Transcript The Generative Grammar and the didactic of the latin language

Generative Grammar and
didactics of Latin
The use of examples
B. Bortolussi Paris Ouest
UMR ArScAn, THEMAM
Introduction
« Toutes les grammaires comportent des
exemples. C’est là un ingrédient probablement
nécessaire du discours grammairien, en tout cas
dont on constate empiriquement la quasi
universalité.
Cependant
le
statut
épistémologique, la forme, la fonction, le
fonctionnement sémiotique, des séquences que
l’on peut appeler « exemple », peuvent être
différents selon les corpus que l’on observe, qu’il
s’agisse de traditions différentes, ou à l’intérieur
d’une même tradition, de moments historiques
différents. » Chevillard (2007 : 1)
Introduction
The double function of examples in a
grammar :
• a descriptive one : to provide a fragment
of language illustrating a particular rule ;
• a normative one : to put forward a model
for speech production.
Introduction
(1) 203 Romulus urbem condidit (Lavency
19972 : 134, § 231)
This example means : « the subject of a
finite verb takes the Nominatif case ».
The example is not a fragment of
performance, but a grammatical entity.
Introduction
(2)
a- et Dionysius loquitur et Trypho
b- et Apollonius scripsit et ego
c- et scribit et legit Trypho
d- et pugnat et uincit Aeneas
Introduction
(3)
a- Petrus appellat Paulum
b- Petrus Paulum appellat
c- Paulum appellat Petrus
d- Paulum Petrus appellat
e- appellat Petrus Paulum
e- appellat Paulum Petrus
Introduction
(4)
a- Ioannes sororem suam uidit
b- Ioannes sororem eius uidit
Introduction
(5)
a- Catullus amat Lesbiam
b- Catullus Lesbiam amat
c- amat Catullus Lesbiam
d- amat Lesbiam Catullus
e- Lesbiam Catullus amat
f- Lesbiam amat Catullus
Introduction
(6)
a- Caesarem Brutus occidit
b- Brutus Caesarem occidit
c- Occidit Brutus Caesarem
d- Caesarem occidit Brutus
Introduction
(2)
a- et Dionysius loquitur et Trypho
b- et Apollonius scripsit et ego
c- et scribit et legit Trypho
d- et pugnat et uincit Aeneas
Priscien (GLK, 2,160)
Introduction
(3)
a- Petrus appellat Paulum
b- Petrus Paulum appellat
c- Paulum appellat Petrus
d- Paulum Petrus appellat
e- appellat Petrus Paulum
e- appellat Paulum Petrus
Marouzeau (1953 : VIII)
Introduction
(4)
a- Ioannes sororem suam uidit
b- Ioannes sororem eius uidit
Bertocchi & Casadio (1980 : 26)
Introduction
(5)
a- Catullus amat Lesbiam
b- Catullus Lesbiam amat
c- amat Catullus Lesbiam
d- amat Lesbiam Catullus
e- Lesbiam Catullus amat
f- Lesbiam amat Catullus
Oniga (2004 : 203)
Introduction
(6)
a- Caesarem Brutus occidit
b- Brutus Caesarem occidit
c- Occidit Brutus Caesarem
d- Caesarem occidit Brutus
Devine & Stephens (2006 : 3)
Introduction
The examples seem to be identical
whatever the theory, but actually they are
different as regards their function and the
way they are made up.
Introduction
Concerning Latin :
- we only access competence through actual
performances
- Latin is a finite corpus of performances we
can investigate
- however, examples are not simple data;
they are products of a « refining » process
Introduction
I’ll limit my investigation
- to examples pertaining to syntax,
- to potential Generative Grammars of Latin
(there is no complete grammar).
The examples I’ll quote come from Oniga
(2007), which has a didactic purpose, and
from various research articles.
1. Example as access to intrinsic competence
1.1. Competence vs performance
(7) « A grammar of a language purports to
be a description of the ideal speakerhearer’s intrinsic competence. » (Chomsky
1957 : 4)
(8) «in many cases, even nonnative speakers
can judge the grammaticality of a sentence
in a language they know well … therefore
we do not need attestation to certify that a
sentence is grammatical. » (1968: 2)
1. Example as access to intrinsic competence
In order to decide on grammaticality we
can draw informations supplied by
- classical grammars : they are complete
and contain very precise descriptions;
- procedures allowing us to create new
examples from attested ones :
incipit calere > incipit pluere
1. Example as access to intrinsic competence
Since there is no native speaker-hearer,
how can we describe the competence? By
investigating the corpus.
