100,498 research outputs found
From comitative to clausal conjunction in a typological perspective: Evidence from simul in early Latin
No full textThis analysis investigates the role of comitative constructions as a coordination strategy in
early Latin. From a typological perspective, it is well-known that a comitative marker can be
used to express a conjunctive relationship (Mithun 1988: 338; Haspelmath 2004: 15). The
Latin comitative construction with simul ‘together; simultaneously’ (de Vaan 2008: 564; cf.
Corder 1905: 5) shows a gradual grammaticalization process toward a ‘coordination-like’
construction. It gives rise to new conjunctive functions that involve not only the phrasal level
but also extend to the broader sentence level (cf. Gast & Diessel 2012, Haspelmath 2004).
The syntactic and semantic analysis of the occurrences of simul/semul in Latin literary texts
from the late 3rd to early 1st century BC allows us to identify at least four main functions of
this term, which proves to be multifunctional at a synchronic level (cf. Haumann 1997: 47;
Kortmann 1998: 58). Depending on the different contexts of use, it indeed behaves as i) a
spatial or temporal adverb, ii) a preposition, iii) a noun or adjective phrase conjunction, and
iv) a sentence conjunction. From a diachronic perspective, the distribution of those
occurrences suggests that starting as an adverb, simul develops a coordinating function,
initially at the NP level and later extending to the independent sentence level. This
development conforms to the general grammaticalization path COMITATIVE > NP-AND >
SENTENCE-AND (Heine & Kuteva 2004: 83). From a typological perspective, although modern
Indo-European languages have been undoubtedly classified as AND-languages, these data
would support the existence of previous WITH-coordination strategies in Latin, as has been
also assumed for other ancient Indo-European languages (Stassen 2000: 37; Bartolotta 2025).
Moreover, given that pairing of the comitative function with temporal functions of
simultaneity or concomitance is common cross-linguistically, it is not surprising that simul,
while still retaining its function as a lexical adverb (cf. Hopper 1991), tends to further evolve
from a comitative marker added to NP arguments into a temporal clause marker used to
introduce subordinate clauses. This development conforms to the grammaticalization path
COMITATIVE > TEMPORAL (cf. Heine & Kuteva 2004: 89-90).
References
Bartolotta, A. (2025), From WITH-languages to AND-languages: Insights from Ancient Greek,
in Verano, R. et al. (Eds.), Papers in Greek Linguistics, Sevilla: Editorial de la
Universidad de Sevilla (forthcoming).
Corder, L. F. (1905). The use of simul, simulac (atque) and synonyms, cum primum ut primum
and ubi primum from the earliest literature down to the Augustan age. PhD thesis,
University of Missouri, Columbia.
Gast, V. and Diessel, H. (2012), The typology of clause linkage: status quo, challenges,
prospects. In (Eds.), Clause Linkage in Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Berlin/Boston:
Walter de Gruyter, pp. 1-36.
Haspelmath, M. (2004): Coordinating constructions: An overview. In M. Haspelmath (Ed.),
Coordinating Constructions. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 3-39.
Haumann, D. (1997), The Syntax of Subordination. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.
Heine, B. and Kuteva, T. (2004): World Lexicon of Grammaticalization. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Hopper, P. J. (1991), On some principles of grammaticization. In E. Traugott and B. Heine
(Eds.) Approaches to Grammaticalization. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp.
17–35.
Kortmann, B. (1998), Adverbial subordinators in the languages of Europe. In J. van der
Auwera (Ed.), Eurotyp. 3. Adverbial Constructions in the Languages of Europe.
Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 457-561.
Mithun, M. (1988), The grammaticization of coordination. In J. Haiman and S. Thompson
(Eds.), Clause Combining in Grammar and Discourse. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John
Benjamins, pp. 331-359.
De Vaan, M. (2008), Etymological Dictionary of Latin and the other Italic Languages.
Leiden/Boston: Brill.
Stassen, L. (2000): «AND-languages and WITH-languages», Linguistic Typology 4 (1), 1-54
The right-left conceptual mapping in a comparative and diachronic perspective
No full textThis paper investigates the right-left conceptualization of space in ancient Indo-European languages.
