Finalidad de la nueva Ley de la Carrera Pública Magisterial No 2

I counted the occurrences of SF for each one of the categories mentioned in (101) in the three corpora under examination. Table 2. below shows the number of occurrences of fronted items for each category.

Table 2.

Infinitive/VP Past Participle Verb particle Predicative Adjective Nominal predicate total

FF 1 4 0 3 45 53

FR 19 12 1 15 30 77

N 5 12 1 3 15 36

total 25 28 2 21 90 166

The total number of occurrences of the three corpora is 166: most of them (54%) are fronting of nominal predicates in copular constructions, as indicated by the total of the second to last column (90). Beside the extremely scarce presence of verb-particle fronting, due to the reasons illustrated above, there is a more or less equal distribution of fronting among the other categories: infinitive-fronting is the 15% of the total number of frontings (25 occurrences); past participle fronting is the 17% (28 occurrences) and predicative adjectives represent the 13% (21 occurrences). Graph 1. below shows the number and percentage of each fronted category over the total occurrences of SF:

Graph 1. total SF 25; 15% 28; 17% 2; 1% 21; 13% 90; 54% Infinitive/VP Past Participle Verb particle Predicative Adjectives Nominal predicate

It is worth mentioning that cases of VP fronting were included under the label “infinitive/VP”, since VP fronting is possible in Old Italian, contrary to Icelandic. In the next chapter, I give some examples of VP fronting, show the differences from Icelandic and sketch the possibilities for a derivation.

It was also observed how SF distributes in different clause types/syntactic constructions, with special attention to the subject position. Tables 3, 4 and 5 refer respectively to the

44 _{The entire corpora of the data analyzed are available together with glosses and translations in the final}

FF; the FR and the N corpora. The three tables show the number of SF occurrences in impersonal constructions; clauses with a CP subject; passive constructions; comparative constructions; sentences with a heavy subject45_{; clauses with a pro subject; clauses with}

an overt preverbal subject; subject relatives/indirect subject questions; clauses with a postverbal subject; and existential constructions (in the FR and N corpora only).

Table 3. SF distribution in FF

FF Infinitive/VP Past Participle Verb particle Predicative Adjective Nominal predicate total

IMP 0 0 0 0 5 5 CP-subj 0 0 0 2 24 26 PASS 0 1 0 0 0 1 comparative 0 0 0 1 2 3 Heavy Subj 0 0 0 0 12 12 pro 1 3 0 0 2 6 overt preV subjects 0 0 0 0 0 0 extracted subj 0 0 0 0 0 0 post V subj 0 0 0 0 0 0 Table 4. SF distribution in FR

FR Infinitive/VP Past Participle Verb particle Predicative Adjective Nominal predicate total

IMP 6 0 0 4 5 15 CP-subj 0 0 0 0 5 5 PASS 1 6 0 1 0 8 comparativ e 0 0 0 0 0 0 Heavy Subj 0 0 0 4 11 15 pro 7 4 0 2 3 16 overt preV subjects 2 0 0 0 4 6 extracted subj 2 3 1 2 1 9 post V subj 1 0 0 1 0 2 existential 0 0 0 0 1 1

45 _{By “heavy subjects” I mainly refer to constructions where the subject is a DP or an NP modified by a}

Table 5. SF distribution in N

N Infinitive/VP Past Participle Verb particle Predicative Adjective Nominal predicate total

IMP 4 1 0 0 4 9 CP-subj 0 0 0 0 2 2 PASS 0 1 0 0 0 1 comparativ e 0 0 0 0 0 0 Heavy Subj 0 0 0 0 1 1 pro 1 3 0 3 2 9 overt preV subjects 0 2 0 0 0 2 extracted subj 0 4 1 0 4 9 post V subj 0 1 0 0 2 3 existential 0 0 0 0 0 0

Tables 3, 4, 5 above show that the distribution of Old Italian SF is very similar to that of Icelandic SF. Specifically, SF is very common in impersonal constructions (29 total occurrences over the total occurrences (166) of SF); and in sentences with heavy or clausal subjects (respectively 28 and 33 occurrences). SF is also found in constructions with extracted subjects (e.g. subject relative clauses) for a total of 18 occurrences; and in passives (10 occurrences). Differently from Icelandic, Old Italian exhibits SF both with referential and expletive pro subjects (31 occurrences) and with overt preverbal subjects (8 occurrences): respective facts in the three corpora are highlighted in the graphs above. In some cases, overt preverbal subjects are separated from the stylistically fronted item by other elements, which can be identified as topics, as in (122) below. Specifically, cases of subjects preceding the stylistically fronted item are found in passive constructions. Some instances of preverbal subjects with SF are given in (122)- (125). SF is in bold; other preverbal XPs are in italics and subjects are in underlined italics.

