The Development of Latin Clause Structure: A Study of the Extended Verb Phrase (Oxford Studies in Diachronic and Historical Linguistics) [Illustrated] 9780198759522, 0198759525

Citation preview

The Development of Latin Clause Structure

OXFORD STUDIES IN DIACHRONIC AND HISTORICAL LINGUISTICS GENERAL EDITORS:

Adam Ledgeway and Ian Roberts, University of Cambridge

ADVISORY EDITORS:

Cynthia Allen, Australian National University; Ricardo BermúdezOtero, University of Manchester; Theresa Biberauer, University of Cambridge; Charlotte Galves, University of Campinas; Geoff Horrocks, University of Cambridge; Paul Kiparsky, Stanford University; Anthony Kroch, University of Pennsylvania; David Lightfoot, Georgetown University; Giuseppe Longobardi, University of York; George Walkden, University of Konstanz; David Willis, University of Cambridge RECENTLY PUBLISHED IN THE SERIES

 Verb Movement and Clause Structure in Old Romanian Virginia Hill and Gabriela Alboiu  The Syntax of Old Romanian Edited by Gabriela Pană Dindelegan  Grammaticalization and the Rise of Configurationality in Indo-Aryan Uta Reinöhl  The Rise and Fall of Ergativity in Aramaic Cycles of Alignment Change Eleanor Coghill  Portuguese Relative Clauses in Synchrony and Diachrony Adriana Cardoso  Micro-change and Macro-change in Diachronic Syntax Edited by Eric Mathieu and Robert Truswell  The Development of Latin Clause Structure A Study of the Extended Verb Phrase Lieven Danckaert  Transitive Nouns and Adjectives Evidence from Early Indo-Aryan John J. Lowe For a complete list of titles published and in preparation for the series, see pp. –

The Development of Latin Clause Structure A Study of the Extended Verb Phrase

LIEVEN DANCKAERT

1

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/4/2017, SPi

3

Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, OX DP, United Kingdom Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries © Lieven Danckaert  The moral rights of the author have been asserted First Edition published in  Impression:  All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, by licence or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address above You must not circulate this work in any other form and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press  Madison Avenue, New York, NY , United States of America British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Data available Library of Congress Control Number:  ISBN –––– Printed and bound by CPI Group (UK) Ltd, Croydon, CR YY Links to third party websites are provided by Oxford in good faith and for information only. Oxford disclaims any responsibility for the materials contained in any third party website referenced in this work.

Contents Series preface Acknowledgements List of figures and tables Abbreviations A note on glossing conventions . What is at stake: word order, configurationality, and the potential for structural ambiguity . Introduction: what this book is about . Latin word order flexibility: a brief demonstration .. Word order permutations .. Discontinuous constituents .. To sum up . Approaches to Latin word order .. Non-configurational approaches .. Semi-configurational approaches: linear templates .. Configurational approaches: phrase structure .. A note on hybrid systems .. To sum up . Configurational or not: why bother? .. Introducing structural ambiguity . . . .. . . . and applying it to Latin .. The question in a nutshell: does Latin have a VP constituent? . Evidence for a Latin VP, part : the interaction between verb placement and negation .. The NegVOR facts: a stepwise description .. Interlude: from description to explanation .. Explaining NegVOR: a phrase structure based account .. Discarding a non-explanation: the ‘Neg First principle’ . Evidence for a Latin VP, part : constituency tests .. Coordination .. Displacement (fronting) .. Ellipsis .. Pronominalization .. Relativization .. To sum up

ix x xii xvi xxiii

                           

vi

Contents . Discarding some non-arguments against configurationality .. Discontinuous constituents .. A note on word order in poetry . Some remarks on non-configurationality in generative grammar . Conclusion: Latin as a (discourse-)configurational language

. Latin corpus linguistics and the study of language change: methods, problems, and prospects . Studying language variation and change .. The nature of linguistic variation .. An illustration: the English dative alternation . A Latin corpus (ca.  BC– AD) .. Composition of the corpus .. Some texts that were not taken into account .. Some methodological remarks .. Interim conclusion . The Latin corpus as a source of information on language change .. S-curves and the course of language change .. The development of the analytic future perfect . A concluding note on synchrony and diachrony (and the scope of this book) . Multiple object positions and how to diagnose them . OV/VO in diachrony: an introduction .. Where we stand .. Some initial corpus data . A third argument for a configurational approach to Latin syntax .. The OV/VO alternation across syntactic contexts .. A hypothesis: different types of OV and VO .. Testing the hypothesis .. Interim summary . The syntax of object placement: evidence for more than two object positions .. Looking for ‘analytic monoclausality’ in Latin .. The special behaviour of Latin BE-periphrases .. Taking stock . The phrase structure of Latin modals .. A cartographic hypothesis .. Tense in Latin modal constructions .. Latin modals as raising verbs .. Modals and negation . Conclusion and roadmap

                                    

Contents

vii

. VOAux: a typologically rare word order pattern . A closer look at the diachrony of object placement .. Object placement in clauses with a modal verb .. VO in VPAux and AuxVP contexts . What is special about the VOAux-pattern .. Antisymmetry and the syntax of complement-head sequences .. Roll-up movement and the Final-Over-Final Constraint (FOFC) . Getting to know Latin VOAux: five basic properties .. (The linear order) VOAux exists .. VOAux is only productive in Classical Latin .. VOAux in clauses with a BE-auxiliary .. VOAux across clause types .. The nature of the direct object . The synchronic syntax of VOAux-clauses .. Four alternative derivations .. Intermediate conclusion: the derivation of Classical Latin [[VO]Aux] (first approximation) . The loss of VOAux .. The decline of VOAux versus the decline of VPAux .. Classical and Late Latin: revisiting the periodization . Conclusion: a new look at the OV/VO alternation

              

. Changing EPP parameters: clause structure in Classical and Late Latin . The VPAux/AuxVP alternation in the history of Latin .. Introduction .. VPAux/AuxVP: the essential descriptives .. The explananda .. The analysis in a nutshell . What Classical Latin ‘VP[–Neg–]Aux’ is not .. Head movement .. VP intraposition .. Roll-up movement . Grammar A: EPP-driven VP movement .. Introduction: parameters of EPP-checking .. Latin VP displacement as A-movement .. The syntax of AuxVP-clauses in Grammar A .. The EPP in Grammar A: evidence from passives .. Interim conclusion . The genesis of Grammar B: Neg-procliticization and syntactic reanalysis .. The development of negation: Jespersen’s Cycle

               

    

 

viii

Contents

.. Neg-procliticization in Late Latin .. Grammar B: Late Latin VPAux .. Late Latin AuxVP . Properties of Grammar B .. A first consequence: the decline of ‘V–Internal Argument–Aux’ .. A new way of EPP-checking: internal arguments across voice types revisited .. Early and late AuxVP-clauses compared . Conclusion

       

. The development of BE-periphrases . Two types of BE-periphrases . The development of the F-paradigm .. Early differentiation of E and F? .. The spread of the F-paradigm .. Intermediate summary . The development of the E-paradigm .. Some differences between early and late ‘PaPa-BE’ .. Weak BE .. Discussion: some unrelated phenomena . A note on the loss of the synthetic passive . Conclusion

           

Epilogue Variable direction of complementation in the Latin clause: a synthesis Glossary References Index locorum Author index Subject index

     

Series preface Modern diachronic linguistics has important contacts with other subdisciplines, notably first-language acquisition, learnability theory, computational linguistics, sociolinguistics and the traditional philological study of texts. It is now recognized in the wider field that diachronic linguistics can make a novel contribution to linguistic theory, to historical linguistics and arguably to cognitive science more widely. This series provides a forum for work in both diachronic and historical linguistics, including work on change in grammar, sound, and meaning within and across languages; synchronic studies of languages in the past; and descriptive histories of one or more languages. It is intended to reflect and encourage the links between these subjects and fields such as those mentioned above. The goal of the series is to publish high-quality monographs and collections of papers in diachronic linguistics generally, i.e. studies focussing on change in linguistic structure, and/or change in grammars, which are also intended to make a contribution to linguistic theory, by developing and adopting a current theoretical model, by raising wider questions concerning the nature of language change or by developing theoretical connections with other areas of linguistics and cognitive science as listed above. There is no bias towards a particular language or language family, or towards a particular theoretical framework; work in all theoretical frameworks, and work based on the descriptive tradition of language typology, as well as quantitatively based work using theoretical ideas, also feature in the series. Adam Ledgeway and Ian Roberts University of Cambridge

Acknowledgements This book is a synthesis of the research I carried out between the completion of my PhD in , and the end of my second postdoctoral project at Ghent University in the summer of . During these five years, many people have been very generous in supporting me and my work in various ways, and it is now my pleasure to say a couple of words of thanks. First of all, back home in Ghent I would like to thank my colleagues—past and present—at GIST, for creating a very stimulating (and fun) research environment. As ever I would like to thank Liliane Haegeman in particular, among many other things for helping me to find a balance between empirical data description and theoretical analysis, and for constantly reminding me that I still have much to learn as a syntactician. Also, many thanks for carefully reading through an early draft of the first chapter of the book. Outside GIST, I am very grateful to Esther De Loof for much appreciated help with programming, code-debugging, data analysis, and data visualization (and then usually more debugging . . . ). I’ll learn eventually! The idea for writing this book originated during a research stay at the University of York in the fall of : I would like to seize this occasion to thank the members of the ‘Centre for Historical and Comparative Syntax’ for welcoming me into their research community, and for many hours of very fruitful discussion. Special thanks go to Susan Pintzuk and Ann Taylor, not only for helping me understand how and when to use quantitative evidence in historical syntax, but also for going well beyond the call of duty in making my time in York a very enjoyable one. In  I spent an equally inspiring semester at the University of Geneva, where I benefited greatly from discussions with, among others, Giuliano Bocci, Eric Haeberli, Luigi Rizzi, Ji Young Shim, and Ur Shlonsky. In addition, I would like to thank Jim Adams for very insightful discussion of some of the materials discussed in Chapter , and Philip Burton for sharing his expertise on Christian Latin with me. Various parts of the book were presented at a number of conferences and workshops. In chronological order, these are: ‘GIST : Cartography and Beyond’ (Ghent University), ‘ICLL ’ (University of Uppsala), ‘Exploring Ancient Languages through Corpora’ (University of Oslo), ‘DiGS ’ (University of Lisbon), ‘Syntactic Change and Syntactic Reconstruction: New Perspectives’ (University of Zürich), ‘Manchester and Salford New Researchers in Linguistics Forum ’ (University of Manchester), ‘Going Romance ’ (University of Leuven), ‘ICLL ’ (University of Rome II, Tor Vergata), ‘DiGS ’ (University of Ottawa), ‘ICHL ’ (University of Oslo), ‘Early Latin and Late Latin/Romance: Continuity and Innovation’ (University

Acknowledgements

xi

of Manchester), ‘DiGS ’ (Linguistics Institute of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Budapest), ‘LVLT ’ (University of Oviedo), ‘DiGS ’ (University of Iceland, Reykjavík), ‘ICHL ’ (University of Naples). In addition, I had opportunities to present my work at research seminars at the universities of Padova, Leiden, Cambridge, York, and Geneva. Many thanks to the audiences at these events for very valuable feedback. I also would like to thank Julia Steer and Vicki Sunter from the editorial team at OUP, the series editors Adam Ledgeway and Ian Roberts, and four anonymous reviewers for many valuable suggestions to improve both the form and the content of the book. Finally, the research reported on in this book was made possible by grants from the ‘Special Research Fund’ of Ghent University (grant nr. BOF/PDO/) and from the ‘Fund for Scientific Research Flanders’ (grant nr. FWO/PDO/), which I gratefully acknowledge. Needless to add, all shortcomings of this work are entirely mine. Ghent, September 

List of figures and tables Figures .

Relative frequency (in %) of future perfect F-periphrases (amatus fuerit) compared to E-periphrases (amatus erit), ca.  BC– AD



.

Relative frequency of the order VO, ca.  BC– AD (averaged over all syntactic environments)



.

Relative frequency of the order VO, ca.  BC– AD: main and embedded clauses compared



.

Relative frequency of the order VO in clauses with a single synthetic finite verb, ca.  BC– AD Relative frequency of the order VO in clauses with a single synthetic non-finite verb, ca.  BC– AD

. . .

Relative frequency of the order VO in clauses with a modal verb and an infinitive, ca.  BC– AD Relative frequency of the order VO in clauses with a single synthetic finite verb (reduced corpus), ca.  BC– AD

   

. .

Difference score between Figures . and ., ca.  BC– AD Frequency of VO, VOAux counted as OV, ca.  BC– AD

 

.

Difference score between Figures . and ., ca.  BC– AD



. Frequency of VO, VOAux counted as OV, and AuxOV as VO, ca.  BC– AD . Difference score between Figures . and ., ca.  BC– AD . Frequency of six word order patterns in transitive clauses with a modal and a BE-auxiliary compared, ca.  BC– AD . Frequency of six word order patterns in transitive clauses with a modal and a BE-auxiliary compared, ca. – AD . Frequency of non-contiguous combinations of an auxiliary and a non-finite verb, VPAux and AuxVP-clauses compared . Relative frequency of the order VO in clauses with a modal verb, ca.  BC– AD

     

.

Diachrony of VO in clauses with a modal verb (extraposed and shifted objects excluded), ca.  BC– AD



.

Rate of object shift in clauses with a modal verb, ca.  BC– AD



List of figures and tables . Rate of object extraposition in clauses with a modal verb, ca.  BC– AD . Diachrony of VO in VPAux-clauses with a modal (extraposed objects excluded), ca.  BC– AD . Diachrony of VO in AuxVP-clauses with a modal (shifted objects excluded), ca.  BC– AD . Accuracy of predicting the rate of VOAux over time

xiii

   

. Diachrony of VOAux in clauses with a modal verb: segmented linear regression . The OV/VO alternation in VPAux and AuxVP-clauses compared, ca.  BC– AD (only clauses with a modal)



. Diachrony of the order ‘possum +infinitive’, ca.  BC– AD . Diachrony of the order ‘debeo +infinitive’, ca.  BC– AD

 

. Diachrony of the order ‘sum + past participle’, ca.  BC– AD . The distribution of internal arguments in active and passive clauses with a modal verb, ca.  BC– AD



. Diachrony of the order VS in passive VPAux-clauses with a modal verb



. Diachrony of the order VS in passive VPAux-clauses with a modal verb, extraposed subjects excluded



. Diachrony of the order VS in passive VPAux-clauses with a modal verb (extraposed subjects excluded): segmented linear regression



. The distribution of internal arguments in active and passive clauses with a modal verb, ca. – AD



. The probability for internal arguments in AuxVP-clauses with a modal verb to undergo leftward movement ( BC– AD): active and passive clauses compared . Diachrony of the order ‘sum + past participle’, ca.  BC– AD

 

. Diachrony of the order ‘sum + past participle’ (E-periphrases only), ca.  BC– AD . Diachrony of the order ‘sum + past participle’ (F-periphrases only), ca.  BC– AD . Frequency of F-periphrases (as compared to E-periphrases), ca.  BC– AD . Frequency of F-periphrases (as compared to E-periphrases), ca.  BC– AD: passives and deponents compared . Frequency of F-periphrases (as compared to E-periphrases), ca.  BC– AD: the role of tense distinctions . Word order in clauses with a BE-periphrasis (E-periphrases only), ca.  BC– AD: affirmative and negated clauses compared





     

List of figures and tables

xiv . .

Word order in clauses with a BE-periphrasis (E-periphrases only), ca.  BC– AD: monosyllabic vs. polysyllabic auxiliaries Word order in clauses with a BE-periphrasis, ca.  BC– AD: auxiliaries with a vocalic and non-vocalic onset compared

 

Tables .

Non-, semi-, hybrid, and fully configurational approaches to Latin word order compared (first version)

. .

Rate of VO in ambiguous vs. non-ambiguous contexts Non-, semi-, hybrid, and fully configurational approaches to Latin word order compared (final version)

. .

Main patterns of placement of sentential negation in Latin finite clauses (Linear) position of non with clausal scope: frequencies in VPAux-clauses



.

(Linear) position of non with clausal scope: frequencies in AuxVP-clauses Negated Latin why-questions: fragments vs. full clauses

 

. . .

Incidence of quidni and cur non in elliptical and non-elliptical environments Pre- vs. postverbal negation in languages with a single negative morpheme

. Availability of pre- and postverbal negation in a sample of , languages . Description of a Latin text corpus, ca.  BC– AD .

   

   

Identification of text samples used to study the diachrony of the OV/VO alternation (in DLCS) Authors not taken into account for the study of object placement in clauses with a modal verb



. .

Predictions about tense in Latin modal constructions The OV/VO alternation in VPAux-clauses with a modal verb

 

. .

Frequency of the VOAux-order across clauses with different auxiliaries (nominal objects only): absolute and relative figures The OV/VO alternation in VPAux-clauses with a BE-auxiliary

 

.

VOAux across clause types (clauses with a modal verb only)



. .

Possible derivations for [V[O[Aux]]]-orders Evaluating four alternatives to a [[VO]Aux]-bracketing

 

.

Accuracy of predicting the rate of the order ‘VO–modal’ over time



.



List of figures and tables . Proportional frequency of contiguous and non-contiguous AuxV-sequences in clauses with possum . Proportional frequency of contiguous and non-contiguous AuxV-sequences in clauses with debeo . Proportional frequency of contiguous and non-contiguous AuxV-sequences in clauses with a (passive or deponent) BE-periphrasis . Parameters of EPP-checking . Placement of internal arguments across voice distinctions, ca.  BC– AD: mean frequencies per word order pattern . AuxVP and VPAux-orders over time: AcIs and finite (main and embedded) clauses compared . Placement of internal arguments across voice distinctions, ca. – AD: mean frequencies per word order pattern . Summary of the logistic model predicting leftward movement of internal arguments in clauses with a modal verb ( BC– AD) . Passive E- and F-periphrases . Non-perfective and perfective passives in Classical Latin

xv

      

  

Abbreviations Abbreviations of names of Latin authors and texts are as in the Oxford Latin Dictionary (ix–xxi) or, for names not mentioned there, as in the Thesaurus Linguae Latinae (see the Index librorum scriptorum inscriptionum (, second edition)), with the exceptions of the Scriptores Historiae Augustae and the Gesta Conlationis Carthaginiensis (for which I use an acronym rather than an abbreviation) and the Itinerarium Egeriae (for which the Thesaurus uses the alternative title Peregrinatio Aetheriae). 

first person



second person



third person

ABL

ablative

ACC

accusative

AcI

Accusatiuus cum Infinitiuo

ADV

adverb

AdvP

Adverb Phrase

Ambr.

Ambrose

In Luc.

Expositio euangelii secundum Lucam

Apic.

Apicius

Arnob.

Arnobius the Elder

Nat.

Aduersus nationes

ART

article

Aug.

Augustine

Mus.

De musica

Epist.

Epistulae

In psalm.

Enarratio in psalmos

Serm.

Sermones

Aux

auxiliary

B. Afr.

De bello Africo

Caes.

Caesar

Civ.

De bello ciuili

Gal.

De bello Gallico

Caes. Arel.

Caesarius of Arles

Cass. Fel.

Cassius Felix

Abbreviations Cato Agr.

De agri cultura

Cels.

Celsus

Cic.

Cicero

Ad Brut.

Epistulae ad Brutum

Amic.

De amicitia

Arch.

Pro Archia

Att.

Epistulae ad Atticum

Brut.

Brutus

Caec.

Pro Caecina

Catil.

In Catilinam

Clu.

Pro Cluentio

Div.

De diuinatione

Fam.

Epistulae ad familiares

Fat.

De fato

Har.

De haruspicum responso

Man.

Pro lege Manilia

Marc.

Pro Marcello

Mil.

Pro Milone

N.D.

De natura deorum

Off.

De officiis

Phil.

Philippicae

Pis.

In Pisonem

Prov.

De prouinciis consularibus

Rab. Post.

Pro Rabirio Postumo

Sest.

Pro Sestio

Sul.

Pro Sulla

Tul.

Pro Tullio

Ver.

In Verrem

Col.

Columella

COMP

comparative

CP

Complementizer Phrase

Curt.

Quintus Curtius

Cypr.

Cyprian

Ep.

Epistulae

xvii

xviii

Abbreviations

DAT

dative

Dig.

Digesta

Diom. gramm.

Diomedes

DLCS

Development of Latin Clause Structure  (dataset available at https://opendata.uit.no/dataset.xhtml?persistentId=doi:./ NYYDV)

DLCS

Development of Latin Clause Structure  (dataset available at https://opendata.uit.no/dataset.xhtml?persistentId=doi:./ NYYDV)

Don.

Donatus

DP

Determiner Phrase

EA

external argument

Eleg. Maec.

Elegia in Maecenatem

Enn.

Ennius

Scen.

Scenica (= Tragoediarum fragmenta)

EPP

Extended Projection Principle

F

feminine

FocP

Focus Phrase

FOFC

Final-Over-Final Constraint

Fron.

Frontinus

Str.

Strategemata

FUT

future

FUTPRF

future perfect

Gaius Inst.

Institutiones

GCC

Gesta Conlationis Carthaginiensis

GDV

gerundive

Gel.

Aulus Gellius

GEN

genitive

GLK

Grammatici Latini, ed. Keil ( vols)

Greg. Tur.

Gregory of Tours

Franc.

Historia Francorum

HMC

Head Movement Constraint

Hor.

Horace

S. Hyg. Astr.

Sermones Hyginus Astronomica

Abbreviations IA

internal argument

IMP

imperative

INF

infinitive

INFL

inflection

InfP

Infinitive Phrase

IPFV

imperfect(ive)

Itin. Eg.

Itinerarium Egeriae

l.

line

LASLA

Laboratoire d’Analyse Statistique des Langues Anciennes

LCA

Linear Correspondence Axiom

LEF

Left Edge Fronting

Leo M.

Leo Magnus (Pope Leo I)

Serm.

Sermones

LFG

Lexical-Functional Grammar

LHM

Long Head Movement

LI

lexical item

Liv.

Livy

M

masculine

Mela

Pomponius Mela

Mod

modal (verb)

N

neuter

NC

Negative Concord

NcI

Nominatiuus cum Infinitiuo

Neg(P)

Negation (Phrase)

NegVOR

Negation-Verb Ordering Restriction

Nep.

Cornelius Nepos

Paus.

Pausanias

NOM

nominative

Non.

Nonius Marcellus

NP

Noun Phrase

O

object

OLD

Oxford Latin Dictionary

Ov.

Ovid

Ep.

Epistulae (= Heroides)

Met.

Metamorphoses

Tr.

Tristia

xix

xx

Abbreviations

Pallad.

Palladius

PASS

passive

Petr.

Petronius

PF

Phonological Form

PL

plural

Pl.

Plautus

Am.

Amphitruo

Aul.

Aulularia

Bac.

Bacchides

Cas.

Casina

Epid.

Epidicus

Mil.

Miles gloriosus

Per.

Persa

Poen.

Poenulus

St.

Stichus

PLD

Primary Linguistic Data

Plin.

Pliny the Elder

Nat. Plin. Ep.

Naturalis Historia Pliny the Younger Epistulae

PLPRF

pluperfect

Pomp. gramm.

Pompeius Maurus

PP

Prepositional Phrase

praef.

praefatio (‘preface’)

PRF

perfect

prol.

prologus (‘prologue’)

prooem.

prooemium (‘preface, preamble’)

PRS

present

PRT

particle

Ps. Ascon.

Pseudo-Asconius Pedianus

PTCP

participle

Q

question particle/marker

Quint.

Quintilian

Decl.

Declamationes

Inst.

Institutio oratoria

Abbreviations [Quint.] Decl.

Pseudo-Quintilian Declamationes maiores

REFL

reflexive

Rhet. Her.

Rhetorica ad Herennium

RM

Relativized Minimality

S

subject

Sal. Jug. Salv. Gub.

Sallust Iugurtha Salvian De gubernatione dei

SBJV

subjunctive

Schol.

scholia (‘commentary’)

ScrP

Scrambling Phrase

se

standard error (of the mean)

Sen.

Seneca the Younger

Ben.

De beneficiis

Cl.

De clementia

Dial.

Dialogi

Ep.

Epistulae

Her. O.

Hercules Oetaeus

Oed.

Oedipus

Phoen.

Phoenissae

Serv. auct.

Servius auctus

SF

Stylistic Fronting

SG

singular

SHA

Scriptores Historiae Augustae

Car.

Carus et Carinus et Numerianus

Hadr.

Hadrianus

Sort. Sangall.

Sortes Sangallenses

SubjP

Subject Phrase

SUP

superlative

t

trace

Tac.

Tacitus

Ann.

Annales

Dial.

Dialogus de oratoribus

Hist.

Historiae

xxi

xxii

Abbreviations

TAM

Tense-Aspect-Mood

Ter.

Terence

An.

Andria

Eu.

Eunuchus

Ph.

Phormio

Tert. Adv. Marc.

Tertullian Aduersus Marcionem

TopP

Topic (Phrase)

TP

Tense Phrase

V

lexical verb

Var.

Varro

L.

De lingua latina

R.

Res rusticae

Vell.

Velleius Paterculus

Verg.

Virgil

A.

Aeneis

Ecl.

Eclogae

Vitr.

Vitruvius

VOC

vocative

VP

Verb Phrase

vP

light verb phrase

Vulg.

Vulgate

NT

New Testament

OT

Old Testament

A note on glossing conventions In glossing the Latin examples in this book I follow the so-called ‘Leipzig Glossing Rules’.1 It is important to stress that the aim of the glosses is not to provide any (full) morphological analysis, but only to guide the reader who is not familiar with Latin through the examples. My main concern is to make the glosses as informative as possible, without making them excessively long. To this end, I adopt a number of conventions which go beyond the Leipzig rules, and which I would briefly like to clarify (see also Danckaert a: xv). For the purpose of glossing verb forms, the voice category ‘active’ and the mood category ‘indicative’ are considered defaults and are therefore not explicitly glossed. In other words, whenever a given verb form does not appear with any voice or mood specification, it is an active indicative. In contrast, passives, subjunctives, and infinitives are always glossed as such. Deponents are considered active. Theme vowels are never glossed separately, and they are as a rule considered part of the verbal ending. Nouns, adnominal and predicative adjectives, and adnominal pronouns are glossed for case but not for gender and number. Whenever possible, information related to number is encoded in the translation part of the gloss, rather than with a separate tag. Full case–gender–number specifications are always provided for (i) free standing (demonstrative) pronouns and for (ii) past and future participles which are part of a periphrastic verb form (with or without an overt BE-auxiliary). For all examples from other languages (except English) I adopt a similar routine, thereby sometimes adapting the glosses provided in the original sources from which the examples were taken.

1

See https://www.eva.mpg.de/lingua/resources/glossing-rules.php. Last accessed  November .

1 What is at stake Word order, configurationality, and the potential for structural ambiguity

. Introduction: what this book is about This book has a double goal. The first is empirical: I will offer a detailed description and analysis of two well known (but poorly understood) word order alternations in the Latin clause, namely the variable distribution of the orders ‘object–verb’ (OV) and ‘verb–object’ (VO) (), and the alternation between the orders ‘non-finite verb– auxiliary’ (VAux) and ‘auxiliary–non-finite verb’ (AuxV) (). () a. Postea uici-am da-to. later vetch-ACC give-IMP.FUT.SG ‘Later one should offer vetch.’ (Cato Agr. .) b. Collig-e-mus uici-am. gather-FUT-PL vetch-ACC ‘We shall gather vetch.’ (Pallad. ..) () a. ubi uindemi-a fact-a eri-t when vintage-NOM made-NOM.F.SG be-FUT.SG ‘when the vintage shall be done’ (Cato Agr. )

OV

VO

VAux

b. qu-ae Ianuari-o mens-e sunt fact-a AuxV which-NOM.N.PL January-ABL month-ABL be.PRS.PL made-NOM.N.PL ‘which were done in January’ (Pallad. .) In what follows, I will refer to the patterns shown in the a-examples as ‘head-final’ (or complement–head) orders, and to the ones in the b-examples as ‘head-initial’ (head– complement). At present, no reliable corpus study of these word order alternations is available. This book aims to fill this lacuna. As the reader might have observed, word order is not the only difference between the a-sentences and the b-sentences: they were also taken from authors who lived in

The Development of Latin Clause Structure. First edition. Lieven Danckaert. © Lieven Danckaert . First published  by Oxford University Press.



Word order, configurationality, and structural ambiguity

different periods. While Cato’s De agri cultura (first half of the second century BC) is the earliest substantial Latin prose text that has come down to us, Palladius’ treatment of the same subject matter is about  years younger. However, it is certainly not the case that early authors only produced head-final orders, and later writers only head-initial ones: in Cato we also find clauses with the order VO (a), and Palladius also produces OV-sequences (b): () a. Et circum capit-a addi-to stercus. and around heads-ACC add-IMP.FUT.SG dung.ACC ‘And around the heads you shall apply manure.’ (Cato Agr. .) b. si circa radic-es suill-um stercus adfund-a-s if around roots-ACC of.pigs-ACC dung.ACC pour-PRS.SBJV-SG ‘if you put pig dung around the roots’ (Pallad. ..)

VO

OV

Similarly, in Cato’s work we find examples exhibiting the order ‘Aux–PaPa’ (a), and Palladius also uses the reverse order (b): () a. donec cremor crass-us eri-t fact-us until cream.NOM thick-NOM be-FUT.SG made-NOM.M.SG ‘until it becomes a thick cream’ (Cato Agr. ) b. quodsi steril-is fact-us est if infertile-NOM made-NOM.M.SG be.PRS.SG ‘if the place has become infertile’ (Pallad. ..)

loc-us place-NOM

AuxV

VAux

In this book I will almost exclusively be concerned with the diachronic development of these two word order alternations. In other words, analysing the synchronic factors governing the observed variability (‘Why does a language user prefer order X in discourse setting Y?’) lies beyond the scope of this book. I will further clarify this last point in Chapter . Anticipating the discussion coming up in Chapters  to , many of the descriptive generalizations that emerge from my own corpus work on Latin word order appear to conflict with the communis opinio on the matter, which says that the period from ca.  BC (say Plautus) until some very late Latin texts (ca.  AD) witnesses a steady increase in frequency of the head-initial patterns (see e.g. Bauer , and references cited there). I will show that this generalization is only partially correct, and in some cases even wrong. As mentioned, my conclusions are largely based on my own corpus data. As corpus methods are not standard practice in the field of Latin linguistics, I will pay special attention to a number of methodological aspects of corpus linguistics, focusing among other things on the question as to how and under which conditions one can draw meaningful (diachronic) conclusions from corpus data (see especially Chapters  and ).

Latin word order flexibility: a brief demonstration



The second goal of this book is more theoretical in nature, but has important methodological consequences for the way in which a corpus study on word order has to be designed. To be more precise, I will address the question of which type of theoretical approach is best suited to describing and analysing facts of Latin word order. In the third section of this chapter, I will give an overview of the most important approaches to Latin word order. Broadly speaking, these approaches differ in the extent to which they assume word order to be governed by rules of syntax, going from fully configurational systems, in which most, if not all, aspects of word order are a matter of syntax, to fully non-configurational grammars, which do not assume that syntax plays any major role in bringing about linear word order. The present work aims at supplementing the discussion offered in Ledgeway (a) and Cecchetto and Oniga (), and at corroborating the conclusions reached there. In the remainder of this first chapter I will put forward a series of arguments in favour of the configurational approach. In the course of the following chapters, I will then specify how the configurational structure of the Latin clause changes over time. As one very important aspect of Latin word order—which any theoretical approach will have to be able to account for—is its remarkable degree of flexibility, I will start the discussion by taking a closer look at this property of Latin.

. Latin word order flexibility: a brief demonstration The aim of this section is to highlight a number of facts concerning word order variation in Latin, which have led scholars to the conclusion that Latin is a nonconfigurational (or ‘free word order’) language (in a sense to be made more explicit in Section ..). Although I will eventually suggest that this view cannot be maintained, the relevant empirical facts are very important, as they show that Latin word order is indeed remarkably flexible. It should go without saying that in order to account for certain facts of Latin word order it is important to carefully inspect the full range of variation attested in the historical records, but as I will argue in Section ., this alone is not sufficient, as one also has to consider which word orders are not attested, despite being logically possible. .. Word order permutations Let us first have a look at word order variation (that is, at the range of possible word order permutations, not at the interpretive differences between various word order patterns). At first glance, it seems to be the case that given a set S consisting of n lexical items (n being a positive integer), which together can form a grammatical clause, the lexical items in S can be linearized in n! ways. For instance, when we look at word order in clauses containing a synthetic transitive verb form, an overt direct object NP and an overt subject NP, we observe that all six logically possible orders in



Word order, configurationality, and structural ambiguity

which these three elements can be linearized are indeed attested (see for instance Cabrillana a).1 Below are six examples from Seneca’s letters: () Sapienti-a rer-um termin-os nou-it. wisdom-NOM things-GEN boundaries-ACC know-PRF.SG ‘Wisdom knows the limits of things.’ (Sen. Ep. .)

SOV

() Deinde adsensio confirma-u-it hunc impetu-m. then assent.NOM confirm-PRF-SG this.ACC impulse-ACC ‘Then assent confirmed this impulse.’ (Sen. Ep. .)

SVO

() Suspici-a-nt omn-es uit-am nostr-am. admire-PRS.SBJV-PL all-NOM.M.PL life-ACC our-ACC ‘All men should admire our way of living.’ (Sen. Ep. .)

VSO

() Incend-e-nt libidin-es tu-as adulter-orum sodalici-a. VOS ignite-FUT-PL passions-ACC your-ACC adulterers-GEN friendships-NOM ‘The company of adulterers will ignite your passions.’ (Sen. Ep. .) () Quamdiu Caton-em ciuita-s ignora-u-it! how.long Cato-ACC society-NOM ignore-PRF-SG ‘For how long did our society ignore Cato!’ (Sen. Ep. .)

OSV

() Consili-um me-um occupa-u-it de-us. plan-ACC my-ACC seize-PRF-SG god-NOM ‘God has taken possession of my plan.’ (Sen. Ep. .)

OVS

Let us proceed to investigate what happens if we add an auxiliary (i.e. a BE-auxiliary in a deponent periphrastic verb form, or a modal verb) to the set of lexical items we have thus far: is there total freedom of word order in clauses in which all four elements Aux, O, S, and V are simultaneously present? This seems to be case, as all twenty-four logically possible combinations are indeed attested.2 In ()-(), I give a token of each type. In the first batch of six examples, the auxiliary precedes S, O, and V: () Pot-est aliqu-is sine ui possession-em AuxSOV be.able-PRS.SG someone-NOM without violence.ABL possession-ACC nancisc-i. obtain-PRS.INF ‘Someone can acquire possession without the use of violence.’ (Gaius Inst. .)

1 On the exact definition of what is considered a ‘direct object NP’ (and a ‘subject NP’) in this study, see Section .... 2 Needless to say, all these word orders are attested at some point in the history of the Latin language, not necessarily all within one and the same author/text.

Latin word order flexibility: a brief demonstration



() Ita pot-eru-nt script-i hered-es retine-re hereditat-em. AuxSVO so be.able-FUT-PL written-NOM heirs-NOM retain-PRS.INF heritage-ACC ‘Thus the appointed heirs will be able to retain the heritage.’ (Gaius Inst. .) () Non est morat-us Giton imperi-um. not be.PRS.SG delay-NOM.M.SG Giton.NOM order-ACC ‘Giton wasn’t slow in obeying the order.’ (Petr. .)

AuxVSO

() Non deb-u-it dic-ere sententi-am orator? not have.to-PRF-SG say-PRS.INF opinion-ACC orator.NOM ‘Didn’t the orator have to say his opinion?’ (Quint. Inst. ..)

AuxVOS

() Pot-est patri-am tibi casu-s be.able-PRS.SG fatherland-ACC you.DAT.SG chance-NOM erip-ere. take.away-PRS.INF ‘Chance can deprive you of your fatherland.’ (Sen. Ep. .)

AuxOSV

() Pot-est autem coemption-em fac-ere mulier. AuxOVS be.able-PRS.SG PRT marriage-ACC make-PRS.INF woman.NOM ‘A woman can make a marriage contract.’ (Gaius Inst. .) In the following six examples, the auxiliary is preceded by one of the two main arguments, or by the lexical verb: () ut ecce peregrin-i pot-era-nt fideicommiss-a SAuxOV as PRT foreigners-NOM be.able-IPFV-PL bequests-ACC cap-ere receive-PRS.INF ‘as foreigners could receive testamentary bequests’ (Gaius Inst. .) () unde poste-ri pos-se-nt hauri-re SAuxVO whence later-NOM.M.PL be.able-IPFV.SBJV-PL imbibe-PRS.INF disciplin-arum ration-es disciplines-GEN reasons-ACC ‘from which later generations can draw methodological guidelines’ (Vitr. ..) () Reg-es Parth-orum non pot-est quisquam OAuxSV kings-ACC Parthians-GEN not be.able-PRS.SG somebody.NOM saluta-re sine muner-e. greet-PRS.INF without gift-ABL ‘It is not possible for someone to greet the kings of the Parthians without offering a gift.’ (Sen. Ep. .)



Word order, configurationality, and structural ambiguity

() qu-ibus nihil pot-est praesta-re OAuxVS who-DAT.M.PL nothing.ACC be.able-PRS.SG provide-PRS.INF ips-a fortun-a self-NOM fortune-NOM ‘Even fortune itself cannot provide them with anything.’ (Sen. Ben. ..) () Nec aspernat-us est consul legation-em. VAuxSO and.not scorned-NOM.M.SG be.PRS.SG consul.NOM embassy-ACC ‘Nor did the consul reject the embassy.’ (Liv. ..) () Imitat-us est itaque utrumque Horati-us VAuxOS both.ACC.M.SG Horace-NOM imitated-NOM.M.SG be.PRS.SG PRT ‘And Horace has imitated both of them.’ (Quint. Inst. ..) In the next examples, the auxiliary is only followed by the lexical verb or one of the arguments of the latter: () Baebi-us Phaci-um est Baebius-NOM Phacium-ACC be.PRS.SG ‘Babius attacked Phacium.’ (Liv. ..)

adgress-us. attacked-NOM.M.SG

SOAuxV

() Claudi-us prope consecut-us est litter-as SVAuxO Claudius-NOM almost overtaken-NOM.M.SG be.PRS.SG letter-ACC su-as. his-ACC ‘Claudius almost overtook his own letter.’ (Liv. ..) () Perfunct-a re-s public-a est hoc VSAuxO finished-NOM.F.SG matter-NOM public-NOM be.PRS.SG this.ABL miser-o fatal-i=que bell-o. sad-ABL fatal-ABL=and war-ABL ‘The state has finished this miserable and detrimental war.’ (Cic. Marc. ) () quamquam de industri-a morat-i cursu-m VOAuxS although out.of purpose-ABL delayed-NOM.M.PL course-ACC nau-ium era-nt Carthaginiens-es ships-GEN be.IPFV-PL Carthaginians-NOM ‘although the Carthaginians had intentionally slowed down the progress of their ships’ (Liv. ..) () cum Callisto Iuppiter es-se-t in silu-am OSAuxV when Callisto.ACC Jupiter.NOM be-IPFV.SBJV-SG in forest-ACC persecut-us followed-NOM.M.SG ‘when Jupiter had followed Callisto into the forest’ (Hyg. Astr. . (Le Bœuffle))

Latin word order flexibility: a brief demonstration



() Parumper subsidiari-os tutat-us est loc-us. OVAuxS briefly reserves-ACC protected-NOM.M.SG be.PRS.SG place-NOM ‘For a little while the reserves were protected by their position.’ (Liv. ..) Finally, here is a set of examples in which the auxiliary is clause-final, preceded by a string consisting of the elements S, V, and O appearing in six different orders: () quin seru-us benefici-um da-re pos-si-t that slave-NOM favour-ACC give-PRS.INF be.able-PRS.SBJV-SG ‘that a slave can do a favour’ (Sen. Ben. ..)

SOVAux

() cum testament-o script-us here-s euinc-ere SVOAux because testament-ABL written-NOM heir-NOM recover-PRS.INF hereditat-em pos-si-t heritage-ACC be.able-PRS.SBJV-SG ‘since the heir appointed in the testament can recover the heritage’ (Gaius Inst. .) () Contemn-ere aliqui-s omn-ia pot-est. VSOAux look.down.upon-PRS.INF somebody-NOM all-ACC.N.PL be.able-PRS.SG ‘Somebody can look down upon everything.’ (Sen. Ep. .) () ne nau-ibus capess-ere fug-am rex pos-se-t VOSAux lest ships-ABL take-PRS.INF flight-ACC king.NOM be.able-IPFV.SBJV-SG ‘so that the king could not escape by ship’ (Liv. ..) () Immo uero PRT

PRT

honestat-em integrity-ACC

utilita-s expediency-NOM

secut-a followed-NOM.F.SG

OSVAux

est. be.PRS.SG ‘On the contrary, expediency has followed integrity.’ (Cic. Off. .) () Omn-ia habe-re nemo pot-est. all-ACC.N.PL have-PRS.INF nobody.NOM be.able-PRS.SG ‘Nobody can have everything.’ (Sen. Ep. .)

OVSAux

I will postpone further investigation of the issue of possible permutations of words in a Latin clause until Sections . and ., where I will look at what happens in clauses containing a functional item like a (relative or interrogative) wh-word, an adverbial subordinator or a negator. In the next section I turn to a second phenomenon which illustrates the flexibility of Latin word order, namely phrasal discontinuity.



Word order, configurationality, and structural ambiguity

.. Discontinuous constituents A prominent and often-discussed feature of Latin syntax is the phenomenon of discontinuous constituents. In traditional terminology, this phenomenon is known as ‘hyperbaton’. Most often, it involves a head noun and a complement or one or more modifiers which are not linearly adjacent (for recent discussion see Devine and Stephens (: ch. ) and Ledgeway (a: –)). Many people have concluded that the availability of hyperbata implies that there simply are no constituents in Latin (or at least no constituents larger and/or more complex than a single word). Consider, for instance, the following quote from Evans and Levinson (): Constituency is the bracketing of elements (typically words) into higher-order elements. . . . Many discussions presume that constituency is an absolute universal, exhibited by all languages. But in fact constituency is just one method, used by a subset of languages, to express constructions which in other languages may be coded as dependencies of other kinds (Matthews , ). The need for this alternative perspective is that many languages show few traces of constituent structure, because they scramble the words, as in the following Latin line from Virgil:

()

ultim-a Cumae-i uen-it iam carmin-is aeta-s last-NOM Cumaean-GEN come-PRF.3SG PRT song-GEN age-NOM ‘The last age of the Cumaean song has now arrived.’ (Verg. Ecl. 4.4)

Here the lines link the parts of two noun phrases, and it makes no sense to produce a bracketing of the normal sort: a tree diagram of the normal kind would have crossing lines. (Evans and Levinson : –; the number and glosses of the example are mine)

As is well known, discontinuous noun phrases in which a noun is separated from its complement () or from an adjectival modifier () are ubiquitous in Latin texts. () Neque [ . . . ] pac-is umquam apud uos mention-em neither peace-GEN ever with you.ACC.PL mention-ACC fec-i. make-PRF.SG ‘Nor did I ever make any mention of peace to you.’ (Liv. ..) () Sagittari-os funditor-es=que mitt-eba-t, qu-orum magn-um archers-ACC slingers-ACC=and send-IPFV-SG who-GEN.M.PL great-ACC habe-ba-t numer-um. have-IPFV-SG number-ACC ‘He sent archers and slingers, of which he had a great number.’ (Caes. Civ. ..)

Approaches to Latin word order



Other, more complex cases of phrasal discontinuity can also be found (see Devine and Stephens ). On the basis of the availability of such patterns, Evans and Levinson () conclude that in order to describe Latin clause structure, a dependency grammar is to be preferred over a phrase structure grammar (on both of these systems, see Section .). .. To sum up It should be clear that the grammar of Latin allows for a very high degree of word order flexibility, which is absent in well-studied modern languages, like English and French (whose configurational nature is not disputed). Facts like the above have no doubt contributed to the fact that Latin, even today, is sometimes considered the free word order language par excellence (see for instance Evans and Levinson : –). Later in this chapter I will come back to issues related to word order permutations (Section .) and phrasal discontinuities (Section .). I now proceed to give an overview of the most important approaches to Latin word order.

. Approaches to Latin word order As we have just seen, Latin word order is extremely flexible. Importantly, however, I will take it for granted that the observed variation is not random, but rather that it is to a large extent governed by information structure. In other words, although different permutations of the same set of lexical items might not differ in terms of truth conditions, they do differ at a pragmatic level, and they cannot typically be used interchangeably in a given discourse setting. In the remainder of this chapter, I will try to answer two (related) questions. First, what type of grammar is the best fit to describe (and ultimately explain) facts of Latin word order? Second, how do various approaches deal with the relationship between word order and information structure? I will start the discussion with what I will call non-configurational approaches. .. Non-configurational approaches The first type of approach can in fact be considered the successor of much work in nineteenth- and (early) twentieth-century descriptive grammars, which includes the standard reference grammars (especially Hofmann and Szantyr  and Kühner and Stegmann ), as well as a number of early studies of word order, such as Weil () and Marouzeau (, , ). In this tradition, it is typically assumed that Latin word order is not in any direct way governed by syntactic principles. Therefore, I will call such approaches ‘non-configurational’.



Word order, configurationality, and structural ambiguity

Consider, for instance, the following quote from Kühner and Stegmann (: vol. ., –; emphasis mine): Da die lateinische Sprache (ebenso wie die griechische) einen ungleich gröβeren Reichtum an Flexionen als die neueren Sprachen hatte und mit diesen die gegenseitige Beziehung der zusammengehörigen Satzglieder leicht bezeichnen konnte, so konnte sich die Stellung der Worte und Satzglieder in ihr frei und unbehindert ausbilden.3

Although the word ‘free’ is still occasionally used when grammarians characterize the nature of Latin word order,4 virtually all scholars pursuing some type of nonconfigurational approach have stressed that despite being very free, Latin word order is never random.5 This is also the position taken by Kühner and Stegmann (): Anderseits darf man freilich die Sache auch nicht so auffassen, als ob in der lateinischen Wortstellung vollständige Freiheit und Willkür herrschte. Auch das Lateinische kennt gewisse Regeln und Grundsätze, die freilich fast durchweg keine unumstöβliche Geltung haben, sondern vielfach von Ausnahmen und Abweichungen jeder Art durchbrochen werden . . . (Kühner and Stegmann : vol. ., )6

In more recent studies, the idea that one should distinguish between regular (‘normal’) and exceptional (‘irregular’ or ‘abnormal’) word orders in Latin is usually abandoned. Rather, most scholars assume that different permutations of the same set of words all mean something (slightly) different, or at least serve a different communicative purpose, or can only felicitously be used in different communicative situations. Crucially though, non-configurational approaches tend to assume that syntax does not play a crucial role in bringing about Latin word order, but that this is taken care of by an independent module of the grammar. In modern theoretical terms, it is usually said that Latin word order is influenced (or even determined) by ‘communicative dynamism’ (in the Prague School sense of the term), or more commonly ‘information structure’, that is, the partitioning of a clause into old (given) and new information, topic and comment, focus and presupposition, and

3 ‘Since the Latin language (like the Greek language) had a much richer inflectional system than the modern languages, and since this could easily express the relations between elements that belong together, the placement of words and constituents in Latin could develop itself in a free and unrestricted way.’’ 4 Thus for instance Coleman (: ): ‘The Italic languages had a free word order in the sense that variations from normal patterns did not affect syntactic relationships or make nonsense, but were motivated by pragmatic considerations—topicalisation, emphatic juxtaposition—or by the aesthetics of prose or verse rhythm, etc.’ 5 In Marouzeau’s (: ) words: ‘l’ordre des mots en latin est libre, il n’est pas indifférent’ (‘word order in Latin is free, but it is not random’). 6 ‘On the other hand, one clearly shouldn’t think that Latin word order is ruled by complete freedom and randomness. Latin too has certain rules and principles, which do not typically apply across the board, but which are often violated by exceptions and deviations of all sorts.’

Approaches to Latin word order



the like.7 Recent non-configurational studies which have strongly emphasized the role of information structure include Panhuis () and Spevak (). This last author claims that ‘Latin constituent order is not subject to syntactic rules, and the position of a constituent can vary without changing its syntactic function[, but it ld] strongly obeys pragmatic rules in the sense that not only the semantic value of constituents but also their position build up together the message the that speaker or author wants to communicate’ (Spevak : ), where ‘position’ is presumably to be understood in purely linear terms (although this is not made explicit). To the same family of non-configurational approaches belong many studies couched in a functional and/or typological framework, as for instance Adams (), Panhuis (, ), de Jong (, ), Cabrillana (a, b, , ), Elerick (), Bauer (, ), Bolkestein (), Lisón Huguet (), Spevak (, ), Baños Baños and Cabrillana () and Hoffmann (), among many others.8 It is fair to say that today, approaches of this type form the largest family of studies on Latin word order. Under a non-configurational approach, the internal structure (or absence thereof) of a clause containing a subject, an object, a non-finite lexical verb, and an auxiliary could be represented as in (), which shows an entirely flat structure, without any hierarchical asymmetries between the elements Aux, S, V, and O, and without these four elements being linearly ordered with respect to one another. ()

Clause

Aux

S

O

V

Given such a model, it is (correctly) predicted that all twenty-four theoretically possible orders in which these four elements can be linearized are grammatical, and that the eventual choice between one of the possible orders is solely determined by pragmatic considerations. In addition, this model in itself does not predict9 certain word orders to be unavailable (not even if one were to add more (functional) categories to a clause like ()), although in principle one can imagine independent modules of the grammar to impose restrictions on possible word orders (a point that I will come back to in Section ..). 7

As we will see below, the idea that information structure is important to Latin word order is by no means an exclusive tenet of non-configurational approaches. 8 Note that the fact that some of these studies adopt configurational terminology like ‘left branching’ and ‘right branching’ (Bauer ) and ‘constituent’ (e.g. Cabrillana a, ; Spevak ) does not imply that any notion of configurationality is assumed (or considered). 9 Ultimately, what matters is of course whether a given system makes predictions or not (and if yes, which ones), not whether it could in principle be ‘upgraded’ to a level of explicitness where it actually does make predictions.



Word order, configurationality, and structural ambiguity

Before we continue, let me make two remarks. First, when applied to the works on Latin that I have mentioned in this section, the negator in the term ‘nonconfigurational’ should be interpreted to denote contrariety rather than contradiction, as the relevant studies do not explicitly argue against configurationality, they just do not assume it. In addition, most studies that I qualify as non-configurational do not self-identify as such, as most of them simply do not address the configurationality issue at all. I will continue to call these approaches ‘non-configurational’, because whatever constraints on Latin word order they do identify, these are not interpreted in terms of strictly structural (i.e. configurational) properties of Latin grammar. Second, in what follows I will contrast non-configurational grammars with (fully) configurational ones, and I will assume that the latter are hierarchically structured. This is not to say that a non-configurational grammar is inherently incompatible with there being hierarchical relations between various elements in a clause. One possibility to incorporate such notions in a non-configurational system is to adopt a dependency grammar in the tradition of Tesnière ().10 Importantly, given such an approach, the possible existence of a(n asymmetric) dependency relation between two items in a clause is completely unrelated to the availability of phrasal constituents of the type that I will discuss below. Note also that pure dependency grammars are in principle not designed to say anything about the linear arrangement of a set of words, although they can in principle be enriched to do so (as pointed out in Ágel and Fischer : ). However, in such a case, they practically become the notational equivalent of a phrase structure grammar (on which, see Sections .. and ..). .. Semi-configurational approaches: linear templates A second approach to Latin word order is one that I would like to call ‘semiconfigurational’. This approach is more restrictive than the one assuming flat structures like (), in that it posits linear templates with ordered slots, which can (but need not) be filled overtly.11 This is the strategy adopted in Pinkster (: –), in his discussion of the relative order of constituents in discourse-neutral clauses.12 For instance, for sentences with a two-place predicate Pinkster (: ) suggests the

10 See Ágel and Fischer () for a recent overview of this approach to syntax, as well as of the related framework known as valency theory. Dependency grammars are often used in annotated tree banks, as for instance the PROIEL corpus, which contains (among other things) a selection of Latin texts (Haug et al. ). For a valency approach to Latin syntax, see Happ (, ). 11 Note that it is possible for this ‘linear template’ system to operate alongside an independent grammatical module encoding (hierarchical) dependency relations, with possible interactions between the two modules. Authors like Pinkster () do not explore this option. 12 Such a linear template was also proposed for Ancient Greek by Matić (), and is widely used in traditional grammars of German (cf. the Felder theory).

Approaches to Latin word order



basic template in (), where conn = connective, S = subject, sat = satellite (i.e. various kinds of adverbial modifiers), O = object, C = complement, and Vf = finite verb: ()

(conn) – (S) – (sat) – O/C – (sat) – Vf

This basic schema is meant to represent the unmarked (i.e. statistically predominant) word order of a Latin clause, and it is characterized as a ‘rule’ (quotes in the original). Elements between brackets can be omitted. For instance, in an example like () all but one of the slots listed in () are filled (the leftmost satellite position is not occupied), and the items present appear in the ‘right’ order: () donec Asclepiade-s Ø [mede-nd-i ration-em] until Asclepiad-NOM cure-GDV-GEN method-ACC conn S (sat) O [ex magn-a part-e] muta-u-it out.of big-ABL part-ABL change-PRF-SG sat Vf ‘until Asclepiad profoundly changed the way of curing’ (Cels. .prooem.) One plausible way to incorporate information structure in a system like this is to enrich a templatic representation with positions reserved for constituents with a special discourse function, such as topics, foci, frame setters, and the like. Needless to say, however, in order for such a system to be capable of capturing all of the word order variation illustrated in the previous section, one or more linear templates will have to be formulated that are sufficiently flexible to generate all the attested word order patterns, preferably without the system becoming totally unconstrained. One important characteristic of this linear approach to (Latin) word order is the limited extent to which it allows for multiple lexical items to be grouped together to form internally complex constituents. For instance, as indicated by the bracketing in (), the two words medendi and rationem together fill one single slot, suggesting they form a unit (with or without internal structure). This unit also fulfils one (and only one) grammatical function, viz. the one of direct object. Similarly, the three words ex magna parte can also be said to form a unit, say a PP. Importantly, Pinkster () does not mention the possibility of two units in (adjacent) slots being grouped together to form what one could call a ‘higher-order constituent’ (to borrow a term used in Horrocks (: )).13 With respect to the type of examples we have looked at in Section .., one could wonder whether in a clause

Compare in this respect Pinkster (: ): ‘In this Syntax, four types of phrases are distinguished: noun, adjective, and adverb phrases on the one hand, and prepositional phrases on the other. The term “verb phrase” will not be used in this Syntax.’ No arguments are provided to support this position. 13



Word order, configurationality, and structural ambiguity

like (), any combination of the elements S, O, V, and/or Aux forms a complex constituent.14 () Praetor-es prouinci-as sortit-i sunt. praetors-NOM provinces-ACC obtained-NOM.M.PL be.PRS.PL ‘The praetors obtained their provinces.’ (Liv. ..) For instance, it is conceivable that the two verb forms sortiti and sunt together form a single constituent, equivalent to a synthetic verb form like mutauit in (). Alternatively, one could think that the direct object prouincias forms a (verb phrase) unit with the lexical verb sortiti, to the exclusion of the auxiliary (as well as the clauseinitial subject). The linear template proposed in Pinkster () is clearly not designed to accommodate this type of complex (higher-order) constituents. .. Configurational approaches: phrase structure The third type of approach has some properties in common with the previous one, in that it assumes that Latin word order is subject to systematic ordering restrictions.15 However, configurational systems (also called ‘phrase structure grammars’) tend to assume a series of positions which are first and foremost hierarchically ordered, and only secondarily linearly organized.16 As such, configurational structures can be said to be the two-dimensional variants of the linear templates just discussed. The result is a configuration which can be represented by means of a tree diagram (or alternatively by means of (labelled) brackets). In the literature on Latin syntax, a hierarchical structure of this type has been assumed in Ostafin (), Salvi (, ), Polo (, ), Devine and Stephens (), Danckaert (, a), Horrocks (), and was explicitly argued for in Ledgeway (a, especially ch. ). The theoretical framework assumed in all of these studies is a (variety of) generative grammar in the Chomskyan tradition. The most basic hierarchically organized structure of a simplex clause, which is accepted by many generative linguists, looks like ():

14

Note in passing that the template in () has nothing to say about the possible positions of auxiliaries and non-finite lexical verbs (like past participles). 15 In this section I offer a (very brief) introduction to a phrase structure based approach to syntax, which can of course be skipped by readers who are well acquainted with the relevant formalism. 16 Observe that although the idea of ‘layered’ (and thus hierarchically organized) clause structure is fairly standard in Functional (Discourse) Grammar, i.e. the framework adopted by among others Pinkster (, ) (cf. Hengeveld , ; Dik and Hengeveld ; Dik et al. ; Nuyts et al. ; Ros , ; Hengeveld and Mackenzie ; Narrog ), there does not seem to be any explicit proposal in this framework that details how these structural layers are related to surface word order patterns. Despite the notion of hierarchy clearly playing a role in this framework, it does not, for instance, predict the existence of higher-order constituents.

Approaches to Latin word order



()

CP

= Complementizer Phrase (left periphery) C′

... C°

TP

= Tense Phrase

…

T′ T°

VP

= Verb Phrase V′

… V°

…

In this structure, three layers can be distinguished, which are all shorthand for a more articulated structure. At the bottom we find the Verb Phrase (VP), that is, the thematic nucleus of the clause which contains the lexical verb and its arguments (subject, direct object, indirect object, and/or PP complement). The exact structural position of these arguments (if present) depends on the thematic role (Agent, Patient, Experiencer, etc.) they bear (Baker ). On top of this, we find the Tense Phrase (TP, sometimes also called IP, for ‘Inflection Phrase’), which is the layer in which all information pertaining to tense, aspect, mood, and modality is encoded, which can variably be realized as verbal affixes (as in agglutinative languages) or as free standing morphemes (in isolating languages). A detailed ‘map’ of this part of the clause is provided in Cinque (). Finally, the highest layer is the so-called Complementizer Phrase (cf. Rizzi ), which hosts, among other things, question words and relative operators (‘wh-words’), complementizers and conjunctions, and typically also constituents with a special discourse interpretation, such as topics and foci (on the Latin CP, see Danckaert , a). The diagram in () uses the so-called X-bar format (schematized in ()), which makes a principled distinction between syntactic heads (lexical items that occupy an X° position) and syntactic phrases, that is, projections of heads (XP in ()), complements of heads (YP in ()), as well as phrasal modifiers of various kinds (‘specifiers’, cf. ZP in ()). Verbs and affixes attached to verbs are always heads, whereas (nominal) arguments and (various types of) adverbials are typically phrases, inserted in the positions marked by ‘ . . . ’ in (). ()

XP ZP

X′ X°

YP



Word order, configurationality, and structural ambiguity

Importantly, tree structures like () also directly encode information about constituency. We can informally define a syntactic constituent as a set of nodes in a phrase marker (tree diagram) which behaves like a unit with respect to various grammatical processes (see Carnie  for detailed discussion, and many bibliographical references). As we will see in Section ., there are many empirical tests to verify whether a given string of words is a syntactic constituent. In addition, a syntactic constituent (internally complex or not) is not only some entity which happens to be identified as such by one or more tests for constituenthood, but it typically also corresponds to an interpretive (semantic) and a phonological (prosodic) unit (see for instance Zwicky ). Slightly more formally, assuming a settheoretic approach to constituency (cf. Carnie : ch. ), in terms of a phrase marker like () a constituent is the complete (and possibly empty) set of nodes dominated by a node n, supplemented by n itself.17 Put differently, a set of nodes S forms a constituent iff there is one (and only one) node n such that n is a member of S, and the full set of nodes dominated by n equals S \ {n}. For instance, in () the set {XP, ZP, X′, X°, YP} is a constituent, as the set of nodes dominated by XP, {ZP, X′, X°, YP}, equals all the members of {XP, ZP, X′, X°, YP} minus XP itself. On the other hand, ZP and X° together do not form a constituent, as ZP does not dominate X°, and X° does not dominate ZP. Note that all terminal nodes in a phrase marker always (trivially) form a constituent. It is important to point out that a structure like () is designed, first, to capture hierarchical relations between various elements in a sentence: linear order is only derived from this hierarchical structure, and is not itself considered a primitive (put differently, syntactic structures are not linear per se, but they can be linearized). Specifically, we can say that two so-called sister nodes are not intrinsically linearly ordered with respect to one another. For instance, the alternation between the linear orders (S)VO and (S)OV can be represented as in (), in which the hierarchical relations between the different elements remain constant (and in which overt terminals (‘words in a clause’) are highlighted in boldface).18 ()

a.

VP S

b. S

V′ V

VP

O

V′ O

V

17 The dominance relation can informally be defined as follows (cf. Carnie : ): a ‘node A dominates node B if and only if A is higher up in the tree than B and if you can trace a line from A to B going only downwards’. See Carnie (: –) for a more formal definition. 18 See Section .. for a modification of this symmetric view of word order alternations.

Approaches to Latin word order



Consider next the phrase marker one could envisage for an SOVAux-clause like (), featuring an auxiliary alongside a lexical verb. In contrast with a purely linear system, in a (strict) phrase structure grammar one has to be explicit about how the various elements in this clause are grouped together. One plausible analysis would be the one in (), in which a verb phrase appears as a leftward complement of T°, which we can take to be the locus where auxiliaries are hosted.19 ()

CP C′ TP

C°

T′ sunt

VP praetores

V′ prouincias

sortiti

Note first of all that in this hierarchical structure, no information about linear word order is lost. Second, just as was the case with purely linear templates, it is not necessary for a given position in the structure to be filled overtly: for instance, in () the entire left periphery (CP) is empty (at least phonologically). Third, perhaps the most important property of hierarchical structures like (), in which all nodes are either non-branching or binary branching, is that it does not only contain simplex constituents like verbs and noun phrases, but also a number of ‘higher-order constituents’. I will (very informally) define such a higher-order constituent as a syntactic unit which (i) is smaller than an entire clause (like CP in ()) but (ii) contains two or more simplex constituents such as NPs and PPs. Crucially, the node labelled as VP in () is such a higher-order constituent, as it contains both the verb, the subject, and the direct object. Similarly, the next higher phrasal node TP contains the verb phrase as well as the auxiliary, but not any left-peripheral material which could be present higher in the structure. Next, we have to address the question of how configurational systems deal with information structure. As hinted above, they (typically, but not quite always) do so by postulating specialized discourse-related functional projections. For instance, as a basic blueprint for a Latin clause Devine and Stephens (: ) propose the

19

On the reason why I chose to represent the subject in a VP-internal position, see Chapter .



Word order, configurationality, and structural ambiguity

sequence given in (), where all the dedicated discourse projections are marked in boldface (with ‘Top’ for ‘Topic’, ‘Foc’ for ‘Focus’, and ‘Scr’ for ‘Scrambling’): ()

ForceP TopP FocP FinP ScrP NegP TP TopνP FocνP νP VP

Note that I have added two lines to indicate that this structure is essentially an extended version of the three-tier CP–TP–VP schema given in (). Also, observe that Devine and Stephens () assume that discourse-related projections are not only located in the left periphery, but that they are scattered over (almost) the entire clause. Without going into further details, suffice it to say that notions of information structure can easily be incorporated in a phrase structure grammar, much as was the case with the linear templates discussed earlier. .. A note on hybrid systems For the sake of completeness, let me point out that it is also conceivable that the basic clause structure of a given language is essentially hybrid, in the sense that it is configurational in one part of the clause, but not in another.20 For instance, a structure like () is partly configurational and partly non-configurational: in this structure, the left periphery is hierarchically set apart from the rest of the clause, but

20 Or put differently, that it is possible for a hierarchical structure to contain ternary, quaternary, n-ary branching nodes.

Approaches to Latin word order



the internal structure of the TP node is entirely flat, and therefore does not contain a VP constituent. In É. Kiss () a structure of this type was argued to be the most accurate one to characterize the clause structure of Hungarian.21 ()

CP wh-

C′ TP

C°

S

O

V

Aux

At first glance, it seems attractive to assume that such a structure is actually well suited to characterize Latin clause structure. On the one hand, as we saw earlier, there do not seem to be any restrictions on the ordering of the elements S, O, V, and Aux. On the other hand, there are good reasons to believe that the elements located in the left periphery are subject to fairly rigid ordering constraints. For instance, relative pronouns (), question words (), and subordinating conjunctions introducing complement and adverbial clauses () can never appear after a (clause-mate) finite verb (at least not in prose, cf. Danckaert a: ). () a. qu-i dap-em faci-e-nt who-NOM.M.PL sacrificial.meal-ACC make-FUT-PL ‘those who make the offering’ (Cato Agr. .) b. *dapem facient qui () a. Qu-id ill-e nobis bon-i what-ACC.N.SG that-NOM.M.SG us.DAT good-GEN.N.SG ‘What good did that guy ever do to us?’ (Petr. .)

fec-it? do-PRF.SG

b. *ille nobis boni fecit quid? () a. si Caesar eius asperna-re-tur concordi-am if Caesar.NOM that.GEN.M.SG scorn-IPFV.SBJV-SG concord-ACC ‘if Caesar were to reject his friendly offer’ (Vell. ..) b. *Caesar eius aspernaretur concordiam Note that it is difficult to see how these observations can be accounted for in a nonconfigurational system of the type that was applied to Latin in Spevak (), where 21 But see the more recent treatment in É. Kiss (): according to this study the apparently nonconfigurational nature of the lower part of the Hungarian clause is an artefact of the way in which a fully configurational syntactic structure is transferred from syntax to PF (Phonological Form) (assuming a particular implementation of phase theory).



Word order, configurationality, and structural ambiguity

Latin word order is only determined by the pragmatic function (information status) of various elements in a clause. For one thing, cross-linguistic (‘typological’) evidence makes it very unlikely that the tendency for conjunctions, question words, and relativizers to occur in leftward positions in the Latin clause is to be explained in terms of information structure, or similar functional or pragmatic considerations. It is in this respect instructive to compare the grammar of Latin (in which topics, foci as well as conjunctions and wh-elements all tend to gravitate towards the linear left edge of the clause) with data from a strictly head-final language like Japanese, in which topics and foci appear to the left, but question markers and subordinators invariably appear at the right edge of the clause (as they do in many other languages of the world). This type of comparative data suggests that the unavailability of the bsentences in ()–() tells us something about the syntax of Latin, not about general, non-syntactic (functional/cognitive/prosodic) constraints on word order. As argued in Danckaert (a), there is actually good evidence that the highlighted elements in ()–() have a fixed position in the clausal left periphery,22 and that whenever they do not occupy the absolute clause-initial position, this is because some left-peripheral topic () or focus () occurs to their left.23 () [Hoc [qual-e si-t]], quaes-o, considera. this.NOM.N.SG how-NOM.N.SG be.PRS.SBJV-SG ask-PRS.SG consider.IMP.SG ‘Consider what this is like, I ask you.’ (Cic. Att. ..) () [Reliqu-um [qu-od eri-t]], latitudin-i de-tur. remaining-NOM.N.SG what-NOM.N.SG be-FUT.SG breadth-DAT give.PASS.PRS.SBJV-SG ‘What remains should correspond to the breadth.’ (Vitr. ..) Importantly, whenever a left-peripheral topic and focus co-occur, the former invariably precedes the latter, as in (): () [[hoc decret-um] Atheniens-es [cum rettul-isse-nt]] [...] this.ACC decision-ACC Athenians-NOM when bring.back-PLPRF.SBJV-PL ‘when the Athenians had reported on this decision’ (Liv. ..) The reader is referred to Danckaert (a: –; –) for additional discussion of this last ordering restriction. In the present context, let me just point out that reliquum ‘remaining’ in () and Athenienses ‘the Athenians’ in () have the same 22

As we have seen, Pinkster () also proposes that these elements (‘connectives’ in his terms) are subject to specific ordering constraints (cf. ()). In addition, a hybrid system like () would also be compatible with a fixed (hierarchical) position for left-peripheral elements. 23 See Danckaert (a) for a detailed characterization of both these types of left-peripheral elements. The only other type of material that can appear to the left of subordinators and wh-words are adverbial second position enclitics such as enim, when these are (right) attached to a(n unambiguously leftperipheral) topic or focus, which is for instance the case in Cic. Ver. . (ego enim cum etc.), although here it is not entirely clear whether such an element is really part of the embedded clause.

Approaches to Latin word order



pragmatic function (according to Danckaert (a: ch. ) they qualify as noncontrastive, new information foci), despite the fact that in purely linear terms, they do not occupy the same position. In other words, the potential for a given element to be a focus does not depend on its linear position only, as is also noted in Spevak (: –). This observation is clearly problematic for strictly non-configurational approaches to Latin word order, which postulate a direct correspondence between linear word order and pragmatic functions. The contrast between the foci in () and () (same pragmatic function, different position) strongly suggests that information structure does not directly translate into linear order. .. To sum up Table . provides a summary of the properties of the four main approaches to Latin word order that we have discussed in this section. In the first column, I list four different parameters along which the four systems can be evaluated, namely (i) whether or not they can incorporate notions of information structure, (ii) whether they are compatible with the full range of word order variation illustrated in Section ., (iii) whether they have a principled handle on the constraints on word order in the left periphery discussed in Section .., and (iv) whether they predict the existence of higher-order constituents like verb phrases. The only important conclusion we can draw at this point is that non-configurational systems seem to fare worse than the three other ones, in that they are overly permissive in allowing word order permutations (cf. the underscored ‘No’ in Table .). The only mechanisms through which word order could in principle be constrained in a nonconfigurational grammar would not be part of syntax proper, but they would be operative in an independent module of, for instance, information structure, and perhaps also prosody. This is essentially the route taken in Spevak (). However, at the end of the previous section we saw that even upon superficial inspection, there appear to be some very robust constraints on Latin word order (most notably the facts

TABLE . Non-, semi-, hybrid, and fully configurational approaches to Latin word order compared (first version) Configurationality?

Information structure? Word order flexibility? Limited word order variability in the left periphery predicted? Higher-order constituents, and in particular a VP?

Non

Semi

Hybrid

Full

Yes Yes No No

Yes Yes Yes No

Yes Yes Yes (No)

Yes Yes Yes Yes



Word order, configurationality, and structural ambiguity

concerning conjunctions and (non-indefinite) wh-words), which seem difficult to explain in terms of information structure. For this reason, we can actually already discard the non-configurational approach. But how do we choose between the other systems? Note that the only parameter value that differentiates the two is the one concerning higher-order constituents, and in particular VPs. However, we have not yet encountered any evidence that these do indeed exist in Latin. I will postpone a discussion of whether there is any evidence for such entities until Section .. I first turn to the more fundamental issue of why this question is worth asking in the first place.

. Configurational or not: why bother? I now proceed to show that the difference between the various approaches to configurationality is not just a theory-internal matter, but that preferring one system over the other has important empirical and methodological consequences. One important factor to reckon with is the phenomenon of ‘structural ambiguity’. .. Introducing structural ambiguity . . . Importantly, the systems reviewed in the previous section differ along one additional dimension not listed in Table ., namely whether or not they allow for a given string of words to be ‘structurally ambiguous’ (in a sense to be defined shortly). I will illustrate this important point by means of two short case studies on object placement in Latin. First I will explain what structural ambiguity is exactly, on the basis of examples from an undisputedly configurational language like English. We can say that structural ambiguity occurs whenever a single (grammatical) string of words corresponds to more than one possible syntactic structure (phrase structure representation). Consider for instance the example in (a): ()

a. Cinderella pointed at the man with the gun.

The string in (a) is semantically ambiguous. The ambiguity is related to the interpretation of the prepositional phrase (PP) with the gun: is the relevant gun an attribute of the man, or is it an instrument used by Cinderella to support her pointing gesture? The textbook solution to this problem is to say that the two different readings correspond to two different syntactic structures. Under the first reading, the PP with the gun is contained inside the prepositional argument of point (i.e. the PP headed by at) (b), whereas under the second reading it is not part of this constituent, but is attached at a higher point in the structure (c): ()

b. Cinderella [VP pointed [PP at [NP the man [PP with the gun]]]]. c. Cinderella [VP pointed [PP at [NP the man]] [PP with the gun]].

The (simplified) trees in () perhaps provide a clearer visualization of the difference between these two structures, highlighting the fact that the main difference between



Configurational or not: why bother?

the two readings concerns the height at which the PP with the gun is attached: when attached low in the tree it acts as an NP-adjunct (a), whereas it serves as a VPmodifier when it occurs higher up in the structure (b): () a.

TP

b.

Cinderella

Cinderella V′

pointed

VP VP

PP

at

NP

pointed

PP N′ with man

PP with

V′

NP the

TP

PP at

NP the

the

N′ gun

NP the

N′

NP

N′ man

gun Note that despite the strong differences between the two representations in (), the linear order of the terminal nodes in both trees is identical. We can conclude that it is possible for different syntactic structures to be mapped onto identical linear strings, and conversely, some linear strings of words correspond to different underlying hierarchical structures. Moving away from ambiguities within one and the same language, we can also say that it is possible for more abstract linear strings of words to be structurally ambiguous. Consider for instance the English clause in (a) and the Dutch example in (b): () a. Mary sees John. b. Kees zie-t Miep. Kees see-PRS.SG Miep ‘Kees sees Miep.’

SVO SVO

On the surface these two examples look very similar, but as is well known, Dutch is a verb second language, in which the finite verb in root clauses occupies a very high position (say C°, cf. Koster ; den Besten ), whereas finite verbs in English sit very low in the structure (in V°, Chomsky ; Pollock ). In other words, we can say that the (abstract) surface string ‘SVO’ is structurally ambiguous, and that the underlying syntax of linear strings exhibiting this particular order can be very



Word order, configurationality, and structural ambiguity

different across languages (see e.g. Broekhuis ), and in some cases also within a single language. .. . . . and applying it to Latin In order to see why the discussion in the previous section is important for the study of Latin word order, let us look at object placement in a number of syntactic environments. Consider first the example in (), a main clause with a clauseinitial pronominal direct object, followed by a subject NP and a verb: () Id [uari-a opinio] perfic-it. that.ACC.N.SG variable-NOM opinion.NOM bring.about-PRS.SG ‘Various opinions bring this about.’ (Mela .)

OSV

Consider next the pair in (), which also has the order OSV, but features an additional element, viz. a subordinating conjunction (‘C’): () a. postquam id Labien-us after that.ACC.N.SG Labienus-NOM ‘after Labienus had learnt this’ (B. Afr. .)

animaduert-it learn-PRF.SG

COSV

b. id postquam Lacedaemoni-i resci-erunt OCSV that.ACC.N.SG after Lacedaemonians-NOM find.out-PRF.PL ‘after the Lacedaemonians had found out about this’ (Nep. Paus. .) Note that the relative position of the object and the adverbial subordinator postquam ‘after’ is not the same in the two examples: the object precedes the conjunction in (a), and it follows it in (b). What () teaches us is that (at least) two object positions are available to the left of a preverbal subject.24 Crucially, we could then assume that the example in () is structurally ambiguous, given that in the absence of an (overt) subordinator or wh-word, it is impossible to tell in which of the two positions the pronoun occurs. At this point, the question arises as to how the systems introduced in the previous section would account for these data. First, a non-configurational grammar has little or nothing to say about the observed variability: in the context of such a system, it presumably wouldn’t make much sense to say that there are two different object positions, and concomitantly, there would be no sense in which () is structurally ambiguous. In contrast, the other three approaches would treat the same data very differently.

24 As pointed out in Danckaert (a: ), variation between the orders ‘NP/pronoun-conjunction’ and ‘conjunction-NP/pronoun’ is not to be understood in terms of variable positioning of the conjunction.

Configurational or not: why bother?



First, a fully configurational system would express the contrast between (a) and (b) in hierarchical terms. For instance, the direct object id could be considered a scrambled constituent in (a) (located in Devine and Stephens’  ScrP, cf. ()), whereas in (b) it would be a left-peripheral topic. In the former it sits lower in the hierarchy than the CP node (with postquam ‘after’ in C°, but nothing hinges on its exact location), and higher in the latter: () a.

b.

CP

TopP

C′ postquam

id ScrP

Top°

Scr′

id

Top′

Scr°

CP C′

TP postquam

T′ VP Labienus

T′

animaduertit VP

V′

tid

TP

tanimaduertit

Lacedaemonii

rescierunt V′

tid

trescierunt

Without further commenting upon the details of the trees in (), let us consider how linear templates would deal with the data in ()–(). A(n obviously much simplified) representation of the data summarized in () and () is given in (): () O

C

O

S

V

Importantly for the present purpose, as shown in (), this system is clearly able to capture the fact that this linear string is ambiguous (with the symbol ‘Ø’ representing a slot which is not filled): () a. id O

Ø C

Ø O

[uaria opinio] S

perficit V

b. Ø O

Ø C

id O

[uaria opinio] S

perficit V

In other words, the potential for structural ambiguity does not only arise in fully hierarchical systems: certain linear conceptions of syntax can incorporate this phenomenon as well, although it is perhaps more accurate to say that in a system with linear templates, a given string of words can be ‘ambiguous’ rather than ‘structurally ambiguous’.



Word order, configurationality, and structural ambiguity

Finally, the hybrid structure in () also predicts structural ambiguity to be possible, but only at the level of the left edge of the clause. Such a system too would not have any problems accounting for the sort of structural ambiguity shown in () and ()–(), which all involve the presence or otherwise of material in the CP-layer. Let me illustrate the same point with a second case of variable object placement, namely the OV/VO alternation, which does not involve the left periphery. Consider first the pair in (): () a. Adici-e-s ole-um. add-FUT-SG oil-ACC ‘Add oil.’ (Apic. ..)

VO

b. Pis-um coqu-e-s. pea-ACC cook-FUT-SG ‘Cook the peas.’ (Apic. ..)

OV

Under a non-configurational approach (as well as under a hybrid approach with a flat structure below the left periphery), these two examples would simply instantiate a VO and an OV-clause respectively. Similarly, more complex clauses like the ones in () would also unambiguously exemplify the VO- and the OVpattern. Note that word order in this last pair of examples is only minimally different: both clauses feature an initial C-particle (subordinator) and a subject NP to the left of the OV/VO string, and a BE-auxiliary to the right of it, and only the direction of complementation of the lexical verb (a deponent past participle) is different. () a. quam rex adlocut-us milit-es SVOAux than king.NOM addressed-NOM.M.SG soldiers-ACC es-se-t be-IPFV.SBJV-SG ‘(earlier) than the king had addressed his soldiers’ (Curt. ..) b. cum consul-es prouinci-as sortit-i when consuls-NOM provinces-ACC obtained-NOM.M.PL es-se-nt be-IPFV.SBJV-PL ‘when the consuls had obtained their provinces’ (Liv. ..)

SOVAux

Consider next the two examples in (), which also only minimally differ from each other. Both feature a finite verb and the adverb fortasse ‘maybe, perhaps’, which appear twice in a different order: () a. Tamen PRT

si if

re-s matter-NOM

ali-ter different-ADV

accid-eri-t, happen-FUTPRF-SG

V-Adv

Configurational or not: why bother?



plus habe-b-unt fortasse quam postula-nt. more.ACC.N.SG have-FUT-PL maybe than ask.for-PRS.SG ‘Still, if things turn out differently, maybe they will have more than they are asking for.’ (Cic. Ver. .) b. Hoc tibi ill-e, Brut-e, minus Adv-V this.ABL.N.SG you.DAT.SG that-NOM.M.SG Brutus-VOC less.ADV fortasse plac-u-it quam plac-uisse-t, si [ . . . ]. maybe please-PRF-SG than please-PLPRF.SBJV-SG if ‘For this reason perhaps he pleased you less, Brutus, than he would have if . . . ’ (Cic. Brut. ) There are good reasons to assume that this pair of examples shows us that a finite verb can occur in more than one position in a Latin clause, and that the position of the adverb fortasse is the same in both the a- and the b-example. Adopting the conclusions of Cinque’s () comparative study, I will take it that when not appearing in the left or right periphery of the clause, adverbs (of various types) occupy a fixed position in the articulated TP-domain, which is invariant both crosslinguistically and within a single language. In the case at hand, fortasse does indeed seem to sit in the TP-area, and not in a peripheral position. In (a), fortasse is preceded by a conditional clause, the direct object (the quantifier plus) and the finite verb, which makes it unlikely that the adverb itself has been displaced from its TPinternal position to the left periphery. Similarly, in (b) the adverb is preceded by at least four clause-mate constituents and a (presumably parenthetical) vocative, which would lead to the same conclusion. Note also that in both examples, fortasse does not occur in an absolute clause-final position, witness the presence of an extraposed comparative clause, which one could take to sit in the right periphery (in whatever way this concept is to be defined). Moreover, the fact that the lexical item fortasse is not in any sense (phonologically) heavy or internally complex suggests that in (a) it does not appear postverbally because it is too heavy to appear in a preverbal position. Finally, modal adverbs like fortasse ‘maybe’ (which would belong to Cinque’s () Moodirrealis class) are not among those which can have different readings, and concomitantly different positions in the clause.25 I will therefore assume that in both examples in (), the position of fortasse is the same, but that the position of the finite verb is variable.

25 Note also that the ‘VP intraposition’ mechanism invoked in Cinque (: –) to derive clause-final positions for adverbs does not involve movement of a verbal chunk containing a finite verb (see also Belletti and Rizzi ), which makes it unlikely that in (a), a category containing the verb habebunt has been moved past fortasse. On the impossibility of displacing a TP constituent (containing a finite verb), see also Section .....



Word order, configurationality, and structural ambiguity

Importantly, given a configurational system (and to some extent also a semiconfigurational one), the data in () would imply that the examples in () are structurally ambiguous in multiple ways, given that one would not be able to determine the position of the verb, and also not whether the VP is head-initial or head-final.26 To make this more precise, consider the trees in (), which summarize a number of possible structures for (a–b). Let us assume that finite verbs in Latin obligatorily undergo ‘V-to-T movement’, with the result that they appear at least as high as T° (and hence never inside the verb phrase, cf. Section .... below). This assumption seems justified, as finite verbs in Latin are richly inflected, carrying, for instance, information about the Tense properties of their host clause. This leaves us with (at least) two positions for finite verbs, which I will take to be T° and above this F° (whose exact nature is immaterial for present purposes). Therefore, in both trees in () the two possible positions for the verbs adicies and coques are indicated (with ‘tV’ inside the VP standing for the base position of the lexical verb (its ‘trace’)): () a. FP

b. F′





F′

?

TP

?

T′ ?

FP

ScrP

Scr′ TP

Scr°

VP

T′

V′ ?

tV? tV?

?

VP V′

? tV? tO?

tV? tO?

In addition, we have seen that there is ample reason to assume the availability of multiple object positions. In (a), I have represented two possible locations for the direct object oleum ‘oil’ (and therefore also for the VP-internal trace of the finite verb). Strictly speaking we are not dealing here with two different positions, but rather with a difference qua headedness of the VP (of exactly the same kind as the alternation illustrated in (a–b)). Crucially, if the structure in (a) is on the right track, we would have to conclude that it is impossible to assess whether (a) has a head-initial or a head-final VP, and therefore also whether one should classify the 26 I will illustrate this point with phrase markers of the configurational type, but a very similar argument can be made in a system with ‘semi-configurational’ linear templates.

Configurational or not: why bother?



relevant clauses as instantiating the OV or the VO-order. There are even more possibilities for (b): as shown in (b), on top of the two positions for the finite verb and the two possible orderings of the nodes at the bottom of the structure, the preverbal object pisum ‘pea(s)’ can be located in the ‘scrambling’ position that we identified earlier (cf. (a)), but it could also sit in an even higher position, perhaps even in the left periphery. However, (many) alternative structures come to mind, for instance some involving a head-final T-node. The point remains the same: both clauses in () are ambiguous in multiple ways, and all one can do is list the range of possible structural representations, without it being possible to decide which one is correct. These considerations raise the question as to which clauses can be used in a study of the OV/VO alternation. In the configurational scenario, very short clauses such as () would simply not inform us about the OV/VO alternation (headedness of the verb phrase), and would therefore have to be discarded from a corpus study. Instead, only unambiguous examples such as the ones () could be included: in these cases we can be confident that the lexical verb is located inside the VP (or at least in a fairly low position in the structure), and as a result there would be little doubt that in the a-example we would see a head-initial VP (VO), and a head-final one (OV) in the b-clause. Needless to say, such a conclusion would have far-reaching methodological consequences, as structural ambiguity would have to be controlled for systematically in every study of Latin word order (unlike what is done in virtually all existing studies on the subject, including those that have adopted a configurational approach). Interestingly, when we look at diachronic studies of object placement, and differentiate studies in which structural ambiguity was systematically controlled for and studies which took into account all syntactic environments indiscriminately, a remarkable picture emerges. Let us, simplifying somewhat, compare the frequency of the VO-pattern in two different periods, (i) one from the second century BC until the second century AD and (ii) a second one from the fourth to the sixth century AD.27 Some of the results are summarized in Table .: figures for studies that do not control for structural ambiguity are based on data summarized in Ledgeway (a: –, his Table .). The figures in Table . show the average values of the data points reported there.28 Quantitative data on the rate of VO in syntactically non-ambiguous contexts were drawn from my own work (Danckaert b), which is an early study on object placement whose results I will make more precise in Chapters  to . As the reader can observe, the values for the earlier period are quite similar (.% vs. .%), but they differ strongly for the later period (.% vs. .%). Moreover, in both studies there is a rise in the frequency of VO, but this rise is only statistically significant in those studies that also took into account structurally ambiguous data. On this (type of) periodization, see also Section .... In cases where Ledgeway’s table contains multiple studies of a single text or author, I selected the study that looks at the bigger text corpus, leaving smaller studies aside. 27 28



Word order, configurationality, and structural ambiguity

TABLE . Rate of VO in ambiguous vs. non-ambiguous contexts Study

% VO

Structure

 BC– AD

– AD

Significant (t-test)?

