On the typology of motion events in Aymara

This paper investigates the lexicalization pattern of motion events in Aymara, an Andean language spoken in Bolivia, Peru, and Chile. After providing a description of the morphosyntax of translational motion events, this study aims at a preliminary typological classification of Aymara within the framework of Talmy’s typology (Talmy 2000). With this purpose, three diagnostic tests have been used to determine the basic framing-typology of motion events. These tests consider i) the size of manner-of-motion lexicon and, more broadly, the degree of manner salience, ii) the complex-path constructions and the use of ‘plus-ground’ clauses, iii) the expression of boundary-crossing. The results of this analysis are in line with predictions of expected values according to Talmian typology, and suggest that Aymara is a predominantly satellite-framed language

Spatial Frames of Reference in Old Latin

This paper investigates the spatial Frames of Reference (FoRs) in Old Latin within the framework of Cognitive Linguistics (cf. Talmy 1983; Levinson 2003; Levinson & Wilkins 2006). Differently from modern Indo-European languages, which are heavily based on the so-called relative or egocentric FoR, ancient Indo-European languages such as Vedic and Homeric Greek did not make use of such an egocentric orientation system at their earliest stage, since the relation between FIGURE and GROUND was not specified by imposing an external deictic observer’s viewpoint (cf. Bartolotta 2018; 2021). The historical-comparative analysis of the most ancient literary texts in the Indo-European tradition gives us the opportunity to investigate early spatial orientation systems that might have been inherited from the proto-language. Strikingly, data from the Rigveda and the Homeric poems show that those languages made use of the same two orientation systems, i.e. the intrinsic and the absolute. Thus, the fact that both languages appear to lack the relative or egocentric FoR challenges the reconstruction of a deictic orientation system also for Indo-European. More specifically, the use of spatial terms FRONT, BEHIND, LEFT, RIGHT shows no evidence for a spatial perspective projected by bodily coordinates (on front-back and/or right-left axes) either in Vedic or in Greek. The aim of this study is to add the perspective of Old Latin, by focusing on the meaning and the contexts of use of these spatial terms in the comedies of Plautus. The results of this analysis are consistent with the hypothesis according to which the ternary relative FoR was not the primary orientation system in Proto-Indo-European. In fact, the data show that Plautus made primarily use of the binary intrinsic FoR (both object-centered and direct), as the GROUNDs taken as reference points of the spatial scene were always entities endowed with unambiguous intrinsic front-back sides (e.g. the house, the doors, the army, the human body and its parts). Furthermore, although more rarely, the spatial scene could also be described by referring to fixed constant bearings abstracted from the environment (e.g. prevailing wind directions), according to the absolute or field-based FoR. In both intrinsic and absolute FoRs, the spatial description does not change by changing perspective. Consequently, it is not strictly necessary to involve an extra-entity, i.e. a deictic observer imposing her/his own viewpoint to the scene, as is crucial in case of GROUNDs that are intrinsically ‘unfeatured’. It is plausibly for this reason that no trace has been found of the more complex relative FoR in Plautus’ comedies. These results are consistent with both typological and historical-comparative studies. In a typological perspective, the universal status of the egocentric or relative FoR proper to modern Indo-European languages (Mühlhäusler 2001) has indeed been challenged by recent evidence on many non-Indo-European languages (see, among others, Levinson 2003; O’Meara & Pérez Báez 2011). In addition, it has been shown that there is a constraint toward the absolute-intrinsic FoR combination in the world’s languages (cf. Kataoka 2002). In a historical-comparative perspective, these preliminary data might allow us to list Old Latin among those ancient Indo-European languages, like Vedic and Greek, which originally did not make use of a deictic orientation system. References Bartolotta, Annamaria. 2018. Spatio-temporal deixis and cognitive models in early Indo-European. «Cognitive Linguistics» 29 (1): 1–44. Bartolotta, Annamaria. 2021 (forthcoming). Spatial Cognition and Frames of Reference in Indo-European, in D. Romagno, F. Rovai, (Eds.), Contact, Variation, and Reconstruction in the Ancient Indo-European Languages: between Linguistics and Philology. Leiden, Brill. Kataoka, Kuniyoshi. 2002. Linguistic anthropological research on spatial cognition in European and non-European settings. «Language and Culture» 6: 121–150. Levinson, Stephen C. 2003. Space in Language and Cognition. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Levinson, Stephen C. and Wilkins, David P. 2006. Grammars of Space. Explorations in Cognitive Diversity. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Mühlhäusler, Peter. 2001. Universals and typology of space, in M. Haspelmath et al. (Eds.), Language typology and language universals: An international handbook. Vol. 20. Berlin & New York, Walter de Gruyter. O’Meara, Caroline and Pérez Báez, Gabriela. 2011. Spatial frames of reference in Mesoamerican languages. «Language Sciences» 33: 837–852. Talmy, Leonard. 1983. How language structures space, in H. L Pick., L. P. Acredolo (Eds.), Spatial orientation: Theory, research and application. New York, Plenum Press, pp. 225–282

