Cover not available
Part of
Space in Diachrony
Edited by Silvia Luraghi, Tatiana Nikitina and Chiara Zanchi
[Studies in Language Companion Series 188] 2017
► pp. 207–240

Spatial interrogatives

Typology and dynamics (with special focus on the development from Latin to Romance)

| University of Bremen, Germany
| University of Bremen, Germany
| University of Bremen, Germany

This paper explores the diachronic behavior of the paradigms of the spatial interrogatives where, whither, and whence in forty-five contemporary Romance varieties by way of comparing them to the facts reported for their common ancestor: Latin. It is shown that the vast majority of the paradigms have undergone leveling in the sense that the erstwhile (phonological) suppletion of the Latin paradigm was replaced by ternary sets of word-forms sharing the same stem. This shared stem is identical to that of Latin ubi ‘where’ (= locative) in many of the sample languages. At the same time, an almost equally strong group of Romance varieties has generalized Latin unde ‘whence’ (= ablative) over the paradigm. These facts are inquired into against the backdrop of the general linguistic discussion about the nature of syncretism of spatial relations in language.

Keywords: interrogatives, paradigms, syncretism, Latin, Romance
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Theory, methodology, and basic notions
  • 3.Typology – synchronic and diachronic data
  • 4.Indo-European
    • 4.1From Latin to Romance
    • 4.2Reinforcement and renovation
  • 5.Conclusions
  • Acknowledgments
  • Notes
  • Sources [Le Petit Prince]
  • References
  • Appendix
Published online: 14 August 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.188.08sto
References (127)

Sources [Le Petit Prince]

Aragonese - Aragüés, Chusé
1994 O prenzipet. Zaragoza: Gara.Google Scholar
Aranese - Barès, Verònica
2005 Eth petit prince. Barcelona: Entuarea Publicaciones.Google Scholar
Aromanian - Bara, Maria
2007 Njiclu amirārush. Neckarsteinach: Tintenfass.Google Scholar
Asturian - García Arias, Xosé Lluis, & Suárez Mella, Marta
1994 El Principín. Uviéu: Academia de la Llingua Asturiana.Google Scholar
Badiota - Mischì, Giovanni
1993 Le Pice Prinz. San Martin de Tor: Istitut Cultural Ladin "Micurá de Rü".Google Scholar
Bergamasco - Recanati, Margherita
2000 L’ Prìncep Picinì. Treviglio: Leo Facco Editore.Google Scholar
Bolognese - Serra, Roberto
2003 Al pränzip fangén. Gressan: Wesak.Google Scholar
Catalan - Xancó, Juan
1967 El Petit Príncep. Barcelona: Editorial Estela.Google Scholar
Corsican - Casta, Santu
1990 U principellu. Ajaccio: Akenaton; Squadra di u Finusellu.Google Scholar
Eonaviego - Frías-Conde, Xavier
2008 El Principín. Spain: self edited.Google Scholar
Extremaduran - Garríu Correas, Antòniu
1999 El prencipinu. Badajoz: Carisma Libros.Google Scholar
French - Saint-Exupéry, Antoine de
1948 Le Petit Prince. Paris: Éditions Gallimard.Google Scholar
Friulan - Seravalli, Bruno
1992 Il pičul princip. Gemona: Casa per l’Europa.Google Scholar
Galician - Casares, Carlos
2006 O principiño. Vigo: Galaxia. Árbore.Google Scholar
Gallurese - Corda, Alessandra
2013 Lu Principeddhu. Neckarsteinach: Tintenfass.Google Scholar
Gascon - Morá, Pèir