Studies listed in Ledgeway (a)

All clauses

.

.

Yes (p < .)

Danckaert (b)

Non-ambiguous clauses only

.

.

No (p = .)

In other words, and regardless of the proper explanation for this discrepancy, there seem to be good reasons to assume that whether or not one controls for structural ambiguity potentially has very important empirical consequences. .. The question in a nutshell: does Latin have a VP constituent? We are now in a position to provide a fuller comparison of the four main approaches to Latin word order that we have identified (Table .). As mentioned in Section .., whereas we can be confident that semiconfigurational, hybrid, and fully configurational grammars are superior to nonconfigurational ones, the matter as to which one of the three remaining candidates is to be preferred still has to be settled. The most important points to be clarified concern the underscored values in Table .. First, only a fully configurational grammar can accommodate VPs (and actually higher-order constituents more generally). Second, and on a par with the previous point, only a fully configurational system predicts that structural ambiguity is possible at all structural levels, not just under certain

TABLE . Non-, semi-, hybrid, and fully configurational approaches to Latin word order compared (final version) Configurationality?

Information structure? Word order flexibility? Limited word order variability in the left periphery predicted? Higher-order constituents, and in particular a VP? Structural ambiguity?

Non

Semi

Hybrid

Full

Yes Yes No

Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes

No

No

(No)

Yes

No

Limited

Limited

Yes

Evidence for a Latin VP, part 



conditions (for instance, in a semi-configurational system structural ambiguity is only possible as long as no reference is made to any higher-order constituents). My strategy for determining which of the three remaining approaches to Latin word order is superior is as follows: I will consider whether Latin has a VP constituent or not, and should it be possible to answer this question affirmatively, I will conclude that one has to assume a configurational system (rather than a semi-configurational or hybrid one), as this is the only one that can accommodate VPs as phrasal constituents.29 In the literature, the question of whether Latin is configurational or not is only pursued in a systematic way in Ledgeway (a, b) and Cecchetto and Oniga ().30 These authors eventually conclude that a configurational approach is to be preferred. Virtually all other studies of Latin word order have only pursued one particular approach, without seriously evaluating the merits of alternative approaches. The remainder of this chapter will provide additional analytic and empirical evidence in favour of the configurational approach. I will put forward four arguments in favour of this approach, two of which I will discuss in the following sections, and two additional ones that I will develop in Chapter . On the basis of these arguments, I will conclude that in order to correctly describe (and therefore also analyse) Latin word order phenomena such as the OV/VO alternation, it is necessary to control for structural ambiguity.

. Evidence for a Latin VP, part : the interaction between verb placement and negation I will start the discussion by describing one particularly robust constraint on word order permutations, involving verb forms and the negator non. In what follows, I will keep the description of the facts (Section ..) separate from my own analysis of them (Section ..). .. The NegVOR facts: a stepwise description The upcoming argumentation is centred around the interplay between two apparently unrelated phenomena, namely verb placement and the position of the negator non ‘not’, a first preliminary discussion of which was offered in Danckaert (a: –). I will formulate a descriptive generalization which I will refer to as the ‘Negation-Verb Ordering Restriction’, NegVOR for short (and for want of a better acronym). I will conclude that the fact that the positioning of verbs and sentential31

29

In the literature, the existence of a VP constituent is often considered the hallmark of a fully configurational system: see among many Webelhuth (), Falk (: ), and Bresnan et al. (: –). 30 For the sake of completeness, one can also mention Barié (), de Carvalho (), Gettert (), and Martins (), which address (aspects of) the same question. For reasons of space I cannot here go into the various problems associated with these studies. 31 In what follows I will adopt the commonly used term ‘sentential’ negation (as opposed to constituent negation, cf. Klima ), rather than ‘clausal’ or ‘propositional’ negation, which would presumably be more accurate.



Word order, configurationality, and structural ambiguity

negation interact in a very systematic way provides strong evidence for postulating a VP constituent, and therefore also for a configurational approach to Latin syntax. The first part is merely descriptive: its only goal is to identify and accurately describe a novel (but obvious) generalization about Latin word order. This part of the discussion is as theory-neutral as possible, and I take it to be independent of possible explanations. ... Verb placement The first ingredient of this descriptive section is related to verb placement. As we have seen in Section .., (finite) verbs can appear in various (surface) positions in the clause. Accounts in traditional descriptive grammars and older philological treatments are typically restricted to some short discussion stating that Latin inherited ‘free’ verb placement from the Indo-European mother language, but that it had a marked preference for placing the verb in final position. Consider for instance the following characteristic passage: Für das Verb gab es in der indogermanischen Ursprache wahrscheinlich eine dreifache Stellung, nämlich am Anfang, in der Mitte und am Ende des Satzes; [ . . . die Endstellung] überwiegt [ . . . ] im Lateinischen durchaus [ . . . ]. Indes finden sich aus verschiedenen Gründen zahlreiche Ausnahmen und zwar auch in klassischer Sprache [ . . . ]. (Kühner and Stegmann : vol. ., –, emphasis in original omitted ld)32

Despite being rather vague, these preliminary observations are in line with the data discussed in Section ... Here I will assume that there are at the very least two different positions for finite verbs (cf. the contrast in ()): as we will see later, both these positions were accessible for lexical verbs and auxiliaries alike (cf. the examples in () in Section ..). In addition, another source of word order variation is the VPAux/AuxVP alternation (cf. ()), which in a configurational system one could take to involve variable headedness of the T-node. Without going into further detail, suffice it to say that verb placement in Latin is not fixed. ... Position of sentential negation As to the position of the canonical marker of sentential negation in Latin, which is the adverb non ‘not’, Kühner and Stegmann (: vol. ., ) state the following:33 ‘[W]enn die Negation zu dem ganzen Satze gehört (Satznegation), so tritt sie regelrecht vor das Verbum finitum, bei

32 ‘In the Indo-European mother language, there were probably three possible positions for verbs, namely at the beginning, in the middle and at the end of the clause. In Latin clause-final placement predominates at all stages. There are however, for various reasons, numerous exceptions, even in the classical language.’ The data provided in Linde () are similarly organized on the basis of a(n obviously simplistic) tripartition with an initial, middle, and final position for verbs, where ‘middle’ is presumably to be understood to mean ‘neither initial nor final’. 33 See also Menge et al. (: –, –) and Pinkster (: –) for very similar observations. The positional distribution of non is not treated in specialized studies of (aspects of) Latin negation such as Orlandini (, ).

Evidence for a Latin VP, part 



zusammengesetzten Formen vor das Hilfsverb.’34, 35 In a simple SOV-clause, we thus get the order ‘SO-Neg-V’ (): () P. Vergini-us re-m non uulga-ba-t. Publius.NOM Verginius-NOM thing-ACC not make.public-IPFV-SG ‘Publius Verginius did not want the matter to be general.’ (Liv. ..) In clauses with an auxiliary non can, and typically does, intervene between a nonfinite verb and a clause-final auxiliary (BE or a modal, cf. ()):36 () a. Roman-us equitatu-s [ips-um quidem reg-em] Elati-ae Roman-NOM cavalry-NOM self-ACC PRT king-ACC Elatia-LOC adsecut-us non est. reached-NOM.M.SG not be.PRS.SG ‘The Roman cavalry did not manage to find the king himself in Elatia.’ (Liv. ..) b. Praetor hered-es fac-ere non pot-est. praetor.NOM heirs-ACC make-PRS.INF not be.able-PRS.SG ‘The praetor cannot appoint heirs.’ (Gaius Inst. .) Kühner and Stegmann (: vol. ., ) proceed to point out that an alternative word order is available, in which non is separated from the auxiliary by a dependent non-finite verb (but nothing else). This pattern is said to be attested infrequently (‘[z]iemlich selten’; data on frequencies will be provided shortly). Let us call this the ‘V-contiguous’ pattern, as opposed to the previous one, which we can call ‘Aux-contiguous’. Needless to say, these two patterns can only be told apart in clauses with an auxiliary (and thus not in clauses with a single synthetic verb). () a. qu-i uicin-os su-os non cohortat-us est [ . . . ] who-NOM.M.SG neighbours-ACC his-ACC not incited-NOM.M.SG be.PRS.SG ‘who did not encourage his neighbours’ (Cic. Phil. .) b. Ita et contrari-um non da-ri debe-t. likewise and opposite-NOM.N.SG not give-PASS.PRS.INF have.to-PRS.SG ‘Likewise the opposite is also not recommended.’ (Gaius Inst. .)

‘When negation scopes over the entire clause (clausal negation), it stands right in front of the finite verb; in the case of compound forms it stands in front of the auxiliary.’ 35 In what follows I will not take into account the less commonly used negator ne, but nothing hinges on this. 36 With respect to negation in clauses with an auxiliary, Hofmann and Szantyr (: –) only point out that in the case of a periphrastic future tense consisting of a BE-auxiliary and a future participle on –urus, the negated patterns non est uenturus and uenturus non est are about as frequently attested (‘ziemlich gleichmäβig vertreten’), and that the order non uenturus est is altogether rare. Placement of negation in clauses with other types of predicates are not treated separately. 34



Word order, configurationality, and structural ambiguity

In any event, the V-contiguous and the Aux-contiguous patterns do not exhaust the range of possible positions for negation: non can also appear in more leftward positions, often at the very beginning of a clause. According to Kühner and Stegmann (: vol. ., ), clause-initial negation is more emphatic than clause-internal non.37 Irrespective of whether this characterization is correct, it is indeed the case that this pattern is not difficult to find in a corpus (see Tables . and . below for quantitative data).38 I will consider as ‘clause-initial’ any instance of non with clausal scope which either occurs in an absolute clause-initial position, or right after (i) a preposed adverbial clause, (ii) an element introducing a subordinate clause (such as an adverbial conjunction or a wh-phrase), or (iii) a discourse connective such as enimuero, atqui, and itaque. Two examples are given in (): () a. Non tamen oblittera-re fam-am re-i mal-e gest-ae not however erase-PRS.INF memory-ACC thing-GEN bad-ADV done-GEN pot-u-it. be.able-PRF-SG ‘He could not however erase the memory of his failure.’ (Liv. ..) b. Qu-ae tabul-a pict-a est qu-ae which-NOM table-NOM painted-NOM be.PRS.SG which-NOM.F.SG non ab host-ibus uict-is capt-a atque not by enemies-ABL defeated-ABL caught-NOM.F.SG and deportat-a si-t? deported-NOM.F.SG be.PRS.SBJV-SG ‘Which painting wasn’t taken away from our defeated enemies and brought to Rome?’ (Cic. Ver. .) 37 ‘Nicht selten tritt indes die Satznegation mit besonders kräftiger Verneinung nicht zum Prädikat, sondern an die Spitze des ganzen zu verneinenden Satzes.’ (‘Not infrequently does clausal negation expressing a particularly emphatic denial not stand in front of the predicate term, but right at the beginning of the clause which is to be negated.’) Pinkster (: ) claims that clause-initial non denotes ‘emphatic denial or refusal’, but he also doesn’t provide any arguments for this position (nor any explicit definitions of the concepts of ‘emphatic’, ‘denial’, and ‘refusal’). 38 Whatever it is that differentiates clause-initial from clause-internal non, note that most cases of the former pattern presumably do not qualify as instances of ‘external negation’, i.e. the pattern in which a sentential negator structurally appears outside a given proposition, much as in the formula ‘¬ p’ from predicate logic (which according to Horn () is not possible in natural languages). As pointed out by Touratier (: –), there seems to be evidence that external negation was actually available in Latin, witness the fact that one preposed negator can simultaneously negate two propositions:

(i)

Non [et nat-us est qu-is orient-e Canicul-a, not and born-NOM.M.SG be.PRS.SG someone-NOM rising-ABL dogstar-ABL et is in mar-i mori-e-tur]. and that.NOM.M.SG in sea-ABL die-FUT-SG ‘It is not the case that if someone was born when the dogstar was rising, this person will die at sea.’ (Cic. Fat. )

On external negation in natural languages, see also Repp () and Bar-Asher Siegal ().

Evidence for a Latin VP, part 



Finally, there also seem to be cases in which negation appears neither clause-initially, nor adjacent to any verbal material. For instance, in the examples in () non is separated from a finite verb by a direct object, but it still appears to the right of the subject, yielding what one could call ‘clause-medial negation’: () a. Corbulo [ . . . ] non eam specie-m insign-ium et Corbulo.NOM not that.ACC display-ACC emblems-GEN and arm-orum praetul-it [ . . . ]. arms-GEN exhibit-PRF.SG ‘Corbulo did not make such a display of emblems and arms.’ (Tac. Ann. ..) b. [Illa qu-ae leu-ior-a uide-ntur esse] this.NOM.N.PL which-NOM.N.PL light-COMP-NOM seem-PRS.PL be.PRS.INF non cuiusuis anim-um pos-sunt moue-re [ . . . ]? not whoever.GEN mind-ACC be.able-PRS.SG move-PRS.INF ‘Could not these things that seem much less serious move anybody’s feelings?’ (Cic. Ver. .) The status of this pattern is not entirely clear. First, it is conceivable that a clauseinitial subject like Corbulo in () is actually a topicalized constituent which is located in the same left-peripheral space as the relative pronoun quae ‘which’ in (a), in which case the negator in () could still in a sense qualify as clause-initial. Other cases of clause-medial negation involve coordination of the neither . . . nor type, as in (), a pattern which is also found with clause-initial negation. () Nam illo non sax-um, non materie-s ull-a aduect-a PRT there not rock-NOM not timber-NOM any-NOM imported-NOM.F.SG est. be.PRS.SG ‘For neither stone nor timber was brought there.’ (Cic. Ver. .) I will not be concerned here with the particular (discourse) functions of these different word orders; for some hypotheses on the interaction between information structure and placement of negation, the reader is referred to Pinkster (: –; –),39

39 In all likelihood, some cases involve what one could call ‘narrow focus negation’ or ‘association with negation’, i.e. a pattern whereby a focalized constituent appears in the (logical) scope of a negator with sentential scope (cf. Rooth : –), and which is not always easy to tell apart from constituent negation. Some languages employ a specialized lexical item for this function (see for instance Jäger (: –) on the Old High German negator nalles, which either expresses narrow focus negation or constituent negation, but never regular sentential negation). In other cases of clause-medial (and clauseinitial) negation in Latin, non (again with clausal scope) is associated with a universal quantifier like omnis ‘every’, a combination which is well known to resist lexicalization by a single lexical item (see Horn : – and references cited there).



Word order, configurationality, and structural ambiguity

TABLE . Main patterns of placement of sentential negation in Latin finite clauses Pattern

Description

Example(s)

( . . . -)Neg-Aux(- . . . )

Aux-contiguous

()

( . . . -)Neg-V-Aux(- . . . )

V-contiguous (VPAux-clauses only)

()

( . . . -)Neg- . . . -Aux(- . . . ), including ( . . . -)Neg-V(- . . . )-Aux(- . . . )

Clause-medial

(), ()

Neg- . . . -Aux(- . . . ), including Neg-V(- . . . )-Aux(- . . . )

Clause-initial

()

but I think it is clear that many open questions remain in this domain. Instead, I will focus on what constitutes a possible word order pattern, and what does not. Table . provides a summary of the possible positions for negation in clauses with an auxiliary. Unfortunately, as the four categories distinguished are identified on the basis of criteria of linear order only, it is not entirely clear whether these patterns are really fundamentally different. For instance, it might be the case that the V-contiguous and the medial order are actually the same thing. Let us assume, however, that this taxonomy offers a close enough approximation of the actual empirical picture. To supplement this overview with some quantitative data, I have conducted a corpus study on the placement of negation in clauses with a BE-auxiliary or a modal verb (possum ‘be able’ or debeo ‘have to’), with texts dating from ca.  BC (Plautus) until  AD (Gregory of Tours).40 Full details of this corpus, as well as on all methodological aspects of this corpus survey are provided in Section .. I collected a total of , negated clauses with an auxiliary.41 Because the V-contiguous pattern can only be observed in VPAux-clauses (see Section ...), I will deal with VPAux and AuxVP-clauses separately.42 Let us start with the former. Table . offers an overview of the (relative and absolute) frequencies of the four patterns identified in Table .. In order to track possible diachronic developments, I split the entire dataset in two subperiods: an early period covering the first four centuries in the corpus (i.e.  BC– AD), and a later one covering the last four (– AD) (on this periodization, see Section ...). This overview reveals a number of things. First, in line with what has been said in the descriptive literature, the Aux-contiguous pattern is clearly the most frequently

I refer to Chapter  for full justification of why I chose clauses with precisely these predicates. I discarded  tokens in which a clause-initial negator and the auxiliary or non-finite verb are only separated by an adverbial second position clitic particle such as enim or quidem ( tokens in VPAuxclauses ( with sum,  with a modal);  in AuxVP-clauses ( with sum,  with a modal)), as it is not immediately clear whether such examples are to be classified as involving a contiguous negator or not (which obviously depends on the proper analysis of the cliticization phenomenon involved). 42 As will be detailed in Chapter  (Section ..), under certain circumstances the presence or absence of negation is not independent of the VPAux/AuxVP alternation. 40 41

Evidence for a Latin VP, part 



TABLE . (Linear) position of non with clausal scope: frequencies in VPAux-clauses Aux-contiguous Clause-initial Clause-medial V-contiguous Total early late total

 (.%)  (.%)  (.%)

 (.%)  (.%)  (.%)

 (.%)  (.%)  (.%)

 (.%)  (.%)  (.%)

  

modal early late total

 (.%)  (.%)  (.%)

 (.%)  (.%)  (.%)

 (.%)  (.%)  (.%)

 (.%)  (.%)  (.%)

  

sum

TABLE . (Linear) position of non with clausal scope: frequencies in AuxVP-clauses Aux-contiguous

Clause-medial

Clause-initial

Total

sum

early late total

 (.%)  (.%)  (.%)

 (.%)  (.%)  (.%)

 (.%)  (.%)  (.%)

  

modal

early late total

 (.%)  (.%)  (.%)

 (.%)  (.%)  (.%)

 (.%)  (.%)  (.%)

  

attested one, especially with modals. Only with sum are the other three patterns fairly frequently attested. Second, the distribution of the four patterns does not seem to change over time, neither in clauses with sum (Pearson’s chi-squared test, p = .), nor in clauses with a modal (Pearson’s chi-squared test, p = .). A similar picture can be observed in AuxVP-clauses (Table .), but here the predominance of the Aux-contiguous negation pattern (and concomitantly, the lower frequencies of the other two orders) is even more striking. In this dataset it might appear as if there is a diachronic trend towards a fixation of the Auxcontiguous pattern in clauses with sum, but given the very low frequencies, particularly in Late Latin, of clause-medial and clause-initial negation, it is not clear whether this statistical estimate is at all accurate (Pearson’s chi-squared test suggests it is not, p = .)). In clauses with a modal there probably is no diachronic variability (Pearson’s chi-squared test, p = .). To conclude this descriptive overview, the sentential negator non typically sits right in front of the finite verb but, despite its statistical predominance, this pattern is definitely not the only attested one. It is likely that different conditions of usage are associated with the different patterns, the exact nature of which remains to be explored.



Word order, configurationality, and structural ambiguity

... A constraint on negation and verb placement In what follows I will assume that all orders which are not represented in Table . are indeed never attested and are therefore ungrammatical. For instance, although to the best of my knowledge this is never stated explicitly in any descriptive grammar, we can reasonably hypothesize that negation in a clause-final position was ungrammatical in Latin, given that we never find patterns like the ones in () (compare the minimally different attested examples in (), (a), and (b) respectively): () a. *P. Verginius rem uulgabat non. b. *Romanus equitatus ipsum regem adsecutus est non. c. *Praetor heredes facere potest non.

SOV-Neg SOVAux-Neg SOVAux-Neg

In the present context, where we are exploring the limits of Latin word order variation, the main conclusion is that there seem to be (principled) restrictions on the position that the sentential negator non can occupy (which again is bad news for purely non-configurational approaches to Latin word order, which do not predict such systematic gaps in distributional paradigms). What I will do is bring together the negation facts and the data on verb placement, which in the existing literature have always been treated separately. The key observation is that the patterns listed in () are not the only ones which are not attested in the corpus. As it turns out, in addition to negation being banned from an absolute clause-final position, there are no attestations in which a sentential negator linearly follows a finite verb (but see fn.  for one potential counterexample). We can therefore enrich our inventory of unattested orders with patterns such as the following (compare () and (a)): ()

a. *Vulgabat non P. Verginius rem. b. *qui est uicinos suos non cohortatus [ . . . ]

V-Neg-SO AuxO-Neg-V

In other words, on the basis of the data that we have seen so far, we can conclude that the restrictions on the placement of Latin sentential negators can only be formulated accurately if reference is made to both the negator itself and to finite verbs. What we are dealing with is a relative co-occurrence restriction, not an absolute constraint such as ‘sentential negation is banned from the absolute clause-final position’. We can state this generalization as in (): () ‘Negation-Verb’ Ordering Restriction (NegVOR) (first approximation) In Latin finite clauses, the marker of sentential negation non always precedes the finite verb. As indicated, this formulation of what I will call ‘NegVOR’ is only a first version, which I will now proceed to refine.

Evidence for a Latin VP, part 



... Refining the generalization Up until this point, discussion of the position of sentential negation has only dealt with finite clauses, and concomitantly, the relative co-occurrence restriction in () only makes reference to finite verbs. But what about negation in non-finite environments, such as ablative absolutes and Accusatiui cum Infinitiuo (AcIs)? As it turns out, a similar co-occurrence restriction as the one observed in finite contexts also holds in these environments.43 In ablative absolutes, there is almost always only one verb from present (viz. a present or past participle);44 the only cases in which more than one verb appears presumably involve a biclausal structure (e.g. a control verb and a dependent infinitive). In this syntactic context, non can only appear to the left of the verb, regardless of whether the noun associated with the participle (say the ‘subject’ of the ablative absolute) precedes () or follows () the latter: () a. plerisque extrem-as syllab-as non perfer-ent-ibus SO-Neg-V most.ABL.M.PL last-ACC syllables-ACC not pronounce-PTCP.PRS-ABL.M.PL ‘as most people don’t pronounce the last syllables’ (Quint. Inst. ..) b. * plerisque extremas syllabas non () a. quoniam adur-it auge-t=que uiti-a Neg-VS because burn-PRS.SG augment-PRS.SG=and complaints-ACC [non seruat-o temperament-o] not observed-ABL.M.SG moderation-ABL ‘since it burns and aggravates the complaints when not used with moderation’ (Plin. Nat. .) b. * temperamento non Again, negation and the verb form need not be adjacent: () non uot-is nuncupat-is not vows-ABL pronounced-ABL.N.PL ‘without the vows having been pronounced’ (Liv. ..)

Neg-SV

The facts concerning the Accusatiuus cum Infinitiuo are perhaps more telling, as in this (monoclausal) environment it is possible to find more than one verb form. In the 43 To the best of my knowledge, the available descriptive treatments of the placement of Latin negation do not take into account negated clauses with a non-finite analytic verb form. For instance, Pinkster (: ) states that ‘[w]hen functioning as clause negators non and haud are relatively free in their position, but they are most often found immediately before the main verb or the finite part of a periphrastic main verb form’. Strictly speaking, this statement is not wrong (although it is not immediately clear in which exact sense the author uses the terms ‘main verb’ and ‘periphrastic main verb’), but it is incomplete, and therefore inaccurate: it has nothing to say about the position of negation in clauses with a periphrastic verb form which does not have any finite part, such as AcIs featuring an infinitival BE-periphrasis. 44 Note that neither the BE-auxiliary nor the modal possum ‘be able’ have lexicalized participles. Debeo (in its modal use, meaning ‘have to’) does have a present participle, which is however only rarely used.



Word order, configurationality, and structural ambiguity

simple cases with only one (infinitival) verb, the ordering restriction is as expected: only those orders where non precedes the infinitive are grammatical: () a. Cred-o igitur [hunc me non ama-re]. SO-Neg-V believe-PRS.SG PRT this.ACC.M.SG me.ACC not love-PRS.INF ‘So I believe that he is not pleased with me.’ (Cic. Att. ..) b. *credo igitur hunc me non. The crucial case is the one in which an AcI contains an infinitive of an auxiliary which itself is accompanied by a dependent non-finite verb (a past participle in the case of a BE-auxiliary (), or another infinitive in the case of modals (), which I will argue also appear in a monoclausal structure (cf. Section .)). What we observe is that the relevant auxiliaries are still subject to NegVOR, despite their not being finite. As shown in () and (), non obligatorily precedes esse ‘be’ and debere ‘have to’: dol-u-i [me-as litter-as reddit-as non () a. Sane certainly be.sad-PRF-SG my-ACC letter-ACC delivered-ACC.F.PL not esse]. be.PRS.INF ‘I certainly felt sorry that my letter wasn’t delivered.’ (Cic. Att. ..) b. * meas litteras redditas non () a. Pronuntia-s [Netin-os frument-um da-re non proclaim-PRS.SG from.Netum-ACC.M.PL corn-ACC give-PRS.INF not debe-re]. have.to-PRS.INF ‘You decree that the people from Netum do not have to supply corn.’ (Cic. Ver. .) b. * Netinos frumentum dare non Note once again that non and a non-finite auxiliary can be separated from one another, for instance by the verbal complement of the auxiliary, as long as the negator precedes the auxiliary (which suggests that the unavailability of the various b-examples in ()–() is not to be ascribed to a more narrow ban on negation appearing in an absolute clause-final position): () a. si aut [fie-ri non pot-u-isse] dic-e-mus aut if either happen-PRS.INF not be.able-PRF-INF say-FUT-PL or qu-od dic-a-nt] [ . . . ] [non fact-um esse not happened-ACC.N.SG be.PRS.INF what-ACC.N.SG say-PRS.SBJV-PL ‘if we say that what they claim either could not happen or did not happen’ (Rhet. Her. ..) b. *esse non factum quod dicant

Evidence for a Latin VP, part 



() a. Sed iam ultra superbi-am crudelitat-em=que et auariti-am but already further arrogance-ACC cruelty-ACC=and and avarice-ACC eius non pat-i pos-se Carthaginiens-es. that.GEN.M.SG not endure-PRS.INF be.able-PRS.INF Carthaginians-NOM ‘But the Carthaginians could not further suffer his arrogance, cruelty and avarice.’ (Liv. ..) b. * auaritiam eius non pati Carthaginienses Observe also that there is no intrinsic ban on (non-finite) auxiliaries appearing to the left of a clause-mate non with sentential scope. In (), the BE-auxiliary which is part of the passive perfect infinitive seiunctam esse ‘to (have) be(en) separated’ linearly precedes non: () [ . . . ] uide-re [mult-orum ciu-ium calamitat-em a re see-PRS.INF many-GEN citizens-GEN ruin-ACC from cause.ABL public-a seiunct-am esse non pos-se] public-ABL separated-ACC.F.SG be.PRS.INF not be.able-PRS.INF ‘to see that the ruin of many citizens cannot be disjoined from public life’ (Cic. Man. ) What we learn from the distribution of non in non-finite clauses is that the constraint in () is presumably too narrow. However, given the striking similarities between the finite and non-finite clauses with respect to verb placement and negation, it is very likely that the observed ordering restrictions in both environments have a common source, and by this token, that we would miss a (potentially interesting) generalization if we were to treat the two separately. The key to coming closer to a unified treatment of the placement of negation in finite and non-finite clauses lies in the observation that all of the underscored verb forms in this and the preceding two sections share one property: they are all the hierarchically highest verb form in the clause in which they occur. This simple observation allows us to reformulate NegVOR as in (): ()

‘Negation-Verb’ Ordering Restriction (NegVOR) (final) In Latin, the marker of sentential negation non always linearly precedes the hierarchically highest clause-mate verb, but it can either precede or follow all other verbs in the same clause.

More schematically, the newly formulated NegVOR can be represented in templatic format as in (): () a. < *Vhighest > b. < Vdependent >

nonclausal nonclausal

< Vhighest > < Vdependent >



Word order, configurationality, and structural ambiguity

This generalization effectively captures all of the data that we have seen so far: it correctly predicts the orders summarized in Table . to be available in principle, and it correctly rules out all other patterns. Needless to say, this new generalization can only be formulated in the context of a framework in which it is possible to express the fact that there are certain asymmetric hierarchical relations between various elements in a given clause, such as a dependency grammar or a (fully configurational) phrase structure grammar. ... Some apparent counterexamples Before we move on, let me point out that the constraint on the distribution of non formulated in the previous subsection is relevant only when non has clausal scope. Apparent counterexamples to the generalization in () all involve constituent rather than sentential negation, or in other words, a negator to which NegVOR simply doesn’t apply.45 In many cases (but certainly not always), constituent negation is contrastive or corrective, and it often appears in the basic schema ‘not (non) X but (sed) Y’ (see Klima ; Horn : passim; McCawley ; specifically on Latin, see e.g. Orlandini : –).46 For instance, in () non only scopes over the ablative NP pignoribus ‘by pledges’, which is narrowly contrasted with the complex NP headed by gratia ‘by gratitude’.47 In this

45 Outside the corpus that I investigated systematically (on which, see Chapter ), I only found one potentially genuine counterexample to NegVOR, namely from Arnobius’ Aduersus nationes (ca.  AD):

(i)

et si fu-eri-t non fact-um, despect-am se and if be-PRF.SBJV-SG not done-NOM.N.SG scorned-ACC.F.SG REFL.ACC cred-ere believe-PRS.INF ‘and if this is not done, it (viz. ‘this wise and most blissful nature’, ld) would believe to have been treated disrespectfully’ (Arnob. Nat. ..)

As it stands, the string fuerit non factum (‘BE-Neg-PaPa’) seems to constitute a real counterexample to NegVOR, as the negator clearly has sentential scope (that is, if this reading, which according to Le Bonniec () is the only transmitted one, is indeed reliable). Note, however, that this seems to be a one off: in my regular corpus (consisting of , BE-periphrases), I found  negated tokens, every single one of which obeys NegVOR. I found no violations of NegVOR in clauses with a single synthetic verb, nor in clauses with a modal. In addition, I found no other counterexamples to NegVOR in Arnobius’ text. It is perhaps not coincidental that the one counterexample should come from Arnobius, as this author is known to have a predilection for artificial word order patterns. Compare Gabarrou (: ): L’ordre des mots dans Arnobe n’est pas l’ordre naturel. [ . . . ] mille inversions et entrelacements qui parfois déconcertent le lecteur, et qui, chez Arnobe notamment, donnent lieu à de regrettables obscurités de sens. (Word order in Arnobius is not the natural one. [There are] countless inversions and interweavings which sometimes confuse the reader, and which, most notably in Arnobius, give rise to regrettable interpretive obscurities.) 46 Compare also Lehmann (: -), but as this discussion of Latin constituent negation (‘Kontrastive Negation’ and ‘Satzgliednegation’) is based on constructed examples, it is unlikely to be accurate. 47 Another pattern that can be analysed as (non-contrastive) constituent negation and which can also give rise to the linear order ‘hierarchically highest verb–negation’ is the phenomenon of litotes (also known as negatio contrarii, cf. Hoffmann ).

Evidence for a Latin VP, part 



example non has narrow scope over the constituent it appears adjacent to; as a byproduct it appears postverbally, but this is not a violation of NegVOR since this principle only applies to sentential negators. () Cog-untur enim non [pignor-ibus], sed [eorum, de force-PASS.PRS.PL PRT not pledges-ABL but that.GEN.M.PL about qu-orum honor-e ag-itur, grati-a]. who-GEN.M.PL honour-ABL act-PASS.PRS.SG gratitude-ABL ‘For they are forced not by pledges but by their gratitude towards those people whose honour is at stake.’ (Cic. Phil. .) The same is true for clauses with a form of BE and a past participle exhibiting the order ‘BE-non-PaPa’: such apparent counterexamples to NegVOR involve an adjectival passive, with a constituent negator narrowly scoping over an adjectival participle. Such is the case in (), where non-grooved (non striata) columns are contrasted with grooved (striata) ones: () du-ae column-ae [ . . . ] e qu-ibus un-a si-t two-NOM columns-NOM from which-ABL.F.PL one-NOM.F.SG be.PRS.SBJV-SG non striat-a, alter-a striat-a not grooved-NOM.F.SG other-NOM.F.SG grooved-NOM.F.SG ‘two columns, of which one is fluted and the other is not’ (Vitr. ..; translation from Granger ) In other cases a negated post-inflectional element is an infinitival complement of a modal verb. As I will argue in detail in Section ..., here too we are dealing with constituent rather than sentential negation (the negated constituent being a VP): () Qu-am seueritat-em qu-is pot-est which-ACC sternness-ACC who-NOM.M.SG be.able-PRS.SG [non lauda-re]? not praise-PRS.INF ‘Who is able to not praise such sternness?’ (Cic. Phil. .) The interpretation of this example is one in which the modal scopes over the negator (‘be able to not V’; ◊ ¬ rather than ¬ ◊). Importantly, the availability of a narrow scope reading for non is not contingent on a particular position of the negated constituent (say a postverbal one). As shown in (), constituent negation can also obtain when both the negator and the negated constituent occur to the left of a finite verb: () Tempesta-s non opus gubernator-is impedi-t, sed successu-m. storm-NOM not work.ACC pilot-GEN hinder-PRS.SG but success-ACC ‘The storm does not hinder the pilot’s work, but his success.’ (Sen. Ep. .)



Word order, configurationality, and structural ambiguity

In some cases, two infinitives are thus contrastively juxtaposed, as in (): () Di-i immortal-es uirtut-em [adproba-re], non [adhibe-re] gods-NOM immortal-NOM virtue-ACC approve.of-PRS.INF not apply-PRS.INF debe-nt. have.to-PRS.PL ‘The immortal gods should approve of virtue, not display any.’ (Gel. ..) Observe that this last example is, on the surface, quite similar to the data in (), in that it also exhibits the order Neg-V-Aux. However, it is clear that interpretively the two pairs of examples are quite different: only in () does non have clausal scope. We can safely conclude that the sort of examples discussed in this section do not constitute counterevidence to the generalization in (). .. Interlude: from description to explanation We have now completed the first stage of our discussion of the distribution of verbs in negated clauses: by formulating the constraint in (), we have arrived at a simple descriptive generalization that correctly distinguishes grammatical from ungrammatical patterns of verb placement in Latin clauses negated by non. In doing so, we have made some progress with respect to earlier treatments which did not reach the same degree of descriptive adequacy. This is not, however, the point where I will stop: instead, I will try to go beyond mere description, by offering a principled explanation of the observed ordering restriction. Two preliminary remarks are in order. First, the upcoming argumentation serves a double purpose: not only is it aimed at analysing a set of hitherto unexplained facts of Latin word order, but it also aims to evaluate the merits of various theoretical approaches to Latin clausal syntax (of which word order is a part). The crucial part of the analysis is the claim that the Latin NegVOR facts can only be properly understood in the context of a system which allows for higher-order constituents. More specifically, it transpires that in order to understand the differential behaviour of the hierarchically highest verb and all other clause-mate verbs with respect to the sentential negator non, one has to assume that a Latin clause contains a verb phrase. This conclusion will then be taken to lend strong support to the view that Latin is a fully configurational language. Second, and very importantly, whilst I have tried to keep the discussion at the beginning of this section as theory-neutral as possible, the upcoming argumentation will explicitly refer to a number of theoretical concepts (whose nature will be elaborated on in due course). As an (inevitable) result, the discussion in Section .. is based on a number of (theory-internal) assumptions, all of which I will motivate as much as possible. In any event, the transition from description to theory-based explanation constitutes a major caesura in the present chapter.

Evidence for a Latin VP, part 



Importantly, I do not claim that the analysis that I will develop is the only one possible: I take it that a theory different from that assumed here, but compatible with the existence of higher-order constituents, might also be able to capture the relevant facts. On the other hand, a theory that cannot accommodate complex structures like verb phrases (such as the semi- and non-configurational systems introduced in Section .) is unlikely to be able to capture the same range of facts in a principled way, unless it is further enriched with a structural dimension. .. Explaining NegVOR: a phrase structure based account Recall that the basic contrast we are trying to understand is one between the hierarchically highest verb in a given clause on the one hand, and all other (‘dependent’) verbs on the other: () a. < *Vhighest > b. < Vdependent >

nonclausal nonclausal

< Vhighest > < Vdependent >

The analysis that I will propose has two main ingredients. The first is the notion of ‘hierarchy’, a concept compatible with both a phrase structure grammar (a fully configurational system) and a dependency grammar. The second ingredient is a VP constituent, which (at least in Latin) contains dependent verbs (past participles, infinitival complements of modals) but never the hierarchically highest verb of a (non-deficient) clause. I take it that this second element is only compatible with a genuinely configurational system. Technically speaking, the solution that I will propose refers to what are sometimes called ‘locality’ constraints, that is, restrictions on syntactic movement of the type often discussed in the generative literature. The relevant constraints aim to explain why the presence of a given linguistic category (in this case sentential negation) can under some circumstances reduce the positional/distributional freedom of elements that occur in the same clause (or even sentence). I will start by introducing one particular approach to syntactic locality. ... Relativized Minimality: a constraint on syntactic movement Throughout the upcoming discussion, I will use a ‘movement’ metaphor which is common to many derivational, constituency-based approaches to syntax.48 More specifically, given any minimal pair of clauses where a constituent (and never a non-constituent) A appears once in a structurally low position X and once in a structurally higher position Y, I will say that in the latter case, A has been moved from X to Y. I will call X the base

48

Note, however, that nothing crucially hinges on this metaphor: the entire argument can easily be reformulated in purely representational terms, where restrictions are imposed on possible positions of one element with respect to another.



Word order, configurationality, and structural ambiguity

position, and Y the derived position. For instance, in the case of English (), the direct object this book is in its base position X in the a-example, but has been moved (focalized or topicalized) to a derived position Y in the b-example. ()

a.

John

has

Y b. [This book] Y

John

has

read [this book]. X read ______ . X

The example in (b) involves movement of a phrasal category (an XP in terms of the X-bar formalism), which in this case is an extended noun phrase, which we can call a DP (for ‘Determiner Phrase’). Note however that exactly the same type of movement can apply to phrases that consist of only a single word, such as the direct object books in (c). Importantly, it can also affect higher-order constituents, such as verb phrases (d): ()

c. [Books] John has read ___ . d. [Read this book] John has ___ .

A distinct type of movement involves displacement of a syntactic head (i.e. an X° category). For instance, head movement is at work in the formation of English yes– no questions, as in (), where we see fronting of the auxiliary has: ()

Has John ___ read this book?

Although we can say that it is only single word constituents that can ever undergo head movement, it is certainly not the case that whenever a given single word constituent has been moved, the type of movement involved is head movement. For instance, in English whenever a single lexical verb is fronted, we are dealing with VP fronting of the same type as in (d). For instance, in () the intransitive VP improved has been moved to the left of the subject it: ()

John had predicted that the situation would improve, and [VP improved] it has ___ .

A very influential theory that seeks to explain a wide range of the documented constraints on syntactic movement is the one proposed in Rizzi (), which is known as Relativized Minimality (henceforth RM). Given our movement metaphor, the general principle can be summarized as ‘likes do not cross likes’. In order to illustrate this principle, consider the representation in (): ()

Y α

Z β

X α

Evidence for a Latin VP, part 



The basic idea behind RM is that a syntactic element α occurring in position X cannot move to position Y across position Z, containing β, if β and/or Z are ‘too similar’ to α, X and/or Y.49 Much of the literature on RM is devoted to spelling out exactly when two elements or positions count as ‘too similar’ (or ‘sufficiently different’) (see Rizzi , , ; Starke ; Endo ; Haegeman ). For instance, in English it is possible to move a direct object out of a declarative complement clause (a), but a similar movement operation out of an embedded interrogative leads to degradation (b): () a. [How much] does John think that Bill ate ____ ? Y Z X b. *[How much] does John wonder whether Bill ate ____? Y Z X Given RM, we can say that the movement operation in the a-example is fine because the moved element does not share any relevant properties with the declarative thatcomplementizer, but that it does share such a property with interrogative whether (call it a wh-feature, or an interrogativity feature). The parameters along which syntactic categories are to be evaluated in order to determine whether or not they count as ‘sufficiently similar’ for the purpose of RM are two in number, namely (i) the type of movement involved (movement of a syntactic head and various types of phrasal movement, cf. Rizzi ), and, in the case of phrasal movement, (ii) the exact nature of both the moved phrase and all the elements its crosses. The ‘nature’ of constituents is characterized in terms of their grammatical and semantic features (Starke ; Rizzi ). For the upcoming discussion we do not need the entire RM machinery, but only those aspects that are concerned with head movement, which represents a fairly simply case of RM. Therefore, for the time being I will leave aside RM effects involving phrasal material. Technically speaking, I will assume a definition of syntactic heads in terms of the geometry of a given phrase marker: any terminal node I will consider a head, any non-terminal node a phrase (see also Vicente ). For instance, in the tree in (), B, D, F, and H are heads, whereas A, C, E, G, and I are all phrases, that is,

49

An alternative representational (i.e. not movement-based) formulation would say that given a representation like (), there can be no syntactic dependency between occurrences of α in the positions X and Y whenever β and Z share a sufficient amount of properties with α, X, and/or Y.



Word order, configurationality, and structural ambiguity

complex constituents all containing one or more heads, and possibly also one or more phrases: ()

A B

C D

E F

G H

I

Here I will assume that displacement of a syntactic head always targets another head position, and that it results in the creation of a complex head, as in (), where the head F has been moved to the next higher head position, to form the complex head [F–D]: ()

A B

C D F

E D

tF

G H

I

Let me illustrate this by means of a simple example. Consider the French sentence in (): () Jean mange-ait souvent des Jean eat-IPFV.SG often of.ART.PL ‘Jean often used to eat apples.’

pommes. apples

As indicated by the gloss, the verb mangeait consists of (at least) two morphemes, namely the lexical root (or perhaps stem) and a portmanteau expressing tense–aspect information as well as subject–verb agreement (which I will abstract away from here). Notice also that the verb sits to the left of the aspectual adverb souvent ‘often’, which we can take to demarcate the upper edge of the VP, and which I will simply take to be a VP-adjunct (i.e. a (leftward) sister to the maximal projection of V). According to a

Evidence for a Latin VP, part 



very influential analysis of this type of sentence (cf. Pollock ), the lexical verb is base-generated in V°, and the tense morpheme in T°. The two are then fused together through a process of head movement, whereby V° ends up left adjoined to T°. A (simplified) tree is given in (): ()

TP T’

Jean T°

VP

V° T° mange-ait

souvent

VP tJean

V′ tmange

DP des pommes

... RM for heads: the Head Movement Constraint at work Since Travis’ () formulation of the Head Movement Constraint (HMC), it has been generally accepted that movement of syntactic heads is strictly local, in the sense that a moving head cannot skip any intervening head (position).50 This idea has been widely adopted, and subsequently incorporated into the more general theory of constraints on syntactic movement developed in Rizzi (). The rationale is that in any configuration like (), where X, Y, and Z are syntactic heads, Z cannot move to X across Y, because the latter counts as an intervener, that is, as an element that is sufficiently similar to both Z and X to block the formation of a syntactic dependency between the two. Z can only ever reach X if it first head moves to Y and forms a complex unit with it: after this intermediate step the complex head Z–Y can move on to X. ()

50

X

Y

Z

I am abstracting away from some of the intricacies surrounding head movement: see Rivero (, ), Roberts (, ), and Harley (a, b) for more nuanced discussion, which does not however affect the basic point made here.



Word order, configurationality, and structural ambiguity

The paradigm in () illustrates this type of RM with data from English yes–no questions in root clauses with more than one verb. Following standard assumptions, all verbs involved can be taken to be syntactic heads. ()

a. John would have read the book. b. Wouldi John ti have read the book? c. *Havei John would ti read the book? d. *Readi John would have ti the book?

What these examples show us is that English matrix yes–no questions involve verb fronting. Importantly however, it is only the hierarchically highest verb that can undergo movement.51 In other words, lower verbs cannot be moved across higher ones (c,d), arguably as a consequence of a Relativized Minimality effect governing head movement. Preverbal negation has also been argued to be a syntactic head that can give rise to a similar blocking effect.52 Consider for instance the interaction between negation and clitic climbing in Italian (examples from Kayne : ). Example () shows that object clitics can move out of an infinitival complement to a preverbal position in the matrix clause, regardless of whether the latter is negated or not: ()

a. Gianni (non) vuole veder=li. Gianni not want.prs.3sg see.prs.inf=them ‘Gianni wants/does not want to see them.’ b. Gianni (non) lii vuole vedere ti .

51 Rephrasing this by saying that it is only the finite verb that can be fronted amounts to exactly the same thing, as it is only the hierarchically highest verb of a clause that can ever be finite. Note, moreover, that this rule cannot possibly be rephrased in terms of linear proximity to the left periphery of the root clause, as fronting of the verb which is most leftward in (ia) clearly results in ungrammaticality (ib):

(i) a. Any man who can carry a gun should go to war. b. *Cani any man who ti a gun should go to war? c. Shouldi any man who can carry a gun ti go to war? 52 On the X° status of consistently preverbal negators in Romance, see Zanuttini (, ) and Section .....

Evidence for a Latin VP, part 



However, this possibility is blocked when the infinitive is negated.53 ()

a. Gianni vuole non veder=li. Gianni wants not see.prs.inf=them ‘Gianni wants (desires) not to see them.’ b. *Gianni lii vuole non vedere ti . c.

X

Y

Z

Assuming that both the clitic (Cardinaletti and Starke ; Roberts ) and the negator (Zanuttini ) are syntactic heads, the contrast between (b) and (b) can be accounted for in terms of Relativized Minimality: the clitic cannot cross the negator as both are syntactic heads, subject to the Head Movement Constraint. ... Accounting for the empirical data of Latin sentential negation We can now proceed to analyse the Latin NegVOR data. The basic idea is very simple: assuming that verbs and the negation marker non are syntactic heads, and that the former are generated lower in the structure than the latter, the prediction is that verbs cannot cross negation (on penalty of an RM violation), unless they are contained in a larger, higher-order constituent, such as a verb phrase. In the latter case, although a verb moves, it does not move as a head but it moves as a component of a phrase. As it happens, interaction with verb movement is frequently cited as one of the key tests to determine whether a negation marker in a given language is a head or not (see e.g. Zanuttini : –). I will turn the logic of this diagnostic on its head: I will first show that there is independent evidence for non being a head, and then I will proceed to account for the complete set of NegVOR data in terms of a constraint on syntactic head movement. .... Latin non as a syntactic head As above, I will take it that all verbs are heads, which project a more complex constituent (VP for a lexical verb, TP for an auxiliary). In terms of a (simplified) phrase marker like (), we can say that lexical non-finite verbs (infinitives or past participles) occupy the head position of the verb phrase (V°), whereas verbal elements expressing Tense- and/or Mood-related information (such as auxiliaries and inflectional affixes) are inserted in the inflectional

As Kayne (: , cf. his examples ()–()) goes on to show, similar facts can be observed in French, which allows for an object clitic to climb out of the complement of a causative verb, but only if the dependent infinitive is not negated. 53



Word order, configurationality, and structural ambiguity

layer of the clause, lexicalizing the head of an inflectional category in the functional superstructure that dominates the verb phrase: ()

CP C′ C°

TP T′ T° Aux/INFL

VP V′ V° √/Inf/PaPa

Next, I will assume that in all finite clauses (and arguably also in non-finite ones like AcIs), at least one verb lexicalizes T° (or in terms of a more articulated clause structure, one of the functional heads in the TP-layer). Auxiliaries (BE or one of the modals) can be assumed to be base-generated in such a position, whereas ‘synthetic’ verbs containing a lexical root can be said to be base-generated in V° and subsequently moved to T°, as in (): ()

CP C′ C°

TP T′ T° V°

VP T°

V′ tV°

But what about sentential negation? Again following standard assumptions, I will assume that sentential negation is expressed by means of a functional category NegP

Evidence for a Latin VP, part 



which is located somewhere above VP and below CP. Importantly, comparative research suggests that the position of NegP is not universally fixed, and that there can be more than one NegP in one and the same extended projection (Zanuttini ; Cinque : –). With respect to this last point, I will assume that the apparently free distribution of negative markers in the Latin clause (cf. Table .) reflects the availability of multiple NegPs: in the tree in () two such projections are represented, but I do not exclude that there are actually more. As to the exact location of these functional categories, given the limited distribution of verb forms to the left of negation, it seems obvious that there should not be any NegP below T. However, what we do not yet know is whether non lexicalizes the head position of NegP, or whether it is a phrasal specifier.54 All this is summarized in (), where XP is shorthand for all the functional material in between the two NegPs: ()

CP C′ C°

NegP2 Neg′

? non

Neg° ?

XP X′ X°

NegP1 ?

non

Neg′ Neg° ?

TP

In the literature, it is widely acknowledged that languages differ as to whether the (main) marker of sentential negation constitutes a head lexicalizing the Neg°-node, or whether it is a phrasal category in the specifier of NegP (Haegeman ; Zanuttini , ; Zeijlstra ; see van Gelderen (, : ch. ) for a diachronic

54 Note that I am only concerned with non with sentential scope, and that I will have nothing to say about the phrase structure status of non as a constituent negator (which is orthogonal to the point at issue).



Word order, configurationality, and structural ambiguity

perspective). In what follows, I will review a number of facts which suggest that Latin non is indeed a syntactic head. First, evidence for the head status of Latin non as a syntactic head can be derived from a test proposed in Merchant (), who formulates the following generalization: If the sentential negative marker in a given language is phrasal (an XP, generally adverbial), it will occur in the collocation why not?; if it is a head (an X°, generally clitic-like), it will not. In the latter languages, the word for ‘no’ can sometimes be used, itself (presumably) a phrasal negative adverb. (Merchant : )

Merchant () offers the following syntactic interpretation of this effect (which is strictly speaking orthogonal to the empirical adequacy of the generalization). Assuming that question words meaning ‘why’ are phrasal adverbs, and assuming that heads can only adjoin to heads (viz. via head-to-head movement), and phrases only to phrases, it would follow that only phrasal negators can act as modifiers adjoined to why-adverbs, as schematically represented in (): ()

a.

b. *

XP XP why

YP not

XP why

XP Y° not

Apart from English why not, we thus get German (a) and Dutch (b) (where the words for ‘no’ are nein and nee(n) (or variants thereof) respectively): () a. Warum nicht? b. Waarom niet?

German Dutch

On the other hand, Romance languages like French and Italian cannot use the sentential X° negators ne and non in this context, but have to exploit phrasal alternatives, like the (grammaticalized) reinforcer pas or the word for ‘no’. The same holds for Modern Greek: () c. Pourquoi pas? (*ne) d. Perché no? (*non) e. Γιατί όχι; (*δεν)

French Italian Modern Greek

Latin has two lexical items which mean ‘why’, namely cur and quare. In addition, in its adverbial usage, the accusative neuter singular interrogative pronoun quid can also mean ‘why’. Importantly, there is one specialized lexical item meaning ‘why not’, namely quidni. In order to assess whether non can ever occur in a fragment why-question, I collected all examples of the strings cur non, quare non (including qua re non),

Evidence for a Latin VP, part 



TABLE . Negated Latin why-questions: fragments vs. full clauses quidni (quid ni)

Antiquitas Aetas Patrum

cur non

quare non

fragment

full clause

fragment

full clause

fragment

full clause

 

 

 

 

 

 

quid non, and quidni (including quid ni) in the texts in the Brepolis database (brepolis.net, cf. Section ...), from the periods Antiquitas (all texts before ca.  AD) and Aetas Patrum (ca. – AD). We can immediately discard questions with quid: I found  tokens of the string quid non, but in all three cases in which quid non? is attested as a fragment question, the question word is not used adverbially, but rather as the nominative or accusative neuter singular of the interrogative pronoun, in which case it means ‘what’ and not ‘why’. For the other three (potential) strategies to express negated why-questions, the frequency of fragment questions is as shown in Table .. It turns out that the element quidni is attested  times (this excludes those instances in which the lexical item quidni is referred to ‘meta-linguistically’ by a grammarian, as well as all occurrences of quidni in quotations from older authors), and in .% of the cases ( tokens), this item constitutes a fragment question, with the proviso that in quite a number of cases (especially in Late Latin), the relevant fragment does not seem to have full interrogative force, with quidni meaning something like ‘naturally’ or ‘of course’. In contrast, the string cur non is not only much more frequently attested than quidni, but in the vast majority of the cases (over %), it also occurs in non-elliptical questions.55 Similar facts hold for quare non, but importantly in this case the reported figures can only be considered to offer a very rough estimate of the actual facts, as I did not systematically eliminate cases in which quare is a (connecting) relative rather than an interrogative. The main generalization is that in a robust majority of the cases (/, i.e. .%), Latin fragment questions meaning why not? do not involve non (and for Early and Classical Latin, non is absent in % of the fragment questions). The relevant contrast comes out most clearly when we compare the distribution of quidni and cur non (i.e. the two non-ambiguously interrogative strategies) across elliptical and non-elliptical environments (Table .).

55

Note that as I only searched for cases in which the question word and the negator are string adjacent, the actual numbers of non-elliptical, negated why-questions with cur must be much higher than is indicated in Table ..



Word order, configurationality, and structural ambiguity TABLE . Incidence of quidni and cur non in elliptical and non-elliptical environments

fragment full question

quidni (quid ni)

cur non

 

 

Even if we assume that the figures in the upper left corner of Table . (fragment quidni) are somewhat inflated because they include cases in which quidni behaves more like a discourse marker than a genuine question word,56 it is obvious that there is a clear tendency for fragment why-questions to be expressed by means of bare quidni (which is confirmed by a chi-squared test (with Yates’ correction), p < .). Importantly, one should not think that the low frequencies of cur non? (and quare non?) fragments are to explained in terms of a blocking effect induced by the existence of the ‘elsewhere case’ quidni, witness the fact that overall cur/quare non . . . ? (and probably cur/quare . . . non . . . ?) questions are much more frequently attested than quidni . . . ? questions (or put differently, there clearly is no blocking effect by quidni in non-elliptical contexts). On the contrary, assuming that the relative frequency of fragment and non-fragment questions remains constant across different types of question words, one might have expected a much higher token frequency of why not? fragments with cur and quare (on a par with quidni?). Let us then examine the eight cases in which non does in fact occur in a fragment why-question. First of all, it should be noted that all eight of them are from Late Latin: the earliest three cases that we can date with confidence are from Augustine (active ca. – AD).57 Four additional cases occur in so-called scholia (commentaries on literary works (in this case by Cicero, Terence, Horace, and Vergil)), where quare non? and cur non? are used to gloss quin? (in Terence) and quid enim? (in the other three authors).58 The final example is from the Digesta (Dig. .., cur non, ca.  AD). I would like to interpret these facts as follows. On the one hand, the total absence of fragment why not?-questions with non before ca.  AD, coupled with the full

56 But here too the figure in the lower right corner is the most conservative estimate possible (for reasons explained in the previous footnote). 57 The relevant examples are Aug. Mus. , l.  (cur non); Epist. . (cur non); In psalm.  (quare non). 58 The four references are Ps. Ascon., Cic. Ver. . (early fifth century AD(?), quare non); Don., Ter. An.  (after  AD, cur non); Schol. Hor. S. .. (after  AD, cur non); Serv. auct., Verg. A. . (fifth century AD(?), quare non). Note that the dates indicated are only very tentative approximations.

Evidence for a Latin VP, part 



productivity of non-elliptical negated why-questions with non clearly lend support to the claim that non is a syntactic head rather than a phrase. On the other hand, we also have to explain why in Late Latin (when quidni seems to behave more and more like a discourse marker rather than a true question word), there are some unambiguous cases of non in why-fragments. It seems reasonable to hypothesize that in such cases we are not dealing with sentential negation, but with early attestations of a phrasal adverb meaning ‘no’. In most (if not all) Romance varieties, Latin non lives on until today in two different guises, viz. as a preverbal clitic marker of sentential negation (French ne, Italian non, Spanish no, etc.) and as a (tonic) no-adverb (which can be homophonous with the previous element or not, cf. French non, Italian no, Spanish no). In other words, there can be no doubt that at a certain point, a lexical split took place yielding NON (sentential negation)59 and NON (‘no adverb’, presumably phrasal), but it is not entirely clear at which point this split took place. The fact that both elements are represented across Romance suggests that we are dealing with a shared inherited feature rather than a series of independent innovations, and thus that the relevant split took place relatively early. This seems to be confirmed by the observation that from Plautus onwards, bare non could be used as an answer to a yes–no question (see e.g. Pinkster : – and references cited there). However, it is clear that Latin did not have a fully-fledged yes–no system to answer polar questions: no single specialized element to give an affirmative answer to a polar question was available, and to express a negative answer, bare non was neither the only nor the most frequently used strategy (see again Pinkster : –). If we then assume that Late Latin constitutes a stage in which (phrasal) NON was establishing itself as the prototypical strategy to provide a negative answer to a yes–no question, the incipient availability of cur non? and quare non? in this period follows in a straightforward way. This scenario is then fully compatible with the claim that the Latin sentential negator non (from a certain point onwards NON) is a syntactic head, lexicalizing Neg° rather than SpecNegP. A second test for the phrase structure status of negation markers is related to the availability or otherwise of Negative Concord (NC), that is the phenomenon whereby two or more clause-mate negators do not cancel out one another, but rather are interpreted as a single negative operator (see e.g. Haegeman ). Interestingly, there seems to be a strong correlation between the head (X°) status of a given negator and the availability of NC (cf. Haegeman and Zanuttini ; Rowlett ; the

59 There is a broad (although not complete, see for instance Zanuttini (: ) on French ne) consensus among syntacticians that the descendants of Latin NON in present day Romance varieties are syntactic heads (which project the functional category NegP) (on French, see Kayne (), Rowlett (); on (varieties of) Italian, Zanuttini (), Manzini and Savoia (: ch. )).



Word order, configurationality, and structural ambiguity

original observation goes back to Jespersen ). Rowlett (: ) formulates what he calls ‘Jespersen’s Generalization’ as follows:60 ()

Jespersen’s Generalization A language is an NC language iff the regular marker of pure sentential negation is not associated with SpecNegP.

Although both the universal (Déprez ) and the bi-directional character (Zeijlstra ) of this generalization have occasionally been questioned, the empirical facts do suggest that there is a non-accidental correlation between the two phenomena (making () ‘a sturdy generalization’ (Rowlett : )). Unfortunately, the Latin facts are difficult to interpret: on the one hand, in most cases a double negation yields an affirmation, but, on the other hand, there are also some unambiguous cases of NC.61 An example of the first pattern is given in (). Although I do not have any precise figures, duplex negatio affirmat (‘double negation confirms’) examples like () seem common. Perhaps importantly, I did not find any cases of double negation in which the negative indefinite occurs to the right of non. Conversely, a negative quantifier preceding a clause-mate sentential negator always seems to yield double negation and never NC in Latin.62 () Defig-i quidem dir-is precation-ibus nemo bewitch-PASS.PRS.INF PRT terrible-ABL curses-ABL nobody.NOM non metu-it. not fear-PRS.SG ‘There is indeed nobody who is not afraid to be spell-bound by terrible curses.’ (Plin. Nat. .) On the other hand, there are also some unambiguous examples of genuine NC (Norberg : ; Hofmann and Szantyr : –; Kühner and Stegmann : vol. ., –; Petersmann : ; Perl ; Väänänen : ; Molinelli : –, ; Longobardi : –). Two very early examples are given in () and (); note that in both cases, the negative indefinite follows non. Importantly, if Jespersen’s Generalization as stated in () is correct, these examples would constitute evidence that non (at least in these examples) is a syntactic head.

60 I will assume that this generalization holds for both the strict and the non-strict (‘negative spread’) type of negative concord distinguished by Giannakidou (, ). In other words, what is correlated with the availability of negative concord (strict or otherwise) in a language is whether the canonical marker of sentential negation in that language is a head, not whether in a given clause this head is overtly realized or not. 61 For a different interpretation of the same facts, see Gianollo (). 62 Note that the availability of double negation is not per se incompatible with a given language having NC too; rather it does seem to be true that a double negation reading is sometimes ‘hard to get’ in NC languages (Haegeman and Zanuttini ; de Swart : ch. ).

Evidence for a Latin VP, part 



() Iura te non nocit-ur-um esse homin-i swear.IMP.SG you.ACC.SG not harm-PTCP.FUT-ACC.M.SG be.PRS.INF man-DAT de hac re nemin-i. about this.ABL affair.ABL nobody-DAT ‘Swear that you won’t do damage to anybody (lit. to nobody) in this affair.’ (Pl. Mil. ; ca.  BC) () Lapide-o sunt cord-e mult-i, qu-os non stony-ABL be.PRS.PL heart-ABL many-NOM.M.PL who-ACC.M.PL not misere-t nemin-is. feel.sorry.for-PRS.SG nobody-GEN ‘Many have a heart of stone: they don’t feel compassion for anybody.’ (Enn. Scen.  Vahlen); probably to be dated in between  and  BC) NC seems to be more or less absent in the immediately following centuries (but see Perl ), but it is occasionally attested in Late Latin.63 Here too, non appears to the left of the negative indefinites: () Non illic habe-nt donatist-ae nemin-em. not there have-PRS.PL donatists-NOM nobody-ACC ‘The donatists don’t have anybody there.’ (GCC .;  AD) () Non calumnia-ris [in null-o]. not falsely.accuse-PRS.SG in no-ABL.M.SG ‘You do not falsely accuse anybody.’ (Sort. Sangall. .; codex from the sixth century AD) So how are these facts to be interpreted? On the one hand, it seems clear that for at least some speakers (at various (all?) stages of the Latin language), NC was a grammatical option. On the other hand, given the small amount of convincing tokens of NC, one clearly cannot claim that Latin (as a whole) was a (non-strict) NC language ‘across the board’. As we will see in what follows, postverbal (post-inflection) negative quantifiers can take clausal scope even in the absence of a clause-mate non (cf. Section ...). So although I will refrain from drawing any strong conclusions, it is tempting to hypothesize that we are dealing here with a case of ‘submerged Latin’ (in the sense of Adams ). It might be the case that NC was available in all stages of the Latin language (at least in cases where a negative quantifier follows non), but that there was strong normative pressure against this pattern, which might explain its absence in the

63

On the assumed periodization of Latin, see Section ....



Word order, configurationality, and structural ambiguity

‘classical’ period.64 As a matter of fact, some of the Latin grammarians explicitly condemn NC. For instance, the fourth century grammarian Diomedes lists NC among a series of  solecisms, that is, instances of ‘bad Latin’:65 ()

Duodecimus modus fit per geminationem abnuendi, ut dicas numquam nihil peccaui, cum debeat dici numquam peccaui, quoniam duae abnutiuae unam confirmatiuam faciunt. ‘The twelfth type consists of a double use of negation, like when one says ‘I never did nothing wrong’, where one should say ‘I never did anything wrong’, since two negations add up to one affirmation.’ (Diom. gramm. GLK , p. , l. –)

To sum up, I have discussed two arguments in favour of a head analysis of non, a very robust one concerning the expression of why not? fragment questions, and a much more tentative one concerning the availability of NC. As I will now proceed to show, assuming preverbal non to be an X° opens up the way for a very simple and elegant analysis of the NegVOR data. .... A simple RM effect, and a way to bypass an intervener I will start by looking at the interaction between the marker of sentential negation non and the hierarchically highest verb. Let us assume that the verb in T can undergo head movement to a higher projection in the structure, say FP, which sits below the CP-layer (cf. the discussion of ()): ()

FP F′ F° T°

TP F°

T′ tT°

VP

64 On the impact of normative pressure on production rates of NC, see for instance Larrivée (). It is certainly not unusual for NC to be absent from standard languages but present in spoken varieties thereof. For instance, NC is pervasive in various Dutch (especially Flemish) dialects, but absent in Standard Dutch. Similarly, it is common in Bavarian dialects (Weiß : ch. ), but absent in Standard German. 65 In terms of the terminology of Giannakidou (, ), the example in () exhibits ‘negative spread’, i.e. an NC reading which does not involve a canonical marker of sentential negation (‘not’).

Evidence for a Latin VP, part 



As this is a case of head movement, given RM, it straightforwardly follows that this type of verb fronting is blocked in the presence of negation, as the Neg head containing non counts as an intervener: ()

FP F′ NegP

F° T°

Neg′

F° non

TP T′ tT°

VP

This effectively derives the first half of the NegVOR generalization, as summarized in (a). But what about (b)? How come dependent verbs actually can occur to the left of negation? What I will suggest is that the linear pattern ‘Vdependent - non’ is derived by means of phrasal movement rather than head movement. In other words, what moves is a bigger category containing the non-finite verbal head, but as this operation does not instantiate an application of head movement and, concomitantly, does not target a head position, it is not subject to the Head Movement Constraint. It is natural to assume that this larger phrasal category is a VP, that is, a higher-order constituent which in terms of the X-bar format is a phrasal projection of the lexical verb. For the time being, let us again label the landing site of this operation as ‘FP’, but I will come back to the nature of this projection as well as to the motivation for VP movement in Chapter . ()

FP VP

F′ F°

NegP

V Neg′ Neg°

TP T′ T°

tVP



Word order, configurationality, and structural ambiguity

Note finally that the hierarchically highest verb (by assumption located in T°) cannot in the same way (i.e. by means of phrasal movement) circumvent the minimality effect created by an intervening negator, given that TPs are generally known to be syntactically immobile.66 Without going into too much technical detail, despite not violating Relativized Minimality, a derivation involving phrasal movement of a remnant TP (containing just the highest verb) across negation can be ruled out on independent grounds, regardless of the type of phrasal movement involved (cf. the literature on ‘anti-locality’ (Abels , ; Grohmann )). For instance, (extended) VPs are well known to be able to be fronted (topicalized) (a), but no such operation is possible for TPs (b) (examples based on Harwood (: )): ()

If Sebastian says that he certainly was being cooked alive, then . . . a. [VP being cooked alive] he certainly was tVP. b. *[TP was being cooked alive] he certainly tTP.

Similarly, whereas long movement of a VP is available (a), similar displacement of a TP results in severe ungrammaticality (b): ()

Sebastian said that he certainly was being cooked alive, and so . . . a. [VP being cooked alive] John actually believed that Sebastian was tVP. b. *[TP was being cooked alive] John actually believed that Sebastian tTP.

To sum up, this simple RM-based account effectively derives both clauses of the NegVOR generalization. In addition, given the crucial role of the VP constituent in the argumentation, the account also gives us a first argument in favour of the existence of a higher-order constituent Latin, and therefore also for the configurational nature of the language. Before offering some additional evidence, I will first discard an alternative explanation of the NegVOR facts, which may at first glance seem attractive. .. Discarding a non-explanation: the ‘Neg First principle’ ... ‘Neg-V’-orders in the languages of the world At first sight, the Latin NegVOR data are reminiscent of a well known typological generalization, which says that sentential negation expressed by means of a(n adverb-like) free morpheme more often precedes than follows the (lexical) verb (Jespersen ; Dahl ; Payne ; Dryer , a,b). Horn (: xxi) refers to this tendency as the ‘Neg First principle’, that is, ‘the hypothesis that a negative morpheme tends, for functional reasons, to precede the element on which it focuses’. In line with Jespersen’s original 66 See Authier () and Abels (: –) for potential counterarguments to this generalization. Note, however, that the cases discussed by these authors involve non-finite TPs. In addition, the restriction on TP movement discussed here does not apply to one particular type of phrasal movement, viz. ‘roll-up movement’, which I will introduce in Chapter .

Evidence for a Latin VP, part 



conjecture, the Neg First principle is thus conceived of as motivated by considerations of communicative optimality, so as to make sure that a negative utterance is unambiguously marked and interpreted as such at an early stage of a given discourse situation, and ‘to leave no doubt in the mind of the hearer as to the purport of what is said’ (Jespersen : ). One could at this point hypothesize that the NegVOR facts just reviewed are simply to be taken to mean that Latin is a typologically ‘well-behaved’ language, and nothing more. However, there are many reasons to believe that such an approach is on the wrong track. A first objection is related to the status of the Neg First principle as a generalization with cross-linguistic validity. In a large-scale survey on the order of verbs and negative morphemes, Dryer (a) reports that in a sample of , languages, in , of which negation is expressed by means of a single morpheme,67  languages exhibit the order Neg-V (in  of these, negation is prefixal), whereas the order V-Neg is the canonical one in  languages (including  languages where negation appears as a suffix on the verb). This is summarized in Table .. Similarly, of all , languages investigated,  have at least some preverbal negator, compared to  which have not, whereas only  languages have at least some postverbal negator, leaving  languages where this pattern is not available at all (Table .). On the one hand, these figures show that although there is a preference for negative markers to precede clause-mate verbs, this is only a tendency. Crucially, postverbal negators are by no means absent in the languages of the world. In addition, there are even languages where negation canonically appears at the very end of a clause. According to Dryer (b), negation follows all of the elements ‘S’, ‘O’, and ‘V’ in more than % of the languages of the world ( tokens in a sample of , languages).68 Neg-final orders constitute the standard (and often the only) way to express sentential negation in a number of Austronesian and Papuan

TABLE . Pre- vs. postverbal negation in languages with a single negative morpheme Languages with a single negative morpheme 

Neg-V

V-Neg

 (.%)

 (.%)

Source: Based on ,/, languages from Dryer’s (a) Map A.

67 I am abstracting away from the remaining  languages which belong to mixed types NegV/VNeg types, or which have obligatory double or even triple negation. 68 More specifically, Dryer (b, Map A) reports  SVO-Neg,  SOV-Neg,  VSO-Neg, and  OSV-Neg language(s).



Word order, configurationality, and structural ambiguity TABLE . Availability of pre- and postverbal negation in a sample of , languages Preverbal negator possible?

Postverbal negator possible?

YES

NO

YES

NO

 (.%)

 (.%)

 (.%)

 (.%)

Source: Dryer (a, Maps E and F).

languages (Reesink ), and it is particularly widespread in an extended linguistic area in Central Africa (Dryer ; Idiatov ). Speakers of a language where clause-final negation is the only grammatical option to express sentential negation might be thought to have considerable difficulties communicating whenever producing or processing a negated utterance (difficulties which are then to be shown to be absent from languages that do obey the Neg First principle). However, given the absence of any evidence demonstrating these difficulties, these facts cast doubt on the hypothesis that the statistical tendencies summarized in Tables . and . are to be explained in ‘functional’ terms (which seems to be Jespersen’s (: ) take on the Neg First principle). A similar conclusion can be drawn from data from Germanic verb second languages such as Dutch, Swedish, and German. These languages are all characterized by a phenomenon of verb raising which places the verb in the second position of (among other environments) root clause declaratives like (b). This rule (typically) does not apply in embedded declaratives introduced by a complementizer (a). () a. . . . dat Jan gisteren het antwoord that Jan yesterday the answer ‘that yesterday Jan knew the answer’ b. Gisteren ken-de Jan het yesterday know-PST.SG Jan the ‘Yesterday Jan knew the answer.’

ken-de know-PST.SG

Dutch

antwoord tv . answer

Crucially, the application of this rule of verb raising is completely insensitive to the presence of sentential negation, which is standardly assumed to be a phrasal adverb in the present day Germanic languages (for one argument in favour of this claim, see Section ....): () a. . . . dat Jan gisteren het antwoord niet ken-de Dutch that Jan yesterday the answer not know-PST.SG ‘that yesterday Jan didn’t know the answer’ b. Gisteren ken-de Jan het antwoord yesterday know-PST.SG Jan the answer ‘Yesterday Jan didn’t know the answer.’

niet tv . not

Evidence for a Latin VP, part 



Finally, there are also diachronic facts which suggest that the Neg First principle is only a violable constraint which gives rise to statistical (probabilistic) tendencies. Ever since Jespersen’s pioneering work on the cyclic development of patterns of sentential negation (Jespersen ), it has been known that preverbal and postverbal negative markers tend to replace each other in a cyclic fashion, and that during the transition from one stage to the next, pre- and postverbal negators typically co-occur in one and the same clause. Thus Horn () on the Neg First principle: [T]his tendency is not absolute, and it interacts crucially with another basic principle, also associated with Jespersen: the cyclical pattern wherein the negative marker is gradually weakened into a verbal proclitic, then reinforced by the accretion of NPI minimizers or indefinites, and ultimately replaced by its reinforcement. (Horn : )

In other words, preverbal negators are typically not diachronically stable but tend to be first reinforced and then replaced by elements lower in the structure and hence in a position to the right in the linear string. As Horn (: ) points out: ‘It is not clear why such languages should trouble to go against the grain of both their own typology and the Neg-First principle in order to innovate postverbal negation.’ ... ‘Neg-V’-orders in Latin Returning to the Latin data, note that the negator non does indeed precede at least one verb form, but it does not typically surface in any leftward position in the clause. For instance, as we have seen in Section ..., in SOV-clauses with an auxiliary, it standardly follows an SOV-sequence, yielding the order SOV-Neg-Aux (cf. ()). In addition, and more importantly, there clearly is no evidence in Latin for a generalized ban on a postverbal position for negative elements with clausal scope. More specifically, adverbial and (ad)nominal negative markers with clausal scope can occur both to the left and to the right of the hierarchically highest verb. This is, for instance, the case with the ablative nullo modo ‘in no way’, which appears postverbally in (b): () a. cum uide-re-nt [CP se null-o mod-o pos-se when see-IPFV.SBJV-PL REFL.ACC no-ABL way-ABL be.able-PRS.INF ingred-i in ciuitat-em] enter-PRS.INF in city-ACC ‘when they saw that there was no way they could enter the city’ (Itin. Eg. .) b. Bene etiam collig-it [ . . . ] [CP grau-i [ . . . ] homin-i ea well.ADV also summarize-PRS.SG serious-DAT man-DAT that.ACC.N.PL qu-ae fi-unt iudici-o cert-o which-NOM.N.PL happen-PRS.PL judgement-ABL certain-ABL pondera-nt-i proba-ri pos-se null-o mod-o]. consider-PTCP.PRS-DAT approve-PASS.PRS.INF be.able-PRS.INF no-ABL way-ABL ‘He concludes that this cannot in any way be approved by a serious man who evaluates what happens with sound judgement.’ (Cic. Off. .)



Word order, configurationality, and structural ambiguity

As the internal structure of the complex (two word) unit nullo modo clearly involves a negative quantifier modifying a noun, we can be confident that this constituent is a phrase rather than a head. As such, it is correctly predicted to be allowed to occur after the hierarchically highest verb in its clause (the bracketed CP), viz. the infinitive posse ‘be able’. Similar facts hold for negative adverbs like numquam ‘never’ () and nusquam ‘nowhere’ (), which we can also take to be syntactic phrases rather than heads (Haegeman ; Zanuttini ; Cinque ), and which are predicted to be freely ordered with respect to the highest verb. Although I cannot at this point present any detailed quantitative data, it seems clear that the preverbal pattern (shown in the a-examples) is the predominant one, but cases featuring the reverse order (cf. the bexamples) are certainly not difficult to find. () a. Quamquam anim-us mihi quidem numquam defu-it. although spirit-NOM me.DAT PRT never lack-PRF.SG ‘However, the spirit never failed me.’ (Cic. Phil. .) b. Mihi cert-e, si modo in urb-e, defu-it numquam. me.DAT certain-ADV if only in city-ABL let.down-PRF.SG never ‘He (viz. Titinius Capito, ld) certainly never let me down, at least whenever he was in town.’ (Plin. Ep. ..) () a. cum ill-e adsi-t, contra=que noster when that-NOM.M.SG be.present.PRS.SBJV-SG in.contrast=and our.NOM dux nusquam si-t leader.NOM nowhere be.PRS.SBJV-SG ‘while he (Caesar, ld) is present, and our own leader is nowhere to be seen’ (Cic. Att. ..) b. Et ius institut-um a Pompili-o [ . . . ] ut si-t and law.NOM instituted-NOM.N.SG by Pompilius-ABL that be.PRS.SBJV-SG apert-a semper, nisi cum bell-um si-t nusquam. open-NOM always except when war-NOM be.PRS.SBJV-SG nowhere ‘And a custom was established by Pompilius, to the effect that it (the gate, ld) should always be open except when there wasn’t any war anywhere.’ (Var. L. .) Note that the interpretation of the b-examples is indeed one in which the adverbial negator takes scope over an entire clause, against linear order: for instance, in (b) Pliny asserts that it was never (numquam) the case that Titinius Capito missed out on (defuit) one of his own recitals. In other cases, clause-final negators are argumental rather than adverbial, but as illustrated in () and (), despite this categorial difference elements like nemo

Evidence for a Latin VP, part 



‘nobody’ and nihil ‘nothing’ display the same type of ordering freedom which sets both negative adverbs and arguments apart from non: () Praeter eum accep-it nemo. except.for that.ACC.M.SG accept-PRF.SG nobody.NOM ‘Except for him nobody accepted.’ (Cic. Att. ..) nihil. () Poet-a inept-us, et tamen sci-t poet-NOM unskilled-NOM and PRT know-PRS.SG nothing.ACC ‘He (viz. Vibius, ld) is a talentless poet, he knows nothing.’ (Cic. Att. ..) Here too, interpretation goes against linear order: in (), the correct reading is ‘there is no thing (nihil) such that Vibius knows (scit) it’, and not something like ‘there is a thing that Vibius knows (scit), and this thing is ‘nothing’ (nihil)’. Some final evidence against a generalized ban on negative elements with clausal scope appearing to the right of all verbal elements in a given clause comes from discontinuous NPs where a postnominal negative adjective (viz. a form of nullus ‘no’) is separated from its head noun by a finite verb: () a. quod in urb-e sensu-s si-t null-us because in city-ABL sensation-NOM be.PRS.SBJV-SG no-NOM ‘because the city does not have any sensations’ (Cic. N.D. .) b. cum litter-am scrips-isse-t null-am when letter-ACC write-PLPRF.SBJV-SG no-ACC ‘when he hadn’t written a single letter’ (Cic. Arch. ) On the basis of this short survey, we can conclude that only non is subject to NegVOR, despite the fact that all the items considered essentially express the same logico-semantic notion of propositional negation.69 This observation suggests that the negative semantics of non do not play any role in bringing about the exceptionless NegVOR. Rather, the syntactic shape (X°) of non seems to be the key property that sets it apart from other (XP) negators. I conclude that there is no reason to assume that the NegVOR facts summarized in ()–() are to be explained in terms of a functional, usage-based constraint like the Neg First principle (if it is indeed the case that this principle is to be interpreted in functional terms). Although it is in all likelihood true that functional factors play a role in determining word order in languages that allow for variable word placement (such as Latin), such factors typically give rise to statistical tendencies, not to categorical restrictions. Recall, however, that NegVOR is not a tendency but a 69 This needs some qualification: another negator which seems to be subject to NegVOR is haud ‘(absolutely) not’, although one should add that in many cases this element only has constituent scope. One can hypothesize that haud has X° status just like non. In addition, I only found cases of postverbal nondum ‘not yet’ in poetry (see e.g. Ov. Ep. .; Tr. ..; Sen. Oed. ; Phoen. ; Her. O. ).



Word order, configurationality, and structural ambiguity

quasi-exceptionless generalization (cf. fn.  for the one potential counterexample that I could find). Having completed this excursion, let us now turn to a second type of evidence in favour of the existence of higher-order constituents in Latin.

. Evidence for a Latin VP, part : constituency tests In this section, I discuss some independent evidence for the existence of a Latin VP, which is meant to corroborate the intermediate conclusion reached in the previous section, which was largely based on theory-internal considerations. Following Ledgeway (a) and Cecchetto and Oniga (), I will apply some of the basic tests for constituenthood that are standardly discussed in textbooks on syntax (see for instance, among many others, Radford : –; Adger : –; Haegeman a: –; Carnie , : –).70 The aim is to provide convergent evidence for a higher-order constituent (i.e. a syntactic entity bigger than a simplex constituent but smaller than an entire clause). Most of the data involve infinitival complements of modal verbs: here I will assume that these are (extended) VPs (rather than, e.g., CPs), postponing a proper argumentation of this point until Section .. .. Coordination A first piece of evidence for the existence of a VP constituent is the fact that strings consisting of a direct object and a dependent non-finite lexical verb can be coordinated, regardless of the relative order of these two elements (OV () or VO ()), and regardless of whether the coordinated VPs follow (a-examples) or precede (b-examples) the higher verb (the ‘auxiliary’): () a. ne ips-i iudica-re-nt pos-se homin-es that.not self-NOM.M.PL judge-IPFV.SBJV-PL be.able-PRS.INF men-ACC seru-os iur-e [arm-a cap-ere] et [manu-m slaves-ACC law-ABL weapons-ACC take-PRS.INF and group-ACC cog-ere] collect-PRS.INF ‘in order for themselves not to judge that slaves can rightfully carry weapons and collect a troop’ (Cic. Tul. )

70 For a formal, phrase structure based definition of the notion ‘constituent’, see Section .. above. It needs to be added that not all constituency tests are always entirely waterproof, hence the need to apply a number of them in order to reach an acceptable level of confidence that a given string of words is indeed a constituent. For critical discussion of constituency tests, see Berg ().

Evidence for a Latin VP, part 



b. Sed nec [somn-um cap-ere] nec [quiet-em pat-i] but neither sleep-ACC take-PRS.INF nor rest-ACC bear-PRS.INF pot-era-t. be.able-IPFV-SG ‘But he could neither fall asleep nor endure rest.’ (Curt. ..) () a. Non debe-ba-t [minu-ere ill-orum suspicion-em] et not have.to-IPFV-SG diminish-PRS.INF that-GEN.M.PL suspicion-ACC and [purga-re eos, de qu-ibus [ . . . ]]. purify-PRS.INF this.ACC.M.PL about who-ABL.M.PL ‘He (viz. Cassius) did not have to lessen their suspicion or clear those people, about who . . . ’ (Cic. Sul. ) b. qu-i non nisi apud Germani-as [adsequ-i nomen who-NOM.M.SG not unless with Germanies-ACC obtain-PRS.INF name.ACC imperatori-um] et [deporta-re laure-am] pos-se-t imperial-ACC and take.home-PRS.INF laurel-ACC be.able-IPFV.SBJV-SG ‘who nowhere but in the Germanies could obtain the title of imperator and take home the triumphal bays’ (Tac. Ann. ..) Assuming coordination to apply to syntactic constituents only (which are typically, but not always, of equal size and category) (see e.g. Sailor and Thoms  for a recent statement in terms of formal syntax),71 these facts suggest that the infinitives in () and () together with their complements, form a constituent, to the exclusion of, for instance, a modal verb higher in the structure.

.. Displacement (fronting) Additional evidence can be drawn from the observation that an OV or VO-unit can undergo left-peripheral fronting of the type called LEF (‘Left Edge Fronting ’) in Danckaert (a), where this word order pattern was characterized as a type of non-contrastive focalization. Two examples are given in ()–(), which show a combination of a non-finite verb and a direct object (linearized in any order) occurring to the left of an adverbial subordinator () or a (relative) wh-phrase ():

71 Compare Huddleston and Pullum (: ): ‘Coordination clearly does not provide a simple and absolute criterion for constituent structure [ . . . ]. It nevertheless remains a useful criterion: if a sequence X can be coordinated, then the simplest account will be one where it is a constituent entering into basic coordination, and we will adopt some other, more complex, analysis only if there are independent reasons for doing so.’



