ORGANIZACION

5.2.1 Reflexivization through cliticization

As argued by B&R (1988), ObjExp verbs, unlike standard transitives, cannot bind an anaphoric clitic in Italian:

(11) a. Gianni si lava. Gianni self washes b. *Gianni si préoccupa.

Gianni self worries

B&R note that inability to bind a reflexive clitic is shared by all verbs with no external argument, including passives, unaccusatives and raising verbs:

(12) a.

c.

*Gianni si è stato affidato. Gianni refl. was entrusted * Gianni si sembra simpatico.

Gianni refl seem nice

*Gianni si è arrabiato. Gianni refl was angered

(B&R1988:295)

' * I will concentrate on reflexivization, causativization and extraction from the object, while leaving aside arbitrary pro and passives (see Pesetsky 1995 for some evidence against the relevance o f these tests).

Italian si has several functions: reflexive, passive, impersonal and unaccusative, or inchoative. It is important to note that (11b) is OK as an inchoative, that is, Gianni gets worried, or as an activity, Gianni

The conclusion B&R draw is that ObjExp verbs are unaccusatives (their subject is derived, generated at the object position; See section 5.5 for discussion of this claim).

Suppose that reflexivity is associated with the existence of an agent, or an external argument (Reinhart 1996, cf. chapter three). The reflexive marker thus marks it that the agent performs the action on herself. It is not surprising, thus, that the reflexive reading is blocked only in cases in which the verb is stative. If we can force an agentive reading on the verb, in which the subject actually aims at frightening, or does something in order to frighten, a reflexive reading is allowed:

(13) a. ??Gianni si spaventa. (on the reflexive reading) Gianni self frightens

b. Gli studenti si spaventano prima degli esami per indursi a studiare di piu. 'The students frighten themselves before exams in order to urge

themselves to study harder'.

(13a), which is the stative reading of frighten, is strongly marginal or ungrammatical. (13b), which is unambiguously agentive, is grammatical. The same holds for other verbs which may take an agentive reading, such as divertirsi:

(14) a. ??Gianni si diverte. Gianni si amuses

b. Gianni si diverte facendosi le bocacci alio specchio. G. amuses himself by making funny faces in the mirror.

If reflexivity is indeed agent-oriented, then this pattern is expected: on the stative reading there is no external argument, and therefore the reflexive reading is not

Some speakers find it hard to accept si spaventano and si diverte, and prefer to use cercano di

spaventarsi / divertirsi (try to frighten / amuse themselves) instead. In this case, the agentive reading is

available. On the agentive reading, the subject is base-generated at the canonical agent position (spec of the upper v), and the reflexive reading is allowed.

5.2.2 The Causative construction

It is an established observation in Italian that derived subjects cannot be embedded in a causative construction (Burzio 1986). B&R (1988) point out that ObjExp predicates cannot be embedded in this construction, thus providing further indication for the hypothesis that they lack an external argument:

(15) *Questo lo ha fatto preoccupare /commuovere/attrarre ancora di piu a Mario 'This made Mario worry / move / attract him even more'.

Note, now, that if an agentive reading is forced ObjExp verbs can be appear in this construction with no difficulty:

(16) Gli ho fatto spaventare il candidato per farlo lavorare di piu. I made him frighten the candidatej to make himj work harder.'

The rationale clause in (16) forces an unambiguously agentive reading: the frightener intended to frighten. In accordance with the pattern exhibited so far, psych verbs are OK with this construction on their agentive reading.

The data presented so far indicate that the subjects of ObjExp verbs are generated in different positions on the stative and agentive readings. On the agentive reading the subject is generated externally and therefore patterns with standard agentive subjects. On the stative reading it is generated at a non-external position, and therefore patterns with passives, unaccusatives and other verbs which lack an external argument. I will now turn to examine the status of the object of ObjExp verbs.

5.2.3 Extraction from the object

B&R (1988) argue that the objects of ObjExp verbs are not canonical objects. They show that these objects, unlike standard objects, do not allow extraction out of them. This contrasts with the group of SubjExp verbs, where extraction from the object is allowed:

(17) La ragazza di cui the girl of which *La ragazza di cui

the girl of which

Gianni teme il Gianni fears the Gianni préoccupa Gianni worries

padre

father (SubjExp) il padre

the father (ObjExp)

If an agentive reading is forced extraction from the object is allowed:

(18) La ragazza di cui Gianni ha divertito / impressionato / spaventato i genitori perché gliela facessero sposare.

'The girl whose parents G. amused / impressed / frightened so that they will allow him to marry her.'

Introducing an agent does not affect only the properties of the subject, but also those of the object: from a non-canonical object it becomes transparent to extraction, like standard objects.

5.2.4 An intermediate summary

The data so far indicate that the agentive and the stative readings have both their subjects and their objects generated at different positions. To put this schematically:

(19) stative reading agentive reading

1. no external argument external argument

2. non-canonical object canonical object

3. psych-effects no psych effects

The pattern in (19) is strongly reminiscent of Burzio's (1986) generalization: when there is an external argument (or rather, an agent), there is also a canonical object. When there is no agent, there is a "fake" object. Recall now (9), repeated here:

(20) intentional agent change of state in the object

agentive reading + +

eventive reading - +

stative reading (psych reading)

There is a correlation between semantic/aspectual properties of the predicate and its syntactic realization: when its arguments are canonical event participant (i.e., it has both an agent and change of state) it also has canonical subject and object positions. When it has neither an agent nor change of state, it also does not have canonical subject and object.

What happens on the eventive reading, which is "halfway" between these two extremes?