Table Of ContentFrom Latin to Romance
OXFORD STUDIES IN HISTORICAL AND
DIACHRONIC LINGUISTICS
GENERAL EDITORS
AdamLedgewayandIanRoberts,UniversityofCambridge
ADVISORY EDITORS
CynthiaAllen,AustralianNationalUniversity;RicardoBermúdez-Otero,Univerisity
ofManchester;TheresaBiberauer,UniversityofCambridge;CharlotteGalves,State
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 Trieste; David Willis,
UniversityofCambridge
PUBLISHED
1
FromLatintoRomance
AdamLedgeway
2
ParameterTheoryandLinguisticChange
EditedbyCharlotteGalves,SoniaCyrino,RuthLopes,FilomenaSândalo,and
JuanitoAvelar
Inpreparation
TheBoundariesofPureMorphology
DiachronicandSynchronicPerspectives
EditedbySilvioCruschina,MartinMaiden,andJ.C.Smith
TheHistoryofNegation
Vol.I:CaseStudies;Vol.II:PatternsandProcesses
EditedbyAnnaBreitbart,ChrisLucas,andDavidWillis
GenderfromLatintoRomance
MicheleLoporcaro
VowelQuantityfromLatintoRomance
MicheleLoporcaro
WordOrderinOldItalian
CeciliaPoletto
SyntacticChangeandStability
JoelWallenberg
From Latin to Romance
Morphosyntactic Typology and Change
ADAM LEDGEWAY
1
3
GreatClarendonStreet,OxfordOX26DP
OxfordUniversityPressisadepartmentoftheUniversityofOxford.
ItfurtherstheUniversity’sobjectiveofexcellenceinresearch,scholarship,
andeducationbypublishingworldwidein
Oxford NewYork
Auckland CapeTown DaresSalaam HongKong Karachi
KualaLumpur Madrid Melbourne MexicoCity Nairobi
NewDelhi Shanghai Taipei Toronto
Withofficesin
Argentina Austria Brazil Chile CzechRepublic France Greece
Guatemala Hungary Italy Japan Poland Portugal Singapore
SouthKorea Switzerland Thailand Turkey Ukraine Vietnam
OxfordisaregisteredtrademarkofOxfordUniversityPress
intheUKandincertainothercountries
PublishedintheUnitedStates
byOxfordUniversityPressInc.,NewYork
#AdamLedgeway2012
Themoralrightsoftheauthorhavebeenasserted
DatabaserightOxfordUniversityPress(maker)
Firstpublished2012
Allrightsreserved.Nopartofthispublicationmaybereproduced,
storedinaretrievalsystem,ortransmitted,inanyformorbyanymeans,
withoutthepriorpermissioninwritingofOxfordUniversityPress,
orasexpresslypermittedbylaw,orundertermsagreedwiththeappropriate
reprographicsrightsorganization.Enquiriesconcerningreproduction
outsidethescopeoftheaboveshouldbesenttotheRightsDepartment,
OxfordUniversityPress,attheaddressabove
Youmustnotcirculatethisbookinanyotherbindingorcover
andyoumustimposethesameconditiononanyacquirer
BritishLibraryCataloguinginPublicationData
Dataavailable
LibraryofCongressCataloginginPublicationData
LibraryofCongressControlNumber:2011945220
TypesetbySPIPublisherServices,Pondicherry,India
PrintedinGreatBritain
onacid-freepaperby
MPGBooksGroup,BodminandKing’sLynn
ISBN 978–0–19–958437–6
1 3 5 7 9 10 8 6 4 2
Contents
Seriespreface ix
Listoftables xi
Listofabbreviations xiii
1 FromLatintoRomance:introduction 1
1.1 FromLatintoRomance:thehistoricalbackground 1
1.2 Researchquestions 2
1.3 Aimsandobjectives 4
1.4 Acknowledgements 8
2 Syntheticityandanalyticity 10
2.1 Traditionalapproach 10
2.2 Problems 12
2.2.1 Languagesorconstructions? 12
2.2.2 Absolutevsrelativeinterpretations 16
2.2.3 Causalrelationsbetweenanalyticityand
morphophonologicalerosion 21
2.2.4 Gradualchangeandcompetition 23
2.2.5 Explanatorypower 24
2.2.6 Grammaticalization 28
3 Configurationalityandtheriseofconstituentstructure 30
3.1 Introduction 30
3.2 Nominalandverbalgroups 31
3.2.1 Latin 35
3.2.1.1 Discontinuousstructures 43
3.2.1.2 Conclusion 45
3.2.2 Romance 47
3.2.2.1 Adjectivalpositions 50
3.2.2.1.1 Restrictedadjectivalpositions 55
3.2.2.2 Complementsandadjuncts 57
3.3 Thesentence 59
3.3.1 ClassicalLatin 59
3.3.1.1 Discontinuousstructures 61
3.3.2 LateLatinandRomance 64
vi Contents
3.4 Configurationality:concludingremarks 71
3.4.1 Degreesofconfigurationality 77
4 Configurationalityandtheriseoffunctionalstructure 81
4.1 Introduction 81
4.2 Determinerphrase(DP) 82
4.2.1 Indefinitearticle 82
4.2.2 Definitearticle 89
4.2.2.1 LateLatin 89
4.2.2.2 Romance 96
4.2.2.2.1 IPSEarticles 100
4.2.2.2.2 Neuterarticles 105
4.2.2.3 Conclusion 107
4.2.3 Otherdeterminers 110
