Cover not available
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. 11–42

On the notion of linguistic influence in syntax

Evidence from medieval Italo-Romance texts

| Università di Napoli “Federico II”
This paper tackles the topic of Latin influence on Italo-Romance syntax by addressing the question how to combine the analysis of structural data with socio-historical reflections. It views the genre and discourse tradition of a given medieval text as governing the extent to which Latin is used as a model in this text. The paper proposes a methodology which incorporates consideration of the historical, cultural, and sociolinguistic context of language change, focusing on evidence from the development of present participles in Italo-Romance. The main conclusion is that, rather than talking about the general influence of Latin syntax on Italian, we should be examining the influence of particular Latin models on the syntax of different texts written in Italo-Romance varieties in a given historical period.
Keywords: medieval Italo-romance syntax, Latin syntax, language contact, syntactic influence, Latin influence
Article outline
  • 1.Main aims and structure of the paper
  • 2.Language contact and the syntax of medieval Romance languages
    • 2.1Latin and the syntax of the Romance languages: Methodological premises and general remarks
    • 2.2Latin and Romance in contact: On linguistic influence and grammatical borrowing
    • 2.3Latin and the development of the syntax of the (written varieties of the) Romance languages in the Middle Ages: Theoretical assumptions
  • 3.Aspects of the use of the present participle with verbal functions in Italo-Romance texts written in the Middle Ages
    • 3.1Present participles in Italo-Romance varieties: A brief research-article
    • 3.2Present participles governed by perception predicates in Latin and Italo-Romance texts
  • 4.Conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 30 March 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/bjl.00021.gre
References (93)
References
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2004. Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Amenta, Luisa. 2003. Perifrasi aspettuali in greco e in latino. Origini e grammaticalizzazioni. Milano: Franco Angeli.Google Scholar
Arnavielle, Teddy. 1997. Le morphème -ant: Unité et diversité. Étude historique et théorique. Louvain: Peeters.Google Scholar
. 2003. “Le participe, les formes en -ant: positions et propositions.” Langages 1491: 37–54. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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 381: 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blatt, Franz. 1957. “Latin influence on european syntax.” Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Copenhague 111: 33–69. DOI logoGoogle 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 ([URL]).
Bolkestein, Anna Machtelt. 1976. “A.c.i.- and ut-clauses with verba dicendi in Latin.” Glotta 541: 263–291.Google Scholar
Burgassi, Cosimo, and Elisa Guadagnini. 2014. “Prima dell’«indole». Latinismi latenti dell’italiano.” Studi di lessicografia italiana 311: 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Castillo Lluch, Monica, and Marta López Izquierdo (eds). 2010. Modelos latinos en la Castilla medieval. Madrid/Frankfurt: Iberoamericana/Vervuert. DOI logoGoogle 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 11: 51–63.Google Scholar
Cuzzolin, Pierluigi. 2013. “Some remarks on quia as a subordinator after verbs of saying and thinking.” Journal of Latin Linguistics 121: 51–69. DOI logoGoogle 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 321: 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 441: 75–109. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2017. “(Anti-)Latinate syntax in Renaissance dialogue.” Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie 1331: 673–708. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Roberto, Elisa. 2010. Le relative con antecedente in italiano antico. Roma: Aracne.Google Scholar
. 2012. Le 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. 2017. Language contact in Europe. The Periphrastic perfect through history. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle 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
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. 1991. Volgarizzare e tradurre. Torino: Einaudi.Google Scholar
Gadet, Françoise. 1992. “Variation et hétérogénéité.” Langages 1081: 5–15. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
García Turza, Claudio. 2013. “La influencia de la Biblia y sus traducciones en la historia de la lengua española.” Estudios bíblicos 711: 433–482.Google Scholar
Godard, Danièle. 1992. “Le programme labovien et la variation syntaxique.” Langages 1081: 51–65. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Greco, Paolo. 2013. “Latin Accusativus cum Participio: syntactic description, evidential values, and diachronic development.” Journal of Latin Linguistics 121: 173–198. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016. “Il participio presente dipendente da verbi di percezione diretta nel medioevo latino (e romanzo).” Aemilianense 41: 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 1321: 755–792. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heine, Bernd, and Tania Kuteva. 2005. Language contact and grammatical change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Herczeg, Giulio. 1972. Saggi 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 21: 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 291: 151–177.Google Scholar
, ed., 2008. Sintaxis 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kahane, Henry. 1986. “A typology of the prestige language.” Language 621: 495–508. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kahane, Henry and Kahane, Renée. 1979. “Decline and survival of western prestige languages.” Language 551: 183–198. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Karlsen, Espen. 2001. The 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. 2018. Virgilio. Æneis. Volgarizzamento senese trecentesco di Ciampolo di Meo Ugurgieri. Pisa: Edizioni della Normale.Google Scholar
Lass, Roger. 1997. Historical linguistics and language change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leonardi, Lino, and Speranza Cerullo, eds. 2017. Tradurre dal latino nel medioevo italiano. Firenze: Edizioni del Galluzzo.Google Scholar
Loveday, Leo. J. 1996. Language contact in Japan. A sociolinguistic history. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Maiden, Martin, John Charles Smith, and Adam Ledgeway, eds. 2011. The Cambridge history of the romance languages. Volume 1. Structures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
, eds. 2013. The Cambridge history of the romance languages. Volume 2. Contexts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mastrantonio, Davide. 2017. Latinismi 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 101: 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. “Language contact outcomes as the result of bilingual optimization strategies.” Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 161: 709–730. DOI logoGoogle 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. 1990. Latin 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 31: 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 961: 159–201. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 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 701: 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 821: 1–38.Google Scholar
. 1982. Socio-historical linguistics. its status and methodology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1984. “On the problem of syntactic variation and pragmatic meaning in sociolinguistic theory.” Folia Linguistica 181: 409–439. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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 91: 189–198.Google Scholar
Sarré, Nguissaly. 2000. “Morphologie des formes en -ant en moyen français.” L’Information Grammaticale 861: 40–52. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Segre, Cesare. 1963. Lingua, stile e società. Milano: Feltrinelli.Google Scholar
Selig, Maria, Barbara Frank, and Jörg Hartmann, eds. 1993. Le passage à l’écrit des langues romanes. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Škerlj, Stanko. 1926. Syntaxe 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
. 2012. Bilinguismo e diglossia dei territori bizantini e longobardi del mezzogiorno. Le testimonianze dei documenti del IX e X secolo. Napoli: Accademia Pontaniana.Google Scholar
Thomason, Sarah Grey, and Terrence Kaufman. 1988. Language contact, Creolization, and genetic linguistics. Berkeley/Los Angeles/Boston: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Timofeeva, Olga. 2010. Non-finite constructions in old English. With special reference to syntactic borrowing from Latin. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.Google Scholar
Valente, Simona. 2013. La 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Weinreich, Uriel. 1953. Languages 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zaggia, Massimo. 2009. Ovidio. Heroides. Volgarizzamento fiorentino trecentesco di Filippo Ceffi. I. Introduzione, testo secondo l’autografo e glossario. Firenze: Sismel.Google Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Greco, Paolo
2023. Fenomeni di elaborazione sintattica in Italiano Antico: Il caso della subordinazione a verbo non finito. Romanische Forschungen 135:3 ► pp. 283 ff. DOI logo
Melchior, Luca
2023. Elaborazione e cambio linguistico: considerazioni sulle ‘lingue minori’ sull’esempio della scritturalità friulana. Romanistisches Jahrbuch 74:1 ► pp. 85 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 31 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.