Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T09:09:55.733Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Phonological constituents and their movement in Latin*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 June 2016

Brian Agbayani  and
Chris Golston
Brian Agbayani*
Affiliation:
California State University, Fresno
Chris Golston*
Affiliation:
California State University, Fresno
*
E-mail: bagbayan@csufresno.edu, chrisg@csufresno.edu.
E-mail: bagbayan@csufresno.edu, chrisg@csufresno.edu.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We document a fronting process in Latin that is difficult to model as syntactic movement but fairly easy to model as phonological movement. Movement with similar properties has been observed elsewhere in Classical Greek, Russian, Irish and Japanese; we suggest that the Latin movement is of the same type and takes place in the phonological component of the grammar, following the mapping from syntactic to prosodic structure.

Type
Articles
Information
Phonology , Volume 33 , Issue 1 , May 2016 , pp. 1 - 42
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

For helpful comments and questions we'd like to thank audiences at Auckland University, Stockholm University, California State University, Fresno, the University of California, Santa Cruz, the UCLA Indo-European Conference, the Annual Meeting on Phonology at MIT, ‘Parallel domains: a workshop in honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud at the University of Southern California’ and ‘The prosodic hierarchy in a typological perspective’ at Stockholm University. Special thanks to A. M. Devine, Lawrence Stephens and Ben Fortson for help with the Latin, to three anonymous reviewers at Phonology and to Arto Anttila for helping us clarify the presentation of our ideas. Any errors of data and/or analysis are our own.

