1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Linguistic Variation
  4. Online First Articles
  5. Online First Article
image of Revisiting diachronic change in the nominal domain from Latin to modern Romance
PDF
EPUB

Abstract

Abstract

The intuition behind this offering is classical and familiar (cf. Schwegler 1990): morphological richness of nominal inflection underlies the possibility of Left Branch Extraction in Latin (traditionally called hyperbaton) while the loss of morphological richness of nominal inflection yielded the Left Branch Condition that characterizes modern Romance. Specifically, analogous to the notion “strong” and “weak T” in Chomsky 2015, I here adopt the Nominal Strength Parameter (Blümel 2024), a new instantiation of the classical Borer-Chomsky conjecture which localizes syntactic variation in properties of functional heads. It states that the functional nominalizing head (cf. Borer 2005) comes in two kinds for the purposes of identification of a category label — strong and weak. These two lexical values morphologically correlate with rich (gender, number and case) noun inflection on the one hand, and poor noun inflection on the other. Crucially, the analysis unifies the mentioned syntactic properties pertaining to the distribution of determiner categories with their optionality in Latin and their obligatoriness in modern Romance (cf. e.g. Longobardi 1994 on Italian). This paper makes the novel proposal that the relevant diachronic change in the nominal domain involved a resetting of the value of from strong to weak.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Available under the CC BY 4.0 license.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/lv.24056.blu
2025-04-22
2025-05-18

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/lv.24056.blu
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/10.1075/lv.24056.blu/lv.24056.blu.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1075/lv.24056.blu&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Agbayani, B. and C. Golston
    (2016) Phonological constituents and their movement in Latin. Phonology(), –. 10.1017/S0952675716000026
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0952675716000026 [Google Scholar]
  2. Bauer, B. L. M.
    (2009) Word order. InP. Baldi and P. Cuzzolin (Eds.), New perspectives on historical Latin syntax (Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs [TiLSM] 180), Volume, pp.–. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Blümel, A.
    (2024) Labeling Theory and the Nominal Phrase. InJ. Lu, E. Petersen, A. Zaitsu, and B. Harizanov (Eds.), Proceedings of WCCFL 40.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. (2025) Strength and Weakness in the Nominal Domain — Evidence from the Distribution of DET and N. Ms. HU Berlin and University of Göttingen.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Blümel, A. and A. Holler
    (2022) DP, NP, or neither? Contours of an unresolved debate. Glossa — a journal of general linguistics().
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Borer, H.
    (2005) In Name Only. Structuring Sense, Volume I. Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Bošković, Ž.
    (2005a) Left branch extraction, structure of NP, and scrambling. InJ. Sabel and M. Saito (Eds.), The free word order phenomenon: Its syntactic sources and diversity, pp.–. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin. 10.1515/9783110197266.13
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197266.13 [Google Scholar]
  8. (2005b) On the locality of left branch extraction and the structure of NP. Studia Linguistica(). 10.1111/j.1467‑9582.2005.00118.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9582.2005.00118.x [Google Scholar]
  9. (2008) What will you have, DP or NP?InProceedings of NELS 37.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. (2012) On NPs and Clauses. InG. Grewendorf and T. E. Zimmermann (Eds.), Discourse and grammar: From sentence types to lexical categories, pp.–. De Gruyter. 10.1515/9781614511601.179
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9781614511601.179 [Google Scholar]
  11. (2013a) Adjectival escapades. InIn Proceedings of FASL, pp.–.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. (2013b) Phases beyond clauses. InL. Schürcks, A. Giannakidou, U. Etxeberria, and P. Kosta (Eds.), Nominal Constructions in Slavic and Beyond, pp.–. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin. 10.1515/9781614512790.75
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9781614512790.75 [Google Scholar]
  13. (2015) From the complex np constraint to everything: On deep extractions across categories. The Linguistic Review (GLOW issue), –. 10.1515/tlr‑2015‑0006
     https://doi.org/10.1515/tlr-2015-0006 [Google Scholar]
  14. (2016) On second position clitics crosslinguistically. InF. Marušič and R. Žaucer (Eds.), Formal studies in Slovenian syntax: In honor of Janez Orešnik, pp.–. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.236.02bos
     https://doi.org/10.1075/la.236.02bos [Google Scholar]
  15. (2018) On Extraction out of Inherently Case-Marked Elements. InProceedings of FASL, pp.–.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Chomsky, N.
