Principales Problemas de la Educación en el Perú

The Old Italian texts under examination are all from the second half of thirteen century. During this period Old Italian had a relaxed V2 order31_{, with V3..V}n _{orders equally}

possible. The analysis of Old Italian as a relaxed V2 languages depends on the fact that despite admitting more than one preverbal element, it displays subject-verb inversion which is no longer possible in Italian, as clearly illustrated by the contrast in (96) below. Crucially (96)b. is ungrammatical in present-day Italian, differently from analogous cases with free inversion, which improves the sentence, where the subject would follow the past participle.

(96) a. Più atteso si può colui che favella rendere l’uditore… (Old Italian) More expected REFL can who that talks make the listener

“The one who talks can make the audience more interested…” [FR, 55, 1] b. Più interessato può (*il parlante) rendere (*il parlante) (Modern Italian) More interested can (the speaker) make (the speaker)

il pubblico ?(il parlante)... the audience (the speaker)

“The speaker can make the audience more interested…”

In Old Italian, the verb is assumed to move to the complementizer system at least in root clauses, whereas it remains in the inflectional field in indirect questions, where subjects are always overt.

Compare the main clauses (97)a. with (97)b., where the subjects are in italics and the preverbal phrases in square brackets: (97)a. illustrated the typical V2 subject-verb inversion with a preverbal XP; whereas (97)b. is a case of V4. Under the assumption that main clauses display V-to-C even though the verb is not in second position, all the preverbal elements must be in CP. Accordingly, we must assume that the subject in (97)b. is dislocated32 _{to a topic position. In fact other types of subjects can be dislocated}

in CP in Old Italian, as shown in (97)c. (see pp. 69-70 for the position of expletive sì):

(97)a. [Anche] diceva Iscipio che… (Old Italian)

Also said Iscipio that… “Scipio also said that…”

b. [elli medesimo] [molti e acconci luoghi] [da ssé] truovi he same many and proper places by self find.3s(subj) “may he himself find many and proper places on his own”

31 _{The relaxed character of Old Romance and Rhaeto-romance dialects may depend on the fact that}

constituents that are dislocated, but not moved with OP-A’ movement, to a preverbal position do not count for V2, so V-to-C is compatible with more than one preverbal element. For this proposal see Poletto (2002) and Benincà (2004).

c. [Carlo] [nobile re di Cicilia e di Gerusalem] [quando era conte d’Angiò] [sì] Carlo noble king of Sicily and of Gerusalem when was earl of Angiò SI

amò per amore.. loved.3s for love

“Carlo, noble king of Sicily and Gerusalem, when he was earl of Angiò, he truly loved…” [FF, 141.10; FR, ch. 82, 103.11; N, LX, 1, 2] On the other hand, the overt realization of pronominal subjects in subordinate clauses, e.g. in indirect questions as illustrated in (98) below, has been related to lack of V-to-C, licensing pro-drop in Old Italian (Benincà 1986).

(98)a. Il marito l'adomandava sovente [perch'ella stava crucciata] The husband 3s.ACC.cl asked often why she was upset “The husband asked her frequently why she was upset” b. … e domandolla [dove quelli stava]

E asked.3s.ACC.cl where that.one. was

“(he) asked her where that one was” [N, 25, 188.8; 6, 343.4] Old Italian has partial pro-drop, with both argumental and expletive null subjects available in root contexts, and overt subjects (either pronominal or lexical) in subordinate contexts, although null pros are sometimes also attested in the latter case. According to the standard analyses (see Benincà (1986) for Old Italian and Roberts (1993) for French), pro-drop in Old Romance languages is licensed by the movement of the verb to the CP, differently from Modern Italian, where the pro-drop parameter is independent from V-to-C and doesn’t show any root/embedded asymmetry. Below, (99)a. clearly shows the root-embedded asymmetry of pro-drop, whereas the contrast between (99)b. and the equivalent Modern Italian translation in (100) is evidence for the diachronic change in the pro-drop parameter setting:

