Non-configurationality in diachrony
Correlations in local and global networks of Ancient Greek and Latin
Non-configurationality is a linguistic property associated with free word order, discontinuous constituents, including NPs, and
null anaphora of referential arguments. Quantitative metrics, based both on local networks (syntactic trees and word order within
sentences) and on global networks (incorporating the relations within a whole treebank into a shared graph), can reveal
correlations among these features. Using treebanks we focus on diachronic varieties of Ancient Greek and Latin, in which
non-configurationality tapered off over time, leading to the largely configurational nature of the Romance languages and of Modern
Greek. A property of global networks (density of their spectra around zero eigenvalues) measuring the regularity in word order is
shown to be strengthened from classical to late varieties. Discontinuous NPs are traced by counting the words creating
non-projectivity in dependency trees: these drop dramatically in late varieties. Finally, developments in the use of null
referential direct objects are gauged by assessing the percentage of third-person personal pronouns among verb objects. All three
features turn out to change over time due to the decay of non-configurationality. Evaluation of the strength of their pairwise
correlation shows that null direct objects and discontinuous NPs are deeply intertwined.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Non-configurationality
- 2.1Word order
- 2.2Discontinuous NPs
- 2.3Definite referential null objects
- 3.Methodology
- 3.1The corpus
- 3.2Network induction
- 4.Metrics and results
- 4.1Free word order
- 4.2Discontinuous NPs
- 4.3Referential null objects
- 5.Discussion
- 6.Conclusions
- Acknowledgements
- Notes
-
References
References (44)
References
Austin, Peter & Joan Bresnan. 1996. Non-configurationality in Australian languages. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 141. 215–268. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Baker, Mark. 2001. Configurationality and polysynthesis. In Martin Haspelmath, Ekkehard König, Wulf Oesterreicher & Wolfgang Raible (eds.), Language typology and language universals: An international handbook, vol. 21, 1433–1441. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bamman, David, Francesco Mambrini & Gregory Crane. 2009. An ownership model of annotation: The Ancient Greek dependency treebank. In Marco Passarotti, Adam Przepiórkowski, Savina Raynaud & Frank van Eynde (eds.), Proceedings of the eighth international workshop on treebanks and linguistic theories (TLT 8), 5–16. Milan: EDUCatt.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Baronchelli, Andrea, Ramon Ferrer-i-Cancho, Romualdo Pastor-Satorras, Nick Chater & Morten H. Christiansen. 2013. Networks in cognitive science. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 17(7). 348–360. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Čech, Radek, Ján Mačutek & Zdeněk Žabokrtský. 2011. The role of syntax in complex networks: Local and global importance of verbs in a syntactic dependency network. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications 390(20). 3614–3623. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Choudhury, Munmun, Dipak Chatterjee & Animesh Mukherjee. 2010. Global topology of word co-occurrence networks: Beyond the two-regime power-law. In Aravind K. Joshi, Chu-Ren Huang & Dan Jurafsky (eds.), Proceedings of the 23rd international conference on computational linguistics: Posters, 162–170. Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Deligianni, Efrosini. 2011. Modern Greek word order in the process of syntacticization: Preliminary evidence from Late Byzantine and Early Modern Greek. In Katerina Chatzopoulou, Alexandra Ioannidou & Suwon Yoon (eds.), Proceedings of the 9th international conference on Greek linguistics (ICGL 9), 440–455. Columbus: The Ohio State University.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Devine, Andrew & Laurence Stephens. 2000. Discontinuous syntax: Hyperbaton in Greek. Oxford: Oxford University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Dorogovtsev, Sergey N., José Fernando F. Mendes & Alexander N. Samukhin. 2000. Structure of growing networks with preferential linking. Physical review letters 85, no. 21:4633. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Dover, Kenneth. 1960. Greek word order. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ferrer i Cancho, Ramon & Richard V. Solé. 2001. The small world of human language. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences 268(1482). 2261–2265. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ferrer i Cancho, Ramon, Ricard V. Solé & Reinhard Köhler. 2004. Patterns in syntactic dependency networks. Physical Review E 69, no. 5:051915. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Futrell, Richard, Kyle Mahowald & Edward Gibson. 2015. Quantifying word order freedom in dependency corpora. In Joakim Nivre & Eva Hajičová (eds.), Proceedings of the third international conference on dependency linguistics (Depling 2015), 91–100. Uppsala: Uppsala University.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Goldstein, David. 2016. Classical Greek syntax: Wackernagel’s Law in Herodotus. Leiden: Brill. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Gulordava, Kristina & Paola Merlo. 2015. Diachronic trends in word order freedom and dependency length in dependency-annotated corpora of Latin and Ancient Greek. In Joakim Nivre & Eva Hajičová (eds.), Proceedings of the third international conference on dependency linguistics (Depling 2015), 121–130. Uppsala: Uppsala University.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hale, Ken. 1983. Warlpiri and the grammar of non-configurational languages. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 11. 5–47. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Haug, Dag T. T. & Marius L. Jøhndal. 