1995 Lo prinçòt. Gradignan: Princi negre. PRI.Google Scholar
Genovese - Garibbo, Alessandro
2011 O prinçipìn. Neckarsteinach: Tintenfass.Google Scholar
Gherdeina - Prinoth, Beatrix
1993 L Pitl Prinz. San Martin de Tor: Istitut Cultural Ladin "Micurá de Rü".Google Scholar
Italian Bompiani - Bregoli, Nini
2000 Il piccolo principe. Milano: Tascabili Bompiani. Tascabili Bompiani.Google Scholar
Languedocien - Blanc, Jòrdi
1994 Lo princilhon. Andouque: Vent terral. Mirondèla.Google Scholar
Limousin - Rainal, Pau
2011 Lo Prinçonet. Neckarsteinach: Tintenfass.Google Scholar
Milanese - Banfi, Lorenzo
2002 El Princip Piscinin. Gressan: Wesak Editions.Google Scholar
Moldavian - Creţu, Igor
1974 Микул Принц. Chişinău: Editura Lumina.Google Scholar
Neapolitan - D’Ajello, Roberto
2000 O’ princepe piccerillo. Sorrento: F. Di Mauro.Google Scholar
Niçard - Rosso, Albert
2002 Lou pichin prince. Pau: Princi negre. Entaus mainadges.Google Scholar
Occitan (Piemonte) - Jayme, Giovanna
2001 Ël Pchi Prinsë. Gressan: Éditions Wesak.Google Scholar
Parmigian - Porcari, Paolo
2011 Al principén. Neckarsteinach: Tintenfass.Google Scholar
Picardian (Borain) - Capron, André
2010 Ël pëtit prēce. Éd. limitée. Neckarsteinach: Tintenfass.Google Scholar
Picardian - Delmotte, Bruno
2010 El’ pétit prince. Neckarsteinach: Tintenfass.Google Scholar
Piemontese - Perrini, Gianluca
2000 Ël Cit Prinsi. Turin: Gioventura Piemontèisa.Google Scholar
Portuguese - Morais Varela, Joana
1987 O Principezinho. Lisboa: Editora Caravela.Google Scholar
Provençal I - Ariès, Andriéu
1995 Lou pichot prince. Aix-en-Provence: Édisud.Google Scholar
Provençal II - Vautherin, Raymond
2003 Lo petsou prince. Gressan Vallée d’Aoste: Wesak.Google Scholar
Romanian - Creţu, Igor
 1993 Micul Prinţ. Chişinău: Editura Făt-Frumos.Google Scholar
Rumantsch - Monn, Ursulina
2005 Il pitschen prinzi. Cuira: Lia rumantscha.Google Scholar
Sardinian - Deplano, Andria
1997 Su Prinzipeddu. Cagliari: Artigianarte.Google Scholar
Sephardic Perets & Avner, Pimienta, Gladys
2010 El princhipiko. Neckarsteinach: Tintenfass.Google Scholar
Sicilian - Gallo, Mario
2010 U principinu. Neckarsteinach: Tintenfass.Google Scholar
Spanish - Frances, José Maria
1964 El Pequeño Principe. México City: Editorial Diana, S. A.Google Scholar
Surmeiran - Cadotsch, Peder
1977 Igl Pitschen Prenci. Cuir: Ediziun Leia Rumantscha.Google Scholar
Valdotain - Vautherin, Raymond
2000 Lo Petsou Prince. Gressan, Vallée d’Aoste: Éditions Wesak.Google Scholar
Valenciano - Arabí, Jaume
2007 El príncep xiquet. Barcelona: Entuarea Publicaciones.Google Scholar
Venetian - Penello, Nicoletta
2003 El Principe Picinin. Gressan: Éditions Wesak.Google Scholar
Wallonian - Fauconnier, Jean-Luc
2008 Li p’tit prince. Neckarsteinach: Tintenfass.Google Scholar
Wallonian (Central) - Louis, Bernard
2013 Li p’tit prince. Neckarsteinach: Tintenfass.Google Scholar
Academia de la Llingua Asturiana
2001 Gramática de la llingua Asturiana. Uviéu: Academia de la Llingua Asturiana.Google Scholar
Baerman, Matthew, Brown, Dunstan & Corbett, Greville G.
2005 The Syntax-Morphology Interface. A Study of Syncretism. Cambridge: CUP.  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bendel, Christiane
2006 Baskische Grammatik. Hamburg: Buske.Google Scholar
Bennett, David C.