In a crosslinguistic perspective, RIGHT and LEFT terms can be recruited to designate cardinal directions
(Hertz 1909: 567; Lloyd 1962: 59; Brown 1983: 136). These terms turn out to be associated respectively
to east and west in languages such as Vedic Sanskrit, Hittite, and Homeric Greek. However, the
interpretation of such metaphorical mapping from the source domain to the target domain is still an
open question. This is also due to some unresolved inconsistencies between etymology and semantic
developments emerged in the reconstruction of the Indo-European roots of these terms since the
earlier studies of Grimm. The German linguist ascribed the origin of the spatial uses of RIGHT and LEFT
to the orientation of the observer’s body (1848: 981). The question is further complicated by the
unclear origin of linguistic metaphors for positive and negative valence, through an associative
mapping from the concrete right-left space to the abstract emotional concepts of ‘goodness’ and
‘badness’. The mental spatial schema is indeed activated to represent such concepts by means of the
well-known Good is Right and Left is Bad conceptual mapping (cf. Casasanto 2009; 2014). From a strictly
linguistic perspective, a strong asymmetry has been observed between RIGHT and LEFT terms. More
specifically, while the RIGHT terms of most Indo-European languages derive from one and the same root
*deḱs- (Walde 1930: 784; Pokorny 1959: 190), the LEFT terms cannot be traced back to one common
ancestor (cf. Buck 1949: 865). Traditionally, such an asymmetry has been ascribed to cultural
conventions (cf. Van Leeuwen-Turnovcová 1990), which, however, would ultimately reflect the original
embodied asymmetry within the hand domain (cf. Meillet 1906 [1982]: 290; Cuillandre 1947;
Heesterman 1959: 256; Giannakis 2019: 256-257). Yet, from an etymological perspective, it has been
shown how the words for RIGHT and LEFT derive from lexical roots that are not primarily related to the
sides of the body (cf. Foolen 2019: 145), thus challenging an embodied origin of these mental
metaphors. Now, recent studies on Indo-European spatial Frames of Reference (FoRs) have revealed
that RIGHT and LEFT terms could be used within an absolute or geocentric FoR (Bartolotta 2022). Such
results might shed light on the transfer pattern from the concrete domain of spatial regions to the
abstract domain of right-left dimensions. Indeed, although it is widely assumed that the human body
is the main source domain for the linguistic conceptualization of the entire domain of spatial relations,
and that, accordingly, hands are the conceptual source for RIGHT and LEFT polarity (Heine 1997: 49; cf.
Bickel 1994: 32), the analysis of the data from a comparative and diachronic perspective seems to
suggest a different path of this conceptual metaphor. More specifically, the textual analysis of the
RigVeda and the Homeric poems, aside from supporting pieces of evidence derived from Hittite oracle
and ritual texts (cf. Ünal 1978; Puhvel 1983; Sakuma 2009) and the Umbrian Tabulae Iguvinae
(Prosdocimi 1979; 2015; Untermann 2000: 475), suggests that the extension to hands is the result of a
conceptual metaphor which goes from cosmogony (involving the concrete movements of the sun) to
the body (cf. Kuiper 1970: 128; Gonda 1972: 8; Abrams & Primack 2001: 1769), thus proving that the
metaphoric mapping between body-parts and other domains is not unidirectional (cf. Sinha & Jensen
de López 2000: 24; Yu 2008: 408).
References
Abrams, N. E., Primack J. R. (2001), Cosmology and 21st-century Culture, «Science» 293 (5536): 1769-
1770.
Bartolotta, A. (2022), Spatial Cognition and Frames of Reference in Indo-European, in D. Romagno, F.
Rovai, M. Bianconi, M. Capano (eds.), Variation, Contact, and Reconstruction in the Ancient
Indo-European Languages. Between Linguistics and Philology, Brill, Leiden/Boston, pp. 179-209.
