Simplification or Complexification: Auxiliary Selection and Anti-agreement Effect in Brazilian Venetan

Question

1. What is AAE in Venetan?

2. What is the role of the incorporated clitic in Venetan auxiliary be in third person forms?

3. What is the intra-speaker variation in BV?

4. What triggers AAE in Venetan?

Accepted Answer

AAE in Venetan refers to an antiagreement effect, where subject-verb agreement is lacking for third person in the context of subject inversion. This peculiar agreement pattern is found in other Italo-Romance varieties and has been the topic of numerous studies. In Venetan, inverted subjects trigger AAE in the past participle, which would normally agree with an unaccusative subject. This phenomenon is also observed in Arabic, Berber, and Turkish, although it differs in nature from the 'default agreement' effect found in Italo-Romance. The study focuses on analyzing AAE constructions in Brazilian Venetan, specifically in unaccusative constructions with post-verbal subjects involving auxiliary forms and clitics.

Accepted Answer

The incorporated clitic in Venetan auxiliary be plays a significant role in third person forms. In most Venetan varieties, third person singular and plural forms are non-distinct and both display an obligatory incorporated clitic, which is not separable from the verb. This clitic has evolved from a locative clitic and is now grammaticalized in the verbal form, losing its original meaning. The clitic is analyzed as an 'auxiliary clitic', a specific form realized exclusively with third person singular forms of be. Its realization is independent of the subject but may depend on the auxiliary instead. The presence of the clitic is confirmed in contexts where the auxiliary is present, but not when the auxiliary is absent. The distribution of auxiliary forms for the third person in Venetan varieties is areal, with each variety selecting its preferred form between ze or l'e. This clitic is used in existential contexts and is also present in more isolated Venetan varieties with a more archaic system. Overall, the incorporated clitic in Venetan auxiliary be contributes to the unique structure and grammar of the language.

Accepted Answer

Intra-speaker variation in BV refers to the differences in the realization of third person present tense forms. Three forms are available to speakers: ze, l'e, and e. This variation is explained by the development of BV as a koine variety, where elements from different Venetan varieties converged. Immigrants from different parts of the Venetan-speaking area in Italy arrived in Brazil, leading to the formation of extended communities where all the different dialects were spoken. This resulted in mutual interferences between the grammars, leading to the development of a koine in which features from different systems coexist. The intra-speaker variation in BV can be seen as a reflection of the coexistence of different grammars or lects.

Accepted Answer

The l'e form mainly appears with subjects in post-verbal position, triggering AAE in Venetan. This is observed in BV where the l'e form is used with post-verbal subjects, regardless of their number or gender. For example, 'My grandmother came' and 'The great-grandparents arrived here in Brazil' demonstrate the use of l'e with post-verbal subjects in AAE contexts. This form is limited to postverbal subjects in BV, distinguishing it from the ze and e forms which mainly occur with preverbal referential subjects.

Accepted Answer

The Avoid Indeterminacy Principle, described by Polinsky (2018), refers to the tendency of heritage language speakers to select only one meaning from lexical items that have multiple meanings, usually the prototypical one, and discard all others. This principle is observed in heritage languages where speakers prefer a one-form-one-meaning lexical organization and tend to avoid synonyms and redundant information. This phenomenon is evident in the distribution of BV auxiliaries in heritage varieties, where speakers create a syntactic rule for the distribution of auxiliaries that was not present in the original varieties.

Accepted Answer

Language change in heritage grammars can lead to either simplification or complexification of the system. While previous studies have identified processes of simplification, the present study shows that a complexification of the system is also possible. Specifically, the BV data presented in this study demonstrate that auxiliaries in BV display a richer system than Italian Venetan, with three specialized forms instead of one. This specialization of forms makes the system more transparent but also more complex due to an additional grammatical rule that determines the distribution of different auxiliary forms based on the position of the subject. Therefore, heritage language change can go in the direction of simplification or complexification, with the introduction of new constraints on existing forms. The choice of auxiliary form in BV is not clear, but it is suggested that the specialization of forms stems from the need to avoid indeterminacy. This highlights the diverse possibilities of language change in heritage grammars, challenging the notion that they are incomplete or reduced systems.

