Issues on word formation. The case of Latin circum
-
María Mare
Abstract
This paper focuses on the characteristics of circum’s prefixation in Latin taking into account the properties of this item in different syntactic contexts and its combination with transitive and intransitive base verbs. The analysis follows a non-lexicalist framework −Distributed Morphology (Halle, Morris & Alec Marantz. 1993. Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. In K. Hale & S. Keyser (eds.), The view from building 20, 111–176. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press), specifically Acedo-Matellán’s (Acedo-Matellán, Víctor. 2016. The morphosyntax of transitions. A case study in Latin and other languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press) approach−, which is particularly relevant to relate the prefix to its homophonic preposition and adverb. Thus, we assume that this prefix is a Root related to Place in the main structure, not a preposition or an adverb incorporated to a verbal configuration. In fact, we argue that the distinction among the prefix, the preposition and the adverb derives from the merger of the same Root √CIRCUM in different structures. Along this discussion, it is shown that circum’s prefixation has different consequences for the argument structure depending on the location of √CIRCUM in the structure: when it adds the nuance of manner, its presence does not trigger the addition of new arguments; nevertheless, when it is interpreted with reference to final location, unexpected accusative objects frequently appear with the prefixed verb. We argue that these unexpected objects do not end up showing accusative case because of circum’s case assignment, but because of the DP position in the main structure. For that reason, the DPs involved in the structure of the prefixed verb behave like any other argumental DP and they are subject to the same syntactic operations (ellipsis, demotion, and so on).
Acknowledgment
I am particularly thankful to the two anonymous reviewers of TLR for their helpful suggestions and comments, and also for their patience to read the hard first version of this paper (I must say it). Also thanks to Gonzalo Espinosa for his invaluable help with the preparation of the manuscript. Of course, all errors and omissions are my responsibility.
References
Acedo-Matellán, Víctor. 2016. The morphosyntax of transitions. A case study in Latin and other languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198733287.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Acedo-Matellán, Víctor & Jaume Mateu. 2013. Satellite-framed Latin vs. verb-framed Romance: A syntactic approach. Probus 25. 1–39.10.1515/probus-2013-0008Search in Google Scholar
Allen, Bernard. 1912. The dative with compound verbs in Latin. The Classical Weekly 5(22). 170–173.10.2307/4386567Search in Google Scholar
Allen, Bernard & Joseph Greenough. 1903. New Latin Grammar. Boston/London: The Athenaeum Press.Search in Google Scholar
Asbury, Anne. 2008. The Morphosyntax of Case and Adpositions. PHD. University of Utrecht.Search in Google Scholar
Baker, Mark. 1988. Incorporation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Search in Google Scholar
Baños, Baños & José Miguel. 2009. Preposiciones. In J. M. Baños Baños (coord.), Sintaxis del latín clásico, 299–348. Madrid: Liceus ediciones.Search in Google Scholar
Bassols de Climent, Mariano. 1956. Sintaxis latina, vol. 2. Madrid: Enciclopedia Clásica.Search in Google Scholar
Biskup, Petr. 2007. “P(refixe)s and P(reposition)s. Ms. University of Leipzig.Search in Google Scholar
Calabrese, Andrea. 1996. Some remarks on the Latin case system and its development in Romance. In J. Lema & E. Treviño (eds), Theoretical analyses on Romance languages: Selected papers from the 26th linguistic symposium on Romance languages, 71–126. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/cilt.157.06calSearch in Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Michael Kentowicz (ed.), Ken Hale: A life in language, 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2008. On phases. In Robert Freidin, Carlos P. Otero & María Luisa Zubizarreta (eds.), Foundational issues in linguistic theory. Essays in honor of Jean- Roger Vergnaud, 133–166. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/9780262062787.003.0007Search in Google Scholar
Crocco Galèas, Grazia & Claudio Iacobini. 1993. Lo sviluppo del tipo verbale parasintetico in latino: I prefissi AD-, IN-, EX-. Quaderni Patavini di inguistica 12. 31–68.Search in Google Scholar
De Valbuena, Manuel. 1789. Los comentarios de Cayo Julio Cesar. Madrid: Imprenta real.Search in Google Scholar
Di Sciullo, Anna-Maria. 1997. Prefixed verbs and adjunct-identification. In Anna-Maria Di Sciullo (ed.), Projections and interface conditions. Essays on modularity, 52–74. New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Di Sciullo, Anna-Maria & Roumyana Slabakova. 2005. Quantification and aspect. In Angeliek van Hout, Henriette de Swart & Henk J. Verkuyl (eds.), Perspectives on aspect, 61–80. Dordrecht: Kluwer.10.1007/1-4020-3232-3_4Search in Google Scholar
Embick, David. 2007. Linearization and local dislocation: Derivational mechanics and interactions. Linguistic Analysis 33(3-4). 303–336.Search in Google Scholar
Embick, David. 2015. The morpheme. A theoretical Introduction. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9781501502569Search in Google Scholar
Ernout, Alfred & François Thomas. 1953. Syntaxe Latine. Paris: Klincksieck.Search in Google Scholar
Gaffiot, Félix. 1934. Dictionnaire latin-français. Paris: Hachette. http://www.lexilogos.com/latin/gaffiot.php.Search in Google Scholar
Gehrke, Berit. 2008. Ps in motion: On the semantics and syntax of P elements and motion events (LOT Dissertation Series 184). Utrecht: LOT Publications.Search in Google Scholar
