Charles N. Li. Austin, Texas: University of Texas Press. —— 1987. Foundations of cognitive grammar, vol. 1. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Lapesa, Rafael. 1980. Historia de la lengua espa˜ nola, 8 th edn. Madrid: Gredos. Larson, Richard K. 1988. ‘On the double object construction’. Linguistic Inquiry 19 (3): 335-91. Ledgeway, Adam. 1997. ‘Asyndetic complementation in Neapolitan dialect’. The Italianist 17: 231-273. —— 1998. ‘Variation in the Romance infinitive: the case of the southern Calabrian inflected infinitive’, Transactions of the Philological Society 96: 1-61. —— 2000. A comparative syntax of the dialects of southern Italy: a minimalist approach. Oxford: Blackwell. Lehmann, Christan. 1985. ‘Grammaticalization: synchronic variation and diachronic change’, Lingua e Stile 20: 303-318. —— 1988. ‘Towards a typology of clause linkage’, in Clause combining in grammar and discourse, ed. J. Haiman & S. Thompson. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 181-225. Lloyd, Paul M. 1979. ‘On the definition of Vulgar Latin.’ Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 80: 110-22. Lunn, Patricia V. 1989. ‘Spanish mood and the prototype of assertability.’ Linguistics 27: 687-702. Lyons, John. 1981. Language and linguistics: an introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mallinson, Graham. 1988. ‘Rumanian’, in The Romance languages, ed. M. Harris & N. Vincent. London: Routledge, pp. 391-419. Manoliu-Manea, Maria. 1985. ‘Aspect and voice in the nominal forms of the verb: Romanian ´ supine vs. Romance infinitive.’, in Homenaje a Alvaro Galm´es de Fuentes, vol. 2. Oviedo: Oviedo U.P. / Madrid: Gredos, pp. 279-291. —— 1994. Discourse and pragmatic constraints on grammatical choices – a grammar of surprises. Elsevier: North-Holland. Manzini, Maria Rita. 1983. ‘On control and control theory’. Linguistic Inquiry 14 (3): 421-446.

201 —— 1986. ’On control and binding theory’ in Papers from the sixteenth annual meeting of the North Eastern Linguistic Society, ed. S. Berman, J. Choe, J. McConough. Amherst, Mass.: GLSA, University of Massachusetts, pp. 322-37. Martin, John W. 1976. ‘Tense, mood and the ‘inflected infinitive’ in Portuguese’, in Readings in Portuguese Linguistics (North-Holland Linguistic Series 22), ed. J¨ urgen Schmidt-Radefeldt. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company, pp. 1-61. Martin, Roger. 1994. ‘Null Case and the distribution of PRO’, Linguistic Inquiry 32 (1), 141-66. Martinell Gifre, Emma. 1985. El subjuntivo. Madrid: Coloquio. Matthews, Peter H. 1981. Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. —— 1997. The concise Oxford dictionary of linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Maurer Jr., Theodoro Henrique. 1951. ‘Dois problemas da l´ıngua portuguesa: o infinito pessoal e o pronome ‘se’’, Boletim da Universidade de S˜a Paulo 128. S˜ao Paulo: Universidade de S˜ao Paulo: 9-11. —— 1968. O infinito flexionado portuguˆes. (Estudo hist´ orico-descritivo.) S˜ao Paulo: Companhia Editora Nacional/Editora da Universidade de S˜ao Paulo. McMahon, April. 1994. Understanding language change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Meier, Harri. 1950. ‘A g´enese do infinito flexionado em portuguˆes’, Boletim de Filologia 11: 115-132. Meillet, Antoine. 1912. ‘L’´evolution des formes grammaticales’, in Linguistique historique et linguistique g´en´erale. Paris: Champion, pp. 131-148. Mensching, Guido. 2000. Infinitive constructions with specified subjects. A syntactic analysis of the Romance languages (Oxford studies in comparative syntax). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Meyer-L¨ ubke, Wilhelm. 1894. Grammatik der romanischen Sprachen, vol. 2 (4 vols., 18901902). Leipzig: Fues. —— 1895. ‘Zur Geschichte des Infinitivs im Rum¨anischen’, in Abhandlungen Herrn Prof. Dr. Adolf Tobler. Zur Feier seiner f¨ unfundzwanzigj¨ ahrigen T¨ atigkeit als ordentlicher Professor an der Universit¨ at Berlin. Von dankbaren Sch¨ ulern dargebracht.. Geneva: Slatkine Reprints, 1974 (reprint), pp. 79-112. Micha¨elis de Vasconcelos, Carolina. 1891. ‘Der portugiesische Infinitiv’, Romanische Forschungen 7: 49-122. —— 1918. ‘O imperfeito do conjuntivo e o infinitivo pessoal no portuguˆes’, Boletim da Segunda Classe da Academia das Ciˆencias de Lisboa 12 (1): 289-331. Miller, D. Gary. 2001. Nonfinite structures in theory and change. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Molho, Maurice. 1959. ‘Le probl`eme de l’infinitif en portugais’, Bulletin Hispanique 61 (1): 26-73. Morales de Walters, Amparo. 1988. ‘Infinitivo con sujeto expreso en el espa˜ nol de Puerto Rico’, in Studies in Caribbean Spanish Dialectology, ed. Robert M. Hammond and Melvyn C. Resnick. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press, pp. 85-96. Morris, Charles W. 1971. Writings on the general theory of signs. The Hague/Paris: Mouton. Nay, Andr´e du. 1996. The origins of the Rumanians. Toronto/Buffalo: Matthias Corvinus Publishing. Nerlich, Brigitte. 1996. Change in language: Whitney, Br´eal, and Wegener. London: Routledge. Niculescu, Alexandru. 1978. ‘Completivizarea romanic˘a – privire special˘a asupra romˆanei’, in Individualitatea limbii romˆ ane ˆıntre limbile romanice 2: Contribut¸ii socioculturale. Bucure¸sti: Editura S ¸ tiint¸ific˘a ¸si Enciclopedic˘a. Noonan, Michael. 1985. ‘Complementation’, in Language typology and syntactic description, vol. 2: Complex constructions, ed. T. Shopen. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.42-140.

202

REFERENCES

Nutting, Herbert C. 1930. The ablative absolute and the stenographic ablative. Berkeley, Calif.: University of California Press. Otto, Richard. 1888. Der portugiesische Infinitiv bei Cam˜ oes. Erlangen: Junge & Sohn. Parkinson, Stephen. 1988. ‘Portuguese’, in The Romance languages, ed. M. Harris & N. Vincent. London: Routledge, pp. 131-169. Papahagi, Tache. 1963. Dict¸ionarul dialectului aromˆın general ¸si etimologic. Bucure¸sti: Editura Academiei Republicii Populare Romˆıne. Penny, Ralph. 1991. A history of the Spanish language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pires, Acrisio. 2002. ‘Cue-based change: Inflection and subjects in the history of Portuguese infinitives’, in Syntactic effects of morphological change, ed. David Lightfoot. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 143-59. Poghirc, Cicerone. 1969. ‘Influent¸e’, in Istoria limbii romˆ ane, vol. 2, ed. A. Rosetti. Bucure¸sti: Editura Academiei Republicii Socialiste Romˆane, pp. 313-365. Pop, Liana & Victoria Moldovan (eds.). 1997. Gramatica limbii romˆ ane. Cluj-Napoca: Echinox. Pop, Sever. 1948. Grammaire roumaine. (Bibliotheca romanica, series prima: manuelia et commentationes IV). Berne: Francke. Porter, Noah (ed.). 1913. Webster’s revised unabridged dictionary. Springfield, Mass.: Merriam. Posner, Rebecca. 1996. The Romance languages (Cambridge language surveys). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pountain, Christopher J. 1994. ‘The Castilian reflexes of ABHORRERE/ ABHORRESCERE: a case study in valency’, in Hommages offertes a ` Maria Manoliu-Manea, ed. Coman Lupu, Glanville Price. Bucure¸sti: Pluralia/Logos, pp. 122-148. —— 1995. ‘Infinitives with overt subjects: a pragmatic approach’, in Portuguese, Brazilian, and African Studies: studies presented to Clive Willis on his retirement, ed. T. F. Earle & N. Griffin Warminster: Aris & Phillips, pp. 11-25. —— 1998a. ‘Person and voice in the Spanish infinitive’, Bulletin of Hispanic Studies 75: 393-410. —— 1998b. ‘Learn`ed syntax and the Romance languages: The ‘accusative and infinitive’ construction with declarative verbs in Castilian’, Transactions of the Philological Society 96: 393-410. —— 1999. ‘Spanish and English in the 21 st century’, Donaire 12: 33-42. —— 2000. ‘Pragmatic factors in the evolution of the Romance reflexive (with special reference to Spanish)’, Hispanic Research Journal 1: 5-25. Price, Glanville. 1971. The French language: present and past. London: Arnold. Pu¸scariu, Sextil. 1997 [1940]. Limba romˆ an˘ a, vol. 1 (Privire general˘a). Bucure¸sti: Fundat¸ia pentru Literatur˘a ¸si Art˘a “Regele Carol II”/ Bucure¸sti: Editura Dacoromania, Grai ¸si Suflet – Cultura Nat¸ional˘a; Quicoli Antonio Carlos. 1982. The structure of complementation. Gent: Story-Scientifica. —— 1996a. ‘Inflection and parametric variation: Portuguese vs. Spanish’, in Current issues in comparative grammar, ed. Robert Freidin. Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 46-80. —— 1996b. ‘Inflection and empty categories: Response to Safir’s comments’, in Current issues in comparative grammar, ed. Robert Freidin. Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 91-100. Radford, Andrew. 1988. Transformational grammar: a first course. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Raposo, Eduardo Paiva. 1987. ‘Romance infinitival clauses and Case theory’, in Studies in Romance languages, ed. Carol Neidle and Rafael A. N´ un ˜ ez-Cede˜ no. Dordrecht: Foris, pp. 237-249. Reenen, Pieter van & Lene Schøsler. 1993. ‘Les indices d’infinitif compl´ement d’objet en ancien fran¸cais’, in Actas do XIX congreso internacional de ling¨ u´ıstica e filolox´ıa rom´ anicas, vol. 5. A Coru˜ na: Fundaci´on Pedro Barri´e de la Maza, Conde de Fenosa, pp. 523-545.

