Subject Placement in the History of Latin
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 competitionReferences
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
Published
How to Cite
Downloads
Copyright (c) 2017 Lieven Danckaert
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