Accepted Answer

In Romance languages, the structural weight of resumptive clitics depends on whether or not they crossed a phasal Transfer domain. When the clitic resumes an element across a phasal head, it conveys more syntactic information and is considered richer. This asymmetry is observed between subject and object clitics, where subject clitics are systematically weaker than object clitics. The reason behind this is that object clitics often resume a dislocated object, requiring the clitic to convey all the syntactic information of the object. In contrast, subject clitics or null subjects do not need to convey the same level of information, as the first-merge position of the subject and the dislocated position belong to the same phasal domain. This phenomenon is also observed in BV unaccusative constructions, where heritage language speakers use doubling/resumptive features when the item they refer to is in a different domain. The auxiliary in BV becomes 'heavier' in the presence of a postverbal subject, as demonstrated by the structural heaviness of l'e compared to e. This principle of 'avoid silence' in heritage language syntax leads to the insertion of elements to spell out silent elements, such as the past participle agreement with a l'e auxiliary. The diachronic evolution of l' is debated, but it is likely to have originated from a 3rd person complement clitic. The reorganization of the auxiliary system in BV follows the principles of 'avoid ambiguity' and 'avoid silence', resulting in the reanalysis and exaptation of lexical items. Adger's Combinatorial Variability model explains the reorganization of different features on the three auxiliary forms, capturing intra-speaker morphosyntactic variation through the notions of feature interpretability and feature checking.

Accepted Answer

Combinatorial Variability model assumes variation in the use of auxiliary forms arises from feature bundle combinations. It uses an algorithm of maximal generalization, generating lexical items with one feature, matching them with morphological forms, and rejecting optionality and synonymy. If unsuccessful, it generates two-feature lexical items. For example, in BV, the third person be forms are analyzed using this model, considering feature bundles like [-singular, -participant] and their associations with morphological forms. The model suggests that the selection of forms like 'l'e' may depend on syntactic reasons rather than extra-linguistic factors. Diachronic instability and dialect contact can lead to coexistence of forms, which may eventually disappear as dialects level out.

Accepted Answer

In Brazilian Venetan, three different forms of the third person auxiliary 'be' are used in unaccusative constructions with preverbal or postverbal subjects. This specialization follows the AAE found in most Venetan varieties, where preverbal subjects display a fully agreeing past participle form, while postverbal subjects trigger default agreement on the past participle. Unlike other Venetan varieties, Brazilian Venetan has not developed a specialized auxiliary form for the default agreement pattern. The default masculine singular agreement ending is inserted at PF due to the subject and participle belonging to different Transfer domains. The specialization of auxiliary forms is explained by heritage speakers' tendency to avoid multifunctional words, as shown in Polinsky (2018). Syntactically, this specialization is due to additional features on the auxiliary, which have a resumptive function, making the 'heavier' auxiliary form reanalyzed as a marker of default agreement.

Simplification or Complexification: Auxiliary Selection and Anti-agreement Effect in Brazilian Venetan

Chat with Paper

AI Agents for this Paper

Most frequently asked questions

1. What is AAE in Venetan?

2. What is the role of the incorporated clitic in Venetan auxiliary be in third person forms?

3. What is the intra-speaker variation in BV?

4. What triggers AAE in Venetan?

5. What is the Avoid Indeterminacy Principle in heritage languages?

6. What are the possible outcomes of language change in heritage grammars?

7. What is the relationship between resumptive clitics and structural weight in Romance languages?

8. How does Combinatorial Variability model work?

9. What is the specialization of auxiliary forms in Brazilian Venetan?

References

Derivation by phase

Historical Syntax in Cross-Linguistic Perspective

Linguistic Diversity in Space and Time

Pinning down the concept of “interface” in bilingualism

Anaphora resolution in near-native speakers of Italian

Related Papers (5)

The agreement of the fast participle in modern french: orthographic convention or linguistic fact?

The decay of ergativity in Pamir languages

From bodily posture to progressive aspect marker

FINISH variation and grammaticalization in a signed language: How far down this well-trodden pathway is Auslan (Australian Sign Language)?

Synchronic variation as a result of grammaticalization : Concessive subjunctions in German and Italian