Cover not available
Part of
Word Order Change in Acquisition and Language Contact: Essays in honour of Ans van Kemenade
Edited by Bettelou Los and Pieter de Haan
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 243] 2017
► pp. 291–310

Chapter 13
Parts and particles

The story of dē

| University of Manchester

All too often particles are treated as diagnostics of other categories and structures which are the real focus of attention. In the present chapter by contrast we investigate the history of one particle, Latin dē, and the structural roles which it has come to have in the Romance languages. We look particularly at compound prepositions like Italian dopo (< de post) and French devant (< de ab ante) which include dē as one of their components and contrast them with complex prepositions like à côté de in which de marks the complement. We seek thereby to shed light on the diachronic processes by which over time particles move from the status of non-projecting words to become phrasal heads in their own right.

Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2. The history of de
  • 3.Excursus on word order
  • 4.Compound adverbs and prepositions with de
  • 5. Analysis
    • 5.1PP as argument of P
    • 5.2 P as the marker of dependency
    • 5.3Complex prepositions
    • 5.4P as part of a compound
  • 6.Consequences and conclusions
    • 6.1 What was the original syntactic configuration underlying the sequences of de + adverb/preposition?
    • 6.2What processes of morphosyntactic change caused the fusion of two prepositions or particles?
    • 6.3What can such developments tell us about the more general historical mechanisms which affect prepositions and particles?
    • 6.4What light do developments like this throw on the place of particles and prepositions within a theory of the parts of speech?
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 14 December 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.243.13vin
References

References

Abeillé, Anne, Bonami, Olivier, Godard, Danièle & Tseng, Jesse
2006 The syntax of French à and de: An HPSG analysis. In Dimensions of the Syntax and Semantics of Prepositions, Patrick Saint-Dizier (ed.), 147–162. Dordrecht: Springer.  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Adams, J.N
2013 Social Variation and the Latin Language. Cambridge: CUP.  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bauer, Brigitte
1995 The Emergence and Development of SVO Patterning in Latin and French. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
2016 The development of the comparative in Latin texts. In Early and Late Latin: Continuity or Change?, J.N. Adams & Nigel Vincent (eds), 313–339. Cambridge: CUP.  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biberauer, Theresa & Sheehan, Michelle
2011 Introduction: Particles through a modern lens. The Linguistic Review 28: 387–410.  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bodelot, Colette
2011 Sur la complémentation de l’adjectif en latin: Questions de valence, d’incidence, de rection. Revue de Philologie 85: 7–23.Google Scholar
Clackson, James
2004 The word-order pattern magna cum laude in Latin and Sabellian. In Indo-European Perspectives: Studies in Honour of Anna Morpurgo Davies, John Penney (ed.), 391–404. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Danckaert, Lieven
2012 Latin Embedded Clauses. The Left Periphery [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 184]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Devine, Andrew & Stephens, Laurence
2006 Latin Word Order. Structured Meaning and Information. Oxford: OUP.  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
den Dikken, Marcel
1995 Particles. On the Syntax of Verb-Particle, Triadic and Causative Constructions. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Dunkel, George
2014 Lexikon der indogermanischen Partikeln und Pronominalstämme, 2 Vols. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Emonds, Joseph
1985 A Unified Theory of Syntactic Categories. Dordrecht: Foris.  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fagard, Benjamin & Mardale, Alexandru
2012 The pace of grammaticalization and the evolution of prepositional systems: Data from Romance. Folia Linguistica 46: 303–340.  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fagard, Benjamin & De Mulder, Walter
2007 La formation des prépositions complexes: Grammaticalisation ou lexicalisation? Langue Française 156: 9–29.Google Scholar
Ferraresi, Gisella & Goldbach, Maria
2011 Particles and sentence structure: A historical perspective. In Syntactic Structures and Morphological Information, Uwe Junghanns & Luka Szucsich (eds), 101–127. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Fortson, Benjamin
2010 Reconsidering the history of Latin and Sabellic adpositional morphosyntax. The American Journal of Philology 131: 121–154.  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Franco, Ludovico
2016 Axial parts, phi-features and degrammaticalization: The case of Italian preso/pressi in diachrony. Transactions of the Philological Society 114: 149–170.  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney & Pullum, Geoffrey K.
2002 The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray
1973 The base rules for prepositional phrases. In A Festschrift for Morris Halle, Stephen Anderson & Paul Kiparsky (eds), 345–366. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.Google Scholar
Ledgeway, Adam
2009 Grammatica diacronica del napoletano [Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für Romanische Philologie 350]. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Los, Bettelou, Blom, Corrien, Booij, Geert, Elenbaas, Marion & van Kemenade, Ans
2012 Morphosyntactic Change. A Comparative Study of Particles and Prefixes. Cambridge: CUP.  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matthews, Peter
2013 Oxford Concise Dictionary of Linguistics, 3rd edn. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Meyer-Lübke, Wilhelm
1890–1906 Grammaire des langues romanes, Vol III: Syntaxe. Paris: Welter.Google Scholar
Molinelli, Piera
1996 Casi e preposizioni in latino: Lo sviluppo del genitivo e del dativo. Una prospettiva (anche) sociolinguistica. Linguistica e Filologia 3: 73–125.Google Scholar
Nocentini, Alberto
1992 Preposizioni e posposizioni in oscoumbro. Archivio Glottologico Italiano 77: 196–242.Google Scholar
Pinkster, Harm
1990 Latin Syntax and Semantics. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
2015 The Oxford Latin Syntax. Oxford: OUP.  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Plank, Frans
(ed.) 1995 Double Case. Agreement by Suffixaufnahme. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Poppe, Erich
1963 Studi sui significati di ‘da’. Bollettino Annuale dell’Accademia della Crusca 21: 265–387.Google Scholar
Roy, Isabelle & Svenonius, Peter
2009 Complex prepositions. In Autour de la préposition, Jacques François, Éric Gilbert, Claude Guimier & Maxi Krause (eds), 105–116. Caen: Presses universitaires de Caen.Google Scholar
Svenonius, Peter
1996 Review of den Dikken (1995). Language 74: 816–820.  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tikkanen, Karin
2011 A Sabellian Case Grammar. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Toivonen, Ida
2003 Non-Projecting Words: A Case Study of Swedish Verbal Particles. Dordrecht: Kluwer.  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
de Vaan, Michiel
2008 Etymological Dictionary of Latin and the Other Italic Languages. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Vincent, Nigel
1997 Prepositions. In The Dialects of Italy, Martin Maiden & Mair Parry (eds), 208–213. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
1999 The evolution of c-structure. Prepositions and PPs from Indo-European to Romance. Linguistics 37: 1111–1154.  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vincent, Nigel & Börjars, Kersti
2010 Complements of adjectives: A diachronic approach. In Proceedings of the LFG2010 Conference, Carleton University, Miriam Butt & Tracy Holloway King (eds), 458–478. Stanford CA: CSLI. [URL]
2016 Heads and history. Paper presented at HeadLex 2016, Polish Academy of Sciences. 10 [URL]
Weiss, Michael
2009 Outline of the Historical and Comparative Grammar of Latin. Ann Arbor MI: Beech Stave Press.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

Lehmann, Christian
2019. Complex spatial prepositions from Latin to Castilian. Revue Romane. Langue et littérature. International Journal of Romance Languages and Literatures 54:1 ► pp. 93 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 22 april 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.