Bickel, B. (1994), Mapping Operations in Spatial Deixis and the Typology of Reference Frames, Working
Paper n. 31, Cognitive Anthropology Research Group, Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, Nijmegen.
Brown, C.H. (1983), Where Do Cardinal Direction Terms Come From?, «Anthropological Linguistics» 25(2): 121-161.
Buck, C.D. (1949), A dictionary of selected synonyms in the principal Indo-European languages,
University of Chicago Press, Chicago/London.
Casasanto, D. (2009), Embodiment of Abstract Concepts: Good and Bad in Right-and Left-Handers, «Journal of Experimental Psychology: General» 138 (3): 351-367.
Casasanto, D. (2014), Experiential origins of mental metaphors: Language, culture, and the body, in M.
J. Landau, M. D. Robinson, B. P. Meier (Eds.), The power of metaphor: Examining its influence
on social life (Vol. 155), American Psychological Association, Washington, DC.
Cuillandre, J. (1943), La droite et la gauche dans les poèmes homériques en concordance avec la
doctrine pythagoricienne et la tradition celtique, Imprimeries Réunies, Rennes.
Foolen, A. (2019), The value of left and right, in J. L. Mackenzie, L. Alba-Juez (Eds.), Emotion in Discourse,
John Benjamins, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, pp. 139-158.
Giannakis, G. K. (2019), The east/west and right/left dualism and the rise of some taboos in ancient
Greek language and culture, in G.K. Giannakis, C. Charalambakis, F. Montanari, A. Rengakos
(Eds.), Studies in Greek Lexicography, Walter de Gruyter, Berlin/New York, pp. 233-262.
Gonda, J. (1972), The Significance of the Right Hand and the Right Side in Vedic Ritual, «Religion» 2 (1):
1-23.
Grimm, J. (1848), Geschichte der Deutschen Sprache, Zweiter Band, in der Weidmannschen
Buchhandlung, Leipzig.
Heine, B. (1997), Cognitive Foundations of Grammar, Oxford University Press, New York/Oxford.
Hertz, R. (1909), La prééminence de la main droite: Étude sur la polarité religieuse, «Revue
Philosophique de la France et de l’Étranger» 68: 553-580.
Heesterman, J.C. (1959), Reflections on the significance of the “Dákṣiṇā”, «Indo-Iranian Journal» 3 (4):
241-258.
Kuiper, F.B.J. (1970), Cosmogony and Conception: A Query, «History of Religions» 10 (2): 91-138.
van Leeuwen-Turnovcová, J. (1990), Rechts und Links in Europa: ein Beitrag zur Semantik und Symbolik
der Geschlechterpolarität, Otto Harrassowitz, Wiesbaden.
Lloyd, G.E.R. (1962), Right and Left in Greek Philosophy, «The Journal of Hellenic Studies» 82: 56-66.
Meillet, A. (1906 [1982]), Quelques hypothèses sur des interdictions de vocabulaire dans les langues
indo-européennes, in A. Meillet (Ed.), Linguistique historique et linguistique générale, Paris,
Champion, pp. 281-291.
Pokorny, J. (1959), Indogermanisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch, I, Francke Verlag, Bern/München.
Prosdocimi, A. L. (1979), Umbria: Asisium, Parte III (Note e commenti). Rivista di Epigrafia Italica, in
«Studi Etruschi» 47: 376-379.
Prosdocimi, A. L. (2015), Le Tavole Iguvine. Preliminari all’interpretazione. La testualità: Fatti e metodi,
II. Olschki, Firenze.
Puhvel, J. (1983), Homeric Questions and Hittite Answers, «The American Journal of Philology» 104 (3):
217-227.
Sakuma, Y. (2009), Hethitische Vogelorakeltexte, Ph.D. dissertation, Julius Maximilian University,
Würzburg.
Sinha C. & K. Jensen de López (2000), Language, culture, and the embodiment of spatial cognition,
«Cognitive Linguistics» 11 (1/2): 17-41.
Ünal, A. (1978), Ein Orakeltext über die Intrigen am hethitischen Hof, Carl Winter Universitätsverlag,
Heidelberg.
