Cover not available
Part of
Motion and Space across Languages: Theory and applications
Edited by Iraide Ibarretxe-Antuñano
[Human Cognitive Processing 59] 2017
► pp. 151–176

Chapter 5
Latin to Ancient Italian motion constructions

A complex typological shift

| DISUM – UNIUPO
Cognitive linguists traditionally view the evolution of motion constructions from Latin to Italian as a typological change from an S-framed to a V-framed language. Empirical data from some Late Latin travel reports and the Early Italian texts made available by the Opera del Vocabolario Italiano (OVI) show, instead, that the observed linguistic changes naturally follow from a rearrangement of the balance between the elements involved since Classical Latin (verb prefixes, prepositions, cases). Each motion schema has evolved according to idiosyncratic lines, thus yielding the present variety of motion expressions. It is, therefore, more appropriate to view this evolution as a restructuring of a single linguistic type, characterized by the variety of constructions and the instability of many of them.
Keywords: Ancient Italian motion constructions, Ancient Italian prepositions, Latin motion constructions, Latin prepositions, typological shift
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Objectives and methodology
    • 2.1Standard Latin
    • 2.2Lines of evolution
  • 3.Verb roots
    • 3.1 motion-into and motion-out
    • 3.2 motion-up and motion-down
    • 3.3 motion-across
  • 4.Prepositions
    • 4.1 motion-into
    • 4.2 motion-out
    • 4.3 motion-up
    • 4.4 motion-down
    • 4.5 motion-across
    • 4.6Generic or manner verbs
  • 5.Conclusions and further research directions
  • Sources
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 14 August 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.59.07mos
References (57)
References
Acedo-Matellán, V., & Mateu, J. 2013. Satellite-framed Latin vs. verb-framed Romance: A syntactic approach. Probus. International Journal of Latin and Romance Linguistics, 25, 227–265.Google Scholar
Amenta, L. 2008. Esistono i verbi sintagmatici nel dialetto e nell’italiano regionale siciliano? In M. Cini (Ed.), I verbi sintagmatici in italiano e nelle varietà dialettali: Stato dell’arte e prospettive di ricerca. Atti delle giornate di studio, Torino, 19–20 febbraio 2007 (159–174). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Aske, J. 1989. Path predicates in English and Spanish: A closer look. Proceedings of the Fifteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 15, 1–14. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blake, B. J. [1994] 2001. Case. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, W., Barðdal, J., Hollmann, W., Sotirova, V., & Taoka, C. 2010. Revising Talmy’s typological classification of complex events. In H. C. Boas (Ed.), Contrastive construction grammar (201–236). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cuzzolin, P., & Haverling, G. 2009. Syntax, sociolinguistics, and literary genres. In P. Baldi, & P. Cuzzolin (Eds.), New perspectives on historical Latin syntax (19–64). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
De Mauro, T., Mancini, F., Vedovelli, M., & Voghera, M. 1993. Lessico di frequenza dell’Italiano parlato. Milano: ETASLibri.Google Scholar
Dufresne, M., Dupuis, F., & Longtin, C.-M. 2001. Un changement dans la diachronie du français: La perte de la préfixation aspectuelle en a-. Revue Québécoise de Linguistique, 29(2), 34–54. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ferrari, G., & Mosca, M. 2010. Some constructions of path: From Italian to some classical languages. In G. Marotta, A. Lenci, L. Meini, & F. Rovai (Eds.), Space in language: Proceedings of the Pisa international conference (317–338). Pisa: ETS.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. 1977. Scenes-and-frame semantics. In A. Zampolli (Ed.), Linguistic structures processing (55–82). Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
1982. Frame semantics. In Linguistic Society of Korea (Ed.), Linguistics in the morning calm (111–137). Seoul: Hanshing Publishing.Google Scholar
Geyer, P., & Kuntz, O. 1965. Itinerarium Burdigalense. In P. Geyer, O. Cuntz, A. Francheschini, R. Weber, L. Bieler, J. Fraipont, & F. Glorie (Eds.), Itinera et alia geographica. Itineraria Hierosolymitana. Itineraria Romana. Geographica (1–26). Turnhout: Brepols.Google Scholar
González Fernández, M. J. 1997. Sobre la motivación semántica de las expresiones pleonásticas de movimiento: Subir arriba, bajar abajo, entrar adentro y salir afuera. In C. Company-Company (Ed.), Cambios diacrónicos en el español (123–141). México: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.Google Scholar
Hoffman, J. B., & Szantyr, A. 1965. Syntax und Stilistik. Munich: C. H. Becksche Verlagsbuchhandlung.Google Scholar
Horrocks, G. C. 1981. Space and time in Homer. Prepositional and adverbial particles in the Greek epic. New York: Arno Press.Google Scholar
