Subject Placement in the History of Latin

Lieven Danckaert

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to provide further support for one aspect of the analysis of Classical and Late Latin clause structure proposed in Danckaert (2017a), namely the diachrony of subject placement. According to the relevant proposal, one needs to distinguish an earlier grammar (‘Grammar A’, whose heyday is the period from ca. 200 BC until 200 AD), in which there is no A-movement for subjects, and a later grammar (‘Grammar B’, which is on the rise from ca. 50-100 AD, and fully productive from ca. 200 AD onwards), where subjects optionally move to the inflectional layer. Assuming the variationist acquisition model of language change developed in Yang (2000, 2002a,b), I present corpus evidence which confirms that it is only in the Late Latin period that TP-internal subjects fully establish themselves as a grammatical option.

Keywords

Latin; language change; word order; subject placement; grammar competition

Full Text:

PDF

References

Alexiadou, Artemis & Anagnostopoulou, Elena. 1998. Parametrizing AGR: word order, V-movement and EPP-checking. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 16: 491-539. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006090432389

Belletti, Adriana. 2001. “Inversion” as Focalization. In Hulk, Aafke & Pollock, Jean-Yves (eds.). Subject Inversion in Romance and the Theory of Universal Grammar, 60-90. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Belletti, Adriana. 2004. Aspects of the Low IP Area. In Rizzi, Luigi (ed.). The Structure of CP and IP, 16-51. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Biberauer, Theresa. 2003. Verb second (V2) in Afrikaans: A Minimalist Investigation of Word Order Variation. PhD dissertation, University of Cambridge.

Biberauer, Theresa & Roberts, Ian. 2005. Changing EPP parameters in the history of English: accounting for variation and change. English Language and Linguistics 9: 5-46. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674305001528

Biberauer, Theresa & Richards, Marc. 2006. True Optionality: when the Grammar doesn’t mind. In Boeckx, Cedric (ed.). Minimalist Essays, 35-67. Amsterdam: Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/la.91.08bib

Biberauer, Theresa, Holmberg, Anders & Roberts, Ian. 2014. A syntactic universal and its consequences. Linguistic Inquiry 45: 169-225. https://doi.org/10.1162/LING_a_00153

Burzio, Luigi. 1986. Italian Syntax: a Government-Binding Approach. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Cardinaletti, Anna. 2004. Towards a Cartography of Subject Positions. In Rizzi, Luigi (ed.). The Structure of CP and IP, 115-165. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Cardinaletti, Anna. 2014. Cross-Linguistic Variation in the Syntax of Subjects. In Picallo, M. Carme (ed.). Linguistic Variation in the Minimalist Framework, 82-107. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198702894.003.0005

Cinque, Guglielmo. 1999. Adverbs and Functional Heads: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Costa, João. 2004. Subject Positions and Interfaces. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197396

Danckaert, Lieven. 2012. Latin Embedded Clauses: The Left Periphery. Amsterdam: Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/la.184

Danckaert, Lieven. 2016. The Syntax-Prosody Mapping in a Dead Language: The Case of Late Latin be-Periphrases. Paper presented at Going Romance 30, Frankfurt am Main, Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universität, 10.12.2016.

Danckaert, Lieven. 2017a. The Development of Latin Clause structure: A Study of the Extended Verb Phrase. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198759522.001.0001

Danckaert, Lieven. 2017b. The Origins of the Romance Analytic Passive: Evidence from Word Order. In Mathieu, Eric & Truswell, Robert (eds.). Micro-Change and Macro-Change in Diachronic Syntax, 216-235. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198747840.001.0001

Danckaert, Lieven. 2017c. The Loss of Latin OV: Steps towards an Analysis. In Aboh, Enoch, Haeberli, Eric, Puskás, Genoveva & Schönenberger, Manuela (eds.). Elements of Comparative Syntax: Theory and Description. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Danckaert, Lieven. to appear. The Decline of Latin VOAux: Neg-Incorporation and Syntactic Reanalysis. In Martins, Ana Maria & Cardoso, Adriana (eds.). Word Order Change. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Devine, Andrew & Laurence Stephens. 2006. Latin Word Order: Structured Meaning and Information. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195181685.001.0001

Jayaseelan, Karattuparambil. 2010. Stacking, stranding and pied-piping: a proposal about word order. Syntax 13: 298-330. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9612.2010.00141.x

Kayne, Richard. 1994. The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge (Mass.): MIT Press.

Kroch, Anthony. 1989. Reflexes of grammar in patterns of language change, Language Variation and Change 1, 199-244. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954394500000168

Kroch, Anthony. 1994. Morphosyntactic variation. In Beals, Katherine, Denton, Jeannette, Knippen, Robert, Melnar, Lynette, Suzuki, Hisami & Zeinfeld, Erica (eds.). Papers from the Thirtieth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society, Volume 2: The Parasession on Variation in Linguistic Theory, 180-201. Chicago: Chicago Linguistics Society.

Lahousse, Karen. 2006. NP subject inversion in French: two types, two configurations. Lingua 116: 424-461. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2004.08.020

Lahousse, Karen. 2014. Low Sentence Structure in French. Paper presented at GLOW 37, Brussels, 04.04.2014.

Longobardi, Giuseppe. 2000. “Postverbal” subjects and the mapping hypothesis. Linguistic Inquiry 31: 691-702. https://doi.org/10.1162/002438900554514

Mackenzie, Ian & Wim van der Wurff. 2012. Relic syntax in Middle English and Medieval Spanish: parameter interaction in language change. Language 88: 846-876. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2012.0084

Manetta, Emily. 2012. Reconsidering rightward scrambling: postverbal constituents in Hindi-Urdu. Linguistic Inquiry 43: 43-74. https://doi.org/10.1162/LING_a_00073

Ordóñez, Francisco. 2007. Cartography of Postverbal Subjects in Spanish and Catalan. In Baauw, Sergio, Drijkoningen, Frank & Pinto, Manuela (eds.). Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 2005, 259-280. Amsterdam: Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.291.17ord

Rizzi, Luigi. 1982. Issues in Italian Syntax. Dordrect: Foris. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110883718

Simpson, Andrew & Arunima Choudhury. 2015. The nonuniform syntax of postverbal elements in SOV languages: Hindi, Bangla, and the rightward scrambling debate. Linguistic Inquiry 46: 533-551. https://doi.org/10.1162/LING_a_00191

Wallenberg, Joel. 2015. Antisymmetry and Heavy NP Shift across Germanic. In Biberauer, Theresa & Walkden, George (eds.). Syntax over Time: Lexical, Morphological and Information-Structural Interactions, 336-349. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199687923.001.0001

Yang, Charles. 2000. Internal and external forces in language change. Language Variation and Change 12: 231-250. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954394500123014

Yang, Charles. 2002a. Knowledge and Learning in Natural Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Yang, Charles. 2002b. Grammar Competition and Language Change. In Lightfoot, David (ed.). Syntactic Effects of Morphological Change, 367-409. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199250691.003.0021

Copyright (c) 2017 Lieven Danckaert