1989 Ablative-locative transfers: Evidence from Slovene and Serbo-Croat. Oxford Slavonic Papers 22: 133–154.Google Scholar
Blasco Ferrer, Eduardo
1986 La lingua sarda contemporanea. Grammatica del logudorese e del campidanese. Cagliari: Della Torre.Google Scholar
Booij, Geert
2010 Construction Morphology. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Boretzky, Norbert
1977 Einführung in die historische Linguistik. Reinbek bei Hamburg: Rowohlt.Google Scholar
Brugmann, Karl
1911 Vergleichende Laut-, Stammbildungs- und Flexionslehre nebst Lehre vom Gebrauch der Wortformen der indogermanischen Sprachen, Zweiter Band: Lehre von den Wortformen und ihrem Gebrauch, zweiter Teil. Straßburg: Trübner.Google Scholar
Brumme, Jenny
1997 Praktische Grammatik der katalanischen Sprache. Wilhelmsfeld: Egert.Google Scholar
Carballo Calero, Ricardo
1979 Gramática elemental del gallego común. Vigo: Galaxia.Google Scholar
Chisholm, William, Milic, Louis T. & Greppin, John A. C
(eds) 1984 Interrogativity: A Colloquium on the Grammar, Typology and Pragmatics of Questions in Seven Diverse Languages [Typological Studies in Language 4]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Comrie, Bernard & Smith, Norval
1977 The lingua descriptive series questionnaire. Lingua 42(1): 1–72.  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Corbett, Greville G.
2005 The canonical approach to typology. In Linguistic Diversity and Language Theories [Studies in Language Companion Series 72], Zygmunt Frajzyngier, Adam Hodges & David S. Rood (eds), 25–50. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2007 Deponency, syncretism, and what lies between. In Deponency and Morphological Mismatches, Matthew Baerman, Greville G. Corbett, Dunstan Brown & Andrew Hippisley (eds), 21–44. Oxford: OUP.  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Creissels, Denis
2006 Encoding the distinction between location, source and direction: a typological study. In Space in Languages [Typological Studies in Language 66], Maya Hickman & Stephane Robert (eds), 19–28. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cristofaro, Sonia
2011 Language universals and linguistic knowledge. In The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Typology, Jae Jung Song (ed.), 227–249. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Cysouw, Michael
2007 Content interrogatives in Asénica Campa: corpus study and typological comparison. International Journal of American Linguistics 73(2): 133–163.  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dixon, Robert M. W
2010 Basic Linguistic Theory, Vol. 1: Methodology. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
2012 Basic Linguistic Theory, Vol. 3: Further Grammatical Topics. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Doniyorova, Soadat, Arzikulova, Djamila & Donyorov, Chodiyor
2008 Parlons khakas. Une langue de Sibérie. Paris: L’Harmattan.Google Scholar
Doniyorova, Soadat & Qahramonil, Toshtemirov
2004 Parlons koumyk (Daghestan). Paris: L’Harmattan.Google Scholar
Eckhoff, Hanne M., Thomason, Olga A. & de Swart, Peter
2013 Mapping out the Source domain. Studies in Language 37(2): 302–355.  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ersen-Rasch, Margarete I.
