35.2041, Review: Verb Second in Medieval Romance: Wolfe (2018)

[The LINGUIST List]

LINGUIST List: Vol-35-2041. Wed Jul 17 2024. ISSN: 1069 - 4875.

Subject: 35.2041, Review: Verb Second in Medieval Romance: Wolfe (2018)

Moderator: Francis Tyers (linguist at linguistlist.org)
Managing Editor: Justin Fuller
Team: Helen Aristar-Dry, Steven Franks, Daniel Swanson, Erin Steitz
Jobs: jobs at linguistlist.org | Conferences: callconf at linguistlist.org | Pubs: pubs at linguistlist.org

Homepage: http://linguistlist.org

Please support the LL editors and operation with a donation at:
           https://funddrive.linguistlist.org/donate/

Editor for this issue: Justin Fuller <justin at linguistlist.org>

LINGUIST List is hosted by Indiana University College of Arts and Sciences.
================================================================


Date: 18-Jul-2024
From: Brian Gravely [bgravely at email.arizona.edu]
Subject: Historical Linguistics, Morphology, Syntax, Typology: Wolfe (2018)


Book announced at https://linguistlist.org/issues/30.732

AUTHOR: Sam Wolfe
TITLE: Verb Second in Medieval Romance
PUBLISHER: Oxford University Press
YEAR: 2018

REVIEWER: Brian Gravely

SUMMARY

“Verb Second in Medieval Romance” is a thorough approach to
understanding the V2 phenomenon in a number of Medieval Romance
varieties, spanning from Italo-Romance varieties (Old Sicilian and Old
Venetian) to Gallo-Romance varieties (Old French and Old Occitan) to
Ibero-Romance (Old Spanish) to Old Sardinian. This book may be divided
into three main sections. The first (Chapter 2) deals with a deep
analysis of the V2 phenomenon, both in the history of the literature
on Germanic V2 as well as that which has focused on the extension to
Medieval Romance ( which Wolfe deems inadequate). The second spans
four chapters (Chapters 3-6), with an individual examination of each
of the aforementioned languages from a statistical point of view with
emphasis on how the Medieval Romance varieties in question fit into a
traditional V2 model. The third section (Chapter 7) focuses on a
formal model of Medieval Romance V2 and the individualization of the
classes of V2 systems that Wolfe proposes.

Chapter 1 provides a basic introduction to the history of Medieval
Romance V2 in the literature, citing two main observations that Wolfe
focuses on: (1) the strong parallels between Medieval Romance and
Germanic V2 (in particular, matrix vs. embedded word order
asymmetries) and (2) accounting for this from a generative standpoint
(i.e., how the grammars in question match up with traditional V2
accounts in the sense of Holmberg (2015)) and its inherent variation
(i.e., how we may account for slight idiosyncratic differences across
varieties).

Chapter 2 begins with an overview of the V2 phenomenon in a
cross-linguistic capacity, focusing mainly on the evidence cited in
the Germanic V2 literature. Wolfe provides well known arguments both
for and against the V2 phenomenon, ultimately highlighting the
misconceptions under which a Medieval Romance V2 has been
traditionally discredited: V2 as a linear order constraint,
matrix/embedded asymmetries, V1/V3/V4* violations, and general
diachronic implausibility. His main provisional observation at this
stage is that the majority of the situations found in traditional V2
systems may also be seen in the Medieval Romance varieties in
question, something he believes will help with what he calls the
“Medieval Romance problem”.

In Chapter 3 Wolfe analyzes one southern (Old Sicilian) and one
northern (Old Venetian) variety from the Old Italo-Romance texts
“Sanctu Gregoriu” (14th century), with supplemental help from “Corpus
Artesia” for Old Sicilian and “Lio Mazor” (14th century) for Old
Venetian. Old Italo-Romance being the first variety of Medieval
Romance reviewed, this chapter is the longest of the four that present
statistical clausal analyses, and here Wolfe establishes the high
points of his prospective syntactic examination of each language
variety in question. He shows that both Old Sicilian and Old Venetian
show a preferred linear V2 order in main clauses (50.24% and 58.70%.
respectively), with subjects dominant but not specialized for the
preverbal field for Old Venetian (74.34%) and a much lower percentage
(47.63%) for Old Sicilian. In this variety, both enclisis and
proclisis are attested, although with no systematic triggers, as has
been claimed in the previous literature. The idea of two postverbal
positions for subjects is also established in this chapter, with both
Old Sicilian and Old Venetian showing a high postverbal position
specialized for discourse-old subjects and a lower one for
discourse-new subjects. Finally, both aforementioned varieties show a
preference for SV(O) order in embedded complement clauses, although
Old Venetian seems to have possessed a stronger preference for this
word order (95.45%) and a higher word-order asymmetry than Old
Sicilian (81.93%).

