Constituent Order in Classical Latin Prose
| University of Toulouse
Latin is a language with variable (so-called 'free') word order. Constituent Order in Classical Latin Prose (Caesar, Cicero, and Sallust) presents the first systematic description of its constituent order from a pragmatic point of view. Apart from general characteristics of Latin constituent order, it discusses the ordering of the verb and its arguments in declarative, interrogative, and imperative sentences, as well as the ordering within noun phrases. It shows that the relationship of a constituent with its surrounding context and the communicative intention of the writer are the most reliable predictors of the order of constituents in a sentence or noun phrase. It differs from recent studies of Latin word order in its scope, its theoretical approach, and its attention to contextual information. The book is intended both for Latinists and for linguists working in the fields of the Romance languages and language typology.
[Studies in Language Companion Series, 117] 2010. xv, 318 pp.
Publishing status: Available
© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Table of Contents
|
Preface
|
xiii–xiv
|
|
Abbreviations
|
xv–xvi
|
|
Introduction
|
1–12
|
|
Placement constraints and liberties in Latin constituent order
|
13–26
|
|
Pragmatic functions
|
27–114
|
|
Declarative sentences
|
115–194
|
|
Interrogative sentences
|
195–204
|
|
Imperative sentences
|
205–222
|
|
Noun phrases
|
223–282
|
|
Conclusion
|
283–286
|
|
References
|
287–298
|
|
Index locorum
|
299–302
|
|
Index rerum
|
303–304
|
|
Three commented texts
|
305–318
|
“Dr. Spevak has written a readable and well-structured book on a challenging subject. ”
Joseph Reisdoerfer, University of Luxemburg, on Linguist List 22.2867, 2011
“This book is a substantial and valuable contribution to the growing body of research on Latin word order, and all who work on the topic will need to take account of its findings. It has a firm empirical basis, using the works of Cicero, Caesar and Sallust as its primary corpus of material, but resorting to a subset of this for the investigation of certain grammatical features where analysis of a larger corpus might have been intractable. [...] Spevak has demonstrated the very considerable advances in understanding that can come from a functionalist analysis of Latin word order, and her work deserves serious attention. This reviewer, at least, will have cause to return to it frequently.”
J. G. F. Powell, Royal Holloway, University of London, in Bryn Mawr Classical Review 2011.06.30
“This book is an enjoyable read. It contains important information and insights, and there is a useful appendix containing pragmatic commentaries on three passages. Series students of Latin syntax must not neglect to consult this rich contribution to the field.”
James W. R. Brooks, University of Manchester, in Journal of Roman Studies 102: 400-401. (2012)
Cited by
Cited by other publications
Agbayani, Brian & Chris Golston
2016. Phonological constituents and their movement in Latin.
Phonology 33:1 ► pp. 1 ff. 
Cabrillana, Concepción
2017.
In Pragmatic Approaches to Latin and Ancient Greek [Studies in Language Companion Series, 190],
► pp. 113 ff.
Chaudhuri, Pramit, Tathagata Dasgupta, Joseph P Dexter & Krithika Iyer
2019. A small set of stylometric features differentiates Latin prose and verse.
Digital Scholarship in the Humanities 34:4 ► pp. 716 ff.
Ctibor, Michal
2017. Paragraphs in classical Latin texts : problems with editing and the internal evidence from texts.
Graeco-Latina Brunensia :1 ► pp. 17 ff.
Danckaert, Lieven
2014. Quidemas a Marker of Emphatic Polarity.
Transactions of the Philological Society 112:1 ► pp. 97 ff.
Danckaert, Lieven
2015.
In Perspectives on Historical Syntax [Studies in Language Companion Series, 169],
► pp. 233 ff.
Danckaert, Lieven
2015. Spelling out the obvious: Latinquidemand the expression of presuppositional polarity.
Journal of Historical Pragmatics 16:1 ► pp. 109 ff.
de la Villa, Jesús
2017.