2009 Baschkirisch. Lehrbuch für Anfänger und Fortgeschrittene. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
2012 Türkische Grammatik. Ausführlich und verständlich. Lernstufen A1 bis C2. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Fähnrich, Heinz
1986 Kurze Grammatik der georgischen Sprache. Leipzig: Enzyklopädie.Google Scholar
1994 Grammatik der altgeorgischen Sprache. Hamburg: Buske.Google Scholar
Fierro, Aurelio
1989 Grammatica della lingua napoletana. Milano: Rusconi.Google Scholar
Fischer, Kerstin & Stefanowitsch, Anatol
2006 Konstruktionsgrammatik: ein Überblick. In Konstruktionsgrammatik. Von der Anwendung zur Theorie, Kerstin Fischer & Anatol Stefanowitsch (eds), 3–18. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
Friederich, Michael
2002 Uyghurisch Lehrbuch. Wiesbaden: Reichert.Google Scholar
von Gabain, Annemarie
1950 Alttürkische Grammatik. Leipzig: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Goldap, Christel
1991 Lokale Relationen im Yukatekischen. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Iordan, Iorgu & Robu, Vladimir
1978 Limba română contemporană. Bucureşti: Editura didactică şi pedagogică.Google Scholar
Jespersen, Otto
1917 Negation in English and Other Languages. København: Høst.Google Scholar
Kabatek, Johannes
2003 Gibt es einen Grammatikalisierungszyklus des Artikels in der Romania? Romanistisches Jahrbuch 53: 56–80.Google Scholar
Karanfil, Güllü
2010 Parlons gagaouze. Paris: L‘Harmattan.Google Scholar
Kartozia, Guram, Germasia, Rusudan, Lomia, Maia & Tskhadaia, Taia
2010 Megrulis lingvisṭuli analizi. Tbilisi: Meridiali.Google Scholar
Khojayori, Nasrullo & Thompson, Mikael
2009 Tajiki. Reference Grammar for Beginners. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Kramer, Johannes
2004 Das Griechische und das Lateinisch-Romanische auf dem Wege vom synthetischen zum analytischen Sprachtyp? In Die europäischen Sprachen auf dem Weg zum analytischen Sprachtyp, Uwe Hinrichs (ed.), 127–146. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Kutscher, Silvia
2010 When ‘towards’ means ‘away from’: The case of directional-ablative syncretism in the Ardeşen-variety of Laz (South Caucasian). Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 63(2): 252–271.Google Scholar
Landmann, Angelika
2010 Usbekisch. Kurzgrammatik. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
2011 Kirgisisch. Kurzgrammatik. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
2012 Kasachisch. Kurzgrammatik. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
2013a Aserbaidschanisch. Kurzgrammatik. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
2013b Turkmenisch. Kurzgrammatik. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
2014a Tatarisch. Kurzgrammatik. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
2014b Tschuwaschisch. Kurzgrammatik. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W.
1986 An introduction to Cognitive Grammar. Cognitive Science 10: 1–40. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lehmann, Christian
1995 Thoughts on Grammaticalization. Munich: Lincom.Google Scholar
Lestrade, Sander
2010 The Space of Case. Nijmegen: Radboud Universiteit.Google Scholar
Luraghi, Silvia
1991 Paradigm size, possible syncretism, and the use of adpositions with cases in flective languages. In Paradigms. The Economy of Inflection, Frans Plank (ed), 57–74. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2009 A model for representing polysemy: The Italian preposition da . In Autour de la préposition. Actes du colloque international de Caen (20–22 septembre 2007), Jacques François, Eric Gilbert, Claude Guimier & Maxi Krause (eds), 167–178. Caen: Presses Universitaires de Caen.Google Scholar
2010 Adverbial phrases. In A New Historical Syntax of Latin, Philip Baldi & Pierluigi Cuzzolin (eds), 19–107. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
2014 Plotting diachronic semantic maps: The role of metaphor. In Perspectives on Semantic Roles [Typological Studies in Language 106], Silvia Luraghi & Heiko Narrog (eds), 99–150. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mackenzie, J. Lachlan
1978 Ablative-locative transfers and their relevance for the theory of case-grammar. Journal of Linguistics 14: 129–375. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maj, Émilie & Leberre-Semenov, Marine
2010 Parlons sakha. Langue et culture iakoutes. Paris: L’Harmattan.Google Scholar
Mel’čuk, Igor
1994 Suppletion: Toward a logical analyses of the concept. Studies in Language 18(2): 339–410. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, Bruce & Robinson, Fred C.