    (1973) Conditions on Transfomations. InS. R. Anderson and P. Kiparsky (Eds.), A Festschrift for Morris Halle, Number 232–286. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. (1986) Knowledge of language. New York: Praeger.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. (1995) The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. (2004) Beyond Explanatory Adequacy. InA. Belletti (Ed.), Structures and Beyond, pp.–. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780195171976.003.0004
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780195171976.003.0004 [Google Scholar]
  20. (2007) Approaching UG from Below. InU. Sauerland and H.-M. Gärtner (Eds.), Interfaces + Recursion = Language?: Chomsky’s Minimalism and the View from Syntax-Semantics, pp.–. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. (2008) On Phases. InR. Freidin, C. P. Otero, and M. L. Zubizarreta (Eds.), Foundational Issues in Linguistics, pp.–. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. (2013) Problems of Projection. Lingua, –. 10.1016/j.lingua.2012.12.003
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2012.12.003 [Google Scholar]
  23. (2015) Problems of Projection: Extensions. InE. D. Domenico, C. Hamann, and S. Matteini (Eds.), Structures, strategies and beyond — studies in honour of Adriana Belletti, pp.–. John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.223.01cho
     https://doi.org/10.1075/la.223.01cho [Google Scholar]
  24. Corver, N.
    (1989) Left branch extractions and DP. InH. Bennis and A. van Kemenade (Eds.), Linguistics in the Netherlands, pp.–. Foris: Dordrecht. 10.1515/9783110870060‑006
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110870060-006 [Google Scholar]
  25. (1990) The Syntax of Left Branch Extractions. Ph. D. thesis, Tilburg University.
  26. (2010) Subextraction. ms. University of Utrecht.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Dadan, M.
    (2019) Head Labeling Preference and Language Change. Ph. D. thesis, University of Connecticut.
  28. D’Alessandro, R.
    (2015) Null subject. InA. Fábregas, J. Mateu, and M. Putnam (Eds.), Contemporary linguistic parameters, pp.–. London: Bloomsbury Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Danckaert, L.
    (2017) The Development of Latin Clause Structure: A Study of the Extended Verb Phrase. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780198759522.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198759522.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  30. Delfitto, D. and J. Schroten
    (1991) Bare plurals and the number affix in DP. Probus(), –. 10.1515/prbs.1991.3.2.155
     https://doi.org/10.1515/prbs.1991.3.2.155 [Google Scholar]
  31. Devine, A. and L. Stephens
    (2000) Discontinuous syntax. Hyperbaton in Greek. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Devine, A. M. and L. D. Stephens
    (2006) Latin Word Order. Structured Meaning and Information. New York: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195181685.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195181685.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  33. Epstein, S., H. Kitahara, and D. Seely
    (2014) Labeling by Minimal Search: Implications for successive cyclic A-movement and the conception of the postulate ’phase’. Linguistic Inquiry(), –. 10.1162/LING_a_00163
     https://doi.org/10.1162/LING_a_00163 [Google Scholar]
  34. Epstein, S. D., H. T. Kitahara, and D. S. Seely
    (2020) Unifying Labeling under Minimal Search in “Single-” and “Multiple-Specifier” Configurations. Koyote Papers: Working Papers in Linguistics, Linguistic Theory at the University of Arizona, –.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Espinal, M. and S. Cyrino
    (2017) The definite article in romance expletives and long weak definites. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics(), –.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Espinal, M. T.
    (2010) Bare nominals in Catalan and Spanish. their structure and meaning. Lingua (), –. 10.1016/j.lingua.2009.06.002
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2009.06.002 [Google Scholar]
  37. Feldcamp, Z. S.
    (2021) The Split Noun Phrase in Classical Latin. Ph. D. thesis, The University of Arizona.
  38. Francom, J.
    (2012) Wh-movement: Interrogatives, exclamatives, and relatives. InJ. I. Hualde, A. Olarrea, and E. O’Rourke (Eds.), Handbook of Hispanic Linguistics, First Edition. Blackwell Publishing.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Franks, S.
    (1995) 1995: Parameters of Slavic Morphosyntax. New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780195089707.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780195089707.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  40. (2007) Deriving discontinuity. InProceedings of FDSL 6.5, pp.–.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Fuß, E.
    (2018) Vorfeld-expletives in the history of German. Talk at theWorkshop “From Sentence Grammar to Discourse Grammar and from Discourse Grammar to Sentence Grammar“, University of Gottingen.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Goto, N.
    (2017) Eliminating the Strong/Weak Parameter on T. InM. Y. Erlewine (Ed.), Proceedings of GLOW in Asia XI, MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, Volume 2 of MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Grosu, A.
    (1974) On the nature of the left branch condition. Linguistic Inquiry(), –.
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Hayashi, N.