2008. Creating a parallel treebank of the Old Indo-European Bible translations. In Caroline Sporleder and Kiril Ribarov (eds.), Proceedings of the workshop on language technology for cultural heritage data (LaTeCH 2008), 27–34. Marrakech, Morocco.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kapustin, Victor & Anna Jamsen. 2007. Vertex degree distribution for the graph of word co-occurrences in Russian. In Chris Biemann, Irina Matveeva, Rada Mihalcea & Dragomir Radev (eds.), Proceedings of the second workshop on TextGraphs: Graph-based algorithms for natural language processing, 89–97. Rochester, NY: Association for Computational Linguistics.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Keydana, Götz & Silvia Luraghi. 2012. Definite referential null objects in Vedic Sanskrit and Ancient Greek. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 44(2). 116–128. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kiss, E. Katalin. 1987. Configurationality in Hungarian. Dordrecht: Reidel. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ledgeway, Adam. 2011. Morphosyntactic typology and change. In Martin Maiden, John Charles Smith & Adam Ledgeway (eds.), The Cambridge history of the Romance languages, vol. 1: Structures, 382–471, 724–734. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ledgeway, Adam. 2012. From Latin to Romance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Linde, Paul. 1923. Die Stellung des Verbums in der lateinischen Prosa. Glotta 121. 153–178.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Luraghi, Silvia. 1997. Omission of the direct object in Classical Latin. Indogermanische Forschungen 1021. 239–257.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Luraghi, Silvia. 1998. Omissione dell’oggetto diretto in frasi coordinate: Dal latino all’italiano. In Paolo Ramat & Elisa Roma (eds.), 183–196.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Luraghi, Silvia. 2003. Definite referential null objects in Ancient Greek. Indogermanische Forschungen 1081. 169–196.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Luraghi, Silvia. 2010. The rise (and possible downfall) of configurationality. In Silva Luraghi & Vit Bubenik (eds.), Continuum companion to historical linguistics, 212–229. London: Continuum.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Luraghi, Silvia. 2013. Clitics. In Silvia Luraghi & Claudia Parodi (eds.), The Bloomsbury Companion to Syntax, 165–193. London: Bloomsbury.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Mambrini, Francesco & Marco Passarotti. 2013. Non-projectivity in the Ancient Greek dependency treebank. In Eva Hajičová, Kim Gerdes & Leo Wanner (eds.), Proceedings of the second international conference on dependency linguistics (Depling 2013): 177–186. Prague: Matfyz Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Marcus, Solomon. 1965. Sur la notion de projectivité. Mathematical Logic Quarterly 11(2). 181–192. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Meillet, Antoine & Joseph Vendryes. 1924. Traité de grammaire comparée des langues classiques. Paris: Champion.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Nivre, Joakim, Marie-Catherine de Marneffe, Filip Ginter, Yoav Goldberg, Jan Hajic, Christopher D. Manning et al. 2016. Universal dependencies v1: A multilingual treebank collection. In Nicoletta Calzolari (ed.), Proceedings of the tenth international conference on language resources and evaluation (LREC 16), 1659–1666. Portorož: European Language Resources Association.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ponti, Edoardo M. 2016. Divergence from syntax to linear order in Ancient Greek lexical networks. In Zdravko Markov and Ingrid Russel (eds.), Proceedings of the twenty-ninth international FLAIRS conference, 187–193. Palo Alto: AAAI Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ponti, Edoardo M., & M. Passarotti. 2016. Differentia compositionem facit: A slower-paced and reliable parser for Latin. In Proceedings of the tenth international conference on language resources and evaluation (LREC 16), 683–688. Portorož: European Language Resources Association.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Reinöhl, Uta. 2016. Grammaticalization and the rise of configurationality in Indo-Aryan. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Revithiadou, Anthi & Vassilios Spyropoulos. 2007. A typology of Greek clitics with special reference to their diachronic development. Ms., University of the Aegean. [URL] (Last accessed on 11/07/2018.)
Revithiadou, Anthi & Vassilios Spyropoulos. 2008. Greek object clitic pronouns: A typological survey of their grammatical properties. Language Typology and Universals 61(1). 39–53. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Salvi, Giampaolo. 2004. La formazione della struttura di frase romanza. Tübingen: Niemeyer. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Schäufele, Steven. 1990. Free word-order syntax: The challenge from Vedic Sanskrit to contemporary formal syntactic theory. Urbana-Champaign: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign dissertation.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Solé, Richard V., Bernat Corominas Murtra, Sergi Valverde & Luc Steels. 2010. Language networks: Their structure, function, and evolution. Complexity 15(6). 20–26. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Tesnière, Lucien. 1959. Éléments de syntaxe structurale. Paris: Klincksieck.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cited by (2)
Cited by two other publications
Liu, Jianpeng, Xinzhuo Shen, Haitao Liu & Huifang Du
2024.
Dependency network approach to the oral production of English- and Chinese-speaking healthy older adults.
Speech, Language and Hearing 27:2
► pp. 130 ff.
![DOI logo](//benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
Hellwig, Oliver, Sebastian Nehrdich & Sven Sellmer
2023.
Data-driven dependency parsing of Vedic Sanskrit.
Language Resources and Evaluation 57:3
► pp. 1173 ff.
![DOI logo](//benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 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.