Cover not available
Article published In:
Advances in research on semantic roles
Edited by Seppo Kittilä and Fernando Zúñiga
[Studies in Language 38:3] 2014
► pp. 566–604

Exploring a diachronic (re)cycle of roles

The Dative complex from Latin to Romance

| University of Bergamo
| University of Genoa
In this paper we explore the struggle between the use of the Dative case and the competing strategy featuring the preposition ad ‘to’ and the Accusative from Latin to Early Romance. Unlike the Dative, the prepositional strategy is semantically transparent, since ad ‘to’ has a clear allative meaning. We first consider the diachronic development of the roles involved in the Dative-marked complex within a chronological span ranging from Plautus to the Vulgate and show that competing manifestations featuring ad are conditioned by semantic factors, since the extension of the prepositional strategy can be better explained in terms of metaphoric and metonymic processes. We discuss the gradual expansion of the prepositional turn in Early Romance with a view to exploring the paths along which it gradually took over the functions traditionally associated with the Dative complex. Building on these data, the paper assesses the theoretical implications for a better understanding of competing multifunctional devices that encode role complexes from a diachronic perspective and shows how a pool of synchronic variation can trigger and constrain linguistic change.
Keywords: grammaticalization, dative, Latin, role complex, Romance languages
Published online: 30 September 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.38.3.06fed
References (70)
Adams, James N. 2011. Late Latin. In J. Clackson (ed.), The Blackwell Companion to the Latin Language, 257–283. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Baldi, Philip & Andrea Nuti. 2010. Possession. In P. Cuzzolin & Ph. Baldi (eds.), New Perspectives on Historical Latin Syntax, 239–388. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Baños Baños, José Miguel. 1996. Litteras Neroni / ad Neronem mittere: ¿alternancia dativo / ad + acus.? In A. Agud, J.A. Fernández Delgado & A. Ramos Guerreira (eds.), Las lenguas de corpus y sus problemas lingüísticos, 217–236. Madrid: Ediciones Clásicas.Google Scholar
. 1998. Sintaxis y semántica del dativo objeto indirecto: su concurrencia con ad-acus. en latín clásico. In M.E. Torrego (ed.), Nombres y funciones: estudios de sintaxis griega y latina, 11–41. Madrid: U.A.M. Ediciones Clásicas.Google Scholar
. 2000. Vulgarismos sintácticos en Plauto (II): quae ad patrem vis nuntiari . In B. García Hernandez (ed.), Latín vulgar y tardío, 1–15. Madrid: Ediciones Clásicas.Google Scholar
. 2009. Dativo. In J.M. Baños Baños (ed.), Sintaxis del latín clásico, 185–209. Madrid: Liceus Ediciones.Google Scholar
Bastardas Parera, Juan. 1953. Particularidades sintácticas del latín medieval. Barcelona: Escuela de Filología.Google Scholar
Bennett, Charles Edwin. 1914. Syntax of Early Latin. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
Blake, Barry J. 2001 [1994]. Case, 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blume, Kerstin. 1998. A contrastive analysis of interaction verbs with dative complements. Linguistics 36 (2). 253–280. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cennamo, Michela. 1999. Late Latin pleonastic reflexives and the unaccusative hypothesis. Transactions of the Philological Society 97(1). 103–150. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam A. 1957. Syntactic Structures. The Hague & Paris: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. A. 1966. Using Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Christol, Alain. 1998. Marquage oblique des actants. In J. Feuillet (ed.), Actance et valence dans les langues de l’Europe, 457–523. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dąbrowska, Ewa. 1997. Cognitive Semantics and the Polish Dative. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Densusianu, Ovide. 1938. Histoire de la langue roumaine II1. Paris: Librairie Ernest Leroux.Google Scholar
Dik, Simon. C. 1989[1997]. The Theory of Functional Grammar. Part I: The Structure of the Clause, 2nd revised edn. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Ernout, Alfred & François Thomas. 1953. Syntaxe latine. Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar
Fagard, Benjamin. 2010. Espace et grammaticalisation – L’évolution sémantique des prépositions dans les langues romanes. Sarrebruck: Editions Universitaires Européennes.Google Scholar
Fried, Mirjam. 2010. Between verb semantics and interpersonal meanings in participant realization. Paper presented at theWorkshop on Variation and Change in Argument Realization, Naples and Capri, May 27-30, 2010.
Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Goyens, Michèle, Lamiroy, Béatrice & Ludo Melis. 2002. Déplacement et repositionnement de la préposition à en français. Linguisticae Investigationes 25(2). 275- 310. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haiman, John (ed.). 1985. Iconicity in Syntax. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 1993. A grammar of Lezgian. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haudry, Jean. 1968. Les emplois doubles du datif et la fonction du datif indo-européen. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 631. 141–159.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd, Ulrike Claudi & Friederike Hünnemeyer. 1991. Grammaticalization: A Conceptual Framework. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hofmann, Johann Baptist. 1936. Lateinische Umgangssprache. Winter: Heidelberg.Google Scholar
Hofmann, Johann Baptist & Anton Szantyr. 1972 [1965]. Lateinische Syntax und Stilistik. München: Beck(= Leumann-Hoffmann-Szantyr, Lateinische Grammatik, 2nd edn.).Google Scholar
Jacob, Daniel. 1991. Dativ im Französischen? Zur Funktionsweise und Semantik der Ergänzungsklasse ‘à + NP’. In P. Koch & Th. Krefeld (eds.), Connexiones Romanicae: Dependenz und Valenz in romanischen Sprachen, 157–186. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jakobson, Roman. 1966. A la recherche de l’essence du langage. In Problèmes du langage, Diogène 511: 22–38. English translation 1971, “Quest for the Essence of Language”, in Roman Jakobson, Selective writings, vol. 2: Word and Language, 345–359. The Hague/Paris: Mouton.Google Scholar
Kittilä, Seppo. 2005. A typology of involuntary agent constructions. Word 561. 341–81. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2006. On distinguishing between ‘recipient’ and ‘beneficiary’ in Finnish. In M. Helasvuo & L. Campbell (eds.), Grammar from the Human Perspective: Case, space and person in Finnish, 129–152. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kittilä, Seppo, Katja Västi & Jussi Ylikoski. 2011. In S. Kittilä, K. Västi & J. Ylikoski (eds.), Introduction to case, animacy and semantic roles. Case, Animacy and Semantic Roles, 1–26. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
König, Ekkehard & Martin Haspelmath. 1998. Les constructions à possesseur externe dans les langues de l’Europe. In J. Feuillet (ed.), Actance et valence dans les langues de l’Europe, 525–606. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kühner, Raphael & Carl Stegmann. 1976. Ausführliche Grammatik der lateinischen Sprache. Hannover: Verlag Hahnsche Buchhandlung.Google Scholar
Kuryłowicz, Jerzy. 1964. The Inflectional Categories of Indo-European. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal About the Mind. Chicago: Chicago University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, Ronald. 1992 [1991]. Concept, Image and Symbol: The Cognitive Basis of Grammar, 2nd edn. Berlin & New York: Mouton De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Lazard, Gilbert. 1998. Actancy. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lehmann, Christian. 1991. Predicate classes and PARTICIPATION. In H. Seiler & W. Premper (eds.), Partizipation: das sprachliche Erfassen von Sachverhalten, 183–239. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
. 2006. Participant roles, thematic roles and syntactic relations. In T. Tsunoda & T. Kageyama (eds.), Voice and Grammatical Relations. Festschrift for Masayoshi Shibatani, 167–190. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levin, Beth. 1993. Verb Classes and Alternations: A Preliminary Investigation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Löfstedt, Bengt. 1961. Studien über die Sprache der langobardischen Gesetze. Beiträge zur frühmittelalterlichen Latinität. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.Google Scholar
Longacre, Robert E. 2007 [1985]. Sentences as combinations of clauses. In T. Shopen (ed.), Language Typology and Syntactic Description, Vol. II: Complex Constructions, 2nd edn., 372–420. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Luraghi, Silvia. 2010. Adverbials. In Ph. Baldi & P. Cuzzolin (eds.), New Perspectives on Historical Latin Syntax, vol. 21, 19–96. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
. 2014. Plotting diachronic semantic maps: The role of metaphor. In S. Luraghi & H. Narrog (eds.), Perspectives on Semantic Roles, 101–152. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Mathieu, Eric. 2006. Quirky subjects in Old French. Studia Linguistica 60(3). 282–312. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maiden, Martin. 1996. A Linguistic History of Italian. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Menge, Hermann. 2007. Lehrbuch der lateinischen Syntax und Semantik, völlig neu bearbeitet von Thorsten Burkard und Markus Schauer, 3. Auflage. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.Google Scholar
Molinelli, Piera. 1998. Dai casi alle preposizioni in latino: analisi sociolinguistica e spiegazione tipologica. In P. Ramat & E. Roma (eds.), Sintassi storica, 147–166. Roma: Bulzoni.Google Scholar
Næss, Åshild. 2007. Prototypical Transitivity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Newman, John. 1996. Give: A Cognitive Linguistic Study. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nørgård-Sørensen, Jens, Lars Heltoft & Lene Schøsler. 2011. Connecting Grammaticalisation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Palmer, Frank Robert. 1994. Grammatical Roles and Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pinkster, Harm. 1990. The development of cases and adpositions in Latin. In H. Pinkster & I. Genee (eds.), Unity in Diversity, 195–209. Dordrecht: Foris. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Prandi, Michele. 2004. The Building Blocks of Meaning: Ideas for a Philosophical Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008. Transferring constructions: Grammatical relations and roles. In M. Papi Bertuccelli, A. Bertacca & S. Bruti (eds.), Threads in the Complex Fabric of Language: Linguistic and Literary Studies in Honour of Lavinia Merlini Barbaresi, 293–305. Pisa: Felici Editore.Google Scholar
Reddy, Michael J. 1993. The conduit metaphor: A case of frame conflict in our language about language. In A. Ortony (ed.), Metaphor and Thought, 164–201. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Saussure, Ferdinand de. 1974 [1916]. Cours de linguistique générale. Paris: Payot. Critical edition by T.de Mauro, Paris: Payot, 1972. Engl. transl.: Course in General Linguistics. London: Fontana / Collins.Google Scholar
Selig, Maria. 1991. Inhaltskonturen des ‘Dativs’: Zur Ablösung des lateinischen Dativs durch ad und zur differentiellen Objektmarkierung. In P. Koch & Th. Krefeld (eds.), Connexiones Romanicae: Dependenz und Valenz in romanischen Sprachen, 187–211. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Serbat, Guy. 1996. Grammaire fondamentale du latin. Tome IV, L’emploi des cas en latin, Vol. 11. Louvain et Paris: Peeters.Google Scholar
Steinitz, Renate. 1969. Adverbial-Syntax. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Google Scholar
Sznajder, Lyliane. 2012. Dixit autem serpens ad mulierem / Mulieri quoque dixit: la double expression de l’allocutaire dans les propositions introductrices de discours directs dans la Vulgate. F. Biville, M. Lhommé & D. Vallat (eds.), LATIN VULGAIRE-LATIN TARDIF IX, Actes du IXe colloque international ‘latin vulgaire – latin tardif,’ (Lyon, 2-6 septembre 2009), 271–290. Lyon: Collection de la maison de l’Orient et de la Méditerranée 49, Série Linguistique et Philologie 8.Google Scholar
Théoret, Michel.1982. Les discours de Cicéron: La concurrence du tour casuel et du tour prépositionnel. Montreal: Presse de l’Université de Montréal.Google Scholar
Väänänen, Veikko. 1963. Introduction au latin vulgaire. Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar
Van Hoecke, Willy. 1996. The Latin dative. In W. Van Belle & W. Van Langendonck (eds.), The Dative, Vol. I: Descriptive Studies, 3–37. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Langendonck, Willy. 1998. The dative in Latin and the indirect object in Dutch. In W. Van Belle & W. Van Langendonck (eds.), The Dative, Vol.II: Theoretical and Contrastive Studies, 221–259. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Villar, Francisco. 1981. Dativo y locativo en el singular de la flexión nominal indoeuropea. Salamanca: Universidad de Salamanca.Google Scholar
Woodcock, Eric Charles. 1959. A New Latin Syntax. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
Zamboni, Alberto. 2000. Alle origini dell’italiano. Dinamiche e tipologie della transizione dal latino. Roma: Carocci.Google Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Fedriani, Chiara & Maria Napoli
2023. The Missing Dative Alternation in Romance: Explaining Stability and Change in the Argument Structure of Latin Ditransitives. Transactions of the Philological Society 121:1 ► pp. 33 ff. DOI logo
Napoli, Maria
2018. Ditransitive verbs in Latin: A typological approach. Journal of Latin Linguistics 17:1 ► pp. 51 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 19 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.