Spatial Cognition and Frames of Reference in Indo-European

The development of Frames of Reference (FoRs) as coordinate systems in space language has gained increasing attention in current linguistic, neurolinguistic, and psycholinguistic research (Diessel 2013: 687; Kemmerer 2010). Previous studies on typology of spatial expressions have traditionally been based on the universal status of the egocentric or relative FoR found in the Indo- European languages, in which the relation between Figure and Ground is specified by the deictic observer’s viewpoint (Mühlhäusler 2001). However, there is growing crosslinguistic evidence that many non-Indo-European languages do not make use of such deictic or ternary FoR, but interpret spatial relations by referring to binary non-egocentric absolute (geocentric) and intrinsic (objectcentered) FoRs (Levinson 2003; O’Meara & Pérez Báez 2011). Contrary to the hypothesis according to which children’s spatial representations are primarily egocentric, the most recent results on spatial language acquisition similarly suggest that children initially exhibit a strong bias toward absolute rather than relative FoRs (Shusterman & Li 2016). If one takes a historical perspective, it can be found that spatial cognition in the Indo-European language is different from that found in modern European languages. After investigating the contexts of use of spatial terms of FRONT, BEHIND, LEFT, RIGHT in Vedic Sanskrit and Ancient Greek in a comparative perspective, this paper aims at reconstructing the proto-language spatial FoRs. Specifically, data from the Rigveda and the Homeric poems prove that the egocentric relative FoR could not have existed yet in Indo- European, which indeed reveals traces of an absolute language. The close association between those spatial terms and east and west cardinal directions shows a projection of the front-back axis to spatial relations according to the positions of the sun within a geocentric FoR. These findings are also in line with recent studies on the existence of deictically-neutral temporal sequences in Indo- European space-time metaphors (Bartolotta 2018). References Bartolotta, A. 2018. Spatio-temporal deixis and cognitive models in early Indo-European. «Cognitive Linguistics» 29 (1), 1-44. Kemmerer, D. 2010. A neuroscientific perspective on the linguistic encoding of categorical spatial relations, in Evans, V. & P. Chilton (Eds), Language, cognition and space. Equinox, pp. 139-170. Levinson, S. C. 2003. Space in Language and Cognition. Cambridge University Press. Mühlhäusler, P. 2001. Universals and typology of space, in Haspelmath M. (Ed.), Language typology and language universals: An international handbook. Vol. 20. Walter de Gruyter. O’Meara, C. & Pérez Báez, G. 2011. Spatial frames of reference in Mesoamerican languages. «Language Sciences» 33, 837-852. Shusterman, A. & Li, P. 2016. Frames of reference in spatial language acquisition. «Cognitive Psychology» 88, 115-161

Modality and Injunctive in Homeric Greek: the case of counterfactual and epistemic constructions