(99)a. cui elli trovava, sì pro dava di petto (Old Italian) who he found, SI gave.3s of chest

“He bet whoever he met” [FF, 176.2]

b. Lo figliuolo lil domandò tanto ch'elli l'ebbe

The son 3sDAT+ACC.cl asked much that he 3s.ACC.cl had

“The son asked it to him so that he got it” [N, 18, 166.8 ] (100)a. Il figlioi glielo chiese tanto che egli*i/j l’ebbe (Modern Italian)

The son 3sDAT+ACC.cl asked much that he 3s.ACC.cl had b. Il figlioi glielo chiese tanto che proi l’ebbe

The son 3sDAT+ACC.cl asked much that pro 3s.ACC.cl had “The son asked it to him so that he got it”

In Modern Italian, the overt pronoun egli (elli in (99)b.) is possible provided that it is not coreferential with the previous subject (i.e. il figlio in (100)), contrary to what

happens in (99)b., Old Italian doesn’t exhibit disjoint reference effects. Another example below shows that Modern Italian has full pro-drop:

(101) Pro mi chiedo cosa pro stiano facendo (Modern Italian) 1s.DAT.cl ask.1s what are.3p(Subj) doing

“I wonder what they are doing”

Under the assumption that most types of Old Italian embedded clauses don’t have V-to- C, a first expectation is that no subject-verb inversion of the kind shown in (96)a. and (97)a. above can take place in subordinate contexts, and only free inversion can. This is borne out by facts: consider the object relative clause in (102) below, where a potential inversion could take place, but the verb linearly follows the overt subject in italics: (102) …a colui a cui tu vuoli dire che tolga moglie… (Old Italian) to whom to REL you want.2s say that take.subj wife

“To whom you want to tell to get married” [FR, 49, 12-15] Cases of subject-verb inversion for certain types of embedded clauses, e.g. relatives and indirect Wh-questions, are not attested. However, postverbal subjects, as well as instances of free inversion, can be found. Therefore, it is impossible to distinguish whether a V S order is derived from V-to-C or free inversion, unless the verbal form is periphrastic (inflected verb/modal+past participle/infinitive). In fact no instances of V2 V-S inversion of the type “a cui vuoli tu dire …” (to REL want.2s you say…) are found, whereas cases of subject free inversion of the type “a cui vuoli dire tu…” (to REL want.2s say you…) are in principle possible and indeed attested, as shown by (103) below:

(103) La seconda cosa che deve avere in sé la favella perfetta… The second thing that must.3s have.INF in self the word perfect

“The second thing that the perfect word must have in itself…” [FR, 6, 1] Notice that in (103) not only does the subject “la favella perfetta” follow the infinitival verb, but it is postponed to the entire VP (i.e. “avere in sè”).

A second expectation following from the lack of V-to-C is the absence of enclisis to the verb in subordinate contexts. As I discuss in more detail below, Benincà (1993) describes enclisis as the result of verb movement to a quite high position in the complementizer field33_{, which is thus banned in contexts where there is no V-to-C.}

Consider (104)a. below, where there is proclisis in the if-clause and enclisis in the main clause, which is a direct question (enclisis is frequent also in main declarative clauses). The same rule applies to the relative clause in (104)b. where there is proclisis rather than enclisis. A case where the clitic followed the verb in the if-clause (i.e. “s’io cheggiolile” ); in the relative clause (i.e. “che non darebbelile”) as well as in any other subordinate context would not be possible (it is not attested).

(104) a. S’io lile cheggio, darebbel·m’egli?

If I ACC+DAT.3s.cl ask.1s would.give.3s.ACC.3s+DAT.1s.cl he? “If I asked him, would he give it to me?”

b. Vinse il partito che non lile darebbe

won.3s the part that not ACC+DAT.3s.cl would.give

“the idea that he wouldn’t give it to him won” [N, 34, 8]