References

REFERENCES

Abels, Klaus (2003). Successive cyclicity, anti-locality, and adposition stranding. PhD dissertation, University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
Ackema, Peter (2001). Colliding complementizers in Dutch: another syntactic OCP effect. LI 32. 717–727.Google Scholar
Adams, J. N. (1971). A type of hyperbaton in Latin prose. Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society 17. 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adams, J. N. (1995). The language of the Vindolanda writing tablets: an interim report. Journal of Roman Studies 85. 86–134.Google Scholar
Adams, J. N. (1996). Interpuncts as evidence for the enclitic character of personal pronouns in Latin. Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 111. 208–210.Google Scholar
Agbayani, Brian & Golston, Chris (2010a). Phonological movement in Classical Greek. Lg 86. 133–167.Google Scholar
Agbayani, Brian & Golston, Chris (2010b). Second-position is first-position: Wackernagel's Law and the role of clausal conjunction. Indogermanische Forschungen 115. 1–21.Google Scholar
Agbayani, Brian, Golston, Chris & Henderer, Dasha (2011). Prosodic movement. WCCFL 28. 231–239.Google Scholar
Agbayani, Brian, Golston, Chris & Ishii, Toru (2015). Syntactic and prosodic scrambling in Japanese. NLLT 33. 47–77.Google Scholar
Allen, W. Sidney (1973). Accent and rhythm. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Anttila, Arto (1997). Deriving variation from grammar. In Hinskens, Frans, van Hout, Roeland & Wetzels, W. Leo (eds.) Variation, change and phonological theory. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. 35–68.Google Scholar
Anttila, Arto (2012). Modeling phonological variation. In Cohn, Abigail C., Fougeron, Cécile & Huffman, Marie K. (eds.) The Oxford handbook of laboratory phonology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 76–91.Google Scholar
Bašić, Monica (2004). Nominal subextractions and the structure of NPs in Serbian and English. MPhil dissertation, University of Tromsø.Google Scholar
Bennett, Ryan, Elfner, Emily & McCloskey, Jim (2016). Lightest to the right: an apparently anomalous displacement in Irish. LI 47.Google Scholar
Blair, Walter (1874). Latin pronunciation: an inquiry into the proper sound of the Latin language during the classical period. New York & Chicago: Barnes.Google Scholar
Bolkestein, A. Machtelt (2001). Random scrambling? Constraints on discontinuity in Latin noun phrases. In Maussy, Claude (ed.) De lingua Latina novae quaestiones: actes du Xe colloque international de linguistique latine, Paris-Sevres, 19–23 avril 1999. Leuven: Peeters. 245–258.Google Scholar
Booij, Geert (1996). Cliticization as prosodic integration: the case of Dutch. The Linguistic Review 13. 219–242.Google Scholar
Bošković, Željko (2005). On the locality of left branch extraction and the structure of NP. Studia Linguistica 59. 1–45.Google Scholar
Bošković, Željko (2009). On Leo Tolstoy, its structure, case, left-branch extraction, and prosodic inversion. In Franks, Steven, Joseph, Brian D. & Chidambaram, Vrinda (eds.) A linguist's linguist: studies in South Slavic linguistics in honor of E. Wayles Browne. Bloomington: Slavica. 99–122.Google Scholar
Bošković, Željko & Takahashi, Daiko (1998). Scrambling and Last Resort. LI 29. 347–366.Google Scholar
Büring, Daniel (2013). Syntax, information structure and prosody. In den Dikken, Marcel (ed.) The Cambridge handbook of generative syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 860–895.Google Scholar
Butler, H. E. (ed.) (1920). The Institutio Oratoria of Quintilian. Vol. 1. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Butler, H. E. (ed.) (1921). The Institutio Oratoria of Quintilian. Vol. 3. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Carnie, Andrew (2010). Constituent structure. 2nd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ćavar, Damir & Fanselow, Gisbert (2000). Discontinuous constituents in Slavic and Germanic languages. Ms, University of Hamburg & University of Potsdam.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam (1973). Conditions on transformations. In Anderson, Stephen R. & Kiparsky, Paul (eds.) A Festschrift for Morris Halle. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. 232–286.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam (1986). Barriers. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam (2008). On phases. In Freidin, Robert, Otero, Carlos P. & Zubizarreta, Maria Luisa (eds.) Foundational issues in linguistic theory: essays in honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. 133–166.Google Scholar
Danckaert, Lieven (2012). Latin embedded clauses: the left periphery. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Devine, A. M. & Stephens, Laurence D. (2000). Discontinuous syntax: hyperbaton in Greek. New York & Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Devine, A. M. & Stephens, Laurence D. (2006). Latin word order: structured meaning and information. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dover, K. J. (1960). Greek word order. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Embick, David & Noyer, Rolf (2001). Movement operations after syntax. LI 32. 555–595.Google Scholar
Fanselow, Gisbert & Lenertová, Denisa (2011). Left peripheral focus: mismatches between syntax and information structure. NLLT 29. 169–209.Google Scholar
Féry, Caroline (2013). Focus as prosodic alignment. NLLT 31. 683–734.Google Scholar
Fortson IV, Benjamin W. (2008). Language and rhythm in Plautus: synchronic and diachronic studies. Berlin & New York: de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fortson IV, Benjamin W. (2010). Reconstructing the history of Latin and Sabellic adpositional morphosyntax. American Journal of Philology 131. 121–154.Google Scholar
Franks, Steven & Progovac, Ljiljane (1994). On the placement of Serbo-Croatian clitics. Indiana Slavic Studies 7. 69–78.Google Scholar
Golston, Chris (1991). Minimal word, minimal affix. NELS 21. 95–109.Google Scholar
Golston, Chris (1995). Syntax outranks phonology: evidence from Ancient Greek. Phonology 12. 343–368.Google Scholar
Greenough, J. B. (1894). Early Latin prosody. Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 5. 57–71.Google Scholar
Grohmann, Kleanthes K. (2002). Anti-locality and clause types. Theoretical Linguistics 28. 43–72.Google Scholar
Halpern, Aaron (1995). On the placement and morphology of clitics. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce (1989). The prosodic hierarchy in meter. In Kiparsky, Paul & Youmans, Gilbert (eds.) Rhythm and meter. San Diego: Academic Press. 201–260.Google Scholar
Henderer, Dasha (2010). Prosodic movement in colloquial Russian. Ms, California State University Fresno.Google Scholar