Homeric unaugmented aorists and imperfects are the oldest verbal forms attested in Greek, which continue the so-called Indo-European ‘injunctives’. The latter were inflectionally underspecified as regards verbal categories such as tense or mood (Hoffmann 1967; Kiparsky 1968). Thus, the question arises as to how the attitude of the speaker towards the content of his utterance was expressed. The aim of this paper is to investigate the role of epistemic particles co-occurring with injunctives in the Iliad and the Odyssey, focusing in particular on past counterfactual constructions. Crosslinguistic studies have shown that such modal constructions reflect the universal semantic distinction between realis and irrealis (Wierzbicka 1997: 38). Specifically, the data show epistemic particles like ἄρα, δή, που, etc. (cf. Denniston 1954) occurring in the if-clause or protasis, which is usually made of εἰ μὴ + injunctive or past indicative and refers to an actual event in the past for which the outcome is already known. Differently, the main clause or apodosis is always (lexically) marked by the irrealis particle κέν + injunctive or past indicative, as also expected in a typological perspective (Elliott 2000), and refers to a potential event in the past, which in fact never happened (see also Hettrich 1998). The analysis of all the occurrences of such complex constructions shows a not random distribution of those epistemic particles, whose frequency significantly decreases when the protasis has an indicative rather than an injunctive. It might be argued that the use of epistemic particles was initially the only (lexical) means to express the speaker’s commitment to the truth of a proposition, while the more recent indicative tensed forms rendered them redundant at a later stage, since the verb was already inflected according to modality. Another piece of evidence in favour of this hypothesis comes from the use of the epistemic verb μέλλω that develops into a periphrastic marker for future tense, especially as a future in the past (cf. Allan 2017). The Homeric poems show most instances of the unaugmented 3SG occurring with an epistemic particle, while there is variation with the augmented form. The remainder of the paper will discuss the development of the various readings of μέλλω in the epic language both in combination with and without epistemics. References Allan, Rutger J. 2017. ‘The History of the Future: Grammaticalization and Subjectification in Ancient Greek Future Expressions’. In Lambert F., Allan R. J., and Markopoulos T. (Eds), The Greek Future and Its History = Le Futur Grec et Son Histoire, Bibliothèque Des Cahiers de l’Institut de Linguistique de Louvain, 139. Leuven, Peeters, pp. 43–72. Denniston, J. D. 1954. The Greek particles. 2nd ed. Oxford, Clarendon Press. Elliott, J. R. 2000. Realis and irrealis: Forms and concepts of the grammaticalisation of reality, «Linguistic typology» 4 (1), 55-90. Kiparsky, P. 1968. Tense and mood in Indo-European syntax, «Foundations of Language» 4, 30-57. Hettrich, H. 1998. ‘Die Entstehung des homerischen Irrealis der Vergangenheit’. In Jasanoff J., Melchert H. C., Oliver L. (Eds), Mír Curad. Studies in honor of Calvert Watkins, Innsbruck, Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft, pp. 261-270. Hoffmann, K. 1967. Der injunktiv im Veda: eine synchronische Funktionsuntersuchung. Heidelberg, Carl Winter Universitätsverlag. Wierzbicka, A. 1997. ‘Conditionals and counterfactuals: conceptual primitives and linguistic universals’. In Athanasiadou, A. & Dirven, R. (Eds), On Conditionals Again, Amsterdam, John Benjamins, pp. 15-59

The Homeric compound Ὑπερίων and the sun in the Indo-European culture

This paper aims at reconstructing the semantic meaning of Homeric Ὑπερίων, the epithet of the sun, whose etymology is still not clear. After presenting the modern interpretations, which describe it as an adjective in the comparative form derived from the adverbial particle ὑπέρ ‘up, above’, the ancient grammarians’ hypothesis on Ὑπερίων as a compound is tested, taking into consideration the textual analysis of those discourse contexts in which the terms for sun are used in archaic Greek and Vedic Sanskrit in comparative perspective. In particular, the co-occurrence with the motion verb go, i.e. εἶμι and i from the same IE root *h1ey-, in the Homeric poems and in the Rigveda respectively, might shed light on the existence of an inherited Indo-European representation of the sun