Untermann, J. (2000), Wörterbuch des Oskisch-Umbrischen. Handbuch der Italischen Dialekte. Band III.
Carl Winter Universitätsverlag, Heidelberg.
Walde, A. (1930), Vergleichendes Wörterbuch der indogermanischen Sprachen. Herausgegeben und
bearbeitet von Julius Pokorny. 1. Band, Walter de Gruyter, Berlin/Leipzig.
Yu, N. (2008), The Relationship Between Metaphor, Body and Culture, in R. M. Frank, R. Dirven, T.
Ziemke, E. Bernárdez (Eds.), Body, Language and Mind. Sociocultural Situatedness (Vol. 2),
Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, pp. 387-408
From degree adverbs to discourse markers: the case of maxime in Early Latin
No full textDegree modifiers may develop a semantic extension from content to function (Paradis 1997; Méndez Naya 2003; Athanasiadou 2007; Bartolotta 2022), gradually increasing their intensifying function toward more abstract ‘(inter)subjective’ meanings that are related to new grammatical and eventually procedural functions (cf. Traugott 1995; 2003; 2008). The distribution of all the occurrences of maxime in the corpus analyzed in this study, which includes Latin literary texts from roughly 240 BCE to the beginning of the first century BCE (cf. Penney 2011; Vincent 2016), shows that the relationship among different functions of this degree modifier in Early Latin is not simply a matter of synchronic polysemy inherent to the lexical root, but the result of a gradual diachronic change, triggered by the co-occurrence with specific syntactic-semantic and pragmatic contexts. In particular, although dead languages such as Latin cannot provide us with information about intonation and prosodic contours, data show a syntactic shift of maxime from the juxtaposed position, adjacent to the syntactic phrase it modifies, mostly when the adverb acts as an intensifier or a focalizer, to the left periphery of the sentence, mostly when the adverb acts as a discourse marker (DM). This scope increase goes along with semantic-pragmatic shifts from a lower (Representational) to a higher (Interpersonal) functional layer (Hengeveld & Mackenzie 2008), showing an increasing level of subjectification. More precisely, a first increase of subjectification can be observed from the intensifier/focalizer meaning, which is proper to the degree modifier, to the epistemic meaning, which maxime develops as a modal adverb by adding the speaker’s commitment to the truth-value of her/his proposition and taking its scope over the whole sentence. A further increase in terms of intersubjectification can be observed when maxime develops new illocutive and pragmatic functions proper to DMs (confirmative, adversative, and concessive), also marking the textual relationship between two discourse acts or the transition to a new discourse unit (move) at the interactional level. Since maxime shows an intermediate stage of grammaticalization at the proposition level before assuming a pragmatic function, pragmaticalization is here considered as not rigidly separated from grammaticalization, because the same lexical element may evolve toward new grammatical and pragmatic functions that coexist and influence each other within the ‘sentence-discourse continuum’ (cf. Diewald 2011; Degand & Simon-Vandenbergen 2011; Kroon 2011; Ghezzi 2014).
References
Athanasiadou, A. (2007). On the subjectivity of intensifiers. Language Sciences 29, 554–565.
Degand, L. – Simon-Vandenbergen, A. M. (2011). Introduction: Grammaticalization and (inter)subjectification of discourse markers. Linguistics 49 (2), 287–294.
Bartolotta, A. (2022). Intensificatori e soggettificazione in latino: sulla grammaticalizzazione di maxime. Studi e Saggi Linguistici 60 (1), 39–79.
Diewald G. (2011). Pragmaticalization (defined) as grammaticalization of discourse functions. Linguistics 49 (2), 365–390.
Ghezzi, C. (2014). The development of discourse and pragmatic markers. In: Ghezzi, C. and Molinelli, P. (Eds.), Discourse and Pragmatic Markers from Latin to the Romance Languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 10–26.
