Cover not available
Part of
Possession in Languages of Europe and North and Central Asia
Edited by Lars Johanson, Lidia Federica Mazzitelli and Irina Nevskaya
[Studies in Language Companion Series 206] 2019
► pp. 365–392

Competing possessive constructions in Late Latin documents from Italy

| Università degli Studi di Firenze

This paper illustrates the grammaticalisation of the preposition de as a genitive marker through the analysis of Early Medieval notary deeds written in northern and central Italy (Codice diplomatico longobardo, CDL). In Classical Latin, de is used mainly as a verbal adjunct; its usage at the noun phrase level is sporadic and semantically determined, conveying mainly the meaning of ‘source’. By the time of the CDL documents, de has a more grammaticalised status and a higher frequency, but has not yet affected the expression of kinship and ownership. Semantic factors such as the prototypicality of the possessive relation and the degree of animacy of the modifier can motivate this concurrence between the synthetic and the analytical pattern of adnominal possession.

Keywords: Late Latin documents, Codice diplomatico longobardo , grammaticalisation, preposition de as a genitive marker, synthetic and analytical pattern of adnominal possession
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The use of de at the noun phrase level in Classical Latin
    • 2.1Functions related to the idea of separation
    • 2.2Non-anchoring relations
    • 2.3Part-whole relation
    • 2.4Relational and argument marking
  • 3.Expansion of the preposition de
    • 3.1Late Latin
    • 3.2Discussions
  • 4.The expression of adnominal possession in the Lombard documents
    • 4.1The use of the preposition de in the Lombard documents
      • 4.1.1Functions related to the idea of separation
      • 4.1.2Non-anchoring relations
      • 4.1.3Part-whole relation
      • 4.1.4Argument marking
        • 4.1.4.1Substitution of the objective genitive
        • 4.1.4.2Substitution of the subjective genitive
    • 4.2Synthetic encoding of adnominal possession
      • 4.2.1Inflected modifiers
        • 4.2.1.1Retention of Classical Latin genitive
        • 4.2.1.2Analogical endings
      • 4.2.2Juxtaposition
        • 4.2.2.1Latin names
        • 4.2.2.2Germanic names
    • 4.3Syntactic remarks
      • 4.3.1Nominal paradigm
      • 4.3.2Conditions favouring the prepositional encoding
        • 4.3.2.1Heavy modifiers
        • 4.3.2.2Cumulation of genitives
        • 4.3.2.3Coordination of modifiers
  • 5.Grammaticalisation of the preposition de
    • 5.1Extension
    • 5.2Desemanticisation
    • 5.3A transitional stage in the grammaticalisation process
  • 6.Semantic interpretation
    • 6.1Prototypical possessive relations
    • 6.2Semantic principles underlying grammaticalisation
    • 6.3A semantically-based concurrence between possessive constructions
  • 7.Conclusions
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 5 March 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.206.16val
References
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y.
2013 Possession and ownership: A cross linguistic perspective. In Possession and Ownership, Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald & R. M. W. Dixon (eds), 1–64. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Baggio, Serenella & Sanga, Glauco
1995 Sul volgare in età longobarda (On vernacular in Lombard times). In Italia settentrionale: Crocevia di idiomi romanzi. Atti del convegno internazionale di studi, Emanuele Banfi, Giovanni Bonfadini, Patrizia Cordin & Maria Iliescu (eds), 247–260. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Baldi, Philip & Nuti, Andrea
2010 Possession. In New Perspectives on Historical Latin Syntax, Vol. 3: Constituent Syntax: Quantification, Numerals, Possession, Anaphora, Philip Baldi & Pierluigi Cuzzolin (eds), 239–387. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Bonnet, Max
1890 Le latin de Grégoire de Tours. Paris: Hachette.Google Scholar
Carlier, Anne, Goyens, Michèle & Lamiroy, Béatrice
2013  De: A genitive marker in French? Its grammaticalization path from Latin to French, in The Genitive [Case and Grammatical Relations across Languages 5], Anne Carlier & Jean-Christophe Verstraete (eds), 141–216. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
CDL: Codice Diplomatico Longobardo
, vol. 1–2 1929–33 Luigi Schiaparelli (ed.). Roma: Istituto Storico Italiano.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard
1989 Language Universals and Linguistic Typology. Syntax and Morphology. Chicago IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
de Dardel, Robert
1999 L’origine du génitif-datif. Vox Romanica 58: 26–56.Google Scholar