The right-left conceptual mapping in a comparative and diachronic perspective

This paper investigates the right-left conceptualization of space in ancient Indo-European languages. In a crosslinguistic perspective, RIGHT and LEFT terms can be recruited to designate cardinal directions (Hertz 1909: 567; Lloyd 1962: 59; Brown 1983: 136). These terms turn out to be associated respectively to east and west in languages such as Vedic Sanskrit, Hittite, and Homeric Greek. However, the interpretation of such metaphorical mapping from the source domain to the target domain is still an open question. This is also due to some unresolved inconsistencies between etymology and semantic developments emerged in the reconstruction of the Indo-European roots of these terms since the earlier studies of Grimm. The German linguist ascribed the origin of the spatial uses of RIGHT and LEFT to the orientation of the observer’s body (1848: 981). The question is further complicated by the unclear origin of linguistic metaphors for positive and negative valence, through an associative mapping from the concrete right-left space to the abstract emotional concepts of ‘goodness’ and ‘badness’. The mental spatial schema is indeed activated to represent such concepts by means of the well-known Good is Right and Left is Bad conceptual mapping (cf. Casasanto 2009; 2014). From a strictly linguistic perspective, a strong asymmetry has been observed between RIGHT and LEFT terms. More specifically, while the RIGHT terms of most Indo-European languages derive from one and the same root *deḱs- (Walde 1930: 784; Pokorny 1959: 190), the LEFT terms cannot be traced back to one common ancestor (cf. Buck 1949: 865). Traditionally, such an asymmetry has been ascribed to cultural conventions (cf. Van Leeuwen-Turnovcová 1990), which, however, would ultimately reflect the original embodied asymmetry within the hand domain (cf. Meillet 1906 [1982]: 290; Cuillandre 1947; Heesterman 1959: 256; Giannakis 2019: 256-257). Yet, from an etymological perspective, it has been shown how the words for RIGHT and LEFT derive from lexical roots that are not primarily related to the sides of the body (cf. Foolen 2019: 145), thus challenging an embodied origin of these mental metaphors. Now, recent studies on Indo-European spatial Frames of Reference (FoRs) have revealed that RIGHT and LEFT terms could be used within an absolute or geocentric FoR (Bartolotta 2022). Such results might shed light on the transfer pattern from the concrete domain of spatial regions to the abstract domain of right-left dimensions. Indeed, although it is widely assumed that the human body is the main source domain for the linguistic conceptualization of the entire domain of spatial relations, and that, accordingly, hands are the conceptual source for RIGHT and LEFT polarity (Heine 1997: 49; cf. Bickel 1994: 32), the analysis of the data from a comparative and diachronic perspective seems to suggest a different path of this conceptual metaphor. More specifically, the textual analysis of the RigVeda and the Homeric poems, aside from supporting pieces of evidence derived from Hittite oracle and ritual texts (cf. Ünal 1978; Puhvel 1983; Sakuma 2009) and the Umbrian Tabulae Iguvinae (Prosdocimi 1979; 2015; Untermann 2000: 475), suggests that the extension to hands is the result of a conceptual metaphor which goes from cosmogony (involving the concrete movements of the sun) to the body (cf. Kuiper 1970: 128; Gonda 1972: 8; Abrams & Primack 2001: 1769), thus proving that the metaphoric mapping between body-parts and other domains is not unidirectional (cf. Sinha & Jensen de López 2000: 24; Yu 2008: 408). References Abrams, N. E., Primack J. R. (2001), Cosmology and 21st-century Culture, «Science» 293 (5536): 1769- 1770. Bartolotta, A. (2022), Spatial Cognition and Frames of Reference in Indo-European, in D. Romagno, F. Rovai, M. Bianconi, M. Capano (eds.), Variation, Contact, and Reconstruction in the Ancient Indo-European Languages. Between Linguistics and Philology, Brill, Leiden/Boston, pp. 179-209. Bickel, B. (1994), Mapping