(122) Il saver dell’arme color di Cartagine difender non potè

The know.INF of.the weapon those of Carthage defend.INF not could.3s

“The knowledge of warcraft could not defend the people of Carthage” [FR, 23, 5] (123) In questo modo tutte le parole dette saranno

In this way all the words said will.be.3p

“All the words will be said in this way” [FR,82,77] (124) noi medesimi diciamo che noi possiamo dire, o che l’altra parte dire non puote we same say1p that we can1p say.INF, or that the other part say.INF not can.3s “We ourselves say what we can tell, or what the other part cannot” [FR,17,6]

(125) Corniglio uomo nuovo era, ingegnoso era, C. man new was, ingenious was,

degl’ingegnosi e buoni uomini amico era, però nella città nostra il maggiore era of.the ingenious and good men friend was but in.the city our the greater was “Corniglio was a new man46_{, was ingenious, was friend of ingenious, good men,}

and was the greater in our city” [FR, 8, 21]

In other cases, the preverbal subjects are pronominal forms. In examples (126) and (127), they still precede the stylistically fronted element, which is a past participle, in these cases.

(126) io obligo l’anima mia a perpetua pregione [infino a tanto che voi pagati siate] I force the soul my to everlasting prison until to much that you.s paid are.2p.SUBJ “I force my soul to everlasting imprisonment until you get paid”[N, 19, 98-100] (127) Messere, io lavato l’hoe

Sir, I washed 3s.CL.ACC have

“Sir, I did wash it” [N, XLIII, 10]

One possible analysis is that the subjects in (126), (127) are in SubjP and SF targets a lower position in the Inflectional domain, as proposed by Cardinaletti (2003) for Modern Italian SF.

A more plausible alternative is that the subject pronoun is dislocated in a topic position in the CP, and the past participle is fronted to some position in the lower CP field. Let us assume that null pro subjects are not automatically merged in one of the highest subject positions (Spec, AgrSP, following Cardinaletti 2004) due to the partial character of Old Italian pro-drop. The hypothesis that the subjects in (126) and (127) are dislocated in the CP is possible provided that (126) and (127) are analyzed as cases of subject extractions to a criterial position in the CP field. This poses two problems, which I deal with in section 2.3.2. and 2.3.3. respectively:

1. If the subject pronouns are dislocated to the CP, then they must be strong forms 2. When dislocated, subject DPs and subject pronouns must be able to avoid the

freezing effects in the subject criterial position, i.e. SubjP, identified by Rizzi (2003)47_{. Therefore a strategy for subject extraction is required.}

46 _{Most probably “new man” stands for “never elected before” and “without inheriting political power}

from the family”, from the latin expression “homo novus”.

47 _{Such effects motivate the formulation of a Subject Criterion, by analogy with the Wh-criterion (cf. Rizzi}

1991). However, the considerable amount of subject dislocations to the CP in non(-full) pro-drop langugages poses a problem for the strength of the criterion, expecially with regard to the apparent absence of freezing effects in some contexts (eg. when a preverbal subject is focalized and allegedly string-vacuously moves to Spec,FocP, unless we assume that [focus] can be checked in situ by means of stress). Rizzi’s Subject Criterion predicts that any dislocation be enabled by the activation of a subject- extraction strategy. On a par with other criteria, the Subject Criterion applies to a single position where specific properties are encoded. If this is true, only some kind of subjects –say those bearing the “subject- of-predication” feature, encoded in SubjP, will move to a criterial position (SubjP) and undergo freezing effects. If a subject doesn’t bear that feature, it can, in principle, be extracted. However weak pronouns are subject to further restrictions with respect to, say, dislocation possibilities, due to their lack of proper featural endowment. Contrary to other criteria (Focus-, Topic-, Wh-…) met in the CP, according to Rizzi