203 Rigau, Gemma. 1995. ‘The properties of the temporal infinitive construction in Catalan and Spanish’ Probus 7: 279-301. Riiho, Timo. 1979. Por y para: estudio sobre los or´ıgenes y la evoluci´ on de una oposici´ on prepositiva iberorrom´ anica. Helsinki: Societas Scientarum Fennica. Rizzi, Luigi. 1982. Issues in Italian syntax. Dordrecht: Foris. —— 1998. ‘The fine structure of the left periphary’, in Romance syntax. A reader., ed. Paola Beninc`a and Giampaolo Salvi. Budapest: E¨otv¨os Lor´and Tudom´anyegyetem, 112-225. Rodrigues, Jos´e Maria. 1914. O imperfeito do conjuntivo e o infinito pessoal no portuguˆes, Separata do Boletim da Segunda Classe da Academia das Sciencias de Lisboa, vol. 7. Coimbra. Roegiest, Eugeen. 1979. ‘A propos de l’accusatif pr´epositionnel dans quelques langues romanes’. Vox Romanica 38: 37-54. Rohlfs, Gerhard. 1923. ‘Apul. ku, kalabr. mu und der Verlust des Infinitivs in Unteritalien’, Zeitschrift f¨ ur romanische Philologie 42 (1922): 211-23. —— 1949. Historische Grammatik der italienischen Sprache und ihrer Mundarten. (vol.1), Formenlehre und Syntax. Bern: Francke Rosenbaum, Peter. 1967. The grammar of English predicate complement constructions. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Russu, Ion I. 1981. Etnogeneza romˆ anilor. Fondul autohton traco-dacic ¸si componenta latinoromanic˘ a. Bucure¸sti: Editura S ¸ tiint¸ific˘a ¸si Enciclopedic˘a. R˚ uˇziˇcka, Rudolf. 1983a. ‘Autonomie und Interaktion von Syntax und Semantik’, in Untersuchungen zur Semantik (Studia Grammatika 22), ed. Rudolf R˚ uˇziˇcka & W. Motsch. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, pp. 15-59. —— 1983b. ‘Remarks on control’, Linguistic Inquiry 14: 309-324. Safir, Ken. 1996. ‘PRO and pro: Comments on Quicoli’, in Current issues in comparative grammar, ed. Robert Freidin. Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 81-90. Sandfeld, Kristian. 1930. Linguistique balkanique. Probl`emes et r´esultats. Paris: Honor´e Champion. —— & Hedvig Olsen. 1936. Syntaxe roumaine, vol. 1 (Emploi des mots a ` flexion. Paris: Droz. —— 1965. Syntaxe du fran¸cais contemporain: L’infinitif. Gen`eve: Droz. Sapir, Edward. 1921. Language. New York: Harcourt & Brace. Saxena, Anju. 1995. ‘Unidirectional grammaticalization: diachronic and cross-linguistic evidence.’, Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung - Language Typology and Universals 48: 350-372. Schøsler, Lene. 2000. ‘Entre Charybde et Scylla ou Comment exploiter les corpus dans la recherche linguistique’, in Corpus. M´ethodique et applications linguistiques., ed. Mireille Bilger. Paris: Honor´e Champion, pp. 196-209. Searle, John R. 1969. Speech acts: an essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Seco, Rafael. 1967. Manual de gram´ atica espa˜ nola, 9 th edn. revised and expanded by M. Seco. Madrid: Aguilar. Sim˜oes Fr˜oes, Milea Angela. 1995. ‘Reply: Portuguese personal infinitives’, in Latin American linguistics and languages discussion list, , 24 January 1995. Skydsgaard, Sven. 1977. La combinatoria sint´ actica del infinitivo espa˜ nol, vol. 1. Madrid: Castilia. Sørensen, Knud. 1957. ‘Latin influences on English syntax’, in Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Copenhague 11: 131-155. Sperber, Dan & Deirdre Wilson. 1986. Relevance: communication and cognition. Oxford: Blackwell. —— 1987. ‘Pr´ecis of relevance: communication and cognition’, Behavioral and Brain Sciences 10: 697-754.

204

REFERENCES

Sten, Holger. 1952. ‘L’infinitivo impessoal et l’infinitivo pessoal en portugais moderne’, Boletim de Filologia 13: 83-142. Stowell, Tim. 1982. ‘The tense of infinitives’, Linguistic Inquiry 13: 561-70. Sturtevant, Edward H. 1917. Linguistic change. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Su˜ ner, Margarita. 1986. ‘Lexical subjects of infinitives in Caribbean Spanish’, in Studies in Romance Linguistics, ed. Osvaldo Jaeggli & Carmen Silva-Corval´an. Dordrecht: Foris, pp. 189-203. Torrego, Esther. 1998. ‘Nominative subjects and pro-drop INFL’. Syntax 1(2): 206-19. Traugott, Elizabeth C. & Richard B. Dasher. 2002. Regularity in semantic change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Trubetzkoy, Nikolai S. 1923. ‘Vavilonskaja basnja i smesenie jazykov’ [The Tower of Babel and the Confusion of Languages]. Evrazijskij vremennik 3: 107-124. —— 1930. ‘Proposition 16’, in Actes du premier congr`es international de linguistes a ` La Haye, du 10-15 avril 1928: pp. 17-18. Trudgill, Peter. 2001. ‘Linguistic and social typology’, in Handbook of language variation and change, ed. Jack Chambers. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 707-28. V¨aa¨n¨anen, Veikko. 1981. Introduction au latin vulgaire, troisi`eme ´edition, revue et augment´ee. Paris: Klinksieck. Vasconcelos, Jos´e Leite de. 1900. Estudos de Philologia Mirandesa, (2 vols.). Lisboa: Imprensa Nacional de Lisboa. Vincent, Nigel. 1999. ‘Non-finite complementation in Latin and Romance.’ Paper presented at the Indoeuropean Seminar, Department of Classics, University of Cambridge, October 1999. Vinet, Marie-Th´er`ese. 1985. ‘Lexical subjects in French infinitives’, in Selected papers from the 13th Linguistic Symposium on Romance, ed. Larry D. King and Catherine A. Maley, pp. 407-24. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Wang, William. 1969. ‘Competing changes as a cause of residue’, Language 45: 9-25. Wanner, Dieter. 2003. ‘Data ex machina: searching for explanations in Spanish diachrony’, plenary presented at the 2nd Freiburg Workshop on Romance Corpus Linguistics, Freiburg (Breisg.), 11 Sept. 2003. To appear in Romance corpus linguistics: corpora and historical linguistics, ed. Claus D. Pusch & Wolfgang Raible. T¨ ubingen: Narr. Wartburg, Walther von. 1950. Die Ausgliederung der romanischen Sprachr¨ aume. Bern: Francke. Wernecke, H. 1885. ‘Zur Syntax des Portugiesischen Verbs’, in Programm des Realgymnasiums in Weimar. Weimar: Realgymnasium Weimar. Whitney, William D. 1875. The life and growth of language. London: Kegan Paul, Trench & Trubner. Woehr, Richard. 1975. ‘Grammar of the factive nominal in Spanish’, Language sciences (Indiana) 36: 13-19. Wright, Roger. 1982. Late Latin and Early Romance in Spain and Carolingian . Liverpool: Francis Cairns. Yates, Alan. 1984. Teach yourself Catalan. Kent: Hodder & Stoughton. Yoon, James Hye-suk & Neus Bonet-Farran. 1991. ‘The ambivalent nature of Spanish infinitives’, in New analyses in Romance linguistics: selected papers from the 18 th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages, Urbana-Champaign, April 7-9, 1988, ed. Dieter Wanner and Douglas A. Kibbee. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 353-379. Zauner, Adolf. 1921. Romanische Sprachwissenschaft I: Lautlehre und Wortlehre I. Berlin: de Gruyter. Zipf, George K. 1935. The psycho-biology of language: an introduction to dynamic philology. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Zlotchew, Clark. 1977. ‘The Spanish subjunctive: non-experience or emotion.’ Hispania 60 (4): 938-939.

205 Zubizarreta, Maria Luisa. 1982. ‘Theoretical implications of subject extraction in Portuguese.’ The Linguistic Review 2, 79-96.

Appendix A: Spanish texts Cantar de m´ıo C ¸ id (ca.1140), in Antolog´ıa de autores espa˜ noles, ed. A.S´anchez-Romeralo & Fernando Ibarra. Prentice Hall, 1972. Almerich, Ar¸ cidiano de Antioch´ıa La Fazienda de Ultra Mar (mid 12th century), in Biblia romanceada et itin´eraire biblique en prose castillan du XII-`eme si`ecle, ed. Mosh´e Lazar. Salamanca, 1965. Auto de los Reyes Magos (ca.1150), ed. Ram´on Men´endez Pidal. in Revista de Archivos, Bibliotecas y Museos, Madrid, 1900. Berceo, Gonzalo de (ca.1195-1264) Los Milagros de Nuestra Se˜ nora (early 13 th century), in Colecci´ on de poes´ıas castellanas anteriores al siglo XV, vol. 2, ed. Tom´as Antonio S´anchez. Madrid: Sancha, 1780. Calila e Dimna (1251), ed. Jos´e Manuel Cacho Blecua. Madrid: Castalia, 1985. Alfonso X, el Sabio Primera Cr´ onica General de Espa˜ na (1289), ed. Ram´on Men´endez Pidal, 2 vols, 2 nd edn. Madrid: Gredos, 1955. Manuel, Juan (1282-1348) Libro del cauallero et del escudero (1326), in Juan Manuel: Obras completas I, ed. Jos´e Manuel Blecua. Madrid: Gredos, 1981. El Libro de Estados (1330), Libro del cauallero et del escudero (1326), in Juan Manuel: Obras completas I, ed. Jos´e Manuel Blecua. Madrid: Gredos, 1981. Ruiz, Juan (Arcipreste de Hita) (ca.1283-ca.1350) El Libro de buen amor (1343), 2 vols, ed. Julio Cejador. Madrid: Espasa-Calpe, 1913. C ¸ adique de Ucl´ es, Jacob (trans.) Libro de dichos de sabios y phil´ osofos e de otros enxenplos e dotrinas muy buenas (1402, translation from Catalan), ed. Maximilian P.A.M. Kerkhof, 1999. Valencia: Universidad de Valencia, Proyecto LEMIR “Literatura Espa˜ nola Medieval y del Renacimiento”. El libro de los gatos (El libro de los enxemplos) (early 15 th century), ed. Delia Cocera Mart´ınez, 1999. Valencia: Universidad de Valencia, Proyecto LEMIR “Literatura Espa˜ nola Medieval y del Renacimiento”. Flores de Filosof´ıa (15th century), 207