Hunt, E. D. 1982. Holy Land pilgrimage in the Late Roman Empire AD 312–460. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Iacobini, C., & Corona, L. 2016. L’espressione della direzione del moto dal latino classico all’italiano antico. In M. Fruyt, G. V. M. Haverling, & R. Sornicola (Eds.), Actes du XXVIIe Congrès international de linguistique et de philologie romanes (Nancy, 15–20 juillet 2013). Section 2: Linguistique latine/linguistique romane (87–100). Nancy: ATILF.Google Scholar
Iacobini, C., & Masini, F. 2006. The emergence of verb-particle constructions in Italian: Locative and actional meanings. Morphology, 16(2), 155–188. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2007. Verb-particle constructions and prefixed verbs in Italian: Typology, diachrony and semantics. In G. Booij, L. Ducceschi, B. Fradin, E. Guevara, A. Ralli, & S. Scalise (Eds.), On-line proceedings of the fifth Mediterranean morphology meeting (157–184). Bologna: Università degli studi di Bologna.Google Scholar
2009. I verbi sintagmatici dell’italiano fra innovazione e persistenza: Il ruolo dei dialetti. In A. Cardinaletti, & N. Munaro (Eds.), Italiano, italiani regionali e dialetti (115–136). Milano: Franco Angeli.Google Scholar
Ibarretxe-Antuñano, I. 2009. Path salience in motion events. In J. Guo, E. Lieven, N. Budwig, S. Ervin-Tripp, K. Nakamura, & Ş. Özçalışkan (Eds.), Crosslinguistic approaches to the psychology of language: Research in the tradition of Dan Isaac Slobin (403–414). New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
2015. Going beyond motion events typology: The case of Basque as a verb-framed language. Folia Lingvistica, 49(2), 307–352.Google Scholar
Ibarretxe-Antuñano, I., & Hijazo-Gascón, A. 2012. Variation in motion events. Theory and applications. In L. Filipović, & K. M. Jaszczolt (Eds.), Space and time in languages and cultures. Linguistic diversity (349–371). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kopecka, A. 2006. The semantic structure of motion verbs in French: Typological perspectives. In M. Hickmann, & S. Robert (Eds.), Space in languages: Linguistic systems and cognitive categories (83–101). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2009. Continuity and change in the representation of motion events in French. In J. Guo, E. Lieven, N. Budwig, S. Ervin-Tripp, K. Nakamura, & Ş. Özçalışkan (Eds.), Crosslinguistic approaches to the psychology of language: Research in the tradition of Dan Isaac Slobin (415–426). New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Lehmann, W. 1974. Proto-Indo-European syntax. Austin-London: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Luraghi, S. 1996. Studi su casi e preposizioni nel greco antico. Milan: Franco Angeli.Google Scholar
Marotta, G., & Meini, L. 2012. Spatial prepositions in Italian L2: Universal and language-specific principles. In L. Filipović, & K. M. Jaszczolt (Eds.), Space and time in languages and cultures. Linguistic diversity (373–393). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Martínez-Vázquez, M. 2013. Intralinguistic variation in the expression of motion events in English and Spanish. Lingue e Linguaggi, 9, 143–156.Google Scholar
Masini, F. 2005. Multi-word expressions between syntax and the lexicon: The case of Italian verb-particle constructions. SKY Journal of Linguistics, 18, 145–173.Google Scholar
Meini, L. 2009. Dimensioni dello spazio nelle preposizioni. Uno studio empirico sll’italiano L2. Pisa: Pisa University Press.Google Scholar
Meini, L., & McGillivray, B. 2010. Between semantics and morpho-syntax: Spatial verbs and prepositions in Latin. In G. Marotta, A. Lenci, L. Meini, & F. Rovai (Eds.), Space in language. Proceedings of the Pisa international conference (383–400). Pisa: ETS.Google Scholar
Milani, C. 1969a. I grecismi nell’Itinerarium Egeriae. Aevum, 43, 200–234.Google Scholar
1969b. Studi sull’Itinerarium Egeriae. L’aspetto classico della lingua di Egeria. Aevum, 43, 381–452.Google Scholar
1990. Note di linguistica egeriana. In Accademia Petrarca di lettere, arti e scienze (Arezzo) (Ed.), Atti del convegno internazionale sulla Peregrinatio Egeriae (109–135). Florence: Olschki.Google Scholar
Molinelli, P. 1998. Premesse metodologiche per una sociologia del latino. In G. Bernini, P. L. Cuzzolin, & P. Molinelli (Eds.), Ars linguistica. Studi offerti a Paolo Ramat (411–433). Rome: Bulzoni.Google Scholar
Mosca, M. 2010. Eventi di moto in italiano tra sintassi e semantica: Uno studio cognitivo empirico. Pisa: Edizioni PLUS.Google Scholar
2012. Italian motion constructions. Different functions of ‘particles’. In L. Filipović, & K. M. Jaszczolt (Eds.), Space and time in languages and cultures. Linguistic diversity (373–393). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013. Expressions of motion in Peregrinatio Egeriae. In J. F. Val-Álvaro, J. L. Mendívil-Giró, M. C. Horno-Chéliz, I. Ibarretxe-Antuñano, A. Hijazo-Gascón, J. Simón-Casas, & I. Solano-Martín (Eds.), De la unidad del lenguaje a la diversidad de las lenguas (622–632). Zaragoza: PUZ.Google Scholar
Pianigiani, O. 1907. Vocabolario etimologico italiano. [URL].
