Home Linguistics & Semiotics 23. Syntheticity and Analyticity
Chapter
Licensed
Unlicensed Requires Authentication

23. Syntheticity and Analyticity

  • Adam Ledgeway
Become an author with De Gruyter Brill

Abstract

The present chapter critically reconsiders the traditional typological distinction between Latin and Romance in terms of a syntheticity-analyticity opposition, according to which core grammatical categories and distinctions are marked morphologically in Latin but syntactically in Romance. After considering a wide selection of the Romance evidence for innovative analytic structures manifested in the emergence of a series of functional categories lexicalizing various functional heads within the nominal, verbal and clausal domains, a number of empirical and theoretical problems and limitations with this superficial dichotomy are reviewed. These highlight how the observed differences between Latin and Romance cannot be simplistically reduced to a synthetic-analytic opposition. Rather, it is argued that the observed rise of Romance analyticity should be considered an epiphenomenal development, ultimately the manifestation of a deeper change, but not, significantly, its cause, related to a change in the head directionality parameter from head-finality to head-initiality.

Abstract

The present chapter critically reconsiders the traditional typological distinction between Latin and Romance in terms of a syntheticity-analyticity opposition, according to which core grammatical categories and distinctions are marked morphologically in Latin but syntactically in Romance. After considering a wide selection of the Romance evidence for innovative analytic structures manifested in the emergence of a series of functional categories lexicalizing various functional heads within the nominal, verbal and clausal domains, a number of empirical and theoretical problems and limitations with this superficial dichotomy are reviewed. These highlight how the observed differences between Latin and Romance cannot be simplistically reduced to a synthetic-analytic opposition. Rather, it is argued that the observed rise of Romance analyticity should be considered an epiphenomenal development, ultimately the manifestation of a deeper change, but not, significantly, its cause, related to a change in the head directionality parameter from head-finality to head-initiality.

Downloaded on 20.12.2025 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/9783110377088-023/html
Scroll to top button