Operations in Spatial Deixis and the Typology of Reference Frames, Working Paper n. 31, Cognitive Anthropology Research Group, Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, Nijmegen. Brown, C.H. (1983), Where Do Cardinal Direction Terms Come From?, «Anthropological Linguistics» 25(2): 121-161. Buck, C.D. (1949), A dictionary of selected synonyms in the principal Indo-European languages, University of Chicago Press, Chicago/London. Casasanto, D. (2009), Embodiment of Abstract Concepts: Good and Bad in Right-and Left-Handers, «Journal of Experimental Psychology: General» 138 (3): 351-367. Casasanto, D. (2014), Experiential origins of mental metaphors: Language, culture, and the body, in M. J. Landau, M. D. Robinson, B. P. Meier (Eds.), The power of metaphor: Examining its influence on social life (Vol. 155), American Psychological Association, Washington, DC. Cuillandre, J. (1943), La droite et la gauche dans les poèmes homériques en concordance avec la doctrine pythagoricienne et la tradition celtique, Imprimeries Réunies, Rennes. Foolen, A. (2019), The value of left and right, in J. L. Mackenzie, L. Alba-Juez (Eds.), Emotion in Discourse, John Benjamins, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, pp. 139-158. Giannakis, G. K. (2019), The east/west and right/left dualism and the rise of some taboos in ancient Greek language and culture, in G.K. Giannakis, C. Charalambakis, F. Montanari, A. Rengakos (Eds.), Studies in Greek Lexicography, Walter de Gruyter, Berlin/New York, pp. 233-262. Gonda, J. (1972), The Significance of the Right Hand and the Right Side in Vedic Ritual, «Religion» 2 (1): 1-23. Grimm, J. (1848), Geschichte der Deutschen Sprache, Zweiter Band, in der Weidmannschen Buchhandlung, Leipzig. Heine, B. (1997), Cognitive Foundations of Grammar, Oxford University Press, New York/Oxford. Hertz, R. (1909), La prééminence de la main droite: Étude sur la polarité religieuse, «Revue Philosophique de la France et de l’Étranger» 68: 553-580. Heesterman, J.C. (1959), Reflections on the significance of the “Dákṣiṇā”, «Indo-Iranian Journal» 3 (4): 241-258. Kuiper, F.B.J. (1970), Cosmogony and Conception: A Query, «History of Religions» 10 (2): 91-138. van Leeuwen-Turnovcová, J. (1990), Rechts und Links in Europa: ein Beitrag zur Semantik und Symbolik der Geschlechterpolarität, Otto Harrassowitz, Wiesbaden. Lloyd, G.E.R. (1962), Right and Left in Greek Philosophy, «The Journal of Hellenic Studies» 82: 56-66. Meillet, A. (1906 [1982]), Quelques hypothèses sur des interdictions de vocabulaire dans les langues indo-européennes, in A. Meillet (Ed.), Linguistique historique et linguistique générale, Paris, Champion, pp. 281-291. Pokorny, J. (1959), Indogermanisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch, I, Francke Verlag, Bern/München. Prosdocimi, A. L. (1979), Umbria: Asisium, Parte III (Note e commenti). Rivista di Epigrafia Italica, in «Studi Etruschi» 47: 376-379. Prosdocimi, A. L. (2015), Le Tavole Iguvine. Preliminari all’interpretazione. La testualità: Fatti e metodi, II. Olschki, Firenze. Puhvel, J. (1983), Homeric Questions and Hittite Answers, «The American Journal of Philology» 104 (3): 217-227. Sakuma, Y. (2009), Hethitische Vogelorakeltexte, Ph.D. dissertation, Julius Maximilian University, Würzburg. Sinha C. & K. Jensen de López (2000), Language, culture, and the embodiment of spatial cognition, «Cognitive Linguistics» 11 (1/2): 17-41. Ünal, A. (1978), Ein Orakeltext über die Intrigen am hethitischen Hof, Carl Winter Universitätsverlag, Heidelberg. Untermann, J. (2000), Wörterbuch des Oskisch-Umbrischen. Handbuch der Italischen Dialekte. Band III. Carl Winter Universitätsverlag, Heidelberg. Walde, A. (1930), Vergleichendes Wörterbuch der indogermanischen Sprachen. Herausgegeben und bearbeitet von Julius Pokorny. 1. Band, Walter de Gruyter, Berlin/Leipzig. Yu, N. (2008), The Relationship Between Metaphor, Body and Culture, in R. M. Frank, R. Dirven, T. Ziemke, E. Bernárdez (Eds.), Body, Language and Mind. Sociocultural Situatedness (Vol. 2), Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, pp. 387-408