208

APPENDIX A: SPANISH TEXTS

´ vol. 1: ed. Jos´e Manuel Luc´ıa Meg´ıas, 1997; vol. 2: ed. Hugo Oscar Bizzarri, 1997. Valencia: Universidad de Valencia, Proyecto LEMIR “Literatura Espa˜ nola Medieval y del Renacimiento”. Santa Mar´ıa, Pablo de Las siete edades del mundo (1460), ed. Juan Carlos Conde, 1997. Valencia: Universidad de Valencia, Proyecto LEMIR “Literatura Espa˜ nola Medieval y del Renacimiento”. Hurus, Paul (Pablo) & Johannes (Juan) Planck (printers) Arte de bien morir y breve confessionario (1480-84), ed. Francisco Gago Jover. Barcelona: Medio Maraved´ı, 1999. Hurus, Paul (Pablo) (printer) De las mujeres ilustres en romance1 (1494), ed. Jos´e Luis Canet, 1997. Valencia: Universidad de Valencia, Proyecto LEMIR “Literatura Espa˜ nola Medieval y del Renacimiento”. Vald´ es, Juan de Di´ alogo de la lengua (early 16th Century), ed. Juan M. Lope Blanch. Madrid: Castalia, 1976. Rojas, Fernando de (?-1541) Tragicomedia de Calisto y Meliben (La Celestina) (1500), Edici´on Piloto. Alicante: Biblioteca virtual Miguel de Cervantes de la Universidad de Alicante. Becadelli, Antonio Dichos y hechos del rey don Alonso (1527), ed.: Olga Mu˜ noz, 2000. Valencia: Universidad de Valencia, Proyecto LEMIR “Literatura Espa˜ nola Medieval y del Renacimiento”. Rueda, Lope de (1510-65) Eufemia2 , ed. Jes´ us Moreno Villa. Madrid: Espasa-Calpe, 1983. Castro, Pedro de (printer) Cantigos y enxemplos de Caton (Medina del Campo, 1543), ed. James W. Nelson Novoa, 1999. Valencia: Universidad de Valencia, Proyecto LEMIR “Literatura Espa˜ nola Medieval y del Renacimiento”. Burgos, Andr´ es de (printer) Laberinto de amor3 , ed. Diego Romero Lucas. Valencia: Universidad de Valencia, Proyecto LEMIR “Literatura Espa˜ nola Medieval y del Renacimiento”. Factor, Nicol´ as (1520-1583) Las tres v´ıas (ca.1546), in Cartas morales, militares, civiles y literarias, ed. Gregorio Mayans Siscar, vol. 2. Madrid: Biblioteca de Autores Cristianos, 1948. Vida de Lazarillo de Tormes y de sus fortunas y adversidades, Burgos edition (1554) with interpolations from the Alcal´a edition (1554). Champaign, IL: Project Gutenberg. Timoneda, Joan & Joan Navarro (printers) 1

Translation of the Tuscan original De claribus mulieribus by Boccaccio, printed in Zaragoza by the German Paul Hurus. 2 Lope de Rueda lived in Seville, but Eufemia was printed in Valencia in 1567 by Ioan Timoneda. 3 A translation of the Tuscan original by Boccaccio, printed in Seville in 1564

209 Memoria Hispanea (1569), ed. Mar´ıa Jos´e Garc´ıa Folgado, 1999. Valencia: Universidad de Valencia, Proyecto LEMIR “Literatura Espa˜ nola Medieval y del Renacimiento”. El sobremesa y alivio de caminantes (1569), ed. Alberto Vidal Crespo, 1999. Valencia: Universidad de Valencia, Proyecto LEMIR “Literatura Espa˜ nola Medieval y del Renacimiento”. Guerrero, Francisco El viage de Hierusalem (Valencia, 1590), ed. Antonio Solano Cazorla, 2000. Valencia: Universidad de Valencia, Proyecto LEMIR “Literatura Espa˜ nola Medieval y del Renacimiento”. Villegas, Alonso de Fructus Sanctorum y Quinta parte del Flos Sanctorum (1594), ed. Jos´e Arag¨ u´es Aldaz, 1997. Valencia: Universidad de Valencia, Proyecto LEMIR “Literatura Espa˜ nola Medieval y del Renacimiento”. Cervantes Saavedra, Miguel de El ingenioso hidalgo Don Quijote de la Mancha (1615), version 2donq10. Champaign, IL: Project Gutenberg. Lope de Vega Carpio, F´ elix El perro del hortelano (1618), ed. Vern G. Williamsen, 1995. University of Arizona, Department of Spanish and Portuguese. Quevedo Villagas, Francisco de (1580-1645) Historia de la vida del busc´ on (1626), ed. Celsa Carmen Garc´ıa Vald´es. Madrid: C´atedra, 1993. T´ ellez, Gabriel (Tirso de Molina) El burlador de Sevilla (Barcelona, 1630), ed. Vern G. Williamsen, 1982. University of Arizona, Department of Spanish and Portuguese. Cascales, Francisco (1567-1642) Cartas filol´ ogicas (1634), ed. Justo Garc´ıa Soriano. Madrid: Espasa-Calpe, 1961 [1929]. Saavedra Fajardo, Diego de (1584-1648) Empresas (1640), empresas 2, 5, 18, 43, 44, 97. Antolog´ıa del Ensayo Ibero e Iberoamericano, ed. Jos´e Luis G´omez-Mart´ınez. Calder´ on de la Barca, Pedro (1600-1681) El alcalde de Zalamea (1651), ed. Vern G. Williamsen, 1995. University of Arizona, Department of Spanish and Portuguese. Andromeda y Perseo, ed. J.M.Ruano de la Haza. Pamplona/Kassel: Universidad de Navarra/Reichenberger, 1995. ´ El a˜ no santo de Roma, ed. I.Arellano & A.L.Cilveti. Pamplona/Kassel: Universidad de Navarra/Reichenberger, 1995. El cordero de Isaias, ed. M.C.Pinillus. Pamplona/Kassel: Universidad de Navarra/Reichenberger, 1996. ´ El divino Jason, ed. I.Arellano & A.L.Cilveti. Pamplona/Kassel: Universidad de Navarra/Reichenberger, 1992. El indulto general, ed. I.Arellano & J.M.Escudero. Pamplona/Kassel: Universidad de Navarra/Reichenberger, 1996. El nuevo hospicio de pobres, ed. I.Arellano. Pamplona/Kassel: Universidad de Navarra/Reichenberger, 1995.

210

APPENDIX A: SPANISH TEXTS

La nave del mercader, ed. I.Arellano, B.Oteiza, M.C.Pinillos, J.M.Escudero, A.Armend´ariz. Pamplona/Kassel: Universidad de Navarra/Reichenberger, 1996. ´ La vi˜ na del se˜ nor, ed. I.Arellano, A.L.Cilveti, B.Oteiza, M.C.Pinillos. Pamplona/Kassel: Universidad de Navarra/Reichenberger, 1996. Ma˜ nanas de abril y mayo, ed. I.Arellano, F.Serralta. Toulouse: Presses Universitaires du Mirail, 1995. No hay instante sin milagro, ed. I.Arellano, I.Adeva, R.Zafra. Pamplona/Kassel: Universidad de Navarra/Reichenberger, 1995. Triunfar muriendo, ed. I.Arellano, B.Oteiza, M.C.Pinillos. Pamplona/Kassel: Universidad de Navarra/Reichenberger, 1996. Zabaleta, Juan de (1610-1670?) Errores celebrados (1653), errores 4,5,8. Antolog´ıa del Ensayo Ibero e Iberoamericano, ed. Jos´e Luis G´omez-Mart´ınez. Mart´ınez, Jusepe (1600-1682) De la filosof´ıa de la pintura (tratado X, 1673), in Discursos practicables del nobil´ısimo arte de la pintura, ed. Juli´an Gallego. Madrid: Akal, 1988. Cruz, Sor Juana In´ es de la (1641-1695) ‘Carta atenag´orica’ (1690), ‘Carta a Sor Filotea de la Cruz’ (1690), ‘Respuesta a Sor Filotea de la Cruz’ (1691). Antolog´ıa del Ensayo Ibero e Iberoamericano, ed. Jos´e Luis G´omez-Mart´ınez. Feij´ oo y Montenegro, Benito Jer´ onimo de (1676-1764) Cartas eruditas y ensayos (1726-1734). Antolog´ıa del Ensayo Ibero e Iberoamericano, ed. Jos´e Luis G´omez-Mart´ınez. Amar y Borb´ on, Josefa (1753-1803?) Discurso en defensa del talento de las mugeres (1786), ed. Carmen Chaves Tesser, in Dieciocho 3(2), 1980: 144-59. Cadalso y V´ azquez, Jos´ e de (1741-82) Cartas Marruecas (1793), cartas 1, 2, 4, 7, 10, 11. Antolog´ıa del Ensayo Ibero e Iberoamericano, ed. Jos´e Luis G´omez-Mart´ınez. Azara, F´ elix de (1742-1821) ‘Los habitantes del Paraguay’, in Descripci´ on e historia del Paraguay y del R´ıo de la Plata (ca.1809), ed. Basilio Sebasti´an Castellanos de Losada & Agust´ın de Azara. Madrid: S´anchiz, 1847. Larra, Mariano Jos´ e de (1809-37) El doncel de Don Enrique el doliente (1834), ed. Pedro Soto. Proyecto Mariano Jos´e de Larra en Internet. ‘Empe˜ nos y desempe˜ nos (art´ıculo parecido a otros)’, in El pobrecito hablador, Sept. 1832. ‘Vuelva usted ma˜ nana (art´ıculo del bachiller)’, in El pobrecito hablador, Jan. 1833. ‘La sociedad’, in Revista Espa˜ nola, 16 Jan. 1835. ‘La noche buena’, in El Redactor General, 26 Dec. 1836. Giner de los R´ıos, Francisco (1839-1915) ‘El arte y las artes’ (1871), Antolog´ıa del Ensayo Ibero e Iberoamericano, ed. Jos´e Luis G´omezMart´ınez.