Hengeveld, K. & Mackenzie, J. L. (2008). Functional Discourse Grammar. A Typologically-based Theory of Language Structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kroon, C. (2011). Latin Particles and the Grammar of Discourse. In: Clackson, J. (Ed.), A Companion to the Latin Language. Oxford: Blackwell, 176–195. Méndez-Naya, B. (2003). On intensifiers and grammaticalization: The case of swiþe. English Studies 84 (4), 372–391.
Paradis, C. (1997). Degree Modifiers of Adjectives in Spoken British English. Lund: Lund University Press.
Penney, J. (2011). Archaic and Old Latin. In: Clackson, J. (Ed.), A Companion to the Latin Language. Oxford: Blackwell, 220–235.
Traugott, E. C. (1995). Subjectification in grammaticalization. In: Stein D. and Wright S. (Eds.), Subjectivity and subjectivisation. Linguistic perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 31–54.
Traugott, E. C. (2003). From subjectification to intersubjectification. In: Hickey, R. (Ed.), Motives for Language Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 124–139. Traugott, E. C. (2008). Grammaticalization, constructions and the incremental development of language: Suggestions from the development of degree modifiers in English, In: Eckardt, R., Jäger, G. and Veenstra, T. (Eds.), Variation, selection, development: Probing the evolutionary model of language change. Berlin – New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 219–250.
46
Vincent, N. (2016). Continuity and change from Latin to Romance. In: Adams, J. and Vincent, N. (Eds.), Early and Late Latin. Continuity or Change? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1–13
The continuum between coordination and subordination in Archaic Greek: On the grammaticalization of ἅμα
No full textThe syntax of subordination in the early stages of ancient Indo-European languages is still a debated issue (cf. Cristofaro 2003, Viti 2013, Probert 2015 and references therein). Indeed, not all subordination strategies rely on specific lexical items or explicit markers, making it challenging to identify clause-linking patterns in many of the world's languages (cf. Haspelmath 2004, Gast & Diessel 2012). From a typological perspective, it is widely held that adverbs and prepositions are among the primary sources of both coordinating and subordinating markers, which are considered the result of a grammaticalization process (cf. Haumann 1997; Kortmann 1998). By using the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae database (TLG) as a digital corpus of Homeric Greek texts, this paper investigates the semantic and syntactic developments of ἅμα ‘together; at the same time’ (cf. Beekes 2010: 79), aiming to demonstrate that it can be considered the source of a grammaticalization process that gives rise to new linking strategies. From a synchronic perspective, the analysis of all the occurrences of ἅμα in Iliad and Odyssey shows that this is a multifunctional term that involves a great variety of meanings, behaving as (i) an adverb with either spatial (‘in the same place’), comitative, or temporal value (simultaneity), (ii) a preposition governing dative NPs, (iii) a preverb added to a specific class of verbs, with which it tends to constitute a syntactic and semantic unit, (iv) a connective adverb functioning as a coordinating conjunction, (v) a preposition introducing a subordinate clause. From a diachronic perspective, based on different syntactic contexts, it turns out to undergo multiple grammaticalization processes (polygrammaticalization), evolving either from adverb into preposition or from adverb into conjunction, according to an evolution path that has been observed in other ancient Indo-European languages. Moreover, it is hardly surprising that a comitative marker can be recruited to express a conjunctive relationship (Mithun 1988: 338; Haspelmath 2004: 15). Indeed, previous studies have already classified Ancient Greek ἅμα as a ‘conjunctive adverb’ (Crespo 2011: 39; Jiménez Delgado 2018: 212; cf. Verano 2018: 127). In particular, it has been suggested that ἅμα functioned as a conjunctive adverb as early as Homer. However, it has been argued that such a function was limited to smaller syntactic units, such as NPs, APs, and AdvPs, and that only in the post-Homeric age did ἅμα extend to link broader clause or sentence-level structures (Conti 2012: 60-61). Unlike what was previously assumed (Schwyzer 1950: 534; Conti 2012: 45), I will attempt to show that already in Homer ἅμα began to function as a clause linking strategy. This development aligns with typological predictions suggesting that comitative markers like ‘with’ typically grammaticalize into clause-connecting markers only after an intermediate stage where they coordinate noun phrases (cf. Author 2025 and references therein). It is thus hypothesized that a former comitative adverb ἅμα underwent a grammaticalization process, giving rise to new categories such as conjunctive adverb and preposition, while still preserving its lexical adverbial function, conforming to the basic principle of functional and formal persistence in grammaticalization (Hopper 1991: 22; Lichtenberk 1991: 75). Gradually, both the conjunctive adverb and the preposition expanded into new syntactic contexts. On the one hand, in line with the well-known grammaticalization path COMITATIVE > NP-AND > SENTENCE-SND (Heine & Kuteva 2004: 83), ἅμα extended its coordinating function from NP to sentence level, connecting independent clauses. On the other hand, given the close typological correlation between the comitative function and the temporal meaning of simultaneity that gives rise to the grammaticalization path COMITATIVE > TEMPORAL (cf. Heine & Kuteva 2004: 89-90), ἅμα as a preposition evolved from a comitative marker added to temporal NP arguments to a marker introducing subordinate temporal clauses.
