Generative Grammar and didactics of Latin

1. Generative Grammar and didactics of Latin The use of examples B. Bortolussi Paris Ouest UMR ArScAn, THEMAM

2. 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)

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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

6. 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

7. Introduction (4) a- Ioannes sororem suam uidit b- Ioannes sororem eius uidit

8. 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

9. Introduction (6) a- Caesarem Brutus occidit b- Brutus Caesarem occidit c- Occidit Brutus Caesarem d- Caesarem occidit Brutus

10. 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)

11. 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)

12. Introduction (4) a- Ioannes sororem suam uidit b- Ioannes sororem eius uidit Bertocchi & Casadio (1980 : 26)

13. 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)

14. Introduction (6) a- Caesarem Brutus occidit b- Brutus Caesarem occidit c- Occidit Brutus Caesarem d- Caesarem occidit Brutus Devine & Stephens (2006 : 3)

15. 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.

16. 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

17. 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.

18. 1. Example as access to intrinsiccompetence 1.1. Competence vs performance (7) « A grammar of a language purports to be a description of the ideal speaker-hearer’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)

19. 1. Example as access to intrinsiccompetence 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

20. 1. Example as access to intrinsiccompetence 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.

21. 1. Example as access to intrinsiccompetence 1.2. authenticexample vs made-upexample It isnecessary to make up exampleswheneverthereis a gap in the corpus. Ancient Latin grammariansprovide us with « authenticmade-upexamples ». Theseexamples are more interesting for GG : • theyrepresent a more « standard » level of language, • they show up phenomena more precisely.

22. 1. Example as access to intrinsiccompetence « 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)

23. 1. Example as access to intrinsiccompetence (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)

24. 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 fromverifiable linguistic data » » (Manning 2003 : 296)

25. 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)

26. 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.

27. 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

28. 2. Examples and corpus 2.2. Corpus as reservoir a- reservoir of examples b- reservoir of minimal pairs (14a) Fuit quoddam tempuscum in agris homines passim uagabantur (Cic. inu. 1,2) (14b) Fuit antea tempus cum Germanos Galli uirtute superarent (Caes. Gall. 6,24,1)

29. 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 librosquos frater suus reliquisset mihi donauit. (Cic. Att. 2,1,12)

30. 2. Examples and corpus 2.2. Corpus as reservoir b- reservoir of minimal pairs (16a) qui ciuitatemregio dominatu liberauit (Cic. Planc. 60) (16b) qui … dominatu regiorem publicam liberauit (Cic. Phil. 1,3) (17) Quid negotist ? -Quid negoti sit rogas ? (Plaut. Aul. 296)

31. 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)

32. 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.

33. 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.

34. 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 ]]

35. 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.

36. 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

37. 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.

38. 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)

39. 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)

40. 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.

41. 3. Examples as artefacts 3.3. Making up examples The Generative Grammar resumes the traditional techniques of making up : • analysis • commutations

42. 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)

43. 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)

44. 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)

45. 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’, soloecismumfacio… (Priscien GL 3, 167)

46. 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)

47. 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)

48. 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)

49. 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

50. 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)