THE SPLIT NOUN PHRASE in CLASSICAL LATIN by Zachary
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
The Split Noun Phrase in Classical Latin Item Type text; Electronic Thesis Authors Feldcamp, Zachary Satoshi Citation Feldcamp, Zachary Satoshi. (2021). The Split Noun Phrase in Classical Latin (Master's thesis, University of Arizona, Tucson, USA). Publisher The University of Arizona. Rights Copyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction, presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except with permission of the author. Download date 29/09/2021 13:48:36 Item License http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/ Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/660169 THE SPLIT NOUN PHRASE IN CLASSICAL LATIN by Zachary Satoshi Feldcamp ____________________________ Copyright © Zachary Satoshi Feldcamp 2021 A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of the DEPARTMENT OF RELIGIOUS STUDIES & CLASSICS In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of MASTER OF ARTS WITH A MAJOR IN CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY In the Graduate College THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA 2021 2 THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA GRADUATE COLLEGE As members of the Master’s Committee, we certify that we have read the thesis prepared by Zachary Satoshi Feldcamp, titled The Split Noun Phrase in Classical Latin and recommend that it be accepted as fulfilling the dissertation requirement for the Master’s Degree. May 27, 2021 _________________________________________________________________ Date: ____________ Robert Groves May 27, 2021 _________________________________________________________________ Date: ____________ Philip Waddell May 27, 2021 _________________________________________________________________ Date: ____________ Andrew Carnie Final approval and acceptance of this thesis is contingent upon the candidate’s submission of the final copies of the thesis to the Graduate College. We hereby certify that we have read this thesis prepared under our direction and recommend that it be accepted as fulfilling the Master’s requirement. May 27, 2021 _________________________________________________________________ Date: ____________ Robert Groves Master’s Thesis Committee Co-Chair Classics May 27, 2021 _________________________________________________________________ Date: ____________ Philip Waddell Master’s Thesis Committee Co-Chair Classics 3 Acknowledgements Many people have contributed to making this work what it is. First, I am deeply grateful to my thesis committee: Andrew Carnie, Robert Groves, and Philip Waddell. Prof. Carnie has not only taught me a tremendous amount about syntax but has encouraged me that my research is worth doing. This thesis would be far lacking in clarity and rigor without Prof. Groves’ very well- justified skepticism and his exhortations to express my ideas as simply and clearly as is appropriate. At every step, he has encouraged me to simply put words on the page and to move on, even if more could be done. Simply put, this thesis would not ever have been completed without him. I thank Prof. Waddell for introducing me to the fun of Roman epigraphy and for instilling an attitude of simultaneous awareness of the limits of one’s evidence and optimism about what one can learn from it. I thank my teachers at UA, from both classics and linguistics, who have encouraged and helped shape my interest in language, Greek, Latin, or otherwise: Diana Archangeli, Tom Bever, Noam Chomsky, David Christenson, Courtney Friesen, Heidi Harley, Robert Henderson, Sarah McCallum, Arum Park, Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini, and Cynthia White. I especially thank Prof. Chomsky for taking my questions seriously, however naïve, and for stressing the importance of developing a really scientific methodology if one is committed to doing corpus linguistics. I am grateful to Harm Pinkster for sending me chapters from his forthcoming second volume of the Oxford Latin Syntax, and for noting an important reference that I had missed. I thank Davide Mocci for his feedback and references. Helma Dik and the other contributors to the Perseus under Philologic project deserve much credit for developing and maintaining the best electronic corpus search tool for Latin. Without the lore, support, practical advice, and plain fun times of my cohort-mates and second-years, I don’t think I would have made it to this point. I thank Monica Barcarolo, Elise Larres, Miranda Lovett, Mal Main, Gabe Martinez, Ian Morgan, Luke Munson, Nick Nelson, Julia Paré, Sammi Richter, Kayt Roberto, Jordan Swanson, Michael Swantek, and Caleb Speakman. Thanks to Xiaolong Lu for the late-night movies, ping pong, debates over different theories of grammar, for introducing me to Lao Gan Ma, and for the overall good times. Finally, none of it would have been possible or worth doing without my loved ones. You know who you are. 4 Table of Contents Abbreviations .................................................................................................................................. 6 Abstract ........................................................................................................................................... 8 1. The puzzle of the split noun phrase ........................................................................................... 9 1.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 9 1.1.1 Chapter overview ....................................................................................................................................... 12 1.2 History of research .......................................................................................................................... 12 1.3 The proposal .................................................................................................................................... 19 2. Structure-dependence .............................................................................................................. 21 2.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 21 2.1.1 The thesis of structure-dependence ........................................................................................................... 21 2.1.2 Chomsky’s “basic property” ...................................................................................................................... 24 2.1.3 Chapter overview ....................................................................................................................................... 27 2.2 Structure in the noun phrase .......................................................................................................... 27 2.2.1 Disambiguating punctuation ...................................................................................................................... 27 2.2.2 Uneven statistical distributions and unavailable orders ............................................................................ 29 2.2.3 Interpretive differences .............................................................................................................................. 31 2.2.4 Nominal categories .................................................................................................................................... 38 2.2.5 Asymmetry in the distribution of nominal idioms .................................................................................... 45 2.2.6 Noun phrase-internal structure: Concluding remarks ................................................................................ 48 2.3 Structure in the clause .................................................................................................................... 48 2.3.1 The syntax of NPI licensing ...................................................................................................................... 48 2.3.2 The syntax of quantification ...................................................................................................................... 53 2.3.3 Explaining the generalizations .................................................................................................................. 61 2.3.4 The verb and tense phrases ........................................................................................................................ 64 2.4 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................ 67 3. Deriving split noun phrases ..................................................................................................... 70 3.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 70 3.1.1 Chapter overview ....................................................................................................................................... 71 3.2 Prosody and displacement .............................................................................................................. 72 3.2.1 The grammar of clause-second particles ................................................................................................... 72 3.2.2 Generalized second-position effects .......................................................................................................... 78 3.2.3 A taxonomy of clitic effects