Word order, configurationality, and structural ambiguity

() P. Seruili-us [quinquenni-um exercitu-i [cum Publius-NOM Seruilius-NOM five.years-ACC army-DAT when praees-se-t]] et ist-a ration-e [[innumerabil-em be.in.charge-IPFV.SBJV-SG and that-ABL reason-ABL immense-ACC pecuni-am] fac-ere [cum pos-se-t]], non money-ACC make-PRS.INF when be.able-IPFV.SBJV-SG not statu-it [ . . . ]. decide-PRF.SG ‘As Publius Servilius was in charge of the army for a period of five years and therefore could make an awful lot of money, he decided not to . . . .’ (Cic. Ver. .) () [[Apisc-i uero possession-em] [per qu-os obtain-PRS.INF PRT possession-ACC through who-ACC.M.PL pos-si-mus]], secund-o commentari-o rettul-imus. be.able-PRS.SBJV-PL second-ABL commentary-ABL explain-PRF.PL ‘Through whom we can obtain possession, we have explained in the second commentary.’ (Gaius Inst. .) Assuming that syntactic movement rules cannot apply to non-constituents, and that there can only be one (left-peripheral) focus constituent per clause (see Danckaert a: –), these data also lend support to a configurational approach to Latin clause structure which predicts that there are constituents larger than a single noun phrase but smaller than an entire clause, like VPs. .. Ellipsis A third piece of evidence comes from facts involving VP ellipsis (or perhaps more accurately, ‘modal complement ellipsis’ (cf. Aelbrecht )), illustrated in () and (). The first example is taken from Ledgeway (a: ): () Agorastocles: Eho tu, ui=n tu [VP facinus hey you.VOC.SG want.PRS.SG=Q you.NOM.SG deed.ACC fac-ere lepid-um et festiu-om]? do-PRS.INF nice-ACC and cheerful-ACC Milphio: Vol-o . want-PRS.SG Agorastocles: Pot-es=ne [VP mi ausculta-re]? be.able-PRS.SG=Q me.DAT listen-PRS.INF Milphio: Pos-sum . be.able-PRS.SG ‘Hey, you, do you want to do something nice and cheerful? // Yes, I do. // Can you obey me? // Yes, I can.’ (Pl. Poen. –)

Evidence for a Latin VP, part 



() Ei, qu-i uol-u-it mihi benefici-um da-re, that.DAT.M.SG who-NOM.M.SG want-PRF-SG me.DAT favour-ACC give-PRS.INF sed non pot-u-it , amic-us quidem er-o sed but not be.able-PRF-SG friend-NOM PRT be-FUT.SG but non obligat-us. not indebted-NOM ‘To him, who wanted to do me a favour but couldn’t, I will be a friend, but I will not be indebted to him.’ (Sen. Ben. ..) As Ledgeway (a: , fn. ) points out, quite irrespective of the exact category of the modal complement (which is perhaps bigger than a bare VP), these data strongly suggest that we have to assume constituency in Latin, as (this type of) ellipsis is known to affect the entire complement of the modal (i.e. a constituent), never just subparts of it (Aelbrecht : –; Sailor and Thoms ). .. Pronominalization Fourth, a phenomenon that can informally be called ‘VP pronominalization’ illustrates the same point.72 The pronominal complements of the modal verb possum in ()–() are best analysed as pronominalized VPs, as this verb does not normally appear with anything else than an infinitival complement.73 () At ex bon-o uir-o, cred-o, audi-era-s et bon-o PRT from good-ABL man-ABL believe-PRS.SG hear-PLPRF-SG and good-ABL auctor-e. Qui id pot-es, qu-i ne ex source-ABL how that.ACC.N.SG be.able-PRS.SG who-NOM.M.SG not from uir-o quidem audi-re pot-ueri-s? man-ABL PRT hear-PRS.INF be.able-PRF.SBJV-SG ‘You had heard this from a good man, I believe, a reliable source. But how could you? It is outright impossible that any man could tell you this.’ (Cic. Ver. .) Pronominal substitution is one of the oldest (cf. Wells ; Harris ), and perhaps most robust tests for constituenthood. On pronominal complements to modal verbs, see also Eide (: , fn. ). 73 Debeo ‘have to’ can also function as a lexical verb taking DP complements (it then means ‘owe’). See for instance Orlandini (). On the other hand, there are no convincing examples of a DP appearing as the complement of possum. Some apparent such cases are listed in the OLD, s.v. possum –. In all cases, the accusative object of possum is (i) a (demonstrative) pronoun like hoc, id, istud ‘this, that’, or idem ‘the same (thing)’ (which is the pattern dealt with here), (ii) a(n indefinite) quantifier like nihil ‘nothing’, tantum ‘so much’, plus ‘more’, (ali)quid ‘something, anything’ or omnia ‘everything’. In the latter case, we are presumably dealing with a separate lexical entry (‘POSSUM’, meaning something like ‘avail, have power, influence’), whereby the quantifier (which is always morphologically a neuter accusative) acts as an adverbial rather than a genuine direct object. Finally, cases in which possum apparently means ‘to be able to have sexual intercourse with someone (acc.)’ (OLD, s.v. possum b) arguably involve ellipsis of an (infinitival) taboo word. We can conclude that there is no evidence for a genuinely transitive usage of possum, in contrast with debeo ‘owe’, which can for instance also be passivized (which possum never can). 72



Word order, configurationality, and structural ambiguity

() Sic inimic-orum, qu-os plur-es habe-ba-t quam so enemies-GEN who-ACC.M.PL more-ACC have-IPFV-SG than morb-os, et in prim-is Ciceron-is urbanitat-em diseases-ACC and in first-ABL.N.PL Cicero-GEN wit-ACC effug-era-t. Si hoc pot-u-it ill-e duriti-a escape-PLPRF-SG if that.ACC.N.SG be.able-PRF-SG that-NOM.M.SG hardness-ABL or-is qu-i adsidu-is conuici-is pude-re mouth-GEN who-NOM.M.SG continuous-ABL reproofs-ABL be.ashamed-PRS.INF dedidic-era-t, [ . . . ]. unlearn-PLPRF-SG ‘So he had dodged the sarcastic remarks of his enemies (who were more numerous than his physical shortcomings), and in particular the ones of Cicero. If he, who through repeated insults had forgotten how to be ashamed, managed to do this by talking big himself, . . . .’ (Sen. Dial. ..) I take the pronouns in ()–() to be placeholders for full-blown VPs. Observe now that in cases in which an anaphoric (i.e. non-deictic) pronoun refers to an event rather than an entity, as in the English example in (a), the reference of the pronoun is required to be a close (if not perfect) match of the antecedent VP (compare (b) with (c,d)). Importantly, it cannot refer to something which itself is not a constituent in the clause containing the antecedent, like the string ‘send the money’ in (e). ()

a. In the end, John didn’t [VP send the money to Susan], but he would have done it if he weren’t so poor himself. b. it = [send the money to Susan] c. it ≠ [send the book to Susan] d. it ≠ [give the money to Susan] e. it ≠ [send the money] (to some unspecified addressee, or to a specific addressee who is not Susan)

.. Relativization Finally, and related to the previous point, a VP constituent can also be the antecedent of a relative pronoun: () Itaque

non solum [frond-em superuacu-um]i debe-t ti PRT not only foliage-ACC superfluous-ACC have.to-PRS.SG decerp-ere], qu-odi semper fac-iend-um est, [ . . . ]. remove-PRS.INF which-NOM.N.SG always do-GDV-NOM.N.SG be.PRS.SG ‘And so he doesn’t only have to remove the superfluous foliage, which always needs to be done.’ (Col. ..)

Discarding some non-arguments against configurationality



Assuming that the antecedent of a headed relative clause is a syntactic constituent, I take examples like () to lend additional support to the claim that Latin has a VP constituent.74 .. To sum up To conclude, the negation facts together with the constituency tests just discussed strongly suggest that the Latin clause contains a ‘higher-order constituent’ which can be identified as a VP containing (at least) the lexical verb (or its trace), and possibly one or more argument noun phrases. This conclusion lends strong support to the claim that Latin is a configurational language.

. Discarding some non-arguments against configurationality In this final section of Chapter  I will revisit some of the data that were discussed in Section ., and which have previously been taken to illustrate the nonconfigurational character of Latin. I will start with the phenomenon of phrasal discontinuity. .. Discontinuous constituents An example of a discontinuous NP is repeated here for convenience: in () (cf. ()) we see the NP mentionem ‘mention’, whose genitive complement pacis ‘of peace’ appears in a more leftward position, separated from its head noun by two adverbial constituents: () Neque [ . . . ] pac-is umquam apud uos mention-em neither peace-GEN ever with you.ACC.PL mention-ACC fec-i. make-PRF.SG ‘nor did I ever make any mention of peace to you’ (Liv. ..) In a framework that assumes syntactic movement, the relevant structures could be represented as in (): ()

pacisi . . . [np mentionem ti ]

There is no reason to think that hyperbaton is in any sense problematic for a configurational grammar: as illustrated in (), () simply involves movement

74 I am abstracting away from exotic cases like ‘hydras’ (relative clauses with split antecedents, first discussed in Perlmutter and Ross ()), which always seem to involve nominal antecedents.



Word order, configurationality, and structural ambiguity

of an NP constituent out of another constituent (a complex NP, or a DP), a phenomenon which happens to be more readily available in Latin than, for instance, in English (see Ledgeway a: – for an analysis of cross-linguistic variation in this domain). ()

NPi VP V°

NP N′ N°

ti

Under these assumptions, cases like () are not fundamentally different from runof-the-mill clause-level extractions as in (), which also involve movement of a nominal constituent out of a higher-order constituent (a VP): ()

a. What did you eat? b. whati … [vp eat ti]

Note in passing that Evans and Levinson’s (: ) assertion, to the effect that that ‘a tree diagram of the normal kind would have crossing lines’ whenever the phrase structure of a hyperbaton configuration is to be represented, is simply incorrect, witness the fact that the tree in () does not have crossing branches. We can conclude that the phenomenon of hyperbaton does not pose any problems for a configurational approach to (Latin) syntax. .. A note on word order in poetry Another type of argument that apparently lends support to a non-configurational approach to Latin word order involves data from poetry. Recall from Section . that Evans and Levinson () argue that the internal structure of a piece of Latin syntax is not articulated into smaller phrase structure constituents (and by extension, that constituency is not a language universal). The sole piece of evidence adduced to support this bold conclusion is a line from Vergil, apparently first introduced into linguistics textbooks in Matthews (), and then frequently cited afterwards. I repeat it here for convenience:

Some remarks on non-configurationality in generative grammar

()



ultim-a Cumae-i uen-it iam carmin-is aeta-s last-nom Cumaean-gen come-prf.3sg prt song-gen age-nom ‘The last age of the Cumaean song has now arrived.’ (Verg. Ecl. 4.4)

There are many problems with Evans and Levinson’s conclusion, as well as with the way this particular argument is constructed. For one thing, it is questionable at best to draw conclusions about the syntax of a given language from data that belong to a specific literary register, in this case metrical poetry. Observationally speaking, it simply is a fact that Latin metrical texts allow for more word orders than do prose texts. For instance, it has been observed that in prose texts, finite verbs can never be fronted to a position to the left of subordinating conjunctions or wh-words, whereas non-finite verbs and virtually all other types of constituents (except for the negator non) can do so (see Danckaert a: ). However, in poetry this restriction does not hold, witness the fact that one can easily find examples of left-peripheral finite verbs in metrical texts from different authors, periods, metres, and genres (see again Danckaert (a) for examples and further references).75 Therefore, it simply is methodologically wrong to draw far-reaching conclusions about the syntax of the entire Latin language on the basis of (a single piece of) evidence from poetry. I will conclude that none of the data just reviewed constitute a serious challenge to the conclusion derived at the end of Section . regarding the configurational nature of Latin. Let me wrap up this chapter with some additional discussion of configurationality and phrase structure grammars.

. Some remarks on non-configurationality in generative grammar In earlier work in generative grammar, it was often assumed that there is a ‘deep’ parametric difference between configurational (hierarchically structured) and nonconfigurational (‘flat’) languages. This intuition was famously formalized in the context of the Principles and Parameters paradigm in Hale (), who proposes that the ‘Configurationality Parameter’ is part of Universal Grammar: simply put, languages come in configurational and non-configurational kinds.76 The same basic idea is even today prevalent in the LFG literature (see e.g. Austin and Bresnan ; Falk : –; Bresnan et al. : –). In most current work in the Chomskyan tradition, this basic typological split has largely been abandoned: the languages of the world are thought to be more uniform, in that they are all underlyingly

75

For similar discrepancies between prose and poetry in the nominal domain, see Penney (). For an early statement along these lines, compare Staal’s (: ) distinction between ‘wild trees’ and ‘trimmed trees’. 76



Word order, configurationality, and structural ambiguity

configurational, and that the availability or otherwise of phenomena such as free word order, split constituents, and argument drop is to be accounted for in different terms. A number of factors have contributed to this change of perspective, but the seeds of it were already present in Hale’s own work. First of all, Hale () assumes a(n abstract) level of representation called Lexical Structure (LS): this structural level is not only assumed to be universal, it is also cross-linguistically uniform, in the sense that it is always characterized by a hierarchical structure (see also Mohanan –). Languages differ as to whether this hierarchical structure is preserved as such throughout the process that maps the LS representation to another (phonologically overt) level of representation called Phrase Structure (PS). As stressed by Hale (: ), ‘the term “configurationality” is not a particularly appropriate one, since the notion “configuration”, in the sense of a hierarchical organization of constituents is essential to all languages (certainly at the LS representation, but arguably also at PS).’ In addition, in recent work on some of the most prototypical free word order languages such as Warlpiri, it has been observed that upon closer inspection, there are syntactic phenomena (such as asymmetries between arguments and adjuncts) which are hard to account for if one does not assume a fully hierarchical structure (Legate , ; Laughren ).77 Another theory-internal factor that has no doubt contributed to the demise of non-configurationality as a primitive notion is Kayne’s (: ) suggestion that a mother node in a phrase marker always has two and only two daughters, yielding strict ‘binary branching’, as in (a), but no n-ary branching, where n is an integer different from  (as in (b)). ()

a. ✓

b. *

α β

α

γ β δ

γ

δ

ε

Today, this idea is adopted by most generative syntacticians, witness for instance the strictly binary character of the structure building operation Merge, which coupled with a requirement that Merge can only apply at the top node of an already existing structure (cf. the ‘Extension Condition’ from Chomsky ) automatically yields configurational structures of the type illustrated in (a). An influential alternative to pure non-configurationality is known as the Pronominal Argument Hypothesis, either in its original version (Jelinek ), or in the slightly more restrictive version proposed in Baker () (see also Baker ,

77

See also Hamilton () for comparable discussion of the Algonquian language Mi’gmaq.

Conclusion: Latin as a (discourse-)configurational language



b). In a nutshell, the Pronominal Argument Hypothesis says that in certain languages with flexible word order, a predicate’s phrasal arguments (subject and objects) are not generated in the thematic domain (the VP). Rather, they appear as ‘satellites’, which can freely be (left or right) adjoined to a functional node higher up in the structure (say TP). In the VP, thematic roles are assigned to pronominal categories (co-indexed with the above-mentioned phrasal adjuncts), which take the shape of agreement morphemes. This proposal is especially appealing for languages such as Mohawk and Chukchee (Baker ), which are consistently head-marking languages (i.e. languages in which verbs display both subject and object agreement), and where word order is very flexible. Crucially however, there is no real sense in which a structure with pronominal arguments as defined by Jelinek is really nonconfigurational, especially not if one assumes the ‘binary branching’ variant proposed in Baker (). Finally, in the wake of, among others, É. Kiss (), generative linguists have started to pay more and more attention to information structure, and to its influence on word order. Rather than assuming an independent grammatical module of information structure which interacts with syntax, many linguists assume that discourse features (and dedicated functional projections such as TopP and FocP) can be incorporated in the syntactic component (see Rizzi  (on the articulated structure of the left periphery), Belletti  (on the periphery of the verb phrase) and Grewendorf  (on discourse-motivated word order variation in the TP-area)).78 According to this line of reasoning, languages are no longer thought to differ with respect to their configurational character: instead, what varies is the extent to which they exploit discourse-related formal features in the syntax (in the sense of Aboh  and Cruschina ), and thus in the extent to which they qualify as ‘discourseconfigurational’ (on this last notion, see among others the contributions to É. Kiss (), as well as Miyagawa ()).

. Conclusion: Latin as a (discourse-)configurational language In this chapter I have put forward two arguments in favour of a configurational approach to Latin syntax. Two additional ones will be put forward in Chapter  78 In the literature on Latin, it is occasionally suggested that a phrase structure grammar cannot felicitously reconcile syntax and information structure (see for instance Spevak : –, in her (very brief) critique of generative grammar). This type of reasoning seems—at least partly—to be based on an incorrect understanding of the concept of ‘basic’ (and therefore also ‘marked’) word order as used in, for instance, Salvi () and Devine and Stephens (). As was also pointed out in Danckaert (a: –), what these authors talk about is discourse neutral (‘all focus’) word orders, and not some sort of ‘deep structure’ word order which was assumed in the early days of generative grammar, nor the statistically predominant word order in a given language (cf. Hoffmann ), which can but need not be the same as the discourse neutral one. There is, of course, no sense in which a word order pattern which is non-neutral in terms of information structure is a ‘deviation’, as Spevak (: ) puts it.



Word order, configurationality, and structural ambiguity

(Sections . and ...). At this stage, I provisionally conclude that a phrase structure grammar for Latin is empirically superior to the competing approaches mentioned in Section .. From a practical point of view, the main consequence of this conclusion is that in a study of Latin word order, it is necessary to control for structural ambiguity, which is what I will do as much as possible in the upcoming chapters.

2 Latin corpus linguistics and the study of language change Methods, problems, and prospects

. Studying language variation and change In this second chapter I will first spell out a number of background assumptions concerning the study of language variation and change that I will make in this book. I will emphasize that in order to arrive at an accurate description of variationist linguistic data, the use of quantitative methods is indispensable. I proceed to present the text corpus that I will be using in the upcoming chapters, and I discuss a number of methodological aspects related to the study of object placement in Latin (Section .). In Section ., I discuss one particular case study which strongly suggests that the corpus that I put together can reliably inform us about language change in the period from ca.  BC until  AD. I conclude with a number of remarks concerning the distinction between synchronic and diachronic variation.

.. The nature of linguistic variation Throughout this book I will assume that whenever two (or possibly more) linguistic phenomena—such as allophones, (open or closed class) lexical items, or word order patterns (like ‘OV’ vs. ‘VO’)—are not associated with different truth conditions, (i) the distribution of these elements in a text corpus is, at least at a descriptive level, inherently probabilistic (and thus quantitative) in nature, and (ii) that the choice of one ‘competing’ variant over the other is not correlated with one single determining factor, but rather that the relevant distribution is essentially multivariate (in a sense to be explained and illustrated below). As a result, I take it that in order to arrive at an accurate description of a given linguistic phenomenon which is subject to this type of variation, a detailed quantitative, statistical study of a sufficiently large corpus is indispensable. The Development of Latin Clause Structure. First edition. Lieven Danckaert. © Lieven Danckaert . First published  by Oxford University Press.



Latin corpus linguistics and the study of language change

The previous paragraph is in need of some qualification.1 More specifically, it is important to stress that I am not assuming that grammatical knowledge itself is probabilistic. The strongest alternative position is to assume that all apparent variation—including variation that one can consider sociolinguistic—is in fact deterministic (see e.g. Walkden : –), in the sense that it is driven by formal features that are active in syntactic (and presumably also phonological) computations.2 Other approaches try to build statistical knowledge into the grammar, either indirectly by enriching a speaker’s competence with a stochastic component (see for instance the ‘variable rules’ paradigm from the s (Labov ; Cedergren and Sankoff ; Sankoff and Labov ), or the ‘competing grammars’ approach to language change (Kroch , ; Pintzuk , , ; Yang )), or more directly by claiming that knowledge of language is inherently probabilistic (see e.g. Bresnan , among many others). In the present context, the only point I want to make is that given what we know at present about the Sitz im Leben of most Latin texts, there is little or no prospect of arriving at a full understanding of all (syntactic, sociolinguistic, perhaps also prosodic) factors that govern the word order alternations which are the focus of this study. By this token, we will not be able to prove (or to disprove, for that matter) that the relevant variation is indeed ‘deterministic’ (in the sense of Walkden ). As a result, from a practical point of view, the only thing we can do in order to arrive at a more or less reliable description of certain variationist data from Latin is to develop a statistical model of these data, that is, a description which approximates the actual situation with a given degree of confidence. .. An illustration: the English dative alternation As mentioned, it is important to keep in mind that variationist distributions in linguistics are unlikely to ever be ‘monovariate’ in nature, that is, a matter of one single determining factor. Instead, the alternation between two or more linguistic variants is typically characterized by the complex interplay of multiple variables. In order to see what such a multivariate data distribution looks like, and how it can be studied, let us have a look at one particularly well-studied case study, namely the so-called ‘dative alternation’ in English, which is illustrated in (). In the a-sentence both the Theme and the Goal arguments of the verb of transfer give are realized as noun phrases (DPs), whereas in the b-example, the Goal appears as a PP introduced by to. 1 For additional discussion of some of the issues discussed here, see Hale (: –), Roberts (: ch.  passim) and Walkden (: –). 2 On the tension between the—by assumption—internalized and relatively stable grammar of (adult) native speakers on the one hand, and sociolinguistic variation on the other, see also the contributions to Cornips and Corrigan (). Much of this tension can potentially be resolved under the ‘competing grammars’ approach to language variation and change (cf. Kroch (, ), and specifically on synchronic(ally stable) variation, Wallenberg ).

Studying language variation and change ()



a. Marcia gave Lucius a gift. b. Marcia gave a gift to Lucius.

Since the seminal studies of among others Green (, ) and Oehrle (), it has been generally accepted that the double object construction and the construal with the to-dative are not freely interchangeable. For instance, speakers seem to have a strong preference for the to-dative when the Theme argument is pronominal (examples and judgements from Collins : ): ()

a. *Tom gave an aunt them. b. Tom gave them to an aunt.

Conversely, if the Goal argument is a pronoun, for many speakers it is the double object construction which is preferred (examples and judgements as reported in Bresnan et al. ): ()

a. That movie gave me the creeps. b. *That move gave the creeps to me.

There are reasons to assume that the data in () and () are to be understood as an effect of the well-known tendency for heavier constituents to appear at the end of a clause (in languages whose word order is flexible enough to allow for variability in this domain). As was noted at least as early as Green (), ‘end weight’ does indeed influence the choice between the two construals: for instance, very heavy (and/or internally complex) Goal arguments are dispreferred in the double object pattern (data again from Bresnan et al. ): ()

a. ?? Stories like these must give [people whose idea of heaven is a world without religion] the creeps. b. Stories like these must give the creeps [to people whose idea of heaven is a world without religion].

Another difference between the two patterns is that in the double object construction, the Goal argument is said to be more ‘affected’ than in the alternative pattern. For instance, (a) comes with a (cancellable, cf. Larson a: ) implicature that the relevant students successfully learned French (and thus that they are ‘affected by the teaching French event’), a shade of meaning which is absent in (b) (cf. Oehrle ): ()

a. John taught the students French. b. John taught French to the students.

As it happens, the list with factors that have been argued to favour one construal over the other is quite long, and it is not possible here to do justice to the entire literature on the topic. In any event, what we obtain is the type of multivariate data distribution mentioned at the beginning of this chapter. Concomitantly, it should be clear that the



Latin corpus linguistics and the study of language change

basic alternation illustrated in () is by no means a case of ‘free variation’. Rather, it seems that we are dealing with variation which is at least to some extent principled and structured, but clearly also complex and intricate. In the recent literature, there is a consensus that in order to describe—and according to some, by the same token also explain—this type of variation, one needs to (i) look at corpus data, and (ii) analyse these data statistically. If (and probably only if) these two things are done, one might be able to distinguish significant patterns from accidental quirks in the data. For instance, a statistical analysis can allow us to determine whether the contrast illustrated in () and () is an effect of the ‘heaviness’ of the arguments (pronouns typically being shorter than full DPs) or whether it is the categorial realization (noun phrase vs. pronoun) which best explains the observed contrast, or whether both factors play a role. In addition, multivariate statistical procedures also make it possible to determine the relative ‘weight’ of the various factors that can be shown to have a significant effect, that is, the extent to which a given factor is able to tip the scales in favour of one of the competing variants. In a large-scale study, Bresnan et al. () apply this methodology to the English dative alternation. The technique they use is ‘logistic regression’, which I will also make use of in this book. Logistic regression models the outcome probability of a binary dependent variable, such as ‘dead or alive’, ‘success or failure’, ‘OV or VO’, or ‘double object or to-dative’. In their study Bresnan et al. () evaluate the influence of no less than fourteen independent variables on the English dative alternation, namely: . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

semantic class of transfer verb, accessibility of the Recipient, accessibility of the Theme, pronominality of the Recipient, pronominality of the Theme, definiteness of the Recipient, definiteness of the Theme, animacy of the Recipient, person of the Recipient, number of the Recipient, number of the Theme, concreteness of the Theme, structural parallelism in dialogue, and length difference between Theme and Recipient.

I refer readers to the original paper for full discussion. Needless to say, things become even more complicated once regional differences between varieties of English are taken into account (see e.g. Theijssen ). Similarly, we also know that the dative

A Latin corpus (ca.  BC– AD)



alternation is subject to diachronic variation (cf. McFadden ; De Cuypere ), which again adds to the complexity of the empirical picture. To sum up, we have seen that there is good reason to assume that variationist data distributions (in linguistics, but also elsewhere) are highly complex, and I have tried to show that it is necessary to make use of both corpus methods and statistics in order to arrive at an accurate description of this type of data. I will assume that this is no different for Latin, not in the least because of the heterogeneous nature of the Latin text corpus that has come down to us. Let us now proceed to have a closer look at this corpus.

. A Latin corpus (ca.  BC– AD) .. Composition of the corpus In the optimal case, a good diachronic text corpus is both (i) representative of the ‘real’ language (i.e. the language acquired by young children, and subsequently used by those same speakers in various communicative settings), in the sense that different text types, genres, and registers etc. are taken up in the sample, and (ii) balanced, in the sense that these various types of texts are more or less equally well represented in all periods studied.3 Putting together a Latin corpus that meets these requirements is actually a rather difficult task, for at least two reasons. First, there is the obvious fact that one has to work with the material that is available: history has made its selection, and many texts simply did not come down to us. Second, not only is the extant material highly heterogeneous in nature, there are major differences concerning what we know about individual texts and authors, and, by this token, there are limits to the extent to which we can control for sociolinguistic variables associated with a given text. The one extreme case is no doubt Cicero, whose life and social context we know a lot about (mainly through his own writings). On the other hand, there is close to nothing we know about many other authors, or about the circumstances under which their literary production came about: unfortunately, this is actually the default case, especially in later centuries. In addition, one should not forget that the perfect corpus does not exist, not even for well-documented modern languages: a sample can never be a fully accurate reflection of an entire population. Fortunately however, there is no reason to think that documenting language change in Latin by means of corpus data is altogether a non-starter. As I will demonstrate in Section ., quite the contrary is true. Nevertheless, at various points in the upcoming chapters it will become clear that one should never underestimate the extent to which the Latin data are subject to synchronic variation. This being said, let us have a look at the corpus that I will use in this book. The selection that I made is described in detail in Table .. The total number of words is

3

On the need for linguistic corpora to be ‘representative’ and ‘balanced’, see e.g. Gries (: ).



Latin corpus linguistics and the study of language change

TABLE . Description of a Latin text corpus, ca.  BC– AD

. . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Author (work(s))

Date

# words

Plautus (B, comedies) Terence (B, comedies) Cato (B/L, De agri cultura) Cicero (B/L, De amicitia*, De domo sua*, De haruspicum responso*, De imperio Cn. Pompei ad Quirites (= Pro lege Manilia)*, De lege agraria –*, De officiis*, De prouinciis consularibus*, De senectute*, Diuinatio in Q. Caecilium, In Verrem –, In Catilinam –*, In Pisonem*, In Vatinium*, Philippicae –, Post reditum in senatu*, Post reditum ad Quirites*, Pro Caecina, Pro Cluentio, Pro Archia*, Pro Balbo*, Pro Rabirio perduellionis reo*, Pro Caelio*, Pro Flacco*, Pro Ligario*, Pro Fonteio, Pro Scauro (fragmenta), Pro Tullio, Pro Marcello*, Pro Milone*, Pro Murena*, Pro Quinctio, Pro Plancio*, Pro Q. Roscio Comoedo, Pro Rabirio Postumo*, Pro rege Deiotario*, Pro S. Roscio Amerino, Pro Sestio*, Pro Sulla*) Caesar (B/L, De bello ciuili, De bello Gallico –) Varro (B, Res rusticae, De lingua latina) Sallust (B/L, Iugurtha, Catilina) Hyginus (B, Astronomica) Vitruvius (B, De architectura) Livy (B, Ab urbe condita; for passive BE-periphrases only books –, –, – and ) Celsus (B, De medicina) Seneca (B/L, Apocolocyntosis, De beneficiis, Ad Lucilium epistulae morales, De clementia, Dialogi (. De prouidentia, . De constantia, –. De ira, . Ad Marciam de consolatione, . De uita beata, . De otio, . De tranquillitate animi, . De breuitate uitae, . Ad Heluiam matrem de consolatione, . Ad Polybium de consolatione)) Columella (B, De re rustica) Petronius (B/L, Satyrica) Frontinus (B, Strategemata, De aquaeductu urbis Romae) Quintilian (B, Institutio oratoria) Pliny the Younger (B, Epistulae; B/L, Panegyricus) Tacitus (B/L, Germania, Dialogus de oratoribus, Agricola, Historiae, Annales) Suetonius (B, Vitae Caesarum) Gaius (B, Institutiones) Tertullian (B, Aduersus Marcionem) Gargilius (B, Medicinae ex oleribus et pomis) Cyprian (B, Epistulae –, except , , , , ,  and ) Scriptores Historiae Augustae (= SHA) (B) Palladius (B, Opus agriculturae, De ueterinaria medicina) Itinerarium Egeriae (B)

 BC  BC  BC  BC

, , , ,

 BC  BC  BC  BC  AD  AD  AD  AD

, , , , , , (,) , ,

 AD  AD  AD  AD  AD  AD

, , , , , ,

 AD  AD  AD  AD?  AD  AD?  AD  AD

, , , , , , , ,

A Latin corpus (ca.  BC– AD) . . a. b. . . . . . . . . . .

Jerome (B, Epistulae – (except ), -) Augustine (B, Sermones –, –A, –E, –A) Vulgate, Old Testament (B, Genesis, Samuel –, Isaias) Vulgate, New Testament (B, Marcus, Matthaeus, Lucas, Iohannes, Actus, Apocalypsis) Gesta Conlationis Carthaginiensis (= GCC) (B) Vegetius (B, Epitoma rei militaris, Mulomedicina) Cassius Felix (B, De medicina) Victor of Vita (B, Historia persecutionis Africanae prouinciae) Pompeius Maurus (B, Commentum artis Donati) Caesarius of Arles (B, Sermones –) Anthimus (B, De obseruatione ciborum) Iordanes (B, Getica, Romana) Itinerarium Antonini Placentini (B) Gregory of Tours (B, Historia Francorum)



 AD  AD  AD  AD

, , , ,

 AD  AD  AD  AD  AD  AD  AD  AD  AD  AD

, , , , , , , , , ,

Note: B= Brepolis, L= LASLA: see Section .... Texts marked with a *: no clauses with possum ‘be able’ taken into account.

,,; the period covered runs from shortly before  BC (viz. the date of the earliest play of Plautus, probably the Asinaria), until the Historia Francorum of Gregory of Tours (completed at around  AD). This roughly coincides with the period covered by the Thesaurus Linguae Latinae (which ranges from the earliest (short and/or fragmentary) records until the works of Isidore of Seville, who died in  AD). Most of the dates provided are of course only approximations. For instance, for an author like Cicero, whose literary production spans over forty years, one average date is given for all texts taken into account. Highlighted by means of underscoring are all Christian texts (to which I will return shortly). In putting together this corpus, I tried to make sure that there is no obvious bias with respect to the distribution of text types over the eight centuries covered, to the extent that the nature of the extant material allows for this. For instance, I tried to include technical treatises (on agriculture (Cato, Varro, Columella, and Palladius), medicine (Celsus, Gargilius, Vegetius, and Cassius Felix), architecture (Vitruvius and Frontinus), warfare (Frontinus and Vegetius), grammar (Varro and Pompeius), and astronomy (Hyginus)) in all subperiods of the corpus. A major departure from this attempt to keep the corpus balanced is the inclusion of two (and only two) metrical texts, namely the comedies of Plautus and Terence. There are two reasons why I—somewhat reluctantly—included these authors. First, there is a clear sense in which one cannot really afford to leave them aside, as there is otherwise very little material from what is traditionally called the Archaic (or Early) Latin period (as it happens, there is only one (relatively short) substantial prose text from this period, viz. Cato’s De agri cultura). Second, of all the extant Latin metrical texts, the Republican comedies are clearly the ones where meter is at its most flexible,



Latin corpus linguistics and the study of language change

especially in the spoken, iambo-trochaeic passages (which constitute the bulk of the relevant material). As a result, we can expect word order in these texts to be less strongly influenced by metrical considerations than, for instance, dactylic poems, or Seneca’s iambs. Still, there are potential problems with the decision to include Plautus and Terence, assuming that even flexible meter has an influence on word order which is absent in non-metrical, and especially non-rhythmical prose texts. Strictly speaking, this complicating factor will always make it difficult to determine whether a set of results observed for Plautus and/or Terence is indeed an effect of ‘time’ (or any given synchronic factor), or rather, whether it is (at least to some extent) an artefact of the metrical character of the texts they wrote. Given the absence of other metrical texts in the corpus, it is simply impossible to statistically tease apart the effect of the factors ‘time’ and ‘ metrical’. Note that adding more metrical texts for later centuries is not an appealing option, as, for example, dactylic verses (which are by far the most commonly used type of meter) are clearly much more rigid than the predominantly iambo-trochaeic verses used in the comedies. A second complication is related to the fact that from the end of the second century AD onwards, many of the texts that have come down to us are Christian (cf. all the underscored names in Table .). This is certainly not unimportant, as it has often been assumed/claimed/taken for granted that the grammar (and not just the lexicon) of Christian authors is in some sense ‘different’ from the grammar of pagan (nonChristian) authors. The most extreme form of this line of analysis is what we could call the Schrijnen–Mohrmann thesis (cf. Schrijnen ; Mohrmann –), according to which Christian Latin is altogether a separate language (a Sondersprache; for recent discussion of this idea, see Fredouille (), Colot (), and Burton (, )). Although I do not think that given what we know at present, a very convincing case can be made in favour of such a strong position, it might very well be the case that the syntax of Christian texts is systematically (but perhaps subtly) different from what we find in pagan texts (for whatever reason that would remain to be further elucidated). However, only a careful quantitative corpus study, which systematically compares one or more syntactic features of Christian and non-Christian texts in the multivariate fashion described above, could provide evidence in favour of the hypothesis that there is indeed such a thing as ‘Christian Latin (syntax)’. At present, no such evidence is available. In any event, for none of the datasets that I will report on in the upcoming chapters is it the case that results obtained for Christian authors appear to differ systematically from those for non-Christian (Late Latin) authors, at least not in any clear-cut way. Therefore, I will assume that both the pagan and Christian texts listed in Table . are reliable sources of information on Latin word order. Should it in the end be possible to demonstrate that the two types of texts differ significantly with respect to one or more syntactic parameters, I expect the effect size (weight) of the factor [ Christian] to be relatively small.

A Latin corpus (ca.  BC– AD)



Note that I included some material from the Latin Bible too, namely portions of the Vulgate Old and New Testament (which I am lumping together, without excluding that there may be differences between the various parts in this sub-corpus, not in the least because not all of the source texts were written in the same language). Here a remark similar to the one I made on Plautus and Terence is in order: on the one hand, including Vulgate material leads to the—from a corpus linguistic perspective— ‘ugly’ complication that out of a total of thirty-nine text samples, there is only one that is translated. On the other hand, the cultural importance of the Vulgate (or earlier Latin Bible translations not considered here) is of course immeasurable, and the Latin Bible clearly has had a strong influence on a number of other texts in my corpus (such as Augustine’s and Caesarius’ sermons), which perhaps makes excluding rather than including biblical Latin harder to justify. Finally, a brief comment is in order about my selection of Late Latin texts. This body of texts seems more disparate than the early and classical corpus, not in the least in terms of geographical spread. For instance, many Late Latin authors were active in Northern Africa (among others Cyprian, Augustine, and Victor of Vita), whereas others were born and raised in Gaul (Caesarius, Gregory, and probably also Egeria). As documented in great detail in Adams (), there is every reason to assume that there were regional variants of Latin (which seems to have been the case in all periods, not just in Late Latin). Therefore, one can expect the place of composition of a given text (and/or the place of birth of a given author) to be an independent source of variation. However, in most of the datasets that I will present and analyse in this book, it turns out that the Late Latin texts (and especially the ones dating from after ca.  AD) display remarkably similar behaviour. A very striking illustration of such an effect will be offered in Section .. of this chapter. The same holds true for the data on object placement to be discussed in Chapter , as well as for the data on word order in BE-periphrases which are the subject of Chapter . In all of these cases, the earlier centuries in the corpus are characterized by a higher degree of (synchronic) variation than the later ones (again for reasons that remain to be better understood). In any event, the patterns observed for Late Latin are invariably different from what we see in earlier centuries, both quantitatively (range of variation) and qualitatively (set of synchronic determinants of a given variable distribution). Importantly, this last point strongly suggests that the apparent unity of Late Latin is not to be understood in terms of mere imitation of earlier, ‘classical’ models: additional discussion of this last point is coming up at the end of this chapter, as well as in Section ... .. Some texts that were not taken into account There are also many prose texts that one could consider to be very interesting, but which I did not take up into the corpus. Let me briefly comment on some of the more



Latin corpus linguistics and the study of language change

notable absentees, as well as on the reasons that prompted me not to include the relevant texts. First of all, given that the main focus of this book is on diachrony, I only included texts that can be located on a timeline with a sufficient degree of confidence. Although in the eventual corpus there are clearly some texts for which the assumed date is only an approximation, there are other texts for which it is almost impossible to provide a date of composition, and which were therefore left aside. This is the case for Quintus Curtius’ Historiae Alexandri Magni, but also for instance for the Mulomedicina Chironis. Despite the fact that this last work is (often considered) one of our most important sources of ‘Vulgar Latin’, there’s actually close to nothing we know about where and when it was composed (or perhaps more accurately, ‘compiled’). In addition, there is at present no reliable text edition of the Mulomedicina, which makes this text even more problematic. Similar considerations made me exclude the De re coquinaria ascribed to Apicius. A second criterion concerns the length of a given text. As a rule of thumb, I did not include any really short texts (shorter than ca. , words), with the exceptions of Gargilius’ Medicinae ex oleribus et pomis (which is a rare instance of a third-century pagan text, assuming that a composition date around  AD is accurate), and the texts of Anthimus and Antoninus of Piacenza (which are very important non-literary documents that can be dated with sufficient confidence). What motivates this decision is the fact that in short texts it is very difficult to distinguish random from systematic variation, and it is almost entirely impossible to assess with which independent variables a given phenomenon co-varies (in the multivariate type of setup discussed in this chapter). For this reason, I did not take into account any of the non-literary letters studied in, for example, Adams (a, , ) and Hallaaho (), nor any other type of epigraphic material. Among other texts that are in principle very interesting but unfortunately rather short, one could cite the three historical narratives known as the pseudo-Caesarian bella (viz. the De bello Africo, De bello Alexandrino, and De bello Hispaniensi), which were probably written by three different (anonymous) authors, somewhere around  BC. For later centuries, the Passio Felicitatis et Perpetuae (ca.  AD) comes to mind (which in addition to being very short, was probably also written by multiple authors), as well as the eleven texts in the collection of Latin panegyrics (late third–fourth century AD). Third, in later times an additional complication arises related to the potential influence of earlier texts on the language and style of later authors. Although such influence did of course exist in earlier centuries too, I consider this factor to become potentially problematic (viz. for the purpose of a corpus study) only from ca.  AD onwards. One can distinguish two subtypes of such influence. In both cases, there is a possibility that a given text is not a reliable reflection of the actual language used at the time when the text was composed. First, certain authors actively tried to imitate (and emulate) the language and style of earlier writers, producing a type of prose

A Latin corpus (ca.  BC– AD)



which is generally considered to be very stilted and artificial, and is therefore not optimal for a corpus study on language change. For this reason, and despite the fact that the period between Suetonius (ca.  AD) and the early third century AD is unfortunately poorly documented, I opted to leave aside Fronto (the textual tradition of whose Epistulae is hopelessly corrupt anyway), Aulus Gellius, and Apuleius, who were all active in the second half of the second century AD.4 A second (and related) problem concerns the influence of what one could call ‘Standard Latin’, which was no doubt propagated through the schooling system (cf. the role of prescriptive grammarians (school teachers), as discussed in Kaster ). There are two ways in which the influence of such a standardized language can manifest itself in the texts that have come down to us, which are not mutually exclusive. On the one hand, it is possible that standardization happened at the source, in the sense that the authors themselves, consciously or otherwise, adopted a linguistic register which was closer to the type of Latin that was taught in schools than to what was spoken at home. On the other hand, it is also possible that (additional) standardization happened later, when a text was copied by a (medieval) scribe. In all likelihood, many Late Latin texts are affected by both these types of standardization and, needless to say, it is impossible to assess exactly the extent to which this is the case. From a practical point of view, all one can do is try to minimize the risk of documenting a type of Late Latin which was only produced (and which could only be properly understood) by the highly educated. In order to do so, I mainly included Late Latin texts which in the traditional literature would be qualified as ‘Vulgar Latin’, such as Egeria’s Itinerarium and Palladius’ treatise on agriculture. In the case of, for instance, Augustine, I included a selection of sermons rather than the Confessiones. Assuming that the message of a sermon was intended to be understood even by people with little or no education, we can assume that the language of this type of text is closer to the ‘actual’ language (i.e. the language acquired by young children at home, rather than the language taught at school) than to the language of a philosophical text which was no doubt intended for a more highly educated audience (see Marti  for some additional reflections on the oral character of early Christian sermons (in Latin)).5,6 On the other hand, I left aside authors whose style can be considered more literary, such as Firmicus Maternus

4

Some earlier work of mine confirms that word order preferences in Fronto and Apuleius are indeed more like the ones of early writers (Cato, Cicero, Varro) than for instance Tacitus or Pliny the Younger (see Danckaert (a: ) for discussion of one particular case study). 5 On the other hand, the sermons of Augustine and Caesarius of Arles are larded with direct and indirect references to the Bible. Even if one excludes all literal Bible quotes (as I did in the present study, cf. Section ... below), one can expect the remaining material from the sermons to be more strongly influenced by the language of the Bible than for instance the Confessiones. Note however that this last hypothesis remains to be tested. 6 There is a very rich body of literature on the role of spoken Latin in Christian societies in Late Antiquity, to which I cannot possibly do justice in the present context. See among others Van Uytfanghe (, ), Banniard (, ), and Van Acker (a,b) for discussion.



Latin corpus linguistics and the study of language change

(probably active somewhere between Tertullian and Cyprian), Lactantius (‘the Christian Cicero’, active around – AD) and Sidonius Apollinaris (who died in  AD). Fourth, for certain periods, we happen to have a lot of prose texts, as a result of which there is no need for exhaustivity. This is the case for the period from Cicero’s earliest writings (at around  BC) until Suetonius (ca.  AD). Some of the better known prose authors from this period that I did not take into account are Cornelius Nepos (ca.  BC), Velleius Paterculus (ca.  AD), Seneca the Elder (ca.  AD), and Pliny the Elder (ca. – AD). There is also quite a lot of material from after  AD. As many of the extant texts are Christian, I tried to include as many non-Christian texts as possible, again in order to keep the Late Latin corpus balanced. Perhaps the most important pagan author that I did not include is Ammianus Marcellinus (active around – AD). Finally, note that there are also a number of texts that I left aside for very down-toearth reasons. For instance, I did not look at Cicero’s correspondence because unlike most of his speeches, the letters are not (yet) part of the LASLA corpus (more on which in the next section). Similarly, I could not find any (reliable) digitized version of Pelagonius’ De ueterinaria medicina (annotated or otherwise), which is actually the only reason why I did not include this text. This being said, let me repeat the disclaimer that the perfect corpus does not exist. The corpus that I will make use of in this book certainly doesn’t falsify this generalization. .. Some methodological remarks ... Sources and datasets As indicated in the rightmost column of Table ., the texts that I used were either drawn from the morphosyntactically annotated database developed by the Laboratoire d’Analyse Statistique des Langues Anciennes (‘LASLA’, hosted at the Université de Liège),7 or from the non-annotated texts available in the ‘Brepolis’ database (http://www.brepolis.net). A full list of the text editions that I used is provided in a separate section in the bibliography at the end of this book. For the purpose of the upcoming analyses, I assembled two datasets, one documenting the distribution of object noun phrases in all types of clauses indiscriminately, and a second which is designed to simultaneously provide information about the VPAux/AuxVP and OV/VO alternation. Both datasets, as well as all the R code used to produce data visualizations and to compute statistical tests, are available online (https://opendata.uit.no/dataset.xhtml?persistentId=doi:./NYYDV). All data analysis was carried out in R (R Core Team ).

7 The corpus is available at the following url: http://cipl.philo.ulg.ac.be/OperaLatina/. I consulted the LASLA corpus through the CD-ROM Hyperbase, cf. Brunet and Mellet (n.d.); Denooz ().

A Latin corpus (ca.  BC– AD)



For the first dataset, which is called DLCS (with ‘DLCS’ standing for The Development of Latin Clause Structure), I only used texts from the Brepolis database, because the data collection had to be performed entirely manually in this case. For each of the thirty-nine authors/text samples listed in Table ., I collected three samples of  clauses containing a direct object (O) and a clause-mate lexical verb (V), with the exception of the Vulgate, for which I collected  tokens from both the Old and the New Testaments. Full details about these text samples are provided in Table .. As can be observed, two texts that are too short to allow for sampling (Anthimus’ De obseruatione ciborum and Antoninus’ Itinerarium) were analysed completely (yielding  and  {object, verb} combinations respectively). Together with the thirty-eight full samples of  tokens, this gives us a total of , clauses. DLCS will only be made use of in Chapter . The second dataset (DLCS) is the one that I will make use of most frequently (and which was also used for the study of placement of negation reported on in Section ...). For reasons to be elaborated on in Chapter , DLCS contains only clauses with at least one ‘auxiliary’ (BE, possum or debeo) and a dependent nonfinite verb (past participle or infinitive). The data come either from the LASLA corpus or from the Brepolis database, as indicated in Table .. For each text, I collected all clauses featuring a token of non-copular BE combined with a past participle, as well as all combinations of a modal verb and an infinitival complement, with the exceptions of (i) clauses with possum in Cicero, which I only collected in the texts marked with an asterisk in Table ., and (ii) passive BE-periphrases in Livy, for which I only took into account books –, –, – and  (i.e. almost one fifth of the extant material). As to clauses with auxiliary BE in DLCS, I included both deponents and passive past participles.8 All periphrastic expressions with a future participle, as well as those in which the BE-auxiliary is a subjunctive of the fuat and foret type were left aside. I also excluded all passive BE-periphrases for which I felt sufficiently confident that they are adjectival rather than genuinely verbal. Needless to say, as verbal and adjectival passives are almost always morphologically identical, distinguishing the two on a case-by-case basis is not an exact science, and it is very likely that quite a few adjectival passives have made their way into the sample. Although this may add some amount of noise to the data, I will assume that the average ratio of verbal versus adjectival passives in the corpus remains stable over time, and that this potentially complicating factor is therefore largely orthogonal to the main focus of this book, which is language change.9

8 Semi-deponents such as solitus sum (perfect tense of soleo ‘be used to’) and ausus sum (perfect tense of audeo ‘dare’) were however not taken into account. 9 See also Danckaert () for a more complete discussion of the criteria used to distinguish verbal from adjectival passives.



Latin corpus linguistics and the study of language change

TABLE . Identification of text samples used to study the diachrony of the OV/VO alternation (in DLCS) Nr.

Author/text

Date

Samples

.

Plautus

 BC

. . . .

Terence Cato Cicero Caesar

 BC  BC  BC  BC

. . .

Varro Sallust Hyginus

 BC  BC  BC

.

Vitrivius

 AD

.

Livy

 AD

.

Celsus

 AD

.

Seneca

 AD

. . .

Columella Petronius Frontinus

 AD  AD  AD

.

Quintilian

 AD

.

 AD

.

Pliny the Younger Tacitus

Amphitruo – (without –); Miles gloriosus –; Stichus – (without –). Adelphoe –; Andria –; Hecyra –. De agri cultura praef.–.; –.; –.. De officiis .–.; Pro Murena –; Pro Quinctio –. De bello Gallico ..–..; ..–..; De bello ciuili ..–... Res rusticae ..–..; .praef.–..; ..–... Iugurtha .–.; .–.; Catilina .–.. Astronomica (Le Bœuffle) praef.–..; ..–..; ..–.. De architectura .praef.–..; .praef.–.praef.; .praef.–... Ab Urbe condita praef.–..; ..–..; ..–... De medicina (Spencer) prooem.–; ..–..; ..–... Epistulae ad Lucilium .–.; Consolatio ad Heluiam matrem .–.; De beneficiis ..–... De re rustica .praef.–..; ..–..; ..–... Satyricon .–.; .–.; .–.. De aquaeductu urbis Romae .–.; Strategemata .praef.–..; .praef.–... Institutio oratoria, Epistula ad Tryphonem.–..; .prooem.–..; ..–... Epistulae ..–..; ..–..; ..–...

 AD

.

Suetonius

 AD

. .

Gaius Tertullian

 AD  AD

. . .

Gargilius Cyprian SHA

 AD?  AD  AD?

. . . .

Palladius Egeria Jerome Augustine

 AD  AD  AD  AD

Agricola .–.; Annales ..–..; Historiae ..–... Vitae Caesarum, Diuus Iulius .–.; Caligula .–.; Galba .–.. Institutiones .–.; .–.; .–.. Aduersus Marcionem (Braun) ..–..; ..–..; (Moreschini–Braun) ..–... Medicinae ex oleribus et pomis (Maire) .–.. Epistulae ..–.; ..–..; ..–...  (Hadrianus), .–.;  (Pescennius Niger), .–.;  (Maximus et Balbinus), .–.. Opus agriculturae ..–..; .–..; .–.. Itinerarium Egeriae .–.; .–.; .–. Epistulae .–.; .–.; .–.. Sermones , l. –, l. ; , l. –, l. ; , l. –A, l. .

A Latin corpus (ca.  BC– AD) a. b. .

Vulg. OT Vulg. NT GCC

 AD  AD  AD

.

Vegetius

 AD

. .

Cassius Felix Victor of Vita

 AD  AD

.

Pompeius Maurus Caesarius of Arles Anthimus Iordanes Antoninus of Piacenza Gregory of Tours

 AD

. . . . .



 AD

Genesis .–.; Isaias .–.; Samuel , .–.. Iohannes .–.; Lucas .–.; Matthaeus .–.. (Lancel) . (l. )–. (l. ); . (l. )–. (l. ); . (l. )–. (l. ) (without . (= .)). Epitoma rei militaris ..–..; Mulomedicina prol.–..; ..–... De medicina (Fraisse) praef.–. ; .–.; .–.. Historia persecutionis Africanae prouinciae .–.; .–.; .–.. Commentum artis Donati, GLK , p. , l. –p. , l. ; p. , l. –p. , l. ; p. , l. –p. , l. . Sermones .–.; .–.; .–..

 AD  AD  AD

De obseruatione ciborum (complete). Getica prol. []– [];  []– []; Romana –. Itinerarium Antonini Placentini, recensio prima (complete).

 AD

Historia Francorum .prol.–.; .prol.–.; .–..

All clauses in DLCS were also annotated for information on the presence or absence of sentential negation, as well as on the presence (and position) of internal and external arguments (objects and subjects). In addition, this data file contains information about, among other things, the type of clause the auxiliary occurs in, on the category (pronoun, noun phrase, clause) of the subject and object arguments (if (overtly) present), and a number of other variables. For full discussion, the reader is referred to the documentation accompanying the online datasets. Finally, note that during the process of data collection I never took into account any metrical passages occurring in the prose texts, nor any material which is a literal quotation from another source. For instance, all quotations from Cicero in Quintilian’s Institutio were left aside; the same goes for all literal Bible quotes from all Christian authors. However, I did include all non-literal paraphrases to other works (non-literal references to Columella in Palladius, and mere references to the Bible in Christian texts). Retaining such passages can be expected to have some (but presumably no major) influence on the data, but systematically weeding out all non-literal paraphrases would have been a very labour intensive enterprise (even with the help of text editions in which intertextual references are annotated systematically). ... What counts as a ‘direct object’? One important question that deserves some additional attention concerns the set of direct objects that are included in DLCS and



Latin corpus linguistics and the study of language change

DLCS. As a rule of thumb, I included only (i) noun phrases, which are (ii) not discontinuous and (iii) which appear in the same clause as the lexical verb that selects them.10 I will briefly elaborate on these three conditions. .... Only nominal objects First of all, I only took into account noun phrase direct objects, leaving aside all clausal objects (free relatives, finite or non-finite clausal complements, and direct quotations). Bare (as opposed to adnominal) pronominal objects (personal or demonstrative) were only included if they appear in coordination with a genuine noun phrase (in which case the entire set of coordinated constituents counts as one single object). Assuming that the factor ‘weight’ has an influence on constituent order (in the sense that shorter constituents generally appear in more leftward positions in the clause than longer ones) and assuming that by default pronouns are relatively short (and thus more likely to be preverbal) and clauses relatively long (and thus more likely to be postverbal), only taking into account nominal direct objects can be expected to go some way to control for unwanted, weight-related ‘noise’ in the data. Needless to add, however, in a more detailed multivariate study in which synchronic variables are also considered, the factor ‘weight’ will of course have to be controlled for in a more systematic fashion: see Section ., as well as Danckaert (in progress). It should be noted that I included all noun phrases that in a broad sense can be considered to bear the thematic role of ‘Theme’ or ‘Patient’ in an active clause, regardless of the case morphology of the NP involved. In other words, in addition to accusative complements of transitive verbs, I also included complements to predicates that assign ablative (utor ‘use’ and potior ‘take possession of ’) or genitive (like memini ‘remember’ and obliuiscor ‘forget’) case to their internal argument, alongside dative complements of verbs like faueo ‘favour’ and noceo ‘do harm’, and many ‘prefixed’ predicates like oc-curro ‘meet’ and suc-cedo ‘approach, succeed’. In the case of double object constructions with predicates such as doceo ‘teach’ and rogo ‘ask’, only the Theme (and not the Goal) argument was included. Finally, I did not include participials which are coreferential with a null object, like traicientem ‘(the) crossing (one)’ in (): ()

cum Vulturn-us amn-is traic-ient-em morat-us when Vulturnus-NOM river-NOM cross-PTCP.PRS-ACC.M.SG delayed-NOM.M.SG es-se-t be-IPFV.SBJV-SG ‘when the river Vulturnus had delayed him during his crossing’ (Liv. ..)

.... No discontinuous objects Second, I did not take into account any discontinuous constituents (nouns with an adjectival or genitive modifier) which

10 The same criteria were also applied to subject NPs (internal arguments) in passive clauses, which were annotated systematically in DLCS (cf. Sections ... and ..).

A Latin corpus (ca.  BC– AD)



straddle the lexical verb.11 For instance, in () and () it is not immediately clear which of the underscored items sits in a ‘base’ position, and which in a ‘derived’ one, and therefore it is not obvious which structural representation one has to assume. Interesting though they are in their own right, these patterns do not directly inform us about the OV/VO alternation. () Magn-as=que habe-t copi-as pedit-um. great-ACC=and have-PRS.SG troops-ACC foot.soldiers-GEN ‘And it [the tribe of the Treveri, ld] has a great number of foot-soldiers.’ (Caes. Gal. ..) () ut optim-us imperator ne post mort-em quidem that best-NOM emperor.NOM not after death-ACC even triumph-i amitt-ere-t dignitat-em triumph-GEN lose-IPFV.SBJV-SG honour-ACC ‘so that even after death the best emperor wouldn’t lose the honour of a triumph’ (SHA Hadr. .) However, I did include (apparent) cases of phrasal discontinuity in which a preverbal direct object comes with a postverbal apposition. For instance, in () I classified the string Antiphonem conueni ‘I’ve met with Antiphon’ as an OV-pattern, despite the presence of the postverbal apposition adfinem meum ‘my father in law’: () Nam

iam Antiphon-em conuen-i adfin-em me-um. already Antiphon-ACC meet-PRF.SG relative-ACC my-ACC ‘I’ve already met with my father in law Anthiphon.’ (Pl. St. ) PRT

I also included discontinuous coordinated NPs of the type illustrated in (), which instantiates what is sometimes called the schema Alcmanicum. I (tentatively) take this phenomenon to involve clausal coordination, and TP-ellipsis in the second conjunct. () Summ-a flagell-a repudi-e-mus ac surcul-os. highest-ACC young.shoots-ACC reject-FUT-PL and twigs-ACC ‘We will reject the top of the young shoots as well as the woody side-shoots.’ (Pallad. ..) Similarly, I did not exclude discontinuous patterns where the postverbal element is a (finite)12 relative clause, which I consider to be extraposed and to surface in a rightperipheral position (without taking a stance as to the correct phrase structure analysis of this configuration). For instance, in () I classified the NP leges colonicas ‘laws of 11 On the phenomenon of ‘hyperbaton’, see also Sections .. and ... Note that patterns in which all of the material belonging to a discontinuous object NP appears at the same side of the selecting lexical verb were taken up in the samples. 12 Discontinuous patterns with a postverbal participial modifier, which one could consider reduced relatives, were treated on a par with regular hyperbata (and were thus not included in the study).



Latin corpus linguistics and the study of language change

the settlers’ as a preverbal object, despite the presence of the extraposed relative clause (bracketed): () Etiam leg-es colonic-as toll-is, [CP in qu-ibus even laws-ACC colonial-ACC remove-PRS.SG in which-ABL.F.PL scrib-imus, colon-us in agr-o surculari-o ne capr-a write-PRS.PL farmer-NOM in field-ABL shrubby-ABL not she.goat-ABL nat-um pasc-a-t]. born-ACC graze-PRS.SBJV-SG ‘You even do away with the laws of the settlers, according to which a farmer may not have the offspring of a she-goat graze in a field planted with shrubs.’ (Var. R. ..) Finally, I also included all so-called ‘left branch extractions’ in which a wh-modifier has undergone movement to the C-layer without pied-piping its nominal restrictor (a configuration which can of course only be diagnosed if there is any lexical material intervening between the wh-element and the noun).13 In contrast with the discontinuous patterns discussed in the previous paragraph, here I take it to be uncontroversial that the lower constituent indicates the base position of the direct object, and that the wh-modifier surfaces in a derived position. () quid […] selig-a-nt orator-em, cuiusi imit-e-ntur why choose-PRS.SBJV-PL orator-ACC whose.GEN.M.SG imitate-PRS.SBJV-PL [ti eloquenti-am] eloquence-ACC ‘why they choose an orator, whose eloquence they can imitate’ (Col. .praef.) Similarly, I included cases where a wh-genitive has a ‘partitive’ meaning, as in (): I assume that in this example, the wh-word does not form a constituent with the bracketed noun phrase, without taking a stance as to whether or not the relative operator is extracted from the lower noun phrase. Concretely, I take it that there is no reason to assume that the bracketed noun phrase in () occurs preverbally because it has been pied-piped to the left periphery of the relative clause. () Undique coeg-it et omn-es client-es obaerat-os=que from.everywhere gather-PRF.SG and all-ACC clients-ACC debtors-ACC=and su-os, qu-orum [magn-um numer-um] habe-ba-t. his-ACC which-GEN.M.PL big-ACC number-ACC have-IPFV-SG

13 Observe that strictly speaking, we cannot rule out the possibility that examples like () and () involve a discontinuous wh‑constituent too (viz. a string vacuous left branch extraction). It is unfortunately not possible to systematically control for this type of structural ambiguity.

A Latin corpus (ca.  BC– AD)



‘From everywhere he gathered his clients and debtors, of which he had a great number.’ (Caes. Gal. ..) .... No ‘peripheral’ direct objects Very importantly, I tried as much as possible to only include direct objects that are contained in the same TP constituent as the lexical verb that selects them, and I did so by excluding all objects (i) that are unambiguously located in the left (or right) periphery of the clause they originate in, or (ii) which have been displaced to a higher clause. For instance, all interrogative () and (‘connecting’) relative () direct objects were eliminated from the study: given that Latin does not have wh-in-situ, we can be confident that examples such as these do not inform us about the position of direct objects in the extended verb phrase, as there is no way to tell whether the relevant configuration is derived from an underlying OV- or VO-structure. Assuming the usual movement metaphor, in the following examples I have indicated a number of possible ‘base positions’ by means of the symbol ‘t’, for ‘trace’. () cum ignora-re-nt [CP [qu-em loc-um]i [TP reliqu-ae

as not.know-IPFV.SBJV-PL which-ACC place-ACC other-NOM.F.PL cep-isse-nt ] take-PLPRF.SBJV-PL ‘as they didn’t know which position the other had taken’ (Caes. Civ. ..) () [CP [Qu-em loc-um]i [TP Catabathm-on incol-ae which-ACC place-ACC Catabathmos-ACC inhabitants-NOM appella-nt ]]. call-PRS.PL ‘This place the inhabitants call “Catabathmos”.’ (Sal. Jug. .) Similarly, all examples for which we can be sure that a given direct object occurs in a left-peripheral position (despite not being morphologically marked as a wh-item) were left aside. As argued at length in Danckaert (a), the only environments where such a configuration can be diagnosed with sufficient confidence are embedded clauses with an overt complementizer (subordinating conjunction) and root clauses with a(n interrogative or exclamative) wh-element: whenever a direct object appears to the left of such an unambiguously left-peripheral item, as does otium ‘leisure’ in (), we can be sure that the object itself is left-peripheral too. () [CP

oti-um [FinP si es-se-m leisure-ACC if be-IPFV.SBJV-SG ‘if I’d had the leisure’ (Var. R. ..)

consecut-us]] obtained-NOM.M.SG



Latin corpus linguistics and the study of language change

In addition, I also excluded all cases of extraction out of (various kinds of) CPs (a process which I take to proceed in a ‘successive cyclic’ fashion, that is, with an intermediate step of A′-movement targeting the left periphery of each CP which is crossed). For instance, in () the direct object nihil melius et tranquillius ‘nothing better and more peaceful’ surfaces to the right of the predicate putamus ‘we think’, which is the verb that selects the clause (an AcI) in which the extracted object originates. As indicated, here too it is impossible to identify which base position is associated with the fronted argument. () [Nihil melius et tranquill-ius]i puta-mus [CP nothing.ACC better.ACC and peaceful-COMP.ACC think-PRS.PL decern-ere nobilitat-em tu-am ]. decide-PRS.INF highness-ACC your-ACC ‘We think that your highness cannot decide anything better and more peaceful.’ (GCC .) As an extension, I also left aside examples that involve displacement out of infinitival domains which one can reasonably assume do not form a monoclausal domain together with their selecting predicate (‘matrix verb’). This category includes many patterns that could be analysed as raising or control structures (but crucially not the modal verbs possum ‘be able’ and debeo ‘have to’: see Section . below). Although the exact analysis of infinitival complements (in Latin and elsewhere) is a matter of much debate, I do not want to exclude that movement out of certain such infinitives is of the successive cyclic type, with an intermediate movement step targeting the CP-layer of the infinitival clause. In other words, whereas I included examples like (a) which feature a direct object (Ascylton) which is in all likelihood located in the same clause (labelled here informally as ‘InfP’) as the lexical verb persequi ‘chase’, I excluded all cases where the infinitive and its internal argument are separated by material which under a biclausal analysis would unambiguously belong to the matrix domain. In both (b) and (c), the intervening element (in boldface) is a form of the verb uolo ‘want’, arguably a control predicate: () a. Cursim [InfP Ascylt-on persequ-i] coep-i. running.ADV Ascyltos-ACC chase-PRS.INF start-PRF.SG ‘Quickly I started looking for Ascyltos.’ (Petr. .) b. die-bus uiginti antequam [InfP toll-ere ] uul-t days-ABL twenty before remove-PRS.INF want-PRS.SG turd-osi thrushes-ACC ‘twenty days before he wants to remove the thrushes’ (Var. R. ..)

A Latin corpus (ca.  BC– AD)



c. si rot-asi uol-e-s [InfP fac-ere ] if wheels-ACC want-FUT-SG make-PRS.INF ‘if you want to make wheels’ (Cato Agr. .) Despite all these precautions, it should go without saying that there are limits to the extent to which one can control for structural ambiguity. For instance, I included all cases such as (), which features a clause-initial direct object modified by the anaphoric demonstrative determiner hanc ‘this’: () [Hanc iunctur-am] πυλωρ-όν Graec-i this.ACC juncture-ACC pyloros-ACC Greek-NOM.M.PL ‘This juncture the Greek call ‘pyloros’.’ (Cels. ..)

uoca-nt. call-PRS.PL

For this case, one can reasonably hypothesize that the clause-initial noun phrase is a left-peripheral topic, especially given its discourse interpretation (it refers to a part of the body which was described in the immediately preceding paragraph, so it clearly qualifies as ‘given’ or ‘familiar’ information). However, as discussed in Danckaert (a), it is certainly not the case that all noun phrases (i) that convey given/old information (whether or not they are accompanied by a marker of discourse anaphoricity such as the demonstratives hic or is (both roughly meaning ‘this, that’)), and (ii) which appear in a leftward position in the clause can be considered syntactic topics. The minimal pair in () illustrates this point. Observe that in both examples, the direct object is modified by the demonstrative hanc ‘this’ (used anaphorically), signalling that we are dealing with old information: () a. [FinP si [TP [ hanc cogitation-em] homin-es hab-uisse-nt]] if this.ACC thought-ACC men-NOM have-PLPRF.SBJV-PL ‘if people had entertained this thought’ (Quint. Inst. ..) b. [TopP [hanc epistul-am] [FinP si ill-ius tabellari-o this letter-ACC if that-GEN.M.SG courier-DAT ded-isse-m]] give-PLPRF.SBJV-SG ‘if I had given this letter to his courier’ (Cic. Att. ..) In (a) the direct object appears to the left of the subject but to the right of the subordinating conjunction si ‘if ’. In (b) on the other hand, it sits to the left of si. Assuming with Danckaert (a) that the subordinator occupies a low functional projection in the articulated CP, such as FinP (Rizzi ), it follows that only the direct object in the b-clause can be characterized as left-peripheral. The status of the object in the a-example is less clear, but an analysis in which it occurs inside TP seems most plausible.



Latin corpus linguistics and the study of language change

In any event, in the light of the minimal pair in (), we have to conclude that examples such as () are ambiguous. Following the guideline that only ‘unambiguously left-peripheral’ direct objects are to be excluded from the study, I left in all tokens of the types illustrated in () and (a), but I left aside the ones like (b). ... A note on ‘periodization’ (and sample size) For the purpose of the diachronic investigations coming up in this book, whenever possible I will treat the factor ‘time’ as a fully continuous variable (in the technical sense of the word), with the minimal unit being a single year. In other words, what I will try to avoid is reporting on average frequencies for larger time periods, a procedure which I take to come with (at least) two drawbacks, irrespective of the type and number of periods assumed. First, defining subperiods is always arbitrary to some extent, regardless of whether one chooses more or less objective measures (centuries defined according to the Christian calendar, or periods of equal length which divide the entire corpus in a given number of parts (quartiles, deciles,…)), or whether subperiods are defined on more subjective grounds. None of the extant attempts to define coherent subperiods on intra- or extralinguistic grounds strike me as very convincing (see Fredouille (: , fn. ) for a bibliographical overview, and Adamik () for a recent attempt). Second, by its very nature a smaller unit of measurement allows for more fine-grained description, and using a coarser unit of measurement inevitably comes with a loss of (valuable) information. Therefore, in describing and analysing the distribution of a linguistic variant X over time, for each of the thirty-nine texts/ authors I will quantify the relative frequency of X, and I will put the results on a timeline. In statistical terms, I will model the outcome probability of X for each year in the entire period under investigation ( BC– AD, to be precise). However, treating ‘time’ as a continuous variable clearly can only work when a given dataset is sufficiently large. I take it that a given dataset is ‘big enough’ when there is a sufficient number of texts/authors (a minimum of about twenty) for which there are roughly ten tokens of a given type. In such a case, it makes sense to subdivide the total number of attestations into a maximum of thirty-nine small subsets (spread over  years). Whenever any ‘small sample issue’ arises, I will remedy this in (one of ) the two following ways. First, if the cardinality of the entire dataset but not each individual author/text is large enough, I will simply leave aside all data points which do not meet a certain threshold value, and proceed with the remaining authors in the same way as just described. As a default, I will include data from a given sample if it contains more than ten (i.e. at least eleven) tokens. Any departure from this rule of thumb will be signalled explicitly. Alternatively, whenever imposing a threshold of at least five tokens per data point does not leave us with enough (ca. twenty) authors/texts for the eight centuries covered, I will in fact

A Latin corpus (ca.  BC– AD)



compare frequencies averaged over larger periods, namely the first half of the corpus ( BC– AD) and the second half (– AD).14 Note finally that throughout this study I only use terms such as ‘Archaic (or Early)’, ‘Classical’, and ‘Late’ Latin as merely descriptive labels, to refer to (i) the period from Plautus until Terence/Cato, (ii) the period from Cicero to Suetonius, and (iii) everything after ca.  AD respectively. These periods do not have any analytic relevance. In addition, I use the term ‘classical’ without any sort of stylistic or sociolinguistic connotation (say ‘high register’, or ‘prestige variant’). .. Interim conclusion In the first two sections of this chapter, I have briefly discussed the multivariate nature of linguistic variation, and I have also introduced the Latin corpus that I will use. Before moving on to the actual analytic part of the book, one important question that still has to be addressed is whether the corpus just presented (‘the sample’) can indeed be considered a sufficiently accurate reflection of the actual Latin language, at various stages of its existence (‘the population’). Given the exclusively diachronic scope of this book, the question should actually be formulated more narrowly: can we assume that the corpus constitutes a reliable source of information not only about all aspects of linguistic variation, but more specifically about the diachronic dimension (i.e. change, or absence thereof)? Put differently, how confident can we be that our Latin corpus is such that it allows us to tease apart synchronic factors from the temporal dimension? Does the factor ‘time’ turn out to be a robust predictor of phenomena that are subject to variation, or is its effect obscured by synchronic variables? As pointed out before, one issue that deserves particular attention is the potential influence of classical models on Late Latin texts: does a factor like ‘normative pressure’ trump ‘time’ in these texts? In the following section, I will discuss one case study which very emphatically suggests that the corpus I put together can indeed be used to document language change. I will conclude that despite the presence of (quite a bit of) synchronic variation, there is—at least given our current state of knowledge—no reason to assume that synchronic variation is (ever?) so strong that it can mask the effect of ‘time’.

14 Mainly for expository purposes, in Chapters  and  I will occasionally also assume a simple ‘early– late’ dichotomy, but only in the context of more complex case studies where more than two levels of a given variable are compared (see for instance Section .., where the average frequency of six word order patterns is investigated).



Latin corpus linguistics and the study of language change

. The Latin corpus as a source of information on language change .. S-curves and the course of language change It has repeatedly been observed that the spread of a new linguistic (phonological, lexical, or syntactic) variant in a given population typically follows a trajectory that bears stronger resemblance to a sigmoid (S-shaped) curve than to a straight line.15 Put differently, the rhythm of many a process of language change is not constant, but rather something like ‘slow–quick–quick–slow’. This was hypothesized at least as early as Greenberg et al. ( []: ), and later confirmed by numerous case studies (for further discussion, see among many others Weinreich et al. : –; Chen ; Bailey ; Altmann et al. ; Kroch ; Labov : –, : –; Blythe and Croft ; Aitchison : –, –; Willis ).16 Here I will not be concerned with a number of fundamental questions regarding the ‘ontology’ of this frequently observed pattern (see e.g. Denison () for critical discussion), but I will simply assume that the basic generalization is at the very least (observationally) very solid. The logic of the argument that I will develop in the following section then goes as follows: I will discuss one particular instance of language change in Latin, and I will show that the pattern that we observe in the corpus can naturally be fit onto an S-curve. This in turn I will interpret to mean that the corpus that I am using is indeed a reliable source of how the Latin language evolved in the period from  BC until  AD. .. The development of the analytic future perfect The case study that I will present (a specific aspect of) concerns the alternation between two types of analytic verb forms involving a BE-auxiliary and a past participle, which is illustrated in (): () a. Qu-od ita eri-t gest-um, which-NOM.N.SG thus be-FUT.SG carried-NOM.N.SG id lex er-it? this-NOM.N.SG law.NOM be-FUT.SG ‘Will something that is transacted in this fashion be a law?’ (Cic. Phil. .) 15 Note that this particular pattern of diffusion is not specific to language change: rather, the spread of, for instance, biological mutations and economic trends across a population follows very much the same path. 16 From the literature on Latin, compare Burton (: ): ‘In recent years linguists have found more and more evidence for a “bell curve” model of language change: specific innovations become common in small groups, spread rapidly through larger populations, then tail off, leaving remnants of the older, displaced forms in use among small groups of speakers.’ Note, however, that it is not the actual observed distribution of a given linguistic variable which is ‘bell shaped’ (it is of course S-shaped). What is bellshaped is the rate of incrementation per time unit associated with this change, when plotted on a timeline (see Labov : –).

The Latin corpus as information on language change



b. etiam si seruat-us fu-er-o even if saved-NOM.M.SG be-FUTPRF-SG ‘even if I will be saved’ (Sen. Ben. ..) The contrast between these two examples can be described in the following terms: whereas in the a-sentence, there is a mismatch between the tense of the BE-auxiliary in isolation (a simple future) and the tense of the entire BE-periphrasis (a future perfect), no such tense mismatch is present in the b-example, where the auxiliary itself appears as a future perfect. Let us call the former type E-periphrases (tense mismatch), and the latter F-periphrases (no tense mismatch). Note that the same alternation can be observed with deponent BE-periphrases: sententi-am C. () a. si er-itis secut-i if be-FUT.PL followed-NOM.M.PL opinion-ACC Gaius.GEN ‘if you subscribe to Gaius Caesar’s opinion’ (Cic. Catil. .)

Caesar-is Caesar-GEN

b. qu-i cunctat-us fu-eri-t et su-um who-NOM.M.SG hesitated-NOM.M.SG be-FUTPRF-SG and his-ACC consili-um me-o interpon-e-t plan-ACC mine-DAT.N.SG insert-FUT-SG ‘whoever will hesitate and substitute his own plan for mine’ (Liv. ..) The development of the F-pattern is discussed in detail in Danckaert (, to appear), and will be revisited at the end of this book (Chapter ). In the present context, it is important to note that the spread of F-periphrases is not equally quick in all environments. More specifically, as discussed in Danckaert (), the factor ‘tense’ appears to be a good predictor of when one obtains an F rather than an E-periphrasis. In all three perfective tenses (perfect, pluperfect, and future perfect), the F-pattern is attested from the earliest texts onwards, but typically at low frequencies. In the perfect (and especially in the indicative mood), this remains the case throughout the entire Latinity. In contrast, pluperfect F-periphrases spread much more rapidly, reaching relative frequencies of about % in Late Latin, and as we will see shortly, analytic future perfects (i.e. the structures illustrated in () and ()) in Late Latin standardly take the shape of the F-variant. Before inspecting the data, one thorny issue needs to be addressed. In the F-paradigm, there is a substantial amount of morphological overlap (homophony) between future perfects (which are always indicatives) and perfect subjunctives, which are only morphologically distinct in the first person singular (cf. amatus fuero (future perfect) vs. amatus fuerim (perfect subjunctive)). In many cases, the interpretation of a given example in its context leaves little room for doubt as to the tense of a given ‘PaPa-fuerit’ expression. For instance, in indirect questions we typically find perfect subjunctives; conversely, future perfects are the norm in clauses that are embedded under a matrix predicate which can be considered future-oriented



Latin corpus linguistics and the study of language change

(either a proper future tense, or an imperative, but also some present tenses). Such is the case in () (cf. the matrix verb erit ‘will be’): ()

Si creditor ab un-o tot-um consecut-us if creditor.NOM from one-ABL.M.SG whole-ACC.N.SG obtained-NOM.M.SG fu-eri-t, huius sol-ius detriment-um e-rit […]. be-FUTPRF-SG that.GEN.M.SG alone-GEN.M.SG harm-NOM be-FUT.SG ‘If a creditor receives (lit. ‘will have received’) the entire sum from one person, only this person will lose money.’ (Gaius Inst. .)

In other cases, the matrix clause does not refer to any future event but rather makes a generic statement (typically with a present tense), as in (). In this example, I interpret the underscored expression as a perfect subjunctive (which only expresses anteriority, but no anteriority with respect to a future event): () Si uero ab ips-o testator-e manumiss-us fu-eri-t, if PRT by self-ABL testator-ABL set.free-NOM.M.SG be-PRF.SBJV-SG su-o arbitri-o hereditat-em adi-re pot-est. his-ABL decision-ABL heritage-ACC obtain-PRS.INF be.able-PRS.SG ‘If however he was set free by the testator himself, he is allowed to accept the heritage of his own accord.’ (Gaius Inst. .) However, there clearly is some residue of examples where it is actually quite difficult to distinguish the two categories. Still, given the important role of the factor ‘tense’ in the overall development of Latin BE-periphrases, it seems not only worthwhile, but actually imperative to systematically annotate the tense properties of each BE-periphrasis in the corpus in order to arrive at an accurate description of the relevant facts.17 In any event, even if this complicating factor adds a certain amount of noise to the data, there still is the obvious fact that bona fide future perfect E-periphrases are very rare in every single text in my corpus that dates from after  AD, an observation which is clearly independent of the ambiguity of some expressions of the type amatus fuerit. Let us then have a look at the corpus data. DLCS contains a total of , BE-periphrases, including both passive and deponent verbs. With , tokens, future perfects clearly only constitute a minority pattern.18 In addition, the distribution of the attested future perfects is also not constant across text types: for one thing, future perfects occur much more readily in technical treatises than in historical narratives,

17 For two reasons mentioned (i.e. (i) the non-total morphological overlap and (ii) the non-ambiguous character of the majority of the examples), I consider it highly unlikely that the (Late Latin) amatus fuerit pattern is actually a conflation of the perfect subjunctive and the future perfect, as suggested in de Melo (: –). See Danckaert (: –) for additional discussion of this issue. 18 The bulk of the data consists of perfects (, tokens); pluperfects are also more frequently attested than future perfects (, tokens).

The Latin corpus as information on language change



for instance. Add to this that some of the thirty-nine texts in my text corpus are rather short to begin with, it should not come as a surprise that for some data points I only obtained a very small number of periphrastic future perfects. In order to minimize the risk of my results being distorted by inaccurate estimates based on small samples, I only included authors/texts with a least eight analytic future perfects. Twelve authors do not reach this threshold, and were therefore not taken into account. In chronological order, these are Caesar, Hyginus, Petronius, Frontinus, Pliny, Suetonius, Gargilius, the Historia Augusta, Egeria, Victor, Iordanes and Antoninus. We are then left with a sample of twenty-seven data points, with a total of , analytic future perfects. The diachronic development of the E/F alternation in this dataset is shown in Figure .. In this graph, a number of things can be observed. First of all, the distribution of the scattered dots does indeed resemble an S-curve. In five of the first six authors, the F-pattern is only observed in less than % of the cases.19 In the next two centuries, all observations (with the exception of Tacitus) are situated between  and %. Finally, in the period from ca.  until  AD, every single observed value is higher than %. In two of the Late Latin samples (Jerome and Anthimus), the E-pattern is not even attested a single time. In particular, the fact that there are no data points from after Tertullian (at around  AD) which display less than % but more than % of F-future perfects suggests that the transition from E to F cannot be modelled optimally by means of a straight line. Instead, as can be observed, I have modelled the data by means of a logistic curve, which proves to be a good fit of the observed data (the model has a classification accuracy of over % (AUC-score: .)).20 However, note also that at around  BC the model already suggests a relative frequency of F-future perfects of %, which clearly shows that our S-curve is not complete. More specifically, the point of actuation of the change must be situated somewhere before  BC, that is, in the period from which no substantial prose texts survive. Finally, note that despite the fact that most of the observed variation is correlated with time, there clearly is some amount of additional variation: one can think of the distance (in a straight line, parallel with the Y-axis and thus literally orthogonal to the temporal dimension) between each data point and the fitted curve as the residual variation which is not explained by the factor ‘time’, and which is therefore necessarily synchronic in nature.21 In order to further understand the internal structure of this dataset, one would 19 For the one data point which displays a higher percentage (Terence), the estimated frequency of the F-pattern is based on a sample of only eight tokens. 20 In the literature on language change, logistic curves are most often used to model this type of data, but as pointed out in, for example, Labov (: ) other S-shaped curves could be used too (see also Kroch ). 21 Presumably, in this case some of the observed spread is due to the fact that a number of the estimated averages are based on relatively small samples.



Latin corpus linguistics and the study of language change 18 21 23 24 22

100 16

25

Frequency of future perfect F-periphrases (in %)

17 20 19

80

26

27

11 14

60

7 9

12

40

15

8

2

10

20

1 3

0 –200

4

5 6

13

0

200 Time

400

600

FIGURE . Relative frequency (in %) of future perfect F-periphrases (amatus fuerit) compared to E-periphrases (amatus erit), ca.  BC– AD. Labels: = Plautus, = Terence, = Cato, = Cicero, = Varro, = Sallust, = Vitruvius, = Livy, = Celsus, = Seneca, = Columella, = Quintilian, = Tacitus, = Gaius, = Tertullian, = Cyprian, = Palladius, = Jerome, = Augustine, = Vulgate, = GCC, = Vegetius, = Cassius Felix, = Pompeius, = Caesarius, = Anthimus, = Gregory.

have to build a multivariate model of the type discussed at the beginning of this chapter, in which, for instance, sociolinguistic variables could be taken into account. Such a procedure might help us understand why Tacitus, in contrast with his contemporaries (broadly defined), consistently uses the older E-pattern.

. A concluding note on synchrony and diachrony (and the scope of this book) I would like to conclude that the case study just reviewed lends particularly strong support to the hypothesis that the corpus described in Table . can be used to document variation and change in Latin. In other words, despite the multivariate nature of this data distribution (as mentioned, the factor ‘time’ clearly isn’t a perfect predictor

A concluding note on synchrony and diachrony



of the alternation between E- and F-future perfects), there is no reason whatsoever to assume that synchronic factors have enough influence to mask the effect of ‘time’. I hasten to add that the future perfect data are actually much ‘cleaner’ than most of the datasets that I will present and analyse in the upcoming chapters. For one thing, as far as I am aware this is the only instance of (morpho)syntactic change in Latin whose (quasi-)entire life span has ever been documented by means of textual evidence. Also, for all other upcoming datasets for which I will argue that the factor ‘time’ plays a significant role, we will see that there is invariably a greater amount of synchronic variation. Finally, I wish to emphasize once again that the focus of this book is on diachronic rather than synchronic variation. In terms of a statistical (regression) model, what I am interested in is whether there is any meaningful correlation between the factor ‘time’ and a given dependent variable (OV vs. VO, VPAux vs. AuxVP), and if yes, how strong this effect is. Whenever I will take into account any additional variable, I will mainly do so to investigate whether this variable can be shown to interact with ‘time’ in a significant way. This is of course not to say that synchronic variation is not interesting in its own right, quite the contrary. However, studying synchronic variation is clearly much more difficult and labour-intensive than simply tracking the presence or absence of linguistic change in a corpus (which is what I will be doing in this book). In particular, the variables associated with synchronic variation are notoriously difficult to operationalize in a convincing manner. Take for instance the example of the OV/ VO alternation. Let us assume that information structure plays an important role in this empirical domain, as seems to be generally agreed.22 What one would have to do to assess the role of information structure is first of all provide fully explicit definitions of slippery notions such as ‘topic’, ‘focus’, ‘contrast’, ‘given information’, ‘inferable information’, ‘new information’, or whatever category one wants to test the explanatory power of. Next, every single token in a given corpus would have to be annotated for every parameter related to information structure that one is interested in, in such a way that all aspects of the adopted methodology are fully transparent and replicable. For a study of this kind, the reader is referred to Danckaert (in progress), where the impact of information structure on object placement is evaluated in the multivariate type of setup illustrated at the beginning of this chapter. Similarly, it might be very interesting to look at sociolinguistic variation: can we detect statistically significant differences between Cicero’s letters to Atticus and his more formal correspondence? And what about effects of text type: for instance, do

22 Note that despite the apparent consensus about this matter, this hypothesis has never been proven on the basis of a detailed, large-scale, and methodologically sound corpus study, which I take to be the only type of evidence that could possibly prove that information structure does indeed play the type of role it is standardly taken to play.



Latin corpus linguistics and the study of language change

Seneca’s letters reveal different word order preferences than his philosophical writings? And what is the effect of prose rhythm on word order? Do non-rhythmical texts systematically behave differently from texts in which certain conventions of prose rhythm are adhered to? For all four of the above synchronic variables (information structure, register, text type, and prose rhythm—note that the list is of course far from exhaustive), I expect there to be detectable and statistically robust effects on a variety of grammatical phenomena that are subject to variation. However, I also expect that it will not be easy to demonstrate this convincingly (with all variables properly operationalized, etc.), and I expect that the effect size of such synchronic variables is going to be relatively modest, and certainly not large enough to outrank the effect of ‘time’. Needless to say, proper corpus studies are needed to verify whether these predictions are correct.

3 Multiple object positions and how to diagnose them . OV/VO in diachrony: an introduction In this chapter I will start by discussing some initial descriptive results concerning the OV/VO alternation in Latin: I will show that depending on the syntactic context in which one evaluates variable object placement, one obtains very different results. In addition, we will see that there is no evidence for any major increase in productivity of the order VO during the transition from Classical to Late Latin (Section .). I will then make a case for the claim that clauses with two separate verb forms constitute the most reliable environment to study object placement, as in this context more object positions can be disambiguated. In addition, I will present another argument in favour of a configurational approach to Latin syntax (Section .). In the remainder of the chapter I address the question as to precisely which monoclausal environment with two verb forms we should look at to arrive at a good description of the OV/VO alternation. In Section ., I show that despite providing unambiguous evidence for four non-left-peripheral object positions, clauses with an analytic form of a transitive BE-periphrasis do not constitute an ideal testing ground to study variable object placement. Finally in Section . I argue that clauses with a modal verb ( possum ‘be able’ or debeo ‘have to’) qualify as bona fide monoclausal structures in which the diachrony of object placement can be studied without any major problems. .. Where we stand Although the alternation between the word orders OV and VO is one of the more striking features of Latin syntax, there is at present no reliable, corpus-based description of this phenomenon. This is not to say that object placement has not received any attention in the literature. In the existing studies on the topic, one encounters two recurrent generalizations.1 First, there seems to be a consensus that the transition 1

Among older studies specifically addressing the positional distribution of objects and verbs in Latin, one could mention Linde () and Koll (). For recent discussion and references, see Clackson and Horrocks (: –) and Ledgeway (a: –).

The Development of Latin Clause Structure. First edition. Lieven Danckaert. © Lieven Danckaert . First published  by Oxford University Press.