2001 A Guide to Old English. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Mossé, Fernand
1969 Handbuch des Mittelenglischen. München: Hueber.Google Scholar
Nickel, Klaus Peter
1990 Samisk grammatikk. Tromsø: Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar
Nikitina, Tatiana
2009 Subcategorization patterns and lexical meaning of motion verbs: A study of the Source/Goal ambiguity. Linguistics 47(5): 1113–1141. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nikitina, Tatiana & Spano, Marianna
2014 ‘Behind’ and ‘in front’ in Ancient Greek: a case study in orientation asymmetry. In On Ancient Grammars of Space: Linguistic Research on the Expression of Spatial Relations and Motion in Ancient Languages, Silvia Kutscher & Daniel Werning (eds), 67–82. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Pantcheva, Marina
2010 The syntactic structure of Locations, Goals, and Sources. Linguistics 48(5): 1043–1081. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Polinsky, Maria & Kluender, Robert
2007 Linguistic typology and theory construction: Common challenges ahead. Linguistic Typology 11(1): 273–284. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Prokosch, Erich
2006 Handbuch des Krimtatarischen unter Einschluss des Dobrudschatatarischen. Diachronische Grammatik mit kultur- und realkundlichem Hintergrund. Graz: Universität Graz.Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidnely, Leech, Geoffrey & Svartvik, Jan
1978 A Grammar of Contemporary English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Robbeets, Martine & Bisang, Walter
2014 When paradigms change. In Paradigm Change in the Transeurasian Languages and Beyond [Studies in Language Companion Series 161], Martine Robbeets & Walter Bisang (eds), 1–19. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Romieu, Maurice & Bianchi, André
1995 Gramatica de l’occitan gascon contemporanèu. Bordeaux: Presses universitaires de Bordeaux.Google Scholar
Schwegler, Armin
1990 Analyticity and Syntheticity. A Diachronic Perspective with Special Reference to Romance Languages. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Siemund, Peter
2001 Interrogative constructions. In Language Typology and Language Universals, Vol. 2, Martin Haspelmath, Ekkehard König, Wulf Oesterreicher & Wolfgang Raible (eds), 1010–1028. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Stolz, Thomas, Levkovych, Nataliya, Urdze, Aina, Nintemann, Julia & Robbers, Maja
Forthcoming. Where – Whither – Whence. Spatial Interrogatives in Europe and Beyond. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Stump, Gregory T.
2001 Inflectional Morphology: A Theory of Paradigm Structure. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sudlow, David
2009 Dictionary of the Tamasheq of North-East Burkina Faso. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe.Google Scholar
Svorou, Soteria
1993 The Grammar of Space [Typological Studies in Language 25]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Talmy, Leonard
1983 How language structures space. In Spatial Orientation: Theory, Research and Application, Herbert L. Pick & Linda P. Acredolo (eds), 225–282. New York NY: Plenum Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thornton, Anna
2011 Overabundance (multiple forms realizing the same cell): A non-canonical phenomenon in Italian verb morphology. In Morphological Autonomy. Perspectives from Romance Inflectional Morphology, Martin Maiden, John Charles Smith, Maria Goldbach & Marc-Olivier Hinzelin (eds), 358–381. Oxford: OUP.  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thornton, Anna M.
2012 Overabundance in Italian verb morphology and its interactions with other non-canonical phenomena. In Irregularity in Morphology (and beyond), Thomas Stolz, Hitomi Otsuka, Aina Urdze & Johan van der Auwera (eds), 251–270. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Google Scholar
Tosco, Fiorenzo
1997 Grammatica del genovese. Recco: Le mani.Google Scholar
Touratier, Christian
2013 Lateinische Grammatik. Linguistische Einführung in die lateinische Sprache. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.Google Scholar
Ultan, Russell
1978 Some general characteristics of interrogative systems. In Universals of Human Language, Vol. 44: Syntax, Joseph Greenberg (ed.), 211–248. Stanford CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Wälchli, Bernhard & Zuñiga, Fernando
2006 Source–goal (in)difference and the typology of motion events in the clause. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 59(3): 284–303.Google Scholar
Wąsik, Zdzisław
1982 Zur strukturellen Typologie der Fragen (anhand ausgewählter indoeuropäischer Sprachen der Gegenwart). Zeitschrift für Phonetik, Sprachwissenschaft und Kommunikationsforschung 35(1): 466–475.Google Scholar
Zeshan, Ulrike
2004 Interrogative constructions in signed languages: Crosslinguistic perspectives. Language 80(4): 7–39.  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by 1 other publications

Nintemann, Julia & Maja Robbers
2019. Towards a typology of spatial deictic expressions . STUF - Language Typology and Universals 72:3 ► pp. 335 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 26 june 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.