We have to distinguish between two
aspects of what we call an example in
Latin :
- a real fragment of a real performance
- a grammatical abstraction.
1. Example as access to intrinsic competence
1.2. authentic example vs made-up example
It is necessary to make up examples
whenever there is a gap in the corpus.
Ancient Latin grammarians provide us
with « authentic made-up examples ».
These examples are more interesting for
GG :
- they represent a more « standard » level of
language,
- they show up phenomena more precisely.
1. Example as access to intrinsic competence
« On court […] le risque d’utiliser des
exemples qui ne sont attestés que dans les
grammaires, tout comme il y a des formes
qui ne sont attestées que dans les
dictionnaires. » Auroux (1998 : 192)
(9) uerbum passiuum, ut scribo scribor, lego
legor (Charisii ars, K. Barwick 1964: 215,
5 de uerbo)
1. Example as access to intrinsic competence
(10) Inuenitur quisque pro quicumque,
qualisque pro qualiscumque. Similiter
aduerbia quoque pro quocumque, quaque pro
quacumque, quandoque pro quandocumque.
(Prisc. GLK 3,138,15-17)
(11) « L’obiettivo dello studio del latino
non puo essere il ‘parlare per fare’, ma il
‘leggere per capire’ » (Oniga 2007:15)
2. Examples and corpus
2.1. Justifying corpus investigations
GGT vs Corpus linguistics
(12) « as a result categorical judgments are
overused where not appropriate, while a lack
of concern for observational adequacy has
meant that successive versions have tended
to treat a shrinking subset of data
increasingly removed from real usage …
generative grammar has produced many
explanatory hypotheses of considerable
depth, but is increasingly failing because its
hypotheses are disconnected from verifiable
linguistic data » » (Manning 2003 : 296)
2. Examples and corpus
2.1. Legitimity of the investigations on corpus
GGT vs Corpus linguistics
(13) « Gradations of acceptability are not
accommodated in algebraic grammars : a
structure is grammatical or not »
(Abney 1996 : 14)
2. Examples and corpus
2.1. Legitimity of the investigations on corpus
Answers to these objections:
a- GGrammars are as precise and exhaustive
as traditional grammars
b- variations are integrated by mean of
parameters
c- the corpus provides data, not examples.
Examples are artefacts designed to test
hypotheses.
2. Examples and corpus
2.1. Legitimity of the investigations on corpus
Necessity of reconciliating GG and Corpus
linguistics.
Methodology in investigating a corpus
(Habert 1997) :
- dimension of the corpus
- sample of data
- corpus reference
- quantification of the data
2. Examples and corpus
2.2. Corpus as reservoir
a- reservoir of examples
b- reservoir of minimal pairs
(14a) Fuit quoddam tempus cum in agris
homines passim uagabantur (Cic. inu. 1,2)
(14b) Fuit antea tempus cum Germanos Galli
uirtute superarent (Caes. Gall. 6,24,1)
2. Examples and corpus
2.2. Corpus as reservoir
b- reservoir of minimal pairs
(15a) L. Papirius Paetus, uir bonus amatorque
noster, mihi libros eos, quos Ser. Claudius
reliquit, donauit. (Cic. Att. 1,20,7)
(15b) Paetus, ut antea ad te scripsi, omnis
libros quos frater suus reliquisset mihi
donauit. (Cic. Att. 2,1,12)
2. Examples and corpus
2.2. Corpus as reservoir
b- reservoir of minimal pairs
(16a) qui ciuitatem regio dominatu liberauit
(Cic. Planc. 60)
(16b) qui … dominatu regio rem publicam
liberauit (Cic. Phil. 1,3)
(17) Quid negotist ? - Quid negoti sit rogas ?