    (2020) Labeling without Weak Heads. Syntax(), –. 10.1111/synt.12196
     https://doi.org/10.1111/synt.12196 [Google Scholar]
  45. Horn, G.
    (1978) Toward a More Adequate Definition of the Notion of Transformation. Edmonton: Linguistic Research.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. (1983) Lexical-Functional Grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110838695
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110838695 [Google Scholar]
  47. Jakobson, R.
    (1984) Contribution to the general theory of case: General meanings of the russian cases. InRussian and Slavic Grammar: Studies 1931–1981, pp.–. Berlin/New York/Amsterdam: Mouton. 10.1515/9783110822885.59
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110822885.59 [Google Scholar]
  48. Kruger, W.
    (2017) Free Merge, Delayed Agree, and Phase-Cancellation: An Account of (Anti-)That-Trace Effects. InA. Lamont and K. Tetzloff (Eds.), Proceedings of the Forty-Seventh Meeting of the North East Linguistics Society (NELS47), Volume, pp.–. UMass: Amherst.
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Laury, R.
    (1997) Demonstratives in interaction. The emergence of a definite article in Finnish. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/sidag.7
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sidag.7 [Google Scholar]
  50. Ledgeway, A.
    (2012) From Latin to Romance: The Rise of Configurationality, Functional Categories and Head-marking. InJ. Baral, M. Cennamo, and E. van Gelderen (Eds.), Variation and Change in Argument Realisation, Volume, pp.–. Oxford: Blackwell. Special Issue of the Transactions of the Philological Society.
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Leu, T.
    (2008) The Internal Syntax of Determiners. Ph. D. thesis, New York University.
  52. (2014) The Architecture of Determiners. Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199945238.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199945238.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  53. Longobardi, G.
    (1994) Reference and proper names. Linguistic Inquiry, –.
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Loporcaro, M.
    (2017) Gender from Latin to Romance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Marantz, A.
    (1997) No Escape from Syntax: Don’t Try Morphological Analysis in the Privacy of Your Own Lexicon. InWorking Papers in Linguistics, Philadelphia, Proceedings of the 21st Penn Linguistics Colloquium, pp.–.
     [Google Scholar]
  56. McInnerney, A.
    (2024) The Position of Wh-Subjects in Labeling Theory. Linguistic Inquiry(), –.
     [Google Scholar]
  57. Norris, M.
    (2014) A theory of nominal concord. Ph. D. thesis, University of California, Santa Cruz.
  58. (2017) Description and analyses of nominal concord (Pt I). Language and Linguistic Compass(). 10.1111/lnc3.12266
     https://doi.org/10.1111/lnc3.12266 [Google Scholar]
  59. Obata, M.
    (2018) Eliminating C-deletion in the syntax: structure-building by merge. Koganei Journal of the Humanities, –.
     [Google Scholar]
  60. Obata, M. and S. D. Epstein
    (2011) Feature-splitting internal merge: Improper movement, intervention, and the a/a distinction. Syntax(). 10.1111/j.1467‑9612.2010.00149.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9612.2010.00149.x [Google Scholar]
  61. Oda, H.
    (2022) The NP/DP-language Distinction as a Scale and Parameters in Minimalism. Ph. D. thesis, University of Connecticut.
  62. Oishi, M.
    (2015) The Hunt for a Label. InH. Egashira, H. Kitahara, K. Nakazawa, T. Nomura, M. Oishi, A. Saizen, and M. Suzuki (Eds.), Untiring Pursuit of Better Alternatives, pp.–. Kaitakusha, Tokyo.
     [Google Scholar]
  63. Oseki, Y.
    (2014) Eliminating Pair-Merge. Handout of the 32nd West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics.
     [Google Scholar]
  64. Ott, D.
    (2011) Local instability: The syntax of split topics. Ph. D. thesis, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
  65. Pankau, A.
    (2019) Left branch extraction in Lower Sorbian — A problem for the DP/NP analysis. Talk atthe FASL 28, Stony Brook University, 03.-05.05.2019.
     [Google Scholar]
  66. Pinkster, H.
    (1990) The development of cases and adpositions in Latin. InH. Pinkster and I. Genee (Eds.), Unity in diversity. Papers presented toSimon C. Dik on his 50th birthday, pp. 195–209. Dordrecht: Foris. 10.1515/9783110847420.195
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110847420.195 [Google Scholar]
  67. (2021) The Oxford Latin Syntax: The Complex Sentence and Discourse. Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780199230563.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780199230563.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  68. Postal, P.