211 ‘Instrucci´on y educaci´on’ (1879), in Estudios de Literatura y Arte. Madrid: Victoriano Su´arez, 1876. Revilla y Moreno, Manuel de la (1846-1881) ‘La tendencia docente en la literatura contempor´anea’ (1877), in Obras de D.Manuel de la Revilla. Madrid: Imprenta Central, 1883, pp. 137-146. ‘El naturalismo en el arte’ (1879), in Obras de D.Manuel de la Revilla. Madrid: Imprenta Central, 1883, pp. 147-168. ‘Principios a que debe obedecer la cr´ıtica literaria para influir provechosamente en la educaci´on del gusto y del desarrollo del arte’, in Obras de D.Manuel de la Revilla. Madrid: Imprenta Central, 1883. Gald´ os, Benito P´ erez La sociedad presente como materia novelable [Discurso le´ıdo ante la Real Academia Espa˜ nola, con motivo de su recepci´on] (1897). Madrid: Tello, 1897. Unamuno, Miguel de (1864-1936) ‘Mi religi´on’ (1907), in Mi religi´ on y otros ensayos. Madrid, 1910. ‘Ep´ılogo’ (1907), in Vida y escritos del Dr.Jos´e Rizal, ed. W.E.Retana. Madrid: Victoriano Su´arez, 1907. ‘Verdad y vida’ (1908), in Mi religi´ on y otros ensayos. Madrid, 1910. El porvenir de Espa˜ na (extracts). Unamuno, Miguel de & Angel Ganivet. Madrid: Renacimiento, 1912. Del sentimiento tr´ agico de la vida en los hombres y en los pueblos (1913) Madrid: Alianza editorial, 1998. Barrett, Rafael (1876-1910) Ensayos (1906-1910), ed. Francisco Corral S´anchez-Cabezudo, Instituto Cervantes. Antolog´ıa del Ensayo Ibero e Iberoamericano, ed. Jos´e Luis G´omez-Mart´ınez. Ortega y Gasset, Jos´ e (1883-1955) ‘Verdad y perspectiva’ (1916), in El espectador, vol. 1. Madrid, 1916. ‘La idea de las generaciones’ (1923), in El tema de nuestro tiempo. Madrid, 1923. ‘El sentido hist´orico de la teor´ıa de Einstein’ (1924), in El tema de nuestro tiempo. Madrid, 1923. ‘La idea de la generaci´on’ (1933), in Jos´e Ortega y Gasset: Obras Completas, 12 vols., vol. 5. Madrid: Alianza Editorial/Revista de Occidente, 1983. ‘Creer y pensar’ (1940), in Ideas y creencias. Madrid: Espasa-Calpe, 1940. Zubiri, Xavier (1898-1983) ‘La idea de naturaleza’, in La nueva F´ısica – (Un problema de Filosof´ıa), Cruz y Raya 10 (1934): 8-94. ‘En torno al problema de Dios’, in Revista de Occidente 149 (1935): 129-59. ‘S´ocrates y la sabidur´ıa griega’, in Escorial 2 (1940): 187-226; 3 (1941): 51-78. ‘Nuestra situaci´on intelectual’, in Naturaleza, Historia, Dios. Madrid: Editoria Nacional, 1944. ‘Notas sobre la inteligencia humana’, in ASCLEPIO, Archivo Iberoamericano de la Medicina y Antropolog´ıa M´edica 18-19 (1966-67): 341-53. Polo, Leonardo (1926-) ‘El hombre en nuestra situaci´on’ (1976), in Nuestro tiempo 295 (Pamplona, 1979): 21-50.

212

APPENDIX A: SPANISH TEXTS

‘Sobre las cuatro dimensiones del abandono del l´ımite mental’, in Presente y futuro del hombre. Madrid: Rialp, 1993, pp. 162-4, 178-89, 194-5. La esencia del hombre (1994), Antolog´ıa del Ensayo Ibero e Iberoamericano, ed. Jos´e Luis G´omez-Mart´ınez. Mar´ıas, Javier Coraz´ on tan blanco. Barcelona: Anagrama, 1992. Corpus oral en castellano Francisco Marcos Mar´ın, Departamento de Ling¨ u´ıstica, Lenguas Modernas, L´ogica y Filosof´ıa de la Ciencia, Universidad Aut´onoma de Madrid, 1992 El Pa´ıs El Pa´ıs digital . 2.5 million words of journalistic texts available on the website http://www. elpais.es on 8 February, 2001. Diario ABC 2.5 million words of journalistic texts available on the website http://www.abc.es on 9 February, 2001.

Digital text sources The digital texts listed in this appendix were available on-line between 2001 and 2003 at the following URLs: Antolog´ıa del Ensayo Ibero e Iberoamericano, ed. Jos´e Luis G´omez-Mart´ınez: http://ensayo. rom.uga.edu/ Biblioteca virtual Miguel de Cervantes de la Universidad de Alicante: http://www.duke.edu/ web/cybertextos/ Project Gutenberg: before November 2003: http://promo.net/pg/; after November 2003: http: //ibiblio.org/ Proyecto LEMIR “Literatura Espa˜ nola Medieval y del Renacimiento” (Universidad de Valencia): http://parnaseo.uv.es/ Proyecto Mariano Jos´e de Larra en Internet: http://www.irox.de/larra/index.html University of Arizona, Department of Spanish and Portuguese: http://www.coh.arizona.edu/ spanish/comedia.htm

Appendix B: Portuguese texts Early Medieval Galaico-Portuguese Corpus ‘Testamento de Estevo P´erez’ (1230), in Colecci´ on diplom´ atica do mosteiro cisterciense de Sta. Maria de Oseira (Ourense). 1025-1310, vol. 1, ed. Miguel Roman´ı Mart´ınez. Santiago: T´orculo Edici´ons, 1989, pp. 316-7. 228 cantigas (troubadouresque poetry), 32,605 words, written by the following authors between the late 12th and the mid 14th century (average date 1265): Sancho I (late 12th century), Vaasco Praga de Sandin (1 st quarter of 13th century), Pero Gomez Barroso (1st quarter of 13th century–1273), Meendinho (1st (?) third of 13th century), Gonzalo Eanes do Vinhal (1st third of 13th century–1280), Lopo (1st half of 13th century), Garcia Soarez (1st half of 13th century), Paio Soarez (1st half of 13th century), Paio Gomez Charinho (1225–1295), Airas Corpancho (13th century), Fernan Frojaz (13th century), Joam Garcia (13th century), Martin de Ginzo (13th century), Nuno Porco (13th century), Pero Viviaez (13th century), Pero de Veer (13th century), Pero de Dardia (ou Bardia) (13 th century), Pero Meogo (13th century), Rodrigo Eanes d’Alvarez (13 th century), Sancho Sanchez (13th century), Vaasco Rodriguez de Calvelo (13th century), Joam Lopez d’ Ulhoa (mid 13 th century), Martin Codax (mid 13th century), Pero Gon¸calvez Portocarreiro (mid 13 th century), Pedro Eanes Solaz (mid 13 th century), Pero d’ Armea (mid 13th century), Paio de Cana (mid 13th century), Joam Baveca (2nd third of 13th century), Roi Fernandez (2nd third of 13th century), Fernan Rodriguez de Calheiros (2nd third of 13th century), Fernan Gon¸calvez de Seabra (2 nd third of 13th century), Afonso Eanes do Coton (2nd third of 13th century), Joam Garcia de Guilhade (2 nd third of 13th century), Vaasco Gil (2nd third of 13th century), Louren¸co (2nd third of 13th century), Rodrigo Eanes Redondo (2nd third of 13th century), Bernal de Bonaval (1230–1260), Joam Airas de Santiago (1230–1265), Pero da Ponte (active 1235–1260), Roi Queimado (2 nd half of 13th century), Fernan Figueira de Lemos (3rd quarter of 13th century), Vaasco Perez Pardal (3rd quarter of 13th century), Meen Rodriguez Tenoiro (3 rd quarter of 13th century), Rodrigo Eanes de Vasconcelos (3rd quarter of 13th century), Joam Vaasquez de Talaveira (3 rd quarter of 13th century), Juiao Bolseiro (3rd quarter of 13th century), Nuno Fernandez Torneol (3 rd quarter of 13th century), Pero Garcia Burgal´es (3rd quarter of 13th century), Joam Nunez Camanez (3rd quarter of 13th century), Joam Servando (3rd quarter of 13th century), Pero Mafaldo (3rd quarter of 13th century), Gomez Garcia (died 1286), Airas Nunes de Santiago (123?–1289), Afonso Lopez de Baiam (active 1245–1280), Joam Soarez Coelho (active 1248–1280), Afonso Meendez de Beesteiros (active 1250–1275), Fernan Fernandez Cogominho (1255–1274), Fernan Velho (1255–1284), Joam de Requeixo (late 13th century), Mart´ın de Caldas (late 13 th century), Galisteu Fernandez (late 13th century), Golparro (late 13th century), Nuno Perez (ou Fernandez) (late 13 th century), Paio Calvo (late 13th century), Mart´ın de Padrozelos (late 13 th century), Joam Zorro (late 13th century), Nuno Perez Sandeu (late 13 th century), Mart´ın Campina (late 13 th century), Airas Paez (late 13th –14th century), Estevam Reimondo (late 13 th –14th century), Estevan Fernandez d’Elvas (late 13th century–14th century), Fernan do Lago (late 13th –14th century), Fernando 213

214

APPENDIX B: PORTUGUESE TEXTS

Esquio (late 13th –14th century), Estevam Travanca (late 13 th –14th century), Joam de Cangas (late 13th –14th century), Roi Martinz do Casal (late 13 th –14th century), Pedro Amigo de Sevilha (active 1260–1302), Don Din´ıs (1261–1325), Joam Meendez de Briteiros (1270–1320), Afonso Sanches (1279–1329), Estevam da Guarda (1270/80–1352), Estevam Coelho (early 14 th century), Joam d’Avoim, Pero d’Ornelas, Meen Vaazquez de Folhete, Reimon Gon¸calvez, Pero d’Ambroa. Sources: Bertolucci Pizzorusso, V. (ed.). 1992. As poes´ıas de Martin Soares. E. X. Gonz´alez Seoane (transl.). Vigo: Galaxia. Indini, Maria Luisa Indini (ed.). 1978. Bernal de Bonaval. Poesie. Bari: Adriatica Editrice. M´endez Ferr´ın, Xos´e Lu´ıs (ed.). 1966. O cancioneiro de Pero Meogo. Vigo: Galaxia. Mettmann, Walter (ed.). 1959-72. Alfonso X, o S´ abio, Cantigas de Santa Maria., Acta Universitatis Conimbrigensis, 4 vols. Coimbra: Universidade de Coimbra. Nunes, Jos´e Joaquim (ed.) 1926. Cantigas d’amigo dos trovadores galego-portugueses, 3 vols. Coimbra: Imprensa da Universidade. Reprint (1971): New York, Kraus Reprint. Panunzio, Saverio (ed.). 1992. Pero da Ponte. Poes´ıas. R. Mari˜ no Paz (trans.). Vigo: Galaxia. Rodr´ıguez, Jos´e Luis (ed.). 1980. ‘El cancionero de Joan Airas de Santiago’, Verba: Anexo 12. Santiago de Compostela: Universidade de Santiago de Compostela. Rodrigues Lapa, M. (ed.). 1970. Cantigas d’escarnho e de mal dizer dos cancioneiros medievais galego-portugueses, 2nd ed. Vigo: Galaxia. ´ Tavani, Giuseppe Tavani (ed.). 1993. A poes´ıa de Airas Nunez. R. Alvarez Blanco (trans.). Vigo: Galaxia. Valledor, Armando (ed.). 1934. Cancionero de Payo G´ omez Chari˜ no. Madrid: Librer´ıa General de Victoriano Su´arez.