(Plaut. Aul. 296)
2. Examples and corpus
2.2. Corpus as reservoir
c- reservoir of paradigms
(18) homo Romanus (Cic. Att.7,3,10)
homo consularis (Cic. de orat. 1,166)
homo Romanus et consularis (Cic. de orat.
1,231)
(19) homo meus (Plaut. Pseud. 381)
homo Romanus (Cic. Att. 7,3,10)
*homo meus et Romanus (*Romanus et
meus)
2. Examples and corpus
2.3. The corpus as field for investigation
The corpus as a substitute of native speaker
to test
The framework of Principles and parameters
(Chomsky 1981) allows us able to explain
both
• variations inside a synchrony
• diachronic evolutions.
2. Examples and corpus
Since Latin provides a closed set of data, it
may be used to verify predictions of the
theory.
Conditions for proper verification:
• more than 1 example; 1 example is not a
proof (cf. scribor and qualisque)
• quantification of the data, not with the
intention of describing uses, but in order to
reveal which use is marked and which
represents the basic configuration.
2. Examples and corpus
Example : variations in the setting of
adnominal genetives (from Giusti & Oniga
(2006) and Gianollo (2005).
(20a) [artisi [descriptio ti ]]
(20b) [descriptioi [philosophi ti ]]
3. Examples as artefacts
Every example is « une instance minimale
de réfutation » (Milner 1989 : 115)
- A linguist makes an hypothesis
- He constructs a virtual example
- Then he verifies it exists
A datum has no signification by itself ; it
doesn’t constitute an example ; the status
of example is a production of the theory.
3. Examples as artefacts
3.1. Every example is an abstraction
The example is abstracted, considered
apart from the text. It is not a document
(Milner 1989 : 118), but it isolates a
linguistic phenomenon.
The meaning of lexical units is irrelevant
for the analysis
3. Examples as artefacts
3.2. Every example is produced by refining
concrétion (Milner 1989), clean up (Abney
1996)
The data are reduced to the linguistic
phenomenon itself. This phenomenon is
“staged” (e.g. in contrastive pairs).
Are eliminated :
• context if irrelevant,
• other constituents
A “good” example is as simple as possible.
3. Examples as artefacts
3.2. Every example is produced by refining
Looking for authentic AND simple
examples and paradigms :
(21) Romulus urbem condidit (Cic. diu. 1,30)
(Lavency 1987)
(22) Principio huius urbis parens Romulus non
solum auspicato urbem condidisse, sed ipse
etiam optumus augur fuisse traditur. (Cic.
diu. 1,30)
3. Examples as artefacts
3.2. Every example is produced by refining
(23a) idem ille Romulus Romam condidit
(23b) Hanc urbem condidit Romulus
(23c) Condidit Romam Romulus. (H. Weil
1869 : 24)
(24) Romulus, Martis filius, ultus iniurias aui
Romam urbem Parilibus in Palatio condidit.
(1,8,4)
3. Examples as artefacts
3.2. Every example is produced by refining
(23a) is not to be taken by itself, but in
contrast with (23b) : idem ille Romulus
« reveals » that the subject by occupying
the first position is the Theme of the
sentence.
3. Examples as artefacts
3.3. Making up examples
The Generative Grammar resumes the
traditional techniques of making up :
• analysis
• commutations
3. Examples as artefacts
3.3. Making up examples
(25) aio te, Aeacida, Romanos uincere posse
(Ennius ann.179 Vahlen)
(26a) certum est Antonium praecedere
eloquentia Crassum (Diom. GLK. I, 450)
(26b) uidi secutorem retiarium occidisse (Pomp.
GLK. V, 295,14)
3. Examples as artefacts
3.3. Making up examples
(27) « …le frasi consuetudo / concinnat amorem
(Lucr. 4,1283) e ueritas / odium parit (Ter.
And. 68), possono essere segmentate e
ricombinate in frasi grammaticali come
consuetudo / odium parit e ueritas / concinnat
amorem. » (Oniga (1998 : 618-619)
3. Examples as artefacts
3.3. Making up examples
We need to make up examples, called
anti-examples in Auroux (1998), that could
falsify the theory.
