SVOandSOVwordorder$ · Vindolanda Fort Britannia Dear Sir, Brigionus petit a me domine ut eum tibi...
29
SVO and SOV word order alternation in Latin Northumbria University, 17 th March 2014 Laura Bailey, University of Kent [email protected] @linguist_laura
Transcript of SVOandSOVwordorder$ · Vindolanda Fort Britannia Dear Sir, Brigionus petit a me domine ut eum tibi...
SVO and SOV word order alternation in Latin Northumbria University, 17th March 2014 Laura Bailey, University of Kent [email protected] @linguist_laura
Introduction • Like a number of other languages, LaCn had both SOV and SVO word order, as well as V-‐iniCal.
• In this talk I examine LaCn in the light of a theory that offers an explanaCon for this variaCon in Germanic varieCes.
• I argue that the theory can be applied to LaCn and that the variaCon that we see is typological as much as genealogical.
2
Vindolanda tablets
3
Vindolanda tablets • Vindolanda: Roman fort on Hadrian’s Wall. • WriUen on wood, with ink (cf. papyrus). • Caveat: These are not the most reliable of LaCn texts.
• Fragmented • Some of them originate in Vindolanda, some are correspondence from elsewhere in Britain and beyond.
• Some by known authors (officers such as Flavius Cerialis and his wife Sulpicia Lepidina), others not.
• Time period c. AD85-‐130: • Period 1 c. AD85-‐AD92 • Period 2 c. AD92-‐AD97 • Period 3 c. AD97-‐AD102/3 • Period 4 c. AD104-‐AD120 • Period 5 c. AD120-‐AD130
4
Translations and glosses
• Throughout, for Vindolanda examples, the interlinear glosses are mine and idiomaCc translaCons are from Bowman (1994).
5
For business…
Vindolanda Fort Britannia
Dear Sir,
Brigionus petit a me domine ut eum tibi commendarem.
‘Brigionus asks of me, my lord, that I recommend him to you’
6
Family matters…
7
Aelius meus et filiolus salutant. ‘My Aelius and my little son send you their greetings.’
Vindolanda Fort, Hadrian’s Wall, Britannia
Who knows what…
’
8
Ego cum haec tibi scriberem
lectum calfaciebam.
‘When I was writing this to you
I was making the bed warm.’
And Very Important Matters like this…
CERUESAM COMMILITONES NON HABUNT. ‘MY FELLOW SOLDIERS HAVE NO BEER.’
9
Latin word order • LaCn word order is usually said to be SOV.
• ‘verbo sensum cludere multo, si composiCo paCatur, opCmo est: in verbis enim sermonis vis est’ (If composiCon allows, it is much best to end with a verb, for the force of language is in the verbs) (QuinClian, Inst. 9, 24, 26)
• But everyone knows it also had ‘free’ word order. • ‘L’order des mots en laCn est libre, il n’est pas indifferent’ (Marouzeau 1922: 1)
• Over Cme, in general, there was a shih from SOV to the SVO of modern Romance languages.
• But before that, LaCn had the opCon of SOV or SVO as well as VS and other, rarer orders.
10
SOV contubernalis FronC amici mess.mate-‐nom.sg FronCus-‐gen.sg friend-‐gen.sg hic here fuerat be-‐3.sg ‘A mess-‐mate of our friend FronCus has been here’
11
SVO a Cordonouis amicus from Cordonovi-‐abl?.sg friend-‐nom.sg missit send-‐3.sg mihi ostria quinquaginta me-‐dat.sg oyster-‐acc?.pl fihy ‘A friend has sent me fihy oysters from Cordonovi’
12
VS renunCarunt report-‐3.pl opCones et curatores op(ones-‐nom.pl and curatores-‐nom.pl ‘The op(ones and curatores made the report’ (VS sentences mostly seem to lack objects.)
13
Latin word order … but the majority are SXV (62% of my small corpus of 130 sentences from four texts).
14
Pied-‐piping (Biberauer & Roberts 2006) • Probe-‐Goal relaConship
• Agree • For feature-‐valuing reasons • No movement required
• EPP features • A head with an EPP feature aUracts an element to its specifier • A Probe may have an EPP feature • And it may aUract a phrase which properly contains the Goal
15
Pied-‐piping (Biberauer & Roberts 2006) • In French we see this: the Goal is the wh-‐features on qui, but the whole PP is obligatorily pied-‐piped.
• French (B&R 2006, exx.(2-‐3)): A qui as-‐tu parlé? To whom have-‐you spoken ‘Whom have you spoken to?’
• whPROBE … [PP whGOAL … ]
• In English, this pied-‐piping is not obligatory, and the wh-‐word alone may saCsfy the movement requirement. 16
EPP in English • The original formulaCon of the EPP was intended to derive this:
17
EPP in English • The T head has unvalued D features and probes for a goal to value them. (=agreement with subject)
• The goal is aUracted to the specifier of T. • The goal is the DP subject, with its D features. • This is the case in both English and French, for example, even though there are other differences: • Mary [vP ohen kisses John. • SpecTP [vP Adv v • Marie embrasse [vP souvent Jean. • SpecTP T [vP Adv
• And if there is no subject, we insert an expleCve subject: • It was raining very heavily. 18
EPP in pro-‐drop languages • In pro-‐drop languages (those that don’t need a subject, like Italian) it’s the finite verb that serves as a goal (Alexiadou & Anagnostopoulou 1998).