Multiple object positions and how to diagnose them

from Early to Late Latin witnesses an important increase in the relative frequency of the order VO (see especially Bauer (, ), and references cited there).2 Second, some authors have stressed that especially Early Latin texts are in fact already characterized by fairly high frequencies of VO, to some extent contradicting (or at least nuancing) the first generalization (Adams ; Pinkster ). This observation is often interpreted to mean that lower frequencies of OV observed in some Classical Latin authors are to be ascribed to normative pressure.3 One aim of this and the following chapter is to critically assess the communis opinio about the diachrony of the OV/VO alternation in the period from ca.  BC until  AD. Already at this very preliminary stage, I can see four reasons why the existing studies are unlikely to be reliable (which is also why I will not here provide a full overview of them). First, all of the available studies are based on analyses of very small text samples, usually consisting of (much) less than  examples per author. Moreover, they often only provide data for a handful of authors to document a period of multiple centuries, and typically, no information is provided about which types of objects (nouns, pronouns, clauses, etc.) were included in a given sample (see also Ledgeway (a: ) for the same type of criticism). Second, none of the claims concerning the putative influence of normative pressure in Classical Latin texts has ever been backed up by results from a reliable corpus study: given what we have seen in Chapter , I take it to be uncontroversial that one can only draw conclusions about the influence of one or more sociolinguistic factors once (i) the relevant variables have been properly operationalized, (ii) (every single token of) a sufficiently large set of ‘verb–object’ combinations has been annotated for each of the variables investigated, and (iii) the relevant data have been analysed statistically. At present, no such study is available, from which it follows that we cannot say anything conclusive about this particular matter. Third, as I will show in Chapter , it is absolutely necessary to study the OV/VO alternation (headedness of VP, i.e. object placement proper) and the VPAux/AuxVP alternation (headedness of TP, i.e. the position of the hierarchically highest verb with respect to the verb phrase) simultaneously, as especially in later centuries, the two alternations are not independent of one another. Fourth, and perhaps most controversially, as I will argue in this chapter, in order to arrive at a reliable description of the OV/VO alternation, it is of vital importance to control for structural ambiguity. More specifically, in line with what was said in Section .., I will show that patterns of object placement are indeed very different 2

Consider for instance the following two recent statements along these lines:

[W]ith time we observe a steady increase of VO patterns in Latin. (Bauer : ) Le latin tardif connaît une évolution typologique d’un ordre SOV à un ordre SVO caractéristique des langues romanes. (‘Late Latin witnesses a typological evolution from an SOV-order to an SVO-order, which is characteristic of the Romance languages.’) (Sznajder and Bortolussi : ) 3 Thus Ledgeway (a: ): ‘[T]he exceptional steadfastness of the verb-final order in the classical language must represent . . . a prestige order artificially preserved under the strong normative pressures of the literary language’. See also Fedriani and Ramat ().



OV/VO in diachrony

in clauses with a single synthetic verb and in clauses with an auxiliary and a nonfinite lexical verb. In Section ., I will provide corpus evidence which confirms that data observed in the latter environment are more reliable. In sum, what is lacking is a reliable corpus study. A major goal of this and the following chapters is to fill this lacuna. Before we look at some initial data, let me just repeat that offering a full-scale multivariate description, in which diachronic variation is studied alongside (and perhaps in interaction with) synchronic predictors, goes well beyond the scope of this study, which is only concerned with diachronic aspects of Latin word order. .. Some initial corpus data A first very general overview of the diachrony of the OV/VO alternation (and more specifically the relative frequency of the order VO) is provided in Figure .. What is reported on is the totality of the , clauses with a direct object from DLCS

Frequency of VO (in %), all syntactic contexts

100

29

80

26 38

60 34 28

40

6 1 2

14 15 16

9 8

10 12

4

20

13 3

7

30

21

27

17 19 18

24 20

36 31

23 25

33 32

35

39

37

22

11

5

0 –200

0

200 Time

400

600

FIGURE . Relative frequency of the order VO, ca.  BC– AD (averaged over all syntactic environments). Labels: = Plautus, = Terence, = Cato, = Cicero, = Caesar, = Varro, = Sallust, = Hyginus, = Vitruvius, = Livy, = Celsus, = Seneca, = Columella, = Petronius, = Frontinus, = Quintilian, = Pliny, = Tacitus, = Suetonius, = Gaius, = Tertullian, = Gargilius, = Cyprian, = SHA, = Palladius, = Egeria, = Jerome, = Augustine, = Vulgate, = GCC, = Vegetius, = Cassius Felix, = Victor of Vita, = Pompeius, = Caesarius, = Anthimus, = Iordanes, = Antoninus, = Gregory.



Multiple object positions and how to diagnose them

(cf. Section ...). Importantly, the direct objects that went into this dataset occur in a wide range of syntactic environments, such as finite clauses with only one synthetic verb (including imperatives), finite clauses with an analytic verb form, as well as non-finite environments featuring an infinitive (AcIs, historical infinitives, and various raising and control structures, cf. Section .), a participle (ablative absolutes, ‘conjoined’ participles, future periphrases with BE), a gerund, or a supine. As can be observed, apart from thitry-nine data points, the graph in Figure . also features two so-called regression lines which visualize the correlation (or absence thereof) between the independent variable ‘time’ and the dependent variable ‘rate of VO’. The straight line characterizes the overall effect of the factor ‘time’: during an extended period of about  years, it rises from ca.  to about %. The second, ‘smoothed’ line does essentially the same: it identifies the overall trend in a given dataset, but it also takes into account more local trends, and can therefore be considered more informative (that is, in cases where there is in fact a diachronic trend to be characterized). In Figure ., the trajectory of the smoothed line is clearly much flatter than the one of the straight line, remaining constant at around %, with only minor fluctuations. As one of the main contentions of this book is that data from a study where no attempt is made to control for structural ambiguity are highly unreliable and therefore very difficult to interpret, I will here only make a small number of comments. First, these preliminary results do not reveal any obvious diachronic trend: on the one hand, even in the very early stages the order VO is already well established, and, on the other hand, and although one could think that there is some increase over time (cf. the straight regression line), we are certainly not witnessing any major landslide towards a predominant VO-order (cf. the smoothed regression line), contrary to what is often claimed in the literature (cf. Bauer ). As it happens, the average rate of VO in the first author (Plautus) is almost twice as high as in the very last author (Gregory of Tours), some  years later. Second, one immediately observes that the results for Late Latin are characterized by a very high degree of variation: on the one hand, the majority of the data points after  AD are situated (well) below %, with the conspicuous exception of five texts, viz. (in chronological order) the Itinerarium Egeriae, Augustine’s sermons, samples of the Vulgate, Pompeius’ commentary on Donatus and the Itinerarium of Antoninus. These five data points (four of which are (happen to be?) Christian) exhibit the order VO in  to % of the cases. At this point it is of course very tempting to formulate a number of hypotheses concerning the nature of the variation that we see in Figure .. For instance, one could think that the low frequencies of the order VO in certain Late Latin authors is due to influence of the ‘standard’ language, and is to be considered an artefact of normative pressure rather than a property of the real language. In such a scenario, the five ‘outlying’ observations would be a more reliable source of information about Late Latin word order preferences. The fact that all texts in which we observe high

OV/VO in diachrony



frequencies of VO can be considered to be written in a ‘low’ (non-literary) stylistic register seems to lend some initial support to this hypothesis. However, given what we have said in Chapter  about the proper study of variationist corpus data, it should be clear that this (and any other hypothesis one could think of) can only be evaluated on the basis of a careful quantitative study. In other words, what one would have to do is systematically annotate each token for information about one or more synchronic variables—all properly operationalized—after which some statistical calculations would have to follow, in order to assess which synchronic covariates turn out to have significant explanatory power. As mentioned, carrying out such a study lies beyond the scope of this book. In addition, as I will proceed to show in the next section, the data summarized in Figure . are simply much too coarse, and do not constitute a coherent explanandum. Before going there, let me briefly comment upon one issue related to object placement which is occasionally mentioned in the literature, namely the distinction between main and embedded clauses. Consider for instance the following statement made in Bauer (: ): ‘From Plautus on, the percentages of OV only decrease, even if the pattern continues to clearly predominate . . . this tendency is stronger in main clauses than in subordinate ones, i.e., the loss of OV-sequences was slower in subordinate clauses’ (see also Bauer : ). My own data reveal that it is indeed the case that on average the rate of VO tends to be a bit higher in main than in embedded clauses. When we split up the dataset plotted in Figure . into main and embedded clauses, we obtain the distribution shown in Figure ..4 As can be observed, on the whole, object placement in main and embedded clauses is rather similar but, to the extent that the two types of clauses are differentiated, it is always in main clauses that the average rate of VO is higher (in absolute terms, that is). The two smoothed regression lines plotted are particularly informative: on the one hand they stay quite close to one another during the first six centuries documented in the corpus, and they only start to diverge at around  AD.5 I very provisionally conclude that there is some initial reason to think that the factor ‘clause type’ (main vs. embedded clauses) is indeed relevant when it comes to modelling the OV/VO alternation (for reasons that very much remain to be elucidated). However, it also seems to be the case that the effect size of this predictor is not particularly big (and therefore perhaps not to be overestimated), and as ever, before we can make any really solid generalization about the relevant data, a (multivariate) statistical model would have to be built, which would enable us to assess if the effect of the factor ‘ main clause’ is indeed statistically significant, and if yes, how strongly it is

4 I categorized all finite root clauses as ‘main clauses’, and all other tokens, finite and non-finite alike, as ‘embedded’. Needless to say, such a strictly binary distinction is somewhat of a simplification. 5 Similar results are obtained for the datasets to be reported on in the next section: reasons of space prevent me from further elaborating on the relevant data.



Multiple object positions and how to diagnose them

Frequency of VO (in %), all syntactic contexts

100

80

60

40

20

0 –200

0

200 Time MAIN

400

600

EMB

FIGURE . Relative frequency of the order VO, ca.  BC– AD: main and embedded clauses compared.

correlated with object placement, and if there is any significant interaction with the factor ‘time’. In what follows, I will abstract away from the distinction between main and embedded clauses, leaving a proper investigation of this matter for future research.

. A third argument for a configurational approach to Latin syntax I now proceed to refine the picture given in Figure ., by considering the development of the OV/VO alternation in a number of different syntactic environments. We will see that there is considerable variation across syntactic contexts, which raises the question of which environment can be considered the more reliable source of information. I will then hypothesize that those clauses which have the lowest potential for structural ambiguity are most likely to furnish reliable information on object placement. The results of a corpus-based experiment suggest that this



A configurational approach to Latin syntax

hypothesis is indeed correct. As structural ambiguity can only arise in grammatical systems which assume at least some degree of configurationality (cf. Table . in Chapter ), I will conclude that the data to be discussed in the present section constitute yet another piece of evidence against an entirely non-configurational approach to Latin syntax. .. The OV/VO alternation across syntactic contexts Let us first have a look (Figure .) at the data for clauses with just one finite, synthetic verb (excluding imperatives, data from DLCS). Not unsurprisingly, the basic picture we observe here is roughly the same as in Figure ., but this is obviously related to the fact that the type of environment that I selected represents almost % of the entire sample (, out of the total of , clauses). Next, when we consider object placement in a number of non-finite environments (viz. participial clauses and non-propositional infinitival clauses (infinitives functioning

Frequency of VO in clauses with a finite synthetic verb (in %)

100

80

29 26 38

60 34 28 6

40

1

9 14

2 8

15

4

20

13

7

27

21

31 12 18

10

3

30

16 17 20 19

23

33

39

25

22

11

32

36 35 37

24

5

0 –200

0

200 Time

400

600

FIGURE . Relative frequency of the order VO in clauses with a single synthetic finite verb, ca.  BC– AD. Labels: see Figure ..



Multiple object positions and how to diagnose them

Frequency of VO in clauses with a non-finite synthetic verb (in %)

100

29

80

38

26

60

34

28 6

40

14

10 1

2

17

9

4

21

15 19 16

8 12

20

24

18

30

13 11 5

20

7

25 22

39

33

27

23

36 37 35

31 32

3

0 –200

0

200 Time

400

600

FIGURE . Relative frequency of the order VO in clauses with a single synthetic non-finite verb, ca.  BC– AD. Labels: see Figure ..

as subjects and as complements of control predicates, but no AcIs, NcIs, and historical infinitives)), we again observe the same basic tendency (data in Figure . again from DLCS). Note that there are of course differences between the data distributions in Figures . and .,6 but in this last case too the straight regression line suggests an upward trend which is not confirmed by the smoothed line, and importantly, we once again see that the same five Late Latin authors stand out in displaying remarkably high frequencies of the order VO. Crucially however, the picture looks entirely different when we consider a third (and final) dataset, namely one where the OV/VO alternation is studied in clauses

6 Some of the observed variation might be due to the fact that the second dataset is considerably smaller than the first, containing only , clauses (on average ca. – tokens per data point). Given the fairly heterogeneous character of this sample, the average values obtained might be slightly less accurate than the ones plotted in Figure ..

A configurational approach to Latin syntax



TABLE . Authors not taken into account for the study of object placement in clauses with a modal verb Author Gargilius Egeria Cassius Felix Anthimus Iordanes Antoninus

Date (approx.)

# of modals

# of objects

# of VO

 AD  AD  AD  AD  AD  AD

     

     

     

with a modal verb (either possum ‘be able’ or debeo ‘have to’).7 Before looking at the results, a number of preliminary remarks are in order. First, direct objects in clauses with a modal verb have a much lower token frequency than for instance objects in a ‘synthetic’ context of the type used for Figure .. Second, this time the data were drawn from DLCS. From this corpus, I collected all clauses with a modal verb, a transitive infinitive and a nominal, non-discontinuous and non-left-peripheral direct object. However, as one can observe in Figure ., I only report on thirty-three authors/texts: in order to minimize the risk of including inaccurate results from (very) small samples, I excluded all data points for which I did not count more than ten tokens. On the basis of this criterion, six authors were left aside. As shown in Table ., all of these are from the Late Latin period. For the sake of completeness, I also provide exact figures about the number of clauses with a modal verb (and a dependent infinitive) attested in these texts (third column), as well as on the number of cases in which a direct object is attested in this environment (fourth column), and on the incidence of VO (fifth column). This being said, let us have a look at the data for the remaining thirty-three data points. The data plotted in Figure . show the average rate of VO (whereby ‘V’ is of course an infinitive). The most striking difference between this and the three previous graphs is that the straight regression line is almost completely flat, and that its slope is even slightly negative. The smoothed line once again confirms that the factor ‘time’ is not obviously correlated with the OV/VO alternation. Note however that two (namely the two Itineraria) of the five texts that feature the highest rates of VO in all the previous graphs were not taken into account in the last dataset because of the ‘small sample’ issue just discussed. Two other texts

7 I will elaborate on the reason why I selected this particular syntactic context (and no other) in Sections . and . below. Note also that here and in what follows I lump the data for the two modal conditions together, without excluding that word order preferences in possum-clauses might be slightly different than in clauses with debeo.



Multiple object positions and how to diagnose them

Frequency of VO in clauses with modal + infinitive (in %)

100

80

60 27

11

31 2

40

18

1 10 9

6

17 12 16

22

15

25

7

20

21

13 8

4 3

14

26 28

19

23 20

24

29

30

32 33

5

0 –200

0

200 Time

400

600

FIGURE . Relative frequency of the order VO in clauses with a modal verb and an infinitive, ca.  BC– AD. Labels: = Plautus, = Terence, = Cato, = Cicero, = Caesar, = Varro, = Sallust, = Hyginus, = Vitruvius, = Livy, = Celsus, = Seneca, = Columella, = Petronius, = Frontinus, = Quintilian, = Pliny, = Tacitus, = Suetonius, = Gaius, = Tertullian, = Cyprian, = SHA, = Palladius, = Jerome, = Augustine, = Vulgate, = GCC, = Vegetius, = Victor, = Pompeius, = Caesarius, = Gregory.

(the Vulgate and Pompeius’ Commentum) still display fairly high rates of VO, whereas the value obtained for Augustine is much lower. One could at this point object that the apparent difference between Figures . and ., on the one hand, and Figure ., on the other, is actually an artefact of the different composition of the corpus. However, when we reduce the corpus reported on in Figure . by leaving aside the six authors listed in Table ., we obtain the result in Figure ., whose basic structure does not seem to differ massively from what we saw in Figure . (but which does differ from the pattern observed in Figure .). How much the datasets in Figures . and . really differ becomes clear if we inspect the so-called ‘difference scores’ (δ), that is, the differences between the values obtained in the ‘synthetic’ and the ‘modal’ condition. The relevant values for each point in time are plotted in Figure ., where the values for VO in modalized clauses are subtracted from the ones obtained for clauses with a finite synthetic verb. The



Frequency of VO in clauses with a finite synthetic verb (reduced corpus, in %)

A configurational approach to Latin syntax

100

80

27

60 31 26 6

40

1

9 14 16 15 17

2 8 4

20

10

3 7

12 13

28 25

21 20

18 19

32 29 22

30

33

24

11

23

5

0

–200

0

200 Time

400

600

FIGURE . Relative frequency of the order VO in clauses with a single synthetic finite verb (reduced corpus), ca.  BC– AD. Labels: see Figure ..

further away a given data point is from , the bigger the difference between the rate of VO in the two conditions; a value below  means that more VO was observed in the modal condition, and one above  indicates a higher rate of VO in the synthetic condition. A number of interesting things can be observed here. First, although the average difference score ( .) is fairly close to , the spread in this dataset is clearly considerable (sd = .). Second, in the earlier centuries there seems to be a tendency for the rate of VO to be lower in the modal condition than in the synthetic condition, but this effect disappears over time, witness the positive slope of the straight regression line. However, once again the smoothed line suggests the impact of the factor ‘time’ is quite modest. Third, a number of extreme outliers attract our attention. At around  AD, we observe one extremely low data point, namely Celsus: for this author, the average frequency of VO is .% in the modal condition, compared to .% in synthetic clauses (δCelsus = .). The opposite (but less extreme) effect can be observed for Augustine and the Vulgate, that is, two of the five data points which exhibit the highest values of VO in Figures .–.: for these two samples the rate of VO is considerably higher in the synthetic condition (δAugustine = .; δVulgate = .).

Difference score OV/VO in ‘synthetic’ and ‘modal’ contexts



Multiple object positions and how to diagnose them

40

27

14

20

26

8 4 3

0

6 9

5

13

1

28

20 21

15 19

24

25

29

33 31 30

32

16 2

23

17 12

7

–20

22

10 18

–40 11

–200

0

200 Time

400

600

FIGURE . Difference score between Figures . and ., ca.  BC– AD. Labels: see Figure ..

At this point, given that we observe very different average frequencies of the order VO when we compare clauses with one (synthetic) verb and clauses with two (modal + infinitive) verbs, the question arises which of the two datasets provides us with the most reliable information on the OV/VO alternation. .. A hypothesis: different types of OV and VO The hypothesis that I will pursue is that data from clauses with a modal verb (Figure .) provide a more accurate characterization of the OV/VO alternation, and that this is the case because in this particular environment structural ambiguity is less of a complicating factor than in clauses with just one verb. The reason why one could think that this hypothesis has some initial plausibility is the following. As a clause with a modal verb contains more than one verb form, in such a context it is possible to evaluate the position of direct objects with respect to two rather than just one reference point. In addition, it is also possible to study the OV/VO alternation (headedness of VP) and the VPAux/AuxVP alternation (headedness of TP)

A configurational approach to Latin syntax



simultaneously, and to verify whether or not the two alternations interact (a question that will be answered affirmatively in Chapter ). To make this more concrete, consider first the following simplified representation of a clause with a finite and a non-finite verb.8,9 Let us start with a clause in which the non-finite verb precedes the finite one: ()

a.

O

V-Nfin

O

V-Fin

O

In (a), the boxed portion represents the verb phrase: it contains the lexical verb as well as two object positions, a preverbal (OV) and a postverbal one (VO). In addition, in this environment we can distinguish VP-internal postverbal objects (in the box) from ‘extraposed’ postverbal objects (outside of the box, and to the right of the finite verb). In other words, a structure like (a) shows us that there can be more than one type of VO, and as we will see immediately, there are also multiple types of OV (see also Pearson (), and various contributions to Svenonius ()). In contrast, as shown in (b), no such thing is true in clauses with only one verb (finite or otherwise). Assuming that finite verbs occur in (roughly) the same position in all clauses (viz. somewhere in the TP-layer), in this environment it is impossible to tell apart the two VP-internal object positions.10 Instead, all direct objects inside the verb phrase would have to be considered to instantiate the OV-pattern: ()

b.

O

O

V-Fin

O

Note that this reasoning relies on one very important assumption, namely that an equal number of object positions is available in both (a) and (b): I will elaborate on this assumption in Sections . and .. In any event, we can at this point hypothesize that studying the OV/VO alternation on the basis of clauses with only one verb goes hand in hand with an important loss of information (and therefore also descriptive accuracy). A very similar type of reasoning can be applied to clauses where the non-finite verb (phrase) follows the finite one. The relevant templatic structure is given in (a): ()

a. O

V-Fin

O

V-Nfin

O

8 It should go without saying that the various object positions in this and the following linear templates cannot be filled simultaneously, except perhaps in the case of discontinuous direct objects. 9 Strictly speaking, it would be more accurate to describe these two verb forms as a higher and a lower (‘dependent’) one co-occurring in one and the same clause, with the proviso that the higher one is most often finite, but this definitely need not be the case (AcIs with more than one verb being a point in case). 10 Note that even if this assumption were invalid and (finite) synthetic verbs occurred lower in the structure, one could develop exactly the same type of reasoning: instead of the distinction between VP-internal OV and VO being blurred, it would be impossible to tell apart VP-internal VO from the object extraposition pattern.



Multiple object positions and how to diagnose them

Here too VP-internal OV can correctly be told apart from VP-internal VO, but in addition, a fourth object position can be identified: the leftmost position counts as linear OV, but it clearly is not VP-internal, but rather a type of non-local OV (much as extraposed objects can be considered a type of non-local VO). I will refer to this pattern of leftward, VP-external object placement as ‘object shift’ (without prejudging anything about the interpretation of the direct object involved). If we then turn to the corresponding structure for clauses with a synthetic verb, we see once more that it is not possible here to assess variable object placement with the same degree of precision. Specifically, here the difference between VP-internal OV and VO through extraposition is obfuscated: ()

b. O

V-Fin

O

O

When we then combine the two templates given in (a) and (a), we obtain a representation in which the four different object positions that we have identified ((i) object shift, (ii) VP-internal OV, (iii) VP-internal VO, and (iv) extraposition) are brought together. As indicated in (a), I take it that the two object positions in the left-hand box are actually the same as the ones in the right-hand box, and that the only difference between them is related to the fact that the verb phrase can occur in two positions in the clause (cf. the VPAux/AuxVP alternation). ()

a. O1

O2a

V-Nfin

O3a

V-Fin

O2b

V-Nfin

O3b O4

Before we continue, one important remark is in order. If we really take the concept of ‘structural ambiguity’ seriously, we have to admit that even clauses with more than one verb form are sometimes to some extent ambiguous. As can be deduced from (a), it is only possible to tell apart shifted objects (position ) from VPinternal OV (position ) in AuxVP-clauses (viz. by virtue of the presence of the finite verb in between them). In VPAux-clauses, on the other hand, nothing separates the two positions, with ambiguity as a result. Similarly, extraposed objects (position ) can only be distinguished from VP-internal VO (position ) in VPAuxclauses: here too the finite verb can disambiguate the two positions. However, once we control for these additional complications, we can expect to be able to obtain reliable data from a dataset consisting of clauses with an auxiliary and a non-finite verb, as here more object positions can be diagnosed than in clauses with just one verb. For the sake of completeness, the combined template for such clauses is given in (b): ()

b. O1

O2a

O3a

V-Fin

O2b

O3b O4

A configurational approach to Latin syntax



It should be clear that it is not only impossible to distinguish various positions for direct objects (headedness of the VP): in addition, this type of data also does not give us any information about headedness in the T-domain (location of the verb phrase). .. Testing the hypothesis Let us now move on to test the hypothesis that clauses with multiple verb forms are a more reliable source of information on variable object placement than clauses with only one verb. What I will show is that there are good prospects to derive the results in Figure . (object placement in clauses with a single finite synthetic verb) from the data in Figure . (object placement in clauses with a modal and an infinitive), but not the other way round. The logic of the argument goes as follows. Assuming that the lexical verb is the appropriate reference point to evaluate the OV/VO alternation, in a templatic structure like (a) an object in position a would count as postverbal (VO), whereas it would be preverbal (OV) in the structure in (b). Similarly, objects occurring in position b are to be classified as preverbal in (a), but as postverbal in (b). If indeed a structure like (a) is the more reliable one, we predict that if we classify all objects from the dataset in Figure . which occur in VOAux-clauses as preverbal, and all objects in AuxOV-clauses as postverbal, we should obtain a distribution which looks more or less like the one shown in Figure . (and Figures .–.) (with a straight regression line with a mildly positive slope, and a smoothed regression line that remains more or less flat). As we will see, this prediction is borne out quite neatly. Let us first have a look at what happens when we misparse all ‘V-O-modal’ objects as preverbal. The average frequencies of the VO-order we thus obtain are plotted in Figure .. We immediately see that this data distribution quite strongly resembles the one in Figure .. One of the desired results is that we did well to estimate the value for Celsus (data point number ), in whose work we had observed a particularly large discrepancy between the rate of VO in the two contexts that we are comparing (cf. Figure .). The plot in Figure . shows that the estimated rates of VO in the ‘misparsed’ dataset are actually quite consistently accurate. What is shown in Figure . are the difference scores between the values plotted in Figure . and the target dataset (which is the one summarized in Figure .). Not only are both regression lines remarkably flat in the graph in Figure . (which shows that the observed variation is not subject to any diachronic change), the spread of the data points is also much more limited than in Figure .: the distance between the highest and the lowest data point is reduced to . units (down from .), and the standard deviation is also smaller (. compared to .). However, we also see that we fairly consistently underestimate the rate of VO (on average .% too low), witness the fact that almost all of the data points are above , and the fact



Multiple object positions and how to diagnose them

Frequency of VO, with VOAux as OV (in %)

100

80

60 27 31

40 2 1

6

9 25

20 3

0 –200

12 16 17 19 13 8 11 4 15 7 10 14 18 5

0

21 23 20

200 Time

22

26 28 29

24

400

30 32 33

600

FIGURE . Frequency of VO, VOAux counted as OV, ca.  BC– AD. Labels: see Figure ..

that none of the plotted values is lower than –. This is of course because we only recategorized a certain number of VO-sequences as OV-patterns. We can expect average estimates to become higher if we also count all objects in AuxOV-contexts as VO. As shown in Figure ., this is borne out, but we also see that this additional operation adds some unwelcome noise to the data. Again, we see that the straight regression line goes up, and that the trajectory of the smoothed line is slightly flatter (starting above the straight line, and ending under it), as desired. However, it should be added that Figure . is certainly not quite a perfect match of Figure .. The difference scores between the individual authors in these two datasets are plotted in Figure .. As can be seen, most of the data points are well below  (on average at –.), and they are also dispersed over a wider area than the ones in Figure . (sd=.). Although the data distribution in Figure . is still a better match of Figure . than Figure . is, counting every object in an AuxOV-clause as postverbal clearly ‘overshoots’. This might be the case because modal verbs, and especially epistemic modals, occupy a slightly higher position in the articulated TP (along the lines of Cinque



Difference score OV/VO in ‘synthetic’ and ‘misparsed modal’ contexts

A configurational approach to Latin syntax

40 14 27 26

15

20 4

8

6

910

1 3 2

0

5

13

7 11

12

16 17 18

20

22 21

19

28 29 24 23

25

32 31 30

33

–20

–40

–200

0

200 Time

400

600

FIGURE . Difference score between Figures . and ., ca.  BC– AD. Labels: see Figure ..

) than plain lexical verbs (and BE-auxiliaries) (see Section .. below): as a result, it is likely that too many lexical verbs from the ‘synthetic’ dataset were categorized as appearing in the higher ‘Aux-position’, yielding too many linear VO-orders. In addition, anticipating the discussion in Chapter , it is conceivable that modals (or perhaps more generally functional verbs) are more prone to undergo verb fronting of the type to be discussed in Section .. than synthetic lexical verbs. In any event, the general pattern obtained in both Figures . and . bears strong resemblance to what we had observed earlier in various ‘synthetic’ conditions, which in the present context is a welcome result. .. Interim summary We have seen that given a number of assumptions about the potential for certain types of clauses to be structurally ambiguous, it is possible to make sense of an otherwise puzzling contrast, namely the one between object placement in ‘analytic’ (Figure .) and in ‘synthetic’ (Figure .) environments. Given our overall successful attempt to derive the pattern found in the synthetic condition from the one in the



Multiple object positions and how to diagnose them

Frequency of VO, with VOAux as OV, and AuxOV as VO (in %)

100

27

80

31

60 9 1

21

2 12

40

14

6

26 28

17

13 16

8

32

20 30

22

7

20

25

23

11

4

18 19

29 24

33

10

3 5

15

0 –200

0

200 Time

400

600

FIGURE . Frequency of VO, VOAux counted as OV, and AuxOV as VO, ca.  BC– AD. Labels: see Figure ..

analytic condition, we can conclude that the latter environment is so to speak more ‘primitive’, and more accurately reflects the variation between OV-and VO-orders, a state of affairs that given the configurational approach to Latin syntax adopted in this book is entirely expected. Crucially, as the whole reasoning capitalizes on the notion of structural ambiguity, which cannot possibly arise in a fully non-configurational system, we now have yet another argument that this last type of approach to Latin syntax should be abandoned. In the remainder of this chapter, I will translate the linear templates in ()–() in more precise syntactic terms. Importantly, in order for the reasoning developed in this last section to go through, it is absolutely crucial that the environments sketched in the a-templates in ()–() (i.e. the ‘two verb’ environments) are really phrasestructurally equivalent to the ‘single verb’ b-templates, in the sense that they both constitute monoclausal domains of equal size, containing an equal number of object positions. Put differently, what I have to do at this stage is justify the premise that Latin has monoclausal structures with a functional verb (‘an auxiliary’) and a dependent non-finite verb.



Difference score OV/VO in ‘synthetic’ and ‘misparsed modal’ contexts

The syntax of object placement

40

15

20 6 3

0 1

26 10

4 5

8

16 14

2 9

–20

7

11

27

19 18 22

13

17

33

29 28

24

30

23

32

20 25

12

31

21

–40

–200

0

200 Time

400

FIGURE . Difference score between Figures . and ., ca.  Figure ..

BC– AD.

600

Labels: see

. The syntax of object placement: evidence for more than two object positions In this section I will discuss the most obvious ‘analytic monoclausal’ environment in Latin where one could study the OV/VO alternation, namely clauses with a transitive deponent BE-periphrasis. At the end I will draw the following three conclusions. First, clauses with a BE-periphrasis do qualify as bona fide monoclausal domains. Second, in this environment the four object positions introduced in the previous section can indeed be identified: on the basis of this observation I will conclude that language acquiring children were confronted with sufficient evidence to postulate the existence of (at least) four distinct object positions in one single clause. Third, despite this promising start, for reasons that might very well be independent of clause-level syntax, deponent BE-periphrases unfortunately do not constitute the ideal environment to study object placement.



Multiple object positions and how to diagnose them

.. Looking for ‘analytic monoclausality’ in Latin ... The fine structure of the extended verb phrase In this section I will defend a particular approach to Latin deponent verbs first proposed in Embick (), according to which the syntax of clauses with an analytic deponent verb does not differ deeply from the structure of clauses with a synthetic verb. Let us start by having a look at the syntax of a simple example like (): () Imperi-um obtin-u-it. supreme.authority-ACC obtain-PRF-SG ‘He obtained authority.’ (Liv. ..) The syntactic structure that I will assume for this example can be represented as in ().11 Before going through the properties of this structure, let me point out that the phrase markers that I will use in this chapter are simplified in two ways. First, I will for the time being continue to assume that variable directionality of complementation corresponds to base-generated left (head-complement) or right (complement-head) headedness. In the next chapter, I will modify this approach, but as will become clear in due course, in order to do so a number of technical notions have to be introduced which at this point are not crucial and would take us quite far afield. Second, for reasons of space, I will not represent bar-levels of projections that do not have an overtly filled specifier, but this of course does not change the basic c-command relations.12,13 In addition, in this and the following trees, the terminal nodes that I am interested in (‘XPIA’ (the internal argument/direct object), the complex √°/v° (the lexical verb) and T° (tense morphology, realized as a suffix or as a free standing BE-auxiliary)) are highlighted in boldface:14 ()

TP T°

VoiceP

νP √P XPIA imperium 11

Voice°

Voice′

XPEA pro

ν°

tVoice° tν°

√°

T°

Voice°

ν° obtinuit

t√°

For a very similar syntactic analysis of Latin synthetic verbs (in the framework of Distributed Morphology), see Embick (: ). 12 For a definition of the concept of c-command see the glossary at the end of this book. 13 For more complex tree diagrams, I will adhere to this convention in the remainder of this book. 14 In (many of) the following structures, I will represent external arguments in their VP-internal base position (i.e. SpecVoiceP, where they receive their θ-role). See Chapter  for discussion of this particular assumption.

The syntax of object placement



Let us have a look at the details of this structure. First of all, along the lines of, among others, Pylkkänen (), Anagnostopoulou (), Harley (c) and Legate (), I assume a three-way decomposition of the verb phrase, rather than a single node ‘VP’ (a label that I will occasionally keep using as a shorthand for a more articulated structure). The lowest projection in the extended verb phrase is an a-categorial root (√), which only encodes some very basic encyclopedic/conceptual content. In terms of X-bar structure, this root projects a √P and can take a phrasal constituent as its complement (which is then an ‘internal argument’ (IA)). The next higher layer is headed by v (‘little v’), which we can describe as a mere ‘verbalizer’, a functional head that characterizes the entire extended projection as verbal (rather than nominal or adjectival). On top of this comes VoiceP (Kratzer ), which is the functional head that determines the active/passive character (the ‘diathesis’, in traditional terms) of the clause. This is also the locus where an agentive subject (external argument (EA)) can be introduced. In (), the phonologically null EA of () is represented as pro. The thematic layer is dominated by a series of functional projections encoding the tense, aspect, and mood properties of the clause. In finite clauses, this is also the layer in which subject–verb agreement is configured. In the tree in (), this complex layer is simply represented as a single projection ‘TP’, but this is obviously a simplification. Importantly, () represents the structure of a clause with a single synthetic verb, in which a series of heads is realized as one single word. As indicated, I take it that the syntactic correlate of this ‘lumping’ process is repeated head movement (on which, see Section ...), whereby at each step a moving head left adjoins to the next higher one, yielding a single, but internally complex, verbal head. In () this complex terminal node is spelled out as obtinuit. We can take this to be an instance of so-called V-to-T movement, which one typically finds in languages with rich subject–verb agreement (Emonds ; Pollock ; for recent discussion, see also Koeneman and Zeijlstra ). As argued in the previous section, in clauses where the verbal root and all TAM and agreement morphology is spelled out at one single point in the structure, the position of non-left-peripheral direct objects can only be evaluated with respect to this one reference point, with a potential loss of descriptive accuracy as a consequence. It follows that we have to find an environment which (i) does not involve more functional structure (and thus possibly more object positions) than structures like (), but (ii) where the various verbal heads that form one complex in () are scattered over more than one position in the tree. Two such environments come to mind, both involving a non-finite verb, viz. (i) combinations of a BE-auxiliary and a past participle, and (ii) various types of infinitival constructions. I start by analysing the former, postponing discussion of the latter until Section ..



Multiple object positions and how to diagnose them

... Clause structure and the synthetic/analytic alternation Deponent periphrases constitute the most obvious environment where a direct object can appear in a clause in which T and V are spelled out separately.15 We can informally define deponent verbs as predicates that are morphologically passive but not endowed with the semantics and argument structure of passives.16 In Latin, passives and deponents are analytic in the perfective tenses. An example of a fully transitive analytic deponent predicate is given in (), which is interpretively minimally different from (): () Imperi-um adept-us est. supreme.authority-ACC obtained-NOM.M.SG be.PRS.SG ‘He obtained the empire.’ (Tac. Ann. ..) I agree with Embick () and Grestenberger () that at a synchronic level, IndoEuropean (and thus also Latin) deponency is an idiosyncratic property of individual lexical items, which do not together form a homogeneous class that stands in opposition to genuine voice types (such as ‘active’, ‘non-active’, ‘middle’, and the like).17 15 The only other environment where we find a similarly semantically vacuous synthetic–analytic alternation are future infinitives in the complement of a raising verb like uideor ‘seem’ (ia), or in an AcI (ib):

(i)

a. quod uide-ba-tur is [te because seem-IPFV-SG that.NOM.M.SG you.ACC.SG uis-ur-us esse] see-PTCP.FUT-NOM.M.SG be.PRS.INF ‘because it seemed that he would be seeing you’ (Cic. Att. ..) b. cum omn-es [ . . . ] in eo ips-o uos in him.ABL.M.SG self-ABL.M.SG you.ACC.PL while all-NOM [spe-m habit-ur-os esse] dix-istis hope-ACC have-PTCP.FUT-ACC.M.PL be.PRS.INF say-PRF.PL ‘while all of you have declared that you would place your hope in this very man’ (Cic. Man. )

However, for a number of reasons, data of this type are not very useful for the study of object placement. First of all, it is not entirely obvious which category the (bracketed) infinitival clauses in (ia) belongs to: while there are good reasons to assume that AcIs (ib) are CPs (Danckaert submitted a), the categorial status—CP or TP?—of raising infinitives (‘NcIs’) is less clear. In addition, future infinitives are characterized by massive auxiliary omission: in all texts in the period Antiquitas (ca.  BC– AD) in the Brepolis database, only  full future infinitives are attested,  of which feature a transitive predicate with an overt direct object. It is clear that such a small sample does not constitute a large enough basis for a proper corpus study. Note finally that all combinations of the ‑urus participle and a finite form of sum typically do not express pure futurity (see e.g. Vincent and Bentley : ), but rather some notion of ‘intentionality’ or ‘immediacy’, a shade of meaning that is usually absent in clauses with a synthetic future tense, as well as in the periphrastic structures illustrated in (i) (but strictly speaking these last structures would have to be considered ambiguous). Therefore, finite future BE-periphrases cannot be considered to take part in a semantically vacuous synthetic–analytic alternation like the one illustrated in () and (). 16 The standard work on Latin deponents is Flobert (). For various (and often quite different) analysis of deponency in Latin, see de Carvalho (), Embick (), Gianollo (, ), Kiparsky (), Xu et al. (), Vincent (), Migliori (, , ), and Pinzin (). General discussion of the phenomenon of deponency can be found in Baerman et al. () and Müller (). 17 This is of course not to say that Latin deponents do not typically share a number of semantic features (see e.g. Gianollo , ): for instance, it is typically the subject of a transitive deponent which is affected by the event expressed by the verb, rather than the direct object. However, this tendency is clearly

The syntax of object placement



Concretely, I will assume with Embick () that a synthetic–analytic alternation as that between () and () does not reflect any deep syntactic/structural difference between the two clauses involved. Instead, the difference between () and () can be considered a matter of lexicalization only, or, in terms of the terminology of Hale and Keyser (), a matter of L-syntax rather than S-syntax (and thus ultimately a lexical accident, at least at a synchronic level). Crucially, there is no reason to assume that () involves more (or less, for that matter) functional structure than (), despite the fact that the former consists of more (orthographic) words.18 The structure that I would like to propose for a clause with an analytic deponent verb is given in () (whereby I am assuming that the direct object is VP-internal, but as mentioned this is not certain): ()

TP T° est

VoiceP Voice′

XPEA pro

νP

Voice°

ν°

√P XPIA imperium

t√°

√° ν° adeptus

As can be observed, I take it that the lower verbal head only spells out √ and v, but not Voice.19 I assume that the sole task of this last projection—if present—is to

to be explained in diachronic terms (as Latin deponents are historically related to the Proto-Indo-European middle voice), and as such, it does not directly bear on the synchronic analysis of the phenomenon of deponency. 18 Let me just add the disclaimer that there is of course one real difference between () and (), namely the fact that in the latter the subject agrees with both the BE-auxiliary (in person and number) and with the participle (in number, gender and case, just like adjectives). This additional instance of subject-verb agreement might well have a (phrase-)structural correlate (say an additional AgrP), but there is no reason to assume that there is a correlation between the ‘number of operations of φ-agreement’ and ‘the number of argument (object) positions’ in a given syntactic domain. 19 Needless to say, the proposed structure still involves quite some simplification. For instance, it abstracts away from the aspectual information encoded by the participial morphology (viz. the ‑to‑ morpheme), say the Aktionsart (‘inner aspect’) of the predicate involved. For a number of recent proposals about how information about Aktionsarten is syntactically encoded in the articulated verb phrase, see Ramchand (), MacDonald (), and Travis () (especially on Latin, see also Acedo-Matellán ). In addition, the tree in () also does not encode any information about number, gender, and case agreement displayed on the participle (see also the previous footnote).



Multiple object positions and how to diagnose them

introduce the external argument (and by this token characterize a given clause as ‘active’): whenever there is an external argument, the head position of Voice is not lexicalized, neither by a phonologically overt nor by a covert lexical item.20 Instead, all morphology that identifies a given verb as active or passive/deponent is realized in v° (which itself might very well have to be decomposed into more than one syntactic head). At the level of VoiceP, this morphological information can in some case be overruled by the syntax, yielding a deponent predicate with its characteristic mismatch between morphology and syntax/semantics.21 In any event, I assume that past participles in BE-periphrases are genuinely verbal elements, contra Remberger () and Biberauer et al. (), who assume that they are categorially nominal (or to be more precise, nominalizations of a verbal core). This last approach is problematic for a number of reasons. First of all, to the extent that there can be confusion as to the categorial status of Latin (past) participles, the choice seems to be between ‘verbal’ and ‘adjectival’ (assuming that adjectives form a category of their own, cf. Baker a and references cited there). Second, although there are undoubtedly cases where a ‑to‑ participle is a clear-cut adjective (and these include adjectives that are associated with a deponent verb, such as mortuus, the past participle of morior ‘die’, which can mean ‘died’ or ‘dead’), the bulk of deponent past participles is never used as an adnominal adjective. Third, it is important to note that the conditions under which subjects (external arguments or otherwise) are licensed in clauses with a BE-periphrasis are exactly the same as in synthetic environments such as (): in the canonical case, subjects receive structural Case and appear as nominatives (and display subject–verb agreement) or accusatives (in AcIs), without the nature of the predicate (analytic or synthetic; active or deponent) playing any role. If on the other hand there were categorial differences between the lexical verb in clauses like () and (), this state of affairs is unexpected, given what we know about the licensing of subjects in the verbal and the nominal domain (Chomsky ; Stowell ). Fourth and finally, it would remain to be seen whether the structure proposed in Remberger () (a verbal core dominated by a nominal layer, which in turn is embedded under a 20

Note that there is a long debate in the (comparative) philological literature about whether IndoEuropean ‑to‑ participles encode voice-related information, or whether they are inherently underspecified for voice (‘diathesis’). A negative answer to this question was famously given in Brugmann () (and in his wake in Joffre ), which is in line with the structure given in (). For additional discussion, see among others Bernert () and Regula (), and more recently Drinka () and Napoli (). Note that work in the philological tradition typically assumes that all superficially similar verbal adjectives built with the ‑to‑ suffix somehow form a homogeneous class (and thus call for a unified analysis). In the (recent) syntactic literature however, there is a growing consensus that different readings of participles (stative, resultative, agentive) correspond to a difference in internal structure (feature make-up) of the participles involved (see Kratzer , ; Anagnostopoulou ; Embick ; Starke ; Lundquist ; Klingvall ). 21 In other words, whether a given verb with passive morphologically at the level of v is a genuine passive or a deponent is determined at the level of Voice. Note that my assumption that whenever an external argument is syntactically realized, the head position of VoiceP is not lexicalized is in compliance with Koopman and Szabolcsi’s (: ) Generalized ‘Doubly Filled Comp Filter’.

The syntax of object placement



clausal (and thus verbal, cf. Grimshaw [] ) structure) can be considered a plausible (or indeed possible) configuration. For instance, it is not immediately clear how a nominal participle could end up being integrated in (or even projecting) a clausal structure with a full array of TP and CP-related functional projections. I will conclude that—putting aside adjectival passives, which are of course orthogonal to the point at issue—there is no reason to doubt that Latin BE-periphrases are fully integrated into the verbal inflectional paradigm, and that they are categorially fully verbal. This being said, let us now have a closer look at object placement in clauses with an analytic deponent verb. ...  (= ( × ) + ) object positions in clauses with a transitive BE-periphrasis In this section I will translate the linear templates from Section .. into proper syntactic structures. Recall that we had identified four different object positions, two of which can appear in two different places, depending on the position of the verb phrase. The template in (a) is repeated here for convenience: ()

O1

O2a

V-Nfin

O3a

O2b

V-Fin

V-Nfin

O3b O4

Let me start with VP-internal objects. First, the structure for a preverbal object in a pre-Aux VP (i.e. in an OVAux-clause, with the object in position a in the template in ()) is as in () in the previous section. Next, the tree in () shows the structure for the minimally different case in which a head-final TP dominates a head-initial VP (object position a), which results in the order VOAux (cf. (a)): ()

a. Consul-es praetor-es=que sortit-i prouinci-as consuls-nom praetors-nom=and obtained-nom.m.pl provinces-acc sunt. be.prs.3pl ‘The consuls and praetors have obtained their provinces.’ (Liv. 40.1.1) TP

b.

T° sunt

VoiceP XPEA consules praetoresque

Voice′ νP

Voice° ν° √° ν° sortiti

√P t√°

XPia prouincias



Multiple object positions and how to diagnose them

The VP-internal b-positions can be dealt with quickly: they simply involve a headinitial T, and the same type of variable headedness of vP as in () and (). Below I give the structure for an AuxOV-clause like (a) (position b): ()

a. si es-se-nt magistrat-us adept-i if be-ipfv.sbjv-3pl magistrate’s.offices-acc obtained-nom.m.pl ‘if they had taken office’ (Cic. Pis. 4) b.

TP T° essent

VoiceP Voice′

XPea pro

νP

Voice°

ν°

√P t√°

XPia √° ν° magistratus adepti

Finally, the structure of the fourth type of VP-internal object (viz. position b, linear order AuxVO) is as in (b). ()

a. cum si-nt

nanct-i su-es if be.prs.sbjv-3pl obtained-nom.m.pl swine-acc.pl ‘when they have caught swine’ (Var. R. 2.4.5)

b.

TP T° sint

VoiceP Voice′

XPEA pro

νP

Voice° ν° ν° √° nancti

√P t√°

XPIA sues

The syntax of object placement



Turning then to VP-external objects, the structure one could assume for ‘shifted’ objects (position ) is one in which the internal argument has been displaced from its base position to a position higher than the finite verb (represented below as involving adjunction to TP). The reason for this displacement might very well be related to, among other things, discourse factors (information structure), but as has been pointed out repeatedly, the exact synchronic motivations of word order variation are not the focus of this study. Recall that object shift can only be diagnosed unambiguously in clauses in which the VP appears to the right of the T-node. An example is given in (): ()

a. non fere quemquam est inuidi-a ciu-ium consecut-a non prt anybody.acc be.prs.3sg envy-nom citizens-gen affected-nom.f.sg ‘the envy of the people has affected nobody’ (Cic. Sest. 51) b.

TP XPIA quemquam

TP T° est

VoiceP Voice′

XPea inuidia ciuium

νP

Voice° √P t√°

ν° XPia √° ν° consecuta

Finally, an example with an ‘extraposed’ object (position ) is given in (a): the presence of the auxiliary est in between the past participle allocutus and the direct object discipulos indicates that we are dealing with the non-local type of VO identified earlier. () a. in qu-ibus domin-us allocut-us est discipul-os in which-ABL.N.PL lord-NOM spoken.to-NOM.M.SG be.PRS.SG disciples-ACC ‘in which the Lord spoke to his disciples’ (Itin. Eg. .) The syntax of extraposition (or the various phenomena that have been subsumed under this general denominator) is a matter of much debate. Here I simply represent it as right adjunction to TP derived by means of rightward movement:



Multiple object positions and how to diagnose them b.

TP XPia discipulos

TP T° est

VoiceP XPea dominus

Voice′ νP

Voice°

ν°

√P t√°

XPia

√° ν° allocutus

The most important conclusion we can draw from this discussion is that children acquiring (Classical) Latin were confronted with unambiguous evidence that in one monoclausal domain (featuring a BE-auxiliary and a transitive deponent past participle), four distinct non-left-peripheral object positions are available (even if we factor in that these four positions were ‘cued’ at very different frequencies, as will be discussed in the following section). In addition, two of these positions (viz. the two VP-internal ones) can appear in two positions in the tree, depending on the headedness of the T-projection. We can conclude that the OV/VO alternation is not simply a matter of objects either appearing preverbally or postverbally. Instead, the discussion in this and the previous section clearly shows that a more fine-grained classification is required to arrive at an accurate description of the empirical data. Crucially, we would also have to conclude that clauses with only one synthetic verb are always structurally ambiguous, as in this context neither the local and the non-local type of OV/VO, nor the difference between a head-initial and a head-final TP can be diagnosed. In principle, one could conclude that all that one needs to do to study object placement is to look at clauses with a transitive analytic deponent verb. However, matters are unfortunately not that simple. .. The special behaviour of Latin BE-periphrases There are a number of reasons why clauses with a transitive BE-periphrasis do not after all qualify as an optimal environment to study object placement. First of all, in the entire DLCS corpus, there are only , tokens of a transitive deponent with a nominal direct object (as compared to , tokens with a modal verb, a transitive

The syntax of object placement



infinitive, and a nominal direct object). Although this total of , clauses is not hopelessly small, it is clear that if we distribute this number over no less than  cells (i.e. thirty-nine (points in time) multiplied by six (possible linear word order patterns)), we end up with very small numbers in most cells. Furthermore, if we leave out all authors/texts which do not contain at least twenty combinations of ‘BE–deponent V–nominal O’, we are left with nineteen data points for  years, which is not exactly abundant. Second, the distribution of (nominal) direct objects in clauses with sum is strikingly restricted: in particular, direct objects do not happily sit in positions a and b, or in other words they do not readily intervene between a past participle and a BEauxiliary, regardless of the relative order of these two items. Importantly, this tendency cannot be observed in clauses with a modal verb. This is clearly shown in Figure ., where word order preferences in clauses with a modal verb and with a BE-auxiliary are compared. This graph only shows information for the period between  BC and  AD, with data for AuxVP-clauses on the left and for VPAux-clauses on the right. The values for all the bars of the same colour add up to %. We clearly see that word order in clauses with a BE-auxiliary is fairly rigid, as three of the six possible word order permutations are hardly productive. In particular, the two least frequently attested orders in this same environment are the ones where the past participle and the auxiliary are not linearly adjacent, viz. ‘AuxOV’ in AuxVPclauses, and ‘VOAux’ in VPAux-clauses (i.e. the second pair of bars in both halves of the plot in Figure .). In addition, the ‘harmonically head-initial’ pattern AuxVO (first pair of bars on the left) seems to be dispreferred as well, but in this case the contrast with the modal verbs is less strong. 60

Frequency (in %)

50 40 30 20 10 0

AuxVO

AuxOV

OAuxV

VAuxO Modal

VOAux

OVAux

be

FIGURE . Frequency of six word order patterns in transitive clauses with a modal and a BE-auxiliary compared, ca.  BC– AD.



Multiple object positions and how to diagnose them 60

Frequency (in %)

50 40 30 20 10 0

AuxVO

AuxOV

OAuxV

VAuxO Modal

VOAux

OVAux

be

FIGURE . Frequency of six word order patterns in transitive clauses with a modal and a BEauxiliary compared, ca. – AD.

Consider next Figure ., which summarizes the corresponding data for Late Latin. Here the BE-periphrases show even more extreme word order preferences: the vast majority (well over %) of the tokens exhibit either the order ‘VAuxO’ or the order ‘OVAux’. Again, objects in clauses with a modal verb are more evenly spread over the six different bars, albeit that the orders ‘VOAux’ (which will be dealt with in detail in Chapter ) and ‘VAuxO’ are clearly less frequent than the others. When we then look at more general word order preferences of BE-periphrases (as compared to combinations of modal verbs and infinitives), it turns out that there is indeed a systematic contrast between the two structures, but only in clauses with a head-final TP. The basic picture is summarized in Figure .: plotted on the Y-axis is the outcome probability (on a scale from  to ) for a given combination of a non-finite verb and an auxiliary to be string adjacent (with the proviso that in VPAux-clauses, a marker of negation between V and Aux was not considered an intervener, for reasons to be explained in Chapter ). The relevant data from DLCS were split up in four conditions (resulting from a cross-tabulation of the factors ‘headedness of TP’ and ‘type of auxiliary (BE vs. modal)’). For the sake of clarity, I have plotted the estimates from a logistic model rather than the raw data (technically speaking, the lines represent log odds converted to a probability scale). Solid lines represent clauses with BE, dashed ones clauses with a modal; the thicker lines represent the VPAux condition, the thinner ones AuxVP. What we see is that head-initial BE-periphrases behave more or less the same as all combinations of a modal and an infinitive: in all three of these conditions the likelihood of non-contiguity sets out at about –% in the earliest texts in the corpus, and it drops to roughly –% at around  AD.22 In contrast, 22

Compare also the discussion in Section ...

The syntax of object placement



Frequency of non-contiguous AuxV/VAux sequences (in %)

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0 –200

0 VP-be

200 Time be-VP

400 VP-modal

600

modal-VP

FIGURE . Frequency of non-contiguous combinations of an auxiliary and a non-finite verb, VPAux and AuxVP-clauses compared.

discontinuous head-final BE-periphrases are always less frequent, and they are almost completely absent in Late Latin.23 As we will see in detail in Chapter , there are good reasons to assume that word order preferences in (most) BE-periphrases follow a diachronic path which is fundamentally different from other comparable structures involving non-finite complementation (cf. the general—and unexpected—scarcity of Late Latin ‘BE-PaPa’ orders). .. Taking stock To sum up, we have seen that in clauses with a transitive analytic deponent verb there are issues with (i) token frequency, (ii) the restricted distribution of direct object noun phrases, and (iii) more general aspects of the diachrony of BE-periphrases. 23 This contrast between head-initial and head-final BE-periphrases has only occasionally been mentioned in the literature (albeit not from a diachronic perspective). On word order in clauses with a passive BE-periphrasis in Caesar, see Hoff ().



Multiple object positions and how to diagnose them

Therefore, it seems necessary to look at other combinations of an auxiliary (functional verb) and a non-finite lexical verb in order to arrive at an accurate description of object placement in Latin. However, all other such constructions in Latin do not obviously qualify as monoclausal domains.24 The question as to the exact ‘size’ of these domains is definitely crucial, as we want to exclude the possibility that in a given structure X we see more object positions than in a structure Y because there simply are more object positions in X than in Y, and not because X has a smaller potential for structural ambiguity than Y.

. The phrase structure of Latin modals What I will do in this section is investigate whether there exist in Latin functional verbs other than auxiliary sum ‘be’ which form (i) a single tense domain (Section ..) and (ii) a single thematic domain (Section ..) together with their non-finite complement. I will take it that these two diagnostics can help us to identify monoclausal syntactic domains which have an equal amount of functional structure as unambiguously monoclausal environments such as (fully propositional) clauses with a single synthetic verb. As I will argue, a convincing case can be made that the modal verbs possum ‘be able’ and debeo ‘have to’ form one temporal and one thematic domain with their infinitival complement: as a result, I take it that the language acquiring child was not confronted with any evidence to postulate that possum- and debeo-clauses were endowed with more functional structure (and in particular more object positions) than clauses with just one verb. In addition, possum and debeo are very frequently attested in almost all texts in our corpus, which in the context of a quantitative corpus study is of course very welcome. .. A cartographic hypothesis ... The issue In the previous section, it was argued that two Latin clauses like () (imperium obtinuit) and () (imperium adeptus est) are phrase-structurally equivalent: both structures consist of one single extended projection of the same size, but the sequence of functional heads on top of the lexical root happens to be spelled out (lexicalized) differently. An important argument supporting this analysis is the fact that both clauses convey more or less the same meaning (when considered out of context, that is). No such thing is apparently the case in (): the interpretation of a clause with a single synthetic verb (a) is clearly quite different from the modalized clauses in (b) and (c):

For instance, in Biberauer et al. (:  fn. ) (who refer to Danckaert b), it is claimed that Latin modals ‘fairly uncontroversially instantiate . . . the head of a distinct clause’. In Section .., I will argue that this is not correct. 24

The phrase structure of Latin modals



() a. qu-i leg-em fer-t who-NOM.M.SG law-ACC bear-PRS.SG ‘who proposes a law’ (Quint. Decl. .) b. qu-i arm-a fer-re pos-se-nt who-NOM.M.SG weapons-ACC bear-PRS.INF be.able-IPFV.SBJV-PL ‘who can carry weapons’ (Liv. ..) c. qu-i refer-re grati-am debe-t who-NOM.M.SG return-PRS.INF gratitude-ACC have.to-PRS.SG ‘who must return gratitude’ (Sen. Ben. ..) It should be clear that the difference between an expression like legem ferre ‘propose a law’ and legem ferre posse ‘be able to propose a law’ is of a different order than the synthetic/analytic alternation discussed earlier. Roughly speaking, there are two families of phrase structure analyses of modal constructions like (b) and (c).25 According to the first, a modal verb is a functional category that is first merged in the extended projection of an infinitival lexical verb, yielding a structure which can be considered monoclausal. This possibility is represented in (a) (where I am abstracting away from linear word order). Alternatively, it is also conceivable that modals are lexical verbs which head their own extended projection. Under this scenario, the entire structure consists of two extended projections, one headed by the modal and one by the infinitive (cf. (b)).26 () a.

FP

modal Tpast > Tfuture > Moodirrealis > Modalethicnecessity > Modalethicpossibility > Asphabitual > Asprepetitive(I) > Aspfrequentative(I) > Modvolitional > Aspcelerative > Tanterior > Aspterminative > Aspcontinuative > Aspretrospective > Aspproximative > Aspdurative > Aspgeneric/progressive > Aspprospective > Modobligation > Modpermission/ability > AspSgcompletive(I) > AspPlcompletive > Voice > Aspcelerative(II) > Asprepetitive(II) > Aspfrequentative(II) > AspSgcompletive(II)

Highlighted in boldface are five functional heads which encode the types of modality that are relevant for present purposes.29 The lowest two (Modobligation and Modpermission/ability) express what is known as ‘root modality’: as the labels suggest, in

29 The idea that different readings of modal expressions correspond to different hierarchical positions in (some conception of) the structure of a clause is quite common (see also Narrog ).



Multiple object positions and how to diagnose them

its ‘root’ usage possum typically conveys that a given subject has the ability or the permission to make sure that some state of affairs comes about.30 Root debeo on the other hand expresses that a subject has some obligation towards an event expressed by an infinitival VP. In addition, Cinque also distinguishes three higher positions for modals, all corresponding to two distinct types of non-root modality. The lowest two of these (Modalethic, which is instantiated by a higher ‘necessity’ and a lower ‘possibility’ head) express a type of modality which remains constant across possible worlds (so-called ‘alethic’ or ‘metaphysical’ modality, cf. Cinque : –). Finally, the highest one (Modepistemic) expresses to what extent a speaker is certain about the statement (s)he makes, on the basis of his or her deductions and opinions: this final type is generally known as ‘epistemic’ modality. The necessity to distinguish various readings of modal expressions is well established in the theoretical literature (for a general overview, see e.g. Portner  and Hacquard  and references cited there). With some simplification, here I will assume a two-way distinction between root and non-root (or epistemic) readings of Latin modals, as in for instance Bolkestein () (where the non-root interpretation is called ‘inferential’). In other words, I will abstract away from alethic modality. Latin examples of both root and epistemic usages of modals will be offered at various points in the upcoming discussion. Before formulating and evaluating a number of hypotheses that follow from a cartographic approach to modality, let me just elaborate on one important suggestion made in Cinque (), namely that in each (non-reduced) clause, the full set of functional heads is always projected. More specifically, Cinque (: –) assumes that even in simple clauses like () and (a), the functional heads denoting various types of tense, aspect, and modality are syntactically projected, despite these not being realized by any phonologically overt material, and despite the apparent absence of any interpretive effect associated with these covert projections. Specifically, Cinque hypothesizes that each head in the functional sequence has an unmarked (default) value which is typically phonologically null, and one or more marked values which are always phonologically realized. In his own words (Cinque : ): A fairly widespread assumption is that compound tense sentences are substantially richer in functional structure than simple tense sentences, to make room for the extra grammatical elements (auxiliaries, particles, etc.) present in one but not the other. If functional heads necessarily come with a default and a marked value, this is an illusion. A simple sentence such as [()]a) would have exactly the same functional structure as the apparently much richer [()]b):

30 For a more fine-grained taxonomy of various types of root possibility, see Depraetere and Reed ().

The phrase structure of Latin modals



() a. Prices rise. b. Prices must not have been being raised. A full overview of the marked and unmarked values assumed for the different heads in the functional hierarchy is provided in Cinque (: ). For instance, a clause like (a), which does not feature any overt exponence of any modal category, would have ‘Modepistemic’ set at the value [ + commitment], and the two types of root modality set at the value ‘underspecified with respect to obligation/ability/permission’, for which Cinque uses the notation ‘– [ – obligation]’ and ‘– [ – ability/permission]’.31 With respect to the study of object placement in Latin, this last point is of course very important. If one can make a convincing case for the claim that Latin modals involve a monoclausal structure like (a), and if Cinque’s hypothesis concerning the default realization of functional heads is indeed correct, Latin clauses with a modal verb and a transitive infinitive would indeed constitute the type of environment in which (i) the six (and no more) object positions identified in Section . can reliably be diagnosed, (ii) without there being any confounding factor such as the (morphosyntactic?) contiguity effects observed in the case of BE-periphrases. In the remainder of this section, I will propose that a Cinque-style cartographic analysis of Latin modals is on the right track. The argument is structured as follows. I will first argue that combinations of possum or debeo with an infinitive constitute a single tense domain, which I will interpret as lending support to a monoclausal analysis (Section ..). Next, I will discuss some evidence suggesting that the Latin modals are raising rather than control predicates, and that they form a single thematic domain with an embedded infinitive (Section ..). This last conclusion is compatible with the assumption that possum and debeo are functional rather than lexical verbs. I will then defuse a potential counterargument to this analysis concerning the interaction between negation and modal verbs (Section ..). Much of the upcoming discussion is based on the excellent analysis of Latin (necessity) modals offered in Bolkestein (), whose conclusions I largely adopt (and re-interpret in a Cinquean fashion). .. Tense in Latin modal constructions I will start by investigating how Latin modal expressions behave with respect to tense. Consider first the following portion of the Cinque-hierarchy, which shows the relative position of three modal heads and three tense-related heads:

As pointed out by Cinque (: , note ), stating that a given clause is underspecified with respect to a given (modal) category is less specific than saying that the same clause is characterized by absence of e.g. obligation/ability/permission. 31



Multiple object positions and how to diagnose them

()

Modepistemic Tensepast Tensefuture ... TenseAnterior ... RootModobligation RootModpermission/ ability

The nature of the three tense heads postulated requires some clarification. Assuming a slightly updated version of Reichenbach’s () classical account of tense which was proposed in Vikner (), Cinque (: –) proposes that the eight types of tense that are attested in the languages of the world can be analysed in terms of the relative ordering of the Speech Time (S), two Reference Times (R and R), and the Event Time. R is ordered with respect to S in the highest Tense head (‘Tensepast’), R and R are ordered with respect to each other in ‘Tensefuture’, and E and R are ordered in the lowest Tense projection (‘Tenseanterior’).32 ‘The’ tense of an entire clause is computed compositionally (‘read off from the syntax’) by adding up the values encoded in the three tense heads. Assuming that semantic interpretation proceeds in a bottom-up fashion (deriving complex meanings from smaller parts), the overall tense properties of a given clause can then be said to be fully specified at the level of Tensepast, that is, right below the hypothesized position of epistemic modals (on the compositional computation of tenses, see Cinque : ). Given the basic hierarchy in (), and given the assumption that the overall tense properties of a clause are computed as high as Tensepast, Cinque () makes the following interesting prediction (see also Stowell ): first, root modals should obligatorily be interpreted and syntactically licensed below tense, as the two root modality projections are c-commanded by Tpast; second, given the high position of Modepistemic, the opposite should hold in the case of epistemic modals, again following simple syntactic c-command relations. Applying these predictions to Latin root and epistemic modals, we can formulate two precise hypotheses. If indeed possum and debeo are hosted in functional projections in the extended projection of a lexical 32 For a comparable phrase structure based analysis of tense, see (among quite a few others) Stowell (, ), Giorgi and Pianesi (), and Demirdache and Uribe-Etxebarria (, ).

The phrase structure of Latin modals



TABLE . Predictions about tense in Latin modal constructions Tense properties of the infinitive

Tense properties of the modal

Root interpretation

tenseless (morphologically realized as ‘present’)

tensed

Epistemic interpretation

tensed

tenseless (by default evaluated at the Speech Time)

verb with which they form a monoclausal domain, we predict first of all that in constructions with a root modal, the infinitival complement should be tenseless (and morphologically realized as a ‘default’ present tense), as there is no way that the domain spelled out by the infinitive could include (the head position of) Tensepast but not Modobligation casu quo Modpermission/ability (i.e. the position occupied by the modal). Conversely, we also predict that root modals themselves should be able to freely refer to past, present, and future events, as nothing prevents there being one complex head spelling out both the relevant Mod head and Tensepast. Second, when interpreted epistemically possum and debeo are predicted to be tenseless (morphologically realized again as a present tense, which is by default evaluated at the Speech Time): assuming that the overall tense properties of a clause are set once Tensepast is added to the structure, the way in which Modepistemic is lexicalized at a later point of the derivation would not change anything about this. In contrast, it should be possible for the infinitival complement of an epistemic modal to be tensed (spelling out a portion of the extended projection of the lexical verb which includes Tensepast but not Modepistemic). All these predictions are summarized in Table .. In this section, I will show that this picture is indeed empirically accurate, and that there is only a limited set of—all apparent—counterexamples. The conclusion that I will draw is that the facts reviewed in this section lend support to a cartographic, monoclausal analysis of Latin possum and debeo-clauses. ... Root modals .... Basic pattern: tensed modal, tenseless infinitive I will start by showing that root modals are fully tensed: as the below examples demonstrate, they can appear as (semantic as well as morphological) present (a), past (perfect in (b), imperfect in (c)), or future (d) tenses: () a. Id supprim-ere sanguin-em pot-est. this.NOM.N.SG check-PRS.INF blood-ACC be.able-PRS.SG ‘This can suppress bleeding.’ (Cels. ..) b. Id qu-od proba-ba-nt exsequ-i that.ACC.N.SG which-ACC.N.SG approve-IPFV-PL execute-PRS.INF pot-u-erunt. be.able-PRF-PL ‘They could execute what they approved of.’ (Liv. ..)



Multiple object positions and how to diagnose them c. Facil-e [ . . . ] perturba-re Laetori-um pot-era-t. easy-ACC.N.SG upset-PRS.INF Laetorius-ACC be.able-IPFV-SG ‘He could easily upset Laetorius.’ (Liv. ..) d. quant-am is sustine-re pot-eri-t as.much.as-ACC.F.SG that.NOM.M.SG bear-PRS.INF be.able-FUT-SG ‘as much as he will be able to bear’ (Cels. ..)

In all four examples, the dynamic modal can be paraphrased as ‘be able’ (and in the case of the perfect tense even ‘manage’), suggesting that we are indeed dealing with root modality. Note also that all four infinitives in () are glossed as present tenses, which we can take to be the ‘default’ morphological realization of a tenseless infinitive, as predicted. However, there are also cases where the complement of a root modal does not bear present tense morphology, to which I turn now. .... Apparent counterexample : non-past/non-anterior perfect infinitives Note first of all that we are not predicting that the complement of a root modal necessarily has to bear present tense morphology. Rather, it only has to be interpretively tenseless. For instance, ‘defective’ predicates such as meminisse ‘remember’ and nouisse ‘know’, which are morphologically perfective and do not have a corresponding present infinitive, can act as the complement of root modals: () a. Omnino memin-isse debe-mus id, qu-od [ . . . ]. in.sum remember-PRF.INF have.to-PRS.PL that.ACC.N.SG which-NOM.N.SG ‘In sum, we should remember that, what [ . . . ] .’ (Cic. Off. .) b. Non pot-era-s nou-isse [ . . . ]? not be.able-IPFV-SG know-PRF.INF ‘Couldn’t you recognize ?’ (Pl. Epid. ) These infinitives are semantically clearly ‘non-past’ and ‘non-anterior’,33 and therefore do not constitute genuine counterexamples to the generalization that the complement of a root modal is tenseless. A further set of examples can be interpreted in a similar fashion, although not equally straightforwardly so. Consider the pair in ()–(): both of these examples feature an active perfect infinitive of a predicate which does have a full set of (morphologically) present tense forms, namely probo ‘(ap)prove’ and uiuo ‘live’:

33 In terms of the distinction between L-syntax and S-syntax, they can be said to be perfective at the level of L-syntax, but they do not lexicalize any sort of past tense or perfectivity at the level of S-syntax. In other words, there is a morphological mismatch similar to the one that characterizes deponent verbs ((medio-)passive morphology, but no passive interpretation).

The phrase structure of Latin modals



() Non pot-es proba-sse nug-as. not be.able-PRS.SG prove-PRF.INF nonsense-ACC ‘You cannot pass with this nonsense.’ (Pl. Aul. ) () Caesar amic-us era-t: pot-era-t uix-isse Caesar.NOM friend-NOM be.IPFV-SG be.able-IPFV-SG live-PRF.INF solut-e [ . . . ]. free-ADV ‘Caesar was his friend: he was able to live freely.’ (Eleg. Maec. .-) Example () in particular is potentially problematic for the monoclausal structure for modal verbs which I am defending, as it appears to contain too many non-default tense forms for one single clause (viz. the imperfective modal poterat and the perfect infinitive uixisse). According to traditional descriptive grammars, probasse in () and uixisse in () are instances of a ‘non-preterital’ use of the perfect infinitive, which is said to be used ‘instead of ’ the corresponding present infinitive. Here I will assume that this is correct, with the proviso that non-preterital infinitives are clearly only used under special (stylistic) circumstances.34 However, I also think it is important to distinguish two different usages of non-preterital perfect infinitives which are often treated as one single phenomenon (as for instance in Kühner and Stegmann (: vol. ., ) and Pinkster : –). One usage is the one illustrated in the two examples above; the second usage seems to be restricted to the complement of (control) predicates like uolo ‘want’ and nolo ‘not want’, as in (): () Sed hoc est quod ad uos ueni-o but this.NOM.N.SG be.PRS.SG why to you.ACC.PL come-PRS.SG quod=que esse amb-as conuent-as uol-o: [ . . . ]. why=and be.PRS.INF both-ACC.F.PL convened-ACC.F.PL want-PRS.SG ‘But this is why I am coming to you and why I want to meet both of you (lit. ‘want both of you to be convened’).’ (Pl. St. ) Without taking a stance as to whether () involves object control or an AcI,35 it is presumably the case that the perfect infinitive esse . . . conuentas ‘be convened’ is not freely interchangeable with a present tense (which would be conueniri), as claimed by Pinkster (: ) (although I am not sure why the expression should be a ‘set phrase’, as Pinkster suggests). However, note that it is not at all surprising to find

34 See Kühner and Stegmann (: vol. ., –) and Hofmann and Szantyr (: –). Compare also Calboli (: –) and Haverling (: –). For reasons that are not entirely clear to me, the relevant phenomenon seems largely restricted to poetry. 35 There are good reasons to exclude an ECM (‘Exceptional Case Marking’) analysis for this type of (Early) Latin example (see Danckaert submitted a).



Multiple object positions and how to diagnose them

infinitives in this environment which can receive a genuine anteriority reading. As shown in (), the same is possible in English, where infinitival complements of control predicates like want can appear with a (future-oriented) present infinitive, or with a perfect infinitive which denotes temporal anteriority:36 () a. John wanted to open the door. b. Today, John wanted to have opened the door (*yesterday). (from Grano : ) As far as I understand, examples like () and () are very different from () (and (b)), in that they do not express any sort of temporal anteriority. This opinion is not shared by Pinkster (: –), who claims that all perfect infinitives ‘express anteriority with respect to the reference point of a governing verb form or to another reference point given in the surrounding context or in the situation’.37 For instance, with respect to the example in (), he states the following: In [()] the action of cauere should have preceded that of pudere. The present infinitive cauere might have been used as well, but it would not have expressed this element of anteriority.

() Prius te cau-isse ergo quam pude-re earlier.ADV you.ACC.SG pay.attention-PRF.INF PRT than be.ashamed-PRS.INF aequ-om fu-it. just-NOM.N.SG be-PRF.SG ‘You should have paid attention before being ashamed.’ (Pl. Bac. ) I agree with the first sentence of Pinkster’s statement, but not with the second, as it is clearly the comparative adverb prius ‘before’ which orders the two events (together with quam ‘than’). There is no independent evidence whatsoever that the tense morphology of the infinitive cauisse plays a similar role. As a result, () is at the very best a badly chosen example to challenge what is until further notice the communis opinio in the field, namely the assumption that there are genuinely (non-defective) infinitives which are morphologically perfective, without this morphology having any interpretive effect. Similarly, I fail to see which ‘reference point’ probasse in () and uixisse in () could possibly be anterior to. Therefore, I will follow traditional descriptions and conclude that there are indeed genuine cases of non-preterital infinitives which are morphologically marked as perfects. Given the hypothesis

36 On temporal anteriority in control complements, see Landau (: ) and Grano (: ). Note that a perfect infinitive in e.g. (b) (= (e) from Grano : ) is to be interpreted as a present perfect rather than a simple past, witness the unavailability of the punctual time adverb yesterday. 37 As it happens, three of the four examples that Pinkster claims involve a perfect infinitive that denotes anteriority (namely Pl. Bac.  (= ()), Ter. Eu. –, and Pl. Cas. ; his fourth example is Pl. St.  (= ())) are of the counterfactual type that I will discuss below (in Section ....), and whose properties are not entirely clear.

The phrase structure of Latin modals



pursued here, these are correctly predicted to be able to act as the complement of a preterital modal verb (with a root interpretation). .... Apparent counterexample : counterfactual indicatives (part ) In her discussion of Latin necessity modals, Bolkestein (: , note ) states that ‘the counterfactual use of deontic modal verbs in Latin is the only condition (apart from the inferential meaning) under which they may govern optionally perfect tense infinitives . . . ’.38 The construction that Bolkestein refers to involves a preterital indicative of a modal, denoting counterfactuality (which in Latin is typically expressed by means of a subjunctive).39 An example is given in (): () cum ill-um contumeli-ae sexu-s erip-u-isse when that-ACC.M.SG insult-DAT gender-NOM remove-PRF-INF deb-uera-t have.to-PLPRF-SG ‘while his gender ought to have kept him away from indignity’ (Sen. Ep. .) In this example, Seneca does not logically infer that some particular man must not behave in a particular (viz. effeminate) way (which would have been the epistemic reading), he gives his opinion about how this man ought to (have) behave(d) (which is a root interpretation). Importantly, counterfactual indicatives of a modal frequently co-occur with a perfective infinitive (as in ()). I am inclined to agree with Bolkestein (: , note ) that such perfects ‘do not really “refer” to some actual point in time earlier than that referred to by the modal verb’.40 Note that the perfect infinitive is not obligatory in counterfactual contexts, but it is not clear whether perfect and present infinitives are freely interchangeable there, or whether the two are truth-conditionally and/or functionally differentiated. A minimal pair like (a) and (b) (both of which examples I take to involve root modality) suggests that if there really is a (subtle) difference in meaning between the two, this difference is not a matter of temporal simultaneity versus temporal anteriority. () a. Magis ab ea auert-end-os praeueni-re rather from that.ABL.F.SG avert-GDV-ACC.M.PL anticipate-PRS.INF deb-uera-t. have.to-PLPRF-SG ‘He should rather have been the first to turn them away from that.’ (Tert. Adv. Marc. ..) 38 For discussion of (apparently) similar cases in English involving a perfect infinitive embedded by a counterfactual modal, see Mondadori () and Condoravdi () (compare also Stowell : –). 39 On the counterfactual use of the indicative, see Hofmann and Szantyr (: –) and Kühner and Stegmann (: vol. ., –). 40 According to for instance Kühner and Stegmann (: vol. ., ), the appearance of a perfect infinitive in cases like (), is due to some sort of ‘tense attraction’ (‘eine formale Ausgleichung des Tempus’), but this of course doesn’t explain anything.



Multiple object positions and how to diagnose them b. qu-em ex praedicat-is operation-ibus agnou-isse who-ACC.M.SG from foretold-ABL actions-ABL recognize-PRF.INF deb-uera-t have.to-PLPRF-SG ‘whom he should have recognized by his foretold actions’ (Tert. Adv. Marc. ..)

One could for instance hypothesize that the two infinitives in () have different aspectual properties, but it seems clear enough that the two do not simply differ with respect to their temporal reference (simultaneity vs. anteriority with respect to the modal). In any event, it should be clear that the exact analysis and interpretation of these examples is far from obvious. For one thing, it is quite likely that a form like debuerat is a ‘fake’ past tense which does nothing but denote counterfactuality (compare Iatridou ). Coupled with Bolkestein’s suggestion (which I adopt here) that the perfect infinitive in this construction does not denote temporal anteriority, it seems likely that here too we are dealing with an apparent rather than a genuine counterexample to the ‘single tense’ generalization. I will come back to counterfactual indicatives in Section ..... ... Epistemic modals .... Basic pattern: tenseless modal, tensed infinitive Recall that we had hypothesized that epistemic modals should always be interpreted above tense. Concretely, we expect that whenever a modal verb appears with a genuine non-present tense (and in actual practice, always perfective) infinitive, the modal should be of the epistemic type.41 In addition, we also expect epistemic modals themselves to appear as (default) present tenses which coincide with the Speech Time. As to the first prediction, it does indeed seem to be the case that modals coupled with a perfect infinitive (which is not only morphologically but also interpretively perfective) are always interpreted epistemically (see again Bolkestein ). Two tokens (one with possum and one with debeo) are given in (). Both examples describe an inference made by the speaker, who concludes that a given state of affairs can (a) or must (b) have been the case. () a. Quare pot-est et coi-sse cum uir-o therefore be.able-PRS.SG and come.together-PRF.INF with man-ABL qu-ae non peper-it. who-NOM.F.SG not give.birth-PRF.SG ‘Therefore it is possible that a woman who has not given birth has been together with a man.’ (Quint. Inst. ..)

41

Epistemic modals do not seem to take future tense infinitives, for reasons that are not clear to me.

The phrase structure of Latin modals



b. Paenitenti-a hoc prim-o debe-t inuen-isse. regret-NOM this.ACC.N.SG first-ADV have.to-PRS.SG find-PRF.INF ‘Regret must have first discovered this.’ (Plin. Nat. .) As to the ‘tenselessness’ of epistemic modals, consider first the following contrast between English root and epistemic modals (examples from Stowell : , his ()):42 () a. b. c. d.

Carl can’t move his arm. Carl couldn’t move his arm. Max can’t go out after dark. Max couldn’t go out after dark.

ability at Speech Time ability at a past time permission at Speech Time permission at a past time

All examples in () involve a root reading of CAN: whenever this predicate is morphologically a present tense, it refers to the Speech Time; whenever it is a past tense, it refers to a moment before the Speech Time. However, epistemic CAN behaves very differently (cf. Stowell : , his ()): () a. Jack’s wife can’t be very rich. ‘It is not possible that Jack’s wife is very rich.’ b. Jack’s wife couldn’t be very rich. ‘It is not possible that Jack’s wife is very rich.’ *‘It was not possible that Jack’s wife was very rich.’ The crucial observation is that epistemic could is always evaluated at the Speech Time, despite its past tense morphology. As discussed in Bolkestein (), the same pattern seems to hold for Latin (necessity) modals too. In this section, I briefly discuss four types of structures where a form of possum or debeo is to be interpreted epistemically despite bearing futurate or preterite morphology. At first sight, such examples seem to involve two separate tense domains (especially if they appear with a perfective, i.e. non-default, infinitive), and might therefore be considered to pose a threat for the monoclausal (‘single tense domain’) hypothesis entertained here. .... Apparent counterexample : free indirect speech A first type of apparent counterexample to the claim that epistemic modality is always evaluated at the Speech Time is illustrated in (). In this example, the modal debebat clearly has a non-root interpretation, despite being imperfective:

42 See also Picallo (), among others. However, the claim that epistemic modals always scope over tense is not quite generally accepted: for critical discussion, see Homer ().



Multiple object positions and how to diagnose them

() Etenim era-t eo splendor-e qu-i ex PRT be.IPFV-SG that.ABL splendour-ABL who-NOM.M.SG from clar-issim-is et pulcher-rim-is gemm-is esse brilliant-SUP-ABL and beautiful-SUP-ABL gems-ABL be.PRS.INF debe-ba-t. have.to-IPFV-SG ‘And indeed it (a precious lamp-stand, ld) had to have the sort of splendour that comes from the brightest and most beautiful precious stones.’ (Cic. Ver. .) This example is characterized by Bolkestein (: –) as an instance of free indirect speech (erlebte Rede): Cicero evokes how Verres reacts at the sight of the precious lamp-stand, an event that took place earlier than the Speech Time. As pointed out by Bolkestein (: ), in direct speech () would contain a present tense. In other words, what the imperfective morphology does is locate all of Verres’ thoughts in the past. However, from Verres’ perspective, modal evaluation canonically coincides with the Speech Time. .... Apparent counterexample : modal futures Comparable counterexamples to the cartographic analysis sketched in Section ... include an epistemic modal marked for future tense: given that Modepistemic sits higher than Tfuture, the two are predicted not to be able to co-occur. However, such cases are attested. An example is given in (): () Virtut-es enim ibi esse debe-b-unt, virtues-NOM PRT there be.PRS.INF have.to-FUT-PL ubi consensu-s atque unita-s er-it. where agreement-NOM and unity-NOM be-FUT.SG ‘For virtues will have to be there, where there is agreement and unity.’ (Sen. Dial. ..) Discussing this example, Bolkestein (: ; () is her (b)) posits that what we are dealing with in this and similar examples is ‘the “modal” use of the future tense, and not cases in which the future is used in order to refer to the existence of speaker’s inference [sic] at some specific point in time later than the time of speech’. I agree with this analysis, and this could be taken to mean that debebunt in () does not simultaneously lexicalize a T-head and a Mod-head, but rather only the higher head encoding epistemic modality. .... Apparent counterexample : epistolary tense A third type of environment where an epistemic modal is marked for something different than present tense involves a so-called ‘epistolary tense’, an example of which is given in (). Just like, for instance, () above, this example features a combination of an imperfective modal and a perfective infinitive (but this time the modal has a clear epistemic interpretation), and thus it apparently has ‘too much tense’ for one single clause:

The phrase structure of Latin modals



() Sed cum haec scrib-eba-m V Kal., Pompei-us but when these.ACC.N.PL write-IPFV-SG fifth.ABL Kalends.ACC Pompey-NOM iam Brundisi-um uen-isse pot-era-t. already Brundisium-ACC come-PRF.INF be.able-IPFV-SG ‘But as I’m writing on the th, Pompey can already have come to Brundisium.’ (Cic. Att. .a.) Epistolary tenses are a (rather marked) device by means of which the sender of a letter adopts the temporal perspective of the reader, in order to bridge the interval between his/her own hic et nunc and the moment when the message reaches the addressee (often at least a couple of days later). So despite the fact that epistolary tenses always take the shape of a preterital verb, they can be considered a sort of ‘über-present’, as they are meant to simultaneously refer to the present of the sender and the present of the addressee. For one thing, epistolary tenses are compatible with time adverbials such as hodie ‘today’ () and nunc ‘now’ (), which I take to refer to the writer’s present: () Hodie tu-as litter-as exspecta-ba-mus matutin-as. today your-ACC letter-ACC expect-IPFV-PL of.the.morning-ACC ‘Today we are looking forward to an early letter of yours.’ (Cic. Att. .) () Nunc iter confici-eba-mus aestuos-a et puluerulent-a now journey.ACC make-IPFV-PL hot-ABL and dusty-ABL ui-a. road-ABL ‘We are now travelling over a hot and dusty road.’ (Cic. Att. ..) I conclude that these epistolary tenses are not genuine preterites, and that this type of counterexample is also not problematic for a monoclausal analysis of Latin modals. .... Apparent counterexample : counterfactual indicatives (part ) The final type of environment in which epistemic modals can be found with non-present tense morphology values is the type of indicative counterfactuals discussed earlier in Section ..... Although the judgement is quite subtle, an example like () seems to involve an epistemic modal: () Qu-ae tamen uel ips-a fals-a esse which-NOM.N.PL PRT either self-NOM.N.PL false-NOM be.PRS.INF uel ea, qu-ae praedict-a sunt, or these.NOM.N.PL which-NOM.N.PL predicted-NOM.N.PL be.PRS.PL fortuit-o cecid-isse pot-u-erunt. accidental-ADV happen-PRF.INF be.able-PRF-PL ‘Still these (prophecies, ld) may have been false, and what was predicted could have happened by coincidence.’ (Cic. Div. .)



