Article published in:
Latin influence on the syntax of the languages of Europe
Edited by Bert Cornillie and Bridget Drinka
[Belgian Journal of Linguistics 33] 2019
► pp. 1142
References

References

Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y.
2004Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Amenta, Luisa
2003Perifrasi aspettuali in greco e in latino. Origini e grammaticalizzazioni. Milano: Franco Angeli.Google Scholar
Arnavielle, Teddy
1997Le morphème -ant: Unité et diversité. Étude historique et théorique. Louvain: Peeters.Google Scholar
2003 “Le participe, les formes en -ant: positions et propositions.” Langages 149: 37–54. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Banniard, Michel
2013 “The transition from Latin to the romance languages.” In The Cambridge history of the Romance languages. Volume 2. Contexts, ed. by Martin Maiden, John Charles Smith, and Adam Ledgeway, 57–106. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Baldi, Philip, and Cuzzolin, Pierluigi
2015 “Uniformitarian principle: Dalle scienze naturali alla linguistica storica.” In Modelli epistemologici, metodologie della ricerca e qualità del dato, ed. by Piera Molinelli, and Ignazio Putzu, 37–49. Milano: Franco Angeli.Google Scholar
Barbato, Marcello
2014 “Romanica cantabrigiensia.” Medioevo Romanzo 38: 415–426.Google Scholar
Bergs, Alexander
2012 “The uniformitarian principle and the risk of anachronisms in language and social history.” In The Handbook of Historical Sociolinguistics, ed. by Juan Manuel Hernández-Campoy, and Juan Camilo Conde-Silvestre, 80–98. Malden MA: Wiley Blackwell. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Blatt, Franz
1957 “Latin influence on european syntax.” Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Copenhague 11: 33–69. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Blázquez, Carolina
2011 “La traducción de los participios de presente concertados en el Evangelio según San Mateo del códice BNM 9556 (s. XV). Estudio contrastivo con el códice i.i.6 (s. XIII).” In Id est, loquendi peritia. Aportaciones a la Lingüística Diacrónica de los Jóvenes Investigadores de Historiografía e Historia de la Lengua Española, ed. by Elena Carmona Yanes, and Santiago del Rey Quesada, 141–145. Sevilla: Departamento de Lengua Española, Lingüística y Teoría de la Literatura. Facultad de Filología. Universidad de Sevilla (http://​institucional​.us​.es​/idestloquendi/).
Bolkestein, Anna Machtelt
1976 “A.c.i.- and ut-clauses with verba dicendi in Latin.” Glotta 54: 263–291.Google Scholar
Burgassi, Cosimo, and Elisa Guadagnini
2014 “Prima dell’«indole». Latinismi latenti dell’italiano.” Studi di lessicografia italiana 31: 5–43.Google Scholar
Calboli, Gualtiero
2009 “Latin syntax and Greek.” In New Perspectives on Historical Latin Syntax. Vol. 1, ed. by Philip Baldi, and Pierluigi Cuzzolin, 65–193. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Campbell, Lyle
1993 “On proposed universals of grammatical borrowing.” In Historical linguistics 1989: Papers from the 9th international conference on historical linguistics, ed. by Henk Aertsen, and Robert J. Jeffers, 91–109. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
[ p. 38 ]
Castillo Lluch, Monica, and Marta López Izquierdo
(eds) 2010Modelos latinos en la Castilla medieval. Madrid/Frankfurt: Iberoamericana/Vervuert. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cerullo, Speranza
2017 “La traduzione della legenda aurea .” In Tradurre dal latino nel medioevo italiano, ed. by Lino Leonardi, and Speranza Cerullo, 69–119. Firenze: Edizioni del Galluzzo.Google Scholar
Coseriu, Eugenio
1983 “Linguistic change does not exist.” Linguistica nuova ed antica 1: 51–63.Google Scholar
Cuzzolin, Pierluigi
2013 “Some remarks on quia as a subordinator after verbs of saying and thinking.” Journal of Latin Linguistics 12: 51–69. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2014 “Grecismi sintattici antichi e grecismi sintattici tardi: Osservazioni per un riesame anche terminologico”. In Latin Vulgaire-Latin Tardif X. Actes du Xe Colloque international sur le latin vulgaire et tardif. Bergamo 5–9 septembre 2012, Tome I, ed. by Piera Molinelli, Pierluigi Cuzzolin, and Chiara Fedriani, 247–262. Bergamo: Bergamo University Press.Google Scholar
2016 “Considerazioni sulla paraipotassi in italiano.” In Relazioni linguistiche Strutture, rapporti, genealogie, ed. by Martin Becker, and Ludwig Fesenmeier, 71–88. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Cuzzolin, Pierluigi, and Piera Molinelli
2013 “Contatto linguistico e tipologie di mutamento.” In Le lingue del Mediterraneo antico. Culture, mutamenti, contatti, ed. by Marco Mancini, and Luca Lorenzetti, 97–123. Roma: Carocci.Google Scholar