Medieval Corpus, 27,091 words, average date 1350, containing: O bosco deleitoso, part 3, chaps 30, 138, 153, ed. Augusto Magne. Rio de Janeiro: Institito Nacional do Livro, 1950. Cr´ onica geral de Espanha de 1344, chaps 540, 546, 549-50, 552, 556-67, 687, 692, 695-700, ed. Lu´ıs Felipe Lindley Cintra, vol. 4. Lisboa: Imprensa Nacional–Casa da Moeda, 1990. Cr´ onica troiana (extract), ed. Ram´on Lorenzo. A Coru˜ na: Fundaci´on Pedro Barri´e de la Maza, 1985, pp. 226-227. ‘Cr´onica breve do arquivo nacional’, ed. Alexandre Herculano, in Portugaliae Monumenta Historica, Scriptores. Lisboa: Typis Academicis, 1850, pp. 27-30. Cr´ onicas de Sahag´ un (extract), ed. Antonio Ubirto Arteta, Col. Textos Medievales 75, Zaragoza: An´ ubar Ediciones, 1975. ‘Historia Hispanica’ (extracts), in La traducci´ on gallega de la Cr´ onica General y de la Cr´ onica de Castilla, ed. Ram´on Lorenzo. Ourense: Instituto de Estudios Orensanos “Padre Feijoo”, 1975, pp. 6-8, 217-218. O orto do esposo (extract), ed. Bertil Maler. Stockholm: Acta Universitatis Stockholmiensia, 1964. ‘Frei Junipero’, in Cr´ onica da ordem dos frades menores, ed. Jos´e Adriano de Freitas Carvalho. Lisboa: Commiss˜ao Nacional para as Comemora¸co˜es e Descobrimentos Portugueses, 1991. ‘O Livro de Trist´an’ (extract), in Fragmento de un “Livro de Trist´ an” galaico-portugu´es, ed. Jos´e Luis Pensado. Santiago de Compostela, 1962: pp. 44-48. O livro velho e o livro antigo de linhagens (extracts), ed. Joseph M. Piel & Jos´e Mattoso, in Portugaliae Monumenta Historica, nova s´erie, vol. 1. Lisboa: Academia das Ciˆencias de

215 Lisboa, 1980. D.Pedro, Conde de Barcelos (ca. 1342). Livro de linhagens do Conde D.Pedro (extracts), ed. Jos´e Mattoso, in Portugaliae Monumenta Historica, nova s´erie, vol. 2. Lisboa: Academia das Ciˆencias de Lisboa, 1980. ‘Os milagros de Santiago’ (extracts), in Miragres de Santiago, ed. Jos´e Luis Pensado, Revista de Filolog´ıa Espa˜ nola, anejo 68. Madrid, 1958, pp. 70-3, 145-8, 151-2, 159-62, 186-8. A demanda do santo graal (extract), ed. Augusto Magne, vol. 1. Rio de Janeiro, 1955. ‘A vida de S˜ao Teot´onio’, in Livro de ensinan¸ca de bem cavalgar toda sela, ed. Joseph M.Piel. Lisboa, 1944.

Lopes, Fern˜ ao (1380?–1460?) Cr´ onica de Dom Pedro I, ed. Torquato de Sousa Soares. Lisboa: Cl´assico Editura, 1963. ‘Cr´onica de Dom Fernando’, in Cr´ onica de Dom Jo˜ ao I, ed. Giuliano Macchi. Lisboa: Imprensa Nacional – Casa da Moeda, 1975. ‘Cr´onica de El-Rei D. Jo˜ao I de Boa Mem´oria’ (ca. 1430), in Hist´ oria de uma Revolu¸ca ˜o, Primeira parte da Cr´ onica de El-Rei D. Jo˜ ao I de Boa Mem´ oria, ed. Jos´e H. Saraiva, 2 nd edn. Lisboa: Publica¸co˜es Europa–Am´erica, 1990, pp. 316-321. Azurara (Zurara), Gomes Eanes de (1410–74) Cr´ onica da Tomada de Ceuta, chaps 18, 87, 88, ed. Francisco Maria Esteves Pereira. Lisboa: Academia das Ciˆencias de Lisboa, 1915. Cr´ onica do Descobrimento e Conquista de Guin´e (ca. 1451), ed. Reis Brasil, in A Aventura Portuguesa 5, No 8. Mem-Martins: Europa–America, 1989. Cˆ amara Municipal do Funchal: Verea¸co ˜es da Cˆ amara Municipal do Funchal do s´eculo XV (1481–1497), ed. Jos´e Pereira da Costa. Funchal: Centro de Estudos de Hist´oria do Atl´antico, 1995. Caminha, Pero Vaz de: ‘Carta de Pero Vaz de Caminha’ (1500), in Carta a El Rei D.Manuel. S˜ao Paulo: Dominus, 1963. Vicente, Gil: Auto da ´ India (1509) Biblioteca Virtual do Estudante Brasileiro, S˜ao Paulo: Universidade de S˜ao Paulo. O velho da horta (1512) Biblioteca Virtual do Estudante Brasileiro, S˜ao Paulo: Universidade de S˜ao Paulo. A barca do inferno (1516) Biblioteca Virtual do Estudante Brasileiro, S˜ao Paulo: Universidade de S˜ao Paulo. Auto da Alma (1518) Biblioteca Virtual do Estudante Brasileiro, S˜ao Paulo: Universidade de S˜ao Paulo. Farsa ou auto de Inˆes Pereira (1523) Biblioteca Virtual do Estudante Brasileiro, S˜ao Paulo: Universidade de S˜ao Paulo. Auto da Feira (1527) Biblioteca Virtual do Estudante Brasileiro, S˜ao Paulo: Universidade de S˜ao Paulo. Resende, Garcia de (1470–1536) Cancioneiro geral (1516, extract), Projecto Vercial, Coimbra: Instituto Pedro Nunes. Cˆ amara Municipal do Funchal:

216

APPENDIX B: PORTUGUESE TEXTS

‘Verea¸co˜es do Funchal’ (1508–1551), in Verea¸co ˜es do Funchal. Primeira metade do s´eculo XVI/Verea¸co ˜es do s´eculo XVI: Santa Cruz, ed. Jos´e Pereira da Costa. Funchal: Centro de Estudos de Hist´oria do Atl´antico, 1998.

Classical Corpus 25,561 words, average date 1553, containing extracts provided by Projecto Vercial (Coimbra: Instituto Pedro Nunes) from texts by the following authors: Andrade, Francisco de Paiva de (1540–1614) Andrade Caminha, Pedro de (152?–1589) Aveiro, Frei Pantale˜ao de (16th century) Barros, Jo˜ao de (1496–1517) Bernardes, Diogo (1520–1605) Brand˜ao, Lu´ıs Pereira (1530/1540–?) Brito, Frei Bernardo de (1569–1617) Cam˜oes, Lu´ıs Vas de (ca. 1524–1580) Castanhada, Fern˜ao Lopes de (1500–1559) Corte Real, Jer´onimo (1530–1588) Cruz, Frei Agostinho da (1540–1619) Falc˜ao de Sousa, Crist´ov˜ao (1515/1518–?) Ferreira, Ant´onio (1528–1569) Miranda, Francisco S´a de (1481–1558) ´ Oriente, Fern˜ao Alvarez do (1540–1600) Pina, Rui de (1440-1522) Pinto, Fern˜ao Mendes (1510–1583) Quevedo e Castelo Branco, Vasco Mouzinho de (15 th –16th century) Ribeiro, Bernardim (ca.1490–ca.1537) Trancoso, Gon¸calo Fernandes (ca.1515–1596) ´ Velho, Alvaro (15th –16th century) Vicente, Gil (1465–1537) Cam˜ oes, Lu´ıs Vaz de (ca. 1524–1580) Os Lus´ıadas (1572), 2 vols. Porto: Figuerinhas, 1982. Magalh˜ aes Gˆ andavo, Pero de O Tratado da Terra do Brasil (1576). Bel´em: Universidade da Amazˆonia, 2001.

Baroque Corpus 31,070 words, average date 1658, containing extracts provided by Projecto Vercial (Coimbra: Instituto Pedro Nunes) from texts by the following authors: Bacelar, Ant´onio Barbosa (1610–1663) Ba´ıa, Jer´onimo ca.1625–1688) Bernardes, Padre Manuel (1644–1710) Castro, Ant´onio Serr˜ao de (1610–1684) C´eu, Soror Maria do (1658–1753) C´eu, Soror Violante do (1602–1693) Chagas, Frei Ant´onio das (1631–1682) Esta¸co, Padre Baltasar (1570–16??) Figueiroa, Diogo Ferreira de (1604–1674) Lobo, Francisco Rodrigues (1579–1621)

217 Macedo, Ant´onio de Sousa de (1606–1682) Mascarenhas, Br´as Garcia de (1596–1656) Matos, Greg´orio de (1628–1696) Meneses, Francisco de S´a (1600–1664) Noronha, Tom´as de (?–1651) Santa Catarina, Frei Lucas de (1660–1740) Santos, Frei Jo˜ao de (1570–1625) Sousa, Frei Lu´ıs de (1556–1632) Vasconcelos, Francisco de (1665–1723) Vieira, Ant´ onio (1608–1697) Serm˜ oes (post-1655), col. Obras imortais da nossa literatura. Rio de Janeiro: Editora Trˆes, 1974.

Neoclassical Corpus 17,297 words, average date 1775, containing extracts provided by Projecto Vercial (Coimbra: Instituto Pedro Nunes) from texts by the following authors: Abreu, Br´as Lu´ıs de Alorna, Marquesa de (Leonor de Almeida Portugal) (1750–1839) Barbosa du Bocage, Manuel Maria (1765–1807) Brand˜ao, Tom´as Pinto Cabral de Vasconcelos, Paulino Ant´onio, Abade de Jazente (1719–1789) Coutinho, Teodoro de S´a Cruz e Silva, Ant´onio Dinis da (1731–1799) Cunha, Jos´e Anast´acio da (1744–1787) Cunha, Xavier da El´ısio, Filinto (1734–1819) Figueiredo, Manuel de (1725–1801) Gar¸ca˜o, Pedro Ant´onio Correia (1724–1772) Gonzaga, Tom´as Ant´onio (1744–1810) Semedo, Curvo (1766–1838) Silva, Ant´onio Jos´e da (o Judeu) (1705–1739) Tolentino de Almeida, Nicolau (1741–1811) Verney, Lu´ıs Ant´onio (1713–1792) as well as from the Hist´ oria Tr´ agico-Mar´ıtima (1735–36) Herculano de Carvalho e Ara´ ujo, Alexandre (1810–1877) O bispo negro, Biblioteca Virtual do Estudante Brasileiro, S˜ao Paulo: Universidade de S˜ao Paulo. Arras por foro de Espanha Biblioteca Virtual do Estudante Brasileiro, S˜ao Paulo: Universidade de S˜ao Paulo. Harpa do crente Biblioteca Virtual do Estudante Brasileiro, S˜ao Paulo: Universidade de S˜ao Paulo. Garrett, Jo˜ ao Baptista da Silva Leit˜ ao Almeida (1799–1854) Viagens na minha terra (1846). Lisboa: Estampa, 1983.