Multiple object positions and how to diagnose them

Here the modal is a perfect (potuerunt ‘they could (have)’), and so is the infinitive (cecidisse ‘have fallen’). However, just as in the case of the counterfactual root modals, it is unlikely that both morphological perfects really denote temporal anteriority. ... To sum up We can conclude that the tense facts provide evidence in favour of the claim that possum and debeo always constitute one single tense domain together with their infinitival complements. This I will take to lend support to the hypothesis that they (always) occur in a monoclausal configuration. We have also seen that root modals behave very differently from their epistemic counterparts, in a way that is fully compatible with the idea that the difference between epistemic and root modals has a structural basis (or at least a structural correlate), viz. a different position in the tree (and concomitantly, different spell-out options). In the remainder of this book, I will abstract away from the structural differences between the lower root and the higher epistemic modals, but I will—with obvious simplifications—represent both in the same functional head in the split-TP (see also Section ... below). .. Latin modals as raising verbs Let us now consider whether possum and debeo are raising or control predicates. To illustrate the difference between raising and control, consider the English pair in (): () a. Johni seems [Δi to leave]. b. Johni tries [Δi to leave]. Although these two structures seem at first glance quite similar, as both involve one overt subject noun phrase, one matrix predicate, and one to-infinitive, there are major interpretive and structural differences between them (see Rosenbaum  and much subsequent literature). One very important such difference is related to the thematic properties of the matrix predicate: as is well known, only control predicates like want, dare, and try impose thematic restrictions on their subject, whereas raising predicates do not. For instance, the expletive subject of a weather verb can be the subject of seem, but not of try: () a. It seems to rain. b. *It tries to rain. The trees in () show the (very basic) differences between raising and control structures. Roughly speaking, in these two simplified structures, the lower projection (VP in (a), VP in (b)) contains an infinitive (or some other type of lexical verb, for instance in languages that do not have infinitives but which do have raising, such as Modern Greek). Higher up in the structure, FP in (a) and VP in (b) correspond to the domain spelled out by the raising and control predicate respectively. As indicated, I take it that in a raising structure, the lower occurrence of the subject is a ‘trace’:

The phrase structure of Latin modals () a.

b.

FP

S

F′ F° ts θ-role

VP1 S

VP

θ-role V′

V°



V′ V°

VP2 PRO θ-role

V′ V°

In a raising configuration like (a), there are two ways in which the subject surfacing in SpecFP can be shown to be interpretively ‘connected’ to the lower subject position (SpecVP). First, it is in the latter position that the subject receives its θ-role: put differently, the thematic properties of the subject are determined by the lexical verb (the infinitive), not by the raising predicate. Second, quantified subjects can sometimes scope under a raising predicate, suggesting they are interpreted inside the VP-domain. The classical analysis of raising is that the subject is base-generated in the thematic domain of the lower verb (often an infinitive), and that it moves to a position above the raising predicate. Under certain circumstances, the subject can logically be interpreted in its base position (a phenomenon sometimes called ‘(scope) reconstruction’). In contrast, control structures (b) are different in two respects: they always assign a θ-role to an external argument (subject), which can never be scopally interpreted in the lower, ‘controlled’ position: given that the overt subject was not base-generated in this low position, it cannot there be interpreted ‘under reconstruction’. Most accounts assume that both subject positions in a control configuration are occupied by base-generated categories (one of which—usually the lower one—is silent, and conventionally labelled as ‘PRO’).43 In this section, I will suggest that the Latin modals are raising verbs which do not have any argument structure of their own (just like bona fide auxiliaries), and that they do not head their own extended projection (and thus that their structure is as in (a)/(a) rather than (b)/(b)). This last point especially will be relevant for the discussion coming up in Chapter . ... The argument structure of Latin modals Earlier (Section ..) we saw that possum never takes a lexical DP as its complement (internal argument), and that there are good reasons to assume (at least) two separate lexical entries for debeo, one 43 As shown in (b), I assume that the subject of a control verb is base-generated in rather than moved to a specifier above the control verb (see Hornstein (), Cinque (, ) and Grano () for various implementations of movement-based analyses of (at least some) control structures. Such approaches entail to some extent a unified analysis of raising and control structures (in the sense that both involve subject-to-subject movement), but this does not change the fact that in a control configuration both the higher and the lower predicate have argument structure of their own.



Multiple object positions and how to diagnose them

where it functions as a plain (transitive) lexical verb, and one for the necessity modal, which always takes an infinitival complement (to which it presumably does not assign a θ-role). In order to test whether possum and (modal) debeo impose any thematic restrictions on their subjects, we can look at what happens when these elements embed an impersonal verb which lacks a nominative argument, such as pudet ‘be ashamed’, taedet ‘be sick of ’, piget ‘be displeased’, or paenitet ‘be sorry’. These predicates usually take an accusative Experiencer and a genitive Theme argument. If it is indeed the case that possum and debeo are devoid of any argument structure, we predict the subcategorization properties of impersonal predicates not to be affected when the latter are embedded by a modal.44 Although there are not many instances of the combination ‘modal + impersonal verb’, and although all the tokens that I found are with possum, it seems that this prediction is borne out. For instance, in () potest appears as a (third person) impersonal verb, and it has apparently ‘inherited’ this impersonal property from the infinitive paenitere:45 () Nec si si-t uit-ae cupid-issim-us, and.not if be.PRS.SBJV-SG life-GEN eager-SUP-NOM paenite-re eum fact-i su-i pot-est. regret-PRS.INF that.ACC.M.SG deed-GEN his-GEN be.able-PRS.SG ‘Not even if he is very much attached to life can he have regrets about his action.’ ([Quint.] Decl. .) Similarly, in its impersonal use the verb miseret ‘pity’ (or as in (), deponent miseretur) can be embedded by possum, in which case it is the modal that appears with impersonal third person agreement: () Iam iam Dolabell-a neque me tu-i neque tu-orum PRT PRT Dolabella-VOC neither me.ACC you-GEN.SG nor your-GEN liber-um [ . . . ] misere-ri pot-est. children-GEN pity-PRS.INF be.able-PRS.SG ‘At this stage, Dolabella, I cannot feel pity for you nor for your children.’ (Cic. Ver. .) At this point, we have a first piece of evidence that suggests that at least possum behaves like a raising verb, in that it does not assign any thematic roles of its own.46

44

For detailed discussion of how impersonal constructions can shed light on the syntactic structure of modal verbs, see Warner (: –). 45 See Baños Baños (: ). Two other examples with possum and paenitere which illustrate the same point are Cic. Har.  and Cic. Ad Brut. ... 46 This seems to be a general property of (dynamic) modals, perhaps with the exception of root modals denoting (physical) ability, which have a preference for taking animate subjects (or entities that can be construed as such), which might be a reflex of some root modals assigning an adjunct (or secondary) θ-role (cf. Zubizarreta ; Picallo ), but see Wurmbrand (: –).

The phrase structure of Latin modals



In the next section, I will discuss a number of facts that lend further support to this analysis. ... Scopal properties of quantified subjects At least as early as May (, ), it was observed that the scopal behaviour of quantified subjects is not the same in raising as in control configurations. Consider for instance the following examples (from Wurmbrand : , her ()): () a. Somebody from New York is likely to win in the lottery. raising b. Somebody from New York tried/promised to win in the lottery. control The crucial observation is that (a) but not (b) is scopally ambiguous. More specifically, the indefinite subject can scope both above and below the raising predicate likely, but in the case of the control clause, scope has to follow the surface order. Example (a) can thus mean that ‘there is a specific person from New York, and (s)he is likely to win the lottery’ (high (surface) scope for the subject), but also ‘it is likely that the winner of the lottery will be some (unknown) person from New York’ (low scope for the subject). In contrast, an indefinite subject of a control predicate is necessarily interpreted as specific, taking high scope. A natural interpretation of this contrast is to say that the raising subject can optionally be interpreted in a lower position, which would be the position where it is base-generated (and where it receives its θ-role). Wurmbrand () goes on to show that (English) modals behave like raising rather than control verbs. Example () (Wurmbrand’s ()) shows this point for epistemic must, but the author also shows that the same holds true for root modals: ()

Somebody from New York must have won in the lottery. a. In view of the evidence available it is necessarily the case that somebody from N.Y. won the lottery (= low scope for the subject, pragmatically most salient reading). b. There is somebody from N.Y. and in view of the evidence available it is necessarily the case that he won the lottery (= high scope for the subject, less salient reading).

The same test can be applied to Latin too.47 Although it is of course important to carefully interpret the relevant examples, there seems to be good evidence that an

47 I am at this point not making any assumptions about the exact syntactic position of subject DPs in Latin, neither in raising contexts nor elsewhere: full discussion of this issue will be provided in Chapter , where I will suggest that (Classical) Latin does not (quite) have subject movement of the type represented in (a). For now, suffice it to say that the particular point that I am defending here (‘subjects of clauses with possum and debeo originate as the subject of the infinitive’) is fully compatible with the syntactic analysis that I will develop later.



Multiple object positions and how to diagnose them

indefinite subject can be interpreted in the scope of a modal verb, against linear order, suggesting that the matrix verb is a raising rather than a control verb. Consider for instance (), which features debeo and an indefinite subject: () Aliqu-is da-re debe-t ut aliqu-is someone-NOM give-PRS.INF have.to-PRS.SG that someone-NOM accipi-a-t. receive-PRS.SBJV-SG ‘Someone must give in order for someone to receive.’ (Sen. Ben. ..) The most plausible interpretation of this example (which seems to involve an epistemic modal) is one in which the modal scopes over the existential (indefinite) quantifier (modal(∃)), yielding a reading which can be paraphrased as ‘it is necessary for someone to give in order for someone to (be able to) receive’, rather than ‘there is a specific someone such that (s)he has to give’ (which would be ‘∃(modal)’). The dynamic modal possum seems to behave in very much the same way. An example, again with indefinite aliquis is given in (): () Sic cogita-nd-um, tamquam aliqu-is in pectus so think-GDV-NOM.N.SG as.if somebody-NOM in soul.ACC intim-um introspic-ere pos-si-t. inner-ACC look.inside-PRS.INF be.able-PRS.SBJV-SG ‘One has to think as if there were somebody who could look into the most intimate part of our soul.’ (Sen. Ep. .) First, note that in this case the modal is in all likelihood not epistemic: a paraphrase like ‘it is possible that somebody looks (is looking) in our soul’, or ‘perhaps somebody looks (is looking) in our soul’ does not seem very felicitous for this example.48 Rather, what this sentence means is something like ‘it is possible for someone to look into our soul’. In any event, here too we are dealing with a non-specific use of the indefinite pronoun. It is at this point important to rule out the possibility that the scopal reading obtained for () and () is not an artefact of some property of the indefinite pronoun aliquis ‘someone’, which typically refers to non-specific entities. However, as illustrated in (), there are actually cases in which aliquis can receive a specific interpretation. Interestingly, in this example aliquis acts as the subject of what is arguably a control verb, namely audeo ‘dare’:

48 On the use of these two paraphrases to distinguish root from epistemic possibility, see Coates (: , ).

The phrase structure of Latin modals



() Obstip-u-ere omn-es, aliqu-is=que ex omn-ibus be.astonished-PRF-PL all-NOM.M.PL someone-NOM=and from all-ABL.M.PL aude-t deterre-re nefas saeu-am=que inhibe-re dare-PRS.SG discourage-PRS.INF crime.ACC cruel-ACC=and hold.back-PRS.INF bipenn-em. axe-ACC ‘All were dumbfounded, and one of them tried to refrain him (viz. Erysichthon ld) from his crime and stop his cruel axe.’ (Ov. Met. .–) In this example, the interpretation of aliquis seems closer to that of quidam (which is the typical specific indefinite pronoun in Latin). For one thing, () seems to be compatible with a continuation in which the identity of the relevant dryad (a (male) nymph of the goddess Ceres) is revealed. Although the dryad remains anonymous, he does in fact play an active role in the immediately following stretch of discourse: he is killed by Erysichthon, and with his dying words he casts a curse on his murderer. This clearly shows that aliquis can in some cases refer to a specific discourse participant (more specifically, introduce this referent into the discourse). Crucially, it doesn’t have to do this, and importantly in the present context, when it acts as the subject of a modal verb it can be (and typically is) interpreted non-specifically: in both () and (), aliquis does not introduce a new discourse participant (say one that could later be referred to by means of a personal pronoun or a proper name). This observation can easily be made sense of if we assume that the subject of possumand debeo-clauses is the thematic subject of the infinitive. ... Summary: possum and debeo as functional raising verbs The data reviewed in this section suggest that clauses with a modal verb not only constitute a single tense domain with their dependent infinitives, but also a single thematic domain. All in all, it seems to be the case that possum and debeo are not only raising verbs, but more particularly raising verbs of the functional, or ‘restructuring’ kind (cf. Rizzi a,b,  for seminal discussion, as well as Cinque (, ), Haegeman (b, ) and Grano () for further refinements; see Wurmbrand () for a slightly different take on comparable data), which would mean that they can be characterized as modifiers merged in the extended projection of a lexical verb. There does not seem to be any positive evidence that possum and (modal) debeo ever enter into a biclausal (‘non-restructuring’) configuration in which they are lexical rather than functional categories. As a result, there is at present no reason to assume that such clauses involve more functional structure than clauses with an analytic deponent verb, or a single synthetic verb. In what follows, I will informally refer to these functional verbs as ‘auxiliaries’ (without giving any theoretical relevance to the term). For the sake of simplicity, I will assume that they are located in T, but given a more fine-grained cartographic structure of the T-domain à la Cinque (), it might well be the case that they occupy



Multiple object positions and how to diagnose them

one or more functional projections which are distinct from the position where BE-auxiliaries and finite synthetic verbs are located. This implies that clauses with a transitive analytic deponent verb and clauses with a modal and a transitive infinitive are not quite phrase-structurally identical. More precisely, whereas there are good reasons to think that the only difference between a minimal pair like () and () (featuring a (finite) synthetic verb and a transitive deponent BE-periphrasis respectively) is the fact that, in the latter, a low verbal head is spelled out in addition to the finite verb in T°, clauses with a BE-auxiliary and clauses with a modal verb actually differ more strongly (despite the two qualifying as monoclausal domains of equal size), in that the hierarchically highest verb is not spelled out in the same structural position in modalized and in nonmodalized clauses (compare the discussion at the end of Section ..). I will assume that this state of affairs does not crucially affect the validity of the core generalizations on object placement that I will formulate in the next chapter. .. Modals and negation In this last section, I will refute one particular objection against a strictly monoclausal analysis of Latin modals. In Biberauer et al. (: , fn. ), it is claimed that the fact that the infinitival complement of a modal can be independently negated (as in (), see also Section ...) shows that the lexical verb (the infinitive) constitutes an independent clause. Importantly, as was also pointed out in Chapter , participials in BE-periphrases cannot apparently be independently negated, which could be taken to mean that this environment contains less functional structure than a combination of a modal and an infinitive (as do Biberauer et al. ).49 () Pos-sum, quamuis in aqu-a si-m, non nata-re. be.able-PRS.SG even.though in water-ABL be.PRS.SBJV-SG not swim-PRS.INF ‘It is possible for me not to swim, even though I am in the water.’ (Sen. Dial. ..) In order to defuse this potential counterargument against a monoclausal analysis of Latin modal constructions, I will first of all show that the pattern ‘modal–Neg– infinitive’ is not quite generally available. In addition, I will argue that in a given monoclausal domain, the sequence ‘functional verb–Neg–lexical verb’ can only be available if the functional verb involved is a scope-taking expression. Crucially, we will see that this is probably a necessary, but not a sufficient condition.

49 Note that I do not want to say that the availability of negation can never be used to test whether a given infinitival construction is mono- or biclausal. As argued in Danckaert (submitted a), this diagnostic can for instance be applied to Late Latin/Romance infinitival causatives. However, causative (light) verbs differ from modals in that only the latter have operator status (i.e. take scope): see Section ... on the relevance of this last point.

The phrase structure of Latin modals



I will conclude that in examples like (), non is a constituent negator which has much the same properties as the contrastive negator discussed in Chapter  (see again Section ...). More specifically, I will propose that the negated constituent is a(n extended) VP, and by doing so, I will develop yet another argument in favour of the existence of higher-order constituents in the Latin clause. In other words, I will suggest that the contrast between Latin clauses with a modal and a BE-periphrasis with respect to the availability of the low negator does not differ from the contrast between the members of the English pair in (). Of these two negated examples, only one is scopally ambiguous (but note that here there is no word order difference): () a. Edwin did not climb trees. b. Edwin can not climb trees.

scopally non-ambiguous scopally ambiguous

On its ‘all focus’ reading (i.e. without any focalized constituent being ‘associated’ with negation), (a) is not scopally ambiguous but only has one interpretation, which corresponds to Horn’s () ‘predicate denial’ (compare also Dowty : ). In contrast, as pointed out in Cormack and Smith (: ), on top of the (pragmatically most salient) reading ‘Edwin is not allowed to climb trees’ (with negation scoping over the modal, i.e. Neg(modal)), (b) can also mean ‘Edwin is able not to climb trees’ (low scope for not, i.e. modal(Neg)). Importantly, in whatever way the contrast between (a) and (b) is to be accounted for, it is hard to see how the fact that the complement of English CAN can be independently negated can be construed as evidence in favour of a biclausal analysis of (b) (taking it to be uncontroversial that the relevant modal always qualifies as a genuine functional verb in a monoclausal structure). Much of the evidence that I will put forward is based on scopal interactions between negation and the two Latin modals. Given that the relevant facts from Latin have received very little attention in the literature (with the exception of Núñez (: –) and Heberlein (: –)), some initial descriptive remarks are in order. ... Possum I will start with possum, whose behaviour is most enlightening. The corpus data can be summarized as follows: out of a total of , clauses with possum in DLCS, , appear with the negator non. As we can expect, the negator typically precedes the modal, either to its immediate left (, cases) or separated from it by other material ( cases). This leaves us with twenty examples in which non follows the modal (but precedes the infinitive; eleven of these tokens are from Seneca). Possum can scope both under and above negation. As a first approximation, scopal interpretation seems to go with linear order. For instance, in (), which features the order ‘Neg-modal’, the interpretation is ‘Neg(modal)’, as what is referred to is an action which the subject (Perseus) was not able to perform:



Multiple object positions and how to diagnose them

() Progred-i prae turb-a occurr-ent-ium ad proceed-PRS.INF faced.with crowd-ABL arrive-PTCP.PRS-GEN.M.PL to spectacul-um non pot-era-t. spectacle-ACC not be.able-IPFV-SG ‘He was unable to proceed to the spectacle because of the crowd of people arriving.’ (Liv. ..) On the other hand, the reverse scopal order obtains whenever we get the linear order ‘modal–Neg–infinitive’ mentioned at the start of this subsection. Two examples are given in (): () Dic mihi dormit-ur-o: ‘pot-es non say.IMP.SG me.DAT sleep-PTCP.FUT-DAT.M.SG be.able-PRS.SG not expergisc-i’, dic experrect-o: ‘pot-es non wake.up-PRS.INF say.IMP.SG woken.up-DAT.M.SG be.able-PRS.SG not dormi-re ampl-ius’. sleep-PRS.INF more-ADV ‘Tell me when I go to sleep, “you might not wake up”; tell me when I’ve woken up, “you might not sleep again”.’ (Sen. Ep. .) Note in passing that in this example, the two occurrences of potes ‘you can’ convey epistemic modality, as the intended interpretation clearly is ‘it is possible that you do/ will not wake up/sleep’ (so not ‘it is possible for you not to wake up/sleep’, with a root modal). However, this interpretation is not an inherent property of the relevant word order pattern. In other cases involving the same linear order, the modal receives a root interpretation.50 Such is the case in (), in which possum can naturally be translated as ‘be able’. Whenever root possum takes a negated VP complement, it typically means something like ‘CAN resist’ or ‘CAN fail’. () Qu-am seueritat-em qu-is pot-est non which-ACC severity-ACC who-NOM.M.SG be.able-PRS.SG not lauda-re? praise-PRS.INF ‘Who is able not to praise ( who can resist praising) such severity?’ (Cic. Phil. .) The negation-below-modal pattern quite often occurs alongside a higher negator which takes the entire modal expression in its scope, as in (): 50 It follows that in Latin, the pattern ‘CAN–Neg–(infinitival) VP’ cannot be used to disambiguate root from epistemic readings, as seems to be the case in for instance Catalan (cf. Picallo (: ), and especially her examples () and ()). According to Picallo’s () analysis, in Catalan root modals originate in a lower (VP-adjoined) position than epistemic modals, which are base-generated in the TP-layer. Negation can be considered to be at the boundary of these two domains (which is at least how the Catalan facts are interpreted in Barbiers (: ) and Cormack and Smith (: )).

The phrase structure of Latin modals



() Sed non pos-sunt non prodig-e uiu-ere. but not be.able-PRS.PL not extravagant-ADV live-PRS.INF ‘But they cannot not live extravagantly.’ (Cic. Phil. .) Here the scopal relations between the modal and the different negations are such that the modal takes scope under the higher negator, but over the lower one (‘Neg > modal > Neg’, cf. ‘it is not possible for X not to Y’). As mentioned in Section ..., what we seem to be dealing with whenever negation scopes under the modal is constituent negation. Note, however, that in all of the negated possum-clauses discussed so far, what takes scope over what can be read off directly from the linear order in which the various scope-taking elements occur. As a result, it is not directly possible to make a strong case for non as a constituent negator on the basis of these data, as one could always say that scope is not sensitive to c-command relations but simply computed linearly. In Section ..., I will show that a purely linear approach to Latin syntax (once again) makes incorrect predictions. Before going there, let us first have a look at negated debeo-clauses. ... Debeo The two most important observations about negated debeo-clauses is that here the pattern ‘debeo–Neg–infinitive’ is exceedingly rare, and that there is no correlation between word order and logical (scopal) interpretation (and therefore, also, certainly not between syntactic structure and scope relations). In DLCS, I counted , clauses with a form of debeo and an infinitival complement. A total of  of these are negated. In a solid majority of the cases (viz. , i.e. .%), the negator appears left adjacent to the modal. There are fortynine tokens featuring the order ‘Neg–infinitive–debeo’, and importantly, there is only one instance of the order ‘debeo–Neg–infinitive’. Overall, the ‘inner negation’ reading (negation in the scope of the modal) seems to be the preferred one.51 In the vast majority of the cases, and very differently from what we saw with possum, scopal interpretation goes against linear order.52 Consider, for instance, the following example from the classical period: () Ven-a uulnera-ri non debe-t, ne sanguin-em vein-NOM wound-PASS.PRS.INF not have.to-PRS.SG lest blood-ACC fund-a-t. emit-PRS.SBJV-SG ‘A vein should not be wounded, in order for it not to emit blood.’ (Cels. ..)

51 A similar observation was made in Bolkestein (: ), but only with respect to epistemic (‘inferential’, in the author’s terms) necessity modals. 52 According to Borgonovo and Cummins (: ), the same split between possibility and necessity modals still holds for the Spanish and French descendants of possum and debeo, but according to these authors the contrast between the two modals is categorical (although it has to be added that they don’t explicitly address the issue of constituent (VP) negation).



Multiple object positions and how to diagnose them

In this example, Celsus is clearly not conveying the (pragmatically uninformative) message that ‘veins being wounded’ is among the things that should not happen: rather, he is very specific in stating that what should be brought about is a situation in which no vein is wounded. Debeo in () seems best interpreted as a root modal. However, the same scopal reading obtains when debeo is used epistemically, as in ().53 Note that here the mood of the modal in the quia-clause is the subjunctive that signals (free) indirect speech (the so-called coniunctiuus obliquus): the entire clause then means that people find certain events unfair, because they think that it is in the nature of things (= the epistemic—or perhaps alethic—modal) for these events not to happen. () Iniqu-a quaedam iudica-nt homin-es, quia unjust-ACC some.ACC.N.PL judge-PRS.PL people-NOM because pat-i non deb-ueri-nt [ . . . ]. suffer-PRS.INF not have.to-PRF.SBJV-PL ‘People consider some events unjust, because they shouldn’t have suffered them.’ (Sen. Dial. ..) As pointed out in Heberlein (: –), there are also cases where a string of the type ‘XP non debet VP’ denotes an event (VP) towards which the subject (XP) does not have any obligation. At least in the classical language, however, this seems to be the minority pattern, and as far as I can tell, it seems restricted to root necessity (obligation).54 A clear example is (), in which Cicero describes how the people from Netum were not obliged to supply corn: () Pronuntia-s Netin-os frument-um da-re announce-PRS.SG from.Netum-ACC.M.PL corn-ACC give-PRS.INF non debe-re, et ab his tamen exig-is. not have.to-PRS.INF and from this.ABL.M.PL PRT exact-PRS.SG ‘You decree that the people from Netum do not have to supply corn, but you exact it from them nevertheless.’ (Cic. Ver. .) We can at this point conclude that whether or not debeo scopes over negation is not encoded syntactically. This result is not surprising, as we know independently that in contrast with dynamic modals, the scopal preferences of necessity modals tend to be lexically specified (Horn ; Iatridou and Zeijlstra ). In the words of Büring (: ): ‘[i]n general, the scope relations between modals and negation seem to be lexicalized to a high degree, blocking, for example, should not, may not (on its

53 On differences between deontic (root) and epistemic necessity modals in negated clauses, see Iatridou and Zeijlstra (: –). 54 In fifty-nine negated debeo-clauses from Cicero, I found fifty cases in which the modal(Neg) reading seems the most appropriate one, compared to seven cases where the Neg(modal) interpretation is to be preferred (for the two remaining cases it was very hard to tell which reading is correct).

The phrase structure of Latin modals



epistemic reading) and—in most environments—might not from getting Neg(modal) readings’. For instance, in English the (semi-)modals have to and need to typically take low scope (). On the other hand, must, ought, should, and be to typically scope over negation (), despite the fact that negation invariably appears after the modal (examples from Iatridou and Zeijlstra : , their ()–()): () a. John doesn’t/does not have to leave. b. John doesn’t/does not need to leave.

Neg(modal) Neg(modal)

() a. b. c. d.

modal(Neg) modal(Neg) modal(Neg) modal(Neg)

John mustn’t/must not leave. John oughtn’t/ought not to leave. John shouldn’t/should not leave. John isn’t to leave.

As discussed in Horn (, ) and Büring (), these scopal readings are not always set in stone (neither in English nor in other languages): in some cases (and with a good deal of speaker variation), clauses with a negated modal are ambiguous.55 However, given a specific prosodic contour, this ambiguity usually disappears (see again Büring ). To return to Latin debeo, I would like to follow Heberlein () by postulating two separate lexical entries for (modal) debeo, one which scopes over negation, and one that scopes below it. The advantage of this line of analysis is that we can, on the one hand, capture the fact that in contrast with possum, there is clearly no correlation between word order and/or c-command relations and the logical scope of debeo in negated clauses. On the other hand, we can neatly account for the attested variability. Let us then have a brief look at the forty-nine other cases of negated debeo in DLCS. In all but one of these, non still appears to the left of debeo, but some material (often the infinitive) intervenes between the two, as in (): () Nos quoque mone-nd-os esse agricol-as we.NOM also warn-GDV-ACC.M.PL be.PRS.INF farmers-ACC existima-mus, qu-ae feri-is fac-ere qu-ae=que consider-PRS.PL which-ACC.N.PL holidays-ABL do-PRS.INF which-ACC.N.PL=and non fac-ere debe-a-nt. not do-PRS.INF have.to-PRS.SBJV-PL ‘We also consider it necessary to inform the farmers about what they have to do on holidays, and what they must not do.’ (Col. ..) This example is particularly interesting, because in the next paragraph Columella explicitly states that he is talking about things that are ‘forbidden’ (modal(Neg)) (rather than ‘not compulsory’ (Neg(modal))): 55

But note that English modals with ‘contracted’ negation are never ambiguous (Büring : ).

 ()

Multiple object positions and how to diagnose them Quamquam pontifices negant segetem feriis saepiri debere; uetant quoque lanarum causa lauari oues [ . . . ]. ‘And yet the pontiffs proscribe that a field with crops should not be fenced on holidays; they also forbid that sheep be washed to keep their fleece in good condition.’ (Col. ..)

Whereas the first injunction (a ‘Neg-raising-like’ configuration where the embedded modal debere arguably scopes above the negation incorporated in the matrix predicate negant ‘they forbid’) still leaves some room for doubt, the interpretation is disambiguated by the expression uetant quoque ‘they also forbid’, which clarifies that the author was talking about ‘things that must not be done’ all along. As to the syntactic structure of the ‘Neg–infinitive–modal’ pattern exemplified in (), two possibilities come to mind, one involving a negator merged in (one of the?) higher Neg positions discussed in Chapter  (Neg(P) in (a)), whereas the other involves constituent negation.56 However, although in the two cases the c-command relations between negation and the modal are different (only in the high NegP scenario does negation c-command debeo), I see no way to tell which structure is correct, given that these structural differences do not translate into distinct logical interpretations. Finally, as mentioned, the order ‘debeo–Neg–infinitive’—which was the starting point of this section—is attested only once in my corpus.57 The relevant token is given in (): () Debe-t enim bon-us aduocat-us pro re-i have.to-PRS.SG PRT good-NOM advocate-NOM for accused-GEN salut-e breu-em neglegenti-ae reprension-em non well.being-ABL short-ACC carelessness-GEN reproach-ACC not pertimesc-ere. fear-PRS.INF ‘A good advocate should not fear some minor criticism for being careless, if this can save his client.’ (Quint. Inst. ..)

56

For more details on these two structures, see the next section on (negated) possum. Outside my regular corpus, the order ‘debeo–Neg–infinitive’ seems very rare too, and restricted to (Christian, accidentally or not) Late Latin. I only found five other tokens (but I did not perform any systematic study): two from Ambrose (active last quarter of the fourth century AD), viz. Ambr. In Luc. . (debeamus non omittere) and In psalm. , . (debet non neglegere); one from Augustine (ca.  AD), Aug. Serm. , l.  (Migne) (debes non audere dicere); one from Leo the Great (mid-fifth century AD), Leo M. Serm. , l.  (Chavasse) (debeat non timere); and one from Salvian (mid-fifth century AD), Salv. Gub. . (an possim uel debeam non efficere; note the coordination of debeo with possum). 57

The phrase structure of Latin modals



Not surprisingly, the scopal reading is again ‘modal(Neg)’, this time following linear order (Quintilian is talking about a lawyer’s duties, not about things that are not his duties).58 Before we continue, let me clarify some confusion in the literature concerning negated debeo. In Horn (: ; the examples are his (a–b) in a slightly adapted form), the following minimal pair is given: () a. Non debe-t duc-ere uxor-em. not have.to-PRS.SG lead-PRS.INF spouse-ACC lit., ‘NEG [he should take a wife].’ b. Debe-t non duc-ere uxor-em. have.to-PRS.SG not lead-PRS.INF spouse-ACC lit., ‘He should NEG [take a wife].’ Referring to Horn’s work (and exactly the same pair of examples), de Haan (: ) thus says: ‘The Latin verb debere “must, should” can be negated by either putting the negation before or after it.’ However, we have seen that there is no such strict correlation between scope and word order. In addition, my corpus data reveal that the order ‘debeo–Neg’ occurs at extremely low frequencies. Note however that both of these conclusions pertain to the natural language Latin which was used in the period from  BC until  AD. I do not wish to exclude that the ‘Neg > MUST’ reading was in fact available for ‘debeo-Neg’-clauses in the scientific (and artificial) Latin used by medieval scholars (such as logicians). To sum up, in negated debeo-clauses the modal likes to take wide scope, despite following (and being c-commanded by) negation. In contrast with possum, the scopal preferences of debeo seem to be lexically rather than syntactically determined, yielding a frequent mismatch between word order/c-command relations and quantifier scope. The upshot is that negated debeo-clauses are a rather poor probe into the phrase structure of Latin modals. In addition, we have seen that the order ‘debeo– Neg–infinitive’ is only very poorly attested. Whatever the status of the isolated instances of this pattern, it seems clear that their existence cannot reasonably be construed as (strong) evidence against a monoclausal analysis of debeo-clauses. In what follows, I will concentrate only on negated clauses with possum. Three questions remain to be answered, namely (i) whether the relative scope of possum and non is governed by word order or syntactic structure, and related to this, 58 Although it is obviously difficult to make any generalizations about a single example, one can reasonably hypothesize that we are dealing here with a structure involving constituent negation: either it involves a head-initial T-projection, and a rightward VP complement (with constituent negation on top of it); or it is derived through fronting of the modal to the high functional projection discussed in Section .. (cf. also Section ..). Both of these derivations are fully compatible with the ‘NegVOR’ data discussed in Chapter , Relativized Minimality (or the Head Movement Constraint) being respected at all stages. Again it seems impossible to tell which analysis is correct.



Multiple object positions and how to diagnose them

(ii) whether a convincing case can be made for analysing ‘possum–Neg–infinitive’ as an instance of constituent negation, and finally (iii) why the pattern ‘functional verb– Neg–lexical verb’ is only available with possum, and not (productively) with debeo or BE. I will start by answering the first two questions in the following section. ... A fourth (and final) argument for a VP constituent All of the examples with possum discussed earlier feature a modal with a rightward infinitival complement. Interestingly, when we consider negated ‘infinitive–possum’ structures, we observe that the strict parallelism between linear order and scopal interpretation breaks down. Consider first (), in which we twice find the string ‘negation–infinitive’ to the left of the clause-final modal possent. In this case, scope still follows linear order (Neg (modal)): what is conveyed in the relative clause introduced by quibus is what the speakers are not able to do (carry weapons and defend their country). As indicated, I assume that the infinitives project a VP constituent, but at this point we have not seen any evidence for this beyond what was said in Chapter  and Section . above. () [ . . . ] nec his corpor-ibus, [qu-ibus non and.not these.ABL bodies-ABL which-ABL.N.PL not [VP arm-a fer-re], non [VP tue-ri patri-am] weapons-ACC carry-PRS.INF not protect-PRS.INF country-ACC pos-se-nt] onerat-ur-os inopi-am armat-orum. be.able-IPFV.SBJV-PL burden-PTCP.FUT-ACC.M.PL shortage-ACC armed-GEN.M.PL ‘[They declared in public] that they would not burden the small number of fighting men with their bodies with which they could not carry weapons and not defend the country.’ (Liv. ..) What I would like to propose is that the negators in this example instantiate the structurally higher occurrence of sentential negation discussed in Section ...., which one could take to involve a NegP merged high in the clausal spine. The (simplified) structure of this pattern would be as in (), where we clearly see how the scopal relations can be read off from the c-command relation between the negator and the modal (i.e. not only from linear word order). ()

NegP2 Neg′ non

TP T′ VP tueri patriam

T° possent

The phrase structure of Latin modals



Crucially, in clauses featuring the very same linear order ‘Neg–infinitive–possum’, it is also possible for the modal to scope over negation. Such is, for instance, the case in (): () ut et [VP Chalci-s tene-ri] et [VP non so.that and Chalcis-NOM hold-PASS.PRS.INF and not deser-i praesidi-um Athen-arum] pot-uisse-t abandon-PASS.PRS.INF protection-NOM Athens-GEN be.able-PLPRF.SBJV-SG ‘so that Chalcis could have been held without the defence of Athens being abandoned’ (Liv. ..) What is conveyed in the ut-clause is that two things might have happened, namely (i) that the city of Chalcis be preserved (first bracketed constituent), and (ii) that Athens was not left without protection (second bracketed constituent). The second part of this example can be paraphrased as ‘(so that) it could have been the case that Athens was not left without protection’. The most important observation here is, of course, that this scopal reading is obtained despite negation appearing to the left of the modal. Another example illustrating the same phenomenon is (): () quia magis [VP non proba-re] quam [VP non because more.ADV not approve-PRS.INF than not adiuua-re consili-um] pot-era-t help-PRS.INF plan-ACC be.able-IPFV-SG ‘because he could more easily not approve the plan than not lend it his support’ (Liv. ..) In addition, the ‘double negation’ pattern (‘not being able not to’) is also attested in clauses where the modal appears to the right of the infinitive. Note that in (), exactly the same scopal relations (Neg > modal > Neg) obtain as in (), where the various scope-taking elements appear in a different order. () Nec id se fec-isse iacta-t, qu-od and.not that.ACC.N.SG REFL.ACC do-PRF.INF boast-PRS.SG which-ACC.N.SG non fac-ere non pot-u-it. not do-PRS.INF not be.able-PRF-SG ‘And he cannot pride himself on having done something that he was unable not to do.’ (Sen. Ben. ..) From a syntactic point of view, the most natural way to interpret these last three examples is to assume that the modal is not interpreted in the scope of negation because the latter does not c-command the former. A possible structural representation is one in which non acts as a constituent negator (on which, see also Section ...). In (), the relevant configuration involves adjunction of the



Multiple object positions and how to diagnose them

negator to VP (although a representation with a separate NegP is of course also conceivable):59 ()

TP T′ VP non

T° poterat VP

adiuuare consilium In (), the negator does not c-command the modal, and the scope of the latter is restricted to the infinitival VP. In contrast, the modal does c-command the negator, yielding the desired modal(Neg) interpretation.60 Importantly, the correct scopal reading cannot possibly be read off from the linear word order string. If this analysis is on the right track, here we have a nice case where hierarchical structure trumps linear word order. Moreover, we also have an additional argument in favour of the existence of a VP constituent, and by this token also for the fully configurational character of Latin. ... Towards an analysis: when can a VP be independently negated? The starting point of this section was the contrast schematized in () (where the bracketing gives an indication of hierarchical relations, independent of linear word order), namely the non-availability of (non-contrastive) constituent negation of participial VPs in clauses with a BE-periphrasis, as opposed to the possibility for an infinitival VP to be negated independently. Given the discussion in Section ..., we now know that there is only evidence that the infinitival complement of possum can be narrowly negated (b). In all likelihood, this is because the scope of debeo with respect to negation is a purely lexical matter (with which syntax cannot ‘tinker’). () a. *BE [Neg [non-adjectival PaPa]] b. possum [Neg [infinitive]]

59

I also remain agnostic as to whether non as a constituent negator is a head or a phrase. Nothing hinges on this. 60 In Chapter  I will further refine the analysis of this type of VPAux-clauses, suggesting that a structure in which the auxiliary (here the modal possum) does not c-command the VP is more accurate. Under this alternative proposal, in which the order ‘VPAux’ is derived through movement of a (possibly constituent-negated) VP to a position above T, the scopal interpretation modal(Neg) can be derived under reconstruction. Note also that in this scenario there is no point at which the negator c-commands the modal.

Conclusion and roadmap



In order to explain these facts without assuming the two types of clauses to differ in terms of ‘amount of (functional) structure’, I would like to relate the observed contrast to an independent difference between modals and tense auxiliaries, namely the fact that only the former are scope-taking expressions (or put differently, by assuming that modals but not tenses are (sentential) operators (Partee ; Hornstein ; pace Pollock )). If so, the contrast between (a) and (b) would be formally identical to the contrast between the English clauses in () (= ()): () a. Edwin did not climb trees. b. Edwin can not climb trees.

scopally non-ambiguous scopally ambiguous

In both Latin () and English (), it is the modalized clauses that can do ‘something more’. In Latin, an additional word order pattern—and concomitantly an additional interpretation—is available; in English, there only is an additional scopal reading. For both languages, one can think of the availability of constituent negation (viz. a negated VP) in the b-sentences as being licensed by the fact that the relevant structure gives rise to a (semantically coherent) new interpretation (viz. a ‘modal (Neg)’ reading). However, no such ‘licensing additional reading’ is available in the case of the a-examples: given that tense does not itself take scope, there is nothing for a low negator to scope under. As a result, the grammar can only generate the regular pattern of sentential negation (Horn’s () ‘predicate denial’), which in Latin happens to involve a structurally high (TP-internal) position for the negator (cf. Chapter ).61 This interpretation of the contrast in () strikes me as fully compatible with a monoclausal and ‘equal amount of functional structure’ analysis of both the analytic deponent and the modalized structures.

. Conclusion and roadmap I have done a number of things in this chapter. First, I have discussed corpus data that suggest that the diachronic development of the OV/VO alternation is strongly different in clauses with a synthetic verb (Figures . and .) and in clauses with a modal verb (Figure .). I have shown that we can make sense of the observed contrast if we assume that clauses with only one verb are more highly structurally ambiguous, and that in this syntactic environment it is not possible to disambiguate various object positions. Second, a large part of the preceding chapter was devoted to the analysis of Latin modal constructions. I concluded that there is every reason to

61 There is of course an independent difference between the canonical position of sentential negation in Latin (high, above T) and English (low, below T), but this is orthogonal to the point at issue.



Multiple object positions and how to diagnose them

assume that they enter into a strictly monoclausal structure, and that they do not contain more object positions than for instance clauses with a single synthetic verb or clauses with a transitive deponent BE-periphrasis. Rather, in all of these three environments, there are  ((×) + ) non-left-peripheral object positions, which can, however, not be diagnosed in clauses with only one verb.

4 VOAux A typologically rare word order pattern

. A closer look at the diachrony of object placement This chapter has a double goal. First, it aims to offer a more fine-grained description of object placement in the history of Latin than the one that was given in the previous chapter. Importantly, I will show that contrary to what one could hypothesize on the basis of the data that we have seen thus far, it is by no means the case that the OV/VO alternation remains constant during the period investigated. In one particular environment, namely clauses with a head-final T-projection, it even decreases. My second goal is to offer a detailed description and analysis of clauses featuring the word order VOAux, a pattern that is cross-linguistically rare but which in Classical Latin is well attested.

.. Object placement in clauses with a modal verb In the previous chapter, we saw that throughout the history of the Latin language there seems to be no major diachronic change with respect to the OV/VO alternation. Despite there being a considerable amount of synchronic variation, average frequencies of the two competing patterns remain more or less constant. This is particularly clear when it is only clauses with more than one verb form that are taken into account, and more specifically clauses with a modal verb and an infinitive, which I hypothesized constitute the most reliable source of information on the OV/VO alternation. A visualization of this last dataset is repeated here for convenience (cf. Figure . in Section ..) in Figure .. As can be observed, contrary to what we can expect on the basis of the secondary literature (cf. Section ..), the trajectory of the two regression lines even suggests a mild decrease in productivity of the order VO. In the dataset summarized in Figure ., no direct objects were included which are unambiguously left-peripheral (along the lines of what was said in Section ....). Importantly, however, this is not to say that it only contains VP-internal objects, as no attempt was made to exclude the two types of VP-external (but non-left-peripheral) direct objects discussed in the previous chapter, viz. shifted and extraposed objects, The Development of Latin Clause Structure. First edition. Lieven Danckaert. © Lieven Danckaert . First published  by Oxford University Press.



VOAux: a typologically rare word order pattern

Frequency of VO in clauses with modal + infinitive (in %)

100

80

60 27

11

31 2

40

1 10 12 9

6

18 17 16

22 25

7

15

20

21

13 4

8

3

14

26 28 32

23 19

20

24

29

30 33

5

0 –200

0

200 Time

400

600

FIGURE . Relative frequency of the order VO in clauses with a modal verb, ca.  BC– AD. Labels: = Plautus, = Terence, = Cato, = Cicero, = Caesar, = Varro, = Sallust, = Hyginus, = Vitruvius, = Livy, = Celsus, = Seneca, = Columella, = Petronius, = Frontinus, = Quintilian, = Pliny, = Tacitus, = Suetonius, = Gaius, = Tertullian, = Cyprian, = SHA, = Palladius, = Jerome, = Augustine, = Vulgate, = GCC, = Vegetius, = Victor, = Pompeius, = Caesarius, = Gregory.

which give rise to a linear (but syntactically non-local) OV- and VO-order respectively. In other words, the data reported on in Figure . contain some unwanted noise that potentially obscures the description of the OV/VO alternation proper (i.e. variation between VP-internal OV and VP-internal VO). In order to control for this problem, let us first of all exclude all objects that are unambiguously VP-external, viz. shifted objects in AuxVP-clauses (i.e. all OAuxV-orders) and extraposed objects in VPAux-clauses (all VAuxO-orders). The data thus obtained are shown in Figure .. In this graph, the two regression lines are again almost completely flat (needless to add, here too there is a lot of synchronic variation which yet remains to be accounted for). Importantly, this second dataset still does not only involve VP-internal objects. On the one hand, some objects in clauses with the order OVAux are actually ambiguous between a VP-internal analysis ([[OV] Aux]) and one in which the object has been shifted ([O [[tO V] Aux]]).



A closer look at the diachrony of object placement

100

Rate of VP-internal VO (in %)

80

30

60

2

10 26

40

1 9 8

11

5 6

14

3

13 12

20

17 16 15

25

21

27 29

23 24 20

28

22 18

31 32

19

4

0

7

–200

0

200 Time

400

600

FIGURE . Diachrony of VO in clauses with a modal verb (extraposed and shifted objects excluded), ca.  BC– AD. Labels: = Plautus, = Terence, = Cicero, = Caesar, = Varro, = Sallust, = Hyginus, = Vitruvius, = Livy, = Celsus, = Seneca, = Columella, = Petronius, = Frontinus, = Quintilian, = Pliny, = Tacitus, = Suetonius, = Gaius, = Tertullian, = Cyprian, = SHA, = Palladius, = Jerome, = Augustine, = Vulgate, = GCC, = Vegetius, = Victor, = Pompeius, = Caesarius, = Gregory.

Similarly, the order AuxVO can either be analysed as involving a VP-internal object ([Aux [VO]]) or an extraposed one ([[Aux [V tO]] O]). In order to estimate whether this residual amount of structural ambiguity has any influence on the data in Figure ., let us look at the diachrony of the two types of VP-external object placement in those contexts in which they can be unambiguously diagnosed.1 First, unambiguous cases of object shift can be found in AuxVP-clauses. Figure . shows the relative frequency of the order OAuxV, as compared to the combined frequencies of the orders AuxOV and AuxVO. As discussed in Danckaert (submitted b), although many of the data points are quite far away from the straight regression line, it is probably the case that there is a real rise in the frequency of object shift, as suggested 1 For additional discussion of the diachrony of these two types of VP-external objects, see Danckaert (submitted b).



VOAux: a typologically rare word order pattern

100

80 Frequency of object shift (in %)

16 21 24

60 15

40

20

6

2 5 4 1

18 8 10

17 13

7

20

23

9

14

22

3 11 12

19

0 –200

0

200 Time

400

600

FIGURE . Rate of object shift in clauses with a modal verb, ca.  BC– AD. Labels: = Plautus, = Cicero, = Varro, = Vitruvius, = Livy, = Celsus, = Seneca, = Columella, = Petronius, = Quintilian, = Pliny, = Gaius, = Tertullian, = Cyprian, = SHA, = Palladius, = Jerome, = Augustine, = Vulgate, = GCC, = Vegetius, = Pompeius, = Caesarius, = Gregory.

by the positive slope of the regression line.2 This effect is somewhat attenuated by the low values observed for the Vulgate and for Pompeius’ Commentum, but this is no doubt because in these two texts we generally observe very high frequencies of (Aux)VO. If we then assume that application of object shift is not sensitive to the AuxVP or VPAux character of a given clause (which would be the null hypothesis), it is very plausible that the data in Figure . are not entirely reliable. The estimated frequencies of Late Latin VO, in particular, might well be a bit too low: although some shifted objects are presumably present in the earlier centuries too, the data in Figure . suggest that the phenomenon of object shift adds more noise to the data in the Late Latin period. On the other hand, the second type of VP-external object does not seem subject to any sort of change.3 As shown in Figure . (which shows the average frequency of the order VAuxO as compared to the combined frequencies of the patterns VOAux 2 3

For a possible interpretation of this effect, compare the remarks in Danckaert (a: ). For a similar observation on the history of Yiddish, see Santorini ().



A closer look at the diachrony of object placement

100

Frequency of object extraposition (in %)

80

60 23

40

6

20

1 4 8 10 12 9 13 15 7 11 14

2

0

3

–200

21 24 25 22

17

5

0

19 16

200 Time

18

26 20 27

400

600

FIGURE . Rate of object extraposition in clauses with a modal verb, ca.  BC– AD. Labels: = Plautus, = Cicero, = Caesar, = Varro, = Sallust, = Vitruvius, = Livy, = Celsus, = Seneca, = Columella, = Frontinus, = Quintilian, = Pliny, = Tacitus, = Suetonius, = Gaius, = Tertullian, = Cyprian, = SHA, = Palladius, = Jerome, = Augustine, = Vulgate, = GCC, = Vegetius, = Caesarius, = Gregory.

and OVAux), not only are the overall rates of object extraposition fairly low (below % in the vast majority of the texts investigated), there is only one Late Latin data point (Vulgate) which exhibits a rate of object extraposition which is markedly higher than what we observe for any other sample, early or late. To sum up, the data from clauses with a modal verb suggest that the overall frequency of the order VO remains fairly stable at around –% from Early until Late Latin. We can assume that this generalization still holds even if we factor in the effect of the increasing productivity of object shift, which would lead to slightly higher frequencies of VO in Late Latin than the ones plotted in Figures . and ., but which would certainly not give rise to a major landslide. On the other hand, we have also seen that the phenomenon of object extraposition can be expected not to be much of a confounding factor. In the following section, I would like to further refine this picture. An important observation is that one particularly good predictor for object placement is the VPAux or AuxVP character of a given clause, especially in Late Latin.



VOAux: a typologically rare word order pattern

Frequency of VO in VPAux-clauses with a modal (in %)

100

80

8

60

14

40

13 7

12 11

5

1

18

9

20 10

2 4 3

19

6

0

16

0

21

17

15

–200

20

22 24 23

200 Time

25

400

27 26

600

FIGURE . Diachrony of VO in VPAux-clauses with a modal (extraposed objects excluded), ca.  BC– AD. Labels: = Plautus, = Cicero, = Caesar, = Varro, = Sallust, = Vitruvius, = Livy, = Celsus, = Seneca, = Columella, = Frontinus, = Quintilian, = Pliny, = Tacitus, = Suetonius, = Gaius, = Tertullian, = Cyprian, = SHA, = Palladius, = Jerome, = Augustine, = Vulgate, = GCC, = Vegetius, = Caesarius, = Gregory.

.. VO in VPAux and AuxVP contexts Consider first the diachrony of the OV/VO alternation in clauses in which a modal verb follows its dependent infinitive. Figure . shows the relative frequency of the order VOAux, compared to the frequency of OVAux-orders. In the graph in Figure ., the straight regression line clearly has a negative slope, but it is the trajectory of the smoothed line which is most interesting: we see that it goes up until ca.  AD, but after this point it goes down very abruptly, the last author in my sample who produces the order VO in more than % of the cases being Cyprian, at around  AD.4 What this graph shows us is that in Late Latin the order VOAux (or more precisely ‘infinitive–object-modal’) is exceedingly rare. 4 Note that Figure . does not contain any information about the data point which in both Figures . and . exhibits the highest frequencies of VO in Late Latin, viz. the grammarian Pompeius Maurus. The relevant text was excluded because it does not contain enough (only ) tokens of a VPAux-clause with an overt nominal VP-internal direct object. However, even if we were to include data from Pompeius, the observed tendency would not be altered, as all  VPAux-clauses in this subsample display the order OV.



A closer look at the diachrony of object placement

Frequency of VO in AuxVP-clauses with a modal (in %)

100

80 3

22

60 1

19 18 20

16 5 4

21 10

40

7

17

11

23

24

13

20

2

6

14

8

15 12

9

0 –200

0

200 Time

400

600

FIGURE . Diachrony of VO in AuxVP-clauses with a modal (shifted objects excluded), ca.  BC– AD. Labels: = Plautus, = Cicero, = Varro, = Vitruvius, = Livy, = Celsus, = Seneca, = Columella, = Petronius, = Quintilian, = Pliny, = Gaius, = Tertullian, = Cyprian, = SHA, = Palladius, = Jerome, = Augustine, = Vulgate, = GCC, = Vegetius, = Pompeius, = Caesarius, = Gregory.

When we then turn to AuxVP-clauses, it turns out that in this environment the VO-pattern is fully productive in Late Latin, in clear contrast with what we saw in Figure .. However, it is not at all clear whether in the AuxVP condition there is a real increase of the head-initial order. One thing that makes the relevant data difficult to interpret is the particularly high frequencies of VO in two of the three earliest authors, namely Plautus and Varro, which clearly have a strong influence on the smoothed regression line. On the other hand, for the last nine data points (all samples from Palladius onwards) we consistently observe relatively high rates of VO, between  and %, whereas in earlier times there are many authors who produce this order in less than % of the cases (Figure .). The discrepancy between VPAux- and AuxVP-clauses is at this point unexpected and not accounted for. This empirical generalization will constitute one of the most important explananda in the remainder of this book. The particular word order pattern whose diachronic development is responsible for the ‘bump’ in the smoothed line in Figure ., viz. VOAux, will be the main focus



VOAux: a typologically rare word order pattern

of this chapter. A first example is given in (), where the VO chunk appears between brackets: () quia euentu-s dimication-is in epul-as et securitat-em because outcome-NOM battle-GEN in feast-ACC and carelessness-ACC [compell-ere uictor-es] pot-era-t drive-PRS.INF victors-ACC be.able-IPFV-SG ‘because the outcome of the battle could lead the winning party to feasting and carelessness’ (Fron. Str. ..) In Chapter  I will argue that the diachronic development of the VOAux-pattern sheds light not only on the issue of object placement, but indirectly also on a wide range of other phenomena. Specifically, I will propose that the loss of VOAux is itself a reflex of a major reorganization of the basic structure of the Latin clause. In this chapter I will be concerned with the synchronic syntax of VOAux-clauses. In recent work, this word order pattern (as well as other structures exemplifying the same abstract configuration) has been claimed to be absent in the languages of the world, or at least cross-linguistically very rare (see Biberauer et al. ). In the following section, I will elaborate on the reasons that have led researchers to this typological prediction.

. What is special about the VOAux-pattern .. Antisymmetry and the syntax of complement-head sequences I will start the discussion by introducing a slight modification of the approach to directionality alternations that I have been using from chapter  (cf. Section ..) onwards. Recall that syntactic heads and their phrasal complements are not intrinsically linearly ordered with respect to each other. In earlier (and some current) work in the generative tradition, it is assumed that this ordering flexibility is an effect of the Head Parameter (see for instance Travis ), according to which the basic X-bar template can take the shape of both (a) and (b): ()

a.

b.

XP X′

ZP X°

XP X′

ZP YP

YP

X°

These two structures differ only in terms of linear order (precedence), all c-command and dominance relations being identical. Here I will depart from this approach to word order variation. In line with the antisymmetric programme proposed in Kayne (), I will take it that the syntactic component can only base-generate head– complement sequences, and that all complement–head orders are derived through movement. Simply put, Kayne’s () Linear Correspondence Axiom (LCA) says

What is special about the VOAux-pattern



that asymmetric c-command relations translate into linear precedence: if (and only if) a node X c-commands a node Y, and Y does not c-command X, then X precedes Y in the linear string, and by transitivity, all nodes dominated by X precede all nodes dominated by Y.5 Without going into further detail (see e.g. Carnie (: –) for excellent discussion), suffice it to say that this approach entails a fundamental asymmetry between, on the one hand, head–complement orders, which can (but need not) be base-generated as such, and on the other hand complement–head orders, which are always movement-derived (see also Kayne , ; Aboh a; Cinque ). The main reason why I adopt this particular approach here is that it allows me to analyse the Latin VOAux data in terms of the framework laid out in Biberauer et al. (). Let us briefly see how we can analyse the Latin OV/VO alternation in an antisymmetric framework. For the time being, I will abstract away from what one could call the external syntax of the verb phrase (i.e. the exact position of the extended verb phrase in the entire clause), focusing instead on the internal structure of VoiceP. The basic structure of a VO-sequence with an in situ object would then be as in (), where everything except for the lowest head (which is adjoined to v°) sits in its base position: ()

VoiceP DPea

Voice′ νP

Voice° ν° √°

√P ν°

t√°

DPia

But what about OV-orders where the object sits inside the VP? Given antisymmetry, we cannot just assume the same structure as in () and flip the relative position of the two daughter nodes of vP (which in a non-antisymmetric framework would also yield the desired OV-order). Instead, any antisymmetric structure yielding the linear order OV would have to be more complex. Here I will assume that it involves movement of the entire √P. The basic structure of a VO-clause would be as in (), where the moved √P, which itself dominates the internal argument, winds up asymmetrically c-commanding the complex verbal head (√°/v°).

5 Note that this simplified characterization of the LCA differs from the original formulation in Kayne () (and subsequent work by the same author), according to which the linearization of all terminal nodes (overt or otherwise) is exhaustively determined by the asymmetric c-command relations that hold between the non-terminal nodes dominating these terminals. Here I also don’t assume Kayne’s () definition of c-command, nor his proposed ban on phrase-to-phrase adjunction.



VOAux: a typologically rare word order pattern

()

VoiceP DPea

Voice′ νP

Voice°

νP

√P t√°

DPia

ν° √°

t√P ν°

In what follows, I will refer to the movement operation represented as ‘roll-up movement’. I will assume that the Latin OV/VO alternation can be characterized as the competition between the structures in () and (), that is, the presence or absence of roll-up movement, whereby competition is to be understood in the sense of Kroch (, ). I will refer to the two competing variants as the ‘VO grammar’ and the ‘OV grammar’ respectively. Note that in a structure like (), both the moved √P and the external argument DP can be considered specifiers, but they have a slightly different status: we can call the latter an ‘inner specifier’, and the former an ‘outer specifier’. As can be observed in the structure in (), to distinguish these two types I adopted the notational convention to represent categories that have undergone roll-up movement as (‘Chomsky-adjoined’) sisters to maximal projections, and all other specifiers (basegenerated or internally merged) as sisters to bar levels. Whenever the two co-occur in one and the same maximal projection, the outer specifier always c-commands the inner one.6 In the next section, I will further elaborate on the nature of roll-up movement, with special attention to a particular restriction on this operation, which in turn gives rise to an interesting typological prediction explored in depth in Biberauer et al. (). .. Roll-up movement and the Final-Over-Final Constraint (FOFC) ... Formalizing roll-up movement Biberauer et al. () provide an explicit characterization of the nature of roll-up movement.7 Let us go through the details of their proposal. First of all, the authors assume that all movement operations are triggered by a generalized movement-triggering feature (represented as ‘^’), which is 6 Note that multiple specifiers to a single head are not allowed in the stricter version of antisymmetry originally proposed in Kayne () (see also footnote ). 7 For two slightly different approaches, see among others Koopman and Szabolcsi () and Jayaseelan (). Compare also Nevins () for some interesting empirical arguments in favour of the existence of roll-up movement.

What is special about the VOAux-pattern



associated with a feature of a given head (Biberauer et al. : ). Whenever a head X is endowed with ^, some phrasal category will move to SpecXP. The nature of the feature that ^ is associated with determines the nature of a given movement operation. ^ combined with a (set of) φ-feature(s) gives rise to A-movement; if it is associated with an ‘Edge Feature’, it results in A′-movement (of the unbounded, ‘successive cyclic’ type), and most importantly for our purposes, when it is combined with a categorial feature (which determines whether a given extended projection is verbal or nominal),8 it gives rise to roll-up movement. Assuming a simplified CP > TP > VP structure (cf. Section ..), we thus get: ()

a. ^ associated with φ-features on T (T[uφ, ^]): A-movement to SpecTP b. ^ associated with an Edge Feature on C (C[EF, ^]): A′-movement to SpecCP c. ^ associated with the category-defining feature of a lexical root (e.g. V[+V, ^]): roll-up movement (sister of V° moves to SpecVP)

The authors assume that when ^ is associated with a categorial feature, it can spread upwards in the structure. When doing so, it associates itself with one or more functional heads in the extended projection (EP) of a lexical head, an operation that gives rise to iterated roll-up movement (which is sometimes also called ‘snowballing movement’, cf. Aboh b). The concept of extended projection (a notion originally introduced in Grimshaw ([] )) is defined in () (Biberauer et al. : , their () and ()). As this definition refers to the concept of ‘spine’, I first offer a definition of this particular notion: ()

A sequence of nodes Σ = (α, . . . , αn) is a spine if and only if a. αn is a lexical category and an X°; and b. for all αi F°[EPP] > Neg° > T° > Voice° > v° > √°

Assuming a consistently right branching base order of the heads in () (i.e. with only head-complement orders, in the spirit of Kayne ), one could think of a number of syntactic derivations that give rise to a head-final pattern where (a projection of) the lexical verb occurs to the left of T°. In the previous chapter (Section ...), we saw that the leftward position of the verb phrase in VPAux-clauses cannot be derived by means of A′-movement, as such an operation would systematically place the VP to the left of subordinating conjunctions, contrary to fact. In what follows I will discuss three additional derivations involving leftward movement of the non-finite verb past an auxiliary, all of which face a number of conceptual and/or empirical problems.8 .. Head movement The first type of displacement that I will discuss is head movement (cf. Section ..), a—by assumption strictly local—process which has featured very prominently in the literature on so-called verb clusters or verbal complexes.9 Repeated application of head movement gives rise to structures like (), where the heads X, Y, and Z can be said to form one complex head:

On SubjP, see also Rizzi and Shlonsky (, ), who assume that this position hosts preverbal subjects in English too. It is not entirely clear whether or when present day Romance preverbal subjects have A or A′-status (see Alexiadou and Anagnostopoulou ; Greco ). 8 See Danckaert () for additional discussion. 9 Cf. Wurmbrand (: ): ‘[A]s many authors have suggested, verb-cluster formation can involve both types of movement—that is, certain configurations are derived by head-movement, others by phrasal movement . . . ’ See the references cited in Wurmbrand () for additional discussion. Note also that I am here abstracting away from the phenomenon of ‘Long Head Movement’ (on which, see Section ...). 7

What Classical Latin ‘VP[–Neg–]Aux’ is not ()



ZP Z′ Z° Y° X°

YP Z°

Y°

Y′ tY°

XP X′ tX°

…

Although in the structures that I will propose below for both Classical and especially Late Latin VPAux-clauses, head movement does in fact play an important role, it is clear that it cannot be responsible for deriving the most basic cases of V-Aux. Observe that given a head movement account in which V incorporates into Aux (T°) and ends up being left-adjoined to it, one predicts these two elements to always be strictly adjacent. However, the fact that entire phrases can occur between V and Aux (cf. Chapter ) conclusively shows that there is no such adjacency requirement. Therefore, if movement of V past the auxiliary is not head movement, it must be some type of phrasal movement. This is, of course, in line with the analysis of the NegVOR facts offered in Chapter . .. VP intraposition Second, there are also reasons to assume that we are not dealing with a very local type of VP displacement, sometimes referred to as ‘VP intraposition’ (cf. Larson ,  [] (‘Light Predicate Raising’); Barbiers , ; Cinque : –; Koopman and Szabolcsi ; Hinterhölzl ; Belletti and Rizzi ).10 The 10 This is not to say that this operation does not exist in Latin. For instance, the example in (i) might well involve movement of an OV chunk (say vP) to a position simply labelled XP in (i), past the adverb inpune ‘with impunity’, stranding the subject familia tua ‘your household’, which one can take to be located in its base position in SpecVoiceP (cf. Section .):

(i)

[AdvP inpune [VoiceP famili-a cum [XP [vP pauc-as tegul-as deic-ere] while few-ACC tiles-ACC throw.down-PRS.INF with.impunity household-NOM tu-a tvP ]]] non pot-ueri-t not be.able-PRF.SBJV-SG your-NOM ‘while your slaves could not hurl down a couple of roof tiles without this remaining unpunished’ (Cic. Tul. )

Anticipating the discussion coming up in the following section, we can assume that the entire chunk labelled XP (VoiceP with some additional amount of functional superstructure) in (i) undergoes EPP-driven movement. Compare also the discussion of the very similar example in (), which features the same adverb but lacks VP intraposition (and which also differs from (i) in that the modal precedes rather than follows the infinitive).



Changing EPP parameters

process is often invoked to derive clause-final adverbs and PPs. Consider for instance the following examples from Italian (from Belletti and Rizzi : , their (a–b)): () a. Gianni Gianni

ha rapidamente [risolto have.PRS.SG quickly solved

b. Gianni ha [risolto il problema] Gianni have.PRS.SG solved the problem ‘Gianni has quickly solved the problem.’

il the

problema]. problem

con with

rapidità. speed

These examples illustrate a contrast between certain low adverbs like rapidamente ‘quickly’ and the quasi-synonymous PP con rapidità: whereas the former occurs most naturally in between an auxiliary and the VP (bracketed), the latter has a strong preference for occurring in a clause-final position. Assuming the two adverbial expressions to be base-generated in the same low functional head, Belletti and Rizzi () follow Cinque () by proposing that the surface order in (b) is derived by means of leftward movement of the VP across the functional projection hosting the aspectual adverbial, but as can be observed, it stays below the HAVEauxiliary. In other words, what we are dealing with here is indeed leftward movement of a verbal chunk just as in our Latin cases, but it is clear that in order to derive the order ‘VP-Neg-Aux’ which we find in Latin, the landing site of the VP must be much higher (and the type of movement thus less local) than in the case of the process described here.11 More specifically, one has to assume that the Latin VP moves higher than TP and NegP, which are both located fairly high in the functional sequence. .. Roll-up movement Third, and most importantly, the same facts concerning the placement of negation suggest that we are not dealing with a derivation with repeated roll-up movement, as proposed by for instance Ledgeway (a).12 Recall from Chapter  that I take this operation to be responsible for the VP-internal OV-order. However, deriving the order VPAux by means of this process is problematic. First, roll-up

Compare Belletti and Rizzi (: , fn. ): ‘Clearly the movements of verbal chunks discussed in this paper involve the lower part of the clausal functional field, hence the v/Voice/Aspect complex and not the Tense/Mood complex.’ 12 Note that the distinction between ‘VP intraposition’ and roll-up movement drawn here is perhaps a bit artificial, as both involve very local phrasal movement which gives rise to ‘mirror effects’. However, as discussed in Section ., I take it that roll-up movement always sets out the foot of an EP, which is not necessarily true for VP intraposition (witness the fact that this has been invoked to account for word order facts of fairly strict head-initial languages such as English and Italian). 11

Grammar A: EPP-driven VP movement



movement of VP (shorthand for VoiceP in the trees in () and ()) to SpecTP only yields the (grammatical, but relatively rare, cf. Section ...) order Neg-OVAux: ()

NegP Neg°

TP VoiceP OV

TP T° Aux

tVoiceP

Crucially, yet another application of roll-up movement does not yield the desired ‘OV–Neg–Aux’ order either. Rather, it results in the unattested order ‘OVAux–Neg’, which is a clear violation of NegVOR. ()

NegP NegP

TP VoiceP OV

Neg°

TP T° Aux

tTP

tVoiceP

Therefore, I will assume that the Classical Latin VPAux-order (or more accurately, the order VPAux as generated by Grammar A) is not derived by means of roll-up movement. However, things are not as simple as this. As I will argue in Section ., a roll-up derivation is actually what one has to assume for Late Latin VPAux-clauses (Grammar B). Crucially, recall that by the Late Latin period the order VOAux has become obsolete (whereas the order VPAux itself remains productive, albeit not quite as dominantly as it once was): as we will see in Section .., this observation lends important support to the claim that roll-up movement is indeed available for VPAux-clauses in Grammar B.

. Grammar A: EPP-driven VP movement In this section, I will offer a synchronic analysis of Classical Latin VPAux-clauses, a crucial ingredient of which is the theoretical construct known as the ‘Extended



Changing EPP parameters

Projection Principle’, EPP for short. This concept has a relatively long and complex history, and the term has been used in a number of different ways, which is why some preliminary discussion is in order.13 .. Introduction: parameters of EPP-checking ... The Extended Projection Principle Reformulating some ideas from the classical conception of the EPP proposed in Chomsky (), I will define the EPP as the requirement for a functional head F, located high in the articulated TP-domain, to be lexicalized by a phonologically overt element bearing φ-features (typically a nominal element with person, number, and/or case features).14 In a broad sense, FP (or any other functional projection assumed to encode the EPP-requirement) is typically associated with subject properties, which is why the EPP is sometimes informally characterized as the requirement for each (non-defective) clause to have a subject. The relevant requirement can either be satisfied by internally or externally merging a category. In the first case, the probing F-head finds an appropriate category inside the thematic domain (VoiceP), and attracts this element to its specifier. This scenario is exemplified by a simple case like (), where the DP the students moves from its VP-internal base position (which is ‘flagged’ by the floating quantifier all) to a position above the auxiliary have (SpecFP): () [The students]i have all ti done their homework. In the second case, FP is lexicalized by an expletive.15 Such is the case in (), where the ‘subject’ of the clause, the DP many crocodiles stays lower in the structure, the expletive there occupying the higher functional position: ()

There are many crocodiles in the river Nile.

Note that in this case, the element in SpecFP is not a prototypical nominal category but rather a locative. As such, it is presumably endowed with a locative Case feature, making it an adequate candidate to lexicalize FP.16 In addition, the verb agrees with the lower DP many crocodiles, which we can take to mean that it is a head lower than F which is responsible for establishing subject–verb agreement (or in any event, that the EPP-requirement and subject–verb agreement are two distinct phenomena).

For a more complete history of the EPP, see the discussion in Jouitteau (: –). In Chomsky (), and much work in the wake thereof, the relevant category is required to have a categorial D-feature rather than a set of φ-features. 15 For a proposal that expletive there is actually not externally merged in the inflectional layer (TP) but rather in the thematic domain (VP), see Deal (). 16 Note that the cross-linguistically very common phenomenon of locative inversion has been accounted for by calling upon (some version of) the EPP (see e.g. Rizzi and Shlonsky ). 13 14

Grammar A: EPP-driven VP movement



However, it is clear that in many languages apparently no (obligatory) effects such as the ones in () (movement of a subject DP) and/or () (expletive insertion) can be detected. Famously, pro drop languages like Italian seem to freely17 violate the EPP, as subjects can both occur postverbally and remain unexpressed. ... The parameterized EPP In order to account for the obvious cross-linguistic variation with respect to the overt expression of preverbal subjects, Alexiadou and Anagnostopoulou () propose that the EPP can actually be maintained as a universal principle, but that the way in which the requirement of the relevant functional head (T in their account, called F here) can be satisfied is parameterized.18 The core idea is that lexicalization does not have to happen by inserting a phrasal category in SpecFP, but that lexicalizing the head position itself can satisfy the EPPrequirement too. Languages which utilize the second option typically have rich subject–verb agreement, which Alexiadou and Anagnostopoulou () interpret to mean that finite verbs themselves are endowed with nominal properties (following Taraldsen ), to the effect that verb movement can provide the F-head with the required φ-features. An advantage of this proposal is that it can offer a unified analysis of a language like English on the one hand, which does not have V-to-T movement and has poor subject–verb agreement, but which does display obligatory subject effects (including expletives), and Italian on the other, in which the verb obligatorily moves to the T-layer (at least in finite contexts), and which has rich agreement (considered by many a corrolary of verb movement) and subject pro drop. Here, I will adopt one specific implementation of the ‘parameterized EPP’ idea put forward in Alexiadou and Anagnostopoulou (), according to which a second parameter is added to the X°/XP parameter, namely one determining whether or not the φ-feature bearing category probed for by F pied-pipes phrasal material or not (Biberauer , ; Biberauer and Roberts ; Richards and Biberauer ; Biberauer and Richards ). By combining these two binary parameters, we obtain four different ways to satisfy the EPP-requirement. Let us go through the properties of these four language types, starting in the upper left corner of Table . and proceeding clockwise. As mentioned, the first type is exemplified by rich agreement cum pro drop languages like Italian and Modern Greek: the verb moves to the inflectional field and does not pied-pipe any other material. Overt subjects can appear pre- and postverbally, the resulting alternation presumably being associated with certain discourse-related effects. As to the position 17 But see Cardinaletti (: –) for discussion of a context where pro drop is actually disallowed in (Standard) Italian. 18 An alternative approach is pursued by Haider (, ), who claims that the EPP is not a syntactic universal. Put simply, this author suggests that the EPP (and its reflexes) are taken to be a property of SVO languages, but not of SOV languages.



Changing EPP parameters

TABLE . Parameters of EPP-checking Goal = X°

Goal = XP

– pied-piping

V-to-F movement (with optional DP movement to SpecSubjP)

DP movement to (or expletive insertion in) SpecFP

+ pied-piping

VP movement to SpecFP

DP or VP movement to SpecFP

Source: Adapted from Biberauer and Roberts (); Biberauer and Richards ().

of the preverbal subject in a V-to-F movement language, following Cardinaletti () I will assume that it occupies the specifier of a dedicated subject position ‘SubjP’, which is associated with an aboutness reading. Importantly, it is clear that, for instance, in present day Standard Italian finite clauses, preverbal subjects do not have to be adjacent to the finite verb; witness the fact that adverbs of various kinds can intervene between non-left-peripheral subjects and the verb (see Cinque : – for detailed discussion). From this, we can deduce that preverbal subjects do not target the functional projection where the EPP-requirement is encoded (and which by assumption in Italian hosts the finite verb). Concomitantly, DP movement to SpecSubjP is strictly speaking unrelated to EPP-satisfaction. The second option can be dealt with swiftly: it requires the EPP to be satisfied by means of an XP (typically a DP) in SpecFP, and the verb remains low in the structure. Languages that represent this option, like English, typically have expletives. The next two types differ from the first two in having the ‘pied-piping’ parameter set at a positive value, resulting in more (and always phrasal) material to be attracted to SpecFP. However, what differs is again the categorial (X° or XP) status of the element originally probed for. In the lower right corner, we thus get languages where the attracted element is a DP (for instance the external argument in the highest specifier of the verb phrase), which pied-pipes the entire verb phrase to SpecFP.19 With Biberauer and Roberts () and Biberauer and Richards (), I will call this the ‘spec-pied-piping’ option. The main property of this type of language is that it allows for two types of EPP-satisfaction, namely VP or DP movement. In the words of Biberauer and Roberts (: ): ‘[T]he proposal is that a [+pied piping] setting can be interpreted as instructing the system to “move an XP, not an X”, i.e. to move more than the minimal independent bundle of features containing the Goal (i.e. a head) that is visible to the grammar.’ (Colloquial) Afrikaans is a language which exhibits

19

EPP-checking by means of VP movement is often invoked to account for basic word order patterns in verb first languages (see among others Jouitteau , Travis , and contributions to Carnie and Guilfoyle  and Carnie et al. ).

Grammar A: EPP-driven VP movement



this optionality: consider for instance the following pair of examples (from Richards and Biberauer : , their (), bracketing and labelling mine). () a. Ek weet dat sy [AdvP dikwels [VP Chopin gespeel]] het. VPAux I know that she often Chopin played has b. Ek weet dat sy het [AdvP dikwels [VP Chopin gespeel]]. AuxVP I know that she has often Chopin played ‘I know that she has often played Chopin.’ Note first of all that there is no interpretive difference between the two examples in (). The a-example can be said to be derived by means of movement of the verb phrase across the auxiliary het ‘has’ (by assumption in T), presumably with subsequent movement of the subject sy ‘she’ out of the thematic layer (witness its position to the left of the adverb dikwels ‘often’). In the b-example on the other hand, featuring the surface order AuxVP, the entire VP remains downstairs, except for the subject, which is fronted to a position above the auxiliary. Finally, the fourth option is exemplified by VPAux-languages which do not optionally allow for the order AuxVP (and where subjects do not display ‘EPP-behaviour’). German can be considered such a language, its strict VPAux character suggesting that VP movement takes place obligatorily. With this under our belt, we can now return to Latin, and more particularly to that stage of the language in which the hypothesized Grammar A is the predominant one. In the first stage, I will only be concerned with VPAux-clauses, postponing discussion of AuxVP-clauses until Section ... .. Latin VP displacement as A-movement To account for the typical VPAux word order of Classical Latin, I propose that in this stage of the language the entire verb phrase undergoes A-movement to SpecFP in order to satisfy the EPP-requirement of the relevant functional head, which makes Latin a ‘spec-pied-piping’ language (but see below for some important qualification) (see also Danckaert , a; Mackenzie and van der Wurff ). I take this operation to be the defining property of Grammar A. More specifically, I assume that the moved verbal chunk corresponds to the node VoiceP (perhaps with some additional amount of functional superstructure, cf. fn.  above). The structure of a clause like (a), which features (i) an analytic (pluperfect tense) form of a transitive deponent verb, as well as (ii) the negator non ‘not’ (canonically intervening between the past participle and the clause-final auxiliary), (iii) an overt subject (the nominative DP Quintus), and (iv) a direct object (the accusative pronoun nos ‘us’), would be as in (b) (overt terminals in boldface):



Changing EPP parameters

() a. quod Quint-us nos consecut-us non era-t because Quintus-nom us.acc reached-nom.m.sg not be.ipfv-3sg ‘because Quintus hadn’t reached us’ (Cic. Fam. 16.3.1)

b.

CP C°

FP VoiceP

DPea

F′

Voice°

νP

Neg°

DPIA

ν° √°

TP Aux

νP

√P t√°

NegP

F°[epp]

Voice′

tVoiceP

t√P ν°

Let us briefly go through the main properties of this structure. First of all, in the structure in (b), both of the verb’s arguments are still in the thematic domain (VoiceP): the subject (external argument) is still in its base position in SpecVoiceP, and the direct object (internal argument) has only undergone roll-up movement along with the entire √P. This analysis is in line with a proposal made in Julien (), according to which many Tense-final (‘SOV-Tense’) languages allow for the predicate’s arguments to be licensed in situ in the verb phrase (see especially Julien : –).20 Evidence for the claim that in Latin subjects can remain inside the VP comes from examples such as (), where the adverb impune ‘with impunity’ can be considered to demarcate the left edge of the (extended) verb phrase. The subject praetorem aut alium quempiam ‘a praetor or any other man’ to the right of this adverb would then be a likely candidate to be an in situ external argument.21 Although this example features the order AuxVP 20 Note that the present proposal is not compatible with the ‘subject-in-situ generalization’ (Alexiadou and Anagnostopoulou , ), according to which only one argument of a transitive predicate can remain in its base position by the end of the derivation. 21 On the use of adverbs to distinguish between VP-internal and VP-external subjects, see also Rizzi (: –). For a preliminary investigation of placement of adverbs with respect to verbal elements in Latin, see Danckaert (b).

Grammar A: EPP-driven VP movement



(more on which in the next section) rather than VPAux, here we see that external arguments can occur below VP-modifiers, but still higher than the lexical verb: () pos-se [AdvP impune [VoiceP [praetor-em aut ali-um quempiam] [vP be.able-PRS.INF with.impunity praetor-ACC or other-ACC someone.ACC [supplici-um qu-od uel-i-t] in eum constitu-ere]] torture-ACC which-ACC.N.SG want-PRS.SBJV-SG in that.ACC.M.SG decide-PRS.INF [qu-i se ciu-em Roman-um esse dic-a-t]] [...]. who-NOM.M.SG REFL.ACC citizen-ACC Roman-ACC be.PRS.INF say-PRS.SBJV-SG ‘that a praetor or any other man can inflict any punishment he likes upon someone who declares himself a Roman citizen’ (Cic. Ver. .) In addition, there are cases where chunks consisting of a subject and a one-place nonfinite lexical verb appear in coordination, suggesting these two elements together belong to the same (higher-order) constituent, which does not, however, include a functional verb higher in the structure. Two examples are given in ():22 () a. Pot-est=que ea ration-e et [os coi-re], be.able-PRS.SG=and that.ABL method-ABL and bone.NOM join-PRS.INF et [uulnus sanesc-ere]. and wound.NOM heal-PRS.INF ‘By this method the bones can join and the wound can heal.’ (Cels. .) b. Quomodo pos-sunt aut [tenebr-ae inlumina-re] how be.able-PRS.PL or darkness-NOM illuminate-PRS.INF aut [iniquita-s iustifica-re]? or injustice-NOM justify-PRS.INF ‘How can darkness illuminate, or injustice justify?’ (Cypr. Ep. ..) Observe that in both examples, the two bracketed strings are preceded by an overt marker of coordination, et ‘and’ in the a-example and aut ‘or’ in the b-example. Assuming that these elements accurately mark the ‘scope’ of the coordination, it would follow that the relevant examples involve coordination at a level lower than an entire clause, say VoiceP.23 With the usual disclaimer that coordination is not always

22

Note that if indeed (b) is to be analysed as generated by Grammar A, it would be a fairly late example of a Grammar A clause. Recall however that Cyprian is the one author dating from after  AD who more or less productively uses the order VOAux (cf. Figure . in Chapter ), which I take to be the hallmark construction of Grammar A. Moreover, given the ‘competing grammars’ approach assumed in this book, the fact that Grammar A was still accessible for later speakers is of course entirely expected. However, as we will see below, Grammar B is also compatible with VP-internal subjects. 23 The examples in () are reminiscent of the English cases of ‘auxiliary gapping’ discussed in Siegel (), of the type Ward can’t eat caviar and his guest eat dried beans (= Siegel’s ()). Interestingly, some recent syntactic analyses of this phenomenon also involve low coordination of the type that I am assuming for Latin (Johnson : –; Toosarvandani : , fn. ). Note also that these (and many other) authors assume that English gapping is asymmetric in the sense that the first subject canonically evacuates



Changing EPP parameters

a waterproof test for constituenthood (cf. Section ..), these examples too would suggest that it is possible for a subject argument to surface inside the VP. Second, observe that in the structure in (b) the T-head hosting the auxiliary (which I take to be the landing site for V-to-T movement in clauses with a single synthetic verb) sits right under Neg°. Assuming that negation counts as an intervener for head movement, we can straightforwardly derive the ban on all V-non orders (cf. Chapter  for ample discussion of these ‘NegVOR’ facts). Third, an obvious advantage of this analysis is that it readily predicts the availability of the VOAux-order. No roll-up movement is involved in the derivation of the linear complement-head sequence ‘VP-Aux’, from which it follows that the internal structure of the verb phrase is not subject to the Final-Over-Final Constraint (FOFC) as formulated in Section ... Concomitantly, I assume a VOAux-clause to be only minimally different from one featuring the order OVAux, the only difference being the total absence of roll-up movement in the former case. The structure of a (negated) VOAux-clause is detailed in (): ()

CP C°

FP VoiceP

DPea

F′

νP

Voice° ν° √°

Neg° √P

ν°

NegP

F°[epp]

Voice′

TP Aux

tVoiceP

t√° DPia

Fourth, we have to address the question of whether Grammar A is of the head or the spec-pied-piping type, in terms of the taxonomy summarized in Table .. Mackenzie and van der Wurff (: –), who adopt the same parameterized EPP-system as I do, suggest that Latin (without differentiating between different

the VP, whereas in the second conjunct the subject remains in situ. The Latin cases in () would then be the symmetric counterpart of English (auxiliary) gapping, in that both subjects are VP-internal.

Grammar A: EPP-driven VP movement



stages of the language) is a ‘head-pied-piping’ language. To be more precise, the authors propose that the functional head bearing the EPP-feature (T in their account) probes down the tree to target the v/V-complex, which by assumption bears a Dfeature which can trigger agreement on the finite verb. As a result, there is no direct syntactic Agree-relation between T and the subject DP. Movement of the verb phrase to the specifier of the relevant functional projection is construed as a case of head pied-piping. Finally, preverbal subjects are taken to be left-peripheral. I can see a number of problems with this account. First of all, although this system might give some good results for clauses with a finite lexical verb, the proposal seems to run into trouble as soon as cases are considered where V is non-finite, such as various raising constructions.24 For instance, it is unclear to me how one can get plural agreement on the modal auxiliary possum (assuming this is a raising verb, cf. Section ..) in a simple case like (), without calling upon an Agree relation between the finite verb and the subject DP (and bearing in mind that Latin does not have inflected infinitives, which could have licensed the relevant agreement relation indirectly): () quantum in labor-e atque itiner-e legionari-i milit-es as.much.as in effort-ABL and journey-ABL legionary-NOM soldiers-NOM effic-ere pot-era-nt make.happen-PRS.INF be.able-IPFV-PL ‘as much as the legionary soldiers could bring about, given their fatigue and the distance to be crossed’ (Caes. Gal. ..) Assuming the order ‘infinitival VP–modal’ in () to be derived by means of EPP-driven VP movement, under the ‘head-pied-piping’ approach one would have to postulate that the infinitive efficere ‘make happen, bring about’ is somehow endowed with a [+plural]-feature, which would be entirely ad hoc. In addition, it is very unlikely that in an example like () the subject legionarii milites ‘legionary soldiers’ is located in a left-peripheral position, given what we know about the linear position of A′-phrases in Latin embedded clauses (see Danckaert a for ample discussion).25 Therefore, I will assume that it is better to characterize Classical Latin as a ‘specpied-piping’ language: the probing F head actually attracts (the φ-features of) the highest VP-internal argument, which then pied-pipes the entire verb phrase.26 24 As far as I can tell, all contexts involving non-finite verb phrases might constitute a more general problem for the way the class of ‘head-pied-piping’ languages is conceptualized in Richards and Biberauer () and Biberauer and Richards (). 25 Note that in the light of Höhn (), the ‘unagreement’ data adduced to support the claim that Latin has no T-Subj agreement (Mackenzie and van der Wurff : ) are not entirely convincing either. 26 The term ‘spec-pied-piping’ is perhaps slightly inaccurate: as will become clear later in this chapter, I do not assume that the pied-piping element is always the external argument in the highest specifier of the



Changing EPP parameters

However, departing from Richards and Biberauer () and Biberauer and Richards (), I will assume that there is no optionality regarding the size of the A-moved XP. For empirical reasons to be discussed in Section .., I will assume that it is always VoiceP that moves to SpecFP rather than an argument DP (the ‘subject’). Before going there, in the next section I will first consider how the EPP-requirement is satisfied in early AuxVP-clauses, which as we have seen are attested from the earliest texts onwards. .. The syntax of AuxVP-clauses in Grammar A Up to this point, the discussion has mainly focused on (the syntax of) VPAuxclauses, leaving aside examples like the ones in (), featuring the order Aux-V, with (cf. the a-example) or without (as in the b-example) these two elements being linearly adjacent: () a. donec cremor crass-us eri-t fact-us until cream.NOM thick-NOM be-FUT.SG made-NOM.M.SG ‘until it becomes a thick cream’ (Cato Agr. ) b. Non est profecto de ill-o uenen-o celat-a not be.PRS.SG certainly about that-ABL poison-ABL hidden-NOM.F.SG mater. mother.NOM ‘His mother certainly wasn’t kept unaware of this poisoning plot.’ (Cic. Clu. ) As to the syntactic analysis of these clauses, (at least) two hypotheses come to mind. First, one could think that right from the start, (at least some) AuxVP-clauses are the innovative counterpart of the statistically predominant VPAux-clauses, say very early precursors of the Romance structures exemplified in () and (). Put differently, Grammar A and Grammar B would be in competition right from the start. Anticipating the discussion coming up in Section ., Grammar B is characterized by a different setting of the EPP parameter, namely one with verb movement to F° and optional fronting of the subject argument. Alternatively, one could think that early AuxVP-clauses have the same syntax as their VPAux counterparts, modulo additional movement of the auxiliary past the verb phrase (VoiceP) in SpecFP (an operation that is of course only possible in the

thematic domain. In passives (and presumably also unaccusatives), the structurally most prominent argument (which typically receives nominative case) might well be lower in the structure, perhaps even in the lowest complement position. In other words, it is probably more correct to assume that two types of pied-piping might be at work, namely pied-piping from a specifier (whose brother) and pied-piping from a complement position (brother of whom).