In Chapter 4 Wolfe utilizes the same outline as in Chapter 3 in
analyzing the Old French text “La Queste” (13th century) and the Old
Occitan text “Douceline” (13th century). He shows that Old French
showed a high preference for V2 (75.16%) with a comparable preference
for preverbal subjects in matrix clauses (46.32%) as Old Sicilian,
whilst Old Occitan showed both a lower preference for V2 (52.73%) and
preverbal subjects (23.78%) compared to Old French. What is noteworthy
for Wolfe is the practical nonexistence of V1 (0%) and V4 (0.32%)
orders, the lack of left-peripheral Information Focus, and the
disappearance of finite enclisis in V2 Old French. He also concludes
that main/embedded asymmetries do indeed exist in both varieties of
Old Gallo-Romance, with French showing a higher preference for both a
V2 system (100%) and preverbal subjects (83.80%) in complement clauses
than Old Occitan (64.39% and 76.47%, respectively).

In Chapter 5 Wolfe takes a look at the Old Spanish text “Lucanor”
(14th century) as his lone Ibero-Romance variety. He claims that Old
Spanish had a relatively strict V2 system in comparison to other
Medieval Romance varieties (92.21%), with a curious similarity to Old
French in that V1 (0.84%) and V3 (6.74%) orders are hardly attested;
furthermore, the preverbal field was in no way specialized for
subjects, showing a reduced preference for matrix SV(O) word order
(35.32%). Orthogonal to most of his commentary regarding Old Spanish,
he also notes that this variety seems to show the closest system to
what is expected from the Tobler-Mussafia law (cf. Benincà 2004,
2006). Wolfe also addresses a particular contention held against
previous references for Old Spanish word order in that its V2 system
was symmetrical, showing an equally high number of V2 word orders in
complement clauses as in matrix clauses; however, Wolfe disproves this
fallacy, showing that Old Spanish much preferred a V1 complement
clause order (49.82%) rather than a V2 word order (40.35%), although a
complement clause SV(O) order was preferred (59.76%).

Wolfe ends his statistical analysis in Chapter 6 with the outlier of
the varieties analyzed in this book, Old Sardinian and its dialectally
distinct texts: “Il Condaghe di San Nicola di Trullas” (12th century)
from the Logudorese variety and “Il Condaghe di Santa Maria di
Bonarcado” (12th century) from the Arborense variety. He highlights
the fact that the few studies done on Old Sardinian seem to show a V1
preference rather than a heavier V2 system, which is borne out in both
matrix (52.24% compared to 43.01%) and complement clauses (100% to 0%)
in the texts analyzed in this book. Curiously, he notes two further
idiosyncrasies that Old Sardinian holds amongst all varieties taken
into consideration, namely the second highest OVS matrix word order
(18.24%; only behind Old Occitan) and the second highest preference
for SV(O) matrix word orders (62.26%; only behind Old Venetian). Wolfe
also shows that, much like Old Spanish, the clitic distribution
closely resembles a systematic enclisis-proclisis split.

Wolfe shifts gears upon beginning Chapter 7 and attempts to categorize
the variation mentioned in Chapters 3-6, grouping salient properties
that he highlights in the data across Medieval Romance. His main focus
in this chapter deals with the grouping of varieties per their
behavior in the left periphery (LP) and verb movement along the
clausal spine in general. Wolfe clearly delineates two V2 systems that
seem to target different LP heads: the V2 system that shows little to
no V3-V4* patterns (Old French, Old Venetian, and Old Spanish) which
is concentrated around the Force head and the more “relaxed” V2 system
in which thematic and focal constituents may co-occur (Old Sardinian,
Old Sicilian, and Old Occitan)

EVALUATION

The efficiency of Wolfe’s extensive word order examination is
seemingly unprecedented when taking into consideration such a varied
group of Medieval Romance dialects and the scrutiny with which the
aforementioned texts were investigated. Whilst previous work done on
the question of a possible V2 grammar at this time is certainly in no
short supply, almost all of it focuses on a single language and often
fails to make the necessary and essential connections regarding the
realistic nature of a V2 grammar. Wolfe’s combination of such
contrasting varieties actually brings them together and aids the
reader in understanding the variation that is already existent in the
theory of Germanic V2 and how this is borne out in the Medieval
Romance data.

The particularities of the data scrutinized are of significant
quantity and importance when one considers the divisions that Wolfe
makes in order to bridge the gap between Germanic V2 and Medieval
Romance. For example, the author is persistent and cohesive throughout
the statistical analyses of Chapters 3-6 regarding comparisons of
Medieval Romance varieties XP-V(-S) orders to those of the Germanic
“benchmark” numbers, as well as the strict consideration with which
certain varieties that show extensive V3 grammars utilize a thematic
initial constituent. Wolfe’s fastidious care with his analyses
throughout the book shows immense profitability upon beginning his
fine delineation of different syntactic characteristics in Chapter 7.
For example, his identification of the different edge features found
across different heads in the LP seems theoretically accurate and his
proposal is well thought out and explained.