Romantic Corpus 17,072 words, average date 1856, containing extracts provided by Projecto Vercial (Coimbra: Instituto Pedro Nunes) from texts by the following authors: Azevedo Castelo Branco, Ant´onio

218

APPENDIX B: PORTUGUESE TEXTS

Cabedo, Ant´onio de Caldeira, Fernando Castilho, Ant´onio Feliciano de (1800–1875) Gir˜ao (Ant´onio Lu´ıs Ferreira) Herculano de Carvalho Ara´ ujo, Alexandre (1810–1877) Lemos Seixas Castelo Branco, Jo˜ao de (1819–1890) Macedo, Diogo de Nunes, Cl´audio Jos´e Ribeiro, Tom´as Roussado, Manuel Bar˜ao de (1833–1911) Silva Gaio, Ant´onio de Oliveira da (1830–1870) Soares de os, Ant´onio Augusto (1826–1860) Sousa Viterbo, Francisco Marquˆes de Vidal, Eduardo Castelo Branco, Camilo Cora¸ca ˜o, cabe¸ca e estˆ omago (1862). Biblioteca Virtual do Estudante Brasileiro, S˜ao Paulo: Universidade de S˜ao Paulo. Apontamentos Biogr´ aficos sobre alguns autores portugueses. Projecto Vercial, Coimbra: Instituto Pedro Nunes. Dinis, J´ ulio (1839–1871) As pupilas do Senhor Reitor (1867). Biblioteca Virtual do Estudante Brasileiro, S˜ao Paulo: Universidade de S˜ao Paulo. Oliveira Martins, Joaquim Pedro de (1845-1894) Os Lus´ıadas – Enasio sobre Cam˜ oes e a sua obra em rela¸ca ˜o a ` sociedade portuguesa e ao movimento da Renascen¸ca (1872). Projecto Vercial, Coimbra: Instituto Pedro Nunes. Perfis (edi¸ca˜o postuma, 1930). Projecto Vercial, Coimbra: Instituto Pedro Nunes. Queiroz, Jos´ e Maria E¸ ca de (1846–1900) Os Maias (1875). Biblioteca Virtual do Estudante Brasileiro, S˜ao Paulo: Universidade de S˜ao Paulo. O primo Basilio (1878). Obras de E¸ca de Queiroz, vol. 2. Lisboa: Livros do Brasil. A rel´ıquia. Biblioteca Virtual do Estudante Brasileiro, S˜ao Paulo: Universidade de S˜ao Paulo. Alves e Cia. Biblioteca Virtual do Estudante Brasileiro, S˜ao Paulo: Universidade de S˜ao Paulo. A cidade e as serras. Biblioteca Virtual do Estudante Brasileiro, S˜ao Paulo: Universidade de S˜ao Paulo. O mandarim. Biblioteca Virtual do Estudante Brasileiro, S˜ao Paulo: Universidade de S˜ao Paulo. O Crime do padre Amaro. Biblioteca Virtual do Estudante Brasileiro, S˜ao Paulo: Universidade de S˜ao Paulo. Singularidades de uma rapariga loura. Biblioteca Virtual do Estudante Brasileiro, S˜ao Paulo: Universidade de S˜ao Paulo.

Post-Romantic Corpus 39,287 words, average date 1887, containing extracts provided by Projecto Vercial (Coimbra: Instituto Pedro Nunes) from texts by the following authors: Almeida, Jos´e Valentim Fialho de (1857–1911) Azevedo, Guilherme Avelino Chave de (1839–1882) Botelho, Abel Ac´acio de Almeida (1856–1917)

219 Bulh˜ao Pato, Raimundo Ant´onio de (1829–1912) Carvalho, Maria Am´alia Vaz de (1847–1921) Crespo, Ant´onio Cˆandido Gon¸calves (1846–1883) Deus, Jo˜ao de (1830–1896) Dias, Jos´e Sim˜oes (1844–1899) Dinis, J´ ulio (1839–1871) Feij´o, Ant´onio Joaquim de Castro (1859–1917) Garcia Monteiro, Manuel (1859–1913) Gomes Leal, Ant´onio Duarte (1848–1921) Guerra Junqueiro, Ab´ılio de (1850–1923) Ivo, Pedro (1842–1906) Mendon¸ca, Henrique Lopes de (1856–1931) Nobre, Ant´onio (1867–1900) Ortig˜ao, Ramalho (1836–1915) Pinheiro Chagas, Jo˜ao (1863–1925) Pinheiro Chagas, Manuel Joaquim (1842–1895) Quental, Antero de (1842–1891) Trinidade Coelho, Jos´e Francisco (1861–1908) Verde, Jos´e Joaquim Ces´ario (1855–1886) Ficalho, Conde de (Francisco Manuel de Mello Breyner) (1837–1903) 5 stories from Uma Elei¸ca ˜o Perdida (1888) ‘A ca¸cada do malhadeiro’ ‘Os cravos’ ‘Mais uma’ ‘A maluca d’a dos corvos’ ‘A pesca do savel’ (Projecto Vercial. Coimbra: Instituto Pedro Nunes) S´ a-Carneiro, M´ ario de (1890–1916) A Confiss˜ ao de L´ ucio (1914). Rio de Janeiro: Ediouro, 1993. Oliveira, Carlos de (1921–1981) Uma Abelha na Chuva da Mudan¸ca ou a Intersec¸ca ˜o dos Paradigmas (1953). Lisboa: Livraria S´a da Costa, 1979. Barreno, Maria Isabel Novas cartas portuguesas (1972), 3 rd edn. Lisboa: Moraes, 1980. Migu´ eis, Jos´ e Rodrigues (1901–1980) ‘Um portuguˆes em Nova Iorque’ (1962). Obras completas de Jos´e Rodrigues Migu´eis, 2 nd edn. Lisboa: Estampa, 1982. ‘Avenida Almirante Reis’ (1962). Obras completas de Jos´e Rodrigues Migu´eis, 2 nd edn. Lisboa: Estampa, 1982. ‘Mudan¸ca de posto’ (1973). Obras completas de Jos´e Rodrigues Migu´eis, 2 nd edn. Lisboa: Estampa, 1982. ‘Pa¸c/ssos confusos’. Obras completas de Jos´e Rodrigues Migu´eis, 2 nd edn. Lisboa: Estampa, 1982. Antunes, Ant´ onio Lobo (1942–)

220

APPENDIX B: PORTUGUESE TEXTS

Os Cus de Judas (1979), 5th edn. Lisboa: Dom Quixote, 1988. CETEM P´ ublico journalistic Corpus (1995–2000) ca. 1600 issues of the daily newspaper P´ ublico, with ca. 100.000.000 words (http://cgi.portugues.mct.pt/cetempublico/)

Digital text sources The digital texts listed in this appendix were available on-line between 2001 and 2003 at the following URLs: Biblioteca Virtual do Estudante Brasileiro (S˜ao Paulo: Universidade de S˜ao Paulo): http:// bibvirt.futuro.usp.br/ Projecto Vercial (Coimbra: Instituto Pedro Nunes): http://www.ipn.pt/literatura/

Appendix C: Romanian texts Old Romanian Corpus Texts/extracts taken from: Iordan, I., M.Avram & N.Danila. 1962. Crestomat¸ie romanic˘ a, vol. 1. Bucure¸sti: Editura Republicii Socialiste Romˆania, pp. 144-95. Text Scrisoarea lui Neac¸su, ed. Mioara Avram Codicele Voronet¸ean, ed. Florica Dimitrescu Psaltirea Hurmuzaki, ed. Florica Dimitrescu Psaltirea Scheian˘ a, ed. Florica Dimitrescu Epilogul Tetraevanghelului, ed. Florica Dimitrescu Tetraevanghelul, ed. Mioara Avram Lucrul Apostolesc, ed. Florica Dimitrescu Epilogul Tˆılcului Tetraevanghelului, ed. Mioara Avram Carte de cˆıntece, ed. Mioara Avram Psaltirea slavo-romˆın˘ a, ed. Florica Dimitrescu Prefat¸a Evangheliei cu ˆınv˘ a¸ta ˘tur˘ a, ed. Mioara Avram Evanghelia cu ˆınv˘ a¸ta ˘tur˘ a, ed. Mioara Avram Din prefat¸a Paliei de la Or˘ a¸stie, ed. Mioara Avram Palia de la Or˘ a¸stie, ed. Mioara Avram Petru Cercel, ed. Florica Dimitrescu Sentint¸a ˘ din 1588, ed. Mioara Avram Sentint¸a ˘ din 1591, ed. Mioara Avram Act particular din 1592, ed. Mioara Avram Scrisoare oficial˘ a din 1593, ed. Mioara Avram Act particular din 1593, ed. Mioara Avram Scrisoare oficial˘ a din 1595, ed. Mioara Avram Act particular din 1596, ed. Mioara Avram Act particular din 1600, ed. Mioara Avram Legenda sfintei Vineri, ed. Mioara Avram

Date 1521 ca.1540 ca.1540 ca.1540 1561 1561 1563 1564 1570/1573 1577 1580/81 1580/81 1581/82 1581/82 ca.1583 1588 1591 1592 1593 1593 1595 1596 1600 ca.1600

1640-1700: All texts/extracts taken from: Gabor, Gabriela (ed.). 1996. Poezia romˆ aneasc˘ a de la origini la 1830. Bucure¸sti: Editura Fundat¸iei Culturale Romˆane. Mot¸oc, Vasile (Mitropolitul Varlaam)(?-1657): ‘Stihuri ˆın stema Domniei Moldovei’ (1643) N˘ asturel, Udri¸ste: ‘Stihuri ˆın stema domniei ¸ta˘rii romˆane¸sti, neam casei b˘as˘ar˘abeasc˘a’ (1644); ‘Epitaful lui Mateia¸s Basarab’ (1652) 221

