Read more
This book examines Latin word order patterns, in particular the relative ordering of i) lexical verbs and direct objects and ii) auxiliaries and non-finite verbs. Lieven Danckaert offers a corpus-based description of these alternations and demonstrates that Latin is a fully configurational language, contrary to received wisdom.
List of contents
- Series preface
- Acknowledgements
- Abbreviations
- A note on glossing conventions
- 1: What is at stake: Word order, configurationality, and the potential for structural ambiguity
- 2: Latin corpus linguistics and the study of language change: Methods, problems and prospect
- 3: Multiple object positions and how to diagnose them
- 4: VOAux: A typologically rare word order pattern
- 5: Changing EPP parameters: Clause structure in Classical and Late Latin
- 6: The development of BE-periphrases
- Epilogue. : Variable direction of complementation in the Latin clause: A synthesis
- Glossary
- References
About the author
Lieven Danckaert is a researcher at CNRS adn the University of Lille 3. He was previously employed at Ghent University, where he obtained his PhD in 2011. His research focuses on Latin syntax, particularly word order and the use of quantitative, corpus-based methods. His work has been published in journals including Lingua and Transactions of the Philological Society, and in several edited volumes. He is the author of Latin Embedded Clauses: The Left Periphery (John Benjamins, 2012).
Summary
This book examines Latin word order patterns, in particular the relative ordering of i) lexical verbs and direct objects and ii) auxiliaries and non-finite verbs. Lieven Danckaert offers a corpus-based description of these alternations and demonstrates that Latin is a fully configurational language, contrary to received wisdom.
Additional text
Danckaert in this volume has given us new knowledge about the development of word order in the constructions that he has chosen to study. This contribution is very important and valuable-and will be appreciated even by those who do not share his convictions about his theoretical framework.