• The verb moves to T and no subject in SpecTP is necessary. • This means we find low subjects (that haven’t moved) and no expleCves: • Leyo Juan el libro • Read.3sg Juan the book • ‘Juan read the book.’
• Llueve • Rain.3sg • ‘It is raining.’
19
EPP in Germanic languages • In German and Icelandic, like in Italian, the goal is the finite verb.
• But like in English, the movement is XP movement rather than head movement (Biberauer & Richards 2006 et seq.).
• So the verb is the goal and the vP is pied-‐piped along with it to SpecTP.
• In Afrikaans and Dutch (and Old English), the goal is the DP. • But because the syntax only knows to ‘move XP’, the vP or the DP can be pied-‐piped.
• And we again see the vP raising to SpecTP.
20
EPP in Germanic languages
21
A four-‐way typology • Languages saCsfy the EPP feature on T in one of four ways:
22
[D] on Vf [D] in Spec,vP
-‐pied-‐piping Head raising Spec raising
+pied-‐piping Head pied-‐piping Spec pied-‐piping
Language Source of φ-‐features EPP movement
English, M.land Scandinavian D(P) in Spec-‐vP DP-‐to-‐SpecTP
Greek, Italian (=pro-‐drop) φ-‐features on V morphology V-‐to-‐T
German, Icelandic φ-‐features on V morphology vP-‐to-‐SpecTP
Afrikaans, Dutch D(P) in Spec-‐vP vP-‐to-‐SpecTP
SVO/SOV alternation in English • OV order was standard order in OE and remained an opCon throughout ME (unCl c.16 in prose and c.19 in verse):
Hi hadden him manred maked and athes sworen… They had him homage done and oaths sworn… ‘They had done him homage and sworn oaths of allegiance to him…’ (ChronE (Plummer) 1137.11, Fischer et al. 2000: 138).
• And VO was found before the start of ME (Fischer et al. 2000).
• Biberauer & Roberts 2006: • OE was uniformly spec-‐pied-‐piping. • This allowed raising of the DP or the vP to SpecTP. 23
SVO/SOV alternation in Latin • The target for Agree is the [D] features (person morphology) on the finite verb, as in other pro-‐drop languages.
• Unlike those other languages (Greek, Italian etc.), the size of the target was the XP, as in German (Bailey 2008, van der Wurff & Mackenzie 2012).
• This gives SOV. • Just like German!
24
SVO/SOV alternation in Latin • The key is the availability of VS order. • This represents a change from vP pied-‐piping to raising of just the V head, as in Italian and Greek.
• Then, V raises to T, and the subject can opConally raise higher (CLLD). • renunCarunt opCones et curatores • report-‐3.pl op(ones-‐nom.pl and curatores-‐nom.pl • ‘The opCones and curatores made the report.’
• patrem occidit Sex. Roscius • Father.acc killed Sex.Roscius.nom • ‘Sextus Roscius killed his father.’ (Cicero S.Rosc. 39)
25
SOV/VS order in Latin • V-‐raising languages (Alexiadou & Anagnostopoulou 1998):
• SVO/VSO order • Rich verbal morphology • Pro-‐drop and no overt expleCve • All eventaCve predicates • No Definite RestricCon effects • Adverbs can intervene between S and V • SVO/VSO alternaCon in main and embedded clauses
• All of these apply to LaCn except the last, where V-‐final order is strongly preferred in embedded clauses.
• Unagreement (van der Wurff & Mackenzie 2012): • Omnes ChrisCani fratres vocamur • All ChrisCan brothers call.pass.1pl • ‘All we ChrisCans are called brothers.’
26
Word order change • Rather than head-‐pied-‐piping, we then have head-‐raising. • This could be related to the fact that most VS sentences lack an object (i.e. there are few OVS, VSO or VOS sentences). • Conuenit me Ingenus • accost.3sg me.acc Ingenus.nom.sg • ‘Ingenu(u)s has accosted me.’
• Raising of vP to SpecTP and raising of the finite verb to T would be indisCnguishable in simple intransiCve clauses if the subject does not move to Spec,vP (as in other NSLs). • [TP [vP V DP …] T [vP V DP …]] • [TP V [vP DP V ]]
• In transiCve clauses, we’d see VSO: • [TP [V [vP DP V DP]]] 27
Next steps • A&A: scope facts differ between languages with SVO via CLLD and via Spec-‐raising.
• LaCn doesn’t have expleCves. This is expected if it’s V-‐raising, but not necessarily if it’s vP-‐pied-‐piping. • Cras id est [iii Nonas Octobres] • Tomorrow it.nom.sg is.3.sg [5th October] • ‘Tomorrow, which is the 5th October…’
• This proposal fits with the change that we know took place, from SOV to SVO neutral order (van der Wurff & Mackenzie 2012). However, SVO is present from the beginning. Do we see an increase throughout Cme?
• Can this be stable variaCon, as vP/DP pied-‐piping can be? 28
Conclusion • LaCn was vP-‐pied-‐piping, like German is. • But V-‐to-‐T was also an opCon. • EPP-‐saCsfacCon is more a maUer of typology than language family: LaCn is more like German than the Romance languages, and English is not like other Germanic varieCes.
• The quesCon is whether this opConality is possible, or if it’s a change in progress.
29
