Latin Syntax in Fifty Years of Generative Grammar
Abstract
Presentation of the volume.References
Acedo-Matellán, Víctor. 2016. The Morphosyntax of Transitions. A Case Study in Latin and Other Languages. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198733287.001.0001
Acedo-Matellán, Víctor & Jaume Mateu. 2013. Satellite-framed Latin vs. verb-framed Romance: A syntactic approach. Probus. International Journal of Latin and Romance Linguistics 25: 227-265. https://doi.org/10.1515/probus-2013-0008
Acedo-Matellán, Víctor & Jaume Mateu. 2016. Argument structure and satellite-framedness in Latin: Evidence from unselected object constructions. In Poccetti, Paolo (ed.). Latinitatis rationes. Descriptive and Historical Accounts for the Latin Language, 149-169. Berlin: De Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110431896-012
Agbayani, Brian & Golston, Chris. 2016. Phonological Constituents and their Movement in Latin. Phonology 33: 1-42. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0952675716000026
Benedicto, Elena. 1991. Latin long-distance anaphora. In Koster, Jan & Reuland, Eric (eds.). Long-distance anaphora, 171-184. Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press.
Bertocchi, Alessandra. 1985. Subject ellipsis and case agreement. In Touratier, Christian (ed.). Syntaxe et latin, 25-37. Aix-en-Provence: Publications de l’Université de Provence.
Bertocchi, Alessandra. 1986. Anaphor and tense in Latin. Papers on Grammar 2: 63-86.
Bertocchi, Alessandra & Casadio, Claudia. 1980. Conditions on anaphora: an analysis of reflexive in Latin. Papers on Grammar 1: 1-46.
Bertocchi, Alessandra & Casadio, Claudia. 1983. Anaphoric relations, pronouns and Latin complementation. In Pinkster, Harm (ed.). Latin Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 27-39. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Bertocchi, Alessandra & Maraldi, Mirka. 1990. Nominalization and possessives in Latin. Papers on Grammar 3: 69-127.
Binkert, Peter Joseph. 1970. Case and Prepositional Construction in a Transformational Grammar of Classical Latin. PhD dissertation, University of Michigan.
Bolkestein, A. Machtelt. 1979. Subject-to-object raising in Latin? Lingua 48: 15-34. https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(79)90089-5
Bortolussi, Bernard. 1987. Considérations sur l’accusatif latin. Thèse d’État, Paris VII.
Bortolussi, Bernard. 1988. L’accusatif d’objet interne. In Weber, Heinrich & Zuber, Ryszard (eds.) Linguistik Parisette (Akten des 22 Linguistischen Kolloquiums, Paris 1987), 73-81. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Bortolussi, Bernard. 1991. Critères d’identification de l’objet en latin. Stemma 1: 11-21.
Bortolussi, Bernard. 1998. Facite uentum ut gaudeam. Quelques phénomènes d’ambiguïté syntaxique. In García-Hernandez, Benjamín (ed.). Estudios de Lingüística Latina (Actas del IX Coloquio Internacional de Lingüística Latina: Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, 1997), 203-216. Madrid: Ediciones Clásicas.
Bortolussi, Bernard. 2006. La grammaire générative et les langues anciennes. Lalies 26: 57-102.
Bortolussi, Bernard. 2009. La grammaire générative et le latin: exemples construits et utilisation des corpus. Mémoires de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 16: 99-119.
Calboli, Gualtiero. 1975. La linguistica moderna e il latino. I casi. Bologna: Pàtron.
Calboli, Gualtiero. 1980. Bemerkungen zum Akk.c.Inf. und zu verwandten Konstruktionen in Lateinischen. Papers on Grammar 1: 189-208.
Castelli Anna Luisa. 1976. Il tipo praesente nobis. Studi Italiani di Linguistica Teorica e Applicata 5: 57-78.
Cavallo, Guido. 2014. The Latin psych verbs of the ē-class: (de)transitivization and syntactic alignement. PhD dissertation, Università degli Studi di Padova. Downloadable at http://paduaresearch.cab.unipd.it/6880/
Cecchetto, Carlo & Oniga, Renato. 2002. Consequences of the analysis of Latin infinitival clauses for the theory of case and control. Lingue e Linguaggio 1: 151-189. https://doi.org/10.1418/7560
Cecchetto, Carlo & Oniga, Renato. 2004. A Challenge to Null Case Theory. Linguistic Inquiry 35: 141-149. https://doi.org/10.1162/002438904322793374
Cecchetto, Carlo & Oniga, Renato. 2014. Constituency as a Language Universal. The Case of Latin. Lingue antiche e moderne 3: 5-35.