4.2.3.1 Romanian 113
4.2.3.1.1 Demonstrativearticle 113
4.2.3.1.2 Possessivearticle 115
4.3 Inflectionalphrase(IP) 119
4.3.1 Romanceauxiliaries 119
4.3.1.1 Semanticweakening 121
4.3.1.2 Morphosyntacticproperties 124
4.3.1.3 Morphophonologicalspecialization 127
4.3.1.4 Romanceperfectiveauxiliaryconstructions 130
4.3.1.5 Romancesyntheticfuture(-in-the-past) 134
4.3.2 Romanceverbpositions 140
4.3.2.1 Summaryandconclusions 146
4.4 Complementizerphrase(CP) 150
4.4.1 EvidenceforLatinCPstructure 150
4.4.1.1 Archaicnon-configurationalpattern 156
4.4.2 EvidenceforRomanceCPstructure 158
4.4.2.1 TopicandFocusFields 159
4.4.2.1.1 InternalstructureofTopicandFocusfields 162
4.4.2.1.1.1 Focusfield 162
4.4.2.1.1.2 Topicfield 166
4.4.2.2 ForceandFiniteness 169
4.4.2.3 Otherprojections 176
4.5 Conclusion 179
Contents vii
5 FromLatintoRomance:aconfigurationalapproach 181
5.1 Introduction 181
5.1.1 Earlyevidenceforfunctionalstructure 183
5.1.2 Earlyevidenceforconfigurationality 185
5.2 Headparameter:traditionalobservations 196
5.2.1 SomeRomancecounterexamples? 198
5.3 Changingdirections:Latin 202
5.3.1 Earlyhead-initialstructures 204
5.3.1.1 Complementizersandadpositions 205
5.3.1.2 Comparatives 207
5.3.1.3 Relatives 209
5.3.1.4 Nounphrase 210
5.3.1.4.1 Adjectives 210
5.3.1.4.2 Genitives 213
5.3.1.4.3 Concludingremarks 218
5.3.1.5 Othercategories 219
5.3.1.6 Summary 224
5.3.2 Verbalgroup 225
5.3.2.1 Auxiliaryanddependentinfinitive 234
5.3.3 Conclusion 235
5.4 Changingdirections:fromLatintoRomance 235
5.4.1 Head-last)head-first:roll-up 236
5.4.2 Riseofhead-initiality 238
5.4.2.1 Positionofcomplementclauses 242
5.4.2.2 Positionofnominalcomplements 249
5.4.2.3 Otherpatternsofharmonization 252
5.4.2.4 Clausalwordorder 255
5.4.3 Pragmaticvariation:left-edgefronting 258
5.4.3.1 Identifyingtheleft-edge:colaandleftperipheries 259
5.4.3.2 Modifierfronting 262
5.4.3.2.1 Reanalysis:roll-up)edge-fronting 269
5.4.3.3 Nominalfronting 270
5.4.3.4 FromLatintoRomance 277
5.5 Conclusion 281
6 Head-markinganddependent-marking 284
6.1 Introduction 284
6.2 Variationinmarking 286
6.3 Romancefunctionalcategories)Romancehead-marking 289
6.3.1 Head-markingonD 290
6.3.2 Head-markingonInfl 292
viii Contents
6.3.3 Head-markingonC 298
6.3.4 Extremehead-marking:thecaseofRipano 299
6.3.4.1 Verbaldomain 300
6.3.4.1.1 Subject-verbagreement 300
6.3.4.1.2 Subject-/object-verbagreement 302
6.3.4.1.3 Object-verbagreement 305
6.3.4.2 Contagioushead-marking 308
6.4 Conclusion 310
7 Theriseandfallofalignments 312
7.1 Introduction 312
7.2 ClassicalLatin 314
7.3 LateLatinandconservativeRomance:active/stativesyntax 316
7.3.1. Verbalgroup 317
7.3.1.1 Perfectiveauxiliaryconstructions 317
7.3.1.1.1 Latinbackground 317
7.3.1.1.2 Romance 319
7.3.1.2 Participleagreement 326
7.3.2 Nominalgroup 328
7.3.2.1 Extendedandgeneralizedaccusative 328
7.3.2.2 EarlyRomancebinarycasesystems 333
7.3.3 Sentence:wordorder 335
7.3.4 Otherpatterns 336
7.4 InnovativeRomance:nominative/accusativesyntax 340
7.4.1 Verbalgroup 341
7.4.1.1 Perfectiveauxiliaryconstructions 341
7.4.1.2 Participleagreement 347
7.4.2 Sentence:wordorder 349
7.5 Concludingremarks 351
References 353
Index 409
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.
Thisseriesprovidesaforumforworkinbothdiachronicandhistoricallinguistics,
including work on change in grammar, sound, and meaning within and across
languages; synchronic studies of languages in the past; and descriptive histories of
oneormorelanguages.Itisintendedtoreflectandencouragethelinksbetweenthese
subjectsandfieldssuchasthosementionedabove.
The goal of the series is to publish high-quality monographs and collections of
papersindiachroniclinguisticsgenerally,i.e.studiesfocussingonchangeinlinguis-
tic 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,ortowardsaparticulartheoreticalframework;workinalltheoreticalframe-
works,and work based on the descriptive tradition oflanguage typology,as well as
quantitativelybasedworkusingtheoreticalideas,alsofeatureintheseries.
AdamLedgewayandIanRoberts
UniversityofCambridge
September2011