Ungrammatical examples :
(28a) numquid possum dicere ‘qui fecit iniuriam
est quis ?’ Per rerum naturam non potest fieri,
sed in inchoandis elocutionibus ponitur.
(Pompeius GLK, V,205,17)
3. Examples as artefacts
3.3. Making up examples
(28b) Si dices ‘sequor homine’ pro ‘sequor
hominem’ (Sacerdos GLK, VI, 450)
(28c) si enim dicam ‘suus seruus ministrat mihi’
uel ‘tibi’, soloecismum facio… (Priscien GL 3,
167)
3. Examples as artefacts
3.3. Making up examples
More or less acceptable examples :
(29a) Imperitia lapsi ‘nescio quid facis, nescio
quid fecisti’ ; eruditius autem dicetur ‘nescio
quid facias, nescio quid feceris’ (Diomède
GLK, I, 335)
(29b) animaduertimus Quadrigarium …
particula ista usum esse obscurissime. Verba
ipsius posuimus : "Romam uenit ; uix superat,
quin triumphus decernatur." (Gell. 17,13,5)
3. Examples as artefacts
3.4. Status of exceptions
Two types :
• mistakes : when the performance of the
speaker-hearer is affected « by
grammatically irrelevant conditions
» Chomsky (1965 : 3)
3. Examples as artefacts
3.4. Status of exceptions
(30) At ita studiosus est huius praeclarae
existimationis, [ut putetur in hisce rebus intellegens
esse], [ut nuper - uidete hominis amentiam :
posteaquam est comperendinatus, cum iam pro
damnato mortuoque esset, ludis circensibus mane
apud L. Sisennam, uirum primarium, cum essent
triclinia strata argentumque ei tum in aedibus, cum
pro dignitate L. Sisennae domus esset plena
hominum honesitssimorum, accessit ad argentum,
contemplari unum quidque otiose et considerare
coepit. (Cic. Verr. 2,4,33)
3. Examples as artefacts
3.4. Status of exceptions
Given as an anacoluthon in Hofman-Szantyr
(1965 : 730) :
(31) Ita studiosus est huius … existimationis, ut
… accessit ad argentum, contemplari … coepit
3. Examples as artefacts
3.4. Status of exceptions
• grammatical, but less classical or usual,
examples that illustrate variations of
parameters:
(32a) Cancer ater, is olet et saniem spurcam
mittit. (Cato agr. 157, 3)
(32b) Amicos domini, eos habeat sibi amicos
(Cato agr. 5, 3)
3. Examples as artefacts
3.4. Status of exceptions
• grammatical, but less classical or usual,
examples that illustrates variations of
parameters:
(32c) Plerique homines, quos cum nihil refert
pudet, / ubi pudendum est, ibi eos deserit
pudor (Plaut. Epid. 166-167)
(32d) urbem quam statuo uestra est (Verg. Aen.
1, 573)
3. Examples as artefacts
3.4. Status of exceptions
The goal is
(33) « not just to document the facts, but to
understand them, to reduce the
kaleïdoscopic surface complexity … to a
relatively simple and coherent system of
general rules. » Devine & Stephens (2006 :
6)
3. Examples as artefacts
3.4. Status of exceptions
(34) « molti fenomeni, alcuni dei quail in
apparenza eterogenei e a uolte bizzari,
hanno ottenuto proposte de spiegazione
all’interno di una teoria unitaria e, tutto
sommato, piuttosto semplice. » Oniga
(2007: 307)
3. Examples as artefacts
3.5. Do « good » examples have a
maximal length ?
Rather long examples are necessary when
the phenomenon illustrated sets into
action parameters such as anaphoric
relations in thematic progression.
3. Examples as artefacts
3.5. Do « good » examples have a maximal
length ?
(35a) Mittuntur ad Caesarem confestim ab
Cicerone litterae … Obsessis omnibus uiis
missi intercipiuntur. Noctu … turres …
excitantur … Quae deesse operi uidebantur
perficiuntur. (Caes. Gal. 5.40.1–2) in
Pinkster (1990: 246)
3. Examples as artefacts
(35b) Gallia est omnis divisa in partes tres,
quarum unam incolunt Belgae, aliam
Aquitani, tertiam qui isporum lingua Celtae,
nostra Galli appellantur. Hi omnes lingua,
institutis, legibus inter se differunt. Gallos ab
Aquitanis Garumna flumen, a Belgis a
Matrona et Sequana diuidit. Horum omnium
fortissimi sunt Belgae, ecc -> uergit ad
septentiones.(Caes. Gall. 1,1,1-5) in Baños
Baños – Cabrillana (2009 : 686)
4. « Analysed » examples
As a matter of fact every « refined » example
is an analysed one.