The one drawback of this book lies in the lack of interest shown
toward the relation between the Medieval Romance clause type (in a
broad sense) and clitic pronouns. Oddly enough, Wolfe makes
potentially promising comments at intervals, but he fails to form any
notable connection between the rest of the observations made about the
Medieval Romance grammar(s) and clitic placement. For example, Wolfe
claims that Old Occitan showed variable behavior with respect to
clitic placement after the coordinating conjunction ‘e’ (‘and’);
however, it isn’t the coordinating conjunction that is causing this
variability but most likely the preceding constituents. This is shown
in (1) and (2) for modern Galician, one of the few present-day Romance
varieties with a systematic enclisis-proclisis split:

(1) Manolo foi ve-la ría pra pescarmos logo e ESTA-CHE moi brava. Non
poderemos ir na lancha hoxe.
‘Manuel went to check the inlet so we can fish later and [it] IS(-CL)
very choppy. We won’t be able to go on the boat today.’

(2) Cando o monarca herdou o reino e as súas posesions de Portugal e
SE CONVERTEU no soberano con máis poder na terra…
‘When the Monarch inherited the kingdom and its possessions from
Portugal and (CL-)BECAME the most powerful sovereign in the land…’

The difference between (1) and (2) is borne out by the preceding
constituents: whereas cando (‘when’) provokes proclisis on the verb in
(2), there is no such syntactic configuration in (1) and the
coordinating conjunction is simply introducing a new clause.
Unfortunately, all of Wolfe’s examples relating to clitic placement
after coordinating conjunctions begin with the coordinating
conjunction itself, which makes it impossible to distinguish between
the two scenarios laid out above.

Just as former accounts attempting to resolve the Tobler-Mussafia law
in Medieval Romance have fallen short, Wolfe shirks the task of
proposing a unifying account and possibly showing that the Medieval
Romance clitic patterns are not uniform due to their individual
developments at different times throughout their history. As many
before him, Wolfe disregards stable synchronic accounts of
enclisis-proclisis splits (cf. Uriagereka 1995, Raposo & Uriagereka
2005) that may serve as a useful tool in helping us reconstruct the
clitic systems of the varieties of the medieval period.

Overall, each chapter is precise and informative to the extent that
minor variety-specific details are shown to have “big picture”
comparisons or outcomes. Despite its unpretentious size (185 pages
including references), Wolfe provides exhaustive citations for even
the most idiosyncratic minutiae. As Wolfe mentions in the conclusion
(Chapter 8), his work aims to serve scholars beyond those closely tied
to Romance, and the comprehensive nature of what are very complex
arguments make it a winsome read. This book sheds new and promising
light on the V2 parametric variation discussion and serves to show
that the V2 variation in Medieval Romance was wider than originally
believed.

REFERENCES

Benincà, Paola. 2004. The left periphery of Medieval Romance. “Studi
linguistici e filologici online” 2(2), 243-297.

Benincà, Paola. 2006. A detailed map of the left periphery of medieval
Romance. In Zanutti, R. (ed.), “Crosslinguistic research in syntax and
semantics: Negation, tense and clausal architecture”, 53-86.
Georgetown: Georgetown University Press.

Holmberg, Anders. 2015. Verb Second. In Kiss, T. & Alexiadou, A.
(eds.), “Syntax: Theory and analysis”, 242-283. Berlin: Walter de
Gruyter.

Raposo, Eduardo & Juan Uriagereka. 2005. Clitic placement in Western
Iberian: A
minimalist view. In Cinque, G. & Kayne, R. (eds.), “The Oxford
Handbook of
comparative syntax”, 639-697. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Uriagereka, Juan. 1995. An F Position in Western Romance. In Kiss, K.
(ed.) “Discourse Configurational Languages” 26, 153-175.

ABOUT THE REVIEWER

N/A



------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please consider donating to the Linguist List https://give.myiu.org/iu-bloomington/I320011968.html


LINGUIST List is supported by the following publishers:

Bloomsbury Publishing http://www.bloomsbury.com/uk/

Brill http://www.brill.com

Cambridge University Press http://www.cambridge.org/linguistics

De Gruyter Mouton https://cloud.newsletter.degruyter.com/mouton

Equinox Publishing Ltd http://www.equinoxpub.com/

European Language Resources Association (ELRA) http://www.elra.info

John Benjamins http://www.benjamins.com/

Language Science Press http://langsci-press.org

Lincom GmbH https://lincom-shop.eu/

Multilingual Matters http://www.multilingual-matters.com/

Narr Francke Attempto Verlag GmbH + Co. KG http://www.narr.de/

Oxford University Press http://www.oup.com/us

Wiley http://www.wiley.com


----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-35-2041
----------------------------------------------------------