Spatial Cognition and Frames of Reference in Indo-European

This paper investigates the Indo-European (ie) spatial Frames of Reference (FoRs) within the framework of Cognitive Linguistics. Previous studies on typology of spatial expressions have traditionally been based on the universal status of the egocentric or relative FoR found in modern ie languages, in which the relation between figure and ground is specified by the deictic observer’s viewpoint. However, if one takes a historical perspective, spatial cognition in ancient ie languages seems to be initially different from that found at a later stage. By investigating the contexts of use of spatial terms of front, behind, left, right in Vedic Sanskrit and Ancient Greek in a historical-comparative perspective, this paper shows that the egocentric relative FoR was not the primary orientation system. These languages made indeed use of the binary intrinsic FoR, as is expected in a typological perspective (Palmer, 2015), but also revealed traces of an absolute FoR. In fact, the close association between those spatial terms and east and west cardinal directions implies a projection of the front-back axis onto spatial relations according to the positions of the sun. These findings suggest that introducing a third entity like the deictic observer’s viewpoint was not necessary in the earlier coordinate systems, since i) the spatial grounds used in existing FoRs were not ‘unfeatured’ entities, and ii) the relationship between figure and ground was also defined by referring to fixed bearings, such as the positions of the sun

From degree adverbs to discourse markers: the case of maxime in Early Latin

Degree modifiers may develop a semantic extension from content to function (Paradis 1997; Méndez Naya 2003; Athanasiadou 2007; Bartolotta 2022), gradually increasing their intensifying function toward more abstract ‘(inter)subjective’ meanings that are related to new grammatical and eventually procedural functions (cf. Traugott 1995; 2003; 2008). The distribution of all the occurrences of maxime in the corpus analyzed in this study, which includes Latin literary texts from roughly 240 BCE to the beginning of the first century BCE (cf. Penney 2011; Vincent 2016), shows that the relationship among different functions of this degree modifier in Early Latin is not simply a matter of synchronic polysemy inherent to the lexical root, but the result of a gradual diachronic change, triggered by the co-occurrence with specific syntactic-semantic and pragmatic contexts. In particular, although dead languages such as Latin cannot provide us with information about intonation and prosodic contours, data show a syntactic shift of maxime from the juxtaposed position, adjacent to the syntactic phrase it modifies, mostly when the adverb acts as an intensifier or a focalizer, to the left periphery of the sentence, mostly when the adverb acts as a discourse marker (DM). This scope increase goes along with semantic-pragmatic shifts from a lower (Representational) to a higher (Interpersonal) functional layer (Hengeveld & Mackenzie 2008), showing an increasing level of subjectification. More precisely, a first increase of subjectification can be observed from the intensifier/focalizer meaning, which is proper to the degree modifier, to the epistemic meaning, which maxime develops as a modal adverb by adding the speaker’s commitment to the truth-value of her/his proposition and taking its scope over the whole sentence. A further increase in terms of intersubjectification can be observed when maxime develops new illocutive and pragmatic functions proper to DMs (confirmative, adversative, and concessive), also marking the textual relationship between two discourse acts or the transition to a new discourse unit (move) at the interactional level. Since maxime shows an intermediate stage of grammaticalization at the proposition level before assuming a pragmatic function, pragmaticalization is here considered as not rigidly separated from grammaticalization, because the same lexical element may evolve toward new grammatical and pragmatic functions that coexist and influence each other within the ‘sentence-discourse continuum’ (cf. Diewald 2011; Degand & Simon-Vandenbergen 2011; Kroon 2011; Ghezzi 2014). References