Poccetti, P., Poli, D., & Santini, C. 1999. Una storia della lingua latina. Formazione, usi, comunicazione. Rome: Carocci.Google Scholar
Quaglia, S. 2012. On the syntax of some apparent spatial particles in Italian. In M. Butt, & T. H. King (Eds.), Proceedings of the LFG12 conference. Stanford: CSLI Publications. [URL].
Schwarze, C. 1985. Uscire e andar fuori: Struttura sintattica e semantica lessicale. In A. Franchi De Bellis, & L. M. Savoia (Eds.), Sintassi e morfologia della lingua italiana d’uso. Teoria ed applicazioni descrittive. SLI XXIV (355–371). Rome: Bulzoni.Google Scholar
2008. In luogo di conclusione: Prospettive di ricerca. In M. Cini (Ed.), I verbi sintagmatici in italiano e nelle varietà dialettali: Stato dell’arte e prospettive di ricerca. Atti delle giornate di studio, Torino, 19–20 febbraio 2007 (209–223). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Simone, R. 1997. Esistono verbi sintagmatici in italiano?. In T. De Mauro, & V. Lo Cascio (Eds.), Lessico e grammatica. Teorie linguistiche e applicazioni lessicografiche (155–170). Rome: Bulzoni.Google Scholar
2008. I verbi sintagmatici come costruzione e come categoria. In M. Cini (Ed.), I verbi sintagmatici in italiano e nelle varietà dialettali: Stato dell’arte e prospettive di ricerca. Atti delle giornate di studio, Torino, 19–20 febbraio 2007 (13–30). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Slobin, D. I. 2004. The many ways to search for a frog. Linguistic typology and the expression of motion events. In S. Strömqvist, & L. Verhoeven (Eds.), Relating events in narrative: Typological and contextual perspectives (219–257). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
2006. What makes manner of motion salient? Explorations in linguistic typology, discourse and cognition. In M. Hickmann, & S. Robert (Eds), Space in languages: Linguistic systems and cognitive categories (60–81). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2008. From S-language and V-language to PIN and PIV. Paper presented at the workshop Human Locomotion across Languages. Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, Nijmegen, The Netherlands, 6 June 2008.
Stolova, N. I. 2015. Cognitive linguistics and lexical change. Motion verbs from Latin to Romance. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Tabacco, R. 2000. Itinerarium Alexandri. Testo, apparato critico, introduzione, traduzione e commento a cura di Raffaella Tabacco. Florence: Olschki.Google Scholar
Talmy, L. 2000a. Toward a cognitive semantics. Vol. I: Concept structuring systems. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
2000b. Toward a cognitive semantics. Vol. II: Typology and process in concept structuring. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Troberg, M., & Burnett, H. 2011. Resultative secondary predication in Medieval French and the satellite-framed/verb-framed distinction. Paper presented at the Workshop on Verbal Elasticity: Framing the Verb/Satellite Distinction from a Biolinguistic Perspective. Centre de Lingüística Teòrica, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain, 3–5 October 2011.
Väänänen, V. 1987. Le journal-épitre d’Egérie (Itinerarium Egeriae). Etude linguistique. Helsinki: Suomalainen tiedeakatemia.Google Scholar
Vineis, E. 2005. Il latino. Bologna: Il Mulino.Google Scholar
Zwarts, J. 2005. Prepositional aspect and the algebra of paths. Linguistics and Philosophy, 28(6), 739–779. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Wiesinger, Evelyn
2023. Chapter 12. On the role of verb-particle constructions in Old Spanish. In Constructions in Spanish [Constructional Approaches to Language, 34], ► pp. 309 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 14 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.