Part of
Perspectives on Historical SyntaxEdited by Carlotta Viti
[Studies in Language Companion Series 169] 2015
► pp. 233–250
Edited by Carlotta Viti
[Studies in Language Companion Series 169] 2015
► pp. 233–250
Studying word order changes in Latin
Some methodological remarks
The main aim of this contribution is to argue that a linear string of Latin words can correspond to more than one syntactic structure, and that this potential for structural ambiguity has important methodological consequences for the synchronic and diachronic study of Latin word order. On the basis of a detailed case study on the much-discussed OV/VO alternation in the history of Latin, it will be shown that whether or not one controls for structural ambiguity is not a theory-internal choice, but that it has major empirical consequences. The conclusion is that quantitative results that emerge from a study that only takes into account syntactically non-ambiguous environments provide a more accurate characterization of the syntactic changes that took place during the evolution from Latin towards the (early) Romance languages.
Keywords: Latin, syntax, OV/VO; diachrony, structural ambiguity, word order
References (29)
Adams, James. 1976a. A typological approach to Latin word order. Indogermanische Forschungen 81: 70-100.
. 1976b. The Text and Language of a Vulgar Latin Chronicle (Anonymus Valesianus II). London: Institute of Classical Studies.
. 1977. The Vulgar Latin of the Letters of Claudius Terentianus. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Álvarez Pedrosa Nuñez, Juan Antonio. 1989. Estudio comparado del orden de palabras en inscripciones jurídicas arcaicas, griegas y latinas. Revista Española de Lingüística 18: 109-128.
Amacker, René. 1989. Sur l'ordre des termes dans la proposition latine. In Subordination and other Topics in Latin [Studies in Language Companion Series 17], Gualtiero Calboli (ed.), 485-502. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 
Bauer, Brigitte. 1995. The Emergence and Development of SVO Patterning in Latin and French. Diachronic and Psycholinguistic Perspectives. Oxford: OUP.
Bolkestein, A. Machtelt. 1989. Parameters in the expression of embedded predications in Latin. In Subordination and Other Topics in Latin [Studies in Language Companion Series 17], Gualtiero Calboli (ed.), 3-35. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Brunet, Etienne & Sylvie Mellet. n.d. Hyperbase 5.5. Logiciel hypertexte pour le traitement documentaire et statistique des corpus textuels. Base de littérature latine. Bases, Corpus & Langage (Université de Nice – Sophia Antipolis) & LASLA (Université de Liège).
Cabrillana, Concepción. 1993. Posiciones relativas en la ordenación de constituyentes I: estudio de la posición de sujeto, objeto y verbo. Habis 24: 249-266.
. 1999. Type of text, pragmatic function and constituent order. A comparative study between the Mulomedicina Chironis and the Peregrinatio Egeriae
. In Latin vulgaire - latin tardif V, Hubert Petersmann & Rudolf Kettemann (eds), 319-330. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.
Cinque, Guglielmo. 1999. Adverbs and Functional Heads. A Cross-linguistic Perspective. Oxford: OUP.
. 2006. Restructuring and Functional Heads [The Cartography of Syntactic Structures 4]. Oxford: OUP.
Danckaert, Lieven. 2012. Latin Embedded Clauses. The Left Periphery [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 184]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Devine, Andrew & Stephens, Laurence. 2006. Latin Word Order. Structured Meaning and Information. Oxford: OUP.
Embick, David. 2000. Features, syntax and categories in the Latin perfect. Linguistic Inquiry 31: 185-230.
Flobert, Pierre. 1975. Les verbes déponents latins des origines à Charlemagne. Paris: Les Belles Lettres.
Franks, Steven & Lavine, James. 2006. Case and word order in Lithuanian. Journal of Linguistics 42: 239-288.
Koll, Hans-Georg. 1965. Zur Stellung des Verbs im spätantiken und frühmittelalterlichen Latein. Mittellateinisches Jahrbuch 2: 241-272.
Ledgeway, Adam. 2012. From Latin to Romance. Morphosyntactic Typology and Change. Oxford: OUP.
Marouzeau, Jules. 1922-49. L'ordre des mots dans la phrase latine, 3 Vols. Paris: Les Belles Lettres.
Moreno Hernández, Antonio. 1989. Tipología lingüística y orden de la palabras en el latín de Terencio. In Actas del VII congreso español de estudios clásicos, Vol. 1, 523-528. Madrid: Universidad Complutense.
Panchón Cabañeros, Federico. 1986. Orden de palabras en latín (César, B. G. I; Cicerón Pro Milone). Studia Zamorensia 7: 213-229.
Pinkster, Harm. 1990. Latin Syntax and Semantics. London: Routledge.
. 1991. Evidence for SVO in Latin? In Latin and the Romance Languages in the Early Middle Ages, Roger Wright (ed.), 69-82. London: Routledge.
Polo, Chiara. 2004. Word Order between Morphology and Syntax. Padova: Unipress.
Ramat, Paolo. 1984. Per una tipologia del latino pompeiano. In Linguistica tipologica, Paolo Ramat (ed.), 137-142. Bologna: Il Mulino.
Spevak, Olga. 2010. Constituent Order in Classical Latin Prose. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Talavera Esteso, Francisco. 1981. Aspectos vulgares de la Vetus Latina: análisis especial del orden de palabras en el libro de Rut. Analecta Malacitana 4: 211-227.
Zennaro, Luigi. 2006. La sintassi dei verbi a ristrutturazione in Latino. PhD dissertation, Università di Venezia 'Ca' Foscari'.
Cited by (3)
Cited by three other publications
Haider, Hubert & Luka Szucsich
2022. Slavic languages are Type 3 languages: replies. Theoretical Linguistics 48:1-2 ► pp. 113 ff. 
Ponti, Edoardo Maria & Silvia Luraghi
Ponti, Edoardo Maria & Silvia Luraghi
2020. Non-configurationality in diachrony. In Diachronic Treebanks for Historical Linguistics [Benjamins Current Topics, 113], ► pp. 70 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 24 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.