Volume 35, Issue 3
  • ISSN 0176-4225
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9714
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



Non-configurationality is a linguistic property associated with free word order, discontinuous constituents, including NPs, and null anaphora of referential arguments. Quantitative metrics, based both on local networks (syntactic trees and word order within sentences) and on global networks (incorporating the relations within a whole treebank into a shared graph), can reveal correlations among these features. Using treebanks we focus on diachronic varieties of Ancient Greek and Latin, in which non-configurationality tapered off over time, leading to the largely configurational nature of the Romance languages and of Modern Greek. A property of global networks (density of their spectra around zero eigenvalues) measuring the regularity in word order is shown to be strengthened from classical to late varieties. Discontinuous NPs are traced by counting the words creating non-projectivity in dependency trees: these drop dramatically in late varieties. Finally, developments in the use of null referential direct objects are gauged by assessing the percentage of third-person personal pronouns among verb objects. All three features turn out to change over time due to the decay of non-configurationality. Evaluation of the strength of their pairwise correlation shows that null direct objects and discontinuous NPs are deeply intertwined.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Austin, Peter & Joan Bresnan
    1996 Non-configurationality in Australian languages. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory14. 215–268. 10.1007/BF00133684
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00133684 [Google Scholar]
  2. Baker, Mark
    2001 Configurationality and polysynthesis. InMartin Haspelmath, Ekkehard König, Wulf Oesterreicher & Wolfgang Raible (eds.), Language typology and language universals: An international handbook, vol.2, 1433–1441. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Bamman, David, Francesco Mambrini & Gregory Crane
    2009 An ownership model of annotation: The Ancient Greek dependency treebank. InMarco Passarotti, Adam Przepiórkowski, Savina Raynaud & Frank van Eynde (eds.), Proceedings of the eighth international workshop on treebanks and linguistic theories (TLT 8), 5–16. Milan: EDUCatt.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Baronchelli, Andrea, Ramon Ferrer-i-Cancho, Romualdo Pastor-Satorras, Nick Chater & Morten H. Christiansen
    2013 Networks in cognitive science. Trends in Cognitive Sciences17(7). 348–360. 10.1016/j.tics.2013.04.010
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2013.04.010 [Google Scholar]
  5. Čech, Radek, Ján Mačutek & Zdeněk Žabokrtský
    2011 The role of syntax in complex networks: Local and global importance of verbs in a syntactic dependency network. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications390(20). 3614–3623. 10.1016/j.physa.2011.05.027
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physa.2011.05.027 [Google Scholar]
  6. Choudhury, Munmun, Dipak Chatterjee & Animesh Mukherjee
    2010 Global topology of word co-occurrence networks: Beyond the two-regime power-law. InAravind K. Joshi, Chu-Ren Huang & Dan Jurafsky (eds.), Proceedings of the 23rd international conference on computational linguistics: Posters, 162–170. Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Danckaert, Lieven
    2015 Studying word order changes in Latin: Some methodological considerations. InCarlotta Viti (ed.), Perspectives on historical syntax, 233–250. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.169.09dan
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.169.09dan [Google Scholar]
  8. Deligianni, Efrosini
    2011 Modern Greek word order in the process of syntacticization: Preliminary evidence from Late Byzantine and Early Modern Greek. InKaterina Chatzopoulou, Alexandra Ioannidou & Suwon Yoon (eds.), Proceedings of the 9th international conference on Greek linguistics (ICGL 9), 440–455. Columbus: The Ohio State University.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Devine, Andrew & Laurence Stephens
    2000Discontinuous syntax: Hyperbaton in Greek. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Dorogovtsev, Sergey N., José Fernando F. Mendes & Alexander N. Samukhin
    2000 Structure of growing networks with preferential linking. Physical review letters85, no.21:4633. 10.1103/PhysRevLett.85.4633
    https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.85.4633 [Google Scholar]
  11. Dover, Kenneth
    1960Greek word order. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Ferrer i Cancho, Ramon & Richard V. Solé
    2001 The small world of human language. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences268(1482). 2261–2265. 10.1098/rspb.2001.1800
    https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2001.1800 [Google Scholar]
  13. Ferrer i Cancho, Ramon, Ricard V. Solé & Reinhard Köhler
    2004 Patterns in syntactic dependency networks. Physical Review E69, no.5:051915.10.1103/PhysRevE.69.051915
    https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.69.051915 [Google Scholar]
  14. Futrell, Richard, Kyle Mahowald & Edward Gibson
    2015 Quantifying word order freedom in dependency corpora. InJoakim Nivre & Eva Hajičová (eds.), Proceedings of the third international conference on dependency linguistics (Depling 2015), 91–100. Uppsala: Uppsala University.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Goldstein, David
    2016Classical Greek syntax: Wackernagel’s Law in Herodotus. Leiden: Brill.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Gulordava, Kristina & Paola Merlo
    2015 Diachronic trends in word order freedom and dependency length in dependency-annotated corpora of Latin and Ancient Greek. InJoakim Nivre & Eva Hajičová (eds.), Proceedings of the third international conference on dependency linguistics (Depling 2015), 121–130. Uppsala: Uppsala University.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Hale, Ken
    1983 Warlpiri and the grammar of non-configurational languages. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory1. 5–47.10.1007/BF00210374
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00210374 [Google Scholar]
  18. Haug, Dag T. T. & Marius L. Jøhndal
    2008 Creating a parallel treebank of the Old Indo-European Bible translations. InCaroline Sporleder and Kiril Ribarov (eds.), Proceedings of the workshop on language technology for cultural heritage data (LaTeCH 2008), 27–34. Marrakech, Morocco.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Hewson, John & Vit Bubenik
    2006From case to adposition: The development of configurational syntax in Indo-European languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.280
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.280 [Google Scholar]
  20. Kapustin, Victor & Anna Jamsen
    2007 Vertex degree distribution for the graph of word co-occurrences in Russian. InChris Biemann, Irina Matveeva, Rada Mihalcea & Dragomir Radev (eds.), Proceedings of the second workshop on TextGraphs: Graph-based algorithms for natural language processing, 89–97. Rochester, NY: Association for Computational Linguistics.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Keydana, Götz & Silvia Luraghi
    2012 Definite referential null objects in Vedic Sanskrit and Ancient Greek. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia44(2). 116–128.10.1080/03740463.2013.776245
    https://doi.org/10.1080/03740463.2013.776245 [Google Scholar]
  22. Kiss, E. Katalin
    1987Configurationality in Hungarian. Dordrecht: Reidel.10.1007/978‑94‑009‑3703‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-3703-1 [Google Scholar]
  23. Ledgeway, Adam
    2011 Morphosyntactic typology and change. InMartin Maiden, John Charles Smith & Adam Ledgeway (eds.), The Cambridge history of the Romance languages, vol. 1: Structures, 382–471, 724–734. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. 2012From Latin to Romance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Linde, Paul
    1923 Die Stellung des Verbums in der lateinischen Prosa. Glotta12. 153–178.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Luraghi, Silvia
    1997 Omission of the direct object in Classical Latin. Indogermanische Forschungen102. 239–257.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. 1998 Omissione dell’oggetto diretto in frasi coordinate: Dal latino all’italiano. InPaolo Ramat & Elisa Roma (eds.), 183–196.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. 2003 Definite referential null objects in Ancient Greek. Indogermanische Forschungen108. 169–196.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. 2010 The rise (and possible downfall) of configurationality. InSilva Luraghi & Vit Bubenik (eds.), Continuum companion to historical linguistics, 212–229. London: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. 2013 Clitics. InSilvia Luraghi & Claudia Parodi (eds.), The Bloomsbury Companion to Syntax, 165–193. London: Bloomsbury.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Mambrini, Francesco & Marco Passarotti
    2013 Non-projectivity in the Ancient Greek dependency treebank. InEva Hajičová, Kim Gerdes & Leo Wanner (eds.), Proceedings of the second international conference on dependency linguistics (Depling 2013): 177–186. Prague: Matfyz Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Marcus, Solomon
    1965 Sur la notion de projectivité. Mathematical Logic Quarterly11(2). 181–192. 10.1002/malq.19650110212
    https://doi.org/10.1002/malq.19650110212 [Google Scholar]
  33. Meillet, Antoine & Joseph Vendryes
    1924Traité de grammaire comparée des langues classiques. Paris: Champion.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Nivre, Joakim, Marie-Catherine de Marneffe, Filip Ginter, Yoav Goldberg, Jan Hajic, Christopher D. Manning et al.
    2016 Universal dependencies v1: A multilingual treebank collection. InNicoletta Calzolari (ed.), Proceedings of the tenth international conference on language resources and evaluation (LREC 16), 1659–1666. Portorož: European Language Resources Association.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Ponti, Edoardo M.
    2016 Divergence from syntax to linear order in Ancient Greek lexical networks. InZdravko Markov and Ingrid Russel (eds.), Proceedings of the twenty-ninth international FLAIRS conference, 187–193. Palo Alto: AAAI Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Ponti, Edoardo M., & M. Passarotti
    2016 Differentia compositionem facit: A slower-paced and reliable parser for Latin. InProceedings of the tenth international conference on language resources and evaluation (LREC 16), 683–688. Portorož: European Language Resources Association.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Reinöhl, Uta
    2016Grammaticalization and the rise of configurationality in Indo-Aryan. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198736660.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198736660.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  38. Revithiadou, Anthi & Vassilios Spyropoulos
    2007A typology of Greek clitics with special reference to their diachronic development. Ms., University of the Aegean. ling.auf.net/lingBuzz/000496 (Last accessed on11/07/2018.)
    [Google Scholar]
  39. 2008 Greek object clitic pronouns: A typological survey of their grammatical properties. Language Typology and Universals61(1). 39–53. 10.1524/stuf.2008.0005
    https://doi.org/10.1524/stuf.2008.0005 [Google Scholar]
  40. Rögnvaldsson, Eiríkur
    1995 Old Icelandic: A non-configurational language?North-Western European Language Evolution26. 3–29. 10.1075/nowele.26.01rog
    https://doi.org/10.1075/nowele.26.01rog [Google Scholar]
  41. Salvi, Giampaolo
    2004La formazione della struttura di frase romanza. Tübingen: Niemeyer. 10.1515/9783110945508
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110945508 [Google Scholar]
  42. Schäufele, Steven
    1990 Free word-order syntax: The challenge from Vedic Sanskrit to contemporary formal syntactic theory. Urbana-Champaign: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign dissertation.
  43. Solé, Richard V., Bernat Corominas Murtra, Sergi Valverde & Luc Steels
    2010 Language networks: Their structure, function, and evolution. Complexity15(6). 20–26. 10.1002/cplx.20326
    https://doi.org/10.1002/cplx.20326 [Google Scholar]
  44. Tesnière, Lucien
    1959Éléments de syntaxe structurale. Paris: Klincksieck.
    [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error