Ernout, Alfred & Thomas, François
1951 Syntaxe latine. Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar
Ferguson, Charles A.
1959 Diglossia. Word 15: 325–340. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Francovich Onesti, Nicoletta
1999 Vestigia longobarde in Italia (568–774). Lessico e antroponimia (Lombard relics in Italy (568–774). Lexicon and anthroponymy). Roma: Artemide.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd
1997 Possession: Cognitive Sources, Forces and Grammaticalization. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heine, Bernd & Narrog, Heiko
2015 Grammaticalization and linguistic analysis. In The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Analysis, Bernd Heine & Heiko Narrog (eds), 401–423. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hofmann, Johann Baptist & Szantyr, Anton
1965 Lateinische Syntax und Stilistik. Munich: Beck.Google Scholar
Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Maria
2002 Adnominal possession in the European languages: Form and function. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 55(2): 141–172.Google Scholar
Korkiakangas, Timo
2016 Subject Case in the Latin of Tuscan Charters of the 8th and 9th Centuries. PhD dissertation, University of Helsinki.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W.
1995 Possession and possessive constructions. In Language and the Cognitive Construal of the World, John R. Taylor & R. E. MacLaury (eds), 51–79. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Larson, Pär
2000 Tra linguistica e fonti diplomatiche: Quello che le carte dicono e non dicono (Between linguistics and diplomatic documents: What charters do and do not say). In La preistoria dell’italiano. Atti della Tavola Rotonda di Linguistica Storica, Università Ca’ Foscari di Venezia 11–13 giugno 1998, József Herman & Anna Marinetti (eds), 151–166. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Christian
1998 Possession in Yucatec Maya. Munich: Lincom.Google Scholar
2015 Thoughts on Grammaticalization. Berlin: Language Science Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lüdi, Georges
1990 Diglossie et polyglossie. In Lexikon der Romanistischen Linguistik, 5(1): Französisch, Günter Holtus, Michael Metxeltin & Christian Schmitt (eds), 307–334. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Magni, Elisabetta
2013 Synchronic gradience and language change in Latin genitive constructions. In Synchrony and Diachrony: A Dynamic Interface [Studies in Language Companion Series 133], Anna Giacalone Ramat, Caterina Mauri & Piera Molinelli (eds), 177–200. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mazzitelli, Lidia Federica
2015 The Expression of Predicative Possession. A Comparative Study of Belarusian and Lithuanian. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Norberg, Dag
1943 Syntaktische Forschungen auf dem Gebiete des Spätlateins und des frühen Mittellateins. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell.Google Scholar
Pinkster, Harm
1990 Latin Syntax and Semantics. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
2015 The Oxford Latin Syntax. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sabatini, Francesco
1965 Esigenze di realismo e dislocazione morfologica in testi preromanzi [Need of realism and morphologic displacement in pre-Romance texts]. Rivista di Cultura Classica e Medioevale 7: 972–998.Google Scholar
Salonius, Aarne Henrik
1920 Vitae Patrum. Kritische Untersuchungen über Text, Syntax und Wortschatz der spätlateinischen Vitae Patrum. Lund: Gleerup.Google Scholar
Schiaparelli, Luigi
1933 Note diplomatiche sulle carte longobarde (Diplomatic notes about Lombard charters). Archivio storico italiano 19: 3–66.Google Scholar
Seiler, Hansjakob
1983 Possession as an Operational Dimension of Language. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Spevak, Olga
2014 Noun valency in Latin. In Noun Valency [Studies in Language Companion Series 158], Olga Spevak (ed.), 183–210. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tekavčić, Pavao
1975 Agli albori dell’italiano (At the dawning of Italian). Linguistica 15: 209–239.Google Scholar
TLL: Thesaurus Linguae Latinae
1900– Leipzig: TeubnerGoogle Scholar
Väänänen, Veikko
1954 Sur la préposition de marquant la notion partitive. Acta Philologica Fennica 1: 192–198.Google Scholar
1956 La préposition de et le génitif. Une mise au point. Revue de Linguistique Romane 20: 1–20.Google Scholar
Zamboni, Alberto
2000 Alle origini dell’italiano. Dinamiche e tipologie della transizione dal latino (At the Source of Italian: Dynamics and Typology of the Transition from Latin). Roma: Carocci.Google Scholar