Cecchetto, Carlo & Oniga, Renato. 2016. Considerazioni sul fenomeno dell’ellissi verbale. In Poccetti, Paolo (ed.). Latinitatis rationes. Descriptive and historical accounts for the Latin language, 189-199. Berlin: De Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110431896-014
Chomsky, Noam. 1957. Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton.
Chomsky, Noam. 1959. A Review of B. F. Skinner’s Verbal Behavior. Language 35: 26-58.
Chomsky, Noam. 1965. Aspects of the theory of syntax, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 1973. Conditions on transformations. In Anderson, Stephen & Kiparsky, Paul (eds). A Festschrift for Morris Halle, 232-286. New York, Holt.
Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam, Gallego, Ángel & Ott, Dennis (2017). Generative Grammar and the Faculty of Language: Insights, Questions, and Challenges. Manuscript, MIT, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, and University of Ottawa. To appear in Catalan Journal of Linguistics. Downloadable at http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/003507
Conlin, Victoria C. 1973. A localist theory of Latin case. PhD dissertation, University of Toronto.
Danckaert, Lieven. 2012. Latin Embedded Clauses. The Left Periphery. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/la.184
Danckaert, Lieven. 2017. The Development of Latin Clause Structure. A Study of the Extended Verb Phrase. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198759522.001.0001
Devine, Andrew M. & Stephens, Laurence D. 2006. Latin word order. Structured meaning and information. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0009840X10000430
Echarte Cossío, María José. 1985. Meditaciones sobre dos métodos para el análisis de la lengua latina. Generativismo y Funcionalismo. Estudios Clásicos: 27/89: 157-169.
Kiss, Katalin É. (ed.). 2005. Universal Grammar in the Reconstruction of Ancient Languages. Berlin: De Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110902228
Giannecchini, Gianni. 1975. L’attrazione del comparativo in latino. Uno studio trasformazionale. Annali della Facoltà di Lettere dell’Università di Perugia 13: 309-337.
Gianollo, Chiara. 2007. The internal syntax of the Nominal Phrase in Latin. A diachronic study. In Purnelle, Gérald & Denooz, Joseph (eds.). Ordre et cohérence en latin, 65-80. Liège: Droz.
Gianollo, Chiara. 2016. The Latin system of negation at the syntax-semantics interface. Rivista di Grammatica Generativa 38: 115-135.
Giusti, Giuliana & Oniga, Renato. 2006. La struttura del sintagma nominale latino. In Oniga, Renato & Zennaro, Luigi (eds.). Atti della Giornata di Linguistica Latina, 71-100. Venezia: Cafoscarina.
Giusti, Giuliana & Oniga, Renato. 2007. Core and periphery in the Latin noun phrase. In Purnelle, Gérald & Denooz, Joseph (eds.). Ordre et cohérence en latin, 81-95. Liège: Droz.
Giusti, Giuliana & Oniga, Renato. To appear. Il latino come corpus linguistico per una teoria della sintassi nominale: risultati e prospettive. In De la Villa, Jesús & Pompei, Anna (eds.). Classical Languages and Linguistics. Madrid: Universidad Autónoma de Madrid.
Goggin, John. 1983. Linking chains: control and case-marking in Latin infinitives. Texas Linguistic Forum 22: 61-86.
Guiraud, Charles. 1972. Linguistique latine, structuralisme et grammaire générative. L’information littéraire 24: 171-175.
Haegeman, Liliane (ed.). 1997. The New Comparative Syntax. London: Longman.
Haegeman, Liliane. 2006. Thinking Syntactically. A Guide to Argumentation and Analysis. Malden & Oxford: Blackwell.
Haug, Dag Trygve Truslew. 2016. Backward control in Ancient Greek and Latin participial adjuncts. Natural language and linguistic theory. 35(1): 99-159. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-016-9339-7
Haug, Dag Trygve Truslew & Nikitina, Tatiana. 2012. The many cases of non-finite subjects: the challenge of “dominant” participles in Latin. In Butt, Miriam & King, Tracy H. (eds.). Proceedings of the LFG 12 Conference, 292-311. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Haug, Dag Trygve Truslew & Nikitina, Tatiana. 2016. Syntactic nominalization in Latin: A case of non-canonical subject agreement. Transactions of the Philological Society. 114(1): 25- 50. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-968X.12061
Honda, Maya & O’Neil, Wayne. 2007. Thinking Linguistically. A Scientific Approach to Language. Malden & Oxford: Blackwell.
Iovino, Rossella. 2012. La sintassi dei modificatori nominali in latino. München: Lincom Europa.
Keiler, Allan R. 1970. Some Problems of Latin Deep Structure. Classical Journal 65: 208-213.
