The Fall and Rise of the Romance Subjunctive: A Syntactic ... - DiGS14

you.are sure thatRealis not you.err.IND (‘your’e sure you’re not mistaken’)
b Num boi cu capisci (Scorrano (LE))
not you.want that.Irrealis you.understand.SBJ (‘you don’t want to understand’)
7 a Diceno ca me nne vaco (Neap.)
they.say that.Realis me=therefrom= I.go.IND
b Che bbuò ca te faccio? (Neap.)
what you.want that.Realis you= I.do.IND
Now, while it is true that the formal marking of the subjunctive at the level of the
complementizer and the verb has variously been lost in the dialects of southern Italy, the
question naturally arises whether the modal distinction traditionally encoded by the
indicative/subjunctive morphological opposition has been entirely jettisoned in these same
dialects, or whether the relevant grammars have come to mark the distinction by some other
means. Indeed it has not gone unnoticed in the literature that in particular cases there may be a
strong correlation between morphological marking for indicative/subjunctive and the licensing
of specific syntactic phenomena (for an overview, see Quer 2009a), yet it remains to be
understood whether the relevant modal distinction can be independently licensed and marked
through syntax alone.
The evidence reviewed in this paper will highlight how in the dialects of southern Italy the
indicative/subjunctive distinction, although no longer robustly marked, if at all, morphologically
at the level of the verb and the complementizer, is still very much alive in the syntax of these
same dialects, where the relevant distinction has come to manifest itself in the different
positions lexicalized by the verb and the complementizer in the T- and C-domains, respectively.
In particular, I shall show how, with the formal loss of the irrealis marking in these dialects, the
structural positions targeted by the verb and the complementizer have changed through time.
More specifically, in these dialects there emerges an asymmetrical distribution of the verb in
declarative and irrealis contexts, respectively targeting low and high positions in the sentential
core which, in turn, directly correlate with the placement of the (morphologically
undifferentiated) complementizer merged in Force in the former case and Fin in the latter, as
illustrated in (8a–b):
8 a [Force caRealis [TopP…[FocP…[Fin Ø [TP Adv VInd [v-vP V]]]]]]
b [Force Ø [TopP…[FocP…[Fin caIrrealis [TP VInd Adv VInd [v-vP V]]]]]]
Following Chomsky’s (2007; 2008) ideas about feature transmission and inheritance between
phase heads and their complements (cf. also Ouali 2008), I shall propose that the modal
interpretation of the clause is ultimately licensed by the feature specification of the phasal Chead.
Assuming a strong correlation between morphological marking and syntactic licensing (cf.
Baker’s (1985) Mirror Principle and Bobaljik’s (2002) Rich Agreement Hypothesis), I take the
marked modal reading of irrealis clauses in most Romance languages to be licensed by the verb
alone which, by virtue of its rich subjunctive morphology (cf. 1–4 above), can readily make
visible and license under long-distance Agree the relevant modal feature on Fin. In the dialects
of the South, by contrast, the modally-neutral morphology of the verb is such that the marked
modal reading of irrealis clauses can no longer be licensed by a long-distance Agree relation
between the verb and the Fin head (cf. 7a–b), even when the latter displays a morphologically
overt irrealis form as happens in the dialects of the Extreme South (cf. 6a–b). Rather, in the
absence of distinct irrealis morphology, the verb form in these varieties must raise to the highest
available position within the sentential core, and hence to the left of all higher adverbs, from
where it can enter into a strictly local agreement configuration with the complementizer in Fin