In Pragmatic Approaches to Latin and Ancient Greek [Studies in Language Companion Series, 190],
► pp. 181 ff.
Dufter, Andreas & Álvaro S. Octavio de Toledo
2014.
In Left Sentence Peripheries in Spanish [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today, 214],
► pp. 1 ff.
Giusti, Giuliana & Rossella Iovino
2016. Latin as a split-DP language.
Studia Linguistica 70:3 ► pp. 221 ff.
Haug, Dag Trygve Truslew, Marius Jøhndal & Per Erik Solberg
2019. An Unexpected Root Clause.
Linguistic Inquiry 50:3 ► pp. 649 ff.
Klævik-Pettersen, Espen
2019. What is Germanic and what is not about Old French V2.
Linguistic Variation 19:1 ► pp. 141 ff.
Korkiakangas, Timo
2018. Spoken Latin behind written texts.
Diachronica 35:3 ► pp. 429 ff.
Korkiakangas, Timo
2020.
In Diachronic Treebanks for Historical Linguistics [Benjamins Current Topics, 113],
► pp. 129 ff.
Kruijer, Mike & Ezra la Roi
2018. Paradigmatic Possibilities as Perspective for Absolute Constructions.
Mnemosyne 71:5 ► pp. 799 ff.
Lafond, Muriel
2013. Une figure autoriale dans le commentaire grammatical ?.
Études littéraires 43:2 ► pp. 13 ff.
Lapidge, Michael
2020. THE LATIN OF THE PASSIONES MARTYRVM OF LATE ANTIQUE ROME.
The Cambridge Classical Journal ► pp. 1 ff.
Ledgeway, Adam
2012. From Latin to Romance: Configurationality, Functional Categories and Head-Marking.
Transactions of the Philological Society 110:3 ► pp. 422 ff.
Martin Maiden, John Charles Smith & Adam Ledgeway
2013.
In The Cambridge History of the Romance Languages,
Modicom, Pierre-Yves & Olivier Duplâtre
2020.
In Information-Structural Perspectives on Discourse Particles [Studies in Language Companion Series, 213],
► pp. 2 ff.
Pultrová, Lucie
2017. Remarks on Varro’s Word-Order.
AUC PHILOLOGICA 2017:2 ► pp. 81 ff.
Ranta, Aarne, Krasimir Angelov, Normunds Gruzitis & Prasanth Kolachina
2020. Abstract Syntax as Interlingua: Scaling Up the Grammatical Framework from Controlled Languages to Robust Pipelines.
Computational Linguistics 46:2 ► pp. 425 ff.
Schrickx, Josine
2017.
In Pragmatic Approaches to Latin and Ancient Greek [Studies in Language Companion Series, 190],
► pp. 235 ff.
Spevak, Olga
2013. La dislocation à droite en latin.
Glotta 89:1-4 ► pp. 195 ff.
Spevak, Olga
2014.
In Noun Valency [Studies in Language Companion Series, 158],
► pp. 183 ff.
Spevak, Olga & Camille Denizot
2017.
In Pragmatic Approaches to Latin and Ancient Greek [Studies in Language Companion Series, 190],
► pp. 1 ff.
Torrego, María Esperanza
2017.
In Pragmatic Approaches to Latin and Ancient Greek [Studies in Language Companion Series, 190],
► pp. 159 ff.
Tronci, Liana
2017.
In Pragmatic Approaches to Latin and Ancient Greek [Studies in Language Companion Series, 190],
► pp. 213 ff.
Wolfe, Sam
2015. The Old SardinianCondaghes: a syntactic study.
Transactions of the Philological Society 113:2 ► pp. 177 ff.
Wolfe, Sam
2016. A comparative perspective on the evolution of Romance clausal structure.
Diachronica 33:4 ► pp. 461 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 05 august 2020. 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.
Subjects
Linguistics
BIC Subject: CFK – Grammar, syntax
BISAC Subject: LAN009000 – LANGUAGE ARTS & DISCIPLINES / Linguistics / General
U.S. Library of Congress Control Number: 2009048325