222

APPENDIX C: ROMANIAN TEXTS

Panoianul, Daniil Andrean: ‘Versuri la stema metropolitan˘a’ (1652) Milescu, Nicolae: ‘Stihuri la dumnez˘aescul David’ (1661-1665) Costin, Miron (1633-1691): ‘Viat¸a lumii’ (1671-73); ‘Apostrof’ (1673) Halici-Fiul, Mihail: ‘Oda’ (1674) mitropolitul Dosoftei (1624-1693): ‘Liturghierul’ (1679); ‘Evanghelia’ (1682); ‘Acrostihul Sibilin’ (1683); ‘Comentariu pe marginea psalmului 132’ (1673); ‘Imnuri’ (1682-1686); ‘Stihuri ˆın Stema Moldovei’ (1682); ‘Psalmul 50’; ‘Psalmul 99’ Greceanu, Radu: ‘Poveste de jale ¸si pre scurt asupra nedreptei mort¸i a preacinstitului Costandin Cantacuzino, marelui postialnic al ¸ta˘rii Romˆane¸sti’ (1696-1699) S ¸ tefanovici, Mihail: ‘Versuri politice 8 asupra cistitei cruci din stema prealuminatului ¸si ın˘alt¸atului domn Io Constandin Basarab Voevod’ (1696); ‘Stihuri politice 12 asupra stemei prealuminatului, sl˘avitului ¸si blagocestivului Io Constandinu B. Basarab˘a-Voevoda’ (1706)

1700-1730: Cantemir, Dimitre (1673-1723): ‘Prundul evfrathului margaritariu na¸ste’; ‘ˆIn muntele cel ˆınalt’; ‘ˆIn cˆındzaci de sˆıngeroase’; ‘Cu penele ¸soimul’ (1705), in Poezia romˆ aneasc˘ a de la origini la 1830, ed. Gabriela Gabor. Bucure¸sti: Editura Fundat¸iei Culturale Romˆane, 1996. O lume ˆıntr-o carte de bucate (Brˆancovenesc manuscript, ca.1705), in Bucate boiere¸sti. 291 ret¸ete de post ¸si de dulce. Bucure¸sti: Folium. ‘Versuri inchinate Sf. Ioan Damaschin’ (1706), in Poezia romˆ aneasc˘ a de la origini la 1830, ed. Gabriela Gabor. Bucure¸sti: Editura Fundat¸iei Culturale Romˆane, 1996. Ivreanul, Antim (1650-1716): ‘Versuri la stema lui Constantin Brˆancoveanu’ (1703); ‘Versuri la blazonul mitropolitului Antim’ (1713), in Poezia romˆ aneasc˘ a de la origini la 1830, ed. Gabriela Gabor. Bucure¸sti: Editura Fundat¸iei Culturale Romˆane, 1996. Cozianu, Ghenadaie: Doao c˘ ai; Academiia sau ¸scoala; Ru¸sinare (ca.1727), in Poezia romˆ aneasc˘ a de la origini la 1830, ed. Gabriela Gabor. Bucure¸sti: Editura Fundat¸iei Culturale Romˆane, 1996.

1740-1790: Diata Stanc˘ ai (1748), from the archives of the Sf. Silvestru Church, Bucharest, ed. Gabriel Licaroiu, Master’s Thesis, Facultate de Teologie Ortodox˘a, Universitatea din Bucure¸sti, 1999. Bra¸soveanul, Dimitrie Eustatievici: Ahrosticon (1755-1757), in Poezia romˆ aneasc˘ a de la origini la 1830, ed. Gabriela Gabor. Bucure¸sti: Editura Fundat¸iei Culturale Romˆane, 1996. F˘ aptura Uneia (1768), in Poezia romˆ aneasc˘ a de la origini la 1830, ed. Gabriela Gabor. Bucure¸sti: Editura Fundat¸iei Culturale Romˆane, 1996. V˘ ac˘ arescu, Ien˘ achit¸a ˘ (1740-1799): Intr-o gr˘ adin˘ a; Am˘ arˆ at˘ a turturea; Spune, inimoar˘ a; ‘Testament literar’ (1787), in Poezia romˆ aneasc˘ a de la origini la 1830, ed. Gabriela Gabor. Bucure¸sti: Editura Fundat¸iei Culturale Romˆane, 1996. ‘Stihuri asupra peirii r˘ aposatului Manolache Bogdan vel vornie ¸si a lui Jon Cuza, biv vel sp˘ atar’ (1778), in Poezia romˆ aneasc˘ a de la origini la 1830, ed. Gabriela Gabor. Bucure¸sti: Editura Fundat¸iei Culturale Romˆane, 1996. Occiso Gregorii ˆın Moldova Vodae tragedice expressa (1777-1780), in Poezia romˆ aneasc˘ a de la origini la 1830, ed. Gabriela Gabor. Bucure¸sti: Editura Fundat¸iei Culturale Romˆane, 1996.

223

1790-1830: V˘ ac˘ arescu, Alecu (1765-179): Oglinda, in Poezia romˆ aneasc˘ a de la origini la 1830, ed. Gabriela Gabor. Bucure¸sti: Editura Fundat¸iei Culturale Romˆane, 1996. Preot¸ii Tudorache ¸si Damian: ‘Jaluirea preot¸ilor Tudorache ¸si Damian’ (1791-1793), ed. Gabriel Licaroiu, Master’s Thesis, Facultate de Teologie Ortodox˘a, Universitatea din Bucure¸sti, 1999. Istoriia a Alexandrului celui mare (1796), in Poezia romˆ aneasc˘ a de la origini la 1830, ed. Gabriela Gabor. Bucure¸sti: Editura Fundat¸iei Culturale Romˆane, 1996. Epitropul Nicolae: ‘Scrisori’ (1794-1799), ed. Gabriel Licaroiu, Master’s Thesis, Facultate de Teologie Ortodox˘a, Universitatea din Bucure¸sti, 1999. Doctorul Silvestru/Mitropolitul Dositei: ‘Acte privind schimburi de ¸tigani ˆıntre doctorul Silvestru ¸si mitropolitul Dositei’ (1796-1802), ed. Gabriel Licaroiu, Master’s Thesis, Facultate de Teologie Ortodox˘a, Universitatea din Bucure¸sti, 1999. Barac, Ion: Istoria prea frumosului Arghir ¸si a prea frumoasei Elena (1801), in Poezia romˆ aneasc˘ a de la origini la 1830, ed. Gabriela Gabor. Bucure¸sti: Editura Fundat¸iei Culturale Romˆane, 1996. Golescu, Iordache: Cˆ antare d˘ a tˆ anguire la sfˆ ar¸situl viet¸ii (ca.1810), in Poezia romˆ aneasc˘ a de la origini la 1830, ed. Gabriela Gabor. Bucure¸sti: Editura Fundat¸iei Culturale Romˆane, 1996. Cantacuzano, Ioan: Poveste; Dimineat¸a poeticeasc˘ a (ca.1810), in Poezia romˆ aneasc˘ a de la origini la 1830, ed. Gabriela Gabor. Bucure¸sti: Editura Fundat¸iei Culturale Romˆane, 1996. V˘ ac˘ arescu, Nicolae (1784-1825): Durda; ˆ In rai; A tr˘ ai, in Poezia romˆ aneasc˘ a de la origini la 1830, ed. Gabriela Gabor. Bucure¸sti: Editura Fundat¸iei Culturale Romˆane, 1996. Caragea, Ioan Gheorghe: ‘Judec˘a¸tile domnitorului Gheorghe Caragea’ (1814-1818), ed. Gabriel Licaroiu, Master’s Thesis, Facultate de Teologie Ortodox˘a, Universitatea din Bucure¸sti, 1999. V˘ ac˘ arescu, Iancu (1792-1863): Buna vestire; Primavara amorului, in Poezia romˆ aneasc˘ a de la origini la 1830, ed. Gabriela Gabor. Bucure¸sti: Editura Fundat¸iei Culturale Romˆane, 1996. Aaron, Vasile: Istoria lui Sofronim ¸si a haritei cei frumoase (1821), in Poezia romˆ aneasc˘ a de la origini la 1830, ed. Gabriela Gabor. Bucure¸sti: Editura Fundat¸iei Culturale Romˆane, 1996. Conachi, Costache: Ce este nurul; ‘Raspunsul unei scrisori’; Jaloba mea (1821), in Poezia romˆ aneasc˘ a de la origini la 1830, ed. Gabriela Gabor. Bucure¸sti: Editura Fundat¸iei Culturale Romˆane, 1996. Mumuleanu, Barbu Paris: Cei mari; Alt chip (1825), in Poezia romˆ aneasc˘ a de la origini la 1830, ed. Gabriela Gabor. Bucure¸sti: Editura Fundat¸iei Culturale Romˆane, 1996.

1830-1870: 25,000 word corpus by the following authors: Asachi, Gheorghe (1788-1869); R˘ adulescu, Ion Heliade (1802-1872); Cipariu, Timotei (1805-1877); Hrisoverghi, Alexandru (1811-1837); Alexandrescu, Grigore (18141885); Mure¸sanu, Andrei (1816-1863); Rosetti, C.A. (1816-1885); Alecsandri, Vasile (1821-1890); Bolintineanu, Dimitrie (1825-1872); Scavinschi, Daniil; Stamati, Costache; Bob-Fabian, Vasile; Cˆ arlova, Vasile; Bolliac, Cezar. Taken from: Anghelescu, Mircea (ed.). 1997. Poezia romˆ aneasc˘ a ˆın epoca romantic˘ a. Bucure¸sti: Editura Fundat¸iei Culturale Romˆane.

224

APPENDIX C: ROMANIAN TEXTS

1875-1880: Creang˘ a, Ion (1839-1889): ‘Cinci pˆıni’; ‘Fata babei ¸si fata mo¸sneagului’; ‘Mo¸s Ion Roat˘a’; ‘Poveste’; ‘Povestea Porcului’; ‘Povestea unui om lene¸s’; ‘Pungut¸a cu doi bani’; ‘Soacra cu trei nurori’; ‘Danila Prepeleac’; ‘Popa Duhu’, in Ion Creang˘ a: Pove¸sti. Povestiri. Amintiri. Ia¸si: Junimea, 1983. Slavici, Ioan (1848-1925): Scormon (1878), in Ioan Slavici: Zana zorilor ¸si alte pove¸sti. Bucure¸sti: Coresi, 2000. Hasdeu, Bogdan Petriceicu (1838-1907): Micut¸a (trei zile ¸si trei nopt¸i din viat¸a unui student). in B.P.Hasdeu: Scrieri alese. Bucure¸sti: Editura Fundat¸iei Culturale Romˆane, 1998. Eminescu, Mihai (1850-1889): Proza ¸si poezii, ed. Radu Iliescu, Biblioteca Electronic˘a, 1999. Maiorescu, Titu (1840-1917): Poezii populare romˆ ane; Direct¸ia nou˘ a ˆın poezia ¸si proza romˆ an˘ a; Comediile d-lui I.L.Caragiale; Poet¸i ¸si critici; Eminescu ¸si poeziile lui; ˆ In chestia poeziei populare, in Titu Maiorescu: Critice. Bucure¸sti: Folium.