4.1. The « imperceptibles » (empty categories,
traces etc.)
• We need to reveal the categories that are
necessary in the analysis but invisible at
the phonological level.
4. « Analysed » examples
4.1. The « imperceptibles » (empty categories,
traces etc.)
(36) si in ius uocat, ito. Ni it, antestamino.
Igitur eum capito (Lex XII Tab. 1,1)
(37) si proi in ius prok uocat, prok ito. Ni prok
it, proi antestamino. Igitur proi eumk capito
(Oniga 2007 : 193)
4. « Analysed » examples
4.1. The « imperceptibles » (empty categories,
traces etc.)
The relation of coreference is expressed by
coindexation and the syntactic structures
by stemmas or bracketing :
(38a) Ioannesi sororem suami uidit
(38b) Ioannesi sororem eiusk uidit
(39) [IP Ioannesi [VP [NP sororem suamj] uidit]]]
4. « Analysed » examples
4.1. The « imperceptibles » (empty categories,
traces etc.)
How to make clear that there are two
different structures for AcI :
(40a) dicunt [CP ∅C me uenire]
(40b) hortantur mei [IP PROi uenire]
4. « Analysed » examples
4.1. Dynamic representations
The examples are related in a dynamic
perspective to express changes in syntactic
structures or morphology :
(41)
[lege] + o --> lego
[lege] + s --> legis
ecc. (Oniga 2007 : 112)
4. « Analysed » examples
4.1. Dynamic representations
- QU-words :
(42a) qui fecit iniuriam est quis ?
(42b) quisi est qui fecit iniuriam ti ?
(43a) *is est quis ?
(43b) quisi is est ti ?
4. « Analysed » examples
4.1. Dynamic representations
Passive :
(44) M. Valerius … legem tulit (Liu. 10,9,3)
(44a) ita latum est (Cic. leg. agr. 3,8)
(44b) lata lex est (Liu.3,31,1)
(44c) a L. Pisone lata lex est (Cic. off. 2,21,75)
4. « Analysed » examples
4.2. Diachronic evolutions
(45)
dico Marcum uenire
dico quod Marcus uenit
digo que Marcos viene (esp.) (Lakoff 1968 : 9)
4. « Analysed » examples
4.3. Diachronic evolutions
a- Starting point in classical latin :
(46a) Scio te uenire
(46b) with cataphora : Illud scio te uenire /
illud scio quod te uenisti
b- Extension to other verbs :
(47) Illud intellegi quod ueneras
4. « Analysed » examples
4.3. Diachronic evolutions
c- increasing frequency and change of the
mood of the verb :
(48) Intellegi quod ueneras/uenisses
Two possibilities for a grammar :
• to express all the rules by metalanguage,
without examples
• to enumerate all the performances when
the corpus is closed (i.e in dead languages,
such as Latin)
CONCLUSION
Similarities between traditional grammars
and generative grammar in the use of the
examples:
• the examples are either authentic or madeup
• the examples originate from a corpus
• examples illustrate rules
CONCLUSION
Differences – specificity of examples in a
Generative Grammar
• they don’t illustrate a normative use, they
are fragments of performance and
represent a more general competence ;
• quotations are not examples : it is
necessary to isolate and to refine the data
by resorting to theory ;
CONCLUSION
Differences – specificity of examples in a
Generative Grammar
• the corpus is not a reservoir of examples,
but a field for investigation that allows us
to verify linguistic hypotheses ;
• examples must have explanatory contents;
so we have to use anti-examples,
paradigms and “enriched” examples.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly the didactic use is different : the
aim is not only to describe the complexity of
the latin language, but to explain this
complexity by means of few rules we isolate
and that are connected in paradigms.