Grammar A: EPP-driven VP movement



absence of a sentential negator below GP).27 Let us call the target site of this operation GP. The structure of a transitive clause in which an auxiliary undergoes this type of movement would be as in ():28 ()

CP C°

GP

G° FP F° Aux

G° F°

F′

VoiceP Sφ V

tF° [epp]

TP tAux

tVoiceP

In order for this scenario to work, one would have to assume that GP is not located in the left periphery of the clause, given that in Latin there seems to be a general ban on finite verbs (or more accurately, the hierarchically highest verb of a clause) occurring in the CP-layer (Danckaert a: ). Also, note that in the structure in (), GP is not the locus where the EPP-requirement is satisfied, despite the fact that the auxiliary moves through F° (as dictated by the Head Movement Constraint), and despite F° eventually forming a complex head with G° and the T-head hosting the auxiliary. From this, it follows that head movement of the auxiliary to G does not qualify as a type of verb movement which could satisfy the EPP-requirement of the relevant clause (keeping in mind that the parameterized EPP-system adopted here does in principle allow for the EPP-requirement to be satisfied by means of verb movement).29

27 A third alternative would be to say that early and late AuxVP-clauses are different, in that the former involve EPP-driven DP movement instead of VoiceP movement to SpecFP (and thus that Grammar A can generate both VPAux and AuxVP-orders in which Aux simply sits in T, much as in the original proposal on Afrikaans from Biberauer ()), and that the latter are characterized by the new EPP-setting in which finite auxiliaries move to F (and subject DPs optionally move to the higher SpecSubjP). However, this proposal predicts preverbal subjects in early (Grammar A) AuxVP-clauses to be the norm, contrary to fact (as we will see in Section ...). 28 In the structure in (), the hierarchically highest verb is a functional category (an ‘auxiliary’): it would remain to be seen whether lexical verbs were equally likely to move to G. See also the discussion at the end of Section ... 29 In addition, one has to assume that the intermediate step moving the Aux to F° cannot satisfy the EPP-requirement either. I will come back to this particular point in Section ....



Changing EPP parameters

In what follows, I will argue that the second hypothesis is on the right track, and that at the very least a large subset of the earlier Latin AuxVP-clauses involve VP movement just as their VPAux counterparts. A first reason to assume that this is so comes from the word order facts discussed in Section .: recall that noncontiguous AuxVP-orders are initially more frequent than contiguous ones (cf. our third explanandum). This would suggest that in earlier texts a fair portion of the total set of AuxVP-clauses involves auxiliary raising rather than nonapplication of VP movement. However, it was also pointed out that it is very hard to distinguish contiguous from non-contiguous orders, and that the data offered in the descriptive overview can only be taken to be indicative of a rough tendency. Therefore, additional evidence seems to be needed to support the auxiliary raising analysis.

.. The EPP in Grammar A: evidence from passives In this section, I will discuss two empirical arguments which lend support to the two hypotheses formulated in the previous pages, namely the EPP-driven VoiceP movement analysis of (early) Latin VPAux-clauses (including the secondary hypothesis that Afrikaans-style optional DP movement is not available), and the conjecture that early AuxVP-clauses involve the same kind of VP movement, and additional raising of the auxiliary. The bulk of the evidence comes from the positional distribution of internal arguments in active and in passive clauses. ... The VSAux-pattern My starting point is a prediction that one can make on the basis of the structure in (b), which features an active transitive clause where VoiceP undergoes EPP-driven A-movement. As pointed out, this analysis implies that all DP arguments can remain inside the verb phrase, unless of course they are displaced in a later stage of the derivation (i.e. after merger of FP), for instance for reasons of information structure (leaving aside for the moment the question as to whether or not EPP-driven VP movement alternates with DP movement, which will be addressed in the next section). Let us now assume that the EPP is satisfied in exactly the same way in (personal) passive clauses. According to this scenario, the structure of SVAux (or ‘Internal Argument–V–Aux’) clauses like () (with a BE-periphrasis) and () (with possum) would be as in (): () in qu-a P. Clodi-us in which-ABL.F.SG Publius.NOM Clodius-NOM es-se-t be-IPFV.SBJV-SG ‘in which Publius Clodius was killed’ (Cic. Mil. )

occis-us killed-NOM.M.SG

Grammar A: EPP-driven VP movement



() uti ex loc-is super-ior-ibus in litus tel-um so.that from places-ABL upper-COMP-ABL to coast.ACC missile-NOM adig-i pos-se-t shoot-PASS.PRS.INF be.able-IPFV.SBJV-SG ‘so that from higher places missiles could be thrown to the coast’ (Caes. Gal. ..) ()

CP C°

FP F′ VoiceP

Neg°

νP

√P t√°

DPia

TP Aux

ν° √°

NegP

F°[epp]

νP

Voice°

t√P

tVoiceP

ν°

In this structure, essentially the same happens as in the active clauses represented in the trees in (b) and (): VoiceP moves to SpecFP to satisfy the clausal EPPrequirement, and the internal argument (here a DP marked for nominative case) stays inside the thematic domain, and is only moved to SpecvP along with √P. In addition, we predict that in passive clauses too √P (containing the internal argument) does not have to undergo roll-up movement past the lexical verb. In other words, we expect the linear order VSAux (the passive counterpart of active (transitive) VOAux) to be available. This prediction is borne out: the relevant pattern is well attested both in clauses with a passive BE-periphrasis and in clauses with a modal and a passive infinitive. Two examples are given in () and (): () quod Arretin-is [[adempt-a ciuita-s] because from.Arretium-DAT.M.PL removed-NOM.F.SG citizenship-NOM es-se-t] be-IPFV.SBJV-SG ‘because citizenship had been taken away from the people of Arretium’ (Cic. Caec. )



Changing EPP parameters

() Temptat-a re-s est, si prim-o impetu [[cap-i tried-NOM matter-NOM be.PRS.SG if first-ABL attack.ABL take-PASS.PRS.INF Arde-a] pos-se-t]. Ardea-NOM be.able-IPFV.SBJV-SG ‘They tried to find out whether Ardea could immediately be captured by assault.’ (Liv. ..) Coordination facts similar to the ones discussed in the previous chapter for the VOAux-pattern (cf. Section ...) suggest that in the present case too, the sequence ‘V–Internal Argument’ forms a constituent (simply labelled as ‘VP’ in the examples () and ()), as indicated by the bracketing:30 () Et ante [...] pugna-ri coept-um est, quam [...] and before fight-PASS.PRS.INF begun-NOM.N.SG be.PRS.SG than [&P [VP expedi-ri arm-a] [&° [VP string-i=que free-PASS.PRS.INF weapons-NOM unsheathe-PASS.PRS.INF=and gladi-i]]] pos-se-nt. swords-NOM be.able-IPFV.SBJV-PL ‘The fight began before weapons could be made ready and swords could be drawn.’ (Liv. ..) () qu-a tamen [&P [VP retine-ri castr-a] [&° et [VP [VP which-ABL.F.SG PRT retain-PASS.PRS.INF camp-NOM and elud-i Parth-us] tractu bell-i]]] pot-era-t elude-PASS.PRS.INF Parthian-NOM continuation.ABL war-GEN be.able-IPFV-SG ‘with the help of which (legion, ld) the camp could be preserved and the Parthian enemy could be deceived by protracting the war’ (Tac. Ann. ..) These structures would only differ from the SVAux-clauses discussed above (cf. ()–()) in that no roll-up movement takes place at the bottom of the extended projection. After movement of VoiceP to SpecFP, we thus get the structure in (), which yields the linear order VSAux:

30

Note that the second of the two coordinated VPs in () contains an additional manner adjunct, viz. tractu belli ‘by protracting the war’, which for ease of exposition is bracketed as a rightward VP-adjunct. Nothing crucial hinges on this.

Grammar A: EPP-driven VP movement ()



CP C°

FP F′

VoiceP νP

Voice° ν° √°

NegP

F°[epp] √P

ν° t√° DPia

Neg°

TP Aux

tVoiceP

In the context of the parameterized EPP-system, the availability of the VSAux ([[VS] Aux]) pattern in passive clauses lends important support to the hypothesis that in VPAux-clauses, VP rather than DP movement is responsible for lexicalizing FP, and thus for satisfying the EPP. ... Internal arguments across voice types Further interesting insights can be gained from comparing the placement of internal arguments in different types of clauses. In the previous section, we looked at one particular property which internal arguments in active and passive clauses share, namely their ability to linearly appear in between a lexical verb and an auxiliary. This was argued to be predicted by our analysis. However, assuming the rate of roll-up movement and the application of discourse-driven types of movement (scrambling, topicalization, etc.) to be constant across the two types of clauses, the VoiceP movement analysis actually makes the stronger prediction that placement of internal arguments in both types of environments should be more or less identical, at least in Classical Latin (or more precisely, the period in which Grammar A was predominant). However, this can only be so if we are indeed dealing with a spec-pied-piping language which does not allow for optional DP movement to SpecFP. In this section, I will argue that this is essentially correct. Moreover, I will show that this is so in VPAux and AuxVP-clauses alike, which in turn supports the hypothesis that the latter environment involves EPPdriven movement of VoiceP (rather than a DP) too. Let us first look at the range of available word order permutations in passive clauses. As it (not unexpectedly) happens, in this environment we find all six logically possible combinations of the elements ‘S’, ‘V’, and passive ‘Aux’, just as we saw earlier with the elements ‘O’, ‘V’, and ‘Aux’ in active clauses. In other words, apart from SVAux (()–()) and VSAux (()–()), we also find the other four



Changing EPP parameters

combinations, three of which feature the surface order AuxVP. In ()–(), I give four relevant examples featuring clauses with a passive BE-periphrasis: () ubi in uoluptat-em es-se-t adduct-a laceratio AuxVS when to pleasure-ACC be-IPFV.SBJV-SG brought-NOM.F.SG butchery.NOM ‘when bloodshed has become a kind of pleasure’ (Sen. Ep. .) () quamquam iam est pericul-um depuls-um although already be.PRS.SG danger-NOM averted-NOM.N.SG ‘although the danger has already been averted’ (Cic. Catil. .)

AuxSV

() ill-am interpellation-em [...] [qu-a paul-o ante VAuxS which-ABL.F.SG little-ADV before that-ACC interpellation-ACC interrupt-a est oratio me-a] interrupted-NOM.F.SG be.PRS.SG speech.NOM my-NOM ‘that interpellation, by which a little while ago my speech was interrupted’ (Cic. Prov. ) () ill-e die-s qu-o Ti. Gracch-us SAuxV that-NOM day-NOM which-ABL.M.SG Tiberius.NOM Gracchus-NOM est caes-us be.PRS.SG killed-NOM.M.SG ‘that day, on which Tiberius Gracchus was killed’ (Cic. Mil. ) The same range of variation can also be observed in clauses with a modal: () si cuiquam nou-o ciu-i pot-ueri-t adim-i AuxVS if some.DAT new-DAT citizen-DAT be.able-PRF.SBJV-SG take.away-PASS.PRS.INF ciuita-s citizenship-NOM ‘if it were possible for citizenship to be taken away from a new citizen’ (Cic. Caec. ) () a qu-o facil-lim-e pos-si-t host-is AuxSV from which-ABL.M.SG easy-SUP-ADV be.able-PRS.SBJV-SG enemy-NOM prohibe-ri prevent-PASS.PRS.INF ‘from which an enemy can most easily be kept away’ (Var. L. .) () asser-es [...] ad qu-os religa-ri pos-si-nt VAuxS beams-NOM to which-ACC.M.PL tie-PASS.PRS.INF be.able-PRS.SBJV-PL iuuenc-i bullocks-NOM ‘beams . . . , to which the bullocks can be tied’ (Col. ..)

Grammar A: EPP-driven VP movement



() quo maior numer-us milit-um pos-se-t SAuxV so.that larger.NOM number-NOM soldiers-GEN be.able-IPFV.SBJV-SG inpon-i place-PASS.PRS.INF ‘so that a larger number of soldiers could be embarked’ (Caes. Civ. ..) As mentioned, the line of analysis that I am pursuing here not only predicts internal arguments across voice distinctions to exhibit the same range of word order variation, it also predicts the six possible word order permutations to occur at roughly the same frequencies. An alternative hypothesis according to which DP movement is involved in satisfying the EPP-requirement—be it DP movement instead of VP movement to SpecFP, or optional DP movement to SpecSubjP (in addition to VP movement to SpecFP)—predicts internal arguments in passive clauses to display ‘subject behaviour’ by moving leftward (for reasons of EPP) at higher rates than direct objects in active clauses. In other words, passive subjects are expected to end up more often in a position where they c-command an auxiliary in T than are direct objects in active clauses. We can then formulate the following more specific hypotheses. First, in AuxVP-clauses the order SAuxV in passive clauses should be more frequent than the order OAuxV in active clauses, as internal arguments in passives should be more likely to undergo A-movement. Second, a DP movement hypothesis predicts the order VOAux to be more frequent than the corresponding passive VSAux-pattern, as internal arguments in active clauses are more likely to remain VP-internally than their passive counterparts. Under the analysis entertained here (the null hypothesis), no such asymmetries are predicted. In order to empirically test these hypotheses, I collected all clauses in DLCS from the period from  BC until  AD which contain a modal auxiliary (possum or debeo), a dependent infinitive and a nominal internal argument,31 and I compared the placement of internal arguments in the two conditions of the factor ‘voice’.32 All transitive deponent infinitives were categorized as active. The overall results are summarized in Figure ., with ‘IA’ on the horizontal axis labels standing for ‘Internal Argument’. In the left-hand half of the graph in Figure . three word order patterns found in AuxVP-clauses are grouped together, whereas the right half represents the facts for VPAux-clauses. Upon first inspection, it seems to be the case that active and passive clauses by and large behave in the same way, with minor differences in some of the groups. The figures corresponding to the mean values plotted in Figure . are given in 31 In deciding what counts as a ‘nominal internal argument’ in a passive clause, I applied exactly the same criteria as the ones spelled out for internal arguments (direct objects) in active clauses in Section ..., modulo the fact that patterns of case marking of subjects and objects are of course different (outside AcIs, that is). 32 Given that here I am dividing the total number of clauses of each subsample over six bins, I opted to include only those samples containing at least twenty active and twenty passive clauses.



Changing EPP parameters 50

Frequency (in %)

40 30 20 10 0

AuxVIA

AuxIAV

IAAuxV Active

VAuxIA

VIAAux

IAVAux

Passive

FIGURE . The distribution of internal arguments in active and passive clauses with a modal verb, ca.  BC– AD.

TABLE . Placement of internal arguments across voice distinctions, ca.  BC–  AD: mean frequencies per word order pattern (standard errors in parentheses) AuxVP

Active Passive

VPAux

AuxVIA

AuxIAV

IAAuxV

VAuxIA

VIAAux

IAVAux

.% (.) .% (.)

.% (.) .% (.)

.% (.) .% (.)

.% (.) .% (.)

.% (.) .% (.)

.% (.) .% (.)

Table .. The underscored figures are the ones for the groups for which we have made specific predictions. In absolute terms, in both cases the alternative hypothesis (postulating EPP-driven DP movement) seems to be confirmed. First of all, and most importantly (in light of the discussion in Section ..), internal arguments in AuxVP-clauses evacuate the VP more frequently in passive clauses than in active ones (.% compared to .%). However, this difference of just over % cannot be shown to be statistically significant (paired t-test, p (one-tailed) = .): I refer to Section . for further discussion of the implications of this (non-)result. Note that in more than half of the passive AuxVP-clauses, the internal argument does not surface to the left of Aux, a result that would be especially problematic if we were to assume that EPP-driven VP and DP movement are in complementary

Grammar A: EPP-driven VP movement



distribution (compare the discussion in fn.  above). We can assume that many of the pre-Aux subjects did not undergo A-movement, but rather underwent some type of discourse-sensitive fronting; some of them might actually be left-peripheral (recall that I excluded only (and all) unambiguously left-peripheral internal arguments, but that a fair number of the tokens where the exact position (A′ or otherwise) of a given internal argument cannot be assessed unambiguously were taken up in the sample). In any event, I see at this point no reason to question the null hypothesis that the rate of left-peripheral fronting (of the types discussed in Danckaert a) of internal arguments remains constant across voice distinctions. Second, in VPAux-clauses active internal arguments display a stronger tendency to remain in situ inside the verb phrase (.% vs. .%), but this difference also does not come out as significant (paired t-test, p (one-tailed) = .).33 Together these preliminary observations—although strictly speaking non-results—lend some initial support to the view that there is no (optional or otherwise) EPP-driven (or EPP-related) DP movement in Grammar A, neither in AuxVP-clauses, nor in VPAux-clauses. I refer to Section .. for more detailed discussion (and a full regression analysis) of the positional behaviour of internal arguments, which lends more conclusive support to the ‘no DP movement’ hypothesis entertained here. Note however that both of the non-significant p-values obtained are actually not very far away from the . level, especially not in the second case. This is likely to be so because the period considered runs until  AD, which is well after the point at which Grammar B had become prominent (which at the end of the previous chapter was estimated to be just before  AD). In other words, there might very well be a sizeable number of Grammar B tokens in the dataset analysed here. .. Interim conclusion In this section, I have defended the idea that all Latin clauses in Grammar A involve an operation which displaces a portion of the extended verb phrase (VoiceP to be precise) to the specifier of a functional projection (FP) where the clausal EPPrequirement is encoded. This is also the case in clauses which feature the order AuxVP, which I argued involve auxiliary raising to a position higher than FP. Finally, I have argued that in Grammar A, argument DPs never undergo A-movement. The corpus data discussed in Section .., which did not reveal any positional

33 Observe that it is generally not recommended to perform repeated t-tests on different subsets of a larger sample, as this procedure inflates the so-called Type  error, i.e. the chance of finding false positives. However, in the present context this is actually not an unwelcome effect: recall that the analysis defended in this chapter predicts there to be no difference with respect to placement of internal arguments across voice distinctions. It follows that absence of any significant result with a repeated t-test procedure suggests even more strongly that this analysis is on the right track. In any event, I refer to the regression analysis coming up in Section .. for more conclusive statistical evidence that the claims made here are correct.



Changing EPP parameters

asymmetries between direct objects in active clauses and subjects in passive clauses, suggest that the present analysis manages to cover a fair amount of empirical ground.

. The genesis of Grammar B: Neg-procliticization and syntactic reanalysis Having discussed the synchronic syntax of the extended verb phrase in Grammar A, I now turn to the later stages of the language, in which I assume Grammar B had become more prominent. I will argue that despite many surface resemblances, most notably the potential for both grammars to generate both VPAux and AuxVP strings, the basic structure of a Grammar B clause is actually very different from the Grammar A structures that we have analysed thus far. In this section, I will outline the main points of my analysis. In Section ., empirical evidence from the Latin corpus will be presented to support this analysis. I will propose that two factors played a role in triggering the change from the old grammar to the new one, both of which have already figured very prominently in the first chapter of this book. The first factor is the syntax of sentential negation. The second is the familiar potential for linguistic utterances to be structurally ambiguous, and the concomitant potential for language learners to ‘reanalyse’ the linguistic input they are exposed to (see Lightfoot  and subsequent literature). Let us start with negation. .. The development of negation: Jespersen’s Cycle In Chapter  an analysis was proposed to account for what I called ‘NegVOR’, that is, the unavailability of clauses in which the hierarchically highest verb linearly precedes a clause-mate marker of sentential negation. In syntactic terms, these facts were interpreted to mean that the highest verb cannot head move past the negator. I argued that this could be understood as an effect of the Head Movement Constraint (or a Relativized Minimality-based reformulation thereof). My starting point in this section is the well-known generalization that the expression of sentential negation is typically not diachronically stable but subject to a very systematic type of cyclic change. Single markers of sentential negation have a tendency to be reinforced by a second element, which then gradually replaces the original negator to express negation on its own, after which new reinforcing elements start to emerge.34 An early and very influential description of this cyclic development was offered by Otto Jespersen (Jespersen ), and has since become known as 34

It is very much debated what causes what in this series of changes: does the reinforcer arise because the original marker had weakened, or does it only weaken after (and because) the reinforcer has come into being? I will not take any stance in this debate, but see the references cited below after () for discussion.

The genesis of Grammar B



‘Jespersen’s Cycle’. A detailed structure of Jespersen’s Cycle (from Breitbarth and Haegeman : section ., their ()) is given in (): ()

Stages in Jespersen’s Cycle: stage  stage  stage  stage 

stage  (stage ′

single (preverbal/clitic) negation marker single (preverbal/clitic) negation marker plus optional phrasal emphasizer bipartite or embracing negation bipartite or embracing negation with the original marker having become optional and the original emphasizer having become the neutral negator single (phrasal) negation marker grammaticalized from the original emphasizer this marker becomes weakened to a clitic (preverbal) marker again)

The literature on Jespersen’s Cycle is particularly rich. Some recent references include Horn (: –), van Gelderen (, : ch. ), and the contributions in Larrivée and Ingham () and Mosegaard Hansen and Visconti (). On Romance (varieties), in particular, see Schwegler (, ), Englebert (, ), Fruyt (: –), and Mosegaard Hansen (). .. Neg-procliticization in Late Latin My proposal is that in terms of a slightly more detailed version of Jespersen’s Cycle than the one given in (), pre-historical Latin represents stage , with a phrasal negative adverb non (compare the discussion of examples ()–()). Early and Classical Latin would represent stage a, with a single preverbal negator non which in X-bar terms is a non-proclitic (free standing) head. Late Latin would then be in a further substage which minimally differs from the previous one in that preverbal non is proclitic to the hierarchically highest verb.35,36 Many descendants of Latin non in present day languages are still preverbal clitics (on French, see Kayne , Rowlett ; on Italian, Zanuttini , Manzini and Savoia : ch. ). Formally, I take the procliticization process to involve head movement of the verb in T° to Neg°. The main consequence of this operation is that negation no longer constitutes a barrier for further head movement (viz. of the complex head Neg-T). Let us go through these developments in more detail.

A similar process of procliticization seems to have taken place in the history of German (Jäger ). It may well be the case that a lexical split took place, and that only the negator in the NegP immediately above TP was reanalysed as a clitic. The higher negators (e.g. the clause-initial ones) would not have been affected by this change. See also footnote  (and compare the discussion in Section ....). 35 36



Changing EPP parameters

As to the earliest stages, I will assume that non set out as a phrasal negative adverb, and that it gradually weakened over time. The lexical item non is a relatively young Latin-internal innovation, young enough to have a transparent (and apparently uncontroversial) etymology. It is generally agreed that non is the result of a contraction of the original negator ne (which is inherited from the Indo-European mother language) and the reinforcer oenom ‘one’, itself an expression of minimal quantity of the type that often later grammaticalizes into an independent negator. In very early Latin texts, the form noenum is still attested (albeit only a handful of times): () Noenum mecastor [qu-id ego er-o dic-a-m me-o not by.Castor what-ACC.N.SG I.NOM master-DAT say-PRS.SBJV-SG my-DAT mal-ae re-i euen-isse qu-am=ue insani-am] bad-GEN thing-GEN befall-PRF.INF which-ACC=or madness-ACC que-o comminisc-i. be.able-PRS.SG think.up-PRS.INF ‘Good heavens, I don’t know what to think: what kind of bad spell or madness came over my master?’ (Pl. Aul. –A) () si hodie noenum ueni-s if today not come-PRS.SG ‘if you don’t come today’ (Varro apud Non. vol.  p.  Lindsay) We can reasonably assume that the weakening of phrasal noenum/non did not happen overnight, but that it was a slow and gradual process. Specifically, I take it that one should distinguish (at least) one intermediate step between the phrasal non stage from pre-historical Latin and the proclitic marker non that we know from, for example, present day Standard Italian, namely a stage in which non was still phonologically independent, but categorially an X° rather than an XP.37 According to the analysis developed in Chapter , this is what the situation in Early and Classical Latin is like. The development from a phrasal to a head negator can be said to be the result of a more general economy principle, according to which functional elements (XPs) in a specifier position are likely to be reanalysed as syntactic heads. van Gelderen (, ) dubs this the ‘Head Preference Principle’: ()

Head Preference Principle: Be a head, rather than a phrase. (van Gelderen : )

37 Note that this scenario forces me to assume a good deal of homophony between various distinct lexical entries, as there is no obvious difference in the shape of the three distinct types of lexical items of non (phrasal, independent head, proclitic head) that I postulate, at least not in a written corpus (compare the discussion in Section ....). This is of course not conceptually problematic.

The genesis of Grammar B



In terms of a simple X-bar schema, this would imply that structures like (a), in which a functional projection is lexicalized by means of a phrasal item containing a lexical item (LI) in its specifier, tend to be replaced by the simpler structure in (b), where the same lexical item is now directly inserted in the head position (which makes the projection of a bar-level and a spec position superfluous). Applied to (Latin) negation, this process looks like in (b): ()

a.

FP XP LI

b.

FP F′

F°

F° LI YP

NegP non

YP

NegP Neg′

Neg°

Neg° non

TP

TP

Syntactically, I take the process of Neg-procliticization to involve head movement (and right adjunction) of T° to Neg°, as in (): ()

NegP Neg°

NegP TP

T°

Neg° VoiceP

Neg° T°

TP tT°

VoiceP

In early Romance varieties, the situation in the earliest documents seems to be fairly similar to the one in the present day Romance languages: the weak preverbal negator canonically appears as proclitic on the finite verb, and it can only be separated from it by clitic pronouns (but see Ingham ). Such seems to be the case with the Old French preverbal clitic ne38 as well as with Old Italian non. Thus Zanuttini () on Old Italian:

38 Apart from this canonical marker, in Old French there also was the negator non (cf. Moignet ; Mosegaard Hansen ), which according to Moignet () and Englebert (, ) was used to express constituent negation (but see Larrivée () for a proposal that non and ne expressed different pragmatic functions, with non being a so-called presuppositional polarity marker). With the meaning ‘no’, non (= NON from Section ....) survives until today.



Changing EPP parameters

Come in it[aliano] mod[erno], il morfema di negazione proposizionale in it[aliano] ant[ico] si trova sempre immediatamente prima del verbo flesso [examples omitted ld]. Gli unici elementi che possono intervenire fra la negazione e il verbo sono i pronomi clitici, come in it[aliano] mod[erno]. (Zanuttini : )39

Given this scenario, we can now explore the consequences of this development for the overall architecture of the Latin clause. .. Grammar B: Late Latin VPAux ... Same surface strings, new grammar Recall that the cornerstone of my VP movement analysis of VPAux-clauses in Grammar A was the observation that the order ‘C-VP-Neg-Aux’ can only be derived by means of non-local VP movement past NegP. A derivation with repeated roll-up movement would derive a Neg-final order, which is never attested. In addition, since Chapter  I have taken it for granted that all head movement past non in Neg° is also ruled out. However, once we assume that negation and T form a single complex head (with negation before the verb), the situation becomes entirely different. Not only is the original head movement barrier now lifted (as nothing prevents the Neg-T complex from moving further upwards, as long as this happens in a strictly local fashion), one can also not think of any derivation in which non ends up to the right of the hierarchically highest verb (assuming that ‘excorporation’, i.e. subextraction from a complex head, is not an available option). No matter what happens, incorporated T will always linearly follow non. This state of affairs has important repercussions. Imagine the derivation of a Latin finite clause, where the verb in T has incorporated into the Neg-head.40 Let us then merge F, the head endowed with the EPP-feature, on top of this (see (a)). Assuming that after a given syntactic head has been added to the structure, head movement is the first type of movement that can take place (i.e. before various types of phrasal movement that give rise to the creation of an inner or an outer specifier to the relevant head), the easiest way to satisfy the EPP-requirement of F would be head movement of the Neg-T complex. The details of this derivation are sketched in (b). Note that the (finite) verb is endowed with φ-features, which it has acquired by virtue of the fact that it has entered into an Agree relation with the subject at an earlier point in the derivation (recall that I am assuming that subject–verb agreement is configured in T).

39 ‘Like in Modern Italian, in Old Italian the morpheme expressing propositional negation always appears right in front of the inflected verb. . . . The only elements that can intervene between negation and the verb are clitic pronouns, as in Modern Italian.’ 40 On EPP-satisfaction in non-finite clauses, see Section ...

The genesis of Grammar B ()

a.

FP F°[epp]

b.

Neg°

FP F°[epp]

NegP

Neg° T°φ

TP tT°



Neg° Neg°

T°φ

F°

NegP tNeg°

TP tT°

Crucially, the structure in (b) is perfectly well formed, which effectively renders any further (phrasal) movement to SpecFP superfluous. The net result of all this is that in terms of the parameterized EPP taxonomy discussed in Section .., Latin is now a verb movement language, where phrasal movement of the subject DP to SpecSubjP (and not SpecFP) is only optional (for details see the representations below). In other words, a new grammar has come into being: we can call it ‘Grammar B’. Given this proposal, a major difference between the earlier Grammar A and its successor Grammar B is the amount of verb movement in the functional spine of the clause. To this I would like to add a second major difference. Recall first of all that even in very Late Latin, there still is a fair number of VPAux-clauses. In all likelihood, some of these were still generated by Grammar A (i.e. the old VP movement grammar, which only gradually lost the competition with the verb movement grammar (Grammar B)), but for reasons to be expounded on in Section ., I will assume that there is now also a second way to derive the order VPAux, namely one involving roll-up movement. In a grammar which allows for T° to move to F° (with or without a procliticized negator), this is in fact a licit derivation. The rationale behind this idea is that language learners reanalysed the sequence ‘VP (–Neg)–Aux’ as being derived through roll-up rather than A-movement. The input structure—which as ever corresponds to a structurally ambiguous surface string— would be as in (a) (where negation is of course optional). In this structure, VoiceP has canonically been A-moved to SpecFP (that is, pied-piped by the highest nominal argument (DPφ)). Phonologically overt elements are marked in boldface: () a. [FP [VoiceP V ] [F’ F° [NegP Neg° [TP T° tVoiceP ]]]] Grammar A This structure is then reanalysed as the string-identical pattern in (b), where a very large phrasal remnant (NegP in the case of a negated clause, perhaps just TP in the case of a clause with positive polarity), containing VoiceP and all traces of the head which has moved to F°, undergoes roll-up movement to an outer spec of FP (for reasons unrelated to the EPP), and in which the head position of F is lexicalized by the finite verb (and optionally a negator): () b. [FP [NegP [TP [VoiceP V ] [TP tT°]] [NegP tNeg°]] [FP Neg°+T°+F° tNegP]] Grammar B



Changing EPP parameters

In () I give a more detailed derivation of Late Latin ‘VP(–Neg)–Aux’ clauses like (a–b), by assumption generated by Grammar B. As indicated by the dashed arrow, I assume that movement of the highest (DP‑)argument to SpecSubjP is optional, in accordance with the system laid out in Section ... () a. nisi pro gemmat-a fibul-a us-us non est unless jewelled-ABL brooch-ABL used-NOM.M.SG not be.PRS.SG ‘unless he did not use a jewelled brooch’ (SHA Car. .) b. postquam Maroue-us episcopatu-m urb-is adept-us after Maroueus-NOM bishophood-ACC city-GEN obtained-NOM.M.SG est be.PRS.SG ‘after Maroveus had become bishop of the city’ (Greg. Tur. Franc. .) ()

CP C°

SubjP DPea

Subj′ FP

Subj°

FP F°[epp] tNegP

NegP TP VoiceP νP √P

VoiceP νP

t√° DPia ν° t√°

NegP TP

tNeg°

Neg°

tTP Neg°

F° T°

tT° tVoiceP

tdpea Voice′ Voice° tνP

√° ν°

... Speculations on the origin of Early Romance V-to-C movement To conclude, let me point out one potentially interesting consequence of the proposal that the transition from Grammar A (say ‘Classical Latin’) to Grammar B (Late Latin)

The genesis of Grammar B



involves a change from less to more (higher) verb movement. It has often been proposed that the early Romance languages went through a verb second (V) stage, which in a generative framework is standardly taken to involve movement of the finite verb to the left periphery, that is, higher than the three positions that I have proposed are available for finite verbs in Grammar A and/or Grammar B, viz. T°, F°, and G° (see among others Benincà –, ; Vanelli et al. ; Adams ; Vance ; Ferraresi and Goldbach ; Benincà and Poletto ; Ledgeway a; Ingham ; Poletto : –; Wolfe a,b; for earlier discussion, see for instance Herman ). Although it is certainly not the case that the relevant phenomenon (or perhaps more accurately, ‘family of phenomena’) was in any sense a strict Vgrammar of the type we find in present day North and Continental West Germanic languages, it seems to be the case that finite verbs in Early Romance move higher than they do in (Classical and Late) Latin. Once the language loses (some of) the roll-up movement in the lower parts of the clause (see the following section), finite verbs effectively surface in a fairly leftward position. As it seems unlikely that the individual Early Romance varieties independently developed a V-like system, it might very well be the case that patterns of finite verb placement in Early Romance derive from a common, Late Latin source. If the present analysis is on the right track, the origins of Early Romance V-to-C movement may be related to the new way of EPP-satisfaction innovated in Grammar B, itself a result of the earlier development of Negprocliticization. .. Late Latin AuxVP ... Same surface strings, new grammar I now turn to the analysis of Late Latin AuxVP-clauses. Just as in the case of the VPAux-order, I will suggest that one should distinguish two different structures yielding the same surface order, one of which is an innovation (the other one being the V°-to-G° (auxiliary raising) structure discussed in Section .., which is presumably still available in later times too). More specifically, what I will suggest is that at least a large group of Late Latin AuxVPclauses involves neither verb raising to G° nor VP movement, but only movement of T° to F°, possibly with an intermediate step in Neg°. Similarly to what we said above about the reanalysis of VPAux-clauses, this new type of AuxVP-clause is likely to have come about when the language learner reanalysed an AuxVP string in which a fronted auxiliary sits in G (cf. (a)) as a structure in which Aux occupies the lower F-head, and in which no movement of VoiceP takes place (cf. (b)). Given the ban on verb movement to G° past negation, we have to assume that the input structure for the relevant process of reanalysis must have been clauses with positive polarity (or perhaps negated clauses with only a NegP above GP). ()

a. [GP T°+F°+G° [FP [VoiceP V ] [F’ tF° [TP tT° tVoiceP ]]]] Grammar A Grammar B b. [FP T°+F° [TP tT° [VoiceP V ]]]



Changing EPP parameters

Note that in the new AuxVP-structures there can still be some residual roll-up movement in the lower part of the clause (giving rise to, for instance, OV-orders). In addition, the highest of the verb’s arguments can optionally move to SpecSubjP. In () and (), I give two examples of Late Latin negated AuxVP-clauses (which are likely to have been produced by Grammar B), one with () and one without () subject movement, but both with VP-internal roll-up, yielding the orders ‘S–Neg–AuxOV’ and ‘Neg–AuxSOV’ respectively. The corresponding structure is detailed in (): () sicut enim ull-a nau-is sine mult-is labor-ibus like PRT any-NOM ship-NOM without many-ABL efforts-ABL non pot-est aliqu-a terren-a conquir-ere not be.able-PRS.SG some-ACC grounds-ACC conquer-PRS.INF ‘(lit.) just like no ship can gain any ground without great efforts’ (Caes. Arel. Sermo . (p.  Delage)) () Non pot-est script-us here-s secundum tabul-as not be.able-PRS.SG written-NOM heir-NOM according.to tables-ACC bon-orum possession-em pet-ere. goods-GEN possession-ACC pursue-PRS.INF ‘According to the testament the appointed heir cannot claim possession of the goods.’ (Gaius Inst. .) ()

SubjP DPea

Subj′ FP

Subj° F°[epp] Neg° Neg°

F° T°

NegP tNeg°

TP VoiceP

tT° tdpea

Voice′ νP

Voice°

νP

√P t√°

DPia

ν° √°

t√P

ν°

Finally, just as in Grammar A there are also cases where there is no roll-up at all. The structure for clauses with the order ‘S–Neg–AuxVO’ (with movement to

The genesis of Grammar B



SpecSubjP) and ‘Neg–AuxSVO’ (subject in situ) is a completely right branching tree, which is identical to (), but without any roll-up movement at the level of vP. Two examples are given below (one with () and one without () movement of the subject DP). I assume that the corresponding trees are straightforward. () Puta

Gaudenti-us omnino non pot-est habe-re Gaudentius-NOM entirely not be.able-PRS.SG have-PRS.INF praenomen. personal.name.ACC ‘Clearly the name “Gaudentius” cannot have a personal name.’ (Pomp. gramm. GLK , p. , l. –) PRT

() Inueni-e-s [quoniam non pot-est indicatiu-us mod-us find-FUT-SG that not be.able-PRS.SG indicative-NOM mood-NOM habe-re tempus futur-um]. have-PRS.INF tense.ACC future-ACC ‘You will find that the indicative mood cannot have a future tense.’ (Pomp. gramm. GLK , p. , l. –) ... Early verb fronting revisited To finish this section, I would like to revisit the question of why verb fronting in the early grammar does not qualify as a strategy to satisfy the EPP-requirement (cf. Section ..). This question is particularly relevant, as it seems inevitable (given the HMC) to assume that on its way to its high landing site (which I called G° in Section ..) the verb passes through F°, which is the locus where the EPP-feature is located. The structure I proposed earlier for AuxVP-clauses in Grammar A is repeated here for convenience (cf. () above): ()

GP

G° FP F° Aux

G° F°

VoiceP Sφ V

F′ tF° [epp]

TP tAux

tVoiceP

The main reason why I assume that the intermediate step from T to F is not sufficient to satisfy the EPP in Grammar A is that there are two environments where a probing F head



Changing EPP parameters

cannot attract the verb in T (or put differently, where F’s EPP-requirement cannot possibly be satisfied through verb movement), namely negated clauses and AcIs (if indeed there is V-to-T movement in this type of non-finite clause, despite there not being any subject–verb agreement). First, in negated clauses in Grammar A, EPP-driven T-to-F movement is excluded by the HMC, at least in the stage in which the lexical item non still only exists as a non-proclitic head (and we can assume that there was at least some time between the moment that incorporated non came into being and the genesis of Grammar B). Second, in AcIs EPP-satisfaction through verb movement would not be available because in this type of clause the highest verb does not carry any φ-features (which is what F is probing for). As both of these structures can be assumed to figure prominently in the PLD, I assume that the language learner was presented with sufficient and robust evidence that (Classical) Latin was a VP movement language rather than a language that consistently employs verb movement to satisfy the EPP. This would be a case of early parameter setting, which affects all clauses endowed with the relevant F-head (i.e. all non-defective clauses), without there being any construction-specific exceptions. Observe now that even in very early Latin, the order AuxVP is not restricted to finite contexts, but that it can also occur in the AcI. Consider for instance the following example from Cato (ca.  BC), where an AcI appears in a non-selected context, in some kind of root-like free indirect speech: () Per feri-as pot-u-isse foss-as ueter-es terge-ri, during holidays-ACC be.able-PRF-INF ditches-ACC old-ACC clean-PASS.PRS.INF ui-am public-am muni-ri, uepr-es recid-i, [ . . . ]. road-ACC public-ACC repair-PASS.PRS.INF thorn-bushes-ACC cut.away-PASS.PRS.INF ‘On holidays old ditches could have been cleaned, public roads repaired, thornbushes cut away.’ (Cato Agr. .) If we assume that F probes down the tree to find a Goal with φ-features, it is clear that the leftward position of the infinitive potuisse ‘have been able to’, which itself of course does not bear any φ-features (as it does not display agreement with its highest clause-mate argument), must be unrelated to any process of EPP-checking. Put differently, the present T(-to-F)-to-G movement account of AuxVP-clauses in Grammar A, which does not involve EPP-driven head movement to derive the surface position of the auxiliary, predicts there to be no discrepancy between finite and non-finite environments with respect to the availability of the AuxVP-order. Conversely, an EPP-driven verb movement analysis of Late Latin (‘Grammar B’) AuxVP does in fact predict the relevant word order pattern to be a matter of finite clauses. Two facts suggest that these predictions are borne out. First, there is indeed evidence that the rise of the order AuxVP is much stronger in finite clauses than in AcIs, although a milder increase can be observed in the non-finite environment too. Some figures are given in Table .. Although I do not at present have an explanation for every single trend in these data (the unexpectedly high frequency of the order AuxVP in Late Latin AcIs being a case in point, as well as the fact that the order AuxVP is more frequently (and statistically significantly so, Pearson’s

Properties of Grammar B



TABLE . AuxVP and VPAux-orders over time: AcIs and finite (main and embedded) clauses compared Early (pre  AD) Type of clause AcI Finite

Late (post  AD)

VPAux

AuxVP

% of AuxVP

VPAux

 

 

. .

 

AuxVP  

% of AuxVP . .

chi-squared test, p < .) attested in early AcIs than in early finite clauses), one major trend in this dataset seems to be the difference qua increase of the order AuxVP in the two types of clauses (an increase of .% in the AcI condition, compared to .% in finite clauses).41 Second, as is well known, in the Late Latin period the AcI loses ground, and is gradually being replaced by finite clauses introduced by an overt complementizer (see Cuzzolin  and references cited there). It seems natural to hypothesize that this new way of EPP-checking was one factor that contributed to the eventual loss of the AcI: movement of a φ-featureless infinitive to F° being unable to satisfy the EPP-requirement, AcIs could not survive in the new system. For a detailed analysis of the loss of the AcI (and the concomitant rise of infinitival causatives) along exactly these lines, see Danckaert (submitted a).

. Properties of Grammar B .. A first consequence: the decline of ‘V–Internal Argument–Aux’ In this fifth section I would like to explore a number of consequences of the analysis proposed thus far. First of all, we are now (finally) in a position to account for the disappearance of the VOAux-pattern as described in the previous chapter. The answer to this question follows from the analysis in a straightforward fashion: given the claim that in Grammar B VPAux-clauses are derived by means of roll-up movement, we correctly predict that this structure should be subject to the ‘FinalOver-Final Constraint’ (FOFC, cf. Section ...) from Biberauer et al. (), and thus that the VOAux-pattern should be rare in Late Latin. The remaining cases of Late Latin VOAux can plausibly be considered remnants of the old grammar, which of course did not disappear overnight. Both in the case of finite clauses and AcIs, the observed differences between the rate of AuxVP in the early and late period are statistically highly significant (Pearson’s chi-squared test, p < .). In addition, in a logistic regression model predicting the incidence of the order AuxVP, with ‘time’, ‘clause type: finite vs. AcI’ and ‘type of modal verb: possum vs. debeo’ as independent variables, a significant (p = .) interaction term between ‘time’ and ‘clause type’ confirms that the spread of the head-initial order AuxVP is indeed quicker in finite clauses than in AcIs. It needs to be added though that this model does not perform optimally in terms of goodness of fit (AUC-score: .). See the online code files for full details. 41



Changing EPP parameters

Recall that we have hypothesized that in Grammar A, the order VSAux in clauses with a passive non-finite verb can be considered the passive pendant of the active VOAuxpattern (Section ...). It was argued that the only respect in which the two differ is whether or not the Voice-head introduces an external argument, and that all other things (mode of EPP-checking: VP movement; amount of roll-up movement: none) are the same. This leads us to the prediction that Grammar B, which derives VPAux-sequences by means of roll-up movement, should be incompatible with the passive VSAux-pattern too. Corpus evidence shows that this prediction is borne out. Figure . shows the diachronic evolution of the VSAux-pattern in clauses with a modal verb.42

Frequency of VS in passive VPAux-clauses with a modal (in %)

100

80

60

40 6 7 8

2

13 14

17 19

12

20 1

4

9

3

0 –200

11 10

23 22 15

5

0

18 21 16

200 Time

20

400

25 24

26

600

FIGURE . Diachrony of the order VS in passive VPAux-clauses with a modal verb. Labels: = Plautus, = Cicero, = Caesar, = Varro, = Vitruvius, = Livy, = Celsus, = Seneca, = Columella, = Frontinus, = Quintilian, = Pliny, = Tacitus, = Suetonius, = Gaius, = Tertullian, = Cyprian, = SHA, = Palladius, = Jerome, = Augustine, = GCC, = Vegetius, = Pompeius, = Caesarius, = Gregory.

42

In order not to make the sample too small, I set the sample size threshold at a minimum of eight tokens per text/author. For two data points, the plotted averages were calculated on the basis of a sample of less than ten tokens (viz. Vitruvius (nine) and Augustine (eight)).



Properties of Grammar B

Frequency of VS in passive VPAux-clauses with a modal (in %)

100

80

60 6 7

40

13 8

17

14

2

19 12

20 23

1

11

4

9

22

18 21

10

25

15 3

0 –200

5

0

16

200 Time

20

400

24

26

600

FIGURE . Diachrony of the order VS in passive VPAux-clauses with a modal verb, extraposed subjects excluded. Labels: = Plautus, = Cicero, = Caesar, = Varro, = Vitruvius, = Livy, = Celsus, = Seneca, = Columella, = Frontinus, = Quintilian, = Pliny, = Tacitus, = Suetonius, = Gaius, = Tertullian, = Cyprian, = SHA, = Palladius, = Jerome, = Augustine, = GCC, = Vegetius, = Pompeius, = Caesarius, = Gregory.

What we see is a distribution which is very similar to the one we obtained for active clauses (cf. Figure . in the previous chapter): maximum averages which tend to stay below %, a straight regression line with a downward slope and a smoothed regression line which initially goes up, but from about the second half of the first century AD onwards follows the downward trend of the straight line. The same can be observed if we exclude clause-final (‘extraposed’) subjects, but here the same trends are even slightly clearer, as shown in Figure .. I take it that disappearance of the VSAux-order is also an effect of FOFC, and thus a result of the new, reanalysed way of deriving VPAux-clauses. The data concerning the loss of ‘V–IA–Aux’ orders can be considered to lend support to the analysis put forward in Sections . and .. Interestingly, when we fit a segmented regression model to the data plotted in Figure ., just as we did with the VOAux data at the end of Chapter  (cf. Figure . in Section ..), we see that the estimated turning point



Changing EPP parameters

Frequency of VS in passive VPAux-clauses with a modal (in %)

100

80

60

40

20

0 –200

0

200 Time

400

600

FIGURE . Diachrony of the order VS in passive VPAux-clauses with a modal verb (extraposed subjects excluded): segmented linear regression.

at which the order VSAux starts to decline is indeed around exactly the same period: to be more precise, whereas the function segmented() (Muggeo ) gave . as the estimated turning point for VOAux, for VSAux this is only a good ten years earlier, viz. . (Figure .). In sum, as we have seen in Section ... the ‘V–IA–Aux’ data provide a context where position-wise, internal arguments display some very similar behaviour in two voice conditions (active and passive). Crucially, however, on this occasion this is also true diachronically: not only does Classical Latin (Grammar A) VOAux behave like Classical Latin VSAux, but Late Latin (Grammar B) VOAux is also similar to Late Latin VSAux. But is this a general pattern? Do all internal arguments behave alike diachronically (as far as their position in the clause is concerned)? .. A new way of EPP-checking: internal arguments across voice types revisited Given the structures that I have proposed for VPAux and AuxVP-clauses in Grammar B (roughly Late Latin), we can now do a follow-up on the study performed in Section .... Recall that the issue is whether internal arguments are more likely to

Properties of Grammar B



move leftwards in passive than in active clauses. For the specific case of Grammar B, we actually predict this to be the case: in passive clauses, internal arguments qualify as the hierarchically highest argument, and in a grammar in which the EPPrequirement is satisfied by means of verb movement to F, the highest argument can optionally A-move to SpecSubjP. Let us then spell out precisely which predictions are made given the structures proposed in Section .. First of all, and leaving aside the ‘V–IA–Aux’ orders that we have just dealt with, in VPAux-clauses we predict there to be little or no difference between the placement of internal arguments across different types of voice: in both conditions, internal arguments are most likely to end up to the left of the non-finite verb, having undergone either (i) roll-up movement only (in which case they remain inside the verb phrase), or (ii) (in passive clauses) roll-up movement and subsequent A-movement to SpecSubjP. Crucially, this last step would be string vacuous (i.e. it would—at least in many cases—not translate in a difference qua surface word order). In contrast, in AuxVP-clauses we do predict placement of internal arguments to be diversified along the voice dimension. Here too passive subjects should be more likely to move to SpecSubjP than direct objects in active clauses. The one very specific prediction we make is that the order ‘IA–Aux–V’ should gradually become more frequent in passive than in active clauses. Figure . shows that this is exactly what happens. We clearly see that in Late Latin VPAux-clauses (right-hand half of the graph in Figure .), there is hardly any positional difference between internal arguments in the two voice conditions. In contrast, in AuxVP-clauses, the two are clearly diversified. As predicted, the order ‘IA–Aux–V’ is (heavily) favoured in passive clauses, and

50

Frequency (in %)

40 30 20 10 0

AuxVIA

AuxIAV

IAAuxV Active

VAuxIA

VIAAux

IAVAux

Passive

FIGURE . The distribution of internal arguments in active and passive clauses with a modal verb, ca. – AD.



Changing EPP parameters

TABLE . Placement of internal arguments across voice distinctions, ca. – AD: mean frequencies per word order pattern (standard errors in parentheses) AuxVP

Active Passive

VPAux

AuxVIA

AuxIAV

IAAuxV

VAuxIA

VIAAux

IAVAux

.% (.) .% (.)

.% (.) .% (.)

.% (.) .% (.)

.% (.) .% (.)

.% (.) .% (.)

.% (.) .% (.)

concomitantly, the other two possible word orders are found more often in active clauses. The exact figures are given in Table .. The underscored figures teach us that the frequency of the order ‘IA–Aux–V’ is more than % higher in passive clauses than in active ones. We can be confident that this difference is not due to chance (paired t-test, p (one-tailed) = .).43 This result lends support to the hypothesis that in Grammar B—by assumption the grammar which was most prevalent in Late Latin— subject DPs optionally evacuate the verb phrase. Importantly, there is a clear contrast between early and late AuxVP-clauses, which is unexpected if we assume that these are all generated by Grammar B (cf. hypothesis  from Section ..). Recall that in the earlier period, no significant difference between active and passive clauses featuring the order ‘IA–Aux–V’ could be detected (cf. Table . in Section ...). In the following section, I will adduce one additional piece of evidence in support of the hypothesis that it is necessary to assume that Grammar A had its own mechanism to derive the AuxVP-order (viz. T-to-G movement). .. Early and late AuxVP-clauses compared Having formulated precise hypotheses about the grammar of different stages of the Latin language, we are now in a position to offer a more refined statistical analysis than the t-tests that were performed in Sections ... and .., by looking at the results of a regression model, where we can treat ‘time’ as a continuous variable, thus getting rid of the necessarily less accurate ‘early–late’ dichotomy. The prediction we make is simple: as earlier texts do not reveal a significant distinction between active and passive clauses as far as leftward (but non-left-peripheral) movement of internal 43 Here too, I will assume that the rate of left-peripheral fronting of internal arguments is not significantly higher in passive than in active clauses (cf. Section ... for a similar remark). Note, moreover, that there is no reason to assume that the overall rate of discourse-related A′-movement (topicalization/focalization) increases over time. As pointed out in Danckaert (a), quite the opposite holds: one particular type of topicalization (‘LEF’, cf. () in ch. ) does not seem subject to any diachronic change (at least not in the period from ca.  AD until  BC), whereas one specific left-peripheral focalization strategy (‘LEF’, cf. () in ch. ) is only productive in Early and early Classical Latin.

Properties of Grammar B



arguments is concerned, but later texts do display such an effect, we predict there to be a significant interaction term between the predictors ‘time’ and ‘voice’ in a model where ‘ leftward movement of the internal argument’ is the dependent variable. In order to test this, I built a logistic regression model where I left aside all VPAuxclauses, as for Grammar B these do not inform us about the role of DP movement in satisfying the EPP-requirement (given that the A-movement step following roll-up movement would typically be string vacuous, and as ‘V–IA–Aux’-orders are ruled out on independent grounds (FOFC, that is)).44 In order to make sure that the results are as accurate as possible, alongside the categorical predictor ‘voice’ (levels: active or passive), I included a number of other variables which also account for some of the observed variation (viz. ‘type of auxiliary: debeo or possum’ and ‘clausetype: embedded or main’). The results are summarized in Table .. Note that at this point, I cannot offer any detailed characterization of all synchronic factors related to the distribution of internal arguments, which, arguably, to a large extent is governed by usage-based factors not considered here, such as ‘information status’ (given/new information, etc.) and ‘weight’ (and/or ‘complexity’). Without taking into account these additional variables, the model summarized in this section has a classification accuracy of % (AUC-score: .). In any event, what emerges is that not only the two main effects of the predictors ‘voice’ and ‘time’, but also the interaction term between these two turns out to be statistically significant in a fairly rich model.45 The coefficients in the second column of Table . are to be interpreted as follows: given the positive value of the log odds for both the factor ‘time’ and the factor ‘voice, level: passive’, we can conclude that fronting of internal arguments is more likely to happen in clauses with a passive predicate (regardless of the value of all other predictors), and more likely to occur in later periods. In addition, as the significant interaction term between ‘time’ and ‘voice’ (cf. the row in boldface) teaches us, the favouring effect of a clause being passive becomes stronger over time.

44 Note that the dataset used for the regression analysis is not identical to the two samples of AuxVPclauses reported on in Sections ... and ... First, as a logistic model is not sensitive to the ‘small sample size issue’ mentioned in Section ..., I included all AuxVP-clauses with a modal verb and an internal argument from DLCS, without imposing any threshold on the size of individual subsamples. Second, I also enlarged the dataset by adding clauses where a bare demonstrative pronoun acts as an IA (personal pronouns were not taken into account). As a result of these two decisions, the regression summarized in Table . is based on an analysis of , AuxVP-clauses (imposing a threshold per subsample and excluding demonstrative IAs would leave us with only , clauses). I refer to Danckaert (submitted b) for additional details about the word order preferences of nominal and (demonstrative) pronominal IAs. 45 As to the interpretation of the other predictors (viz. ‘auxiliary’ and ‘clausetype’), the main thing to note is that leftward movement of an internal argument is apparently disfavoured in main clauses with the auxiliary possum (cf. the highly significant interaction effect between these two predictors; the estimate of the log odds is also fairly low (–.)). As my account does not make any predictions as to why this should be so, I shall not take a stance on the interpretation of this effect. In the present context, the only reason why I include this term is that because it accounts for some of the variation, the estimates of predictors that we are actually interested in become more reliable.



Changing EPP parameters

TABLE . Summary of the logistic model predicting leftward movement of internal arguments in clauses with a modal verb ( BC– AD) Coefficients: (intercept) time voice:passive clausetype:main auxiliary:possum time*voice:passive time*clausetype:main voice:passive*auxiliary:possum clausetype:main*auxiliary:possum

Log odds

se

Significant? (p-value)

–. . . . . . –. –. –.

. . . . . . . . .

.e- *** . *** . *** . * . . *** . *** . ** .e- ***

Significance codes: *** = p < .; ** = p < .; * = p < .; ‘.’ = p < .; ‘ ’ = p > .

To make this more concrete, the scatter plot in Figure . offers a visualization of how exactly the changing effect the factor ‘voice’ is to be understood.46 What is plotted in Figure . is the rate of clauses featuring the order ‘IA–Aux–V’, as compared to the combined frequencies of the orders ‘Aux–IA–V’ and ‘Aux–V–IA’. The two smoothed regression lines drawn through the data observed in the active and the passive condition show nicely how the role of the factor ‘voice’ changes over time. As mentioned, internal arguments are always more likely to appear to the left of the T-node in passive clauses than in active clauses, even in Early Latin. However, as we have seen in Section ..., there is no evidence that in the earlier centuries this difference in absolute counts is statistically significant. In Figure ., this is reflected by the fact that up until ca.  AD, the distance between the two smoothed lines is not particularly big (ca. %). The crucial observation is that in the second half of the first century AD (no doubt not coincidentally at around the same time that both the VOAux and the VSAux-pattern start to decline, cf. Figures . and .), the two lines move (and stay) further away from each other, at a distance of slightly over %. It is precisely this effect that is captured by the significant interaction term between the factors ‘time’ and ‘voice’ reported in Table .. The overall conclusion is that we now have additional support for our hypothesis that two types of AuxVP-clauses have to be distinguished, namely an earlier one which involves movement of VoiceP to SpecFP and subsequent auxiliary raising, and a later type where the auxiliary moves to F° and VoiceP stays put in its first merge position: if all early attestations of the order AuxVP were already of the Grammar 46 In Figure . the only authors/texts taken into account are those which contain at least five active and five passive AuxVP-clauses with a modal verb and an internal argument (as defined in note ).



Conclusion

Frequency of leftward placement of IAs (in %)

100

80

60

40

20

0 –200

0

200 Time

Active

400

600

Passive

FIGURE . The probability for internal arguments in AuxVP-clauses with a modal verb to undergo leftward movement ( BC– AD): active and passive clauses compared.

B (‘proto-Romance’) type, the changing positional behaviour of passive subjects would remain unaccounted for. In contrast, under the present analysis the observed effect can be neatly accounted for.

. Conclusion We can now formulate an answer to all three explananda formulated at the beginning of this chapter, repeated here for convenience: (i) What is the synchronic syntax of VPAux and AuxVP-clauses in Grammar A and Grammar B? (ii) What caused the shift from Grammar A to Grammar B? (iii) Why did the frequency of non-contiguous ‘Aux–V’-orders decline over time? First, to answer the first part of explanandum , I have argued that the basic difference between Grammar A and Grammar B is to be understood in terms of a



Changing EPP parameters

parameterized approach to EPP-checking. In the early grammar, the entire thematic domain (VoiceP) A-moves to a dedicated functional projection (FP), and all nominal arguments are licensed (assigned structural Case, cf. Danckaert submitted a) in their base position. In Grammar B, on the other hand, the EPP-requirement is satisfied by means of verb movement, and subject DPs optionally A-move out of the thematic layer. Second, to answer explanandum , the immediate cause of the shift from Grammar A to Grammar B was argued to be incorporation of the negator non into the hierarchically highest verb in the clause. As a result, the verb can more freely head move past T, and crucially, in all types of non-defective clauses except AcIs, it could reach FP (i.e. the functional head bearing the EPP-feature). This causes a resetting of the EPP parameter, and the genesis of Grammar B. In addition, in Grammar B clauses in which VoiceP has undergone EPP-driven movement were reanalysed as string-identical roll-up structures, which crucially are subject to FOFC and do not allow the order VOAux (and more generally, any order ‘V-Internal Argument-Aux’), as desired. Third, to answer explanandum  as well as the second part of explanandum , the fact that in the new grammar VoiceP no longer obligatorily moves past the auxiliary (cf. the entirely optional (and semantically vacuous) nature of roll-up movement) opens the way for the old AuxVP-pattern (in which the auxiliary sits in a functional projection above FP) to be reanalysed as structures in which the entire thematic domain (VoiceP) does not move at all. In this new structure, the auxiliary occupies a position which is lower than in the old type of AuxVP-clause. This can help us to understand why the frequency of non-contiguous AuxV-sequences drops over time. In order to further test whether this last conclusion is on the right track, it would be interesting to conduct a large-scale diachronic study on the position of (different types of) finite verbs with respect to (different types of) adverbs (cf. the contrast in ()): such a study can be expected to provide a more fine-grained characterization of patterns of (finite) verb placement than the one offered in Section ., which was only based on a criterion of (linear) Aux-V contiguity. In the next and final chapter of this book, I will elaborate on word order in clauses with a BE-periphrasis, which as we have seen at various occasions in Chapters  to  is very different from what we observe in clauses with a modal verb.

6 The development of BE-periphrases . Two types of BE-periphrases In this final chapter of the book I will revisit some of the word order facts in clauses with a BE-periphrasis that were briefly touched upon earlier (see especially Sections .., .., and ...). The discussion is mainly intended to offer a broad-brush overview of some of the most important empirical generalizations that emerge from the corpus, and I refer to Danckaert (c, , to appear) for more detailed analyses of some of the issues that I will mention. As a starting point we can take our earlier observation about the relative ordering of BE-auxiliaries and past participles, which as we saw follows a very surprising diachronic path. Figure ., summarizing the basic word order facts in BE-periphrases, is reproduced here as Figure .. One of the aims of this chapter is to elucidate why Late Latin BE-periphrases do not display higher frequencies of the head-initial order ‘sumPaPa’, which we could consider the ‘Romance’ pattern. Recall that in the case of modal verbs and infinitives, we did actually observe a steady increase in frequency of the headinitial order. A first indication of why BE-auxiliaries behave so differently from modal verbs can be found in the one Late Latin text in which the head-initial order is attested in more than % of the cases, namely Cassius Felix’ De medicina. In this work, I counted a total of  BE-periphrases,  of which are head-initial. Interestingly, a solid majority of these ( tokens) are of what is sometimes called the ‘shifted’ type (Germ. verschoben), which was also discussed at the end of Chapter  (Section ..). Consider first the pair in ():1 () a. quidquid consecut-us eri-t whatever.ACC.N.SG obtained-NOM.M.SG be-FUT.SG ‘whatever he will have obtained’ (Gaius Inst. .)

1

I have chosen examples with deponent predicates in order to make sure that we are looking at genuinely verbal BE-periphrases (recall that passive BE-periphrases are often ambiguous between an adjectival and a verbal reading, cf. Section ...).

The Development of Latin Clause Structure. First edition. Lieven Danckaert. © Lieven Danckaert . First published  by Oxford University Press.



The development of BE-periphrases

Frequency of the order be–past participle (in %)

100

80 32 8 9

60 6

40

5 4 1

16 30 31

13

2

17

20 10 3

12 11

7

0 –200

0

21

14 15 19 18

20

200 Time

39

25 23 22

24

27 35 37 28 33 34 36 29 38 26

400

600

FIGURE . Diachrony of the order ‘sum + past participle’, ca.  BC– AD. Labels: = Plautus, = Terence, = Cato, = Cicero, = Caesar, = Varro, = Sallust, = Hyginus, = Vitruvius, = Livy, = Celsus, = Seneca, = Columella, = Petronius, = Frontinus, = Quintilian, = Pliny, = Tacitus, = Suetonius, = Gaius, = Tertullian, = Gargilius, = Cyprian, = SHA, = Palladius, = Egeria, = Jerome, = Augustine, = Vulgate, = GCC, = Vegetius, = Cassius Felix, = Victor, = Pompeius, = Caesarius, = Anthimus, = Iordanes, = Antoninus, = Gregory.

b. si forte callosita-s minim-e fu-eri-t secut-a if by.chance hardening-NOM least-ADV be-FUTPRF-SG followed-NOM.F.SG ‘(lit.) if by chance the hardened bit of skin will not have followed’ (Cass. Fel. . (Fraisse)) As mentioned in Chapter , the structure illustrated in (a) is the Classical Latin pattern, where there is a mismatch between the tense properties of the auxiliary in isolation (a plain future) and the tense of the entire periphrastic expression (a future perfect). This mismatch is absent in the ‘shifted’ example in (b), where the auxiliary fuerit is itself a future perfect. In what follows, I will refer to patterns of the first type as ‘E-periphrases’ (after the first letter of most of the auxiliaries involved), and to the latter as ‘Fperiphrases’ (after the first letter of all of the auxiliaries appearing in this structure). A very basic overview of the two paradigms is offered in Table . (with passives of the predicate amo ‘love’, first person singular forms cited for the finite forms).

Two types of BE-periphrases



TABLE . Passive E- and F-periphrases

Perfect infinitive Perfect indicative Perfect subjunctive Pluperfect indicative Pluperfect subjunctive Future perfect indicative

E-periphrases (old pattern)

F-periphrases (new pattern)

amatus esse amatus sum amatus sim amatus eram amatus essem amatus ero

amatus fuisse amatus fui amatus fuerim amatus fueram amatus fuissem amatus fuero

Aspects of the alternation between the E- and the F-paradigm were studied in Bonnet (: –), Blase (: –, –), Gamillscheg (: –), Leumann (), Schrijnen and Mohrmann (–: vol. , –), Hofmann and Szantyr (: –, ), Kravar (), Kühner and Stegmann (: vol. , –), Dalès (–), Kiss (: –), Hoffmann (), de Melo (), Pinkster (: –), Burton (), and Danckaert (, to appear). As we will see in Section ., the F-pattern is attested from Plautus onwards, and it gradually gains ground in the following centuries, but not at the same rate in every single environment. Descendants of the innovative Latin perfect indicative amatus fui ‘I was loved’ (Fr. je fus aimé and It. fu amato) and pluperfect subjunctive amatus fuissem (Fr. (que je) fusse aimé and It. (che io) fossi amato) survive until today in certain Romance varieties.2 A first important difference between E- and F-periphrases concerns their respective word order preferences. Let us first have a look at word order in E-periphrases over time (Figure .).3 Note first of all that the strong resemblance between the distributions in Figures . and . is an effect of the high token frequency of E-periphrases: out of a total of , passive and deponent BE-periphrases, , are of the E-type, compared to only , F-periphrases. However, there is one very conspicuous difference, which concerns Cassius Felix: interestingly, if only E-periphrases are taken into account, this author now behaves like all other Late Latin authors, which indicates that the high incidence of head-initial BE-periphrases in Cassius Felix is related to this author’s word order preferences for the F-pattern. If we then look at word order in F-periphrases over time, we see that although Cassius Felix is certainly the champion of producing head-initial specimina of this type, many other Late Latin authors also use the head-initial order much more frequently than they do in the case of E-periphrases (with the remarkable exception of Anthimus, in whose text all twenty-one F-periphrases are head-final). In any event, despite there being massive variation, especially in the last two centuries

2 The Romance languages have of course innovated many other types of passive compound tenses, most notably with a STARE-auxiliary: see for instance Ledgeway ([] ) on varieties of Italian. 3 The one author who is missing in Figure . is Anthimus, in whose De obseruatione ciborum I only counted eight E-periphrases (three of which are head-initial).



The development of BE-periphrases

Frequency of the order be–past participle (in %)

100

80 9 8

60 6

40 5 4

20

1

16

2

13 10

3 7

0 –200

24

14 12 11

0

21 23 15 19 18

38

32

17

22 20

200 Time

30 31

25 27

28 29 26

400

34 33

35 36 37

600

FIGURE . Diachrony of the order ‘sum + past participle’ (E-periphrases only), ca.  BC– AD. Labels: = Plautus, = Terence, = Cato, = Cicero, = Caesar, = Varro, = Sallust, = Hyginus, = Vitruvius, = Livy, = Celsus, = Seneca, = Columella, = Petronius, = Frontinus, = Quintilian, = Pliny, = Tacitus, = Suetonius, = Gaius, = Tertullian, = Gargilius, = Cyprian, = SHA, = Palladius, = Egeria, = Jerome, = Augustine, = Vulgate, = GCC, = Vegetius, = Cassius Felix, = Victor, = Pompeius, = Caesarius, = Iordanes, = Antoninus, = Gregory.

(and without there being any really strong diachronic trend), there clearly is no such thing as a general preference for F-periphrases to be head-final (Figure .). We can reasonably hypothesize that the distinct word order behaviour of E- and F-periphrases is related to the fact that the diachronic development of these two patterns is fundamentally different (in the sense that the latter is the diachronic successor of the former). In what follows, I will treat the two patterns separately, starting with the innovative F-paradigm.

. The development of the F-paradigm .. Early differentiation of E and F? As mentioned, F-periphrases are already attested in the earliest (substantial) texts, but they clearly set out as a minority pattern. The relative frequency of the F-type in



The development of the F-paradigm

Frequency of the order be–past participle (in %)

100

24

80

29 22 4

60

14

9

40

20

5

3

23

10

7

11 12

27 26

15

1

17 13

30

20 21

16 8

25

19

18

2 6

0 –200

0

28 200 Time

400

600

FIGURE . Diachrony of the order ‘sum + past participle’ (F-periphrases only), ca.  BC– AD. Labels: = Plautus, = Terence, = Cicero, = Hyginus, = Vitruvius, = Livy, = Celsus, = Seneca, = Columella, = Quintilian, = Pliny, = Suetonius, = Gaius, = Tertullian, = Cyprian, = SHA, = Palladius, = Egeria, = Jerome, = Augustine, = Vulgate, = GCC, = Vegetius, = Cassius Felix, = Victor, = Pompeius, = Caesarius, = Anthimus, = Iordanes, = Gregory.

each author/text in DLCS is plotted in Figure .. We immediately see that there are only two authors in which F-periphrases outnumber their E counterparts, namely Cassius Felix (number ) and Anthimus (). In all other authors, the F-pattern remains the clear minority variant. Before we have a more detailed look at the development summarized in Figure ., I would like to address one important question related to the origins of the F-paradigm, namely whether E and F were (at some point in their existence) semantically differentiated. In a recent study, de Melo () suggests that in at least some cases the two patterns are indeed functionally non-equivalent. More precisely, the author distinguishes two types of F-periphrases which he claims are not interchangeable with E-periphrases. However, when we have a closer look at the relevant data, it is doubtful whether this conclusion stands up to scrutiny. The first type discussed by de Melo () are cases in which an F-periphrasis is deemed to express temporal anteriority with respect to another expression of



The development of BE-periphrases

100

32

Frequency of F-periphrases (in %)

80

36

60

40 31 26

20

9

1 2

0

3

–200

45

8 7 6 10

0

20 13

23 25

21

17 1416 19 1112 15 18

22

200 Time

39 30

24

27 29 28

35 34 33

400

FIGURE . Frequency of F-periphrases (as compared to E-periphrases), ca.  Labels: see Figure ..

38 37

600 BC– AD.

temporal anteriority (‘a further degree of anteriority’, cf. de Melo : ). As an example, de Melo gives the following passage from Terence: () Qu-od, hic si pote fu-isse-t exorar-ier which-NOM.N.SG this-NOM.M.SG if able be-PLPRF.SBJV-SG persuade-PASS.PRS.INF tridu-om hoc, promiss-um fu-era-t. three.days-ACC this.ACC promised-NOM.N.SG be-PLPRF-SG ‘It was promised, if only he could have been persuaded to wait just three days!’ (Ter. Ph. B-, translation from Brown ) This passage is translated by de Melo (: ) as follows: ‘If he could have been persuaded to give me three days, the money had already been promised.’ De Melo then adds the following comment: ‘By using the double form promissum fuerat, Terence shows that the promise was made before the other action; this other action, which was actually not realized, is in the pluperfect subjunctive (pote fuisset exorarier).’ It should be clear, however, that this interpretation is incoherent, as it is logically impossible to evaluate the relative chronology of two events which are not (and

The development of the F-paradigm



cannot be) located on the same time axis. In the case at hand, the promising event is part of the actual world, which we can deduce not only from the indicative morphology on the verb fuerat ‘had been’, but also from the fact that a couple of lines earlier (Ter. Ph. B–A) it was said explicitly that the particular promise was made. On the other hand, the persuading event described in the conditional clause—which is of course a parenthetical—belongs to a possible (and indeed unrealized) world. I completely fail to see how it is possible for a past event X to have happened before an event Y that never happened at all. There are other cases where one could hypothesize that a pluperfect of type F is used to express anteriority with respect to another pluperfect. Consider for instance (): () Turn-us, rex Rutul-orum, cu-i pact-a Turnus-NOM king.NOM Rutulians-GEN who-DAT.M.SG promised-NOM.M.SG Lauini-a ante aduentu-m Aene-ae fu-era-t, praelat-um Lavinia-NOM before arrival-ACC Aeneas-GEN be-PLPRF-SG preferred-ACC.M.SG sibi aduen-am aegr-e patien-s simul REFL.DAT foreigner-ACC difficult-ADV bearing-NOM simultaneously Aene-ae Latin-o=que bell-um intul-era-t. Aeneas-DAT Latinus-DAT=and war-ACC bring.in-PLPRF-SG ‘Turnus, the king of the Rutulians, to whom Lavinia had been betrothed before Aeneas’ arrival, indignant that a foreigner had been given precedence over him, had simultaneously waged war against Aeneas and Latinus.’ (Liv. ..) In this case, the plans of Turnus and Lavinia getting married clearly antedate the wars that Turnus started against Latinus and Aeneas, but in this case one should bear in mind that the expression pacta fuerat ‘she had been betrothed’ is actually ambiguous between a verbal (eventive) and an adjectival (stative) reading. As it happens, the latter reading (where reference is made to the state of Lavinia being betrothed to Turnus, rather than to the past event of the betrothal being decided upon) is perhaps the more prominent one. Let me stress that the existence of adjectival passives (in both the E- and the F-formations) is entirely orthogonal to the transition from E to F, which involves the reorganization of a verbal (i.e. not adjectival) inflectional paradigm, which in the first stages was restricted to analytic expressions (which—contrary to synthetic verbs— are in some cases ambiguous between an adjectival and a verbal interpretation). As we will see in the following section, support for this claim comes from the observation that throughout the entire period investigated in this book, passive and deponent BE-periphrases (which are of course much less prone to allowing for an adjectival reading) are more or less equally likely to be of the F-type (see also Danckaert ). As it happens, I could not find a single convincing case where a clear-cut verbal F-periphrasis expresses an ‘additional degree of anteriority’. Let us then turn to the



The development of BE-periphrases

other type of non-equivalence between E- and F-periphrases proposed by de Melo (). An example of this second type given by de Melo is (): () Hercul-es [ . . . ] deuen-it ad Promethe-a, qu-em in Hercules-NOM arrive-PRF.SG to Prometheus-ACC who-ACC.M.SG in Caucas-o mont-e uinct-um fu-isse supra dix-imus. Caucasus-ABL mountain-ABL tied-ACC.M.SG be-PRF.INF above say-PRF.PL ‘Hercules came to Prometheus, who we have said above had been tied up in the Caucasus mountains.’ (Hyg. Astr. .. (Le Bœuffle)) I agree that in this case uinctum fuisse (an F-periphrasis) is not interchangeable with uinctum esse (which is of type E). However, here too it is likely that we are dealing with an adjectival passive (expressing a ‘target state’, in the terminology of Parsons ), given that at the point where Hercules and Prometheus meet, the latter is still chained to a rock. Once again, if this is indeed the correct reading, this structure would not be an actual F-periphrasis, but rather the combination of a perfective copula and a participial adjective, whose non-perfective counterpart would be a nonperfective copula and an adjectival participle (uinctum esse), and not a genuinely verbal passive infinitive (uinciri). To conclude, although it seems conceptually very likely that the E- and the F-pattern did not set out as free variants, it is actually at this point not at all clear whether the two patterns were (or could be) semantically differentiated (i.e. associated with different truth conditions), as suggested by, among others, de Melo (). As always, it would be interesting to investigate whether the distribution of the two variants was governed by, for instance, sociolinguistic factors. .. The spread of the F-paradigm Let us now have a closer look at the further development of the F-paradigm, and refine the basic picture sketched in Figure . which only provides information about the ‘raw’ frequencies of the F-pattern per author. ... Passives and deponents compared (and the role of semantic ambiguity) As hinted at earlier, it is important to note that there is no evidence whatsoever that the transition from E to F is sensitive to the distinction between passives and deponents. This distinction is potentially relevant for two reasons, both of which I will discuss in more detail below. First, it has repeatedly been claimed that the F-pattern was originally more productive with deponents (see again de Melo () and references cited there, and more recently Pinkster (: )). Second, it has also been claimed that the eventual success of the F-paradigm is related to the potential for some E-periphrases to be ambiguous between an adjectival and a verbal interpretation, a potential which is much stronger with passives than with deponents.

The development of the F-paradigm



100

Frequency of F-periphrases (in %)

80

60

40

20

0 –200

0

200 Time Deponent

400

600

Passive

FIGURE . Frequency of F-periphrases (as compared to E-periphrases), ca.  passives and deponents compared.

BC– AD:

But let us first have a look at some corpus data. Plotted in Figure . is the relative frequency of the F-pattern (as compared to the frequency of the Epattern) in all samples in DLCS which contain more than ten passive and more than ten deponent BE-periphrases. As can be observed, on the whole deponents and passives seem equally likely to be of the F-type, at all stages of the language. If anything, the data points representing the deponents are spread out a bit more,4 but this may well be due to the fact that their token frequency is in general lower than the one for passives (the sample reported on in Figure . contains a total of , deponents, compared to , passives). As we can expect, the variable ‘passive versus deponent’ cannot be shown to have significant predictive power in a

4 The overall means of the two subsets are quasi-identical (.% for the passives compared to .% for the deponents), but the standard deviation of the latter is slightly bigger (. vs. .).



The development of BE-periphrases

sufficiently rich multivariate model predicting the incidence of the F-pattern (see Danckaert : – for full details). We can conclude that there is no empirical support for the claim that originally deponent F-periphrases were more frequent than their passive counterparts. The reason why scholars have often drawn the opposite conclusion is no doubt due to an incorrect interpretation of the evidence from one single author, namely Plautus (who happens to be the earliest author in the corpus). Although this author does indeed use the F-pattern proportionally more frequently with deponents than with passives, it is obviously not correct to extrapolate the findings from this one author to an entire period, by concluding that Early Latin speakers more generally produced (proportionally) more deponent than passive F-periphrases. The data in Figure . also inform us about the putative correlation between the spread of F-periphrases and the availability of an adjectival reading of certain BEperiphrases. It has often been suggested (or taken for granted) that it was exactly this factor that gave rise to the reorganization of the entire Latin passive inflectional paradigm. Thus Winters ():5 The central immediate cause of the shift . . . was the need to communicate temporal information. Within the analytic tenses, ambiguities were already present in C[lassical] L[atin], e.g. the dual meaning of the p. ptc. + ESSE: amatus est ‘he is loved, beloved’ with the p. ptc. functioning as an adjective, and ‘he has been loved’, a perfect passive expression. . . . It was the ambiguity of tense within a single expression that motivated the change . . . (Winters : –)

Although there are in fact deponent past participles that can receive an adjectival interpretation (most notably the high frequency element mortuus, which often means ‘dead’ rather than ‘having died’), I will take it for granted that in general an adjectival reading is more likely to obtain with a passive participle than with a deponent one. Given a hypothesis like the one espoused by Winters (), one would then predict F-periphrases to be more frequent with passives than with deponents. However, as we have seen, the corpus data do not reveal any significant difference between these two types of periphrastic expressions, which casts serious doubts on the hypothesis that F-periphrases came into being and/or eventually ousted E-periphrases because the former were less prone to being temporally ambiguous. With respect to this last point, note that in studies like Winters () and de Melo (), it is (more or less explicitly) assumed that E-periphrases disappeared from the language because the F-periphrases were somehow ‘fitter’ for a number of

5

Similarly, Hewson ():

. . . in analytic terms the whole formation [viz. a passive perfect like laudatus est, ld] was the equivalent of ‘he is praised’, where . . . we see the confusion between the perfect and the passive. . . . a perfect passive with a present auxiliary may be interpreted as an ordinary present passive. (Hewson : ) See for instance also Väänänen (: –).

The development of the F-paradigm



communicative purposes.6 According to de Melo (: ), the crucial advantage of the F-periphrases is their being less ambiguous than their E counterparts: ‘amatus fueram could be said to mark anteriority twice, on the participle and on the copula; or, since not all to-participles indicate anteriority, it at least marks tense unambiguously.’ The author refers to Kuryłowicz (), according to whom there is a general tendency for languages to prefer more clearly or overtly marked elements. This line of reasoning also has a number of drawbacks. Most importantly, there simply is no independent evidence for the claim that there is anything intrinsically wrong with compound tenses featuring the above-mentioned ‘tense mismatch’, which often display a certain degree of ambiguity. For instance, in (Standard) Dutch a structure very similar to the Latin E-perfect can also express a passive simple past. In (), the expression is gebouwd ‘(lit.) is built’ can only be interpreted as an episodic past tense (witness the presence of the punctual time adverbial in  ‘in ’):7 () Dit huis is gebouwd this house is.PRS.SG built ‘This house was built in .’

in in

. 

Similarly, the Dutch active compound form (ik) heb gebouwd ‘lit. (I) have built’ unambiguously expresses a simple past tense (and not something like a present perfect), despite the HAVE-auxiliary in isolation being a present tense: () Ik heb dit huis I have.PRS.SG this house ‘I built this house in .’

gebouwd built

in in

. 

If there really were a general tendency for languages to avoid this type of ‘tense mismatch’ structure, the (recent) expansion of HAVE-perfects (at the expense of unambiguous, non-periphrastic preterits), in Dutch, but also in other Germanic languages, as well as many Romance varieties, remains very much unaccounted for, as these developments arguably involve a change from less to more ambiguous tense marking. ... The role of tense distinctions As was already hinted at in Section .., there is one other factor that is a much better predictor for the alternation between E and F, namely the distinction between plain perfects, pluperfects, and future perfects. If we Note that this type of reasoning always begs the question why the ‘communicatively suboptimal’ E-periphrases should ever have come into being in the first place, and why they survived for many centuries. Compare in this respect Joffre (: ): ‘Le maintien prolongé des périphrases en ‑tus est indique que l’ambiguité qui leur était inhérente n’a cependant pas gêné les locuteurs’ (‘The long preservation of the periphrases with ‑tus est indicates that the fact that they were inherently ambiguous did not hinder language users’). 7 Note that in contrast with the corresponding structures in German (and many Dutch dialects), no passive BECOME-auxiliary is present in (). 6



The development of BE-periphrases

Frequency of the order be-past participle (in %)

100

80

60

40

20

0 –200

0

200 Time FUTPRF

PLPRF

400

600

PRF

FIGURE . Frequency of F-periphrases (as compared to E-periphrases), ca.  BC– AD: the role of tense distinctions.

split up the entire dataset of BE-periphrases into these three tense conditions, we obtain the picture in Figure ..8 We immediately observe that the data points in this graph are spread out over a much wider zone than the ones in Figure .. Importantly, the distribution here is clearly not random: the pace of the shift from E to F is clearly quickest in the case of the future perfects, considerably slower with the pluperfects, and extremely slow with plain perfects. The reader is again referred to Danckaert () for additional discussion. ... A note on factus fui perfects It is quite remarkable that even in texts dating from the sixth century plain perfect indicatives of the F-type remain very scarce. The

8 I only included samples with more than five tokens for a given tense condition. Note that not for each author/text three data points are plotted.

The development of the F-paradigm



question then arises when the precursor of, for instance, the Italian passato remoto (of the type fu fatto) became productive. According to Stotz (: ) in Medieval Latin texts synthetic (non-perfective) passives are usually retained, whereas (all) perfective passives (including perfect indicatives) are typically realized as F-periphrases. So what do texts from after  AD tell us?9 Pei (: –; ) reports that expressions like factus fui do in fact frequently appear instead of factus sum in a corpus of texts from the eighth century collected in Tardif () (although it needs to be added that this author does not back up his claims with any quantitative data). Referring in particular to analytic perfect indicatives (as opposed to BE-periphrases with other tense/mood specifications) Pei (: ) states that ‘substitution of fuit for est . . . is far from rare in our texts and in the majority of the later Latinities’, and on the same page, reference is made to ‘the constant replacement of sum by fui’. On the other hand, in two of the three eighthcentury hagiographical texts reported on in Corti (: –) (viz. the Vita sancti Evurtii and the Vita sancti Severi), all perfect indicatives are of the E-type. In the Vita sancti Maximini, there are five perfect tense F-periphrases, compared to twenty Eperiphrases. Similarly, Van Acker (a: –) only found a handful of perfect indicatives of the F-type in the four texts that she analysed in detail (viz. the Vita Gaugerici (ca.  AD), the Passio Leodegarii secunda (early eighth century), the Passio Memorii (early eighth century) and the Vita Pardulfi (first half of the eighth century)). The situation in these texts seems very comparable to what I observed my own corpus. It should be clear that additional empirical work is needed to find out whether there are indeed texts from after  AD where factus fui perfects are fully productive, as claimed in Pei (). .. Intermediate summary To conclude this section on F-periphrases, we can say that the origins of this pattern seem to be related to the Latin tense system, rather than to the voice system.10 9

But note that it is certainly not straightforward to assess to what extent the patterns of usage observed in texts from after  AD accurately reflect the actual spoken language (see e.g. Van Acker a for relevant discussion). 10 Another factor that seems to be correlated with the distribution of E- and F-periphrases is ‘grammatical mood’ (indicative, subjunctive, infinitive). However, the overall diachronic effect of this factor is rather difficult to evaluate: specifically, on the one hand, we observe that the effect of mood distinctions is not the same in all tenses, but, on the other hand, not all types of mood are available in all tenses, which makes it hard to assess how these two factors interact. For reasons of space I cannot here provide any fully detailed discussion, but the basic generalizations can be summarized as follows. First, as future perfects are always indicatives, this type of tense obviously does not inform us about the effect of mood distinctions. Second, as pointed out in, for instance, Adams (b), the spread of the F-pluperfects is quicker with indicatives (amatus fueram) than with subjunctives (amatus fuissem): my own findings confirm that on average, this holds true throughout the period from  BC until  AD (although it needs to be added that in the particular case of F-pluperfects there is massive variation between individual authors). In contrast,



The development of BE-periphrases

Perhaps not coincidentally, there is a rather neat inverse correlation between the token frequency of the individual tense patterns and the rate of change (on the role of token frequency in the context of the shift from E- to F-periphrases, see also Bonnet : –): with , tokens in DLCS, future perfects are by far the least frequent, as they are clearly outnumbered by pluperfects (, tokens), which themselves occur much less frequently than perfects (, tokens). I leave it for future research to investigate how exactly this pattern is to be interpreted.