Dardano, Maurizio
1963 “Sintassi dell’infinito nei Libri della famiglia di L. B. Alberti.” Annali della Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa. Lettere, Storia e Filosofia 32: 83–135.Google Scholar
del Rey Quesada, Santiago
2016a “Ocho tipos de lengua, cara a cara: Las traducciones de la epístola ovidiana de Dido a Eneas en la Edad Media y el Siglo de Oro.” In El español a través del tiempo. Estudios ofrecidos a Rafael Cano Aguilar, ed. by Araceli López Serena, Antonio Narbona Jiménez, and Santiago del Rey Quesada, 415–439. Sevilla: Editorial Universidad de Sevilla.Google Scholar
2016b “Interferencia latín-romance en Alfonso X: La traducción como pretexto de la elaboración sintáctica.” La crónica 44: 75–109. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2017 “(Anti-)Latinate syntax in Renaissance dialogue.” Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie 133: 673–708. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
De Roberto, Elisa
2010Le relative con antecedente in italiano antico. Roma: Aracne.Google Scholar
2012Le costruzioni assolute nella storia dell’italiano. Casoria (NA): Loffredo.Google Scholar
2013 “Usi concorrenziali di infinito e gerundio in italiano antico.” In Actas del XXVI Congreso Internacional de Lingüística y de Filología Románicas, ed. by Emili Casanova Herrero, and Cesáreo. Calvo Rigual, 125–136. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2017 “Sintassi e volgarizzamenti.” In Tradurre dal latino nel medioevo italiano, ed. by Lino Leonardi, and Speranza Cerullo, 227–293. Firenze: Edizioni del Galluzzo.Google Scholar
Drinka, Bridget
2017Language contact in Europe. The Periphrastic perfect through history. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Egerland, Verner
2010 “Frasi subordinate al participio.” In Grammatica dell’italiano antico. Volume II, ed. by Giampaolo Salvi, and Lorenzo Renzi, 881–901. Bologna: Il Mulino.Google Scholar
[ p. 39 ]
Fernández Lagunilla, Marina
1999 “Las construcciones de gerundio.” In Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española. Vol. 2. Las construcciones sintácticas fundamentales. Relaciones temporales, aspectuales y modales, ed. by Ignacio Bosque, and Violeta Demonte, 3443–3503. Madrid: Espasa.Google Scholar
Fernández Murga, Félix
1979 “El participio presente en italiano y en español.” In Atti del XIV Congresso Internazionale di Linguistica e Filologia Romanza. Vol. 3, ed. by Alberto Varvaro, 353–372. Napoli/Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Macchiaroli/Benjamins.Google Scholar
Folena, Gianfranco
1991Volgarizzare e tradurre. Torino: Einaudi.Google Scholar
Gadet, Françoise
1992 “Variation et hétérogénéité.” Langages 108: 5–15. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
García Turza, Claudio
2013 “La influencia de la Biblia y sus traducciones en la historia de la lengua española.” Estudios bíblicos 71: 433–482.Google Scholar
Godard, Danièle
1992 “Le programme labovien et la variation syntaxique.” Langages 108: 51–65. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Greco, Paolo
2013 “Latin Accusativus cum Participio: syntactic description, evidential values, and diachronic development.” Journal of Latin Linguistics 12: 173–198. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2016 “Il participio presente dipendente da verbi di percezione diretta nel medioevo latino (e romanzo).” Aemilianense 4: 367–401.Google Scholar
2018 “Linguistica e sociolinguistica nell’analisi delle carte notarili di Cava de’ Tirreni (IX secolo). Qualche considerazione metodologica.” In Strutture e dinamismi della variazione e del cambiamento linguistico, ed. by Paolo Greco, Cesarina Vecchia and Rosanna Sornicola, 169–180. Napoli: Accademia di Archeologia, Lettere e Belle Arti.Google Scholar
Guadagnini, Elisa
2016 “Lessicografia, filologia e «corpora» digitali: Qualche considerazione dalla parte dell’OVI.” Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie 132: 755–792. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Heine, Bernd, and Tania Kuteva
2005Language contact and grammatical change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Herczeg, Giulio
1972Saggi linguistici e stilistici. Firenze: Olschki.Google Scholar
Henrichsen, Arne-Johan
1967 “Quelques remarques sur l’emploi des formes verbales en -ant en français modern.” Revue Romane 2: 97–107.Google Scholar
Jakobson, Roman
1962 “Sur la théorie des affinités phonologique entre les langues.” In Id., Selected Writings. I. Phonological Studies, 234–246. The Hague: Mouton [1st ed. 1938, in: Actes du IVème Congrés International des Linguistes].Google Scholar