References
Bartolotta, A. 2025. From WITH-languages to AND-languages: Insights from Ancient Greek. In López Romero, M. et al. (Eds.), Papers in Greek Linguistics. Sevilla (forthcoming).
Beekes, R. S. P. 2010. Etymological dictionary of Greek. Leiden/Boston: Brill.
Conti, L. 2012. Los adverbios conjuntivos en griego antiguo. Análisis de ἅμα en Homero, Platón y Jenofonte. Emerita 80 (1). 45-68.
Crespo, E. 2011. Conjunctive Adverbs. A Neglected Chapter of Greek Grammar. In E. R. Luján, J. L. García Alonso (Eds.), A Greek Man in the Iberian Street. Papers in Linguistics and Epigraphy in honour of Javier de Hoz, 35-43. Innsbruck.
Cristofaro, S. 2003. Subordination. Oxford.
Gast, V. & Diessel, H. 2012. The typology of clause linkage: status quo, challenges, prospects. In V. Gast, H. Diessel, (Eds.), Clause Linkage in Cross-Linguistic Perspective, 1-36. Berlin/Boston.
Haspelmath, M. 2004. Coordinating constructions: An overview. In M. Haspelmath (Ed.), Coordinating Constructions, 3-39. Amsterdam/Philadelphia.
Haumann, D. 1997. The Syntax of Subordination. Tübingen.
Heine, B. & Kuteva, T. 2004. World Lexicon of Grammaticalization. Cambridge.
Hopper, P. J. (1991), On some principles of grammaticization. In E. Traugott, B. Heine (Eds.) Approaches to Grammaticalization, 17–35. Amsterdam/Philadelphia
Jiménez Delgado, J.M. 2018. Conjunctive adverbs in Ancient Greek. Position and development of conjunctive functions. Journal of Greek Linguistics 18 (2). 211–240.
Kortmann, B. 1998. Adverbial subordinators in the languages of Europe. In J. van der Auwera (Ed.), Eurotyp. 3. Adverbial Constructions in the Languages of Europe, 457-561. Berlin/New York.
Lichtenberk, F. 1991. On the gradualness of grammaticalization. In E. C. Traugott, B. Heine (Eds.), Approaches to Grammaticalization, vol. 1, 37-80. Amsterdam/Philadelphia.
Mithun, M. 1988. The grammaticization of coordination. In J. Haiman, S. Thompson (Eds.), Clause Combining in Grammar and Discourse, 331-359. Amsterdam/Philadelphia.
Probert, P. 2015. Early Greek Relative Clauses. Oxford.
Schwyzer, E. 1950. Griechische Grammatik, Vol. 2, München.
Verano, R. 2018. Conjunctive Adverbs and Discourse Markers. Problems and Evidence from Ancient Greek. Linguistica e Filologia 38. 125-148.
Viti, C. 2013. Forms and functions of subordination in Indo-European. Historische Sprachforschung 126. 89-117
- …
