Six notes on Latin correlatives

Probert, Philomen; Dickey, Eleanor

doi:10.1017/cbo9781316450826.018

“…It may be hypothetized that LD is one means of expressing such sententiae. It may be noted here that the frequency of correlative sentences as sententiae is notable (Probert and Dickey 2016). Lambrecht (1994: 167) also refers to the occurrence of Brand New referents as topics of generic statements.…”

Section: Generic Statementsmentioning

confidence: 84%

“…For evidence of the decline of left-dislocation, together with correlative sentences in late Latin and the agricultural genre, see Probert and Dickey (2016). 10 This is largely because attractio inuersa has been defined to include the nominative; see 2.2.4.…”

Section: Left-dislocation and Relative Clausesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In other genres, the situation is different. In Plautus, the head-internal type (A1 and A2) is less frequent than left-dislocation (B1), but B2 (head-external without resumption) is the most frequent type.38 Preposed rela-tive clauses of the correlative type probably present the original Indo-European construction, but, even if this is the case, by Plautus's time, their use was already restricted.39 Probert and Dickey (2016) discuss the presumed decline of correlative sentences toward later Latin, particularly concerning the agricultural writers (Cato, Varro, Columella, Palladius), and observe a concomitant decline in the use of left-dislocation in these writers. A definition of (core) LD is indispensable for the present work, but this does not mean that ambiguous or closely related constructions will be neglected.…”

Section: A1: Internal Head With Resumptionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Left-Dislocation in Latin

Halla-aho¹

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

vi contents 3.2.4 Further Observations on Syntax 96 3.2.4.1 Form of Resumption 96 3.2.4.2 Syntactic Functions and Matrix Clauses 97 3.2.5 Conclusion 98 3.3 Information Structure and Pragmatic Functions of Left-Dislocation in Comedy 99 3.3.1 Active or Accessible Elements Promoted to Discourse Topics 102 3.3.2 Reactivating an Accessible Referent or Introducing a Brand New Referent as Topic 110 3.3.3 Complex Referential Situations 120 3.3.4 Generic Statements 122 3.3.5 Contrastive Contexts 123 3.3.6 Left-Dislocation as a Focusing Device 126 3.4 Discussion and Conclusion 130 3.4.1 Pragmatics and the Function of LD in Comedy 130 3.4.2 Attractions 132 3.4.3 Distribution 133 3.4.4 Is Left-Dislocation in Roman Comedy a Colloquial Feature? 134 3.5 Information Structure and Pragmatic Organization of Head-Internal Relative Clauses (A1 and A2) 137 3.6 Comparison of LD with Sentence-Initial Relative Clauses without Resumption in the Matrix Clause (B2 and C2) 138 3.7 Appendix on LD in Lucretius 145

show abstract

“…In other genres, the situation is different. In Plautus, the head-internal type (A1 and A2) is less frequent than left-dislocation (B1), but B2 (head-external without resumption) is the most frequent type.38 Preposed rela-tive clauses of the correlative type probably present the original Indo-European construction, but, even if this is the case, by Plautus's time, their use was already restricted.39 Probert and Dickey (2016) discuss the presumed decline of correlative sentences toward later Latin, particularly concerning the agricultural writers (Cato, Varro, Columella, Palladius), and observe a concomitant decline in the use of left-dislocation in these writers.…”

Section: A1: Internal Head With Resumptionmentioning

confidence: 99%