Athanasiadou, A. (2007). On the subjectivity of intensifiers. Language Sciences 29, 554–565. Degand, L. – Simon-Vandenbergen, A. M. (2011). Introduction: Grammaticalization and (inter)subjectification of discourse markers. Linguistics 49 (2), 287–294. Bartolotta, A. (2022). Intensificatori e soggettificazione in latino: sulla grammaticalizzazione di maxime. Studi e Saggi Linguistici 60 (1), 39–79. Diewald G. (2011). Pragmaticalization (defined) as grammaticalization of discourse functions. Linguistics 49 (2), 365–390. Ghezzi, C. (2014). The development of discourse and pragmatic markers. In: Ghezzi, C. and Molinelli, P. (Eds.), Discourse and Pragmatic Markers from Latin to the Romance Languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 10–26. Hengeveld, K. & Mackenzie, J. L. (2008). Functional Discourse Grammar. A Typologically-based Theory of Language Structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kroon, C. (2011). Latin Particles and the Grammar of Discourse. In: Clackson, J. (Ed.), A Companion to the Latin Language. Oxford: Blackwell, 176–195. Méndez-Naya, B. (2003). On intensifiers and grammaticalization: The case of swiþe. English Studies 84 (4), 372–391. Paradis, C. (1997). Degree Modifiers of Adjectives in Spoken British English. Lund: Lund University Press. Penney, J. (2011). Archaic and Old Latin. In: Clackson, J. (Ed.), A Companion to the Latin Language. Oxford: Blackwell, 220–235. Traugott, E. C. (1995). Subjectification in grammaticalization. In: Stein D. and Wright S. (Eds.), Subjectivity and subjectivisation. Linguistic perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 31–54. Traugott, E. C. (2003). From subjectification to intersubjectification. In: Hickey, R. (Ed.), Motives for Language Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 124–139. Traugott, E. C. (2008). Grammaticalization, constructions and the incremental development of language: Suggestions from the development of degree modifiers in English, In: Eckardt, R., Jäger, G. and Veenstra, T. (Eds.), Variation, selection, development: Probing the evolutionary model of language change. Berlin – New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 219–250. 46 Vincent, N. (2016). Continuity and change from Latin to Romance. In: Adams, J. and Vincent, N. (Eds.), Early and Late Latin. Continuity or Change? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1–13

On the syntax of dependency in late sixteenth-century Europe

The need for studies on the history of dependency linguistics has been recently pointed out, aiming at tracing back to the origin of hierarchical grammatical relations and dependency-oriented approaches before the advent of the most renowned Tesnière’s model (Imrényi/Mazziotta 2020a). This study investigates on the emergence of the concept of syntactic dependency in missionary linguistics, focusing on the role of Jesuit grammarians on the development of the notion of subordination. In particular, the analysis concentrates on the first grammar of the indigenous South American language of Aymara, written by the Italian missionary Ludovico Bertonio at the end of the sixteenth century. I will focus on the second part of the grammar, which is devoted to syntax, by dwelling upon the innovative syntactic metalanguage that is shared by all the Jesuit grammarians working at the same school of Juli near Lake Titicaca in the Andes Mountains. Although these Jesuit grammars still lack a systematic theory of dependency, Bertonio uses the term dependencia and is aware of the verb centrality in constructing the whole sentence, differently from the more traditional approach in terms of binary subject-predicate division of the clause. Moreover, he extends the traditional word-based notion of determination (and government) (cf. Luthala 2020: 43; Colombat 2020) to the relationship between two different sentences, i.e. the main or independent clause (oración determinante) and the dependent clause (oración determinada), which are described as pertaining to different levels of dependency. Thus, contrarily to what previoulsy assumed (Percival 1990; Auroux 2008; Graffi 2019, 2021), an earlier distinction between linear order and structural order seems to emerge before that the concept was refined within the syntactic analysis of Port-Royal grammarians