Kelly David H. 1968. Transformations in the Latin nominal phrase. Classical Philology 63: 46-52. https://doi.org/10.1086/365317
Jøhndal, Marius L. 2012. Non-finiteness in Latin. PhD dissertation, University of Cambridge. Downloadable at http://folk.uio.no/mariuslj/johndal-2012-phd-dissertation.pdf
Lakoff, Robin Tolmach. 1967. Studies in the Transformational Grammar of Latin. The Complement System. PhD dissertation, Harvard University.
Lakoff, Robin Tolmach. 1968. Abstract Syntax and Latin Complementation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Larson, Richard. 2010. Grammar as Science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Ledgeway, Adam. 2012. From Latin to Romance: Morphosyntactic Typology and Change. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199584376.001.0001
Maraldi, Mirka. 1975. Recenti studi di grammatica trasformazionale e loro possibile applicazione al latino. Giornale Italiano di Filologia 27: 227-247.
Maraldi, Mirka. 1985. Null subjects: some implications for Latin syntax. In Touratier, Christian (ed.). Syntaxe et latin, 41-53. Aix-en-Provence: Publications de l’Université de Provence.
Mateu, Jaume. 2014. Argument structure. In Carnie, Andrew et al. (eds.). The Routledge Handbook of Syntax, 24-41. New York: Routledge.
Mateu, Jaume. 2017. State and Change of State in Latin. A View from the Lexicon-Syntax Interface. In Fernández-Soriano, Olga et al. (eds.). Boundaries, Phases and Interfaces. Case Studies in Honor of Violeta Demonte, 344-366. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/la.239.16mat
Maurel, Jean- Pierre. 1989. Le syntagme nominal en latin. Les emplois du génitif chez Plaute et Térence. Thèse d’Etat, Strasbourg II.
Migliori, Laura. 2016. Argument structure, alignment and auxiliaries between Latin and Romance. PhD dissertation. Leiden University. Downloadable at https://openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/handle/1887/40052
Milner, Jean-Claude. 1978. Le système du réfléchi en latin. Langages 50 : 73-86.
Miller, D. Gary. 2000. Gerund and gerundive in Latin. Diachronica 17 (2): 293–349. https://doi.org/10.1075/dia.17.2.03mil
Oniga, Renato. 2004. Il latino. Breve introduzione linguistica. 2nd edition revised in 2007. Milano: Franco Angeli.
Oniga, Renato. 2014. Latin: A Linguistic Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Oniga, Renato, Iovino, Rossella & Giusti, Giuliana (eds.). 2011. Formal Linguistics and the Teaching of Latin. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Ostafin, David Mark. 1986. Studies in Latin word order. A transformational approach. PhD dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs.
Pepicello William J. 1977. Raising in Latin. Lingua 42: 209-218. https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(77)90028-6
Pillinger, Owen Stephen. 1980. The Accusative and Infinitive in Latin: A Refractory Complement Structure. Journal of Linguistics 16: 55-83. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226700006344
Pinkster, Harm (ed.).1983. Latin Linguistics and Linguistic Theory. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Pinzin, Francesco. 2017. Deposing deponency: Latin non-denominal deponents are not grammatically idiosyncratic verbs. Journal of Latin Linguistics 16: 11-42. https://doi.org/10.1515/joll-2017-0006
Polo, Chiara. 2004. Word order between morphology and syntax. Padova: Unipress.
Popper, Karl. 1935. Logik der Forschung. Wien: Springer (Engl. transl. 1959. The Logic of Scientific Discovery. London & New York: Hutchinson & Co.).
Quetglas, Pere J. 1985. Elementos básicos de filología y lingüística latinas. Barcelona: Teide (2nd ed., 2006. Barcelona: Publicacions i Edicions de la Universitat de Barcelona).
Ros, Hilke. 2001. Binding theory and valency grammar in Latin. Glotta 77: 244-261.
Salvi, Giampaolo. 2004. La formazione della struttura di frase romanza. Tübingen: Narr.
Taraba, Jan. 1985. Valeurs d’ensemble des cas et rôles sémantiques, avec application aux nominatifs et accusatifs latins. Graecolatina et Orientalia 27: 67-87.
Touratier, Christian.1969. Syntaxe latine et grammaire générative. Revue des Etudes Latines 47: 106-121.
Vincent, Nigel. 2000. Competition and Correspondence in Syntactic Change: Null Arguments in Latin and Romance. In Pintzuk, Susan et al. (eds.). Diachronic Syntax. Models and Mechanisms, 25-50. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press.
Uriagereka, Juan. 1998. Rhyme and Reason. An Introduction to Minimalist Syntax. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Published
How to Cite
Downloads
Copyright (c) 2017 Jaume Mateu, Renato Oniga
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