Ispirescu, Petre (1830-1887): Legende sau Basmele Romˆ anilor (1882), 2 vols. Bucure¸sti: Folium.

Ghica, Ion: Ion Ghica: Scrisori cˆ atre V. Alecsandri (1887), Bucure¸sti: Folium.

Caragiale, Ion Luca (1852-1912): O noapte furtunoas˘ a (1879); O scrisoare pierdut˘ a (1884); Moftul romˆ an: Caldura mare – Momente ¸si schit¸e (1893), in I.L.Caragiale. Teatru. Vol.1. Bucure¸sti: Folium. Conul Leonida fat¸a ˘ cu reactiunea; (1880), D-ale carnavalului (1885); N˘ apasta (1890), in I.L.Caragiale. Teatru. Vol.2. Bucure¸sti: Folium.

Adamescu, Gheorghe: Istoria literaturii romˆ ane (1911), Bucure¸sti: Eminescu, 1999.

Caragiale, Matei (1885-1936): Craii de Curtea-Veche. Bucure¸sti: Folium.

Ionescu, Nae (1890-1940): Curs de teorie a cuno¸stint¸ei (1925-26), Bucure¸sti: Crater, 2000. Iorga, Nicolae (1871-1940): Despre Basarabia (1912-38), Bucure¸sti: Folium. Sadoveanu, Mihail (1880-1961): T ¸ ara de dincolo de negur˘ a: povestiri de vˆ an˘ atoare (1926). Bucure¸sti: Editura Fundat¸iei Culturale Romˆane, 1996.

Voiculescu, Vasile (1884-1963): ‘Calatorie spre locul inimii’; ‘Contemporan’; ‘Doamne’; ‘Grai valah’; ‘In gradina Ghetsemani’; ‘Sonete ˆınchipuite’; ‘S ¸ tiu f˘ar˘a s˘a pricep’; ‘Tiparul’, in Poet¸i romˆ ani 1951-1973, ed. Ilie Constantin. Bucure¸sti: Editura Fundat¸iei Culturale Romˆane, 1996. Munteanu, Ion (1899-1949): Istoricul societ˘ a¸tilor scriitorilor romˆ ani, Bucure¸sti: Eminescu, 1998. Bacovia, George (1881-1957): Scˆıntei galbene; Plumb (1916), Bucure¸sti: Folium.

225 Petrescu, Camil (1894-1957): Ultima noapte de dragoste, ˆıntˆ aia noapte de r˘ azboi (1930), 2 vols. Bucure¸sti: Editura Fundat¸iei Culturale Romˆane, 1996.

Cioran, Emil (1911-1994): Pe culmile disper˘ arii (1934). Bucure¸sti: Humanitas, 1990. —— Schimbarea la fat˘ a a Romˆ aniei (1936). Bucure¸sti: Humanitas, 1990. —— ‘Sfˆırtecare’ (1979), Vlad Russo (trans.), in Scrisorile lui Cioran, vol. 2. Bucure¸sti, 1995. —— ˆ Indreptar p˘ atimas (1991). Bucure¸sti: Humanitas, 1991. Noica, Constantin (1907-1987): Mathesis sau bucuriile simple (1934), Bucure¸sti: Humanitas, 1992. —— De caelo (1937). Bucure¸sti: Humanitas, 1993. —— Jurnal filozofic. Bucure¸sti: Humanitas, 1990. —— Modelul cultural european (1986/87). Bucure¸sti: Humanitas, 1993.

Vulcanescu, Mircea (1904-1952): S ¸ coala sociologic˘ a a lui Dimitrie Gusti, ed. Marin Diaconu. Bucure¸sti: Eminescu, 1998. Barbu, Ion (1895-1961): ‘Addenda’; ‘Din periodice’; ‘Dup˘a melci’; ‘Joc secund’; ‘Uvedenrode’, in Ion Barbu: Joc secund. Isarlˆ ac. Bucure¸sti: Folium.

Lovinescu, Vasile (1905-1984): ‘Interpret˘ari inedite ale simbolismului din dou˘a snoave apar¸tinˆınd lui Ion Creang˘a’, in Incantat¸ie sˆ ngelui. Ia¸si: Institutul European, 1993. —— Miorit¸a, in O icoan˘ a cre¸stin˘ a pe columna traian˘ a (glose asupra melancoliei). Bucure¸sti: Cartea Romˆaneasc˘a, 1996. Ilie Constantin (ed.). 1996. Assorted poetry 1951-73, in Poet¸i romˆ ani 1951-1973. Bucure¸sti: Editura Fundat¸iei Culturale Romˆane, 1996.

Blandiana, Ana (∗1942): Geniul de a fi (1966-1974, extracts). Bucure¸sti: Litera, 1997. Omraam Mikhael Aivanhov: ‘Yoga nutrit¸iei’, Colect¸ia Izvor 204. Fr´ejus: Prosvesta. —— ‘Fort¸a sexual˘a sau dragonul ˆınnaripat’, Colect¸ia Izvor 205. Fr´ejus: Prosvesta. —— ‘O filosofie a universalului’, Colect¸ia Izvor 206. Fr´ejus: Prosvesta. —— ‘Egregorul porumbelului sau ˆımp˘ar˘a¸tia p˘acii’, Colect¸ia Izvor 208. Fr´ejus: Prosvesta. —— ‘Centrii ¸si corpurile subtile’, Colect¸ia Izvor 219. Fr´ejus: Prosvesta. —— ‘Alchimia sau c˘autarea perfect¸iunii’, Colect¸ia Izvor 221. Fr´ejus: Prosvesta. ‘Cartea magiei divine’, —— Colect¸ia Izvor 226. Fr´ejus: Prosvesta. —— ‘Semint¸ele fericirii’, Colect¸ia Izvor 231. Fr´ejus: Prosvesta. —— ‘De la om la Dumnezeu’, Colect¸ia Izvor 236. Fr´ejus: Prosvesta. —— ‘Cr˘aciun’, lecture given on December 25, 1958. —— ‘A primi ¸si a d˘arui’, lecture given on July 28, 1968. —— ‘Determinism ¸si nedeterminism’, lecture given on December 29, 1972. —— ‘Cˆateva aspecte simbolice ale Cr˘aciunului’, lecture given on December 25, 1979. —— Calea t˘ aceri. Fr´ejus: Prosvesta. —— Viat¸a bunul cel mai de pret¸. Fr´ejus: Prosvesta. —— Rugaciunea. Fr´ejus: Prosvesta, 1989.

St˘ anescu, Nichita (1933-1983): 12 poems in Poezii, ed. interpretat¸i). Constant¸a: Pontica, 1997.

S ¸ tefania Micu (Clasici romˆani

226

APPENDIX C: ROMANIAN TEXTS

Caragiu, Toma: Momente vesele (1976, transcribed speech), Radu Narcis Velicescu (transcr.). Romanian Voice – Poezii Romˆane¸sti, 1994-2003. Paler, Octavian (∗1926): Ap˘ ararea lui Galilei (1978, extracts). ed. Radu Iliescu, Biblioteca Electronic˘a, 1999. Cret¸ia, Petru: Norii; Oglinzile (1979, extracts). ed. Radu Iliescu, Biblioteca Electronic˘a, 1999. T ¸ ut¸ea, Petre: Cuget˘ ari memorabile (1980). ed. Radu Iliescu, Biblioteca Electronic˘a, 1999.

Sora, Simona (ed.). 1996. Assorted contemporary poetry, in Poezia romˆ an˘ a contemporan˘ a. Bucure¸sti: Editura Fundat¸iei Culturale Romˆane, 1996. Smarandache, Florentin: Profesor ˆın Africa: Jurnal marocan (1984). Phoenix–Chicago: Erhus University Press, 1995.

C˘ art˘ arescu, Mircea (∗1956): Poezii: Cˆ and ai nevoie de dragoste etc. (ca.1985), ed. Romanian Voice – Poezii Romˆane¸sti, 1994-2003. Steinhardt, Nicolae (Nicu-Aurelian) (1912-1989): Jurnalul fericirii (1987, extracts). ClujNapoca: Dacia, 1991. Baiski, Du¸san: Luna ¸si tramvaiul 5, proz˘ a scurt˘ a. Timi¸soara: Editura Marineas˘a, 1994. Balota, Bianca: ‘Noapte de dragoste’; ‘Ah, petrecerile acelea de familie’, in Iubiri subversive. Cele mai bune povestiri 1997, ed. Dan-Silviu Boerescu. Bucure¸sti: All, 1998. Necula, Nicolae: ‘Este necesar ¸si folositor s˘a postim ˆınainte de a ne ˆımp˘arta¸si?’ in Vestitorul Ortodoxiei, March 1997. —— ‘Ce trebuie s˘a fac˘a un credincios care vine la biseric˘a?’ in Tradit¸ie ¸si ˆınnoire ˆın slujirea liturgic˘ a. Galat¸i, 1994. Pellea, Amza: Povestiri umoristice (1998, transscribed speech), Radu Narcis Velicescu (transcr.). Romanian Voice – Poezii Romˆane¸sti, 1994-2003. Romˆ ania Literar˘ a, all issues 1995-2001. Bucure¸sti: Fundat¸ia “Romˆania Literar˘a”, 1995-2001. Herjeu, Radu: Incident de Cr˘ aciun (1998). Author’s web-URL: http://www.geocities.com/ radu-herjeu/teatru/teatru.htm Mih˘ aie¸s, Mircea: Un sloi de gheat¸a ˘ pentru Guiness Book si Reciclarea Nimicului. Timi¸soara: Editura Marineas˘a, 2000. Mihai, Octavian: Istorie ¸si etnografie pe teritoriu Kosovoului. Montreal: Romanian Organization of Student Society of McGill University, 1999.

Digital text sources The digital texts listed in this appendix were available on-line between 2001 and 2003 at the following URLs: Biblioteca Electronic˘a, ed. Radu Iliescu, 1999: http://www.lme.ro/byblos/ Editura Fundat¸iei Culturale Romˆane, Bucure¸sti: http://biblioteca.euroweb.ro/autori.htm Folium, Bucure¸sti: http://www.folium.ro/ebooks/ Fundat¸ia “Romˆania Literar˘a”, Bucure¸sti, 1995-2001: http://www.romlit.ro/ Romanian Voice, ed. Radu Narcis Velicescu, 1994-2003: http://www.romanianvoice.com/poezii/