A preview of this full-text is provided by Wiley.
Content available from Studia Linguistica
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
LATIN DOMINANT PARTICIPLES:
DYNAMICS OF DERIVATION AND
INTERPRETATION
*
Jarosław Jakielaszek
Abstract. The Latin dominant participle construction poses a challenge for
syntactic and semantic analysis due to its exhibiting an apparent syntax–
semantics mismatch. Its syntactic behaviour and distribution is determined by a
nominal phrase fronted to its left periphery, yet interpretive properties indicate
that it is a propositional structure subject to nominalization. With the Minimalist
Program of Chomsky (1993, 1995) as the framework of analysis, it is argued that
taking into account the dynamics of syntactic operations as envisaged in
Chomsky (2013b, 2015) and related work is sufficient to provide an account of
syntactic and semantic properties of the dominant participle construction without
positing construction–specific rules or covert syntactic nominalizers.
1. Dominant participles: basic properties
One of outstanding properties of the participial system of Latin is the
availability of so–called dominant participle structures
1
(known also as
the ab Urbe condita construction), as exemplified in (1):
2
*I wish to thank the anonymous reviewers for their questions, remarks and suggestions
which greatly helped to improve the present paper. All remaining errors are my own
responsibility.
1
Further discussion and overviews of the properties of the dominant participle structure
may be found in K€
uhner & Stegmann (1912:766–774), Ernout & Thomas (1964:280–281),
Laughton (1964:84–99), Hofmann & Szantyr (1972:393–394), Pinkster (1990:132–134),
Menge (2012:717–718), Ruppel (2013:97–102); Ros
en (1999:98–108) provides an overview of
the participial system of Latin. A dimension of the dominant participle structure which is put
aside in the following discussion concerns details of the semantic import of the viewpoint
aspect present in the syntactic skeleton of participles, on which Laughton (1964:88–89)
remarks: ‘ We may conveniently translate (...)ante Romam conditam as ‘before the foundation
of Rome’, but we should note that the English abstract nouns conceal the precision of the
participial expression, which carries with it, as an essential part of its meaning, the idea of
completed action’; see Pinkster (2015:541–552) for an overview of interpretive properties of
Latin participles in this respect.
2
The following editions are used as sources for translations: Cicero. Letters to Atticus,
Volume I. Edited and translated by D. R. Shackleton Bailey. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press, 1999; Cicero. Letters to Atticus, Volume II. Edited and translated by D. R.
Shackleton Bailey. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999; Cicero. Letters to
Friends, Volume I: Letters 1-113. Edited and translated by D. R. Shackleton Bailey.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2001; Cicero. Pro Lege Manilia. Pro Caecina.
Pro Cluentio. Pro Rabirio Perduellionis Reo. Translated by H. Grose Hodge. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press, 1927; Cicero. Tusculan Disputations. Translated by J. E.
King. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1927.
Studia Linguistica 75(1) 2021, pp. 128–149. ©2020 The Editorial Board of Studia Linguistica
Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK, and 350 Main Street, Malden,
MA 02148, USA