Glare, P. G. W. (ed.). 2012. Oxford Latin Dictionary. 2nd edn Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Hale, Kenneth & Samuel J. Keyser. 1993. On argument structure and the lexical expression of syntactic relations. In Kenneth Hale & Samuel J. Keyser (eds.), The View from Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger, 53–109. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar
Hale, Kenneth & Samuel J. Keyser. 2000. Aspect and the syntax of argument structure (MS). Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Search in Google Scholar
Halle, Morris. 1997. Distributed morphology: Impoverishment and fission. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 30. 425–449.10.1075/cilt.202.07halSearch in Google Scholar
Halle, Morris & Alec Marantz. 1993. Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. In K. Hale & S. Keyser (eds.), The view from building 20, 111–176. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar
Halle, Morris & Alec Marantz. 1994. Some key features of distributed morphology. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 21. 275–288.Search in Google Scholar
Harley, Heidi. 2005. How do verbs get their names? Denominal verbs, Manner Incorporation and the ontology of verb Roots in English. In N. Erteschik-Shir & T. Rapoport (eds.), The syntax of aspect: Deriving thematic and aspectual interpretation, 42–64. Oxford (New York): Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199280445.003.0003Search in Google Scholar
Harley, Heidi & Rolf Noyer. 1999. Distributed morphology. Glot International 4(4). 3–9.Search in Google Scholar
Harley, Heidi & Rolf Noyer. 2000. Licensing in the non-lexicalist lexicon. In Bert Peeters (ed.), The Lexicon/encyclopaedia interface, 349–374. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Search in Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1983. Semantics and cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 1996. Severing the external argument from its verb. In Johan Rooryck & Laurie Zaring (eds.), Phrase structure and the Lexicon, 109–137. Dordrecht: Kluwer.10.1007/978-94-015-8617-7_5Search in Google Scholar
Kühner, Raphael & Carl Stegmann. 1912. Ausführliche Grammatik der lateinischen Sprache. Hannover: Hahn.Search in Google Scholar
Latina, Bibliotheca Classica. 1820. Caius Julius Caesar. Ad codices parisinos recensitus. Julii Celsi comentariis, vol. II. Paris.Search in Google Scholar
Lehmann, Christian. 1983. Latin preverbs and cases. In Harm Pinkster (ed.), Latin linguistics and linguistic theory, 145–161. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/slcs.12.15lehSearch in Google Scholar
Marantz, Alec. 1988. Clitics, morphological merger, and the mapping to phonological structure. In Michael Hammond & Michael Noonan (eds.), Theoretical Morphology, 253–270. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Search in Google Scholar
Marantz, Alec. 1997. No escape from syntax: Don’t try morphological analysis in the privacy of your own Lexicon. In A. Dimitriadis, L. Siegel, C. Surek-Clark & A. Williams (eds.), Proceedings of the 21st penn linguistics colloquium, 201–225. Philadelphia: UPenn Working Papers in Linguistics.Search in Google Scholar
Marantz, Alec. 2000. Words (MS). Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Search in Google Scholar
Marantz, Alec. 2010. Locality domains for contextual allosemy in words, talk handout. New York University.Search in Google Scholar
Marantz, Alec. 2013. Verbal argument structure: Events and participants. Lingua 130. 152–168.10.1016/j.lingua.2012.10.012Search in Google Scholar
Mateu, Jaume. 2002. Argument structure. Relational construal at the syntax-semantics interface. Bellaterra: Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona dissertation. http://seneca.uab.cat/clt/publicacions/tesis/index.html. (12 September 2010).Search in Google Scholar
McFadden, Thomas. 2004. The position of morphological case in the derivation: A study on the syntax-morphology interface. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Doctoral Dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Oroz, Rodolfo. 1956. Gramática Latina. Santiago: Ed. Nascimento.Search in Google Scholar
Pinkster, Harm. 2011. The use of the dative with Latin compounds. STUF-Language Typology and Universals/Sprachtypologie und Universalienforshung 63. 32–43.10.1524/stuf.2011.0011Search in Google Scholar
Pinkster, Harm. 2015. Oxford Latin syntax. Volume 1: The simple clause. Oxford: University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199283613.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Revuelta-Puigdollers, Antonio. 2016. A cognitive-functional study of the prefix circum: The non-prototypical cases. In Paolo Poccetti (ed.), Latinitatis rationes. Descriptive and historical accounts for the Latin language, 127–146. Berlin: De Gruyter.10.1515/9783110431896-011Search in Google Scholar
Siddiqi, Daniel. 2009. Syntax within the word. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/la.138Search in Google Scholar
Svenonius, Peter. 2004. Slavic prefixes inside and outside VP. Nordlyd 32(2). 205–253.10.7557/12.68Search in Google Scholar
Svenonius, Peter. 2008. Projections of P. In A. Asbury, J. Dotlačil, B. Geghrke & R. Nouwen (eds.), Syntax and semantics of spatial, 63–84. Amsterdam: Benjamins.10.1075/la.120.04sveSearch in Google Scholar
Svenonius, Peter. 2010. Spatial P in English. In G. Cinque & L. Rizzi (eds.), Mapping Spatial PPs: The cartography of syntactic structures, vol. 6, 127–160. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195393675.003.0004Search in Google Scholar
Talmy, Leonard. 1978. Figure and ground in complex sentences. In Joseph En Greenberg (ed.), Universals of human language, vol. 4, 625–649. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Talmy, Leonard. 2000. Toward a cognitive semantics, vol. 2: Typology and process in concept structuring. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/6848.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Woodcock, E. C. 1971. A New Latin Syntax. Londres: Methuen and Co. LTD.Search in Google Scholar
© 2018 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
