Patterns of change and variation
Organizers: Tim Ongenae (Ghent University) – Elisabeth Reichle (University of Regensburg)
Contact information for questions: tim.ongenae@ugent.be and elisabeth1.reichle@sprachlit.uni-regensburg.de
Please send abstract to: lvlt2026@ateneo.univr.it
In recent years, the study of argument structure and its diachronic development in Latin has gained increasing attention. Valency refers to the number of participants in an event expressed by a verb (which could be avalent, monovalent, bivalent…). Transitivity refers to the organization of a prototypical bivalent event, typically involving a nominative subject and an accusative direct object. Voice concerns the morphosyntactic encoding of valency alternations on the verb (e.g. the mediopassive voice or the reflexive marker).
Valency, voice, and transitivity are key aspects underlying a considerable number of syntactic changes in several phenomena in Latin, such as morphosyntactic alignment (e.g. Cennamo 2009; Rovai 2012), lability (e.g. Gianollo 2014; Ongenae 2024), differential object marking (e.g. Sornicola 1997; Melis 2021), ditransitive constructions (e.g. Fedriani & Napoli 2023), voice (e.g. Cennamo 1998). In parallel with advancements in Latin linguistics, research within different theoretical frameworks (functional-typological linguistics, generative grammar, formal semantics, cognitive linguistics, construction grammar…) has developed methodological tools to account for variation in argument structure, voice, and transitivity (Hopper & Thompson 1980; Kemmer 1993; Levin 1993; Levin & Rappaport Hovav 1995; Goldberg 1995; Zúñiga & Kittilä 2019; Creissels 2024, to name just a few).
This workshop aims to bring together researchers from various theoretical backgrounds working on topics related to variation in transitivity, valency, and voice in Late and Vulgar Latin, from a diachronic and theoretical perspective. Authors are invited to draw data from all periods of Latin but are asked to focus on Late Latin, Vulgar Latin, and Early Medieval Latin.
Possible topics include (but are not limited to):
- Changes in the argument structure of specific verbs or verbal classes
- The development of morphosyntactic alignment
- Voice categories (mediopassive, reflexive constructions…) and their functions (passive, anticausative, reflexive, reciprocal…)
- Alternation between se and sibi, lexicalization and grammaticalization of reflexives
- The diachrony of deponent verbs
- The rise of lability (valency alternations without formal marking on the verb)
- Differential Object Marking, impersonality, non-canonical argument marking
- ..
References
Cennamo, Michela. 1998. The loss of the voice dimension between Late Latin and Early Romance. In Monika S. Schmid, Jennifer R. Austin & Dieter Stein (eds.), Historical Linguistics 1997: Selected papers from the 13th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Düsseldorf, 10–17 August 1997 (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 164), 77–100. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.164.06cen.
Cennamo, Michela. 2009. Argument structure and alignment variations and changes in Late Latin. In Jóhanna Barðdal & Shobhana L. Chelliah (eds.), The role of semantic, pragmatic, and discourse factors in the development of case (Studies in Language Companion Series 108), 307–346. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.108.17cen.
Creissels, Denis. 2024. Transitivity, valency, and voice. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/9780198899594.001.0001.
Fedriani, Chiara & Maria Napoli. 2023. The missing dative alternation in Romance: explaining stability and change in the argument structure of Latin ditransitives. Transactions of the Philological Society 121(1). 33–64. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-968X.12255.
Gianollo, Chiara. 2014. Labile verbs in Late Latin. Linguistics 52(4). 945–1002. https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2014-0013.
Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure (Cognitive Theory of Language and Culture). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Hopper, Paul J. & Sandra A. Thompson. 1980. Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language 56(2). 251–299. https://doi.org/10.2307/413757.
Kemmer, Suzanne. 1993. The middle voice (Typological Studies in Language 23). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.23.
Levin, Beth. 1993. English verb classes and alternations: a preliminary investigation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Levin, Beth & Malka Rappaport Hovav. 1995. Unaccusativity: at the syntax-lexical semantics interface (Linguistic Inquiry Monographs 26). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Melis, Chantal. 2021. From topic marking to definite object marking: Focusing on the beginnings of Spanish DOM. In Johannes Kabatek, Philipp Obrist & Albert Wall (eds.), Differential Object Marking in Romance, 39–64. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110716207-003.
Ongenae, Tim A.F. 2024. Permittito aperiat oculum : Typological considerations on P-lability and its interaction with morphosyntactic alignment in Latin medical texts. Folia Linguistica Historica 45(1). 79–113. https://doi.org/10.1515/flin-2024-2005.
Rovai, Francesco. 2012. Sistemi di codifica argomentale: tipologia e evoluzione. Pisa: Pacini.
Sornicola, Rosanna. 1997. L’oggetto preposizionale in siciliano antico e in napoletano antico. Considerazioni su un problema di tipologia diacronica. Italienische Studien 18. 66–80.
Zúñiga, Fernando & Seppo Kittilä. 2019. Grammatical voice (Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316671399.