    (1966) On so-called “pronouns” in English. InF. Dinneen (Ed.), Report of the Seventeenth Annual Round Table Meeting on Linguistics and Language Studies, pp.–. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  69. Powell, J.
    (2010) Hyperbaton and register in Cicero. InE. Dickey and A. Chahoud (Eds.), Colloquial and Literary Latin, pp.–. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511763267.011
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511763267.011 [Google Scholar]
  70. Reeve, M.
    (2019) An agreement-based analysisof extraction from nominals. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory(), –. 10.1007/s11049‑018‑9406‑3
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-018-9406-3 [Google Scholar]
  71. Rizzi, L.
    (1982) Issues in Italian syntax. Dordrecht: Foris. 10.1515/9783110883718
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110883718 [Google Scholar]
  72. Rizzi, L. and U. Shlonsky
    (2007) Strategies of subject extraction. InH.-M. Gartner and U. Sauerland (Eds.), Interfaces + Recursion = Language, pp.–. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110207552.115
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110207552.115 [Google Scholar]
  73. Ross, J.
    (1967) Constraints on Variables in Syntax. Ph. D. thesis, MIT.
  74. (1986) Infinite syntax!Norwood, NJ: ABLEX.
     [Google Scholar]
  75. Sag, I., T. Wasow, and E. Bender
    (2003) Syntactic theory: a formal introduction. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  76. Schwegler, A.
    (1990) Analyticity and syntheticity. A diachronic perspective with special reference to Romance languages. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110872927
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110872927 [Google Scholar]
  77. Spevak, O.
    (2010) Constituent Order in Classical Latin Prose. Number 117 in Studies in Language Companion Series (SLCS). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.10.1075/slcs.117
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.117 [Google Scholar]
  78. Starke, M.
    (2001) Move dissolves into Merge: A theory of locality. Ph. D. thesis, University of Geneva.
  79. Szabolcsi, A.
    (1983) The possessor that ran away from home. The Linguistic Review(), –. 10.1515/tlir.1983.3.1.89
     https://doi.org/10.1515/tlir.1983.3.1.89 [Google Scholar]
  80. Szczegielniak, A.
    (2021) DP’s in Polish. Presentation at the SLS Meeting Urbana-Champaign 2021.
     [Google Scholar]
  81. Ticio, M. E.
    (2005) Locality and anti-locality in Spanish dps. Syntax(), –. 10.1111/j.1467‑9612.2005.00080.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9612.2005.00080.x [Google Scholar]
  82. Uriagereka, J.
    (1988) On government. Ph. D. thesis, University of Connecticut.
  83. van Gelderen, E.
    (2004) Specifiers, heads, grammaticalization,and economy. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics, –. 10.1023/B:JCOM.0000003601.53603.b2
     https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JCOM.0000003601.53603.b2 [Google Scholar]
  84. (2018) Problems of projection: The role of language change in labeling paradoxes. Studia Linguistica(), –. 10.1111/stul.12041
     https://doi.org/10.1111/stul.12041 [Google Scholar]
  85. (2019) Cyclical change and problems of projection. InA. Breitbarth, M. Bouzouita, L. Danckaert, and E. Witzenhausen (Eds.), Cycles in Language Change, pp. 13–32. Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780198824961.003.0002
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198824961.003.0002 [Google Scholar]
  86. Vergnaud, J. R. and M. L. Zubizarreta
    (1992) The definite determiner and the inalienable constructions in French and in English. Linguistic Inquiry(), –.
     [Google Scholar]
  87. Viti, C.
    (2010) Observations on genitive word order in latin. InO. Spevak (Ed.), Le syntagme nominal en latin. Nouvelles contributions, pp.–. Paris, Harmattan.
     [Google Scholar]
  88. Wigtil, D. N.
    (1993) Latin Definiteness and English Articles. The Classical world(), –. 10.2307/4351394
     https://doi.org/10.2307/4351394 [Google Scholar]
  89. Yanagisawa, K.
    (2021) Subject extraction and the two EPP requirements. Explorations in English Linguistics (), –.
     [Google Scholar]
  90. Zlatić, L.
    (1997) The Structure of the Serbian Noun Phrase. Ph. D. thesis, University of Texas.
/content/journals/10.1075/lv.24056.blu
Loading
Revisiting diachronic change in the nominal domain from Latin to modern Romance
John Benjamins ; https://doi.org/10.1075/lv.24056.blu
/content/journals/10.1075/lv.24056.blu
/content/journals/10.1075/lv.24056.blu
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keywords: determiners ; articles ; noun phrase ; weak vs. strong ; Left Branch Condition ; Left Branch Extraction ; labeling

Most Cited

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