. The development of the E-paradigm I now return to the historical development of the E-paradigm. Recall that what we want to understand is why Late Latin structures of this type display a strong (and unexpected) preference for the order ‘PaPa-sum’ (cf. the data shown in Figure .). .. Some differences between early and late ‘PaPa-BE’ One possible way to interpret the remarkable ‘fossilization’ of word order in Late Latin E-periphrases would be to say that what we observe in the corpus is actually the effect of one or more extra-linguistic factors, rather than a genuine feature of Late Latin (as it was acquired by children, and used in spoken interaction on a daily basis). Concretely, assuming the head-final order to qualify as the older and more conservative variant, one could think that in the Late Latin period, there was normative pressure (exerted by, for example, school teachers and prescriptive grammarians) to produce the older head-final structure rather than the innovative head-initial one. From a sociolinguistic perspective, the head-final structures could then be considered the prestige variant, and the preponderance of ‘PaPa–Aux’-orders in Late Latin texts (which might well have been absent or much weaker in the actual spoken language) could be considered imitation of earlier models. Should this scenario be correct, we would have a case where our corpus does not accurately reflect the development of the (spoken) Latin language. However, there are good reasons to assume that this line of reasoning is on the wrong track. First of all, recall that what we witness during the transition from Classical to Late Latin is not just the fossilization of the head-final order, but also a reduction of word order variation. As was shown in Figures . and ., many early authors do actually produce the head-initial pattern at fairly high rates. Most notably, this is the case for both Caesar and Cicero, perhaps the two Classical Latin authors the plain perfects behave quite differently: perfect indicatives of the F-type remain extremely rare throughout the entire Latinity, whereas perfect subjunctives (to the extent that these can accurately be distinguished from future perfects, cf. Section ..) and perfect infinitives follow a similar diachronic trajectory, reaching average frequencies of about % (subjunctives) and just over % (infinitives) by the end of the period investigated. See the online code file for additional documentation.

The development of the E-paradigm



par excellence, who use the head-initial pattern in about one-third of the cases (.% for Caesar, .% for Cicero (counting both the E and the F-type)), that is, much more frequently than any author after  AD. Second, it would also remain unclear why this putative effect of normative pressure only shows up in the corpus in the case of E-periphrases, and not, for example, with combinations of a modal verb and a dependent infinitive, which as we have seen in the previous chapter very frequently appear in the head-initial order in Late Latin. It would obviously be completely ad hoc to say that head-final orders only qualify as the prestige variant in one environment, and not in an other. Third, when we have a closer look at the internal structure of the dense cloud of data points in the lower right corner of Figures . and ., it turns out that the conditions under which one is likely to find the head-final order in Late Latin are very different from the conditions that favour this order in earlier times. For instance, especially in Late Latin the presence or absence of the sentential negator non is a very good predictor for word order.11 The relevant data are summarized in Figure . (where I only report on samples containing more than eight negated E-periphrases). The data in Figure . show us is that there is no general preference for Late Latin BE-periphrases to appear in the head-final order: not only do F-periphrases not take part in this trend (cf. Figure .), in the case of negated E-periphrases we actually observe a clear rise of the head-initial order. The effect of negation on word order is most extreme in the Vulgate. When we only consider affirmative clauses in this part of the corpus, we observe that only a small minority features the head-initial order ‘BE–PaPa’: this pattern is attested  times (= .%), compared to , head-final structures. In negated clauses (which have a much lower token frequency), we see the exact opposite: in  out of  (= .%) negated clauses we find head-initial patterns of the type non est amatus. In the present context the most important thing to note in Figure . is the contrast between Classical and Late Latin: although the presence of a negator seems to have a mild effect on word order already in the earlier centuries, the basic picture before  AD is one of massive variation, which is by and large absent in the later period. This strongly suggests that word order in Late Latin BE-periphrases is not (primarily) a matter of imitation of earlier models. A similar conclusion can be drawn from another dataset, which takes into account the distinction between monosyllabic and polysyllabic BE-auxiliaries. Here too we see that not all Late Latin BE-periphrases show a marked preference for the head-final order, as it is only the ones with a monosyllabic auxiliary that do so. Here, too, we see that Classical Latin differs from Late Latin, in the sense that the discrepancy between monosyllabic and polysyllabic auxiliaries is bigger in later centuries, witness the 11 In the dataset summarized in Figure ., only clauses with an Aux-contiguous or V-contiguous (in terms of the terminology introduced in Section ...) instance of non were classified as ‘negated’.



The development of BE-periphrases

Frequency of the order be–past participle (in %)

100

80

60

40

20

0 –200

0

200 Time Neg

400

600

Aff

FIGURE . Word order in clauses with a BE-periphrasis (E-periphrases only), ca.  AD: affirmative and negated clauses compared.

BC–

presence of many early data points for the monosyllabic condition above the % line, and the absence thereof in later times.12 Note that Figure . only reports on word order in E-periphrases, as there are only monosyllabic forms of sum in the E-paradigm (viz. the indicatives sum, es, est, and sunt, and the subjunctives sim, sis, sit, and sint). In contrast, auxiliaries in the F-pattern always have two, three, or four syllables. One could at this point wonder whether the fact that Late Latin F-periphrases do not have any strong preference for the head-final order (cf. Figure .) is actually a consequence of the fact that in Late Latin only monosyllabic auxiliaries prefer to occur to the right of past participles. As shown in Danckaert (: –), this is not quite the case: when the effects of 12 Although the size of the interaction term between the factors ‘time’ and ‘number of syllables of the auxiliary’ is not particularly big, it can be shown to be statistically significant (see Danckaert : –). Note that given the considerable spread of especially the early data points in Figure ., the two smoothed regression lines are not particularly informative in this case.



The development of the E-paradigm

Frequency of the order be–past participle (in %)

100

80

60

40

20

0 –200

0

200 Time Mono

400

600

Poly

FIGURE . Word order in clauses with a BE-periphrasis (E-periphrases only), ca.  AD: monosyllabic vs. polysyllabic auxiliaries.

BC–

the factors ‘ monosyllabic auxiliary’ and ‘E versus F’ are evaluated in one multivariate regression model (alongside other independent variables such as ‘time’ and ‘ sentential negation’), it turns out that both are significant predictors for word order (although it needs to be added that syllable count is the stronger predictor in terms of effect size). .. Weak BE I now turn to the question of why (monosyllabic) auxiliaries in Late Latin E-periphrases exhibit such a strong tendency to occur after the past participle (at least in affirmative contexts). Here I would like to offer only a brief sketch of the analysis proposed in Danckaert (c, ). The reader is referred to these papers for additional discussion. First of all, with Selkirk (, ), Nespor and Vogel (), and many others in their wake, I will assume that syntactic structures (of the fully configurational kind)



The development of BE-periphrases

can be mapped onto prosodic representations, which themselves are hierarchically organized and contain prosodic constituents of various sizes, which all constitute the domain of application of different types of phonological rules. The version of the prosodic hierarchy that I assume is schematically represented in (): ()

i φ

φ

ω

ω

F σ

F σ

σ

ω

F σ σ

F

F σ

σ

ω

σ σ

F σ

σ

F σ σ

F σ

σ

σ

At the top of this structure we find an intonational phrase (i), which is the basic building block of an entire utterance (say a ‘sentence’). Intonational phrases are made up of phonological phrases (φ), which contain one or more prosodic words (ω). Lower down in the hierarchy we find metrical feet (F), which themselves contain syllables (σ) (and morae (μ), not represented in ()). A second ingredient of the analysis is the phenomenon of extrametricality, which we can define as the occurrence of a metrical constituent X at the left or right edge of a phonological domain Y, such that a rule R, whose domain of applicability is constituents of the same type (in term of the prosodic hierarchy) of Y, does not affect X (Liberman and Prince ; Hayes ; see Hyde  for a recent state of the art). Thus Hyde (): The result of extrametricality is essentially invisibility to the application of subsequent rules. When a constituent is designated as extrametrical, it is excluded from the domain of rules that might incorporate it into higher levels of prosodic structure. An extrametrical segment cannot be associated with a mora; for example, an extrametrical syllable cannot be footed, and an extrametrical foot cannot be included in a prosodic word. (Hyde : )

Let me briefly illustrate how extrametricality works with a case study from Latin. As is well known, in this language the final syllable of a polysyllabic prosodic word cannot bear word stress: we can formalize this constraint by saying that this last syllable is not included in a metrical foot, but that it appears extrametrically, that is, isolated at the right edge of a prosodic word, after one or more feet. In this position, it cannot be affected by the rule that assigns word stress in Latin. The actual proposal from Danckaert (c, ) then goes as follows. At a certain point in time, a lexical split took place which gave rise to the creation of a special set of forms of sum, which differ from the pre-existing forms in that they are subject to a particular phonological requirement. We can call the older forms ‘strong

The development of the E-paradigm



BE’,

and the new ones ‘weak BE’. The former occurs in copular constructions and in F-periphrases, and the latter in E-periphrases (and probably also in combination with a gerundive). The precise constraint to which weak BE is subject is spelled out in (): ()

Phonological constraint on placement of weak BE Weak BE can only survive as a single metrical foot at the level of the prosodic word if it appears at the right edge of a phonological phrase, where it counts as ‘extrametrical’.

Given (), we first of all correctly capture the fact that only monosyllabic forms of sum should display special word order behaviour. In addition, we can also make sense of the observed left–right asymmetry (strong avoidance of head-initial structures/strong preference for head-final structures), as in head-final sequences the BE-auxiliary is much more likely to end up at the right edge of a phonological phrase. For reasons of space I will not here provide any further details of this proposal. The reader is referred to Danckaert (c) for an analysis of the negation facts shown in Figure . (which capitalizes on the proposal on the proclitic status of Late Latin sentential negation detailed in the previous chapter), as well as for further evidence from Late Latin prose rhythm in favour of the existence of a prosodically weak variant of sum in Late Latin. .. Discussion: some unrelated phenomena Before concluding this chapter, let me point out that the phonologically weak status of Late Latin BE that I have in mind is distinct from two other phenomena where the verb sum displays special behaviour which in the literature has been analysed in phonological terms. First, I assume that Late Latin weak BE is unrelated to a phenomenon which is variably called ‘contraction’ or ‘prodelision’ with BE (for recent discussion, see Pezzini ). An example is given in (), where the auxiliary and the past participle appear as a single orthographic unit natust ‘is born’, which is semantically entirely equivalent to the two word expression natus est. () hic qu-i uern-a that.NOM.M.SG who-NOM.M.SG slave-NOM ‘he, who was born a slave’ (Pl. Am. )

nat-u=st born-NOM.M.SG=be.PRS.SG

Evidence from meter shows that a form like natust is to be scanned as two rather than three syllables, from which we can deduce that the contraction phenomenon (in whatever way it is to be analysed) is not merely orthographic in nature. BE-contraction is mainly found in writers like Plautus and Terence, and is not robustly attested after the Augustan era (early first century AD, cf. Pezzini ). Whatever its exact analysis, this phenomenon crucially only affects BE-auxiliaries with a vocalic onset, which



The development of BE-periphrases

Frequency of the order be–past participle (in %)

100

80

60

40

20

0 –200

0

200 Time

Voc

400

600

Cons

FIGURE . Word order in clauses with a BE-periphrasis, ca.  BC– AD: auxiliaries with a vocalic and non-vocalic onset compared.

makes it very different from the Late Latin phenomenon investigated here. As shown in Figure ., although Late Latin BE-auxiliaries with a consonantic onset are slightly more likely to precede a past participle than BE-auxiliaries that start with a vowel, the overall word order preferences are not very different in the two conditions (only samples which contain more than eight E-periphrases with an auxiliary starting with a consonant are taken into account).13 Second, in the literature it also has been suggested that a particular type of cliticization is at work in clauses featuring a non-contiguous BE-periphrasis of 13 In particular, in a logistic model predicting the outcome probability of the word order ‘BE–PaPa’, with the factors ‘time’, ‘ negation’, ‘ monosyllabic auxiliary’, ‘mood’, ‘ auxiliary with vocalic onset’ as independent variables, there is a significant effect of the predictor ‘ auxiliary with vocalic onset’, to the effect that, on the whole, forms of sum with a vocalic onset are less likely to precede past participles (for reasons that remain to be better understood). Crucially a (positive) interaction term between this predictor and the factor ‘time’ does not come out as statistically significant. Full details can be found in the code file in the online materials.

A note on the loss of the synthetic passive



the type ‘BE[– . . . ]–PaPa’. An example is given in (), where the auxiliary appears immediately after the clause-initial subject: ()

Piso est a popul-o Roman-o fact-us, Piso.NOM be.PRS.SG by people-ABL Roman-ABL made-NOM.M.SG non ist-e Piso. not that-NOM.M.SG Piso.NOM ‘It was Piso who was elected by the Roman people, not you, who bears the same name.’ (Cic. Pis. )

In the wake of Wackernagel (: –), such patterns have occasionally been argued to involve second position cliticization (Adams ; see also Devine and Stephens : –, and fn.  in Section ..). However, apart from this analysis being far from generally accepted (see Danckaert b for critical discussion), it is clear that whatever the correct analysis of ‘BE[– . . . ]–PaPa’ orders is, these facts are unrelated to the Late Latin preference for the order ‘PaPa–BE’.

. A note on the loss of the synthetic passive I would like to conclude this chapter with a discussion of some later consequences of the shift from E- to F-periphrases. Thus far we have only looked at perfective tenses, which are the only ones in Classical Latin which can ever be analytic. In contrast, all non-perfective tenses (of active, passive, and deponent predicates) are synthetic. The very basic paradigm of this synthetic–analytic alternation is summarized in Table . (exactly the same facts hold for deponents). None of the synthetic passives (or deponents, for that matter) survive in the Romance languages: they have been replaced by analytic formations which strongly resemble the old (perfective) E-periphrases, as for example It. sono amato and Fr. je suis aimé, which are both present tense passives. It is commonly assumed that this formal resemblance is not accidental, in the sense that the Latin E-periphrases are

TABLE . Non-perfective and perfective passives in Classical Latin

Infinitive Indicative, present Indicative, past Indicative, future Subjunctive, non-past Subjunctive, past

Non-perfective

Perfective

amari amor amabar amabor amer amarer

amatus esse amatus sum amatus eram amatus ero amatus sim amatus essem



The development of BE-periphrases

deemed to be the historical source of the Romance present tense passives.14 The communis opinio seems to be that we are actually dealing with is the same structure, which at a certain point underwent a semantic change. Similarly to what was the case with the shift from E to F in the analytic tenses (cf. Section .. above), it is commonly assumed that the fact that the old E-periphrases could be ambiguous between a (past tense) verbal reading and a (present tense) adjectival interpretation facilitated this semantic shift. In addition, the fact that the E-periphrases had entered in competition with (or were ‘threatened’ by) the F-periphrases is also said to have contributed to this evolution.15 In Danckaert (, ), I develop a slightly different story, according to which the Latin E-paradigm (or perhaps more accurately, the lexical item ‘weak BE’) dies out. The analytic present tense passives are argued to be new formations, created by analogy with the ‘no tense mismatch’ F-periphrases, which are well attested centuries before we find the first instance of a Romance style present tense passive, which seems to be in Egeria’s Itinerarium (in the late fourth century AD).16 This alternative account has the obvious advantage that it can easily accommodate the un-Romance word order behaviour of Late Latin E-periphrases. In contrast, if we assume that E-periphrases live on in the Romance languages (albeit with a different meaning), the observed word order facts remain entirely mysterious. In addition, the alternative story is compatible with the observation that the shift from E to F does not

14 Thus for instance de Melo (: ): ‘In Italian, Latin amor is replaced by sono amato, from amatus sum, which has acquired present meaning.’ Similar statements can be found in Winters (), Hewson (), and Clackson and Horrocks (: ). See Danckaert (, ) for additional references. 15 In contrast, Pulgram (: ) claims that it was the shift from amatur to amatus est which prompted amatus est to be replaced by amatus fuit. This can of course not be correct, given that the genesis (and initial spread) of the perfective F-periphrases clearly predates the loss of the synthetic present tense passive. The same mistake is made in Lloyd (: ). 16 The relevant passage is Itin. Eg. ., where we read auditus sit instead of audiatur: the reader is referred to Danckaert () for full discussion of this example. Note, however, that there is actually no real consensus in the literature about what counts as the first attestation of the Romance type analytic present tense passive. For instance, Svennung (: –) and in his wake de Melo () have suggested that the relevant pattern can already be found in Palladius (ca.  AD): an example would be Pallad. ., where we find the analytic form electae . . . sint ‘should be chosen’, which is at first glance semantically equivalent to the synthetic form eligantur which we read in the corresponding passage from Columella (Col. .., ca.  AD). Compare also Jeanneret (: ), where examples similar to the ones offered in Svennung () are adduced. However, upon closer scrutiny it seems to be the case that this and comparable examples—which typically involve a subjunctive—from Palladius (and actually also from Varro and Columella) are in fact ambiguous between a verbal and an adjectival reading (J. Adams, p.c.), and as a result, it would not be certain that the relevant cases qualify as the true analytic counterpart of the synthetic ‑r passive (which itself is of course always purely verbal). Other scholars, such as Bastardas Parera (: –), have suggested that the first Romance type present tense passives date from much later, namely from the second half of the eighth century (Bastardas Parera : ). In any event, as pointed out by Stotz (: ) and Herman (), in all Late Latin texts the synthetic passive remains fully productive, suggesting that even if the relevant change was not actuated after  AD, the innovative pattern certainly only started to gain ground after that point. For additional discussion, see also Müller-Marquardt (: ), Green (), Van Acker (a: –), and Hagemann ().

Conclusion



show any sensitivity to the distinction between deponents and passives (cf. Figure .), a state of affairs which I have argued casts serious doubts on the hypothesis that the semantic ambiguity of certain E-periphrases is in any meaningful way related to the eventual reorganization of the Latin/Early Romance verbal inflectional paradigm.

. Conclusion In this chapter I have given an overview of some aspects of the diachronic development of Latin compound tenses with a BE-auxiliary, with special reference to word order. First of all, I have shown that it is important to distinguish what I labelled E- and F-periphrases. I have argued that the former type, which is the one which is most productive in Classical Latin, does not survive in any shape in the Romance languages, and that the special word order behaviour observed in Late Latin E-periphrases is—at least partly—to be explained in phonological (prosodic) terms. In contrast, (some) F-periphrases do in fact live on in present day Romance. In addition, the eventual loss of the synthetic passive can be understood as an indirect result of the shift from E- to F-periphrases in the perfective tenses. Among other things, a number of questions related to the origins of the F-paradigm remain to be answered.

Epilogue Variable direction of complementation in the Latin clause: a synthesis

To conclude this book I would like to offer a summary of the main results of my study, whereby I wish to focus on the empirical data rather than on the technical details of the various syntactic analyses that I have proposed. I will start with the OV/VO alternation, as described and analysed in Chapters  to . At first sight, in the period from ca.  BC until  AD, average frequencies of the head-initial order VO remain fairly constant, regardless of the type of syntactic environment considered (Figures .–.). Although some datasets seem to reveal a mild increase in the rate of VO, this effect is invariably rather modest, and mainly to be ascribed to the influence of a handful of Late Latin data points. Importantly however, we saw that there are major—and non-random—differences between the results obtained for different subsets in the corpus. Specifically, the facts concerning the OV/VO alternation in clauses with a single synthetic verb are very different from the ones observed in clauses with a modal and an infinitive. In the latter environment, there appears to be no diachronic development at all (Figure .), and there are also major differences between the results obtained for individual authors in both samples (cf. Figure .). This observation raises the question as to which of these two syntactic contexts provides us with the more accurate characterization of object placement. This question is crucially related to the issues concerning configurationality and structural ambiguity discussed in Chapter . I concluded that clauses with a modal verb constitute the best environment to study the OV/VO alternation in Latin, mainly because in this type of clause it is possible to disambiguate a number of distinct object positions, and also because here one can simultaneously study the OV/VO alternation and the VPAux/AuxVP alternation. As argued at length in Chapter , this last point is very important, as especially in the Late Latin period, the two phenomena are clearly not independent of one another. Once we evaluate the development of object placement in VPAux and AuxVP-clauses separately, we observe that it proceeds along a fundamentally



Epilogue

different path in these two contexts (see Figure . at the end of Chapter ). This I took to mean that it is necessary to distinguish two major grammatical systems, which I called Grammar A (i.e. the grammar that can generate the order VOAux) and Grammar B (in which a head-initial VP cannot be dominated by a head-final TP, with the absence of VOAux-orders as a result). We can then formulate the following descriptive generalizations about object placement in Latin. In AuxVP-clauses, it may well be the case that there is some increase of the order VO, although the data are somewhat difficult to interpret (cf. Figure .), perhaps because some of the samples are rather small. In VPAux-clauses on the other hand (cf. Figure .), up to around  AD we witness an unmistakable increase in productivity of VO, but this development is rather abruptly undone, and in later centuries the order VOAux is only attested at very low frequencies. Furthermore, we also observe a slight increase in the frequency of VP-external OV (‘object shift’, cf. Figure .), whereas nothings seems to change with respect to the rate of VP-external VO (‘extraposition’, cf. Figure .). The reader is referred to Danckaert (submitted b) for more detailed discussion of the diachrony of these last two phenomena. In sum, in none of the datasets that I have analysed in this book is there any convincing evidence for there being significantly higher frequencies of VO in Late Latin than in earlier centuries (contrary to what seems to be the communis opinio on the matter). This conclusion is in line with the observation that there still is a substantial OV residue in Old Romance (on Old Spanish, see England , Danford ; on Old French, Buridant , Marchello-Nizia , Zaring , , Rouquier and Marchello-Nizia ; on Old Portuguese, Martins ; on Old Italian, Poletto , ). What still remains to be accounted for is the often considerable amount of synchronic variation affecting object placement. A first attempt to systematically study the role of a number of synchronic factors (most notably information structure) is being undertaken in Danckaert (in progress). Another question which has not been addressed in this book concerns the reason why the order OV was eventually lost. In Danckaert (submitted b), I argue that this development is an indirect result of the shift from Grammar A to Grammar B. Without going into full detail, in the relevant paper I argue on the basis of the ‘variational acquisition’ model of language change developed in Yang (, ) that in Grammar B it is more difficult for the VP-internal OV-order to be cued unambiguously than in Grammar A, a state of affairs that ultimately leads to the order VO taking over completely. Importantly, the fact that all present day Romance varieties are robust VO-languages lends support to the hypothesis that the seeds of the relevant development must have been sown in Late Latin, the idea being that the ultimate loss of OV in Old Romance is shared by all varieties because it was inherited from the same source (Late Latin/Grammar B), rather than that each individual variety independently innovated this loss.

Epilogue



Turning then to the VPAux/AuxVP alternation, we have first of all seen that in clauses with the modal verbs possum ‘be able’ and debeo ‘have to’, there is a clear rise of the head-initial order ‘modal–infinitive’ (Figures . and .). On the other hand, combinations of a BE-auxiliary and a past participle behave very differently, as in Late Latin these have a remarkably strong preference for the head-final order ‘PaPa–BE’ (cf. Figure .). However, in Chapter  we have seen that there are actually contexts in which Late Latin BE-periphrases display more ‘normal’ behaviour (viz. by exhibiting relatively high frequencies of the (expected) head-initial order), such as periphrastic expressions with a perfective BE-auxiliary (‘F-periphrases’, cf. Figure .) and negated periphrases with a non-perfective BE-auxiliary (‘E-periphrases’, cf. Figure .). Third, we have also seen that in AuxVP-clauses, patterns in which an auxiliary (BE or modal) and a non-finite verb are not linearly adjacent become rarer over time. The eventual decline of the order VPAux can be understood as the loss of roll-up movement which I argued is characteristic of Grammar B. However, what exactly caused this development remains at this point very much an open question. In any event, there is good empirical evidence that the loss of head-final orders starts in the T-domain, and affects the VP-layer only later, in accordance with a descriptive generalization about word order changes which to my knowledge was first noted in Sigurðsson (), which says that a shift from head-final to head-initial projections in a given syntactic domain generally proceeds in a top-down fashion (see also Biberauer and Roberts ; Biberauer et al. ; Biberauer et al. ).

Glossary Here I only define technical terms which are used more than once in the book, and/or terms which are not defined in the main text. All underscored items are defined in a separate entry in the glossary. Accusatiuus cum Infinitiuo (AcI)

Embedded declarative clause of category CP (see Complementizer Phrase) whose hierarchically highest verb is an infinitive and whose ((pro)nominal) subject (which is typically but not always expressed overtly) is marked for accusative case. On the syntax of the Latin AcI, see Danckaert (submitted a).

adjunct

Phrasal category which is the sister of a maximal projection, or, in a strictly antisymmetric framework, of an intermediate projection. Adjuncts are typically adverbial modifiers which, unlike arguments, are neither conceptually indispensable, nor syntactically obligatorily represented. See also X′-structure and inner and outer specifier.

Agree

Syntactic operation involving two nodes X and Y, such that (i) X (the ‘Probe’) c-commands Y (the ‘Goal’), and (ii) X and Y come to share one or more syntactic features. For instance, structural Case assignment and argument–verb agreement can be said to formally involve a syntactic Agree relation.

A-movement

Internal merge of a syntactic phrase (always an argument) which takes place for reasons of structural Case, argument–verb agreement or the Extended Projection Principle, and which targets a position in the articulated Tense Phrase.

A′-movement (‘A-bar movement’)

Internal merge of a category targeting a position in the articulated Complementizer Phrase. Examples of A′-movement include (certain types of) topicalization and focalization, as well as movement of interrogative and relative operators. Alternatively called wh-movement.

antisymmetry

Hypothesis put forward in Kayne (), which in its simplified form says that no precedence relation can hold between two nodes X and Y which mutually c-command each other (i.e. in such a case X and Y cannot be linearized). See also Linear Correspondence Axiom.

Glossary



Area Under the Curve (AUC)

Statistic characterizing the accuracy of a binary classification model (such as a logistic regression), on a scale from  to  (. being chance level).

argument

A category which at a conceptual level is obligatorily involved in the state or action described by a predicate. An argument is typically realized as a noun phrase, prepositional phrase or clause. Abstracting away from implicit arguments (and their proper analysis), one can say that a predicate’s arguments are always syntactically represented. See also internal argument and external argument.

auxiliary

In this book, the term ‘auxiliary’ is only informally used to refer to any functional verb.

base-generation

See External Merge.

base position

See External Merge.

Case

See structural Case.

c-command

= ‘constituent-command’: in a given phrase marker a node X c-commands a node Y, iff every node dominating X also dominates Y, and neither X nor Y dominates the other. For instance, in (i) R c-commands all nodes except S (which itself does not c-command any node). T only c-commands R. U c-commands V, Y, and Z. V c-commands U, W, and X. W and X (only) c-command each other, as do Y and Z.

(i)

S R

T U

W

V X

Y

Z

c-selection

We say that a head X c-selects a phrase YP if X and Y, the head of YP, are two contiguous functional heads in the—by assumption universal—functional sequence, in such a way that X c-commands Y (for discussion see Grimshaw [] ).

Classical Latin

Informally used to refer to the language of Latin texts from the period from ca.  –/ . The term ‘classical’ is not used with any stylistic connotation.

competing grammars

See grammar competition.

complement

See X′-structure.



Glossary

Complementizer Phrase (CP)

Top layer of the extended projection of a verb, often used as a shorthand term for a series of functional projections which can host among other things (i) A′-moved or base-generated categories with a designated scope/ discourse function and (ii) complementizers, subordinating conjunctions and the like (see Rizzi ). Alternatively called the articulated CP, C(P)layer or (clausal) left periphery. In combination with the material it dominates, the CP-layer is equivalent to a full clause.

constituent

In phrase structure terms, a constituent is the complete (but possibly empty) set of nodes dominated by a node X, supplemented by X itself (for further discussion of this type of set-theoretic conception of constituency, see Carnie : ch. ). A syntactic constituent typically corresponds to a semantic unit. At an empirical level, there are numerous tests to verify whether a given string of words (terminals) constitutes a constituent or not (see Section . and references cited there). None of these is, however, infallible: therefore it is advisable to apply multiple constituency tests before concluding whether or not a given set of nodes is a constituent.

control

Syntactic configuration involving two predicates A (= the actual control predicate) and B occurring in structurally adjacent clauses, and two arguments α and β, α an argument of A and β an argument of B, such that (i) the referent of α is obligatorily identical to (in the case of exhaustive control) or a subset of (in the case of partial control) the referent of β, and (ii) A assigns a thematic role to α and B assigns a thematic role to β. In a prototypical control configuration, either α or β is not expressed overtly at Phonological Form. Examples of control predicates in English are dare, try, and promise (complemented by an infinitival clause). Control configurations often bear surface resemblances to raising configurations, but the two are structurally very different. There are many empirical tests to tell apart raising and control structures.

Coordinated Structure Constraint

Ban on phrasal movement of and out of one of two (or more) coordinated phrases.

Glossary



deponent verb

Verb with passive morphology which is not characterized by the semantics or argument structure of a passive.

derivation (syntactic ~)

Procedure leading to the creation of an internally complex syntactic structure (phrase marker), through repeated application of Merge.

Determiner Phrase (DP)

(Part of the) extended projection of a noun, often used as shorthand for a series of lexical (mostly adjectives) and functional categories (articles, numerals, demonstratives, perhaps some adjectives) which semantically act as adnominal modifiers.

diachronic variation

Type of linguistic variation which does not remain stable over time.

dominance

Structural relation that holds between a node X and a node Y in a given phrase marker iff (i) X occurs higher in the structure than Y and (ii) one can trace a line from X to Y by only going downwards. More formally, in settheoretic terms X dominates Y iff Y (and all nodes dominated by Y) is a proper subset of X. Dominance is alternatively called domination.

Early Latin

Informally used to refer to the language of Latin texts from the period from ca.  until  , comprising the works of Plautus, Terence, and Cato. Alternatively called ‘Archaic Latin’.

Extended Projection

Set of functional heads (and their maximal projections) merged on top of a lexical category. See p.  for a formal definition, and Grimshaw ([] ) for further discussion.

Extended Projection Principle (EPP)

Requirement for a specific functional category (called FP in this book) in the articulated Tense Phrase to be lexicalized by a phonologically overt category endowed with φ-features.

external argument

An argument of a given predicate which bears the thematic role of Agent.

External Merge

Application of Merge which combines a lexical item with an already existing phrase marker, or with another lexical item. The locus X in a phrase marker where a category Y is externally merged is said to be Y’s base position, or alternatively, Y is said to be basegenerated or first merged in X.

Final-Over-Final Constraint (FOFC)

Constraint on roll-up movement formulated in Biberauer et al. (), which says that roll-up



Glossary movement affecting YP, the complement of a head X, can only apply if all complements to heads (i) which are part of the same extended projection as X and (ii) which are c-commanded by X have also been affected by rollup movement.

first merged

See External Merge.

functional category

Closed class lexical item, typically devoid of (much) encyclopedic content. Pronouns, determiners, TAM markers and discourse particles are all examples of functional categories.

Goal

See Agree.

grammar competition

Approach to language change initiated in Kroch (), which says that it is possible for two or more grammatical variants (phonemes, lexical categories, functional categories) which are in principle incompatible with one another, to be simultaneously available to a single speaker (who produces the relevant variants at different rates). This situation often leads to one competing variant ousting the other(s).

head

See X′-structure.

head movement

Internal Merge of a syntactic head (also known as incorporation).

higher-order constituent

Internally complex constituent which can informally be defined as a syntactic phrase which contains two or more other phrases, but which is smaller than an entire clause.

hyperbaton

Discontinuous constituent, which in a syntactic framework which has movement can be defined as movement of a subconstituent out of a larger constituent.

incorporation

See head movement.

inner specifier

Phrasal category which acts as the sister of an intermediate projection.

interaction (statistics)

Situation in which the simultaneous effect of two (or more) independent variables on one (or more) dependent variable(s) is not additive, but rather, where the influence of one factor depends on the level(s) of one or more other factors.

intermediate projection

See X′-structure.

internal argument

Argument carrying the thematic role of Patient or Theme (in an active or passive clause).

Glossary



Internal Merge

Also known as movement (or displacement): an application of Merge which (i) either combines W, the top node of a given phrase marker, and X, a constituent dominated by W (in the case of phrasal movement), (ii) or which combines Y, the highest head in a given phrase marker, and Z, a head (typically the closest head) c-commanded by Y (in the case of head movement).

Late Latin

Informally used to refer to the language of Latin texts from after ca. – , until ca.  .

left periphery

See Complementizer Phrase.

lexical category

Open class lexical item, typically with encyclopedic content. Nouns and most verbs and adjectives are lexical categories.

lexical item

Linguistic entity (form-meaning pair) which is stored in the lexicon of a given language. Lexical items can be lexical or functional categories.

lexicalization

Process whereby pieces of S-syntax are matched with pieces of L-syntax (‘morphemes’).

Linear Correspondence Axiom

Algorithm proposed in Kayne (), which—simply put—maps asymmetrical (non-reciprocal) c-command relations onto linear precedence relations.

linearization

Process that derives precedence relations from the hierarchical structure (phrase structure) of a given syntactic object.

logistic regression

Statistical routine to model the distribution of a binary outcome variable (such as ‘success–failure’, ‘left–right’, ‘phoneme A–phoneme B’).

L-syntax

Concept introduced in Hale and Keyser (). In the spirit of Starke (, ), we can assume that the lexicon of a given language consists of (lexical and functional) morphemes whose internal structure is fully syntactic, and can be represented by means of a phrase marker. We can call a lexically stored syntactic structure a piece of L-syntax.

main clause

See root clause.

matrix clause

The matrix clause of an embedded clause C is the clause that immediately dominates C (and which itself may or may not be a root clause).

maximal projection

See X′-structure.



Glossary

Merge

Basic structure-building operation which takes two (and only two) syntactic objects and creates a complex unit out of them. See also Internal Merge and External Merge.

middle field

See Tense Phrase.

movement

See Internal Merge.

Nominatiuus cum Infinitiuo (NcI)

Traditional term for a raising configuration.

operator

Category which takes logical scope over an entire clause (proposition).

outer specifier

Phrasal category which acts as the sister of a maximal projection. Application of roll-up movement gives rise to the creation of an outer specifier.

parameter (syntactic ~)

Given a lexicalist conception of cross-linguistic syntactic variation, a syntactic parameter is a functional category which can be realized differentially in individual languages, for instance by being endowed with a different feature specification. In the context of the present book, the way in which the Extended Projection Principle is satisfied is a syntactic parameter associated with the functional category F(P).

Phonological Form (PF)

Level of representation which is derived from the phrase structure representation of a syntactic object X, at which the phonological properties of X are detailed.

phrasal movement

Internal Merge of a syntactic phrase. Depending on the target (landing site) of a given movement operation, one can distinguish roll-up movement, A-movement, scrambling and (various types of) A′-movement.

phrase

A maximal projection of a syntactic head: see X′-structure.

phrase marker

Tree diagram representing the phrase structure of a syntactic object.

phrase structure

The phrase structure of a syntactic object X is the set of all hierarchical relations (dominance (containment), c-command) that hold between all the (atomic or internally complex) constitutive elements (heads, phrases, intermediate projections) of X.

pied-piping

Phenomenon whereby a constituent probed for ‘drags’ along one or more additional constituents when it moves to its eventual landing site. For instance, in (i) the moving wh-element where pied-pipes the preposition from, whereas in (ii) it doesn’t.

Glossary



(i) [PP From where]i do you come ti ? (ii) Wherei do you come [PP from ti ]? precedence

In a given externalized (pronounced, signed, written,…) syntactic structure, a category X precedes a category Y iff X linearly appears before Y, whereby the notion of ‘appearing before’ is parameterized according to the way in which a given syntactic structure is externalized (pronounced, signed, written down,…). Precedence relations are not syntactic primitives, but they are derived from the syntactic structure, i.e. the hierarchical (dominance and c-command) relations encoded in a given phrase marker.

predicate

A property that characterizes one or more entities (the arguments of that predicate).

Primary Linguistic Data

Set of utterances that a language acquiring child is exposed to during the critical period, on the basis of which she constructs her own internalized grammar (‘I-language’).

Probe

See Agree.

2

R

Measure (ranging from  to ) which indicates how well a (linear) regression model performs in accounting for the variation observed in a given dataset.

raising

Syntactic configuration involving two predicates A (= the actual raising predicate) and B, and β, the hierarchically highest argument of B, such that (i) (ii) (iii) (iv)

A c-commands B, B but not A assigns a thematic role to β, β acts as an argument of both A and B, and there is no predicate C, such that (a) C c-commands B and A c-commands C, and (b) C could in principle assign a thematic role to β.

Examples of raising predicates in English are seem, appear, be said, and be likely. Raising configurations often bear surface resemblances to control configurations, but the two are structurally very different. There are many empirical tests to tell apart raising and control structures. reanalysis

Situation whereby a language acquiring child assigns a phrase structure representation to a given utterance X which is different from the phrase structure representation assumed for X by the speakers who



Glossary produce the Primary Linguistic Data that the child is exposed to. Given an acquisition-based approach to language change, syntactic reanalysis is what gives rise to syntactic change.

Relativized Minimality

A principled constraint on (various types of) syntactic movement (Internal Merge), which says that a category α cannot move from a position X to a position Y across a category β in a position Z, if either α and β and/or Y and Z are ‘sufficiently similar’ to each other (in a sense made more precise in Rizzi () and subsequent work).

remnant movement

Internal Merge (movement) of an internally complex syntactic phrase out of which one or more constituents were moved at an earlier stage of the derivation.

restructuring

Phenomenon whereby an apparently biclausal syntactic domain behaves like a monoclausal structure with respect to a number of syntactic diagnostics (see Rizzi a,b,  and subsequent literature).

roll-up movement

Application of Internal Merge which displaces YP, the complement of X°, to an outer specifier of XP (the maximal projection of X°). See also Final-Over-Final Constraint. Roll-up movement is a purely formal operation, and it is never associated with any interpretive effect.

root clause

A clause whose top node is not dominated by any other node.

scrambling

Type of phrasal movement which displaces a category to the articulated Tense Phrase, typically for reasons of information structure rather than e.g. argument–verb agreement or structural Case, or the Extended Projection Principle.

specifier

See X′-structure, inner specifier, and outer specifier.

s-selection

We say that a head X s-selects a phrase YP if X is a lexical category, and YP an argument which in phrase structure terms is the sister (and thus the complement) of X.

S-syntax

Concept introduced in Hale and Keyser (). A piece of S-syntax is a syntactic structure which in contrast with a piece of L-syntax is not stored in the lexicon of a given language. Following among others Cinque (), Grimshaw ([] ) and Starke (, ) we can assume that the shape of a piece of S-syntax is (to a

Glossary



large extent) determined by the cross-linguistically invariable order in which functional heads are merged in the extended projection of a lexical category. standard deviation

Measure of dispersion which characterizes the average distance between the arithmetic mean of a sample and the individual data points on the basis of which the mean was calculated. See also standard error.

standard error (of the mean)

Similarly to the standard deviation, the standard error gives an indication of the spread of individual data points around the arithmetic mean of a given sample.

structural ambiguity

Situation in which a given linear (spoken, written, signed) sequence of words can correspond to more than one phrase marker. Structural ambiguity can only arise in configurational grammars (cf. Chapter ). Given an acquisition-based approach to syntactic change such as the one assumed in this book, the potential for a linearized utterance to be structurally ambiguous is what enables a language learner to reanalyse part of the Primary Linguistic Data.

structural Case

Phenomenon whereby an argument phrase is formally licensed by virtue of appearing in a specific position in a phrase marker, namely in a local configuration with a case assigning functional or lexical category. See also Agree.

synchronic variation

Type of linguistic variation which is correlated with any (set of) independent variable(s) different from ‘time’ (which is of course not to say that synchronic and diachronic variation cannot co-occur in a given dataset). Typical determinants of synchronic variation include gender, stylistic register and social class.

syntax

The scientific study of phrase structure, i.e. the (hierarchical) structure of a root clause (sentence) and all its component parts. Directly related to phrase structure are various phenomena such as constituency, word order (linearization), patterns of argument alignment, structural Case assignment, quantifier scope, and many more. The term ‘syntax’ is informally also used to simply denote ‘phrase structure’ (as in ‘the syntax of a clause’).

Tense Phrase (TP)

Part of the extended projection of a verb, often used as shorthand for a series of functional categories, most of which denote TAM-related notions (see Cinque ). Alternatively called the articulated TP, T(P)-layer, or



Glossary (informally) the middle field. The TP also contains a number of ‘derived’ argument positions (landing sites for A-movement and scrambling).

terminal (node)

Node in a phrase marker which does not dominate any other node.

thematic role

Semantic role of an argument, which specifies its relation with respect to the predicate it is associated with. Examples of thematic roles are Agent, Patient (Theme), Goal, and Experiencer.

trace

Non-pronounced occurrence of a moved (internally merged) category, which in the canonical case is c-commanded by the highest occurrence of this category (remnant movement configurations being an exception).

unaccusative

One-place predicate which only has an internal argument.

variation (linguistic ~)

The probabilistic distribution of two or more functionally equivalent or closely related grammatical categories, be it phonemes, lexical items, or syntactic constructions. This distribution typically covaries with more than one (synchronic) independent variable, and it often also changes over time, leading to diachronic variation (i.e. change).

wh-movement

See A′-movement.

X′-structure (‘X-bar structure’)

Basic building block of a phrase marker. In (ii) (where the symbol ‘X’ stands for any lexical or functional category), X° is the head, X′ (‘X-bar’) is an intermediate projection, and XP is a maximal projection. YP is the complement of X°, ZP is a specifier of XP, and WP is an adjunct of XP. Alternatively, we can call ZP an inner specifier of XP, and WP an outer specifier of XP. The various elements in (ii) are hierarchically, but not intrinsically linearly ordered with respect to each other.

(ii)

XP WP

XP X′

ZP X° φ-feature(s)

YP

Formal features encoding gender, number, and person specifications, as well as Case features, which can be active in a syntactic derivation.

References Text editions All electronic texts used for the corpus studies reported on in this book were either drawn from the CD-ROM Hyperbase (cf. Brunet and Mellet n.d., texts from the Laboratoire d’Analyse Statistique des Langues Anciennes (LASLA)), or from the Brepolis database (www.brepolis.net). Below I give a comprehensive list of all the text editions that these digital resources made use of, and I refer to Table . in the main text for full details on whether a given text comes from the LASLA or from the Brepolis corpus. Whenever I used a different edition for DLCS and DLCS, this is indicated explicitly in the list below. Anthimus – De obseruatione ciborum: Liechtenhan, Eduard (ed.) (). Anthimi De observatione ciborum ad Theodoricum regem Francorum epistula (= Corpus Medicorum Latinorum .). Leipzig: Teubner. Antoninus of Piacenza – Itinerarium Antonini Placentini, recensio prima: Geyer, Paul, Otto Cuntz, Ezio Francheschini, Robert Weber, Ludwig Bieler, John Fraipont, and François Glorie (eds) (). Itineraria et alia geographica: itineraria Hierosolymitana; itineraria Romana; geographica (= Corpus Christianorum Series Latina ). Turnhout: Brepols. Augustine – Sermones , , , , , , , , and : Lambot, Cyrille (ed.) (). Sancti Aurelii Augustini sermones de Vetere Testamento (= Corpus Christianorum Series Latina ). Turnhout: Brepols. – Sermones , A and A: Verbraken, Pierre-Patrick (ed.) (). ‘Les fragments conservés de sermons perdus de saint Augustin’, Revue Bénédictine : –. – Sermones , , and : Lambot, Cyrille (ed.) (). Sancti Aurelii Augustini sermones selecti duodeviginti (= Stromata Patristica et Mediaevalia ). Utrecht: Spectrum. – Sermones , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , and : Migne, Jacques Paul (ed.). Patrologiae cursus completus, series latina, vol. : S. Aurelius Augustinus. Paris. – Sermo A: Lambot, Cyrille (ed.) (). ‘Sermon inédit de saint Augustin sur la prière’, Revue Bénédictine : –. – Sermo A: Lambot, Cyrille (ed.) (). ‘Nouveaux sermons de S. Augustin, I–III “De lectione Evangelii” ’, Revue Bénédictine : –. – Sermo : Lambot, Cyrille (ed.) (). ‘Le sermon CXI de saint Augustin’, Revue Bénédictine : –. – Sermo : Verbraken, Pierre-Patrick (ed.) (). ‘Le sermon CXII de saint Augustin sur les invités au festin’, Revue Bénédictine : –.



References

– Sermones A, A, , , B, A, B, C, D, E, A, A, A, B, C, A, and A: Morin, Germain (ed.) (). ‘Sancti Augustini sermones post Maurinos reperti’, in Miscellanea agostiniana, vol. , Rome: Tipografia Poliglotta Vaticana. – Sermones , , and : Poque, Suzanne (ed.) (). Sermons pour la Pâque (= Sources Chrétiennes ). Paris: Les Editions du Cerf. – Sermo : Verbraken, Pierre-Patrick (ed.) (). ‘Le sermon CCXIV de saint Augustin pour la tradition du symbole’, Revue Bénédictine : –. – Sermo : Verbraken, Pierre-Patrick (ed.) (). ‘Les sermons CCXV et LVI de Saint Augustin, “De symbolo” et “De oratione dominica” ’, Revue Bénédictine : –. – Sermo C: Kurz, Rainer (ed.) (). ‘Augustinus, Sermo Morin Guelf.  (= Sermo C) und Epist. A: Zwei neue Handschriften in Deutschland’, Revue Bénédictine : –. – Sermo D: Lambot, Cyrille (ed.) (). ‘Nouveaux sermons de S. Augustin. IV–VII. “De Martyribus” ’, Revue Bénédictine : –. Caesar – De bello ciuili (DLCS): Klotz, Alfred (ed.) (). C. Iuli Caesaris commentarii, vol. : Commentarii belli civilis. Leipzig: Teubner. – De bello ciuili (DLCS): Klotz, Alfred (ed.) (). C. Iuli Caesaris commentarii, vol. : Commentarii belli civilis (add. et corr. coll. et adiecit W. Trillitzsch). Leipzig: Teubner. – De bello Gallico (DLCS): Hering, Wolfgang (ed.) (). C. Iulii Caesaris commentarii rerum gestarum, vol. : Bellum Gallicum. Leipzig: Teubner. – De bello Gallico (DLCS): Seel, Otto (ed.) (). C. Iulii Caesaris commentarii rerum gestarum, vol. : Bellum Gallicum. Leipzig: Teubner. Caesarius of Arles – Sermones –: Morin, Germain (ed.) (). Sancti Caesarii Arelatensis sermones (= Corpus Christianorum Series Latina –). Turnhout: Brepols. Cassius Felix – De medicina: Rose, Valentin (ed.) (). Cassii Felicis De medicina. Leipzig: Teubner. Cato – De agri cultura (DLCS): Mazzarino, Antonio (ed.) (). M. Porci Catonis De agri cultura (nd edition). Leipzig: Teubner. – De agri cultura (DLCS): Goujard, Raould (ed.) (). Caton: De l’agriculture. Paris: Les Belles Lettres. Celsus – De medicina: Daremberg, Charles (ed.) (). A. Cornelii Celsi De medicina libri octo. Leipzig: Teubner. Cicero – De amicitia (DLCS): Laurand, Louis (ed.) (). Cicéron: L’amitié. Paris: Les Belles Lettres. – De officiis (DLCS): Atzert, Carolus and Otto Plasberg (eds) (). De officiis (= M. Tulli Ciceronis scripta quae manserunt omnia ). Leipzig: Teubner. – De officiis (DLCS): Atzert, Carolus, Otto Plasberg, and Wilhelm Ax (eds) (). De officiis (= M. Tulli Ciceronis scripta quae manserunt omnia ). Leipzig: Teubner.

References



– De senectute (DLCS): Wuilleumier, Pierre (ed.) (). Cicéron: Caton l’ancien (de la vieillesse). Paris: Les Belles Lettres. – Orationes (complete) (DLCS): Clark, Albert and William Peterson (eds) (–). M. Tulli Ciceronis orationes, vols I–VI. Oxford: Clarendon Press. – Orationes (fragments) (DLCS): Klotz, Alfred and Friedrich Schoell (eds) (). Orationes pro T. Annio Milone; Pro M. Marcello; Pro Q. Ligario; Pro rege Deiotaro; Orationes in M. Antonium Philippicae; Fragmenta orationum (= M. Tulli Ciceronis scripta quae manserunt omnia ). Leipzig: Teubner. – Pro Murena (DLCS): Kasten, Helmut (ed.) (). Oratio pro L. Murena (= M. Tulli Ciceronis scripta quae manserunt omnia ) (rd edition). Leipzig: Teubner. – Pro Quinctio (DLCS): Reeve, Michael D. (ed.) (). Oratio pro P. Quinctio (= M. Tulli Ciceronis scripta quae manserunt omnia ). Leipzig: Teubner. Columella – De re rustica: Lundström, Vilhelm, Åke Josephson and Sten Hedberg (eds) (–). L. Iuni Moderati Columellae opera quae exstant. Uppsala: Lundequistska bokhandeln. Cyprian – Epistulae – (except , , , , , , and ): Diercks, Gerard Frederik (ed.) (–). Sancti Cypriani episcopi epistularium (= Corpus Christianorum Series Latina B–C). Turnhout: Brepols. Egeria – Geyer, Paul, Otto Cuntz, Ezio Francheschini, Robert Weber, Ludwig Bieler, John Fraipont, and François Glorie (eds) (). Itineraria et alia geographica: itineraria Hierosolymitana; itineraria Romana; geographica (= Corpus Christianorum Series Latina ). Turnhout: Brepols. Frontinus – De aquaeductu urbis Romae: Kunderewicz, Cezary (ed.) (). Sex. Iulii Frontini De aquaeductu urbis Romrae. Leipzig: Teubner. – Strategemata: Ireland, Robert (ed.) (). Iuli Frontini Strategemata. Leipzig: Teubner. Gaius – Institutiones: Seckel, Emil and Bernhard Kuebler (eds) (). Gai Institutiones. Leipzig: Teubner. Gargilius – Medicinae ex oleribus et pomis: Rose, Valentin (ed.) (). Plinii Secundi quae fertur una cum Gargilii Mrartialis Medicina. Leipzig: Teubner. Gesta Conlationis Carthaginiensis – Lancel, Serge (ed.) (). Gesta conlationis Carthaginiensis anno  (= Corpus Christianorum Series Latina A). Turnhout: Brepols. Gregory of Tours – Historia Francorum: Krusch, Bruno and Wilhelm Levison (ed.) (–). Gregorii episcopi Turonensis Libri historiarum X (= Monumenta Germaniae historica, scriptores rerum Merovingicarum .). Hannover: Hahn.



References

Hyginus – Astronomica: Viré, Ghislaine (ed.) (). Hygini De astronomia. Leipzig: Teubner. Iordanes – Getica, Romana: Mommsen, Theodor (ed.) (). Iordanis Romana et Getica (= Monumenta Germaniae historica, auctores antiquissimi .). Berlin: Weidmann. Jerome – Epistulae – (except ), –: Hilberg, Isidor (ed.) (–). Sancti Eusebii Hieronymi epistulae (= Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum –). Wien: Tempsk. Livy – Ab urbe condita –: Weissenborn, Wilhelm and Moritz Müller (eds) (). Titi Livi Ab urbe condita libri I–X. Leipzig: Teubner. – Ab urbe condita –: Dorey, Thomas Alan (ed.) (). Titi Livi Ab urbe condita libri XXI–XXII. Leipzig: Teubner. – Ab urbe condita –: Dorey, Thomas Alan (ed.) (). Titi Livi Ab urbe condita libri XXIII–XXV. Leipzig: Teubner. – Ab urbe condita –: Walsh, Patrick Gerard (ed.) (). Titi Livi Ab urbe condita libri XXVI–XXVII. Leipzig: Teubner. – Ab urbe condita –: Walsh, Patrick Gerard (ed.) (). Titi Livi Ab urbe condita libri XXVIII–XXX. Leipzig: Teubner. – Ab urbe condita –: Briscoe, John (ed.) (). Titi Livi Ab urbe condita libri XXXI–XL. Stuttgart: Teubner. – Ab urbe condita –: Briscoe, John (ed.) (). Titi Livi Ab urbe condita libri XLI–XLV. Stuttgart: Teubner. Palladius – Opus agriculturae, De ueterinaria medicinae: Rodgers, Robert (ed.) (). Palladii Rutilii Tauri Aemiliani viri inlustris opus agriculturae; De veterinaria medicina; De insitione. Leipzig: Teubner. Petronius – Satyrica (DLCS): Müller, Konrad (ed.) (). Petronii Arbitri Satyricon reliquiae. Stuttgart: Teubner. – Satyrica (DLCS): Ernout, Alfred (ed.) (). Pétrone: Le satiricon. Paris: Les Belles Lettres. Plautus – Comedies: Goetz, Georg and Friedrich Schoell (eds) (–). T. Macci Plauti comoediae ( vols). Leipzig: Teubner. Pliny the Younger – Epistulae (DLCS, DLCS): Schuster, Mauriz and Rudolf Hanslik (eds) (). C. Plini Caecili Secundi epistularum libri novem; Epistularum ad Traianum liber; Panegyricus (rd edition). Leipzig: Teubner. – Panegyricus (DLCS): Durry, Marcel (ed.) (). Pline le Jeune, tome IV: Lettres, livre X; Panégyrique de Trajan. Paris: Les Belles Lettres.

References



Pompeius Maurus – Commentum artis Donati: Keil, Heinrich (ed.) (). Grammatici latini. Leipzig: Teubner (vol. , –). Quintilian – Institutio oratoria: Radermacher, Ludwig and Vinzenz Buchheit (eds) (). M. Fabi Quintiliani Institutionis oratoriae libri XII (th edition). Leipzig: Teubner. Sallust – Iugurtha, Catilina (DLCS): Kurfess, Alphons (ed.) (). C. Sallusti Crispi Catilina; Jugurtha; Fragmenta ampliora (rd edition). Leipzig: Teubner. – Iugurtha, Catilina (DLCS): Ernout, Alfred (ed.) (). Salluste: Catilina; Jugurtha; Fragments des histoires. Paris: Les Belles Lettres. Scriptores Historiae Augustae – Hohl, Ernest (ed.) (). Scriptores historiae augustae ( vols). Leipzig: Teubner. Seneca – Apocolocyntosis (DLCS) Waltz, René (ed.) (). Sénèque: L’apocoloquintose du divin Claude (nd edition). Paris: Les Belles Lettres. – De beneficiis (DLCS, DLCS), De clementia (DLCS): Hosius, Carl (). L. Annaei Senecae de beneficiis libri VII; De clementia libri II (= L. Annaei Senecae Opera quae supersunt .) (nd edition). Leipzig: Teubner. – Dialogi (Ad Heluiam matrem de consolatione (DLCS, DLCS), Ad Marciam de consolatione, Ad Polybium de consolatione, De breuitate uitae, De constantia, De ira, De otio, De prouidentia, De tranquillitate animi, De uita beata (DLCS)): Hermes, Emil (ed.) (). L. Annaei Senecae Dialogorum libros XII. Leipzig: Teubner. – Epistulae ad Lucilium (DLCS): Hense, Otto (ed.) (). L. Annaei Senecae ad Lucilium epistularum moralium quae supersunt. Leipzig: Teubner. – Epistulae ad Lucilium (DLCS): Hense, Otto (ed.) (). L. Annaei Senecae ad Lucilium epistularum moralium quae supersunt. Leipzig: Teubner. Suetonius – Vitae caesarum: Ihm, Maximilian (). De vita caesarum libri VIII. Leipzig: Teubner. Tacitus – Agricola (DLCS): Delz, Josef (ed.) (). Agricola (= P. Cornelii Taciti libri qui supersunt .). Stuttgart: Teubner. – Annales (DLCS): Heubner, Heinz (ed.) (). Ab excessu divi Augusti (= P. Cornelii Taciti Libri qui supersunt ) (nd edition). Stuttgart: Teubner. – Annales (DLCS): Koestermann, Erich (ed.) (). Ab excessu divi Augusti (= P. Cornelii Taciti Libri qui supersunt ). Leipzig: Teubner. – Germania, dialogus de oratoribus, Agricola (DLCS): Koestermann, Erich (ed.) (). Germania; Agricola; dialogus de oratoribus (= P. Cornelii Taciti libri qui supersunt .) (rd edition). Leipzig: Teubner. – Historiae (DLCS): Heubner, Heinz (ed.) (). Historiarum libri (= P. Cornelii Taciti Libri qui supersunt .). Stuttgart: Teubner.



References

– Historiae (DLCS): Fisher, Charles Dennis (ed.) (). Cornelii Taciti Historiarum libri. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Terence – Adelphoe, Andria, Eunuchus, Heautontimoroumenos and Hecyra: Fleckeisen, Alfred (ed.) (). P. Terenti comoediae. Leipzig: Teubner. – Phormio: Dziatzko, Karl (ed.) (). Ausgewählte Komödien des P. Terentius Afer: zur Einführung in die Lektüre der altlateinischen Lustspiele. Leipzig: Teubner. Tertullian – Aduersus Marcionem: Dekkers, Eligius, Jan William Philip Borleffs, Radbodus Willems, François Refoulé, Gerard Frederik Diercks, and Emil Kroymann (eds) (). Quinti Septimi Florentis Tertulliani opera, vol. : opera catholica; Adversus Marcionem (= Corpus Christianorum Series Latina ). Turnhout: Brepols (including corrigenda by Petitmengin, Pierre (). ‘Errata Tertullianea’, in Granarolo, Jean (ed.), Hommage à René Braun. Nice: Faculté des lettres et sciences humaines, vol. , –). Varro – De lingua latina: Goetz, Georg and Friedrich Schoell (eds) (). M. Terenti Varronis De lingua latina quae supersunt. Leipzig: Teubner. – Res rusticae: Goetz, Georg (ed.) (). M. Terenti Varronis Rerum rusticarum libri tres. Leipzig: Teubner. Vegetius – Epitoma rei militaris: Önnerfors, Alf (ed.) (). P. Flavii Vegeti Renati Epitoma rei militaris. Stuttgart: Teubner. – Mulomedicina: Lommatzsch, Ernest (ed.) (). P. Vegeti Renati digestorum Artis mulomedicinae libri. Leipzig: Teubner. Victor of Vita – Historia persecutionis Africanae prouinciae: Petschenig, Michael (ed.) (). Victoris episcopi Vitensis Historia persecutionis Africanae provinciae (= Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum ). Wien: Gerold. Vitruvius – De architectura: Krohn, Fritz (ed.) (). Vitruvii De architectura libri decem. Leipzig: Teubner. Vulgate – Selections of Old and New Testament: Fischer, Bonifatius, Jean Gribomont, Hedley Frederick Davis Sparks, Walter Thiele, Robert Weber, and Roger Gryson (eds) (). Biblia sacra iuxta Vulgatam versionem. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft. Secondary literature Abels, Klaus (). ‘Successive Cyclicity, Anti-Locality and Adposition Stranding’. Doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut.

References



Abels, Klaus (). Phases: An Essay on Cyclicity in Syntax. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Aboh, Enoch (a). The Morphosyntax of Complement-Head Sequences: Clause Structure and Word Order Patterns in Kwa. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Aboh, Enoch (b). ‘Snowballing Movement and Generalized Pied-Piping’, in Anne Breitbarth and Henk van Riemsdijk (eds), Triggers. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, –. Aboh, Enoch (). ‘Information Structuring starts with the Numeration’, Iberia : –. Acedo-Matellán, Víctor (). The Morphosyntax of Transitions: A Case Study in Latin and Other Languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Adamik, Béla (). ‘Periodization of Latin: An Old Question Revisited’, in Gerd Haverling (ed.), Latin Linguistics in the Early st Century. Uppsala: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis, –. Adams, James (). ‘A Typological Approach to Latin Word Order’, Indogermanische Forschungen : –. Adams, James (a). The Vulgar Latin of the Letters of Claudius Terentianus. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Adams, James (b). ‘The Linguistic Unity of the Historia Augusta’, Antichthon : –. Adams, James (). Wackernagel’s Law and the Placement of the Copula esse in Classical Latin. Cambridge: Philological Society. Adams, James (). ‘The Language of the Vindolanda Writing-Tablets: An Interim Report’, Journal of Roman Studies : –. Adams, James (). ‘The New Vindolanda Writing-Tablets’, Classical Quarterly : –. Adams, James (). The Regional Diversification of Latin  BC–AD . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Adams, James (). Social Variation and the Latin Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Adams, Marianne (). ‘Old French, Null Subjects and Verb Second Phenomena’. Doctoral dissertation, UCLA. Adger, David (). Core Syntax: A Minimalist Approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Aelbrecht, Lokbe (). The Syntactic Licensing of Ellipsis. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Ágel, Vilmos and Klaus Fischer (). ‘Dependency Grammar and Valency Theory’, in Bernd Heine and Heiko Narrog (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Analysis (nd Edition). Oxford: Oxford University Press, –. Aitchison, Jean (). Language Change: Progress or Decay? (th Edition). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Alboiu, Gabriela, Virginia Hill, and Ioanna Sitaridou (). ‘Discourse Driven V to C in Early Modern Romanian’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory : –. Alexiadou, Artemis and Elena Anagnostopoulou (). ‘Parametrizing AGR: Word Order, V-Movement and EPP-Checking’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory : –. Alexiadou, Artemis and Elena Anagnostopoulou (). ‘The Subject-in-situ Generalization and the Role of Case in driving Computations’, Linguistic Inquiry : –. Alexiadou, Artemis and Elena Anagnostopoulou (). ‘The Subject-in-situ Generalization Revisited’, in Uli Sauerland and Hans-Martin Gärtner (eds), Interfaces + Recursion = Language? Chomsky’s Minimalism and the View from Syntax-Semantics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, –.



References

Altmann, Gabriel, Haro von Buttlar, Walter Rott, and Udo Strauß (). ‘A Law of Change in Language’, in Barron Brainerd (ed.), Historical Linguistics. Bochum: Brockmeyer, –. Anagnostopoulou, Elena (). ‘Participles and Voice’, in Artemis Alexiadou, Monika Rathert, and Arnim von Stechow (eds), Perfect Explorations. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, –. Austin, Peter and Joan Bresnan (). ‘Non-Configurationality in Australian Aboriginal Languages’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory : –. Authier, Jean-Marc (). ‘A Movement Analysis of French Modal Ellipsis’, Probus : –. Baerman, Matthew, Greville Corbett, Dunstan Brown, and Andrew Hippisley (eds) (). Deponency and Morphological Mismatches. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bailey, Charles-James (). Variation and Linguistic Theory. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics. Baker, Mark (). Incorporation: A Theory of Grammatical Function Changing. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. Baker, Mark (). The Polysynthesis Parameter. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Baker, Mark (). ‘The Natures of Nonconfigurationality’, in Mark Baltin and Chris Collins (eds), The Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory. Oxford: Blackwell, –. Baker, Mark (a). Lexical Categories: Verbs, Nouns and Adjectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Baker, Mark (b). ‘Agreement, Dislocation, and Partial Configurationality’, in Andrew Carnie, Heidi Harley, and Maryann Willie (eds), Formal Approaches to Function in Grammar: In Honor of Eloise Jelinek. Amsterdam: Benjamins, –. Banniard, Michel (). Viva voce: Communication écrite et communication orale du IVe au IXe siècle en Occident latin. Paris: Institut des études augustiniennes. Banniard, Michel (). ‘Latin tardif et latin mérovingien: Communication et modèles langagiers’, Revue des Etudes Latines : –. Baños Baños, José Miguel (). ‘Paenitet y los verbos impersonales de sentimiento en latín: Sintaxis y pragmática del acusativo personal’, in José Miguel Baños Baños, Concepción Cabrillana, María Esperanza Torrego, and Jesús de la Villa (eds), PRAEDICATIVA: estudios sobre complementación verbal en griego y latín (= Anejos de la revista Verba ). Santiago de Compostela: Universidad de Santiago de Compostela, –. Baños Baños, José Miguel, and Concepción Cabrillana (). ‘Orden de palabras’, in José Miguel Baños Baños (ed.), Sintaxis del latín clásico. Madrid: Liceus Ediciones, –. Bar-Asher Siegal, Elitzur (). ‘The Case for External Sentential Negation: Evidence from Jewish Babylonian Aramaic’, Linguistics : –. Barbiers, Sjef (). ‘The Syntax of Interpretation’. Doctoral dissertation, University of Leiden. Barbiers, Sjef (). ‘The Right Periphery in SOV Languages’, in Peter Svenonius (ed.), The Derivation of OV and VO. Amsterdam: Benjamins, –. Barbiers, Sjef (). ‘Current Issues in Modality: An Introduction to Modality and its Interaction with the Verbal System’, in Sjef Barbiers, Frits Beukema, and Wim van der Wurff (eds), Modality and its Interaction with the Verbal System. Amsterdam: Benjamins, –. Barié, Paul (). ‘Phrasenstruktur oder Dependenzrelationen: Überlegungen im Vorfeld einer lateinischen Syntax-Theorie’, Der Altsprachliche Unterricht : –.

References



Bastardas Parera, Juan (). Particularidades sintacticas del latín medieval (cartularios españoles de los siglos VIII als XI). Barcelona: Escuela de Filología. Bauer, Brigitte (). The Emergence and Development of SVO Patterning in Latin and French: Diachronic and Psycholinguistic Perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bauer, Brigitte (). ‘ “Synthetic” vs. “Analytic” in Romance: The Importance of Varieties’, in Randall Gess and Deborah Arteaga (eds), Historical Romance Linguistics: Retrospective and Perspectives. Amsterdam: Benjamins, –. Bauer, Brigitte (). ‘Word Order’, in Philip Baldi and Pierluigi Cuzzolin (eds), New Perspectives on Historical Latin Syntax, Vol. : Syntax of the Sentence. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, –. Belletti, Adriana (). ‘Aspects of the Low IP Area’, in Luigi Rizzi (ed.), The Structure of CP and IP. Oxford: Oxford University Press, –. Belletti, Adriana and Luigi Rizzi (). ‘Moving Verbal Chunks in the Low Functional Field’, in Laura Brugè, Anna Cardinaletti, Giuliana Giusti, Nicola Munaro, and Cecilia Poletto (eds), Functional Heads. Oxford: Oxford University Press, –. Benincà, Paola (–’). ‘Un’ipotesi sulla sintassi delle lingue romanze medievali’, Quaderni Patavini di Linguistica : – (repr. in Benincà, Paola (), La variazione sintattica: Studi di dialettologia romanza. Bologna: Il Mulino, –). Benincà, Paola (). ‘A Detailed Map of the Left Periphery of Medieval Romance’, in Raffaella Zanuttini, Héctor Campos, Elena Herburger, and Paul Portner (eds), Crosslinguistic Research in Syntax and Semantics: Negation, Tense, and Clausal Architecture. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, –. Benincà, Paola and Cecilia Poletto (). ‘L’ordine delle parole e la struttura della frase’, in Giampaolo Salvi and Lorenzi Renzi (eds), Grammatica dell’italiano antico. Bologna: II Mulino, vol. , –. Bennis, Hans (). ‘Long Head Movement: The Position of Particles in the Verbal Cluster in Dutch’, Linguistics in the Netherlands : –. Berg, Thomas (). Structure in Language: A Dynamic Perspective. London: Routledge. Bernert, Ernst (). ‘Das Verbalsubstantiv und Verbaladjektiv auf ‑to‑’, Glotta : –. Biberauer, Theresa (). ‘Verb second (V) in Afrikaans: A Minimalist Investigation of Word Order Variation’. Doctoral dissertation, University of Cambridge. Biberauer, Theresa (). ‘Reconsidering the EPP and Spec-TP in Germanic’, Cambridge Occasional Papers in Linguistics : –. Biberauer, Theresa and Marc Richards (). ‘True Optionality: When the Grammar doesn’t mind’, in Cedric Boeckx (ed.), Minimalist Essays. Amsterdam: Benjamins, –. Biberauer, Theresa and Ian Roberts (). ‘Changing EPP Parameters in the History of English: Accounting for Variation and Change’, English Language and Linguistics : –. Biberauer, Theresa and Ian Roberts (). ‘Cascading Parameter Changes: Internally-Driven Change in Middle and Early Modern English’, in Thórhallur Eythórsson (ed.), Grammatical Change and Linguistic Theory: The Rosendal Papers. Amsterdam: Benjamins, –. Biberauer, Theresa, Michelle Sheehan, and Glenda Newton (). ‘Impossible Changes and Impossible Borrowings: The Final-over-Final Constraint’, in Anne Breitbarth, Christopher Lucas, Sheila Watts, and David Willis (eds), Continuity and Change in Grammar. Amsterdam: Benjamins, –.



References

Biberauer, Theresa, Anders Holmberg, and Ian Roberts (). ‘A Syntactic Universal and its Consequences’, Linguistic Inquiry : –. Blase, Heinrich (). Geschichte des Plusquamperfekts im Lateinischen. Gieβen: Ricker. Blase, Heinrich (–). ‘Zur Geschichte der Futura und des Konjunktivs des Perfekts im Lateinischen’, Archiv für Lateinische Lexikographie und Grammatik : –. Blythe, Richard and William Croft (). ‘S-Curves and the Mechanisms of Propagation in Language Change’, Language : –. Bolkestein, A. Machtelt (). Problems in the Description of Modal Verbs: An Investigation of Latin. Assen: Van Gorcum. Bolkestein, A. Machtelt (). ‘Free but not Arbitrary: “Emotive” Word Order in Latin?’, in Rodie Risselada, Jan de Jong, and A. Machtelt Bolkestein (eds), On Latin: Linguistic and Literary Studies in Honour of Harm Pinkster. Amsterdam: Gieben, –. Bonnet, Max (). Le latin de Grégoire de Tours. Paris: Hachette. Borgonovo, Claudia and Sarah Cummins (). ‘Tensed Modals’, in Luis Eguren and Olga Fernández Soriano (eds), Coreference, Modality and Focus. Amsterdam: Benjamins, –. Borsley, Robert, María-Luisa Rivero, and Janig Stephens (). ‘Long Head Movement in Breton’, in Robert Borsley and Ian Roberts (eds), The Syntax of the Celtic Languages: A Comparative Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, –. Bošković, Željko (). ‘Participle Movement and Second Position Cliticization in SerboCroatian’, Lingua : –. Breitbarth, Anne and Liliane Haegeman (). ‘Not Continuity, but Change: Stable Stage II in Jespersen’s Cycle’. Unpublished manuscript, University of Cambridge/Ghent University. Bresnan, Joan (). ‘Is Syntactic Knowledge Probabilistic? Experiments with the English Dative Alternation’, in Sam Featherston and Wolfgang Sternefeld (eds), Roots: Linguistics in Search of its Evidential Base. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, –. Bresnan, Joan, Anna Cueni, Tatiana Nikitina, and Harald Baayen (). ‘Predicting the Dative Alternation’, in Gerlof Bouma, Irene Krämer, and Joost Zwarts (eds), Cognitive Foundations of Interpretation. Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences, –. Bresnan, Joan, Ash Asudeh, Ida Toivonen, and Stephen Wechsler (). Lexical-Functional Syntax (nd Edition). Oxford: Wiley/Blackwell. Broekhuis, Hans (). ‘A Typology of Clause Structure’, Linguistic Variation Yearbook : –. Broekhuis, Hans and Krzysztof Migdalski (). ‘Participle Fronting in Bulgarian’, Linguistics in the Netherlands : –. Brown, Peter (). Terence: The Comedies. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Brugmann, Karl (). ‘Die mit dem suffix ‑to‑ gebildeten Partizipia im Verbalsystem des Lateinischen und des Umbrisch-Oskischen: Eine syntaktische Untersuchung’, Indogermanische Forschungen : –. Brunet, Étienne and Sylvie Mellet (n.d.). Hyperbase .: Logiciel hypertexte pour le traitement documentaire et statistique des corpus textuels. Base de littérature latine. Nice and Liège Bases, Corpus and Langage (Université de Nice—Sophia Antipolis) and LASLA (Université de Liège). Buridant, Claude (). ‘Les résidus de l’ordre OV en ancien français et leur effacement en moyen français’, Romania : –. Büring, Daniel (). The Meaning of Topic and Focus: The th Street Bridge Accent. London: Routledge.

References



Burton, Philip (). ‘On Revisiting the Christian Latin Sondersprache Hypothesis’, in Hugh Houghton and David Parker (eds), Textual Variation: Theological and Social Tendencies (Papers from the Fifth Birmingham Colloquium on the Textual Criticism of the New Testament). Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, –. Burton, Philip (). ‘The Discourse of Later Latin’, in Philip Rousseau (ed.), A Companion to Late Antiquity. Oxford: Blackwell, –. Burton, Philip (). ‘Christian Latin’, in James Clackson (ed.), A Companion to the Latin Language. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, –. Burton, Philip (). ‘Analytic Passives and Deponents in Classical and Later Latin’, in James Adams and Nigel Vincent (eds), Early and Late Latin: Continuity or Change? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, –. Cabrillana, Concepción (a). ‘Posiciones relativas en la ordenación de constituyentes I: Estudio de la posición de sujeto, objeto y verbo’, Habis : –. Cabrillana, Concepción (b). ‘Panorama de los estudios sobre orden de palabras en latín’, Minerva : –. Cabrillana, Concepción (). ‘Posiciones relativas en la ordenación de constituyentes II: Estudio de la posición de sujeto, predicado nominal y verbo’, Habis : –. Cabrillana, Concepción (). ‘Multifunctional Analysis of Word Order’, in Hannah Rosén (ed.), Aspects of Latin. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachen und Literaturen der Universität Innsbruck, –. Caink, Andrew (). ‘Against “Long Head Movement”: Lexical Insertion and the Bulgarian Auxiliary “BE” ’, in Mila Dimitrova-Vulchanova and Lars Hellan (eds), Topics in South Slavic Syntax and Semantics. Amsterdam: Benjamins, –. Calboli, Gualtiero (). ‘Latin Syntax and Greek’, in Philip Baldi and Pierluigi Cuzzolin (eds), New Perspectives on Historical Latin Syntax, Vol. : Syntax of the Sentence. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, –. Cardinaletti, Anna (). ‘Stylisting Fronting in Italian’, in Lars-Olof Delsing, Cecilia Falk, Gunlög Josefsson, and Halldór Sigurðsson (eds), Grammar in Focus: Festschrift for Christer Platzack,  November . Lund: Department of Scandinavian Languages, Lund University, vol. , –. Cardinaletti, Anna (). ‘Towards a Cartography of Subject Positions’, in Luigi Rizzi (ed.), The Structure of CP and IP. Oxford: Oxford University Press, –. Cardinaletti, Anna and Michal Starke (). ‘The Typology of Structural Deficiency: A Case Study of the Three Grammatical Classes’, in Henk van Riemsdijk (ed.), Clitics in the Languages of Europe. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, –. Carnie, Andrew (). Constituent Structure (nd Edition). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Carnie, Andrew (). Syntax: A Generative Introduction (rd Edition). Oxford: WileyBlackwell. Carnie, Andrew and Eithne Guilfoyle (eds) (). The Syntax of Verb Initial Languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Carnie, Andrew, Heidi Harley, and Sheila Ann Dooley (eds) (). Verb First: On the Syntax of Verb-Initial Languages. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Cecchetto, Carlo and Renato Oniga (). ‘Constituency as a Language Universal: The Case of Latin’, Lingue Antiche e Moderne : –.



References

Cedergren, Henrietta and David Sankoff (). ‘Variable Rules: Performance as a Statistical Reflection of Competence’, Language : –. Chen, Matthew (). ‘The Time Dimension: Contribution toward a Theory of Sound Change’, Foundations of Language : –. Chomsky, Noam (). Syntactic Structures. The Hague: Mouton. Chomsky, Noam (). ‘Remarks on Nominalization’, in Roderick Jacobs and Peter Rosenbaum (eds), Readings in English Transformational Grammar. Waltham, MA: Ginn, –. Chomsky, Noam (). Lectures on Government and Binding. Foris: Dordrecht. Chomsky, Noam (). Some Concepts and Consequences of the Theory of Government and Binding. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Chomsky, Noam (). The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Cinque, Guglielmo (). Adverbs and Functional Heads: A Cross-linguistic Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Cinque, Guglielmo (). ‘ “Restructuring” and Functional Structure’, in Adriana Belletti (ed.), Structures and Beyond. Oxford: Oxford University Press, –. Cinque, Guglielmo (). Restructuring and Functional Heads. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Cinque, Guglielmo (). ‘The Fundamental Left–Right Asymmetry of Natural Languages’, in Sergio Scalise, Elisabetta Magni, and Antonietta Bisetto (eds), Universals of Language Today. Dordrecht: Springer, –. Clackson, James and Geoffrey Horrocks (). The Blackwell History of the Latin Language. Oxford: Blackwell. Coates, Jennifer (). The Semantics of the Modal Auxiliaries. London/Canberra: Croom Helm. Coleman, Robert (). ‘Latin and the Italic Languages’, in Bernard Comrie (ed.), The World’s Major Languages. London: Routledge, –. Collins, Peter (). ‘The Indirect Object Construction in English: An Informational Approach’, Linguistics : –. Colot, Blandine (). ‘ “Latin chrétien” ou “latin des chrétiens”: Essai de synthèse sur une terminologie discutée’, in Bruno Bureau and Christian Nicolas (eds), Moussyllanea: Mélanges de linguistique et de littérature anciennes. Louvain: Peeters, –. Condoravdi, Cleo (). ‘Temporal Interpretation of Modals: Modals for the Present and for the Past’, in David Beaver, Stefan Kaufmann, Brady Clark, and Luis Casillas (eds), The Construction of Meaning. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information, –. Cormack, Annabel and Neil Smith (). ‘Modals and Negation in English’, in Sjef Barbiers, Frits Beukema, and Wim van der Wurff (eds), Modality and its Interaction with the Verbal System. Amsterdam: Benjamins, –. Cornips, Leonie and Karen Corrigan (eds) (). Syntax and Variation: Reconciling the Biological and the Social. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Corti, Maria (). Studi sulla latinità merovingia in testi agiografici minori. Messina: Principato. Cruschina, Silvio (). Discourse-Related Features and Functional Projections. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

References



Cuzzolin, Pierluigi (). Sull’origine della costruzione dicere quod: aspetti sintattici e semantici. Firenze: La Nuova Italia. Dahl, Östen (). ‘Typology of Sentence Negation’, Linguistics : –. Dalès, Jacques (–). ‘Voix, temps et aspect dans les périphrases médiopassives ‑us sum, ‑us fui’, Revue des Etudes Anciennes –: –. Danckaert, Lieven (). ‘On the Left Periphery of Latin Embedded Clauses’. Doctoral dissertation, Ghent University. Danckaert, Lieven (a). Latin Embedded Clauses: The Left Periphery. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Danckaert, Lieven (b). ‘Word Order Variation in the Latin Clause: O’s, V’s, Aux’s, and their Whereabouts’. Paper presented at SyntaxLab, University of Cambridge,  November (handout available at http://www.gist.ugent.be/file/). Danckaert, Lieven (). ‘The Derivation of Classical Latin Aux-Final Clauses: Implications for the Internal Structure of the Verb Phrase’, in Karen Lahousse and Stefania Marzo (eds), Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory . Amsterdam: Benjamins, –. Danckaert, Lieven (a). ‘The Decline of Latin Left Peripheral Presentational Foci’, in Theresa Biberauer and George Walkden (eds), Syntax over Time: Lexical, Morphological and Information-Structural Interactions. Oxford: Oxford University Press, –. Danckaert, Lieven (b). ‘Studying Word Order Changes in Latin: Some Methodological Considerations’, in Carlotta Viti (ed.), Perspectives on Historical Syntax. Amsterdam: Benjamins, –. Danckaert, Lieven (c). ‘Assessing Phonological Correlates of Syntactic Change: The Case of Late Latin BE-Periphrases’. Paper presented at Diachronic Generative Syntax , University of Iceland,  May. Danckaert, Lieven (). ‘Variation and Change in Latin BE-periphrases: Empirical and Methodological Considerations’, in James Adams and Nigel Vincent (eds), Early and Late Latin: Continuity or Change? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, –. Danckaert, Lieven (). ‘The Origins of the Romance Analytic Passive: Evidence from Word Order’, in Éric Mathieu and Robert Truswell (eds), Micro-Change and Macro-Change in Diachronic Syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Danckaert, Lieven (in progress). Is Latin (Discourse) Configurational? Information Structure, Word Order, and the Potential for Structural Ambiguity. Postdoctoral project of the Flemish Research Foundation (FWO), Grant nr. FWO/PDO/ (–). Danckaert, Lieven (submitted a). ‘Changing Patterns of Clausal Complementation in Latin: A Parametric Approach to “Constructional” Changes’, in Katalin É. Kiss, Barbara Egedi, and Veronika Hegedűs (eds), Functional Heads across Time: Syntactic Reanalysis and Change. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Danckaert, Lieven (submitted b). ‘The Loss of Latin OV: Steps towards an Analysis’, in Enoch Aboh, Eric Haeberli, Genoveva Puskás, and Manuela Schönenberger (eds), Elements of Comparative Syntax: Theory and Description. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Danford, Richard (). ‘Preverbal Accusatives, Pronominal Reduplication, and Information Packaging: A Diachronic Analysis of Spanish’. Doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University. de Carvalho, Paulo (). ‘ “Syntaxe” . . . en latin?’, Bulletin de la Société Linguistique de Paris : –.



References

de Carvalho, Paulo (). ‘De la “voix” par la “voi(e/x)” du “déponent” ’, in Marius Lavency and Dominique Longrée (eds), Actes du cinquième colloque de linguistique latine. Louvain-laNeuve: Peeters, –. De Cuypere, Ludovic (). ‘The Old English To-Dative Construction’, English Language and Linguistics : –. de Haan, Ferdinand (). The Interaction of Modality and Negation: A Typological Study. New York: Garland. de Hoop, Helen (). ‘Case Configuration and Noun Phrase Interpretation’. Doctoral dissertation, University of Groningen. de Jong, Jan (). ‘The Position of the Latin Subject’, in Gualtiero Calboli (ed.), Subordination and Other Topics in Latin. Amsterdam: Benjamins, –. de Jong, Jan (). ‘Word Order in Cato’s De Agricultura’, in József Herman (ed.), Linguistic Studies on Latin. Amsterdam: Benjamins, –. de Melo, Wolfgang (). ‘Kurylowicz’s First “Law of Analogy” and the Development of Passive Periphrases in Latin’, in Philomen Probert and Andreas Willi (eds), Laws and Rules in Indo-European. Oxford: Oxford University Press, –. den Besten, Hans (). On the Interaction of Root Transformations and Lexical Deletive Rules’, in Werner Abraham (ed.), On the Formal Syntax of Westgermania. Amsterdam: Benjamins, –. de Swart, Henriëtte (). Expression and Interpretation of Negation: An OT Typology. Dordrecht: Springer. Deal, Amy Rose (). ‘The Origin and Content of Expletives: Evidence from “Selection” ’, Syntax : –. Delsing, Lars-Olof (). ‘Stylistic Fronting: Evidence from Old Scandinavian’, Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax : –. Demirdache, Hamida and Myriam Uribe-Etxebarria (). ‘The Primitives of Temporal Relations’, in Roger Martin, David Michaels, and Juan Uriagareka (eds), Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, –. Demirdache, Hamida and Myriam Uribe-Etxebarria (). ‘The Syntax of Time Adverbs’, in Jacqueline Guéron and Jacqueline Lecarme (eds), The Syntax of Time. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, –. Denison, David (). ‘Log(ist)ic and Simplistic S-Curves’, in Raymond Hickey (ed.), Motives for Language Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, –. Denooz, Joseph (). ‘Opera latina: Une base de données sur internet’, Euphrosyne : –. Depraetere, Ilse and Susan Reed (). ‘Towards a more Explicit Taxonomy of Root Possibility’, English Language and Linguistics : –. Déprez, Viviane (). ‘Two Types of Negative Concord’, Probus : –. Devine, Andrew and Laurence Stephens (). Latin Word Order: Structured Meaning and Information. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Diesing, Molly (). Indefinites. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Dik, Simon and Kees Hengeveld (). ‘The Hierarchical Structure of the Clause and the Typology of Perception Verb Complements’, Linguistics : –. Dik, Simon, Kees Hengeveld, Elseline Vester, and Co Vet (). ‘The Hierarchical Structure of the Clause and the Typology of Adverbial Satellites’, in Jan Nuyts, A. Machtelt Bolkestein,

References



and Co Vet (eds), Layers and Levels of Representation in Language Theory. Amsterdam: Benjamins, –. Dowty, David (). Word Meaning and Montague Grammar: The Semantics of Verbs and Times in Generative Semantics and in Montague’s PTQ. Dordrecht: Reidel. Drinka, Bridget (). ‘The *‑to‑/‑no‑ Construction of Indo-European: Verbal Adjective or Past Passive Participle?’, in Vit Bubeník, John Hewson, and Sarah Rose (eds), Grammatical Change in Indo-European Languages. Amsterdam: Benjamins, –. Dryer, Matthew (). ‘Universals of Negative Position’, in Michael Hammond, Edith Moravcsik, and Jessica Wirth (eds), Studies in Syntactic Typology. Amsterdam: Benjamins, –. Dryer, Matthew (). ‘Verb–Object–Negative Order in Central Africa’, in Norbert Cyffer, Erwin Ebermann, and Georg Ziegelmeyer (eds), Negation Patterns in West African Languages and Beyond. Amsterdam: Benjamins, –. Dryer, Matthew (a). ‘Order of Negative Morpheme and Verb’, in Matthew Dryer and Martin Haspelmath (eds), The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology (Available online at http://wals.info/chapter/ , accessed on  March ). Dryer, Matthew (b). ‘Position of Negative Morpheme with Respect to Subject, Object, and Verb’, in Matthew Dryer and Martin Haspelmath (eds), The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology (Available online at http://wals.info/chapter/, accessed on  March ). Egerland, Verner (). ‘Fronting, Background, Focus: A Comparative Study of Sardinian and Icelandic’, Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax : –. É. Kiss, Katalin (). Configurationality in Hungarian. Dordrecht: Reidel. É. Kiss, Katalin (ed.) (). Discourse Configurational Languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press. É. Kiss, Katalin (). ‘Free Word Order, (Non)configurationality and Phases’, Linguistic Inquiry : –. Eide, Kristin Melum (). Norwegian Modals. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Elerick, Charles (). ‘How Latin Word Order works’, in Gualtiero Calboli (ed.), Papers on Grammar IV. Bologna: Cooperativa Libraria Universitaria Editrice Bologna, –. Embick, David (). ‘Features, Syntax and Categories in the Latin Perfect’, Linguistic Inquiry : –. Embick, David (). ‘On the Structure of Resultative Participles in English’, Linguistic Inquiry : –. Embick, David and Roumyana Izvorski (). ‘On Long Head Movement in Bulgarian’, in Marek Przezdziecki and Lindsay Whaley (eds), ESCOL ’: Proceedings of the Eastern States Conference on Linguistics . Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, –. Emonds, Joseph (). ‘Root and Structure-Preserving Transformations’. Doctoral dissertation, MIT. Emonds, Joseph (). ‘The Verbal Complex V-V’ in French’, Linguistic Inquiry : –. Endo, Yoshio (). Locality and Information Structure: A Cartographic Approach to Japanese. Amsterdam: Benjamins. England, John (). ‘The Position of the Direct Object in Old Spanish’, Journal of Hispanic Philology : –.



References

Englebert, Annick (). ‘Esquisse d’une histoire de la négation en français’, Travaux de Linguistique : –. Englebert, Annick (). ‘L’opposition ne / ne . . . pas en ancien français’, Revue de Linguistique Romane –: –. Evans, Nicholas and Stephen Levinson (). ‘The Myth of Language Universals: Language Diversity and its Importance for Cognitive Science’, Behavioral and Brain Sciences : –. Falk, Yehuda (). Lexical-Functional Grammar: An Introduction to Parallel ConstraintBased Theory. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information. Fedriani, Chiara and Paolo Ramat (). ‘Ordini OV e VO in latino: Per una rilettura sociolinguistica’, in Piera Molinelli and Ignazio Putzu (eds), Modelli epistemologici, metodologie della ricerca e qualità del dato: Dalla linguistica storica alla sociolinguistica storica. Milano: FrancoAngeli, –. Ferraresi, Gisella and Maria Goldbach (). ‘V Syntax and Topicalisation in Old French’, Linguistische Berichte : –. Fischer, Susann (). Word-Order Change as a Source of Grammaticalisation. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Fischer, Susann (). ‘Revisiting Stylistic Fronting in Old Spanish’, in Andreas Dufter and Álvaro S. Octavio de Toledo (eds), Left Sentence Peripheries in Spanish: Diachronic, Variationist and Typological Perspectives. Amsterdam: Benjamins, –. Fischer, Susann and Artemis Alexiadou (). ‘Stylistic Fronting: Germanic vs. Romance’, Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax : –. Flobert, Pierre (). Les verbes déponents latins des origines à Charlemagne. Paris: Les Belles Lettres. Fontana, Josep (). ‘Some Problems in the Analysis of Non-Finite Verb Fronting Constructions’, in Ellen Brandner and Gisella Ferraresi (eds), Language Change and Generative Grammar. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag, –. Franco, Irene (). ‘Verbs, Subjects and Stylistic Fronting: A Comparative Analysis of the Interaction of CP Properties with Verb Movement and Subject Positions in Icelandic and Old Italian’. Doctoral dissertation, University of Siena. Fredouille, Jean-Claude (). ‘ “Latin chrétien” ou “latin tardif”?’, Recherches Augustiniennes : –. Fruyt, Michèle (). ‘Grammaticalisation in Latin’, in Philip Baldi and Pierluigi Cuzzolin (eds), New Perspectives on Historical Latin Syntax, Vol. : Complex Sentences, Grammaticalization, Typology. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, –. Gabarrou, François (). Le latin d’Arnobe. Paris: Champion. Gamillscheg, Ernst (). Studien zur Vorgeschichte einer Romanischen Tempuslehre. Wien: Hölder. Gettert, Hans (). Konstituenz und lateinische Syntax. Aachen: Shaker. Giannakidou, Anastasia (). Polarity Sensitivity as (Non)veridical Dependency. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Giannakidou, Anastasia (). ‘N-Words and Negative Concord’, in Martin Everaert and Henk van Riemsdijk (eds), The Blackwell Companion to Syntax ( Vols). Oxford: Blackwell, vol. , –.

References



Gianollo, Chiara (). ‘Middle Voice in Latin and the Phenomenon of Split Intransitivity’, in Gualtiero Calboli (ed.), Latina lingua! Nemo te lacrimis decoret neque funera fletu faxit. Cur? Volitas viva per ora virum (= Papers on Grammar IX –). Roma: Herder, –. Gianollo, Chiara (). ‘I verbi deponenti latini e l’unità della flessione in -r’, in Incontri Triestini di Filologia Classica VIII (–), Trieste: Edizioni Università di Trieste, –. Gianollo, Chiara (). ‘Negation and Negative Indefinites in the History of Latin’. Paper presented at Diachronic Generative Syntax , University of Iceland,  May. Giorgi, Alessandra and Fabio Pianesi (). Tense and Aspect: From Semantics to Morphosyntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Granger, Frank (ed.) (). Vitruvius: On Architecture (Loeb Classical Library). Harvard: Heinemann. Grano, Thomas (). Control and Restructuring. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Greco, Ciro (). ‘Subjects and Arguments in A0 -syntax’. Doctoral dissertation, Università di Milano Bicocca. Green, Georgia (). ‘Some Implications of an Interaction among Constraints’, in Douglas Adams, Mary Ann Campbell, Victor Cohen, Julie Levins, Edward Maxwell, Carolyn Nygren, and John Reighard (eds), Papers from the th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society. Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistic Society, –. Green, Georgia (). Semantics and Syntactic Regularity. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. Green, John (). ‘The Collapse and Replacement of Verbal Inflection in Late Latin/Early Romance: How would one know?’ in Roger Wright (ed.), Latin and the Romance Languages in the Early Middle Ages. London: Routledge, –. Greenberg, Joseph, Charles Osgood, and Sol Saporta (). ‘Language Change’, in Charles Osgood and Thomas Sebeok (eds), Psycholinguistics: A Survey of Theory and Research Problems (nd Edition). Baltimore, MD: Waverly Press, –. Grestenberger, Laura (). ‘Feature Mismatch: Deponency in Indo-European’. Doctoral dissertation, Harvard University. Grewendorf, Günther (). ‘The Discourse Configurationality of Scrambling’, in Joachim Sabel and Mamoru Saito (eds), The Free Word Order Phenomenon: Its Syntactic Sources and Diversity. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter, –. Gries, Stefan (). Statistics for Linguistics with R: A Practical Introduction (nd Edition). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Grimshaw, Jane (). ‘Complement Selection and the Lexicon’, Linguistic Inquiry : –. Grimshaw, Jane ([] ). ‘Extended Projection’, in Jane Grimshaw, Words and Structure. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information, –. Grohmann, Kleanthes (). Prolific Domains: On the Anti-Locality of Movement Dependencies. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Hacquard, Valentine (). ‘On the Grammatical Category of Modality’, in Maria Aloni, Michael Franke, and Floris Roelofsen (eds), Proceedings of the th Amsterdam Colloquium. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press, –. Haeberli, Eric (). ‘Stylistic Fronting in Early English?’ Paper presented at GIST: Cartography and Beyond, Ghent University,  May.



References

Haegeman, Liliane (). The Syntax of Negation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Haegeman, Liliane (a). Thinking Syntactically: A Guide to Argumentation and Analysis. Oxford: Blackwell. Haegeman, Liliane (b). ‘Clitic Climbing and the Dual Status of sembrare’, Linguistic Inquiry : –. Haegeman, Liliane (). ‘Evidential Mood, Restructuring, and the Distribution of Functional sembrare’, in Paola Benincà and Nicola Munaro (eds), Mapping the Left Periphery. Oxford: Oxford University Press, –. Haegeman, Liliane (). Adverbial Clauses, Main Clause Phenomena and the Composition of the Left Periphery. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Haegeman, Liliane (). ‘West Flemish Verb-Based Discourse Markers and the Articulation of the Speech Act Layer’, Studia Linguistica : –. Haegeman, Liliane and Raffaella Zanuttini (). ‘Negative Concord in West Flemish’, in Adriana Belletti and Luigi Rizzi (eds), Parameters and Functional Heads. Oxford: Oxford University Press, –. Hagemann, Kristin (). ‘The Latin Synthetic Passive in the Códice Emilianense ’, in Roger Wright (ed.), Latin vulgaire—latin tardif VIII: Actes du VIIIe colloque international sur le latin vulgaire et tardif. Hildesheim: Olms, –. Haider, Hubert (). ‘How to turn German into Icelandic—and derive OV–VO Contrasts’, Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics : –. Haider, Hubert (). The Syntax of German. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hale, Kenneth (). ‘Preliminary Remarks on Configurationality’, in James Pustejovsky and Peter Sells (eds), NELS : Proceedings of the th Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Graduate Linguistic Student Association, –. Hale, Kenneth (). ‘Warlpiri and the Grammar of Non-Configurational Languages’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory : –. Hale, Kenneth (). ‘On Nonconfigurational Structures’, in László Marácz and Pieter Muysken (eds), Configurationality: The Typology of Asymmetries. Dordrecht: Foris, –. Hale, Kenneth and Samuel Keyser (). ‘On Argument Structure and the Lexical Expression of Syntactic Relations’, in Kenneth Hale and Samuel Keyser (eds), The View from Building : Essays in Linguistic in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, –. Hale, Mark (). Historical Linguistics: Theory and Method. Oxford: Blackwell. Halla-aho, Hilla (). The Non-Literary Latin Letters: A Study of their Syntax and Pragmatics. Helsinki: Societas Scientiarum Fennica. Hamilton, Michael (). ‘Phrase Structure in Mi’gmaq: A Configurational Account of a “Non-Configurational” Language’, Lingua : –. Happ, Heinz (). Grundfragen einer Dependenzgrammatik des Lateinischen. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht. Happ, Heinz (). ‘Syntaxe latine et théorie de la valence: Essai d’adaptation au latin des théories de Lucien Tesnière’, Langages : –. Harley, Heidi (a). ‘Getting Morphemes in Order: Affixation and Head Movement’, in Lisa Lai-Shen Cheng and Norbert Corver (eds), Diagnosing Syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press, –.

References



Harley, Heidi (b). ‘Diagnosing Head Movement’, in Lisa Lai-Shen Cheng and Norbert Corver (eds), Diagnosing Syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press, –. Harley, Heidi (c). ‘External Arguments and the Mirror Principle: On the Distinctness of Voice and v’, Lingua : –. Harris, Zellig (). Methods of Structural Linguistics. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press. Harwood, Will (). ‘Being Progressive is just a Phase: Dividing the Functional Hierarchy’. Doctoral dissertation, Ghent University. Haug, Dag, Marius Jøhndal, Hanne Eckhoff, Eirik Welo, Mari Hertzenberg, and Angelika Müth (). ‘Computational and Linguistic Issues in Designing a Syntactically Annotated Parallel Corpus of Indo-European Languages’, Traitement Automatique des Langues : –. Haverling, Gerd (). ‘Actionality, Tense and Viewpoint’, in Philip Baldi and Pierluigi Cuzzolin (eds), New Perspectives on Historical Latin Syntax, Vol. : Constituent Syntax: Adverbial Phrases, Adverbs, Mood, Tense. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, –. Hayes, Bruce (). ‘A Metrical Theory of Stress Rules’. Doctoral dissertation, MIT. Heberlein, Friedrich (). ‘NCI und Modalverb’, in Lea Sawicki and Donna Shalev (eds), Donum grammaticum. Leuven: Peeters, –. Hengeveld, Kees (). ‘Layers and Operators in Functional Grammar’, Journal of Linguistics : –. Hengeveld, Kees (). ‘The Hierarchical Structure of Utterances’, in Jan Nuyts, A. Machtelt Bolkestein, and Co Vet (eds), Layers and Levels of Representation in Language Theory. Amsterdam: Benjamins, –. Hengeveld, Kees and J. Lachlan Mackenzie (). Functional Discourse Grammar: A Typologically-Based Theory of Language Structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Herman, József (). ‘Recherches sur l’ordre des mots dans les plus anciens textes français en prose’, Acta Linguistica Hungarica : –, –. Herman, József (). ‘La disparition du passif synthétique latin: Nouvel essai sur l’écrit et le parlé en latin mérovingien’, Estudis romànics : –. Hewson, John (). ‘From Latin to Modern Romance’, in John Hewson and Vit Bubeník (eds), Tense and Aspect in Indo-European Languages. Amsterdam: Benjamins, –. Hinterhölzl, Roland (). ‘A Phase-Based Comparative Approach to Modification and Word Order in Germanic’, Syntax : –. Hoff, François (). ‘L’ordre des mots chez César: Les séquences interdites. Le cas du perfectum passif ’, in Alfred Bammesberger and Friedrich Heberlein (eds), Akten des VIII. internationalen Kolloquiums zur lateinischen Linguistik. Heidelberg: Winter, –. Hoffmann, Maria (). Negatio contrarii: A Study of Latin Litotes. Assen: Van Gorcum. Hoffmann, Roland (). Lateinische Verbalperiphrasen vom Typ amans sum und amatus fui: Valenz und Grammatikalisierung (primäres Textkorpus: Ovid). Frankfurt am Main: Lang. Hoffmann, Roland (). ‘Latin Word Order Revisited: Information Structure of Topic and Focus’, in Peter Anreiter and Manfred Kienpointner (eds), Latin Linguistics Today. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachen und Literaturen der Universität Innsbruck, –. Hofmann, Johann and Anton Szantyr (). Lateinische Syntax und Stilistik, von J.B. Hofmann, neubearbeitet von Anton Szantyr (= Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft, Abt. , .). München: Beck.



References

Höhn, Georg (). ‘Unagreement is an Illusion: Apparent Person Mismatches and Nominal Structure’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory : –. Holmberg, Anders (a). ‘Deriving OV Order in Finnish’, in Peter Svenonius (ed.), The Derivation of OV and VO. Amsterdam: Benjamins, –. Holmberg, Anders (b). ‘Scandinavian Stylistic Fronting: How any Category can become an Expletive’, Linguistic Inquiry : –. Holmberg, Anders (). ‘Stylistic Fronting’, in Martin Everaert and Henk van Riemsdijk (eds), vol. , The Blackwell Companion to Syntax ( Vols). Oxford: Blackwell, –. Homer, Vincent (). ‘Epistemic Modals: High ma non troppo’, in Seda Kan, Claire MooreCantwell, and Robert Staubs (eds), NELS : Proceedings of the th Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Graduate Linguistic Student Association, vol. , –. Hooper, Joan and Sandra Thompson (). ‘On the Applicability of Root Transformations’, Linguistic Inquiry : –. Horn, Laurence (). ‘On the Semantic Properties of Logical Operators in English’. Doctoral dissertation, UCLA. Horn, Laurence (). A Natural History of Negation (nd Edition). Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press. Hornstein, Norbert (). As Time goes by: Tense and Universal Grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Hornstein, Norbert (). ‘Movement and Control’, Linguistic Inquiry : –. Horrocks, Geoffrey (). ‘Latin Syntax’, in James Clackson (ed.), A Companion to the Latin Language. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, –. Hrafnbjargarson, Gunnar (). ‘On Stylistic Fronting once more’, Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax : –. Hrafnbjargarson, Gunnar (). ‘Stylistic Fronting’, Studia Linguistica : –. Huddleston, Rodney and Geoffrey Pullum (). The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hyde, Brett (). ‘Extrametricality and Non-Finality’, in Marc van Oostendorp, Colin Ewen, Elizabeth Hume, and Keren Rice (eds), The Blackwell Companion to Phonology. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, –. Iatridou, Sabine (). ‘The Grammatical Ingredients of Counterfactuality’, Linguistic Inquiry : –. Iatridou, Sabine and Hedde Zeijlstra (). ‘Negation, Polarity and Deontic Modals’, Linguistic Inquiry : –. Idiatov, Dmitry (). ‘Clause-Final Negative Markers in Bobo and Samogo: Parallel Evolution and Contact’, Journal of Historical Linguistics , –. Ingham, Richard (). ‘Old French Negation, the Tobler/Mussafia Law, and V’, Lingua : –. Jäger, Agnes (). History of German Negation. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Jayaseelan, Karattuparambil (). ‘Stacking, Stranding and Pied-Piping: A Proposal about Word Order’, Syntax : –. Jeanneret, Maurice (). La langue des tablettes d’exécration latines. Paris: Attinger. Jelinek, Eloise (). ‘Empty Categories, Case and Configurationality’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory : –.

References



Jespersen, Otto (). Negation in English and Other Languages. Køpenhavn: A.F. Høst. Jespersen, Otto (). Essentials of English Grammar. London: Allen and Unwin. Joffre, Marie-Dominique (). ‘La signification temporelle et aspectuelle de l’adjectif en *‑to: Réflexions sur l’intégration d’une forme adjective au paradigme verbal’, Revue des Etudes Latines : –. Joffre, Marie-Dominique (). Le verbe latin: Voix et diathèse. Louvain-la-Neuve: Peeters. Jøhndal, Marius (). ‘Non-Finiteness in Latin’. Doctoral dissertation, University of Cambridge. Johnson, Kyle (). ‘Gapping is not (VP-) Ellipsis’, Linguistic Inquiry : –. Jónsson, Jóhannes Gísli (). ‘Stylistic Fronting in Icelandic’, Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax : –. Jouitteau, Mélanie (). ‘La syntaxe comparée du breton’. Doctoral dissertation, Université de Nantes. Julien, Marit (). Syntactic Heads and Word Formation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Karimi, Simin (). A Minimalist Approach to Scrambling: Evidence from Persian. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Kaster, Robert (). Guardians of Language: The Grammarian and Society in Late Antiquity (nd Edition). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Kayne, Richard (). Connectedness and Binary Branching. Foris: Dordrecht. Kayne, Richard (). ‘Null Subjects and Clitic Climbing’, in Osvaldo Jaeggli and Kenneth Safir (eds), The Null Subject Parameter. Dordrecht: Kluwer, –. Kayne, Richard (). ‘Romance Clitics, Verb Movement and PRO’, Linguistic Inquiry : –. Kayne, Richard (). The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Kayne, Richard (). ‘Antisymmetry and Japanese’, in Lyle Jenkins (ed.), Variation and Universals in Biolinguistics. Amsterdam: Elsevier, –. Kayne, Richard (). ‘Why are there no Directionality Parameters?’, in Mary Byram Washburn, Katherine McKinney-Bock, Erika Varis, Ann Sawyer, and Barbara Tomaszewicz (eds), WCCFL : Proceedings of the th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press, –. Kidway, Ayesha (). XP-Adjunction in Universal Grammar: Scrambling in Hindi-Urdu. Oxford: Oxford University Press. King, Tracy (). ‘Slavic Clitics, Long Head Movement and Prosodic Inversion’, Journal of Slavic Linguistics : –. Kiparsky, Paul (). ‘Blocking and Periphrasis in Inflectional Paradigms’, Yearbook of Morphology : –. Kiss, Sándor (). Tendences évolutives de la syntaxe verbale en latin tardif. Debrecen: Kossuth Lajos Tudományegyetem. Klima, Edward (). ‘Negation in English’, in Jerry Fodor and Jerrold Katz (eds), The Structure of Language: Readings in the Philosophy of Language. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, –. Klingvall, Eva (). ‘On Past Participles and their External Arguments’, Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax : –. Koeneman, Olaf and Hedde Zeijlstra (). ‘The Rich Agreement Hypothesis Rehabilitated’, Linguistic Inquiry : –.



References

Koll, Hans-Georg (). ‘Zur Stellung des Verbs im spätantiken und frühmittelalterlichen Latein’, Mittellateinisches Jahrbuch : –. Koopman, Hilda and Anna Szabolcsi (). Verbal Complexes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Koster, Jan (). ‘Dutch as an SOV Language’, Linguistic Analysis : –. Kratzer, Angelika (). ‘Severing the External Argument from its Verb’, in Johan Rooryck and Laurie Zaring (eds), Phrase Structure and the Lexicon. Dordrecht: Kluwer, –. Kratzer, Angelika (). ‘Building Statives’, in Lisa Conathan, Jeff Good, Darya Kavitskaya, Alyssa Wulf, and Alan Chi Lun Yu (eds), Proceedings of the Twenty-Sixth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society: General Session and Parasession on Aspect. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society, –. Kratzer, Angelika (). ‘Building Resultatives’, in Claudia Maienborn and Angelika Wöllstein (eds), Event Arguments: Foundations and Applications. Tübingen: Niemeyer, –. Kravar, Miroslav (). ‘Sintaksa tvorbe ‑tus fui u latinskom [La syntaxe de la formation ‑tus fui en latin]’, Živa Antika : –. Kroch, Anthony (). ‘Reflexes of Grammar in Patterns of Language Change’, Language Variation and Change : –. Kroch, Anthony (). ‘Morphosyntactic Variation’, in Katharine Beals (ed.), Papers from the th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society, Part : Parasession on Variation and Linguistic Theory. Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistic Society, –. Kühner, Raphael and Karl Stegmann (). Ausführliche Grammatik der lateinischen Sprache (., neubearbeitete Auflage). Hannover: Hahn. Kuryłowicz, Jerzy (). ‘La nature des procès dits analogiques’, Acta Linguistica : –. Labelle, Marie (). ‘Participle Fronting and Clause Structure in Old and Middle French’, in Christina Tortora, Marcel den Dikken, Ignacio Montoya, and Teresa O’Neill (eds), Romance Linguistics . Amsterdam: Benjamins, –. Labelle, Marie and Paul Hirschbühler (). ‘Leftward Stylistic Displacement (LSD) in Old and Middle French’. Paper presented at Diachronic Generative Syntax , University of Ottawa,  August. Labov, William (). ‘Negative Attraction and Negative Concord in English Grammar’, Language : –. Labov, William (). Principles of Linguistic Change, vol. : Internal Factors. Oxford: Blackwell. Labov, William (). Principles of Linguistic Change, vol. : Social Factors. Oxford: Blackwell. Lambova, Mariana (). ‘Is Head Movement Syntactic? Evidence from Bulgarian’, MIT Working Papers in Linguistics : –. Lambova, Mariana (). ‘On Information Structure and Clausal Architecture: Evidence from Bulgarian’. Doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut. Landau, Idan (). Elements of Control: Structure and Meaning in Infinitival Constructions. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Larrivée, Pierre (). ‘The Role of Pragmatics in Grammatical Change: The Case of French Preverbal non’, Journal of Pragmatics : –. Larrivée, Pierre (). ‘The Continuity of the Vernacular’, in Maj-Britt Mosegaard Hansen and Jacqueline Visconti (eds), The Diachrony of Negation. Amsterdam: Benjamins, –. Larrivée, Pierre and Richard Ingham (eds) (). The Evolution of Negation: Beyond the Jespersen Cycle. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.

References



Larson, Richard (). ‘On the Double Object Construction’, Linguistic Inquiry : –. Larson, Richard (). Light Predicate Raising. MIT Lexicon Project Working Papers  (published in Larson, R. (b), On Shell Structure. London: Routledge, –). Larson, Richard (a). ‘Datives: Background’, in Richard Larson (b), On Shell Structure. London: Routledge, –. Laughren, Mary (). ‘Syntactic Constraints in a “Free Word Order Language” ’, in Mengistu Amberber and Peter Collins (eds), Language Universals and Variation. Westport, CT: Praeger, –. Le Bonniec, Henri (). Arnobe: Contre les gentils (Tome : livre ). Paris: Les Belles Lettres. Ledgeway, Adam ([] ). ‘I tempi sovraccomposti nel napoletano antico’, L’Italia dialettale : –. Ledgeway, Adam (a). From Latin to Romance: Morphosyntactic Typology and Change. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ledgeway, Adam (b). ‘From Latin to Romance: Configurationality, Functional Categories and Head-Marking’, Transactions of the Philological Society : –. Legate, Julie Anne (). ‘The Configurational Structure of a Nonconfigurational Language’, Linguistic Variation Yearbook : –. Legate, Julie Anne (). ‘Reconstructing Nonconfigurationality’, in Anna Maria Di Sciullo (ed.), Asymmetry in Grammar, vol. : Syntax and Semantics. Amsterdam: Benjamins, –. Legate, Julie Anne (). Voice and v: Lessons from Acehnese. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Lehmann, Christian (). Latein mit abstrakten Strukturen. München: Fink. Lema, José and María-Luisa Rivero (). ‘Types of Verbal Movement in Old Spanish: Modals, Futures and Perfects’, Probus : –. Lema, José and María-Luisa Rivero (). ‘Long Head Movement: ECP vs. HMC’, in Juli Carter, Rose-Marie Déchaine, William Philip, and Tim Sherer (eds), NELS : Proceedings of the th Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Graduate Linguistic Student Association, –. Leumann, Manu (). ‘Part. perf. pass. mit fui im späteren Latein’, Glotta : –. Liberman, Mark and Alan Prince (). ‘On Stress and Linguistic Rhythm’, Linguistic Inquiry : –. Lightfoot, David (). Principles of Diachronic Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Linde, Paul (). ‘Die Stellung des Verbs in der lateinischen Prosa’, Glotta : –. Lisón Huguet, Nicolás (). El orden de palabras en los grupos nominales en latín. Zaragoza: Departamento de Ciencias de la Antiguëdad, Universidad de Zaragoza. Lloyd, Paul (). From Latin to Spanish, Vol. : Historical Phonology and Morphology of the Spanish Language. Philadelphia, PA: American Philosopical Society. Longobardi, Giuseppe (). ‘Theory and Experiment in Parametric Minimalism: The Case of Romance Negation’, in Rob Pensalfini, Myfany Turpin, and Diana Guillemin (eds), Language Description Informed by Theory. Amsterdam: Benjamins, –. Lundquist, Björn (). ‘Nominalizations and Participles in Swedish’. Doctoral dissertation, University of Tromsø. McCawley, James (). ‘Contrastive Negation and Metalinguistic Negation’, in Lise Dobrin, Lynn Nichols, and Rosa María Rodríguez (eds), Papers from the th Regional Meeting of the



References

Chicago Linguistics Society, Part : Parasession on Negation. Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistic Society, –. MacDonald, Jonathan (). The Syntactic Nature of Inner Aspect: A Minimalist Perspective. Amsterdam: Benjamins. McFadden, Thomas (). ‘The Rise of the To-Dative in Middle English’, in David Lightfoot (ed.), Syntactic Effects of Morphological Change. Oxford: Oxford University Press, –. Mackenzie, Ian and Wim van der Wurff (). ‘Relic Syntax in Middle English and Medieval Spanish: Parameter Interaction in Language Change’, Language : –. Maling, Joan (). ‘Inversion in Embedded Clauses in Modern Icelandic’, Íslenskt mál : –. Manzini, Rita and Leonardo Savoia (). Grammatical Categories: Variation in Romance Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Marchello-Nizia, Christiane (). L’évolution du français: Ordre des mots, démonstratifs, accent tonique. Paris: Armand Colin. Marouzeau, Jules (). L’ordre des mots dans la phrase latine, vol. : Les groupes nominaux. Paris: Les Belles Lettres. Marouzeau, Jules (). L’ordre des mots dans la phrase latine, vol. : Le verbe. Paris: Les Belles Lettres. Marouzeau, Jules (). L’ordre des mots dans la phrase latine, vol. : Les articulations de l’énoncé. Paris: Les Belles Lettres. Marti, Heinrich (). ‘Lateinische Predigten zwischen Mündlichkeit und Schriftlichkeit’, Museum Helveticum : –. Martins, Ana Maria (). ‘The Loss of IP-Scrambling in Portuguese: Word Order Variation and Change’, in David Lightfoot (ed.), Syntactic Effects of Morphological Change. Oxford: Oxford University Press, –. Martins, Maria Cristina (). ‘Configurationalité et non-configurationalité en latin’, in Heikki Solin, Martti Leiwo, and Hilla Halla-aho (eds), Latin vulgaire—latin tardif VI. Hildesheim-Zürich-New York, NY: Olms-Weidmann, –. Matić, Dejan (). ‘Topic, Focus and Discourse Structure: Ancient Greek Word Order’, Studies in Language : –. Mathieu, Éric (). ‘Stylistic Fronting in Old French’, Probus : –. Mathieu, Éric (). ‘The Left Periphery in Old French’, in Deborah Arteaga (ed.), Research on Old French: The State of the Art. Dordrecht: Springer, –. Matthews, Peter (). Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Matthews, Peter (). Syntactic Relations: A Critical Survey. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. May, Robert (). ‘The Grammar of Quantification’. Doctoral dissertation, MIT. May, Robert (). Logical Form. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Menge, Hermann, Thorsten Burkard, and Markus Schauer (). Lehrbuch der lateinischen Syntax und Semantik, völlig neu bearbeitet von Thorsten Burkard und Markus Schauer. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Merchant, Jason (). ‘Why no(t)?’, Style : –. Migliori, Laura (). ‘Little v as a Field: Evidence from the Latin Verbal System’, in Jyoti Iyer and Leland Kusmer (eds), NELS : Proceedings of the th Annual Meeting of the North East

References



Linguistic Society. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Graduate Linguistic Student Association, vol. , –. Migliori, Laura (). ‘Between Latin and Romance: Some Notes on the Perfect’, in Enoch Aboh, Jeannette Schaeffer, and Petra Sleeman (eds), Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory . Amsterdam: Benjamins, –. Migliori, Laura (). ‘Argument Structure, Alignment and Auxiliaries between Latin and Romance: A Diachronic Syntactic Account’. Doctoral dissertation, University of Leiden. Miyagawa, Shigeru (). ‘Against Optional Scrambling’, Linguistic Inquiry : –. Miyagawa, Shigeru (). Why Agree? Why Move? Unifying Agreement-Based and DiscourseConfigurational Languages. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Mohanan, Karuvannur (–). ‘Lexical and Configurational Structure’, The Linguistic Review : –. Mohrmann, Christine (–). Études sur le latin des chrétiens ( vols). Roma: Storia e Letteratura. Moignet, Gérard (). ‘L’opposition non/ne en ancien français’, Travaux de Linguistique et de Littérature : –. Molinelli, Piera (). Fenomeni della negazione dal latino all’italiano. Firenze: Nuova Italia. Molinelli, Piera (). ‘Double Negation from Latin to Italian’, in Gualtiero Calboli (ed.), Subordination and Other Topics in Latin. Amsterdam: Benjamins, –. Mondadori, Fabrizio (). ‘Remarks on Tense and Mood: The Perfect Future’, in Franz Guenther and Christian Rohrer (eds), Studies in Formal Semantics: Intensionality, Temporality, Negation. Amsterdam: North Holland, –. Mosegaard Hansen, Maj-Britt (). ‘The Development of Negation in the History of French’, in Anne Breitbarth, Christopher Lucas, and David Willis (eds), The Development of Negation in the Languages of Europe and the Mediterranean, vol. : Case Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press, –. Mosegaard Hansen, Maj-Britt and Jacqueline Visconti (eds) (). The Diachrony of Negation. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Muggeo, Vito (). Segmented: Regression Models with Breakpoints/Changepoints Estimation. URL https://cran.r-project.org/package=segmented, version .-.. Müller, Gereon (). ‘Approaches to Deponency’, Language and Linguistics Compass : –. Müller-Marquardt, Fritz (). Die Sprache der alten Vita Wandregiseli. Halle: Niemeyer. Napoli, Maria (). ‘One Suffix, Two Stories: The Latin Development of IE Verbal Adjectives in *‑to‑’, Journal of Latin Linguistics : –. Narrog, Heiko (). Modality in Japanese: The Layered Structure of the Clause and Hierarchies of Functional Categories. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Nespor, Marina and Irene Vogel (). Prosodic Phonology (nd Edition, with a New Foreword). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Nevins, Andrew (). ‘Convergent Evidence for rolling up Catalan Adjectives’, Linguistic Inquiry : –. Norberg, Dag (). Beiträge zur spätlateinischen Syntax. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell. Núñez, Salvador (). Semántica de la modalidad en latín. Granada: Universidad de Granada.



References

Oehrle, Richard (). ‘The Grammatical Status of the English Dative Alternation’. Doctoral dissertation, MIT. Ohkado, Masayuki (). ‘Stylistic Fronting in the History of English’, in Ursula Lenker, Judith Huber, and Robert Mailhammer (eds), English Historical Linguistics , vol. : The History of English Verbal and Nominal Constructions. Amsterdam: Benjamins, –. Orlandini, Anna (). ‘La négation dans la phrase simple en latin’, Bulletin de la Société Linguistique de Paris : –. Orlandini, Anna (). ‘La polysémie du predicat debeo’, in Bruno Bureau and Christian Nicolas (eds), Moussyllanea: Mélanges de linguistique et de littérature anciennes. Louvain: Peeters, –. Orlandini, Anna (). Grammaire fondamentale du latin: Négation et argumentation en latin. Louvain: Peeters. Ostafin, David (). ‘Studies in Latin Word Order: A Transformational Approach’. Doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut. Ott, Dennis (). ‘Stylistic Fronting as Remnant Movement’, Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax : –. Panhuis, Dirk (). The Communicative Perspective in the Sentence: A Study of Latin Word Order. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Panhuis, Dirk (). ‘Is Latin an SOV Language? A Diachronic Perspective’, Indogermanische Forschungen : –. Parsons, Terence (). Events in the Semantics of English: A Study in Subatomic Semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Partee, Barbara (). ‘Some Structural Analogies between Tenses and Pronouns in English’, Journal of Philosophy : –. Paul, Waltraud (). ‘Why Particles are not Particular: Sentence-Final Particles in Chinese as Heads of a Split CP’, Studia Linguistica : –. Payne, John (). ‘Negation’, in Timothy Shopen (ed.), Language Typology and Syntactic Description. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, vol. , –. Pearson, Matthew (). ‘Two Types of VO Languages’, in Peter Svenonius (ed.), The Derivation of OV and VO. Amsterdam: Benjamins, –. Pei, Mario (). The Language of the Eighth-Century Texts in Northern France: A Study of the Original Documents in the Collection of Tardif and Other Sources. New York: Carranzo & Co. Penney, John (). ‘Archaism and Innovation in Latin Poetic Syntax’, in James Adams and Roland Mayer (eds), Aspects of the Language of Latin Poetry. Oxford: Oxford University Press, –. Perl, Gerhard (). ‘Doppelte Negation in Pompejanischen Inschriften (zu CIL IV )’, Philologus : –. Perlmutter, David (). ‘The Two Verbs Begin’, in Roderick Jacobs and Peter Rosenbaum (eds), Readings in English Transformational Grammar. Waltham, MA: Ginn, –. Perlmutter, David and John Ross (). ‘Relative Clauses with Split Antecedents’, Linguistic Inquiry : . Pesetsky, David (). ‘Paths and Categories’. Doctoral dissertation, MIT. Petersmann, Hubert (). Petrons urbane Prosa: Untersuchungen zu Sprache und Text (Syntax). Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.

References



Pezzini, Giuseppe (). ‘Contraction of est in Latin’, Transactions of the Philological Society : –. Picallo, M. Carme (). ‘Modal Verbs in Catalan’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory : –. Pinkster, Harm (). Latin Syntax and Semantics. London: Routledge. Pinkster, Harm (). ‘Evidence for SVO in Latin?’, in Roger Wright (ed.), Latin and the Romance Languages in the Early Middle Ages. London: Routledge, –. Pinkster, Harm (). Sintaxis y semántica del latín. Madrid: Ediciones Clásicas. Pinkster, Harm (). Oxford Latin Syntax, vol. : The Simple Clause. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pintzuk, Susan (). ‘Phrase Structures in Competition: Variation and Change in Old English Word Order’. Doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania. Pintzuk, Susan (). Phrase Structures in Competition: Variation and Change in Old English Word Order. New York: Garland. Pintzuk, Susan (). ‘Variationist Approaches to Syntactic Change’, in Brian Joseph and Richard Janda (eds), The Handbook of Historical Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell, –. Pinzin, Francesco (). ‘VoiceP Deactivation and Deponency in Latin’, Annali di Ca’ Foscari, serie occidentale : –. Platzack, Christer (). ‘The Emergence of a Word Order Difference in Scandinavian Subordinate Clauses’, McGill Working Papers in Linguistics, Special Issue on Comparative Germanic Syntax. Montreal: McGill University, –. Poletto, Cecilia (). ‘Quantifier, Focus and Topic Movement: A View on Old Italian Object Preposing’, Linguistische Berichte : –. Poletto, Cecilia (). Word Order in Old Italian. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pollock, Jean-Yves (). ‘Verb Movement, UG and the Structure of IP’, Linguistic Inquiry : –. Polo, Chiara (). Word Order between Morphology and Syntax. Padova: Unipress. Polo, Chiara (). ‘Latin Word Order in Generative Perspective: An Explanatory Proposal within the Sentence Domain’, in Katalin É. Kiss (ed.), Universal Grammar in the Reconstruction of Ancient Languages. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, –. Portner, Paul (). Modality. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pulgram, Ernst (). ‘Indo-European Passive Paradigms: Defects and Repairs’, Forum Linguisticum : –. Pylkkänen, Liina (). ‘Introducing Arguments’. Doctoral dissertation, MIT. R Core Team (). R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. URL http://www.R-project.org/. Radford, Andrew (). Transformational Grammar: A First Course. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ramchand, Gillian (). Verb Meaning and the Lexicon: A First-Phase Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Reesink, Ger (). ‘Clause-Final Negation: Structure and Interpretation’, Functions of Language : –. Regula, Moritz (). ‘Zur Verbalform auf ‑to‑’, Glotta : –. Reichenbach, Hans (). Elements of Symbolic Logic. New York: Macmillan.



References

Remberger, Eva-Maria (). ‘Participles and Nominal Aspect’, in Sascha Gaglia and MarcOlivier Hinzelin (eds), Inflection and Word Formation in Romance Languages. Amsterdam: Benjamins, –. Repp, Sophie (). ‘¬ (A&B): Gapping, Negation and Speech Act Operators’, Research on Language & Computation : –. Richards, Marc and Theresa Biberauer (). ‘Explaining Expl’, in Marcel den Dikken and Christina Tortora (eds), The Function of Function Words and Functional Categories. Amsterdam: Benjamins, –. Rivero, María-Luisa (). ‘Long Head Movement and Negation: Serbo-Croatian vs. Slovak and Czech’, The Linguistic Review : –. Rivero, María-Luisa (). ‘Long Head Movement vs. V, and Null Subjects in Old Romance’, Lingua : –. Rivero, María-Luisa (). ‘Finiteness and Second Position in Long Verb Movement Languages: Breton and Slavic’, in Robert Borsley (ed.), The Nature and Function of Syntactic Categories. New York: Academic Press, –. Rizzi, Luigi (a). ‘La montée du sujet, le si impersonnel et une règle de restructuration dans la syntaxe italienne’, Recherches Linguistiques : –. Rizzi, Luigi (b). ‘Ristrutturazione’, Rivista di Grammatica Generativa : –. Rizzi, Luigi (). ‘A Restructuring Rule in Italian Syntax’, in Samuel Keyser (ed.), Recent Transformational Studies in European Languages. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, –. Rizzi, Luigi (). Relativized Minimality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Rizzi, Luigi (). ‘The Fine Structure of the Left Periphery’, in Liliane Haegeman (ed.), Elements of Grammar: Handbook in Generative Syntax. Dordrecht: Kluwer, –. Rizzi, Luigi (). ‘Relativized Minimality Effects’, in Mark Baltin and Chris Collins (eds), The Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory. Oxford: Blackwell, –. Rizzi, Luigi (). ‘Locality and Left Periphery’, in Adriana Belletti (ed.), Structures and Beyond. Oxford: Oxford University Press, –. Rizzi, Luigi (). ‘On the Form of Chains: Criterial Positions and ECP Effects’, in Lisa Lai-Shen Cheng and Norbert Corver (eds), Wh-Movement: Moving on. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, –. Rizzi, Luigi (). ‘Notes on Labeling and Subject Positions’, in Elisa Di Domenico, Cornelia Hamann, and Simona Matteini (eds), Structures, Strategies and Beyond: Studies in Honour of Adriana Belletti. Amsterdam: Benjamins, –. Rizzi, Luigi and Ur Shlonsky (). ‘Satisfying the Subject Criterion by a Non Subject: English Locative Inversion and Heavy NP Shift’, in Mara Frascarelli (ed.), Phases of Interpretation. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, –. Rizzi, Luigi and Ur Shlonsky (). ‘Strategies of Subject Extraction’, in Uli Sauerland and Hans-Martin Gärtner (eds), Interfaces + Recursion = Language? Chomsky’s Minimalism and the View from Syntax-Semantics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, –. Roberts, Ian (). ‘Agreement Parameters and the Development of English Modal Auxiliaries’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory : –. Roberts, Ian (). ‘Two Types of Head Movement in Romance’, in David Lightfoot and Norbert Hornstein (eds), Verb Movement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, –. Roberts, Ian (). ‘Head Movement’, in Mark Baltin and Chris Collins (eds), The Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory. Oxford: Blackwell, –.

References



Roberts, Ian (). Diachronic Syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Roberts, Ian (). Agreement and Head Movement: Clitics, Incorporation, and Defective Goals. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Rodríguez Molina, Javier (). ‘La gramaticalización de los tiempos compuestos en español antiguo: Cinco cambios diacrónicos’. Doctoral dissertation, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid. Rooth, Mats (). ‘Focus’, in Shalom Lappin (ed.), The Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory. Oxford: Blackwell, –. Rosenbaum, Peter (). The Grammar of English Predicate Complement Constructions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Ros, Hilke (). ‘Functional Phrase Structure: Integrating Functional Ideas in Generative Adverbial Syntax’. Doctoral dissertation, Ghent University. Ros, Hilke (). ‘The Position of Satellites in Latin Word Order’, in Gualtiero Calboli (ed.), Latina lingua! Nemo te lacrimis decoret neque funera fletu faxit. Cur? Volitas viva per ora virum (= Papers on Grammar IX –). Roma: Herder, –. Ross, John (). ‘Constraints on Variables in Syntax’. Doctoral dissertation, MIT. Rouquier, Magali and Christiane Marchello-Nizia (). ‘De (S)OV à SVO en français: Où et quand? L’ordre des constituants propositionnels dans La Passion de Clermont et La Vie de S. Alexis’, in Monique Dufresne (ed.), Constructions en changement: Hommage à Paul Hirschbühler. Québec: Presses de l’Université Laval, –. Rowlett, Paul (). Sentential Negation in French. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sailor, Craig and Gary Thoms (). ‘On the Non-Existence of Non-Constituent Coordination and Non-Constituent Ellipsis’, in Robert Santana-LaBarge (ed.), WCCFL : Proceedings of the st West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press, –. Saito, Mamoru (). ‘Scrambling as Semantically Vacuous A0 -Movement’, in Baltin Mark and Anthony Kroch (eds), Alternative Conceptions of Phrase Structure. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, –. Salvesen, Christine (). ‘Stylistic Fronting and Remnant Movement in Old French’, in Janine Berns, Haike Jacobs, and Tobias Scheer (eds), Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory . Amsterdam: Benjamins, –. Salvi, Giampaolo (). ‘Ordine delle parole e forme composte del verbo in francese antico’, Medioevo romanzo : –. Salvi, Giampaolo (). La formazione della struttura di frase romanza: Ordine delle parole e clitici dal latino alle lingue romanze antiche. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Salvi, Giampaolo (). ‘Some Firm Points on Latin Word Order: The Left Periphery’, in Katalin É. Kiss, (ed.), Universal Grammar in the Reconstruction of Ancient Languages. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, –. Sankoff, David and Wiliam Labov (). ‘On the Uses of Variable Rules’, Language and Society : –. Santorini, Beatrice (). ‘The Rate of Phrase Structure Change in the History of Yiddish’, Language Variation and Change : –. Schrijnen, Jos (). Charakteristik des altchristlichen Latein. Nijmegen: Dekker & van de Vegt. Schrijnen, Jos and Christine Mohrmann (–). Studien zur Syntax der Briefe des hl. Cyprian ( vols). Nijmegen: Dekker & van de Vegt.



References

Schwegler, Armin (). ‘Predicate Negation and Word-Order Change: A Problem of Multiple Causation’, Lingua : –. Schwegler, Armin (). ‘Word-Order Changes in Predicate Negation Strategies in Romance Languages’, Diachronica : –. Selkirk, Elisabeth (). ‘Prosodic Domains in Phonology: Sanskrit Revisited’, in Mark Aronoff and Marie-Louise Kean (eds), Juncture: A Collection of Original Papers. Saratoga, CA: Anma Libri, –. Selkirk, Elisabeth (). ‘The Nature of Phonological Representation’, in Terry Myers, John Laver, and John Anderson (eds), The Cognitive Representation of Speech. Dordrecht: North Holland, –. Siegel, Muffy (). ‘Compositionality, Case, and the Scope of Auxiliaries’, Linguistics & Philosophy : –. Sigurðsson, Halldór Ármann (). From OV to VO: Evidence from Old Icelandic (= Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax ). Lund: Lund University. Spevak, Olga (). ‘Itinerarium Egeriae: L’ordre des constituants obligatoires’, Mnemosyne : –. Spevak, Olga (). Constituent Order in Classical Latin Prose. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Staal, Frits (). Word Order in Sanskrit and Universal Grammar. Dordrecht: Reidel. Starke, Michal (). ‘Move dissolves into Merge: A Theory of Locality’. Doctoral dissertation, University of Geneva. Starke, Michal (). The Nanosyntax of Participles. Lectures at EGG , Olomouc. Starke, Michal (). ‘Towards Elegant Parameters: Language Variation reduces to the Size of Lexically-Stored Trees’, in M. Carme Picallo (ed.), Linguistic Variation in the Minimalist Framework. Oxford: Oxford University Press, –. Stotz, Peter (). Handbuch der lateinischen Sprache des Mittelalters, . Band: Formenlehre, Syntax und Stilistik. München: Beck. Stowell, Tim (). ‘Subjects across Categories’, The Linguistic Review : –. Stowell, Tim (). ‘The Phrase Structure of Tense’, in Johan Rooryck and Laurie Zaring (eds), Phrase Structure and the Lexicon. Dordrecht: Kluwer, –. Stowell, Tim (). ‘Tense and Modals’, in Jacqueline Guéron and Jacqueline Lecarme (eds), The Syntax of Time. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, –. Stowell, Tim (). ‘The Syntactic Expression of Tense’, Lingua : –. Svennung, Josef (). Untersuchungen zu Palladius und zur lateinischen Fach- und Volkssprache. Uppsala: Almquist & Wiksell. Svenonius, Peter (ed.) (). The Derivation of OV and VO. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Sznajder, Lyliane and Bernard Bortolussi (). ‘Ordres VSO et SVO dans la Vulgate’, Journal of Latin Linguistics : –. Taraldsen, Tarald (). ‘On the NIC, Vacuous Application and the That-Trace Filter’. Unpublished manuscript, MIT. Tardif, Jules (). Inventaires et documents publiés par ordre de l’empereur: Monuments historiques. Paris: Claye. Taylor, Ann and Susan Pintzuk (). ‘Verb Order, Object Position, and Information Status in Old English’, in Theresa Biberauer and George Walkden (eds), Syntax over Time: Lexical,

References



Morphological and Information-Structural Interactions. Oxford: Oxford University Press, –. Tesnière, Lucien (). Éléments de syntaxe structurale (deuxième édition revue et corrigée). Paris: Klincksieck. Theijssen, Daphne (). ‘Making Choices: Modelling the English Dative Alternation’. Doctoral dissertation, Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen. Toosarvandani, Maziar (). ‘Embedding the Antecedent in Gapping: Low Coordination and the Role of Parallelism’, Linguistic Inquiry : –. Touratier, Christian (). ‘La négation: Essai de définition et portée’, in Christian Touratier and Charles Zaremba (eds), La négation. Aix-en-Provence: Publications de l’Université de Provence, –. Travis, Lisa (). ‘Parameters and Effects of Word Order Variation’. Doctoral dissertation, MIT. Travis, Lisa (). ‘VP-, D°-Movement Languages’, in Raffaella Zanuttini, Héctor Campos, Elena Herburger, and Paul Portner (eds), Crosslinguistic Research in Syntax and Semantics: Negation, Tense, and Clausal Architecture. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, –. Travis, Lisa (). Inner Aspect: The Articulation of VP. Dordrecht: Springer. Trips, Carola (). From OV to VO in Early Middle English. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Trips, Carola (). ‘Stylistic Fronting in the Ormulum: Scandinavian Syntactic Phenomena in Early Middle English Texts’, Nordlyd : –. Väänänen, Veikko (). Introduction au latin vulgaire (troisième édition revue et augmentée). Paris: Klincksieck. Van Acker, Marieke (a). Ut quique rustici et illitterati hec audierint intellegant: hagiographie et communication verticale au temps des Mérovingiens (VIIe–VIIIe siècles). Turnhout: Brepols. Van Acker, Marieke (b). ‘D’une étape négligée dans la modélisation du changement langagier: importance et fonctionnement des connaissances passives au sein de la communication verticale mérovingienne’, in David Trotter (ed.), Actes du XXIVe Congrès International de Philologie et Linguistique Romanes. Tübingen: Niemeyer, vol. , –. van Gelderen, Elly (). Grammaticalization as Economy. Amsterdam: Benjamins. van Gelderen, Elly (). ‘Negative Cycles’, Linguistic Typology : –. van Gelderen, Elly (). The Linguistic Cycle: Language Change and the Language Faculty. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Van Uytfanghe, Marc (). ‘Histoire du latin, protohistoire des langues romanes et histoire de la communication’, Francia , –. Van Uytfanghe, Marc (). ‘La Bible et l’instruction des laïcs à l’époque mérovingienne: Des témoignages textuels à une approche langagière de la question’, Sacris Erudiri : –. Vance, Barbara (). Syntactic Change in Medieval French: Verb-Second and Null Subjects. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Vanelli, Laura, Lorenzo Renzi, and Paola Benincà (). ‘Typologie des pronoms sujets dans les langues romanes’, in Actes du ème Congrès International de Linguistique et Philologie Romanes. Aix-en-Provence: Université de Provence, vol. , –.



References

Vicente, Luis (). ‘The Syntax of Heads and Phrases: A Study of Verb (Phrase) Fronting’. Doctoral dissertation, University of Leiden. Vikner, Sten (). ‘Reichenbach Revisited: One, Two or Three Temporal Relations’, Acta Linguistica Hafniensia : –. Vincent, Nigel (). ‘Non-Finite forms, Periphrases, and Autonomous Morphology in Latin and Romance’, in Martin Maiden, John Charles Smith, Maria Goldbach, and Marc-Olivier Hinzelin (eds), Morphological Autonomy: Perspectives from Romance Inflectional Morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, –. Vincent, Nigel and Delia Bentley (). ‘The Demise of the Latin Future Periphrasis in ‑urus + esse’, in Claude Moussy, Jacqueline Dangel, Michèle Fruyt, Lyliane Sznajder, and Laurent Nadjo (eds), De lingua latina novae quaestiones. Louvain-la-Neuve: Peeters, –. Vogel, Wilhelm (). Zur Stellung von esse bei Caesar und Sallust. Würzburg: Triltsch. Wackernagel, Jacob (). ‘Über ein Gesetz der indogermanischen Wortstellung’, Indogermanische Forschungen : –. Walkden, George (). Syntactic Reconstruction and Proto-Germanic. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Wallenberg, Joel (). ‘A Unified Theory of Stable Variation, Syntactic Optionality, and Syntactic Change’. Paper presented at Diachronic Generative Syntax , University of Ottawa,  August. Warner, Anthony (). English Auxiliaries: Structure and History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Webelhuth, Gert (). ‘Diagnostics for Structure’, in Günther Grewendorf and Wolfgang Sternefeld (eds), Scrambling and Barriers, Amsterdam: Benjamins, –. Webelhuth, Gert and Hans den Besten (). ‘Adjunction and Remnant Topicalization in the Germanic SOV-Languages’. Paper presented at the GLOW-conference, Venice,  March– April. Weil, Henri (). De l’ordre des mots dans les langues anciennes comparées aux langues modernes. Paris: Crapelet. Weinreich, Uriel, William Labov, and Marvin Herzog (). ‘Empirical Foundations for a Theory of Language Change’, in Winfred Lehmann and Yakov Malkiel (eds), Directions for Historical Linguistics: A Symposium. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press, –. Weiß, Helmut (). Syntax des Bairischen: Studien zur Grammatik einer natürlichen Sprache. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Wells, Rulon (). ‘Immediate Constituents’, Language : –. Wilder, Chris and Damir Ćavar (). ‘Long Head Movement? Verb Movement and Cliticization in Croatian’, Lingua : –. Williams, Edwin (). ‘Predication’, Linguistic Inquiry : –. Willis, David (). ‘Modelling Diffusion of Syntactic Innovations: Geospatial Models, S-Curves and the Constant Rate Hypothesis’. Paper presented at Diachronic Generative Syntax , University of Iceland,  May. Winters, Margaret (). ‘Steps toward the Romance Passive Inferrable from the Itinerarium Egeriae’, Romance Philology : –. Wolfe, Sam (a). ‘The Nature of Old Spanish Verb Second Reconsidered’, Lingua : –.

References



Wolfe, Sam (b). ‘Microvariation in Medieval Romance Syntax: A Comparative Study’. Doctoral dissertation, University of Cambridge. Wurmbrand, Susanne (). ‘Modal Verbs must be Raising Verbs’, in Sonya Bird, Andrew Carnie, Jason Haugen, and Peter Norquest (eds), WCCFL : Proceedings of the th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press, –. Wurmbrand, Susanne (). Infinitives: Restructuring and Clause Structure. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Wurmbrand, Susanne (). ‘Two Types of Restructuring: Lexical vs. Functional’, Lingua : –. Wurmbrand, Susanne (). ‘Verb Clusters, Verb Raising, and Restructuring’, in Martin Everaert and Henk van Riemsdijk (eds), The Blackwell Companion to Syntax ( Vols). Oxford: Blackwell, vol. , –. Xu, Zheng, Mark Aronoff, and Frank Anshen (). ‘Deponency in Latin’, in Matthew Baerman, Greville Corbett, Dunstan Brown, and Andrew Hippisley (eds), Deponency and Morphological Mismatches. Oxford: Oxford University Press, –. Yang, Charles (). ‘Internal and External Forces in Language Change’, Language Variation and Change : –. Yang, Charles (). Knowledge and Learning in Natural Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Zanuttini, Raffaella (). Negation and Clausal Structure: A Comparative Study of Romance Languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Zanuttini, Raffaella (). ‘Sentential Negation’, in Mark Baltin and Chris Collins (eds), The Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory. Oxford: Blackwell, –. Zanuttini, Raffaella (). ‘La negazione’, in Giampaolo Salvi and Lorenzo Renzi (eds), Grammatica dell’italiano antico. Bologna: Il Mulino, vol. , –. Zaring, Laurie (). ‘Changing from OV to VO: More Evidence from Old French’, Ianua : –. Zaring, Laurie (). ‘On the Nature of OV and VO order in Old French’, Lingua : –. Zeijlstra, Hedde (). ‘Sentential Negation and Negative Concord’. Doctoral dissertation, University of Amsterdam. Zennaro, Luigi (a). ‘La sintassi dei verbi a ristrutturazione in latino’. Doctoral dissertation, Università di Venezia ‘Ca’ Foscari’. Zennaro, Luigi (b). ‘La sintassi di possum e debeo e la ristrutturazione’, in Renato Oniga and Luigi Zennaro (eds), Atti della giornata di linguistica latina, Venezia,  maggio . Venezia: Cafoscarina, –. Zubizarreta, Maria-Luisa (). ‘On the Relationship of the Lexicon to Syntax’. Doctoral dissertation, MIT. Zwicky, Arnold (). ‘Arguing for Constituents’, in Donka Farkas, Wesley Jacobsen, and Karol Todrys (eds), Papers from the th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society. Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistic Society, –.

Index locorum Ambrose In Luc. .  In psalm. , .  Apicius ..  ..  Arnobius the Elder, Nat. ..  Aulus Gellius ..  Augustine Epist. .  In psalm.   Mus. , l.   Serm. , l.   Caesar Civ. ..  ..  ..  Gal. ..  ..  ..  ..  Caesarius of Arles, Sermo .  Cassius Felix .  Cato Agr. .  .  .  .  .      .  Celsus .prooem.  .prooem. 

..D  ..  ..  ..  ..E  ..  .  Cicero Ad Brut. ..  Amic.   Arch.   Att. ..  ..  ..  ..  ..  .a.  ..  ..  .  ..  ..  Brut.   Caec.     Catil. .  .  Clu.  ,  Div. .  Fam. ..  Fat.   Har.   Man.     Marc.  

Index locorum Mil.     N.D. .  Off. .  .  .  .  Phil. .  .  .  .  .  . ,  Pis.     Prov.   Rab. Post.   Sest.   Sul.   Tul.     Ver. .  .  .  .  . ,  .  .  . ,  .  .  . – Columella .praef.  ..  ..  ..  .. 

..  ..  ..  Cornelius Nepos Paus. .  Cyprian Ep. ..  De bello Africo .  Digesta ..  Diomedes, GLK , p. , l. –  Donatus, Ter. An.   Elegia in Maecenatem .–  Ennius Scen.  Vahlen  Frontinus, Str. .. ,  Gaius, Inst. .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . ,  .  Gesta Conlationis Carthaginiensis .  .  Gregory of Tours Franc. .  .  Hyginus Astr.





Index locorum

Hyginus (cont.) .  ..  Itinerarium Egeriae .  .  .  Leo the Great, Serm. , l.   Livy ..  ..  ..  ..  ..  ..  ..  ..  ..  ..  ..  ..  ..  ..  .. ,  ..  ..  ..  ..  ..  ..  ..  ..  ..  ..  ..  ..  ..  ..  ..  ..  ..  ..  .. 

..  ..  ..  ..  ..  ..  ..  ..  Nonius Marcellus, vol.  p.  Lindsay  Ovid Ep. .  Met. .–  Tr. ..  Palladius ..  ..  .  ..  ..  ..  Petronius .  .  .  Plautus Am.   Aul. –A    Bac.   Cas.   Epid.   Mil.   Poen. –  St.     Pliny the Elder, Nat. .  .  . 

Index locorum Pliny the Younger, Ep. ..  Pompeius Maurus GLK , p. , l. –  GLK , p. , l. –  Pomponius Mela, .  Pseudo-Asconius Pedianus, Cic. Ver. .  Pseudo-Quintilian Decl. .  .  Quintilian Decl. .  Inst. ..  ..  ..  ..  ..  ..  ..  ..  Quintus Curtius ..  ..  Rhetorica ad Herennium ..  Sallust, Jug. .  Salvian, Gub. .  Scholia in Horatium S. ..  Scriptores Historiae Augustae Car. .  Hadr. .  Seneca Ben. ..  .. ,  ..  ..  ..  ..  ..  .. 

..  Cl. ..  Dial. ..  .. ,  ..  ..  ..  ..  Ep. .  .  .  .  . ,  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  Her. O.   Oed.   Phoen.   Servius auctus, Verg. A. .  Sortes Sangallenses .  Tacitus Ann. ..  ..  ..  ..  Dial. .  Hist. ..  Terence Eu. –  Ph. B–  Tertullian Adv. Marc. .. 





Index locorum

Tertullian (cont.) ..  Varro L. .  .  R. ..  .. 

..  ..  Velleius Paterculus ..  Vergil, Ecl. . ,  Vitruvius ..  ..  .. 

Author index Abels, Klaus  Aboh, Enoch , ,  Acedo-Matellán, Víctor  Adamik, Béla  Adams, James , , , , , , ,  Adams, Marianne  Adger, David  Aelbrecht, Lokbe – Ágel, Vilmos  Aitchison, Jean  Alboiu, Gabriela – Alexiadou, Artemis , , ,  Altmann, Gabriel  Anagnostopoulou, Elena , , , , ,  Austin, Peter  Authier, Jean-Marc  Baerman, Matthew  Bailey, Charles-James  Baker, Mark , –,  Banniard, Michel  Baños Baños, José Miguel ,  Bar-Asher Siegal, Elitzur  Barbiers, Sjef ,  Barié, Paul  Bastardas Parera, Juan  Bauer, Brigitte , , , –,  Belletti, Adriana , , – Benincà, Paola  Bennis, Hans  Bentley, Delia  Berg, Thomas  Bernert, Ernst  Biberauer, Theresa , , , –, , –, –, ,  Blase, Heinrich 

Blythe, Richard  Bolkestein, A. Machtelt , –, –,  Bonnet, Max ,  Borgonovo, Claudia  Borsley, Robert  Bortolussi, Bernard  Bošković, Željko  Breitbarth, Anne  Bresnan, Joan , , – Broekhuis, Hans , – Brown, Peter  Brugmann, Karl  Brunet, Étienne ,  Buridant, Claude  Büring, Daniel – Burton, Philip , ,  Cabrillana, Concepción ,  Caink, Andrew  Calboli, Gualtiero  Cardinaletti, Anna , , , , , , – Carnie, Andrew , , ,  Ćavar, Damir  Cecchetto, Carlo , ,  Cedergren, Henrietta  Chen, Matthew  Chomsky, Noam , , , ,  Cinque, Guglielmo , , , , –, –, , , , , –,  Clackson, James ,  Coates, Jennifer  Coleman, Robert  Collins, Peter  Colot, Blandine  Condoravdi, Cleo  Cormack, Annabel –



Author index

Cornips, Leonie  Corrigan, Karen  Corti, Maria  Croft, William  Cruschina, Silvio  Cummins, Sarah  Cuzzolin, Pierluigi 

Elerick, Charles  Embick, David , –,  Emonds, Joseph ,  Endo, Yoshio  England, John  Englebert, Annick ,  Evans, Nicholas –, –

Dahl, Östen  Dalès, Jacques  Danckaert, Lieven –, –, , –, , –, , , , , , , , –, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , –, , ,  Danford, Richard  de Carvalho, Paulo ,  De Cuypere, Ludovic  de Haan, Ferdinand  de Hoop, Helen  de Jong, Jan  de Melo, Wolfgang , , –, –,  den Besten, Hans ,  de Swart, Henriëtte  Deal, Amy Rose  Delsing, Lars-Olof  Demirdache, Hamida  Denison, David  Denooz, Joseph  Depraetere, Ilse  Déprez, Viviane  Devine, Andrew –, , –, ,  Diesing, Molly  Dik, Simon  Dowty, David  Drinka, Bridget  Dryer, Matthew –

Falk, Yehuda ,  Fedriani, Chiara  Ferraresi, Gisella  Fischer, Klaus  Fischer, Susann  Flobert, Pierre  Fontana, Josep  Franco, Irene  Fredouille, Jean-Claude ,  Fruyt, Michèle 

Egerland, Verner  Eide, Kristin Melum  É. Kiss, Katalin , 

Gabarrou, François  Gamillscheg, Ernst  Gettert, Hans  Giannakidou, Anastasia ,  Gianollo, Chiara ,  Giorgi, Alessandra  Goldbach, Maria  Granger, Frank  Grano, Thomas –, , ,  Greco, Ciro  Green, Georgia  Green, John  Greenberg, Joseph  Grestenberger, Laura  Grewendorf, Günther  Gries, Stefan  Grimshaw, Jane , , – Grohmann, Kleanthes  Guilfoyle, Eithne  Hacquard, Valentine  Haeberli, Eric  Haegeman, Liliane , , –, , , , , , ,  Hagemann, Kristin 

Author index Haider, Hubert  Hale, Kenneth –,  Hale, Mark  Halla-aho, Hilla  Hamilton, Michael  Happ, Heinz  Harley, Heidi ,  Harris, Zellig  Harwood, Will  Haug, Dag  Haverling, Gerd  Hayes, Bruce  Heberlein, Friedrich , , – Hengeveld, Kees  Herman, József ,  Hewson, John ,  Hinterhölzl, Roland  Hirschbühler, Paul  Hoff, François  Hoffmann, Maria  Hoffmann, Roland , ,  Hofmann, Johann , , , , ,  Höhn, Georg  Holmberg, Anders –, – Homer, Vincent  Hooper, Joan  Horn, Laurence , , , , , , –, , ,  Hornstein, Norbert ,  Horrocks, Geoffrey –, ,  Hrafnbjargarson, Gunnar  Huddleston, Rodney  Hyde, Brett  Iatridou, Sabine , – Idiatov, Dmitry  Ingham, Richard , ,  Izvorski, Roumyana  Jäger, Agnes ,  Jayaseelan, Karattuparambil  Jeanneret, Maurice  Jelinek, Eloise – Jespersen, Otto , –, 



Joffre, Marie-Dominique ,  Jøhndal, Marius  Johnson, Kyle  Jónsson, Jóhannes Gísli – Jouitteau, Mélanie ,  Julien, Marit  Karimi, Simin  Kaster, Robert  Kayne, Richard –, , , –, , , ,  Keyser, Samuel  Kidway, Ayesha  King, Tracy  Kiparsky, Paul  Kiss, Sándor  Klima, Edward ,  Klingvall, Eva  Koeneman, Olaf  Koll, Hans-Georg  Koopman, Hilda , ,  Koster, Jan  Kratzer, Angelika , ,  Kravar, Miroslav  Kroch, Anthony , , , ,  Kühner, Raphael –, –, , , ,  Kuryłowicz, Jerzy  Labelle, Marie ,  Labov, William , ,  Lambova, Mariana  Landau, Idan  Larrivée, Pierre , ,  Larson, Richard ,  Laughren, Mary  Le Bonniec, Henri  Ledgeway, Adam , , , –, , , –, , –, , ,  Legate, Julie Anne ,  Lehmann, Christian  Lema, José – Leumann, Manu  Levinson, Stephen –, – Liberman, Mark 



Author index

Lightfoot, David ,  Linde, Paul ,  Lisón Huguet, Nicolás  Lloyd, Paul  Longobardi, Giuseppe  Lundquist, Björn  McCawley, James  MacDonald, Jonathan  McFadden, Thomas  Mackenzie, Ian , , – Mackenzie, J. Lachlan  Maling, Joan  Manzini, Rita ,  Marchello-Nizia, Christiane  Marouzeau, Jules – Marti, Heinrich  Martins, Ana Maria  Martins, Maria Cristina  Matić, Dejan  Mathieu, Éric  Matthews, Peter ,  May, Robert  Mellet, Sylvie ,  Menge, Hermann  Merchant, Jason  Migdalski, Krzysztof – Migliori, Laura  Miyagawa, Shigeru ,  Mohanan, Karuvannur  Mohrmann, Christine ,  Moignet, Gérard  Molinelli, Piera  Mondadori, Fabrizio  Mosegaard Hansen, Maj-Britt ,  Muggeo, Vito ,  Müller, Gereon  Müller-Marquardt, Fritz  Napoli, Maria  Narrog, Heiko ,  Nespor, Marina  Nevins, Andrew 

Norberg, Dag  Núñez, Salvador  Oehrle, Richard  Ohkado, Masayuki  Oniga, Renato , ,  Orlandini, Anna , ,  Ostafin, David  Ott, Dennis  Panhuis, Dirk  Parsons, Terence  Partee, Barbara  Paul, Waltraud  Payne, John  Pearson, Matthew  Pei, Mario  Penney, John  Perl, Gerhard  Perlmutter, David ,  Pesetsky, David  Petersmann, Hubert  Pezzini, Giuseppe  Pianesi, Fabio  Picallo, M. Carme , ,  Pinkster, Harm –, , , –, , , , –, ,  Pintzuk, Susan ,  Pinzin, Francesco  Platzack, Christer  Poletto, Cecilia ,  Pollock, Jean-Yves , ,  Polo, Chiara  Portner, Paul  Prince, Alan  Pulgram, Ernst  Pullum, Geoffrey  Pylkkänen, Liina  Radford, Andrew  Ramat, Paolo  Ramchand, Gillian  Reed, Susan 

Author index Reesink, Ger  Regula, Moritz  Reichenbach, Hans  Remberger, Eva-Maria  Repp, Sophie  Richards, Marc –, – Rivero, María-Luisa , – Rizzi, Luigi , , –, , , , , –, , , , –, ,  Roberts, Ian , , , , , , –,  Rodríguez Molina, Javier  Rooth, Mats  Rosenbaum, Peter  Ros, Hilke  Ross, John ,  Rouquier, Magali  Rowlett, Paul –,  Sailor, Craig ,  Saito, Mamoru  Salvesen, Christine  Salvi, Giampaolo , ,  Sankoff, David  Santorini, Beatrice  Savoia, Leonardo ,  Schrijnen, Jos ,  Schwegler, Armin  Selkirk, Elisabeth  Siegel, Muffy  Sigurðsson, Halldór Ármann  Shlonsky, Ur , ,  Smith, Neil – Spevak, Olga , , ,  Staal, Frits  Starke, Michal , ,  Stegmann, Karl –, –, , , ,  Stephens, Laurence –, , –, ,  Stotz, Peter ,  Stowell, Tim , , ,  Svennung, Josef  Svenonius, Peter  Szabolcsi, Anna , , 

Szantyr, Anton , , , , ,  Sznajder, Lyliane  Taraldsen, Tarald  Tardif, Jules  Taylor, Ann  Tesnière, Lucien  Theijssen, Daphne  Thompson, Sandra  Thoms, Gary ,  Toosarvandani, Maziar  Touratier, Christian  Travis, Lisa , , ,  Trips, Carola  Uribe-Etxebarria, Myriam  Väänänen, Veikko ,  Van Acker, Marieke , ,  van der Wurff, Wim , , – van Gelderen, Elly , – Van Uytfanghe, Marc  Vance, Barbara  Vanelli, Laura  Vicente, Luis  Vikner, Sten  Vincent, Nigel  Visconti, Jacqueline  Vogel, Irene  Vogel, Wilhelm  Wackernagel, Jacob ,  Walkden, George  Wallenberg, Joel  Warner, Anthony ,  Webelhuth, Gert ,  Weil, Henri  Weinreich, Uriel  Weiß, Helmut  Wells, Rulon  Wilder, Chris  Williams, Edwin  Willis, David 





Author index

Winters, Margaret ,  Wolfe, Sam  Wurmbrand, Susanne –, ,  Xu, Zheng  Yang, Charles , 

Zanuttini, Raffaella –, , –, , , – Zaring, Laurie  Zeijlstra, Hedde , , , – Zennaro, Luigi  Zubizarreta, Maria-Luisa  Zwicky, Arnold 

Subject index ablative absolute ,  Accusatiuus cum Infinitiuo (AcI) –, , , , , , , –,  adjacency, see contiguity adjunct(ion) , , , , , , –, –, ,  adverb –, , , , , –, , , , –, , , , , , –,  Afrikaans – aliquis – Ambrose  Ammianus Marcellinus  A-movement , –, –, , –; see also Extended Projection Principle (EPP) A0 -movement (= A-bar movement) , , –, , , , ; see also left periphery Ancient Greek  Anthimus , , , ,  anti-locality  antisymmetry –,  Antoninus of Piacenza, see Itinerarium Antonini Placentini Apicius  Apuleius  Arnobius the Elder  atqui  audeo , – Augustine , , , , –,  Aulus Gellius  -auxiliary contraction (prodelision) – placement, see VPAux/AuxVP alternation with a future participle , , 

with a past participle (= -periphrasis) , , , –, –, –, , –, –, –, –, , –; see also E-periphrasis; F-periphrasis Bible, see Vulgate binary branching , – Bulgarian  Caesar , – Caesarius of Arles ,  cartography –, –, ; see also modality; negation; tense case (structural ~) ,  Cassius Felix , –, , ,  Cato –, , , ,  Celsus , , , – Cicero , , , , , , , , , , – clitic(ization) clitic climbing –,  enclitic(ization) , , , , , – proclitic(ization) , , , , –,  second position , , , , – Christian Latin – coepi  Columella , , –, ,  complement (in X-bar theory)  configurationality discourse –, – full (phrase structure) –, –, , –, , , ,  hybrid systems –, , – non- –, –, , , , , , –, ,  semi-, see linear template (word order) Configurationality Parameter –



Subject index

contiguity between Aux and V –, –, –, , , , –,  between Neg and V (or Aux), see negation, position(s) in the Latin clause between S and V (or Aux)  between V and Aux –,  between V and O  coordination , ,  as a constituency test –, –, , –,  Coordinated Structure Constraint  control , –, , , –, –, –,  Cornelius Nepos  counterfactuality , –, – C(P)-layer, see left periphery cur – Cyprian , ,  Czech – De bello Africo ,  De bello Alexandrino ,  De bello Hispaniensi ,  debeo ‘have to’ , , –; see also modality; OV/VO alternation; VPAux/AuxVP alternation decet  dependency grammar , , ,  deponency , , , , , , , – deponent vs. passive -periphrases – object placement with transitive deponents –, –, –,  phrase structure analysis of – desino  Digesta  discontinuous constituent –, , –, –,  direct object, see internal argument (IA); object placement Dutch , , , , , 

Egeria, see Itinerarium Egeriae ellipsis as a constituency test – (auxiliary) gapping – in (fragment) why-questions – TP-ellipsis  enclitic(ization), see clitic(ization) English  enim , ,  enimuero  E-periphrasis –, –, –, –,  etiam  extended projection , , –, –, , , –, ,  Extended Projection Principle (EPP) –, –, –, – external argument (EA) , –, , , , –, , , –, ; see also A-movement; Extended Projection Principle (EPP) extrametricality – Final-Over-Final Constraint (FOFC) –, , –, , , , , ,  FinP , –,  Firmicus Maternus  focus (focalization) , , , , –, , –, , , , , ; see also Left Edge Fronting foot, see prosodic hierarchy foret  fortasse – FP, see Extended Projection Principle (EPP) F-periphrasis –, –, –, , –, ,  fragment question, see ellipsis free word order – French , , , , , ,  Frontinus  Fronto  fuat 

Subject index Gargilius ,  German , , , , , , ,  gerund  gerundive  GP , –, –; see also verb placement Grammar A –, –,  Grammar B –, – Gregory of Tours , , ,  haud ,  headedness of TP, see VPAux/AuxVP alternation of VP, see OV/VO alternation head movement –, , –, , , –, , , –; see also Long Head Movement (LHM); Stylistic Fronting (SF) Head Movement Constraint (HMC) –, , , –, ,  Head Preference Principle  historical infinitive ,  Hyginus  hyperbaton, see discontinuous constituent Icelandic  incipio  incorporation , , , –, , ; see also head movement infinitive, see Accusatiuus cum Infinitiuo (AcI); control; Nominatiuus cum Infinitiuo (NcI); raising; VPAux/ AuxVP alternation information structure –, –, –, , , , –, , –, , ; see also focus; scrambling; topic(alization) internal argument (IA) – in active and in passive clauses –, – position of, see object placement intervention, see Relativized Minimality Italian , , , , , –, –, , 



itaque  Itinerarium Antonini Placentini , ,  Itinerarium Egeriae , , ,  Jerome  Jespersen’s Cycle , – Jespersen’s Generalization – Lactantius  left branch extraction  Left Edge Fronting (LEF) LEF  LEF –, ,  left periphery , –, , , , , –, , , –, –, –, –, –, , , , , ; see also Left Edge Fronting (LEF) Leo the Great  Linear Correspondence Axiom (LCA), see antisymmetry linear template (word order) –, , , , , , –,  Livy , – locality, see Relativized Minimality Long Head Movement (LHM) –, ,  L-syntax ,  malo  Medieval Latin  metrical texts, see poetry modality alethic –,  cartography of –, – epistemic –, –, –, –, –,  modal future  monoclausal analysis of debeo and possum – root –, , , , –, ,  Modern Greek , ,  Mulomedicina Chironis 



Subject index

ne  negation cartography of  clause initial – constituent , , –, , , , –,  diachrony of (in Latin) –; see also Jespersen’s Cycle head or phrase –,  in clauses with a -periphrasis – lexical split ( and ) ,  negative concord – Neg First Principle – position(s) in the Latin clause –; see also Negation-Verb Ordering Restriction (NegVOR) scope with respect to modals , – Negation-Verb Ordering Restriction (NegVOR) –, , , , , ,  NegP, see negation nemo – nequeo  nihil – noenum  nolo  Nominatiuus cum Infinitiuo (NcI) ; see also raising non, see negation nondum  nullus –,  numquam  nusquam  object placement inside the VP, see OV/VO alternation object extraposition –, , –, –,  object shift , , –, , –, ; see also scrambling Old English  Old French ,  Old High German  Old Italian –, 

Old Portuguese  Old Spanish ,  oportet  OV/VO alternation in clauses with a -auxiliary –, – with a modal verb –, –, –, – with one synthetic verb –, – in main and embedded clauses –, – loss of OV  phrase structure analysis of , – Palladius –, , , ,  participle conjoined participle  Indo-European ‑to‑ participle  past or future participle with , see -auxiliary Passio Felicitatis et Perpetuae  Pelagonius  periodization of Latin –,  Petronius  phonological phrase, see prosodic hierarchy phonological word, see prosodic hierarchy phrase structure, see configurationality pied-piping –, –, –, ,  Plautus , , , , , ,  Pliny the Elder  Pliny the Younger ,  poetry , –, ,  Pompeius Maurus , , , ,  possum ‘be able’ , , –; see also modality; OV/VO alternation; VPAux/AuxVP alternation proclitic(ization), see clitic(ization) profecto  Pronominal Argument Hypothesis – pronominalization (as a constituency test) – pronoun (pronominal object) –, –, , , , , ,  prosodic hierarchy – prosody , , –

Subject index quare – queo  quidam  quidem ,  quid enim  quidni – quin  Quintilian , – Quintus Curtius  raising , , , –, –,  reanalysis –, , , ,  reconstruction (scope ~) ,  regional diversification of Latin  relativization (as a constituency test) – Relativized Minimality –, , , –, ,  for heads –; see also Head Movement Constraint remnant movement , –, ,  restructuring ,  roll-up movement , –, –, , , –, , –, –, –, , ,  root (lexical ~) –, – phrasal projection of – Salvian  scrambling , , , –, –, , ; see also object placement, object shift S-curve , – Seneca the Elder  Seneca the Younger , , , ,  Sidonius Appolinaris  soleo ,  Spanish ,  specifier inner and outer specifiers ,  in X-bar theory  S-syntax ,  structural ambiguity –, , , –, , , –, ,



, –, , , , –, –, , –, –, , ,  Stylistic Fronting (SF) – subject extraposition – subject placement, see A-movement; Extended Projection Principle (EPP) SubjP , , , , , –, –,  supine  syllable count – Tacitus , ,  tense cartography of – epistolary – future perfect –,  perfect(ive) , –, , , –, –,  pluperfect , –,  tense distinctions and the spread of F-periphrases – Terence , , , , ,  topic(alization) , , , , , , , , , , , , , ; see also Left Edge Fronting T(P)-layer , –, , , –, –, ; see also A-movement; Extended Projection Principle (EPP); modality; scrambling; tense; V-to-T movement uideor ,  uolo ,  variation (language ~) diachrony vs. synchrony , , , , , , , , –, , , , –, ,  probabilistic (and multivariate) nature of – Varro , , , , ,  Vegetius  Velleius Paterculus 



Subject index

verb phrase (VP) as a diagnostic for configurationality , –, – existence in Latin , –, –, –, – fine structure of – position of, see VPAux/AuxVP alternation verb placement EPP-driven verb movement (to F) –, –, –; see also Grammar B two positions for finite verbs in Latin –, – verb raising to G –, – V-to-C movement (in Early Romance) – V-to-T movement (in French) –

V-to-T movement (in Latin) , –, , ,  Victor of Vita  Vitruvius  VOAux –,  VoiceP –,  vP – VPAux/AuxVP alternation loss of VPAux  phrase structure analysis of –, –, –, – with -auxiliaries –, –,  with debeo ‘have to’ –,  with possum ‘be able’ –,  VP intraposition – Vulgar Latin ,  Vulgate , , , , , , , 

OXFORD STU DIES I N DIA C HRONI C A ND HI STORI C AL LI NGUI STIC S GENERAL EDITORS:

Adam Ledgeway and Ian Roberts, University of Cambridge

A D V I S O R Y E D I T O R S : Cynthia Allen, Australian National University; Ricardo Bermúdez-Otero, University of Manchester; Theresa Biberauer, University of Cambridge; Charlotte Galves, University of Campinas; Geoff Horrocks, University of Cambridge; Paul Kiparsky, Stanford University; Anthony Kroch, University of Pennsylvania; David Lightfoot, Georgetown University; Giuseppe Longobardi, University of York; George Walkden, University of Konstanz; David Willis, University of Cambridge PUBLISHED

 From Latin to Romance Morphosyntactic Typology and Change Adam Ledgeway  Parameter Theory and Linguistic Change Edited by Charlotte Galves, Sonia Cyrino, Ruth Lopes, Filomena Sandalo, and Juanito Avelar  Case in Semitic Roles, Relations, and Reconstruction Rebecca Hasselbach  The Boundaries of Pure Morphology Diachronic and Synchronic Perspectives Edited by Silvio Cruschina, Martin Maiden, and John Charles Smith  The History of Negation in the Languages of Europe and the Mediterranean Volume I: Case Studies Edited by David Willis, Christopher Lucas, and Anne Breitbarth  Constructionalization and Constructional Changes Elizabeth Traugott and Graeme Trousdale  Word Order in Old Italian Cecilia Poletto  Diachrony and Dialects Grammatical Change in the Dialects of Italy Edited by Paola Benincà, Adam Ledgeway, and Nigel Vincent  Discourse and Pragmatic Markers from Latin to the Romance Languages Edited by Chiara Ghezzi and Piera Molinelli

 Vowel Length from Latin to Romance Michele Loporcaro  The Evolution of Functional Left Peripheries in Hungarian Syntax Edited by Katalin É. Kiss  Syntactic Reconstruction and Proto-Germanic George Walkden  The History of Low German Negation Anne Breitbarth  Arabic Indefinites, Interrogatives, and Negators A Linguistic History of Western Dialects David Wilmsen  Syntax over Time Lexical, Morphological, and Information-Structural Interactions Edited by Theresa Biberauer and George Walkden  Syllable and Segment in Latin Ranjan Sen  Participles in Rigvedic Sanskrit The Syntax and Semantics of Adjectival Verb Forms John J. Lowe  Verb Movement and Clause Structure in Old Romanian Virginia Hill and Gabriela Alboiu  The Syntax of Old Romanian Edited by Gabriela Pană Dindelegan  Grammaticalization and the Rise of Configurationality in Indo-Aryan Uta Reinöhl  The Rise and Fall of Ergativity in Aramaic Cycles of Alignment Change Eleanor Coghill  Portuguese Relative Clauses in Synchrony and Diachrony Adriana Cardoso  Micro-change and Macro-change in Diachronic Syntax Edited by Eric Mathieu and Robert Truswell

 The Development of Latin Clause Structure A Study of the Extended Verb Phrase Lieven Danckaert  Transitive Nouns and Adjectives Evidence from Early Indo-Aryan John J. Lowe IN PREPARATION

Negation and Nonveridicality in the History of Greek Katerina Chatzopoulou Morphological Borrowing Francesco Gardani Nominal Expressions and Language Change From Early Latin to Modern Romance Giuliana Giusti Grammaticalization from a Typological Perspective Edited by Bernd Heine, Heiko Narrog, and Prashant Pardeshi The Historical Dialectology of Arabic: Linguistic and Sociolinguistic Approaches Edited by Clive Holes A Study in Grammatical Change The Modern Greek Weak Subject Pronoun τος and its Implications for Language Change and Structure Brian D. Joseph Gender from Latin to Romance Michele Loporcaro Reconstructing Pre-Islamic Arabic Dialects Alexander Magidow Word Order Change Edited by Anna Maria Martins and Adriana Cardoso Quantitative Historical Linguistics Barbara McGillivray and Gard Jenset Grammaticalization from a Typological Perspective Heiko Narrog and Bernd Heine Syntactic Change and Stability Joel Wallenberg The History of Negation in the Languages of Europe and the Mediterranean Volume II: Patterns and Processes Edited by David Willis, Christopher Lucas, and Anne Breitbarth