Huang, C.-T. James (1982). Logical relations in Chinese and the theory of grammar. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Ito, Junko & Mester, Armin (2012). Recursive prosodic phrasing in Japanese. In Borowsky, Toni, Kawahara, Shigeto, Shinya, Takahito & Sugahara, Mariko (eds.) Prosody matters: essays in honor of Elisabeth Selkirk. London: Equinox. 280–303.Google Scholar
Ito, Junko & Mester, Armin (2013). Prosodic subcategories in Japanese. Lingua 124. 20–40.Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard S. (1994). The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard S. (2005). Some notes on comparative syntax, with special reference to English and French. In Cinque, Guglielmo & Kayne, Richard S. (eds.) The Oxford handbook of comparative syntax. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press. 3–69.Google Scholar
Kidwai, Ayesha (1999). Word order and focus positions in Universal Grammar. In Rebuschi, Georges & Tuller, Laurice (eds.) The grammar of focus. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. 213–244.Google Scholar
Laughton, E. (1960). Observations on the style of Varro. The Classical Quarterly (New Series) 10. 1–28.Google Scholar
FresnoLeben, Will (1973). Suprasegmental phonology. PhD dissertation, MITGoogle Scholar
Mercado, Angelo (2012). Italic verse: a study of the poetic remains of Old Latin, Faliscan, and Sabellic. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachen und Literaturen der Universität Innsbruck.Google Scholar
Mester, Armin (1994). The quantitative trochee in Latin. NLLT 12. 1–61.Google Scholar
Nespor, Marina & Vogel, Irene (1986). Prosodic phonology. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Nunes, Jairo (2004). Linearization of chains and sideward movement. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Pinkster, Harm (2005). Changing patterns of discontinuity in Latin. Paper presented at the 13th International Colloquium on Latin Linguistics, Brussels.Google Scholar
Powell, J. G. F. (2010). Hyperbaton and register in Cicero. In Dickey, Eleanor & Chahoud, Anna (eds.) Colloquial and literary Latin. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 163–185.Google Scholar
Radford, Andrew (1977). Counter-filtering rules. York Papers in Linguistics 7. 7–45.Google Scholar
Radford, Robert S. (1903). The Latin monosyllables in their relation to accent and quantity: study in the verse of Terence. Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association 34. 60–103.Google Scholar
Radford, Robert S. (1904). On the recession of the Latin accent in connection with monosyllabic words and the traditional word-order. Part 1. American Journal of Philology 25. 147–162.Google Scholar
Reynolds, William T. (1994). Variation and phonological theory. PhD dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Ribbeck, Otto (ed.) (1866). P. Vergili Maronis: opera. Vol. 5. Leipzig: Teubner.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi (1997). The fine structure of the left periphery. In Haegeman, Liliane (ed.) Elements of grammar: handbook in generative syntax. Dordrecht: Kluwer. 281–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ross, John R. (1967). Constraints on variables in syntax. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Saito, Mamoru (1989). Scrambling as semantically vacuous A¢-movement. In Baltin, Mark R. & Kroch, Anthony S. (eds.) Alternative conceptions of phrase structure. Chicago & London: University of Chicago Press. 182–200.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth (1984). Phonology and syntax: the relation between sound and structure. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth (1986). On derived domains in sentence phonology. Phonology Yearbook 3. 371–405.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth (1995). Sentence prosody: intonation, stress, and phrasing. In Goldsmith, John A. (ed.) The handbook of phonological theory. Cambridge, Mass. & Oxford: Blackwell. 550–569.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth (1996). The prosodic structure of function words. In Morgan, James L. & Demuth, Katherine (eds.) Signal to syntax: bootstrapping from speech to grammar in early acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. 187–213.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth (2009). On clause and intonational phrase in Japanese: the syntactic grounding of prosodic constituent structure. Gengo Kenkyu 136. 35–73.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth (2011). The syntax–phonology interface. In Goldsmith, John A., Riggle, Jason & Yu, Alan C. L. (eds.) The handbook of phonological theory. 2nd edn. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. 435–484.Google Scholar
Smyth, Herbert Weir (1920). Greek grammar for colleges. New York: American Book Company.Google Scholar
Speas, Margaret J. (1990). Phrase structure in natural language. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Spevak, Olga (2010). Constituent order in Classical Latin prose. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Szendrői, Kriszta (2001). Focus and the syntax–phonology interface. PhD dissertation, University College London.Google Scholar
Takahashi, Daiko (1993). Minimality of movement. PhD dissertation, University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
Teliga, Viktoriia (2011). Phonological movement in Ukrainian. MA thesis, California State University Fresno.Google Scholar
Truckenbrodt, Hubert (1995). Phonological phrases: their relation to syntax, focus, and prominence. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Wackernagel, Jacob (1892). Über ein Gesetz der indo-germanischen Wortstellung. Indogermanische Forschungen 1. 333–436.Google Scholar
Wexler, Kenneth & Culicover, Peter W. (1980). Formal principles of language acquisition. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Wingo, E. Otha (1972). Latin punctuation in the classical age. The Hague & Paris: Mouton.Google Scholar
Yip, Moira (1998). Identity avoidance in phonology and morphology. In Lapointe, Steven G., Brentari, Diane K. & Farrell, Patrick M. (eds.) Morphology and its relation to phonology and syntax. Stanford: CSLI. 216–246.Google Scholar
Zec, Draga & Inkelas, Sharon (1990). Prosodically constrained syntax. In Inkelas, Sharon & Zec, Draga (ed.) The phonology–syntax connection. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 365–378.Google Scholar
Zwicky, Arnold M. & Pullum, Geoffrey K. (1986a). The principle of phonology-free syntax: introductory remarks. Ohio State University Working Papers in Linguistics 32. 63–91.Google Scholar
Zwicky, Arnold M. & Pullum, Geoffrey K. (1986b). Two spurious counterexamples to the principle of phonology-free syntax. Ohio State University Working Papers in Linguistics 32. 92–99.Google Scholar