Cover not available

In:Possession in Languages of Europe and North and Central Asia:
Edited by Lars Johanson, Lidia Federica Mazzitelli and Irina Nevskaya
[Studies in Language Companion Series 206] 2019
► pp. 365–392

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload Book PDF
authorization required

Competing possessive constructions in Late Latin documents from Italy

 | Università degli Studi di Firenze
Published online: 5 March 2019
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.206.16val
This paper illustrates the grammaticalisation of the preposition de as a genitive marker through the analysis of Early Medieval notary deeds written in northern and central Italy (Codice diplomatico longobardo, CDL). In Classical Latin, de is used mainly as a verbal adjunct; its usage at the noun phrase level is sporadic and semantically determined, conveying mainly the meaning of ‘source’. By the time of the CDL documents, de has a more grammaticalised status and a higher frequency, but has not yet affected the expression of kinship and ownership. Semantic factors such as the prototypicality of the possessive relation and the degree of animacy of the modifier can motivate this concurrence between the synthetic and the analytical pattern of adnominal possession.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The use of de at the noun phrase level in Classical Latin
    • 2.1Functions related to the idea of separation
    • 2.2Non-anchoring relations
    • 2.3Part-whole relation
    • 2.4Relational and argument marking
  • 3.Expansion of the preposition de
    • 3.1Late Latin
    • 3.2Discussions
  • 4.The expression of adnominal possession in the Lombard documents
    • 4.1The use of the preposition de in the Lombard documents
      • 4.1.1Functions related to the idea of separation
      • 4.1.2Non-anchoring relations
      • 4.1.3Part-whole relation
      • 4.1.4Argument marking
        • 4.1.4.1Substitution of the objective genitive
        • 4.1.4.2Substitution of the subjective genitive
    • 4.2Synthetic encoding of adnominal possession
      • 4.2.1Inflected modifiers
        • 4.2.1.1Retention of Classical Latin genitive
        • 4.2.1.2Analogical endings
      • 4.2.2Juxtaposition
        • 4.2.2.1Latin names
        • 4.2.2.2Germanic names
    • 4.3Syntactic remarks
      • 4.3.1Nominal paradigm
      • 4.3.2Conditions favouring the prepositional encoding
        • 4.3.2.1Heavy modifiers
        • 4.3.2.2Cumulation of genitives
        • 4.3.2.3Coordination of modifiers
  • 5.Grammaticalisation of the preposition de
    • 5.1Extension
    • 5.2Desemanticisation
    • 5.3A transitional stage in the grammaticalisation process
  • 6.Semantic interpretation
    • 6.1Prototypical possessive relations
    • 6.2Semantic principles underlying grammaticalisation
    • 6.3A semantically-based concurrence between possessive constructions
  • 7.Conclusions
  • Notes
  • References
References (36)
References
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2013. Possession and ownership: A cross linguistic perspective. In Possession and Ownership, Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald & R. M. W. Dixon (eds), 1–64. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Baggio, Serenella & Sanga, Glauco. 1995. Sul volgare in età longobarda (On vernacular in Lombard times). In Italia settentrionale: Crocevia di idiomi romanzi. Atti del convegno internazionale di studi, Emanuele Banfi, Giovanni Bonfadini, Patrizia Cordin & Maria Iliescu (eds), 247–260. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Baldi, Philip & Nuti, Andrea. 2010. Possession. In New Perspectives on Historical Latin Syntax, Vol. 3: Constituent Syntax: Quantification, Numerals, Possession, Anaphora, Philip Baldi & Pierluigi Cuzzolin (eds), 239–387. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bonnet, Max. 1890. Le latin de Grégoire de Tours. Paris: Hachette.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Carlier, Anne, Goyens, Michèle & Lamiroy, Béatrice. 2013. De: A genitive marker in French? Its grammaticalization path from Latin to French, in The Genitive [Case and Grammatical Relations across Languages 5], Anne Carlier & Jean-Christophe Verstraete (eds), 141–216. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
CDL: Codice Diplomatico Longobardo, vol. 1–2. 1929–33. Luigi Schiaparelli (ed.). Roma: Istituto Storico Italiano.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1989. Language Universals and Linguistic Typology. Syntax and Morphology. Chicago IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