Kabatek, Johannes
2005 “Tradiciones discursivas y cambio lingüístico.” Lexis 29: 151–177.Google Scholar
ed. 2008Sintaxis histórica del español y cambio lingüístico: Nuevas perspectivas desde las Tradiciones Discursivas. Frankfurt am Main/Madrid: Vervuert-Iberoamericana.Google Scholar
2013 “Koinés and scriptae.” In The Cambridge History of the Romance Languages. Volume 2. Contexts, ed. by Martin Maiden, John Charles Smith, and Adam Ledgeway, 143–186. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kabatek, Johannes, Paul Obrist, and Valentina Vincis
2010 “Clause linkage techniques as a symptom of discourse traditions: Methodological issues and evidence from romance languages.” In Syntactic Variation and Genre, ed. by Heidrun Dorgeloh, and Anja Wanner, 247–275. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
[ p. 40 ]
Kahane, Henry
1986 “A typology of the prestige language.” Language 62: 495–508. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kahane, Henry and Kahane, Renée
1979 “Decline and survival of western prestige languages.” Language 55: 183–198. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Karlsen, Espen
2001The accusativus cum infinitivo and quod clauses in the revelaciones of St. Bridget of Sweden. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Koch, Peter
1997 “Diskurstraditionen. Zu ihrem sprachtheoretischen Status und ihrer Dynamik.” In Gattungen mittelalterlicher Schriftlichkeit, ed. by Barbara Frank, Thomas Haye, and Doris Tophinke, 43–79. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Lagomarsini, Claudio
2018Virgilio. Æneis. Volgarizzamento senese trecentesco di Ciampolo di Meo Ugurgieri. Pisa: Edizioni della Normale.Google Scholar
Lass, Roger
1997Historical linguistics and language change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Leonardi, Lino, and Speranza Cerullo
eds. 2017Tradurre dal latino nel medioevo italiano. Firenze: Edizioni del Galluzzo.Google Scholar
Loveday, Leo. J.
1996Language contact in Japan. A sociolinguistic history. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Maiden, Martin, John Charles Smith, and Adam Ledgeway
eds. 2011The Cambridge history of the romance languages. Volume 1. Structures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
eds. 2013The Cambridge history of the romance languages. Volume 2. Contexts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mastrantonio, Davide
2017Latinismi sintattici nella prosa del Duecento. Roma: Aracne.Google Scholar
Meilán García, A. J.
1991 “El comportamiento del “participio de presente” en el castellano medieval y renacentista.” Revista de Filología. Universidad de La Laguna 10: 281–297.Google Scholar
Muysken, Pieter
2010 “Scenarios for language contact.” In The Handbook of Language Contact, ed. by Raymond Hickey, 265–281. Malden MA: Wiley-Blackwell. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2013 “Language contact outcomes as the result of bilingual optimization strategies.” Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 16: 709–730. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Oesterreicher, Wulf
1997 “Zur Fundierung von Diskurstraditionen.” In Gattungen mittelalterlicher Schriftlichkeit, ed. by Barbara Frank, Thomas Haye, and Doris Tophinke, 19–41. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
2004 “Textos entre inmediatez y distancia comunicativas: El problema de lo hablado escrito en el Siglo de Oro.” In Historia de la lengua española, ed. by Rafael Cano, 729–770. Barcelona: Ariel.Google Scholar
Pinkster, Harm
1990Latin syntax and semantics. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Pons Rodríguez, Lola
2008 “Las construcciones imitativas del accusativus cum infinitivo. Modelos latinos y consecuencias romances.” Revista de Historia de la Lengua Española 3: 119–148.Google Scholar
Pountain, Christopher
1998 “Learnèd syntax and the romance languages: The ‘accusative and infinitive’ construction with declarative verbs in Castilian.” Transactions of the Philological Society 96: 159–201. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
[ p. 41 ]
2011 “Latin and the structure of written romance.” In The Cambridge History of the Romance Languages. Volume 1. Structures, ed. by Martin Maiden, John Charles Smith, and Adam Ledgeway, 606–659. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Putzu, Ignazio
2015 “Il principio di uniformità: Aspetti epistemologici e di storia della linguistica.” In Modelli epistemologici, metodologie della ricerca e qualità del dato, ed. by Piera Molinelli, and Ignazio Putzu, 13–36. Milano: Franco Angeli.Google Scholar
Raible, W.
1996 “Relatinisierungtendenzen.” In Lexikon der Romanistischen Linguistik. II.1, Latein und Romanisch: Historisch-vergleichende Grammatik der romanischen Sprachen, ed. by Günter Holtus, Michael Metzeltin, and Chirstian Schmitt, 120–134. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Ramat, Paolo and Federica Da Milano
2011 “Differenti usi di gerundi e forme affini nelle lingue romanze.” Vox Romanica 70: 1–46.Google Scholar
Romaine, Suzanne
1981 “On the problem of syntactic variation: A reply to Beatriz Lavandera and William Labov.” Working Papers in Sociolinguistics 82: 1–38.Google Scholar
1982Socio-historical linguistics. its status and methodology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1984 “On the problem of syntactic variation and pragmatic meaning in sociolinguistic theory.” Folia Linguistica 18: 409–439. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sala, Marius
2013 “Contact and borrowing.” In The Cambridge history of the romance languages. Volume 2. Contexts, ed. by Martin Maiden, John Charles Smith, and Adam Ledgeway, 187–236. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sanchis Calvo, Maria Carmen
2004 “La traducción de las construcciones de participio de presente concertado en la Biblia I.i.8 (Libros de Rut, Jueces y Reyes I, II y III).” Quaderns de Filologia. Estudis Lingüístics 9: 189–198.Google Scholar
Sarré, Nguissaly
2000 “Morphologie des formes en -ant en moyen français.” L’Information Grammaticale 86: 40–52. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Segre, Cesare
1963Lingua, stile e società. Milano: Feltrinelli.Google Scholar
Selig, Maria, Barbara Frank, and Jörg Hartmann
eds. 1993Le passage à l’écrit des langues romanes. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Škerlj, Stanko
1926Syntaxe du participe présent et du gérondif en vieil italien. Avec une research-article sur l’emploi du participe présent et de l’ablatif du gérondif en latin. Paris: Champion.Google Scholar
Sornicola, Rosanna
1989 “Per una sociolinguistica interna al testo.” In Parlare in città. Studi di sociolinguistica urbana, ed. by Gabriella Klein, 29–37. Galatina: Congedo.Google Scholar
1995 “Mutamenti di prospettiva culturale nelle lingue europee moderne: L’influenza del latino sulla sintassi.” In Kulturwandel im Spiegel des Sprachwandels, ed. by Karl-Egon Lönne, 41–58. Tübingen / Basel: Francke.Google Scholar
2011 “Romance linguistics and historical linguistics. Reflections on synchrony and diachrony.” In The Cambridge History of the Romance Languages. Volume 1. Structures, ed. by Martin Maiden, John Charles Smith, and Adam Ledgeway, 1–49. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
2012Bilinguismo e diglossia dei territori bizantini e longobardi del mezzogiorno. Le testimonianze dei documenti del IX e X secolo. Napoli: Accademia Pontaniana.Google Scholar
[ p. 42 ]
Thomason, Sarah Grey, and Terrence Kaufman
1988Language contact, Creolization, and genetic linguistics. Berkeley/Los Angeles/Boston: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Timofeeva, Olga
2010Non-finite constructions in old English. With special reference to syntactic borrowing from Latin. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.Google Scholar
Valente, Simona
2013La subordinazione gerundiva e participiale in testi siciliani del XIV secolo. Napoli: Liguori.Google Scholar
Varvaro, Alberto
2013 “Latin and the making of the romance languages.” In The Cambridge History of the Romance Languages. Volume 2. Contexts, ed. by Martin Maiden, John Charles Smith, and Adam Ledgeway, 6–56. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Weinreich, Uriel
1953Languages in contact: Findings and problems. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Wright, Roger
2013a “Periodization.” In The Cambridge History of the Romance Languages. Volume 2. Contexts, ed. by Martin Maiden, John Charles Smith, and Adam Ledgeway, 107–124. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2013b “Evidence and sources.” In The Cambridge history of the Romance languages. Volume 2. Contexts, ed. by Martin Maiden, John Charles Smith, and Adam Ledgeway, 125–142. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zaggia, Massimo
2009Ovidio. Heroides. Volgarizzamento fiorentino trecentesco di Filippo Ceffi. I. Introduzione, testo secondo l’autografo e glossario. Firenze: Sismel.Google Scholar