de Dardel, Robert. 1999. L’origine du génitif-datif. Vox Romanica 58: 26–56.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ernout, Alfred & Thomas, François. 1951. Syntaxe latine. Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ferguson, Charles A. 1959. Diglossia. Word 15: 325–340. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Francovich Onesti, Nicoletta. 1999. Vestigia longobarde in Italia (568–774). Lessico e antroponimia (Lombard relics in Italy (568–774). Lexicon and anthroponymy). Roma: Artemide.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd. 1997. Possession: Cognitive Sources, Forces and Grammaticalization. Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd & Narrog, Heiko. 2015. Grammaticalization and linguistic analysis. In The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Analysis, Bernd Heine & Heiko Narrog (eds), 401–423. Oxford: OUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hofmann, Johann Baptist & Szantyr, Anton. 1965. Lateinische Syntax und Stilistik. Munich: Beck.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Maria. 2002. Adnominal possession in the European languages: Form and function. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 55(2): 141–172.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Korkiakangas, Timo. 2016. Subject Case in the Latin of Tuscan Charters of the 8th and 9th Centuries. PhD dissertation, University of Helsinki.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1995. Possession and possessive constructions. In Language and the Cognitive Construal of the World, John R. Taylor & R. E. MacLaury (eds), 51–79. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Larson, Pär. 2000. Tra linguistica e fonti diplomatiche: Quello che le carte dicono e non dicono (Between linguistics and diplomatic documents: What charters do and do not say). In La preistoria dell’italiano. Atti della Tavola Rotonda di Linguistica Storica, Università Ca’ Foscari di Venezia 11–13 giugno 1998, József Herman & Anna Marinetti (eds), 151–166. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lehmann, Christian. 1998. Possession in Yucatec Maya. Munich: Lincom.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2015. Thoughts on Grammaticalization. Berlin: Language Science Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lüdi, Georges. 1990. Diglossie et polyglossie. In Lexikon der Romanistischen Linguistik, 5(1): Französisch, Günter Holtus, Michael Metxeltin & Christian Schmitt (eds), 307–334. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Magni, Elisabetta. 2013. Synchronic gradience and language change in Latin genitive constructions. In Synchrony and Diachrony: A Dynamic Interface [Studies in Language Companion Series 133], Anna Giacalone Ramat, Caterina Mauri & Piera Molinelli (eds), 177–200. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mazzitelli, Lidia Federica. 2015. The Expression of Predicative Possession. A Comparative Study of Belarusian and Lithuanian. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Norberg, Dag. 1943. Syntaktische Forschungen auf dem Gebiete des Spätlateins und des frühen Mittellateins. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pinkster, Harm. 1990. Latin Syntax and Semantics. London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2015. The Oxford Latin Syntax. Oxford: OUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sabatini, Francesco. 1965. Esigenze di realismo e dislocazione morfologica in testi preromanzi [Need of realism and morphologic displacement in pre-Romance texts]. Rivista di Cultura Classica e Medioevale 7: 972–998.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Salonius, Aarne Henrik. 1920. Vitae Patrum. Kritische Untersuchungen über Text, Syntax und Wortschatz der spätlateinischen Vitae Patrum. Lund: Gleerup.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schiaparelli, Luigi. 1933. Note diplomatiche sulle carte longobarde (Diplomatic notes about Lombard charters). Archivio storico italiano 19: 3–66.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Seiler, Hansjakob. 1983. Possession as an Operational Dimension of Language. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Spevak, Olga. 2014. Noun valency in Latin. In Noun Valency [Studies in Language Companion Series 158], Olga Spevak (ed.), 183–210. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tekavčić, Pavao. 1975. Agli albori dell’italiano (At the dawning of Italian). Linguistica 15: 209–239.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
TLL: Thesaurus Linguae Latinae. 1900–. Leipzig: TeubnerGoogle Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Väänänen, Veikko. 1954. Sur la préposition de marquant la notion partitive. Acta Philologica Fennica 1: 192–198.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1956. La préposition de et le génitif. Une mise au point. Revue de Linguistique Romane 20: 1–20.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zamboni, Alberto. 2000. Alle origini dell’italiano. Dinamiche e tipologie della transizione dal latino (At the Source of Italian: Dynamics and Typology of the Transition from Latin). Roma: Carocci.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue